No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This study examined whether movements of fishes across reserve boundaries reduced the difference in density and size of fish between reserve and non-reserve areas. Visual censuses, experimental trapping, habitat measurements and tagging were performed at 10 sites on two nearly contiguous fringing coral reefs at the northern edge of the Barbados Marine Reserve and at 10 sites on the two fringing reefs closest to the boundary in the non-reserve. The visual censuses showed that overall density and size of fishes large enough to be caught in Antillean fish traps were higher on reserve reefs than on non-reserve reefs. The differences in density and size varied considerably among species and were not statistically significant for individual species. In contrast to a previous study, experimental trap catches were not higher in the reserve than in the non-reserve. Visual censuses, trap catches, and their ratio (trappability) were affected by habitat variables. Species mobility, estimated by the maximum distance between locations at which an individual was captured, corrected for the sampling effort at that distance, was highly variable among species (medians 0--116m). For the more mobile species, movements within fringing reefs and between the nearly contiguous reserve reefs was high but extremely rare among reefs separated by expanses of sand and rubble. For this discrete fringing reef system, there is no evidence that movement across the reserve boundary influences the relative density or size of fish between the reserve and non-reserve.

This study used trapping and visual census surveys to assess whether a marine reserve in Barbados effectively protected coral reef fish stocks and whether there was evidence of emigration from the reserve. Fish abundance and sizes were higher in the reserve than in surrounding non-reserve areas. Relative differences in abundance and size between reserve and non-reserve of different taxa were positively correlated to vulnerability to traps (the most common fishing method) but not to mobility of fish. Gradients of abundance across the reserve boundaries (decreasing abundance with distance from the reserve center) were apparent for total abundance but not for individual taxa. These patterns suggest that the reserve does protect fish stocks and that emigration is of minor importance.

No description available.

No description available.