Global Vision International, 2010 Report Series No. 001

GVI Mexico

Pta Gruesa, Q Roo

Quaterly Report 101

January – March 2010

GVI Mexico Pta Gruesa Programme Report January-March 2010

Submitted in whole to GVI

Amigos de Sian Ka’an

Produced by

Genevieve Gammage – Base Manager

Tristan Brown – Field Staff Samantha Buxton - Field Staff

Maria de Lourdes Noriega Pons – Field Staff Jacqueline Keenan- Field Staff

And

David Blundell Field Staff Beth Buchanan Volunteer Rafael Zara Field Staff Corwin Block Volunteer Cath Branwood Science Scholar Darren Picknell Volunteer Laura McHugh Science Scholar David Turnbull Volunteer Arturo Ortiz Horta Science Scholar Jamie Dunn Volunteer Andrew Prosser Volunteer Joanna Richardson Volunteer Carla Raushenbush Volunteer Paul Everett Volunteer Jesus Bonilla Volunteer Philip Dumas Volunteer Laura Mudge Volunteer Rachel Budworth Volunteer Megan Butler Volunteer Sheree Harper Volunteer Ruben Garcia Volunteer Victoria Sindorf Volunteer Ryan Bennett Volunteer Zoe Osborn Volunteer Tasha Forest Volunteer Helen Gutermann Volunteer Amy McKellar Volunteer Oliver McKee-Reid Volunteer Ashleigh McLeish Volunteer

Edited by

Daniel Ponce-Taylor

GVI Mexico Pta Gruesa Programme

Address: Apartado Postal 16, Col Centro, 77710 Playa del Carmen, Quintana Roo

Mexico Email: mahahual@gviworld.com

Web page: http://www.gvi.co.uk and http://www.gviworld.com

© GVI – 2010 ii

Executive Summary The ninth 10-week phase of the Punta Gruesa, Mexico, GVI expedition has now been

completed. 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 101:

• 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.

• Liaise with local partners to develop a successful and feasible programme of

research in collaboration with GVI into the future.

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

comprehensive guide for the region.

• Continuation of the National Scholarship Programme, whereby GVI Punta Gruesa

accept a Mexican national on a scholarship basis into the expedition.

• Assisting with the local community to create and develop new environmental

management strategies, with GVI actively collaborating to develop Mahahual’s

marine zoning proposal.

iii

Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ ii Table of Contents............................................................................................................iii List of Figures ................................................................................................................. v List of Tables................................................................................................................... v 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 6 2. Synoptic Monitoring Programme ................................................................................. 8

2.1 Aim .................................................................................................................. 8 2.2 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 8

Benthic Cover ................................................................................................... 8 Fish Populations............................................................................................. 10 Physical Parameters ....................................................................................... 14

2.3 Methodology and Training.............................................................................. 14 Synoptic Monitoring Programme Training...................................................... 16 Physical Parameters ....................................................................................... 18

2.4 Results............................................................................................................ 19 Adult Fish....................................................................................................... 19 Juvenile Fish .................................................................................................. 24 Stenopus hispidus and Diadema antillarum .................................................... 26

2.5 Discussion ...................................................................................................... 27 Adult Fish....................................................................................................... 27 Juvenile Fish .................................................................................................. 28 Stenopus hispidus and Diadema antillarum .................................................... 29 Coral .............................................................................................................. 29 Point Intercept ................................................................................................ 30 Coral Communities......................................................................................... 34 Conclusions .................................................................................................... 38

3. Incidental Sightings Programme............................................................................... 40 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 40 3.2 Methodology .................................................................................................. 40 3.3 Results............................................................................................................ 41 3.4 Discussion ...................................................................................................... 45

Turtles ............................................................................................................ 46 Elasmobranchs ............................................................................................... 46 Barracuda ...................................................................................................... 47 Lionfish .......................................................................................................... 47

4. Coral Disease Monitoring Programme....................................................................... 50 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 50 4.2 Methodology .................................................................................................. 50 4.3 Results & Discussion ...................................................................................... 51

Encrusting Gorgonian (LM1).......................................................................... 51 White Plague (LM2) ....................................................................................... 51 Partial Bleaching (LM3)................................................................................. 51

5. Community Work Programme ................................................................................... 54 5.1 English Language Programme ........................................................................ 54

iv

5.2 Environmental Education................................................................................ 55 5.3 Other Programmes and Activities ................................................................... 56

6. Marine Litter Monitoring Programme ......................................................................... 57 6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 57 6.2 Methodology .................................................................................................. 58 6.3 Results............................................................................................................ 59 6.4 Discussion ...................................................................................................... 61

7. Bird Monitoring Programme....................................................................................... 63 7.1 Objectives....................................................................................................... 63 7.2 Introduction .................................................................................................... 63 7.3 Methodology .................................................................................................. 64 7.4 Results............................................................................................................ 64 7.5 Discussion ...................................................................................................... 66 7.6 Conclusion...................................................................................................... 67

8. References................................................................................................................ 68 Appendix I – SMP Methodology Outlines ...................................................................... 71 Appendix II - Adult Fish Indicator Species List............................................................... 75 Appendix III - Juvenile Fish Indicator Species List......................................................... 76 Appendix IV - Coral Species List ................................................................................... 77 Appendix V - Fish Species List...................................................................................... 78 Appendix VIa - Bird Species List ................................................................................... 83 Appendix VIb - Bird Species List ................................................................................... 84

v

List of Figures Figure 2-3-1 Map of the monitoring (yellow) and training (green) sites for GVI Mahahual Figure 3-1-1 Adult Fish Recorded per Transect Across Phases Figure 3-1-2 Total Adult Fish Biomass per Phase Figure 3-1-3 Adult fish family percentage abundance by phase Figure 3-1-4 Changes in adult fish family percentage abundance over surveying time Figure 3-1-5 Percentage abundance of adult fish families per site during 101. Figure 3-1-6 Juvenile fish numbers per transect over all phases Figure 3-1-7 Percentage abundance of juvenile fish families by phase Figure 3-1-8 Percentage abundance of Surgeonfish and Turf Algae by phase. Figure 3-3-1 Coral and Algae Cover at Punta Gruesa Figure 3-3-2 Coral/Algae Cover by Site 101 Figure 3-3-3 Coral and Algae changes by site – 081-101 Figure 3-3-4 Deviation from average percentage (081-094) of common corals in 101 Figure 3-3-5 Relationship between Dictyota and Halimeda Figure 3-3-6 Bleaching occurrence 081-101 Figure 3-3-7 Bleaching occurrence in all corals and excluding Siderastrea sideria Figure 3-3-8 Disease occurrence 081-101 Figure 3-3-9 Predation occurrence 081 101 Figure 4-3-1 Number of incidental sightings per visit by phase Figure 4-3-2 Turtle observations at Punta Gruesa Figure 4-3-3 Moray Eel sightings by phase Figure 4-3-4 Total number of Sphyraena barracuda sightings by phase Figure 4-3-5 Number of Lionfish Sightings by Site (Phase 101) Figure 5-3-1 Siderastrea siderea with areas of full bleaching Figure 5-3-2 Diploria strigosa with red band disease Figure 7-1-1 Marine litter washed up on the beach at Punta Gruesa Figure 7-3-1 Average amount of rubbish collected for each category over the last 4 phases Figure 7-3-2 Percentage of total weight by category Figure 7-3-3 Graph showing the total weight of rubbish collected by phase Figure 8-3-1 Species composition of common bird sightings (more than 20 sightings) Figure 8-3-2 Species composition of bird sightings (more than 20 sightings) across all phases since April 2009

List of Tables Table 2-3-1 Name, depth and GPS points of the first monitoring sites (SMP) Table 3-1-1 Number of transects/adult fish recorded per phase. Table 3-1-2 Number of transects/juvenile fish per phase Table 3-3-1 Number of coral colonies monitored by CC at Punta Gruesa Table 7-3-1 Marine Litter collected as actual weight (kg)

© GVI – 2010 Page 6

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 initiated the running of 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 in the south of the Biosphere in Mahahual. The current

projects of GVI Pez Maya and Mahahual 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 depending on susceptibility; therefore, implementing management protection

plans as and when required. Surveys using the same methodology are being conducted

by a number of bodies through the entire Mesoamerican Barrier Reef, in Belize, Honduras

and Guatemala, coordinated by the MBRS project group.

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

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

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

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 the

first cruise ships. The current terminal can berth 3 cruise ships with, on average, 7 arrivals

per week during high season. The cruise ships docking 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 10 km from Mahahual in an effort to get more people to the area. Such development

invites degradation of other ecosystems contributing to the health of the reef, as well as

activities directly disturbing the reef, such as wave runners and environmentally unaware

© GVI – 2010 Page 7

tourists, increasing the pressure on marine resources. Consequently, effective monitoring

is becoming ever more important. By assessing the health of the marine environment, new

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 40km north of Mahahual and 12 km south of the

southern tip of the Sian Ka´an Biosphere. 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 in the process of development.

This expedition is the first 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.

© GVI – 2010 Page 8

2. Synoptic Monitoring Programme

2.1 Aim The projects at Punta Gruesa and Pez Maya aim to identify species and their resilience to

environmental stressors. The projects also aim to ascertain areas of high species diversity,

areas of high algal mass, fish species and abundance.

2.2 Introduction

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’ which is 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 the

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 lead to A. palmata and A.

cervicornis being added to the US Endangered Species list as ‘threatened’ (NOAA, 2006).

The removal of the Acroporidae lead to a change in dominance of the lesser reef building

families Poritidae and Agaricidae and it had been found that sites across the Caribbean

© GVI – 2010 Page 9

have decreased in hard coral coverage by as much as 80% over the 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 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 introduced. A report produced

by the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre

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

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

2006).

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). Sediment levels 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 resulting in a phase shift of

dominant corals.

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).

© GVI – 2010 Page 10

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

al., 2006). Of those algae present on the reef, two key genera are particularly observed,

Halimeda and Dictyota. Halimeda is an important genera 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 spp. have been found to not only

inhibit the growth of Halimeda spp. 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.

It is not confirmed what the major culprit for these phase shifts is, 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

© GVI – 2010 Page 11

also indirectly provides food for predatory fish, both those that are site attached like

Scorpion fish and pelagic predators such as Bar Jacks.

Fish surveys are focused on specific species (see Appendix B) that play an important role

in the ecology of the reef as herbivores, carnivores, commercially important fish or those

likely to be affected by human activities (AGRRA, 2000).

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 often 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

occasionaly feed during the day, but mainly at dusk and dawn, preying on fish,

crustaceans and cephalopods (Deloach, 1999).

Unlike the groupers and snappers, Bar Jacks and Barracuda are pelagic predators and are

considered top-level carnivores feeding mainly on fish. They are also commercially

© GVI – 2010 Page 12

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 and feeding at night on sea grass beds, and

Hogfish, 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 egglaying, which is common among Damselfish and Triggerfish.

© GVI – 2010 Page 13

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).

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 about adult fish a balanced picture of the reef fish

communities at different sites can be obtained.

© GVI – 2010 Page 14

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.

2.3 Methodology and Training The Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System Synoptic Monitoring Programme methodology

has been followed in the monitoring of our sites.

The sites that are monitored as part of the MBRS programme at GVI Mahahual 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 to 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 fig. 2-3-1, table 2-3-1).

© GVI – 2010 Page 15

Figure 2-3-1 Map of the monitoring (yellow) and training (green) sites for GVI Mahahual

© GVI – 2010 Page 16

Table 2-3-1 Lists the 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. In 2009 the deeper site “Delicias

Profundas” was replaced by “Los Gorditos”, which offers a wider sample area with spur

and groove formations.

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

MBRS manual (Almada-Villela et al., 2003), but to summarise, 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 A.

Synoptic Monitoring Programme Training The non-specialist volunteers recruited by GVI all undergo a rigorous training programme

prior to taking part in monitoring surveys. There are four expeditions a year, each identified

by a three digit code incorporating the year and phase period, i.e. the first phase of 2009

Location Site ID Depth Latitude Longitude Los Bollos LB10 10m 19.02 21.8 087.33 54.8 Las Joyas LJ10 10m 19.01 53.0 087.34 07.6 Los Milagros LM10 10m 19.01 35.6 087.34 13.3 Costa Norte CN10 10m 19.01 31.0 087.34 16.5 Las Delicias LD10 10m 19.01 24.7 087.34 20.2 Las Palapas LP10 10m 19.01 55.8 087.34 05.0 Flor de Cañón FDC10 10m 19.02 04.4 087.34 03.4 Sol Naciente SN10 10m 19.00 36.0 087.34 33.0 Delicias Profundas DP30 30m 19.91 24.7 087.34 20.2

Los Gorditos LG25 25m 18.59 37.6 087.34 51.9

© GVI – 2010 Page 17

then becomes 091, the second 092 and so on. During each phase, volunteers are trained

in 5 week periods. During the first 3 weeks, a series of theory and practical sessions are

held to develop each volunteers knowledge and skills to a standard level, which is

necessary to obtain reliable data. Each volunteer focuses on the knowledge and skills

required to conduct either fish or coral MBRS SMP transects.

The lecture series builds on basic concepts of coral reef ecology and introduces issues

that are relevant to marine research monitoring.

Hazards of the Reef Classification and Taxonomy

Goals of the Station Monitoring Methods and Lecture Demonstration

Introduction to Coral Reefs Marine Plants and Algae

Introduction to Fish and Coral Coral Diseases

Introduction to Coral Identification Marine Turtles

Introduction to Fish Identification Development of the Quintana Roo Coast

Threats to the Reef General Oceanography

Symbiotic Relationship of Reefs, Seagrass and Mangroves

Invasive Lionfish

In addition to these lectures, volunteers take part in a number of coral or fish identification

workshops with staff members, before taking a computer exam that requires a minimum

95% score to pass.

Underwater training focuses first on developing the necessary dive skills, with an

emphasis on high levels of buoyancy control and diving safety procedures. Volunteers

then undergo a series of spots, covering either hard coral and benthic species

identification, as well as coral health monitoring techniques, or adult and juvenile fish

identification, size estimation exercises and practice transect work. Volunteers are tested

by experienced monitoring staff at each stage, with 100% required before being approved

for monitoring.

© GVI – 2010 Page 18

Physical Parameters In addition to the dive survey reports collected at each site, measurements of the following

physical parameters are collected on each dive survey made at the permanent SMP

monitoring sites:

Sea state Salinity

Cloud Cover Bottom and surface temperature

Turbidity

Sea state is recorded using a modification of the Beaufort scale for wind.

Cloud density is recorded through a visual estimation of the cover above the site by

dividing the sky into eight and establishing how many sections have 60% or greater

coverage.

Turbidity is recorded using a Secchi disk marked in half metre intervals, which is lowered

into the water until no longer visible. The length of line is then established whilst the disk

is reeled in.

Salinity samples are taken at the surface of the survey site by the captain from the boat

and on the reef itself by one of the survey divers. The samples are tested using a

refractometer to obtain direct salinity measurements in parts per thousand (PPT).

Surface temperature is recorded using a handheld depth sounder with built in temperature

gauge. Bottom temperature is collected from a survey diver using a dive computer.

© GVI – 2010 Page 19

2.4 Results

Adult Fish A total of 72 transects recording target adult and juvenile fish species were completed this

phase, eight transects at each of the 9 monitoring sites.

The numbers of transects and numbers of target adult fish per phase are listed in Table 3-

1-1. A total of 1264 individuals of 40 species were recorded in phase 101, an average of

17.56 per transect. The number of adults per transect recorded appears to gradually

increase across phases but with considerable variation (Fig. 3-1-1).

Phase No. sites

Transects

per phase

Total adult

fish in phase

Av. fish per

transect

No. of

species

081 5 30 391 13.03 31

082 7 54 649 12.02 33

083 7 49 280 5.79 27

084 7 40 321 8.03 38

091 7 39 334 8.56 29

092 7 48 843 17.56 36

093 9 72 809 11.24 38

094 9 72 1282 17.81 38

101 9 72 1264 17.56 40

Table 3-1-1 Number of transects and adult fish recorded per phase.

© GVI – 2010 Page 20

Figure 3-1-1 Adult fish recorded per transect across phases

Adult fish biomass is estimated using a weighting system for each size category and

species (A. Cameron, based on Fishbase data). Total biomass of all fish species in 101

was calculated at 4.66kg100m-2 (Fig.3-1-2), about equivalent to the MBRS regional

average. This value brings the average total biomass for our study area to 3.9 kg/100m2.

This is lower than that estimated from the previous phase’s data and more in keeping with

earlier estimates for our survey area.

Figure 3-1-2 Total adult fish biomass per phase

Figure 3-1-3 displays percentage abundance for all adult fish families across phases.

Following previous trends, the Haemulidae was the most commonly recorded family in

phase 101, with 55.9% of the total number observed, an increase from previous phases.

The second most abundant family was the Acanthuridae (22%), also increased from 094,

followed by Scaridae and Serranidae. The Lutjanidae show an abrupt decrease from 094,

dropping below Scaridae and Serranidae, which have also decreased from the previous

phase. Sphyraenidae (Great barracuda) are rarely recorded in transects in any phase,

although they have been observed outside of transects (see Incidental Sightings).

© GVI – 2010 Page 21

Figure 3-1-3 Adult fish family percentage abundance by phase

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 is not quite so clear this phase, where both families

increased. The relative abundance of other families, such as Pomacanthidae and

Pomacentridae, seems to increase and decrease across phases, although it is difficult to

be sure if there is a pattern.

Figure 3-1-5 shows the percentage abundance of fish families for each of the survey sites

monitored. The grunts (Haemulidae) were the most abundant family observed at most

sites, generally making up the largest proportion of recordings, except for LG25, LJ10 and

FDC10 where Acanthuridae were most abundant. This is similar to the findings from 093,

but in contrast to 094, where the Haemulidae dominated with the exception of LG25 (see

previous phase reports). Acanthuridae were the second most abundant family across most

sites. LG25 also differs from the other sites in that a greater proportion of recorded species

were from the other fish families.

© GVI – 2010 Page 22

Figure 3-1-4 Changes in adult fish family percentage abundance over surveying time

© GVI – 2010 Page 23

© GVI – 2010 Page 24

Figure 3-1-5 Percentage abundance of adult fish families per site during 101.

Juvenile Fish

Table 3-1-2 shows juvenile fish recorded across phases. A total of 437 juveniles were

recorded in the 72 transects completed, an average of 6.07 per transect.

Figure 3-1-6 shows a continuing decrease in the average numbers of target juvenile fish

seen per transect in 101, although this decrease is less pronounced that between 093 and

094. Overall across the two years of data collection juvenile numbers seem to be higher in

the second and third phases of the year than over the winter phases.

Phase

Total Transects in

Phase Total fish in phase Fish per transect

081 30 302 10.06

082 54 815 14.98

083 49 606 12.35

084 40 308 7.70

091 39 224 5.74

092 48 862 17.96

093 72 2150 29.86

094 72 570 7.92

101 72 437 6.07

Table 3-1-2 Number of transects/juvenile fish recorded per phase

© GVI – 2010 Page 25

Figure 3-1-6 Juvenile fish numbers per transect over all phases.

Figure 3-1-7 Percentage abundance of juvenile fish families by phase

As with previous phases a total of five juvenile fish families were monitored on transects in

101. The most abundant family recorded at all sites was Labridae. Looking at fig. 3-1-7

there appears to be some link in percentage abundance between Labridae and

Pomacentridae juveniles, with one decreasing as the other increases.

© GVI – 2010 Page 26

Scaridae show an increase from 081 to 084, a decrease at 091 and then a gradual

increase again to 094 before decreasing again. Acanthuridae and Grammatidae juvenile

numbers on the reef remain low and relatively constant across all phases.

Figure 3-1-8 shows the percentage abundance of Acanthuridae and turf algae. The two

show some positive correlation (Pearson’s r = 0.81), however the apparent close link

during 2008 does not appear to be so close in 2009 and during 094 the percentage of

sightings of Acanthuridae decreased dramatically, only to increase again in 101. Between

091 and 093 the surgeon fish showed only a slight decrease in numbers before suddenly

dropping to a low in 094, whereas turf algae abundance declined abruptly in 092 then

recovered before remaining more or less constant during the last three phases.

Figure 3-1-8 Percentage abundance of surgeonfish and turf algae by phase

Stenopus hispidus and Diadema antillarum

Surveys of banded coral shrimp (Stenopus hispidus) and long-spined sea urchins

(Diadema antillarum) taken during the juvenile fish transects record very few sightings

during transects: only 1 Diadema and no Stenopus were recorded this phase, giving a

© GVI – 2010 Page 27

density of 0.00046 Diadema per m2 in phase 101 and an average of 0.0008 across phases

and an average of 0.00348 Stenopus across all phases.

2.5 Discussion

Adult Fish The number of adult fish recorded in 101 is slightly lower than in the previous phase: an

average of 17.5 per transect, compared to 17.8 the previous phase. However there

appears to be a gradual increase in numbers recorded over the surveying time in Punta

Gruesa, mostly consisting of the two dominant families, the Haemulidae and Acanthuridae,

which account for over 70% of all fish recorded.

In 093 it was noted that sites with a high abundance of Haemulidae tended to have a lower

population of Acanthuridae and vice versa, and that overall the abundance of one

inversely correlated to that of the other across phases. Generally, the Haemulidae are

dominant, with the exception of a few sites where Acanthuridae dominate. In phase 101

both families show an increase in percentage sightings from the previous phase (Figure 3-

1-2), deviating from the previous mirror effect. 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 are diurnally feeding reef grazers, feeding primarily on turf

algae on the reef and sand areas, while most Haemulidae are carnivores feeding

nocturnally on the sand flats and seagrass beds (Deloach, 2006). 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. Grazers such as

Acanthuridae and Scaridae may also migrate locally between grazing grounds, thus

changing frequency between sites.

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. The algae-

surgeonfish correlation can be seen in the data collected in 2008, although there appears

© GVI – 2010 Page 28

to be a less exact correlation during 2009. From 093 to 094 surgeonfish numbers dropped

without a corresponding decrease in turf algae, but in 101 abundance of Acanthuridae has

returned to its previous level, so the decrease in 094 may have been an artifact of the

random surveying technique.

The Chaetodontidae and Pomacanthidae are considered to be good bio-indicators, their

close reliance on the reef allowing them to serve as indicators of reef health. The higher

abundance of Chaetodontidae and Pomacanthidae at LG may be a reflection of the

increased diversity of this site, which has a well developed spur-and-groove formation with

many large corals. Overall however, Chaetodontidae abundance appears to be gradually

decreasing over the surveying time. Pomacanthidae abundance varies widely between

phases, as do Pomacentridae (represented by the yellowtail damselfish Microspathodon

chrysurus), Scaridae, Serranidae and Carangidae, but these families seem to be relatively

constant in the long term. Balistidae and Monacanthidae appear to have decreased

rapidly from the start of 2008 but have since leveled off.

The adult fish biomass calculated for this phase is in keeping with the average for the

Caribbean, lower than that calculated for 094. It is thought 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 (100% on at least three separate

dives) 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 (Darwell and Duvall, 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.

Juvenile Fish Juvenile fish numbers are expected to increase as coastal waters warm during the first six

months of the year. Figure 3-1-6 shows a cyclic pattern of increase and decrease in

recruitment throughout the two years of surveying. Phase 101 continued the decline noted

in 094, though less abrupt and beginning to level off, and it would be expected that

© GVI – 2010 Page 29

numbers will begin to increase again in the following phases. This patter in mostly driven

by abundance of S. partitus, T. bifasciatum and H. garnoti.

The negative correlation between the families Pomacentridae and Labridae is as a result

of spawning cycles. T. bifasciatum and H. garnoti usually spawn in the spring or early

summer with juveniles of the species recruiting to the dermal population in summer.

As with previous phases the third most commonly observed family of juvenile fish was the

Scaridae. This figure is in keeping with the same period the previous year and data

appears to suggest that parrotfish numbers are lowest during the first three months of the

year rising steadily until they peak in the final quarter.

Stenopus hispidus and Diadema antillarum

Diadema antillarum is a very important grazer of algae that was largely wiped out by

disease in the Caribbean during the 1980’s. The population has since been reported as

recovering, however at 0.0008 Diadema per m2 this does not appear to be the case in this

region. The Report Card for the Mesoamerican Reef by AGRRA suggests that a density of

<2.5 per m2 is considered critically low. Given its importance as a grazer, it would be

expected that its loss would result in an increase in algal cover, resulting in a phase shift

towards algal dominance. It is also possible that other herbivores such as surgeonfish or

parrotfish could at least partially compensate or become more important as grazers in the

region, depending on fishing pressure.

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 would

also appear to be low in our region. However both of these species could also be are

frequently concealed under overhangs and in crevices during the day and thus may not

have been noticed by recorders. Anecdotal sightings suggest there may be more than our

survey finds.

Coral  101 once again saw more data collected than most previous phases at Punta Gruesa. The

favorable weather and the number of volunteers saw 45 coral transects undertaken at 9

© GVI – 2010 Page 30

sites. Full datasets were also collected again at the two recently discovered sites, SN and

LG, a deeper spur and groove site.

 

Point Intercept  A key objective of the coral monitoring programme at Punta Gruesa is the monitoring of

the relationship and coverage of coral and algae. Point Intercept monitoring in 101

calculated a coral coverage of 8.11%. This has shown a fluctuation from last phase of

approx 3.2%. This is not necessarily a true representation of a drop in coral cover but

simply a byproduct of the random sampling technique used in the MBRS methodology.

Figure 3-3-1 shows the changes in coral/algal coverage over the previous phases. Algal

coverage is much higher than coral but is in line with previous studies by GVI and other

researchers. Gardner et al. (2003) report a Caribbean average of 10%, although this is

down from over 50% cover in the 1970’s.

Algal cover has remained at roughly a constant from last phase at 63.9% maintaining the

decrease observed in phase 094 where algae percentage cover dropped by approximately

10 % from an average of 72% shown in the previous 3 phases.

 

 Figure 3-3-1 Coral and Algal Cover at Punta Gruesa

 Figure 3-3-1 shows the percentage coral and algal cover for each site. For the second

phase in a row LJ has the highest coral coverage showing 10.17%. This is a drop of

© GVI – 2010 Page 31

approximately 11% from last phase (21.2%) although from anecdotal evidence this is not a

true representation as general observations show that there has not been a drop in the

percentage cover of scleractinians at this sight. Once again LG, in general, had larger

colonies than the other sites. This could be because the deeper location protected the

corals from the destructive effects of Hurricane Dean in 2007 which damaged many large

corals on the reef crest.

This phase, LD has been shown to have the lowest coral cover. However, when looking

back over the previous phases data it looks as though this sight seems to have highly

variable coral cover. Its highest percentage cover was shown in phase 082 at 11.82%

whereas this phase, 101, it was shown to be 4.00%.

 Figure 3-3-2 Coral/Algal Cover by Site 101

 Of the sites located on the wall, LJ and CN have the highest coral coverage (10.17% and

11.00% respectively) however the range of coverage between the sites located on the wall

is relatively low. Excluding site LD as this is much lower than the others this phase it is

just 7.83 – 11.00%), indicating the similarity of environment.

Figure 3-3-3 shows the changes in coverage that have occurred over GVI’s time at Punta

Gruesa. The bold line indicates the average between all sites.

© GVI – 2010 Page 32

 

 Figure 3-3-3 Coral and Algal changes by site 081-101

 An interesting feature of the graph is the homogenisation of the coral cover in more recent

phases. During 081 the difference between the site with the highest coral cover (LJ,

17.83%) and the site with the lowest (LD, 6.67%), is larger than the range between the

same sites that were monitored in 093. This comparison excludes LG and SN which were

not monitored in 081 and would skew the results. The highest coral cover site in 093 is

again LJ (12.50%) but the other sites are all approximately 9% coral cover. When

comparing these to the phase 101 results, this pattern seems to continue with one

exception, LD, which as discussed earlier shows a coral cover of just 4.00%. Excluding

this result the subsequent range is just 3.17%. There is a slight deviation from this pattern

shown in 094 at LJ. This sight seemed to spike with the percentage cover rising to 21.7%

for just one phase and has since decreased back down to just 10.17%

© GVI – 2010 Page 33

   

Figure 3-3-4 Deviation from Average Percentage (081-094) of Common Corals in 101

 This phase has again seen higher than average observations for Agaricia agaricites,

Monastraea faveolata, and Porites astreoides when compared with the 2008-2009

average coral percentage cover. Once again Sidastrea siderea has shown levels furthest

below this average. The changes can be explained by the addition of LG to monitoring

sites. Agaricia lamarcki, for example, is occasionally seen on the walls of our shallow

monitoring sites but not on the area which we monitor, however at LG with the deeper reef,

it is more likely to fall under a PI transect. Similarly the reduction in the percentage of

Siderastrea siderea is due to its lack of presence on the deeper reefs of LG, whereas on

the top of the wall (10m depth) the coral is still in high abundance.

 Previous GVI phase reports have shown an inverse relationship between Dictyota spp.

and Halimeda spp. (GVI Mahahual 074). A study by Beach et al. (2003), on another reef

(Florida) with 72% algal cover concluded that Dictyota has a negative impact on other reef

biota by rapidly colonising free space and also growing as an epiphyte. Dictyota spp. limits

the amount of light and nutrients reaching the epiphytised organisms (in this case

Halimeda). In the data from Punta Gruesa there are some peaks and troughs with an

overall increase in cover from both algaes since 081. In 101 the level of Dictyota spp has

decreased for the first time in 3 phases. This seems to match the annual pattern exhibited

in Fig 3-3-5 below. The levels of Halimeda have also dropped this phase going against

© GVI – 2010 Page 34

the inverse relationship that is usually observed with these two species. This most likely

indicates a drop in the non-epiphitic form of Dictyota as this has limited affects on the

Halimeda (Beach et al 2003) and so would explain this observation.

 

Figure 3-3-5 Relationship between Dictyota and Halimeda  

Coral Communities  Many more colonies were recorded in 094 than in any previous phase (Table 1). This is a

result of the higher number of transects and also the monitoring of LG which has a much

higher coral coverage, as discussed in the previous section. From looking at the Point

Intercept data (Fig 3-3-2) the coral cover at LJ was also much higher this phase pushing

this number higher.

However the increased number of colonies assessed has not been reflected in a

significant increase in the disease or predation.

Phase   081   082   083   084   091   092   093   094   101  Colonies   410   558   523   517   542   554   767   831   684    

Table 3-3-1 Coral colonies monitored by CC at Punta Gruesa  The National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA) reported in July that 2009

was expected to develop into an El Niño year with warmer than normal water temperatures

© GVI – 2010 Page 35

to persist in the Caribbean region through the winter 2009-10 (NOAA, 2009). This has also

been reflected to date by a calmer than average hurricane season with no hurricanes

passing through the central Caribbean.

 Figure 3-3-6 Bleaching Occurrence 081-101

 Although bleaching was expected to occur during the summer of 2009, it was not until the

later autumn months of phase 094 that the levels rose. During this phase there were 395

bleaching occurrences. That is 210 more observations than in phase 093 and 154 more

than the corresponding phase for the previous year. From looking at the sea temperatures

recorded by NOAA in the Yucatan the sea temperature remained at approximately 30ºC

until late October early November (www.ndbc.noaa.gov). With the time lag due to the

monitoring schedule that could explain why the increase in bleaching was not observed

until 094. This could also be down to the fact that more coral colonies were measured this

phase than in the previous year (517 in 084 compared to 831 in 094). From incidental

reports from volunteers and staff there was a definite increase in bleaching, although only

5 were recorded as fully bleached. As expected, now that the sea temperatures have

again begun to decrease in phase 101, the levels of bleaching have subsided and the

majority of coral have shown a complete recovery. There are no recorded incidences of

full bleaching and only 7 of partial in the non Siderastrea siderea corals. This is just 12.3%

of the colonies surveyed.

 

© GVI – 2010 Page 36

Pale bleaching in Siderastrea siderea has been separated from the corals as it often

displays pale bleaching and would bias the results if it were included with the other pale

bleached corals.  

 Figure 3-3-7 Bleaching Occurrence in all corals and excluding Siderastrea siderea

 Including pale bleaching in Siderastrea siderea, 43% of corals showed some bleaching, a

4% decrease from the previous phase (Figure 3-3-6). Excluding the pale bleaching in

Siderastrea siderea shows more variation in the occurrence of bleaching (Figure 3-3-7).

During the first two phases of the year there is usually a fairly constant number of corals

displaying bleaching, and during the third phase when the water is the warmest the

numbers of bleached colonies tends to be the lowest. It is likely that the prolonged warm

spells experienced during the third phase of the year causes the bleaching of coral

colonies which are only monitored by volunteers during the final phase. From the data

shown in Fig 3-3-7, it looks as though this pattern is continuing again for what will become

the third year in a row.

Studies have recorded temperature increases of 1°C above average for a sustained period

(i.e. a month) to 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 annual pattern that has

been observed here since 2008.

   

© GVI – 2010 Page 37

 Figure 3-3-8 Disease Occurrence 081-101

 Dark-spot disease remains the most common disease sighted. From looking at the

previous phases results it seems as though it is on a steady incline, with the exception of

phase 094 where there were an unusually low number of sightings.. . Dark-spot primarily

affects Siderastrea siderea (Humann & Deloach, 1992), which is the most common coral

on our reef and it explains the higher incidences of disease.

This was the first phase where all of the target diseases were recorded. Black-band, Red-

band, White Plague, Yellow-band and Dark-spot. Overall, the percentage of diseased

colonies remains low at 8.77% but this is a dramatic increase from the previous phase

which showed just 1.5%. The incidence of diseases was recorded over a wide variety of

coral genus. Acropora, Agaricia, Diploria, Meandrina, Montastraea, Porites and

Siderastrea were all affected.and in some genus, Montastraea in particular, multiple

species showed multiple diseases to be present.

 

© GVI – 2010 Page 38

 Figure 3-3-9 Predation Occurrence 081-101

 Figure 3-3-9 shows the different types of predation that occurred on the corals of Punta

Gruesa during each year. 101 saw six types of predation; sponge, gorgonian, fire coral,

tunicate, damselfish and parrotfish, with sponge predation being by far the most

numerous, as per previous phases. In general, very few corals show signs of predation

(7.16% in 101), with sponge and gorgonian predation the only types that have been

recorded every phase. As with disease occurrence, this phase has once again seen an

increase in the amount of predation observed. Even though 7.16% is still not a high figure,

it is an increase of 4.04% from 094s’ results.

Conclusions  At present the results of the last few phases suggest that the phase shift that has occurred

from a coral dominated to algal dominated reef has begun to subside. Even though the

high coral cover of the 1970’s has been replaced with a reef with approximately 10% coral

cover, and the reefs at Punta Gruesa are consistent with other reefs in the area (Gardner

at al., 2003). There has been little change in the coral and algal cover during GVI’s time at

Punta Gruesa. Longer term data sets will allow us to more accurately measure the

patterns and trends of the coral reef in correlation with changes in water temperatures, sea

conditions and weather patterns in general. There have been some small changes

© GVI – 2010 Page 39

observed though in the few phases that do look positive for the reef. The overall macro-

algal cover for the local area does seem to be declining gradually. Over the past three

phases the percentage cover has gone from 72.96% to 63.93% in phase 101. This could

just be a seasonal pattern as it has been shown before but it is still a promising sign of

improvement.

Fig 3-3-6 shows that the expectedly high bleaching occurrence observed in phase 094 has

reversed and the reefs have recovered. The sea temperatures dropped to approximately

25ºC giving the corals a chance to reincorporate the zooxanthellae. When comparing the

level of bleaching to that of phase 091 the level of bleaching seems to be back to the

expected level for this time of year. 091 showed 203 incidences of bleaching, in 101 there

were 190.

The apparent decrease in dark spot disease shown in 094 now looks as though it was an

anomalous result. According to Rosenberg et al (2002) the rise in sea temperature should

have caused an increase in the presence and spread of disease. This was not shown in

the results and so looks as though it was an error in the observations. The most likely

cause of this was the decrease in sightings of S. siderea as discussed in the 094 report.

The apparent high levels of Dark-spot disease are most likely linked to the high levels of

S. siderea shown on the reefs here at Punta Gruesa.. Dark spot disease, in this region,

has historically been seen mainly on this species (Humann & Deloach, 1992) and so is

therefore one of the more commonly observed diseases. The reason for the increase in

this disease is unclear and further studies are needed to identify its cause.

© GVI – 2010 Page 40

3. Incidental Sightings Programme

3.1 Introduction GVI Mahahual has implemented an incidental sightings program since April 2004, due to

the high number of turtles and other megafauna species seen on dives in the area.

Species that make up the incidental sightings list are:

• Sharks and Rays

• Eels

• Turtles

• Marine Mammals

• Great Barracuda

• Lionfish

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

collected by the Ocean Biogeographic Information Systems Spatial Ecological Analysis of

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

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

of the distribution and ecology of marine megafauna by quantifying global patterns of

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

threatened species.

3.2 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, which aids in

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

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

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.

© GVI – 2010 Page 41

For the first time in 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.

3.3 Results A total of 248 incidental sightings (excluding S. barracuda and Lionfish) were recorded

during 291 site visits in 101. This is lower than the number of observations in the previous

phase

Rays were the most commonly observed members of the Sharks, rays and eels category

across the past five phases, with the Southern Stingray the most common of the rays

(Figure 4-3-1). After a steady increase in Southern Stingray observations during the first 3

phases of 2009, the highest recording being from phase 093 showing 140 Southern

stingray sightings, their abundance seemed to show a sudden and marked decrease.

Phase 101 has shown a slight increase in this number again with 57 observations. On

average one Southern stingray was recorded every 5 dives, with the highest frequency of

recordings being at the site LM10 (15 sightings) for the second phase in a row.

© GVI – 2010 Page 42

Figure 4-3-1 Number of incidental sightings per site visit by phase.

There was also a decrease in the number of turtle sightings in phase 101, with the biggest

drop being that of the Green turtle going from 4 sightings in 094 to 0 sightings in this last

phase, highlighted in fig 4-3-2. Despite the fact that overall less turtles were seen, there

was actually a small increase in the number of Hawksbill sightings going from 12 to 14.

© GVI – 2010 Page 43

Fig 4-3-2 Turtle observations at Punta Gruesa

Figure 4-3-3 Moray eel sightings by phase

© GVI – 2010 Page 44

A total of twenty-six Moray Eels were recorded in 101 which is a significant decrease from

the previous phase. There was an decrease in sightings of each of the represented

species with the largest difference being that of the Spotted (16 less) and Green Morays

(11 less). This equates to a difference of 0.06 sightings per visit for the Spotted Moray and

0.04 for the Goldentail Moray sightings. (Figure 4-3-3).

Fig 4-3-4 Total Number of S. barracuda Sightings by Phase

Following on from phase 091, Sphyraena barracuda (Great Barracuda) sightings were

again recorded. A total of just 11 individuals were observed across all the sites, the lowest

observed figure since the recording began in 2009 (Figure 4-3-4).

© GVI – 2010 Page 45

Fig 4-3-5 Number of Lionfish Sightings by Site (Phase 101) During Phase 101 a total of 66 lionfish sightings were recorded. Fig 4-3-5 breaks this

down to the number of sightings observed at each dive site. LD had the largest number of

observations with 13 recordings, closely followed by LJ with 11.

3.4 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.

In phase 101 a total of 291 site visits were undertaken during which incidental sightings

were recorded. This is the . However, with a total of 248 sightings there has been a

decrease in the number of observations. Through breaking down data to recordings per

site visit, a comparative analysis of incidental sightings numbers can be undertaken. The

number of snorkeling excursions into the lagoon was not recorded but is believed to be

relatively constant with that of previous phases.

© GVI – 2010 Page 46

Turtles The number of turtle sightings has decreased for all species with the exception of the

Eretmochelys imbricate (Hawksbill), when compared to last phase, going from 12 to 14.

This could be attributed to the end of the Loggerhead and Green turtle breeding season,

May to October collectively, and is not necessarily an indication of a drop in population.

However, when comparing the number of Hawksbill sightings to that of 091 the number is

dramatically higher indicating that there has actually been an increase. This could be due

to a number of reasons: Firstly, the numbers of dives completed in that phase. Secondly,

mis-identification of species, although this seems less likely as the total number of turtle

sightings has increased from 4 in phase 091 to 14 in 101. This seems too high a change

to be mis-identification alone. The third possibility is that there has been an increase in the

population. Recent studies by J. Beggs et al 2007, shows that there has been up to an

eight fold increase in the number of Hawksbill nests in Barbados suggesting an increase in

numbers. This apparent rise in the Caribbean population is also backed up by the

attempts from Cuba to downgrade E. imbricate 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)

Elasmobranchs Even though the substantial increase in southern stingray sightings of 093 has not been

repeated since, the overall numbers of observations do in fact point to an increase in the

local population. Calculated as numbers per site visit the figure is equal to 0.195. This is

an increase of 0.045 when compared to last phase.

The number of spotted eagle ray sightings has also been showing a steady decrease over

the last 3 phases. This is probably due to previous phases data not taking into account

multiple sightings of one individual. For example in 093, 10 sightings were at FDC and 10

were in the lagoon. Due to the habitual nature of Aetobatus narinari (Spotted Eagle Ray)

this is most likely to only have been two individuals. As these individuals mature their

range will increase and so the number of sightings would therefore decrease as they spent

more time off of the reef and so it is not necessarily a reduction in the population.

© GVI – 2010 Page 47

Barracuda The sites dived around Punta Gruesa appear to support a healthy Sphyraena barracuda

population. 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.

Sphyraena barracuda is a circumtropical, diurnal species, hunting along coral reefs and

seagrass beds from just after sunrise until before sunset.

The figure of 128 Great Barracuda sightings in phase 093 represents a unit effort of 0.46

sightings per site visit compared with 0.85 for the previous phase. This equates to almost a

50% reduction in observations. Unfortunately this decrease in observations has continued

through phase 101 as well dropping to just 11 sightings or a unit effort of 0.04 with no large

schools observed. The reasons for such a significant decrease in S.barracuda sightings is

unclear but may be partially attributed to this lack of observations of schooling behaviour.

No more than 2 individuals were seen together this phase compared to two phases ago

where 15 individuals were observed in a group or even 092 where 20 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 clear with the collection of

more data.

Lionfish This last phase had seen the implementation of a more aggressive approach to lionfish

catching. Pterois volitans or the red lionfish is becoming more of a problem here in the

Yucatan.

© GVI – 2010 Page 48

After their arrival in the Caribbean in 1992 (Schofield 2009) the population of lionfish is

increasing exponentially, to the point where there are now densities being reported off of

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.

Seagrass beds, mangroves and reefs are all being affected by them.

There are 3 major problems with 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, (Springer,

Verlas 2008) and anecdotal evidence provided by fishermen suggest that Epinephelus

striatus, Nassau Groupers, have been feeding with some regularity (Springer, Verlas

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 local 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)

During phase 101, P. volitans has been recorded on 10 sites with 11 individuals being

observed on a single dive at the site Las Joyas. The majority of observations have seen

the lionfish under overhangs or in swimthroughs with limited reports of some actively

hunting. The overall size range does vary but the average observed size is 16.7cm.

There were limited numbers of sightings showing sizes of 25cm upwards which

unfortunately does suggest that there are reproductively mature individuals in the

population and that therefore we should expect to a see an increase in the number of

© GVI – 2010 Page 49

sightings over the coming phases. Even though there were 66 separate recordings it is

not suspected that that is a true representation of the population as a lot of those

individuals will have been observed on more than one occasion. Due to the nature of the

diving here at Punta Gruesa it is not always feasible to catch every lionfish on sighting it,

although 11 were caught and killed during phase 101, and so multiple observations will

inevitably occur.

© GVI – 2010 Page 50

4. Coral Disease Monitoring Programme

4.1 Introduction In phase 094 GVI Punta Gruesa continued with the coral disease, predation and bleaching

monitoring program implemented at the beginning of the previous phase. Globally coral

reefs are under severe pressure from a series of natural and anthropogenic impacts

including overfishing, disease, pollution, sedimentation, climate change and unsound

tourism practices. The prevalence of disease may be higher in corals stressed by human

impacts such as mechanical damage and pollution (Bryant et al., 1998). As sea

temperatures continue to rise and the seas become more polluted the occurrence of

disease is likely to become more frequent. Through an integrated coral disease, predation

and bleaching monitoring program, GVI Punta Gruesa hopes to observe how different

species of coral are affected by stressors and investigate whether recovery, if it occurs, is

driven by the coral species or physical parameters.

4.2 Methodology Individual coral colonies affected by disease or bleaching were identified, tagged and

photographed at the site ‘Los Milagros’ (LM). Polystyrene markers attached to 1m lengths

of string provided a visual tag. The coral colony was photographed and physical

parameters recorded. A coral cover pole was used to provide scale and measure the

extent of disease/predation/bleaching. The colonies were then revisited at five-week

intervals and further photographs taken to monitor the stressors.

Four colonies were tagged on May 20th 2009 and photographs taken for further analysis.

LM1 = Diploria strigosa with encrusting gorgonian

LM2 = Siderastrea siderea affected by white plague.

LM3 = Siderastrea siderea with partial bleaching.

LM4 = Diploria strigosa affected by red band disease.

© GVI – 2010 Page 51

4.3 Results & Discussion

Encrusting Gorgonian (LM1) The encrusting gorgonian Erythropodium caribaeorum is known to overgrow and kill

hermatypic corals. A colony of Diploria strigosa was identified at the site ´Los Milagros´ at

a depth of 10m with approximately 60% of the coral covered by a layer of E.caribaeorum.

In the three months since the coral colony was identified there has been little evidence of

the gorgonian traversing further across it’s surface. Furthermore, the remainder of the

coral colony appears to be healthy.

White Plague (LM2) The identified colony of Siderastrea siderea has a diameter of 18cm and a height of 10cm.

It is located at a depth of 12m. When observed on May 20st 2009 it exhibited a thin

circular band of white plague approximately 8cm in diameter on the top of the colony.

Upon returning to the coral on June 3rd 2009 further observations indicated there had

been minimal if any progress regarding the spread of the disease. Recent photographs

undertaken on September 9th 2009 continue to show the band of white plague but no

further spread of the disease across the colony surface is visible.

Partial Bleaching (LM3) The colony of Siderastrea siderea first identified and photographed on May 20th 2009

continues to exhibit areas of partial bleaching. During the six weeks following identification

the colony appeared to recover significantly with a return of zooxanthellae to much of the

coral. Further photographs taken on August 18th 2009 reveal a reversal of this trend with

much of the colony displaying new areas of bleaching.

21/05/2009 12/07/2009 19/08/2009

© GVI – 2010 Page 52

Figure 5-3-1 Siderastrea siderea with areas of full bleaching.

20/05/20092

12/07/20092

18/08/2009

Interestingly the edge of the bleached

colony in competition with another member

of the same species does not appear to

have suffered from extensive bleaching.

This suggests that in this particular case

intra-species competition is not directly

impacting upon the location of bleaching

on the coral.

The reason for the return of large areas of

bleaching in what appeared to be a

recovering coral colony can perhaps be

attributed to a prolonged period of

unseasonably high water temperatures.

During the six-week period between

12/07/2009 and 18/08/2009 sea

temperature recorded in the vicinity of the

colony remained constant at 30°C.

In recent weeks sea temperatures have

continued to remain high with large scale

bleaching predicted for coral reefs in the

area. Further assessments of the status of

the affected colony will be undertaken at

the earliest available opportunity.

© GVI – 2010 Page 53

Over the coming phases the programme will continue to monitor the marked colonies LM1,

LM2 & LM3 while looking to tag and monitor further corals exhibiting signs of stress.

Through the ongoing identification and monitoring of coral disease and predation and the

early detection of coral bleaching GVI Punta Gruesa hopes to build up a better

understanding of the factors affecting differing coral colonies.

© GVI – 2010 Page 54

5. Community Work Programme GVI 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 lessons.

Volunteers appreciate the opportunity to participate in the teaching experience and are

happy to interact with and contribute directly to the community and children, either

teaching in a classroom or playing outdoors in addition to researching data.

The program is carried out in two main areas: English for adults and children in three

levels (basic, intermediate and advanced) during the afternoons; and Environmental

education for primary and secondary school during the mornings every Thursday.

5.1 English Language Programme We continued using the same format we have established since 091 going only once a

week into town.

School year had started again when TEFL activities started for us, so activities went back

to the usual, attending every grade of primary school from 9:30 to 10:30 am, then

secondary school from 11:30 to 12:30 pm.

English lessons started at 3:00 pm for children only for an hour. Then two different

schedules for adults: 4:30 pm and 6:30 pm in the three different levels: basic, intermediate

and advanced.

© GVI – 2010 Page 55

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, sales people and

secondary guys.

The 4:30 pm schedule hasn’t been as successful because of the amount of people that

can attend which are mainly housewives or children that can’t make it to the 3:00 pm

schedule.

This phase (094) had a much better attendance than last phase. Summer time was

complicated because schools are closed, and that made it more difficult to reach children

directly, so they showed up only if they read the posters and were able to remember every

week without having us to remind them every morning. It was complicated as well because

of the year season, there’s not that many cruise ships that part of the year so a big part of

Mahahual’s population goes somewhere else to work, or go back to their original places.

During 094 there were more cruise ships coming, that means that there’s a lot more

people around because they come all the way from Chetumal, Limones, Pedro Santos and

several other towns nearby, and generally, a considerably good amount of them want to

learn English, so attendance to lessons improves during cruise ships season.

Very important to mention as well that the apathy locals showed during 093 doesn’t seem

to be there that much anymore. Obviously all the previously positive circumstances just

mentioned helped. However, attendance improved a lot during this phase.

All in all, volunteers enjoyed the experience, and we had fun in every single lesson.

5.2 Environmental Education This program takes place in the primary school every Thursday from 9:30 to 10:30am and,

in the secondary school from 11:30 to 12:30pm.

At the primary school the environmental education is given in English, while at secondary

school it’s given in Spanish. There’s always a little bit of English involved, but volunteers

are very keen in participating and helping out with the activities and/or games organized.

© GVI – 2010 Page 56

We all consider that the morning programs are the most challenging part of the day. Being

able to handle a big group of students that are not coming to lessons voluntarily, but buy

the end, we all know that they enjoy it a lot and always look forward seeing us next

Thursday!

5.3 Other Programmes and Activities

This phase we had the opportunity to reinforce our relationship with the community as a

whole, and specifically with the primary school. Volunteers were able to attest this when

our Expedition Coordinator was invited as jury of the Day of the Death shrines competition.

It was an awesome experience for them specially, because of the immense importance of

this tradition in Mexico. It happens absolutely everywhere, in every area, region, city or

town in the country. Every school, college or university despite the economical level of the

students will celebrate the Day of the Death on November the 2nd. Displays and

expressions of this are shown on the street, in the houses, churches, parks, even

museums, it can even be artistical exhibitions of National recognition and the like. It’s a

huge date. One of the main traditions is to go to the cemetery to leave flowers and food for

the their relatives that have passed away.

Other activity, that has happened several times is going out snorkelling with the secondary

guys! Almost every Thursday from 2:00 to 3:30 pm approximately. There’s not always a

lot of guys joining us on this activity but the ones who come enjoy themselves and always

want to do it again.

© GVI – 2010 Page 57

6. Marine Litter Monitoring Programme

6.1 Introduction Phase 092 saw the beginning of the marine litter collection program at Punta Gruesa.

Marine litter is prevalent along the Caribbean coast and is not only unsightly but a health

hazard to marine life and humans alike. In order to collect more data on this issue a beach

clean program will be conducted every phase. This is part of a worldwide program and is

just one method of investigation to discover where marine litter originates from and which

materials are most common.

Figure 7-1-1 Marine litter washed up on the beach at Punta Gruesa

Objectives of the beach clean programme

• 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.

© GVI – 2010 Page 58

6.2 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

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

© GVI – 2010 Page 59

6.3 Results

Fig. 7-3-1 Average amount of rubbish collected for each category over the last 4 phases.

Fig. 7-3-2 Percentage of total weight by category.

© GVI – 2010 Page 60

Fabric (0.32kg) Natural material (modified) (1.36kg)

Glass (7.97kg) Medical waste (0.2kg)

Plastic (49.52) Rubber (1.1kg)

Polystyrene (1.04kg) Rope (2.51kg)

Metal (1.29kg) Other (14.95kg)

Table 7-3-1 Marine litter collected as actual weight (kg)

Fig. 7-3-3 Graph showing the total weight of rubbish collected by phase

The total amount of litter collected during phase 101 was the second highest yet at

49.52kg, according to fig. 7-3-3. However, in the past it has not always been possible to

collect the rubbish every week. This has meant that, in previous phases, full beach cleans

were conducted but the data was not used as the relating time frame was too long and so

would have been incomparable. To allow for this discrepancy, and to more accurately

compare this phases data to that of previous ones, fig. 7-3-1 shows the average amount of

litter collected each week per category excluding the weeks where the data was missing.

In almost every case it showed a decline in the weight collected from last phase, except for

the categories; medical waste, metal and other all of which showed a small increase.

© GVI – 2010 Page 61

This phases data seemed to be in line with that of 092 and 093 and so suggests that 094

saw an exceptionally high level of rubbish being collected.

As has been the case the case for the previous 3 phases, plastic again accounts for the

largest proportion of waste collected, being accountable for 61.7% of the total rubbish

collected during 101. (See fig. 7-3-2) with glass and other being the 2nd and 3rd largest.

6.4 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 Equitorial, North

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

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

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

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

2-3,000 passengers. Other factors also include outflows from rivers and 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 the majority of monitors, plastics have again constituted the

largest volume of all the categories this phase, being responsible for 61.7% of the total

weight collected. See Fig 7-3-2. 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 pahse 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

© GVI – 2010 Page 62

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 small

percentage of the litter collected, 1.3% of total weight (Fig 7-3-2), but in reality it accounts

for a large volume. 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, I feel 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 that also gets washed up in these more extreme

conditions burying the rubbish and hiding it from sight. In some areas the mound of dead

blades can be as much as 75cm deep.

© GVI – 2010 Page 63

7. Bird Monitoring Programme A bird monitoring programme was initiated in April 2009 at GVI Punta Gruesa.

7.1 Objectives • Develop a species list for the area

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

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

surveys.

• 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.

7.2 Introduction 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, its population of resident breeders is

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

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

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

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

© GVI – 2010 Page 64

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

offshore but stop or pass through the region.

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

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

three key ecosystems; wetland, forest and marine environments.

7.3 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.

7.4 Results A total of 759 birds were recorded this phase. A total of 34 species were identified and

eight new species were added to the species list (see Appendix VI). The Brown Pelican

(Pelecanus occidentalis) was the most commonly sighted, followed by the Royal Tern

(Sterna maxima). The Great-tailed Grackle (Quiscalus mexicanus) was the third most

commonly sighted bird (Fig. 8-3-1).

© GVI – 2010 Page 65

Fig. 8-3-1 Species composition of common bird sightings (more than 20 sightings)

Fig. 8-3-2 Species composition of common bird sightings (20 or more) as percentage across all phases since April 2009

© GVI – 2010 Page 66

Compared across phases the most commonly sighted species which maintain fairly

constant numbers throughout the survey period include the Magnificent Frigatebird, Brown

Pelican, Golden-fronted Woodpecker, Royal Tern and Tropical Mockingbird, which are

probably resident in the area. Great-tailed Grackles, having decreased greatly in

abundance across the first three phases of monitoring, now seem to be either stabilising or

regaining numbers. Other species are only observed with any frequency in particular

phases: In the summer phase (093) these include White-winged Doves and Swallows,

whilst in 101 there were a larger than usual number of Neotropic Cormorants. Species new

in 101 include Canivet’s Emerald Hummingbird, the Cattle Egret and the Little Blue Heron.

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

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

mating or feeding purposes. The Great-tailed Grackle is recognised as a scavenger often

associated with human habitation, less diverse habitats and form large roosting colonies. It

would therefore be expected to be present in proximity to the base and is often observed

around the organic waste disposal area. The reduction in frequency of sightings of

Grackles from 092 to 094 seems unusual, given that these birds are non-migratory and

territorial. However, sightings seem to be on the increase once more; which may indicate

that the resident population is stabilising.

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

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

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

Plovers, similar species of shore-birds and Warblers, many of which are resident only

during the winter.

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

© GVI – 2010 Page 67

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, although identification improved after staff attended a bird

identification course at the end of 092. However, as new staff members have started

birding since 094 this may affect the consistency of the data we have been collecting. For

example, there are more occurrences of birds identified only to family or genus level,

rather than to species, which may be due to the inexperience of data collectors.

Transects usually start shortly after first light and are limited to 30 mins due to time

constraints. During winter this means that transects must start at a later time. Weather

could potentially affect data collection: strong winds and rain make it more difficult to hear

or see the birds and may cause birds to alter behaviour. Taking note of physical

parameters during transects could assist in determining whether this is the case.

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.

7.6 Conclusion The birding project in Punta Gruesa is in its infancy, The species list being is constantly

expanding with each phase as observers become more adept at seeing and identifying

species and migrant species enter the area. As yet the data is insufficient to draw any

conclusions as to any patterns or trend; however some fluctuations in the populations of

common species can already be seen between the four phases of data collection. The

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

transects between phases and introduce the recording of physical parameters.

© GVI – 2010 Page 68

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

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

Almada-Villela P.C., Sale P.F., Gold-Bouchot G. 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). http://www.mbrs.org.bz.

Aronson R.B. and Precht W.F. (2001) White-band disease and the changing face of

Caribbean coral reefs.Hydrobiologia 460: 25-38.

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

Bezaury, J.C., C.L. Sántos, J. McCann, C. Molina Islas, J. Carranza, P. Rubinoff, G.

Townsend,

et al. 1998. Participatory Coastal and Marine Management in Quintana Roo, Mexico.

Proceedings: International Tropical Marine Ecosystems Management Symposium

(ITMEMS). 9.

Conservation on International Trade of Endagered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna

(CITES) Regulation of Trade Article IV (www.cites.org)

Connell, J. H. (1978). Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs.Science199:1302–

1310.

Deloach, N. (1999) Reef fish behaviour: Florida, Caribbean, Bahamas. New World

Publications. Artegrafica. Verona, Italy.

© GVI – 2010 Page 69

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.

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.

Humann, P. and Deloach, N. (2003) Reef Fish Identification: Florida, Caribbean

Bahamas. New World Publications.Star Standard Industries, Jacksonville, FL.  

 

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.

© GVI – 2010 Page 70

NOAA, 2006.NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected

resources.http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/

NOAA, 2009. [Online]. Available at:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090709_elnino.html.  Written  09/07/2009

 

Nugues, M.M, and Roberts, C.M. (2003) Partial mortality in massive reef corals as an

indicator of sediment stress on coral reefs. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46: 314-323.

Rosenberg, E. Ben-Haim, Y. (2002) ‘Microbial Diseases of Corals and Global Warming.

Environmental Microbiology 4(6), 318-326

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.

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

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

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.

© GVI – 2010 Page 71

Appendix I – SMP Methodology Outlines

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

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

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

depth, usually perpendicular to the reef slope. The recent discovery of two Spur and

Groove sites (DP & LG) at a depth of 20m will allow for additional future monitoring. In

keeping with Scuba diving profiles at such depths, 10m transect lines will be used in order

to provide sufficient time to successfully 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 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. In addition to identifying the coral to species level, the diver also records the

water depth at the top of the corals, at the beginning and end of each transect. In cases

where bottom topography is very irregular, or the size of the individual corals is very

variable, water depth is recorded at the top of each coral beneath the transect line at any

major change in depth (greater than 1m).

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.

© GVI – 2010 Page 72

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

any bleached tissue present. The diseases are characterised using the following ten

categories:

Black band disease Red band disease

White band disease Hyperplasm and Neoplasm (irregular growths)

White plague Predation and type

Yellow blotch disease Bleaching and type

Dark spot disease Unknown

Furthermore, bleaching is characterised as a percentage and any other features of note

are also recorded. Areas of mortality (old and recent), disease, predation and bleaching

are summed to provide an estimate of unhealthy coral. This final value will be used with

GIS software and future reporting.

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

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

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

Coralline algae - crusts or finely branched algae that are hard (calcareous) and extend no

more than 2cm above the substratum

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

substrate

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

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

include Halimeda, Dictyota, and Lobophora

Gorgonians

Hermatypic corals - to species level, where possible

Bare rock, sand and rubble

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

Where possible, these are recorded to order or family.

© GVI – 2010 Page 73

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 20-30cm

5-10cm 30-40cm

10-20cm >40cm (with size specified)

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

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

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

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

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

addition, it is also this diver’s responsibility to identify and count the Banded Shrimp,

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

population is slowly dwindling due to their direct removal for the aquarium trade. The

juvenile diver also counts any Diadema antillarum individuals found on their transects.

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

Buddy Method 3: Coral & Fish Rover divers

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

an expanding square pattern, with one diver recording all adult fish species observed. The

approximate density of each fish species is categorised using the following numerations:

© GVI – 2010 Page 74

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

lies. 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.

© GVI – 2010 Page 75

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

dives.

Scientific 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

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

© GVI – 2010 Page 76

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

© GVI – 2010 Page 77

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 Reís

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

© GVI – 2010 Page 78

Appendix V - Fish Species List

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

Rover diver surveys.

Family Genus Species Common Names 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

© GVI – 2010 Page 79

Diodontidae Diodon Holocanthus Balloonfish Elopidae Megalops Atlanticus Tarpon Gobiidae Coryphopterus Dicrus Colon Goby Gobiidae Coryphopterus Eidolon Palid Goby Gobiidae Coryphopterus Glaucofraenum Bridled goby Gobiidae Coryphopterus Lipernes Peppermint goby Gobiidae Coryphopterus personatus/hyalinus Masked/glass goby Gobiidae Gnatholepis Thompsoni Goldspot goby Gobiidae Gobiosoma Oceanops Neon goby. 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

© GVI – 2010 Page 80

Labridae Clepticus Parrae Creole wrasse Labridae Halichoeres Bivittatus Slipperydick Labridae Halichoeres Garnoti Yellowhead wrasse Labridae Halichoeres Maculipinna Clown 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 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 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

© GVI – 2010 Page 81

Pomacanthidae Holacanthus Ciliaris Queen angelfish Pomacanthidae Holacanthus Tricolour Rockbeauty Pomacanthidae Pomacanthus Arcuatus Grey angelfish Pomacanthidae Pomacanthus Paru French angelfish Pomacanthidae Stegastes Leucostictus Beaugregory 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 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 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

© GVI – 2010 Page 82

Scombridae Scomberomorus Regalis Cero Scorpaenidae Scorpaena Plumieri Spotted scorpionfish Serranidae Cephalopholis Cruentatus Graysby Serranidae Cephalopholis Fulvus Coney Serranidae Epinephelus Adscensionis Rockhind Serranidae Epinephelus Guttatus Red hind grouper 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 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

© GVI – 2010 Page 83

Appendix VIa - Bird Species List Bird species identified to species level in Punta Gruesa since April 2009.

Species 092 093 094 Altamira Oriole 2 Black Vulture 2 1 8 Black-Bellied Plover 6 2 1 Brown Pelican 46 13 56 Common Black Hawk 4 1 3 Dusky capped flycatcher 3 5 3 Golden Fronted Woodpecker 54 60 26

Great Blue Heron 14 Great Egret 3 Great Kiskadee 6 3 Great Tailed Grackle 463 303 47 Green Heron 2 1 Green Jay 1 0 0 Green Kingfisher 2 Grey Kingbird 1 Laughing Falcon 3 2 Laughing Gull 2 1 Least Tern 2 Lineated Woodpecker 6 12 4 Magnificent Frigate 83 29 64 Mangrove vireo 1 0 Neotropic Cormorant 1 Osprey 2 0 11 Palm Warbler 19 Plain Chachalaca 4 0 0 Royal Tern 25 14 38 Ruddy Ground Dove 1 0 0 Sanderling 4 32 Semi Palmated plover 36 Snowy Egret 11 Social Flycatcher 2 0 Tropical Mockingbird 22 13 12 Turkey Vulture 2 1 1 White Ibis 1 0 0 White winged dove 2 57 1 Wilson's Plover 2 Yellow throated Warbler 7 0 11 Yellow Warbler 4 Yellow-backed Oriole 11 0 1 No. Species 20 20 33 No. New Species 20 7 12

© GVI – 2010 Page 84

Appendix VIb - Bird Species List Birds identified to family / genus in Punta Gruesa since April 2009.

Family / genus 092 093 094 Egret sp. 4 0 5 Cormorant sp. 4 2 3 Flycatcher sp. 10 3 4 Kingbird sp. 8 2 Swallow sp. 8 80 22 Dove sp. 1 0 0 Oriole sp. 1 0 2