These data were published in van Woesik & Cacciapaglia (2018), van Woesik & Cacciapaglia (2019), and van Woesik & Cacciapaglia (2021).
A question mark symbol (?) in the species column indicates that the fish could be identified as a parrotfish but the species could not be identified due to the camera angle. The species name followed by a question mark indicates the identification is uncertain due to the camera angle.
A question mark symbol (?) in the size column indicates the fish could not be accurately measured due to the camera angle.
A question mark symbol (?) in a comment column indicates the species name or size is questionable; the time on the video is recorded for the fish in question.
If a comment column contains a time notation (e.g. \"01:00\" or \":23\"), it refers to the position in the video in minutes and seconds (mm:ss) or seconds (:ss) that the fish was identified.
For more information about the parrotfish species please refer to the Parrotfish species information dataset https://www.bco-dmo.org/dataset/735679.
Parrotfishes were surveyed using two different methods: 1. the Reef Visual Census program (See Smith et al 2011 and Brandt et al 2009 and https://grunt.sefsc.noaa.gov/rvc_analysis20/ for more information about this program) has been conducting a visual survey of reef fish species throughout the Florida Keys since 1978. 2. The roving diver survey (see Adam et al 2015) was used in 2013 to collect data on parrotfishes only at several reefs in the Upper Florida Keys. Both datasets provide information on number of parrotfishes per unit area in selected locations in the Florida Keys. Parrotfish foraging parameters were also derived from behavioral observations of parrotfish feeding. See Adam et al 2015, 2018 for more details.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Parrotfish assemblages, reef habitat, and predatory coral reef fish data from surveys conducted on the Northern Great Barrier Reef, Australia in September of 2014. The survey included 82 sites across 31 reef structures spanning six degrees of latitude. This dataset contains the main environmental parameters for the 82 sites in this study along with site names, latitudes, and longitudes. These data were published in Johnson et al. (2019).
CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedicationhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
License information was derived automatically
Data were collected across 5 fringing reef sites in Bonaire, NL: Angel City (AC; 12.10305º, -68.28852º), Aquarius (AQ; 12.09824º, -68.28624º), Bachelor’s Beach (BB; 12.12605º, -68.28819º), Invisibles (IV; 12.07805º, -68.28175º), and The Lake (TL; 12.10618º, -68.29079º) during May-July 2019.
We conducted visual censuses of initial and terminal phase parrotfish (forklength > 6 cm) along eight 100-m2 (25-m x 4-m) band transects at each site to quantify density and biomass of parrotfishes (parrotfishes.csv). We also quantified the cover of benthic functional groups using photoquadrats (n=10) placed at 1-m intervals along 10-m transects (n=4 at each site with 1 additional transect with 3 photoquadrats at AQ) running perpendicular to the reef slope at approximately 10-m depth at each site (benthic-cover.csv). In addition to quantifying the total cover of coral at these 5 sites, we also identified corals to the species level to explore differences in coral community composition across si...
CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedicationhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
License information was derived automatically
Parrotfishes are widely considered to be important grazers on coral reefs that remove autotrophic biomass from the reef substrate and create bare space that is conducive to larval coral settlement and recruitment. Because of the top-down effects associated with their benthic foraging, this has been a major focus of parrotfish research. Another aspect of parrotfish foraging and trophic ecology that has received very little attention is coprophagy, the consumption of fecal matter. The feces of planktivorous fishes, including Chromis spp., have been identified as important sources of nutrients and trace elements to tropical and temperate reef ecosystems. Their feces are readily consumed by a variety of fishes, including parrotfishes. Although parrotfish coprophagy has been observed in prior studies, its frequency has not yet been quantified. In this study, we observed foraging in five parrotfishes on the fringing reefs of Bonaire, Netherlands: Scarus iseri, Scarus taeniopterus, Scarus vetula, Sparisoma aurofrenatum, and Sparisoma viride. For three of these species, we observed individuals of both ontogenetic phases (terminal and initial phase) to investigate ontogenetic differences in foraging. We found that coprophagy was common in four of these species (Sc. iseri, Sc. taeniopterus, Sc. vetula, and Sp. aurofrenatum), occurring in 46-90% of individuals (Sc. vetula and Sc. taeniopterus, respectively). Though we did not identify the origin of every fecal pellet consumed, we directly observed focal fishes targeting fecal pellets produced by planktivorous Chromis spp. that were often seen schooling above the reef during this feeding behavior. Additionally, most of the fecal pellets consumed by the parrotfishes were similar in appearance (i.e., relative size, shape, coloration, and consistency) to the feces produced by Chromis spp., predominantly Chromis multilineata, suggesting this common origin. However, bites on fecal matter were a relatively small proportion of the total bites taken by these species (< 5%). In contrast, a majority of bites taken by these species were taken on substrates classified as eplithic algal matrix (EAM) or crustose coralline algae (68.5-90.6% of total bites across all five species). Despite being an infrequent target of parrotfish foraging, we estimated that daily fecal C consumption is equivalent to approximately 27% of the daily algal C intake by parrotfishes targeting the major benthic foraging targets of parrotfishes (large turfs, small turfs on endolithic algae or crustose coralline algae, and crustose coralline algae) in Bonaire. The feces of plantivorous reef fishes like Chromis spp. are also likely a valuable source of nutrients to reef fishes, because the fecese of Chromis spp. has higher protein and lipid content and lower C:N and C:P than many benthic marine algae and cyanobacteria, including from the tropics. The absence of coprophagy in Sp. viride and reduced rates of coprophagy in Sc. vetula relative to the other coprophagic species could be the result of increased access to protein-rich endolithic components of the benthos. Access to endolithic components of the benthos increases with body size and the ability to excavate benthic substrate while foraging. Sparisoma viride is an important excavating parrotfish on Caribbean coral reefs, and Sc. vetula is generally larger than the other coprophagic species in our study. Future work should attempt to further quantify the contribution of fecal matter to the nutrition of parrotfishes relative to benthic foraging targets in order to provide a more complete understanding of parrotfish nutritional ecology and to elucidate the importance of coprophagy in nutrient recycling and retention on coral reefs.
Subscribers can find out export and import data of 23 countries by HS code or product’s name. This demo is helpful for market analysis.
To better understand the functional roles of parrotfishes on Caribbean reefs we documented abundance, habitat preferences, and diets of nine species of parrotfishes (Scarus coelestinus, Scarus coeruleus, Scarus guacamaia, Scarus taeniopterus, Scarus vetula, Sparisoma aurofrenatum, Sparisoma chrysopterum, Sparisoma rubripinne, Sparisoma viride) on three high-relief spur-and-groove reefs (Molasses, Carysfort, and Elbow) offshore of Key Largo in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. On each reef, we conducted fish surveys, behavioral observations, and benthic surveys in three habitat types: high-relief spur and groove (depth 2 - 6 m), low-relief carbonate platform/hardbottom (depth 4 - 12 m), and carbonate boulder/rubble fields (depth 4 - 9 m).In addition, fish surveys were also conducted on a fourth high-relief spur-and-groove reef (French). We estimated parrotfish abundance in each of the three habitat types in order to assess the relative abundance and biomass of different species and to quantify differences in habitat selection. To estimate parrotfish density, we conducted 20 to 30 minute timed swims while towing a GPS receiver on a float on the surface to calculate the amount of area sampled. During a swim the observer would swim parallel with the habitat type being sampled and count and estimate the size to the nearest cm of all parrotfishes > 15 cm in length that were encountered in a 5 m wide swath. To quantify parrotfish behavior, approximately six individuals of each species were observed at each site for 20 min each. Foraging behavior was recorded by a SCUBA diver while towing a GPS receiver (Garmin GPS 72) attached to a surface float, which obtained position fixes of the focal fish at 15 s intervals. Fish were followed from a close distance (~ 2 m when possible), and food items were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, with macroalgae and coral usually identified to genus or species. Many bites involved scraping or excavating substrate colonized by a multi-species assemblage of filamentous "turf" algae and crustose coralline algae (CCA). Thus, multiple species of filamentous algae, endolithic algae, and CCA could be harvested in a single bite, and it was impossible to determine the specific species of algae targeted. We also recorded the type of substrate targeted during each foraging bout, categorizing each substrate as one of the following: (1) dead coral, (2) coral pavement, (3) boulder, (4) rubble, or (5) ledge. Dead coral included both convex and concave surfaces on the vertical and horizontal planes of three dimensional coral skeletons (primarily dead Acropora palmata) that were attached to reef substrate. Coral pavement was carbonate reef with little topographic complexity (i.e., flat limestone pavement). Boulder was large remnants of dead mounding corals not clearly attached to the bottom and often partially buried in sand. Coral rubble consisted of small dead coral fragments (generally < 10 cm in any dimension) that could be moved with minimal force. Ledges consisted entirely of the undercut sides of large spurs in the high-relief spur and groove habitat. In order to quantify the relative abundance of different food types, we estimated the percent cover of algae, coral, and other sessile invertebrates on each of the five substrates commonly targeted by parrotfishes (dead coral, coral pavement, boulder, rubble, or ledge) in 0.5 m x 0.5 m photoquadrats. We photographed a total of 8 haphazardly selected quadrats dispersed throughout the study site for each substrate type at each of the three sites (N = 24 quadrats per substrate type, N = 120 quadrats total). Each photoquadrat was divided into sixteen 12 cm x 12 cm sections which were individually photographed, and percent cover was estimated from 9 stratified random points per section (N = 144 point per quadrat).
Subscribers can find out export and import data of 23 countries by HS code or product’s name. This demo is helpful for market analysis.
To determine the patterns and thresholds of tissue regeneration in Orbicella annularis coral colonies from parrotfish predation, we monitored tissue regeneration of fresh parrotfish bite scars on O. annularis colonies over time across two Caribbean islands, St. Croix and Bonaire. We monitored colonies on St. Croix from June to July 2018 for up to 28 days on Bonaire from June to August 2019 for up to 64 days. This file includes the four datasets used in our study entitled 'Impacts of parrotfish predation on a major reef-building coral: quantifying healing rates and thresholds of coral recovery' (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-020-01977-9). For a detailed description of methods, please refer to this publication. Dataset overview: 1) 'A1_data_overview.csv', a file that describes each variable within each of the subsequent datasets. 2) OANN_scar_healing_after_up_to_28_days.csv, the total observed tissue regeneration of parrotfish bite scars on Orbicella annularis colonies on St. Croix and Bonaire between the initial monitoring date and after 21-28 days of monitoring. 3) OANN_scar_healing_after_up_to_64_days.csv, the total observed tissue regeneration of parrotfish bite scars on Orbicella annularis colonies on Bonaire between the initial monitoring data and after 55-64 days of monitoring. 4) OANN_scar_healing_time_series.csv, time series observations of tissue regeneration of parrotfish bite scars on Orbicella annularis colonies on St. Croix and Bonaire between each 2-7 day monitoring interval over the course of the study. There are multiple, successive observations of tissue regeneration for each scars on each monitoring day. 5) OANN_scar_standing_stock.csv, the distribution of haphazardly surveyed parrotfish predation scars on St. Croix and Bonaire at a point in time observed within 30m x 1m belt transects conducted across a range of depths up to 18m. This dataset includes the total abundance of scars per colony, the number of fresh bite scars, and the estimated minimum, median, and maximum observed scar per colony and colony size measurements for all Orbicella annularis colonies with parrotfish predation scars present within transects. Methods overview: We conducted this at four sites on St. Croix from June to July of 2018 and four sites on Bonaire from June to August of 2019. At each site, we opportunistically tagged O. annularis colonies with recent parrotfish bite scars. For each colony, we recorded the colony surface area, depth in the water column, and the abundance of recent parrotfish bite scars. For each scar on the colony, we took a close up photograph of the scar with a size reference. We returned to photograph scars every 2 to 7 days, with more frequent monitoring at the start of the study. On St. Croix, we monitored scars for 21- 28 days or until the scars fully healed (i.e., a soft tissue layer had completely enclosed the scar area). Research on tissue regeneration in O. annularis suggests that the majority of scar tissue regeneration occurs within the first few weeks after scars are inflicted, though scars may continue to heal for up to almost two months (Meesters et al. 1994, 1997). Therefore, on Bonaire, we monitored scars for 55- 64 days or until scars fully healed. We used Image J 1.46r to trace and measure the surface area of each scar on a given monitoring day and used these measurements to calculate change in scar area over time. References: Meesters EH, Noordeloos M, Bak RPM (1994) Damage and regeneration: Links to growth in the reef-building coral Montastrea annularis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 112:119-128 Meesters EH, Pauchli W, Bak RPM (1997) Predicting regeneration of physical damage on a reef-building coral by regeneration capacity and lesion shape. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 146:91-99
These data were published in van Woesik & Cacciapaglia (2018) and van Woesik & Cacciapaglia (2019).
CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedicationhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
License information was derived automatically
The unique traits of large animals often allow them to fulfill functional roles in ecosystems that small animals cannot. However, large animals are also at greater risk from human activities. Thus, it is critical to understand how losing large animals impacts ecosystem function. In the oceans, selective fishing for large animals alters the demographics and size-structure of numerous species. While the community-wide impacts of losing large animals is a major theme in terrestrial research, the ecological consequences of removing large animals from marine ecosystems remain understudied. Here, we combine survey data from 282 sites across the Caribbean with a field experiment to investigate how altering the size-structure of parrotfish populations impacts coral reef communities. We show that Caribbean-wide, parrotfish populations are skewed towards smaller individuals, with fishes <11 cm in length comprising nearly 70% of the population in the most heavily fished locations versus ~25% at minimally fished sites. Despite these differences in size-structure, sites had similar overall parrotfish biomass. As a result, algal cover was unrelated to parrotfish biomass and instead, was negatively correlated with the density of large parrotfishes. To mechanistically explore how large parrotfishes shape benthic communities, we manipulated fishes' access to the benthos to create three distinct fish communities with different size-structure. We found that excluding large or large and medium-sized parrotfishes did not alter overall parrotfish grazing rates but caused respective 4- and 10-fold increases in algal biomass. Unexpectedly, branching corals benefited from excluding large parrotfishes whereas the growth of mounding coral species was impaired. Similarly, removing large parrotfishes led to unexpected increases in coral recruitment that were absent when both large and medium bodied fishes were excluded. Our data highlight the unique roles of large parrotfishes in driving benthic dynamics on coral reefs and suggests that diversity of size is an important component of how herbivore diversity impacts ecosystem function on reefs. This study adds to a growing body of literature revealing the ecological ramifications of removing large animals from ecosystems and sheds new light on how fishing down the size-structure of parrotfish populations alters functional diversity to reshape benthic reef communities.
CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedicationhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
License information was derived automatically
Animals often occupy home ranges where they conduct daily activities. In many parrotfishes, large terminal phase (TP) males defend their diurnal (i.e., daytime) home ranges as intraspecific territories occupied by harems of initial phase (IP) females. However, we know relatively little about the exclusivity and spatial stability of these territories. We investigated diurnal home range behavior in several TPs and IPs of five common Caribbean parrotfish species on the fringing coral reefs of Bonaire, Caribbean Netherlands. We computed parrotfish home ranges to investigate differences in space use and then quantified spatial overlap of home ranges between spatially co-occurring TPs to investigate exclusivity. We also quantified spatial overlap of home ranges estimated from repeat tracks of a few TPs to investigate their spatial stability. We then discussed these results in the context of parrotfish social behavior. Home range sizes differed significantly among species. Spatial overlap between home ranges was lower for intraspecific than interspecific pairs of TPs. Focal TPs frequently engaged in agonistic interactions with intraspecific parrotfish and interacted longest with intraspecific TP parrotfish. This behavior suggests that exclusionary agonistic interactions may contribute to the observed patterns of low spatial overlap between home ranges. Spatial overlap of home ranges estimated from repeated tracks of several TPs of three study species was high, suggesting that home ranges were spatially stable for at least one month. Taken together, our results suggest that daytime parrotfish space use is constrained within fixed intraspecific territories in which territory holders have nearly exclusive access to resources. Grazing by parrotfishes maintains benthic reef substrates in early successional states that are conducive to coral larval settlement and recruitment. Behavioral constraints on parrotfish space use may drive spatial heterogeneity in grazing pressure and affect local patterns of benthic community assembly. A thorough understanding of the spatial ecology of parrotfishes is, therefore, necessary to elucidate their functional roles on coral reefs.
These data describe habitat associations of juvenile parrotfish (Scaridae) encountered during systematic searches at LTER 1 and LTER 2 fringing reef and back reef sites during March 2011. At each site SCUBA divers or snorkelers identified, counted, and estimated the sizes of juvenile parrotfish and recorded the microhabitat that each individual or group of individuals was associated with on two 100 m x 10 m wide transects (n = 8 transects total). Upon encountering a juvenile or group of juveniles, the surveyor recorded the microhabitat type that fishes were first seen to be closest to. They also closely observed the behavior of fishes to see if they were utilizing a particular microhabitat as shelter, and if so this was also recorded. Several groups of fishes first observed to be grazing on hard substrate or on macroalgae quickly retreated into the nearby coral Porites rus when approached. Hence for these individuals we considered the initial habitat they were associated with (e.g., hard substrate or macroalgae) to be their primary microhabitat, but also noted that they were associated with Porites rus for shelter.
in situ visual surveys of reproductive behavior, spawning and courtship events
Species-specific projected total habitat suitability index (HSI) and HSI's change or 'anomaly' under different carbon dioxide emission levels, including (A) total HSI for the 1970 to 2000 period; and changes in HSI under scenarios of (B) ~400 ppm and (C) ~565 ppm atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration in the high resolution Earth system model (GFDL CM2.6).
This dataset contains parrotfish bite observations for the study plots at Pickles Reef, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary from 2009-2013. Published in Nature Communications (2016) doi:10.1038/ncomms11833, Supplementary Data 2c.
Natural history of the study site:
This experiment was conducted in the area of Pickles Reef (24.99430, -80.40650), located east of Key Largo, Florida in the United States. The Florida Keys reef tract consists of a large bank reef system located approximately 8 km offshore of the Florida Keys, USA, and paralleling the island chain. Our study reef is a 5-6 m deep spur and groove reef system within this reef tract. The reefs of the Florida Keys have robust herbivorous fish populations and are relatively oligotrophic. Coral cover on most reefs in the Florida Keys, including our site, is 5-10%, while macroalgal cover averages ~15%, but ranges from 0-70% depending on location and season. Parrotfishes (Scaridae) and surgeonfishes (Acanthuridae) are the dominant herbivores on these reefs as fishing for them was banned in 1981. The other important herbivore on Caribbean reefs, the urchin Diadema antillarum, remains at low densities across the Florida Keys following the mass mortality event in 1982-3.
Related Reference:
Zaneveld, J.R., D.E. Burkepile, A.A. Shantz, C. Pritchard, R. McMinds, J. Payet, R. Welsh, A.M.S. Correa, N.P. Lemoine, S. Rosales, C.E. Fuchs, and R. Vega Thurber (2016) Overfishing, nutrient pollution, and temperature interact to disrupt coral reefs down to microbial scales. Nature Communications 7:11833 doi:10.1038/ncomms11833 Supplementary Information
CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedicationhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
License information was derived automatically
The ecological impacts of coral bleaching on reef communities are well documented, but resultant impacts upon reef-derived sediment supply are poorly quantified. This is an important knowledge gap because these biogenic sediments underpin shoreline and reef island maintenance. Here we explore the impacts of the 2016 bleaching event on sediment generation by two dominant sediment producers (parrotfish and Halimeda spp.) on southern Maldivian reefs. Our data identifies two pulses of increased sediment generation in the three years since bleaching. The first occurred within ~6 months after bleaching as parrotfish biomass and resultant erosion rates increased, likely in response to enhanced food availability. The second pulse occurred 1-3 years post-bleaching, after further increases in parrotfish biomass and a major (~4-fold) increase in Halimeda spp. abundance. Total estimated sediment generation from these two producers increased from ~0.5 kg CaCO3 m-2 yr-1 (pre-bleaching; 2016) to ~3.7 kg CaCO3 m-2 yr-1 (post-bleaching; 2019), highlighting the strong links between reef ecology and sediment generation. However, the relevance of this sediment for shoreline maintenance likely diverges with each producer group, with parrotfish-derived sediment a more appropriate size-fraction to potentially contribute to local island shorelines.
Species-specific projected total habitat suitability index (HSI) and HSI's change or 'anomaly' under different carbon dioxide emission levels, including (A) total HSI for the 1970 to 2000 period; and changes in HSI under scenarios of (B) ~400 ppm and (C) ~565 ppm atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration in the high resolution Earth system model (GFDL CM2.6).
CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedicationhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
License information was derived automatically
This dataset contains the digitized treatments in Plazi based on the original journal article Joao Luiz Gasparini, Jean-Christophe Joyeux, Sergio R. Floeter (2003): Sparisoma tuiupiranga, a new species of parrotfish (Perciformes: Labroidei: Scaridae) from Brazil, with comments on the evolution of the genus. Zootaxa 384: 1-14, URL: http://www.zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:82142975-3858-4904-A267-7B549FEBEAF3
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Summary information for Scarus and Sparisoma parrotfish species in the western Atlantic.
These data were published in van Woesik & Cacciapaglia (2018), van Woesik & Cacciapaglia (2019), and van Woesik & Cacciapaglia (2021).
A question mark symbol (?) in the species column indicates that the fish could be identified as a parrotfish but the species could not be identified due to the camera angle. The species name followed by a question mark indicates the identification is uncertain due to the camera angle.
A question mark symbol (?) in the size column indicates the fish could not be accurately measured due to the camera angle.
A question mark symbol (?) in a comment column indicates the species name or size is questionable; the time on the video is recorded for the fish in question.
If a comment column contains a time notation (e.g. \"01:00\" or \":23\"), it refers to the position in the video in minutes and seconds (mm:ss) or seconds (:ss) that the fish was identified.
For more information about the parrotfish species please refer to the Parrotfish species information dataset https://www.bco-dmo.org/dataset/735679.