SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
ASSESSING ECOLOGICAL OUTCOMES
Site selection
Each site was an area of coral reef covering roughly 2 hectares that was reasonably
homogeneous in terms of geomorphology and ecological zonation (sensu Goreau 1959; Goreau
and Goreau 1973). All sites were between 5-11 m in depth. To select possible sites, we first
examined any available published and unpublished documents that contained maps or
descriptions of underwater habitats in and around the MPA. In the field, we reviewed these
documents with reserve staff and other key informants, such as dive operators and researchers, to
further identify potential sites. Where information was unavailable or incomplete we also
undertook brief surveys on snorkel to identify possible sites. Where there were distinct
geomorphic/ecological zones within the MPA (e.g. patch reef, fore-reef slope), sites were
stratified by habitat. We sampled 2-6 coral reef sites within the no take zones(s) for each MPA.
Where there were areas within the MPA zoned to have some limits on fishing, boating,
snorkeling or diving, we also sampled an equal number of sites in those areas. We also sampled
an equal number of sites in nearby comparable habitat outside the MPA.
Within each habitat, we attempted to designate the location of sites at random using a
portable GPS unit. This was possible at 14 MPAs, but not at the others because of limited time
or other logistical constraints (e.g. the selected site was too far from legal anchoring sites, or the
current was too strong). In these instances, sites were selected haphazardly.
1
Measuring percent cover of live coral
We used the linear point intercept method (Dodge and others 1982; Ohlhorst and others
1988) to estimate the percent cover of live coral at each site because it is more time-efficient than
other widely used methods, while being equally precise and accurate (Nadon and Stirling 2006).
Between four to seventeen haphazardly located 30 m transect lines were laid over the reef’s
surface at each site. At 20 cm intervals, divers recorded the whether or not the tape overlaid live
scleratinian coral. The percent cover of live coral was calculated as the fraction of points
overlaying coral. Counts were made by five experienced divers, all of whom were capable of
identifying Caribbean corals to species. To reduce observer bias, divers counted the same
transects (n = 15 shared transects per diver) and compared counts before their data were included
in the database.
Measuring target reef fish biomass
To estimate the biomass of large fish typically targeted by fishers, we used a method that
combined elements of roving diver (Jones and Thompson 1978) and strip transect (Brock 1954)
methods. At each site, a diver slowly patrolled for 45 min, attempting to stay within an area
roughly 2 ha. Judgments about the area patrolled were made by counting fin beats and also by
using the transect tapes laid for coral counts as landmarks. All diurnal species typically targeted
by fishers were counted. Because the level of fishing activity, the methods used, and selectivity
of fishers varied among MPAs, we did not attempt to generate a specific list of target fish species
for each MPA. Instead, we developed a generic list based upon personal experience, an informal
review of the literature, and fisheries information in the online database Fishbase (Froese and
Pauly 2008). A list of the species encountered during the surveys is shown below (Table S2).
2
The size of fish harvested in the Caribbean is also highly variable, but fisheries are
generally size-selective and increased harvesting appears to reduce mean fish size (e.g. Munro
1983; Polunin and Roberts 1993, Chiappone and others 2000). Larger individuals of most
desirable targeted groups (e.g., Serranidae, Lutjanidae, Carangidae, Scaridae, Haemulidae) are
above 25 cm in total length so we counted only fish estimated to be greater than 25 cm in total
length. Although somewhat arbitrary, we felt this threshold would allow us to adequately
characterize differences among sites. Setting a universal size-threshold also simplified counting,
and kept the numbers of fish encountered during swims to a manageable number.
The size of each fish judged to exceed 25 cm was estimated visually to the nearest 5 cm.
At the beginning of the study, and at intervals throughout, the accuracy of these length estimates
was assessed by estimating the length of pieces of pvc or plexiglass (following Bell and others
1985; Polunin and Roberts 1993). Prior to the study, one of the counters (G. Forrester) also
tested the accuracy of his size estimates by guessing the lengths of fish in the field, then
capturing them to determine their actual length (18 species, 8-34 individuals per species). To
minimize observer bias, counts were made by three experienced divers, all of whom were
capable of identifying Caribbean fishes to species and whose counts were inter-calibrated during
a minimum of 15 training dives. For each fish species, estimates of body lengths were converted
to mass using length-weight regressions from Fishbase (Froese and Pauly 2008). Mass estimates
were then summed to yield the total mass of target fish per swim.
MEASURED ECOLOGICAL OUTCOMES
Coral cover ranged from 0.67-45.2% in no-take areas (mean = 11.1%) and from 2.336.2% in control areas (mean = 12.1%). Estimates of target fish biomass ranged from 5.3-87.1
3
kg per swim (mean = 24.3 kg/swim) in take areas and from 1.9-69.5 kg per swim in control areas
(mean = 22.3 kg/swim). The five most abundant fish families counted, in descending order of
estimated biomass were: Lutjanidae, Scaridae, Carangidae, Sphyraenidae, Haemulidae. These
five families accounted for 78% of the total estimated biomass. The five most abundant species
of fish counted, in descending order of estimated biomass were: Sparisoma viride, Ocyurus
chrysurus, Sphyraena barracuda, Lutjanus apodus, Carangoides ruber, Scarus vetula, Kyphosus
incisor, Caranx latus, Lutjanus jocu, Lutjanus mahogoni. These ten species accounted for 69%
of the total estimated biomass.
Using lnRR to quantify the proportional difference between the no-take and control areas
showed that reserves varied widely in this measure of effectiveness. Twenty of the 31 MPAs
had higher coral cover inside the no-take area than outside (i.e. lnRR > 0), but the mean value of
lnRR did not differ significantly from zero (two tailed t-test, df = 30, t = 1.16, p = 0.25). A
similar pattern was observed for fish body sizes; mean fish size was larger inside the no-take area
than outside for most MPAs (19 of 31) but the mean lnRR was not distinguishable from zero
(two tailed t-test, df = 30, t = 1.47, p = 0.15). Protection inside the no-take areas had a more
consistently positive effect on fish biomass. The biomass of target fish was greater inside most
no-take areas (20 of 31 MPAs), and the mean value of lnRR was significantly greater than zero
(two tailed t-test, df = 30, t = 2.83, p = 0.008)
REFERENCES FOR SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS
Bell JD, Craik GJS, Pollard DA, Russell BC (1985) Estimating length frequency distributions of
large reef fish under water. Coral Reefs 4: 41-44
4
Brock VE (1954) A preliminary report on a method of estimating reef fish populations. Journal
of Wildlife Management 18:297-308
Chiappone M, Sluka R, Sealey KS (2000) Groupers (Pisces : Serranidae) in fished and protected
areas of the Florida Keys, Bahamas and northern Caribbean. Marine Ecology Progress Series
198:261-272
Dodge RE, Logan A, Antonius A (1982) Quantitative Reef Assessment Studies in Bermuda: A
Comparison of Methods and Preliminary Results. Bulletin of Marine Science 32:745-760
Froese R, Pauly D (2008) FishBase [WWW database] URL http://www.fishbase.org
Goreau TF (1959) The ecology of Jamaican coral reefs. I. Species composition and zonation.
Ecology 40: 67-90
Goreau TF, Goreau NI (1973) The ecology of Jamaican coral reefs II. Geomorphology, zonation
and sedimentary phases. Bulletin of Marine Science 23: 399-464
Jones RS, Thompson MJ (1978) Comparison of Florida reef fish assemblages using a rapid
visual technique Bulletin of Marine Science 28:159-172
Nadon MO, Stirling G (2006) Field and simulation analyses of visual methods for sampling coral
cover. Coral Reefs 25:177-185
Munro JL (1983) Caribbean coral reef fishery resources. ICLARM Studies and Reviews 7, pp1276, Manila, Philippines, ICLARM
Ohlhorst SL, Liddell WD, Taylor RJ, Taylor JM (1988) Evaluation of reef census
techniques. Proceedings of the 6th International Coral Reef Symposium 2:319-324
Schmitt EF, Sullivan KM (1996) Analysis of a volunteer method for collecting fish presence and
abundance data in the Florida Keys. Bulletin of Marine Science 59: 404–416.
5
Sullivan K, Bustemante G (1999) Setting Geographic Priorities for Marine Conservation in Latin
America and the Caribbean, pp 1-125, Arlington, VA, The Nature Conservancy
6
Table S2. A list of the species counted during the surveys of harvested fish greater than 25 cm
in total length.
Family
Pomacanthidae
Sphyraenidae
Ostraciidae
Kyphosidae
Sciaenidae
Bothidae
Mullidae
Haemulidae
Carangidae
Synodontidae
Scombridae
Scientific name
Holacanthus bermudensis
Holacanthus ciliaris
Pomacanthus arcuatus
Pomacanthus paru
Sphyraena barracuda
Sphyraena picudilla
Acanthostracion polygonius
Acanthostracion quadricornis
Kyphosus incisor
Equetus punctatus
Bothus lunatus
Mulloidichthys martinicus
Pseudupeneus maculatus
Anisotremus surinamensis
Anisotremus virginicus
Haemulon album
Haemulon bonariense
Haemulon carbonarium
Haemulon flavolineatum
Haemulon macrostomum
Haemulon melanurum
Haemulon parra
Haemulon plumieri
Haemulon sciurus
Haemulon steindachneri
Alectis ciliaris
Carangoides ruber
Caranx bartholomaei
Caranx cryos
Caranx hippos
Caranx latus
Caranx lugubris
Decapterus macarellus
Elagatis bipinnulata
Synodus intermedius
Acanthocybium solandri
7
Gerreidae
Scaridae
Diodontidae
Sparidae
Scorpaenidae
Serranidae
Ginglymostomatidae
Lutjanidae
Centropomidae
Ephippidae
Euthynnnus alletteratus
Scomberomorus regalis
Gerres cinereus
Scarus coelestinus
Scarus coeruleus
Scarus guacamaia
Scarus vetula
Sparisoma aurofrenatum
Sparisoma chrysopterum
Sparisoma rubripinne
Sparisoma viride
Trachinotus falcatus
Diodon hystrix
Calamus bajonado
Calamus calamus
Calamus penna
Calamus pennatula
Scorpaena plumieri
Cephalopholis cruentatus
Cephalopholis fulvus
Epinephelus adscensionis
Epinephelus guttatus
Epinephelus itajara
Epinephelus morio
Epinephelus striatus
Mycteroperca bonaci
Mycteroperca interstitialis
Mycteroperca tigris
Mycteroperca venenosa
Rypticus saponaceus
Rypticus subbifrenatus
Ginglymostoma cirratum
Lutjanus analis
Lutjanus apodus
Lutjanus campechanus
Lutjanus cyanopterus
Lutjanus griseus
Lutjanus jocu
Lutjanus mahogoni
Lutjanus synagris
Ocyurus chrysurus
Centropomus undecimalis
Chaetodipterus faber
8
Dasyatidae
Acanthuridae
Megalopidae
Balistidae
Ostraciidae
Labridae
Dasyatis americana
Acanthurus chirurgus
Acanthurus coeruleus
Megalops atlanticus
Balistes capriscus
Balistes vetula
Canthidermis sufflamen
Melicthys niger
Lactophrys triqueter
Bodianus rufus
Clepticus parrae
Halichoeres radiatus
Lachnolaimus maximus
9