GVI Mexico Punta Gruesa April-June 2011 Quaterly Report Final

8/3/2019 GVI Mexico Punta Gruesa April-June 2011 Quaterly Report Final

1/50

Global Vision International2011 Report Series No. 002

GVI Mexico

Punta Gruesa Marine Expedition

Mahahual

Quarterly Report 112

April - June 2011


2/50

GVI Mexico, Punta Gruesa Expedition Report 112

Submitted in whole toGVI

Amigo de Sian KaanComisin Nacional de reas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP)

Produced by

Laura McHugh Science OfficerBryan Becker Field Staff

And

Erin Lawrence Base Manager Louisa Cowling Volunteer

Ruaidhri Le Mage Field Staff Katerina Dodds Volunteer Ariadna Armas Field Staff Adam Hoxey Volunteer Tila Williams Field Staff Eugene Beery Volunteer

Sarah Glanfield Scholar Jessica Fish Volunteer Alexander Gowan Scholar Amjad Alnajjar Volunteer

Rachael Ross Volunteer Mandy Cota Volunteer Heather Williams Volunteer Luke Judge Volunteer Kerstin Thomas Volunteer Destiny Pequin Volunteer

Edited by

Laura McHugh

GVI Mexico, Punta Gruesa

Email: [email protected] page:http://www.gvi.co.ukand http://www.gviusa.com
mailto:[email protected]://www.gvi.co.uk/http://www.gvi.co.uk/http://www.gvi.co.uk/http://www.gviusa.com/mailto:[email protected]://www.gvi.co.uk/http://www.gviusa.com/


3/50

Executive Summary

The 14th ten week phase of the Punta Gruesa, Mexico, GVI expedition has now been

completed. The programme has maintained working relationships with local communitiesthrough both English classes and local community events. The programme has continued

to work towards the gathering of important environmental scientific data whilst working

with local, national and international partners. The following projects have been run during

phase 112 (April - June 2011):

Monitoring of strategic sites along the coast.

Training of volunteers in the MBRS methodology including fish, hard coral, and

algae identification. Continuing the MBRS Synoptic Monitoring Programme (SMP) for the selected sites

within the Mahahual region to provide regional decision makers with up to date

information on the ecological condition of the reef.

Providing English lessons and environmental education opportunities for the local

community.

Further developing the current Marine Education programme for the children of

Mahahual that works alongside the standard curriculum.

Liaising with local partners to develop a successful and feasible programme of

research in collaboration with GVI into the future.

Continue adding to a coral and fish species list that will expand over time as a

comprehensive guide for the region.

Continuation of weekly beach cleans within the area, monitoring waste composition

and trends.

Daily bird monitoring and incidental sightings program.

GVI 2010 ii


4/50

Table of Contents

Executive Summary...........................................................................................................iiList of Figures...................................................................................................................iv

List of Tables....................................................................................................................iv

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................52. Synoptic Monitoring Programme...................................................................................6

2.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................6

2.2 Aims....................................................................................................................82.3 Methodology.......................................................................................................8

2.4 Results...............................................................................................................11

2.5 Discussion.........................................................................................................15

4. Incidental Sightings.....................................................................................................224.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................22

4.2 Aims..................................................................................................................22

4.3 Methodology.....................................................................................................22

4.4 Results...............................................................................................................234.5 Discussion.........................................................................................................24

5. Marine Litter Monitoring Programme.........................................................................265.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................26

5.2 Aims..................................................................................................................26

5.3 Methodology.....................................................................................................265.4 Results...............................................................................................................27

5.5 Discussion.........................................................................................................28

6. Bird Monitoring Programme........................................................................................29

6.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................296.2 Aims..................................................................................................................29

6.3 Methodology.....................................................................................................306.4 Results...............................................................................................................306.5 Discussion.........................................................................................................31

7. Seagrass Monitoring Programme.................................................................................33

7.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................337.2 Aims..................................................................................................................33

7.3 Methodology.....................................................................................................33

7.4 Results...............................................................................................................35

7.5 Discussion.........................................................................................................359. Appendices...................................................................................................................39

Appendix I SMP Methodology Outlines.............................................................39

Appendix II - Adult Fish Indicator Species List.....................................................43Appendix III - Juvenile Fish Indicator Species List...............................................44

Appendix IV - Coral Species List...........................................................................45

Appendix V - Fish Species List..............................................................................46Appendix VI a - Bird Species List..........................................................................48

Appendix VI b - Bird Species List..........................................................................49

iii


5/50

List of Figures

Figure 2-3-1 The Dive Sites of Punta Gruesa

Figure 4-4-1 Total number of incidental sightings recorded by phase

Figure 5-4-1 Average Weight of Litter Collected per Week by Phase (Kg)

List of Tables

Table 2-3-1 Name, Site ID, Depth and GPS points of the monitoring sites

Table 2-4-1 Percentage Cover of Hermatypic Coral and Macroalgae by site during phase

112

Table 2-4-2 Adult Target Species Abundance by Monitoring Site

Table 2-4-3 Total Number of Juveniles and Average Number of Juveniles Per Transect by

Site

Table 2-4-4 Non-target fish species recorded on rover transects

Table 6-4-1 Most common bird species or families recorded during phase 112

Table 7-3-1 GPS positions for seagrass transects

iv


6/50

1. Introduction

The Yucatan Peninsula is fringed by the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System (MBRS), the

second largest barrier reef system in the world, extending over four countries. Starting

from Isla Contoy at the North of the Yucatan Peninsula it stretches down the Eastern coast

of Mexico down to Honduras via Belize and Guatemala.

The current project at Punta Gruesa, in collaboration with a sister base in Pez Maya

located inside the Sian Kaan Biosphere Reserve, assist our project partners, Amigos de

Sian Kaan (ASK) and Comisin Nacional de reas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP) in

obtaining baseline data along the coast of Quintana Roo through marine surveys. This

data allows ASK to focus on the areas needing immediate environmental regulation

depending on susceptibility and therefore, implement management protection plans as andwhen required.

Such a project is especially significant in current times of rapid development along the

small fishing village coast of the Mahahual area due to the tourism industry generated by

the cruise ship pier that was built near the town in 2002.

Methodologies continue to be improved and focused as experience is gained and

improvement to data quality is continuous. A full Annual Report will collate and summarizeall data and enable more descriptive and accurate analysis.

The following research/monitoring programmes have been carried out this phase:

The MBRS Synoptic Monitoring Programme

Community Work Programme

Incidental Sightings

Marine Littering Monitoring Programme

Bird Monitoring Programme

Seagrass Monitoring Programme

GVI 2011 Page 5


7/50

2. Synoptic Monitoring Programme

2.1 Introduction

The Synoptic Monitoring Programme looks to evaluate the overall health of the reef bylooking at three main areas: Benthic cover, fish populations and physical parameters.

Benthic Cover

Caribbean reefs were once dominated by hard coral, with huge Acropora palmata stands

on the reef crests andAcropora cervicornis and Montastraea annularis dominating the fore

reef. Today, many reefs in the Caribbean have been overrun by macro algae during a

phase shift which is thought to have been brought about by numerous factors including a

decrease in herbivory from fishing and other pressures, eutrophication from land-basedactivities and disease (McClanahan & Muthiga, 1998).

Benthic transects record the abundance of all benthic species as well as looking at coral

health. The presence of corals on the reef is in itself an indicator of health, not only

because of the reefs current state, but also for its importance to fish populations (Spalding

& Jarvis, 2002). Coral health is not only impacted by increased nutrients and algal growth,

but by other factors, both naturally occurring and anthropogenically introduced. A report

produced by the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring

Centre (UNEP-WCMC) in 2004 stated that nearly 66% of Caribbean reefs are at risk from

anthropogenic activities, with over 40% of reefs at high to very high risk (UNEP-WCMC,

2006).

Through monitoring the abundances of hard corals, algae and various other key benthic

species, as well as numbers ofDiadema urchin encountered, we aim to determine not only

the current health of the local reefs but also to track any shifts in phase state over time.

Fish Populations

Fish surveys are focused on specific species that play an important role in the ecology of

the reef as herbivores, carnivores, commercially important fish or those likely to be

affected by human activities (AGRRA, 2000).

GVI 2011 Page 6


8/50

For more in depth rationale of the importance of each of the key fish families please see

previous GVI Mahahual/Punta Gruesa reports.

All reef fish play an important role in maintaining the health and balance of a reef

community. Fishing typically removes larger predatory fish from the reef, which not onlyalters the size structure of the reef fish communities, but with the reduction in predation

pressure, the abundance of fish further down the food chain is now determined through

competition for resources (AGRRA, 2000).

Although each fish is important, the removal of herbivores can have a considerable impact

on the health of the reef, particularly in an algal dominated state, which without their

presence has little chance of returning to coral dominance. Through the monitoring of

these fish and by estimating their size, the current condition of the reef at each site can beassessed, any trends or changes can be tracked and improvements or deteriorations

determined.

The monitoring of juvenile fish concentrates on a few specific species. The presence and

number of larvae at different sites can be used as an indication of potential future

population size and diversity. Due to the extensive distribution of larvae, however,

numbers cannot be used to determine the spawning potential of a specific reef. The

removal of fish from a population as a result of fishing, however, may influence spawningpotential and affect larval recruitment on far away reefs. The removal of juvenile predators

through fishing may also alter the number of recruits surviving to spawn themselves

(AGRRA, 2000).

Together with the information collected about adult fish a balanced picture of the reef fish

communities at different sites can be obtained.

Physical ParametersFor the optimum health and growth of coral communities certain factors need to remain

relatively stable. Measurements of turbidity, water temperature, salinity, cloud cover, and

sea state are taken during survey dives. Temperature increases or decreases can

negatively influence coral health and survival. As different species have different optimum

temperature ranges, changes can also influence species richness. Corals also require

GVI 2011 Page 7


9/50

clear waters to allow for optimal photosynthesis. The turbidity of the water can be

influenced by weather, storms or high winds stirring up the sediment, or anthropogenic

activities such as deforestation and coastal construction. Increased turbidity reduces light

levels and can result in stress to the coral. Any increase in coral stress levels can result in

them becoming susceptible to disease or result in a bleaching event.

In the near future, GVI Punta Gruesa hopes to be able to use this data for analysis of

temporal and seasonal changes and try to correlate any coral health issues with sudden or

prolonged irregularities within these physical parameters.

2.2 Aims

The projects at Punta Gruesa and Pez Maya aim to identify coral and fish species with a

long term, continuous dataset allowing changes in the ecosystem to be identified. Theprojects also aim to ascertain areas of high species diversity and abundance. The data is

then supplied to the project partners who can use the data to support management plans

for the area.

2.3 Methodology

The methods employed for the underwater visual census work are those outlined in the

MBRS manual (Almada-Villela et al., 2003), but to summarize, GVI use three separate

methods for buddy pairs:

Buddy method 1: Surveys of corals, algae and other sessile organisms

Buddy method 2: Belt transect counts for coral reef fish

Buddy Method 3: Coral Rover and Fish Rover diver

The separate buddy pair systems are outlined in detail in Appendix I.

The 9 sites that are monitored as part of the MBRS programme at GVI Punta Gruesa,

detailed below, were chosen through discussions with ASK, the Programa de Manejo

Integrado de Recursos Costeros (MIRC, a subsidiary of UQROO) and discussions with

local fishermen.

GVI 2011 Page 8


10/50

These sites make up a coastal range of 6.5km in the immediate vicinity of Punta Gruesa

(See Figure 2-3-1 below) and are monitored every 3 months to give a long term evaluation

of the reef health.

Figure 2-3-1 The Dive Sites of Punta Gruesa

GVI 2011 Page 9


11/50

Table 2-3-1 Name, Site ID, Depth and GPS points of the monitoring sites.

GPS points are listed here in the WGS84 datum.The position format is hddd mm ss.s

The eight sites at 10m are situated on the reef crest with one deeper site Los Gorditos,

which offers a wide sample area with spur and groove formations.

GVI 2011 Page 10

Site Name Site ID Depth Latitude Longitude

Los Bollos LB10 10m190221.8

0873354.8

Las Joyas LJ10 10m

190153.0

0873407.6

Los Milagros LM10 10m190136.7

0873415.9

Costa Norte CN10 10m190131.0

0873416.5

Las Delicias LD10 10m190124.7

0873420.2

Las Palapas LP10 10m190155.8

0873405.1

Flor de Can FDC10 10m 190204.4 0873403.8

Sol Naciente SN10 10m190036.0

0873433.0

Los Gorditos LG25 25m185937.6

0873451.9


12/50

2.4 Results

During phase 112 (April-June 2011) all of the sites were completed. 228 boats were sent

out to the reef including 66 monitoring boats, resulting in a total of 45 coral transects and

72 fish transects conducted over nine sites. A rover survey, covering both fish and coral

species, was also carried out at each site.

Benthic Data

Coral transects monitored 1.35km of reef, collecting data from 5,400 benthic points. Data

showed average hermatypic coral coverage to be 13.17% across all sites with macroalgae

coverage at 64.72%. Table 2-4-1 shows the breakdown of percentage cover observed this

phase by site. The most commonly observed coral species were Agaricia agaricites,

30.4%, and Siderastrea siderea, 18.3%.

Site I.D. Hermatypic Coral Cover (%) Macroalgae Cover (%)

CN10 15.00 66.17FDC10 8.00 68.50LB10 13.33 60.00LD10 10.17 72.33LJ10 20.17 61.67LM10 16.67 64.17LP10 13.50 62.00SN10 11.17 66.00LG25 10.50 61.67

Table 2-4-1 Percentage Cover of Hermatypic Coral and Macroalgae by site during phase 112.

971 corals were monitored for coral community studies sighting 37 incidences of disease.

Dark spot disease was recorded 24 times. There were also eight observations of yellow

blotch disease, three of red band disease, one white band disease and one white plague.

9.99% of corals showed signs of bleaching, the vast majority of which were pale bleaches.

Only ten partial bleaches and one full bleach were recorded. Six different types of

predation or overgrowth were recorded with sponge predation making up 65 of the 88

GVI 2011 Page 11


13/50

observations. Also recorded were gorgonian overgrowth, fire coral overgrowth, tunicate

overgrowth, damselfish predation and parrotfish predation.

Coral rovers were carried out at each of the nine sites. Porites astreoides and Agaricia

agaricites were recorded as abundant at all nine sites. Siderastrea siderea was recordedas abundant at seven sites, Montastraea cavernosa at six sites and Montastraea annularis

and Montastraea faveolata at one site each.

Agaricia lamarckiand Scolymia sp. are both very poorly represented (between one and

three PI points) in the data collected on transects over the past 14 phases. These were

both recorded during rover surveys.

There were also several species recorded during rover surveys that are not represented atall in previous PI transect data. These include Mycetophyllia ferox, Mycetophyllia aliciae,

Madracis mirabilis, Cirrhipathes leutkeniand Stylaster roseus.

Fish Populations

1453 adult target fish, covering 35 different species, were recorded this phase. This is

equal to 20.18 target fish per transect. 901 fish, covering 11 species, were recorded on thejuvenile transects, which is equal to 12.51 fish per transect.

Haemulidae were the most common family recorded accounting for 59% of the total target

fish sightings. Acanthuridae were next with 15%. Table 2-4-2 shows the abundance of

each fish family by site for this phase.

FAMILY CN10FDC10 LB10 LD10 LG25 LJ10 LM10 LP10 SN10

Acanthuridae 26 30 22 22 26 23 9 26 37

Balistidae 3 4 1 2 2 1 3

Carangidae 1 1 3 5Chaetodontidae 2 6 6 4 4 9 4 5

Haemulidae 360 18 92 52 5 49 61 159 64

GVI 2011 Page 12


14/50

Labridae 4 1 4 3 5 2 2 1 2

Lutjanidae 24 11 1 1 1 3 23 4Monacanthidae 3 1 1 2 2 3 1Pomacanthi

dae 2 1 2 5 3 5 7Pomacentridae 1 1 2 3 2

Scaridae 11 9 3 6 23 14 9 24 8

Serranidae 6 7 5 4 6 11 5 11 5

Total 439 80 150 96 81 116 95 263 133No.transects 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8No. pertransect

54.88

10.00

18.75

12.00

10.13

14.50

11.88

32.88

16.63

Table 2-4-2 Adult Target Species Abundance by Monitoring Site

The three most numerous juvenile species found were Stegastes paritus (Bicolour

damselfish), Thalassoma bifasciatum (Bluehead wrasse) and Halichoeres garnoti

(Yellowhead wrasse). Table 2-4-3 shows the total number of juveniles recorded at each

site and the average number per transect.

Site IDTotal Number of Individuals

RecordedAverage Number per

Transect

CN10 82 10.25

FDC10 94 11.75

LB10 128 16.00

LD10 62 7.75

LG25 131 16.38

LJ10 85 10.63

LM10 84 10.50LP10 92 11.50

SN10 143 17.88

Total 901 12.51

Table 2-4-3 Total Number of Juveniles and Average Number of Juveniles Per Transect by Site

GVI 2011 Page 13


15/50

Fish rover surveys were carried out at all nine sites with 80 species being recorded in total.

There were eight species that were recorded at every site. These are the ocean

surgeonfish ( Acanthurus bahianus), sharpnose puffer (Canthigaster rostrata), graysby

(Cephalopholis cruentatus), blue chromis (Chromis cyanea), french grunt (Haemulon

flavolineatum), striped parrotfish (Scarus iserti), redband parrotfish (Sparisoma

aurofrenatum) and bluehead wrasse (Thalassoma bifasciatum).

There were 38 species recorded that are not on the target species list. These are listed in

table 2-4-4.

GVI 2011 Page 14


16/50

Latin Name Common NameNumber of sites

recorded at AbundanceAbudefduf saxatilis Sergeant major 6 Few-ManyAcanthostracion quadricornis Scrawled cowfish 1 Single

Amblycirrhitus pinos Redspotted hawkfish 5 Single-FewAulostomus maculatus Trumpetfish 1 FewCanthigaster rostrata Sharpnose puffer 9 Many-AbundantChromis cyanea Blue chromis 9 Few-AbundantChromis multilineata Brown chromis 5 Few-ManyClepticus parrae Creole wrasse 3 Single-AbundantDasyatis americana Southern stingray 2 SingleEcheneis naucrates Sharksucker 1 SingleEquetus punctatus Spotted drum 1 SingleGnatholepis thompsoni Goldspot goby 1 SingleGobiosoma oceanops Neon goby 6 Single-ManyGobiosoma prochilos Broadstripe goby 4 Single-Many

Gramma loreto Fairy basslet 5 Single-ManyHaemulon aurolineatum Tomtate 1 FewHalichoeres garnoti Yellowhead wrasse 7 Single-FewHalichoeres maculipinna Clown wrasse 1 SingleHalichoeres pictus Rainbow wrasse 8 Single-FewHalichoeres radiatus Puddingwife 1 SingleHolocentrus adscensionis Squirrelfish 2 FewHolocentrus rufus Longspine squirrelfish 6 Single-FewKyphosus sectatrix Chub 3 Few-ManyLactophrys triqueter Smooth trunkfish 5 Single-FewMalacanthus plumieri Sand tilefish 3 SingleMalacoctenus triangulatus Saddled blenny 2 Single-Few

Pareques acuminatus High hat 2 SinglePseudupeneus maculatus Spotted goatfish 8 Single-FewPterois sp. Lionfish sp. 1 FewScomberomorus regalis Cero 3 FewSerranus tigrinus Harlequin bass 3 Single-FewStegastes adustus Dusky damselfish 3 Single-FewStegastes diencaeus Longfin damselfish 6 Single-FewStegastes leucostictus Beaugregory 6 Single-FewStegastes partitus Bicolour damselfish 8 Many-AbundantStegastes planifrons Threespot damselfish 1 FewStegastes variabilis Cocoa damselfish 4 Single-FewThalassoma bifasciatum Bluehead wrasse 9 Few-Many

Table 2-4-4 Non-target fish species recorded on rover transects

2.5 Discussion

Data showed average hermatypic coral coverage to be 13.17% across all sites, which is

the second highest value recorded since monitoring began at Punta Gruesa in 2008. The

GVI 2011 Page 15


17/50

average over all phases is 10.42%. Coral cover was above this average at seven of the

sites. This result could be due to an actual increase in coral cover or it could be fluctuation

due to the random placement of the transect lines.

Coral cover on reefs across the Caribbean has decreased dramatically over the past threedecades from about 50% to 10% cover (Gardner et al. 2003). Although the coral cover at

Punta Gruesa is undoubtedly lower than it has been in the past, it is in line with other

values calculated for this region. The average hermatypic coral coverage calculated this

phase at Punta Gruesa is above both the regional average of 11% and the Mexico

Yucatan average of 7.5% (Wilkinson 2008).

Macroalgae cover was found to be 64.72%, with the average across all phases being

66.75%. This percentage of macroalgae cover is dramatically higher than the regionalaverage, which is only 18% and also the Mexico Yucatan average, which is 14.9%

(Wilkinson 2008). AGRRA (2005) states that the average macroalgae cover for the

Mesoamerican Reef is 25% and that the Caribbean average is 34%. There is a certain

degree of variation between these figures but, regardless of which is correct, the values

calculated at Punta Gruesa are consistently significantly higher. Rogers & Miller (2006)

found that when new substrate was made available in one Caribbean site following a

severe hurricane, algae colonized the newly available substrate and, once established,

slowed or prevented new coral colonization. Hurricane Dean was a powerful Category 5Hurricane that made land fall in Mahahual in August 2007 (Franklin 2008), so it is possible

that this may be the reason for the high macroalgae cover in this region.

Due to time constraints it is not often that rover transects are carried out at all nine sites.

The rover surveys have highlighted the presence of five species on the reef, which have

not previously been recorded in the PI data. Cirrhipathes leutkeniand Stylaster Roseus

are both relatively easy to find on a dive but they grow in the wrong place. They tend to

be found in swim-throughs, under overhangs or near the bottom of the wall and not on theedge of the fore reef, which is the only place we monitor. Mycetophyllia ferox, M. aliciae

and Madracis mirabilis are just not very common so the probability of one being directly

under a PI point on a transect line is slim. This small group of corals makes up more than

10% of the species list and yet they were not included in the transect data from the past 14

GVI 2011 Page 16


18/50

phases. Rover surveys are, therefore, a valuable tool to monitor the presence of less

common species or those that grow in different reef zones.

The number of adult target fish per transect was the highest on record this phase. The

average across all phases is 13.14 fish per transect and the average calculated for thisphase is 20.18 fish per transect. The number of adult target fish per transect fluctuates a

great deal between phases but overall appears to be increasing. The reason for this

increase in numbers is unknown.

The number of juvenile fish per transect was 12.51 this phase. This is approximately equal

to the average across all phases, which is 12.68 fish per transect. The number of

juveniles recorded cycles on an annual basis though due to spawning cycles (DeLoach &

Humann 1999) and this value is the lowest value on record for this time of year. Thisfollows on from phase 111 (January-March 2011) which also had a very low number of

juveniles for that time of year.

Since the start of 2008, juvenile numbers at Punta Gruesa have tended to peak during the

second (April-June) or third (July-September) phases of each year. This is to be expected

because, although many species settle randomly throughout the year, recruitment reaches

its peak in the summer(DeLoach & Humann 1999). It will be interesting to see whether the

number of juveniles continues to grow into phase 113 (July-September 2011) or whetherthis very low value in phase 112 was the peak for 2011 and the numbers start to decline

again.

Due to time constraints it is not often that rover transects are carried out at all nine sites.

The rover surveys are particularly important with regards to fish monitoring because the

target fish list only includes 67 key species. The rovers conducted this phase recorded 38

additional species that are not on the target fish list. These range from the sharpnose

puffer, which was recorded at every site, at several of which it was found to be abundant,to the scrawled cowfish that was just one single fish at one of the sites. So again, as with

the corals, rover surveys are a valuable tool to monitor the presence of less common

species or those that are found in different reef zones.

GVI 2011 Page 17


19/50

All other patterns fit those of previous phases outlined in detail in GVI Mexico, Punta

Gruesa, Quarterly Report 104 October - December 2010.

GVI 2011 Page 18


20/50

3. Community programme

3.1 Introduction

GVI is committed to working with the local communities, assisting them to guide Mahahual

s development towards a sustainable future. For that, we centre our activities in two main

aspects: English and Environmental Education.

GVI hopes to provide locals in Mahahual with the tools to develop the area beneficially for

themselves, their professions and needs, whilst protecting it for the future. Consequently,

during both the child and adult education programs, wherever possible an environmental

theme has been included within the structure of the lessons.

3.2 Aims

The aims of the community programme in Punta Gruesa are:

1. To raise awareness about the importance of the ecosystems that surround their

area, providing them with information about it and organizing activities to reinforce

the knowledge given.

2. To provide locals with English lessons that will help them to develop a skill that is

necessary for them in order to be able to communicate with the growing tourist

visitors that come to the area.

3. To participate in the different activities that are organized by the locals and providehelp if it is needed.

3.3 Activities and Achievements

The program is carried out in two main areas (depending on the logistical considerations

on base and in the community during the phase): English for adults and children in three

levels (basic, intermediate and advanced), and Environmental Education and Awareness.

The English lessons for children are carried out either while they are at school or afterclass. The volunteers prepare the lesson that will be given the day before. Games,

interactive activities and songs are part of the tools they use to reinforce the knowledge.

After the lesson they have feedback sessions between themselves to comment on how the

lesson went.

GVI 2011 Page 19


21/50

Adult lessons in the evening are the most successful due to the working times of the

majority of the students, which are mainly taxi drivers, builders, waiters, masseuses and

sales people. Attendances vary, but on average up to 10 adults are regularly seen. The

structure of these lessons is usually led by the participants who have specific requirementsbased on their careers and as such the types of conversation had.

3.4 Review

During phase 112 (April-June 2011), Punta Gruesa had the following program:

1.) English Classes, all ages, at the Primary School, Tuesdays and Thursdays 16:30-

18:00 and 18:30-20:00pm

2.) Earth Day table on the Malecon on April 20th

3.) Recycling day activities at the Primary School

An introduction to TEFL and teaching was delivered to all volunteers in week three of the

expedition. All of the 12 volunteers participated at least once in the community

programme. By the end of phase, some volunteers were comfortable enough to lead

classes on their own and unsupervised. The volunteers and students very much enjoyedtheir time in the classroom, though on more than one occasion no students arrived for

class.

Earth Day included a table on the main pedestrian walk in Mahahual. Volunteers spent

the day presenting information in English and Spanish to passers-by, principally local

children, but also national and foreign visitors. The day ended with environmentally-

themed movies and popcorn at the Hotel Mahahual.

Recycling Day was a morning spent at the Primary school. The ten participating

volunteers and two Staff spilt into three teaching teams. Each team had a lesson that they

presented to each of the three participating classrooms (3 rd grade, 4th grade and the 5th &

6th grade combined class) for one hour each. The students stayed in their classrooms and

the teachers rotated throughout the school.

GVI 2011 Page 20


22/50

The day was inspired by the schools headmaster, Don Jorge. Our program came as a

response to his desire to receive instruction on how to keep the school cleaner. We

developed different classes with multiple activities designed to teach the students about

glass, cardboard or plastic recycling.

It was not possible to work with the secondary school, as repeated attempts at contacting

the administration were unsuccessful. As both the secondary and primary schools will be

on summer break during phase 113 (July-September 2011), activities will be tried again in

phase 114 (October-December 2011).

GVI 2011 Page 21


23/50

4. Incidental Sightings

4.1 Introduction

GVI Punta Gruesa has implemented an incidental sightings program since January 2008,

following on from the previous Mahahual bases data since 2004. This is due to the high

number of turtles and other mega fauna species seen on dives in the area. Species that

make up the incidental sightings list are:

Sharks and Rays

Eels

Turtles

Marine Mammals

Great Barracuda

Lionfish

These groups are identified to species level where possible and added to the data

collected by the Ocean Biogeographic Information Systems Spatial Ecological Analysis of

Megavertebrate Populations (OBIS-SEAMAP) database. An interactive online archive for

marine mammal, seabird and turtle data, OBIS-SEAMAP aims to improve understanding

of the distribution and ecology of marine mega fauna by quantifying global patterns of

biodiversity, undertaking comparative studies, and monitoring the status of and impacts on

threatened species.

4.2 Aims

The aim of the project is to record all mega fauna sightings in the vicinity of Punta Gruesa

and to keep track of the population numbers and spread of lionfish.

4.3 Methodology

Each time an incidental sighting species is seen on a dive or snorkel it is identified, and the

date, time, location, depth it was seen at, and size are all recorded. The volunteers are

provided with a Mega fauna presentation during science training, which aids in

identification of shark, ray and turtle species. All the completed dives are logged by GVI,

showing the total effort for each phase in comparison with the species recorded.

GVI 2011 Page 22


24/50

For the first time during phase 093, July - September 2009, GVI Punta Gruesa began

recording lionfish sightings. Over the past decade the Pacific Lionfish (Pterois volitans and

P. miles) has established itself along the Atlantic coast as a result of multiple releases

(intentional or otherwise) from private aquaria. This invasive species lacking in naturalpredators, has adapted well to the warm waters of the Caribbean, and is currently

spreading its geographical range along the Mesoamerican coastline.

4.4 Results

During this phase a total of 176 incidental sightings were recorded (not including lionfish or

great barracuda) across 228 trips out to the reef. This equates to a unit effort of 0.77

sightings per boat. These figures also include anything spotted during snorkel trips to the

lagoon but the total number of snorkel trips that were made is unknown.Total number of incidental sightings

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

081 082 083 084 091 092 093 094 101 102 103 104 111 112Phase

Numberofobservations

Marine mammals

Eels

Elasmobranchs

Turtles

Figure 4-4-1 Total number of incidental sightings recorded by phase

During phase 112, five species of elasmobranchs were recorded including 45 southern

stingrays (Dasyatis americana), six spotted eagle rays (Aetobatus narinari), five nurse

sharks (Ginglymostoma cirratum), three yellow stingrays (Urolophus jamaicensis) and two

lesser electric rays (Narcine bancroftii). Four unidentified rays were also recorded.

Four species of moray eels were recorded including 15 green morays (Gymnothorax

funebris), 15 spotted morays (Gymnothorax moringa), five goldentail morays

GVI 2011 Page 23


25/50

(Gymnothorax miliaris) and one chain moray (Echidna catenata). Four unidentified eels

were also recorded.

Three species of turtles were recorded including 14 loggerheads (Caretta caretta), three

hawksbills (Eretmochelys imbricate) and 11 greens (Chelonia mydas). There were alsoeight unidentified turtles recorded.

There were four dolphin encounters involving a total of 17 Atlantic spotted dolphins

(Stenella frontalis) and 18 bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncates).

44 great barracuda were recorded, including a group of seven spotted swimming together.

They ranged in size from 0.5-1.5m in length.

268 lionfish were recorded. They ranged in size from 1-40cm but were most common in

the 11-15cm category (47 individuals). 28 of these were killed and another eight wounded

in an attempt to control lionfish numbers on the reef.

4.5 Discussion

The most common species recorded was the southern stingray, Dasyatis americana,

which was recorded 45 times. This is consistent with data from previous phases. Southernstingrays have been the most common elasmobranchs recorded every phase since

monitoring began here at the start of 2008, with the exception of phase 083 (July-

September 2008). They tend to spend a lot of time partially buried in the sand, just off the

wall. They are often very conspicuous from the dive sites, which may partially explain the

high numbers recorded. Also, when carrying out monitoring and training dives we

repeatedly visit the same sites so it is possible that we may count the same rays more

than once.

There was one record of a chain moray this phase. This species has not been recorded

here before and is described as being rare in the Western Caribbean (Humann & DeLoach

2002). It is more common in the Eastern Caribbean, however its presence here is not an

impossibility.

GVI 2011 Page 24


26/50

Loggerhead turtles were observed at the surface mating on 4th and 31st May. Loggerhead

turtles nest along the coast of the Yucatan from Isla Mujeres in the North down towards

the Mahahual area but do not nest on the beach here at Punta Gruesa. They make a nest

and lay their eggs on beaches from May until September.

There were 44 great barracuda sightings during this phase. This is the highest number

recorded since the last phase of 2009. They were recorded in much higher numbers

during the 2009 phases peaking at 134 individuals during phase 092 (April-June 2009), but

throughout 2010 their numbers were consistently low, ranging from 11 to 32. The reasons

for such a significant decrease in S. barracuda sightings are unclear.

268 lionfish were recorded during this phase. This is the highest number recorded since

the survey began in 2009. They were most frequently recorded in the 11-15cm category.The increase in Pterois volitans and P. miles sightings poses a potentially large problem

for the reefs at Punta Gruesa as they are known to be voracious predators. This problem

will only worsen unless more efforts are made to keep the population in check. According

to Morris et al2010, only 27% of the population needs to be removed monthly for the

population to decrease. This phase we managed to kill 10.4% of the lionfish that were

recorded so next phase we will make a more concerted effort to remove as many

individuals as possible from the reef.

All other results fit those of previous phases outlined in detail in GVI Mexico, Punta


GVI 2011 Page 25


27/50

5. Marine Litter Monitoring Programme.

5.1 Introduction

Punta Gruesas location on the Yucatan Peninsula means that it faces the CaribbeanCurrent. This is a circular current that combined with the Loop current and the Yucatan

current, transports a significant amount of water northwest ward through the Caribbean

Sea. The main source is from the equatorial Atlantic Ocean via the North Equatorial,

North Brazil and Guiana Currents. Due to the volume of water that is transported and both

the nature and origin of the said currents, it is possible that the litter being found is from

quite far afield. This could be compounded by the high shipping pressures, in particular

the cruise ships that pass through to Mahahual on a regular basis on average carrying

approx. 2-3,000 passengers. Other factors also include outflows from rivers and stormdrains etc. If this is the most common source for the marine debris then it is likely that

weather changes, which have an impact on both tidelines and sea turbulence, will have a

direct and noticeable effect on the amount of rubbish washed up.

Phase 092, April June 2009, saw the beginning of the marine litter collection program at

Punta Gruesa. Marine litter is prevalent along the Caribbean coast and is not only

unsightly but a health hazard to marine life and humans alike. In order to collect more data

on this issue a beach clean program will be conducted every phase. This is part of a

worldwide program and is just one method of investigation to discover where marine litter

originates from and which materials are most common.

5.2 Aims

This project has three main aims:

Quantified data and photographic evidence as to the extent of marine litter.

Conservation of terrestrial and marine fauna threatened by litter.

Improvement of beach aesthetics.

5.3 Methodology

Marine litter is collected weekly on a 200 metre stretch of beach north of base. The

transect is cleared one week prior to the commencement of the monitoring program, in

GVI 2011 Page 26


28/50

order that only a weekly amount of debris is recorded. Materials are collected from the

tidemark to the vegetation line to eliminate waste created by inland terrestrial sources.

The waste is separated, weighed and recorded by the categories below:

Fabric

Glass

Plastic

Polystyrene

Metal

Natural material (modified)

Medical waste

Rubber

Rope

Other

5.4 Results

A total of 105.06kg of marine litter was collected this phase across eight beach cleans.

Plastic accounted for 66.6% of the total weight collected. Even though Polystyrene was

one of the smallest categories in terms of weight, in reality it was one of the most

numerous items and accounts for a large proportion of litter on the transect.

Figure 5-4-1 shows the breakdown of the average litter collected per week since the

survey began in phase 092 (April-June 2009).

Average Rubbish Collected per Week

0

5

10

15

20

092 093 094 101 102 103 104 111 112

Phase

Weight(kg)

Other

Polystyrene

Medical Waste

Metal

Rope

Natural Material

Rubber

Fabric

Glass

Plastic

Figure 5-4-1 Average Weight of Litter Collected per Week by Phase (Kg)

GVI 2011 Page 27


29/50

5.5 Discussion

As has been the case for the majority of monitors, plastics have again constituted the

largest volume of all the categories this phase. This could be due to its light weight

making it easy to transport and its robustness against degradation. The fact that the level

of plastic found is consistently high from phase to phase is a worrying trend as when

plastics such as Polythene, found in plastic bags, breakdown they form small plastic

particles that can contaminate the food web and be passed on through the trophic levels.

Plastic debris can act like a sponge for toxic chemicals soaking up compounds such as

PCBs and DDE (a product from the breakdown of DDT). Once these are ingested into the

food chain the high concentrations will be spread from organism to organism until the

levels become fatal.

Even though the data shows a large volume of rubbish being collected from a relatively

small section of beach, it may be that the results do not do justice to the actual problem at

hand. This is due to the seagrass bed situated alongside the monitoring area. As

discussed above it is possible that during times of increased wind and wave action the

volume of rubbish collected should show a marked increase. However this could be being

masked by the large quantity ofThalassia testudinum that also gets washed up in these

more extreme conditions burying the rubbish and hiding it from sight. In some areas the

mound of dead blades can be as much as 75cm deep.

Figure 5-4-1. It is worth bearing in mind though that the sample size in both cases is very

small. It is possible to carry out eight beach cleans per phase but due to time constraints

and other commitments in 094 only four were done and in 104 there were only three

shows the average weight of rubbish collected per week and appears to show a dramatic

increase during the last phase (October-December) of 2009 and 2010. This could be due

to rough sea conditions as this is the end of the hurricane season carried out.



GVI 2011 Page 28


30/50

6. Bird Monitoring Programme

6.1 Introduction

With regard to avi-fauna, Mexico, Central and South America can be divided into threedistinct regions separated by mountain ranges: the Pacific slope, the Interior and the

Atlantic slope. These regions can be further divided into other sub-zones, based on a

variety of habitats.

The Yucatan Peninsula lies on the Atlantic slope and is geographically very different from

the rest of Mexico: It is a low-level limestone shelf on the east coast extending north into

the Caribbean. The vegetation ranges from rainforest in the south to arid scrub

environments in the north. The coastlines are predominantly sandy beaches but alsoinclude extensive networks of mangroves and lagoons, providing a wide variety of habitats

capable of supporting large resident populations of birds.

Due to the location of the Yucatan peninsula, its population of resident breeders is

significantly enlarged by seasonal migrants. There are four different types of migratory

birds: Winter visitors migrate south from North America during the winter (August to May).

Summer residents live and breed in Mexico but migrate to South America for the winter

months. Transient migrants are birds that breed in North America and migrate to South

America in the winter but stop or pass through Mexico. Pelagic visitors are birds that live

offshore but stop or pass through the region.

Punta Gruesa is located near the town of Mahahual close to the Mexico/Belize border

between a network of mangrove lagoons and the Caribbean Sea. The local area contains

three key ecosystems; wetland, forest and marine environments.

6.2 Aims

Develop a species list for the area

Gain an idea of the abundance and diversity of bird species. Long-term bird data

gathered over a sustained period could highlight trends not noticeable to short-term

surveys.

GVI 2011 Page 29


31/50

Educate the volunteers in bird identification techniques, expanding on their general

identification skills. The birding project also provides a good opportunity to obtain a

better understanding of area diversity and the ecosystem as a whole.

6.3 Methodology

Bird monitoring surveys are conducted using a simple methodology based on the bird

monitoring program at Pez Maya. A member of staff accompanied by volunteers monitor

the transects daily between 6 and 8am. There are four transects - Beach south, Beach

north, Road south and Road north. These transects were selected to cover a range of

habitats, including coastline, mangroves, secondary growth and scrub. The transects are

completed in approximately 30 minutes to allow for consistency of data. To reduce

duplication of data, recordings are taken in one direction only which also helps to avoid

double-counting where individuals are very active or numerous. Birds are identified usingbinoculars, cameras and a range of identification books. Identification of calls is also

possible for a limited number of species for experienced observers. If the individual

species cannot be identified then birds are recorded to family level.

Each survey records the following information; location, date, start time, end time, name of

recorders and number of each species seen. Wind and cloud cover have also been

recorded to allow consideration of physical parameters.

6.4 Results

A total of 1484 birds were recorded during 46 transects this phase. 39 species were

identified and five new species were added to the species list (see Appendix VI). The new

additions to the species list are the bat falcon (Falco rufigularis), black-headed trogon

(Trogon melanocephalus), bronzed cowbird (Molothrus aeneus), spotted sandpiper (Actitis

macularia) and Yucatan flycatcher (Myiarchus yucatanensis).

The Great-tailed grackle (Quiscalus mexicanus) was the most commonly recorded species

making up 27.2% of the birds recorded. The second most commonly sighted species was

the tropical mockingbird (Mimus gilvus), which made up 11.3%, followed by the golden-

fronted woodpecker (Centurus aurifrons), which made up 7.5% of sightings. There were

also 224 unidentified woodpeckers recorded so it is possible that the actual number of

golden-fronted woodpeckers present is considerably higher than the results imply.

GVI 2011 Page 30


32/50

Species Total Species Total

Great-tailed Grackle 403 Cattle Egret 10Woodpecker sp. 224 Hooded Oriole 10Tropical Mockingbird 167 Dove sp. 9

Golden-fronted Woodpecker 111 Laughing Gull 9Magnificent Frigate 88 Semipalmated plover 9Oriole sp. 69 Great Blue Heron 7Great Kiskadee 50 Tern sp. 7Royal Tern 47 Warbler sp. 7Yucatan Jay 43 Black-cowled Oriole 6Flycatcher sp. 37 Turkey Vulture 6Kingbird sp. 34 Black Vulture 5Plain Chachalaca 20 Sparrow sp. 5Brown Pelican 16 Green Jay 4Tropical Kingbird 14 Altamira Oriole 3Swallow sp. 11 Black-crowned Tityra 3

Table 6-4-1 Most common bird species or families recorded during phase 112

6.5 Discussion

Those species with relatively constant numbers across phases are most likely resident in

the area, with only minor fluctuations among those species inclined to local migration for

mating or feeding purposes. Great-tailed grackles, tropical mockingbirds and golden-

fronted woodpeckers all fall into this category, being described as resident breeders

(Howell & Webb 2004). Their numbers have fluctuated but have remained consistentlyhigh.

Those species that are observed only at certain times of the year are most likely seasonal

migrants, either moving into the area temporarily or simply moving through the region on

their way to summer or wintering grounds elsewhere. These include the sanderlings,

plovers, similar species of shore-birds and warblers, many of which are resident only

during the winter, moving further north to breed during the summer.

The species list at Punta Gruesa is constantly expanding each phase as observers

become more adept at seeing and identifying species and migrant species enter the area.

The collection of data will continue in future years and we will try to further standardise

transects between phases.

GVI 2011 Page 31


33/50



GVI 2011 Page 32


34/50

7. Seagrass Monitoring Programme

7.1 Introduction

Phase 102 (April-June 2010) saw the implementation of a new survey program, focusing

on the sea grass beds found adjacent to the beach at Punta Gruesa. The shoreline here

is dominated by a shallow, almost continuous bed that stretches from the waters edge to

the back reef approximately half a kilometre away. It is characterised by two main species,

Thalassia testudinum and Syringodium filiforme.

The seagrass beds are an intrinsic part of the marine ecosystem providing not only shelter

to juvenile reef fish but also helping to slow the water currents/movement in the lagoon,

decreasing the levels of coastal erosion and providing favourable conditions for both the

mangroves and reefs to grow.

7.2 Aims

The aims of the project are:

Determine the overall percentage coverage and species composition along three

transect lines and to find out if these values change with proximity to the reef.

Monitor the changes in seagrass coverage and species composition over time. Monitor the health of the seagrass bed by measuring blade length, predation and

epiphyte cover.

7.3 Methodology

In order to monitor the health of this ecosystem, three transects have been set up; T1, T2

and T3 (T1 being closest to the beach and T3 being furthest away). Their positioning was

based on relative distance from the edge of the bed and at a point of change in the

biological composition of the bed.

GVI 2011 Page 33


35/50

T1A 19.00810087.58933

T1B 19.00790087.58941

T1C 19.00770087.58949

T2A 19.00785087.58875

T2B 19.00765087.58883

T2C 19.00744087.58889

T3A 19.00748087.58767

T3B 19.00724087.58772

T3C 19.00703087.58779

Table 7-3-1 GPS positions for seagrass transects (Units in WGS 84 Format hddd.dddddo )

Starting at point T1A (the most northerly point) a 1mx1m quadrat was laid on the shore

side of the transect line and the following measurements were taken;

Overall percentage cover.

S. filiforme percentage cover.

T. testudinum percentage cover

On 20 random T. testudinum blades within each quadrat, blade length, signs of

predation (yes or no) and percentage cover of epiphytes was recorded.

This was repeated at 5m intervals across the length of each transect giving ten repeats per

transect.

This methodology allows a rapid assessment of an otherwise uncharted area of seagrass

in the Punta Gruesa area. Due to the fact that they play such a crucial ecological role inthe health of the reef systems, as a result of the habitual symbiosis shared between

seagrass beds, reefs and mangroves, it is important to monitor and assess the seagrass

beds.

This methodology enables GVI Mexico to obtain baseline data on the species composition,

percentage cover and condition so that changes in the health and structure can be

monitored over an extended period of time. The methodology is based on the

methodology of seagrassnet.com (Short et al. 2006) with slight modifications toaccommodate for volunteers with limited training.

GVI 2011 Page 34


36/50

7.4 Results

The average percentage cover of seagrass was found to be highest on the transect

closest to the beach. Transect 1 had 82.0% cover, transect 2 had 76.0% cover and

transect 3 had 47.5% cover.

Average T. testudinum cover is highest on the transect closest to the beach. Transect 1

had 67.0% cover, transect 2 had 49.5% cover and transect 3 had 39.5% cover. T.

testudinum was the dominant species on all three transects.

Average blade length ofT. testudinum was found to be shortest on the transect furthest

from the beach. On transect 1 it was found to be 13.3m, on transect 2 it was 15.3cm and

on transect 3 it was 10.9cm.

7.5 Discussion

T. testudinum has been found to be the more dominant species on all three transects

every time the survey has been carried out. Williams (1987) observed a decline in S.

filiforme shoot density as T. testudinum became dominant during temporal development

and found that this was a result of exploitative competition primarily for sediment nutrients

but also light. T. testudinum has a much greater leaf area for inception of light than S.

filiforme. For example, a typical leaf width forT. testudinum is 1cm in contrast to just over

1mm forS. filiforme.

Each time the transects have been monitored, the T. testudinum on transect 3 (closest to

the reef) has been found to have the shortest average blade length and the T. testudinum

on transect 2 was found to have the longest blade length. Sweatman and Robertson

(1994) found that T. testudinum provided minimal cover (for juvenile fish) near to the reef

edge because the blades were grazed short. They found that blade length increased with

distance from the reef edge. This could partially explain the pattern observed here.

Average percentage cover of seagrass is highest on transect 1, which is closest to the

beach, and lowest on transect 3, which is closest to the reef. This is due to a drop in T.

testudinum cover. Sweatman & Robertson (1994) found that T. testudinum blade density

was similar at all of their sample distances from the reef. It is possible that the density

GVI 2011 Page 35


37/50

across the three transects at Punta Gruesa may be similar. There may appear to be a

difference in percentage cover due to differences in average blade length discussed

above.

This is only the fourth time this study has been conducted at Punta Gruesa so it is difficultto make any conclusions about the current state of the seagrass bed. This has been

useful to try and determine a baseline percentage cover and see the beginning of

relationships, however, before any definitive conclusions can be made further work is

required to determine the viability of these findings and to allow for seasonal variations.



GVI 2011 Page 36


38/50

8. References

AGRRA (2005) Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment (AGRRA) Field Guide to

Indicators of Coral Reef Health

AGRRA (2000) Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment (AGRRA). The AGRRA Rapid

Assessment Protocol.http://www.agrra.org/method/methodhome.htm

Almada-Villela P.C., Sale P.F., Gold-Bouchot G. Kjerfve B. (2003) Manual of Methods for

the MBRS Synoptic Monitoring System: Selected Methods for Monitoring Physical and

Biological Parameters for Use in the Mesoamerican Region. Mesoamerican Barrier Reef

Systems Project (MBRS).

Deloach, N. and Humann, P. (1999) Reef fish behaviour: Florida, Caribbean, Bahamas.

New World Publications. Artegrafica. Verona, Italy.

Franklin, J. L. (2008) Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Dean. National Hurricane Centre

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL042007_Dean.pdf

Gardener, T.A., Cote, I.M., Gill, J.A., Grant, A., Watkinson, A.R. (2003) Long-term region-

wide declines in Caribbean corals. Science 301: 958-960.

Humann, P. and DeLoach, N. (2002) Reef Fish Identification: Florida, Caribbean,

Bahamas. New World Publications Inc. Jacksonville, Florida, USA.

Howell, S. N. G., and Webb, S. (2004) A Guide to the Birds of Mexico and Northern

Central America. Oxford University Press Inc., New York

McClanahan, T.R., Muthiga, N.A. (1998) An ecological shift in a remote coral atoll of Belize

over 25 years. Environmental Conservation25: 122-130.

Morris, J. A. Jr., Shertzer, K.W., Rice, J.A. (2010) A Stage-Based Matrix Population Model

of Invasive Lionfish with Implications for Control. Biol Invasions, DOI10.1007/s10530-010-

9786-8

GVI 2011 Page 37
http://www.agrra.org/method/methodhome.htmhttp://www.agrra.org/method/methodhome.htmhttp://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL042007_Dean.pdfhttp://www.agrra.org/method/methodhome.htmhttp://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL042007_Dean.pdf


39/50

Rogers, C. S. and Miller, J. (2006) Permanent phase shifts or reversible declines in coral

cover? Lack of recovery of two coral reefs in St John, US Virgin Islands. Marine Ecology

Progress Series 306: 103-14

Short, F.T., McKenzie, L.J., Coles, R.G., Vidler, K.P., Gaeckle, J.L. (2006) SeagrassNet

Manual for Scientific Monitoring of Seagrass Habitat, Worldwide edition. University of New

Hampshire Publication. 75 pp.

Spalding, M.D., Jarvis, G.E. (2002). The impact of the 1998 coral mortality on reef fish

communities in the Seychelles. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44: 309-321.

Sweatman, H. & Robertson, D. R. (1994) Grazing halos and predation on juvenileCaribbean surgeonfishes. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Volume 111: 1-6

UNEP-WCMC (2006). In the front line: shoreline protection and other ecosystem services

from mangroves and coral reefs. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.

Wilkinson, C. (2008) Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2008. Global Coral Reef

Monitoring Network and Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, Townsville, Australia

Williams, S. L. (1987) Competition between the seagrasses Thalassia testudinum and

Syringodium filiforme in a Caribbean lagoon. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Volume 35:

91-98

GVI 2011 Page 38


40/50

9. Appendices

Appendix I SMP Methodology Outlines

Buddy method 1: Surveys of corals, algae and other sessile organisms

At each monitoring site five replicate 30m transect lines are deployed randomly within

100m of the GPS point. The transect line is laid across the reef surface at a constant

depth, usually perpendicular to the reef slope.

The first diver of this monitoring buddy pair collects data on the characterisation of the

coral community under the transect line. Swimming along the transect line the diver

identifies, to species level, each hermatypic coral directly underneath the transect that is atleast 10cm at its widest point and in the original growth position. If a colony has been

knocked or has fallen over, it is only recorded if it has become reattached to the

substratum. The diver also records the water depth at the beginning and end of each

transect.

The diver then identifies the colony boundaries based on verifiable connective or common

skeleton. Using a measuring pole, the colonies projected diameter (live plus dead areas)

in plan view and maximum height (live plus dead areas) from the base of the coloniessubstratum are measured.

From plane view perspective, the percentage of coral that is not healthy (separated into

old dead and recent dead) is also estimated.

The first diver also notes any cause of mortality including diseases, predation and any

bleached tissue present. The diseases are characterised using the following categories:

Black band disease Red band disease

White band disease Hyperplasm and Neoplasm (irregular growths)

White plague Dark spot diseaseYellow blotch disease UnknownDark spot disease

GVI 2011 Page 39


41/50

Predation and overgrowth are also recorded on each of the coral colonies. The following

categories are considered:

Parrotfish predation Fire coral predation

Damselfish predation Gorgonian predationFireworm predation Zoanthid predationShort coral snail predation Coralline algae overgrowthOvergrowing mat tunicate Sponge overgrowthVariable boring sponge Cliona sp.

Bleaching is described as either pale, partial of total using the following definitions:

Pale the majority of the colony is pale compared to the original colour of the coral

Partial the colony has a significant amount of patchy white areas

Total all, or almost all, of the colony is white

Any other features of note are also recorded, including, orange icing sponge, coralcompetition and Christmas tree worms.

The second diver measures the percentage cover of sessile organisms and substrate

along the 30m transect, recording the nature of the substrate or organism directly every

25cm along the transect. Organisms are classified into the following groups:

Coralline algae - crusts or finely branched algae that are hard (calcareous)

Turf algae - may look fleshy and/or filamentous but do not rise more than 1cm above the

substrate

Macroalgae - include fleshy and calcareous algae whose fronds are projected more than

1cm above the substrate. Three of these are further classified into additional groups which

include Halimeda, Dictyota, and Lobophora

Gorgonians

Hermatypic corals - to species level, where possible

Bare rock, sand and rubble

Any other sessile organisms e.g. sponges, tunicates, zoanthids and hydroids.

Buddy method 2: Belt transect counts for coral reef fish

GVI 2011 Page 40


42/50

At each monitoring site 8 replicate 30m transects lines are deployed randomly within 100m

of the GPS point. The transect line is laid just above the reef surface at a constant depth,

usually perpendicular to the reef slope. The first diver is responsible for swimming slowly

along the transect line identifying, counting and estimating the sizes of specific indicator

fish species in their adult phase. The diver visually estimates a two metre by two metrecorridor and carries a one meter T-bar divided into 10cm graduations to aid the accuracy

of the size estimation of the fish identified. The fish are assigned to the following size

categories:

0-5cm 21-30cm

6-10cm 31-40cm

11-20cm >40cm (with size specified)

The buddy pair then waits for three minutes at a short distance from the end of the

transect line before proceeding. This allows juvenile fish to return to their original positions

before they were potentially scared off by the divers during the adult transect. The second

diver swims slowly back along the transect surveying a one metre by one metre corridor

and identifying and counting the presence of newly settled fish of the target species. In

addition, it is also this divers responsibility to identify and count the Banded Shrimp,

Stenopus hispidus. This is a collaborative effort with UNAM to track this species as their

population is slowly dwindling due to their direct removal for the aquarium trade. The juvenile diver also counts any Diadema antillarum individuals found on their transects.

This is aimed at tracking the slow come back of these urchins.

Buddy Method 3: Coral & Fish Rover divers

At each monitoring site the third buddy pair completes a thirty minute survey of the site.

This is carried out using a search pattern appropriate to the site but is usually a U-shaped

pattern. The first diver records all adult fish species observed. The approximate density ofeach fish species is categorised using the following numerations:

Single (1 fish)

Few (2-10 fish)

Many (11-100 fish)

GVI 2011 Page 41


43/50

Abundant (>100 fish)

The second diver swims alongside the Fish Rover diver and records, to species level, all

coral communities observed, regardless of size. The approximate density of each coral

species is then categorised using similar ranges to those for fish:

Single (1 community)

Few (2-10 communities)

Many (11-50 communities)

Abundant (>50 communities)

GVI 2011 Page 42


44/50

Appendix II - Adult Fish Indicator Species ListThe following list includes only the adult fish species that are surveyed during monitoring

dives.

GVI 2011 Page 43

Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Common Name

Acanthurus coeruleus, Blue Tang Scarus guacamaia Rainbow ParrotfishAcanthurus bahianus, Ocean Surgeonfish Scarus vetula Queen ParrotfishAcanthurus chirurgus, Doctorfish Sparisoma viride Stoplight ParrotfishChaetodon striatus, Banded Butterflyfish Scarus taeniopterus Princess ParrotfishChaetodon capistratus, Four Eye Butterflyfish Scarus iserti Striped ParrotfishChaetodon ocellatus, Spotfin Butterflyfish Sparisoma aurofrenatum Redband Parrotfish

Chaetodon aculeatus, Longsnout Butterflyfish Sparisoma chrysopterum Redtail ParrotfishHaemulon flavolineatum French Grunt Sparisoma rubripinne Yellowtail ParrotfishHaemulon striatum Striped Grunt Sparisoma atomarium Greenblotch Parrotfish

Haemulon plumierii White Grunt Sparisoma radians Bucktooth ParrotfishHaemulon sciurus Bluestriped Grunt Epinephelus itajara Goliath GrouperHaemulon carbonarium Caesar Grunt Epinephelus striatus Nassau GrouperHaemulon chrysargyreum Smallmouth Grunt Mycteroperca venenosa Yellowfin GrouperHaemulon aurolineatum Tomtate Mycteroperca bonaci Black GrouperHaemulon melanurum Cottonwick Mycteroperca tigris Tiger GrouperHaemulon macrostomum Spanish Grunt Mycteroperca interstitialis Yellowmouth GrouperHaemulon parra Sailors Choice Epinephelus guttatus Red HindHaemulon album White Margate Epinephelus adscensionis Rock Hind

Anisotremus virginicus Porkfish Cephalopholis cruentatus Graysby

Anisotremus surinamensis Black Margate Cephalopholis fulvus Coney

Lutjanus analis Mutton Snapper Balistes vetula Queen TriggerfishLutjanus griseus Gray Snapper Balistes capriscus Gray TriggerfishLutjanus cyanopterus Cubera Snapper Canthidermis sufflamen Ocean TriggerfishLutjanus jocu Dog Snapper Xanithichthys ringens Sargassum TriggerfishLutjanus mahogoni Mahaogany Snapper Melichthys niger Black DurgonLutjanus apodus Schoolmaster Aluterus scriptus Scrawled FilefishLutjanus synagris Lane Snapper Cantherhines pullus Orangespotted FilefishOcyurus chrysurus Yellowtail Snapper Cantherhines macrocerus Whitespotted FilefishHolacanthus ciliaris Queen Angelfish Bodianus rufus Spanish Hogfish

Pomacanthus paru French Angelfish Lachnolaimus maximus HogfishPomacanthus arcuatus Grey Angelfish Caranx rubber Bar Jack

Holacanthus tricolour Rock Beauty Microspathodon chrysurus Yellowtail DamselfishScarus coeruleus Blue Parrotfish Sphyraena barracuda Great BarracudaScarus coelestinus Midnight Parrotfish


45/50

Appendix III - Juvenile Fish Indicator Species List

The subsequent list specifies the juvenile fish species and their maximum target length

that are recorded during monitoring dives

Scientific Name Common Name Max. target length (cm)

Acanthurus bahianus Ocean surgeonfish 5Acanthurus coeruleus Blue tang 5Chaetodon capistratus Foureye butterflyfish 2Chaetodon striatus Banded butterflyfish 2Gramma loreto Fairy basslet 3Bodianus rufus Spanish hogfish 3.5Halichoeres bivittatus Slipperydick 3Halichoeres garnoti Yellowhead wrasse 3Halichoeres maculipinna Clown wrasse 3Thalassoma bifasciatum Bluehead wrasse 3Halichoeres pictus Rainbow wrasse 3Chromis cyanea Blue chromis 3.5Stegastes adustus Dusky damselfish 2.5Stegastes diencaeus Longfin damselfish 2.5Stegastes leucostictus Beaugregory 2.5Stegastes partitus Bicolour damselfish 2.5Stegastes planifrons Threespot damselfish 2.5Stegastes variabilis Cocoa damselfish 2.5Scarus iserti Striped parrotfish 3.5Scarus taeniopterus Princess parrotfish 3.5Sparisoma atomarium Greenblotch parrotfish 3.5Sparisoma aurofrenatum Redband parrotfish 3.5Sparisoma viride Stoplight parrotfish 3.5

GVI 2011 Page 44


46/50

Appendix IV - Coral Species List

GVI 2011 Page 45

Family Genus Species Family Genus Species

Acroporidae Acropora cervicornis Meandrinidae Dendrogyra cylindrus

Acroporidae Acropora palmata Meandrinidae Dichocoenia stokesiiAcroporidae Acropora prolifera Meandrinidae Meandrina meandrites

Agariciidae Agaricia agaricites Milliporidae Millepora alcicornis

Agariciidae Agaricia fragilis Milliporidae Millepora complanata

Agariciidae Agaricia grahamae Mussidae Isophyllastrea rigida

Agariciidae Agaricia lamarcki Mussidae Isophyllia sinuosa

Agariciidae Agaricia tenuifolia Mussidae Mussa angulosa

Agariciidae Agaricia undata Mussidae Mycetophyllia aliciae

Agariciidae Helioceris cucullata Mussidae Mycetophyllia ferox

Antipatharia Cirrhipathes leutkeni Mussidae Mycetophyllia lamarckiana

Astrocoeniidae Stephanocoenia intersepts Mussidae Mycetophyllia reesi

Caryophylliidae Eusmilia fastigiana Mussidae Scolymia sp.

Faviidae Colpophyllia natans Pocilloporidae Madracis decactis

Faviidae Diploria clivosa Pocilloporidae Madracis formosa

Faviidae Diploria labrynthiformis Pocilloporidae Madracis mirabilis

Faviidae Diploria strigosa Pocilloporidae Madracis pharensis

Faviidae Favia fragum Poritidae Porites astreoides

Faviidae Manicina areolata Poritidae Porites divaricata

Faviidae Montastraea annularis Poritidae Porites furcata

Faviidae Montastraea cavernosa Poritidae Porites porites

Faviidae Montastraea faveolata Siderastridae Siderastrea radians

Faviidae Montastraea franksi Siderastridae Siderastrea sidereal

Faviidae Solenastrea bournoni Stylasteridae Stylaster roseus

Faviidae Solenastrea hyades


47/50

Appendix V - Fish Species List

This list was begun for Mahahual in April 2004. This list is compiled from the Adult

and Rover diver surveys.

Family Genus Species Common Names



GVI 2011 Page 46


48/50

GVI 2011 Page 47

Pomacanthidae Holacanthus Ciliaris Queen angelfishPomacanthidae Holacanthus Tricolour RockbeautyPomacanthidae Pomacanthus Arcuatus Grey angelfishPomacanthidae Pomacanthus Paru French angelfishPomacentridae Abudefduf Saxatilis Seargant majorPomacentridae Chromis Cyanea Blue chromisPomacentridae Chromis Enchrysurus Yellowtail reef fishPomacentridae Chromis Insolata SunshinefishPomacentridae Chromis Multilineata Brown chromisPomacentridae Microspathodon Chrysurus Yellowtailed damsel fishPomacentridae Stegastes Adustus Dusky damselfish

Pomacentridae Stegastes Diencaeus Longfin damselfishPomacentridae Stegastes Leucostictus BeaugregoryPomacentridae Stegastes Partitus Bicolour damselfishPomacentridae Stegastes Planifrons Threespot damselfishPomacentridae Stegastes Variabilis Cocoa damselfishScaridae Scarus Coelestinus Midnight parrotfishScaridae Scarus Coeruleus Blue parrotfishScaridae Scarus Guacamaia Rainbow parrotfishScaridae Scarus Iserti Striped parrotfishScaridae Scarus Taeniopterus Princess parrotfishScaridae Scarus Vetula Queen parrotfish

Scaridae Sparisoma Atomarium Greenblotch parrotfishScaridae Sparisoma Aurofrenatum Redband parrotfishScaridae Sparisoma Chrysopterum Redtail parrotfishScaridae Sparisoma Radians Bucktooth parrotfishScaridae Sparisoma Rubripinne Yellowtail parrotfishScaridae Sparisoma Viride Stoplight parrotfishSciaenidae Equetus Lanceolatus Jackknife fishSciaenidae Equetus Punctatus Spotted drumSciaenidae Pareques Acuminatus Highhat

Scombridae

Scomberomoru

s Maculates Spanish mackerel


Scombridae

Scomberomoru

s Regalis CeroScorpaenidae Scorpaena Plumieri Spotted scorpionfishSerranidae Cephalopholis Cruentatus GraysbySerranidae Cephalopholis Fulvus ConeySerranidae Epinephelus Adscensionis RockhindSerranidae Epinephelus Guttatus Red hind grouperSerranidae Epinephelus Itajara Goliath grouperSerranidae Epinephelus Striatus Nassau grouperSerranidae Hypoplectrus Aberrans Yellowbelly hamlet

Serranidae Hypoplectrus Chlorurus Yellowtail hamletSerranidae Hypoplectrus Guttavarius Shy hamletSerranidae Hypoplectrus Indigo Indigo hamletSerranidae Hypoplectrus Nigricans Black hamletSerranidae Hypoplectrus Puella Barred hamletSerranidae Hypoplectrus Unicolor Butter hamletSerranidae Liopropoma Rubre Peppermint bassletSerranidae Mycteroperca Bonaci Black grouperSerranidae Mycteroperca Interstitialis Yellowmouth grouperSerranidae Mycteroperca Tigris Tiger grouperSerranidae Mycteroperca Venenosa Yellowfin grouper

Serranidae Paranthias Furcifer CreolefishSerranidae Rypticus Saponaceus Greater soapfishSerranidae Serranus Tabacarius Tobaccofish


49/50

Appendix VI a - Bird Species List

Bird species identified to species level in Punta Gruesa since April 2009.

Common Name Family Scientific Name

Altamira Oriole Icteridae Icterus gularis

Bat Falcon Falconidae Falco rufigularisBlack Vulture Cathartidae Coragyps atratusBlack-backed Oriole Icteridae Icterus abeilli or bullockiiBlack-bellied Plover Charadriidae Pluvialis squatarolaBlack-cowled Oriole Icteridae Icterus dominicensisBlack-crowned Tityra Cotingidae Tityra inquisitorBlack-headed Trogon Trogonidae Trogon m. melanocephalusBronzed Cowbird Icteridae Molothrus aeneusBrown Pelican Pelecanidae Pelecanus occidentalisCanivet's Emerald Hummingbird Trochilidae Chlorostilbon canivetiiCattle Egret Ardeidae Bubulcus ibis

Common Black Hawk Accipitridae Buteogallus anthracinusDusky Capped Flycatcher Tryrannidae Myiarchus tuberculiferEastern Kingbird Tyrannidae Tyrannus tyrannusFerruginous Pygmy Owl Strigidae Glaucidium brasilianumGolden-fronted Woodpecker Picidae Centurus aurifronsGreat Black Hawk Accipitridae Buteogallus urubitinga ridgwayiGreat Blue Heron Ardeidae Ardea herodiasGreat Egret Ardeidae Egretta alba egrettaGreat Kiskadee Tyrannidae Pitangus sulphuratusGreat-tailed Grackle Icteridae Quiscalus mexicanusGreen Heron Ardeidae Butorides virescensGreen Jay Corvidae Cyanocorax yncasGreen Kingfisher Alcedinidae Chloroceryle americanaGrey Kingbird Tyrannidae Tyrannus d. dominicensisGroove-billed Ani Cuculidae Crotophaga sulcirostrisHooded Oriole Icteridae Icterus cucullatusKilldeer Charadriidae Charadrius v. vociferusLaughing Falcon Falconidae Herpetotheres cachinnansLaughing Gull Laridae Larus atricillaLeast Tern Laridae Sterna antillarumLineated Woodpecker Picidae Dryocopus lineatus

Little Blue Heron Ardeidae Egretta caeruleaMagnificent Frigatebird Fregatidae Fregata magnificensMangrove Vireo Vireonidae Vireo pallensMangrove Warbler Parulinae Dendroica erithachoridesCommon Name Family Scientific Name

Masked Tityra Cotingidae Tityra semifasciataNeotropic Cormorant Phalacrocoracidae Phalacrocorax brasilianusOsprey Accipitridae Pandion haliaetus

GVI 2011 Page 48


50/50

Palm Warbler Parulinae Dendroica palmarumPlain Chachalaca Cracidae Ortalis vetulaPurple Martin Progne Progne subisRoseate Spoonbill Threskiornithidae Platalea ajajaRoyal Tern Laridae Sterna m. maxima

Ruddy Ground-Dove Columbidae Columbina talpacotiRuddy Turnstone Scolopacidae Arenaria interpresSanderling Scolopacidae Calidris albaSemipalmated Plover Charadriidae Charadrius semipalmatusSnowy Egret Ardeidae Egretta thulaSocial Flycatcher Tyrannidae Myiozetetes similisSpotted Sandpiper Scolopacidae Actitis maculariaSwainsons warbler Parulinae Helmitheros swainsoniiTropical Kingbird Tyrannidae Tyrannus melancholicusTropical Mockingbird Mimidae Mimus gilvusTurkey Vulture Cathartidae Cathartes aura

White-eyed vireo Vireonidae Vireo griseusWhite Ibis Threskiornithidae Eudocimus albusWhite-tipped dove Columbidae Leptotila verreauxiWhite-winged Dove Columbidae Zenaida asiaticaWillet Scolopacidae Catoptrophorus semipalmatusWilson's Plover Charadriidae Charadrius wilsoniaYellow Warbler Parulinae Dendroica petechiaYellow-backed Oriole Icteridae Icterus chrysaterYellow-throated Vireo Vireonidae Vireo hypochryseusYellow-throated Warbler Parulinae Dendroica dominicaYucatan Flycatcher Tyrannidae Myiarchus yucatanensisYucatan Jay Corvidae Cyanocorax yucatanicusYucatan Woodpecker Picidae Centurus pygmaeus

Appendix VI b - Bird Species List

Birds identified to family / genus in Punta Gruesa since April 2009.Ani sp. Dove sp. Heron sp. Sandpiper sp. Tern sp.Calidris sp. Egret sp. Kingbird sp. Sheerwater sp. Trogon sp.Cormorant sp. Flycatcher sp. Kingfisher sp. Sparrow sp. Vireo sp.Cowbird sp. Gull sp. Oriole sp. Swallow sp. Vulture sp.Cuckoo sp. Hawk sp. Plover sp. Swift sp. Warbler sp.

Woodpecker sp.

Documents

GVI Mexico Punta Gruesa April-June 2011 Quaterly Report Final