REGION: Gulf of Mexico
NAME OF THE ASSESSMENT:
Changes in Hornos reef benthic flora (Veracruz, Mexico)
Check-List of Questions
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
1 What organization carried out the assessment?
Institute of Biology, UNAM
2 Was the assessment a result of an initiative by the body carrying it out? If not, what body took the
initiative that resulted in the assessment?
Yes
ORIENTATION
3. What is the context and purpose of the assessment?
The Hornos Reef belongs to the Veracruz Reef System and, for its accessibility to the coast, it has suffered a
direct anthropogenic impact that has caused changes in its biodiversity
4 Were there explicit objectives for the assessment? If so, what are they?
The aim of the present study was to know its floristic composition and structure, in addition to verify possible
floristic changes that have occurred in the area, last studied in 1962.
5 What is the relation of the assessment to the cycle of determining the problems, adopting measures
and evaluating progress?
The Horn Reef belongs to Veracruz Reef System (SAV) and is a wide strip of 500 m between the area south
breakwater that protects and limits the harbor entrance to Punta Hornos. It consists mostly of dead coral
barrier. Horn has suffered the direct impact of man for its accessibility and proximity to the coast.
COVERAGE AND SOURCES
6. What area does the assessment cover?
Veracruz, Mexico
7 What were the reasons for selecting the area covered?
The purpose of this research was to undertake the registration of marine plant biodiversity through analysis of
structural components and identification of floristic changes over time.
8 What period of time does the assessment cover?
From 1962 to 2008
9 How often will assessments of this kind be produced?
Frequently
10 What aspects of the marine ecosystem are covered by the assessment?
Preservation of reef coral
11 What aspects of human activities and pressures that impact on the marine environment are covered
by the assessment?
Buildings on the banks and eutrophication
12 On what information is the assessment based?
Samplings were made in the dry and rainy seasons (April, 2008 and June, 2008 respectively). The attribution
of flora present for 5 life forms (sea grass + epiphytes, calcified / crusty, filamentous, tubular / lamellar
racemosas / fleshy) was made based on the analysis of vegetation sampled in 50 m2. Comparing the present
study species to species previously reported in the literature found that of the 58 species, 25 are new records
for Horn Reef.
13 Where environmental, economic or social data were used, what arrangements were made for
subsequent access to this data by the public or by experts?
Anthropogenic impact analysis and changes in biodiversity
14 Where environmental, economic or social data were used, are metadata available on these data
series?
Without information
PROCESS
15 How did the assessment control is the quality of the data used in it?
The control of the assessment was clear, collecting information and conducting samplings
16 Were models of aspects of the marine environment developed and used in the assessment?
Without information
17 Did the assessment use any form of indicators?
Without information
Check-List of Questions
18 If the assessment was based (wholly or partly) on traditional knowledge, what practices were used
to control its quality?
Vegetable richness was determined and compared with that reported in the literature for more than 40 years.
The floristic list reported by Humm & Hildebrand was corrected according to modern taxonomy for comparison
with the present study. The attribution of flora present for different life forms was made based on the analysis
of vegetation sampled in 50 m2. Was applied Cheney index (CI) to the number of species found in the study
area. Cheney index allows to know the floristic affinities (tropical, subtropical and mixed) when the number of
species groups: Rhodophyta (R), Chlorophyta (C) and Phaeophyceae (P) in the equation R + C / P, but also
shows the balance between the taxa and changes over time. Values less than 3 indicate subtropical or
temperate flora, six or more indicate a tropical flora and intermediate values between 3-6 mixed flora. SPSS
15.0 was used for descriptive statistics.
19 If the assessment was based (wholly or partly) on expert opinion, what practices were used to
control its quality?
Without information
20 Was any particular conceptual framework used to organize the assessment?
Without information
21 How were decisions made on which scientific specialisms should be involved, and how these
scientific specialisms should be brought in?
Ecology and biodiversity, The investigation determined the rate of degradation of marine ecosystems has
increased as a direct result of human pressures, but further global climate change is also causing an
acceleration of the degradation of ecosystems.
22 How was interaction organized during the assessment process between scientific, economic and
social disciplines and policy makers?
Without information
23 How were non-official stakeholders enabled to participate in the assessment?
Without information
24 Did differences of opinion arise over the conclusions of the assessment? If so, how were these
resolved?
None
25 Was there a peer review of the assessment during the assessment process, and/or before the final
text was published?
Without information
26 Were any specific arrangements made to link the assessment with other contemporary international
or national processes?
Without information
27 Were specific efforts made to strengthen institutional, scientific or technical capacity for the
assessment?
Without information
COMMUNICATIONS
28 In what form was the output of the assessment presented?
Article
29 In which languages is the assessment available?
Spanish
30 How were the results of the assessment made public?
As article
CONTENT ON FUTURE ACTIONS
31 Did the assessment rank the severity of problems or otherwise identify priorities for future action?
Yes
32 Did the assessment evaluate options for future policy, and their likely outcomes?
yes
33. Did the assessment indicate gaps in the information needed for it?
None
34 Did the assessment indicate gaps in the scientific understanding of the relevant processes that
need to be addressed in order to improve the assessment?
None
REVIEW
35 Was there a review of the assessment process in order to draw lessons for future assessments?
yes
Check-List of Questions
EXPERT EVALUATION
36 Is the published assessment easy to understand and accessible to non-specialist readers?
Yes
37 To what extent does the assessment give confidence that it provides sound conclusions that apply
to the whole of the area covered?
to a large degree
38 Does the assessment appear to have been timely in relation to policy development and the adoption
of measures?
Without information
39 Are there any particular strengths or weaknesses in the assessment that are relevant to the
Assessment of Assessments?
There are strengths in the assessment
40 Does the assessment appear to have been influential in policy making and the adoption of
measures?
Yes