Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 October
2019 | 11(13): 14691–14721
Mapping octocoral (Anthozoa: Octocorallia) research in Asia, with particular reference
to the Indian subcontinent: trends, challenges, and opportunities
Ghosh Ramvilas
1, Kannan Shalu 2, Rajeev Raghavan
3 & Kutty Ranjeet 4
1,2 School
of Ocean Science and Technology, 3 Department of Fisheries Resource
Management, 4 Department of Aquatic Environment Management,
Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies
(KUFOS), Kochi, Kerala 682506, India.
1 ramvilas@kufos.ac.in
(corresponding author), 2 shalu@kufos.ac.in, 3 rajeevraq@hotmail.com,
4 ranjeet.kufos@gmail.com
Abstract: Octocorallia (Cnidaria,
Anthozoa) comprising over 3,600 nominal species within three orders, Alcyonacea, Helioporacea and Pennatulacea, is one of the most poorly known groups of
marine invertebrates. Half of known
octocoral species occur in the Indo-Pacific, but not much is understood about
research efforts and outputs in this region, particularly in the Asian
context. A review of the literature on
Asian octocorals during a 40-year period from 1978 to 2018 revealed that most
research was concentrated in particular regions/countries. An analysis of research originating from
India indicated several issues, including low quality data and local taxonomic
impediment. This paper examines the
general trends and geographic disparity in Asian octocoral research over the
past four decades, analyses the extent and source of such disparity by drawing
parallels between India and the rest of Asia, and provides recommendations for
improving octocoral studies in the region.
Keywords:
India, Indian Ocean, marine invertebrates, sea fans, soft corals, taxonomy
doi: https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4982.11.13.14691-14721
|
ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:9518746B-0F46-4037-89C0-1D5830EA50C7
Editor: Phil Alderslade, CSIRO Marine And Atmospheric Research, Hobart,
Australia. Date of publication:
26 October 2019 (online & print)
Manuscript details: #4982 | Received 02 April 2019 |
Final received 04 October 2019 | Finally accepted 19 October 2019
Citation: Ramvilas, G., K. Shalu,
R. Raghavan & K. Ranjeet (2019). Mapping octocoral (Anthozoa: Octocorallia) research in Asia, with particular reference
to the Indian subcontinent: trends, challenges, and opportunities. Journal of Threatened Taxa 11(13): 14691–14721; https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4982.11.13.14691-14721
Copyright: © Ramvilas et al. 2019. Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and
distribution of this article in any medium by adequate credit to the author(s)
and the source of publication.
Funding: The study
was part of a Mohammed Bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund project on Seafans
of India funded to the first author.
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing
interests.
Author details: Ramvilas Ghosh is working on the taxonomic identity and subsequent
evolution of gorgonians of the central Indian Ocean region. His research
interests include octocoral taxonomy, phylogeny and conservation. Shalu Kannan
is working on syngnathid fishes of India and her other
interests include marine taxonomy, population genetics and conservation. Rajeev
Raghavan is interested in interdisciplinary research that generates
information to support conservation decision making in tropical aquatic
ecosystems particularly in the Western Ghats Biodiversity Hotspot. His work
cuts across multiple disciplines from taxonomy to evolutionary biogeography,
fisheries management and conservation policies, and range from local to global
scales. Kutty Ranjeet’s interest includes understanding ecological
dynamics and impacts on aquatic environments with focus on estuarine and
nearshore communities. He also has experience in crustacean aquaculture and its
biotechnology.
Author contribution: RG, RR and KR conceptualized and
designed the work. RG and KS collected and analysed the data. RG, RR and KR
wrote the manuscript.
Acknowledgements: The authors thank the two anonymous reviewers and the
subject editor for their critical comments and suggestions that greatly
improved the manuscript.
Introduction
Ocean life has been explored for millennia, with
Aristotle’s work of the 3rd Century BC on European marine biota
being one of the earliest (Coll et al. 2010).
Nevertheless, a large proportion of the world’s marine biodiversity
remains unknown (Mora et al. 2011).
Knowledge of the extent and magnitude of this biodiversity (particularly
lower microscopic forms) has been hindered by uneven sampling efforts and a
shortfall in taxonomic expertise required for documentation (Wilson 2017). Octocorals (Cnidaria, Anthozoa),
characterized by the presence of eight tentacles surrounding the mouth of the
polyp, comprise a diverse group of marine organisms which includes blue corals,
soft corals, sea fans and sea whips (gorgonians) and sea pens (Fabricius & Alderslade 2001).
They are conspicuous members of coral reefs, often forming the frontiers
(Steiner et al. 2018). They are also
distributed over a broad range of bathymetry ranging from intertidal to the
deep waters, and in some regions octocorals rival hard corals in biomass,
abundance and diversity (Perez et al. 2016).
Octocorallia currently comprises over 3,649 nominal species within
three orders, Alcyonacea, Helioporacea,
and Pennatulacea (Daly et al. 2007; WoRMS 2019). They
are however, one of the most poorly known groups of marine invertebrates, whose
taxonomy is in a flux as a result of insufficient taxonomic expertise, high
levels of homoplasy and lack of distinct diagnostic characters (except colony
morphology and sclerite characteristics) that makes identification a complex
affair (Perez et al. 2016). Further,
missing/lost ‘type material’, inadequate species descriptions from the 19th
and 20th century, and the likelihood of hundreds of undescribed
species necessitate the reinforcement and acceleration of octocoral research,
especially extensive taxonomic revisions for many alcyonacean genera (Daly et
al. 2007). Despite their prominent
worldwide diversity, only forty species have been assessed for the IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2019), highlighting the need for expanding and
improving efforts for global and regional conservation prioritization (see
examples Bramanti et al. 2009; Maldonado et al. 2013;
Althaus et al. 2017).
Seventy per cent of known octocoral species occur in
the Indo-Pacific (Perez et al. 2016), yet the region has been classified as
‘data-poor’ for octocorals (Bayer 1981).
Though knowledge on taxonomy, diversity and distribution of octocorals
in the larger Indo-Pacific region has improved substantially, many areas, e.g.,
the Indo-West Pacific (which is included in Asia), are still considered
problematic when compared to the Mediterranean and Atlantic waters (Bayer
2002).
Based on this affirmation, we undertook a systematic
review of the published literature on diversity and taxonomy of Asian
octocorals (i.e., publications on octocorals reported from Asia published by
both Asian and non-Asians) during a 40-year period between 1978 and 2018, to
better understand the trends, status and regional inclinations of such
studies. For example, despite having
high levels of marine diversity (Tittensor et al.
2010) and two centuries of marine diversity inventories, comprehensive data on
octocorals in and around the Indian subcontinent is extremely poor when
compared to other groups of cnidaria (e.g., scleractinian
corals and siphonophores; Venkataraman & Wafar
2005). In this background, we: (i) examine the
general trends and geographic unevenness (if any) in Asian octocoral research,
(ii) analyze the extent and source of such biases in
the octocoral research arena by drawing parallels between India and the rest of
Asia, and (iii) provide recommendations for improving octocoral diversity and
taxonomic studies in the Indian region.
Methods
Primary literature (concerning Asian octocorals)
published during the period, 1978 to 2018 was extracted from Google Scholar™
using the following keywords: (octocorals OR Octocorallia
OR Alcyonacea OR Helioporacea
OR Gorgonacea OR Pennatulacea
OR Stolonifera OR Telestacea OR Gorgonarian
OR Gorgoniden OR Alcyonarien
OR Octcorallien OR Penatulaceen
OR ‘soft corals’ OR gorgonian OR ‘sea pen’ OR ‘sea fan’ OR ‘sea whip’) AND
(Asia OR Japan OR Israel OR Iran OR Indonesia OR Vietnam etc.) AND (diversity
OR distribution OR ‘species description’ OR taxonomy OR ‘new species’ OR ‘new
genus’ OR ‘new family’). More than 2,000
search results were manually screened to extract papers on ‘diversity and
taxonomy’. Based on the degree of
relevance, individual papers were then eliminated by ‘title’ or ‘abstract’
alone, or by accessing the entire paper.
Similar boolean operators
were used to extract papers on octocoral research in India, substituting the
second and third set of keywords with India AND diversity OR distribution OR
‘species description’ OR taxonomy OR ‘new species’ OR ‘new genus’ OR ‘new
family’ OR bioactivity OR pharmaceutical OR ‘bioactive compounds’ OR policy OR
conservation OR ecology OR ‘animal assemblage’ OR ‘animal association’; to understand
the history and trend of Indian octocoral research. To ensure maximum inclusion of Indian papers,
an explicit time scale was not specified, and careful cross-references were
also made to consider unpublished proceedings, theses, library records etc. Only those publications supported by
empirical field data (quantitative field surveys, voucher specimens,
photographs) on any one of the following topics: diversity, distribution,
taxonomic works such as revisions, species/generic description, nomenclatural
acts and focused on Asia, or any study involving octocorals in the case of
India, were included. Only peer-reviewed
journal articles were considered, to maintain both consistency and quality of
data. We recorded the year and country
of publishing, author names (national and international separately),
nationality of non-Indian authors and the type and name of the journal. In addition, we also assessed the octocoral
‘diversity and taxonomic’ publications from over 22 Asian maritime
countries/islands excluding India for the past 40 years (1978–2018) to compare
geographical trends.
For this paper, a ‘taxonomic expert’ is defined using
a slight modification of the broader definition of Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD), as ‘a person with good expertise and extensive knowledge on
octocorals who is/was active for 10 years or more and/or has published more
than one taxonomic paper during the last four decades’ (Haas & Haüser 2005). A
‘peer-reviewed publication’ is defined as one published in a journal indexed in
either the Web of Science™, SCOPUS, or Google Scholar™ but excluding ‘predatory
open-access journals’ (Bohannon 2013).
Results and Discussion
a. Forty years of octocoral studies (taxonomy and
diversity) in Asia
The resulting list (n=205) indicates that nearly 40%
(n=78) of the published literature on octocoral diversity in Asia originates
from the Far East (Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Russia, Korea, and China) (Figure
1), with Japan contributing the greatest share (n=29) of publications, and the
highest number of newly described species (n=29; from 10 description
papers). Nearly 85% of the new species
descriptions were carried out by foreign researchers (non-Asians/researchers
not from their home country; n=33) followed by the combination of national and
foreign researchers (n=18). The top 10
scientists/taxonomic experts (Asian or otherwise) together account for over 80%
of the total number of species descriptions from the Asian waters (Figure
2). Thus, apart from Japan, Israel and
Iran, the contribution of Asian researchers to octocoral taxonomy during a
40-year period (1978–2018) is proportionally low, indicating a shortfall of
local taxonomic expertise in the region.
Most species descriptions were made from countries along the Red Sea and
in West Asia (n=77), followed by the Far East including the seas of Japan,
Taiwan and Hong Kong (n=46). The least
number of species were described from southeastern
Asia (n=30) despite this being a region of high endemism and biodiversity, and
from south Asia (n=11, including India n=8).
From 1978 to 2018, India recorded over 65 publications
on octocoral diversity and distribution (including occurrence and distribution
reports, taxonomy, and new records); of which only 28 appeared in peer-reviewed
journals. The rest include books/book
chapters/reports (n=23), posters/pre-prints/conference papers (n=4) and
predatory or dubious publications (n=10).
Though the higher number of papers is a result of many studies from
Japan or other Asian countries with high numbers of octocoral studies (Taiwan,
Singapore, and Indonesia), issues such as poor-quality publications and
ambiguous diversity assessments have impeded the progress of octocoral studies
in India (also see sections below). Also,
despite the large number of publications, only five dealt with new species
descriptions. Foreign authors were
involved in all the (currently valid) species descriptions (n=8) from three
publications, while those species described by Indian authors (n=57) from two
publications show no records in either Zoobank or in WoRMS.
Costello et al. (2013a) noted an overall increase in
the number of taxonomists (for all taxa) in Asia, but the data on octocorals do
not reflect this. Nevertheless,
discovering and naming new octocoral species alone will not solve the issue of
biodiversity assessment and estimation for this group, since the majority of
octocoral genera need extensive taxonomic studies (i.e., re-descriptions and
revisions) (Daly et al. 2007). A positive
trend of increasing numbers of young researchers working on taxonomy and
systematics of octocorals points to an encouraging future for this field of
research (Williams 2018).
b. History and trends in Indian octocoral research
Octocoral research in India dates to the late 19th
Century, followed by 100 years of mostly exploratory research that resulted in
publications on taxonomy, diversity and distributions. A critical review of 193 published and
unpublished (e.g., theses, reports, newsletters, and posters) works on
octocorals based on primary data/observations revealed that more than
two-thirds have focused on ‘taxonomy and diversity’ and ‘bioactivity’ (Figure
3). Despite several publications on
diversity and distribution of octocorals, taxonomic ambiguities and in several
cases erroneous and unvalidated records of species have hampered the progress
of octocoral research in India.
Publications under the ‘taxonomy and diversity’ section are largely
dominated by simple diversity and distribution (i.e., occurrence) studies,
which in many cases are trivial and insignificant. Interestingly, the number of published
‘taxonomic papers’ (related to a taxonomic or nomenclatural act) is
significantly less compared to those in ‘taxonomy and diversity,’ and the majority
of such research from Indian waters was carried out by western researchers in
the early 20th Century, as part of colonial natural history
expeditions and investigations. Of this modest proportion of ‘taxonomic
papers’, all but two involve foreign researchers, or a combination of both
foreign and Indian researchers.
c. Publication trends in octocoral research in India –
Quality vs Mediocrity
Good quality, peer-reviewed and publicly accessible
biodiversity data can influence the reliability of communicating management and
conservation policies and improve societal benefits (Costello et al. 2013b).
Octocoral research in India has been scattered in several publication
domains. While the majority of octocoral
related publications are peer-reviewed (including those in journals), an equal
number of mediocre publications in the form of grey literature and papers in
predatory journals (as defined by Jeffrey Beall; see
https://beallslist.weebly.com/) are a major concern for the advancement of
octocoral research in India. The highest
number of such publications have appeared recently (2000 to 2018), coinciding
with the generally increased use of predatory journals by Indian scientists
(see Raghavan et al. 2015). Since the
year 2000, over 12 publications including those on diversity (checklist,
distribution records), bioactivity and ecology have appeared in various
predatory journals. Taxonomic research
published after 1991 (except Williams & Vennam
(2001)) has appeared mostly in predatory outlets or is in the form of mediocre
publications circulated in single institutions/libraries, usually inaccessible
to general public or academics, and in most cases containing invalid
records. For instance, a monograph on
gorgonians (Fernando 2011) has very limited circulation and most voucher
specimens, including type material, is inaccessible to researchers (Ramvilas Ghosh pers. obs. 20.vii.2018), which contravenes
the Recommendation 72F of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
(ICZN). Similarly, a checklist on
gorgonians by Kumar and Raghunathan in 2015, probably the only recent
compilation of gorgonian fauna from India, has appeared in a predatory journal
questioning the authenticity and quality of the data.
Scientific misconduct, in particular, plagiarism, has
become a major menace in the Indian scientific and academic circles (see
Raghavan et al. 2013; Amos 2014) and octocoral studies from the subcontinent
are no different. “For example, it was noted that Rao & Devi’s (2003) paper
on the soft corals of the Andaman Islands is a blatant example of plagiarism.
The authors describe over 50 species and illustrate 47 of these, each with a
figure containing numerous drawings of sclerites, with every single drawing
hand-copied, with slight alterations, from the originals of Verseveldt
(1980, 1982, 1983), primarily focused on his revisions of Lobophytum,
Sarcophyton and Sinularia. Similarly, Rao & Devi’s figures of Lobophytum variatum
on page 34 are overtly copied from Verseveldt (1983)”
(Phil Alderslade pers. comm. 09.i.2019).
d. Publication trends in octocoral research in India –
Regional biases
Octocoral publications in India to date have been
subject to regional inclinations, a trend that is similar to the whole of
Asia. Much of the research focus has
been on the southeastern coast (n=66), particularly
in the Gulf of Mannar, and very little work has been
carried out along the eastern coast of India (n=11). Between the island territories, higher
numbers of publications have originated from the Andaman & Nicobar Islands
(n=50), compared to Lakshadweep (n=16).
The coastal and deeper waters off the southwestern, northwestern
& eastern coasts, and the Lakshadweep Islands require extensive exploration
and systematic taxonomic inventories to improve and contribute to the
nation-wide understanding of octocoral diversity and distribution.
The absence of scientific institutions in some parts
of the country (e.g., Lakshadweep) and the concentration of many institutions
(both private and government) and museums in areas like the Gulf of Mannar could be the reason for the regional disparity in
the studies of octocorals. But when
considering cnidarian fauna in general, these regional disparities become very
distinct for octocorals. For instance,
comprehensive accounts on the cnidarian diversity are available for Scleractinia (Pillai 1991), Siphonophora
(Daniel 1985), and Scyphomedusae (Chakrapany
1984). Also, inclusive data are
available for hard corals (Scleractinia) from all
major reef areas including mainland and the island territories (Venkataraman
& Wafar 2005), so there must be another reason
that octocorals have received less attention.
Incidentally, scleractinian corals and coral
dominated reefs receive much funding, and are considered of global significance
due to their biodiversity and apparent vulnerability when compared to other
marine ecosystems (Brooks et al. 2006).
We do not contend the fact that octocorals have never
received scientific attention or research priority in India. In India,
octocorals were heavily sought after for their bioactivity during the 1980s,
however, most of the research was undertaken only to the level of extraction
and chemical analysis, with no resulting industrial applications (Raveendran et
al. 2011), which may have contributed (among other factors) to the current lack
of interest in this fauna.
Even though regional accounts on the diversity of
octocorals are available, most of them tend to be unreliable in terms of
data-quality. “For instance, a paper on
the octocorals from the Andaman & Nicobar Islands (Kumar et al. 2014) bases
virtually all of the identifications on Grasshoff’s
(1999) monograph on the gorgonians of New Caledonia, which is a very popular
book among Indian octocoral workers, as it has colored
underwater images. But in the paper (Kumar et al. 2014), it is obvious that
numerous colony pictures they present do not look like the actual species
figured by Grasshoff (1999), and moreover as
sclerites are an essential taxonomic character, the lack of illustrations
renders it impossible for the readers to judge, and the authors to prove that
the species are as claimed. Interestingly, since the publication of Grasshoff’s (1999) monograph, many species previously
considered to be endemic to New Caledonia have been recorded from the Andaman
& Nicobar Islands - mostly dubious claims” (Phil Alderslade
pers. comm. 09.i.2019).
e. The paradigm of species diversity, museums and
specimens
In the context of taxonomic uncertainty, there is a
high likelihood of underestimations or overestimations of Indian octocoral
diversity especially in the case of gorgonians.
Most gorgonian genera, and in particular Junceella
and Acanthomuricea (reported from the
‘Investigator’ expedition) need considerable revision using an
integrative approach and using modern molecular tools. With a limited amount of taxonomic expertise
and capacity in India, the identity of many gorgonian species has been restricted
to the generic level (Mary & Sluka 2014).
Author and date misnomers are yet another problem
creating confusions in octocoral taxonomic data. For example, Trimuricea
reticulata Gordon, 1926 mentioned in WoRMS (2019)
and Global Biodiversity Information Facility (2019) should actually be Trimuricea reticulata (Thomson & Simpson,
1909) (see Samimi-Namin & van Ofwegen
2016). This type of outdated and
obsolete information on species can be seen in several Indian checklists
pertaining to octocorals. For example,
both Venkataraman et al. (2004) and Thomas (1996) have used names for ellisellid genera (e.g., Gorgonella,
Scirpearia) that have not been used by taxonomists
for many decades. It is notable that
regional checklists of octocorals from India (except Tudu
et al. 2018 for sea pens) that contain outdated or erroneous records, are
mostly published in poor-quality publications mostly without any rigorous
peer-review, or in predatory journals.
Many specimens described from the Investigator
expedition and currently housed in the invertebrate collections of the
Zoological Survey of India (ZSI), Kolkata, “need re-examination and extensive
re-evaluation (Phil Alderslade pers. comm.
09.i.2019). But there are enormous
difficulties in accessing these specimens (see, for example, Samimi-Namin & van Ofwegen
2016), which reflects an appalling attitude of the regulating authorities. Issues regarding the difficulty, or even
impossibility, of accessing these specimens has resonated around the global
taxonomic community for numerous decades.
“Indian biodiversity policies restrict the free exchange of specimens to
overseas scientists and their institutions regardless of their reputation, and
Indian scientists are also finding it increasingly difficult to access the museums
of the Zoological Survey of India.
Unless authorities change this dismaying situation and encourage
international collaboration and allow Indian taxonomists the same kind of
museum access that their overseas counterparts experience, genuine taxonomic
research on Indian octocorals, and many other marine taxonomic groups, will
continue to stagnate biodiversity documentation in India. This will also result in sub-standard and
poorly compiled research reports as is occurring in the parallel case with scleractinian corals” (Phil Alderslade
pers. comm. 09.i.2019).
Type material of many species collected from Indian
waters by Indian and non-Indian expeditions (see examples in Verseveldt 1980; van Ofwegen
1990) are housed in foreign museums and accessing these types via loans is a ‘kafkaesque’ situation due to the National Biodiversity
Authority (NBA) restrictions under the pretext of Biological Diversity Act
(2002) and Biological Diversity Rules (2004) (see NBA, 2004). Thus, the lack of adequate taxonomic
expertise, inaccessible types and voucher specimens at Indian museums and
institutions, and expenses associated with visiting foreign museums where many
types are housed, further delays the opportunity to rectify the many erroneous
records in the Indian octocoral literature.
f. Opportunities and challenges
To a considerable extent, the issues pertaining to
octocoral research discussed here can be solved through international and
inter-institutional collaborations, a key strategy followed by countries like
the United States of America which is a leader in global biodiversity
documentation and research (Liu et al. 2011).
As an example, in the case of octocoral-related taxonomic publications
from Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia, and Israel (the largest contributors to such
studies on Asian octocorals), international collaboration has not only enabled
research results to be published in reputed journals, but also helped develop
in-country capacity and taxonomic expertise supporting local researchers to
document their octocoral diversity and independently publish their research
results. Another critical impediment in
many biodiversity-rich countries including India are the national regulations
formulated under the pretext of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),
restricting biodiversity research of native scientists and discouraging
international collaborations (Prathapan et al.
2018). As argued by Prathapan
et al. (2018), there is no monopolistic situation in which a single country can
identify all taxa, and none of the aims envisaged by CBD can be met unless
scientists have access to the resources they wish to study and share with and
involve the expertise of other countries.
Similarly, Madhusudan et al. (2006) points out a distressing trend
across India where researchers and scientists are refused entry into wildlife
reserves (marine protected areas in this context), denying them opportunity to
conduct scientific research that would actually inform the authorities what
organisms inhabit these areas. Coupled
with this, legislation like the Indian Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (WPA
1972), prompts a poignant rhetoric in octocoral research. For example, in the case of gorgonians
(protected under Schedule 1 of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act), the
legislation has resulted in the restriction of sample collections and most
exasperatingly the delay in getting research permissions to work on these taxa.
Opportunities and
recommendations
Given the above-mentioned issues and complexities in
advancing the field of octocoral research in India, we suggest the following
recommendations.
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), National
legislations, and Research
Convention on Biological Diversity’s Access and
Benefit Sharing rules and the Nagoya Protocol (NP) obliges all committed
parties including India, to develop necessary policies to foster equitable
sharing of genetic resource and benefits arising from them (Buck & Hamilton
2011). But, despite several advancement
in policies and management strategies, it is highly unlikely that the ‘Aichi
Biodiversity Targets’ approved under the patronage of CBD can achieve much of
an improvement in the state of biodiversity knowledge by 2020, particularly in
the marine realm (Tittensor et al. 2014; Global
Biodiversity Outlook 4 2014). The
research community, undeniably the stakeholder most affected by the Nagoya
Protocol, and CBD’s Access and Benefit Sharing rules, are concerned by this
state of affairs because Article 8(a) of Nagoya Protocol was formulated to
‘promote and encourage research which contributes to the conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity, particularly in developing countries’
(Buck & Hamilton 2011; CBD 2011).
Therefore, to foster octocoral research in India, the restriction to the
exchange of specimens for non-commercial, taxonomic and biodiversity research,
arising due to national regimes under the misguided interpretation of CBD,
should be objectively and urgently addressed.
Perhaps placing a separate clause in the CBD accord to give special
status to fundamental and non-commercial science, like taxonomy, for mutual
exchange of data/specimens between institutions would allay the concerns of
other stakeholders and reduce the complexity in undertaking biodiversity
research (Prathapan et al. 2018). Similarly, national legislation like the
Indian Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and added amendments, which are meant to
protect wild animals, should be made far less restrictive for octocorals as
there is no viable commercial exploitation and the current situation hinders
what little research is associated with them (e.g., all gorgonians). At present, the restriction limits sample
collection and prohibits the exchange of specimens with foreign institutions
and museums for the sake of taxonomic identification and archiving (WPA,
1972). We suggest, therefore, that the
scheduled status of some octocorals especially in the case of gorgonians should
be reconsidered, and improved conservation strategies like marine protected
areas and ‘no-take’ zones be developed to protect this fauna, once research has
been undertaken to determine where such areas would be best located.
Taxonomy and Quality Publication
As discussed in the relevant sections of this paper,
octocoral research in India is beset by many mediocre publications which
include works published in predatory journals.
For instance, a recent checklist of octocorals in India (Kumar and others
in 2018) was published in an outlet widely regarded as predatory, which
perpetuates the trend of such unethical publishing practice among Indian
researchers (see Raghavan et al. 2015; Patwardhan et al. 2018). These publishing companies masquerading under
the pretext of an open access model continue to threaten science and science
communication by narrowing the line between science and pseudoscience (Beall
2016). Since taxonomy and diversity
research impacts national policies and influences other allied basic and
applied research (Raghavan et al. 2014), flawed and mediocre publications pose
serious impediment to India’s international commitments like CBD’s Aichi
Targets. Because many mediocre
publications in octocorals are from leading national research institutes like
the Zoological Survey of India (ZSI), they reflect a bad image internationally
which might result in blacklisting Indian taxonomists in general instead of
just those deserving such a reputation.
Scrapping Academic Performance Index (API) (Raghavan et al. 2015) and
replacing traditional ‘bibliometrics’ with ‘almetrics’
to assess researcher’s impact (Brown 2014) would render more popularity to
science and reduce the unhealthy competition among researchers to publish more,
causing some to resort to predatory or other sub-standard levels of publishing
which lack peer review. Also,
researchers and journals must avoid citing such dubious publications and
thereby disavow unethical practice and unreliable research data. We also insist future octocoral taxonomist
follow the modern trends in describing octocorals (Figure 4) and adhere to the
rules of International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) (see Benayahu et al. 2017; Breedy
& Guzman 2018).
Museums
Museums play a pivotal role in
fundamental science like taxonomy and systematics through archiving and
documenting specimens and manifesting a vast and irreplaceable resource for
such studies (Brooke 2000). Many octocorals recorded as occurring in India have
their type material housed in foreign museums.
Physically accessing museum materials spread across the globe is not
feasible in terms of money and time for a country like India. A realistic solution to overcome this issue
is encouraging foreign collaboration, whereby researchers can gain experience
and knowledge from international octocoral experts, benefitting both the
researchers and octocoral science in India.
At the same time, museums in India which house octocoral types (e.g.,
Zoological Survey of India) should change from being obstructive to acting as
good advocates encouraging genuine requests to access specimens for
verification and study. We also
encourage these museums to digitally document and catalogue their octocoral
specimens, both voucher specimens and types, and allow the information to be
open to fair use for research nationally and internationally.
Bridging the biodiversity shortfalls
Based on available data it is evident that there exist
huge gaps in data on octocorals, particularly related to the Linnaean (species
diversity), Wallacean (geographic distribution) and Darwinian (evolution)
shortfalls (see Hortal et al. 2015 for general discussion
on biodiversity shortfalls). A consensus
on the exact diversity and distribution range of many octocorals has not yet
been reached as numerous records and data either remain incomplete or
unreliable, particularly for the central Indian Ocean. Published literature also indicates that
studies on evolution, phylogeny, biogeography, population genetics and abiotic
tolerances of octocorals have not been undertaken as yet in countries such as
India. For instance, the impasse in the
case of the ‘invasive snowflake coral’ (Carijoa
riisei Duchassaing
& Michelotti, 1860) as a true invasive soft coral
or a reestablished native species could be put to
rest through genetic profiling (Patro et al.
2015). Such a study is currently being
carried out by the authors of the present communication. Considering the expanse of the Indian
subcontinent including the chains of islands and coral reefs, integrative
taxonomic studies using morphology and molecular data (see Benayahu
et al. 2018), research on evolution and phylogeny (see McFadden et al. 2017),
including population genetics to study gene flow and connectivity (see Yesson et al. 2018) hold enormous potential. Not only are such studies inconspicuous in
India, they are virtually non-existent because much of the basic biodiversity
data (species diversity, abundance, and distribution) is unfortunately wanting,
and will continue to be so unless there are significant changes to the culture
and policies that are holding us back.
For figures
& appendices – click here
References
Althaus, F., A. Williams, P. Alderslade & T.A. Schlacher
(2017). Conservation
of marine biodiversity on a very large deep continental margin: how
representative is a very large offshore reserve network for deep-water
octocorals?. Diversity and Distributions 23(1): 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12501
Amos, K.A. (2014). The ethics of scholarly
publishing: exploring differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication
across nations. Journal of the Medical Library Association 102(2):
87–91. https://doi.org/10.3163%2F1536-5050.102.2.005
Bayer, F.M. (1981). Status of knowledge of
octocorals of world seas. Seminários de Biologia Marinha, Academia Brasileira de Ciências 3–11.
Bayer, F.M. (2002). Octocoral research – past,
present and future. Atoll Research Bulletin 494: 78–106-.
Beall, J. (2016). Best practices for scholarly
authors in the age of predatory journals. Annals of the Royal College of
Surgeons of England 98: 77–79. https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2016.0056
Benayahu, Y., C.S. McFadden, E.F. Shoham & L.P. van Ofwegen
(2017). Search for
mesophotic octocorals (Cnidaria, Anthozoa) and their phylogeny. II. A new
zooxanthellate species from Eilat, northern Red Sea. ZooKeys 676: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.676.12751
Benayahu, Y., L.P. van Ofwegen & C.S. McFadden (2018). Evaluating the genus Cespitularia MilneEdwards
& Haime, 1850 with descriptions of new genera of
the family Xeniidae (Octocorallia,
Alcyonacea). ZooKeys
754: 63–101. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.754.23368
Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s Afraid of Peer Review? Science
342(6154): 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60
Breedy, O. & H.M. Guzman (2018). Revision of the genus Adelogorgia Bayer, 1958 (Cnidaria: Anthozoa: Octocorallia) with the description of three new species. Zootaxa 4369(3): 327–348. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4369.3.2
Bramanti, L., M. Iannelli
& G. Santangelo (2009). Mathematical modelling for conservation and management of gorgonians
corals: youngs and olds, could they coexist?. Ecological
Modelling 220(21): 2851–2856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.01.031
Brooke, M.D. (2000). Why museums matter. Trends in
Ecology & Evolution 15(4): 136–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(99)01802-9
Brooks, T.M., R.M. Mittermeier,
G.A. da Fonseca, J. Gerlach, M. Hoffmann, J.F. Lamoreux,
C.G. Mittermeier, J.D. Pilgrim & A.S
Rodrigues. (2006). Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313(5783): 58–61.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1127609
Brown, M. (2014). Is almetrics
an acceptable replacement for citation counts and the impact factor?. The
Serials Librarian 67(1): 27–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2014.915609
Buck, M. & C. Hamilton
(2011). The Nagoya
Protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of
benefits arising from their utilization to the Convention on Biological
Diversity. Review of European Community & International Environmental
Law 20(1): 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9388.2011.00703.x
Chakrapany, S. (1984). Studies on Marine
Invertebrates. Scyphomedusae of the Indian and
adjoining seas. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Madras, 412pp.
Coll, M., C. Piroddi,
J. Steenbeek, K. Kaschner,
F.B.R. Lasram, J. Aguzzi,
E. Ballesteros, C.N. Bianchi, J. Corbera, T. Dailianis & R. Danovaro
(2010). The
biodiversity of the Mediterranean Sea: estimates, patterns, and threats. PLoS ONE 5(8): e11842. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011842
Costello, M.J., R.M. May &
N.E. Stork (2013a). Can we name Earth’s species before they go extinct?. Science
339(6118): 413–416. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230318
Costello M.J., W.K. Michener, M.
Gahegan, Z.Q. Zhang & P.E. Bourne (2013b). Biodiversity data should be
published, cited, and peer reviewed. Trends in Ecology & Evolution
28(8): 454–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.05.002
Daly, M., M.R Brugler, P. Cartwright, G.A Collins, M.N. Dawson, D.G. Fautin, S.C. France, C.S. McFadden, D.M. Opresko, E. Rodriguez, S.L. Romano & J.L. Stake (2007). The phylum Cnidaria: a review
of phylogenetic patterns and diversity 300 years after Linnaeus. Zootaxa 1668(1): 127–182. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.1668.1.11
Daniel, R. (1985). Coelenterata,
Hydrozoa: Siphonophora, The
Fauna of India and the Adjacent Countries. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata,
India, 400pp.
Fabricius, K. & P. Alderslade (2001). Soft corals and sea fans: a
comprehensive guide to the tropical shallow-water genera of the Central-West
Pacific, the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea. Australian Institute of Marine
Science, Queensland, 262pp.
Global Biodiversity Information
Facility Secretariat (2019). Trimuricea reticulata Gordon,
1926, In: GBIF Backbone Taxonomy. Checklist dataset. Downloaded on 18 October
2019. https://doi.org/10.15468/39omei
Grasshoff, M. (1999). The shallow-water gorgonians of
New Caledonia and adjacent islands (Coelenterata: Octocorallia). Senckenbergiana
Biologica 78: 1–121.
Haas, F. & C.L. Häuser (2005). Taxonomists: An endangered species. pp. 87–89 In: Success
Stories in Implementation of the Programmes of Work on Dry and Sub-Humid Lands
and the Global Taxonomy Initiative, 87. Abstracts of Poster Presentations
at the 11th Meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and
Technological Advice of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal: CBD
Technical Series 21. 189pp.
Hortal, J., F. de Bello, J.A.F. Diniz-Filho, T.M. Lewinsohn, J.M.
Lobo & R.J. Ladle (2015). Seven shortfalls that beset large-scale knowledge of biodiversity. Annual
Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 46: 523–549. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054400
IUCN (2019). The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2018-2. Downloaded on 18 October 2019. https://www.iucnredlist.org/
Kumar. J.S.Y., C. Raghunathan,
R. Raghuraman, C.R. Sreeraj
& K. Venkataraman (2014). Handbook on Gorgonians (Octocorallia)
of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, 119pp.
Liu, X., L. Zhang & S. Hong
(2011). Global
biodiversity research during 1900–2009: a bibliometric analysis. Biodiversity
and Conservation 20(4): 807–826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9981-z
Madhusudan, M.D., K. Shanker, A. Kumar, C. Mishra, A. Sinha, R. Arthur, A. Datta & M. Rangarajan (2006).
Science in
the wilderness: the predicament of scientific research in India’s wildlife
reserves. Current Science 91(8): 1015–1019.
Maldonado, M., M. López-Acosta,
L. Sánchez-Tocino, & C. Sitjà
(2013). The rare,
giant gorgonian Ellisella paraplexauroides: demographics and conservation
concerns. Marine Ecology Progress Series 479: 127–141.
Mary, A.G. & R.D. Sluka (2014). Biodiversity and distribution of octocorals of
Minicoy Atoll, Lakshadweep. Atoll Research Bulletin 602: 1–17.
McFadden, C.S, R. Haverkort-Yeh, A.M. Reynolds, A. Halàsz,
A.M. Quattrini, Z.H. Forsman, Y. Benayahu
& R.J. Toonen (2017). Species boundaries in the
absence of morphological, ecological or geographical differentiation in the Red
Sea octocoral genus Ovabunda (Alcyonacea: Xeniidae). Molecular
Phylogenetics and Evolution 112: 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2017.04.025
Mora, C., D.P. Tittensor, S. Adl, A.G. Simpson
& B. Worm (2011). How many species are there on Earth and in the ocean?. PLoS Biology 9(8): e1001127. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127
National Biodiversity Authority
(2004). The
Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and Biological Diversity Rules, 2004. 74pp. https://nbaindia.org/uploaded/act/BDACT_ENG.pdf
Patro, S., P. Krishnan, M. Gopi, S.
Raja, C.R. Sreeraj, P. Ramachandran & R. Ramesh
(2015). Snowflake
coral, Carijoa riisei
from Grand Island, Goa: a case of invasion of an alien species or
re-establishment of a native species?. Current Science 109(6):
1028–1030.
Patwardhan, B., S. Nagarkar, S.R. Gadre, S.C. Lakhotia, V.M. Katoch & D. Moher (2018). A critical analysis of the
‘UGC-approved list of journals’. Current Science 114(6): 1299–1303. https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v114/i06/1299-1303
Pérez, C.D., B.M. Neves, R.T. Cordeiro, G.C. Williams & S.D. Cairns (2016). Diversity and distribution of Octocorallia, pp. 109–123. In: Goffredo,
S. & Z. Dubinsky (eds.). The Cnidaria, Past, Present and Future. Springer,
Switzerland, 842pp.
Pillai, C.S.G. (1991). Scleractinia.,
pp. 41–47. In: Director Zoological Survey of India (eds.). Animal Resources
of India: Protozoa to Mammalia. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkatta, 694pp.
Prathapan, K.D., R. Pethiyagoda,
K.S. Bawa, P.H. Raven & P.D. Rajan
(2018). When the
cure kills—CBD limits biodiversity research. Science 360(6396):
1405–1406. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat9844
Raghavan, R., N. Dahanukar & S. Molur (2015). Curbing academic predators: JoTT’s policy regarding citation of publications from
predatory journals. Journal of Threatened Taxa 7(10): 7609–7611. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o4388.7609-11
Raghavan, R., N. Dahanukar, J.M. Knight, A. Bijukumar,
U. Katwate, K. Krishnakumar,
A. Ali & S. Philip (2014). Predatory journals and Indian ichthyology. Current
Science 107(5): 740–742.
Raghavan, R., S. Philip, N. Dahanukar & A. Ali (2013). Freshwater biodiversity of
India: a response to Sarkar et al. (2013). Reviews in Fish Biology and
Fisheries 23(4): 547–554.
Raveendran, T.V., V.L. Mol & P.S. Parameswaran
(2011). Natural
product antifoulants from the octocorals of Indian waters. International
Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 65(1): 265–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2010.11.013
Samimi-Namin, K. & L.P. van Ofwegen (2016). A revision of Trimuricea Gordon, 1926 (Cnidaria: Octocorallia: Plexauridae) with
the description of six new species. Zootaxa
4105(1): 1–44. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4105.1.1
Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity (2011). Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and
Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention
on Biological Diversity. CBD, Montreal, 25pp.
Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity (2014). Global Biodiversity Outlook 4, A mid-term assessment of progress towards
the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020. CBD,
Montreal, 155pp.
Steiner, S.C., B. Riegl, A. Lavorato & J.
Rodriguez (2018). Community structure of shallow water Alcyonacea
(Anthozoa: Octocorallia) from the southern tropical
eastern Pacific. Ecological Research 33(2): 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-018-1567-3
The Indian Wildlife Protection Act
(1972). Schedule 1
(Sections 2, 8,9,11, 40,41, 48,51, 61 & 62). https://envfor.nic.in/legis/wildlife/wildlife2s1.pdf/
Thomas, P.A. (1996). The gorgonid
resources and their conservation in India, pp. 32–40. In: Menon, N.G. &
C.S.G. Pillai (eds.). Marine Diversity Conservation and Management.
Central Marine Fisheries Institute, Cochin, 193pp.
Tittensor, D.P., C. Mora, W. Jetz, H.K. Lotze, D. Ricard, E.V.
Berghe & B. Worm (2010). Global patterns and predictors
of marine biodiversity across taxa. Nature 466: 1098–1101. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09329
Tittensor, D.P., M. Walpole, S.L. Hill,
D.G. Boyce, G.L. Britten, N.D. Burgess, S.H. Butchart, P.W. Leadley,
E.C. Regan, R. Alkemade & R. Baumung
(2014). A mid-term
analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science
346: 241–244. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1257484
Tudu, P.C., D. Ray & A.
Mohapatra (2018). A checklist of Indian sea pen (Cnidaria: Anthozoa: Pennatulacea).
Indian Journal of Geo-Marine Sciences 47(5): 1014–1017. https://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/44421
Venkataraman, K. & M.V.M. Wafar (2005). Coastal and marine biodiversity of India. Indian
Journal of Geo-Marine Sciences 34: 57–75. https://hdl.handle.net/123456789/1544
Venkataraman, K., R. Jeyabaskaran, K.P. Raghuram & J.R.B Alfred (2004). Bibliography and Checklist of
Corals and Coral Reef Associated Organisms of India, Records of Zoological
Survey of India. Occasional Paper No. 226: 1–468.
van Ofwegen,
L.P. (1990). Notes on
the Keroeididae (Anthozoa: Gorgonacea)
collected in 1963 and 1964 by the International Indian Ocean Expedition of the
R/V’Anton Bruun’, in the
Indian Ocean, with the description of a new species, Lignella
hartogi. Zoologische
Mededelingen 63(13): 163-168. https://www.repository.naturalis.nl/record/319109
Verseveldt, J. (1980). A revision of the genus Sinularia May (Octocorallia:
Alcyonacea). Zoologische
Verhandelingen Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke
Historie, Leiden 179(1): 1–128.
Verseveldt, J. (1982). A revision of the genus Sarcophyton Lesson (Octocorallia:
Alcyonacea). Zoologische
Verhandelingen Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke
Historie, Leiden 192(1): 1–91.
Verseveldt, J. (1983). A revision of the genus Lobophytum von Marenzeller
(Octocorallia: Alcyonacea).
Zoologische Verhandelingen
Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie,
Leiden 200(1): 1-–103.
Williams, G.C. (2018). Who is doing what in octocoral
research. The International Who’s Who to Contemporary Octocoral Research,
Octocoral Research Center. Downloaded on 2 December
2018. https://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/izg/WhoIsDoingWhat_Final.htm/
Williams, G.C. & J.S. Vennam (2001). A revision of the Indo-West Pacific taxa of the
gorgonian genus Pseudopterogorgia (Octocorallia: Gorgoniidae), with
the description of a new species from western India. Bulletin of Biological
Society of Washington 10: 71–95.
Wilson, E.O. (2017). Biodiversity research requires
more boots on the ground. Nature Ecology & Evolution 1: 1590–1591. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0360-y
WoRMS (2019). World Register of Marine
Species. Downloaded on 18 October 2019; https://www.marinespecies.org at VLIZ/
Yesson, C., E. Wright & A.
Braga-Henriques (2018). Population genetics of Narella versluysi (Octocorallia: Alcyonacea, Primnoidae) in the
Bay of Biscay (NE Atlantic). Marine Biology 165(135): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-018-3394-z