Cadenas Troficas Coral Reef

L
Trophic Interactions in Caribbean Coral Reefs
Silvia Opitz
s/
INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR LIVING AQUATIC RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Trophic Interactions in Caribbean Coral Reefs
APR 14 19B7
Published by the International Center for Living Aquatic Resources

Management, MCPO Box 2631, 0718 Makati City, Philippines.
Printed in Manila, Philippines
Opitz, S. 1996. Trophic interactions in Caribbean coral reefs. I LARM Tech.

Rep. 43, 341 p. $
Cover: Design emphasizes the systematic properties of coral reefs (central

insert), inhabited by a variety of fishes (insert, left below), and often connected
to other equally productive and equally threatened ecosystems, mangroves
(insert, upper left) and seagrasses (insert, lower right). The wave at the lower
right side symbolizes how the Sea interconnects these elements, also
connected in the models (background diagram).
Copyediting by: Marie Sol M. Sadorra

Proofreading by: Marie Sol M. Sadorra, Cecille Legazpi, Francisco Torres, Jr.
and Jessica A. Moya
Layout by: Ariel C. Aquisap, Albert B. Contemprate and Ovidio F. Espiritu, Jr.
Cover concept by: Silvia Opitz
Cover design by: Alan Siegfried Esquillon
Illustrations by: Albert B. Contemprate and Ovidio F. Espiritu, Jr.
ISSN 0115-5547
ISBN 971-8709-60-6
ICLARM Contribution No. 1085

CONTENTS
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ iv
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... vii

...
List of Appendix Tables ........................................................................................................................ VIII
..
Foreword Meryl J. W~llrams .................................................................................................................x
Foreword Daniel Pauly ........................................................................................................................ xi

...
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................... XIII
.
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
The ECOPATH Model ................................................................................................................ 3
Development of the Models ...................................................................................................... 10
Objectives .................................................................................................................................. 10
Chapter 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS ............................................................................................. 12

Sources of Data ...........................................................................................................................12
Choice of Suitable System ........................................................................................................... 12
System Boundaries and the Concept of "Subsystems" ............................................................... 12
System Components ................................................................................................................... 13
Fishing Activities ................................................................................................................... 21
Methods and Data Used for the Computation of Input Parameters
Required for ECOPATH 11 ................................................................................................ 22
..
Diet Compos~t~on Matrix ...............................................................................................................34
Aggregation of Species and Taxa .......................................................................................... 36
ECOPATH II Parameter Estimation Routine ................................................................................40
Whole System Properties ............................................................................................................40
Graphical Representationof Models ............................................................................................ 40
.
Chapter 3 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 42
42
Fish Species ................................................................................................................................
Nonfish Taxa ............................................................................................................................ 79
99
The Models ..................................................................................................................................
.
Chapter 4 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................... 156
Compatibility of the Models with the PRVl Coral Reef System ................................................. 156
Comparison of the Models with Other Coral Reef Areas ...................................................... 157
New Insights into Structure and Functioning of a Coral Reef
as an Ecosystem Unit ................................................................................................ 160
Identification and Solution of Methodological Problems during
the Modelling Process ...................................................................................................163
Gaps of Knowledge and Suggestions for Future Research .......................................................164
Chapter 5. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................167
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................169
References ........................................................................................................................................... 170
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Areal extent of subsystems of the PRVl shelf .............................................................. 13

Fish species included in the ECOPATH II models of a Caribbean
coral reef ..................................................................................................................... 15
Nonfish taxa included in the ECOPATH II models of a Caribbean
coral reef ..................................................................................................................... 21
Qualitative abundance levels as used to estimate average density (Nm-2)
of fish species included in the models ......................................................................... 24
Conversion factors used for ECOPATH II input parameter estimation of
nonfish groups ............................................................................................................. 26
Spatial distribution of Caribbean reef fishes (with emphasis on the
Virgin Islands and notes on their ecology) ................................................................... 43
Number of fishers and vessels in Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands,
1970-1981 ...................................................................................................................55
Relative importance of the different gear in the fisheries of the PRVl area .................. 55
Yield of trap fisheries for important families in Puerto Rico .......................................... 56
Estimated asymptotic length (L, ) and weight (Wm)of Caribbean reef fishes ................ 58
Estimated average biomass of fish species in Virgin Islands reef
environments ............................................................................................................... 63
Estimated growth parameters and natural mortality (M) of Caribbean
reef fishes ................................................................................................................... 68
Estimated food consumption of Caribbean reef fishes ................................................. 74
Abundance (Nm-2)and mean individual live weight (g) of some nonfish
taxa from Caribbean reefs and other areas ................................................................. 81
Database of ECOPATH II key input parameters of nonfish taxa
for Caribbean coral reef models .................................................................................. 82
Primary productivity of coral reefs and components .................................................... 84
Parameters used to estimate annual Q/B of some bivalves ......................................... 91
Consumption of some bivalves .................................................................................... 91
Conversion efficiencies of Octopus vulgaris ..............................................................92
Parameters used to estimate consumption of 0. vulgaris ............................................ 93
Consumption and maintenance ration of 0 . vulgaris at 28°C ...................................... 93
Food conversions of Panulirus homarus ......................................................................95
Parameters used to estimate consumption of P homarus ........................................... 95
Consumption and maintenance ration of P homarus ...................................................95
Parameters used to estimate consumption of Mithrax spinosissimus ..........................96
Consumption of a Caribbean population of M. spinosissimus ......................................97
Food consumption of ascidians (class: Tunicata) ...................................................... 100
Key input parameters of 41 nonfish groups for Caribbean coral reef
models ...................................................................................................................... 101
Characteristics of 27 fish species groups defined by cluster analysis ........................ 105
Key input parameters of 27 fish species groups prepared for a 50-box
model of a Caribbean coral reef ................................................................................ 106
Key input parameters of 23 nonfish groups prepared for a 50-box model
of a Caribbean coral reef ........................................................................................... 106
Diet composition matrix prepared for the construction of a 50-box model
Results of the ECOPATH II parameter estimation for the construction
of a 50-box model of a Caribbean coral reef: key parameters ....................................111
of a 50-box model of a Caribbean coral reef: diet composition matrix ........................113
of a 50-box model of a Caribbean coral reef: additional parameters .......................... 121
Summary statistics computed by ECOPATH II for a 50-box model
Network flow indices computed by ECOPATH I1 for a 50-box model
Flows and transfer efficiencies for discrete trophic levels computed
by ECOPATH II for a 50-box model of a Caribbean coral reef ................................... 129
Composition of groups of a 20-box model of a Caribbean coral reef
obtained by method 1 ................................................................................................ 134
Results of the ECOPATH II parameter estimation for a 20-box model
of a Caribbean coral reef (method 1): key parameters ........................................ 135
Diet composition matrix for a 20-box model of a Caribbean coral
reef (method 1) ......................................................................................................... 136
of a Caribbean coral reef (method 1): additional parameters ..................................... 138
Transfer efficiencies (%) by discrete trophic level for a 20-box model
(method 1) ................................................................................................................. 141
Composition of groups of a 20-box model of a Caribbean coral reef as
of a Caribbean coral reef (method 2): key parameters ........................................... 144
Results of the ECOPATH I1 parameter estimation for a 20-box model
Transfer efficiencies (%) by discrete trophic level for a 20-box model
(method 2) ................................................................................................................. 147
Composition of groups of an I l - b o x model of a Caribbean coral reef
obtained by method 1 ............................................................................................... 147
Results of the ECOPATH II parameter estimation for an II-box model
of a Caribbean coral reef (method 1): key parameters .............................................. 150
Diet composition matrix for an II-box model of a Caribbean coral reef
(method 1) ................................................................................................................. 150
Transfer efficiencies (%) by discrete trophic level for an II-box model
(method 1) ................................................................................................................. 152
Composition of groups for an Il-box model of a Caribbean coral reef
of a Caribbean coral reef (method 2): key parameters .............................................. 153
Results of the ECOPATH I1 parameter estimation for an I l - b o x model
3.45 Transfer efficiencies (%) by discrete trophic level for an 11-box model
(method 2) ................................................................................................................. 155
4.1 Comparison of properties of three coral reef models. analyzed
by ECOPATH II.......................................................................................................... 158
4.2 Standardized forage ratios for herbivorous reef fish groups as computed
by ECOPATH II for a 50-box model of a Caribbean coral reef ................................... 159
4.3 Comparison of natural mortalities M (= PIB) of selected groups of
herbivorous and carnivorous reef fish from the outputs of the balanced
50-box model ............................................................................................................160
Flow chart showing development and construction of five steady-state
models of a Caribbean coral reef ................................................................................. 11
Diagram of conceptual subsystems included in the models .........................................13
Schematic representation of method to estimate the aspect ratio of the
caudal fin of fish. given height and surface area ..........................................................33
Results of the factor analysis; relation between asymptotic weight (factor 1)
and aspect ratio (factor 2) ...........................................................................................
37
Graphical representation of the results of the cluster analysis showing
the reduction from 243 to 1 fish species group .......................................................... 102
Graphical representation of the 50-box model of a Caribbean coral reef ...................128
Mixed trophic impacts of a 50-box model of a Caribbean coral reef .......................... 130
Graphical representation of the results of the ECOPATH II aggregation
routine showing the stepwise reduction of the number of boxes
from 50 to 1 for models of a Caribbean coral reef ..................................................... 132
Graphical representation of a 20-box model as obtained by method 1 ...................... 140
Mixed trophic impacts of a 20-box model (method 1) ................................................ 142
Graphical representation of a 20-box model as obtained by method 2 ...................... 145
Mixed trophic impacts of a 20-box model (method 2) ................................................ 148
Graphical representation of an II-box model as obtained by method 1 ..................... 151
Mixed trophic impacts of an 11-box model (method 1) ............................................... 152
Graphical representation of an 11-box model as obtained by method 2 .....................154
Mixed trophic impacts of an II-box model (method 2) ............................................... 155
Leslie plots for reef eels and bluehead wrasses from an isolated Bahamian
reef patch. with estimates of unexploited population size ..........................................157
Length-weight data of Caribbean reef fishes after Beebe
and Tee-Van (1928) ................................................................................................... 189
Length-weight data of Caribbean reef fishes after Randall
(1962, 1967, 1968) .................................................................................................... 192
Length-weight data of Caribbean reef fishes after Smith
and Tyler (1972) ........................................................................................................ 197
Length-weight data of fishes from the southeastern Atlantic coast
of Brazil after Figuereido and Menezes (1977) .......................................................... 200
Length-weight data of Caribbean reef fishes after FA0 species
identification sheets (Fischer 1978) .......................................................................202
Length-weight data of Caribbean reef fishes after Munro (1983) ............................... 206
Density (ind.m-3)and crop (gm-3)of fishes of a coral reef in the
US Virgin Islands after Smith and Tyler (1972) ..........................................................208
Aspect ratio (A) of Caribbean reef fishes based on drawings
in Fischer (1978) and photographs in Randall (1968) ................................................210
Food consumption of Caribbean reef fishes (without accounting
for omnivory) ............................................................................................................. 215
Benthic primary producers in fish stomachs of West lndian reef fishes
(based on Randall 1967) ........................................................................................... 216
Invertebrates in stomachs of West lndian reef fishes
(based on Randall 1967) ........................................................................................... 219
Composition of "zooplankton" in the diet composition matrix
of a Caribbean coral reef (US Virgin Islands, based on Randall 1967) ......................228
Taxa and species included in the diet composition matrix of the
ECOPATH I1 models of a Caribbean coral reef .......................................................... 229
The complete diet composition matrix for the construction of
steady-state models of a Caribbean coral reef area, including
41 nonfish taxa and 208 fish species ......................................................................... 233
Summary of publications used for the construction of the diet
composition matrix of nonfish taxa ............................................................................ 307
Characteristics of 27 fish species groups (extended version) .................................... 309
Food intake and electivity indices for a 50-box model of a Caribbean
coral reef ................................................................................................................... 314
coral reef (method 1) ................................................................................................. 326
Food intake and electivity indices for an 11-box model of a Caribbean
Food intake and electivity indices for an 11-box model of a Caribbean
Summary statistics for a 20-box model of a Caribbean coral reef
(method 1) ................................................................................................................. 338
Network flow indices for a 20-box model of a Caribbean coral reef
(method 1) ................................................................................................................. 338
8.9.3 Flows and transfer efficiencies for discrete trophic levels
of a 20-box model (method 1) ................................................................................... 338
8.9.4 Summary statistics for a 20-box model of a Caribbean coral reef
(method 2) ................................................................................................................. 339
8.9.5 Network flow indices for a 20-box model of a Caribbean coral reef
(method 2) ................................................................................................................. 339
8.9.6 Flows and transfer efficiencies for discrete trophic levels of a 20-box
model (method 2) ...................................................................................................... 339
8.9.7 Summary statistics for an 11-box model of a Caribbean coral reef
(method 1) ................................................................................................................. 339
8.9.8 Network flow indices for an 11-box model of a Caribbean coral reef
(method 1) ................................................................................................................. 340
8.9.9 Flows and transfer efficiencies for discrete trophic levels of an 11-box
model (method 1) ...................................................................................................... 340
8.9.10 Summary statistics for an II-box model of a Caribbean coral reef
(method 2) ................................................................................................................. 340
8.9.11 Network flow indices for an 11-box model of a Caribbean coral reef
(method 2) ................................................................................................................. 340
8.9.12 Flows and transfer efficiencies for discrete trophic levels
of an II-box model (method 2) .................................................................................. 341
Coral reefs are important tropical resource systems and, through a rigorous priority setting
process (ICLARM Strategic Plan 1992), were selected by ICLARM as one of the three major
aquatic resource systems for research focus. The others were coastal inshore systems and
inland small ponds and rice flood waters.
As one activity on coral reefs, ICLARM - in collaboration with a number of partner
institutions - is developing a global database on coral reefs, ReefBase - to provide managers
and scientists access to a standardized, key subset of widely scattered information on coral
reefs. Comprehensive and standardized information on such complex systems as coral reefs is
critical to understanding their function.
The present document - although it describes an earlier, unfished state of a small part of
the world's coral reefs, the Virgin IslandIPuerto Rico, area of the Caribbean - therefore presents
a vast amount of standardized information. Here, the information presented was standardized
through its incorporation into a mass-balance (ECOPATH) model of trophic interactions within a
reef - the most detailed model of this type so far published.
The information thus standardized and validated should be useful for many other coral reef
modeling efforts.
The trophic models themselves should also be of interest, as they show, also for the first
time at this level of details, how groups - corals, algae, invertebrates and fish - usually studied
by different scientists - interact, and impact on each other, thus providing a quantitative
underpinning for a systems view.
This study*, therefore, represents a significant contribution to coral reef and aquatic
systems trophodynamics research.
Meryl J. Williams
Director General
ICLARM
*Conducted by Dr. S. Opitz towards her doctorate requirements at the University of Kiel, Germany, under the guidance of Dr. D.
Pauly and with advice from Dr. V. Christensen of ICLARM.
The work before you is the most detailed account ever published of the energy fluxes within
a coral reef ecosystem - and I am well aware that this is a strong claim to make in view of the
enormous research effort which has been devoted to coral reefs to date, and of the enormous
literature which presents the results of this effort.
Upon perusing that literature, however, it quickly becomes clear that only a small fraction
deals with the energetics of more than two species at a time: the bulk of published coral reef
studies deals with the dynamics or trophic biology of either one species, or the interactions
between two species.
Studies referring to ensembles of coral reef species obviously do exist as well but they tend
to concentrate on the definition, identity and maintenance of the "communities" formed by coral
reef species, with little attention devoted to their energetics: few coral reef researchers followed
the path opened by the pioneering study of the metabolism of Eniwetak lagoon, published in
1955 by the Odum brothers.
One reason for this may be the lack of a straightforward tool for integrating scattered
knowledge on the interactive elements of coral reef ecosystems: simulation modeling, e.g., as
brilliantly applied by T.R. McClanahan to coral reef systems, requires formal skills possessed by
only few biologists potentially interested in using a formal modeling framework.
This situation changed in the mid-1980s, when J.J. Polovina and coworkers developed the
ECOPATH approach and software, and applied this to the description of a coral reef system in
the Northern Hawaiian Island, the French Frigate Shoals. This approach, fully described in the
present work, does not need restating here. Suffice to say that, while based on a simple "Master
Equation" with parameters that are relatively easy to estimate, it allows incorporation, into a
formal framework, of the immense amount of single-species data, and on data on species
interactions alluded to above.
The creators of this approach - J. Polovina and colleagues for the initial version, V.
Christensen and this author for its vastly expanded successor ECOPATH II - earlier attributed
the versatility of the ECOPATH approach to the "steady-state1'or "equilibrium" assumption that
seemed to underlie its Master Equation.
However, this assumption is not necessary for the ECOPATH approach to work. Rather,
what is needed is mass-balance, i.e., one must not only be able to account for all flows of
biomass among the different elements of an ecosystem, during the period being modeled
(usually one year), but one should also account for any difference in biomass that may occur
between the beginning and the end of that period.
Equilibrium or steady-state implies.that this difference should be zero - a problem when
the system being modeled is known to display interannual changes of biomass. However, recent
changes incorporated on the Windows version of ECOPATH (ECOPATH 3.0) not only allow
considering between-year changes of biomass (through a term for "biomass accumulated",
added to the Master Equation), but also explicitly consider seasonal changes of all biomass and
fluxes during an annual production cycle.
These features, along with the explicit consideration of uncertainty on the input values
(accommodated through a Monte-Carlo simulation, whose output can be interpreted in a
Bayesian context), have given the ECOPATH approach dynamic features that were lacking
when Dr. Opitz began the work which led to this document.
The fact that Dr. Opitz could assemble as many biomass and rate estimates as she did,
and then establish mass-balance in her models -without recourse to the routines recently
developed to assist users of the ECOPATH software - speaks for the depth of understanding
she achieved of the energetics of Caribbean coral reef systems, and of the biology of their
components.
Indeed, I assume that many future models of coral reef systems -whether constructed
using the ECOPATH approach or not -will rely on the biomass and rate estimates obtained by
Dr. Opitz, and validated by their "fit" to her model.
I conclude, thus, by congratulating Dr. Opitz for a work destined to be found, much
thumbed, on the desk of every would-be modeler of coral reef ecosystems.
Daniel Pauly
Principal Science Adviser
ICLARM
ManilaNancouver
Five thermodynamically balanced models of the trophic interactions and organic matter
transfer between compartments of a Caribbean coral reef system are presented. Inputs to the
models were obtained from published data and from parameter estimates based on multivariate
statistics. The models were analyzed using the ECOPATH II program (Version 1.O) of Daniel
Pauly, Villy Christensen and coworkers at the International Center for Living Aquatic Resources
Management (ICLARM) (in Manila, Philippines) which combines elements of network flow
analysis with the steady-state approach of Jeffrey Polovina's original ECOPATH. A single model
with 50 boxes, 2 models with 20 boxes and 2 with 11 boxes were constructed, based on two
different methods of aggregation. Their features were compared.
These balanced models indicate that coral reef systems are in a "steady-state" or "flow-
through equilibrium", when the appropriate spatial and temporal scale is selected. This implies
that investigations on reef community structure which relied on a small spatial scale, and which
suggest a high degree of stochastic variability may not address issues related to the stability of
structures at larger scales.
The models' outputs indicate the existence of short cycles, effectively recycling organic
matter within the reef system, with the larger part of net primary production being recycled
directly to the detrital pool. Thus, transfer efficiencies between trophic levels are generally low.
Selected outputs of the models were compared with features of the original coral reef
system, i.e., unfished segments of the Puerto Rico - Virgin Islands (PRVI) coral reef area and
were found to be compatible.
Summary statistics of the models were compared with those of two other coral reefs also
modelled using ECOPATH II. The models presented here refer to a large system in terms of
biomass and throughput, compared to French Frigate Shoals, Hawaii, and to Bolinao,
Philippines. These statistics indicate an intermediate stage of system maturity when compared
to the other two systems. Features of the modelled system (degree of piscivory, avoidance, by
piscivorous fish, of larger herbivorous reef fish as prey, sediment production by parrotfish) were
compared with those of other coral reef systems and were found to be compatible.
A potential fisheries yield of 4 gm-2year1for unfished segments of the PRVl reef area was
estimated from the models' outputs. Present overexploitation of lobsters and conchs in the PRVl
area may in part be explained by the strong predation pressure already exerted on these
resources in the unexploited system as indicated by the high ecotrophic efficiencies of
crustaceans and gastropods.
Possible solutions could be developed or suggested for several methodological problems
identified during the modelling process. Also, worthwhile areas of future theoretical and field
research were identified:
1. A large number of fish species can effectively be reduced to fewer groups by cluster
analysis. Appropriate aggregation parameters are those referring to energetic requirements of a
species such as size, activity level and type of food.
2. The impact of predator abundance on predation pressure may be accounted for by
introdtrcing a weighting factor, which should be the product of density, mean weight and relative
food requirements of a predator.
xiii
3. Density estimates from visual censuses, especially for migrating species, such as
apex predators, should be divided by the time an individual fish was actually seen during the
census. This would lead to more realistic values of "effective" biomass, i.e., a biomass which is
related to the carrying capacity of the reef system for this species.
4. Density estimates for small and/or cryptic reef species should be obtained from
repeated rotenone or similar samplings.
5. Density estimates for small schooling pelagics are urgently needed and may be
obtained by hydroacoustic methods.
6. For the construction of nonfish groups one should, as was done for fishes, start from
the species level and define appropriate energetic aggregation criteria by objective selection of
ecological variables.
7. For future models, it will be a worthwhile theoretical task to identify objective criteria
for the determination of spatial and temporal scales of the system which is to be modelled, to
define appropriate system boundaries.
8. More information on diet, food consumption requirements, abundances and growth
performance should be obtained for nonfish taxa in the PRVl reef area. This could strongly
improve the reliability of the models' output.
9. Information on length-weight data and growth parameters for fish species without
interest for fisheries (e.g., very small ones) are needed as well as catch data on a species level
or for ecological guilds, i.e., on a generic or family level, for the PRVl reef area.
xiv
All kinds of superlatives have been used to describe the ecosystem "coral reef", the most
famous being "the oasis in the desert", which is related to the high production rates often
measured for components of the coral reef community compared to rates measured in the
nutrient-poor water masses surrounding coral reefs (Polovina 1984b).
There is general agreement that coral reefs are characterized by three main features: (1)
high species diversity; (2) pronounced complexity of relationships within the system community;
and (3) high rates of production in usually nutrient- and plankton-poor oceanic waters (see
Lewis 1981).
It is hypothesized here that coral reefs can survive under such unfavorable conditions
mainly because these three features are interconnected, resulting in an effective recycling and
conservation of organic matter within the system. This hypothesis is based on small-scale
observations such as the symbiosis between the coral polyps and their symbionts, the
"zooxanthellae". Whether this hypothesis applies to an entire coral reef ecosystem unit is, to
date, not known. There is further disagreement on the question whether coral reefs may be
considered to be in a steady-state, i.e., whether import plus consumption are balanced by
production plus respiration for the entire system.
The main objective of this report was to test whether it is possible to construct a
thermodynamically balanced model of a Caribbean coral reef system, the assumption being that
if such model could be constructed, this would indicate that the coral reef system in question
can indeed be considered as being in some form of steady state.
A Caribbean coral reef area was selected as study site for a modelling effort because I
became enthralled by these beautiful ecosystems since I have "dived" Caribbean coral reefs in
198311984. Another reason was that several Caribbean reef areas have been studied in such
detail that enough input data appeared to exist for the creation of a model representative of the
larger Caribbean area. My choice of a model of a Caribbean coral reef as a research topic was
also influenced by the consideration that tools for proper management of coral reef systems,
especially of fisheries resources, are urgently needed.
The whole system approach seems very promising, since it will provide information for
conservationists with a holistic claim as well as for fisheries managers concerned with fisheries
yields from a small number of target species. Several of these commercially interesting species
are already heavily exploited and some show declines in catchleffort although they are reported
to be only lightly exploited. Munro (1984), in an unpublished report to the Caribbean Fisheries
Management Council (CFMC) "on assessment of the fisheries of Puerto Rico and the U.S.
Virgin Islands", attempted to find out why "the reported landings for the Virgin Islands only
amount to 5%-13% of the 'norm' (for other Caribbean reef areas) of 5 tonnes km-2".He
concluded that "either the landings are greatly underestimated or the fisheries are rather lightly
exploited or both". In contrast to this statement, fisheries statistics in CFMC (1984, 1985)
showed a decline in landings for target fish species in the Puerto Rico - Virgin Islands (PRVI)
area, and contributions in Mahon (1987) reported on the overexploitation of target invertebrates
(conchs, lobsters) along with an increasing fishing effort for the same area.
The lack of appropriate data for proper stock assessment is emphasized regularly
throughout the relevant literature (see e.g., Munro 1984; Mahon 1987; PDT 1990). Many
unpublished reports of investigations and surveys lead a poor life in shelves or drawers; the
more lucky ones are distributed through the person-to-person method. Thus, there is a need to
pool, check and quantify data scattered over a wide range of formal and informal
documentation. The construction of a model is an excellent reason for such compilatory work.
By logical combination of the elements of a system, one may obtain new insights in its
functioning as a whole and in that of its elements as well.
Holistic steady-state models, in contrast to simulation models, can be parameterized with
relatively small expenditure in input data while they may, at the same time, correctly describe
properties of the system being modelled (Silvert 1981). In spite of their "simplicity", these
models may reflect relevant structures of the system and contribute to its understanding;
simultaneously, they may indicate gaps of knowledge and thus identify areas of future practical
research. According to Silvert (1981), the "complexity of a model is not in itself a criterion of its
quality. The degree of complexity is determined chiefly by its function and the observations it is
supposed to describe, not by the internal structure of the system" that is being modelled.
Leontief (1951) developed economic input-output analysis aiming to quantify the amount of
raw materials and industrial services required to produce a quantity of consumer goods.
Augustinovics (1970) later worked out an inverse analysis where the fate of system inputs is
traced to their destination through the economic flow diagram. Hannon (1973) and Finn (1976)
were the first to apply these techniques to biological systems.
Network analysis today provides tools for unifying the concepts of food chains, food webs,
species richness, diversity, etc., by depicting ecosystems as number of compartments,
interconnected by flows of energy or matter from one compartment to another. Wulff et al.
(1989) believed that "network flow analysis contains a lot of information about the dynamic
structure of a whole system and how it functions1'.
Network analysis today includes analysis of cycles, through-flows, storages and information
theory. Finn (1976) developed an index showing the proportion of the flow in a system that is
recycled, relative to total flow. The magnitude of this "cycling index" depends to some extent on
the substance used as currency (biomass, carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, etc.). Ulanowicz
(1980, 1986), one of the leading scientists of Working Group 59/73 of the Scientific Committee
on Oceanographic Research devoted to "Mathematical Models in Biological Oceanography",
(Platt et al. 1981), introduced three indices describing the state of an ecosystem: (1) Total
System Throughput, the sum of all flows occurring within a system; (2) Ascendency, a measure
of the mutual information content within the system; and which concerns the size of the system
as well as diversity of flows; and (3) Development Capacity, a measure of the potential for
growth of a system towards maturity.
In network analysis, comparison of two different elements (e.g., species) within a system
may be established by defining their relative position in the food web as one plus the weighted
mean trophic level of their preys. Conversely, the division of any kind of diet into compartments
allows the construction of pyramids (see Lindeman 1942) representing flows and transfer
efficiencies between trophic levels. This technique allows intercomparison of ecosystems or
comparison of different states of a single system based on the analysis of the food web linking
its components.
1.I. The ECOPATH Model
The modelling approach used here was developed by J.J. Polovina (1984a, l984b, l984c,
1985, 1986) and Polovina and Ow (1983), named "ECOPATH", was originally designed to
estimate standing stock and production budget of an entire coral reef ecosystem, the "French
Frigate Shoals", in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.
ECOPATH II is derived from the original ECOPATH software. It was considerably enhanced
and modified by combining the steady-state approach of the original ECOPATH with techniques
derived from network analysis and information theory. ECOPATH II was designed as a tool to
produce straightforward equilibrium box models for any kind of aquatic system. The
development and updating of ECOPATH I1 are part of a project funded by the Danish
International Development Agency (DANIDA) on "Global Comparisons of Aquatic Ecosystems",
executed by Drs. Villy Christensen and Daniel Pauly at the lnternational Center for Living
Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM). Aquatic scientists, spread all around the world, are
contributing to this project by applying ECOPATH II to "their" ecosystems. The present report is
based on a thesis written as part of this project; therein, ECOPATH II was used to generate five
quantitative steady-state models of the trophic interactions in a Caribbean coral reef.
In the following, a short comparative description is given of the theoretical background of
inputs required and outputs provided by Polovina and Ow's original ECOPATH and by the
ECOPATH I1 software of Pauly, Christensen and coworkers (Christensen and Pauly 1990a,
1990b; Pauly et al. 1993a). Analyses of models included here were executed with version 1.0 of
ECOPATH 11. Since version 2.0 of ECOPATH II is distributed together with a comprehensive
user's manual (Christensen and Pauly 1991), 1 advise the reader to consult this manual for
additional information on differences between versions 1.0 and 2.0 (see also Christensen and
Pauly 1992b for version 2.1 and Christensen and Pauly 1995 and 1996 for ECOPATH 3.0).
1.1. I. Comparative Description of ECOPATH I and ECOPATH I1
1.1 -1.1. POLOVINA'S ORIGINAL ECOPATH
Theoretical Background
The basic assumption of the original version of the ECOPATH model (termed here
ECOPATH I) is that the ecosystem which will be modelled must be under equilibrium conditions,
i.e., in a "steady-state". Polovina (1984b) stated that "equilibrium conditions exist when the
mean annual biomass for each species (group) does not change from year to year. This
assumption results in a system of biomass budget equations which, for each species (group),
can be expressed as:
Production of biomass for species (i) - all predation on species (i) - nonpredatory biomass
mortality for species (i) = 0 for all (i) ...1.1)
The ECOPATH model expresses each term in the budget equation as a linear function of
the unknown mean annual biomasses (Blls), so the resulting biomass budget equations become
a system of simultaneous equations linear in the Blls." This system of equations can be
expressed in matrix form as AB = 0, where A is an n x n matrix of coefficients, and B is an n-
dimensional vector.
Outputs
Outputs of ECOPATH I are: estimates of mean annual biomass, mean annual consumption
and mean annual production of each species (group). Additionally, an estimate of necessary net
primary production to support the system is computed which may be compared with "external"
estimates to validate the model.
The inputs required by ECOPATH I (and ECOPATH II) are few compared to, e.g., simulation
models. In the following, the inputs necessary to solve the system of biomass budget equations
via the ECOPATH I computer program are briefly introduced.
Species Groups
Subsequent to identifying the various components of the ecosystem under study, these
may be regrouped into species groups. ECOPATH I allows a maximum input of 20 species
(groups). A species group is an aggregation of species with a common physical habitat, similar
diet and similar life history characteristics (Polovina 198413).
Biomass
ECOPATH I is a "top-down model", i.e., the biomasses of the subordinated species (groups)
are determined by the biomass (and food consumption) of the apex predator (group). When
there is no fishery catch, a biomass estimate for at least one top predator (group) must be
provided to produce a unique and nontrivial set of Bi's (i.e., B,> 0) which solves the system of
equations. In an ecosystem where there is fishing mortality, the fish catches may be entered
instead of an estimate of a species' (group's) biomass to insure a nontrivial solution.
Production/Biomass Ratio (P/B)
Polovina (198413, 1985) defined production (P) over one year for a cohort of animals as:
and mean annual biomass (B) for the cohort as:
where N, is the number of animals and W, the mean individual weight at time t.
Allen (1971) showed that, under equilibrium conditions, for a number of growth and
mortality functions, including negative exponential mortality and "von Bertalanffy" growth, the
ratio of annual production to mean biomass for a cohort of fish is equal to the annual
instantaneous total mortality (Z). When mortality is expressed by a negative exponential
function, total species group production (P) is equal to the sum of the production (PI) of n
cohorts (or species) i with annual instantaneous total mortality (ZI).
In an ecosystem under equilibrium (i.e., under steady state) and where (when) there is very
little or no fishing mortality, the PIB ratio of fishes and invertebrates is thus equal to their
instantaneous rate of naturalLmortality (M) (Christensen and Pauly 1991).
Predation Mortality
Predation mortality is the fraction of the biomass of a species group which is consumed by
its predator in a given ecosystem. Polovina's ECOPATH model computes this mortality in the
same fashion as the PROBUB model by Laevastu and Larkins (1981). Here, two types of
information are needed:
Diet Composition Matrix
A diet composition matrix DCij must be specified, where an entry DC, from this matrix refers
to the proportion of prey j in the diet of predator (or consumer) i. The primary source of this
information is the analysis of consumers' stomach contents. Composition of stomach contents
may be expressed in percent of total volume, weight or energy contents. Macdonald and Green
(1983) showed that the estimation of diet composition is largely unaffected by the units used
(volume, weight or energy); on the other hand, "numbers of items" or "occurrence" produce
misleading diet compositions, due to the large difference in energy contents between small and
large prey items (Pauly 1985, 1986).
Food Required
The second type of information needed to ascertain predation mortality is the food
requirements of the predator. Food required (R) by a species (group) (i) is expressed as:
where Bi is the mean annual species (group) biomass, Pi is the annual production of
species (group) i, and ai and bi are parameters to be estimated from energetics studies. The
component biBi is the food required to maintain the biomass Biand the component aiPi is the
food required to support the biomass production Pi (Laevastu and Larkins 1981).
In the original ECOPATH model, the production of species (group) i is Pi = CiBi, so the food
required for species (group) Bi is
Thus, the amount of species (group)j consumed by predator species (group) i is given as:
RiDCi, = (bi+ a,Ci)BiDCi, ...I.6)
Predation mortality consumes generally between 75% and 90% of the populations'
production (Ricker 1969; Polovina 1984a, 1984b); a change in predation mortality has little
influence on the biomasses of species groups calculated by ECOPATH I, as was shown by
Polovina (1984c) by simple sensitivity analysis on the input parameters.
Nonpredation Mortality
All mortality attributable to causes other than predation, such as fishing, spawning and
disease, is considered "nonpredation mortality".
Habitat Area
For each species (group) included in ECOPATH I, an estimate of the area of distribution for
which the other input values are valid was required. This was not included in ECOPATH II as
biomass and flows are easy to adjust to any standard area, without using a special software or
routine.
Summary o f inputs required for the original version of ECOPATH:
1. number and names of species (groups) considered in the model;

2. at least one biomass estimate of one of the apex predators or its annual fisheries catch;
3. annual fisheries catch (including discard) for all exploited species (groups), or
nonpredation mortality (diBi) when there is no fishing;
4. PIB ratio (usually Mi or Zi) for each species (group);
5. food required to support biomass production (aiPi) of each species (group);
6. food required to maintain the biomass (biBi) of each species (group);
7. diet composition DCij of each species (group); and
8. habitat area of each species (group).
1.1.1.2. ECOPATH II
Theoretical Background
ECOPATH II shares with ECOPATH I its "basic equationv (1.I).

This routine balances an
equilibrium model using the mass-balance equation:
Consumption + Import = Production + Respiration
where "production" is the sum of "export + mortality due to predation + flow to detritus". Both
versions of ECOPATH (I and II) are structured around the feature that, in a balanced system,
the consumption of a predator (group) generates the predation mortality of its prey (groupls).
New Features and Outputs
DEFINITIONSAND PARAMETER ESTIMATION ROUTINE. In ECOPATH II, the set of simultaneous linear
equations, representing an ecosystem, is solved using the "generalized inverse method1'
(Mackay 1981); this has the advantage that a generalized inverse can be found even if the set
of equations is overdetermined (more equations than unknowns) or underdetermined (less
equations than unknowns). By linking the species groups into a combined system, the basic
routines of ECOPATH I and II allow the estimation of one missing parameter (= unknown) of
each species (group). In ECOPATH I, only biomass could be the unknowns, whereas other
parameters may be unknown in ECOPATH II (see Christensen and Pauly 1992a, 199213 and
further below).
For all consumers of the system, a request was incorporated into ECOPATH II for the
percentages of ingestion that are lost due to egestion (feces) and to excretion (urine); values of
15% and 5%, respectively, are provided as defaults, based on Winberg (1956). The entries (or
defaults) are subsequently used for the computation of net conversion efficiencies (production1
[ingestion - egestion]) and of flows to the "detritus box". Detritus is derived from nonpredatory
"leaks" of organic substance from any trophic level, mainly egestion, excretion and nonpredatory
mortality.
ECOPATH II was provided with checks for "i's" that do not balance, i.e., for which
production is larger or equal to the amount of food consumed. Gross efficiency (GE =
production1consumption) should be < 0.5 for all species (groups). Ecotrophic efficiency (EE), the
part of production consumed by predators, was, throughout, a required input in ECOPATH I. It is
now either an input or output of ECOPATH II and is used to ascertain that the amount
consumed by predators does not surpass production of a species (group). In a balanced
system, EE must be 5 1.O.
ECOPATH II calculates fractional trophic levels as suggested by Odum and Heald (1975). A
routine assigns a trophic level (TL) of 1 to primary producers and detritus and a TL of I + (the
weighted average of the prey's TL) to consumers.
The concept of "omnivory index" was included into ECOPATH II in 1987 (see Pauly et al.
1993a). It is calculated as the variance of the trophic levels of a consumer's prey groups. When
the output value is zero, the consumers in question feed on a single discrete trophic level.
Ivlev's electivity index El (Ivlev 1961) is computed by ECOPATH II for each species (group),
based on biomasses, not numbers. El is scaled so that El = -1 corresponds to total avoidance, El
= 0 to nonselective feeding, and El= 1 to exclusive feeding. Since this index is not independent
of prey density a further index, the "standardizedforage ratio" of Chesson (1983) was
incorporated into ECOPATH II. This is independent of prey availability and initially ranged
between 0 and 1, with SI = 0 representing avoidance and S,= 1 exclusive feeding. In ECOPATH
II, this index has been reexpressed such that it can now range between -1 and 1, and thus
allows direct comparison with Ivlev's index of electivity.
NETWORK A routine for calculating "ascendency" was included in ECOPATH II

FLOWINDICES.
based on Ulanowicz (1986) as modified by Ulanowicz and Norden (1990). "Ascendency" is a
measure of the "average mutual information in a system1'.It is scaled by system throughput
(sum of all flows) and expressed in flowbits (e.g., bit * gm-2.year1WW). In addition to
ascendency and related statistics (overhead, capacity, etc.), holistic properties of ecosystems
that can be computed using ECOPATH II are total system throughput and Finn's cycling index
(Finn 1976). The theory leading to these system properties can be found in Ulanowicz (1986)
and is further discussed in Christensen and Pauly (1991).
FLOWS
AND TRANSFER Based on Lindeman (1942), Christensen and Pauly (1WOb)
EFFICIENCIES.
provided ECOPATH II with routines to calculate discrete trophic levels and, since an ecosystem
is treated as a thermodynamical unit, to calculate flows and transfer efficiencies between trophic
levels. The combination of throughput and transfer efficiency of each trophic level allows the
construction of solid "trophic pyramids" (see Christensen and Pauly 1992b) representing an
entire system; these pyramids can be used for intercomparison of ecosystems.
MIXEDTROPHIC This routine allows the computation of direct and indirect impacts
IMPACTS.
which a change in biomass of a predator group will have on other groups in the system,
assuming that the diet matrix remains unchanged. This routine, based on Hannon (1973) and
Hannon and Joiris (1989), may thus be viewed as a tool for sensitivity analysis.
AGGREGATIONOF BOXES. The ascendency and related features of an ecosystem are affected by
the number of groups by which the system is represented. An aggregation routine was included
into ECOPATH I I which allows for reduction of the initial number of boxes to any desired
number. This routine identifies, under the constraint of no change in throughput, the pair of
"boxes" which, when pooled, least reduce the ascendency of the ecosystem. As shown in
Christensen and Pauly (1992b), "pairing" of boxes generally involves groups with low
throughputs (at least initially) and having similar trophic levels.
Inputs Required by ECOPATH I1
PRIMARY PRODUCTION (PP). Net primary production (NPP, in the currency of the model, here in
gm-2.year1WW) is not an input for ECOPATH I. However, this is a required input for ECOPATH
II, in order to "(1) encourage users to obtain independent, i.e., "external" estimates of a
parameter which closely correlates with a number of important characteristics of a system; (2) to
allow for validation of internally generated NPP, which should be smaller than or equal to the
"external" input value and more importantly; (3) to allow for the difference between observed (=
external) and computed (= internal) NPP to be added to the detritus box and thus quantify a
linkage important in virtually all ecosystems (i.e., the transfer of uningested, dead phytoplankton
and algal biomass to the detrital pool, from where it becomes available to a variety of
consumers and/or for burial or export" [Pauly et al. 1993al).
DETRITUS (D). Detritus biomass is not a required input in ECOPATH I, but is needed
BIOMASS
by ECOPATH II for various computations when detritivores are included in a system, e.g., to
compute the "electivity" of detritivores for detritus.
BIOMASS
AND/OR
ECOTROPHIC Ecotrophic efficiency (EE) is an input of ECOPATH I
EFFICIENCY.
expressing the fraction of total production consumed by predators (alpI). In ECOPATH II,
ecotrophic efficiency must be either entered (when biomass is unknown) or is estimated by the
program (when biomass is known and was entered). In ECOPATH II, the fraction 1-EE of
production is directed toward the detritus box, from which it may be exported out of the system.
EXPORT
AND/OR
FISHERIES (C). Export from a species (group) consists of catches and
CATCH
emigration or transport out of the system. Fisheries catch (andlor the quantity killed by fishing
and discarded) is required for all exploited species. This input is needed for both versions of
ECOPATH in a system of which some elements are exploited.
P R ~ D U C T I ~ N ~RATIO M A ~The
B I ~(PIB). ~ PIB ratio is an input parameter required for ECOPATH I
as well as ECOPATH II. As stated above, under certain conditions, the PIB ratio of a population
can be set equal to instantaneous total mortality Z (or natural mortality M for an unfished stock).
The PIB ratio of primary producers can be estimated either by direct methods (oxygen
production, C,,, etc.) or if those data are not available, by indirect methods, e.g., empirical
equations (Lafontaine and Peters 1986; Pauly et al. 1993a). Mann (1982) provides PIB
estimates for various benthic algae and seagrasses.
FOODCONSUMPTION PER UNITBIOMASS (QIB). The relative food consumption of a species (group)
other than primary producers is required as input parameter by both versions of ECOPATH.
Pauly et al. (1993a) defined QIB as the number of times a population consumes its own weight
per year. In ECOPATH I, this input corresponds to the "food required (FR)". Pauly (1986) used
the symbols "Q/Bnfor cases when FR refers "to age-structured populations, i.e., when one must
consider the fact that there are, in a natural, steady-state population of fish more young than old
fish, and that the former eat (per unit weight) more than the latter" (Pauly et al. 1993a). Methods
to calculate QIB of an age-structured population are described in the "Materials and methods"
section.
The diet composition (DC) is also an input required by both versions of

DIETCOMPOSITION.
ECOPATH. Only species (groups) occurring within the system may be part of the dieta and, at
least in ECOPATH II, some species (groups) should feed on detritus, as also happens in reality.
FOOD.Egestion and excretion refer to parts of ingestion that are not assimilated.
UNASSIMILATED
The respective fractions can be entered as an optional input if known for a species (group).
Default values of 15% and 5%, respectively, are provided by the program based on Winberg
(1956).
Summary o f Inputs Required for ECOPATH 11:
one independent estimate of net primary production (NPP);

one independent estimate of detritus biomass (D);
number of species (groups) considered in the model;
biomass (B,) for each species group or ecotrophic efficiency (EE) when biomass is un-
known;
export (usually fisheries catch, including discard) for all exploited species [groups]);
PIB ratio (usually MI or ZI) for each species (group);
food consumption per unit biomass (QIB) for each species (group);
diet composition DCij of each species (group); and
optional inputs: egestion and excretion (defaults 15% and 5%); the defaults were accepted
here throughout.
"In recent version of ECOPATH, consumers may also feed on "imports," i.e., items not included in the system.
1.2. Development of the Models
Fig. 1.1 shows a flow chart of the logical development and construction of the five models
of a Caribbean coral reef that are presented here.
Starting from the motivation for such a modelling effort, the first step was to formulate an
objective, the second to define the size and boundaries of the system which was to be
modelled. The next step was the collection and definition of the elements represented in the
system. Empirical methods were used to obtain values for the key input parameters of
ECOPATH II. The literature was systematically searched for data useful for the composition of a
diet matrix, for the estimation of preliminary biomass values and for the computation of vital
statistics by empirical methods. After a preliminary set of inputs was prepared, the elements of
the system were reduced to 50 species (groups) or "boxes", using a clustering technique.
The reduced set of inputs was entered into ECOPATH II and subsequently modified until
the 50-box model was balanced. The final outputs were compared with the initial inputs and
discrepancies discussed.
The balanced 50-box model was then reduced to 20-box and II-box models by two
different methods of aggregation. The resulting 20- and 11-box models from both methods were
compared. Based on the outputs from all models, the implications of the modelling were
discussed.
The number(s) of the section(s), in which the above steps are described, is (are) given in
the upper right corner of the boxes in Fig. 1.1.
1.3. Objectives
Summarizing, the main objectives of this report are:

1. to test whether it is possible to construct quantitative steady-state models of the trophic
interactions in a Caribbean coral reef;
2. to assess the reliability of such models by comparison of outputs with independent
quantitative information on the dynamics of Caribbean and other coral reefs;
3. to possibly identify, describe and quantify presently unknown properties (qualitative and
quantitative) of coral reef ecosystems, relevant to their functioning and exploitation by
fishing;
4. to identify methodological problems associated with the modelling process and propose
solutions to these, e.g., on how to handle the high species diversity on coral reefs, based
on various ataxonomical approaches, or on how to deal with migrating species that only
spend a fraction of their time on the reef; and
5. to reveal information gaps where additional theoretical and field research is needed.
C
Reduction to 50 groups
Fig. 1.I.
Flow chart showing development and construction of five trophic models of a Caribbean coral reef.
The numbers in the upper right corner of the boxes refer to the sections describing the steps.
2.1. Sources of Data
Input data used here for the modelling of a Caribbean coral reef were obtained from
published reports and papers and from parameter estimates based on multivariate statistics.
2.2. Choice of Suitable System
The decision to model a Caribbean, rather than an Indo-Pacific reef, was made on the
basis of the author's personal SCUBA diving experience in the Caribbean, and because it was
assumed that more literature data would be available for the former area.
Within the Caribbean, the Puerto Rico-Virgin lslands (PRVI) shelf complex appears to have
been studied in greater detail than any other area, notably with regard to the food habits of
fishes (see Randall 1967). Nevertheless, information from other areas had to be considered;
wherever possible, data were taken from other areas of the Caribbean. When such data were
lacking, literature on Indo-Pacific reefs was consulted, then that covering other tropical areas.
Some literature data on various invertebrate groups were also taken from subtropical and
temperate areas; in such cases, the relevant rates were always adjusted to the higher
temperatures of PRVl area (see section 2.6.6).
2.3. System Boundaries and the Concept of "Subsystems"
The PRVl insular shelf extends over more than 1,000 km2.The US Virgin lslands of St.
Thomas, St. John and St. Croix are surrounded by about 200 km2,the British Virgin Islands by
343 km2and Puerto Rico by 554 km2of shelf area. A summary description on topographical
features of the PRVl shelf area may be found in Ogden and Gladfelter (1983) and in Jacobsen
and Browder (1987).
The coral reefs fringing the Virgin lslands form one of several distinct ecological units that
are interconnected through various components and processes. Based on our own independent
literature studies, we agree with Jacobsen and Browder's (1987) concept of the shallower part
of the reef consisting of distinctive, though interconnected subsystems (Fig. 2.1, Table 2.1).
Six of the seven subsystems of Jacobsen and Browder (1987) were combined here into a
modelling "unit" comprising a transect from the water edge (mangrove estuaries) at 0 m depth
down to the sandlmudflats at the 100-m contour with the extension of the pelagic subunit
reduced to the area overlying the five demersal subunits. The shelf ("break) area below 100 m
depth, which Jacobsen and Browder (1987) identified as their seventh subsystem, was not
considered here, mainly because of the lack of suitable information (on, e.g., presence of
nonfish taxa, abundance of species or feeding relationships), although it might be significant in
both ecological and fisheries contexts.
The five demersal units were assumed to Table 2.1. Areal extent of subsystems of the PRVl shelf (based
on Jacobsen and Browder 1987).
comprise each of the same area, i.e., 20% of
the total area. This is a rough estimate, but the Subsystem Location Area (km2)
data in Table 2.1 do not suggest this to be Mangrove estuaries Puerto Rico (PR)
erroneous. The inputs and outputs of biomass, Virgin Islands (VI)
production and consumption for the Seagrass beds Culebra (PR)
components of the system were all estimated St. Croix (VI)
for an average square meter from the five Coral reefs Culebra (PR)
demersal subsystems and the overlaying Vieques (PR)
pelagic zone. St. Croix (VI)
St. Thomas (VI)
St. John (VI)
2.4. System Components
Algal plains Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
The system was divided into two main
Sandlmud Puerto Rico
components: fish species and nonfish taxa. Virgin Islands
Shelf break PR and VI

2.4.1. Fish Species
Pelagic zone PR and VI
Overall, Caribbean reefs support over 500 n.s. - not stated
species of fishes described in specialized
L----- JL >-,", -"--.-d

~angrove/estuarini Seqrass Coral reef Algal plain Sand/mud
Fig. 2.1. Diagram of conceptual subsystems included in the models (modified from Jacobsen and Browder
1987).
texts (Bohlke and Chaplin 1968; Randall 1968, 1983). However, site-specific studies of the PRVl
area reported fewer than 500 fish species: Parrish (1982) recorded 130 species on a reef off
southwest Puerto Rico; Colette and Talbot (1972) recorded 107 species on a reef off St. John;
Clavijo et al. (1980) listed 212 fish species that used reefs off St. Croix as "typical habitat1'while
adults. Kimmel (1985) identified around 200 fish species on reefs of La Parguera, Puerto Rico.
The more than 200 fish species included in Randall's (1967) study of the food habits of
West Indian reef fishes were taken as scaffold for the model. This species list was completed by
including more fish species with affinities with coral reefs, especially sharks, from Fischer
(1978). Table 2.2 lists all the fish species included in the present model.
The nonfish taxa included in the model consist mainly of groups reported by Randall from
fish stomachs, as completed with information from various published sources (Table 2.3). These
nonfish taxa comprise different functional groups. The energetic basis of the system is the
detrital pool, with particulate organic matter (POM) and dissolved organic matter (DOM)
included under the same label. This pool receives all dead organic material, excreta and egesta
from the organisms in the system. Conversely, this pool serves as a food source for different
detritivores of various levels of organization, e.g., bacteria, worms, crustaceans, finfish (Sorokin
1987).
Autotrophs belong to the next category of organisms. The following primary producers
contribute to the reef metabolism (Mann 1982):
symbiotic algae, which consist of symbiotic dinoflagellates, called "zooxanthellae", and
filamentous chlorophyceans (the former live inside the wall cells of the coral polyps and
exchange metabolites directly with the host animal; the latter live attached to the coral
skeleton and contribute roughly three times more weight than the former to total organic
mass of hermatypic corals [Odum and Odum 19551);
macrophytic brown and red algae;
coralline algae;
seagrasses (spermatophytes);
benthic diatoms; and
phytoplankton.
Randall (1967), in his analysis of reef fish stomachs, identified around 150 species of
primary producers as food items. A variety of organisms was pooled under the label
"decomposers1microfauna".The elements of this group are single-celled heterotrophic
organisms such as bacteria, ciliates, foraminiferans, etc. This functional group is, like the
detritus pool, of utmost importance for the entire reef metabolism. Through very high turnover
rates and the ability to transform dead organic material such that it is reintroduced into the
trophic cycle, the decomposer/microfauna group can be viewed as the "motor" of the reef
whereas the detritus pool serves as "fuel" (note that this analogy has a problem, since some
part of the "motor" is always consumed by the reef community).
As was done with "decomposerslmicrofauna", various organisms were pooled under the
label "zooplankton" (e.g., several crustacean families, jellyfish, eggs and larvae, insects).
Benthic invertebrates, sea turtles and birds form the last categories of nonfish groups.
The version of ECOPATH II used for this work did not allow the inclusion of consumers with
a PIR ratio > 1." Therefore the symbiotic coral-zooxanthellae-filamentous algae complex was
separated into a producer component (the zooxanthellae and filamentous algae, which were
grouped with the benthic autotrophs) and a consumer component (the heterotrophic part of the
coral polyps).
The models presented here deal exclusively with the organic part of the system, i.e., the
inorganic part, such as the skeletons of corals, foraminiferans, worms, etc., are not considered.
"Recent version of ECOPATH allows this.

Table 2.2. Fish species included in the ECOPATH II models of a Caribbean coral reef. Species are listed in alphabetical order of families. English and Spanish common
names are from Fischer (1978).
*=not included in diet composition matrix.
Family Species English common name Spanish common name
Acanthurus bahianus Castelnau 1855 Ocean surgeon Navajon pardo

Acanthurus chirurgus (Bloch 1787) Doctorfish Navajon cirujano
Acanthurus coeruleus Bloch & Schneider 1801 Blue tang surgeonfish Navajon azul
Albulidae * Albula vulpes (Linnaeus 1758) Bonefish Macabi
Antennariidae Antennarius multiocellatus (Cuvier & Valenciennes 1837) Longlure frogfish
Antennarius striatus (Cuvier 1817) Splitlure frogfish
Apogonidae Apogon conklini (Silvester 1915) Freckled cardinalfish
Apogon maculatus (Poey 1861) Flamefish
Atherinidae Allanetta harringtonensis (Goode 1877) Reef silversides
Atherinomorus stipes (Miiller & Troschel 1848) Hardhead silversides
Aulostomidae Aulostomus maculatus Valenciennes 1842 Trumpetfish Trompeta
Balistidae * Balistes capriscus Gmelin I788 Gray triggerfish Pejepuerco blanco
Balistes vetula Linnaeus 1758 Queen triggerfish Pejepuerco cachuo
Canthidermis sufflamen (Mitchill 1815) Ocean triggerfish
Melichthys niger (Bloch 1786) Black durgon Calafate negro
* Xanthichthys ringens (Linnaeus 1758) Sargassum triggerfish
Belonidae * Ablennes hians (Valenciennes 1846) Flat needlefish Agujon sable
Platybelone argalus argalus (LeSueur 1821) Keeltail needlefish Agujon de quilla
Strongylura timucu (Walbaum 1792) Timucu needlefish Agujon timuco
Tylosurus acus acus (Lacepede 1803) Agujon needlefish Marao ojon
Tylosurus crocodilus crocodilus (Peron & LeSueur 1821) Hound needlefish Marao lisero
Blenniidae Entomacrodus nigricans Gill 1859 Pearl blenny
Ophioblennius atlanticus (Cuvier & Valenciennes 1836) Redlip blenny
Parablennius marmoreus (Poey 1875) Seaweed blenny
Scartella cristata (Linnaeus 1758) Molly miller
Bothidae Bothus lunatus (Linnaeus 1758) Peacock flounder Lenguado ocelado
Bothus ocellatus (Agassiz 1831) Eyed flounder
Carangidae * Alectis ciliaris (Bloch 1788) African pomano Pampano de hebra
Caranx bartholomaei Cuvier 1833 Yellow jack Cojinua amarilla
* Caranx crysos (Mitchill 1815) Blue runner Cojinua negra
Caranx latus Agassiz 1831 Horse-eye jack Jurel ojon
* Caranx lugubris Poey I860 Black jack Jurel negro
Caranx ruber (Bloch 1793) Bar jack Cojinua carbonera
* Decapterus macarellus (Cuvier 1833) Mackerel scad Macarela caballa
Decapterus punctatus (Cuvier 1829) Round scad Macarela chuparaco
* Elagatis bipinnulatus (Quoy & Gaimard 1824) Rainbow runner Macarela salmon
Oligoplites saurus (Bloch & Schneider 1801) Atlantic leatherjack Zapatero sietecueros
Selar crumenophthalmus (Bloch 1793) Bigeye scad Chicharro ojon
Seriola dumerili (Risso 1810) Greater amberjack Medregal coronado
continued
Table 2.2 continued
Familp Species English common name Spanish common name

- -
* Seriola rivoliana Cuvier 1833 Almaco jack Medregal limon

Trachinotus falcatus (Linnaeus 1758) Permit Pampano palometa
Trachinotus goodei Jordan & Evermann 1896 Palometa pompano Pampano listado
Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus acronotus (Poey 1861) Blacknose shark Tiburon amarillo
Carcharhinus falciformis (Bibron 1839) Silky shark Tiburonjaqueton
Carcharhinus leucas (Valenciennes 1839) Bull shark Tiburon sarda
Carcharhinus limbatus (Valenciennes 1839) Blacktip shark Tiburon macuira
Carcharhinus longimanus (Lesson 1830) Oceanic whitetip shark Tiburon oceanic0
Carcharhinus perezi (Poey 1876) Caribbean reef shark Tiburon coralino
Galeocerdo cuvier (LeSueur 1822) Tiger shark Tintorera, Alecrin
Negaprion brevirostris (Poey 1868) Lemon shark Tiburon galano
Rhizoprionodon porosus (Poey 1861) Caribbean sharpnose shark Cazon playon
Chaetodontidae Chaetodon aculeatus (Poey 1860) Longsnout butterflyfish
Chaetodon capistratus Linnaeus 1758 Foureye butterflyfish
* Chaetodon ocellatus Bloch 1787 Spotfin butterflyfish
Chaetodon sedentarius Poey 1860 Reef butterflyfish
Chaetodon striatus Linnaeus 1758 Banded butterflyfish
Cirrithidae Amblycirrhitus pinos (Mowbray 1927) Redspotted hawkfish
Clinidae Labrisomus guppyi Norman Shadow blenny
Labrisomus nuchipinnis (Quoy & Gaimard 1824) Hairy blenny
Clupeidae Harengula clupeola (Cuvier 1829) False pilchard, f. herring Sardineta escamuda
Harengula humeralis (Cuvier 1829) Red-ear sardine Sardineta de lay **
Jenkinsia lamprotaenia (Gosse 1851) Dwarf herring Sardineta canalerita
Opisthonema oglinum (LeSueur 1818) Atlantic thread herring Machuelo hebra atlantico
* Sardinella aurita Valenciennes 1847 Round sardinella Sardinela atlantica
Congridae Heteroconger halis Bohlke 1957 Garden eel
Dactylopteridae Dactylopterus volitans (Linnaeus 1758) Flying gurnard Alon
Dasyatidae Dasyatis americana Hildebrand & Schroeder 1928 Southern stingray Raya latigo americana
Diodontidae Chilomycterus antennatus (Cuvier 1818) Bridled burrfish
* Chilomycterus antillarum Jordan & Rutter 1897 Web burrfish
Diodon holocanthus Linnaeus 1758 Spiny puffer
Diodon hystrix Linnaeus 1758 Porcupinefish Pejerizo comun
Elopidae * Elops saurus Linnaeus 1776 Ladyfish Malacho
Emmelichthyidae lnermia vittata Poey 1861 Boga
Engraulidae Anchoa hepsetus (Linnaeus 1758) Striped anchovy Anchoa legitima
Anchoa lyolepis (Evermann & Marsh 1902) Dusky anchovy Anchoa trompalarga
Ephippidae Chaetodipterus faber (Broussonet 1782) Atlantic spadefish Paguala
Fistulariidae Fistularia tabacaria Linnaeus 1758 Cornetfish
Gerreidae Eucinostomus argenteus Baird & Girard 1854 Silver mojarra; spotfin mojarra Mojarrita plateada
Gerres cinereus (Walbaum 1792) Yellowfin rnojarra Mojarra blanca
Ginglymostomatidae Ginglymostoma cirratum (Bonnaterre 1783) Nurse shark Gata atlantica
Gobiidae *
Bathygobius soporator (Cuvier & Valenciennes 1837) Frillfin goby
continued ...
Table 2.2 continued
- -
Coryphopterus glaucofraenum Gill 1863 Bridled goby

Gnatholeois thomosoni Jordan 1902 Goldspot goby
~ o b i o s o h aevelinae BCjhlke & Robins 1968 Sharknose goby
Grammidae Gramma loreto Poey 1868 Fairy basslet
Gramma melacara Bohlke & Randall 1963 Blackcap basslet
Grammistidae Rypticus saponaceus (Bloch & Schneider 1801) Greater soapfish Jabonero
Haemulidae Anisotremus surinamensis (Bloch 1791) Black margate Burro pompon
Anisotremus virginicus (Linnaeus 1758) Porkfish Burro catalina
Haemulon album Cuvier 1829 White margate Ronco blanco
Haemulon aurolineatum Cuvier 1829 Tomtate grunt Ronco jeniguano
Haemulon bonariense Cuvier 1829 Black grunt Ronco rayado
Haemulon carbonarium Poey 1860 Caesar grunt Ronco carbonero
Haemulon chrysargyreum Gunther 1859 Smallmouth grunt Ronco boquilla
Haemulon flavolineatum (Desmarest 1823) French grunt Ronco amarillo
Haemulon macrostomum Gunther 1859 Spanish grunt Ronco caco
Haemulon melanurum (Linnaeus 1758) Cottonwick grunt Ronco mapurite
Haemulon parrai (Desmarest 1823) Sailor's grunt: sailor's choice Ronco plateado
Haemulon plumieri (Lacepede 1802) White grunt Ronco margariteno
Haemulon sciurus (Shaw 1803) Bluestriped grunt Ronco catire
Pomadasys corvinaeformis (Steindachner 1868) Roughneck grunt Corocoro gris
Pomadasys crocro (Cuvier 1830) Burro grunt Corocoro crocro
Hemiramphidae Hemiramphus balao LeSueur 1823 Balao halfbeak Agujeta balaju
Hemiramohus brasiliensis (Linnaeus 1758) Ballyhoo halfbeak Agujeta brasilena
~~~orambh unifasciatus'(~anzani
us 1842) Common halfbeak Agujeta blanca
Holocentridae Holocentrus ascensionis (Osbeck 1765) Longjaw squirrelfish Candil gallito
Holocentrus coruscus ( p i e y 1860) ' Reef squirrelfish
Neoniphon marianus (Cuvier & Valenciennes 1829) Squirrelfish ?
Holocentrus rufus (Walbaum 1792) Longspine squirrelfish Candil soldado
Sargocentron vexillarium (Poey 1860) Dusky squirrelfish
Myripristis jacobus Cuvier 1829 Blackbar soldierfish Candil colorado
Plectyprops retrospinis (Guichenot 1853) Cardinal soldierfish
Kyphosidae Kyphosus incisor (Cuvier 1831) Yellow sea chub Chopa amarilla
Kyphosus sectatrix (Linnaeus 1758) Bermuda sea chub Chopa blanca
Labridae Bodianus rufus (Linnaeus 1758) Spanish hogfish Vieja colorada
Clepticus parrae (Bloch & Schneider 1801) Creole wrasse
Halichoeres bivittatus (Bloch 1791) Slippery dick
Halichoeres garnoti (&vier & ~alemiennes1839) Yellowhead wrasse
Halichoeres maculi~inna(Muller & Troschel 1848) Clown wrasse
Halichoeres poeyi i~teindachner1867) Black-ear wrasse
Halichoeres radiatus (Linnaeus 1758) Pudding wife (wrasse) Doncella arco-iris
Xyrichtys novacula (~innaeus1758) ' Pearly razorfish Doncella cuchilla
Xyrichtys splendens (Castelnau 1855) Green razorfish
Lachnolaimus maximus (Walbaum 1792) Hogfish Doncella de pluma
continued..
Table 2.2 continued
Thalassoma bifasciatum (Bloch 1791) Bluehead

Lutjanidae Lutjanus analis (Cuvier 1828) Mutton snapper Pargo criollo
Lutjanus apodus (Walbaum 1792) Schoolmaster (snapper) Pargo amarillo
Lutjanus cyanopterus (Cuvier 1828) Cubera snapper Pargo cubera
Lutjanus griseus (Linnaeus 1758) Gray snapper Pargo prieto
Lutjanus jocu (Bloch & Schneider 1801) Dog snapper Pargo jocu
Lutjanus mahagoni (Cuvier 1828) Mahagonysnapper Pargo ojon
Lutjanus synagris (Linnaeus 1758) Lanesnapper Pargo biajaiba
Ocyurus chrysurus (Bloch 1791) Yellowtail snapper Rabirubia
Malacanthidae Malacanthus plumieri (Bloch 1786) Sand tilefish Matajuelo
Megalopidae Tarpon atlanticus (Valenciennes 1846) Tarpon Tarpon
Monacanthidae Aluterus schoepfii (Walbaum 1792) Orange filefish Cachua perra
Aluterus scripta (Osbeck 1765) Scrawled filefish
Cantherines macroceros (Hollard 1854) Whitespotted fiiefish
Cantherines pullus (Ranzani 1842) Orangespotted filefish Lija pintada
Monacanthus ciliatus (Mitchill 1818) Fringed filefish Lija de clavo
* Monacanthus tucker; Bean 1906 Slender filefish
* Stefanolepis setifer.(Bennett 1830) Pygmy filefish Lija de hebra
Mugilidae Mugil curema Valenciennes 1836 White mullet Lisa criolla
Mullidae Mulloidichthys martinicus (Cuvier 1829) Yellow goatfish Salmonete amarillo
Pseudupeneus maculatus (Bloch 1793) Spotted goatfish Salmonete manchado
Muraenidae Echidna catenata (Bloch 1795) Chain moray
* Enchelycore nigricans (Bonnaterre 1788) Viper moray Morena negra
* Gymnothorax funebris (Ranzani 1840) Green moray Morena congrio
Lycodontis moringa (Cuvier 1829) Spotted moray Morena pintada
Gymnothorax vicinus (Castelnau 1855) Purplemouth moray Morena amarilla
* Gymnothorax miliaris (Kaup 1856) Goldentail moray Morena dorada
Myliobatidae Aetobatus narinari (Euphrasen 1790) Spotted eagle ray Chucho pintado
Ogcocephalidae Ogcocephalus nasutus (Cuvier & Valenciennes 1837) Redbellied batfish
Ophichthidae Myrichthys breviceps (Gronow 1854) Sharptail eel
Myrichthys ocellatus (Kaup 1856) Goldspotted snake eel
Ophichthus ophis (Linnaeus 1758) Spotted snake eel Tieso pintado
Opisthognathidae Opisthognatus aurifrons (Jordan & Thompson 1905) Yellowhead jawfish
* Opisthognatus macrognathus Poey 1860 Longjaw jawfish
Opisthognatus maxillosus Poey 1860 Mottled jawfish
Opisthognatus whitehurstii (Longley 1931) Dusky jawfish
Ostraciidae Acanthostracion polygonius Poey 1876 Honeycomb cowfish
Acanthostracion quadricornis (Linnaeus 1758) Scrawled cowfish Torito azul
Lactophrys trigonus (Linnaeus 1758) Buffalo trunkfish Chapin bufalo
Lactophrys bicaudalis (Linnaeus 1758) Spotted trunkfish Chapin pintado
Lactophrys triqueter (Linnaeus 1758) Smooth trunkfish Chapin baqueta
Pempheridae Pempheris schomburgki Mijller & Troschel 1848 Copper sweeper
* Pempheris poeyi Bean 1885 Shortfin sweeper
continued ...
Table 2.2 continued

---
Pomacanthidae Centropyge argi Woods & Kanazawa 1951 Cherubfish

Holacanthus ciliaris (Linnaeus 1758) Queen angelfish lsabelita patale
Holacanthus tricolor (Bloch 1795) Rock beauty lsabelita medioluto
Pomacanthus arcuatus (Linnaeus 1758) Gray angelfish Cacharna blanca
Pornacanthus paru (Bloch 1787) French angelfish Cacharna negra
Pomacentridae Abudefduf saxatilis (Linnaeus 1758) Sergeant major Petaca rayada
Abudefduf taurus (Muller & Troschel 1848) Night sergeant Petaca rezobada
Chrornis cyanea (Poey 1860) Blue chromis
Chromis rnultilineata (Guichenot 1853) Brown chromis Jaqueta parda
Microspathodon chrysurus (Cuvier & Valenciennes 1830) Yellowtail damselfish Jaqueta rabo arnarillo
Stegastes fuscus (Cuvier 1830) Dusky damselfish
Stegastes leucostictus (Muller & Troschel 1848) Beau gregory
Stegastes planifrons (Cuvier 1830) Yellow damselfish
Stegastes variabilis (Castelnau 1855) Cocoa damselfish
Priacanthidae Priacanthus arenatus Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1829 Atlantic bigeye Catalufa tor0
Heteropriacanthus cruentatus (Lacepede 1802) Glasseye Catalufa de roca
Rachycentridae * Rachycentron canadum (Linnaeus 1766) Cobia Cobie
Scaridae Scarus coelestinus Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1839 Midnight parrotfish Loro negro
* Scarus coeruleus (Bloch 1786) Blue parrotfish Loro azul
Scarus iseft; Bloch 1790 Striped parrotfish Loro rayado
Scarus guacamaia Cuvier 1831 Rainbow parrotfish Loro guacamayo
Scarus taeniopterus Desmarest 1831 Princess parrotfish Loro listado
Scarus vetula Bloch & Schneider 1801 Queen parrotfish Loro perico
Sparisoma aurofrenaturn Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1839 Redband parrotfish Loro manchado
Sparisorna chrysopterum (Bloch & Schneider 1801) Redtail parrotfish Loro verde
Sparisoma radians Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1839 Bucktooth parrotfish
S~arisornarubri~inneValenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes 1839 Redfin parrotfish Loro basto
~ ~ a r i s o mviridk
a (Bonnaterre 1788) Stoplight parrotfish Loro viejo
Sciaenidae Equetus lanceolatus (Linnaeus 1758) Jackknife fish
Equetus punctatus (Bloch & Schneider 1801) Spotted drum
Odontoscion dentex (Cuvier 1830) Reef croaker Bombache de roca
Pareques acurninatus (Bloch & Schneider 1801) Cubbyu
Scombridae Euthynnus alletteratus (Rafinesque 1810) Little tunny Bacoreta
Scornberornorus cavalla (Cuvier 1829) King mackerel Carite lucio
Scornberornorus regalis (Bloch 1793) Cero Carite chinigua
Scorpaenidae Scorpaena brasiliensis Cuvier 1829 Barbfish
Scorpaena grandicornis Cuvier 1829 Grass scorpionfish
Scorpaena inermis Cuvier 1829 Mushroom scorpionfish
Scorpaena plumieri Bloch 1789 Spotted scorpionfish Rascacio negro
Scorpaenodes caribbaeus Meek & Hildebrand 1928 Reef scorpionfish
Serranidae Alphestes afer (Bloch 1793) Mutton hamlet Guaseta
Cephalopholis cruentata Lacepede 1802 Grasby (seabass) Cherna enjarnbre
Cephalopholis fulva (Linnaeus 1758) Coney (seabass) Cherna cabrilla
continued ...
Table 2.2 continued
* Diplectrum formosum (Linnaues 1758) Sand seabass; sand perch Serrano arenero
Epinephelus adscensionis (Osbeck 1771) Rock hind Mero cabrilla
Epinephelus guttatus (Linnaeus 1758) Red hind Mero colorado
Epinephelus itajara (Lichtenstein 1822) Giant grouper; jewfish Mero guasa
* Epinephelus morio (Valenciennes 1828) Red grouper Mero americano
Epinephelus striatus (Bloch 1792) Nassau grouper Cherna criolla
Hypoplectrus aberrans (Poey 1868) Yellowbellied hamlet
Hypoplectrus chlorurus (Valenciennes 1828) Yellowtail hamlet
Hypoplectrus nigricans (Poey 1852) Black hamlet
Hypoplectrus puella (Cuvier 1828) Barred hamlet
Mycteroperca bonaci (Poey 1861) Black grouper Cuna bonaci
* Mycteroperca interstitialis (Poey 1861) Yellowmouth grouper Cuna amarilla
* Mycteroperca rubra (Bloch 1793) Comb grouper Cuna negra
Mycteroperca tigris (Valenciennes 1833) Tiger grouper Cuna gata
Mycteroperca venenosa (Linnaeus 1758) YellowFin grouper Cuna de piedra
Paranthias furcifer (Valenciennes 1828) Creole fish Cuna lucero
* Serranus tabacarius (Cuvier 1829) Tobacco fish
Serranus tigrinus (Bloch 1790) Harlequin bass
Serranus tortugarum Longley 1935 Chalk bass
Sparidae Archosargus rhomboidalis (Linnaeus 1758) Western Atlantic seabream Sargo amarillo
Calamus bajonado (Bloch & Schneider 1801) Jolthead porgy Pluma bajonado
Calamus calamus (Valenciennes 1830) Saucereye porgy Pluma calamo
Calamus pennatula Guichenot 1868 Pluma porgy Pluma plumilla
Diplodus argentus caudimacula (Poey 1861) Silver porgy Sargo fino
Sphyraenidae Sphyraena barracuda (Walbaum 1792) Great barracuda Picuda barracuda
Sphyraena picudilla (Poey 1860) Southern sennet Picuda china
Sphyrnidae Sphyrna lewini (Cuvier, Gr~ffith& Smith 1834) Scalloped hammerhead Cornuda comun
Sphyrna tiburo (Linnaeus 1758) Bonnethead Cornuda de corona
Synodontidae Synodus foetens (Linnaeus 1766) Galliwasp
Synodus intermedius (Agassiz 18??) Sand diver
Synodus synodus (Linnaeus 1758) Rockspear
Tetraodontidae Canthigaster rostrata (Bloch 1782) Sharpnose puffer
Sphoeroides spengleri (Bloch 1785) Bandtail puffer Tamboril collarete
Triakidae Mustelus canis (Mitchill 1815) Smooth dogfish Musola dentuda
Table 2.3. Nonfish taxa included in the ECOPATH II models of a Caribbean coral reef (from stomach
content analyses of West Indian reef fishes by Randall 1967).
D = detritus, A = autotroph, I = invertebrate, R = reptile, B = bird
Taxon Remarks
Detritus Dead particulate and dissolved organic matter

Benthic algae See section 2.4.2 and Appendix Table 8.5.1
Spermatophytes See Appendix Table 8.5.1
Phytoplankton Pelagic primary producers
Microfauna Bacteria, Foraminifera
Zooplankton See Appendix Table 8.5.3
Sponges See Appendix Table 8.5.2
Fire corals Millepora, Hydrozoa
(see section 2.4.2 and Appendix Table 8.5.2)
Sea fans Gorgonacea, Octocorallia, Anthozoa
Sea anemones Actiniaria and Zoanthidea, Hexacorallia, Anthozoa
Stony corals Scleractinia, Octocorallia, Anthozoa
Bryozoans See Appendix Table 8.5.2
Sipunculids Worms (see Appendix Table 8.5.2)
Priapuloids Worms (see Appendix Table 8.5.2)
Chitons Mollusca (see Appendix Table 8.5.2)
Gastropods Mollusca (see Appendix Table 8.5.2)
Bivalves Mollusca (see Appendix Table 8.5.2)
Scaphopods Mollusca (see Appendix Table 8.5.2)
Squids Mollusca (see Appendix Table 8.5.2)
Octopuses Mollusca (see Appendix Table 8.5.2)
Polychaetes Worms (see Appendix Table 8.5.2)
Echiuroids Worms (see Appendix Table 8.5.2)
Pycnogonids Arthropoda, Arachnidea (see Appendix Table 8.5.2)
Barnacles Cirripedia, Crustacea (see Appendix Table 8.5.2)
Stomatopods Crustacea (see Appendix Table 8.5.2)
Amphipods Crustacea (see Appendix Table 8.5.2)
Tanaids Crustacea (see Appendix Table 8.5.2)
lsopods Crustacea (see Appendix Table 8.5.2)
Shrimps Natantia, Crustacea (see Appendix Table 8.5.2)
Spiny lobsters Panuliridae, Crustacea (see Appendix Table 8.5.2)
Scyllarid lobsters Crustacea (see Appendix Table 8.5.2)
Hermit crabs Diogenidae, Crustacea (see Appendix Table 8.5.2)
Crabs Reptantia, Crustacea (see Appendix Table 8.5.2)
Hemichordates Wormlikes (see Appendix Table 8.5.2)
Starfish Asteroidea, Echinodermata (see Appendix Table 8.5.2)
Brittle stars Ophiuroidea, Echinodermata (see Appendix Table 8.5.2)
Sea urchins Echinoidea, Echinodermata (see Appendix Table 8.5.2)
Sea cucumbers Holothuroidea, Echinodermata (see Appendix Table 8.5.2)
Ascidians Tunicata, Chordata (see Appendix Table 8.5.2)
Sea turtles See Appendix Table 8.5.2
Sea birds See Polovina (1984b)
A complete list of reported nonfish food items from stomachs of West Indian reef fishes is to
be found in Appendix 5.1 for benthic algae and spermatophytes; in Appendix 5.2 for
invertebrates and sea turtles; and in Appendix 5.3 for items that are part of the "zooplankton"
group.
2.5. Fishing Activities
To simplify the modelling work and to reduce data requirements, an unexploited system was
assumed. Since data from a large geographical range had to be used, especially for the nonfish
taxa, the resulting model largely reflects a "virtual1'system the description of which would not
necessarily be improved by inclusion of fisheries catch data from a specific area. Moreover,
even if this had have been attempted, it would have been extremely difficult to obtain catch data
for individual species - except for certain commercial species of the Serranidae and Lutjanidae
families.
The ecosystem described here can thus be seen as representing unfished areas of the
PRVl shelf and may therefore be directly compared with the unexploited French Frigate Shoals
reef ecosystem described by Polovina (1984a,b,c, 1985, 1986) and Polovina and Ow (1983).
2.6. Methods and Data Used for the Computation of Input

Parameters Required for ECOPATH II
2.6.1. Growth Parameter Estimation
For the computation of several input parameters of ECOPATH II (e.g., QIB, M), growth
parameters had to be estimated for most of the fish and invertebrates included in the model.
Growth of fish was generally assumed to follow the von Bertalanffy growth function (VBGF)
expressed for growth in length as:
where L, is the length at age t, Lmthe asymptotic length, K is the growth coefficient (year1) and to
the theoretical "age1'at length zero (Pauly 1984). Growth in weight is defined as:
where W, is the weight at age t, Wmthe asymptotic weight and b is the exponent of a length-
weight relationship of the form:
When only one pair of L, W value was available, the value of b was set equal to 3, and the
relationship was used to estimate the multiplicative factor required in equation 2.3.
2.6.1 .l.ASYMPTOTIC SIZES
For the majority of fish species considered in the model, size-at-age or length-frequency
data were not available from which Lr or W_ could be estimated. Therefore, asymptotic sizes
were estimated from the reported maximum sizes (Lmax or Wmax) using the relationships (Pauly
1984):
2.6.1.2. GROWTH COEFFICIENT K
Estimates of the growth coefficient K of the VBGF were obtained directly from published
sources or via the equation
for length and
for weight. The required estimates of $' and $ were generally obtained from the means of
several values of
$' = log,,K + 210g,~L~,

and ...2.9)
where K, Lmand Wmare growth parameter estimates for various populations of the same
species (Pauly 1979a; Pauly and Munro 1984; Pauly 1985). This approach which, strictly
speaking, should be used only within species was used here between species (generally of the
same genus) when these were similar in shape and habits.
2.6.1.3. ESTIMATION OF to
For all cases considered here, rough estimates of towere obtained via an empirical model
by Pauly (1979a) of the form:
with L= as the asymptotic length in cm (total length) and K the growth coefficient of the species
considered, expressed in year1. This parameter has little influence on the estimation of Q/B
(see Pauly 1986), the only use for which it was required here.
2.6.2. Habitat and Abundanres
2.6.2.1. FISH SPECIES
Ecological information on feeding areas, shelter, time of activity, schooling behavior, etc., as
well as information on abundance of Caribbean reef fishes were assembled from various
published sources (e.g., Randall 1967, 1968; Jacobsen and Browder 1987). An attempt was
made to classify information on spatial occurrence according to the subsystems defined in Fig.
2.1. Qualitative abundances were grouped applying the scale presented in Table 2.4.
Category "Enwas considered here because some of the species for which growth data and/
or other information were available, while not occurring in the PRVl area, do occur in other
areas of the Caribbean and
Table 2.4. Qualitative abundance levels as used to estimate average density thus might be useful for others
(Nm-2) of fish species included in the model^.^ who might wish to construct
Abundance level Remarks Nm2 models of other areas of the
Caribbean.
V Very abundant Usually seen in large numbers 5.00000
A Abundant Usually seen in some numbers 0.50000 To reexpress qualitative
c Common Usually seen 0.050oo statements about abundances
F Fairly common Seen about half of the time
0 Occasional Usually not seen into numerical values, the
R Rare Very uhkely o.oooo5 following procedure was
E Absent (see text) o.ooooo applied: A series of six
=AS assessed following comparison of various scales (see text). published sets of numerical
abundances from visual
censuses and from rotenone stations carried out in the PRVl area (Jacobsen and Browder
1987) was transformed and ranked. Every list was treated separately since many fish species
occurred in several lists. Furthermore, it was important to check whether the whole range of
abundances was covered by the majority of the sets, and whether their respective rankings
differed markedly. A parallel listing of the sets revealed, when a log,, scale was applied, that the
whole range - of abundance values (from 1.3 * Nm-2to 8.4 * 10-I Nm-2)could be covered by
six levels of abundance. The last column in Table 2.4 presents an average density value in Nm-2
for each abundance level. This average density was computed as the mean of the
corresponding subrange. Density values refer to an average.m2for the five subsystems
considered here.
Qualitative abundances from several sources (e.g., Clavijo et al. 1980; Randall 1983;
Jacobsen and Browder 1987) were transferred one level downward so they would correspond to
the new scale, as suggested by a comparison of visual census figures with qualitative
abundances data, for a variety of species for which both estimates were available. This transfer
had the disadvantage that the qualitative definitions of the different abundance levels did not
completely overlap. However, for the present application, it appeared more important to obtain a
consistent scale for all data sets.
When several estimates of abundance were available for the same species, a selection
was made according to three hierarchical levels:
a. data (individuals m-2)from visual censuses or rotenone stations, by subsystems;
b. qualitative abundances from tables in Jacobsen and Browder (1987) based on
published visual census figures; and
c. qualitative abundances derived from general descriptions of the biology of the species
in question.
For species for which no indication of abundance could be found, abundance was assumed
equal to the average for species with similar characteristics.
The list thus prepared, with adjusted qualitative abundances for every species and every
subsystem, was used to obtain numerical values by substituting qualitative abundances by its
numerical average range value in Nm-2,divided by four. Then, the sum of four subsystems
(seagrass beds and algal mats were combined here in one subsystem) was computed by
simple addition of estimates for a species across subsystems.
2.6.2.2. NONFISH TAXA
For nonfish taxa, even rough qualitative estimates of abundance are scarce to nonexistent
in coral reef systems. Although some investigations have been carried out in the PRVl reef area,
they concentrated mostly on commercially exploited species, especially conchs and lobster. The
limited information on abundance of nonfish taxa that were identified in the course of this work
may be found in Table 3.9 in the "Results" section.
2.6.3. Biomass
2.6.3.1 . FISH SPECIES
The biomass in g per m2wetweight (gm-2WW)of each fish species was calculated by
multiplying the average numerical abundance obtained as described above with the mean
individual weight of the corresponding species. Mean individual weight (Wmean)
was obtained
through
with Wmbeing asymptotic weight in gWW and assuming that the mean weight corresponds
roughly to 30% of maximum weight, itself about 86% of the asymptotic weight (see equation
2.6). Note that this definition of W
,,,, implies that the bulk of the biomass is comprised by late
juveniles and young adults.
Many of the biomass values for nonfish taxa were indicated in the corresponding
references in units other than wet (=live) weight. A summary of the conversion factors used for
the computation of biomass and PIB values for nonfish taxa is given in Table 2.5.
2.6.3.3. DETRITUS BIOMASS
The following empirical equation was derived by Pauly et al. (1993a, Appendix IV) to obtain
rough estimates of detritus biomass (D, gCm-2)as a function of primary production (PP, gCm-2
year1) and euphotic depth (E, in m):
Fifty-two percent of the variation (R = 0.718) in the data set was explained by equation (2.12),
so the fit is not tight. However, the biomass of detritus (as opposed to the flows in and out of this
box) is not an important parameter and hence the low precision of estimates for (2.13) may be /
acceptable here.
Table 2.5. Conversion factors used for ECOPATH II input parameter estimation of nonfish groups.
-
Taxon Ratio %a Source
Organic tissue 1 kcal = I g WW Steele (1974)

Organic tissue lgC=lOgWW Steele (1974)
Organic tissue lgDW=4.5 gWW Steele (1974)
Plants 1gC=40kJ G. Graf, IfM, Kiel (pers. comm.)
Plants IgCm-2.day-f= Ig0,m-2~hourf*0.3 Connor and Adey (1977)
Primary producers 1 g C = 3.33 g DW G. Graf and D. Schramm, IfM,
Kiel (pers. comm.)
Algae, seagrasses, G. Graf and D. Schramm, IfM,
phytoplankton Kiel (pers. comm.)
Algae, seagrasses, G. Graf and D. Schramm, IfM,
phytoplankton Kiel (pers. comm.)
Foraminifera Odum and Odum (1955)
Animals G. Graf, IfM, Kiel (pers. comm.)
Sponges D. Barthel, IfM, Kiel (pers. comm.)
Sea anemones Pauly et al. (1993b)
Gastropods (mean of Pauly et al. (1993b)
several species)
Gastropods (mean of Pauly et al. (1993b)
several species)
Bivalves (mean of Pauly et al. (1993b)
several species)
Polychaetes (mean of Pauly et al. (1993b)
several species)
Cirripedia (two species) Berry (1982)
Amphipods (one species) Pauly et al. (1993b)
Euphausids (E. superba) Pauly et al. (1993b)
lsopods (1 species) Pauly et al. (1993b)
Shrimps. (2
. species)
. Pauly et al. (1993b)
Small crustaceans (mean of Pauly et al. (1993b)
euphausids,amphipods,
isopods and shrimps)
Spiny lobster (1 species) Smale (1978)
Starfish (2 species) Pauly et al (199313)
Sea urchins (1 species) Pauly et al (199313)
Sea urchins (1 species) Pauly et al (1993b)
Sea urchins (1 species) Pauly et al (1993b)
Sea cucumbers (3 species) Pauly et al (1993b)
Sea cucumbers (3 species) Pauly et al (1993b)
Echinoderms (mean of Pauly et al (1993b)
several taxa)
Shell organics Horn (1986)
Notes:
"C or DW expressed as percent of WW.
bCor DW expressed as percent of DW.
Source: AFDW = ash free, C = carbon, DW = dry weight, WW = wet (live) weight
2.6.4. Environmental Temperature
Mean annual temperature was determined from hydrographical charts (DHI 1969) to be
28°C for the waters around the PRVl area. An estimate of mean annual temperature was
required to compute natural mortality M and food consumption (QIB) from empirical models (see
below). This value of 28°C agrees closely with temperatures indicated by Randall (1962a) for
two different study sites in the US Virgin Islands.
2.6.5. Production/Biomass Ratio
Under certain conditions mentioned above, the P/B ratio is equal to total mortality Z or
natural mortality M (in case of no fishing) of a population of fish or invertebrates. Given the
assumption of zero fishing mortality made here, the literature was searched for published values
of M (or of Z in unexploited systems).
When natural mortality (or Z) was indicated as a percentage, or as percentage survival, the
estimate was transformed into an exponential rate based on:
where Nt is the number of fish in a given cohort at time t and Nois the initial number of fish.
In cases where no values of M for fishes or invertebrates with high metabolic rate could be
found, this parameter was estimated by means of an empirical model derived by Pauly (1980),
of the form
and
where Lmand Wmrefer to asymptotic length in cm and asymptotic weight in g, respectively, K

refers to year1 and T is the mean annual temperature in "C of the water in which the stock in
question lives (i.e., 28"C, see above). Estimates of natural mortality M for clupeoid species
obtained via equation (2.15) or (2.16) were corrected with M * 0.6 as suggested by Pauly
(1980). In the case of the low-metabolism echinoderms (sea urchins, holothuroids), M was
assumed to be lower than implied by equation (2.15) or (2.16), i.e., about equal to K (as was
demonstrated to be appropriate for tropical sea urchins by Longhurst and Pauly 1987).
2.6.6. Food Consumption per Unit Biomass (Q/BI
One of the key input parameters in ECOPATH I as well as in ECOPATH II is the food
consumption of a species (group). Polovina (1984a,b) called this input the "food required" (FR).
Pauly (1986), instead, used the expression "food consumption per unit biomass" (QIB) and
defined it as the number of times an age-structured population of fish consumes its own weight
per year. In the forthcoming, QIB shall be used sensu Pauly.
Published data on food consumption of tropical reef fishes and invertebrates are scarce.
Thus, Polovina (1984a,b,c), in the absence of appropriate data, used estimates of consumption
by Pacific salmon for the reef fishes in the ECOPATH modelling of French Frigate Shoals,
Northern Hawaiian Islands Furthermore, all reef invertebrates, except squids, lobsters and
crabs, were lumped together as "heterotrophic benthos" with one common estimate of QIB.
Menzel (1958,1960) was one of the firsts to carry out food conversion experiments on coral reef
fishes using two species from Bermuda, the herbivorous Holacanthus bermudensis
(Pomacanthidae) and the carnivorous Epinephelus guttatus (Serranidae) for his experiments.
To date a series of methods exists for estimating the quantity of food eaten by a fish
population during a certain period of time (e.g., Bajkov 1935; Beverton and Holt 1957; Ursin
1967; Elliot and Persson 1978; Jobling 1981; Daan 1973, 1983; Andersen 1982; Armstrong et
al. 1983; Durbin et al. 1983; Rice et al. 1983; Stewart et al. 1983; Majkowski and Hearns 1984;
and Pennington 1984). Most of the available methods are based on combining stomach
contents data obtained from the field with experimental results. These parameters then allow for
the determination of transition rates for stomach contents. Such investigations require a great
number of stomachs because of the generally high variabilities of stomach contents in natural
fish populations. This requirement is generally difficult to meet with regard to coral reef fishes
which abundances are often rather low. In addition to this, reefs are unsuited for trawl fishing for
obvious reasons and, instead, fishes on reefs and in adjacent areas are caught by a wide
variety of gears from traps to hook and lines. Therefore, catches and hence stomach contents
are usually not representative. Fishes, when trap-caught, may consume prey usually
unavailable to them. Also the mean weight of the food in the stomach of fishes caught with hook
and lines, tends to be underestimated because generally "hungry" fish are caught.
Another approach to estimate the food consumption is by executing laboratory or pond
feeding experiments. According to Mann (1978), extrapolations of food consumption estimates
from laboratory experiments to natural conditions can be divided into direct and indirect
methods. The direct methods attempt to simulate natural conditions in the laboratory by
imitating environmental variables such as temperature, salinity, food type, availability of food,
water movements, die1 cycles, etc., as well as the growth rates of fish occurring in the field.
Because of practical difficulties in meeting all of these requirements, indirect methods have
evolved. Indirect estimates usually use nitrogen and/or energy budgets as a basis for the
prediction of food requirements of fish under a range of conditions (Ivlev 1939, 1961; Winberg
1956; Gerking 1962). Although more assumptions than in the direct method are involved, the
indirect approach leaves more space for the incorporation of the effects of environmental
variables. A detailed discussion of the subject can be found in Mann (1978).
2.6.6.1 . THE FOOD CONSUMPTION MODEL
As a contribution to the indirect approach, an analytical method for the estimation of Q/B
has been developed by Pauly (1986) which may be applied in cases where stomach analyses
from field samples cannot be carried out. The method links up estimates of gross food
conversion efficiency, obtained from laboratory experiments, with field data on growth. Thus, it
aims to make the best use of available data from laboratory or pond experiments without the
need for extensive field sampling of stomachs. By combining experimental and field data, this
model reduces the effects of two sources of bias from experimental data on food conversion: (1)
experimental fish are most often given a higher ration than is available to them in nature
(Windell 1978); and (2) captive fish are usually stressed and therefore have lower conversion
efficiencies than in nature (Pauly 1986).
Pauly's model assumes that the population under consideration is in a steady state and that
the fish (or invertebrate) grows according to the von Bertalanffy theory of growth (von
Bertalanffy 1934, 1938, 1951; Pauly 1984). Note that these assumptions are also inherent to the
reef ecosystem model developed here.
The model incorporates the following main features:
1. experimental data
a. food conversion efficiencies and/or weight-specific daily ration obtained from feeding
experiments; and
b. a conversion parameter p (beta; see below for definition)
2. field data
a. the parameters (W, K and to) of VBGF; and
b. an estimate of mortality (here M).
Parameter Estimation
ESTIMATION
OF Feeding experiments can be used to obtain estimates of gross conver-
(BETA).
sion efficiency (K,), which is defined for any time interval by (Ivlev 1939, 1966)
K, = growth incrementlfood ingested
or (Paloheimo and Dickie 1966)
dwldt is the growth rate and F the food ingested. Growth increment and food ingested are
expressed in the same units (e.g., g wet weight, dry weight or protein). Under stable laboratory
or environmental conditions, food conversion efficiency and fish weight usually show a strong
negative correlation. This can be expressed by the regression
which leads to the conventional model
(for a discussion of this model, see Jones 1976). Pauly (1986) derived the alternative model
with p as the slope of a double logarithmic plot when equation (2.21) is transformed to
Wmis the weight at which K, = 0 (x-intercept), and K, = 1 when W = 0. Wmis thus defined as the
weight at which dwldt is 0, independently of the amount of food ingested. This corresponds to
the definition of asymptotic weight (W,) in the VBGF (see above).
For cases in which the available data lead to unrealistic estimates of Wm,equation (2.22)
can be rewritten as
where C is the mean of the -l~g,~(l-K,) values, logW the mean of the log,,W values and WmVBGF
an estimate of asymptotic size suitable to describe the growth of the fish in question. The same
value of Wmcan thus be used for a combined analysis of growth and food consumption.
Pauly (1986) also emphasized the appropriate choice of the regression model used. Thus
when (1) the log,,W values are not controlled by the experimentor or (2) regression parameters
are required rather than prediction of C-values, a "geometric mean" or Type II regression should
be used instead of an "arithmetic mean" or Type I regression. Conversion from a Type I to a
Type II regression can be performed through
and
where a,b are the parameters of Type I, a' and b' the parameters of Type II regression and r is
the correlation coefficient linking the y (= C) and the x (= log,,W) values (Ricker 1973).
ESTIMATION OF FOODCONSUMPTION(QIB). Food conversion efficiency as a function of age t of a

given fish K,(t) can be obtained by inserting equation (2.2) into equation (2.21):
where K, to and p are as defined above.

The feeding rate (dqldt) of a fish of age t can then be expressed by rewriting equation
(2.17) as follows:
The growth rate (dwldt, e.g., in kg year1) is the first derivative of VBGF and has the form:
The cumulative food consumption (Q,) of a fish can thus be obtained by integrating equation
(2.26) from age at recruitment (t,) to age at which the fish dies (tmax)
By assuming exponential decrease with instantaneous total mortality 2, viz
with N, the number of fish in the population at time t and Nr the number of recruits, the food
consumption per unit biomass (QIB) of an age-structured population can be estimated from:
(dw 1 dt) Nt
Q
- --
Thus, the parameters needed for the estimation of QIB of a fish or invertebrate population
are b, 8, Wm,Z (or M for an unfished system), K, to, tr and tmaxThe parameter b is the exponent
of the length-weight relationship and can generally be set equal to 3 (see above); the parameter
I3 is estimated from feeding experiments; Wm,K and to are obtained from growth data, whereas tr
and tmaxcan be set more or less arbitrarily (a sensitivity analysis of the model showed only
negligible effects for changes of tr, tmax
and to; see Pauly 1986).
ESTIMATION OF MAINTENANCE RATIONAND TROPHIC

EFFICIENCY.Apart from QIB, the above model can
also be used to estimate:
1. maintenance ration (R,);
2. trophic efficiency (E,); and
3. respiratory and excretory losses (R,).
Maintenance ration is defined as the amount of food necessary to maintain a given weight
of a fish. R, is usually obtained through controlled feeding experiments (Windell 1978), through
starvation experiments (Jones 1976) or by measuring the oxygen consumption of a fasting
animal (Ursin 1967). Pauly (1986) used the relationship between QIB and fish weight to
estimate R:, Wc being defined as the weight at which all food ingested is only used for
maintenance and not for growth, the ration at (or near) Wmcan be used as estimate of R., In
practice, R, is obtained by extrapolating to Wm,using a semilog plot, estimates of QIB for two
fixed weights close to Wm,e.g., 0.90XWm and 0.95*Wm(Pauly and Palomares 1986).
Population trophic efficiency can also be estimated from the model with
where Z is total mortality (or M natural mortality for an unfished population) and BIQ the
reciprocal of the output of equation (2.33). E, expresses population production per unit food
consumed. Food that has not been turned into production of biomass goes to respiratory and
excretory losses; the relative amount of such losses can be calculated through
Pauly's (1986) food consumption model was used to obtain estimates of QIB for several
macroinvertebrates (see Results section). All values of QIB, Rmand E, were calculated with a
BASIC computer program called MAXIMS (Jarre et al. 1990).
The bulk of the QIB estimates used for the development of the empirical model, described
below, was calculated by applying published results of food conversion experiments and growth
parameters of the fish stocks considered to the above described food consumption model (see
Palomares 1987).
2.6.6.2. THE EMPIRICAL MODEL
Fish Species
Food consumption per unit biomass (QIB) for the fish species included in the present
models of a Caribbean coral reef was computed with an empirical model of the form:
(Palomares and Pauly 1989), where QIB is the food consumption of an age-structured
population over its mean biomass, Wmis the mean asymptotic (or maximum) weight (as defined
by the VBGF) of the fish of a given population (live weight in g), T is the mean environmental
temperature in "C, A an index of the mean activity level of the fish of a given species, derived
from the shape ("aspect ratio") of its caudal fin (see below) and F is the food type, with :
carnivorous = 0 and herbivorous = 1. The derivation of this model, which is modified from
Palomares (1987), is given in Palomares and Pauly (1989). It is based on QIB estimates for 33
demersal and pelagic fish stocks ranging in size from myctophids to tuna and occurring in
marine waters with mean annual temperatures ranging from 10 to 28°C.
ASPECT RATIOOF THE CAUDALFIN.The aspect ratio (A) of the caudal fin is defined as the square
of the height (h2)of the caudal fin over its surface area (s) or
33
(Lindsey 1978). This ratio can be used to characterize the activity level of fishes which use their
caudal fin as (main) organ of propulsion. High aspect ratios indicate that the fish are fast and
continuous swimmers (e.g., tunas) while low aspect ratios refer to slow andlor "burst" swimmers
(e.g., groupers, see Fig. 2.2). The aspect ratio of the caudal fin is thus related to the activity
level and energy requirements of the fish (Sambilay 1990). It is therefore an indirect measure
for the food consumption of a fish (or a population of fish).
Based on photographs in Randall (1968) and drawings in Fischer (1978), the aspect ratios
of around 230 Caribbean coral reef fish species were determined using a computerized image
analyzing system. This newly available I
technology permits to rapidly analyze a Scornberornorus cavaila
high number of pictures, especially when Aspect ratio 6.3
combined with a special data storage

program, as was the case in this study.
This program was written for the present
application and kindly made available by
R. Froese (ICLARM). For computing QIB,
estimates of aspect ratios obtained by
Epinephelus g u t t a t u s
Randall's photographs were used and only
Aspect ratio 1.0
when these were not available were
values from the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) drawings applied.
Indications of length for a variety of
species were adapted from Randall
(1968).
For sharks, which have heterocercal
tails, and for rays, an aspect ratio of 7.0 1
was assumed, hi^ value is based on the Fig. 2.2. Schematic representation of method to
estimate the aspect ratio of the caudal fin of fish, given
reflection that sharks and rays act as apex
height (h) and surface area (s).
predators, roaming through widespread
hunting grounds and thus may have an activity level similar to large scombrids and jacks, which
highest aspect ratios varied between 6 and 7.
For species without well-formed caudal fins (such as moray eels), an aspect ratio of 0.7
was assumed; this corresponds to the lowest level of A among fish species with caudal fins.
This assumption was made since morays and similar fishes usually spend much time hidden in
crevices waiting for preys to pass by.
FOOD TYPE.The food type (F) of equation (2.34) is a dummy variable which originally took
only two values: 0 for carnivorous and 1 for herbivorous fish. To be able to deal with omnivory
(i.e., diets containing both animals and plants), linearity was assumed between 0 and 1, i.e., the
variable F was set at values proportional to the fraction of plants in the diet when solving for
QIB.
Nonfish Taxa
The majority of estimates of QIB for nonfish taxa were obtained by searching directly in the
literature for estimates of this parameter. As pointed out above, for several taxa QIB could be
estimated through the food consumption model (Pauly 1986), i.e., via P as obtained from
published estimates on food conversion or daily ration and from growth parameters.
I also attempted to estimate QIB from data on energy metabolism, i.e., from oxygen
consumption estimates. This approach yielded, for reasons not explored here, excessively high
consumption estimates and was therefore abandoned.
Consumption values from the literature were adjusted to a mean annual temperature of
28"C, prevailing in the Caribbean waters around the Virgin Islands, through a reexpression of
the slope associated with temperature in equation (2.34), i.e.,
V is the factor for temperature adjustment, T the temperature at PRVl (i.e., 28°C) and T' the
original habitat or experimental temperature.
2.7. Diet Composition Matrix
It was known from a previous application of ECOPATH II to the Peruvian upwelling system
(Jarre et al. 1991), that changes in the diet composition had a strong impact on model structure.
Therefore, the diet matrix of the present modelling work was elaborated as carefully as possible
for the species groups involved.
2.7. I. Fish Speties
The data for the diet composition matrix DC,,were obtained primarily from a study carried
out in St. John, US Virgin Islands, by Randall (1967).
The results of Randall's stomach contents analyses were given in percent of volume of the
different major groups of food organisms. This is roughly equivalent to relative weight and thus,
approximates the relative amounts of energy extracted by consumers from various system
components (MacDonald and Green 1983).
The taxonomic level of the organisms identified by Randall (1967) from fish stomachs
varied from species to families and higher categories, with most of the invertebrates grouped
under the higher categories. Fishes, on the other hand, were identified mostly to generic or
specific level without indication of percentage volume of the single genus or species. For the
construction of the DC matrix, the percentages of "fish" were divided into equal parts between
all the genera and species listed as prey for the respective fish species. When fish were
identified only to family or generic level, the respective percent of volume was distributed evenly
over all species of the family or the genus represented in the matrix. Only 18 fish species
appeared as prey but not as predators. Their share was distributed evenly over all the species
of the same family or genus considered in the matrix. Species of families that were not
represented in the matrix were considered as "unidentified" fish (FO). The FO in the matrix
contains also all cases where the share of fish in a diet was not identified to a lower taxonomic
category.
Unidentified stomach contents were assigned to the identified parts according to the
relative-abundanceof the latter. Eggs and larvae were assigned as "zooplankton", together with
a variety of other organisms (see Appendix 8.5.3). In Randall's study, "algae and organic
detritus1'were listed as a combined item in many cases. Their relative contribution was divided
into two equal parts. The symbiotic coral-algae complex was separated into a producer and a
consumer component; when a fish species' diet included the item "corals", the corresponding
percentage was divided into two shares with 60% of it for plant tissue (benthic algae) and 40%
for animal tissue (corals).
Only five species of sharks, four of the family Carcharhinidae and one of the family
Ginglymostomatidae were included in Randall's study. These five species were represented only
by few individuals, many of which had (nearly) empty stomachs. The same was true for
stomach analyses of the two species of rays included in the model. Diet for cartilaginous
species was generally stated as "fish", preliminarily included into the food matrix under the label
FO. Randall's list of shark species was completed by including more sharks with affinities to
coral reefs of the PRVl area, based on accounts in Fischer (1978). From qualitative descriptions
of the diet composition given therein, quantitative shares were estimated for each food item
according to the already existing DC matrix. The item "fish" or "small fish" was most difficult to
translate into quantitative information. It was assumed that, when part of the diet was stated to
be "fish", every fish species in the system had the same probability of being a victim of a shark's
appetite. So the generalization "feeds on fishes" was translated by distributing 100% (minus the
part of the diet represented by invertebrates) into equal percentages over all fish species in the
DC matrix. Excluded were (1) species larger than the one under consideration and (2) reef fish
species with Wm< 100 g. The latter restriction was adopted based on the notion that a large
animal, such as a tiger shark, weighing about half a ton, would generally not manage to extract
gobies, blennies, damselfishes, etc., of 10-20 g from between the coral heads and other
crevices. When the diet, or part of it, was stated to be "pelagic fish", this was divided into the
pelagic species in the DC matrix. When a shark fed on "small pelagic fish" the same procedure
was applied, but excluding the scombrids and large jacks from the list of possible candidates.
When the food or part of it consisted of "small fish", the diet was distributed evenly over all
species with Wm< 1,000 g. The weight limits are arbitrary. Such arbitrary limits were necessary,
however, since a rigorous definition of what a "small fish" is does not exist.
The relative contribution of fish versus nonfish taxa is also arbitrary. The only restriction was
the statement "feeds mainly on...". In such cases, the diet part referred to was considered to
represent from 60% to 80% of the total diet.
To establish a diet matrix for the nonfish taxa, the food items of fish stomachs analyzed by
Randall (1967) were listed under their corresponding taxon together with the number of fish
species for which an item was stated as part of the diet (see Appendix Tables 8.5.1 and 8.5.2).
Based on this listing, a search of the Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) database
was carried out and ca. 300 publications were selected. Since quantitative information on diet
composition of coral reef invertebrates is still scarce (see also Lewis 1981), the quantitative diet
composition of each taxon was estimated in many cases from qualitative or rough quantitative
information and/or was transferred from ecosystems other than coral reefs.
For the construction of the DC matrix, all percentages of volume were reexpressed as
fraction of one.
2.8. Aggregation of Species and Taxa
2.8.1. First Reduction
ECOPATH 11, as presently implemented, allows a maximum input of 50 species groups.

This restriction made it necessary to reduce the initial number of fish species (over 200) and 41
nonfish taxa into 50 species groups. The procedures used for this reduction are described
below.
2.8.1 .l.FISH SPECIES
A set of ecologically meaningful criteria was needed by which the fish species could be
aggregated into species groups, using cluster analysis. Since I was concerned with a model of
energy flow, variables which relate to flows between elements of the system had to be identified.
These variables must necessarily relate to the factors which determine the food consumption of
a species. Referring to the section on "Food consumption (QIB)", these variables are: ( I ) size,
(2) activity level and (3) type of food. These variables were parametrized as in equation (2.34))
using: (1) size = asymptotic weight Wmin g; (2) activity level = aspect ratio A; and (3) type of
food = degree of herbivory, in %. These three were treated as being of equal importance. Prior
to the aggregation of fish species into species groups by cluster analysis, two of the three
variables were transformed such that they evenly covered a range of values.
Asymptotic weights (originally in g wet weight) were reexpressed in logarithmic form and
thus reduced to values between 0 and 6. Food type was divided by 10 and thus ranged then
from 0 to 10. A value of 0 corresponded now to 100% carnivory and a value of 10-100%
herbivory. Aspect ratio was not transformed since this evenly covered values between 0.7 and
7.0.
To determine whether the three variables were correlated, a factor analysis was carried out.
According to Backhaus et al. (1986), prior to the execution of a cluster analysis on a given set of
elements and variables, it is advisable to carry out a factor analysis to detect dependent
variables and exclude them from the aggregation process. The factor analysis showed that the
variables were largely independent, except for a negligible correlation between aspect ratio and
size (Fig. 2.3).
Cluster analysis was performed, using the prepared matrix of 243 fish species and 3
variables. "Quadratic Euclidean distance (QED)" was selected as index of dissimilarity. By
relying on the square of the distance between the variables of two elements, this index
emphasizes large distances.
Three hierarchical agglomerative cluster-algorithms were applied to the matrix of input data:
(1) "average linkage", (2) "centroid1'and (3) "ward". All three are conservative algorithms (they
have no contracting or dilating effect on the grouping process) and may be used with measures
of dissimilarity (e.g., QED). "Average linkage" and "ward" are monotonous algorithms where the
measure of dissimilarity (QED) increases monotonously with decreasing number of clusters.
"Ward" has the exclusive feature of forming groups of similar sizes, i.e., groups with a similar
number of elements. By comparison of the results (clusters) obtained by the three algorithms,
"average linkage" was finally selected to be most appropriate. The species groups aggregated
by this algorithm represented best the conditions in the reef, even with reference to the habitat
of certain species groups (see below).
A A AAA
8
A A
A A B
A A
B A B A
A A A B AAn
A AA AA
BA A ABA C
AAA A A
A CAAA
BAA
-1 0 0 h
-20
l I
-1.4 -0.8
I I
-0.2
I
-0.4
I
1.0
I
1.6
I
2.2
I
28
Factor I
Fig. 2.3. Results of the factor analysis; relation between asymptotic weight (factor 1) and aspect ratio (factor
2).
A QED value of 1.5 was achieved when all fish species were aggregated into a single
cluster. This corresponds to a cutoff level of 100%. At a cutoff level of 20% (QED = 0.3), 29
species groups were identified. Of these, 6 species, each forming a single cluster, were
regarded as outliers and merged (outside the cluster analysis) with larger species groups.
An additional criterion of distinction outside the cluster analysis was applied to the prepared
boxes. This criterion referred to the vertical dimension of the habitat. It was defined to be the
level in the water column where a species spends most of its time. The water column was
divided into two levels: demersalloff bottom and midwaterlpelagic. Following this criterion, the
species groups were divided into a demersal and a pelagic fraction whenever they contained
species from both habitats. This division was omitted in groups of large predators because not
enough information on preferred level was available, or a species could not be assigned to a
distinct level. Overall, 27 fish species groups or boxes were obtained by the above-described
method of aggregation.
The theoretical background for the factor analysis and cluster analyses was obtained from
Backhaus et al. (1986) and Pielou (1984). The analyses were performed with the assistance of
Mr. C. Klingenberg, using SAS on a VAX 750 mainframe at the lnstitut fijr Meereskunde, Kiel.
The aggregation of nonfish taxa could not be performed in the same manner as for fish
species due to their broad taxonomic range. Values for size, activity and food type were almost
entirely lacking at the species level. Activity could not be transformed into a simple parameter
due to the extreme difference in lifestyle. Reduction from initially 41 to 23 groups was performed
by applying the following, largely subjective aggregation criteria (in order of importance):
1. Availability of estimates of PIB and QIB: Estimates of these two input parameters were
only available for 24 of the 41 taxa. Fortunately, most of the taxa for which estimates
could be obtained were definitely of great importance to reef metabolism.
2. Size: Rough indications of size for the majority of taxa were obtained from Barnes'
(1963) Invertebrate Zoology. For some, size indications were encountered while
compiling estimates of PIB and QIB of nonfish taxa. Size was roughly scaled into four
groups: small, medium, large, very large. It was assumed that, for taxa with a wide
spectrum of sizes (e.g., polychaetes, gastropods), the average size contributed the bulk
of biomass to the respective box.
3. Similarity of diet composition: Diet composition was reduced to six compartments:
detritus, benthic producers/symbiotic algae, phytoplankton, microfauna, zooplankton,
macroinvertebrateslfish.
4. Similarity of lifestyle: Sessile, semisessile, burrowing in bottom or calcareous skeletons,
free living, filtering, grazing, scavenging, predatory were the categories considered.
5. Taxonomic closeness: This feature was used in cases (e.g., coralslsea anemones)
where the preceding criteria were not applicable or did not allow a decision because,
e.g., the lifestyles were too different, as in the case of sessile or slow-moving organisms
which had no adequate group to be pooled with in terms of sizes or diet compositions.
2.8.2. Weighting Within Species Groups
To obtain a reasonable distribution of food percentages within the species groups, these
had to be weighted by considering throughput of every species belonging to the respective
group. A weighting factor (WF) was computed for every species through
where Wmean is as defined for equation (2.12) above, AB is the abundance of a species in Nm-2
and QIB the annual food consumption per unit biomass.
2.8.3. Combining Species Groups
Single fish species and nonfish taxa were combined into the respective groups according to
the results of the aggregation procedure.
2.8.3.1. P/B RATIO AND FOOD CONSUMPTION (Q/B)
A group estimate of PIB ratio and QIB was obtained from the median of the respective
parameter for each group of estimates for single species or taxon.
2.8.3.2. DIET COMPOSITION MATRIX
For the condensation of the DC matrix, groups had to be combined vertically (columns) and
horizontally (rows). All columns and rows belonging to one group were summed up. Thus, each
row in the reduced DC matrix represented a predator group and each column a prey group. To
bring the sum of a row back to unity (all values had formerly been multiplied by the
corresponding weighting factor, see above), each value in a row was divided by the sum of the
row:
where dij is the weighted jth value of species group i, k is the number of columns and d,' the
resulting part of 1.0 in column j of group i. This procedure was carried out for each species
group and each level of aggregation.
2.8.4. Second Reduction of Species Groups
The initial 50-box model was still rather difficult to handle and visualize. For this reason, and
also to find out whether information on the energy flow is lost when the system is further
aggregated, the number of boxes was further reduced. Models with an equal number of boxes
generated by two different methods of reduction were also compared.
2.8.4.1. METHOD 1: CLUSTER ANALYSIS + INTUITION
Fish Groups
The fish groups were further reduced by increasing the average distance (expressed by the
dissimilarity index QED) between clusters. Two additional cutoff levels of 40% and 50% were
selected. After separating the "pelagic-midwater" from the "demersal-off bottom" species, two
sets with nine, respectively, four fish species groups were obtained. Combining groups was
achieved by computing a mean (weighted by biomass) for the three key input parameters. The
DC values were computed as weighted means (by throughput = biomass * consumption) from
the groups of which they consisted.
Nonfish Groups
The nonfish groups were again difficult to reduce, especially because no standardized
criterion could be identified for lumping nonfish groups with each other and with fish groups, a
necessary procedure when reducing the boxes of the system ( ~ 2 0 )Based
. on diet composition,
size and lifestyle, boxes were combined intuitively with each other as well as with fish groups.
Results of this "intuitive guesswork" (Ulanowicz 1986) were contrasted with those of the
objective aggregation routine included in ECOPATH II, described in the Introduction and
summarized in Section 2.8.4.2. The resulting total number of boxes including all fish species
and nonfish taxa was 20 and 11, respectively.
2.8.4.2. METHOD 2: ECOPATH II AGGREGATION ROUTINE
As described in the Introduction, the ECOPATH II program (Pauly and Christensen 1993)
includes an aggregation routine, based on Ulanowicz (1986), which allows the stepwise
reduction of the number of boxes in a model from a highest possible number of 50 to any small
number (after the initial system is balanced). Boxes are linked pairwise such that ascendency (a
measure of the information content of a system, see Introduction) is reduced as little as
possible. With this aggregation routine, the boxes of the present coral reef system were reduced
pairwise until the 50 initial boxes of the system were reduced to 10. The intermediate models
with the box numbers corresponding to those obtained by method 1 were used to compare
models resulting from both methods.
2.9. ECOPATH II Parameter Estimation Routine
The databases for the 50-, 20- and 11-box models obtained by method 1 were fed into the
ECOPATH I1 program, and the ecotrophic efficiency (EE) for each box was computed. Then, the
original input values of the 50-box model were gradually modified, until all components (boxes)
showed an E E 4 . Starting from the balanced 50-box model, the ECOPATH I1aggregation
routine (method 2) was then used to compute the parameter values for each aggregation step
(this involved automatical transformation of the diet matrix) such that every new model resulting
from a further reduction of boxes was again balanced.
Besides estimation of EE, ECOPATH I1 was used to compute the estimates for each box of
the parameters of the "master equation" (see Introduction). With the estimates for food intake,
predation mortality (= production (P) * EE), flow to detritus and assimilation (A) (all in
gm-2.year1),an energy balance for every box could be calculated. Furthermore, ECOPATH II
calculated trophic level, omnivory index, gross efficiency, net efficiency, RIA ratio and PIR ratio
for each box of the system. Based on the diet composition matrix, ECOPATH I1 computed,
finally, for each predator, the food intake in gm-2.year1,Ivlev's electivity index and the
standardized forage ratio of each prey group (see Introduction).
2.1 0. Whole System Properties
In the Introduction, the various features of ECOPATH I1 were presented. Besides the ability
to produce a balanced system, the program offers several routines for the computation of
various whole system properties useful for comparing different ecosystems or models of the
same ecosystem.
These summary statistics are: sum of all production, sum of all imports, sum of all
respiratory flows, sum of flows into detritus, total system throughput, throughput cycled, Finn's
cycling index and net primary production necessary to support the system.
The "network flow indices" routine enabled the computation of ascendency, overhead and
capacity for distinctive sources (inputs, internal and dissipations) of the system. The same
routine computed flows and transfer efficiencies within the system subsequent to dividing it into
discrete trophic levels. Finally, the routine called "mixed trophic impacts" allowed the
computation of a predator - prey matrix in which the impact of an increase in biomass for a
predator group is shown for all prey groups.
2.1 1. Graphid Representation of Models
The graphical representation of the box models followed suggestions made on this topic by
Jarre et al. (1989) and Pauly and Christensen (1993). Thus, the surface area of each box was
drawn so as to be proportional to the logarithm of the biomass in that box. Also, care was taken
to arrange the boxes along the ordinate (trophic level) such that they did not overlap and
enough space was left to draw the arrows representing the flows. Furthermore, the boxes were
arranged along the abscissa so as to minimize crossovers of arrows. Whenever possible, flows
were combined to reduce the number of arrows between boxes. About 80-90% of flows into a
box from the components of the system were included into the graphical representations of the
models, the rest was omitted for clarity. The complete sets of flows for each box are shown in
Appendix 8.8.
3. RESULTS
3.1. Fish Species
3.1. 1 Ecology
The available information on the spatial distribution of coral reef fish species in the Puerto
Rico - Virgin Islands (PRVI) area are summarized, by subsystem, in Table 3.1. While the
majority of species live within the coral reef, a number of others use the reef only as shelter and
forage in the adjacent areas, such as the seagrass beds and the algal flats. These species
contribute to reef metabolism mainly by means of their excreted and egested matters (feces).
Several species use mangrove areas and estuaries as nursery for their offspring. These few
examples show that in terms of energy flow, the subsystems cannot really be separated from
each other (see also Ogden and Gladfelter 1983).
The resident coral reef fishes and the regular visitors to reefs show a very high species
diversity, whereas the pelagic or oceanic fishes that are only indirectly related to reef
metabolism (through their foraging activity or release of excreta) contribute relatively few
species.
However, Table 3.1 is only a first attempt to group into compartments what is, in reality, a
gradient with smooth transitions.
3.1.2. Fisheries and Management
The fisheries in the PRVI reef area consist mainly of small-scale, commercial fishing, and
the rest of recreational fishing (and perhaps some subsistence fishing). The Caribbean
Fisheries Management Council (CFMC 1985) estimates that 22% of total landings originate
from the recreational sector in the US Virgin Islands. In the shallow-water reef fisheries, it is
estimated that recreational landings contribute 13% of total landings. The overwhelming part of
domestic requirements of fish products in the PRVI area (Puerto Rico, 85%; US Virgin Islands,
over 60%) is covered by imports. Table 3.2 gives the number of fishers and vessels comprising
the commercial fisheries in the PRVI area.
Fish traps are by far the most important fishing gear in terms of units as well as yield in the
PRVI area. The second most important gear is the handline. Table 3.3 gives the relative
importance of the different gear in the fisheries of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. A local
annual fisheries production of around 3,000 t for Puerto Rico and 1,700 t for the US Virgin
Islands is indicated (Table 3.3).
The CFMC reports the following 10 species as important in PRVI: Nassau grouper
(Epinephelus striatus), red hind (E. guttatus), coney (Cephalopholis fulva), lane snapper
(Lutjanus synagris), mutton snapper (L. analis), yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus), white
grunt (Haemulon plumier/), queen triggerfish (Balistes vetula), spotted goatfish (Pseudupeneus
Table 3.1. Spatial distr~butionof Caribbean reef fishes (with emphasis on the Virgin Islands and notes on the~recology).
F=foraging, H=home, CI=cleaner, y=young, I=bottom, 2=well above bottom. 3=midwater, 4=pelag1c;+ = reported to occur in subsystem.
VA=very abundant, A=abundant, C=common, F=fairly common, O=occasional, R=rare, E=absent
Rzresident, V=regular visitor. T=transient.
W=wide range from shallow to deep; V=very shallow, surface to 2 m; SH=shallow, 1-15 m; D=deep, below 15 m; ++=upper depth lim~tSH.
= from tables in Boulon (1986b); type of length not stated, therefore total length is assumed; average size of species estimated during census on reef; species with an estimate are of commercial importance in the
Virgin Islands Biosphere Reserve; values in brackets were recorded for genus or family.
Seagrass Sand Average Depth Average

Mangroves1 Coral beds1 and Offshore depth1 limit size*
Family Species estuaries reefs algal mats mudflats reef upper limit (m) Abundance Type (cm) Remarks
Acanthuridae Acanthurus bahianus HFly HFI F1 0 V (11.4)

Acanthurus chirurgus HFly HFI F1 0 (11 4)
Acanthurus coeruleus HF1y HFI + C R (11 4) More closely related to coral reefs
than above species.
Albulidae Albula vuloes Food: worms, molluscs, crabs,

shrimps, squid (FA0 1977).
Antennariidae Antennarius multiocellatus Most common of family on West

Indian reefs; commercially
unimportant.
Antennarius striatus In different habitats; commercially
unimportant.
Apogonidae Apogon binotatus

Apogon conklini
Apogon rnaculatus Largest and most common inshore
cardinal fish of West lndies (WI).
Apogon pigmentaria
Apogon quadrisquamatus
Apogon townsendi
Apogon xenus
Atherinidae Allanetta harringtonensis Widely used as bait. Important forage

for commercial fishes.
Atherinornorus s t i ~ e s See above. Most common inshore of
family in WI.
Aulostomidae Aulostornus rnaculatus Clear water.
Balistidae Balistes capriscus HFI HFI HFI W 50

Balistes vetula HFI HFI HFI W 100 27.9
Canthidermis sufflarnen HF4 W Rare inshore,but common on offshore
reefs, near dropoffs to clear water.
Melichthys nlger HF2 HF2 W 30 Outer coral reefs with clear water.
Xanthichthys ringens HFI HF3y HFI D >35 One of most abundant WI reef fishes
in >35m, above rare; young in
floating Sargassum .
Belonidae Ablennes hians Inshore occurrence around islands.

Platybelone argalus Frequently found in inshore waters.
Strongylura marina Coastal areas and mangrove-lined P
laqoons. 0
continued...
Table 3.1 continued P
P
Acanthuridae Acanthurus bahianus HFly HFI F1 V (11.4)

Strongylura timucu HF3 HF3 lnshore species, often in mangrove
sloughs, enters fresh waters.
Tylosurus acus More offshore than Tcrocodilus but
also in coastal waters.
Tylosurus crocodilus Largest of Belonidae; occurs more
inshore than above species.
Blenniidae Entomacrodus nigricans R lnshore species, bottom-bound.

Hypleurochilus sp.
Ophioblennius atlanticus One of most abundant fishes on WI
reefs (0.65 individuals m-2based on
Randall 1968).
Parablennius marmoreus
Scartella cristata Rocky areas close to shore
Bothidae Bothus lunatus Also in mangrove areas.

Bothus ocellatus
Paralichthys tropicus
Carangidae Alectis ciliaris Solitary openwater species.

Caranx bartholomaei Solitary or in small groups; uncommon
in inshore waters.
Caranx crysos 27.9 Large schools; sometimes feeding on
coral reefs.
Caranx hippos Rare in clearwater reef areas.
Caranx latus Small groups of small fishes over
inshore reefs; larger fish, more
offshore.
Caranx lugubris T 25.4 Free clear water.
Caranx ruber V-T 22.8 Most common jack in WI; foraging and
cleaning on reef.
Decapterus macarellus Occasionally over outer reef areas;
zooplanktonfeeder.
Decapterus punctatus Occasionally over outer reef areas;
zooplanktonfeeder.
Elagatis bipinnulatus Pelagic, but occasionally nearshore.
also over reefs.
Ohgoplites saurus Small groups near surface; more turbid
than clear waters.
Selar crumenophthalmus Schooling fish over shallow reefs or in
turbid waters.
Selene vomer Small milling schools.
Seriola dumerili 53.3 Most common of genus in tropical West
Atlantic.
Seriola rivoliana Rare in shallow waters.
Trachinotus falcatus Rare in WI.
Trachinotus goodei Surf zone and clear waters along sandy
beaches; schooling.
continued...
Table 3.1 continued

Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus acronotus Feeds on small fishes.

Carcharhinus falciformis Feeds on fishes, squids,
crabs.
Carcharhhus Ieucas Feeds on fishes (mackerels,
tunas, smaller sharks,
rays); invertebrates (crabs,
shrimps, sea urchins); and
carrion.
Carcharhinus limbatus Aggregating; feeds on small
schooling fishes, rays.
squids.
Carcharhinus longimanus Females aggregate; feeds on
fishes (scombrids,
carangids), squids, portunid
crabs, turtles, carrion.
Carcharhinus perezi (springer,) Probably most common
member of genus in
inshore water of WI islands;
feeds on fishes including
rays.
Galeocerdo cuvieri Coastal as well as offshore
waters, near the surface;
feeds on fishes (also
sharks, rays), turtles,
seabirds, squids, conchs,
crabs, carrion.
Negaprion brevirostris Common inshore species
entering also brackish and
even fresh water.
Rhizoprionodon porosus HFI HFI Primarily a coastal species,
but also found in offshore
waters.
Chaetodontidae Chaetodon aculeatus Rare in shallow water, most

common of family from
30 m depth.
Chaetodon capistratus HFI Most common of family in WI
reefs.
Chaetodon ocellatus
Chaetodon sedentarius Found in deeper water than
others of family.
Chaetodon striatus
Centropomidae Centropomus undecimalis
Cirrhitidae Amblycirrhitus pinos
continued... p
ul
Table 3.1 continued

Mangroves1 Coral beds/ and Offshore depth1 limit size*
Family Species estuaries reefs algal mats mudflats reef upper lim~t (m) Abundance Type (cm) Remarks
Clinidae Acanthemblemaria spinosa HFI

Emblemariopsis leptocirris HFI
Enneanectes altivelis HFI
Labrisomus guppy; HFI
Labrisomus haitiensis HFI
Labrisomus kalisherae HFI
Labrisomus nuchipinnis HFI Largest and most abundant inshore
clinid fish in WI.
Pseudemblemaria signifera HFI
Starksia bassi HFI
Starksia lepicoelia HFI
Clupeidae Harengula clupeola HF4 Pelagic, in coastal waters, estuaries

and lagoons; schooling.
Harengula humeralis HF4 HF4 10.1 Pelagic. in coastal waters. estuaries
and lagoons; schooling.
Jenkinsia lamprotaenia HF4 HF4 V * Often extremely abundant; forms
large schools near the surface.
Opisthonema oglinum HF4 Pelagic, in coastal waterqoflen
forming compact schools.
Sardinella aurita HF4 Pelagic, in coastal waters, often
forming compact circular
schools; feeds on plankton.
Heteroconger halis Burrowed in sand near reefs;

zooplankton feeder.
Dactylopteridae Dactylopterus volitans HFI No commercial interest
Dasyatidae Dasyatis americana HFI Most common of genus in Wl,regular

visitor to reefs.
Urolophusjamaicensis
Diodontidae Chilomycterus antennatus HFI Relatively rare; most often taken from
seagrass beds.
Chilomycterus antillarum
Diodon holocanthus More often in muddy habitats
(mangroves) than on reefs
Diodon hystrix Most frequent of family.
Echeneidae Echeneis naucrates Attached sometimes to larger reef

fishes, sometimes solitary in reef.
Remora remora Attached sometimes to larger reef
fishes, sometimes solitary in reef.
Elopidae Elops saurus Common in WI in shallow brackish

lagoons.
continued...
Table 3 1 cont~nued

Mangroves1 Coral beds1 and Offshore depth/ limit size*
Emmel~chthyopsatlanticus Small aggregations above coral

heads.
lnermia vittata Slender schooling fish in clear blue
waters.
Anchoa hepsetus Forms large schools, feeds on small

zooplankton and zoobenthos
Anchoa lyoleprs Forms large, compact schools, on
sandy beaches and mangrove
lagoons
Chaetodipterus faber 22.8 Schooling
Fistularia tabacaria
Euonostomus argenteus (20 3)

Gerres clnereus (20.3) Also in brackish environments.
Ginglymostoma cirratum Most common reef shark in WI; feeds

mostly on invertebrates (shrimps,
crabs, lobsters, squids, other
molluscs, sea urchins); also on
small Ash.
Bathygobius soporator HFI HFI HF1 Most common shore fish of tropical
America.
Coryphopterus dicrus
Coryphopterus eldolon
Coryphopterus glaucofraenum Most common goby of WI reefs.
Coryphopterus personatus
Coiyphopterus thrix
Gnatholepis thompsonl
Gobiosoma evelynae
Goblosoma horsti
Gobiosoma saucrum
Lythrypnus elasson
Lythrypnus neslotes
Lythrypnus sp.
Quisquil~ushipoliti
Risor ruber
Grammidae Gramma loreto Cleaner; common in caves or beneath

(Serranldae) ledges; highly prized aquarium
fish.
Gramma melacara Bahamas and Belize, rare in <30 m,
very common on reef fronts in
4 0 m in the Bahamas.
Grammistidae Rypticus saponaceus

(Serranidae) Rypticus subbifrenatus
continued..
Table 3.1 continued

Mangroves1 Coral beds1 and Offshore depth/ limit size*
Family Species estuaries reefs algal mats mudflats reef upper lim~t (m) Abundance Type (cm) Remarks
Haemulidae Anisotremus surinamensis HFI F1 Very shallow water, one of the largest
(Pomadasyidae) grunts.
Anisotremus virginicus HFlCy Common in Florida Keys.
Haemulon album H1 F1 Largest of genus; clear water; active
at night; good food fish.
Haemubn aurolineatum + H1 F1 Smallest and most common of family.
Haemulon bonariense + HFI HFI Abundant in southern Caribbean, also
found in mangrove-lined lagoons.
Haemulon boschmae HFI Forms loose aggregates.
Haemulon carbonarium + HFI Forms schools around coral reefs in
clear water.
Haemulon chrysargyreum H1 F1,3 Small schools hiding in caves by day.
Haemulon flavolineatum HFly HFI HFI Most common grunt on WI reefs; one
of most abundant species in WI;
commonly in schools.
Haemulon macrostomum HFI Clear water.
Haemulon melanurum HFI Clear water; schooling.
Haemulon parrai HFI More common in continental waters;
schooling.
Haemulon plumier; HFI Common reef fish.
Haemulon sciurus HFI One of most common and most
colorful WI grunts.
Haemulon steindachneri Mainly sandy and rubble bottom,
occasionally coral reefs; schooling.
Haemulon striatum Prefers deeper water than other
species of genus.
Orthopristis chrysoptera Only occasionally on reefs.
Orthopristis poeyi Cuba only.
Orthopristis ruber Southern Caribbean; also in brackish
water.
Pomadasys corvinaeformis Cuba is northern limit of distribution.
Pomadasys crocro Also quite common in brackish,
mangrove-lined lagoons;
anadromous.
Hemiramphidae Hemiramphus balao lnshore surface dwelling fish forming

sizeable schools.
Hemiramphus brasiliensis lnshore surface dwelling fish forming
sizeable schools.
Hyporamphus unifasciatus lnshore surface schooling species,
frequently entering estuaries.
Holocentridae Holocentrus ascensionis Nocturnal.
Holocentrus coruscus Nocturnal.
Holocentrus rufus Nocturnal; more abundant on well-
developed reefs than
H. ascensionis.
Myripristisjacobus Nocturnal; aggregating around coral
reefs.
Neoniphon marianus Rare in shallow water, maybe most
common of family in 35-70 m depth;
nocturnal.
continued
Table 3.1 cont~nued --- ~

Mangroves1 Coral beds1 and Offshore depth1 limit size'
Fam~lv Species estuaries reefs algal mats mudflats reef upper limit (m) Abundance (cm) Remarks
-
Plectrypops retrospinis W S (13.7) Nocturnal; secretive.
Sargocentron vexillarium F1 H1 SH 0 (13.7) Most common inshore squirrelfish
in WI.
Kyphosidae Kyphosus incisor HFI 0 (25.4) Sornet~mesin floating Sargassum

weed.
Kyphosus sectatrix HFI 0 (25.4) Young commonly found in floating
Sargassum weed.
Bodianus rufus 0 20.3 Moderately large.

Clepticus parrae F3 0 Reef for shelter, feeding in
m~dwateron zooplankton.
Halichoeres bivittatus HFI 0 Most common of genus.
Halichoeres garnoti S Not uncommon.
Halichoeres maculipinna 0
Halichoeres poey! HFI C
Halichoeres radiatus HFI 0 Largest of genus and second
largest of family in WI.
Lachnolaimus maximus HFl S Largest tropical wrasse, open
areas near reefs (gorgonians)
Thalassoma bifasciatum C One of most abundant WI reef
fishes.
Xyrichtys novacula F
Xyrkhtys splendens 0 Smaller than X. novacula
Lutjanidae Apsilus dentatus Mainly rocky bottoms; young may

be found near surface.
Lutjanus analis HF2 0 55.8 More open water over vegetated
sand bottom; forms small
aggregations.
Lutjanus apodus HF2 C 19.0 Most common of fam~lyon WI
coral reefs; forms aggregations
by day.
Lutjanus buccanella E Young in 35-50 m; adults between
80-150 m.
Lutjanus campechanus E Mainly in 30-130 m, juveniles In
shallow waters and over sand
or mud.
Lutjanus cyanopterus S Large near rocks and reefs; small
often on mangrove-lined
coasts, least common of
shallow water species of WI.
Lutjanus griseus HF2 S-0 26.6 Various habitats (rock-mangrove).
Lutjanus jocu 0 20 3 Adults In reefs; young In estuaries and
coastal waters.
Lutjanus mahagoni + 0 15.2 Coral reef species in clear water.
Lutjanus synagris HF2 F Forms large aggregat~ons,
especially during the spawnlng
period. P
Table 3.1 continued Ul
0
Mangroves1 Coral beds1 and Offshore depth1 lim~t size*
Family Species estuaries reefs algal mats mudflats reef upper hm~t (m) Abundance Type (cm) Remarks
Lufianus vivanus HF2 >ZOO S Very common between 90 and 140 m,

near shelf edge; not a real reef
specles.
Ocyurus chtysurus V-T 17.7 One of the most common and active
shallow-water reef fishes of the
Caribbean.
Malacanthidae Malacanthus plurnieri Sand and rubble near reefs; only

shallow-water species of family in
West Atlant~c.
Megalopidae Tarpon atlanticus
Monacanthidae Aluterus rnonoceros

Aluterus schoepfii
Aluterus scripta
Cantherines rnacrocerus
Cantherines pullus Most common filef~shin WI
Monacanthus ciliatus Fish of vegetated areas.
Monacanthus tucker; v Smallest of WI f~lefishes
Stephanolepis setifer
Mugilidae Mugil curerna 25.4 Typical in murky waters (estuaries,

mangroves, lagoons) but also in
clear waters close to the surface.
Mulhdae Mulloidichthys rnartinicus HFly 16.5 Solitary or in small groups.

Pseudupeneus rnaculatus HFly v 13.7 Solitary, young in seagrass beds.
Muraenidae Enchelycore nigricans Mainly in very shallow water.

Echidna catenata Very shallow water beneath rocks;
feeds mainly on crabs.
Gyrnnothorax funebris HFI HFI Also in mangroves.
Gymnothorax vicinus HFI HFI Secretive.
Gyrnnothorax rniliaris HFI R Secretive.
Lycodontis rnoringa HFI v Most common moray in shallow water
in WI.
Myliobatidae Aetobatus narinari Coastal surface waters; visitor to

reefs; solitary or large schools;
feeds on bivalves (cockles,
oysters), sna~ls,shrimps, worms,
cephalopods, small fish.
Ogcocephalidae Ogcocephalus nasutus Occasionally on reefs
Ophichthidae Myrichthys breviceps May be observed in reefs; burrowing

in mud or sand.
continued
Table 3.1 continued A

Myrichthys ocellatus Feeds primarily on crabs; burrowing

in mud or sand.
Ophichtus ophis Burrowing in mud or sand.
Opisthognathidae Opisthognathus aurifrons

Opistognathus macrognathus
Opistognathus maxillosus Most common of family.
Opisthognathus whitehurstii
Ostraciidae Acanthostracion polygonius Least common trunk fish in WI.

Acanthostracion quadricornis
Lactophrys bicaudalis
Lactophrys trigonus Largest of genus.
Lactophrys triqueter
Pempheridae Pempheris schomburgk~ Nocturnal.

Pempheris poeyi Nocturnal.
Pomacanthidae Centropyge argi Not common in shallow water,

moderately common in 30 m
depth.
Holacanthus ciliaris HF1
Holacanthus tricolor HFI Clear reef areas.
Pomacanthus arcuatus + HFI Usually in palrs.
Pornacanthusparu HF1 Young are often cleaners
Pomacentridae Abudefduf saxatilis HFI

Abudefduf taurus HFI HFI Largest of WI pomacentrids.
Chromis cyanea H I F3 R
Chromis multilineata H I F3 R
Microspathodon chrysurus HFI Second in size to A. taurus; one of
most common reef fishes in WI.
Pomacentrus partitus R
Stegastes fuscus One of most abundant of all fish.
Stegastes leucostictus Very common.
Stegastes planifrons R Abundant.
Stegastes variabilis R Abundant.
Priacanthidae Heteropriacanthus cruentatus Nocturnal, solitary.

Priacanthus arenatus Nocturnal, occurs in small
aggregations.
Rachycentridae Rachycentron canadum Clear water reef areas; mainly
pelagic.
Scaridae Cryptotornus roseus

Nicholsina usta
Scarus coelestinus F (13.7) Second largest after S. guacamaia.
Scarus coeruleus 0 (13.7)
cn
continued... a
Table 3.1 continued fn
h)
Family Specles estuaries reefs algal mats mudflats reef upper limit (m) Abundance Type (un) Remarks
Scarus guacamaia HFly HFI Adults mainly on reefs, young

oflen in mangrove areas.
HFI Most common of genus in WI and
smallest of genus in Atlantic.
Scarus taeniopteros HFI
Scarus vetula HFI HFI One of the most common scarids
in WI reefs.
Sparisoma aurofrenatum HFI HFI + Young mainly in seagrass beds.
Sparisoma chrysopterum HFI HFI + Second in abundance to S. radians
in WI reefs.
Sparisoma radians HFI Smallest of genus.
Sparisoma rubripinne HFI HFI Most common of genus in inshore
portions of WI reefs.
Sparisoma viride HFI HFI Young in vegetated areas.
Sciaenidae Equetus lanceolatus H1F2 Found in deeper water than other

members of genus.
Equetus punctatus HF Largest of genus in WI; secretive
by day in reefs and usually
solitaly.
Odontoscion dentex H I F2 Nocturnal, hides in caves by day.
Pareques acuminatus HF Small groups; hides under rock
ledges by day.
Scombridae Euthynnus aletferatus Green shelf waters, forms compact

schools.
Scomberomorus cavalla F1,3 Largest of genus, midwater but
oflen near bottom.
Scomberomorus maculatus
Scomberomorus regalis HF Most common member of genus;
clear inshore waters.
Scorpaenidae Scorpaena brasiliensis HFI HFI

Scorpaena grandicornis HFI
Scorpaena inermis HFI HFI
Scorpaena plumieri HFI Largest and most common of
genus on shallow WI reefs.
Scorpaenodes caribbaeus HFI Common inshore fish but rarely
seen.
Serranidae Alphestes afer HFI Much more common in seagrass

beds than on reefs.
Cephalopholis cruentata HFI Most abundant on reefs with
ledges and caves.
Cephalopholis fulva HFI One of the most common groupers
on WI reefs.
Dermatolepis inermis HFI Secretive.
continued.
Table 3.1 continued

-
Diplectrum formosum HFI At the bases of reefs, known in WI

only from Cuba and islands of the
southern Caribbean.
Epinephelus adscensionis Most common in shallow water on
rocky bottom.
Epinephelus guttatus Most common of genus in WI.
Epinephelus itajara Largest of family.
Epinephelus morio Abundant in Florida and Gulf of
Mexico.
Epinephelus striatus One of the most important
commercial fishes of WI; young in
seagrass beds.
Hypoplectrus aberrans
Hypoplectrus chlorurus
Hypoplectrus nigricans Largest of genus.
Hypoplectrus puella Most common of genus in WI.
Mycteroperca bonaci Rare in Virgin Islands and Puerto
Rico, common in the Bahamas,
Cuba, Florida Keys and southern
Caribbean.
Mycteroperca cidi HFly Common inshore species at coast of
Venezuela and offshore islands,
juveniles over sand, larger >20 m
depth.
Mycteroperca interstitialis HFI HFI HFly Small- and middle-sized individuals
occur in mangrove-lined lagoons.
Mycteroperca microlep~s HFI Depth refers to catch on Campeche
Bank.
Mycteropercaphenax HFI Depth refers to catch on Campeche
Bank.
Mycteroperca rubra HFly HFI HFly Rare in the north, common to the
south; also common (especially
young) in mangrove-lined lagoons
Mycteroperca tigris HFI
Mycteroperca venenosa HF1 Most common species of genus
generally in WI.
Paranthias furcifer Feeds on zooplankton in midwater,
forms small schools.
Serranus dewegeri HFly Southern Caribbean; one of the most
abundant inshore fishes of rocky
bottom around islands off
Venezuela.
Serranus tabacarius
Serranus tigrinus Most common species of genus on
WI reefs but nowhere abundant.
Serranus tortugarum Small groups, hovering over a patch
of coral rubble or an old conch
shell.
cn
0
continued...
Table 3.1 continued

Sparidae Archosargus rhomboidalis HFI 7.6 Rare on coral reefs; more common
near mangroves and on vegetated
areas.
Calamus bajonado HFI HFI (17.7) Largest of genus; clear water; large
adults usually solitary.
Calamus calamus HFly HFly (17.7)
Calamus penna + (17.7)
Calamus pennatula HFI HFI T (17.7) Most common of genus in WI; young
in shallower waters.
Diplodus caudimacula HFI (17.7) Shallow, calm waters; young may
form aggregations.
Sphyraenidae Sphyraena barracuda HF3y HF3y 76.2 Openwater species; young in

aggregations, larger, solitary over
reefs.
Sphyraena picudilla HF2 HF2 Small schooling species, mainly over
seagrass beds; uncommon in VI.
Sphyrnidae Sphyrna lewini + + Young occur mostly in coastal waters;

feed on pelagic fish (including
smaller sharks and rays), squids,
crabs, sting rays.
Sphyrna tiburo HFI Often preyed upon by larger sharks;
feeds on crabs and shrimps, less
on clams, octopus and small
fishes.
Syngnathidae Syngnathus sp. +

Synodontidae Synodus foetens Not a reef fish.
Synodus intermedius Largest and most common of family in
WI.
Synodus synodus HFI
Tetraodontidae Canthigaster rostrata HFI HFI

Sphoeroides spengleri HFI HFI HFI Solitary.
Sphoeroides testudineus HFI HFI One of most common species in
mangrove areas and estuarine
coastlines; may form huge
aggregates.
Triakidae Mustelus canis Coastal waters, occasionally in fresh
water; on muddy bottom; feeds on
crabs, lobsters, small fish and
molluscs.
Table 3.2. Number of fishers and vessels in Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin
lslands l97O-l98l (reproduced from Table 6 in CFMC 1985).
Number of fishers Number of vessels

Year Puerto Virgin Puerto Virgin
Rico Islands Rico Islands
-:Data not available
Table 3.3. Relative importance of the different gear in the fisheries of the PRVl area (adapted
from Table 5 in CFMC 1985).
Puerto Rico (1980) US Virgin lslands (1979-1980)

Gear/ Number Catch Catch
product of units (t) %" (t) %a
Fish trap 12,586 1,268 42.0

Lobster pot 2,252 29 1.O
Fishnet
Beach seine 238 249 8.2
Gillnet 870 264 8.7
Castnet 827 19 0.6
Hookfish
Handline 2,391 635 21 .O
Troll line 2,057 209 6.9
Trotline 33 1 11 0.4
Spear 34 1 168 5.6
Hand 170 5.6
Hand lobster
Conch
Whelk
Total 3,022 100.0
"Percent of total catch from all gears
maculatus) and yellow goatfish (Mulloidichthys martinicus). Based on biostatistical surveys,

Jacobsen and Browder (1987) calculated that these 10 species contribute approximately 40% to
Virgin lslands landings, by weight, and 45% to Puerto Rico landings. Table 3.4 gives the
average annual catch per trap for Puerto Rico for three years. The landings per year were
divided by the total number of traps assuming that the number of hauls remained constant.
There was a decline in catchleffort for all the families listed.
Boulon (1986a) listed fish species and invertebrates of commercial importance in the Virgin
lslands Biosphere Reserve (Table 3.1). The only catch data available on over 50 individual
species are reported in Boulon and Clavijo (1986) based on a study of three commercial fishpot
fishers on St. John, US Virgin Islands, from January to June 1984.
Table 3.5. Estimated asymptotic length (Lm) and weight W
( ), of Caribbean reef fishes.
Family Species Source wm Source

-
Acanthuridae Acanthurus bahianus 25 FL Pauly (1978) Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Acanthurus chirurgus 33 FL Pauly (1978) Munro (1983)
Acanthurus coeruleus 32 FL Pauly (1978) Munro (1983)
Albulidae Albula vulpes 82 Beebe and Tee-Van (1928) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928),
Randall (1962, 1967. 1968)
Antennariidae Antennarios multiocellatus 15 (-) Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Antennarius striatus 15 1 Flguereido and Menezes (1977);
Randall (1962, 1967. 1968)
Apogonidae Apogon conklini 5 SLI Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Smith and Tyler (1972)
Apogon maculatus 10 1 Randall (1962. 1967, 1968) Smith and Tyler (1972)
Atherinidae Allanetta harringtonensis 8 1 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Atherinomorus stipes 9 + Randall (1962. 1967, 1968) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Aulostomidae Aulostomus maculatus 76 1 Randall (1962, 1967. 1968) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Balistidae Balistes capriscus 31 Johnson and Solomon (1984), Polovina and Ralston (1987)
Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Balistes vetula 45 FL Munro (1983); Randall (1962, Randall (1962, 1967. 1968)
1967, 1968)
Canthidermis sufflamen 56 + Randall (1962. 1967, 1968) Munro (1983)
Melichthys niger 36 Randall (1962 1967.19681
Xanthichthys ringens 25 Randall (1962; 1967: 1968)
Belonidae Ablennes hlans 87 Flscher (1978) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)

Platybelone argalus argalus 51 1 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Strongylura marina 64 Fischer (1978)
Strongylura bmucu 46 1 Randall (1962. 1967, 1968)
Tylosurus acus 135 SL Fischer (1978)
Tylosurus crocodilus 107 SL Flscher (1978)
Blenniidae Entomacrodusnigricans 85 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)

Ophioblennius atlanticus 12 1 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Parablenniusmarmoreus 8 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Scarfella cristata 11 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Bothidae Bothus lunatus 46 1 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)

Bothus ocellatus 18 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Paralichthystropicus 54 % Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Carangidae Alectis ciliaris 91 TLI Randall (1962, 1967. 1968) Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Caranx barfholomaei 81 TL Munro (1983) Munro (1983)
Caranx crysos 58 TL Munro (1983); Randall (1962. Munro (1983)
1967, 1968)
Caranx hippos 95 TL Munro (1983) Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Caranx latus 80 % Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Randall (1962,1967.1968)
Caranx lugubris 80 % Randall (1962,1967, 1968) Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Caranx ruber 56 % Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Munro (1983)
Decapterusmacarellus 35 SL Flscher (1978)
Decapteruspunctatus 32 Beebe and Tee-Van (1928) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Elagatis bipinnulatus 107 FL Fischer (1978) Fischer (1978)
Ol~goplitessaurus 31 FL% Fischer (1978) Flscher (1978)
Selar crumenophthalmus 40 TL Figuere~doand Menezes (1977). Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Randall (1962. 1967, 1968)
Selene vomer 50 TL Figuereido and Menezes (1977)
Seriola dumerili 194 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Figuereidoand Menezes (1977).
Fischer (1978); Randall (1962,
1967, 1968)
Seriola rivoliana 97 Fischer (1978) Flscher (1978); Randall (1962,
1967, 1968)
Trachinotus falcatus 105 FL Flscher (1978) Fischer (1978)
Trachinotusgoodei 50 Flguereido and Menezes (1977);
Flscher (1978); Randall (1962.
1967, 1968)
Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus acronotus 200 Lmax Fischer (1978)

Carcharhlnus falciformis 350 Lmax Flscher (1978)
Carcharhinus leucas 350 Lmax Fischer (1978) Clark and von Schmldt (1965)
Carcharhinus limbatus 247 Lmax F~scher(1978) Clark and von Schmidt (1965)
Carcharhinus longimanus 350 Lmax Fischer (1978)
Carcharhinus perezi 230 Lmax Fischer (1978)
Galeocerdo cuvier 457 Pauly (1978) Clark and von Schmidt (1965)
Negapnon brevirostris 284 Pauly and Palomares (1986) Collette and Nauen (1983)
Rhizoprionodon porosus lo7 Randall (1962, 1967. 1968) Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Chaetodontidae Chaetodon aculeatus 95 % Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Munro (1983)
Chaetodon capistratus 14.2 Munro (1983)
Chaetodon ocellatus 16.8 Munro (1983)
Chaetodon sedentanus 147 % Randall (1962, 1967. 1968)
Chaetodon striatus 15.8 Munro (1983) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
continued.
Table 3.5 continued
Source wm Source
(9)
Clrrhitidae Amblycirrhitus pinos 8 (SL) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928) Smith and Tyler (1972)
Clinidae Labnsomus nuchiplnnls 20 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Smith and Tyler (1972)
Clupeidae Harengula clupeola 18 % Figuereido and Menezes (1977)

Harengula humeralis 22 Randall (1962. 1967, 1968)
Jenkinsia lamprofaenia 68 % Fischer (1978)
Op~sfhonemaoglinum 26 % Fischer (1978) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Congridae Heteroconger halis 48 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Coryphaenidae Coryphaena hippurus 151 Pauly and Palomares (1986) Pauly and Palomares (1986)
Dactylopteridae Dactylopterus volitans 45 + Beebe and Tee-Van (1928);

Figuereido and Menezes (1977)
Dasyatidae Dasyafrs americana 300 F~scher(1978)

Urolophusjamaicens~s 76 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Diodontidae Chilomycterus antennafus 26.3 % Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Chilomycterus antiNarum 26.3 % Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Diodon holocanthus 51 Randall (1962, 1967. 1968)
Diodon hystnx 60 % Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Echeneidae Echeneis naucrates 85 % Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)

Remora remora 79
Elopidae Elops saurus 47 Pauly (1978) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Emmelichthyidae lnermia viffata 23 (SL)/ Randall (1962. 1967, 1968) Smith and Tyler (1972)
Engraulidae Anchoa hepsetus 15 Fischer (1978) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928);

Anchoa lyolepis 8 Fischer (1978); Randall (1962. Figuereido and Menezes (1977)
1967, 1968)
Anchoa mitchilli 10 Fischer (1978)
Anchoa parva 6 Fischer (1978)
Ephippidae Chaetodipterus faber 90 Flscher (1978), Randall (1962, Beebe and Tee-Van (1928);
1967, 1968) Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Exocoetidae Exocoetus volifans 18 1 Fischer (1978)
Fistularildae F~stulariatabacana I83 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Gerreidae Eucinostomus argenteus 30 % Flguereido and Menezes (1977)

Eucinostomus lefroyi
Gerres cinereus 40 Beebe and Tee-Van (1928), Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Flscher (1978), Randall (1962,
1967, 1968)
Ginglyrnostomatidae Ginglymosfoma cirratum 430 Fischer (1978) Figuereido and Menezes (1977)
Gobiidae Bathygobrussoporator 15 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)

Coryphopterus glaucofraenum 8 (SL) Randall (1962, 1967. 1968) Smith and Tyler (1972)
Gnatholepis thornpsonr 6 SLI Randall (1962. 1967. 1968) Smith and Tyler (1972)
Gobiosoma evelynae 5 (SL) Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Smlth and Tyler (1972)
Gobiosoma horsti 5 (SL) Randall (1962. 1967, 1968) Srnlth and Tyler (1972)
Grarnrnldae Gramma lorefo 8 + Randall (1962. 1967, 1968)

(Serranidae) Gramma melacara 10 - Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Ryptrcus saponaceus 29 5 (SL%) Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Sm~thand Tyler (1972)
Haemulldae An~sotremussunnamensrs 63 TL% Randall (1962, 1967. 1968) Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
(Pomadasyidae) Anisotremus virgrnrcus 30 I Randall (1962, 1967. 1968) Munro (1983)
Haemulon album 65 FL Pauly (1980) Munro (1983)
Haemulon aurolineatum 23 FL Munro (1983) Munro (1983)
Haemulon bonarrense 30 FL Munro (1983) Munro (1983)
Haemulon boschmae 19 1 Flscher (1978); Randall (1962.
1967, 1968)
Haernulon carbonarrum 38 % Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Munro (1983)
Haemulon chrysargyreum 24 % Randall (1962 1967 1968) Munro (1983)
Haernulon flavolrneatum 27 I Randall i1962: 1967: 1968) Munro (1983)
Haemulon macrostomum 45 % Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Haemulon melanurum 30 FL Munro (1983) Munro (1983)
Haemulon parrai 41 Randall (1962. 1967. 1968)
Haernulon plumierr 42 Munro (1983) Munro (1983)
Haemulon scrurus 41 % Randall (1962. 1967. 1968) Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Haemulon ste~ndachner~ 27 Randall (1962.1967.1968)
Haemulon striatum 28 Randall (1962, 1967,1968)
Olfhopristis chrysoptera 46 Darcy (1983), Fischer (1978) Darcy (1983)
Orthopnstis poeyr 24 Flscher (1978)
Olfhopristis ruber 33 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
continued...
Table 3.5 continued
Family Species kc Source

(cm)
Pomadasys corvinaeformis 25 Fischer (1978) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)

Pomadasys crocro 33 Figuereido and Menezes (1977)
Hemiramphidae Hemiramphus balao 40 Fischer (1978) Berkeley and Houde (1978)

Hemiramphus brasiliensrs 32.5 Pauly and Murphy (1982) Berkeley and Houde (1978)
Hyporamphus unifasciafus 27 Fischer (1978) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Holocentridae Holocentrus ascensionrs 37 TL% Randall (1962. 1967, 1968) Munro (1983)
Holocentrus coruscus 13 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Holocentrus rufus 32 Fischer (1978); Randall (1962. Munro (1983)
1967, 1968)
Myripristisjacobus 23 % Randan (1962, 1967,1968) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Neoniphon marianus 19 % Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Plectrypops refrospinis 13 Randall (1962, 1967. 1968)
Sargocentron vex~llariom 18 - Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Kyphosldae Kyphosus incisor 70 % Ranaal (1962 1967 1968) Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Kyphosus sectatnx 80 % Ranaal (1962 1967 1968) Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Labridae Bodianus rufus 40 Flscher (1978); Randall (1962, Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
1967: 1968)
Clepbcus parrae 25 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Halichoeres bivrttafus 23 % Randall 11962. 1967. 19681
Halichoeres garnob 19 Randall i1962: 1967: 1968) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Halrchoeresmaculipinna 11 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Halichoeres poeyr 20 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Halichoeres radratus 46 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Lachnolaimus maxrmus 86 % Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Randan (1962.1967, 1968)
Thalassoma bifascratum 17 Pauly (1978) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Xyrichtys novacula 23 % Randa l(1962 1967 1968)
Xyrichtys splendens 14 Randa l(1962 1967 1968)
Lutjanidae Apsilus dentatus 65 TLf Pauly (1980) Pauly (1980)

67 TLm Pauly (1980) Pauly (1980)
Lutjanus analis 74 FL% Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Randall (1962. 1967, 1968)
Lufjanus apodus 59 FL% Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Randall (1962, 1967. 1968)
Lutjanus buccanella 60 TLf Pauly (1980) Pauly (1980)
53 TLm Pauly (1980) Pauly (1980)
Lutjanus campeehanus 95 TL Polovina and Ralston (1987) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Lutjanus cyanopterus 160 F~scher(1978) Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Lutjanus grrseus 55 Pauly (1978) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Lutjanusjocu 83 % Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Lubanus mahagonr 40 % Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Luoanus synagris 43 FL% Munro (1983) Munro (1983)
Lutjanus vwanus 70 FL Munro (1983)
Ocyurus chrysurus 75 TL% Randall (1962, 1967. 1968) Munro (1983)
Pnstipomordes macrophthalmus 37 FL%rn Munro (I 983)
Rhomboplifes aurorubens 63 Polovlna and Ralston (1987)
Malacanthidae Malacanthus plumieri 61 1 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Megalopldae Tarpon atlanticus 250 Beebe and Tee-Van (1928);

Randall (1982,1967, 1968)
Monacanthidae Aluterus monoceros 61 + Randall (1962. 1967, 1968)

Aluterus schoepfi 51 I Ranoa ,1962 1967 1968) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Aluterus scripta 76 % Ranoa 1562 1967 19681 Randall (1962, 1967,1968)
Cantherhes macrocerus 44 % Randall i196z: 1967,1968)
Cantherinespullus 19 mean Randall (1962, 1967. 1968) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Monacanthus cfliatus 20 F~scher(1978) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Monacanthus tuckeri 10 % Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Smith and Tyler (1972)
Stephanoleprs setifer 19 % Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Mugilidae Mugil curema 38 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Mullldae Yullodchthys marfinicus 35 mean Pauly (1980) Munro (1983)

Pseudupeneus maculatus 28 1 Munro (1983); Randall (1962. Munro (1983)
1967. 1968)
Muraen~dae Enchelycore nigricans 100 F~scher(1978)

Echidna catenata 71 Randall (1962, 1967. 1968)
Gymnothorax funebrrs 190 F~scher(1978), Randall (1962, Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
1967, 1968)
Gymnothorax rnrlfaris 50 Figuereido and Menezes (1977); Smith and Tyler (1972)
Flscher (1987); Randall (1962,
1967, 1968)
Gymnothorax vicrnus 122 1 F~scher(1978); Randall (1962,
1967, 1968)
Lycodontis morrnga 100 Fischer (1978); Smith and 950 mean Beebe and Tee-Van (1928);
Tyler (1972) Smith and Tyler (1972)
Myllobatidae Aetobatus narinari 370 Len Fischer (1978) 230,000 F~guereidoand Menezes (1977)
280 Wid F~scher(1978)
continued...
61
Table 3.5 continued
Family Species Source Wm Source

(9)
Ogcocephalidae Ogcocephalus nasufus 28 1 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Ophlchthidae Myrichthys breviceps 91 + Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)

Myrichthys ocellatus 91 1 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Ophichtus ophis 135 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Opisthognathidae Opisthognathus aurifrons 10 - Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)

Opistognathus macrognathus 20 - Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Opistognathus rnaxillosus 13 1 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Opisthognathus whitehurstii 8 Randan (1962, 1967, 1968)
Ostraciidae Acanthostracion polygonius 41 % Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)

Acanthostracion quadncornrs 46 1 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Lacfophrys brcaudahs 45 Fischer (1978) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Lactophrys trrgonus 46 + Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Lacfophrys triquefer 30 Fischer (1978); Randall (1962, Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
1967, 1968) Smith and Tyler (1972)
Pernpheridae Pernpheris schornburgkr 15 Randall (1962,1967,1968)

Pernpheris poeyi 10 1 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Pornacanthidae Centropyge argi 7 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)

Holacanthus ciliaris 46 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Holacanfhus tricolor 36 % Munro (1983) Munro (1983)
Pornacanthus arcuafus 60 Flscher (1978); Munro (1983); Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Randall (1962. 1967, 1968)
Pornacanthus paru 43 % Randall (1962. 1967, 1968) Munro (1983)
Pomacentridae Abudefduf saxat;lis 20 Fischer (1978) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)

Abudefduf taurus 25 Flscher (1978)
Chrornis cyanea 13 I Beebe and Tee-Van (1928); Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Randall (1962, 1967,1968)
Chromrs rnultilrneata 20 SL Fischer (1978) Smlth and Tyler (1972)
Mrcrospathodon chrysurus 20 Flscher (1978) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Stegastes fuscus 15 1 Randall (1962,1967,1968) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Stegasfes leucostictus 10 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Stegastes planifrons 11 TL Pauly (1978) Srn tn and Tyler (1972)
Stegastes variabrlis 10 + Randall (1962, 1967. 1968) Sm lh ana Tyler (1972)
Pornatomidae Pornatomus saltator 115 Pauly (1978)
Priacanthidae Heteropriacanthus cruentatus 30 Randall (1962. 1967. 1968)

Priacanthus arenafus 40 Flscher (1978). Randall (1962, Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
1967, 1968)
Rachycentridae Rachycentron canadurn 160 Pauly (1978) Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Scaridae Cryptotornus roseus 13 0 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)

Nicholsina usta 31 % Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Scarus coelesbnus 80 % Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Randall (1962. 1967, 1968)
Scarus coeruleus 62 Pauly (1978) Randall (1962,1967, 1968)
Scarus guacarnara 99 % Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Scarus [serf, 20 FL Munro (1983) Munro (1983)
Scarus taeniopterus 35 FL Munro (1983) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Scarus vetula 54 SL% Randall (1962, 1967. 1968) Smith and Tyler (1972)
Sparisorna aurofrenafum 26 FL Munro (1983) Munro (1983)
Sparisorna chrysopterurn 42 FL F~scher(1978). Pauly (1978), Munro (1983)
Randall (1962. 1967, 1968)
Spansorna radians 20 % Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Sparisorna rubr;pinne 46 5 Pauly (1978) Randall (1962,1967, 1968)
Sparisorna vrrrde 50 FL Munro (1983) Munro (1983)
Sciaenidae Equetus lanceolatus 25 Flguereido and Menezes (1977) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Equetus punctatus 28 % Randall (1962. 1967, 1968) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Odontoscion dentex 25 Flguereldo and Menezes (1977) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Pareques acurninatus 24 mean Flguereldo and Menezes (1977),
Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Auxrs rocher 50 FL Flscher ( I 978)

Aux~s!hazard 50 FL F~scher(1978) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Euthynnus aletteratus 93 FL Collette and Nauen (1983) Collette and Nauen (1983)
Scomberornorus cavalla 137 FL Pauly (1978) Collette and Nauen (1983)
Scomberornorus maculatus 77 FL Collette and Nauen (1983) Collette and Nauen (1983)
Scomberomorus regalis 835 FL Collette and Nauen (1983) Collette and Nauen (1983)
Thunnus atlantrcus 90 Pauly (1978)
Scorpaenidae Scorpaena brasrhensis 36 I Randall (1962. 1967, 1968) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Scorpaena grandrcornis 18 1 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Scorpaena inerrnis >7 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Scorpaena plurnieri 43 I Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Scorpaenodes carrbbaeus 13 I Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Table 3.5 continued
Family Species Source '"40 Source

(9)
Serranidae Alphestes afer 33 Fischer (1978) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928);

Flguereido and
Meneses (1977)
Cephalopholiscruentata 34 Munro (1983) Munro (1983)
Cephalopholisfulva 34 Munro (1983) Munro (1983)
Derrnatolepis inerrnis 85 % Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Randall (1962. 1967, 1968)
Diplectrurn forrnosurn 31 Flscher (1978); Pauly (1978);
Randan (1962,1967,1968)
Epmephelus adscensionis 50 % Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Epinephelus gutfatus 58 % Randall (1962, 1967. 1968) Munro (1983)
Epinephelus rtajara' 228 % Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Randall (1962, 1967. 1968)
Epinephelus rnorio 71 Fischer ( I 978) Randall (1962,1967,1968)
Epinephelus striatus 100 Pauly (1978). Polovina and Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Ralston (1987)
Hypoplectrus aberrans 12 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Hypoplectrus chlorurus 13 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Hypoplectrus nigricans 15 Randall (1962, 1967,1968)
Hypoplectrus puella 13 SL Randan (1962,1967,1968) Randall (1962, 1967. 1968)
Mycteroperca bonaci 120 Polovlna and Ralston (1987) Figuereido and Menezes (1977)
Mycteroperca cidi 114 Randall (1962. 1967, 1968)
Mycteroperca interstitialis 70 Figuereldo and Menezes (1977); Figuereido and Menezes (1977)
Randan (1962,1967. 1968)
Mycteroperca microleprs 110 mean Pauly (1978); Polovina and
Ralston (1987)
Mycteroperca phenax 72 + Polovina and Ralston (1987) Fischer (1978)
Mycteroperca rubra 70 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Flscher (1978)
Mycteroperca tigrrs 102 Fischer (1978); Randall (1962, Randall (1962, 1967. 1968)
1967, 1968)
Mycteroperca venenosa 86 FL Munro (1983): Polovina and Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Rals!on (1987)
Paranthras furcifer 37 Polovina and Ralston (1987) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Serranus dewegeri 32 Randan (1962, 1967,1968)
Serranus tabacarios 18 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Serranus tigrinus 10 Randall (1962, 1967, 1968) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Serranus tortugarum 8 Randall (1962. 1967. 1968)
Archosargus rhomboidabs 35 Flguereido and Menezes (1977)

Calamus bajonado 64 Beebe and Tee-Van (1928) Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Cabrnus calamus 38 mean Beebe and Tee-Van (1928), Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
F~scher(1978), Randall (1962,
1967, 1968)
Calamus penna 50 % Flguereido and Menezes (1977)
Calamus pennatula 39 % Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Drplodus caudimacula 28 Flscher (1978)
Sphyraenldae Sphyraena barracuda I78 Pauly (1978), Randall (1962, Randall (1962, 1967. 1968)
1967, 1968)
Sphyraena picudilla 50 Flscher (1978)
Sphyrnidae Sphyrna mokarran 550 Flguereldo and Menezes (1977), 711,000 mean F~guereldoand Menezes (1977),
Randan (1962, 1967, 1968) Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Sphyrna lewrnr 420 Fischer (1978) 400.853 Figuereido and Menezes (1977);
Randall (1962. 1967, 1968)
Sphyrna f~buro 150 18,000
Synodontidae Synodus intermedrus 46 Randall (1962. 1967. 1968) 1, I 03 Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Synodus foefens 46 Randall ,1962 1967 1968, 1.100
Synodus synodus 33 Ranoa 1962 1967 1968, 400
Tetraodontldae Canthrgaster rosfrata 11 (SL) Randall (1962. 1967. 1968) 82 Smith and Tyler (1972)
Sphoeroides spenglen 15 F~scher(1978) 92 Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Sphoerordes testudrneus 30 Flscher (1978)
Triakidae Mustelus canis 150 1
Symbols: FL = fork length.

SL = standard length.
TL = total length.
Len = length
Wid = width.
f = female
m = male
mean = mean from several sources or several values in one source
1 = approxlmate asymptotic slze.
+ = rather more than recorded size
rather less than recorded size.
0 = 'reported' to reach the recorded size.
% = LmaxNVma, transformed into LNV by equatlon (2 5)1(2 6).
* = calculated with mean 'a' from similarly %zedspecies of genus or famrly
Table 3.6. Estimated average biomass of fish species in Virgin Islands reef environments.
Average Average Average

weight density biomass
Family Species (glind.) (Nm") (9m")
Acanthuridae Acanthurus bahianus

Acanthurus chirurgus
Acanthurus coeruleus
Albulidae Albula vulpes
Antennariidae Antennarius multiocellatus

Antennarius striatus
Apogonidae Apogon conklini

Apogon rnaculatus
Atherinidae Allanetta harringtonensis

Atherinornorus stipes
Aulostomidae Aulostornus maculatus
Balistidae Balistes capriscus

Balistes vetula
Canthiderrnis sufflarnen
Melichthys niger
Xanthichthys ringens
Belonidae Ablennes hians

Platybelone argalus
Strongylura timucu
Tylosurus acus
Tylosurus crocodilus
Blenniidae Entornacrodus nigricans

Ophioblennius atlanticus
Parablennius mamoreus
Scartella cristata
Bothidae Bothus lunatus

Bothus ocellatus
Carangidae Alectis ciliaris

Caranx bartholomaei
Caranx crysos (fusus)
Caranx latus
Caranx lugubris
Caranx ruber
Decapterus macarellus
Decapterus punctatus
Elagatis bipinnulatus
Oligoplites saurus
Selar crurnenophthalmus
Seriola dumerili
Seriola rivoliana
Trachinotus falcatus
Trachinotus goodei
Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus acronotus

Carcharhinus falciforrnis
Carcharhinus leucas
Carcharhinus lirnbatus
Carcharhinus longirnanus
Carcharhinus perezi
Galeocerdo cuvieri
Table 3.6 continued

Family Species (glind.) (NmS) (gm")
Negaprion brevirostris
Rhizoprionodon porosus
Chaetodontidae Chaetodon aculeatus

Chaetodon capistratus
Chaetodon ocellatus
Chaetodon sedentarius
Chaetodon striatus
Clinidae Labrisomus guppy;

Labrisomus nuchipinnis
Clupeidae Harengula clupeola

Harengula humeralis
Jenkinsia lamprotaenia
Opisthomema oglinum
Sardinella aurita
Congridae Heteroconger halis
Dactylopteridae Dactylopterus volitans
Dasyatidae Dasyatis americana
Diodontidae Chilomycterus antennatus

Diodon holocanthus
Diodon hystrix
Elopidae Elops saurus
Emmelichthyidae lnermia vittata
Engraulidae Anchoa hepsetus

Anchoa lyolepis
Ephippidae Chaetodipterus faber
Fistulariidae Fistularia tabacaria
Gerreidae Eucinostomus argenteus

Gerres cinereus
Ginglymostomatidae Ginglymostoma cirratum
Gobiidae Bathygobius soporator

Coryphopterus glaucofraenum
Gnatholepis thompsoni
Gobiosoma evelynae
Gobiosoma horsti
Grammidae Gramma loreto

Gramma melacara
Haemulidae Anisotremus surinamensis

Anisotremus virginicus
Haemulon album
Table 3.6 continued

Family Species (glind.) (NmS) (gm-?
Haemulon aurolineatum 1.26E-02 0.6186

Haemulon bonariense 1.25E-05 0.0012
Haemulon carbonarium 1.25E-04 0.0278
Haemulon chrysargyreum 1.38E-03 0.0894
Haemulon flavolineatum 1.5E-01 18.6000
Haemulon macrostomum 1.25E-05 0.0058
Haemulon melanurum 1.25E-05 0.0014
Haemulon parrai 1.25E-03 0.4075
Haemulon plumieri 1.51E-02 5.3089
Haemulon sciurus 3.88E-03 1.1858
Pomadasys corvinaeformis 1.25E-05 0.001 3
Pomadasys crocro 1.25E-05 0.0029
Hemiramphidae Hemiramphus balao

Hemiramphus brasiliensis
Hyporamphus unifasciatus
Holocentridae Holocentrus ascensionis

Holocentrus coruscus
Holocentrus rufus
Myripristis jacobus
Neoniphon marianus
Plectrypops retrospinis
Sargocentron vexillarium
Kyphosidae Kyphosus incisor

Kyphosus sectatrix
Labridae Bodianus rufus

Clepticus parrae
Halichoeres bivittatus
Halichoeres garnoti
Halichoeres maculipinna
Halichoeres poeyi
Halichoeres radiatus
Lachnolaimus maximus
Thalassoma bifasciatum
Xyrichtys novacula
Xyrichtys splendens
Lutjanidae Lutjanus analis

Lutjanus apodus
Lutjanus cyanopterus
Lutjanus griseus
Lutjanus jocu
Lutjanus mahagoni
Lutjanus synagris
Ocyurus chrysurus
Malacanthidae Malacanthus plumieri
Monacanthidae Aluterus schoepfii

Aluterus scripta
Cantherines macrocerus
Cantherines pullus
Monacanthus ciliatus
Monacanthus tucker;
Table 3.6 continued

Family Species (glind.) (Nm-2) (V")
Mugilidae Mugil curema
Mullidae Mulloidichthys martinicus

Pseudupeneus maculatus
Muraenidae Echidna catenata

Enchelycore nigricans
Gymnothorax funebris
Gymnothorax miliaris
Gymnothorax vicinus
Lycodontis moringa
Myliobatidae Aetobatus narinari
Ogcocephalidae Ogcocephalus nasutus
Ophichthidae Myrichthys breviceps

Myrichthys ocellatus
Ophichthus ophis

Opistognathus macrognatbus
Opistognathus maxillosus
Ostraciidae Acanthostracion polygonius

Lactophrys trigonus
Pempheridae Pempheris poeyi

Pempheris schomburgki
Pomacanthidae Centropyge argi

Holacanthus ciliaris
Holacanthus tricolor
Pomacanthus arcuatus
Pomacanthus paru
Pomacentridae Abudefduf saxatilis

Abudefduf taurus
Chromis cyanea
Chromis multilineata
Microspathodon chrysurus
Stegastes fuscus
Stegastes leucostictus
Stegastes planifrons
Stegastes variabilis
Priacanthidae Heteropriacanthus cruentatus

Priacanthus arenatus
Rachycentridae Rachycentron canadum
Scaridae Scarus coelestinus

Scarus coeruleus
Scarus guacamaia
Scarus iserti
Scarus taeniopterus
Scarus vetula
continued...
Table 3.6 continued

Family Species (glind.) (Nn2) (gm")
Sparisoma aurofrenatum
Sparisoma chrysopterum
Sparisoma radians
Sparisoma rubripinne
Sparisoma viride
Sciaenidae Equetus lanceolatus

Equetus punctatus
Odontoscion dentex
Paregues acuminatus
Scombridae Euthynnus aletteratus

Scomberomorus cavalla
Scomberomorus regalis
Scorpaenidae Scorpaena brasiliensis

Scorpaena grandicornis
Scorpaena inermis
Scorpaena plumieri
Scorpaenodes caribbaeus
Serranidae Alphestes afer

Cephalopholis cruentata
Cephalopholis fulva
Diplectrum formosum
Epinephelus adscensionis
Epinephelus guttatus
Epinephelus itajara
Epinephelus mono
Epinephelus striatus
Hypoplectrus nigricans
Hypoplectrus puella
Mycteroperca bonaci
Mycteroperca interstitialis
Mycteroperca rubra
Mycteroperca tigris
Mycteroperca venenosa
Paranthias furcifer
Serranus tabacarius
Serranus tigrinus
Serranus tortugarum
Sparidae Archosargus rhomboidalis

Calamus bajonado
Calamus calamus
Calamus pennatula
Diplodus caudimacula
Sphyraenidae Sphyraena barracuda

Sphyraena picudilla
Sphyrnidae Sphyrna lewini

Sphyrna tiburo
Synodontidae Synodus foetens

Synodus intermedius
Synodus synodus
Tetraodontidae Canthigaster rostrata

Sphoeroides spenglen
Triakidae Mustelus canis 3,870

Table 3.7. Estimated growth parameters and natural mortality (M) of Caribbean reef fishes; mean environmental temperature = 28°C.
Family Species Origin
Acanthuridae Acanthurus bahianus VI Pauly (1981)*

Jamaica Nicholson and Hartsuijker (1982)
Acanthurus chirurgus VI Pauly (1378)
Acanthurus coeruleus VI Pauly (1978)
Apogonidae Apogon conklini Pauly (1978)

Apogon cyanosoma Red Sea Pauly (1978)
Apogon maculatus Pauly (1978)
Atherinidae Allanetta harringtonensis Pauly (1978)

A therinomorus stipes Pauly (1978)
Balistidae Balistes capriscus Gulf of Mexico Johnson and Salomon (1984)

Balistes vetula Jamaica Munro (1983)
VI Pauly (1978)
Blenniidae Parablennius marmoreus Eyberg (1984); annual PIB ratio for the respective
genera
Scartella cristata Eyberg (1984); annual PIB ratio for the respective
genera
Bothidae Bothus lunatus Pauly (1978)

Bothus ocellatus Pauly (1978)
Carangidae Caranx ruber Jamaica Nicholson and Hartsuijker (1982)

Jamaica Munro (1983)
Jamaica Pauly (1980)
Decapterus macarellus Pauly (1978)
Decapterus punctatus Red Sea Pauly (1978)
Seriola dumerili Pauly (1978)
Seriola rivoliana Pauly (1978)

Pauly (1978)
Carcharhinus leucas
Pauly (1978)
Carcharhinus limbatus
Pauly (1978)
continued
Table 3.7continued
Galeocerdo cuvier Pauly (1978)

Negaprion brevirostris Pauly (1978)
Prionace glauca Pauly (1978)
Chaetodontidae Chaetodon aculeatus Ralston (1976);daily K * 365;4' for Chaetodon miliaris

Chaetodon capistratus Ralston (1976);daily K * 365;4' for Chaetodon miliaris
Chaetodon ocellatus Ralston (1976);daily K * 365;4' fpr Chaetodon miliaris
Chaetodon sedentarius Ralston (1976);daily K * 365;4' for Chaetodon miliaris
Chaetodon striatus Ralston (1976);daily K * 365;4' for Chaetodon miliaris
Clupeidae Harengula clupeola Hubold and Mazzetti (1982);4' computed from

Harengulajaguana
Harengula humeralis Hubold and Mazzetti (1982);4' computed from
Harengulajaguana
Sardinella aurita Pauly (1978)
Sardinella brasiliensis Saccardo (I983)
Coryphaenidae Coryphaena hippurus Florida Pauly (1978)

Florida Pauly (1978)
mean
Elopidae Elops saurus Cuba Pauly (1978)
Engraulidae Anchoa hepsetus Pauly (1978)

Anchoa lyolepis Pauly (1978)
Anchoa naso Ecuador Pauly (1978)
Ginglymostomatidae Ginglymostoma cirratum Pauly (1978)
Gobiidae Bathygobius soporator Pauly (1978)

Coryphopterus glaucofraenum Pauly (1978)
Gnatholepis thompsoni Pauly (1978)
Gobiosoma evelynae Pauly (1978)
Gobiosoma horsti Pauly (1978)
Gobiosoma robusturn Florida Pauly (1978)
Haemulidae Haemulon album Jamaica Munro (1983)
(Pomadasyidae) Jamaica Pauly (1980)
Haemulon aurolineatum Jamaica Nicholson and Hartsuijker (1982)
Haemulon flavolineatum Jamaica Nicholson and Hartsuijker (1982)
Haemulon plumier; Jamaica Munro (1983),Pauly (1980)

Table 3.7 continued

Haemulon sciurus Jamaica Munro (1983)
Hemiramphidae Hemiramphus brasiliensis Florida Pauly and Murphy (1982)
Holocentridae Holocentrus ascensionis Jamaica Munro (1983)

Holocentrus coruscus Pauly (1978)
Holocentrus diadama Red Sea Pauly (1978)
Holocentrus rufus Jamaica Munro (1983)
Neoniphon marianus Pauly (1978)
Sargocentron vexillarium Pauly (1978)
Labridae Thalassoma bifasciatum Florida Pauly (1978)
Lutjanidae Apsilus dentatus Jamaica 65 f Pauly (1980)

Jamaica 67 m Pauly (1980)
Lutjanus analis 74 FL Bannerot et aL(1987)
Cuba 81 TL Pozo (1979)
Florida 86 TL Polovina and Ralston (1987)
Lutjanus apodus Jamaica 63 TL Pauly (1980)
Lutjanus buccanella Jamaica 53 TL Pauly (1980)
Jamaica 60 Pauly (1980)
Lutjanus campechanus mean 95 TL Polovina and Ralston (1987)
Lutjanus griseus Cuba 51 FL Baez et al. (1980)
Florida 55 FLm Pauly (1978)
Lutjanus synagris Cuba 42 FL Pauly (1978)
Ceara 50 Pauly (1978)
Ocyurus chrysurus Jamaica 75 TL Munro (1983)
Southern Florida 45 FL Johnson and Attramadal(1983)
Jamaica 60 FL Munro (1983)
Jamaica 60 FL Pauly (1980)
69 TL Bannerot et al. (1987)
Rhomboplites aurorubens 63 Polovina and Ralston (1987)
Malacanthidae Malacanthus plumieri Pauly (1978)
continued..
Table 3.7 continued
L, K M
Family Species Origin (cm) year1 year1
Lutjanus synagris Cuba 42 FL Pauly (1978)

Ocyurus chrysurus Jamaica 75 TL Munro (1983)
Southern Florida 45 FL Johnson and Attramadal(1983)
Jamaica 60 FL Munro (1983)
Jamaica 60 FL Pauly (1980)
69 TL Bannerot et al. (1987)
Rhomboplites aurorubens 63 Polovina and Ralston (1987)
Malacanthidae Malacanthus plumieri 61 1 Pauly (1978)
Megalopidae Tarpon atlanticus Ceara 263.3 FLf Ferreira de Menezes and Pinto Paiva (1966)
Ceara 206.2 FLm Ferreira de Menezes and Pinto Paiva (1966)
Mugilidae Mugil curema 38 Pauly (1978)

53 Alvarez-Lajonchere (1981)
Mullidae Mulloidichthys martinicus Jamaica 30 Nicholson and Hartsuijker (1982)

Jamaica 33 Nicholson and Hartsuijker (1982)
Jamaica 35 Munro (1983)
Pseudupeneus maculatus Jamaica 25 f Munro (1983)
Jamaica 27 m Munro (1983)
Jamaica 29 Nicholson and Hartsuijker (1983)
Pomacanthidae Holacanthus ciliaris 46 Pauly (1986, Table 2; + for Holacanthus bemudensis)

Holacanthus tricolor 36 Pauly (1986, Table 2; + for Holacanthus bemudensis)
Pomacanthus arcuatus Jamaica 41 Nicholson and Hartsuijker (1983)
Jamaica 47 Pauly (1978)
Jamaica 60 Munro (1983)
Pomacanthusparu 43 Based on +' of Pomacanthus arcuatus
Pomacentridae Stegastes fuscus 15 1 Meekan (1988); mortality of 24%lmonth for

Pomacentrus sp. modified into an annual
exponential rate
Stegastes leucostictus 10 Meekan (1988); mortality of 24%lmonth for
Pomacentrus sp.
Stegastes planifrons 10.2 f Pauly (1981)
11.6 m Pauly (1981)
Stegastes variabilis 10 + Meekan (1988); mortality of 24%lmonth for
Pomacentrus sp. modified into an annual
exponential rate
continued... 2
Table 3.7continued -I
h)
L, K M
Family Species Origin (cm) year1 year1 Sourcea
Pomatomidae Pomatomus saltator Cape Cod, 115 Pauly (1978)

Gulf of Maine
Rachycentridae Rachycentron canadum Chesapeake Bay 134 Pauly (1978)

I60 Pauly (1978)
Scaridae Scarus coeruleus VI Pauly (1978)

Scarus guacamaia VI Pauly (1978)
Scarus taeniopterus Jamaica Munro (1983)
Scarus vetula VI Pauly (1978)
Sparisoma aurofrenatum Jamaica Nicholson and Hartsuijker (1982)
Sparisoma chrysopterum VI Pauly (1978)
Sparisoma rubripinne VI Pauly (1978)
Scombridae Scomberomorus cavalla Ceara 116 Pauly (1978)

Scomberomorus maculatus Florida 77 FL Pauly (1978)
Scomberomorus regalis 83.5FL Pauly (1978)
Thunnus atlanticus Cuba 78 Pauly (1978)
Florida 90 Pauly (1978)
Scorpaenidae Scorpaena brasiliensis 36 1 Pauly (1978)
Scorpaena grandicornis 18 1 Pauly (1978)
Scorpaena guttata California 35 Pauly (1978)
Scorpaena plumieri 43 1 Pauly (1978)
Scorpaenodes caribbaeus 13 1
Serranidae Cephalopholis cruentata Jamaica Polovina and Ralston (1987)

Cura~ao Polovina and Ralston (1987)
Cephalopholis fulva Jamaica Munro (1983)
Jamaica Pauly (1980)
Diplectrum forrnosum Florida Pauly (1978)
Epinephelus guttatus Jamaica Munro (1983)
Jamaica Computed with ELEFAN, based on length-frequency
data in Munro (1983)
Epinephelus morio Florida 67 Polovina and Ralston (1987)
Mexico 93 Polovina and Ralston (1987)
Epinephelus striatus Jamaica 90 Munro (1983)
VI 97 Polovina and Ralston (1987)
VI 110 Pauly (1978)
continued...
Table 3.7 continued
Mycteroperca bonaci Polovina and Ralston (1987)

Mycteroperca microlepis Florida Polovina and Ralston (1987)
Mycteroperca phenax Florida Polovina and Ralston (1987)
Mycteroperca venenosa Jamaica Munro (1983)
Jamaica Polovina and Ralston (1987)
Paranthias furcifer Gulf of Mexico Polovina and Ralston (1987)
Serranus tabacarius Bouain (1983); mean 6' computed from three species of
Serranus tigrinus Bouain (1983); mean 6' computed from three species of
genus
Serranus tortugarum Bouain (1983); mean 6'computed from three species of
genus
Sphyraenidae Sphyraena barracuda Florida Pauly (1978)

Sphyrnidae Sphyrna tiburo Pauly (1978)
Triakidae Mustelus canis Pauly (1978)
"For values of M andlor K [when M was computed by equations (2.9), (2.10) and (2.15)].
Symbols:
FL = fork length.
SL = standard length.
TL = total length.
f = female.
m = male.
VI = Virgin Islands.
* = computed with equation (2.15).
** = computed via 6 or 6'[equations (2.9) or (2.10)] and equation (2.15).
> = MIK divided by K or Kmean from other source.
I = approximate asymptotic size.
+ = rather more than the recorded size.
- = rather less than the recorded size.
() = 'reported' to reach the recorded size.
Table 3.8. Estimated food consumption of Caribbean reef fishes. Q/B values represent mean population consumption of the corresponding
species; mean environmental temperature = 28°C.
Food Aspect wm QIB QIBl

Family Species type ratio (g) (%BWD) (year- )



Apogon maculatus
Atherinidae Allanetta hamngtonensis

Atherinomorus stipes
Aulostomidae Aulostomus maculatus

Balistes vetula
Canthidermis sufflamen
Melichthys niger
Belonidae Platybelone argalus argalus

Strongylura timucu
Blenniidae Entomacrodus nigricans

Scartella cristata

Bothus ocellatus

Caranx bartholomaei
Caranx crysos (fusus)
Caranx hippos
Caranx latus
Caranx lugubris
Caranx ruber
Oligoplites saurus
Selar crumenophthalmus
Seriola dumerili
Trachinotus goodei

Carcharhinus falciformis
Carcharhinus leucas
Carcharinus leucas
Carcharhinus longimanus
Carcharhinus perezi
Galeocerdo cuvier

continued...
75
Table 3.8 continued
Food Aspect wm QIB

Family Species type ratio (9) WWD)
Chaetodon striatus
Clinidae Labrisomus nuchipinnis

Harengula humeralis
Jenkinsia larnprotaenia
Opisthonema oglinum
Diodontidae Chilornycterus antennatus

Diodon holocanthus
Diodon hystrix
Echeneidae Echeneis naucrates

Remora remora
Emmelichthyidae lnemia vittata
Engraulidae Anchoa lyolepis

Gerres cinereus
Ginglymostomatidae Ginglymostorna cirratum

Ginglymostorna cirratum
Gobiidae Coryphopterus glaucofraenum

Gobiosoma evelynae
Grammidae Gramrna loreto

(Serranidae) Gramrna rnelacara

(Serranidae)
Haemulidae Anisotrernus surinamensis

(Pomadasyidae) Anisotremus virginicus
Haemulon album
Haemulon aurolineatum
Haernulon bonariense
Haemulon carbonarium
Haernulon chrysargyreum
Haernulon flavolineatum
Haemulon rnacrostomum
Haemulon melanurum
Haemulon parrai
Haemulon plumieri
Haemulon sciurus
continued
Table 3.8 continued
Food Aspect "'L QIB QIBl

Haemulon steindachneri
Haemulon striatum
Orthopristis chrysoptera
Orthopristis ruber


Holocentrus rufus
Myripristis jacobus
Neoniphon marianus

Kyphosus sectatrix

Clepticus parrae
Halichoeres garnoti
Halichoeres poeyi
Xyrichtys novacula
Xyrichtys splendens

Lutjanus apodus
Lutjanus carnpechanus
Lutjanusgriseus
Lutjanus jocu
Lutjanus rnahagoni
Lutjanus synagris
Ocyurus chrysurus
Monacanthidae Aluterus monoceros

Aluterus schoepfii
Aluterus scripta
Cantherines pullus
Monacanthus tucken'

Muraenidae Enchelycore nigricans

Echidna catenata
~ ~ m n o t h o r amiliaris
x
continued...
Table 3.8 continued

Family Species type ratio (9) (%BWD) (year- )
Gymnothorax vicinus
Lycodontis moringa

Ophichtus ophis

Opistognathus maxillosus

Lactophrys trigonus
Pernpheridae Pempheris schomburgki

Pomacanthus paru VI
Pomacanthus paru Jamaica
Pornacentridae Abudefduf saxatilis

Abudefduf taurus
Chromis cyanea
Stegastes fuscus


Scarus coeruleus
Scarus guacamaia
Scarus iserti
Scarus taeniopterus
Scarus vetula
Sparisoma radians
Sparisoma viride

Equetus punctatus
Odontoscion dentex
Pareques acuminatus
Scornbridae Euthynnus aletteratus

continued ..
Table 3.8 continued


Scorpaena plumieri

Cephalopholis fulva
Dermatolepis inermis
Diplectrum formosum
Epinephelus itajara
Epinephelus morio
Hypoplectrus puella
Mycteroperca bonaci
Mycteroperca cidi
Mycteroperca phenax
Mycteroperca rubra
Mycteroperca tigris
Paranthias furcifer
Serranus dewegeri
Serranus tabacarius
Serranus tigrinus
Serranus tortugarum

Calamus bajonado
Calamus calamus
Calamus penna
Calamus pennatula

Sphyraena picudilla

Sphyrna tiburo
Sphyrna tiburo
Synodontidae Synodus intermedius

Synodus foetens
Synodussynodus

Sphoeroides spengleri
Triakidae Mustelus canis
Symbols: * = assumed value.

VI = Virgin Islands.
S = aspect ratio from Table 1 in Pauly et al. (1993).
3.2. Nonfish Taxa
3.2.1. Ecology, Fisheries and Management
Although I assumed a coral reef ecosystem without fishing activities, which was realistic
when Randall investigated food habits of West Indian reef fishes in 1967, some information on
fisheries and management were included here to give an idea of later developments.
Boulon (1986b) gave a short description of spatial occurrence of the three commercially
most important invertebrates in the Virgin Islands Biosphere Reserve:
Adults of Strombus gigas, the queen conch, are found from grass and mud-bottom mangrove
embayments out to deep (10 m+) algal plains. They are most often found in beds of seagrass
(Thalassia testudinum, Syringodium filiforme, or a mixture of both), but are also found on sand
flats. Juvenile conch are generally found in shallower water and in areas of less dense seagrass.
Young conch may be restricted in their movements in thick beds of seagrass.
Cittarium pica, the West Indian topshell, is primarily found in rocky, coastal habitats, from
slightly above the water level to several feet below. They appear to prefer coasts that are subject
to at least some wave action. The smaller individuals tend to be found higher up in the habitat
range of this species with larger, mature individuals being found in deeper (1-2 m)subtidal
bedrock or upper fore-reef zones.
Panulirus argus, the spiny lobster, appears to be most abundant near reef-grassflat
boundaries. Juveniles were found in mangroves and Thalassia habitats. In the reef habitat,
lobsters are primarily found in dense grass beds (?) where they spend the daylight hours. At
night, they forage for food either on the reef or on adjacent algal plains.
Mahon (1987) gave a summary on ecology, fisheries and management of "shared fishery
resources of the Lesser Antilles region". The only invertebrates discussed therein are queen
conch and spiny lobster; the former is stated to be "the second most valuable resource in the
Caribbean as a whole", while "conch stocks throughout the Caribbean region are considered to
be fully or overexploited".
In Puerto Rico, all conch production is consumed locally. The west coast dominates the
fisheries with landings averaging 68.2 t during the early and mid-1970s, and increasing to 189 t
in 1982. Price per pound rose from US$0.5 in 1975 to USW.37 in 1984, with a total worth for
the latter year of $628,350, thus, making conch one of the country's most commercially
important species."
Inshore populations were noticeably reduced by the mid-1970s, when fishing pressure on
deepwater areas increased. In the population off La Parguera, Puerto Rico, fishing mortality is
estimated to be 68% (F = 0.4 year1). The conch fishery is classified as "overfished".
A directed, commercial conch fishery exists on St. Croix, US Virgin Islands. St. Thomas and
St. John are less fished because conch occur deeper and farther from shore. In 1982,9.7
conch.ha-I and 1.58 * l o 6individuals were estimated for St. ThomasISt. John, and 7.6 conch.ha-
and 0.26 * l o 6 individuals for St. Croix. Primary fishing grounds for conch in the US Virgin
Islands are the west and northwest coasts of St. Croix and the south shelf on St. Thomas. The
conch resources in the US Virgin Islands are classified as "overfished".
"All monetary figures are in US$, unless otherwise stated.

Queen conch are harvested primarily by free and scuba diving. The regulations that have
been enacted or proposed to reduce fishing pressure include: a minimum size limit on shell
length (e.g., 18 cm), shell diameter, lip thickness or meat weight (e.g., 225 g market weight),
seasonal closures, total closures, prohibitions on the use of scuba and on export.
In Puerto Rico, total spiny lobster landings decreased from 133.58 t in 1983 to 112.62 t in
1985, and the market value decreased from $1.04 * to $0.92 * I 0-'j. For 1985-1986,
approximately 20% of lobsters sampled were less than 76 mm carapace length (CL) as
compared to 16% for 1984-1985. Regulations include a minimum CL of 89 mm; no capture of
berried females; prohibition on the use of spears, hooks and drugs, poisons or explosives; and
the use of degradable panels on lobster traps.
In the US Virgin Islands, estimated domestic landings were 22.7 t in 1975; this rose to 74 t
in 1979, but the 1982 estimate was 45.4 t. Only 50% of lobster catches are assumed to be
reported, which hinders reliable determination of stock size. Depletion of spiny lobster stocks is
indicated by declining average size and the necessity for fishers to travel longer distances to the
fishing grounds. Regulations are the same as for Puerto Rico.
Indications on the commercial importance of other nonfish taxa, such as shrimps and
turtles, were not found. lndications on their ecology, however, were found in general zoology
textbooks and in the references assembled for construction of their diet composition matrix (see
below).
3.2.2. Abundance and Mean Individual Weight
While assembling the ECOPATH II input parameters for nonfish taxa, a number of
estimates of abundance and weight per individual could be identified (Table 3.9).
3.2.3. Biomass, P/B Ratio and Food Consumption
Table 3.10 shows the complete database of the three ECOPATH II key input parameters for
the 41 nonfish taxa originating from stomach contents records of West Indian reef fishes
(Randall 1967). Following is a brief description on the origin of every range or single value, in
form of 135 numbered statement^":^
1. To assess total system net primary productivity (NPP), a selection of published values of
coral reef gross and net PP was compiled from various sources (Table 3.11). Emphasis was put
on information from the Caribbean Sea. Available values for distinct parts of the community
were related to their corresponding subsystem(s) (mangrove, seagrass bed, sand flat, coral
reef, algal plain). A mean NPP (in gCm-2year1)was computed for every subsystem and from
these again a mean total system NPP of ca. 1,200 gCm-2year1(= 20,000 gm-2year1WW,
conversion: carbon = 6% of WW) was obtained. Compared to overall NPP for coral reefs
worldwide (e.g., in Lewis 1981 and Hatcher 1990, see Table PP), the value obtained by the
above-described procedure for a Virgin Islands reef system seemed high. This value, however,
was strongly influenced by the high NPP estimates reported for parts of the algal community by
Connor and Adey (1977) for the Virgin Islands. The uncertainty of the estimate of total system
NPP is critical since this value is a direct measure of the carrying capacity of the system. The
reliability of this parameter has a strong impact on the degree of similarity in terms of size
(biomass) between the real system and the model.
bThe number corresponding to each statement may also be found in Table 3.10.
Table 3.9. Abundance (Nm-Z)and mean individual live weight (g) of some nonfish taxa from Caribbean reefs and other areas.
Nonfish group Abundance Source Mean weight Source

(Nm-2) ( g ~ / I )
Sponges Beets and Lewand (1986)b Wilkinson (1987)"

Wilkinson (1987)l
Sea fans (Gorgonacea) Beets and Lewand (1986)b
(Octocorallia, Anthozoa)
Sea anemones Beets and Lewand (1986)b
(Actiniaria, Zoanthidea,
Hexacorallia and Anthozoa)
Gastropods Beets and Lewand (1986)b
Bivalves Beets and Lewand (1986)b
Octopuses Beets and Lewand (1986)b Guerra (1979)"
Polychaetes Beets and Lewand (1986)b Naim and Amoureux ( I 982)h
Amphipods Berry (1982)" Berry (1982)"
lsopods (fish parasites) Schwinghamer et al. (1986,
Table 1)'
Shrimps Beets and Lewand (1986)b
Spiny lobsters Beets and Lewand (1986)b Munro (1983)'
Munro (1983)s
Scyllarid lobsters Beets and Lewand (1986)b
Crabs Beets and Lewand (1986)b
Ophiuroids Beets and Lewand (1986)b
Echinoids Bak et al. (1984)a Sambilay et al. (1990)'
Beets and Lewand (1986)b
Weil et al. (1984)k
Holothurians Berry (1982)d Berry (1982)d
Ascidians (Tunicata) Beets and Lewand (1986)b
Sources:
F r o m Table 1 in Bak et al. (1984), an average density of 2.1 individuals per mZwas computed for Diadema antillarum in Cura~ao,
Netherlands Antilles.
bBeets and Lewand (1986, Tables 1-4) mdicated density values (individuals m-2)for five phototransects of a US Virgin Islands reef area.
The area covered was 0.5 m on either side of the transect line. Values in Table DMWNFG represented means for five transects.
"Berry (1982,in Table 1) reported a mean density for amphipods (several species) on the OR1 reef, Natal province, South Africa, of 516
individuals per mZ ; live weight is 1-3.5 g m ~ (conversion:
2 DW=25% of WW). Mean weight per individual is 4.5 mg.
dBerry (1982), in Table 1, gave a mean density of 15 individuals per m2and a biomass equivalent to 55.1 kJm-2for holothurians on the
OR1 reef, Natal province, South Africa. 1 kJ corresponds to 1.08 g WW; mean individual live weight is 3.96 g.
'Guerra (1979) gave growth estimates for Octopus vulgaris (in the Mediterranean) which yielded a WI of 10,850 g. Wmean was com-
puted from equation (2.12).
'Munro (1983) recorded a mean h e weight of 58.7 g for individual Panulirus guttatus around Jamaica.
gMunro (1983) reported a biomass of 63-119 kgkm2 and a density of 290-550 individuals per kmz for P argus in Jamaican waters.
Hence, mean individual live weight is 217 g.
hNaim and Amoureux (1982) gave a maximum polychaete density of 1,900 individuals m-2= 11 g m ~for > a coral reef in Moorea, French
Polynesia. Me'an weight per individual is 5.8 mg.
'Pauly et al. (1993b) for Caribbean D. antillarum.
ischwinghamer et al. (1986, Table 1).
kWeil et al. (1984); mean density of D. antillarum for several coral reefs in Venezuela.
IWilkinson (1987, Table 1) indicated density values for Caribbean reef sponges of 7.37 individuals m-2(0 5 km distance from land) and
7.60 individuals m-2(5 km distance from land).
"With density and biomass values from Table 1 in Wilkinson (1987), a range of mean weight of 86-184 glindividual was calculated for
Caribbean reef sponges.
Table 3.1 0. Database of ECOPATH II key input parameters of nonfish groups for Caribbean coral reef models; QIB = annual consumption1
unit biomass, PIB = productionlbiomass ratio.
Net primary production (NPP) of overall system: 20,000 (15,000-25,000) g m-2year1WW(seetext statement no. 1)
Export of benthic producers from system: 480 gm-2year1WW(seetext statement no. 2).
Biomass Source QIB Source PIB Source

Nonfish group (gm-2WW) (TSN) (year1) (TSN) (year1) (TSN)
Detritus, POM, DOM
Epilithic and endolithic algae
Reef turf algae
Benthic fleshy algae
Macroalgae
Benthic algae
Spermatophytes
Benthic autotrophs
(excluding symbionts)
Symbiotic algae
(zooxanthellae, filaments)
Benthic autotrophs
Phytoplankton
Bacterioplankton
Benthic bacteria
Foraminifera
Decomposerslmicrofauna
Zooplankton
Sponges
Fire corals
(Millepora, Hydrozoa)
Sea fans (Gorgonacea)
Sea anemones (Actiniaria and
Zoanthidea, Hexacorallia,
Anthozoa)
Stony corals (Scleractinia)
Corals
Bryozoans
Sipunculid worms
Priapuloids
Chitons
Gastropods
Bivalves
Scaphopods
Molluscs
(excluding Cephalopods)
Squids
Octopuses
Polychaetes
Echiuroids
Pycnogonids
continued
Table 3.10 continued
Biomass Source Q/B Source P/B Source

ID Nonfish group (gm-Z'-"M4 (TSN) (year') (TSN) (year1) (TSN)
Barnacles
Stomatopods
Amphipods
Tanaids
lsopods (fish parasites)
Small crustaceans
Shrimps
Spiny lobsters
Scyllarid lobsters
Hermit crabs
Crabs
Lobsters and crabs

Crustaceans
Hemichordates
Asteroids
Ophiuroids
Echinoids
Holothurians
Echinoderms
Ascidians (Tunicata)
Sea turtles
Sea b~rds
Symbols: I = invertebrates.
A = autotrophs. R = reptiles.
B = birds. TSN = text statement number.
D = detritus. = assumed value.
Table 3.11. Primary productivity of coral reefs and components; GPP = gross primary production, NPP = net primary production, P/R
= productionlrespiration ratio.
Community Geographical
component location GPPa NPPa PIR Source
Overall system Tropics Hatcher (1990, Fig.1)

Overall system Tropics Lewis (1981)
Overall system Tro~ics Lewis (1981. Table 1);
median of reefs with PIR > I
Overall system Puerto R~co,
El Mario reefs Odum et at. (1959)
Fore reef Tropics Hatcher (1990, Fig.1)

Reef flat - reef crest Tropics Hatcher (1990, Fig 1)
Reef flat - back reef Tropics Hatcher (1990. Fig 1)
Sand sheet and shallow Tro~ics Hatcher (1990, Fig.1)
patch reefs
Water over algal plains, Hatcher (1990, Fig.1)

seagrass meadows
Surface pelaglc waters Virgin lslands Jacobsen and Browder (1987);
mean from Table 51
Lagoon Joyuda Lagoon,

Puerto Rico Owen and Tilly (1985)
Lagoon British West
Indles, Bimini Odum and Hoskin (1958)
Corals Tropics Hatcher (1990, Fig.1)

Gorgonacea Florida Kanwisher and Wainwright (1967)
Scleractinia Florida Kanwisher and Wainwright (1967)
Acropora palmata Virgin lslands Rogers and Salesky (1981)
A. palmata Virgin lslands Gladfelter et a1 (1977)
Benthic algae PRVI area Stanhope (1 980)

Coralline algae Troplcs Hatcher (1990, F1g.1)
Corallinaceae Cura~ao Wanders (1976a)
Algal turfs Tropics Hatcher (1990. F1g.1)
Algal turfs Vlrgm lslands Rogers and Salesky (1981)
Reef turf algae PRVI area Carpenter (1985)
Macroalgae - reef flat Tropics Hatcher (1990, Fig.1)
Macroalgae - lagoon Tropics Hatcher (1990, Fig.1)
Macroscopic algae Virgln lslands Rogers and Salesky (1981)
Microalgae Tropics Hatcher (1990, F1g.1)
Fleshy and filamentous algae Cura~ao Wanders (1976a)
Fleshy and filamentous algae Virgln lslands Connor and Adey (1977)
Algal Vlrg~nlslands Connor and Adey (1977)
Sargassum platycarpurn Cura~ao Wanders ( I 976b)
Halimeda Jamaica Hillis-Collnvaux (1974)
Seagrass Tropics Hatcher (1990, Fig.1)

Turtle grassbed Florida, Long Keys Odum (1957)
Turtle grassbed Puerto Rico, West
La Gata reef Odum et at. (1959)
Turtle grassbed Puerto Rlco, lsla
Magueyes Odum et at. (1959)
Thalassia Barbados Patr~quin(1973)
Thalassia Cuba Buesa (1974)
Thalassia Florida Odum (1957)
Thalassia Jamaica Greenway (1974)
Thalassia Puerto Rico Burkholder et at. (1959)
"gCm-2.year')
b(gCg.yearlDW).
Values adjusted to annual production
2. From Table 2 in Zieman et al. (1979), total export of primary producers from Virgin
Islands seagrass meadows was calculated as follows:
Item Unit Value

Combined surface and bedload export (g day-' DW) 162,000.000
Export area (m2) 620,000.000
Daily export (g m-Zday~lDW) 0.261
Annual export (g m~zyear'
DW) 95.370
Export in live weight (g rrzyear1WW) 477.000
Conversion: DW = 17.5% of WW.
Annual export of benthic producers amounted to around 480 g live weight m-2.
3. Detritus standing stock was calculated by applying equation (2.13). A gross PP of 3,000
gCm-2year1(mean from overall system values in Table PP) and an approximate euphotic depth
of 40 m (personal observatiqn) yielded a detritus standing stock of 195 gCm-2which was around
2,000 gm-2WW.Conversion: C = 10% of W W for organic material.
4. 21.5 gCm-2was the average algal biomass (mean of highest and lowest value) from Fig.
5 in Klumpp and McKinnon (1989) for an epilithic algal community (EAC) on Davis Reef, Great
Barrier Reef, Australia. Conversion: C=6% of WW.
5. In Klumpp and McKinnon (1989), the range of gross production of the above (no. 4) EAC
was 1.705-2.511 gCm-2day-'for the reef flat and 1.114-1.716 gCm-2day-1for the reef slope. An
average annual production of 662 gCm-2was calculated (highest + lowest value12) which
resulted in a PIB ratio of 30.8 when divided by an average biomass of 21.5 gCm-2(see no. 4).
6. Carpenter (1985) reported a biomass of 19.0 gm-2DWfor reef turf algae in the PRVl
area. Live weight was 109 gm-2with a conversion of 17.5%.
7. A biomass of 1,022.1 gm-2DWwas obtained for benthic fleshy algae on a Caribbean
Porites furcata reef from Table 2 in Glynn (1973). Conversion: 17.5% of WW.
8. Biomass for macroalgae was derived from a value of 71.27 gm-2DWin Table 3 in
Dominguez and Alcolado (1990) for macroalgae in the Gulf of Batabano, Cuba. Conversion: DW
= 17.5% of WW.
9. From Tables 8-12 in Odum and Odum (1955), an average biomass for benthic algae
(excluding symbiotic algae in corals) of 490 gm-2DWwas calculated. Conversion: DW = 17.5%
of WW.
10. Stanhope (1980) gave a biomass of 4.3-11.7 gm-2DWfor benthic algae associated with
coral reefs in the PRVl area. Converted into live weight, the biomass was 55-164 gm-2(DW =
17.5% of WW).
11. A mean standing crop of 142 gm-2DWwas assessed by Gonzalez-Liboy (1979) for turtle
grassbeds (Thalassia testudineum) for seven sites off La Parguera, Puerto Rico. DW-WW
relationship was assumed to be 17.5%. This live weight was only valid for one subsystem, so
the calculated value of 811 g was divided by 5. This procedure was applied in cases where the
distribution of an organism was clearly limited to a specific subsystem.
12. Zieman et al. (1979, in Table I ) indicated a daily production of 2.7 gm-2DWand a
standing crop of 77 gm-2DWfor a turtle grassbed (Thalassia testudineum) in the US Virgin
Islands, which resulted in an annual PIB ratio of 12.8. Production and standing crop for the
seagrass Syringodium filiforme were 0.32 gm-2day-1DWand 5.8 gm-2DW,respectively, which
yielded an annual PIB ratio of 20.1.
13. A mean daily turnover (= PIB * 100) of 3.63% was assessed by Gonzalez-Liboy (1979)
for the above turtle grassbeds. Annual turnover (= PIB) was thus 13.25 (3.63 * 3.65).
14. A mean standing crop of 1,513 gm-2WWfor benthic autotrophs, excluding symbiotic
algae (zooxanthellae and filamentous algae), was estimated from biomass values of different
components described in nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
15. A weighted (by biomass) mean annual PIB ratio of 13.5 for benthic autotrophs was
estimated from nos. 5, 12 and 13, and an assumed annual P/B ratio of 12.5 for benthic algae,
benthic fleshy algae and macroalgae (see no. 21).
16. From Table 4 in Odum and Odum (1955), an average dry weight for symbiotic algae
(zooxanthellae and filaments) of 0.063 g ~ mwas - ~ obtained. Conversion DW-WW was 17.5%.
Since the calculated live weight of 3,600 gm-*was only valid for the reef zone, and few or no
corals grow in the other subsystems included in the model, the value was divided by 5. The
resulting biomass of 720 S ~ - ~ W wasWincreased to 730 gm-2WWto account for zooxanthellae
biomass in foraminiferans (see no. 35).
17. A PP for corals of 281-3,723 gCm-2year1was read off Fig. 1 in Hatcher (1990). A mean
production of 33,366 gm-2year1WW(conversion: C = 6% of WW) and a biomass of 3,600 gm-
2WWfor symbionts resulted in an annual PIB of 9.3.
18. From Kanwisher and Wainwright (1967), an average gross primary productivity of 2,200
gCm-2year1was obtained for Gorgonacea (sea fans) and Scleractinia (stony corals). Applying a
conversion of C = 6% of WW and a symbiont biomass of 3,600 gm-2WW,the resulting PIB ratio
was 10.2 year1.
19. Production of zooxanthellae was indicated with 10 kcalm-2day-1 in Fig. 2 in Sorokin
(1987) which is 3,650 gm-2year1WW.When zooxanthellae biomass is around 220 S ~ - ~ W W
(Odum and Odum 1955, Table 4; conversion DW = 17.5% of WW), annual PIB is 16.6.
20. Odum and Odum (1955) estimated a mean standing stock of benthic producers of 703
S~-~D with
W a low standard deviation, i.e., the biomass seemed to be evenly distributed over
the reef regardless of species composition. A conversion of DW = 17.5% WW resulted in a live
weight biomass of ca. 3,500-4,000 gm-2for benthic autotrophs.
21. Odum and Odum (1955) indicated an annual ratio of 12.5 for gross PP to standing
stock of benthic autotrophs for the Eniwetok atoll reef.
22. Weighted (by biomass) mean annual PIB ratio for benthic autotrophs and symbiotic
algae was 13.0.
23. Chlorophyll-a concentrations per depth range of pelagic waters in Great Cruz Bay, St.
John, Virgin Islands, were given in Table 52 in Jacobsen and Browder (1987). The median was
0.37 mgChl.-am-2.A conversion factor of Chl.-a to phytoplankton carbon of 6% was determined
from Table 1 and Fig. 5 in Knoppers and Opitz (1984). Assuming a conversion of 6% for carbon:
WW resulted in a biomass of 0.102 gm-2WWfor phytoplankton.
24. Margalef (1971) gave a phytoplankton biomass range of 0.7-5.0 g Cm-2for the
northeastern Caribbean. This, transformed into wet weight, yielded a range of 11.7-83 g
(Carbon = 6% of WW).
25. Jones (1963) indicated a phytoplankton production of 307 gCm-2year1 = 5,117 gm-2
yearlWW (conversion C = 6% of WW) for a Florida patch reef. Assuming a P/B ratio of 70
(Polovina 1984b) yielded a biomass of 73 gm-2WW.
26. All estimates with this source number in Table 3.10 were adopted from Polovina
(1984b).
27. Sorokin (1987) reported 0.2-0.5 gm-3as range for bacterioplankton biomass. An
assumed mean water depth of 10 m resulted in a value of 2-5 gm-2bacterioplankton standing
stock.
28. A daily consumption of 10 k c a h 2was read off Fig. 2 in Sorokin (1987) for bacterioplankton.
A conversion of 1 kcal = 1 g live weight and a biomass of 2-5 gm-2yielded a daily consumption of
286% of body weight (% BWdayl) and an annual QIB of 1,043.
29. Lewis (1981, Table 3b) presented values for production and biomass of bacteria in the
water column above various coral reefs. From these values, a mean annual PIB ratio of 267 can
be calculated.
30. Production of bacterioplankton was 3 kcalm-2day-1 in Fig. 2 in Sorokin (1987). Divided by
a biomass of 3.5 gm-2,this resulted in an annual P/B ratio of 313 (1 kcal = 1 gWW).
31. Odum and Odum (1955) calculated a biomass of 0.1 gm-*for bacteria on reef
substrates.
32. Sorokin (1987) gave a biomass range of 0.2-1.7 gm-2for benthic bacteria as an average
for coral reefs.
33. Sorokin (1987), in Fig. 2, gave a ration of 20 kcalm-2day-1 = 20 gm-2WWfor demersal
microflora on coral reefs. Based on an average biomass of 1 gm-2(0.2-1.7 gm-2,no. 32), the
annual consumption was 7,300 *BW.
34. From Table 3a in Lewis (1981), a mean annual PIB ratio of 155 was calculated for
bacteria in coral sediments.
35. A value for organic tissue of foraminiferans was obtained as follows:
a. 31.4 g was the mean foraminiferan biomass of a four-year sampling period in the Gulf
of Batabano, Cuba (based on Table 4 in Gomez et al. 1980).
b. Odum and Odum (1955, Table 12) reported an ash-free DW of 48 gm-2for
foraminifera and an AFDW:WW conversion of 86.5% for this component of the
decomposers on the Eniwetok reef atoll, South Pacific. Thus foraminiferan wet weight
was 55.5 gm-2.
c. From Table 2 in Glynn (1973), a biomass of 135.6 gm-2DWwas obtained for
foraminiferans on a Caribbean P furcata reef. A conversion of 86.5% (Odum and Odum
1955) yielded a live weight of 157 gm-2.
d. A mean foraminiferan biomass of 81 gm-2WWwas computed from a, b and c. Odum
and Odum (1955) gave a loss on ignition for foraminiferans of 13.5% per individual.
Organic tissue of foraminiferans is assumed to approximately represent the difference
between dry weight and wet weight, so that the main component of dry biomass consists
of the calcareous skeleton. Like coral polyps, foraminiferans, in Caribbean coral reefs,
cover their metabolic requirements largely through the activity of symbiotic microalgae
(zooxanthellae). These autotroph organisms are assumed to represent 80-90% of the
organic tissue of foraminiferans (Prof. Rijttger, Department of Microbiology, University
Kiel, pers. comm.). Hence, isolated organic tissue of foraminiferans was reduced to 1
gm-2WW.
36. Annual PIB ratio of foraminiferans (no. 37) is about ten times the PIB ratio of corals.
Their functioning as an ecological unit resembles that of corals: both have a calcareous skeleton
and symbiotic zooxanthellae which supply a considerable part of the ration - ca. 40% of
photosynthesis C,, is transferred to the animal (Drits et al. 1987). Considering the much smaller
size of foraminiferans and therefore a higher metabolism, I assumed their QIB to be at least ten
times that of corals. Hence, annual consumption should not be < 30 *BW.
37. Hallock (1981) reported carbonate turnover rates for foraminiferans of 11-16 times per
year for Palau, Western Caroline Islands and of 7-11 times for Hawaii due to slower growth
rates and the absence of the family Calcarinidae. Species composition of Caribbean reef
foraminiferans was not known; an average annual PIB ratio of 10 was assumed.
38. Sum of foraminifera (1 gm-2),benthic bacteria (0.9 gm-2)and bacterioplankton (3.5 gm-2)
39. Consumption, computed via the combined daily ration of 30 kcalm-2day1,for
bacterioplankton and demersal decomposers (Fig. 2 in Sorokin 1987) was 556% * 3.65 = 2,028*
year2BW based on a wet biomass of 5.4 gm-2and a conversion of 1 kcal = 1 gWW.
40. Mean weighted (by biomass) annual PIB ratio for microfauna (bacterioplankton, benthic
microflora and foraminifera) was 220.
41. Sorokin (1987) reported a range of 0.5-3 gm-3for zooplankton biomass on coral reefs;
based on an assumed average water depth of 10 m, the biomass was thus 5-30 gm-2.
42. Sorokin (1987) in Fig. 2 gave a consumption of 2.5 kcah2day1for reef zooplankton. For an
average biomass of 18 gm-2,daily consumption was 13.9% BW and annual Q/B was 50.1.
43. Glynn (1973, in Table 2) reported a sponge biomass of 11.8 gm-2DWfor a P furcafa reef
in the Caribbean. A conversion of DW = 30% of WW yielded a wet biomass for sponges of 39.3
gm-2.A 22.5% wet mass was subtracted for inorganic skeletal material (D. Barthel, IfM, Kiel,
pers. comm.). The organic weight was 30.5 gm-2.
44. Wilkinson (1987, in Table I ) gave a biomass value of 1,353.8 gm-2WW(0.5 km distance
from land) and 654.2 gm-2(5 km distance from land) for sponge populations around St. Croix,
US Virgin Islands. Subtracting 22.5% for inorganic skeletal material yielded a range of organic
wet weight of 507-1,049 gm-2.
45. Wilkinson (1987) reported a consumption of 0.084 gCm-2day-1for a Great Barrier Reef
sponge biomass of 98.3 gm-2WW= 76.2 gm-2of organic wet weight. A conversion of carbon to
live weight of 10% yielded a daily sponge consumption of 1.I % BW. Thus, sponges consumed
4.02 times their body weight per year. This value might underestimate consumption of
Caribbean sponge populations. Sponges in the Pacific show a much higher infestation with
autotrophic symbionts (Cyanophyceae) than species in the tropical Atlantic; metabolites of these
symbionts are consumed directly by the sponge host, as those of symbiotic zooxanthellae by
the coral polyp (see Wilkinson 1987).
46. Weight-at-age data for the Caribbean sponge Pseudocerafina crassa were read off Fig.
1 in Wilkinson and Cheshire (1988). The slope of a semilogarithmic plot from these data yielded
an annual production rate of 2.97, indicating that an individual would treble its initial biomass in
one year. When assuming a low natural mortality of 10% year1 and exponential growth, an
annual PIB ratio of 1.7 can be obtained as a crude preliminary estimate.
47. A biomass value of 16.52 gm-2DWwas adopted from Table 12 in Alcolado (1990) for
calculating a gorgonian standing stock. Dry weight was converted to live weight (22.5%) and
yielded 73.4 gm-2.From this value, 5% was subtracted for zooxanthellae biomass (see Table 4
in Odum and Odum 1955). The resulting animal biomass was divided by 5 to account for its
occurrence in only one subsystem.
48. Yoshioka and Yoshioka (1990) reported an average annual survival rate of 92% for
gorgonians at La Parguera, Puerto Rico. From this value, an exponential rate of total mortality Z
= M = 0.08 year1 can be computed. This corresponds to an estimate of PIB (see Allen 1971).
49. Glynn (1973) in Table 2 gave a biomass of 1.Igm-*DWfor zoanthids on a Caribbean P
furcafa reef. With a conversion of DW = 17% of WW, the live biomass was 6.5 gm-2.Divided by
5 to account for the subsystems' effect led to a live weight of sea anemones of 1.3 gm-2.
50. A weight range of 60.1-160 gm-2DWfor stony corals was taken from Fig. 8 in Martinez-
Estalella and Alcolado (1990a). This value originated from a coral reef area near the lsla de la
Juventud at the southern margin of the Gulf of Batabano, Cuba. Conversion of DW = 22.5% of
W W resulted in a live weight of 267-711 gm-2.Martinez-Estalella and Alcolado (1990a) did not
mention if their coral biomass values were reduced for plant material (symbiotic zooxanthellae
and filamentous algae). If not, the stony coral animal live weight decreased to 107-285 gm-2
(animal tissue ca. 40% of plant tissue, subpolyp zone not included; see Odum and Odum 1955,
Table 4). Accounting for the subsystem effect, the final animal biomass for stony corals was
21.4-57 gm-2WW.
51. Odum and Odum (1955, in Table 4) gave a biomass of animal tissue in corals of 0.021
g~m-~D =w933.3 gm-2WW(DW = 22.5% of WW). Accounting for the subsystems effect, the live
weight of corals for the representative area in the models was 933.315 = 187 gm-2.
52. Sorokin (1987, his Fig. 2) gave a consumption value from reef system components
(excluding supply by symbiotic algae) of 8.2 kcalm-2day-1 for coral polyps and sea anemones,
and 1 kcal was assumed to equal 1 gWW. A biomass of 1,000 gm-2for stony corals (calcareous
skeleton and symbionts excluded) and sea anemones (see nos. 49 and 51) yielded a daily
consumption of 0.825% BW and an annual QIB of 3.0. When consumption was based on an
average biomass of 200 gm-2(no. 50), the annual consumption mcreased to 15 *BW.
53. Production of coral polyps and sea anemones was given as 1 kcalm-2day-1in Fig. 2 of
Sorokin (1987). This value yielded an annual PIB ratio of 0.365 based on a biomass of 1,000
gm-2WWand 1.825 with a biomass of 200 gm-2WW(conversion Ikcal = 1 gWW).
54. Dahl (1973) in Table 2 gave a live weight of 2.3 g for 0.25 m2of a coral reef and sand
habitat in Puerto Rico.
55. Glynn (1973) in Table 1 gave a slpunculid dry weight of 0.9 gm-2for a Caribbean /?
furcata reef area. Applying a conversion factor for polychaetes (DW = 20% of WW) yielded a
live biomass of 4.5gm-2.
56. Berry (1982), in Table I , gave for polychaetes a dry biomass range of 1.5-2.3 gm-2DW
which was a live weight of 7.5-11.5 gm-2WWwhen a conversion of DW = 20% of W W was
applied.
57. Horn (1986), in Table 4, gave an average dry biomass of 3.3 gm-2and 5.4 gm-2(sum of
somatic tissue and shell organics) for two populations of Chiton pelliserpentis on a New Zealand
high- and lowshore habitat. A conversion of DW = 18% of WW (mean of several gastropod
species; for chitons, no value was available) yielded an average live biomass of 18.4 gm-2
(highshore) and 30.2 grm2 (lowshore).
58. Based on values in Glynn (1973), an average dry biomass of 55 gm-2was computed for
chitons from two reef-boring polyplacophores (Chiton tuberculatus, Florida reef, 41 gm-2and
Acanthopleura granulata, Puerto Rico reef, 69 gm-*).A live biomass of 306 gm-2was obtained
by an 18% DW:WW conversion for gastropods. This occurred in only one subsystem, so the
average live weight was 61 .Igm-2.
59. In Table 7, Horn (1986) gave an average consumption of 471 (highshore) and 1,521
(lowshore) kJm-2year1for Chiton pelliserpentis. If 18.6 kJ corresponded to 1 gDW of somatic
tissue and 23.9 kJ to 1 gDW of shell organics, annual consumption for chitons was: highshore,
7.2 * BW and lowshore, 16.2 * BW (average biomass: highshore, 3.3 gm-2DWand 5.4 gm-2DW,
lowshore; see no. 57). Both values are rather low for an herbivorous animal.
60. Horn (1986) gave an annual mortality rate of 22.9% for highshore and 34.3% for lowshore
chitons. These values were transformed into exponential rates of natural mortality M = 0.26 and
0.42 year1, respectively; M was set equal to PIB (Allen 1971).
61. A dry biomass of 60-80 g for gastropods from Fig. 19 in Martinez-Estalella and
Alcolado (1990b) was converted into live biomass = 38.9 gm-2with a conversion of DW = 18% of
WW.
62. Huebner and Edwards (1981) gave a daily feeding rate of 1.28% BW for the gastropod
Polinices duplicatus. The annual rate was 1.28 * 3.65 = 4.7 * BW.
63. Riddle et al. (1990) in Table 5 gave a consumption for infaunal gastropods (>2.0 mm)
from Davies Reef Lagoon, Great Barrier Reef, Australia, of 277 kJm-2year1.Biomass was
indicated with 0.748 gCm-2.QIB was then 7.7 year1 (conversion: 1 gC = 48 kJ).
64. Deslous-Paoli et al. (1985) gave an energy budget for the gastropod Crepidula fornicata
in the basin of Marennes-Oleron, France: average biomass for an individual representative of
the population was equivalent to 1.87 kJ and the annual consumption was 20.08 kJ per
individual. QIB was thus 10.74 year1.Adjusted for temperature (V = 1.465 when T'= 15"C), the
consumption increased to QIB = 15.7 year1.
65. From Table 3 in Carefoot (1970), gross conversion efficiencies (K,) for two seahares
(Aplysia dactylomela and A. juliana), fed on various species of algae, were computed. A mean value
of b = 0.0204 (see Pauly 1986) and an annual consumption of 56.4 *BW was computed using
growth parameters for the seahare Dolabella auricularia from Pauly and Calumpong (1984): W, =
490 g, K = 0.9 year1,to= -0.23 year1 and b = 3. Natural mortality M = I.6 was estimated through
equation (2.15). The computations were executed with the MAXIMS software.
66. Berg and Olsen (1989) gave an average natural mortality rate M of 0.1 year1for the
abundant queen conch (Strombus gigas) in the PRVl area; this was set equal PIB.
67. Riddle et al. (1990, in Table 5) gave a PIB ratio for gastropods (>2 mm, mean weight =
50.5 mgll) of 2.5 year1.
68. All estimates of PIB ratio with this statement number in Table 3.10 were obtained from
Table 1 in Schwinghamer et al. (1986). Each PIB ratio in Table 3.10 represented the average of
all estimates listed for a taxon in Schwinghamer et al. (1986); their PIB ratios were assembled
from temperate and boreal areas.
69. A dry biomass of 60.1-170 g 1 for bivalves from Fig. 20 in Martinez-Estalella and
Alcolado (1990b) was converted to a live biomass of 60-170 gm-2with a conversion of DW =
10% of WW.
70. Salzwedel (1980) gave an energy budget for an "average" Tellina fabula population in
the German Bight, North Sea, of mean biomass = 60 kJm-2and consumption = 290 kJm-2year1,
at a temperature of about 10°C. Annual QIB for T. fabula was thus 4.8. This value was adjusted
for temperature to a consumption of 9.5 yearl*BW with a factor of 1.88. (T = 28"C, T' = 10°C).
71. Riddle et al. (1990, in Table 5) gave a consumption for infaunal bivalves (>2.0 mm) from
Davies Reef Lagoon, Great Barrier Reef, Australia, of 657 kJm-2year1.Biomass was indicated
with 1.443 gCm-2.Annual QIB was then 9.5 (conversion: 1 gC = 48 kJ).
72. The daily rations for three species of bivalves (Mytilus edulis, Modiolus modiolus and
Arctica islandica) were calculated as follows: filtration rates were determined from equations in
Moehlenberg and Riisgard (1979) and multiplied by an average organic content of 0.16 mgl-I of
seawater. The parameter b and QIB values were computed with MAXIMS (Jarre et al. 1990).
The growth constant K was obtained from Appendix 4 in Vakily (1992). Wmax in the filtration
experiments of Moehlenberg and Riisgard were assumed to be 86% of Wmof the three species.
M was assumed to equal K, as is commonly done in bivalves. The average annual QIB of the
three species was adjusted for temperature. Table 3.12alb shows the parameters used for the
computation of annual QIB for bivalves.
Table 3.12a. Parameters used to estimate annual QIB of some bivalves.
-
Mytilus edulis Modiolus modiolus Arctics islandica
Size (gDW)
Volume filtered (I day-I)
Daily ration (gDWday-l)
Daily ration (%)
wmWW
K = M (year1)
b
a
Table 3.12b. Consumption of some bivalves

73. In Salzwedel (1980), biomass for T. fabula in the
- German Bight was 60 kJm-2and production was 81 kJm-
-
QIB QIB 2year1.The resulting PIB ratio was 1.35 year1.

Species (% BWD) (year1)
74. Berry (1982, in Table I ) gave a biomass
Mytilus edulis 5.8 21 .O equivalent of 6,702.5 kJm-2for organic tissue of a Perna
Modiolus modiolus 2.8 10.4
Arctica islandica 5.3 19.3 perna population on the Oceanographic Research
Mean 4.6 16.9 Institute (ORI) Reef, Natal Province, South Africa.
Adjusted (V = 1.724) 7.9 29.1
Production was 25,458 kJm-*year1.Annual PIB was thus
3.8.
75. A dry biomass of 66-200 g IOm2for molluscs from Fig. 18 in Martinez-Estalella and
Alcolado (1990b) was converted to a live biomass of 47-143 gm-2.A mean conversion for
gastropods and bivalves of DW = 14% of WW was applied.
76. Glynn (1973) in Table 2 gave a dry biomass of 59.4 gm-2for molluscs on a Caribbean F?
furcata reef. This corresponded to a live biomass of 424.3 gm-2when DW = 14% of WW.
77. Pauly et al. (1993b) estimated an average daily consumption of 4.56% BW for squids
as an ecological group. Annual QIB was thus 16.6.
78. Abolmasova (1985) reported a daily consumption of 13.8-5.7% of body weight from
feeding experiments with captive squid Sthenoteuthis oualaniensis of 20-70 g body weight.
Experimental temperature was 29-30°C. The value of 5.7% was assumed to pertain to a 70 g
animal and used to calculate an annual consumption of 20.8 * BW for tropical squids.
79. From Table 10.6 in Longhurst and Pauly (1987) and Table 8 in Pauly et al. (1993b),
various annual rates of natural mortality M for squids were obtained:
Species M(yearl) Source
Loligo duvauceli 1.50 Longhurst and Pauly (1987)

Sepioteuthis lessoniana 1.10 Longhurst and Pauly (1987)
Loligo duvauceli
and Loligo opalescens 1.58 Pauly et al. (1993b)
Sepioteuthis lessoniana
and lllex illecebrosus 0.85 Pauly et al. (1993b)
M was assumed to equal PIB, therefore, a range of 0.85-1.58 year1was accepted for squids.
80. From Beets and Lewand (1986), an octopus density for a Virgin Island reef area of 0.01
individuals m-2(mean of Tables 1-4) was obtained. From growth estimates in Guerra (1979) and
from equation (2.12), a medium-sized individual of Octopus vulgaris was calculated to weigh
2,800 g The resulting live biomass was 28 gm-2WW.
81. Two species of octopus ( 0 . vulgaris and 0. briareus) were identified as prey items of
fish diets on West Indian reefs (see Appendix Table 8.5.2). For 0. vulgaris, annual population
consumption was computed as follows: From Table 3 in Smale and Buchan (1981), estimates
for gross conversion efficiency (K,) and b were obtained for females and males separately (see
Table 3.13a). With MAXIMS (Jarre et al. 1990), annual QIB was then computed using growth
parameters from Guerra (1979) (Table 3.13b). Age at size 0 (to)and natural mortality M were
obtained from equations (2.11) and (2.16), respectively. Annual QIB was then adjusted for
temperature (Table 3 . 1 3 ~ ) .
82. From growth parameters in Guerra (1979), an annual natural mortality rate M of 1.09
was calculated for 0. vulgaris (Wm= 10,850 g, K = 0.72 year1, T = 28°C). M was assumed to
equal PIB.
83. Buchan and Smale (1981) gave an annual PIB ratio of 3.33 for female and 2.78 for
male 0. vulgaris on the OR1 Reef, Natal Province, South Africa. The mean was 3.06 year1.
84. Lewis (1981) calculated an average biomass of 0.19 gCm-2(= I.9 gm-2WW)for
polychaetes in coral clumps on reefs in the Bahamas and off South Florida from data in Vittor
and Johnson (1977).
85. Naim and Amoureux (1982) gave a maximum polychaete density of 1,900 individuals =
11 gm->for a coral reef in Moorea, French Polynesia.
Table 3.13a. Conversion efficiencies of 0. vulgaris (Smale and Buchan, 1981 modified).
No. Days Diet Initial Final Mean Change in Food K, P

ind weight weight weight weight ~ntake
(9) (g) (g) (g) (9)
Females
1 84 R+M
2 77 M
3 97 M
4 70 R+M
5 194 R+M
6 138 R+M
7 81 R+M
8 53 R+M
9 55 R+M
10 58 R+M
11 25 M
12 196 R+M
13 31 M
14 98 R+M
Mean females
Males
1 83
2 278
3 91
4 94
5 I58
6 127
7 139
8 36
9 112
10 lo6
11 112
Mean males
Mean of all values 0.2078

- -
M = mussels, R = rock lobster

Table 3.13b. Parameters used to estimate consumption of 0.
vuloaris.
Parameter (unit) Source
Guerra (1979)
Guerra (1979)
Largest individual of Srnale
and Buchan (1981)
w, (s) Set value
K (year1) Guerra (1979)
to (year') Equation (2.11)
b Guerra (1979)
P Table 3.13a
M (year1) Equation (2.16)
T ("C) DHI (1967)
T' ("C) Smale and Buchan (1981)
v Pauly et al. (199313)
Table 3 . 1 3 ~ Consumption
. and maintenance ration of 0. vulgaris
at 28°C.
Q/B Rm QIB Rm
Temperature (% BWD) (% BWD) (yeari) (*BWyearl)
86. Ibarzabal (1990, in Fig. 15) gave a biomass value of > 2 gm-2DWfor polychaetes in an
area near the lsla de la Juventud, Cuba. Applying a conversion of DW = 20% of WW, the
minimum live weight was 10 gm-2.
87. Kohn and Lloyd (1973) estimated biomass of polychaetes on coral reefs in the Eastern
Indian Ocean of 2-6 gm-2DW(ca. 20 gm-2WW).
88. Glynn (1973, in Table 2) gave a dry biomass of 6.7 gm-2for polychaetes in a Caribbean
P furcafa reef area. Allowing for DW = 20% of WW yielded a live weight of 33.5 gm-2.
89. Riddle et al. (1990, in Table 5) reported the following consumption rates and PIB ratios
for polychaetes in Davies Reef Lagoon, Great Barrier Reef, Australia:
Feeding type Size Biomass Consumption P/B Q/Ba

(mgCrn~z) (kJrn->year1) (year1) (year')
Macrophagous >2mm 124 73 2.6 12.3

0.5-2mm 71 126 10.3 40.0
Microphagous > 2 rnrn 217 157 3.3 15.1
0.5-2mrn 224 373 8.5 34.7
aConsurnption148/biornass (IgC = 48 kJ).
A weighted (by biomass) mean annual QIB of 24.2 with a PIB ratio of 5.8 could thus be
calculated for polychaetes as an ecological group.
90. From Table 1 in Pamatmat and Findlay (1983), a mean daily ration for the polychaete
Capifella capitafa of 27% BW was determined. Annual QIB for animals of 45-167 mgWW was 99.
91. Berry (1982, in Table 1) gave a dry biomass range for two species of Cirripedia on the
OR1 Reef, Natal Province, South Africa, of 8.74 to 20.46 gm-2(calcareous shells excluded).
Allowing for a conversion DW = 25% of W W (mean for various small crustaceans) resulted in a
live biomass range of 35.4-82.8 gm-2.
92. Berry (1982, in Table 1) gave a dry biomass range for amphipods (several species) of
0.28-0.92 gm-2which corresponded to a live biomass of 1.I-3.5 gm-* (conversion 1:4).
93. Riddle et al. (1990, in Table 5) gave a biomass of 0.086 gCm-2and a consumption of 69
kJm-2year1for crustaceans in Davies Reef Lagoon, Great Barrier Reef, Australia, of 5.32 mg (>2
mm length) mean body weight. Annual QIB was thus 16.7. Consumption for crustaceans of a
mean weight of 0.072 mg (0.5-2 mm length) was 46.3*BW year1 (249 kJm-2year114810. 112
gCm-2).Weighted (by biomass) mean annual Q/B of small crustaceans was then 33.4.
94. Applying an equation by Cammen (1980):
where C = daily ingestion rate in mgday-'DW, W = body weight in mgDW, for deposit feeders
and detritivores yielded a daily ingestion rate of 0.515 mg = 34.3% BW for amphipods of mean
individual dry body weight of 1.5 mg (Berry 1982). Annual QIB was 125.25.
95. Hargrave (1985) gave an average daily co'nsumption rate of 30-60% BW for lysianassid
amphipods (size not given) of the Nares Abyssal Plain (5,830 m depth) in the northwest Atlantic
Ocean, where temperature (not given) can be presumed to be very low. A mean consumption
rate of 45% BW yielded an annual QIB of 164. This already high estimate of Q/B was not
adjusted to the higher temperature of waters around PRVI.
96. Odum and Odum (1955, p. 309) gave a biomass value for "microcrustacea" in algal
encrusting mats of 0.022 gm-2DWwhich is 0.17 gm-2WW(wet volume assumed to have a
specific density of 1). The authors did not comment on species composition and size of this
ecological group.
97. In Fig. 32 in Martinez-lglesias and Alcolado (1990), a dry biomass range of 66-140 g
100m-2was indicated for decapod crustaceans in the Gulf of Batabano, Cuba, north of the lsla
de la Juventud. In Fig. 34 (same source), it was shown that penaeidean and caridean shrimps
comprise an average 10% of the decapod biomass of the samples taken during the study.
Allowing for DW = 26.7% of W W yielded a shrimp wet biomass of 0.25-0.52 gm-2.
98. Odum and Odum (1955, in Table 8, quadrat A), gave a dry biomass for predominantly
herbivorous gammarids and other small crustacean of 4.7 gm-2.A mean live biomass of 18.8
gm-2was computed with DW = 25% of WW. This ecological group was not listed for quadrats
B,C,D and E by Odum and Odum (1955, Tables 9-12); hence, the average reef area contained
18.815 = 3.76 gm-2WW.
99. Pauly et at. (1993b) computed a daily consumption of 7.93% BW for "shrimps" as an
ecological group; annual Q/B was thus 26.9.
100. Pauly et al. (1993b) estimated a natural mortality rate for Metapenaeus monoceros of
M = 1.6 year1 and for Penaeus monodon of M = 0.9 year1. M was assumed to equal P/B.
Hence, an annual range of P/B for shrimps of 0.9-1.6 was obtained.
101. Garcia (1985), in Table 1, gave estimates of annual natural mortality M (= PIB) for fully
exploited penaeid shrimp stocks in the Gulf of Mexico of 1.8-2.8 year1. Penaeids comprised ca.
25% of occurrence of "shrimps" in West Indian fish stomachs analyzed by Randall (1967). M
was set equal PIB.
102. Munro (1983) reported a biomass of 63-119 kgkm-2= 0.063-0.119 gm-2for Panulirus
argus in Jamaican waters.
103. Food consumption for spiny lobsters was computed as follows: Table 3.14a shows
food conversions and corresponding weights for Panulirus homarus, read off Fig. 17 in Smale
(1978) for an experimental temperature of 28°C. Dry weight was converted into wet weight with
DW = 18% of WW. These data were used to estimate b through equation (2.23), applying a
mean Wmof 833 gWW from females and males (see Table 3.14b). From growth parameters in
Table 3.14b, the annual consumption (Table 3 . 1 4 ~of
) spiny lobster was computed with MAXIMS
(Jarre et al. 1990).
104. Malkov (1978) gave a natural mortality estimate M of 0.35 year1for P argus in Cuban
waters.
105. Buesa (1969) reported an annual natural mortality of 56-78% for F! argus in Cuban
waters; from this, a mean exponential rate of M = 0.45 year1was computed; M was assumed to
equal PIB.
Table 3.14a. Food conversions of P homarus (Smale 1978, Fig. 17, 28°C)
Mean 1.937732 0.053865
Table 3.14b. Parameters used to estimate consumption of P homarus.
Parameter (unit) Female Male Source
Smale (1978)
Smale (1978, Table 3)
Munro (1983,for P guttatus)
Munro (1983,for P guttatus)
Set value
Smale (1978, K (day-l)*365)
Equation (2.11)
Mean of nos. 95, 96 and 97
See text
Table 3 . 1 4 ~Consumption
. and maintenance ration of P homarus
Q/B Rm Q/B Rm
Sex (% BWD) (% BWD) (year1) (*BWyearl)
Female 2 4138 1 6773 8 8105 6 1222

Male 16173 0 9305 5 9031 3 3963
F+M 2 02 1 30 7 36 4 76
106. Munro (1983, in Table 16.2) estimated M for female and male I? argus from
unexploited parts of Pedro Bank, Jamaica, to be 0.81 and 1.25 year1, respectively. Hence,
mean P/B for P argus was 1.03 year1.
107. A biomass range of 66-149 g 100m-2DWfor decapod crustaceans was read off Fig. 32
in Martinez-lglesias and Alcolado (1990). Fig. 34 (same source) indicated a percentage of
anomuran biomass of 3.2. Allowing for a DWNVW conversion of 1:4 yielded a live biomass for
hermit crabs of 0.09-0.18 gm-2.
108. Brachyuran biomass in Martinez-lglesias and Alcolado (1990) was 87.2% of decapod
biomass (Fig. 34). A dry biomass range of 66-140 g100m-2(Fig. 32) and a conversion D W N W
of 1:4 resulted in a live biomass for crabs of 2.3-4.9 gm-2.
109. Consumption for the majid crab Mithrax spinosissimus was estimated as follows: From
Tables 2 and 4 in Wilber and Wilber (1989), length increments (6116t) in relation to CL of M.
spinosissimus were prepared for a "forced" Gulland and Holt plot (Pauly 1984). An asymptotic
carapace width (CW) of 150 mm (Munro 1983: for M. spinosissimus around Jamaica) was used
as "external" CL(,). The slope of the plot yielded an estimate of K = 0.00087 day-l, i.e., K = 0.32
year1. Estimates of daily ration for M. spinosissimus were read off Fig. 1 in Winfree and
Weinstein (1989). Two different kinds of diets were provided which yielded two differing values
for p and hence of consumption. Table 3.15a shows the data used for the estimation of Q/B of
M:spinosissimus. Table 3.15b presents the population consumption computed using MAXIMS
(Jarre et al. 1990).
110. Based on Wm= 1,326 g for female and 2,820 g for male M. spinosissimus, a value of K
= 0.32 year1 (see no. 109) and a mean environmental temperature of 28"C, values of M of 0.75
for females and 0.71 for males were computed from equation (2.16). Mean P/B for M.
spinosissimus was thus 0.73 year1.
111. Erhardt and Restrepo (1989) reported a natural mortality rate M of 1.60 year1 for the
Florida stone crab Menippe mercenaria (Majidae). Majid crabs comprised ca. 30% of
occurrence of crab species in West Indian fish stomachs analyzed by Randall (1967).
112. A biomass range of 66-140 g 100m-2DWfor decapod crustaceans in the Gulf of
Batabano, Cuba, was obtained from Fig. 32 in Martinez-lglesias and Alcolado (1990). Allowing
for a DWNVW conversion of 1:4 yielded a live biomass of 2.6-5.6 gm-2.
113. Glynn (1973), in Table 2, gave a dry biomass for crustaceans on a Caribbean f? furcata
reef of 40.3 gm-2.When an average conversion of 25% is applied, live biomass was 161.2 gm-2.
114. A biomass range of 41-71 g 10m-2DWfor asteroids in the Gulf of Batabano, Cuba, was
obtained from Fig. 38A in Corvea et al. (1990). Live weight of starfish was 14.1-24.5 gm-2when
DW is 29% of WW.
Table 3.15a. Parameters used to estimate consumption of M. spinosissimus.
Parameter (unit) Female Male Source
Munro (1983)
Munro (1983)
Munro (1983)
Munro (1983)
Munro (1983)
Equation (2.6)
See text
Equation (2.11)
Equation (2.16)
Computed with MAXIMS
Computed with MAXIMS
1 diet: wild reef algae; 2 diet: fish - Gracilaria sp. - Ulva sp.
Table 3.15b. Consumption of a Caribbean population of I 15. From data in Wurzian (1984) on
M. spinosissimus.
Astropecten aranciacus in the Northern Adriatic
QB
I Q
B
I Sea, a rough estimate of food consumption for
Sex (% BWD) (year1)
starfish was computed as follows: density of A.
Female I 5.2372 19.1157 aranciacus was 3.67 individuals 100 m-*: this was
Male 1 4.2936 15.6715
Female 2 3.2977 12.0366
0.037 individuals m-2.Ingestion was 9.5 kJm-2year1
Male 2 2.5036 9.1318 A mean radius (R)
. , of 12.3 cm was computed from
F+M 1 4.765 17.394
F+M 2 2.901 10.587
R-frequency data in Fig. 1 (same source) and
converted to a live weight of 130 g applying the
1 and 2: see above. equation in Fig. 2:
where W W is wet weight in g and R is the radius of the starfish. With a density of 0.037
individuals m-* and an individual weight of 130 g, an average live biomass of 4.76 gm-2was
computed. Ingestion was converted into wet weight with 1 kJ = 1.2 gWW (conversion for sea
urchins) to 11.37 gm-2yeari. Hence, annual food consumption for an average individual of A.
aranciacus was 2.39 *BW. Adjusted for temperature, annual QIB increased to 3.24 (V = 1.36;
T1=17°C: mean annual temperature for the Northern Adriatic was determined from charts in
KNMl 1957).
116. Production of A. aranciacus in the Northern Adriatic was indicated with 1.958
kJm-2year1(Wurzian 1984). Converted to live weight, production was 2.35 gm-2year1.Based on
an average biomass of 4.76 gm-2WW(see no. 115), the annual PI6 ratio was 0.49.
117. A biomass range of 2-6 g l Om-2DW for ophiuroids in the Gulf of Batabano, Cuba, was
obtained from Fig. 41A in Corvea et al. (1990). Live weight of ophiuroids was 0.7-2.1 g when
DW is 29% of WW.
118. McClanahan (1988), in Table 1, gave density and biomass values for three species of
sea urchins on a Kenyan coral reef. Mean biomass was 67.4 gm-2WW.
119. A biomass range of 127-472 g1 DW for echinoids in the Gulf of Batabano, Cuba,
was obtained from Fig. 39A in Corvea et al. (1990). Live weight of sea urchins was thus 39.7-
147.5 gm-2based on a conversion DWIWW of 32%.
120. From Table 1 in Bak et al. (1984), an average density of 2.1 individuals m2was computed
for Diadema antillarum in Cura~ao,Netherlands Antilles. Pauly et al. (1993b) computed an average
weight per individual of the same species of 57 gWW. Based on these values, the biomass was
119.7 gm-2.D. antillarum is the most common sea urchin in PRVl reef areas.
121. Weil et al. (1984) reported a mean D. antillarum density of 2.6-3.7 individuals m2for
several coral reefs in Venezuela. Based on an average individual weight of 57 g (see no. 120),
the mean biomass range was 148.2-210.9 gm-2WW.
122. Pauly et al. (1993b) estimated food consumptions for various species of sea urchins.
When abundance of the respective genera in stomach analyses of reef fishes was considered
(Randall 1967, see Appendix 8.5.2), the weighted mean consumption for sea urchins as an
ecological group is 0.77% BWD or 2.81 * BWyearl.
123. Hawkins (1985) gave a PIB estimate of 2.0 year1for the sea urchin D. antillarum in
Barbados.
124. A biomass range of 21-40 g 10m-*DWfor holothurians in the Gulf of Batabano, Cuba,
was obtained from Fig. 40A in Corvea et al. (1990). Live weight of sea cucumbers was 23.3-
44.4 gm-2when DW is 9% of WW.
125. Berry (1982), in Table I , gave a caloric equivalent of biomass of 55.1 kJm-2for a
holothurian species on the OR1 Reef, Natal Province, South Africa. Allowing for a conversion of
1 kJ = 1.08 gWW, the live biomass was 59.4 gm-2.
126. Pauly et al. (1993b) estimated the consumption of several species of tropical
holothurians from published data. From this source, consumption estimates for Holothuria sp.
(QIB = 0.77% BWD) and Opheodesoma spectabilis (QIB = 1.07% BWD) were used to compute
an average consumption of 3.36 * BWyearl for the ecological group "holothurians" of the
present Caribbean reef model.
127. In Pauly et al. (1993b), estimates of the growth constant K (year1) were given for
various species of holothurians. The mean annual K of species similar to those occurring in the
PRVl area was 0.29, assumed to equal M (= PIB).
128. Corvea et al. (1990, in Fig. 36) gave a dry biomass range for echinoderms in the Gulf
of Batabano, Cuba, of 351-500 g10m-2.This corresponded to a live weight of 140.4-200 gm-2.
129. Glynn (1973, in Table 2) gave a dry biomass for echinoderms on a Caribbean P
furcata reef of 263.3 gm-2.This corresponded to a live weight of 1,053.2 gm-2.
130. Dahl (1973, in Table I ) gave a wet biomass of 8.8 g 0.25m-2which corresponded to
35.2 gm-2for tunicates on a Puerto Rican algal plain.
131. Berry (1982, in Table 1) gave a biomass of 148.8 gm-2DW(flesh only) for the ascidian
Pyura stolonifera on the OR1 Reef, Natal Province, South Africa. Allowing for DW = 20% of W W
(organic tissue) yielded a live weight of 744 gm-2.
132. Consumption of ascidians (sessile tunicates) was estimated as follows: Mullin (1983)
provided equations to compute filtering rates of the planktonic living salp Thalia democratica on
phytoplankton and bacteria. Benthic tunicates also filter phytoplankton and microfauna (besides
zooplankton and detritus particles); hence, the suggested filtering rates were assumed to be valid
also for sessile ascidians. From stomach analyses of West Indian reef fishes (Randall 1967) and
from a collection of Caribbean reef invertebrates and plants (Colin 1978), species composition and
rough estimates of abundance were obtained. Meinkoth (1981) provided information on size of
solitary and colonial ascidians. Weight estimates were obtained by computing the volume of a
cylinder whose height corresponded to the length of an individual ascidian and whose radius
corresponded to its widthl2, and by setting the specific weight of the cylinder equal to that of water
(1 cm3= 1 g). Body carbon of ascidians was computed via the equations in Mullin (1983):
for solitaries C = 1.03*L1775

for aggregates C = 0.515*L2
where carbon is organic carbon content of body in mg and L is body length in mm. Mullin (1983)
reported median total particulate organic carbon in his experimental filtering media as 142 pgCI-I
(range 69-200 pgCI-I). I assumed from diet composition percentages for ascidians (see Appendix
Table 8.6.2) that 60% of the volume filtered (VF) was grazed at rates for bacteria and 40% at rates
for phytoplankton. The VF of every food item was computed by multiplying the corresponding
grazing rates with the body carbon of the respective species. The consumption of a food item was
obtained by dividing the total organic carbon content (142 pgl-l) into the respective percentages
(60% for bacteria, 40% for phytoplankton) and by then multiplying the shares by VF. Rations per
hour were converted into consumption of % of body weight applying mean carbon-weight (CAN)
ratios of 0.0112% for solitary and 0.0013% for colonial species. The range of consumption values
included in Table 3.10 does not report the results for the colonial species as they are unrealistically
low. An average annual QIB of 24 is the median for solitary species. Table 3.16 shows the data used
for the estimation of food consumption for ascidians as an ecological group in the present
Caribbean reef model.
133. Berry (1982), in Table I,gave a caloric equivalent of biomass of 2,300 kJm-*for organic
tissue of the detritivorous ascidian Pyura stolonifera on the OR1 Reef, Natal Province, South Africa.
Production of organic tissue was given as 5,213 kJm-2year1.Hence, the PIB ratio was 2.3 year1.
134. U. Richter (Hagenbecks Tierpark, Hamburg) reported the following personal
observations: (a) juvenile Emydura albertinii (marine turtle, New Guinea, piscivorous) of 65 g
live weight consumed around 0.5 g fish or shellfish flesh per day which was 0.77% BWD and
2.8*BWyear1,(b) a "giant turtle" (species name not available) of 300 kg consumed around 2 kg
of plant food per day which was 0.67% BWD or 2.5*BWyear1.These values of turtle
consumption were somewhat lower than that of 3.5*BWyear1estimated by Polovina (1984b) in
his coral reef model of French Frigate Shoals, Hawaii. The low values are surprising since, in
the first case, we deal with a very young organism with high metabolic requirements. In the
second case, the consumption rate appears to be low for an herbivorous animal. However,
annual PIB ratio was also very low (0.15).
135. From Fig. 1 in Nuitja and Uchida (1982), maximum daily growth for juvenile
loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) was obtained for a feeding rate of 3.1% BW. It is not known
if the growth potential is reached at that feeding rate. This feeding rate yielded an annual
consumption estimate for juvenile carnivorous loggerhead turtles of 11.5*BW. Experimental
temperature was 20S°C. For this turtle, the amount of food required to maintain basal
metabolism was less for higher temperatures than for lower ones (see Nuitja and Uchida 1982).
Therefore, the QIB estimate was not corrected for temperature.
The estimates presented in points 1-135 were summarized; a range and an average input
value were determined for each of the three input parameters and for each taxon for which
estimates were available (Table 3.17).
3.2.4. Diet Composition Matrix
In the diet composition (DC) matrix of nonfish taxa (Appendix Table 8.6.2), constituents are
listed in rough systematical order. The matrix was assembled from a wide variety of sources
(see "Materials and methods" section). The references on which the matrix was based are listed
in Appendix Table 8.6.3 by author(s) and year of publication.
3.3. The Models
3.3.1. The 50-Box Model
3.3.1 .1 . AGGREGATION OF FISH SPECIES
The results from the cluster analysis, aggregating 243 fish species stepwise into 1 species
group, are depicted in Fig. 3.1. This dendrogram includes the names of fish species combined
into the respective clusters. The first cutoff level at a quadratic Euclidean distance (QED) of 0.3
(20% of the total 1.5) yielded 29 fish species groups (see "Materials and methods1'section).
Overall, the cluster analysis produced a distinct separation among carnivorous, omnivorous
and herbivorous species. Furthermore, apex predators, such as large sharks and rays, as well
Table 3.16. Food consumption of ascidians (class: Tunicata)
Species N Type Height Width Volumea W C-Body CAN-ratio GR-bact GR Phyto

L(mm) (mm) (cm3) (g) (pg) (%) (ml,gC-' h-l) (ml,gC-' h-l)
Ascidia nigra 2 IS
Boltenia echinata 1 I
B. ovifera 1 I
B. villosa 1 I
Clavelina huntsman; ? I
Clavelina picta ? I
Didernnurn albidum 2 C
D. carnulenturn 2 C
Distaplia stylifer ? C
Ecteinascidia turbinata 1 I
Polycarpa obtecta 1 Is
I = individuals, Is = solitary individuals, C = colonies.
Species VFbact VFphyto Cons. B. Cons. P. QIB-bac QIB-phy QIB QIB QIB QIB
(mlh-') (mlh-l) (pgh ') (pgh-') (%BCh-') (%BCh-') (%BCh-') (%BCday-l) (%BWD) (year1)
Ascidia nigra 21,372.33 34,058.91 1,816.65 1,941.36 47.99 51.29 49.64 1,191.34 13.31 48.57
Boltenia echinata 444.73 641.38 37.80 36.56 12.12 11.72 11.92 285.98 3.19 11.66
B. ovifera 9,504.47 14,833.16 807.88 845.49 35.98 37.66 36.82 883.63 9.87 36.03
B. villosa 1,736.90 2,549.48 147.64 147.89 19.66 19.70 19.68 472.33 5.28 19.26
Clavelina huntsrnani 3,168.22 4,806.41 269.30 273.97 24.35 24.77 24.56 589.41 6.58 24.03
Clavelina picta 208.86 295.40 17.75 16.48 9.26 8.78 9.02 216.53 2.42 8.83
Didernnurn albidurn 1.28 1.62 0.11 0.09 2.11 1.79 1.95 46.78 0.06 0.22
D. carnulenturn 1.28 1.62 0.11 0.09 2.11 1.79 1.95 46.78 0.06 0.22
Distaplia stylifer 129.04 184.62 10.97 10.52 6.31 6.05 6.18 148.25 0.19 0.70
Ecteinascidia turbinata 444.73 641.38 37.8 36.56 12.12 11.72 11.92 285.98 3.19 11.66
Polycarpa obtecta 3,168.22 4,806.41 269.30 273.97 24.35 24.77 24.56 589.41 6.58 24.03
Annual consumption of ascidians (median of all values except colonies).
aVolumeof cylinder: ,,rZ.h (r = Wl2).

bGrazing rate for solitaries on bacteria: 0.061
"Grazing rate for aggregates on bacteria: 0 . 1 2 1 * L 0 ~ .
dGrazing rate for solitaries on phytoplankton: 0.07*L105.
'Grazing rate for aggregates on phytoplankton: 0.141*L0728.
Table 3.17. Key input parameters of 41 nonfish groups for Caribbean coral reef models; average values = mean of two values or median of > two values; PI
B = productionlbiomass ratio, QIB = annual consumption per unit biomass.
Net primary production (PP) of overall system: 20,000 gm2.year' WW.

Export of benthic producers from system: 480 gm2.year' WW.
Range of Average Range of Average Range of Average

biomass biomass P/B PIB QIB QIB
ID Nonfish group (gm2ww) (g.m-'ww) (year') (year') (year') (year')
Detritus, POM, DOM

Benthic autotrophs
(excluding symbionts)
Symbiotic algae
Phytoplankton
Decomposers/microfauna
Zooplankton
Sponges
Fire corals
Sea fans
Sea anemones
Stony corals
Corals
Bryozoans
Sipunculid worms
Priapuloids
Chitons
Gastropods
Bivalves
Scaphopods
Shelled molluscs
Squids
Octopuses
Polychaetes
Echiuroids
Pycnogonids
Barnacles
Stomatopods
Amphipods
Tanaids
lsopods (fish parasites)
Small crustaceans
Shrimps
Spiny lobsters
Scyllarid lobsters
Hermit crabs
Crabs
Lobsters and crabs
Crustaceans
Hemichordates
Asteroids
Ophiuro~ds
Echinoids
Holothurians
Echinoderms
Ascidians (Tunicata)
Sea turtles
Sea birds
D = detritus, A = autotroph, I = invertebrate, R = reptile, B = bird.

Fig. 3.1. Graphical representation of the results of the cluster-analysis showing the reduction from 243 fish
species to 1 species group.
as scombrids and large jacks were jointly aggregated into clusters due to their high aspect ratio
and high asymptotic weight. The vast majority of (predominantly) carnivorous reef species and
small pelagics were clustered according to the resulting mixture of asymptotic weight and
aspect ratio. These basic features of aggregation were observed as well by the results of the
"centroid" agglomeration algorithm. The "centroid" algorithm produced more single species
clusters than "average linkage", an undesirable feature for the present application. Besides,
"average linkage" and "centroid" differed in several cases in the way they combined omnivorous
species with carnivores or herbivores. Slight differences could also be observed for species with
intermediate sizes and aspect ratios. Since the reef fish community can be viewed as an
assemblage of species with smooth gradations in terms of size, activity and even DC than a set
of separate compartments (see above), it is not surprising that species with intermediate
parameter values were grouped differently by two different aggregation algorithms. What was
surprising, rather, was that the results from both methods were largely compatible.
3.3.1.2. ASSEMBLAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF FISH SPECIES GROUPS
Table 3.18 presents the characteristics of 27 fish species groups which resulted from a
further treatment of the 29 fish species groups from the cluster analysis. These 27 groups are
part of the 50-box model, which was completed by adding 23 nonfish groups. An extended
version of Table 3.18, where the species are only grouped but not condensed may be found in
Appendix Table 8.7.1.
3.3.1.3. INPUT VALUES
Tables 3.19 and 3.20 present the estimates of the three key parameters: biomass, PIB ratio
and QIB, which served as input values for the groups of the 50-box model. The model was
balanced based on these inputs and the corresponding food matrix, presented in Table 3.21,
with all ecotrophic efficiencies (EEs) < 1 and input NPP > output NPP.
3.3.1.4. MODIFICATION STRATEGY OF INPUT VALUES
The inputs were ranked intuitively according to the accuracy of the methods by which the
respective inputs were obtained (see "Materials and methods"). The biomass values of fish and
nonfish groups were considered to be the least accurate of all inputs. The PIB and QIB values
of nonfish groups were considered to be less accurate than those of fish groups. The diet matrix
of nonfish groups was considered less accurate than that of fish groups. Within the fish groups,
the DCs of large, wide-ranging top predators, like sharks, scombrids and jacks, were considered
less accurate than that of the other fish groups. The inputs were gradually modified following the
above sequence of accuracy.
3.3.1.5. PARAMETER ESTIMATION
Output vahes
In Table 3.22, the changes of the three key input parameters necessary to balance the 50-
box model are documented together with the resulting change in ecotrophic efficiency. Table
3.23 documents necessary changes within the diet composition matrix. Table 3.24 shows
Table 3.18. Characteristics of 27 fish species groups defined by cluster analysis.
L-, WI = asymptotic lengthllive weight.
H = habitat ( a feature not included in cluster analysis), P = pelagic, D = demersal.
Group No. of Range Range Average Average Most important species

no. Fish species group species of L- (cm) of W-(g) aspect ratioa food ytpe" in group (by biomass)
Large sharkslrays, carnivorous PID Dasyatis americana

Galeocerdo cuvier
Sharkslscornbrids, carnivorous PID Scomberomorus regalis
Large jacks, carnivorous PID Seriola dumerili
lntermedlate jacks, carnivorous PID Caranx ruber
Caranx latus
Small jacks, carnivorous PID Selar crumenophtalmus
Intermediate reef fish, carnivorous 1 D Ocyurus chrysurus
Lutjanusapodus
Large to intermediate schooling fish, pelagic P Harengula humeralis
Harengula clupeola
lntermediate reef fish, carnivorous 2 D Haemulon flavolineatum
Lutjanus griseus
Hemiramphidae, herbivorous P Hemiramphus brasiliensis
Kyphosidae, herbivorous D Kyphosus sectatrix
Kyphosus incisor
lntermediate reef fish, herbivorous D Acanthurus coeruleus
Large reef fish, carnivorous D Diodon holocanthus
Sphyraena barracuda
lntermediate reef fish, carnivorous 3 D Dactylopterus volitans
Malacanthus plumieri
Small reef fish, carnivorous 1 D Halichoeres bivittatus
Xyrichtys novacula
Small schooling frsh, pelagic P Jenkinsia lamprotaenia
Engraulidae, herbivorous P Anchoa hepsetus
Anchoa lyolepis
Small reef fish, carnivorous 2 D Apogon conklini
Apogon rnaculatus
Intermediate reef fish, carnlvorous 4 D Holacanthus ciliaris
Small reef fish, omnivorous 1 D Stegastes fuscus
Small reef fish, omnivorous 2 D Canthigaster rostrata
Small reef fish, omnivorous 3 D Coryphopterus glaucofraenum
Large Scaridae, herbivorous D Scarus guacamaia
Scarus vetula
lntermedlate Scaridae, herbivorous D Sparisoma chrysopterum
Small Scaridae, herbivorous D Sparisoma radians
Blennildae, herbivorous D Ophioblennius atlanticus
Scartella cristata
Small Gobiidae, carnivorous D Gobiosoma horsti
Gobiosoma evelynae
"Median of species-specif~cvalues
Grouped by habitat "m~dwater-pelagic"outside cluster-analysrs.
Table 3.19. Key input parameters of 27 fish species groups prepared for a 50- box model of a Caribbean coral reef; average values = mean of 2 values
or median of > 2 values.
Average Average
Group No. of Biomass PIB QIB
no. Fish species group species (g.dww) (year1) (year1)
Large sharkslrays, carnivorous

Sharkslscombrids, carnivorous
Large jacks, carnivorous
lntermediate jacks, carnivorous
Small jacks, carnivorous
lnterrnediate reef fish, carnivorous 1
Large-intermediate schooling fish, pelagic
lntermediate reef fish, carnivorous 2
Hemiramphidae, herbivorous
Kyphosidae, herbivorous
lnterrnediate reef fish, herbivorous
Large reef fish, carnivorous
Intermediate reef fish, carnivorous 3
Small reef fish, carnivorous 1
Small schooling fish, pelagic
Engraulidae, herbivorous
Large groupers, carnivorous
Small reef fish, omnivorous 1
Large Scaridae, herbivorous
lntermediate Scaridae, herbivorous
Small Scaridae, herbivorous
Blenniidae, herbivorous
Small Gobiidae, carnivorous
"Grouped by habitat "midwater-pelagic" outside cluster analysis.

bAssumed value, estimated from groups with similar ecology.
Table 3.20. Key input parameters of 23 nonfish groups prepared for a 50-box model of a Caribbean coral reef; average values = mean of 2 values or
median of > 2 values.
NPP of overall system: 20,000 (15,000-25,000) gm2.year1WW.
Exoort of benthic oroducers from svstem: 480 a.m-2.vear' WW.
Range of Average Range of Average Range of Average

biomass biomass PIB PIB QIB QIB
Nonfish group ( w " ww) (g.m2w (year1) (year') (year1) (year1)
1 Sea birds 0.015 5.40

2 Squids * I ,000 0 9-1.6 1.25
3 Sea turtles 0.015 0.15
4 Octopuses 28.000 1.09-3.06 2.08
5 Lobsters 1.090 0.35-1.03 0.45
6 Crabs 2.3-4.9 3.600 0.73-1.61 1.17
7 Shrirnpslhermit crabs1 0.1-3.8 3.250 0.9-2.8 1.80
stomatopods
8 Small benthic arthropods 4.1-6.1 5.300 2.4-2.41 2.40
9 Asteroids 14-25 19.500 0.49
10 Echinoids 40-211 107.000 0.8-2 1.40
11 Gastropods 39.000 0.1-5.9 2.50
12 Chitonslscaphopods 19-62 37.000 0.26-0.42 0.34
13 Polychaeteslpriapuloidsl 3.9-38 14 000 2.48-5.8 4.14
ophiuroids
14 Holothuroidslsipunculidsl 29.5-72.5 55.200 0.29
echiuroidslhemichordates
15 Bivalves 60-170 115.000 1.35-3.8 2.23
16 Ascidianslbarnaclesl 79-836 458.000 2.30
bryozoans
17 Sponges 30.5-1,049 800.000 1.70
18 Coralslsea anemones 54-188 121.000 0.37-1.8 1.09
19 Zooplankton 5-30 17.500 40.00
20 Decomposerslmicrofauna 3.1-7.7 5.400 170-220 195.00
21 Phytoplankton 0.1-73 26.000 70.00
22 Benthic autotrophs 840-4,030 2,230.000 12.8-30.8 13.25
23 Detritus, POM, DOM 1,000-3,000 2,000 000 -
* A n arbitrary minimum biomass of 1 g.m2has been assigned to all taxa for which an estimate was lacking.
Table 3.21 D ~ ecomposition
t matrix prepared for the construction of a 50-box model of a Caribbean coral reef.
Group No. of oriainal Prev -

. arouo
no Predator group groups or specles 1

Sharkslscombrids, carnivorous
Intermedlate jacks, carnivorous
lntermedlate reef fish, carnivorous 1
Large to lntermedlate schoollng fish, pelagic
Intermedlate reef fish, carnivorous 2
Kyphosidae, herblvorous
lntermediate reef fish, herblvorous
Large reef fish, carnlvorous
Intermediate reef fish. carnlvorous 3
Small reef flsh, carnivorous 1
Small schoollng fish, pelagic
Small reef fish, carnlvorous 2
lntermediate reef fish, carnlvorous 4
Small reef flsh, omnivorous 1
Small reef f~sh,omnivorous 2
Large Scarldae, herblvorous
lntermediate Scaridae, herbivorous
Small Scarldae, herbivorous
Small Goblidae, carnivorous
Sea birds
Squids
Sea turtles
Octopuses
Lobsters
Crabs
Shrimpslhermit crabslstomatopods
Amphipodsl~sopodsltanaidslpycnogonids
Asteroids
Echinoids
Gastropods
Chitonslscaphopods
Polvchaetesl~riaouloidslo~hiuroids
~olbthuroids~si~~nculidsl~chiuroidslhemichordates
Bivalves
Ascidianslbarnacleslbryozoans
Sponges
Sea anemoneslcorals
Zooplankton
Microfauna
Phytoplankton
Benthic autotrophs
Detritus, POM, DOM
continued..
Group
no 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 j9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
continued
Group
no. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
continued ...
Group
no. 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Sum
-
"Grouped by habitat "midwater-pelagic"outside cluster analysis.
bValueoutside parentheses: no. of species indicated by cluster analysis.
Value inside parentheses: no. of species with DC values available in DC matrix.
Table 3.22. Results of the ECOPATH I1parameter estimation for the construction of a 50-box model of a Caribbean coral reef.
Original inputs which had to be modified are shown in parentheses.
PIB = annual production1biomassratio; QIB = annual consumption lunit biomass; EE = ecotrophic efficiency.
Biomass PIB QIB

Group Biomass change PIB change QIB change Start End
no. Species group (g.m-2) ("4 EE EE
Large sharkslrays, carnivorous 1.053 0 320

Sharkslscombrids, carnivorous 6.030 0.626
Large jacks, carnivorous 10.120 0.604
lntermediate jacks, carnivorous 0.295 0.411
Small jacks, carnivorous 184 200 0 725
lntermediate reef fish, carnivorous 1 0.358 0 776
Large to intermediate schooling fish. 2.510 0.953
pelagic
lntermediate reef fish, carnivorous 2 2.201 0.933
Hemiramphidae, herbivorous 527.800 0.888
Kyphosidae, herbivorous 0.194 0.587
lntermediate reef fish, herbivorous 6.855 0.672
Large reef fish, carnivorous 1.081 0 692
lntermediate reef fish, carnivorous 3 6.187 0.825
Small reef fish, carnivorous 1 6.774 0.955
Small schooling fish, pelagic 8.600 0.793
Engraulidae, herbivorous 979.300 0.791
Small reef fish, carnivorous 2 101.100 0.884
Large groupers, carnivorous 0.070 0.510
Intermediate reef fish, carnivorous 4 0.716 0.739
Small reef fish, omnivorous 1 2.887 0.711
Small reef fish, omnivorous 2 23.160 0.932
Small reef fish, omnivorous 3 78.390 0 866
Large Scaridae, herbivorous 0 118 0.336
lntermediate Scaridae, herbivorous 3.156 0.607
Small Scaridae, herbivorous 9.864 0.735
Blenniidae, herbivorous 543.800 0.854
Small Gobiidae, carnivorous 2.740 0.939
Sea birds 57.870 0.320
Squ~ds 19.360 0.894
Sea turtles 4,815.000 0.876
Octopuses 0.443 0.849
Lobsters 60.010 0.960
Crabs 70.960 0.938
Shrimpsmermit crabslstomatopods 30.240 0.949
Arnphipodslisopodsltanaidsl 7.147 0.927
pycnogonids
Asteroids 1.222 0.963
Echinoids 0.321 0.648
Gastropods 3.727 0.974
-
A
continued ... a
Original inputs which had to be modified are shown in parentheses.
PIB = annual productionlbiomass ratio; QIB = annual consumption lunit biomass; EE = ecotrophic efficiency.
Biomass PIB QIB

Group Biomass change PIB change QIB change Start End
no. Species group (w2) ("4 (year') ("4 (year') ("4 EE EE
39 Chitonslscaphopods 62.000 (37.000)" + 68 0.360 (0.34)' +6 11.70 4.674 0.911

40 Polychaeteslpriapuloids1ophiuroids 33.000 (14.000)" + 136 5.200 (4.14)" + 26 61.60 7.265 0.919
41 Holothuroidslsipunculidsl 66.240 (55.200)" + 20 0.310 (0.29)b +7 3.36 7.239 0.916
Bivalves
Sponges
Coralslsea anemones
Zooplankton
Phytoplankton
Benthic autotrophs
Detritus. POM, DOM
"Within available range.

bNorange available.
"Out of available range.
Table 3. 23. Results of the ECOPATH II parameter estimation for the construction of a 50-box model of a Caribbean coral reef diet compositron matrix.
Values in parentheses refer to original inputs that were modified during the parameter estimatipn routine.
-
Group No. of original Prey group
no. Predator group groups or species 1 2 3
Sharks/scombrids, carnivorous
lnterrnediatejacks, carnivorous
Intermediate reef f~sh.carnivorous 1
Large to intermediate schooling fish, pelagic
Kyphosidae, herbivorous
lntermediate reef fish, herbivorous
lntermediate reef fish, carnlvorous 3

Small schooling fish, pelagic
Large groupers, carnlvorous

Large Scar~dae,herbivorous
lnterrnediate Scaridae, herbivorous
Small Scaridae, herbivorous
Small Gobi~dae,carnivorous
Sea birds
Squids
Sea turtles
Octopuses
Lobsters
Crabs
Shrimpslhermit crabs1 stomatopods
Amphipodslisopods/tanaidslpycnogonids
Asteroids
Echinoids
continued...
Table 3 23 cont~nued
-.
. - -- -- - --
Group No of or~glnal Prey group

no Predator group groups or specles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gastropods
Ch~tonslscaphopods
Polychaeteslpr~apuloidsloph~uro~ds
Holothuro~dsls~puncuI~dslech~uro~ds/hem~chordates
Blvalves
Asc~d~anslbarnacleslbryozoans
Sponges
Sea anemoneslcorals
Zooplankton
M~crofauna
Phytoplankton
Benth~cautotrophs
Contr~but~onto detr~tus
continued
Table 3 23 continued
Group
no 12
Group
no. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
continued.
Group
no. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
continued
Table 3.23 cont~nued
Group
no 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
continued
Group
no. 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Sum
continued
Group
no. 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Sum
Table 3.24. Results of the ECOPATH II parameter estimation for the construction of a 50-box model of a Caribbean coral reef. Additional parameters.
Import to detritus: 475 g m 2 , other imports to boxes are 0; catches for all boxes are 0.
Excretion = 5% and egestion = 15% (default values) of the food intake of each box.
Group Food Predation mortality Flow to Net production Trophic

no. Species group intakea Respirationa (production 'EE)" detritusa Assimilationa (g.m2.year') level
-
1 Large sharkslrays, carnivorous
2 Sharkslscombrids, carnivorous
3 Large jacks, carnivorous
4 lntermediate jacks, carnivorous
5 Small jacks, carnivorous
6 Intermediate reef fish, carnivorous 1
7 Large intermediate schooling fish, pelagic
8 Intermediate reef fish, carnivorous 2
9 Hemiramphidae, herbivorous
10 Kyphosidae, herbivorous
11 lntermediate reef fish, herbivorous
12 Large reef fish, carnivorous
13 lntermediate reef fish, carnivorous 3
14 Small reef fish, carnivorous 1
15 Small schooling fish, pelag~c
16 Engraulidae, herbivorous
18 Large groupers, carnivorous
19 lntermediate reef f~sh,omnivorous
20 Small reef fish, omnivorous 1
23 Large Scaridae, herbivorous
24 lntermediate Scaridae, herbivorous
25 Small Scaridae, herbivorous
26 Blenniidae, herbivorous
27 Small Gobiidae, carnivorous
28 Sea birds
29 Squids
30 Sea turtles
31 Octopuses
32 Lobsters
33 Crabs
34 Shrimpslhermit crabslstomatopods
35 Amphipodslisopodsltanaidslpycnogonids
36 Asteroids
37 Echinoids
38 Gastropods
39 Chitonslscaphopods
continued ...
Group Food Predation mortality Flow to Net production Trophic

no. Species group intakea Respirationa (production *EE)a detritusa Assimilationa (gm2.year') level
Polychaeteslpriapuloidslophiuroids
Holothuroidslsipunculidsl
Sponges
Sea anernoneslcorals
Zooplankton
Microfauna
Phytoplankton
Benthic autotrophs
Detritus, POM, DOM
'(gm2.year1 WW).
continued...
Table 3.24 continued.
Group Omnivory Gross Net Respiration1 Production1

no. index efficiency efficiency assimilation respiration
continued

additional parameters and ratios computed by ECOPATH II for the balanced 50-box model.
These outputs permit to estimate flow rates (in gm-2year1)in and out of each box of the system.
Modifications Required to BaIance the 50-Box Model
The input value of net PP had to be modified slightly, from 20,000 gm-2year1to 20,500
gm-2year1.This was still well within the established range of NPP estimates (15,000-25,000
gm-2year1).
The strongest changes were applied to the biomass estimates since they were considered
to be least accurate of all input values. The biomass of detritus was left unchanged, as well as
biomass of phytoplankton, whereas that'of benthic primary producers had to be lowered by 42%
from 2,230 to 1,300 gm-2.This value was still within the range estimated for an average m2from
five subsystems.
It was observed during the balancing process that the input biomass values of fish groups
were generally too high, while those of the majority of nonfish taxa were too low. This was
especially true for strongly carnivorous groups. Another aspect of the initial biomass estimates
of fish groups was that values for large predators were too high, while those for small ones were
too low.
The density estimates for fishes, which are generally based on visual censuses, appeared
to have provided unrealistically high abundances for groups of large predatory fish. For
example, the biomass of large sharks and rays had to be decreased from 96 gm-2to 0.3 gm-2,a
change of 99.7%. Obviously, the density estimates for relatively rare, but large and wide-ranging
predators depended strongly on their presence during a census. This point will be discussed in
more detail below.
The majority of biomass values for sharks and rays was computed via qualitative
indications of density. Since a common definition in terms of numbers does not exist for
qualitative indications of abundance, it is quite possible that expressions such as "abundant" or
"common" refer to a comparison between species of the same ecological group, so that, e.g.,
nurse sharks are abundant on the reef compared to tiger sharks but that this abundance has
nothing in common with the expression "abundant" used, e.g., for doctorfish, parrotfish, etc., or
even small pelagics such as dwarf herring or sardine.
Densities of small andlor cryptic reef fish species are obviously strongly underestimated by
visual census techniques. Thus, for example "Blenniidae" had to be raised from 0.012 gm-2to
0.6 gm-2,a change of biomass of 4,900%.
The density of small schooling pelagic fish was also strongly underestimated. Thus, for
example, the initial estimate of the biomass of Engraulidae had to be raised from 0.019 gm-2to
3.325 gm-2(17,400% change). This can be explained by the fact that only the highest density
level obtained from visual censuses for reef fishes was assigned to small schooling pelagics. In
all censuses in which small pelagics were explicitly included, they were stated as "too numerous
to count". Still higher levels of abundance might have to be added to the ones presented in
"Materials and methods" in order to properly account for densities of small pelagics.
Groups of large to intermediate herbivorous reef fish (e.g., families Scaridae or
Kyphosidae) showed generally low EEs. Their input biomasses were reduced in line with
reduction of biomass of 60-99% performed on groups containing similarly sized carnivorous
species. An 80% reduction of biomass is the average for fishes of this size range. The biomass
of large herbivorous reef fish could have been reduced further to raise their EE, but there was
no good reason to do so, except that the relatively high EE of benthic autotrophs would have
slightly decreased.
The biomass values of nonfish groups had to be raised because of the diet preferences of
fish groups. Conspicuous was the discrepancy between "offer" and "demand" in crustaceans,
which were the most difficult groups to balance. This is because these groups feed on a
relatively high trophic level and their consumption is rather high (up to 125 times their body
weight per year). This makes it difficult to raise their biomass without serious implications for the
whole system.
Initial biomasses of crustaceans were generally too low to satisfy the food requirements of the
fish groups. Two opposite tendencies might be responsible for this discrepancy: (1) the comparably
high percentages of crustaceans in the diet composition of fish groups might be an artefact, i.e., due
to the high amount of undigestible exoskeletons, the percentage of crustaceans in the food of fishes
might be overestimated; and (2) the biomass estimates for crustaceans are derived mainly from the
Gulf of Batabano, Cuba, from an area characterized by sand and mud. The combined biomass
estimates for crustaceans from this area, of 5-10 gm-2WW,do not compare well with an overall
estimate of crustacean biomass of around 160 gm-*WWrecorded by Glynn (1973) for a Caribbean
Porites furcata reef (see also Table 3.17).
The effect of erroneous biomass estimates on weighting factors within species groups is, on
the other hand, of minor importance since these groups are composed of species with similar
ecological features; the above problems concerning the input biomasses are thus valid for all
species of a group.
After the biomasses, the strongest modifications were performed on the DC matrix,
particularly of elasmobranchs and on invertebrates. This was not unexpected, since these parts
of the matrix were most heterogenous in the first place. Raising the biomass of crustaceans was
not enough to correct for the unrealistically high initial EE values for these groups. Thus, the diet
of groups which fed on crustaceans was shifted, in part, to ecological groups with low EEs (sea
urchins, ascidians, sponges, etc.). This implied a shift to lower trophic levels.
The diet of large carnivorous fish groups was similarly modified, often from carnivorous to
herbivorous fishes. The latter showed in general low EEs, especially the groups containing large
species, which also had high biomasses. For example, large parrotfish (Scaridae) with the
highest output biomass for a single fish family in the 50-box model (almost 19 gm-2)have a very
low EE (EE = 0.336). The original DC matrix of fishes did not identify large herbivorous reef fish
as a preferred food item of carnivorous species. It might be an artefact from Randall's stomach
analyses, but this is unlikely since it can be assumed that herbivorous fish should have been
identified as reliably as carnivorous fish. This suggests that large predatory fish species tend to
avoid herbivorous reef fish as prey. Parrotfish produce a skin mucus which is reported to protect
them from predation while they sleep. If the low predation mortality of herbivorous reef fish is
true, and not an artefact, this would mean that predator biomass would have to be lowered
further to lower the EE of prey groups below 1. This would also mean that large herbivorous reef
fish serve mainly as energy supply for the detrital pool. This matter will be discussed further
below.
The initial PIB values, especially of fish groups, were considered to be more reliable than
the initial biomass estimates; thus, the overwhelming majority of PIB outputs were kept within
the initial range of input PIB estimated for the respective groups.
The consumption estimates for nonfish groups were slightly modified in a few groups only.
For sea urchins and sponges, QIB was raised in order to lower their gross efficiency below 0.4
and to lower their PIR ratio to 0.6 year1.
Output gross efficiencies (GE = production/consumption) for all boxes were generally
between 0.1 and 0.5. High GEs are characteristic of small-sized and/or young animals. Low
GEs are characteristic of large-sized and/or old animals. The GE of apex predators should be
close to zero when they are not exploited by fisheries. GE output values from the 50-box model
for fish groups were somewhat low, never exceeding 0.3. To raise these estimates, the PIB
ratios could be increased and/or the Q/B reduced, thus decreasing the EEs of prey groups.
These modifications would result in an increase of the biomass of a number of prey groups.
Graphical Representation of the 50-Box Model
Fig. 3.2 shows the mass-balanced 50-box model of an unexploited segment of coral reef in
the PRVl area. This graph demonstrates that it is possible to balance a quantitative steady-state
model of the energy flow within a coral reef system based on literature data and parameter
estimations derived from multivariate statistics.
3.3.1.6. SUMMARY STATISTICS
Summary statistics computed by ECOPATH II for the 50-box model are presented in Table
3.25.
3.3.1.7. NETWORK FLOW INDICES
Network flow indices computed by ECOPATH II for the 50-box model are listed in Table 3.26.
3.3.1.8. FLOWS AND TRANSFER EFFICIENCIES
Table 3.27 presents flows and transfer efficiencies for discrete trophic levels computed by
ECOPATH II for the 50-box model.
3.3.1.9. MIXED TROPHIC IMPACTS
Fig. 3.3 shows the direct and indirect impacts an increase in the biomass of the groups to
the left of the histograms would have on the groups positioned above them. The bars pointing
upwards show positive impacts while those pointing downwards, negative impacts. The impacts
are relative, not absolute ones but are comparable between histograms. Note that the routine
assumes the food matrix to remain stable, which would not happen in the long term (but may be
reasonable for the short term). The mixed trophic impacts can also be viewed as a simple
sensitivity analysis sensu Majkowski (1982).
A biomass increase of benthic autotrophs (group 49) has a direct positive effect on all
groups feeding on benthic producers. The impact is greatest for groups which feed almost
exclusively on benthic autotrophs, such as Kyphosidae (group 1O), intermediate herbivorous
reef fish ( I I ) , parrotfish (family Scaridae, groups 23, 24, 25), herbivorous blennies (26),
echinoids (37) and corals (45). The impact on detritus is also positive since a larger amount of
biomass would be directed towards this box.
An increase in phytoplankton biomass would have a strong direct positive impact on
engraulids (16) since they feed largely on phytoplankton. It has a moderate direct positive
Sea
280 hid. Sharks1
Small fish.pelagic
reefkh
Fig. 3.2. Graphical representation of the 50-box model of a Caribbean coral reef. The area of each box is proportional to the logarithm of the biomass (B, in S ~ - ~ W of
W)
each group. Values represent the average for all subsystems in Fig. 2.1. Flows are in gm-2year1WW. Incoming flows (bottom half of a box) represent at least 80% of the
diet of a group.
Table 3.25. Summary statistics computed by ECOPATH II for a 50-box
model of a Caribbean coral reef. PP = primary production.
Sum of all production = 51,282 gm-zyearl

Sum of all importsa = 475 gm-zyearl
Sum of all respiratory flows = 32,523 gm2year1
Sum of all flows into detritus = 23,193 gm-2year1
Total system throughput = 107,473 gm-2yearl

Throughput cycled = 19,686 gm-2year1
Finn's cycling index = 18.3% of throughput
Input total net PP = 20,500 gm-2year1

Calculated total net PP = 20,025 gm-2year1
"Difference between input total net PP and calculated total net PP.
Table 3.26. Network flow indices computed by ECOPATH II for a 50-box model of a Caribbean coral reef.
Ascendency Overhead Capacity

Source (flowbits) % (flowbits) YO (flowbits) YO
Inputs 952 0.2 2,678 0.6 3,630 0.8
Internal 94,210 21.5 226,071 51.6 320,281 73.1
Dissipations 52,362 12.0 61,940 14.1 114,302 26.1
Totals 147,524 33.7 290,689 66.3 438,213 100.0
Table 3.27. Flows and transfer efficiencies for discrete trophic levels computed by ECOPATH
II for a 50-box model of a Caribbean coral reef.
Flows originating from the primary producers

Trophic Import Export Respiration Throughput Flow to
level detritus
I
II
111
IV
v
VI
VI I
Vlll
IX
Flows originating from the detritus

Trophic Import Export Respiration Throughput Flow to
level detritus
I 0.000
II 8,299.198
Ill 1,060.269
IV 183.624
v 17.906
VI 1.599
VI I 0.176
Vlll 0.020
IX 0.002
Transfer efficiencies (%) by trophic level
Source I II 111 IV V VI VI I Vlll
Producers - 11.2 12.4 10.2 10.2 10.9 10.8

Detritus - 13.5 17.4 9.9 8.8 10.9 11.1
All flows - 13.1 16.6 9.9 9.0 10.9 11.0
-,,,,,,,,~~ZZZ2Z%XRRXWWC;WI~6W~5~W%W%S&2~~%~%%~~
1 Large sharkslrays, carnivorous I -
2 Sharkslscombrids
3 Large jacks, carnivorous
4 Large intermediatejacks, carnivorous I - --
-
.
5 Small jacks, carnivorous
6 lntermediate reef fish, carnivorous 1 - -
7 Large intermediate schooling fish, pelagic I I-
9 Hemiramphidae, herbivorous
10 Kyphosidae, herbivorous
11 lntermediate reef fish, herbivorous
12 Large reef fish, carnivorous
14 Small reef fish, carnivorous1
15 Small schooling fish, pelagic
23 Large Scaridae, herbivorous
24 IntermediateScaridae, herbivorous
25 Small Scaridae, herbivorous
26 Blenniidae, herbivorous
27 Small Gobiidae, carnivorous
28 Sea birds
29 Squids
30 Sea turtles
31 Octopuses
32 Lobsters
33 Crabs
34 Shrimpslhermitcrabs1
stomatopods
35 Small benthic arthropods
36 Asteroids
37 Echinoids
38 Gastrooods
40 Polychaeteslpriapuloidsophiuroids
41 Holothuroidslsipunculidslechiuroids
42 Bivalves
43 Ascidianslbarnacleslbryozoans
44 Sponges
45 Coralslanemones
46 Zooplankton
47 Decomposerslmicrofauna
48 Phytoplankton
49 Benthic producers
50 Detritus
Fig. 3.3. Mixed trophic impacts of a 50-box model of a Caribbean coral reef showing the direct and
indirect impacts an increase in the biomass of the groups to the left of the histograms will have on the
groups positioned above the histograms.
impact on bivalves (42), ascidians, barnacles and bryozoans (43) and zooplankton (46) since
these groups feed to some extent on phytoplankton. A slight indirect positive impact is observed
for groups feeding on groups which feed on phytoplankton, such as sharks and scombrids,
which feed on phytoplanktivorous engraulids.
An increase in biomass of decomposers/microfauna (group 47) has a large indirect positive
impact on almost all other groups (recall the analogy with the system's motor), except for a
small indirect negative impact on groups, which feed to a large extent on detritus. These groups
may be regarded as competitors for the same food source since group 47 feeds almost
exclusively on detritus. Therefore an increase of decomposers/microfauna biomass would have
a direct negative impact on the detritus box.
Increasing the biomass of the apex predators (birds, sharks, scombrids, large jacks and
groupers) would have a relatively small negative impact on their prey groups. This is due to the
small biomass of these groups combined with moderate relative food requirements. An increase
in the biomass of apex predators would have a slight direct positive effect on groups which
themselves feed, albeit, to a small extent on these predators, such as the seabirds.
Overall, an increase in biomass of a given group has a direct negative impact on its prey
groups and an indirect negative impact on groups competing for the same food source. Further,
such increase has a direct positive impact on the predators of that group and an indirect positive
impact on groups feeding, in turn, on those predators.
3.3.2. Comparison of Models Based on Two Methods of Aggregation
3.3.2.1. FURTHER AGGREGATION OF FISH GROUPS BY CLUSTER ANALYSIS
The results of the cluster analysis used to pass from 29 to 1 fish species group are depicted in
Fig. 3.1.
The strong separation of herbivores and carnivores is maintained up to a cutoff level of
80% (QED 1.2). The strongest separation between large and fast-swimming apex predators and
the vast majority of reef fish is maintained up to a cutoff level of 99.9% (QED 1.49). The reef fish
fauna is thus characterized by three principal energetic groups: (1) the large and fast-swimming
apex predators with a predominantly pelagic habitat and wide-ranging migrations (exceptions
are not well identified due to set values used here for the aspect ratios of sharks and rays; some
of them, especially rays and the nurse shark, probably belong to the large reef fishes); (2) the
predominantly carnivorous; and (3) the predominantly herbivorous reef fishes. (The omnivores
were pooled with either group depending on the percentage of plant or animal food in their diet).
3.3.2.2. AGGREGATION BY THE ECOPATH II AGGREGATION ROUTINE
Fig. 3.4 shows the results of the ECOPATH II aggregation routine which allowed a stepwise
reduction of the number of boxes from 50 to 1. Species groups with a similar trophic level were
aggregated first as in the case of the strictly herbivorous fish groups and the strictly carnivorous
groups which belong largely to the apex predators; within each trophic set, groups with a low
biomass were aggregated first in order to reduce ascendency as little as possible. It may also
be observed from Fig. 3.4 that the aggregation routine tends to form two main trophic groups by
combining groups with a similar trophic level: one carnivorous and one herbivorous. This
tendency becomes more obvious when the number of boxes is further reduced. Due to their
Sea blrds
Sha&dscombrids, camlwrous
Large shaiWrays, camiwrous
Ssuids
Large grwpen camworms
Large rest fisn cam vor0.r
ntermed ate lacks camrvorws
Sma face, camovoroJs
Sma. K h m ng lsh pelag c
Small reef fish carnworodS 2
Interneeate reef bsn cam voro~s1
a r g s onlermedmle schm ng tlrh peaglc
lnferneaale reef fish cam vorous 2
InlermedP1ereef fish, cam vOmbS 3
Sma reef l s h cam .oro.s 1
Lobsters
Sea tunles
Asteroids
Zooplankton
Small reef hsh, omnlvomus 1
HemlramDhldae hehiuorous
Small r e d hhsh, omnivorous 3
Crabs
ChitOnsAcaphOpOdS
Gasvopodo
Polychaetedpdapulo~ds/ophoroids
Sea anemoneslmals
I\Jcidians~bamacleSm'yOzoans
Engraulidae, hehlwrous
Small benthic admpods
Echinoids
Bivalves
Holothuro~ddsipunculiddech~umiddhemich~
Intermediate reef fish, hehworous
Blennadae, hehivomus
Kyphosldae, helvorous
Small Scaddae, herbivorous
Intermediate Scandae, herbivorous
Large Scaddae, hsrb~vorous
Sponges
Decomposerslm~crofauna
Phytoplankton
Bwmic autotrophs
Detritus, POM, DOM
Fig. 3.4. Graphical representation of the results of the ECOPATH II aggregation routine showing the
stepwise reduction of the number of boxes from 50 to 1 for models of a Caribbean coral reef.
high biomass and/or degree of detritivory, sponges and microfauna are kept as single groups
until the system is reduced to 8 boxes.
Benthic producers and detritus are also kept separate until the system is reduced to a
minimum number of boxes (5, 3 and 1). This dendrogram cannot be compared directly with the
results of the cluster analysis, since the latter was applied exclusively to fish species.
Nevertheless, it should be noticed that both figures show a separation into main trophic groups
(recall the separation into herbivorous and carnivorous reef fish groups which was maintained
up to a cutoff level of 80% in Fig. 3.1). The separation into large apex predators with a mainly
pelagic habitat and reef fish with a demersal habitat was not repeated by the ECOPATH II
aggregation routine.
3.3.2.3. THE 20-BOX MODELS
Method 1 : Cluster Analysis + Intuition

COMPOSITION OF GROUPS. Table 3.28 shows the composition of groups for the first of the two
20-box models. As pointed out in "Materials and methods", the group composition resulted from
an aggregation of fish species by cluster analysis and "intuitive guesswork" for the nonfish
groups based on the criteria relative to DC, body size and lifestyle.
In contrast to the 50-box model, some of the boxes of the 20-box model include both fish
and nonfish groups: groups are now classified by a combination of diet, size and lifestyle,
leaving apart the separation into fish and nonfish. This is a first step away from taxonomics,
toward a purely energetic approach (within the fish community, steps in this direction were taken
by combining species and groups with similar energy requirements, also irrespective of
taxonomics).
PARAMETER ESTIMATION.The condensed input values for the key parameters and the inputs
for the DC matrix may be found in Tables 3.29 and 3.30, respectively. Output values are the
same as input values with one exception referring to box 8, small benthic carnivores. In the 50-
box model, due to their low biomass (1.3 gm-*),the sea anemones were merged with the corals,
even though they are fully heterotrophic (feeding mainly on zooplankton). Within the 20-box
model, they were merged with small benthic carnivores. Their excessive predation mortality was
shifted to benthic autotrophs; this was unproblematic since the predators of sea anemones
include omnivorous and herbivorous groups. Therefore, the EE of benthic autotrophs (box 19)
increased from 0.360 to 0.362, while the EE of "corals" decreased from 0.977 in the 50-box
model to 0.713 in the 20-box model.
Table 3.31 presents additional parameters and ratios computed by ECOPATH II. These
parameter estimates allow, as already mentioned for the 50-box model, computation of the
energy balance, following the "master equation", of each box of the system.
Fig. 3.5 presents the 20-box model of an unexploited segment of the PRVl coral reefs
system, aggregated following method 1 (see above).
SYSTEM PROPERTIES. System properties, such as summary statistics, network flow indices,
flows and transfer efficiencies and mixed trophic impacts, were estimated by ECOPATH II for
the 20-box model as obtained by method 1. The results showed only negligible differences in
relation to the 50-box model. Summary statistics, network flow indices and flows for the 20-box
model, obtained by method I , are listed in Appendix Tables 8.9.1 to 8.9.3. Table 3.32 presents
the transfer efficiencies between discrete trophic levels.
Table 3.28. Composition of groups of a 20-box model of a Caribbean coral reef obtained by method 1 (cluster analysis + intuition); names of subgroups refer
to orioinal orouDs in the 50-box model.
Group Group
no. Predatorlprey group no. Predatorlprey group
1 B Sea birds 9 Benthic invertebrates, omnivorous
2 Sharkslrayslscombrids I Gastropods +
I Polychaeteslpriapuloidslophiuroids
F Large sharkslrays, carnivorous + Large to intermediate reef fish, herbivorous

F Sharkslscombrids, carnivorous (>50% plant food)
Large to intermediatejacks, carnivorous F Kyphosidae, herbivorous +

F Intermediate reef fish, herbivorous +
F Large jacks, carnivorous + F Large Scaridae, herbivorous +
F lntermediate jacks, carnivorous F Intermediate Scaridae, herbivorous
Large to intermediate schooling pelagics Small reef fish, herbivorous

(~50% plant food)
F Small jacks, carnivorous +
F* Large to intermediate schooling fish, pelagic + F Small reef fish, omnivorous 3 +
F Hemiramphidae, herbivorous + F Small Scaridae, herbivorous +
I Squids F Blenniidae, herbivorous
Benthic invertebrates, herbivorous

Small schooling fish, pelagic (>50% plant food)
Crabs
Small schooling fish, pelagic + Amphipodslisopodsl tanaidslpycnogonids +
Engraulidae, herbivorous Echinoids +
Chitonslscaphopods
Semisessile detritivores
Large to intermediate benthic carnivores (>50% detrital food)
(~50% live animal food)
Holothuroidslsipunculidslechiuroidsl
Intermediate reef fish, carnivorous 1 + hemichordates +
Large reef fish, carnivorous + Bivalves
lntermediate reef fish, carnivorous 2 +
lntermediate reef fish, carnivorous 3 + Sessile detritivores
lntermediate reef fish, carnivorous 4 + (>50% detrital food)
Sea turtles +
Octopuses + Ascidianslbarnacleslbryozoans +
Lobsters Sponges
Small benthic carnivores 15 Corals

(> 50 % live animal food)
16 Zooplankton
Small reef fish, carnivorous 1 +
Small reef fish, carnivorous 2 + 17 Decomposerslmicrofauna
Small reef fish, omnivorous 1 +
Small reef fish, omnivorous 2 + 18 Phytoplankton
Small Gobiidae, carnivorous +
Shrimpslhermit crabslstomatopods + 19 Benthic autotrophs
Asteroids +
Sea anemones 20 Detritus
B = bird, F = fish, I = invertebrate, R = reptile

Table 3.29. Results of the ECOPATH II parameterestimation for a 20-box model of a Caribbean coral reef (method 1: cluster analysis
+ intuition; average values are weighted by biomass); PIB = productionlbiomassratio, QIB = consumptionlunit biomass, EE = ecotrophic
efficiency (part of production consumed by predators).
Average Average
Group No.of Biomass PIB QIB End
Predator group groupsa (g .m-2) (year1) (year') EE
Sea birds
Sharkslrayslscombrids, carnivorous
Large to intermediate jacks, carnivorous
Large to intermediate schooling pelagics
Small schooling pelagic fish
Large to intermediate benthic carnivores
(>50% live animal food)
Small benthic carnivores
Benthic invertebrates, omnivorous
Large to intermediate reef fish, herbivorous
(>50% plant food)
Small reef fish, herbivorous
(>50%plant food)
(>50% plant food)
(>50% detrital food)
Sessile detritivores
Corals
Zooplankton
Phytoplankton
Benthic autotrophs
Detritus, POM, DOM
a Number of groups refers to original groups from the 50-box model

Table 3.30. D ~ ecomposition
t matrix for a 20-box model of a Caribbean coral reef (method 1: cluster analysis + intuition)
Values in parentheses refer to origlnal values which had to be modified to balance the model.
Group No. of Prey group

no. Predator group groupsa 1 2 3 4
Sea birds
Benthic Invertebrates, omnivorous
Large to mtermediate reef fish, herbivorous

(~30% plant food)
Small reef fish, herbivoro~s
(>50% plant food)
Benthic invertebrates, herbworous
(250% plant food)
(~50% detrital food)
(>50% detr~talfood)
Corals
Zooplankton
Microfauna
Phytoplankton
Benthic autotrophs
Detritus
"Number of groups refers to origlnal groups from the 50-box model

continued.
Table 3.30continued
Group Prey group

no. 12 20 Sum
Table 3.31. Results of the ECOPATH II parameter estimation for a 20-box model of a Caribbean coral reef; method 1 (cluster analysis + intuition).
Additional parameters. Import to detritus: 475 g-mZ,other imports to boxes are 0: catches for all boxes are 0.
Excretion = 5% and egestion = 15% (nonassimilated food, default values) of the food intake of each box.
Group Food Predation mortality Flow to Trophic

no. Predator group intakea Respiration~production^EE) V e t r i t u s a Assimilationa level
Sea birds
(>SO% live animal food)
Large to intermediate reef fish. herbivorous
(>50% plant food)
(>50% plant food)
(>50% plant food)
Corals
Zooplankton
Microfauna
Phytoplankton
Benthic autotrophs
Detritus, POM, DOM
continued

I Sea birds
6.002
Large
I
Large
intermediate
1 jacks
Large Intermediate
benthic
carnivores '33
Small
benthic
I I small
3
1
I
schooling
pelagics 8 = 14
Ir?
,
-1 1 Bi
Larg;;te;ediate
schooling
t
B=32
Zooplankton
Benthic ]
Benthic invertebrates,
invertebrates, omnivores
herbivores 0.80
Decomposers,
1 detnt~vores
Sessile I
mtermedlate
reef fish,
herb~vores
I I
I 11
11
559 196 296 946 3513 27,075 80 1,056 948

Benthlc producers B=1,300 I 1
Detritus 8=2,000
Phvtoolankton
Fig. 3.5. Graphical representation of a 20-box model of a Caribbean coral reef as obtained by method 1 (cluster analysis + intuition). The area of each
box is proportional to the logarithm of the biomass (B, in gm-2WW) of each group. Values represent the average for all subsystems in Fig. 2.1. Flows
are in gm-2year1WW.Incoming flows (entering bottom half of a box) represent at least 90% of the diet of a group.
Table 3.32. Transfer efficiencies (%) by discrete trophic level for a 20-box model (method 1)
Source I II Ill IV V VI VI I Vlll
Producers 10.8 11.8 9.3 9.6 10.1

Detritus 13.6 17.4 8.9 8.8 10.1 10.1
All flows 13.1 16.6 8.9 8.9 10.1 11.1
Transfer efficiencies by discrete trophic levels for primary producers were somewhat lower
(4% to 9%) than in the 50-box model. For detritus, transfer efficiencies were lower for levels IV,
VI and VII. Throughput per trophic level for detritus is around 7-10 times that for primary
producers. Thus, resulting transfer efficiencies for combined flows were mainly affected by
efficiencies computed for detritus. The differences in transfer efficiencies for models with a
different number of boxes may be because the efficiencies are computed after the flows
involved in cycles are removed, and there are more flows involved in cycles after aggregating
formerly distinct boxes. Since detritus is involved in more cycles than any other food source, the
differences in transfer efficiencies for detritus must also be more pronounced when comparing
models with a different number of boxes.
Trophic level VII for primary producers had, in contrast to the 50-box model, no estimate of
transfer efficiency. This may be explained by the effect of aggregating groups of differing food
types, where the fraction of plant food in the resulting groups was reduced to nearly zero due to
weighting of DC by the biomass and consumption requirements of the groups included.
MIXEDTROPHICIMPACTS. Fig. 3.6 shows the direct and indirect impacts on the biomass of prey
groups by an increased biomass of the predator group for the 20-box model obtained by
method 1. Relationships and impacts between groups correspond basically to those discussed
for the 50-box model. The figure was included here for a better visualization of impacts, when
the system is reduced to 20 boxes and for comparison with the 20-box model obtained by
method 2 (see below).
Method 2: ECOPATH 11 - Aggregation Routine
COMPOSITION OF GROUPS. Table 3.33 shows the group composition of the second of the two
20-box models. The group composition is the result of a combination of groups from the bal-
anced 50-box model by the ECOPATH II aggregation routine. In contrast to method l , the
combination of groups is based on a single criterion, the least reduction (by pairing boxes) of
average shared information (i.e., ascendency). Interestingly, this routine tends to group boxes of
similar trophic levels, i.e., the aggregated boxes in the reduced models consist of carnivorous,
omnivorous and herbivorous groups without reference criteria, such as size. Therefore, a large
carnivorous fish group is produced which includes species ranging from tiger shark to gobies
(Group 1, aggregation 26).
Also, because a trophic level of 1 is assigned to autotrophs as well as to detritus (see
Introduction), nonfish taxa or groups feeding to some or large extent on detritus are combined
with groups feeding on benthic autotrophs (group 4, aggregation 22).
The omnivorous group 6 (aggregation 25) includes fish and nonfish groups with a wide
spectrum of omnivory. The groups with similar trophic levels are more likely to be aggregated
when their biomass values are low because the associated flows are less, and hence have little
impact on ascendency. This might also be the reason why so many nonfish groups from the 50-
1 Sea birds
2 Sharkslrayslscombrids
3 Large intermediate jacks, carnivorous
4 Large intermediate schooling pelagics
5 Small schooling pelagics
7 Large intermediate benthlc carnivores

8 Small benthic carnivores
9 Benthic invertebrates, omnivorous
10 Large intermediate reef fish, herbivorous
11
12
11- -
I
13
14
15
Corals
I -
16 Zooplankton
18 Phytoplankton
Fig. 3.6. Mixed trophic impacts of a 20-box model (method 1) of a Caribbean coral reef showing the
direct and indirect impacts an increase in the biomass of the groups to the left of the histograms will
have on the groups above the histograms.
Table 3.33. Composition of groups of a 20-box model of a Caribbean coral reef as obtained by method 2 (ECOPATH II aggregation routine);
names of subgroups refer to original groups in the 50-box model
Group Group
Aggregation 26 Aggregation 25
Large sharkslrays, carnivorous Small reef fish, omnivorous 1

Sharkslscombrids, carnivorous Small reef fish, omnivorous 2
Large jacks, carnivorous Small reef fish, omnivorous 3
Intermediate jacks, carnivorous Sea turtles
lntermediate reef fish, carnivorous 1 Crabs
Intermediate reef fish, carnivorous 3 Aggregation 21
Small reef fish, carnivorous 2 Octopuses
Large groupers, carnivorous Lobsters
lntermediate reef fish, carnivorous 4 Shrimpslhermit crabslstomatopods
Small Gobiidae, carnivorous Asteroids
Sea birds
Aggregation 24 Amphipodslisopodsltanaidslpycnogonids
Small jacks, carnivorous Gastropods
Large to intermediate schooling fish, pelagic
Small schooling fish, pelagic Chitonslscaphopods
Squlds
Aggregation 20
F Hemiramph~dae,herbivorous 12 Bivalves
F Kyphosidae, herbivorous
F Large Scarldae, herbivorous 13 Ascidianslbarnacleslbryozoans
F Intermediate Scaridae, herbivorous
F Small Scaridae, herbivorous
I Echinoids 14 Sponges
4 Aggregation 22 15 Sea anemoneslcorals
F Intermediate reef fish, herbivorous Zooplankton

F Blenniidae, herbivorous
I Holothuroidslsipunculidsl Microfauna
Phytoplankton
Benthic autotrophs
20 Detritus, POM, DOM
B = bird, F =Ash, I = invertebrate, R = reptile.
box model continued to exist as separate entities within the 20-box model. This is certainly a
positive feature, since differences in DC, consumption requirements and size are pronounced
between nonfish groups.
When comparing the group composition produced by method 1 with that by method 2, the
food type is apparently the principal aggregation criterion. The basic producer groups of the
system are left unchanged in both 20-box models (groups 15-20, corals to detritus). The
combination of fish with nonfish and the distinction of the food type in a group depend primarily
on the contrast of (1) intuitive use of more than one aggregation criterion, and (2) objective
combination of groups by a single aggregation criterion. The choice of method depends on the
objective of the modelling effort. Method 1 produces a more detailed view of the system where
ecological criteria, such as size, lifestyle and, to some extent, habitat (e.g., pelagic vs.
demersal) are explicitly considered. If one aims, though, to produce an energy pyramid of the
system considered, where energy transfer efficiencies and flow rates between distinct trophic
levels are of interest, method 2 is certainly the better choice.
PARAMETER ESTIMATION.Tables 3.34 and 3.35 list the outputs for the three key parameters, as
well as EEs and additional parameters. The percent food intake of prey for 20 predator groups
(database of a food matrix) may be found in Appendix Table 8.8.3. Fig. 3.7 shows the 20-box
model of the PRVl coral reef as obtained by method 2.
Table 3.34. Results of the ECOPATH II parameter estimation for a 20-box model of a Caribbean coral reef (method 2: ECOPATH II aggregation routine);
PIB = productionlbiomass ratio, QIB = consumptionlunit biomass, EE = ecotrophic efficiency (part of production consumed by predators).
Group No. of Biomass Average PIB Average QIB End

no. Predator group groupsa kW2) (year') (year') EE
Aggregation 26
Aggregation 24
Aggregation 20
Aggregation 22
Aggregation 25
Aggregation 21
Amphipodslisopodsltanaidslpycnogonids
Gastropods
Chitonslscaphopods
Polychaeteslpriapulo~dsloph~uroids
Bivalves
Sponges
Coralslsea anemones
Zooplankton
Decornposerslmicrofauna
Phytoplankton
Benthic autotrophs
Detritus, DOM, POM
" Number of groups refers to original groups from the 50-box model
Table 3 35. Results of the ECOPATH II parameter estimation for a 20-box model of a Caribbean coral reef method 2 (ECOPATH II aggregation routine).
Additional parameters
Import to detritus: 475 g m 2 , other imports to boxes are 0. catches for all boxes are 0. Excretion = 5% and egestion = 15% (nonassimilated food, default
vaues) of the food intake of each box
Grour, Food Predation mortality Flow to Trophic

no. Predat~rgroup intakea (production *EE)" detritusa Asslmrlationa level
Aggregation 26 3.45
Aggregation 24 3.57
Aggregation 20 2.08
Aggregation 22 2.05
Engraulidae, herbivorous 2.32
Aggregation 25 2.48
Aggregat~on21 3 02
Amphipods/~sopods/tanaids/pycnogonids 2.28
Gastropods 2.37
Chitonslscaphopods 2.38
Polychaeteslpriapuloidslophiuroids 2.35
Bivalves 2.10
Ascidianslbarnacleslbryozoans 2.34
Sponges 2 00
Coralslsea anemones 2.34
Zooplankton 2.60
Microfauna 2.00
Phytoplankton 1.oo
Benthic autotrophs 1.00
Detritus, POM. DOM 1 00
continued...

sea anemones I
1-
Fig. 3.7. Graphical representation of a 20-box model of a Caribbean coral reef as obtained by method 2
(ECOPATH II aggregation routine). The area of each box is proportional to the logarithm of the biomass (B, in
gm-2WW)of each group. Values represent the average for all subsystems in Fig. 2.1. Flows are in gm-2year1WW.
Incoming flows (entering bottom half of a box) represent at least 90% of the diet of a group.
SYSTEM PROPERTIES.System properties, such as summary statistics, network flow indices
and size of flows from primary producers, detritus and all flows combined for a 20-box model as
obtained by method 2, are shown in Appendix Tables 8.9.4 to 8.9.6. These properties showed
only small differences in relation to the 50-box model and to the 20-box model as obtained by
method 1. This is mainly due to the fact that both methods of aggregation maintain a given
throughput during the aggregation process. Table 3.36 presents the transfer efficiencies
between discrete trophic levels.
Transfer efficiencies by discrete trophic levels for primary producers were somewhat higher
(1% to 6.5%) than in the 50-box model. Compared to the 20-box model obtained by method 1,
differences varied from 5% to 14%. For detritus, transfer efficiencies showed differences to the
50-box model of -1% to +4% and to the 20-box model, obtained by method 1, of -1% to +14%.
For combined flows, differences of transfer efficiencies varied from -1% to +5% compared to the
50-box model, and from -1% to +14% for the 20-box model as obtained by method 1.
Differences in transfer efficiencies were more pronounced for levels V, VI and VII when
compared to the 50-box model (+5% to +9%), and for levels IV to VII when compared.to the 20-
box model as obtained by method 1 (+lo% to +14%). These more pronounced differences
between the 20-box models, obtained by two different aggregation methods, may as well be due
to efficiencies computed after removing flows involved in cycles. Since the two methods
produced somewhat differing groups, the efficiencies should also be different.
MIXEDTROPHIC IMPACTS. Fig. 3.8 shows, as its predecessors of the 50-box model and the 20-
box model obtained by method 1, the direct and indirect impacts on the biomass of prey groups
by a raise of biomass of the predator group. As for the 20-box model obtained by method 1, the
present figure was included for a better visualization of impacts, when the system is reduced to
20 boxes by the ECOPATH II aggregation routine and for comparison with the 20-box model as
obtained by method 1.
3.3.2.2. THE 1 1-BOX MODELS
Method 7 : Cluster Analysis + Intuition

COMPOSITION OF GROUPS. Table 3.37 shows the group composition for the 11-box model of a
Caribbean coral reef as obtained by method 1. Main aggregation criterion was now the food
type, and the aim was to reduce the system to a very low number of boxes. The division into
two main habitats (pelagic-midwater, demersal-off bottom) is still visible, mainly because the
group of apex predators was maintained by the cluster analysis. The zooplanktivorous schooling
pelagics (group 2) correspond exactly to group 2 (aggregation 24) in the 20-box model obtained
by method 2.
The omnivore group (4) is rather small, consisting of only two invertebrate taxa, because a
group or taxon was identified as omnivorous only when none of the three main food sources
(live animal, plant, detrital food) outweighted the others, i.e., when one element could not be
classified by the criterion %0% of a distinct food source".
For this method of aggregation and with increasing level of aggregation, the number of
aggregation criteria is reduced. This means that distinctness of main features of a system is
paid for in terms of loss in detail. Thus, it is up to the modeller or user of the model to decide
which element is more appropriate for the respective objective and from this, to select an
appropriate number of boxes for the final model.
Table 3.36. Transfer efficiencies (%) by discrete trophic level for a 20-box model (method 2)
Source I II 111 IV V VI VI I Vlll

- - -
Producers - 11.3 12.2 10.3 10.8 11.5 11.5

Detritus 13.5 17.3 9.7 9.6 11.4 11.5
All flows 13.1 16.5 9.8 9.8 11.4 11.5
Table 3.37. Composition of groups of an 11-box model of a Caribbean coral reef obtained by method 1 (cluster analysis + intuition); names of
subgroups refer to original groups in the 50-box model.
Group Group
no Predatorlprey group no. Predatorlprey group
Apex predators, mainly pelagic Benthic herbivores

(>50% plant food)
Large sharkslrays, carnivorous +
Sharkslscombrids, carnivorous + Kyphosidae, herbivorous +
Large jacks, carnivorous + Intermediate reef fish, herbivorous +
Intermediate jacks, carnivorous + Large Scaridae, herbivorous +
Sea birds lntermediate Scaridae, herbivorous +
Schooling pelagics, zooplanktivorous Small Scaridae, herbivorous +
Blenniidae, herbivorous +
Small jacks, carnivorous + Crabs +
Large to intermediate schooling flsh, pelagic + Amphipodslisopods/tanaidslpycnogonids +
Hemiramphidae, herbivorous + Echinolds +
Small schooling fish, pelagic + Chitonslscaphopods +
Engraulidae, herbivorous + Corals
Squids
Benthic detritivores
Benthic carnivores (>50% detrital food)
Holothuroidslsipunculids
Large groupers, carnivorous + echiuroidslhemichordates +
lntermediate reef fish, carnivorous 1 + Bivalves +
Large reef fish, carnivorous + Asc~dians/barnacleslbryozoans+
lntermediate reef fish, carnivorous 2 + Sponges
lntermediate reef fish, carnivorous 3 +
lntermediate reef fish, carnivorous 4 + Zooplankton
Small reef fish, omnivorous 2 + Phytoplankton
Small Gobiidae, carnivorous +
Sea turtles + Benthic autotrophs
Octopuses +
Lobsters +
Asteroids +
Sea anemones +
Benthic omnivores
Gastropods +
Polvchaetesloria~uloidslo~hiuroids
B = bird. F =fish, I = invertebrate, R = reptile

1 Aggregation 26
I 2 Aggregation 24
3 Aggregation 20
4 Aggregatlon 22
6 Aggregation 25
I 7 Aggregatlon 21
8 Small benthic arthropods
9 Gastropods
11 Polychaeteslpriapuloidsl
ophiuroids
12 Bivalves
13 Ascidianslbarnaclesl
bryozoans
14 Sponges
I 15 Coralslanemones
16 Zooplankton
18 Phytoplankton
20 Detritus
PARAMETER ESTIMATION. Tables 3.38 and 3.40 present inputloutput estimates for the three key
parameters as well as EEs and additional parameters and ratios. Input values did not have to be
modified to equilibrate the system, therefore the same tables are valid for input as well as for
output. The same is true for the diet matrix (Table 3.39).
Fig. 3.9 shows the 11-box model as produced by method 1.
SYSTEM PROPERTIES. Summary statistics, network flow indices and size of flows for primary
producers, detritus and all flows combined for an 11-box model, obtained by method 1, are
presented in Appendix Tables 8.9.7 to 8.9.9. The results, again, showed only small differences
when compared to the previous models. Table 3.41 presents the transfer efficiencies between
discrete trophic levels.
Overall, transfer efficiencies for primary producers showed only negligible differences when
compared to the 20-box model obtained by the same method. The only more pronounced
differences could be observed in level V for detritus (+8%) and consequently for all flows
combined (+7%) and in level VII for all flows combined (-10%). The differences may be because
before computing the transfer efficiencies, ECOPATH II removes the flows involved in cycles. A
difference in group composition between the two methods must therefore result in differing
transfer efficiencies.
MIXEDTROPHIC IMPACTS. Fig. 3.10 shows the direct and indirect impacts on the biomass of
prey groups by a raise of biomass of the predator group for an II-box model obtained by
method 1. As for the 20-box models, the figure was included here for comparison with the
previous models.
Method 2: ECOPATH 11 - Aggregation Routine
COMPOSITION OF GROUPS. Table 3.42 shows the composition of groups for an 11-box model
resulting from a further reduction of the number of boxes by the ECOPATH II aggregation
routine. At this level of reduction, fish groups are strongly fused with nonfish ones. The tendency
to produce groups of similar food type is maintained. Aggregation 12 (group 1) represents a
very large group (large in the sense of containing the highest number of groups from the 50-box
model) of carnivores. Group 2 (aggregation 20) holds the herbivores consisting of few groups,
then group 3 (aggregation 15), the omnivores. Group 4 (aggregation 11) is a mixture of
phytoplankton-feeding engraulids with detritivorous and phytoplanktivorous bivalves, ascidians,
barnacles and bryozoans. Group 5 (aggregation 13) consists of invertebrates feeding
predominantly on autotrophs. Groups 6-11 were maintained as in the 50-box model. Except for
the sponges (group 6), which were pooled with other detritivores in the 20- and 11-box models
of method 1, these groups are represented as single boxes in the 11-box models from both
methods. Both 11-box models contain similar qualitative groupings although, as stated above,
the detritivores are not separated from the herbivores due to the assignment of the same trophic
level to both food types in method 2.
PARAMETER ESTIMATION.
Tables 3.43, 3.44 and Appendix Table 8.8.5 show the ECOPATH II
outputs for the II-box model. Fig. 3.11 presents the second of the two II-box models of a
Caribbean coral reef.
Table 3.38. Results of the ECOPATH II parameter estimation for an 11-box model of a Caribbean coral reef (method 1: cluster analysis +
intuition); average values are weighted by biomass; PIB = productionlbiomass ratio, QIB = consumptionlunit biomass, EE = ecotrophic
efficiency (part of production consumed by predators).
Group No of B~omass Average PIB Average QIB End

no Predator group groupsa (g m 2, (year') (year') EE
Apex predators, mainly pelagic

Schooling pelagics, zooplanktivorous
Benthic carnivores
Benthic herbivores
(>50% plant food)
(250% detrital food)
Zooplankton
Phytoplankton
Benthic autotrophs
Detritus, POM, DOM
a Number of groups refers to original groups from the 50-box model
Table 3.39. Diet composition matrix for an 11-box model of a Caribbean coral reef, method 1 (cluster analysis + intuition)
Group No of Prey group

no. Predator group groups" 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Sum

Benthic carnivores
Benthic herbivores
(>50% plant food)
Zooplankton
Microfauna
Phytoplankton
Benthic autotrophs
Detritus, POM, DOM
a Number of groups refers to original groups from the 50-box model.
Table 3.40. Results of the ECOPATH II parameter estimation for an 11-box model of a Caribbean coral reef, method 1 (cluster analysis + intuition).
Additional parameters. Import to detritus: 475 g m Z ,other imports to boxes are 0: catches for all boxes are 0
-

no. Predator group intake" Respiration"production 'EE) " detritus" Assimilationa level
-

Benthic carnivores
Benthic herbivores
(>50% plant food)
Zooplankton
Phytoplankton
Benthic autotrophs
Detritus, POM, DOM
"g.m 2.year1WW)
continued....
- -
Group Omnivoly Gross Net Respiration1 Production1

Schooling
pelagics
Benthic
herbivores
6.358
invertebrates,
omnivorous
nC Benthic
detritivores
B=1.112
B=15
Decomposers1
rnicrofauna
I1
(1
3>408769 946 541 83
Benth~cproducers Detr~tus
B=1.300 B=2,000
Fig. 3.9. Graphical representation of an Il-box model as obtained by method 1 (cluster analysis + intuition).
The area of each box is proportional to the logarithm of the biomass (B, in S ~ - ~ W of
Weach
) group. Values
represent the average for all subsystems in Fig. 2.1. Flows are in gm-2year1WW.Incoming flows (entering
bottom half of a box) represent at least 95% of the diet of a group.
Table 3.41. Transfer efficiencies (%) by discrete trophic level for an 11-box model (method 1)
Source I II Ill IV V VI VII Vlll
Producers - 10.7 11.8 9.5 9.8 10.0

Detritus 13.6 17.1 9.0 9.5 9.9 10.0
All flows 13.1 16.4 9.1 9.5 9.9 10.0
1 Apex predators
2 School pelagics
3 Benthic carnivores
4 Benthic invertebrates
omnivorous
5 Benthic herbivores
6 Benthic detritivores
7 Zooplankton
8 Decomposers/rnicrofauna
9 Phytoplankton
11 Detritus
Fig. 3.10. Mixed trophic impacts of an 11-box model (method 1) of a Caribbean

coral reef showing the direct and indirect impacts an increase in the biomass of
the groups to the left of the histograms will have on the groups positioned above
the histograms.
Table 3.42. Composition of groups for an 11-box model of a Caribbean coral reef obtained by method 2 (ECOPATH II aggregation routine); names of
subgroups refer to original groups in the 50-box model.
Group Group
Aggregation 12 Aggregation 15
Large sharkslrays, carnlvorous + lntermediate reef fish, herbivorous +

Sharkslscombrids, carnivorous + Small reef fish, omnivorous 1 +
Large jacks, carnivorous + Small reef fish, omnivorous 2 +
lntermediate jacks, carnivorous + Small reef fish, omnivorous 3 +
Small jacks, carnivorous + Blenniidae, herbivorous +
lntermediate reef fish, carnivorous 1 + Sea turtles +
Large to intermediate schooling fish, pelagic + Crabs +
lnterrnediate reef fish, carnlvorous 2 + Gastropods +
Large reef fish, carnivorous + Polychaeteslpriapuloidslophiuroids +
lnterrnediate reef fish, carnivorous 3 + Holothuro~dslsi~unculidslechiuroidslhemichordates
Small reef fish, carnlvorous 1 +
Small schooling fish, pelagic + Aggregation 11
Large groupers, carnivorous + Engraulidae, herbivorous +
lnterrnediate reef fish, carnivorous 4 + Bivalves +
Small Gobiidae, carnivorous + Ascidianslbarnacleslbryozoans
Sea birds +
Squids + Aggregation 13
Octopuses +
Lobsters + Amphipodslisopodsltanaidslpycnogonids +
Shrimpslhermit crabs1stomatopods + Chitonslscaphopods +
Asteroids + Sea anemoneslcorals
Sponges
Aggregation 20
Zooplankton
Hemiramphrdae, herbivorous +
Kyphosidae, herbivorous + Microfauna
Large Scaridae, herbivorous +
lntermediate Scaridae, herbivorous + Phytoplankton
Small Scaridae, herbivorous +
Echinoids + Benthic autotrophs
Detritus, POM, DOM
B = bird, F =fish, I = invertebrate, R = reptile.
Table 3.43. Results of the ECOPATH II parameter estimation for an 11-box model of a Caribbean coral reef (method 2: ECOPATH
II aggregation routine); PIB = productionlbiomass ratio, QIB = consumpt~onlunitbiomass, EE = ecotrophic efficiency (part of
production consumed by predators).
Group No of Biomass Average PIB Average QIB End

no. Predator group groupsa (W') (year') (year') EE
Aggregat~on12
Aggregation 20
Aggregation 15
Aggregation 11
Aggregation 13
Sponges
Zooplankton
Phytoplankton
Benthic autotrophs
Detritus, DOM, POM
"umber of groups refers to original groups from the 50-box model

Table 3.44. Results of the ECOPATH II parameter estimation for an 11-box model of a Caribbean coral reef, method 2 (ECOPATH II aggregation routine).
Additional parameters. Import to detritus: 475 g.m", other imports to boxes are 0: catches for all boxes are 0.

no. Predator group intakea Respirationa (production *EE) a detritusa Assimilationa level
Aggregation 12
Aggregation 20
Aggregation 15
Aggregation 11
Aggregation 13
Sponges
Zooplankton
Phytoplankton
Benthic autotrophs
Detritus, POM, DOM

Fig. 3.11. Graphical repre-

sentation of an 11-box model
as obtained by method 2
(ECOPATH II aggregation
routine). The area of each
box is proportional to the
logarithm of the biomass (B,
S ~ - ~ W ofW )each group.
Values represent the
average for all subsystems
in Fig. 2.1. Flows are in
gm-2year-1WW.Incoming
flows (entering bottom half of
a box) represent at least
95% of the diet of a group.
SYSTEM PROPERTIES. System properties such as summary statistics, network flow indices and
size of flows for primary producers, detritus and all flows combined are listed in Appendix Tables
8.9.1 0 to 8.9.12. Table 3.45 presents the transfer efficiencies between discrete trophic levels.
Table 3.45. Transfer efficiencies (%) by discrete trophic level for an 11-box model (method 2).
Source I Il 111 IV V VI VI I Vlll

- -
Producers - 11.4 12.2 10.4 10.5 10.9

Detritus 13.5 17.4 10.4 10.1 10.7
All flows 13.1 16.6 10.4 10.2 10.8
Transfer efficiencies of levels II to IV for primary producers showed only negligible

differences when compared to those of the 20-box model obtained by the same method (2).
Transfer efficiencies of levels V and VI showed differences of -3% and -5%, respectively. Level
VII had no estimate. When compared to transfer efficiencies of the 11-box model obtained by
method 1, differences were more pronounced, ranging from +3% to +9% for primary producers.
For detritus, estimates for levels IV to VI differed from -6% to +7% when compared to those of
the 20-box model obtained by method 2 and from +6% to +16% (level IV) when compared to
the 11-box model obtained by method 1. No estimate of transfer efficiency of level VI1 was
computed for detritus. Resulting transfer efficiencies for all flows of levels IV to VI showed
differences from -5% to +6% when compared to the 20-box model obtained by the same
method and from +7% to +14% (level IV) when compared to the 11-box model obtained by
method 1. The 11-box model obtained by method 2 includes one discrete trophic level less than
the previous models. This is due to the differing composition of carnivores which in the 20- and
II-box models obtained by method 1
discriminate between reef carnivores,
schooling pelagics and large pelagic apex
predators. In the 11-box model obtained by
method 2, these groups are combined into a
single group of carnivores.
1 Aggregatlon 12
MIXEDTROPHICIMPACTS. Fig. 3.12, showing 2 Aggregalm 20
the direct and indirect impacts on the

biomass of prey groups by a raise of biomass 3 Aggregatlon 15
of the predator group, was included for

comparison of the II-box model obtained by 4 Aggregatlon 11
method 2 with the previous models.

5 Aggregation 13
6 Sponges
7 Zooplankton
8 Decomposers1
m~crofauna
9 Phytoplankton
10 Benlhlc producers
Fig. 3.12. Mixed trophic impacts of an 11-box model
(method 2) of a Caribbean coral reef showing the 11 oetr1tus
direct and indirect impacts an increase in the biomass
of the groups to the left of the histograms will have
on the groups above the histograms.
The models presented in the "Results1'section show that it is possible to construct a
quantitative steady-state model of a coral reef system from published data and parameter
estimates based largely on multivariate statistics.
4.1. Compatibility of the Models with the PRVI Coral Reef System
In the following, selected outputs will be compared to "external" estimates, i.e., values not
used to produce the models, to assess the "match" between the models and real coral reef
ecosystems (unexploited segments of the Puerto Rico-Virgin Islands [PRVI] reef area and coral
reef ecosystems in general).
Benthic autotrophs showed a relatively high ecotrophic efficiency (EE) of 0.36 in the five
models. According to Jacobsen and Browder (1987), only 5%-10% of net productivity of
Thalassia is consumed directly. This corresponds to an EE of 0.05-0.1. Seagrasses formed a
sizable fraction of benthic autotrophs but it is well possible that a considerably stronger grazing
pressure was exerted on the algae, the other elements of this box. The reef contains a
specialized fish fauna feeding directly on benthic plants: mixed aggregations of acanthurids,
scarids, chaetodontids, for example, graze on coral-algal reef flats like sheep on a meadow (see
e.g., Earle 1972).
Based on rotenone sampling, Randall (1963b) obtained a reef fish biomass of 160 gm-* and
158 gm-2for two fringing reef areas in the Virgin Islands. Small pelagics as well as large apex
predators (sharks, rays, scombrids, jacks) were not included in this figure. These values were
not used as biomass inputs for the models presented here because (1) the estimates referred
only to a single subsystem and, more important, (2) an independent estimate of reef fish
biomass was needed for validation of the models' outputs (subsequent comparison of results
from the model with "external" estimates). Only by using independent estimates can the
compatibility of both be checked and thus the results confirmed or rejected.
The models' output of total fish biomass amounted to 104 gm-2,including small pelagics
and apex predators for an average system composed of the five subsystems in Fig. 2.1.
Demersal reef fish biomass was 75 gm-2.This value was only 47% of Randall's (1963b)
estimate. Although his figure was based on a rotenone sampling from the subsystem "coral reef"
where biomasses for typical reef fishes usually are higher than for an average square meter
from five subsystems, his figure was probably still an underestimate of the real values.
Apparently, the two reefs were sampled by fish poison only once each. Even sampling by
poison will underestimate fish biomass on a reef probably due to escape of larger individuals or,
in case of small cryptic species, by flight into hiding places, where they subsequently die
undetected (Pauly 1984).
Smith (1973) showed that not all individuals present in a specific reef area are killed by the
first application of poison. For a more realistic estimate of population size, sampling has to be
repeated. A "Leslie" plot of catchleffort (catch per application of poison) versus cumulative catch
can be used to obtain an estimate of real population size from the intersection of the resulting
regression line with the abscissa, as was shown by Pauly (1984) for two coral reef fish species
(see Fig. 4.1).
From Fig. 4.1, a ratio between the first sample and the initial population size of 0.31 for reef
eels and of 0.32 for bluehead wrasse can be estimated. Applying the mean ratio of 0.315 to
Randall's fish biomass estimate of 160 gm-2yielded an initial fish biomass of 533 gm-2.
Another evaluation of reef fish standing stock, carried out by Dammann (1969, cited in
Lewis 1981) yielded a fish biomass for a Virgin Islands fringing reef of 38 gm-2.Since this paper
was not available to me, I cannot discuss the methodology involved. Note, however, that the fish
biomass estimated here is intermediate between Randall's and Dammann's estimates of fish
biomass.
Fast and Pagan-Font (1973, cited in Jacobsen and Browder 1987) obtained a biomass
estimate for a natural reef in Puerto Rico of 23.3 gm-2.Fishing pressure on reef fish in Puerto
Rico is more pronounced than in the Virgin Islands, and this is sufficient to explain the lower
biomasses.
Jacobsen and Browder (1987, p. 34) stated that "herbivorous fishes dominate tropical reef
faunas throughout the world". They do not specify in what sense, if in numbers or in biomass. I
assume they are referring to biomass.
The strictly herbivorous reef fish of the families Scaridae and Acanthuridae in Randall's
study made up between 20.7% (33.1: I 60.1 gm-2)and 28.7% (45.4:157.8 gm-2)of reported fish
biomass. The biomass estimate of herbivores for the first reef area of 33.1 gm-2compares very
well with the models' estimate of 32.6 gm-2(demersals only), although this figure contains
additional species from other families. Herbivorous fish biomass of the model amounts to 43.4%
(32.6:75.1 gm-2)of total reef fish biomass (demersals only) whereas herbivorous fish contribute
to total number of demersal reef species only with 12% (30 out of 243). The model's output for
herbivorous reef fish biomass is thus compatible with "externalJ'estimates.
4.2. Comparison of the Models with Other Coral Reef Areas
In the following, features of our PRVl coral reef model will be compared to those of other
coral reefs. Table 4.1 presents a comparison of selected outputs of three coral reef models,
I3 Bluehead wrasses
Reef eels
-
2 -
-
Cumulative catch
Fig. 4.1.Leslie plots for reef eels (Kaupichthys hyoproroides) and bluehead wrasses (Thalassoma
bifasciatum) from an isolated Bahamian reef patch, with estimates of unexploited population size
(reproduced from Fig. 6.1 in Pauly 1984).
Table 4.1. Comparison of properties of three coral reef models, analyzed by ECOPATH II.
Propeitieslmodels PRVl Bolinao FFS
Number of boxes 50,20, 11" 23 16

Total system throughput (gm2.year1WW) 107,473 39,307 4,973
Cycling index (% of throughput) 18.3 -b 11.0
Capacity (flowbits) 438,213 86,774 8,893,465
Ascendency (% of capacity) 34 44 14.2
Overhead (% of capacity) 66 (56)" 74.8
Sum of all production (gm2.year1) 51,282 1,938
Sum of all respiratory flows (gm2.yearq) 32,523 18,965
Sum of all flows into detritus (gm2.yearq) 23,193 18,405
Total biomass excluding detritus (D) (gm-2) 3,048 1,879 175
(2,000) (10)
Total fish biomass (gm-2) 104 6.8 17.5
Ratio fishltotal biomass 0.03 0.004 0.1
"Estimates in this column refer to 50 boxes. Values for 20 and 11 boxes differ only slightly.
bNo estimate available.
"Computed here as capacity (100%) - ascendency (44%).
analyzed by ECOPATH II, such as (1) our PRVl coral reef system; (2) the French Frigate Shoals
(FFS) in Hawaii (Pauly et al. 1993a); and (3) segments of the Bolinao coral reef system (AliAo et
al. 1993) in the Philippines.
Table 4.1 shows that the PRVl system is large in terms of throughput when compared to
Bolinao and FFS. Total biomass and fish biomass are highest in the PRVl system, although the
ratio of fish biomass to total biomass is highest for FFS. It is surprising that such a high fish
biomass is maintained by such a small biomass of nonfish groups. Estimates of P/B and Q/B
differ to some degree for those ecological groups from both models which can be compared
directly (see tables in Pauly et al. 1993a). If P/B of prey groups is higher and Q/B is lower than
in the PRVl model, the ecological efficiency (production/consumption) is increased and thus, the
same biomass of predators can be maintained by a smaller biomass of prey groups. The
inverse seems to be the case for the Bolinao model in which a very low fish biomass is
maintained by a large nonfish biomass. This very low fish biomass is the result of the strong
overfishing of the fish resources of the Bolinao reef system (McManus et al. 1992).
Ascendency is, as stated before, a measure of average mutual information in a system.
Ulanowicz and Norden (1990) supposed systems, in the absence of major perturbations, to
mature in the direction of increasing ascendency. This would imply that the Bolinao system is
the most mature, the PRVl area intermediate and the FFS system the most immature. On the
other hand, FFS is situated close to the northern limit for coral reefs and hence, production,
respiration, etc. and, in consequence, ascendency are low compared to PRVl and Bolinao. This
indicates that caution must be taken when using ascendency as an index of maturity
(Christensen 1995).
Parrish et al. (1986), in their study on "piscivory in a Hawaiian coral reef fish community",
found that 12%-31% of the biomass of the reef fish community of the four stations sampled
consisted of piscivores. Piscivory is not considered as a separate feeding type in the model of a
Caribbean coral reef presented here; rather as part of carnivory. Our findings can thus not be
directly compared. However, one can estimate from the output diet composition (DC) matrix of
the 50-box model (Table 3.23) that about one-third of the diet of the carnivorous-omnivorous fish
(referring only to demersal groups) consists of fish. Piscivory amounts thus to 18.7% of
demersal reef fish biomass. This figure is well within the range reported by Parrish et al. (1986).
As stated, (large) herbivorous reef fish are not a preferred food item of piscivorous reef fish,
as demonstrated by the respective input and output percentages of this prey item in the DC
matrix of the 50-box model (see "Results" section). This is further reflected by the "standardized
forage ratios" (SI) computed by ECOPATH II for each predator in relation to its prey groups. This
ratio indicates a preference or avoidance of a potential prey group. In contrast to Ivlev's
electivity index, this ratio is independent of prey density. Table 4.2 shows the ratios for all groups
of herbivorous fish in the 50-box model in relation to their predator groups.
The majority of values in Table 4.2 are negative, and several values are positive but close
to zero. Many of these were increased (as shown by the "+" sign in Table 4.2) due to a raise of
the respective diet fraction performed to reduce predation pressure on carnivorous fish groups
(see "Results"). Since a value of -1 for S,corresponds to total avoidance of a prey group and SI=
0 to nonselective feeding, this confirms that herbivorous fishes are indeed not a preferred food
item for the majority of carnivorous predators.
Interestingly, Parrish et al. (1986) stated, with reference to Hawaiian reefs, that a number of-
herbivorous and omnivorous species from the families Scaridae, Acanthuridae, Chaetodontidae,
etc. "are not eaten in significant quantity by abundant predators"! They stated further that "these
non-piscivorous fishes consume considerable food resources; the route by which these
resources pass on through the trophic system remains in doubt". Parrish et al.'s findings
confirmed the model's results on low EEs for larger herbivorous fish groups.
If not esteemed as food source by higher trophic levels, herbivorous reef fish seem to be
more strongly involved in other processes on the reef. Gygi (1975) estimated the erosion of
coral reefs (i.e., sediment production), generated by the stoplight parrotfish Sparisoma viride on
two reef types in Bermuda, as a side-effect of its feeding habits: "The fish scrape away algae
and some of the rock below with strong, beak-like jaws, and crush the mouthful in the
pharyngeal mill. Swallowed rock bits are used as a milling agent to rip up algal cells". The
excreted sediment is then deposited as sand. For an algal-vermetid rock flat with coral-algal
patch reefs, Gygi determined a parrotfish standing stock of 20 gm-2WW.The resulting erosion
from this fish biomass was computed to be 5,814 gha-'day-'. This corresponded to an erosion of
0.58 gm-2day-1and to 212 gm-=year1.The model's output biomass for scarids was ca. 30 gm-2.
Table 4.2. Standardized forage ratios for herbivorous reef fish groups as computed by ECOPATH II for a 50-box model of a
Caribbean coral reef.
Herbivorous prey groupsa

Predator KY IH LS IS SS BH
Large sharkslrays
Sharkslscombrids
lntermediate jacks
lntermediate reef fish carnivorous 1
Intermediate reef fish carnivorous 2
Large reef fish carnivorous
lntermediate reef fish carnivorous 3
Small reef fish carnivorous 1
Large groupers
Small reef fish omnivorous 1
Sea birds
"BH = herbivorous Blenniidae KY = Kyphosidae

H = intermediate reef fish herbivorous LS = large Scaridae
IS = intermediate Scaridae SS = small Scaridae
Thus, sediment production or reef erosion due to scarid feeding activities would amount to 318
gm-2year1.Parrotfish in the model do not feed exclusively on encrusting algae or corals. From
the algal composition in stomachs of West Indian parrotfish, given by Randall (1967, see also
Appendix Table 8.5.1), it was estimated, that at least 50% of the diet consisted of encrusting
algae and corals. The sediment production by parrotfish would thus amount to at least 160 gm-2
year1. Parrotfish can therefore be considered important sediment producers in coral reefs of the
PRVl area.
4.3. New Insights into Structure and Functioning

of a Coral Reef as an Ecosystem Unit
The overwhelming part of production of large- to intermediate-sized herbivorous reef fish,

which provide the bulk of herbivorous fish biomass, is not transferred to higher trophic levels.
The models' outputs indicate that much of their production is recycled directly into the detrital
pool. However, the fish must die before they can be decomposed by bacteria and other
microfauna. The large- and intermediate-sized parrotfish (groups 23 and 24 in the 50-box
model) showed, indeed, higher natural mortalities (= PI6 values) than similar-sized carnivorous
reef fish groups (Table 4.3).
The nutrients from the decomposed fish are available to reef autotrophs. These autotrophs
(mainly reef algae), once more, are consumed by the herbivorous reef fish population. This
represents, thus, a very short loop for effective recycling of matter. This shortcut is also reflected
in the difference in transfer efficiencies between discrete trophic levels. In the case of the 50-
box model, highest efficiencies of 13% to 16% were computed by the corresponding ECOPATH
II routine for the transfer of matter between levels I to II and II to Ill for all flows and of 11.2% to
12.4%, respectively, for primary producers (see Table 3.27). Following is a sharp decline in
transfer efficiencies between levels Ill to IV to 9.9% for all flows and to 10.2% for primary
producers.
In the "introduction", I pointed out three features of general agreement characterizing coral
reefs: high species diversity, pronounced complexity of trophic relationships and high rates of
production in spite of being surrounded by nutrient-poor oceanic waters.
A fourth feature should be added to these three: the existence of shortcuts for the effective
recycling of matter. Throughputs of 59% for all flows and of 89% for primary producers of the
respective total throughputs occur on trophic level II, the highest observed. Second highest
throughputs occur on trophic level Ill with 7.7% for all flows and 10% for primary producers of
the respective total throughputs. An 86% of total flow from primary producers to detritus is
Table 4.3. Comparison of natural mortalities M (= PIB values) of selected groups of herbivorous and
carnivorous reef fish from the outputs of the balanced 50-box model (Tables 3.18 and 3.22).
Group Size range M

no. Group name (9) (year')
6 Intermediate reef fish, carnivorous 1 2,586 - 12,407 0.580

12 Large reef fish, carnivorous 7,728 - 70,000 0.380
13 Intermediate reef fish, carnivorous 3 290 - 5,010 0.640
11 Intermediate reef fish, herbivorous 288 - 1,200 0.710

23 Large Scaridae, herbivorous 5,558 - 23,000 0.850
24 Intermediate Scaridae, herbivorous 1,102 - 3,720 1.155
recycled directly without entering the higher levels of the system. Thus, for primary producers,
the corresponding backflows to detritus are second highest for trophic level II with 12.2% and
third for Ill with 1.4% of total backflow. For combined flows, as well, they are second highest for
trophic level II with 43% and third for Ill with 5.4%.
Coral reef ecosystems are often viewed as "mature" systems, in which structures and
processes are maintained at some optimum level, i.e., with minimum leaks (see Odum and
Odum 1955). Thus, the reef, as a thermodynamical unit, may not benefit from sharks or tunas
which are not an integral part of the actual reef community. "Feeding" these occasional visitors
might mean a net loss of energy, since sharks and tunas and other large apex predators,
feeding in part on the reef community, tend to migrate away from these systems and take the
energy ingested with them.
The reef, as a thermodynamical unit, may also not benefit from passing matter up through
many trophic levels. With every additional trophic level through which matter is passed, about
80%-90% of its energy is lost. Thus, direct recycling of matter may be the best way for the reef
to conserve energy and to build up biomass. Other reef components with a high biomass for a
single taxon, such as the strongly herbivorous echinoids (80% plant food) or the detritivorous
sponges, are additional examples for this aspect of reef metabolism. They show rather low
exploitation rates as food source for other elements of the system, as expressed by relatively
low EEs compared to the majority of nonfish taxa. This feature is furthermore supported by the
fact that transfer efficiencies between discrete trophic levels stay on the same rather low level of
9%-11% up to the highest discrete trophic levels in all models. Pauly and Christensen (1995)
found, when comparing trophic efficiencies in 48 different ecosystems, all analyzed using
ECOPATH II, an average trophic efficiency of lo%, with a range of 2%-34%.
Summarizing, it can be hypothesized that the reef's "strategy" is not to achieve high transfer
efficiencies between trophic levels but to build up biomass through maintenance of short cycles
for an effective recycling of matter back to its base, the detrital pool. Or else: only ecosystems
where those features had developed during evolution could survive in nutrient-poor waters.
During a long-term study on community structure of an artificial reef in the Virgin Islands,
Ogden and Ebersole (1981) found an astonishing stability in species composition. They dis-
cussed critically results from the Pacific (Great Barrier Reef, Australia) where this stability was
never reported. Sale (1975,1977) and Talbot et al. (1978) suggested that high diversity in coral
reef fish communities is maintained by the chance arrival-"lotteryv-of larval colonists to unpre-
dictably available habitat space. They cited as evidence the stochastic composition of coral reef
fish communities on small natural and artificial structures. Ogden and Ebersole (1981) attributed
this stochastic community structure found by some workers in the Pacific to the small struc-
tures-natural and artificial-that these workers have studied. Small coral heads are, according
to Ogden and Ebersole (1981), too small for detection of "real" differences in community struc-
ture. They argued that, when the appropriate scale is selected, coral reef systems become
stable (i.e., display flow-through equilibrium) and show an orderly functioning. Moreover, the
predictability of the community seems to increase with the size of the reef. From the results of
the models presented here, it can be concluded that a coral reef system can straightforwardly
be made to reflect a steady-state or flow-through equilibrium, when a whole system approach,
such as in our models, is applied.
This does not prevent stochastic events such as predation, disturbance, incidental
recruitment of species, etc., from taking place on a smaller scale within that system. As pointed
out earlier, for the present models, fish groups were aggregated, based on similarity of energetic
requirements and not on taxonomical closeness. Thus, individuals of a certain fish species
within a "box" may easily be replaced by those of another species with similar energetic
features. When considering the flow of energy through the reef, the only important feature of a
species group or "box1'is its capacity to maintain its biomass and production rate, so that the
same amount of energy remains available to other boxes of the system. The species
composition within that box may be viewed as a stochastic feature, depending on the above-
described "lottery". The results of investigations of community structures, which emphasize their
stochastic feature, cannot express anything about overall performance of reef metabolism, such
as stability or instability of structures and processes at higher scales (e.g., relationships
between boxes, trophic levels, etc.). Thus, from these experiments, it cannot be concluded if the
reef as an entity is in a steady state or not.
Hall et al. (1990), in their study on the usefulness of power analysis for the experimental
design of energy flow studies, discussed the compatibility of results from energy flow models
with those from field experiments. They concluded that field experiments could not be
substituted by modelling. They did not specify to what scale of model or experiment they
referred. From their examples, it must be assumed that the scale is relatively small, e.g., one
predator and a few prey items. I do not doubt the necessity of field experiments on energy flow,
on the contrary, they provide urgently needed estimates for modelling energy flows on a larger
scale.
Jones (1986, 1987) discussed the hypothesis of recruitment limitation to coral reefs. In
general, space and food are assumed to be major limiting factors. Opinions on this subject are
divided. Jones (1987) found indications from his experiments with a zooplankton-feeding
pomacentrid species at One Tree Island (Great Barrier Reef, Australia) that recruitment of
larvae or postlarval O+ cohorts of this species was not limited by the reef community, it was
accidental. Mortality did not seem to be density-dependent, but time of maturation of juveniles
was influenced by population structure. When individuals from older cohorts were present,
maturation time of young fish was longer, suggesting a possible food limitation for recruitment. If
this kind of "stock-recruitment interaction" is valid for the majority of species within a box, it
would substantiate the hypothesis that a "box" tends to maintain its average standing stock
biomass and food requirements.
Most fisheries can be viewed as an apex predator within a system. First, they remove the
predators, then take the production these took. When the apex predators of our PRVl reef
models, such as sharks, rays, large scombrids, jacks and groupers, are removed, the
production of the reef fish community consumed by these groups becomes available to the
fisheries. Excluding the schooling pelagic fish (the production of this group consumed by apex
predators is 1.9 gm-2.year1),the reef fish production then available to the fisheries amounts to
about 4 gm-*.year1(excluding small blennies and gobies). The fish production available to the
fisheries may be increased by extending these to lower trophic levels, such as the large
carnivorous reef fish (group 12 in the 50-box model). Recalling the "norm" of 5 t km-2fisheries
yield for Caribbean coral reefs (Munro 1984), it seems possible to attain this yield as well for the
unfished parts of the PRVl reef area, without destructive effects for the reef fish community as a
whole. Overall, it is advisable to fish large individuals from higher trophic levels. This has a
positive effect on prey density and should lead, at least when overall fishing pressure remains
low, to increase of recruits to the adult guilds. This, again, may lead to sustainable fisheries
yields.
The overfishing of invertebrates, presently occurring in PRVI, can also be explained, if to a
small extent, by the results of the model. A strong predation pressure is already exerted in the
unexploited system on, e.g., crustaceans and gastropods (see high EEs for these groups).
There is not much surplus production for the fisheries.
The deductions on fisheries potential for the area are very preliminary. The shortcomings of
input data for nonfish groups were already pointed out. Actual standing stocks might be higher
than outputs from models imply, but the "true" relations among biomass, production and
consumption for nonfish groups are to date not known with sufficient accuracy.
4.4. Identification and Solution of Methodological Problems

During the Modelling Process
4.4.1. Aggregation of Fish Groups
The high fish species diversity within the PRVl coral reef system was successfully reduced
into fewer groups with similar energetic requirements. It is difficult to parametrize and combine
ecological information of various dimensions, e.g., spatial, temporal, energetic in a given model.
Emphasis should focus on one aspect, depending on the objectives of the model. In the present
case, the emphasis was on energy flow and trophic relations. The model reflects to some extent
the spatial aspect by the separation of pelagics and demersals and by the explicit consideration
of subsystems. The division in two distinct horizontal levels is also reflected by consumption
requirements and prey items.
The aggregation of nonfish taxa was achieved by considering as well as possible the
energetic aspect, leading to more or less distinct trophic groups. Taxa were aggregated
intuitively based on criteria known to be related to energetic requirements. This was only
achieved for higher taxonomic categories, since estimates at the species level were generally
unavailable. A first attempt to leave the taxonomic level and proceed to an ataxonomic approach
for combining elements, including fish and nonfish, was realized in the 20- and 10-box models
of methods 1 and 2.
4.4.2. Weighting Factors
Parrish et al. (1986) emphasized the impact of predator abundance on predation pressure
for a Hawaiian coral reef system. I agree with these authors. Indeed, it is not only abundance (in
weight) of a predator which is of importance, but also its food requirements (QIB). Within
species groups, a weighting factor could be calculated for every species of the model from
average biomasses and QIB estimates to determine the "throughput" of every species in a
group. The percentages of respective prey items (DC matrix) were then weighted by these
factors (see "Materials and methods"). Between species groups, this relationship is produced by
the key input parameters for each group (biomass, mortality = PIB ratio, and QIB).
Thus, ECOPATH II and some of the methods developed in the course of the work leading to
this report provide possible solutions for a variety of problems related to ecosystem analysis.
4.4.3. lnput Estimates for Nonfish Taxa
lnput values for nonfish taxa had to be assembled from a wide geographical range for a
wide variety of taxa. Preparation of input values was based on various qualitative and
quantitative assumptions. The match between these data and the actual rates and states on the
ground is not necessarily close. However, balancing of the model forced the various rates for
these groups to become mutually compatible. It is assumed that this process also rendered
them more similar to the values on the ground.
4.5. Gaps of Knowledge and Suggestions for Future Research
4.5.1. Theoretical Research
From the above considerations, the following theoretical research topics may be
deducted:
1. Determination of appropriate scales: How can a suitable ecological system
unit be determined for modelling, and how does one deal with migrations? The
system unit should not be too small because of stochastic effects, and not too
large because of possible loss of genuine system identity. Is it possible to
identify objective criteria?
2. Construction of groups: Objective methods for assembling of nonfish groups
should be developed. Ataxonomical aggregation of reef nonfish taxa should be
initiated at the specific level, as was done for the fishes. Nonfish taxa tend to
strongly differ in their anatomy (they represent a much larger systematical
range than fishes). If one aims to assemble ecologically similar groups, one
must base the aggregation process on ecological features, not on morphologi-
cal ones. The figure below shows possible combinations between construction
plan and ecology by connecting all features.
varied I > a r i e d
construction plan ecology
similar
ral m
i is" '
An objective procedure for the construction of groups would be as follows: (1) determination
of relevant ecological variables (depending on one's objective); (2) application of a factor
analysis to identify independent variables; (3) cluster analysis to aggregate species, and
eventually; (4) discriminant analysis to determine if clusters differ significantly.
4.5.2. Field Research
Several times in the foregoing, it was pointed out that the input data for nonfish groups
were too scattered, often based on risky assumptions and therefore quite unreliable. To improve
this situation, the database for inputs must be improved. This opens a wide area for future
practical research. In the first place, the existing literature could be searched more thoroughly
for estimates and data sets on the species level.
Needed are, furthermore, analyses of diet, food consumption requirements, abundances
and biomass, growth performance, etc., of reef invertebrates and other nonfish taxa, preferably
at the species level.
Other areas requiring work are length-weight data and growth parameters for reef fish
species which may not be of interest for fisheries, and rigorous studies of the DC of apex
predators.
The initial biomasses of fish groups had to be changed considerably to balance the 50-box
model. Biomasses of groups, including small pelagic or cryptic fish species, were strongly
increased whereas biomasses of groups, including large- to intermediate-sized fish species
(both carnivores and herbivores), were decreased, more or less proportional to the size of the
fishes. The input biomasses of the large, highly motile predators had to be decreased the most.
Densities, used to compute biomasses of small pelagic fish species, were assumed to
correspond to the highest abundance level encountered for reef fish species. More realistic
estimates of abundance of small pelagic stocks in a given area should be obtained by the
application of, e.g., hydroacoustic techniques (Thorne 1979).
The need to increase input biomasses of groups, including cryptic species, is not surprising:
very small, cryptic species tend to be overlooked during visual censuses, and other methods
should be used for biomass estimation (e.g., successive rotenone sampling and a Leslie plot,
see above).
The case of large, highly motile predators is as straightforward. It could be that the SCUBA
divers performing the censuses actually attract faraway apex predators (whose sense of smell
and hearing is geared, indeed, to detect faraway, potential preys).
It could also be that census surveys in general, or at least those whose results were used in
the present study, do not account appropriately for potential effect on estimated biomass of a
brief sighting of a large or very large fish, compared with much longer sightings of smaller fish.
If so, one could imagine a correction factor, proportional to the inverse of the sighting time
of any recorded fish, which would lead to estimates of "effective" biomass, i.e., to estimates of
the biomass relying on a given reef for its food.
Last but not least, catch data must be considered, since there 1s fishing activity in the area.
If it is not possible to obtain such data at the species level, attempts should be made to report
catch data for ecological guilds, i.e., at the generic or family level. The f ~ s hspecies are divided
into three main groups: (1) apex predators, loosely related to the reef; (2) a mainly carnivorous
group comprising around 70%-80% of reef fish species; and (3) a mainly herbivorous group
comprising a little more than 10% of species but around 40% of total fish biomass. This division
could be utillzed for other purposes. The specles-rich cluster of (predominately) carnivores
could be grouped by species of the same family or genus and thus better be matched with
species clusters used in fisheries statistics. Appeldoorn and Lindeman (1985) referred to
species clusters known from fisheries statistics "in many respects to behave similar to a
unispecies stock with size selective mortality". They identified species clusters to "approximating
an ecological guild". Many of the model's fish groups contain several species of a family or
genus. Examples are members of the families Haemulidae, Muraenidae, Blenniidae, Scaridae,
Serranidae, etc. Note that, for fisheries management purposes, it is generally advisable to
separate fish groups from nonfish groups.
What are the mechanisms by which stock size of, e.g., herbivorous reef fish is controlled,
since predation pressure on these groups is rather low? Are they food- or recruitment-limited?
In future models, the ecological position of the different developmental stages of a fish
species could be modelled by treating each stage as a different species with different inputs.
These inputs could be prepared and stages clustered according to, e.g., energetic
requirements.
Seasonal differences (e.g., rainy and dry seasons) could be modelled by producing one
model for each season or month (as done by Jarre-Teichmann and Pauly 1993 for the Peru
system).
New insights into structure and functioning of a coral reef as an ecosystem unit were
achieved by the modelling process. By modifying inputs deducted from published information on
the system (these changes are fully documented in the input-output tables in the "Results"
section), a hypothetical reef could be constructed. Overall, the model presented here can be
assumed to represent the specific coral reef system from which the majority of information was
gathered. This hypothetical reef can now be tested and improved.
5. CONCLUSIONS
1. Quantitative steady-state models of a Caribbean coral reef system could be constructed

from published data and estimates, based largely on multivariate statistics.
2. Calculated net primary production necessary to support the system modelled therein, of
20,025 gm-2year1WW,was well within the range of a rough estimate of 15,000-25,000 gm-2year
IWW previously available for the Puerto Rico-Virgin Islands (PRVI) coral reef area.
3. Total fish biomass of 104 gm-2WWrendered an intermediate value when compared to
model-independent estimates of coral reef fish biomass (23-160 gm-2WW)for several segments
in the PRVl coral reef area.
4. The estimated total biomass, total fish biomass and total system throughput of the
models indicate a large system compared to two other coral reef models analyzed by ECOPATH
II (French Frigate Shoals [FFS], Hawaii, and Bolinao reef area, Philippines). The ratio of fish
biomassltotal biomass was intermediate for PRVl with a higher ratio for FFS and a very low ratio
for Bolinao due to high exploitation by fisheries.
5. The degree of piscivory for the Caribbean reef models presented here of 19% of reef fish
biomass is well within the range reported for a Hawaiian coral reef fish community.
6. Large- to intermediate-sized herbivorous reef fish are not a preferred food item of larger
piscivorous reef fish. This finding is also in agreement with observations from a Hawaiian coral
reef fish community.
7. It was estimated that, based on their output biomass, parrotfish produce at least 160 g
sand m-2year1and may thus be considered as important sediment producers of the PRVl reef
area.
8. The models' outputs indicate the existence of short cycles for an effective recycling of
organic matter within the reef system. Most of the net primary production is recycled directly to
the detrital pool. Transfer efficiencies between trophic levels are low.
9. The fact that the model could be balanced straightforwardly can be interpreted as
showing that coral reef systems are in a "steady-state" or "flow-through equilibrium", when the
appropriate spatial and temporal scale is selected. Investigations on small scales of reef
community structure, which emphasize the stochastic variability of coral reefs, do not
necessarily yield information on stability or instability of structures and processes at higher
scales.
10. A very preliminary potential fisheries yield of 4 gm-2year1WWfor unfished segments of
the PRVl reef area was estimated from one of the models' outputs, i.e., the amount consumed
by the models' apex predators. When these predators are removed first, their consumption
becomes available to the fisheries.
11. A strong predation pressure is exerted on lobsters and conchs in unexploited parts of
the PRVI coral reef system as indicated by the high ecotrophic efficiencies for crustaceans and
gastropods. This shows how vulnerable these resources may be to an additional exploitation by
fisheries.
12. The large number of fish species occurring in the PRVl reefs can effectively be reduced
to a smaller number of groups by cluster analysis. Appropriate aggregation parameters are
those referring to energetic requirements of a species, such as size, activity level and type of
food.
13. For assembling nonfish groups, one should start from the species level and define
appropriate energetic aggregation criteria by objective selection of ecological variables.
14. The contribution of predator abundance to predation pressure can be accounted for by
weighting the fractions of prey of the diet composition by applying a weighting factor. This
should be the product of density, mean weight and relative food consumption (QIB) of a
predator.
15. A theoretical task for future models will be to identify objective criteria for the
determination of spatial and temporal scales of the system which is to be modelled and define
appropriate system boundaries.
16. lnformation on diet, food consumption requirements, abundances and growth
performance should be obtained for nonfish taxa in the PRVl reef area. This would strongly
improve the reliability of the models' outputs.
17. lnformation on length-weight data and growth parameters for fish species without
interest for fisheries (e.g., very small ones) are needed.
18. Density estimates from visual censuses, especially for highly motile species, such as
apex predators, should account for factors which may lead to overestimation of biomass.
Density estimates for small andlor cryptic reef species should be obtained from repeated
rotenone or similar sampling.
Density estimates for small schooling pelagics are urgently needed; appropriate estimates
could be obtained by hydroacoustic techniques.
19. Catch data, preferably at the species level, should be obtained and included into the
models. If it is impossible to obtain such data, attempts should be made to report catch data for
ecological guilds, i.e., at the generic or family level.
20. The models, as they are now, represent a more constraining hypothesis than in the
beginning. This new hypothesis can again be tested and improved.
Among all the people who helped and supported me in many ways during the preparation
of the thesis upon which this work is based, I particularly thank: Dr. D. Pauly (ICLARM, Manila)
for accepting me as his doctoral student, for his professional advice and support throughout the
course of the investigation, for valuable critical comments and suggestions on contents and
style of earlier drafts of the thesis which led to this report; Prof. Dr. Schnack for being my host
during the preparation of this report and for his general support, advice and suggestions; Prof.
Dr. Chapman, for critical comments and suggestions on contents and style of an earlier draft of
this thesis; Dr. Villy Christensen, for advice on various aspects of the ECOPATH II software; the
technical staff of the Fishery Biology Department, K. Burkert, B. Rohloff, H. Worthmann, D.
Jarosch, for their friendly and general technical support; C. Klingenberg for his help with the
performance of the cluster analyses on the VAX computer at the lnstitut fur Meereskunde; Dr. R.
Froese for the preparation of a PC program to estimate and store the aspect ratios of the caudal
fin of fishes and for putting an image-analyzing system at my disposal to measure these aspect
ratios; the colleagues at the lnstitut fur Meereskunde, Kiel, the Kiel University, and the Alfred
Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, especially D. Barthel, T. Brey,
C. Clemmesen, G. Graf, T. Grunkorn, V. Isaac, A. Jarre, F. Kcester, A. Morales, M. Prein, Prof.
Rcettger, M. Ruth, L. Sarmiento, M. Vakily, U. Waller and W. Welsch for their readiness to
discuss critical matters and for providing valuable information; I. Achenbach for helping me with
the preparation of the figures and for her friendship; and Mrs. Wollweber, the Chief Librarian of
the lnstitut fur Meereskunde and Dr. Kinzer for providing me with important literature.
My very special thanks go to my husband, H. Kausch. During the many years of the
preparation of this report it was him who supported me financially, took care of the technical
aspects of daily life, looked after our son and kept up my good spirit.
Abolmasova, G.I. 1985. Energy metabolism and food requirements in captive squid Sthenoteuthis oualaniensis
(Lesson) from the Indian Ocean. Ehkol. Morya l9:lO4-llO.
Acevedo, M., 0 . Gomez and V. Berovides. 1984. Alimentacion de tres especies de quelonios marinos en la
plataforma suroccidental de Cuba. Rev. Invest. Mar. 3:29-35.
Akhmeteva, E.A., B.A. Smirnov and O.K. Bordovskij. 1982. On some peculiarities of organic matter compo-
sition in the intestine contents of the bottom detritus-feeding holothurians. Okeanologiya 22(6):1021-
1024.
Alcolado, P.M. 1990. Breve comentario acerca de las comunidades de gorgonaceos de la macrolaguna del
Golfo de Batabano, p. 33-36. In P.M. Alcolado (ed.) El bentos de la macrolaguna del Golfo de Batabano.
Editorial Academia, La Habana, Cuba. 161 p.
Alifio, P.M., L.T. McManus, J.W. McManus, C.L. Nafiola, Jr., M.D. Fortes, G.C. Trono, Jr. and G.S. Jacinto.
1993. Initial parameter estimations of a coral reef flat ecosystem in Bolinao, Pangasinan, northwestern
Philippines, p. 252-258. In V. Christensen and D. Pauly (eds.) Trophic models of aquatic ecosystems.
ICLARM Conf. Proc. 26, 390 p.
Allen, K.R. 1971. Relation between production and biomass. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 28:1573-1581.
Alvarez-Lajonchere, L. 1981. Determinacion de la edad y el crecimiento de Mugilliza, M. curema, M. hospes
y M. trichodon (pisces, Mugilidae) en aguas cubanas. Rev. Invest. Mar. 2(1):142-162.
Amaratunga, T. 1983. The role of cephalopods in the marine ecosystem, p. 416-452. In J.F. Caddy (ed.)
Advances in assessment of world cephalopod resources. FA0 Fish. Tech. Pap. 231. FAO, Rome.
Ambrose, R.F. 1984. Food preferences, prey availability, and the diet of Octopus bimaculatus Verrill. J. Exp.
Mar. Biol. Ecol. 77:29-44.
Ambrose, R.F. and B.V. Nelson. 1983. Predation by Octopus vulgaris in the Mediterranean. P.S.Z.N.I:Mar.
Eco~.4(3):251-261.
Andersen, K.P. 1982. An interpretation of the stomach contents of fish in relation to prey abundance. Dana
2: 1-50,
Andersen, K.P. and E.A. Ursin. 1977. A multispecies extension to the Beverton and Holt theory of fishing with
accounts of phosphorus circulation and primary production. Medd. Dan. Fisk. Havunders NS 7:319-
435.
Andrew, N.L. and L.J. Stocker. 1986. Dispersion and phagokinesis in the echinoid Evechinus chloroticus
(Val.). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 100(1-3):ll-23.
Anon. 1983. A study of the ecology of Turritella gonostoma living in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Abstract
presented to the Fifteenth Annual Meeting: Titles and Abstracts. Annu. Rep. West. Soc. Malacol.
Appeldoorn, R.S. and K.C. Lindeman. 1985. Multispecies assessment in coral reef fisheries using higher
taxonomic categories as unit stocks, with an analysis of an artisanal haemulid fishery, p. 507-514. In M.
Harmelin Vivien and B. Salvat (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth International Coral Reef Congress, 27
May-I June 1985, Tahiti. Vol. 5. Antenne Museum - EPHE, Moorea, French Polynesia.
Armstrong, D.W., J.R.G. Hislop, A.P. Raobb and M.A. Brown. 1983. A preliminary report on the analysis of
whiting stomachs collected during the 1981 North Sea Stomach Sampling Project. ICES, Doc. C.M. 19831
G:59.
Au, D. 1975. Considerations on squid (Loligo and Ilex) population dynamics and recommendations for ra-
tional exploitations. ICNAF Res. Doc. 75161, Ser. No. 3543.
Augustinovics, M. 1970. Methods of international and intertemporal comparison of structurs, p. 249-269. In
A.P. Carter and A. Brody (eds.) Contributions to input-output analysis. Vol. I. North Holland, Amsterdam.
Backhaus, K., B. Erichson, W. Plinke, C. Schuchard-Fischer and R. Weiber. 1987. Multivariate
analysemethoden. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany. 404 p.
Baerlocher, F., J. Gordon and R.J. Ireland. 1988. Organic composition of seafoam and its digestion by
Corophium volufafor (Pallas).J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 115(2): 179-186.
Baez, M., L.L. Alvarez and B. Pedroso. 1980. Edad y crecimiento del caballerote Lufjanus griseus (Linne), en
Tunas de Zaza, Cuba. Rev. Invest. Mar. l(2-3):135-159.
Bajkov, A.D. 1935. How to estimate the daily food consumption of fish under natural conditions. Trans. Am.
Fish. Soc. 65:288-289.
Bak, R.P.M., M.J.E. Carpay and E.D. de Ruytervan Steveninck. 1984. Densities of the sea urchin Diadema
anfillarum before and after mass mortalities on the coral reefs of Curaqao. Mar. Ecol. (Prog. Ser.) 17:105-
108.
Balasubramanian,T., C.B. Lalithambika Devi and M. Krishnankutty. 1979. Feeding behaviour and preying
efficiency of Mefapenaeus dobsoni. Indian J. Mar. Sci. 8(3): 197-199.
Bamber, R.N. and M.H. Davis. 1982. Feeding of Achelia echinafa Hodge (Pycnogonida) on marine algae. J.
Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 60(2-3): 181-187.
Bannerot, S.P., W.W. Fox, Jr. and J.E. Powers. 1987. Reproductive strategies and the management of snap-
pers and groupers in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean, p. 561-604. In J.J. Polovina and S. Ralston
(eds.) Tropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries management. Westview Press, Boulder,
Colorado.
Barnes, R.D. 1963. Invertebrate zoology. W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia and London. 632 p.
Beal, B.F. 1983. Predation of juveniles of the hard clam Mercenaria mercenaria (Linne) by the snapping
shrimp Alpheus heferochaelis Say and Alpheus normanni Kingsley. J. Shellfish Res. 3(1): 1-9.
Beebe, W. and J. Tee-Van. 1928. The fishes of Port-au-Prince Bay, Haiti, with a summary of the known
species of marine fish of the island of Haiti and Santo Domingo. Zoologica 10(1):279 p., 268 text-figures.
Beets, J. and L. Lewand. 1986. Collection of common organisms within the Virgin Islands National Park1
Biosphere Reserve. Biosphere Reserve Res. Rep. 3,45 p. Virgin Islands Resource Management Coop-
erative, Virgin Islands National Park.
Behrens-Yamada, S. 1982. Growth and longevity of the mud snail Batillaria aftramenfaria. Mar. Biol. 67(2):187-
192.
Berg, C.J., Jr. and D.A. Olsen. 1989. Conservation and management of queen conch (Sfrombus gigas)
fisheries in the Caribbean, p. 421-442. In J.F. Caddy (ed.) Marine invertebrate fisheries: their assess-
ment and management. J. Wiley and Sons, New York.
Berg, C.J., Jr. and P. Alatalo. 1981. Laboratory culture of Bahamian bivalve molluscs: reproduction and
general biology. Biol. Bull. Mar. Biol. Lab. Woods Hole 161:337-338. (Summary only.)
Berkeley, S.A. and E.D. Houde. 1978. Biology of two exploited species of halfbeaks, Hemiramphus brasiliensis
and H. balao from southeast Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 28(4):624-644.
Berry, A.J. 1984. Umbonium vestiarium (L.) (Gastropoda, Trochacea) as the food source for naticid gastro-
pods and a starfish on a Malaysian sandy shore. J. Molluscan Stud. 50(1):1-7.
Berry, A.J. 1988. Annual cycle in Refusa obtusa (Montagu) (Gastropoda, Opisthobranchia) of reproduction,
growth and predation upon Hydrobia ulvae (Pennant). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 117(3):197-209.
Berry, P.F. 1982. Biomass and density of detritivores on a littoral rocky reef on the Natal Coast, with an
estimate of population production for the ascidian Pyura stolonifera. Oceanogr. Res. Inst. Invest. Rep.
53:12 p.
Bertalanffy, L. von. 1934. Untersuchungen uber die Gesetzlichkeiten des Wachstums I. Roux'. Arch.
Entwicklungsmech. 131:613-652.
Bertalanffy, L. von. 1938. A quantative theory of organic growth (inquiries on growth laws II) Hum. Biol. lO(2):
181-213.
Bertalanffy, L. von. 1951. Theoretische Biologie. Vol.2.A. Francke, A.G. Verlag., Bern.
Beverton, R.J.H. and S.J. Holt. 1957. On the dynamics of exploited fish populations. Fish. Invest. Min. Agric.
Fish Food, London, Ser. II, Vol. 19:533 p.
Bitter, R. and P.E. Penchaszadeh. 1983. Ecologia trofica de dos estrellas de mar del genero Asfropecfen
coexistentes en Golfo Triste, Venezuela. Stud. Neotrop. Fauna Environ. 18(3):163-180.
Bitter, R.A., R. Molinet and P.E. Penchaszadeh.1980. lnteracciontrofica entre dos estrellas de mar (Astropecten
riensis y Tethyaster vestitus) en Golfo Triste, Venezuela. Bol. Inst. Oceanogr. S. Paulo 29(2):61-63.
Bitter Soto, R. 1984. Composicion de la dieta de Astropecten marginatus (Echinodermata: Asteroidea). Bol.
Inst. Oceanogr. Univ. Oriente Cumana 23(1/2):169-176.
Boggs, C.H., J.A. Rice, J.A. Kitchell and J.F. Kitchell. 1984. Predation at a snail's pace: what's time to a
gastropod? Oecologia 62(1 ):I 3-17.
Bohlke, J.E. and C.C.G. Chaplin. 1968. Fishes of the Bahamas and adjacent tropical waters. Livingstone
Publishing Co., Wynnewood, Pennsylvania. 771 p.
Borja, A. 1986. La alimentacion y distribucion del espacio en tres molluscos gastropodos:Rissoa panla (da
Costa), Barleeia unifasciata (Montagu) y Bittium reticulatum (da Costa). Cah. Biol. Mar. 27(1):69-75.
Bouain, A. 1983. Croissance lineaire des serrans des c6tes sud-est de la Tunisie. Rapp. Comm. Int. Mer
Medit. 28(5):87-91.
Boulon, R.H., Jr. 1986a. Map of fishery habitats within the Virgin lslands Biosphere Reserve. Biosphere
Reserve Res. Rep. 8, 52 p. + appendix. Virgin lslands Resource Management Cooperative, Virgin
lslands National Park.
Boulon, R.H., Jr. 198613. Fisheries habitat of the Virgin lslands region of ecological importance to the fishery
resources of the Virgin lslands Biosphere Reserve. Biosphere Reserve Res. Rep. 9,22 p. Virgin lslands
Resource Management Cooperative, Virgin lslands National Park.
Boulon, R.H., Jr. and I.E. Clavijo. 1986. Utilization of the Virgin lslands Biosphere Reserve by artisanal
fishermen. Biosphere Reserve Res. Rep. 11, 36 p. Virgin lslands Resource Management Cooperative,
Virgin lslands National Park.
Brawley, S.H. and W.H. Adey. 1981. The effect of micrograzers on algal community structure in a coral reef
microcosm. Mar. Biol. 61(2-3): 167-177.
Brawley, S.H. and W.H. Adey. 1982. Coralliophila abbreviata: a significant corallivore. Bull. Mar. Sci. 32(2):595-
599.
Brawley, S.H. and X.G. Fei. 1987. Studies of mesoherbivory in aquaria and in an unbarricaded mariculture
farm on the Chinese coast. J. Phycol. 23(4):614-623.
Briscoe, C.S. and K.P. Sebens. 1988. Omnivory in Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis (Mueller)
(Echinodermata: Echinoidea): predation on subtidal mussels. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 115(1):1-24.
Brito-Perez, R. and E. Diaz-lglesia. 1983. Observaciones sobre el consumo de aliment0 y su efecto sobre el
crecimiento en juveniles de langosta (Panulirus argus) en el laboratorio. Rev. Invest. Mar. 1983:75-90.
Broom, M.J. 1981. Size-selection, consumption rates and growth of the Gastropoda Natica maculosa (Lamarck)
and Thais carinifera (Lamarck) preying on the bivalve Anadara granosa (L.). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.
56(2-3):213-233.
Broom, M.J. 1983. A preliminary investigation into prey species preference by the tropical gastropods Natica
maculosa Lamarck and Thais carinifera (Lamarck). J. Molluscan Stud. 49(1):43-52.
Buchan, P.R. and M.J. Smale. 1981. Estimates of biomass, consumption and production of Octopus vulgaris
Cuvier off the east coast of South Africa, Invest. Rep. Oceanogr. Res. Inst. 50:9 p.
Buesa, R.J. 1969. Biology and fishing of spiny lobsters, Panulirus argus (Latreille), p. 62-78. In A. Bogdanov
(ed.) Soviet-Cuban fishery research. United States Department of Interior and Israel Program on Sci-
ence Translation, Jerusalem.
Buesa, R.J. 1974. Population and biological data on turtle grass Thalassia tesfudinum Konig, 1805, on the
northwestern Cuban shelf. Aquaculture 4:207-226.
Burkholder P.R., L.M. Burkholder and J.A. Rivero. 1959. Some chemical constituents of turtle grass Thalassia
testudinum. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 86:88-93.
Buschmann, A. and B. Santelices. 1987. Micrograzers and spore release in lridaea laminarioides Bory
(Rhodophyta: Gigartinales). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 1O8(2):171-179.
Caddy, J.F. 1983. The cephalopods: factors relevant to their population dynamics and to the assessment and
management of stocks, p. 416-452. In J.F. Caddy (ed.) Advances in the assessment of world cephalopod
resources. FA0 Fish. Tech. Pap. 231. FAO, Rome.
Cammen, L.M. 1980. Ingestion rate: an empirical model for aquatic deposit feeders and detritivores. Oecologia
44:303-310.
Carefoot, T.H. 1970. A comparison of absorption and utilization of food energy in two species of tropical
Aplysia. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 5:47-62.
Carpenter, R.C. 1981. Grazing by Diadema antillarum (Phillippi) and its effects on the benthic algal commu-
nity. J. Mar. Res. 39(4):749-765.
Carpenter, R.C. 1985. Relationships between primary production and irradiance in coral reef algal communi-
ties. Limnol. Oceanogr. 30(4):784-793.
CFMC (Caribbean Fishery Management Council). 1984. Draft fishery management plan, regulatory impact
review, and environmental impact statement for the shallow-water reef fish fishery of Puerto Rico and
the U.S. Virgin Islands. Caribbean Fishery Management Council. 67 p. + appendix.
CFMC (Caribbean Fishery Management Council). 1985. Fishery management plan, final environmental im-
pact statement, and draft regulatory impact review for the shallow-water reef fish fishery of Puerto Rico
and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Caribbean Fishery Management Council. 45 p. + appendix.
CFMC (Caribbean Fishery Management Council). 1990. Amendment number 1 to the fishery management
plan for the shallow-water reef fish fishery, preliminary environmental assessment and regulatory im-
pact review. Caribbean Fishery Management Council. 30 p. + appendix.
Chang, M., J.S. Hong and H.T. Huh. 1988. Environmental conditions in the pearl oyster culture grounds and
food organisms of Pinctada fucata martensii (Dunker) (Bivalvia, Pteroidea). Ocean Res. 10(1):67-77.
Chartock, M.A. 1983. Habitat and feeding observations on species of Ophiocoma (Ophiocomidae) at Enewetak.
Micronesia 1g(Il2):131-149.
Chesalin, M.V. 1987. On the feeding of Stenofeuthispferopus (Steenstrup, 1985) on lanternfishes (Myctophidae,
Pisces). Ehkol. Morya 2575-80.
Chesson, J. 1983. The estimation and analysis of preference and its relationship to foraging models. Ecology
64(5): 1297-1304.
Child, C.A. and G.R. Harbison. 1986. A parasitic association between a pycnogonid and a scyphomedusa in
midwater. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 6 6 ( l ) : l l 3 - l l 7 .
Chilton, N.B. and C.M. Bull. 1986. Size-related selection of two intertidal gastropods by the reef crab Ozius
truncatus. Mar. Biol. 93(3):475-480.
Chiu, S.T., V.W.W. Lam and P.K.S.Shin. 1985. Mollusc predation by Luidia spp. (Echinodermata: Asteroidea)
in Tolo Harbour and Channel, Hong Kong, p. 365-379. The Malacofauna of Hong Kong and Southern
China: Proceedings of the Second InternationalWorkshop on the Malacofaunaof Hong Kong and South-
ern China, Hong Kong, 6-24 April 1983. Vol. 2.
Chong, V.C. and A. Sasekumar. 1981. Food and feeding habits of the white prawn Penaeus merguiensis.
Mar. Ecol. (Prog. Ser.) 5: 185-191.
Choy, S.C. 1986. Natural diet and feeding habits of the crabs Liocarcinus puber and L. holsatus (Decapoda,
Brachyura, Portunidae). Mar. Ecol. (Prog. Ser.) 31(1):87-99.
i hristensen, V. 1995. Ecosystem maturity -toward quantification. Ecol. Modelling 77:3-32.

hristensen, V. and D. Pauly. 1990. The ECOPATH II model. Poster No. C.M. 1990/L:68 (Sess.Q) presented
at the Annual Meeting of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, 2-8 October 1990,
Copenhagen.
'christensen. V. and D. Pauly. 1991. A guide to the ECOPATH II program (version 2.0). ICLARM Software 6.
71 p.
khristensen, V. and D. Pauly. 1992a. ECOPATH II: a software for balancing steady-state ecosystem models
and calculating network characteristics. Ecol. Modelling 61 :169-185.
'christensen, V. and D. Pauly. 1992b. A guide to the ECOPATH II program (version 2.1). ICLARM Software 6,
72 p.
4~hristensen.V. and D. Pauly. 1995. Fish production, catches and the carrying capacity of the world oceans.
Naga, ICLARM Q. 18(3):34-40.
j~hristensen,V. and D. Pauly. 1996. Ecological modelling for all. Naga, ICLARM Q. 19(2):25-26.
Clark, E. and K. von Schmidt. 1965. Sharks of the Central Gulf Coast of Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 15(1):13-83.
Claro, R., Editor. 1990. Asociaciones de peces en el Golfo de Batabano. Editorial Academia, La Habana,
Cuba. 128 p.
Clavijo, I.E., J.A. Yntema and J.C. Ogden. 1980. An annotated list of the fishes of St. Croix, U.S.V.I. Second
edition. West lndies Laboratory, Christiansted, St. Croix.
Clements, L.A.J. and S.E. Stancyk. 1984. Particle selection by the burrowing brittlestar Micropholis gracillima
(Stimpson) (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 84(1):1-13.
Cockcroft, A. and A. Mclachlan. 1986. Food and feeding habits of the surf zone penaeid prawn Macropefasma
africanus (Balss). P.S.Z.N.1:Mar. Ecol. 7(4):345-357.
Coen, L.D. 1988. Herbivory by Caribbean majid crabs: feeding ecology and plant susceptibility. J. Exp. Mar.
Biol. Ecol. 122(3):257-276.
Coffroth, M.A. 1990. Mucous sheet formation on poritid corals: an evaluation of coral mucus as a nutrient
source on reefs. Mar. Biol. 105:30-49.
Colin, P.I. 1978. Caribbean reef invertebrates and plants. T.F.H. Publications, Inc., Neptune City, New Jersey.
512 p.
Collette, B.B. and C.E. Nauen. 1983. Scombrids of the world. FA0 Fish. Synop. 125(2), 137 p. FAO, Rome.
Collette, B.B. and F.H. Talbot. 1972. Activity patterns of coral reef fishes with emphasis on nocturnal-diurnal
changeover, p. 98-124. In B.B. Collette and S.A. Earle (eds.) Results of the Tektite Program. Ecology of
Coral Reef Fishes. Nat. Hist. Mus. L.A. Co. Sci. Bull. 14:180 p.
Collette, B.B. and S.A. Earle. 1972. Results of the Tektite Program: ecology of coral reef fishes. Nat. Hist.
Mus. L.A. Co. Sci. Bull. 14:180 p.
Connor, J.L. and W.H. Adey. 1977. The benthic algal composition, standing crop and productivity of a Carib-
bean algal ridge. Atoll Res. Bull. 211 :I-40.
Corredor, L. and M.M. Criales. 1977. Ethological and ecological aspects of fish cleaning shrimp (Crustacea:
- Stenopodidae, Palaemonidae, Hippolytidae) in the Bay of Santa Marta, Columbia, and Young Island
Channel; St. Vincent, West Indies. Proc. Assoc. Isl. Mar. Lab. Caribb. 12:32 p.
Corvea, A., M. Abreu and P.M. Alcolado. 1990. Caracteristicas de las comunidades de equinodermos de la
macrolaguna del Golfo de Batabano, p. 90-112. In P.M. Alcolado (ed.) El bentos de la macrolaguna del
Golfo de Batabano. Editorial Academia, La Habana, Cuba.
Coyer, J.A., J.M. Engle, R.F. Ambrose and B.V. Nelson. 1987. Utilization of purple and red sea urchins
(Stongylocentrotus purpuratus Stimpson and S. franciscanus Agassiz) as food by the white sea urchin
(Lytechinus anamesus Clark) in the field and laboratory. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 105(1):21-38.
Creese, R.G. and A.J. Underwood. 1982. Analysis of inter- and intra-specific competition amongst intertidal
limpets with different methods of feeding. Oecologia 53(3):337-346.
Criales, M.M. 1984. Shrimps associated with coelenterates, echinoderms, and molluscs in the Santa Marta
region, Columbia. J. Crust. Biol. 4(2):307-317.
Daan, N. 1973. A quantitative analysis of the food intake of North Sea cod (Gadus morhua). Neth. J. Sea
Res. 6:279-517.
Daan, N. 1983. Analysis of the cod data collected during the 1981 stomach sampling project. ICES Doc. C.M.
1983/G:61.
Dahl, A.L. 1973. Benthic algal ecology in a deep reef and sand habitat off Puerto Rico. Bot. Mar. 16:171-175.
Dammann, A.E. 1969. Study of the fisheries potential of the Virgin Islands. V.I. Ecol. Res. Stn. Contrib. 1:l-
197.
Darcy, G.H. 1983. Synopsis of biological data on the pigfish, Orthopristis chrysoptera (Pisces: Haemulidae).
NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS Circ. 449. FA0 Fish. Synop. 134, 23 p.
Davenport, J. 1988. The feeding mechanism of Yoldia (=Aequiyoldia) eights; (Courthouy). Proc. R. Soc.
Lond. Ser. B 232(1269):431-442.
Dean, T.A., F.R. Jacobsen, K. Thies and S.L. Lagos. 1988. Differential effects of grazing by white sea urchins
on recruitment of brown algae. Mar. Ecol. (Prog. Ser.) 48(1):99-102.
Dearborn, J.H. and K.C. Edwards. 1985. Analysis of data on the feeding biology of Antarctic sea stars and
brittle stars. Antarct. J. U.S. 19(5):138-139.
Delille, D., L.D. Guidi and J. Soyer. 1985. Nutrition of Allotanais hirsutus (Crustacea: Tanaidacea) at Kerguelen
Island. Antarct. Nutr. Cycles Food Webs: 378-380.
Deslous-Paoli, J.M., M. Heral and H. Masse. 1985. Bilan energetique d'une population naturelle de Crepidula
fornicata dans le bassin de Marennes-Oleron. Base Biologiques de I'Aquaculture, Montpellier, 12-16
December 1983. Actes Colloq. IFREMER: 109-124.
DHI (Deutsches Hydrographisches Institut). 1960. Monatskarten fur den lndischen Ozean. No. 2422. Third
edition. Deutsches Hydrographisches Institut, Hamburg.
DHI (Deutsches Hydrographisches Institut). 1967. Monatskarten fur den Nordatlantischen Ozean. No. 2420.
Fourth edition. Deutsches Hydrographisches Institut, Hamburg.
Dilly, P.N. 1985. The habitat and behaviour of Cephalodiscus gracilis (Pterobranchia, Hemichordata) from
Bermuda. J. Zool. 207(2):223-239.
Dominguez, C.J. and P.M. Alcolado. 1990. Caracteristicas del macrofitobentos de la macrolaguna del Golfo
de Batabano, p. 8-17. In P.M. Alcolado (ed.) El bentos de la macrolaguna del Golfo de Batabano. Edito-
rial Academia, La Habana, Cuba.
Dominguez, J.H. and M.L. Reaka. 1988. Temporal activity patterns in reef-dwelling stomatopods: a test of
alternative hypotheses. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 117:47-69:
Doornbos, G. and F. Twisk. 1987. Density, growth and annual food consumption of gobiid fish in the saline
lake Grevelingen, the Netherlands. Neth. J. Sea Res. 21(1):45-74.
Downing, N. and C.R. El-Zahr. 1987. Gut evacuation and filling rates in the rock-boring sea urchin, Echinomefra
mafhaei. Bull. Mar. Sci.: 579-584.
Drifmeyer, J.E. 1981. Urchin Lyfechinus variegafus grazing on eelgrass, Zostera marina. Estuaries 4(4):374-
375.
Drits, A.V., T.N. Semenova and B.V. Konovalov. 1987. Production of zooxanthellae in planktonic Foraminifera
and colonial Radiolaria from the tropical Atlantic. Okeanologiya 27(l): 125-131.
Drummond-Davis, N.C., K.H. Mann and R.A. Pottle. 1982. Some estimates of population density and feeding
habits of the rock crab, Cancerirroratus, in a kelp bed in Nova Scotia. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 39(4):636-
639.
DSouza, M. 1986. The food of some neritid prosobranch mollusks found at Mkomani Mombasa, Kenya.
Kenya Aquat. 3:46-49.
DuPreez, H.H. 1984. Molluscan predation by Ovalipes puncfafus (De Haan) (Crustacea: Brachyura:
Portunidae). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 84(1):55-71.
Durbin, E.G., A.G. Durbin, R.W. Langtonand R.E. Bowma. 1983. Stomach contents of silver hake Merluccius
bilinearis, and Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua, and estimation of their daily rations. Fish. Bull. 81(3):437-
454.
Earle, S.A. 1972. The influence of herbivores on the marine plants of Great Lameshur Bay, with an annotated
list of plants, p. 17-44. In B.B. Collette and S.A. Earle (eds.) Results of the Tektite Program: ecology of
coral reef fishes. Nat. Hist. Mus. L.A. Co. Sci. Bull. 14,180 p.
Elliot, J.A. and L. Persson. 1978. The estimation of daily rates of food consumption for fish. J. Anim. Biol.
EcoI. 471977-991,
Engstrom, N.A. 1977. Behaviour of two snails: escape by Turbo casfanea from predatory attacks of Fasciolaria
fulipa. Proc. Assoc. Isl. Mar. Lab. Caribb. 12:35 p.
Erhardt, N.M. and V.R. Restrepo. 1989. The Florida stone crab fishery: a reusable resource?, p. 225-240. In
J.F. Caddy (ed.) Marine invertebrate fisheries: their assessment and management. J. Wiley and Sons,
New York.
Eyberg, 1. 1984. The biology of Parablennius cornufus (L.) and Scariella emarginata (Gijnther) (Teleostei:
Blenniidae) on a Natal Reef. Invest. Rep. Oceanogr. Res. Inst. 54:16 p.
Fauchald, K. and P.A. Jumars. 1979. The diet of worms: a study of polychaete feeding guilds. Oceanogr. Mar.
Biol. Annu. Rev. 17:193-284.
Fehlbeck, H. 1983. Sulfide oxidation and carbon fixation by the gutless clam Solemya reidi: an animal-
bacteria symbiosis. J. Comp. Physiol. B 152(1):3-11.
Ferreira de Menezes, M. and M. Pinto Paiva. 1966. Notes on the biology of tarpon, Tarpon aflanficus (Cuvier &
Valenciennes), from coastal waters of Ceara state, Brazil. Arq. Est. Biol. Mar. Univ. Fed. Ceara 6(1):83-98.
Figueras, A. 1986. Alimentacion de Palaemon adspersus (Rathke, 1837) y Palaemon serratus (Pennant,
1777) (Decapoda: Natantia) en la ria de Vigo (N.O. EspaAa). Cah. Biol. Mar. 27(1):77-90.
Figuereido, J.L. and N.A. Menezes. 1977. Manual de peixes marinhos do sudeste do Brasil. Vol. I-IV. Museu
de Zoologia, Universidade de S%oPaulo.
Finn, J.T. 1976. Measure of ecosystem structure and function derived from the analysis of flows. J. Theor.
Biol. 56:363-380.
Fischer, W., Editor. 1978. FA0 species identification sheets for fishery purposes. Western Central Atlantic
(Fishing Area 31). Vol. I-VII. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Foster, S.A. 1987. The relative impacts of grazing by Caribbean coral reef fishes and Diadema: effects of
habitat and surge. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 105(1):1-20.
Freitas, J.C. de. 1982. Preda~aode Sfenorhynchus seficornis (Crustacea, Majidae) por Diplasferias brandfii
(Asteroidea) e Epinephelus morio (Teleostei).Cienc. Cult. 34(8):1056-1058.
Fujioka, Y. and K. Yamazato. 1983. Host selection of some Okinawan coral associated gastropods belonging
to the genera Drupella, Coralliophila and Quoyula. Galaxea 2(1):59-73.
Garcia, S. 1985. Reproduction, stock assessment models and population parameters in exploited penaeid
shrimp populations, p. 139-158. In P.C. Rothlisberg, B.J. Hill and D.J. Staples (eds.) Second Australian
National Prawn Seminar, 22 October 1984, Kooralbyn, Australia.
Garrity, S.D. and S.C. Levings. 1981. A predator-prey interaction between two physically and biologically
constrained tropical rocky shore gastropods: direct, indirect and community effects. Ecol. Monogr.
51(3):267-286.
Gerking, S.D. 1962. Production and food utilization in a population of bluegill sunfish. Ecol. Monogr. 32:31-
78.
Gibbons, M.C. 1984a. Comparison of energetics of hard clam predation by Neopanope sayi, Ovalipes ocellatus,
and Pagurus longicarpus. J. Shellfish Res. 4(1):90. (Summary only.)
Gibbons, M.C. 1984b. Predation of juveniles of the hard clam Mercenaria mercenaria (Linne) by fifteen
invertebrate species with special reference to crabs. J. Shellfish Res. 4(1):90. (Summary only.)
Giovanardi, 0 . and G. Piccinetti Manfrin. 1984. Report of the Third Technical Consultation on Stock Assess-
ment in the Adriatic, Fano, Italy, 6-10 June 1983. FA0 Fish. Rep. 29O:l3l-l34.
Gladfelter, W.B. 1980. Fish community structure and dynamics in five reef environments. In E.H. Gladfelter
and W.B. Gladfelter (eds.) Environmental studies of Buck Island Reef National Monument Ill, St. Croix,
U.S.V.I. West lndies Laboratory, St. Croix.
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, p. 271-324. In O.A.
Jones and R. Endean (eds.) Biology and geology of coral reefs. Vol. II. Biology 1. Academic Press, New
York.
Glynn, P.W. 1983. Increased survivorship in corals harboring crustacean symbionts. Mar. Biol. Lett. 4(2): 105-
111.
Gomez, E.D., R.A. Guieb and E. Aro. 1983. Studies on the predators of commercially important seaweeds.
Fish. Res. J. Philipp. 8(1):1-17.
Gomez, O., D. lbarzabal and A. Silva. 1980. Evaluacion cuantitativa de bentos en la region suroccidental de
Cuba. Inf. Cient.-Tec. 149:l-25. Academia de Ciencias de Cuba, Havana, Cuba.
Gonzalez-Liboy, J.A. 1979. An examination of the present condition of seagrasses in La Parguera, Puerto
Rico. Final Report. Department of Natural Resources and United States F.W.S., Atlanta, Georgia. 87 p.
Gottfried, M. and M.R. Roman. 1983. Ingestionand incorporation of coral-mucus detritus by reef zooplankton.
Mar. Biol. 72:211-218.
Graham, R. 1984. Bay scallop mariculture. Underwat. Nat. l4(4): 14-17.
Greenway, M. 1974. The effects of cropping on the growth of Thalassia fesfudinum (Konig) in Jamaica.
Aquaculture 4: 199-206.
Griffiths, R.J. 1981. Predation on the bivalve Choromyfilus meridionalis (Kr.) by the gastropod Natica
(Tecfonafica) fecta Anton. J. Mollusc. Stud. 47(1):112-120.
Guerra, A. 1979. Fitting a von Bertalanffy expression to Octopus vulgaris growth. Invest. Pesq. 43(1):319-
326.
Guitart, B. and A. Hondares. 1980. Crustaceos. Rev. Cub. Invest. Pesq. 5(3):1-21.
Gulland, J.A. 1983. Fish stock assessment: a manual of basic methods. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
223 p.
Gunnill, F.C. 1983. Differing distributions of potentially competing amphipods, copepods and gastropods
among specimens of the intertidal alga Pelvetia fastigiata. Mar. Biol. 82(3):277-291.
Guo-Xin, Fan-Guangzuan,Jia-Guosheng. 1986. A preliminary study of the feeding habit of Sepiella maindroni
de Rochebrune. J. Zhejiang Coll. Fish. 5(2):171-176.
Gygi, R.A. 1975. Sparisoma viride (Bonnaterre), the stoplight parrotfish, a major sediment producer on coral
reefs of Bermuda? Eclogae Geol. Helv. 68(2):327-359.
Hall, S.J., D. Raffaelliand W.R. Turrell. 1990. Predator-cagingexperiments in marine systems: a reexamination
of their value. Am. Nat. 136(5):657-672.
Hallock, P. 1981. Production of carbonate sediments by selected large benthic Foraminifera on two Pacific
coral reefs. J. Sediment. Petrol. 51(2):467-474.
Hammond, L.S. 1983. Nutrition of deposit-feeding holothuroids and echinoids (Echinodermata) from a shal-
low reef lagoon, Discovery Bay, Jamaica. Mar. Ecol. (Prog. Ser.) 10(3):297-305.
Hammond, L.S. and C.R. Wilkinson. 1985. Exploitation of sponge exudates by coral reef holothuroids. J.
Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 94:l-9.
Hannon, B. 1973. The structure of ecosystems. J. Theor. Biol. 41:535-546.
Hannon, B. and C. Joiris. 1989. A seasonal analysis of the southern North Sea ecosystem. Ecology 70(6):1916-
1934.
Hardison, L.K. and C.L. Kitting. 1985. Epiphytic algal browsing by Bittium varium (Gastropoda) among Thalassia
testudinum turtlegrass. Papers presented at the Annual Meeting of the Phycological Society of America
at the University of Florida, 13-15 August 1985, Gainesville. J. Phycol. 21(Suppl.):I 3. (Summary only.)
Hargrave, B.T. 1985. Feeding rates of abyssal scavenging amphipods (Eurythenes gryllus) determined in
situ by time-lapse photography. Deep-sea Res. 32(41):443-450.
Harrold, C. 1982. Escape responses and prey availability in a kelp forest predator-prey system. Am. Nat.
119(1):132-135.
Hatcher, B.G. 1990. Coral reef primary productivity: a hierarchy of pattern and process. Trends Ecol. Evol.
5: 149-155.
Hawkins, C.M. 1979. Ecological energetics of the tropical sea urchin Diadema antillarum Philippi in Barba-
dos, West Indies. McGill University. Ph.D. thesis.
Hawkins, C.M. 1985. Population carbon budget and the importance of the amphipod Corophium volutator in
the carbon transfer on a Cumberland Basin mudflat, Upper Bay of Fundy, Canada. Neth. J. Sea Res.
19(2):165-176.
Hendler, G. and J.E. Miller. 1984. Feeding behavior of Asteroporpa annulata, a gorgonocephalid brittlestar
with unbranched arms. Bull. Mar. Sci. 34(3):449-460.
Hensen, R. 1984. Food availability and feeding preferences of the queen conch Strombus gigas (Linne)
collected from natural habitats. J. Shellfish Res. 4(1):91. (Summary only.)
Heukelem, W.F., van. 1984. A comparison of food intake, food conversion efficiency, and growth rate of
Octopus cyanea Gray and Octopus mya Voss and Solis. J. Shellfish Res. 4(1):102. (Summary only.)
Hillis-Colinvaux, L. 1974. Productivity of the coral reef alga Halimeda (Order Siphonales), p. 35-42. In Pro-
ceedings of the Second International Symposium on Coral Reefs 1, 22 June-2 July 1973, Australia.
Hoffman, D.L., W.C. Homan, J. Swanson and P.J. Weldon. 1978. Flight responses of three congeneric spe-
cies of intertidal gastropods (Prosobranchia: Neritidae) to sympatric predatory gastropods from Barba-
dos. Veliger 21(2):293-296.
Horn, P.L. 1986. Energetics of Chiton pelliserpentis (Quoy and Gaimard, 1835) (Molluscs: Polyplacophora)
and the importance of mucus in its energy budget. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 101:119-141.
Hourigan, T.F., F.G. Stanton, P.J. Motta, C.D. Kelley and B. Carlson. 1989. The feeding ecology of three
species of Caribbean angelfishes (family Pomacanthidae). Environ. Biol. Fish. 24(2): 105-116.
Howard, R.K. 1982. Impact of feeding activities of epibenthic amphipods on surface-foulingof eelgrass leaves.
Aquat. Bot. 14(1):91-97.
Howard, R.K. 1984. The trophic ecology of caridean shrimps in an eelgrass community. Aquat. Bot. 18(11
2): 155-174.
Hubold, G. and M.V. Mazzetti. 1982. Growth, morphometry, and aspects of life history of the scaled sardine
Harengula jaguana Poey, 1865 in the Guanabara Bay (Brazil). Meeresforschung 29:80-88.
Huebner, J.D. and D.C. Edwards. 1981. Energy budget of the predatory marine gastropod Polinicesduplicatus.
Mar. Biol. 61:221-226.
Hughes, R.N. 1985a. Notes on the feeding behaviour of Tonna zonatum (Tonnidae) and Phalium bisulcatum
(Cassidae) (Tonnacea). The malacofauna of Hong Kong and Southern China, p. 623-626. In Proceed-
ings of the Second InternationalWorkshop on the Malacofauna of Hong Kong and Southern China, 6-24
April 1983, Hong Kong. Vol. II.
Hughes, R.N. 1985b. Predatory behaviour of Natica unifasciata feeding intertidally on gastropods. J. Molluscan
Stud. 51(3):331-335.
Hughes, T.P., B.D. Keller, J.B.C. Jackson and M.J. Boyle. 1985. Mass mortality of the echinoid Diadema
antillarum Philippi in Jamaica. Bull. Mar. Sci. 36(2):377-384.
Ibarzabal, D.R. 1990. Caracteristicas de las comunidades de poliquetos de la macrolaguna del Golfo de
Batabano, p. 37-52. In P.M.Alcolado (ed.) El bentos de la macrolaguna del Golfo de Batabano. Editorial
Academia, La Habana, Cuba.
Ivlev, V.S. 1939. Balance of energy in carps. Zool. Zh. 18:303-318.
Ivlev, V.S. 1961. Experimental ecology of the feeding of fishes. (Translated from Russian by Douglas Scott).
Yale University, New Haven. 302 p.
Ivlev, V.S. 1966. The biological productivity of the sea. (Translated from Russian by W.E. Ricker). J. Fish.
Res. Board Can. 23(ll): 1727-1759.
Jacobsen, T. and J. Browder. 1987. The ecological basis of fishery yield of the Puerto Rico-Virgin Islands
insular shelf. 1. Literature review. (Unpubl.)
Jafari, R.D. and D.M. Mahasneh. 1987. The effect of seagrass grazing on the sexual maturity of the sea
urchin Tripneustes gratilla in the Gulf of Aquaba. Dirasat. l 4 ( l ) :127-136.
J~arre-~eichmann. A. and D. Pauly 1993. Seasonal changes in the Peruvian upwelling ecosystem, p. 307-
, 316. In V. Christensen and D. Pauly (eds.) Trophic models of aquatic ecosystems. ICLARM Conf. Proc.
26,390 p:
Jarre-Teichmann, A., P. Muck and D. Pauly. 1991. Two approaches for modelling fish stock interactions in the
Peruvian upwelling ecosystem. ICES Mar. Symp. 193:171-184.
'~arre-Teichmann. A., M.L. Palomares. M. Soriano. V. Sambilay, Jr. and D. Pauly. 1990. MAXIMS computer
- program for estimating food consumption of fishes. ICLARM Software 4. 19 p.
Jimenez, C. and D. Ibarzabal. 1982. Evaluacion cuantitativa del mesobentos en la plataforma nororiental de
Cuba. Cienc. Biol. 754-69.
Jobling, M. 1981. Mathematical models for gastric emptying and the estimation of daily rates of food con-
sumption for fish. J. Fish Biol. 19:245-257.
Johnson, A.G. and C.H. Salomon. 1984. Age, growth, and mortality of gray triggerfish, Balistes capriscus,
from the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Fish. Bull. 82(3):485-492.
Johnson, S.B. and Y.G. Attramadal. 1983. A functional-morphologicalmodel of Tanais cavolinii Milne-Edwards
(Crustacea, Tanaidacea) adapted to a tubiculous life strategy. Sarsia 67(1):29-42.
Joll, L.M. and B.F. Phillips. 1984. Natural diet and growth of juvenile western rock lobster Panulirus cygnus
George. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 75(2):145-169.
Jones, G.P. 1986. Food availability affects growth in a coral reef fish. Oecologia 7O(l): 136-139.
Jones, G.P. 1987. Competitive interactions among adults and juveniles in a coral reef fish. Ecology 68(5):1534-
1547.
Jones, J.A. 1963. Ecological studies of southeastern Florida patch reefs. Part I. Diurnal and seasonal changes
in the environment. Bull. Mar. Sci. 13:282-307.
Jones, R. 1976. Growth of fishes, p. 251-279. In D.H. Cushing and J.J. Walsh (eds.) The ecology of the seas.
Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.
Kaminski, M. 1984. Food composition of three bryozoan species (Bryozoa, Phylactolaemata) in a mesotrophic
lake. Pol. Arch. Hydrobiol. 31(1):45-53.
Kanwisher, J.W. and S.A. Wainwright. 1967. Oxygen balance in some reef corals. Biol. Bull. 33:378-390.
Kasinathan, R., K. Govindan and B.N. Desai. 1975. On the Opisthobranch Haminoea vitrea (A. Adams,
1850) from Madh Island (Bombay). J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. India 17(3):696-701.
Kilar, J.A. and R.M. Lou. 1986. The subtleties of camouflage and dietary preference of the decorator crab,
Microphrys bicornutus Latreille (Decapoda: Brachyura). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 101(1-2): 143-160.
Kim, Y.H., S.D. Lee and B.G. Kim. 1983. Ecological studies on the shrimp, Trachypenaeus curvirostris
(Stimpson). Bull. Fish. Res. Dev. Agency, Pusan 32:25-30.
Kimmel, J.J. 1985. A characterization of Puerto Rican fish assemblages. Ph. D.dissertation. Univ. Puerto
Rico, Mayagiiez.
Kitting, C.L. 1985. Adaptive significanceof short-range die1 migration differences in a seagrass meadow snail
population. Migration: mechanisms and adaptive significance. Contrib. Mar. Sci.:227-243.
Klumpp, D.W. and A.D. McKinnon. 1989. Temporal and spatial patterns in primary production of a coral-reef
epilithic algal community. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 131:l-22.
Klumpp, D.W. and N.V.C. Polunin. 1989. Partitioning among grazers of food resources within damselfish
territories on a coral reef. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 125:145-169.
Klumpp, D.W. and P.D. Nichols. 1983. Utilisation of the seagrass Posidonia australis as food by the rock crab
Nectocarcinus integrifons (Latreille) (Crustacea: Decapoda: Portunidae). Mar. Biol. Lett. 4(6):331-339.
KNMl (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut). 1957. Middellandse Zee. Oceanografische en
meteorologische gegevens. Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch lnstituut Publ. No. 138, 91 p.
Knoppers, B.A. and S. Opitz. 1984. An annual cycle of particulate organic matter in mangrove waters,
Laranjeiras Bay, southern Brazil. Arq. Biol. Tecnol. 27(1):79-93.
Kobayashi, D.R. 1986. Octopus predation on hermit crabs: A test of selectivity. Mar. Behav. Physiol. 12(2):125-
131.
Kohlmeyer, J. and B. Bebout. 1986. On the occurrence of marine fungi in the diet of Littorina angulifera and
observations on the behavior of the periwinkle. P.S.Z.N.1: Mar. Ecol. 7(4):333-343.
Kohn, A.J. 1980. Abundance, diversity, and resource use in an assemblage of Conus species in Enewetak
Lagoon. Pac. Sci. 34(4):359-369.
Kohn, A.J. and M.C. Lloyd. 1973. Polychaetes of truncated reef limestone substrates on Eastern Indian
Ocean coral reefs: diversity, abundance and taxonomy. Int. Rev. Gesamt. Hydrobiol. 58:369-399.
Kotaki, Y, Y. Oshima and T. Yasumoto. 1985. Bacterial transformation of paralytic shellfish toxins in coral reef
crabs and a marine snail. Bull. Japan Soc. Sci. Fish./Nissuishi 51(6):1009-1013.
Kropp, R.K. 1981. Additional porcelain crab feeding methods. (Decapoda, Porcellanidae). Crustaceana
40(3):307-310.
Kurihara, Y. and K. Okamoto. 1987. Cannibalism in a grapsid crab, Hemigrapsus penicillatus. Mar. Ecol.
(Prog. Ser.) 41(2):123-127.
Laevastu, T. and H.A. Larkins. 1981. Marine fisheries ecosystem, its quantitative evaluation and manage-
ment. Fishing News Books, Farnham, United Kingdom.
Lafontaine, Y. de and R.H. Peters. 1986. Empirical relationships for marine primary production: the effect of
environmental variables. Oceanol. Acta 9(1):65-72.
Lam, V.W.W. and S.T. Chiu. 1985. Prey selection and feeding behaviour of Octopus membranaceus (Quoy
and Gaimard 1822). The malacofauna of Hong Kong and Southern China, p. 661-681. In Proceedings
of the Second InternationalWorkshop on the Malacofauna of Hong Kong and Southern China, 6-24 April
1983, Hong Kong. Vol. 2.
Lau, C.J. 1987. Feeding behavior of the Hawaiian slipper lobster Scyllarides squammosus, with a review of
decapod crustacean feeding tactics on molluscan prey. Second International Symposium on Indo-Pa-
cific Marine Biology, Western Society of Naturalists, 23-28 June 1986, University of Guam. Bull. Mar.
Sci.:378-391.
Laughlin, R.A. 1982. Feeding habits of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, in the Apalachicola Estu-
ary, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 32(4):807-822.
Lawton, P. and R.N. Hughes. 1985. Foraging behaviour of the crab Cancerpagurus feeding on the gastro-
pods Nucella lapillus and Littorina littorea: Comparisons with optimal foraging theory. Mar. Ecol. (Prog.
Ser.) 27(1-2): 143-154.
Lee, J.H., J.S. Hong and S.K. Yi. 1983. Studies on the benthic fauna in Garolim Bay, Korea. Subtidal soft-
bottom community. J. Oceanol. Soc. Korea 18(2):111-116.
Leontief, W. 1951. The structure of the American economy, 1919-1939. Second edition. Oxford University
Press, New York. 264 p.
Lester, S.M. 1985. Cephalodiscus sp. (Hemichordata: Pterobranchia): observations of functional morphol-
ogy, behavior and occurrence in shallow water around Bermuda. Mar. Biol. 85(3):263-268.
Lewis, C.A. 1981. Juvenile to adult shift in feeding strategies in the pedunculate barnacle Pollicipespolymerus
(Sowerby) (Cirripedia, Lepadomorpha). Crustaceana 41 (1):14-20.
Lewis, J.B. 1981. Coral reef ecosystems, p. 127-158. In A. Longhurst (ed.) Analysis of marine ecosystems.
Academic Press Ltd , San Diego.
Lewis, J.B. 1982. Feeding behaviour and feeding ecology of the Octocorallia (Coelenterata: Anthozoa). J.
ZOO^. 196(3):371-384.
Lindeman, R.L. 1942. The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecology 23:399-418.
Lindsey, C.C. 1978. Form, function and locomotory habits in fish, p. 1-100. In W.S. Hoar and D.J. Randall
(eds.) Fish physiology. Vol. 8: Locomotion. Academic Press, New York. 576 p.
Lipinski, M.R. and T.B. Linkowski. 1988. Food of the squid Ommastrephes bartramii (LeSueur, 1981) from
J the Southwest Atlantic Ocean. S. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 6:43-46.
Longhurst, A.R. and D. Pauly. 1987. Ecology of tropical oceans. Academic Press, New York. 407 p.
Macdonald, J.S. and R.H. Green. 1983. Redundancy of variables used to describe importance of prey spe-
cies in fish diets. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40:635-637.
Mackay, A. 1981. The generalized inverse. Practical Comput. (September):108-110.
Maes, V.O. 1982. Observations on the systematics and biology of a turrid gastropod assemblage in the
British Virgin Islands. Bull. Mar. Sci. 33(2):305-335.
Mahon, R., Editor. 1987. Report and Proceedings of the Expert Consultation on Shared Fishery Resources
of the Lesser Antilles Region, Mayagiiez, 8-12 September 1986, Puerto Rico. FA0 Fish. Rep. 383, 106
p. FAO, Rome.
'~ajkowski. J. 1982. Usefulness and applicability of sensitivity analysis in a multispecies approach to fisher-
ies management, p. 149-166. In D. Pauly and G.I. Murphy (eds.) Theory and management of tropical
fisheries. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 9, 360 p.
Majkowski, J. and W.S. Hearns. 1984. Comparison of three methods for estimating the food intake of a fish.
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.41(1):212-215.
Malkov, A.S. 1978. Abundancia del stock comercial de langosta Panulirus argus, Latreille 1804, en la region
suroccidental de la plataforma cubana. Rev. Cub. Invest. Pesq. 3(4):1-11.
Mann, K.H. 1978. Estimating the food consumption of fish in nature, p. 250-273. In S.D. Gerking (ed.) Ecol-
ogy of freshwater fish production. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford. 520 p.
Mann, K.H. 1982. Ecology of coastal waters: a systems approach. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.
322 p.
~ a r ~ a l eR.
f , ' 1971. The pelagic ecosystem of the Caribbean Sea, p. 477-482. In Symposium on Investiga-
tions on and Resources of Caribbean Sea and Adjacent Regions, 1968, Willemstad, Cura~ao.
arten en. G.G. and J.J. Polovina. I 9 8 2 A comparative study of fish yields from various tropical ecosystems, p.
255-289. In D. Pauly and G.I. Murphy (eds.) Theory and management of tropical fisheries. ICLARM
Conf. Proc. 9, 360 p.
Martinez-Estalella, N. and P.M. Alcolado. l99Oa. Caracteristicas de las comunidades de corales petreos de
la macrolaguna del Golfo de Batabano, p. 25-32. In P.M. Alcolado (ed.) El bentos de la macrolaguna del
Martinez-Estalella, N. and P. M. Alcolado. 1990b. Caracteristicasgenerales de las comunidades de moluscos
de la macrolaguna del Golfo de Batabano, p. 53-74. In P.M. Alcolado (ed.) El bentos de la macrolaguna
del Golfo de Batabano. Editorial Academia, La Habana, Cuba.
Martinez-lglesias, J.C. and P.M. Alcolado. 1990. Caracteristicas de la fauna de crustaceos decapodos de la
macrolaguna del Golfo de Batabano, p. 75-89. In P.M. Alcolado (ed.) El bentos de la macrolaguna del
Massin, C. and C. Doumen. 1986. Distribution and feeding of epibenthic holothuroids on the reef flat of Laing
Island (Papua New Guinea). Mar. Ecol. (Prog. Ser.) 31(2): 185-195.
Matsui, S., Y. Hagiwara, H. Tou and H. Tsukahara. 1986. Study on the feeding habit of the Japanese blue
crab, Portunus trituberculatus (Miers). Sci. Bull. Fac. Agric. Kyushu Univ. 40(2/3):175-182.
Maurer, R.O. and R.E. Bowman. 1985. Food consumption of squids (Illex illecebrosus and Loligo pealeo off
the northeastern United States. Biology and ecology of squids lllex illecebrosus and Loligo pealei in the
Northwest Atlantic. NAFO Sci. Counc. Stud.:117-124.
McClanahan, T.R. 1988. Coexistence in a sea urchin guild and its implications to coral reef diversity and
degradation. Oecologia 77:210-218.
McClintock, J.B. and J.M. Lawrence. 1985. Characteristics of foraging in the soft-bottom benthic starfish
Luidia clathrata (Echinodermata: Asteroidea): prey selectivity, switching behavior, functional responses
and movement patterns. Oecologia 66(2):291-298.
McClintock, J.B., T.S. Klinger and J.M. Lawrence. 1982. Feeding preferences of echinoids for plant and
animal food models. Bull. Mar. Sci. 32(1):365-369.
McDonald, J. 1982. Divergent life history patterns in the co-occurring intertidal crabs Panopeus herbstii and
Eurypanopeus depressus (Crustacea: Brachyura: Xanthidae). Mar. Ecol. (Prog. Ser.) 8(2): 173-180.
McKillup, S.C. and A.J. Butler. 1983. The measurement of hunger as a relative estimate of food available to
populations of Nassarius pauperatus. Oecologia 56(1):16-22.
McLean, R. 1983. Gastropod shells: a dynamic resource that helps shape benthlc community structure. J.
J Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 69(2):151-174.
McManus, J.W., C.L. Naiiola, Jr., R.B. Reyes, Jr. and K.N. Kesner. 1992. Resource ecology of the Bolinao
coral reef system. ICLARM Stud. Rev. 22, 117 p.
Meekan, M.G. 1988. Settlement and mortality patterns ofjuvenile reef fishes at Lizard Island, northern Great
Barrier Reef, p. 779-784. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Coral Reef Symposium, 8-12 August
1988, Townsville, Australia. Vol. 2.
Meinkoth, N.A. 1981. The Audubon Society field guide to North American seashore creatures. Alfred A.
Knopf, Inc., New York. 799 p.
Menzel, D.W. 1958. Utilization of algae for growth by the angelfish Holacanthus bermudensis. J. Cons. ClEM
241308-313.
Menzel, D.W. 1960. Utilization of food by a Bermuda reef fish, Epinephelusguttatus. J. Cons. ClEM 25:216-
222.
Meylan, A. 1988. Spongivory in hawksbill turtles: a diet of glass. Science 239(4838):393-395.
Milera, J. F. and I. Cortes. 1979. Habitos alimentarios de Murex (Phyllonotus)pomum Gmelin 1791 (Molluscs:
Neogastropoda: Muricidae), p. 18. In Proceedings of the Fifth Scientific Event of the Oceanological
Institute. (Summary only.)
Miller, D.C. 1984 Mechanical post-capture particle selection by suspension- and deposit-feeding Corophium.
J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 82(1):59-76.
Minchin, D. 1983. Predation on young Pecten maximus (L.) (Bivalvia), by the anemone Anthopleura ballii. J.
Molluscan Stud. 49(3):228-231.
Moehlenberg, F. and H.U. Riisgard. 1979. Filtration rate, using a new indirect technique, in thirteen species of
suspension-feeding bivalves. Mar. Biol. 54: 143-147.
Mook, D. 1986. Absorption efficiencies of the intertidal mangrove dwelling mollusk Melampus coffeus Linne,
and the rocky intertidal mollusk Acanthopleura granulata Gmelin. P.S.Z.N. I: Mar. Ecol. 7(2):105-113.
Morales, C. and T. Antezana. 1983. Diet selection of the Chilean stone crab Homalaspis plana. Mar. Biol.
77(1):79-83.
Morgan, M.D. and C.L. Kitting. 1984. Productivity and utilization of the seagrass Halodule wrightii and its
attached epiphytes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 29(5): 1066-1076.
Moriarty, D.J.W. 1982. Feeding of Holothuria atra and Stichopus chloronotus on bacteria, organic carbon and
organic nitrogen in sediments of the Great Barrier Reef. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwat. Res. 33(2):255-263.
Moriarty, D.J.W. and M.C. Barcley. 1981. Carbon and nitrogen content of food and the assimilation efficiencies
of penaeid prawns in the Gulf of Carpenteria. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwat. Res. 32(2):245-251.
Morrisey, D.J. 1988. Differences in effects of grazing by deposit-feeders Hydrobia ulvae (Gastropoda:
Prosobranchia) and Corophium arenarium Crawford (Amphipoda) on sediment microalgal populations.
1. Qualitative differences. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 118(1):33-42.
Motoh, H. 1985. Biology and ecology of Penaeus monodon, p. 27-36. In Proceedings of the First Interna-
tional Conference on the Culture of Penaeid PrawnsIShrimps, 4-7 December 1984, lloilo City, Philip-
pines.
Mullin, M.M. 1983. In situ measurement of filtering rates of the salp, Thalia democratica, on phytoplankton
and bacteria. J. Plankton Res. 5(2):279-288.
'Munro, J.L.. Editor. 1983. Caribbean coral reef fishery resources. ICLARM Stud. Rev. 7. 276 p.
J ~ u n r o J.L.
, 1984. Report to the Caribbean Fishery Management Council on an assessment of the fisheries
of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. (Unpubl.)
Muskatine, L. and J.W. Porter. 1977. Reef corals: mutualistic symbioses adapted to nutrient-poor environ-
ments. Bioscience 27:454-460.
Naim, 0 . and L. Amoureux. 1982. Le peuplement d'annelides polychaetes motiles associe aux algues d'un
recif corallien de Polynesie Francaise (ile de Moorea, Archipel de la Societe). Bull. Ecol. 13(1):25-33.
Nelson, W.G. 1981. The role of predation by decapod crustaceans in seagrass ecosystems. In Lower organ-
isms and their role in the food web. Kiel. Meeresforsch. Sonderh. 5:529-536.
Nemoto, T., M. Okiyama and M. Takahashi. 1984. Aspects of the roles of squid in food chains of the Antarctic
marine ecosystems, p. 89-92. In Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Polar Biology. Mem. Natl. Inst.
Polar Res. (Japan) (Spec. Issue).
Nicholson, W. and L. Hartsuijker. 1982. The state of the fisheries resources of the Pedro Bank and South
Jamaica shelf, p. 215-254. In FA0 Fish. Rep. 278-Suppl. FAO, Rome.
Nicol, S. and R.K. ODor. 1985. Predatory behaviour of squid (Illex illecebrosus) feeding on surface swarms of
euphausiids. Can. J. Zool. 63(1):15-17.
Nielsen, M.V. and L.H. Kofoed. 1982. Selective feeding and epipsammic browsing by the deposit-feeding
amphipod Corophium volutator. Mar. Ecol. (Prog. Ser.) 10(1):81-88.
Nigmatullin, Ch.M. and N.M. Toporova. 1982. Food spectrum of the short-finned squid Sthenoteufhispteropus
(Steenstrup 1855) in the tropical Atlantic epipelagial, p. 3-8. In Feeding and food relationships of the
Atlantic fishes and invertebrates.Atlanticheskij Nauchno lssledovaticheskij Institut, Rybnovo Khozjajstva;
Okeanografii, Kaliningrad. (In Russian with English abstract.)
Nishihama, S., S. Nojima and T. Kikuchi. 1986. Distribution, diet and activity of a chiton Liolophurajaponica
(Lischkel), in Amakusa, West Kyushu. Publ. Amakusa Mar. Biol. Lab. 8(2):113-123.
Nixon, M. and B.U. Budelmann. 1984. Scale worms -occasional food of Octopus. J. Molluscan Stud. 50(1):39-
42.
Nuitja, I.N.S. and I. Uchida. 1982. Preliminary studies on the growth and food consumption of the juvenile
loggerhead turtle (Caretta carefta L.) in captivity. Aquaculture 27: 157-160.
Odum, H.T. 1957. Primary production measurements in 11 Florida springs and a marine turtle grass commu-
nity. Limnol. Oceanogr. 3:85-97.
Odum, H.T. and C.M. Hoskin. 1958. Comparative studies on the metabolis ters. Publ. Inst.
' Mar. Sci. Univ. Texas 5:16-46.
Odum, H.T. and E.P. Odum. 1955. Trophic structure and productivity of a win
Eniwetok Atoll. Ecol. Monogr. 25:291-320.
Odum, H.T., P.R. Burkholderand J. Rivero. 1959. Measurements of productivity of turtle grass flats, reefs and
the Bahia Fosforescente of Southern Puerto Rico. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. Univ. Texas 6:159-170.
Odum, W.E. and E.J. Heald. 1975. The detritus-based food web of an estuarine mangrove community, p.
265-286. In L.E. Cronin (ed.) Estuarine research. Vol. 1. Academic Press, New York.
Ogden, J.C. and E.H. Gladfelter. 1983. Coral reefs, seagrass beds and mangroves: their interaction in the
coastal zones of the Caribbean. UNESCO Rep. Mar. Sci. 23, 133 p.
Ogden, J..C. and J.C. Zieman. 1977. Ecological aspects of coral reef - seagrass bed contacts in the Carib-
bean. Proc. Int. Coral Reef Symp. 3:377-382.
Ogden, J.C. and J.P. Ebersole. 1981. Scale and community structure of coral reef fishes: a long-term study
of a large artificial reef. Mar. Ecol. (Prog. Ser.) 4:97-103.
Ohta, S. 1984. Star shaped feeding traces produced by echiuran worms on the deep-sea floor of the Bay of
Bengal. Deep-sea Res. 31(12a): 1415-1432.
OSullivan, D. and J.M. Cullen. 1983. Food of the squid Nototodarus gouldi in Bass Strait. Aust. J. Mar.
Freshwat. Res. 324(2):261-285.
Owen, G.P. and L.J. Tilly. 1985. A preliminaryexamination of outwelling from a tropical lagoon. Caribb. J. Sci.
21(lI2):l3-18.
Oya, F. 1987. Growth, stomach contents and parasites in a tidepool population of the hippolytid shrimp
Heptacarpus futilirostris, with reference to reproduction. Mar. Biol. 96(2):225-234.
Paloheimo, J.E. and L.M. Dickie. 1966. Food and growth of fishes Ill. Relation among food, body size and
growth efficiency. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 23:1209-1248.
Palomares, M.L. 1987. Comparative studies on the food consumption of marine fishes with emphasis on
species occurring in the Philippines. University of the Philippines, Diliman, Philippines. 107 p. M.S.thesis.
Palomares, M.L. and D. Pauly. 1989. A multiple regression model for predicting the food consumption of
marine fish populations. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwat. Res. 40:259-273.
Pamatmat, M.M. and S. Flndlay 1983. Metabolism of microbes, nematodes, polychaetes, and their interac-
tions in sediment, as detected by heat flow measurements. Mar. Ecol. (Prog. Ser.) 11:31-38.
Parrish, J.D. 1982. Fishes at a Puerto Rican coral reef: distribution, behavior, and response to passive fishing
gear. Caribb. J. Sci. 18(1-4):9-20.
Parrish, J.D., J.E. Norris, M.W. Callahan, J.K. Callahan, E.J. Magarifuji and R.E. Schroeder. 1986. Piscivory
in a coral reef fish community, p. 285-297. In C.A. Simenstad and G.M. Cailliet (eds.) Contemporary
studies on fish feeding. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The Netherlands.
Parsons, T.R. and R.J. LeBrasseur. 1970. The availability of food to different trophic levels in the marine food
chain, p. 325-343. In J.H Steele (ed.) Marine food chains. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.
Patel, N.M., N.D. Chhaya and M. Bhaskaran. 1979. Stomach contents of Porfunuspelagicus (Linn.) from AD
net catches. Indian J. Mar. Sci. 8(1):48-49.
Patriquin, D.G. 1973. Estimation of growth rate, production and age of the marine angiosperm Thalassia
testudinum Konig. Caribb. J. Sci. 13:lll-123.
Paul, R.K.G. 1981. Natural diet, feeding and predatory activity of the crabs Callinectes arcuatus and C.
toxotes (Decapoda, Brachyura, Portunidae). Mar. Ecol. (Prog. Ser.) 6(1):91-99.
\E. Pauly, D. 1978. A preliminary compilation of fish length growth parameters. Ber Inst. Meereskd. Christian-
Albrechts-Univ. Kiel 55, 200 p.
j Pauly D. 1979a. Theory and management of tropical multispecies stocks: a review with emphasis on the
Southeast demersal fisheries. ICLARM Stud. Rev. 1, 35 p.
Pauly, D. 197913. Gill size and temperature as governing factors in fish growth: a generalization of von
Bertalanffy's growth formula. Ber. Inst. Meereskd. Christian-Albrechts-Univ. Kie163, 156 p.
J
Pauly, D. 1980. On the interrelationships between natural mortality, growth parameters and mean environ-
' mental temperature in 175 fish stocks. J. Cons. ClEM 39(3):175-192.

Pauly, D. 1984. Fish population dynamics in tropical waters: a manual for use with programmablecalculators.
ICLARM Stud. Rev. 8, 325 p.
'pauly, D. 1985. Zur Fischereibiologie Tropischer Nutztiere. Eine Bestandsaufnahme von Konzepten und
Methoden. Ber. Inst. Meereskd. Christian-Albrechts-Univ. Kiel 147, 155 p.
' ~ a u l ~D.
, 1986. A simple method for estimating the food consumption of fish populations from growth data
and food conversion experiments. Fish. Bull. 84(4):827-840.
'Pauly, D. and G.I. Murphy, Editors. 1982. Theory and management of tropical fisheries. ICLARM Conf. Proc.
' 9, 360 p.
pauly, D. and H. Calumpong. 1984. Growth, reproduction and mortality of the sea hare Dolabella auricularia
' (Gastropoda: Aplysiidae) in the Central Visayas, Philippines. Mar. Biol. 79:289-293.
Pauly, D. and J. lngles 1981. Aspects of the growth and natural mortality of exploited coral reef fishes. Proc.
Fourth Int. Coral Reef Symp. 1:89-98.
J Pauly, D. and M.L. Palomares. 1986. Shrimp consumption by fish in Kuwait waters: a methodology, prelimi-
nary results and their implications for management and research. Kuwait Bull. Mar. Sci. 9:101-125.
/ Pauly, D. and V. Christensen. 1993. Graphical representation of steady-state trophic ecosystem models, p.
20-28. In V. Christensen and D. Pauly (eds.) Trophic models of aquatic ecosystems. ICLARM Conf.
Proc. 26, 390 p.
Pauly, D. and V. Christensen. 1995. Primary production required to sustain global fisheries. Nature 374:255-
' 257.
Pauly, D.. M.L. Soriano-Bark and M.L.D. Palomares. 1993a. Improved construction. parametrization and
interpretation of steady-state ecosystem models, p. 1-13. In V. Christensen and D. Pauly (eds.) Trophic
models of aquatic ecosystems. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 26, 390 p.
Pauly, D., V. Sambilay, Jr. and S. Opitz. 1993b. Estimates of relative food consumption by fish and inverte-
brate populations, required for modelling the Bolinao reef ecosystem, Philippines, p. 236-251. In V.
Christensen and D. Pauly (eds.) Trophic models of aquatic ecosystems. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 26, 390 p.
PDT (Plan Development Team). 1990. The potential of marine fishery reserves for reef fish management in
the U.S. Southern Atlantic. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-261,40 p.
Pearson, M. and J.D. Gage. 1984. Diets of some deep-sea brittle stars in the Rockall Trough. Mar. Biol.
82(3):247-258.
Penchaszadeh, P.E. and R. Molinet. 1983. Diet of the sea-star Tethyaster vestitus Say (Astropectinidae) in
the Golfo Triste (Venezuela). Bull. Mar. Sci. 33(l):187-191.
Penney, A.J. and C.L. Griffiths. 1983. Prey selection and the impact of a suite of predators on populations of
the mussel Choromyfilus meridionalis, p. G20. Abstracts of the Fifth National Oceanographic Sympo-
sium, 24-28 January 1983, Rhodes University, Grahamstown.
Pennington, M. 1984. Estimating the average food consumption by fish in the field from stomach contents
data. ICES Doc. C.M. 1984/H:28.
Perez, O.S. and D.R. Bellwood. 1988. Ontogenetic changes in the natural diet of the sandy shore crab,
Matuta lunaris (ForsskAl) (Brachyura: Calappidae). Aust. J. Mar. Freshwat. Res. 39(2):193-199.
Perron, F.E., G.A. Heslinga and J.O. Fagolimul. 1985. The gastropod Cymatium muricinum, a predator on
juvenile tridacnid clams. Aquaculture 48(3/4):2Il-221.
Pielou, E.C. 1984. The interpretation of ecological data. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 263 p.
Platt, T., K.H. Mann and R.E. Ulanowicz. 1981. Mathematical models in biological oceanography. UNESCO
Press, Paris. 156 p.
Pohlo, R. 1982. Evolution of the Tellinacea (Bivalvia). J. Molluscan Stud. 48(3):245-256.
Polovina, J.J. 1984a. An overview of the ECOPATH model. Fishbyte 2(2):5-7.
Polovina, J.J. 198413. Model of a coral reef ecosystem. Part I. The ECOPATH model and its application to
French Frigate Shoals. Coral Reefs 3:l-11.
Polovina, J.J. 1984c. ECOPATH -an ecosystem model applied to French Frigate Shoals, p. 375-398. In R.W.
Grigg and K.Y. Tanoue (eds.) Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Resource Investigations in the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, 25-27 May 1983. Vol. 1. University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Polovina, J.J. 1985. An approach to estimating an ecosystem box model. U.S. Fish. Bull. 83(3):457-460.
'polovina. J.J. 1986. Corrections for the listing of the ECOPATH model. Fishbyte 4(l):2l.
Polovina, J.J. and M.D. Ow. 1983. ECOPATH: a user's manual and program listings. Southwest Fish. Cent.
Adm. Rep. H82-23, 46 p. NMFS, Honolulu.
Polovina, J.J. and S. Ralston, Editors. 1987. Tropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries manage-
ment. Westview Press, Boulder and London. 659 p.
Poon, P.A. 1987. The diet and feeding behavior of Cadulus tolmiei Dall I897 (Scaphopoda: Siphonodentalioida).
Nautilus 101(2):88-92.
Pozo, E. 1979. Edad y crecimiento del pargo criollo (Lutjanus analis (Cuvier 1828)) en la plataforma nororiental
de Cuba. Rev. Cuba. Invest. Pesq. 4(2):1-24.
Prahl, H., F. Guhl and M. Groegl. 1978. Crustaceos decapodos commensales del coral Pocillopora damicornis
L. en la lsla de Gorgona, Colombia. Ann. Inst. Invest. Mar. 10:81-93.
Primavera, J.H. and R.Q. Gacutan. 1985. Ruppia maritima and Najas graminea as natural foods for Penaeus
monodon juveniles, p. 182-183. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Culture of
Penaeid PrawnsIShrimps, 4-7 December 1984, lloilo City, Philippines.
Ralston, S. 1976. Age determination of a tropical reef butterfly fish utilizing daily growth rings in otoliths. Fish
Bull. 74(4):990-994.
Randall, J.E. 1962. Tagging reef fishes in the Virgin Islands. Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst. 14:201-241.
Randall, J.E. 1963a. Additional recoveries of tagged reef fishes in the Virgin Islands. Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish.
Inst. 15155-157.
Randall, J.E. 1963b. An analysis of the fish populations of artificial and natural reefs in the Virgin Islands.
Caribb. J. Sci. 3:31-48.
Randall, J.E. 1967. Food habits of reef fishes of the West Indies. Stud. Trop. Oceanogr. 5:665-847.
Randall, J.E. 1968. Caribbean reef fishes. T.F.H. Publications, Inc., Neptune City, New Jersey. 318 p.
Randall, J.E. 1983. Caribbean reef fishes. Second edition. T.F.H. Publications, Inc., Neptune City, New Jer-
sey.
Reed, J.K., R.H. Gore, L.E. Scotto and K.A. Wilson. 1982. Community composition, structure, areal and
trophic relationships of decapods associated with shallow- and deep-water Oculina varicosa coral reefs:
studies on decapod crustacea from the Indian River region of Florida, XXIV. Bull. Mar. Sci. 32(3):761-
786.
Regis, M.B. and B.A. Thomassin. 1982. Regular echinoids in coral reefs of the Tulear region (S-W Mala-
gasy): morphological adaptations of spine's microstructure. Ann. Inst. Oceanogr. Paris (Nouv. Ser.)
58(2): 117-158.
Reid, R.G.B. 1985. Isognomon: life in two dimensions. The malacofauna of Hong Kong and Southern China,
p. 311-319. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on the Malacofauna of Hong Kong
and Southern China, 6-24 April 1983, Hong Kong. Vol. 1.
Reiswig, H.M. 1971. Particle feeding in natural populations of three marine demosponges. Biol. Bull. 141:568-
591.
Rice, J.A., J.E. Breck, S.M. Bartell and J.F. Kitchell. 1983. Evaluating the constraints of temperature, activity
and consumption on growth of largemouth bass. Environ. Biol Fish. 9:263-275.
Ricker, W.E. 1969. Food from the sea, p. 87-108. In Resources and man: the Report of the Committee on
Resources and Man to the US National Academy of Science. W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco.
259 p.
Ricker, W.E. 1973. Linear regression in fishery research. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 30:409-434.
Riddle, M.J., D.M. Alongi, P.K. Dayton, J.A. Hansen and D.W. Klumpp 1990. Detrital pathways in a coral reef
lagoon. Mar. Biol. 104:109-118.
Rietsma, C.S., I. Vzliela and A. Sylvester-Serianni. 1982. Food preferences of dominant salt marsh herbiv-
ores and detritivores. P.S.Z.N. I: Mar. Ecol. 3(2):179-189.
Robertson, J.R. and W.J. Pfeiffer. 1981. Deposit-feeding by the ghost crab Ocypode quadrata (Fabricius). J.
Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 56(2/3):165-177.
Robertson, R. and P.L. Schutt. 1984. Golden wentletraps on golden corals. Hawaii. Shell News 32(11).
Rogers, C.S. and N. Salesky. 1981. Productivity of Acropora palmata (Lamarck), macroscopic algae, and
algal turf from Tague Bay reef, St. Croix, U.S.V.I. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 49:179-187.
Roushdy, H.M. and V.K. Hansen. 1960. Ophiuroids feeding on phytoplankton. Nature 188:517-518.
Rudloe, A. 1983. Preliminary studies of the mariculture potential of the slipper-lobster, Scyllarides nodifer.
Aquaculture 34(1/2):165-169.
Saccardo, S.A. 1983. Biologia y disponibilidad de sardina (Sardinella brasiliensis, Steindachner 1879) en la
costa sudeste del Brasil. FA0 Fish. Rep. 291(2):449-464.
Saisho, T., T. Noguchi, K. Koyama, A. Uzu, T. Kikuta and K. Hashimoto. 1983. Examination of stomach
contents in xanthid crabs. Bull. Jap. Soc. Sci. Fish. 49(6):939-947.
Sale, P.F. 1975. Patterns of use of space in a guild of territorial reef fishes. Mar. Biol. 29:89-97.
Sale, P.F. 1977. Maintenance of high diversity in coral reef fish communities. Am. Nat. 111:337-359.
Salvat, B and M. Denizot. 1982. La distribution des mollusques supralittoraux sur substrats carbonates
'
tropicaux (Polynesie Fran~aise)et leur regime alimentaire, p. 541-544. In Proceedings of the Seventh
International Malacological Congress, 31 August-7 September 1980. Malacologia.
Salzwedel, H. 1980. Energy budgets for two populations of the bivalve Tellina fabula in the German Bight.
Veroff. Inst. Meeresforsch. Bremerh. 18(2):257-287.
Sandifer, P.A. and J.H. Kerby. 1983. Early life history and biology of the common fish parasite, Lironeca ovalis
(Say) (Isopoda, Cymothoidae). Estuaries 6(4):420-425.
Scheibling, R.E. 1982. Feeding habits of Oreaster reticulatus (Echinodermata: Asteroidea). Bull. Mar. Sci.
32(2):504-510.
Schembri, P.J. 1981. Feeding in Ebalia tuberosa (Pennant) (Crustacea: Decapoda: Leucosiidae). J. Exp.
Mar. Biol. Ecol. 55(1):1-10.
Schembri, P.J. and V. Jaccarini. 1978. Some aspects of the ecology of the echiuran worm Bonellia viridis and
associated infauna. Mar. Biol. 47:55-61.
Schmid, P.H. and R. Schaerer. 1981. Predator-prey interaction between two competing sea star species of
the genus Astropecten. P.S.Z.N.1: Mar. Ecol. 2(3):207-214.
Schwinghamer, P., B. Hargrave, D. Peer and C.M. Hawkins. 1986. Partitioning of production and respiration
among size groups of organisms in an intertidal benthic community. Mar. Ecol. (Prog. Ser.) 31:131-142.
Scott, P.J.B. 1988. Distribution, habitat and morphology of the Caribbean coral- and rock-boring bivalve,
Lithophaga bisulcata (dlOrbigny) (Mytilidae: Lithophaginae). J. Molluscan Stud. 54(1):83-95.
Scott, P.J.B , H.M. Reiswig and B.M. Marcotte. 1988. Ecology, functional morphology, behaviour, and feeding
in coral- and sponge-boring species of Upogebia (Crustacea: Decapoda: Thalassinidea). Can. J. Zool.
66(2):483-495.
Sebens, K.P. and M.A.R. Koehl. 1984. Predation on zooplankton by the benthic anthozoansAlcyonium siderium
(Alcyonacea) and Metridium senile (Actiniaria) in the New England subtidal. Mar. Biol. 81(3):255-271.
Segal, E. 1987. Behavior of juvenile Nerocila acuminata (Isopoda, Cymothoidae) during attack, attachment
and feeding on fish prey. Bull. Mar. Sci. 41(2):351-360.
Seiple, W. and M. Salmon. 1982. Comparative social behavior of two grapsid crabs, Sesarma reticulatum
(Say) and S. cinereum (Bosc). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 62(1):1-24.
Shafir, A. and Y Loya. 1983. Consumption and assimilation of coral mucus by the burrowing mussel Lithophaga
lessepsiana. Bull. Inst. Oceanogr. Fish. (Cairo):135-140.
Shivji, M., D. Parker, B. Hartwick, M.J. Smith and N.A. Sloan. 1983. Feeding and distribution study of the
sunflower sea star Pycnopodia helianthoides (Brandt 1835). Pac. Sci. 37(2):133-140.
Sierra, L.M. and J. Diaz-Zaballa. 1984. Alimentacion de 2 especies de sardina Harengula humeralis (Cuvier,
1829) y Harengula clupeola (Cuvier, 1829), en la costa norte de la Ciudad de La Habana (rada del
lnstituto de Oceanologia). Rep. Invest. Inst. Oceanol. Acad. Cienc. Cuba 25, 18 p.
Signor, P.W. 111. 1985. The role of shell geometry as a deterrent to predation in terebrid gastropods. Veliger
28(2): 179-185.
Silvert, W.L. 1981. Principles of ecosystem modelling, p. 651-676. In A.R. Longhurst (ed.) Analysis of marine
ecosystems. Academic Press, New York. 741 p.
Sisak,
\
M.M. and F. Sander. 1987. On the general ecology of Holothuria glaberrima Selenka (Echinodermata).
Proc. Assoc. Isl. Mar. Lab. Caribb. 17:14. (Summary only.)
Smale, M.J. 1978. Migration, growth and feeding in the Natal rock lobster Panulirus homarus (Linnaeus).
Oceanogr. Res. Inst. Invest. Rep. 47, 56 p.
Smale, M.J. and P.R. Buchan. 1981. Biology of Octopus vulgaris off the East coast of South Africa. Mar. Biol.
65(l): 1-12.
Smith, C.L. 1973. Small rotenone stations: a tool for studying coral reef fish communities. Am. Mus. Novit.
251211-21.
Smith, C.L. and J.C. Tyler. 1972. Space resource sharing in a coral reef fish community, p. 125-170. In B.B.
Collette and S.A. Earle (eds.) Results of the Tektite program: ecology of coral reef fishes. Nat. Hist. Mus.
L. A. Co. Sci. Bull. 14, 180 p.
Sorokin, Yu.1. 1987. Problems of productivity, trophology, and energy balance of coral reef ecosystems. Sov.
J. Mar. Biol. (Transl. Biol. Morya) 12(6):325-335.
Stanhope, J.J. 1980. Marine benthic algae, with an indication of their distribution, relative abundance, and
standing crop. In E.H. Gladfelter and W.B. Gladfelter (eds.) Environmental studies of Buck Island Reef
National Monument Ill, St. Croix, U.S.V.I.: Chapter II. West lndies Laboratory, St. Croix.
Staples, D.A. and J.E. Watson. 1987. Associations between pycnogonids and hydroids, p. 215-226. In Mod-
ern trends in the systematics, ecology, and evolution of hydroids and hydromedusae. Oxford Sci. Publ.
Steele, H. 1974. The structure of marine ecosystems. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford. 128 p.
Steinberg, P.D. 1985. Feeding preferences of Tegula funebralis and chemical defenses of marine brown
algae. Ecol. Monogr. 55(3):333-349.
Steneck, R.S. 1982. A limpet-coralline algal association: adaptations and defenses between a selective
herbivore and its prey. Ecology 63(2):507-522.
Steneck, R.S. and L. Watling. 1982. Feeding capabilities and limitation of herbivorous molluscs: a functional
group approach. Mar. Biol. 68:299-319.
Stevenson, J.C. 1988. Comparative ecology of submersed grass beds in freshwater, estuarine, and marine
environments. Limnol. Oceanogr. 33(4/2):867-893.
Stewart, D.J., D. Weininger, D.V. Rottiers and T.A. Edsall. 1983. An energetics model for lake trout Salvelinus
namaycush: application to the Lake Michigan population. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40:681-698.
Stoner, A.W. and R.J. Zimmerman. 1988. Food pathways associated with penaeid shrimps in a mangrove-
fringed estuary. Fish. Bull. 86(3):543-552.
Stuart, V and D.W. Klumpp. 1984. Evidence for food-resource partitioning by kelp-bed filter feeders. Mar.
Ecol. (Prog. Ser.) 16(1/2):27-37.
Stuart, V., E.J.H. Head and K.H. Mann. 1985. Seasonal changes in the digestive enzyme levels of the amphipod
Corophium volutator (Pallas) in relation to diet. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 88(3):243-256.
Sushchenya, L.M. 1970. Food rations, metabolism and growth of crustaceans, p. 127-141. In J. H. Steele
(ed.) Marine food chains. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.
Suthers, I.M. and D.T. Anderson. 1981. Functional morphology of mouthparts and gastric mill of lbacus
peronii (Leach) (Palinura: Scyllaridae). Aust. J. Mar. Freshwat. Res. 32(6):931-944.
Talbot, F.H., B.C. Russell and G.R.V. Anderson. 1978. Coral reef fish communities: unstable, high diversity
system? Ecol. Monogr. 48:425-440.
Taylor, J.D. 1982. Diets of sublittoral predatory gastropods of Hong Kong, p. 907-920. In B. Morton and C.K.
Tseng (eds.) The marine flora and fauna of Hong Kong and Southern China. Vol. 2: ecology, morphol-
ogy, behaviour and physiology. Proceedings of the lnternational Marine Biological Workshop, 18 April
1980, Hong Kong.
Taylor, J.D. 1987. Feeding ecology of some common intertidal neogastropods at Djerba, Tunisia. Vie Milieu
37(1): 13-20.
Tertschnig, W.P. 1989. Diel activity patterns and foraging dynamics of the sea urchin Tripneustes ventricosus
in a tropical seagrass community and a reef environment (Virgin Islands). P.S.Z.N. I. Mar. Ecol. 10(1):3-
21.
Thangavelu, R. and P. Muthiah. 1983. Predation of oyster Crassostrea madrasensis by gastropod Cymatium
cingulatum (Lamarck) in the oyster farm at Tuticorin, p. 488-494. In Proceedings of the Symposium on
Coastal Aquaculture, 12-18 January 1980, Cochin, India. Part 2: Molluscan culture.
Thorne, R.E. 1979. The application of hydroacoustics to stock assessment for tropical small-scale fisheries,
p. 110-118. In P.M. Roedel and S.B. Saila (eds.) Stock assessment for tropical small-scale fisheries.
Proceedings of an International Workshop, 19-21 September 1979, University of Rhode Island, King-
ston, Rhode Island.
Tomita, K. and T. Mizushima. 1984. Mollusks on leaves of Zostera marina in Notsuke Bay. 1. Fauna and
growth of the major three species. Venus Jap. J. Malacol. 43(4):331-338.
Town, J.C. 1981. Prey characteristics and dietary composition in intertidalAsfrosfole scabra (Echinodermata:
Asteroidea). N.Z. J. Mar. Freshwat. Res. 15(1):69-80.
Tsikhon-Lukanina, E.A., G.G. Nikolaeva and O.G. Reznichenko. 1986. Food spectra of oceanic fouling or-
ganisms. Okeanologiya 26(6): 1006-1009. ,
Tsikhon-Lukanina, Y.A. 1982. Food spectra of bottom molluscs. Oceanology 22(6):751-754.

Ulanowicz, R.E. 1980. An hypothesis on the development of natural communities. J. Theor. Biol. 85:223-245.
Ulanowicz, R.E. 1986. Growth and development. Ecosystems phenomenology. Springer Verlag, New York.
203 p.
Ulanowicz, R.E. and J.S. Norden. 1990. Symmetrical overhead in flow networks. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 21(2):429-
437.
Ulanowicz, R.E. and T. Platt, Editors. 1985. Ecosystem theory for biological oceanography. Can. Bull. Fish.
Aquat. Sci. 213:260 p.
Underwood, A.J. 1984. Vertical and seasonal patterns in competition for microalgae between intertidal gas-
tropods. Oecologia 64(2):211-222.
Ursin, E. 1967. A mathematical model of some aspects of fish growth, respiration and mortality. J. Fish. Res.
Board Can. 24:2355-2435.
Vadas, R.L., T. Fenchel and J.C. Ogden. 1982. Ecological studies on the sea urchin, Lytechinus variegatus,
and the algal-seagrass communities of the Miskito Cays, Nicaragua. Aquat. Bot. 14(2):139-150.
Vahl, 0 . 1980. Volume of water pumped and particulate matter deposited by the Iceland scallop (Chlamys
islandica) in Balsfjord, Northern Norway. Fjord oceanography. NATO Conf. Ser. 4. Mar. Sci.:639-644.
Vakily, J.M. 1992. Determination and comparison of bivalve growth with emphasis on Thailand and other
tropical areas. ICLARM Tech. Rep. 36, 125 p.
VanMontfrans, J., R.J. Orth and S.A. Vay. 1982. Preliminary studies of grazing by Bitfium varium on eelgrass
periphyton. Aquat. Bot. 14(1):75-89.
Vevers, H.G. 1956. Observations on feeding mechanisms in some echinoderms. Proc. Zool. Soc. London
126~484-485.
Vittor, B.A. and P.G. Johnson. 1977. Polychaeteabundance, diversity and trophic role in coral reef communi-
ties at Grand Bahama Island and the Florida Middle Ground, p. 163-168. In D.L. Taylor (ed.) Proceed-
ings of the Third Coral Reef Symposium 1. Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science,
Miami.
Vovk, A.N. 1985. Feeding spectrum of longfin squid (Loligo pealei) in the Northwest Atlantic and its position in
the ecosystem. NAFO Sci. Counc. Stud. 8:33-38.
Vreeland, H.V. and H.R. Lasker. 1989. Selective feeding of the polychaete Hermodice carunculafa Pallas on
Caribbean gorgonians. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 129:265-277.
Waegele, J.W. 1982. Redescriptionand comparison of the Mediterranean species of Paranthura (Crustacea,
Isopoda, Anthuridea). P.S.Z.N. I: Mar. Ecol. 3(2):109-132.
Wanders, J.B.W. 1976a. The role of benthic algae in the shallow reef of Cura~ao(Netherlands Antilles) I.
Primary productivity in the coral reef. Aquat. Bot. 2:235-270.
Wanders, J.B.W. 1976b. The role of benthic algae in the shallow reef of Cura~ao(Netherlands Antilles) II.
Primary productivity of the Sargassum beds in the north-east coast submarine plateau. Aquat. Bot.
2:327-335.
Watanabe, J.M. 1984. Food preference, food quality and diets of three herbivorous gastropods
(Trochidae:Tegula) in a temperate kelp forest habitat. Oecologia 62(1):47-52.
Wear, R.G. and M. Haddon. 1987. Natural diet of the crab Ovalipes catharus (Crustacea, Portunidae) around
central and northern New Zealand. Mar. Ecol. (Prog. Ser.) 35(1/2):39-49.
Weil, E., F. Losada and D. Bone. 1984. Spatial variations in density and size of the echinoid Diadema antillarum
Philippi on some Venezuelan coral reefs. Bijdr. Dierkd. 54(1):73-82.
Wicksten, M.K. 1988. Antennary cast net feeding in California hermit crabs (Decapoda, Paguridea).
Crustaceana 54(3):321-324.
Wilber, D.H. and T. P. Wilber, Jr. 1989. The effects of holding space and diet on the growth of the West Indian
spider crab Mithrax spinosissimus (Lamarck). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 131:215-222.
Wilkinson, C.R. 1987. Interocean differences in size and nutrition of coral reef sponge populations. Science
236:1654-1657.
Wilkinson, C.R. and A.C. Cheshire. 1988. Growth rate of Jamaican coral reef sponges after hurricane Allen.
Biol. Bull. 175:175-179.
Williams, M.J. 1982. Natural food and feeding in the commercial sand crab Porfunus pelagicus Linnaeus
1766 (Crustacea: Decapoda: Portunidae) in Moreton Bay, Queensland. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 59(2-
3): 165-176.
Winberg, G.G. 1956. Rate of metabolism and food requirements of fishes. Fish. Res. Board Can. Trans. Ser.
194,202 p.
Windell, J.T. 1978. Estimating food consumption rates of fish populations, p. 227-254. In T. Bagenal (ed.)
Methods for assessment of fish production in fresh waters. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford. 365 p.
Winfree, R.A. and S. Weinstein. 1989. Food habits of the Caribbean king crab Mifhrax spinosissimus (Lamarck),
p. 458-464. In G.T. Waugh and M.H. Goodwin (eds.) Proceedings of the 39th Annual Gulf and Carib-
bean Fisheries Institute, November 1986, Hamilton, Bermuda.
Winston, J.E. 1986. Victims of Avicularia. P.S.Z.N. I: Mar. Ecol. 7(3):193-199.
Winter, M.A. and P.V. Hamilton. 1985. Factors influencing swimming in bay scallops, Argopecfen irradians
(Lamarck, 1819). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 88(3):227-242.
Witzell, W.N. 1983. Synopsis of biological data on the hawksbill turtle Erefmochelys imbricafa (Linnaeus,
1766). FA0 Fish. Synop. 137, 78 p.
Wulff, F., J.G. Field and K.H. Mann, Editors. 1989. Network analysis in marine ecology: methods and applica-
tions. Coast. Estuar. Stud. 32, 284 p. Springer Verlag, New York.
Wurzian, R.S. 1984. The role of higher trophic levels in a sublittoral benthic community. 1. Estimates of
ingestion in Asfropecfen aranciacus (Linne). P.S.Z.N. I.: Mar. Ecol. 5(1):1-8.
Yamashita, Y., D. Kitagawa and T. Aoyama. 1985. A field study of predation of the hyperiid amphipod
Parafhemisto japonica on larvae of the Japanese sand eel Ammodyfes personafus. Bull. Jap. Soc. Sci.
Fish./Nissuishi 51(10): 1599-1607.
Yang, W.T., R.F. Hixon, P.E. Turk, M.E. Krejci, W.H. Hulet and R.T. Hanlon. 1986. Growth, behaviour, and
sexual maturation of the market squid, Loligo opalescens cultured through the life cycle. Fish. Bull.
84(4):771-798.
Yoshioka, B.B. and P.M. Yoshioka. 1990. Size-specific patterns of colony survivorship in shallow-water
gorgonians. Paper presented at the 2d0Congreso de Ciencias del Mar, 18-22 June 1990, La Habana,
Cuba. (Abstract only).
Zieman, J.C., G.W. Thayer, M.B. Robblee and R.T. Zieman. 1979. Production and export of seagrassesfrom
a tropical bay, p. 21-33. In R.J. Livingston (ed.) Ecological processes in coastal and marine systems.
Plenum Press, New York. 348 p.
Zimmerman, R.J. 1979. Seagrasses and the evolution of marine gammaridean amphipods. Proc. Assoc. Isl.
Mar. Lab. Caribb. 1979, 17 p.
Zimmerman, R.J., R.A. Gibson and J.B. Harrington. 1977. Gammaridean amphipod feeding strategies in a
Florida seagrass bed. Proc. Assoc. Isl. Mar. Lab. Caribb. 12:20 p.
8. APPENDICES
Appendix 8.1. Length-weight data of Caribbean reef fishes by author.
Table 8.1.1. Length-weight data of Caribbean reef fishes after Beebe and Tee-Van (1928)
Observed Estimated
Length Weight L- w-
Family Species (Wa (9) (cm) mb ab.~

Atherinidae Atherinomorus stipes
Balistidae Balistes vetula

Canthigasteridae Canthigaster rostrata
Carangidae Caranx bartholomaei

Caranx crysos
Caranx latus
Oligoplites s a w s
Chaetodontidae Chaetodon striatus
Clupeidae Opisthonema oglinum
Coryphaenidae Coryphaena hippurus

Diodon hystrix
Gerreidae Gerres cinereus
continued ..
Table 8.1.1 continued
Observed Estimated
Length Weight Lm
WD
Family Species (cm). (g) (cm) (db ab.c

Gobiosoma horsti
Haemulidae Anisotremus virginicus

(Pomadasyidae) Haemulon bonariense
Haemulon plumieri
Haemulon sciurus
Pomadasys cofvinaeformis
Hemirarnphidae Hemiramphus brasiliensis


Myripristis jacobus
Neoniphon marianus
Kyphosidae Kyphosus sectatrix

Clepticus parrae
Halichoeres garnoti
Lutjanus analis
Lutjanus apodus
Lutjanus campechanus
Lutjanus griseus
Lutjanus jocu
Lutjanus synagris
Ocyurus chrysurus
Malacanthidae Malacanthus plumier;
Aluterus scripta
Cantherines pullus

Muraenidae Gymnothorax funebris

Lycodontis moringa
Myliobatidae Aetobatus narinari 382 Length

239 Width
Ostraciidae Lactophrys bicaudalis

Lactophrys trigonus
continued...
Table 8.1 .I continued
Observed Estimated
Length Weight L* w-
Family Species (cm). (9) (cm) (g)b ab,c
Pomacanthidae Holacanthus ciliaris

Pomacanthus paru

Chromis cyanea
Stegastes fuscus
Priacanthidae Priacanthus arenatus

Scarus guacamaia
Scarus iserti
Scarus taeniopterus
Sparisoma viride

Equetus punctatus
Odontoscion dentex
Scombridae Auxis thazard

Euthynnus aletteratus
Thunnus obesus
Scorpaena plumier;

Cephalopholis fulva
Epinephelus itajara
Epinephelus morio
Paranthias furcifer
Serranus tabacarius
Serranus tigrinus
Sparidae Calamus bajonado

Calamus calamus
Sphyraen~dae Sphyraena barracuda
Tetraodoniidae Sphoeroides spengleri
T y p e of length not stated

b'a'computed w ~ t hequation (2.4); 'b' assumed equal to 3.0
"Calculated only when an estimate of 'a' or W-was needed for combined asymptotic sizes from varlous authors (Table 3.5)
Symbols:
ma = mean 'a' from several LAN pairs.
/ = approximate maximum size.
+ = rather more than the recorded maximum size
- = rather less than the recorded maximum size
192
Table 8.1.2 Length-weight data of Caribbean reef fishes after Randall (1962, 1967, 1968)
Length Weight
Family Species (cm) (9)
Albulidae Albula vulpes 1,180

Phrynelox scaber

Apogon maculatus


Balistes vetula
Melichthys niger
Xanthichthys ringens

Strongylura timucu

Scartella cristata

Bothus ocellatus
Paralichthys tropicus
Carangidae Alectis ciliaris 950

Caranx bartholomae~
Caranx crysos
Caranx hippos 6,210
Caranx latus 3,860
540
Caranx lugubris 3.080
Caranx ruber
Elagatis bipinnulatus 450
Oligoplites saurus
Selar crurnenophthalmus
Seriola dumerili 14.060
67,585
Seriola rivoliana 2.860
Trachinotus falcatus 450
SL 3,620
SL 14,950
15,195
Trachinotus goodei
Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus perezi

Galeocerdo cuvier 117,930
807.390
Negaprion brevirostris 1,220
Rhizoprionodon porosus 2.860
Chaetodontidae Chaefodon aculeatus

Chaetodon sedentarrus
Chaetodon striatus
continued
193
Length Weight La,, %ax

Family Species (cm) (9) (cm) (9)" aa b

Harengula humeralis
Opisthonema oglinum
Dasyatidae Dasyatis americana 152 Width

Urolophus jamaicensis 76

Diodon holocanthus
Diodon hystrix

Remora remora
Emmelichthyidae lnermia vittata

Gerres cinereus
Ginglyrnostornatidae Ginglymostoma cirratum

Goblosoma sp.(evelynae)
Grarnmidae Gramma loreto

(Serranidae) Gramma melacara

(Serranidae)
Haernulidae Anisotremus surinamensis

(Pornadasyidae) Anisotremus virginicus
Haemulon album
Haemulon bonariense
Haemulon boschmae
Haemulon chrysargyreum
Haemulon flavolineatum
Haemulon macrostomum
Haemulon melanurum
Haemulon parrai
Haemulon plumier;
Haemulon sciurus
Haernulon steindachneri
Haemulon strlatum
Orthoprist~sruber
Hemlrarnphus balao
continued...
Length Weight Lax wmax


Holocentrus rufus
Myripristis jacobus
Neoniphon marianus

Kyphosus sectatrix
Clepticus parrae
Halichoeres garnoti
Halichoeres poeyi
Xyrichtys novacula
Xyrichtys splendens
Lutjanus apodus
Lutjanus griseus
Lutjanus jocu 79 !
SL
Lutjanus mahagoni 38 !
Lutjanus synagris 36
Ocyurus chrysurus 76 /
Malacanthidae Malacanthus plumreri 61 /
Megalopidae Tarpon atlanticus 244 + 160,000
Monacanthidae Aluterus monoceros 61 +

Aluterus schoepfii 51
Aluterus scripta 72 ! 2,500 !
91
Cantherines macrocerus 42 1
Cantherines pullus 189
20 d
Monacanthus ciliatus l3!
Monacanthus tuckeri 9!
Stephanolepis setifer l8!
Mugilidae Mugil curema 38
Mullidae Mulloidichthys martinicus 39

Pseudupeneus maculatus 28 I
Muraenidae Enchelycore nigricans 76 +

Echidna catenata 71
Gymnothorax funebris I89
Gymnothorax miliaris 51 1
Gymnothorax vicinus 122 1
Lycodontis moringa 122 1
Myliobatidae Aetobatus narinari 230 Width
Ogcocephalidae Ogcocephalus nasutus 28 1
Ophichthidae Myrichthys breviceps 91 +

Myrichthys ocellatus 91 1
Ophichtus ophis 135
Length Weight Lax

Family Species (cm) (9) (cm)

Opistognathus mavillosus

Lactophrys trigonus
Pempheridae Pempheris poeyi


Pomacanthus paru

Abudefduf taurus
Chromis cyanea
Stegastes fuscus
Heteropriacanthus cruentatus
Scaridae Cryptotomus roseus

Nicholsina usta
Scarus coelestinus
Scarus coeruleus
Scarus guacamaia
Scarus iserti
Scarus taeniopterus
Scarus vetula
Sparisoma chiysopterum
Sparisoma radians
Sparisoma vir~de

Equetus punctafus
Odontoscion dentex
Pareques acumhatus

Scorpaena plumier;
continued...
Length Weight '-,"ax wm


Cephalopholis fulva
Diplectrum formosum
Epinephelus itajara
Epinephelus morio
Hypoplectrus puella
Mycteroperca bonaci
Mycteroperca cidi
Mycteroperca phenax
Mycteroperca bra
Mycteroperca tigris
Paranthias furcjfer
Serranus dewegeri
Serranus tabacarius
Serranus tigrinus
Serranus tortugarum
Sparidae Archosargus rhornboidalis

Calamus bajonado
Calamus calarnus
Calamus penna
Calamus pennatula

Sphyraena picudilla

Sphyrna mokarran
Synodontidae Synodus foetens.

Synodus intermedius
Synodus synodus
Tetraodontidae Canthigaster rostrafa

Sphoeroides testudineus
"Calculated only when an estimate of 'a' or W was needed for combined asymptotic sizes from various authors (Table 3.5).
Symbols:
! = specimen measured by Randall. SL = standard length.
* - - world record (hook and line). ma = mean 'a' from several LNV pairs.
I = approximate maximum size. as = 'b' from equation (2.3),assumed equal to 3.0.
+ = rather more than the recorded size. VI = Virgin Islands.
- - rather less than the recorded size. 9 = female.
( ) = 'said to reach' the recorded size. d = male.
FL = fork length.
Table 8.1.3.Length-weight data of Caribbean reef fishes after Smith and Tyler (1972)
Length Weight
Fish Species (ern). (9) ah
Acanthuridae Acanthurus bahianus 2.3juvenile

Acanthurus coeruleus 2.6
Apogonidae Apogon binotatus 3.6d

3.8Q
4.0Q
4.0Q
Apogon conklini 2.5d
3.2Q
Apogon maculatus 4.6d
5.0Q
5.1 Q
Apogon pigmentaria 1.8d
2.6Q
3.0d
Apogon quadrisquamatus 1.7 d
3.1 Q
Apogon townsendi 3.6 d
4.0Q
Apogon xenus 2.4d
3.5
3.6
4.4Q
Blenniidae Hypleurocheilus sp. 4.0?
Canthigasteridae Canthigaster rostrata 1.36

2.6
5.8d
Cirrhitidae Amblycirrhitus pinos 2.3

3.4Q
Clinidae Acanthemblemaria spinosa 2.0

Emblemariopsis leptocirris 2.0
Enneanectes altivelis 2.0d
2.3Q
Labrisomus haitiensis 3.6
Pseudemblemaria signifera 1.49
1.56
1.69
1.7d
Starksia hassi 2.0
Starksia lepicoelia 2.1
2.2
Ernrnelichthyidae lnermia vittata 4.1
Gobiidae Coryphopterus dicrus 1.79

2.4Q
2.5d
Coryphopterus eidolon 1.8
3.2d
3.9Q
4.4
Coryphopterus glaucofraenum 3.4d
3.4Q
3.8Q
Coryphopterus personatus 1.79
2.3Q
2.4Q
2.6d
2.8Q
2.9d
Coryphopterus thrix 2.7Q
2.8Q
Gnatholepis thompsoni 4.0d
5.2Q
continued...
Length Weight
Fish Species (cm). (9) ab
Gobiosoma evelynae
Gobiosoma horsti
Gobiosoma saucrum
Lythrypnus elasson
Lythrypnus nesiotes
Lythrypnus sp.
Quisquilius hipoliti
Risor ruber
Grammistiiae Rypticus subbifrenatus

(Serranidae)
Haernulidae Haemubn aurolineatum

(Pomadasyidae)
Holocentridae Holocentrus coruscus

Holocentrus rufus
Myripristis jacobus
Neoniphon marianus
Labridae Halichoeres garnoti
Monacanthidae Monacanthus tuckeri
Muraenidae Gymnothorax miliaris

Lycodontis moringa
Ostraciidae Lactophtys triqueter
Pomacanthidae Hobcanthus ciliaris

Pomacanthus arcoatus
Pomacentridae Chromis cyanea
Pomacentrus partitus
Scaridae Scarus vetula
continued...
Length Weight
Fish Species (cmY (9)
Serranidae Cephalopholis cruentata
Epinephelusstriatus
Hypoplectruspuella
Syngnathidae Syngnathus sp.
"'Length' refers to standard length unless stated otherwise.

b'a' computed with equation (2.4); 'b' assumed equal to 3.0.
Symbols:
M = mean length from female and male. 9 = female.
TL = total length. d = male.
? = type of length not recorded.
Table 8.1.4. Length-weight data of fishes from the southeastern Atlantic coast of Brazil after Figuereido and Menezes (1977).
Length Weight L, wm
Family Species (cm) (9) ( W (9)' a=.b
Antennariidae Antennarios striatus

Caranx bartholomaei
Caranx crysos
Caranx hippos
Caranx latus
Caranx lugubris
Caranx ruber
Oligoplites saurus
Selene vomer
Seriola dumerili
Seriola rivoliana
Trachinotus goodei
Carcharhinidae Galeocerdo cuvieri

Prionace glauca

Opisthonema oglinum 30 1
Coryphaenidae Coryphaena hippurus 200
Dactylopteridae Dactylopterus volitans 45 1
Dasyatidae Dasyatis americana 150 Width
Echeneidae Echeneis naucrates 100 I

Remora remora 60 +
Elopidae Elops saurus 90 1

Haemulon plumieri
Orthopristis ruber
Pomadasys cowinaefonnis
Pomadasys crocro

Myripristis jacobus

Lutjanus griseus
Lutjanus jocu
Lutjanus synagris
Lutjanus vivanus
Ocyurus chrysurus
Rhomboplites aurorubens
continued...
Length
Family Species (cm)

Gymnothorax vicinus
Lycodontis moringa
Myliobatidae Aetobatus narinari 200 Width
Ophichthidae Ophichtus ophis
Pomatomidae Pomatomus saltator


Odontoscion dentex
Pareques acuminatus

Scorpaena plumieri

Diplectrom formosum
Epinephelus itajara
Epinephelus morio
Mycteroperca bonaci
Mycteroperca miciolepis
Mycteroperca rubra
Mycteroperca tigris
Paranthias furcifer

Calamus penna
Calamus pennatula

Sphyrna mokarran

Synodus intermedius
"Calculated only when an estimate of 'a' or W was needed for combined asymptotic sizes from various authors (Table 3.5).
b'a'computed with equation (2.4); 'b' assumed equal to 3.0.
Symbols:
! = specimen measured by the authors.
I = approximate maximum size.
+ = rather more than the recorded size.
- = rather less than the recorded size.
Table 8.1.5.Length-weight data of Caribbean reef fishes after FA0 species identification sheets (Fischer 1978).
Common Common Maximum Maximum

length weight length weight
Family Species (m) (9) (cm) (9)
Acanthuridae Acanthurus bahianus 25.0

Acanthurus chirurgus 25.0
Acanthurus coeruleus 25.0
Albulidae Albula vulpes 35.0
Balistidae Balistes capriscus 20.0

Balistes vetula 30.0
Melichthys niger 30.0
Belonidae Ablennes hians 70.0SL

Platybelone argalus argalus 30.0SL
Strongylura marina 50.0SL
Strongylura timucu 30.0SL
Tylosurus acus 90.0SL
Tylosurus crocodilus 90.0SL
Bothidae Bothus lunatus 35.0

Paralichthys tropicus 30.0
Carangidae Alectis ciliaris 90.0FL

84.5FL
109.0 FL
Caranx bartholomaei 45.0FL
89.5
Caranx crysos 35.0 FL
Caranx hippos 60.0FL
Caranx latus 50.0 FL
Caranx lugubris 70.0FL
Caranx ruber 40.0FL
Decapterus macarellus 20.0 SL
Decapterus punctatus 15.0 FL
Elagatis bipinnulatus 80.0FL
Oligoplites saurus 27.0FL
Selar crumenophthalmus 24.0FL
Seriola dumerili 70.0FL
110.0 FL
150.0FL
Seriola rivoliana 55.0FL
80.0FL
83.0FL
Trachinotus falcatus 94.0 105.5FL
114.0
Trachinotus goodei 31.0FL 49.3
Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus acronotus 100.0 200.0

Carcharhinus falciformis 250.0 350.0
Carcharhinus leucas 260.0 350.0
Carcharhinus limbatus 150.0 247.0
Carcharhinus longimanus 270.0 350.0
Carcharhinus perezi 150.0 230.0
Galeocerdo cuvier 400.0 650.0+
Negaprion brevirostris 240.0 320.0
Clupeidae Harengula clupeola 9.0 10.0

Jenkinsia lamprotaenia 5.0 6.5
Opisthonema oglinum 20.0 25.0
Coryphaenidae Cofyphaena hippurus 100.0 200.0
Dactylopteridae Dactylopterus volitans 20.0 45.0+
Dasyatidae Dasyatis americana 90.0Width 300.0Length

200.0Width
Diodontidae Diodon hystrix 25.0 65.0
Elopidae Elops saurus 60.0 100.0
continued ...
203

length we~ght length weight
Family Species (m) (9) (cm) (9)
Engraulidae Anchoa hepsetus 15.0

Anchoa lyolepis 7.5

Gerres cinereus
Tnglymostomatidae Ginglymostoma cirratum

(Serranidae)

Haemulon album
Haemulon bonariense
Haemulon boschmae
Haemulon melanurum
Haemulon parrai
Haemulon plumieri
Haemulon sciurus
Haemulon sfeindachneri
Haemulon striatum
Orihopristis chrysoptera
Orihopristis poeyi
Orihopristis ruber
Pomadasys corvinaeformis
Pomadasys crocro
Hemiramphidae Hemiram~hbsbalao
~emiramphusbrasiliensis

Kyphosus sectatrix


Lutjanusapodus
Lutjanus griseus
Lutjanus jocu
Lutjanus mahagoni
Lutjanus synagris
Ocyurus chrysurus

Cantherines pullus

continued...
Table 8.1.5continued

Family Species (cm) (a) (cml (a)
Muraenidae Enchetycore nigricans

Gymnothorax vicinus
Lycodontis moringa
Myliobatidae Aetobatus narinari 140.0Width 370.0Length

280.0Width
Ophichthidae Ophichtus ophis
Ostraciidae Acanthostracion quadricomis

Lactophrys trigonus

Pomacanthus paru

Abudefduf taurus
Pomatomidae Pomatomus saltator

Scaridae Nicholsina usta

Scarus coelestinus
Scarus coeruleus
Scarus guacamaia
Scarus isefti
Scarus taeniopterus
Scarus vetula
Soarisoma aurofrenatum
.Sparisoma chrysopterum
Sparisoma rubrioinne
~parisomaviride
Scombridae Auxis rochei

Auxis thazard
Euthynnus alefferatus
Thunnus obesus
Scorpaenidae Scorpaena plumieri

Cephalopholis fulva
Diplectrum formosum
Epinephelus guffatus
Epinephelus itajara
Epinephelus morio
Mycteroperca bonaci
Mycteroperca cidi
continued...

Family Species (cm) (9) (Cm) (S)
Mycteroperca microlepis 50.0

Mycteroperca phenax 30.0
Mycteroperca rubra 35.0 1,340
Mycteropercatigris 40.0
Mycteroperca venenosa 50.0 -
Paranthias furcifer 20.0
Senanus dewegeri
Sparidae Archosargus rhomboidalis 20.0

Calamus bajonado 54.0
Calamus calamus 30.0
Calamus penna 28.0
Calamus pennatula 30.0
Diplodus caudimacula 22.0
Sphyraenidae Sphyraena barracuda 130.0

Sphyraena picudilla 36.0
Sphyrnidae Sphyrna lewini 360.0 420.0
Tetraodontidae Sphoeroides spengleri 12.0

Sphoeroides testudineus 20.0
Symbols:
+ = rather more than the recorded size. FL = fork length
- = rather less than the recorded size. Q = female.
( ) = 'reported' to reach the recorded size. d = male.
SL= standard length.
Table 8 1 6 Length-we~ghtdata of Car~bbeanreef fishes after Munro (1983)
L, wp M F Z
Fam~ly Specles (cm) a (9) a b K M F
Acanthuridae Acanthurus bahianus 28 4.4 MIK

30 T L
Acanthurus chirurgus 35 4.9 MIK
Acanthurus coeruleus 30 4.7 MIK
33 T L
Balistidae Balistes capriscus 31

Balistes vetula 45
Canthidermis sufflamen 55
Melichthys niger 32 '
Xanthichthys ringens 25
Carangidae Alectis ciliaris 76 *

Caranx bartholomaei 69
81 T L
Caranx crysos 48
58 T L
Caranx hippos 79 '
Caranx latus 73
85 T L
Caranx lugubris 69
Caranx ruber 52
60 T L
Elagatis bipinnulatus 65
Selar crumenophthalmus 22
Selene vomer 21 *
Seriola dumerili 124 '
Seriola rivoliana 53 *
Chaetodontidae Chaetodon aculeatus 8.8 ?*

Chaetodon capisfratus 13 ?Q*
I4 ? d a
Chaetodon ocellatus I 6 ?"
Chaetodon sedentarius I 3 ?*
Chaetodon striatus 15 ?*

(Pomadasyidae) Anisotremus virginicus 30
Haemulon album 65
Haemulon aurolineatum 23
Haemulon bonariense 30
Haemulon flavolineatum 25 4.88 MIK
Haemulon melanurum 30
Haemulon pluniieri 42
Haemulon sciurus 40
Holocentridae Holocentrus ascensionis 26.5 3.66 MIK

Holocentrus rufus 23.5 4.85 M/K
Lutjanidae Apsilis dentatus 56 Q

58 d
Lutjanus analis 60d9
64 T L d *
Lutjanus apodus 57 Q*
60 TLQ*
Luoanus buccanella 469
49.9 TLQ
54 d
58.6 T L d
Lutjanus griseus 45 d *
Lutjanus jocu 72 6'
Lutjanus mahagoni 2613'
Lutjanus synagris 41 d '
44.6 T L d
Lutjanus vivanus 700
76.5 (TL)
continued ...
Lm ww M F Z
Family Species (cm) a (9) a b K M F
Ocyurus chrysurus
Pristipomoides macrophthalmus
Rhomboplites aurorubens

Pomacanthus paru
Scarus coeruleus
Scarus guacamaia
Scams iserti
Scarus taeniopterus 6.5MIK

Scarus vetula
Sparisoma aurofrenatum 5.9ZIK

Sparisoma chrysopterum 11.7U K
Sparisoma viride

Cephalopholis fulva
"'Length' refers to fork length unless stated otherwise.

Symbols:
" -- LrndWrnm ? = type of length not stated
() = 'reported' to reach the recorded size 9 = female.
g = gutted weight. d = male.
TL = total length.
Appendix 8.2
Table 8.2.1. Density (ind.mJ) and crop (gmJ) of fishes of a coral reef in the US Virgin Islands after Smith and Tyler (1972).
Family Species ind.mJ WJ

Apogonidae Apogon binotatus

Apogon conklini
Apogon maculatus
Apogon pigmentaria
Apogon quadrisquamatus
Apogon townsendi
Apogon xenus
Blenniidae Hypleurochilus sp
Canthigasteridae Canthigaster rostrata
Clinidae Acanthemblemaria spinosa

Emblemariopsis leptocirris
Enneanectes altivelis
Labrisomus haitiensis
Pseudemblemaria signifera
Starksia bassi
Starksia lepicoelia
Emmelichthyidae Emmelichthyops atlanticus
Gobiidae Coryphopterus dicrus

Coryphopterus eidolon
Coryphopterus thrix
Gobiosoma evelynae
Gobiosoma horsti
Gobiosoma saucrurn
Lythrypnus elasson
Lythrypnus nesiotes
Lythrypnus sp.
Quisquilius hipoliti
Risor ruber
Grammistidae Rypticus subbifrenatus

(Serranidae)
Haemulidae Haemulon aurolineatum

(Pomadasyidae) Haemulon flavolineatum
Holocentridae Holocentrus coruscus

Holocentrus rufus
Myripristis jacobus
Neoniphon marianus
Labridae Halichoeres bivittatus

Halichoeres garnoti
Lutjanidae Ocyurus chrysurus
Monacanthidae Monacanthus tuckeri
Mullidae Pseudupeneus maculatus
Muraenidae Lycodontis moringa

continued...
Family Species ind.m" 9m3
Ostraciidae Lactophfys triqueter 0.01 0.65

Chromis cyanea
Pomacentrus parfifus
Scaridae Scarus iserti

Scarus vetula
Sparisoma viride

Hypoplectrus puella
Syngnathidae Syngnathus sp. 0.01 0.001
Synodontidae Synodus intermedius 0.01 0.82
Sum (64 species) 25.17

Appendix 8.3
Table 8.3.1. Aspect ratio (A) of Caribbean reef fishes based on drawings in Fischer (1978) and photographs in Randall
(1968); length and sex of specimen from photographs in Randall (1968).
A Length A
Family Species (Fischer) (cm) Sex (Randall)
-
Acanthuridae Acanthurus bahianus 2.22 20

Acanthurus chirurgus 1 87 22
Acanthurus coeruleus 1.98 17
Antennariidae Antennarius multiocellatus 12

19
Antennarius striatus 7
15
Apogonidae Apogon conklini 6

Apogon maculatus 6
Atherinidae Allanetta harringtonensis 5

Atherinomorus stipes 7
Aulostomidae Aulostornus rnaculatus 1.19 59
Balistidae Balistes capriscus 2.47 13

Balistes vetula 1.99 33
Canthiderrnis sufflamen 41
Melichthys niger 2.05 33
Xanthichthys ringens 12
Belonidae Ablennes hians 3.27

Platybelone argalus argalus 2.44 34
Strongylura marina 1.52
Strongylura notata 25
Strongylura timucu 1.50 32
Tylosurus acus 1.83
Tylosurus crocodilus 2.16 58
Blenniidae Entornacrodus nigricans 6

Ophioblennius atlanticus 11
Parablennius marmoreus 5
Scarfella cristata 8
Bothidae Bothus lunatus 1.40 28

Bothus ocellatus 7
10
Paralic,>thys tropicus 1.71 24
Carangidae Alectis ciliaris 41

Caranx bartholomaei 4.14 37
Caranx crysos (fusus) 3.52 29
Caranx hippos 3.40 33
Caranx latus 4.32 34
Caranx lugubris 3.96 62
Caranx ruber 2.40 27
Decapterus macarellus 2.98 18
Decapterus punctatus 2.80 16
Oligoplites saurus 3.43 25
Selar crumenophthalrnus 3.15 17
Seriola durnerili 3.30 112
Trachinotus falcatus 3.97 31
104
Trachinotus goodei 2.69 21
Chaetodontidae Chaetodon aculeatus 8

Chaetodon capistratus 10
Chaetodon sedentanus 11
Chaetodon striatus 14
Cirrhitidae Amblycirrhitus pinos 7
Clinidae Labrisomus nuchipinnis 11
continued.
A Length A

Harengula humeralis
Jenkinsia lampmtaenia
Opisthonema oglinum

Diodon holocanthus
Diodon hystrix

Remora remora
Emmelichthyidae Emrnelichthyops atlanticus

lnermia vittata

Anchoa lyolepis
Anchoa mitchilli
Anchoa parva
Exocoetidae Exocoetus volitans

Eucinostomus lefmyi
G e m s cinereus

Gobiosoma evelynae
loglossus helenae
Quisguilius hipoliti

Gramrnistidae Rypticus saponaceus

(Serranidae)

(Pomadasyidae) Anisotremus virginicus juvenile
adult
Haemulon album
Haemulon bonariense
Haemulon boschmae
Haemulon melanurum
Haemulon parrai
Haemulon plumieri
Haemulon sciurus
Haemulon striatom
Orfhopristis ruber

Hemiramphus bermudensis
continued...
A Length A

Holocentrus rufus
Myripristis jacobus
Neoniphon marianus

Kyphosus sectatrix
Labridae Bodianus pulchellus

Bodianus rufus
Clepticus parrae
Halichoeres biviffatus
Halichoeres garnoti juvenile
9
d
Halichoeres maculipinna juvenile
d
Halichoeres pictus 9
d
Halichoeres poeyi
d
Halichoeres radiatus juvenile
Q
Xyrichtys novacula
Xyrichtys splendens
Hemipteronotus martinicensis Q
d
Thalassoma bifasciatum 9
d
Lutjanus apodus
Lufianus cyanopterus
Lufianus griseus
Lutjanus jocu
Lutjanus mahagoni
Lutjanus synagris
Ocyurus chrysurus
Monacanth~dae Aluterus monoceros

Aluterus schoepfii
Aluterus scripta
Cantherines rnacrocerus 0
Cantherines pullus
Monacanthus tuckeri
Mullidae Mulloidichthys maltmicus


-
continued...
A Length A
Opistognathus rnaxillosus

Lactophrys trigonus
Pempheridae Pernpheris schornburgki

Holacanthus ciliaris juvenile
adult
Pornacanthus arcuatus
Pornacanthus oaru juvenile
adult

Abudefduf t a m s
Chrornis cyanea
Chrornis multilineata
Pornacentrus partitus
Stegastes fuscus
Pomatomidae Pornatornus saltator

Rachycentridae Rachycentron canadus
Scaridae Cryptotornus roseus

Nicholsina usta
Scarus coelestinus
Scarus coeruleus
d
Scarus guacarnaia
Scarus iserti 9
d
Scarus taeniopterus 9
d
Scarus vetula Q
d
Sparisorna aurofrenaturn Q
d
Sparisorna chrysopterurn Q
d
Sparisorna radians Q
d
Sparisorna rubripinne
d
Soarisorna viride 0
d
Equetus punctatus
Odontoscion dentex
Pareques acurninatus

Scornberornorus cavalla
Scornberornorus rnaculatus
Scornberornorus regalis
continued.
A Length A

Scorpaena grandicomis
Scorpaena plumieri

Cephalopholis fulva
Dermatolepis inerrnis
Diplectrurn formosum
Epinephelus itajara*
Epinephelus morio
Hypoplecfrus puella
Mycteroperca bonaci
Mycteroperca cidi
Mycteroperca phenax
Mycteroperca rubra
Mycteroperca tigris
Paranthias furcifer
Serranus dewegeri
Serranus tabacarius
Serranus tigrinus
Serranus tortugarum

Calarnus bajonado
Calarnus calamus
Calamus penna
Calamus pennatula

Sphyraena picudilla

Synodus intermedius
Synodus synodus

Sphoeroides spenglen
Symbols:
Q = female.
d = male.
Appendix 8.4
Table 8.4.1.Food consumption of Caribbean reef fishes (without accounting for omnivory); QIB values represent mean population consumption of the
corresponding species; mean environmental temperature = 28%.
Food Aspect wm QIB QIB

Family Species type ratio (9) (%BWD) (year1)


Balistes vetula
Melichthys niger

~arablenniusmamoreus
Scarfella cristata

Bothus ocellatus
Clupeidae Harengula humeralis

Hemiramphidae Hemiramphus brasiliensis
Monacanthidae Aluterus monoceros

Aluterus schoepfii
Aluterus scripta
Cantherines pullus
Monacanthus tuckeri
Ostraciidae Acanthostracion quadricornis

Lactophrys trigonus

Pomacanthus paru Virgin Islands
Jamaica

Abudefduf taurus
Stegastes fuscus

Scarus taeniopterus
Scarus vetula


.
Symbol:
- Assumed (derived from other members of genus or family)
Appendix 8.5. List of species of nonfish taxa.
Table 8.5.1. Benthic primary producers in fish stomachs of West Indian reef fishes (based on Randall 1967); occurrence refers to
number of fish species with respective item in stomach.
- -
Sum
Taxon and class Species Occurrence Genus Higher taxon
-
Spermatophytes Cymodocea manatorurn 16

(including seagrasses) Cymodocea sp. 1 17
Halophila baillonis 7 7
Ruppia maritima 1 1
Thalassia sp. 1
Thalassia testudineum 23 24
Vaucheriasp. 1 1
Algae Algae *
Rhodophytaa Acanthophora spicifera
Acrochaetium sp.
Amphiroa fragilissima
Anacystis marina
Anacystis sp.
Asterocystis ramosa
Chlorophytab A vrainvillea nigricans
Avrainvillea rawsonii
Avrainvillea sp.
Cyanophytac Bluegreens
Botryocladia occidentalis
Chlorophyta B~yopsispennata
Bryopsis sp.
Btyothamnion triquetrum
Rhodophyta Callithamnion sp.
Calothrix crustacea
Calothrix sp.
Chlorophyta Caulerpa cupressoides
Caulerpa mexicana
Caulerpa prolifera
Caulerpa racemosa
Caulerpa serfularioides
Caulerpa sp.
Caulerpa taxifolia
Caulerpa vickersiae
Rhodophyta Centroceras clavulatum
Centroceras sp.
Ceramium byssoideum
Ceramium fastigiatum
Ceramium nitens
Ceramium sp.
Chlorophyta Chaetomorpha sp.
Rhodophyta Champia parvula
Chondria littoralis
Chondria sp.
Chlorophyta Cladophora delicatula
Cladophora sp.
Codium intertextum
Codium isthmocladum
Coelothrix irregularis
Colpomenia sinuosa
Rhodophyta Corallina cubensis
Corallina subulata
Cryptonemia crenulata
Diatoms
Dichothrix penicillata
Dichothrix sp.
Dictyopteris delicatula
Dictyopteris justii
Dictyopteris plagiogramma
Dictyopteris sp.
Chlorophyta Dictyosphaeria favulosa
Phaeophyta Dictyota bartayresii
Dictyota ciliata
Dictyota dentata
Dictyota divaricata
Dictyota linearis
Dictyota sp.
continued...
Sum
Rhodophyta Digenia simplex

Dilophus guineensis
Phaeophyta Ectocarpus breviarticulatus
Ectocarpus sp.
Endesme zosferae
Enteromorpha flexuosa
Enteromorpha sp.
Eucheuma acanthocladum
Eucheuma echinocarpium
Rhodophyta Galaxura lapidescens
Galaxura sp.
Galaxura squalida
Gelidiella acerosa
Gelidium corneum
Gelidium pusillum
Gelidium rigidulum
Gelidium sp.
Phaeophyta Giffordia mitchellae
Rhodophyta Gracilaria debilis
Gracilaria mammillaris
Gracilaria sp.
Gracilaria verrucosa
Grateloupia cuneifolia
Chlorophyta Halimeda incrassafa
Halimeda monile
Halimeda opuntia
Halimeda sp.
Rhodophyta Halymenia floresia
Herposiphonia secunda
Herposiphonia sp.
Herposiphonia fenella
Heterosiphonia wurdemanni
Hypnea musciformis
Hypnea spinella
Jania capillacea
Jania rubens
Jania sp.
Laurencia corallopsis
Laurencia gemnifera
Laurencia obfusa
Laurencia papillosa
Laurencia sp.
Liagora ceranoides
Lithothamnion sp.
Lomenfaria uncinata
Lyngbya majuscula
Lyngbya sp.
Microcoleus chthonoplastes
Microcoleus sp.
Nitophyllum sp.
Cyanophyta Oscillatoria sp.
Phaeophyta Padina gymnospora
Padina sanctae-crucis
Padina sp.
Chlorophyta Penicillus pyriformis
Rhodophyta Peyssonnelia sp.
Phorrnidium penicellatum
Phormidium sp.
Plecfonema nosfocorum
Pocockiella variegata
Pocockiella sp.
Polysiphonia binneyi
Polysiphonia ferrulacea
Polysiphonia sp.
Rhizoclonium riparium
Rhizoclonium sp.
Phaeophyta Sargassum fluitans
Sargassum hystrix
Sargassum natans
Sargassum platycarpum
continued
Sum
Sargassum polycerafium
Sargassum pteropleuron
Sargassum rigidulum
Sargassum sp.
Spatoglossum schroderi
Rhodophyta Spermothamnion investiens
Phaeophyta Sphacelaria tribuloides
Sphacelaria sp.
Spirulina sp.
Rhodophyta Spyridia filamentosa
Phaeophyta Turbinaria turbinata
Chlorophyta Udotea flabellum
Ulva lactuca
Ulva sp.
Valonia utricularis
Valonia ventricosa
Vidalia obtusiloba
Rhodophyta Wrangelia argus
aRhodophyta (red algae).

Chlorophyta (green algae).
'Cyanophyta (blue-green algae)
Phaeophyta (brown algae).
Table 8.5.2.Invertebrates in stomachs of West Indian reef fishes (based on Randall 1967); items are listed in systematical order; "occurrence"
refers to number of fish species with respective item in stomach.
Sum
Taxon Species Occurrence Genus Higher taxon
Foraminifera
Sponges
Mycale sp
Hydrozoans Hydroids
Millepora alcicornis
Pennaria sp.
Sertularia sp.
Gorgonians
(Sea fans) Eunicea calyculata
Gorgonia flabellum
Muricea atlantica
Muricea laxa
Muricea sp.
Plexaura flexuosa
Pferogorgia sp.
Alcyonarians
(Leather corals)
Zoanthids
(Sea anemones) Bunodactis stelloides
Bunodosoma granulifera
Palythoa sp.
Phyllactis flosculifera
Rhodactis sanctithomae
Zoanthus pulchellus
Zoanthus sociatus
Zoanthus sp.
Scleractinia
(Stony corals) Cladocora arbuscula
Colpophyllia sp.
Oculina diffusa
Bryozoans
Sipunculids
Aspidosiphon cumingi
Aspidosiphon sp.
Aspidosiphon speciosus
Aspidosiphon spinososcutatus
Siphonosoma cumanensis
Priapuloids
Chitons
Acanthochiton hemphilli
Acanthochitona pygrnaea
Acanthochitona sp.
Calloplax janeirensis
Choneplax lata
lschnochiton papillosus
lschnochiton sp.
Gastropods
acmaeids (limpets)
acteonids
alcidids
buccinids
columbellids
muricids
turbinids
turrids
vermetids
.Acmaea antillarum (limpets)
Acmaea leucopleura (limpets)
continued.
Sum
Acmaea pustulata (limpets)

Acmaea sp.
Alvania auberiana
Anachis sparsa
Anachis sp.
Arene tricarinata
Arene sp.
Astraea caelata
Astraea longispina
Astraea ~ b e r
Astraea sp.
Atys riiseana
Atys sp.
Bailya sp.
Balcis intermedia (in Holoth.?)
Batillaria sp.
Bittiurn varium
Bulla sp.
Bulla striata
Bullata ovuliformis
Caecum nitidom
Caecum pulchellum
Caecum sp.
Calliostoma javanicum
Calliostoma sp.
Cerithiopsis emersoni
Cerithium algicola
Cerithium eburneum
Cerithium litteratom
Cerithium sp.
Cittarium pica
Columbella mercatoria
Conus juliae
Coralliophila caribea
Crassispira fuscescens
Crassispira nigrescens
Crassostrea rhizophorae
Crucibulum auricula
Cyclostremiscus ornatus
Cymatium labiosum
Daphnella lymneiformis
Diodora cayensis
Diodora listeri
Diodora sp.
Diodora variegata
Diodora viridula
Drillia sp.
Emarginula pumila
Epitonium sp.
Epitonium tunitellulum
Fasciolaria tulipa
Fissurella angusta (limpets)
Fissurella barbadensis (limpets)
Fissurella nodosa (limpets)
Fissurella sp. (limpets)
Haminoea elegans
Hemitoma octoradiata
Hipponix subrufus
Hyalina albolineata
Hyalina avena
Hyalina sp.
Litiopa melanostoma
Littorina angulifera
Littorina meleagris
Littorina ziczac
Mangelia sp.
Marginella sp.
Melampus coffeus
Mitra barbadensis
Mitra sp.
continued...
Sum
Species Occurrence Genus Hioher taxon
Mitrella lunata
Mitrella nitens
Modulus modulus
Murex pomum
Murex sp.
Muricopsis hexagonus
Nassarios albus
Nassariirs sp.
Natica canrena
Natica sp. (juvenile)
Nerita peloronta
Nitidella laevigata
Nitidella nitida
Nitidella ocellata
Nitidella sp.
Oliva caribaeensis
Oliva reticularis
Oliva sp.
Olivella nivea
Olivella petiolita
Olivella sp.
Persicula lavalleeana
Petaloconchus sp. (vermetid)
Planaxis lineatus
Polinices lacteus
Pseudostomatella coccinea
Pseudostomatella erythrocoma
Purpura patula (thaid)
Pusia sp.
Pyramidella candida
Pyrgocythara sp.
Retusa sp.
Risomurex roseus
Rissoina cancellata
Rissoina fischeri
Rissoina sp.
Schismope sp.
Seila adamsi
Sinum perspectivum
Siphonaria sp. (limpets)
Smaragdia viridis
Strombus gallus
Strombus gigas
Strombus sp.
Synaptocochlea picta
Tegula excavata
Tegula fasciata
Tegula lividomaculata
Tegula sp.
Tricolia adamsi
Tricolia bella
Tricolia tessellata
Tridachia crispata
Trivia sp.
Turbo castanea
Turbo sp.
Turbonilla sp.
Turritella sp.
Vasum muricatum
Zebina browniana
Bivalves
arcids
ostreids
pinnids
Aequipecten gibbus
Aequipecten lineolaris
Americardia guppyi
Americardia media
Antigona listeri
continued...
222
Sum
Arca imbricata
Arca sp.
Arca umbonata
Arca zebra
Arcopsis adamsi
Asaphis deflorata
Atrina rigida
Atrina seminuda
Barbatia cancellaria
Babartia domingensis
Brachidontes citrinus
Brachidontes exustus
Brachidontes sp.
Chama sarda
Chama sp.
Chione cancellata
Chione paphia
Chione sp.
Chlamys sp.
Codakia costata
Codakia orbicularis
Codakia pectinella
Corbula contracta
Crassinella sp.
Crassostrea rhizophorae
Crenella divaricata
Cumingia antillarum
Divaricella quadrisulcata
Ervilia nitens
Glycymeris decussata
Glycymeris pectinata
Glycymeris sp.
Gouldia cerina
lsognomon alatus
lsognomon radiatus
Isognomon sp.
Laevicardium sp.
Lima pellucida
Lithophaga bisulcata
Lyropecten antillarum
Macoma cerina
Microcardium sp.
Musculus lateralis
Nuculana sp.
Ostrea sp.
Papyridea semisulcata
Papyridea solenifomis
Papyridea sp.
Pecten ziczac
Pecfen sp.
Pinctada radiata
Pinctada sp.
Pinna camea
Pitar fulminata
Pitar sp.
Pseudochama sp.
Pteria colymbus
Solemya occidentalis
Spondylus sp.
Tellina caribaea
Tellina listeri
Tellina sp.
Trachycardium magnum
Trachycardium muricatum
Trachycardium sp.
Volsella sp.
Yoldia perprotracta
Scaphopods
Cadulus acus
-
continued ...
Sum
Cadulus sp.
Dentalium semistriolatom
Dentalium sp.
Squids
Dorytheutis plei
Dorytheutis sp.
Sepiateuthis sepioidea
Octopuses
Octopus briareus
Octopus vulgaris
Polychaetes
ampharetids
arabellids
capitellids
chaetopterids
eunicids
flabelligerids
glycerids
lumbrinerids
maldanids
nereids
onuphids
opheliids
pectinariids
polynoids
sabellids
serpulids
syllids
terebellids
Cariboa sp.
Chloeia sp.
Eunice sp. (fire worm)
Sabellastarfe magnifica (palolo worm)
Semiodera sp.
Echiuroids
Pycnogonids
Barnacles appendages
Stomatopods
Gonodactylus curacaoensis
Gonodactylus oerstedii
Gonodactylus sp.
Lysiosquilla glabriuscula
Nannosqilla
Pseudosquilla ciliata
Squilla
Squilla tricarinata
Squillus sp.
Amphipods
caprellids
gammarids
hyperiids
isaeids
lysianassids (gammarid)
metopids
photids
Ampelisca sp. (gammarid)
Colomastix sp.
Corophium sp.
Cymadusa filosa
Cymadusa sp.
Elasmopus sp.
continued.
Sum
Taxon Soecies Occurrence Genus Hiaher taxon
Eurystheus sp.
Hyale sp.
Leucothoe sp.
Magamphapus sp.
Neomicrodentopus sp
Paraphoxus sp.
Photis sp.
Tanaids
apseudids
lsopods
anthurids
cymothoids
excorallanids
flabelliferans
gnathiids (larvae)
sphaeromids
Asellote sp.
Cymodoce sp.
Excorallana antillensis
Excorallana sp.
Paracerceis caudata
Stenetrium sp.
Shrimps
alpheids
axiids
carideans
gnathophyllids
hippolytids
palaemonids
penaeids
stenopids
stenopodids
Alpheus sp.
Brachycarpus biunguiculatus
Calianassa sp.
Gnathophylloides miner;
Lucifer faxani
Lucifer sp.
Lysmata moorei (cleaner shrimp)
Penaeopsis goodei
Penaeopsis sp.
Periclimenes sp. (cleaner shrimp)
Processa sp.
Sicyonia laevigata
Sicyona sp.
Solenocera sp.
Stenopus hispidus (cleaner shrimp)
Synalpheus sp.
Tozeuma sp.
Trachycaris restrictus
Trachypenaeus sp.
Upogebia sp. (Thalassinids)
Spiny lobsters
Panulirus argus
Panulirus guttatus
Scyllarid lobsters
Scyllarides aequinoctialis
(slipper lobster)
Hermit crabs
diogenids
pagurids
Calcinus fibiceus
Calcinus sulcatus
Clibanarius sp.
continued...
Sum
Clibanarius tricolor
Dardanus venosus
Paguristes anomalus
Paguristes depressus
Paguristes grayi
Paguristes sp.
Paguristes wassi
Pagurus bonairensis
Pagurus miamensis
Petrochirus diogenes
Spiropagurus sp.
Crabs
calappids
gonoplacid (Speocarcinus)
grapsids
hippids
leucosids
majids
oxystomes
parthenopids
pinotherids
porcellanids
portunids
ranmids
xanthids
Majidae Acanthonyx petiverii

Actaea acantha
Albuneidae Albunea gibbesii

Arenaeus cribarius
Calappidae Calappa flammea

Calappa gallus
Calappa ocellata
Calappa sp.
Callinectes sp.
Xanthidae Carpilius corallinus

Chorinus heros
Cronius ruber
Cronius tumidulus
Domecia hispida
Leucosidae Ebalia stimpsonii
Hippidae Emerita portoricensis

Emerita sp.
Euryplax nitida
Majidae Herbstia sp.

Leiolambrus nitidus
Leptodius floridanus
Macrocoelema sp.
Microphrys bicornutus
Mithrax cinctimanus
Mithrax coryphe
Mithrax forceps
Mithrax sculptus
Mithrax sp.
Mithrax verrucosus
Ocypode albicans
Panopeussp
Parthenopidae Parthenope serrata

Percnon gibbesi
Percnon sp.
Persephona punctata
Porcellanidae Petrolisthes galathinus

Petrolisthes ponta
continued ...
Sum
Petrolisthes sp.
Pilurnnus sp.
Pisosoma sp.
Majidae Pitho aculeata

Pitho lherminieri
Pitho sp.
Xanthidae Platypodia spectabilis
Porcellanidae Porcellana sayana
Portunidae Portunus anaps

Portunus baharnensis
Portunus ordwayi
Portunus sebae
Portunus sp.
Raninidae Ranilia muricata
Grapsidae Sesarma sp
Majidae Stenofynchus seticornis

Xanthodius denticulatus
Hemichordates
Asteroids Astropecten sp.

Linckia guildingii
Ophidiaster sp.
Oreaster reticulatus
Ophiuroids
amphiurid
Amphipholis gracillima
Amphiura fibulata
Ophiactis sp.
Ophiocoma echinata
Ophiocoma riisei
Ophiocoma sp.
Ophioderma brevispinurn
Ophioderma rubicundurn
Ophioderma sp.
Ophioderma squamosissima
Ophionereis sp.
Ophiothrix lineata
Ophiothrix sp.
Echinoids
spatangoids
Brissus brissus (heart urchin)
Clypeaster sp.
Diadema antillarum
Echinometra lacunter
Echinometra sp.
Echinornetra viridis
Eucidaris tribuloides
Lytechinus variegatus
Moira atropus
Tripneustes esculentus
Holothurians
Holothuria arenicola
Thyone pseudofusus
Tunicates
appendicularians
didemnids
salps
Ascidia nigra
continued ...
Sum
Boltenia sp.
Ecteinascidia turbinata
Polycarpa insulsa
Microcosmos exasperatus
Trididemnumsavignii
Trididemnumsp.
Sea turtles Caretta caretta

Eretmochelys imbricata
Table 8.5.3.Composition of "zooplankton" in the diet composition matrix of a
Caribbeancoral reef (US Virgin Islands, based on Randall 1967);"occurrence"
refers to the number of fish species with respective item in stomach.
Taxon Item Occurrence
Arthropoda Insects
Annelida Polychaete larvae
Cnidaria Scyphozoans (medusae)

Siphonophores (medusae)
Crustacea Barnacle larvae

Copepods
Crab larvae
Euphausids
Hermit crab larvae
lsopod larvae
Mysids
Ostracods
Scyllarid larvae
Shrimp larvae
Stomatopod larvae
Ctenophora Ctenophores (medusae)
Mollusca Bivalve larvae

Cephalopod larvae
Gastropod larvae
Heteropods
Mollusc eggs
Pteropods
Tunicata Appendicularians
Salps
Unidentified Fish eggs

Fish larvae
Appendix 8.6. Diet composition matrix.
Table 8.6.1. Taxa and species included in the diet composition matrix of the
ECOPATH II models of a Caribbean coral reef. Species are listed in alphabetical
order of families.
Family or higher taxon Code Species
Organic detritus
Benthic algae
Spermatophytes
Symbiotic algae
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Sponges
Hydrozoans
Sea fans
Sea anemones
Stony corals
Bryozoans
Sipunculid worms
Priapulolds
Chitons
Gastropods
Bivalves
Scaphopods
Squids
Octopuses
Polychaetes
Echiuroids
Pycnogonids
Barnacles
Stomatopods
Amphipods
Tanaids
lsopods
Shrimps
Spiny lobsters
Scyllarid lobsters
Hermit crabs
Crabs
Hemichordates
Asteroids
Ophiuroids
Echinoids
Holothurians
Tunicates
Sea turtles
Sea birds
Unidentified fish
Antennarildae Antennarius multiocellatus
Apogon maculatus
Balistidae Balistes vetula
Melichthys niger
Strongylura timucu
Tylosurus acus acus
Tylosurus crocodilus crocod.
Ophioblennius atlant~cus
Scarfella cristata
Bothus ocellatus
continued...
Carangidae Caranx bartholomaei

Caranx latus
Caranx ruber
Oligoplites saurus
Seriola dumerili
Trachinotusgoodei
Carcharhinus leucas
Carcharhinus perezi
Galeocerdo cuvier
Rhhoprionodon porosus
Chaetodon striatus
Cirrithidae Amblycirrhitus pinos
Clinidae Labrisomus guppyi
Labrisomus nuchipinnb
Harengula humeralis
Opisthonema oglinum
Diodon hobcanthus
Diodon hystrix
Emrnelichthyidae lnerm~avittata
Anchoa lyolepis
Genes cinereus
Gobiosoma evelynae
Gramma melacara
Haemulon album
Haemulon parrai
Haemulon plumieri
Haemulon sciurus
Neoniphon marianus
Holocentrus rufus
Myripristis jacobus
Kyphosus sectatrix
Clepticus parrae
continued...
Halichoeres garnoti
Halichoeres poeyi
Xyrichtys novacula
Xyrichtys splendens
Lutjanus apodus
Lutjanus griseus
Lutjanus jocu
Lutjanus mahagoni
Lutjanus synagris
Ocyurus chrysurus
Aluterus scripta
Cantherines macroceros
Cantherines pullus
Mullidae Mulloidichthys marfinicus
Lycodontis moringa
Gymnothorax vicinus
Ophichthus ophis
Opisthognathidae Opisthognatus aurifrons
Opisthognatus maxillosus
Opisthognatus whitehurstii
Lactophrys trigonus
Lactophiys bicaudalis
Lactophiys triqueter
Pempheridae Pempheris schomburgki
Pomacanthus paru
Abudefduf taurus
Chromis cyanea
Stegastes fuscus
Priacanthidae Priacanthus arenatus
Heteropriacanthus cruentatus
Scarus isedi
Scarus guacamaia
Scarus taeniopterus
Scarus vetola
Sparisoma radians
Sparisoma ~ b r i p i n n e
Sparisoma viride
Equetus punctatus
continued...
Odontoscion dentex
Pareques acuminatus
Scombridae Euthynnus allefferatus
Scomberomotus cavalla
Scorpaena inermis
Scorpaena plumieri
Cephalopholis fulva
Epinephelus itajara
Epinephelus stfiatus
Hypoplectrus chloturus
Hypoplecttus puella
Mycteroperca bonaci
Mycteroperca tigris
Paranthias furcifer
Serranus tigrinus
Calamus bajonado
Calamus calamus
Calamus pennatula
Diplodus argentus caudimacula
Sphyraena picudilla
Sphyrnidae Sphyma lewini
Sphyrna tiburo
Synodus intermedius
Synodus synodus
Triakidae Mustelus canis
Symbols:
A = autotroph F = fish
B = bird I = invertebrate
D = detritus R = reptile
Table 8.6.2.The complete diet composition matrix for the construction of steady-state models of a Caribbean coral reef area, including 41 nonfish taxa and
208 fish species.
Detritus, POM. DOM

Benthic autotrophs
Symbiotic algae
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Microfauna
Sponges
Fire corals
Sea fans
Sea anemones
Stony corals
Bryozoans
Sipunculidworms
Priapuloids
Chitons
Gastropods
Bivalves
Scaphopods
Squids
Octopuses
Polychaetes
Echiuroids
Pycnogonids
Barnacles
Stomatopods
Amphipods
Tanaids
lsopods
Shrimps
Spiny lobsters
Scyllarid lobsters
Hermit crabs
Crabs
Hemichordates
Asteroids
Ophiuroids
Echinoids
Holothurians
Tunicates
Sea turtles
Sea birds
continued...
continued...
235
continued...
R1 B1 FO Sum Qualitative indications on fish
small pelagics
Labridae, Pornacentridae, Mylipbatidae
Engraulidae, Mullidae
Fish (parasite)
continued...
237
Predatorlprey Dl A1 A2 A3 II 12 13 14 15
Acanthurus bahianus
Antennarius multioceliatus
Apogon conklini
Apogon maculatus
Allanetta haringtonensis
Aulostomus maculatus
Balistes vetula
Canthidermis suflamen
Melichthys niger
Platybelone argalus argalus
Strongylura timucu
Tylosurus acus
Entomacrodus nigricans
Scarfella cristata
Bothus lunatus
Bothus ocellatus
Caranx barfholomaei
Caranx latus
Caranx ruber
Oligoplites saurus
Seriola dumerili
Trachinotus goodei
Carcharhinus acronotus
Carcharhinus leucas
Carcharhinus perezi
Galeocerdo cuvier
Chaetodon aculeatus
Chaetodon striatus
Amblycirrhitus pinos
Labrisomus guppyi
Labrisomus nuchipinnis
Harengula clupeola
Harengula humeralis
Opisthonema oglinum
Heteroconger halis
Dactylopterus volitans
Dasyatis americana
Chilomycterus antennatus
Diodon holocanthus
Diodon hystrix
lnermia vittata
Anchoa hepsetus
continued...
continued...
239
continued
241
Predatorlprey
Acanthurus bahianus
Antennarius multiocellatus
Apogon conklini
Apogon maculatus
Allanetta harringtonensis
Aulostomus maculatus
Balistes vetula
Melichthys niger
Platybelone argalus argalus
Strongylura timucu
Tylosurus acus
Entomacrodus nigricans
Scartella cristata
Bothus lunatus
Bothus ocellatus
Caranx bartholomaei
Caranx latus
Caranx ruber
Oligoplites saurus
Seriola dumerili
Trachinotus goodei
Carcharhinus acronotus
Carcharhinus leucas
Carcharhinus perezi
Galeocerdo cuvier
Chaetodon aculeatus
Chaetodon s e i : . - f ~ ~ ~ - ,
Chaetodon striatus
Amb1ycirrhi:us pinos
Labrisomx guppy;
Labrisor,ius nuchipinnis
Harenguia clupeola
Harengula humeralis
Opisthonema oglinum
Heteroconger halis
Dactylopterus volitans
Dasyatis americana
Chilomycterus antennatus
Diodon holocanthus
Diodon hystrix
lnermia vittata
Anchoa hepsetus
continued...
F 1 -
F 2 -
F 3 -
F 4 -
F 5 -
F 6 -
F 7 -
F 8 -
F 9 -
F 10 - 0.009 0.046 0.009 0.009 -
F 11 -
F 12 -
F 13 -
F 14 -
F 15 -
F 16 - 0.24 0.24
F 17 -
F 18 -
F 19 -
F 20 -
F 21 -
F 22 -
F 23 -
F 24 -
F 25 0.145 -
F 26 0.025 - 0.051 0.051 -
F 27 -
F 28 -
F 29 -
F 30 - 0.067 0.067 0.066 -
F 31 -
F 32 -
F 33 0.01 0.01 - 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 - 0.01 -
F 34 - 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 - 0.005
F 35 -
F 36 0.05 -
F 37 -
F 38 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005
F 39 - 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 - 0.003
F 40 0.005 0.005 - 0.005 0.005 0.005 - 0.005 - 0.005 -
F 41 0.007 0.007 - 0.007 0.007 0.007 - 0.007 - 0.007 -
F 42 -
F 43 -
F 44 -
F 45 -
F 46 -
F 47 -
F 48 -
F 49 -
F 50 -
F 51 -
F 52 - -.
F 53 -
F 54 -
F 55 -
F 56 -
F 57 -
F 58 -
F 59 -
F 60 -
continued...
F23 F24 F25 F26 F27 F28 F29 F30 F3 1 F32 F33 F34 F35 F36
continued...
continued...
continued...
246
continued...
F79 F80 F81 F82 F83 F84 F85 F86 F87 F88 F89 F90 F91 F92
continued...
continued...
F 1 -
F 2 -
F 3 -
F 4 -
F 5 -
F 6 -
F 7 -
F 8 -
F 9 -
F 10 - 0.037 -
F 11 -
F 12 -
F 13 -
F 14 -
F 15 -
F 16 -
F 17 -
F 18 -
F 19 -
F 20 -
F 21 -
F 22 -
F 23 -
F 24 -
F 25 -
F 26 -
F 27 -
F 28 -
F 29 -
F 30 -
F 31 -
F 32 -
F 33 - 0.01 - 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
F 34 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 - 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.005 - 0.005
F 35 -
F 36 -
F 37 -
F 38 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005
F 39 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 - 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 - 0.003
F 40 - 0.005 - 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005
F 41 - 0.007 - 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007
F 42 -
F 43 -
F 44 -
F 45 -
F 46 -
F 47 -
F 48 -
F 49 -
F 50 -
F 51 -
F 52 -
F 53 -
F 54 -
F 55 -
F 56 -
F 57 -
F 58 -
F 59 -
F 60 -
continued...
continued...
continued...
continued...
continued
F205 F206 F207 F208 Sum
continued...
Predatorlprey D1 A1 A2 A3 I1 12 13 14 15
Anchoa lyolepis
Chaetodipterus faber
Eucinostomus argenteus
Gerres cinereus
Ginglymostoma cirratum
Gobiosoma evelynae
Gramma loreto
Gramma melacara
Rypticus saponaceus
Anisotremus surinamensis
Haemulon album
Haemulon parrai
Haemulon plumier;
Haemulon sciurus
Hemiramphus balao
Holocentrus ascensionis
Neoniphon marianus
Holocentrus rufus
Myripristis jacobus
Kyphosus incisor
Kyphosus sectatrix
Bodianus rufus
Clepticus parrae
Halichoeres garnoti
Halichoeres poeyi
Xyrichtys novacula
Xyrichtys splendens
Lutjanus analis
Lutjanusapodus
Lutjanus griseus
Lutjanus jocu
Lutjanus mahagoni
Lutjanus synagris
Ocyurus chrysurus
Tarpon atlanticus
Aluterus schoepfi
Aluterus scripta
Cantherines pullus
Mugd curema
continued...
16 17 18 19 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119
F 61 -
F 62 0.185 0.009 - 0.137 -
F 63 -
F 64 - 0.027 - 0 017 0.035 - 0.199 -
F 65 - 0.061 - 0.147 0.233 - 0.128 -
F 66 - 0.02 0.02 0.02 0 02 0.05 0.02 -
F 67 - 0.1
F 68 -
F 69 -
F 70 -
F 71 -
F 72 -
F 73 - 0.168 0.015 -
F 74 - 0.004 - 0.008 0.038 0.055 0.002 - 0 14
F 75 - 0.001 0 257 0.008 0 008 0.028 0.055 0.002 - 0.143 0.01 -
F 76 - 0.021 0.016 0.004 - 0.31
F 77 - 0.048 - 0.098 0.152 - 0.08
F 78 - 0.012 - 0.018 0 147 - 0.001 0.001 0.191 -
F 79 - 0.102 - 0 057 0.005 0.032 0.008 - 0.033 0.398 -
F 80 -
F 81 0.034 - 0 051 0.028 0.002 - 0.029 -
F 82 - 0.086 - 0.007 0 071 0.013 - 0.15
F 83 - 0 003 0.032 - 0.048 0158 0.002 - 0.016 0.053 -
F 84 - 0.101 -
F 85 -
F 86 - 0 01 0.039 -
F 87 -
F 88 -
F 89 - 0.006 0.078 - 0.045 -
F 90 - 0 103 0.251 - 0.04
F 91 - 0.07
F 92 -
F 93 -
F 94 - 0.007 0.105 0.081 - 0.002 -
F 95 -
F 96 - 0.034 0.129 0.039 - 0.181 -
F 97 - 0.005 - 0.021 0.146 0.076 - 0.06
F 98 - 0 009 - 0.015 0.053 0.024 0.002 - 0.043 0.475 -
F 99 - 0.054 - 0.046 0 222 0 23 0019 -
FIOO - 0.002 0.213 0.251 - 0.014 -
F101 - 0.411 0.298 0.06 - 0.08
F102 - 0.051 0.034 -
F103 - 0.397 0.426 0.006 -
F104 - 0.063 - 0.056 - 0.022
F105 - 0.133 - 0.031 -
F106 - 0.005 - 0.035 -
F107 -
F108 - 0.068 -
F109 - 0.036 - 0.022 0.07 -
F 170 - 0.094 -
F 111 - 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.041 -
F 112 - 0.025 0.012 - 0.01 0.01 -
F 113 - 0.104 - 0.057 - 0.104 -
F 114 -
F 115 - 0.006 -
F 116 0.024 - 0.006 -
F 117 -
F 118 0.018 0.003 0.024 - 0.002 -
F 119 - 0.016 0.024 - 0.043 -
F120 -
continued...
Table 8 6 2 contmued
120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133
continued...
continued...
261
Predatorlprey FO F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
F 61 Anchoa lyolepis
Chaetodipterus faber
Eucinostomus argenteus
Gerres cinereus
Ginglymostoma cirratum
Gobiosoma evelynae
Gramma loreto
Gramma melacara
Rypticus saponaceus
Anisotremus surinamensis
Haemulon album
Haemulon aumlineatum
Haemulon llavolineatum
Haemulon macmstomum
Haemulon parrai
Haemulon plumieri
Haemulon sciurus
Herniramphus balao
Holocentrus ascensionis
Neoniphon marianus
Holocentrus rufus
Sargocentmn vexillarium
Myripristis jacobus
Kyphosus incisor
Kyphosus sectatrix
Bodianus rufus
Clepticus parrae
Halichoeres garnoti
Halichoeres poeyi
Xyrichtys novacula
Xyrichtys splendens
Lutjanus analis
Lutjanusapodus
Lovanus griseus
Lutjanus jocu
Lutjanus mahagoni
Luljanus synagris
Ocyurus chtysurus
Tarpon atlanticus
Aluterus schoepfi
Aluterus scripta
Cantherines pullus
Mugil curema
continued...
continued...
continued...
continued...
265
continued...
F65 F66 F67 F68 F69 F70 F71 F72 F73 F74 F75 F76 F77 F78
continued...
continued...
268
F93 F94 F95 F96 F97 F98 F99 FlOO FlOl F102 F103 F104 Fi05 F106
continued...
269
F107 F108 FA09 FllO Flll F112 F113
continued ...
F121 F122 F123 F124 F125 F126 F127 F128 F129 F130 F131 F132 F133 F134
continued ...
271
continued...
continued...
continued...
274
continued
continued...
F205 F206 F207 F208 Sum
continued
Predatorlprey Dl
Mulloidichthys marfinicus -
Pseudupeneus maculatus -
Echidna catenata
Lycodontis moringa
Lycodontis vicinus
Aetobatus narinari
Ogcocephalus nasutus
Myrichthys acuminatus
Myrichthys oculatus
Ophichthus ophis
Opisthognatus aurifrons -
Opisthognatus maxillosus -
Opisthognatus whitehurstii -
Acanthostracion polygonius -
Acanthostracion guadricornis -
Lactophrys frigonus
Rhinesomus bicaudalis
Rhinesomus trigueter
Centropyge argi
Pomacanthus paru
Abudefduf saxatilis
Abudefduf taurus
Chromis cyanea
Stegastes fuscus
Priacanthus cruentatus
Scarus coelestinus
Scarus iserfi
Scarus guacamaia
Scarus taeniopterus
Scarus vetula
Sparisoma radians
Sparisoma viride
Equetus lanceolatus
Equetus punctatus
Odontoscion dentex
Pareques acuminatus
Euthynnus alletteratus
Scorpaena brasiliensis
Scorpaena inermis
Scorpaena plumieri
Alphestes afer
Cephalophohs fulva
continued ...
continued...
279
-
continued...
continued...
PredatorlPrey FO F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8
Mulloidichthys martinicus -
Pseudupeneus maculatus 0.022
Echidna catenata
Lycodontis moringa
Lycodontis vicinus
Aetobatus narinari
Ogcocephalus nasutus
Myrichthys acuminatus
Myrichthys oculatus 0.032
Ophichthus ophis
Opisthognatus aurifrons -
Opisthognatus maxillosus 0.227
Opisthognatus whitehurstii 0.22
Acanthostracion polygonius -
Acanthostracion quadricomis -
Lactophrys trigonus
Rhinesomus bicaudalis
Rhinesomus triqueter
Centropyge argi
Pomacanthus paru
Abudefduf saxatilis
Abudefduf taurus
Chromis cyanea
Pomacentrus fuscus
Pomacentrus leucostictus
Pomacentrus planifrons
Pomacentrus variabilis
Priacanthus cmentatus
Scarus coelestinus
Scams croicensis
Scarus guacamaia
Scarus taeniopterus
Scarus vetula
Sparisoma radians
Sparisoma viride
Equetus lanceolatus
Equetus punctatus
Odontoscion dentex
Pareques acuminatus
Euthynnus alletteratus
Scorpaena brasiliensis
Scorpaena inermis
Scorpaena plumieri
Alphestes afer
Cephalopholis cmentata
Cephalopholis fulva
continued...
282
continued
continued
284
continued...
continued...
F65 F66 F67 F68 F69 F70 F71 F72 F73 F74 F75 F76 F77 F78
continued...
287
continued...
F93 F94 F95 F96 F97 F98 F99 FlOO FlOl F102 F103 F104 F105 F106
continued...
289
F107 F108 FA09 FllO Flll F112 F113 F114 F115 F116 F117 F118 F119F120
continued...
continued...
F 121 -
F122 -
F123 -
F124 -
F125 -
F126 - 0,001 - 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
F127 -
F128 -
F129 -
F130 -
F 131 -
F132 -
F133 -
F134 -
F135 -
F136 -
F137 -
F 138 -
F139 -
F140 -
F 141 -
F142 -
F143 -
F144 -
F145 -
F146 -
F147 -
F 148 -
F 149 -
F150 -
F151 -
F152 -
F153 -
F154 -
F155 -
F156 -
F157 -
F158 -
F159 -
F160 -
F 161 -
F162 -
F163 -
F164 -
F165 -
F166 -
F167 -
F168 -
F169 -
F170 -
F 171 -
F172 - 0.064 0,064
F173 -
F174 -
F175 -
F176 -
F177 - 0.038 0.038 -
F178 -
F179 - 0.092 -
F180 -
continued...
continued...
continued...
continued...
F191 F192 F193 F194 F195 F196 F197 FA98 F199 F200 F201 F202 F203 F204
continued...
F205 F206 F207 F208 Sum
continued...
Ephephelus guttatus
Epinephelus itajara
Hypoplectruspuella
Mycteroperca bonaci
Mycteroperca tigris
Paranthias furcifer
Serranus tigrinus
Archosargus rhomboidalis
Calamus bajonado
Calamus calamus
Calamus pennatula
Sphyraena barracuda
Sphyraena picudilla
Sphyma lewini
Sphyma tiburo
Synodus foetens
Synodus intermedius
Synodussynodus
Canthigaster rostrata
Mustelus canis
continued ...
continued...
298
continued...
continued...
Table 8.6.2. continued.
Predatorlprey FO F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8
Epinephelus itajara
Hypoplectrus c h l o m s
Hypoplectrus puella
Mycteroperca bonaci
Mycteroperca tigris
Paranthias furcifer
Serranus tigrinus
Archosargus rhomboidalis
Calamus bajonado
Calamus calamus
Calamus pennatula
Sphyraena barracuda
Sphyraena picudilla
Sphyrna lewini
Sphyrna tiburo
Synodus foetens
Synodus intermedius
Synodussynodus
Canthigaster rostrata
Mustelus canis
continued...
continued...
continued...
continued...
301
continued...
continued...
302
continued...
F97 F98 F99 FlOO FlOl F102 F103 F104 F105 F106
continued...
F107 F108 F109 F110 Flll F112 F113 F114 F115 F116 F117 F118 F119 F120
continued...
continued...
304
continued...
continued...
continued
306
continued...
F205 F206 F207 F208 Sum

Table 8.6.3. Summary of publications used for the construction of the diet composition matrix of nonfish taxa
Species group Publication
Detritus
Benthic algael
sperrnatophytes
Symb~oticalgae
Phytoplankton
Microfauna Sorokin (1987)
Zooplankton Gottfried and Roman (1983), Sorokin (1987), Jarre et at. (1989)
Sponges Reiswig (1971). Wilkinson (1987)
Hydrozoans Lewis (1982), Minchin (1983), Sorokin (1987)
Gorgonians Lewis (1982), Minchin (1983), Sebens and Koehl (1984),
Sorokin (1987)
Zoantharians Lewis (1982), Minchin (1983), Sebens and Koehl (1984),
Sorokin (1987)
Scleractinians Meinkoth (1981), Lewis (1982), Minchin (1983), Sorokin (1987)
Bryozoans Meinkoth (1981), Kaminski (1984), Winston (1986)
Sipunculid worms Meinkoth (1981)
Priapulolds Meinkoth (1981)
Chitons Lewis (1982), Steneck and Watling (1982), Nishihama
et at. (I 986)
Gastropods Kasinathan et al. (1975), Engstrom (1977), Hoffman et at. (1978),
Milera and Cortes (1979), Kohn (1980), Broom (1981), Garrity
and Levings (1981), Grlffiths (1981), Behrens-Yamada (1982),
Brawley and Adey (1982), Creese and Underwood (1982).
Lewis (1982), Maes (1982), Rietsma et at. (1982), Salvat
and Denizot (1982), Steneck (1982), Taylor (1982), Tsikhon-
Lukanina (1982), VanMontfrans et al. (1982), Anon. (1983),
Broom (1983), Fujioka and Yamazato (1983), McKillup
and Butler (1983), Penney and Grifflths (1983), Thangavelu and
Muthiah (1983), Berry (1984), Boggs et at. (1984), Morgan and
Kitting (1984), Robertson and Schutt (1984), Tornita and
Mizushirna (1984), Underwood (1984), Watanabe (1984),
Hardison and Kitting (1985), Hawkins (1985), Hughes (1985a,
1985b), Kitting (1985), Kotaki et al. (1985), Perron et al. (1985),
Steinberg (1985), Winter and Hamllton (1985), Borja (1986),
DSouza (1986), Kohlmeyer and Bebout (1986), Mook (1986),
Taylor (1987), Berry (1988)
113 Bivalves Berg and Alatalo (1981), Schmid and Schaerer (1981), Pohlo
(1982), Tsikhon-Lukanina (1982), Fehlbeck (1983), Shafir and
Loya (1983). Graham (1984), Reid (1985), Chang et at. (1988),
Davenport (1 988), Scott (1 988)
114 Scaphopods Poon (1987)
115 Squids Nigmatullin and Toporova (1982), OSullivan and Cullen (1983),
Nemoto et al. (1984), Maurer and Bowman (1985). Nlcol and
ODor (1985), Vovk (1985), Guo-Xln et al. (1986), Yang et at.
(1986), Chesalin (1987), Lipinsk~and Linkowski (1988)
116 Octopuses Smale and Buchan (1981), Ambrose and Nelson (1983), Ambrose
(1984), Nixon and Budelrnann (1984), Lam and Chiu (1985),
Kobayashi (1986)
117 Polychaetes Fauchald and Jurnars (1979), Vreeland and Lasker (1989)
118 Echiuroids Schernbri and Jaccarini (1978), Ohta (1984)
11 9 Pycnogonlds Meinkoth (1981), Bamber and Davis (1982), Chlld and Harbison
(1986), Staples and Watson (1987)
120 Barnacles Lewis (1981), Meinkoth (1981), Tsikhon-Lukan~naet at. (1986),
Sorokin (1987)
121 Stornatopods Giovanardi and Piccinetti (1984), Dorninguez and Reaka (1988)
122 Amphipods Zlmrnerman et al. (1977), Zirnrnerrnan (1979), Brawley and Adey
(1981), Howard (1982), Nielsen and Kofoed (1982), Gunnill
(1983), Hendler and Miller (1984), Miller (1984), Stuart et at.
(1985), Yarnashlta et al (1985). SainteMarie (1986), Brawley and
Fei (1987), Buschrnann and Santelices (1987), Baerlocher et at.
(1988), Morrisey (1988)
Tanaids Johnson and Attramadal (1983), Delille et a1 (1985)
lsopods Waegele (1982), Sandlfer and Kerby (1983), Segal (1987)
Shrim~s Corredor and Criales (1977), Balasubramanian et at. (1979),
Gultart and Hondares (1980), Chong and Sasekumar ( l 9 8 l ) ,
Moriarty and Barcley (1981), Reed et at. (1982), Beal (1983),
continued...
ID Species group Publication
Glynn (1983), Kim et al. (1983), Criales (1984). Howard (1984),

Motoh (1985), Primavera and Gacutan (1985), Cockcroft
and Mclachlan (1986). Figueras (1986). Oya (1987), Scott et
al. (1988), Stoner and Zimmerman (1988)
126 Spiny lobsters Brito Perez and Diaz lglesia (1983), Joll and Phillips (1984)
127 Scyllarid lobsters Meinkoth (1981), Suthers and Anderson (1981), Rudloe (1983),
Lau (1987)
128 Hermit crabs Gibbons (1984a, 1984b), Wicksten (1988)
129 Crabs Prahl (1978), Patel et al. (1979), Kropp (1981), Meinkoth
(1981), Nelson (1981), Paul (1981), Robertson and Pfeiffer
(1981), Schembri (1981), Drummond-Davis et al. (1982),
Laughlin (1982), McDonald (1982), Seiple and Salmon (1982),
Williams (1982), Klumpp and Nichols (1983), McLean (1983),
Morales and Antezana (1983), Saisho et al. (1983), DuPreez
(1984), Kotaki et al. (1985), Lawton and Hughes (1985), Signor
(1985), Chilton and Bull (1986), Choy (1986), Kilar and Lou
(1986), Matsui et al. (1986), Kurihara and Okamoto (1987),
Wear and Haddon (1987), Coen (1988), Perez and Bellwood
(1988), Winfree and Weinstein (1989)
130 Hemichordates Dilly (1985), Lester (1985)
131 Asteroids Schembri and Jaccarini (1978), Bitter et al. (1980), Town (1981),
Freitas (1982), Harrold (1982), Scheibling (1982), Bitter and
Penchaszadeh(1983), Penchaszadehand Molinet (1983),
Shivji et al. (1983), Bitter Soto (1984), Chiu et al. (1985),
Dearborn and Edwards (1985), McClintock and Lawrence (1985)
132 Ophiuroids Chartock (1983), Lee et al. (1983), Clements and Stancyk (1984),
Hensen (1984), Pearson and Gage (1984)
133 Echinoids Roushdy and Hansen (1960), Carpenter (1981), Drifmeyer (1981),
McClintock et al. (1982), Regis and Thomassin (1982). Vadas et
al. (1982), Gomez et al. (1983), Hughes et al. (1985), Andrew and
Stocker (1986), Coyer et al. (1987), Downing and El-Zahr (1987),
Foster (1987), Jafari and Mahasneh (1987), Briscoe and Sebens
(1988), Dean et al. (1988). Stevenson (1988)
134 Holothurians Akhmeteva et al. (1982), Moriarty (1982), Hammond (1983),
Hammond and Wilkinson (1985), Massin and Doumen (1986),
Sisak and Sander (1987)
135 Tunicates Meinkoth (1981), Stuart and Klumpp (1984)
R1 Sea turtles Witzell (1983), Acevedo et al. (1984), Meylan (1988)
B1 Sea birds Polovina (1984)
Appendix 8.7
Table 8.7.1. Characteristics of 27 fish species groups (extended version).
Group L W W man Density Biomass Aspect Food Q/B% Q/B Natural Weighing Level
no. Family Species (cfi) (d (d (Nm2) (gm2) ratio type day1 year1 mortality factor
Carcharhinidae Galeocerdo cuvier 457
Ginglymostomatidae Ginglymostoma cirratum 430
Sphyrnidae Sphyrna lewini 420
Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus falciformis 350 Lmax
Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus longimanus 350 Lmax
Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus leucas 350 Lmax
Myliobatidae Aetobatus narinari 370 Len
Dasyatidae Dasyatis americana 300
Carcharhinidae Camharhinus limbatus 247 Lmax
Carcharhinidae Negapnon brev~rostrrs 284
Carcharhinidae Carcharh~nusperezr (sprmger~) 230 Lmax
Carcharhinidae Carcharh~nusacronotus 200 Lmax
Megalopidae Tarpon atlanticus 250
Sphyrnidae Sphyrna tiburo 150
Triakidae Mustelus canis 150
Carcharhinidae Rhizoprionodon porosus lo7
Scombridae Scomberomorus cavalla 137 FL
Scombridae Euthynnus aletteratus 93 FL
Scombridae Scomberomorus regalis 83.5 FL
Carangidae Seriola dumerili 194
Carangidae Seriola rivoliana 97
Carangidae Trachinotus falcatus 105 FL
Carangidae Caranx lugubris 80
Carangidae Trachinotus goodei 50
Carangidae Alecfis ciliaris 91 T U
Carang~dae Elagatis bipinnulatus 107 FL
Carang~dae Caranx latus 80
Carangidae Caranx ruber 56
Carangidae Caranx crysos 58 T L
Carangidae Caranx baffholomaei 81 T L
Carangidae Decapterus macarellus 35 SL
Carangidae Decapterus punctatus 32
Carangidae Selar crumenophthalmus 40 T L
Elopidae Elops saurus 47
Sparidae Calamus bajonado 64
Lutjanidae Ocvurus chwsurus 75 T L
Haemulidae ~ a k m u l o naibum 65 FL
Haemulidae Anisotremus surinamensis 63 T L
Ephippidae Chaetodipterus faber 90
Pomacanthidae Pomacanfhus arcuatus 60
Balistidae Canthidermis sufflamen 56 +
Albulidae Albula vulpes 82
Lutjanidae Lutjanus analis 74 FL
Lutjanidae Lutjanus apodus 59 FL
Balistidae Balistes vetula 45 F L
Ostraciidae Lactophtys trigonus 46 +
Belonidae Tylosurus acus 135 SL
Belonidae Tylosurus crocodilus 107 SL - .- 4.415
Cluoeidae O ~ i ~ t h ~ n eoolinum
ma 26 11 2 26.283 4 0
0
continued... (O
Table 8.7.1 continued 2
0
Group L W W man Density Biomass Aspect Food QIB% QIB Natural Weighing Level
no. Family Species @A) (d (d (N.mQ) (g.m2) ratlo type day1 year1 mortality factor

Clupeidae Sardinella aurita
Carangidae Oligoplites saurus
Emmelichthyidae lnermia viffata
Belonidae Platybelone argalus
Clupeidae Harengula humeralrs
8# Gerreidae Gerres cinereus
Sparldae Calamus calamus
Sparidae Calamus pennatula
Haemulidae Haemulon plumieri
Haemulidae Haemulon carbonarium
Haemulidae Anisotremus virginicus
Haemulidae Haemulon macrostomum
Sphyraenidae Sphyraena p~cud~lla
Holocentridae Holocentrus ascens~onrs
Haemulidae Haemulon parrar
Haemulidae Haemulon sciurus
Haemulidae Pomadasvs crocro
Synodontidae Synodus htermedius
Serranidae Paranthias furcifer
Lutjanidae Lutjanus griseus
Lutjanidae Lutjanus mahagoni
Lutjanidae Lutjanus synagris
Ostraciidae Lactophrys triqueter
Holocentridae Neoniphan marianus
# Holocentridae Holocentrus coruscus
Holocentridae Sargocentron vexillarium
Haemulidae Haemulon chrysargyreum
Haemulidae Haemulon flavolineatum
Holocentridae Myripristis jacobus
Haemulidae Pomadasys corvinaeformis
Haemulidae Haemulon bonanense
Chaetodontidae Chaetodon ocellatus
Chaetodontidae Chaetodon capistratus
Synodontidae Synodussynodus
Haemulidae Haemulon aurolineatum
Chaetodontldae Chaetodon striatus
Mullidae Pseudupeneus maculatus
Chaetodontidae Chaetodon sedentarius
Pempheridae Pem~heflsschomburaki
Holocentridae ~olocentrusrufus
9 Hemiramphidae Hemiramphus brasiliensis
Hemiramphidae Hyporamphus unifasciatus
10 Kyphosidae Kyphosus sectatrix
continued...
Group L W W man Density Biomass Aspect Food QIB% QIB Natural Weighing Level
no. Family Species (cfi) (gT (~7 (N.m") (gm") ratio type day1 year1 mortality factor
Balistidae Balistes capriscus 31
Balistidae Melichthys niger 36
Sparidae Diplodus caudimacula 28
Sparidae Archosargus rhomboidalis 35
Mugilidae Mugil curema 38
Pomacentridae Microspathodon chtysurus 20
Acanthuridae Acanthurus bahianus 25 FL
Pomacentridae Abudefduf taurus 25
Acanthuridae Acanthurus coeruleus 32 FL
Acanthuridae Acanthurus chirurgus 33 FL
Lutjanidae Lutjanus cyanopterus 160
Lutjanidae Lutjanus jocu 83
Serranidae Mycteroperca tigris 102
Sphyraenidae Sphyraena barracuda I78
Serranidae Epinephelus striatus 100
Rachycetridae Rachycentron canadum 160
Fistulariidae Fistularia tabacaria 183
Labridae Lachnolaimus maximus 86
Diodontidae Diodon holocanthus 51
Serranidae Mycteroperca rubra 70
Diodontidae Diodon hystrix 60
Serranidae Mycteroperca venenosa 86 FL
Muraenidae Gymnothorax funebris 190
Balistidae Xanthichthys ringens 25
Gerreidae Eucinostomus argenteus 30
Priacanthidae Heteropriacanthus cruentatus 30
Labridae Clepticus parrae 25
Haernulidae Haemulon melanurum 30 FL
Pomacentridae Chromis multilineata 20 SL
Aulostomidae Aulostomus maculatus 76 I
Sciaenidae Odontoscion dentex 25
Serranidae Cephalopholis fulva 34
Serranidae Diplectrum formosum 31
Grammistidae Rypticus saponaceus 29.5 (SL)
Sciaenidae Equetus punctatus 28
Serranidae Cephalopholis cruentata 34
Priacanthidae Priacanthus arenatus 40
Labridae Hallchoeres radiatus 46
Dactylopteridae D a ~ f v l ~ ~ t vol~tans
er~S 45 +
Serranidae Epinephelus morio 71
Serranidae Epinephelus adscensionis 50
Diodontidae Chilomycterus antennatus 26.3
Diodontidae Chilomycterus antillarum 26.3
Malacanthidae Malacanthus plumier!. 61 I
Serranidae Mycteroperca interstlt/alis 70
Ostraciidae Acanthostracion polygonius 41
Labridae Bodianus rufus 40
Serranidae Alphestes afer 33
Bothidae Bothus lunatus 46 /
Scorpaenidae Scor~aena~lumieri 43 /
Serranidae ~pin.ephe1f.1~ guttatus 58
Scorpaenidae Scorpaena brasil~ensrs 36 1
Muraenidae Gvmnothorax vicinus 122 1
Ophichthidae obhichtus ophis 135
Muraenidae Lycodontis moringa 100
continued...
2
2
Group L W wman Density Biomass Aspect Food QIB% QIB Natural Weighing Level N
no. Family Species (cfi) (!3y (~7 (Nm2) (g.m") ratio type day1 year' mortality factor
Muraenidae Enchelycore nigricans
Ophichthidae Myrichthys ocellatus
14 Pernpheridae Pempheris poeyi

Pomacentridae Chromis cyanea
Serranidae Hypoplectrus nigricans
Serranidae Hj;poplectrus aberrans
Holocentridae Plectwooos retrosoinls
Serranldae ~ ~ p o j i e c i r upueka
s
Serranidae Hypoplectrus chlorurus
Labridae Xyrichtys splendens
Tetraodontldae Sphoeroides spengleri
Labridae Xyrichtys novacula
Bothidae Bothus ocellatus
Labridae Halichoeres garnoti
Sciaenidae Pareques acuminatus
Labridae Halichoeres bivittatus
Clinidae Labrisomus guppyi
Labridae Halichoeres poeyi
Serranidae Serranus tabacanus
Antennar~ldae Anlennar~usmultiocellatus
Opisthognathidae Oplstognathus macrognathus
Labridae Thalassoma brfasclatum
Sciaenidae Eguetus lanceolatus
Scorpaenidae Scorpaena grandicorn~s
Scorpaenidae Scoroaenodes canbbaeus
Gobiidae ~athygobiussoporator
Antennariidae Antennarius striatus
Opisthognathidae Opistognathus maxillosus
Muraenidae Gymnothorax miliaris
15 Belonidae Strongylura timucu
Clupe~dae Jenkinsia lamprotaenia
Atherinidae Atherinomorus stipes
Atherlnidae Allanetta harringtonensis
16 Engraulidae Anchoa hepsetus
Engraulrdae Anchoa lyolepis
17 Chaetodontidae Chaetodon aculeatus
# Apogonidae Apogon conklini
Serranidae Serranus tortugarum
Apogonidae Apogon macul&s
Cirrhitidae Amblvcirrhitus oinos
Serranidae erri in us tigrinus
Labridae Halichoeres maculipinna
Gramrnidae Gramma loreto
Swrpaenidae Scorpaena inermis
Opisthognathidae Opisthognathus whitehurstii
18 Serranidae Epinephelus itajara

Serranidae Mycteroperca bonaci
continued
Group L W Wm an Density Biomass Aspect Food QIB% QIB Natural Weighing Level
no. Family Species (cfi) (ST (sf (N,m-2) (gm2) ratio type day1 year1 mortality factor
19 Ostraciidae Acanthostrac~onquadricornis 46 /
Ostrac~idae Lactophrys bicaudalis 45
Monacanthidae Cantherines macrocerus 44
Monacanthidae Aluterus scripta 76
Pornacanthidae Pomacanthus paru 43
Pomacanthidae Holacanthus tricolor 36
Pomacanthidae Holacanthus ciliaris 46
20 Monacanthldae Monacanthus ciliatus

Monacanthldae Cantherines pullus
Monacanthidae Stephanolepis setifer
Pomacentridae Stegastes variabilis
Pomacentridae Stegastes fuscus
21 Canthigasteridae Canthigaster rostrata 11 (SL)
Pornacentridae Stegastes leucostictus 10
Pornacentridae Stegastes planifrons 11 T L
Monacanthidae Monacanthus tucker! 10
22 # Goblidae Coryphopterus glaucofraenum 8 (SL)

Gob~idae Gnathole~isth0fnD~0ni 6 SL/
Blenn~idae ~arablenniusmahnoreus
Pornacanth~dae Centropyge argi
23 Scarldae Scarus guacama~a
Scarldae Scarus vetula
24 Scaridae Scarus coeruleus
Scaridae Sparisoma rubripinne
Scarldae Sparisoma v~ride
Scaridae Sparisoma chrysopterum
Scaridae Scarus taeniopterus
25 Scaridae Scarus isem
Scaridae Sparisoma aurofrenatum
Scaridae Sparisoma radlans
26 Blennildae Scarfella crktata
Blennildae Ophioblennius atlanticus
27 Gobiidae Gobiosoma horsfi
Gobiidae Gobiosoma evelynae (sp.)
Symbol:
# = single species grouped outside cluster analysls
* = estimated values.
1 = dernersal, 2 = off bottom, 3 = midwater, 4 = pelagic.
314
Appendix 8.8. Food intake and elettivity indites for each consumer and all models.
Table 8.8.1. The 50-box model
Diet Food Ivlev's elec- Standardized

composition intake tivity index forage ratio
Predator: (1) LGSHARKSIRAYSC

LGSHARKSIRAYSC (o' Cycle) 0.01 0
SHARKSISCOMBRID 0.010
LGJACKSC 0.003
IMJACKSC 0.050
SMJACKSC 0.004
IMREEF FlSHCl 0.100
LGIMSCHOOLFISHP 0.010
IMREEF FISHC2 0.010
HEMIRAMPHIDAEH 0.002
KYPHOSIDAEH 0.060
IMREEF FlSHH 0.052
LGREEF FlSHC 0.030
IMREEF FlSHC3 0.025
SMREEF FlSHCl 0.020
SMSCHOOLFISHPEL 0.049
ENGRAULIDAEH 0.028
SMREEF FISHC2 0.006
LGGROUPERSC 0.093
IMREEF FISHC4 0.020
SMREEF FlSHOl 0.025
SMREEF FISH02 0.004
SMREEF FISH03 0.001
LGSCARIDAEH 0.025
IMSCARIDAEH 0.002
SMSCARIDAEH 0.001
SEABIRDS 0.020
SQUIDS 0.005
SEATURTLES 0.005
OCTOPUSES 0.020
LOBSTERS 0.005
CRABS 0.050
SHRMPIHCRBISTOM 0.050
ECHlNOlDS 0.008
GASTROPODS 0.010
POLYIPRIAIOPHIU 0.050
HOUSlPlECHlHEM 0 050
BIVALVES 0.067
Detritus 0.020
TOTAL 1.000
Predator: (2) SHARKSISCOMBRID

SHARKSISCOMBRID (0' Cycle) 0 010
IMJACKSC
SMJACKSC
IMREEF FlSHCl
LGIMSCHOOLFISHP
IMREEF FlSHC2
HEMIRAMPHIDAEH
KYPHOSIDAEH
IMREEF FlSHH
LGREEF FlSHC
IMREEF FISHC3
SMREEF FlSHCl
SMSCHOOLFISHPEL
ENGRAULIDAEH
SMREEF FISHC2
IMREEF FISHC4
SMREEF FlSHOl
SMREEF FISH02
LGSCARIDAEH
IMSCARIDAEH
SMSCARIDAEH
BLENNHDAEH
continued..
315

29. SQUIDS
31. OCTOPUSES
32. LOBSTERS
33. CRABS
34. SHRMPIHCRBISTOM
38. GASTROPODS
40. POLYlPRIA/OPHIU
42. BIVALVES
TOTAL
Predator: (3) LGJACKSC

4. IMJACKSC
6. IMREEF FlSHCl
8. IMREEF FISHC2
11. IMREEF FlSHH
13. IMREEF FlSHC3
33. CRABS
34. SHRMPIHCRBISTOM
37. ECHlNOlDS
38. GASTROPODS
42. BIVALVES
TOTAL
Predator: (4) IMJACKSC

6. IMREEF FlSHCl
7. LGIMSCHOOLFISHP
8. IMREEF FlSHC2
10. KYPHOSIDAEH
11. IMREEF FlSHH
15. SMSCHOOLFISHPEL
16. ENGRAULIDAEH
17. SMREEF FISHC2
19. IMREEF FISHC4
20. SMREEF FlSHOl
21. SMREEF FISH02
22. SMREEF FISH03
23. LGSCARIDAEH
24. IMSCARIDAEH
25. SMSCARIDAEH
26. BLENNllDAEH
29. SQUIDS
33. CRABS
34. SHRMPIHCRBISTOM
38. GASTROPODS
46. ZOOPLANKTON
TOTAL
Predator: (6) IMREEF FlSHCl

6. IMREEF FlSHCl (0' Cycle)
8. IMREEF FISHC2
10. KYPHOSIDAEH
11. IMREEF FlSHH
13. IMREEF FlSHC3
14. SMREEF FlSHCl
15. SMSCHOOLFISHPEL
17. SMREEF FISHC2
19. IMREEF FISHC4
20. SMREEF FlSHOl
23. LGSCARIDAEH
24. IMSCARIDAEH
25. SMSCARIDAEH
29. SQUIDS
31. OCTOPUSES
33. CRABS
34. SHRMPIHCRBISTOM
36. ASTEROIDS
37. ECHlNOlDS
continued...

GASTROPODS
POLYIPRINOPHIU
HOLlSlPlECHlHEM
BIVALVES
ASCIIBARNIBRYOZ
SPONGES
CORALSIANEMONES
ZOOPLANKTON
Benthic prod.
TOTAL
Predator: (5) SMJACKSC

4, IMJACKSC
5. SMJACKSC (0' Cycle)
7 LGIMSCHOOLFISHP
11. IMREEF FlSHH
15. SMSCHOOLFISHPEL
16. ENGRAULIDAEH
46. ZOOPLANKTON
TOTAL
Predator: (7) LGIMSCHOOLFISHP

7. LGIMSCHOOLFISHP (0' Cycle)
11. IMREEF FlSHH
15. SMSCHOOLFISHPEL
16. ENGRAULIDAEH
34. SHRMPIHCRBISTOM
40. POLYlPRlNOPHlU
46. ZOOPLANKTON
49 Benthic prod.
TOTAL
Predator: (8)
.. IMREEF FlSHC2
IMJACKSC
LGIMSCHOOLFISHP
IMREEF FISHC2 (O' Cycle)
KYPHOSIDAEH
IMREEF FlSHH
LGREEF FlSHC
IMREEF FlSHC3
SMSCHOOLFISHPEL
ENGRAULIDAEH
SMREEF FISHC2
IMREEF FISHC4
LGSCARIDAEH
IMSCARIDAEH
SMSCARIDAEH
OCTOPUSES
LOBSTERS
CRABS
SHRMPIHCRBISTOM
SMBENTHARTHROPO
ECHlNOlDS
GASTROPODS
CHITONSISCAPHOP
POLYIPRINOPHIU
HOLlSlPlECHlHEM
BIVALVES
ASCIIBARNIBRYOZ
SPONGES
CORALSIANEMONES
ZOOPLANKTON
Benthic prod.
TOTAL
continued...
317

- --
Predator (9) HEMIRAMPHIDAEH

15 SMSCHOOLFISHPEL
49 Benthlc prod
TOTAL
Predator: (10) KYPHOSIDAEH

49. Benthic prod
TOTAL
Predator: (11) IMREEF FlSHH

34. SHRMPIHCRBISTOM
38. GASTROPODS
40. POLYlPRIA/OPHIU
45. CORALSIANEMONES
49. Benthic prod.
50. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (12) LGREEF FlSHC

3. LGJACKSC
4. IMJACKSC
5. SMJACKSC
6. IMREEF FlSHCl
7. LGIMSCHOOLFISHP
8. IMREEF FISHC2
10. KYPHOSIDAEH
11. IMREEF FlSHH
12. LGREEF FlSHC (0' Cycle)
13. IMREEF FlSHC3
14. SMREEF FlSHCl
15. SMSCHOOLFISHPEL
16. ENGRAULIDAEH
19. IMREEF FISHC4
20. SMREEF FlSHOl
21. SMREEF FISH02
23. LGSCARIDAEH
24 IMSCARIDAEH
25. SMSCARIDAEH
26. BLENNllDAEH
29. SQUIDS
31. OCTOPUSES
32. LOBSTERS
33. CRABS
34. SHRMPIHCRBISTOM
37. ECHlNOlDS
38. GASTROPODS
42. BIVALVES
46. ZOOPLANKTON
TOTAL
Predator: (13) IMREEF FlSHC3

5. SMJACKSC
6. IMREEF FlSHCl
7. LGIMSCHOOLFISHP
8. IMREEF FISHC2
10. KYPHOSIDAEH
11. IMREEF FlSHH
13. IMREEF FISHC3 (0' Cycle)
14. SMREEF FlSHCl
15. SMSCHOOLFISHPEL
16 ENGRAULIDAEH
17. SMREEF FISHC2
19. IMREEF FISHC4
20. SMREEF FlSHOl
21. SMREEF FISH02
22. SMREEF FISH03
continued...

23. LGSCARIDAEH
24. IMSCARIDAEH
25. SMSCARIDAEH
26. BLENNllDAEH
27. SMGOBllDAEC
31. OCTOPUSES
33. CRABS
34. SHRMPIHCRBISTOM
35. SMBENTHARTHROPO
37. ECHlNOlDS
38. GASTROPODS
41. HOUSlPlECHlHEM
42. BIVALVES
43. ASCllBARNlBRYOZ
44. SPONGES
45. CORALSIANEMONES
46. ZOOPLANKTON
49. Benthic prod.
TOTAL
Predator: (14) SMREEF FlSHCl

7. LGIMSCHOOLFISHP
8. IMREEF FISHC2
9. HEMIRAMPHIDAEH
14. SMREEF FlSHCl (0' Cycle)
15. SMSCHOOLFISHPEL
16. ENGRAULIDAEH
17. SMREEF FISHC2
20. SMREEF FISH01
21. SMREEF FISH02
22. SMREEF FISH03
25. SMSCARIDAEH
26. BLENNllDAEH
27. SMGOBllDAEC
33. CRABS
34. SHRMPIHCRBISTOM
35. SMBENTHARTHROPO
37. ECHlNOlDS
38. GASTROPODS
39. CHITONSISCAPHOP
40. POLYIPRIAIOPHIU
41. HOLlSlPlECHlHEM
42. BIVALVES
46. ZOOPLANKTON
49. Benthic prod.
TOTAL
Predator: (15) SMSCHOOLFISHPEL

15. SMSCHOOLFISHPEL (0' Cycle)
16. ENGRAULIDAEH
34. SHRMPIHCRBISTOM
43. ASCllBARNlBRYOZ
46. ZOOPLANKTON
47. DECOMPIMICROFAU
TOTAL
Predator: (16) ENGRAULIDAEH

46. ZOOPLANKTON
48. Phytoplankton
50. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator (17) SMREEF FISHC2

8. IMREEF FISHC2
11 IMREEF FlSHH
continued...

SMREEF FlSHCl
SMREEF FISHC2 (O'Cycle)
SMREEF FlSHOl
SMREEF FISHO?
BLENNllDAEH
SMGOBllDAEC
OCTOPUSES
CRABS
SHRMPIHCRBISTOM
SMBENTHARTHROPO
GASTROPODS
CHITONSISCAPHOP
POLYIPRIAIOPHIU
HOLISIPIECHIHEM
BIVALVES
ZOOPLANKTON
Benthic prod
-
TOTAL
Predator: (18) LGGROUPERSC

1. LGSHARKSIRAYSC
2. SHARKSISCOMBRID
4. IMJACKSC
5. SMJACKSC
6. IMREEF FlSHCl
8. IMREEF FlSHC2
10. KYPHOSIDAEH
11, IMREEF FlSHH
12. LGREEF FlSHC
19, IMREEF FlSHC4
23 LGSCARIDAEH
30. SEATURTLES
32. LOBSTERS
33. CRABS
TOTAL
Predator: (19) IMREEF FISHC4

CRABS
SHRMPIHCRBISTOM
ASTEROIDS
ECHlNOlDS
POLYlPRlAlOPHlU
HOLlSlPlECHlHEM
ASCIIBARNIBRYOZ
SPONGES
CORALSIANEMONES
ZOOPLANKTON
Benthic prod.
TOTAL
Predator: (20) SMREEF FISH01

7. LGIMSCHOOLFISHP
8. IMREEF FISHC2
9. HEMIRAMPHIDAEH
14. SMREEF FlSHCl
15. SMSCHOOLFISHPEL
16. ENGRAULIDAEH
17. SMREEF FlSHC2
20. SMREEF FISH01 (0' Cycle)
21 SMREEF FISH02
22. SMREEF FISH03
25. SMSCARIDAEH
26. BLENNllDAEH
27. SMGOBllDAEC
33. CRABS
34. SHRMPIHCRBISTOM
35. SMBENTHARTHROPO
continued...

corngosition intake tivitv index foraqe ratio
GASTROPODS
POLYIPRINOPHIU
BIVALVES
ASCIIBARNIBRYOZ
SPONGES
CORALSIANEMONES
ZOOPLANKTON
Benthic prod.
Detritus
TOTAL

SMREEF FlSHCl
SMSCHOOLFISHPEL
ENGRAULIDAEH
SMREEF FISHC2
SMREEF FISH02 (O'Cycle)
SMREEF FISH03
BLENNllDAEH
SMGOBllDAEC
CRABS
SHRMPIHCRBISTOM
SMBENTHARTHROPO
ASTEROIDS
ECHlNOlDS
GASTROPODS
POLYIPRINOPHIU
HOUSlPlECHlHEM
BIVALVES
ASCIIBARNIBRYOZ
SPONGES
CORALSIANEMONES
ZOOPLANKTON
DECOMPIMICROFAU
Benthic prod.
Detritus
TOTAL

35. SMBENTHARTHROPO
40. POLYIPRINOPHIU
42. BIVALVES
46. ZOOPLANKTON
49. Benthic prod.
50. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (23) LGSCARIDAEH

44. SPONGES
45. CORALSIANEMONES
49. Benthic prod.
TOTAL
Predator: (24) IMSCARIDAEH

44. SPONGES
49. Benthic prod.
TOTAL
Predator: (25) SMSCARIDAEH

49. Benthic prod.
TOTAL
continued...

Predator: (26) BLENNllDAEH

38. GASTROPODS
46. ZOOPLANKTON
49. Benthic prod.
50. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (27) SMGOBIIDAEC

35. SMBENTHARTHROPO
TOTAL
Predator: (28) SEABIRDS

2. SHARKSISCOMBRID
3. LGJACKSC
4. IMJACKSC
5. SMJACKSC
6. IMREEF FlSHCl
7. LGIMSCHOOLFISHP
8. IMREEF FlSHC2
9. HEMIRAMPHIDAEH
11. IMREEF FlSHH
12. LGREEF FlSHC
13. IMREEF FlSHC3
14. SMREEF FlSHCl
15. SMSCHOOLFISHPEL
16. ENGRAULIDAEH
17. SMREEF FISHC2
19. IMREEF FISHC4
20. SMREEF FISH01
21. SMREEF FISH02
23. LGSCARIDAEH
24. IMSCARIDAEH
25. SMSCARIDAEH
46. ZOOPLANKTON
TOTAL
Predator: (29) SQUIDS

7. LGIMSCHOOLFISHP
9. HEMIRAMPHIDAEH
15. SMSCHOOLFISHPEL
16. ENGRAULIDAEH
29. SQUIDS (O'Cycle)
34. SHRMPIHCRBISTOM
46. ZOOPLANKTON
TOTAL
Predator: (30) SEATURTLES

32. LOBSTERS
33. CRABS
34. SHRMPIHCRBISTOM
36. ASTEROIDS
37. ECHlNOlDS
38. GASTROPODS
42. BIVALVES
43. ASCllBARNlBRYOZ
44. SPONGES
45. CORALSIANEMONES
49. Benthic prod.
TOTAL
Predator: (31) OCTOPUSES

8. IMREEF FISHC2
11. IMREEF FlSHH
12. LGREEF FlSHC
13. IMREEF FlSHC3
continued...

SMREEF FlSHCl
SMREEF FISHC2
SMREEF FISH01
SMREEF FISH02
OCTOPUSES (0' Cycle)
CRABS
SHRMPIHCRBISTOM
GASTROPODS
CHITONSISCAPHOP
POLYIPRIAIOPHIU
BIVALVES
TOTAL
Predator: (32) LOBSTERS

38. GASTROPODS
40. POLYIPRINOPHIU
42. BIVALVES
49. Benthic prod.
50. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (33) CRABS

SMREEF FlSHCl
SMREEF FISHC2
CRABS (0' Cycle)
SHRMPIHCRBISTOM
SMBENTHARTHROPO
ECHlNOlDS
GASTROPODS
POLYIPRINOPHIU
HOLlSlPlECHlHEM
BIVALVES
ASCIIBARNIBRYOZ
SPONGES
CORALSIANEMONES
ZOOPLANKTON
DECOMPIMICROFAU
Phytoplankton
Benthic prod.
Detritus
TOTAL
Predator. (34) SHRMPIHCRBISTOM

IMREEF FlSHC2
SMREEF FlSHCl
ENGRAULIDAEH
SMREEF FISHC2
SQUIDS
OCTOPUSES
LOBSTERS
CRABS
SHRMPIHCRBISTOM (0'Cycle)
SMBENTHARTHROPO
ASTEROIDS
ECHlNOlDS
GASTROPODS
CHITONSISCAPHOP
POLYIPRIAIOPHIU
HOLlSlPlECHlHEM
BIVALVES
ZOOPLANKTON
DECOMPIMICROFAU
Benth~cprod
Detr~tus
TOTAL
continued...

Predator: (35) SMBENTHARTHROPO

43. ASCIIBARNIBRYOZ
44. SPONGES
45. CORALSIANEMONES
46. ZOOPLANKTON
47. DECOMPIMICROFAU
49. Benthic prod.
50. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (36)
. . ASTEROIDS
CRABS
ASTEROIDS (0' Cycle)
ECHlNOlDS
GASTROPODS
CHITONSISCAPHOP
POLYIPRIAIOPHIU
HOLlSlPlECHlHEM
BIVALVES
ASCIIBARNIBRYOZ
SPONGES
CORALSIANEMONES
DECOMPIMICROFAU
Benthic prod.
Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (37)
~, ECHlNOlDS
ASTEROIDS
ECHlNOlDS (0' Cycle)
POLYlPRIA/OPHIU
HOLlSlPlECHlHEM
BIVALVES
SPONGES
CORALSIANEMONES
Benthic prod.
TOTAL
Predator: (38) GASTROPODS

32. LOBSTERS
33. CRABS
34. SHRMPIHCRBISTOM
35. SMBENTHARTHROPO
38. GASTROPODS (0' Cycle)
39. CHITONSISCAPHOP
40. POLYlPRIA/OPHIU
41 HOLlSlPlECHlHEM
42. BIVALVES
43. ASCIIBARNIBRYOZ
44. SPONGES
45 CORALSIANEMONES
47. DECOMPIMICROFAU
49. Benthic prod.
50 Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (39) CHITONSISCAPHOP

43. ASCIIBARNIBRYOZ
44. SPONGES
45. CORALSIANEMONES
47. DECOMPIMICROFAU
49. Benthic prod.
TOTAL
continued

Predator: (40) POLYIPRIAIOPHIU

SMBENTHARTHROPO
GASTROPODS
POLYIPRIAIOPHIU (0'Cycle)
BIVALVES
ASCIIBARNIBRYOZ
SPONGES
CORALSIANEMONES
ZOOPLANKTON
DECOMPIMICROFAU
Phytoplankton
Benthic prod.
Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (41)
47. DECOMPlMlCROFAU
48. Phytoplankton
49. Benthic prod.
50. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (42) BIVALVES

47. DECOMPlMICROFAU
48. Phytoplankton
50. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (43) ASCIIBARNIBRYOZ

46. ZOOPLANKTON
47. DECOMPIMICROFAU
48. Phytoplankton
50. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (44) SPONGES

47. DECOMPIMICROFAU
50. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (45) CORALSIANEMONES

46. ZOOPLANKTON
47. DECOMPlMICROFAU
49. Benthic prod.
50. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (46) ZOOPLANKTON

47. DECOMPIMICROFAU
48. Phytoplankton
50. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (47) DECOMPIMICROFAU

49. Benthic prod.
50. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (50) Detritus

1. LGSHARKSIRAYSC
2. SHARKSISCOMBRID
3. LGJACKSC

4. IMJACKSC
5. SMJACKSC
6. IMREEF FISHCI
7. LGIMSCHOOLFISHP
8. IMREEF FISHC2
9. HEMIRAMPHIDAEH
10. KYPHOSIDAEH
11. IMREEF FlSHH
12. LGREEF FlSHC
13. IMREEF FlSHC3
14. SMREEF FISHCI
15. SMSCHOOLFISHPEL
16. ENGRAULIDAEH
17. SMREEF FISHC2
18. LGGROUPERSC
19. IMREEF FISHC4
20. SMREEF FISH01
21. SMREEF FISH02
22. SMREEF FISH03
23. LGSCARIDAEH
24. IMSCARIDAEH
25. SMSCARIDAEH
26. BLENNllDAEH
27. SMGOBllDAEC
28. SEABIRDS
29. SQUIDS
30. SEATURTLES
31. OCTOPUSES
32. LOBSTERS
33. CRABS
34. SHRMPIHCRBISTOM
35. SMBENTHARTHROPO
36. ASTEROIDS
37. ECHlNOlDS
38. GASTROPODS
39. CHITONSISCAPHOP
40. POLYIPRINOPHIU
41. HOLlSlPlECHlHEM
42. BIVALVES
43. ASCllBARNlBRYOZ
44. SPONGES
45. CORALSIANEMONES
46. ZOOPLANKTON
47. DECOMPIMICROFAU
48. Phytoplankton
49. Benthic prod.
TOTAL
Table 8.8.2. The 20-box model as obtained by method 1 (cluster analysis + intuition).

Predator: (1) SEA BIRDS

SHARWRAYISCOMB
L-IMJACKSCARN
L-IMSCHOOLPEL
SMALLSCHOOLPEL
L-IMBENTHCARN
SMALLBENTHCARN
L-IMREEFFHERB
SMALLREEFFHERB
ZOOPLANKTON
TOTAL
Predator: (2) SHARWRAYISCOMB

1. SEA BIRDS
2. SHARWRAYISCOMB (0' Cycle)
3. L-IMJACKSCARN
4. L-IMSCHOOLPEL
5. SMALLSCHOOLPEL
6. LGGROUPERSCARN
7. L-IMBENTHCARN
8. SMALLBENTHCARN
9 BENTHINVOMNI
10. L-IMREEFFHERB
11. SMALLREEFFHERB
12. BENTHINVHERB
13. SEMISESSDETRIV
20. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (3) L-IMJACKSCARN

3. L-IMJACKSCARN (0' Cycle)
4. L-IMSCHOOLPEL
5. SMALLSCHOOLPEL
7 L-IMBENTHCARN
8. SMALLBENTHCARN
9. BENTHINVOMNI
10. L-IMREEFFHERB
11. SMALLREEFFHERB
12. BENTHINVHERB
13. SEMISESSDETRIV
16. ZOOPLANKTON
TOTAL
Predator: (4) L-IMSCHOOLPEL

4. L-IMSCHOOLPEL (0' Cycle)
5. SMALLSCHOOLPEL
8. SMALLBENTHCARN
9. BENTHINVOMNI
10. L-IMREEFFHERB
16 ZOOPLANKTON
19. Benthic prod.
TOTAL
Predator: (5) SMALLSCHOOLPEL

5 SMALLSCHOOLPEL (o' Cycle)
12 BENTHINVHERB
14. SESSILEDETRIV
16. ZOOPLANKTON
17. DECOMPIMICROF
18. Phytoplankton
20. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (6) LGGROUPERSCARN

2. SHARKRAYISCOMB
3. L-IMJACKSCARN
-
continued...

composition intake tivity mdex forage ratio
4. L-IMSCHOOLPEL
7. L-IMBENTHCARN
10. L-IMREEFFHERB
12. BENTHINVHERB
TOTAL
Predator: (7) L-IMBENTHCARN

3. L-IMJACKSCARN
4. L-IMSCHOOLPEL
5. SMALLSCHOOLPEL
7. L-IMBENTHCARN (O'Cycle)
8. SMALLBENTHCARN
9. BENTHINVOMNI
10. L-IMREEFFHERB
11. SMALLREEFFHERB
12. BENTHINVHERB
13. SEMISESSDETRIV
14. SESSILEDETRIV
15. CORALS
16. ZOOPLANKTON
19. Benthic prod.
20. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (8) SMALLBENTHCARN

4. L-IMSCHOOLPEL
5. SMALLSCHOOLPEL
7. L-IMBENTHCARN
8. SMALLBENTHCARN (0' Cycle)
9. BENTHINVOMNI
11. SMALLREEFFHERB
12. BENTHINVHERB
13. SEMISESSDETRIV
14. SESSILEDETRIV
15. CORALS
16. ZOOPLANKTON
17. DECOMPIMICROF
19. Benthic prod.
20. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (9) BENTHINVOMNI

8. SMALLBENTHCARN
9. BENTHINVOMNI ( 0 ' Ccyle)
12. BENTHINVHERB
13. SEMISESSDETRIV
14 SESSILEDETRIV
15. CORALS
16. ZOOPLANKTON
17. DECOMPIMICROF
18. Phytoplankton
19. Benthic prod.
20. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (10) L-IMREEFFHERB

SMALLBENTHCARN
BENTHINVOMNI
SESSILEDETRIV
ZOOPLANKTON
Benthic prod.
Detritus
TOTAL
continued...

Predator: (11) SMALLREEFFHERB

9. BENTHINVOMNI
12. BENTHINVHERB
13. SEMISESSDETRIV
16. ZOOPLANKTON
19. Benthic prod.
20. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (12) BENTHINVHERB

8. SMALLBENTHCARN
9. BENTHINVOMNI
12. BENTHINVHERB (O' Cycle)
13. SEMISESSDETRN
14. SESSILEDETRIV
15. CORALS
16. ZOOPLANKTON
17. DECOMPIMICROF
18. Phytoplankton
19. Benthic prod.
20. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (13) SEMISESSDETRIV

17. DECOMPIMICROF
18. Phytoplankton
19. Benthic prod.
20. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (14) SESSILEDETRIV

16. ZOOPLANKTON
17. DECOMPIMICROF
18. Phytoplankton
20. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (15) CORALS

16. ZOOPLANKTON
17. DECOMPIMICROF
19. Benthic prod.
20. Detritus
TOTAL

17. DECOMPIMICROF
18. Phytoplankton
20. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (17) DECOMPIMICROF

19. Benthic prod.
20. Detritus
TOTAL

1. SEA BIRDS
2. SHARWRAYISCOMB
3. L-IMJACKSCARN
4. L-IMSCHOOLPEL
5. SMALLSCHOOLPEL
6. LGGROUPERSCARN
7. L-IMBENTHCARN
continued

SMALLBENTHCARN
BENTHINVOMNI
L-IMREEFFHERB
SMALLREEFFHERB
BENTHINVHERB
SEMISESSDETRIV
SESSILEDETRIV
CORALS
ZOOPLANKTON
DECOMPlMlCROF
Phytoplankton
Benthic prod.
TOTAL
Table 8.8.3. The 20-box model as obtained by method 2 (ECOPATH II aggregation routine).
-
- -
Dlet Food Ivlev's elec- Standardized

composition lntake tivity index forage ratio
Predator: (1) Agg. 26

1. Agg. 26 (O'Cycle) 0.058
2. Agg. 24 0.051
3. Agg. 20 0.126
4. Agg. 22 0.037
5. ENGRAULIDAEH 0.009
6. Aaa. 25 0.116
7. ~ g g21
. 0.076
8. SMBENTHARTHROPO 0.045
9. GASTROPODS 0.055
10. CHITONSISCAPHOP 0.015
11. POLYIPRIAIOPHIU 0.085
12. BIVALVES 0.042
13. ASCIIBARNIBRYOZ 0.027
14. SPONGES 0 083
15. CORALSIANEMONES 0.003
16. ZOOPLANKTON 0.143
19. Benthic prod. 0.029
20. Detritus 0 000
TOTAL
Predator:
1. Agg. 26
2. Agg. 24
3. Agg. 20
4. Agg. 22
5. ENGRAULIDAEH
7. Agg. 21
11. POLYIPRIAIOPHIU
13. ASCIIBARNIBRYOZ
16. ZOOPLANKTON
17. DECOMPIMICROFAU
19. Benthic prod.
TOTAL

2. Agg. 24
3. Agg. 20 (0' Cycle)
4. Agg. 22
7. Agg. 21
11. POLYIPRIAIOPHIU
12. BIVALVES
14. SPONGES
15. CORALSIANEMONES
19. Benthic prod.
TOTAL
Predator:
7. Agg. 21
9. GASTROPODS
11. POLYIPRIAIOPHIU
15. CORALSIANEMONES
16. ZOOPLANKTON
17 DECOMPIMICROFAU
18. Phytoplankton
19. Benthic prod.
20. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (5) ENGRAULIDAEH

16. ZOOPLANKTON 0.200
18. Phytoplankton 0.700
20. Detritus 0.100
TOTAL 1.000
continued

composition ~ntake tivity index forage ratio
Predator: 16)
~, Agg. 25
Agg. 26 0.014
Agg 24 0.001
Agg. 20 0.038
Agg. 22 0.022
ENGRAULIDAEH 0.001
Agg 25 (0' Cycle) 0.010
Agg. 21 0.012
SMBENTHARTHROPO 0.014
GASTROPODS 0.042
POLYIPRIAIOPHIU 0 020
BIVALVES 0.046
ASCIIBARNIBRYOZ 0.018
SPONGES 0.043
CORALS/ANEMONES 0.014
ZOOPLANKTON 0.061
DECOMPIMICROFAU 0.021
Phytoplankton 0.014
Benthic prod. 0.514
Detritus 0.114
TOTAL
Predator.
Agg. 26 0 017
Agg. 24 0.003
Agg. 20 0.082
Agg. 22 0.004
ENGRAULIDAEH 0.006
Agg. 25 0.007
Agg. 21 (0' Cycle) 0 047
SMBENTHARTHROPO 0.025
GASTROPODS 0.150
CHITONSISCAPHOP 0 008
POLYlPRlAlOPHlU 0.040
BIVALVES 0.240
ASCIIBARNIBRYOZ 0.004
SPONGES 0.004
CORALSIANEMONES 0.002
ZOOPLANKTON 0.094
DECOMPIMICROFAU 0.038
Benthic prod. 0.079
Detritus 0.149
TOTAL 1.000
Predator: (8) SMBENTHARTHROPO

13. ASCIIBARNIBRYOZ 0.050
14. SPONGES 0.060
15. CORALSIANEMONES 0.040
16. ZOOPLANKTON 0 040
17. DECOMPIMICROFAU 0.040
20. Detritus 0.170
TOTAL
Predator: (9) GASTROPODS

4 Agg. 22 0.015
6. Agg 25 0.002
7. Agg 21 0.006
8. SMBENTHARTHROPO 0.006
9. GASTROPODS (0' Cycle) 0.020
10. CHITONSISCAPHOP 0.020
11. POLYIPRIAIOPHIU 0.050
12. BIVALVES 0.040
13. ASCIIBARNIBRYOZ 0 058
14. SPONGES 0.040
15 CORALSIANEMONES 0.015
17. DECOMPIMICROFAU 0.030
continued...

19. Benthic prod.

20. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (10)
13. ASCllBARNlBRYOZ
14. SPONGES
15. CORALSIANEMONES
17. DECOMPIMICROFAU
19. Benthic prod.
TOTAL
Predator: (11) POLY/PRIA/OPHIU

SMBENTHARTHROPO
GASTROPODS
POLYIPRIAIOPHIU (0' Cycle)
BIVALVES
ASCllBARNlBRYOZ
SPONGES
CORALSIANEMONES
ZOOPLANKTON
DECOMPIMICROFAU
Phytoplankton
Benthic prod.
Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (12) BIVALVES

17. DECOMPIMICROFAU
18. Phytoplankton
20. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (13) ASCllBARNlBRYOZ

16. ZOOPLANKTON
17. DECOMPIMICROFAU
18. Phytoplankton
20. Detritus
TOTAL

17. DECOMPIMICROFAU
20. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (15) CORALSIANEMONES

16. ZOOPLANKTON
17. DECOMPIMICROFAU
19. Benthic prod.
20. Detritus
TOTAL

17 DECOMPIMICROFAU
18. Phytoplankton
20. Detritus
TOTAL
continued...


19. Benthic prod. 0.050 1,425.00 -0.675 0.212
20. Detritus 0.950 27,075.00 0.411 0.992
TOTAL 1.000 28,500.00

Agg. 26
Agg. 24
Agg. 20
Agg. 22
ENGRAULIDAEH
Agg. 25
Agg. 21
SMBENTHARTHROPO
GASTROPODS
CHITONSISCAPHOP
POLY/PRIA/OPHIU
BIVALVES
ASCIIBARNIBRYOZ
SPONGES
CORALSIANEMONES
ZOOPLANKTON
DECOMPIMICROFAU
Phytoplankton
Benthic prod.
TOTAL
Table 8.8.4. The 11-box model as obtained by method 1 (cluster analysis + intuition).
Dtet Food Ivlev's elec- Standardized

cornpositlon intake tiv~tymdex forage ratio
Predator: (1) APEX PREDATORS

1. APEX PREDATORS (0' Cycle)
2. SCHOOLPELAGICS
3. BENTHCARNIVORES
4. BENTHINVOMNI
5. BENTHHERBIVORES
6. BENTHDETRITIVOR
7. ZOOPLANKTON
11. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (2) SCHOOLPELAGICS
SCHOOLPELAGICS (0' Cycle)

BENTHCARNIVORES
BENTHINVOMNI
BENTHHERBIVORES
BENTHDETRITIVOR
ZOOPLANKTON
DECOMPIMICROFAU
Phytoplankton
Benthic prod.
Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (3) BENTHCARNIVORES
2. SCHOOLPELAGICS
3. BENTHCARNIVORES (0' Cycle)
4. BENTHINVOMNI
5. BENTHHERBIVORES
6. BENTHDETRITIVOR
7. ZOOPLANKTON
8. DECOMPIMICROFAU
10. Benthic prod.
11. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (4) BENTHINVOMNI
BENTHCARNIVORES (0' Cycle)

BENTHINVOMNI
BENTHHERBIVORES
BENTHDETRITIVOR
ZOOPLANKTON
DECOMPIMICROFAU
Phytoplankton
Benthic prod.
Detritus
TOTAL
Predator. (5) BENTHHERBIVORES
3. BENTHCARNIVORES
4. BENTHINVOMNI
5. BENTHHERBIVORES (0' Cycle)
6. BENTHDETRITIVOR
7. ZOOPLANKTON
8 DECOMPIMICROFAU
9. Phytoplankton
10. Benthic prod.
11 Detritus
TOTAL
Predator: (6) BENTHDETRITIVOR

7. ZOOPLANKTON
8. DECOMPIMICROFAU
continued...
335
Diet Food Ivlev's elec- Standard~zed

composition intake tivity mdex forage ratio
9. Phytoplankton 0.088 704 74

10. Benthic prod. 0 004 32 03
11. Detritus 0.807 6,462.74
TOTAL
DECOMPIMICROFAU
Phytoplankton
Detritus
TOTAL
10. Benthic prod

11. Detritus
TOTAL
1. APEX PREDATORS
2. SCHOOLPELAGICS
3. BENTHCARNIVORES
4. BENTHINVOMNI
5. BENTHHERBIVORES
6. BENTHDETRITIVOR
7. ZOOPLANKTON
8. DECOMPIMICROFAU
9. Phytoplankton
10. Benthic prod.
TOTAL
Table 8.8.5. The I l - b o x model as obtained by method 2 (ECOPATH 11 aggregation routine).

Predator: (1) Agg12

1. Agg. 12 (0' Cycle)
2. Agg. 20
3. Agg. 15
4. Agg. 11
5. Agg. 13
6. SPONGES
7. ZOOPLANKTON
8. DECOMPIMICROFAU
10. Benthic prod.
11. Detritus
TOTAL
Predator.
1. Agg. 12
2. Agg. 20
3. Agg. 15
4. Agg 11
5. Agg. 13
6. SPONGES
10. Benthic prod
TOTAL
Predator:
1. Agg. 12
2. Agg. 20
3. Agg. 15
4. Agg. 11
5. Agg I 3
6. SPONGES
7. ZOOPLANKTON
8. DECOMPIMICROFAU
9. Phytoplankton
10. Benthic prod.
11. Detritus
TOTAL

7. ZOOPLANKTON
8. DECOMPIMICROFAU
9. Phytoplankton
11. Detritus
TOTAL

4. Agg. 11
5. Agg. 13 (0' Cycle)
6. SPONGES
7. ZOOPLANKTON
8. DECOMPIMICROFAU
10. Benthic prod.
11. Detritus
TOTAL

8. DECOMPIMICROFAU
11. Detritus
TOTAL

8. DECOMPIMICROFAU
9. Phytoplankton
11. Detritus
TOTAL
continued ...


11. Detritus 0.950
TOTAL

1. Agg. 12
2. Agg. 20
3. Agg. 15
4. Agg. 11
5. Agg. 13
6. SPONGES
7. ZOOPLANKTON
8. DECOMPIMICROFAU
9. Phytoplankton
10. Benthic prod.
TOTAL
Appendix 8.9. Summary statistics and flows between discrete trophic levels
for the 209 and 1 1-box models from two methods.
Table 8.9.1. Summary statistics fo, a 20-box model of a Caribbean coral

reef (method 1). PP = primary production.
Sum of all producticn = 51,285 gm2.year1

Sum of all importsa = 475 gm2.year1
Sum of all respiratory flows = 32,525 g.rn".yearl
Sum of all flows into detritus = 23,198 g.m4.year'
Total system throughput = 107.483 gm2.year1

Throughput cycled = 20,459 gm2.year'
Finn's cycling index - 19.03% of throughput
Input total net PP = 20,500 gm2.year'

Calculated total net PP = 20,025 gm2.year1
Table 8.9.2. Network flow indices for a 20-box model of a Caribbean coral
reef (method 1).

Source flowbits % flowbits % flowbits %
Input 0 00 0 0.0 0 0.0

Internal 90,203 22.4 209,148 51.9 299,351 74.3
Dissipation 52,951 13.1 50,589 12.6 103,540 25.7
Total 143,154 35.5 259,737 64.5 402,891 100.0
Table 8.9.3 Flows and transfer efficiencies for discrete trophic levels of a
20-box model (method 1).
Trophic lmport Export Respi- Through- Flow to

level ration put detritus
I 480.000 0.000
II 0.000 5,226.313
111 0.000 550.389
IV 0.000 67.132
v 0.000 6.358
VI 0.000 0.602
VII 0.000 0.061
Vlll 0.000 0.006
IX 0.000 0.001
Trophic Import Export Respi- Through- Flow to

I
II
111
IV
v
VI
VII
Vlll
IX
Table 8.9.4. Summary statistics for a 20-box model of a Caribbean coral
reef (method 2). PP = primary production.
Sum of all production = 51,282 g.m2.year1

Sum of all importsa = 475 g.ma.yearl
Sum of all respiratory flows = 32.523 g.m-2.year1
Sum of all flows into detritus = 23,193 gm2.year'
Total system throughput = 107,473 gm2.year1

Throughput cycled = 19,726 gm2.year'
Finn's cycling index -
- 18.35% of throughput
Input total net PP = 20,500 gm2.year1

Calculated total net PP = 20,025 g.m2.year1
"Difference between input total net PP and calculated total net PP
Table 8.9.5. Network flow indices for a 20-box model of a Caribbean coral
reef (method 2).

Input 952 0.2 2,678 0.6 3.630 0.9

Internal 93,243 21.8 221,083 51.6 314,326 73.3
Dissipation 52,340 12.2 58,334 13.6 110,674 25.8
Total 146.535 34.2 282.095 65.8 428,630 100.0
Table 8.9.6. Flows and transfer efficiencies for discrete trophic levels of a

I 0.000 480.000 0.000

II 0.000 0.000 5.241.900
111 0.000 0.000 587.240
IV 0.000 0.000 73.484
v 0.000 0.000 7.547
VI 0.000 0.000 0.806
VII 0.000 0.000 0.093
Vlll 0.000 0.000 0.011
--
Flows oriainatina from the detr~tus
Troph~c Import Export Respl- Through- Flowto

level ration put detr~tus
I
II
111
IV
v
VI
VII
Vlll
Table. 8.9.7. Summary statistics for an 11-box model of a Carribbean reef

(method 1). PP = primary production.
Sum of all production = 51,285 g.m-2-year1

Sum of all importsa = 475 gm2.year1
Sum of all respiratory flows = 32,525 g-m-2.year1
Sum of all flows into detritus = 23,199 gm2.year1
Total system throughput = 107,484 g.ma.yearl

Throughput cycled = 20,900 g-m2.year1
Input total net PP = 20,500 g m 2year1

Calculated total net PP = 20,025 gm2.year'
'Difference between input total net PP and calculated total net PP.
Table 8.9.8. Network flow indices for an 11-box model of a Caribbean coral
reef (method 1).

Input 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Internal 88.466 23.5 194,187 51.5 282,653 75.0
Dissipation 52,947 14.0 41,325 11.0 94.272 25.0
Total 141,413 37.5 235,512 62.5 376,925 100.0
Table 8.9.9. Flows and transfer efficiencies for discrete trophic levels of an
Flows originating from the priman/ producers

level ration Put detritus
I
II
111
IV
v
VI
VII
Vlll
Trophic Import Export Respi- Through- Flowto

I 475.000
II 0.000
111 0.000
IV 0.000
v 0.000
VI 0.000
VII 0.000
Vlll 0.000
Table 8.9.10. Summary statistics for an 11-box model of a Caribbean

coral reef (method 2). PP = primary production.
Sum of all production = 51,282 gm2year'

Sum of all importsa = 475 g.m-2year'
Sum of all respiratoly flows = 32,523 g-m-'year1
Sum of all flows into detritus = 23,193 gm2year'
Total system throughput = 107,473 gm2year'

Throughput cycled = 20,117 gm2year'
Input total net PP = 20,500 g.m"yearl

Calculated total net PP = 20,025 gm2year'
Table 8.9.11. Network flow indices for an 11-box model of a Caribbean

coral reef (method 2).

-- -
Input 952 0.2 2,678 0.7 3,630 0.9

Internal 90,229 22.7 205,030 51.5 295,259 74.2
Dissipation 52,313 13.1 46,835 11.8 99,148 24.9
Total 143,494 36.0 254,543 64.0 398,037 100.0

Table 8.9.12. Flows and transfer efficiencies for discrete trophic levels
of an 11-box model (method 2).
Flows originating from the primaly producers

I 0.000 480.000 0.000 0.000 11,750.449

II 0.000 0.000 5,237.327 7,794.550 1,668.588
111 0.000 0.000 589.595 888.635 190.385
IV 0.000 0.000 74.016 108.655 23.315
V 0.000 0.000 7.692 11.325 2.439
VI 0.000 0.000 0.805 1.194 0.259
VII 0.000 0.000 0.087 0.130 0.028
Flows originating from detritus

I 475.000 0 000 0.000 23,668.494 0.000

II 0.000 0.000 22,991.117 36,171.262 8,299.580
111 0.000 0.000 2,977.325 4,880.564 1,055.676
IV 0.000 0.000 577.533 847.562 181.747
V 0.000 0.000 60.478 88.282 18.856
VI 0.000 0 000 6.053 8.947 1.934
VII 0.000 0 000 0.647 0.961 0.209
INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR LIVING AQUATIC RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
ICLARM ORGANIZATIONAL STATEMENT

"Forthose who use and depend on fish and aquatic life in the developing world"
ICLARM's VISION
Our Goal : To enhance the well-being of present and future generations of poor people
in t h e developing world through production, management a n d conservation
of living aquatic resources.
Our Objectives : Through international research and related activities, a n d in partnership

with national research and other institutions, to:
1 . Improve the biological, socioeconomic and institutional management mechanisms for sustainable
u s e of aquatic resource systems.
2. Devise a n d improve production systems that will provide increasing yet sustainable yields.
3. Help develop t h e capacity of national programs to ensure sustainable development of aquatic
resources.
The Functions of ICLARM a r e to:
Conduct and catalyze multidisciplinary strategic research and policy analysis of a n international
public goods nature o n all aspects of aquatic resource management, conservation and
use;
Undertake research, training and information activities in partnership with others in national
organizations in t h e developing and developed world;
Develop global knowledge bases for living aquatic resources:
Undertake global reviews and assessments of t h e status of aquatic resource a n d t h o s e
who depend o n them;
Publish a n d disseminate widely research findings;
Hold conferences, meetings and workshops t o discuss current and future issues related t o
aquatic resources and t o formulate advice for users and decisionmakers;
Participate fully a s a Center in the Consultative Group o n International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR) a n d in appropriate international intergovernmental activities.
The Quiding Principles for our Work Program are:
Sustainability;
Equity:
Gender role in development;
Participation;
Systems approach; and
Anticipatory research.
Our Values:
In our work, we a r e committed to:
Excellence in achievement:
Relevance t o our beneficiaries' needs;
Partnerships;
Centerwide teamwork;
Communication;
Efficiency a n d flexibility in program delivery;
Continual growth in our knowledge and understanding.

Cadenas Troficas Coral Reef

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cadenas Troficas Coral Reef

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cadenas Troficas Coral Reef

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

L

Trophic Interactions in Caribbean Coral Reefs

INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR LIVING AQUATIC RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Published by the International Center for Living Aquatic Resources

Printed in Manila, Philippines

Opitz, S. 1996. Trophic interactions in Caribbean coral reefs. I LARM Tech.

Cover: Design emphasizes the systematic properties of coral reefs (central

Copyediting by: Marie Sol M. Sadorra

ICLARM Contribution No. 1085

List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... vii

Foreword Daniel Pauly ........................................................................................................................ xi

Chapter 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS ............................................................................................. 12

Chapter 5. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................167

References ........................................................................................................................................... 170

Areal extent of subsystems of the PRVl shelf .............................................................. 13

1.1. I. Comparative Description of ECOPATH I and ECOPATH I1

1.1 -1.1. POLOVINA'S ORIGINAL ECOPATH

Production/Biomass Ratio (P/B)

and mean annual biomass (B) for the cohort as:

Diet Composition Matrix

Summary o f inputs required for the original version of ECOPATH:

1. number and names of species (groups) considered in the model;

ECOPATH II shares with ECOPATH I its "basic equationv (1.I).

Consumption + Import = Production + Respiration

NETWORK A routine for calculating "ascendency" was included in ECOPATH II

Inputs Required by ECOPATH I1

The diet composition (DC) is also an input required by both versions of

Summary o f Inputs Required for ECOPATH 11:

one independent estimate of net primary production (NPP);

Summarizing, the main objectives of this report are:

2.2. Choice of Suitable System

2.3. System Boundaries and the Concept of "Subsystems"

Shelf break PR and VI

L----- JL >-,", -"--.-d

"Recent version of ECOPATH allows this.

Family Species English common name Spanish common name

Acanthurus bahianus Castelnau 1855 Ocean surgeon Navajon pardo

Familp Species English common name Spanish common name

* Seriola rivoliana Cuvier 1833 Almaco jack Medregal limon

Family Species English common name Spanish common name

Coryphopterus glaucofraenum Gill 1863 Bridled goby

Family Species English common name Spanish common name

Thalassoma bifasciatum (Bloch 1791) Bluehead

Family Species English common name Spanish common name

Pomacanthidae Centropyge argi Woods & Kanazawa 1951 Cherubfish

Family Species English common name Spanish common name

Detritus Dead particulate and dissolved organic matter

2.5. Fishing Activities

2.6. Methods and Data Used for the Computation of Input

2.6.1. Growth Parameter Estimation

2.6.1 .l.ASYMPTOTIC SIZES

for length and

$' = log,,K + 210g,~L~,

2.6.2. Habitat and Abundanres

2.6.2.1. FISH SPECIES

2.6.2.2. NONFISH TAXA

2.6.3.2. NONFISH TAXA

2.6.3.3. DETRITUS BIOMASS

Taxon Ratio %a Source

Organic tissue 1 kcal = I g WW Steele (1974)