gvi mexico punta gruesa quaterly report july - september 2010

8/7/2019 GVI Mexico Punta Gruesa Quaterly Report July - September 2010

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gvi-mexico-punta-gruesa-quaterly-report-july-september-2010 1/40

Global Vision International2010 Report Series No. 003

GVI Mexico

Punta Gruesa Marine Expedition

Mahahual

Quarterly Report 103

July - September 2010



GVI Mexico, Punta Gruesa Expedition Report 103

Submitted in whole toGVI

Amigo de Sian Ka‟an Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP)

Produced by

Tristan Brown – Science Officer

And

Genevieve Gammage Base Manager David Sheal Volunteer

David Blundell Field Staff Diane Propsting Volunteer Samantha Buxton Field Staff Frank Van Boekel Volunteer

Jax Keenan Field Staff Gilbert Dreschke VolunteerErin Lawrence Field Staff Hannah Uffland Volunteer

Rachel Budworth Scholar Hannah Young VolunteerRuaidhri Le Mage Scholar Jennifer Bowker VolunteerAriane Robinson NSP Julia Goldberg Volunteer

Jose Roberto Juarez NSP Karl Jenson VolunteerAllyn Norman Volunteer Katherine Scott Volunteer

Ana Ilic Volunteer Katie Motsan VolunteerAnna Loizou Volunteer Kylie Jameson Volunteer

Ben Shuttleworth Volunteer Lisa Robbins VolunteerBeth Siddons Volunteer Ryan Winter Volunteer

Bradley Nelson Volunteer Nils Radecker VolunteerBryan Jameson Volunteer Stephen Rankin Volunteer

Christian Puentes Volunteer Tamara Vogt VolunteerDagmar Wels Volunteer

Edited byStuart Fulton

GVI Mexico, Punta Gruesa

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

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.gvi.co.uk/



http://www.gviusa.com/








© GVI – 2010 ii

Executive Summary

The eleventh 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 103:

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 ofresearch 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

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



iii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ iiList of Figures ................................................................................................................. ivList of Tables .................................................................................................................. iv1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 52. Synoptic Monitoring Programme ............................................................................. 6

2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 62.2 Aims ................................................................................................................. 82.3 Methodology ..................................................................................................... 82.4 Results ........................................................................................................... 102.5 Discussion ...................................................................................................... 12

3. Community programme ............................................................................................. 143.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 143.2 Objectives ....................................................................................................... 143.3 Activities and Achievements ........................................................................... 143.4 Review ............................................................................................................ 15

4. Incidental Sightings ................................................................................................... 164.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 164.2 Aims ............................................................................................................... 164.3 Methodology ................................................................................................... 164.4 Results ........................................................................................................... 174.5 Discussion ...................................................................................................... 17

5. Marine Litter Monitoring Programme. ........................................................................ 195.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 195.2 Aims ............................................................................................................... 195.3 Methodology ................................................................................................... 195.4 Results ........................................................................................................... 205.5 Discussion ...................................................................................................... 21

6. Bird Monitoring Programme ....................................................................................... 226.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 226.2 Aims ............................................................................................................... 226.3 Methodology ................................................................................................... 236.4 Results ........................................................................................................... 236.5 Discussion ...................................................................................................... 25

7. References ................................................................................................................ 268. Appendices ............................................................................................................... 27

Appendix I – SMP Methodology Outlines .............................................................. 27Appendix II - Adult Fish Indicator Species List ...................................................... 30Appendix III - Juvenile Fish Indicator Species List ................................................ 32Appendix IV - Coral Species List........................................................................... 33Appendix V - Fish Species List ............................................................................. 34

Appendix VI - Bird Species List ............................................................................. 38



iv

List of Figures

Figure 2-3-1 The Dive Sites of Punta Gruesa ..................................................................... 9

List of Tables

Table 2-3-1 GPS locations of tyhe monitoring sites. GPS points are listed here in theWGS84 datum. ................................................................................................................. 10Table 2-4-1 % Comparison of Hermatypic Coral Cover against Macroalgae Cover. ......... 11Table 2-4-2 Adult Target Species Abundance by Monitoring Site ..................................... 11Table 2-4-3 Total and Average Number of Juveniles Recorded ....................................... 12Table 5-4-1 Average Weight Collected per Week (Kg) ..................................................... 21 Table 6-3-1 Total Species Composition of phase 103…………….………………………….23



© GVI – 2010 Page 5

1. Introduction

This expedition is the third of GVI‟s third year at Punta Gruesa.

The Yucatan Peninsula is fringed by the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System (MBRS), thesecond largest barrier reef system in the world, extending over 4 countries. Starting from

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

Mexico down to Belize via Honduras and Guatemala.

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

located inside the Sian Ka‟an Biosphere Reserve, assist our project partners, Amigos de

Sian Ka‟an (ASK) and Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP) in

obtaining baseline data along the coast of Quintana Roo through marine surveys. Thisdata allows ASK to focus on the areas needing immediate environmental regulation

depending on susceptibility and therefore, implement management protection plans as and

when 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 summarize

all 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



© GVI – 2010 Page 6

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 and Acropora 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 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).

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

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 7

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 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



© GVI – 2010 Page 8

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 species and their resilience toenvironmental stressors. The projects also aim to ascertain areas of high species diversity,

areas of high algal mass, fish species and abundance.

2.3 Methodology

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

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

methods for buddy pairs:

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

Buddy method 2: Belt transect counts for coral reef fish

Buddy Method 3: Coral Rover and Fish Rover diver

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

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

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

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

local fishermen.



© GVI – 2010 Page 9

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

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

of the reef health.

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



© GVI – 2010 Page 10

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 07.6Los Milagros LM10 10m 19.01 35.6 087.34 13.3Costa Norte CN10 10m 19.01 31.0 087.34 16.5Las Delicias LD10 10m 19.01 24.7 087.34 20.2Las Palapas LP10 10m 19.01 55.8 087.34 05.0Flor de Cañón FDC10 10m 19.02 04.4 087.34 03.4Sol Naciente SN10 10m 19.00 36.0 087.34 33.0Los Gorditos LG25 25m 18.59 37.6 087.34 51.9

Table 2-3-1 GPS locations of the monitoring sites. GPS points are listed here in the WGS84 datum.

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

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

2.4 Results

266 dive/survey training boats and 60 monitoring boats were sent out resulting in a total of

44 coral transects and 72 fish transects conducted over 9 sites during Phase 103.

Benthic Data

In regards to benthic monitoring this is a survey area of approximately 1.3 km of reef.

Across this area 5,280 benthic points were recorded, 773 corals were monitored for coralcommunity studies sighting 92 incidences of disease, over twice that of the previous

phase, 43.07% of corals showed signs of bleaching and 86 examples of coral predation

were noted.

The point intercept data showed average hermatypic coral coverage to be 10.63% across

all the sites with macroalgae coverage at 69.72%. Table 2-4-1 below shows the

breakdown of percentage cover observed this phase by site. This phases data showed

LJ10 to have the highest coral cover with LD10 displaying the lowest.



© GVI – 2010 Page 11

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

CN10 10.83 65.83FDC10 8.17 66.50LB10 9.00 65.33

LD10 8.00 77.83LG25 9.17 71.46LJ10 16.67 64.33LM10 13.17 64.83LP10 11.33 71.50SN10 9.33 79.83

Table 2-4-1 % Comparison of Hermatypic Coral Cover against Macroalgae Cover

The most commonly observed coral species were Agaricia agaricites and Sidastrea

siderea combining to make up 55.4% of the corals monitored.

Fish Populations

856 adult target fish were recorded over the 72 fish transects this phase. The average

number of fish per transect varied from 21.25 at LP10 to 4.5 at LJ10. Following the

patterns observed over the previous phases, of the 33 species recorded, Haemulidae were

the most common family accounting for 48.2% of the total fish sightings. Acanthuridae

were next with 20.9%.

FAMILY CN10 FDC10 LB10 LD10 LG25 LJ10 LM10 LP10 SN10

Acanthuridae 12 31 21 17 31 8 15 23 19

Balistidae 2 1 4 1 0 0 0 7 5

Carangidae 0 1 0 2 3 0 2 0 0

Chaetodontidae 7 6 5 3 4 4 2 5 3

Haemulidae 120 25 37 25 1 12 40 117 31

Labridae 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

Lutjanidae 1 3 1 1 11 0 0 6 0

Monacanthidae 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 3

Pomacanthidae 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 0

Pomacentridae 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0Scaridae 7 4 8 4 6 0 3 5 2

Serranidae 4 8 5 59 9 9 5 5 5

Total 156 82 82 114 71 36 67 170 68

Number of fish per transect 19.5 10.25 10.25 14.25 8.875 4.5 8.375 21.25 8.5

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



© GVI – 2010 Page 12

During the juvenile fish transects 1,167 individuals over 18 species were recorded. This

averaged at 16.2 fish per transect. The three most numerous species found were

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

Stegastes paritus (Bicolour damselfish).

Site I.D. Total Number ofIndividuals Recorded

Average Numberper Transect

CN10 140 17.5

FDC10 131 16.375

LB10 98 12.25

LD10 197 24.625

LG25 101 12.625

LJ10 130 16.25

LM10 74 9.25LP10 155 19.375

SN10 141 17.625

Table 2-4-3 Total and Average Number of Juveniles Recorded

Outlined in the table above the majority of juveniles were seen at LD10 with LP10 and

SN10 the next most abundant sites.

2.5 Discussion

This phase, due to a combination of good weather and hardworking volunteers, all 9

permanent sites were monitored. They included Coste Norte, Los Bollos, Flor de Canon,

Las Delicias, Las Joyas, Los Milagros, Las Gorditas, Sol Naciente and Las Palapas.

As has been the case for the previous 3 phases the site to show the highest coral cover

was Las Joyas at 16.67%. Due to the homogenous nature of the monitoring sites there

was little variation seen with all of them having a hard coral cover that seems to fit with the

10% average of the Caribbean.

The number of incidences of bleaching was one of the highest ever recorded here at

Punta Gruesa. This fits in with the predictions that this is going to be a year where reefs

are hit hard by the bleaching due to the high water temperatures. Some sources believe

this will be one of the highest sea temperatures recorded in history. This pattern seems to



© GVI – 2010 Page 13

be coming to fruition from looking at this phase‟s data. Next phase more emphasis will be

put on coral watch to try and see if this is the case and close observations of the corals will

be made to check for signs of bleaching.

The decrease in the number of juveniles observed when compared to Phase 102 indicatesthat the spawning season has come to an end for the majority of target species. The

majority of the juveniles that have been seen on the reef are at the upper end of the size

limitations set out by the MBRS SMP. This would suggest that the number of recent

hatchings is now significantly lower.

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

Quarterly Report 101 January – March 2010.



© GVI – 2010 Page 14

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 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.

3.2 Objectives

The objectives of the community programme in Punta Gruesa are:

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

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

the knowledge given.

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

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

visitors that come to the area.

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

3.3 Activities and Achievements

The program is carried out in two main areas: 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 15

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 lead by the participants who have specific

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

3.4 Review

Unfortunately this phase coincided with school holidays and so attendance was very low.

Towards the end when the schools reopened the lessons were back on track and the

children thoroughly enjoyed the interactive lesson plans designed by the volunteers.

The evening lessons were more successful, having people with different skills joining the

class. There was an average attendance of 10 people every lesson, where they workedwith different themes according to what the students wanted to know.

This phase, in addition to the usual TEFL programme, GVI were part of Jats-a-ja. This

was a ceremony in memory of Hurricane Dean, a hurricane that devastated Mahahual,

and is supposed to keep the strong winds away. GVI staff and volunteers organized a stall

with face painting and ideas for re-using unrecyclable rubbish. This was a great success

with the children all of whom were especially happy, in particular with the face painting.

A large focus of the day was also an organized lionfish hunt. Fishermen, local dive

companies and families alike were all encouraged to join and take part with prizes for the

group who caught the most fish and a separate category for the largest individual. This

was also a great success, with over 200 lionfish caught in the single day. It was an

excellent chance to spread the word of the importance of keeping the invasive lionfish

population under control and offered a good opportunity for CONANP to research the

feeding behavior through public dissections.

The day was a huge success with the majority of Mahahual attending the festivities.



© GVI – 2010 Page 16

4. Incidental Sightings

4.1 Introduction

GVI Punta Gruesa has implemented an incidental sightings program since April 2004, 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 onthreatened species.

4.2 Aims

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

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

4.3 Methodology

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

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

provided with a 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

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 Mesoamericancoastline.

4.4 Results

During phase 103 a total of 91 incidental sightings were recorded across 266 trips out to

the reef and snorkels in the lagoon. Excluding the snorkel trips, as that is based on an

estimation of number of trips, this equates to a unit effort of 0.34 sightings per boat. This is

a slight decrease from the previous phase.

Turtle sightings showed a decrease overall going from 0.09 sightings per visit in the phase

103 to just 0.05 sightings per visit. This decrease was shown in both the Loggerhead

(Caretta caretta ) and Hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbriocota ). The decrease in total

observations, due to the total number seen was minimal but when this was converted to

number of observations per site visit the proportion was much larger. This was most

apparent in Caretta caretta with readings declining by 61% (0.067 sightings per visit –

0.026).

Lionfish sightings decreased from 0.43 sightings per site visit to 0.27 showing

approximately a 40% decrease.

The rest of the incidental sightings fitted with the results from previous phases. Please

see GVI Punta Gruesa‟s Quarterly Report 101 January – March 2010 for more information.

4.5 Discussion

Turtles

The decrease in turtle sightings can most likely be attributed to the end of the nesting

season, May to October respectively. This pattern in numbers of individuals has been

seen over the last 2 years and was expected. (For more detailed information please see

the GVI Mexico Punta Gruesa January – March Report) The level of Green turtle

(Chelonia mydas ) sightings is consistently low indicating a low population in this area.



© GVI – 2010 Page 18

Both Caretta caretta and Eretmochelys imbriocota sightings are the most common with

numerous close encounters with divers.

Lionfish

The increase in P. volitans sightings poses a potentially large problem for the reefs atPunta Gruesa. As not only has there been an increase in the population but also a shift in

the sizes that have been observed. This could indicate that as the lionfish have settled

and the population has become more developed, more individuals have reached sexual

maturity. This problem will only increase unless more efforts are made to keep the

population in check. According to James et al 2010, only 27% of the population needs to

be removed in order to keep the numbers under control and stop this increase.

Unfortunately due to equipment and logistical restraints, the staff were unable to catch alarge number of lionfish this phase (11%) and as such a dramatic increase is expected

over the coming months.

The change in the population dynamic seen this phase is most likely a result of the

targeting of larger individuals on the previous hunts. Spearguns were the preferred

method and so the smaller organisms were not caught as easily.



© GVI – 2010 Page 19

5. Marine Litter Monitoring Programme.

5.1 Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phase 092 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: To quantify the data and produce photographic evidence

of the extent of marine litter. Conserve the terrestrial and marine fauna threatened by litter.

Improve 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

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 78.95 Kg of marine litter was collected this phase. Plastic accounted for

approximately 42.2% of the total weight collected. Even though polystyrene was one of

the smallest categories in terms of weight, in volume it was one of the most numerous and

in reality accounts for a large proportion of litter on the transect.

Unfortunately, due to weather restrictions the total number of rubbish collections varies

from phase to phase. For example phase 103 were able to clear the transect every weekwhereas in phase 102 there were 2 consecutive weeks where this was not feasible. To

allow for this Table 5-4-1 below shows the breakdown of the average litter collected per

week since the beginning of 2009.



© GVI – 2010 Page 21

Phase

092 093 094 101 102 103

Plastic 5.24 8.55 9.86 6.19 3.17 4.17Glass 0.51 0.43 1.57 1 0.84 0.56Fabric 0 0 0.09 0.04 0 0.03Rubber 0.38 0.89 2.2 0.14 0.01 0.11Natural Material 0.51 0.04 2 0.17 0.72 0.79Rope 0.88 1.35 1.62 0.31 0.6 0.53Metal 0.02 0.03 0 0.16 0.41 0.74Polystyrene 0.16 0.12 0.32 0.13 0.13 0.15Medical Waste 0 0 0 0.03 0 0.04Other 2.17 0.006 1.17 1.87 2.41 2.76Total 9.87 11.9 18.82 10.03 8.29 9.88

Table 5-4-1 Average Weight Collected per Week (Kg)

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

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

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

levels become fatal.

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

small section of beach, 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 conditionsburying 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

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 also

include extensive networks of mangroves and lagoons, providing a wide variety of habitatscapable 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

The aims of the bird monitoring programme are to develop a species list for the area in

order to 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. It also aims to 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.



© GVI – 2010 Page 23

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 using

binoculars, 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 837 birds were recorded this phase, the second highest value since the

beginning of the bird monitoring programme in 092. A total of 34 species were identified

and 1 new species was added to the species list, the Black-crowned Tityra. The Great-tailed Grackle (Quiscalus mexicanus ) was once again, as in 092 093 and 102, the most

commonly sighted, followed by the Golden-fronted Woodpecker. The third most commonly

sighted bird was the Tropical Mockingbird (Mimus gilvus), with 57 sightings.

Common name Species Sightings

Great-tailed Grackle Quiscalus mexicanus 131

Golden-fronted Woodpecker Melanerpes aurifrons 123

Tropical Mockingbird Mimus gilvus 57

White-winged dove Zenaida asiatica 46Royal Tern Stema maxima 39

Magnificent Frigate Fregata magnificens 38

Sanderling Calidris alba 38

White Ibis Eudocimus albus 35

Mangrove Vireo Vireo pallens 28

Warbler sp. Sylviidae sp. 27



© GVI – 2010 Page 24

Great Kiskadee Pitangus sulphuratus 26

Sandpiper sp. Scolopacidae sp. 21

Tern sp. Sternidae sp. 21

Snowy Egret Egretta thula 18

Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum 17

Woodpecker sp. Picidae sp. 15Kingbird sp. Tyrannus sp. 14

Turkey Vulture Catharetes aura 14

Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis 12

Vulture sp. Cathartidae sp. 12

Yucatan Jay Cyanocorax yucatanicus 12

Oriole sp. Oriolidae sp. 9

Laughing Gull Larus atricilla 8

Dove sp. Columbidae sp. 7

Swallow sp. Hirundinidae sp. 7

Egret sp. Ardeidae sp. 6Flycatcher sp. Myiarchus sp. 6

Heron sp. Ardeidae sp. 5

Neotropic Cormorant Phalacrocorax brasilianus 5

Masked Tityra Tityra semifasciata 4

Wilson's Plover Charadrius wilsonia 4

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia 4

Black Vulture Coragyps atratus 3

Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea 3

Purple Martin Progne subis 3

Altamira Oriole Icterus gularis 2Black-crowned Tityra Tityra inquisitor 2

Gull sp. Laridae sp. 2

Lineated Woodpecker Dryocopus lineatus 2

Social Flycatcher Myiozetetes similis 2

Black-cowled Oriole Icterus prosthemelas 1

Cormorant sp. Phalacrocorax sp. 1

Dusky-capped flycatcher Myiarchus tuberculifer 1

Hooded Oriole Icterus cucullatus 1

Laughing Falcon Herpetotheres cachinnans 1

Least Tern Stema antillarum 1

Osprey Pandion haliaetus 1

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres 1

Yellow-throated Warbler Dendroica dominica 1

Table 6-3-1 Total Species Composition of phase 103



© GVI – 2010 Page 25

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.

Brown Pelicans and Royal Terns were both seen much more commonly during the autumn

and winter phases (094 and 101), at least twice as often as during the spring and summer

phases. This illustrates perfectly the Royal Tern‟s status as a non-breeding winter visitor,

mostly returning to north-west Mexico during the spring and summer to breed. The Brown

Pelican also follows this pattern to an extent, although they are also thought to breed

around the Yucatan Peninsula.

Those species that are observed only at certain times of the year are most likely seasonalmigrants, either moving into the area temporarily or simply moving through the region on

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

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

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

The birding project in Punta Gruesa is still in its infancy although patterns seem to be

emerging as we come to the mid-point of the second year. The species list is constantly

expanding each phase as observers become more adept at seeing and identifying speciesand migrant species enter the area. As yet the data is insufficient to draw any conclusions

as to any patterns or trend; although some fluctuations in the populations of common

species can already be seen across the six phases of data collection. The collection of

data will continue in future years and we will try to further standardise transects between

phases



© GVI – 2010 Page 26

7. 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). http://www.mbrs.org.bz.

James, M.A., 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.

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

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

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



http://www.mbrs.org.bz/







© GVI – 2010 Page 27

8. Appendices

Appendix I –

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

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

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

depth, usually perpendicular to the reef slope. The 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 28

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 bleachingare 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 nomore 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 possibleBare 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 29

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 20-30cm5-10cm 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. Inaddition, 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:

Single (1 fish)



© GVI – 2010 Page 30

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)

Appendix II - Adult Fish Indicator Species List

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 possiblyinvasive nature of unnatural objects and divers on the reef.

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

dives.



© GVI – 2010 Page 31

Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Common Name

Acanthurus coeruleus, Blue Tang Scarus guacamaia Rainbow ParrotfishAcanthurus bahianus, Ocean Surgeonfish Scarus vetula Queen ParrotfishAcanthurus chirurgus, Doctorfish Sparisoma viride Stoplight ParrotfishChaetodon striatus, Banded Butterflyfish Scarus taeniopterus Princess ParrotfishChaetodon capistratus, Four Eye Butterflyfish Scarus iserti Striped ParrotfishChaetodon ocellatus, Spotfin Butterflyfish Sparisoma aurofrenatum Redband ParrotfishChaetodon aculeatus, Longsnout Butterflyfish Sparisoma chrysopterum Redtail ParrotfishHaemulon flavolineatum French Grunt Sparisoma rubripinne Yellowtail ParrotfishHaemulon striatum Striped Grunt Sparisoma atomarium Greenblotch ParrotfishHaemulon 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 Grouper

Haemulon aurolineatum Tomtate Mycteroperca bonaci Black GrouperHaemulon melanurum Cottonwick Mycteroperca tigris Tiger GrouperHaemulon macrostomum Spanish Grunt Mycteroperca interstitialis Yellowmouth GrouperHaemulon parra Sailor‟s Choice Epinephelus guttatus Red HindHaemulon album White Margate Epinephelus adscensionis Rock HindAnisotremus virginicus Porkfish Cephalopholis cruentatus GraysbyAnisotremus surinamensis Black Margate Cephalopholis fulvus ConeyLutjanus 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 Triggerfish

Lutjanus mahogoni Mahaogany Snapper Melichthys niger Black DurgonLutjanus apodus Schoolmaster Aluterus scriptus Scrawled FilefishLutjanus synagris Lane Snapper Cantherhines pullus Orangespotted FilefishOcyurus chrysurus Yellowtail Snapper Cantherhines macrocerus Whitespotted FilefishHolacanthus ciliaris Queen Angelfish Bodianus rufus Spanish HogfishPomacanthus paru French Angelfish Lachnolaimus maximus HogfishPomacanthus arcuatus Grey Angelfish Caranx rubber Bar JackHolacanthus tricolour Rock Beauty Microspathodon chrysurus Yellowtail DamselfishScarus coeruleus Blue Parrotfish Sphyraena barracuda Great BarracudaScarus coelestinus Midnight Parrotfish



© GVI – 2010 Page 32

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 33

Appendix IV - Coral Species List

Family Genus Species Family Genus Species

Acroporidae Acropora cervicornis Meandrinidae Dendrogyra cylindrus

Acroporidae Acropora palmata Meandrinidae Dichocoenia stokesii

Acroporidae Acropora prolifera Meandrinidae Meandrina meandrites

Agariciidae Agaricia agaricites Milliporidae Millepora alcicornis

Agariciidae Agaricia fragilis Milliporidae Millepora complanata

Agariciidae Agaricia grahamae Mussidae Isophyllastrea rigida

Agariciidae Agaricia lamarcki Mussidae Isophyllia sinuosa

Agariciidae Agaricia tenuifolia Mussidae Mussa angulosa

Agariciidae Agaricia undata Mussidae Mycetophyllia aliciae

Agariciidae Helioceris cucullata Mussidae Mycetophyllia ferox

Antipatharia Cirrhipathes leutkeni Mussidae Mycetophyllia lamarckiana

Astrocoeniidae Stephanocoenia intersepts Mussidae Mycetophyllia reesi

CaryophylliidaeEusmilia fastigiana

MussidaeScolymia 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 34

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 durgonBalistidae 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 butterflyfishChaetodontidae Chaetodon Ocellatus Spotfin butterflyfish

Chaetodontidae Chaetodon Sedentarius Reef butterflyfish

Chaetodontidae Chaetodon Striatus Banded butterflyfish

Cirrhitidae Amblycirrhitus Pinos Red spotted hawkfish

Congridae Heteroconger Longissimus Brown garden eel

Dasyatidae Dasyatis Americana Southern stingray

Diodontidae Diodon Holocanthus Balloonfish

Elopidae Megalops Atlanticus Tarpon

Gobiidae Coryphopterus Eidolon Palid Goby

Gobiidae Coryphopterus Glaucofraenum Bridled gobyGobiidae 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



© GVI – 2010 Page 35


Grammatidae Gymnothorax Funebris Green moray

Grammatidae Gymnothorax Moringa Spotted moray

Haemulidae Anisotremus Virginicus Porkfish

Haemulidae Haemulon Album White margate

Haemulidae Haemulon Aurolineatum Tomtate

Haemulidae Haemulon Carbonarium Ceaser Grunt

Haemulidae Haemulon Flavolineatum French grunt

Haemulidae Haemulon Macrostomum Spanish grunt

Haemulidae Haemulon Plumierii White grunt

Haemulidae Haemulon Sciurus Bluestriped grunt

Haemulidae Haemulon Striatum Striped grunt

Haemulidae Anisotremus Surinamensis Black margate

Haemulidae Haemulon Parra Sailor‟s choice

Holocentridae Holocentrus Adscensionis Squirrelfish

Holocentridae Holocentrus Rufus Longspine squirrelfish

Holocentridae Myripristis Jacobus Blackbar soldierfish

Holocentridae Neoniphon Marianus Longjaw squirrelfish

Holocentridae Sargocentron Bullisi Deepwater squirrelfish

Holocentridae Sargocentron Coruscum Reef squirrelfish

Holocentridae Sargocentron Vexillarium Dusky squirrelfish

Kyphosidae Kyphosus sectatrix/incisor Chub

Labridae Bodianus Rufus Spanish hogfish

Labridae Clepticus Parrae Creole wrasse

Labridae Halichoeres Bivittatus Slipperydick

Labridae Halichoeres Garnoti Yellowhead wrasse

Labridae Halichoeres Pictus Rainbow wrasse

Labridae Halichoeres Poeyi Blackear wrasse

Labridae Halichoeres Radiatus Puddingwife wrasse

Labridae Lachnolaimus Maximus Hogfish

Labridae Thalassoma Bifasciatum Bluehead wrasse

Labridae Xyrichtys Martinicensis Rosy razorfish

Labridae Xyrichtys Novacula Pearly razorfish

Labrisomidae Malacoctenus Triangulatus Saddled blenny

LutjanidaeLutjanus Analis

Mutton snapperLutjanidae 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



© GVI – 2010 Page 36


Lutjanidae Ocyurus Chrysurus Yellowtailed snapper

Malacanthidae Malacanthus Plumieri Sand tilefish

Syngnathidae Micrognathus ensenadae Harlequin pipefish

Monacanthidae Aluterus Scriptus Scrawled filefish

Monacanthidae Cantherhines Macrocerus White spotted filefish

Monacanthidae Cantherhines Pullus Orange spotted filefish

Mullidae Mulloidichthys Martinicus Yellow goatfish

Mullidae Pseudupeneus Maculates Spotted goatfish

Myliobatidae Aetobatus Narinari Spotted eagle ray

Opistognathidae Opistognathus Aurifrons Yellowhead jawfish

Ostraciidae Acanthostracion Quadricornis Scrawled cowfish

Ostraciidae Lactophrys Bicaudalis Spotted trunkfish

Ostraciidae Lactophrys Triqueter Smooth trunkfish

Pempheridae Pempheris Schomburgki Glassy sweeper

Pomacanthidae Holacanthus Ciliaris Queen angelfish

Pomacanthidae Holacanthus Tricolour Rockbeauty

Pomacanthidae Pomacanthus Arcuatus Grey angelfish

Pomacanthidae Pomacanthus Paru French angelfish

Pomacentridae Abudefduf Saxatilis Seargant major

Pomacentridae Chromis Cyanea Blue chromis

Pomacentridae Chromis Enchrysurus Yellowtail reef fish

Pomacentridae Chromis Insolata Sunshinefish

Pomacentridae Chromis Multilineata Brown chromis

Pomacentridae Microspathodon Chrysurus Yellowtailed damsel fish

Pomacentridae Stegastes Adustus Dusky damselfish

Pomacentridae Stegastes Diencaeus Longfin damselfish

Pomacentridae Stegastes Leucostictus Beaugregory

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

ScaridaeScarus Iserti

Striped parrotfishScaridae 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



© GVI – 2010 Page 37


Scaridae Sparisoma Rubripinne Yellowtail parrotfish

Scaridae Sparisoma Viride Stoplight parrotfish

Sciaenidae Equetus Lanceolatus Jackknife fish

Sciaenidae Equetus Punctatus Spotted drum

Sciaenidae Pareques Acuminatus Highhat

Scombridae Scomberomorus Maculates Spanish mackerel

Scombridae Scomberomorus Regalis Cero

Scorpaenidae Scorpaena Plumieri Spotted scorpionfish

Serranidae Cephalopholis Cruentatus Graysby

Serranidae Cephalopholis Fulvus Coney

Serranidae Epinephelus Adscensionis Rockhind

Serranidae Epinephelus Itajara Goliath grouper

Serranidae Epinephelus Striatus Nassau grouper

Serranidae Hypoplectrus Aberrans Yellowbelly hamlet

Serranidae Hypoplectrus Chlorurus Yellowtail hamlet

Serranidae Hypoplectrus Guttavarius Shy hamlet

Serranidae Hypoplectrus Indigo Indigo hamlet

Serranidae Hypoplectrus Nigricans Black hamlet

Serranidae Hypoplectrus Puella Barred hamlet

Serranidae Hypoplectrus Unicolor Butter hamlet

Serranidae Liopropoma Rubre Peppermint basslet

Serranidae Mycteroperca Bonaci Black grouper

Serranidae Mycteroperca Interstitialis Yellowmouth grouper

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

TetraodontidaeCanthigaster Rostrata

Sharpnosed pufferTetraodontidae Sphoeroides Splengleri Bandtail puffer

Torpedinidae Narcine Brasiliensis Lesser electric ray

Urolophidae Urolophus Jamaicensis Yellowstingray



© GVI – 2010 Page 38

Appendix VI - Bird Species List

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

Species 092 093 094 101 102 103

Altamira Oriole 2 3 2Black Vulture 2 1 8 4 13 3Black-backed Oriole 4Black-bellied Plover 6 2 1Black-cowled Oriole 3 1Black-crowned Tityra 2Brown Pelican 46 13 56 105 50 12Canivet's Emerald hummingbird 2Cattle Egret 2Common Black Hawk 4 1 3 5Cormorant sp. 4 2 3 6 2 1Dove sp. 1 1 2 7Dusky-capped flycatcher 3 5 3 6 1Eastern Kingbird 1Egret sp. 4 5 5 6Flycatcher sp. 10 3 4 2 8 6Golden-fronted Woodpecker 54 60 26 62 117 123Great Blue Heron 14 11Great Egret 3 3Great Kiskadee 6 3 6 13 26Great-tailed Grackle 463 303 47 94 562 131Green Heron 2 1Green Jay 1Green Kingfisher 2Grey Kingbird 1 1Gull sp. 6 2Heron sp. 7 5Hooded Oriole 1 1Kingbird sp. 8 2 17 7 14Laughing Falcon 3 2 1 1Laughing Gull 2 1 5 8Least Tern 2 1Lineated Woodpecker 6 12 4 3 5 2Little Blue Heron 2 3Magnificent Frigate 83 29 64 41 87 38Mangrove Vireo 1 1 28Masked Tityra 2 4Neotropic Cormorant 1 39 6 5Oriole sp. 1 2 5 23 9Osprey 2 11 7 1Palm Warbler 19 2 17Plain Chachalaca 4 3 3Plover sp. 5Purple Martin 1 3Royal Tern 25 14 38 95 41 39Ruddy Ground-Dove 1



Ruddy Turnstone 7 1Sanderling 4 32 56 38Sandpiper sp. 21Semipalmated Plover 36 5Snowy Egret 11 1 6 18Social Flycatcher 2 3 2Swallow sp. 8 80 22 5 28 7Tern sp. 9 3 21Tropical Mockingbird 22 13 12 69 102 57Turkey Vulture 2 1 1 3 3 14Vulture sp. 9 7 12Warbler sp. 7 1 27White Ibis 1 35White-winged dove 2 57 1 3 46Wilson's Plover 2 14 4Woodpecker sp. 12 23 15Yellow Warbler 4 4Yellow-backed Oriole 11 1 18Yellow-throated Vireo 1 7Yellow-throated Warbler 7 11 6 2 1Yucatan Jay 6 12Yucatan Woodpecker 2No. Species 20 20 33 34 25 34No. New Species 20 7 12 8 5 2

gvi mexico punta gruesa quaterly report july - september 2010

Documents