National Centers for 

Coastal Ocean Science

September 2020

NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NOS NCCOS 279

Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Methods to evaluate restoration success from local to ecosystem scales

DOI: 10.25923/xndz-h538
SUGGESTED CITATION

Goergen, E.A., S. Schopmeyer, A.L. Moulding, A. Moura, P. Kramer, and T.S. Viehman. 2020. Coral reef restoration 

monitoring guide: Methods to evaluate restoration success from local to ecosystem scales. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NOS NCCOS 279. Silver Spring, MD. 145 pp. doi: 10.25923/xndz-h538

DISCLAIMER

The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this report are those of the authors and 

they do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of NOAA. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, 

process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply 

its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof.

PHOTOGRAPHY AND FIGURES

No photographs or figures from this guide may be used without permission from contributing photographer or 

author. Cover image credit: Coral Restoration Foundation
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Methods to evaluate restoration success from local to ecosystem scales

September 2020

Authors

Elizabeth A. Goergen

Qatar University, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Doha, Qatar

Stephanie Schopmeyer

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Saint Petersburg, FL, USA

Alison L. Moulding 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, St. Petersburg, FL, USA

Amelia Moura

Coral Restoration Foundation, Tavernier, FL, USA

Patricia Kramer

Ocean Research and Education Foundation, Big Pine Key, FL, USA

T. Shay Viehman

NOAA, National Ocean Service, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Beaufort, NC, USA

Contributing Authors

Anastazia Banaszak

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Puerto Morelos, Mexico

Iliana Baums

Department of Biology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

Andy Bruckner

NOAA, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Key West, FL, USA

Valérie Chamberland

SECORE International, Inc, Curacao

A. Kirk Kilfoyle

Broward County Environmental Planning and Community Resilience Division, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA

Rennie Meyers

NOAA Knauss Fellow, Rhode Island SeaGrant, Narragansett, RI, USA

Margaret Miller

SECORE International, Inc, Miami, FL, USA

Michael Nemeth

NOAA Fisheries, Restoration Center, Aguadilla, Puerto Rico

United States Department

of Commerce

Wilbur L. Ross

Secretary

National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration

Neil Jacobs

Assistant Secretary 

National Ocean Service

Nicole LeBoeuf

Assistant Administrator (Acting)

NOAA TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NOS NCCOS 279
About this Document

The mission of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is for science, service, and stewardship, specifically 

to 1) understand and predict changes in climate, weather oceans, and coasts; 2) share that knowledge and information with 

others; and 3) conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources. The National Centers for Coastal Ocean 

Science (NCCOS) provides federal partners and coastal managers with the information and tools they need to balance society’s 

environmental, social, and economic goals. NCCOS is the primary coastal science arm within NOAA’s National Ocean Service 

(NOS). NCCOS works directly with managers, industry, regulators, and scientists to deliver relevant, timely, and accurate scientific 

information and tools. NCCOS was funded to coordinate the development of this product in partnership with the Coral Restoration 

Consortium (CRC).

The CRC was established in 2017 to foster communication and collaboration among coral restoration specialists, researchers, 

managers, and educators. The mission of this international group is to promote collaboration and technology transfer among 

participants, and to facilitate scientific and practical ingenuity to demonstrate that restoration can achieve meaningful results at 

scales relevant to reefs in their roles of protecting coastlines, supporting fisheries, and serving as economic engines for coastal 

communities. The CRC is dedicated to scaling up the coral reef restoration, science, and management efforts to enable coral 

reef ecosystems to persist through the 21st century and beyond. As of 2020, the CRC includes more than 1,800 people globally, 

and as the need for active coral reef restoration continues to expand around the world, the number of CRC participants continues 

to increase. The CRC’s Leadership team includes pre-eminent researchers, managers, and practitioners in the field of coral 

restoration. Core to the function of the CRC is the sharing and dissemination of knowledge in a way that transcends regional and 

methodological biases. The CRC has developed working groups to deliver guidance on key topics, including field and land-based 

restoration efforts, coral larval propagation, restoration genetics, monitoring, and resource management. In addition, new CRC 

working groups continue to form to address emerging topics. The core team of the CRC’s Monitoring Working Group wrote this 

report. Members of the Monitoring Working Group and other Working Groups also contributed content. This product synthesizes 

the best available information at the time of publication. We recommend that the CRC Monitoring Working Group update this 

product as new information continues to develop.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The synthesis provided here is a product of the CRC’s Restoration Monitoring Working Group. The Working Group appreciates 

the support of the CRC Leadership Team. Development of this report was funded by NOAA’s Coral Reef Conservation 

Program and NOAA’s NCCOS. Elizabeth Goergen was supported by a National Academies of Science, Engineering, and 

Medicine’s Research Associateship with NCCOS during the initial development of this document. All lead authors contributed 

to the writing and editing of this document and participated in a CRC working group meeting that was supported by the CRC. 

We appreciate the indispensable assistance of Sarah Hile, Maria Bollinger, and Meghan Balling (CSS, Inc., under contract to 

NCCOS) in assembling the report and editorial support.

We are grateful for the many constructive suggestions and reviews to improve this document. We thank the following 

individuals for practitioner interviews and/or content reviews.

Boston University

Les Kaufman

Coral Restoration Foundation

Jessica Levy

Corales de Paz

Phanor Montoya Maya

Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute

Kerry Maxwell

John Hunt

James Cook University

Margaux Hein

Ian Mcleod

Mote Marine Laboratory

Erich Bartels

Cory Walter

Shelby Luce 

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric 

Administration

Tomma Barnes

Kelli O’Donnell

Greg Piniak

Julia Royster

Dana Williams

National Park Service

Meaghan Johnson

Nova Southeastern University, Coral Reef Restoration, 

Assessment, and Monitoring Lab

David Gilliam

Reef Renewal Bonaire

Francesca Virdis

The Nature Conservancy

Aldo Croquer

Caitlin Lustic

Joseph Pollock

University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and 

Atmospheric Science, Rescue a Reef 

Diego Lirman

University of Rhode Island

Amelia Moore

For more information on NOAA’s National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, please visit:

https://coastalscience.noaa.gov/

For more information on the CRC and the Monitoring Working Group, please visit:

http://crc.reefresilience.org/

Questions and comments on the Guide can be directed to:

Elizabeth Goergen or Shay Viehman

liz.goergen@gmail.com shay.viehman@noaa.gov
Paola Espitia
i

As coral restoration efforts continue to increase in size and 

number, there is an overwhelming need to define restoration 

success and determine progress towards successful restoration. 

Meaningful, consistent, comparable, and quantitative data is 

required to quantify the changes that result from restoration 

actions. However, there may be many definitions of success 

depending on the program or project goal(s). Restorations 

can have one or many goals that can be very different (e.g., 

ecological, educational), and therefore, goals cannot be 

addressed in a “one size fits all” monitoring approach. The 

application of quantitative approaches to monitoring not only 

provides a reliable way to evaluate progress towards restoration 

success, but also provides means to identify problems and apply 

adaptive management efforts as needed.

The CRC established a priority for the Restoration Monitoring 

Working Group to develop guidance for monitoring coral 

reef restorations and to determine restoration success. This 

“Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide: Best Practices 

for Monitoring Coral Restorations from Local to Ecosystem 

Scales” was developed for practitioners and programs in any 

stage of their practice: from starting up a new restoration effort, 

to scaling up current efforts, to improving efficiency. Coral 

restoration practitioners can use the hypotheses- and datadriven monitoring framework presented in this Guide to make 

confident comparisons between projects, programs, and regions, 

increase the efficiency of data collection, and make informed 

decisions about the data necessary to describe the success of 

the restoration goal or objective.

Two categories of coral restoration monitoring metrics are 

included in this Guide: Universal Metrics and Goal-Based 

Performance Metrics. The four Universal Metrics, Landscape/

Reef-level, Population-level, Colony-level, and Genetic and 

Genotypic Diversity, are suggested as basic requirements for 

monitoring all restoration projects, regardless of the goal of the 

project. These metrics provide data on restoration scale, growth, 

survival, and diversity, yet require minimal equipment and time. 

These Universal Metrics should be monitored on any restoration 

project regardless of the restoration scale, species, habitat, 

location, expertise, or budget. 

Executive Summary

Goal-Based Performance Metrics address five major coral 

restoration goals: Ecological Restoration, Socioeconomic, Eventdriven Restoration, Climate Change Adaptation, and Research. 

Metrics are tailored within each goal to address key components 

of the goal. For example, when monitoring a restoration with an 

ecological goal, a practitioner should evaluate coral condition, 

species diversity, habitat quality, and vertebrate and invertebrate 

communities, and potentially others. Metrics are detailed for 

each goal including key points, suggested methods, reporting 

guidelines, and criteria to evaluate the performance towards the 

restoration goal and towards restoration success. 

Coral reef restoration, while a quickly growing field, is 

still relatively new. This document is the first to provide 

comprehensive guidance for monitoring coral restorations to 

evaluate progress towards meeting restoration goals. Metrics 

and associated methods developed herein are based on our 

experiences, working group and workshop input, practitioner 

interviews, and current published peer reviewed literature and 

manuals. While every effort was made to address every situation, 

we recognize that as this field develops and the metrics are fully 

vetted, some metrics may need to be improved, modified, or 

deemed unnecessary. We therefore encourage the evolution of 

this Guide as a living document to be updated when necessary 

to be relevant and representative. Our experiences and the 

examples provided are mainly from the greater Caribbean 

region; however, reviews and feedback from practitioners who 

have worked globally indicate that the metrics developed are 

applicable on coral restorations in all regions. 

This Guide should be used to measure and describe the 

progress of coral restoration projects towards meeting restoration 

goals. The CRC Monitoring Working Group has also developed 

a Coral Restoration Database and Evaluation Tool to be 

complementary to this Guide and used together. The Coral 

Restoration Database allows the input of comparable restoration 

projects and monitoring data. The Coral Restoration Evaluation 

Tool allows the practitioner to score the performance of their 

project, program, or region and determine what is working 

well and what needs improvement. The use of this Guide and 

feedback provided by practitioners will improve the evaluation of 

coral restoration success. 

Nova Southeastern University Coral Reef Restoration, 

Assessment, and Monitoring (CRRAM) Lab

Fragments of Hope Coral Restoration Foundation
ii

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Lists of Figures and Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Acronyms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Chapter 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

 Outlining the Need for Coral Reef Restoration 1

 Coral Reef Restoration and Monitoring Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

 Purpose of this Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

 Target Audience 3

Chapter 2 Guide for Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

 Using this Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

 Defining Restoration 4

 Goals of Restoration 6

 Defining Successful Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Chapter 3 Developing a Monitoring Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

 Restoration Monitoring 8

 Choosing What Metrics to Sample 9

 Importance of Baseline Data and Reference Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

 Choosing an Appropriate Sampling Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

 Determining Sample Size 11

 Timeframe/Length of Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Chapter 4 Assessing the Performance of a Restoration Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

 Basic Performance Criteria 17

 Restoration Goal-Based Performance Metrics 17

 Adaptive Management Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

 Coral Restoration Consortium’s Coral Restoration Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

 Evaluation Tool for Coral Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

 The Role of Science in Restoration 22

Chapter 5 Universal Metrics for Coral Reef Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

 Universal Metric #1: Landscape/Reef-level Metrics: Restored Reef Areal Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

 Universal Metric #2: Population-level Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

 Universal Metric #3: Colony-level Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

 Universal Metric #4: Genetic and Genotypic Diversity 38

 Summary of Universal Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Chapter 6 Universal Environmental Metric. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

 Universal Environmental Metric: Water Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Chapter 7 Ecological (Ecosystem) Restoration Goal-Based Performance Metrics. . . . . . . . .43

Objective 1: Coral Population Enhancement 45

 Coral Population Enhancement Metric #1.1: Coral Abundance & Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

 Coral Population Enhancement Metric #1.2: Reproductive Maturity/Capacity 50

 Coral Population Enhancement Metric #1.3: Coral Condition 56

 Coral Population Enhancement Metric #1.4: Species Richness and Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

 Coral Population Enhancement Metric #1.5: Indirect Seeding of Sexual Recruits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Objective 2: Community and Habitat Enhancement 65

 Community and Habitat Enhancement Metric #2.1: Invertebrate Community Diversity and Abundance . . . . .65

 Community and Habitat Enhancement Metric #2.2: Reef Fish Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

 Community and Habitat Enhancement Metric #2.3: Reef Structure and Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

 Community and Habitat Enhancement Metric #2.4: Habitat Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

Table of Contents
Chapter 8 Socioeconomic Goal-Based Performance Metrics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78

Objective 1: Economic 80

 Economic Metric #1.1: Coastal Protection 80

 Economic Metric #1.2: Responsible Ecotourism Opportunities 82

Objective 2: Sociocultural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

 Sociocultural Metric #2.1: Cultivating Stewardship through Education and Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84

 Sociocultural Metric #2.2: Capacity Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87

 Sociocultural Metric #2.3: Reef-User Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90

Chapter 9 Event-Driven Restoration Goal-Based Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Objective 1: Disease and Bleaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Objective 2: Physical Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

 Event-Driven Restoration Metric #1: Post-Impact Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Chapter 10 Climate Change Adaptation Goal-Based Performance Metrics. . . . . . . . . . . . .95

Objective 1: Improve Reef Resilience 96

Objective 2: Assisted Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Objective 3: Stress Hardening 97

Chapter 11 Research Goal-Based Performance Metrics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98

Summary of Goal-Based Performance Metrics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Closing Remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Literature Cited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Appendices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Appendix 1: Coral Restoration Database. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119

Appendix 2: Evaluation Tool for Coral Restoration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120

Appendix 3: Guides and Website References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Appendix 4: Standard Operating Procedures for Data Collection with Mosaics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Appendix 5: Example Spawning Prediction Calendar and Datasheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Appendix 6: Coral Restoration Participant Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132

Liv Williamson

iii
iv

Lists of Figures and Tables

Figures

Figure 1. The history of reef restoration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Figure 2. Control and reference sites are needed to assess the success of restoration. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 3. Photo representation of an example of a BACI (Before-After-Control-Impact) design and the differences between a 

control and reference site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Figure 4. Example designs of (A) simple randomized sampling and (B) restricted random sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 5. Timeline for monitoring restoration after outplanting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Figure 6. A stepwise approach to landscape restoration with regular reviews and evaluations of whether trends in indicators 

are towards specified goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Figure 7. Summary of recommended approaches for monitoring coral reef restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 8. Diagram of the adaptive management framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 9. Example of decisions benefiting from adaptive management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Figure 10. Preliminary map of Caribbean coral nursery sites and restoration sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Figure 11. Example values for nursery and outplanting score to generate a “total project score” and “stoplight” scale to show 

“no action required”, “some action required”, and “warning, changes must occur”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Figure 12. Examples of Outplant Plot and Ecological Footprint on various restoration project designs (random, linear, gridded, 

belt, and singular). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 13. Example of measuring the Ecological Footprint on a spur and groove-like reef . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Figure 14. Example of the change in number of Ecological Footprints as restoration corals fragment and spread across the site 

filling in the gap between outplant corals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 15. Options for measuring the Ecological Footprint of your restoration site using length and width measurements . . . . . .27

Figure 16. Example of a mosaic of a restoration site (Griffin et al., 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Figure 17. Maximum colony diameter of mounding and branching corals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Figure 18. Example datasheet for collecting coral size-frequency distribution data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 19. Example datasheets for collecting size class data while mapping restored colonies at the site for (A) linear and (B) 

belt outplant designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 20. Example size-frequency distributions of restored corals from (A) initial, (B) 1 year, and (C) 2 year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Figure 21. Examples of estimating live tissue per coral. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Figure 22. Example datasheet for collecting estimated live tissue data using the Ecological Footprint survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Figure 23. Example grid-quadrat used for in situ point intercept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Figure 24. Example of using photo quadrats for monitoring outplanted Acropora cervicornis. Collected images were processed 

using Coral Point Count with Excel Extension (CPCe) to obtain change in cover over time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Figure 25. Example of coral spawning net and option for gamete collection container . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

Figure 26. Example of (A) in situ branch breaking and (B) gross dissection observations of Acropora cervicornis gametes. . . . . .55

Figure 27. Examples of diseases affecting coral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Figure 28. Examples of predation wounds on coral. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Figure 29. Examples of physical impacts to corals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Figure 30. Examples of coral bleaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Figure 31. Example coral health chart from (A) CoralWatch and the (B) Hawaiian Ko’a (coral) card.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

Figure 32. Photo documentation of outplanted settlement substrates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Figure 33. Example identification tag on settlement substrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Figure 34. Treatments (or factors) for monitoring reef fish communities at coral restoration sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Figure 35. Estimated height of coral colonies pre-outplanting, immediately post-outplanting, and 1 year post-outplanting using 

height bins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Figure 36. (A) Nine out of 10 outplanted elkhorn corals dead from sedimentation and (B) storm driven sedimentation causing 

outplant mortality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73
v

Figure A1.1. CRC Coral Restoration Database spreadsheet for reporting coral outplanting events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Figure A5.1. 2019 coral spawning prediction for the southern Caribbean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Figure A5.2. Example in situ datasheet for spawning observations by species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Figure A5.3. Example in situ datasheet for spawning observations by genotype and colony per species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Tables

Table 1. Summary of Universal Metrics and Metric Outputs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Table 2. Summary of Goal-Based Performance Metrics and the Metric Outputs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 3. Values (cm) for the central point of each size class. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Table 4. Example data collected for coral size-frequency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Table 5. Approximate area (cm2) of a coral colony for the given size classes based on an ellipse or circle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Table 6. Example data collected for coral estimated live tissue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Table 7. Values (%) for the central point of each estimated live tissue class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Table 8. Example data collected for coral size-frequency distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Table 9. Example data collected for coral estimated live tissue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Table 10. Overview and alignment of Universal Metrics to CRC Monitoring Working Group products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Table 11. Comparison of methods proposed for Ecological Restoration monitoring including advantages and limitations of each 

method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

Table 12. Example point count percent cover data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

Table 13. Example belt transect percent cover data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

Table 14. Mode of reproduction and sexuality of Greater Caribbean scleractinian corals from Trnka and Moulding (2008) and 

Baird et al. (2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

Table 15. Predicted spawning month(s) of known northern Caribbean coral species compiled from 2019 spawning prediction 

guides from the Larval Propagation Working Group and Jordan (2018). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Table 16. Approximate minimum colony area, diameter, and age at reproductive maturity for select Caribbean broadcast 

spawning coral species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Table 17. Approximate minimum colony area, diameter, and age at reproductive maturity for select Caribbean brooding corals. . .54

Table 18. Comparison of reef-fish survey methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

Table 19. Assessment example of ecosystem services provided by Hawaiian coral reef ecosystems, highlighting direct 

socioeconomic services from coral restoration projects themselves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Table 20. Overview and alignment of Ecological Restoration Goal-Based Performance Metrics to CRC Monitoring Working 

Group products.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Table 21. Overview and alignment of Socioeconomic and Event-Driven Restoration, Climate Change Adaption, and Research 

Goal-Based Performance Metrics to CRC Monitoring Working Group products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Table A2.1. Evaluation Tool Criteria by project, scoring criteria, alignment with Restoration Monitoring Guide goal and 

associated references. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120-123
vi

Acronyms

AGRRA Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment

AIMS Australian Institute of Marine Science

APT All purpose tool

ARMS Autonomous reef monitoring structures

BACI Before-After-Control-Impact

BRUV Baited remote underwater video

CPCe Coral Point Count with Excel extensions

CRC Coral Restoration Consortium

CRRAM Coral Reef Restoration, Assessment, and Monitoring Lab (Nova Southeastern University)

CTD conductivity, temperature, and depth

DGPS	 	 Differential Global Positioning System

DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid

GCRNM Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network

GPS Global Positioning System

LTMP AIMS Long-Term Monitoring Program

MMP Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Marine Monitoring Program 

NCRMP National Coral Reef Monitoring Program

NGO Non-governmental organization

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

PAR Photosynthetically available radiation

RRAD Restored reef areal dimension

RVC Reef Visual Census

SER Society for Ecological Restoration

SNP Single nucleotide polymorphism

SST Sea surface temperature
1

Coral Restoration Foundation

Outlining the Need for Coral Reef 

Restoration

Coral reefs are important to coastal communities globally serving 

many cultural, commercial, and ecological purposes. They provide 

many key ecosystem services including provision of habitat and 

coastal protection as well as support to human uses including 

tourism and fisheries. As coral reefs continue to degrade (Gardner 

et al., 2003; Pandolfi et al., 2003; Wilkinson, 2008; Jackson et 

al., 2014), there is an increasing focus on the role of restoration 

in combination with threat reduction to help preserve coral reef 

ecosystems. As acute, stochastic events such as bleaching, 

disease, and storms have increased in frequency and magnitude, 

resulting in diminished recovery time between events (Hughes et 

al., 2018), restoration has been implemented as an aid to speed 

recovery. Restoration is also implemented to supplement natural 

coral populations and improve services such as increasing tourism, 

promoting marine education and stewardship, provisioning of 

alternative livelihoods, and improving fish abundance through 

enhanced habitat. These examples demonstrate the multi-faceted 

role that reef restoration plays in conservation, and why many 

organizations have turned to it to improve and preserve reef 

ecosystems.

Coral Reef Restoration and Monitoring 

Programs

Restoration has been implemented for many decades in terrestrial 

and wetland ecosystems and a few marine habitats (Aronson et 

al., 2010; Blignaut et al., 2013). Although coral transplantation 

has been ongoing since the early 1900s (Wood-Jones, 1907; 

Vaughan, 1911; Mayor, 1924; Edmonson, 1929), it was initially 

for research purposes (e.g., coral growth and environmental 

impacts). It was not until the late 1960s that coral transplantation 

became an integral part of coral reef restoration practices, albeit 

still at a relatively small scale and in localized areas (Maragos, 

1974; Shinn, 1976; Birkeland et al., 1979; Bouchon et al., 1981; 

Alcala et al., 1982; Auberson, 1982; Harriott and Fisk, 1988). As 

the health of coral reef ecosystems continues to be threatened by 

environmental and anthropogenic impacts, the need for population 

enhancement as a means for restoring and rehabilitating coral 

reefs is gaining public awareness (Clark and Edwards, 1995; Kaly, 

1995; Rinkevich, 1995; Young et al., 2012; Boström-Einarsson et 

al., 2018). More recently, funding and capacity for programs afford 

scientists and practitioners the resources to scale up their efforts 

to reduce threats and restore reefs while generating networks of 

communication and collaboration with the community.

Chapter 1

Introduction
2 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Three major waves of coral reef restoration efforts have occurred 

in recent history (Figure 1). The first wave began from the late 

1960s when the degradation of coral reefs became more apparent, 

widespread, and frequent, and legislation to protect marine 

species and habitats was introduced around the world (Rinkevich, 

1995; Edwards and Clark, 1999). At this time, restoration was very 

localized and in response to impacts such as ship groundings, 

damaging fishing practices, storms, and tourism damage (Edwards 

and Clark, 1999). In parallel, was the growth of passive restoration 

through deployment of artificial reefs (Bohnsack and Sutherland, 

1985).

In the early 2000s, the second coral reef restoration wave focused 

on efforts to counteract local stressors (e.g., overfishing, damage 

from hurricanes, invasive species) and contribute to speciesspecific recovery. This effort incorporated artificial structures 

of various shapes and types to serve as a platform for coral 

nurseries. Around this time, restoration efforts began to include the 

removal of predators and competitors from benthic habitat as well 

as the addition of outplants from in situ and ex situ nurseries.

The third coral reef restoration wave began around 2016 and has 

focused on increasing efficiencies and scale, emerging tools, 

and technology such as micro-fragmentation, larval propagation, 

genetic banking, and assisted evolution. This period has also seen 

an expansion in the commercialization of artificial reef and coral 

restoration development for tourism globally with little oversight 

(Meyers, 2016, 2018; Moore, 2018). In order to successfully scale 

up to ecosystem level restoration, there is a need to quantify 

restoration success at multiple temporal and spatial scales as well 

as document lessons learned along the way.

Coral restoration monitoring has not yet fully evolved to a level 

commensurate with the growth of restoration outplantings. The 

most commonly used monitoring techniques that are currently in 

practice focus solely on coral colony level metrics, which lack the 

ability to capture ecosystem-level benefits of large-scale coral 

restoration projects (Abelson, 2006; Bayraktarov et al., 2016; 

Boström-Einarsson et al., 2018; Bayraktarov et al., 2019). As the 

gap in being able to report success of restoration at an ecosystem 

level has become more evident, the application of broader 

scale coral reef monitoring metrics (e.g., benthic community 

characteristics, shoreline protection, and socioeconomic benefits) 

and new and advanced technology, including remote sensing 

and large area imaging (e.g., photomosaics), are beginning to 

be discussed and more widely applied (Ferse, 2008; Yap, 2009; 

Fadli et al., 2012; Gintert et al., 2012; Griffin et al., 2016; Miller 

et al., 2016a; Montoya-Maya et al., 2016; Opel et al., 2017; Foo 

and Asner, 2019). As such, the CRC Monitoring Working Group 

seeks to bridge this communication gap with three products for 

the coral restoration monitoring community: 1) a guide with the 

best available science and management practices for monitoring 

the success of coral reef restorations, 2) a spatial database of 

coral restorations and monitoring data, and 3) an evaluation tool to 

measure the success of a restoration program.

Figure 1. The history of reef restoration. Source: Adam Smith and Ian Mcleod (The Conversation).

1 Introduction
3

Purpose of this Guide

The Coral Restoration Consortium (CRC) was established in 

2017 to facilitate knowledge transfer between coral restoration 

practitioners, managers, and scientists. The CRC identified 

multiple knowledge gaps in many critical aspects of coral 

restoration, including the need for best management practices and 

how to define restoration success. Therefore, the CRC established 

multiple working groups, each with individual priorities to address 

current gaps. CRC guides are intended to provide current best 

management practices for a range of capacities and to continue 

to evolve, remain current, and reflect the best available science, 

tools, and technology.

These coral reef restoration monitoring guidelines were developed 

using existing guidelines for monitoring the success of restoration 

in other marine habitats such as oyster reefs and marshes (Coen 

and Luckenbach, 2000; Thayer et al., 2003; Thayer et al., 2005). 

As these other guidelines have demonstrated, effective protocols 

provide the framework for sound scientific monitoring of restoration 

efforts. Well designed and implemented protocols will detect early 

warning signs that restoration efforts are not meeting goals and 

help determine what modifications may need to be implemented 

for course correction. In addition, standardized protocols and 

evaluation metrics aid in coordination amongst practitioners and 

facilitate consistent and successful restoration. They not only 

assess the function of the restored area itself, but also allow for 

consistent comparisons of restoration effectiveness between 

projects on varying geographic scales (e.g., across islands, basins, 

regions).

Target Audience

This Guide is intended to be a reference for restoration 

practitioners, managers, and scientists. In an effort to 

accommodate a wide range of experience and resources, multiple 

methods are described for collecting monitoring data for multiple 

metrics. Monitoring metrics are categorized by restoration goals 

so that monitoring can be tailored to each program’s needs. In 

addition, the document identifies several Universal Metrics that 

should be monitored at all restoration sites to be able to compare 

restoration sites in various geographic locations and with differing 

restoration goals. Although the methods are described from a 

primarily Caribbean perspective, the metrics themselves are 

applicable to all coral reef locations.

Introduction 1

Coral Restoration Foundation
Using this Guide

The Guide is organized as follows: an introduction to the need and 

purpose of the guide, definition of goals for successful restoration, 

development of a monitoring plan, assessment of the performance 

of a restoration project, presentation of Universal Metrics for coral 

reef restoration monitoring, definition of universal environmental 

metrics, and development of Goal-Based Performance Metrics. 

The Universal Metrics are recommended to be collected by all 

researchers and practitioners, as they are comparatively easy 

to collect and inexpensive to fund, whereas the Goal-Based 

Performance Metrics will vary by the goals and objectives of a 

restoration program (e.g., coral abundance, genetic and species 

diversity, improving habitat quality). The guidance provided in 

this Guide is not all encompassing and should not be used as the 

only resource for monitoring restoration. We made every attempt 

possible to include the most relevant and needed monitoring 

guidelines for measuring restoration success, but it is not possible 

to include or recommend every type or level of data that could 

be collected. We expect and hope that practitioners use this as 

a starting point and collect data beyond what is outlined in this 

document to further inform the restoration community and future 

versions of this document.

The metrics in this guide were developed and are implemented 

by practitioners, researchers, and managers whose work has 

primarily focused on Greater Caribbean and Atlantic coral reef 

restoration; therefore, examples have a regional focus. However, 

these restoration metrics were developed from globally applied 

coral reef monitoring techniques and should be applicable to all 

geographic locations. Furthermore, metrics were designed to 

accommodate a range of funding and capacity while maintaining 

consistency in monitoring methods and data collection and 

reporting.

Defining Restoration

Past definitions of ecological restoration typically include phrases 

related to returning a damaged ecosystem to a “formal, normal, 

unimpaired, or pre-disturbed state or condition” (National 

Research Council 1992; Cunningham et al., 1998; Calow, 1998; 

Interagency Workgroup on Wetland Restoration, 2003). Other 

definitions, such as “the process of repairing damage caused by 

humans to the diversity and dynamics of indigenous ecosystems” 

(Jackson et al., 1995), link the need for ecological restoration 

to anthropogenic stressors causing the original damage or 

decline of the ecosystem. However, others have included the 

Chapter 2

Guide for Coral Reef 

Restoration Monitoring

4

Fragments of Hope
reestablishment of both structure and function of the habitat or 

entire ecosystem within their definitions (Estuaries Restoration Act 

2000; Turner and Streever, 2002). Furthermore, the Society for 

Ecological Restoration (SER) defines ecological restoration as “the 

process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been 

degraded, damaged, or destroyed” (SER, 2004), which highlights 

the need for restoration to help an ecosystem which would not 

otherwise recover without human intervention. With severe 

declines in global coral cover and abundance over the past several 

decades, ecological restoration has become essential to preserve 

marine resources, rebuild vital reef habitat, and improve coral reef 

structure and function. 

For coral reef restoration, both passive and active strategies 

have been employed to improve conditions and restore coral 

populations (Edwards and Gomez, 2007; Rinkevich, 2014). 

Passive restoration strategies include management actions 

that protect essential habitat, allow for natural recovery, and 

improved ecological functioning. These strategies may include 

creating marine protected areas that promote increased herbivory 

or mitigating land-based run-off and pollution that affect water 

quality. However, passive restoration measures alone have 

often failed to be successful in restoring functioning coral reef 

communities (Rinkevich, 2005,2008). Therefore, researchers and 

managers have turned to active reef restoration to both mitigate 

decline and enhance potential recovery of damaged or depleted 

coral populations (Guzman, 1991; Rinkevich, 2005; Edwards 

and Gomez, 2007; Young et al., 2012). Active coral restoration 

focuses on increasing coral reef health, abundance, or biodiversity 

and includes direct interventions that aim to speed up natural 

recovery, such as physical repairs to damaged habitat or direct 

transplantation of keystone species (Edwards and Gomez, 2007). 

Ecological restoration for coral reefs should include both passive 

and active methods to promote the natural recruitment and survival 

of species of concern, return of ecosystem structure and function, 

and improvement of abiotic processes that shape the community.

Restoration of viable coral populations requires a multi-pronged 

approach with strategies that are science-based and informed 

by the local ecology. For example, coral transplantation, the 

act of moving and securing coral fragments on reef substrata 

(Vaughan, 1911), is the most widely used coral restoration strategy 

(Epstein et al., 2003; Rinkevich, 2005), and transplantation-based 

restoration projects have burgeoned around the world over the last 

30 years (Rinkevich, 2014). However, it is widely acknowledged 

that replanting corals will not stop global drivers of coral loss, such 

as climate change or ocean acidification, highlighting that coral 

transplantation on its own may not be an effective management 

strategy (Yap and Molina, 2003; Edwards and Gomez, 2007).

Population enhancement is an active restoration approach that 

specifically addresses degraded coral populations and is the 

most used approach around the world (Young et al., 2012). 

Population enhancement includes rearing corals in either in or 

ex situ nurseries to create a sustainable stock of corals for use in 

outplanting to denuded or degraded reefs. Depending on local or 

federal permit requirements, source corals for nurseries may be 

corals or fragments of opportunity (i.e., corals that would otherwise 

not survive local conditions), small cores or branches collected 

from a larger colony (collected in a way to prevent damage to 

the remaining parent colony [Lirman and Schopmeyer, 2016]), or 

whole colonies that can be subdivided through fragmentation to 

create additional ramets. Propagation should focus on maintaining 

or expanding the genetic diversity of a region in order to potentially 

build and maintain coral resilience to threats such as climate 

change. Outplanting should occur at sites where the habitat is 

suitable for additional natural recruitment and high survival of 

outplants (see full list of requirements in the CRC Guide to FieldBased Coral Reef Restoration [Goergen et al., In Review]) and 

other interventions to improve the habitat may be necessary.

No single restoration approach suits all locations, regions, and 

environmental conditions. Propagation and restoration activities 

should therefore be included within adaptive management actions 

that operate across a wide range of scales and timing to increase 

the likelihood of success (Jackson et al., 1995). With the shorterterm successes of propagation and transplantation programs over 

the past decade, coral reef restoration has expanded to explore 

and include other novel restoration techniques such as seeding 

reefs with sexually propagated coral larvae (Chamberland et al., 

2017) microfragmenting coral colonies to substantially increase 

the number of ramets from a single colony (Forsman et al., 

2015), outplanting arrays of corals to fuse together and “reskin” 

the substrate (Page et al., 2018), utilizing stress-hardened corals 

for outplanting to increase resilience (National Academies of 

Sciences, 2019), and assisted migration or gene-flow (Hagedorn et 

al., 2018; National Academies of Sciences, 2019).

Guide for Restoration Monitoring 2

Phanor Montoya-Maya

5
6 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Goals of Restoration

Restoration goals can vary between geographic area, program, 

and project. Around the world, many restoration programs aim 

to restore not only their corals, but also to boost education and 

outreach regarding environmental issues, increase recreational 

or commercial fish populations, create new jobs, or even provide 

coastal protection to vulnerable communities (Bayraktarov et al., 

2019). Such socio-cultural and economic issues are essential 

components of coral restoration effectiveness because of the 

potential to increase livelihood opportunities, build capacity in local 

communities, and assist with controlling human-based drivers 

of coral loss, as well as enhancing the long-term sustainability 

of restoration efforts (Brewer et al., 2012; Hein et al., 2017). 

Therefore, the effectiveness and success of coral restoration is 

strongly linked to community support and involvement (Ammar, 

2009; Schrack et al., 2012; Hernández-Delgado et al., 2014). 

Based on literature and current restoration practices we 

have identified the following goals as the most common or 

predominantly identified by restoration practitioners as a goal of 

their program:

Ecological (Ecosystem) Restoration (Chapter 7)

Socioeconomic (Chapter 8)

Event-Driven Restoration (Chapter 9)

Climate Change Adaptation (Chapter 10)

Research (Chapter 11)

Defining Successful Restoration

The success of restoration may look vastly different for each 

restoration project or program and depend on restoration goals. 

Success for some may be successfully attaching corals, whereas 

for others it may be successfully reducing the amount of beach 

erosion by restoring a nearby reef. Both of these examples 

should be identified as successful if the goals of the restoration 

program were met with clearly defined project endpoints (Palmer 

et al., 1997). These two examples prove that it would be nearly 

impossible to have a “one size fits all” approach to defining 

successful coral reef restoration. Furthermore, there is not an 

all-encompassing set of metrics to measure the success of all 

goals of restoration. This is why we have herein described: 1) a 

set of Universal Metrics to be collected at any coral restoration 

project, regardless of the defined goal, in order to provide a basic 

comparison of success amongst projects, and 2) Goal-Based 

Performance Metrics tailored to the five predominant restoration 

goals defined in the previous section.

Currently, most restoration programs define restoration success or 

answer the question of “Is the restoration working” by utilizing only 

colony survival and growth, regardless of the defined goals. While 

this is appropriate for determining attachment success and short 

term survival, many of the defined goals, Ecological Restoration, 

for example, need to be assessed using additional factors to 

accurately define the success of a program (Ruiz-Jaen and Aide, 

2005; Bayraktarov et al., 2016). For example, branching corals, in 

particular Acropora cervicornis, which is the most commonly used 

species in Caribbean coral restoration, are known to frequently 

fragment or become dislodged by natural occurrences ending 

up relocated 10’s of meters from the location it was outplanted 

(Lirman, 2000; Goergen and Gilliam, 2018). By using common 

reef survey methods to define success, such as fate tracking of 

outplanted colonies (monitoring the place they were outplanted), 

dislodged colonies are recorded as dead or missing when they 

may be elsewhere at the site. This results in underestimating the 

impact and success of the project because appropriate methods 

were not in place. Thus, expanding our view of the spatial extent 

of the area used to define coral restoration success is a necessary 

next step in effective restoration monitoring.

As the field of restoration expands to large-scale restoration efforts 

(Young et al., 2012; Boström-Einarsson et al., 2018), the definition 

of restoration success will become more dynamic as broader goals 

can be made and larger achievements can be met. Therefore, we 

provide a baseline for defining success for each restoration goal, 

in recognition that these are likely to grow and change as the field 

progresses.

Success of an Ecological Restoration 

The success of ecological restoration should be measured by how 

much ecological function is created or achieved after restoration 

efforts. The ultimate goal of restoration is to create a self-sustaining 

ecosystem that is resilient against stressors and environmental 

changes without further assistance (Society for Ecological 

Restoration International Science and Policy Working Group, 2004). 

In 2004, SER developed a list of nine attributes as a basis for when 

restoration has been accomplished, noting that not all attributes 

need to be fully met in order to demonstrate restoration, but should 

show a trend towards the intended goals or reference. Briefly 

2 Guide for Restoration Monitoring

Reef Renewal Bonaire
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 7

the nine attributes of the restored sites are as follows: 1) similar 

species assemblage as the reference ecosystem and provides 

community structure, 2) indigenous species are used to the 

greatest extent, 3) all functional groups for continued development 

and stability are represented (or have the potential to colonize), 

4) environment is capable of sustaining reproductive populations, 

5) ecological function is normal for its developmental stage, 6) 

integrated into surrounding ecosystems, 7) threats to health and 

integrity have been addressed, 8) resilient to periodic stress, and 

9) self-sustaining at similar levels as the reference site and has the 

potential to persist indefinitely (Society for Ecological Restoration 

International Science and Policy Working Group, 2004).

Success of a Socioeconomic Restoration 

Most monitoring for coral reef restoration efforts focus on 

ecological success (e.g., growth, survival). Considerably less 

attention has been given to the social, economic, and cultural 

dimensions of restoration efforts that directly benefit local 

stakeholders and communities through the creation of jobs and 

skilled restoration workforces, increased community involvement 

and awareness, reinvigoration of cultural practices, and creation 

of ‘blue infrastructure’ (i.e., restoring ecosystem services that 

benefit coastal communities; Kittinger et al., 2013; Meyers, 2016; 

Claus, 2017). Such sociocultural and economic components of 

coral restoration success are essential because of their potential 

to increase sustainable livelihood opportunities, build capacity in 

local communities, and enhance the long-term sustainability of 

restoration efforts (Hein et al., 2017). Conversely, mismanagement 

of restoration projects can achieve exclusively social or economic 

benefit with little regard for local ecological impacts or incentivize 

unsustainable degrees of touristic development (West, 2008; 

Meyers, 2018; Moore, 2018). Therefore, approaches are needed 

to identify economically and ecologically viable methods to inform 

restoration efforts and promote stewardship and capacity building 

with local stakeholders.

Success of an Event-Driven Restoration 

There are a variety of environmental or anthropogenic events that 

could drive the need for restoration such as a disease outbreak, 

bleaching mortality, storm related impact, ship grounding, or 

planned coastal construction. Ideally, the success of restoration 

following these events will be measured by how much coral, 

associated biodiversity, and ecosystem function could be saved or 

restored. For many of these events, restoration is an unplanned 

or emergency response effort to save what remains. It may be 

impossible to know what was there prior to impact, but where 

possible, assessments should be made to evaluate surrounding 

unimpacted areas to use as a baseline to gauge restoration efforts 

against.

Success of Climate Change Adaptation

While not always the primary driver, most restoration actions have 

direct or indirect impacts of helping local reefs better withstand the 

effects of climate change. Some of the concrete goals of mitigating 

climate change are improving reef resilience, stress hardening, 

successful assisted evolution, and coastal protection. These goals 

can be met through a variety of actions, such as physically planting 

corals on degraded reefs or careful and purposeful selective 

genetic crossing of coral genotypes. 

For example, a restoration program may choose to incorporate 

several genotypes into an annual spawning program. The coral 

genotypes selected for this program can be either selected to 

target specific genetic crosses, or simply random, thus providing a 

large variety of genetic diversity in the offspring. As many species 

in the Caribbean may no longer be able to reproduce sexually on 

their own on an ecologically relevant scale, this genetic diversity 

is crucial to giving these species a chance at diversifying their 

genetics to best suit the conditions brought on by future climate 

change. With either sexual reproduction strategy, these coral 

species are given the chance to become better adapted to the 

current and changing conditions. 

Success of Research-Based Restoration

There is still a big need for research-based restoration because 

the field is relatively new. The goals and objectives of research 

being conducted should be driven by need and data gaps. 

Successful, meaningful, and appropriately designed research will 

advance the field and increase coral reef restoration efficiency. 

The success of a restoration project that is research focused will 

be defined by the research objectives and goals. 

Guide for Restoration Monitoring 2

 Hiri Coral Team
The first step to developing a plan for restoration monitoring is 

to clearly define the goals and objectives of the specific project 

that align with the program’s capacity and restoration abilities. 

This should be completed in the project design phase (prior to 

outplanting) in order to appropriately design the restoration project, 

collect baseline data, choose monitoring metrics, and develop a 

timeline for monitoring. For any restoration effort to be deemed 

successful, a project must have the ability to manipulate an 

ecosystem to achieve the desired goal as well as determine if the 

manipulation has produced the desired outcome (Keddy, 2000). 

It is critical that the data are collected in a standard way, properly 

analyzed, and provide useful information to assess restoration 

success across local, regional, and ecosystem-level scales 

(Thayer et al., 2005). 

Restoration Monitoring

There are many ways to define ecological restoration monitoring, 

yet, all are consistent in the need for standardized, systematic 

methodologies that generate the most meaningful and informative 

data. Meeker et al. (1996) defines ecological monitoring as 

repetitive measurements or observations to track change in 

condition. Others talk about the systematic observation of 

parameters (i.e., response variables) related to a specific problem 

tracked over time (Nichols, 1979), the consistent data collection 

through standard methods across time and sites (Washington et 

al., 2000), and data collection that indicates progress toward target 

criteria and established goals (Interagency Workgroup on Wetland 

Restoration, 2003). 

Coral restoration monitoring uses many of the same methods as 

traditional coral reef benthic monitoring (e.g., individual colony 

tracking, total linear extension, percent cover), as both share the 

common goal to measure the change in reef condition through time 

at spatial scales from corals to ecosystems. However, restoration 

monitoring has some key differences. In order to accurately 

assess the success of restoration, monitoring needs to specifically 

target not only the corals used in restoration (i.e., outplants), 

but also ecosystem responses to restoration (e.g., long-term 

changes in coral populations, percent cover, fish and invertebrate 

communities). Although ecosystem restoration requires data to be 

collected surrounding and beyond the restored coral, data must 

still be collected on the restored coral reefs in order to corroborate 

the results with the restoration.

Chapter 3

Developing a 

Monitoring Plan

Coral Restoration Consortium

8
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 9

Depending on the goals of a restoration project, the development 

of sequential, multi-step objectives may be necessary to achieve 

the desired result (Palmer et al., 1997). For example, a project 

goal may be to restore ecosystem function; therefore, following 

the collection of baseline data and after a program has first 

established that corals are surviving and thriving, a program would 

begin by monitoring community structure components (i.e., fish 

and invertebrates), then identify linkages between community 

structure and the restoration to determine if ecosystem function 

has been successfully restored. This Guide offers direction on 

monitoring restoration for various scales (start-up to scaled-up), 

goals, and objectives as well as offers guidance if optimally 

successful restoration is not observed.

Choosing What Metrics to Sample

Here, we offer two categories of metrics: Universal Metrics and 

Goal-Based Performance Metrics. We suggest Universal Metrics 

(Chapters 5 and 6) as a minimal monitoring effort that should 

be applied to every coral reef restoration project, regardless of 

goals or objectives. The assessment of these metrics provides a 

basic overview of the status, size, and condition of a restoration 

project over time and allows for direct comparison with other 

projects. These metrics range from broad scale, community-level 

measurements to small-scale, individual measurements. For a 

more detailed overview of the status of a restoration program, we 

provide Goal-Based Performance Metrics (Chapters 7–11), which 

can be used for ecosystem-level restoration goals such as: 

Ecological Restoration 

Socioeconomic

Event-Driven Restoration

Climate Change Adaptation

Research

The Universal Metrics and Goal-Based Performance Metrics 

detailed within this Guide should be considered the minimum 

level of data to be collected to achieve the respective goals 

and objectives. Based on the data obtained from monitoring, the 

restoration team may need to consider adaptive management 

strategies if the overall health of the restored area is not improving 

as expected. To detect changes in the restoration over time, 

metrics should be collected over the long-term. However, the 

frequency and duration of monitoring may vary depending on 

the metrics included in the monitoring design and application. 

By outlining the monitoring data that is desired or needed, 

practitioners and managers can plan for including long term 

monitoring within their funding and budget needs. Furthermore, 

monitoring design, both metrics and frequency, should be sure to 

address all applicable regulatory requirements. Figure 2. Control and reference sites are needed to assess the success of restoration. 

R indicates when restoration began. Measures in the restored and multiple control 

sites before and after the time of the impact should be compared to measures in 

reference sites which provide measures of expected conditions for restoration to be 

considered successful. Figure and caption adapted from Chapman (1999).

Developing a Monitoring Plan 3

Importance of Baseline Data and Reference 

Sites

Coral reef restoration goals typically include the re-creation of 

an ecologically functioning habitat; assessment of progress 

towards that goal requires a comparison between pre- and postrestoration as well as to control or reference sites that have not 

been restored. Baseline data provide information on the condition 

of the site before restoration (i.e., the pre-treatment condition), 

which is useful for comparison and detection of trends in change 

through time. Restoration monitoring activities and metrics should 

reflect this objective. As such, it is important to include analytical 

techniques to measure the effects of environmental impacts 

in sampling designs, taking into account the large spatial and 

temporal variability that occurs naturally in undisturbed habitats 

(Chapman, 1999). We strongly recommend that all restoration 

projects collect baseline data prior to any restoration. To capture 

the impact of restoration, a site survey must be completed prior 

to restoration occurring, recording at a minimum, the presence 

and abundance of the species being used for restoration (See 

suggestions in the Outplant Site Selection section of the Guide to 

Field-Based Coral Reef Restoration [Goergen et al., in review]).

Current baseline data should include pre-restoration surveys at 

restoration sites. In addition, surveys should be conducted at 

control sites and/or reference sites. In restoration monitoring, 

control and reference sites are not the same thing (Figure 2, 

Chapman, 1999). Surveys prior to restoration (i.e., pre-restoration 

survey) establish the condition of the site before any additional 

actions, and the objective is to quantify change through time. If a 

pre-restoration survey is not an option due to project constraints, 

a control site survey could be used as a proxy. Control sites may 

also be used in addition to baseline surveys. Control sites are 

sites in similar condition to the restoration site prior to restoration, 

but are left undisturbed in order to measure changes in the 

restored site. Control sites alone, however, are not sufficient to 

assess restoration success, for they merely provide a comparison 

to show whether the restored sites have changed. Reference 
10 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

sites or “natural areas” provide an example of what restoration 

success should look like (i.e., what the restoration project would 

like to achieve; Thompson et al., 1995; Galatowitsch and van 

der Valk, 1996; Simenstad and Thom, 1996). The reference site 

should resemble what the project is striving to achieve through 

restoration, this may not always be restoring to historical levels 

(i.e., a lush Acropora thickets found in the 1960s in the Caribbean), 

but to an intermediate or more modern day reefscape (i.e., clusters 

of large Acropora colonies). It is important that a restoration 

program define a reference prior to restoration. Further, for coral 

reef restoration, it is not always possible to monitor a reference 

site within close proximity to the restored site or at all due to the 

highly degraded status of the system. In this case, sites as close 

to the composition of the target reference or long-term monitoring 

or historical datasets for similar habitat types should be used 

as a reference. When the restored site resembles the reference 

site, it can likely be concluded that restoration was successful 

(Figure 2). Reference surveys should include all metrics that are 

being collected at the restoration site. Monitoring control and/

or reference sites should occur at the same time, frequency, and 

duration as restoration site monitoring.

The popular BACI (Before-After-Control-Impact) experimental 

design can be used to make comparisons between restoration 

sites, control sites, and reference sites to evaluate restoration 

success (Green, 1979; Underwood, 1994; Falk et al., 2006). The 

BACI design requires the monitoring of a control and/or reference 

site and the site to be restored prior to the restoration occurring, 

and then continuing to monitor each of these sites post-restoration, 

preferably long-term (Figure 3). The experimental design of a 

project will affect the data, analyses, and the way that success of 

restoration can be described. Therefore, proper planning prior to 

project deployment is essential (Falk et al., 2006; Opel et al., 2017; 

Mahlum et al., 2018).

The formulation of a reference ecosystem involves analysis of the 

composition (species), structure (complexity and configuration 

of species) and functionality (underlying abiotic and biophysical 

processes and community dynamics of organisms) of the 

ecosystem to be restored on the site (McDonald et al., 2016). As 

a reference, the Evaluation Tool (Appendix 2) outlines metrics of 

success for a restored site. Sites with very high success scores 

(1 = successful for a particular metric) should resemble a good 

representative reference site (e.g., natural area).

Choosing an Appropriate Sampling Design

Sample design is driven primarily by project objectives and 

logistical constraints. A random sampling design can reduce 

sampling bias (e.g., to sample areas with the most corals or fish). 

A project with the objective to collect a spatially representative 

sample typically implements a randomized design. Sampling 

designs that incorporate randomization are generally considered 

more statistically defensible than non-random sampling because 

all sites within a study area have an equal chance of being visited, 

and the resulting sample is more representative (Krebs, 1999). 

However, a sampling program with the objective to monitor the 

status of a population through time within a system, may be able to 

justify a fixed sampling design (Elzinga, 1998; Smith et al., 2016). 

Sampling units also must be spaced far enough apart so that they 

are considered independent to avoid pseudoreplication (Hurlbert, 

1984; Hargrove and Pickering, 1992; Davies and Gray, 2015).

3 Developing a Monitoring Plan

Control Restored Reference

Pre-R

e

storatio

n

P

o

st-R

e

storatio

n

Figure 3. Photo representation of an example of a BACI (Before-After-Control-Impact) design and the differences between a control and reference site. Image credit: 

Nova Southeastern University Coral Reef Restoration, Assessment, and Monitoring (CRRAM) Lab.
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 11

Developing a Monitoring Plan 3

A B

Figure 4. Example designs of (A) simple 

randomized sampling and (B) restricted 

random sampling. Random sampling, 

due to the outplanting design, does not 

adequately capture the restored corals, 

therefore the areas for sampling can be 

restricted to the outplanted areas and 

then random sampling plots can be 

chosen within these restricted areas.

There are a number of ways that sample design can be 

incorporated into a monitoring protocol. Some examples of design 

include haphazard sampling, simple random sampling, stratified 

random sampling, systematic sampling, two-stage sampling, 

restricted random sampling, and cluster sampling (Elzinga, 1998; 

Thayer et al., 2005; Baggett et al., 2014). A table created by Elzinga 

(1998, Table 7.2) outlines uses, advantages, and disadvantages of 

many of these methods and is a reference for the development of a 

project monitoring plan. The simplest methods may be a haphazard 

or simple random sampling approach (Figure 4). However, for 

a restoration project, it may be necessary to deploy a more 

systematic approach (e.g., systematic, cluster, two-stage, restricted 

random or stratified sampling) to ensure that restored corals are 

being monitored in numbers that are sufficient enough for data 

analyses to be both statistically and ecologically meaningful. This 

concept is illustrated in Figure 4, where a simple random sampling 

design misses a majority of the corals used for restoration; 

however, a change in survey design to a restricted random 

sampling includes delineated outplanted areas where random 

sampling is deployed only in those outplanted areas. This would be 

an appropriate method to survey colony demographics; however, 

if studying a different metric, such as change in coral cover, the 

simple random design or others may be more appropriate to 

capture change inside and outside of an outplanted plot, especially 

for transient species (e.g., Acropora species). Therefore, it is best to 

determine the method appropriate for the outplanting design during 

the development of the monitoring protocol.

The final component to consider in sample design is whether 

sample units will be permanent or temporary, which will also 

affect the interpretation and construction of statistical tests. By 

completely re-randomizing for each sampling event, units will be 

temporary and samples are considered independent of each other. 

If randomly chosen units are sampled at time one and re-sampled 

at time two, the units are considered permanent and the samplings 

are dependent. Permanent units are more efficient in detecting 

changes between sampling periods, especially if you expect to 

see high variability between units and high degree of correlation 

between sampling. To detect changes, such as change in cover 

and conditions, with temporary units, a larger number of units 

would need to be used (Elzinga, 1998). Permanent units require 

precision when installing and resampling, can be more costly 

to install (time, tags, pins, and markers), require maintenance 

and authorization (permit), and can require more time in order to 

find each unit during sampling events. Furthermore, permanent 

units do not capture changes outside the permanent area (e.g., 

movement of fragmented species). For some applications 

(disease), it may be beneficial to use a combination of both 

temporary and permanent units (Kohl et al., 2015).

Determining Sample Size

Sample size (e.g., number of transects, plots, area, quads) will 

be determined by the goals and design of the restoration project 

and/or to meet permitting regulations. There is no one correct 

sample size or area, so long as the sampled population statistically 

represents the complete set of units about which inferences will 

be made (i.e., the target population; Elzinga, 1998). A sample 

size for measuring change in abundance may not be the same as 

change in fish diversity and abundance and should therefore be 

calculated for each metric sampled. An a priori power analysis or 

other appropriate statistical test can be performed for each metric 

to indicate the ideal sample size necessary to detect change 

(Fairweather, 1991).

The Nature Conservancy
12 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

The most efficient sampling unit size and shape generally depend 

on the variable that is measured and the spatial distribution of the 

sampling area, with the ideal design yielding the greatest statistical 

precision (Elzinga, 1998). Very few restored coral populations are 

randomly distributed, but rather are aggregated or clumped. This 

difference in relative density between clumped and a more spaced 

out distribution will also be a factor in determining how large of an 

area to sample and how many places within that area need to be 

sampled to ensure an appropriate representative sample is taken. 

Many statistical programs and online resources can be used for 

determining sample size.

Timeframe/Length of Monitoring 

The initial steps in any restoration project are to: 1) clearly 

articulate the goals for each site and treatment, and 2) develop a 

timeline for monitoring the success of restoration activities, within 

the context that the timeframe of monitoring should be biologically/

ecologically meaningful for the change anticipated (Figure 5). 

For example, a 50% increase in the density of boulder corals 

within 2–5 years is unlikely, although is very likely for fast growing 

ephemeral coral species in ideal conditions. Once the actions 

are identified that will improve the condition of the resource, 

monitoring should begin either before or immediately following 

alterations to the baseline status of the area. Mid- and long-term 

monitoring are also essential to understand ecological change over 

time and determine the effectiveness of restoration activities and 

management decisions. 

Short-, mid-, and long-term monitoring efforts require consistent, 

standardized data collection with a system that includes quality 

assurance and data management that is replicable among other 

sites and programs (Le et al., 2012). The timeframe to monitor for 

the desired results or change induced by restoration will vary by 

species, i.e., a change in reef complexity will be measurable within 

a few years for a fast growing branching species, whereas for 

massive species a change may not be measurable for decades. 

These differences in change determined by the species used 

for restoration are also applicable to the timeframe of observing 

ecological success. 

Short-term monitoring (one year or less) should be considered 

implementation monitoring, or “how well was the initial phase 

of restoration designed and executed” (i.e., site selection and 

outplanting). This early phase of monitoring should assess the 

general effectiveness of outplanting methods, establish consistent 

parameters, evaluate initial before-and-after changes to the 

restoration area, and identify target values for the restored area. 

Site selection criteria should play a big role in determining the 

restoration, and therefore the short-term success of the restoration 

project.

Mid-term monitoring (1–5 years) should be considered 

effectiveness monitoring, or “how well did treatment design 

match the desired goals, and how successful is the project based 

on those goals” (i.e., positive outplant growth and performancebased goals). At this phase, it should be clear if the chosen site 

allowed the outplants to grow and thrive. Metrics that indicate 

success include outplants that exhibit high survivorship (i.e., 

positive change in abundance of each species), a high percent of 

live tissue per coral, low tissue loss from bleaching, low prevalence 

of disease, low abundance and impacts of coral predators, limited 

competition by algae and other competitors, and low levels of 

physical damage (breakage/dislodgement).

3 Developing a Monitoring Plan

Figure 5. Timeline for monitoring restoration after outplanting. Additional monitoring is recommended in response to specific events such as disease, bleaching, and 

cyclones.

Coral Restoration Consortium
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 13

Developing a Monitoring Plan 3

Long-term monitoring (5+ years) should collect information on the 

restored area once the outplants have had time to settle, grow, and 

have an impact on the overall reefscape based on their abundance 

and complexity. Long-term monitoring should include data collection on 

the impact of the restoration activities to the broader ecosystem. 

Success criteria include, but are not limited to outplants that exhibit 

sexual reproduction (gamete production) upon reaching the size/age of 

sexual maturity, increase reef height/rugosity of site, improve ecological 

value of reef (e.g., provide habitat for fish and other reef vertebrates), 

and exhibit high survivorship and abundance after five years or more 

following outplanting.

Monitoring frequency can vary due to differences in ecosystems, 

geographies, habitat/reef type, environmental conditions, outplanting 

frequency, and potentially the growth rate or other factors for the 

restored species in question (i.e., disease or spawning events), but it 

is important to have a multi-year, long-term plan in place regardless of 

these variables. Other examples of monitoring frequency in ecosystems 

include: 3 months and every 1–2 years for up to 6 years in oyster 

restoration (Baggett et al., 2014), annually for 3 years (Schmitt and 

Duke, 2016) or 6 years (Upadhyay et al., 2015) in mangroves, and 

annually for more than 3 years for seagrass (Bell et al., 2008), and 

within 3 years of reforestation for establishment success, but over 10 

years (up to 50–100 years) for full rainforest ecosystem recovery to be 

determined (Le et al., 2012). 

Prior to following the monitoring metrics outlined in this Guide, we 

recommend two surveys in close proximity to outplanting, a prerestoration baseline survey and a rapid visual assessment within two 

weeks of outplanting (immediate site survey), to capture any potential 

transport, handling, or predation issues. Both surveys can identify 

immediate problems leading to early course corrections. Monitoring 

of coral reef restoration, for the monitoring metrics presented within 

this guide, should occur within 3 months of outplanting (initial survey), 

approximately 12 months following outplanting (short-term), and every 

1–2 years thereafter (mid- to long-term) in order to assess the drivers of 

success and alter methods if necessary to ensure positive growth and 

stability of the restored areas (Figure 5). Programs that are outplanting 

continuously to the same area or site should complete an initial survey 

following each outplanting event (or those within a couple of months 

of each other), events could then be further grouped for subsequent 

annual surveys; this will be based on the programs capacity. It is also 

important to consider natural and anthropogenic-induced events when 

developing a monitoring timeframe, and include provisions to reevaluate 

coral survivorship as soon as possible after a major disturbance. 

Seasonal (e.g., coral spawning, bleaching), acute (disease and storms), 

as well as planned (e.g., coastal construction) events can all affect the 

frequency, feasibility, and outcome of monitoring activities.

Liz Goergen
Evaluation of the success of a restoration program requires 

monitoring metrics that quantify change to address the goals that 

were identified for the program (Figure 6). With evaluation of the 

appropriate metrics from the start of the restoration (or even before 

the restoration begins), program failures and/or successes can 

easily be identified and addressed quickly if, or when, they are 

necessary. The assessment of the performance of a restoration 

project may look different for each program or even for different 

projects within a program due to difference in the goals and 

objectives. 

Within this guide, we propose two categories of metrics to Guide 

in assessing the performance of a restoration project (Figure 7). 

The first is the Universal Metrics (Chapter 5), which are designed 

to describe restoration size, composition, and status in a basic way 

that is comparable and useful amongst practitioners, scientists, 

and managers. These Universal Metrics are intended to provide a 

framework of data that all practitioners can collect, regardless of 

their expertise and resources, in a standardized and meaningful 

way. Such a standardized approach allows comparison between 

restoration sites: what was restored, how much was restored, and 

how have restored sites have fared through time.

The second set of metrics focuses on the goal of the restoration 

program known herein as Goal-Based Performance Metrics. 

Currently, the primary goal identified by practitioners through 

interviews is to achieve Ecological Restoration, therefore this 

Guide focuses on the development of metrics to assess the 

performance of this goal (Chapter 7). Additional restoration goals 

were identified (Chapters 8–11), however, as most of these goals 

are still in the infancy in the field of restoration assessment, only a 

few metrics were developed in this document, but are likely to be 

developed in more detail in the near future. 

The proposed methods, described in the following chapters, are 

metric specific and designed such that data collected can be 

analyzed to understand the effect of restoration. Although the 

methods included here are not novel, this Guide brings together 

applicable options for assessing restoration projects in an effort to 

collect comparable data throughout the field of coral restoration. 

If the suggested performance criteria for the respective metric 

are not met, practitioners should evaluate adaptive management 

strategies. A monitoring feedback loop such as this will allow us, as 

a restoration community, to identify failure and success specific to 

a restoration component. 

Chapter 4

Assessing the 

Performance of a 

Restoration Project

Liv Williamson

14
Assessing Performance 4

To further strengthen the assessment of a restoration project and allow for additional analysis, we also advise that site assessments should be 

replicated at control/reference sites, plots, or areas nearby that have not been restored. This additional data collection will allow for comparison to 

sites that never received outplanting to evaluate restoration success. Guidance on selecting control/reference sites is provided in Chapter 3.

Figure 6. A stepwise approach to landscape restoration 

with regular reviews and evaluations of whether trends in 

indicators are towards specified goals. Image taken from van 

Andel and Aronson (2012). © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

The Nature Conservancy

15
16 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Figure 7. Summary of recommended approaches for monitoring coral reef restoration.

Goal-Based Performance 

Metrics

Ecological

Coral 

Population 

Enhancement

Abundance 

& Cover

Reproductive 

Capacity

Coral 

Condition

Richness & 

Diversity

Indirect 

Seeding

Community & 

Habitat 

Enhancement

Invertebrate 

Community

Reef Fish 

Community

Reef Structure/ 

Complexity

Habitat 

Quality

Socioeconomic

Economic 

Benefits

Coastal 

Protection

Ecotourism

Sociocultural

Improving 

Stewardship

Capacity 

Building

Reef-User 

Satisfaction

Event-Driven

Disease & 

Bleaching

PostImpact

Physical 

Impacts

PostImpact

Climate Change 

Adaptation

Reef 

Resilience

Assisted 

Evolution

Stress 

Hardening

Research

Universal Metrics

Landscape/ 

Reef-Level

Population 

Level

Colony 

Level

Genetic 

Diversity

Universal 

Environmental Metric

Temperature

Category

Goal

Objective

Metric

4 Assessing Performance
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 17

Assessing Performance 4

Basic Performance Criteria

The success of a restoration program depends on progress 

towards meeting the defined goals and objectives of projects and 

programs. There is therefore a need to compare across sites and 

treatments in a standardized way, over time and among programs, 

in order to generate meaningful results. Universal Metrics have 

been identified as basic monitoring criteria that can and should 

be collected at every restoration site, immediately, within three 

months, and on an annual basis there after (Figure 5), even 

with limited resources (Baggett et al., 2014). These metrics are 

not designed to cover all aspects of restoration monitoring and 

should be supplemented by the Goal-based Performance Metrics 

(Chapters 7–11) for program-specific needs. 

The four Universal Metrics and one Universal Environmental 

Metric in Table 1 below are designed to describe restoration 

size, composition, and status in a basic way that is comparable 

and useful amongst practitioners, scientists, and managers.

The Metric Output shows the type of information that is collected 

based on the Universal Metric in question. Combined, these metrics 

will describe the status of restoration over the broad ecosystem 

(Landscape-level) as well as on a smaller scale (Colony-level).

Restoration Goal-Based Performance 

Metrics

This section of the Guide outlines guidance for restoration 

monitoring with project-specific goals in mind. In addition to 

data for the Universal Metrics (Chapters 5 and 6), restoration 

monitoring for project-specific goals may also be conducted 

to evaluate restoration success using defined Goal-Based 

Performance Metrics. Not all monitoring metrics are useful for 

different types of restoration projects (i.e., determining differences 

in growth between genotypes is not relevant to restoration 

projects focused on community outreach). Monitoring select 

Goal-Based Performance Metrics (Chapters 7–11) together 

with Universal Metrics, will offer information on what and how to 

Universal Metric Metric Output

Landscape/Reef-level Metrics:

Restored Reef Areal Dimension (RRAD)

The area encompassed by outplants and the area across which outplanted corals may 

spread

Population-level Metrics Restored coral size, abundance, distribution, and survival.

Additionally, cover and density can be estimated when combined with the areas from above

Colony-level Metrics Mean, distribution, and prevalence of colony partial mortality and colony survival.

Genetic and Genotypic Diversity Number of genotypes per species

Water Temperature Monthly minimum, maximum, and mean temperature

Table 1. Summary of Universal Metrics and Metric Outputs.

determine success for the following restoration goals: 1) Ecological 

Restoration (e.g., coral population and community and habitat 

enhancement), 2) Socioeconomic (e.g., coastal protection, 

tourism, education), 3) Event-Driven Restoration (e.g., disease/

bleaching, physical impacts — planned and unplanned), 4) Climate 

Change Adaptation (e.g., improve resilience, assisted evolution), 

and 5) Research (Table 2). 

Goal-Based Performance Metrics are designed to detect change 

due to restoration from one time period to the next. Prior to 

choosing which metrics will be deployed at the restoration site, 

practitioners should first clearly define a null hypothesis and 

then choose the methods appropriate for answering the defined 

hypothesis. A null hypothesis is usually written that no change has 

occurred in the parameter of interest. For example, fish abundance 

will not change following outplanting of corals to the restoration 

site is a null hypothesis. By employing a chosen set of metrics 

to answer this question, the data obtained can be statistically 

analyzed to test if the null hypothesis is true. 

These chapters should be used as a resource to identify and 

test metrics that will answer project-specific questions. Not all 

questions can be answered at all restoration sites, so stay within 

your restoration means (restoration site design, species used, 

season of study) and abilities (project-timeframe, practitioner 

skill-set) to detect changes resulting from restoration activities over 

time. Coral disease events, for example, typically occur during 

or following the summer months, therefore testing a hypothesis 

relating to the impact of disease on restoration during a winter 

time-period will not accurately assess the hypothesis.

The proposed restoration Goal-Based Performance Metrics 

are most valuable if included as part of a controlled restoration 

experiment, in which various outplanting treatments are replicated 

and compared to control plots where no restoration has been 

conducted (Bayraktarov et al., 2016). Another option is to utilize the 

BACI design (Eberhardt, 1976; Green, 1979) by conducting initial 

surveys of the area to be restored for comparison to data collected 

immediately after restoration or during long-term monitoring.
18 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

4 Assessing Performance

Goal Objective Metric Output

Ecological 

Restoration

Coral Population 

Enhancement

Abundance and Cover Change in abundance and cover of restored corals

Reproductive Capacity Observation and documentation of timing, genotypic variability, and percent 

of restored corals reproducing sexually

Coral Condition Presence/absence, prevalence, and percent tissue lost due to disease, 

predation, bleaching or physical impacts on restored corals

Species Richness and Diversity Species richness, diversity, and evenness of corals at a restoration site

Indirect Seeding of Sexual Recruits Substrate retention, settler survival, and yield

Community and Habitat 

Enhancement

Invertebrate Community Abundance, density, presence/absence, species richness, diversity, and 

evenness of invertebrates at a restoration site

Reef Fish Community Abundance, size, presence/absence, species richness, diversity, and 

evenness of fish at a restoration site

Reef Structure and Complexity Mean height of corals and reef structure at a restoration site

Habitat Quality Habitat quality (water quality, benthic cover, coral recruitment, turbidity, and 

sedimentation) following restoration

Socio-economic

Economics

Coastal Protection Risk to coastal communities from coastal inundation and erosion

Responsible Ecotourism 

Opportunities

Diver participation and training programs to support restoration, 

development of restoration programs to economically benefit community 

and reduce dive pressure on natural reefs

Socio-cultural

Cultivating Stewardship Through 

Education and Outreach Promote environmental awareness of coral reefs and restoration

Capacity Building Capacity for volunteers and citizen scientists to contribute effectively to 

restoration

Reef-User Satisfaction Awareness of restoration and the benefits provided to the reef

Event-Driven 

Restoration

Disease and Bleaching Post-Impact Survey

Prevalence of colonies impacted

Description of diseases present

Determination if restoration is feasible

Physical Impacts Post-Impact Survey Quantification of impacts to corals and reefs

Determination if restoration is feasible

Climate Change 

Adaptation

Improve Reef Resilience Various; Undefined Identification of corals which have tolerance to certain stressors

Assisted Evolution Various; Undefined Percent success rate of assisted gene flow or migration

Stress Hardening Various; Undefined Percent of corals manipulated that show increased tolerance

Research Based on research question(s)

Table 2. Summary of Goal-Based Performance Metrics and the Metric Outputs.

Adaptive Management Strategies

Adaptive management is a process in which novel management 

tactics are introduced into a system that requires change. Adaptive 

management is an approach which allows for management 

and course-correction in the event that a restoration program 

is unsuccessful in meeting its goals (Murray and Marmorek, 

2003). This is a structured, iterative decision making process that 

requires system monitoring to understand the extent to which the 

newly introduced tactic is successful (Holling, 1978). Adaptive 

management approaches can be used to not only change and 

improve a system, but also to learn about a system.

Figure 8 illustrates the adaptive management process, whereby 

monitoring and evaluation after restoration leads to potential 

adjustments to restoration design in order to generate optimal 

results. Goals and objectives outlined in this Guide offer criteria 

to assess during the “do” and “learn” phases of this process that 

will inform practitioners if adjustments should be made and where 

they might need to be made in the process. In conjunction with 

this guide, the CRC is creating a Guide to Field-Based Coral Reef 

Restoration (Goergen et al., In Review), which provides guidance 

for the “plan” phase and select adaptive management strategies. 
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 19

Assessing Performance 4

Utilizing this strategy gives the practitioner the knowledge and 

power to improve the likelihood of success at a restoration site. 

This process relies heavily on frequent monitoring, as this allows 

the practitioner to identify, evaluate, and modify a program that 

is producing sub-optimal results. Adaptive management requires 

coming up with effective and realistic alternative measures, 

which should be considered for implementation if a program 

does not meet goal-based standards. Deviations from expected 

results may be considered justification for potential mid-course 

corrections. Further, the benefits of following the process of 

adaptive management can identify specific areas of shortcomings 

or failures, which will aid in improving the success and efficiency of 

coral reef restoration (Figure 9).

Specific adaptive management strategies are not described in 

detail in this Guide because developing each of the possible 

strategies is out of the scope of this restoration monitoring focused 

document. This Guide provides the basis and minimum data to be 

collected on a restoration project, but it is then the responsibility 

of each practitioner to analyze the respective data and evaluate 

their program using the Evaluation Tool for Coral Restoration 

or other technique to identify when course correction should be 

Figure 8. Diagram of the adaptive management framework. Image 

credit: ESSA Technologies Ltd.

Figure 9. Example of decisions benefiting from adaptive management. Image credit: ESSA Technologies Ltd.
20 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

implemented and potential adaptive management strategies. The 

strategies of adaptive management vary greatly depending on 

the issue at hand, and each requires different levels of skill and 

resources to implement. The ability to implement changes mid-way 

through a restoration project will likely require open communication 

with project stakeholders, such as the practitioner’s local permitting 

and funding agencies. Adaptive management does not mean that a 

practitioner needs to start over or reinvent-the-wheel in terms of the 

restoration project; rather, it suggests adjustments to techniques 

and methodologies (e.g., using nails to outplant corals instead of 

epoxy, Guide to Field-Based Coral Reef Restoration [Goergen et 

al., in review]) based on areas in which the program is struggling. 

Many of these can be identified through criteria identified in this 

Guide and the Evaluation Tool for Coral Restoration.

One of the purposes and advantages of frequent restoration 

monitoring is the ability to document and recognize changes 

before the conclusion of a restoration project. Should resources 

be available and a practitioner choose not to employ adaptive 

management strategies, there is a risk that coral health and 

the surrounding habitat quality will be compromised. Adaptive 

management relies on the principle of learning on the fly, which 

results in a level of uncertainty. This technique can be politically 

or socially unpalatable as, sometimes, the course of action calls 

for implementing a short-term suboptimal management option to 

gain knowledge and improve future decision-making (McDonaldMadden et al., 2010). While this may appear to be in direct contrast 

with “best practice” strategies, adaptive management strategies are 

essential to better understanding underperforming systems.

Coral Restoration Consortium’s Coral 

Restoration Database

The CRC identified a need to identify coral nursery and restoration 

projects to make connections and demonstrate the cumulative 

impact of individual efforts. The resulting product is a geospatial 

Coral Restoration Database (Appendix 1) developed by the CRC’s 

Monitoring Working Group. Nursery and outplant input datasheets 

were developed to collect the information requested by researchers, 

practitioners, and managers. The database can be used to report 

the universal monitoring metrics identified in this document and 

to summarize information for examination using the Restoration 

Evaluation Tool (Appendix 2). An interactive map of coral nursery 

and outplant locations and corresponding site information can be 

found online (Appendix 3; Figure 10). The database will be located 

online for ease of uploading and querying data. 

Evaluation Tool for Coral Restoration

The Restoration Evaluation Tool (Appendix 2) is an adaptation of 

the original Reef Restoration Program Evaluation Tool developed 

for restoration activities in the Dominican Republic (Lirman et al., 

2017). This product addresses the increasing need to develop 

uniform, consistent guidelines to provide feedback on the status of 

restoration efforts that are initiated with differing levels of expertise 

and a wide range of programmatic goals (e.g., restoration, 

education, enhanced livelihoods). This tool follows the recovery 

goals, objectives and criteria outlined in the Recovery Plan for 

4 Assessing Performance

Figure 10. Preliminary map of Caribbean coral nursery sites (pink) and restoration sites (green).
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 21

Elkhorn and Staghorn Corals (NOAA National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 2015), which may also be applied to additional species 

which are now listed within the U.S. Endangered Species Act or 

have recently suffered dramatic losses in abundance and cover 

due to severe bleaching and disease events. 

The simple assessment tool captures status information of a 

wide range of potential project components and goals, including 

key steps such as coral collection, nursery deployment and 

maintenance, coral monitoring, stakeholder involvement, funding 

sources, data sharing, education and outreach, and project 

sustainability. The metrics outlined in this tool are designed to 

evaluate overall program success as a summary of success 

criteria, or “restoration benchmarks”, while also identifying metrics 

which may require adaptive management to improve performance 

(Schopmeyer et al., 2017). Metrics outlined within this evaluation 

tool focus on best management practices or results from 

restoration-based research conducted by experts in the field of 

coral propagation and outplanting (see Appendix 2 for references).

Restoration benchmarks are visualized here as a “stoplight” (i.e., 

green, yellow, red), where nursery, outplanting, and program 

metrics are scored using a binary system (yes or n/a), then the 

scores are tallied and color coded based on potential max score 

(Figure 11). The resulting color/score indicates restoration success 

based on survivorship, productivity, genetic diversity, and overall 

condition of coral outplants based on recommended monitoring 

metrics outlined in this guide and other CRC Working Group 

guidance (Field-Based and Genetics). Scores represented by 

shades of green are greater than 75% of the mean and those 

metrics are considered successful. Scores represented by yellow 

to orange are 50-75% of the mean and indicate that some changes 

may be needed to improve the success of those metrics. Finally, 

scores represented by red are less than 50% of the mean and 

highlight areas where adaptive management is necessary to fulfill 

project, program, or regional needs (e.g., population enhancement, 

research, mitigation, education, stakeholder livelihood, and 

community engagement). For example, if outplant survival is low 

(<50% of the mean of other outplant sites and represented on 

the Programmatic Evaluation Tool as “red”), monitoring efforts 

may be able to determine that outplant mortality is caused by 

predation by corallivores. Therefore, a program may decide to 

conduct predator removal at the outplant site or even abandon 

the restoration site and move outplanting efforts to a different site 

with lower predator prevalence. As another example, if a project 

receives a low score based on the genotypic diversity of outplants, 

then a project can increase propagation of additional genotypes, 

find additional locations for new collections which may increase 

genotypic diversity, or consult with partner projects to exchange 

novel nursery corals (all permit pending).

The intent of this tool is to evaluate each restoration metric to 

promote the design of adaptive strategies to improve performance 

and encourage communication between restoration partners 

(either locally, regionally, or globally) to increase success. The 

stoplight indicator framework allows self-critique of methodologies, 

techniques, and protocols. This evaluation of the current status 

Assessing Performance 4

Figure 11. Example values for nursery and outplanting score to generate a “total project score” (left) and “stoplight” scale (right) to show “no action required” (green), 

“some action required” (yellow-orange), and “warning, changes must occur” (red).

Coral Restoration Consortium
22 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

of restoration techniques outlines the positive attributes of 

productive projects and programs and promotes the development 

of successful strategies. Therefore, this approach will advance the 

development of science-based benchmarks to achieve populationbased recovery for coral reefs. 

Within the evaluation tool, criteria are divided into sections relevant 

to the specific restoration. Criterion may be relevant at the project, 

program, or regional scale or based on the specific goals of the 

project (e.g., species enhancement, education and outreach, 

Event-Driven Restoration). Projects are defined as an individual 

coral field nursery or outplanting event (multiple outplanting 

events may occur at one outplant site, but may be considered 

and monitored as separate projects). Projects may also be scored 

and compared within or between programs/regions. Project-level 

success is largely based on the utilization of best management 

practices, overall coral survival and growth, and maintaining 

genetic and genotypic diversity of local coral populations. 

Programs are considered individual restoration partners or 

practitioners completing nursery or outplanting projects. Programlevel success is largely based on programmatic stability, spatial 

and temporal capabilities, and long-term potential. Regions may 

be considered counties, states, shelf units, countries (dependent 

on size), or any area where multiple projects and/or programs 

are conducting restoration (both nurseries and outplanting). 

Regional evaluations incorporate the scoring of multiple partners 

who are collaboratively restoring reefs within the same area/

region. Regional criteria are largely based on spatial coverage 

and functional capacity, communication and collaboration between 

partners, management agencies, and other stakeholders, and the 

potential for long-term strategies.

The Role of Science in Restoration

Habitat restoration is increasing in public awareness and political 

respectability due to advancements in science and subsequent 

science. In order to be influential, scientific ideas and experience 

must be offered in a timely manner and welcomed as a useful 

component of restoration, with the most desirable outcome being 

a review of all relevant ideas and best available science during the 

decision-making process (Turner, 2005). Integrating science into 

the big picture or broader program goals is done most effectively 

when formal mechanisms exist for incorporating science into 

programs and policy (Van Cleve et al., 2006). 

Effective science can be generated in a number of ways, including 

input from peer review, collaboration and multidisciplinary partners, 

using case studies, pilot studies, and baseline information to create 

conceptual models, and determining performance measures and 

program-specific goals early in the planning stage. Effective use 

of the science reflects an important focus in program evaluation 

and the assumption that the ineffective scientific methods in 

restoration can be diagnosed and corrected via systematic lessons 

learned studies (e.g., Day et al., 2004; Van Cleve, 2004). These 

elements combined have implications for adaptive management 

and highlight the importance of both content and process in 

restoration planning and implementation (Van Cleve et al., 2006). 

Furthermore, this method of checks and balances provides 

guidance to address missing links in a program or process and 

determine what is realistically possible and scientifically achievable 

under the constraints of capacity and funding.

4 Assessing Performance

Tanya Ramseyer/FWC Harmony Martell
23

Reef Renewal Bonaire

Chapter 5

Universal Metrics for 

Coral Reef Restoration

Restoration projects often have different goals, and “success” of 

a restoration site is dependent on whether or not the defined goal 

was achieved. However, there is a need to describe restoration 

sites that have differing goals, methods, and designs in a more 

standardized way to be able to make comparisons among sites. 

These Universal Metrics for coral reef restoration are designed to 

describe restoration size, composition, and status in a basic way 

that is comparable and useful amongst practitioners, scientists, 

and managers. Four Universal Metrics: 1) Landscape/Reef-level 

Metric: Restored Reef Areal Dimension, 2) Population-level 

Metrics, 3) Coral-level Metrics, and 4) Genetic and Genotypic 

Diversity are identified as metrics that should be collected at 

every restoration site on an annual basis (Table 1). The intended 

purpose for these Universal Metrics is to provide a framework of 

data that all practitioners can collect, regardless of their expertise 

and resources, in a standardized and meaningful way to allow 

comparison of restoration sites (what and how much was restored 

and how have restored sites fared through time).

The data collected for Universal Metrics #1–3 can be combined 

to provide an overall description of the restoration site. Metric # 1 

defines the boundary of the area(s) in which data are collected for # 

2 and #3. Universal Metric #2 describes the size of restored corals, 

and #3 provides additional details of the health and quality of 

restored corals by estimating partial mortality. By combining these 

three metrics, changes in restoration sites can be evaluated over 

time in terms of area, colony size, abundance, density, coral health, 

percent cover, and reproductive potential (based on coral size).

These Universal Metrics provide a standardized framework for the collection of restoration 

data that together evaluate the success of restoration over time within a program or 

between programs. The Universal Metrics are not designed to cover all aspects of restoration 

monitoring; therefore, we recommend defining a coral reef restoration program’s goals and 

objectives first (see Chapter 2), and then include additional metrics recommended in the 

Restoration Goal-Based Performance Metrics chapters of this document (Chapters 7–11) to 

complete the monitoring plan for each project or program based on specific needs.
24 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Within this chapter, four Universal Metrics are provided to evaluate coral restoration efforts in a concise and comparable manner (Table 1). The 

field of coral reef restoration is continually evolving, and it is likely that the proposed metrics may need to be dynamically updated with the evolving 

field. To further strengthen the usefulness of the Universal Metrics and allow for additional analysis, we also advise that if time, budget, 

and program capacity allows, Universal Metrics #2 and #3 should be replicated at control/reference sites, plots, or areas nearby your 

restoration site that are not being restored. This additional data collection will allow for comparison to sites that never received outplanting to 

evaluate restoration success. Guidance on selecting control/reference sites can be found in Chapter 3.

For each metric, we provide the following guidance for data collection: a rationale, definition of terms, diagrams, suggested methods, reporting, 

sampling frequency, and performance criteria (See Summary of Universal Metrics). In addition, this Guide connects to two additional products 

developed by the Coral Restoration Consortium’s Monitoring Working Group: 1) CRC Coral Restoration Database (Appendix 3), and 2) An 

Evaluation Tool for Coral Restoration (modified from Lirman et al., 2017). All three of these products have continuity in the reporting and 

evaluation; for example, each data type within the Universal Metrics is related to the Database (Appendix 1), and the Evaluation Tool (Appendix 2) 

connects these data collections to programmatic success (see the end of this chapter for a product integration summary). The continuity between 

these products makes for straightforward data reporting, program evaluation and comparison, and data sharing and collaboration. 

5 Universal Metrics
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 25

as groupings of restored corals that have a spacing of around 2 

meters or less between corals. If groupings of corals are separated 

by well over 2 m, they should be considered separate Outplant 

Plots and need to be measured individually. There may also be 

instances where the Outplant Plot area is equal to the Ecological 

Footprint (see Singular example in Figure 12). Outplant Plot area 

is only collected during the initial restoration, providing an initial 

baseline of planted area.

Ecological Footprint is the maximum areal extent of reef which 

encompasses all Outplant Plots using the shortest contiguous 

boundary. This area could be very similar or the same to 

the Outplant Plot during the initial survey depending on your 

restoration design (Figure 12). Separate Ecological Footprints 

should be measured if the distance between Outplant Plots is 

greater than 10 m or they are separated by a physical barrier that 

is not suitable habitat (e.g., a sand channel between two spurs or 

patch reefs; Figure 13). Small sand patches atop a reef can be 

included in the footprint. Subsequent surveys should include all 

living colonies attached or loose, both in their outplanted location 

or new location due to fragmentation/dislodgement (fragmented 

coral; Figure 12). Fragmented corals, assumed to originate from 

the outplanting, should be included in the footprint if they are within 

10 meters of another colony (outplanted or fragmented). Over time 

the Ecological Footprint may shift, grow, or shrink depending on 

the survival or propagation of restored corals. Following highenergy events, the restored area may change significantly. In some 

cases, corals may have moved completely from the previously 

mapped area; if this is the case, a survey of the surrounding 

reef area is warranted. Further, the change of RRAD over time, 

if georeferenced, may indicate direction of typical site energy as 

seen by the direction of coral movement.

Universal Metric #1: 

Landscape/Reef-level Metrics: Restored 

Reef Areal Dimension

Restored Reef Areal Dimension (RRAD) is a quick approximation 

of the overall reef area in which corals are planted and the 

area that restored corals have spread over time. This metric is 

valuable as it provides guidance for reporting standardized 

project size and area of restored reef to gauge the overall 

impact and success of a restoration project. The objective is to 

capture the growth/spread/persistence of the restored area, which 

is particularly important for branching species such as Acropora

species that are known to frequently break and re-attach across 

a site and are difficult to track at the individual colony level. For 

massive species, the RRAD may not change as quickly as for 

branching species, but maintaining adequate abundance within 

the Ecological Footprint over time is paramount to restoration 

success. In addition, to capture the impact of restoration, a site 

survey must be completed prior to restoration occurring, recording 

at a minimum, the presence and abundance of the species 

being used for restoration (See suggestions in the Outplant 

Site Selection section of the Guide to Field-Based Coral Reef 

Restoration [Goergen et al., in review]). RRAD is determined by 

two components: Outplant Plot and Ecological Footprint.

Outplant Plot is the approximate area (summed) of reef on 

which corals were outplanted. This is the area where active 

restoration (physically planting corals) was completed. Within a 

restoration site, there may be multiple plots depending on your 

project’s design (Figure 12). Individual Outplant Plots are defined 

Universal Metrics 5

Figure 12. Examples of Outplant Plot (orange area) and Ecological Footprint (blue boundary) on various restoration 

project designs (random, linear, gridded, belt, and singular). Time 1 is representative of the time of outplanting or shortly 

thereafter (within a month). Time 2 is representative of a future sampling event (annual or following a disturbance), 

orange Outplant Plots are lightened just for reference to Time 1 diagrams, but are not measured in Time 2.

Figure 13. Example of measuring 

the Ecological Footprint on a 

spur and groove-like reef 
26 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Possible Methods

The following are methods that could be used to collect both the 

Outplant Plot Area and Ecological Footprint. These suggestions 

are not exhaustive, but are to be used as examples or guidance. 

It is advised that the same method be used over time within a 

program to ensure data comparability. If a program decides to 

change the method, the old and new method should both be 

used during the transition monitoring event for comparability. The 

methods laid out below are basic guidance and modifications 

may need to be made depending on your programs restoration 

design or local conditions. Individual programs should define, prior 

to monitoring, the methods that will be used, how the boundary 

will be swum, what shape will be used if using length and width, 

and at what distance colonies should be included (herein 10 m is 

suggested, but this should be adapted to your program needs). 

The purposes of collecting RRAD are to compare at a broad 

scale the size of restoration projects and the changes of those 

projects over time (i.e., not an analysis of a few meter difference 

in area, but the change from 10s to 100s of meters). To aid in 

consistent repetitive monitoring, a map of the previously mapped 

areas could be brought with underwater or deploying temporary 

markers surrounding outplant colonies so the mapper can easily 

see the colonies which should be included in the area. Whichever 

technique is selected, it is important to identify the method and 

accuracy of the equipment used when reporting your RRAD.

In situ tracing

Utilizing a handheld global positioning system (GPS), a surface 

swimmer (snorkeler or diver) traces the Ecological Footprint by 

marking waypoints over restored corals in an attempt to mark the 

boundary of the area of restored corals. Collected waypoints can 

then be exported into geographic information mapping software 

such as ArcGIS®, QGIS, or Google Earth® to create a polygon 

in which all the restored corals are located and an area can be 

calculated — Outplant Plot and/or Ecological Footprint.

This method is best for field conditions with calm seas and 

with water clarity that allow for the surface swimmer to easily 

identify restored corals form the surface. To increase accuracy, 

temporary markers may be deployed on the substrate next to the 

restored corals to provide guidance for the swimmer. This may be 

necessary for restoration projects that utilize smaller corals or are 

restoring deeper sites. Examples from the literature (Devine et al., 

2005; Lirman et al., 2010; Walker et al., 2012; Miller et al., 2016a) 

outline use of this method in depth. 

Accuracy of Equipment: Depends on GPS instrument 

specifications (wide area augmentation system [WAAS], differential 

global positioning system [DGPS]) and visibility, but <3 m 95% 

accuracy is typical. 

5 Universal Metrics

Figure 14. Example of the change in number of Ecological Footprints as restoration corals fragment and spread across the site filling 

in the gap between outplant corals. 

Stephanie Schopmeyer

As sites change over time, the number of Ecological Footprints may change. For example, if your original restoration design consisted of multiple 

Outplant Plots separated by more than 20 m, you would initially have multiple Footprints. If the restored corals fragment and spread across the site 

to fill in the distance between restored corals, the number of Footprints at a site would be reduced although the total footprint of the restored area 

may increase (Figure 14).

Required Units: Surface area (m2) by each component of RRAD, note the accuracy of the measuring device and the method used.
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 27

Mosaics

RRAD can be calculated from photomosaics of a restoration 

site. Underwater landscape mosaics are image-based tools for 

large-area (10s–1000s of m2) coral reef mapping and monitoring. 

A mosaic image is a spatially explicit georeferenced composite 

of images of a site usually taken from an overhead perspective. 

Photomosaics can combine the practicality of large-scale, rapidreef survey effort with the high power to detect change in benthic 

cover or colonies provided by permanent site monitoring. Imagery 

can be collected via divers or drones, and protocols differ between 

methods and groups conducting each method (Appendix 4). The 

Coral Restoration Consortium’s Monitoring Working Group webinar 

on “Photomosaics as a Tool for Monitoring Coral Restoration 

Success” can be found online (Appendix 3).

To collect imagery for a mosaic, a restoration site is first delineated 

using georeferenced permanent markers on the corners or on 

the boundary of the proposed survey area. A mosaic survey can 

then be performed over the area delineated by the markers using 

overlapping patterns to ensure complete coverage and overlap of 

images. Collected images are then processed by using specific 

software (e.g., Agisoft) to create a mosaic image of the restoration 

site. After the mosaic is complete, both the Outplant Plots and 

Ecological Footprint can be delineated on the image, and areas 

calculated using spatial software such as ArcGIS® (Figure 16). 

Note that imagery data are large and can require significant 

computational capacity. 

If using mosaics to survey for RRAD, include a significant buffer 

around the area of outplanted corals to account for future growth 

and areal spread of restored corals. The size of the buffer will 

depend on specific site conditions, habitat availability, and species 

used; a larger buffer should be used for species that fragment 

more frequently.

Maximum Length and Width

Using a flexible survey tape, divers or snorkelers will measure 

the greatest length and width of the area where restored 

corals are located. The measurement of the area could be 

completed using multiple measurements if the area is large or is 

heavily misrepresented using only one set of length and width 

measurements (Figure 15).

Accuracy of Equipment: Length and width measurements should 

be reported to the nearest 0.5 m. Best judgment should be used 

when determining which shape (square, rectangle, circle, ellipse, 

etc.) is used to estimate the project footprint.

Mapping software

Aerial imagery such as in Google Earth®, ArcGIS®, or QGIS can 

be used for RRAD. Based on local field knowledge, the perimeter 

of the Ecological Footprint can be traced to create a polygon. Area 

can be calculated from the polygon in a mapping software program. 

Universal Metrics 5

Figure 15. Options for measuring 

the Ecological Footprint of your 

restoration site using length and 

width measurements (A-D). Multiple 

areas or shapes could be used to best 

represent the site and distribution or 

the restored corals (B, D). 

Margaux Hein
28 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Examples from the literature outline the use of this method in 

depth (Lirman and Fong, 2007; Gintert et al., 2012; Griffin et al., 

2015; Gintert et al., 2018). 

Accuracy of Equipment: Equipment and techniques used 

will determine the quality and usability of the mosaic. For 

an equipment reference, Gintert et al. (2012) completed a 

comprehensive analysis of output quality using a variety of 

cameras and both still and video image capture techniques. 

Reporting

Outplant Plot and Ecological Footprint should each be reported as 

cumulative area (m2) per restoration site. For example, if a site has 

numerous Outplant Plots, the reported value is a sum of the area 

of all Outplant Plots (Figure 14). Collected data should be reported 

in program-specific databases as well as uploaded into the CRC 

Coral Restoration Database (Appendix 1), which can be found 

online (Appendix 3).

Sampling Frequency 

At minimum, RRAD sampling should be completed at every 

restoration site immediately following an outplanting event (Figure 

5). Annual surveys are recommended to capture the success 

of restoration across time and can be used as indicators of 

program success or trigger the need for adaptive management 

strategies (Figure 5). Depending on the restoration objective and 

if using mosaics, collection of mosaics prior to restoration efforts 

may be useful to show the pre-restoration condition. In addition, 

surveys following a disturbance could provide data on restoration 

disturbance impacts, further informing guidance on restoration 

management and site design and selection.

Performance Criteria

The Ecological Footprint should show no net decrease over time 

from the original Outplant Plot area for all species and should 

ideally increase. If a net decrease in the Ecological Footprint is 

observed due to outplant mortality, the cause of the decrease in 

area restored should be ascertained in order to evaluate whether 

adaptive management strategies are necessary.

Evaluation Tool Criteria Alignment (Appendix 2): Universal 

Metric #1 aligns with two criteria: 

1. Restored Reef Areal Dimension (or RRAD) is measured 

at each restoration site. If measurements were recorded 

a project will receive a score of 1 (Evaluation Tool 

Outplanting Criteria #5).

2. Restored footprint or area shows no net decrease over 

time from original project area. If restored footprint or 

area stays the same or increases from the original project 

area a project will receive a score of 1 (Evaluation Tool 

Outplanting Criteria #6).

Further descriptions and supporting research of the Evaluation 

Tool Criteria can be found in Appendix 2 and online (Appendix 3).

5 Universal Metrics

Figure 16. Example of a mosaic of a restoration site (Griffin et al., 2015; Figure 2). The red line outlines the original Outplant Plot 

and Ecological Footprint (2006), and the white line outlines Ecological Footprint in 2014.
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 29

nearest 5 cm. Programs that are using different size classes, use 

the center point of your size that is most comparable for entry into 

the database (Table 3 and example below). However, going forward 

we encourage you to use these size classes. If micro-fragments are 

used for restoration, the diameter of each micro-fragment should 

be measured and not the size of the substrate (i.e., old coral head) 

on which they were outplanted. When fusion of outplanted colonies 

occurs, colonies should be measured as one.

Coral Fusion

Coral fusion occurs when two or more individual corals of the 

same species join as one and may occur in some restorations 

depending on the species or techniques that were used. This is a 

likely situation in fast growing species that have a higher frequency 

of dislodgement and fragmentation; corals may fragment and 

roll into each other creating larger colonies. Another likely fusion 

scenario is when micro-fragments are used for outplanting, as 

these are typically planted in very close proximity to each other 

in the hopes that they fuse together creating a larger colony. In 

all cases of fusion, maximum diameter should be taken using 

the combined, fused colonies and not the individual parts. For 

example, if 10 micro-fragments were outplanted on a substrate 

the size class of 10 individual colonies would be reported during 

the initial monitoring, as the fragments grow it is likely that after 

a number of years the number of colonies would be reduced to a 

fewer number of colonies or perhaps just one colony if fusion of 

all fragments occurred. The observation of fusion will be reported 

in the database as a presence or absence by species at each 

restoration site. The reporting of fusion will help support the 

reporting of a reduction of coral abundance.

Universal Metric #2: 

Population-level Metrics 

Population-level Metrics describe the restored population through 

mean coral size, abundance, size-frequency distribution, and when 

combined with RRAD (area of restored reef) practitioners can 

roughly estimate percent of the restored reef that is covered in coral 

(percent coral cover) and calculate the density of restored colonies 

per m2. Mean coral size is used as a broad look at the restored 

population, whereas the distribution of corals amongst size 

classes can provide insight into population maturity and 

contribution to habitat complexity. The change over time in 

the distribution of corals within size classes also provides 

information about coral growth and health (Hughes, 1984; 

Hughes and Connell, 1987; Bak and Meesters, 1998; Brito-Millán 

et al., 2019), although some caution should be taken as size does 

not always equate to age and growth (Hughes and Jackson, 1980). 

Change in abundance is also a good measure of coral survival or 

retention. Restoration projects using more than one species should 

collect these data separately for each species. While change in 

these population-level metrics will be very slow for most massive 

coral species, this metric is very important for branching and fast 

growing species as changes can occur quickly and frequently 

(Lirman, 2003; Riegl and Purkis, 2009; Vardi et al., 2012; MercadoMolina et al., 2015; Riegl et al., 2017; Goergen and Gilliam, 2018). 

A restored coral is defined as one continuous skeletal unit, which 

has live tissue. Isolated tissue areas on one skeletal unit are 

considered part of one coral as long as the skeleton is continuous 

between the living tissue areas (Figure 17). Maximum coral 

diameter defines coral size, which includes the entire skeleton both 

living and dead. Note: estimated live tissue will be calculated later 

using Universal Metric #3.

When measuring branching corals, maximum coral diameter is the 

greatest length across the coral from branch tip to branch tip; branch 

tips can be living or dead, whichever is the maximum (Figure 17D).

These measurements are meant to be a quick estimate of coral size 

and do not require precise coral measurements. Coral sizes should 

be classified into the following bins: <5 cm; 5–10; 11–20; 21–30; 

31–40; 41–50; 51–75; 76–100; >100 cm (Table 3). Corals greater 

than 100 cm in maximum diameter should be measured to the 

Universal Metrics 5

Figure 17. Maximum colony diameter (yellow line) of mounding and branching 

corals. Images C and D provide examples of measuring colonies with partial 

mortality or tissue isolates on a continuous connected skeletal unit. Image 

credit: Nova Southeastern University CRRAM Lab.

Size Class <5 5-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-75 76-100 >100

Central 

point 3 7.5 15.5 25.5 35.5 45.5 63 88 use coral size

Table 3. Values (cm) for the central point of each size class.

Whitney Hoot
30 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Required Units: Mean coral size by species (in cm); Abundance 

of coral by species (#); Percentage or number of corals per species 

by size class (in % or #). Combined with Universal Metric #1: 

Restored Reef Areal Dimension Cover of restored coral (in % for 

percent cover or m2 for area) and Density of restored coral (corals/

m2) can be determined. It is important to identify the method used 

by your program when reporting your distribution data.

Possible Methods

The following are methods that could be used to collect the data 

for the Population-level Metrics. These suggestions are provided 

as examples or guidance and are not an exhaustive list. It is 

important to identify the method used by your program when 

reporting your distribution data. In addition, if using these data 

to describe cover and density, the method used to collect RRAD 

should also be reported.

Ecological Footprint Survey

Within the area defined as the Ecological Footprint, divers 

will survey restored colonies. Maximum coral diameter will be 

estimated for each coral using a PVC measuring stick, flexible 

tape, or ruler. The measuring tool can be marked in 10 cm 

increments for rapid classification of colonies into size classes (see 

example datasheet in Figure 18).

Depending on the size of the Ecological Footprint, transect lines 

or temporary markers may be used to minimize overlap in data 

collection, divide the footprint to smaller sections (sub-areas within 

the footprint), and ensure all areas are surveyed. 

Additional data collection option:

A map of the Ecological Footprint and the locations of restored 

corals within it over time can provide insight on site dynamics (e.g., 

the typical directional movement of corals across the site based on 

currents or waves). This can be completed by divers estimating the 

location of corals within the Ecological Footprint while collecting the 

coral size data (Figure 19). In order to ensure that surveyors avoid 

double counting corals, sub-sampling areas can be established 

by using transect tapes or temporary markers around the site. A 

handheld GPS could be used to mark waypoints over every coral 

within the Ecological Footprint, and waypoints can be uploaded into 

mapping software to create a georeferenced map of all restored 

corals within the Ecological Footprint (Miller et al., 2016a). 

 

Mosaics

Population-level Metrics can be collected from photomosaics (see 

data collection limitations of mosaics in Appendix 4). The result of 

the mosaic process is a high-resolution photographic archive of all 

benthic organisms within the area of interest that can be used to 

assess coral community health at the time of the mosaic survey 

(Methods for obtaining a mosaic are above in Universal Metric 

#1 and Appendix 4). The integrated mosaic and high-resolution 

images can be used to improve coral species identification and 

health assessments. Coral colonies can be followed through 

time based on their geographic location within the mosaic image. 

Individual tagging of coral colonies is not needed using the mosaic 

survey method. For example, methods of obtaining coral size 

data from a mosaic see Appendix 4. Examples from the literature 

outline in depth how to use this method (Burns et al., 2015; Gintert 

et al., 2018; Fukunaga et al., 2019).

5 Universal Metrics

Figure 18. Example datasheet for collecting coral 

size-frequency distribution data.

100 Island Challenge, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, University of California San Diego (UCSD)
Sub-Sampling

Depending on the size of restoration, measurements of all restored colonies may not be feasible or advised due to time constraints. In this scenario, 

surveys can be conducted at a subset of the colonies at each restoration site. Subsetting can be done by selecting a portion (15–20%1) of the 

Ecological Footprint to represent the condition, health, and growth of the corals at the site including all species and representative genotypes. 

Survey of the same subset area over time is not necessary (depending on objectives), but it is important to report that only a portion of the area was 

surveyed. If using the coral fate tracking method (see Universal Metric #3: Colony-level Metrics), a subset of the corals (20% or up to 50 corals1) can 

be chosen for your survey, but should be chosen prior to or during outplanting and kept consistent across the project to avoid bias and to provide an 

accurate estimate of survival. Methods for choosing the colonies and area can be found in Chapter 3.

Figure 19. Example datasheets for collecting 

size class data while mapping restored 

colonies at the site for (A) linear and (B) 

belt outplant designs. Data in this example 

are collected by writing the size class of 

the coral using the key in its approximate 

location. The dotted lines on the map with 

distances 5 and 10 m are only used to guide 

the surveyor and can be modified to the 

practitioners needs.

Universal Metrics 5

Fragments of Hope

1 Proportions were chosen based on current Florida, USA permitting regulations for restoration. This proportion may need to be modified to fit a program’s permitting regulations or 

reporting needs.

31
32 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Reporting

Data collected for Population-level Metrics should be reported as number of 

corals per designated size class by species at each site. From these data, the 

following analyses can be performed: mean coral size, total abundance, and 

coral size-frequency distribution (as a percentage or number of colonies per sizeclass). In combination with the area reported for the Ecological Footprint, a rough 

estimate of percent cover and density of restored corals can also be calculated. 

Collected data in the form of number of corals per size class and if data represent 

a subset of corals/outplants should be reported in program specific databases 

as well as uploaded into the CRC Coral Restoration Database (Appendix 1), 

which can be found online (Appendix 3). The above metrics can be automatically 

calculated within the CRC Coral Restoration Database for each project; however, 

the equations are provided below for program specific databases. 

Abundance is a sum of the total number of restored corals within the Ecological Footprint. This value over time will provide a rough estimate of 

restored species survival.

Percentage of corals per size class should be calculated by dividing the number of corals in the respective size class by the total number of 

colonies within the Ecological Footprint or number sampled.

To determine the mean coral size, use the following equation:

Where nscx is the number of colonies in the provided size class and the multiplier represents the 

central point of the associated size class (Table 3). For size class 9 (>100 cm), add each colony 

measurement in the equation. 

If data were collected using different size classes, such as 5–10, 10–25, 25–50, 50–100 cm, data 

should be reported using the central points of each size class and entering it in the category which 

is most similar in the database. For example, the central points for these sizes classes are 7.5, 17.5, 

37.5, and 75, respectively. Therefore, data would be entered under 7.5, 15.5, 35.5, and either 63 or 

88 (practitioner’s judgment call on which would be most representative), respectively, the other size 

classes would remain blank.

Mean Coral Size Example:

Using the example data in Table 4 and the equation above, mean coral size is estimated as 32 cm.

Bonus Reporting: Combined with the Universal Metric #1: Restored Reef Areal Dimension, cover 

of restored coral (in % for percent cover or m2 for area), and density of restored coral (corals/m2) 

can be roughly estimated at the time of outplanting. Mosaics could also be used to estimate coral 

cover and density of outplanted corals (see mosaic methods sections throughout the document for 

guidance). When estimating % coral cover during future monitoring events, Universal Metric #3 (% 

live tissue) must be included to incorporate potential partial mortality that could have occurred since 

outplanting at Time 1. See Universal Metric #3 Reporting.

5 Universal Metrics

Page: 32

xx̅= (nnSSSS1 × 3) + (nnSSSS2 × 7.5) + (nnSSSS3 × 15.5) + (nnSSSS4 × 25.5) + ⋯ + (nnSSSS8 × 88) + ssss9

∑ nnSSSS1−9

Page: 32

xx̅= (1 × 3) + (14 × 7.5) + (13 × 15.5) + (24 × 25.5) + ⋯ + (5 × 88) + 105 + 101 + 110

93 = 32 cc

Page: 33

TTTTTTTTTT CC CCCCCC ( cc2) = (nnSSSS1 × 5) + (nnSSSS2 × 33) + (nnSSSS3 × 172) + (nnSSSS4 × 383) + ⋯ + (nnSSSS8 × 4562) + SS 9

Page: 33

Percent Cover= 

Total CC CCCCCC 10,000cm2⁄ m2

Area of Ecological Footprint

Page: 33 Table 5

AA = ππ ×

1

2 dd ×

3

8 dd

AA = 1

4 ππdd2

Page: 37

xx̅= ((nnLT1 × 0) + (nnLT2 × 12.5) + (nnLT3 × 40) + (nnLT4 × 65) + (nnLT5 × 87) + (nnLT6 × 100)/∑nnLT1−6

Page: 37

Whitney Hoot

Hector Ruiz

The Nature Conservancy

Species / Size Class (cm) <5 5-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-75 76-100 >100

Acropora cervicornis 1 14 13 24 25 5 3 5 105, 101, 110

Table 4. Example data collected for coral size-frequency.

Tiffany Boisvert/FWC

Page: 32

xx̅= (nnSSSS1 × 3) + (nnSSSS2 × 7.5) + (nnSSSS3 × 15.5) + (nnSSSS4 × 25.5) + ⋯ + (nnSSSS8 × 88) + ssss9

∑ nnSSSS1−9

Page: 32

xx̅= (1 × 3) + (14 × 7.5) + (13 × 15.5) + (24 × 25.5) + ⋯ + (5 × 88) + 105 + 101 + 110

93 = 32 cc

Page: 33

TTTTTTTTTT CC CCCCCC ( cc2) = (nnSSSS1 × 5) + (nnSSSS2 × 33) + (nnSSSS3 × 172) + (nnSSSS4 × 383) + ⋯ + (nnSSSS8 × 4562) + SS 9

Page: 33

Percent Cover= 

Total CC CCCCCC 10,000cm2

m2 ⁄

Area of Ecological Footprint

Page: 33 Table 5

AA = ππ ×

1

2 dd ×

3

8 dd

1

2
Cover Estimate Example: 

Using the area from Figure 15D (1,132 m2) and the example distribution data from above, cover can be estimated by using the 

approximate areas of a coral from Table 5 or if more detailed data such as length, width, and height of the colony were collected. 

These examples are provided as guidance, there are many other ways your program may choose to determine cover or other 

metric outputs herein. A. cervicornis is best represented as an ellipse (Huntington and Miller, 2013). Therefore, the Total Cover, in 

area, of restored corals for this example is 85,610 cm2 (8.56 m2) which is 0.8% cover within the Ecological Footprint.

Where nscx is the number of colonies in the provided size class and the multiplier represents the area of one colony of the 

associated size class. For size class 9 (>100 cm), the area of each colony should be added to the equation using the formulas in 

Table 5. 

Density Example: Using the same data as the above example the density of restored corals in the Ecological Footprint would be 92 

corals/1,132 m2= 0.08 corals/m2.

Sampling Frequency

Minimally, Population-level Metric sampling should be completed at every restoration site immediately following an outplanting event 

(Figure 5). During the initial survey, wild coral abundance and location within the Ecological Footprint should also be noted so future 

conclusions can be made about the impact of restoration activities. Annual sampling is recommended to capture changes in restored 

coral survival, population growth, and abundance (Figure 5). It is highly recommended that these data collections occur over the longterm, over 5 years. In addition, sampling following a disturbance will provide data on restoration disturbance impacts such as coral 

loss, movement, and change in size-class distribution (Figure 5). 

Universal Metrics 5

Table 5. Approximate area (cm2) of a coral colony for the given size classes based on an ellipse or circle. Choose 

the shape that best represents the corals used for restoration (Huntington and Miller, 2013). 

Estimated Area /

Size Class <5 5-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-75 76-100 >100

Based on an ellipse

(nnSSSS2 × 7.5) + (nnSSSS3 × 15.5) + (nnSSSS4 × 25.5) + ⋯ + (nnSSSS8 × 88) + ssss9

∑ nnSSSS1−9

5) + (13 × 15.5) + (24 × 25.5) + ⋯ + (5 × 88) + 105 + 101 + 110

93 = 32 cc

1 × 5) + (nnSSSS2 × 33) + (nnSSSS3 × 172) + (nnSSSS4 × 383) + ⋯ + (nnSSSS8 × 4562) + SS 9

Percent Cover= 

Total CC CCCCCC 10,000cm2⁄ m2

Area of Ecological Footprint

AA = ππ × 1

2 dd × 38 dd

AA = 1

4 ππdd2

× 12.5) + (nnLT3 × 40) + (nnLT4 × 65) + (nnLT5 × 87) + (nnLT6 × 100)/∑nnLT1−6

CC CCCCCC =

(TTTTTTTTTT CC CCCCCC 10,000 cc2⁄ 2 ) × MM PP LLLL

AA oo EE EE FF oo

5 33 142 383 742 1,219 2,338 4,562 Based on 

coral size

Based on a circle

SS2 × 7.5) + (nnSSSS3 × 15.5) + (nnSSSS4 × 25.5) + ⋯ + (nnSSSS8 × 88) + ssss9

∑ nnSSSS1−9

(13 × 15.5) + (24 × 25.5) + ⋯ + (5 × 88) + 105 + 101 + 110

93 = 32 cc

5) + (nnSSSS2 × 33) + (nnSSSS3 × 172) + (nnSSSS4 × 383) + ⋯ + (nnSSSS8 × 4562) + SS 9

Percent Cover= 

Total CC CCCCCC 10,000cm2⁄ m2

Area of Ecological Footprint

AA = ππ × 1

2 dd × 38 dd

AA = 1

4 ππdd2

.5) + (nnLT3 × 40) + (nnLT4 × 65) + (nnLT5 × 87) + (nnLT6 × 100)/∑nnLT1−6

CCCCCC =

(TTTTTTTTTT CC CCCCCC 10,000 cc2⁄ 2 ) × MM PP LLLL

AA oo EE EE FF oo

7 44 189 511 990 1,626 3,117 6,082 Based on 

coral size

Reef Renewal Bonaire

xx= 

∑ nnSSSS1−9

Page: 32

xx̅= (1 × 3) + (14 × 7.5) + (13 × 15.5) + (24 × 25.5) + ⋯ + (5 × 88) + 105 + 101 + 110

93 = 32 cc

Page: 33

TTTTTTTTTT CC CCCCCC ( cc2) = (nnSSSS1 × 5) + (nnSSSS2 × 33) + (nnSSSS3 × 172) + (nnSSSS4 × 383) + ⋯ + (nnSSSS8 × 4562) + SS 9

Page: 33

Percent Cover= 

Total CC CCCCCC 10,000cm2⁄ m2

Area of Ecological Footprint

Page: 33 Table 5

AA = ππ ×

1

2 dd ×

3

8 dd

AA = 1

4 ππdd2

Page: 37

xx̅= ((nnLT1 × 0) + (nnLT2 × 12.5) + (nnLT3 × 40) + (nnLT4 × 65) + (nnLT5 × 87) + (nnLT6 × 100)/∑nnLT1−6

Page: 37

PP CC CCCCCC =

(TTTTTTTTTT CC CCCCCC 10,000 cc2⁄ 2 ) × MM PP LLLL

AA oo EE EE FF oo

33

∑ nnSSSS1−9

Page: 32

xx̅= (1 × 3) + (14 × 7.5) + (13 × 15.5) + (24 × 25.5) + ⋯ + (5 × 88) + 105 + 101 + 110

93 = 32 cc

Page: 33

TTTTTTTTTT CC CCCCCC ( cc2) = (nnSSSS1 × 5) + (nnSSSS2 × 33) + (nnSSSS3 × 172) + (nnSSSS4 × 383) + ⋯ + (nnSSSS8 × 4562) + SS 9

Page: 33

Percent Cover= 

Total CC CCCCCC 10,000cm2⁄ m2

Area of Ecological Footprint

Page: 33 Table 5

AA = ππ ×

1

2 dd ×

3

8 dd

AA = 1

4 ππdd2

Page: 37

xx̅= ((nnLT1 × 0) + (nnLT2 × 12.5) + (nnLT3 × 40) + (nnLT4 × 65) + (nnLT5 × 87) + (nnLT6 × 100)/∑nnLT1−6

Page: 37

PP CC CCCCCC =

(TTTTTTTTTT CC CCCCCC 10,000 cc2⁄ 2 ) × MM PP LLLL

AA oo EE EE FF oo
34 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Performance Criteria

The distribution of restored coral sizes should remain similar 

to initial distribution or show a shift towards greater frequency 

of larger colonies (Figure 20). A general shift towards smaller 

colonies in the distribution from the initial distribution, a reduction in 

the mean coral size or total abundance should be evaluated, and 

adaptive management strategies should be used if appropriate. 

Evaluation Tool Criteria Alignment (Appendix 2): Universal 

Metric #2 aligns with two criteria:

1. Restored corals display positive net change in coral size 

(determined by an increase in mean colony size of shift to 

larger colonies in size-class frequency distribution) or no 

net decrease in abundance (branching species of staghorn 

Acropora only). If corals (all species) display positive net 

growth (increase in total linear extension, max diameter, 

colony area, % colonies in larger size classes) and/or no 

net change in abundance a project will receive a score of 1 

(Evaluation Tool Outplanting Criteria #9). 

2. Restored corals exhibit high coral survivorship within the 

first year post-outplanting. If the annual survival of restored 

corals (by species) is over 80%, a project will receive a 

score of 1 (Evaluation Tool Outplanting Criteria #12). 

Further descriptions and supporting research of the Evaluation 

Tool Criteria can be found in Appendix 2 and online (Appendix 3).

5 Universal Metrics

Figure 20. Example size-frequency 

distributions of restored corals from 

(A) initial, (B) 1 year , and (C) 2 year.

Whitney Hoot

The Nature Conservancy

Universal Metric #3: 

Colony-level Metrics

To gauge the success of restoration it is important to measure 

colony survival. Because corals, as clonal organisms, can 

experience partial mortality, we suggest collecting these data by 

estimating the amount of live tissue by species per restoration 

site. This metric is important for evaluating growth, cover, and 

success of a restoration site. When combined with size-class 

distribution data, a rough estimate of the amount of tissue (in 

area-m2) per site can be determined.

The estimate of live tissue per colony should be recorded from 

a planar view by tallying colonies into the following rankings: 0% 

(dead); 1–25%; 26–50%; 51–75%; 76–99%; or 100% alive (Figure 

21). It is likely that the number of dead colonies reported will be 

an underestimation because as colonies die, they may fragment, 

become dislodged, bioeroded, or become overgrown and not 

easily identified.

Recent mortality is also an important health characteristic to 

track on restored corals; however, it is not directly included as 

a Universal Metric because the suggested frequency of data 

collection for Universal Metrics is annual, which is not an adequate 

frequency for tracking or describing recent mortality. Therefore, 

we have chosen instead to use the percent of living tissue and 

suggest that the health of restored corals by way of recent 
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 35

Universal Metrics 5

Figure 21. Examples of estimating live tissue per coral. Red represents live 

tissue, gray represents bare/colonized skeleton.

mortality and disease, bleaching, and predation prevalence be 

described using the metrics in Restoration Goal-Based Performance 

Metric #1.3.

Required Units: Mean percent live tissue per coral (in %); Percentage 

or number of corals in each ranking of mortality (in % or #).

Possible Methods

The following are methods that could be used to collect an estimate of 

coral partial mortality. These suggestions are not exhaustive, but are 

to be used as examples or guidance. Whichever technique is chosen, 

it is important to identify the method used when reporting your data.

Methods used for Universal Metric #2: Population-level Metrics 

can be applied to this metric; see above for detailed descriptions of 

methods:

Ecological Footprint Survey

Follow the methods outlined above in Universal Metric #2, replacing 

coral size with an estimate of live tissue. Figure 22 illustrates an 

example datasheet for data collection using this method.

Mosaics

Follow the methods described in both Universal Metrics #1 and #2 

and the guidance provided in program-specific standard operating 

procedures found in Appendix 4.

Coral Fate Tracking

This method is best used for new programs to obtain knowledge and 

data on coral growth and health to evaluate the success of a site 

and techniques used. Individual restored/outplanted colonies can be 

tagged or mapped within the Outplant Plot to monitor over time, and 

using this method allows practitioners to track the health of individual 

colonies. However, this method can be extremely time consuming as 

a program grows. Unlike the Ecological Footprint survey, this method 

covers the same area and surveys the same colonies during every 

survey event; therefore, individual coral growth and health can be 

measured (rather than an estimate of the population growth). Fate 

Figure 22. Example datasheet for collecting estimated live tissue data using the Ecological Footprint 

survey.

tracking colonies works well for coral species that do not frequently 

fragment or their primary mode of reproduction is not asexual (i.e., 

non-Acroporid species), as it can underestimate coral survival and 

restoration success for those branching species. As a restoration 

program grows, coral fate tracking can be more time intensive than 

other methods due to the time needed for finding coral tags and 

to ensure that data on the same colonies are collected over time. 

For a large-scale restoration, we recommend random selection of 

a subset of the colonies outplanted that represent the species and 

genotypes outplanted to each site.

Sub-Sampling

Depending on the size of restoration, measurements of all restored 

colonies may not be feasible or advised due to time constraints. 

In this scenario, surveys can be conducted on a subset of the 

colonies at each restoration site. Methods for choosing the 

colonies and area can be found in Chapter 3 and must follow 

the same subsetting methods chosen for Universal Metric #2.

The Nature Conservancy
36 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

5 Universal Metrics

Reporting

Estimated live coral tissue should be reported for each species as the number of corals in each class 

of live tissue at each site. These data can then be analyzed in four ways: 1) restored coral survival, 2) 

percentage or number of corals per class of live tissue, 3) percent of corals with partial mortality, and 4) 

mean percent live tissue per restored coral. In addition, in combination with Universal Metrics #1 and #2, 

a rough estimate of percent cover of restored corals can be calculated. 

Collected data, in the form of number of corals per live tissue class and if a subset of corals/outplants 

was used, should be reported in program-specific databases as well as uploaded into the CRC Coral 

Restoration Database (Appendix 1), which can be found online (Appendix 3). The above metrics can 

be automatically calculated within the CRC Coral Restoration Database for each project, however, the 

equations are provided below for program-specific databases.

An estimate of coral survival can be made by dividing the total number of colonies tallied with live tissue 

by the total number of corals outplanted. Survival in this application is defined as the total number of 

colonies with any live tissue. While dead colonies can be reported, this tally may be a misrepresentation 

of colony survival because as colonies die they quickly become colonized and difficult to identify. 

The distribution of coral partial mortality can be reported by the number or percent of corals per live 

tissue class. Percent of corals in each of the classes is found by dividing the number of corals in the 

respective class by the total number of colonies within the Ecological Footprint or number sampled.

Percent of corals with partial mortality (prevalence) is calculated by dividing the sum of colonies that 

have between 1–99% of live tissue by the total number of colonies surveyed minus dead colonies. For 

example, using the data from Table 6, the percent of colonies with partial mortality is 38% (35/93). 

To determine the mean percent live tissue per restored coral use the following equation:

Where nLTX is the number of colonies in the provided class and the multiplier represents the central point of the associated class 

(Table 7). For the example data in Table 6, the calculated mean percent live tissue is 88%.

Bonus Reporting: Combined with Universal Metrics #1 and #2, cover of restored coral (in % for percent cover or m2 for area) 

can be roughly estimated. For the initial monitoring event, this can be estimated by using only Universal Metric #1 and #2, as the 

corals are likely to be 100% alive. Because the data collected for Universal Metric #2 and #3 are not paired (coral size data and 

percent cover are not reported together), direct correlation between size and percent live tissue cannot be made. For example, 

our data does not inform us of the percent living of a 10 cm colony, only the number of colonies that are between 5–10 cm and 

the number of colonies with 76–99% living tissue, which may or may not be the same colonies. Therefore, percent cover reported 

here is a rough estimate based on means, and an explanation of this process should be given when reporting these data. 

Cover Estimate Example: Using the area from Figure 15 (1,132 m2) and the example size and percent live tissue distribution 

data below (Table 8 and Table 9), cover can be estimated by using the following equation:

Species / Live Tissue Class Dead 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-99% 100%

Acropora cervicornis 3 2 3 3 27 55

Table 6. Example data collected for coral estimated live tissue.

Live Tissue Class Dead 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-99% 100%

Central point 0 12.5 40 65 87 100

Table 7. Values (%) for the central point of each estimated live tissue class.

Reef Renewal Bonaire

Louise Giueffi/NOAA

Page: 32

xx̅= (nnSSSS1 × 3) + (nnSSSS2 × 7.5) + (nnSSSS3 × 15.5) + (nnSSSS4 × 25.5) + ⋯ + (nnSSSS8 × 88) + ssss9

∑ nnSSSS1−9

Page: 32

xx̅= (1 × 3) + (14 × 7.5) + (13 × 15.5) + (24 × 25.5) + ⋯ + (5 × 88) + 105 + 101 + 110

93 = 32 cc

Page: 33

TTTTTTTTTT CC CCCCCC ( cc2) = (nnSSSS1 × 5) + (nnSSSS2 × 33) + (nnSSSS3 × 172) + (nnSSSS4 × 383) + ⋯ + (nnSSSS8 × 4562) + SS 9

Page: 33

Percent Cover= 

Total CC CCCCCC 10,000cm2⁄ m2

Area of Ecological Footprint

Page: 33 Table 5

AA = ππ ×

1

2 dd ×

3

8 dd

AA = 1

4 ππdd2

Page: 37

xx̅= ((nnLT1 × 0) + (nnLT2 × 12.5) + (nnLT3 × 40) + (nnLT4 × 65) + (nnLT5 × 87) + (nnLT6 × 100)/∑nnLT1−6

Page: 37

PP CC CCCCCC =

(TTTTTTTTTT CC CCCCCC 10,000 cc2⁄ 2 ) × MM PP LLLL

AA oo EE EE FF oo

age: 32

xx̅= (nnSSSS1 × 3) + (nnSSSS2 × 7.5) + (nnSSSS3 × 15.5) + (nnSSSS4 × 25.5) + ⋯ + (nnSSSS8 × 88) + ssss9

∑ nnSSSS1−9

age: 32

xx̅= (1 × 3) + (14 × 7.5) + (13 × 15.5) + (24 × 25.5) + ⋯ + (5 × 88) + 105 + 101 + 110

93 = 32 cc

age: 33

TTTTTTTTTT CC CCCCCC ( cc2) = (nnSSSS1 × 5) + (nnSSSS2 × 33) + (nnSSSS3 × 172) + (nnSSSS4 × 383) + ⋯ + (nnSSSS8 × 4562) + SS 9

age: 33

Percent Cover= 

Total CC CCCCCC 10,000cm2⁄ m2

Area of Ecological Footprint

age: 33 Table 5

AA = ππ ×

1

2 dd ×

3

8 dd

AA = 1

4 ππdd2

age: 37

xx̅= ((nnLT1 × 0) + (nnLT2 × 12.5) + (nnLT3 × 40) + (nnLT4 × 65) + (nnLT5 × 87) + (nnLT6 × 100)/∑nnLT1−6

age: 37

PP CC CCCCCC =

(TTTTTTTTTT CC CCCCCC 10,000 cc2⁄ 2 ) × MM PP LLLL

AA oo EE EE FF oo
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 37

Universal Metrics 5

The total cover, in area of restored coral (this estimate includes dead skeleton) for the example data in Table 8 is 92,764 

cm2 (9.27 m2). The mean percent live tissue per restored coral for the example data in Table 9 is 88%. Therefore, the 

estimate of percent cover of live tissue is 0.8%.

Sampling Frequency

Minimally, live tissue of restored corals should be estimated at every restoration site within two weeks and within 

three months following an outplanting event (immediate and initial site survey; Figure 5) which will identify if any 

problems exist with outplanting techniques or site characteristics that were missed during the pre-outplanting 

survey that may be negatively affecting the success of a restoration program. Then forward, annual estimates 

of live tissue are recommended to capture restored coral growth and health. It is highly recommended that this 

data collection occur over the long-term, for at least five years. In addition, sampling following a disturbance will 

provide data on restoration disturbance impacts such as change in the health of corals.

Performance Criteria

The mean percent live tissue per colony should show minimal decrease, and the number 

of restored corals with partial mortality should show minimal increase over time for all 

species. It is inevitable that coral loss (whole coral or partial coral) will occur, however if the 

general trend in live tissue or the distribution of coral partial mortality is towards an increase 

in mortality, the restoration site should be evaluated and adaptive management strategies 

should be evaluated to determine and reduce the cause of the loss of live tissue.

Evaluation Tool Criteria Alignment (Appendix 2): Universal Metric #3 aligns with three 

criteria: 

1. Restored corals maintain a high percentage of live tissue per coral. If the mean live 

tissue per colony is greater than 80%, a project will receive a score of 1 (Evaluation 

Tool Outplanting Criteria #13). 

2. Restored corals exhibit high coral survivorship/ abundance during years 2–5. If 

annual outplant survival is >65% or if >65% of colonies are present at the site a 

project will receive a score of 1 (Evaluation Tool Outplanting Criteria #23).

3. Outplants exhibit high coral survivorship/abundance over 5 years post-outplanting. If 

annual survival is >50% or if >50% of the colonies are present at the site programs 

will receive a score of 1 (Evaluation Tool Outplanting Criteria #24). 

Further descriptions and supporting research of the Evaluation Tool Criteria can be found 

in Appendix 2 and online (Appendix 3).

Species / Size Class (cm) <5 5-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-75 76-100 >100

Acropora cervicornis 3 10 16 15 40 5 1 6 100, 100, 110

Table 8. Example data collected for coral size-frequency distribution.

Species/Live Tissue Class Dead 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-99% 100%

Acropora cervicornis 2 3 5 6 35 50

Table 9. Example data collected for coral estimated live tissue.

Nova Southeastern University CRRAM Lab

Reef Renewal Bonaire
38 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Universal Metric #4:

Genetic and Genotypic Diversity

Genetic diversity can be defined on several levels in organisms 

that have sexual and asexual reproductive modes, such as corals 

and plants. Genotypic diversity refers to the number of genets in 

a population as defined via multilocus genotyping. Genets are the 

result of sexual reproduction. Each genet may consist of many 

ramets (“colonies”) that were the result of asexual processes, such 

as fragmentation. Genetic diversity (or gene diversity) refers to the 

amount of variation on the level of individual genes in a population. 

Genetic diversity may be expressed as heterozygosity or allelic 

richness. Traditionally, molecular markers (such as microsatellite 

loci) target non-coding regions of the genome to measure genetic 

diversity. The data then reflects demographic processes not 

subject to selection, thereby satisfying assumptions of standard 

population genetic models that yield measures of the scale of 

dispersal (Baums et al., 2019).

Genotypic Diversity is a measurement of the number of unique 

genotypes (genets) that are used for restoration by species. 

This is an important metric to gauge the potential for future 

species genetic diversity through sexual reproduction and to 

evaluate a program’s contribution to genetic and genotypic 

diversity. This metric can also be used as an intra-program metric 

to ensure genetic and genotypic diversity across and amongst 

restoration sites. Further, genetic diversity is an important driver 

of long-term facilitation of species recovery and conservation 

(Baums, 2008; Drury et al., 2017b; Baums et al., 2019).

Genet herein is broadly defined as the collection of ramets that 

represent a unique coral genotype. It is recognized that not all 

restoration programs have the resources to collect and have 

samples processed for genetic analysis therefore geographic 

distance can also be used to designate putative genets. Based 

on literature, we suggest a conservative distance between donor 

colonies to be at least 100 m to increase the likelihood of unique 

genets (Baums et al., 2005; Foster et al., 2007; Underwood et al., 

2007). Ensuring some measure of distance between donor colonies 

will provide the best possibility of genetic diversity between sampled 

colonies especially when dealing with brooding versus broadcasting 

species, this may result in needing to sample at multiple reefs.

Genotypic Diversity is measured by recording the number and 

quantity of genotypes (genets) used per species at a restoration 

site. When possible, it is suggested that a minimum of 5 unique 

genets per species be planted at each restoration site (Baums, 

2008; Drury et al., 2017b; Baums et al., 2019).

Within coral nurseries, it is suggested that at least 20 distinct 

genotypes are propagated and used for outplanting to maintain 

high levels of genetic diversity that originate from the standing 

stock (Baums, 2008; Shearer et al., 2009; Drury et al., 2017b; 

Baums et al., 2019). In addition, it is best to propagate genets with 

one or more phenotypic trait that may prove valuable in the future, 

such as low partial mortality, high lesion healing rate, rapid growth 

rate, and resilience or resistance to bleaching and/or infectious 

disease (Baums et al., 2019). However, effort should also be 

reserved for propagating underperforming genets because some 

genotypes may harbor genetic variants with unknown value. 

For outplanting, Baums et al. (2019) suggests clusters or groups 

of four to six genets to enable successful fertilization upon 

maturation. Additionally, it is suggested to outplant at least 10 

genotypes of gonochoric species (e.g., Dendrogyra cylindrus, 

Montastraea cavernosa, and Siderastrea species; see Coral 

Population Enhancement Metric #1.2) to facilitate matching 

numbers of males and females at a site when possible (Baums 

et al., 2019). The goal is to mix and match as many genets as 

possible within outplanting strategies to maximize genetic diversity, 

which is the basis of adaptive resilience (Hermisson and Pennings, 

2005; Baums, 2008; Whiteley et al., 2015). It is recognized that 

some genotypes may die out at a restoration site, either through 

bleaching or disease susceptibility, slow growth or due to nongenetic specific mortality (breakage, predation, etc.). 

Outplanting more than the minimum number of suggested 

genotypes over time should help maintain at least 4–6 genets 

at a site (Baums et al., 2019). If the number of surviving genets 

at a restoration site drops below the desired minimum, adaptive 

strategies such as outplanting additional genotypes and/

or resolving the cause of mortality should be employed. Most 

monitoring methods listed within this Guide are structured to avoid 

colony fate track monitoring, but monitoring genetic-based success 

may be of interest to some, if not most, restoration practitioners. 

Therefore, monitoring strategies to document the success of 

individual genotypes should be determined as part of additional 

research goals (see Restoration Goal-Based Performance Metrics 

Goal 5: Research).

Required Units: Number of genets propagated or outplanted by 

species, note the method used to determine coral genotype.

Possible Methods

The following are methods that could be used to determine 

the genotype of your donor and/or nursery colonies. These 

suggestions are not exhaustive, but are to be used as examples 

or guidance. Additional details on each of these techniques can be 

found in the literature cited and the CRC Genetics Working Group 

review in Ecological Applications (Baums et al., 2019). Whichever 

technique is chosen, it is important to identify the method used 

when reporting your results.

Micro-satellites 

Low cost, frequently used method in conservation genetics 

(Puckett, 2017). Evaluates the number of tandem repeats across 

loci of a coral sample. High heterozygosity allows for accurate 

assignment of ramets to genets (Baums et al., 2005; 2010; 2012; 

2019). Loci are species-specific and may have to be developed de 

novo. While highly repeatable within a lab, comparison across labs 

need to be carefully calibrated.

5 Universal Metrics
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 39

Universal Metrics 5

SNPchip Genotyping (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms)

A cost-effective approach to genotyping if the genus or ideally the 

species’ SNPMarkers are already identified, such as Acroporids 

and Orbicellids (Drury et al., 2016; Prada et al., 2016; DevlinDurante and Baums, 2017; Kitchen et al., 2019). However, if these 

are not identified, this technique can be costly, as the SNP (single 

nucleotide polymorphisms) needs to be identified first. SNPchip 

genotyping is a good option for those programs that do not have 

easy access to laboratory space or a bioinformatician. Off-theshelf products such as micro-arrays and microfluidics-based SNP 

approaches can be purchased to complete these analyses. Data 

collected through SNPchip genotyping can be reported in the CRC 

Genetics Working Group database (Appendix 3).

Reduced-Tag-Representation-2bRAD

If the SNPchip is not yet developed for the coral being used for 

restoration, an alternative cost-efficient technique is reduced-tagrepresentation-2bRAD (RTR-2bRAD; Altshuler et al., 2000). This 

technique is particularly useful as it ensures consistency across 

samples and standardization amongst laboratories. Furthermore, 

samples that may have degraded DNA can be processed using 

RTR-2bRAD. However, for this technique practitioners are still 

responsible for isolating DNA from the corals and analyzing 

resulting data.

Geographic Distance

The geographic distance between donor colonies can be 

measured by collecting a GPS point of each of the donor colonies 

and using mapping software such as Google Earth®, ArcGIS®, or 

QGIS to determine the distance between colonies. This distance 

can be used as a proxy for genetic diversity until genetic testing 

can be completed. Until testing is completed, each donor colony 

should be treated and tracked as a separate genotype. It is 

recommended that donor colonies are at least 100 m apart.

Reporting

Genetic diversity should be reported as the total number of 

unique (putative) genets per species used for restoration at each 

restoration site. Data collected should be reported in programspecific databases as well as uploaded into the CRC Coral 

Restoration Database (Appendix 1), which can be found online 

(Appendix 3).

Sampling Frequency

Genetic diversity of a restoration site should be collected during 

the time of the initial restoration project and each time new corals/

genets are added to the restoration site.

Zack Gold
40 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Performance Criteria 

Genetic diversity should be maintained or increased at each 

restoration site. The overall goal should be at least five unique 

genets (10 unique genets for gonochoric species) added to each 

restoration site per species used in the restoration project.

Evaluation Tool Criteria Alignment (Appendix 2): Universal 

Metric #4 aligns with one criterion:

Outplants contain a high degree of potential/possible 

genotypic diversity per restoration site (or if genetic info not 

available, assumed different genotypes based on physical 

separation of collection sites). If over five genotypes (10 for 

gonochoric species) per restored species are outplanted 

per restoration site, a program will receive a score of 1 

(Evaluation Tool Outplanting Criteria #8).

Further descriptions and supporting research of the Evaluation 

Tool Criteria can be found in Appendix 2 and online (Appendix 3).

Table 10. Overview and alignment of Universal Metrics to CRC Monitoring Working Group products. RRAD= Restored Reef Areal Dimension.

Universal Metric Description Methods

CRC Restoration 

Database Reporting Data Outcomes

Evaluation Tool Criteria 

Alignment

Universal Metric #1:

Landscape/Reef-level 

Metrics: Restored Reef 

Areal Dimension

Area where corals 

were planted and 

extent of reef 

impacted

Tracing

Length/ Width

Mapping

Mosaics

Report RRAD cumulative 

area (m2) per restoration 

site

Change in RRAD over time Measure RRAD at initial 

outplanting event

No net decrease in RRAD from 

initial

Universal Metric #2:

Population-level Metrics

Measurement of the 

distribution of size 

classes of restored 

corals

Ecological Footprint 

Survey

Mosaics

Number of colonies per 

size class

Identify if subset sampling 

was used

Survival

Mean coral size

Percent per size class

Density

Positive net change in coral size

Survivorship >80% in first year

Universal Metric #3:

Colony-level Metrics

Estimate of the 

amount of live tissue 

on restored corals

Ecological Footprint 

Survey

Mosaics

Fate Tracking

Number of corals in each 

class of live tissue

Identify if subset sampling 

was used

Survival

Distribution of tissue classes 

Prevalence of partial 

mortality

Mean percent live tissue 

Percent Cover

Survival/abundance:

>80% in first year

>65% years 2-5

>50% >5 years

Maintain >80% live tissue per 

coral 

Universal Metric #4:

Genetic and Genotypic 

Diversity

Reporting of the 

number of unique 

genotypes used for 

restoration

Microsatellite

SNPchip Genotyping

Reduced-TagRepresentation

Geographic Distance

Total number of unique 

(putative) genets per 

species

Identify method used to 

determine genotype

Genetic diversity of restored 

corals

At least five unique genotypes 

per species (10 for gonochoric 

species) are outplanted per 

restoration site

Universal Environmental 

Metric:

Water Temperature

Reporting of the 

water temperature 

of restoration sites

In situ Logger

Open Access Data

Computer/ 

Thermometer

Maximum, minimum, 

and monthly mean 

(°C) per restoration or 

representative site

Annual temperature 

minimum and maximum

Record or obtain temperature 

records for each restoration site 

or representative sites

5 Universal Metrics

Summary of Universal Metrics 

Table 10 provides a brief summary of the Universal Metrics and 

their associated links to the CRC Restoration Database and 

Evaluation Tool.

Tiffany Boisvert/FWC
41

Credit: CRF Chapter 6

Universal 

Environmental Metric

Universal Environmental Metric:

Water Temperature

Coral reefs are sensitive to the environment in which they are 

found and persist. Important to the existence, conservation, and 

management of coral reefs is water quality supportive of coral 

growth and a healthy community. Although there is a long list 

of environmental data that would need to be collected to fully 

understand the effect of water quality on coral restoration, most 

are out of the scope of many restoration programs financially 

and physically (see Community and Habitat Enhancement Metric 

#2.4 for guidance on collecting additional environmental data). 

Therefore, water temperature was identified as the universal 

environmental metric for coral restoration because it is easily 

obtained, affordable, and comparable across various scales. In 

addition, water temperature is one of the key environmental 

metrics that can assist in defining coral growth, disease, and 

bleaching.

Required Units: Monthly minimum, maximum, and mean (°C), 

report collection method.

Possible Methods

In situ Logger

The most accurate method for collecting water temperature is 

to deploy temperature loggers close to the seafloor in an open/

unobstructed area at each restoration site or a representative 

subset of your program’s restoration sites (Bahr et al., 2016). Most 

loggers can be programmed to record temperatures at chosen 

intervals, such as every 1–2 hours. These data points can then 

be downloaded using the software provided with the logger from 

which daily mean temperature can be calculated. The length of 

time a logger can be deployed will be based on the specifications 

of each logger. It is best practice to check the logger each time 

you are at the restoration site to ensure the logger is not damaged 

and is logging (some loggers have indicator lights to inform the 

user if there is an error). In addition, changing the logger at least 

annually will minimize the chance of lost data if the logger had 

malfunctioned during the period it was deployed. Furthermore, if it 

is feasible for your program, deploying multiple loggers at a site or 

within a similar habitat will also decrease the chances of missed 

data if one logger were to fail.

Curt Storlazzi/US Geological Survey (USGS)
42

If your program does not have access to temperature logging 

equipment, check with fellow researchers working in your area to 

see if they have instrumentation deployed in similar locations as 

your restoration projects and would be willing to coordinate with 

you and/or share their data. 

Example instrumentation: Onset data loggers, conductivity, 

temperature and depth (CTD), Yellow Springs Instrument (YSITM).

Open Access Data Sources

Sea surface temperature data may be available in your area 

from open access resources or environmental monitoring groups 

such as water management divisions, ocean monitoring buoys, 

environmental monitoring groups, and predictive models.

Dive Computer/Thermometer

Divers can record the temperature from their dive computer each 

time that the restoration site is visited. If a dive computer is not 

available, a glass thermometer (laboratory or pool thermometer) 

can also be used to record the bottom temperature during site visits.

Reporting

Water temperature should be reported as a maximum, minimum, 

and monthly mean (°C) at each restoration site or a set of sites 

representative of the conditions of your restoration sites. Collected 

data should be reported in program specific databases as well as 

uploaded into the CRC Coral Restoration Database (Appendix 1), 

which can be found online (Appendix 3).

Sampling Frequency

Ideally, temperature would be recorded constantly at 

representative restoration sites to provide daily averages. If the 

equipment and resources are not available for this frequency, then 

it is recommended that frequent (seasonal to monthly) temperature 

points are taken to provide representative changes and ranges in 

water temperatures.

Performance Criteria

Water temperatures at restoration sites should follow the typical 

range of water temperatures for areas of similar habitat in that 

region. 

Evaluation Tool Criteria Alignment (Appendix 2): Universal 

Environmental Metric aligns with one criterion: 

Environmental parameters are measured at outplant sites 

to demonstrate that the site does not experience large 

changes in parameters over short periods of time (e.g., 

minimum measurement of water temperature required, but 

may also include light, current, sedimentation, turbidity). If 

environmental parameters (minimum measurement of water 

temperature required) are measured/monitored a program will 

receive a score of 1 (Evaluation Tool Outplanting Criteria #4). 

Further descriptions and supporting research of the Evaluation 

Tool Criteria can be found in Appendix 2 and online (Appendix 3).

6 Universal Environmental Metric

The Nature Conservancy
43

Coral Restoration Foundation

Chapter 7

Ecological (Ecosystem) 

Restoration Goal-Based 

Performance Metrics

Coral reef restoration, at the ecosystem level, is the process 

of regaining ecological structure and functionality to coral 

reefs. Prior to performing ecosystem restoration, a target (i.e., 

outcome) ecological state or function must be defined based on 

historical or current reference systems. Ecosystem restoration 

goes beyond just planting corals on a reef, it involves improving 

the entire reef community to support long-term ecosystem 

health and sustainability (Epstein et al., 2003). Such ecosystem 

restoration may include, but is not limited to, activities such as 

restoring branching corals to create habitat to support higher fish 

and invertebrate communities, which may reduce macroalgae 

and promote coral recruitment. Restoration of a coral reef 

ecosystem to meet the goal of Ecological (Ecosystem) 

Restoration requires success in two objectives: 1) Coral 

Population Enhancement and 2) Community and Habitat 

Enhancement. Each objective includes four metrics and the 

necessary associated methods to accomplish the objective (Table 

11). The objectives and metrics described below are provided 

as guidance, to provoke thought, assist in restoration program 

development, and designed to monitor the interaction between the 

assemblage of outplanted corals and the benthic community of 

which they will become a part. 

These suggestions are not exhaustive and do not guarantee 

restoration results, but by providing guidance and methods for 

data collection, we hope to increase the comparability of data 

amongst practitioners and further identify key factors in Ecological 

Restoration and define restoration success. The key parameters 

that enable describing and tracking of community structure include 

(Done, 1995; Rinkevich, 1995; Thayer et al., 2003; Ruiz-Jaen and 

Aide, 2005): 

Measures of the spatial extent and distribution of each 

species relative to the others within a defined area can provide 

the basis for demographic analysis, and add layering and richness 

to gross measures of live coral coverage—Universal Metrics #1 

and #2 and Coral Population Enhancement Metric #1.1.

Size distribution of each species can provide an indication of 

the populations’ potential contribution to sexual reproduction and 

longevity—Universal Metric #2 and Coral Population Enhancement 

Metric #1.2.
44 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

7 Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics

Species richness and evenness, measured as the number of species in a study plot (S) and the evenness of their relative abundances (J or

J’)—Universal Metrics #2 and #3 and Coral Population Enhancement Metric #1.4.

Counts and size/age distributions of key motile associates of sessile benthos can provide a measure of potential improved habitat and can 

include visual censuses of fishes, echinoderms, crustaceans, mollusks, and other motile organisms—Community and Habitat Enhancement Metric 

#2.1 and #2.2.

Measures of species interactions can provide information on coral 

condition and survivorship, which relates to the potential overall success 

of outplanting to ecosystem success. Contact interactions (i.e., where 

other organisms and corals come into contact with each other), as well 

as predation by motile organisms, disease, and physical trauma, can be 

described by observing patterns of morbidity and mortality, including those 

associated with negative and positive contacts with neighboring sessile 

organisms (e.g., overgrowth, predation, amensalism, commensalism, standoff)—Coral Population Enhancement Metric #1.3, #1.5, and #2.4.

Benthic communities change constantly over time, as the organisms that 

carpet the benthos and create biogenic structure, grow, reproduce, and die. 

Appreciation of benthic community dynamics requires repeated sampling of 

study plots through time.

Method

Line InterceptPoint InterceptBeltQuadrat / Plot / Area SurveyRoving DiverVideo/Photo TransectMosaic/Large Area ImagingPhotoquadratTagging Colonies

Data Type

Percent Cover     –    –

Area – –   –    –

Abundance  –       –

Demographics  –       

Complexity –  – – –   – –

Health/ Condition – –       

Motile Organisms – –     – – –

Factors

Area Covered (transect/replicate)         

Area Covered (Spatially)   *   *  * *

Fine Scale Data       

Whole Colony         

Capture Restoration Design    -  +   

Suitable for Transient Species      +   

Cost/Equip. Needs         

Speed      ++ ++ ++ 

Permanent Record        

Expertise Required in situ      

Expertise Required ex situ    

* unless replicate sampling is used; – area can be made to size of restoration; + use of mosaics or large area coverage; ++ time consuming for ex situ processing. 

Table 11. Comparison of methods proposed for Ecological Restoration monitoring including advantages (✓) and limitations () of each method. The symbol (–) 

in data type, means the method is not suitable to collect that type of data. Blank cells for factors indicate there is no advantage or limitation for that method. Not 

included in this table are methods for measuring coral reproduction and environmental parameters – see those specific metrics below for methods. 

Nova Southeastern University CRRAM Lab
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 45

Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics 7

Objective 1: Coral Population Enhancement

Coral population enhancement is the act of adding or stabilizing 

corals on a reef to preserve or improve ecological function, genetic 

diversity, reef health, and long-term sustainability. In order to 

meet the restoration objective Coral Population Enhancement 

the following metrics should be considered when developing a 

monitoring plan for a program: 

1. Abundance and Cover

2. Reproductive Capacity or Maturity

3. Coral Health

4. Species Richness and Diversity

5. Indirect Seeding of Sexual Recruits

Coral Abundance, Cover, and Diversity are part of the Universal 

Metrics for Coral Restoration described in Chapter 5, but are 

also included here to provide more details and the importance of 

these metrics specifically related to the objective Coral Population 

Enhancement.

Coral Population Enhancement Metric #1.1:

Coral Abundance & Cover

Tracking the abundance or percent cover of the species used 

for restoration allows the evaluation of the overall success and 

progress of Coral Population Enhancement. Abundance and 

cover provide an indication of colony growth, population 

spreading, and survivorship. Successful programs should 

either maintain or show an increase in coral abundance and 

cover following population enhancement activities as previously 

described in Universal Metrics #2 and #3.

Abundance is the count of the number of individual corals used 

for restoration. This count should be completed separately for 

each species used for population enhancement. Prior to any 

restoration, at a minimum, baseline data should be collected on 

the presence and abundance of existing colonies at the site of the 

species that will be used for restoration. Further guidance on what 

should be included in a pre-restoration survey can be found in 

the Site Selection chapter of the Guide to Field-Based Coral Reef 

Restoration (Goergen et al., in review). Collection of data prior to 

restoration is imperative for describing the impacts and success of 

population enhancement and defining future abundance and cover 

measurements (see Chapter 3). 

Percent cover of live tissue of restored species at a restoration 

site is also a valuable metric for evaluating the success of Coral 

Population Enhancement. Cover, defined as the percentage of 

space occupied by a species, a group of species, or habitat type, 

is the most common metric used for tracking trends in coral reef 

status (Connell et al., 1997; Gardner et al., 2003; Jackson et al., 

2014; Edmunds, 2015) and, therefore, can be a very comparable 

metric for restoration monitoring of some species. However, 

for many population enhancement programs, cover may be 

challenging to define for reasons that include: 1) at the time of 

restoration, coral colonies are often small and sparsely spaced, so 

effort needs to be high to ensure representation, and 2) defining 

the area of restoration is historically uncommon, precluding the 

quantification of cover within the restoration area. Note that each 

of the common survey methods for cover has different biases; 

therefore a change in methodology mid-study should include 

calibration between methods (e.g., Vallès et al., 2019).

Possible Methods

The following are methods that could be used to collect abundance 

and percent cover data. These suggestions are not exhaustive, 

but are to be used as examples or guidance. The specific method 

that is used during a program’s monitoring should be identified and 

described when reporting data.

Details describing the first of two methods to estimate abundance 

and cover are found under Universal Metric #2:

Ecological Footprint Survey

Conducting surveys for species abundance and cover within the 

RRAD will provide focused community data for the area within 

which restored corals are being outplanted. Abundance and cover 

within the RRAD is valuable as it provides a standardized project 

size and area of restored reef to evaluate changes over time and 

gauge the overall impact and success of a restoration project. 

Example datasheets and additional details of the survey method 

and area can be found in Universal Metrics #1–3.

Mosaics

Coral abundance and cover can be collected from photomosaics. 

The result of the mosaic process is a high-resolution photographic 

archive of all benthic organisms within the area of interest that 

can be used to identify the number of colonies per species, and 

even the number of colonies per species per size class at the 

time of the mosaic survey (methods for obtaining a mosaic are 

above in Universal Metric #1 and Appendix 4). Coral colonies and 

Fragments of Hope
changes in community composition can be followed through time 

based on their geographic location within the mosaic image. For 

example methods of obtaining coral abundance and cover data 

from a mosaic, see Appendix 4. Examples from the literature such 

as Burns et al. (2015); Gintert et al. (2018); and Fukunaga et al. 

(2019) outline use of this method in depth.

Additionally, the following methods could also be used to describe 

the abundance and cover of restored corals:

Transects

There are numerous transect methodologies, such as line or point 

intercept and belt transects, that may be used to describe the 

abundance and percent cover of restored corals (Rogers et al., 

2001; Thayer et al., 2003; Hill and Wilkinson, 2004). Transects 

can be placed at random, strategically placed, and/or permanent 

depending on the type of data desired (see Chapter 3). Keep in 

mind that if the objective of your monitoring is to describe changes 

in restored corals or the success of restored corals over time, then 

the placement of transects for monitoring must be within an area 

where restored corals are located (i.e., transects must include 

restored corals, therefore random distribution of transects may not 

be the best choice).

In addition to divers utilizing transects for in-water surveys, 

belt transects can also be surveyed using photos or video and 

analyzed ex situ using photo-processing software, such as Coral 

Point Count with Excel Extension (CPCe), Point Count 99, ImageJ, 

or Coralnet (Kohler and Gill, 2006; Beijbom et al., 2015; Williams 

et al., 2019). The advantages to photo and video transects are 

that they are quick to collect in the field, and there will always be a 

permanent record of the transect to be referenced in the future.

Further, if the species used for restoration is a transient species 

(i.e., may dislodge or fragment and reattach readily), such as 

Acroporids, you may want to consider using large area surveys 

(Ecological Footprint Survey) instead of transects for tracking 

change in abundance.

Transects are the most commonly used method for measuring 

change in coral cover and abundance; they are cheap to setup and require minimal equipment. Details of data collection 

techniques along a transect can be found from many of the longterm coral reef monitoring programs such as: Australian Institute of 

Marine Science (AIMS) Long-Term Coral Reef Monitoring Program 

(LTMP), Atlantic Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment (AGRRA), Coral 

Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Program (CREMP), Global Coral 

Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN), Great Barrier Reef Marine 

Park Authority Marine Monitoring Program (MMP), and NOAA’s 

National Coral Reef Monitoring Program (NCRMP).

Plots/Quadrats

To achieve higher site coverage for monitoring abundance or 

percent cover, plots and/or quadrats can be used. These differ 

from transects in that they can be rectangular or circular, various 

sizes, and spread out across a large area. Plots and quadrats 

may be the preferred method for restoration monitoring as the size 

of the monitored area or the number of plots/quadrats surveyed 

can be customized to adequately cover the restored area and/

or the surrounding area depending on the species and question 

(See Chapter 3 – Determining Sample Size). Plots and quadrats 

can be further divided into smaller scales to include point intercept 

(i.e., a 25 cm2 quadrat can be divided into 5 cm squares and point 

intercept can be determined at each 5 cm corner, Figure 23). For 

transient species, it is best practice to survey an area larger than 

7 Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics

Fragments of Hope

46
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 47

the actual area restored in order to capture fragmentation and 

relocation within monitoring (Bowden-Kerby, 2001; Goergen 

and Gilliam, 2017).

Like for transects, photos and video can be used to survey 

plots or quadrats. Images can then be processed ex situ 

using photo-processing software to obtain cover and 

abundance data (Figure 24).

Following the fate of individual colonies can provide detailed 

demographic data (e.g., effects of bleaching, disease and 

predation, and growth), but can be a very time consuming 

method depending on the size of the restored area and 

number of corals to track (although subsetting can help 

reduce effort—see Chapter 3). In addition, tracking the 

fate of a coral requires the corals to be tagged, mapped, or 

mosaicked to ensure that the same individuals are being 

tracked over time (Rogers et al., 2001; Thayer et al., 2003; 

Hill and Wilkinson, 2004).

Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics 7

Figure 23. Example grid-quadrat used for in situ point intercept. Image credit: NOAA

Figure 24. Example of using photo quadrats for monitoring outplanted Acropora cervicornis. Collected images were processed using Coral Point Count with Excel 

Extension (CPCe) to obtain change in cover over time. Image credit: Reef Renewal Bonaire.
48 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Reporting

Coral Abundance should be reported as the total number of restored corals per site. Cover should be reported 

as the percent cover of the restored corals per site. All data should be reported by species at each site.

Percent cover of restored corals can be determined for photo transects, plots, or quadrats using the following 

equation. Where Total Points equals the total number of points in the area that you surveyed, which could be a 

quad, transect or plot depending on how data will be analyzed.

Using the data from Table 12 and the above equation, percent cover of restored corals for the images analyzed 

is 308 coral points / 660 total points x 100 = 46%.

If data are collected using in situ estimates of percent cover along a belt transect the following equation can be 

used to estimate the percent cover of restored coral.

Where the area of coral is first estimated using the following equation, where QA is the area of the quad and % 

cover of coralq1 is the estimate of percent coral cover per quadrat.

Using the data from Table 13 and the above equations, percent cover of restored corals for the quadrats 

analyzed is 30%. The total area of coral is 4.89 m2.

7 Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics

What to consider for any method:

• The total survey area of the transects, plots or quadrats covered must be reported.

• Transect/Plot/Quadrat location should be the same during every monitoring event if this metric will be used to 

describe a change over time in cover or abundance of the same corals. Permanent markers/pins/stakes deployed 

to guide the placement of transect tapes or quadrat corners are helpful for ensuring repeatability. 

• In order to capture the change in cover or abundance of restored corals, restored corals must be measured within 

the transects. This is an important consideration for random transects. If restored corals are not being captured, 

methods may need to be re-evaluated for effectiveness.

• Replication is necessary. Replicate surveys at each site may reduce the chance of missing restored corals. The 

transect survey area is limited to the area under or adjacent to the transect lines (depending on specific method); 

therefore, they need to be implemented within the restoration area.

Table 12. Example point count percent cover data. Data represent the number of 

points that were recorded as restored coral per image. For this example, 22 images 

(60 x 40 cm) were analyzed using 30 points per image.

8 15 13 12 30 25 4 5 17 30 25

5 3 6 23 26 14 0 25 12 4 6

Table 13. Example belt transect percent cover data. Data represent percent cover of 

restored corals and were collected per quad, for a total of 22 quads (1 x 0.75 m).

5% 10% 25% 50% 80% 5% 6% 30% 25% 10% 90%

3% 2% 60% 25% 90% 5% 6% 15% 70% 30% 10%

PPPPPPPPPPPPPP cccc = ∑ CC CCCC PP PPPPPPPP

TT PP PPPPPPPP

× 100

PPPPPPPPPPPPPP CC = ∑ AA oo cc cc pp qqqq qq

TT AA SS SS

× 100

oo cc / qqqq qq = QQ × % cccc oo cc qq1 + ⋯ + QQ × % cccc oo cc qqqq

DD = √NN

H= ∑(ppi) | ln ppi |

JJ′ = HH′

HH′mmmmmm

PPPPPPPPPPPPPP cccc = ∑ CC CCCC PP PPPPPPPP

TT PP PPPPPPPP

× 100

PPPPPPPPPPPPPP CC = ∑ AA oo cc cc pp qqqq qq

TT AA SS SS

× 100

oo cc / qqqq qq = QQ × % cccc oo cc qq1 + ⋯ + QQ × % cccc oo cc qqqq

DD = √NN

Page: 48

PPPPPPPPPPPPPP cccc = ∑ CC CCCC PP PPPPPPPP

TT PP PPPPPPPP

× 100

Page: 48

PPPPPPPPPPPPPP CC = ∑ AA oo cc cc pp qqqq qq

TT AA SS SS

× 100

Page: 48

∑AA oo cc / qqqq qq = QQ × % cccc oo cc qq1 + ⋯ + QQ × % cccc oo cc qqqq

Page: 62

DD = √NN

Page: 62

H= ∑(ppi) | ln ppi |
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 49

Sampling Frequency 

At minimum, monitoring Coral Abundance and Cover should 

be completed at every restoration site immediately following an 

outplanting event. During the initial survey, wild coral abundance 

and location within the Ecological Footprint should also be noted. 

Annual monitoring for abundance and cover is recommended to 

capture restored coral survival, growth, and movement. We highly 

recommend that monitoring events be continued on a long-term 

basis (Evaluation Tool Outplanting Criteria #23 and #24). In 

addition, monitoring after disturbance events (e.g., bleaching, 

disease, and hurricanes) will provide information on disturbance 

impacts such as coral loss and colony displacement. 

Performance Criteria 

The abundance and/or cover of restored corals should remain 

similar to the initial outplanting levels or, more importantly, increase 

over time. However, caution should be taken with this performance 

criterion, for an increase in abundance does not always correlate 

with success. An increase in abundance could also mean that 

individual colonies became multiple colonies through fragmentation 

or partial mortality. Qualitative and, if possible, quantitative 

descriptions of coral appearance and condition should accompany 

a dramatic change in cover or abundance; details on these notes 

and data can be found in Coral Population Enhancement Metric 

#1.3. A general shift towards a reduction in total abundance or 

cover should be evaluated, and adaptive management strategies 

should be implemented if appropriate.

Evaluation Tool Criteria Alignment (Appendix 2): Coral 

Population Enhancement Metric #1.1 aligns with two criteria: 

6. Outplants (all species) display positive net change (increase 

in total linear extension [TLE], % cover, max diameter, % 

colonies in larger size classes) and/or no net change in 

abundance. If this goal is met, a program will receive a 

score of 1 (Evaluation Tool Outplanting Criteria #9). 

7. Representative photos are taken prior to, after, and 

during each monitoring event to document changes to 

overall abundance, coral cover, and/or reef structure. If 

photos are collected, catalogued and maintained prior to 

outplanting, after outplanting, and during each monitoring 

event a program will receive a score of 1 (Evaluation Tool 

Outplanting Criteria #11).

Further descriptions and supporting research of the Evaluation 

Tool Criteria can be found in Appendix 2 and online (Appendix 3).

Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics 7

Tom Moore/NOAA
50 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

The time at which outplanted corals will start sexually reproducing 

(spawning of gametes or release of larvae) varies among 

species and will foremost depend on their colony size and age, 

reproductive mode (Table 14), and the environmental conditions at 

the outplanting site. These factors, therefore, must be considered 

during the planning phase of a restoration effort, especially if one 

of the immediate goals of the project is to ensure the contribution 

of outplanted corals to the ecosystem via sexual reproduction. For 

example, relatively small outplants (<5 cm diameter) are unlikely 

to spawn or be reproductively mature within the first few years 

post-outplanting, whereas larger outplants (>10 cm diameter) or 

faster growing species may be reproductively mature within a 

year post-outplanting (Okubo et al., 2009; Nozawa and Lin, 2014). 

Furthermore, clipping and/or outplanting fragments during the 

earlier stages of the gametogenic cycle can cause them to redirect 

allocated energy from reproduction to growth/survival. Thus, 

the timing of clipping may result in the resorption of immature 

oocytes and ultimately in the reproductive failure of the outplanted 

population for that year (Okubo et al., 2007; Okubo et al., 2009).

In addition to the timing and size of fragment clipping and 

outplanting, several other factors must be considered when 

designing a coral outplanting program in order to maximize the 

reproductive capacity of a restored population. For instance, the 

genotypic diversity that is introduced at an outplanting site should 

be such that a minimum of five unique genotypes are represented 

for hermaphroditic species and a minimum of 10 genotypes for 

gonochoric species (Baums et al., 2019; See Universal Metric 

#4 and Evaluation Tool Outplanting Criteria #8). Further, different 

genets should be outplanted in close proximity (3–4 genets within 

Coral Population Enhancement Metric #1.2:

Reproductive Maturity/Capacity

The ultimate goal of coral restoration is that restored coral 

populations become self-sustaining and contribute to the 

ecosystem through sexual reproduction and recruitment. 

Reproductive capacity of corals is broadly defined as the 

potential to reproduce sexually. It is an important metric to 

measure in restored coral populations/communities, as it will 

provide an indication of the corals’ health, and their potential 

contribution to the broader ecosystem. This metric can be reported 

in various levels of detail, including the prevalence of corals that 

are spawning, the ratio of male versus females spawning at a site 

for gonochoric species, coral fecundity, etc. Such data can help 

make informed decisions about restoration design and species 

population management by answering questions such as: 

Which genets spawn in synchrony and should be outplanted in 

close proximity?

Do restored populations spawn in synchrony with wild 

populations and thereby increase the genetic diversity within 

the natural pool of larvae?

Is the health and therefore reproductive capacity of a given 

genet compromised when outplanted at more degraded sites in 

comparison to healthier sites?

When is it best to fragment corals to avoid interrupting their 

gametogenic cycle (i.e., resorption of immature oocytes)?

Can restored corals be used as broodstock (gamete/larval 

collection) for larval propagation efforts? 

Can a restored population be considered self-sustaining 

because it is expected to maintain itself via sexual recruitment?

If gametes released by restored corals are collected for larval 

rearing, questions pertaining to the variability in offspring fitness 

among genotypes can further be investigated. 

7 Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics

Broadcast Spawning Species Brooding Species

Hermaphrodite Gonochore Hermaphrodite Gonochore

Acropora cervicornis* Dendrogyra cylindrus *† Favia fragum Agaricia agaricites

Acropora palmata* Dichocoenia stokesii Madracis spp. Agaricia humilis

Acropora prolifera Meandrina meandrites Manicina areolata Agaricia fragilis

Colpophyllia natans Montastraea cavernosa Mycetophyllia ferox* Eusmilia fastigiata

Diploria labyrinthiformis Oculina varicosa Porites astreoides Isophyllia sinuosa

Orbicella annularis* Siderastrea siderea Porites porites

Orbicella faveolata* Solenastrea bournoni Porites furcata

Orbicella franksi* Stephanocoenia intersepta Siderastrea radians

Pseudodiploria clivosa

Pseudodiploria strigosa

Table 14. Mode of reproduction 

and sexuality of Greater Caribbean 

scleractinian corals from Trnka and 

Moulding (2008) and Baird et al. (2009). 

* Listed as threatened under the U.S. 

Endangered Species Act. † Species may 

also be hermaphroditic (Neely et al., 2018)

CoraliumJennifer Stein
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 51

2 m of each other) to increase the likelihood of cross-fertilization 

(Baums et al., 2019). Finally, when outplanting gonochoric species, 

one needs to consider introducing an appropriate sex ratio 

(number of males versus females) at the site. Additional guidance 

on outplant designs can be found in the Guide to Field-Based 

Coral Reef Restoration (Appendix 3; Goergen et al., In Review).

Possible Methods

The following are methods that could be used to assess the 

reproductive capacity of restored corals. These methods are not 

exhaustive, and are rather presented as realistically/logistically 

feasible guidelines for restoration practitioners. Methods are listed 

in order of priority. Whichever technique is chosen, it is important 

to identify the method used when reporting data.

Spawning Observations

The ideal and least invasive way to determine if restored corals are 

reproductively active is to observe setting and release of gametes 

during annual spawning event(s). The timing of spawning will 

depend on the region and the species observed; most Greater 

Caribbean coral species spawn around the full moon of July–

October (Table 15). Predicting spawning can be complex due to 

the large variability that exists among species, but also among 

regions due to differences in seasonal sea surface temperature 

(SST) regimes, lunar cycles, and sunset times. Environmental 

variables, such as storms and thermal anomalies, may also alter 

spawning times. The CRC’s Larval Propagation Working Group, 

along with other experts in the field, have completed an extensive 

literature review, and compiled a large number of spawning 

observation data to generate yearly spawning predictions. An 

example is provided in Appendix 5. These predictions plus 

additional guidance on how to collect and archive data during 

observational surveys can be found on the Larval Propagation 

Working Group’s webpage (Appendix 3).

Available tools include the following:

• Coral spawning prediction calendars for the southern 

Caribbean, the Mexican Caribbean, the Dominican 

Republic, and the northern Caribbean

• Guidelines to observe and monitor coral spawning

• Templates for data collection and archiving

• A Webinar on Coral Spawning Research and Restoration 

which contains an extensive section on spawning 

observations

The Coral Restoration Consortium’s Larval Propagation Working 

Group also hosts bi-annual presentations on how to observe 

and monitor coral spawning, followed by a question and answer 

session. These presentations are open to everyone and are 

intended to guide practitioners across the Greater Caribbean 

region on how to record spawning observations. Information about 

these bi-annual presentations is available on the Coral Restoration 

Consortium’s website (Appendix 3).

Because the timing of spawning varies among regions, it is 

imperative that spawning observations are scheduled based 

on local predictions. For some species, there may not be any 

previous records available for a given region. In that case, 

spawning observations should be scheduled based on predictions 

from the nearest region, but should be expanded to a wider time 

window. As such, it is recommended to begin the observations at 

least two days before the predicted day(s) and at least one hour 

before the predicted time of day. Observational surveys should last 

at least two days after the last spawning activity was observed. 

Once spawning of that species was observed consistently for 

2–3 years in a row, yearly observations can be narrowed down 

to a shorter time window (one day before predicted day(s) and 

30 min before predicted time). The number of days required 

for monitoring spawning activity varies by species, but typically 

spans over three to four days. During observations, data such as 

number of colonies observed per species and sex (if gonochoric), 

number of colonies that spawned, timing and duration of setting 

and spawning, as well as site related metadata should be reported 

for every observation attempt (see Appendix 5 for an example 

datasheet or the Larval Propagation Working Group website to 

download the datasheet template). All observation attempts during 

which no spawning activity was recorded should be reported along 

with positive observations.

Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics 7

May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov

A. cervicornis

A. palmata

A. prolifera

C. natans

D. cylindrus

D. labyrinthiformis

D. stokesii

E. fastigiata

M. meandrites

M. cavernosa

O. annularis

O. faveolata

O. franksi

P. clivosa

P. strigosa

S. intersepta

S. siderea

Table 15. Predicted spawning month(s) of known northern Caribbean 

coral species compiled from 2019 spawning prediction guides from the 

Larval Propagation Working Group and Jordan (2018). Dark blue= most 

likely month for spawning, and light blue= possible spawning. Predicted 

times will change annually and regionally (e.g., northern versus southern 

Caribbean). Therefore, check the Larval Propagation Working Group website 

(Appendix 3) for the most up-to-date predictions for the region of interest.
For practitioners tracking the reproductive capacity of restored 

corals of known genotypes, spawning observations should ideally 

be reported for each genotype (see Appendix 5 for an example 

datasheet). These data will provide valuable insights about the 

variability in the timing of spawning within a species, allowing for 

better prediction of spawning times and for implementing betterinformed restoration designs. For example, if certain genotypes 

are consistently spawning in synchrony, while others spawn at 

other times or not at all, it may then be a best practice to outplant 

the former at the same time and in close proximity to increase the 

likelihood of cross-fertilization.

To increase coverage/observe more sites, spawning nets built to 

collect gametes can be used on a few colonies (Figure 25). Nets 

can be carefully placed over corals before predicted spawning 

times and kept in place for a few hours over the duration of 

spawning that evening. Nets should be appropriately anchored, 

collected, and redeployed each night observations are made 

to prevent damage to the colonies. Collection nets used across 

several sites or within a site are a useful tool to assist with 

determining if particular genotypes are spawning, especially if 

there are multiple genotypes within one site. The use of spawning 

nets must be permitted, and local permitting regulations should be 

followed. It should be noted that gametes collected within the nets, 

unless crossed shortly after collection, might not be viable except 

for brooding coral species. Therefore, it is important to consider 

the number of colonies and the number of genotypes needed 

for monitoring as to not eliminate the broodstock for successful 

fertilization and recruitment to the reef site. If practitioners 

are planning to use the gametes collected within the nets for 

fertilization, nets will need to be checked within an hour of actual 

spawning as gamete viability decreases with time. 

Colony Size/Age

The reproductive maturity of a restored coral population/community 

can be estimated based on colony size and age (Montoya-Maya 

et al., 2014; Chamberland et al., 2016). The minimum size and 

age at reproductive maturity is variable among species and thus 

should be evaluated independently for each outplanted species. 

An overview of species’ minimum size and age at reproductive 

maturity is available in Tables 16 and 17. Coral colony size 

(maximum diameter) can simply be measured by snorkelers or 

divers within the months prior to the predicted spawning event 

following the methods described in Universal Metric #2.

7 Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics

Figure 25. Example of coral spawning net (left; Credit: Christian 

Voolstra) and option for gamete collection container (right; Credit: 

Nova Southeastern University Coral Reef Restoration, Assessment, and 

Monitoring (CRRAM) Lab). Notice the net is not pulled too taut over the 

colony, but covers the central portion if possible. 

52

Liv Williamson

52
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 53

Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics 7

Species

Area 

(cm2)

Diameter 

(cm)

Age

(yr) Method n Remarks on methods and interpretation Source

Acropora 

cervicornis - ≥20* - H 5-40 Tissue samples were collected biweekly for one year. Colonies with branches <20 cm in length were not gravid. Szmant (1986)

Acropora

palmata - 30-40 4-8 S 9

Colonies ≥2-years-old were monitored yearly on predicted spawning nights. Two of nine 

4-yr-old colonies spawned for the first time. Five of six 8-yr-old colonies spawned four 

years later. 

Chamberland et al. 

(2016)

Chamberland (pers. obs.)

Diploria 

labyrinthiformis 110 - - H 25

Colonies monitored were 100–250, 250–1000, 1000–4000 or >4000 cm2. Tissue 

samples were collected monthly for one year and during the spawning season the 

following two years. 

Weil and Vargas (2010)

Meandrina

danae 7.8 - - H 28 Tissue samples were collected in the spawning season in two separate years. Colonies monitored were 2–37 cm2. Pinzon and Weil (2011)

Meandrina

jacksoni 305 - - H 27 Tissue samples were collected in the spawning season in two separate years. Colonies monitored were 70–2384 cm2. Pinzon and Weil (2011)

Meandrina 

meandrites 263 - - H 30 Tissue samples were collected in the spawning season in two separate years. Colonies monitored were 169–2488 cm2. Pinzon and Weil (2011)

Montastraea 

cavernosa

20 - - H 63

Tissue samples were collected all year round. This study defined minimum reproductive 

size as the size of the smallest colony in the first bracket of 20 consecutive colonies of 

which ≥90% or more are gravid. 

Soong (1993)

Orbicella

annularis

≥300 - - H 5–40 Tissue samples were collected biweekly for one year. All colonies of this size or greater 

contained mature gonads; most colonies <100 cm2 had limited or no gonad development. Szmant (1986)

>50 - - H 15

Colonies monitored were 1–49, 50–99, 100–199, and 200–300 or >300 cm2. Tissue 

samples were collected two consecutive years one week before the expected spawning 

event.

Van Veghel and 

Kahmann (1994)

Orbicella

faveolata >100 - - H 15

Colonies monitored were 1–49, 50–99, 100–199, and 200–300 or >300 cm2. Tissue 

samples were collected two consecutive years one week before the expected spawning 

event.

Van Veghel and 

Kahmann (1994)

Orbicella

franksi

1-49 - - H 15

Colonies monitored were 1–49, 50–99, 100–199, and 200–300 or >300 cm2. Tissue 

samples were collected two consecutive years one week before the expected spawning 

event.

Van Veghel and 

Kahmann (1994)

170 - - H 5–40 Tissue samples were collected biweekly for one year. Szmant (1991)

Pseudodiploria 

clivosa

120 - - H 79

Tissue samples were collected all year round. This study defined minimum reproductive 

size as the size of the smallest colony in the first bracket of 20 consecutive colonies of 

which ≥90% or more are gravid, hence 120 cm2. Two of five colonies between 15–60 cm2 

were also gravid.

Soong (1993)

>100 - - H 12

Colonies monitored were 100–250, 250–1000, 1000–4000 or >4000 cm2. Tissue 

samples were collected monthly for one year and during the spawning season the 

following two years.

Weil and Vargas (2010)

195 - - H 41

Tissue samples were collected all year round. This study defined minimum reproductive 

size as the size of the smallest colony in the first bracket of 20 consecutive colonies of 

which ≥90% or more are gravid, hence 195 cm2. One of five colonies in the size range of 

15–60 cm2 were also gravid.

Soong (1993)

Pseudodiploria 

strigosa >100 - - H 17

Colonies monitored belonged to the following size classes: 100–250, 250–1000, 

1000–4000 and >4000 cm2. Tissue samples were collected monthly for one year and 

during the spawning season the following two years.

Weil and Vargas (2010)

Siderastrea

siderea

-

1.0 to 1.9 

(females)

5.0

(males)

- H 72

Colonies monitored were 1.0–1.9, 2.0–2.9, 3.0–3.9, 4.0–4.9, 5.0–5.9, 6.0–7.9 or 8.0–11.9 

cm in diameter. Tissue samples were collected during the month of expected spawning. 

This study defined minimum reproductive size as the size at which colonies contained 

mature oocytes (Stage IV). 67% of monitored colonies were reproductive. One of seven 

colonies between 1.0–1.9 cm contained mature oocytes (Stage IV). Males were only 

present in size classes ≥5.0 cm. Percentage of males increased with size, from 11% in 

5–5.9 cm to 54% in 12–53 cm.

Gelais et al. (2019)

156 - - H 117

Tissue samples were collected all year round. This study defined minimum reproductive 

size as the size of the smallest colony in the first bracket of 20 consecutive colonies of 

which ≥90% or more are gravid, hence 156 cm2. 

Soong (1993)

No information is available for the following broadcast spawning species: Acropora prolifera, Dendrogyra cylindrus, Dichocoenia stokesii, and Colpophylia natans.

Table 16. Approximate minimum colony area, diameter, and age at reproductive maturity for select Caribbean broadcast spawning coral species. Method of observation 

includes Histology (H), Spawning Observation (S), and Laval Release (L). Table prepared by T Doblado-Speck, MJ Bennett, and VF Chamberland.
54 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

7 Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics

Table 17. Approximate minimum colony area, diameter, and age at reproductive maturity for select Caribbean brooding coral species. Method of observation includes 

Histology (H), Spawning Observation (S), and Laval Release (L). Table prepared by T Doblado-Speck, MJ Bennett, and VF Chamberland.

Species

Area 

(cm2)

Diameter 

(cm)

Age 

(yr) Method n Remarks on methods and interpretation Source

Agaricia agaricites - 10.8 - L 91 26% of monitored colonies released larvae within one week of observation. Van Moorsel et al. 

(1983)

Agaricia humilis - 2.8 - L 133 78% of monitored colonies released larvae within one week of observation. Van Moorsel et al. 

(1983)

Favia

fragum

- - 1 L 147 1-yr-old F1 generation colonies released larvae in an exhibit aquarium 

system. Petersen et al. (2007)

2.3 - - H 129

Tissue samples were collected all year round. This study defined minimum 

reproductive size as the size of the smallest colony in the first bracket of 

20 consecutive colonies of which ≥90% or more are gravid, hence 2.3 cm2. 

Soong (1993)

-

1.0–1.5 

(5 to 10 

polyps)

- H 5-10

Tissue samples were collected every 2–4 days for 30–35 day periods in 

the winter, spring, and summer. Smallest gravid colonies counted 5–10 

polyps, hence approximately 1.0–1.5 cm diameter. 

Szmant-Froelich et al. 

(1985)

Manicina areolata - 1.5–2.0 

(height) 2–3 L 126 Once passed the minimum reproductive size, fecundity did not increase with colony size. Johnson (1992)

Mycetophyllia

ferox >100 - - H NR Tissue samples were collected biweekly for one year. Szmant (1986)

Porites astreoides

70 - - L 146 All colonies monitored released larvae. The smallest colony monitored was 

70 cm2 and was gravid. McGuire (1998)

70 - - H 155

Tissue samples were collected all year round. This study defined minimum 

reproductive size as the size of the smallest colony in the first bracket of 

20 consecutive colonies of which ≥90% or more are gravid, hence 70 cm2. 

Soong (1993)

Siderastrea 

radians 4 - - H 501

Tissue samples were collected all year round. This study defined minimum 

reproductive size as the size of the smallest colony in the first bracket of 

20 consecutive colonies of which ≥90% or more are gravid, hence 4 cm2. 

Soong (1993)

No information is available for the following brooding species: Eusmillia fastigiata, Isophyllia spp., and Porites porites.

Using colony size is a simple and non-invasive method that 

provides the practitioner with an indication of the reproductive 

capacity of a restored coral population/community. It should be 

noted that it is not a guarantee that corals that have reached 

a minimum reproductive size are fecund and will spawn, as 

the energy a coral invests in reproduction will be influenced by 

environmental factors such as temperature anomalies, competition, 

diseases, storms, etc. 

Colony age is a useful metric to estimate the reproductive 

capacity of a population/community that was restored using larval 

propagation since corals are of a known age. However, because 

larval propagation is a relatively new field, age at sexual maturity 

is unknown for most Caribbean species. Any novel observation of 

a species’ age when sexual maturity was first observed should be 

reported to the CRC’s Larval Propagation Working Group so this 

information can be compiled accordingly and made available to 

other practitioners.

Branch Breaking (species specific)

For some coral species, in particular Acroporid species, branches 

can be broken off to assess if a colony is hosting gametes within 

their tissues close to its expected spawning event (within 1 month). 

This method is useful for programs with limited capacity to observe 

spawning in the field, but wish to take their data beyond the 

assumptions made from coral size and age. An important caveat 

is that this method is not a guaranteed indicator of spawning. 

If gametes are found, it is a good sign that spawning is likely to 

occur; however, if gametes are not found it does not mean that 

spawning will not occur (i.e., not all surfaces of a colony, and not 

all colonies may be gravid). To increase chances of a positive 

result from branch breaking, the following suggestions should 

be followed: 1) sample from branches from the central portion 

of the colony to avoid typically sterile regions of a colony (i.e., 

edges and tips), 2) collect from a minimum of five colonies per 

species per site, and 3) if genotypes are known, collect from a 

minimum of 3 colonies per genotype. If a program includes large, 

potentially reproductive-sized corals within their nursery, it may be 

advantageous to first inspect colonies within nurseries. If nursery 

colonies are gravid, similar-sized outplants may be gravid as well, 

although this is not guaranteed; sampling of the outplants may be 

necessary. Strategic sampling of nursery corals can help limit the 

damage incurred to outplants. Samples can be inspected in situ for 

species known to have large gametes (Figure 26), or ex situ under 

a dissecting microscope. If more detailed data on egg size and 

fecundity is desired, it may be necessary to decalcify the samples 

prior to observations under the dissecting microscope (Soong, 

1991; Smith and Hughes, 1999).
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 55

Histology

Coral samples can be collected and preserved for histological 

analysis to determine reproductive capacity. This method is most 

useful to determine the reproductive timing of a species or if 

more advanced studies of reproduction are desired. In addition, 

this method could be used if a program is not able to conduct 

spawning observations during the spawning season since samples 

can be taken 1–2 months prior to spawning. However, practitioners 

should be aware that this method can be invasive, costly, time 

consuming, and requires a considerable amount of materials as 

well as extensive training. Similar to the branch breaking method, 

collections should include a minimum of five colonies per species 

per site and, if working with known genotypes, a minimum of three 

colonies per genotype. Samples should be immediately fixed 

using Z-FixTM (recommended fixative for histology). Once fixed, 

samples should be processed using known histological procedures 

(Szmant-Froelich et al., 1980; Szmant-Froelich, 1985; Glynn et al., 

1991; Soong, 1991).

Coral spawning can be unpredictable and challenging. Just 

because spawning may not have been observed, it does not mean 

it did not nor will not happen. There are many factors that may 

influence spawning, such as the timing of the full moon (within 

the month and time of day), increasing water temperatures, and 

decreases in coral abundance, and the presence of bleaching 

or disease may affect the predictability of spawning (Fisch et al., 

2019). In addition, corals used for restoration have likely been 

altered by fragmentation (possibly repeatedly), transportation, and 

relocation, all of which can cause stress in the coral and may affect 

the corals’ fecundity and timing of spawning (Smith and Hughes, 

1999; Okubo et al., 2007; Okubo et al., 2009; Okubo et al., 

2010). It is therefore highly recommended to apply the methods 

described above as extensively and consistently as possible to 

obtain a realistic assessment of a restored population/community’s 

reproductive capacity.

Reporting

Reporting of the reproductive capacity of a restored population/

community will depend on the method of observation. For spawning 

observations, data collection should follow the protocols developed 

by the Larval Propagation Working Group and be reported 

directly to this working group via their webpage (Appendix 3). In 

addition to the CRC, there is a highly interactive Facebook page: 

Coral Spawning Research, which includes over 2000 members 

involved in this field to various degrees (Appendix 3). Members 

who are conducting spawning monitoring in various regions of the 

Caribbean report their observations on this site on a daily basis. By 

following this group, one can stay informed of the trends of coral 

spawning in nearby locations and re-adjust observation schedules 

accordingly. It is also a platform where information and guidance 

is exchanged freely. Reporting for other methods such as branch 

breaking and colony size or age should include the number of 

colonies observed (with and without gametes), and size of colonies 

observed. These data should be recorded in program specific 

databases.

Sampling Frequency

Sampling for restored coral reproductive capacity should occur 

from 1–2 months before the predicted spawning times for the 

species in question. Ideally, a coral health survey (reporting 

disease, bleaching, or other stressors) should also be completed 

one month prior to the predicted spawning time. The results of 

this survey could help identifying underlying reasons for low or 

no spawning. Colony size measurements can be made up to two 

months prior to spawning. 

Performance Criteria

In an ideal situation, once restored corals have reached a 

minimum reproductive size/age, they would spawn annually. 

However, due to variability within and among species, sites, 

environmental conditions, as well as annual differences in 

temperature regimes and lunar cycles, consistent annual 

spawning is unlikely, even in wild populations that have not been 

“manipulated”, although more studies are needed to understand 

the factors that affect spawning activity. While it should still be a 

goal of a program to foster an environment where restored corals 

can grow to a mature size and hopefully further contribute to the 

ecosystem through sexual reproduction, we realize the latter may 

be a difficult criterion to meet. Therefore, the performance criterion 

for this metric is to make as many repeated observations (multiyear) of multiple genotypes and species to increase our collective 

knowledge and inform future restoration designs.

Evaluation Tool Criteria Alignment (Appendix 2): Coral 

Population Enhancement Metric #1.2 aligns with one criterion: 

Annual surveys or observations are conducted to determine 

if outplants (all species) have reached sexual maturity. 

Sexual maturity may be determined by observing sexual 

reproduction/gamete production via gametes present in 

branches/tissue, conducting histological sampling, and/

or in situ spawning observations of outplants. If annual 

observations are conducted, a project will receive a score of 1 

(Evaluation Tool Outplanting Criteria #19).

Further descriptions and supporting research of the Evaluation 

Tool Criteria can be found in Appendix 2 and online (Appendix 3).

Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics 7

Figure 26. Example of (A) in situ branch breaking and (B) gross dissection 

observations of Acropora cervicornis gametes. Image credit: Liz Goergen
56 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Coral Population Enhancement Metric #1.3:

Coral Condition

Corals are affected by many environmental and anthropogenic 

stressors at local and global scales, each negatively impacting 

coral health differentially based on season, geographic location, 

habitat type, host genotype, and species. Coral condition is a 

measure of the presumed health based on the visible signs 

of diseases, predation, lesions, bleaching, overgrowth, and 

physical impacts. The impact of these conditions dictates the 

change (either loss or recovery) in coral health over time. 

Coral stressors can be chronic (predation or disease in some 

instances; water quality; neighboring organism competition) and/or 

acute (storm damage; human interaction; predation or disease in 

some instances), both of which have a long or short-term negative 

impact on the production of coral tissue or overall survival. 

Therefore, by obtaining data on the occurrence and relative impact 

of these negative interactions within a restoration site, targeted 

preventative maintenance and management can be incorporated 

into a program’s restoration plan. The conditions most commonly 

described as affecting the condition of corals are disease, 

predation by motile organisms, physical impacts and interactions, 

and bleaching. 

Coral disease can be observed as a distinct band, jagged edge, 

focal, multifocal, linear, and/or diffuse and is often associated 

with tissue loss (Figure 27), although not in the case of dark spot 

disease. Coral diseases can be caused by bacteria, fungi, viruses, 

protozoa, or other stressors resulting in loss of tissue, reduced 

growth rates, and reproductive abilities. In addition, many coral 

diseases may interact with other stressors to increase loss of coral 

tissue. Up to 30 coral diseases have been reported, however the 

causal agent or the mechanisms for transmission for a majority 

have not been identified (Richardson, 1998; Harvell et al., 2004; 

Rosenberg et al., 2007; Rosenberg et al., 2009; Mueller and van 

Woesik, 2012; Maynard et al., 2015).

Coral predators, which typically include corallivorous snails, 

worms, and fish, can have detrimental impacts on corals if not 

managed (Miller, 2001; Miller et al., 2002; Shantz et al., 2011; 

Johnston and Miller, 2014; Miller et al., 2014; Bright et al., 2015; 

Schopmeyer and Lirman, 2015; Goergen and Gilliam, 2018). 

Wounds from predation, examples shown in Figure 28, can include 

tissue denuded branch tips (fireworm predation), scalloped tissueloss-margin (snail predation), scraping/ loss of corallites (fish and 

urchin predation), and algal garden chimney (fish predation).

Physical impacts to coral can be caused by storms (wave 

energy), fishing, boating, and diving activities as well as 

interactions with other biota (algae, sediment, sponges, and soft 

corals). These can cause coral colony fragmentation, abrasion, 

competition, and/or mortality (Figure 29). Some physical 

interactions such as algal overgrowth or abrasion caused by 

7 Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics

Figure 27. Examples of diseases affecting coral. Image credits: Coral 

Restoration Foundation (A, B); Nova Southeastern University CRRAM Lab (C, 

D).

Figure 28. Examples of predation wounds on coral. Image credits: Nova 

Southeastern University CRRAM Lab (A, B, D); Johnston and Miller (2014; C).

Figure 29. Examples of physical impacts to corals. Image credits: Nova 

Southeastern University CRRAM Lab (A, B); NOAA (C, D).
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 57

loose corals, gorgonians or other biota can easily be managed by 

removing the negative impact or stabilizing loose corals. If physical 

impacts to the outplanted corals are chronic, it may be necessary 

to consider adaptive management actions to help protect 

restoration activities. Examples of potential adaptive management 

actions could be changing the restoration site location and/or 

contacting local authorities to establish no fishing or anchor areas. 

Coral bleaching may be observed during extended periods of 

elevated temperature (Figure 30). Bleaching may appear as pale, 

partially bleached, or completely bleached and each condition 

may signal that adaptive strategies should be used when planning 

restoration activities. If bleaching is a chronic condition at a 

restoration site, especially if it is associated with mortality, it is 

advised to not continue further restoration at that site, and just work 

to maintain previous outplanting. Paling may be an early indicator 

of potential bleaching or may be the result of other stressors. 

Therefore, paling should be considered, but not recorded as 

bleaching. Coral color cards are available to more accurately track 

coral color over time (Figure 31); while this card was originally 

designed for Pacific corals, it has been successfully used within the 

Caribbean as well. There are numerous programs around the world 

that bleaching and sometimes disease data can be reported to; see 

Appendix 3 for a list of a few of these programs.

Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics 7

Figure 31. Example coral health 

chart from (A) CoralWatch and 

the (B) Hawaiian Ko’a (coral) card.

Figure 30. Examples of coral bleaching. Image credits: 

Coral Restoration Foundation (A); Liz Goergen (B, C).
58 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Possible Methods

The following are methods that could be used to survey the 

condition of restored corals. These suggestions are not exhaustive, 

but are presented as a guide. Whichever technique is chosen, 

it is important to identify the method used when reporting data. 

To accurately evaluate the condition of a restored coral 

population, control sites must simultaneously be evaluated 

for the same criteria. If the conditions are being studied on a per 

species basis, consider species spatial distribution and abundance 

to assure appropriate sampling sizes (Jordan-Dahlgren et al., 

2018). Using a combination of permanent and random/roving diver 

surveys over time may provide the most comprehensive results.

Details describing the first of two methods to survey coral condition 

are found under Universal Metric #2:

Ecological Footprint Survey

Conducting surveys for coral condition within the RRAD will 

provide focused community data for the area within which restored 

corals are being outplanted. Coral condition data collected within 

the RRAD is valuable as it provides a standardized project size 

and area of restored reef to evaluate changes over time and gauge 

the overall impact and success of a restoration project.

Mosaics

Coral condition data can be collected from photomosaics, although 

caution must be taken that the imagery collected are at a level 

suitable for identifying coral conditions. With images, it can be 

difficult to differentiate a bleached colony from a recently dead 

colony with exposed white skeleton. Image quality and resolution 

will affect the ability to capture the presence or absence of polyps 

from imagery alone. A combination of methods, such as images 

and roving diver surveys of the same area could be conducted 

to help differentiate between or identify conditions. The result 

of the mosaic process is a high-resolution photographic archive 

of all benthic organisms within the area of interest that can be 

used to identify coral condition at the time of the mosaic survey 

(methods for obtaining a mosaic are above in Universal Metric #1 

and Appendix 4). For example methods of obtaining data from a 

mosaic, see Appendix 4. Examples from the literature such as, 

Burns et al. (2015); Gintert et al. (2018); and Fukunaga et al. 

(2019) outline use of this method in depth.

Additionally, the following methods described in Coral Population 

Enhancement Metric #1.1 could also be used to describe the 

condition of restored corals:

Transects 

Belt transects are the preferred type of transect to be used to 

monitor for coral condition and must be large enough to capture 

a sufficient number of colonies for the study species, this may 

require different size belt transects if multiple species are being 

surveyed (Jordan-Dahlgren et al., 2018). 

Point or line intercept transects are not a preferred method for 

this type of data as they cover a very small area or portion of 

colonies, requiring many replicates to appropriately describe 

each condition.

Photo transects/images are a valuable asset to monitoring coral 

condition for a few reasons: 1) images can be tracked over time 

to evaluate the amount of tissue lost per condition, 2) some 

conditions are difficult to identify – images can be distributed to 

experts and colleagues to aid in identification, and 3) images 

can be used as a tool for training to ensure data collectors are 

identifying conditions similarly.

Plots/Quadrats

Following the same advice given for transects above and in 

Coral Population Enhancement Metric #1.1, plots and quadrats 

can be used to track coral condition.

Coral Fate Tracking

Fate tracking of individual colonies affected by a condition is 

the preferred method to determine the effect that a condition 

has on the loss of tissue such as rate of progression, recovery/

regrowth, survival, and secondary infections. See Universal 

Metric #3 for additional details.

Roving Diver

A roving diver survey may be used to determine if additional 

survey methods should be deployed to capture prevalence. 

Roving surveys are meant to be a quick look at a site to observe 

if a condition is present, this type of survey is often performed to 

determine if bleaching and/or disease are occurring and require 

additional monitoring. 

7 Ecological Goal-Based Performance MetricsWhitney Hoot
59

Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics 7

Reporting

Coral condition may be reported in three ways: presence or 

absence, prevalence, and/or percent tissue loss. Whichever method 

is used, reporting should be by condition for each species, site, and 

monitoring event. In addition, disease and bleaching data can be 

submitted to your locations respective program (Appendix 3).

Prevalence of conditions is calculated by dividing the sum of 

colonies that have the condition of interest (disease, predation, 

bleaching, etc.) by the total number of colonies surveyed. 

Depending on the research objectives, each condition could 

be divided further; for example, predation could be divided into 

fireworm, snail, fish bites, and/or damselfish algal gardening 

prevalence.

Percent tissue loss could be reported as the mean percent of 

tissue lost per colony due to a certain condition (follow methods 

described in Universal Metric #3) or as a total amount of tissue lost 

per species. The total amount of tissue lost requires an estimation 

of each colony size to be able to calculate area lost.

Photographs

Some disease and predation wounds/lesions can be difficult 

to identify even to the trained eye. Representative photos 

of the conditions being reported will not only help other 

practitioners learn the variability of a condition, but will also help 

the restoration community become more consistent with the 

identification of coral conditions. In addition, photos can help a 

program identify the condition by sharing with the restoration 

community. Photos can be submitted to the CRC working 

groups and Facebook page who can share them with the 

restoration community for discussion (Appendix 3).

Sampling Frequency

The frequency of monitoring for coral condition will depend on 

the program’s objectives and goals and the intensity or longevity 

of the particular condition impacting coral health. Further, each 

condition may require a different monitoring schedule or frequency 

and should occur with increased frequency during the time of 

year where it is more likely to be observed (i.e., bleaching surveys 

should be conducted during times of peak water temperatures 

such as August and September in the Caribbean). For fast moving 

diseases, weekly to monthly observations may be necessary 

(Rogers et al., 2001). For examples of monitoring that may be 

required during times of high stress (e.g., disease or bleaching 

events), see Chapter 9.

Performance Criteria 

Restored corals should have low partial mortality, prevalence of 

disease, predation, mortality from bleaching, and other competitors 

over time. In addition, restored coral condition should be similar 

to wild colonies within control and reference sites. Significant 

changes in restored coral condition should trigger additional more 

frequent monitoring and adaptive management if applicable. 

Further, restoration activities should cease until the outbreak 

has subsided and if possible the cause of mortality defined and 

addressed. It is inevitable that coral loss (whole coral or partial 

coral) will occur, however if the general trend in live tissue or the 

distribution of coral partial mortality is towards an increase in 

mortality, the restoration site should be evaluated and adaptive 

management strategies should be evaluated to determine and 

reduce the cause of the loss of live tissue.

The Ocean Agency/Shaun Wolfe
60 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Evaluation Tool Criteria Alignment (Appendix 2): Coral 

Population Enhancement Metric #1.3 aligns with eight criteria: 

1. Outplants exhibit high coral survivorship within 1st 

year resulting in positive change in abundance of each 

outplanted species at an outplant site over time. If annual 

survival is >80%, a program will receive a score of 1 

(Evaluation Tool Outplanting Criteria #12). 

2. Restored corals maintain a high percent of live tissue per 

coral (outside of acute events) during 1st year. If mean live 

tissue per colony is >80% a program will receive a score of 

1 (Evaluation Tool Outplanting Criteria #13). 

3. Outplants exhibit low tissue loss (< 5% of outplants) from 

bleaching. If < 5% of outplants exhibit tissue loss from 

bleaching a program will receive a score of 1 (Evaluation 

Tool Outplanting Criteria #14).

4. Outplants exhibit low prevalence (<10%) of disease 

within the 1st year (outside of acute events). If disease 

prevalence of outplants is <10%, a program will receive a 

score of 1 (Evaluation Tool Outplanting Criteria #15).

5. Outplants exhibit low abundance and impacts of coral 

predators. If annual predation prevalence is < 5%, 

a program will receive a score of 1 (Evaluation Tool 

Outplanting Criteria #16).

6. Outplants exhibit limited competition by algae and other 

competitors (e.g., hydroids, sponges, damselfish). If annual 

competition mortality prevalence is <5%, a project will 

receive a score of 1 (Evaluation Tool Outplanting Criteria 

#17). 

7. Outplants experience low levels of physical damage 

(unnatural colony fragmentation, breakage, and/or 

dislodgement). If physical damage to outplants is less 

than or equal to wild colonies (e.g., dislodgement, extreme 

breakage, fragmentation due to anchor drags, boat strikes, 

divers) a program will receive a score of 1 (Evaluation Tool 

Outplanting Criteria #18).

8. Outplants exhibit high annual coral survivorship/abundance 

during years 2–5. If annual outplant survival is >65% OR 

if >65% of initially outplanted colonies are present at the 

site through year 5, a program will receive a score of 1 

(Evaluation Tool Outplanting Criteria #23). 

Further descriptions and supporting research of the Evaluation 

Tool Criteria can be found in Appendix 2 and online (Appendix 3).

Coral Population Enhancement Metric #1.4:

Species Richness and Diversity 

Universal Metric #4 discusses the importance of maintaining 

genetic and genotypic diversity of coral species during 

restoration activities to increase the sexual reproductive 

potential of an outplanting site (See Universal Metric #4). 

Genetic diversity is an important driver of long-term facilitation of 

species recovery and conservation (Baums, 2008; Drury et al., 

2017b; Baums et al., 2019). New genetic combinations resulting 

from sexual reproduction may add resilience to coral populations, 

and therefore, restoration activities should attempt to outplant 

a minimum of five unique genotypes of each species at each 

outplant site (Baums, 2008; Drury et al., 2017b).

To date, most restoration programs in the Caribbean have focused 

restoration efforts on Acroporids as these species are amenable 

to quick propagation and until recently were the only species 

listed within the U.S. Endangered Species Act (NOAA National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2006). However, declines in overall 

coral cover in recent decades have been accompanied by loss 

of species. Some monitoring sites in the Caribbean have shown 

declines in species richness of up to 35% (Porter and Meier, 1992; 

Hughes and Tanner, 2000). Between 1996 and 2002, 73% of 43 

permanent monitoring sites in the Florida Keys showed losses 

in coral diversity, with a maximum of seven species lost (Causey 

et al., 2002). Globally, losses in coral species diversity has been 

accelerated (between 30–60%) in areas severely degraded by 

human activities (Edinger et al., 1998). 

Declines in species diversity may have dramatic effects on the 

structure and function of the reef ecosystem. For example, the 

loss of Caribbean major reef building species (e.g., Orbicella 

and Diploria/Pseudodiploria species) have caused declines in 

reef accretion and potential declines in reef capacity to support 

biodiversity and provide ecosystem services (Alvarez-Filip et 

al., 2011). Additionally, species diversity can limit resilience from 

disturbance events, for some species already show a far greater 

tolerance to climate change and coral bleaching than others 

(Hughes et al., 2003). Therefore, there is an ever increasing need 

for restoration programs to focus on multi-species propagation and 

restoration to ensure the conservation of valuable coral species 

and maintain potential resilience. 

7 Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics

Tom Moore/NOAA
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 61

Possible Methods

The following are methods that could be used to survey for species 

richness and diversity of a restored site. These suggestions are not 

exhaustive, but are presented as a guide. Whichever technique is 

chosen, it is important to identify the method used when reporting 

data. To accurately evaluate potential changes in species 

richness and diversity, a survey must be completed prior to 

outplanting to characterize initial species diversity at a site.

Changes in species diversity through outplanting or potential 

recruitment can be monitored through subsequent surveys.

Details describing the first of two methods to survey coral condition 

are found under Universal Metric #2:

Ecological Footprint Survey

Conducting surveys for species richness and diversity within the 

RRAD will provide focused community data for the area within 

which restored corals are being outplanted. Species richness and 

diversity within the RRAD is valuable as it provides a standardized 

project size and area of restored reef to evaluate changes over 

time and gauge the overall impact and success of a restoration 

project. As with roving diver surveys, the number of species, the 

number of colonies per species, and the number of colonies per 

species per size class can be determined within the RRAD.

Mosaics

Species richness and diversity can be collected from photomosaics. 

The result of the mosaic process is a high-resolution photographic 

archive of all benthic organisms within the area of interest that can 

be used to identify the number of species, the number of colonies 

per species, and even the number of colonies per species per size 

class at the time of the mosaic survey (Methods for obtaining a 

Mosaic are above in Universal Metric #1 and Appendix 4). Coral 

colonies and changes in community composition can be followed 

through time based on their geographic location within the mosaic 

image. Individual tagging of coral colonies is not needed using 

the mosaic survey method. For example methods of obtaining 

coral size data from a mosaic, see Appendix 4. Examples from the 

literature such as, Burns et al. (2015); Gintert et al. (2018); and 

Fukunaga et al. (2019) outline use of this method in depth. 

Additionally, the following methods described in Coral Population 

Enhancement Metric #1.1 could also be used to describe the 

condition of restored corals:

Roving Diver

A roving diver survey may be used to determine initial species 

richness and diversity and will be able to cover more of the reef 

area in a short amount of time. Roving surveys are meant to be 

a quick look at a site to identify the coral species present at a 

site and then potential changes over time due to outplanting and 

recruitment. The number of species, the number of colonies per 

species, and the number of colonies per species per size class 

can all be determined through roving diver surveys.

Transects 

Random and belt transects can be used to evaluate species 

richness and diversity, but must be large enough to capture 

a sufficient number of colonies to adequately represent the 

community of the entire reef. This may require different size belt 

transects or multiple random transects (Jordan-Dahlgren et al., 

2018). In addition, the placement of transects for monitoring, 

even if random, must be within an area where restored corals 

will be or are located in order to capture species diversity and 

richness within the actual restoration area. Point or line intercept 

transects may also be used within the actual restoration area, 

but only cover a very small area, thus requiring many replicates. 

Point or line intercept transects may only provide a limited 

dataset related to species richness and diversity as some rare 

species may not be encountered within the outplant area, but 

should be represented for the entire reef site.

Photo/video transects or roving diver surveys

Photo and video transects or images collected continuously 

during roving diver surveys may be a valuable asset to 

monitoring changes in species richness and diversity. The use 

of image-based surveys allows a larger area to be covered 

and requires less underwater time as images or videos will 

be analyzed once back in the lab. Images or video must have 

high enough resolution for species identification and may also 

include a scale bar to allow for assessing colony size. 

100 Island Challenge, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, UCSD

James Morioka/NOAA
62 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Plots/Quadrats

Following the same advice given for transects above and in 

Coral Population Enhancement Metrics #1.1 and #1.3. Plots and 

quadrats can be used to obtain species richness and diversity 

data; however, replication must be taken into consideration in 

order to appropriately portray the site.

Reporting

Species richness is a measure of the number of species found 

at a site. As sample size or reef area increases, we would expect 

to find more species. Therefore, the number of species is divided 

by the square root of the number of individuals in the sample. 

This particular measure of species richness is known as D, the 

Menhinick’s index where s equals the number of different species 

at a site, and N equals the total number of individuals at a site. 

Species diversity differs from species richness in that it takes into 

account both the numbers of species present and the dominance 

or evenness of species in relation to one another. As a measure 

of species diversity, calculate the Shannon index, where pi is the 

proportion of the total number of individuals in the population that 

are in species “i”. A higher Shannon Index indicates higher diversity.

Further still, species evenness refers to how similar in numbers 

each species at a site are. Mathematically it is defined as a 

diversity index, a measure of biodiversity which quantifies how 

equal the community is numerically. The evenness of a community 

can be represented by Pielou’s evenness index:

Where H’ is the number derived from the Shannon Diversity Index 

and H’max is the maximum possible value of H’ (if every species 

was equally likely), equal to:

J’ is constrained between 0 and 1. The less evenness in 

communities between the species (and the presence of a 

dominant species), the lower J’ is, and vice versa. S is the total 

number of species.

Species richness, diversity, and evenness can be calculated for 

each site. Photographs may be taken during each monitoring event 

to provide representation of species.

Sampling Frequency

An initial survey should be performed at each site prior to 

outplanting to determine initial species richness, diversity, and 

evenness. After outplanting, annual surveys may be performed for 

up to five years.

Performance Criteria 

Restoration programs that outplant more than one species to a site 

should work to maintain the restored species diversity, richness, 

and evenness. If a restoration programs capacity allows, species 

diversity, richness, and evenness similar to nearby reference 

and/or control sites should be a target goal to achieve Ecological 

Restoration (see Chapter 3 — Importance of Baseline Data and 

Reference Sites).

Evaluation Tool Criteria Alignment (Appendix 2): Coral 

Population Enhancement Metric #1.4 aligns with one criterion: 

Outplant sites contain multiple outplanted species; if more 

than one species is outplanted a project will receive a score of 

1 (Evaluation Tool Outplanting Criteria #7)

Further descriptions and supporting research of the Evaluation 

Tool Criteria can be found in Appendix 2 and online (Appendix 3).

PPPPPPPPPPPPPP cccc = ∑ CC CCCC PP PPPPPPPP

TT PP PPPPPPPP

× 100

PPPPPPPPPPPPPP CC = ∑ AA oo cc cc pp qqqq qq

TT AA SS SS

× 100

/ qqqq qq = QQ × % cccc oo cc qq1 + ⋯ + QQ × % cccc oo cc qqqq

DD = √NN

H= ∑(ppi) | ln ppi |

JJ′ = HH′

HH′mmmmmm

HH′

mmmmmm = −∑1

SS ln

1

SS = ln SS

SS

ii=1

Mia Hoogenboom The Ocean Agency/Shaun Wolfe

Coral Restoration Foundation

PPPPPPPPPPPPPP cccc = ∑ CC CCCC PP PPPPPPPP

TT PP PPPPPPPP

× 100

PPPPPPPPPPPPPP CC = ∑ AA oo cc cc pp qqqq qq

TT AA SS SS

× 100

/ qqqq qq = QQ × % cccc oo cc qq1 + ⋯ + QQ × % cccc oo cc qqqq

DD = √NN

H= ∑(ppi) | ln ppi |

JJ′ = HH′

HH′mmmmmm

HH′

mmmmmm = −∑1

SS ln

1

SS = ln SS

SS

ii=1

PPPPPPPPPPPPPP cccc = ∑ CC CCCC PP PPPPPPPP

TT PP PPPPPPPP

× 100

PPPPPPPPPPPPPP CC = ∑ AA oo cc cc pp qqqq qq

TT AA SS SS

× 100

/ qqqq qq = QQ × % cccc oo cc qq1 + ⋯ + QQ × % cccc oo cc qqqq

DD = √NN

H= ∑(ppi) | ln ppi |

JJ′ = HH′

HH′mmmmmm

HH′

mmmmmm = −∑1

SS ln

1

SS = ln SS

SS

ii=1

PPPPPPPPPPPPPP cccc = ∑ CC CCCC PP PPPPPPPP

TT PP PPPPPPPP

× 100

PPPPPPPPPPPPPP CC = ∑ AA oo cc cc pp qqqq qq

TT AA SS SS

× 100

/ qqqq qq = QQ × % cccc oo cc qq1 + ⋯ + QQ × % cccc oo cc qqqq

DD = √NN

H= ∑(ppi) | ln ppi |

JJ′ = HH′

HH′mmmmmm

HH′

mmmmmm = −∑1

SS ln

1

SS = ln SS

SS

ii=1
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 63

Coral Population Enhancement Metric #1.5:

Indirect Seeding of Sexual Recruits

This section aims to provide a standardized protocol for collection 

of data for evaluating coral restoration using larval propagation 

followed by indirect seeding; that is, settlement of larvae onto an 

artificial substrate unit that is subsequently outplanted to the reef. 

This is in contrast to a direct seeding approach, whereby larvae are 

settled directly on the natural reef substrate. Metrics for the latter 

approach differ from the former and will not be addressed in this 

document. Substrates with settlers may be kept ex situ or placed in 

field nurseries for a grow-out period, or may be transplanted to the 

reef shortly after settlement. Specifically, it is useful to evaluate 

the effectiveness at two crucial life history steps of the 

restoration pipeline, 1) settlement of larvae onto substrates, 

and 2) the fate of these substrates and the settlers they harbor 

over time, regardless of the setting in which they were reared.

Larval settlers are inherently small, difficult to see and therefore, 

difficult to monitor. There is likely also some inherent tradeoff 

between the intensity of effort to observe and quantify survivors 

(hence accuracy) and the degree of handling disturbance involved 

(hence also likely affecting this accuracy). Thus, practitioners 

should consider carefully the goals for monitoring and what 

interval of monitoring makes sense in their context. While there is 

an expectation that mortality will be highest in the period directly 

following the outplanting phase, the data obtained may also be 

more reliable several months post-outplanting to allow settlers to 

grow to a more apparent size. Thus, the timing of post-outplanting 

monitoring will depend on the post-settlement growth rates of the 

particular species in question.

Possible Methods

The following describes an outplanting/monitoring scheme that can 

be applied in the case of relatively rapid outplanting of substrates 

shortly after larvae have settled on them (i.e., within a few weeks 

post-settlement). Similar tracking of survivors and yield should be 

undertaken during any extended period of ex situ culture.

Sub-sampling

It is expected that for restoration-scale activities, only a subset of 

substrates would be manageable to monitor individually. A sample 

size of at least 30 substrates per site/treatment is recommended, 

as there is generally a high degree of variability in settlement 

among individual substrates.

Substrate Count

One of the first steps in tracking the success of outplanting 

artificial substrates is to track their retention on the reef, i.e., 

presence or absence of each, or a subset of, the substrates 

that were outplanted (absence is very important to record). 

These data will provide information on the effectiveness of 

the outplanting technique (e.g., gluing, wedging, or loosely 

scattering) success. Data can be collected in situ using a 

site referenced outplanting map (similar to the data collection 

techniques for Ecological Footprint Surveys), georeferenced 

photo documentation, or a combination of both (Figure 32). Data 

collection for this method can be aided by bringing previously 

drawn maps or images of the outplant design (see Guide to 

Field-Based Coral Reef Restoration [Goergen et al., in review] in 

Appendix 3) for guidance on creating an outplant field map). 

Settler Abundance

The abundance of settlers must be reported prior to outplanting 

substrates to the reef. These initial counts provide the baseline 

data necessary to draw any conclusions about success.

Pre-Outplant

This process involves quantifying the number of settlers (which 

hopefully turn into colonies over time) on each (or a subset) of 

the monitored substrates. In order to do this, each substrate 

must be tracked individually; therefore, substrates must be 

uniquely marked or mapped to allow tracking the fate of settlers 

after outplanting (Figure 33). The ‘Time 0’ counts are generally 

made where larval rearing and settlement have taken place 

(e.g., land-based tanks or in situ mesocosms).

If a dissecting microscope is available, this is the best way to 

score early stage settlers. Otherwise, fluorescence detection 

can be used with whatever form of magnification available.

Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics 7

Figure 32. Photo documentation of outplanted settlement substrates. Image 

Credit: John Parkinson.

Figure 33. Example identification tag on settlement substrate. Image credit: 

Kelly Latijnhouwers.
64 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Post-Outplant

In order to assess the fate of settlers after they were outplanted, 

each substrate, or a subset of substrates, should be examined 

carefully to record the number of surviving coral settlers. The 

field data sheet should also include site metadata such as 

Outplant Plot number and substrate identifier. An underwater 

map and plot images will aid in relocating outplanted substrates 

and settlers on substrates.

In early stages, it may be helpful to take a few substrates 

(preferably not those tracked for monitoring) back to a lab 

to examine them under a dissecting microscope and with a 

fluorescence flashlight to ensure that surveyors can confidently 

identify settlers, which can be challenging to detect at first.

Aid of Fluorescent Protein Flashlights

An important tool for detecting small settlers is fluorescence– 

many, but not all, coral settlers express green fluorescence 

proteins. A specialized blue fluorescence exciting light and 

yellow filter can make small settlers more apparent via glowing 

green (Piniak et al., 2005; Baird et al., 2006; Schmidt-Roach 

et al., 2008). However, different species and cohorts of settlers 

show high variability in their fluorescence, both in terms 

of intensity and timing of fluorescence (Baird et al., 2006). 

In addition, some substrate materials such as carbonate 

substrates auto fluoresce green and can ‘wash out’ the signal 

from small settlers. Thus, auto fluoresce might be a relevant 

factor when considering the material for settlement substrates. 

The other operational consideration is that fluorescence is a 

more effective tool against a dark background. Hence, a dark 

lab or dusk- or night-dives may be best suited for scoring of 

early-stage settlers with fluorescence. Alternatively, substrates 

may be temporarily placed in some sort of underwater ‘dark 

box’ to aid fluorescence detection.

Settler Size

As the recruits begin to grow, it may also be advantageous to track 

their size as an indication of health. This may be achieved by either 

recording the number of polyps or the maximum diameter of the 

colonies. Maximum diameter can be measured in situ with calipers 

or a ruler or ex situ via analysis of a scaled digital photograph [e.g., 

ImageJ or CPCe]. Caution should be taken if measuring settlers in 

situ as settlers can be damaged or dislodged with measuring tools; 

the preferred method for measuring recruits, if tools are available, 

is through image analysis.

Plots/ Quadrats

A visual record of the benthic communities on the substrates 

themselves as well as surrounding the outplanted substrates can 

be captured through, a close up picture of the substrate, and a 

scaled aerial image of the outplanting plot, respectively. These 

images can be used to derive benthic cover via point-count 

techniques (e.g., point counting software) or in situ estimates as a 

covariate to help interpret survivorship rates.

Reporting

From these methods, substrate retention (as a proportion), mean 

settler survivorship, and yield (as a proportion) can be calculated 

for each time point.

Substrate Retention: The proportion of outplanted substrates 

that are relocatable at a given time. This parameter reflects 

the success of the attachment and/or self-stabilization of the 

substrate on the reef and is likely most affected by physical 

characteristics such as the physiography/rugosity of the 

reef, hydrodynamic forcing, and the shape and weight of the 

substrate itself.

Settler Survivorship: The proportion of outplanted coral 

settlers surviving at a given time. This can be scored for each 

individual substrate to calculate mean/variance and allows 

statistical hypothesis testing. This parameter is affected more by 

biology: the physiological state of the coral settler, itself, and the 

ecological interactions it experiences.

Yield: The proportion of originally outplanted substrates that can 

be relocated on the reef, and that retain at least one live coral 

at a given time. This parameter is affected by both survivorship 

and retention thus integrating the influence of the substrate 

characteristics and physical and biological forcing, perhaps 

giving the most holistic indicator of cost-effectiveness (since cost 

scales most directly with how many substrates are produced 

and outplanted).

The mean size of recruits can also be used to derive early stage 

growth rates. Benthic composition in percent cover or presence 

and absence can be reported to help interpret settler survival.

Sampling frequency

Surveys should be conducted prior to outplanting substrates and 

at intervals supportive of a program’s goals. An appropriate interval 

for research purposes (and based on detecting Type III survival 

curves) might be 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. However, for general 

restoration monitoring, 6 and 12 months post-outplant is likely 

more appropriate. In addition, monitoring should occur following 

disturbance events (e.g., storm, disease, or bleaching).

7 Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics

Coralium
65

Performance Criteria 

Although it is difficult to control the number of settlers on each 

artificial substrate, the ideal is to begin with enough settlers to 

end up with one coral surviving on each substrate (i.e., a yield 

of 100%). This ideal of 100% yield is not a likely outcome, and a 

reasonable criterion for yield is not yet available. The metrics of 

retention and survivorship are expected to vary greatly among 

species and receiving habitats and thus, evaluation criteria are 

not yet available for these fairly new techniques. However, at this 

time, these metrics do allow a better understanding of the settings 

in which larval propagation is most effective by comparing these 

metrics among, for example, years, sites, and/or species. It will, 

for instance, be very informative to learn that it is three times 

more effective to outplant species x than species y on a specific 

reef location, or that yield has increased yearly since the start 

of a given restoration program. Standardizing the collection of 

these metrics among projects and sites will begin to build the data 

necessary to establish specific evaluation criteria.

Objective 2: Community and Habitat 

Enhancement

The main purpose of ecosystem restoration is to ultimately restore 

ecosystem functionality. Metrics to quantify ecosystem functionality 

include the enhancement of: 

1. Invertebrate Community

2. Reef Fish Community

3. Reef Structure and Complexity

4. Habitat Quality

Community and Habitat Enhancement 

Metric #2.1:

Invertebrate Community Diversity and 

Abundance

Coral reef invertebrates have a broad diversity of form and 

function. Some are attached to the ocean floor while others are 

mobile. Invertebrates can perform key functions such as 

habitat provision, algae control, or serve as an important 

source of food. This diversity in form, along with the small size or 

cryptic nature of some species, can make surveying a challenge. 

Multiple methods may need to be employed to fully capture 

community abundance and diversity.

Possible Methods

Sessile, colonial invertebrates are often recorded as a percent 

cover of the benthos, but may also be recorded as an abundance/

density. There are multiple variations of transect surveys that 

can be useful for recording their presence. Line intercept or belt 

transects in combination with quadrats or photos/videos, as 

described in a previous section (Coral Population Enhancement 

Metric #1.1), are useful for evaluating sessile invertebrates. These 

methods include surveys of a defined area that can be used to 

calculate percent cover or density.

Abundance or density of mobile invertebrates can be surveyed 

using belt transects or a roving diver technique. Belt transects 

have the advantage of covering a known area, making it easy to 

calculate density. Roving diver surveys can be used for calculating 

abundance; however, calculations of density require information on 

the area surveyed (i.e., Ecological Footprint). Roving diver surveys 

can cover a large area and searching for macroinvertebrate 

species that may hide from view.

Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics 7

Perry Institute
66 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

A common technique for mobile species is to record indicator 

species or species of special interest rather than all mobile species 

encountered. These indicator species often play a key functional 

role on the reef (e.g., primary grazers or predators). They can be 

surveyed using the roving diver or belt transects as described 

above. In the Caribbean, some potential indicator species include:

Urchins (Diadema, Echinometra)

Lobsters (Palinuridae, Scyllaridae, etc.)

Caribbean King crab (Mithrax spinosissimus)

Coral crab (Carpilius corallinus)

Corallivores (Coralliophila, Hermodice)

Finally, the presence of small, cryptic species may not be captured 

using the transect and roving diver survey techniques described 

above. A potential method to evaluate these species is the use of 

autonomous reef monitoring structures (ARMS). These are layered 

structures with fibrous material placed in between where microinvertebrates settle. The structures are deployed on reefs and 

collected after a few months. The fibrous material and structures 

can be searched by hand for presence of cryptic invertebrates 

(Zimmerman and Martin, 2004) or analyzed through DNA 

barcoding (Leray and Knowlton, 2015).

Reporting

Macro-invertebrate species abundance can be reported as 

number or density of individuals (sessile and mobile species) or as 

percent cover (sessile species only). Cryptic micro-invertebrates 

are reported as presence/absence. Species diversity, richness, 

and evenness can be calculated as described in Coral Population 

Enhancement Metric #1.4.

Sampling Frequency

An initial survey should be performed at each site prior to 

outplanting to determine initial species richness, diversity, and 

evenness. After outplanting, annual surveys may be performed. 

Performance Criteria 

Net increase in invertebrates from baseline (defined from prerestoration survey). Outplants increase net abundance and net 

functional group diversity of invertebrate reef organisms.

Evaluation Tool Criteria Alignment (Appendix 2): Community 

and Habitat Enhancement Metric #2.1 aligns with one criterion:

Outplants improve the ecological value of reef/provide 

habitat for invertebrates (non-corallivorous). If the presence 

of outplants increase net abundance of invertebrate reef 

organisms as determined by pre- and post-outplanting 

surveys a project will receive a score of 1 (Evaluation Tool 

Outplanting Criteria #22).

Further descriptions and supporting research of the Evaluation 

Tool Criteria can be found in Appendix 2 and online (Appendix 3).

7 Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics

NOAA
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 67

Community and Habitat Enhancement Metric #2.2:

Reef Fish Community

the physical structure provided by corals that serves as refuge and 

foraging habitat; and this relationship varies among species and lifestages. Habitat utilization ranges from highly site attached to more 

motile species. Additionally there are seascape and environmental 

factors related to the species life cycle that influence abundance; 

some species settle in mangroves and move to reefs as they 

grow. Fishing is an important factor driving the abundance of fish 

on reefs; grouper abundance may be more strongly influenced by 

protection of spawning sites than habitat availability. Some basic 

understanding of the ecology of different species is useful for 

monitoring the reef fish community associated with coral restoration.

Some groups of fishes are of particular interest for coral restoration 

since they have been shown to influence coral condition through 

trophic interaction. Herbivorous fish (i.e., parrotfish) graze on 

algae promoting a reef condition that supports coral growth and 

recruitment. Caribbean Acroporid corals are known to provide 

high quality fish habitat, particularly to newly settling and juvenile 

stages of coral reef fishes (e.g., grunts, Haemulidae; Gladfelter 

and Gladfelter, 1978; Mudge et al., 2019). The role of resident 

schools of reef fishes in the potential benefit to corals through 

nutrient pathways has been documented and requires further 

study to understand if it is an important factor in the success of 

restored corals (Huntington et al., 2017). Predation by fish on coral 

predators (snails and fireworms) may be a process that promotes 

coral recovery. Some parrotfish prey on live coral tissue causing 

partial mortality.

The design of monitoring for the fish community should follow the 

concepts of fixed/repeated sampling and the sampling of control/

reference sites along with the restoration footprint (see Chapter 3). 

Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics 7

Nova Southeastern University CRRAM Lab

There are two primary reasons for monitoring reef fish 

communities associated with coral reef restoration projects. 

First, a goal of many coral reef restoration projects is providing 

functional reef fish habitat to support biodiversity and fishery 

species by increasing the reef fish abundance and species 

diversity. Additionally, fish can provide important ecological 

functions that may promote successful coral reef restoration, 

including grazing of reef substrata, preying on corallivores and 

providing nutrient input. As part of evaluating the effectiveness 

of coral reef restoration projects, monitoring changes in the 

fish community is useful to quantify the benefit of increased 

coral abundance to the reef fish community and to better 

understand variability in restored coral condition may be 

related to fish abundance. There is value in monitoring the 

response of the reef fish assemblage to inform the effectiveness 

of restoration techniques at an ecological community scale and to 

understand the factors that influence habitat utilization of different 

fish species at restoration sites to inform coral reef restoration 

design. The following two broad questions are addressed by reef 

fish monitoring:

How does the reef fish community at restoration sites change 

after coral outplanting and corals grow to provide physical 

structure?

Is the condition of outplanted corals and the benthos at 

restoration sites related to fish community metrics (are there 

positive of negative correlations)?

To answer these questions it is useful to understand how the 

ecology of reef fish relates to the coral restoration goals. The 

abundance and species composition of reef fish is strongly tied to 
68 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

At the scale of most coral restoration projects, fixed stations will 

provide more power to determine changes in the fish community 

given the natural spatial variability in the coral reef habitat. Since 

fish can move readily across habitats within a reef, it is important 

to understand how the fish community changes at coral outplanting 

sites by comparing it with non-restored control sites and/or 

reference natural reef sites with high coral abundance, if available. 

Some fish species will settle and recruit to the coral outplanting 

sites, while other species may move from adjacent reef habitat or 

use restoration sites periodically. For this reason, it is valuable to 

understand what fish species and size classes are populating the 

restoration area. This may also change over time as the outplanted 

corals grow, and as there are periodic fish recruitment events. 

Therefore, we recommend that the minimum distance between 

replicate fish surveys is 30 m. In addition, fish monitoring should 

compare unrestored areas to areas where corals are restored. 

A pre-outplanting baseline monitoring is done and then annual 

monitoring after the corals are outplanted at the site (Figure 34). 

Possible Methods

The following are methods that could be used to survey the 

fish community surrounding restored corals (Table 18). These 

suggestions are not exhaustive, but are presented as a guide. 

Whichever technique is chosen, it is important to identify the 

method used when reporting data. To accurately evaluate the 

reef fish community of a restored coral population, control 

sites must simultaneously be evaluated for the same criteria.

Stationary Cylinder or Reef Visual Census (RVC)

In the stationary cylinder method, a surveyor at a stationary point 

samples the fish community within an imaginary cylinder. The 

surveyor counts fish by species and size during multiple 5-minute 

time intervals. During the first 5-minute interval, the observer 

rotates slowly on the point and makes a list of all species within 

the cylinder. During the subsequent 5-minute time interval, the 

number of fish by species and size within the cylinder is recorded. 

The diver trains to visually estimate the boundary of the cylinder 

using a tape or an APT (all-purpose tool/ 1-meter T stick), which 

is commonly set at a 15 m diameter (Bohnsack and Bannerot, 

1986), but should be reduced for smaller restoration/outplant 

footprints (i.e., to the size of the Outplant Plot). Dialing down to the 

appropriate scale of the Outplant Plot and minimizing the influence 

of any surrounding habitat or structure is appropriate, provided 

it still captures the site’s sphere of influence. If the Outplant 

Plot is greater than 15 m diameter, a central location in the plot 

would be suitable. However, fish like vertical structure, and if the 

edge of the restoration site has any kind of vertical relief, it might 

harbor a greater concentration of fishes, and should therefore 

be considered. Cylinders greater than 15 m become impractical 

for the observer to accurately assess. The center point of each 

cylinder is marked for repeated sampling over time.

7 Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics

Figure 34. Treatments (or factors) for 

monitoring reef fish communities at coral 

restoration sites. The control site with no 

restoration illustrates degraded reef habitat 

that is devoid of coral and physical structure 

that does not change through time. The 

restoration site is showing increased coral 

and fish abundance prior to coral outplanting, 

immediately after outplanting (within one 

month), and at post outplant monitoring. 

The reference site (if available) is used to 

gauge effectiveness of the coral restoration in 

providing habitat for the fish community.

To note:

If the species used for restoration are expected to expand 

significantly within the timeframe of monitoring (years), such 

as some branching species, defining the cylinder’s diameter 

to reflect this expected change may be appropriate. For 

example, branching Acroporid corals were outplanted within 

a 5 m radial plot and are known to fragment and reattach 

frequently, therefore the practitioner may choose to define 

and survey a 9 m diameter cylinder, which includes a 2 m 

“buffer” round the outplanted corals. Additional research on 

the specific species, habitat, and region should be completed 

prior to defining the cylinder’s boundary.
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 69

Belt Transects

Belt transects involve counts of fish species and estimates of fish 

size along a set swath that can vary in dimension (Brock, 1982; 

Huntington et al., 2017). Common dimensions are 25 x 4 m (100 

m2) to 10 x 1 m (10 m2); although the size of the coral restoration 

area will determine which size is suitable. Smaller belt transects 

will provide more accurate information on species diversity of site 

attached and cryptic species, whereas larger transects are better 

suited for larger species. The belt transect is established at the start 

point and the survey diver slowly reels out the transect tape in a 

predetermined direction while at the same time enumerating and 

sizing fish present within the transect width across the established 

length. It is useful to standardize the time for all transect samples 

(5–15 minutes depending on transect size). Specifically for cryptic 

species, a diver can lay out a tape in advance of the survey allowing 

fishes to acclimate to the tape. The diver is positioned and surveys 

the fishes within 1 m of the bottom. With slow, but steady speed and 

a trained eye the transect method can be a good way to quantify 

cryptics and juveniles. A stake or marker should be installed at the 

beginning and end of the transect to allow for repetitive sampling. 

Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics 7

Method Area Covered Strengths Weaknesses

Belt Transect 20–100 m2

Good for species density and diversity

Portable

Easy to execute

Repeatable

Not greatly affected by poor visibility

Widely used in past studies

Preferred method for cryptic species (when appropriate 

time and area are used)

Not as good at capturing large schools or highly mobile species 

(which often includes many of commercial/recreational 

importance)

Not as practical in strong currents

Stationary 

Cylinder 50–200 m2

Good for species density and diversity

High efficiency, versatile

Low tech/minimal sampling gear

Eliminates diver movement

Better captures mid-water species

Survey area includes entire water column from reef 

substrate to the surface

Can underestimate cryptic fishes if radius is too wide or visibility 

impaired

Requires practice for cylinder estimation

Roving Diver Approximately 

100–1,000 m2

Captures high diversity

Low tech/minimal sampling gear

Quick to employ

Captures large area

Helps to characterize an area (qualitative vs quantitative)

May overestimate cryptic species

Difficult to measure entire assemblages

Density cannot be estimated if area surveyed is not accurate

Not for generating data amenable to rigorous statistical analysis.

Not for repeated measures

Video Transect Approximately 

1–10 m2

Removes diver effects

Provides permanent record

Stereo video system can accurately estimate sizes and 

survey area

In situ expertise not needed

Sizing smaller species is difficult

Positive species ID can be more challenging, especially depending 

on size and distance.

Traditional methods collect greater species richness

Double counts more likely with decreased viewing area

Inconsistent census area (visibility)

Video viewing and processing is time consuming

Expensive

Table 18. Comparison of reef-fish survey methods. (Adapted from Caldwell et al., 2016).

NOAA NCCOS
70 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Roving Survey (Timed Swim)

The observer swims randomly over the study site recording fish 

species, abundances, and sizes during a fixed sampling time 

(Baron et al., 2004; Kilfoyle et al., 2013). In roving surveys, the 

diver can either actively search for areas where fish refuge (e.g., 

holes, ledges) or maintain a direction independent of habitat 

features. The approach should be standardized for all samples in 

a study and the sampled area must be over the Outplant Plots for 

the restored counts and over non-restored area for the controls or 

reference. The sample effort can be standardized by time, or the 

distance covered can be derived from a GPS. A floating GPS in 

a waterproof bag can be towed by the diver, and the track used 

to quantify survey length (see in situ tracing method in Universal 

Metric #1). Roving surveys of five minutes are generally used to 

standardize the sample effort. For calculating density, the observer 

counts fish inside a set width of the swim line (i.e., 5 m). If a set 

width is not used, the abundance of fish is reported as a count 

per unit time (number per minute). Roving surveys can also be 

used for cryptic and juvenile fish surveys, it will generally generate 

a longer species list, but time may then become a factor in the 

survey.

Video and Stereo Video Transects

Video survey methods involve recording video of reef fish along 

transects or timed swim surveys or deploying stationary cameras 

to record fish on sections of the reef. The video is then reviewed to 

extract information on fish species and abundance during selected 

time segments of the video. A stereo video system with two 

cameras is used when accurate fish size estimates are needed. 

Video analysis software is then used to extract fish length data 

(Langlois et al., 2010). Video surveys are directly correlated to 

the quality of video and are limited in low-light and low-visibility 

settings. Baited Remote Underwater Video (BRUV) systems are 

not recommended for coral restoration monitoring, as fish from 

outside the area of focus will likely be attracted, confounding 

results. Estimating the size of smaller species and fish within large 

schools is difficult with video surveys. Although video surveys are 

an efficient sampling method, a significant amount of time and cost 

are required for post processing.

Reporting

Species diversity, richness, and evenness can be calculated as 

described in Coral Population Enhancement Metric #1.4. The 

basic level of information for monitoring the reef fish community is 

identifying species and counting the number of individuals within 

a fixed area or time. This will yield species richness, diversity, 

and relative abundance or density by species. Obtaining data 

on the size of reef fish is helpful for comparing size distributions, 

calculating biomass, and identifying recruitment events. Estimating 

the size of fish during visual surveys requires training and has 

been shown to provide useful information for making spatiotemporal comparisons. 

7 Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics

Sampling Frequency

Sampling should be done before coral outplanting in order to 

document how the fish community changes once corals are placed 

at the site. At a minimum, annual post-outplanting surveys should 

be conducted at the control and outplant sites as well as reference 

sites if available. In the Caribbean, this is recommended to occur 

in August to incorporate fish recruitment and relates to coral 

health. This approach allows for determination of changes due 

to the outplanted corals and increased physical structure (coral 

growth) as well as identifying wider scale changes that may occur 

naturally over all treatments (i.e., recruitment).

Performance Criteria 

Net increase from baseline (defined from pre-restoration survey). 

Outplants increase net abundance and net functional group 

diversity of reef fish. Fish community on restored sites trends 

toward community structure at adjacent wild reference areas, this 

will depend on the time it takes for the outplanted corals to reach a 

size and density that provide functional habitat structure.

Evaluation Tool Criteria Alignment (Appendix 2): Community 

and Habitat Enhancement Metric #2.2 aligns with one criterion:

Outplants improve the ecological value of reef/provide 

habitat for reef fish. If the presence of outplants increase 

net abundance of reef fish as determined by pre- and 

post-outplanting surveys, a project will receive a score of 1 

(Evaluation Tool Outplanting Criteria #21).

Further descriptions and supporting research of the Evaluation 

Tool Criteria can be found in Appendix 2 and online (Appendix 3).

Andrew Gray/NOAA
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 71

Maximum Height of Restored Corals

Restored reef height can be collected by measuring the maximum 

height of the restored coral, by species. The maximum height of a 

coral is measured from the substrate through the growth axis to the 

tallest living point on the coral. A successful restoration can become 

indistinguishable from a natural reef. Therefore, unrestored coral 

height in the restoration area and in control areas can be used for 

comparisons of restoration trajectories. For restorations that include 

restoring reef height as a goal (e.g., coastal protection), additional 

measurements can include heights of the entire reef structure, 

including restored corals. Exact colony height can be reported or 

height bins can be used (Figure 35). The techniques below are 

suggestions that could be used to collect this type of data.

In situ Measurements

Using a measuring device such as a marked PVC measuring 

stick or ruler, a diver or snorkeler records random height 

measurements that are statistically representative of the 

restored corals within the restoration area. 

Photopoint Monitoring

Photopoint monitoring utilizes repeated photos from permanent 

locations over time to show change (O’Connor and Bond, 2007). 

A scale bar should be included in the photos in order to derive 

height measurements ex situ.

Community and Habitat Enhancement Metric #2.3:

Reef Structure and Complexity

Reef structure and complexity is a measurement of the vertical 

structure of the coral colonies and the reef structure used for 

restoration. This metric is important as it can be used as a proxy for 

habitat complexity and creation (McCormick, 1994; Gratwicke and 

Speight, 2005; Sleeman et al., 2005; Graham et al., 2006; Wilson 

et al., 2010; Dustan et al., 2013). In addition, reef height is one of 

the most important metrics considered when calculating a reef’s 

contribution to coastal defense (World Bank, 2016). Over time, 

Reef Structure and Complexity should show an increasing trend. 

Reef structure and complexity includes the restored corals as well 

as any engineered substrate added as part of the restoration. An 

increase in reef structure and complexity from coral restoration is 

related to the growth rate of the coral species that were restored. 

For example, in the Caribbean, branching Acropora species will 

generally have a fast increase whereas the slower growing boulder 

coral species (e.g., Pseudodiploria species) or plating coral species 

(Agaricia species) may have very minimal change in restored reef 

height. Inclusion of any engineered structures will also change reef 

structure and complexity.

Possible Methods

The following are methods that could be used to quantify the 

structure and complexity of a restored reef. These suggestions 

are not exhaustive, but are intended as examples or guidance. 

Whichever technique is chosen, it is important to also identify the 

method and accuracy of the equipment used when reporting data.

Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics 7

Figure 35. Estimated height of coral colonies pre-outplanting, immediately post-outplanting, and 1 year post-outplanting using height bins.
72 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

7 Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics

Rugosity

Rugosity is a simple measure of the surface roughness, complexity, 

or topographic contour of a reef that is commonly used by coral 

reef biologists. Rugosity of a coral reef can reflect the positive 

effects of population enhancement and also the negative effects of 

disturbances and stressors on the reef such as ship groundings, 

storm damage, coral mining, or ocean acidification. The ecological 

importance of higher rugosity include habitat/sheltered spaces and 

physical niches for reef organisms and substrate for corals to attach 

and grow. Reefs with higher rugosity can support higher biodiversity 

(Tews et al., 2004; Gratwicke and Speight, 2005) and increase the 

carrying capacity of the habitat (Kostylev et al., 2005). 

Chain length

To measure rugosity using the chain method, a 10 m fine-link 

chain (one link = 1.5 cm) is laid directly over the substrate and 

is made to conform as closely as possible to all contours and 

crevices. A measure of the actual surface distance relative 

to linear distance is obtained by measuring the distance the 

chain reaches with a meter transect tape. The ratio of chain 

to distance determines the substrate rugosity index (Risk, 

1972; Luckhurst and Luckhurst, 1978) which can be used as a 

measure of reef complexity. 

Reef Height

Using a measuring device such as a marked PVC measuring 

stick or ruler, a diver or snorkeler records height measurements 

of the restored corals along a transect within the restoration 

area (NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program, 2018).

Photopoint Monitoring

Photopoint monitoring utilizes repeated photos from permanent 

locations over time to show change (O’Connor and Bond, 2007). 

A scale bar should be included in the photos in order to derive 

height measurements ex situ.

Photomosaic

Large area imagery (e.g., photomosaics, Structure from Motion) 

can be collected and processed to allow for calculation of 

3-dimensional reef complexity (Figueira et al., 2015; Leon et al., 

2015; Fukunaga et al., 2019; Rossi et al., 2020). Imagery can 

be collected for photomosaics by divers or via remote-sensing 

platforms such as autonomous vehicles. More information 

on diver-based photomosaics is available on the CRC–Reef 

Resilience Network webinar on photomosaics from July 2019 

(Appendix 3).

Reporting

Reporting of reef structure and complexity of a restoration project 

will depend on the method used for quantification. Restored 

Structure and Complexity should be reported as a mean (cm) of all 

measurements recorded at each restoration site by species used 

for restoration.

Sampling Frequency

At a minimum, reef structure and complexity sampling should 

be completed at a restoration site immediately following a coral 

outplanting event and, if applicable, after the addition of any 

engineered reef structure. Additional recommendations for 

restoration monitoring to detect change in reef complexity over time 

include sampling prior to restoration, sampling at the frequency 

(based on species growth rates) to detect change, and sampling 

after a disturbance event. Sampling prior to restoration provides 

a baseline for before-after comparisons for change in complexity 

after restoration. For fast growing coral species, annual sampling of 

reef height is recommended to capture change in habitat creation 

(inferred from the change in reef height) and reef growth. For 

slow growing coral species, sampling should be conducted at the 

temporal frequency at which change can be detected. Sampling 

after a disturbance (e.g., wave event, bleaching or disease event) 

will provide data on restoration disturbance impacts in terms of the 

amount of complexity lost (i.e., corals and engineered structure).

Performance Criteria

Restored Structure and Complexity should increase or stay the 

same across time until the maximum height for the restored coral 

species is achieved. The maximum achievable height at a site for 

a given species is likely dependent on site characteristics such 

as substrate type, depth, or wave energy. Net decreases in mean 

reef height from the initial measurements should be evaluated, and 

adaptive management strategies should be used if appropriate.

Evaluation Tool Criteria Alignment (Appendix 2): Community 

and Habitat Enhancement Metric #2.3 aligns with one criterion:

Outplants increase reef height/rugosity of site (Acropora/

branching species only). If outplants increase reef height/

rugosity of reef site, as determined by pre- and postoutplanting surveys, a project will receive a score of 1 

(Evaluation Tool Outplanting Criteria #20).

Further descriptions and supporting research of the Evaluation 

Tool Criteria can be found in Appendix 2 and online (Appendix 3).

NOAA NCCOS
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 73

Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics 7

As restored corals grow and flourish, there is an assumed positive 

feedback loop with the ecosystem that the quality of the direct 

(Ecological Footprint) and surrounding habitat quality will change. 

A healthy reef ecosystem will not only provide a balance of 

diversity and abundance of invertebrates and vertebrates, and reef 

structure and complexity as described above, but should also host 

a supportive quality of water, reduced negative interactions, 

and increased recruitment of corals. This metric aims to capture 

the change or effects that restoration has on habitat quality 

through water quality measurements, sedimentation, benthic 

composition, and recruitment rates. By establishing comparative 

metrics and parameters related to habitat quality, we will have a 

better understanding of the impact that restoration activities have 

beyond coral outplanting and will help explain restoration success 

or failure.

A positive change in the quality of habitat at a restoration site may 

take years to observe. However, these data are equally important 

if a restoration site is unsuccessful as some of these parameters 

may quickly reveal a reason(s) why, such as increased sediment 

load or high levels of nutrients such as dissolved inorganic 

nitrogen (indicating a nearby terrestrial run-off).

Water temperature, as described in the Universal Environmental 

Metric Chapter 6, is the basic key parameter describing the 

environment at a restoration site; however, there are many 

additional water quality parameters to describe the quality of 

water. Parameters may include, but are not limited to: dissolved 

inorganic nutrients, dissolved organic carbon, dissolved 

oxygen, phosphorus, nitrogen, chlorophyll, pH, salinity, light, 

Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR), and turbidity and 

should be selected based on the programs objectives (Fabricius, 

2005; Cooper et al., 2009; Wagner et al., 2010). Restoration 

practitioners are not able to manipulate water quality at restoration 

sites, but they can monitor for changes, seasonal, event-driven, 

or otherwise, to better understand the environment in which corals 

flourish. The composition of the water column around a restoration 

site can greatly influence the success of coral outplants, 

particularly if they are small colonies and/or have increased 

susceptibility to waterborne diseases (Richardson, 1998; Voss and 

Richardson, 2006).

Water quality can quickly change and can often be associated with 

weather patterns; a heavy rain event will lead to increased run-off 

and likely an increase in inorganic nutrients on the reef, where as 

a drought, in association with high temperatures, will cause an 

increase in salinity. Changes in water quality may also be chronic 

due to an altered run-off regime. Therefore, it is important to 

develop a water quality monitoring plan to be able to differentiate 

between chronic and acute effects. 

Sediment can occupy benthic space for coral growth and 

recruitment and potentially smother living corals. Rates of 

sedimentation, the process of settling sediment, will vary based 

on habitat type, geographic location, and environmental (wind, 

rain, and run-off) and anthropogenic (coastal construction, beach 

nourishment) factors. Depending on the type of sediment and 

environmental conditions, turbidity (transparency of water) 

may also be affected. Sedimentation and turbidity may affect 

the success of a restoration if rates are over what corals can 

endure (high accumulation of sediment on the reef) or are 

chronically present in high levels (Roy and Smith, 1971; Rogers, 

1990; Anthony and Larcombe, 2000) and in some cases can 

lead to increased disease (Figure 36; Pollock et al., 2014; Miller 

et al., 2016b). High rates of sedimentation will also negatively 

affect recruitment rates (Birkeland, 1977; Bak and Engel, 1979; 

Birkeland et al., 1981; Rogers et al., 1984). 

While the rate of sedimentation and turbidity may not change due 

to population enhancement activities, it is a valuable indicator 

for the success of restoration activities. Turbidity measurements 

can also indicate the amount of light that is available for 

photosynthesis; this could also be measured as PAR using a 

Quantum sensor. When selecting a restoration site or even the 

microhabitat where a coral is to be outplanted, the surrounding 

sediment should be taken into account. 

Community and Habitat Enhancement Metric #2.4:

 Habitat Quality

Figure 36. (A) Nine out of 10 outplanted elkhorn corals dead from 

sedimentation and (B) storm driven sedimentation causing outplant 

mortality. Image credit: Coral Restoration Foundation (A) and Nova 

Southeastern University CRRAM Lab (B).
One of the most visible changes that may occur following 

restoration is a change in benthic composition. Changes that 

may be observed are a reduction in algae, space competitors (e.g., 

zoanthids, encrusting sponges and tunicates), and homogeneity of 

the community as a reef transitions from a baseline reef to a healthy 

productive ecosystem. This transition may take years to occur, but 

is extremely important to understand in terms of understanding the 

reef’s ecological succession following restoration.

Coral recruitment should increase following restoration as coral 

reefs begin their transformation to a healthier more supportive 

ecosystem (Miller and Barino, 2001; Montoya-Maya et al., 2016), 

although it may be many years before this is observed, due 

to the nature of coral reproduction. Recruitment may increase 

faster at sites with a larger abundance of brooding coral species. 

Observance of an increase in the abundance or cover of 

crustose coralline algae, known to increase the likelihood of coral 

recruitment, is also a good sign that the restored reef is showing 

signs of possible increased recruitment in the future. Documenting 

an increase in coral recruitment is part of the ultimate goals of 

restoration; creating a self-sustaining/maintaining coral reef 

ecosystem. While the recruitment is not necessarily from the 

corals used for restoration, this will help support that restoration 

has created a community that is producing the settlement cues 

necessary for new corals (Kingsford et al., 2002; Sponaugle 

et al., 2002; Gleason et al., 2009; Dixson et al., 2014). Ideally, 

recruitment would occur from a wide diversity of species, but will 

ultimately be determined by the diversity of the source reefs, which 

in most cases will be unknown. However, if coral species diversity 

is still low or not similar to reference or surrounding reefs following 

restoration and numerous recruitment events, it may be in the 

best interest of the restoration program to initiate the addition of 

additional species to the site through restoration.

The ultimate goal of a restoration program should be to improve a 

reef site’s habitat quality or at the very least, not let it become more 

degraded. Not all of the factors listed above must be monitored in 

great depth, but any combination of them can inform the status of 

the habitat. 

Possible Methods

The following are methods that could be used to measure habitat 

quality. These suggestions are not exhaustive, but are presented 

as a guide. Methods are grouped by parameter.

Water Quality

Water quality sampling, depending on the parameter being 

evaluated, will likely require additional equipment and processing 

expertise. Defining and outlining specific methods for each 

parameter are beyond the scope and expertise of this document; 

however, the following are a few publications and guides specific 

for coral reefs or coastal communities to help a program begin to 

develop a monitoring program suited to their needs and objectives. 

In addition, we advise that programs reach out to local researchers 

or agencies (government/non-government) for additional support 

and guidance, there may be others in your community who have 

the resources to assist in implementing a water quality monitoring 

program.

Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine 

Water Quality

Online resource providing information on developing and 

managing a water quality monitoring program, key elements to 

consider:

https://www.waterquality.gov.au/anz-guidelines

Florida Department of Environmental Protection Water Quality 

Assessment Program

Online resource providing examples and guidance on 

monitoring water quality over time:

https://floridadep.gov/DEAR/Water-Quality-Assessment

Guidance Manual for Optimizing Water Quality Monitoring 

Program Design

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2015) 

provides support and guidance in developing a water quality 

monitoring program. Although this guide is focused on 

Canadian Ecosystems, which do not include coral reefs, it 

provides applicable examples, guidance, and case studies of 

monitoring program development and execution. 

Marine Water Quality Monitoring: A review 

Karydis and Kitsiou (2013) provides a review of marine water 

quality monitoring including data analysis and international 

conventions with examples.

7 Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics

Hatsue Baily/NOAA Colin Howe

74
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 75

Sedimentation/ Turbidity 

Sedimentation and turbidity can be measured using a variety of 

methods ranging from a ruler to satellite imagery. Sedimentation 

measurements can include sediment composition, depth, and 

rate. Turbidity measurements include depth of Secchi disc, 

PAR, or NTU/FNU/FTU (Nephelometric Turbidity Unit/Formazin 

Nephelometric Unit/ Formazin Turbidity Unit). 

Sedimentation can be measured using semi-permanent 

sediment traps (Nodder and Alexander, 1999; Gardner et al., 

2003; Storlazzi et al., 2011), collecting depth measurements 

of sediment along a transect (Miller et al., 2016b) or randomly 

across the site, documenting the size of sediment patches along 

a transect or by using satellite imagery (Pollock et al., 2014)

Turbidity can be measured using a Secchi disc, light meter/

PAR (Storlazzi et al., 2015), or a nephelometers/turbidimeter 

(Telesnicki and Goldberg, 1995; Omar and Matjafri, 2009).

Benthic Composition

Details describing the following two methods are found under Coral 

Population Enhancement Metric #1.1, both techniques can capture 

the diversity and abundance of benthic cover and composition.

Transects

Belt transects can be used to evaluate benthic composition, but 

must be large enough to capture a sufficient area to adequately 

represent the community of the entire reef. This may require 

different size belt transects or multiple random transects 

(Jordan-Dahlgren et al., 2018). In addition, the placement of 

transects for monitoring, even if random, must be within an area 

where restored corals will be or are located in order to capture 

benthic composition within the actual restoration area. Point 

or line intercept transects may also be used within the actual 

restoration area, but only cover a very small area, thus requiring 

many replicates. Choice of transect type will depend on the type 

of benthic data wanting to be obtained.

Plots/Quadrats

Plots and quadrats are also a valuable method for evaluating 

the benthic composition. The defined area of a plot or quadrat 

allows for an easy estimate of percent cover. However, because 

the typical plot or quadrat are small in size this method will 

require replication across the RRAD in order to appropriately 

portray the benthic composition.

Details describing the following method are found under Universal 

Metric #1 and #2: 

Photomosaics

Benthic composition of a restoration site can be obtained 

from a photomosaic. The result of the mosaic process is a 

high-resolution photographic archive of all benthic organisms 

within the area of interest that can be used for functional 

group identification, cover, size, and distribution at the time 

of the mosaic survey (Methods for obtaining a photomosaic 

are above in Universal Metric #1, #2, and Appendix 4). With 

images, identification of some functional groups may be 

difficult. Although some equipment is better than others are for 

producing fine-scale detail mosaics, a combination of methods, 

such as images and roving diver surveys of the same area could 

be conducted to help differentiate between or identify conditions.

Coral Recruitment

Monitoring for coral recruitment is a time consuming task that 

can require specialized species identification, so be sure to plan 

accordingly for fieldwork and post-processing in your monitoring 

plan. Coral recruits should be identified to species, when possible, 

measured, and tracked over time. By following coral recruits 

over time, indication of survival and site health can be made. 

Fluorescence-exciting lights may be another valuable tool to 

increase efficiency in locating coral recruits (Piniak et al., 2005; 

Baird et al., 2006).

Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics 7

Mauricio Lopez Padierna

Liz Goergen
Details describing the following two methods are found under 

Coral Population Enhancement Metric #1.1:

Transects

Random and belt transects can be used to evaluate coral 

recruitment, whereas line or point intercept transects are not 

suitable for capturing coral recruitment due to the sparsity of 

coral recruits. A smaller transect area than what is used to 

capture benthic composition is also warranted due to time it 

takes to survey for coral recruits.

Plots/Quadrats

Plots and quadrats used for coral recruitment surveys are 

typically smaller than those used for documenting changes in 

benthic cover or adult colony sizes and are generally between 

25 x 25 cm and 50 x 50 cm.

Additionally, settlement plates could be used to monitor for coral 

recruitment:

Settlement Plates

Settlement plates/tiles/materials can be deployed within a 

restoration site to estimate coral recruitment. There are a variety 

of materials that have been used as settlement materials such as 

terra-cotta, concrete, granite, coral skeleton, glass, etc., each of 

which have their limitations and advantages (Harriott and Fisk, 

1987; Mundy, 2000; Burt et al., 2009). Settlement plates should 

be deployed approximately one month prior to the predicted 

spawning season and collected a few months following the last 

predicted spawning to allow for settlement after spawning. 

Reporting

Habitat quality reporting is dependent on the method used to 

capture the metric. Any water quality and sedimentation/turbidity 

parameters should be reported as collected, based on the sensor. 

Sedimentation can be recorded in several ways, including seasonal 

or annual sedimentation and resuspension rates, two-way 

sediment flux (the total mass of sediment that has been deposited 

and resuspended at a site), and sediment particle size distribution 

(Browne et al., 2012). Benthic composition should be reported as 

abundance, cover, and/or diversity, as number of individuals, or 

percent cover. Species diversity, richness, and evenness can be 

calculated as described in Coral Population Enhancement Metric 

#1.4. Coral recruitment should be reported as species diversity, 

abundance, and size. Collected data should be reported in program 

specific databases as well as uploaded into the CRC Coral 

Restoration Database, which can be found online (Appendix 3).

Sampling Frequency

This metric must be assessed through time in order to 

provide a comprehensive look at the change in habitat 

quality. At a minimum, we recommend sampling habitat quality 

immediately prior to outplanting, annually, and in response to 

stress events. Additional sampling may be conducted before, 

during, and/or after stress events such as eutrophication, algae 

blooms, or wind or wave events. Water quality and sedimentation/

turbidity change frequently and seasonally, therefore seasonal 

or more frequent monitoring is suggested to capture the range 

of each of these parameters. Additional sampling may also be 

included to address specific project goals. For example, if a 

restoration project goal is to increase coral recruitment, then this 

metric should be assessed more regularly around specific times of 

year (e.g., coral spawning season) in order to understand how the 

habitat quality affects the success of the coral outplants.

Performance Criteria

Habitat quality should increase over time as restoration efforts 

progress. Many, if not all of these metrics will require years of 

data before benefits or changes in habitat quality are measurable; 

for example, an increase of recruitment to the site may not be 

reported until many years following restoration. The need for these 

long-term data are invaluable in determining when the effects 

of restoration on ecosystem function are occurring and at what 

time point post-restoration each criteria should be evaluated. Net 

decreases in habitat quality, across any and all methods used, 

should be evaluated and adaptive management strategies should 

be used where appropriate.

7 Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics

New Heaven Reef Conservation Mauricio Lopez Padierna

76
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 77

Evaluation Tool Criteria Alignment (Appendix 2): Community and Habitat Enhancement Metric #2.4 aligns with two criteria:

Environmental parameters are measured at outplant sites to demonstrate that the site does not experience large changes in parameters 

over short periods of time (e.g., minimum measurement of water temperature required, but may also include light, current, sedimentation, 

turbidity). If this goal is met, a project will receive a score of 1 (Evaluation Tool Outplanting Criteria #4).

Benthic composition of outplant sites are surveyed long-term (>5 years) and outplant species exhibit positive change in abundance (may 

include recruitment of outplant species at restoration site) and growth as compared to baseline surveys. If benthic composition is surveyed 

annually and exhibits positive change when compared to baseline surveys, a project will receive a score of 1 (Evaluation Tool Outplanting 

Criteria #25).

Further descriptions and supporting research of the Evaluation Tool Criteria can be found in Appendix 2 and online (Appendix 3).

Ecological Goal-Based Performance Metrics 7

The Ocean Agency/Shaun Wolfe
Sanjay Acharya CC-BY-SA-3.0

Chapter 8

Socioeconomic GoalBased Performance 

Metrics

Coral reef restoration is a technological, social, and political 

endeavor, shaped by human needs and specific, shifting, locally 

defined outcomes like those presented in this guide. Restoration 

projects provide practitioners and their communities a chance 

to address systemic local environmental degradation and 

participate in the rehabilitation of the reef, to conserve species, 

maintain community connection to place, and recover critical 

ecosystem services. Ecosystem services are the benefits provided 

by ecological assets that benefit human well-being directly or 

indirectly (Bateman et al., 2011), such as the contribution of a coral 

reef to the local tourism economy, resilient fish stocks, or shoreline 

protection (Table 19). The ecosystems services model is just one 

way to measure the success of a restoration project, narrowly 

defining the value of coral reef ecosystems through human use 

(Schröter et al., 2014).

How socioeconomic goals of restoration are defined, will drive 

the metrics necessary to monitor for determining restoration 

success. For example, the economic value of these benefits 

vary depending on how ecosystems services are quantified. 

Coral reefs have been valued from US$352,249/ha/yr (Costanza 

et al., 2014) to over US$2 million/ha/yr (de Groot et al., 2012). 

Considering coral-related tourism expenditures alone, coral reefs 

could generate over US$36 billion globally (Spalding et al., 2017); 

at the same time, if one broadly considers economic, social, and 

iconic value, the Great Barrier Reef alone is estimated to provide 

US$56 billion in goods and services (Deloittes Access Economics, 

2013). Whether economists consider the intangible contributions of 

a coral reef ecosystem or restoration project to a community, like 

how a reef defines personal, cultural, and communal connection 

to place, can additionally impact the ultimate valuation and 

understanding of that ecosystem.

Socio-ecological systems are complex, and capturing ecosystem 

services and co-benefits in an era of global coral reef ecosystem 

decline requires immense human effort. Social (e.g., community 

involvement and support), economic (e.g., sustained funding and 

potential economic benefits), and governance (e.g., regulatory 

framework and institutional support) goals must align to invest 

in ecological health and successful restoration (Valentin and 

Spangenberg, 2000). Coral restoration is logistically challenging, 

it requires significant capacity and financial support to implement 

78
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 79

and ensure the program achieves its goals while minimizing 

unintended consequences like overuse. Consideration of the 

socioeconomic benefits and risks of coral restoration and 

collaborative consensus building with coral-reef-adjacent 

communities are critical to achieving project goals.

Reef-dependent tourism economies are not necessarily 

sustainable, and must be well managed to capture potential 

co-benefits (Hein et al., 2019). Coral restoration can improve 

local fisheries and attract coastal hotels and businesses, as well 

as provide valuable ecosystem services like coastal protection. 

Restoration projects can also lead to new business opportunities 

for dive tour operators and promote environmental awareness for 

dive professionals. At the same time, restoration-related tourism 

can also create negative environmental impacts to coral reefs 

from such new infrastructure development, intercultural conflict 

between tourists, hospitality staff, and locals, and overload local 

carrying capacity (Diedrich, 2007; Daldeniz and Hampton, 2013; 

Wongthong and Harvey, 2014). Increased diving and snorkeling 

pressure can, if poorly managed, lead to the degradation of 

and loss of marine life (Hasler and Ott, 2008; Lamb et al., 2014; 

Albuquerque et al., 2015). In addition, the influx of tourists to an 

area can have indirect impacts on coral reef health arising from 

poorly planned coastal development, including dredging, building 

on intertidal spaces, and increases in pollution and solid waste 

(Davenport and Davenport, 2006; Wongthong and Harvey, 2014). 

When restoration and conservation-related enterprises act as local 

or regional development projects, they can alter local cultures and 

infrastructure needs (West, 2008). Prior to developing a tourism 

component to a restoration project, restoration practitioners 

should assess the vulnerability of the reef site to unsustainable 

development practices (Calgaro et al., 2014), economic 

sustainability, and cultural conflicts between user groups (e.g., 

fishermen, local leaders, and tourism operators).

Programs should center equitable coastal access and local 

priorities for coastal zone users by collaborating with stakeholders 

and environmental resource managers to set restoration objectives 

and ensure comprehensive ecosystem health. Access to coastal 

resources, from clean air to food to open space, is a significant 

environmental justice issue and is inseparable from the social 

and economic issues underlying sustainable environmental and 

resource management (UNEP, 2012; Reineman et al., 2016). 

Centering traditional needs cannot only foster support for the 

project, but is a critical socioeconomic metric for the long-term 

success of the restoration project. Local government or permitting 

agencies should be included in program planning to ensure that 

reef resources being used by restoration programs are properly 

managed and not over-exploited. Local buy-in in terms of 

responsibility and financial support includes clear communication of 

the long-term costs of a restoration project, and does not displace 

undue risk or responsibility on local managers. Without realistic 

goals and continuing programmatic support or capacity, restoration 

programs and coral restoration efforts are unsustainably designed 

from the outset. These failures can foster negative perceptions 

about reef restoration and restoration-related ecotourism.

Goods Services

Renewable

Resources

Nonrenewable 

resources Physical Structure Biotic Biogeochemical Information Social and cultural

Commercial and 

recreational fisheries

Coral blocks and 

sand for building 

materials

Construction of 

complex structural 

base for habitat by 

hermatypic corals

Maintenance of coral 

reef habitat processes 

and functions

Nitrogen fixation Historical record 

of contaminants

Recreation such as 

ecotourism, diving, 

and snorkeling

Pharmaceuticals and 

medical raw materials

Raw materials for 

production of lime 

and cement

Protection of shallow 

aquatic nursery and 

feeding habitat from 

severe wave action

Provision of spawning, 

nursery, breeding, 

and feeding areas for 

many species

Carbon cycling Historical record 

of salinity

Cultural and 

religious values

Raw materials 

(primarily seaweed) 

for production of agar, 

carrageenan, and 

fertilizer

Mineral oil and gas Protection of 

shoreline property 

from severe wave 

action and erosion

Maintenance of 

species and genetic 

diversity

Calcium sink Historical 

record of sea 

temperature

Maintenance 

of traditional 

lifestyles

Shells and corals 

for jewelry and 

souvenirs

Construction of new 

land

- Export of dissolved 

organic matter, 

nutrients, and plankton 

to nearby habitats

Monitoring of 

environmental 

pollution impacts

Aesthetic values 

and artistic 

inspiration

Live fish and corals for 

aquariums

- Provision of sand to 

tropical beaches

- Assimilation of waste 

(particularly petroleum)

- -

Original Source: Adapted from Moberg and Folke (1999), Table 2.

Table 19. Assessment example of ecosystem services provided by Hawaiian coral reef ecosystems, highlighting direct socioeconomic services from coral restoration 

projects themselves. Table adapted from Bishop et al. (2011).

Socioeconomic Goal-Based Performance Metrics 8
80 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

The following suggestions for Socioeconomic goals do not 

represent the entirety of social, cultural, or economic relationships 

between communities and their coral reefs. Furthermore, this guide 

does not address the diversity of equity issues at stake in coral 

restoration projects of any scale. At the same time, those unique 

relationships drive community investment in restoration projects 

and the strategies necessary to ensure long-term sustainability 

and success. By providing examples of ways scholars have 

captured the systemic impacts of restoration projects, we hope 

that practitioners can identify key benefits and opportunities 

to fully integrate restoration projects into their socioeconomic 

environment.

Objective 1: Economic

Coral reef restoration can provide a diverse array of ecosystem 

services and economic benefits. From coastal protection, to 

increased tourism revenue, to promoting the health of local natural 

reefs through reduced natural reef visitation or the cultivation of 

coral and other reef species, restoration projects increasingly 

demonstrate economic benefits to reef-adjacent communities. 

However, program success is dependent upon the economic 

sustainability and financial equity of the project (e.g., financial 

transparency, distributed project benefits, and responsible financial 

planning), from implementation to maintenance and operation.

Economic Metric #1.1:

Coastal Protection

Climate-related stressors such as sea-level rise (Church et al., 

2013), a more powerful global wave climate (Reguero et al., 2019), 

and more frequent and intense hurricanes (Bender et al., 2010; 

Knutson et al., 2010; Anthony, 2016) are increasing flood risk to 

coastal infrastructure and communities. Coral reefs can act as 

natural breakwaters that dissipate wave energy through wave 

breaking or friction (Gourlay, 1996a,b; Sheppard et al., 2005; 

Quataert et al., 2015; World Bank, 2016). Healthy coral reefs 

absorb 97% of wave energy and buffer shorelines from currents, 

waves, and storms (Ferrario et al., 2014). This contributes to the 

prevention of loss of life, economic activity, and property (Ferrario 

et al., 2014). Recent studies estimate that reefs mitigate up to 

US$1.8 Billion in damages from coastal flooding in the U.S. every 

year (Storlazzi et al., 2011; Beck et al., 2018).

The potential benefits that coral restoration can provide for 

coastal protection are controlled by reef and coral features 

at multiple spatial scales, including the coastal zone, reef, 

and coral scales, and multiple temporal scales, including 

short-term and long-term benefits (Viehman et al., In Review). 

Siting restoration projects for coastal protection needs to 

consider the hazards, exposure and vulnerability, and valuation 

(van Zanten et al., 2014), as well as where potential restoration 

benefits will be feasible and realistic. The potential for effective 

wave energy reduction by coral restoration is controlled by the 

location, size, structural complexity, and depth of the reef and 

corals. As with other coral restoration projects for other purposes, 

the sustainability of the restorations relates to the restoration 

trajectories of restored corals; however, restoration for coastal 

protection also needs to consider potential impacts of wave energy 

over short time-scales (i.e., when benefits will be provided) and 

long time-scales (i.e., how long will the restoration benefits be 

provided). The intended time frame for the implementation of 

coastal protection benefits also relate to coral design: for more 

immediate benefits, larger corals with more complex morphologies 

may need to be outplanted rather than small corals. For more 

immediate return of coastal protection services or for severely 

degraded reef structure, the addition of gray infrastructure (i.e., 

engineered structure) or a hybrid gray-green infrastructure (i.e., 

combination of engineered structure and ecological corals; 

Reguero et al., 2019) may need to be considered. Artificial reefs 

(i.e., gray infrastructure) have been deployed to protect beach 

areas for tourism and other recreational purposes in locations 

including the Bahamas, China, Maldives, Mexico, and Indonesia 

(Ranasinghe and Turner, 2006; Scarfe et al., 2009; Moore, 2019).

8 Socioeconomic Goal-Based Performance Metrics

Curt Storlazzi/USGS
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 81

Possible Methods

Scaling up coral restoration for coastal protection is an area of 

active multi-disciplinary research and development. We caution 

that quantitative measurement of the contribution of a restoration 

project to localized coastal protection requires significant multidisciplinary institutional support; partnerships with subject-matter 

experts are strongly recommended. Scientists are beginning 

to establish a direct link between nearshore coral reefs and 

shoreline stability (Frihy et al., 2004; Ruiz de Alegria-Arzaburu et 

al., 2013; van Zanten et al., 2014; Reguero et al., 2019). Much of 

the extensive nearshore oceanographic research conducted on 

coral reefs and wave energy can be applied to coral restoration 

scenarios, although few of these efforts have yet incorporated 

restoration. Recent studies have leveraged remote sensing data 

to compare shoreline change over time, propagate oceanographic 

wave and current models ground-truthed with local oceanographic 

data, and apply coastal engineering models to design coral 

reef restoration and quantify the coastal risk reduction benefits 

provided by restored coral reefs (Reguero et al., 2019).

We suggest that a combination of methods are relevant to monitor 

the success of coral restoration for coastal protection. Without 

conducting research akin to the resource-intensive studies that 

measure coral reef benefits to shoreline protection cited above, 

restoration groups or collaborators should track the following 

values of coastal protection:

Economic Value of the Coastal Economy

Numbers of tourists, coastal properties, and natural infrastructure 

contribute to the economic value of the coastal economy. Tourist 

use can be represented by numbers of visitors (individual and 

family), how much travel and tourism activities contributed to the 

gross domestic product, and potentially the economic activities of 

your coastal town or city. Economic valuation of natural resources, 

such as a beach protected by coral restorations, can be represented 

by local activity (i.e., direct tourist visitation to the beach). Coastal 

property valuation is also a metric to represent coastal hazards risk.

Costs of Existing Coastal Protections

If there have been local or regional investments in engineered 

coastal protection in the form of breakwaters, seawalls, bulkheads, 

groins, or jetties, the construction and maintenance costs of those 

installations can be evaluated. Non-governmental organizations 

(NGOs) such as The Nature Conservancy have incorporated 

similar evaluations into their Insuring Nature projects in Mexico 

and Hawai’i (World Bank, 2016; Spalding et al., 2017; The Nature 

Conservancy, 2019; Reguero et al., 2019).

Wave energy

Wave energy across the reef to the shoreline should be evaluated 

before the restoration implementation, at regular intervals during 

the development of the restoration, and when the restoration is 

considered fully mature. Additionally, these field measurements 

can be used to ground-validate coastal oceanographic models 

to relate wave energy to coastal inundation. A wide range of 

potential wave conditions should be modeled to project the 

change in coastal protection provided by the restoration both 

as the restoration develops and under a wide range of potential 

oceanographic conditions.

In addition, we suggest that monitoring of coral restorations related 

to coastal protection needs to quantify not only metrics for restored 

coral species, abundance, and colony size, coral cover, and reef 

structural complexity as detailed by this Guide, but also wave 

energy across the reef to the shoreline, and coastal infrastructure 

valuation. If engineered infrastructure is included, additional 

monitoring of structural integrity is necessary. This specific 

objective is early in the research and application phase and is an 

area of active research.

Reporting

Quantitative monitoring data should be reported in program 

specific databases and/or permitting and funding reports. 

Reporting on the risk reduction of the coral restoration within 

the context of the value of the coastal economy is important to 

demonstrate the long-term value of these programs.

Sampling Frequency

Sampling should be completed at a restoration site before, 

immediately following a coral outplanting event and, if applicable, 

after the addition of any engineered reef structure. Additional 

recommendations for restoration monitoring to detect change in 

coastal protection services provided over time include: sampling 

prior to restoration, sampling at the frequency (based on species 

growth rates) to detect change, and sampling after a disturbance 

event.

Performance Criteria

Coral restoration for coastal protection should reduce coastal 

risk from hazards such as wave-driven flooding. The coral 

restoration should decrease wave energy that reaches the shore, 

and therefore reduce risk to coastal infrastructure. Because risk 

reduction will vary depending on the magnitude of the coastal 

hazard (i.e., hurricane strength and duration), this metric should be 

modeled and evaluated within a wide range of potential scenarios, 

from normal conditions to moderate events and to extreme events.

Curt Storlazzi/USGS
82 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Economic Metric #1.2:

Responsible Ecotourism Opportunities

Tourism can both contribute to the local economy and extract 

resources from the local environment and economy. Within coastal 

communities bordering coral reef ecosystems, the environmental 

impacts of tourism can range from beach nourishment, to 

uncontrolled development, to loss of fishery resources. However, 

there are numerous opportunities for a community to leverage 

tourism development and change the impact of those activities 

on the environment, such as developing responsible ecotourism. 

At minimum, ecotourism is “responsible travel to natural areas 

that conserves the environment, sustains the well-being of 

the local people, and involves interpretation and education” 

(The International Ecosystem Society, 2015). Locals should be 

empowered to define what responsible tourism activity looks like for 

their community during the planning process and ensure their plan 

is completed. Beyond good intentions, ecotourism requires effective 

planning and local management of resources in order to prevent 

potential negative impacts of travel-related emissions, infrastructure 

development, and community disenfranchisement (Nelson, 1994; 

Shani et al., 2012; Wearing and Schweinsberg, 2018).

Given the broad array of economic and social benefits that coral 

reefs provide, there are growing attempts to build more sustainable 

approaches to reef-related tourism (Diedrich, 2007; Townsend, 

2008; Arkema et al., 2015), some including the development of coral 

restoration projects as attractions themselves (Stolk et al., 2007; 

Meyers, 2016). Developer interest in environmental appreciation has 

recently increased in the dive tourism industry along with rapidly 

growing accessibility of remote coral reef areas due to budget 

airlines and proliferating tourism infrastructure (Harriott et al., 1997; 

Dimmock, 2006; Garrod and Gossling, 2008; Burke et al., 2011). 

Tourism development, while able to attract additional participation and 

investment in coral restoration efforts, can have systemic impacts on 

local carrying capacity and exacerbate environmental stressors (See 

Sociocultural Metric #2.2). However, the dive industry has been slow 

to develop resilience frameworks or strategies to withstand economic 

and ecological disruption created by the increased stress of tourism on 

local reefs and economies (Hillmer-Pegram, 2013).

Coral reef restoration projects are just one example of an 

ecotourism opportunity that can generate economic investment in 

the community. Moreover, a well-developed, responsible coral 

reef restoration ecotourism program has the ability to attract 

visitors to participate in a unique experience that can shape 

tourists’ relationship to the marine environment and foster 

global stewardship of coral reef ecosystems. The economic 

benefit from these activities can extend to dive and snorkel 

shops, hotels, and local shops and restaurants. Coral reef 

restoration ecotourism can also improve the existing coral reef 

socio-ecological community through habitat development and 

enhanced local investment in reef health, which could provide 

economic benefits to other reef users like anglers. Restoration 

projects that have the goal of increasing tourism should do so 

responsibly, and with the awareness that tourism infrastructure 

can exacerbate environmental stressors, economic inequality, and 

erode local sovereignty (Moore, 2019).

Possible Methods

The following are methods that could be used to evaluate tourism 

activities related to reef restoration. The Infrastructure Census may 

require collaboration with social scientists. These suggestions are 

not exhaustive, but are presented as a guide:

Participation

Track the annual number of participants in restoration-related dives 

and on-shore activities (e.g., building of nursery structures on land) 

and the number of dives and/or snorkel excursions to restored 

reefs. To track visitation of restored sites versus natural reefs, 

request that dive shops report the number of dives on each site 

each month, rank the dive sites by how frequently that dive shop 

visits that site, or bring a map around the dive shops and docks to 

ask reef-users what the most heavily-used reef areas are before 

and after project implementation. Assessments should include 

participant metadata (e.g., nationality, ethnicity, education level, 

occupation, net income, household income).

Reef-Related Dive Tourism Revenue

Measure the number of dive shops, number of employees and 

trainees at each dive shop, and the number of conservationoriented certifications being offered at those shops who work with a 

project. Annually, ask the shops to report the number of divers who 

visit their shop per year, and track the number of shops referring 

to conservation or restoration activities on their websites or social 

media accounts.

Restoration-Oriented Diver Trainings with Local Shops

Track the number of trainings conducted by local dive shops for 

restoration-related dive certificates, and the number of trainings 

conducted to include dive shops in restoration-related activities. 

Document who owns the shop and whom the shop employs (e.g., 

What percentage of employees are foreign or local? What is the 

average education/experience level? How long does the average 

employee stay in that area?).

8 Socioeconomic Goal-Based Performance Metrics

Corales de Paz
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 83

Infrastructure Census

As coral reef ecosystem health improves or declines, tourism 

infrastructure dependent on reef health can also expand or 

contract. To understand potential inputs to the reef ecosystem, it is 

critical to monitor the types of local infrastructure currently available 

and how that infrastructure can impact your project (i.e., How 

effective is the sewer plant at maintaining good water quality?).

Reporting

Quantitative monitoring data should be reported in program 

specific databases and/or permitting and funding reports. This 

is also an opportunity to share these results with the community 

through public media like newspaper articles, public meetings, 

radio interviews, and flyers.

Performance Criteria

If the purpose of a restoration project or program is to increase 

opportunities for tourism, performance criteria should evaluate the 

trends in tourist participation in reef restoration activities, tourism 

revenue generated by restoration projects, and visitation of reef 

restoration sites. Annual tourism participation should increase 

initially after restoration programs are established and will likely 

level off over time. Coral restoration programs have the potential to 

reduce negative pressure placed on coral reefs by dive or snorkel 

related activities. Therefore, it is important to monitor both natural 

and restored reefs to evaluate condition. Evaluation of coral 

resources and condition should follow Chapter 5 and Chapter 7 of 

this Guide. 

Evaluation Tool Criteria Alignment (Appendix 2): Economic 

Metric #1.2 aligns with four criteria:

1. Volunteer restoration participants have an increased 

awareness about the status of coral reefs and the need 

for coral reef restoration. If a pre- and post-participation 

survey is conducted, a program will receive a score of 1 

(Education and Outreach Evaluation Tool Criteria #1).

2. Program includes adequate (frequency, metric, etc.) 

monitoring to determine success (defined in guides). If a 

program conducts survival monitoring of outplants, the 

program will receive a score of 1 (Restoration Program 

Evaluation Tool Criteria #9).

3. Program shows financial robustness and stability. If a 

program has at least a 3 year financial plan, the program 

will receive a score of 1 (Restoration Program Evaluation 

Tool Criteria #11).

4. Program can be managed and maintained by the staff 

and resources locally available. If a program’s nursery 

structures or corals are properly maintained and gross 

mortality is not observed due to neglect (i.e., colonies 

fallen in sand, dislodged colonies, colonies overgrown by 

competing organisms, broken structures, abrasion), the 

program will receive a score of 1 (Restoration Program 

Evaluation Tool Criteria #12).

Further descriptions and supporting research of the Evaluation 

Tool Criteria can be found in Appendix 2 and online (Appendix 3).

Note:

When new developments or public facilities are constructed, 

there are several open-source tools available to structure 

this census. The European Tourism Indicator System is a 

management, information, and monitoring tool specifically 

designed as a locally-owned and -led process for collecting 

and analyzing statistical data at the local level to assess 

the impact of tourism on a destination aligned with the 

United Nations World Trade Organization’s Sustainable 

Development Goals (European Commission, 2016; 

Appendix 3). Managers can also refer to the US Forest 

Service’s Limits of Acceptable Change program to help 

achieve sustainable development adjacent to protected 

areas (Brunson, 1997).

Albert Manduca Corales de Paz
84 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Objective 2: Sociocultural

While restoration focuses on coral reef ecosystems and ecological 

characteristics, there is also the potential for restoration activities 

to improve the resilience of the local communities through 

education, engagement, and empowerment. Programs that pursue 

financially responsible, place-based, community-driven restoration 

may achieve significant sustained participation that ensures the 

economic viability of the program in the future. For example, 

improving local stewardship through education, and educating 

restoration practitioners about the local community, can minimize 

further direct impacts to the reef, reducing restoration costs in the 

long-term and fostering sustained community engagement. Some 

restoration projects prioritize such objectives.

Sociocultural Metric #2.1:

Cultivating Stewardship through Education 

and Outreach

Coral restoration is increasingly used to educate local 

communities, stakeholders, and ecotourists about the value of 

healthy reefs and to create stewardship for coral reef ecosystems 

and other marine resources. Many existing restoration programs 

now incorporate an education and outreach component to not only 

educate participants, but also to leverage volunteer participation 

and additional resources (e.g., participation fees) to increase the 

number of corals that can be outplanted. As popular awareness 

of coral restoration grows, new restoration programs have been 

created by local dive shops, NGOs, for-profit companies, or 

ecotourism-related ventures (e.g., hotels, resorts) to organize 

environmentally-minded tourists or to serve as a form of mitigation 

in response to declines in reef health (in many cases due to 

coastal construction or other local stressors). It is important that 

these projects be taken up with a commitment to sustainable 

project management, thorough and ongoing community 

engagement, and preferably in concert with other conservation 

efforts to promote successful restoration efforts.

Regardless of the reason for the restoration, the long-term success 

of a coral restoration and conservation program can benefit from 

effective education and outreach. Conveying key context and 

the science behind restoration, communicating the personal and 

community impacts of reef degradation, and involving as many 

people as possible in the actual coral reef restoration process 

generates awareness and is an integral part of restoration success 

(see next section). As media representation of coral reef vulnerability 

becomes widespread and generates broad community involvement, 

participatory coral reef restoration can cultivate stewardship and 

help bring environmental awareness into the mainstream.

Cultivating stewardship can produce benefits that reach far 

beyond the reef. Stewards can directly impact the coral restoration 

community by increasing awareness about specific programs, 

providing a helping hand to restoration programs through 

community and volunteer participation, developing divers’ scientific 

literacy and stewardship, increasing investment in restoration 

efforts through ecotourism and a sense of investment in restored 

corals, and increasing awareness of systemic environmental 

issues. Tourism projects that promote an awareness of coral reef 

conservation have been demonstrated to both improve support 

of conservation projects in study communities and perceptions of 

local quality of life (Diedrich, 2007).

Coral outplanting conducted as part of an education and outreach 

component of coral restoration programs should be monitored 

using the Universal Metrics and Goal-Based Performance 

Metrics provided within this Guide to measure restoration 

success. Restoration program operators should ensure that both 

propagation/outplanting techniques and monitoring methodologies 

meet the current standards outlined by best management practice 

guides and permitting agencies. Monitoring conducted should be 

able to track program success.

In addition to environmental metrics for restoration 

monitoring, community participation and increased 

stewardship may be quantified to measure the impact of 

education and outreach on restoration success. Concepts 

to develop when establishing a restoration program for 

education or improving stewardship include communication 

strategies, marketing, participation demographics, and postparticipation behavioral changes. Measuring such impacts 

may be complicated unless the proper tools and monitoring 

are established from the start.

Many restoration programs utilize volunteers and ecotourists 

within their outplanting strategies with an aim to educate and 

increase stewardship for local coral reefs. Some of these include 

Oceanus, A.C., Reef Check, Fragments of Hope in Belize, and 

the Coral Restoration Foundation. In the U.S., Rescue A Reef 

at the University of Miami focuses on education and research to 

quantify the impact of stewardship on the success of restoration. 

Additionally, stewardship programs like the U.S. National Marine 

Sanctuaries’ Blue Star program or watershed awareness training 

like the U.S. EPA’s Get in Step program are successful programs 

that may provide models for stewardship program development. 

8 Socioeconomic Goal-Based Performance Metrics

Corales de Paz
85

Communication between restoration and stewardship programs 

and other community organizations that are integral to the 

communities in question, particularly those with similar goals or 

geographies, will help share lessons learned and maximize the 

capacity of your project.

Possible Methods

In addition to monitoring for the success of reef population 

enhancement by following Universal Metrics methods, the 

following techniques can be used to measure the impact of 

educational and outreach programs on community members 

impacted by coral reef restoration projects. These suggestions are 

not exhaustive, but are presented as a guide. 

Event/Campaign Statistics

Record the type of event (e.g., conference, speaking 

engagements, dive, festival, and classroom), number of 

participants, time, location, and date of event, cost of event, and 

demographics of participants. Note any sponsors or collaborators.

Participation Assessment

Regardless of the techniques used for outreach or education, a 

pre- and post- assessment must be completed (Oliveira et al., 

2018). Restoration programs can educate reef stewards about 

proper dive techniques and the fragile state of local coral reefs, 

which may help alleviate pressure at dive sites by providing reef 

enthusiasts with important knowledge about how to take care of 

local reef resources. Such perception can be evaluated using 

pre- and post-dive surveys and positive growth or survivorship 

of outplanting conducted by participants could demonstrate a 

reduction of pressure on local reefs. 

Assessments should include participant metadata (e.g., nationality, 

ethnicity, education level, occupation, net income, household 

income), questions regarding their opinion of the activity they 

participated in and the impact of restoration, and participant 

observation (description of the customs of individual peoples 

and cultures; Meyers, 2018). Post-participation surveys can 

be distributed in-person or by email, and can promote ongoing 

communication with volunteers. For examples of a coral 

restoration participant survey, see Appendix 6. 

Reach

If a program’s education and outreach tactics utilize social media, 

online resources, outside media coverage, or other technologies, 

track the reach of each post or campaign. This can be performed by 

using a variety of online resources, such as Google Analytics, which 

tracks items like the number of times a page is visited, from what 

country of origin, and from what type of device (mobile or desktop).

Ongoing Engagement 

Track number of participants/volunteers per event and number of 

repeat participants/volunteers throughout the year. 

Outplanting Scope

Number of corals outplanted (per species) by volunteers, and 

participant monitoring/observation data (to be analyzed by coral 

restoration program per Chapter 5 and Chapter 7 Metrics) can 

document steward contributions to the project over time.

Reporting

Environmental awareness reporting may be dependent on whether 

program operators conduct participant surveys (qualitative) or 

outplant monitoring (quantitative). For qualitative data, survey 

data may be statistically analyzed to provide quantitative data 

regarding participant perception of the environment or the 

impact of coral restoration on participant behavior. Change in 

participation over time is a simply generated engagement metric 

that, when broken down by demographic data, can describe who 

is currently participating in the restoration effort and which new 

communities could be targeted to diversify engagement. Pre- and 

post-participation surveys can inform local managers or program 

Socioeconomic Goal-Based Performance Metrics 8

Reef Restoration Foundation
86 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

operators on the impact that awareness programs have on public 

perception and conservation efforts. Quantitative monitoring 

data should be reported in program specific databases as well 

as uploaded into the CRC Coral Restoration Database where 

applicable, which can be found online (Appendix 3).

Sampling Frequency

Pre- and post-certification or participation surveys should be 

conducted for each education and outreach event. In addition, if 

program participants or operators are collecting initial or postoutplanting monitoring data, sampling should be conducted as 

recommended in Chapter 5 and Chapter 7 of this guide.

Performance Criteria 

Pre- and post-participation survey analysis should show an 

increase in the overall knowledge about coral reef ecology, the 

status of local coral reefs, and restoration methodologies. In 

turn, restoration practitioners should incorporate results into 

future program implementation. Participation in citizen science 

restoration programs should also influence the perception of the 

need for coral restoration. Over time, the total count of participants 

should increase. Regular engagement from the local community 

and repeat visitors is critical; the number of repeat participants 

may be relatively static, but is important to document as a 

measure of continued investment over time. Although large-scale 

coral condition and survivorship monitoring is not the focus of 

socioeconomic coral restoration programs, data on the status of 

the corals outplanted by program participants must be collected 

to ensure proper techniques are being used. Although program 

participants or operators may not be considered “coral restoration 

experts,” data should confirm that corals used as part of 

educational restoration are surviving and contributing to the overall 

restoration of the coral reef community (Hesley et al., 2017).

Evaluation Tool Criteria Alignment (Appendix 2): Sociocultural 

Metric #2.1 aligns with two criteria: 

1. Program/certification participants have an increased 

awareness about the status of coral reefs and the need 

for coral reef restoration. If a pre- and post-participation 

survey is conducted, a program will receive a score of 1 

(Education and Outreach Evaluation Tool Criteria #1). 

2. Corals outplanted as part of educational, stewardship or 

capacity building programs have similar condition and 

survival to other local restoration programs. If corals 

outplanted as part of educational programs show positive 

growth and survivorship over time, a program will receive 

a score of 1 (Education and Outreach Evaluation Tool 

Criteria #2).

Further descriptions and supporting research of the Evaluation 

Tool Criteria can be found in Appendix 2 and online (Appendix 3).

8 Socioeconomic Goal-Based Performance Metrics

Coral Restoration Foundation
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 87

Sociocultural Metric #2.2:

Capacity Building

Future investment in coral restoration depends upon whether 

the restoration program is economically sustainable and has the 

capacity to locally operate and maintain the coral restoration 

activity. Capacity building is the cultivation of the diversity of 

skills, knowledge, and information necessary to increase longterm economic sustainability and organizational capacity in 

the community, and ultimately meet community standards for 

sustainable coral restoration. In a coral restoration context, 

economic sustainability is when a program’s costs are less than 

or equal to the estimated cost of the beneficial resources created 

directly or indirectly through restoration. Economic benefits 

provided by coral reef ecosystems are assessed against the local 

costs of restoration to ensure that the community has sufficient 

support to manage the project in the long-term, and that restoration 

is the most effective approach for mitigation and adaptation. Coral 

reefs are some of the most expensive ecosystems to restore, and 

costs vary greatly between developed and developing countries 

(Bayraktarov et al., 2016). Conservation and restoration projects 

tend to be more sustainable and successful when designed, 

implemented, and managed by local community members (Brooks 

et al., 2013; Hargreaves-Allen et al., 2017; Reyes-García et al., 

2019). Financial and administrative support can help community 

members shoulder the risks and responsibilities of restoration 

work. Project managers must budget for the cost of materials 

and techniques they use, which can range from US$10,000/ha 

to over US$2 million/ha (Spurgeon and Lindahl, 2000; Edwards, 

2010; Bayraktarov et al., 2016; Chamberland et al., 2017), in 

addition to staff salaries, vessel and vessel related expenses, and 

administration costs. These costs remain poorly documented and 

unevenly distributed across stakeholders, yet are a significant 

factor in determining the success of the restoration project.

Economic stability also includes the long-term viability of the 

restoration project, including a sustainable restoration plan 

with long-term financial support, citizen science participation, 

meaningful community relationships, oversight by resource 

management agencies, and appropriate response plans to 

minimize coral mortality and/or abandonment. Projects should 

be designed to ensure that participants, tour operators, and 

local partners do not lose interest or the resources necessary 

to maintain the site after the initial stages of a new restoration 

program. “Orphan” nurseries where corals continue to grow but are 

not maintained or, worse, never outplanted, result in mortality of 

corals (Lirman and Schopmeyer, 2016). Furthermore, unattended 

corals or poorly managed nursery and outplanting sites foster 

negative perceptions about reef restoration, which may reduce 

volunteer engagement and organizational capacity.

8

The Ocean Agency/Shaun Wolfe
88 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Coral reef restoration projects can help develop local 

organizational capacity, sovereignty, and empowerment to manage 

and monitor coastal resources. Ideally, management strategies 

for coral reef restoration projects should be developed with 

consideration of the biophysical, sociocultural and managerial 

settings of a given site, and pre-determined with local partners 

and stakeholders before project implementation to sustainably 

meet long-term organizational goals (Wongthong and Harvey, 

2014; Lucrezi et al., 2017). Co-benefits of reef restoration 

projects will be more efficiently captured if projects plug into 

existing environmental management plans that integrate local 

and indigenous knowledge into adaptation planning, economic 

development decision making, and scientific understanding at 

multiple levels (Drew, 2005; De Souza and Clarke, 2018). Including 

qualified locals as volunteers in the installation, maintenance, and 

monitoring of the restoration project can build support and buy-in 

for the project while conducting effective scientific monitoring. 

Citizen science is public participation in formulating research 

questions, conducting scientific experiments, collecting and 

analyzing data, interpreting results, making new discoveries, 

and developing technologies and applications. Citizen science 

is a novel, reliable, and cost-effective model for monitoring, and 

data accuracy from these efforts can be improved by including 

iterative project development, volunteer training and testing, expert 

validation, replication across volunteers, and statistical modeling 

of systematic error (Kosmala et al., 2016). Incorporating citizen 

science participants into adaptive management through existing 

organizational infrastructure can promote individual, community, 

and regional science-based management (Cooper et al., 2007; 

Marshall et al., 2012). 

Citizen science that centers on the participation of local residents 

improves project engagement, acceptability within the community, 

and equity through skill-sharing and access to educational 

resources. Many citizen science projects employ a “Participatory 

Action Research Model,” which elevates the participant’s identified 

issues, interests, and capacity to define problems and research 

priorities at a larger scale and in coordination with specific goals 

(e.g., long-term coral reef resilience). Indeed, management 

recommendations are not truly evidence-based unless they 

integrate sociopolitical factors like land use and community 

buy-in; community participation can identify these issues early on 

(Mathevet and Mauchamp, 2005).

Citizen volunteers are particularly helpful for coral restoration 

projects and can perform tasks such as installing and maintaining 

nursery structures, outplanting corals on the reef, removing 

coral predators like Hermodice fireworms, Coralliophila snails, 

Acanthaster planci, and documenting fragment measurements 

(Branchini et al., 2015; Meyers, 2016; Hesley et al., 2017; 

Hein et al., 2019). With sufficient funding, citizen engagement 

in restoration can be used to provide for alternate livelihood 

opportunities, such as training and employing fishers to perform 

restoration. Additionally, citizen engagement in coral restoration 

can lead to increased awareness of coral reef condition and 

promote stewardship (Hein et al., 2019). Effectiveness and 

endurance of coral restoration programs are strongly linked to such 

community support and involvement (Ammar, 2009; Schrack et al., 

2012; Hernández-Delgado et al., 2014).

Possible Methods

Suggested methods to measure the sustainability of restoration 

program operation and maintenance, track education and citizen 

capacity building and the economic sustainability of the project. 

Many of these methods are also included in Economic Metric 

#1.2 and Sociocultural Metric # 2.1. The Budget Analysis is easily 

achievable by restoration program staff. The following list provides 

suggestions but is not exhaustive.

Participation Assessments

Pre- and post-certification or participation survey assessment 

(Oliveira et al., 2018) which includes participant metadata and 

ethnography (description of the customs of individual peoples 

and cultures; Meyers, 2018). Test participants before and after 

going through the program to assess knowledge, awareness, 

or understanding gained through training and their restoration 

efforts. A helpful guide to measuring learning outcomes for citizen 

scientists is the Cornell Lab’s User’s Guide for Evaluating Learning 

Outcomes in Citizen Science (Appendix 3; Phillips et al., 2014), or 

survey participants to gauge the impact of participation on citizen 

stewardship (Hein et al., 2019).

Ongoing Participation

Track the annual # of participants/volunteers and certification 

level, # of repeat participants/volunteers, # of dives, diver skill 

deficiencies (i.e., where do they need additional training to better 

implement coral restoration projects?). Survey participants for any 

costs they associate with the project (e.g., travel to restoration sites, 

gear acquisition and upkeep, hours taken off from an hourly job).

Outplanting Scope

Number of corals outplanted (per species) and participant 

monitoring/observation data (to be analyzed by coral restoration 

program per Chapter 5 and Chapter 7 Metrics). If citizens perform 

outplanting or data collection, monitoring results should be 

compared to data collected or outplanting performed by experts to 

gauge accuracy of data collection and efficacy of outplanting by 

volunteers.

Budget Analysis

Consider the total costs of project planning and implementation, 

including person-hours and communications materials. Track the 

costs of the restoration project, including: nursery material costs 

(e.g., PVC, rope, epoxy, tools, baskets, holding tanks), labor costs 

(person-hours spent preparing and implementing project [paid 

and unpaid], number of tanks of air, surface support crew hours), 

communications costs (promotional materials costs, personhours at community meetings or conducting trainings), amount of 

vessel fuel used, vessel hours used, costs of permits, and local 

environmental impact assessments, etc.

8 Socioeconomic Goal-Based Performance Metrics
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 89

Reporting

Data collected here should be reported within program specific 

databases and/or permitting and funding reports. This is also an 

opportunity to share both quantitative and qualitative results with 

the community through public media like newspaper articles, public 

meetings, radio interviews, and flyers. Quantitative monitoring 

data, collected following guidelines in Chapter 5 and Chapter 

7, should be reported in program specific databases and where 

applicable, uploaded into the CRC Coral Restoration Database, 

which can be found online (Appendix 3).

Consider that many potential volunteers cannot take time away 

from their work and/or family care responsibilities, or might not be 

physically able to participate in active restoration activities, but can 

provide other support through reporting, communications, and data 

processing. As you report your activities to the broader community, 

articulate the diversity of ways volunteers have contributed.

Sampling Frequency

Surveys should be conducted before and/or after each program 

event. In addition, if volunteers or program staff are collecting coral 

monitoring data, monitoring should be conducted as described in 

Chapter 5 and Chapter 7 of this guide.

Performance Criteria

For gauging the success of citizen involvement in restoration, there 

should be:

High retention rate of volunteers/citizen scientists

Minimal difference in survival and condition of colonies 

outplanted by volunteers and those outplanted by experts,

A positive impact on volunteers though increased awareness, 

knowledge, or stewardship, 

Minimal difference in results of monitoring performed by 

volunteers and paid staff.

Programs to evaluate the efficacy of educational initiatives and 

identify areas that may need improvement through increased 

volunteer training can use these metrics.

Evaluation Tool Criteria Alignment (Appendix 2): Sociocultural 

Metric #2.2 aligns with six criteria:

1. Corals outplanted as part of educational, stewardship or 

capacity building programs have similar condition and 

survival to other local restoration programs. If corals 

outplanted as part of educational programs show positive 

growth and survivorship over time, a program will receive 

a score of 1 (Education and Outreach Evaluation Tool 

Criteria #2).

2. Supports wider conservation, management (MPAs, notake zones, etc.), and restoration actions. If restoration is 

more than just one of the conservation tools implemented 

as part of a development- or tourism-based coral 

restoration project, a program will receive a score of 1 

(Restoration Program Evaluation Tool Criteria #6). 

3. Program has appropriate exit strategies for nursery 

and outplant stock. If a program has the ability to 

properly outplant remaining nursery stock and complete 

required monitoring, a program will receive a score of 1 

(Restoration Program Evaluation Tool Criteria #7).

4. Monitoring of all programs includes recommended data, 

methods, and frequency outlined within the Monitoring 

Guide’s Universal Metrics. If monitoring data is collected 

per the Monitoring and Field-Based Working Group 

Guides, a program will receive a score of 1 (Restoration 

Program Evaluation Tool Criteria #9).

5. Program has financial robustness and stability. If the 

program has established a three-year financial plan for 

the implementation and maintenance of the restoration 

project, a program will receive a score of 1 (Restoration 

Program Evaluation Tool Criteria #11).

6. Program has established an outreach and community 

engagement strategy that includes training volunteers to 

meet the coral husbandry and outplanting standards of 

each restoration program. If the program meets its training 

and outreach plan, a program will receive a score of 1 

(Education and Outreach Evaluation Tool Criteria #4).

Further descriptions and supporting research of the Evaluation 

Tool Criteria can be found in Appendix 2 and online (Appendix 3).

Socioeconomic Goal-Based Performance Metrics 8 Nova Southeastern University CRRAM Lab
90 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Sociocultural Metric #2.3:

Reef-User Satisfaction

How a community perceives the benefits of a coastal management 

project improves early involvement and participation, which in turn 

ensures that ultimate benefits will in fact be those desired by the 

community and maintained in the long run (Pomeroy et al., 2005). 

Stakeholders, such as reef-users, a diverse suite of anglers, park 

rangers, beach users, and more, provide invaluable input into 

the value and impacts of a restoration project. They understand 

the indirect benefits of coral restoration and conservation, 

like restoring coastal protection for vulnerable communities, 

enhancing fish stocks, and providing wave breaks for surfing, 

all benefiting the people who live with the reef. Monitoring 

reef-user satisfaction is a good indicator of the success of 

your communication strategy and project integration with 

community use priorities.

Possible Methods

Reef-User Survey 

Semi-structured interviews with reef-users and non-reef users 

can illustrate how users are using the reef and if they perceive 

and value the effects of coral restoration. As an example, NOAA’s 

National Coral Reef Monitoring Program uses surveys to quantify 

reef use (NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program, 2014; 

Appendix 3). Questions might include:

Do you fish, surf, or swim in the ocean?

Where do you use the reef? 

Do you think you get benefits from a healthy reef? If so, what 

are they?

What should I know about the reef?

Structured questions asked to be evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 

(known as a “Likert Scale”) might include:

How often do you go in or near the ocean? (“Never” to “Every 

day”)

Do you see improvements in reef? (“Not at all” to “Absolutely”)

Are you satisfied with reef condition as you see it through 

social media?

Community-Owned and Led Project Design

Restoration projects are more sustainable and successful when 

designed, implemented, and managed by local stakeholders. 

Using participatory mapping, identify types and zones of coastal 

use to monitor use conflict and identify reef-user benefits over 

time. By asking reef-users to identify where on a map they fish, 

swim, boat, surf, etc., once or twice a year, you can monitor 

changing use patterns and anticipate impacts on nurseries, 

outplanted coral, and other components of the marine ecosystem.

These maps can additionally be used to minimize conflict through 

coordination with stakeholders such as the local tourism board, 

departments of environmental management, regional non-profits, 

local anglers, teachers, beach-users, and dive tourism owners and 

operators, in the project planning phase.

Resident Engagement

Monitor how local, resident community members engage the coral 

restoration project. Through stakeholder interviews and observation, 

regularly (daily or weekly) note how ongoing restoration empowers 

or disenfranchises local coastal users. Ask reef-users:

Do you feel involved? Would you like to be more involved?

What are your concerns about the reef, mangrove, or beach?

Reporting

Survey results should be recorded in program-specific databases as 

well as distributed to survey participants and the public to increase 

awareness about the potential positive impacts of reef restoration.

Sampling Frequency

Surveys are distributed to reef users through dive shops, charter 

vessels, or visitor centers annually to assess the opinion of reef 

users to restoration activities.

Performance Criteria

The satisfaction of reef-users should increase after restoration. 

If the satisfaction of reef-users does not change or decreases, 

adaptive management strategies may need to be used, which 

could include, but are not limited to, increasing awareness of 

restoration projects and the impacts they could have or changing 

the restoration design to elicit the changes that the community 

surveyed would like to see.

Evaluation Tool Criteria Alignment (Appendix 2): Sociocultural 

Metric #2.3 aligns with one criterion: 

The satisfaction of reef-users to coral reef conditions or 

their experience on coral reefs is increased after restoration 

activities. If the satisfaction of reef-users post-restoration is 

increased, a program will receive a score of 1 (Education and 

Outreach Evaluation Tool Criteria #3).

Further descriptions and supporting research of the Evaluation 

Tool Criteria can be found in Appendix 2 and online (Appendix 3).

8 Socioeconomic Goal-Based Performance Metrics

The Ocean Agency
91

Mia Hoogenboom

Chapter 9

Event-Driven 

Restoration Goal-Based 

Performance Metrics

Unplanned disturbances can impact corals on natural reefs and 

on coral restoration sites. Some disturbances can be specific to 

corals, such as coral disease and bleaching. Other disturbances 

such as cyclones, wave events, vessel groundings, dredging, 

and mining can impact corals as well as the underlying geologic 

structure of the coral reef. Depending on the nature and severity 

of the event, additional monitoring may be needed to assess 

impacts to reefs and corals. Event-Driven Restoration monitoring 

can be implemented in addition to regularly scheduled restoration 

monitoring. In the development of the restoration monitoring plan, 

consideration needs to be given to the capacity needed to monitor 

in response to unplanned events. As with all restoration monitoring, 

local permitting regulations must be followed. Additional safety 

considerations may apply to Event-Driven Restoration monitoring. 

These vary depending on the type of event. For example, when 

monitoring coral disease impacts to restorations, the most 

up-to-date best practices should be considered to avoid coral 

disease transmission between corals or sites (for decontamination 

protocols related to Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease, see 

Appendix 3). When monitoring restorations after wave events or 

storms, consideration should be given to diver safety from hazards 

such as limited water visibility or marine debris.

Objective 1: Disease and Bleaching

The impact of coral disease or bleaching events on coral 

restoration is two-fold: 1) coral diseases and bleaching events 

can cause mortality to outplants and adaptive management 

strategies should be implemented to prevent further losses; and 

2) coral restoration may be conducted in response to mortality 

from disease or bleaching events. Outplant monitoring may be 

used to document the potential effects of disease and bleaching 

on outplants while data provided by larger-scale reef monitoring 

would help determine if restoration should be a response to 

disease and bleaching mortality. In the case of the latter, data 

collected as part of reef monitoring programs may be useful: 

Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) Long-Term Coral 

Reef Monitoring Program (LTMP), Atlantic Gulf Rapid Reef 

Assessment (AGRRA), Florida’s Coral Reef Evaluation and 

Monitoring Program (CREMP), Global Coral Reef Monitoring 

Network (GCRMN), Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 

Marine Monitoring Program (MMP), and NOAA’s National Coral 

Reef Monitoring Program (NCRMP).
92 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Obtaining data on the occurrence and relative impact of diseases 

and bleaching within a restoration site, allows for targeted 

preventative maintenance and management to be incorporated into 

a programs restoration response plan. The frequency of monitoring 

for changes in coral condition will depend on the program’s 

objectives, goals, and intensity of the condition. Further, each 

condition may require a different monitoring schedule or frequency 

and should occur with increased frequency during periods 

of higher stress, such as summer months when bleaching is 

prevalent or during known disease outbreaks within a region (i.e., 

bleaching surveys should be conducted during times of peak water 

temperatures such as August and September in the Caribbean, 

while surveys for coral diseases should occur in the months 

following severe bleaching). For fast moving diseases, weekly 

to monthly to weekly observations may be necessary. Monthly 

observations (or more frequent) are suggested as the most 

effective for monitoring cause and effect changes (Rogers et al., 

2001). In addition, it is useful to monitor for potential recovery or 

partial survival from disease and bleaching events. For an example 

of monitoring efforts to evaluate the effects of the emergent Stony 

Coral Tissue Loss Disease, see Alvarez-Filip et al. (2019).

Monitoring and reporting for coral disease and bleaching is similar 

to the monitoring outlined for Coral Population Enhancement 

Metric #1.3: Coral Condition. Changes in coral condition 

documented through regular monitoring (e.g., presence or 

absence, prevalence, and/or percent tissue loss) will provide 

information on the distribution, extent, and severity of diseases 

or bleaching throughout the region. To assess the effects of coral 

disease and bleaching, it is best to monitor individual colonies 

using methods such as roving diver and area surveys or coral 

fate tracking. If corals are fate tracked as a program’s means 

of monitoring, mean percent live tissue per coral (in %) and 

percentage or number of corals in each ranking of mortality (in 

% or #) should be documented. Other methods such as random 

transects, belt-transects/quadrats, and point intercept surveys may 

also be used, but other methods may be more suitable to capture 

occurrences of bleaching and disease which target specific 

species, densities or habitat types. Additionally, image-based 

techniques such as mosaics may be beneficial to document largerscale changes over time as a result of mortality from disease and 

bleaching; however, the time required for image processing and 

analyses may inhibit the ability to capture smaller- or short-term 

events. With images, it can be difficult to differentiate a bleached 

colony from a recently dead colony with exposed white skeleton. 

Image quality and resolution will impact the ability to capture the 

presence or absence of polyps from imagery alone. A combination 

of methods, such as images and roving diver surveys of the same 

area, could be conducted to help differentiate between conditions. 

It is important to note that if bleaching and/or disease is 

noted within a plot, reef, or region where restoration is being 

conducted, restoration activities should be discontinued until 

the severity and extent of the event is understood and the 

stress or mortality from the event has subsided. Transportation 

and handling stress may make outplants more susceptible to 

bleaching or disease; therefore, it is not advantageous to continue 

to outplant more corals if they will be introduced to potentially deadly 

stressors. For example, Johnson et al. (2011) suggests avoiding 

summer months when water temperatures and the possibility of 

bleaching is high to reduce outplant mortality. It may be possible to 

continue outplanting non-susceptible species to certain diseases 

(i.e., outplanting of Acroporid species may be possible if evidence 

of black band disease is observed on massive species). However, 

care should be taken to verify that the reef conditions allowing other 

diseases or bleaching to occur, would not potentially allow flare-ups 

of other conditions in the species you are outplanting. 

If coral restoration will be conducted in response to mortality 

following a bleaching or disease event, caution should be taken 

to ensure that conditions within the reef environment are healthy 

enough to support outplanting. With the cost and resources 

The Ocean Agency

9
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 93

Event-Driven Goal-Based Performance Metrics 9

involved with coral restoration, it is important to avoid wasting 

time, funds, and corals. Often, coral restoration will result as a 

management decision following widespread mortality and all 

restoration activities should follow comprehensive restoration 

plans that take into consideration genetic management plans 

(see Universal Metric #4: Genetic and Genotypic Diversity). In 

addition, coral restoration should be conducted in collaboration 

with other conservation strategies to help prevent future outbreaks 

or mortality events. Monitoring for Event-Driven Restoration 

following a bleaching or disease event should follow other 

monitoring metrics outlined in this guide, but may need to be 

conducted more frequently to better observe outplant colony 

conditions and evaluate prevalence, mortality rate, and tissue 

loss in the event that outplants succumb to conditions which 

caused the initial mortality.

Objective 2: Physical Impacts

Coral restoration may be implemented after physical impacts 

to coral reefs. Coral reefs can be damaged by anthropogenic 

impacts, such as unplanned (e.g., ship groundings; Bruckner and 

Bruckner, 2001; Riegl, 2001) or planned (e.g., dredging, blast 

fishing; Jaap, 2000; Fox et al., 2003) events, or by event-specific 

disturbances, such as wave energy from storms or swell events 

(Stoddart, 1962; Woodley et al., 1981). These impacts can also 

affect coral restoration sites as well as natural reefs. Impacts to 

reef structure, coral colonies, or both can include fragmentation, 

destabilization, or overturning (Figure 29; Bruckner and Bruckner, 

2001). Coral reefs can also be pulverized into unconsolidated reef 

rubble by wave energy (e.g., Stoddart, 1969; Harmelin-Vivien, 

1994). Decisions about the need for emergency stabilization of 

substrate will depend on the nature of the impact (Fox et al., 

2019). Restoration may be required for anthropogenic impacts, 

depending on relevant policy and legislation. For other impacts, 

decisions about emergency stabilization will depend on the 

spatial extent and location of the impacts, the species, sizes, and 

morphologies of impacted corals, the general status of the reefs 

and species within the geographical context, and the likelihood 

for potential success. If the reef or corals are likely to stabilize or 

recover without intervention, restoration may not be necessary. 

However, if the coral species impacted are rare, populations 

are vulnerable, and/or a large area is impacted, restoration may 

have a substantial contribution to conservation. Restoration after 

physical impacts such as wave events may be needed if the 

impacted reefs are important for coastal protection.

After the physical impact, affected corals may be stabilized in 

place if the reef condition is suitable (e.g., consolidated hardbottom 

substrate). Alternatively, affected corals may be reattached at 

a different reef site that is environmentally similar to the preimpact condition of the source reef, or used as donor colonies 

for nurseries (U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, 2016, Viehman et 

al., 2020). This approach can be an opportunity to reintroduce 

coral species to reefs where they were once abundant. Fragment 

mortality and growth are dependent on fragment size and the 

substrate where reattached (Bowden-Kerby, 2001). Physical 

impacts can also be associated with subsequent coral disease 

events and increases in coral predation (Knowlton et al., 1990; 

Bruckner and Bruckner, 2001; Williams et al., 2008; Brandt et al., 

2013; Miller et al., 2014; Bright et al., 2016). 

All relevant regulatory permits must be in place before response. 

Additional monitoring may be required in compliance with any legal 

and/or regulatory requirements.

Event-Driven Restoration Metric #1:

Post-Impact Survey

A post-impact survey can be conducted to evaluate if coral 

restoration could or should be implemented. An objective survey 

design is highly recommended so that the post-impact assessment 

is representative of the damage rather than focused on the most 

highly damaged areas. The survey should assess the spatial 

footprint of the impact and impacts to the reef stability, 

structural complexity, coral density, species, and sizes. The 

appropriate survey design for post-impact assessment depends 

on the spatial area of the impact (localized vs. widespread). The 

survey design and methodology needs to address the goals 

of the assessment effort. To relate local effects to trends and 

patterns over a large-scale, event survey methods should be 

complementary to ongoing ecosystem or restoration monitoring 

efforts, although additional metrics may be needed to meet goals. 

For example, an assessment of physical impacts for a large spatial 

area should be complementary to ongoing coral reef ecosystem 

survey design and methodology to allow for comparisons (e.g., 

Dahlgren and Sherman, 2020; Viehman et al., 2020).

Michael Nemeth/NOAA

Coral Restoration Foundation
94 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

If the post-impact assessment outcome indicates that restoration is 

warranted and feasible, and coral reef restoration is implemented, 

the restoration should be monitored with a design and 

methodology complementary to other coral restorations. As with 

restoration for other objectives, quantitative monitoring is required 

to determine the subsequent success of restoration efforts.

Possible Methods

The post-impact assessment monitoring design should provide 

the information needed to determine whether coral restoration 

include the guidance and metrics described previously in this 

document to address the specific goals of the restoration. For 

example, monitoring could include the Universal Metrics as well as 

Goal-Based Performance Metrics for Coral Condition, Abundance 

and Cover, Reef Structure and Complexity, Species Richness and 

Diversity, and Disease and Bleaching to quantify the change in 

coral communities (e.g., species, numbers, diversity, condition), 

reef structure, diversity, and disease and bleaching. 

Reporting

Reporting on physical impacts is dependent on the methods 

used to capture the metric and the type of physical impact. At 

a minimum, the physical impact to corals and to reef structure 

needs to be quantified, within both the restored area and reference 

area. Quantitative monitoring data should be reported in program 

specific databases and/or permitting and funding reports.

Sampling Frequency

Post-event assessments should occur as soon as possible after the 

event and environmental conditions allow (e.g., safety, feasibility). 

For physical impacts, assessment would ideally be conducted within 

a timeframe when dislocated corals are still alive on the seafloor. 

For disease and bleaching, multiple surveys may need to be 

completed to determine when the disease and bleaching impacts 

have subsided. If restoration is conducted, subsequent monitoring 

should occur at the frequency recommended for each Universal and 

Goal-Based Performance Metric deemed necessary.

Performance Criteria

Coral restoration can be an invaluable tool to promote recovery 

from coral disease, bleaching and physical impacts such as 

hurricanes, ship groundings, dredging, and diver damage. 

Event-Driven Restoration in response to events should only be 

considered after a post-event survey has been conducted to 

determine the extent of the damage to the reef structure and 

ecological function of a site. In some cases, coral restoration 

may not be feasible based on the amount of physical restoration 

that might be needed to repair the reef structure to support coral 

outplanting. If outplanting is conducted, the performance criteria 

will be similar to other Universal Metrics (RRAD, Population-level 

Metrics, and Colony-level Metrics) and Event-Driven Restoration 

monitoring plans should be designed to include the same 

monitoring vigor as for any other restoration program. For example, 

the Ecological Footprint should increase or stay the same, showing 

9 Event-Driven Goal-Based Performance Metrics

no net decrease over time from the original Outplant Plot area for 

all species outplanted. If a net decrease in the Ecological Footprint 

is observed due to outplant mortality, adaptive management 

strategies should be evaluated to determine the cause of the 

decrease in area restored. 

Evaluation Tool Criteria Alignment (Appendix 2): Event-Driven 

Restoration Metric #1 aligns with two criteria: 

1. Benthic surveys are conducted post-event to determine: 

A) the extent of the damage to the reef structure and 

ecological function, and B) if coral restoration through 

triage or outplanting is feasible. If post-event surveys are 

conducted and data is analyzed to determine if restoration 

is feasible/required, a program will receive a score of 1 

(Event-Driven Restoration Criteria #1).

2. Event-Driven Restoration is monitored according to 

relevant outplanting metrics. If Event-Driven Restoration 

is monitored using similar monitoring protocols and 

recommendations such as those listed for outplanting in 

the Restoration Monitoring Guide, a program will receive a 

score of 1 (Event-Driven Restoration Criteria #2).

Further descriptions and supporting research of the Evaluation 

Tool Criteria can be found in Appendix 2 and online (Appendix 3).

Michael Nemeth/NOAA

Darek Manzello/NOAA Sean Griffin/NOAA Sean Griffin/NOAA
95

Harmony Martell

Chapter 10

Climate Change 

Adaptation Goal-Based 

Performance Metrics

Climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions has been 

implicated in mass coral bleaching events (Ainsworth et al., 2016), 

disease outbreaks (Bruno et al., 2007), and ocean acidification 

(Andersson and Gledhill, 2013). Increased frequency of mass 

bleaching has led to large coral die-offs and reduced ability of 

coral communities to recover between events (Riegl and Purkis, 

2009; van Hooidonk et al., 2013; Riegl et al., 2018). While actions 

like reducing local and regional stressors and restoring coral 

communities are important for conservation, climate change 

impacts threaten the very existence of coral reefs as we know them.

While the global community works to reduce carbon emissions 

and curb climate change, the coral reef restoration community has 

recognized the need to improve reef resilience to allow reefs to 

persist in the face of committed warming from past emissions and 

predicted future warming (van Oppen et al., 2017). Several genetic, 

ecological, and environmental interventions have been identified 

that may improve reef resilience to climate change and enhance the 

persistence of coral reefs (Riegl et al., 2009; National Academies of 

Sciences, 2019). Testing and use of some of these interventions is 

in the early stages, mostly on smaller spatial scales (Bowden-Kerby 

and Carne, 2012; Bliss, 2015; Towle et al., 2015; Pausch et al., 

2018; Morikawa and Palumbi, 2019), but there is still uncertainty 

surrounding the efficacy and policy/regulatory implications of 

these novel approaches (Fidelman et al., 2019; Filbee-Dexter and 

Smajdor, 2019). Below, we describe some of the more accessible 

and less risky interventions currently available to the scientific and 

restoration community. Success of all the identified interventions 

will be dependent on coral survivorship and ability to successfully 

reproduce and pass on positive traits. A key assessment for any 

intervention is that corals are more resilient than they would have 

been without it (National Academies of Sciences, 2019).

For the next three objectives, improve Reef Resilience, Assisted 

Evolution, and Stress Hardening, objective specific metrics were 

not developed. Measurement of the success of each of these 

objectives will likely come from a combination of previously 

described metrics throughout this document. We did not suggest 

specific metrics because these are all still currently developing 

fields. Current literature should be reviewed to determine which 

combination of metrics are best suited for the restoration project 

or program (i.e., what metrics are needed in order to determine if 

stress hardening is successful).
96 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Objective 1: Improve Reef Resilience

Resilience refers to the ability of individuals, populations, and 

ecosystems to recover after a disturbance. For individuals, this 

means the ability to survive and recover important functions like 

growth and reproduction. For populations, this means retaining the 

ability to recruit new individuals, and for ecosystems, resilience 

means recovering traits such as productivity, diversity, and trophic 

function.

Most interventions involving individual corals (physiological, 

genetic, reproductive interventions) and coral communities are 

intended to Improve Reef Resilience. Under this objective, we 

discuss genetic and reproductive interventions of managed 

selection and breeding. We discuss coral community interventions 

of assisted gene flow and migration under Assisted Evolution 

(Objective 2), and physiological interventions of pre-exposure and 

manipulation of algal symbionts and microbiome under Stress 

Hardening (Objective 3).

Managed selection is the identification of individuals that 

have a high tolerance to stressors, such as disease or 

warm temperatures, and using them in restoration and other 

interventions (Bowden-Kerby and Carne, 2012; Drury et al., 2017a; 

Morikawa and Palumbi, 2019). These stress-tolerant individuals 

are likely to be found in extreme environments, locations exposed 

to a wide range of fluctuations, and surviving on reefs after a 

disturbance has passed through. They may also be identified 

experimentally. Differential tolerance often has both a genetic 

and acclimation component, and variations in tolerance across 

populations enhances their capacity for adaptation through natural 

selection (Baker, 2001; Baker et al., 2004; National Academies of 

Sciences, 2019). Efforts to identify corals with high stress tolerance 

should be undertaken, but it should be noted that increased 

tolerance to one type of stressor (e.g., temperature) may not 

confer tolerance to another type of stressor (e.g., disease) and that 

there may be trade-offs in other positive functions (e.g., growth).

Managed breeding is the restoration of diverse coral populations 

through artificial propagation to increase population size and 

fitness (National Academies of Sciences, 2019). It may involve 

crossing individuals that have a high tolerance to stressors to 

increase these positive traits in the population. It could also involve 

crossing gametes either within or between populations to increase 

genetic diversity and potential fitness. Managed breeding relies 

on collection and fertilization of gametes, either in a controlled 

laboratory setting or in the field. It may be enhanced through 

techniques like cryopreservation that preserve sperm or other 

living material so they remain viable after being thawed. Managed 

breeding can be labor intensive, but is one of the most feasible 

interventions to increase genetic diversity. Risks include loss of 

fitness from outbreeding depression due to loss of local adaptation 

or disruption of co-adapted gene complexes (National Academies 

of Sciences, 2019). 

New Heaven Reef Conservation Program

10 Climate Change Adaption Performance Metrics
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 97

Climate Change Performance Metrics 10

Objective 2: Assisted Evolution

Assisted evolution refers to interventions that accelerate the 

rate of naturally occurring evolutionary processes. Interventions 

aim to increase positive traits such as growth, reproduction, and 

stress tolerance to improve resilience to changing environmental 

conditions (e.g., van Oppen et al., 2017; Chan et al., 2018). Two 

interventions, assisted gene flow and assisted migration, are 

discussed under this objective, but most interventions under the 

goal of Climate Change Adaptation fit into the category of Assisted 

Evolution.

Managed relocation is the movement of individuals from a 

source area to locations beyond their historical distribution. 

Managed relocation may involve movement within or outside a 

species’ range. Assisted gene flow is the movement of genotypes 

within a species’ range to enhance the spread of genotypes with 

higher stress tolerance (National Academies of Sciences, 2019). 

For instance, genotypes that occur in areas exposed to higher 

temperature fluctuations may be moved to areas with lower 

variability in an effort to increase resilience of the population to 

temperature stress. Assisted migration is the movement of a 

species beyond its range to promote colonization of new areas with 

presumably more favorable conditions. It is particularly valuable 

for species with limited natural dispersal (National Academies of 

Sciences, 2019). Risk of these interventions increases as distance 

from the source population increases and can include introduction 

of pathogens, parasites, and predators. Generally, moving 

gametes and larvae can be less risky than moving adults since 

they are less likely to contain “hitchhikers”. 

Objective 3: Stress Hardening

Stress hardening is manipulation of individuals of coral so that 

they are more tolerant of stress in the future (Middlebrook et al., 

2008). Pre-exposure is the gradual exposure of individuals to 

stress in the hopes that they will convey some tolerance upon reexposure to similar conditions. An example is gradually exposing 

corals to warm temperatures so that they might not suffer mortality 

during anomalous temperature events. Pre-exposure has been 

shown to have a beneficial effect, but responses vary in longevity 

from short term (hours to days) to longer term (months to years) 

(National Academies of Sciences, 2019). 

Other manipulations that could fall under the category of stress 

hardening include algal symbiont and microbiome manipulation. 

In these interventions, the algae, fungi, bacteria, or viruses living 

in association with corals are changed in favor of types that 

enhance the stress tolerance of the coral host. Algal symbiont 

manipulations have been successfully achieved in adults only 

in laboratory conditions that mimic bleaching events (National 

Academies of Sciences, 2019). However, because the majority of 

gametes do not contain algal symbionts, manipulations at the early 

life stages provide more opportunity to introduce algal symbionts. 

The microbiome can influence coral host health and may be 

manipulated through inoculations, adding beneficial bacteria to the 

holobiont, subjecting the coral to stress to select for microbiome 

members, and through genetic manipulation (National Academies 

of Sciences, 2019). However, to be effective, more research on 

the functions of organisms in the microbiome are needed. Success 

will be dependent on the longevity of the altered associations and 

ecological trade-offs that may occur.

Marie Roman
The Ocean Agency/Renata Romeo

Chapter 11

Research Goal-Based 

Performance Metrics

Coral propagation and restoration activities provide many 

resources and opportunities to advance restoration science 

through research. Developing techniques and methodologies for 

successful propagation and outplanting has been the focus of most 

restoration research over the past few decades, but additional 

research is needed to advance restoration practices to be effective 

at an ecosystem level (Chennu et al., 2017; Bajjouk et al., 2019; 

Foo and Asner, 2019). Therefore, the monitoring that accompanies 

any restoration activity is essential to determining the success 

and managing the outcomes of restoration science. The topics 

presented herein are not meant to be exhaustive, rather they are 

meant to serve as examples of ways to combine metrics and survey 

methods to answer complex research questions. 

Because some research questions may exist beyond the scope or 

funding of a specific program, it is often valuable for practitioners 

to enlist the help of local researchers to assist with project design, 

funding, implementation, and analysis. Research efforts, on top 

of required permit- or project-related monitoring can be costly 

and resource-intensive, but are often essential to improving the 

success of restoration projects. Research associated with coral 

restoration can inform practitioners and managers on the efficacy 

of propagation and outplanting techniques, the viability of a 

restored population based on genetic diversity and the contribution 

of outplants to revitalizing genetic stock, the success of sexual 

reproduction in response to increased abundance and genetic 

diversity, the effect of outplanting on coral community structure and 

the structure of organisms who rely on coral for food and habitat 

such as fish and other invertebrates, how to scale up restoration 

efforts from a small to a large-scale focus, and other research 

questions. Each of these research questions has the potential 

to trigger adaptive management strategies and thus improve the 

outcome of restoration projects over time.

The process of propagating corals within in or ex situ nurseries 

provides an excellent opportunity to learn about individual 

coral species, in particular, their growth rates, survival rates, 

genetic diversity, response to stressors, and perhaps even their 

reproductive capacity. Corals propagated within nurseries also 

provide a renewable stock of corals for research without the need to 

potentially damage or harm existing wild populations. Furthermore, 

there is the opportunity to use strategic outplantings to provide 

information about the contributions of coral, species, genotype, 

and environment on the success of reef restoration. These types 

of research to improve restoration require a rigorous experimental 

design, quantitative data collection, and timely analyses.

98
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 99

Research Goal-Based Performance Metrics 11

The monitoring approaches described in this Guide will provide 

some data towards research efforts; however, additional 

monitoring will be needed to answer specific individual research 

questions. For example, data collection for Universal Metric #2: 

Population-level Metrics utilizes the measurement of restored 

corals to describe mean coral size, abundance, size-frequency 

distribution, and when combined with Universal Metric #1, density 

and percent cover. Such data can be used to answer questions 

on population maturity, increased habitat complexity, overall coral 

growth and health, and coral survival and retention within an 

outplant site. However, research related to actual growth rates 

of outplants as compared to growth within a nursery or for wild 

colonies requires more detailed data on colony size, such as total 

linear extension, or precise measurements of colony size, such 

as maximum diameter, maximum width, and maximum height. As 

another example, research related to the effect of coral diseases 

on restored colonies may require the quantification of partial 

mortality through measurements of lesion size or documenting 

the condition of the coral based on the condition type (e.g., tissue 

loss, color loss, discoloration, or growth anomaly), distribution 

of lesions (e.g., focal, multifocal, or diffuse), tissue margin (e.g., 

regular, irregular, color loss, discoloration, band), or rate of lesion 

expansion (e.g., acute or chronic). Answering these more detailed 

research questions requires more frequent monitoring in order to 

track and properly identify the stressor impacting the colony.

Coral size-frequency distribution, when combined with Restored 

Reef Areal Dimension (area of restored reef), will allow 

practitioners to roughly estimate the proportion of the restored 

reef that is covered in coral (percent coral cover) and calculate 

the density of restored colonies per m2. Restoration projects using 

more than one species should collect these 

data separately for each species. While 

change in these population-level metrics will 

be very slow for most massive coral species, 

this metric is very important for branching and 

fast growing species as changes can occur 

quickly and frequently (Lirman, 2003; Riegl 

and Purkis, 2009; Vardi et al., 2012; MercadoMolina et al., 2015; Riegl et al., 2017; 

Goergen et al., 2019).

Monitoring performed as part of Universal 

Metric #3: Colony-level Metrics, such as coral 

fate tracking, abundance, and percent cover, 

can provide data for research questions 

relating to outplanting techniques and 

coral health. Data capturing the live tissue 

combined with coral abundance will provide 

a more accurate measure of the success of 

restoration at a site, as dead colonies are not 

included in success metrics. Fate tracking of 

only a subset of outplanted corals should still 

be included in this calculation with abundance 

and/or percent cover to yield a more accurate 

measure of success. 

Photomosaics are a powerful tool to visualize reef areas at 

multiple scales, from a large reef area to a zoomed-in specific 

coral cluster or individual colony. Mosaics provide lasting visual 

data of a single snapshot in time of the reef substrate, which can 

be referenced repeatedly into the future. This archival character of 

imagery in general is made more powerful by the spatial scaling 

and referencing capabilities of mosaics. Thus, multiple metrics can 

be extracted on an “as needed” or “funding available” basis from 

one data collection event (Table 11). Mosaics collected under poor 

visibility, with lower-quality cameras, or with low spatial resolution 

can be limited in answering research questions pertaining to 

fine scale colony-level detail. Moreover, mosaics are not well 

suited to capture data for cryptic or motile organisms, such as the 

surrounding fish community. In these cases, the use of multiple 

survey methods is encouraged.

With mosaics, it can be difficult to differentiate a bleached colony 

from a recently dead colony with exposed white skeleton, as the 

ability to discern the presence or absence of polyps from imagery 

alone depends on the image quality and resolution. For example, 

to understand coral growth over time in comparison with bleaching 

and disease events, divers should capture a photomosaic and 

conduct a roving diver survey of the same area. The mosaic can 

be used to meet general survey requirements (e.g., monitoring 

and measuring 20% of corals with computer software) while 

the qualitative survey will provide data on the stressors actively 

impacting the mosaicked corals. This in-water diver can also 

remove predators such as corallivorous snails or fireworms. 

Combining these two methods allows for a birds-eye view and 

broad understanding of site performance and captures the 

nuanced differences between bleaching and newly dead corals. 

New Heaven Reef Conservation Program
100 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Summary of Goal-Based Performance Metrics

Tables 20-21 provides a brief summary of the Goal-Based Performance Metrics and their associated links to the CRC Restoration Database and 

Evaluation Tool.

Goal Objective Metric Description Methods Reporting Data Outcomes Evaluation Tool Criteria Alignment Ecological Restoration

Coral 

Population 

Enhancement

Abundance and 

Cover

Evaluation of restored 

coral abundance and 

cover

Ecological Footprint Survey

Mosaic

Transects

Plots/Quadrats

Fate Tracking

Number of corals per site

Percent cover of 

restored corals

Reported to CRC 

Restoration Database

Change in abundance and 

cover of restored corals 

Positive or no net change in 

abundance or cover

Representative photos of site 

changes were obtained

Reproductive 

Capacity

Observation and 

documentation 

of restored coral 

reproduction 

Spawning Observations

Colony Size

Branch Breaking

Histology

Reporting to CRC Larval 

Database

Observations of timing, 

genotypic variability, and 

percent of corals spawning

Sexual reproduction is observed 

in restored corals

Coral Condition

Documentation of 

restored colony 

condition

Ecological Footprint Survey

Mosaic

Transects

Plots/Quadrats

Fate Tracking

Roving Diver

Report within program 

specific database

Presence/Absence

Prevalence of conditions

Percent tissue loss

See UM #3

Prevalence of Conditions:

<5% bleaching mortality

<10% disease

<5% predation

<5% competition

<= physical impacts on wild corals

Species Richness 

and Diversity

Measurement of 

species diversity at a 

restoration site

Ecological Footprint Survey

Mosaic

Transects

Plots/Quadrats

Roving Diver

Report within program 

specific database

Species richness, diversity, 

and evenness

At least two species of coral are 

outplanted per restoration site

Indirect Seeding 

of Sexual 

Recruits

Evaluation of 

outplanting of sexual 

recruits

Substrate Count

Settler Abundance

Settler Size

Plots/Quadrats

Report within program 

specific database

Retention of substrates, 

settler survival, and yield *see footnote

Community 

and Habitat 

Enhancement

Invertebrate 

Community

Evaluation of 

invertebrate community 

abundance and diversity

Ecological Footprint Survey

Transects

Plots/Quadrats

Roving Diver

ARMS

Report within program 

specific database

Invertebrate abundance/

density

Presence/Absence

Species richness, diversity, 

and evenness

Increase the net abundance of 

invertebrate reef-organisms

Reef Fish 

Community

Evaluation of fish 

community abundance 

and diversity

Reef Visual Census

Belt Transect

Roving Survey

Video and stereo video transects

Report within program 

specific database

Species richness, diversity, 

and evenness

Abundance

Size distribution

Increase the net abundance of 

vertebrate reef organisms

Reef Structure 

and Complexity

Measurement of 

restored coral height 

and complexity

Maximum coral and Reef Height

Photopoint Monitoring

3D Photomosaics

Chain Length

Report within program 

specific database

Mean coral height

Mean structure height

Chain length

Increase in reef height or rugosity

Habitat Quality

Reporting of the change 

in habitat quality 

following restoration

Water Quality Monitoring

Sediment/Turbidity 

Measurements

Benthic Composition (Transect, 

Plots/Quads, Mosaics)

Coral Recruitment (Transect, 

Plots/Quads, Settlement Plates)

Report within program 

specific database

Water quality parameters

Sedimentation rates and 

characterization

Secchi disk depth

Percent cover and diversity 

of functional groups

Abundance, diversity, and 

survival of coral recruits

Record or obtain environmental 

parameters for each restoration 

site or representative sites

Benthic community structure is 

surveyed long-term (>5 years) 

following outplanting

* Evaluation tool criteria or performance criteria we not created for this objective herein, these will be based on the specific metrics that will be chosen by the practitioner to determine the success 

of the objective. If metrics described within this document are used, the associated performance criteria may be applicable.

Table 20. Overview and alignment of Ecological Restoration Goal-Based Performance Metrics to CRC Monitoring Working Group products.
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 101

Goal Objective Metric Description Methods Reporting Data Outcomes

Evaluation Tool Criteria 

Alignment

Socioeconomic

Economic

Coastal Protection

Evaluation of the benefits 

of coral restoration to 

coastal protection

Shoreline Stability Assessment

Remote Sensing

Modeling

Economic valuation of tourism 

and shoreline

Evaluation of coastal protection 

projects

Report within 

program specific 

database

Change in shoreline erosion 

over time

Summary of costs associated 

with coastal projection and 

the economic benefits

*see footnote

Responsible 

Ecotourism 

Opportunities

Methods for including 

responsible tourism in 

coral reef restoration

Track Participation

Monitor outplants

Survey reef-related tourism

Conduct Conservation-Oriented 

Diver Trainings with Local 

Shops

Infrastructure census

Report within 

program specific 

database

Number of participants

Evaluation of trends in 

participation and revenue 

generated

Coral Condition Metric 

Outputs

Pre- and post- surveys are 

completed

Survey of coral outplants for 

survival is completed

Three year financial plan is 

developed

Sociocultural 

Cultivating 

Stewardship 

Through Education 

and Outreach

Stewards of Coral 

Restoration and the 

community are created 

through education and 

outreach

Event/Campaign Statistics

Participation Assessment

Reach

Outplanting scope

Report within 

program specific 

database

How many participants return

Which events created the 

most reach

Change in volunteer opinion 

on restoration

Survival of corals

Pre- and post- surveys are 

completed

Corals show similar survival 

and growth to non-volunteer 

outplants

Capacity Building

Tracking the change in 

a programs capacity 

(financial and volunteer)

Participation Assessment

Outplanting Scope

Budget Analysis

Report within 

program specific 

database

Retention of volunteers

Program financial plan

Corals show similar survival 

and growth to non-volunteer 

outplants

Supports wider conservation

Devised appropriate exit 

strategies

Reef-User 

Satisfaction

How does a community 

perceive restoration

Reef-User Survey

Monitor engagement

Report within 

program specific 

database

Summary of how reef-users 

perceive restoration

Increase in reef-user 

satisfaction

Event-Driven Restoration

Disease and 

Bleaching

Post-Impact 

Survey

Assessment of disease or 

bleaching impacts for the 

need for restoration

Survey of impacted area using 

methods to address the needs 

and goals

Report within 

program specific 

database

Prevalence of colonies 

impacted

Description of diseases 

present

Determination if restoration 

is feasible

Post-event surveys are 

completed and analyzed

If restoration occurs postevent monitoring is completed 

following above guidelines

Physical 

Impacts

Post-Impact 

Survey

Assessment of physical 

impacts for the need for 

restoration

Survey of impacted area using 

methods to address the needs 

and goals

Report within 

program specific 

database

Summary of damage extent

Determination if restoration 

is feasible

Post-event surveys are 

completed and analyzed

If restoration occurs postevent monitoring is completed 

following above guidelines

Climate Change Adaptation

Improve Reef 

Resilience Undefined Herein

Interventions to improve 

the resilience of restored 

corals and communities

Survey of individuals response 

to multiple stressors

Managed Breeding

Report within 

program specific 

database

Identification of corals which 

have tolerance to certain 

stressors

*see footnote

Assisted 

Evolution Undefined Herein

Procedures to accelerate 

naturally occurring 

evolutionary processes

Assisted Gene Flow

Assisted Migration

Report within 

program specific 

database

Percent success rate of 

assisted gene flow or 

migration

*see footnote

Stress 

Hardening Undefined Herein Manipulation of corals to be more stress tolerant Various Manipulation Methods

Report within 

program specific 

database

Percent of corals manipulated 

that show increased 

tolerance

*see footnote

Research

Various Undefined Herein Research focused on 

coral reef restoration Based on research question(s)

Report within 

program specific 

database

Based on research 

question(s) *see footnote

* Evaluation tool criteria or performance criteria we not created for this objective herein, these will be based on the specific metrics that will be chosen by the practitioner to determine the 

success of the objective. If metrics described within this document are used, the associated performance criteria may be applicable.

Table 21. Overview and alignment of Socioeconomic and Event-Driven Restoration, Climate Change Adaption, and Research Goal-Based Performance Metrics to 

CRC Monitoring Working Group products.

Summary of Performance Metrics
102

Closing Remarks

This guide is the result of consultation and discussion with 

restoration practitioners, CRC working group members and 

researchers and aims to provide comprehensive guidance 

for monitoring coral reef restoration projects and programs 

with various restoration goals and at scales obtainable by all 

practitioners, scientists, and managers. While every effort was 

made to address as many situations as possible, we recognize 

that as this field develops, some metrics may need to be 

improved, modified, or eliminated. We therefore present this 

Guide as a living document to be updated as necessary so it 

remains relevant and representative as the field evolves.

The five Universal Metrics were developed through much thought 

and discussion, as means to describe and compare restoration 

projects. These five metrics were chosen because they can be 

collected by all practitioners regardless of their skill level, goal, or 

budget in a comparable and reliable manner, they cover a range 

of scales, are meaningful to the field of restoration, and have been 

suggested by practitioners and managers as useful to compare 

between projects. The Universal Metrics do not cover all aspects 

of restoration, which is why Goal-Based Performance Metrics 

were developed. The most common restoration goals, identified 

through literature and practitioner interviews, were used as the 

basis for developing the Goal-Based Performance Metrics in this 

Guide. One recurring issue we encountered was that while most 

practitioners stated that the purpose of their restoration project 

was to improve the ecosystem or enhance coral reefs, very few 

were actually using metrics that could determine if they were 

meeting this goal. To address this problem, this guide provides 

guidance on what should be measured to determine if these 

goals are being met. Some of the goals, such as Socioeconomic 

and Climate Change Adaptation are an important component of 

restoration; however, they are whole fields unto themselves, are 

developing quickly, and are therefore less developed within this 

Guide. As these topics are better understood and incorporated into 

the coral reef restoration field the metrics for measuring the goal’s 

success will become more refined.

This Guide should be used to measure and describe the progress 

of coral restoration projects towards meeting restoration goals. The 

CRC Monitoring Working Group has developed a complementary 

Coral Restoration Database and Evaluation Tool, which should 

be used in conjunction with this Guide. The Coral Restoration 

Database allows the input of data from the Universal Metrics and 

select Goal-Based Performance Metrics allowing for standardized 

comparison between restoration projects, programs, and regions. 

The Coral Restoration Evaluation Tool allows the practitioner to 

score the performance of their project, program, or region and 

determine what is working well and what needs improvement. 

Feedback provided by practitioners through the use of this Guide, 

Database, and Evaluation Tool will help improve the evaluation of 

coral restoration success.

The metrics in this guide were developed and are implemented 

by practitioners, researchers, and managers whose work has 

primarily focused on restoration in the Greater Caribbean and 

Atlantic Ocean; therefore, some examples may need modifications 

to be applied in other regions. However, these restoration metrics 

were developed from globally applied coral reef monitoring 

techniques and should be broadly applicable to all geographic 

locations. We expect and hope that practitioners use this as a 

starting point and collect data beyond what is outlined in this 

document to further inform the restoration community and future 

versions of this document.

Whitney Hoot
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 103

Literature Cited

Abelson A. 2006. Artificial reefs vs. coral transplantation as 

restoration tools for mitigating coral reef deterioration: benefits, 

concerns, and proposed guidelines. Bulletin of Marine Science 

78(1): 151–159. 

Ainsworth TD, Heron SF, Ortiz JC, Mumby PJ, Grech A, Ogawa 

D, Eakin CM, Leggat W. 2016. Climate change disables 

coral bleaching protection on the Great Barrier Reef. Science 

352(6283): 338–342. DOI: 10.1126/science.aac7125

Albuquerque T, Loiola M, Nunes JdA, Reis-Filho JA, Sampaio 

C, Leduc A. 2015. In situ effects of human disturbances on 

coral reef-fish assemblage structure: temporary and persisting 

changes are reflected as a result of intensive tourism. Marine 

and Freshwater Research 66(1): 23–32. DOI: 10.1071/

mf13185

Alcala AC, Gomez ED, Alcala LC. 1982. Survival and growth 

of coral transplants in Central Philippines. Kalikasan, the 

Philippine Journal of Biology 11(1): 136–147. 

Altshuler D, Pollara VJ, Cowles CR, Van Etten WJ, Baldwin J, 

Linton L, Lander ES. 2000. An SNP map of the human genome 

generated by reduced representation shotgun sequencing. 

Nature 407: 513–516. DOI: 10.1038/35035083

Alvarez-Filip L, Gill JA, Dulvy NK, Perry AL, Watkinson AR, Côté 

IM. 2011. Drivers of region-wide declines in architectural 

complexity on Caribbean reefs. Coral Reefs 30(4): 1051–1060. 

DOI: 10.1007/s00338-011-0795-6 

Alvarez-Filip L, Estrada-Saldívar N, Pérez-Cervantes E, MolinaHernández A, Gonzalez-Barrios FJ. 2019. A rapid spread of 

the stony coral tissue loss disease outbreak in the Mexican 

Caribbean. PeerJ 7: e8069. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.8069

Ammar MSA. 2009. Coral reef restoration and artificial 

reef management, future and economic. The Open 

Environmental Engineering Journal 2: 37–49. DOI: 

10.2174/1874829500902010037

Andersson AJ, Gledhill D. 2013. Ocean acidification and coral 

reefs: effects on breakdown, dissolution, and net ecosystem 

calcification. Annual Review of Marine Science 5: 321–348. 

DOI: 10.1146/annurev-marine-121211-172241

Anthony KRN. 2016. Coral reefs under climate change and ocean 

acidification: challenges and opportunities for management and 

policy. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 41(1): 

59–81. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085610

Anthony KRN, Larcombe P. 2000. Coral reefs in turbid waters: 

sediment-induced stresses in corals and likely mechanisms 

of adaptation. pp 617–623. In: Moosa MK, Soemodihardjo S, 

Soegiarto A, Romimohtarto K, Nontji A, Soekarno, Suharsono 

(ed), Proceedings of the 9th International Coral Reef 

Symposium, Vol. 2. Bali, Indonesia. 580 pp. 

Arkema KK, Verutes GM, Wood SA, Clarke-Samuels C, Rosado 

S, Canto M, Rosenthal A, Ruckelshaus M, Guannel G, Toft J, 

Faries J, Silver JM, Griffin R, Guerry AD. 2015. Embedding 

ecosystem services in coastal planning leads to better 

outcomes for people and nature. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences 112(24): 7390–7395. DOI: 10.1073/

pnas.1406483112

Aronson J, Blignaut JN, Milton SJ, Le Maitre D, Esler KJ, Limouzin 

A, Fontaine C, de Wit MP, Mugido W, Prinsloo P, Van Der 

Elst L, Lederer N. 2010. Are socioeconomic benefits of 

restoration adequately quantified? A meta-analysis of recent 

papers (2000–2008) in Restoration Ecology and 12 other 

scientific journals. Restoration Ecology 18(2): 143–154. DOI: 

10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00638.x

Auberson B. 1982. Coral transplantation: an approach to the 

reestablishment of damaged reefs. Kalikasan, the Philippine 

Journal of Biology 11(1): 158–172. 

Baggett L, Powers SP, Brumbaugh R, Coen LD, DeAngelis 

B, Greene J, Hancock B, Morlock S. 2014. Oyster reef 

restoration monitoring and assessment handbook. The Nature 

Conservancy, Arlington, VA. 96 pp. 

Bahr KD, Jokiel PL, Rodgers KS. 2016. Influence of solar 

irradiance on underwater temperature recorded by temperature 

loggers on coral reefs. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods 

14(5): 338–342. DOI: 10.1002/lom3.10093

Baird AH, Salih A, Trevor-Jones A. 2006. Fluorescence census 

techniques for the early detection of coral recruits. Coral Reefs 

25(1): 73–76. DOI: 10.1007/s00338-005-0072-7

Baird AH, Guest JR, Willis BL. 2009. Systematic and 

biogeographical patterns in the reproductive biology of 

Scleractinian corals. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, 

and Systematics 40(1): 551–571. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.

ecolsys.110308.120220

Bajjouk T, Mouquet P, Ropert M, Quod J-P, Hoarau L, Bigot L, Le 

Dantec N, Delacourt C, Populus J. 2019. Detection of changes 

in shallow coral reefs status: Towards a spatial approach using 

hyperspectral and multispectral data. Ecological Indicators 

96(1): 174–191. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.08.052

Bak RPM, Engel MS. 1979. Distribution, abundance, and survival 

of juvenile hermatypic corals (Scleractinia) and the importance 

of life history strategies in the parent coral community. Marine 

Biology 54: 341–352. DOI: 10.1007/bf00395440 

Bak RPM, Meesters EH. 1998. Coral population structure: The 

hidden information of colony size-frequency distributions. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series162: 301–306. DOI: 10.3354/

meps162301 

Baker AC. 2001. Reef corals bleach to survive change. Nature 

411: 765–766. 
104 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Baker AC, Starger CJ, McClanahan TR, Glynn PW. 2004. Corals’ 

adaptive response to climate change. Nature 430: 741. DOI: 

10.1038/430741a

Baron RM, Jordan LKB, Spieler RE. 2004. Characterization of 

the marine fish assemblage associated with the nearshore 

hardbottom of Broward County, Florida, USA. Estuarine, 

Coastal and Shelf Science 60(3): 431–443. DOI: 10.1016/j.

ecss.2004.02.002

Bateman IJ, Mace GM, Fezzi C, Atkinson G, Turner K. 2011. 

Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments. 

Environmental and Resource Economics 48(2): 177–218. DOI: 

10.1007/s10640-010-9418-x

Baums IB. 2008. A restoration genetics guide for coral reef 

conservation. Molecular Ecology 17(12): 2796–2811. DOI: 

10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03787.x 

Baums IB, Miller MW, Hellberg ME. 2005. Regionally isolated 

populations of an imperiled Caribbean coral, Acropora palmata. 

Molecular Ecology 14(5): 1377–1390. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-

294X.2005.02489.x

Baums I, Johnson M, Devlin-Durante M, Miller M. 2010. Host 

population genetic structure and zooxanthellae diversity of two 

reef-building coral species along the Florida Reef Tract and 

wider Caribbean. Coral Reefs 29(4): 835–842. DOI: 10.1007/

s00338-010-0645-y 

Baums IB, Boulay JN, Polato NR, Hellberg ME. 2012. No gene 

flow across the Eastern Pacific Barrier in the reef-building coral 

Porites lobata. Molecular ecology 21(22): 5418–5433. DOI: 

10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05733.x

Baums IB, Baker AC, Davies SW, Grottoli AG, Kenkel CD, 

Kitchen SA, Kuffner IB, LaJeunesse TC, Matz MV, Miller MW, 

Parkinson JE, Shantz AA. 2019. Considerations for maximizing 

the adaptive potential of restored coral populations in the 

western Atlantic. Ecological Applications 29(8): e01978. DOI: 

10.1002/eap.1978

Bayraktarov E, Saunders MI, Abdullah S, Mills M, Beher J, 

Possingham HP, Mumby PJ, Lovelock CE. 2016. The cost and 

feasibility of marine coastal restoration. Ecological Applications 

26(4): 1055–1074. DOI: 10.1890/15-1077.1

Bayraktarov E, Stewart-Sinclair PJ, Brisbane S, BoströmEinarsson L, Saunders MI, Lovelock CE, Possingham HP, 

Mumby PJ, Wilson KA. 2019. Motivations, success, and cost 

of coral reef restoration. Restoration Ecology 27(5): 981–991. 

DOI: 10.1111/rec.12977

Beck MW, Losada IJ, Menéndez P, Reguero BG, Díaz-Simal 

P, Fernández F. 2018. The global flood protection savings 

provided by coral reefs. Nature Communications 9(1): 2186. 

DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-04568-z

Beijbom O, Edmunds PJ, Roelfsema C, Smith J, Kline DI, Neal 

BP, Dunlap MJ, Moriarty V, Fan TY, Tan CJ, Chan S, Treibitz T, 

Gamst A, Mitchell BG, Kriegman D. 2015. Towards automated 

annotation of benthic survey images: variability of human 

experts and operational modes of automation. PLoS One 

10(7): e0130312. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130312

Bell SS, Fonseca MS, Kenworthy WJ. 2008. Dynamics of a 

subtropical seagrass landscape: links between disturbance 

and mobile seed banks. Landscape Ecology 23: 67–74. DOI: 

10.1007/s10980-007-9137-z

Bender MA, Knutson TR, Tuleya RE, Sirutis JJ, Vecchi GA, Garner 

ST, Held IM. 2010. Modeled impact of anthropogenic warming 

on the frequency of intense Atlantic hurricanes. Science 

327(5964): 454–458. DOI: 10.1126/science.1180568

Birkeland C. 1977. The importance of rate of biomass 

accumulation in early successional stages of benthic 

communities to the survival of coral recruits. pp 16-21. In: 

Taylor DL (ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Coral Reef 

Symposium, Vol. 1. Miami, FL. 656 pp. 

Birkeland C, Randall RH, Grimm G. 1979. Three methods of 

coral transplantation for the purpose of reestablishing a coral 

community in the thermal effluent area at the Tanguisson 

Power Plant. University of Guam, Marine Laboratory Technical 

Report No. 60. Mangilao, Guam. 24 pp.

Birkeland C, Rowley D, Randall RH. 1981. Coral recruitment 

patterns at Guam. pp 339–344. In: Gomez ED, Birkeland CE, 

Buddemeier RW, Johannes RE, March Jr. JA, Tsuda RT (eds.), 

Proceedings of the 4th International Coral Reef Symposium, 

Vol. 2. Manila, Philippines. 780 pp.

Bishop RC, Chapman DJ, Kanninen BJ, Krosnick JA, Leeworthy 

B, Meade NF. 2011. Total economic value for protecting and 

restoring Hawaiian coral reef ecosystems: Final Report. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum CRCP 16. Silver Spring, MD. 406 pp. 

Blignaut JN, Esler KJ, de Wit MP, Le Maitre D, Milton SJ, Aronson 

J. 2013. Establishing the links between economic development 

and the restoration of natural capital. Current Opinion in 

Environmental Sustainability 5(1): 94–101. DOI: 10.1016/j.

cosust.2012.12.003

Bliss BC. 2015. Translocation of Acropora cervicornis across 

geographic regions: investigating species recovery and 

restoration. Master’s Thesis. Nova Southeastern University. 

102 pp. 

Bohnsack JA, Sutherland DL. 1985. Artificial reef research: A 

review with recommendations for future priorities. Bulletin of 

Marine Science 37(1): 11–39. 

Bohnsack JA, Bannerot SP. 1986. A Stationary visual census 

technique for quantitatively assessing community structure of 

coral reef fishes. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 41. 21 pp. 

Boström-Einarsson L, Ceccarelli D, Babcock RC., Bayraktarov 

E, Cook N, Harrison P, Hein M, Shaver E, Smith A, StewartSinclair PJ, Vardi T, McLeod IM. 2018. Coral restoration in a 

changing world–A global synthesis of methods and techniques. 

Report to the National Environmental Science Program. Reef 

and Rainforest Research Centre Ltd. Cairns, Australia. 63 pp.

Bouchon C, Jaubert J, Bouchon-Navaro Y. 1981. Evolution of a 

semi-artificial reef built by transplanting coral heads. Tethys 

10(2): 173–176. 

Literature Cited
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 105

Literature Cited

Bowden-Kerby A. 2001. Low-tech coral reef restoration methods 

modeled after natural fragmentation processes. Bulletin of 

Marine Science 69(2): 915–931. 

Bowden-Kerby A, Carne L. 2012. Thermal tolerance as a factor 

in Caribbean Acropora restoration. (online) In: Yellowlees D, 

Hughes TP (eds), Proceedings of the 12th International Coral 

Reef Symposium. Cairns, Australia.

Branchini S, Meschini M, Covi C, Piccinetti C, Zaccanti F, Goffredo 

S. 2015. Participating in a citizen science monitoring program: 

implications for environmental education. PLoS One 10(7): 

e0131812. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131812

Brandt ME, Smith TB, Correa AMS, Vega Thurber R. 2013. 

Disturbance driven colony fragmentation as a driver of a coral 

disease outbreak. PloS one 8(2): e57164. DOI: 10.1371/

journal.pone.0057164

Brewer TD, Cinner JE, Fisher R, Green A, Wilson SK. 2012. 

Market access, population density, and socioeconomic 

development explain diversity and functional group biomass 

of coral reef fish assemblages. Global Environmental Change 

22(2): 399–406. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.01.006

Bright AJ, Cameron CM, Miller MW. 2015. Enhanced susceptibility 

to predation in corals of compromised condition. PeerJ 3: 

e1239. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.1239

Bright AJ, Rogers CS, Brandt ME, Muller E, Smith TB. 2016. 

Disease prevalence and snail predation associated with swellgenerated damage on the threatened coral, Acropora palmata

(Lamarck). Frontiers in Marine Science 3: 77. DOI: 10.3389/

fmars.2016.00077

Brito-Millán M, Vermeij MJA, Alcantar EA, Sandin SA. 2019. Coral 

reef assessments based on cover alone mask active dynamics 

of coral communities. Marine Ecology Progress Series 630: 

55–68. DOI: 10.3354/meps13128

Brock RE. 1982. A critique of the visual census method for 

assessing coral reef fish populations. Bulletin of Marine 

Science 32(1): 269–276. 

Brooks J, Waylen KA, Mulder MB. 2013. Assessing communitybased conservation projects: A systematic review and 

multilevel analysis of attitudinal, behavioral, ecological and 

economic outcomes. Environmental Evidence 2(2): 1–34. DOI: 

10.1186/2047-2382-2-2

Browne NK, Smithers SG, Perry CT, Ridd PV. 2012. A fieldbased technique for measuring sediment flux on coral reefs: 

Application to turbid reefs on the Great Barrier Reef. Journal 

of Coastal Research 28(5): 1247–1262. DOI: 10.2112/

JCOASTRES-D-11-00171.1

Bruckner AW, Bruckner RJ. 2001. Condition of restored Acropora 

palmata fragments off Mona Island, Puerto Rico, 2 years 

after the Fortuna Reefer ship grounding. Coral Reefs 20(3): 

235–243. DOI: 10.1007/s003380100164

Bruno JF, Selig ER, Casey KS, Page CA, Willis BL, Harvell CD, 

Sweatman H, Melendy AM. 2007. Thermal stress and coral 

cover as drivers of coral disease outbreaks. PLoS Biology 5(6): 

e124. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050124

Brunson MW. 1997. Beyond wilderness: Broadening the 

applicability of limits of acceptable change. pp 44–48. In: 

McCool SF, Cole DN (eds), Proceedings–Limits of Acceptable 

Change and related planning processes: Progress and future 

directions. General Technical Report INT-GTR-371. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain 

Research Station, Ogden, UT. 84 pp. DOI: 10.2737/INTGTR-371

Burke L, Reytar K, Spalding M, Perry A. 2011. Reefs at risk 

revisited. World Resources Institute, Washington DC. 130 pp.

Burns JHR, Delparte D, Gates RD, Takabayashi M. 2015. 

Integrating structure-from-motion photogrammetry with 

geospatial software as a novel technique for quantifying 3D 

ecological characteristics of coral reefs. PeerJ 3: e1077. DOI: 

10.7717/peerj.1077

Burt J, Bartholomew A, Bauman A, Saif A, Sale PF. 2009. Coral 

recruitment and early benthic community development on 

several materials used in the construction of artificial reefs 

and breakwaters. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and 

Ecology 373(1): 72–78. DOI: 10.1016/j.jembe.2009.03.009

Cabaitan PC, Gomez ED, Aliño PM. 2008. Effects of coral 

transplantation and giant clam restocking on the structure 

of fish communities on degraded patch reefs. Journal of 

Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 357(1): 85–98. DOI: 

10.1016/j.jembe.2008.01.001

Caldwell ZR, Zgliczynski BJ, Williams GJ, Sandin SA. 2016. Reef 

fish survey techniques: Assessing the potential standardizing 

methodologies. PloS One 11(4): e0153066. DOI: 10.1371/

journal.pone.0153066

Calgaro E, Lloyd K, Dominey-Howes D. 2014. From vulnerability 

to transformation: a framework for assessing the vulnerability 

and resilience of tourism destinations. Journal of Sustainable 

Tourism 22(3): 341–360. DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2013.826229

Calle-Triviño J, Cortés-Useche C, Sellares-Blasco RI, AriasGonzález JE. 2018. Assisted fertilization of threatened 

staghorn coral to complement the restoration of nurseries in 

southeastern Dominican Republic. Regional Studies in Marine 

Science 18: 129–134. DOI: 10.1016/j.rsma.2018.02.002

Calow P (ed). 1998. The encyclopedia of ecology and 

environmental management. Blackwell Science, Ltd. Malden, 

Massachusetts. 832 pp. 

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 2015. Guidance 

manual for optimizing water quality monitoring program design. 

88 pp. 
106 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Literature Cited

Causey B, Delaney J, Diaz E, Dodge RE, Garcia JR, Higgins 

J, Jaap W, Matos CA, Schmahl GP, Rogers CS, Miller MW, 

Turgeon DD. 2002. Status of coral reefs in the US Caribbean 

and Gulf of Mexico: Florida, Texas, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin 

Islands and Navassa. pp 239–259. In: Wilkinson C (ed), 

Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2000. Volume 1. Australian 

Institute for Marine Science, Townsville, Australia. 380 pp.

Chamberland VF, Petersen D, Latijnhouwers KRW, Snowden 

S, Mueller B, Vermeij MJA. 2016. Four-year-old Caribbean 

Acropora colonies reared from field-collected gametes are 

sexually mature. Bulletin of Marine Science 92(2): 263–264. 

DOI: 10.5343/bms.2015.1074

Chamberland VF, Petersen D, Guest JR, Petersen U, Brittsan M, 

Vermeij MJA. 2017. New seeding approach reduces costs and 

time to outplant sexually propagated corals for reef restoration. 

Scientific reports 7(1): 18076. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-

17555-z

Chan WY, Peplow LM, Menéndez P, Hoffmann AA, van Oppen 

MJH. 2018. Interspecific hybridization may provide novel 

opportunities for coral reef restoration. Frontiers in Marine 

Science 5:160. DOI: 10.3389/fmars.2018.00160

Chapman MG. 1999. Improving sampling designs for 

measuring restoration in aquatic habitats. Journal of 

Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery 6: 235–251. DOI: 

10.1023/A:1009987403481

Chennu A, Färber P, De’ath G, de Beer D, Fabricius KE. 2017. 

A diver-operated hyperspectral imaging and topographic 

surveying system for automated mapping of benthic habitats. 

Scientific Reports 7(1): 7122. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-

07337-y

Church JA, Monselesan D, Gregory JM, Marzeion B. 2013. 

Evaluating the ability of process based models to project sealevel change. Environmental Research Letters 8: 014051. DOI: 

10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014051

Clark S, Edwards AJ. 1995. Coral transplantation as an aid to reef 

rehabilitation: evaluation of a case study in the Maldive Islands. 

Coral Reefs 14: 201–213. DOI: 10.1007/BF00334342

Claus CA. 2017. The social life of Okinawan corals. Journal for the 

Study of Religion, Nature and Culture 11(2): 157–174. DOI: 

10.1558/jsrnc.18804

Coen LD, Luckenbach MW. 2000. Developing success criteria and 

goals for evaluating oyster reef restoration: ecological function 

or resource exploitation? Ecological Engineering 15(3–4): 

323–343. DOI: 10.1016/s0925-8574(00)00084-7

Connell JH, Hughes TP, Wallace CC. 1997. A 30-year study of coral 

abundance, recruitment, and disturbance at several scales in 

space and time. Ecological Monographs 67(4): 461–488. DOI: 

10.1890/0012-9615(1997)067[0461:AYSOCA]2.0.CO;2

Cooper CB, Dickinson J, Phillips T, Bonney R. 2007. Citizen 

Science as a tool for conservation in residential ecosystems. 

Ecological Society 12(2): 1–11. DOI: 10.5751/es-02197-120211

Cooper TF, Gilmour JP, Fabricius KE. 2009. Bioindicators 

of changes in water quality on coral reefs: review and 

recommendations for monitoring programmes. Coral Reefs 

28(3): 589–606. DOI: 10.1007/s00338-009-0512-x

Costanza R, de Groot R, Sutton P, van der Ploeg S, Anderson 

SJ, Kubiszewski I, Farber S, Turner RK. 2014. Changes in 

the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental 

Change 26: 152–158. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002

Cunningham WP, Ball T, Cooper TH, Gorham E, Hepworth 

MT. 1998. Environmental encyclopedia, 2nd Edition. Gale 

Research, Inc., Detroit, Michigan. 981 pp. 

Dahlgren C, Sherman K. 2020. Preliminary Assessment of 

Hurricane Dorian’s Impact on Coral Reefs of Abaco and 

Grand Bahama. A report submitted to the Government of The 

Bahamas. Perry Institute for Marine Science. 28 pp.

Daldeniz B, Hampton MP. 2013. Dive tourism and local 

communities: active participation or subject to impacts? 

Case studies from Malaysia. International Journal of Tourism 

Research 15(5): 507–520. DOI: 10.1002/jtr.1897

Davenport J, Davenport JL. 2006. The impact of tourism and 

personal leisure transport on coastal environments: a review. 

Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 67(1–2): 280–292. DOI: 

10.1016/j.ecss.2005.11.026

Davies GM, Gray A. 2015. Don’t let spurious accusations of 

pseudoreplication limit our ability to learn from natural 

experiments (and other messy kinds of ecological monitoring). 

Ecology and Evolution 5(22): 5295–5304. DOI: 10.1002/

ece3.1782

Day J, Boesch DF, Mitsch WJ, Orth K, Shabman L, Simenstad CA, 

Streever W, Watson C, Wells J, Whigham DF. 2004. Lessons 

learned by the National Technical Review Committee for the 

Louisiana Coastal Area Study. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Washington, DC. 29 pp. 

de Groot R, Brander L, van der Ploeg S, Costanza R, Bernard 

F, Braat L, Christie M, Crossman N, Ghermandi A, Hein L, 

Hussain S, Kumar P, McVittie A, Portela R, Rodriguez LC, ten 

Brink P, van Beukering P. 2012. Global estimates of the value 

of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosystem 

Services 1(1): 50–61. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.005

De Souza R-M, Clarke J. 2018. Chapter 11–Advancing coastal 

climate resilience: Inclusive data and decision-making for small 

island communities. pp 143–150. In: Zommers Z, Alverson K 

(eds), Resilience: The science of adaption to climate change. 

Elsevier. 376 pp. 

Deloittes Access Economics. 2013. Economic contributions of the 

Great Barrier Reef. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 

Townsville, Australia. 52 pp. 

Devine B, Rogers C, Loomis C. 2005. Mapping marine 

populations: using surface water GPS for spatial analysis. 

Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 56: 

411–420. 
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 107

Literature Cited

Devlin-Durante MK, Baums IB. 2017. Genome-wide survey of 

single-nucleotide polymorphisms reveals fine-scale population 

structure and signs of selection in the threatened Caribbean 

elkhorn coral, Acropora palmata. PeerJ 5(11): e4077. DOI: 

10.7717/peerj.4077

Diedrich A. 2007. The impacts of tourism on coral reef 

conservation awareness and support in coastal communities 

in Belize. Coral Reefs 26(4): 985–996. DOI: 10.1007/s00338-

007-0224-z

Dimmock K. 2006. Chapter 7–Scuba diving, snorkeling, and free 

diving. pp 128–147. In: Jennings G (ed), Water-based tourism, 

sport, leisure, and recreation experiences. ButterworthHeinemann, USA. Elsevier Ltd. 320 pp. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-

7506-6181-2.50013-0

Dixson DL, Abrego D, Hay ME. 2014. Chemically mediated 

behavior of recruiting corals and fishes: A tipping point that may 

limit reef recovery. Science 345(6199): 892–897. DOI: 10.1126/

science.1255057

Done TJ. 1995. Ecological criteria for evaluating coral reefs and 

their implications for managers and researchers. Coral Reefs 

14(4): 183–192. DOI: 10.1007/BF00334340

Drew JA. 2005. Use of traditional ecological knowledge in marine 

conservation. Conservation Biology 19(4): 1286–1293. DOI: 

10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00158.x

Drury C, Dale KE, Panlilio JM, Miller SV, Lirman D, Larson EA, 

Bartels E, Crawford DL, Oleksiak MF. 2016. Genomic variation 

among populations of threatened coral: Acropora cervicornis. 

BMC Genomics 17(270):286. DOI: 10.1186/s12864-016-2583-8 

Drury C, Manzello D, Lirman D. 2017a. Genotype and local 

environment dynamically influence growth, disturbance 

response and survivorship in the threatened coral, Acropora 

cervicornis. PloS one 12(3): e0174000. DOI: 10.1371/journal.

pone.0174000

Drury C, Schopmeyer S, Goergen E, Bartels E, Nedimyer K, 

Johnson M, Maxwell K, Galvan V, Manfrino C, Lirman D. 

2017b. Genomic patterns in Acropora cervicornis show 

extensive population structure and variable genetic diversity. 

Ecology and Evolution 7(16): 6188–6200. DOI: 10.1002/

ece3.3184

Dustan P, Doherty O, Pardede S. 2013. Digital reef rugosity 

estimates coral reef habitat complexity. PLoS One 8(2): 

e57386. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057386

Eberhardt LL. 1976. Quantitative ecology and impact assessment. 

Journal of Environmental Management 4: 27–70. 

Edinger EN, Jompa J, Limmon G, Widjatmoko W, Risk MJ. 1998. 

Reef degradation and coral biodiversity in Indonesia: Effects of 

land-based pollution, destructive fishing practices and changes 

over time. Marine Pollution Bulletin 36(8): 617–630. DOI: 

10.1016/S0025-326X(98)00047-2

Edmonson CH. 1929. Growth of Hawaiian corals. Bernice P. 

Bishop Museum, Bulletin 58. Honolulu, HI. 44 pp. DOI: 

10.5962/bhl.title.58563

Edmunds PJ. 2015. A quarter–century demographic analysis 

of the Caribbean coral, Orbicella annularis, and projections 

of population size over the next century. Limnology and 

Oceanography 60(3): 840–855. DOI: 10.1002/lno.10075

Edwards AJ, Clark S. 1999. Coral transplantation: a useful tool 

or misguided meddling? Marine Pollution Bulletin 37(8–12): 

474–487. DOI: 10.1016/S0025-326X(99)00145-9 

Edwards A, Gomez E. 2007. Reef restoration concepts and 

guidelines: making sensible management choices in the face 

of uncertainty. Coral Reef Targeted Research and Capacity 

Building for Management Program, St. Lucia, Australia. 44 pp. 

Edwards AJ (ed) 2010. Reef Rehabilitation Manual. Coral Reef 

Targeted Research and Capacity Building for Management 

Program: St Lucia, Australia. 168 pp. 

Elzinga CL, Salzer DW, Willoughby JW. 1998. Measuring and 

monitoring plant populations. BLM Technical Reference 

1730–1. Denver, Colorado. 496 pp.

Epstein N, Bak RPM, Rinkevich B. 2003. Applying forest 

restoration principles to coral reef rehabilitation. Aquatic 

Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 13(5): 

387–395. DOI: 10.1002/aqc.558

European Commission. 2016. The European Tourism Indicator 

System: ETIS toolkit for sustainable destination management. 

European Commission. Luxembourg. 32 pp. DOI: 

10.2873/982144, 10.2873/983087

Fabricius KE. 2005. Effects of terrestrial runoff on the ecology of 

corals and coral reefs: review and synthesis. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin 50(2): 125–146. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.11.028

Fadli N, Campbell SJ, Ferguson K, Keyse J, Rudi E, Riedel 

A, Baird AH. 2012. The role of habitat creation in coral reef 

conservation: a case study from Aceh, Indonesia. Oryx 46(4): 

501–507. DOI: 10.1017/s0030605312000142

Fairweather PG. 1991. Statistical power and design requirements 

for environmental monitoring. Australian Journal of Marine 

and Freshwater Research 42(5): 555–567. DOI: 10.1071/

mf9910555

Falk DA, Palmer MA, Zedler JB (eds) 2006. Foundations of 

restoration ecology, 1st Edition. Island Press, Washington, DC. 

378 pp. 

Ferrario F, Beck MW, Storlazzi CD, Micheli F, Shepard CC, Airoldi 

L. 2014. The effectiveness of coral reefs for coastal hazard risk 

reduction and adaptation. Nature Communications 5: 3794. 

DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4794

Ferse SCA. 2008 Multivariate responses of the coral reef fish 

community to artificial structures and coral transplants. pp 

1225–1229. In: Riegl BM, Dodge RE (eds), Proceedings 

of the 11th International Coral Reef Symposium, Vol. 2. Ft. 

Lauderdale, FL. 742 pp.

Fidelman P, McGrath C, Newlands M, Dobbs K, Jago B, Hussey 

K. 2019. Regulatory implications of coral reef restoration and 

adaptation under a changing climate. Environmental Science 

and Policy 100: 221–229. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2019.04.016
108 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Figueira W, Ferrari R, Weatherby E, Porter A, Hawes S, Byrne M. 

2015. Accuracy and precision of habitat structural complexity 

metrics derived from underwater photogrammetry. Remote 

Sensing 7(12): 16883–16900. DOI: 10.3390/rs71215859

Filbee-Dexter K, Smajdor A. 2019. Ethics of assisted evolution in 

marine conservation. Frontiers in Marine Science 6: 20. DOI: 

10.3389/fmars.2019.00020

Fisch J, Drury C, Towle EK, Winter RN, Miller MW. 2019. 

Physiological and reproductive repercussions of consecutive 

summer bleaching events of the threatened Caribbean coral 

Orbicella faveolata. Coral Reefs 38(4): 863–876. DOI: 10.1007/

s00338-019-01817-5

Foo SA, Asner GP. 2019. Scaling up coral reef restoration using 

remote sensing technology. Frontiers in Marine Science 6: 78. 

DOI: 10.3389/fmars.2019.00079

Forsman ZH, Page CA, Toonen RJ, Vaughan D. 2015. Growing 

coral larger and faster: micro-colony-fusion as a strategy 

for accelerating coral cover. PeerJ 3: e1313. DOI: 10.7717/

peerj.1313

Foster NL, Baums IB, Mumby PJ. 2007. Sexual vs. asexual 

reproduction in an ecosystem engineer: the massive coral 

Montastraea annularis. Journal of Animal Ecology 76(2): 

384–391. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01207.x

Fox HE, Pet JS, Dahuri R, Caldwell RL. 2003. Recovery in 

rubble fields: long-term impacts of blast fishing. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin 46(8): 1024–1031. DOI: 10.1016/S0025-

326X(03)00246-77

Fox HE, Harris JL, Darling ES, Ahmadia GN, Estradivari, Razak 

TB. 2019. Rebuilding coral reefs: success (and failure) 16 years 

after low-cost, low-tech restoration. Restoration Ecology 27(4): 

862–869. DOI: 10.1111/rec.12935

Frihy OE, El Ganaini MA, El Sayed WR, Iskander MM. 2004. The 

role of fringing coral reef in beach protection of Hurghada, 

Gulf of Suez, Red Sea of Egypt. Ecological Engineering 22(1): 

17–25. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2003.11.004

Fukunaga A, Burns HJ, Craig KB, Kosaki KR. 2019. Integrating 

three-dimensional benthic habitat characterization techniques 

into ecological monitoring of coral reefs. Journal of Marine 

Science and Engineering 7(2): 27. DOI: 10.3390/jmse7020027

Galatowitsch SM, van der Valk AG. 1996. Characteristics of 

recently restored wetlands in the prairie pothole region. 

Wetlands 16(1): 75–83. DOI: 10.1007/bf03160647

Gardner TA, Cote IM, Gill JA, Grant A, Watkinson AR. 2003. 

Long-term region-wide declines in Caribbean corals. Science 

301(5635): 958–960. DOI: 10.1126/science.1086050

Garrod B, Gossling S (eds) 2008. New frontiers in marine tourism: 

diving experiences, management and sustainability. Elsevier 

Science, Amsterdam. 248 pp. 

Gintert B, Gleason ACR, Cantwell K, Gracias N, Gonzalez M, Reid 

RP. 2012. Third-generation underwater landscape mosaics 

for coral reef mapping monitoring. (online) In: Yellowlees D, 

Hughes TP (eds), Proceedings of the 12th International Coral 

Reef Symposium. Cairns, Australia.

Gintert BE, Manzello DP, Enochs IC, Kolodziej G, Carlton R, 

Gleason ACR, Gracias N. 2018. Marked annual coral bleaching 

resilience of an inshore patch reef in the Florida Keys: a nugget 

of hope, aberrance, or last man standing? Coral Reefs 37(2): 

533–547. DOI: 10.1007/s00338-018-1678-x

Gladfelter W, Gladfelter E. 1978. Fish community structure as 

a function of habitat structure on West Indian patch reefs. 

Revista de Biología Tropical 26(Suppl. 1): 65-84. 

Gleason DF, Danilowicz BS, Nolan CJ. 2009. Reef waters 

stimulate substratum exploration in planulae from brooding 

Caribbean corals. Coral Reefs 28(2): 549–554. DOI: 10.1007/

s00338-009-0480-1

Glynn PW, Gassman NJ, Eakin CM, Cortes J, Smith DB, Guzman 

HM. 1991. Reef coral reproduction in the eastern Pacific: Costa 

Rica, Panama, and Galapagos Islands (Ecuador). Marine 

Biology 109: 355–368. DOI: 10.1007/BF01313501

Goergen EA, Gilliam DS. 2017. Outplanted Acropora cervicornis

colonies propagate across sites through fragmentation: An 

alternative method for defining outplant success [YouTube 

video]. US Coral Reef Task Force Meeting, Coral Reef 

Ecosystem Restoration Workshop, Fort Lauderdale, FL. 

Online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-tUutK7qnU

(Accessed 30 August 2020) 

Goergen EA, Gilliam DS. 2018. Outplanting technique, host 

genotype, and site affect the initial success of outplanted 

Acropora cervicornis. PeerJ 6: e4433. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.4433

Goergen EA, Moulding AL, Walker BK, Gilliam DS. 2019. 

Identifying causes of temporal changes in Acropora cervicornis

populations and the potential for recovery. Frontiers in Marine 

Science 6(36):13. DOI: 10.3389/fmars.2019.00036

Goergen EA, Johnson M, Lustic C, Griffin S, Levy J, Moulding 

A, and Ross A. In Review. Guide to coral reef restoration: 

methods to optimize efficiency and scale. Coral Restoration 

Consortium. 165 pp. 

Gourlay M. 1996a. Wave set-up on coral reefs. 1. Set-up and 

wave-generated flow on an idealised two dimensional 

horizontal reef. Coastal Engineering 27(3–4): 161–193. DOI: 

10.1016/0378-3839(96)00008-7

Gourlay M. 1996b. Wave set-up on coral reefs. 2. Set-up on reefs 

with various profiles. Coastal Engineering 28(1–4): 17–55. DOI: 

10.1016/0378-3839(96)00009-9

Graham NAJ, Wilson SK, Jennings S, Polunin NVC, Bijoux JP, 

Robinson J. 2006. Dynamic fragility of oceanic coral reef 

ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 

103(22): 8425–8429. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0600693103 

Literature Cited
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 109

Graham NAJ, Nash KL. 2012. The importance of structural 

complexity in coral reef ecosystems. Coral Reefs 32(2): 

315–326. DOI: 10.1007/s00338-012-0984-y

Gratwicke B, Speight MR. 2005. The relationship between fish 

species richness, abundance and habitat complexity in a range 

of shallow tropical marine habitats. Journal of Fish Biology 

66(3): 650–667. DOI: 10.1111/j.0022-1112.2005.00629.x

Green RH. 1979. Sampling design and statistical methods for 

environmental biologists. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 272 pp. 

Griffin SP, Nemeth MI, Moore TD, Gintert B. 2015. Restoration 

using Acropora cervicornis at the T/V MARGARA grounding 

site. Coral Reefs 34(3): 885–885. DOI: 10.1007/s00338-015-

1310-2 

Griffin S, Moore T, Nemeth M, Gleason ACR, Gintert B. 2016 

Using photomosaics to monitor Acropora cervicornis thickets 

created by outplanting nursery-grown corals. pp 325–338. In: 

Birkland C, Coles SL, Spies NP (eds), Proceedings of the 13th 

International Coral Reef Symposium. Honolulu, HI. 

Guzmán HM. 1991. Restoration of coral reefs in Pacific Costa 

Rica. Conservation Biology 5(2): 189–195. DOI: 10.1111/

j.1523-1739.1991.tb00123.x

Hagedorn M, Page CA, O’Neil K, Flores DM, Tichy L, 

Chamberland VF, Lager C, Zuchowicz N, Lohr K, Blackburn 

H, Vardi T, Moore J, Moore T, Vermeij MJA, Marhaver KL. 

2018. Successful demonstrations of assisted gene flow in the 

threatened coral Acropora palmata across genetically-isolated 

Caribbean populations using cryopreserved sperm. bioRxiv: 

44. DOI: 10.1101/492447

Hargreaves-Allen VA, Mourato S, Milner-Gulland EJ. 2017. Drivers 

of coral reef marine protected area performance. PLoS One 

12(6): e0179394. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179394

Hargrove WW, Pickering J. 1992. Pseudoreplication: a sine qua 

non for regional ecology. Landscape Ecology 6(4): 251–258. 

DOI: 10.1007/BF00129703

Harmelin-Vivien ML. 1994. The effects of storms and cyclones 

on coral reefs: a review. Journal of Coastal Research Special 

Issue 12: 211–231. 

Harriott VJ, Fisk DA. 1987. A comparison of settlement plate types 

for experiments on the recruitment of scleractinian corals. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series 37: 201–208. DOI: 10.3354/

meps037201

Harriott VJ, Fisk DA. 1988. Accelerated regeneration of hard 

corals: a manual for coral reef users and managers. Great 

Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Technical Memorandum 

GBRMPA-TM-16, Townsville, Australia. 48 pp. 

Harriott VJ, Davis D, Banks SA. 1997. Recreational diving and its 

impact in marine protected areas in Eastern Australia. Ambio 

26(3): 173–179. 

Harvell D, Aronson R, Baron N, Connell J, Dobson A, Ellner 

S, Gerber L, Kim K, Kuris A, McCallum H, Laferty K, 

McKay B, Porter JW, Pascual M, Smith G, Sutherland 

K, Ward J. 2004. The rising tide of ocean diseases: 

unsolved problems and research priorities. Frontiers 

in Ecology and the Environment 2(7): 375–382. DOI: 

10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0375:TRTOOD]2.0.CO;2 

Harvell D, Jordán-Dahlgren E, Merkel S, Rosenberg E, 

Raymundo LJ, Smith G, Weil E, Willis B. 2007. Coral disease, 

environmental drivers, and the balance between coral and 

microbial assemblages. Oceanography 20(1): 172–195. DOI: 

10.5670/oceanog.2007.91

Hasler H, Ott JA. 2008. Diving down the reefs? Intensive diving 

tourism threatens the reefs of the northern Red Sea. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin 56(10): 1788–1794. DOI: 10.1016/j.

marpolbul.2008.06.002

Hein MY, Willis BL, Beeden R, Birtles A. 2017. The need for 

broader ecological and socioeconomic tools to evaluate 

the effectiveness of coral restoration programs. Restoration 

Ecology 25(6): 873–883. DOI: 10.1111/rec.12580

Hein MY, Birtles A, Willis BL, Gardiner N, Beeden R, Marshall 

NA. 2019. Coral restoration: socio-ecological perspectives of 

benefits and limitations. Biological Conservation 229: 14–25. 

DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.11.014

Hermisson J, Pennings PS. 2005. Soft sweeps: molecular 

population genetics of adaptation from standing genetic 

variation. Genetics 169(4): 2335–2352. DOI: 10.1534/

genetics.104.036947

Hernández–Delgado EA, Mercado-Molina AE, Alejandro-Camis 

PJ, Candelas-Sánchez F, Fonseca-Miranda JS, GonzálezRamos CM, Guzmán-Rodríguez R, Mège P, Montañez-Acuña 

AA, Maldonado IO, Otaño-Cruz A, Suleimán-Ramos SE. 

2014. Community-based coral reef rehabilitation in a changing 

climate: lessons learned from hurricanes, extreme rainfall, and 

changing land use impacts. Open Journal of Ecology 4(14): 

918–944. DOI: 10.4236/oje.2014.414077

Hesley D, Burdeno D, Drury C, Schopmeyer S, Lirman D. 2017. 

Citizen science benefits coral reef restoration activities. 

Journal for Nature Conservation 40: 94–99. DOI: 10.1016/j.

jnc.2017.09.001

Hill J, Wilkinson C. 2004. Methods for ecological monitoring of 

coral reefs. Australian Institute for Marine Science, Townsville, 

Australia. 123 pp. 

Hillmer-Pegram KC. 2013. Understanding the resilience of dive 

tourism to complex change. Tourism Geographies 16(4): 

598–614. DOI: 10.1080/14616688.2013.851268

Holling CS (ed). 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and 

management. Wiley-Interscience, International Institute for 

Applied Systems Analysis. John Wiley and Sons. 402 pp. 

Hughes TP. 1984. Population dynamics based on individual 

size rather than age: a general model with a reef coral 

example. The American Naturalist 123(6): 778–795. DOI: 

10.1086/284239

Literature Cited
110 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Hughes TP, Jackson JBC. 1980. Do corals lie about their age? 

Some demographic consequences of partial morality, fission, 

and fusion. Science 209(4457): 713–715. DOI: 10.1126/

science.209.4457.713

Hughes TP, Connell JH. 1987. Population dynamics based on size 

or age? A reef–coral analysis. The American Naturalist 129(6): 

818–829. DOI: 10.1086/284677

Hughes TP, Tanner JE. 2000. Recruitment failure, life histories, 

and long-term decline of Caribbean corals. Ecology 81(8): 

2250–2263. DOI: 10.2307/177112

Hughes TP, Baird AH, Bellwood DR, Card M, Connolly SR, Folke 

C, Grosberg R, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Jackson J, Kleypas J, 

Lough JM, Marshall P, Nyström M, Palumbi SR, Pandolfi JM, 

Rosen B, Roughgarden J. 2003. Climate change, human 

impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs. Science 301(6535): 

929–933. DOI: 10.1126/science.1085046

Hughes TP, Anderson KD, Connolly SR, Heron SF, Kerry JT, Lough 

JM, Baird AH, Baum JK, Berumen ML, Bridge TC, Claar DC, 

Eakin CM, Gilmour JP, Graham NAJ, Harrison H, Hobbs J-PA, 

Hoey AS, Hoogenboom M, Lowe RJ, McCulloch MT, Pandolfi 

JM, Pratchett M, Schoepf V, Torda G, Wilson SK. 2018. 

Spatial and temporal patterns of mass bleaching of corals in 

the Anthropocene. Science 359(6371): 80–83. DOI: 10.1126/

science.aan8048

Huntington BE, Miller MW. 2013. Location-specific metrics 

for rapidly estimating the abundance and condition of the 

threatened coral Acropora cervicornis. Restoration Ecology 

22(3): 299–303. DOI: 10.1111/rec.12057

Huntington BE, Miller MW, Pausch R, Richter L. 2017. Facilitation 

in Caribbean coral reefs: high densities of staghorn coral foster 

greater coral condition and reef fish composition. Oecologia 

184(1): 247–257. DOI: 10.1007/s00442-017-3859-7

Hurlbert SH. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological 

field experiments. Ecological Monographs 54(2): 187–211. DOI: 

10.2307/1942661

Interagency Workgroup on Wetland Restoration. 2003. An 

introduction and user’s guide to wetland restoration, creation, 

and enhancement. Washington, DC. 92 pp. 

The International Ecosystem Society. 2015. News: TIES 

Announces Ecotourism Principles Revision (website). The 

International Ecotourism Society. Online: https://ecotourism.

org/news/ties-announces-ecotourism-principles-revision/

(Accessed 30 August 2020). 

Jaap WC. 2000. Coral reef restoration. Ecological Engineering 

15(3–4): 345–364. DOI: 10.1016/S0925-8574(00)00085-9

Jackson J, Donovan M, Cramer K, Lam V (eds). 2014. Status and 

trends of Caribbean coral reefs: 1970–2012. Global Coral Reef 

Monitoring Network, IUCN. 304 pp. 

Jackson LL, Lopoukhine N, Hillyard D. 1995. Ecological 

restoration: a definition and comments. Restoration Ecology 

3(2): 71–75. DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.1995.tb00079.x

Johnson K. 1992. Synchronous planulation of Manicina areolata

(Scleractinia) with lunar periodicity. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series 87: 265–273. DOI:10.3354/meps087265

Johnson ME, Lustic C, Bartels E, Baums IB, Gilliam DS, Larson 

L, Lirman D, Miller MW, Nedimyer K, Schopmeyer S. 2011. 

Caribbean Acropora restoration guide: Best practices for 

propagation and population enhancement. The Nature 

Conservancy, Arlington, VA. 54 pp.

Johnston L, Miller MW. 2014. Negative indirect effects of 

neighbors on imperiled scleractinian corals. Coral Reefs 33(4): 

1047–1056. DOI: 10.1007/s00338-014-1176-8

Jordán-Dahlgren E, Jordán-Garza AG, Rodríguez-Martínez RE. 

2018. Coral disease prevalence estimation and sampling 

design. PeerJ 6: e6006. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.6006

Jordan AC. 2018. Patterns in Caribbean coral spawning. Master’s 

thesis. Nova Southeastern University. 100 pp. 

Kaly UL. 1995. Experimental test of the effects of methods of 

attachment and handling on the rapid transplantation of corals. 

Cooperative Reef Research Centre, Technical Report No. 1, 

Townsville, CRC Reef Research Centre. 24 pp. 

Karydis M, Kitsiou D. 2013. Marine water quality monitoring: 

a review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 77(1–2): 23–36. DOI: 

10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.09.012 

Keddy PA. 2000. Wetland ecology: principles and conservation (1st 

Edition). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 614 pp. 

Kilfoyle AK, Freeman J, Jordan LKB, Quinn TP, Spieler RE. 2013. 

Fish assemblages on a mitigation boulder reef and neighboring 

hardbottom. Ocean and Coastal Management 75: 53–62. DOI: 

10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.02.001

Kingsford MJ, Leis JM, Shanks A, Lindeman KC, Morgan SG, 

Pineda J. 2002. Sensory environments, larval abilities and 

local self-recruitment. Bulletin of Marine Science 70(Suppl. 1): 

309–340. 

Kitchen SA, Ratan A, Bedoya-Reina OC, Burhans R, Fogarty ND, 

Miller W, Baums IB. 2019. Genomic variants among threatened 

Acropora Corals. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics 9(5): 

1633–1646. DOI: 10.1534/g3.119.400125

Kittinger JN, Bambico TM, Minton D, Miller A, Mejia M, Kalei N, 

Wong B, Glazier EW. 2013. Restoring ecosystems, restoring 

community: socioeconomic and cultural dimensions of a 

community-based coral reef restoration project. Regional 

Environmental Change 16(2): 301–313. DOI: 10.1007/s10113-

013-0572-x

Knowlton N, Lang JC, Keller BD. 1990. Case study of natural 

population collapse: post-hurricane predation on Jamaican 

staghorn corals. Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine 

Sciences 31: 1–25. DOI: 10.5479/si.01960768.31.1

Knutson TR, McBride JL, Chan J, Emanuel K, Holland G, Landsea 

C, Held I, Kossin JP, Srivastava AK, Sugi M. 2010. Tropical 

cyclones and climate change. Nature Geoscience 3(3): 

157–163. DOI: 10.1038/ngeo779

Literature Cited
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 111

Kohl M, Scott CT, Lister AJ, Demon I, Plugge D. 2015. Avoiding 

treatment bias of REDD+ monitoring by sampling with partial 

replacement. Carbon Balance and Management 10: 11. DOI: 

10.1186/s13021-015-0020-y

Kohler KE, Gill SM. 2006. Coral Point Count with Excel extensions 

(CPCe): a Visual Basic program for the determination of 

coral and substrate coverage using random point count 

methodology. Computers and Geosciences 32(9): 1259–1269. 

DOI: 10.1016/j.cageo.2005.11.009

Kosmala M, Wiggins A, Swanson A, Simmons B. 2016. Assessing 

data quality in citizen science. Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment 14(10): 551–560. DOI: 10.1002/fee.1436

Kostylev VE, Erlandsson J, Ming MY, Williams GA. 2005. The 

relative importance of habitat complexity and surface area in 

assessing biodiversity: fractal application on rocky shores. 

Ecological Complexity 2(3): 272–286. DOI: 10.1016/j.

ecocom.2005.04.002

Krebs CJ. 1999. Ecological methodology (2nd Edition). Benjamin 

Cummings, California. 620 pp. 

Lamb JB, True JD, Piromvaragorn S, Willis BL. 2014. Scuba 

diving damage and intensity of tourist activities increases coral 

disease prevalence. Biological Conservation 178: 88–96. DOI: 

10.1016/j.biocon.2014.06.027

Langlois TJ, Harvey ES, Fitzpatrick B, Meeuwig JJ, Shedrawi G, 

Watson DL. 2010. Cost-efficient sampling of fish assemblages: 

comparison of baited video stations and diver video transects. 

Aquatic Biology 9(2): 155–168. DOI: 10.3354/ab00235

Le HD, Smith C, Herbohn J, Harrison S. 2012. More than just 

trees: Assessing reforestation success in tropical developing 

countries. Journal of Rural Studies 28(1): 5–19. DOI: 10.1016/j.

jrurstud.2011.07.006

Leon JX, Roelfsema CM, Saunders MI, Phinn SR. 2015. 

Measuring coral reef terrain roughness using ‘structure-frommotion’ close-range photogrammetry. Geomorphology 242: 

21–28. DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.01.030

Leray M, Knowlton N. 2015. DNA barcoding and metabarcoding 

of standardized samples reveal patterns of marine benthic 

diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 

112(7): 2076–2081. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1424997112

Lirman D. 1999. Reef fish communities associated with Acropora 

palmata: relationships to benthic attributes. Bulletin of Marine 

Science 65(1): 235–252. 

Lirman D. 2000. Fragmentation in the branching coral Acropora 

palmata (Lamarck): growth, survivorship, and reproduction 

of colonies and fragments. Journal of Experimental Marine 

Biology and Ecology 251(1): 41–57. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-

0981(00)00205-7

Lirman D. 2003. A simulation model of the population dynamics of 

the branching coral Acropora palmata: effects of storm intensity 

and frequency. Ecological Modelling 161(3): 169–182. DOI: 

10.1016/S0304-3800(02)00346-0

Lirman D, Fong P. 2007. Is proximity to land-based sources of 

coral stressors an appropriate measure of risk to coral reefs? 

An example from the Florida Reef Tract. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin 54(6): 779–791. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.12.014

Lirman D, Bowden-Kerby A, Schopmeyer S, Huntington B, 

Thyberg T, Gough M, Gough T, Gough R, Gough Y. 2010. 

A window to the past: documenting the status of one of the 

last remaining ‘megapopulations’ of the threatened staghorn 

coral Acropora cervicornis in the Dominican Republic. Aquatic 

Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 20(7): 

773–781. DOI: 10.1002/aqc.1146

Lirman D, Formel N, Schopmeyer S, Ault JS, Smith SG, Gilliam D, 

Riegl B. 2014. Percent recent mortality (PRM) of stony corals 

as an ecological indicator of coral reef condition. Ecological 

Indicators 44: 120–127. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.10.021 

Lirman D, Schopmeyer S. 2016. Ecological solutions to reef 

degradation: optimizing coral reef restoration in the Caribbean 

and Western Atlantic. PeerJ 4:e2597. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.2597

Lirman D, Schopmeyer S, Galvan V, Sellares R. 2017. Evaluation 

tool to assess the status and performance of coral nursery 

and outplanting programs: a case study from the Dominican 

Republic. Internal report to Counterpart International. 6 pp. 

Luckhurst BE, Luckhurst K. 1978. Analysis of the influence of 

substrate variables on coral reef fish communities. Marine 

Biology 49(4): 317–323. DOI: 10.1007/bf00455026

Lucrezi S, Milanese M, Markantonatou V, Cerrano C, Sarà A, 

Palma M, Saayman M. 2017. Scuba diving tourism systems 

and sustainability: Perceptions by the scuba diving industry 

in two marine protected areas. Tourism Management 59: 

385–403. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2016.09.004

Mahlum S, Cote D, Wiersma YF, Pennell C, Adams B. 2018. Does 

restoration work? It depends on how we measure success. 

Restoration Ecology 26(5): 952–963. DOI: 10.1111/rec.12649

Maragos JE. 1974. Coral transplantation: a method to create, 

preserve, and manage coral reefs. University of Hawaii Sea 

Grant. Honolulu, Hawaii 30 pp. 

Marshall NJ, Kleine DA, Dean AJ. 2012. CoralWatch: education, 

monitoring, and sustainability through citizen science. Frontiers 

in Ecology and the Environment 10(6): 332–334. DOI: 

10.1890/110266

Mathevet R, Mauchamp A. 2005. Evidence-based conservation: 

dealing with social issues. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 

20(8): 422–423. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.012

Maynard J, van Hooidonk R, Eakin CM, Puotinen M, Garren M, 

Williams G, Heron SF, Lamb J, Weil E, Willis B, Harvell CD. 

2015. Projections of climate conditions that increase coral 

disease susceptibility and pathogen abundance and virulence. 

Nature Climate Change 5 (7): 688–694. DOI: 10.1038/

nclimate2625

Mayor AG. 1924. Growth-rate of Samoan corals. Carnegie 

Institution of Washington Publications 340: 51–72. 

Literature Cited
112 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

McCormick MI. 1994. Comparison of field methods for measuring 

surface topography and their associations with a tropical reef 

fish assemblage. Marine Ecology Progress Series 112: 87–96. 

DOI: 10.3354/meps112087

McDonald-Madden E, Probert WJM, Hausner CE, Runge MC, 

Possingham HP, Jones ME, Moore JL, Rout TM, Vesk PA, 

Wintle BA. 2010. Active adaptive conservation of threatened 

species in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications 

20(5): 1476–1489. DOI: 10.1890/09-0647.1

McDonald T, Gann GD, Jonson J, Dixon KW. 2016. International 

standards for the practice of ecological restoration – including 

principles and key concepts. Society for Ecological Restoration, 

Washington, D.C. 47 pp.

McGuire MP. 1998. Timing of larval release by Porites astreoides 

in the northern Florida Keys. Coral Reefs 17(4): 369–375. DOI: 

10.1007/s003380050141 

Meeker S, Reid A, Schloss J, Hayden A. 1996. Great Bay watch: a 

citizen water monitoring program. University of New Hampshire 

Cooperative Extension/Sea Grant. New Hampshire. 91 pp.

Mercado-Molina AE, Ruiz-Diaz CP, Sabat AM. 2015. 

Demographics and dynamics of two restored populations 

of the threatened reef-building coral Acropora cervicornis. 

Journal for Nature Conservation 24: 17–23. DOI: 10.1016/j.

jnc.2015.01.001

Meyers R. 2016. An aesthetics of resilience: design and agency 

in contemporary coral restoration. Resilience 5 (3): 201–221. 

DOI: 10.1080/21693293.2016.1241477

Meyers R. 2018. Designing resilient dive tourism through 

underwater sculpture. Master’s theses, Paper 1399, University 

of Rhode Island. 169 pp. DOI: 10.23860/thesis-meyersrennie-2018

Middlebrook R, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Leggat W. 2008. The effect of 

thermal history on the susceptibility of reef-building corals to 

thermal stress. Journal of Experimental Biology 211: 1050–

1056. DOI: 10.1242/jeb.013284

Miller MW. 2001. Corallivorous snail removal: evaluation of impact 

on Acropora palmata. Coral Reefs 19(3): 293–295. DOI: 

10.1007/pl00006963

Miller MW, Barino J. 2001. Assessment of juvenile coral 

populations at two reef restoration sites in the Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary. Indicators of success? Bulletin of 

Marine Science 69(2): 395–405. 

Miller MW, Baums IB, Williams DE, Szmant AM. 2002. Status of 

candidate coral, Acropora palmata, and its snail predator in the 

upper Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary: 1998–2001. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-479. 33 pp. 

Miller MW, Lohr KE, Cameron CM, Williams DE, Peters EC. 2014. 

Disease dynamics and potential mitigation among restored and 

wild staghorn coral, Acropora cervicornis. PeerJ 2: e541. DOI: 

10.7717/peerj.541 

Miller MW, Kerr K, Williams DE. 2016a. Reef-scale trends in 

Florida Acropora spp. abundance and the effects of population 

enhancement. PeerJ 4: e2523. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.2523

Miller MW, Karazsia J, Groves CE, Griffin S, Moore T, Wilber P, 

Gregg K. 2016b. Detecting sedimentation impacts to coral 

reefs resulting from dredging the Port of Miami, Florida USA. 

PeerJ 4: e2711. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.2711

Montoya-Maya PH, Macdonald AHH, Schleyer MH. 2014. 

Estimation of size at first maturity in two South African coral 

species. African Journal of Marine Science 36(4): 513–516. 

DOI: 10.2989/1814232x.2014.980848

Montoya-Maya PH, Smit KP, Burt AJ, Frias-Torres S. 2016. Largescale coral reef restoration could assist natural recovery in 

Seychelles, Indian Ocean. Nature Conservation 16(3): 1–17. 

DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.16.8604

Moore A. 2018. Selling Anthropocene space: situated adventures 

in sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 27(4): 

436–451. DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2018.1477783

Moore A. 2019. Destination Anthropocene: Science and tourism in 

the Bahamas. University of California Press, California. 216 pp. 

DOI: 10.2307/j.ctvpb3wqz

Morikawa MK, Palumbi SR. 2019. Using naturally occurring 

climate resilient corals to construct bleaching-resistant 

nurseries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 

116(21): 10586-10591. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1721415116

Mudge L, Alves C, Figueroa-Zavala B, Bruno J. 2019. Assessment 

of elkhorn coral populations and associated herbivores in 

Akumal, Mexico. Frontiers in Marine Science 6: 683. DOI: 

10.3389/fmars.2019.00683

Mueller EM, van Woesik R. 2012. Caribbean coral diseases: 

primary transmission or secondary infection? Global Change 

Biology 18(12): 3529–3535. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12019

Mundy CN. 2000. An appraisal of methods used in coral 

recruitment studies. Coral Reefs 19(2): 124–131. DOI: 

10.1007/s003380000081

Murray C, Marmorek D. 2003. Adaptive management and 

ecological restoration. pp 417–428. In: Friederici P (ed), 

Ecological restoration of southwestern ponderosa pine forests 

(1st Edition). Island Press, Washington, DC. 584 pp. DOI: 

10.3368/er.21.1.39

Myers RL, Raymundo LJ. 2009. Coral disease in Micronesian 

reefs: a link between disease prevalence and host abundance. 

Diseases of aquatic organisms 87(1–2): 97–104. DOI: 10.3354/

dao02139

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,. 

2019. A decision framework for interventions to increase 

the persistence and resilience of coral reefs. The National 

Academies Press, Washington, DC. 168 pp. DOI: 

10.17226/25424

Literature Cited
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 113

National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of aquatic 

ecosystems: science, technology, and public policy. The 

National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 576 pp. DOI: 

10.17226/1807

The Nature Conservancy. 2019. A Reef Insurance Primer 

(website). The Nature Conservancy and Coastal Zone 

Management Trust. Online: https://www.nature.org/en-us/whatwe-do/our-insights/perspectives/insuring-nature-to-ensure-aresilient-future/ (Accessed 30 August 2020) 

Neely KL, Lewis C, Chan AN, Baums IB. 2018. Hermaphroditic 

spawning by the gonochoric pillar coral Dendrogyra cylindrus. 

Coral Reefs 37(4): 1087–1092. DOI: 10.1007/s00338-018-

1730-x

Nelson JG. 1994. The spread of ecotourism: Some planning 

implications. Environmental Conservation 21(3): 248–255. DOI: 

10.1017/s0376892900033233

Nichols D. 1979. Monitoring the Marine Environment. Proceedings 

of a symposium held at the Royal Geographical Society, 

London, on 28 and 29 September 1978. Symposia of the 

Institute of Biology, No. 24. 205 pp.

NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program. 2014. National Coral Reef 

Monitoring Program Socioeconomic survey: CORE questions 

template. NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program. 14 pp. 

NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program. 2018. Documentation 

for NOAA’s Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP) National 

Coral Reef Monitoring Program (NCRMP) data archived at 

NCEI (NCEI Accession 0157633). NOAA National Centers for 

Environmental Information. Dataset. 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006. Endangered and 

threatened species: final listing determinations for elkhorn coral 

and staghorn coral. Federal Register 71: 26852 (71 FR 26852) 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service. 2015. Recovery plan 

for Elkhorn (Acropora palmata) and Staghorn (A. cervicornis) 

corals. Prepared by the Acropora Recovery Team for the 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 166 pp.

Nodder S, D., Alexander BL. 1999. The effects of multiple trap 

spacing, baffles, and brine volume on sediment trap collection 

efficiency. Journal of Marine Research 57(3): 537–559. DOI: 

10.1357/002224099764805183

Nozawa Y, Lin C-H. 2014. Effects of colony size and polyp position 

on polyp fecundity in the scleractinian coral genus Acropora. 

Coral Reefs 33(4): 1057–1066. DOI: 10.1007/s00338-014-

1185-7

O’Connor PJ, Bond AJ. 2007. Maximizing the effectiveness 

of photopoint monitoring for ecological management and 

restoration. Ecological Management and Restoration 8(3): 

228–234. DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-8903.2007.00373.x

Okubo N, Motokawa T, Omori M. 2007. When fragmented coral 

spawn? Effect of size and timing on survivorship and fecundity 

of fragmentation in Acropora formosa. Marine Biology 151(1): 

353–363. DOI: 10.1007/s00227-006-0490-2

Okubo N, Taniguchi H, Omori M. 2009. Sexual reproduction in 

transplanted coral fragments of Acropora nasuta. Zoological 

Studies 48(4): 442–447. 

Okubo N, Yamamoto HH, Nakaya F, Okaji K. 2010. Reproduction 

in cultured versus wild coral colonies: fertilization, larval oxygen 

consumption, and survival. Biological Bulletin 218(3): 230–236. 

DOI: 10.1086/bblv218n3p230

Oliveira MT, Erzini K, Bentes L, Santos MN. 2018. Can the 

diving industry promote marine conservation and enhance 

environmental awareness? (Sal Island, Cape Verde 

Case). The Open Fish Science Journal 11(1): 52–72. DOI: 

10.2174/1874401x01811010052

Omar AF, Matjafri MZ. 2009. Turbidimeter design and analysis: a 

review on optical fiber sensors for the measurement of water 

turbidity. Sensors 9(10): 8311–8335. DOI: 10.3390/s91008311

Opel AH, Cavanaugh CM, Rotjan RD, Nelson JP. 2017. The effect 

of coral restoration on Caribbean reef fish communities. Marine 

Biology 164(12): 164–221. DOI: 10.1007/s00227-017-3248-0

Page CA, Muller EM, Vaughan DE. 2018. Microfragmenting 

for the successful restoration of slow growing massive 

corals. Ecological Engineering 123: 86–94. DOI: 10.1016/j.

ecoleng.2018.08.017

Palmer MA, Ambrose RF, Poff NL. 1997. Ecological theory and 

community restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology 5(4): 

291–300. DOI: 10.1046/j.1526-100X.1997.00543.x

Pandolfi JM, Bradbury RH, Sala E, Hughes TP, Bjorndal KA, 

Cooke RG, McArdle D, McClenachan L, Newman MJ, Paredes 

G, Warner RR, Jackson JB. 2003. Global trajectories of the 

longterm decline of coral reef ecosystems. Science 301(5635): 

955–958. DOI: 10.1126/science.1085706

Pausch RE, Williams DE, Miller MW. 2018. Impacts of fragment 

genotype, habitat, and size on outplanted elkhorn coral 

success under thermal stress. Marine Ecology Progress Series 

592: 109–117. DOI: 10.3354/meps12488

Petersen D,Laterveer M, Visser G. 2007. Sexual recruitment of 

the corals Favia fragum and Agaricia humilis in a 30-m3 exhibit 

aquarium: species-specific limitations and implications on 

reproductive ecology. Zoo Biology 26(4): 75–91. DOI: 10.1002/

zoo.20120 

Phillips T, Ferguson M, Minarchek M, Porticella N, Bonney R. 

2014. User’s guide for evaluating learning outcomes in citizen 

science. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, NY. 53 pp.

Piniak GA, Fogarty ND, Addison CM, Kenworthy WJ. 2005. 

Fluorescence census techniques for coral recruits. Coral Reefs 

24(3): 496–500. DOI: 10.1007/s00338-005-0495-1

Pinzón JHC, Weil E. 2011. Cryptic species within the AtlanticCaribbean genus Meandrina (Scleractinia): A multidisciplinary 

approach and description of the new species Meandrina 

jacksoni. Bulletin of Marine Science 87(4): 823–853. DOI: 

10.5343/bms.2010.1085 

Literature Cited
114 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Pollock FJ, Lamb JB, Field SN, Heron SF, Schaffelke B, Shedrawi 

G, Bourne DG, Willis BL. 2014. Sediment and turbidity 

associated with offshore dredging increase coral disease 

prevalence on nearby reefs. PLoS One 9(7): e102498. DOI: 

10.1371/journal.pone.0102498

Pomeroy RS, Oracion EG, Pollnac RB, Caballes DA. 2005. 

Perceived economic factors influencing the sustainability of 

integrated coastal management projects in the Philippines. 

Ocean and Coastal Management 48(3–6): 360–377. DOI: 

10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.04.010

Porter JW, Meier OW. 1992. Quantification of loss and change 

in Floridian reef coral populations. American Zoologist 32(6): 

625–640. DOI: 10.1093/icb/32.6.625

Prada C, Hanna B, Budd AF, Woodley CM, Schmutz J, Grimwood 

J, Iglesias-Prieto R, Pandolfi JM, Levitan D, Johnson KG, 

Knowlton N, Kitano H, DeGiorgio M, Medina M. 2016. Empty 

niches after extinctions increase population sizes of modern 

corals. Current Biology 26(23): 3190–3194. DOI: 10.1016/j.

cub.2016.09.039

Puckett EE. 2017. Variability in total project and per sample 

genotyping costs under varying study designs including 

with microsatellites or SNPs to answer conservation genetic 

questions. Conservation Genetics Resources 9(2): 289–304. 

DOI: 10.1007/s12686-016-0643-7

Quataert E, Storlazzi C, van Rooijen A, Cheriton O, van 

Dongeren A. 2015. The influence of coral reefs and climate 

change on wave-driven flooding of tropical coastlines. 

Geophysical Research Letters 42(15): 6407–6415. DOI: 

10.1002/2015gl064861

Ranasinghe R, Turner IL. 2006. Shoreline response to submerged 

structures: a review. Coastal Engineering 53(1): 65–79. DOI: 

10.1016/j.coastaleng.2005.08.003

Reguero BG, Losada IJ, Mendez FJ. 2019. A recent increase in 

global wave power as a consequence of oceanic warming. 

Nature Communications 10(1): 205. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-

08066-0

Reineman DR, Wedding LM, Hartge EH, McEnery W, Reiblich J. 

2016. Coastal access equity and the implementation of the 

California Coastal Act. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 

36(89): 90–105. 

Reyes-García V, Fernández-Llamazares Á, McElwee P, Molnár Z, 

Öllerer K, Wilson SJ, Brondízio ES. 2019. The contributions 

of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to ecological 

restoration. Restoration Ecology 27(1): 3–8. DOI: 10.1111/

rec.12894

Richardson LL. 1998. Coral diseases: What is really known? 

Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13(11): 438–443. DOI: 

10.1016/s0169-5347(98)01460-8

Riegl B. 2001. Degradation of reef structure, coral and fish 

communities in the Red Sea by ship groundings and dynamite 

fisheries. Bulletin of Marine Science 69(2): 595–611. 

Riegl B, Bruckner A, Coles SL, Renaud P, Dodge RE. 2009. Coral 

reefs: threats and conservation in an era of global change. 

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1162: 136–186. 

DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04493.x

Riegl BM, Purkis SJ. 2009. Model of coral population response 

to accelerated bleaching and mass mortality in a changing 

climate. Ecological Modelling 220(2): 192–208. DOI: 10.1016/j.

ecolmodel.2008.09.022 

Riegl B, Cavalcante G, Bauman AG, Feary DA, Steiner S, Purkis 

S. 2017. Demographic mechanisms of reef coral species 

winnowing from communities under increased environmental 

stress. Frontiers in Marine Science 4: 344. DOI: 10.3389/

fmars.2017.00344

Riegl B, Johnston M, Purkis S, Howells E, Burt J, Steiner SCC, 

Sheppard CRC, Bauman A. 2018. Population collapse 

dynamics in Acropora downingi, an Arabian/Persian Gulf 

ecosystem-engineering coral, linked to rising temperature. 

Global Change Biology 24(6): 2447–2462. DOI: 10.1111/

gcb.14114

Rinkevich B. 1995. Restoration strategies for coral reefs 

damaged by recreational activities: the use of sexual and 

asexual recruits. Restoration Ecology 3(4): 241–251. DOI: 

10.1111/j.1526-100X.1995.tb00091.x

Rinkevich B. 2005. Conservation of coral reefs through active 

restoration measures: recent approaches and last decade 

progress. Environmental Science Technology 39(12): 4333–

4342. DOI: 10.1021/es0482583

Rinkevich B. 2008. Management of coral reefs: we have gone 

wrong when neglecting active reef restoration. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin 56(11): 1821–1824. DOI: 10.1016/j.

marpolbul.2008.08.014

Rinkevich B. 2014. Rebuilding coral reefs: does active reef 

restoration lead to sustainable reefs? Current Opinion in 

Environmental Sustainability 7: 28–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.

cosust.2013.11.018

Risk MJ. 1972. Fish diversity on a coral reef in the Virgin 

Islands. Atoll Research Bulletin 153: 1–4. DOI: 10.5479/

si.00775630.153.1

Rogers CS. 1990. Responses of coral reefs and reef organisms to 

sedimentation. Marine Ecology Progress Series 62: 185–202. 

DOI: 10.3354/meps062185

Rogers CS, Fitz III HC, Gilnack M, Beets J, Hardin J. 1984. 

Scleractinian coral recruitment patterns at Salt River 

Submarine Canyon St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Coral Reefs 

3(1): 69–76. DOI: 10.1007/bf00263756

Rogers CS, Garrison G, Grober R, Hillis Z-M, Franke MA. 2001. 

Coral reef monitoring manual for the Caribbean and Western 

Atlantic. National Park Service. St. John, USVI. 114 pp. 

Rosenberg E, Koren O, Reshef L, Efrony R, Zilber-Rosenberg I. 

2007. The role of microorganisms in coral health, disease and 

evolution. Nature Reviews Microbiology 5(5): 355–362. DOI: 

10.1038/nrmicro1635

Literature Cited
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 115

Rosenberg E, Kushmaro A, Kramarsky-Winter E, Banin E, Yossi 

L. 2009. The role of microorganisms in coral bleaching. 

International Society for Microbial Ecology 3(2): 139–146. DOI: 

10.1038/ismej.2008.104

Rossi P, Castagnetti C, Capra A, Brooks AJ, Mancini F. 2020. 

Detecting change in coral reef 3D structure using underwater 

photogrammetry: critical issues and performance metrics. 

Applied Geomatics 12(S1): 3–17. DOI: 10.1007/s12518-019-

00263-w

Roy KJ, Smith SV. 1971. Sedimentation and coral reef 

development in turbid water: Fanning Lagoon. pp 61–76. 

In: Chave K (ed), Fanning Island Expedition, January 1970. 

University of Hawaii, Manoa, Hawaii. 

Ruiz-Jaen MC, Aide TM. 2005. Restoration success: How is it 

being measured? Restoration Ecology 13(3): 569–577. DOI: 

10.1111/j.1526-100x.2005.00072.x

Ruiz-Moreno D, Willis BL, Page AC, Weil E, Cróquer A, VargasAngel B, Jordan-Garza AG, Jordán-Dahlgren E, Raymundo L, 

Harvell CD. 2012. Global coral disease prevalence associated 

with sea temperature anomalies and local factors. Diseases of 

Aquatic Organisms 100(3): 249–261. DOI: 10.3354/dao02488

Ruiz de Alegria-Arzaburu A, Mariño-Tapia I, Enriquez C, Silva R, 

González-Leija M. 2013. The role of fringing coral reefs on 

beach morphodynamics. Geomorphology 198: 69–83. DOI: 

10.1016/j.geomorph.2013.05.013

Scarfe BE, Healy TR, Rennie HG. 2009. Research-based 

surfing literature for coastal management and the science 

of surfing—A review. Journal of Coastal Research 25(3): 

539–557. DOI: 10.2112/07-0958.1

Schmidt-Roach S, Kunzmann A, Martinez Arbizu P. 2008. In situ 

observation of coral recruitment using fluorescence census 

techniques. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and 

Ecology 367(1): 37–40. DOI: 10.1016/j.jembe.2008.08.012

Schmitt K, Duke NC. 2016. Mangrove management, assessment, 

and monitoring. pp 1725–1759. In: Pancel L, Köhl M (eds), 

Tropical Forestry Handbook. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. 

3633 pp.

Schopmeyer SA, Lirman D. 2015. Occupation dynamics and 

impacts of damselfish territoriality on recovering populations of 

the threatened staghorn coral, Acropora cervicornis. PloS one 

10(11): e0141302. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141302

Schopmeyer SA, Lirman D, Bartels E, Gilliam DS, Goergen EA, 

Griffin SP, Johnson ME, Lustic C, Maxwell K, Walter CS. 2017. 

Regional restoration benchmarks for Acropora cervicornis. 

Coral Reefs 36(4): 1047–1057. DOI: 10.1007/s00338-017-

1596-3

Schrack E, Beck MW, Brumbaugh R, Crisley K, Hancock B. 2012. 

Restoration works: Highlights from a decade of partnership 

between The Nature Conservancy and the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration Restoration Center. The 

Nature Conservancy. 82 pp.

Schröter M, van der Zanden EH, van Oudenhoven APE, Remme 

RP, Serna-Chavez HM, De Groot R, Opdam P. 2014. 

Ecosystem services as a contested concept: A synthesis of 

critique and counter-arguments. Conservation Letters 7(6): 

514–523. DOI: 10.1111/conl.12091

Shani A, Polak O, Shashar N. 2012. Artificial reefs and mass 

marine ecotourism. Tourism Geographies 14(3): 361–382. DOI: 

10.1080/14616688.2011.610350

Shantz AA, Stier AC, Idjadi JA. 2011. Coral density and predation 

affect growth of a reef-building coral. Coral Reefs 30(2): 

363–367. DOI: 10.1007/s00338-010-0694-2

Shearer TL, Porto I, Zubillaga AL. 2009. Restoration of coral 

populations in light of genetic diversity estimates. Coral Reefs 

28(3): 727–733. DOI: 10.1007/s00338-009-0520-x

Sheppard C, Dixon DJ, Gourlay M, Sheppard A, Payet R. 2005. 

Coral mortality increases wave energy reaching shores 

protected by reef flats: examples from the Seychelles. 

Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 64(2–3): 223–234. DOI: 

10.1016/j.ecss.2005.02.016

Shinn EA. 1976. Coral reef recovery in Florida and the Persian 

Gulf. Environmental Geology 1(4): 241–254. DOI: 10.1007/

bf02407510

Simenstad CA, Thom RM. 1996. Functional equivalency 

trajectories of the restored Gog-Le-Hi-Te Estuarine Wetland. 

Ecological Applications 6(1): 38–56. DOI: 10.2307/2269551

Sleeman JC, Boggs GS, Redford BC, Kendrick GA. 2005. Using 

agent–based models to aid reef restoration: enhancing 

coral cover and topographic complexity through the spatial 

arrangement of coral transplants. Restoration Ecology 13(4): 

685–694. DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-100x.2005.00087.x

Smith BJ, Kruger NS, Voss NS, Blackwell BG. 2016. Fixed versus 

random sampling designs in small South Dakota glacial lakes. 

The Prairie Naturalist 47: 30–39. 

Smith LD, Hughes TP. 1999. An experimental assessment of 

survival, re-attachment and fecundity of coral fragments. 

Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 235(1): 

147–164. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-0981(98)00178-6

Society for Ecological Restoration International Science and 

Policy Working Group. 2004. The SER international primer 

on ecological restoration. Tucson: Society for Ecological 

Restoration International. 16 pp. 

Soong K. 1991. Sexual reproductive patterns of shallow-water reef 

corals in Panama. Bulletin of Marine Science 49(3): 832–846. 

Soong K. 1993. Colony size as a species character in massive reef 

corals. Coral Reefs 12(2): 77–83. DOI: 10.1007/bf00302106

Soong K, Lang JC. 1992. Reproductive integration on reef corals. 

Biological Bulletin 183(3): 418–431. DOI: 10.2307/1542018

Spalding M, Burke L, Wood SA, Ashpole J, Hutchison J, zu 

Ermgassen P. 2017. Mapping the global value and distribution 

of coral reef tourism. Marine Policy 82: 104–113. DOI: 

10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.014

Literature Cited
116 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Spieler RE, Gilliam DS, Sherman RL. 2001. Artificial substrate and 

coral reef restoration: what do we need to know to know what 

we need? Bulletin of Marine Science 69(2): 1013–1030. 

Sponaugle S, Cowen RK, Shanks A, Morgan SG, Leis JM, Pineda 

J, Boehlert GW, Kingsford MJ, Lindeman KC, Grimes C, Munro 

JL. 2002. Predicting self-recruitment in marine populations: 

Biophysical correlates and mechanisms. Bulletin of Marine 

Science 70(1): 341–375. 

Spurgeon JPG, Lindahl U. 2000. Economics of coral reef 

restoration. pp 125–136. In: Cesar HSJ (ed), Collected Essays 

on the Economics of Coral Reefs. CORDIO, Sweden. 244 pp.

St. Gelais AT, Chaves-Fonnegra A, Brownlee AS, Kosmynin VN, 

Moulding AL, Gilliam DS. 2016. Fecundity and sexual maturity 

of the coral Siderastrea siderea at high latitude along the 

Florida Reef Tract, USA. Invertebrate Biology 135(1): 46–57. 

DOI: 10.1111/ivb.12115 

Stoddart DR. 1962. Catastrophic storm effects on the British 

Honduras reefs and cays. Nature 196(4854): 512–515. DOI: 

10.1038/196512a0

Stoddart DR. 1969. Post-hurricane changes on the British 

Honduras reefs and cays: re-survey of 1965. Atoll Research 

Bulletin 131: 1–36. DOI: 10.5479/si.00775630.131.1

Stolk P, Markwell K, Jenkins JM. 2007. Artificial reefs as 

recreational scuba diving resources: a critical review of 

research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15(4): 331–350. DOI: 

10.2167/jost651.0

Storlazzi CD, Field ME, Bothner MH. 2011. The use (and 

misuse) of sediment traps in coral reef environments: theory, 

observations, and suggested protocols. Coral Reefs 30(1): 

23–38. DOI: 10.1007/s00338-010-0705-3

Storlazzi CD, Norris BK, Rosenberger KJ. 2015. The influence of 

grain size, grain color, and suspended-sediment concentration 

on light attenuation: why fine-grained terrestrial sediment is bad 

for coral reef ecosystems. Coral Reefs 34(3): 967–975. DOI: 

10.1007/s00338-015-1268-0

Szmant-Froelich A. 1985 The effect of colony size on the 

reproductive ability of the Caribbean coral Montastrea 

annularis. pp 295-300. In: Gabrie C, Salvat B. (eds), 

Proceedings of the Fifth International Coral Reef Congress, 

Vol. 4. Tahiti, French Polynesia. 581 pp. 

Szmant-Froelich A, Yevich P, Pilson MEQ. 1980. Gametogenesis 

and early development of the temperate coral Astrangia danae

(Anthozoa: Scleractinia). Biological Bulletin 158(2): 257–269. 

DOI: 10.2307/1540935

Szmant AM. 1986. Reproductive ecology of Caribbean reef corals. 

Coral Reefs 5: 43–54. DOI:10.1007/bf00302170 

Szmant AM. 1991. Sexual reproduction by the Caribbean reef 

corals Montastrea annularis and M. cavernosa. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series 74: 13–25. DOI: 10.3354/meps074013 

Telesnicki GJ, Goldberg WM. 1995. Effects of turbidity on the 

photosynthesis and respiration of two South Florida reef coral 

species. Bulletin of Marine Science 57(2): 527–539. 

Tews J, Brose U, Grimm V, Tielbörger K, Wichmann MC, 

Schwager M, Jeltsch F. 2004. Animal species diversity driven 

by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone 

structures. Journal of Biogeography 31(1): 79–92. DOI: 

10.1046/j.0305-0270.2003.00994.x

Thayer GW, McTigue TA, Bellmer RJ, Burrows FM, Merkey DH, 

Nickens AD, Lozano SJ, Gayaldo PF, Polmateer PJ, Pinit PT. 

2003. Science-based restoration monitoring of coastal habitats 

volume one: A framework for monitoring plans under the 

Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000 (Public Law 160-457). 

NOAA National Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis 

Series No. 32, Vol. 1. Silver Spring, MD. 96 pp. 

Thayer GW, McTigue TA, Salz RJ, Merkey DH, Burrows FM, 

Gayaldo PF. 2005. Science-based restoration monitoring 

of coastal habitats volume two: Tools for monitoring coastal 

habitats. NOAA National Coastal Ocean Program Decision 

Analysis Series No. 32, Vol. 2. Silver Spring, MD. 628 pp. 

Thompson SP, Paerl HW, Go MC. 1995. Seasonal patterns of 

nitrification and denitrification in a natural and a restored salt 

marsh. Estuaries 18(2): 399–408. DOI: 10.2307/1352322

Towle EK, Enochs IC, Langdon C. 2015. Threatened Caribbean 

coral is able to mitigate the adverse effects of ocean 

acidification on calcification by Increasing feeding rate. PloS 

one 10(4): e0123394. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123394

Townsend C. 2008. Dive tourism, sustainable tourism and social 

responsibility a growing agenda. pp 139–152. In: Garrod B, 

Gossling S (eds), New frontiers in marine tourism: diving 

experiences, sustainability, management. Elsevier. 284 pp.

Trnka M, Moulding A. 2008. Caribbean coral spawning table. 

scientific review, compilation, and assessment of coral 

spawning time in the Atlantic/Caribbean (website). National 

Coral Reef Institute, Nova Southeastern University. Online: 

https://cnso.nova.edu/ncri/forms/caribbean_coral_spawning_

table.pdf (Accessed 30 August 2020)

Turner RE. 2005. On the cusp of restoration: science and society. 

Restoration Ecology 13(1): 165–173. DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-

100x.2005.00021.x

Turner RE, and Streever B. 2002. Approaches to coastal wetland 

restoration: northern Gulf of Mexico. SBP Academic Publishing 

bv., The Netherlands. 147 pp. 

U.S. Federal Government. 2000. Estuaries Restoration Act of 2000. 

Public Law 106–457, 106th Congress. Title I, Section 101–110. 

U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. 2016. Handbook on coral reef 

impacts: Avoidance, minimization, compensatory mitigation, 

and restoration. U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, Coral Injury and 

Mitigation Working Group.152 pp.

Underwood AJ. 1994. Sampling designs that might reliably detect 

environmental disturbances. Ecological Applications 4(1): 3–15. 

DOI: 10.2307/1942110

Literature Cited
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 117

Underwood JN, Smith LD, Van Oppen MJ, Gilmour JP. 2007. 

Multiple scales of genetic connectivity in a brooding 

coral on isolated reefs following catastrophic bleaching. 

Molecular Ecology 16(4): 771–784. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-

294X.2006.03187.x

UNEP. 2012. Advancing justice, governance, and law for 

environmental sustainability. UNON Publishing Services 

Section, Nairobi. 76 pp. 

Upadhyay R, Joshi N, Sampat AC, Verma AK, Patel A, Singh V, 

Kathota J, Kalubarme MH. 2015. Mangrove restoration and 

regeneration monitoring in Gulf of Kachchh, Gujarat State, 

India, using remote sensing and geo-informatics. International 

Journal of Geoscience 6(4): 299–310. DOI: 10.4236/

ijg.2015.64023

Valentin A, Spangenberg JH. 2000. A guide to community 

sustainability indicators. Environmental Impact Assessment 

Review 20(3): 381–392. DOI: 10.1016/s0195-9255(00)00049-4

Vallès H, Oxenford HA, Henderson A. 2019. Switching between 

standard coral reef benthic monitoring protocols is complicated: 

proof of concept. PeerJ 7: e8167. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.8167

van Andel J, Aronson J (eds) 2012. Restoration ecology: The new 

frontier. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., New Jersey. 400 pp. 

Van Cleve FB. 2004. The role of natural science in regional scale 

restoration efforts in European countries and the United 

States. Master’s thesis, School of Marine Affairs, University of 

Washington. 102 pp. 

Van Cleve FB, Leschine T, Klinger T, Simenstad C. 2006. An 

evaluation of the influence of natural science in regionalscale restoration projects. Environmental Management 37(3): 

367–379. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-005-0014-8

van Hooidonk R, Maynard JA, Planes S. 2013. Temporary refugia 

for coral reefs in a warming world. Nature Climate Change 3(5): 

508–511. DOI: 10.1038/nclimate1829

Van Moorsel GWMN. 1983. Reproductive strategies in two closely 

related stony corals (Agaricia, Scleractinia). Marine Ecology 

Progress Series 13: 273–283. DOI: 10.3354/meps013273 

van Oppen MJH, Gates RD, Blackall LL, Cantin N, Chakravarti 

LJ, Chan WY, Cormick C, Crean A, Damjanovic K, Epstein H, 

Harrison PL, Jones TA, Miller M, Pears RJ, Peplow LM, Raftos 

DA, Schaffelke B, Stewart K, Torda G, Wachenfeld D, Weeks 

AR, Putnam HM. 2017. Shifting paradigms in restoration of the 

world’s coral reefs. Global Change Biology 23(9): 3437–3448. 

DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13647

Van Veghel, M.L. and Kahmann, M.E. 1994. Reproductive 

characteristics of the polymorphic Caribbean reef building 

coral Montastrea annularis. II. Fecundity and colony structure. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series 109: 221–227. DOI: 

10.2307/24846187 

van Zanten BT, van Beukering PJH, Wagtendonk AJ. 2014. Coastal 

protection by coral reefs: A framework for spatial assessment 

and economic valuation. Ocean and Coastal Management 96: 

94–103. DOI: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.05.001

Vardi T, Williams DE, Sandin SA. 2012. Population dynamics of 

threatened elkhorn coral in the northern Florida Keys, USA. 

Endangered Species Research 19: 157–169. DOI: 10.3354/

esr00475

Vaughan TW. 1911. The recent Madreporaria of southern Florida. 

Carnegie Institution of Washington Year Book 8: 135-144

Vega Thurber RL, Burkepile DE, Fuchs C, Shantz AA, McMinds 

R, Zaneveld JR. 2014. Chronic nutrient enrichment increases 

prevalence and severity of coral disease and bleaching. Global 

Change Biology 20(2): 544–554. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12450

Viehman TS, Nemeth M, Groves SH, Griffin SP, Buckel CA, Moore 

T, and Moore J. 2020. Coral assessment and restoration in the 

U.S. Caribbean after 2017 hurricanes. NOAA NOS NCCOS 

Technical Memorandum 278. 61 pp.

Viehman TS, Reguero B, Rosman J, Goergen E, Storlazzi CD, 

Bruckner A, Canals Silander MF, Groves SH, Holstein DM, 

Lenihan HS, Haus B, Carrick JV, Duvall MS, Royster JB, 

Torres WI, Hench JL. In Review. Coral restoration for coastal 

resilience: connecting ecological, geophysical, and engineering 

aspects at multiple scales. 

Voss JD, Richardson LL. 2006. Coral disease near Lee Stocking 

Island, Bahamas: patterns and potential drivers. Diseases of 

Aquatic Organism 69: 33–40. DOI: 10.3354/dao069033

Wagner DE, Kramer P, van Woesik R. 2010. Species composition, 

habitat, and water quality influence coral bleaching in southern 

Florida. Marine Ecology Progress Series 408: 65–78. DOI: 

10.3354/meps08584

Walker BK, Larson EA, Moulding AL, Gilliam DS. 2012. Smallscale mapping of indeterminate arborescent acroporid coral 

(Acropora cervicornis) patches. Coral Reefs 31(3): 885–894. 

DOI: 10.1007/s00338-012-0910-3

Washington H, Malloy J, Lonie R, Love D, Dumbrell J, Bennett P, 

Baldwin S. 2000. Aspects of catchment health: a community 

environmental assessment and monitoring manual. 

Hawkesbury– Nepean Catchment Management Trust, Windsor, 

Australia. 

Wearing S, Schweinsberg S. 2018. Ecotourism: transitioning to the 

22nd Century. Routledge, New York, NY. 172 pp. 

Weil E, Vargas WL. 2010. Comparative aspects of sexual 

reproduction in the Caribbean coral genus Diploria 

(Scleractinia: Faviidae). Marine Biology 157: 413–426. DOI: 

10.1007/s00227-009-1328-5 

West P. 2008. Tourism as science and science as tourism. Current 

Anthropology 49(4): 597–626. DOI: 10.1086/586737

Whiteley AR, Fitzpatrick SW, Funk WC, Tallmon DA. 2015. Genetic 

rescue to the rescue. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 30(1): 

42–49. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2014.10.009

Wilkinson C. 2008. Status of coral reefs of the world: 2008. Global 

Coral Reef Monitoring Network and Reef Rainforest Research 

Centre, Townsville, Australia. 296 pp. 

Literature Cited
118 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Williams DE, Miller MW, Kramer KL. 2008. Recruitment failure in 

Florida Keys Acropora palmata, a threatened Caribbean coral. 

Coral Reefs 27(3): 697–705. DOI: 10.1007/s00338–008–0386–3

Williams ID, Couch CS, Beijbom O, Oliver TA, Vargas-Angel B, 

Schumacher BD, Brainard RE. 2019. Leveraging automated 

image analysis tools to transform our capacity to assess status 

and trends of coral reefs. Frontiers in Marine Science 6: 222. 

DOI: 10.3389/fmars.2019.00222

Wilson SK, Fisher R, Pratchett MS, Graham NAJ, Dulvy NK, 

Turner RA, Cakacaka A, Polunin, NVC. 2010. Habitat 

degradation and fishing effects on the size structure of coral 

reef fish communities. Ecological Applications 20(2) 442–451. 

DOI: 10.1890/08-2205.1

Wongthong P, Harvey N. 2014. Integrated coastal management 

and sustainable tourism: a case study of the reefbased SCUBA dive industry from Thailand. Ocean and 

Coastal Management 95: 138–146. DOI: 10.1016/j.

ocecoaman.2014.04.004

Wood-Jones F. 1907. On the growth-forms and supposed species 

in corals. pp 518–556. In: Proceedings of the Zoological 

Society of London. 

Woodley JD, Chornesky EA, Clifford PA, Jackson JBC, Kaufman 

LS, Knowlton N, Lang JC, Peason MP, Porter JW, Rooney MC, 

Rylaarsdam KW, Tunnicliffe VJ, Wahle CM, Wulff JL, Curtis 

ASG, Dallmeyer MD, Jupp BP, Koehl MAR, Neigel J, Sides 

EM. 1981. Hurricane Allen’s impact on Jamaican coral reefs. 

Science 214(4522): 749–755. DOI: 10.1038/287387a0

World Bank. 2016. Managing coasts with natural solutions: 

guidelines for measuring and valuing the coastal protection 

services of mangroves and coral reefs. Beck MW, Lange G-M 

(eds). Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem 

Services Partnership (WAVES). Washington, DC. 166 pp. 

Yap HT. 2009. Local changes in community diversity after coral 

transplantation. Marine Ecology Progress Series 374: 33–41. 

DOI: 10.3354/meps07650

Yap HT, Molina RA. 2003. Comparison of coral growth and survival 

under enclosed, semi-natural conditions and in the field. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin 46(7): 858–864. DOI: 10.1016/s0025-

326x(03)00064-x

Young C, Schopmeyer S, Lirman D. 2012. A review of reef 

restoration and coral propagation using the threatened genus 

Acropora in the Caribbean and Western Atlantic. Bulletin of 

Marine Science 88(4):1075–1098. DOI: 10.5343/bms.2011.1143

Zimmerman TL, Martin JW. 2004. Artificial reef matrix structures 

(ARMS): an inexpensive and effective method for collecting 

coral reef–associated invertebrates. Gulf and Caribbean 

Research 16(1): 59–64. DOI 10.18785/gcr.1601.08

Literature Cited

Tom Moore/NOAA Corales de Paz
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 119

Appendix 1: Coral Restoration Database

The Coral Restoration Database was developed by the Coral Restoration Consortium’s (CRC) Monitoring Working Group. The CRC identified 

a need to track coral nursery and restoration to better demonstrate the collective impact of individual efforts. The input fields were developed to 

reflect information desired by researchers, nursery operators, and managers and were developed in conjunction with the universal monitoring 

metrics identified in this document and the restoration evaluation tool. A map of coral nursery and outplant locations can be found at https://bit.

ly/CRCRestorationMap. The database will eventually be placed online for uploading and querying data. For more information, contact Alison.

Moulding@noaa.gov.

Figure A1.1. CRC Coral Restoration Database spreadsheet for reporting coral outplanting events. The Outplant Plot area from Universal Metric #1: Restored Reef Areal 

Dimension should be reported in the cell highlighted in yellow for each outplant event. Universal Metric #2: Coral Size-Frequency Distribution should be reported 

in the cells highlighted in green for each species at the time of outplanting. If multiple colony size are outplanted for each species and genotype, each should be 

entered on a separate row. Universal Metric #4: Genetic Diversity should be reported in the cells highlighted in orange. If more than one genotype is outplanted per 

species, each should be entered on a separate row. 

Appendices A1
120 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

The Restoration Evaluation Tool is an adaptation of the original Reef Restoration Program Evaluation Tool developed for restoration activities in 

the Dominican Republic (Lirman et al., 2017). The objective of this tool is to provide metrics of success for evaluating existing and new restoration 

projects or programs to assess performance and progress towards restoration goals. Metrics provided within this evaluation tool are designed to 

evaluate the strength and robustness of each project or program while also identifying specific metrics, which may require adaptive management 

to improve performance. This tool follows the recovery goals, objectives and criteria outlined with the Recovery Plan for Elkhorn and Staghorn 

Corals (NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015) which may also be applied to additional species which are now listed within the ESA 

or have recently suffered dramatic losses in abundance and cover due to severe bleaching and disease events. Specific goals set forth by the 

Recovery Plan include increasing the abundance of and protecting the genetic diversity of coral populations throughout their geographical ranges 

through restoration, restocking, and active management. Therefore, metrics outlined within this evaluation tool focus on best management 

practices or results from restoration-based research conducted by experts in the field of coral propagation and outplanting. This tool should 

be used to evaluate the current status of restoration techniques, outline positive attributes of productive projects and programs, and promote 

the development of successful strategies to achieve population-based recovery for coral reefs. Upon completion, the Evaluation Tool for Coral 

Restoration will be available online.

A2 Appendices

Table A2.1 Evaluation Tool Criteria by project, scoring criteria, alignment with Restoration Monitoring Guide goal and associated references. 

Goals: 1– Ecological Restoration, 2– Socioeconomic, 3– Event-Driven Restoration, 4– Climate Change Adaptation, 5– Research.

Outplanting: Project Scale

# Evaluation Criteria Scoring Goal References

1 Outplant sites are established based on approved 

guidelines/Best Management Practices (CRC Field-Based 

Propagation, Genetics, and Monitoring Working Groups)

if methods followed published manuals/

Guides for site selection and deployment = 1

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 CRC Field-Based Guide, Baums et al., 

2019, and Monitoring Guide

2 Outplant site contains/has historical presence of 

outplanted species (following Guides for site selection)

if outplant species is present or was 

historically present at site = 1

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 CRC Field-Based Guide

3 Sites are surveyed for reef community structure and 

species abundance prior to outplanting

if baseline surveys are conducted prior to 

outplanting = 1

1, 2, 4, 5 CRC Field-Based Guide

4 Environmental parameters are measured at outplant 

sites to demonstrate that site does not experience large 

changes in parameters over short periods of time (e.g., 

minimum measurement of water temperature required, 

but may also include light, current, sedimentation, 

turbidity)

if environmental parameters (minimum 

measurement of water temperature required), 

are measured/monitored = 1

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Rogers et al., 2001; Spieler et al., 

2001; Baums, 2008; Young et al., 

2012, Monitoring Guide (Universal 

Environmental Metric)

5 Restored Reef Areal Dimension (RRAD) is measured at 

each outplant site

if project area or restored footprint are 

measured for each outplant site = 1

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 CRC Field-Based Guide and Monitoring 

Guide (Universal Metric #1)

6 Restored footprint or area shows no net decrease over 

time from original project area

if restored footprint or area stays the same 

or increases from the original project area = 1

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Monitoring Guide (Universal Metric #1)

7 Outplant sites contain multiple outplanted species if only one species is outplanted = 0, > 1 

species = 1

1 (possibly 

2, 3, 4, and 

5)

8 Outplants contain a high degree of potential/possible 

genotypic diversity (or if genetic info not available, 

assumed different genotypes based on physical 

separation of collection sites)

If > 5 potential genotypes per species are 

outplanted at each restoration site (or >10 for 

gonochoric species) outplanted= 1

1, 2, 3, 4 Baums, 2008; Drury et al., 2017b 

(Universal Metric #4)

9 Outplants exhibit positive growth (all species) and/or 

increases in abundance (branching species only)

if outplants (all species) display positive 

net change (increase in TLE, % cover, max 

diameter, % colonies in larger size classes) 

and/or no net change in abundance = 1

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Monitoring Guide (Universal Metric 

#2 and Coral Population Enhancement 

Metric #1.1)

10 Outplants are tracked (tagged, photographed, mapped, 

marked, etc.) and monitored for 1st year after 

outplanting (or requirements for funding/permitting 

agency)

if outplants are monitored for 1 year = 1 1, 2, 3, 4 Monitoring Guide

Appendix 2: Evaluation Tool for Coral Restoration
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 121

Appendices A2

Table A2.1 Continued... Goals: 1– Ecological Restoration, 2– Socioeconomic, 3– Event-Driven Restoration, 4– Climate Change Adaptation, 5– Research.

Outplanting: Project Scale

# Evaluation Criteria Scoring Goal References

11 Representative photos are taken prior to, after, and 

during each monitoring event to document changes to 

overall abundance, coral cover, and/or reef structure 

(or requirements for funding/permitting agency)

if photos are collected, catalogued and maintained 

prior to outplanting, after outplanting, and during 

each monitoring event = 1

1, 2, 3, 4 Monitoring Guide

12 Outplants exhibit high coral survivorship within 1st 

year resulting in positive change in abundance of each 

outplanted species at outplant site over time

if >80% of outplants survive during first year after 

outplanting = 1

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Rinkevich, 1995; Schopmeyer et al., 2017; 

Goergen and Gilliam, 2018 Monitoring 

Guide (Universal Metric #2 and #3; Coral 

Population Enhancement Metric #1.3)

13 Restored corals maintain a high percent of live tissue 

per coral (outside of acute events) during 1st year

if mean live tissue per colony (recent partial 

mortality) >80% = 1

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Lirman et al., 2014 Monitoring Guide 

(Universal Metric #3; Coral Population 

Enhancement Metric #1.3)

14 Outplants exhibit low tissue loss (< 5% of outplants) 

from bleaching

if less than 5% of outplants exhibit tissue loss from 

bleaching = 1

1 CRC Field-Based Guide; Monitoring Guide 

(Coral Population Enhancement Metric #1.3)

15 Outplants exhibit low prevalence (<10%) of disease 

within the 1st year (outside of acute events)

if annual disease prevalence of outplants < 10% = 1 1 Harvell et al., 2007; Myers and Raymundo, 

2009; Ruiz-Moreno et al., 2012; Pollock 

et al., 2014; Vega Thurber et al., 2014 

Monitoring Guide (Coral Population 

Enhancement Metric #1.3)

16 Outplants exhibit low abundance and impacts of coral 

predators

if annual predation prevalence is < 5% = 1 1, 2, 3, 4 Goergen and Gilliam, 2018 Monitoring 

Guide (Coral Population Enhancement 

Metric #1.3)

17 Outplants exhibit limited competition by algae and 

other competitors (e.g., hydroids, sponges, damselfish)

if annual competition mortality prevalence is <5% 

= 1

1, 2, 3, 4 Bruckner per obs.; Monitoring Guide (Coral 

Population Enhancement Metric #1.3)

18 Outplants experience low levels of physical damage 

(unnatural colony fragmentation, breakage, and/or 

dislodgement)

if physical damage to outplants is < or equal to 

wild colonies (e.g., dislodgement, extreme breakage, 

fragmentation due to anchor drags, boat strikes, 

divers) = 1

1, 2, 3, 4 Monitoring Guide (Coral Population 

Enhancement Metric #1.3)

19 Outplants (all species) reach sexual maturity if annual surveys or observations are conducted to 

determine that outplants reach sexual maturity via 

observing sexual reproduction/gamete production 

within branches/tissue, histological sampling, in 

situ spawning observations of outplants, and/or 

colonies reach size of sexual maturity = 1

1 (possibly 

3)

Soong, 1992; Chamberland et al., 2016; 

Calle-Triviño et al., 2018 Monitoring Guide 

(Coral Population Enhancement Metric #1.2)

20 Outplants increase reef height/rugosity of site 

(branching species only)

if outplants increase reef height/rugosity of reef 

site as determined by pre- and post-outplanting 

measurements = 1

1, 4 Alvarez-Filip et al., 2011; Graham and Nash, 

2012

21 Outplants improve ecological value of reef/provide 

habitat for reef fish

if outplants increase net abundance of reef 

organisms (in particular reef fish) as determined by 

pre- and post-outplanting surveys = 1

1, 2, 3 Lirman, 1999; Cabaitan et al., 2008; Ferse, 

2008

22 Outplants improve ecological value of reef/provide 

habitat for invertebrates (non-corallivorous)

if outplants increase net abundance of invertebrate 

reef organisms as determined by pre- and postoutplanting surveys = 1

1, 3

23 Outplants exhibit high annual coral survivorship/

abundance during years 2-5

if annual outplant survival >65% OR if >65% of 

colonies are present at site through year 5 = 1

1, 2, 4 Schopmeyer et al., 2017; Goergen and 

Gilliam, 2018 Monitoring Guide (Coral 

Population Enhancement Metric #1.3)

24 Outplants exhibit high coral survivorship/abundance 

>5 years

if annual outplant survival >50% OR if >50% of 

colonies are present at site = 1

1, 2, 4 Goergen and Gilliam, 2018

25 Benthic composition of outplant sites are surveyed 

long-term (>5 years) and outplant species exhibit 

positive change in abundance (may include recruitment 

of outplant species at restoration site) and growth as 

compared to baseline surveys

if benthic composition is surveyed annually and 

exhibit positive change when compared to baseline 

surveys = 1

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

26 Increased monitoring during times of stress (storms, 

disease events, etc.) or after impact events (coastal 

construction, dredging projects, etc.)

if additional monitoring events are conducted during 

or immediately after stress events to document 

impact on outplant condition and survival = 1

1, 2, 3, 4
122 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Education and Outreach: Project Scale

# Evaluation Criteria Scoring Goal References

1 Volunteer restoration participants have an increased awareness 

about the status of coral reefs and the need for coral reef 

restoration

if a pre- and post-participation survey is conducted and 

shows increased awareness by participants = 1

2 Monitoring Guide

2 Corals outplanted as part of educational, stewardship, or capacity 

building restoration programs have similar condition and survival 

to other local restoration programs

if corals outplanted as part of educational, stewardship, 

or capacity building programs show positive growth and 

survivorship over time = 1

2 Monitoring Guide

3 The satisfaction of reef-users to coral reef conditions or their 

experience on coral reefs is increased after restoration activities 

if the satisfaction of reef-users post-restoration is 

increased = 1

2 Monitoring Guide

4 Program has established an outreach and community 

engagement strategy that includes volunteer training standards

if the program meets it's training and outreach plan = 1 1 CRC Field-Based Guide; 

Monitoring Guide (Coral 

Population Enhancement 

Metric #1.3)

Event-Driven Restoration: Project Scale

# Evaluation Criteria Scoring Goal References

1 Benthic surveys are conducted post-event to determine: 1) 

the extent of the damage to the reef structure and ecological 

function and 2) if coral restoration through triage or outplanting 

is feasible

if post-event surveys are conducted and data is analyzed to 

determine if restoration is feasible/required = 1

3 Monitoring Guide

2 Event-Driven Restoration is monitored according to relevant 

metrics

if Event-Driven Restoration monitoring is conducted using 

relevant outplanting metrics = 1

3 Monitoring Guide

Program Scale

# Evaluation Criteria Scoring Goal References

1 Program has successful scores from project level metrics (> 75%) if mean project scores >75% = 1 1, 2, 3, 

4, 5

2 Includes multiple projects (nurseries and outplant sites) 

locations to mitigate threats from large-scale disturbances (e.g., 

hurricanes, disease outbreaks)

if program has > 1 Project = 1 1, 2, 

4, 5

3 Has genotypic redundancy (exchange of genotypes among all 

projects) within nurseries and outplant sites

if each project conducted by a program has multiple (> 5) 

genotypic representatives from other projects/programs = 1

1, 2, 3, 4

4 Has defined goal(s) and clear metrics of success (e.g., number of 

nursery or outplanted corals, evidence of sexual reproduction)

if there is a SOP to track success = 1 1, 2, 3, 

4, 5

5 Consistently meets or exceeds suggested metrics of restoration 

success from project level metrics (>75%)

if ALL individual project scores >75% = 1 1, 2, 3, 

4, 5

6 Supports wider conservation, management (MPAs, no-take zones, 

etc.), and restoration actions

if restoration is more than just one of the conservation 

tools implemented = 1

1, 2, 4

7 Program has appropriate exit strategies for nursery stock/

monitoring

if program has the ability to outplant remaining nursery 

stock and complete required monitoring = 1

1, 2, 3, 

4, 5

8 Program has a response plan to minimize and address stress 

events (as suggested in Guides)

if program has a response plan to stress events = 1 1, 2, 3, 

4, 5

9 Monitoring of all programs includes recommended data, methods 

and frequency outlined within the Monitoring Guide's Universal 

Metrics

if monitoring data is collected per the CRC Monitoring and 

Field-Based Guides = 1

1, 2, 3, 

4, 5

10 Includes long-term monitoring to determine success/ecological 

function

if program conducts monitoring for more than 1 year after 

outplanting = 1

1, 3, 4

11 Shows financial robustness and stability if program has a > 3 year financial plan = 1 1, 2, 4

12 Program can be managed and maintained by the staff and/or 

resources locally available

if nursery structures or corals are properly maintained and 

gross mortality is not observed due to neglect (i.e., colonies 

fallen in sand, dislodged colonies, colonies overgrown by 

competing organisms, broken structures, abrasion) = 1

1, 2, 3, 

4, 5

Table A2.1 Continued... Goals: 1– Ecological Restoration, 2– Socioeconomic, 3– Event-Driven Restoration, 4– Climate Change Adaptation, 5– Research.

A2 Appendices
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 123

Table A2.1. Continued... Goals: 1– Ecological Restoration, 2– Socioeconomic, 3– Event-Driven Restoration, 4– Climate Change Adaptation, 5– Research.

Regional Scale

# Evaluation Criteria Scoring Goal References

1 Programs within region have successful scores from program level 

metrics (>75%)

if mean program score >75% = 1 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

2 Region has a strategic plan for restoration goals and objectives 

linked to coral recovery plans

if the region has a strategic plan with abundance and 

geographic coverage goals = 1

1, 3, 4 Recovery Plans; 

Monitoring Guide

3 Region defines clear metrics of success based on monitoring 

Guides (e.g., number of nursery or outplanted corals, evidence of 

sexual reproduction)

if there is a SOP based on Guides to track success = 1 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Monitoring Guide

4 Regions have genotypic redundancy within projects/programs (>5) if each program within a region has multiple (> 5) 

genotypic representatives from other projects/programs 

= 1

1, 2, 3, 4

5 Programs are increasing functional capacity of the region by 

deploying projects strategically to mitigate threats from largescale disturbances (e.g., hurricanes, disease outbreaks)

If > 1 Program within a region to reduce threats = 1 1, 2, 4, 5

6 Programs are increasing functional capacity of the region by 

deploying projects strategically to enhance spatial coverage 

of restoration efforts (e.g., increase local coral, expand current 

population coverage, increase community education/involvement)

If > 1 Program within a region = 1 1, 4

7 Programs communicate/collaborate with broader regional coral 

restoration community (e.g., create regional restoration plan, share 

ideas, information, data, successes/failures)

Restoration data are freely shared and/or centrally 

archived = 1

1, 2, 4

8 Regional restoration efforts can be scaled up as needed If additional candidate projects are planned or waiting to 

be deployed = 1

1, 3, 4

9 Regional restoration efforts can be scaled down as needed If exit strategies exist as defined by Guides = 1 1, 2, 3, 4

10 Supports wider regional conservation, management, and 

restoration actions

If restoration is more than one of the conservation tools 

implemented = 1

1, 2, 4

11 Programs within region show financial robustness and stability If Programs within the Region have > 2 year management 

plan = 1

1, 2, 4

Appendices A2
124 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Appendix 3: Guides and Website References

Coral Restoration Consortium Working Group Pages and Products:

Monitoring Working Group

crc.reefresilience.org/working-groups/monitoring/

Coral Restoration Database

To submit data from the Universal Metrics and select Goal-Based Performance Metrics to the Coral Restoration Database contact: Alison 

Moulding (alison.moulding@noaa.gov)

An interactive map of coral nursery and outplant locations and corresponding site information can be found here:

https://bit.ly/CRCRestorationMap

Evaluation Tool

Evaluate your project, program, or region using the Evaluation Tool. Online tool under development. Contact Stephanie Schopmeyer (stephanie.

schopmeyer@myfwc.com)

Webinar

Photomosaics as a Tool for Monitoring Coral Restoration Success: 

crc.reefresilience.org/photomosaics-as-a-tool-for-monitoring-coral-restoration-success/

Field-Based Propagation Working Group

crc.reefresilience.org/working-groups/field-based-propagation/

Guide to Field-Based Coral Reef Restoration 

Goergen EA, Johnson M, Lustic C, Griffin S, Levy J, Moulding A, Ross A. In Review. Guide to coral reef restoration: Methods to optimize 

efficiency and scale. Coral Restoration Consortium. 165 pp. 

crc.reefresilience.org/working-groups/field-based-propagation/

Restoration Facebook Page

Coral Restoration Coordination–Caribbean www.facebook.com/groups/Coral.Nursery/

Larval Propagation Working Group

crc.reefresilience.org/working-groups/larval-propagation/

Prediction Calendar

crc.reefresilience.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Coral-Spawning-Predictions-Dominican-Republic-2019.pdf

crc.reefresilience.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Coral-Spawning-Predictions-Southern-Caribbean-2019.pdf

crc.reefresilience.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Coral-Spawning-Prediction-Calendar_Mexico-2019.pdf

Reporting Guidance

crc.reefresilience.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Spawning-Monitoring-Guidelines.pdf

crc.reefresilience.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Coral_spawning_data_TEMPLATE.xlsx

Webinar

reefresilience.org/caribbean-coral-restoration-coral-spawning-research-larval-propagation/

Facebook Group

Coral Spawning Research: www.facebook.com/groups/270783472935805/

A3 Appendices
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 125

Genetics Working Group

crc.reefresilience.org/working-groups/genetics/

Publication

Baums, I. B., Baker, A. C., Davies, S. W., Grottoli, A. G., Kenkel, C. D., Kitchen, S. A., Kuffner, I. B., LaJeunesse, T. C., Matz, M. V., Miller, M. 

W., Parkinson, J. E., and Shantz, A. A.. 2019. Considerations for maximizing the adaptive potential of restored coral populations in the western 

Atlantic. Ecological Applications 29 (8):e01978.

Database

To submit data the user will submit coral tissue to a service provider that will in turn return the raw genotype data to the user in 4-6 weeks. Then, 

the user will upload the raw data along with metadata for each sample including collection site information (GPS coordinates, depth, where is 

the colony such as apical tip, mid-branch or base), phenotype data if available, and collector information. In the future, we hope to link our data 

with other databases that contain field surveys and ecological data using a common database registry key.

Database login: https://coralsnp.science.psu.edu/galaxy/

Database reports page: https://coralsnp.science.psu.edu/reports, provides a web interface of the database to explore the various data 

tables we currently store and current samples we have genotyped.

Web-based guides and resources referenced by chapter:

Chapter 2

Guide to Field-Based Coral Reef Restoration

Goergen EA, Johnson M, Lustic C, Griffin S, Levy J, Moulding A, Ross A. In Review. Guide to coral reef restoration: Methods to optimize 

efficiency and scale. Coral Restoration Consortium. 165 pp. 

crc.reefresilience.org/working-groups/field-based-propagation/

Chapter 4

Guide to Field-Based Coral Reef Restoration

Goergen EA, Johnson M, Lustic C, Griffin S, Levy J, Moulding A, Ross A. In Review. Guide to coral reef restoration: Methods to optimize 

efficiency and scale. Coral Restoration Consortium. 165 pp. 

crc.reefresilience.org/working-groups/field-based-propagation/

Coral Restoration Database

To submit data from the Universal Metrics and select Goal-Based Performance Metrics to the Coral Restoration Database contact: Alison 

Moulding (alison.moulding@noaa.gov)

An interactive map of coral nursery and outplant locations and corresponding site information can be found here:

https://bit.ly/CRCRestorationMap

Evaluation Tool

Evaluate your project, program, or region using the Evaluation Tool. Online tool under development. Contact Stephanie Schopmeyer (stephanie.

schopmeyer@myfwc.com)

Chapter 5

Webinar

Photomosaics as a Tool for Monitoring Coral Restoration Success

crc.reefresilience.org/photomosaics-as-a-tool-for-monitoring-coral-restoration-success/

Appendices A3
126 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Coral Restoration Database

To submit data from the Universal Metrics and select Goal-Based Performance Metrics to the Coral Restoration Database contact: Alison 

Moulding (alison.moulding@noaa.gov)

An interactive map of coral nursery and outplant locations and corresponding site information can be found here:

https://bit.ly/CRCRestorationMap

Evaluation Tool

Evaluate your project, program, or region using the Evaluation Tool. Online tool under development. Contact Stephanie Schopmeyer (stephanie.

schopmeyer@myfwc.com)

Genetic Databases

Genetics Working Group Database

Database login: https://coralsnp.science.psu.edu/galaxy/

Database reports page: https://coralsnp.science.psu.edu/reports, provides a web interface of the database to explore the various data 

tables we currently store and current samples we have genotyped.

Chapter 6

Coral Restoration Database

To submit data from the Universal Metrics and select Goal-Based Performance Metrics to the Coral Restoration Database contact: Alison 

Moulding (alison.moulding@noaa.gov)

An interactive map of coral nursery and outplant locations and corresponding site information can be found here:

https://bit.ly/CRCRestorationMap

Evaluation Tool

Evaluate your project, program, or region using the Evaluation Tool. Online tool under development. Contact Stephanie Schopmeyer (stephanie.

schopmeyer@myfwc.com)

Chapter 7

Long-Term Monitoring Project Examples:

Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) Long-Term Coral Reef Monitoring Program (LTMP)

www.aims.gov.au/docs/research/monitoring/reef/reef-monitoring.html

Atlantic Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment (AGRRA)

www.agrra.org/

Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Program (CREMP)

myfwc.com/research/habitat/coral/cremp/

Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN)

gcrmn.net/

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Marine Monitoring Program (MMP)

www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-work/our-programs-and-projects/reef-2050-marine-monitoring-program

NOAA’s National Coral Reef Monitoring Program (NCRMP)

coastalscience.noaa.gov/project/national-coral-reef-monitoring-program-biological-socioeconomic/

Larval Ecology Working Group:

crc.reefresilience.org/working-groups/larval-propagation/

A3 Appendices
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 127

Bleaching and Disease Reporting:

NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch for all locations

coralreefwatch.noaa.gov

Coral Watch for all locations

Coralwatch.org

BleachWatch for Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Dry Tortugas National Park

mote.org/bleachwatch

SEAFAN for South Florida 

floridadep.gov/rcp/coral/content/bleachwatch

floridadep.gov/rcp/coral/content/stony-coral-tissue-loss-disease-response

Eyes on the Reef for Hawaii 

eorhawaii.org/

Philippine Coral Bleaching Watch 

Application on Googleplay or form.jotform.me/61241912098454

Reef Connect BleachWatch for the United States Virgin Islands

www.reefconnect.org/bleachwatch/

BleachWatch Egypt

https://www.hepca.org/projects/project/140

Eye on the Reef for Great Barrier Reef

Application or www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-work/our-programs-and-projects/eye-on-the-reef

Restoration Facebook Page

Coral Restoration Coordination–Caribbean www.facebook.com/groups/Coral.Nursery/

Webinar

Photomosaics as a Tool for Monitoring Coral Restoration Success

crc.reefresilience.org/photomosaics-as-a-tool-for-monitoring-coral-restoration-success/

Chapter 8

European Tourism Indicator System

ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/tourism/offer/sustainable/indicators_en

NOAA’s National Coral Reef Monitoring Program Socioeconomic Survey: CORE Questions Template

www.coris.noaa.gov/monitoring/resources/ncrmp_soc_core_survey_module_public.pdf

Cornell Lab’s User’s Guide for Evaluating Learning Outcomes in Citizen Science

www.birds.cornell.edu/citizenscience/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/USERS-GUIDE_linked.pdf

Chapter 9

Long-Term Monitoring Project Examples:

Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) Long-Term Coral Reef Monitoring Program (LTMP) 

www.aims.gov.au/docs/research/monitoring/reef/reef-monitoring.html

Atlantic Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment (AGRRA)

www.agrra.org/

Appendices A3
128 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Program (CREMP)

myfwc.com/research/habitat/coral/cremp/

Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN)

gcrmn.net/

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Marine Monitoring Program (MMP)

www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-work/our-programs-and-projects/reef-2050-marine-monitoring-program

NOAA’s National Coral Reef Monitoring Program (NCRMP)

coastalscience.noaa.gov/project/national-coral-reef-monitoring-program-biological-socioeconomic/

Decontamination protocols related to Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease

https://floridakeys.noaa.gov/coral-disease/citizen-participation.html

A3 Appendices
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 129

Appendix 4: Standard Operating Procedures for 

Data Collection with Mosaics

Imagery combined in a mosaic format, also called Structure From Motion, is a powerful tool to support visualization, benthic analyses, and a 

permanent record of the site. Structure From Motion technology, capacity, and analyses are a rapidly evolving field of applied research. For an 

overview of this methodology, refer to the CRC Monitoring Working Group’s photomosaic webinar (website provided in Appendix 3).

Standard operating procedures currently vary between groups and organizations. Some examples are listed below.

In the project planning phase prior to project implementation, we recommend that restoration practitioners, scientists, and managers carefully 

consider whether photomosaics are a good fit for monitoring goals and for program capacity. As with many technologies, this approach does 

have technological and financial constraints, and costs vary. Technological infrastructure requirements are affiliated with image acquisition, and 

the quality of underwater camera systems will affect image quality. Additional requirements relate to software and computational power for image 

processing, visualization, and analyses. Furthermore, the file sizes of large area imagery can be significant, so high-capacity long-term data 

storage needs are an additional consideration.

Organization Website

Coral Restoration Foundation www.coralrestoration.org/white-paper-photomosaic-manual

Scripps Institution of 

Oceanography

http://crc.reefresilience.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/SIO_Mosaic_SOP_V2_2019-06-18.pdf

http://crc.reefresilience.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/SIO_Mosaic_SOP_V3_SingleRig_20190320.pdf

University of Miami web2.physics.miami.edu/~agleason/index.shtml

Appendices A4
130 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Included here is an example of a 2019 

spawning prediction calendar for the Southern 

Caribbean (Figure A5.1). Each year this 

and prediction calendars for other regions 

are created by the CRC Larval Propagation 

working group using data submitted to the 

CRC coral spawning database and available 

literature. For the best prediction times for 

your region visit the CRC Larval Propagation 

website (Appendix 3) each year.

The next two figures are example datasheets 

for in situ coral spawning observations. Figure 

A5.2 should be used when recording spawning 

data per species and Figure A5.3 should be 

used when reporting data per genotype or 

colony per species.

Figure A5.1. 2019 coral spawning prediction 

for the southern Caribbean

A5 Appendices

Appendix 5: Example Spawning Prediction 

Calendar and Datasheets
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 131

Spawning Monitoring (per species) 

Date: # of days AFM:

Country: Sunset time:

Site: Focal species monitored:

Depth range: Other species monitored:

Area (m2

): Monitoring start:

Observer(s): Monitoring stop:

Additional notes:

Hermaphrodite species

# of colonies 

monitored

# of colonies 

that spawned

Time 

setting 

started

Time 

spawning 

started

Time 

spawning 

stopped

Gonochore species

# of colonies 

monitored 

# of colonies 

that spawned

Time 

setting 

started

Time 

spawning 

started

Time 

spawning 

stopped

MALE (total)

FEMALE

MALE

FEMALE

MALE

FEMALE

MALE

FEMALE

Individual spawning times per colony (if available)

Individual spawning times per colony (if available)

Figure A5.2. Example in situ datasheet for 

spawning observations by species

Spawning monitoring (per genotype/colony) 

Date: # of days AFM:

Country: Sunset time:

Site: Species monitored:

Depth range: Monitoring start:

Area (m2

): Monitoring stop:

Observer(s): Additional notes:

Genotype/col

ony ID

Sex 

(if gonochore)

Time setting 

started

Time 

spawning 

started

Time 

spawning 

stopped

Figure A5.3. Example in situ datasheet for 

spawning observations by genotype and 

colony per species

Appendices A5
132 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

A6 Appendices

Below are a few examples of surveys used by Rescue a Reef citizen science program and Coral Restoration Foundation to assess volunteer 

participation and educational impacts.

Rescue a Reef Questionnaire (post-expedition only) from Hesley et al. (2017).

Appendix 6: Coral Restoration Participant Survey
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 133

Appendices A6

Rescue a Reef Questionnaire (post-expedition only) from Hesley et al. (2017).
134 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

A6 Appendices

Rescue a Reef Questionnaire (post-expedition only) from Hesley et al. (2017).
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 135

Appendices A6

Rescue a Reef Questionnaire (post-expedition only) from Hesley et al. (2017).
136 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

A6 Appendices

Rescue a Reef Questionnaire (post-expedition only) from Hesley et al. (2017).
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 137

Appendices A6

Rescue a Reef Questionnaire (post-expedition only) from Hesley et al. (2017).
138 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

A6 Appendices

Rescue a Reef Questionnaire (post-expedition only) from Hesley et al. (2017).
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 139

Appendices A6

Rescue a Reef Questionnaire (post-expedition only) from Hesley et al. (2017).
140 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

Coral Restoration Foundation Questionnaire

A6 Appendices
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 141

Appendices A6

Coral Restoration Foundation Questionnaire
142 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

A6 Appendices

Coral Restoration Foundation Questionnaire
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 143

Appendices A6

Coral Restoration Foundation Questionnaire
144 Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide

A6 Appendices

Coral Restoration Foundation Questionnaire
Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide 145

Appendices A6

Coral Restoration Foundation Questionnaire