I think the biggest difference is, scientist study them within the context of "now they are in nature" as the standard condition so have set certain expectations of what considered good for corals
As reefers, I think there are limitations as to how much we can truly mimic nature, so if certain aspects will always be limited, then perhaps other aspects may also deviate from the "nature" standard in order to compensate. One example is the hotly debated "whats the right NO3 level". One side would point out that "ocean levels are nearly undetectable so we should keep that as low as possible in our tanks". However, IME this line of thinking overlooks two physical limitations that we cannot overcome in our tanks 1) water volume and 2) biofauna biodiversity. Natural sea water may have undetectable no3, but they are extremely nutrient rich in forms of microfauna/plankton. Corals do not need to get their N source from nitrates bc there are plenty of plankton for them to capture in the water. There are research done on this that demonstrated this exact fact - natural sea water grew acro the best, "filtered" natural sea water that removed the organism and particles but kept the chemistry, did worst. In our tanks, I know we dose aminos, feed phyto and other things, but this still cannot compare with what's available in natural sea water. Given this limitation, the perhaps it is better to have a bit of elevated nitrate to compensate and supplement the N source for corals. Indeed, although there is no definitive scientific research on elevated nitrate in enclosed and limited home aquarium settings, there is more than enough anecdotal evidence that a bit of elevated nitrate is at least just as good, if not better, than keeping nitrate close to the undetectable levels found in NSW
I guess this is a long-winded way of saying "scientists don't know that higher nitrate in home aquarium can still be good for corals"
