Figures
Abstract
Mangroves and seagrass beds have long been perceived as important nurseries for many fish species. While there is growing evidence from the Western Atlantic that mangrove habitats are intricately connected to coral reefs through ontogenetic fish migrations, there is an ongoing debate of the value of these coastal ecosystems in the Indo-Pacific. The present study used natural tags, viz. otolith stable carbon and oxygen isotopes, to investigate for the first time the degree to which multiple tropical juvenile habitats subsidize coral reef fish populations in the Indo Pacific (Tanzania). Otoliths of three reef fish species (Lethrinus harak, L. lentjan and Lutjanus fulviflamma) were collected in mangrove, seagrass and coral reef habitats and analyzed for stable isotope ratios in the juvenile and adult otolith zones. δ13C signatures were significantly depleted in the juvenile compared to the adult zones, indicative of different habitat use through ontogeny. Maximum likelihood analysis identified that 82% of adult reef L. harak had resided in either mangrove (29%) or seagrass (53%) or reef (18%) habitats as juveniles. Of adult L. fulviflamma caught from offshore reefs, 99% had passed through mangroves habitats as juveniles. In contrast, L. lentjan adults originated predominantly from coral reefs (65–72%) as opposed to inshore vegetated habitats (28–35%). This study presents conclusive evidence for a nursery role of Indo-Pacific mangrove habitats for reef fish populations. It shows that intertidal habitats that are only temporarily available can form an important juvenile habitat for some species, and that reef fish populations are often replenished by multiple coastal habitats. Maintaining connectivity between inshore vegetated habitats and coral reefs, and conserving habitat mosaics rather than single nursery habitats, is a major priority for the sustainability of various Indo Pacific fish populations.
Citation: Kimirei IA, Nagelkerken I, Mgaya YD, Huijbers CM (2013) The Mangrove Nursery Paradigm Revisited: Otolith Stable Isotopes Support Nursery-to-Reef Movements by Indo-Pacific Fishes. PLoS ONE 8(6): e66320. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066320
Editor: Sharyn Jane Goldstien, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Received: January 9, 2013; Accepted: May 3, 2013; Published: June 12, 2013
Copyright: © 2013 Kimirei et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This study was funded through WOTRO Science for Global Development (WOTRO)by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). I.N. was funded by a Vidi grant from NWO. The field work was supported by a grant from Schure-Beijerinck-Popping Fonds and Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association (WIOMSA) to I.A.K. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Coastal habitats such as mangroves and seagrass beds are acknowledged as important nursery habitats for various species of reef fish, most of which are important to fisheries [1], [2] and some of which are threatened [3]. These ecosystems are, however, highly affected by anthropogenic stressors like unsustainable fishing practices, habitat loss, and eutrophication [1], [4]. Seagrass beds are declining globally at rates of about 7% per year [5] while mangroves are decreasing in surface area by 1–2% per year [6]. Conservation and management of these habitats and their fisheries has received increasing attention based on their importance as juvenile fish habitat and their biological connectivity that enhances coastal marine productivity and biodiversity [7]. Likewise, designation and performance of marine protected areas (MPAs) can be improved by knowledge accrued from habitat connectivity studies [8], [9]. Because species that undergo ontogenetic habitat shifts cannot be conserved and managed by protecting single habitats, conservation efforts should focus on protecting habitat mosaics [10].
Until very recently, only indirect and circumstantial evidence existed in support of the paradigm that various species of coral reef fishes use mangroves or seagrass beds as essential juvenile habitat. Evidence was mostly based on higher juvenile densities and lower predation risk in these habitats as compared to the adult coral reef habitat (see review by [11]). Nurseries are defined as habitats whose ‘contribution per unit area to the production of individuals that recruit to adult populations is greater, on average, than production from other habitats in which juveniles occur’ [12]. Therefore, a habitat will only function as a productive nursery if its individuals reach adult populations, for which evidence of actual movement between habitats is of crucial importance. Long-term movement data to support ontogenetic cross-ecosystem shifts is difficult to obtain as artificial tags are expensive and not suitable for use in juvenile fishes or for long-term tracking. As a result, there has been an increasing focus on the use of natural tags such as stable isotope signatures in fish muscle tissue and earbones (otoliths) or elemental composition of otoliths [13].
The application of otolith chemistry to track fish movement is based on the assumption that fish living and feeding in different environments incorporate a detectable chemical tag if they reside in environments long enough [14]. Otoliths grow continuously throughout the life of a fish and remain chemically inert once formed, and can thus provide a detailed history of a fish's environment. The use of elemental chemistry is less suitable for non-estuarine tropical environments as the water chemistry of juvenile vs. adult marine habitats is usually more uniform [15] as opposed to those located along a gradient from fresh to marine waters in (temperate) estuarine regions. This problem does not arise when using stable isotope signatures of otoliths, such as 12C/13C ratios, which clearly differ among different vegetated habitats [16], [17]. Dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) typically contributes 70–80% to otolith carbon and varies among water bodies around major vegetation types. Oxygen isotopes are often related to variability in water temperature and salinity and can thus provide a distinct signature of habitats in shallow, warmer water like mangroves and seagrass beds compared to coral reefs in cooler water [18]. Therefore, it is a very suitable method to determine ontogenetic shifts among habitats. Although otolith chemistry is recognized as a valuable tool, and has been increasingly used over the last decade, still very few studies have used otoliths to reconstruct the environmental history of fish [19]. Only very recently a few studies have provided convincing evidence of ontogenetic movement from Caribbean mangrove/seagrass nurseries to adult offshore habitat 20,21,22,23.
Studies on nursery function of tropical reef habitats have predominantly focused on the Caribbean region, while the much larger Indo-Pacific region remains largely unstudied [24]. There is no a priori reason to reject a potential importance of ecosystem connectivity for offshore productivity and replenishment of reef populations in the Indo-Pacific, and it is likely that coastal reef seascapes in the Indo-Pacific are connected in similar ways by fish movements as in the Caribbean [9], [24], [25]. The function of shallow-water ecosystems as juvenile habitat depends, however, on habitat availability and accessibility [26]. Unlike in the Caribbean where shallow-water habitats (especially mangroves) are permanently available to juvenile fish [27], Indo-Pacific mangrove systems along coastal shorelines are mostly available to fish only during high tides [9], [28]. Also, the arrangement of mangroves and seagrass beds in relation to reef habitats within the coastal seascape can profoundly affect the degree and type of ecological and biological connectivity between these habitats [29], [30]. In the Indo-Pacific region, clear-water vegetated habitats are often more intermixed compared to Caribbean islands where they are spatially separated, while the much larger tidal ranges in the Indo-Pacific facilitate non-ontogenetic reef fish movements [28]. The large tidal range potentially also leads to stable isotope signatures showing more overlap among different habitats due to tidal exchange of water bodies between habitats [31], [32].
Even though the Indo-Pacific region harbors vast areas of mangroves and tropical seagrass beds, our understanding of the nursery role of these habitats in this region remains rudimentary. Based on fish density data, there has been a long standing debate of this function in this region (see reviews by [33] and [11]). The consensus from most studies is that Indo-Pacific mangroves play a minor role as critical juvenile habitat for reef or offshore fish species [34], [35], [36]. Nagelkerken [24] argued, however, that the apparent disparity between the two biogeographic regions is based on an invalid comparison, confounded by differences in tidal range (low vs. high), salinity (estuarine vs. marine), and spatial setting (island vs. continental coastlines). Another questionable argument that has previously been used to evaluate nursery function is that relatively few Indo-Pacific fish species appear to depend on mangrove habitats [36]. However, if these few species are of high commercial importance, are highly abundant species, or fulfill important ecological roles, then they can have important impacts on ecosystem production, functioning and resilience [11], [37], [38].
Recent studies have found that during their juvenile stage multiple species are present only in Indo-Pacific mangroves [39], [40], [41], and that isolated reefs show significantly lower adult densities of such species than reefs directly adjacent to these ecosystems [42]. This suggests that mangroves in this region could play a valuable role in replenishing offshore populations of some species. Only a couple of studies have provided unambiguous evidence of nursery-to-reef movement in the Indo-Pacific [17], [21], but failed to separate the role of individual juvenile habitats (e.g. mangrove vs. seagrass vs. reef). As a result, we know little of how different nursery habitats contribute to overall replenishment of offshore adult populations. This gap of knowledge is concerning as species may show different dependencies on different nursery habitats, and this dependency may further change through ontogeny. Hence, identifying the individual contribution of multiple nursery habitats to adult populations is of critical importance for management and conservation purposes. The objective of this study, therefore, was to test to which degree a suite of Indo-Pacific reef fish species has passed through putative mangrove vs. seagrass vs. coral reef nursery habitat. We analyzed a robust dataset of otoliths from several Indo-Pacific coral reef fish species collected at nearshore and offshore reef sites in Tanzania. Our results reveal the degree of connectivity among Indo-Pacific tropical coastal habitats, and we evaluate the role of two critical, circumtropical juvenile habitats for adult reef fish populations at different distances from the shore.
Materials and Methods
Ethics Statement
This study was not evaluated by an animal ethics committee because there was no such committee in Tanzania during the course of the study. We obtained written permission from the Director of Fisheries in the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development (MLFD) of the United Republic of Tanzania (URT) in 2009 [43] to capture fish on the reef using spear guns and fish in the mangroves using nets. On the coral reef, fish were sacrificed under water directly after spearing by cervical dislocation. Mangrove and seagrass fish were mostly supplied dead by fishermen, but the fish we caught ourselves in the mangroves were sacrificed by hypothermia.
Study Area and Species
The Kunduchi area in Dar es Salaam Tanzania, where the study was conducted, has only one mangrove-lined creek (Manyema Creek), an extensive shoreline seagrass bed, two nearshore islands with fringing coral reefs which are separated from the mainland by a 15 m deep channel running almost parallel to the coastline, and several offshore submerged deep coral reefs (Figure 1). The mangroves are dominated by Sonneratia alba along the sides of the Manyema creek. The creek receives substantial freshwater input only during heavy rainfall. The seagrass bed along the shoreline of the mainland lies at 0.5–5 m depth and the nearshore reefs along the island of Mbudya lie at 2–4 m depth, depending on the tides, while the deep offshore coral reefs are located at 15–20 m followed by mudflats at greater depths [40].
Reef contours (approx. 17 m depth) are indicated by thick black lines. Hatched area indicates location of the mangrove forest. SGK = sampling site at the shoreline seagrass bed at Kunduchi. Nearshore reefs fringe the island of Mbudya, while offshore reefs are located at ‘Far Reef’ and ‘Gold Reef’.
Three fish species, viz. Lethrinus harak, L. lentjan, and Lutjanus fulviflamma, were selected for this study. Studies based on size-frequency data suggest that these species undergo ontogenetic mangrove/seagrass-to-reef habitat shifts [40], [41], [44], [45]. Fishes were collected from three different habitats (mangrove, seagrass, coral reef) (Table 1). An earlier visual census study showed that these habitats and locations harbored highest densities of the selected species ([40], Kimirei unpubl. data); nevertheless it is possible that we did not sample some minor juvenile habitat types in the area. Adults of L. lentjan and L. fulviflamma were caught from both the nearshore reef around Mbudya Island (about 3 km to mangrove) and two offshore reefs (∼9 km to mangrove), whereas L. harak could only be caught from the nearshore reef due to their very low abundances on the offshore reefs [40]. Fishes from the mangrove habitat were collected with a 1×10 m seine net which was dragged against the current during outgoing tide, as well as using hook and line. Fishes from the seagrass beds were all purchased from local fishermen that utilized beach seines at low tide. As fishermen operated their seine nets in front of the research institute the origin of these fish could be confirmed. Specimens from the coral reef were caught using a spear gun. All specimens were measured for total length (TL) and weight before the sagittae otoliths were removed, cleaned and stored pending analysis.
Otolith Analysis
After cleaning with deionized water, otoliths were mounted on glass plates and embedded in Araldite resin. The embedded otoliths were then cross-sectioned in the transverse plane through the core. For juvenile fishes from the mangroves and seagrass bed the outer otolith margin which reflects the current habitat was analyzed. For larger fishes from the reef, both the juvenile zone (which is the area directly adjacent to the core) which reflects earlier life in putative nurseries, and the outer otolith margin reflecting the adult reef habitat, were analyzed. The location for sampling the juvenile zone in adult otoliths was based on the mean otolith width of the mangrove/seagrass juvenile fish. For large L. harak (≥15 cm TL) from the seagrass beds, both the inner and outer otolith zones were analyzed to additionally determine the degree to which large juveniles from seagrass beds had spent their earlier juvenile stage in mangrove habitat and had moved to seagrass beds afterwards.
The sectioned otoliths were drilled with a micromill that produced otolith CaCO3 powder from a crater with a diameter of approximately 0.35 mm. Two craters were drilled per sample on opposite sides of the cross section to provide enough otolith powder for analysis. The powder (weight ≥10 µg) was collected with a scalpel and put into a glass tubes for further analysis. A few drops of pure (100%) orthophosphoric acid were added to the tube containing the powder at 80°C to dissolve all CaCO3. The isotope ratios of 12C/13C and 16O/18O of the released CO2 were measured using a Gas Bench mass spectrometer equipped with an automated carbonate extraction line (Kiel device). The NIST SRM 8544 (NBS 19) was used as a carbonate standard, which was routinely monitored during sample runs. The precision of analyses based on the measurements of this standard was within 0.05‰.
Data and Statistical Analysis
Combined stable carbon (δ13C) and oxygen (δ18O) signatures of the juvenile (inner) otolith sections from adult reef fish were compared to that of the outer otolith section from juvenile fish living in mangrove or seagrass habitats to determine whether adult fish had passed through either of these juvenile habitats. Fishes caught from the coral reef spanned a wide size range (Table 1), thus reflecting different birth years. We therefore collected juvenile fish from the putative mangrove and seagrass nurseries in different years, to incorporate into our analysis potential temporal variability in otolith stable isotope signatures within nursery habitats. A MANOVA showed that either δ13C or δ18O varied significantly (F>6.28, p<0.001) across years for the 3 species, but never both stable isotope signatures together, meaning that habitats could always be distinguished throughout time based on at least one stable isotope signature. Notwithstanding some temporal variability, there was little overlap among habitat signatures (see Fig. 2). A one-way ANOVA was used to test for differences in otolith δ13C and δ18O, respectively, between habitats. We tested for significant differences in otolith δ13C and δ18O between the juvenile signatures of mangrove and seagrass fish, and the adult signatures of coral reef fish (i.e. outer otolith margin). A Gabriel post-hoc test was used for comparison of means, while a Games-Howell post-hoc test was used when the requirement for homogeneity of variance was violated. Significance levels of p<0.05 were used in all tests. A quadratic discriminant function analysis (QDFA) using the jack-knife classification was done to examine classification success of assigning individuals to their known origin. SPSS 20 for Windows was used for all analyses [46].
Mean (± SE) otolith δ13C and δ18O from the outer otolith margins of juvenile fish collected from mangroves (Mg) and seagrass (Sg) habitats, from the inner (juvenile) parts of otolith of adult fish collected from nearshore (NCr) and offshore (OCr) reefs, and from the outer otolith margins of coral reef adults (Cr), averaged per habitat for each of the species: a) Lethrinus harak, b) Lethrinus lentjan, and c) Lutjanus fulviflamma.
A maximum likelihood analysis (MLA; estimator # 5) ‘HISEA’ developed by Millar [47] was used to determine the proportion of adult fish originating from the different habitats. For this analysis we used the combination of stable carbon and oxygen isotope signatures of the outer otolith margins of juvenile mangrove and seagrass fish and of adult coral reef fish as baseline data. We used the otoliths of adult reef fish instead of juvenile reef fish as the latter were not observed on the reef during visual surveys. Because otolith composition results from a complex interaction between physiological and environmental factors [14], a potential ontogenetic effect on δ13C and δ18O cannot be completely ruled out a priori. However, we performed linear regression analyses between reef fish body size and stable carbon and oxygen isotope values, respectively, to ascertain that the coral reef signature from the adult otolith margins was reflective of fish from the ocean environment, and did not differ from that of juvenile reef fish (if they were to be found on the reef) due to growth. We tested reef fish between 16 and 40 cm in length, comprising fish from a wide range in age (between ∼3 and 28 years). None of the regressions for either carbon or oxygen showed a significant relationship with size (p>0.11, R2<0.14) for any species, except for δ13C in Lethrinus lentjan which showed a positive relationship (p = 0.01) but with a low R2 explaining only a small proportion of the overall variability (R2 = 0.32 and 0.12 for nearshore vs. offshore reef fish, respectively). The observation that increase in body size has little to no effect on stable isotope signatures in our fish was further supported by lack of such a relationship in the fishes collected from the seagrass beds as well, which had a sufficiently large size range to test for this potential ontogenetic effect (all separate regression for fish size vs. δ13C and δ18O, respectively, for all 3 species: p>0.14, R2<0.08). These results show that potential ontogenetic effects are minor compared to habitat differences. Signatures from the inner (juvenile) part of adult reef fish otoliths were used in the MLA as the unknown mixed dataset to estimate the origin of these fishes. Finally, to determine in which habitat large juvenile L. harak, collected in seagrass habitat, had spent their earlier juvenile stage, juvenile seagrass and mangrove signatures were used as the baseline, and adult outer margins as unknown mixed sample. Maximum likelihood estimates and standard deviations were generated in HISEA by bootstrapping with 500 simulations.
Results
The three habitats (mangrove, seagrass, and coral reef) differed significantly based on otolith δ13C and/or δ18O signatures (Table 2, Fig. 2). For L. harak, otolith δ13C differed significantly among all habitats, while seagrass δ18O signatures differed from that of the mangrove and coral reef, respectively. For L. lentjan both otolith δ13C and δ18O differed between the coral reef and seagrass, but not between the coral reef and mangroves, or between seagrass and mangroves. When seagrass and mangrove signatures were combined they did significantly differ from the coral reef signature. For L. fulviflamma only otolith δ18O differed among all habitats. Classification success based on a quadratic discriminant function analysis was very high for L. harak and L. lentjan (>73%) and relatively high for L. fulviflamma (61%) (Table 3). The classification was based on δ13C as well as δ18O otolith signatures and both isotope ratios were important in discrimination of the three different habitats.
For all three species, except L. fulviflamma from the nearshore reef, the δ13C and/or δ18O signatures from juvenile margins of nearshore and offshore reef fish individuals were significantly different compared to the adult margin signatures (Fig. 2), suggesting that the two life stages used different habitats. The results of the maximum likelihood analysis using both carbon and oxygen stable isotopes showed that adults from the three species had passed through different juvenile habitats. Adult L. harak fish from the reef were only collected on nearshore reefs. Over 81% of these fish originated from either mangrove (29%) or seagrass (53%) habitats, while the remainder (18%) had grown up on the reef (Table 3). Large specimens caught on the seagrass bed originated largely from the seagrass (70%) and partly from the mangrove (30%) habitat. Most adults of L. lentjan that were collected on the offshore reefs had spent their juvenile stage on coral reefs (72%) compared to a much smaller amount of fish that had passed through seagrass and mangrove habitats (28%). Nearshore adult reef fish of this species also predominantly originated from coral reefs (65%). L. fulviflamma showed contrasting results: for adults collected on offshore reefs, mangroves were the dominant juvenile habitat (99%) and none of these fish had a juvenile signature that indicated a contribution from the coral reef. In contrast, nearshore L. fulviflamma adults mainly showed a coral reef signature (81%) in the juvenile zones of their otoliths, compared to that from seagrass (19%) or mangrove (0.03%) habitat. However, L. fulviflamma densities on nearshore reefs were at least an order of a magnitude smaller compared to those on offshore reefs (Table 3).
Discussion
This study is one of the first to present conclusive evidence that mangrove and seagrass habitats replenish reef fish populations in an Indo-Pacific locality, and is the first to identify the relative importance of multiple potential juvenile habitats in replenishing adult populations. The importance of these putative juvenile habitats differed among fish species, and among reefs located at different distances from these habitats. For adults collected on nearshore reefs, the combined contribution of mangrove and seagrass habitat was highest for L. harak (82%), followed by L. lentjan (35%) and L. fulviflamma (19%), while for offshore reefs this was 28% and 100% for the latter two species, respectively. The large contribution of coral reefs to the nearshore as well as offshore adult populations of L. lentjan (65–72%) suggests that L. lentjan populations may be largely self-replenishing by the reef habitat. In contrast, the juvenile source habitats that were important for L. fulviflamma showed a large contrast for adults collected from nearshore vs. offshore reefs. However, considering that reef fish densities for this species were 13 times higher on offshore than nearshore reefs (1.25 vs. 0.09 fish per 100 m2, respectively), most of the reef fish in this coastal area had likely originated from mangroves in terms of total population size. The observed variability in juvenile habitat contribution to adult populations indicates clear species-specific differences in nursery habitat dependency as well as presence of spatial differences in degree of population replenishment by nursery habitats [40].
The results from our otolith study supported those from field surveys for some species, but not for others. Adult populations of L. harak were replenished to a greater degree by seagrass beds than by mangroves. This result corresponds to previous visual census data which also showed that mangroves are less important as a juvenile habitat for L. harak compared to seagrass [40]. On the contrary, L. lentjan showed a higher contribution from the coral reef to both nearshore and offshore adult populations than seagrass bed and mangrove combined, whereas visual census surveys suggest that this species primarily uses seagrass beds as juvenile habitats [40]. The above indicates that visual census data should be interpreted with caution, and be combined with data collected by different methods to effectively identify and assess the nursery function of putative juvenile habitats. Clearly, juvenile fish densities as obtained through visual surveys only reflect the standing stock at the time of observation. They fail to quantify, however, how much of this standing stock will continue to survive and move to reefs at some point in time. Differential mortality among juvenile habitats, for example, could subsequently lead to different population contributions by individual habitats as would be deduced from absolute abundances.
Because of the temporary nature of the Indo-Pacific mangroves' availability to fishes due to the tidal regime, and the relatively low number of species using them as juvenile habitats [29], [34], [36], [48], their nursery function has long been questioned (see [11], [48]). The permanent inundation of Caribbean mangroves, on the other hand, translates to high abundances of juvenile coral reef fishes that use these habitats [49]. Nevertheless, the range in degree of replenishment of reef populations by recruits from mangrove habitats does not seem to be very different between the two regions – e.g. Indo-Pacific: 88% for Lutjanus fulvus ([17]; based only on mangrove-reef migrations over short time scales as stable isotope analysis of muscle tissue was used); 29% and 99% for Lethrinus harak and Lutjanus fulviflamma, respectively (this study) vs. Caribbean: 36% for Haemulon flavolineatum [15]; 40–74% for Haemulon flavolineatum and 99% for Lutjanus apodus [20]. This indicates that Indo-Pacific mangroves can play an equally important role as juvenile habitat for some species as is the case in the Caribbean.
Using three potential juvenile habitats (mangrove, seagrass, coral reef) as a source, the current study suggests that no single habitat maintains reef fish populations of these species (except perhaps L. fulviflamma on offshore reefs), but act together in replenishing adult populations. Previous studies have shown high (88–99%) contributions from single juvenile habitats to adult reef fish populations, but none of these studies included multiple juvenile habitats, or the coral reef itself was not taken into account as a possible juvenile habitat [17], [20], [22]. Studies showing single habitats that contribute close to 100% of recruits to adult populations are rare in general [15], [22], [50], [51]. The different contributions of the three habitats in the present study indicates that maintenance of reef fish populations in the Indo-Pacific depends on habitat mosaics rather than on individual habitats [10], [52], which is an important consideration for species and fisheries management and conservation.
The usage of coastal habitat mosaics by juveniles of some reef fish could provide an insurance effect (e.g. [53]) against natural or human perturbations, or failure of management efforts in single habitats. Coastal habitats are currently under high pressure from anthropogenic activities and climate change [4], [5], [6], [54], [55] which are threatening their existence, and pose a threat to the recruitment, persistence and sustainability of marine fish populations. Coral reefs are being seriously overfished across the globe [56]. In this light, contributions of juvenile habitats with a currently lower than average contribution to adult populations could become critical in maintaining offshore fish stocks at sustainable levels. Identification of nursery habitats has traditionally been based on habitats that supply a higher number of recruits to adult populations than the average across all juvenile habitats [12], [57]. However, without any guarantees that the most productive nursery habitat can be managed effectively or guarded against natural disturbances, we should spread the risk of potential management failure by conserving seascapes containing multiple patches of connected habitats. This approach also incorporates multiple juvenile habitat usage throughout ontogeny as well as maintenance of habitat linkages resulting from daily feeding or shelter-seeking migrations [58], [59], [60]. Our study showed that about a third of the large juvenile Lethrinus harak in seagrass beds had utilized mangroves during their earlier life stage. Such niche shifts are very common in tropical coastal fish species [61], [62], and effective replenishment of adult populations can only be accomplished by incorporating all habitats that are successively used by fishes during their juvenile stage.
In conclusion, our results provide strong support for a nursery role of Indo-Pacific mangroves for certain species of reef fishes, but also indicate that seascape structure plays a vital role, and habitat mosaics rather than individual habitats should be conserved to maintain effective replenishment of offshore fish stocks.
Acknowledgments
We thank the staff of the Department of Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries of the University of Dar es Salaam for their cooperation and for providing office space and research facilities. We express our gratitude to Suzan Verdegaal and Hubert Vonhof of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam for laboratory assistance during otoliths analysis. Appreciation is expressed to Michel Trommelen, Piet Blankers, Nanne van Hoytema, Niek Slooter, Estrella Tapias, Ben Griffioen, Coen Wagner, Peter Smittenaar, and Mathias Igulu for their invaluable field assistance, and Hassan and Mmanga for operating the research boat.
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: IAK IN YDM. Performed the experiments: IAK. Analyzed the data: IAK IN CMH. Wrote the paper: IAK IN CMH.
References
- 1.
Blaber SJM (2009) Relationships between tropical coastal habitats and (offshore) fisheries. In: Nagelkerken I, editor. Ecological connectivity among tropical coastal ecosystems. Dordrecht: Springer Science and Business Media. 533–564.
- 2. Mumby PJ, Edwards AJ, Arias-Gonzalez JE, Lindeman KC, Blackwell PG, et al. (2004) Mangroves enhance the biomass of coral reef fish communities in the Caribbean. Nature 427: 533–536.
- 3. Dorenbosch M, Grol MGG, Nagelkerken I, van der Velde G (2006) Seagrass beds and mangroves as potential nurseries for the threatened Indo-Pacific humphead wrasse, Cheilinus undulatus and Caribbean rainbow parrotfish, Scarus quacamaia. Biological Conservation 129: 277–282.
- 4. Duke NC, Meynecke J-O, Dittmann S, Ellison AM, Anger K, et al. (2007) A world without mangroves? Science 317: 41–42.
- 5. Waycott M, Duarte CM, Carruthers TJB, Orth RJ, Dennison WC, et al. (2009) Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106: 12377–12381.
- 6. Valiela I, Bowen JL, York JK (2001) Mangrove forests: One of the world's threatened major tropical environments. BioScience 51: 807–815.
- 7. Costanza R, d′Arge R, De Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, et al. (1997) The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 287: 253–260.
- 8. Nagelkerken I, Grol MGG, Mumby PJ (2012) Effects of marine reserves versus nursery habitat availability on structure of reef fish communities. PLoS ONE 7: e36906.
- 9. Olds AD, Connolly RM, Pitt KA, Maxwell PS (2012) Habitat connectivity improves reserve performance. Conservation Letters 5: 56–63.
- 10. Sheaves M (2009) Consequences of ecological connectivity: the coastal ecosystem mosaic. Marine Ecology Progress Series 391: 107–115.
- 11.
Nagelkerken I (2009) Evaluation of nursery function of mangroves and seagrass beds for tropical decapods and reef fishes: patterns and underlying mechanisms. In: Nagelkerken I, editor. Ecological connectivity among tropical coastal ecosystems. Dordrecht: Springer Science and Business Media. 357–400.
- 12. Beck MW, Heck KL, Able KW, Childers DL, Eggleston DB, et al. (2001) The identification, conservation, and management of estuarine and marine nurseries for fish and invertebrates. Bioscience 51: 633–641.
- 13.
Gillanders BM (2009) Tools for studying biological marine ecosystem interactions - Natural and artificial tags. In: Nagelkerken I, editor. Ecological connectivity among tropical coastal ecosystems. Dordrecht: Springer Science and Business Media. 457–492.
- 14. Elsdon TS, Wells BK (2008) Otolith chemistry to describe movements and life-history parameters of fishes: Hypotheses, assumptions, limitations and inferences. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 46: 297–330.
- 15. Chittaro PM, Fryer BJ, Sale R (2004) Discrimination of French grunts (Haemulon flavolineatum Desmarest, 1823) from mangrove and coral reef habitats using otolith microchemistry. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 308: 169–183.
- 16.
Bouillon S, Connolly RM, Gillikin D (2012) Use of stable isotopes to understand food webs and ecological processes. In: Wolanski E, McClusky DS, editors. Treatise on estuarine and coastal science, Book 7. Waltham: Academic Press.
- 17. Nakamura Y, Horinouchi M, Shibuno T, Tanaka Y, Miyajima T, et al. (2008) Evidence of ontogenetic migration from mangroves to coral reefs by black-tail snapper Lutjanus fulvus: stable isotope approach. Marine Ecology Progress Series 355: 257–266.
- 18. Campana SE (1999) Chemistry and composition of fish otoliths: pathways, mechanisms and applications. Marine Ecology Progress Series 188: 263–297.
- 19. Campana SE (2005) Otolith science entering the 21st century. Marine and Freshwater Research 56: 485–495.
- 20. Mateo I, Durbin EG, Appeldoorn RS, Adams AJ, Juanes F, et al. (2010) Role of mangroves as nurseries for French grunt Haemulon flavolineatum and schoolmaster Lutjanus apodus assessed by otolith elemental fingerprints. Marine Ecology Progress Series 402: 197–212.
- 21. McMahon KW, Berumen ML, Mateo I, Elsdon TS, Thorrold SR (2011) Carbon isotopes in otolith amino acids identify residency of juvenile snapper (Family: Lutjanidae) in coastal nurseries. Coral Reefs 30: 1135–1145.
- 22. Verweij MC, Nagelkerken I, Hans I, Ruseler SM, Mason PRD (2008) Seagrass nurseries contribute to coral reef fish populations. Limnology and Oceanography 53: 1540–1547.
- 23.
Huijbers CM, Nagelkerken I, Debrot A, Jongejans E (2013) Geographic coupling of juvenile and adult habitat shapes spatial population dynamics of a coral reef fish. Ecology: in press. https://doi.org/10.1890/11-1759.1
- 24. Nagelkerken I (2007) Are non-estuarine mangroves connected to coral reefs through fish migration? Bulletin of Marine Science 80: 595–607.
- 25. Nakamura Y, Hirota K, Shibuno T, Watanabe Y (2012) Variability in nursery function of tropical seagrass beds during fish ontogeny: timing of ontogenetic habitat shift. Marine Biology 159: 1305–1315.
- 26. Nagelkerken I, Bothwell J, Nemeth RS, Pitt JM, van der Velde G (2008) Interlinkage between Caribbean coral reefs and seagrass beds through feeding migrations by grunts (Haemulidae) depends on habitat accessibility. Marine Ecology Progress Series 368: 155–164.
- 27. Nagelkerken I, Blaber SJM, Bouillon S, Green P, Haywood M, et al. (2008) The habitat function of mangroves for terrestrial and marine fauna: A review. Aquatic Botany 89: 155–185.
- 28. Unsworth RKF, Bell JJ, Smith DJ (2007) Tidal fish connectivity of reef and seagrass habitats in the Indo-Pacific. Journal of The Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 87: 1287–1296.
- 29. Dorenbosch M, Grol MGG, Nagelkerken I, van der Velde G (2006) Different surrounding landscapes may result in different fish assemblages in East African seagrass beds. Hydrobiologia 563: 45–60.
- 30. Sheaves M, Johnston R (2009) Ecological drivers of spatial variability among fish fauna of 21 tropical Australian estuaries. Marine Ecology Progress Series 385: 245–260.
- 31. Kruitwagen G, Nagelkerken I, Lugendo BR, Mgaya YD, Bonga SEW (2010) Importance of different carbon sources for macroinvertebrates and fishes of an interlinked mangrove–mudflat ecosystem (Tanzania). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 88: 464–472.
- 32. Lugendo BR, Nagelkerken I, van der Velde G, Mgaya YD (2006) The importance of mangroves, mud and sand flats, and seagrass beds as feeding areas for juvenile fishes in Chwaka Bay, Zanzibar: gut content and stable isotope analyses. Journal of Fish Biology 69: 1639–1661.
- 33.
Faunce CH, Layman CA (2009) Sources of variation that affect perceived nursery function of Mangroves. In: Nagelkerken I, editor. Ecological connectivity among tropical coastal ecosystems. Dordrecht: Springer Science and Business Media. 401–421.
- 34. Laroche J, Baran E, Rasoanandrasana NB (1997) Temporal patterns in a fish assemblage of a semiarid mangrove zone in Madagascar. Journal of Fish Biology 51: 3–20.
- 35. Sheaves M (2001) Are there really few piscivorous fishes in shallow estuarine habitats? Marine Ecology Progress Series 222: 279–290.
- 36. Thollot P (1992) Importance of mangroves for Pacific reef fish species, myth or reality? Proceedings of the 6th International Coral Reef Symposium 2: 934–941.
- 37. Mumby PJ, Hastings A (2008) The impact of ecosystem connectivity on coral reef resilience Journal of Applied Ecology. 45: 854–862.
- 38. Gonzalez Carman V, Falabella V, Maxwell S, Albareda D, Campagna C, et al. (2012) Revisiting the ontogenetic shift paradigm: The case of juvenile green turtles in the SW Atlantic. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 429: 64–72.
- 39. 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. Marine Ecology Progress Series 302: 63–76.
- 40. Kimirei IA, Nagelkerken I, Griffioen B, Wagner C, Mgaya YD (2011) Ontogenetic habitat use by mangrove/seagrass-associated coral reef fishes shows flexibility in time and space. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 92: 47–58.
- 41. Nakamura Y, Tsuchiya M (2008) Spatial and temporal patterns of seagrass habitat use by fishes at the Ryukyu Islands, Japan. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 76: 345–356.
- 42. Dorenbosch M, Verberk WCEP, Nagelkerken I, van der Veldel G (2007) Influence of habitat configuration on connectivity between fish assemblages of Caribbean seagrass beds, mangroves and coral reefs. Marine Ecology Progress Series 334: 103–116.
- 43.
URT (2009) The Fisheries Regulations, 2009. GNNo 308 of 28/8/2009. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Government Printer.
- 44. Lugendo BR, Pronker A, Cornelissen I, de Groene A, Nagelkerken I, et al. (2005) Habitat utilisation by juveniles of commercially important fish species in a marine embayment in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Aquatic Living Resources 18: 149–158.
- 45. Unsworth RK, De Leon PS, Garrard SL, Jompa J, Smith DJ, et al. (2008) High connectivity of Indo-Pacific seagrass fish assemblages with mangrove and coral reef habitats. Marine Ecology Progress Series 353: 213–224.
- 46.
Field A (2005) Discovering statistics using SPSS; Wright DB, editor.. London: SAGE Publications.
- 47. Millar RB (1990) Comparison of methods for estimating mixed stock fishery composition. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47: 2235–2241.
- 48.
Blaber SJM (2000) Tropical estuarine fishes: ecology, exploitation and conservation. Fish and Aquatic Resources Series 7. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
- 49. Verweij MC, Nagelkerken I, Wartenbergh SLJ, Pen IR, van der Velde G (2006) Caribbean mangroves and seagrass beds as daytime feeding habitats for juvenile French grunts, Haemulon flavolineatum. Marine Biology 149: 1291–1299.
- 50. Gillanders BM (1997) Patterns of abundance and size structure in the blue groper, Achoerodus viridis (Pisces, Labridae): evidence of links between estuaries and coastal reefs. Environmental Biology of Fishes 49: 153–173.
- 51. Gillanders BM (2002) Connectivity between juvenile and adult fish populations: do adults remain near their recruitment estuaries? Marine Ecology Progress Series 240: 215–223.
- 52. Sheaves M (2005) Nature and consequences of biological connectivity in mangrove systems. Marine Ecology Progress Series 302: 293–305.
- 53. Yates PM, Heupel MR, Tobin AJ, Simpfendorfer CA (2012) Diversity in young shark habitats provides the potential for portifolio effects. Marine Ecology Progress Series 458: 269–281.
- 54. Baker AC, Glynn PW, Riegl B (2008) Climate change and coral reef bleaching: An ecological assessment of long-term impacts, recovery trends and future outlook. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 80: 435–471.
- 55.
Gillanders BM (2006) Seagrasses, fish, and fisheries. In: Larkum AWD, editor. Seagrasses: Biology, Ecology and Conservation. Amsterdam: Springer Science and Business Media. 503–536.
- 56. Newton K, Cote IM, Pilling GM, Jennings S, Dulvy NK (2007) Current and future sustainability of island coral reef fisheries. Current Biology 17: 655–658.
- 57. Adams AJ, Dahlgren CP, Kellison GT, Kendall MS, Layman CA, et al. (2006) Nursery function of tropical back-reef systems. Marine Ecology Progress Series 318: 287–301.
- 58. Dorenbosch M, Verweij MC, Nagelkerken I, Jiddawi N, van der Velde G (2004) Homing and daytime tidal movements of juvenile snappers (Lutjanidae) between shallow-water nursery habitats in Zanzibar, western Indian Ocean. Environmental Biology of Fishes 70: 203–209.
- 59. Verweij MC, Nagelkerken I (2007) Short and long-term movement and site fidelity of juvenile Haemulidae in back-reef habitats of a Caribbean embayment. Hydrobiologia 592: 257–270.
- 60. Lugendo BR, Nagelkerken I, Kruitwagen G, van der Velde G, Mgaya YD (2007) Relative importance of mangroves as feeding habitat for fish: a comparison between mangrove habitats with different settings. Bulletin of Marine Science 80: 497–512.
- 61. Nagelkerken I, Dorenbosch M, Verberk WCEP, Cocheret de la Moriniere E, van der Velde G (2000) Importance of shallow-water biotopes of a Caribbean bay for juvenile coral reef fishes: patterns in biotope association, community structure and spatial distribution. Marine Ecology Progress Series 202: 175–192.
- 62.
Kimirei IA, Nagelkerken I, Trommelen M, Blankers P, van Hoytema N, et al.. (2013) What drives ontogenetic niche shifts of fishes in coral reef ecosystems? Ecosystems: in press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-013-9645-4.