PDA

View Full Version : The role of strontium in stony coral calcification and strontium.....


werent_still
02/17/2004, 04:24 PM
I have recently read in a very reliable resource (Dr. Eric's book) that strontium is widely taken up by stony corals (to equal the concentrations in the surrounding environment) but is then mostly secreted back out through the tissue and not housed within the stony structure in large quantities...

I was just wondering if anyone had any clue as to why the strontium is perhaps actively removed --- i am currently studying the effects of strontium in human bone (which similarily takes up strontium in equal proportions to environment concentrations); however, in bone the strontium concentrations remain fairly constant - i have hypothesized that this is due to the fact that the turnover rate of human bone is approximately 10 years or so... does anyone know the turnover rate of stony coral structure if one exists (i am referrring to the breakdown and repair of slightly fractured coral skeletons etc...)

thanks everyone...

Ninong
02/18/2004, 12:58 PM
If you are studying the effects of strontium on human bone formation then you are probably already aware that elevated levels of strontium cause bone abnormalities by interfering with calcium absorption. Randy has already written an excellent article on strontium that may answer some of your questions: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/nov2003/chem.htm

I believe the reason strontium is taken up in proportions equal to the environment have to do with the fact that it is there in those proportions. I don't believe there is a turnover rate in coral skeletons because the coral skeleton is no longer part of the actively growing part of the animal like bones in vertebrates.

You need a living, functioning polyp to excrete a calcareous skeleton. I don't believe the skeleton is capable of self-generated repair like human bones.

Randy Holmes-Farley
02/18/2004, 02:18 PM
Thanks, Ninong.

I'm also not convinced that it is actively removed from corals. It looks to be equally or slightly higher than equally absorbed and incorporated by corals, from data that I have seen that is discussed in the article above (IIRC).