Next Article in Journal
Characterization of Five New Earthworm Mitogenomes (Oligochaeta: Lumbricidae): Mitochondrial Phylogeny of Lumbricidae
Previous Article in Journal
A Forest Pool as a Habitat Island for Mites in a Limestone Forest in Southern Norway
Previous Article in Special Issue
Spatial Patterns of Coral Community Structure in the Toliara Region of Southwest Madagascar and Implications for Conservation and Management
 
 
diversity-logo
Article Menu

Article Menu

Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluation of the Use of Autonomous Reef Monitoring Structures (ARMS) for Describing the Species Diversity of Two Coral Reefs in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico

by Lilian A. Palomino-Alvarez 1,2, Xochitl G. Vital 2,3, Raúl E. Castillo-Cupul 4, Nancy Y. Suárez-Mozo 1,2, Diana Ugalde 1,2, Gabriel Cervantes-Campero 2, María R. Muciño-Reyes 2,3, Pedro Homá-Canché 4, Yoalli Quetzalli Hernández-Díaz 2, Rosa Sotelo-Casas 2, Maryjose García-González 1,2, Yhutsin A. Avedaño-Peláez 5, Alejandro Hernández-González 1,2, Carlos E. Paz-Ríos 6, Jose M. Lizaola-Guillermo 7, Magdalena García-Venegas 7, Yasmin Dávila-Jiménez 2, Deneb Ortigosa 8, Gema Hidalgo 9,10, José L. Tello-Musi 11, Mariana Rivera-Higueras 12, Rigoberto Moreno Mendoza 13, Mary K. Wicksten 14, Rosana M. Rocha 15, Leandro Vieira 16, María Berenit Mendoza-Garfias 17, Nuno Simões 2,9,18 and Edlin J. Guerra-Castro 9,19,*add Show full author list remove Hide full author list
1
Posgrado en Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Av. Ciudad Universitaria 3000, Coyoacán, Ciudad de México 04510, Mexico
2
Unidad Multidisciplinaria de Docencia e Investigación Sisal (UMDI-Sisal), Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (FC, UNAM), Sisal 97356, Mexico
3
Posgrado en Ciencias Biológicas, Unidad de Posgrado, Edificio D, 1° Piso, Circuito de Posgrados, Ciudad Universitaria, Ciudad de México 04510, Mexico
4
KALANBIO A. C., Research for Conservation. Calle 27 #76 int.4, Mérida 97125, Mexico
5
Laboratorio de Sistemática de Invertebrados Marinos, Universidad del Mar, Campus Puerto Ángel, Oaxaca 70902, Mexico
6
Instituto de Ecología, Pesquerías y Oceanografía del Golfo de México, Campus VI, Universidad Autónoma de Campeche (EPOMEX-UAC), Campeche 24029, Mexico
7
Departamento de Biología Marina, Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Km. 15.5 Carretera a Xmatkuil, Apartado Postal 116, Mérida 97315, Mexico
8
Colección Nacional de Moluscos, Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad Universitaria, Apartado Postal 70-153, Ciudad de México 04510, Mexico
9
Laboratorio Nacional de Resiliencia Costera (LANRESC), Laboratorios Nacionales, CONACYT, Sisal 97356, Mexico
10
Centro del Cambio Global y la Sustentabilidad A.C., Villahermosa 86080, Mexico
11
Laboratorio de Zoología UNAM, FES Iztacala, Avenida de los Barrios No. 1, Colonia Los Reyes Ixtacala, Tlalnepantla 54090, Mexico
12
Marine Science Institute, The University of Texas, 750 Channel View Drive, Port Aransas, TX 78373, USA
13
Programa de Doctorado en Ciencias con Mención en Biodiversidad y Biorecursos, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Alonso de Ribera, Concepción 2850, Chile
14
Department of Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA
15
Zoology Department, Universidade Federal do Paraná, UFPR, CP 19020, Curitiba 81531-980, Brazil
16
Centro de Biociências, Laboratório de Estudos de Bryozoa (LAEBry), Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife 50670-901, Brazil
17
Laboratorio de Microscopía y Fotografía de la Biodiversidad 1 LaNaBio, IBUNAM, Ciudad de México 04510, Mexico
18
International Chair for Coastal and Marine Studies, Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Texas A and M University-Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, TX 78412, USA
19
Departamento de Sistemas y Procesos Naturales, Escuela Nacional de Estudios Superiores Unidad Mérida, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mérida 97357, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2021, 13(11), 579; https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110579
Submission received: 8 October 2021 / Revised: 29 October 2021 / Accepted: 5 November 2021 / Published: 12 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Coral Reef Ecology and Biodiversity)

Abstract

:
Autonomous reef monitoring structures (ARMS) have been proposed as a standardized, passive, nondestructive sampling tool. This study assessed the ability of ARMS to capture the cryptic species diversity of two coral reefs by recording species richness and taxonomic representativeness using conventional taxonomy. The capacity of ARMS, as artificial substrates, to favor the establishment of nonindigenous species over native species was also evaluated. The use of ARMS allowed the detection of 370 species morphotypes from nine phyla, yielding 13 new records of geographic distribution expansion, one exotic species for the Gulf of México and the Caribbean Sea, and six newly described species. It was also possible to make spatial comparisons of species richness between both reefs. ARMS captured cryptic diversity exceptionally well, with the exception of echinoderms. Furthermore, these artificial structures did not hinder the colonization ability of native species; in fact, the colonization patterns on the structures themselves represented the spatial differences in the structure of benthic assemblages. This study represents the first effort to make a conventional taxonomic description of the cryptic fauna of the Yucatan Peninsula using ARMS. It is recommended to assess coral reef species diversity, but more taxonomists specialized in marine invertebrates are needed.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Coral reef cavities represent up to 75% of the total volume of a reef [1]. The organisms that inhabit these cavities represent, in turn, a significant proportion of the reef biodiversity [2], similar to or greater than that of the exposed area of the reef [3]. These cryptic fauna of the reefs, mainly invertebrates [4,5], play ecologically important roles as predators [4,5], detritivores [6], and removers of suspended organic matter [7]. However, most efforts to describe and monitor the diversity of fauna in coral reefs have focused primarily on conspicuous organisms found on the surface, such as macroalgae, reef-building corals, massive sponges, fish, and megabenthos. These organisms represent only a fraction of the known biomass and diversity of coral reefs [8], and, consequently, the total biodiversity of coral reefs tend to be underestimated [2].
The current knowledge of the diversity of cryptic organisms inhabiting coral reefs has been obtained through procedures and techniques that, for the most part, involve damage to the reef. Some of the methods that have been used include the application of electric current, dredging, chemical dumping [9], and even the intentional fracture of the reef substrate [10]. Furthermore, the diversity estimates thus obtained are difficult to compare quantitatively due to the lack of common and standardized sampling procedures [11]. This makes it very difficult to detect diversity patterns, and even harder to propose models and test hypotheses of ecological theories on the role of the diversity of reef cryptic fauna and the potential link with the state of reef health [2].
Autonomous reef monitoring structures (ARMS) have been proposed as a standardized, passive, nondestructive sampling tool that can help overcome the known limitations in the description of reef cryptic fauna [12]. More than 2000 ARMS have been deployed around the world, many of these through international cooperation networks, and others through local projects [13]. However, despite the advantages of ARMS as a standardized sampling tool, their effectiveness in representing such biological diversity of cryptic fauna has not been quantitatively evaluated. It is widely recognized that the artificial habitats units used in ecological experiments tend to overestimate the presence and abundance of nonindigenous species [14,15,16]. In general, the diversity of species found on hard substrates (such as coral and rocky reefs) is strongly influenced by physical, chemical, and microbiological properties of the surface that change with time, affecting the ecological succession [17,18], which is difficult to imitate in experimental artificial substrates. This is particularly important when dealing with smooth substrates, such as the material with which ARMS are built (PVC). Despite the three-dimensional complexity of the ARMS (with open and closed cavities that can serve as habitats for different species), the potential negative effect that the nature of the material could have on the recruitment, establishment, and dominance of nonnative species and/or inhibiting the establishment of native species, could imply that the biological diversity found on these structures cannot be considered representative of the cryptic diversity of coral reefs.
Measuring the effectiveness of artificial substrates in mimicking the characteristics of natural substrates usually requires complex experiments, involving more than two treatments, reference sites, and a large number of experimental replicates [14,15]. Evaluating the efficiency of ARMS as a substitute for natural substrates would require experiments with coral rocks. However, controlling the volume, area, and complexity between both treatments would involve challenges (of design, extraction of natural material, processing, assembly, and disposal) that may compromise the comparison. Alternatively, the suitability and biological representativeness of the organisms captured with ARMS could be evaluated by estimating the taxonomic distinctness and testing for deviations from expectations considering the species already registered in the region [19].
In general, the existing protocols for processing biological samples collected with ARMS focus on the use of molecular techniques such as DNA barcoding and metabarcoding to identify and quantify organisms [2,8,20,21,22]. However, the effectiveness of molecular analysis depends on the records available in databases and libraries of barcode sequences of known species [21], representing another analytical obstacle, because the taxonomic operational units (OTUs) vary according to the resolution of the genes analyzed [9]. Indeed, it is estimated that around 50% of the OTUs obtained with ARMS cannot be identified due to the lack of coincidences with database sequences, and only a small fraction (<12%) of these OTUs reach a high coincidence threshold [2,22]. As an alternative, organisms can be processed using classic taxonomy. Techniques based on the observation of morphoanatomical characters have established a sound basis for the quantification, evaluation, and conservation of species diversity [23]. Most importantly, the available taxonomic records are more accessible and comparable than the molecular ones, which would make it easier to assess the suitability of ARMS as a sampling method. However, due to the large number of organisms collected with ARMS, processing and identification would be limited without the collaboration of several specialists and many hours of laboratory work.
Our research focused on assessing the ability of ARMS to capture the cryptic biodiversity of two coral reefs from two reef systems with different environmental conditions. To determine this, we analyzed the species richness, taxonomic representativeness, and relative abundance of sessile benthic groups. The first null hypothesis was that average taxonomic distinctness index of the assemblages captured by ARMS reflects the taxonomic diversity of the known species in each region, using Ocean Biodiversity Information System (OBIS) and Felder and Camp (2009) [24] as a baseline. Rejecting this hypothesis suggests that the diversity of taxonomic categories collected with ARMS does not represent what was expected for the region. The second null hypothesis was that local conditions do not affect the structure of sessile biota, which depends on ARMS properties. Rejecting this hypothesis suggests that regardless of the artificial and smooth surface of ARMS, the availability of larvae and recruits, along with local environmental conditions, drive the structures of sessile biota. The present study represents the first effort to describe the cryptic fauna of the Yucatan Peninsula through autonomous reef monitoring structures (ARMS) using conventional taxonomy.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The Yucatan Peninsula is located in the southeast of Mexico, bordered on the east by the Caribbean Sea and on the north and west by the Gulf of Mexico [25]. There are two main reef systems around the Yucatan Peninsula. An important part of the Mesoamerican Reef System extends along the Caribbean coast, where up to 153 reef areas have been recorded; these are mainly barrier and fringing reefs [26,27]. The second reef system is found in the southeast of the Gulf of Mexico (Campeche and Yucatan Bank) and contains patch reefs and submerged banks away from the coast (up to 200 km) [28], surrounded by Caribbean waters from the Yucatan Channel current, with no influence of continental runoff [29].

2.2. Sampling

A total of eight ARMS were deployed: four in a shallow reef in the Campeche Bank (Bajo de 10, 21°20′53.82″ N, 90°08′45.48″ W) at seven meters depth, and four ARMS in a shallow reef of the Mesoamerican Reef System (Mahahual, 18°37′24″ N, 87°43′32″ W) at four meters depth (Figure 1). All ARMS were placed 3–5 m apart and fixed over carbonate substrates. The ARMS were deployed in February 2018 (20 and 27, respectively), left undisturbed for one year, and recovered using the standard method for ARMS [30]. The collected organisms were grouped by phylum, labeled, and preserved for identification by conventional taxonomy according to the existing literature. Detailed procedures are available in Palomino-Alvarez et al. [31].

2.3. Statistical Analyses

The diversity of faunal assemblages was evaluated by estimating the average taxonomic distinctness index (Δ+) [19]. This measure has the advantage of being independent of sampling effort, a desirable feature in studies with a low sample size (four ARMS per site) [33]. Any value of Δ+ can be assumed to be representative if falls within the expected range of Δ+ values for each region (Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea) according to the richness observed. On the other hand, any deviation below the lower limit will indicate overrepresentation of some taxonomic groups, typical of assemblages of opportunistic organisms, such as nonindigenous species. The Δ+ were tested using the taxonomic distinctness test—TAXDTEST [34]. The expectations were constructed using 999 simulated sublists for each richness value. The Δ+ value was estimated for each region, and the 5% of extreme values in both tails of the distribution served as a reference to rule out the null hypothesis of taxonomic representativeness for the recorded value of Δ+. The tests were applied independently for each phylum, as recommended by Warwick and Somerfield [35], and the regional species lists (Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea) were used as taxonomic aggregation matrices. These lists were based on information obtained from specialized literature of each phylum [24] and from the Ocean Biodiversity Information System (OBIS) [36], using Caribbean Sea area (ID 34287) and Gulf of Mexico area (ID 34287) as geographic filters. These subsets of data were selected using filters to constrain the expectations of diversity for the cryptic fauna. The filters used were as follows: depth range from 0 to 50 m, coral reef habitat, exclusion of synonyms, taxonomic resolution to the species level, and only return records of species with preserved specimens and material samples held in collections with a catalog number and available for reference. The nomenclature and hierarchical classification used for each phylum were species, genus, family, superfamily, suborder, order, class, and subphylum of each phylum, according to the World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) [37]. To avoid misleading statistical results (i.e., false representativeness), the taxonomic distinctness tests were performed for taxonomic groups that have been historically evaluated by several authors in these regions: these are Annelida, Arthropoda, Echinodermata, and Mollusca. The taxonomic lists used for these analyses are provided in Palomino-Alvarez et al. [38], and the data matrix of species from ARMS identified in each reef is provided in Palomino-Alvarez et al. [39].
To test the null hypothesis that local conditions do not affect the structure of sessile taxa on ARMS, both sides of each plate were photographed, and the difference in the relative abundance of the organisms was analyzed using taxonomic resolution at the Phylum category. Abundance was estimated as relative coverage using the point intersection method (400 points per plate on each side) [40], with the CPCe v4.1 software (Coral Point Count with Excel extension v4.1) [41]. Relative abundance counts were organized in an N × P matrix, with N being the total number of samples and P being the total number of phyla. The dataset with abundance per phylum and side-plate is provided in Palomino-Alvarez et al. [42]. The Bray–Curtis dissimilarity coefficient between each pair of plate sides was estimated, generating a triangular matrix of dissimilarities that was used for statistical analysis and sorting. The differences in relative abundance of phylum between reefs and ARMS within each reefs were analyzed using a two-way nested ANOSIM with 9999 permutations [43], with the plates representing the replicates of each ARMS and the ARMS nested within each reef. The spatial patterns of dissimilarities were represented using a nonmetric multidimensional scale (nMDS). All statistical analyses were performed using PRIMER v7 software [44].

3. Results

3.1. Diversity of the Cryptofauna Assemblage

370 species were identified in nine phyla (Figure 2). The taxonomic resolution at which these morphotypes were identified is as follows: 244 species, 95 genera, 23 families, and eight classes. The highest richness was recorded in Bajo de 10 reef (Figure 2). The phyla with the highest number of species in both reefs were Mollusca, Arthropoda (Amphipoda, Decapoda, Pantopoda, and Stomatopoda), and Annelida (Polychaeta), followed by Chordata (Ascidiacea), Echinodermata, Porifera, and Platyhelminthes. The phyla Bryozoa and Cnidaria (Hydrozoa) were not recorded in Mahahual reef (Figure 2). Of the species identified, 13 are new records: 11 for shallow reefs of Campeche and Yucatan Bank (Gulf of Mexico), and four in the Mesoamerican Reef System (Caribbean Sea). The genus Geminella (Hydrozoa) was recorded for the first time, as well as the nonindigenous species Sillys bella (Polychaeta: Annelida) (Table 1), and six possible new species: Leucothoe sp. (Arthropoda: Amphipoda), Plesiocleidochasma sp. (Bryozoa), Botrylloides sp. 1, Botrylloides sp. 2, Botrylloides sp. 3, and Botryllus sp. 1 (Chordata: Ascidiacea). The taxonomic list is available in Palomino-Alvarez et al. [45], and the dataset, in Darwin Core format, can also be found in the Caribbean OBIS Node [46].

3.2. Taxonomic Distinctness

The average taxonomic distinctness index estimated in ARMS per reef for Annelida (Bajo de 10 reef: S = 29, Δ+ = 85.22, p = 0.22; Mahahual reef: S = 18, Δ+ = 86.27, p = 0.97) and Mollusca (Bajo de 10 reef: S = 35, Δ+ = 84.3, p = 0.52; Mahahual reef: S = 50, Δ+ = 86.35, p = 0.89%) were within the expected frequency distribution regarding species registered in OBIS and by Felder and Camp [24]. In the phylum Arthropoda, the average taxonomic distinctness in Bajo de 10 reef was above the average estimated from the expected frequency distribution (S = 42, Δ+ = 70.81, p = 0.002). Similarly, the frequency of phylum Echinodermata in Mahahual reef (S = 5, Δ+ = 51.66, p = 0.0012) was below the expected range (Figure 3).

3.3. Abundance of Sessile Biota

The sessile organisms belonged in six phyla: Chordata (Ascidiacea), Porifera, Bryozoa, Cnidaria (Hydrozoa), Annelida (Polychaeta), and Chlorophyta. Chlorophyta, Chordata, and Bryozoa were the most dominant phyla in Bajo de 10 reef, accounting for more than 80% of the abundance on the plates. In Mahahual reef, Chlorophyta, Chordata, and Annelida were the most dominant phyla on the plates. Bryozoa and Hydrozoa were absent in Mahahual Reef (Figure 4). There is statistically significant evidence to reject the null hypothesis that local ecological conditions do not affect the structure of sessile species on ARMS (two-way nested ANOSIM, Rreef = 0.927, p = 0.029). The phyla Bryozoa, Chordata, and Chlorophyta accounted for most (75%) of the differences between reefs (47.5% Bray–Curtis similarity). In addition, the dissimilarity between ARMS within the same reef was very low, but statistically significant (two-way nested ANOSIM, RARMS(reefs) = 0.12, p = 0.01).

4. Discussion

The use of ARMS facilitated a significant contribution to the knowledge of the cryptic diversity of two reefs of the Yucatan Peninsula. With only eight of these structures, 370 species morphotypes were simultaneously recorded, corresponding to nine phyla whichare difficult to collect in normal sampling, owing to their cryptic nature. This number represents 16% of the species listed in OBIS for those nine phyla for the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea region [36]. The effectiveness of ARMS in representing the biological diversity of the region was not consistent for all phyla and, contrary to predictions regarding the nature of the material (PVC), ARMS harbored mainly native species. It can be assumed that the ability of the identified species to colonize ARMS depended mainly on local processes rather than on the artificial and smooth nature of the surface of the ARMS. Nevertheless, any potential effect of these structures in the ecological succession must be experimentally evaluated. Despite this, the results show that the use of ARMS as a standardized method would allow for comparisons of species richness between reefs in environmentally different regions.
For example, in Veracruz (also in the Gulf of Mexico), García [72] used seven ARMS for up to eight months and detected around 100 species morphotypes belonging to six phyla (Mollusca, Porifera, Annelida, Arthropoda, and Echinodermata). A preliminary comparison revealed that the taxa recorded in Bajo de 10 and Mahahual reefs differ by 95% from the taxa recorded in Veracruz, but also that the richness recorded in the present study was substantially greater than that recorded by García [72]. Only three species were shared with Bajo de 10 and Mahahual reefs: an arthropod (Mithraculus forceps) and two mollusks (Arca imbricata and Columbella mercatoria). These differences could be attributed to the influence of local ecological processes rather than to the use of different sampling methods, which would favor the hypotheses that suggest that ecological processes are the key to understanding the diversity of cryptic reef organisms even across different regions.
In general, the species of Annelida and Mollusca that were collected by ARMS did not show a reduction in the expected taxonomic distinctness for each region. This result suggests that the use of ARMS can help to detect the diversity of these phyla in the reefs under study. The same can be inferred for arthropods, which were one of the phyla with the highest number of species in the ARMS, despite showing a greater taxonomic distinctness than expected for the richness recorded. Although statistically the average taxonomic distinctness index (Δ+) of arthropods exceeded 2.5% of the maximum expected values under a true null hypothesis, this value indicates that all the taxonomic branches of this phylum known to be present in the region were recorded by the ARMS. This, in fact, is a very good result. However, the species of the phylum Echinodermata that were collected with ARMS in the Mahahual reef showed a reduction in the expected taxonomic distinctness in both regions. As this method is limited fauna from hard substrate, it should be complemented with another type of sampling technique to record the diversity of echinoderms with cryptic habits [73], and other vagile organisms.
The use of conventional taxonomic methods to identify the species collected with ARMS required extensive collaborative work, which highlighted the need to train new specialists in such diverse groups as crustaceans, mollusks, bryozoans, ascidians, and sponges. This collaborative work made it possible to record, for the first time in the Gulf of Mexico, nine species that had been previously recorded only in adjacent ecoregions such as the Western Caribbean, Greater Antilles, and Bahamian [74]. These nine species include three polychaetes (T. rudolphi, R. cf. bahamensis, and P. perkinsi), one pycnogonid (A. spinifera), one bryozoan (P. bimucronata), two hydrozoans (P. obliqua and G. ceramensis), and two flatworms (C. variegatus and P. cata). Two species of amphipods that had been previously recorded only in the Gulf of Mexico (A. holmesi and C. tinkerensis) were recorded in the Caribbean. In addition, two species were recorded for the first time in both regions: C. caetes, described in Brazil, and S. bella. Sillys bella was originally recorded in the Pacific [75] and has been classified as an invasive species of the Mediterranean Sea [52,53]. Above all, collaborative work allowed the identification of 91% of the found morphospecies at a fine taxonomic resolution (67% at the species level and 24% at the genus level). As with molecular techniques [20,22,76,77,78], the most diverse groups according to conventional taxonomic techniques were Arthropoda and Mollusca [20,76,77]. Unfortunately, the possibility of having an available team of taxonomists as diverse as the one orchestrated for this study is low. Hence, considering that it is widely recognized that the shortage of taxonomists is critical for addressing the current biodiversity crisis [79], and molecular technology is still imprecise for cryptic organism in reefs [2,22], more people need to be trained in reef invertebrate taxonomy, but simultaneously, larger molecular databases necessary for effective metabarcoding should be built.
Aside from the patterns related to taxonomic distinctness, there were differences in abundance and composition of sessile biota between sites. Species typically recognized as members of fouling assemblages on artificial substrates were not registered in either of the sites. These results imply that the artificial nature of ARMS does not favor colonization by nonindigenous species over local species, as is typical of marine fouling on hard artificial substrate. In addition, with these results, we can infer that ARMS are a useful tool to detect changes in the structure of sessile communities. For example, high macroalgal coverage was detected in both reefs, but the coverage was substantially higher in Mahahual. This phenomenon is consistent with what has been observed in recent decades in the coral reefs of the western Caribbean [80], due to changes in ecological conditions and a decrease in the herbivore population [81]. The use of ARMS yields effective results in the detection and comparison of changes in the cryptic reef biota. Using ARMS as a long-term diversity assessment tool to complement other survey methods (e.g., Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment: AGRRA) will improve our understanding of the dynamics, conservation, and degradation of species diversity on reefs.

5. Conclusions

This study represents the first effort to describe the cryptic fauna of the Yucatan Peninsula through autonomous reef monitoring structures (ARMS) using conventional taxonomy. ARMS showed a great capacity for recording the diversity of native cryptic organisms in two coral reefs of the Yucatan Peninsula during a year. They also enhanced colonization by local species and were able to capture changes in the structure of sessile communities. However, they were not suitable for the study of the diversity of the echinoderm assemblage. The use of ARMS allows preliminary geographic comparisons of species diversity with other studies without causing confusion due to differences in sampling methods. Finally, the training of new specialists on highly diverse taxa (e.g., arthropods, mollusks, bryozoans, ascidians, annelids, and sponges) is necessary in order to effectively estimate reef biodiversity.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.A.P.-A., N.S., and E.J.G.-C.; Methodology, L.A.P.-A.; Software, L.A.P.-A. and E.J.G.-C.; Validation, N.S. and E.J.G.-C.; Formal analysis, L.A.P.-A. and E.J.G.-C.; Investigation, L.A.P.-A., X.G.V., R.E.C.-C., N.Y.S.-M., D.U., G.C.-C., M.R.M.-R., P.H.-C., R.S.-C., M.G.-G., A.H.-G., G.H., N.S., and E.J.G.-C.; Resources, N.S. and E.J.G.-C.; Species identification and validation, L.A.P.-A., X.G.V., R.E.C.-C., N.Y.S.-M., D.U., G.C.-C., M.R.M.-R., P.H.-C., Y.Q.H.-D., R.S.-C., M.G.-G., Y.A.A.-P., A.H.-G., C.E.P.-R., J.M.L.-G., M.G.-V., Y.D.-J., D.O., G.H., J.L.T.-M., M.R.-H., R.M.M., M.K.W., R.M.R., L.V., M.B.M.-G., N.S., and E.J.G.-C.; Data curation, L.A.P.-A. and R.E.C.-C.; Writing—original draft preparation, L.A.P.-A., N.S., and E.J.G.-C.; Writing—review and editing, L.A.P.-A.,N.S., and E.J.G.-C.; Visualization, L.A.P.-A. and E.J.G.-C.; Supervision, N.S. and E.J.G.-C.; Project Administration, L.A.P.-A., N.S., and E.J.G.-C.; Funding acquisition, N.S. and E.J.G.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Field and lab work was financed by grants to N.S. by the Harte Institute, the Harte Charitable Foundation and CONABIO-NE018.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Animals of the appropriate species and quality were selected, and the minimum number required to obtain scientifically valid results was collected, organisms were anesthetized and deposited in National Collections: Colección Regional de Crustáceos de la Peninsula de Yucatan (SEMARNAT number: YUC-CC-255-11), Colección Regional de Moluscos de la Peninsula de Yucatan (SEMARNAT number: YUC. -INV-240-01-11), Colección Regional de Equinodermos de la Peninsula de Yucatan (SEMARNAT number: DGVS-CC-307-18), Colección Regional de Ascidias de la Peninsula de Yucatan (SEMARNAT number: DGVS-CC-306-18), Colección Regional de Briozoos de la Peninsula de Yucatan (SEMARNAT number: DGVS-CC-308-18), Colección Regional de Cnidarios de la Peninsula de Yucatan (SEMARMAT number: YUC-CC-254-11), Colección Regional de Policládidos de la Peninsula de Yucatan (105 Collection CONABIO) and Colección Nacional del Phylum Porifera “Gerardo Green” of Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and within accordance with scientific collection permits: PPF/DGOPA: 295/17, 300/17, 294/17, 293/17, PPF/DGOPA-076/19 issued by México’s State Secretaria de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación (SAGARPA).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data supporting reported results can be found in Palomino-Alvarez, L.A.; Castillo-Cupul, R.E.; Suárez-Mozo, N.Y.; Ortigosa, D.; Paz-Ríos, C.E.; Cervantes-Campero, G.; Muciño-Reyes, M.; Homá-Canché, P.; Hernández-Díaz, Y.Q.; Sotelo, R.; et al. Autonomous Reef Monitoring Structures (ARMS). Benthic marine Fauna Processing Manual. 2021. Available online: https://zenodo.org/record/5655251, https://zenodo.org/record/5534867#.YYT0cxwRVPZ (accessed on 4 November 2021). Palomino-Alvarez, L.A.; Vital, X.G.; Suárez-Mozo, N.Y.; Castillo-Cupul, R.; Ugalde, D.; Cervantes-Campero, G.; Muciño-Reyes, M.; Homá-Canché, P.; Hernández-Díaz, Y.Q.; Sotelo, R.; et al. Matrix Aggregation of Species of Phyla Annelida (Polychaeta), Mollusca, Arthropoda (Decapoda, Stomatopoda, Amphipoda, and Chelicerata), and Echinodermata Registered of the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico Region by OCEAN Biodiversity Information Systems. 2021. Available online: https://zenodo.org/record/5525313#.YYT1txwRVPY (accessed on 4 November 2021). Palomino-Alvarez, L.A.; Vital, X.G.; Suárez-Mozo, N.Y.; Castillo-Cupul, R.; Ugalde, D.; Cervantes-Campero, G.; Muciño-Reyes, M.; Homá-Canché, P.; Hernández-Díaz, Y.Q.; Sotelo, R.; et al. Database of Incidence per Reef and Región of the Research “Evaluation of the Use of Autonomous Reef Monitoring Structures (ARMS) for Capturing the Biological Diversity of Two Coral Reefs in the Yucatán Península, México”. 2021. Available online: https://zenodo.org/record/5525272#.YYT2hRwRVPY (accessed on 4 November 2021). Palomino-Alvarez, L.A.; Vital, X.G.; Suárez-Mozo, N.Y.; Castillo-Cupul, R.; Ugalde, D.; Cervantes-Campero, G.; Muciño-Reyes, M.; Homá-Canché, P.; Hernández-Díaz, Y.Q.; Sotelo, R.; et al. Abundance of Benthic Sessile Fauna Associated with ARMS from the Research “Evaluation of the use of Autonomous Reef Monitoring Structures (ARMS) for Capturing the Biological Diversity of Two Coral Reefs in the Yucatán Península, México” Using the Point Intersection Method (400 Points per Plate on Each Side) with the CPCe v4.1 Software (Coral Point Count with Excel extension v4.1). 2021. Available online: https://zenodo.org/record/5525336#.YYT3nhwRVPY (accessed on 4 November 2021). Palomino-Alvarez, L.A.; Vital, X.G.; Suárez-Mozo, N.Y.; Castillo-Cupul, R.; Ugalde, D.; Cervantes-Campero, G.; Muciño-Reyes, M.; Homá-Canché, P.; Hernández-Díaz, Y.Q.; Sotelo, R.; et al. Checklist of cryptbiont assemblages in coral reef of two subregions of the great caribbean sea using ARMS. Zenodo 2021, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4741379 (accessed on 4 November 2021). Palomino-Alvarez, L.A.; Vital, X.G.; Suárez-Mozo, N.Y.; Castillo, R.; Ugalde, D.; Cervantes-Campero, G.; Muciño-Reyes, M.; Homá-Canché, P.; Hernández, Q.; Sotelo, R.; et al. Cryptobiont assemblages’s dataset of coral reefs using ARMS in B10 Reef and Mahahual Reef of the Great Caribbean. OBIS 2021, https://doi.org/10.15468/u5wu2v, (accessed on 4 November 2021).

Acknowledgments

Posgrado en Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, UNAM, and Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (2018-000012-01NACF-08376, CVU 447073) supported L.A.P.-A.: R.C.S.-C. thanks the scholarship granted by Programa de Becas Posdoctorales, UNAM 2019 (Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico, DGAPA); we thank C. Peralta (Caribbean OBIS) the support in data management; M. Nydman helped to edit the grammar of the manuscript; P. Guadarrama responsible of Laboratorio de Ecología y Manejo de Costas y Mares and G. Martínez of Área Experimental de Ecología y Conducta, UMDI-Sisal, Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM provided material and technical support; A. Sosa supported in logistics and traveling; E. Mex provided diving and logistics support; A.M. Pérez-Botello helped in the creation of the graphical abstract and sampling methods; T.G. Mendoza helped in trip logistics, project administration and processing fauna; first author thanks S.A. Santa-Cruz P. his unconditional support and love.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ginsburg, R.N. Geological and biological roles of cavities in coral reefs. In Perspectives on Coral Reefs; Barnes, J.D., Ed.; Australian Institute of Marine Science: Townsville, Australia, 1983; pp. 148–153. [Google Scholar]
  2. Pearman, J.K.; Leray, M.; Villalobos, R.; Machida, R.J.; Berumen, M.L.; Knowlton, N.; Carvalho, S. Cross-shelf investigation of coral reef cryptic benthic organisms reveals diversity patterns of the hidden majority. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Jackson, J.B.C.; Winston, J.E. Ecology of cryptic coral reef communities. I. Distribution and abundance of major groups of encrusting organisms. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 1982, 57, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Reaka, M.L. Adult-juvenile interactions in benthic reef crustaceans. Bull. Mar. Sci. 1987, 41, 108–134. [Google Scholar]
  5. Coen, L.D. Herbivory by Caribbean majid crabs: Feeding ecology and plant susceptibility. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 1988, 122, 257–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rothans, T.C.; Miller, A.C. A link between biologically imported particulate organic nutrients and the detritus food web in reef communities. Mar. Biol. 1991, 110, 145–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Fleur van Duyl, C.; Moodley, L.; Nieuwland, G.; van Ijzerloo, L.; van Soest, R.W.M.; Houtekamer, M.; Meesters, E.H.; Middelburg, J.J. Coral cavity sponges depend on reef-derived food resources: Stable isotope and fatty acid constraints. Mar. Biol. 2011, 158, 1653–1666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Plaisance, L.; Brainard, R.; Julian Caley, M.; Knowlton, N. Using DNA barcoding and standardized sampling to compare geographic and habitat differentiation of crustaceans: A Hawaiian Islands example. Diversity 2011, 3, 581–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Costello, M.J.; Basher, Z.; McLeod, L.; Asaad, I.; Claus, S.; Vandepitte, L.; Yasuhara, M.; Gislason, H.; Edwards, M.; Appeltans, W.; et al. Methods for the study of marine biodiversity. In The GEO Handbook on Biodiversity Observation Networks; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  10. Monroy-Velázquez, L.; Rodríguez-Martínez, R.; Blanchon, P.; Alvarez, F. The use of artificial substrate units to improve inventories of cryptic crustacean species on Caribbean coral reefs. PeerJ 2020, 8, e10389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Obst, M.; Exter, K.; Allcock, A.L.; Arvanitidis, C.; Axberg, A.; Bustamante, M.; Cancio, I.; Carreira-Flores, D.; Chatzinikolaou, E.; Chatzigeorgiou, G.; et al. A marine biodiversity observation network for genetic monitoring of hard-bottom communities (ARMS-MBON). Front. Mar. Sci. 2020, 7, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zimmerman, T.L.; Martin, J.W. Artificial reef matrix structures (Arms): An inexpensive and effective method for collecting coral reef-associated invertebrates. Gulf Caribb. Res. 2004, 16, 59–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Smithsonian Global ARMS Program. Available online: https://naturalhistory.si.edu/research/global-arms-program (accessed on 4 November 2021).
  14. Anderson, M.J.; Underwood, A.J. Effects of substratum on the recruitment and development of an intertidal estuarine fouling assemblage. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 1994, 184, 217–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Guerra-Castro, E.J.; Cruz-Motta, J.J. Ecology of fouling assemblages associated with mangrove’s roots: An artificial substrate for manipulative experiments. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2014, 457, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Glasby, T.M.; Connell, S.D.; Holloway, M.G.; Hewitt, C.L. Nonindigenous biota on artificial structures: Could habitat creation facilitate biological invasions? Mar. Biol. 2007, 151, 887–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Menge, B.A.; Foley, M.M.; Pamplin, J.; Murphy, G.; Pennington, C. Supply-side ecology, barnacle recruitment, and rocky intertidal community dynamics: Do settlement surface and limpet disturbance matter? J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2010, 392, 160–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Menge, B.A.; Ashkenas, L.R.; Matson, A. Use of artificial holes in studying community development in cryptic marine habitats in a tropical rocky intertidal region. Mar. Biol. 1983, 142, 129–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Warwick, R.M.; Clarke, K.R. New “biodiversity” measures reveal a decrease in taxonomic distinctness with increasing stress. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1995, 129, 301–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Leray, M.; Knowlton, N. DNA barcoding and metabarcoding of standardized samples reveal patterns of marine benthic diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 2076–2081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Al-Rshaidat, M.M.D.; Snider, A.; Rosebraugh, S.; Devine, A.M.; Devine, T.D.; Plaisance, L.; Knowlton, N.; Leray, M. Deep COI sequencing of standardized benthic samples unveils overlooked diversity of Jordanian coral reefs in the northern Red Sea. Genome 2016, 59, 724–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ransome, E.; Geller, J.B.; Timmers, M.; Leray, M.; Mahardini, A.; Sembiring, A.; Collins, A.G.; Meyer, C.P. The importance of standardization for biodiversity comparisons: A case study using autonomous reef monitoring structures (ARMS) and metabarcoding to measure cryptic diversity on Mo’orea coral reefs, French Polynesia. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0175066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Martínez-López, O. La taxonomía integral y su importancia para la conservación. Cienc. Conserv. 2015, 6, 54–64. [Google Scholar]
  24. Felder, D.L.; Camp, D.K. Gulf of Mexico: Origin, Waters, and Biota; Texas A&M University Press: College Station, TX, USA, 2009; Volume 1, p. 1393. [Google Scholar]
  25. De la Barreda, B.; Metcalfe, S.E.; Boyd, D.S. Precipitation regionalization, anomalies and drought occurrence in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Int. J. Climatol. 2020, 40, 4541–4555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Santander-Monsalvo, J.; Espejel, I.; Ortiz-Lozano, L. Distribution, uses, and anthropic pressures on reef ecosystems of Mexico. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2018, 165, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ardisson, P.L.; May-Kú, M.A.; Herrera-Dorantes, M.T.; Arellano-Guillermo, A. El sistema arrecifal mesoamericano-méxico: Consideraciones para su designación como zona marítima especialmente sensible. Hidrobiologica 2011, 21, 261–280. [Google Scholar]
  28. Tunnel, J.W. Natural versus human impacts to southern Gulf of Mexico coral reef resources. In Proceedings of the 7th International Coral Reef Symposium—UOG Station, Guam, Micronesia, 22–27 June 1992; Volume 1, pp. 300–306. [Google Scholar]
  29. Tunnell, J.W.; Chávez, E.A.; Withers, K.; Earle, S. Coral Reefs of the Southern Gulf of Mexico; Texas A&M Universsity Press: Corpus Christi, TX, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  30. NOAA Autonomous Reef Monitoring Structures (ARMS) Overview. Available online: https://naturalhistory.si.edu/research/global-arms-program#:~:text=What%20is%20an%20Autonomous%20Reef,sample%20without%20destroying%20natural%20habitat (accessed on 4 November 2021).
  31. Palomino-Alvarez, L.A.; Castillo-Cupul, R.E.; Suárez-Mozo, N.Y.; Ortigosa, D.; Paz-Ríos, C.E.; Cervantes-Campero, G.; Muciño-Reyes, M.; Homá-Canché, P.; Hernández-Díaz, Y.Q.; Sotelo, R.; et al. Autonomous Reef Monitoring Structures (ARMS). Benthic Marine Fauna Processing Manual. 2021. Available online: https://zenodo.org/record/5655251 (accessed on 4 November 2021).
  32. Burke, L.; Maidens, J. Caribbean Reefs at Risk Threat Index (Polygon); World Resources Institute: Washington DC, USA, 2004; Available online: https://databasin.org/datasets/0363d08f572d45fdbb1e675a08a52545/ (accessed on 5 March 2021).
  33. Clarke, K.R.; Warwick, R.M. A taxonomic distinctness index and its statistical properties. J. Appl. Ecol. 1998, 35, 523–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Warwick, R.M.; Clarke, K.R. Taxonomic distinctness and environmental assessment. J. Appl. Ecol. 1998, 35, 532–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Warwick, R.M.; Somerfield, P.J. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2008, 366, 184–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. OBIS Ocean Biodiversity Information System. Available online: www.iobis.org (accessed on 6 May 2021).
  37. Horton, T.; Gofas, S.; Kroh, A.; Poore, G.C.B.; Read, G.; Rosenberg, G.; Stöhr, S.; Bailly, N.; Boury-Esnault, N.; Brandão, S.N.; et al. Improving nomenclatural consistency: A decade of experience in the world register of marine species. Eur. J. Taxon. 2017, 389, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Palomino-Alvarez, L.A.; Vital, X.G.; Suárez-Mozo, N.Y.; Castillo-Cupul, R.; Ugalde, D.; Cervantes-Campero, G.; Muciño-Reyes, M.; Homá-Canché, P.; Hernández-Díaz, Y.Q.; Sotelo, R.; et al. Matrix Aggregation of Species of Phyla Annelida (Polychaeta), Mollusca, Arthropoda (Decapoda, Stomatopoda, Amphipoda, and Chelicerata), and Echinodermata Registered of the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico Region by OCEAN Biodiversity Information Systems o. 2021. Available online: https://zenodo.org/record/5525313#.YYT1txwRVPY (accessed on 4 November 2021).
  39. Palomino-Alvarez, L.A.; Vital, X.G.; Suárez-Mozo, N.Y.; Castillo-Cupul, R.; Ugalde, D.; Cervantes-Campero, G.; Muciño-Reyes, M.; Homá-Canché, P.; Hernández-Díaz, Y.Q.; Sotelo, R.; et al. Database of Incidence per Reef and Región of the Research “Evaluation of the Use of Autonomous Reef Monitoring Structures (ARMS) for Capturing the Biological Diversity of Two Coral Reefs in the Yucatán Península, México”. 2021. Available online: https://zenodo.org/record/5525272#.YYT2hRwRVPY (accessed on 4 November 2021).
  40. Krebs, C.J. Estimating density: Quadrats counts. In Ecological Methodology; Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc.: Boston, MA, USA, 1999; p. 620. ISBN 032-1021-738. [Google Scholar]
  41. Kohler, K.; Gill, S. Coral point count with excel extensions (CPCe): A visual basic program for the determination of coral and substrate coverage using random point count methodology. Comput. Geosci. 2006, 32, 1259–1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Palomino-Alvarez, L.A.; Vital, X.G.; Suárez-Mozo, N.Y.; Castillo-Cupul, R.; Ugalde, D.; Cervantes-Campero, G.; Muciño-Reyes, M.; Homá-Canché, P.; Hernández-Díaz, Y.Q.; Sotelo, R.; et al. Abundance of Benthic Sessile Fauna Associated with ARMS from the Research “Evaluation of the use of Autonomous Reef Monitoring Structures (ARMS) for Capturing the Biological Diversity of Two Coral Reefs in the Yucatán Península, México” Using the Point Intersection Method (400 Points per Plate on Each Side) with the CPCe v4.1 Software (Coral Point Count with Excel extension v4.1). 2021. Available online: https://zenodo.org/record/5525336#.YYT3nhwRVPY (accessed on 4 November 2021).
  43. Clarke, K.R. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust. J. Ecol. 1993, 18, 117–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Clarke, K.R.; Gorley, R.; Somerfield, P.; Warwick, R. Change in Marine Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation and Interpretation, 3rd ed.; Primer-E: Plymouth, UK, 2014; 262p. [Google Scholar]
  45. Palomino-Alvarez, L.A.; Vital, X.G.; Suárez-Mozo, N.Y.; Castillo-Cupul, R.; Ugalde, D.; Cervantes-Campero, G.; Muciño-Reyes, M.; Homá-Canché, P.; Hernández-Díaz, Y.Q.; Sotelo, R.; et al. Checklist of cryptbiont assemblages in coral reef of two subregions of the great caribbean sea using ARMS. Zenodo 2021. Available online: https://www.gbif.org/dataset/054cfdf9-ccff-4eb3-a815-ee934cf11e04 (accessed on 4 November 2021).
  46. Palomino-Alvarez, L.A.; Vital, X.G.; Suárez-Mozo, N.Y.; Castillo, R.; Ugalde, D.; Cervantes-Campero, G.; Muciño-Reyes, M.; Homá-Canché, P.; Hernández, Q.; Sotelo, R.; et al. Cryptobiont assemblages’s dataset of coral reefs using ARMS in B10 Reef and Mahahual Reef of the Great Caribbean. OBIS 2021. Available online: https://www.gbif.org/dataset/054cfdf9-ccff-4eb3-a815-ee934cf11e04, (accessed on 4 November 2021).
  47. Perkins, T.H. Chrysopetalum, Bhawania and two new genera of Chrysopetalidae (Polychaeta), principally from Florida. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 1985, 98, 856–915. [Google Scholar]
  48. Read, G.; Fauchald, K. World Register of Polychaeta. Available online: http://www.marinespecies.org/polychaeta (accessed on 6 May 2021).
  49. Liñero, A.; Vasquez, G.R. Nereidae (polychaeta, errantia) del golfo de cariaco, venezuela. Bol. Inst. Oceanogr. Venez. Univ. Oriente 1979, 18, 3–12. [Google Scholar]
  50. Knight-Jones, P.; Giangrande, A. Two new species of an atypical group of pseudobranchiomma jones (polychaeta: Sabellidae). Hydrobiologia 2003, 496, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Aguado, M.T.; San Martín, G. Syllidae (Polychaeta) from Lebanon with two new reports for the Mediterranean Sea. Cah. Biol. Mar. 2007, 48, 207–224. [Google Scholar]
  52. Katsanevakis, S.; Bogucarskis, K.; Gatto, F.; Vandekerkhove, J.; Deriu, I.; Cardoso, A.C. Building the European Alien Species Information Network (EASIN): A novel approach for the exploration of distributed alien species data. BioInvasions Rec. 2012, 1, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Zenetos, A.; Gofas, S.; Verlaque, M.; Çinar, M.E.; García Raso, J.G.; Bianchi, C.N.; Morri, C.; Azzurro, E.; Bilecenoglu, M.; Froglia, C.; et al. Alien species in the mediterranean sea by a contribution to the application of European Union’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). Part I. Spatial distribution. Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 2010, 11, 381–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Bamber, R.N.; El Nagar, A.; Arango, C.P. Pycnobase: World Pycnogonida Database. Available online: http://www.marinespecies.org/pycnobase%20on%202021-09-06 (accessed on 25 June 2021).
  55. Bravo, M.F.M.; Müller, H.G.; Arango, C.P.; Tigreros, P.; Melzer, R.R. Morphology of shallow-water sea spiders from the Colombian Caribbean. Spixiana 2009, 32, 9–34. [Google Scholar]
  56. Prata, J.; Lucena, R.A.; Lima, S.F.B.; Souza, J.W.S.; Christoffersen, M.L. Species richness of Pycnogonida and Echinodermata associated with the reef ecosystems of Morro de São Paulo on Tinharé Island in Northeastern Brazil. Int. J. Dev. Res. 2020, 10, 34943–34951. [Google Scholar]
  57. Paz-Ríos, C.E.; Simões, N.; Pech, D. Species richness and spatial distribution of benthic amphipods (crustacea: Peracarida) in the alacranes reef national park, gulf of Mexico. Mar. Biodivers. 2019, 49, 673–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Winfield, I.; Muciño-Reyes, M.; Cházaro-Olvera, S.; Ortiz, M.; Lozano-Aburto, M. Benthic amphipods (crustacea: Peracarida) from sisal reef system and coastline, northwest Yucatán Peninsula, Gulf of Mexico. Rev. Mex. Biodivers. 2020, 91, e903071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Souza-Filho, J.F.; Souza, A.M.T.; Valério-Berardo, M.T. Six new species of the genus Chevalia Walker, 1904 (Amphipoda, Corophiidea, Chevaliidae) from Brazilian waters, with a key to world species of the genus. Zootaxa 2010, 2713, 25–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kunkel, B.W. The amphipoda of bermuda. Trans. Connect. Acad. Arts Sci. 1910, 16, 1–116. [Google Scholar]
  61. Krapp-Schickel, T.; Vader, W. On some maerid genera (crustacea, amphipoda, maeridae) collected by the hourglass cruises (florida). Part 1: Genera anamaera, ceradocus, clessidra gen. nov., jerbarnia, maera, meximaera, with a key to world Ceradocus. J. Nat. Hist. 2009, 43, 2057–2086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. World List of Bryozoa. Available online: https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/dataset/1081 (accessed on 8 October 2021).
  63. Leloup, E. Contribution à la connaissance de la faune des chitons de Villefranche-sur-Mer et des environs (France, Méditerranée) [Contribution to the knowledge of the fauna of chitons of Villefranche-sur-Mer and the surroundings (France, Mediterranean)]. Bull. Musée R. D’histoire Nat. Belg. Meded. Van Het K. Nat. Mus. Van België 1934, 10, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  64. Costello, M.J. European Register of Marine Species: A Check- List of the Marine Species in Europe and a Bibliography of Guides to Their Identification; Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle: Paris, France, 2001; Volume 50. [Google Scholar]
  65. Schuchert, P. Hydroids (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) of the Danish expedition to the Kei Islands. Steenstrupia 2003, 27, 137–256. [Google Scholar]
  66. Galea, H.R.; Schuchert, P. Some thecate hydroids (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa) from off new caledonia collected during KANACONO and KANADEEP expeditions of the french tropical deep-sea benthos program. Eur. J. Taxon. 2019, 562, 1–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Billard, A. Note sur quelques espèces la plupart nouvelles de Synthécides et de Sertularides du Siboga. Bull. Soc. Zool. Fr. 1925, 49, 646–652. [Google Scholar]
  68. Van der Land, J. UNESCO-IOC Register of Marine Organisms (URMO). Available online: http://www.marinespecies.org/urmo/ (accessed on 7 June 2021).
  69. Newman, L.J.; Cannon, L.R.G. The genus Cycloporus (Platyhelminthes: Polycladida) from Australasian waters. Raffles Bull. Zool. 2002, 50, 287–299. [Google Scholar]
  70. Du Bois-Reymond, M.E. Polycladida from Curaçao and faunistically related regions. Stud. Fauna Curaçao Other Caribb. Isl. 1968, 26, 1–133. [Google Scholar]
  71. Quiroga, S.Y. Systematics and Taxonomy of Polyclad Flatworms with a Special Emphasis on the Morphology of the Nervous System. Ph.D. Thesis, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  72. García, B.A. El Uso de ARMS (Autonomous Reef Monitoring Structures) Como Herramienta para el Estudio del Reclutamiento en Invertebrados Crípticos en La Perla del Golfo, Veracruz; Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México: Mexico City, Mexico, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  73. González-Gándara, C.; Solís-Marín, F.A.; de la Cruz-Francisco, V.; Granados-Barba, A.; Salas-Pérez, J.D.J.; Argüelles-Jiménez, J.; Escárcega-Quiroga, P.A. Riqueza y distribución de equinodermos en los arrecifes del norte y sur de Veracruz, México. Rev. Biol. Trop. 2015, 63, 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Spalding, M.D.; Fox, H.E.; Allen, G.R.; Davidson, N.; Ferdaña, Z.A.; Finlayson, M.A.X.; Halpern, B.S.; Jorge, M.A.; Lombana, A.L.; Lourie, S.A.; et al. Marine ecoregions of the world: A bioregionalization of coastal and shelf areas. BioScience 2007, 57, 573–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Chamberlin, R.V. New polychaetous annelids from Laguna Beach, California. J. Entomol. Zool. Pomona Coll. 1919, 11, 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  76. Pearman, J.K.; Chust, G.; Aylagas, E.; Villarino, E.; Watson, J.R.; Chenuil, A.; Borja, A.; Cahill, A.E.; Carugati, L.; Danovaro, R.; et al. Pan-regional marine benthic cryptobiome biodiversity patterns revealed by metabarcoding autonomous Reef monitoring Structures. Mol. Ecol. 2020, 29, 4882–4897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Plaisance, L.; Knowlton, N.; Paulay, G.; Meyer, C. Reef-associated crustacean fauna: Biodiversity estimates using semi-quantitative sampling and DNA barcoding. Coral Reefs 2009, 28, 977–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Plaisance, L.; Caley, M.J.; Brainard, R.E.; Knowlton, N. The diversity of coral reefs: What are we missing? PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e25026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Engel, M.S.; Ceríaco, L.M.P.; Daniel, G.M.; Dellapé, P.M.; Löbl, I.; Marinov, M.; Reis, R.E.; Young, M.T.; Dubois, A.; Agarwal, I.; et al. The taxonomic impediment: A shortage of taxonomists, not the lack of technical approaches. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 2021, 193, 381–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ostrander, G.K.; Armstrong, K.M.; Knobbe, E.T.; Gerace, D.; Scully, E.P. Rapid transition in the structure of a coral reef community: The effects of coral bleaching and physical disturbance. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2000, 97, 5297–5302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Rogers, C.S.; Miller, J. Permanent “phase shifts” or reversible declines in coral cover? Lack of recovery of two coral reefs in St. John, US Virgin Islands. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2006, 306, 103–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Studied reefs in the Mexican Caribbean sea (Cs) and the southern Gulf of Mexico (GMx) [32], where autonomous reef monitoring structures (ARMS) were deployed.
Figure 1. Studied reefs in the Mexican Caribbean sea (Cs) and the southern Gulf of Mexico (GMx) [32], where autonomous reef monitoring structures (ARMS) were deployed.
Diversity 13 00579 g001
Figure 2. Number of species morphotypes (S) identified by phylum of the cryptofauna in autonomous reef monitoring structures (ARMS) during one year of recruitment in two reefs: Bajo de 10 reef (Campeche and Yucatan Bank Reefs, GMx = Gulf of Mexico) and Mahahual Reef (Mesoamerican Reef System, mC = Caribbean Sea).
Figure 2. Number of species morphotypes (S) identified by phylum of the cryptofauna in autonomous reef monitoring structures (ARMS) during one year of recruitment in two reefs: Bajo de 10 reef (Campeche and Yucatan Bank Reefs, GMx = Gulf of Mexico) and Mahahual Reef (Mesoamerican Reef System, mC = Caribbean Sea).
Diversity 13 00579 g002
Figure 3. Frequency distribution of simulated Δ+ values generated from 999 sublists drawn randomly from the master list of species of each phylum by region: Gulf of Mexico (A,C,E,G) and Caribbean Sea (B,D,F,H) of the Yucatan Peninsula. Taxonomic aggregation matrices from OBIS and Felder and Camp [24]. The vertical colored lines are the estimation of Δ+ found in autonomous reef monitoring structures (ARMS) deployed during one year in each reef.
Figure 3. Frequency distribution of simulated Δ+ values generated from 999 sublists drawn randomly from the master list of species of each phylum by region: Gulf of Mexico (A,C,E,G) and Caribbean Sea (B,D,F,H) of the Yucatan Peninsula. Taxonomic aggregation matrices from OBIS and Felder and Camp [24]. The vertical colored lines are the estimation of Δ+ found in autonomous reef monitoring structures (ARMS) deployed during one year in each reef.
Diversity 13 00579 g003
Figure 4. Patterns of Bray–Curtis similarities between plate-sides of each ARMS in both reefs, considering the relative abundance (coverage) of six phyla, represented in a nonmetric multidimensional scaling ordination (nMDS). The size of each symbol represents the relative abundance of the phyla.
Figure 4. Patterns of Bray–Curtis similarities between plate-sides of each ARMS in both reefs, considering the relative abundance (coverage) of six phyla, represented in a nonmetric multidimensional scaling ordination (nMDS). The size of each symbol represents the relative abundance of the phyla.
Diversity 13 00579 g004
Table 1. New records per region of cryptic fauna species recorded in autonomous reef monitoring structures (ARMS) during a year of recruitment in Bajo de 10 reef and Mahahual Reef of the Yucatan Peninsula. GMx = Gulf of Mexico; mC = Caribbean Sea.
Table 1. New records per region of cryptic fauna species recorded in autonomous reef monitoring structures (ARMS) during a year of recruitment in Bajo de 10 reef and Mahahual Reef of the Yucatan Peninsula. GMx = Gulf of Mexico; mC = Caribbean Sea.
SpeciesGMxCsPhylumDocumented Distribution
Treptopale rudolphi Perkins, 1985 Annelida (Polychaeta)Miami, USA [47], Caribbean [48]
Rullierinereis cf. bahamensis (Hartmann-Schröder, 1958) Annelida (Polychaeta)Bimini Islands, Bahamas [48], gulf of Cariaco, Venezuela [49]
Pseudobranchiomma perkinsi Knight-Jones and Giangrande, 2003 Annelida (Polychaeta)Florida, USA [50]
Syllis bella (Chamberlin, 1919) Annelida (Polychaeta)California, USA [48], Mediterranean [51], recorded as an invasive species [52,53]
Ammothella spinifera Cole, 1904 Arthropoda (Chelicerata)Pacific Ocean [54], Santa Marta and Cabo Arrecifes, Colombia [55], Morro Sao Paolo, Brasil [56]
Aruga holmesi J.L. Barnard, 1955 Arthropoda (Amphipoda)Gulf of Mexico [24], northern coast of Yucatan [57,58]
Chevalia caetes Souza-Filho, Souza and Valério-Berardo, 2010Arthropoda (Amphipoda)Penambuco, Brazil [59]
Clessidra tinkerensis (Kunkel, 1910) Arthropoda (Amphipoda)Bermuda, West Florida, USA [60,61]
Parasmittina bimucronata (Hincks, 1884) BryozoaBurma, Myanmar [62]
Plumularia obliqua (Johnston, 1847) Cnidaria (Hydrozoa)Villefranche-sur-Mer, France [63], Northwestern Atlantic [64]
Geminella ceramensis (Billard, 1925) Cnidaria (Hydrozoa)Philippines, Kei islands, Indonesia [65] and New Caledonia [66], Siboga [67], Western Central Pacific [68]
Cycloporus variegatus Kato, 1934 PlatyhelminthesAustralia [69]
Pericelis cata Marcus and Marcus, 1968 PlatyhelminthesCurazao, Venezuela [70], Colombia [71]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Palomino-Alvarez, L.A.; Vital, X.G.; Castillo-Cupul, R.E.; Suárez-Mozo, N.Y.; Ugalde, D.; Cervantes-Campero, G.; Muciño-Reyes, M.R.; Homá-Canché, P.; Hernández-Díaz, Y.Q.; Sotelo-Casas, R.; et al. Evaluation of the Use of Autonomous Reef Monitoring Structures (ARMS) for Describing the Species Diversity of Two Coral Reefs in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Diversity 2021, 13, 579. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110579

AMA Style

Palomino-Alvarez LA, Vital XG, Castillo-Cupul RE, Suárez-Mozo NY, Ugalde D, Cervantes-Campero G, Muciño-Reyes MR, Homá-Canché P, Hernández-Díaz YQ, Sotelo-Casas R, et al. Evaluation of the Use of Autonomous Reef Monitoring Structures (ARMS) for Describing the Species Diversity of Two Coral Reefs in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Diversity. 2021; 13(11):579. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110579

Chicago/Turabian Style

Palomino-Alvarez, Lilian A., Xochitl G. Vital, Raúl E. Castillo-Cupul, Nancy Y. Suárez-Mozo, Diana Ugalde, Gabriel Cervantes-Campero, María R. Muciño-Reyes, Pedro Homá-Canché, Yoalli Quetzalli Hernández-Díaz, Rosa Sotelo-Casas, and et al. 2021. "Evaluation of the Use of Autonomous Reef Monitoring Structures (ARMS) for Describing the Species Diversity of Two Coral Reefs in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico" Diversity 13, no. 11: 579. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110579

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop