Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation http://archive.org/details/environmentalstu02glad TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CHAPTER I CHAPTER II CHAPTER III CHAPTER IV CHAPTER V CHAPTER VI CHAPTER VII CHAPTER VIII CHAPTER IX CHAPTER X INTRODUCTION W.B. Gladfelter & E.H. Gladfelter REEF DEVELOPMENT AND SEDIMENTARY PROCESSES D.K. Hubbard GROWTH AND TOTAL CARBONATE PRODUCTION BY ACROPORA PALMATA ON A WINDWARD REEF W.B. Gladfelter & E.H. Gladfelter BEACH PROCESSES D.K. Hubbard GROWTH AND COMPETITIVE DYNAMICS OF THE SESSILE BENTHIC COMMUNITY R.C. Carpenter & E.H. Gladfelter PREDATION ON LIVE CORAL BY THE ECHNOID DIADEMA ANTILLARUM R.C. Carpenter PREDATION ON LIVE CORAL BY THE PARROTFISHES SCARUS VETULA AND SPARISOMA VIRIDE G.S. Simpson FISH COMMUNITY DYNAMICS G.S. Simpson PLANKTON DYNAMICS E.H. Gladfelter LITERATURE CITED PAGES iii 1:1-7 11:1-12 111:1-8 IV:l-29 V:l-21 VIil-15 VII:1-11 VIII:1-41 IX:1-14 X:l-6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A number of people have contributed to the completion of this report. Help in the field was provided by R. Arnseth, R. Holt, M. Hubbard, J. Lareau, J. Lloyd, T. Pechter, C. Rogers, J. Salmeron, J. Silver, and G. Tandoi . Special appreciation goes to P. Bowman, who in addition to field work did much of the data reduction for Chapter IV, and to H. Carpenter who spent countless hours in the field as well as doing the majority of the plankton sorting (Chapter IX). The preparation of the report was greatly aided by the willing typing and general support of Joan Runge, and the final typing and editorial assistance of Sonia Dill. We also greatly appreciate the cooperation and assistance of the other staff members of West Indies Laboratory of Fairleigh Dickinson University. m CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION by William B. Gladfelter and Elizabeth H. Gladfelter During the past two years, some of the important resources of Buck Island Reef National Monument have been inventoried (especially reefbuilding corals and fishes, the two major visitor attractions) and some of the basic processes controlling their interactions and rates of change have been investigated (see Gladfelter et ajh , 1977). The principal objective in this study was to increase our understanding of the dynamics of reef ecosystems in general, Buck Island Reef in particular. In order to fulfill this objective, the project was divided into two separate portions: biological and geological, which were integrated in the overall analysis to develop a better understanding of reef history. A. REEF DEVELOPMENT To determine some of the longer-term processes responsible for the formation of the Buck Island Reef, a study of the large reef structures called "haystacks" located just north of the north reef was undertaken. Evidence from direct observations, seismic profiling and cores (obtained from drilling on the Buck Island Bar, north of the Buck Island Reef National Monument) was assessed. Since sediment production and movement is such an important process in the development of reefs, a model for relating information gathered about carbonate sediment (including size and shape) to known predictions of the movements of terrigenous sediments was proposed and tested, using sediment samples from the Buck Island lagoon. 1-1 B. ACROPORA PALMATA GROWTH During the previous year, extensive studies of coral growth rate were carried out, especially on the dominant coral, Acropora palmata . However, only growth of the tips of the colonies was measured, and extrapolations were made as to the increase in thickness of the more proximal parts of the branches. In order to determine an accurate rate of accrual of reef substrate in the A. palmata reef, it was necessary to carry out further, long-term studies of increase in girth of the colonies. Unpublished studies by Macintyre showed that although the distal branches of A. palmata do not have the annual growth rings characteristic of some other species (e.g., Montastrea annularis ; Gladfelter e_t al_. , 1977, Chapter VII), more proximal sections did show such bands.' Sections were taken from the bases of large A. palmata branches on the forereef to supplement staining data on the peripheral growth of these colonies. C. SEDIMENTARY PROCESSES Studies by Gladfelter et al_. (1977) documented the variability that can occur along the beaches of Buck Island, especially that at the west end of the island. During the 1977 study, trees and Indian middens on the western margin were undermined or destroyed by shoreward erosion. These observations further indicate that these changes are somehow related to the oceanic swell regime of the region and are complicated in that they do not represent simple erosion or deposition. For example, between 22 September 1976 and 25 January 1977, considerable erosion was measured. Between 25 January and 30 June 1977, erosion continued, but at a slower pace. Since that time, the beach profiles made by E.H. Gladfelter (Gladfelter et al_. , 1977) showed that the slopes returned nearly to their original configuration. Because of the potential damage that can again occur to archeological sites and shoreline trees, it was felt that this phenomenon required a more comprehensive study during the 1978 period. The profiles measured in 1977 were continued during 1978. The total amount of sand gained or lost in each section of the beach was determined for each sampling period over the two-year period (1976-1978). Seasonal patterns of erosion and deposition were detected and preliminary correlation with seasonal climatic patterns was made. 1-2 D. DYNAMICS OF THE BENTHIC COMMUNITY As dominant members of the coral reef community, corals are subjected to a wide variety of natural damaging agents. Based on the findings of the previous year's study, the three principal categories of agents that destroy living coral are: (1) competitors for space, (2) disease, (3) fish and invertebrate predators. Bare space is an uncommon commodity on the solid substrates of a coral reef. Newly vacated surfaces are relatively rapidly colonized by adjacent organisms or new larvae. Therefore, attached, benthic organisms are generally bordered by zones of contact with other organisms. From the limited evidence available, it is clear that many of these zones of contact are areas of dynamic change (Connell, 1976; Lang, 1973; Jackson and Buss, 1975). Because of their importance in the overall construction, economy, and aesthetics of the reef, i'l was imperative to develop a better understanding of the interactions between corals and other benthic organisms which are potential competitors for space. Casual observations made at Buck Island Reef during the previous study revealed a large and diverse group of organisms that form interfaces with living corals (and between each other), including: algae, sponges, sea anemones, zoanthids, Millepora (fire coral), other corals and gorgonians. Predation on coral by parrotfish and invertebrate grazers can cause a direct effect on the viability of the coral and serves in addition to open new space for colonization by other benthic forms. To monitor the interactions of benthic organisms with each other, with disease-causing agents and with mobile grazers, a photographic transect was set up, and the interactions identified and followed for a nine-month period. The greatest proportion of surface area within the Buck Island reef ecosystem is covered by various algae, though these are often overlooked because most of these algae are encrusting or nearly microscopic filamentous forms. This- large proportion of surface is utilized by numerous grazers present (fishes by day, sea urchins by night) in such a way that algal succession is maintained at an early stage in many areas. The importance of this to the overall dynamics of space utilization by benthic organisms is unknown, but is of potential importance. Little is understood about the competition of algae and corals; 1-3 however, if grazers did not maintain the algal cover at an early successional stage, it is possible that the successive algae colonizers would more successfully compete for space with corals. A series of settling plates were placed in various parts of the reef, and succession followed over a one-year period. It is additionally felt by a number of authors (Odum and Odum, 1955; Adey, ms) that this early successional stage of algae is far more productive than later stages with higher biomass. During the present study, cages were used to control the density of a major herbivore, i.e., Diadema , and the algal succession in these cages was followed. Productivity measurements were made of early and late successional stages using plastic domes as chambers. E. PREDATION ON CORALS BY URCHINS AND FISHES Although some knowledge of the effects of interaction of mobile predators on living coral could be gained by the methods employed in the last section, it was felt that more detailed information focusing on that question specifically was needed. Pi adema is a potential hazard to visitors in the monument, and although not presently in evidence during the day, is exceedingly abundant at night on many parts of the reef, including the underwater trail area. Furthermore, Diadema has been implicated in the destruction of corals in certain parts of the Caribbean (Bak, 1975). Although this has never been documented locally, if this extremely abundant urchin were actually or potentially a grazer of live coral, it would be necessary to know its effectiveness and the factors which may cause this change to a coral diet. To this end, experiments on food choice as a function of urchin density were carried out. During the 1977 Buck Island environmental study, instances of predation by parrotfish.es on living coral were observed. Several species of fishes ( Sparisoma viride , Scarus vetula ) as well as a number of species of corals ( Diploria strigosa , Porites astreoides , Acropora palmata ) were involved. Little 1-4 is known about this relationship, but in general, reef fishes have been presumed not to feed on live coral in the Caribbean. Given the number of parrotfishes at Buck Island, and their rate of conversion of dead coral substrates to sand and silt (0.5 kg/m2 /hr; Ogden, 1977), a change in diet from dead coral surfaces overgrown with fine filamentous algae to live coral could result in large-scale destruction of reef corals. The problem of fish grazing on live coral was approached in several ways. Incidences of predation by parrotfishes on living coral were recorded, and the location noted and the area left so as not to interrupt the process. The damaged areas were marked and revisited to determine the amount and rate of damage. These results are presented in Chapter V of this report. To see the relative importance of different species of parrotfishes in coral grazing, colonies of Acropora palmata were followed in detail to note the frequency and extent of fish grazing. In addition, individuals of Sparisoma viride and Scarus vetula were observed in the field in order to determine food selection and feeding behavior. Controlled experiments to determine the effect of fish density on coral grazing were set up outside the park using large cages and controlling the densities of included corals and fishes to determine if, in fact, live coral grazing is a function of fish population density. F. FISH COMMUNITY DYNAMICS In their role as major consumers in the reef community, fishes may exert an important influence on community structure (Bakus, 1969; Paine, 1966). Because of the generally widespread exploitation of (reef) fishes, there is little documentation of this potentially important role of reef fishes in a system undisturbed by man. Buck Island Reef National Monument provides a uniquely protected environment in which such studies can be carried out. Although the general composition and distribution of the fish fauna in the eastern part of the Monument is known based on the past year's study, little can be said at present about the structure of the fish community or the effect of the fishes on the remainder of the community. However, casual observations made during the 1976-1977 period of study suggest that fishes are important in the Monument in a number of ways : 1-5 as a major tourist attraction, as potentially destructive agents of living corals (undocumented for Caribbean species), in maintaining arrested, possibly highly productive successional stages of benthic algal cover (Odum and Odum, 1955; Adey, ms), in controlling potentially detrimental species such as Diadema (Bak, 1975), in converting significant quantities of carbonate substrate to sediment (Ogden, 1977). Therefore, it was important that we obtain essential information on the distribution, abundance, population dynamics and movement of the important or potentially important species of fishes both within the lagoon and outside the reef where exploitation is permitted. Monthly visual censuses made in replicate at each of several reef quadrats in the various major zones provided the basic data needed to obtain a better understanding of fish community structure. These counts were supplemented by trapping, tagging and retrapping to provide more concrete data on growth rates of some of the more abundant species such as pomadasyids (grunts), acanthurids (surgeonfish) and scarids (parrotfishes). Growth rates obtained for fishes within the protected portion of the Monument were compared with rates obtained in an exploited "control" area (Tague Bay). These studies have indicated whether the fish community or certain portions of it may be particularly stressed by composition due to protection from fishing within the Monument, and perhaps causing some fishes (e.g., parrotfishes) to feed on items not normally in their diet (i.e., corals). In addition, a tagging program enabled studies on the movements of certain species to be carried out. It is important to know the movements of fishes within the Monument as an aid in understanding which types of habitat are most important to this major tourist attraction (i.e., fish). It is also important to know how much movement there is of fishes between the protected lagoon and the unprotected forereef and bank areas. 1-6 G. PLANKTON AS A REEF RESOURCE A number of authors have emphasized the importance of plankton in the nutrition and energetics of the reef community (Odum and Odum, 1955; Glynn, 1977; Johannes et_ aj_. , 1970; Porter, 1974, 1977) but quantitative evidence on this role played by plankton is slim. Earlier studies (Odum and Odum, 1955; Glynn, 1973) calculated plankton consumed by the reef where currents across the reef could be measured. The differences between plankton taken on the upstream and downstream sides of the reef are assumed to be consumed by the reef. More recent studies have shown that a significant fraction of the plankton community appears in the water column only at night and is capable of maintaining station near the reef surface. This fraction, the demersal plankton (Alldredge and King, 1977) may be significant in quantity and must be taken into account in upstream and downstream analyses. Plankton is a valuable food source both for a number of fishes as well as members of the invertebrate fauna (including many corals). Furthermore, it has been suggested that feeding by corals on plankton enhances their calcification rate (Vandermuelen and Muscatine, 1974). The two principal categories of plankton, drifting the water column by day and night, and the demersal plankton, which emerges from the substrate in the evening (Alldredge and King, 1977) provide a rich food source for nocturnal fishes and corals. Both these fractions of the plankton were sampled inside the lagoon and outside, day and night, on a monthly basis. This portion of the study provided important baseline information on the composition and abundance of this important external food source for the reef community. Thus, in this year's study, an important understanding of some of the underlying processes governing the geological and biological development and succession of the reef ecosystem was gained. In addition, some preliminary monitoring of important components of the community (fish, plankton) was conducted which will give a baseline for monitoring these resources in the future. 1-7 CHAPTER II REEF DEVELOPMENT AND SEDIMENTARY PROCESSES by Dennis K. Hubbard Introduction To date, most of the biological and physical studies within the park have been aimed at documenting or monitoring short-term phenomena. In this study, investigation of (1) reef development in and around the park, and (2) sedimentary processes occurring in the lagoon were carried out in an attempt to define some of the longer-term processes occurring within Buck Island Reef National Monument. In order to gain some preliminary insight into the geologically recent development of the area, a program of diver investigations, bathymetric surveys, and a correlation to existing core data outside the park was initiated. The conclusions from this study provide us with a working hypothesis for the development of a constructional model for reefs in and around the park. In the study of lagoonal sediments, there were two objectives in mind: (1) we wanted to document the nature of the sediments in the lagoon, and (2) we wanted to address some of the fundamental problems encountered by sedimentologists working in the carbonate environment. Sedimentation in the marine environment depends upon the interactions of gravity, the fluid medium, and its effects on the particular grains that are settling. The basic concepts (i.e., the larger and heavier grains will settle more rapidly than the smaller, lighter types) have been long established. Many of the properties of carbonate grains are not considered by these concepts, however. Traditionally, sediment transport studies have assumed grain shape as spherical (Krumbein and Sloss, 1963). In a carbonate setting, however, finding spherical grains occurring naturally is an exception rather than the rule (Ginsburg, 1973). II-l The validity of using physical relationships based on settling velocities of terrigenous grains in direct correlation with sieve analysis of carbonate sediments is therefore suspect because carbonate grains settle more slowly than do terrigenous grains of a similar physical grain size. Furthermore, grain shape seems to be a critical parameter in determining the settling velocity (and, therefore, the "hydraulic" grain size} of the sediment. It was hypothesized that as the ratio of round-to-platy grains (R:P) changed in any given sample, the settling velocity of that sample would vary predictably. If this assumption is warranted, then on>? could reasonably "adjust" the size of any given carbonate sample to a terrigenous equivalent upon which state-of-the-art sediment transport relationships are based. PART I - REEF DEVELOPMENT Methods and Materials Data on reef development came from three major sources: 1. The character of the reef framework and the extent and nature of boring, sedimentation and cementation within the reef was determined from observations made by divers using SCUBA and those made by students (including those made by the investigators doing projects). The rather loose framework of the reef allowed access, in some cases, to the internal portions of the reef where samples were taken to examine the effects of boring organisms within the reef. These were compared to similar samples taken elsewhere in the reef complex. Specimens of dead coral branches were removed and taken back to the laboratory for slabbing and identification of biological and chemical processes occurring within each specimen (Bennett, 1978; Marvel, 1978). 2. Bathymetric data to show the toprqraphic relationship of Buck Island reef to surrounding structures were gathered using a Raytheon Recording Echo Sounder. 3. Correlations were made with core holes drilled outside the park. The submersible drilling rig described by Macintyre (1975) was used. The unit has a hydraulic power source and is operated by divers on the bottom. II-2 Results Conclusions from this portion of the Buck Island study are only preliminary in nature. From available data, two conclusions are made. First, although the most visible part of the reef framework is the active, living coral that covers the reef surface, the majority of the reef is comprised of "dead" coral skeletal material that is being actively bored, Infilled and recemented over and over again. Furthermore, the piling up of dead coral debris at the base of the reef provides substrate for new growth and 1s a major (If not the major) mechanism for lateral reef extension, Results of experiments elsewhere on St. Croix Indicate the original coral skeleton can be completely replaced by the boring-recalcifi cation process in less than 20 years (Zankl , pers. commun . ) . The second conclusion involves the origin of the pinnacle reef located north of the trail. These features, locally called "haystacks" are made up almost entirely of Acropora palmata which has died and been cemented together into a reef framework, either in place or after being broken off and falling Into some lower position. The framework of the pinnacles is extremely open, and some openings are large enough to provide a diver access to the Internal portions of the haystacks. The internal walls of the cavities are heavily encrusted and bored. Circulation through the haystacks is open and wave surge can be felt within. The walls are composed entirely of Acropora palmata . No heads of Montastrea annularis or deeper water corals found outside the pinnacles were observed. It would appear, therefore, that these features have always occurred in shallower water and did not start as deeper water features which have subsequently grown up to sea level. Further evidence for this conclusion can be seen in a core drilled by Ian Macintyre in Buck Island Bar to the north of the park (Fig. 1). In the core at a depth of 10.2 m (MSL), the dominant coral type changes from A. palmata to Porites sp . and M. annularis , indicating a change in reef conditions between 3500 and 4000 y.b.p. (carbon). If we look at a bottom profile from Buck Island lagoon, through the haystacks and across Buck Island Bar (Figs. 1 and 2), it appears that a reef dominated by Acropora palmata occurred in the vicinity of II-3 Buck Island Bar and that the haystacks were patch reefs occurring in the lagoon behind. Since that time, the haystacks have risen at a rate comparable to the rate of sea-level rise, which slowed at about 3100 y.b.p., according to the Neumann sea-level curve. There appears to have been a degradation in water quality along Buck Island Bar at 3500 to 4000 y.b.p. (carbon) which either stopped reef growth for a period of time, after which the reef restarted in deeper water (mostly Porites sp . and Montastrea annularis ) or else provided an unsuitable environment for the growth of Acropora palmata . Adey et al_. (1977) described a similar phenomenon for other shelf edge features on St. Croix, but the application to this area cannot be positively identified based on the present data. More cores are needed. PART II - SEDIMENT DYNAMICS STUDY Methods and Materials Fifteen surface sediment samples were taken in Buck Island lagoon (Fig. 1) using a 20 cm long by 5 cm in diameter hand core. Samples were sieved at 0.5 phi intervals from -1.00 phi (2.0 mm) to +1.50 phi (0.35 mm) and at 0.25 phi intervals thereafter. The graphic method of Folk (1974) was used to determine the physical grain-size characteristics (mean, median, standard deviation) of the sediments. In order to test the working hypothesis that the settling velocity of the grains would behave predictably, depending on physical grain-size and shape, groups of ten grains from a number of grain size and shape (R:P) classes were dropped through a 2 m water column and settling velocities were recorded. Terrigenous grains in the same size classes were treated in a similar fashion. The goal of the experiment was to determine whether the grain size determined for a given carbonate sample could be "adjusted" to a terrigenous equivalent II-4 using settling velocity as a common variable. If the carbonate grains behaved in a predictable fashion, then existing terrigenous-based sediment transport relationships could be applied to carbonate sediments after this "adjustment" is made. Results There is a strong indication that the results of our settling experiments can be used to more closely relate movement of carbonate sediments to physical processes occurring in the marine environment. Preliminary studies (Fig. 3) indicate that coral and terrigenous grains of equivalent sizes behave similarly, but not identically wtth respect to their relative settling velocities. Coral grains of 2.50 mm (-2.0 ) or larger, settle more slowly than similar sized terrigenous material. This difference is due primarily to density differences and shape of the carbonate grains. Grains finer than 0.250 mm (2.0 ) were found to settle at essentially equal velocities regardless of their composition. Data also indicate that the effects of grain shape behave in a predictable manner. Figure 4 shows the good correspondence between predicted velocity values based on our working hypothesis and observed values from the settling experiment. Given this relationship between carbonate grain size and shape, and a corresponding terrigenous grain size, it becomes possible to "adjust" the physical grain size values obtained by sieving the carbonate sands to a terrigenous hydraulic equivalent grain-size, that is, the terrigenous grain size that would be expected to have similar settling properties in the marine environment. This method is illustrated in Figure 5A. The graph is entered at the appropriate point corresponding to the physical size and shape (R:P) of the carbonate sediment in question. The terrigenous size with an identical settling velocity is the hydraulic equivalent. This value can then be used in existing sediment transport relationships (for example, the Hjulstrom diagram shown in Figure 5) to determine the magnitude of the current necessary to move sediment of a given grain size. Once a terrigenous hydraulic equivalent II-5 grain size is determined, the critical velocities for erosion and deposition are easily determined. Discussion It should be stressed that these experiments are only preliminary. The relationships between grain size, type and shape is clear. A number of other factors (bioturbation, submarine cementation, organic content of the sediment) need to be considered before a reliable predictive sediment transport model can be generated, however. Even at this stage of development, the concept can be used to explain some of the sedimentation patterns observed in the reef-lagoon complex. For example, sediments in the lagoon are generally bi-modal and poorly sorted (Levin, 1978). The dominant grain-sizes are coarse and fine sands. The coarse fraction is composed of Hal i meda sp . which grows in the lagoon and cannot be carried away by the weak currents. To a sedimentologist looking at this sample, the coarse grained material gives an anomalous indication of a higher energy environment. If the coarse, platy Halimeda grains are "adjusted" to their terrigenous equivalent grain size, however, it becomes obvious that hydraulically they are similar in size to the rest of the finer sediments occurring in the lagoon. By this method, a more accurate picture of the energy level in the lagoon emerges. II-6 FIGURE LEGEND - CHAPTER II Figure 1 Map showing: 1) position of bathymetric bottom profile (Fig f 2) located along transect A-C, 2) position of fifteen surface sediment samples taken from Buck Island Lagoon (#1-15), and 3) the position of the Buck Island Bar (where a core was drilled) to Buck Island and the Buck Island North Reef, Figure 2 Bathymetric profile taken along transect A-C (Fig. 1). Vertical exaggeration is 28:1 . Figure 3 Settling velocities of carbonate and terrigenous sediments of comparable grain sizes. Note that particles smaller than 2 behave similarly, but that with increasing larger particles, the settling velocities of carbonate particles are less than terrigenous particles and in addition, round carbonates settle faster than platy carbonates. Figure 4 Plot showing observed vs. expected settling velocities for groups of ten grains of varying shape distributions. Expected velocity was computed using the ratio of round to platy grains in the group and the fall velocities for round and platy grains of that size. Observed velocity was the average velocity of the ten grains dropped simultaneously. The line Y = X is not a statistically determined line. Figure 5 Diagram illustrating a simplified concept of determining the velocity required to move carbonate grains of a given size and shape. The upper graph is entered at the physical grain-size (from sieves of the sediment (1)). At the point corresponding to the ratio of round to platy grains in the sample, a horizontal line (2) is drawn to intersect the terrigenous settling curve. That point corresponds to the terrigenous grain-size with an equivalent settling velocity (3). This "adjusted" size is carried into the lower diagram (4) until it intersects the line denoting critical velocity (5). The velocity required to move the sediment (6) is read from the right ordinate. II-7 BUCK ISLAND BAR' J2 ^SS'REEF • -SAMPLE SITE 64 II-8 FIG. 2 II-9 CO CD o 0) i oes/uio-A±IOOn3A 11-10 FIG. 4 10 Vexp lem/sec) i i-i i FIG. 5 HJULSTROM g DIAGRAM 11-12 CHAPTER III GROWTH AND TOTAL CARBONATE PRODUCTION BY ACROPORA PALMATA ON WINDWARD FOREREEF by William B. Gladfelter & Elizabeth H. Gladfelter Introduction Studies carried out at Buck Island 1976-1977 (Gladfelter et al_. , 1977; Gladfelter and Monahan, 1977; Gladfelter et al_. , 1978) determined linear growth rates of Acropora palmata from three major reef zones at Buck Island. Rates were determined during two 2-month periods of maximum and minimum water temperature. Carbonate deposition rates per unit area of tip were greatest on the shallow windward forereef near the eastern boundary of the park, This eastern tip of the Buck Island barrier reef has the densest and best developed stand of A. palmata within the park (and one of the best on St. Croix, and probably the Virgin Islands). Total rates of production of calcium carbonate by A. palmata were estimated for this zone by indirect methods (Gladfelter et al_. , 1977, p. VI 1-7) . Because of the unique nature of this portion of the reef as a resource within the park and because of the controversial nature of the magnitude of carbonate production on modern reefs (Smith and Kinsey, 1976; Bak, 1976), more precise, longer term studies of total carbonate deposition in that zone were carried out. Methods Twenty large arms of forereef colonies of A. palmata at depths of 2 m, 3 m and 4 m were stained with Alizarin Red S by methods described previously (Gladfelter and Monahan, 1977) but using appropriately large clear plastic bags. Arms approximately 1 m in length were stained in mid-August 1977 for 8 h then tagged with plastic flagging. One year later (August 1978), these arms were removed and returned to the West Indies Laboratory and serially sectioned at 15 cm intervals proximal ly from the tip. Slabs <1 cm thick were taken at each interval and x-rayed and the resulting negatives analyzed on a light table. The position III-l of the dye marker beneath the colony surface was measured as well as the periodicity of the more or less concentric density bands. The dried coral tissue was removed from the distal tips with chlorox and the new growth beyond the dye marker measured and weighed. Density of A. palmata on the shallow forereef was determined in the following way. Three widely spaced transects were swum with a Nikonos camera and 21 mm lens. Photos were taken vertically downward at more or less regular intervals {every 20 kicks) to minimize bias. A meter scale was included in the first and last frames of each transect. The resulting color slides (high resolution Kodachrome 25) were analyzed in the following way. The percent coverage in each of twenty-five randomly chosen slides by A. palmata was determined under the dissecting microscope with an ocular grid. The number of tiers of the coral was then estimated. These values were multiplied and doubled to give the total surface area of live A. palmata per m2 . The total calcium carbonate deposited per m2 was determined by multiplying the total surface area of live coral per m2 by the mean radial increment as determined in the earlier part of this section, to yield total volume, then multiplying by the specific gravity of A. palmata skeleton (after Bak, 1976). To this was added the weight of the tips to reach the final value of carbonate deposition per m2 of reef surface. Results A total of nine colonies were successfully stained, relocated and examined. Staining confirmed that the density bands present in cross sections of A. palmata branches have an annual periodicity (Fig. 1). Linear extension over a period of 1 yr is plotted against radial increases in the arms in Figure 2. The radial increase in the colonies examined was relatively uniform along the length of the arms. However, the upward increment (mean =4.9 mm; s.d. = 1.1; n = 11) toward the light was more than twice the increment on the lower side (mean = 2.3 mm; s.d. = 1.1; n = 11). There was a strong negative correlation between linear extension and upward radial increment (y = -.03x + 8.65; r = .96) and between 1 1 1-2 linear extension and mean radial increment (y = -.03 + 6.35; r = .87). It is also suggested (Fig. 2), but by no means conclusive because of the small sample size, that shallower colonies are characterized by a greater degree of radial increment of the whole branch and a lesser linear extension of the distal tip. This is supported by the findings of Gladfelter et al_. (1977, Table Vll-la) that deep forereef colonies had greater linear extension. The values for surface area coverage by A. palmata are presented in Table 1. These values when multiplied by annual mean increases in radius and by the specific gravity of A. palmata skeleton and added to the annual increments of weight of colony tips yield a mean value of 10.3 kg/m 2 /yr. This value is comparable to the estimates made by Gladfelter et al_. (1977) using less precise methods. This value represents a mean increase in thickness of reef surface of about 0.7 cm/yr (10 kg = ^0 ^ g, divide by specific gravity: 10 4 g/1.5 q/cm 3 = .7 x 10 4 cm 3 , divide by "\0 k cm2 /m2 = .7 cm/yr). Discussion The value for reef growth rate on the shallow eastern forereef at Buck Island obtained by direct measurement of annual deposition of calcium carbonate is comparable in magnitude to the maximum reef growth rates obtained for other shallow water, single species dominated reefs using core drilling and radio- carbon dating. Adey (1975), also working at eastern St. Croix, found maximal reef growth rates of shallow Acropora palmata stands to be as high as 15 m/1000 yr or 1.5 cm/yr. Max:intyre and Glynn (1976) working off the Caribbean coast of Panama found rates of 10.8 m/1000 yr or 1.1 cm/yr for A. palmata stands. Glynn and Macintyre (1977) working on stands of Pocillopora damicornis, on the Pacific coast of Panama found rates of 7.5 m/1000 yr or .75 cm/yr. All these values are of comparable magnitude and represent the maximal values known for reef growth rates. Heretofore, rates were determined by historical analysis (radiocarbon dating of cores). The present analysis has shown that most of the carbonate deposited in shallow forereef A. palmata stands is due to increase in thickness of the arms, rather than their apical extension (10 kg/m2 /yr vs. 0.3 kq/m 2 /yr for tins). III-3 Furthermore, the ratio of new carbonate produced circumferentially to new apical growth was relatively greater for shallower colonies than deeper ones, which had relatively greater linear extension, thereby resulting in slender, longer branches deeper on the forereef. The mechanism of this phenomenon is being examined at present. III-4 E CO CM Q. o 0) Ct> o> s-o o s- rO •o o ro to co ro +-> rO rO >> co •r- 4->O O S- a. QJ 4-> rOCo X) s- roo ro o CD -Q ro -o CO S- +-> >> •r— "^^ r— en CO CM ro O O fc= 4-> O Q- "•Ns^ O 03 O) cx> I— O Q ^ to -C Q. p— +J -r-cM ro 5H E 4-> O ^s. O i- C CD h— CD -f- J* 4-> cn-o C T-CM •— — 3: E ro 5 "V. O S--r- E I— CD I ' rO 4-> rOE 4-> i— r- .C ro 10 DID -a VOCN O E a» • co cd 2 E •r- O to ro 3 Cl|o O +j r- ao O O •. CO O h- > roE a> i— ro 3 «o N 4-> E E CO r— o r— ro ro ro a «+- -»-> S. O v 3 i- CO fO CD E rO S- 0)>o >> • OJ3< ro O-l OlD^f'tCncnNOOrOOOOOON'tNNO^^OOCnCfllflCVI COCO CMNOU)t£)U)t-NLO 'tOO^-ON<} , *Dfl-OOOU)CMlflrON O IT) in CM CM C\J CM CO «d- LT> i— CM «tf- CM CO LO CM CM CO CM ID CO «*• i— CO i— CVJ r— CO CM r— CM Lnin^toOi-cvirnLOcn^coro^-iOLOioinoocfir-rsro^-rofN CO «tf- CM i— LO«tlO CO i— o ro ^J" f— CO r- o o o oo o o co ^j- r^. ro oo cm oo ro vo vo co LO lOr— VOOr— O^-LOCOr— COLOCOtOLOCOOCDtOinCOLOCOCM^f tO CO ^ •sJ-tOOtoCDOOLO Looootoccrxooco OOOCMOOOOr^CMr^toOCDOCDOO nfsroNOOfoisr«»^-N(ocM i—COr— CMCMCMCOr— i— i— i— CsJ CM r— t— IT) i— is o in CM *3- r- i— i— I— CO CM 100 VIII-20 CD CM CM |ui/cui| 39NVH3 IV-15 in CD jui/jJUiOONVHO IV-16 CO CD Jk id 1/ .0 £ / •i 1 — 0) : IU > .0 z => i 07 I N co l • 1 co £. f i/ / -0 CM / i \ 1. .O \ \ / ^> \ 1 t CO CM t- " u E 1 IV-17 CD |w/cw)39NVH0 IV-18 FIG. 8 16n 8 - £ E UJ°« ZO < o -8 - 16- IV-19 FIG. 9 BI-6 M J. ' Jl '* A 9 Oct. 12- 16- 2 -• >' \ v^^ IV- 20 FIG. 10 9 Oct 90ct °tt—r— i— i—rn—rrri— i— i— i w NDJFMAMJJA S/ i r I I I Ar76-77 IV-21 FIG. 11 t 1 1 1—"— r MA M Jn Jl IV-22 CM CD CO CM I ui/puil 30NVH0 IV- 24 CD i r |w/c ui) 30NVHO IV-25 FIG. 15 Oct of=j— i— i— r— i— i— i— i— i— i— i ^ NDJFMAMJJAS IV-26 FIG. 16 LATE FALL- SPRING SUMMER & EARLY FALL IV-27 CD BEgaaggS'Sggpf^ \ /••.•••./^r.Vi:- L_ .«-( \ 'wmfi ji swmm 'pw^ HI /{ - / \ II '•'.-'••.'•'. o //I \ *~ '% oc /'/ \ »_• °- .:•// // / O \ .// / " \ / 7 / 1- \ :••:••:•••:•:•/ * ' / / X * /// 0&&//[ / < Sy r ,»7 * ./&3pjgV : / !Si /\ / > / / XV o. y^f\- y<* i IV-28 FIG. 18 32- " 24- n UJO 16 O 8 T— I— I— I— I— I— I— I— i— I— I— r NDJ FMAMJJAS IV-29 CHAPTER V GROWTH AND COMPETITIVE DYNAMICS OF THE SESSILE BENTHIC COMMUNITY by Robert Carpenter and Elizabeth Gladfelter Introduction The reef ecosystem at Buck Island is a complex structural and biotic assemblage with diverse taxonomic representation. Gladfelter e_t ak (1977) provided general descriptions of the reef community along transects around the park. The principal components of the benthic community here are scleractinian corals, other anthozoans, the hydrozoan coral Millepora spp. and benthic algae. It is well established that surface space is a limiting resource in terms of the growth of species populations in many benthic environments, especially where species diversity and growth rates are high (e.g., Jackson, 1977). Casual observations made over the years at Buck Island have indicated short- and long-term changes in the structure of the benthic community. Among those members of the benthic community which are presently important in terms of abundance, little is known of their relative abilities to compete for space except among some of the scleractinian corals (Lang, 1973). Casual observations made here and elsewhere have suggested benthic species form a complex web of spatial interactions and that the overall health of the reef in terms of live coral coverage may depend upon such a web of interactions. It was therefore our goal in the present study to reach a greater understanding of those dynamic interactions which ultimately influence the health of the coral community. We chose to investigate several aspects which we have felt were actually or potentially critical parts of this web: (1) interactions between major benthic coelenterate species and destruction of live coral by several important agents, (2) the recolonization of bare space created by the latter, and (3) the control of benthic algal species and, indirectly, other forms by grazers. These studies are presented separately with a combined discussion. V-l PART I - BENTHIC INTERACTIONS Methods and Materials A two-meter wide transect was established between the underwater trail and the SCUBA buoy along the backreef (a distance of ^625 m). Initially, all incidence of coral damage or interactions with other benthic organisms were identified with a DYMO-TAPE tag nailed to substrate and marked with flagging tape. These were photographed with a Nikonos camera and a 1:6 close-up lens with a reference frame. A metric ruler was used for scale. The transect was surveyed every one to two months and new incidences were marked and photographed; previously marked incidences were rephotographed. Analysis of th resulting color photographs was carried out by identifying several unique features along or near the line of contact between the two organisms and measuring the distance changed under the dissecting scope with reference to an ocular micrometer and the metric ruler in the photograph. Results Table 1 presents the progression of the interactions which were observed over a period of time along the fixed transect in the backreef. These interactions include both the effects of mobile predators (grazers) on the benthic biota (fish-invertebrate), as well as interactions between sessile forms: i.e., invertebrate-invertebrate, invertebrate-algae, invertebrate-"disease organisms", and algae-algae. The corals growing in the transect which were subject to grazing by parrotfish included Acropora palmata , Montastrea annularis and Pori tes astreoides . The colony of A. palmata showed complete regeneration after grazing; of the three incidences of grazing on M. annularis , one resulted in death of coral with subsequent algal succession occurring while the other two showed a pattern of continued grazing pressure along with continued regeneration of coral tissue. The number of colonies of Pori tes astreoides grazed upon reflects their abundance in this ecological zone. It should be noted (Table 1, I. A. 3. c,d,e,g) that V-2 four of the colonies follow the pattern mentioned above for M. annularis , i.e., grazing, and regeneration proceeding at about the same rate, while four colonies (Table 1, I. A. 3. a,b,f,h) show progressive deterioration of the colony and in some cases death. A source of mortality for Acropora prolifera was the damsel fish, Eupomacentrus planifrons which expanded its algal patch at the expense of living coral . Invertebrate-invertebrate interactions are summarized in Figure 1. In all interactions with other benthic invertebrates, Palythoa caribbearum always was the competitive dominant. Porites astreoides generally lost ground to other benthic species ( Palythoa , Briareum , sponge) but did not out-compete Agaricia . During the time-course of the study, two species ( Diploria strigosa and Zoanthus sociatus ) showed little change of space in interactions with several other species with the exception of interactions with Palythoa , which they lost. These results are confirmed by the more detailed accounts of individual interactions in Table 1, II. "Coral disease" was observed in one colony each of Acropora palmata , Diploria strigosa and D; clivosa (Table 1, III) resulting in death in the first case, near-death in the second, both of which were incidences of "white-band" disease and little change in the third, which was the "black-band" disease. Algal succession was followed in several instances, usually resulting in a sequence of filamentous greens to corallines. Occasionally, the damaged coral which was being colonized would regrow over the algae (Table 1, IV.A.a.). Table 2 presents the number of interactions which occurred in the transects as well as the area affected by these occurrences. Parrotfish predation was the cause of the highest number of interactions and also affected the most space. Interactions between benthic species was next followed by disease, urchin predation and other causes. This ranking partially reflects the nature of the zone where the transect is located which influences the type of interactions which occur. V-3 PART II - RECRUITMENT TO THE BENTHIC COMMUNITY Methods and Materials Unglazed clay settling plates (225 cm2 ) were set at three locations on the reef: (1) the north patch reef, (2) the south patch reef, and (3) the northeast forereef outside the underwater trail. At each of the three sites, 18 plates were set up in the following configurations: Horizontal 3 ca-ged 3 uncaged Vertical 3 caged 3 uncaged Natural substrate 3 caged 3 uncaged Natural substrate was obtained by chiseling the reef pavement to a depth of 1 cm for 225 cm2 . Cages were made from 0.5 cm 2 mesh and were designed to exclude major grazers from the substratum. Because of fouling problems, these could not be used. Photographs were taken of all uncaged plates at various intervals. Results Several trends are r.eadily apparent from the settling plate experiment (Fig. 2, Table 3). Colonization occurred very rapidly on the horizontal ' and natural plates, with a very rapid development of a turf community. The amount of sediment on these two surfaces in all three zones (Forereef, North Patch Reef (NPR), South Patch Reef (SPR)) also built up rapidly (by 45 days) and then declined. The vertical plates showed a slower rate of colonization (note the slower decrease in the amount of bare space) and a slower increase in the amount of turf. Due to vertical positioning, the amounts of sediment accumulation on these plates was negligible. These plates did show an increase in the amount of coralline algae (especially in the forereef and NPR sites). The other zone to show development of coralline was the horizontal plate on the forereef. A small part of the plates showed settlement of benthic invertebrates (serpulids, Zoanthus ) after a short period (Table 3). It appears that the orientation and nature of the substrate was more important in determining the sequence of succession, rather than the position on the reef. The succession on natural substrates is almost identical in all three areas. V-4 PART III - EFFECT OF GRAZERS: DIADEMA ANTILLARUM Methods and Materials To test the effect of Diadema an till arum grazing on algal community structure and biomass, four inclusion and two inclusion cages (each 1 m2 ) were set up on a patch reef. Densities of Pi adema set up in inclusion cages were established so as to be comparable to existing literature (Sammarco et al_. , 1974: Ogden et aK , 1973, etc.). "Normal" densities were placed in two cages (8 urchins/m2 ) and 16 urchins/m2 were placed in the other two Inclusion cages. Subsequent sampling showed "normal" density for this patch reef to be 4.9 urchins/m2 . These cages were left in position for 302 days. The effect on the algal community was characterized by biomass measurements and relative abundance of various algal species. Diversity was reflected 1n the number of species in each cage. These were compared with controls outside the cages. The "cage" effect was not tested and the exclusion cage results did not distinguish between release from urchin grazing or release from large fish grazing. Mesh size was large, so small fish were able to graze Inside the cages (schools of striped parrotflsh were observed grazing inside). Results There is an inverse relationship between algal biomass and urchin density (Fig. 3). The difference in algal biomass between the higher experimental and lower field values 1s probably due to the reduction of fish grazing in the cages. Since this was largely prevented, the algal biomass estimates in the cages indicate mostly the effects of urchin grazing. The effects of varying urchin grazing intensity on the number of species 6f algae surviving in the cages are shown in Figure 4. The results demonstrate* a significant difference in species numbers due to grazing intensity, the maximum number of algal species occurring at intermediate levels. The data do not permit unequivocal conclusions as the effects of urchin grazing on algal productivity. As shown in Figure 5, significant differences in V-5 productivity due to urchin grazing intensity can be demonstrated only when results are pooled over all sampling times, the 302-day results not being significantly different when analyzed separately. The species composition of algae differed in the grazed and ungrazed cages (Table 4). Of the 12 species in the ungrazed cages, 3 were macro-algae which are generally uncharacteristic of normal turf areas susceptible to urchin grazing. No clear differences between the grazing treatments were apparent. Discussion In this study, various organisms interacting with members of the benthic community have been studied. These included mobile predators and grazers (including fishes and sea urchins) as well as interactions between the benthic organisms themselves in competition for space. The most "competitively successful" invertebrate was Palythoa caribbearum which overgrew each invertebrate 1n which it had contact, and which in the past two years has spread over a considerable area of the pavement area bordering the backreef area east and north of the Buck Island trail (E. Gladfelter, pers. obs.). Other invertebrates showed a range of behaviors, outcompeting some and being outcompeted by others, with the exception of Zoanthus and Diploria strigosa which showed no change in interactions followed more than six months. Parrotfish grazing did little damage to Acropora palmata and Montastrea annularis (see Chapter VII, this report), but seemed to influence at least the pattern of distribution of Porites astreoides by destroying some colonies, and restructuring the space occupied by others. This may explain the change in colony shape noted by Lewis (1974) in a series of photographic quadrats taken yearly in Barbados. In general, the present levels of parrotfish grazing do not seem to be affecting the abundance of live coral in the national monument. The settling plate results suggest that bare space is occupied very quickly in the reef environment, which can also be seen in the recolonization of bare space provided by parrotfish grazing on live coral. A turf community develops V-6 quickly, especially in horizontally-oriented substrates which can initially collect sediments. In vertically-placed substrates where less sediment collects and light levels are lower, a succession to the slower-growing coralline algae occurs more quickly. These plates were subject to grazing, which may explain the lack of macro-algae. It is suggested from the Diadema experiments that sea urchin grazing may prevent dominance by macro-algae. Feeding observations suggest that urchins avoid macro-algae but may inadvertently ingest germlings while grazing, thereby controlling macro-algal abundance. The minimal amount of urchin grazing necessary to prevent macro-algal dominance is unknown. Algal turf can cover up to 85% of patch reefs and may be responsible for up to 80% of the total community primary productivity (Adey, unpubl.). If intermediate urchin grazing is eventually shown to maximize algal productivity, as incompletely demonstrated here, then comparative studies of the effects of Pi adema and other grazers may indicate the extent to which total reef production is mediated by them. The structure of these algal communities will probably be better understood after extensive experimental manipulation of all grazers, including urchins, fish, molluscs and polychaetes. The possibility that intermediate levels of grazing generally maximize algal species numbers depends on future experimental studies in many different reefs. Such studies may not only be of theoretical interest but may help in the management of reefs affected by human activities. The results presented here suggest that removal of grazers or their predators by hunters or collectors may eventually affect the algal community and the primary productivity of coral reefs. It has been recently demonstrated (Glynn et aj_. , 1979) that urchin grazing on live coral limits reef growth. It may also affect the number of coral species in the same manner as demonstrated here for turf algae. These results emphasize the importance of expanded experimental studies of the effects of urchin grazing on coral reefs. V-7 Table 1. — Progress of Biotic Interactions Observed Within the Photo Transect Interaction Damage and/or Recovery I. FISH - INVERTEBRATE A. Parrotfish - coral 1 . Acropora palmata a. 10/08/77 02/09/78 2. Montastrea annularis a. 10/08/77 10/15/77 12/09/77 07/23/78 b. 04/12/78 07/23/78 c. 04/12/78 07/23/78 3. Porites astreoides a. 10/09/77 12/10/77 02/09/78 04/12/78 07/23/78 b. 10/09/77 02/09/78 04/12/78 C 10/15/77 12/09/77 07/23/78 Parrotfish predation on coral. Complete regeneration of coral over killed area. Parrotfish predation of M. annularis . Freshly killed substrate covered with green filamentous algae. Algal succession. Coralline algae and coral growing back over scar. 40% coral head grazed. 10% newly grazed; 20% rejuvenation. 60% coral head grazed. 5% newly grazed; 40% rejuvenation. Parrotfish predation. All but 24 cm2 has been eaten. All coral eaten; algal covered. Advanced algal succession; corallines. Grazed; early algal succession; no corallines. Parrotfish predation on small coral (1.3 cm2 ). ,6 cm2 left; some algae settled. .3 cm2 left; no algae visible. Parrotfish predation of coral. Complete rejuvenation. Regrazed - 50% dead. V-8 Table 1. — Continued Interaction Damage and/or Recovery Porites astreoides (con't) d. 10/31/77 12/10/77 02/09/78 04/12/78 07/23/78 e. 10/31/77 12/10/77 02/09/78 04/12/78 07/23/78 f. 12/10/77 02/09/78 04/12/78 g. 02/05/78 04/12/78 07/23/78 h. 02/05/78 04/12/78 07/23/78 Parrotfish predation of coral; small scars. Some algal settlement; 80% regeneration. 90% regeneration. Same as previous. Complete regeneration. Parrotfish predation of coral; 50% of head is dead. 50% regeneration; algal settlement. 60% regeneration; advanced coral succession; corallines. 80% regeneration macro-algae ( Dictyota ). Coral growing into dead spot from edges; algae has been grazed. Parrotfish predation on coral; 50% dead. 60% dead due to grazing. 75% dead due to grazing; macro-algae. Parrotfish predation on coral. 90% regeneration. 40% regrazed. Predation on coral; 50% dead. Algal settlement. Further grazing and algal settlement; 75% dead. B. Damselfish - coral 1 . Acropora pro! ifera a. 10/09/77 12/10/77 04/12/78 b. 10/09/77 12/09/77 02/09/78 07/23/78 Corals at edge of Eupomocentrus planifrons territory; branches healthy. Coral unchanged; still healthy. ^200 cm2 of original 222 cm 2 area killed and covered with algae. A. pro! ifera at edge of 3 spot territory. 30% dead. 50% dead. 65% dead. 80% dead. V-9 Table 1. — Continued Interaction Damage and/or Recovery II. INVERTEBRATE- INVERTEBRATE A. Coral -coral - 1. Pi pi o r i a strigosa-D. strigosa (i a. 10/09/77 02/09/78 04/12/78 07/23/78 B. Coral -zoanthid 1. Palythoa a. 10/08/77 07/23/78 b. 02/09/78 04/12/78 07/23/78 c. 02/05/78 04/12/78 07/23/78 d. 12/09/77 e. 10/08/77 2. Zoanthus a. 02/05/78 04/12/78 07/23/78 C. Coral -other 1. Acropora palmata a. 02/05/78 04/12/78 White groove where two colonies have met. No change. No change. No change. Palythoa overgrowing Porites astreoides . Complete overgrowth with 33.8 cm 2 killed. Palythoa overgrowth of Diploria strigosa . Overgrowth advanced 2 cm. Overgrowth advanced 1.5 cm more. Palythoa overgrowth of Porites porites . Overgrowth continues. Overgrowth continues. Palythoa settlement on D. strigosa . Palythoa overgrowth of D. clivosa . Porites astreoides contact with Zoanthus . No advance by either; algae outgrows Zoanthus No change. A. palmata eaten by Hermodice ? 50% regeneration. r V-10 l Table 1, — Continued Interaction Damage and/or Recovery III. CORAL-"DISEASE" A. White Band Disease 1 . Acropora palmata a. 10/09/77 04/12/78 2. Diploria clivosa a. 02/05/78 04/12/78 07/23/78 B. Black Band Disease 1 . Diploria strigosa a. 04/12/78 07/23/78 White band disease. Branch completely dead (2.8 cm2 /mo; ^1 cm linear/mo); advanced algal succession to corallines. White band disease? 75% dead, 90% dead. 95% dead - algal succession. Black band disease No change. IV. ALGAL SUCCESSION A. Algae-coral a. 12/10/77 02/09/78 04/12/78 07/23/78 b. 12/09/77 02/09/78 07/23/78 Dead D. strigosa (parrotfish?). Algal succession. Advanced algal succession - coralline algae. Coral readvancing 1 mm/mo. Algae on Montastrea annularis . 2.5 cm 2 of coral killed. 38.5 cm2 of coral killed. V-ll o 0) 4->O CD M- «»- co o S- c o +>c ^- r— •i- C O CO <-h 0J l/> 1 «4- o c «- • O. (O LlJ o r— o o o o o ae z c CM «=t o E o C -f- X o o o CO o o 1- +-> \ ^s. -C to r— ^~ o -o s- s- o o CD o r— o o Q- z CM CO CO ^r E CO CO o X CO O o CO CO o 0) ^%» -»^ ~^^. — CO r— f— r— r— TO O) CO •^o •o CsJ o o CsJ l o z .c u CM r^ CO o -U -r- E E sO CO LO 3^: w X ^~ o CO CsJ o o t c c *\ ^^ **^ "^^ r— ^~ t— r— CT> CD CO S- CO CD co S_ • > >>o o to o CXJ CO o o O J=> Z jz: CM o o ^1- to c E r— LT> 1^ r^ ID o •r- O X r-» CsJ 1— i— CSJ co M- -r- \ \ \ \ — *••»« ^ 4-> +-> ^— t— ^— n— r— i 1 o *o S- XJ s- a; • CO s- o r— CO r-^ r~. CO 1 Q. Q. z r— CM o o «* E o ir> t— cr> o o X •3- C\J cr> LO CsJ CO • cd z c o o c CO CTi ^~ *3" 1 O) T** CsJ r— i— -o CD JO !- CD 4-> O r-« CO r-- r-» CO co co o c r-> E r-- r^- r-^ r-s r~- H- »-h CD *v* (O **— , »» *N^ ^^ ^^^ +J CT> -o , o CTi CsJ CO 03 O co i O i CsJ Q >v. t— •^ ^^ > ••*», ~^ O 1— O CsJ CSJ ^~ r^- i >o3 J2 . ct CD CO i- ZD (O C_) Z5 CO cr to 1=o CO S- s- 4- CO +J <1J CO -a s_ C0 a> CSJ o Q. • 1 X "O CO o enc ^ co o CO i~ r— 3: S- 13 E s- u o o CSJ o o +-> >^- o 1 a. 4-> co II O i CO CO CM 00 CO E c S- X re jr \ s_ h- V-12 to +1 o OJ •I— ex.3uoo OJo 10 Q- o> (O +->c tvu s- 0) ca- rt} <1> !-> o CO s_3 co 0) 4-> rt$ J- -Q s- >c 0)o to co to co ONCft CO Q. |—» ^— CO +i +i +i +1 +1 +1 to -H O CD r~ i- cm co r^ o in o CO C -o OJ to c to i-o <_> rtj to Io s-u to rtjo * * III CO CO 1 j 1 I +1 +ii ii iii co co i ill r-^ co cm CM CM CM 1 1 ^z +1 +1 +1 CO 00 CM CM i— +1 1 1 CM 1 to +1 o 1 sj- CM CO CO CM 1 CO to 00 to 1 *3- i 1 •"" r" 1 i i +1 1 +1 1 -H +1 +1 1 -H I i co i i i i CM 1 tO 1 to to to co i— CO 00 co to CO CO CM i— OO 00 i— CO «d- +1 +1 +1 CO co to to r^ co +i +i +i oms CM CO o + o to r». CO to O CO CO CO II II II c c c o to to tO «3- CM i— CO I CM I I I I I I +1 I I I I CM I I I to * o CO i i i 1 1 IN +1 i i i 1 *« i i i 1 1 I o r*» i i i 1 1 1 r- 00 CO o CM t— -H -H +1 CO CM CO to CO 00 CO CO CO II II II I— to c c c &- =3 oio to •-> tO *3- CM 10 r— CO Z r- CM r— II II II c c c o to to tf> «3- CM i— CO ti_ LlI o i— t- to a. co 31 N O CO CO CO II II II o to to to *d- CM t— CO tO CM O O CM r- III CM •— III H +1 +1 H -H -H LOCMN co co co iii CM III CO 00 1 1 CM 1 1 1 1 H -H 1 1 1 1 oo r^ i i CM 1 +1 O I in CM 1 1 i i -H 1 1 NO* III r-~ r— III •H +1 +» CM 1 1 1 CO CM CO III CM VO tO III f— r— ^- CO CM +1 +1 -H r^ cm co ^ CM CM cm co*a- +1 +1 +1 CM tO 00 r-Of*. CMi-r- -H -H -H to OO OOCftCft tv CO CO CM CM CO CO II II II to HUH C C C 3 c c c o to to !-> o to to to «3- CM to tO ^- CM i— CO z i— CO V-13 to CD -t-J 03 i~ .a CD s- > CM +1 CO * CM + 1 CM o 03 Q. oo CD s- 03 CO UO co 1 «3- CM en 1 CTi i +1 +1 +i +1 +1 o i +i i LO r*. i~^ CO C i in lo ^r i +-> ai <3- 1 1 CM 1 1 III o o +1 +1 o co co r~ oo CM 0O i CM r CT> CO CM O O CO +1 +1 +1 in com r-» cr> +1 +1 o r^ cm CM ^d" +1 +1 +1 O O CM LT) CTi CTi CU 03 CD 03 Io s_u 03 +1 CM OH O i— I— 03 co CO CM cC +-> D. co ll II II zc M c E E i— •f— ZD s- o IT) ID o o LT) *d" CM IS) nz i— CO CO CO r— II II II o lo un LD «3- CM i— CO ro co CO -a n ii II Z3 c c c o u~> ld CD LO «3" CM (/) r— CO * V-14 00 Q U>C r" S- 0) 4- O) c •^c •1— (O +>c oo o >> C_J (OQ to O) C\J cno (O CO (J S- t. 4- 4- =t to +-> "O to CD •^ r^ I a. E to (0 CD ui •r"-u (O a; E a. a> m -a (O ^— •^ (C Q P> CM 4- E O -v. 00 >» +-> toc CDQ toc o s_ CM 4- E O \O o. . IS) > Q. O. CL Q. CD a. o. • • v) a a • a. a. o. Tj JC E •^ •M J- i- to E o C 4- o 3 •r~ >! (O 4- 01 •^ > O J- 4- Q. O. 00 OO flj 0) CD (O a. Q.-I- S- (O to Q. • _ tf~ •-> >i >! •«— E 3 Q. to (-> o £ (O J2i ITS JZ J= S- o •r— •r- • r— •r— s_ o (O u O o o «o •r- E to Q. 4- o •r— o •^ o o r— c ^ E 4- 4- c 4-> &- •r— c c 3 a» s_ (T3 •^ 4- CD 'a) to •-> O ro (O > to CD 'o JZ. S- •*— (T3 > o to to > >, J" i— <_> Q. o o o 1— r> z o o O c_> ex. o| c (O to CD (O 3> S- (Oo (O •r— o| E (O ^: <_> o (O CD to CD£ i Q. 00 to >> CD (O -o O CD CNJ OlO to CO , i. (O CD cr>+J r— 4- <: (O V-15 FIGURE LEGEND - CHAPTER V Figure 1 Interactions between benthic invertebrates. Arrows point toward organism which is being overgrown. An "o" indicates no dominance occurred during the period of observation. Figure 2 Changes in surface cover of freshly prepared surfaces at three sites at Buck Island reef during the year. The three surfaces were unglazed pottery' plates placed horizontally, vertically and scraped natural substrate. Major categories of space coverage are: algal turf coralline algae -..-.. bare surface sediment other The experiment ran 325 days. Figure 3 Graph of log algal biomass against the number of urchins per square meter for experimental cages (open circles) and field study sites (closed circles). Regression line for experimental cages, log Y = 2.231 - 0.030 X, P < 0.005. Regression line for field values, log Y = 1.838 - 0.042 X, P < 0.001. Slopes of the two lines were found to be not significantly different by analysis of covariance. Figure 4 Plot of the number of algal species occurring in cages with different densities of urchins. Triangles represent means for each cage type, circles are the raw data. Analysis of variance using orthogonal polynomials indicates a sigmficant difference among densities (P < 0.005) and a significant quadratic trend (P < 0.001). The linear trend is not significant. Figure 5 Two-way analysis of variance over times and treatments shows a significant difference between times (P < 0.005). When data is pooled over times, a one-way analysis of variance shows a significant difference between treatments (P << 0.001). V-16 Figure 1. Diploria strigosa D. clivosa Mussa Porites astreoides Montastrea annularis Agaricia agari cites Siderastrea Mycetophyllia Millepora Palythoa Zoanthus Lebrunea Ricordia Briareum Sponge to o o> "si Q o> d =3 to •r— S-o a. +-> «o +->co to (O S- > .c a.o 4-> 0)o s-o a. o +-> >> ( Z ui/B) SSVIAI0I8 1V91V CM CM CO (0 E CO Xo CM V-19 10 09 3 8 LU Q. CO < 6 CD FIG. 4 •• 8 16 No. URCHINS /m V-20 20 15 e>j E o 10 FIG. 5 o 8/m2 16/m 0/m 100 200 300 DAYS V-21 CHAPTER VI PREDATION ON LIVE CORAL BY THE ECHINOID DIADEMA ANTILLARUM by Robert Carpenter Introduction The long-spined sea urchin, Diadema antillarum , is an abundant inhabitant of the reef ecosystem at Buck Island Reef National Monument. Its importance as a grazing herbivore has been reviewed by Lewis (1964), Randall et al_. (1964), Sammarco et al_. (1974) and Lawrence (1975). Its role as a predator on live coral has been examined only by Bak and van Eys (1975). Their study on reefs of the Netherlands Antilles (Curacao and Bonaire) established Diadema as a significant predator on live coral with 4.5 - 8.0% of the urchin population utilizing coral as a food source. We have found evidence of urchin grazing on live coral tissue at Buck Island Reef National Monument. The present study has attempted to determine the impact of this source of mortality on live corals of the reef and also to elucidate the factors which may be responsible for this phenomenon. Methods and Materials This study was conducted at five sites within the Buck Island Reef National Monument (Fig. 1) during the spring of 1978. Urchins observed on live coral surfaces were brought to the laboratory and dissected within an hour of collection examination of the gut showed zooxanthellae, nematocysts and coral tissue to be present. The mode of feeding and the scars left on the coral surface are described by Bak and van Eys (1975). Since these scars (illustrated in Fig. 2) are the known result of urchin predation, their presence or the actual observance of Diadema predation were used as criteria in the choice of the five study sites. VI-1 Depths of the five areas ranged from 1 to 3 meters, Three 10-meter transects were established in each area. Determinations of urchin density, size and prey item were made from three random 1 m2 quadrats for each transect, yielding a total of nine quadrats/area. Urchins occurring in each quadrat were measured to the nearest millimeter at the maximum test diameter using long-jawed calipers. Urchins were categorized into two groups: those feeding on live coral and those feeding on other prey items or not feeding at all. The species of coral being eaten was recorded in each case. Since Diadema is primarily a nocturnal feeder, all counts and measurements were made after 1900. Percent coverage of live coral, dead coral, pavement, and sand of each transect was determined by the chain method described by Porter (1972). This yielded a measure of three-dimensional coverage since the chain was laid to fit the contours of the substrate. This total amount of coverage divided by the linear 10-meter distance gave a measure of substrate complexity, here called heterogeneity index (H.I.). A totally flat substrate would give an H.I. value of 1.0. Algal cover was determined at each area by three random tosses of a 625-cm 2 wire mesh with 1 cm squares. Algal types were divided into turf and fleshy categories. The number of squares covering each type were then determined for each toss. The height of the algae was also measured to the nearest millimeter and assumed to be uniform for each type over the entire 625 m 2 area. In order to determine the rate of destruction of live coral due to Diadema predatlon, observations on three specific coral heads were made over a three- month period. By means of baseline markers, rates of coral mortality due to this source were estimated. Results The topography and the heterogeneity indices of the five areas are given in Table 1. The heterogeneity indices were similar in all areas. Live coral coverage was higher in areas 1, 2 and 5, while area 4 had a very large pavement VI-2 coverage. Table 2 presents biota cover for each area. Algal turf predominated in areas 3 and 4, while fleshy algae wa? abundant only in area 4. Table 3 contains density data, variance : mean ratios, mean Diadema size, and the percentage of the Diadema population feeding on live coral. High densities occurred in area 2. Densities in the other areas were somewhat low as compared to that reported in a similar area (Ogden et al_. , 197.3) and personal observations. High degrees of clumping were evident in areas 2 and 5 with distributions in areas 1, 3 and 4 being closer to random. Mean individual sizes range from 4.06 to 7.71 cm. The percent of Diadema population feeding on live coral is fairly consistent for areas 1, 2 and 5. No urchins were found preying on live coral in areas 3 and 4. Table 4 presents a breakdown of the live coral coverage of each area into its constituent species and what percent each comprises of the total live coverage. Also presented are the percents of the total coral feeding-urchin population that were feeding on each species of coral. From these values, electivities (Ivlev, 1961) were calculated (see Table 4). No strong preferences are indicated. Correlation coefficients between the percentage of the population feeding on each species and the avail abilty of each species are given. The trend was for urchins to feed on different species in response to their availability. Exceptions occurred in areas 3 and 4 where no coral feeding was observed. Table 5 gives electivity values for total coral in each area. Weak positive values occurred in those areas where feeding was observed and strong negative values occurred in areas 3 and 4, Correlations between various parameters are shown in Table 6. Table 7 shows the average feeding rate of Diadema on a head of Dlploria strigosa , 1 m in diameter. Values are mean widths of the freshly eaten coral as measured from baseline markers. Figures 2a, 2b show this head and the zone that has. been eaten. VI-3 Discussion The Diadema populations studied must be operating under one of the following conditions: (1) they have a preference for live coral, (2) they are generalist feeders, that is, they eat any prey items in relation to their availability, or (3) they are facultative coral feeders that have adapted to a shortage of their natural prey (algae) and are seeking alternate prey items. If Pi adema have a preference for feeding on live coral, then they should be selectively feeding on coral disproportionately to the coral availability. This would be reflected as strong positive values of the electivity indices. From Tables 4 and 5, it can be seen that no strong positive values exist. In those cases where live coral feeding occurs, the correlations between the percent of feeding population preying on each species of coral and the availability of that coral species seem to indicate that the urchins are feeding on coral species in relation to their availability. If these Diadema populations are general ists, then all items should be preyed on with respect to their abundance. Gut content analyses from three studies in St. Croix (Sammarco et_ al_. , 1973; Atkinson, Hopley, Mendelson and Yacowitz, 1973; Ogden, Brown and Salesky, 1973) indicate that Diadema is a somewhat selective feeder, preferring to graze on algal turfs most abundant on coral pavement. Lewis (1964) and Randall e_t al_. (1964) reported earlier that detritus, Crustacea and various animal fragments were found in the guts. This is probably the result of those items being ingested at the same time the urchins were grazing the pavement surface. The idea that Diadema is a herbivore, preferring to graze on algal mats can only be stated in the context of this particular habitat. As Lawrence (1975) pointed out, urchins' diets tend to reflect the composition of their environment and are variable with time, locality and age. If the urchin populations studied were reacting to a shortage of algal turf by finding alternate resources (i.e., coral), then there should exist a negative correlation between the percent of the population feeding on live coral and algal turf abundance. Although a direct correlation between these parameters is VI-4 non-significant, it is still highly negative (r = 0.84). The small sample size may account for this non-significance. However, there is a significant positive correlation (r = +0.91, p < .05) between the percent pavement cover and the percent algal turf abundance, and a significant negative correlation (r = -0.90, p < .05) between the percent of Diadema population feeding on live coral and the percent pavement cover. By this indirect means, it is possible to substantiate the inverse relationship between the occurrence of coral feeding and algal turf abundance. Density of urchins was not found to have a significant effect on the occurrence of coral predation. There does exist a significant negative correlation (r = -0.93, p < .05) between urchin density and mean urchin size. No significant differences in urchin size were found between those urchins eating coral and those eating algae (Anova). The distributions of Diadema in areas where coral feeding occurred were more clumped than in those areas where it was not observed. This probably reflects the clumped distribution of corals on which the urchins were feeding. Rate data from Table 7 indicate that on one head of coral, urchins are capable of eating approximately 2.3 mm/day. This rate, extended over the total surface of live coral on this head, leads to a value of 48.07 cm 2 /day. This assumes that two-thirds of the circumference of the head is covered by live coral. Although this is a very rough figure, it points out that Diadema is a significant source of coral damage and mortality in this locality. It appears in this locality that as a result of lowered algal abundance, Diadema is seeking alternate sources of nutrition. When algal turf is available, due to space availability provided by pavement, it is the preferred prey item. Urchin density and size do not appear to play a role in this feeding strategy. This study is continuing at the same sites, plus additional ones, and is being expanded to include other factors such as varying depths and different reef environments (i.e., patch reef, backreef, forereef). VI-5 Table 1. — Topography of the Study Areas Area % Live Coral ±S.D. N=3 % Dead Coral ±S.D. N=3 % Pavement ±S.D. N=3 % Sand ±S.D. N=3 H.I. ±S.D. N=3 Area 1 14.67 ±9.50 27.33 ±7.77 42.67 ±27.15 15.00 ±10.15 1.39 ±0.17 Area 2 16.33 ±7.51 48.00 ±21.93 22.00 ±11.27 13.67 ±10.41 1.23 ±0.16 Area 3 7.00 ±5.29 36.67 ±10.41 44.33 ±25.01 12.33 ±12.74 1.35 ±0.18 Area 4 9.67 ±6.11 13.67 ±17.21 73.33 ±20.21 3.33 ±3.06 1.40 ±0.26 Area 5 19.00 ±3.46 34.33 ±9.71 25.67 ±6.43 21.00 ±3.61 1.57 ±0.23 VI-6 Table 2. — Biota Coverage in the Study Area % Algal Turf % Fleshy Algae ±S.D. Height ±S.D. Height Area N=3 (nm) N=3 (cm) % Other Area 1 41.00 3.50 59.00 ±8.38 Area 2 23.33 1.00 76.67 ±9.02 Area 3 67.33 2.17 3.30 1.50 29.37 ±15.27 ±5.77 Area 4 67.33 2.33 22.67 0.30 10.00 ±32.92 ±31.01 Area 5 47.67 3.33 1.33 1.50 51.00 ±39.50 ±1.53 VI-7 Table 3. — Diadema Population Parameters Density/m2 — ± S.D. Mean Individual Size % Population Feeding ±S.D. x ±S.D. on Live Coral ±S.D. Area N=15 N = 15 (cm) N = 15 Area 1 5.53 ±2.20 1.47 ±0.25 6.27 ±0.64 N = 81 Area 2 11.20 ±7.07 3.22 ±3.20 4.06 ±0.22 N = 178 Area 3 4.20 ±0.80 1.05 ±0.67 6.36 ±0.17 N = 63 Area 4 4.00 ±0.60 1.03 ±0.81 7.71 ±0.54 N = 58 Area 5 2.60 ±0.80 1.90 ±1.43 6.90 ±0.55 N = 41 29.73 ±10.97 22.83 ±10.87 0.0 0.0 24.83 ±14.85 VI-8 Table 4. - Percent of Total Live Coral Coverage by Constituent Species, Percent of the Feeding Diadema Population Feeding on Each Coral Species, and the Electivity Indices for Each Coral Species % Diadema Population Location Coral Species % Cover Feeding on this Species e Area 1 Acropora palmata 24.24 36.36 +0.20 Diploria clivosa 17.42 27.27 +0.22 r = +0.56* Diploria strigosa 12.12 9.09 -0.14 Montastrea annularis 20.45 18.18 -0.06 Porites astreoides 3.03 4.55 +0.20 Porites porites 22.73 4.55 -0.67 Area 2 Agaricia spp. <1.0 2.70 <+0.46 A. palmata 9.17 8.11 -0.06 r = +0.92* D. strrgosa 34.17 24.32 -0.17 M. annularis 12.50 21.62 +0.27 P. astreoides 4/17 0.0 -1.00 P. porites 40.00 43.24 +0.04 Area 3 Agaricia spp. 3.45 0.0 -1.00 D. strigosa 32.76 0.0 -1.00 r = 0* M. annularis 20.69 0.0 -1.00 P. porites 43.10 0.0 -1.00 Area 4 D. clivosa 9.20 0.0 -1.00 D. strigosa 62.07 0.0 -1.00 r = 0* M. annularis 9.20 0.0 -1.00 P. astreoides 19.54 0.0 -1.00 Area 5 Agaricia spp. 0.55 0.0 -1.00 D. strigosa 5.49 0.0 -1.00 r = +0.99* M. annularis 87.36 88.89 +0.01 Mussa angulosa 0.55 0.0 -1.00 P. astreoides 6.04 11.11 +0.30 e = (r. - p.) r. + p. r. = % population feeding on live coral p. = % live coral available Correlation coefficients between the percent of the feeding Pi adema population feeding on each coral species and the availability of that coral species. VI-9 Table 5. — Electivity Indices for all Coral Species for all Areas % Diadema Population Feeding Area % Live Coral Cover on Live Coral e Area 1 14.67 29.73 +0.34 22.83 +0.17 0.0 -1.00 0.0 -1.00 24.83 +0.13 Area 2 16.33 Area 3 7.00 Area 4 9.67 Area 5 19.00 VI"10 Table 6. — Correlation Coefficients Between Indicated Parameters Parameters r Significance % Diadema population feeding on live coral. % live coral coverage. Mean individual size. Density/m 2 . % pavement cover. % algal turf. % Diadema population feeding on live coral. % algal turf. % pavement cover. % Diadema population feeding on live coral. +0.88 p < .05 -0.93 p < .05 +0.91 p < .05 -0.84 ns -0.90 p < .05 VI-11 Table 7. — Amount of Diploria strigosa Head Eaten by Diadema Mean Width ±S.Q. of Killed Coral Day (cm) 2 1.76 ± 0.77 4 2.99 ± 1.91 6 3.01 ± 2.22 8 3.16 ± 2.35 11 3.36 ± 2.80 19 4.51 ± 4.13 27 5.01 ± 3.81 35 10.26 ± 3.70 80 18.31 ± 4.02 Average feeding rate - 2.28 mm/day. VI-12 FIGURE LEGEND - CHAPTER VI Figure 1 Buck Island reef and lagoon showing Diadema antillarum study sites. Figure 2 Head of Diploria strigosa , showing band of dead coral following predation by Diadema antillarum . a. Whole colony. b. Close-up of same. VI-13 CD VI-14 FIG. 2 VI-15 CHAPTER VII PREDATION ON LIVE CORAL BY THE PARROTFISHES SCARUS VETULA AND SPARISOMIA VIRIDE by G. Simpson Introduction There is little published evidence on predation by Caribbean reef fishes on live coral. Among the fishes often cited as grazers are the parrotfishes , Scaridae (Randall, 1974). Darwin (1845, 1850), who visited Cocos Keeling Islands during the voyage of the "Beagle", reported from the observations of a resident and his own analysis of intestinal contents that the two species of Scarus subsisted entirely on live coral. Richard H. Randall (personal communication to Randall, 1974) suggested that Bolbometopon muricatus , one of the largest parrotfishes (1.2 m) ranging from the tropical western Pacific to the Red Sea, feeds on live coral. It was observed biting pieces from Monti pora verrucosa (Lamarck) outside of the reef off Madang, New Guinea (Randall, 1974). In contrast, Finckh (1904) stated, as a result of studies at Funafuti in the El lice Islands, that large numbers of fishes were watched in the neighborhood of coral but in no instance were they seen to browse on it. Choat (1966, p. 266-267), who completed a dissertation (University of Queensland) on the biology of labrid and scarid fishes at Heron Island stated, "It is worthy of note that in no instance were parrotfishes observed to graze on living coral..." In the eastern Pacific, it has been established that parrotfish graze on live coral. Glynn (1972) stated, "Several individuals in a school of approximately 60 young of Scarus ghobban (Forsskal) were observed biting into a colony of Porites panamensis at the Pearl Islands.". VII-1 There has only been limited research done in the Atlantic, For example, in Panama (Bakus, 1969) and in Bermuda (Gygi, 1969), the rasping of live corals by scarids is commonplace. Glynn (1973) mentions that on the north coast of Panama the summits of large hemispherical colonies are commonly scraped to depths of 2-3 mm; such feeding is often performed by relatively small schools (5-15 individuals) of Scarus guacamaia (Cuvier) wMch appear to range over extensive areas. Predation on coral is quite apparent 1n several areas of the patch and barrier reefs surrounding Buck Island. Numerous bite marks cover areas of Acropora palmata , Porites astreoides , and Montastrea annularis . The purpose of this study was to investigate this phenomenon through research on the common local parrotfish Scarus vetula (Queen Parrotfish) and Sparisoma viride (Stoplight Parrotfish) on the patch and barrier reefs of Buck Island. Methods and Materials Coral predation was followed in the field on four large colonies of Acropora palmata located within Buck Island Reef National Monument. Two colonies were located on the backreef of the north lagoon just east of the north cut or SCUBA buoy. The third colony was almost directly opposite the lagoon from the other two along the north shore of Buck Island. An additional colony was located on the south forereef. The two colonies on the backreef were located approximately three meters apart, and were designated colonies #1 and #2. Colony #1 showed evidence of predation from October 1977, when it was first observed, through June 1978. Colony #2 showed almost no predation during the entire course of this study. Colony #3 showed signs of predation from March 1978, when it was first observed, through September 1978, when the study was terminated. The fourth colony was observed November and December 1978. The change in the amount of predation over time was followed by means of chain transects done periodically during the study period. A 10 m chain was draped over the colony and the number of links touching live coral, and the number of links touching bite marks were counted. The percentage of surface area being VII-2 preyed upon was computed by dividing the number of links touching bite marks by the sum of links touching live coral and links touching bite marks. This was done for each of five replicates taken at each sampling site. Means and standard deviations were computed from replicates and graphed against time 1n Figure 1 . Sample parrotfish of the species Scarus vetula and Span' soma viride were collected with a speargun. Five primary and five terminal phase specimens of each species were collected, weighed, and measured. Gut analyses were done to determine if zooxanthellae were present. In situ feeding observations were also made for a total of 10.25 hours using SCUBA and snorkle gear. Fish were divided into four weight classes: small, 0-100 g; medium, 100-500 g; large, 500-1000 g; and extra large, over 1000 g; and two color phases: primary and terminal. In the field feeding observations, individual fish were followed for varying periods of time, usually 9-15 minutes. All observations were broken down into three-minute time periods during which all food types consumed and the number of bites of each food type were recorded. The amount of coral grazed by Sparisoma viride was analyzed in a large pen constructed in shallow water adjacent to the West Indies Laboratory dock. Fish, divided into same size and color classes as field observations, were placed in the pen along with live coral. To compensate for the occasional recruitment to or disappearance of individuals from the pen, each size class was multiplied by a weight factor so that the densities could be added to give a total density in fish units. Thus, the density of small fish was multiplied by 0.5; medium fish by 1.0; large fish by 1.5; and extra-large fish by 2.0. The summed total of the density, reported in fish units, is graphed against the mean number of bites per day and shown in Figure 2. Results Figure 1 shows noticeable increases in the amount of coral predation during the Winter months. A similar occurrence was observed by E. Gladfelter (pers. commun.) during the Winter of 1976. During periods of observation, the effect of predation on a single colony did not exceed about 10% of the surface area. All of the VII-3 colonies observed showed decreases in the amount of predation with the approach of Summer. There appears to be a great tendency for a coral colony to be either preyed upon extensively, or not to be preyed upon at all. Even with colonies which are adjacent, such as #1 and #2, this was observed repeatedly. This suggests that a little coral damage attracts other fish to the colony and increases the amount of predation on the grazed colony. Individual bite marks were labeled on Acropora palmata and followed over time in order to determine if there were any long-term effects upon the colony or skeletal structure. On the fast-growing corals, such as Acropora palmata , a characteristic healing pattern was found for individual bite marks (1 x 2 cm in size). Within one week after the bite was made, tissue had regenerated over the bite. This tissue was clear, i.e., lack of zooxanthellae. In some cases, the beginning of new polyps could be seen by this time. The bite was generally healed by the end of two weeks. By this time, distinct polyps could be seen and the tissue contained zooxanthellae. By three weeks, the polyps had almost reached a size comparable to surrounding ones from the non-bite area making it impossible to tell that predation had occurred there. On the slower growing corals, such as Po rites astreoides and Montastrea annularis , the effects of scarid predation often left severe long-term scarring. Frequently, these corals were found with large areas grazed, especially on the top. Being unable to regenerate tissue fast enough to out-compete the algae growing there, the grazed spot was covered by algal turf. In the long run, the coral slowly grew up around the edges of the algal patch forming a rim. As time progressed, the coral slowly overgrew the algae forming a doughnut-shaped elevation. Eventually, the coral completely overgrew the algae. All the above stages of grazing and regeneration were frequently found on the reef surrounding Buck Island. Gut analyses (T^ble 1) showed that only two out of ten primary phase parrotfish had zooxanthellae present in the gut. The fact that these were the only primary phase parrotfish over 40 cm in length and over 2 pounds in weight suggests that perhaps the fused teeth and pharyngeal mill of the smaller fish are not strong enough for biting healthy coral. Six of terminal phase specimens Sparisoma viride VII-4 contained zooxanthellae while only two Scarus vetula did. This supports o vJ fv i : : tU i ; jwof ^0 boi . observations by the author that terminal phase S. viride were seeneatihg live coral several times while the S. vetula was seen eating it only once. Also, although both Scarus and Sparisoma bite marks were counted without differentiation there seemed to be a 3:2 ratio favoring' the unqrooved or Sparisoma type bite marks . supst : • nc In field observations of feeding frequency on various prey items (Table 2), it bni is seen that as the size of the fish increases, the total number of bites per n time decreases. This is possibly due to the larger sized bite allowing more food to be ingested per bite. The volume percent of each food item in the diet was computed by dividing the number of bites per food item by total bites. There was a trend for larger fish to have a lower percentage of algal turf in their diet, with a correspondingly higher consumption of carbonate algae and coral. .. . , - Small and medium sized fish (as observed in the field) tended to only nip at the polyps of the acroporid corals. Only the large and extra-large fish were observed to leave the deep characteristic bite marks on the Acropora spp. corals, or upon the harder corals such as Montastrea annularis , Porites astreoides , Siderastrea siderea or Dip Tori a strigosa . In the inshore enclosure, all of the fish placed in the pen lost weight over the course of the experiment. Even under such a starvation regime, however, Sparisoma viride did not switch to the coral as an alternate food source. The coral colony within the pen did not appear to be preyed upon any more than those observed in the field. This supports the view that coral is not a major food source in the diet of this fish, but merely a small, incidental part of it. Discussion Parrotfish clearly are a source of predatioh on living corals at Buck Island Reef National Monument, as they have been observed to be in other portions of the Atlantic (Bakus, 1969; Gygi , 1969; Glynn, 1973). Grazing pressure is due primarily to larger individuals, who have the ability to rasp more deeply into the coral skeleton. Coral grazing was heaviest during the. Winter months, perhaps VII-5 reflecting a period of lower productivity of the algal turfs and benthic carbonate algae, which appear to constitute the bulk of the parrotfish diet. The type of coral being grazed upon, in part determines the effect of grazing on the benthic community. Although Acropora palmata is frequently grazed (up to 10% of a colony showing recent evidence of predation), it can regenerate rapidly, and repair grazed areas very effectively before other organisms settle. Thus, this species, at the grazing pressures at present at Buck Island Reef National Monument, can recover fully and rapidly. The slower growing head corals, however, are more frequently found to be more severely damaged, since algae often colonize the scar marks. This can be a potential source of mortality for these forms. However, it should be noted in Chapter V (Benthic Processes) of this report, that even these corals, unless completely dominated by algae and killed very early after grazing, can often recover and regenerate as well over the grazed areas. It can be concluded that under the present level of grazing, the parrotfish are modifying the benthic community by supplying surfaces for algal settlement, but the corals are generally able to recover from this perturbation. High levels of grazing, however, due perhaps to lower productivity of algal turfs and carbonate algae for some reason would probably lead to a permanent alteration of the present community structure. VII-6 Table 1. — Occurrence of Zooxanthellae in the Guts of Different-Sized Parrotfish Freshly Caught in the Field Zooxanthellae Specimens Size We ight Yes No Primary Spa ri soma viride 41 cm 2 lbs. 4 oz. X n M ii 33 cm 1 lb. 1 oz. X n ii M 24 cm 9 oz. X n M n 37 cm 1 lb. 13 oz. X M ii ii 40 cm 2 lbs. 2 oz. X Terminal Spa ri soma viride 39 cm 1 lb. 13 oz. X ii ii n 40 cm 2 lbs. 2 oz. X n ii n 40 cm 2 lbs. oz. X ii ii ii 24 cm 1 lb. oz. X ii n ii 28 cm 1 lb. 6 oz. X Primary Scarus vetula 31 cm 1 lb. 6 oz. X H M H 30 cm 1 lb. 1 oz. X n n ii 34 cm 1 lb. 12 oz. X M n n 22 cm 15 oz. X ii n n 33 cm 1 lb. 10 oz. X Terminal Scarus vetula 44 cm 2 lbs. 6 oz. X H n n 40 cm 2 lbs. 1 oz. X n n n 47 cm 2 lbs. 15 oz. X H ii M 36 cm 2 lbs. oz. X ii ii ii 42 cm 3 lbs. oz. X VII-7 Table 2. • - Feeding Frequency on Various Foods and Percentage of Food Items in the Diet of Sparisoma viride (Mean Number of Bites/Three Minutes ± Standard Deviations) Colorphase/ Size Class Algal Turf Halimeda sp. Dictyota sp. Misc. Macro-* Algae Sand Coral Total Primary/ Small 31. 1± 15.6 93% 0.5+ 1.4 2% 0.1± 0.5 <1% 0.7± 1.1 2% 0.00± 0.00 0.7± 2.2 2% 33. 3± 15.7 Primary/ Medium 32. 6± 13.7 88% 3.2± 3.5 9% 0.5+ 1.1 1% 0.4± 1.0 1% 0.2± 0.5 <1% 0.3± 1.1 <1% 37. 2± 12.7 Terminal/ Medium 31. 4± 15.6 91% 1.0± 1.7 3% 1.0+ 2.4 3% 0.4± 1.0 1% 0.5± 1.6 1% 0.1± 0.4 <1% 34. 4± 14.1 Primary/ Large 26. 7± 11.2 76% 4.0± 4.0 11% 1.3± 1.8 4% 1.3± 2.2 4% 0.7± 1.5 2% 1.0+ 2.4 3% 35. 0± 11.6 Terminal/ Large 14. 2± 9.5 70% 3.3± 3.5 16% 0.9± 1.2 4% 1.8± 4.2 9% 0.1± 0.4 1% 0.1± 0.5 1% 20. 4± 11.3 Primary/ Extra-Large 8.7± 7.3 60% 2.1± 3.7 14% 1,8+ 1.8 12% 0.7± 1.1 5% 0.7± 1.7 5% 0.4± 0.8 3% 14. 5± 8.0 Terminal/ Extra-Large 14. 2± 10.1 68% 2.6± 3.7 13% 1.7± 2.0 8% 1.0± 1.6 5% 0.7± 0.6 3% 0.6± 1.2 3% 20. 8± 9.5 VII-8 FIGURE LEGEND - CHAPTER VII Figure 1 Percent surface area covered by parrotfish predation scars during the year or: three colonies of Acropora palmata (means and standard deviations). Figure 2 Coral predation as a function of parrotfish density. VII-9 FIG. 1 10 <> % 5 t • 4 DJFMAMJJAS 10 % 5 DJFMAMJJAS 10 * t I % 5 I DJFMAMJJAS VII-10 CNJ co \ \ CM \ \ \ \ O .tr CM S \ \ IO CO \ \ \ \ co O o \ 10 CM O 00 .001 - see Table 5). In Tague Bay, the size ranges were 17.5 - 30.0 cm s.l. and 168.0 - 812.0 g, while at Buck Island, they were 16,5 - 35.5 cm s.l. and 140.0 - 1826.0 g. Lutjanus griseus - gray snapper Two Lutjanus griseus were tagged at the Tague Bay patch reef site and neither was recaptured. They were 25.0 cm s.l. and 308.0 g, and 18.5 cm s.l. and 168.0 g. Lutjanus mahogoni - mahogany snapper A single Lutjanus mahogoni (19.5 cm s.l.; 168.0 g) was caught and tagged at Buck Island. It was not recaptured. VIII-10 Ocyurus chrysurus - yellowtail snapper Three Ocyurus chrysurus were caught and tagged but none were recaptured. The two tagged in Tague Bay measured: 36.0 cm s.l. and 868.0 g, and; 35.0 cm s.l. and 616.0 g. FAMILY - Pomadasyidae - grunts Haemulon carbonari urn - caesar grunt A total of two Haemulon carbonari urn were tagged at Buck Island with neither being recaptured. They had measurements of: 20.5 cm s.l. and 228.0 g, and 25.0 cm s.l. and 364.0 g. Haemulon flavolineatum - french grunt Only two Haemulon flavolineatum were tagged in Tague Bay and one at Buck Island. In Tague Bay the two individuals were: 17.0 cm s.l. and 137.0 g, and 112.0 g. The H. flavolineatum from Buck Island was 16.0 cm s.l. and 112.0 g. Most of the H. flavolineatum seen at both ..Buck Island and in Tague Bay were small enough to easily slip through the wire mesh of the traps. Although this species does get larger, Ogden and Erhlich (1977) suggest that H. flavolineatum larger than about 15.0 cm s.l. migrate into deeper water. Haemulon parrai - sailor's choice A single Haemulon parrai (17.8 cm s.l.; 169.0 g) was caught and tagged in Tague Bay. It was not recaptured. Haemulon plumieri - white grunt This species is generally found resting in schools on the reef during the day, and like Haemulon flavolineatum makes nocturnal forages into the surrounding grass beds to feed. Both species follow the same migratory routes to and from the reef daily and they appear to be established and permanent over long periods of time. Ogden and Erhlich (1977) state that "large numbers of fishes were easily trapped by placing a V-shaped fence" attached to a trap "astride the route". VIII-11 As we tended to either catch H. plumieri in groups of 4-8 or else singly, it is possible that those sites with large numbers of H. plumieri were located on or very near to these migration routes. Those sites with low numbers merely caught the foraging individual. A total of 107 Haemulon plumieri were tagged with eight (7.5%) being recaptured with tags and six additional fish being recaptured without tags. At Buck Island, HL plumieri had size ranges of 16.0 - 24.6 cm s.l. and 84.0 - 487.0 g. In Tague Bay, the size ranges were 16.0 - 26.4 cm s.l. and 112.0 - 448.0 g. There was no significant difference in either weight (P < 0.05) or length (P < 0.2) between Buck Island and Tague Bay (Table 6). Only one individual was recaptured more than once. It was first recaptured after 12 days and then again after 7 days Haemulon sciurus - bluestriped grunt Only three Hemulon sciurus were recaptured with tags out of the 38 initially tagged. Three additional fish were recaptured after having lost their tags. None of the fish were recaptured more than once. In Tague Bay, H_. sciurus ranged from 15.5 - 24.5 cm s.l. and 112.0 - 364.0 g. At Buck Island, they were 16.5 - 26.0 cm s.l. and 140.0 - 560.0 g in size. There was no significant difference (t-test) in either weight (P < 0.1) or length (P < 0.2) (Table 6). FAMILY - Sciaenidae - drums Equetus punctatus - spotted drum A single Equetus punctatus (19.5 cm s.l. and 215.0 g) was tagged at Buck Island. It was not recaptured. FAMILY - Mullidae - goatfishes Mulloidichthys martinicus - yellow goat Although numerous Mulloidichthys martinicus were captured throughout the course of this study, only one was tagged (23.0 cm s.l. and 224.0 g). It was found to be extremely difficult to tag M. martinicus because M. martinicus is a small but broad fish, in fact, too broad to allow the needle to pass through the dorsal muscalature. Since it was not possible to securely tag this species of fish, they were released without being tagged. VIII-12 FAMILY - Gerreidae - mojarras Gerres cinereus - yellowfin mojarra A single Gerres cinereus (19.0 cm s.l. and 177.0 g) was tagged at Tague Bay, but it was not recaptured. FAMILY - Kyphosidae - sea chubs Kyphosus sectatrix - Bermuda chub One Kyphosus sectatrix (18.5 cm s.l. and 168.0 g) was caught and tagged at the Tague Bay patch reef site. This fish was recaptured without its tag six times over a period of three months (Table 8). The weights and lengths recorded at each recapture of this individual are typical of those found for individuals that were recaptured repeatedly over a period of time (see also Table 7). Differing periods of time in the trap and the movements of the boat while taking the reading are the probable reasons for most, if not all, of the variance found in size between successive recaptures. The repeated recaptures of this individual as well as the recapture/capture ratio indicate a definite trap conditioning. FAMILY - Chaetondontidae - butterflyfish and anqelfish Pomacanthus paru - french angel fish Neither of the two tagged Pomacanthus paru were recaptured. Both were tagged at the Tague Bay patch reef site and measured 18,0 cm s,l, and 336.0 g, and 16.0 cm s.l. and 224.0 g. FAMILY - Pomacentridae - damsel fishes Abudefduf saxatilis - sergeant major Nine Abudefduf saxatilis were tagged, but none were recaptured. The single individual caught at Buck Island was 14.0 cm s.l. and 148,0 g. In Tague Bay, the size ranges were 11.5 - 13.5 cm s.l. and 84.0 - 140.0 g (see Table 5). Microspathodon chrysurus - yellowtail damselfish Two Microspathodon chrysurus were recaptured of the seven initially tagged. Both recaptured fish were from the Buck Island backreef site and were captured and recaptured on the same days. Three specimens were tagged 1n Tague Bay and VIII-13 they ranged in size from 12.4 cm s.l. and 84.0 - 121.0 g. The four individuals from Buck Island had size ranges of 12.0 - 13.0 cm s.l. and 103.0 - 130.0 g (see Table 5). FAMILY - Labridae - wrasses Halichoeres radiatus - pudding wife Two Halichoeres radiatus were captured and tagged at Buck Island with neither being recaptured. These fish were 27.5 cm s.l. and 532.0 g and 21.0 cm s.l. and 224.0 g. Other than H. radiatus , only Scarus vetula consistently was found with very damaged snouts and generally in poor health after spending some time in a trap. Upon several occasions, dead H. radiatus were found floating in a trap, Lachnolaimus maximus - hogfish Only one Lachnolaimus maximus was caught and tagged. This individual was recaptured twice over a two-week period (Table 6). This fish measured 17.2 cm s.l and 180.0 g. FAMILY - Scaridae - parrotfishes Scarus coelestinus - midnight parrotfish A single, small Scarus coelestinus (23.5 cm s.l. and 392.0 g) was caught and tagged in Tague Bay. It was not recaptured. Scarus coeruleus - blue parrotfish None of the twelve Scarus coeruleus initially tagged were recaptured. All were caught in Tague Bay and ranged in size from 21.0 - 25.0 cm s.l. and 252.0 - 364.0 g. Scarus croicensis - striped parrotfish Only one Scarus croicensis (20.1 cm s.l. and 270.0 g) was tagged. It was not recaptured. Ogden and Buckman (1973) state that S_. croicensis "is the smallest and most abundant Caribbean scarid", however, Ogden and Lobel (1978) state that S_. croicensis is not very abundant around St. Croix. Regardless, the small size of this scarid (maximum size is about 20 cm; Ogden and Buckman, 1973) is the probable explanation for so few being captured. VIII-14 Scarus taeniopterus - princess parrotfish Two Scarus taeniopterus were caught and tagged. The specimen tagged at Tague Bay (23.0 cm s.l. and 353.0 g) was found dead in the trap 13 days after tagging. The specimen from Buck Island was 25.5 cm s.l. and 280.0 g and was not recaptured. Scarus vetula - queen parrotfish Sixteen Scarus vetula were tagged, eight at both Buck Island and Tague Bay. None were recaptured. One large terminal phase individual was seen on the Buck Island patch reef for several weeks after it was tagged. After that, it either lost its tag or migrated, as it was not observed again. The fish from Tague Bay had size ranges of 20.2 - 32.0 cm s.l. and 268.0 - 730.0 g. Those from Buck Island ranged from 20.4 - 31.0 cm s.l. and 251.0 - 952.0 g (Table 5). Bardach (1958) stated that parrotfishes were "delicate and excitable when captured". He observed numerous scarids sink to the bottom after tagging and recovered several dead within 30 minutes. In our tagging, only Scarus vetula appeared to be a "delicate" fish. Frequently, we would arrive at a trap and find one or more dead S_. vetula . Only Halichoeres radiatus appeared to survive as poorly in a trap as !S. vetula . No fish, however, was observed to die as a direct result of the tagging procedure (i.e., transferral to the boat, handling, or time spent out of the water). Sparisoma aurofrenatum - redband parrotfish Thirty Sparisoma aurofrenatum were caught and tagged at the four sites with only one recapture. Twenty of the initially tagged fish were from one station (Table 4). In Tague Bay, the size ranges were 17.0 - 29.0 cm s.l. and 140.0 - 489.0 g, while at Buck Island they were 21.5 - 26.0 cm s.l. and 270.0 - 520.0 g. Table 6 shows the mean weights and standard lengths with standard deviations for S^. aurofrenatum . No statistical analysis was done due to the small sample size at Buck Island (n = 4). Sparisoma chrysopterum - redtail parrotfish A total of twelve Sparisoma chrysopterum were tagged, ten from one site (Table 4). Two were recaptured with intact tags and one was recaptured without its tag. VIII-15 .. None were recaptured more than once. All of the S. chrysopterum were caught in Tague Bay and their size ranges were 17.0 - 27.5 cm s.l. and 140.0 - 573.0 g (Table 5). Sparisoma rubripinne - yellowtail parrotfish None of the twelve specimens of Sparisoma rubripinne that were caught and tagged were recaptured. All were captured at the Tague Bay patch reef site and ranged in size from 18.5 - 27.2 cm s.l. and 178.0 - 596.0 g (Table 5). Sparisoma viride - stoplight parrotfish Sparisoma viride is one of the larger and more abundant scarids at Buck Island. Seventy-nine individuals were captured between Buck Island and Tague Bay, and five were recaptured. Most of the specimens that were recaptured were not released, however, but were brought back to the laboratory to be used in another experiment. Thus, only 32 fish were tagged and released, for a recapture rate of 15.6%. None of the fish were recaptured more than once. There is no significant difference (t-test) in either weight or length between the fish caught in Tague Bay or Buck Island. Although laraer S. vi ri de were observed around the Buck Island patch reef site, few were captured. Size selection by the trap is possible for this species and for several others due to the lack of larger specimens being captured even though they were observed to be in the immediate vicinity of the traps. In Tague Bay, the size ranges were 15.5 - 34.0 cm s.l. and 112.0 - 2123.0 g, while at Buck Island they were 15.9 - 32.0 cm s.l. and 134.0 - 840.0 g (Table 5). One specimen captured in Taque Bay could not be weighed as it exceeded the limits of the scale (i.e., 610 q). FAMILY - Acanthuridae - surgeonfi shes Acanthuru s baji_i_anus - ocean surgeon This species was the second most abundant species tagged, comprising 20.9 of the total number of fish caught. Two hundred and five fish were tagged with 89 (43. 4&) being recaptured with tags and an additional 11 being recaptured without tags. Thirty-three fish were recaptured once. 8 twice, 3 three times, one each four and six times and 2 five times. At Buck Island, the size ranges V 1 1 1-16 were 11.7 - 19.0 cm s.l. and 56.0 - 220.0 g, while in Tague Bay they were 11.0 - 20.5 cm s.l. and 28.0 - 280.0 g. There was no significant difference (t-test) in either weight or length between fish caught in the two study areas (Table 5). Acanthurus coeruleus - blue tang A total of 318 Acanthurus coeruleus were tagged at the four sites, making it the most numerous tagged species (32.4%) in this study. Fifty-seven (17.9%) were recaptured with tags and eleven without tags (Table 4), Forty-three were recaptured once, 6 twice, 4 thrice and 4 four times. A. coeruleus was found to be significantly larger (t-test) in both weight (P > 0.02) and standard length (P > 0.01) at Buck Island. At Buck Island, A. coeruleus ranged in size from 9.8 - 26.5 cm s.l. and 28.0 - 616.0 g. In Tague Bay, the size ranges were 9.5 - 18.7 cm s.l. and 28.0 - 296.0 g. This species, as well as Acanthurus bahianus , are generally found traveling in mixed schools with each other. This schooling habit may be a major factor in the capture of such a large number of these two species. The presence of one or more individuals in a trap attracts others. Upon several occasions, individuals were seen on the outside of a trap attempting to get through the wire to join those inside of the trap. Also, several small schools were seen to enter the trap in a follow-the-leader fashion. Therefore, it may be the behavior of these species rather than their abundance which made them so numerous in our study. Although larger individuals were frequently seen in the areas of the traps, only one was captured and tagged. The same was observed with Sparisoma viride and this may suggest that thetrap size used was selecting against these larger fish and not giving a true cross-section of the population. Acanthurus chirurgus - doctorfish None of the four tagged Acanthurus chirurgus were recaptured. The two individuals from Tague Bay measured 25.0 cm s.l. and 308.0 g and 30.0 cm s.l, and 700.0 g. The single A. chirurgus from Buck Island measured 28.5 cm s.l. and 448,0 g. VIII-17 FAMILY - Balistidae - triggerfishes Canthi dermis sufflamen ocean triggerfish A single C. sufflamen was captured at the Buck island backreef site. It was deemed too large to fit into the transfer pot and was released without tagging. Balistes vetula - queen triggerfish A single Balistes vetula was captured at Buck Island and released without tagging. FAMILY - Ostraciontidae - trunkfishes Lactophrys bi caudal is - spotted trunkfish Several Lactophrys bi caudal is were captured throughout the course of this study, and were released without tagging. Lactophrys triqueter - smooth trunkfish Numerous Lactophrys triqueter were captured at all sites. No attempt was made to tag them due to their bony carapace. FAMILY - Diodontidae - porcupinefishes Diodon hystrix - procupinefish No attempt was made to tag the Diodon hystrix that were caught throughout the course of this study. Conclusions Only two species of fishes ( Acanthurus coeruleus and Lutjanus apodus ) were found to be significantly larger in the area of low fishing pressure, Buck Island Reef National Monument, Other species of fishes either showed no significant difference in size, or were caught too infrequently for analysis. The size trap used, however, probably selected for smaller individuals of some of the species (especially the members of the Scaridae). Visual observations suggest that larger individuals of some species of this family are found at Buck Island than are found in Tague Bay. VIII-18 0) CO Q. Ll_ _c: -»->3 •~D O oo CU o I r— I I I I— I I I 1— I I I O0 I I I I I I I *CT I I 1 ^3" I CO I 1— 11— CO I I I 1— CO I I — CO I I I r— «* I I 1— I CM ^ I I I r— ^" I 1— I 1— ^J- I I 1 CO 1— I I C\J CO I I I <— *3- I I O I O I I O I >— CsJ I I o 1 <— 1 1 o 1 1— csj 1 1 O i O I I O I — CM I I Oli— I I O I CsJ CO I I Olc— I I O I CSJ ^" I I O I O I 1— «3- • I CD I CD I I O — CM CO I I O I O I I O I CM *d" I I o r-- 1— 1 1 o 1 — co O I 1— I I O I CM ^ I O I O I I r— 1 1— 1 C\J «* I I CsJ «3" I I I I I— I I I I I O I O I O 1 O 1 Oli— II 1— I O I I I O I I O I 1— I i— 1 O I I 1— I O I I O I 1— 1 1 O I 1— I 1 Oli— II I I— I I I I I I I r— I I I— I CM I r— I I I 1— I I t— I CM I i— I I CsJ I I r— I I 1— I CM CM I I I I CM I I IT) 1— CM .— .— i— I I CM I 1— 1— I CM I CM 1— 1— I I I CM 1— I CM I 1— I I CM I — CO I CM 1— ^T I CM I I O O 1— I O 1— O CM I I O O 1— I O r— O CsJ o o 1— 1 o <— o co I I O O 1— I O CO o CM I I O — 1— I O CsJ O CsJ 1 1 O O <— 1 O CO O 00 I O 1— CM I O *3" O CO I I O 1— CM I 1— WOsf I I O O CM I O CO O CO I I O 1— CsJ I ONOst 1 1 o 1— cm 1 1— ^r 1— co CM I 1— UlOst to Q. cn o 0) oo 03 13 CD E CU s_ X O C 03 >>•«- n. r— O CO -C t0 3 +-> O "O O -C O C o c E S >> ^ r— 3 to CO «3 3 u CO T3 «0 to •r- XI 3 lO I- •r- c rt5 O — 3 s- O O +-> L7> S- CU co to 4-» O 3 M- »o «o *-> CO •r— «o 3 3 3 O O O 3 to 1 03 i~ 3 n- c CO s_ -M 0) C $- rtJ S- f— 1— •1-0 i~ cr> c 3 03 u «3 CO O E c tt o> 03 to •r- _Q -»-> r— CO S- •r- fO to x CO to E -Q to t— CO 3 i- J- 03 a> CO 3 3 cu s_ 00 S- CO CO 3 •f- CU 3 •1- CU 3 to 3 fc- O «o +-> s^ 3 O 4-> XI a> >) 3 3 3S- to > O 4-> S- (Or- C +-> +-> r— > JC s 03 3 to c r- S- E +-> c CO co 3 e cu cu 03 O O > 3 O C CU X 3 1- U Q) £ O •r— CU O l-> 3 C 3 "O en 03 -i-> cu >> S- J- is av) s_ r— *r" +-> C Q. C 3 (O O •r— c 0000 03 O (_> •1- •!— >> C rtJ CO O 3 CJ1 J- t to cnxi to •<-> «0 S- 1— r— 1— •r- J- 0>-C t- O. S_ • +-> >, 3 O • -O » >> 3 Q. Q- • • >s • • CU t_ S_ Q. • tO 3 • 00 1— » • 1 -- 1 CM 1 1 1 i i— ii 1 I O i— O O lO 1 r— i— CM VO 1 O CO o 1 r— O CO O 1 CM 1 O O LD LO O CM 1 CM •"D 1 i-Or-OU) r-CON 1 - CM O 1 O O CM O I r- I r- o lo tn o - 1 CM Z i o o cm o r*» 1 CM i— «* r^ 1 O^i- 1 i— O CM O 1 CM 1 r- r— LO LO O 1- 1 CM ««- f 0) <: 1 i-i-CMr-VO 1 r- r-CON 1 pa CO r— 1 r- O CO O 1 CM r- r- r-inmoc 1 CM 0> 0£ x:u £ 1 r-r-NOlfl 1 1- p-ntv 1 1 CM i— 1 r- O CO O 1 r- 1 r- O VO VO O r- 1 CO 1-o "3 1 Or- CM O VO 1 CM CO CO 1^ 1 1 *f O 1 r- O CO f— 1 r- 1 r- O LO VO O O 1 CO a r-r-i-NOl/l ' "- O CM VO 1 1 CM O 1 r- O CO r- 1 r— 1 O r- LO Lf) r— "- 1 CO - 1 i— r— CO OlO 1 CM r-ON 1 1 i— O 1 O O CO O 1 r— 1 O O r-s Lf> r— - 1 CO o 1 i— ©CM CM lft 1 r- r- co r>* 1 1 CM O 1 O Or- i— IN IP- OlONr- CO 1 CO 1 r-Or-i-lfl 1 (MOMS 1 1 r— r— 1 r— r- r— r— 1 «* 1 r— O VO VO r— CM 1 CO to3 to O 3 to •i- to to i. E 3 C 3 1- 3 to 3 3 O -r- +-> J* CD 3 to to -> fm ••-> ro 0> 4-> -> 3 >> 3 3 o J- i- 3 3 S- c rO E to S- -M •r- to f0 S- *4- to 3r— a» E +> •i— CO to E O 3 fO fO to E *r~ *r- fO 3 c wps. Tfc30i 3 tO > T >> -C CO +J 3 3 at. o. to to to +J o g •r- CD -c to u w m op r— ro +J 3 C 1- a -o 3 i— S- C to c 4-> 3 to CO 3 CO tO Q. O tO tO tO J- O r— •r— to O C£«) ( i- J- •O «/) •!— 3 O -C co c E C 3 i— E •e— O C tO •!- O 3 to c c x; M C «r- X> to -M •-> T- O C l/l C T- O S- O CD o •r- CO •r- O »-> tO i— c O O -M ro CO •!- ro O •i- ra 3c— OtOO>»rOEXi3> J- to TJ Q. i- tO 3 co "O "a c 3 U C •!- O +J Q. U «£ 3r> t. O c a S. 3 x: h-j ro E 3 E O r— 3 I- t- o •i- 3 01 l/l O i^ i/i fO O O <0 O ro ro S- 3 i~ to icl tO O i— O 4-> O "O X: CO C O 3 Q.+J +J O S- E r— ro CO SL£ II O to «4- to c r- 3 Q. s- -r- x: x: J- CO CO ro ra O Ol > t— . >> 0) •r- o i— CO E S- U D.-P O ra ro E D. a • • • O , O U££ O JJJOIIXXXZKOZa 1/lOUQ.Q-UIUJU UJ uj sr CO CD ra a. CDc •r- o CO3 coo VIII-22 CD 03 o_ u_ 4-> S- "O o to ai CD cc u 03 S- O o I I LO i— O LO I I I nt\J I CNJtMc— I I I iDOnm^Oi— I I r— I I I CM I i— CM I CO CM I ^" O CM tO «*J- i— I LD co r— i ** o cm r-> «d- CM I LO i— t\IN ** CM i inopos co cm i incMMrs cm .— i inw^-N CO CM I IT) i— CMN i— I CO CM I ^ CM r— CM CO I I W«Jr- I CM ^- *d- I i— «d" CO CO *3" i I CM CO CO r— CM O CM CM tO r— .— to i— CM «d- CM CO CM CM CO i— CM ^J" r— CM «d" CM CO CM I — «d" «3" CM CO «3" ICMCMCM^J-i— «3- i— OO^-i— OCOCOO CM.— LDCMO^J-COtO i— i— mwo^i— ^a- i— O LO CM O «3" CM *3" r— to cm i— «* «d- ^r CM CM LO CM O «=f i— *d" CMCMtOCMi— «=J-CM«3- CO LO CM O tO CO ^" CM LD CM O LO ^3" LO CMi— tO r— O +-> > «3 V- X _Q 03 to to to OJ 3 tt- to to 5- +-> 3 3 t- (U IC -r- "O S- r— O T- >> 4- 3 i— sz -o a> Q) to a» o 03 o "O -M E •!- i~ Q. to E3 to3 Co C31 03 •r- +J .4-> S- 03 c 3J •i- to Q-4-> cn c J- to Q. 3J -i^ i— 3J to C 03 W 03 •r- E E to $- O 3J O- C O O) O •!- «4- 03 S- 3 3 3 to • 03 to 5- 33 > o »-> S- to CO S_ jQ c 3 a> 03 r— •r— a> to 03 C zs a tO 10 -M *r— Tj s- si to E • Q. o •r- J- -»-> G 3 to »-> 3 •i— •r— • •<—> (/) zj'to ai r— 03 0) +-> to 03 Q. Q. c Q. > to 3J C313 C W to S- -•-> to d) a> 03 cl to s- E r A O tu s_ c >-o +-> to >v T3 "O <-> •r— 3 03 x: s- 3 to 03 JC •*^— •i-«/» "O Dl to 3 O >> •r- O 1- •i— C i- O r— O 33 •r— 5- C J- -C 03 o a> Q O •«— C/» •!— O to u to S- i- i~ -o to o 03 O) to to -C -C •r- 03 0) Q. O -C t- c £- £ 03 03 i- jC •i- 3 03 13 s_ 03 o 3J O 3J t- 4-> «r or o •t— -> JC o 0) fl S- S~ (J +-> o C7> O S- S- C J3 O (0-P+JJ3 c •-> -o 03 «3 r-> 03 o>+J 03 03 03 03 03 03 ceo «3 c orr -.i— o o JC • Q- • • « • O • • • • • O O. U • • O 03 03 • O 03 •r~ a. a. i 03 a. >s I— I(/)W CO t/) OO OO OO OO OO WWtO(fl<< «/> c 0} 5 to3 t/l c C •r- 0)o «/) o a> 2 •r— 1— S-o «4- o> O ai 4-> c » .a u u c c a> or u +-> A3 a. 4-> $-o CM 0) ^— JO <0 to i i i i i i in i co i cvj i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i t i i i to i ro i «d- i Nnn i cj i i <* i — I i i i i i i i i in i ro i ^- i to i »3- i O i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i I ^f I I I CM i i i i i i i i— in *j- C\J I CVJ I i— ID CO CO I CVJ I cvj in i «d- i ^J- i i i i i i— ^r i «* i i (VI I W I C\J I C\J I I I I I I UD I C\J i— 1^ I "d- cvj r^ i i i •— i i— t MINI f I I MINI i r-~ to I cvi to I I I I CO CJ) 03 a. en 2O co o 4->coo to to t/> c 3 1/1 3 to CO 03 -M «/) T- f^ 3 to to to 3 O to 03 -t- =3 fc. 03 -f- +J 3 3 -o -!-> •r- 3 -(-> T— •!- .O 4-> T3 03 to •r— XI 3 IV S- i C «0 "0 0) 03 O r— 3 S- o O +-> Cn S- d) to to (. vig c 0) i- E 3 E Q- 1- «t- U O 3 H- 00 •r— T3 3 3 3 O O O 3 to r— 03 s- 3 •r— C 00 O S- 4-> a) c s- to J- f— f— «™s i~ cn c 3 03 o U 03 to 3 a> a> u E c •^ 03 03 o to • r— -Q +-j r— OO S- •H" .C r— •»-> X «o to o X to to E -oi oo •( l^ 3 S- S_ 03 CO 00 3 3 QJ $- oca to S- 00 oo 3 a> 3 •^ a> 3 00 3 $- o T3 +-> s_ 3 U »-> JD cn >••- t. >! 3 3 3 t- oo > U -»-> J- «o i c 4-> +J r— > o .C 03 03 3 to r— i— O c .— S- E 4-> c to to 3 C a» a; ra O o S- to 3 3 l/l -C •r— >> 3 o c 0J X 3 •f— a 3 C o 3 XJ 3 O* «J 3 •-> o cn (a 4-> O) u >> S- s- (O CL oo 1- ^-* •1 +-> C 03 03 c C X C O U C O T3 O •r- C 10 oo u 00 s_ O Cl i— s_ a. c 3 03 Eg U o •i— c 03 Q. o (U£ O C > e° o o , e J- o c E •1" i- enje •f— Q. i~. 03 •r— o S^ •M > >> • 4-> >, *3 'o • o • >> 3 a. Q. • • >> • • a> s- s- Q. • 03 3 • • KWOOWh rO Q_ U_ sz 4->3 "3 o CO GO cu «=t co en o o 00 C\J 1 in 1 1 1 00 1 co 1 1 10 1 t «=r 1 r-» 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 cm 1 r-» 1 cm 1 00 1 ^- 1 1— 1 ro 1 1— I CO 1— CM I I I 1 00 1 co 1 1 1 E =5 +-> ro CO CO 3 E S_ T- 3 t— CO O C -C rO co O O •1- a> c — o co o AT 3r- C (O S- 3 rO E 3 E >> CD • • O rO JJOI 1— I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1— I I I I I I— I I I— I I I I I ro Q. c o o c>- o co C Co CO 3 CO3 10 •!- CO CO s_ CO 3 C 3 •r* 3 CO 3 3 O 1- +-> .*: eg 3 CO CO 4-> •1- 4-> «0 O) -t-> +-> 3 >» \n ro C X i~ f— S- C X •1— «a co O V-r- l-> 1- CO <0 3 3 CU T- J- S- 3 CO -C 1— +J E E CT>+J E O jQ O) S- cu +J +J 3 3 1- •r- 3 3 s- c «o E CO S- +-> •1— co ro S- <*- CO +* > CU E +-> •r- O co E O 3 rO rO 1/1 Efi- fO 3 c ro •r* J- 3 ro > -O >> .c a> -»-> 3 3 Ol S- a. CO co +> O X XX >> E •r— 0) SZ CO t- CO 4->i— rO 4-> 3 c T— O TJ ro CD 3 •r- i- c CO C -l-> 3 CO (U 3 CU ro Q- O co «/> CO S- r— •r— CO O CO to i- J_ S- ro 00 •r" 3 O -C O e E co C 3 3 -•-> s_ •r- +J 3 -C 0) (O 3 co c 3 r— E -r- O C CO •1— 3 fO C C SZ +-> C M-.Q CO -l-> 4-> »t- CO V) t- CO C •r- O S- O J) Ot (U •^ -t-> co 1— c !-> ro CU •1 ro O •r— ro 3 3 •r- O) >> rO E -Q =3 > s- wd a s_ CO 3 CO T3 T3 C 3 O c ^ O +-> Q.-a S_ pi S- 1 3 i- •r— ro -t-> O '1- 3 cu i/> O CO CO rO O O ro O *s ro t- 3 1- co M- 3 pM JZ £Z CD 1— rC U r— O+J OTD -C e 3 0-4-> 4J O i- j5 r— ro CU rO p CU s- -0 •O i O E Q. O CO <4- CO C 1— 3 0. 5- •1- sz -C S- CU CU ro ro O- > O. -!-> •,— •1- O 1— CU E i- U CL-t-> O « IO E 0. O 3 r— £= T3 3 CO cu & 3 >j O O -C .C O • 3 • » • • i-.Q • • O O CO o CO "O 0>3C oo CM 0) <0 u •t-> $-o co CO CM CM I CM CM I I I I I CM «* I I * to S- >>-•-> CU T3 C 3 •r— to CU r— (O •r— to •r- c CU s- 3 -l-» O J- r— 3 U •^ f— CU t— CU Q-+-> •r— CU to Q. 3 ^ .— 3 to to u lO •r- E E to S- u 3 O" c o (O (T3 M- to S- 3 3 3 CO • CU 3 O-'i- o s- X $- c •r— c X) S- -t-> «o CO C- 3 > o 4-> i~ to •^ •r- jQ o _Q c 3 CO (O r— • 1 (U to 03 C 3 O to CO +-> •!- O S- i- • Q. to •1— S- +-> C 3 to 4-> 3 •1— •« • '•"J CO 3 CO CU i— fO CU -4-> CO Q. (O 3 *D Q. Q- CU CO •-> c O. CU ^rt -t-> > to 3 CD 3 C to (0 S- +-> CO 3 to to +-> £ •r— ,-0 -»-> to >>-c CJ •r- 3 fO CD •r-> E S- fO 3 4-> -C 4- 3 CO OJ ^z ci."o co >! to 13 O >>'r- O •r~ •r" C S- U r O 3 •p- $- C S- .C (T3 O CD E •r- 3 •o 03 .c: U .C O •- -l-> -C O S- O T" s- ex. E $- o > O cn <_> S- S- C -C> o •-> -Q C 4-> TD T- CD+-> fO fO > JC in H- zn I/) 00(/l(/) oo oo oo co to co oo OOl/)<<< 2 O _l _1 e£ o q a: oo o UJ to -o Q- a> Oi a: -o .c c a ro +-> TO o o. Qi CD >> CD TO <0 CQ J— (1) 4- 3 O CD TO -l-> 1— •- _J to cd f-u CD a. s- TO 3 O +J OJ Q. a: too T3 aj s-3 O-i— TO to O »-> O) o a: i— o OJ CD CDr— TO TO I— +->O + -o a> s- +-> Q- TOo O) a: a> CD CD to <& i— Ol^-COOOCVJ I i i^Oi— lo oo lo in cm i lO CD i— r— CM CM I 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 1 IOO 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LO 1 1 1 ! 1 1 IOO 1 1 1 IOO lO CM 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 ro om^ m ro.— i— cm i UD CM r-. CM CO i i— cm rocMi— i— N«t«*Nroni£icoooininir)ir)ir)ininifiMroromMnron r» rocDcooomLnmcMCMCMi— oooooooooooooooooo *3- CM r— i— CM rocDr^cMcoi— i— cmoooooi— oooooooi— i— o oo oo O O O O r— CD ID i— r^»Oi— OCMOCOOOVXjrOOOCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM CONVDCO W Mi— i CD oo .p. u E E E c: E •( 3 3 3 o 3 c +-> to 4-> CD <- •r" oo to to -»-> 00 •(— TO to to 3 TO c CD to to 3 3 3 TO 3 00 +-> +-> 3 3 a> C c 4-> • r— C -M +J CD CD X E 3 ^ C o C i • r— OJ r- Cl t CD TO TO S- C oo •1 •r— to !-. TO CD CD TO 3 S- CD i- Cl O oo •r" O i +J 3 • i 00 3 3 •i— s_ X •i OJ E 3 a CO • !— S- O) T3 00 4- • r— 00 3 +J (/) ^- 4-> S- r— 3 ^ i- i +-> TO 00 -M oo S- TO ai -CI ai • r- • r— 3 O S- >> i- TO "O -M 3 "i- o OJ 3 TO •i TO E c Cl 3 00 U E • r— TO o E s- T3 £- -Q i_ 3 X TO TO 00 CD-C > 00 00 CL L- +-> OJ O CD >> O U jQ u 3 •^- O 3 3 -C • r- TO i O S_ TO • 1— >^ OJ o oo CJ i— i_ -C c CL CJ i > CL TO S- o O to 3 to oo to OJ i S_ i- oo E CD 3 •1 c OJ +J o TO n. to to CL TO to -M 3 3 3 to JD 4- cd^: 3 3 to E o OJ c _c Q. to CO 3 =3 TO TO TO TO 4- CD r— i i— 3 3 O -C TD r— '^ TO •1 u O S- 5- c E OO E E E c 3 > CD QJ CD S- S- C oo -M OO TO CJ -t- 1 CJ •1 4-> to 3 =3 o o 3 O O o o -o -C JC Jd 3 o 3 to C TO 3 1 -a CD 3 jt: jr , 00 c to oo 00 1 4- 00 CL CL CLJC X ! C 3 TO i to O oo to 1/1 •i E <_) to -l-> +J 3 *i TO c 3 TO ^ O O o c 3 3 CD o o •r • c C E s~ •|— ) S- %- S_ E "O <~ c c C C TO E "i-J 3 TO • i -C x: 5- t- f^- i S- -M TO to TO QJ TO +J TO TO TO CD 3 TO • 1— •r— •i- TO ^_ CD -M >> E ^ CL u TO TO 5- i CD CL +-> o U TO a. 3 Cl Cl Cl TO -O U CL CL Cl U TO TO 3 U O OJ >1 TO O U QJ 3 4-> >> O «=c < in CO _J co CO co -Ti- < CO UJ UJ UJ c_> >x N^tnysn^ rx, co CO «3- CO rx. in sj- , ro "O CO to rx. rx, cm x+ CO r— in *3- rx. in CM CM CM CQ CU i— CO r— ^— r— i— CO c +1 +l +i +i +l +l +1 +1 +i +1 +1 +l +i +l +1 CU -r- CO in en co o m CM Cn o in o O x* CO CO 3 -Q cr> E o a CO r— co r- rx, rx, co o oo rO o CM C\J i— CO CM CO «vT CO o r-» x* in co i cn 1— o r— r— CM CM CO «=t CM CM CO «^" CO CO LO i T3C ra LO CT> co x+ in rx, co ID 1 i i i o rx. x* CO r— O x+ CM CO 1 CM i— -o x* r-» o x+ cm co ^— 1 i in r— CO Ol i— i— x* r- r- 1 i CM •—i c +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 1 i +i +1 •r— x* x+ co r-> >vr co O 1 i cd o o o o o -* -Q • • • » • • 1 i u E CO r— o o r-- *d- CM 1 i rx. oo O CO CO CM 3 O CM CO in 00 i— CM LD 1 i O i— CM CO sj" T— CQ O ' i— CM CM CO x+ CO 1 i OO OO ^•Or- ' CO CVIOlOCTlCTi CO CM , x* 1— O xj" 1 o >>*- o en co CD LO CO co rx. i ,_ ,— en in i o ro CU ro ^ rvvo om^ o o i x*- CO cn in i CQ CD — CM r— CM i r— x* 1 Cd +l +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 i +1 +1 +i +i i +1 i— r— OO O O CO CM i CO r— in cn r 00 1— CQ i— CM CM xtf- CO CM xi" i ^j- in co rx i - 4- >> cu +-> ns CU .c cq cc CD •r- a> -c CU 3 o 3 CD+-> ro ra 1— CI- < TSc fO 4- r- CU 00 CU I—i cc -ii -i^ o o =5 (0 CO CQ XJC 4- (O CD r— CU CO CU J* o CJ +-> 3 ra CQ CL. CU •r—o CU CD- CO cm in o CM O O i— 0<^ o o o o o o V A V V A VOOOOOOOOQ a-O-O-Q-Q-O-ZZZZZZZZZ ox. Ln cr»cr>corx.cr>cocDxi-rxcMOOxi- CMrx,CMOC0r-«^-O00CnC0OO00 oiNfn^iDocntoincocooN^ i^y3NrxisrxN«tinini— cmcm CO i— i— i— r- +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 * to<*N(Ot-iDsoonooono COVOCTiOCMCMCOCOV£)COxJ-«!a-rx.Oi cmcoi— ocnincocnocococooi— cm r— r— CMCMCMxI-CMr— CO^-rx.COx1-r— p— i— CM x* CD i— CM <* r- S_ S- ZS 3 -C _C 4-> +J C C <0 fO O O S_ oo CU Z5 •i- l_ E 3 Z3 •!- r— O Q- 00 C C O O E E CU CU rd fO CU oo "O 3 •!- T3 S- !- 01 > fO r0 oo E 3 O C oo ra «r- '1-3 S- +-> ro 13 Q. _l CO E E 13 =J +-> S- ro CU C +-> CU Q- J- o «4- OO Eb Z3 .C «o o ro ro E E O O oo oo •r— *r— s_ s_ ro ra a. o- CO CO S- JD ro 3 i— S- Z3 ro CU E > o oo oo •i- 3 i_ S_ rO ro a. o CO CO oo3 +-> oo «o 3 +J 3 3 00 CD £co -C 3 U I— a> oo .c 3 Q. i- CU 3 C >>•<- O LaJ oo3 S-3 (/) OO 3 W >> +J -r- %. flr-r •r- •!- O S- 4J PlO c OO X O ra T3 oo oo o 3 SZ i— 4- 4J fO Q. ooO J_o CU 3 -E T3 CU CU c -a •i- 3 Q-X) Lul CC CUN CU o_ E (O to O +-> CU3 o 4->o to CU +-> I -> VIII-29 -o O C c o 0) o -J 1 "O 1 i_ E I O 4-> C_> fO "O CO CDc en E to o l— o •oc > ti- ro 0) CO CU on O (O 0) t— t o; ^i -^ o o 3 rO CO CO -oC <4- 3 rO CO Q- I/) a> o O) Q. CO i— O mow wow o o o o o o V A V V A VQQQQQQQQQ o-o-a-a-o-o-zzzzzzzzz: i— cMcococoroocr>c\jr^c\jcr>crt«3- CMCMCMCM«d-*d-CMCMCOCO*d-r— »^* O O +l +i +l +i +i +i +i +l +i +i +l +i +i +i +i oqoocncsjMOinooOMOioNvDn i— ro cr> co *r co i— cm cm cm in ^f cm +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 en vo «n r— co ct^ co *3" "»f O i— VO CO CO i— r— CM CM CM CO CM i i in in 1 CO o i i +i +i 1 1 (JO o o in o in i i m cm in r 1 CM CO CM CO «3" CM CO i— r— r»incMCMOcocotn i cn^-c\j n i«3- » i .... i — i— cm cm co «^- co co icoocoin I O +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 I +1 +1 +1 +1 I +1 ^•incocooioino icococoin ico i ....| cococr>ocr>cocMincOr— l£>"3- in^tocfi enro ctioOi— in in co ^f- cm cm i— i— CMi— i— CM i— i— CM CM CO CM CM r— i f-^ CO *d" CT> «3" IO i— CM CM CM in CM +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 co vo cr> co i— vo «3- «d- cx> o io co i— r- i— CM CM i— r^ cr» CO O co in co i— i— i— i— in co cm +i +i +i +i +i +i +i cr> in in co co «vf co in ^j- 1— co uo in co i— i— CM CM CM CM CM 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i i i i i 0.5 r i i i i i i i i i i i i * * i * i i 1 1 o o i O in I i 1 1 . i • • i i 1 1 CM in i *d- CM i i 1 1 CO CM i i-~ t— CO co 3 3 CD C i— rO 3 •r- l_ JZ CD rO o JO O 00 CO 3 3 s- s- 3 3 JZ JZ -t-> +-> C C ro ro u u +J fOc CD CD S- 00 "O <4_ 3 -r- O O •>- 3 O- > fO ro fO 3 CL Q_ _l CO CO CDN CD Q. 1 1 LO i 1 E 1 1 . i 1 fO 1 1 CO i 1 to 1 1 1 +1 i 1 * JZ 1 1 1 CO i i ; LO (OE 1 1 UD I i CO to 1 1 C\J I i co CO3 O CD3 F S- o 3 3 l_ CD CO 00 CO CU CD C 3 3 00 >> c 4-> c +-> -M •i s_ o Q. •1 CO ro fO i JZ TD O ex. 3 4-> •i •i u CO • I S- +-> i- 4-> 4-> 5^ 5- 3 3 +-> ro z o l_ J3 fC CO cn OO X o c JZ 3 1 >, (O -a o J- =3 s- 00 00 OO o +-> +J JZ 3 3 JZ 00 fO CO QJ U i 1 n- +-> CD E F > CU QJ 3 ro +-> o o 00 JZ JZ TJ a. 1 to u-i IS) 3 CL em- 00 i— 4-J • r— •r— =3 i- cu eu CU o S- S- k- 3 z c TD S- II fO rC ra >> 1 • r— =3 u C3 Q. CL u O CL CLJZ1 •r— C • CO oo oo O UJ UJ < ^^ * -Z. VIII-30 Table 6. — Net Changes in Standard Length and Weight of Recaptured Fish Tague Bay Patch Reef Net Change Net Change No. of in Weight in S.L. Species Free Days* (g) (cm) Acanthurus bahianus 70 0.0 +0.1 ii H 42 -19.0 -0.7 n M 41 +28.0 0.0 M ii 41 +20.0 +0.2 ii ii 35 -32.0 -0.4 n ii 34 +37.0 0.0 ii ii 34 +58.0 0.0 ii M 21 +39.0 0.0 M H 21 -23.0 0.0 H H 21 -31.0 -0.8 H ii 21 + 2.0 -0.3 n n 21 -14.0 +0.3 n ii 19 +28.0 0.0 n n 19 +28.0 0.0 H H 14 -20.0 -0.5 M H 13 +28.0 -0.5 ii ii 12 +28.0 -0.5 ii n 12 0.0 -0.5 n ii 8 0.0 +0.1 ii ii 8 - 7.0 -0.5 n n 7 -19.0 -0.7 ii ii 7 + 4.0 -0.7 M ii 7 0.0 0.0 M ii 7 +28.0 0.0 ii ii 7 +28.0 0.0 ii n 7 0.0 0.0 n H 7 +28.0 0.0 ii ii 7 0.0 0.0 ii n 6 +28.0 +0.5 n ii 4 -56.0 -0.5 H n 4 0.0 -0.5 H ii 4 0.0 -0.5 Acanthurus coeruleus 54 41 +54.0 - 2.0 -0.5 H 0.0 ii 34 -16.0 -0.1 n 34 +50-.0 +0.5 ii 34 +15.0 -0.2 M 33 +38.0 +0.3 H 28 -20.0 -0,2 n 21 -26.0 0.0 M 21 -23.0 0.0 yin-31 Table 6. — Continued Tague Bay Patch Reef Net Change Net Change No. of in Weight in S.L. Species Free Days* (g) (cm) Acanthurus coeruleus (con't) 21 20 - 3.0 -28.0 0.0 i ii 0.0 i n 20 0.0 0.0 i H 20 +56.0 0.0 i H 19 0.0 0.0 i n 19 0.0 +1.5 i H 14 + 2.0 -0.3 i ii 14 -16.0 +0.1 i ii 13 +56.0 0.0 i ii 13 +56.0 +0.5 i H 13 +28.0 0.0 i ii 12 +84.0 +0.5 i H 11 +28.0 +0.5 i ii 11 0.0 0.0 i ii 8 - 2.0 0.0 i M 7 -10.0 -0.2 i ii 7 -16.0 -0.1 i n 7 -13.0 +0.2 i M 7 0.0 0.0 i n 7 0.0 -0.5 • ii 7 0.0 0.0 i ii 7 +28.0 0.0 i M 7 +14.0 0.0 i H 6 0.0 +0.5 i ii 4 0.0 -0.5 i n 4 0.0 +0.5 i ii 4 0.0 0.0 Haemulon plumieri 19 13 +28.0 0.0 -1.0 -0.5 12 +112.0 -1.0 8 + 6.0 0.0 6 +28.0 -0.5 6 -28.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 Lutjanus spodus 21 +40.0 +0.5 I M 13 0.0 +0.5 ii ii 6 0.0 +0.5 Span' soma viride 12 +28.0 -0.5 H II 6 0.0 -0.5 VIII-32 Table 6. — Continued Tague Bay Patch Reef Species No. of Free Days* Net Change in Weight Net Change in S.L. (cm) Spa ri soma chrysopterum Spa ri soma aurofrenatum Scams taeniopterus Epinephelus guttatus Lachnolaimus maximus Kyphosus sectatrix 21» i +11.0 +1.1 -28.0 0.0 15 -10.0 -0.3 13 Found dead in trap 7 0.0 +1,5 14 +26.0 -0.2 91 + 1.0 -0,5 Acanthurus coeruleus Epinephelus striatus Haemulon sciurus Haemulon plumieri Tague Bay Backreef 23 10 +16.0 + 7.0 -0.3 -0.3 115 35 +56.0 -84.0 0.0 -0.5 8 -28.0 -0.5 8 0.0 0.0 Acanthurus coeruleus II II II II II II II II II II II II Buck Island Patch Reef 16 0.0 -0.5 16 +28.0 -0.3 16 +28.0 -0.5 14 -28.0 +1.5 14 -14.0 +0.5 9 0.0 0.0 8 0.0 +0.5 VIII-33 Table 6. — Continued Species No. of Free Days* Net Change in Weight (g) Net Change in S.L. (cm) Buck Island Patch Reef Acanthurus coeruleus ii h (con't) 8 7 7 -28.0 +28.0 +28.0 +0.5 0.0 0.0 Acanthurus bahianus it ii 23 8 +28.0 -56.0 -0.5 -0.5 Span soma viride ii ii 7 7 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -0.5 Lutjanus apodus ii ii 34 21 -21.0 -45.0 +3.4 -2,0 Buck Island Backreef Acanthurus bahianus Lutjanus apodus Haemulon sciurus n n 34 + 2.0 +0.3 34 0.0 -0,5 29 - 4,0 0.0 22 +56.0 +1,0 15 +10.0 +0.4 15 -28.0 0.0 12 + 1.0 -0.5 7 - 3.0 0.0 7 - 2.0 -0.7 7 +28.0 +0.5 7 +28.0 -0.5 6 0.0 -0.5 6 0.0 0.0 15 0.0 0.0 10 +28.0 +0.5 6 +56.0 +0.2 15 +28.0 -1.0 6 0.0 -1.0 VI 1 1-34 Table 6. — Continued Species Net Change Net Change No. of in Weight in S.L. Free Days* (g) (cm) Microspathodon chrysurus Buck Island Backreef 6 + 9.0 6 +17.0 -0.2 +0.4 Sparisoma viride 15 0.0 +0.5 *Does not include the day of recapture as a free day. VIII-35 Table 7. — Recapture Data of an Epinephelus striatus (Nassau Grouper) Standard Length Weight Date (cm) (g) 08 Nov 1977 34 5 1120.0 08 Dec 1977 34.0 1092.0 24 Jan 1978 34.0 1120.0 31 Jan 1978 34.5 1176.0 08 Feb 1978 34.5 1148.0 21 Feb 1978 34.0 1204.0 03 Mar 1978 34.5 1176.0 Table 8 t — Recapture Data of a Kyphosus sectatrix (Bermuda Chub) Date 31 Jan 1978 07 Feb 1978 14 Feb 1978 21 Feb 1978 07 Mar 1978 14 Mar 1978 02 May 1978 Standard Length (cm) Weight (g) 18.5 168,0 18,0 196.0 17.7 213.0 17.7 186.0 17,8 199,0 17,5 170,0 18.0 169.0 VIII-36 FIGURE LEGEND - CHAPTER VIII Figure 1 Changes in fish abundance and diversity during the year. Circles indicate abundances (scale on left); triangles indicate diversities (scale on right). Dark symbols: NPR; Light symbols: SPR. Figure 2 Changes in monthly abundances ( — •) and median lengths (t §) of major species of reef fishes in the lagoon at Buck Island. Abundances are presented in the left-hand scale. One-half the vertical scale represents a median length of 50% (i.e., the median fish present was medium length). a Eupomacentrus planifrons b £. fuscus c Haemulon flavolineatum d Halichoeres bivittatus e Thalassoma~~bifasciatum f Acanthurus coeruleus g A. bahianus h Sparisoma viride i Scarus vetula j Holocentrus rufus Figure 3 Monthly changes in relative biomass. Biomass unit = (median length) 3 x abundance of major species of reef fishes on North and South Patch Reefs, Buck Island lagoon. North Patch Reef (upper symbol) South Patch Reef (lower symbol) Pomacentridae 777777 Eupomacentrus planifrons £. fuscus Pomadasyidae 777777 Haemulon flavolineatum Labridae 777 ."77! Halichoeres bivittatus Thalassoma bifasciatum Acanthuridae 777777." Acanthurus coeruleus 771777 A. bahianus Scaridae 771*77 Sparisoma viride Scarus vetula. Holocentridae 777777. Holocentrus rufus VIII-37 (V) ( ! d 6o| ! d]£) AllSaaAIQ S3l33dS CM OJ CD CO CO (•O) sivnaiAiaNi on VIII-38 FIG. 2 (a-e) 100 A-*~*"^*^.*h 500 oo *AVAV .*.. yr^ • .** •» '•t •• ••-•'' it 50 SONDJ FMAMJJA SONDJ FMAMJJA vin-39 SOUTH PR NORTH PR I 50 100 *.- •*•*••••• SONDJ FMAMJJ A SONDJ FMAMJJA SOUTH PR NORTH PR VIII-40 flu. 10 45 30 20 10 20 < X <*>. u 20 £ CO CO< 10 10 POMACENTRIDAE POMADASIIDAE LABRIDAE ^ ACANTHURIDAE W>>$ SCARIDAE HOLOCENTRIDAE SONDJ FMAMJJ A VIII-41 9b rt99d 26rl 9D"fU029-r no;t>in6rq CHAPTER IX ^up'rnrlogl m69' PLANKTON DYNAMICS 02692 'i9t9^rb b9^6"«^2nom9b 02T6 oarfl o^uS nr vbul2 2rH ."tsei sdj by jL) i9mmu2 srii 3J69tg 29 I O i— O I I 00 CO ** co O CO o ro o O CM O I co i 00 I en i i oo in o I CO 00 in cm C OI •r- ro E t/> r0 3 S- TJ O c x: oi =r i i— in i •— ID I r— «* I CO i— I i— ir> i— i i— i i— CM O O iD ID IDO 00o CM co in i i— o I CM I CM I— r— r— in co — i CO 1 i in co 1 ID CM i i i 1 1 1 i i— in 1 i— CM i i i i i i "T CM 1 1 1 i O 00 1 CO 1 1 1 ID 1 1 I 1 1 1 in i mo >3- i cn i— *3- i cn r-. i i i— i i r^ oo i cn *d- ai ^-^ ^— o 4-> i/i E ro cn ro ro a) ro a> "O ro ro -—* •* * S- 1- cn > 4-> cn-rj cn -r- -i-> -i- ID ro OJ IS ID O- -r-T3c:Xln3a>>0 OOU o > •-> -c •— .ci— or— >o a o o.aL u a aait C i. i~ m Ui— S-i— r— D-r— D-S-airOfO-O-i-OE i- ro 4- in i— -—- m-~^ > O-U D-.C S-— +J m a.—i O O C -i-O (O -i-O O "i- >>£ jj i-H U- CL. t_) OZ< 1/1 > o.— s- Q. (O 0"0 i— !-> O (O D- OJ E ro ro O O d) Mfl, o oo a> in — CO 1 — O «d- i— «* in 1 i i— i i i i CM >=S- 00 O i i r~~ co ! i i— i i i i 00 CO CM i i in i i i CO r— — cn i i cn i i t i i i ID CM 1 CM 1 CM 00 1 1 1 1— 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 co 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i CM ID 1 1 1 1 1 i cm cn i i i i i i i i i ro r^ 1/1 o <£> *• CM ro T3 r>N (/) o 3 CM ro i -C Q. r~- 3 r^ LlI ro S- oo -. 5 i 1 1 1 1 1 «* 0J .— z co 1 CM i— r-~ cm £ ° *! 1 1 1 1 1 1 co i i i o I 1 1 1 i i ino «*• CO O 2= c IO S-o o +-> ->.c IO ex 01 CU S- o IO CO o CO i— CM 3 COO co cy o U3 CD o z CM CD 10 o ID Ol O CD *3- IT) CO in O "=T CO I .— i— O CO ID I CO t- cn i m i r— I CO I o CM I CM I CM I O i— i— Iflr-POS CO I I CM CO I 1 I r>- o o o O I O i— ID I •— i— I— I I I co o co r^ r-~ — I r— J - ) •— r— «* cm en «3- CM 00! CM in o CTl I— CO I 00 ID i— «* i o cm r~ o r— CM O t~~ I— co i i i i— i i i co — i— CM •— 00 •— CO cm i— «a- oo id O O in cm CM 00 m cm i i i i I i 00 i i «3- CM 1 1 o o 1 CM 1 1 1 1 10 cm co in in VO CM si" CM CT) 1 1 1 CM 1 1 1 1 1 1 in o o CM 1 1 1 i i i i CO 1 1 o o 1 1 1 1 in i— o co-i— i i i i i i i i i i co n O lO 10 o as "7 i i >* o or ino i— — co r— .— 00 en •— i— in i i— •— I t— o oo 00OMCMN CM r— in CM CM ^*- O — i— o CM I 001>- CM O CM CM c— i— i— CMi— r-Oi— Oin CM O I— O r— 00 I cm in f— o O i— i— oo oo oo sz «* *J co c CM io CM -c •-> OJ VO t in g o oo c CM CM 4->3 I© CO CO at co 10 co i co o i io in I CM ^- I 00 10 I O O i r-. 1— i i i in i— i — o i «or co i en o I CM CM i i— I »* ID S- XIO -P in CU .— IO CTl IO 4- to s s- Ol > r- c uu Ol S- c cu ovr- cu ro r— io o "o +-> x: r— E l/l +-> C S- in Ol ^ 11 111 HI i- x: i. "O IO CX > "4- tn o CU -C CX C Li- 21 O e£ —i li_ «J (1) IO 0) 1. Ql IO O IO 03 CJ1TD C71 «r- 4-> -r- OJ IO (O IO io 'O i— i- n on ou b-do-d m ex io OCT3i0ai>OOOO 0"0>— o io o aai. u nam io+j o ex.— o.s-a>ioia-<-oE"uiocxaj >i n f io o io ai « i- 1— t»x:v)3'r-E ex i—> o on o o o> O io o O-i- w E >,*J Ol o CX O O (_) (_) o«i EWON 2^ CMoo CM ^~ en CM CT>o 00m 00 o <* Ol c oo o o CM c >* in in CTl o i in co * O) i i "" oc O CO CM T (J i i i— ^l- >> ex E a> IOo T3O ex oi exo o exo o >1 i— c 1X-8 as 01 l/> > r— CO LT> CM CO 1 1 CO CO CO o oc ro Cn a: CM CM ro 0) 'o. 01 01 s- • ^C CD a> S- s- QJ O S- Li- O LL. O o O LO &« CM O CM i i £ CO ro CO i I o ro r^ (XI oo CO ai .a «* "* ro CT> .1 I "" i i I oo O-v in o ro CM o CO i isg (0c o *-> CL ai co (0 co ITS 3u •oc ai ct CL CO 0L 15 10 FIG. 2b .i liL 9 1 5 9 1 5 9 1 5 9 1 5 Foraminifera E ggs Calanoida Harpactacoida 4© 20 3C lO 9 1 5 9 1 Larval Decapoda Zoeae 56 50 IX-13 CM E CO 500 300 100 FIG. 3 LIVE CORAL CORAL RUBBLE SAND FIG.4 /o 100 80 60 40 20 S3 LIVE CORAL CORAL RUBBLE =— Calanoida — Cyclopoida —" Harpactacoida j. Larval Decapoda -^Mysidacea — Foraminifera — Other SAND IX-lU LITERATURE CITED Adey, W.H. 1975, The algal ridges and coral reefs of St. Croix: their structure and Holocene development. Atoll Res. Bull. 187 : 1-67. Adey, W.H. (ms.) The role of algae as primary producers in a Caribbean Bank Barrier Reef. Class project in Marine Phycology. 1975. West Indies Laborartory, St. Croix. Adey, W.H., I.G. Macintyre, R. Stuckenrath, and R.F. Dill. 1977. Relict barrier island reef system off St. Croix: its implications with respect to Late Cenozoic coral reef development in the western Atlantic. Proc. Third Int'l. Coral Reef Symp. , Miami II : 15-22. Alldredge, A.L. and J.M. King. 1977. Distribution, abundance, and substrate preferences of demersal reef zgoplankton at Lizard Island Lagoon, Great Barrier Reef. Mar. Biol. 41 : 317-333. Atkinson, C, S. Hopley, L. Mendelson, and S. Yacowitz. 1973. Food studies on Diadema antillarum on a patch reef, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. In (ed. by J.C. Ogden, D.P. Abbott, and I. Abbott) Spec. Pub! . No. 2, West Indies Laboratory , St. Croix: West Indies Laboratory pp. 65-80. Bak, R.P.M. 1976. The growth of coral colonies and the importance of crustose coralline algae and burrowing sponges in relation with carbonate accumulation. Neth. J. Sea Res. 1_0 : 285-337. Bak, R.P.M. and G. van Eys. 1975. Predation of the sea urchin Diadema antillarum Philippi on living coral. Oecologia 20 : 111-115. Bardach, J.E. 1958. On the movements of certain Bermuda reef fishes. Ecology 39 : 139-146. Bakus, G.J. 1969. Energetics and feeding in shallow marine waters. Int'l. Rev. Gen. Exp. Zool . 4 : 275-369. Bennett, R.O. A comparative study of geomorphic features of two reef formations: bank barrier and "haystacks", St. Croix, U.S. V.I. West Indies Laboratory Student Rep't. 1978. Choat, J.H. 1966. Parrotfish. Aust. Nat. Hist. 1_5 : 265-268. Coastal Research Group. 1969. Coastal Environments: NE Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Contrib. No. 1-CRG, Geology Dept., Univ. Mass., Amherst, Mass. 450 p. Connell, J. 1976. Competitive interactions and the species diversity of corals. In (ed. by G.O. Mackie) Coelenterate ecology and behavior . New York: Plenum. 744 p. Darcy, G.H., E. Maisel, and J.C. Ogden. 1974. Cleaning preferences of the gobies Gobiosoma evelynae and G. prochilos and the juvenile wrasse Thalassoma bifasciatum . Copeia 2 : 375-379. X-l Darwin, C. 1845. Journal of researches during the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle . London: T. Nelson and Sons, Ltd. 543 p. Darwin, C. 1850. On the structure and distribution of coral reefs . London: Ward, Lock and Co. 549 p. Emery, A.R. 1968. Preliminary observations on coral reef plankton. Limnol. Oceanogr. 13(2) : 293-303. Emery, K.O. 1961. A simple method of measuring beach profiles. Limnol. Oceanogr. 6 : 90-93. Ehrlich, P.R. and A.H. Ehrlich. 1973. Coevolution and heterotypic schooling in Caribbean reef fishes. Am. Nat. 107(953 ) : 157-160. Feder, H.M. 1966. Cleaning symbiosis in the marine environment. In (ed. by S.H. Henry) Symbiosis . New York: Academic Press, pp. 327-380. Finckh, A.E. 1904. Biology of the reef forming organisms at Funafuti Atoll. Rept. Coral Reef Comm. , Royal Soc. London, Sec. 6_ : 125-150. Folk, R.L. 1974. Petrology of sedimentary rocks . Austin, Texas: Hemphill Publ. Co. 182 p. Gelpke, P. Quantitative sampling of demersal reef zooplankton at Buck Island, St. Croix. West Indies Laboratory Student Report 1977. Ginsburg, R. (ed.) 1973. Evolving concepts in sedimentology . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. Gladfelter, E.H. and R.K. Monahan. 1977. Primary production and calcium carbonate deposition in Acropora palmata from different positions in the reef. Proc. Third Int'l. Coral Reef Symp. , Miami II : 389-394. Gladfelter, E.H., R.K. Monahan, and W.B. Gladfelter. 1978. Growth rates of five reef-building corals in the Northeastern Caribbean. Bull. Mar. Sci . 28(4) : 728-734. Gladfelter, W.B. 1979. Twilight migrations and foraging activities of the copper sweeper Pempheris schomburgki . Mar. Biol. 50^ : 109-119. Gladfelter, W.B. and E.H. Gladfelter. 1978. Fish community structure as a function of habitat structure on West Indian patch reefs. Rev. Biol. Trop. 26(suppl. 1 ) : 65-84. Gladfelter, W.B., E.H. Gladfelter, R.K. Monahan, J.C. Ogden, and R.F. Dill. 1977. Environmental Studies of Buck Island Reef National Monument. U.S. National Park Service Report. 144 p. Glynn, P.W. 1973. Aspects of the ecology of coral reefs in the Western Atlantic region. In (ed. by Jones, O.A. and R. Endean) Biology and Geology of Coral Reefs 2 . New York: Academic Press, pp. 271-324. X-2 Glynn, P.W. 1973. Ecology of a Caribbean coral reef. The Porites reef flat biotype: Part II. Plankton comnunity with evidence for depletion. Mar. Biol. 22 : 1-21. Glynn, P.W. 1977. Coral growth in upwelling and nonupwelling areas off the Pacific coast of Panama. J. Mar. Res. 35(3) : 567-585. Glynn, P.W. and 1.6. Macintyre. 1977. Growth rate and age of coral reefs on the Pacific coast of Panama. Proc. Third Int'l. Coral Reef Symp., Miami II: 251-259. Glynn, P.W., R.H. Stewart and J.E. McCosker. 1972. Pacific coral reefs of Panama: structure, distribution and predators. Sonderdruck aus der Geologischen Rundschau Band 61, Ferdinand Enke Vcrlag/Stuttgart. Glynn, P.W. , G.M. Wellington and C. Birkeland. 1979. Coral reef growth in the Galapagos: limitation by sea urchins. Science 203 : 47-49. Gygi , R.A. 1969. An estimate of the erosional effect of Sparisoma viride , the green parrotfish, on some Bermuda reefs. In (ed. by Ginsburg, R.N. and P. Garret) Seminar on organism-sediment interrelationships . Spec. Publ . No. 2, Bermuda Biol. Station for Research, pp. 137-143. Hayes, M.O., E.H. Owens, D.K. Hubbard and R.W. Abele. 1973. Investigation of form and processes in the coastal zone. In (ed. by D.R. Coates) Coastal Geomorphology , Binghamton, New York: Pubis, in Geomorphology., SUNY, Binghamton. pp. 11 -41. Hobson, E.S. 1972. Activity of Hawaiian reef fishes during evening and morning transition between daylight and darkness. Fish. Bull. 70 : 715-740. Hobson, E. and J. Chess. 1976. Trophic interactions among fishes and zooplankton near shore at Santa Catalina Island, California. Fish Bull. 74 : 567-598. Ivlev, V.S. 1961. Experimental ecology of the feeding of fish es. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press. 302 p. (trans, from Russian by D. Scott). Jackson, J. 1977. Competition on marine hard substrata: the adaptive significance of solitary and colonial strategies. Amer. Nat. Ill : 743-767. Jackson, J. and L. Buss. 1975. Allelopathy and spatial competition among coral reef invertebrates. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci . 72 : 5160-5163. Johannes, R.E., S.L. Coles and N.T. Kuenzel , 1970. The role of zooplankton in the nutrition of some scleractinian corals. Limnol. Oceanogr. 15(4 ) : 579-586. Krumbein, W.C. and L.L. Sloss. 1963. Stratigraphy and sedimentation . San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co. Lang, J. 1973. Interspecific aggression by scleractinian corals. II. Why the race is not only to the swift. Bull. Mar. Sci. 23^ : 260-279. X-3 Lawrence, J.M. 1975. On the relationships between marine plants and sea urchins. In (ed. by H. Barnes) Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 1_3. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd. pp. 213-286. Levin, D.R. Settling velocities of unconsolidated carbonate sediments of Buck Island National Park, St. Croix, U.S. V.I. West Indies Laboratory Student Report 1978. Lewis, J.B. 1964. Feeding and digestion in the tropical sea urchin Diadema antillarum Philippi. Can. J. Zool . 42 : 549-557. Lewis, J.B. 1974. Settlement and growth factors influencing the contagious distribution of some Atlantic reef corals. Proc. Second Int'l. Coral Reef Symp., Aust. 2 : 201-206. Macintyre, I. A. 1975. A diver-operated hydraulic drill for coring submerged substrates. Atoll Res. Bull. 185 : 21-25. Macintyre, I. A. and P.W. Glynn. 1976. Evolution of modern Caribbean fringing reef, Galeta Point, Panama. Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol . Bull. 60(7) : 1054-1072. Marvel, T.W. A preliminary comparative study of geomorphic features of two reef formations: patch reefs and "haystacks", St. Croix, U.S. V.I. West Indies Laboratory Student Report 1978. Murray, S.P., H.H. Roberts, D.M. Conlon and G.M. Rudder. 1977. Nearshore current fields around coral islands: control on sediment accumulation and reef growth. Proc. Third Int'l. Coral Reef Symp., Miami II : 53-78. Odum, H.T. and E.P. Odum. 1955. Trophic structure and productivity of a windward coral reef community on Eniwetok Atoll. Ecol . Monogr. 25_ : 291-320. Ogden, J.C. 1977. Carbonate sediment production by parrotfish and sea urchins on Caribbean reefs. Studies in Geology 4 : 281-288. (AAPG) Ogden, J.C. and N.E. Buckman. 1973. Movements, foraging groups and diurnal migrations of the striped parrotfish, Scarus croicensis Bloch. Ecology 5_4 : 589-596 Ogden, J.C, R.A. Brown and N. Salesky. 1973. Grazing by the echinoid Diadema antillarum Philippi: formation of halos around West Indian patch reefs. Science 182 : 715-717. Ogden, J.C. and P.R. Ehrlich. 1977. The behavior of heterotypic resting schools of juvenile grunts (Pomadasyidae). Mar. Biol. 42_ : 273-280. Ogden, J.C. and P.S. Lobel . 1978. The role of herbivorous fishes and urchins in coral reef communities. Environ. Biol. Fish. 3(1 ) : 49-63. Paine, R.T. Food web complexity and species diversity. Amer. Nat. 100 : 65-75. Parrish, J.D. and R.S. Zimmerman. 1977. Utilization by fishes of space and food resources on an offshore Puerto Rican coral reef and its surroundings. Proc. Third' Int'l. Coral Reef Symp., Miami I : 297-304. X-4 Porter, J.W. 1972. Patterns of species diversity in Caribbean reef corals. Ecology 53 : 745-748. Porter, J.W. 1974. Zooplankton feeding by the Caribbean reef-building coral Montastrea cavernosa . Proc. Second Int'l, Coral Reef Symp., Aust. , I_ : 111-125. Porter, J.W., K.G. Porter and Z. Batac-catalan, 1977. Quantitative sampling of Indo-Pacific demersal reef plankton, Proc. Third Int'l. Coral Reef Symp., Miami I : 105-112. Randall, J.E. 1962. Tagging reef fishes in the Virgin Islands. Proc. Gulf Caribbean Fish, Inst. 1_4 : 201-241. Randall, J.E. 1974. The effect of fishes on coral reefs. Proc. Second Int'l. Coral Reef Symp., Aust., X : 159-166. Randall, J.E., R.E. Schroeder and W.A, Starck. 1964. Notes on the biology of the echinoid Diadema antillarum . Carib, J, Sci . 4 : 421-433. Reese, E.S. 1973. Duration of residence by coral reef fishes on "home" reefs. Copeia ]_ : 145-149. Robertson, D.R., H.P.A. Sweatman, E.A. Fletcher and M.G. Cleland. 1976. Schooling as a mechanism for circumventing the territoriality of competitors. Ecology 57 : 1208-1220. Sale, P.F. 1971. Extremely limited home range in a coral reef fish, Dascyllus aruanus . Copeia 1971 : 324-327. Sale, P.F. 1977. Maintenance of high diversity in coral reef fish communities. Am. Nat. 111(978) : 337-359. Sale, P.F., P.S. McWilliam and D.T, Anderson, 1976. Composition of the near-reef zooplankton at Heron Reef, Great Barrier Reef. Mar. Biol. 34 : 59-66, Sammarco, P.W., J.S. Levinton and J. Ogden. 1974, Grazing and control of coral reef community structure by Diadema antillarum : a preliminary study, J. Mar. Res. 32 : 47-53. Shaw, E. 1978. Schooling fishes. Am, Scien. 6i5 : 166-175. Shepard, F.P. 1973. Submarine Geology . New York: Harper and Row. 517 p. Smith, S.V. and D.W. Kinsey. 1976. Calcium carbonate production, coral reef growth, and sea level change. Science 194 : 937-939. Springer, V.G. and A.J. McErlean, 1962. A study of the behavior of some tagged south Florida coral reef fishes. Am. Mid. Nat. 67(2) : 386-397. Vandermeulen, J.H. and L. Muscatine. 1974. Influence of symbiotic algae on calcification in reef corals: critique and progress report. In (ed, by W.B. Vernberg) Symbiosis in the Sea , Columbia: Univ. South Carolina, pp. 1-19. X-5 Youngblouth, M.J. 1968. Aspects of the ethology of the cleaning fish Labroides phthirophaqus . Z. Tierphyschol . 25^ : 915-932. X-6