DOCSLIB.ORG

Coral Reef Monitoring in Kofiau and Boo Islands Marine Protected Area, Raja Ampat, West Papua. 2009—2011

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Coral Reef Monitoring in Kofiau and Boo Islands Marine Protected Area, Raja Ampat, West Papua. 2009—2011 August 2012 Indo-Pacific Division Indonesia Report No 6/12 Coral Reef Monitoring in Kofiau and Boo Islands Marine Protected Area, Raja Ampat, West Papua. 2009—2011 Report Compiled By: Purwanto, Muhajir, Joanne Wilson, Rizya Ardiwijaya, and Sangeeta Mangubhai August 2012 Indo-Pacific Division Indonesia Report No 6/12 Coral Reef Monitoring in Kofiau and Boo Islands Marine Protected Area, Raja Ampat, West Papua. 2009—2011 Report Compiled By: Purwanto, Muhajir, Joanne Wilson, Rizya Ardiwijaya, and Sangeeta Mangubhai Published by: TheNatureConservancy,Indo-PacificDivision Purwanto:TheNatureConservancy,IndonesiaMarineProgram,Jl.Pengembak2,Sanur,Bali, Indonesia.Email: [email protected] Muhajir: TheNatureConservancy,IndonesiaMarineProgram,Jl.Pengembak2,Sanur,Bali, Indonesia.Email: [email protected] JoanneWilson: TheNatureConservancy,IndonesiaMarineProgram,Jl.Pengembak2,Sanur,Bali, Indonesia. RizyaArdiwijaya:TheNatureConservancy,IndonesiaMarineProgram,Jl.Pengembak2,Sanur, Bali,Indonesia.Email: [email protected] SangeetaMangubhai: TheNatureConservancy,IndonesiaMarineProgram,Jl.Pengembak2, Sanur,Bali,Indonesia.Email: [email protected] Suggested Citation: Purwanto,Muhajir,Wilson,J.,Ardiwijaya,R.,Mangubhai,S.2012.CoralReefMonitoringinKofiau andBooIslandsMarineProtectedArea,RajaAmpat,WestPapua.2009-2011.TheNature Conservancy,Indo-PacificDivision,Indonesia.ReportN,6/12.50pp. © 2012012012201 222 The Nature Conservancy AllRightsReserved.Reproductionforanypurposeisprohibitedwithoutpriorpermission. AllmapsdesignedandcreatedbyMuhajir. CoverPhoto: Datacollectionactivity©Purwanto/TNC Availablefrom: IndonesiaMarineProgram Asia-PacificResourceCentre TheNatureConservancy TheNatureConservancy Jl.Pengembak2 245RiversideDrive Sanur80228,Bali WestEnd,QLD4101 Indonesia Australia Orviatheworldwidewebat: www.nature.or.id www.conservationgateway.org/ vii Acknowledgements TheauthorswouldliketothankAndreasMuljadi,ReinhartPaatandMarkusKrey,who participatedinthe2009and2010monitoring,andKofiauresidentsNaftaliManggaraand NicoMambraku,whoactivelyparticipatedinthereefhealthmonitoringinKofiauandBoo IslandsMarineProtectedArea.WewouldalsoliketothanktheRajaAmpatFisheriesand MarineAffairsAgency(DinasPerikanandanKelautan )andtheWestPapuaNature ResourceConservationAgency(BalaiBesarKonservasiSumberDayaAlam )whoarealso supportthemonitoring.SpecialthankstoDariusAronggearandUsielWatem,whoin additiontodrivingthespeedboat Jou ,frequentlyhelpedlaytransectswhencollectingdata. WearegratefultoAlisonGreenwhoprovidedextensivefeedbackandtrainingonfishdata analyses.Lastly,wewouldliketothankourdonors,inparticulartheWaltonFamily Foundationandprivatedonorswhosegeneroussupportallowedthesemonitoringactivitiesto beundertaken. viii Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................... VIII CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................................. IX LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... X 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1 2. METHODS ......................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1. Kofiau Marine Protected Area ...........................................................................................................2 2.2. Zoning plan ...............................................................................................................................................2 2.3. Location and site selection ...................................................................................................................2 2.4. Reef Health monitoring – fish and benthic communities .........................................................2 2.4.1. Fish community surveys ............................................................................................................................ 3 2.4.2. Benthic community surveys ....................................................................................................................... 4 2.4.3. Data analysis – comparing zones.............................................................................................................. 5 2.5. Location and site selection ................................................................................................................... 5 2.5.1. Field surveys .............................................................................................................................................. 5 2.5.2. Data analyses ............................................................................................................................................ 6 2.6. Surface water temperature .................................................................................................................. 6 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................ 9 3.1. Fish communities ................................................................................................................................... 9 3.1.1. Fish biomass by location and monitoring year ........................................................................................... 9 3.1.2. Fish communities in each zone ................................................................................................................. 12 3.1.3. Differences among zones for select families of fish ................................................................................... 14 3.1.4. Fish biomass, density and families recorded during long swims ................................................................. 15 3.1.5. Sharks and rays ....................................................................................................................................... 16 3.2. Benthic cover .......................................................................................................................................... 17 3.2.1. Benthic composition of reef communities in Kofiau MPA ...................................................................... 17 3.2.2. Benthic community composition by zone type ..........................................................................................19 3.2.3. Coral bleaching ....................................................................................................................................... 20 3.3. Surface water temperature ................................................................................................................ 23 4. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................... 26 5. RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................... 27 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................... 28 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................ 30 ix List of Figures Figure 1. Map of coral reef health monitoring locations and designated zones in Kofiau Marine Protected Area. Site pengamatan tambahan = Additional Site, Site pengamatan tetap = permanent site. .................................................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 2. The average biomass (kg/ha) and density (number/ha) of fish from all sites around Kofiau and Boo Islands from 2009-2011. Error bars = standard error. .....................................................10 Figure 3. Average fish biomass (kg/ha +SE) by location in Kofiau and Boo Islands in all monitoring years. Large schools of fish of the family Caesionidae in Lampu Bay and Tomna in 2010 are not included. .....................................................................................................................................................10 Figure 4. Biomass (kg/ha) of all families of fish in each survey year 2009-2011 at Kofiau Marine Protected Area. Error bars = standard error. .......................................................................................... 11 Figure 5. Average fish biomass (kg/ha) and density (number/ha) for sites in each zone of Kofiau Marine Protected Area from 2009-2011. Error bars = standard error. ....................................... 13 Figure 6. Annual average biomass of most important fish families in Kofiau MPA between no take and use zones, from 2009-2011. These fish are important to local communities as a source of food or income – grouper, emperor, sweetlip, snapper, pelagic and/or important to the ecology of the reef (i.e. herbivore families surgeonfish, rabbitfish and parrotfish). The zones were designated and became locally enforced in October 2011, after the March 2011 monitoring. Error bars = standard error. ................................................................................................ 15 Figure 7. Average fish biomass (kg/ha +SE) and density (individuals/ha +SE) in all locations and all monitoring years.............................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A New Stingray from South Africa
    Nature Vol. 289 22 January 1981 221 A new stingray from South Africa from Alwyne Wheeler ICHTHYOLOGISTS are accustomed to the regular description of previously un­ recognized species of fishes, which if not a daily event at least happens so frequently as not to cause great comment. Previously undescribed genera are like­ wise not infrequently published, but higher categories are increasingly less common. The discovery of a new stingray, which is so different from all known rays as to require both a new family and a new suborder to accommodate its distinctive characters, is therefore a remarkable event. A recent paper by P.e. Heemstra and M.M. Smith (Ichthyological Bulletin oj the J. L.B. Smith Institute of Ichthyology 43, I; 1980) describes this most striking ray as Hexatrygon bickelli and discusses its differences from other batoid fishes. Surprisingly, this remarkable fish was not the result of some organized deep-sea fishing programme, but was found lying on the beach at Port Elizabeth. It was fresh but had suffered some loss of skin by sand abrasion on the beach, and the margins of its fins appeared desiccated in places. The way it was discovered leaves a tantalising question as to its normal habitat, but Heemstra and Smith suggest that it may live in moderately deep water of 400-1,000m. This suggestion is Ventral view of Hexatrygon bickelli supported by its general appearance (small eyes, thin black dorsal skin, f1acid an acellular jelly, while the underside is chimaeroids Rhinochimaera and snout) and the chemistry of its liver-oil. richly supplied with well developed Harriota, and there can be little doubt The classification of Hexatrygon ampullae of Lorenzini.
    [Show full text]
  • Petition to List Eight Species of Pomacentrid Reef Fish, Including the Orange Clownfish and Seven Damselfish, As Threatened Or Endangered Under the U.S
    BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE PETITION TO LIST EIGHT SPECIES OF POMACENTRID REEF FISH, INCLUDING THE ORANGE CLOWNFISH AND SEVEN DAMSELFISH, AS THREATENED OR ENDANGERED UNDER THE U.S. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Orange Clownfish (Amphiprion percula) photo by flickr user Jan Messersmith CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 Notice of Petition Rebecca M. Blank Acting Secretary of Commerce U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave, NW Washington, D.C. 20230 Email: [email protected] Samuel Rauch Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries NOAA Fisheries National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration 1315 East-West Highway Silver Springs, MD 20910 E-mail: [email protected] PETITIONER Center for Biological Diversity 351 California Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 436-9682 _____________________ Date: September 13, 2012 Shaye Wolf, Ph.D. Miyoko Sakashita Center for Biological Diversity Pursuant to Section 4(b) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b), Section 553(3) of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(e), and 50 C.F.R.§ 424.14(a), the Center for Biological Diversity hereby petitions the Secretary of Commerce and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”), through the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS” or “NOAA Fisheries”), to list eight pomacentrid reef fish and to designate critical habitat to ensure their survival. The Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”) is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of imperiled species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center has more than 350,000 members and online activists throughout the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Patterns in Marine Community Assemblages on Continental Margins: a Faunal and Floral Synthesis from Northern Western Australian Atolls
    Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia, 94: 267–284, 2011 Patterns in marine community assemblages on continental margins: a faunal and floral synthesis from northern Western Australian atolls A Sampey 1 & J Fromont 2 1 Aquatic Zoology, Western Australian Museum, Locked Bag 49, Welshpool DC, WA 6986 [email protected] 2 Aquatic Zoology, Western Australian Museum, Locked Bag 49, Welshpool DC, WA 6986 [email protected] Manuscript received November 2010; accepted January 2011 Abstract Corals and fishes are the most visually apparent fauna on coral reefs and the most often monitored groups to detect change. In comparison, data on noncoral benthic invertebrates and marine plants is sparse. Whether patterns in diversity and distribution for other taxonomic groups align with those detected in corals and fishes is largely unknown. Four shelf-edge atolls in the Kimberley region of Western Australia were surveyed for marine plants, sponges, scleractinian corals, crustaceans, molluscs, echinoderms and fishes in 2006, with a consequent 1521 species reported. Here, we provide the first community level assessment of the biodiversity of these atolls based on these taxonomic groups. Four habitats were surveyed and each was found to have a characteristic community assemblage. Different species assemblages were found among atolls and within each habitat, particularly in the lagoon and reef flat environments. In some habitats we found the common taxa groups (fishes and corals) provide adequate information for community assemblages, but in other cases, for example in the intertidal reef flats, these commonly targeted groups are far less useful in reflecting overall community patterns.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of Serranid and Epinephelid Fishes (Perciformes: Serranidae & Epinephelidae) of India
    Journal of the Ocean Science Foundation 2021, Volume 38 Checklist of serranid and epinephelid fishes (Perciformes: Serranidae & Epinephelidae) of India AKHILESH, K.V. 1, RAJAN, P.T. 2, VINEESH, N. 3, IDREESBABU, K.K. 4, BINEESH, K.K. 5, MUKTHA, M. 6, ANULEKSHMI, C. 1, MANJEBRAYAKATH, H. 7, GLADSTON, Y. 8 & NASHAD M. 9 1 ICAR-Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Mumbai Regional Station, Maharashtra, India. Corresponding author: [email protected]; Email: [email protected] 2 Andaman & Nicobar Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of India, Port Blair, India. Email: [email protected] 3 Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal, India. Email: [email protected] 4 Department of Science and Technology, U.T. of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti, India. Email: [email protected] 5 Southern Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of India, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. Email: [email protected] 6 ICAR-Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Visakhapatnam Regional Centre, Andhra Pradesh, India. Email: [email protected] 7 Centre for Marine Living Resources and Ecology, Kochi, Kerala, India. Email: [email protected] 8 ICAR-Central Island Agricultural Research Institute, Port Blair, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India. Email: [email protected] 9 Fishery Survey of India, Port Blair, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 744101, India. Email: [email protected] Abstract We provide an updated checklist of fishes of the families Serranidae and Epinephelidae reported or listed from India, along with photographs. A total of 120 fishes in this group are listed as occurring in India based on published literature, of which 25 require further confirmation and validation. We confirm here the presence of at least 95 species in 22 genera occurring in Indian marine waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Populations and Habitat Assessment on the Oculina Bank
    195 Abstract—A portion of the Oculina Assessment of fish populations and habitat Bank located off eastern Florida is a marine protected area (MPA) pre- on Oculina Bank, a deep-sea coral marine served for its dense populations of the ivory tree coral (Oculina varicosa), protected area off eastern Florida which provides important habitat for fish. Surveys of fish assemblages Stacey L. Harter (contact author)1 and benthic habitat were conducted 1 inside and outside the MPA in 2003 Marta M. Ribera and 2005 by using remotely operated Andrew N. Shepard2 vehicle video transects and digital 3 still imagery. Fish species composi- John K. Reed tion, biodiversity, and grouper densi- Email address for contact author: [email protected] ties were used to determine whether 1 National Marine Fisheries Service O. varicosa forms an essential habitat Southeast Fisheries Science Center compared to other structure-forming 3500 Delwood Beach Rd. habitats and to examine the effective- Panama City, Florida 32408 ness of the MPA. Multivariate analy- 2 NOAA Undersea Research Center ses indicated no differences in fish University of North Carolina at Wilmington assemblages or biodiversity among 5600 Marvin Moss Lane hardbottom habitat types and grou- Wilmington, North Carolina 28409 per densities were highest among the most complex habitats; however the 3 Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute higher densities were not exclusive to Florida Atlantic University coral habitat. Therefore, we conclude 5600 U.S. 1 North that O. varicosa was functionally Ft. Pierce, Florida 34946 equivalent to other hardbottom habi- tats. Even though fish assemblages were not different among manage- ment areas, biodiversity and grouper densities were higher inside the MPA compared to outside.
    [Show full text]
  • Chondrichthyes: Dasyatidae)
    1 Ichthyological Exploration of Freshwaters/IEF-1089/pp. 1-6 Published 16 February 2019 LSID: http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:DFACCD8F-33A9-414C-A2EC-A6DA8FDE6BEF DOI: http://doi.org/10.23788/IEF-1089 Contemporary distribution records of the giant freshwater stingray Urogymnus polylepis in Borneo (Chondrichthyes: Dasyatidae) Yuanita Windusari*, Muhammad Iqbal**, Laila Hanum*, Hilda Zulkifli* and Indra Yustian* Stingrays (Dasyatidae) are found in marine (con- species entering, or occurring in freshwater. For tinental, insular shelves and uppermost slopes, example, Fluvitrygon oxyrhynchus and F. signifer one oceanic species), brackish and freshwater, and were only known from five or fewer major riverine are distributed across tropical to warm temperate systems (Compagno, 2016a-b; Last et al., 2016a), waters of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans though recent surveys yielded a single record of (Nelson et al., 2016). Only a small proportion of F. oxyrhynchus and ten records of F. signifier in the dasyatid rays occur in freshwater, and include Musi drainage, South Sumatra, indicating that obligate freshwater species (those found only in both species are more widely distributed than freshwater) and euryhaline species (those that previously expected (Iqbal et al., 2017, 2018). move between freshwater and saltwater) (Last et Particularly, the dasyatid fauna of Borneo al., 2016a). Recently, a total of 89 species of Dasy- includes the giant freshwater stingray Urogymnus atidae has been confirmed worldwide (Last et al., polylepis. The occurrence of U. polylepis in Borneo 2016a), including 14 species which are known to has been reported from Sabah and Sarawak in enter or live permanently in freshwater habitats of Malaysia and the Mahakam basin in Kaliman- Southeast Asia [Brevitrygon imbricata, Fluvitrygon tan of Indonesia (Monkolprasit & Roberts, 1990; kittipongi, F.
    [Show full text]
  • Centropyge, Pomacanthidae
    Galaxea, Journal of Coral Reef Studies 22: 31-36（2020） Note Filling an empty role: first report of cleaning by pygmy angelfishes (Centropyge, Pomacanthidae) Pauline NARVAEZ*1, 2, 3 and Renato A. MORAIS1, 3 1 ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, 1 James Cook Drive, Townsville, Queensland 4810, Australia 2 Centre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture, James Cook University, 1 James Cook Drive, Townsville, Queensland 4810, Australia 3 College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, 1 James Cook Drive, Townsville, Queensland 4810, Aus­ tralia * Corresponding author: Pauline Narvaez E­mail: [email protected] Communicated by Frederic Sinniger (Associate Editor­in­Chief) Abstract Cleaner fishes remove ectoparasites, mucus and search of ectoparasites, mucus, and dead or diseased dead tissues from other ‘client’ organisms. These mutu­ tissue (Côté 2000; Côté and Soares 2011). Cleaners have alistic interactions provide benefits for the ‘clients’ and, been classified as either dedicated or facultative, depend­ on a larger scale, maintain healthy reef ecosystems. Here, ing on their degree of reliance on cleaning interactions for we report two species of angelfishes, Centropyge bicolor accessing food (Vaughan et al. 2017). While dedicated and C. tibicen, acting as cleaners of the blue tang cleaners rely almost exclusively on cleaning, facultative Paracanthurus hepatus in an aquarium. This observation ones also exploit other food sources. In total, 208 fish and is the first time that pygmy angelfishes are recorded 51 shrimp species have been reported as either dedicated cleaning in any en vironment. This novel cleaning ob­ or facultative cleaners (Vaughan et al. 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes of Terengganu East Coast of Malay Peninsula, Malaysia Ii Iii
    i Fishes of Terengganu East coast of Malay Peninsula, Malaysia ii iii Edited by Mizuki Matsunuma, Hiroyuki Motomura, Keiichi Matsuura, Noor Azhar M. Shazili and Mohd Azmi Ambak Photographed by Masatoshi Meguro and Mizuki Matsunuma iv Copy Right © 2011 by the National Museum of Nature and Science, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu and Kagoshima University Museum All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission from the publisher. Copyrights of the specimen photographs are held by the Kagoshima Uni- versity Museum. For bibliographic purposes this book should be cited as follows: Matsunuma, M., H. Motomura, K. Matsuura, N. A. M. Shazili and M. A. Ambak (eds.). 2011 (Nov.). Fishes of Terengganu – east coast of Malay Peninsula, Malaysia. National Museum of Nature and Science, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu and Kagoshima University Museum, ix + 251 pages. ISBN 978-4-87803-036-9 Corresponding editor: Hiroyuki Motomura (e-mail: [email protected]) v Preface Tropical seas in Southeast Asian countries are well known for their rich fish diversity found in various environments such as beautiful coral reefs, mud flats, sandy beaches, mangroves, and estuaries around river mouths. The South China Sea is a major water body containing a large and diverse fish fauna. However, many areas of the South China Sea, particularly in Malaysia and Vietnam, have been poorly studied in terms of fish taxonomy and diversity. Local fish scientists and students have frequently faced difficulty when try- ing to identify fishes in their home countries. During the International Training Program of the Japan Society for Promotion of Science (ITP of JSPS), two graduate students of Kagoshima University, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • First Quantitative Ecological Study of the Hin Pae Pinnacle, Mu Ko Chumphon, Thailand
    Ramkhamhaeng International Journal of Science and Technology (2020) 3(3): 37-45 ORIGINAL PAPER First quantitative ecological study of the Hin Pae pinnacle, Mu Ko Chumphon, Thailand Makamas Sutthacheepa*, Sittiporn Pengsakuna, Supphakarn Phoaduanga, Siriluck Rongprakhona , Chainarong Ruengthongb, Supawadee Hamaneec, Thamasak Yeemina, a Marine Biodiversity Research Group, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Ramkhamhaeng University, Huamark, Bangkok, Thailand b Chumphon Marine National Park Operation Center 1, Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, Chumphon Province, Thailand c School of Business Administration, Sripatum University, Jatujak, Bangkok *Corresponding author: [email protected] Received: 21 August 2020 / Revised: 21 September 2020 / Accepted: 1 October 2020 Abstract. The Western Gulf of Thailand holds a rich set protection. These ecosystems also play significant of coral reef communities, especially at the islands of Mu roles in the Gulf of Thailand regarding public Ko Chumphon Marine National Park, being of great importance to Thailand’s biodiversity and economy due awareness of coastal resources conservation to its touristic potential. The goal of this study was to (Cesar, 2000; Yeemin et al., 2006; Wilkinson, provide a first insight on the reef community of Hin Pae, 2008). Consequently, coral reefs hold significant a pinnacle located 20km off the shore of Chumphon benefits to the socioeconomic development in Province, a known SCUBA diving site with the potential Thailand. to become a popular tourist destination. The survey was conducted during May 2019, when a 100m transect was used to characterize the habitat. Hin Pae holds a rich reef Chumphon Province has several marine tourism community with seven different coral taxa, seven hotspots, such as the islands in Mu Ko Chumphon invertebrates, and 44 fish species registered to the National Park.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny of the Epinephelinae (Teleostei: Serranidae)
    BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE, 52(1): 240-283, 1993 PHYLOGENY OF THE EPINEPHELINAE (TELEOSTEI: SERRANIDAE) Carole C. Baldwin and G. David Johnson ABSTRACT Relationships among epinepheline genera are investigated based on cladistic analysis of larval and adult morphology. Five monophyletic tribes are delineated, and relationships among tribes and among genera of the tribe Grammistini are hypothesized. Generic com- position of tribes differs from Johnson's (1983) classification only in the allocation of Je- boehlkia to the tribe Grammistini rather than the Liopropomini. Despite the presence of the skin toxin grammistin in the Diploprionini and Grammistini, we consider the latter to be the sister group of the Liopropomini. This hypothesis is based, in part, on previously un- recognized larval features. Larval morphology also provides evidence of monophyly of the subfamily Epinephelinae, the clade comprising all epinepheline tribes except Niphonini, and the tribe Grammistini. Larval features provide the only evidence of a monophyletic Epine- phelini and a monophyletic clade comprising the Diploprionini, Liopropomini and Gram- mistini; identification of larvae of more epinephelines is needed to test those hypotheses. Within the tribe Grammistini, we propose that Jeboehlkia gladifer is the sister group of a natural assemblage comprising the former pseudogrammid genera (Aporops, Pseudogramma and Suttonia). The "soapfishes" (Grammistes, Grammistops, Pogonoperca and Rypticus) are not monophyletic, but form a series of sequential sister groups to Jeboehlkia, Aporops, Pseu- dogramma and Suttonia (the closest of these being Grammistops, followed by Rypticus, then Grammistes plus Pogonoperca). The absence in adult Jeboehlkia of several derived features shared by Grammistops, Aporops, Pseudogramma and Suttonia is incongruous with our hypothesis but may be attributable to paedomorphosis.
    [Show full text]
  • Pomacentridae)
    Zoologischer Anzeiger 264 (2016) 47–55 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Zoologischer Anzeiger jou rnal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jcz Insight into biting diversity to capture benthic prey in damselfishes (Pomacentridae) Damien Olivier ∗, Eric Parmentier, Bruno Frédérich Laboratoire de Morphologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive, AFFISH Research Center, Institut de Chimie (B6C) Université de Liege, B-4000 Liege, Belgium a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: The cerato-mandibular (c-md) ligament, joining the hyoid bar to the coronoid process of the angular, Received 9 May 2016 allows Pomacentridae to slam their mouth shut in a few milliseconds. Previous works have revealed that Received in revised form 13 July 2016 such a mechanism is used to feed, but some variability in biting patterns has been observed between two Accepted 13 July 2016 damselfish species. The pelagic feeder Amphiprion clarkii performs two different kinematic patterns to Available online 15 July 2016 bite fixed prey, one that does not depend on the c-md ligament (biting-1) and one that does (biting-2). The benthic feeder Stegastes rectifraenum only performs biting-2. The present study aims to shed light on Keywords: the occurrence of biting-2 in the feeding behaviour of Pomacentridae. To test our hypothesis that biting-2 Cerato-mandibular ligament would be the only biting pattern for benthic feeders, we compared biting behaviours among four species: Feeding behaviour one pelagic feeder, A. clarkii, and three benthic feeders, Neoglyphidodon nigroris, Stegastes leucostictus and Functional morphology Grazing S. rectifraenum.
    [Show full text]
  • Reglamento De Pesca De Puerto Rico
    Gobierno de Puerto Rico DEPARTAMENTO DE RECURSOS NATURALES Y AMBIENTALES PO Box 366147, San Juan, PR 00936 NUEVO REGLAMENTO DE PESCA DE PUERTO RICO Gobierno de Puerto Rico DEPARTAMENTO DE RECURSOS NATURALES Y AMBIENTALES PO Box 366147, San Juan, PR 00936 Nuevo Reglamento de Pesca de Puerto Rico CAPÍTULO I - DISPOSICIONES GENERALES ARTÍCULO 1 - TÍTULO Este Reglamento se conocerá como "Nuevo Reglamento de Pesca de Puerto Rico". ARTÍCULO 2 - AUTORIDAD Y BASE LEGAL Este Reglamento se adopta y promulga de conformidad con los poderes conferidos al Secretario del Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales por el Artículo 5 de la Ley Número 278 del 29 de noviembre de 1998 según enmendada, conocida como la “Ley de Pesquerías de Puerto Rico”; el Artículo 5 de la Ley Número 115 del 6 de septiembre de 1997, conocida como la “Ley para la Promoción y el Desarrollo de la Pesca Deportiva y Recreacional de Puerto Rico”; la Ley Número 46 del 18 de junio de 1965, conocida como la “Ley de Pirañas, Prohibición y Penas; la Ley Núm. 57 de 10 de marzo de 2000, conocida como “Para designar como reserva marina, media milla de las aguas territoriales marítimas alrededor de la Isla Desecheo”; la Ley Número 17 de 8 de enero de 2004, conocida como “Ley de la Reserva Marina Tres Palmas de Rincón”; y el Artículo 5 de la Ley Número 23 del 20 de junio de 1972, según enmendada, conocida como la Ley Orgánica del Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales. ARTÍCULO 3 - DECLARACIÓN DE PROPÓSITOS El propósito de este Reglamento es administrar las pesquerías dentro de las aguas jurisdiccionales del Gobierno de Puerto Rico.
    [Show full text]