Transcript Morphometric Analysis of the Poritidae Off Belize

To the officers,
scientists and crew of
the US Exploring
Expedition 1838-1842
I feel a special affinity
to the expedition
This presentation is more
than a job interview
seminar, it is re-creating
an important historical
link
Here’s why…
Evolution of the NOAA
Corps

NOAA Corps (360, charts)
 ESSA Corps
 Coast & Geodetic Survey Corps
(1920’s)
 Coast Survey
 Survey of the Coast
Maintained US Navy identity
 Naval uniform
 Globe & triangle insignia
 Same rank and privileges
 Transferred to Navy in war time
NOAA Corps Roots
Survey of the Coast
 Survey
of the
Coast Act of
1807
 T. Jefferson
 $25,000
 Ferdinand
Hassler
 Triangulation
 1st super
 Trained naval
officers
 1957 Book
150 yrs
Hassler’s student
LT Charles Wilkes






1826 promoted
to LT
Studied
triangulation for
3 yrs
1832-33
Narragansett
Bay survey
1833 Depot of
Charts &
Instruments
New US Coast
Survey office
with Hassler
Wilkes was one
of the first
NOAA Corps
officers
US Exploring
Expedition
 In
1836 law passed
 Wilkes goes to England for
instruments
 Astronomer position
 1837 preps in shambles
 Surveys Georges Banks,
Savannah River, Calibogue
Sound
 Meets N. Bowditch
 Others relieved
 20 March 1838 offered
command of the expedition
 Sails in 6 months
Check-out this hole
 John
Symmes
“Holes in the
Poles”
theory
 Sealing and
whaling
grounds
 Punish
natives
18 August 1838 Remote and arduous
duty - six ships - four
years - 87,000 miles
Scientists (7)
Artists (2)
 James
Dana,
Geologist
 Contriibutions
to tectonic
theory
 Recognized
systematic
age
progression
of islands
Island mapping
Coral collections form
the foundation of the
Smithsonian collection
19 quarter units with
11 of them type
specimens
Accomplishments

Surveyed 280 islands
 Constructed 180 charts
 Narrative of the US Exploring
Expedition 5 vols
 Collections helped the fledgling
Smithsonian grow into the
National Museum of the US
 Led to emergence of the US as a
naval and scientific power with
world-wide interests
 Wilkes in later years actively
supported US Coast Survey
programs
So today,
166 years later….
 We
have a professional
descendant of Wilkes
 giving
a seminar at the
Smithsonian
 on
corals…
 that
he provided for the
museum collections
Salute
 With
great pleasure I salute
the early officers, scientists
and crew members who
started such a proud tradition
of US ocean exploration

I feel privileged to have been
a part of this tradition for 20
years as a NOAA
commissioned officer
I
feel honored to create the
link again, for one short hour,
between US coast survey
officers, coral reefs and the
Smithsonian
Applied taxonomy three new tools for
coral reef
management:
1. a quantitative key to
the Poritidae off
Belize
2. a coral reef index of
biotic integrity using
benthic invertebrates
3. a coral damage index
Seminar outline
Importance of coral reefs (2)
 A quantitative key to the
Poritidae off Belize (25)
 A coral reef index of biotic
integrity using benthic
invertebrates (10)
 A coral damage index (10)
 Discussion (5)

Importance of
coral reefs
Coral reef area
under US jurisdiction
Economic importance
Global focus
 Costanza
et al (1997)
estimate that reef habitats
globally provide $375
billion/year to humans from
living resources and
ecological services (tourism
and coastal protection)
 Cesar
(1996) estimates the
cost over a 25 year period of
destroying 1 km2 of reef (247
acres) was $0.6-2.5 million
when the value of fishery,
tourism and protection was
considered.
Economic value
South Florida focus
 Annual
economic value:
$228 million
 Asset value (if you wanted to
buy the reefs and receive the
$228 million annually:
$7.6 billion
 Supports 44,500 jobs
 Providing an annual income
of $1.2 billion
Reference: Johns et al 2001
Economic value
Bioprospecting
 Biochemicals
produced by
many reef species are being
used in health care products
 Sun blocks
 Bone grafts
 Drugs for viral infections
 Coral
reef biochemicals may
offer treatments for:
 Leukemia
 Skin cancer
 Other diseases
Federal
responsibilities:
12 laws authorizing
aspects of protection
 National
Park Service
Organic Act of 1916
 National Wilderness
Preservation System Act
 National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act
 Sikes Act (DOD rehab)
 Clean Water Act
Federal
responsibilities:
NOAA mandates (7)
 National
Marine Sanctuaries
Act
 Coastal Zone Management
Act
 Endangered Species Act
 National Environmental
Policy Act (EIS)
 Lacey Act (illegal taking)
 Magnuson Stevens Fishery
Conservation and
Management Act (FMP’s &
EFH)
Other NOAA
responsibilites
 Coral
Reef Conservation Act
1999 (Grants)
 Co-chairman
and lead
agency for the:
US Coral Reef Task Force Executive Order 13089
 Includes:
 11 Federal agencies
 7 Representatives from
states and territories
Government
support
 The
US government has
never in its history employed
a full-time shallow-water
scleractinian taxonomist
 There
is not one person in
the US working full-time on
living scleractinina taxonomy
 It
is a miracle I am here
making this presentation
A quantitative key to
the Poritidae off Belize
Publication reference
 Jameson
SC (1997)
Morphometric analysis of the
Poritidae (Anthozoa:
Scleractinia) off Belize. Proc
8th Intl Coral Reef Symp, 2:
1591-1596, Panama
 Targeted
at practitioners
Acknowledgements
 Dr.


Sponsored my PhD full-time
university training
Provided lab and logistical support
to collect dissertation data
 Dr.


Stephen Cairns
Served on my dissertation
committee
Continues to provide support via a
Research Associate affiliation
 Dr.

Bruce Collette
Klaus Rützler
Provided essential travel and field
support at Carrie Bow Cay
Acknowledgements
Technical and curatorial
support:
 Ruth
 Tim
Gibbons (NOAA)
Coffer (NMNH-IZ)
 Cindy Ahearn
(NMNH-IZ)
Research Location
1985-86
Seven collection
locations 589 colonies
 CBC
Fore reef
 20m, 10m, 1m
 CBC
reef flat
 CBC
lagoon patch reefs
 East
side of BGR Thalassia
 Wee
Wee Cay south
The Family
Poritidae
Single genus in Caribbean and
western Atlantic
Described species include:
 Porites astreoides Lamarck
1816
 P. verrilli Rehberg 1892
 P. porites (Pallas 1766)
 P. clavaria Lamarck 1816
 P. furcata Lamarck 1816
 P. divaricata Lesueur 1821
 P. branneri Rathbun 1887
 P. colonensis Zlatarski 1990
Dr. Stephen C. Jameson
A clear taxonomic
understanding is
necessary because
 Of
the major role they have
and continue to play in the
structure, ecology and
evolution of coral reef
systems
 Have been a key part of
many geological and
ecological studies
 Human benefits including:
 Esthetic, ecological,
economic, medical
applications
Porites play a critical
role in global climate
change research
 Skeletons
incorporate
chemical tracers of key
oceanic and atmospheric
phenomena
 Yield
quantitative
reconstructions of SST,
rainfall, salinity, vertical
mixing, water mass
provenance, and
anthropogenic influences
i.e., nutrient and river input
Global Climate
Change Histories
 Porites
histories, in some
cases, are equivalent in
quality and resolution to
those derived from
instrumental data
 Most regions yield records of
at least 100 years
 500-800 years: Australia &
Bermuda
 300-400 years: Australia,
Indonesia, eastern Pacific,
Caribbean
The Controversy
 Overlapping
morphological
variation within and among
Porites species makes their
taxonomy among the most
difficult of all scleractinians
 Controversy
began soon
after original descriptions
(1800’s) among taxonomists
using qualitative techniques
on morphological characters
Classic battle of
splitters vs. lumpers
 Are
there three branching
species (P. porites, P.
furcata, P. divaricata) or just
one species with different
growth forms?
 Are there three encrusting
species (P. astreoides, P.
verrilli, P. branneri) or just
one species with different
growth forms?
 P. colonensis described in
1990 by Zlatarski (foliacious
growth form)
Multivariate
morphometric
challenge
 Could
not, with any degree of
confidence, create a priori
groups for discriminant
analysis using qualitative or
quantitative methods (i.e.
cluster analysis on corallite
characters)
 Must
not use same corallite
characters for creating
groups as you use in the
discriminant analysis
Genetic research
(1992-93)
Found fixed allele differences
among:
 Encrusting
 P. astreoides
 P. branneri
 Foliacious
 P. colonensis
 Branching
 P. porites
 P. furcata
 P. divaricata
 P. verrilli still in question
But the practical
challenge of
identification remained
 How
do you identify Porties
species if you don’t have an
electrophoresis lab
 Armed with the genetic
knowledge, can you use
skeletal corallite characters
which are:
 Easy to obtain, preserve,
store & study
 Applicable to fossils
Genetic results and
field knowledge
opened the door for
morphometrics
 Could
now create a priori
groups with more
confidence
 Genetics
reaffirmed my
field observations that
indicated different species
preferred different habitats
Habitat preferences of
branching species
 P.
porites prefers fore-reef
and patch reef environs
 P.
furcata prefers reef crest
and other high energy
Thalassia environs
 P.
divaricata found only in
leeside/low energy Thalassia
beds
Research Goals
 Demonstrate
that the
Poritidae (Anthozoa:
Scleractinia) off Belize can
be distinguished using
morphometric techniques
 Describe
the relationship
of Belize species to type
specimens
 Discuss
what characters
are important in
distinguishing Caribbean
and western Atlantic
poritids (most stop)
Dr. Stephen C. Jameson
Pushing the envelop Creating a tool
 Develop
a quantitative key to
the Poritidae off Belize that
can be used as a tool for
distinguishing these
notoriously difficult species
Astreoid corallite
Astreoid corallite
Found in:
 P.
astreoides
 P.
verrili
Non-Astreoid Corallite
Non-astreoid corallite
Found in:
Branching
 P. porites
 P. furcata
 P. divaricata
Encrusting
 P. branneri
Foliacious
 P. colonensis
Research Methods
 Measured
10 corallites/col
 70 astreoid colonies (700
x 19 = 13,300)
 70 nonastreoid colonies
(700 x 24 = 16,800)
 Discriminant analysis on
colony character means
using a priori designated
groups
 Compared Belize species to
type specimens
 Documented corallites using
stereo SEM photos
Dr. Stephen C. Jameson
Corallite
measurements will discuss important
ones later
Taxonomy of the
astreoid species
Is P. verrilli a valid species
What are the distinguishing
characteristics of P. astreoides
Is Porites verrilli
a valid species
 Canonical
discriminant
analysis using 19 corallite
characters with P.
astreoides and P. verrilli
type as a group
along with
 P.
porites, P. furcata, and
P. divaricata as groups
Is Porites verrilli
a valid species
 Three
canonical variables had
significant discriminant power
P<.0001. CV1: 88.3%, CV2:
10.3%, CV3: 1.4%.
Is Porites verrilli
a valid species
 Evidence
not convincing
that P. verrilli is a distinct
species

Should consider P. verrilli a
junior synonym of P.
astreoides
What are the
distinguishing
characteristics of
P. astreoides

P. astreoides pali missing or
reduced in size and number
 All non-astreoid species have
pali
Taxonomy of the
non-astreoid species
Can the Belize non-astreoid
species be distinguished
What characters are important
in distinguishing the Belize species
How do the Belize species
compare to the type specimens
Dr. Stephen C. Jameson
Can the branching
species be
distinguished?
P. porites
P. furcata
P. divaricata
Created three a priori
groups
Based on:
 Habitat preferences
 Colony distributions
 Tissue color
 Use
24 corallite characters in
the discriminant analysis
Can the branching species
be distinguished?
 92.9%
(65/70) colonies
correctly classified
 5 reexamined and maintained
 Two canonical variables had
significant discriminant power
P<.0001. CV1: 86.2%, CV2:
13.8%
What Characters are
Important in Distinguishing
the Species?
Stepwise discriminant
 Five characters important
in distinguishing species:
 columella synapticula
ring width
 septal denticle
synapticula thickness
 ventral palus thickness
 pali elevation
 septa elevation
 Traditional characters i.e.,
number of pali & columella
tubercle not important
Non-astreoid Belize
vs. type specimens
 Four
canonical variables had
significant discriminant
power P<.0001. CV1:
58.3%, CV2: 24.4%,
CV3:10.7%, 6.6%
Non-astreoid Belize
vs. type specimens
 P.
clavaria and P. furcata
types inside range of
Belize species
 P. clavaria Lamarck, 1816
is P. porites (Pallas, 1766)
Non-astreoid Belize
vs. type specimens
 P.
branneri and
P. colonensis distinct
species quantitatively
and qualitatively
Non-astreoid Belize
vs. type specimens
 Type
specimens good
representatives
 No P.divaricata type
Next steps
Neotype designation
for Porites divaricata
 Type
specimens destroyed in
WWII
 Lesueur 1821 description
inadequate
 No figure in Lesueur
description
 Neotype should be designated
to stabilize nomenclature and
description of species
Neotype designation
for Porites porites
 P.
porites (Pallas, 1766)
topotype designated by
Vaughn (1901a) was
designated to represent all
branching Porites as a single
species when in fact they are
three distinct species
Publish stereo
photomicrographs of
holotypes for the
genus Porites
Conclusion
 The
Poritidae can be
distinguished using
morphological characters
 Results support
distinctiveness of nonastreoid species and
redefines diagnostic
characters
 Qualitative key provided
for field identifications
based on habitat
preferences and color
Conclusion
 P.
porites off Belize is the
same species as P. clavaria
Lamarck, 1816
 P. clavaria and P. furcata
type specimens are good
representatives of the Belize
species
 P. branneri and P. colonensis
are distinct species
quantitatively and
qualitatively
 Neotypes should be
designated for P. porites and
P. divaricata
Dr. Stephen C. Jameson
Creating a tool to
identify the
branching Porites
 Most
people stop after the
discriminate analysis
 Quantitative
key never been
done for Scleractinian
species
Quantitative key
 Step
1: Obtain a compound
microscope with ocular
micro-meter for measuring
linear distances. Calibrate
the focus knob for measuring
elevations.
 Step
2: Level the corallite to
be measured under the
microscope by positioning
the specimen under the
microscope so all sides are
in focus.
Quantitative key
 Step
3: Measure the
corallite characters
 RW: columella synapticular ring
width
 ST: septal denticle synapticular
ring thickness
 P2: ventral palus thickness
 PE: pali elevation
 SE: septa elevation
on 10 corallites in your
specimen.
Quantitative key
 Step
4: Take the log10 of
each measurement to
transform the data. Using
the 10 measurements per
character, then calculate a
transformed mean (TM) for
each character.
Quantitative key
 Step
5: Calculate CAN 1 and
CAN 2 values for plotting on
the provided Figure as
follows.
 For
each of the five
characters…
Quantitative key
Subtract the provided
transformed raw total sample
mean (TSM) for the Belize
data from the TM you
obtained. This provides a
centered mean (CM).
Character





RW
ST
P2
PE
SE
TM
TSM
-0.550 -2.328 -1.871 -0.845 -0.640 -
-0.483
-2.240
-1.591
-0.641
-0.577
CM
=
=
=
=
=
-0.067
-0.088
-0.280
-0.204
-0.063
Quantitative key
 Multiply
centered mean (CM)
times the provided CAN 1
raw canonical coefficient
(RCC). Then sum all values.
This is your CAN 1 value to
plot on Figure.







Character
RW
ST
P2
PE
SE
CM
-0.067 x
-0.088 x
-0.280 x
-0.204 x
-0.063 x
RCC
3.467 =
-0.232
3.692
=
-0.325
0.934
=
-0.262
4.078
=
-0.832
-2.091
=
+0.132
CAN 1 VALUE -1.519
Quantitative key
Repeat the process for
CAN 2








Character
RW
ST
P2
PE
SE
CM
-0.067 x
-0.088 x
-0.280 x
-0.204 x
-0.063 x
RCC
1.531
=
-0.103
1.954
=
-0.172
3.324
=
+0.931
-3.714
=
+0.758
4.176
=
-0.263
CAN 2 VALUE +1.151
Quantitative key
Plot CAN1 (-1.519) and
CAN 2 (+1.151) values

More characters (24)
Better resolution
A coral reef
index of biotic integrity
using
benthic invertebrates
Publication references
Feasibility study
 Jameson
SC, Erdmann MV,
Gibson Jr GR, Potts KW
(1998) Development of
biological criteria for coral
reef ecosystem assessment.
Atoll Res Bull, Sept 1998,
No. 450, Smithsonian
Institution, Wash, DC, 102 pp
Publication references
Research strategy
Proc of the Intl Conference on
Scientific Aspects of Coral
Reef Assessment, Monitoring
and Restoration (only 50)
 Jameson
SC, Erdmann MV,
Karr JR, Potts KW (2001)
Charting a course toward
diagnostic monitoring: A
continuing review of coral
reef attributes and a research
strategy for creating coral
reef indexes of biotic
integrity. Bull Mar Sci
69(2):701-744
Publication references
Classification &
reference conditions
 Jameson
SC, Karr JR, Potts
KW (subm) Classifying zones
and establishing reference
conditions for the diagnostic
monitoring and assessment
of coral reefs. Coral Reefs
 Submit to highest standards
 All on the USEPA Coral Reef
Website:
www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/c
oral
Acknowledgements
 Mr.
Ken Potts: USEPA
 Coral
reef program coordinator
 Prof.
James Karr: University
of Washington
 Grandfather
of freshwater
stream monitoring
 Invented IBI for freshwater fish
 Dr.
Mark Erdmann: USAID
 Discovered
“extinct”
coelacanth in Indonesia
 Pew Fellow - Co-management
Outline
 Introduction
 Creating
a BI-IBI
 Framework
 Dose-response
metrics
 Classification of zones
 Reference conditions
 Applications
 Next-steps
Introduction
Regulatory drivers
 Clean
 U.
Water Act
S. Coral Reef Task Force
 Coral
Reef Conservation Act
 International
Initiative
Coral Reef
Washington Post
editorial last Thursday
 “Some
Good News in an
Ocean of Bad”, David Broder
 Talking
about the NOAA/EPA
effort to create an Earth
Observing System with 46
other nations
 NOAA Administrator
trying to
fill “large gaps” in ocean
observations and calls for
“biological sensors” around
the world
Introduction
IBI taxonomic focus
 Species
level
 Uses a variety of invertebrate
groups to reflect coral reef
system condition
 Will require a variety of
taxonomic expertise on a
long-term basis
 Quality of the IBI results will
depend directly on the quality
of the taxonomy
 Potential flagship program for
NOAA/Smithsonian
Introduction
Definitions
Biotic integrity
 The condition of sites able to
support and maintain a
balanced, integrated, and
adaptive biological system
having the full range of
elements and processes
expected for a region.
Biological integrity is the
product of ecological and
evolutionary processes at a
site in the relative absence of
human influence. (Karr 1996)
Introduction
Definitions
Biocriteria
 Criteria (expressed as
narrative expressions or
numerical values) which
define a desired biological
condition for a water body
and can be used to evaluate
the biological integrity of the
water body.
 When adopted by states,
they become legally
enforceable standards.
Introduction
Definitions
Biocriteria example
 Coral
reef systems in the
FKNMS must meet or
exceed a BI-IBI score of 75%
of the reference condition
value.
 Coral
reef systems not
meeting this standard will be
in violation of the Clean
Water Act.
Introduction
Traditional monitoring
Traditional monitoring
 Percent
cover / DDA
 No early warning capability
 Non-diagnostic
 Inadequate habitat
classification and reference
condition
Introduction
New paradigm
Using BI-IBI and biocriteria
 Early
warning capability
 Diagnostic capability
 Calibrated dose - response
metrics
 Classification of coral reef
zones
 Reference conditions
Creating a BI-IBI
IBI framework
Rooted in sound ecological
principles and based on hypothesis
about the relationship between the
coral reef condition and human
influence
IBI Ideal MultiDimensional Mix
IBI Metric Type
Number
 Taxa richness
(3-5)
 Tolerance - intolerance
(2-3)
 Trophic structure
(2-4)
 Individual health
(1-2)
 Other ecological attributes (2-3)

IBI are dominated by metrics of
taxa richness, because structural
changes in aquatic systems,
such as shifts among taxa,
generally occur at lower levels of
stress than do changes in
ecosystem proceses
Sampling method
determines IBI taxa
 Quantitative
consistency
 one sampling method to
obtain all organisms
 same time
 Sample within the same coral
reef zone
 Water chemistry sampling
 Try to minimize sampling
effort, data volume,
environmental impacts, save
money
BI-IBI
Example
 Sessile
epibenthos
 Transect sampling
Other possibilities:
 Benthic macroinvertebrates
 Artificial substrate
sampling
 Fishes
 Macrophytes
 Phytoplankton
 Zooplankton
BI-IBI for sessile
epibenthos
Taxa richness metrics
 Total
taxa richness (no. of
taxa/sample)
 Total hard coral taxa rich.
 Total sponge taxa rich.
 Total soft coral taxa rich.
 Total tunicate taxa rich.
BI-IBI for sessile
epibenthos
Dominance/% metrics
%
Dominant taxa
 % Soft corals
 % Zoanthids
 % Corallimorpharians
BI-IBI for sessile
epibenthos
Tolerance-intolerance
metrics

No. of intolerant taxa


% tolerant taxa


certain clionid sponges, filter
feeders - sponges, hydroids
No. of sediment-intolerant taxa


certain hard and soft corals
Certain hard corals, bryozoans,
tunicates
% sediment-intolerant taxa

Heterotrophic macroinverterates
(Sponges, barnacles), internal
bioeroders (clionid sponges)
BI-IBI for sessile
epibenthos
Trophic structure
metrics
%
autotrophic sessile
benthos
%
heterotrophic sessile
benthos
BI-IBI for sessile
epibenthos
Individual condition
metrics (respon spec)
 Bioaccumulation
in bivalves,
corals, sponges
 Nirtogen isotope ratios in
tissue
 Cellular diagnostics
 % corals and gorgonians w/
disease/ lesions/tumors
 % corals with skeleton
bioeroded/invaded
BI-IBI for sessile
epibenthos
Other ecological
attributes
 Hard
coral settlement rate
 Hard coral recruitment rate
 Hard coral growth rates
 Coral damage index
Classification notes
 Compare
similar coral reef
zones
 Biogeographic
 Province,
ecoregion, location
 Classification
 Type
component
component
of reef, zone, modifiers
Reference condition
Defined using:
 Reference sites (minimal
human influence)
 Historical data
 Paleo data
 Experimental lab data
 Quantitative models
 Best professional judgment
Applications
Applications
Management
 Long-term
monitoring and
assessment
 Early warning system
 Diagnostic capabilities
 Clean
water regulation
 Before investing in expensive
restoration
 M ”P” A certification (existing)
 MPA new designations
Next steps
10th Intl Coral Reef
Symposium, Okinawa
 Mini-symposium
chairman
Diagnostic monitoring of
coral reefs: studies from
around the world
 Jameson
SC, Downs CA,
Potts KW (in manuscript)
Response specific metrics for
a coral reef index of biotic
integrity: new diagnostic
cellular assays and future
research directions
Next steps
Next steps
Field work
 Laid
conceptual framework in
the literature
 Test
sampling methods
 Metric testing
 Index creation
 Classification of zones
 Reference condition
selection and assessment
A Coral Damage Index
Publication reference
 Jameson
SC, Ammar MSA,
Saadalla E, Mostafa HM,
Riegl B (1999) A coral
damage index and its
application to diving sites in
the Egyptian Red Sea. Coral
Reefs Special Issue on The
Science of Coral Reef
Management, Coral Reefs
18(4):333-339
Publication reference
 Jameson
SC, Ammar MSA,
Saadalla E, Mostafa HM,
Riegl B (subm) A quantitative
damage assessment of
diving sites in the Egyptian
Red Sea during a period of
severe anchor damage: a
baseline for restoration and
sustainable tourism
management. J. Sustainable
Tourism
Acknowledgements
 USAID
 Winrock
International
Outline
 Introduction
 Creating
the CDI
 Application to Egyptian diving
sites
Introduction
Taxonomic Focus
 Management
tools do not
always need a species focus
 CDI
has a higher “Order”
level focus
 Branching
colonies
Scleractinia
Introduction
Establishing baseline

Tourism development without
management until 1997
 Management of diving sites
along the western Red Sea coast
non-existent
 In 1996 60-100 full-time diving
vessels and 80 diving centers
operated unsupervised causing
considerable damage to the coral
reefs
 In 1997, 250 mooring buoys
installed
 Damage assessment of 48 diving
sites
Purpose of CDI
To obtain a perspective on the
extent and severity of physical
damage to coral
Provide a baseline for
monitoring recovery
Creating the CDI
 Sites
are listed as “hot spots”
if in any transect the:

% of broken coral colonies
(BCC) is ≥ 4%, or
 if
the % of coral rubble is ≥
3%
Creating the CDI
Global calibration
Calibrated using 1987 Red Sea
data from minimally impaired
Hurghada sites
 Remote
sites where diving
and anchoring was low for
1987 standards
 Coral
disease and
Acanthaster impacts minor
 No
hurricane damage
Red Sea data 1987
(%)
Site
 SD
 AH
 SR
 GS
 EE
 PM
n
11
12
29
17
12
81
BCC(SE)
6.1(4)
3.2(2)
0(0)
0.2(0.2)
2.6(1.7)
1.7(0.7)
CR(SE)
1.9(1.9)
0.8(0.5)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0.4(0.3)
Caribbean & Red Sea
Calibration
(Hawkins and Roberts 1997)
Control site
Giftun canal
 All
BCC and CR values for
every transect was less than
CDI (4% BCC & 3% CR)
Transect
 T1
 T2
 T3
 T4
 T5
4m
0/0
3/2
0/0
0/0
0/0
8m
0/0
0/0
0/0
3/2
0/0
Visitor use data
 At
each site from 0900-1600
 Number of boats
 Number of anchors on the
reef
 Number of divers, to estimate
number of dives per year
 Number of snorkelers
Application to
Egyptian diving sites
Egyptian results
Extent of damage

Covered all 4 diving sites
 40% of the 40 transects hot
 31% of the 16 hot spots ID’d by
both BCC and CR criteria
 25% ID’d by only BCC
 44% ID’d by only CR suggesting
past breakage was responsible
for most damage
 63% of the hot spot transects
were at 4m depth
 37% at 8m depth, suggesting
most damage caused by anchors
in shallow water
Egyptian results
Severity of damage
 Small
Giftun most severe CR
damage (T#5, 4m depth)
 333%
above the CDI
 El
Fanous most severe BCC
damage (T#2, 8m depth)
 325%
above the CDI
Egyptian results
 Estimates
of number of dives
per year show diving carrying
capacities (6,000 dives/yr)
being exceeded by large
amounts
 El
Fanous 43,200
 Gotta Abu Ramada 12,900
 Ras Abu Soma 45,600
 Small Giftun 121,200
 Giftun Canal 3,600 (control)
Lunch time!
Conclusion
I
have created 3 tools for
coral reef management that
use taxonomy at different
resolutions
 The
development of these
types of tools will help
elevate the importance of the
field of taxonomy and
systematics and increase the
demand for taxonomic
expertise
Thanks!