{"@context":{"content":"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/","dc":"http://purl.org/dc/terms/","foaf":"http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/","og":"http://ogp.me/ns#","rdfs":"http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#","sioc":"http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#","sioct":"http://rdfs.org/sioc/types#","skos":"http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#","xsd":"http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#","owl":"http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#","rdf":"http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#","rss":"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/","site":"https://www.bco-dmo.org/ns#","odo":"http://ocean-data.org/schema/","emo":"http://ocean-data.org/schema/entity-matching#","bibo":"http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/","crypto":"http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/preservation/cryptographicHashFunctions/","bcodmo":"http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/","tw":"http://tw.rpi.edu/schema/","dcat":"http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#","time":"http://www.w3.org/2006/time#","geo":"http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#","geosparql":"http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#","sf":"http://www.opengis.net/ont/sf#","void":"http://rdfs.org/ns/void#","sd":"http://www.w3.org/ns/sparql-service-description#","dctype":"http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/","prov":"http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#","schema":"http://schema.org/","geolink":"http://schema.geolink.org/1.0/base/main#","spdx":"http://spdx.org/rdf/terms#","bcodmo_vocab":"http://schema.bco-dmo.org/"},"@id":"http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset/674153#graph","@graph":[{"http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset/674153":{"@id":"http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset/674153","@type":["http://ocean-data.org/schema/DeploymentDatasetCollection","http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#Dataset","http://ocean-data.org/schema/Dataset"],"http://ocean-data.org/schema/hasAcquisitionDescription":[{"@value":"
The study was conducted from November 2010 through February 2011 and between November 2011 and January 2012 on shallow (~1 m below the surface at low tide, equal or shallower than 2 m at high tide), intertidal fringing reefs platforms (up to 800-m wide) along the Coral Coast (18\u00ba\u00a013.05\u2019S, 177\u00ba\u00a042.97\u2019E) of Viti Levu, Fiji\u2019s main island. Many of the owners of traditional fishing rights along the Coral Coast have established small, customary no-take MPAs to improve and sustain their adjacent fishing grounds. The MPAs in this region are delimited by surface markings and enforced by local villagers, and they have been closed to all fishing activities since their inception (about 10 years). The only exception to this closure was a small experimental hook and line fishing research project that was conducted in the MPAs of Votua and\u00a0Namada. In the\u00a0non-MPAs, the main fishing targets are species of Acanthuridae (Nasinae), Epinephelidae, Labridae, Mullidae, and Lutjanidae. Permission for the research was granted by the Fijian Ministry of Education, National Heritage, Culture & Arts, Youth & Sports, which is authorized to approve field studies in Fijian waters. No animal collection or experimental procedures involving animals were conducted during the study, and no endangered species were recorded during our assessments.\u00a0
\nTo assess the effects of MPAs on fish assemblages, fish feeding group composition, herbivory rates, benthic cover, and coral recruit density, we compared three spatially paired MPA and adjacent, fished, areas (non-MPAs) associated with the villages of Votua,\u00a0Vatu-o-lalai\u00a0and\u00a0Namada.\u00a0 Comparisons of fish assemblages inside and outside of closures are widely used for determining the effects of reserves, but it should be acknowledged that this approach does not reveal the state of an MPA relative to an undisturbed baseline.\u00a0
\nThe studied MPAs were established in 2002 (Vatu-o-lalai,\u00a0Namada) and 2003 (Votua), and shortly after establishment, coral cover was low (~7%), and\u00a0macroalgal\u00a0cover was high (~35\u201345%) in both the MPAs and\u00a0non-MPAs. All surveys and assays were conducted during the same season (austral summer) to minimize seasonal variation in sampling. The reef extends approx. 1 km from shore within each MPA and\u00a0non-MPA,\u00a0and all data were collected between 30 and 700 m of the shore (i.e., shoreward of the reef crest) parallel to the\u00a0shoreline.
\nFish feeding groups: The structure of fish feeding groups was assessed using a series of 10-min timed transects, which maximized the distance transversed in search of groups rather than being limited to a 30m transect where there may be no groups. A fish feeding group was defined as any aggregation of two or more fish in which individuals were observed feeding or biting a potential food source.
\nA total of 30 timed transects (n = 15 MPA; n= 15 non-MPA) were performed at each of the three village sites (n = 90 transects total). Transects were conducted within 2 h of high tide and equally distributed from 10:00 h\u201314:00 h. A group was counted if at least one individual in the aggregation was inside the transect area. For each feeding group, all individuals were identified to species, their total length (TL) estimated and placed into 5cm size classes. Fish lengths were converted to biomass using established length-weight relationships. For each transect, a snorkeler swam parallel to the reef crest for 10 min at a standard speed and recorded all fish groups within 2 m of each side of the transect. On each sampling day, five transects were deployed on the reef parallel to the shoreline. Adjacent transects were separated by a minimum of 20 m, and small surface floats and reef and shoreline landmarks were used to avoid resampling the same areas.\u00a0
Fiji MPA vs non-MPA corals, fishes, and herbivory. This dataset describes the biodiversity of fish feeding groups.
We used Generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) implemented under a Bayesian framework to test the effect of protection status (MPA vs. non-MPA) on the abundance and biomass of each subcategory of Herbivores and Non-herbivores at the three village sites. We used the same approach to test the effect of protection status on the number of individuals, biomass and diversity of species in the observed feeding groups. The models have a hierarchical structure where the protection status is nested within site. For abundance and biomass of Herbivores and Non-herbivores, we used a muti-response models where each subcategory is a separate response variable. Because we have several samples for the same site, transect and sampling day were included as random factors. For the richness and abundance model, we used a Poisson error structure given the nature of the data. For biomass and diversity data we used a Gaussian error structure. We performed separate analyses for Herbivores and Non-herbivores. We compared model fit against a benchmark model in which protection status was not included as a fixed effect using the Deviance information criterion (DIC). The MCMC used to sample the posterior distributions of effect sizes ran for 106\u00a0iterations and was sampled every 100 iterations (thinning = 100) after burn-in (5\u00d7105). We considered effect size significant when the 95% credible interval of the estimated posterior distributions of parameters did not include 0. We monitored chain mixing by checking the effective sample sizes (ESS) for fixed and random effects. We used inverse gamma priors for variance components. Exploratory analyses indicate that estimates for fixed effects were robust to prior selection. Outliers were removed prior to the GLMM analyses to reduce overdispersion, although analyses with and without the outliers yielded qualitatively similar results. We used the R package MCMCGLMM for all analyses based on GLMMs.
\nWe compared benthic cover between MPAs and non-MPAs using three-way ANOVA, with village site (Votua, Vatu-o-lalai, and Namada), status (MPA and non-MPA) and year (2010/2011 and 2011/2012) as fixed factors. Separate ANOVAs were used to compare the percentage cover of four different substratum types (scleractinian corals, macroalgae, epilithic algal turfs and others). Benthic cover data were arcsine-transformed, and fish density and biomass data were log-transformed to meet assumptions of normality (frequency histograms). When differences were significant, the test was followed by specific planned comparisons between paired treatments (MPA vs non-MPA) at each village site. P-values were adjusted with the Holm-S\u00edd\u00e1k method, in which the adjusted p-value is equal to , where k refers to the number of comparisons.
\nThe rates of grazing and browsing and the density of coral recruits were compared between MPAs and adjacent non-MPAs using two-way ANOVA with status (MPA and non-MPA) and village site (Votua, Vatu-o-lalai, and Namada) as fixed factors. Separate analyses were used to compare (1) parrotfish grazing rates, (2) macroalgal browsing rates, and (3) the number of coral recruits per quadrat (log-transformed). Holm-S\u00edd\u00e1k-adjusted paired comparisons were also used when differences were significant. ANOVAs for benthic cover, grazing and browsing rates, and density of coral recruits, as well as all graph plots in this manuscript, were programmed in R 3.0.1 using base package functions.