Abstract
Juvenile reef fish communities represent an essential component of coral reef ecosystems in the current focus of fish population dynamics and coral reef resilience. Juvenile fish survival depends on habitat characteristics and is, following settlement, the first determinant of the number of individuals within adult populations. The goal of this study was to provide methods for mapping juvenile fish species richness and abundance into spatial domains suitable for micro and meso-scale analysis and management decisions. Generalized Linear Models predicting juvenile fish species richness and abundance were developed according to spatial and temporal environmental variables measured from 10 m up to 10 km in the southwest lagoon of New Caledonia. The statistical model was further spatially generalized using a 1.5-m resolution, independently created, remotely sensed, habitat map. This procedure revealed that : (1) spatial factors at 10 to 100-m scale explained up to 71% of variability in juvenile species richness, (2) a small improvement (75%) was gained when a combination of environmental variables at different spatial and temporal scales was used and (3) the coupling of remotely sensed data, geographical information system tools and point-based ecological data showed that the highest species richness and abundance were predicted along a narrow margin overlapping the coral reef flat and adjacent seagrass beds. Spatially explicit models of species distribution may be relevant for the management of reef communities when strong relationships exist between faunistic and environmental variables and when models are built at appropriate scales.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Designing spatially explicit models for predicting the number of species and individuals present as juveniles is a critical challenge for reef fish ecology and conservation. Among the factors suggested to contribute to reef resistance and resilience, the number of fish species in a given reef, or set of connected reefs, is often cited (McClanahan et al. 2002; Wilson et al. 2006). Areas that support high numbers of species are usually given high conservation values, particularly when the maintenance and enhancement of biodiversity is the central goal of the management strategy (Myers et al. 2000; Roberts et al. 2002). However the first factor limiting the numbers of species and individuals in a given fish community, following settlement, is juvenile mortality (see review by Doherty 2002). Although variable in time and species specific, juvenile mortality can reach up to 60% at settlement (Doherty et al. 2004). Since juvenile mortality mostly results from the intensity of competition and predation after the settlement (Caselle 1999; Almany and Webster 2006), post-settlement juvenile abundances may depend on habitat characteristics such as refuge availability (Adams et al. 2004; Almany 2004). Identifying the environmental factors that promote high numbers of species and individuals present as juveniles is thus crucial for understanding the processes governing adult population dynamics. Moreover, preventing the degradation of habitats where the numbers of species and individuals of juvenile fish are high can substantially improve their recruitment (Gilliers et al. 2006; Scharf et al. 2006) and consequently increase the numbers of species and individuals in the whole fish community.
Spatially explicit models predicting the number of species and individuals present as juveniles should be based on environmental variables that influence juvenile distribution at different spatial scales. For example, immediately before they settle on the reef, fish larvae may be heterogeneously distributed in shelf waters that differ at a 0.1 to 10-km scale in turbidity, current speed and direction (Williams 1982). Then, larvae settle on habitats that can be characterized at a 0.1 to 10-km scale by their distance to the reef or their exposure to dominant winds (Doherty 1991). At a 10 to 100-m scale, different factors have been found to influence the spatial distribution of juvenile reef fish: average depth (Srinivasan 2003), substratum composition (Depczynski and Bellwood 2004; Sale et al. 2005), characteristics of benthic covers (Adams et al. 2004; Depczynski and Bellwood 2004; Sale et al. 2005) and substratum rugosity (Hixon and Beets 1993; Sale et al. 2005). The temporal patterns in the distribution of juvenile fish may vary with water temperature (Sponaugle et al. 2006) as well as wind speed and direction (Findlay and Allen 2002; Sponaugle et al. 2005). These environmental variables influence juvenile spatial and temporal distribution for a given number of studied species, but the way they interact at the community level and determine the number of species and individuals that will be observed as juveniles at a given location remains largely unknown.
The models aimed at predicting the number of species and individuals within a given spatial domain are by definition spatially explicit and need to be based on field data continuously measured over this spatial domain. Traditionally, descriptive multivariate approaches have been used for relating environmental variables, sometimes measured at different scales, to the number of reef fish species and/or individuals (Ault and Johnson 1998b; Chittaro 2004). These statistical models, and the underlying ecological knowledge they were based on, usually came from point-based field data and are not spatially explicit. In principle, if environmental variables could be represented over a geographic grid, and if they were well correlated to some ecological variables, then relevant ecological predictions could also be spatially represented over the same grid. This way, the predictive model becomes spatially explicit, providing continuous field of biological data that could greatly enhance the power of decision support tools and multi-scale ecological analyses.
Fortunately, environmental variables are now increasingly measured continuously since remote sensing provides a cost-effective and time-efficient mean to survey and map the landscape of virtually any area on Earth, including the shallow marine and coastal environment (Miller et al. 2005). It is thus logical to use remotely sensed information to transform point-based ecological observations into spatially explicit representation of ecological properties. This is now a common approach in terrestrial studies, but still in its infancy for marine coastal studies (Guisan and Thuiller 2005). Since the early 1990s, remote sensing has been primarily used in coral reef studies to investigate bathymetry (Maritorena 1996), exposure to hydrodynamic energy (Courboulès and Manière 1992), detailed geomorphology (Andréfouët and Guzman 2004) and habitat distribution (Ahmad and Neil 1994). Pilot studies with high-cost sensors have shown further potential for mapping pigmentation of cyanobacterial mats (Andréfouët et al. 2003a), coral cover (Mumby et al. 2004) or bottom rugosity (Brock et al. 2004). One of the most useful remote sensing products is habitat maps. Habitat mapping is considered now a standard practice, with an accuracy that depends on the local habitat complexity (Andréfouët et al. 2003b). Habitat maps potentially provide great interpretative power in terms of coral reef ecological functions such as biogeochemistry and reef production, algal and invertebrate biomass distribution and coral reef beta-diversity (Ahmad and Neil 1994; Andréfouët and Payri 2001; Gilbert et al. 2006; Harborne et al. 2006).
In terrestrial ecosystems, spatially explicit species distribution models are developed by the following two steps (see review by Guisan and Thuiller 2005). The first step is to define a point-based, predictive species-environment relationship using the most appropriate linear or non-linear modeling techniques (Guisan and Zimmermann 2000). The second step is to map model predictions over a spatial domain where environmental predictors are continuously measured. As a first attempt for juvenile reef fish communities, the ultimate aim of the present study was to provide quantitative and spatially explicit information on patterns of juvenile species richness and abundance at spatial scales relevant to the management process of coral reef ecosystems. This was done by: (1) assessing the amount of variability in juvenile fish species richness and abundance that can be predicted by a combination of environmental factors recorded across different spatial and temporal scales and (2) mapping the predicted ecological information using a remotely sensed, independently created, coral reef habitat map.
Materials and methods
Study area and sampling design
The study took place in New Caledonia (southwest Pacific, 166°E, 22°S) where the lagoon covers an area of ∼19,000 km2 with numerous patch reefs and islets. The lagoon is bound by a 1,600-km long barrier reef that can be as far as 65 km from the coast, providing a wide shallow shelf.
Fish were sampled in two no-take marine reserves of the southwest lagoon: Canard Islet and Larégnère Islet, respectively, 1.2 km and 13.0 km from the main island (Fig. 1). Both are no-take areas but are routinely visited for recreational activities. Around each Islet, six stations were equally and randomly distributed in three biotopes including seagrass beds, macroalgal beds and coral patch reefs, and divided between the leeward and windward sides of the islets. At each station, the sample unit area was a 5-m radius circular area of approximately 80 m2. The 12 stations were surveyed during six sampling periods from March 2005 to March 2006.
Underwater visual census of fish fauna using stationary point technique (Bohnsack and Bannerot 1986) was performed by two divers. Stations were divided into four 20 m2 quarters. On two quarters of each station, each diver visually identified and counted all fishes (except Blennidae and Gobiidae) and estimated individual total length (TL) to the nearest centimeter. When fishes were forming a school, the mean TL and the total number of all individuals were estimated.
For biotope descriptions, stations were divided into 12 6.5-m2 radial sectors. In each sector, average depth (in meter) was recorded and the percent cover of seven substratum categories, four abiotic (sand, rubble, boulders and dead coral) and three biotic (seagrasses, macroalgae and live coral), were visually estimated. Heterogeneity was defined as the total number of abiotic substratum categories, seagrass and macroalgal genera and coral growth forms (encrusting, massive, submassive, digitate, branching, foliose, tabulate or soft) in each sector. Bottom rugosity was visually assessed through a qualitative index ranging from 1 (flat) to 4 (with knobs and cavities).
Predictor variables
For each station, habitat variables at 10 to 100-m scale including average depth, percent covers of abiotic and biotic substratum categories, heterogeneity and rugosity were averaged over the 12 sectors. For each sampling period, temporal variables including mean monthly water surface temperature (°C), mean monthly wind speed (m s−1) and direction (°) were calculated from daily records collected at Anse Vata for water temperature and at Amédée Island for wind (Fig. 1). Mean monthly wind direction was subsequently transformed into a vector with cosine and sine components for further analysis. Discrete modalities were used for each station to describe the habitat variables at 0.1 to 10-km scale, i.e., its cross-shelf location (coastal for stations around Canard Islet, mid-shelf for those around Larégnère Islet) and its exposure to trade-wind (windward or leeward). Principal component analysis and correlation matrix were used to examine multicolinearity between predictors.
Predicting juvenile species richness and abundance
Only juveniles, defined here as individuals smaller than one-third of the maximum species length (Dorenbosch et al. 2005), were considered. For each station and for each sampling period, species richness, defined as the total number of species present as juveniles (S), and total abundance of juveniles (N) were calculated. Spatial autocorrelation in S and N was examined by plotting variograms in function of distance between stations and with Moran’s I-test for spatial autocorrelation (Cliff and Ord 1981). Temporal autocorrelation in S and N was examined with Box–Pierce and Ljung–Box tests (Ljung and Box 1978).
In order to account for potential non-linear relationships between faunistic and environmental variables, simple non-linear (squared, logistic and exponential) regressions between faunistic and environmental variables were first compared with linear regressions. Regressions were compared based on the P-value, the coefficient of determination R 2 (proportion of the variance of the response variable that is explained by the model) and sigma (square root of the estimated variance of the random error). Environmental variables that showed a significant non-linear relationship with the response variables were transformed accordingly for subsequent analyses.
Generalized Linear Models (GLMs) were used to fit a link function between the response variable, i.e., S or N, and the predictors, i.e., the environmental variables. GLMs are particularly suitable for modeling faunistic data that usually present a Poisson distribution, and yield predictions within the limits of observed values (Guisan and Zimmermann 2000; Guisan and Thuiller 2005). The presence of overdispersion in the distribution of the response variable was assessed by computing the ratio between the mean and the variance of each response variable (Potts and Elith 2006). If the variance was greater than the mean, data were considered overdispersed and the hypothesis H0 of quasi-Poisson distribution of the response variable was tested through Dean’s test (Dean 1992). When H0 was rejected, the assumption of a negative binomial distribution was made and tested through the likelihood ratio test (LRT, Dean 1992).
Three separate models were first built for predicting S and N, respectively. One model included habitat variables at a 0.1 to 10-km scale only, one included habitat variables at a 10 to 100-m scale only and one included temporal variables only. This exploratory step aimed to identify the most appropriate and important scale for building the final models, a central and recurrent problem in species distribution modeling (Guisan and Thuiller 2005). Eventually, final models considered all spatial and temporal predictors in order to get the most accurate predictions of S and N from a selection of predictors. Predictor selection was performed by a backward stepwise selection procedure, which consisted of introducing all predictors and progressively removing the less significant ones until Akaike’s information criteria (AIC, Sakamoto et al. 1986) was minimal. The coefficient of determination R 2 was used to express the percentage of variability in the response variable that was explained by each model. Predictors were classified according to their influence on the response variable (positive or negative) and ranked according to the increase in AIC produced after being individually removed from each model. The quality of each GLM was finally assessed by comparing predicted and observed values for each response variable with a Student’s t-test for paired samples, the Pearson correlation coefficient r and the coefficient of determination R 2 of a simple regression between predicted and observed values. Diagnostic plots of GLM including the distribution of model residuals and the normal scores of standardized residual deviance (Breslow 1996) were used to ensure that model residuals were normally distributed. Statistical validation of each model used the leave-one-out cross-validation (Davison and Hinkley 1997). This bootstrap resampling procedure estimates a mean prediction error for observations that are removed, one-by-one, from the calibration data set. Bootstrap resampling can provide an efficient statistical evaluation of species distribution models when collecting new data is too costly (Guisan and Thuiller 2005; Potts and Elith 2006). Spatial autocorrelation in model residuals was examined with Moran’s I-test.
Mapping GLM predictions of juvenile species richness and abundance around Larégnère Islet
Five successive steps were required for predicting and mapping S and N from an aerial photograph of Larégnère Islet nearby reefs and lagoon (Fig. 2):
-
(1)
The initial aerial photograph at 1.5 m spatial resolution was classified and ground-truthed to assign the pixels into six biotopes (coral patch reefs, macroalgal bed, dense seagrass bed, sparse seagrass bed and sand) resulting in a 1.2-km2 biotope layer around the islet. Since the scope of this paper is not biotope mapping, this work is not detailed here. Briefly, the final map benefited from several optical and acoustic imagery and more than 50 points of ground-truth were collected around Larégnère reefs and terraces following a method similar to that of Clua et al. (2006).
-
(2)
For each of these six mapped biotopes, between four and six 1 m × 1 m quadrats were randomly chosen to measure predictor variables at a 10 to 100-m spatial scale and to ensure the consistency of biotope labelling between map categories and fish habitat categories. In each quadrat, average depth was recorded; heterogeneity, rugosity and percent cover of sand and rubble, dead and live coral, macroalgae and seagrass were visually estimated.
-
(3)
Bathymetric profiles were obtained across the 1.2 km2 area by recording depth along ten 300 m long transects set perpendicular to the reef flat, approximately 80 m far from each other. Isobaths were then interpolated between transects. Given the very gentle and regular slope of the lagoonal terrace, this was sufficient spacing. The only significant topographical relief occurred at the edge of the reef flats.
-
(4)
Biotope characteristics and average depth were gridded and mapped at 35 m resolution from the biotope map initially at 1.5 m resolution. This resampling allowed creating cells with heterogeneous biotope characteristics different than those from the six “pure” biotopes, and also, decreased significantly the amount of computing time when running the GLMs. The GLMs were then applied for each cell of the new grid by considering the biotope characteristics of each cell as biotope model predictors, and by taking into account the mean monthly wind speed of the corresponding sampling period. Predictions of S and N were obtained in each cell of the six grids, one for each sampling period. Mean and standard deviations of the predicted values of S and N were then calculated.
-
(5)
Simulated predictive maps using the high resolution biotope maps were obtained by resampling the 35 m × 35 m prediction maps with Triangulated Irregular Network.
All statistical analyses were performed with R 2.2.1. software (Ihaka and Gentleman 1996). The mean predicted values were mapped on the aerial photograph using MapInfo Professional 7.5 software.
Results
A total of 1,752 juveniles belonging to 98 taxa of 19 families were observed (Appendix: see Randall (2005) for authorities and Nelson (1984) for family order). On each station, between 0 and 18 species (median = 6), and between 0 and 175 juveniles (median = 14) were recorded (Fig. 3). The most frequently observed and most abundant species were Scarus sp. (Scaridae), Lethrinus genivittatus (Lethrinidae), Siganus fuscescens (Siganidae), Pomacentrus moluccensis (Pomacentridae) and Thalassoma lunare (Labridae). Juvenile species richness and abundance were significantly correlated (P < 0.001, R 2 = 0.25). Moran’s I-test showed no significant spatial autocorrelation in S and N (P > 0.05). Box–Pierce and Ljung–Box tests showed no significant temporal autocorrelation in S and N at each station (P > 0.05). The distributions of S and N were overdispersed compared with a Poisson distribution (ratio variance:mean 3.8 and 16.3, respectively). Dean’s test confirmed the assumption of quasi-Poisson distribution in observations of S (P > 0.05) with an estimated dispersion parameter of 0.81. Conversely, LRT test highlighted an over dispersion in the distribution of N (P > 0.05). Thus, a negative binomial distribution was used for the GLM predicting N.
Principal component analysis and correlation matrix performed on environmental variables showed that habitat rugosity was the only variable significantly correlated with other habitat variables, including the percent cover of rubble, boulders, dead and live coral when all stations were considered. However this correlation was not significant when considering stations in biotopes of seagrass or macroalgal beds separately. Habitat rugosity was thus considered for further analyses.
The preliminary GLM models built independently from habitat variables at 0.1 to 10-km, at 10 to 100-m scale and temporal variables, showed that descriptions at 10–100 m explained 71 and 49% of the variability of S and N, respectively (Table 1). Habitat variables at 0.1 to 10-km scale and temporal variables only explained a maximum of 15% in the variability of S or N (Table 1). The best final models based on all spatial and temporal variables for S and N both contained a constant (μ) and ten environmental variables. These variables included eight variables at 10 to 100-m spatial scale, and only one at 0.1 to 10-km spatial scale and one temporal variable. Live coral cover was additionally required for N only.
Final equations are as follows:
The multiplicative coefficient estimated for each environmental variable (Table 2) discriminated variables with negative or positive influence on S or N (i.e., negative or positive coefficients, respectively). Depth was the most important variable and had a negative influence on the response variable in both GLM models (Table 2). Mid-shelf location had a negative effect on S and N whereas a null coefficient was associated to coastal location. Mean monthly wind speed was the only temporal variable retained and had a positive effect on the response variable in both GLM models.
The final GLM models explained 75 and 52% of variability in S and N, respectively (linear regression P < 0.001, r = 0.99 and 0.93 for S and N, respectively, Fig. 4). There was no significant difference between mean observed values and mean predicted values for both response variables (t-test, P > 0.05). The highest S and N were observed and predicted for stations in coral patch reefs around Canard Islet, and the lowest were observed and predicted for stations in seagrass beds around Larégnère Islet (Fig. 4). In seagrass beds, juveniles were occasionally abundant, but GLM models were not able to accurately predict such events.
Considering the full data set, the mean error was 1.5 species for S and 9.5 individuals for N. The leave-one-out cross-validation estimated a mean prediction error of 2.0 species for S and 12.2 individuals for N. For comparison, the standard deviations of observed S and N were 4.2 species and 28.1 individuals, respectively. Moran’s I-test showed no significant spatial autocorrelation in model residuals for both response variables (P > 0.05).
Predictive maps around Larégnère Islet showed that the highest S and N were expected on a narrow margin at the edge of the reef flat and the shallow lagoon terrace, covering less than 5% of the total mapped area (Fig. 5). In this narrow zone, depending on depth, GLM predicted between 30 and 90 juveniles of 5–15 species per 80 m2. In shallow seagrass beds adjacent to the reef flat, GLM models predicted between one and three species and between five and ten juveniles per 80 m2. Predicted S and N decreased with increasing distance to the islet and with depth. For a given range of depths, predicted S and N increased from sandy biotopes to seagrass beds and to macroalgal beds, the latter being present in deeper areas only. Temporal variation in mean monthly wind speed induced standard deviations of 0.33 and 0.51 in model predictions of S and N, respectively.
Discussion
The first important result of this study is that a combination of environmental variables recorded across multiple spatial scales explained up to 75 and 52% of the variability in juvenile species richness and abundance, respectively. These levels of predictability compare well with those obtained by models designed to explain adult fish species richness and abundance (Ault and Johnson 1998b; Holbrook et al. 2002; Chittaro 2004; Mellin et al. 2006). However, one notable difference between these models and those designed for adult fish is that a temporal factor (i.e., mean monthly wind speed) had to be included to account for the seasonal variability in juvenile fish assemblages. A comparable temporal variability has already been observed in assemblages of pre-settlement larvae in New Caledonia (Carassou and Ponton 2006) and in assemblages of juveniles at identical latitudes (Robertson and Kaufmann 1998). By contrast, the temporal variability of adult fish assemblages recently reported in New Caledonia was explained by inter-annual variations of environmental conditions due to hurricanes (Wantiez et al. 2006). Such catastrophic events have never been considered in any model designed for predicting adult fish species richness and abundance. This finding confirms that the temporal scale at which fish assemblages must be studied varies with the life stage considered. It also obviously underlines that the cost for collecting field data of juveniles over a large area is much higher than for adult fish, since field surveys of juveniles must be regularly repeated across seasons. This makes the development of spatially explicit models of juvenile fish even more promising and cost-effective than for adult fish.
The present study also emphasises the importance of considering environmental variables at different spatial scales, particularly the finest ones, for predicting the species richness and abundance of juvenile reef fish. In a similar way, Ault and Johnson (1998b) explained up to 82% of the variations in adult fish species richness at Heron Island (Great Barrier Reef) when adding fine-scale habitat characteristics to the type of reef in their multiple regressions. If considering environmental variables at different scales seems mandatory for obtaining robust models, identifying the most important scales is crucial to avoid inadequate decisions and management strategies (Guisan and Thuiller 2005). This study indicates that juvenile species richness and abundance in coral reef habitats are explained by spatial factors at 10 to 100-m spatial scale. This corroborates the conclusion of Chittaro (2004) that the 100 m2 spatial scale was the most appropriate to investigate fish-habitat associations. As a consequence, spatially explicit models of Indo-Pacific juvenile species richness and abundance require spatially dense information about habitat characteristics. Interestingly, although a positive, but non-linear, relationship existed between juvenile species richness and abundance, these two variables were not influenced by the same biotope characteristics. Live coral cover was required for predicting the abundance of juveniles but not their species richness. This is explained by the presence of large monospecific schools of juvenile damselfishes such as P. moluccensis or Chromis viridis that favour coral habitats (Ault and Johnson 1998a; Lecchini et al. 2006).
Cross-shelf location was the only broad-scale habitat variable retained in both models, likely because it correlates to the degree of exposure to tradewinds blowing from the southeast within the lagoon. Larégnère and Canard Reefs are indeed exposed differently to trade winds and currents, Canard being much more protected (Fig. 1). Long term wind speed variability and its relevance in both GLMs can be a sign revealing the role of broad-scale circulation in the lagoon. Broad-scale circulation is strongly affected by wind speed regimes (Douillet et al. 2001) and could control juvenile fish distribution possibly through the dispersal of larvae before they settle in their first essential habitats. The influence of this broad-scale, wind-driven circulation process on reef juvenile patterns warrants further investigation with more comprehensive surveys. The advective dispersal paths of pelagic larvae have been widely investigated according to the hydrodynamic regimes around numerous reefs (Codling et al. 2004; Brown et al. 2005; Francis et al. 2005). However, the success of these investigations has been tempered by difficulties in modeling the behavior of fish larvae, including active swimming. Evaluating how water circulation patterns may enhance the predictability of juvenile species richness and abundance should help sorting out the relative importance of passive dispersal along currents vs. active selection of suitable habitat. Since a 3D numerical circulation model and a biological model of water column production exist for New Caledonia south-west lagoon (Pinazo et al. 2004), it should be eventually possible to design surveys based on broad-scale water column and residence time regimes (Jouon et al. 2006).
In terrestrial ecosystems, species distribution models are cost-effective complements to surveys for determining priority habitats for conservation (Guisan and Zimmermann 2000; Binzenhöfer et al. 2005; Latimer et al. 2006). However, marine resource managers still often lack relevant ecological information on which to base their decisions (Pittman et al. 2007). Spatial predictions of juvenile fish species richness and abundance may thus provide useful conservation tools that contribute to a more informed process in marine protected area (MPA) selection and, in the present case, MPA management. Mapped model predictions around Larégnère Islet indicated that high juvenile species richness and abundance occurred on a narrow margin overlapping the islet reef flat and including coral patch reefs and adjacent seagrass beds. This area, representing less than 5% of total area covered by the different biotopes, is highly frequented by visitors and thus potentially exposed to mechanical damage. One possible way to enhance adult fish species richness and abundance would be to protect important juvenile habitats as indicated by model predictions. The number of holes and cavities (i.e., high rugosity) that characterize coral patch reefs generally provide shelter from juvenile predation, thus increasing juvenile species richness and abundance (Adams et al. 2004; Almany 2004). At the same time, predation of juvenile fish is particularly intense in coral patch reefs (Chittaro et al. 2005) and seagrass beds are generally considered as better nursery habitats (Beck et al. 2001; Cocheret de la Morinière et al. 2002; Nagelkerken et al. 2006). Moreover, seagrass beds may intercept more planktonic larvae compared to coral patches (Parrish 1989) as they generally cover larger areas. At the present stage of this study, it is difficult to conclude on the respective role of coral reefs vs. seagrass beds, and juxtaposition of both is often considered as the most beneficial for fish species richness and abundance (Pittman et al. 2004; Grober-Dunsmore et al. 2007).
Several caveats are necessary before using and generalising models like those developed in this study. Here, juvenile fish were sampled on stations spaced by a >100-m distance, which probably explains the absence of spatial autocorrelation. However, spatial autocorrelation is likely to occur when sampling at higher spatial resolution and further models should account for this effect. Another implicit limitation of this study predicting juvenile species richness and abundance is that species richness or abundance cannot reveal species-specific patterns, which may sometimes entirely drive ecosystem functioning (Bellwood et al. 2006). Therefore, designing integrated management strategies only based on fish species richness and abundance would be simplistic and dangerous (Van Horne 1983; Pittman et al. 2007). In principle though, similar modeling methodology can be applied to any reef community, provided that relevant environmental variables and scales are considered in the analysis. The present model should be considered as a first step setting the scene for more specific studies, relating habitat maps to the distribution of functional groups, or species, of juveniles and their species-specific biological attributes such as growth and survival.
References
Adams AJ, Locascio JV, Robbins BD (2004) Microhabitat use by a post-settlement stage estuarine fish: evidence from relative abundance and predation among habitats. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 299:17–33
Ahmad W, Neil DT (1994) An evaluation of landsat thematic mapper (TM) digital data for discriminating coral reef zonation: Heron Reef (GBR). Int J Remote Sens 15:2583–2597
Almany GR (2004) Does increased habitat complexity reduce predation and competition in coral reef fish assemblages? Oikos 106:275–284
Almany GR, Webster MS (2006) The predation gauntlet: early post-settlement mortality in reef fishes. Coral Reefs 25:19–22
Andréfouët S, Guzman H (2004) Coral reef distribution, status and geomorphology-biodiversity relationship in Kuna Yala (San Blas) archipelago, Caribbean Panama. Coral Reefs 24:31–42
Andréfouët S, Payri C (2001) Scaling-up carbon and carbonate metabolism in coral reefs using in situ and remote sensing data. Coral Reefs 19:259–269
Andréfouët S, Payri C, Che LM, Hochberg EJ, Atkinson MJ (2003a) Airborne hyperspectral detection of microbial mats pigmentation in Rangiroa atoll (French Polynesia). Limnol Oceanogr 48:426–430
Andréfouët S, Kramer P, Torres-Pulliza D, Joyce KE, Hochberg EJ, Garza-Perez R, Mumby PJ, Riegl B, Yamano H, White WH, Zubia M, Brock JC, Phinn SR, Naseer A, Hatcher BG, Muller-Karger FE (2003b) Multi-sites evaluation of IKONOS data for classification of tropical coral reef environments. Remote Sens Environ 88:128–143
Ault TR, Johnson CR (1998a) Relationship between habitat and recruitment of 3 species of damselfishes (Pomacentridae) at Heron Reef, Great Barrier Reef. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 223:145–166
Ault TR, Johnson CR (1998b) Spatially and temporally predictable fish communities on coral reefs. Ecol Monogr 68:25–50
Beck MW, Heck KL, Able K, Childers DL, Eggleston DB, Gillanders B, Halpern B, Hays C, Hoshino K, Minello T, Orth R, Sheridan P, Weinstein M (2001) The identification, conservation and management of estuarine and marine nurseries for fish and invertebrates. Bioscience 51:633–641
Bellwood DR, Hughes T, Hoey AS (2006) Sleeping functional group drives coral-reef recovery. Curr Biol 16:2434–2439
Binzenhöfer B, Schröder B, Strauss B, Biedermann R, Settele J (2005) Habitat models and habitat connectivity analysis for butterflies and burnet moths- the example of Zygaena carniolica and Coenonympha arcania. Biol Cons 126:247–259
Bohnsack JA, Bannerot SP (1986) A stationary visual census technique for quantitatively assessing community structure of coral reef fishes. NOAA Tech Rep NMFS 41:1–15
Breslow NE (1996) Generalized linear models: checking assumptions and strengthening conclusions. Journal of Statistics and Applications 8:23–41
Brock J, Wright C, Clayton T, Nayegandhi A (2004) Optical rugosity of coral reefs in Biscayne National Park, Florida. Coral Reefs 23:48–59
Brown CA, Jackson GA, Holt SA, Holt GJ (2005) Spatial and temporal patterns in modeled particle transport to estuarine habitat with comparisons to larval fish settlement patterns. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 64:33–46
Carassou L, Ponton D (2006) Spatio-temporal structure of pelagic larval and juvenile fish assemblages in coastal areas of New Caledonia, southwest Pacific. Mar Biol 150:697–711
Caselle JE (1999) Early post-settlement mortality in a coral reef fish and its effects on local population size. Ecol Monogr 69:177–194
Chittaro PM (2004) Fish-habitat associations across multiple spatial scales. Coral Reefs 23:235–244
Chittaro PM, Usseglio P, Sale PF (2005) Variation in fish density, assemblage composition and relative rates of predation among mangrove, seagrass and coral reef habitats. Environ Biol Fish 72:1–13
Cliff AD, Ord JK (1981) Spatial processes: models and applications. Pion, London
Clua E, Legendre P, Vigliola L, Magron F, Kulbicki M, Sarramegna S, Labrosse P, Galzin R (2006) Medium scale approach for improved assessment of coral reef fish habitat. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 333:219–230
Cocheret de la Morinière E, Pollux BJA, Nagelkerken I, van der Velde G (2002) Post-settlement life cycle migration patterns and habitat preference of coral reef fish that use seagrass and mangrove habitats as nurseries. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 55:309–321
Codling EA, Hill NA, Pitchford JW, Simpson SD (2004) Random walk models for the movement and recruitment of reef fish larvae. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 279:215–224
Courboulès J, Manière R (1992) Apport de la télédétection à l’étude de la relation entre l’hydrodynamisme de surface et les récifs coralliens. Int J Remote Sens 13:1911–1923
Davison AC, Hinkley DV (1997) Bootstrap methods and their application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Dean CB (1992) Testing for overdispersion in Poisson and binomial regression models. J Am Stat Assoc 87:451–457
Depczynski M, Bellwood DR (2004) Microhabitat utilisation patterns in cryptobenthic coral reef fish communities. Mar Biol 145:455–463
Doherty PJ (1991) Spatial and temporal patterns in recruitment. In: Sale PF (ed) The ecology of fishes on coral reefs. Academic, London, pp 261–293
Doherty PJ (2002) Variable replenishment and the dynamics of reef fish populations. In: Sale PF (ed) Coral reef fishes—dynamics and diversity in a complex ecosystem. Academic, London, pp 327–355
Doherty PJ, Dufour V, Galzin R, Hixon MA, Meekan MG, Planes S (2004) High mortality during settlement is a population bottleneck for a tropical surgeonfish. Ecology 85:2422–2428
Dorenbosch M, Grol MGG, Christianen MJA, Nagelkerken I, van der Velde G (2005) Indo-Pacific seagrass beds and mangroves contribute to fish density and diversity on adjacent coral reefs. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 302:63–76
Douillet P, Ouillon S, Cordier E (2001) A numerical model for fine suspended sediment transport in the southwest lagoon of New Caledonia. Coral Reefs 20:361–372
Findlay AM, Allen LG (2002) Temporal patterns of settlement in the temperate reef fish Paralabrax clathratus. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 238:237–248
Francis MP, Morrison MA, Leathwick J, Walsh C, Middleton C (2005) Predictive models of small fish presence and abundance in northern New Zealand harbours. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 64:419–435
Gilbert A, Andréfouët S, Yan L, Remoissenet G (2006) The giant clam Tridacna maxima communities of three French Polynesia Islands: comparison of their population sizes and structures at early stages of their exploitation. ICES J Mar Sci 36:1–17
Gilliers C, Le Pape O, Désaunay Y, Morin J, Guérault D, Amara R (2006) Are growth and density quantitative indicators of essential fish habitat quality? An application to the common sole Solea solea nursery grounds. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 69:96–106
Grober-Dunsmore R, Frazer TK, Lindberg WJ, Beets J (2007) Reef fish and habitat relationships in a Caribbean landscape: the importance of reef context. Coral Reefs 26:201–216
Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8:993–1009
Guisan A, Zimmermann NE (2000) Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol Model 135:147–186
Harborne AP, Mumby PJ, Zychaluk K, Hedley J, Blackwell P (2006) Modeling the beta diversity of coral reefs. Ecology 87:2871–2881
Hixon MA, Beets JP (1993) Predation, prey refuges, and the structure of coral-reef fish assemblages. Ecol Monogr 63:77–101
Holbrook SJ, Brooks AJ, Schmitt RJ (2002) Predictability of fish assemblages on coral patch reefs. Mar Freshw Res 53:181–188
Ihaka R, Gentleman R (1996) R: a language for data analysis and graphics. J Comput Graph Stat 5:299–314
Jouon A, Douillet P, Ouillon S, Fraunie P (2006) Calculations of hydrodynamic time parameters in a semi-opened coastal zone using a 3D hydrodynamic model. Cont Shelf Res 26:1395–1415
Latimer A, Wu S, Gelfand AE, Silander JA (2006) Building statistical models to analyze species distribution. Ecol Appl 16:33–50
Lecchini D, Nakamura Y, Grignon J, Tsuchiya M (2006) Evidence of density-independant mortality in a settling coral reef damselfish, Chromis viridis. Ichthyol Res 53:298–300
Ljung GM, Box GEP (1978) On a measure of lack of fit in time series models. Biometrika 65:553–564
Maritorena S (1996) Remote sensing of the water attenuation in coral reefs: a case study in French Polynesia. Int J Remote Sens 17:155–166
McClanahan TR, Polunin NVC, Done TJ (2002) Ecological states and the resilience of coral reefs. Conserv Ecol 6:2–18
Mellin C, Ferraris J, Galzin R, Kulbicki M, Ponton D (2006) Diversity of coral reef fish assemblages: modelling of the species richness spectra from multi-scale environmental variables in the Tuamotu Archipelago (French Polynesia). Ecol Model 198:409–425
Miller RL, Castillo CED, McKee BA (2005) Remote sensing of coastal aquatic environments. Kluwer Academics Publishers, Dordrecht
Mumby PJ, Hedley JD, Chisholm JRM, Clark CD, Ripley H, Jaubert J (2004) The cover of living and dead corals from airborne remote sensing. Coral Reefs 23:171–183
Myers N, Mittermeier R, Mittermeier CG, daFonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858
Nagelkerken I, van der Velde G, Verberk WCEP, Dorenbosch M (2006) Segregation along multiple resource axes in a tropical seagrass fish community. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 308:79–89
Nelson JS (1984) Fishes of the world. Wiley, New York
Parrish JD (1989) Fish communities of interacting shallow-water habitats in tropical oceanic regions. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 58:143–160
Pinazo C, Bujan S, Douillet P, Fichez R, Grenz C, Maurin A (2004) Impact of wind and freshwater inputs on phytoplankton biomass in the coral reef lagoon of New Caledonia during the summer cyclonic period: a coupled three-dimensional biogeochemical modeling approach. Coral Reefs 23:281–296
Pittman SJ, McAlpine CA, Pittman KM (2004) Linking fish and prawns to their environment: a hierarchical landscape approach. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 283:233–254
Pittman SJ, Christensen JD, Caldow C, Menza C, Monaco ME (2007) Predictive mapping of fish species richness across shallow-water seascapes in the Caribbean. Ecol Model 204:9–21
Potts JM, Elith J (2006) Comparing species abundance models. Ecol Model 199:153–163
Randall JE (2005) Reef and shore fishes of the South Pacific- New Caledonia to Tahiti and the Pitcairns Islands. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu
Roberts CM, McClean CJ, Veron JEN, Hawkins JP, Allen GR, McAllister DE, Mittermeier CG, Scheler FW, Spalding M, Wells F, Vynne C, Werner TB (2002) Marine biodiversity hotspots and conservation priorities for tropical reefs. Science 295:1280–1284
Robertson DR, Kaufmann KW (1998) Assessing early recruitment dynamics and its demographic consequences among tropical reef fishes: accommodating variation in recruitment seasonality and longevity. Aust J Ecol 23:226–233
Sakamoto Y, Ishiguro M, Kitagawa G (1986) Akaike information criteria statistics. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht
Sale PF, Danilowicz BS, Doherty PJ, Williams DM (2005) The relation of microhabitat to variation in recruitment of young-of-year coral reef fishes. Bull Mar Sci 76:123–142
Scharf FS, Manderson JP, Fabrizio MC (2006) The effects of seafloor habitat complexity on survival of juvenile fishes: species-specific interactions with structural refuge. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 335:167–176
Sponaugle S, Lee T, Kourafalou V, Pinkard D (2005) Florida current frontal eddies and the settlement of coral reef fishes. Limnol Oceanogr 50:1033–1048
Sponaugle S, Grorud-Colvert K, Pinkard D (2006) Temperature-mediated variation in early life history traits and recruitment success of the coral reef fish Thalassoma bifasciatum in the Florida Keys. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 308:1–15
Srinivasan M (2003) Depth distributions of coral reef fishes: the influence of micro-habitat structure, settlement, and post-settlement processes. Oecologia 137:76–84
Van Horne B (1983) Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. J Wildl Manage 47:893–901
Wantiez L, Chateau O, Le Mouellic S (2006) Initial and mid-term impacts of cyclone Erica on coral reef fish communities and habitat in the south lagoon Marine Park of New Caledonia. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 86:1229–1236
Williams DM (1982) Patterns in the distribution of fish communities across the central Great Barrier Reef. Coral Reefs 1:35–42
Wilson SK, Graham NAJ, Pratchett MS, Jones GP, Polunin NVC (2006) Multiple disturbances and the global degradation of coral reefs: are reef fishes at risk or resilient? Global Change Biol 12:2220–2234
Acknowledgments
This project was funded by grants from IRD, from Ministère de l’Outre-Mer and from the Programme d’Evaluation des Ressources Marines de la Zone Economique Exclusive de Nouvelle-Calédonie (ZoNéCo). We are very grateful to Gérard Mou-Tham for his invaluable field assistance. Thanks to Mr Andrew Harris for his help in editing the text. We also wish to thank Sean Connolly for his advice on the methods used to assess spatial and temporal autocorrelation and two anonymous reviewers for their comments and detailed suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Ecology Editor P.J. Mumby.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mellin, C., Andréfouët, S. & Ponton, D. Spatial predictability of juvenile fish species richness and abundance in a coral reef environment. Coral Reefs 26, 895–907 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-007-0281-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-007-0281-3