Upload
gvi-mexico
View
70
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
GVI Mexico
Punta Gruesa Marine Expedition
Mahahual
Quarterly Report 104
Review: January 2008 - December 2010
1© GVI – 2010 Page 1
GVI Mexico, Punta Gruesa Expedition Report 104
Submitted in whole to
GVIAmigos de Sian Ka’an
Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP)
Produced by
Laura McHugh – Science OfficerErin Lawrence – Base Manager
And
Genevieve Gammage Base Manager Faith Morrison Volunteer
Tristan Brown Science Officer James Broadway VolunteerDavid Blundell Field Staff Kelly Markowitz Volunteer
Oliver McGuinness Field Staff Kyle Antonchuk VolunteerRuaidhri Le Mage Field Staff Lisa Gagliano VolunteerRachel Budworth Scholar Maria Kroeger Volunteer
Joanna Richardson Scholar Mike Wood VolunteerDavid Sawyer NSP Maura Schonwald Volunteer
Carolina Ruiz Lozano NSP Catherine Daly VolunteerJames Wilderspin Volunteer Chad Brooks Volunteer
Gareth White Volunteer Carlita Foster-Hogg VolunteerMark Cowking Volunteer Alexander Gowan Volunteer
Brad Doyle Volunteer Samuel Stellmach VolunteerSarah Glanfield Volunteer Sebastien Languille VolunteerJennifer Jones Volunteer Daniel Benito Volunteer
Edited by
Stuart Fulton
GVI Mexico, Punta Gruesa
Email: [email protected] Web page: http://www.gvi.co.uk and http://www.gviusa.com
2© GVI – 2010 Page 2
Executive Summary The twelfth 10-week phase of the Punta Gruesa, Mexico, GVI expedition has now
been completed marking 3 years at the site. The expedition has maintained working
relationships with local communities through both English classes and local community
events. The expedition 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 104:
● 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.
● Contining to add to a coral and fish species list that will expand over time as a
comprehensive guide for the region.
● Continuation of the National Scholarship Programme, whereby GVI Punta Gruesa
accept a Mexican national on a scholarship basis into the expedition.
3© GVI – 2010 Page 3
Table of Contents
Executive SummaryTable of ContentsList of FiguresList of Tables1. Introduction2. Synoptic Monitoring Programme
2.1 Introduction2.2 Aims2.3 Methodology2.4 Results2.5 Discussion
3. Community Work Programme3.1 Introduction3.2 Objectives3.3 Activities and Achievements3.4 Review
4. Incidental Sightings Programme4.1 Introduction4.2 Aims4.3 Methodology4.4 Results4.5 Discussion
5. Marine Litter Monitoring Programme5.1 Introduction5.2 Aims5.3 Methodology5.4 Results5.5 Discussion
6. Bird Monitoring Programme6.1 Introduction6.2 Aims6.3 Methodology6.4 Results6.5 Discussion
7. Seagrass Monitoring Programme7.1 Introduction7.2 Aims7.3 Methodology7.4 Results7.5 Discussion
8. References9. Appendices
Appendix I – SMP Methodology OutlinesAppendix II - Adult Fish Indicator Species List
4© GVI – 2010 Page 4
Appendix III - Juvenile Fish Indicator Species ListAppendix IV - Coral Species ListAppendix V - Fish Species ListAppendix VI - Bird Species List
5© GVI – 2010 Page 5
List of Figures Figure 2-3-1 Map of the monitoring (yellow) and training (green) sites for GVI MahahualFigure 2-4-1 Percentage cover of hermatypic coral and macro algae by phaseFigure 2-4-2 Percentage Cover of Hermatypic Coral and Macro Algae by Site for Phase 104Figure 2-4-3 Percentage cover of hermatypic coral by site from phase 081-104Figure 2-4-4 Percentage cover of macroalgae by site from phase 081-104Figure 2-4-5 Deviation from Average Percentage (081-104) of Common Corals in 104Figure 2-4-6 Relationship between Dictyota and HalimedaFigure 2-4-7 Bleaching Occurrence 081-104Figure 2-4-8 Bleaching occurrence in Siderastrea siderea compared with bleaching occurrence
in other coral speciesFigure 2-4-9 Disease Occurrence 081-104Figure 2-4-10 Percentage of coral colonies with signs of diseaseFigure 2-4-11 Predation Occurrence 081-104Figure 2-4-12 Predation Index: Total number of predation events divided by number of colonies
monitored 081-104Figure 2-4-13 Adult fish recorded per transect across phasesFigure 2-4-14 Total adult fish biomass per phaseFigure 2-4-15 Average Percentage Abundance of Adult Fish by Family: Phases 081-104 Figure 2-4-16 Changes in adult fish family percentage abundance Figure 2-4-17 Percentage abundance of adult fish families per site during 104.Figure 2-4-18 Percentage abundance of juvenile fish families by phaseFigure 2-4-19 Percentage abundance of Acanthuridae and turf algae by phaseFigure 2-4-20 Density of Diadema antillarum and Stenopus hispidus recorded by phaseFigure 4-4-1 Sightings of common elasmobranch species per site visit 091-104Figure 4-4-2 Sightings of moray eels per site visit 091-104Figure 4-4-3 Turtle sightings per site visit 091-104Figure 4-4-4 Number of dolphin encounters per site visit from 091-104Figure 4-4-5 Number of S. barracuda sightings per site visit from 091-104Figure 4-4-6 Number of Lionfish Sightings per site visit 101-104Figure 4-4-7 Size distribution of lionfish recorded during phases 101-104Figure 5-1-1 Marine litter washed up on the beach at Punta GruesaFigure 5-3-1 Percentage of total weight by category for phase 104Figure 5-3-2 Average weekly weight of rubbish collected by phaseFigure 6-4-1 Composition of common bird species (30 or more sightings) in phase 104Figure 6-4-2 Composition of most common (average 5% or more) bird sightings as a percentage
across all phases (092-104)Figure 7-4-1 Average percentage cover of seagrass on seagrass transects during phase 102
and 104Figure 7-4-2 Average percentage cover of T. testudinum and S. filiforme on seagrass transects
during phase 102 and 104Figure 7-4-3 Average blade length of T. testudinum on seagrass transectsFigure 7-4-4 Relationship between T. testudinum blade length and predation during phase 102Figure 7-4-5 Relationship between T. testudinum blade length and predation during phase 104Figure 7-4-6 Average epiphyte cover on T. testudinum blades on seagrass transects during
phase 102 and 104
6© GVI – 2010 Page 6
List of Tables Table 2-3-1 Name, Site ID, Depth and GPS points of the monitoring sites.Table 2-4-1 Coral colonies monitored by CC at Punta GruesaTable 2-4-2 Number of transects and adult fish recorded per phaseTable 2-4-3 Number of transects/juvenile fish recorded per phaseTable 5-3-1 Marine litter collected as actual weight (kg) for phase 104Table 7-3-1 GPS positions for seagrass transects (Units in WGS 84 Format hddd.dddddo )
7© GVI – 2010 Page 7
1. Introduction The Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System (MBRS) extends from Isla Contoy at the North
of the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico, to the Bay Islands of Honduras through Belize and
Guatemala and is the second largest barrier reef in the world.
The GVI Marine Programme within Mexico established its first base, Pez Maya, in the Sian
Ka’an Biosphere Reserve in 2003. Since then the programme has flourished, with a sister
site being set up to the south of the Biosphere near Mahahual. The current projects of GVI
Pez Maya and Punta Gruesa are assisting Amigos de Sian Ka’an (ASK) and Comisión
Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP) to obtain baseline data by conducting
marine surveys along the coast of Quintana Roo. By obtaining this data, ASK and its
partners can begin to focus on the areas needing immediate environmental regulation;
therefore, implementing management protection plans as and when required.
Such a project is especially significant in current times of rapid development along
the coast near the small fishing village of Mahahual area, due to the tourism industry
generated by the cruise ship pier that was built near the town in 2002.
The cruise ship pier was badly damaged following Hurricane Dean in August 2007 and
remained out of operation until October 2008 when Mahahual again began to receive
cruise ships. The current terminal can berth three cruise ships with, on average, seven
arrivals per week during high season. The cruise ships bring a flood of tourists into the
Mahahual region, an area that, at present, only has a limited infrastructure to deal with
large numbers of people. Furthermore, plans are underway to increase the number of
cruise ships in port and to develop the roadway through the mangrove system, increasing
access to vacation homes and hotels. There are also plans to re-open the small airport
about 5 km from Mahahual in an effort to get more people to the area. Such development
invites degradation of the ecosystems contributing to the health of the reef, as well as
activities directly disturbing the reef, such as wave runners and environmentally unaware
tourists, increasing the pressure on marine resources. Consequently, effective monitoring
is becoming ever more important. By assessing the health of the marine environment, new
8© GVI – 2010 Page 8
policies can be formulated and environmental degradation prevented if the appropriate
measures are taken to advocate long-term, sustainable ecotourism.
Punta Gruesa is located approximately 40 km north of Mahahual and 12 km south of
the southern tip of the Sian Ka´an Biosphere Reserve. The area is, at present, relatively
unpopulated although many plots of land in the locality are currently in the hands of foreign
investors to eventually be sold or are in the process of development.
This expedition is the fourth of GVI’s third year at Punta Gruesa. By using divers with
appropriate training, GVI has demonstrated how the local area can benefit from GVI’s
work. The data provided by large numbers of trained researchers will be extremely useful
for the decision makers for effective coastal zone management and provide a comparison
with data collected inside the Sian Ka´an Biosphere at Pez Maya.
9© GVI – 2010 Page 9
2. Synoptic Monitoring Programme
2.1 Introduction
The Synoptic Monitoring Programme looks to evaluate the overall health of the reef by
looking 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 and Acropora cervicornis and Montastraea annularis dominating the
fore reef. Today, many reefs in the Caribbean have been overrun by macroalgae during a
phase shift thought to have been brought about by numerous factors including a decrease
in herbivory from fishing and other pressures, eutrophication from land-based activities
and disease (McClanahan & Muthiga, 1998).
One of the Caribbean’s key reef herbivores, the long-spined sea urchin Diadema
antillarum, suffered mass mortality during 1983-84, resulting in a reduction in number
of approximately 90% (DeLoach, 1999). This has resulted in a large amount of grazing
pressure being removed, providing algae with an opportunity to increase in abundance.
Fishing pressures and the subsequent removal of herbivorous fish such as parrotfish has
further reduced grazers.
The main coral family in the Caribbean was once the Acroporidae which includes Acropora
cervicornis and A. palmata. In the mid 1980’s this family suffered a massive reduction in
abundance, which can be clearly seen on many sites in the area by the rubble of dead
skeletons of the above species. This decline has subsequently been attributed to both
White Band Disease and natural factors, and has led to A. palmata and A. cervicornis
being added to the US Endangered Species list as ‘threatened’ (NOAA, 2006). The
decline in the Acroporidae led to a change in dominance to the lesser reef building families
Poritidae and Agaricidae and it was found that sites across the Caribbean had decreased
in hard coral coverage by as much as 80% in last 30 years (Gardener et al., 2003). With
the reduction in Acropora sp., the decimation of the Diadema population and continued
fishing pressures, algal species have been able to flourish and, combined with increasing
10© GVI – 2010 Page 10
eutrophication, the shift to algal dominance has taken root.
Benthic transects record the abundance of all benthic species as well as looking at coral
health. The presence of coral 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 induced. A report
produced by the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring
Centre (UNEP-WCMC) in 2004 states 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).
Naturally occurring events such as hurricanes can have devastating effects on coral reefs
in very short periods of time (Gardener et al., 2005). The impact of a hurricane can be felt
for some time after the initial strike due to increased sedimentation and nutrient load as
low turbidity and low nutrient levels are required for coral growth and health. An increase in
sedimentation has been found to increase mortality rates due to impeded photosynthesis
and increased energy required to remove sediment from colony surfaces (Nuges &
Roberts, 2003; Yentsch et al., 2002). Turbidity can increase after storms and hurricanes
and also as a result of anthropogenic activities such as deforestation, dredging and coastal
construction. Hurricanes can also damage reefs through increased wave action, which
physically destroys more fragile species.
Different coral families have differing resistances to stress. However, with multiple
stressors present (sediment, removal of herbivores, disease) even the most hardy
can succumb to the pressure, resulting in loss of coral coverage (Kenyon et al., 2006;
Yentsch et al., 2002). The measurement of percentage coral mortality provides a way of
determining the state of health for the colony and these measures are taken during benthic
monitoring (Nuges & Roberts, 2003).
As a result of the phase shift on Caribbean reefs, the abundance and type of algae present
are of particular interest. It has been found that some macroalgae and cyanobacteria do
not simply occupy space on the reef, but can actively inhibit coral recruitment (Kuffner et
11© GVI – 2010 Page 11
al., 2006). Of those algae present on the reef, two key genera are particularly observed,
Halimeda and Dictyota. Halimeda is an important genus due to its calcified structure
providing large amounts of calcium carbonate that contributes greatly to beaches and adds
to the structure of the reef (Littler et al., 1989). Dictyota sp. have been found to not only
inhibit the growth of Halimeda sp. through its epiphytic nature, but also certain species
have been found to be able to kill coral recruits in ways other than by simply shading the
light or taking the available space (Beach et al., 2003; Kuffner et al., 2006). Due to their
opportunistic nature, ability to deal with stress and mechanisms for out-competing coral for
space, algae has been able to maintain the coral-algae phase shift.
The major driver behind the phase shift has not been confirmed, but it is believed that the
reversal of one or more causative factors could lead to a shift back to coral dominance
(Edmunds & Carpenter, 2001). In the Caribbean the decrease in coral coverage is
believed to be slowing (Gardener et al., 2003). Studies in Jamaica have found areas of
Diadema resurgence and within these areas, macroalgae coverage has been found to
have reduced and the number of young corals has increased (Edmunds & Carpenter,
2001).
Through monitoring the abundances of hard corals, algae and various other key benthic
species, as well as numbers of Diadema 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
Large numbers of fish can be found on and around coral reefs. These fish are associated
with the reef for a variety of reasons. The structural complexity of coral reefs provides
shelter for fish, a quick refuge from predators during the day or a safe place to sleep at
night. Others rely on the reef directly for food, be they corallivores, such as Butterflyfish
(Chaetodontidae) or territorial herbivores like some Damselfish (Pomacentridae). The
reef also indirectly provides food for predatory fish, both those that are site attached like
Scorpionfish and pelagic predators such as Jacks.
Fish surveys are focused on specific species (see Appendix II) that play an important role
in the ecology of the reef as herbivores, carnivores, commercially important fish or those
12© GVI – 2010 Page 12
likely to be affected by human activities (AGRRA, 2000).
The most important herbivorous fish on the reef are the Parrotfish (Scaridae) and the
Surgeonfish (Acanthuridae) (AGRRA, 2000).
Parrotfish feed primarily on uncalcified algae and seagrasses. However, they are more
widely known for scraping algal turf from dead coral heads with their fused front teeth,
which form a beak-like structure. Live coral is rarely eaten by parrotfish, with the exception
of the Stoplight Parrotfish Sparisoma viride, and the Queen Parrotfish, Scarus vetula,
which often feed on living Montastraea annularis colonies. Parrotfish also utilise the caves,
overhangs and crevices in the reef for protection at night from predators (DeLoach, 1999).
Acanthuridae regularly feed in large mixed aggregations on the reef, descending upon
damselfish gardens and decimating them before moving on. Feeding continues all day,
with Blue Tangs and Doctorfish concentrating their activities on the reef itself, while the
Ocean Surgeonfish tend to forage over the sand. All surgeonfish play an important role in
limiting the growth of algae on the reef (DeLoach, 1999).
The importance of other fish can be determined by commercial fishing pressure. Many
carnivores on the reef such as Groupers and Snappers are important predators and
their presence denotes a balanced food chain and low levels of fishing. Snappers
feed nocturnally on crustaceans and small fish and inhabit the reef in daylight hours.
Groupers occasionally feed during the day, but mainly at dusk and dawn, preying on fish,
crustaceans and cephalopods (DeLoach, 1999).
Unlike the groupers and snappers, Jacks and Barracuda are pelagic predators and
are considered top-level carnivores feeding mainly on fish. They are also commercially
important fish and their removal has knock-on effects to the balance of the food chain
(DeLoach, 1999).
Other predatory fish recorded during fish surveys and which are susceptible to fishing
pressures are the many Grunt species, often the most abundant fish on many Caribbean
reefs, which spend their days around the reef, feeding at night on sea grass beds, Hogfish,
13© GVI – 2010 Page 13
a favourite target for spear fishers, Spanish Hogfish and Triggerfish (Lee & Dooley, 1998;
DeLoach, 1999).
Fish such as Butterflyfish and Angelfish are also commercially important, but for removal
for the aquarium trade rather than for commercial fishing. Butterflyfish are coralivores,
eating polyps from both hard corals and gorgonians and are considered to be a general
indicator of good coral health. Angelfish, once thought to belong to the same family as
the Butterflyfish, can also be coralivores, but have evolved over time to feed on sponges,
possibly to avoid increased competition for food (AGRRA, 2000 & DeLoach, 1999).
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 only
alters 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
be assessed, any trends or changes can be tracked and improvements or deteriorations
determined.
Population abundances are determined to an extent by larval recruitment. The vast
majority of reef fish are pelagic spawners, releasing their gametes into the water column
where they are under the influence of water flow for several weeks. Other forms of
spawning include benthic egg-laying, which is common among Damselfish and Triggerfish.
Despite the fertilised eggs being laid in nests and protected by diligent parents, once
hatched, even these larvae have a pelagic period where their distribution is also controlled
by water movement. During this time the fish larvae can travel hundreds of miles from
where they were originally spawned, occasionally, however, due to specific oceanographic
influences, larvae may be held close to their site of origin (DeLoach, 1999).
14© GVI – 2010 Page 14
For larvae which survive their pelagic existence, when they eventually settle, they may be
a considerable distance from where they were spawned. Recruitment of these larvae into
the populations of the different sites has been found to vary. There are several theories
about the difference in recruitment levels between sites, even those which are closely
situated. Some believe that each reef has a specific carrying capacity and recruitment is
based on existing adult abundances. Others believe that abundance of larval recruits is
determined after they have settled on a site when competition for resources such as food,
space and shelter begin. Rates of predation at specific sites will also play their part in the
survival of larval recruits. Recruitment has also been found to vary seasonally (DeLoach,
1999).
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 spawning
potential 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 on adult fish, a balanced picture of the reef fish
communities at different sites can be obtained.
15© GVI – 2010 Page 15
Physical Parameters
For 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
clear waters to allow for optimum 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. The
projects 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.
16© GVI – 2010 Page 16
The sites that are monitored as part of the MBRS programme at GVI Punta Gruesa were
chosen through discussions with ASK, the Programa de Manejo Integrado de Recursos
Costeros (MIRC, a subsidiary of UQROO) and discussions with local fishermen.
The established sites currently cover the immediate vicinity at Punta Gruesa but more
sites are looking to be added to the monitoring programme. Seven of these have been
monitored annually and two more were added in 2009, with a range covering 6.5 km of the
coast (see Figure 2-3-1, Table 2-3-1).
17© GVI – 2010 Page 17
Figure 2-3-1 Map of the monitoring (yellow) and training (green) sites for GVI Punta Gruesa
18© GVI – 2010 Page 18
Location Site ID Depth Latitude LongitudeLos Bollos LB10 10m 19.02 21.8 087.33 54.8Las Joyas LJ10 10m 19.01 53.0 087.34 07.6Los Milagros LM10 10m 19.01 35.6 087.34 13.3Costa Norte CN10 10m 19.01 31.0 087.34 16.5Las Delicias LD10 10m 19.01 24.7 087.34 20.2Las Palapas LP10 10m 19.01 55.8 087.34 05.0Flor de Cañón FDC10 10m 19.02 04.4 087.34 03.4Sol Naciente SN10 10m 19.00 36.0 087.34 33.0Los Gorditos LG25 25m 18.59 37.6 087.34 51.9
Table 2-3-1 GPS locations of the monitoring sites. GPS points are listed here in the WGS84 datum
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, in comparison to the
wall at the other sites.
2.4 Results Benthic Cover
During Phase 104, data was collected from seven of the nine monitoring sites. Due to
unfavourable weather conditions it was not possible to complete LB10 or LG25.
A key objective of the coral monitoring programme at Punta Gruesa is the monitoring of
the coverage of, and relationship between, coral and algae. Point Intercept monitoring
in Phase 104 calculated an average coral coverage of 10.43%. This is very similar to
the values calculated for both 102 and 103 (10.45% and 10.66% respectively). The
percentage of coral cover has remained relatively stable since the survey began here in
2008; ranging from 7.62% during 093 to 11.55% during 092. The overall average for the
whole of the survey period is 9.76%.
Algal coverage decreased from 69.68% in Phase 103 to 60.86% in Phase 104. This is the
second lowest value on record. Since monitoring began, algal coverage has varied from
60.10% in 084 to 72.96% in 093 with the overall average for the whole of the survey period
being 67.73%. It is interesting to note that the three lowest average values on record all
occur during the fourth phase of each year.
19© GVI – 2010 Page 19
Figure 2-4-1 Percentage cover of hermatypic coral and macroalgae by phase
LJ10 had the highest coral coverage this phase with 19.83% (Figure 2-4-2), whilst FDC10
had the lowest with 5.50%. Over time, the site with the lowest coral cover has alternated
between FDC10 and LD10 (Figure 2-4-12).
Figure 2-4-2 Percentage Cover of Hermatypic Coral and Macro Algae by Site for Phase 104
Average algal coverage has varied hugely since monitoring began. Once again there is a
lot of variation within each site between phases (Figure 2-4-4).
Figure 2-4-3 Percentage cover of hermatypic coral by site from phase 081-104Black line indicates average across all sites
Figure 2-4-4 Percentage cover of macroalgae by site from Phase 081-104Black line indicates average across all sites
This phase has seen higher than average observations for Agaricia agaricites, Meandrina
meandrites, and Siderastrea siderea when compared with the 2008-2010 average coral
percentage cover (Figure 2-4-5). Agaricia agaricites has shown levels furthest above the
average. This phase has seen lower than average observations of Dichocoenia stokesi,
Diploria strigosa, Montastraea annularis, Montastraea cavernosa, Montastraea faveolata
and Porites astreoides. Diploria strigosa has shown levels furthest below average.
20© GVI – 2010 Page 20
Figure 2-4-5 Deviation from Average Percentage (081-104) of Common Corals in 104
Previous GVI Phase Reports from the old base in Mahahual have shown an inverse
relationship between Dictyota sp. and Halimeda sp. (GVI Mahahual 074). The data
from the new Punta Gruesa base does not show this relationship very clearly, although
percentage cover of Halimeda sp. tends to peak around the second phase of each year,
whereas the percentage cover of Dictyota sp. tends to be at its lowest during this phase of
the year. (Figure 2-4-6).
21© GVI – 2010 Page 21
Figure 2-4-6 Relationship between Dictyota and Halimeda Coral Diseases, Predation and Bleaching
During Phase 104, 679 corals were assessed as part of the Coral Communities survey.
There have been previous phases that included more corals but this phase, the number of
corals assessed per transect was relatively high in comparison to previous phases.
Phase 081 082 083 084 091 092 093 094 101 102 103 104Transects 21 32 35 34 39 30 45 45 45 35 44 35Colonies 410 558 523 517 542 554 767 831 684 632 771 679
Table 2-4-1 Coral colonies monitored by CC at Punta Gruesa
During Phase 104 there were 112 recorded instances of bleaching, including nine of partial
bleaching. No full bleaching was recorded. The total bleaching occurrence in all corals is
equal to 16.49% of corals surveyed (Figure 2-4-8). This is the lowest level of bleaching
recorded at Punta Gruesa.
Siderastrea siderea is often found to be pale bleached and has therefore been separated
from the other corals so as not to bias the results and obscure any bleaching patterns
in other corals. There has been a dramatic decrease in the bleaching occurrence in
Siderastrea siderea colonies during Phase 104 (Figure 2-4-8). This is the lowest level of
22© GVI – 2010 Page 22
bleaching recorded in this species.
There has also been a decrease in bleaching occurrence in other coral species although to
a lesser extent. Bleaching decreased from 27.89% in Phase 103 to 7.92% in Phase 104.
This is also the lowest level of bleaching recorded since the survey began.
Bleaching this year peaked in the third phase, 103, which is a little earlier than in previous
years. In 2008 and in 2009 bleaching peaked in the fourth phase. This pattern is not true of
Siderestrea siderea however, which showed its highest levels of bleaching in Phases 081,
092 and 103.
Figure 2-4-7. Bleaching Occurrence 081-104
Figure 2-4-8 Bleaching occurrence in Siderastrea siderea compared with bleaching occurrence in other coral species
Dark-spot disease remains the most common disease sighted (Figure 2-4-9) and red-
band disease was the only target disease not recorded in 104. This is in stark contrast
to Phase 103 when it was recorded on 31 different colonies. Overall, the percentage of
diseased colonies remains low at 7.81% but this is still the third highest value recorded.
There has been a steady increase in disease occurrence since monitoring began
(Figure 2-4-10). Incidence of disease was recorded over a wide variety of coral genus.
Agaricia, Dichocoenia, Diploria, Helioceris, Meandrina, Montastraea, Siderastrea and
Stephanocoenia were all affected, and in some genus, Montastraea in particular, multiple
species showed multiple diseases to be present.
Figure 2-4-9 Disease Occurrence 081-104
Figure 2-4-10 Percentage of coral colonies with signs of disease
The most common type of predation was sponge predation (Figure 2-4-11), which affected
23© GVI – 2010 Page 23
51 colonies, followed by gorgonian predation, which affected 11. Sponge predation has
been the most common type of predation recorded every. The only types of predation not
recorded this phase were short coral snail and fireworm.
Figure 2-4-11 Predation Occurrence 081-104
In total there were 79 instances of predation recorded out of the 679 corals that were
monitored. Figure 2-4-12 shows a predation index to compare the amount of predation
seen with that seen in previous phases. The amount of predation recorded has increased
dramatically since Phase 094, peaking during Phase 102. Since then, predation levels
have dropped but are still much higher than they were between 081 and 094.
Figure 2-4-12 Predation Index: Total number of predation events divided by number of colonies monitored 081-104
24© GVI – 2010 Page 24
Fish Populations
A total of 64 transects recording target adult and juvenile fish species were completed
in Phase 104, eight at each monitoring site. Los Gorditos was the only site that was not
completed.
A total of 879 individuals from 30 species were recorded in Phase 104, an average of
13.73 per transect. The number of adults per transect recorded appears to gradually
increase across phases but with considerable variation (Figure 2-4-13).
Phase Transects per phase
Total target adult fish in phase
Av. fish per transect
No. of species
081 30 391 13.03 31082 54 649 12.02 33083 49 280 5.71 27084 40 321 8.03 28091 39 328 8.41 29092 48 843 17.56 36093 72 809 11.24 38094 72 1282 17.81 38101 72 1264 17.56 40102 56 1050 18.75 31103 72 792 11.00 33104 64 879 13.73 30
Table 2-4-2 Number of transects and adult fish recorded per phase.
Figure 2-4-13 Adult fish recorded per transect across phases
Adult fish biomass is estimated using a weighting system for each size category and
species (Froese & Pauly, 2006, figures obtained from table constructed by A. Cameron).
Total biomass of all target adult fish species in 104 was calculated to be 4.59 kg 100 m-2
(Figure 2-4-14). This brings the average biomass for our study area to 3.93 kg 100 m-2.
Figure 2-4-14 Total adult fish biomass per phase
Following previous trends, the Haemulidae was the most commonly recorded family in
Phase 104 (Figure 2-4-15), with 63.52% of the total number observed, an increase from
25© GVI – 2010 Page 25
previous phases. The second most abundant family was the Acanthuridae with 15.11%,
the lowest value recorded for this family since Phase 094. The next two most abundant
families were Scaridae and Serranidae, which is consistent with data from previous
phases. Sphyraenidae (Great Barracuda) are rarely recorded in transects in any phase,
although they have been observed outside of transects (see Incidental Sightings).
Figure 2-4-15 Average Percentage Abundance of Adult Fish by Family: Phases 081-104
Haemulidae have been the most abundant family every phase and their abundance is
increasing. In previous phases it was noted that the two dominant families, Haemulidae
and Acanthuridae, appeared to be showing a link in abundance: where one increased the
other decreased and vice versa. This pattern has continued this phase. The percentage
abundances of Pomacanthidae and Pomacentridae increased and decreased in sync with
each other between Phases 082 and 102 but this pattern has not continued since then.
Balistidae and Monacanthidae are grouped together. The percentage abundance of this
collective group declined dramatically between 081-091 but since then numbers have
increased slightly and remained relatively stable.
Figure 2-4-16 Changes in adult fish family percentage abundance
26© GVI – 2010 Page 26
The grunts (Haemulidae) were the most abundant family observed at all of the sites
monitored except FDC10 (Figure 2-4-16). At FDC10 the most abundant family was the
Acanthuridae, which made up 35.4% of the fish recorded, followed by the Haemulidae
at 26.8%. This is similar to the findings from 103 when Acanthuridae was also the most
abundant family at FDC10 making up 37.8% of the fish recorded, followed by Haemulidae
with 30.5% (see previous Phase reports). Acanthuridae were the second most abundant
family across most sites during 104, with the exception of LJ10 where Serranidae were the
second most abundant and LM10 where Acanthuridae and Serranidae were joint second
in abundance.
Figure 2-4-17 Percentage abundance of adult fish families per site during 104.
Juvenile Fish
A total of 495 juveniles were recorded in the 64 transects completed, an average of 7.73
per transect. Across the three years of data collection, juvenile numbers seem to be higher
in the second and third phases of the year and lowest during the first phase of the year.
Phase Transects per phase Total juvenile fish in phase
Av. Juvenile fish per transect
081 30 302 10.07082 54 815 15.09083 49 606 12.37084 40 308 7.70091 39 224 5.74092 48 862 17.96093 72 2150 29.86094 72 570 7.92101 72 437 6.07102 56 1211 21.63103 72 1145 15.90
27© GVI – 2010 Page 27
104 64 495 7.73
Table 2-4-3 Number of transects/juvenile fish recorded per phase
Stegastes partitus is, on average, the most abundant juvenile species recorded and
numbers are lowest during the fourth phase each year, however, the next three most
abundant species all tend to be lowest in numbers during the first phase each year. The
three lowest abundances for Halichoeres garnoti and for Sparisoma aurofrenatum were
all from the first phases of the year, and two of the three lowest abundances of Stegastes
partitus were also in the first phase of the year. This could explain the annual cyclical
pattern observed in juvenile fish abundance.
As with previous phases a total of six juvenile fish families were recorded on transects
in 104. The most abundant family was Labridae, which made up 40.81% of recorded
juveniles. This is consistent with data from previous phases. Looking at Figure 2-
4-18 there appears to be some link in percentage abundance between Labridae
and Pomacentridae juveniles, with one decreasing as the other increases. Scaridae
abundance is quite variable; their numbers seem to peak during the fourth phase of each
year. Acanthuridae, Chaetodontidae and Grammatidae juvenile numbers on the reef
remain low across all phases.
Figure 2-4-18 Percentage abundance of juvenile fish families by phase
Acanthuridae and turf algae show some positive correlation (Pearson’s r = 0.75) (Figure 2-
4-19), however the apparent close link during 2008 did not appear to be as close in 2009
or 2010. A sharp decrease has been observed in both Acanthuridae and turf algae this
phase.
Figure 2-4-19 Percentage abundance of Acanthuridae and turf algae by phase
Stenopus hispidus and Diadema antillarum
28© GVI – 2010 Page 28
Surveys of banded coral shrimp (Stenopus hispidus) and long-spined sea urchins
(Diadema antillarum) taken during the juvenile fish transects recorded very few sightings.
3 Diadema antillarum were recorded this phase giving a density of 0.00156 individuals per
m2 and an average density of 0.00131 individuals per m2 across all phases. 6 Stenopus
hispidus were recorded this phase giving a density of 0.00313 individuals per m2 during
and an average density of 0.00416 individuals per m2 across all phases.
Figure 2-4-20 Density of Diadema antillarum and Stenopus hispidus recorded by phase
2.5 Discussion
Benthic Cover
Coral cover on reefs across the Caribbean has decreased dramatically over the past three
decades 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 percentage coral cover for Phase 104 was 10.43%,
with the average over all phases being 9.76%. This percentage of coral cover is slightly
below the regional average of 11% but is above the Mexico Yucatan average of 7.5%
(Wilkinson, 2008).
The macroalgae cover is dramatically higher than the regional average of 18% and the
Mexico Yucatan average of 14.9% (Wilkinson, 2008). AGRRA (2005) states that the
average macroalgae cover for the Mesoamerican Reef is 25% and 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 5 Hurricane 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.
The three lowest average values of macroalgae cover at Punta Gruesa all occur during
29© GVI – 2010 Page 29
the fourth phase of each year. Dawes et al. (1974) carried out studies on three species
of macroalgae (Eucheuma sp.) in Florida and found that they exhibited peak rates of
growth in the spring and lower rates of growth in the summer/fall. These lower summer
growth rates were due to high temperatures, increased light intensities and a decrease
in available nutrients. The monitoring during the fourth phase of each year occurred after
these low rates of growth and before peak growth rates in spring and so could explain the
observed pattern.
Previous GVI Phase Reports have shown an inverse relationship between Dictyota sp.
and Halimeda sp. (GVI Mahahual 074). Calcified green algae, particularly Halimeda sp.
are especially important as the predominant contributors to the production of marine
sediments (Littler et al., 1989). A study by Beach et al. (2003), on another reef (Florida)
concluded that epiphytic Dictyota sp. have a negative impact on Halimeda sp. resulting
in a significantly slower rate of growth. Their work indicated that epiphytic Dictyota
negatively impacts metabolic rates of Halimeda tuna, in part by shading, and also through
a chemically mediated process. The relationship between Halimeda sp. and Dictyota sp.
has not been demonstrated very clearly in recent years at Punta Gruesa. This could be
due to the presence of the non-epiphytic form of Dictyota sp., as this has limited affects on
Halimeda sp. (Beach et al., 2003).
Coral Diseases, Predation and Bleaching
During Phase 104, 16.49% of corals were recorded as suffering from some sort of
bleaching and there were no recorded instances of full bleaches. This is the lowest value
recorded since monitoring began in 2008. This is the case for both Siderastrea siderea,
which is often found to be bleached, and for the other coral species as well. Bleaching in
2010 peaked in the Phase 103, slightly earlier than in 2008 and 2009 when it peaked in
the fourth phase. Studies have recorded that temperature increases of 1°C above average
for a sustained period (i.e. a month) can cause mass bleaching (Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999).
This can also be amplified by calm seas, allowing more photosynthetically active radiation
to penetrate the surface waters (Sheppard et al., 2009). This would explain the (roughly)
annual pattern that has been observed here since 2008. NOAA (2010) observed that,
since March 2010, monthly sea-surface temperature averaged over the whole of the main
cyclone development region (which includes the Caribbean Sea and tropical Atlantic
30© GVI – 2010 Page 30
Ocean) have been at record levels. These high temperatures early in the season could
have caused an early peak in levels of bleaching. The extremely low levels of bleaching
recorded during Phase 104 are difficult to explain given that sea temperatures were
predicted to be at record levels throughout most of 2010.
Dark spot disease remains the most common disease recorded. This disease is most
commonly observed on Siderastrea siderea (Humann & DeLoach 2008), which may
explain why the disease is recorded with such frequency. Siderastrea siderea is the most
common coral recorded, making up 30% of the corals recorded during Phase 104. There
has been a steady increase in disease occurrence since monitoring began at Punta
Gruesa. Rosenberg & Ben-Haim (2002) compiled a review of microbial diseases in corals
in which they concluded that diseases of corals have increased dramatically during the
last few decades. They stated that outbreaks of these diseases are highly correlated with
increases in sea-water temperature and went on to say that in the twentieth century, there
was an average worldwide 1˚C rise in temperature, the largest in more than 1000 years.
As mentioned above, NOAA (2010) observed that 2010 has been a record year for sea
surface temperature. These conditions were expected to persist through August-October.
Sponge predation has been the most common type of predation recorded each phase, and
showed a huge peak in occurrence during Phase 102. Overall there has been an increase
in levels of predation. This trend is still evident when sponge predation data is excluded.
The reasons behind this increase in predation and overgrowth events are unknown.
Fish Populations
The number of adults recorded was slightly higher during Phase 104 than during 103,
13.73 fish per transect compared with 11.00 fish per transect respectively. The number
of adults recorded per transect appears to have gradually increased across phases but
with considerable variation. This is mostly due to an increase in Haemulidae, the dominant
family, which makes up an average of 50% of the fish recorded. The reason for their
apparent increase in abundance here is unknown.
Total biomass of all target adult fish species in Phase 104 was calculated at 4.59 kg 100
m-2, bringing the average biomass for our study area to 3.93 kg 100 m-2. Both of these
31© GVI – 2010 Page 31
values are lower than the biomass calculated for the Mesoamerican region, which is 4.98
kg 100 m-2, but are higher than the biomass calculated for the Mexico Yucatan region,
which is 3.03 kg 100 m-2 (Wilkinson, 2008). It is worth bearing in mind though, that the
biomass calculated at Punta Gruesa is calculated using target fish species only, whereas
the figures given above may include additional species.
In the report for Phase 101 it was mentioned that surveyor error in sizing estimates
may have biased the data for 094. Although training is rigorous and volunteers must
show consistently high accuracy in identification and sizing estimates prior to beginning
monitoring, there will always be some degree of human error in data collection, particularly
in size estimates done by eye. Studies suggest that visual sizing by non-specialist divers
will achieve 80% accuracy by the third trial (Darwall & Dulvy, 1996), and that this is not
significantly different from observations by experienced observers. Without recourse to
expensive recording equipment, error in this area is as minimised as practically possible.
Following previous trends, the Haemulidae was the most abundant family in Phase 104,
making up 63.52% of the total number observed, an increase from previous phases.
Haemulidae often make up the largest biomass on reefs in continental or insular shelf
areas that have large expanses of grass beds and sand flats (Human & DeLoach, 2008).
In previous phases it was noted that the two dominant families, Haemulidae and
Acanthuridae, appeared to be showing an inverse link in abundance: where one
increased the other decreased and vice versa. This pattern has continued this phase. As
these families occupy differing niches within the coral reef ecosystem, it is unlikely that
populations should have a direct effect on one another. Acanthuridae feed throughout
the day on a wide variety of plants on the reef (DeLoach, 1999), while most Haemulidae
are carnivores feeding nocturnally on crustaceans in the sand flats and seagrass beds
(Humann & DeLoach, 2008). This habitat preference may explain why both species are
less frequently recorded on the deeper site LG than at the shallower reef crest sites with
easier access to feeding grounds (see previous reports from Punta Gruesa).
The percentage abundances of Pomacanthidae and Pomacentridae (represented only by
the yellowtail damselfish, Microspathadon chrysurus) increased and decreased in sync
32© GVI – 2010 Page 32
with each other between Phases 082 and 102 but this pattern has not continued since
then. These two families also occupy different niches within the coral reef ecosystem
so, once again, it is unlikely that their populations should have a direct affect on each
other. Pomacanthidae are sponge-eating species. The tissue from a wide variety of
sponges making up 95% of the food consumed by species in the genus Holacanthus, and
70% in the genus Pomacanthus. Microspathadon chrysurus, however, farm and defend
permanent territories of filamentous algae that surround their centrally-located hiding holes
(DeLoach, 1999).
Throughout the three years of data collection, juvenile numbers have exhibited a cyclic
pattern, with abundance being greatest in the second and third phases of the year and
lowest during the first phase of the year. This pattern is mostly driven by abundance of
Stegastes partitus (Bicolor damselfish), Thalassoma bifasciatum (Bluehead wrasse),
Sparisoma aurofrenatum (Redband parrotfish) and Halichoeres garnoti (Yellowhead
wrasse) all of which are recorded in great numbers each year at Punta Gruesa and all of
which are highest in numbers during the second and third phases. These results can be
explained by spawning cycles. Although many species settle randomly throughout the
year, recruitment reaches its peak in the summer (DeLoach, 1999).
The most abundant juvenile family recorded was Labridae, which made up 40.81% of
juveniles recorded this phase. This is consistent with data from previous phases. This is
partly due to the fact that there are six different species within this family that are recorded,
but is also due to the very high numbers of Thalassoma bifasciatum and Halichoeres
garnoti.
There appears to be some link in percentage abundance between Labridae and
Pomacentridae juveniles, with one decreasing as the other increases. This may be the
result of spawning cycles. Scaridae abundance is quite variable; their numbers seem to
peak during the fourth phase of each year.
Acanthuridae and turf algae show some positive correlation, however the apparent close
link during 2008 did not appear to be so close in 2009 or 2010. This is the second most
abundant family on the reef, making up over 15% of the fish recorded during Phase 104,
33© GVI – 2010 Page 33
and given their preference for turf algae, it would be expected that there would be a close
correlation between the abundance of turf and the Acanthuridae. Such a correlation
may be considered to be indicative of a balanced equilibrium within the reef ecosystem;
however an increased abundance of Acanthuridae might also indicate a phase shift to an
algae-dominated reef. Although Acanthuridae abundance is relatively high, overall their
abundance does not appear to be increasing across the survey time.
Stenopus hispidus and Diadema antillarum
Diadema antillarum is an important functional grazer of algae on coral reefs that was
largely wiped out by an unknown pathogen in the Caribbean during 1983-84 (Reid et al.,
2009). The population has since been reported as making a slow comeback (Humann
& DeLoach, 2002), however at 0.00156 individuals per m2 this does not appear to be
the case in this region. This density is much lower than the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef
average, which is 0.03 per m2, and is also much lower than the value for the Caribbean
region, which is 0.15 per m2 (AGRRA, 2005). The removal of D. antillarum led to a lack of
any major kind of grazers and a rapid increase in the abundance of fleshy algae, which in
turn led to a reduction in fish abundance and hard coral cover (Sheppard et al., 2009). It
is probable, however, that abundant herbivorous fish populations have probably kept algal
growth within ecologically tolerable limits (Wilkinson, 2008).
Banded coral shrimps are a widespread and abundant decapod sought after in the
aquarium trade for their bright colour and ease of maintenance. Their abundance, 0.00313
individuals per m2, also appears to be low in our region, however both of these species are
frequently concealed under overhangs and in crevices during the day and thus may not
have been noticed by recorders.
34© GVI – 2010 Page 34
3. Community Work Programme
3.1 IntroductionGVI is committed to working with the local communities, assisting them to guide
Mahahual´s development towards a sustainable future. For that, we center 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 lesson.
3.2 Objectives
The objectives of the community programme at Punta Gruesa are:
1. To raise awareness about the importance of the surrounding ecosystems,
providing information and organizing activities to reinforce the knowledge given.
2. To provide English lessons that will help to develop necessary skills 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 local community
and provide help if it is needed.
3.3 Activities and Achievements
The program was carried out in three main areas: English lessons at the primary school
on Tuesday and Thursday mornings; Environmental education at the secondary school
on Tuesday and Thursday mornings, and English lessons for adults and children at the
primary school on a Thursday evening.
The English lessons for children are carried out while they are at school. 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.
35© GVI – 2010 Page 35
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.
Numbers can vary, but on average up to 10 or more adults regularly attend. The structure
of these lessons is usually led by the participants who have specific requirements based
on their careers.
3.4 Review
English Language Programme
The school year ends in late July and begins again in early September. During the school
year the volunteers taught English in the primary school from 9:30 to 10:30 am. In the
evening, English lessons for adults were broken into two sessions from 16:30 to 18:00,
and then from 18:30 to 20:00; some children also attended these sessions.
Since GVI has moved to Punta Gruesa the number of cruise ships docking in Mahahual
has greatly increased. A major source of finance to the economy is from these cruise
ships and the majority of passengers from the cruise ships speak English, thus this is
a great incentive for those running businesses in Mahahual to learn English in order to
increase their sales. During the cruise ship ‘season’ there are a lot more people working in
Mahahual as they travel from Chetumal, Limones, Pedro Santos and several other towns
nearby, thus there is greater attendance during this time of year.
In the past, English lessons held when the schools are closed proved to be more
complicated to facilitate as it was more difficult to reach children directly. Posters were put
up around Mahahual to inform the general public, however organising a central locality to
hold the lessons, at a time of day that would suit the majority, proved more difficult than
when the primary school was open and available to use for lessons.
Generally, however, the volunteers and students alike seemed to enjoy this experience,
and felt a sense of accomplishment in doing it.
Environmental Education
This program took place in the secondary school every Tuesday and Thursday from 11:30
to 12:30pm.
36© GVI – 2010 Page 36
The lessons were given in Spanish, thus it was important that there was always a Spanish
speaker in the group to assist with translation; however, some of the students could speak
English. The volunteers were generally very keen in participating and helping out with the
activities and/or games organized.
Other Programmes and Activities
This phase we had the opportunity to reinforce our relationship with the Tulum community
for the Tortuga Festival. Every year GVI help one of their project partners, Casa de la
Cultura de Tulum, to organise this festival to celebrate the end of the turtle nesting season.
The volunteers helped to organise games and activities to raise general environmental
awareness of the presence of turtles in the region, as well as highlighting their vulnerability
to anthropogenic influences, and how we can help to minimise these impacts.
37© GVI – 2010 Page 37
4. Incidental Sightings Programme
4.1 Introduction
GVI Punta Gruesa implemented an incidental sightings program in January 2008, following
on from the previous work carried out in the twon of Mahahual. The 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 megafauna by quantifying global patterns of
biodiversity, undertaking comparative studies, and monitoring the status of and impacts on
threatened species.
4.2 AimsThe aim of the project is to record all megafauna 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 megafauna presentation during science training, to aid identification.
All the completed dives are logged by GVI, showing the total effort for each phase in
comparison with the species recorded. The number of snorkeling excursions into the
lagoon was not recorded but is believed to be relatively consistent with that of previous
38© GVI – 2010 Page 38
phases.
Previous Mahahual expeditions have recorded turtle nesting sites during the nesting
season. However in Punta Gruesa there are no nesting beaches so this programme has
been discontinued.
For the first time in Phase 093 GVI Punta Gruesa began recording lionfish sightings.
Over the past decade the Pacific Lionfish (Pterois volitans) has established itself along
the Atlantic coast as a result of multiple releases (intentional or otherwise) from private
aquaria. This invasive species, lacking in natural predators, has adapted well to the warm
waters of the Caribbean and is currently spreading its geographical range along the
Mesoamerican coastline.
4.4 Results
A total of 108 incidental sightings (excluding Great Barracuda and Lionfish) were recorded
during 242 site visits in Phase 104.
Elasbobranchs
Rays were the most commonly observed elasmobranchs. A total of 60 rays were seen, 37
of them Southern Stingrays (Figure 4-4-1).
Figure 4-4-1 Sightings of common elasmobranch species per site visit 091-104
Eels
A total of twelve moray eels were recorded in 104 which is equal to the sightings from
Phase 103. There were six sightings of green morays, five spotted morays and one
golden-tailed moray (Figure 4-4-2). The number of sightings has varied over previous
phases but for all three species, the three highest records are from Phases 092, 093 and
094. There have been far fewer sightings during 2010.
Figure 4-4-2 Sightings of moray eels per site visit 091-104
Turtles
This phase there were nine turtle sightings, which is equal to 0.04 turtle sightings per site
39© GVI – 2010 Page 39
visit (Figure 4-4-3), the lowest value on record.
Figure 4-4-3 Turtle sightings per site visit 091-104
Marine Mammals
During Phase 104 there were five dolphin encounters involving a total of 18 dolphins; six
atlantic spotted, nine bottlenose and three unidentified individuals. Phase 101 saw a huge
peak in dolphin numbers (Figure 4-4-4), with 24 encounters involving 128 dolphins. Since
then, the number of dolphin sightings has decreased and remained relatively stable
Figure 4-4-4 Number of dolphin encounters per site visit from 091-104
Great Barracuda
Sixteen Sphyraena barracuda (Great Barracuda) were recorded during Phase 104. S.
barracuda numbers peaked during Phase 092 but have steadily declined since then
(Figure 4-4-5).
Figure 4-4-5 Number of S. barracuda sightings per site visit from 091-104
Lionfish
During Phase 104 a total of 250 lionfish sightings were recorded. This is a huge increase
on the numbers recorded in previous phases. This survey has only been running for four
phases but the highest number recorded previous to Phase 104 was in 102 when 77 were
recorded.
Figure 4-4-6 Number of Lionfish Sightings per site visit 101-104
Figure 4-47 shows the size distribution of the recorded lionfish. 101 records from Phase
104 have not been included because exact sizes were not given.
Figure 4-4-7 Size distribution of lionfish recorded during Phases 101-104
40© GVI – 2010 Page 40
4.5 Discussion
Incidental sightings of large marine creatures are often good indicators of a healthy
ecosystem. These species are highly mobile animals and therefore their movements
depend on a range of external factors.
Elasmobranchs
Southern stingrays are the most common elasmobranches recorded. Sightings increased
steadily during 2009, peaking during Phase 093, but since then numbers have dropped
and remained relatively stable. Southern stingrays tend to spend a lot of time partially
buried in the sand, just off the wall. They are often very conspicuous at the dive sites,
which may partially explain the high numbers recorded. Other elasmobranch species
are sighted fairly regularly but not in sufficient numbers to make any conclusions about
changes in their abundance. This may be for a variety of reasons. Nurse sharks tend to
be nocturnal and often lie under ledges or overhangs making them difficult to spot. Lesser
electric rays and yellow stingrays, as well as being well hidden, tend to inhabit shallow
sandy areas like seagrass beds or lagoons. They are less likely to be spotted on the reef
itself, where the majority of our activities are carried out.
Eels
All three eel species were recorded in relatively large numbers during the last three
phases of 2009. Since then the number of sightings has decreased. It is unlikely that the
number of eel sightings accurately reflects the abundance of each species as they are
rarely to be found out in the open. During the day, most species are reclusive and tend to
hide in dark recesses (Humann & DeLoach, 2008) making them very difficult to spot. The
reason behind the apparent drop in numbers since 2009 is unknown.
Turtles
The total number of turtles recorded at Punta Gruesa during Phase 104 was the lowest
recorded over the past two years. The number of hawksbill turtles has decreased steadily
over this period with Phase 104 having the lowest number of sightings recorded over that
time. This contradicts the work of Beggs et al., (2007) who found that that there has been
up to an eight fold increase in the number of Hawksbill nests in Barbados suggesting an
41© GVI – 2010 Page 41
increase in numbers. This apparent rise in the Caribbean population is also backed up
by the attempts from Cuba to downgrade Eretmochelys imbriocota to Appendix II on the
CITES list (www.cites.org). This unfortunately was mainly to enable the reopening of the
legal Hawksbill shell trade route with Japan which has been closed since 1993. Appendix
II would allow this under regulations (CITES Regulation of Trade Article IV).
Loggerhead turtle numbers have peaked during the second phase of the past two years.
Although turtles do not nest on the beaches of Punta Gruesa during the May-September
nesting season, many beaches in the area are used. This is why more turtles are sighted
at the start of the nesting season (the second phase of the year), and few after the end of
the season (the fourth phase).
Marine mammals
Dolphin numbers have remained relatively stable, with the exception of Phase 101, which
saw an increase in observations. Their behaviour is very unpredictable but sightings tend
to increase during cooler periods.
Great Barracuda
An important apex predator alongside sharks, S.barracuda populations help to maintain
a healthy equilibrium within coral reef ecosystems. The reefs in the area are subjected
to low level fishing pressure from a group of six to ten spear fishermen. The fishermen
fish the reef on average once a week targeting Great Barracuda alongside other fish
species. In addition to spearfishing, the coastline also plays host to sporadic game fishing
tournaments during which S. barracuda are one of the species caught.
The number of sightings throughout 2010 have been consistently low, whereas in 2009
they were recorded in much higher numbers. The reasons for such a significant decrease
in S. barracuda sightings is unclear but may be partially attributed to a lack of observations
of schooling behaviour. No more than two individuals were seen together this phase
compared to Phase 102 when 11 individuals were observed in a group or phase 093 when
15 S. barracuda were seen together. It is not yet understood whether schooling of large
members of the species is subject to seasonal variation but hopefully this will become
42© GVI – 2010 Page 42
clear with long term data collection.
Lionfish
After their arrival in the Caribbean in 1992 (Schofield, 2009) the population of lionfish has
increasing exponentially, to the point where there are now densities being reported off
the Bahamas of 300 individuals per hectare. The first reported sightings in the Sian Ka’an
Bioreserve were in May 2009 in the small fishing village of Punta Allen. Since then, there
have been numerous specimens reported in the reserve covering a range of habitats.
There are 3 major problems caused by P. volitans. Firstly, due to their recent arrival into
the ecosystem there are no natural predators to keep their numbers in check. Although
limited reports have been made of predation by Mycteroperca tigris, Tiger Grouper, and
anecdotal evidence provided by fishermen suggest that Epinephelus striatus, Nassau
Groupers, have been feeding with some regularity (Maljkovic et al., 2008) there have
been no documented cases of predation on a large scale. Secondly, their reproductive
strategy has meant that their population is flourishing, much to the suspected detriment
of other species. They lay between 15 and 30,000 eggs over a four day period every
month throughout the year. Finally, P. volitans is a voracious piscivore. There have been
documented cases of over 21 individual specimens found in the stomach of a 25cm
organism. This, combined with their hunting method, Lionfish use their outstretched
pectoral fins to slowly pursue and corner their prey (Allen & Eschmeyer, 1973), and the
lack of experience of prey species with this behaviour, may increase their predation
efficiency (Whitfield et al., 2002).
However, without knowledge of diet, dietary preferences and foraging requirements,
the impact of lionfish on prey populations and potential competitors for food cannot be
evaluated (Whitfield et al., 2002).
Phase 104 has seen a huge increase in numbers, with 250 being recorded in total.
Previous reports have observed that the majority of observations have seen the lionfish
under overhangs or in swim-throughs but recent anecdotal evidence suggests that they
are frequently spotted out in the open on the reef top.
43© GVI – 2010 Page 43
Of the 149 for which sizes were recorded, 18 of them fell in the 26cm+ category, which
unfortunately does suggest that there are reproductively mature individuals in the
population and that we should expect to a see an increase in the number of sightings over
the coming phases. Due to the nature of the diving here at Punta Gruesa it is not always
feasible to catch every lionfish on sighting it so multiple observations will inevitably occur.
44© GVI – 2010 Page 44
5. Marine Litter Monitoring Programme
5.1 Introduction
Phase 092 saw the beginning of the marine litter monitoring 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.
Figure 5-1-1 Marine litter washed up on the beach at Punta Gruesa
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
order that only a weekly amount of debris is recorded. Materials are collected from the
45© GVI – 2010 Page 45
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
54.92kg of marine litter was collected during Phase 104 (Table 5-3-1). It should also be
noted that, although polystyrene contributes only an insignificant amount to the total weight
of litter collected (only 2.5%), small pieces of polystyrene are one of the most abundant
items to be found on the transect (personal observation).
Fabric (0 kg) Natural material (modified) (4.05 kg)
Glass (7.07 kg) Medical waste (0.2 kg)
Plastic (21.74 kg) Rubber (0 kg)
Polystyrene (1.4 kg) Rope (0.14 kg)
Metal (8.5 kg) Other (11.82 kg)
Table 5-3-1 Marine litter collected as actual weight (kg) for Phase 104
Figure 5-3-1 Percentage of total weight by category for Phase 104
The amount of litter seems to peak during the fourth phase each year (Figure 5-3-2).
46© GVI – 2010 Page 46
Plastic has been the heaviest category, on average, every phase since the survey began.
Several of the categories also seem to have exhibited a steady increase over this time,
including Metal, Natural Materials and Other.
Figure 5-3-2 Average weekly weight of rubbish collected by phase
5.5 Discussion
Punta Gruesa’s location on the Yucatan Peninsula means that it faces the Caribbean
Current. 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 these 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 storm drains
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.
As has been the case for every phase, plastics have again constituted the largest volume
of all the categories, being responsible for 39.6% of the total weight collected. 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 PCB’s 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.
When looking at the results, Polystyrene looks as though it only contributes to a very
47© GVI – 2010 Page 47
small percentage of the litter collected. This is due to its light weight though, rather than
its absence. In reality it accounts for a large volume of the litter collected. As with the
plastic this could be due to its resilience and light weight making it easy to transport long
distances.
Even though the data shows a large volume of rubbish being collected from a relatively
small section of beach, it is possible 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 of Thalassia 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 75 cm deep.
48© GVI – 2010 Page 48
6. Bird Monitoring Programme
6.1 Introduction
A bird monitoring programme was initiated in April 2009.
With regard to avi-fauna, Mexico, Central and South America can be divided into three
distinct 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 also
include 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, the population of resident breeders is
significantly enlarged by seasonal migrants. There are four different types of migratory
birds: Winter visitors migrating south from North America during the winter (August to
May); Summer residents living and breeding in Mexico but migrating to South America
for the winter months; Transient migrants breeding in North America and migrating to
South America in the winter but passing through Mexico; Pelagic visitors living offshore but
passing 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
● Investigate the abundance and diversity of bird species. Long-term bird data
gathered over a sustained period could highlight trends not noticeable in short-term
49© GVI – 2010 Page 49
surveys.
50© GVI – 2010 Page 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 and one or two volunteers monitor
one of four 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 to avoid double-counting
where individuals are very active or numerous. Birds are identified using binoculars,
cameras and a range of bird 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 1774 birds were recorded this phase; the most recorded in a single phase since
the survey began. A total of 35 species were identified including seven new species, which
have been added to the species list (see Appendix VI). Great-tailed grackles (Quiscalus
mexicanus) were the most commonly sighted birds followed by sanderlings (Calidris alba)
and magnificent frigates (Fregata magnificens) (Figure 6-4-1).
Figure 6-4-1 Composition of common bird species (30 or more sightings) in Phase 104 Figure 6-4-2 Composition of most common (average 5% or more) bird sightings as a percentage across
all phases (092-104)
51© GVI – 2010 Page 51
Species new in Phase 104 include the Ferruginous pygmy owl, Groove-billed Ani,
Mangrove warbler, Swainson´s warbler, Tropical kingbird, White-eyed vireo and White-
tipped dove.
6.5 Discussion
Great-tailed grackles, golden-fronted woodpeckers and tropical mockingbirds are all
resident breeders in the area and magnificent frigates and brown pelicans are described
as common residents (Howell & Webb, 2004).
Royal terns, however, are described as being winter (non-breeding) visitors, as are
sanderlings, which were the second most common species during Phase 104. Royal terns
have been recorded here every phase since the survey began, but certainly their numbers
were highest during phases which cover the winter period. The two highest records are
for Phase 101 (95 individuals) and Phase 104 (64 individuals). The two highest numbers
recorded have been during Phase 101 (56 individuals) and Phase 104 (253 individuals),
both of which are winter phases.
The methodology followed in the birding project is somewhat limited as to the reliability
of collecting hard data; it will be of most use in simply determining species presence or
absence. Limited visibility and the inexperience of the recorders can often make a positive
identification difficult and tends to bias observations towards those species that are easily
observed or heard, whether due to size or behavioural attributes, or those commonly seen
and recognised. It is also very easy to misidentify similar species, such as among the
Orioles and Warblers.
The beach and road transects are very close together and in some places the areas under
observation overlap, thus they have not been separated for purposes of comparison: the
habitat is probably not sufficiently different on this scale.
The birding project at Punta Gruesa is in its infancy. The species list is constantly being
expanded as observers become more adept at seeing and identifying species and as
migrant species enter the area. As yet the data is insufficient to draw any conclusions
52© GVI – 2010 Page 52
as to any patterns or trends, however some fluctuations in the populations of common
species can already be seen between the phases of data collection.
53© GVI – 2010 Page 53
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.
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 )
54© GVI – 2010 Page 54
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
in the health of the reef sytems, 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 with slight modifications to accommodate for volunteers
with limited training.
7.4 Results
The seagrass survey was carried out during Phase 102 and Phase 104.
The average percentage cover of seagrass is highest on the transect closest to the beach
(Figure 7-4-1) and the percentage cover decreases as distance from the beach increases.
This is due to a drop in T. testudinum cover (Figure 7-3-2). S. filiforme cover was highest
on transect 2.
55© GVI – 2010 Page 55
T. testudinum has been found to be the dominant species on all three transects. Transect
1 had the greatest difference in cover between the two species. During Phase 104 the T.
testudinum cover on transect 1 was 87.5% whereas the S. filiforme cover was only 3.8%.
Transect 2 has a more even cover of the two species with 45.5% T. testudinum and 30.0%
S. filiforme.
Figure 7-4-1 Average percentage cover of seagrass on seagrass transects during Phase 102 and 104
Figure 7-4-2 Average percentage cover of T. testudinum and S. filiforme on seagrass transects during Phase 102 and 104
Figure 7-4-3 Average blade length of T. testudinum on seagrass transects
T. testudinum on transect 3 was found to have the shortest average blade length and T.
testudinum on transect 2 to have the longest blade length. During Phase 102 there was
found to be a positive correlation between the average T. testudinum blade length in a
quadrat and the number of blades in that quadrat showing signs of predation (Figure 7-4-
4). With a Polynomial regression the R2 value is only 0.58 showing that although there is a
relationship, statistically it is very weak. This relationship is not apparent in the data from
Phase 104 (Figure 7-4-5).
Figure 7-4-4 Relationship between T. testudinum blade length and predation during Phase 102
Figure 7-4-5 Relationship between T. testudinum blade length and predation during Phase 104
Average epiphyte cover varies between transects (Figure 7-4-6). During Phase 104, the
highest epiphyte cover was found on transect 1 and the lowest on transect 3. During
Phase 102 the highest epiphyte cover was found on transect 1 and the lowest on transect
2.
56© GVI – 2010 Page 56
Figure 7-4-6 Average epiphyte cover on T. testudinum blades on seagrass transects during Phase 102 and 104
7.5 Discussion
T. testudinum was found to be the more dominant species on all three transects during
both 102 and 104. 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 for T. testudinum is 1 cm in contrast to just over 1 mm for S.
filiforme.
T. testudinum on transect 3 (closest to the reef) was 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
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.
During Phase 102 there was found to be a positive correlation between the average
T. testudinum blade length in a quadrat and the number of blades showing signs of
predation. This may be due to longer blades being more of a target for herbivores or
longer blades may be older and therefore have had more time to suffer from grazing. This
relationship is not apparent in the data from Phase 104
57© GVI – 2010 Page 57
As previously mentioned this is only the second time this study has been conducted
at Punta Gruesa so it is hard to 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.
58© GVI – 2010 Page 58
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
Allen, G. R. & Eschmeyer, W. N. (1973) Turkeyfishes at Eniwetok. Pacific Discovery 26:3-
11
Almada-Villela P.C., Sale P.F., Gold-Bouchot G. and 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)
Beach, K., Walters, L, Borgeas, H, Smith, C., Coyer, J., Vroom P. (2003) The impact
of Dictyota spp. on Halimeda populations of Conch Reef, Florida Keys. Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 297: 141-159.
Beggs, J.A., Horrocks, J.A., Kreuger, B.H. (2007) Increase in Hawksbill Sea Turtle
Eretmochelys imbricate Nesting in Barbados
Conservation on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna
(CITES) Regulation of Trade Article IV (www.cites.org)
Darwall, W. R. T. & Dulvy, N. K. (1996) An evaluation of the suitability of non-specielist
volunteer researchers for coral reef fish surveys. Mafia Island, Tanzania – A case study.
Biological Conservation. Volume 78. Issue 3: 223-231
Dawes, C. J., Mathieson, A. C., Cheney, D. P. (1974) Ecological Studies of Floridian
Eucheuma (Rhodophyta, Gigartinales). I. Seasonal Growth and Reproduction. Bulletin of
59© GVI – 2010 Page 59
Marine Science. Volune 24. Number 2.
DeLoach, N. (1999) Reef fish behaviour: Florida, Caribbean, Bahamas. New World
Publications. Artegrafica. Verona, Italy.
Edmunds, P.J. and Carpenter, R.C. (2001) Recovery of Diadema antillarum reduces
macroalgal cover and increases abundance of juvenile corals on a Caribbean reef. PNAS
98(9): 5067-5071.
Froese, R. and Pauly, D. (Editors) (2006) Fishbase. World Wide Web electronic
publication. www.fishbase.org version (06/2006)
Accessed 17/11/06
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. (2005) Hurricanes
and Caribbean Coral Reefs: Impacts, recovery patterns, and role in long-term decline.
Ecology 86(1): 174-184.
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.
GVI Mahahual Formal Report 074
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
Humann, P. & DeLoach, N. (2002) Reef Creature Identification: Florida, Caribbean,
Bahamas. New World Publications, Inc., Jacksonville, Florida
Humann, P. & DeLoach, N. (2008) Reef Coral Identification: Florida, Caribbean, Bahamas.
New World Publications, Inc., Jacksonville, Florida.
60© GVI – 2010 Page 60
Humann, P. & DeLoach, N. (2008) Reef Fish Identification: Florida, Caribbean, Bahamas.
New World Publications, Inc., Jacksonville, Florida.
Hoegh-Guldberg, O. (1999) Climate change, coral bleaching and the future of the world´s
coral reefs. Marine and Freshwater Research 50(8) 839-866
Kenyon, J.C., Vroom, P.S., Page, K.N., Dunlap, M.J., Wilkinson C.B., Aeby,
G.S. (2006) Community Structure of Hermatypic Corals at French Frigate
Shoals,NorthwesternHawaiian Islands: Capacity for Resistance and Resilience to
Selective Stressors. Pacific Science 60(2): 153-175.
Kuffner, I.B., Walters, L.J., Becerro, M.A., Paul, V.J., Ritson-Williams, R. and Beach, K.S.
(2006) Inhibition of coral recruitment by macroalgae and cyanobacteria. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 323: 107-117
Lee, A.S. and Dooley, R.E. (1998) Coral Reefs of the Caribbean, The Bahamas and
Florida. Macmillan Education Ltd, London.
Littler, D.S, Littler, M.M, Bucher, K.E. and Norris, J.N. (1989) Marine Plants of
the Caribbean: A Field Guide from Florida to Brazil. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
McClanahan, T.R. and Muthiga, N.A. (1998) An ecological shift in a remote coral atoll of
Belize over 25 years. Environmental Conservation 25: 122-130.
NOAA, 2006. NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
pr/species/esa/
NOAA (2010) Updated Atlantic Hurricane Season Outlook. Issued: 5 August 2010 http://
www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane.shtml
Nugues, M.M, and Roberts, C.M. (2003) Partial mortality in massive reef corals as an
61© GVI – 2010 Page 61
indicator of sediment stress on coral reefs. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46: 314-323.
Reid, C., Marshall, J., Logan, D., Klein, D., (2009) Coral Reefs and Climate Change:
The Guide for Education and Awareness. CoralWatch. The University of Queensland,
Brisbane.
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
Rosenberg, E. Ben-Haim, Y. (2002) ‘Microbial Diseases of Corals and Global Warming.
Environmental Microbiology 4(6), 318-326
Schofield, P. J. (2009) Geographic extent and chronology of the invasion of non-native
lionfish (Pterois volitans [Linnaeus 1758] and P. miles [Bennet 1828]) in the Western North
Atlantic and Caribbean Sean. Aquatic Invasions. Volume 4, Issue 3
Sheppard, C. R. C., Davy, S. K., Pilling, G. M. (2009) The Biology of Coral Reefs. Oxford
University Press Inc., New York
Spalding, M.D. and Jarvis, G.E. (2002). The impact of the 1998 coral mortality on reef fish
communities in the Seychelles. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44: 309-321.
Maljkovic, A., Van Leeuwen, T. E. & Cove, S. N (2008) Predation on the invasive red
lionfish, Pterois volitans (Pisces: Scorpaenidae), by native groupers in the Bahamas. Coral
Reefs 27 (3) 501
Sweatman, H. & Robertson, D. R. (1994) Grazing halos and predation on juvenile
Caribbean 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.
62© GVI – 2010 Page 62
Whitfield, P. E, Gardner, T., Vives, S. P., Gilligan, M. R., Courtenay, W. R., Carlton Ray,
G. and Hare, J. A. (2002) Biological invasion of the Indo-Pacific lionfish Pteropis volitans
along the Atlantic coast of North America. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Volume 235:
289-297
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
Yentsch, C.S., Yentsch, C.M., Cullen, J.J., Lapointe, B., Phinney, D.A., Yentsch, S.W.
(2002) Sunlight and Water Transparency: cornerstones in coral research. Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 268: 171-183.
63© GVI – 2010 Page 63
9. Appendices
Appendix I – SMP Methodology Outlines Buddy method 1: Surveys of corals, algae and other sessile organisms
At each monitoring site five replicate 30 m transect lines are deployed randomly within
100 m of the GPS point. The transect line is laid across the reef surface at a constant
depth, usually perpendicular to the reef slope. The relatively recent discovery of a Spur
and Groove site, LG, at a depth of 20 m will allow for additional future monitoring. In
keeping with Scuba diving profiles at such depths, two buddy pairs usually work together
on each 30m transect in order to complete monitoring surveys and return to the surface
safely. Owing to the nature of the Spur and Groove reef orientation, transects will be laid
perpendicular to the shoreline.
The first diver measures the percentage cover of sessile organisms and substrate along
the 30 m transect, recording the nature of the substrate or organism every 25 cm along the
transect. Organisms are classified into the following groups:
● Coralline algae - crusts or finely branched algae that are hard (calcareous) and
extend no more than 2 cm above the substratum
● Turf algae - may look fleshy and/or filamentous but do not rise more than 1 cm
above the substrate
● Macroalgae - include fleshy and calcareous algae whose fronds are projected more
than 1 cm 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, hydroids and
crinoids.
64© GVI – 2010 Page 64
The second 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 at least 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 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 colonies
substratum 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 second diver also notes any cause of mortality including diseases and/or predation
and any bleached tissue present. The diseases are characterised using the following nine
categories:
● Black band disease ● Red band disease
● White band disease ● Hyperplasm and Neoplasm (irregular growths)
● White plague ● Patchy necrosis or White Pox
● Yellow blotch disease ● Unknown
● Dark spot disease
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 predation
● Fireworm predation ● Zoanthid predation
● Short coral snail predation ● Coralline algae overgrowth
● Overgrowing mat tunicate ● Sponge overgrowth
● Variable boring sponge ● Cliona sp.
65© GVI – 2010 Page 65
Bleaching is split into three categories, pale, partial and total.
● Pale – majority of the coral is faded in colour but not totally white
● Partial – a significant amount of the coral is totally or near-totally bleached
● Total – all or almost all of the coral is totally bleached, i.e. completely white
Any other features of note are also recorded, including, orange icing sponge, coral
competition and Christmas tree worms.
Buddy method 2: Belt transect counts for coral reef fish
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
metre ‘corridor’ 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
in case they were scared off by the divers during the adult transect. The buddy pair then
swims slowly back along the transect with the second diver surveying a one metre by one
metre ‘corridor’ and identifying and counting the presence of target juvenile species. In
addition, it is also this diver’s responsibility to identify and count the Banded Coral Shrimp,
66© GVI – 2010 Page 66
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
second 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 in
an expanding square pattern or a U-shaped pattern, with one diver recording all adult fish
species observed. The approximate density of each fish species is categorised using the
following numerations:
● Single (1 fish)
● Few (2-10 fish)
● Many (11-100 fish)
● Abundant (>100 fish)
The second diver swims along side 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)
Analyzing the rover data gives us a broader view of additional organisms that may
constitute the reef site but that may not be represented from the randomly placed transect
lines. In the case of fish data, the rover data aids in collecting population size information
of target species that may keep away from a transect line due to the intimidating and
possibly invasive nature of unnatural objects and divers on the reef.
67© GVI – 2010 Page 67
Appendix II - Adult Fish Indicator Species ListScientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Common Name
Acanthurus coeruleus, Blue Tang Scarus guacamaia Rainbow Parrotfish
Acanthurus bahianus, Ocean Surgeonfish Scarus vetula Queen Parrotfish
Acanthurus chirurgus, Doctorfish Sparisoma viride Stoplight Parrotfish
Chaetodon striatus, Banded Butterflyfish Scarus taeniopterus Princess Parrotfish
Chaetodon capistratus, Four Eye Butterflyfish Scarus iserti Striped Parrotfish
Chaetodon ocellatus, Spotfin Butterflyfish Sparisoma aurofrenatum Redband Parrotfish
Chaetodon aculeatus, Longsnout Butterflyfish Sparisoma chrysopterum Redtail Parrotfish
Haemulon flavolineatum French Grunt Sparisoma rubripinne Yellowtail Parrotfish
Haemulon striatum Striped Grunt Sparisoma atomarium Greenblotch Parrotfish
Haemulon plumierii White Grunt Sparisoma radians Bucktooth Parrotfish
Haemulon sciurus Bluestriped Grunt Epinephelus itajara Goliath Grouper
Haemulon carbonarium Caesar Grunt Epinephelus striatus Nassau Grouper
Haemulon chrysargyreum Smallmouth Grunt Mycteroperca venenosa Yellowfin Grouper
Haemulon aurolineatum Tomtate Mycteroperca bonaci Black Grouper
Haemulon melanurum Cottonwick Mycteroperca tigris Tiger Grouper
Haemulon macrostomum Spanish Grunt Mycteroperca interstitialis Yellowmouth Grouper
Haemulon parra Sailor’s Choice Epinephelus guttatus Red Hind
Haemulon 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 Triggerfish
Lutjanus griseus Gray Snapper Balistes capriscus Gray Triggerfish
Lutjanus cyanopterus Cubera Snapper Canthidermis sufflamen Ocean Triggerfish
Lutjanus jocu Dog Snapper Xanithichthys ringens Sargassum Triggerfish
Lutjanus mahogoni Mahaogany Snapper Melichthys niger Black Durgon
Lutjanus apodus Schoolmaster Aluterus scriptus Scrawled Filefish
Lutjanus synagris Lane Snapper Cantherhines pullus Orangespotted Filefish
Ocyurus chrysurus Yellowtail Snapper Cantherhines macrocerus Whitespotted Filefish
Holacanthus ciliaris Queen Angelfish Bodianus rufus Spanish Hogfish
Pomacanthus paru French Angelfish Lachnolaimus maximus Hogfish
68© GVI – 2010 Page 68
Pomacanthus arcuatus Grey Angelfish Caranx rubber Bar Jack
Holacanthus tricolour Rock Beauty Microspathodon chrysurus Yellowtail Damselfish
Scarus coeruleus Blue Parrotfish Sphyraena barracuda Great Barracuda
Scarus coelestinus Midnight Parrotfish
The following list includes the adult fish species that are surveyed during monitoring dives.
69© GVI – 2010 Page 69
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 5
Acanthurus coeruleus Blue tang 5
Chaetodon capistratus Foureye butterflyfish 2
Chaetodon striatus Banded butterflyfish 2
Gramma loreto Fairy basslet 3
Bodianus rufus Spanish hogfish 3.5
Halichoeres bivittatus Slipperydick 3
Halichoeres garnoti Yellowhead wrasse 3
Halichoeres maculipinna Clown wrasse 3
Thalassoma bifasciatum Bluehead wrasse 3
Halichoeres pictus Rainbow wrasse 3
Chromis cyanea Blue chromis 3.5
Stegastes adustus Dusky damselfish 2.5
Stegastes diencaeus Longfin damselfish 2.5
Stegastes leucostictus Beaugregory 2.5
Stegastes partitus Bicolour damselfish 2.5
Stegastes planifrons Threespot damselfish 2.5
Stegastes variabilis Cocoa damselfish 2.5
Scarus iserti Striped parrotfish 3.5
Scarus taeniopterus Princess parrotfish 3.5
Sparisoma atomarium Greenblotch parrotfish 3.5
Sparisoma aurofrenatum Redband parrotfish 3.5
Sparisoma viride Stoplight parrotfish 3.5
70© GVI – 2010 Page 70
Appendix IV - Coral Species List
Family Genus Species Family Genus Species
Acroporidae Acropora cervicornis Meandrinidae Dendrogyra cylindrus
Acroporidae Acropora palmata Meandrinidae Dichocoenia stokesii
Acroporidae 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
71© GVI – 2010 Page 71
Appendix V - Fish Species ListThis list was begun for Mahahual in April 2004. This list is compiled from the Adult and
Rover diver surveys.
Family Genus Species Common Names
Acanthuridae Acanthurus Bahianus Ocean surgeonfish
Acanthuridae Acanthurus Chirurgus Doctorfish
Acanthuridae Acanthurus Coeruleus Blue tang
Atherinidae, Clupeidae,
Engraulididae Silversides, Herrings,
Anchovies
Aulostomidae Aulostomus Maculates Trumpetfish
Balistidae Balistes Capriscus Gray triggerfish
Balistidae Balistes Vetula Queen triggerfish
Balistidae Canthidermis Sufflamen Ocean triggerfish
Balistidae Melichthys Niger Black durgon
Balistidae Xanithichthys Ringens Sargassum triggerfish
Bothidae Bothus Lunatus Peacock flounder
Carangidae Caranx Bartholomaei Yellow jack
Carangidae Caranx Crysos Blue runner
Carangidae Caranx Ruber Bar jack
Carangidae Trachinotus Falcatus Permit
Centropomidae Centropomus Undecimalis Common snook
Chaenopsidae Lucayablennius Zingaro Arrow blenny
Chaetodontidae Chaetodon Aculeatus Longsnout butterflyfish
Chaetodontidae Chaetodon Capistratus Foureye butterflyfish
Chaetodontidae Chaetodon Ocellatus Spotfin butterflyfish
Chaetodontidae Chaetodon Sedentarius Reef butterflyfish
Chaetodontidae Chaetodon Striatus Banded butterflyfish
Cirrhitidae Amblycirrhitus Pinos Red spotted hawkfish
Congridae Heteroconger Longissimus Brown garden eel
Dasyatidae Dasyatis Americana Southern stingray
Diodontidae Diodon Holocanthus Balloonfish
Elopidae Megalops Atlanticus Tarpon
Gobiidae Coryphopterus Eidolon Palid Goby
Gobiidae Coryphopterus Glaucofraenum Bridled goby
Gobiidae Coryphopterus Lipernes Peppermint goby
72© GVI – 2010 Page 72
Gobiidae Coryphopterus personatus/hyalinus Masked/glass goby
Gobiidae Gnatholepis Thompsoni Goldspot goby
Gobiidae Gobiosoma Oceanops Neon goby
Family Genus Species Common Names
Gobiidae Gobiosoma Prochilos Broadstripe goby
Grammatidae Gramma Loreto Fairy basslet
Grammatidae Gymnothorax Funebris Green moray
Grammatidae Gymnothorax Moringa Spotted moray
Haemulidae Anisotremus Virginicus Porkfish
Haemulidae Haemulon Album White margate
Haemulidae Haemulon Aurolineatum Tomtate
Haemulidae Haemulon Carbonarium Ceaser Grunt
Haemulidae Haemulon Flavolineatum French grunt
Haemulidae Haemulon Macrostomum Spanish grunt
Haemulidae Haemulon Plumierii White grunt
Haemulidae Haemulon Sciurus Bluestriped grunt
Haemulidae Haemulon Striatum Striped grunt
Haemulidae Anisotremus Surinamensis Black margate
Haemulidae Haemulon Parra Sailor’s choice
Holocentridae Holocentrus Adscensionis Squirrelfish
Holocentridae Holocentrus Rufus Longspine squirrelfish
Holocentridae Myripristis Jacobus Blackbar soldierfish
Holocentridae Neoniphon Marianus Longjaw squirrelfish
Holocentridae Sargocentron Bullisi Deepwater squirrelfish
Holocentridae Sargocentron Coruscum Reef squirrelfish
Holocentridae Sargocentron Vexillarium Dusky squirrelfish
Kyphosidae Kyphosus sectatrix/incisor Chub
Labridae Bodianus Rufus Spanish hogfish
Labridae Clepticus Parrae Creole wrasse
Labridae Halichoeres Bivittatus Slipperydick
Labridae Halichoeres Garnoti Yellowhead wrasse
Labridae Halichoeres Pictus Rainbow wrasse
Labridae Halichoeres Poeyi Blackear wrasse
Labridae Halichoeres Radiatus Puddingwife wrasse
Labridae Lachnolaimus Maximus Hogfish
Labridae Thalassoma Bifasciatum Bluehead wrasse
Labridae Xyrichtys Martinicensis Rosy razorfish
73© GVI – 2010 Page 73
Labridae Xyrichtys Novacula Pearly razorfish
Labrisomidae Malacoctenus Triangulatus Saddled blenny
Lutjanidae Lutjanus Analis Mutton snapper
Lutjanidae Lutjanus Apodus Schoolmaster snapper
Lutjanidae Lutjanus Cyanopterus Cubera snapper
Lutjanidae Lutjanus Griseus Grey snapper
Family Genus Species Common Names
Lutjanidae Lutjanus Jocu Dog snapper
Lutjanidae Lutjanus Mahogoni Maghogony snapper
Lutjanidae Lutjanus Synagris Lane snapper
Lutjanidae Ocyurus Chrysurus Yellowtailed snapper
Malacanthidae Malacanthus Plumieri Sand tilefish
Syngnathidae Micrognathus ensenadae Harlequin pipefish
Monacanthidae Aluterus Scriptus Scrawled filefish
Monacanthidae Cantherhines Macrocerus White spotted filefish
Monacanthidae Cantherhines Pullus Orange spotted filefish
Mullidae Mulloidichthys Martinicus Yellow goatfish
Mullidae Pseudupeneus Maculates Spotted goatfish
Myliobatidae Aetobatus Narinari Spotted eagle ray
Opistognathidae Opistognathus Aurifrons Yellowhead jawfish
Ostraciidae Acanthostracion Quadricornis Scrawled cowfish
Ostraciidae Lactophrys Bicaudalis Spotted trunkfish
Ostraciidae Lactophrys Triqueter Smooth trunkfish
Pempheridae Pempheris Schomburgki Glassy sweeper
Pomacanthidae Holacanthus Ciliaris Queen angelfish
Pomacanthidae Holacanthus Tricolour Rockbeauty
Pomacanthidae Pomacanthus Arcuatus Grey angelfish
Pomacanthidae Pomacanthus Paru French angelfish
Pomacentridae Abudefduf Saxatilis Seargant major
Pomacentridae Chromis Cyanea Blue chromis
Pomacentridae Chromis Enchrysurus Yellowtail reef fish
Pomacentridae Chromis Insolata Sunshinefish
Pomacentridae Chromis Multilineata Brown chromis
Pomacentridae Microspathodon Chrysurus Yellowtailed damsel fish
Pomacentridae Stegastes Adustus Dusky damselfish
Pomacentridae Stegastes Diencaeus Longfin damselfish
Pomacentridae Stegastes Leucostictus Beaugregory
74© GVI – 2010 Page 74
Pomacentridae Stegastes Partitus Bicolour damselfish
Pomacentridae Stegastes Planifrons Threespot damselfish
Pomacentridae Stegastes Variabilis Cocoa damselfish
Scaridae Scarus Coelestinus Midnight parrotfish
Scaridae Scarus Coeruleus Blue parrotfish
Scaridae Scarus Guacamaia Rainbow parrotfish
Scaridae Scarus Iserti Striped parrotfish
Scaridae Scarus Taeniopterus Princess parrotfish
Scaridae Scarus Vetula Queen parrotfish
Family Genus Species Common Names
Scaridae Sparisoma Atomarium Greenblotch parrotfish
Scaridae Sparisoma Aurofrenatum Redband parrotfish
Scaridae Sparisoma Chrysopterum Redtail parrotfish
Scaridae Sparisoma Radians Bucktooth parrotfish
Scaridae Sparisoma Rubripinne Yellowtail parrotfish
Scaridae Sparisoma Viride Stoplight parrotfish
Sciaenidae Equetus Lanceolatus Jackknife fish
Sciaenidae Equetus Punctatus Spotted drum
Sciaenidae Pareques Acuminatus Highhat
Scombridae Scomberomorus Maculates Spanish mackerel
Scombridae Scomberomorus Regalis Cero
Scorpaenidae Scorpaena Plumieri Spotted scorpionfish
Serranidae Cephalopholis Cruentatus Graysby
Serranidae Cephalopholis Fulvus Coney
Serranidae Epinephelus Adscensionis Rockhind
Serranidae Epinephelus Itajara Goliath grouper
Serranidae Epinephelus Striatus Nassau grouper
Serranidae Hypoplectrus Aberrans Yellowbelly hamlet
Serranidae Hypoplectrus Chlorurus Yellowtail hamlet
Serranidae Hypoplectrus Guttavarius Shy hamlet
Serranidae Hypoplectrus Indigo Indigo hamlet
Serranidae Hypoplectrus Nigricans Black hamlet
Serranidae Hypoplectrus Puella Barred hamlet
Serranidae Hypoplectrus Unicolor Butter hamlet
Serranidae Liopropoma Rubre Peppermint basslet
Serranidae Mycteroperca Bonaci Black grouper
Serranidae Mycteroperca Interstitialis Yellowmouth grouper
75© GVI – 2010 Page 75
Serranidae Mycteroperca Tigris Tiger grouper
Serranidae Mycteroperca Venenosa Yellowfin grouper
Serranidae Paranthias Furcifer Creolefish
Serranidae Rypticus Saponaceus Greater soapfish
Serranidae Serranus Tabacarius Tobaccofish
Serranidae Serranus Tigrinus Harlequin bass
Serranidae Serranus Tortugarum Chalk bass
Sparidae Calamus Calamos Saucereyed porgy
Sphyraenidae Sphyraena Barracuda Great barracuda
Synodontidae Synodus Intermedius Sand diver
Tetraodontidae Canthigaster Rostrata Sharpnosed puffer
Tetraodontidae Sphoeroides Splengleri Bandtail puffer
Torpedinidae Narcine Brasiliensis Lesser electric ray
Urolophidae Urolophus Jamaicensis Yellowstingray
76© GVI – 2010 Page 76
Appendix VI - Bird Species ListBird species identified to species level in Punta Gruesa since April 2009.
Common Name Family Scientific NameAltamira Oriole Icteridae Icterus gularisBlack 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 inquisitorBrown Pelican Pelecanidae Pelecanus occidentalisCanivet's Emerald Hummingbird Trochilidae Chlorostilbon canivetiiCattle Egret Ardeidae Bubulcus ibisCommon Black Hawk Accipitridae Buteogallus anthracinusDusky Capped Flycatcher Tryrannidae Myiarchus tuberculiferEastern Kingbird Tyrannidae Tyrannus tyrannusFerruginous pygmy owl Strigidae Glaucidium brasilianumGolden-fronted Woodpecker Picidae Centurus aurifronsGreat 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 cucullatusLaughing Falcon Falconidae Herpetotheres cachinnansLaughing Gull Laridae Larus atricillaLeast Tern Laridae Sterna antillarumLineated Woodpecker Picidae Dryocopus lineatusLittle Blue Heron Ardeidae Egretta caeruleaMagnificent Frigatebird Fregatidae Fregata magnificensMangrove Vireo Vireonidae Vireo pallensMangrove Warbler Parulinae Dendroica erithachoridesMasked Tityra Cotingidae Tityra semifasciataNeotropic Cormorant Phalacrocoracidae Phalacrocorax brasilianusOsprey Accipitridae Pandion haliaetusPalm Warbler Parulinae Dendroica palmarumPlain Chachalaca Cracidae Ortalis vetulaPurple Martin Progne Progne subisRoyal Tern Laridae Sterna m. maximaRuddy Ground-Dove Columbidae Columbina talpacotiRuddy Turnstone Scolopacidae Arenaria interpres
77© GVI – 2010 Page 77
Sanderling Scolopacidae Calidris albaSemipalmated Plover Charadriidae Charadrius semipalmatusSnowy Egret Ardeidae Egretta thulaSocial Flycatcher Tyrannidae Myiozetetes similisSwainson´s warbler Parulinae Helmitheros swainsoniiTropical Kingbird Tyrannidae Tyrannus melancholicusTropical Mockingbird Mimidae Mimus gilvusTurkey Vulture Cathartidae Cathartes auraWhite-eyed vireo Vireonidae Vireo griseusWhite Ibis Threskiornithidae Eudocimus albusWhite-tipped dove Columbidae Leptotila verreauxiWhite-winged Dove Columbidae Zenaida asiaticaWilson's Plover Charadriidae Charadrius wilsoniaYellow Warbler Parulinae Dendroica petechiaYellow-backed Oriole Icteridae Icterus chrysaterYellow-throated Vireo Vireonidae Vireo hypochryseusYellow-throated Warbler Parulinae Dendroica dominicaYucatan Jay Corvidae Cyanocorax yucatanicusYucatan Woodpecker Picidae Centurus pygmaeus
78© GVI – 2010 Page 78