gvi mexico punta gruesa january-march 2011 quaterly report final

8/3/2019 GVI Mexico Punta Gruesa January-March 2011 Quaterly Report Final

1/44

Global Vision International2011 Report Series No. 001

GVI Mexico

Punta Gruesa Marine Expedition

Mahahual

Quarterly Report 111

January - March 2011


2/44

GVI Mexico, Punta Gruesa Expedition Report 111

Submitted in whole toGVI

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

Produced by

Laura McHugh - Science OfficerBryan Becker Field staff

Ariadna Armas Field staff

And

Erin Lawrence Base Manager Brandon Djordjevich Volunteer Oliver McGuinness Field Staff Jack MacDonald Volunteer Ruaidhri Le Mage Field Staff Kate Barker Volunteer

Thomas Nuttall-Smith Scholar Elizabeth Gardner Volunteer Andrew North Scholar Oliver Oakenfold Volunteer Mario Chow NSP David Tate Volunteer

Alain FrederickJacques Vanegas NSP

Laura EstherHantman Volunteer

Jeramy Makortoff Volunteer Bradley Harris Volunteer Darren Lock Volunteer Rocky Ross Volunteer

Patrick Brydon Volunteer Julia Huisman Volunteer Tom Pearson Volunteer Holly Shield Volunteer

Nick Hall Volunteer Timothy May Volunteer Ben Booth Volunteer Ruth Arnold Volunteer

Steven Ashby Volunteer Karin Gruell Volunteer Kathryn Entwistle Volunteer Shandy Labine Volunteer

Matt Cybulski Volunteer

Edited by

Laura McHugh Science Officer

GVI Mexico, Punta Gruesa

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


3/44

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

Phase 111 (January-March 2011):

Monitoring of strategic sites along the coast.

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

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

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

information on the ecological condition of the reef.

Providing English lessons and environmental education opportunities for the local

community.

Further developing the current Marine Education programme for the children of

Mahahual that works alongside the standard curriculum.

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

research in collaboration with GVI into the future.

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

comprehensive guide for the region.

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

and trends.

Daily bird monitoring and Incidental sightings program.

Continuation of the National Scholarship Programme, whereby GVI Punta Gruesa

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

GVI 2010 ii


4/44

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

2.4 Results...............................................................................................................10

2.5 Discussion.........................................................................................................12

3. Community programme...............................................................................................143.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................14

3.2 Aims..................................................................................................................14

3.3 Activities and Achievements............................................................................14

3.4 Review..............................................................................................................154. Incidental Sightings.....................................................................................................17

4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................174.2 Aims..................................................................................................................17

4.3 Methodology.....................................................................................................17

4.4 Results...............................................................................................................184.5 Discussion.........................................................................................................19

5. Marine Litter Monitoring Programme.........................................................................20

5.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................20

5.2 Aims..................................................................................................................205.3 Methodology.....................................................................................................20

5.4 Results...............................................................................................................215.5 Discussion.........................................................................................................226. Bird Monitoring Programme........................................................................................23

6.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................23

6.2 Aims..................................................................................................................236.3 Methodology.....................................................................................................24

6.4 Results...............................................................................................................24

6.5 Discussion.........................................................................................................25

7. Seagrass Monitoring Programme.................................................................................277.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................27

7.2 Aims..................................................................................................................27

7.3 Methodology.....................................................................................................277.4 Results...............................................................................................................28

7.5 Discussion.........................................................................................................29

8. References....................................................................................................................319. Appendices...................................................................................................................33

Appendix I SMP Methodology Outlines.............................................................33

Appendix II - Adult Fish Indicator Species List.....................................................37Appendix III - Juvenile Fish Indicator Species List...............................................38

iii


5/44

Appendix IV - Coral Species List............................................39

Appendix V - Fish Species List..............................................................................40

Appendix VI a - Bird Species List..........................................................................42Appendix VI b - Bird Species List..........................................................................43

List of Figures

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

List of Tables

Table 2-3-1 GPS locations of the monitoring sites

Table 2-4-1 Percentage Cover of Hermatypic Coral and Macroalgae by site during phase111

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

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

Table 5-4-1 Average Weight of Litter Collected per Week by Phase (Kg)Table 6-4-1 Most common bird species or families recorded during phase 111

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

)

.

iv


6/44

1. Introduction

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

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

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

of Mexico down to Honduras via Belize and Guatemala.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The MBRS Synoptic Monitoring Programme

Community Work Programme

Incidental Sightings

Marine Littering Monitoring Programme

Bird Monitoring Programme

Seagrass Monitoring Programme

GVI 2010 Page 5


7/44

2. Synoptic Monitoring Programme

2.1 Introduction

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

Benthic Cover

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

produced by the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring

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

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

2006).

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

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

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

Fish Populations

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

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

affected by human activities (AGRRA, 2000).

GVI 2010 Page 6


8/44

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

previous GVI Mahahual/Punta Gruesa reports.

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

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

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

competition for resources (AGRRA, 2000).

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

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

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

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

determined.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(AGRRA, 2000).

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

communities at different sites can be obtained.

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

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

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

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

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

GVI 2010 Page 7


9/44

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

prolonged irregularities within these physical parameters.

2.2 Aims

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

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

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

for the area.

2.3 Methodology

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

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

methods for buddy pairs:

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

Buddy method 2: Belt transect counts for coral reef fish

Buddy Method 3: Coral Rover and Fish Rover diver

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

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

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

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

local fishermen.

GVI 2010 Page 8


10/44

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

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

evaluation of the reef health.

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

GVI 2010 Page 9


11/44

Location Site ID Depth Latitude Longitude

Los Bollos LB10 10m 19.02 21.8 087.33 54.8Las Joyas LJ10 10m 19.01 53.0 087.34 07.6

Los Milagros LM10 10m 19.01 36.7 087.34 15.9Costa Norte CN10 10m 19.01 31.0 087.34 16.5Las Delicias LD10 10m 19.01 24.7 087.34 20.2Las Palapas LP10 10m 19.01 55.8 087.34 05.1Flor de Can FDC10 10m 19.02 04.4 087.34 03.8Sol Naciente SN10 10m 19.00 36.0 087.34 33.0Los Gorditos LG25 25m 18.59 37.6 087.34 51.9

Table 2-3-1 GPS locations of the monitoring sites. GPS points are listed here in the WGS84 datum.Position format is hddd mm ss.s

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

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

2.4 Results

During phase 111 (January-March 2011) adverse weather conditions did not allow us to

complete all the sites. 166 boats were sent out to the reef including 33 monitoring boats,

resulting in a total of 20 coral transects conducted over four sites and 40 fish transects

conducted over five sites.

Benthic Data

Coral transects monitored 600m of reef, collecting data from 2,400 benthic points. 396

corals were monitored for coral community studies sighting 18 incidences of disease.

24.5% of corals showed signs of bleaching and 77 examples of coral predation were

noted.

Data showed average hermatypic coral coverage to be 14.75% across all sites with

macroalgae coverage at 57.88%. Table 2-4-1 shows the breakdown of percentage cover

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

agaricites and Siderastrea siderea combining to make up 53.39% of the corals recorded.

Dark spot disease was recorded 15 times. There was also one observation of yellow

blotch, one of red band disease and one hyperplasm. Seven different types of predation

were recorded with sponge predation making up 54 of the 77 observations.

GVI 2010 Page 10


12/44

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

CN10 15.50 53.33LM10 11.33 61.50LP10 17.67 57.33

SN10 14.50 59.33Table 2-4-1 Percentage Cover of Hermatypic Coral and Macroalgae by site during phase 111.

Fish Populations

360 adult target fish, covering 28 different species, were recorded this phase. This is equal

to 9.00 target fish per transect. 174 fish, covering nine species, were recorded on the

juvenile transects, which is equal to 4.35 fish per transect.

Haemulidae were the most common family recorded accounting for 49% of the total target

fish sightings. Acanthuridae were next with 23%. Table 2-4-2 shows the abundance of

each fish family by site for this phase.

FAMILY

CN1

0

LD1

0 LM10 LP10 SN10

Acanthuridae 19 32 31 32 26

Balistidae 2 1 0 0 3

Carangidae 0 2 0 0 0Chaetodontidae 8 3 4 4 3

Haemulidae 28 6 21 50 11

Labridae 3 1 2 1 1

Lutjanidae 0 0 0 0 0Monacanthidae 1 0 1 1 0Pomacanthidae 0 1 0 1 1Pomacentridae 0 0 0 0 0

Scaridae 7 1 8 14 0

Serranidae 4 6 8 7 5

Total 72 53 75 110 50No. pertransect 9.00 6.63 9.38

13.7

5 6.25

GVI 2010 Page 11


13/44

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

The three most numerous juvenile species found were Thalassoma bifasciatum (Bluehead

wrasse), Stegastes paritus (Bicolour damselfish) and Sparisoma aurofrenatum (Redband

parrotfish). Table 2-4-3 shows the total number of juveniles recorded at each site and the

average number per transect.

Site I.D.Total Number of

Individuals Recorded

AverageNumber per

Transect

CN10 51 6.38

LD10 26 3.25

LM10 38 4.75

LP10 23 2.88

SN10 36 4.50

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

2.5 Discussion

Due to weather conditions greatly inhibiting the monitoring programme this phase, in terms

of both training and the ability to send boats to the sites, coral transects were only carried

out at four of the pre-mentioned sites. They were Costa Norte, Los Milagros, Sol Nacienteand Las Palapas. Fish transects were carried out at these sites and at one additional site,

Las Delicias.

Data showed average hermatypic coral coverage to be 14.75% across all sites, which is

the highest value recorded since monitoring began at Punta Gruesa in 2008. Coral cover

was above average at all four of the sites monitored. It was especially high at Las Palapas

where coral cover was calculated to be 17.67%. The average value for this site is 10.15%.

This could be due to an actual increase in coral cover or it could be fluctuation due to therandom placement of the transect lines.

Coral cover on reefs across the Caribbean has decreased dramatically over the past three

decades from about 50% to 10% cover (Gardneret al. 2003). Although the coral cover at

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

GVI 2010 Page 12


14/44

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

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

Yucatan average of 7.5% (Wilkinson, 2008).

The number of adult target fish per transect was below average this phase. The averageacross all phases is 12.60 fish per transect and the average calculated for this phase is

9.00 fish per transect. This is the lowest value since phase 091 (January-March 2009).

The number of juvenile fish per transect was the lowest on record this phase. The number

of juveniles recorded cycles on an annual basis and is always at its lowest at the start of

the year, however the average number recorded per transect this phase (4.35) is lower

that the number recorded at the same time of year in 2008, 2009 and 2010 (10.07, 5.74

and 6.07 respectively). Juvenile fish abundance cycles on an annual basis due tospawning cycles. Although many species settle randomly throughout the year, recruitment

reaches its peak in the summer(DeLoach, 1999).

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

Gruesa, Quarterly Report 104 October - December 2010.

GVI 2010 Page 13


15/44

3. Community programme

3.1 Introduction

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

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

aspects: English and Environmental Education.

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

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

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

theme has been included within the structure of the lessons.

3.2 Aims

The aims of the community programme in Punta Gruesa are:

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

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

the knowledge given.

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

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

visitors that come to the area.

3. To participate in the different activities that are organized by the locals and provide

help if it is needed.

3.3 Activities and Achievements

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.

The English lessons for children are carried out while they are at school. The volunteersprepare the lesson that will be given the day before. Games, interactive activities and

songs are part of the tools they use to reinforce the knowledge. After the lesson they have

feedback sessions between themselves to comment on how the lesson went.

GVI 2010 Page 14


16/44

Lessons in the evening are the most successful due to the working times of the majority of

the students, which are mainly taxi drivers, builders, waiters, masseuses and sales people.

Attendances vary, but on average up to 10 or more adults are regularly seen. The

structure of these lessons is usually led by the participants who have specific requirements

based on their careers and as such the types of conversation had.

3.4 Review

This phase we introduced English classes at the secondary school, replacing the previous

phases Spanish-language environmental education classes so Punta Gruesa had the

following program:

English Classes, Primary School, Tuesdays 9:30-10:30 and 11:00 -12:00

English Classes, Secondary School, Thursdays 11:00 -12:00

English Classes, Adults, Thursdays, 16:30-18:00 and 18:30-20:00pmA voluntary English class was added for primary school students on Tuesdays, 12:45-

13:45.

The volunteers were given an introduction to TEFL and teaching in week three of the

expedition. Out of the 26 total volunteers, all but one expressed interest in participating in

the program. All of those 25 participated at least once. Four volunteers decided not to

participate a second time. After receiving more training during phase some of the

volunteers became much better at lesson planning and classroom management.

Due to lack of continuity between phases, the classes developed by the volunteers were

frequently repeats of lessons from past phases. Some were fun games with the kids, with

very little actual English involved, other lessons required a lot of Spanish translation

(something that is discouraged in the TEFL field). Many of the volunteers found the school

children challenging. Although many of the school-aged students enjoyed their time with

GVIs volunteer teachers, the majority of them seemed to tune out when the volunteers

were in front of the class. Overall, the volunteers seemed to be more enthusiastic aboutteaching English to adult learners, who have requested further and more frequent lessons.

Our recommendations for next phase and beyond are to focus Punta Gruesas Community

Involvement component on the following four areas:

GVI 2010 Page 15


17/44

Adult English language education, twice a week (or as appropriate per volunteer

interest)

Conservation-themed full-day activities, at the primary and secondary schools

(maybe a few times per phase)

Community events

Research on local fishing practices

GVI 2010 Page 16


18/44

4. Incidental Sightings

4.1 Introduction

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

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

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

make up the incidental sightings list are:

Sharks and Rays

Eels

Turtles

Marine Mammals

Great Barracuda

Lionfish

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

collected by the Ocean Biogeographic Information Systems Spatial Ecological Analysis of

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

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

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

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

threatened species.

4.2 Aims

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

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

4.3 Methodology

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

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

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

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

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

GVI 2010 Page 17


19/44

For the first time in Phase 093 (July-September 2009) GVI Punta Gruesa began recording

lionfish sightings. Over the past decade the Pacific Lionfish (Pterois volitans and P. miles)

has established itself along the Atlantic coast as a result of multiple releases (intentional or

otherwise) from private aquaria. This invasive species lacking in natural predators, hasadapted well to the warm waters of the Caribbean, and is currently spreading its

geographical range along the Mesoamerican coastline.

4.4 Results

During this phase a total of 106 incidental sightings were recorded across 166 trips out to

the reef. This equates to a unit effort of 0.64 sightings per boat. These figures also include

anything spotted during snorkel trips to the lagoon but the total number of snorkel trips that

were made is unknown.

Three species of elasmobranchs were recorded including 36 southern stingrays (Dasyatis

americana), five nurse sharks (Ginglymostoma cirratum) and three spotted eagle rays

(Aetobatus narinari).

Three species of moray eels were recorded incuding seven green morays (Gymnothorax

funebris), three spotted morays (Gymnothorax moringa) and two goldentail morays

(Goldentail Moray).

Nine turtles were recorded including four loggerheads (Caretta caretta), three hawksbills

(Eretmochelys imbricate) and two greens (Chelonia mydas).

There were four dolphin encounters involving 31 dolphins. Both Atlantic spotted dolphins

(Stenella frontalis) and bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncates) were recorded.

11 Great barracuda were recorded, ranging in size from 0.8-2m.

166 lionfish were recorded, ranging in size from 10-38cm. Five of these were killed in an

attempt to control lionfish numbers on the reef.

GVI 2010 Page 18


20/44

4.5 Discussion

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

which was recorded 36 times. This is consistent with data from previous phases. Southern

stingrays have been the most common elasmobranchs recorded every phase sincemonitoring began here at the start of 2008, with the exception of phase 083 (July-

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

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

high numbers recorded.

There were 11 great barracuda sightings during this phase. This is the lowest number

recorded since the survey began in 2009. They were recorded in much higher numbers

during the 2009 phases peaking at 134 individuals during phase 092 (April-June 2009), butthroughout 2010 their numbers were consistently low, ranging from 11 to 32. The reasons

for such a significant decrease in S. barracuda sightings is unclear but may be partially

attributed to a lack of observations of schooling behaviour. No more than three individuals

were seen together this phase compared to phase 102 (April-June 2010) when 11

individuals were observed in a group or phase 093 (July-September 2009) when 15 S.

barracuda were seen together. It is not yet understood whether schooling of large

members of the species is subject to seasonal variation but hopefully this will become

clear with the collection of more data.

166 lionfish were recorded during this phase. This is the second highest number recorded

since the survey began in 2009. They were most frequently recorded in the 16-20cm

category, which is consistent with the data from this phase last year. The increase in

Pterois volitans and P. miles sightings poses a potentially large problem for the reefs at

Punta Gruesa as they are known to be voracious predators. This problem will only worsen

unless more efforts are made to keep the population in check. According to Morris et al.

2010, only 27% of the population needs to be removed monthly for the population todecrease. Concerted efforts will be made again by the staff to remove as many individuals

as possible during the next phase.

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


GVI 2010 Page 19


21/44

5. Marine Litter Monitoring Programme.

5.1 Introduction

Punta Gruesas location on the Yucatan Peninsula means that it faces the Caribbean

Current. This is a circular current that combined with the Loop current and the Yucatan

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

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

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

nature and origin of 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.

Phase 092 (April-June 2009) saw the beginning of the marine litter collection program at

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

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

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

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

originates from and which materials are most common.

5.2 Aims

This project has three main aims:

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

Conservation of terrestrial and marine fauna threatened by litter.

Improvement of beach aesthetics.

5.3 Methodology

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

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

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.

GVI 2010 Page 20


22/44

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

Fabric

Glass

Plastic

Polystyrene

Metal

Natural material (modified)

Medical waste

Rubber

Rope

Other

5.4 Results

A total of 44.6 kg of marine litter was collected this phase. Plastic accounted for

approximately 56.9% of the total weight collected. Even though Polystyrene was one of the

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

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

Due to weather and time restrictions only four representative litter picks were conducted.

To allow for this Table 6-4-1 shows the breakdown of the average litter collected per week

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

092 093 094 101 102 103 104 111

Plastic 5.24 8.55 9.86 6.19 3.17 4.17 7.25 6.34Glass 0.51 0.43 1.57 1.00 0.84 0.56 2.36 0.70Fabric 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01Rubber 0.38 0.89 2.20 0.14 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.14Natural Material 0.51 0.04 2.00 0.17 0.72 0.79 1.35 0.16Rope 0.88 1.35 1.62 0.31 0.60 0.53 0.05 0.46Metal 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.16 0.41 0.74 2.83 0.08Polystyrene 0.16 0.12 0.32 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.47 0.78Medical Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.03Other 2.17 0.01 1.17 1.87 2.41 2.76 3.94 2.45Total 9.87 11.90 18.82 10.03 8.29 9.88 18.31 11.14

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

GVI 2010 Page 21


23/44

5.5 Discussion

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

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

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

found is consistently high from phase to phase is a worrying trend as when plastics such

as Polythene, found in plastic bags, breakdown they form small plastic particles that can

contaminate the food web and be passed on through the trophic levels. Plastic debris can

act like a sponge for toxic chemicals soaking up compounds such as PCBs and DDE (a

product from the breakdown of DDT). Once these are ingested into the food chain the high

concentrations will be spread from organism to organism until the levels become fatal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



GVI 2010 Page 22


24/44

6. Bird Monitoring Programme

6.1 Introduction

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

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

variety of habitats.

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

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

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

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

capable of supporting large resident populations of birds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

offshore but stop or pass through the region.

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

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

three key ecosystems; wetland, forest and marine environments.

6.2 Aims

Develop a species list for the area

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

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

surveys.

GVI 2010 Page 23


25/44

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

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

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

6.3 Methodology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

recorded to allow consideration of physical parameters.

6.4 Results

A total of 1921 birds were recorded during 40 transects this phase. 30 species were

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

additions to the species list are the great black hawk (Buteogallus urubitinga ridgwayi),

killdeer (Charadrius v. vociferous), roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja) and willet

(Catoptrophorus semipalmatus).

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

making up 31.3% of the birds recorded. The second most commonly sighted species was

the sanderling (Calidris alba), which made up 9.2% of sightings, followed by the brown

pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), which made up 7.8% of sightings.

GVI 2010 Page 24


26/44

Species Total Species Total

Great-tailed Grackle 601 Egret sp. 29Sanderling 176 Heron sp. 23Brown Pelican 149 Neotropical Cormorant 23Tropical Mockingbird 90 Yellow-throated Warbler 23Magnificent Frigate 83 Tern sp. 19

Golden-fronted Woodpecker 82 Cormorant sp. 16Royal Tern 80 Ani sp 15Great Kiskadee 78 Groove-billed Ani 13Warbler sp. 58 Tropical Kingbird 13Oriole sp. 55 Killldeer 12Kingbird sp. 48 Woodpecker sp. 12Semipalmated plover 42 Yucatan Woodpecker 11Yucatan Jay 42 Social Flycatcher 9Great Blue Heron 33 Flycatcher sp. 8Plover sp. 30 Lineated Woodpecker 7

Table 6-4-1 Most common bird species or families recorded during phase 111

6.5 Discussion

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

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

mating or feeding purposes. Great-tailed grackles fall into this category, being described

as resident breeders (Howell & Webb, 2004). Their numbers have fluctuated but have

remained consistently high.

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

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

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

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

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

Sanderlings were the second most numerous species recorded during this phase. Their

numbers at Punta Gruesa peak during the first and last phase of each year, the winter

phases. This is because they are winter (non-breeding) visitors (Howell & Webb, 2004).

Brown pelican numbers seem to follow a similar pattern, with their numbers peaking during

the first phase of each year. Brown pelicans are not winter visitors though and have been

GVI 2010 Page 25


27/44

recorded every phase since the survey began. In fact there are several breeding colonies

along the Caribbean coast of the Yucatan Peninsula (Howell & Webb, 2004).

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

become more adept at seeing and identifying species and migrant species enter the area.The collection of data will continue in future years and we will try to further standardise

transects between phases.



GVI 2010 Page 26


28/44

7. Seagrass Monitoring Programme

7.1 Introduction

Phase 102 (April-June 2010) saw the implementation of a new survey program, focusingon the sea grass beds found adjacent to the beach at Punta Gruesa. The shoreline here

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

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

Thalassia testudinum and Syringodium filiforme.

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

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

decreasing the levels of coastal erosion and providing favourable conditions for both themangroves and reefs to grow.

7.2 Aims

The aims of the project are:

Determine the overall percentage coverage and species composition along three

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

Monitor the changes in seagrass coverage and species composition over time.

Monitor the health of the seagrass bed by measuring blade length, predation and

epiphyte cover.

7.3 Methodology

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

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

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

biological composition of the bed.

T1A 19.00810 T1B 19.00790 T1C 19.00770

GVI 2010 Page 27


29/44

087.58933 087.58941 087.58949T2A 19.00785

087.58875

T2B 19.00765

087.58883

T2C 19.00744

087.58889T3A 19.00748

087.58767

T3B 19.00724

087.58772

T3C 19.00703

087.58779

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

)

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

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

Overall percentage cover.

S. filiforme percentage cover.

T. testudinum percentage cover

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

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

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

transect.

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

in the Punta Gruesa area. Due to the fact that they play such a crucial ecological role in

the health of the reef systems, as a result of the habitual symbiosis shared between

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

beds.

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

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

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

methodology of seagrassnet.com with slight modifications to accommodate for volunteers

with limited training.

7.4 Results

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

closest to the beach. Transect 1 had 81.0% cover, transect 2 had 77% cover and transect

3 had 42.0% cover.

GVI 2010 Page 28


30/44

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

1 had 75.0% cover, transect 2 had 45.0% cover and transect 3 had 32.0% cover.

Average blade length ofT. testudinum was found to be shortest on the transect furthestfrom the beach. On transect 1 it was found to be 10.5cm, on transect 2 it was 16.3cm and

on transect 3 it was 8.2cm.

7.5 Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

1mm forS. filiforme.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

above.

This is only the third time this study has been conducted at Punta Gruesa so it is difficult to

make any conclusions about the current state of the seagrass bed. This has been useful

GVI 2010 Page 29


31/44

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

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

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

All other patterns fit those of previous phases outlined in detail in GVI Mexico, PuntaGruesa, Quarterly Report 104 October - December 2010.

GVI 2010 Page 30


32/44

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. Kjerfve B. (2003) Manual of Methods for

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

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

Systems Project (MBRS).

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

Publications. Artegrafica. Verona, Italy.

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.

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

Central America. Oxford University Press Inc., New York

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

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

9786-8

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

over 25 years. Environmental Conservation 25: 122-130.

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

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

Sweatman, H. & Robertson, D. R. (1994) Grazing halos and predation on juvenile

Caribbean surgeonfishes. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Volume 111: 1-6

GVI 2010 Page 31
http://www.agrra.org/method/methodhome.htmhttp://www.agrra.org/method/methodhome.htmhttp://www.agrra.org/method/methodhome.htm


33/44

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

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

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

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

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

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

91-98

GVI 2010 Page 32


34/44

9. Appendices

Appendix I SMP Methodology OutlinesBuddy method 1: Surveys of corals, algae and other sessile organisms

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

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

depth, usually perpendicular to the reef slope.

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

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

identifies, to species level, each hermatypic coral directly underneath the transect that is at

least 10cm at its widest point and in the original growth position. If a colony has been

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

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

transect.

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

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

in plan view and maximum height (live plus dead areas) from the base of the colonies

substratum are measured.

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

old dead and recent dead) is also estimated.

The 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 typeYellow blotch disease Bleaching and type

GVI 2010 Page 33


35/44

Dark spot disease Unknown

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

categories are considered:

Parrotfish predation Fire coral predation

Damselfish predation Gorgonian predation

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

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

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

Partial the colony has a significant amount of patchy white areasTotal all, or almost all, of the colony is white

Any other features of note are also recorded, including, orange icing sponge, coral

competition and Christmas tree worms.

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

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

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

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

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

substrate

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

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

include Halimeda, Dictyota, and Lobophora

Gorgonians

Hermatypic corals - to species level, where possible

Bare rock, sand and rubble

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

GVI 2010 Page 34


36/44

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

fish species in their adult phase. The diver visually estimates a two metre by two metre

corridor and carries a one meter T-bar divided into 10cm graduations to aid the accuracy

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

categories:

0-5cm 21-30cm

6-10cm 31-40cm11-20cm >40cm (with size specified)

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

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

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

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

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

addition, it is also this divers responsibility to identify and count the Banded Shrimp,Stenopus hispidus. This is a collaborative effort with UNAM to track this species as their

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

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

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

Buddy Method 3: Coral & Fish Rover divers

At each monitoring site the third buddy pair completes a thirty minute survey of the site.This is carried out using a search pattern appropriate to the site but is usually a U-shaped

pattern. The first diver records all adult fish species observed.. The approximate density of

each fish species is categorised using the following numerations:

Single (1 fish)

GVI 2010 Page 35


37/44

Few (2-10 fish)

Many (11-100 fish)

Abundant (>100 fish)

The second diver swims alongside the Fish Rover diver and records, to species level, allcoral communities observed, regardless of size. The approximate density of each coral

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

Single (1 community)

Few (2-10 communities)

Many (11-50 communities)

Abundant (>50 communities)

GVI 2010 Page 36


38/44

Appendix II - Adult Fish Indicator Species List

The following list includes only the adult fish species that are surveyed during monitoring

dives.

GVI 2010 Page 37

Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Common Name

Acanthurus coeruleus, Blue Tang Scarus guacamaia Rainbow ParrotfishAcanthurus bahianus, Ocean Surgeonfish Scarus vetula Queen ParrotfishAcanthurus chirurgus, Doctorfish Sparisoma viride Stoplight Parrotfish

Chaetodon striatus, Banded Butterflyfish Scarus taeniopterus Princess ParrotfishChaetodon capistratus, Four Eye Butterflyfish Scarus iserti Striped ParrotfishChaetodon ocellatus, Spotfin Butterflyfish Sparisoma aurofrenatum Redband Parrotfish

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

Haemulon plumierii White Grunt Sparisoma radians Bucktooth ParrotfishHaemulon sciurus Bluestriped Grunt Epinephelus itajara Goliath GrouperHaemulon carbonarium Caesar Grunt Epinephelus striatus Nassau GrouperHaemulon chrysargyreum Smallmouth Grunt Mycteroperca venenosa Yellowfin GrouperHaemulon aurolineatum Tomtate Mycteroperca bonaci Black GrouperHaemulon melanurum Cottonwick Mycteroperca tigris Tiger GrouperHaemulon macrostomum Spanish Grunt Mycteroperca interstitialis Yellowmouth Grouper

Haemulon parra Sailors Choice Epinephelus guttatus Red HindHaemulon album White Margate Epinephelus adscensionis Rock Hind

Anisotremus virginicus Porkfish Cephalopholis cruentatus Graysby

Anisotremus surinamensis Black Margate Cephalopholis fulvus Coney

Lutjanus analis Mutton Snapper Balistes vetula Queen TriggerfishLutjanus griseus Gray Snapper Balistes capriscus Gray TriggerfishLutjanus cyanopterus Cubera Snapper Canthidermis sufflamen Ocean TriggerfishLutjanus jocu Dog Snapper Xanithichthys ringens Sargassum TriggerfishLutjanus mahogoni Mahaogany Snapper Melichthys niger Black DurgonLutjanus apodus Schoolmaster Aluterus scriptus Scrawled Filefish

Lutjanus synagris Lane Snapper Cantherhines pullus Orangespotted FilefishOcyurus chrysurus Yellowtail Snapper Cantherhines macrocerus Whitespotted FilefishHolacanthus ciliaris Queen Angelfish Bodianus rufus Spanish Hogfish

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

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


39/44

Appendix III - Juvenile Fish Indicator Species List

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

that are recorded during monitoring dives

Scientific Name Common Name Max. target length (cm)

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

GVI 2010 Page 38


40/44

Appendix IV - Coral Species List

GVI 2010 Page 39

Family Genus Species Family Genus SpeciesAcroporidae Acropora cervicornis Meandrinidae Dendrogyra cylindrus

Acroporidae Acropora palmata Meandrinidae Dichocoenia stokesiiAcroporidae Acropora prolifera Meandrinidae Meandrina meandrites

Agariciidae Agaricia agaricites Milliporidae Millepora alcicornis

Agariciidae Agaricia fragilis Milliporidae Millepora complanata

Agariciidae Agaricia grahamae Mussidae Isophyllastrea rigida

Agariciidae Agaricia lamarcki Mussidae Isophyllia sinuosa

Agariciidae Agaricia tenuifolia Mussidae Mussa angulosa

Agariciidae Agaricia undata Mussidae Mycetophyllia aliciae

Agariciidae Helioceris cucullata Mussidae Mycetophyllia ferox

Antipatharia Cirrhipathes leutkeni Mussidae Mycetophyllia lamarckiana

Astrocoeniidae Stephanocoenia intersepts Mussidae Mycetophyllia reesi

Caryophylliidae Eusmilia fastigiana Mussidae Scolymia sp.

Faviidae Colpophyllia natans Pocilloporidae Madracis decactisFaviidae 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


41/44

Appendix V - Fish Species List

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

Rover diver surveys.

Family Genus Species Common Names



GVI 2010 Page 40


42/44

GVI 2010 Page 41

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

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

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

Scombridae

Scomberomoru

s Maculates Spanish mackerel


Scombridae

Scomberomoru

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

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

Serranidae Paranthias Furcifer CreolefishSerranidae Rypticus Saponaceus Greater soapfishSerranidae Serranus Tabacarius Tobaccofish


43/44

Appendix VI a - Bird Species List

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

Common Name Family Scientific Name

Altamira Oriole Icteridae Icterus gularis

Black Vulture Cathartidae Coragyps atratusBlack-backed Oriole Icteridae Icterus abeilliorbullockiiBlack-bellied Plover Charadriidae Pluvialis squatarolaBlack-cowled Oriole Icteridae Icterus dominicensisBlack-crowned Tityra Cotingidae Tityra inquisitorBrown Pelican Pelecanidae Pelecanus occidentalisCanivet's Emerald Hummingbird Trochilidae Chlorostilbon canivetiiCattle Egret Ardeidae Bubulcus ibisCommon Black Hawk Accipitridae Buteogallus anthracinusDusky Capped Flycatcher Tryrannidae Myiarchus tuberculiferEastern Kingbird Tyrannidae Tyrannus tyrannus

Ferruginous pygmy owl Strigidae Glaucidium brasilianumGolden-fronted Woodpecker Picidae Centurus aurifronsGreat Black Hawk Accipitridae Buteogallus urubitinga ridgwayiGreat Blue Heron Ardeidae Ardea herodiasGreat Egret Ardeidae Egretta alba egrettaGreat Kiskadee Tyrannidae Pitangus sulphuratusGreat-tailed Grackle Icteridae Quiscalus mexicanusGreen Heron Ardeidae Butorides virescensGreen Jay Corvidae Cyanocorax yncasGreen Kingfisher Alcedinidae Chloroceryle americanaGrey Kingbird Tyrannidae Tyrannus d. dominicensisGroove-billed Ani Cuculidae Crotophaga sulcirostrisHooded Oriole Icteridae Icterus cucullatusKilldeer Charadriidae Charadrius v. vociferusLaughing Falcon Falconidae Herpetotheres cachinnansLaughing Gull Laridae Larus atricillaLeast Tern Laridae Sterna antillarumLineated Woodpecker Picidae Dryocopus lineatusLittle Blue Heron Ardeidae Egretta caeruleaMagnificent Frigatebird Fregatidae Fregata magnificensMangrove Vireo Vireonidae Vireo pallens

Mangrove Warbler Parulinae Dendroica erithachoridesMasked Tityra Cotingidae Tityra semifasciataNeotropic Cormorant Phalacrocoracidae Phalacrocorax brasilianusOsprey Accipitridae Pandion haliaetusPalm Warbler Parulinae Dendroica palmarumPlain Chachalaca Cracidae Ortalis vetulaPurple Martin Progne Progne subisRoseate Spoonbill Threskiornithidae Platalea ajaja

GVI 2010 Page 42


44/44

Royal Tern Laridae Sterna m. maximaRuddy Ground-Dove Columbidae Columbina talpacotiRuddy Turnstone Scolopacidae Arenaria interpresSanderling Scolopacidae Calidris albaSemipalmated Plover Charadriidae Charadrius semipalmatus

Snowy Egret Ardeidae Egretta thulaSocial Flycatcher Tyrannidae Myiozetetes similisSwainsons warbler Parulinae Helmitheros swainsoniiTropical Kingbird Tyrannidae Tyrannus melancholicusTropical Mockingbird Mimidae Mimus gilvusTurkey Vulture Cathartidae Cathartes auraWhite-eyed vireo Vireonidae Vireo griseusWhite Ibis Threskiornithidae Eudocimus albusWhite-tipped dove Columbidae Leptotila verreauxiWhite-winged Dove Columbidae Zenaida asiaticaWillet Scolopacidae Catoptrophorus semipalmatus

Wilson's Plover Charadriidae Charadrius wilsoniaYellow Warbler Parulinae Dendroica petechiaYellow-backed Oriole Icteridae Icterus chrysaterYellow-throated Vireo Vireonidae Vireo hypochryseusYellow-throated Warbler Parulinae Dendroica dominicaYucatan Jay Corvidae Cyanocorax yucatanicusYucatan Woodpecker Picidae Centurus pygmaeus

Appendix VI b - Bird Species List

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

Kingbird sp. Warbler sp.Kingfisher sp. Woodpecker sp.

gvi mexico punta gruesa january-march 2011 quaterly report final

Documents