STATUS OF CORAL REEFS OF LITTLE CAYMAN AND GRAND … · assessment protocol is focused on three main components of the reef community: stony corals, fish, and algae. As part of this

STATUS OF CORAL REEFS OF LITTLE CAYMAN AND GRAND CAYMAN, BRITISH WEST INDIES, IN 1999 (PART 2: FISHES)

BY

CHRISTY V. PATTENGILL-SEMMENS,1 and BRICE X. SEMMENS2

ABSTRACT

The fish assemblages at 33 sites around the islands of Grand Cayman and Little Cayman were assessed in June 1999 for the Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment initiative using belt transects and Roving Diver Technique surveys. A comprehensive species list, with 58 new records, was compiled for the Cayman Islands based on these data and survey data from the Reef Environmental Education Foundation database. In general, the reefs on Little Cayman appeared to support larger and more individual fishes than those of Grand Cayman. A multidimensional scaling ordination plot showed no clear island pattern but did reveal that the windward or leeward location of each site was an important factor affecting fish community composition. All but two sites followed a pattern of distinct windward and leeward clusters, and these clusters also correlated to macroalgal abundance. The relationship between macroalgal abundance and herbivore density was analyzed and significant correlations were found with surgeonfishes (Acanthuridae) and parrotfishes (Scaridae) using multiple regression.

INTRODUCTION

Fishes have the potential to provide sensitive indices of reef health. Certain predatory fish species dominate the top of coral reef food webs, hence their density reflects a vast number of human and natural disturbances from habitat alteration to direct exploitation (Ferreira et al., 1998). Similarly, the presence and abundance of herbivorous fishes affect algal composition and cover (Ogden and Lobel, 1978).

In response to concerns about the widespread deterioration of reef condition in the Caribbean basin, the Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment (AGRRA) initiative was designed to provide a regional perspective using a standardized methodology. The rapid assessment protocol is focused on three main components of the reef community: stony corals, fish, and algae. As part of this initiative, the reefs of Grand Cayman (GC) and Little Cayman (LC) were assessed in June 1999.

1 Reef Environmental Education Foundation, P.O. Box 246, Key Largo, FL 33037. Email: [email protected]

2 University of Washington, Dept. of Zoology, Box 351800, Seattle, WA 98195-1800.

Pattengill-Semmens and Semmens, Atol Research Bulletin, 2002 p. 1 (actual page number in volume to be determined)

The Cayman Islands are a British Crown Colony located in the western Caribbean. The three islands lie between 19° 15' and 19° 45' N latitude and between 79° 44 ' and 81° 27' W longitude (Fig. 1). GC is the largest and most populous. LC lies approximately 145 km to its east-northeast and is about 10 km from Cayman Brac. The three islands are limestone, horst-and-graben structures associated with the Cayman Ridge (Jones, 1994). Freshwater is scarce and the islands lack rivers and streams. The fringing reefs that surround most of the islands contain shallow reef crests (rubble ramparts) as well as mid-shelf and shelf-edge fore reefs (Blanchon and Jones, 1997). These fringing reefs are particularly well-developed on the windward (eastern and southern) coasts of both islands. Other submerged benthic habitats include seagrass beds and mangrove fringes.

The level of human disturbance on GC is significantly greater than on LC, which is relatively remote and undeveloped. Anthropogenic impacts on GC reefs include habitat destruction from anchors and increased suspended sediment load from dredging and mangrove removal. Fishing pressure is considerably greater on GC than around LC. Five spawning aggregations of Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) have been heavily harvested (during the 2002 spawning season, all but one had been depleted). Five hundred local residents are licensed to snorkel with spearguns. Fish pots (Antillean Z-traps) probably represent the biggest threat to the fish communities of both islands (personal observations).

An extensive marine park system was established in the Cayman Islands in 1986. Reefs in marine park and replenishment zone areas are protected from fish traps, spearguns, anchoring, and line fishing, although line fishing from shore and beyond the drop-off (shelf edge) is allowed. The Cayman Islands’ Department of the Environment maintains a system of 257 permanent mooring buoys throughout the three islands.

The benthos of the Cayman Islands has been well studied, including descriptions of the coral communities, reef status, and analysis of spatial patterns (Roberts, 1988; Logan, 1994; Roberts, 1994). In contrast, apart from descriptions of Nassau grouper spawning aggregations (Colin et al., 1987; Tucker et al., 1993), there are few scientific descriptions of its reef fishes. However, Burgess et al.’s (1994) taxonomic review of collection expeditions contained an annotated list of 381 species known to occur in the Cayman Islands, including the endemic y-lined blenny (Starksia y-lineata) described by Gilbert (1965).

Since 1994, fish sighting and relative abundance data have been collected around the Cayman Islands as part of the Reef Environmental Education Foundation (REEF) Fish Survey Project, an ongoing volunteer monitoring effort. REEF volunteers use the Roving Diver Technique (RDT) (Schmitt and Sullivan, 1996) and the survey data are maintained in a publicly-accessible database. By the end of 2001, the REEF database contained over 40,000 surveys from over 2,000 sites, including approximately 2,200 surveys from the Cayman Islands.

This paper describes the fish assemblages of the Cayman Islands using the 1999 AGRRA data for GC and LC, along with REEF data from the two islands collected between 1994 and 2001. An updated species list and comparisons between islands and among sites are provided. The relationship between herbivorous fishes and macroalgal abundance is also investigated.


METHODS

In June 1999, AGRRA fish and benthos surveys were simultaneously conducted at 15 sites on GC and 18 sites on LC (Fig. 1, Table 1). Sites were chosen by a mixed representative/strategic strategy: 12 were on the windward sides of the islands and 21 were on their leeward sides (the southwest side of GC was underrepresented). Six sites on LC and three on GC were located within marine park or replenishment zone areas. The benthic component is reported by Manfrino et al. (this volume). To assess the fishes, the AGRRA protocol Version 2 was used (Appendix One). At each site, a team of three (occasionally two) divers conducted at least 10 2 m x 30 m belt transects. Counts of serranids (groupers) were restricted to species of Epinephelus and Mycteroperca; scarids (parrotfishes) and haemulids (grunts) less than 5 cm in length were not tallied. Each diver also conducted a 45-60 minute RDT survey at each site. All fieldwork was undertaken between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Field identifications were based on Humann (1994), Stokes (1980), and Robins et al. (1986).

The fish transect data were entered into a custom AGRRA Excel spreadsheet. REEF provided the RDT data in ASCII format. Using the transects as replicates, the average density (#/100 m2) and size (cm) of each species and family were calculated for each site. Analyses were done at the regional (GC versus LC) and site levels, incorporating reef location (windward, leeward) and benthic parameters when appropriate. The average density and size of each species and family were compared between regions using a t-test after testing the data for normality. Due to confounding factors such as differences in use (e.g., recreation, harvest) and hydrographic features, comparisons between protected (marine park) and unprotected sites were not attempted. The site data were used in a hierarchical cluster analysis using Pearson’s similarity index. The similarity matrix was generated using log-transformed density values for each species documented in at least three (10%) of the sites; the other 22 rare species were eliminated (per Grossman et al., 1982). A two-dimensional multidimensional scaling (MDS) ordination plot was also generated using the similarity matrix. The transect data were also used to investigate interactions between the fish assemblages and the benthic community. This preliminary investigation was focused on herbivore/algae interactions. A regression was calculated on the densities of parrotfish and surgeonfish against percent absolute macroalgal abundance in quadrats (hereafter macroalgal abundance) and height at each site. Other coral factors (percent live coral cover, average colony height, percent diseased colonies) and environmental (windward/leeward) parameters were also plotted against each fish family. All values were transformed prior to regression (transformations were log+1 for fish density and algal height and arcsine of the square root for proportions).

The RDT survey data provided species lists, frequency of occurrence, and relative abundance estimates. Percent sighting frequency (%SF) for each species was the percentage of all dives in which the species was recorded. An estimate of abundance was calculated as: abundance score = D x %SF, where the density score (D) for each species was a weighted average index based on the frequency of observations in different abundance categories. Density score was calculated as:

D= ((nSx1)+(nFx2)+(nMx3)+(nAx4)) / (nS + nF + nM + nA), where nS, nF, nM, and nA represented the number of times each abundance category (Single, Few, Many,


Figure 1. AGRRA survey sites in Grand Cayman and Little Cayman, Cayman Islands. See Table 1 for site codes.


Abundant) was assigned for a given species. The RDT data were pooled and compared by island using the Wilcoxon Sign Rank test. Only species that were seen in at least 10% of the RDT AGRRA surveys were included in the analysis (103 species), reducing the effect of rare species (Grossman et al., 1982). SYSTAT 7.0 was used for all the analyses.

All expert-level REEF data from GC and LC, including the RDT data collected during the AGRRA expedition, were used to compile a species list of reef fishes for the Cayman Islands (REEF, 2001).

RESULTS

A total of 341 transects (142 - GC; 199 - LC) and 79 RDT surveys (32- GC and 47- LC) documenting 173 species were conducted at 33 reefs (Table 1). The RDT survey data were added to the existing REEF database. The total number of species recorded by REEF experts on the Cayman Islands between 1994 and 2001 was 276 (Appendix A, this paper). When compared with Burgess et al.’s (1994) ichthyofaunal list, the REEF survey data added 58 new species records for a total of 423 reef fishes documented on the Cayman Islands (five freshwater species, 10 deepwater (>300 m) species, and a misidentification (Stegastes mellis) listed by Burgess et al. (1994) were not included in this tally). The 25 most common species, according to %SF in the REEF database, are noted in Table 2.

Parrotfish (Scaridae) was the most abundant family recorded during the belt transects (Fig. 2). Average density of snapper (Lutjanidae) on LC was approximately twice that of GC reefs. Size frequency distributions of carnivores (select grouper genera and all snappers) and herbivores (parrotfishes ≥5 cm, surgeonfish (Acanthuridae), and the

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Acanth

urida

eBali

stida

eCha

etodo

ntida

eHae

mulida

eLu

tjanid

aePo

macan

thida

eSc

arida

eSe

rranid

ae

Other

Mea

n D

ensi

ty (#

/100

m2

) Little CaymanGrand Cayman

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Acanth

urida

eBali

stida

eCha

etodo

ntida

eHae

mulida

eLu

tjanid

aePo

macan

thida

eSc

arida

eSe

rranid

ae

Other

Acanth

urida

eBali

stida

eCha

etodo

ntida

eHae

mulida

eLu

tjanid

aePo

macan

thida

eSc

arida

eSe

rranid

ae

Other

Mea

n D

ensi

ty (#

/100

m2

)M

ean

Den

sity

(#/1

00m

2) Little CaymanLittle Cayman

Grand CaymanGrand Cayman

Figure 2. Mean fish density (no. individuals/100m2 + sd) for AGRRA fishes in Grand Cayman and Little Cayman. Other = Bodianus rufus, Caranx ruber, Lachnolaimus maximus, Microspathodon chrysurus, Sphyraena barracuda.


yellowtail damselfish Microspathodon chrysurus) are shown in Figure 3. Approximately 75% of the carnivores were less than 30 cm in length, and 85% of the herbivores were less than 20 cm in length. T-tests on these data showed that the average density and size for most species and families did not differ between islands. However, many species were reported in RDT surveys with greater than average abundance on the LC reefs (Wilcoxon Sign Rank p<0.0005). In particular, the sighting frequencies of six species of large groupers were considerably greater in LC (Table 3; Wilcoxon Sign Rank p<0.05). Exceptions included yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus) and sergeant major (Abudefduf saxatilis), two species that become abundant when fed regularly by divers. Fish feeding is much more commonplace on GC reefs (Burgess et al., 1994; personal observations).

Site comparisons at the assemblage level showed no clear, intra-island groupings. However, two distinct clusters were obvious in the MDS plot (Fig. 4A) and, to a lesser extent, in the cluster diagram (Fig. 4B). The only environmental characteristics significantly related to fish density were reef location (windward/leeward) and macroalgal abundance. The windward (high-wave exposure) or leeward/protected windward (low wave-exposure) location of the sites was an important factor in the MDS cluster for all but two of the sites (LC02 and GC30). Leeward sites also had significantly higher macroalgal abundance than windward sites (45% versus 31%, respectively: F-test p<0.001; multiple R = 0.560).

Figure 3. Size frequency distribution of (A) carnivores (all Lutjanids, select Serranids) and (B) herbivores (Acanthurids, Scarids > 5 cm, Microspathodon chrysurus) in GC (Grand Cayman) and LC (Little Cayman). Total number of individuals counted (n) is given.

A Carnivores

Size (cm)

Prop

ortio

n (%

)

n=666LCGC n=292

0-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 >400

10

20

30

40

50

60Pr

opor

tion

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 >40

Size (cm)

B Herbivores

n=3884LCGC n=2825

A Carnivores

Size (cm)

Prop

ortio

n (%

)

n=666LCGC n=292

0-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 >400

10

20

30

40

50

60Pr

opor

tion

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 >40

Size (cm)

B Herbivores

n=3884LCGC n=2825

A Carnivores

Size (cm)

Prop

ortio

n (%

)

n=666LCGC n=292

0-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 >400

10

20

30

40

50

60

A Carnivores

Size (cm)

Prop

ortio

n (%

)

n=666LCGC n=292

n=666LC n=666LCGC n=292GC n=292

0-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 >400

10

20

30

40

50

60

0-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 >400-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 >400

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Pr

opor

tion

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 >40

Size (cm)

B Herbivores

n=3884LCGC n=2825

Prop

ortio

n (%

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 >400

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 >400-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 >40

Size (cm)

B Herbivores

n=3884LCGC n=2825

n=3884LC n=3884LCGC n=2825GC n=2825


Surgeonfish density showed an inverse relationship with macroalgal abundance (p<0.01; r2 = 0.209), whereas parrotfish density was positively related to macroalgal abundance (p<0.01; r2 = 0.215) (Fig. 5). Adding macroalgal height to a multiple regression significantly improved the relationships with macroalgal abundance for parrotfish (p<0.001; r2 = 0.413) and surgeonfish (p=0.001; r2 = 0.367) densities. A strong inverse relationship between parrotfish and surgeonfish densities was also found (p<0.001; r2 = 0.384).

B Hierarchical cluster analysis A MDS ordination plot

Figure 4. (A) MDS ordination plot (left cluster is windward) and (B) hierarchical cluster analysis of AGRRA reef fish transect data in GC (Grand Cayman) and LC (Little Cayman).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 10 20 30 40 50 60%Macro Algae Cover

Den

sity

(#/1

00m

2 )

Parrotfish SurgeonfishLinear (Surgeonfish)Linear (Parrotfish)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 10 20 30 40 50 600 10 20 30 40 50 60%Macro Algae Cover

Den

sity

(#/1

00m

2 )

Parrotfish SurgeonfishLinear (Surgeonfish)Linear (Parrotfish)

ParrotfishParrotfish SurgeonfishSurgeonfishLinear (Surgeonfish)Linear (Surgeonfish)Linear (Parrotfish)Linear (Parrotfish)

Figure 5. Regression plot between mean parrotfish density (♦) and mean surgeonfish density (□) (no. individuals/100m2) and mean absolute macroalgal density, by site in the Cayman Islands.


DISCUSSION

The reefs of the Cayman Islands support relatively diverse and abundant fish

assemblages. This richness is probably a result of several factors including high local habitat diversity, a significant (34%) area of coastal reserves, and a reef system that is generally in fair condition (Manfrino et al., this volume). However, significant differences were revealed between GC and LC, most likely a result of the greater anthropogenic impacts on GC reefs. Higher harvest pressure on GC was reflected in the lower density and size of large groupers, parrotfishes and snappers (Table 4) and lower sighting frequencies of large groupers (Table 3). Analyses of RDT data indicated that regardless of commercial importance, the average abundance of most fish species was higher on LC, hence other factors, such as coastal development and water pollution, may also adversely impact fish communities on GC.

The site-level transect density data correlated most strongly with relative wave exposure (Fig. 4A,B). Macroalgae were significantly less abundant overall on windward (high-wave exposure) sites than on leeward and protected windward (low-wave exposure) sites, where parrotfish were the most abundant fishes in the transects. It is clear, however, that macroalgal abundance does not by itself adequately explain site-level assemblage composition, given that LC sites had only slight differences between wave-exposed and non wave-exposed sites (Manfrino et al., this volume). The correlation between fish communities at sites with similar wave exposure highlights the effect of physical parameters on fish assemblage structure, and should be taken into consideration in future analyses of fish data for the Cayman Islands.

In a simple system, one might expect the presence and density of herbivorous species to be negatively correlated with algal abundance and height. In other words, a site with many herbivorous fish would have relatively low algal abundance due to grazing. Our analysis at the site level indicates that this expectation holds true for surgeonfish. However, the inverse is evident in parrotfish. This implies either or both of the following: 1) there is a direct or indirect interaction between parrotfish and surgeonfish, or, more generally 2) the dynamic spatial and temporal characteristics of reef fish confound simple relationships between resource availability and fish abundance. Recent work on stoplight parrotfish (Sparisoma viride) indicates that whereas there are few, if any, direct interactions between surgeonfish and parrotfish, the use of space on the reef by individual fish is complex (territorial behavior, depth partitioning based on social grouping), and varies as a function of social status and intraspecific interactions (van Rooij et al., 1996a; van Rooij et al., 1996b). Clearly, more research is needed to understand the use of space by reef fish if accurate conclusions are to be drawn from relationships between fish abundance and benthic conditions.

One of the crucial tasks that scientists face in implementing a “reef health scale” using AGRRA data is to determine exactly what indicators within the collected data track health. An additional challenge lies in assessing how to evaluate and analyze the broad and complementary set of information collected on fishes, stony corals, and algae. Results from this paper and others in this volume will provide valuable insight on these issues. Due to the inherently complex nature of coral reef communities, the manner in which AGRRA data will dictate a scale of reef condition is most certainly also complex.


The negative relationship between surgeonfish and parrotfish at the site level is a good example of how community complexity may confound seemingly logical indicators of reef health such as herbivore biomass. Given our results, it is possible that Cayman Island reefs with similar herbivore biomass constituted by predominately different taxa may reflect dramatic differences in benthic conditions. The disparity between grouper abundance between the transect and RDT data and the dramatic increase in species reported in the Cayman Islands that resulted from the RDT surveys (18% based on the published list by Burgess et al., 1994) highlights the importance of using the two complementary visual fish-survey methods.

Because certain fish species dominate the top of coral reef food webs, a baseline of fish community composition and richness provides a useful tool for future assessment of reef health, given that a change in reef communities at lower trophic levels will most likely result in changes in the reef fish community composition (Choat, 1991; Jones et al., 1991). Additionally, because fish tend to be the most charismatic group of reef community members, changes in their community are most likely to be noticed and documented.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank the Marine Education and Environmental Research Institute (MEERI) and Dr. C. Manfrino for coordinating this immense project. The data collection assistance of K. Hoshino, B. Hansrod, L. Whaylen, and P. Hillenbrand is also greatly appreciated. Funding support was provided by the Gilo Family Foundation, American Airlines, Island Air, Little Cayman Beach Resort, Southern Cross Club, the Reef Environmental Education Foundation, the Cayman Islands Department of Tourism and Tortuga Divers. The AGRRA Organizing Committee facilitated financial support as described in the Forward. The REEF volunteers who have contributed surveys from the Cayman Islands are also appreciated.

REFERENCES Blanchon P., and B. Jones 1997. Hurricane control on shelf-edge reef architecture around Grand Cayman.

Sedimentology 44:479-506. Burgess, G.H., S.H. Smith, and E.D. Lane 1994. Fishes of the Cayman Islands. Pp. 199-228. In: M. A. Brunt and J. E. Davies

(eds.), The Cayman Islands: Natural History and Biogeography. Dordrecht (Netherlands). Kluwer Academic Publishers. 576pp.

Choat, J.H. 1991. The biology of herbivorous fishes on coral reefs. Pp. 120-153. In: P. F. Sale

(ed.), The Ecology of Fishes on Coral Reefs. San Diego, California (USA). Academic Press, Inc. 754 pp.


Colin, P.L., D.Y. Shapiro, and D. Weiler 1987 Aspects of the reproduction of two groupers, Epinephelus guttatus and E.

striatus in the West Indes. Bulletin of Marine Science 40: 220-230. Ferreira, C.E L., A.C. Peret, and R. Coutinho 1998. Seasonal grazing rates and food processing by tropical herbivorous fishes.

Journal of Fisheries Biology 53: Suppl. A 222-235. Gilbert, C.R.

1965. Starksia y-lineata, a new clinid fish from Grand Cayman Island, British West Indies. Notulae Naturae, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia 379.

6 pp. Grossman, G.D., P.B. Moyle, and J.J.O. Whitaker

1982. Stochasticity in structural and functional characteristics of an Indiana stream fish assemblage: a test of community theory. American Naturalist 120:

423-454. Humann, P. 1994. Reef Fish Identification (2nd ed.). Jacksonville, FL, New World Publications,

Inc. 396 pp. Jones, B.

1994. Geology of the Cayman Islands. Pp. 13-40. In: M. A. Brunt and J. E. Davies (eds.), The Cayman Islands: Natural History and Biogeography. Dordrecht (Netherlands). Kluwer Academic Publishers. 576pp.

Jones, G.P., D.J. Ferrell, and P.F. Sale 1991. Fish predation and its impact on the invertebrates of coral reefs and adjacent

sediments. Pp. 156-178. In: P.F. Sale (ed.). The Ecology of Fishes on Coral Reefs. San Diego, California (USA). Academic Press, Inc. 754 pp.

Logan, A. 1994. Reefs and lagoons of Cayman Brac and Little Cayman. Pp. 105-124. In:

M.A. Brunt and J.E. Davies (eds.), The Cayman Islands: Natural History and Biogeography. Dordrecht (Netherlands). Kluwer Academic Publishers. 576 pp.

Ogden, J.C., and P.S. Lobel 1978. The role of herbivorous fishes and urchins in coral reef communities.

Environmental Biology of Fishes 3:49-63. REEF 2001. Reef Environmental Education Foundation. World Wide Web electronic

publication. www.reef.org, date of download (31 December 2001). Roberts, H.H. 1988. Grand Cayman. Swamps and shallow marine substrates 1 and 2, Cayman

Islands 1: 25,000 (map). U.K.: Overseas Development Natural Resources Institute.

Roberts, H.H. 1994. Reefs and lagoons of Grand Cayman. Pp. 75-104. In: M. A. Brunt and J. E.

Davies (eds.), The Cayman Islands: Natural History and Biogeography. Dordrecht (Netherlands). Kluwer Academic Publishers. 576 pp.


Robins, C.R., G.C. Ray, and J. Douglass 1986. Peterson Field Guides-Atlantic Coast Fishes. New York, NY. Houghton

Mifflin. 354 pp. Schmitt, E.F., and K.M. Sullivan 1996 Analysis of a volunteer method for collecting fish presence and abundance

data in the Florida Keys. Bulletin of Marine Science 59:404-416. Stokes, F.J. 1980 Handguide to the Coral Reef Fishes of the Caribbean and Adjacent Tropical

Waters Including Florida, Bermuda, and the Bahamas. New York, NY. Lippincott and Crowell, Publishers, 160 pp.

Tucker, J.W., P.G. Bush, and S.T. Slaybaugh 1993. Reproductive patterns of Cayman Islands Nassau grouper (Epinephelus

striatus) populations. Bulletin of Marine Science. 52:961-969. van Rooij, J.M., E.D. Jong, F. Vaandrager, and J.J. Videler 1996a. Resource and habitat sharing by stoplight parrotfish, Sparisoma viride, a

Caribbean reef herbivore. Environmental Biology of Fishes 47:81-91. van Rooij, J.M., F.J. Kroon, and J.J. Videler 1996b. The social and mating system of the herbivorous reef fish Sparisoma viride:

one-male versus multi-male groups. Environmental Biology of Fishes 47:353-378.


Tabl

e 1.

Site

info

rmat

ion

for A

GR

RA

fish

surv

eys i

n Li

ttle

Cay

man

and

Gra

nd C

aym

an Is

land

s.

Nam

e1 Si

te

Prot

ectio

n2 Lo

catio

n3 R

eef T

ype4

Latit

ude °N

Lo

ngitu

de

°W

Surv

ey d

ate

Dep

th (m

) %

live

ston

y

cora

l cov

er

(mea

n ±

sd)5

30m

fish

tra

nsec

ts

(#)

RD

T su

rvey

s (#

)

Fish

spec

ies

(#)

Littl

e Ca

yman

Ji

gsaw

Puz

zle

LC02

op

en

lee

Hig

h S&

G

19 3

9.98

3'

80 0

6.39

0'

6-Ju

n-99

10

.5

27.1

± 9

.7

11

4 96

M

ixin

g B

owl

LC05

pa

rk

lee

She

lf ed

ge

19 4

1.09

6'

80 0

4.70

0'

8-Ju

n-99

12

.4

29.0

± 1

2.1

12

2 10

5 B

lack

Tip

Tun

nels

LC

06

repl

en

lee

S&G

19

42.

847'

79

57.

470'

9-

Jun-

99

12.4

15

.6 ±

7.4

12

2

74

Peng

uin'

s Lea

p LC

07

open

le

e H

ardp

an

19 4

2.55

1'

80 0

0.48

7'

9-Ju

n-99

16

.1

16.4

± 7

.9

12

2 64

M

eado

ws

LC08

pa

rk

lee

Patc

h

19 4

1.51

0'

80 0

4.13

0'

10-J

un-9

9 18

.4

37.1

± 1

1.6

14

3 88

N

ancy

's C

up o

f Tea

LC

09

park

le

e Sh

elf e

dge

19 4

1.63

9'

80 0

4.13

7'

10-J

un-9

9 12

.5

21.7

± 1

3.9

14

3 87

Jo

y's J

oy

LC10

pa

rk

lee

Shel

f edg

e 19

40.

690'

80

05.

575'

10

-Jun

-99

12.1

18

.9 ±

6.4

14

3

82

Paul

's A

ncho

r LC

12

park

le

e Sh

elf e

dge

19 4

1.66

1'

80 0

4.18

1'

13-J

un-9

9 12

.9

17.1

± 1

2.1

9 3

73

Roc

k B

otto

m W

all

LC13

op

en

lee

S&G

19

42.

057'

80

03.

421'

13

-Jun

-99

12.6

22

.6 ±

10.

3 10

2

70

LC

16

open

le

e S&

G

19 3

9.70

2'

80 0

6.72

8'

15-J

un-9

9 14

25

.7 ±

5.3

10

3

76

LC

17

open

le

e S&

G

19 4

2.47

0'

80 0

0.49

5'

15-J

un-9

9 8.

8 22

.7 ±

4.7

10

3

71

LC

18

repl

en

pro

win

d H

ardp

an

19 4

2.99

6'

79 5

8.92

1'

15-J

un-9

9 10

.8

14.9

± 5

.6

10

3 62

G

rund

y's G

arde

ns

LC01

pa

rk

win

d S&

G

19 3

9.42

1'

80 0

5.32

1'

6-Ju

n-99

9.

4 37

.7 ±

11.

7 10

3

80

Dis

neyl

and

LC03

re

plen

w

ind

S&G

19

49.

831'

80

01.

374'

7-

Jun-

99

9.9

25.4

± 6

.3

11

2 73

C

harle

s Bay

LC

04

open

w

ind

S&G

19

41.

628'

79

58.

459'

7-

Jun-

99

10.7

17

.3 ±

6.3

11

2

76

Mai

n C

hann

el E

ast

LC11

op

en

win

d Fr

ingi

ng

19 3

9.41

2'

80 0

4.36

8'

11-J

un-9

9 2.

8 15

.8 ±

5.5

9

1 30

Lu

cas's

Led

ge

LC14

re

plen

w

ind

S&G

19

40.

155'

80

02.

595'

14

-Jun

-99

13.6

24

.6 ±

5.9

10

3

68

LC

15

repl

en

win

d S&

G

19 4

0.62

8'

80 0

1.56

2'

14-J

un-9

9 10

.9

26.3

± 8

.7

10

3 65

G

rand

Cay

man

H

epp'

s Min

i Wal

l G

C28

pa

rk

lee

Patc

h/S&

G

19 2

3.12

6'

81 2

4.99

2'

20-J

un-9

9 11

.5

22.0

± 5

.6

5 1

35

Cem

eter

y R

eef

GC

32

park

le

e Pa

tch/

S&G

19

21.

917'

81

23.

726'

22

-Jun

-99

9 17

.3 ±

4.9

9

2 74

Su

nset

Hou

se

GC

33

park

le

e Pa

tch/

S&G

19

17.

172'

81

23.

463'

22

-Jun

-99

9.1

22.7

± 1

1.9

12

3 74

Is

abel

's R

eef

GC

22

open

pr

o w

ind

Hig

h S&

G

19 2

1.46

0'

81 0

8.14

5'

18-J

un-9

9 10

.6

24.3

± 7

.4

10

2 52

B

abyl

on

GC

23

repl

en

pro

win

d S&

G

19 2

1.20

0'

81 0

9.84

2'

18-J

un-9

9 9.

5 18

.2 ±

3.4

10

2

51

Del

ila's

Del

ight

G

C24

op

en

pro

win

d S&

G

19 2

1.51

8'

81 1

4.80

1'

19-J

un-9

9 7.

1 22

.8 ±

13.

1 10

2

56

Que

en's

Thro

ne

GC

25

repl

en

pro

win

d H

ardp

an

19 2

2.81

8'

81 1

7.49

3'

19-J

un-9

9 12

.1

14.7

± 3

.2

10

2 61

G

C26

re

plen

pr

o w

ind

S&G

19

21.

202'

81

11.

746'

19

-Jun

-99

13.9

12

.7 ±

4.1

10

2

49

Bea

r's P

aw

GC

27

repl

en

pro

win

d S&

G

19 2

3.85

4'

81 2

1.61

7'

20-J

un-9

9 10

.7

15.7

± 3

.4

5 1

46

GC

19

open

w

ind

Hig

h S&

G

19 1

9.05

8'

81 0

4.48

4'

17-J

un-9

9 6.

7 23

.1 ±

9.3

10

2

38

GC

20

open

w

ind

Hig

h S&

G

19 2

0.00

2'

81 0

4.59

6'

17-J

un-9

9 8.

9 17

.9 ±

4.6

10

2

49


Tabl

e 1,

Con

tinue

d

Nam

e Si

te1

Prot

ectio

n2 Lo

catio

n3 R

eef T

ype4

Latit

ude °N

Lo

ngitu

de °W

Su

rvey

dat

e D

epth

(m)

% li

ve st

ony

co

ral c

over

(m

ean ±

sd)5

30m

fish

tra

nsec

ts (#

) R

DT

surv

eys

(#)

Fish

spec

ies

(#)

Snap

per H

ole

GC

21

open

w

ind

Hig

h S&

G

19 2

0.63

4'

81 0

4.67

6'

18-J

un-9

9 10

.1

23.8

± 1

0.5

10

3 72

B

reak

ers

GC

30

open

w

ind

S&G

19

17.

507'

81

12.

069'

21

-Jun

-99

12.5

22

.4 ±

4.6

10

2

59

Play

ing

Fiel

ds

GC

31

open

w

ind

Hig

h S&

G

19 1

7.56

5'

81 0

6.31

8'

21-J

un-9

9 7.

5 17

.5 ±

4.7

10

3

71

1 Site

nam

e gi

ven

if it

corr

espo

nds t

o a

know

n C

aym

an Is

land

Dep

artm

ent o

f Env

ironm

ent b

uoy.

2 Pa

rk =

Mar

ine

Park

Are

a; o

pen

= no

pro

tect

ion;

repl

en =

Rep

leni

shm

ent Z

one

Are

a

3 lee

= le

ewar

d; w

ind

= w

indw

ard;

pro

win

d =

prot

ecte

d w

indw

ard

4 Ree

f typ

es fo

llow

Man

frin

o et

al.

(this

vol

ume)

, S&

G =

spur

and

gro

ove,

Hig

h S&

G =

hig

h pr

ofile

spur

and

gro

ove.

5 C

over

val

ues f

rom

ben

thic

AG

RR

A tr

anse

cts (

Man

frin

o et

al.,

this

vol

ume)


Tabl

e 2.

Tw

enty

-fiv

e m

ost f

requ

ently

sigh

ted

fish

spec

ies o

n th

e C

aym

an Is

land

s. D

ata

(Sig

htin

g Fr

eque

ncy

and

Den

sity

Sco

re)

wer

e co

mpi

led

from

the

REE

F da

taba

se, u

sing

exp

ert s

ight

ings

from

199

4 th

roug

h 20

01 (N

=670

RD

T Su

rvey

s).

Scie

ntifi

c na

me

C

omm

on n

ame

Sigh

ting

freq

uenc

y (%

) D

ensi

ty sc

ore1

Acan

thur

us c

oeru

leus

B

lue

Tang

98

2.

8 Th

alas

som

a bi

fasc

iatu

m

Blu

ehea

d 97

3.

3 C

hrom

is c

yane

a B

lue

Chr

omis

97

3.

8 St

egas

tes p

artit

us

Bic

olor

Dam

selfi

sh

96

3.6

Spar

isom

a vi

ride

St

oplig

ht P

arro

tfish

96

2.

7 C

aran

x ru

ber

Bar

Jack

95

2.

3 C

hrom

is m

ultil

inea

ta

Bro

wn

Chr

omis

95

3.

4 G

ram

ma

lore

to

Fairy

Bas

slet

94

3.

6 C

haet

odon

cap

istr

atus

Fo

urey

e B

utte

rfly

fish

94

2.1

Spar

isom

a au

rofr

enat

um

Red

band

Par

rotfi

sh

93

2.7

Hal

icho

eres

gar

noti

Yel

low

head

Wra

sse

92

2.7

Can

thig

aste

r ros

trat

a Sh

arpn

ose

Puff

er

92

2.1

Epin

ephe

lus c

ruen

tatu

s G

rays

by

92

2.1

Lutja

nus a

podu

s Sc

hool

mas

ter

91

2.4

Ocy

urus

chr

ysur

us

Yel

low

tail

Snap

per

89

2.5

Hae

mul

on fl

avol

inea

tum

Fr

ench

Gru

nt

89

2.3

Scar

us c

roic

ensi

s St

riped

Par

rotfi

sh

89

2.4

Scar

us ta

enio

pter

us

Prin

cess

Par

rotfi

sh

88

2.5

Cle

ptic

us p

arra

e C

reol

e W

rass

e 87

3.

7 M

elic

hthy

s nig

er

Bla

ck D

urgo

n 87

2.

8 M

ullo

idic

hthy

s mar

tinic

us

Yel

low

Goa

tfish

84

2.

4 H

olac

anth

us tr

icol

or

Roc

k B

eaut

y 84

1.

9 St

egas

tes d

ienc

aeus

Lo

ngfin

Dam

selfi

sh

82

2.3

Epin

ephe

lus f

ulvu

s C

oney

81

2.

1 St

egas

tes p

lani

fron

s Th

rees

pot D

amse

lfish

80

2.

2 1 Se

e M

etho

ds fo

r def

initi

on o

f Den

sity

Sco

re.


Tabl

e 3.

Mea

n pe

rcen

t sig

htin

g fr

eque

ncy

of se

lect

gro

uper

s dur

ing

AG

RR

A ro

ving

div

er su

rvey

s in

LC a

nd G

C, C

aym

an Is

land

s.

Scie

ntifi

c na

me

Com

mon

nam

e Si

ghtin

g fr

eque

ncy

(%)

LC

GC

M

ycte

rope

rca

bona

ci

Bla

ck G

roup

er

7%

3%

Epin

ephe

lus s

tria

tus

Nas

sau

Gro

uper

69

%

9%

Epin

ephe

lus g

utta

tus

Red

Hin

d 44

%

21%

M

ycte

rope

rca

tigri

s Ti

ger G

roup

er

50%

12

%

Myc

tero

perc

a ve

neno

sa

Yel

low

fin G

roup

er

22%

0%

M

ycte

rope

rca

inte

rstit

ialis

Y

ello

wm

outh

Gro

uper

6%

3%

Ta

ble

4. D

ensi

ty a

nd le

ngth

(mea

n ±

stan

dard

dev

iatio

n) o

f AG

RR

A fi

shes

, and

mac

roal

gal i

ndex

val

ues f

or L

C a

nd G

C, C

aym

an

Isla

nds.

Isla

nd

H

erbi

vore

s

Car

nivo

res

Aca

nthu

ridae

Sc

arid

ae

(≥5

cm)

H

aem

ulid

ae

(≥5

cm)

Lutja

nida

e Se

rran

idae

1 M

acro

alga

l In

dex2

LC d

ensi

ty (#

/100

m2 )

10

.67 ±

7.22

21

.20 ±

7.56

4.59

± 5

.98

3.17

± 3

.61

2.38

± 0

.96

LC le

ngth

(cm

)

11.8

5 ±

2.08

15

.87 ±

2.67

19.4

5 ±

2.58

27

.78 ±

3.42

19

.11 ±

3.02

10

5

GC

den

sity

(#/1

00m

2 )

8.35

± 6

.66

22.1

3 ±

7.04

8.72

± 1

0.04

1.

86 ±

2.0

4 2.

00 ±

0.6

7 G

C le

ngth

(cm

)

12.0

2 ±

1.60

15

.33 ±

2.19

19.2

1 ±

1.36

28

.58 ±

7.29

18

.95 ±

1.92

32

1 Epin

ephe

lus s

pp. a

nd M

ycte

rope

rca

spp.

2 M

acro

alga

l ind

ex =

mac

roal

gal a

bund

ance

x c

anop

y he

ight

; dat

a fr

om M

anfr

ino

et a

l. (th

is v

olum

e).


App

endi

x A

. Cay

man

Isla

nds S

peci

es L

ist.

Dat

a co

mpi

led

from

the

REE

F da

taba

se, u

sing

exp

ert s

ight

ings

from

199

4 th

roug

h 20

01.

A to

tal o

f 670

exp

ert s

urve

ys (3

2- C

aym

an B

rac;

258

- Litt

le C

aym

an; 3

80- G

rand

Cay

man

) rep

orte

d 27

6 sp

ecie

s. F

or e

ach

spec

ies,

perc

ent s

ight

ing

freq

uenc

y (%

SF) a

nd d

ensi

ty sc

ore

(DEN

) are

giv

en.

Fifty

-eig

ht sp

ecie

s pre

viou

sly

unre

porte

d fr

om th

e C

aym

an

Isla

nds a

re li

sted

and

indi

cate

d by

an

aste

risk

(*).

Scie

ntifi

c N

ame

Com

mon

Nam

e SF

%

DEN

Sc

ient

ific

Nam

e C

omm

on N

ame

SF%

D

EN

Aca

nthu

rida

e Su

rgon

fishe

s

B

elon

idae

N

eedl

efis

hes

Acan

thur

us b

ahia

nus

Oce

an S

urge

onfis

h 84

%

2.3

*Pla

ybel

one

arga

lus

Kee

ltail

Nee

dlef

ish

0.1%

2.

0 Ac

anth

urus

chi

rurg

us

Doc

torf

ish

39%

2.

0 Ty

losu

rus c

roco

dilu

s H

ound

fish

3%

1.6

Acan

thur

us c

oeru

leus

B

lue

Tang

98

%

2.9

Ble

nniid

ae

Ble

nnie

s (C

ombt

ooth

)

A

pogo

nida

e C

ardi

nalfi

shes

En

tom

acro

dus n

igri

cans

Pe

arl B

lenn

y 0.

3%

1.0

*Apo

gon

affin

is

Big

toot

h C

ardi

nalfi

sh

0.1%

2.

0 O

phio

blen

nius

atla

ntic

us

Red

lip B

lenn

y 32

%

1.9

*Apo

gon

auro

linea

tus

Brid

le C

ardi

nalfi

sh

0.4%

1.

6 *P

arab

lenn

ius m

arm

oreu

s Se

awee

d B

lenn

y 1%

1.

3 Ap

ogon

bin

otat

us

Bar

red

Car

dina

lfish

17

%

2.0

Bot

hida

e Fl

ound

ers (

Lef

teye

)

Ap

ogon

lach

neri

W

hite

star

Car

dina

lfish

17

%

2.0

Both

us o

cella

tus

Eyed

Flo

unde

r 0.

3%

1.0

Apog

on m

acul

atus

Fl

amef

ish

14%

1.

7 Bo

thus

luna

tus

Peac

ock

Flou

nder

12

%

1.2

*Apo

gon

pilli

onat

us

Bro

adsa

ddle

Car

dina

lfish

SO

1

Cal

liony

mid

ae

Dra

gone

ts

Apog

on p

lani

fron

s Pa

le C

ardi

nalfi

sh

1%

1.8

Para

dipl

ogra

mm

us b

aird

i La

ncer

Dra

gone

t 3%

1.

3 Ap

ogon

pse

udom

acul

atus

Tw

ospo

t Car

dina

lfish

2%

1.

6 C

aran

gida

e Ja

cks

Apog

on q

uadr

isqu

amat

us

Saw

chee

k C

ardi

nalfi

sh

1%

1.8

Alec

tis c

iliar

is

Afr

ican

Pom

pano

SO

1

Apog

on to

wns

endi

B

elte

d C

ardi

nalfi

sh

26%

2.

2 C

aran

x ba

rtho

lom

aei

Yel

low

Jack

3%

1.

6 As

trap

ogon

pun

ctic

ulat

us

Bla

ckfin

Car

dina

lfish

0.

4%

2.0

Car

anx

crys

os

Blu

e R

unne

r 1%

1.

4 Ph

aeop

tyx

pigm

enta

ria

Dus

ky C

ardi

nalfi

sh

3%

2.3

Car

anx

hipp

os

Cre

valle

Jack

2%

1.

9 *P

haeo

ptyx

xen

us

Spon

ge C

ardi

nalfi

sh

11%

1.

6 C

aran

x la

tus

Hor

se-E

ye Ja

ck

33%

2.

3 A

ulos

tom

idae

T

rum

petf

ishe

s

C

aran

x lu

gubr

is

Bla

ck Ja

ck

8%

1.4

Aulo

stom

us m

acul

atus

Tr

umpe

tfish

69

%

1.7

Car

anx

rube

r B

ar Ja

ck

95%

2.

3 B

alis

tidae

L

eath

erja

cket

s

El

agat

is b

ipin

nula

ta

Rai

nbow

Run

ner

0.4%

1.

3 Al

uter

us sc

ript

us

Scra

wle

d Fi

lefis

h 9%

1.

1 Sc

ombe

rom

orus

rega

lis

Cer

o 18

%

1.3

Balis

tes v

etul

a Q

ueen

Trig

gerf

ish

34%

1.

3 Tr

achi

notu

s fal

catu

s Pe

rmit

3%

1.2

Can

ther

hine

s mac

roce

rus

Whi

tesp

otte

d Fi

lefis

h 22

%

1.4

Trac

hino

tus g

oode

i Pa

lom

eta

0.3%

2.

0 C

anth

erhi

nes p

ullu

s O

rang

espo

tted

File

fish

13%

1.

3 C

arch

arhi

nida

e Sh

arks

(Req

ueim

)

C

anth

ider

mis

suffl

amen

O

cean

Trig

gerf

ish

11%

1.

3 *C

arch

arhi

nus l

imba

tus

Bla

cktip

Sha

rk

0.3%

1.

5 M

elic

hthy

s nig

er

Bla

ck D

urgo

n 87

%

2.8

*Car

char

hinu

s per

ezi

Ree

f Sha

rk

2%

1.1

Mon

acan

thus

tuck

eri

Slen

der F

ilefis

h 8%

1.

4 C

haen

opsi

dae

Ble

nnie

s (T

ube)

Ac

anth

embl

emar

ia a

sper

a R

ough

head

Ble

nny

11%

1.

5


App

endi

x A

, Con

tinue

d Sc

ient

ific

Nam

e C

omm

on N

ame

SF%

D

EN

Scie

ntifi

c N

ame

Com

mon

Nam

e SF

%

DEN

C

haen

opsi

dae

(con

t.)

Ble

nnie

s (T

ube)

G

erre

idae

(con

t.)

Moj

arra

*A

cant

hem

blem

aria

cha

plin

i Pa

pillo

se B

lenn

y 0.

1%

1.0

*Euc

inos

tom

us g

ula

Silv

er Je

nny

0.1%

2.

0 Ac

anth

embl

emar

ia m

aria

Se

cret

ary

Ble

nny

16%

1.

6 Eu

cino

stom

us jo

nesi

Sl

ende

r Moj

arra

0.

1%

2.0

Embl

emar

ia p

andi

onis

Sa

ilfin

Ble

nny

14%

1.

7 G

erre

s cin

ereu

s Y

ello

wfin

Moj

arra

11

%

1.9

Embl

emar

iops

is sp

. D

arkh

ead

Ble

nny

4%

1.2

Gob

ieso

cida

e C

lingf

ishe

s

Lu

caya

blen

nius

zing

aro

Arr

ow B

lenn

y 19

%

1.5

Arco

s rub

igin

osus

R

ed C

lingf

ish

1%

1.4

Cha

eton

dont

idae

B

utte

rfly

fishe

s

G

obie

sox

punc

tula

tus

Stip

pled

Clin

gfis

h 0.

1%

1.0

Cha

etod

on a

cule

atus

Lo

ngsn

out B

utte

rfly

fish

26%

1.

5 G

obiid

ae

Gob

ies

Cha

etod

on c

apis

trat

us

Four

eye

But

terf

lyfis

h 94

%

2.1

Cor

ypho

pter

us

Mas

ked/

Gla

ss G

oby

82%

3.

7 C

haet

odon

oce

llatu

s Sp

otfin

But

terf

lyfis

h 38

%

1.7

p

erso

natu

s/hy

alin

us

C

haet

odon

sede

ntar

ius

Ree

f But

terf

lyfis

h 1%

1.

1 C

oryp

hopt

erus

dic

rus

Col

on G

oby

3%

1.2

Cha

etod

on st

riat

us

Ban

ded

But

terf

lyfis

h 73

%

1.8

Cor

ypho

pter

us e

idol

on

Palli

d G

oby

20%

1.

6 C

irrh

itida

e H

awkf

ishe

s

C

oryp

hopt

erus

gla

ucof

raen

um

Brid

led

Gob

y 63

%

2.3

Ambl

ycir

rhitu

s pin

os

Red

spot

ted

Haw

kfis

h 29

%

1.3

Cor

ypho

pter

us li

pern

es

Pepp

erm

int G

oby

46%

1.

9 C

ongr

idae

E

els (

Con

ger)

G

nath

olep

is th

omps

oni

Gol

dspo

t Gob

y 69

%

2.4

Het

eroc

onge

r hal

is

Bro

wn

Gar

den

Eel

22%

3.

5 G

obio

nellu

s sae

pepa

llens

D

ash

Gob

y 1%

1.

4 D

acty

lopt

erid

ae

Flyi

ng G

urna

rds

*Gob

ioso

ma

chan

cei

Shor

tstri

pe G

oby

3%

1.7

Dac

tylo

pter

us v

olita

ns

Flyi

ng G

urna

rd

0.3%

1.

5 G

obio

som

a di

leps

is

Ora

nges

ided

Gob

y 28

%

1.8

Das

yatid

ae

Ray

s (St

ing)

G

obio

som

a ev

elyn

ae

Shar

knos

e G

oby

20%

1.

9 D

asya

tis a

mer

ican

a So

uthe

rn S

tingr

ay

23%

1.

3 G

obio

som

a ge

nie

Cle

anin

g G

oby

49%

2.

4 E

chen

eidi

dae

Rem

oras

G

obio

som

a ho

rsti

Yel

low

line

Gob

y 45

%

1.9

Eche

neis

nau

crat

es

Shar

ksuc

ker

5%

1.1

Gob

ioso

ma

loui

sae

Spot

light

Gob

y 6%

1.

7 E

lopi

dae

Tar

pon

Gob

ioso

ma

mul

tifas

ciat

um

Gre

enba

nded

Gob

y 6%

2.

0 M

egal

ops a

tlant

icus

Ta

rpon

22

%

2.2

Gob

ioso

ma

palle

ns

Sem

isca

led

Gob

y 4%

1.

3 E

phip

pida

e Sp

adef

ishe

s

*G

obio

som

a sa

ucru

m

Leop

ard

Gob

y 0.

3%

1.5

*Cha

etod

ipte

rus f

aber

A

tlant

ic S

pade

fish

1%

1.2

*Gob

ioso

ma

xant

hipr

ora

Yel

low

prow

Gob

y 0.

1%

2.0

Exo

coet

idae

Fl

ying

fishe

s/H

alfb

eeks

*I

oglo

ssus

hel

enae

H

over

ing

Gob

y 2%

1.

4 *H

emir

amph

us b

alao

B

alao

0.

1%

3.0

*Mic

rogo

bius

car

ri

Sem

inol

e G

oby

0.1%

1.

0 *H

irun

dich

thys

spec

ulig

er

Mirr

orw

ing

Flyi

ngfis

h SO

1

*Nes

long

us

Ora

nges

potte

d G

oby

0.3%

1.

5 Fi

stul

ariid

ae

Cor

netf

ishe

s

Pr

iole

pis h

ipol

iti

Rus

ty G

oby

3%

1.2

Fist

ular

ia ta

baca

ria

Blu

espo

tted

Cor

netfi

sh

1%

1.5

Riso

r rub

er

Tusk

ed G

oby

1%

1.5

Ger

reid

ae

Moj

arra

G

ram

mat

idae

B

assl

ets

*Euc

inos

tom

us m

elan

opte

rus

Flag

fin M

ojar

ra

0.3%

2.

0 *G

ram

ma

linki

Y

ello

wch

eek

Bas

slet

0.

1%

1.0

*Euc

inos

tom

us le

froy

i M

ottle

d M

ojar

ra

1%

2.2

Gra

mm

a lo

reto

Fa

iry B

assl

et

94%

3.

6


App

endi

x A

, Con

tinue

d Sc

ient

ific

Nam

e C

omm

on N

ame

SF%

D

EN

Scie

ntifi

c N

ame

Com

mon

Nam

e SF

%

DEN

G

ram

mat

idae

(con

t.)

Bas

slet

s

L

abri

dae

(con

t.)

Wra

sses

s

G

ram

ma

mel

acar

a B

lack

cap

Bas

slet

34

%

3.4

Dor

aton

otus

meg

alep

is

Dw

arf W

rass

e 1%

1.

0 Li

pogr

amm

a tr

iline

atum

Th

reel

ine

Bas

slet

2%

1.

4 H

alic

hoer

es b

ivitt

atus

Sl

ippe

ry D

ick

42%

2.

2 H

aem

ulid

ae

Gru

nts

*Hal

icho

eres

cya

noce

phal

us

Yel

low

chee

k W

rass

e 2%

1.

1 An

isot

rem

us su

rina

men

sis

Bla

ck M

arga

te

3%

1.5

Hal

icho

eres

gar

noti

Yel

low

head

Wra

sse

93%

2.

8 An

isot

rem

us v

irgi

nicu

s Po

rkfis

h 1%

1.

3 H

alic

hoer

es m

acul

ipin

na

Clo

wn

Wra

sse

43%

2.

0 H

aem

ulon

alb

um

Whi

te M

arga

te

17%

1.

5 *H

alic

hoer

es p

ictu

s R

ainb

ow W

rass

e 16

%

2.0

Hae

mul

on a

urol

inea

tum

To

mta

te

6%

2.3

*Hal

icho

eres

poe

yi

Bla

ckea

r Wra

sse

0.1%

2.

0 H

aem

ulon

car

bona

rium

C

aesa

r Gru

nt

26%

2.

3 H

alic

hoer

es ra

diat

us

Pudd

ingw

ife

19%

1.

4 H

aem

ulon

chr

ysar

gyre

um

Smal

lmou

th G

runt

1%

2.

5 *H

emip

tero

notu

s mar

tinic

ensi

s R

osy

Raz

orfis

h 19

%

2.2

Hae

mul

on fl

avol

inea

tum

Fr

ench

Gru

nt

89%

2.

3 H

emip

tero

notu

s spl

ende

ns

Gre

en R

azor

fish

28%

1.

9 *H

aem

ulon

mac

rost

omum

Sp

anis

h G

runt

3%

1.

7 La

chno

laim

us m

axim

us

Hog

fish

44%

1.

3 *H

aem

ulon

mel

anur

um

Cot

tonw

ick

1%

1.7

Thal

asso

ma

bifa

scia

tum

B

lueh

ead

97%

3.

3 H

aem

ulon

par

ra

Sailo

rs C

hoic

e 18

%

2.2

Lab

riso

mid

ae

Ble

nnie

s (Sc

aly)

H

aem

ulon

plu

mie

ri

Whi

te G

runt

69

%

1.8

Acan

them

blem

aria

spin

osa

Spin

yhea

d B

lenn

y 4%

1.

4 H

aem

ulon

sciu

rus

Blu

estri

ped

Gru

nt

65%

2.

0 C

haen

opsi

s lim

baug

hi

Yel

low

face

Pik

eble

nny

1%

1.0

*Hae

mul

on st

riat

um

Strip

ed G

runt

0.

3%

2.0

*Hem

iem

blem

aria

sim

ulus

W

rass

e B

lenn

y 1%

1.

2 H

oloc

entr

idae

Sq

uirr

elfis

hes

*Lab

riso

mus

fila

men

tosu

s Q

uillf

in B

lenn

y 0%

2.

0 H

oloc

entr

us a

dsce

nsio

nis

Squi

rrel

fish

57%

1.

9 La

bris

omus

gob

io

Pale

head

Ble

nny

0.1%

1.

0 H

oloc

entr

us c

orus

cum

R

eef S

quirr

elfis

h 3%

1.

7 *L

abri

som

us k

alis

hera

e D

owny

Ble

nny

0.1%

1.

0 H

oloc

entr

us m

aria

nus

Long

jaw

Squ

irrel

fish

69%

2.

0 M

alac

octe

nus a

urol

inea

tus

Gol

dlin

e B

lenn

y 2%

1.

7 H

oloc

entr

us ru

fus

Long

spin

e Sq

uirr

elfis

h 68

%

2.0

Mal

acoc

tenu

s boe

hlke

i D

iam

ond

Ble

nny

25%

1.

5 H

oloc

entr

us v

exill

ariu

s D

usky

Squ

irrel

fish

19%

1.

9 M

alac

octe

nus m

acro

pus

Ros

y B

lenn

y 7%

1.

5 M

yrip

rist

is ja

cobu

s B

lack

bar S

oldi

erfis

h 54

%

2.0

Mal

acoc

tenu

s tri

angu

latu

s Sa

ddle

d B

lenn

y 75

%

2.3

Plec

tryp

ops r

etro

spin

is

Car

dina

l Sol

dier

fish

2%

1.2

Mal

acoc

tenu

s ver

sico

lor

Bar

fin B

lenn

y 0.

1%

1.0

Iner

miid

ae

Bon

netm

outh

s

St

arks

ia n

anod

es

Dw

arf B

lenn

y 0.

1%

2.0

*Em

mel

icht

hyop

s atla

ntic

us

Bon

netm

outh

0.

4%

3.0

Lut

jani

dae

Snap

pers

*I

nerm

ia v

ittat

a B

oga

17%

3.

0 Ap

silu

s den

tatu

s B

lack

Sna

pper

0.

6%

1.2

Kyp

hosi

dae

Chu

bs

Lutja

nus a

nalis

M

utto

n Sn

appe

r 59

%

1.5

Kyp

hosu

s sec

tatr

ix/in

ciso

r B

erm

uda/

Yel

low

Chu

b 78

%

2.4

Lutja

nus a

podu

s Sc

hool

mas

ter

91%

2.

4 L

abri

dae

Wra

sses

s

Lu

tjanu

s buc

cane

lla

Bla

ckfin

Sna

pper

17

%

2.0

Bodi

anus

pul

chel

lus

Spot

fin H

ogfis

h 1%

1.

5 Lu

tjanu

s cya

nopt

erus

C

uber

a Sn

appe

r 3%

1.

2 Bo

dian

us ru

fus

Span

ish

Hog

fish

74%

1.

9 Lu

tjanu

s gri

seus

G

ray

Snap

per

4%

1.9

Cle

ptic

us p

arra

e C

reol

e W

rass

e 87

%

3.7

Lutja

nus j

ocu

Dog

Sna

pper

10

%

1.3


App

endi

x A

, Con

tinue

d Sc

ient

ific

Nam

e C

omm

on N

ame

SF%

D

EN

Scie

ntifi

c N

ame

Com

mon

Nam

e SF

%

DEN

L

utja

nida

e (c

ont.)

Sn

appe

rs

Pem

pher

idae

Sw

eepe

rs

Lutja

nus m

ahog

oni

Mah

ogan

y Sn

appe

r 69

%

2.2

Pem

pher

is sc

hom

burg

ki

Gla

ssy

Swee

per

2%

2.2

Lutja

nus s

ynag

ris

Lane

Sna

pper

2%

1.

9 Po

mac

anth

idae

A

ngel

fishe

s

O

cyur

us c

hrys

urus

Y

ello

wta

il Sn

appe

r 89

%

2.5

Cen

trop

yge

argi

C

heru

bfis

h 1%

1.

2 M

atac

anth

idae

T

ilefis

hes

*Hol

acan

thus

ber

mud

ensi

s B

lue

Ang

elfis

h 0.

1%

1.0

Mal

acan

thus

plu

mie

ri

Sand

Tile

fish

74%

2.

0 H

olac

anth

us c

iliar

is

Que

en A

ngel

fish

35%

1.

4 M

obul

idae

R

ay (M

anta

s)

Hol

acan

thus

tric

olor

R

ock

Bea

uty

84%

1.

9 M

anta

bir

ostr

is

Man

ta

0.3%

1.

0 Po

mac

anth

us a

rcua

tus

Gra

y A

ngel

fish

39%

1.

4 M

ullid

ae

Goa

tfis

hes

Pom

acan

thus

par

u Fr

ench

Ang

elfis

h 51

%

1.3

Mul

loid

icht

hys m

artin

icus

Y

ello

w G

oatfi

sh

84%

2.

4 Po

mac

entr

idae

D

amse

lfish

es

Pseu

dupe

neus

mac

ulat

us

Spot

ted

Goa

tfish

46

%

1.7

Abud

efdu

f sax

atili

s Se

rgea

nt M

ajor

49

%

2.5

Mur

anid

ae

Eel

s (M

oray

)

Ab

udef

duf t

auru

s N

ight

Ser

gean

t 0.

4%

2.0

Echi

dna

cate

nata

C

hain

Mor

ay

0.1%

1.

0 C

hrom

is c

yane

a B

lue

Chr

omis

97

%

3.8

Ench

elyc

ore

cary

chro

a C

hest

nut M

oray

0.

1%

1.0

*Chr

omis

inso

lata

Su

nshi

nefis

h 18

%

2.2

Gym

noth

orax

fune

bris

G

reen

Mor

ay

5%

1.0

Chr

omis

mul

tilin

eata

B

row

n C

hrom

is

95%

3.

4 G

ymno

thor

ax m

iliar

is

Gol

dent

ail M

oray

4%

1.

0 M

icro

spat

hodo

n ch

rysu

rus

Yel

low

tail

Dam

selfi

sh

57%

2.

0 G

ymno

thor

ax m

orin

ga

Spot

ted

Mor

ay

3%

1.2

Steg

aste

s die

ncae

us

Long

fin D

amse

lfish

82

%

2.3

Gym

noth

orax

vic

inus

Pu

rple

mou

th M

oray

0.

3%

2.0

Steg

aste

s fus

cus

Dus

ky D

amse

lfish

18

%

1.8

Myl

ioba

tidae

R

ays (

Eag

le)

Steg

aste

s leu

cost

ictu

s B

eaug

rego

ry

35%

1.

8 Ae

toba

tus n

arin

ari

Spot

ted

Eagl

e R

ay

9%

1.1

Steg

aste

s par

titus

B

icol

or D

amse

lfish

96

%

3.6

Ogc

ocep

halid

ae

Bat

fishe

s

St

egas

tes p

lani

fron

s Th

rees

pot D

amse

lfish

80

%

2.2

Ogc

ocep

halu

s nas

utus

Sh

ortn

ose

Bat

fish

SO1

St

egas

tes v

aria

bilis

C

ocoa

Dam

selfi

sh

17%

1.

5 O

phic

hthi

dae

Eel

s (Sn

ake)

Pr

iaca

nthi

dae

Big

eyes

M

yric

hthy

s bre

vice

ps

Shar

ptai

l Eel

0.

3%

1.0

Pria

cant

hus a

rena

tus

Big

eye

0.4%

1.

0 O

pist

ogna

thid

ae

Jaw

fishe

s

Pr

iaca

nthu

s cru

enta

tus

Gla

ssey

e Sn

appe

r 9%

1.

3 *O

pist

ogna

thus

aur

ifron

s Y

ello

whe

ad Ja

wfis

h 42

%

2.1

Rhi

ncod

ontid

ae

Shar

ks (C

arpe

t)

*Opi

stog

nath

us m

acro

gnat

hus

Ban

ded

Jaw

fish

0.3%

1.

5 G

ingl

ymos

tom

a ci

rrat

um

Nur

se S

hark

5%

1.

0 *O

pist

ogna

thus

whi

tehu

rsti

Dus

ky Ja

wfis

h 0.

3%

1.5

Scar

idae

Pa

rrot

fishe

s

O

stra

cion

tidae

B

oxfis

hes

Cry

ptot

omus

rose

us

Blu

elip

Par

rotfi

sh

6%

1.9

Lact

ophr

ys b

icau

dalis

Sp

otte

d Tr

unkf

ish

30%

1.

1 Sc

arus

coe

lest

inus

M

idni

ght P

arro

tfish

8%

1.

2 La

ctop

hrys

pol

ygon

ia

Hon

eyco

mb

Cow

fish

26%

1.

2 Sc

arus

coe

rule

us

Blu

e Pa

rrot

fish

2%

1.5

Lact

ophr

ys q

uadr

icor

nis

Scra

wle

d C

owfis

h 1%

1.

6 Sc

arus

cro

icen

sis

Strip

ed P

arro

tfish

89

%

2.4

Lact

ophr

ys tr

igon

us

Trun

kfis

h 0.

4%

1.3

Scar

us g

uaca

mai

a R

ainb

ow P

arro

tfish

15

%

1.3

Lact

ophr

ys tr

ique

ter

Smoo

th T

runk

fish

23%

1.

2 Sc

arus

taen

iopt

erus

Pr

ince

ss P

arro

tfish

88

%

2.5


App

endi

x A

, Con

tinue

d Sc

ient

ific

Nam

e C

omm

on N

ame

SF%

D

EN

Scie

ntifi

c N

ame

Com

mon

Nam

e SF

%

DEN

Sc

arid

ae (c

ont.)

Pa

rrot

fishe

s

Se

rran

idae

(con

t.)

Sea

Bas

ses

Scar

us v

etul

a Q

ueen

Par

rotfi

sh

59%

1.

9 *L

iopr

opom

a ca

rmab

i C

andy

Bas

s 1%

1.

0 *S

pari

som

a at

omar

ium

G

reen

blot

ch P

arro

tfish

41

%

2.2

Liop

ropo

ma

mow

bray

i C

ave

Bas

s 3%

1.

3 Sp

aris

oma

auro

fren

atum

R

edba

nd P

arro

tfish

93

%

2.7

Liop

ropo

ma

rubr

e Pe

pper

min

t Bas

s 19

%

1.4

Spar

isom

a ch

ryso

pter

um

Red

tail

Parr

otfis

h 62

%

2.0

Myc

tero

perc

a bo

naci

B

lack

Gro

uper

11

%

1.2

Spar

isom

a ra

dian

s B

uckt

ooth

Par

rotfi

sh

2%

2.2

Myc

tero

perc

a in

ters

titia

lis

Yel

low

mou

th G

roup

er

6%

1.1

Spar

isom

a ru

brip

inne

Y

ello

wta

il Pa

rrot

fish

46%

2.

0 *M

ycte

rope

rca

phen

ax

Scam

p 1%

1.

2 Sp

aris

oma

viri

de

Stop

light

Par

rotfi

sh

96%

2.

7 M

ycte

rope

rca

tigri

s Ti

ger G

roup

er

54%

1.

5 Sc

iaen

idae

D

rum

s

M

ycte

rope

rca

vene

nosa

Y

ello

wfin

Gro

uper

18

%

1.3

Eque

tus a

cum

inat

us

Hig

hhat

1%

1.

5 *P

aran

thia

s fur

cife

r C

reol

e-fis

h 1%

2.

0 Eq

uetu

s lan

ceol

atus

Ja

ckni

fe F

ish

0.1%

1.

0 Ry

ptic

us sa

pona

ceus

G

reat

er S

oapf

ish

18%

1.

2 Eq

uetu

s pun

ctat

us

Spot

ted

Dru

m

15%

1.

2 *S

erra

nus b

aldw

ini

Lant

ern

Bas

s 11

%

1.5

Odo

ntos

cion

den

tex

Ree

f Cro

aker

0.

4%

1.6

Serr

anus

taba

cari

us

Toba

ccof

ish

53%

1.

8 Sc

orpi

onid

ae

Scor

pion

fishe

s

Se

rran

us ti

grin

us

Har

lequ

in B

ass

75%

1.

9 Sc

orpa

ena

plum

ieri

Sp

otte

d Sc

orpi

onfis

h 6%

1.

1 *S

erra

nus t

ortu

garu

m

Cha

lk B

ass

7%

1.7

Scor

paen

odes

car

ibba

eus

Ree

f Sco

rpio

nfis

h 1%

1.

0 Sp

arid

ae

Porg

ies

Serr

anid

ae

Sea

Bas

ses

Cal

amus

baj

onad

o Jo

lthea

d Po

rgy

15%

1.

2 Ep

inep

helu

s ads

cens

ioni

s R

ock

Hin

d 2%

1.

1 C

alam

us c

alam

us

Sauc

erey

e Po

rgy

27%

1.

3 Ep

inep

helu

s cru

enta

tus

Gra

ysby

92

%

2.1

*Cal

amus

pen

natu

la

Plum

a 1%

1.

1 Ep

inep

helu

s ful

vus

Con

ey

81%

2.

1 Sp

hyra

enid

ae

Bar

racu

das

Epin

ephe

lus g

utta

tus

Red

Hin

d 27

%

1.3

Sphy

raen

a ba

rrac

uda

Gre

at B

arra

cuda

49

%

1.5

Epin

ephe

lus i

taja

ra

Gol

iath

Gro

uper

0.

6%

1.2

Sphy

raen

a pi

cudi

lla

Sout

hern

Sen

net

1%

3.5

*Epi

neph

elus

mor

io

Red

Gro

uper

0.

3%

1.5

Sphy

rnid

ae

Shar

ks (H

amm

erhe

ad)

Epin

ephe

lus s

tria

tus

Nas

sau

Gro

uper

50

%

1.5

*Sph

yrna

lew

ini

Scal

lope

d H

amm

erhe

ad

SO1

H

ypop

lect

rus a

berr

ans

Yel

low

belly

Ham

let

4%

1.2

Syng

nath

idae

Pi

pefis

hes/

Seah

orse

s

*H

ypop

lect

rus c

hlor

urus

Y

ello

wta

il H

amle

t 0.

3%

1.0

*Ace

ntro

nura

den

driti

ca

Pipe

hors

e 0.

4%

1.6

Hyp

ople

ctru

s gum

mig

utta

G

olde

n H

amle

t 0.

4%

1.0

*Cos

moc

ampu

s alb

iros

tris

W

hite

nose

Pip

efis

h 0.

1%

1.0

Hyp

ople

ctru

s gut

tava

rius

Sh

y H

amle

t 21

%

1.3

*Hip

poca

mpu

s ere

ctus

Li

ned

Seah

orse

0.

4%

1.0

Hyp

ople

ctru

s ind

igo

Indi

go H

amle

t 9%

1.

3 Sy

nodo

tidae

L

izza

rdfis

hes

Hyp

ople

ctru

s nig

rica

ns

Bla

ck H

amle

t 14

%

1.4

Syno

dus i

nter

med

ius

Sand

Div

er

5%

1.1

Hyp

ople

ctru

s pue

lla

Bar

red

Ham

let

64%

1.

8 *S

ynod

us sa

urus

B

lues

tripe

d Li

zard

fish

0.3%

1.

0 *H

ypop

lect

rus s

p.

Mas

ked

Ham

let

2%

1.0

Syno

dus s

ynod

us

Red

Liz

ardf

ish

0.4%

1.

0 *H

ypop

lect

rus s

p.

Tan

Ham

let

2%

1.0

Tet

rado

ntid

ae

Puff

ers

Hyp

ople

ctru

s uni

colo

r B

utte

r Ham

let

19%

1.

3 C

anth

igas

ter r

ostr

ata

Shar

pnos

e Pu

ffer

92

%

2.1


App

endi

x A

, Con

tinue

d Sc

ient

ific

Nam

e C

omm

on N

ame

SF%

D

EN

Scie

ntifi

c N

ame

Com

mon

Nam

e SF

%

DEN

T

etra

dont

idae

(con

t.)

Puff

ers

Tri

pter

ygiid

ae

Ble

nnie

s (T

ripp

lefin

)

*C

hilo

myc

teru

s ant

enna

tus

Brid

led

Bur

rfis

h 0.

3%

1.0

Enne

anec

tes a

ltive

lis

Lofty

Trip

lefin

2%

1.

0 D

iodo

n ho

loca

nthu

s B

allo

onfis

h 4%

1.

0 En

nean

ecte

s atr

orus

B

lack

edge

Trip

lefin

0.

1%

1.0

*Dio

don

hyst

rix

Porc

upin

efis

h 13

%

1.1

Enne

anec

tes b

oehl

kei

Rou

ghhe

ad T

riple

fin

2%

1.4

Spho

eroi

des s

peng

leri

B

andt

ail P

uffe

r 5%

1.

2 En

nean

ecte

s pec

tora

lis

Red

eye

Trip

lefin

3%

1.

1 T

orpe

dini

dae

Ray

s (T

orpe

do E

lect

ric)

U

rolo

phid

ae

Ray

s (R

ound

)

*N

arci

ne b

rasi

liens

is

Less

er E

lect

ric R

ay

0.1%

2.

0 U

rolo

phus

jam

aice

nsis

Y

ello

w S

tingr

ay

6%

1.2


Documents

STATUS OF CORAL REEFS OF LITTLE CAYMAN AND GRAND … · assessment protocol is focused on three main components of the reef community: stony corals, fish, and algae. As part of this