2012

Reef Check Bahamas Team Members:

Lakeshia Anderson, Frederick Arnett,

Ancilleno Davis, Jared Dillet, Lindy Knowles

and Krista Sherman

February 3, 2012

CORAL REEF EVALUATION REPORT

1

Executive Summary Two Reef Check Surveys were conducted at Mike’s Reef, New Providence, Bahamas on

February 1, 2012. The team consisted of Lakeshia Anderson (BNT), Frederick Arnett (DMR),

Ancilleno Davis (TNC), Jared Dillet (DMR), Lindy Knowles (BNT) and Krista Sherman (BNT).

The team was divided into pairs to complete fish, invertebrate and substrate surveys. This team

used the Reef Check EcoDiver protocol to collect data (www.reefcheck.org). Mike’s Reef is

within the proposed South West Marine Managed Area. Both survey sites are a part of a

contiguous reef system. Fish surveys showed that commercially important species (groupers,

snappers and grunts) were in lower abundances when compared to non-target fish species

(parrotfish and butterflyfish). When comparing the two invertebrate and impact assessment

surveys, the only noticeable difference was the gorgonian counts which could be related to “edge

effects”. Anthropogenic impacts were low on both transects. Even though 76% of the surveyed

portion of Mike’s Reef consisted of non-living components, the low macroalgal coverage (due to

grazing pressure by high parrotfish densities) could mean that there is suitable area for coral

recruitment. However, live hard corals cover was 10% suggesting that there may be other factors

preventing coral recruitment to the area not related to substrate type e.g. “edge effects”. This

was the first complete Reef Check survey to be conducted within the proposed boundaries of the

South West Marine Managed Area in New Providence, Bahamas. The data represented in this

report provide baseline information on the status of coral reef health in the area surveyed on

Mike’s Reef. Additional surveys are required to document changes in the area and obtain a more

detailed understanding of coral reef health.

2

Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1

Table of Figures .............................................................................................................................. 3

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Methods........................................................................................................................................... 4

Site Description ........................................................................................................................... 4

Fish belt transect.......................................................................................................................... 4

Invertebrate belt transect ............................................................................................................. 5

Substrate line transect.................................................................................................................. 6

Results ............................................................................................................................................. 6

Site Description ........................................................................................................................... 6

Fish Abundance ........................................................................................................................... 7

Invertebrates & Impacts .............................................................................................................. 8

Benthic Coverage ...................................................................................................................... 10

Discussion & Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 13

Fish Abundance ......................................................................................................................... 13

Invertebrates and Impacts.......................................................................................................... 13

Benthic Coverage ...................................................................................................................... 14

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 14

References ..................................................................................................................................... 14

3

Table of Figures

Figure 1. Diagram of a transect line. This 100 m line is divided into four 20 m segments with a 5

m gap in between them to ensure sample independence. ............................................................... 5

Figure 2. Divers swam in an S-shaped pattern to search for the indicator invertebrates inside

cracks or crevices on the reef. ......................................................................................................... 6

Figure 3. Map of survey site – Mike’s Reef and the surrounding area off of New Providence,

Bahamas. ......................................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 4. Average abundance of Reef Check indicator fish on Mike's Reef. The bars represent

the average abundance per 100 m2 and error bars are reported as standard deviation. .................. 8

Figure 5. Average abundance of Reef Check indicator invertebrates on Mike's Reef. The bars

represent the average abundance per 100 m2 and error bars are reported as standard deviation. ... 9

Figure 6. The bars represent the level of perceived impacts ranked on a scale from 0-3. Error bars

are reported as standard deviation. ................................................................................................ 10

Figure 7. Comparison of mean percentage cover of living and non-living reef components per

100 m2 on Mike's Reef East and West. Error bars represent standard deviation. ......................... 11

Figure 8. Combined percent coverage of living and non-living reef components on Mike's Reef.

....................................................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 9. Combined mean percentage cover of living and non-living reef components per 100 m2

on Mike's Reef East and West. Error bars represent standard deviation. ..................................... 13

4

Introduction On Wednesday, 1

st February, 2012 a group of marine scientists from The Nature Conservancy,

The Bahamas National Trust and The Bahamas Department of Marine Resources performed the

first of what is hoped to be a series of Reef Check survey dives on Mike’s Reef off southwestern

New Providence. The survey group members were Frederick Arnett and Jared Dillet of DMR,

Ancilleno Davis of TNC, and Lakeshia Anderson, Lindy Knowles and Krista Sherman of BNT.

With the exception of Mr. Knowles, the group had been previously trained in Reef Check

methodologies and was participating in a Training of the Trainers workshop. Upon completion

of the workshop, Mr. Knowles will be trained by one of his aforementioned peers to become a

Reef Check Eco Diver.

Mike’s Reef is located 3.2 km off the southwestern coast of New Providence (Figure 3). The reef

was chosen because it is a popular, well used site for recreational divers and receives daily

visitors almost year-round. The site is also used for recreational and small scale commercial

fishing. Mike’s Reef is located within the proposed Western New Providence Managed Marine

Area and is an ideal site for comparison to other, less used reefs (e.g. marine reserves) within

The Bahamas. Two surveys were completed using the Reef Check methodology and the findings

are presented below.

Methods Two Reef Check Surveys were conducted at Mike’s Reef, New Providence, Bahamas on

February 1, 2012. The team consisted of Lakeshia Anderson, Frederick Arnett, Ancilleno Davis,

Jared Dillet, Lindy Knowles and Krista Sherman. The team was further divided into pairs to

complete fish, invertebrate and substrate surveys. Two transects were laid in a N-S orientation at

35 feet depth more than 5 m apart.

Site Description Anecdotal, observational, historical, location (using a hand-held GPS) and other socioeconomic

data were recorded on the Reef Check Site Description Form.

Fish belt transect Four 5 m wide (centered on the transect line) by 20 m long segments were sampled for fish

species typically targeted by fishermen, aquarium collectors and others. Fish seen up to 5 m

above the line was included (Figure 1). The indicator fish have been selected because they are,

ecologically important species, typically shot out of reefs by spearfishing and caught using hand-

lines. Size minimums have been placed on two families of food fish (> 30 cm for Grouper, > 20

cm for Parrotfish). Grouper and parrotfish smaller than these limits were not counted. Other

5

indicator fish included snappers, grunts, butterflyfish and lionfish. No PVC pipes were used to

assist with size class estimations based on diver experience with size class estimations. However,

novices should utilize this or another method of calibration.

Each diver assigned to count fish swam slowly along the transect counting the indicator fish. The

diver then stopped every 5 m, and waited one minute for indicator fish to come out of hiding

before proceeding to the next 5 m stop point. The fish were counted while swimming and while

stopped along the entire length of each 20 m transect. This was a combined timed and area

restricted survey: four segments x 20 m long x 5 m wide = 400 m2. As with each of the surveys,

there were four 5 m gaps where no data was collected. The entire 400 m2 belt transect was

completed in one hour.

Figure 1. Diagram of a transect line. This 100 m line is divided into four 20 m segments with a 5

m gap in between them to ensure sample independence.

Invertebrate belt transect The same four 5 m wide by 20 m long segments were used to sample for invertebrate species

typically targeted as food species or collected as curios. The invertebrate survey is similar to the

fish survey, however, the diver did not stop every 5 m but each diver swam slowly in an S-

shaped pattern along the transect counting the indicator invertebrates (Figure 2). The indicator

invertebrates included pencil urchins, Flamingo tongue, Trumpet triton, gorgonians (sea fans or

sea whips), Diadema sp., Banded coral shrimp, West Indian sea egg or collector urchins, and

Spiny lobster or crawfish. Reef impacts including coral disease, coral bleaching, coral damage

and trash were also recorded.

6

Figure 2. Divers swam in an S-shaped pattern to search for the indicator invertebrates inside

cracks or crevices on the reef.

Substrate line transect The same transect line as the fish and invertebrate belt transects was used, but points were

sampled at each 0.5 m interval along the tape to determine the substrate types on the reef.

Substrate categories included rock (RC), hard coral (HC), soft coral (SC), recently killed coral

(RKC), nutrient indicator algae (NIA), sponges (SP), rubble (RB), sand (SD), silt (SI) and other

(OT) sessile organisms that do not fall into the above categories. During this survey, the total

number of hard corals with diseases or bleaching was also noted.

Results

Site Description Mike’s Reef is located on the southwest side of New Providence (24°58.397 N and 77°32.007

W) and has an average depth of 40 feet (Figure 3). The reef can be characterized as a medium to

high profile reef adjacent to a gorgonian hard bottom and sandy area. Mooring buoys maintained

by Stuart Cove’s Dive Bahamas reduce anchor damage as the area is heavily used by recreational

divers. The area is also used for subsistence fishing.

7

Figure 3. Map of survey site – Mike’s Reef and the surrounding area off of New Providence,

Bahamas.

Fish Abundance A total of 40 parrotfish, 10 butterflyfish, 3 groupers, 1 Nassau grouper and 2 grunts per 100 m

2

were observed at Mike’s Reef East. No snappers or moray eels were observed. In comparison a

total of 20 parrotfish, 10 butterflyfish, 1 grouper and 6 snappers per 100 m2 were observed at

Mike’s Reef West, but no Nassau grouper, grunts or moray eels were observed. Arithmetic

means and standard deviations were calculated based on the total number of fish observed per

segment (Figure 4).

8

Figure 4. Average abundance of Reef Check indicator fish on Mike's Reef. The bars represent

the average abundance per 100 m2 and error bars are reported as standard deviation.

Invertebrates & Impacts

A total of 116 gorgonians, 4 Banded coral shrimp, 3 Flamingo tongue, 2 lobsters and 1 Diadema

urchin per 100 m2 were observed at Mike’s Reef East. On Mike’s Reef West, a total of 41

gorgonians, 2 Banded coral shrimp 1 Diadema urchin and 3 pencil urchins per 100 m2 were

observed (Figure 5).

Coral damage on Mike’s Reef East and West ranged from low to medium and mainly consisted

of boat or anchor damage, discarded fishing gear and other trash (Figure 6).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Butterflyfish:

Chaetodontidae

Grunts:

Haemulidae

Snappers:

Lutjanidae

Nassau Grouper Groupers:

Other Scaridae

Parrotfish:

Scaridae

Moray Eels:

Muraenidae

Avera

ge A

bu

nd

an

ce +

-SD

Average Abundance of Indicator Fish on Mike's Reef

West

East

9

Figure 5. Average abundance of Reef Check indicator invertebrates on Mike's Reef. The bars

represent the average abundance per 100 m2 and error bars are reported as standard deviation.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Banded Coral

Shrimp

Diadema Pencil Urchin Collector

urchin

Triton's

Trumpet

Flamingo

Tongue

Gorgonians Spiny Lobster

Avera

ge a

bu

nd

an

ce +

-SD

Average Abundance of Invertebrates on Mike's Reef

West

East

10

Figure 6. The bars represent the level of perceived impacts ranked on a scale from 0-3. Error bars

are reported as standard deviation.

Benthic Coverage At Mike’s Reef East an average of 40% rock (RC), 16% sponge (SP), 13% hard coral (HC), 11%

sand (SD), 10% rubble (RB), 2% nutrient indicator algae (NIA), 1% other (OT) and 1% silt (SI)

were counted. Comparatively, Mike’s Reef West had an average coverage of 28% rock (RC), 8%

sponge (SP), 7% hard coral (HC), 34% sand (SD), 22% rubble (RB) and 2% nutrient indicator

algae (NIA). No soft corals (SC) or recently killed corals (RKC) were observed under the survey

points at either Mike’s Reef East or West. No silt (SI) or other (OT) substrate reported for

Mike’s Reef West (Figure 7).

Benthic living and non-living components comprised 31.25% and 68.75% cover respectively of

Mike’s Reef East. Benthic living and non-living components comprised 16.25% and 83.75%

cover respectively of Mike’s Reef West (Figure 8).

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Damage:Boat or Anchor Damage:Dynamite Damage: Other Trash: fishing gear Trash: general

Lvel

of

Perceiv

ed

Co

ra

l Im

pa

cts

+-S

D

Frequency of Coral Impacts on Mike's Reef

West East

11

When benthic coverage data of living and non-living components were combined for both

transects on Mike’s Reef, averages of 36.9% rock (RC), 11.6% sponge (SP), 10% hard coral

(HC), 22.8% sand (SD), 15.9% rubble (RB), 1.9% nutrient indicator algae (NIA), 0.3% other

(OT) and 0.6% silt (SI) were calculated (Figure 9).

Figure 7. Comparison of mean percentage cover of living and non-living reef components per

100 m2 on Mike's Reef East and West. Error bars represent standard deviation.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

HC SC RKC NIA SP RC RB SD SI OT

Avera

ge p

ercen

t co

ver +

-SD

Percent Coverage of Substrate on Mike's Reef

East West

12

Figure 8. Combined percent coverage of living and non-living reef components on Mike's Reef.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

West East

Percen

tag

e C

over

Comparison of Live Cover on Mike's Reef

Total living

Total non-living

13

Figure 9. Combined mean percentage cover of living and non-living reef components per 100 m2

on Mike's Reef East and West. Error bars represent standard deviation.

Discussion & Conclusion

Fish Abundance Results from the combined fish surveys indicated that targeted fisheries species like groupers,

snappers and grunts are in lower abundance than non-targeted species such as parrotfish and

butterflyfish. Moray eels are typically found in low abundance. These results are consistent with

the current protection level of this area, which is non-existent. These are preliminary results

from a single study and additional surveys on other portions of Mike’s Reef across larger time

scales are needed to make recommendations.

Invertebrates and Impacts Gorgonians were the most abundant Reef Check indicator invertebrate observed at Mike’s Reef

along the transects. This may be due to high water flow-through in the area and the location of

the transects on Mike’s Reef. Mean gorgonian abundance on Mike’s Reef West was lower on

Mike’s Reef East and this may be due to the distance between the transects and the reef edge.

Mike’s Reef East was closer to the reef edge. Assuming the transect areas are representative of

the entire reef; lobster abundance could be low due to subsistence or recreational fishing

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

HC SC RKC NIA SP RC RB SD SI OT

Avera

ge P

ercen

t C

over +

-SE

Combined Percent Cover of Substrate from Mike's

Reef East and West

14

pressure. The low Diadema abundance observed during this study is typical of the region

following the 1980s epidemic from which only shallow areas are beginning to recover. The other

Reef Check indicator species are currently not of economic importance.

Impacts related to coral bleaching and disease were low (<5%). Anthropogenic impacts were

also low (<1 on the 0-3 perceived impact scale) despite the fact that the area is heavily used by

recreational divers. This may be indicative of local dive tour operator management (e.g. active

trash removal and mooring buoys) of the area.

Benthic Coverage Even though 76% of the surveyed portion of Mike’s Reef consisted of non-living components,

the low macroalgal coverage (due to grazing pressure by high parrotfish densities) could mean

that there is suitable area for coral recruitment. However, live hard corals cover was 10%

suggesting that there may be other factors preventing coral recruitment to the area not related to

substrate type e.g. “edge effects”.

This was the first complete Reef Check survey to be conducted within the proposed boundaries

of the South West Marine Managed Area in New Providence, Bahamas. The data represented in

this report provide baseline information on the status of coral reef health in the area surveyed on

Mike’s Reef. Additional surveys are required to document changes in the area and obtain a more

detailed understanding of coral reef health.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank Dr. Ruben Torres (Reef Check Dominican Republic) for invigilating the

Training of Trainer’s Workshop for The Bahamas. This workshop was funded through the

GEF/UNEP (Global Environment Facility/United Nations Environment Programme) Full Size

Project (FSP) through the National Executing Agency – the Bahamas Environment Science and

Technology (BEST) Commission and supporting National Implementation Support Programme

(NISP) agencies. These agencies include the Bahamas National Trust, The Nature Conservancy,

the Department of Marine Resources and the BEST Commission. Thanks to Stuart Cove’s Dive

Bahamas for providing field logistical support.

References

www.reefcheck.org