Global Vision International,

2010 Report Series No. 001

GVI Mexico

Pta Gruesa, Q Roo

Quaterly Report 101

January – March 2010

 GVI Mexico Pta Gruesa Programme Report January-March 2010

Submitted in whole to
GVI
Amigos de Sian Ka’an

Produced by

Genevieve Gammage – Base Manager

Tristan Brown – Field Staff
Samantha Buxton - Field Staff
Maria de Lourdes Noriega Pons – Field Staff
Jacqueline Keenan- Field Staff
And

David Blundell Field Staff Beth Buchanan Volunteer

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

Edited by

Daniel Ponce-Taylor

GVI Mexico Pta Gruesa Programme

Address: Apartado Postal 16, Col Centro, 77710

Playa del Carmen, Quintana Roo
Mexico
Email: mahahual@gviworld.com
Web page: http://www.gvi.co.uk and http://www.gviworld.com
Executive Summary

The ninth 10-week phase of the Punta Gruesa, Mexico, GVI expedition has now been
completed. The expedition has maintained working relationships with local communities
through both English classes and local community events. The expedition has continued
to work towards the gathering of important environmental scientific data whilst working
with local, national and international partners. The following projects have been run during
Phase 101:

• Monitoring of strategic sites along the coast.

• Training of volunteers in the MBRS methodology including fish, hard coral, and
algae identification.
• Continuing the MBRS Synoptic Monitoring Programme (SMP) for the selected sites
within the Mahahual region to provide regional decision makers with up to date
information on the ecological condition of the reef.
• Providing English lessons and environmental education opportunities for the local
community.
• Further developing the current Marine Education programme for the children of
Mahahual that works alongside the standard curriculum.
• Liaise with local partners to develop a successful and feasible programme of
research in collaboration with GVI into the future.
• Continue adding to a coral and fish species list that will expand over time as a
comprehensive guide for the region.
• Continuation of the National Scholarship Programme, whereby GVI Punta Gruesa
accept a Mexican national on a scholarship basis into the expedition.
• Assisting with the local community to create and develop new environmental
management strategies, with GVI actively collaborating to develop Mahahual’s
marine zoning proposal.

© GVI – 2010 ii
Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ ii

Table of Contents............................................................................................................iii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................. v
List of Tables................................................................................................................... v
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 6
2. Synoptic Monitoring Programme ................................................................................. 8
2.1 Aim .................................................................................................................. 8
2.2 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 8
Benthic Cover ................................................................................................... 8
Fish Populations............................................................................................. 10
Physical Parameters ....................................................................................... 14
2.3 Methodology and Training.............................................................................. 14
Synoptic Monitoring Programme Training...................................................... 16
Physical Parameters ....................................................................................... 18
2.4 Results............................................................................................................ 19
Adult Fish....................................................................................................... 19
Juvenile Fish .................................................................................................. 24
Stenopus hispidus and Diadema antillarum .................................................... 26
2.5 Discussion ...................................................................................................... 27
Adult Fish....................................................................................................... 27
Juvenile Fish .................................................................................................. 28
Stenopus hispidus and Diadema antillarum .................................................... 29
Coral .............................................................................................................. 29
Point Intercept ................................................................................................ 30
Coral Communities......................................................................................... 34
Conclusions .................................................................................................... 38
3. Incidental Sightings Programme............................................................................... 40
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 40
3.2 Methodology .................................................................................................. 40
3.3 Results............................................................................................................ 41
3.4 Discussion ...................................................................................................... 45
Turtles ............................................................................................................ 46
Elasmobranchs ............................................................................................... 46
Barracuda ...................................................................................................... 47
Lionfish .......................................................................................................... 47
4. Coral Disease Monitoring Programme....................................................................... 50
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 50
4.2 Methodology .................................................................................................. 50
4.3 Results & Discussion ...................................................................................... 51
Encrusting Gorgonian (LM1).......................................................................... 51
White Plague (LM2) ....................................................................................... 51
Partial Bleaching (LM3)................................................................................. 51
5. Community Work Programme ................................................................................... 54
5.1 English Language Programme ........................................................................ 54

iii
 5.2 Environmental Education................................................................................ 55
5.3 Other Programmes and Activities ................................................................... 56
6. Marine Litter Monitoring Programme ......................................................................... 57
6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 57
6.2 Methodology .................................................................................................. 58
6.3 Results............................................................................................................ 59
6.4 Discussion ...................................................................................................... 61
7. Bird Monitoring Programme....................................................................................... 63
7.1 Objectives....................................................................................................... 63
7.2 Introduction .................................................................................................... 63
7.3 Methodology .................................................................................................. 64
7.4 Results............................................................................................................ 64
7.5 Discussion ...................................................................................................... 66
7.6 Conclusion...................................................................................................... 67
8. References................................................................................................................ 68
Appendix I – SMP Methodology Outlines ...................................................................... 71
Appendix II - Adult Fish Indicator Species List............................................................... 75
Appendix III - Juvenile Fish Indicator Species List......................................................... 76
Appendix IV - Coral Species List ................................................................................... 77
Appendix V - Fish Species List...................................................................................... 78
Appendix VIa - Bird Species List ................................................................................... 83
Appendix VIb - Bird Species List ................................................................................... 84

iv
List of Figures

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

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

v
1. Introduction

The Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System (MBRS) extends from Isla Contoy at the North of
the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico, to the Bay Islands of Honduras through Belize and
Guatemala and is the second largest barrier reef in the world.

The GVI Marine Programme within Mexico initiated the running of its first base, Pez Maya,
in the Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve in 2003. Since then the programme has flourished,
with a sister site being set up in the south of the Biosphere in Mahahual. The current
projects of GVI Pez Maya and Mahahual are assisting Amigos de Sian Ka’an (ASK) and
Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP) to obtain baseline data by
conducting marine surveys along the coast of Quintana Roo. By obtaining this data, ASK
and its partners can begin to focus on the areas needing immediate environmental
regulation depending on susceptibility; therefore, implementing management protection
plans as and when required. Surveys using the same methodology are being conducted
by a number of bodies through the entire Mesoamerican Barrier Reef, in Belize, Honduras
and Guatemala, coordinated by the MBRS project group.

Such a project is especially significant in current times of rapid development along the
small fishing village coast of the Mahahual area, due to the tourism industry generated by
the cruise ship pier that was built near the town in 2002.

The cruise ship pier was badly damaged following Hurricane Dean in August 2007 and
remained out of operation until October 2008 when Mahahual again began to receive the
first cruise ships. The current terminal can berth 3 cruise ships with, on average, 7 arrivals
per week during high season. The cruise ships docking bring a flood of tourists into the
Mahahual region, an area that, at present, only has a limited infrastructure to deal with
large numbers of people. Furthermore, plans are underway to increase the number of
cruise ships in port and to develop the roadway through the mangrove system, increasing
access to vacation homes and hotels. There are also plans to re-open the small airport
about 10 km from Mahahual in an effort to get more people to the area. Such development
invites degradation of other ecosystems contributing to the health of the reef, as well as
activities directly disturbing the reef, such as wave runners and environmentally unaware

© GVI – 2010 Page 6

tourists, increasing the pressure on marine resources. Consequently, effective monitoring
is becoming ever more important. By assessing the health of the marine environment, new
policies can be formulated and environmental degradation prevented if the appropriate
measures are taken to advocate long-term, sustainable ecotourism.

Punta Gruesa is located approximately 40km north of Mahahual and 12 km south of the
southern tip of the Sian Ka´an Biosphere. The area is, at present, relatively unpopulated
although many plots of land in the locality are currently in the hands of foreign investors to
eventually be sold or in the process of development.

This expedition is the first of GVI’s third year at Punta Gruesa. By using divers with
appropriate training, GVI has demonstrated how the local area can benefit from GVI’s
work. The data provided by large numbers of trained researchers will be extremely useful
for the decision makers for effective coastal zone management and provide a comparison
with data collected inside the Sian Ka´an Biosphere at Pez Maya.

© GVI – 2010 Page 7

2. Synoptic Monitoring Programme

2.1 Aim
The projects at Punta Gruesa and Pez Maya aim to identify species and their resilience to
environmental stressors. The projects also aim to ascertain areas of high species diversity,
areas of high algal mass, fish species and abundance.

2.2 Introduction

Benthic Cover

Caribbean reefs were once dominated by hard coral, with huge Acropora palmata stands
on the reef crests and Acropora cervicornis and Montastraea annularis dominating the fore
reef. Today, many reefs in the Caribbean have been overrun by macroalgae during a
‘phase shift’ which is thought to have been brought about by numerous factors including a
decrease in herbivory from fishing and other pressures, eutrophication from land-based
activities and disease (McClanahan & Muthiga, 1998).

One of the Caribbean’s key reef herbivores, the long-spined sea urchin Diadema
antillarum, suffered mass mortality during 1983-84, resulting in a reduction in number of
approximately 90% (Deloach, 1999). This has resulted in a large amount of grazing
pressure being removed, providing algae with an opportunity to increase in abundance.
Fishing pressures and the subsequent removal of herbivorous fish such as parrotfish has
further reduced grazers.

The main coral family in the Caribbean was once the Acroporidae which includes the
Acropora cervicornis and A. palmata. In the mid 1980’s this family suffered a massive
reduction in abundance, which can be clearly seen on many sites in the area by the rubble
of dead skeletons of the above species. This decline has subsequently been attributed to
both White Band Disease and natural factors, and has lead to A. palmata and A.
cervicornis being added to the US Endangered Species list as ‘threatened’ (NOAA, 2006).
The removal of the Acroporidae lead to a change in dominance of the lesser reef building
families Poritidae and Agaricidae and it had been found that sites across the Caribbean

© GVI – 2010 Page 8

have decreased in hard coral coverage by as much as 80% over the last 30 years
(Gardener et al., 2003). With the reduction in Acropora sp., the decimation of the Diadema
population and continued fishing pressures, algal species have been able to flourish and,
combined with increasing eutrophication, the shift to algal dominance has taken root.

Benthic transects record the abundance of all benthic species as well as looking at coral
health. The presence of coral on the reef is in itself an indicator of health, not only because
of the reefs’ current state, but also for its importance to fish populations (Spalding & Jarvis,
2002). Coral health is not only impacted by increased nutrients and algal growth, but by
other factors, both naturally occurring and anthropogenically introduced. A report produced
by the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre
(UNEP-WCMC) in 2004 stated that nearly 66% of Caribbean reefs are at risk from
anthropogenic activities, with over 40% of reefs at high to very high risk (UNEP-WCMC,
2006).
Naturally occurring events such as hurricanes can have devastating effects on coral reefs
in very short periods of time (Gardener et al., 2005). The impact of a hurricane can be felt
for some time after the initial strike due to increased sedimentation and nutrient load as
low turbidity and low nutrient levels are required for coral growth and health. An increase
in sedimentation has been found to increase mortality rates due to impeded
photosynthesis and increased energy required to remove sediment from colony surfaces
(Nuges & Roberts, 2003; Yentsch et al., 2002). Sediment levels can increase after storms
and hurricanes and also as a result of anthropogenic activities such as deforestation,
dredging and coastal construction. Hurricanes can also damage reefs through increased
wave action, which physically destroys more fragile species resulting in a phase shift of
dominant corals.

Different coral families have differing resistances to stress. However, with multiple
stressors present (sediment, removal of herbivores, disease) even the most hardy can
succumb to the pressure, resulting in loss of coral coverage (Kenyon et al., 2006; Yentsch
et al., 2002). The measurement of percentage coral mortality provides a way of
determining the state of health for the colony and these measures are taken during benthic
monitoring (Nuges & Roberts, 2003).

© GVI – 2010 Page 9

As a result of the phase shift on Caribbean reefs, the abundance and type of algae present
are of particular interest. It has been found that some macroalgae and cyanobacteria do
not simply occupy space on the reef, but can actively inhibit coral recruitment (Kuffner et
al., 2006). Of those algae present on the reef, two key genera are particularly observed,
Halimeda and Dictyota. Halimeda is an important genera due to its calcified structure
providing large amounts of calcium carbonate that contributes greatly to beaches and adds
to the structure of the reef (Littler et al., 1989). Dictyota spp. have been found to not only
inhibit the growth of Halimeda spp. through its epiphytic nature, but also certain species
have been found to be able to kill coral recruits in ways other than by simply shading the
light or taking the available space (Beach et al., 2003; Kuffner et al., 2006). Due to their
opportunistic nature, ability to deal with stress and mechanisms for out-competing coral for
space, algae has been able to maintain the coral-algae phase shift.

It is not confirmed what the major culprit for these phase shifts is, but it is believed that the
reversal of one or more causative factors could lead to a shift back to coral dominance
(Edmunds & Carpenter, 2001). In the Caribbean the decrease in coral coverage is
believed to be slowing (Gardener et al., 2003). Studies in Jamaica have found areas of
Diadema resurgence and within these areas, macroalgae coverage has been found to
have reduced and the number of young corals has increased (Edmunds & Carpenter,
2001).

Through monitoring the abundances of hard corals, algae and various other key benthic
species, as well as numbers of Diadema urchin encountered, we aim to determine not only
the current health of the local reefs but also to track any shifts in phase state over time.

Fish Populations

Large numbers of fish can be found on and around coral reefs. These fish are associated
with the reef for a variety of reasons. The structural complexity of coral reefs provides
shelter for fish, a quick refuge from predators during the day or a safe place to sleep at
night. Others rely on the reef directly for food, be they corallivores, such as Butterflyfish
(Chaetodontidae) or territorial herbivores like some Damselfish (Pomacentridae). The reef

© GVI – 2010 Page 10

also indirectly provides food for predatory fish, both those that are site attached like
Scorpion fish and pelagic predators such as Bar Jacks.

Fish surveys are focused on specific species (see Appendix B) that play an important role
in the ecology of the reef as herbivores, carnivores, commercially important fish or those
likely to be affected by human activities (AGRRA, 2000).

The most important herbivorous fish on the reef are the Parrotfish (Scaridae) and the
Surgeonfish (Acanthuridae) (AGRRA, 2000).

Parrotfish feed primarily on uncalcified algae and seagrasses. However, they are more
widely known for scraping algal turf from dead coral heads with their fused front teeth,
which form a beak like structure. Live coral is rarely eaten by parrotfish, with the exception
of the Stoplight Parrotfish Sparisoma viride, and the Queen Parrotfish, Scarus vetula,
which often feed on living Montastraea annularis colonies. Parrotfish also utilise the caves,
overhangs and crevices in the reef for protection at night from predators (Deloach, 1999).

Acanthuridae often feed in large mixed aggregations on the reef, descending upon
damselfish gardens and decimating them before moving on. Feeding continues all day,
with Blue Tangs and Doctorfish concentrating their activities on the reef itself, while the
Ocean Surgeonfish tend to forage over the sand. All surgeonfish play an important role in
limiting the growth of algae on the reef (Deloach, 1999).

The importance of other fish can be determined by commercial fishing pressure. Many
carnivores on the reef such as Groupers and Snappers are important predators and their
presence denotes a balanced food chain and low levels of fishing. Snappers feed
nocturnally on crustaceans and small fish and inhabit the reef in daylight hours. Groupers
occasionaly feed during the day, but mainly at dusk and dawn, preying on fish,
crustaceans and cephalopods (Deloach, 1999).

Unlike the groupers and snappers, Bar Jacks and Barracuda are pelagic predators and are
considered top-level carnivores feeding mainly on fish. They are also commercially

© GVI – 2010 Page 11

important fish and their removal has knock-on effects to the balance of the food chain
(Deloach, 1999).

Other predatory fish recorded during fish surveys and which are susceptible to fishing
pressures are the many Grunt species, often the most abundant fish on many Caribbean
reefs, which spend their days around the reef and feeding at night on sea grass beds, and
Hogfish, a favourite target for spear fishers, Spanish Hogfish and Triggerfish (Lee &
Dooley, 1998; Deloach, 1999).

Fish such as Butterflyfish and Angelfish are also commercially important, but for removal
for the aquarium trade rather than for commercial fishing. Butterflyfish are coralivores,
eating polyps from both hard corals and gorgonians and are considered to be a general
indicator of good coral health. Angelfish, once thought to belong to the same family as the
Butterflyfish, can also be coralivores, but have evolved over time to feed on sponges,
possibly to avoid increased competition for food (AGRRA, 2000 & Deloach, 1999).

All reef fish play an important role in maintaining the health and balance of a reef
community. Fishing typically removes larger predatory fish from the reef, which not only
alters the size structure of the reef fish communities, but with the reduction in predation
pressure, the abundance of fish further down the food chain is now determined through
competition for resources (AGRRA, 2000).

Although each fish is important, the removal of herbivores can have a considerable impact
on the health of the reef, particularly in an algal dominated state, which without their
presence has little chance of returning to coral dominance. Through the monitoring of
these fish and by estimating their size, the current condition of the reef at each site can be
assessed, any trends or changes can be tracked and improvements or deteriorations
determined.

Population abundances are determined to an extent by larval recruitment. The vast

majority of reef fish are pelagic spawners, releasing their gametes into the water column
where they are under the influence of water flow for several weeks. Other forms of
spawning include benthic egglaying, which is common among Damselfish and Triggerfish.

© GVI – 2010 Page 12

Despite the fertilised eggs being laid in nests and protected by diligent parents, once
hatched, even these larvae have a pelagic period where their distribution is also controlled
by water movement. During this time the fish larvae can travel hundreds of miles from
where they were originally spawned, occasionally, however, due to specific oceanographic
influences, larvae may be held close to their site of origin (Deloach, 1999).

For larvae which survive their pelagic existence, when they eventually settle, they may be
a considerable distance from where they were spawned. Recruitment of these larvae into
the populations of the different sites has been found to vary. There are several theories
about the difference in recruitment levels between sites, even those which are closely
situated. Some believe that each reef has a specific carrying capacity and recruitment is
based on existing adult abundances. Others believe that abundance of larval recruits is
determined after they have settled on a site when competition for resources such as food,
space and shelter begin. Rates of predation at specific sites will also play their part in the
survival of larval recruits. Recruitment has also been found to vary seasonally (Deloach,
1999).

The monitoring of juvenile fish concentrates on a few specific species. The presence and
number of larvae at different sites can be used as an indication of potential future
population size and diversity. Due to the extensive distribution of larvae, however,
numbers cannot be used to determine the spawning potential of a specific reef. The
removal of fish from a population as a result of fishing, however, may influence spawning
potential and affect larval recruitment on far away reefs. The removal of juvenile predators
through fishing may also alter the number of recruits surviving to spawn themselves
(AGRRA, 2000).

Together with the information collected about adult fish a balanced picture of the reef fish
communities at different sites can be obtained.

© GVI – 2010 Page 13

Physical Parameters

For the optimum health and growth of coral communities certain factors need to remain
relatively stable. Measurements of turbidity, water temperature, salinity, cloud cover, and
sea state are taken during survey dives. Temperature increases or decreases can
negatively influence coral health and survival. As different species have different optimum
temperature ranges, changes can also influence species richness. Corals also require
clear waters to allow for optimum photosynthesis. The turbidity of the water can be
influenced by weather, storms or high winds stirring up the sediment, or anthropogenic
activities such as deforestation and coastal construction. Increased turbidity reduces light
levels and can result in stress to the coral. Any increase in coral stress levels can result in
them becoming susceptible to disease or result in a bleaching event.

In the near future, GVI Punta Gruesa hopes to be able to use this data for analysis of
temporal and seasonal changes and try to correlate any coral health issues with sudden or
prolonged irregularities within these physical parameters.

2.3 Methodology and Training

The Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System Synoptic Monitoring Programme methodology

has been followed in the monitoring of our sites.

The sites that are monitored as part of the MBRS programme at GVI Mahahual were
chosen through discussions with ASK, the Programa de Manejo Integrado de Recursos
Costeros (MIRC, a subsidiary of UQROO) and discussions with local fishermen.

The established sites currently cover the immediate vicinity to Punta Gruesa but more
sites are looking to be added to the monitoring programme. Seven of these have been
monitored annually and two more were added in 2009, with a range covering 6.5 km of the
coast (see fig. 2-3-1, table 2-3-1).

© GVI – 2010 Page 14

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

© GVI – 2010 Page 15

 Location Site ID Depth Latitude Longitude
Los Bollos LB10 10m 19.02 21.8 087.33 54.8
Las Joyas LJ10 10m 19.01 53.0 087.34 07.6
Los Milagros LM10 10m 19.01 35.6 087.34 13.3
Costa Norte CN10 10m 19.01 31.0 087.34 16.5
Las Delicias LD10 10m 19.01 24.7 087.34 20.2
Las Palapas LP10 10m 19.01 55.8 087.34 05.0
Flor de Cañón FDC10 10m 19.02 04.4 087.34 03.4
Sol Naciente SN10 10m 19.00 36.0 087.34 33.0
Delicias
DP30 30m 19.91 24.7 087.34 20.2
Profundas
Los Gorditos LG25 25m 18.59 37.6 087.34 51.9

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

The eight sites at 10m are situated on the reef crest. In 2009 the deeper site “Delicias
Profundas” was replaced by “Los Gorditos”, which offers a wider sample area with spur
and groove formations.

The methods employed for the underwater visual census work are those outlined in the
MBRS manual (Almada-Villela et al., 2003), but to summarise, GVI use three separate
methods for buddy pairs:

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

Buddy method 2: Belt transect counts for coral reef fish
Buddy Method 3: Coral Rover and Fish Rover diver

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

Synoptic Monitoring Programme Training

The non-specialist volunteers recruited by GVI all undergo a rigorous training programme
prior to taking part in monitoring surveys. There are four expeditions a year, each identified
by a three digit code incorporating the year and phase period, i.e. the first phase of 2009

© GVI – 2010 Page 16

then becomes 091, the second 092 and so on. During each phase, volunteers are trained
in 5 week periods. During the first 3 weeks, a series of theory and practical sessions are
held to develop each volunteers knowledge and skills to a standard level, which is
necessary to obtain reliable data. Each volunteer focuses on the knowledge and skills
required to conduct either fish or coral MBRS SMP transects.

The lecture series builds on basic concepts of coral reef ecology and introduces issues
that are relevant to marine research monitoring.

Hazards of the Reef Classification and Taxonomy

Goals of the Station Monitoring Methods and Lecture Demonstration
Introduction to Coral Reefs Marine Plants and Algae
Introduction to Fish and Coral Coral Diseases
Introduction to Coral Identification Marine Turtles
Introduction to Fish Identification Development of the Quintana Roo Coast
Threats to the Reef General Oceanography
Symbiotic Relationship of Reefs, Seagrass and Mangroves
Invasive Lionfish

In addition to these lectures, volunteers take part in a number of coral or fish identification
workshops with staff members, before taking a computer exam that requires a minimum
95% score to pass.

Underwater training focuses first on developing the necessary dive skills, with an
emphasis on high levels of buoyancy control and diving safety procedures. Volunteers
then undergo a series of spots, covering either hard coral and benthic species
identification, as well as coral health monitoring techniques, or adult and juvenile fish
identification, size estimation exercises and practice transect work. Volunteers are tested
by experienced monitoring staff at each stage, with 100% required before being approved
for monitoring.

© GVI – 2010 Page 17

Physical Parameters

In addition to the dive survey reports collected at each site, measurements of the following
physical parameters are collected on each dive survey made at the permanent SMP
monitoring sites:

Sea state Salinity

Cloud Cover Bottom and surface temperature
Turbidity

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

Cloud density is recorded through a visual estimation of the cover above the site by
dividing the sky into eight and establishing how many sections have 60% or greater
coverage.

Turbidity is recorded using a Secchi disk marked in half metre intervals, which is lowered
into the water until no longer visible. The length of line is then established whilst the disk
is reeled in.

Salinity samples are taken at the surface of the survey site by the captain from the boat
and on the reef itself by one of the survey divers. The samples are tested using a
refractometer to obtain direct salinity measurements in parts per thousand (PPT).

Surface temperature is recorded using a handheld depth sounder with built in temperature
gauge. Bottom temperature is collected from a survey diver using a dive computer.

© GVI – 2010 Page 18

2.4 Results

Adult Fish

A total of 72 transects recording target adult and juvenile fish species were completed this
phase, eight transects at each of the 9 monitoring sites.
The numbers of transects and numbers of target adult fish per phase are listed in Table 3-
1-1. A total of 1264 individuals of 40 species were recorded in phase 101, an average of
17.56 per transect. The number of adults per transect recorded appears to gradually
increase across phases but with considerable variation (Fig. 3-1-1).

Transects Total adult Av. fish per No. of

No. sites
Phase per phase fish in phase transect species

081 5 30 391 13.03 31

082 7 54 649 12.02 33
083 7 49 280 5.79 27
084 7 40 321 8.03 38
091 7 39 334 8.56 29
092 7 48 843 17.56 36
093 9 72 809 11.24 38
094 9 72 1282 17.81 38
101 9 72 1264 17.56 40

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

© GVI – 2010 Page 19

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

Adult fish biomass is estimated using a weighting system for each size category and
species (A. Cameron, based on Fishbase data). Total biomass of all fish species in 101
was calculated at 4.66kg100m-2 (Fig.3-1-2), about equivalent to the MBRS regional
average. This value brings the average total biomass for our study area to 3.9 kg/100m2.
This is lower than that estimated from the previous phase’s data and more in keeping with
earlier estimates for our survey area.

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

Figure 3-1-3 displays percentage abundance for all adult fish families across phases.
Following previous trends, the Haemulidae was the most commonly recorded family in
phase 101, with 55.9% of the total number observed, an increase from previous phases.
The second most abundant family was the Acanthuridae (22%), also increased from 094,
followed by Scaridae and Serranidae. The Lutjanidae show an abrupt decrease from 094,
dropping below Scaridae and Serranidae, which have also decreased from the previous
phase. Sphyraenidae (Great barracuda) are rarely recorded in transects in any phase,
although they have been observed outside of transects (see Incidental Sightings).

© GVI – 2010 Page 20

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

In previous phases it was noted that the two dominant families, Haemulidae and
Acanthuridae, appeared to be showing a link in abundance: where one increased the other
decreased and vice versa. This pattern is not quite so clear this phase, where both families
increased. The relative abundance of other families, such as Pomacanthidae and
Pomacentridae, seems to increase and decrease across phases, although it is difficult to
be sure if there is a pattern.
Figure 3-1-5 shows the percentage abundance of fish families for each of the survey sites
monitored. The grunts (Haemulidae) were the most abundant family observed at most
sites, generally making up the largest proportion of recordings, except for LG25, LJ10 and
FDC10 where Acanthuridae were most abundant. This is similar to the findings from 093,
but in contrast to 094, where the Haemulidae dominated with the exception of LG25 (see
previous phase reports). Acanthuridae were the second most abundant family across most
sites. LG25 also differs from the other sites in that a greater proportion of recorded species
were from the other fish families.

© GVI – 2010 Page 21

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

© GVI – 2010 Page 22

© GVI – 2010 Page 23
 Figure 3-1-5 Percentage abundance of adult fish families per site during 101.

Juvenile Fish

Table 3-1-2 shows juvenile fish recorded across phases. A total of 437 juveniles were
recorded in the 72 transects completed, an average of 6.07 per transect.
Figure 3-1-6 shows a continuing decrease in the average numbers of target juvenile fish
seen per transect in 101, although this decrease is less pronounced that between 093 and
094. Overall across the two years of data collection juvenile numbers seem to be higher in
the second and third phases of the year than over the winter phases.

Total Transects in
Phase Phase Total fish in phase Fish per transect
081 30 302 10.06
082 54 815 14.98
083 49 606 12.35
084 40 308 7.70
091 39 224 5.74
092 48 862 17.96
093 72 2150 29.86
094 72 570 7.92
101 72 437 6.07

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

© GVI – 2010 Page 24

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

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

As with previous phases a total of five juvenile fish families were monitored on transects in
101. The most abundant family recorded at all sites was Labridae. Looking at fig. 3-1-7
there appears to be some link in percentage abundance between Labridae and
Pomacentridae juveniles, with one decreasing as the other increases.

© GVI – 2010 Page 25

Scaridae show an increase from 081 to 084, a decrease at 091 and then a gradual
increase again to 094 before decreasing again. Acanthuridae and Grammatidae juvenile
numbers on the reef remain low and relatively constant across all phases.

Figure 3-1-8 shows the percentage abundance of Acanthuridae and turf algae. The two
show some positive correlation (Pearson’s r = 0.81), however the apparent close link
during 2008 does not appear to be so close in 2009 and during 094 the percentage of
sightings of Acanthuridae decreased dramatically, only to increase again in 101. Between
091 and 093 the surgeon fish showed only a slight decrease in numbers before suddenly
dropping to a low in 094, whereas turf algae abundance declined abruptly in 092 then
recovered before remaining more or less constant during the last three phases.

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

Stenopus hispidus and Diadema antillarum

Surveys of banded coral shrimp (Stenopus hispidus) and long-spined sea urchins
(Diadema antillarum) taken during the juvenile fish transects record very few sightings
during transects: only 1 Diadema and no Stenopus were recorded this phase, giving a

© GVI – 2010 Page 26

density of 0.00046 Diadema per m2 in phase 101 and an average of 0.0008 across phases
and an average of 0.00348 Stenopus across all phases.

2.5 Discussion

Adult Fish

The number of adult fish recorded in 101 is slightly lower than in the previous phase: an
average of 17.5 per transect, compared to 17.8 the previous phase. However there
appears to be a gradual increase in numbers recorded over the surveying time in Punta
Gruesa, mostly consisting of the two dominant families, the Haemulidae and Acanthuridae,
which account for over 70% of all fish recorded.
In 093 it was noted that sites with a high abundance of Haemulidae tended to have a lower
population of Acanthuridae and vice versa, and that overall the abundance of one
inversely correlated to that of the other across phases. Generally, the Haemulidae are
dominant, with the exception of a few sites where Acanthuridae dominate. In phase 101
both families show an increase in percentage sightings from the previous phase (Figure 3-
1-2), deviating from the previous mirror effect. As these families occupy differing niches
within the coral reef ecosystem, it is unlikely that populations should have a direct effect on
one another. Acanthuridae are diurnally feeding reef grazers, feeding primarily on turf
algae on the reef and sand areas, while most Haemulidae are carnivores feeding
nocturnally on the sand flats and seagrass beds (Deloach, 2006). This habitat preference
may explain why both species are less frequently recorded on the deeper site LG than at
the shallower reef crest sites with easier access to feeding grounds. Grazers such as
Acanthuridae and Scaridae may also migrate locally between grazing grounds, thus
changing frequency between sites.
Given their preference for turf algae, it would be expected that there would be a close
correlation between the abundance of turf and the Acanthuridae. Such a correlation may
be considered to be indicative of a balanced equilibrium within the reef ecosystem;
however an increased abundance of Acanthuridae might also indicate a phase shift to an
algae-dominated reef. Although Acanthuridae abundance is relatively high, overall their
abundance does not appear to be increasing across the survey time. The algae-
surgeonfish correlation can be seen in the data collected in 2008, although there appears

© GVI – 2010 Page 27

to be a less exact correlation during 2009. From 093 to 094 surgeonfish numbers dropped
without a corresponding decrease in turf algae, but in 101 abundance of Acanthuridae has
returned to its previous level, so the decrease in 094 may have been an artifact of the
random surveying technique.
The Chaetodontidae and Pomacanthidae are considered to be good bio-indicators, their
close reliance on the reef allowing them to serve as indicators of reef health. The higher
abundance of Chaetodontidae and Pomacanthidae at LG may be a reflection of the
increased diversity of this site, which has a well developed spur-and-groove formation with
many large corals. Overall however, Chaetodontidae abundance appears to be gradually
decreasing over the surveying time. Pomacanthidae abundance varies widely between
phases, as do Pomacentridae (represented by the yellowtail damselfish Microspathodon
chrysurus), Scaridae, Serranidae and Carangidae, but these families seem to be relatively
constant in the long term. Balistidae and Monacanthidae appear to have decreased
rapidly from the start of 2008 but have since leveled off.

The adult fish biomass calculated for this phase is in keeping with the average for the
Caribbean, lower than that calculated for 094. It is thought that surveyor error in sizing
estimates may have biased the data for 094. Although training is rigorous and volunteers
must show consistently high accuracy in identification (100% on at least three separate
dives) and sizing estimates prior to beginning monitoring, there will always be some
degree of human error in data collection, particularly in size estimates done by eye.
Studies suggest that visual sizing by non-specialist divers will achieve 80% accuracy by
the third trial (Darwell and Duvall, 1996), and that this is not significantly different from
observations by experienced observers. Without recourse to expensive recording
equipment, error in this area is as minimised as practically possible.

Juvenile Fish

Juvenile fish numbers are expected to increase as coastal waters warm during the first six
months of the year. Figure 3-1-6 shows a cyclic pattern of increase and decrease in
recruitment throughout the two years of surveying. Phase 101 continued the decline noted
in 094, though less abrupt and beginning to level off, and it would be expected that

© GVI – 2010 Page 28

numbers will begin to increase again in the following phases. This patter in mostly driven
by abundance of S. partitus, T. bifasciatum and H. garnoti.
The negative correlation between the families Pomacentridae and Labridae is as a result
of spawning cycles. T. bifasciatum and H. garnoti usually spawn in the spring or early
summer with juveniles of the species recruiting to the dermal population in summer.
As with previous phases the third most commonly observed family of juvenile fish was the
Scaridae. This figure is in keeping with the same period the previous year and data
appears to suggest that parrotfish numbers are lowest during the first three months of the
year rising steadily until they peak in the final quarter.

Stenopus hispidus and Diadema antillarum

Diadema antillarum is a very important grazer of algae that was largely wiped out by
disease in the Caribbean during the 1980’s. The population has since been reported as
recovering, however at 0.0008 Diadema per m2 this does not appear to be the case in this
region. The Report Card for the Mesoamerican Reef by AGRRA suggests that a density of
<2.5 per m2 is considered critically low. Given its importance as a grazer, it would be
expected that its loss would result in an increase in algal cover, resulting in a phase shift
towards algal dominance. It is also possible that other herbivores such as surgeonfish or
parrotfish could at least partially compensate or become more important as grazers in the
region, depending on fishing pressure.
Banded coral shrimps are a widespread and abundant decapod sought after in the
aquarium trade for their bright colour and ease of maintenance. Their abundance would
also appear to be low in our region. However both of these species could also be are
frequently concealed under overhangs and in crevices during the day and thus may not
have been noticed by recorders. Anecdotal sightings suggest there may be more than our
survey finds.

Coral
 
101 once again saw more data collected than most previous phases at Punta Gruesa. The
favorable weather and the number of volunteers saw 45 coral transects undertaken at 9

© GVI – 2010 Page 29

sites. Full datasets were also collected again at the two recently discovered sites, SN and
LG, a deeper spur and groove site.
 

Point Intercept
 
A key objective of the coral monitoring programme at Punta Gruesa is the monitoring of
the relationship and coverage of coral and algae. Point Intercept monitoring in 101
calculated a coral coverage of 8.11%. This has shown a fluctuation from last phase of
approx 3.2%. This is not necessarily a true representation of a drop in coral cover but
simply a byproduct of the random sampling technique used in the MBRS methodology.
Figure 3-3-1 shows the changes in coral/algal coverage over the previous phases. Algal
coverage is much higher than coral but is in line with previous studies by GVI and other
researchers. Gardner et al. (2003) report a Caribbean average of 10%, although this is
down from over 50% cover in the 1970’s.
Algal cover has remained at roughly a constant from last phase at 63.9% maintaining the
decrease observed in phase 094 where algae percentage cover dropped by approximately
10 % from an average of 72% shown in the previous 3 phases.
 

 
Figure 3-3-1 Coral and Algal Cover at Punta Gruesa
 
Figure 3-3-1 shows the percentage coral and algal cover for each site. For the second
phase in a row LJ has the highest coral coverage showing 10.17%. This is a drop of

© GVI – 2010 Page 30

approximately 11% from last phase (21.2%) although from anecdotal evidence this is not a
true representation as general observations show that there has not been a drop in the
percentage cover of scleractinians at this sight. Once again LG, in general, had larger
colonies than the other sites. This could be because the deeper location protected the
corals from the destructive effects of Hurricane Dean in 2007 which damaged many large
corals on the reef crest.

This phase, LD has been shown to have the lowest coral cover. However, when looking
back over the previous phases data it looks as though this sight seems to have highly
variable coral cover. Its highest percentage cover was shown in phase 082 at 11.82%
whereas this phase, 101, it was shown to be 4.00%.

 
Figure 3-3-2 Coral/Algal Cover by Site 101
 
Of the sites located on the wall, LJ and CN have the highest coral coverage (10.17% and
11.00% respectively) however the range of coverage between the sites located on the wall
is relatively low. Excluding site LD as this is much lower than the others this phase it is
just 7.83 – 11.00%), indicating the similarity of environment.

Figure 3-3-3 shows the changes in coverage that have occurred over GVI’s time at Punta
Gruesa. The bold line indicates the average between all sites.

© GVI – 2010 Page 31

  

 
Figure 3-3-3 Coral and Algal changes by site 081-101
 
An interesting feature of the graph is the homogenisation of the coral cover in more recent
phases. During 081 the difference between the site with the highest coral cover (LJ,
17.83%) and the site with the lowest (LD, 6.67%), is larger than the range between the
same sites that were monitored in 093. This comparison excludes LG and SN which were
not monitored in 081 and would skew the results. The highest coral cover site in 093 is
again LJ (12.50%) but the other sites are all approximately 9% coral cover. When
comparing these to the phase 101 results, this pattern seems to continue with one
exception, LD, which as discussed earlier shows a coral cover of just 4.00%. Excluding
this result the subsequent range is just 3.17%. There is a slight deviation from this pattern
shown in 094 at LJ. This sight seemed to spike with the percentage cover rising to 21.7%
for just one phase and has since decreased back down to just 10.17%

© GVI – 2010 Page 32

  
 

Figure 3-3-4 Deviation from Average Percentage (081-094) of Common Corals in 101
 
This phase has again seen higher than average observations for Agaricia agaricites,
Monastraea faveolata, and Porites astreoides when compared with the 2008-2009
average coral percentage cover. Once again Sidastrea siderea has shown levels furthest
below this average. The changes can be explained by the addition of LG to monitoring
sites. Agaricia lamarcki, for example, is occasionally seen on the walls of our shallow
monitoring sites but not on the area which we monitor, however at LG with the deeper reef,
it is more likely to fall under a PI transect. Similarly the reduction in the percentage of
Siderastrea siderea is due to its lack of presence on the deeper reefs of LG, whereas on
the top of the wall (10m depth) the coral is still in high abundance.
 
Previous GVI phase reports have shown an inverse relationship between Dictyota spp.
and Halimeda spp. (GVI Mahahual 074). A study by Beach et al. (2003), on another reef
(Florida) with 72% algal cover concluded that Dictyota has a negative impact on other reef
biota by rapidly colonising free space and also growing as an epiphyte. Dictyota spp. limits
the amount of light and nutrients reaching the epiphytised organisms (in this case
Halimeda). In the data from Punta Gruesa there are some peaks and troughs with an
overall increase in cover from both algaes since 081. In 101 the level of Dictyota spp has
decreased for the first time in 3 phases. This seems to match the annual pattern exhibited
in Fig 3-3-5 below. The levels of Halimeda have also dropped this phase going against

© GVI – 2010 Page 33

the inverse relationship that is usually observed with these two species. This most likely
indicates a drop in the non-epiphitic form of Dictyota as this has limited affects on the
Halimeda (Beach et al 2003) and so would explain this observation.

 
Figure 3-3-5 Relationship between Dictyota and Halimeda
 

Coral Communities
 
Many more colonies were recorded in 094 than in any previous phase (Table 1). This is a
result of the higher number of transects and also the monitoring of LG which has a much
higher coral coverage, as discussed in the previous section. From looking at the Point
Intercept data (Fig 3-3-2) the coral cover at LJ was also much higher this phase pushing
this number higher.

However the increased number of colonies assessed has not been reflected in a
significant increase in the disease or predation.
Phase   081   082   083   084   091   092   093   094   101  
Colonies   410   558   523   517   542   554   767   831   684  
 
Table 3-3-1 Coral colonies monitored by CC at Punta Gruesa
 
The National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA) reported in July that 2009
was expected to develop into an El Niño year with warmer than normal water temperatures

© GVI – 2010 Page 34

to persist in the Caribbean region through the winter 2009-10 (NOAA, 2009). This has also
been reflected to date by a calmer than average hurricane season with no hurricanes
passing through the central Caribbean.

 
Figure 3-3-6 Bleaching Occurrence 081-101
 
Although bleaching was expected to occur during the summer of 2009, it was not until the
later autumn months of phase 094 that the levels rose. During this phase there were 395
bleaching occurrences. That is 210 more observations than in phase 093 and 154 more
than the corresponding phase for the previous year. From looking at the sea temperatures
recorded by NOAA in the Yucatan the sea temperature remained at approximately 30ºC
until late October early November (www.ndbc.noaa.gov). With the time lag due to the
monitoring schedule that could explain why the increase in bleaching was not observed
until 094. This could also be down to the fact that more coral colonies were measured this
phase than in the previous year (517 in 084 compared to 831 in 094). From incidental
reports from volunteers and staff there was a definite increase in bleaching, although only
5 were recorded as fully bleached. As expected, now that the sea temperatures have
again begun to decrease in phase 101, the levels of bleaching have subsided and the
majority of coral have shown a complete recovery. There are no recorded incidences of
full bleaching and only 7 of partial in the non Siderastrea siderea corals. This is just 12.3%
of the colonies surveyed.
 

© GVI – 2010 Page 35

Pale bleaching in Siderastrea siderea has been separated from the corals as it often
displays pale bleaching and would bias the results if it were included with the other pale
bleached corals.  

 
Figure 3-3-7 Bleaching Occurrence in all corals and excluding Siderastrea siderea
 
Including pale bleaching in Siderastrea siderea, 43% of corals showed some bleaching, a
4% decrease from the previous phase (Figure 3-3-6). Excluding the pale bleaching in
Siderastrea siderea shows more variation in the occurrence of bleaching (Figure 3-3-7).
During the first two phases of the year there is usually a fairly constant number of corals
displaying bleaching, and during the third phase when the water is the warmest the
numbers of bleached colonies tends to be the lowest. It is likely that the prolonged warm
spells experienced during the third phase of the year causes the bleaching of coral
colonies which are only monitored by volunteers during the final phase. From the data
shown in Fig 3-3-7, it looks as though this pattern is continuing again for what will become
the third year in a row.

Studies have recorded temperature increases of 1°C above average for a sustained period
(i.e. a month) to cause mass bleaching (Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999). This can also be
amplified by calm seas, allowing more photosynthetically active radiation to penetrate the
surface waters (Sheppard et al., 2009). This would explain the annual pattern that has
been observed here since 2008.
 
 

© GVI – 2010 Page 36

  
Figure 3-3-8 Disease Occurrence 081-101
 
Dark-spot disease remains the most common disease sighted. From looking at the
previous phases results it seems as though it is on a steady incline, with the exception of
phase 094 where there were an unusually low number of sightings.. . Dark-spot primarily
affects Siderastrea siderea (Humann & Deloach, 1992), which is the most common coral
on our reef and it explains the higher incidences of disease.
This was the first phase where all of the target diseases were recorded. Black-band, Red-
band, White Plague, Yellow-band and Dark-spot. Overall, the percentage of diseased
colonies remains low at 8.77% but this is a dramatic increase from the previous phase
which showed just 1.5%. The incidence of diseases was recorded over a wide variety of
coral genus. Acropora, Agaricia, Diploria, Meandrina, Montastraea, Porites and
Siderastrea were all affected.and in some genus, Montastraea in particular, multiple
species showed multiple diseases to be present.
 

© GVI – 2010 Page 37

  
Figure 3-3-9 Predation Occurrence 081-101
 
Figure 3-3-9 shows the different types of predation that occurred on the corals of Punta
Gruesa during each year. 101 saw six types of predation; sponge, gorgonian, fire coral,
tunicate, damselfish and parrotfish, with sponge predation being by far the most
numerous, as per previous phases. In general, very few corals show signs of predation
(7.16% in 101), with sponge and gorgonian predation the only types that have been
recorded every phase. As with disease occurrence, this phase has once again seen an
increase in the amount of predation observed. Even though 7.16% is still not a high figure,
it is an increase of 4.04% from 094s’ results.

Conclusions
 
At present the results of the last few phases suggest that the phase shift that has occurred
from a coral dominated to algal dominated reef has begun to subside. Even though the
high coral cover of the 1970’s has been replaced with a reef with approximately 10% coral
cover, and the reefs at Punta Gruesa are consistent with other reefs in the area (Gardner
at al., 2003). There has been little change in the coral and algal cover during GVI’s time at
Punta Gruesa. Longer term data sets will allow us to more accurately measure the
patterns and trends of the coral reef in correlation with changes in water temperatures, sea
conditions and weather patterns in general. There have been some small changes

© GVI – 2010 Page 38

observed though in the few phases that do look positive for the reef. The overall macro-
algal cover for the local area does seem to be declining gradually. Over the past three
phases the percentage cover has gone from 72.96% to 63.93% in phase 101. This could
just be a seasonal pattern as it has been shown before but it is still a promising sign of
improvement.

Fig 3-3-6 shows that the expectedly high bleaching occurrence observed in phase 094 has
reversed and the reefs have recovered. The sea temperatures dropped to approximately
25ºC giving the corals a chance to reincorporate the zooxanthellae. When comparing the
level of bleaching to that of phase 091 the level of bleaching seems to be back to the
expected level for this time of year. 091 showed 203 incidences of bleaching, in 101 there
were 190.

The apparent decrease in dark spot disease shown in 094 now looks as though it was an
anomalous result. According to Rosenberg et al (2002) the rise in sea temperature should
have caused an increase in the presence and spread of disease. This was not shown in
the results and so looks as though it was an error in the observations. The most likely
cause of this was the decrease in sightings of S. siderea as discussed in the 094 report.

The apparent high levels of Dark-spot disease are most likely linked to the high levels of
S. siderea shown on the reefs here at Punta Gruesa.. Dark spot disease, in this region,
has historically been seen mainly on this species (Humann & Deloach, 1992) and so is
therefore one of the more commonly observed diseases. The reason for the increase in
this disease is unclear and further studies are needed to identify its cause.

© GVI – 2010 Page 39

3. Incidental Sightings Programme
3.1 Introduction

GVI Mahahual has implemented an incidental sightings program since April 2004, due to
the high number of turtles and other megafauna species seen on dives in the area.
Species that make up the incidental sightings list are:
• Sharks and Rays
• Eels
• Turtles
• Marine Mammals
• Great Barracuda
• Lionfish

These groups are identified to species level where possible and added to the data
collected by the Ocean Biogeographic Information Systems Spatial Ecological Analysis of
Megavertebrate Populations (OBIS-SEAMAP) database. An interactive online archive for
marine mammal, seabird and turtle data, OBIS-SEAMAP aims to improve understanding
of the distribution and ecology of marine megafauna by quantifying global patterns of
biodiversity, undertaking comparative studies, and monitoring the status of and impacts on
threatened species.

3.2 Methodology

Each time an incidental sighting species is seen on a dive or snorkel it is identified, and the
date, time, location, depth it was seen at, and size are all recorded. The volunteers are
provided with a Megafauna presentation during science training, which aids in
identification of shark, ray and turtle species. All the completed dives are logged by GVI,
showing the total effort for each phase in comparison with the species recorded.

Previous Mahahual expeditions have recorded turtle nesting sites during the nesting
season. However in Punta Gruesa there are no nesting beaches so this programme has
been discontinued.

© GVI – 2010 Page 40

For the first time in 093 GVI Punta Gruesa began recording lionfish sightings. Over the
past decade the Pacific Lionfish (Pterois volitans) has established itself along the Atlantic
coast as a result of multiple releases (intentional or otherwise) from private aquaria. This
invasive species lacking in natural predators, has adapted well to the warm waters of the
Caribbean, and is currently spreading its geographical range along the Mesoamerican
coastline.

3.3 Results

A total of 248 incidental sightings (excluding S. barracuda and Lionfish) were recorded
during 291 site visits in 101. This is lower than the number of observations in the previous
phase

Rays were the most commonly observed members of the Sharks, rays and eels category
across the past five phases, with the Southern Stingray the most common of the rays
(Figure 4-3-1). After a steady increase in Southern Stingray observations during the first 3
phases of 2009, the highest recording being from phase 093 showing 140 Southern
stingray sightings, their abundance seemed to show a sudden and marked decrease.
Phase 101 has shown a slight increase in this number again with 57 observations. On
average one Southern stingray was recorded every 5 dives, with the highest frequency of
recordings being at the site LM10 (15 sightings) for the second phase in a row.

© GVI – 2010 Page 41

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

There was also a decrease in the number of turtle sightings in phase 101, with the biggest
drop being that of the Green turtle going from 4 sightings in 094 to 0 sightings in this last
phase, highlighted in fig 4-3-2. Despite the fact that overall less turtles were seen, there
was actually a small increase in the number of Hawksbill sightings going from 12 to 14.

© GVI – 2010 Page 42

 Fig 4-3-2 Turtle observations at Punta Gruesa

Figure 4-3-3 Moray eel sightings by phase

© GVI – 2010 Page 43

A total of twenty-six Moray Eels were recorded in 101 which is a significant decrease from
the previous phase. There was an decrease in sightings of each of the represented
species with the largest difference being that of the Spotted (16 less) and Green Morays
(11 less). This equates to a difference of 0.06 sightings per visit for the Spotted Moray and
0.04 for the Goldentail Moray sightings. (Figure 4-3-3).

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

Following on from phase 091, Sphyraena barracuda (Great Barracuda) sightings were
again recorded. A total of just 11 individuals were observed across all the sites, the lowest
observed figure since the recording began in 2009 (Figure 4-3-4).

© GVI – 2010 Page 44

 Fig 4-3-5 Number of Lionfish Sightings by Site (Phase 101)

During Phase 101 a total of 66 lionfish sightings were recorded. Fig 4-3-5 breaks this
down to the number of sightings observed at each dive site. LD had the largest number of
observations with 13 recordings, closely followed by LJ with 11.

3.4 Discussion

Incidental sightings of large marine creatures are often good indicators of a healthy
ecosystem. These species are highly mobile animals and therefore their movements
depend on a range of external factors.

In phase 101 a total of 291 site visits were undertaken during which incidental sightings
were recorded. This is the . However, with a total of 248 sightings there has been a
decrease in the number of observations. Through breaking down data to recordings per
site visit, a comparative analysis of incidental sightings numbers can be undertaken. The
number of snorkeling excursions into the lagoon was not recorded but is believed to be
relatively constant with that of previous phases.

© GVI – 2010 Page 45

Turtles
The number of turtle sightings has decreased for all species with the exception of the
Eretmochelys imbricate (Hawksbill), when compared to last phase, going from 12 to 14.
This could be attributed to the end of the Loggerhead and Green turtle breeding season,
May to October collectively, and is not necessarily an indication of a drop in population.
However, when comparing the number of Hawksbill sightings to that of 091 the number is
dramatically higher indicating that there has actually been an increase. This could be due
to a number of reasons: Firstly, the numbers of dives completed in that phase. Secondly,
mis-identification of species, although this seems less likely as the total number of turtle
sightings has increased from 4 in phase 091 to 14 in 101. This seems too high a change
to be mis-identification alone. The third possibility is that there has been an increase in the
population. Recent studies by J. Beggs et al 2007, shows that there has been up to an
eight fold increase in the number of Hawksbill nests in Barbados suggesting an increase in
numbers. This apparent rise in the Caribbean population is also backed up by the
attempts from Cuba to downgrade E. imbricate to Appendix II on the CITES list
(www.cites.org). This unfortunately was mainly to enable the reopening of the legal
Hawksbill shell trade route with Japan which has been closed since 1993. Appendix II
would allow this under regulations (CITES Regulation of Trade Article IV)

Elasmobranchs
Even though the substantial increase in southern stingray sightings of 093 has not been
repeated since, the overall numbers of observations do in fact point to an increase in the
local population. Calculated as numbers per site visit the figure is equal to 0.195. This is
an increase of 0.045 when compared to last phase.

The number of spotted eagle ray sightings has also been showing a steady decrease over
the last 3 phases. This is probably due to previous phases data not taking into account
multiple sightings of one individual. For example in 093, 10 sightings were at FDC and 10
were in the lagoon. Due to the habitual nature of Aetobatus narinari (Spotted Eagle Ray)
this is most likely to only have been two individuals. As these individuals mature their
range will increase and so the number of sightings would therefore decrease as they spent
more time off of the reef and so it is not necessarily a reduction in the population.

© GVI – 2010 Page 46

Barracuda
The sites dived around Punta Gruesa appear to support a healthy Sphyraena barracuda
population. An important apex predator alongside sharks, S.barracuda populations help to
maintain a healthy equilibrium within coral reef ecosystems. The reefs in the area are
subjected to low level fishing pressure from a group of six to ten spear fishermen. The
fishermen fish the reef on average once a week targeting Great barracuda alongside other
fish species. In addition to spearfishing, the coastline also plays host to sporadic game
fishing tournaments during which S. barracuda are one of the species caught.

Sphyraena barracuda is a circumtropical, diurnal species, hunting along coral reefs and
seagrass beds from just after sunrise until before sunset.

The figure of 128 Great Barracuda sightings in phase 093 represents a unit effort of 0.46
sightings per site visit compared with 0.85 for the previous phase. This equates to almost a
50% reduction in observations. Unfortunately this decrease in observations has continued
through phase 101 as well dropping to just 11 sightings or a unit effort of 0.04 with no large
schools observed. The reasons for such a significant decrease in S.barracuda sightings is
unclear but may be partially attributed to this lack of observations of schooling behaviour.
No more than 2 individuals were seen together this phase compared to two phases ago
where 15 individuals were observed in a group or even 092 where 20 S. barracuda were
seen together. It is not yet understood whether schooling of large members of the species
is subject to seasonal variation but hopefully this will become clear with the collection of
more data.

Lionfish
This last phase had seen the implementation of a more aggressive approach to lionfish
catching. Pterois volitans or the red lionfish is becoming more of a problem here in the
Yucatan.

© GVI – 2010 Page 47

After their arrival in the Caribbean in 1992 (Schofield 2009) the population of lionfish is
increasing exponentially, to the point where there are now densities being reported off of
the Bahamas of 300 individuals per hectare. The first reported sightings in the Sian Ka’an
Bioreserve were in May 2009 in the small fishing village of Punta Allen. Since then, there
have been numerous specimens reported in the reserve covering a range of habitats.
Seagrass beds, mangroves and reefs are all being affected by them.

There are 3 major problems with P. volitans. Firstly, due to their recent arrival into the
ecosystem there are no natural predators to keep their numbers in check. Although limited
reports have been made of predation by Mycteroperca tigris, Tiger Grouper, (Springer,
Verlas 2008) and anecdotal evidence provided by fishermen suggest that Epinephelus
striatus, Nassau Groupers, have been feeding with some regularity (Springer, Verlas
2008) there have been no documented cases of predation on a large scale. Secondly,
their reproductive strategy has meant that their population is flourishing, much to the
suspected detriment of other local species. They lay between 15 and 30,000 eggs over a
four day period every month throughout the year. Finally, P. volitans is a voracious
piscivore. There have been documented cases of over 21 individual specimens found in
the stomach of a 25cm organism. This combined with their hunting method - Lionfish use
their outstretched pectoral fins to slowly pursue and corner their prey (Allen & Eschmeyer
1973) - and the lack of experience of prey species with this behaviour, may increase their
predation efficiency (Whitfield et al 2002)

However, without knowledge of diet, dietary preferences and foraging requirements, the
impact of lionfish on prey populations and potential competitors for food cannot be
evaluated (Whitfield et al 2002)

During phase 101, P. volitans has been recorded on 10 sites with 11 individuals being
observed on a single dive at the site Las Joyas. The majority of observations have seen
the lionfish under overhangs or in swimthroughs with limited reports of some actively
hunting. The overall size range does vary but the average observed size is 16.7cm.
There were limited numbers of sightings showing sizes of 25cm upwards which
unfortunately does suggest that there are reproductively mature individuals in the
population and that therefore we should expect to a see an increase in the number of

© GVI – 2010 Page 48

sightings over the coming phases. Even though there were 66 separate recordings it is
not suspected that that is a true representation of the population as a lot of those
individuals will have been observed on more than one occasion. Due to the nature of the
diving here at Punta Gruesa it is not always feasible to catch every lionfish on sighting it,
although 11 were caught and killed during phase 101, and so multiple observations will
inevitably occur.

© GVI – 2010 Page 49

4. Coral Disease Monitoring Programme

4.1 Introduction

In phase 094 GVI Punta Gruesa continued with the coral disease, predation and bleaching
monitoring program implemented at the beginning of the previous phase. Globally coral
reefs are under severe pressure from a series of natural and anthropogenic impacts
including overfishing, disease, pollution, sedimentation, climate change and unsound
tourism practices. The prevalence of disease may be higher in corals stressed by human
impacts such as mechanical damage and pollution (Bryant et al., 1998). As sea
temperatures continue to rise and the seas become more polluted the occurrence of
disease is likely to become more frequent. Through an integrated coral disease, predation
and bleaching monitoring program, GVI Punta Gruesa hopes to observe how different
species of coral are affected by stressors and investigate whether recovery, if it occurs, is
driven by the coral species or physical parameters.

4.2 Methodology

Individual coral colonies affected by disease or bleaching were identified, tagged and
photographed at the site ‘Los Milagros’ (LM). Polystyrene markers attached to 1m lengths
of string provided a visual tag. The coral colony was photographed and physical
parameters recorded. A coral cover pole was used to provide scale and measure the
extent of disease/predation/bleaching. The colonies were then revisited at five-week
intervals and further photographs taken to monitor the stressors.

Four colonies were tagged on May 20th 2009 and photographs taken for further analysis.
LM1 = Diploria strigosa with encrusting gorgonian
LM2 = Siderastrea siderea affected by white plague.
LM3 = Siderastrea siderea with partial bleaching.
LM4 = Diploria strigosa affected by red band disease.

© GVI – 2010 Page 50

4.3 Results & Discussion

Encrusting Gorgonian (LM1)

The encrusting gorgonian Erythropodium caribaeorum is known to overgrow and kill
hermatypic corals. A colony of Diploria strigosa was identified at the site ´Los Milagros´ at
a depth of 10m with approximately 60% of the coral covered by a layer of E.caribaeorum.
In the three months since the coral colony was identified there has been little evidence of
the gorgonian traversing further across it’s surface. Furthermore, the remainder of the
coral colony appears to be healthy.

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

White Plague (LM2)

The identified colony of Siderastrea siderea has a diameter of 18cm and a height of 10cm.
It is located at a depth of 12m. When observed on May 20st 2009 it exhibited a thin
circular band of white plague approximately 8cm in diameter on the top of the colony.
Upon returning to the coral on June 3rd 2009 further observations indicated there had
been minimal if any progress regarding the spread of the disease. Recent photographs
undertaken on September 9th 2009 continue to show the band of white plague but no
further spread of the disease across the colony surface is visible.

Partial Bleaching (LM3)

The colony of Siderastrea siderea first identified and photographed on May 20th 2009
continues to exhibit areas of partial bleaching. During the six weeks following identification
the colony appeared to recover significantly with a return of zooxanthellae to much of the
coral. Further photographs taken on August 18th 2009 reveal a reversal of this trend with
much of the colony displaying new areas of bleaching.

© GVI – 2010 Page 51

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

Interestingly the edge of the bleached

colony in competition with another member
of the same species does not appear to
have suffered from extensive bleaching.
This suggests that in this particular case
20/05/2009 intra-species competition is not directly
2
impacting upon the location of bleaching
on the coral.

The reason for the return of large areas of

bleaching in what appeared to be a
recovering coral colony can perhaps be
attributed to a prolonged period of
unseasonably high water temperatures.

12/07/2009 During the six-week period between

2 12/07/2009 and 18/08/2009 sea
temperature recorded in the vicinity of the
colony remained constant at 30°C.

In recent weeks sea temperatures have

continued to remain high with large scale
bleaching predicted for coral reefs in the
area. Further assessments of the status of
the affected colony will be undertaken at
18/08/2009 the earliest available opportunity.

© GVI – 2010 Page 52

Over the coming phases the programme will continue to monitor the marked colonies LM1,
LM2 & LM3 while looking to tag and monitor further corals exhibiting signs of stress.
Through the ongoing identification and monitoring of coral disease and predation and the
early detection of coral bleaching GVI Punta Gruesa hopes to build up a better
understanding of the factors affecting differing coral colonies.

© GVI – 2010 Page 53

5. Community Work Programme

GVI is committed to working with the local communities, assisting them to guide
Mahahual´s development towards a sustainable future. For that, we center our activities in
two main aspects: English and Environmental Education.

GVI hopes to provide locals in Mahahual with the tools to develop the area beneficially for
themselves, their professions and needs, whilst protecting it for the future. Consequently,
during both the child and adult education programs, wherever possible an environmental
theme has been included within the structure of the lessons.

Volunteers appreciate the opportunity to participate in the teaching experience and are
happy to interact with and contribute directly to the community and children, either
teaching in a classroom or playing outdoors in addition to researching data.

The program is carried out in two main areas: English for adults and children in three
levels (basic, intermediate and advanced) during the afternoons; and Environmental
education for primary and secondary school during the mornings every Thursday.

5.1 English Language Programme

We continued using the same format we have established since 091 going only once a
week into town.

School year had started again when TEFL activities started for us, so activities went back
to the usual, attending every grade of primary school from 9:30 to 10:30 am, then
secondary school from 11:30 to 12:30 pm.

English lessons started at 3:00 pm for children only for an hour. Then two different
schedules for adults: 4:30 pm and 6:30 pm in the three different levels: basic, intermediate
and advanced.

© GVI – 2010 Page 54

Lessons in the evening are the most successful due to the working times of the majority of
the students, which are mainly taxi drivers, builders, waiters, masseuses, sales people and
secondary guys.

The 4:30 pm schedule hasn’t been as successful because of the amount of people that
can attend which are mainly housewives or children that can’t make it to the 3:00 pm
schedule.

This phase (094) had a much better attendance than last phase. Summer time was
complicated because schools are closed, and that made it more difficult to reach children
directly, so they showed up only if they read the posters and were able to remember every
week without having us to remind them every morning. It was complicated as well because
of the year season, there’s not that many cruise ships that part of the year so a big part of
Mahahual’s population goes somewhere else to work, or go back to their original places.

During 094 there were more cruise ships coming, that means that there’s a lot more
people around because they come all the way from Chetumal, Limones, Pedro Santos and
several other towns nearby, and generally, a considerably good amount of them want to
learn English, so attendance to lessons improves during cruise ships season.

Very important to mention as well that the apathy locals showed during 093 doesn’t seem
to be there that much anymore. Obviously all the previously positive circumstances just
mentioned helped. However, attendance improved a lot during this phase.

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

5.2 Environmental Education

This program takes place in the primary school every Thursday from 9:30 to 10:30am and,
in the secondary school from 11:30 to 12:30pm.

At the primary school the environmental education is given in English, while at secondary
school it’s given in Spanish. There’s always a little bit of English involved, but volunteers
are very keen in participating and helping out with the activities and/or games organized.

© GVI – 2010 Page 55

We all consider that the morning programs are the most challenging part of the day. Being
able to handle a big group of students that are not coming to lessons voluntarily, but buy
the end, we all know that they enjoy it a lot and always look forward seeing us next
Thursday!

5.3 Other Programmes and Activities

This phase we had the opportunity to reinforce our relationship with the community as a
whole, and specifically with the primary school. Volunteers were able to attest this when
our Expedition Coordinator was invited as jury of the Day of the Death shrines competition.
It was an awesome experience for them specially, because of the immense importance of
this tradition in Mexico. It happens absolutely everywhere, in every area, region, city or
town in the country. Every school, college or university despite the economical level of the
students will celebrate the Day of the Death on November the 2nd. Displays and
expressions of this are shown on the street, in the houses, churches, parks, even
museums, it can even be artistical exhibitions of National recognition and the like. It’s a
huge date. One of the main traditions is to go to the cemetery to leave flowers and food for
the their relatives that have passed away.

Other activity, that has happened several times is going out snorkelling with the secondary
guys! Almost every Thursday from 2:00 to 3:30 pm approximately. There’s not always a
lot of guys joining us on this activity but the ones who come enjoy themselves and always
want to do it again.

© GVI – 2010 Page 56

6. Marine Litter Monitoring Programme
6.1 Introduction

Phase 092 saw the beginning of the marine litter collection program at Punta Gruesa.
Marine litter is prevalent along the Caribbean coast and is not only unsightly but a health
hazard to marine life and humans alike. In order to collect more data on this issue a beach
clean program will be conducted every phase. This is part of a worldwide program and is
just one method of investigation to discover where marine litter originates from and which
materials are most common.

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

Objectives of the beach clean programme

• Quantified data and photographic evidence as to the extent of marine litter.
• Conservation of terrestrial and marine fauna threatened by litter.
• Improvement of beach aesthetics.

© GVI – 2010 Page 57

6.2 Methodology

Marine litter is collected weekly on a 200 metre stretch of beach north of base. The
transect is cleared one week prior to the commencement of the monitoring program, in
order that only a weekly amount of debris is recorded. Materials are collected from the
tidemark to the vegetation line to eliminate waste created by inland terrestrial sources.

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

• Fabric
• Glass
• Plastic
• Polystyrene
• Metal
• Natural material (modified)
• Medical waste
• Rubber
• Rope
• Other

© GVI – 2010 Page 58

6.3 Results

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

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

© GVI – 2010 Page 59

Fabric (0.32kg) Natural material (modified) (1.36kg)
Glass (7.97kg) Medical waste (0.2kg)
Plastic (49.52) Rubber (1.1kg)
Polystyrene (1.04kg) Rope (2.51kg)
Metal (1.29kg) Other (14.95kg)

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

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

The total amount of litter collected during phase 101 was the second highest yet at
49.52kg, according to fig. 7-3-3. However, in the past it has not always been possible to
collect the rubbish every week. This has meant that, in previous phases, full beach cleans
were conducted but the data was not used as the relating time frame was too long and so
would have been incomparable. To allow for this discrepancy, and to more accurately
compare this phases data to that of previous ones, fig. 7-3-1 shows the average amount of
litter collected each week per category excluding the weeks where the data was missing.
In almost every case it showed a decline in the weight collected from last phase, except for
the categories; medical waste, metal and other all of which showed a small increase.

© GVI – 2010 Page 60

This phases data seemed to be in line with that of 092 and 093 and so suggests that 094
saw an exceptionally high level of rubbish being collected.

As has been the case the case for the previous 3 phases, plastic again accounts for the
largest proportion of waste collected, being accountable for 61.7% of the total rubbish
collected during 101. (See fig. 7-3-2) with glass and other being the 2nd and 3rd largest.

6.4 Discussion

Punta Gruesa’s location on the Yucatan Peninsula means that it faces the Caribbean
Current. This is a circular current that, combined with the Loop current and the Yucatan
current, transports a significant amount of water northwest ward through the Caribbean
sea. The main source is from the equatorial Atlantic Ocean via the North Equitorial, North
Brazil and Guiana Currents. Due to the volume of water that is transported and both the
nature and origin of the said currents, it is possible that the litter being found is from quite
far afield. This could be compounded by the high shipping pressures, in particular the
cruise ships that pass through to Mahahual on a regular basis on average carrying approx
2-3,000 passengers. Other factors also include outflows from rivers and storm drains etc.
If this is the most common source for the marine debris then it is likely that weather
changes, which have an impact on both tidelines and sea turbulence, will have a direct
and noticeable effect on the amount of rubbish washed up.

As has been the case for the majority of monitors, plastics have again constituted the
largest volume of all the categories this phase, being responsible for 61.7% of the total
weight collected. See Fig 7-3-2. This could be due to its light weight making it easy to
transport and its robustness against degradation. The fact that the level of plastic found is
consistently high from pahse to phase, is a worrying trend as when plastics such as
Polythene, found in plastic bags, breakdown they form small plastic particles that can
contaminate the food web and be passed on through the trophic levels. Plastic debris can
act like a sponge for toxic chemicals soaking up compounds such as PCB’s and DDE (a

© GVI – 2010 Page 61

product from the breakdown of DDT). Once these are ingested into the food chain the
high concentrations will be spread from organism to organism until the levels become fatal.

When looking at the results, Polystyrene looks as though it only contributes to a very small
percentage of the litter collected, 1.3% of total weight (Fig 7-3-2), but in reality it accounts
for a large volume. As with the plastic this could be due to its resilience and light weight
making it easy to transport long distances.

Even though the data shows a large volume of rubbish being collected from a relatively
small section of beach, I feel that the results do not do justice to the actual problem at
hand. This is due to the seagrass bed situated alongside the monitoring area. As
discussed above it is possible that during times of increased wind and wave action the
volume of rubbish collected should show a marked increase. However this could be being
masked by the large quantity of Thalassia that also gets washed up in these more extreme
conditions burying the rubbish and hiding it from sight. In some areas the mound of dead
blades can be as much as 75cm deep.

© GVI – 2010 Page 62

7. Bird Monitoring Programme

A bird monitoring programme was initiated in April 2009 at GVI Punta Gruesa.

7.1 Objectives
• Develop a species list for the area

• Gain an idea of the abundance and diversity of bird species. Long-term bird data
gathered over a sustained period could highlight trends not noticeable to short-term
surveys.

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

identification skills. The birding project also provides a good opportunity to obtain a
better understanding of area diversity and the ecosystem as a whole.

7.2 Introduction
With regard to avi-fauna, Mexico, Central and South America can be divided into three
distinct regions separated by mountain ranges: the Pacific slope, the Interior and the
Atlantic slope. These regions can be further divided into other sub-zones, based on a
variety of habitats.
The Yucatan Peninsula lies on the Atlantic slope and is geographically very different from
the rest of Mexico: It is a low-level limestone shelf on the east coast extending north into
the Caribbean. The vegetation ranges from rainforest in the south to arid scrub
environments in the north. The coastlines are predominantly sandy beaches but also
include extensive networks of mangroves and lagoons, providing a wide variety of habitats
capable of supporting large resident populations of birds.

Due to the location of the Yucatan peninsula, its population of resident breeders is
significantly enlarged by seasonal migrants. There are four different types of migratory
birds: Winter visitors migrate south from North America during the winter (August to May).
Summer residents live and breed in Mexico but migrate to South America for the winter
months. Transient migrants are birds that breed in North America and migrate to South

© GVI – 2010 Page 63

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

Punta Gruesa is located near the town of Mahahual close to the Mexico/Belize border
between a network of mangrove lagoons and the Caribbean Sea. The local area contains
three key ecosystems; wetland, forest and marine environments.

7.3 Methodology

Bird monitoring surveys are conducted using a simple methodology based on the bird
monitoring program at Pez Maya. A member of staff and one or two volunteers monitor
one of four transects daily between 6 and 8am. There are four transects - Beach south,
Beach north, Road south and Road north. These transects were selected to cover a range
of habitats, including coastline, mangroves, secondary growth and scrub. The transects
are completed in approximately 30 minutes to allow for consistency of data. To reduce
duplication of data, recordings are taken in one direction only to avoid double-counting
where individuals are very active or numerous. Birds are identified using binoculars,
cameras and a range of bird identification books. Identification of calls is also possible for
a limited number of species for experienced observers. If the individual species cannot be
identified then birds are recorded to family level. Each survey records the following
information - location, date, start time, end time, name of recorders and number of each
species seen. Wind and cloud cover have also been recorded to allow consideration of
physical parameters.

7.4 Results

A total of 759 birds were recorded this phase. A total of 34 species were identified and
eight new species were added to the species list (see Appendix VI). The Brown Pelican
(Pelecanus occidentalis) was the most commonly sighted, followed by the Royal Tern
(Sterna maxima). The Great-tailed Grackle (Quiscalus mexicanus) was the third most
commonly sighted bird (Fig. 8-3-1).

© GVI – 2010 Page 64

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

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

© GVI – 2010 Page 65

Compared across phases the most commonly sighted species which maintain fairly
constant numbers throughout the survey period include the Magnificent Frigatebird, Brown
Pelican, Golden-fronted Woodpecker, Royal Tern and Tropical Mockingbird, which are
probably resident in the area. Great-tailed Grackles, having decreased greatly in
abundance across the first three phases of monitoring, now seem to be either stabilising or
regaining numbers. Other species are only observed with any frequency in particular
phases: In the summer phase (093) these include White-winged Doves and Swallows,
whilst in 101 there were a larger than usual number of Neotropic Cormorants. Species new
in 101 include Canivet’s Emerald Hummingbird, the Cattle Egret and the Little Blue Heron.

7.5 Discussion

Those species with relatively constant numbers across phases are most likely resident in
the area, with only minor fluctuations among those species inclined to local migration for
mating or feeding purposes. The Great-tailed Grackle is recognised as a scavenger often
associated with human habitation, less diverse habitats and form large roosting colonies. It
would therefore be expected to be present in proximity to the base and is often observed
around the organic waste disposal area. The reduction in frequency of sightings of
Grackles from 092 to 094 seems unusual, given that these birds are non-migratory and
territorial. However, sightings seem to be on the increase once more; which may indicate
that the resident population is stabilising.

Those species that are observed only at certain times of the year are most likely seasonal
migrants, either moving into the area temporarily or simply moving through the region on
their way to summer or wintering grounds elsewhere. These include the Sanderlings,
Plovers, similar species of shore-birds and Warblers, many of which are resident only
during the winter.

The methodology followed in the birding project is somewhat limited as to the reliability of
collecting hard data; it will be of most use in simply determining species presence or
absence. Limited visibility and the inexperience of the recorders can often make a positive

© GVI – 2010 Page 66

identification difficult and tends to bias observations towards those species that are easily
observed or heard, whether due to size or behavioural attributes, or those commonly seen
and recognised. It is also very easy to misidentify similar species, such as among the
Orioles and Warblers, although identification improved after staff attended a bird
identification course at the end of 092. However, as new staff members have started
birding since 094 this may affect the consistency of the data we have been collecting. For
example, there are more occurrences of birds identified only to family or genus level,
rather than to species, which may be due to the inexperience of data collectors.
Transects usually start shortly after first light and are limited to 30 mins due to time
constraints. During winter this means that transects must start at a later time. Weather
could potentially affect data collection: strong winds and rain make it more difficult to hear
or see the birds and may cause birds to alter behaviour. Taking note of physical
parameters during transects could assist in determining whether this is the case.

The beach and road transects are very close together and in some places the areas under
observation overlap, thus they have not been separated for purposes of comparison: the
habitat is probably not sufficiently different on this scale.

7.6 Conclusion

The birding project in Punta Gruesa is in its infancy, The species list being is constantly
expanding with each phase as observers become more adept at seeing and identifying
species and migrant species enter the area. As yet the data is insufficient to draw any
conclusions as to any patterns or trend; however some fluctuations in the populations of
common species can already be seen between the four phases of data collection. The
collection of data will continue in future years and we will try to further standardise
transects between phases and introduce the recording of physical parameters.

© GVI – 2010 Page 67

8. References
AGRRA (2000) Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment (AGRRA). The AGRRA Rapid
Assessment Protocol. http://www.agrra.org/method/methodhome.htm

Almada-Villela P.C., Sale P.F., Gold-Bouchot G. and Kjerfve B. (2003) Manual of Methods
for the MBRS Synoptic Monitoring System: Selected Methods for Monitoring Physical and
Biological Parameters for Use in the Mesoamerican Region. Mesoamerican Barrier Reef
Systems Project (MBRS). http://www.mbrs.org.bz.

Aronson R.B. and Precht W.F. (2001) White-band disease and the changing face of
Caribbean coral reefs.Hydrobiologia 460: 25-38.

Beach, K., Walters, L, Borgeas, H, Smith, C., Coyer, J., Vroom P. (2003) The impact of
Dictyota spp. on Halimeda populations of Conch Reef, Florida Keys. Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 297: 141-159.

Beggs, J.A., Horrocks, J.A., Kreuger, B.H. (2007) Increase in Hawksbill Sea Turtle
Eretmochelys imbricate Nesting in Barbados

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

Townsend,
et al. 1998. Participatory Coastal and Marine Management in Quintana Roo, Mexico.
Proceedings: International Tropical Marine Ecosystems Management Symposium
(ITMEMS). 9.

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

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

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

1310.

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

© GVI – 2010 Page 68

Edmunds, P.J. and Carpenter, R.C. (2001) Recovery of Diadema antillarum reduces
macroalgal cover and increases abundance of juvenile corals on a Caribbean reef. PNAS
98(9): 5067-5071.

Gardener, T.A., Cote, I.M., Gill, J.A., Grant, A., Watkinson, A.R. (2005) Hurricanes and
Caribbean Coral Reefs: Impacts, recovery patterns, and role in long-term decline.
Ecology 86(1): 174-184.

Gardener, T.A., Cote, I.M., Gill, J.A., Grant, A., Watkinson, A.R. (2003) Long-term region-
wide declines in Caribbean corals. Science 301: 958-960.

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

Bahamas. New World Publications.Star Standard Industries, Jacksonville, FL.  
 
Kenyon, J.C., Vroom, P.S., Page, K.N., Dunlap, M.J., Wilkinson C.B., Aeby, G.S. (2006)
Community Structure of Hermatypic Corals at French Frigate
Shoals,NorthwesternHawaiian Islands: Capacity for Resistance and Resilience to
Selective Stressors. Pacific Science 60(2): 153-175.

Kuffner, I.B., Walters, L.J., Becerro, M.A., Paul, V.J., Ritson-Williams, R. and Beach, K.S.
(2006) Inhibition of coral recruitment by macroalgae and cyanobacteria. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 323: 107-117

Lee, A.S. and Dooley, R.E. (1998) Coral Reefs of the Caribbean, The Bahamas and
Florida. Macmillan Education Ltd, London.

Littler, D.S, Littler, M.M, Bucher, K.E. and Norris, J.N. (1989) Marine Plants of the
Caribbean: A Field Guide from Florida to Brazil. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.

McClanahan, T.R. and Muthiga, N.A. (1998) An ecological shift in a remote coral atoll of
Belize over 25 years. Environmental Conservation 25: 122-130.

© GVI – 2010 Page 69

NOAA, 2006.NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected
resources.http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/

NOAA, 2009. [Online]. Available at:

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

Nugues, M.M, and Roberts, C.M. (2003) Partial mortality in massive reef corals as an
indicator of sediment stress on coral reefs. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46: 314-323.

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

Environmental Microbiology 4(6), 318-326

Spalding, M.D. and Jarvis, G.E. (2002). The impact of the 1998 coral mortality on reef
fish communities in the Seychelles. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44: 309-321.

UNEP-WCMC (2006). In the front line: shoreline protection and other ecosystem services
from mangroves and coral reefs. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.

Yentsch, C.S., Yentsch, C.M., Cullen, J.J., Lapointe, B., Phinney, D.A., Yentsch, S.W.
(2002) Sunlight and Water Transparency: cornerstones in coral research. Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 268: 171-183.

© GVI – 2010 Page 70

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 71

The first diver also notes any cause of mortality including diseases and/or predation and
any bleached tissue present. The diseases are characterised using the following ten
categories:

Black band disease Red band disease

White band disease Hyperplasm and Neoplasm (irregular growths)
White plague Predation and type
Yellow blotch disease Bleaching and type
Dark spot disease Unknown

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

are also recorded. Areas of mortality (old and recent), disease, predation and bleaching
are summed to provide an estimate of unhealthy coral. This final value will be used with
GIS software and future reporting.

The second diver measures the percentage cover of sessile organisms and substrate
along the 30m transect, recording the nature of the substrate or organism directly every
25cm along the transect. Organisms are classified into the following groups:

Coralline algae - crusts or finely branched algae that are hard (calcareous) and extend no
more than 2cm above the substratum
Turf algae - may look fleshy and/or filamentous but do not rise more than 1cm above the
substrate
Macroalgae - include fleshy and calcareous algae whose fronds are projected more than
1cm above the substrate. Three of these are further classified into additional groups which
include Halimeda, Dictyota, and Lobophora
Gorgonians
Hermatypic corals - to species level, where possible
Bare rock, sand and rubble
Any other sessile organisms e.g. sponges, tunicates, zoanthids, hydroids and crinoids.
Where possible, these are recorded to order or family.

© GVI – 2010 Page 72

Buddy method 2: Belt transect counts for coral reef fish

At each monitoring site 8 replicate 30m transects lines are deployed randomly within 100m
of the GPS point. The transect line is laid just above the reef surface at a constant depth,
usually perpendicular to the reef slope. The first diver is responsible for swimming slowly
along the transect line identifying, counting and estimating the sizes of specific indicator
fish species in their adult phase. The diver visually estimates a two metre by two metre
‘corridor’ and carries a one meter T-bar divided into 10cm graduations to aid the accuracy
of the size estimation of the fish identified. The fish are assigned to the following size
categories:

0-5cm 20-30cm
5-10cm 30-40cm
10-20cm >40cm (with size specified)

The buddy pair then waits for three minutes at a short distance from the end of the
transect line before proceeding. This allows juvenile fish to return to their original positions
before they were potentially scared off by the divers during the adult transect. The second
diver swims slowly back along the transect surveying a one metre by one metre ‘corridor’
and identifying and counting the presence of newly settled fish of the target species. In
addition, it is also this diver’s responsibility to identify and count the Banded Shrimp,
Stenopus hispidus. This is a collaborative effort with UNAM to track this species as their
population is slowly dwindling due to their direct removal for the aquarium trade. The
juvenile diver also counts any Diadema antillarum individuals found on their transects.
This is aimed at tracking the slow come back of these urchins.

Buddy Method 3: Coral & Fish Rover divers

At each monitoring site the third buddy pair completes a thirty minute survey of the site in
an expanding square pattern, with one diver recording all adult fish species observed. The
approximate density of each fish species is categorised using the following numerations:

© GVI – 2010 Page 73

Single (1 fish)
Few (2-10 fish)
Many (11-100 fish)
Abundant (>100 fish)

The second diver swims along side the Fish Rover diver and records, to species level, all
coral communities observed, regardless of size. The approximate density of each coral
species is then categorised using similar ranges to those for fish:

Single (1 community)
Few (2-10 communities)
Many (11-50 communities)
Abundant (>50 communities)

Analyzing the rover data gives us a broader view of additional organisms that may
constitute the reef site but that may not be represented from the randomly placed transect
lies. In the case of fish data, the rover data aids in collecting population size information of
target species that may keep away from a transect line due to the intimidating and possibly
invasive nature of unnatural objects and divers on the reef.

© GVI – 2010 Page 74

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

Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Common Name

Acanthurus coeruleus, Blue Tang Scarus guacamaia Rainbow Parrotfish
Acanthurus bahianus, Ocean Surgeonfish Scarus vetula Queen Parrotfish
Acanthurus chirurgus, Doctorfish Sparisoma viride Stoplight Parrotfish
Chaetodon striatus, Banded Butterflyfish Scarus taeniopterus Princess Parrotfish
Chaetodon capistratus, Four Eye Butterflyfish Scarus iserti Striped Parrotfish
Chaetodon ocellatus, Spotfin Butterflyfish Sparisoma aurofrenatum Redband Parrotfish
Chaetodon aculeatus, Longsnout Butterflyfish Sparisoma chrysopterum Redtail Parrotfish
Haemulon flavolineatum French Grunt Sparisoma rubripinne Yellowtail Parrotfish
Haemulon striatum Striped Grunt Sparisoma atomarium Greenblotch Parrotfish
Haemulon plumierii White Grunt Sparisoma radians Bucktooth Parrotfish
Haemulon sciurus Bluestriped Grunt Epinephelus itajara Goliath Grouper
Haemulon carbonarium Caesar Grunt Epinephelus striatus Nassau Grouper
Haemulon chrysargyreum Smallmouth Grunt Mycteroperca venenosa Yellowfin Grouper
Haemulon aurolineatum Tomtate Mycteroperca bonaci Black Grouper
Haemulon melanurum Cottonwick Mycteroperca tigris Tiger Grouper
Haemulon macrostomum Spanish Grunt Mycteroperca interstitialis Yellowmouth Grouper
Haemulon parra Sailor’s Choice Epinephelus guttatus Red Hind
Haemulon album White Margate Epinephelus adscensionis Rock Hind
Anisotremus virginicus Porkfish Cephalopholis cruentatus Graysby
Anisotremus surinamensis Black Margate Cephalopholis fulvus Coney
Lutjanus analis Mutton Snapper Balistes vetula Queen Triggerfish
Lutjanus griseus Gray Snapper Balistes capriscus Gray Triggerfish
Lutjanus cyanopterus Cubera Snapper Canthidermis sufflamen Ocean Triggerfish
Lutjanus jocu Dog Snapper Xanithichthys ringens Sargassum Triggerfish
Lutjanus mahogoni Mahaogany Snapper Melichthys niger Black Durgon
Lutjanus apodus Schoolmaster Aluterus scriptus Scrawled Filefish
Lutjanus synagris Lane Snapper Cantherhines pullus Orangespotted Filefish
Ocyurus chrysurus Yellowtail Snapper Cantherhines macrocerus Whitespotted Filefish
Holacanthus ciliaris Queen Angelfish Bodianus rufus Spanish Hogfish
Pomacanthus paru French Angelfish Lachnolaimus maximus Hogfish
Pomacanthus arcuatus Grey Angelfish Caranx rubber Bar Jack
Holacanthus tricolour Rock Beauty Microspathodon chrysurus Yellowtail Damselfish
Scarus coeruleus Blue Parrotfish Sphyraena barracuda Great Barracuda
© GVI – 2010 Page 75
Scarus coelestinus Midnight Parrotfish
Appendix III - Juvenile Fish Indicator Species List
The subsequent list specifies the juvenile fish species and their maximum target length
that are recorded during monitoring dives

Scientific Name Common Name Max. target

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

© GVI – 2010 Page 76

 Appendix IV - Coral Species List
Family Genus Species Family Genus Species
Acroporidae Acropora cervicornis Meandrinidae Dendrogyra cylindrus
Acroporidae Acropora Palmata Meandrinidae Dichocoenia stokesii
Acroporidae Acropora prolifera Meandrinidae Meandrina meandrites
Agariciidae Agaricia agaricites Milliporidae Millepora alcicornis
Agariciidae Agaricia Fragilis Milliporidae Millepora complanata
Agariciidae Agaricia grahamae Mussidae Isophyllastrea rigida
Agariciidae Agaricia lamarcki Mussidae Isophyllia sinuosa
Agariciidae Agaricia tenuifolia Mussidae Mussa angulosa
Agariciidae Agaricia Undata Mussidae Mycetophyllia aliciae
Agariciidae Helioceris cucullata Mussidae Mycetophyllia ferox
Antipatharia Cirrhipathes Leutkeni Mussidae Mycetophyllia lamarckiana
Astrocoeniidae Stephanocoenia intersepts Mussidae Mycetophyllia Reís
Caryophylliidae Eusmilia fastigiana Mussidae Scolymia sp.
Faviidae Colpophyllia Natans Pocilloporidae Madracis decactis
Faviidae Diploria clivosa Pocilloporidae Madracis formosa
Faviidae Diploria labrynthiformis Pocilloporidae Madracis mirabilis
Faviidae Diploria strigosa Pocilloporidae Madracis pharensis
Faviidae Favia Fragum Poritidae Porites astreoides
Faviidae Manicina areolata Poritidae Porites divaricata
Faviidae Montastraea annularis Poritidae Porites furcata
Faviidae Montastraea cavernosa Poritidae Porites porites
Faviidae Montastraea faveolata Siderastridae Siderastrea radians
Faviidae Montastraea franksi Siderastridae Siderastrea sidereal
Faviidae Solenastrea bournoni Stylasteridae Stylaster roseus
Faviidae Solenastrea hyades

© GVI – 2010 Page 77

Appendix V - Fish Species List

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

Family Genus Species Common Names

Acanthuridae Acanthurus Bahianus Ocean surgeonfish
Acanthuridae Acanthurus Chirurgus Doctorfish
Acanthuridae Acanthurus Coeruleus Blue tang
Atherinidae, Clupeidae,
Engraulididae Silversides, Herrings, Anchovies
Aulostomidae Aulostomus Maculates Trumpetfish
Balistidae Balistes Capriscus Gray triggerfish
Balistidae Balistes Vetula Queen triggerfish
Balistidae Canthidermis Sufflamen Ocean triggerfish
Balistidae Melichthys Niger Black durgon
Balistidae Xanithichthys Ringens Sargassum triggerfish
Bothidae Bothus Lunatus Peacock flounder
Carangidae Caranx Bartholomaei Yellow jack
Carangidae Caranx Crysos Blue runner
Carangidae Caranx Ruber Bar jack
Carangidae Trachinotus Falcatus Permit
Centropomidae Centropomus Undecimalis Common snook
Chaenopsidae Lucayablennius Zingaro Arrow blenny
Chaetodontidae Chaetodon Aculeatus Longsnout butterflyfish
Chaetodontidae Chaetodon Capistratus Foureye butterflyfish
Chaetodontidae Chaetodon Ocellatus Spotfin butterflyfish
Chaetodontidae Chaetodon Sedentarius Reef butterflyfish
Chaetodontidae Chaetodon Striatus Banded butterflyfish
Cirrhitidae Amblycirrhitus Pinos Red spotted hawkfish
Congridae Heteroconger Longissimus Brown garden eel
Dasyatidae Dasyatis Americana Southern stingray

© GVI – 2010 Page 78

Diodontidae Diodon Holocanthus Balloonfish
Elopidae Megalops Atlanticus Tarpon
Gobiidae Coryphopterus Dicrus Colon Goby
Gobiidae Coryphopterus Eidolon Palid Goby
Gobiidae Coryphopterus Glaucofraenum Bridled goby
Gobiidae Coryphopterus Lipernes Peppermint goby
Gobiidae Coryphopterus personatus/hyalinus Masked/glass goby
Gobiidae Gnatholepis Thompsoni Goldspot goby
Gobiidae Gobiosoma Oceanops Neon goby.
Gobiidae Gobiosoma Prochilos Broadstripe goby
Grammatidae Gramma Loreto Fairy basslet
Grammatidae Gymnothorax Funebris Green moray
Grammatidae Gymnothorax Moringa Spotted moray
Haemulidae Anisotremus Virginicus Porkfish
Haemulidae Haemulon Album White margate
Haemulidae Haemulon Aurolineatum Tomtate
Haemulidae Haemulon Carbonarium Ceaser Grunt
Haemulidae Haemulon Flavolineatum French grunt
Haemulidae Haemulon Macrostomum Spanish grunt
Haemulidae Haemulon Plumierii White grunt
Haemulidae Haemulon Sciurus Bluestriped grunt
Haemulidae Haemulon Striatum Striped grunt
Haemulidae Anisotremus Surinamensis Black margate
Haemulidae Haemulon Parra Sailor’s choice
Holocentridae Holocentrus Adscensionis Squirrelfish
Holocentridae Holocentrus Rufus Longspine squirrelfish
Holocentridae Myripristis Jacobus Blackbar soldierfish
Holocentridae Neoniphon Marianus Longjaw squirrelfish
Holocentridae Sargocentron Bullisi Deepwater squirrelfish
Holocentridae Sargocentron Coruscum Reef squirrelfish
Holocentridae Sargocentron Vexillarium Dusky squirrelfish
Kyphosidae Kyphosus sectatrix/incisor Chub
Labridae Bodianus Rufus Spanish hogfish

© GVI – 2010 Page 79

Labridae Clepticus Parrae Creole wrasse
Labridae Halichoeres Bivittatus Slipperydick
Labridae Halichoeres Garnoti Yellowhead wrasse
Labridae Halichoeres Maculipinna Clown wrasse
Labridae Halichoeres Pictus Rainbow wrasse
Labridae Halichoeres Poeyi Blackear wrasse
Labridae Halichoeres Radiatus Puddingwife wrasse
Labridae Lachnolaimus Maximus Hogfish
Labridae Thalassoma Bifasciatum Bluehead wrasse
Labridae Xyrichtys Martinicensis Rosy razorfish
Labridae Xyrichtys Novacula Pearly razorfish
Labrisomidae Malacoctenus Triangulatus Saddled blenny
Lutjanidae Lutjanus Analis Mutton snapper
Lutjanidae Lutjanus Apodus Schoolmaster snapper
Lutjanidae Lutjanus Cyanopterus Cubera snapper
Lutjanidae Lutjanus Griseus Grey snapper
Lutjanidae Lutjanus Jocu Dog snapper
Lutjanidae Lutjanus Mahogoni Maghogony snapper
Lutjanidae Lutjanus Synagris Lane snapper
Lutjanidae Ocyurus Chrysurus Yellowtailed snapper
Malacanthidae Malacanthus Plumieri Sand tilefish
Syngnathidae Micrognathus ensenadae Harlequin pipefish
Monacanthidae Aluterus Scriptus Scrawled filefish
Monacanthidae Cantherhines Macrocerus White spotted filefish
Monacanthidae Cantherhines Pullus Orange spotted filefish
Mullidae Mulloidichthys Martinicus Yellow goatfish
Mullidae Pseudupeneus Maculates Spotted goatfish
Myliobatidae Aetobatus Narinari Spotted eagle ray
Opistognathidae Opistognathus Aurifrons Yellowhead jawfish
Ostraciidae Acanthostracion Quadricornis Scrawled cowfish
Ostraciidae Lactophrys Bicaudalis Spotted trunkfish
Ostraciidae Lactophrys Triqueter Smooth trunkfish
Pempheridae Pempheris Schomburgki Glassy sweeper

© GVI – 2010 Page 80

Pomacanthidae Holacanthus Ciliaris Queen angelfish
Pomacanthidae Holacanthus Tricolour Rockbeauty
Pomacanthidae Pomacanthus Arcuatus Grey angelfish
Pomacanthidae Pomacanthus Paru French angelfish
Pomacanthidae Stegastes Leucostictus Beaugregory
Pomacentridae Abudefduf Saxatilis Seargant major
Pomacentridae Chromis Cyanea Blue chromis
Pomacentridae Chromis Enchrysurus Yellowtail reef fish
Pomacentridae Chromis Insolata Sunshinefish
Pomacentridae Chromis Multilineata Brown chromis
Pomacentridae Microspathodon Chrysurus Yellowtailed damsel fish
Pomacentridae Stegastes Adustus Dusky damselfish
Pomacentridae Stegastes Diencaeus Longfin damselfish
Pomacentridae Stegastes Leucostictus Beaugregory
Pomacentridae Stegastes Partitus Bicolour damselfish
Pomacentridae Stegastes Planifrons Threespot damselfish
Pomacentridae Stegastes Variabilis Cocoa damselfish
Scaridae Scarus Coelestinus Midnight parrotfish
Scaridae Scarus Coeruleus Blue parrotfish
Scaridae Scarus Guacamaia Rainbow parrotfish
Scaridae Scarus Iserti Striped parrotfish
Scaridae Scarus Taeniopterus Princess parrotfish
Scaridae Scarus Vetula Queen parrotfish
Scaridae Sparisoma Atomarium Greenblotch parrotfish
Scaridae Sparisoma Aurofrenatum Redband parrotfish
Scaridae Sparisoma Chrysopterum Redtail parrotfish
Scaridae Sparisoma Radians Bucktooth parrotfish
Scaridae Sparisoma Rubripinne Yellowtail parrotfish
Scaridae Sparisoma Viride Stoplight parrotfish
Sciaenidae Equetus Lanceolatus Jackknife fish
Sciaenidae Equetus Punctatus Spotted drum
Sciaenidae Pareques Acuminatus Highhat
Scombridae Scomberomorus Maculates Spanish mackerel

© GVI – 2010 Page 81

Scombridae Scomberomorus Regalis Cero
Scorpaenidae Scorpaena Plumieri Spotted scorpionfish
Serranidae Cephalopholis Cruentatus Graysby
Serranidae Cephalopholis Fulvus Coney
Serranidae Epinephelus Adscensionis Rockhind
Serranidae Epinephelus Guttatus Red hind grouper
Serranidae Epinephelus Itajara Goliath grouper
Serranidae Epinephelus Striatus Nassau grouper
Serranidae Hypoplectrus Aberrans Yellowbelly hamlet
Serranidae Hypoplectrus Chlorurus Yellowtail hamlet
Serranidae Hypoplectrus Guttavarius Shy hamlet
Serranidae Hypoplectrus Indigo Indigo hamlet
Serranidae Hypoplectrus Nigricans Black hamlet
Serranidae Hypoplectrus Puella Barred hamlet
Serranidae Hypoplectrus Unicolor Butter hamlet
Serranidae Liopropoma Rubre Peppermint basslet
Serranidae Mycteroperca Bonaci Black grouper
Serranidae Mycteroperca Interstitialis Yellowmouth grouper
Serranidae Mycteroperca Tigris Tiger grouper
Serranidae Mycteroperca Venenosa Yellowfin grouper
Serranidae Paranthias Furcifer Creolefish
Serranidae Rypticus Saponaceus Greater soapfish
Serranidae Serranus Tabacarius Tobaccofish
Serranidae Serranus Tigrinus Harlequin bass
Serranidae Serranus Tortugarum Chalk bass
Sparidae Calamus Calamos Saucereyed porgy
Sphyraenidae Sphyraena Barracuda Great barracuda
Synodontidae Synodus Intermedius Sand diver
Tetraodontidae Canthigaster Rostrata Sharpnosed puffer
Tetraodontidae Sphoeroides Splengleri Bandtail puffer
Torpedinidae Narcine Brasiliensis Lesser electric ray
Urolophidae Urolophus Jamaicensis Yellowstingray

© GVI – 2010 Page 82

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

Species 092 093 094

Altamira Oriole 2
Black Vulture 2 1 8
Black-Bellied Plover 6 2 1
Brown Pelican 46 13 56
Common Black Hawk 4 1 3
Dusky capped flycatcher 3 5 3
Golden Fronted
54 60 26
Woodpecker
Great Blue Heron 14
Great Egret 3
Great Kiskadee 6 3
Great Tailed Grackle 463 303 47
Green Heron 2 1
Green Jay 1 0 0
Green Kingfisher 2
Grey Kingbird 1
Laughing Falcon 3 2
Laughing Gull 2 1
Least Tern 2
Lineated Woodpecker 6 12 4
Magnificent Frigate 83 29 64
Mangrove vireo 1 0
Neotropic Cormorant 1
Osprey 2 0 11
Palm Warbler 19
Plain Chachalaca 4 0 0
Royal Tern 25 14 38
Ruddy Ground Dove 1 0 0
Sanderling 4 32
Semi Palmated plover 36
Snowy Egret 11
Social Flycatcher 2 0
Tropical Mockingbird 22 13 12
Turkey Vulture 2 1 1
White Ibis 1 0 0
White winged dove 2 57 1
Wilson's Plover 2
Yellow throated Warbler 7 0 11
Yellow Warbler 4
Yellow-backed Oriole 11 0 1

No. Species 20 20 33
No. New Species 20 7 12

© GVI – 2010 Page 83

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

Family / genus 092 093 094

Egret sp. 4 0 5
Cormorant sp. 4 2 3
Flycatcher sp. 10 3 4
Kingbird sp. 8 2
Swallow sp. 8 80 22
Dove sp. 1 0 0
Oriole sp. 1 0 2

© GVI – 2010 Page 84