Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Retention of Habitat Complexity Minimizes Disassembly of Reef Fish Communities following Disturbance: A Large-Scale Natural Experiment

Abstract

High biodiversity ecosystems are commonly associated with complex habitats. Coral reefs are highly diverse ecosystems, but are under increasing pressure from numerous stressors, many of which reduce live coral cover and habitat complexity with concomitant effects on other organisms such as reef fishes. While previous studies have highlighted the importance of habitat complexity in structuring reef fish communities, they employed gradient or meta-analyses which lacked a controlled experimental design over broad spatial scales to explicitly separate the influence of live coral cover from overall habitat complexity. Here a natural experiment using a long term (20 year), spatially extensive (∼115,000 kms2) dataset from the Great Barrier Reef revealed the fundamental importance of overall habitat complexity for reef fishes. Reductions of both live coral cover and habitat complexity had substantial impacts on fish communities compared to relatively minor impacts after major reductions in coral cover but not habitat complexity. Where habitat complexity was substantially reduced, species abundances broadly declined and a far greater number of fish species were locally extirpated, including economically important fishes. This resulted in decreased species richness and a loss of diversity within functional groups. Our results suggest that the retention of habitat complexity following disturbances can ameliorate the impacts of coral declines on reef fishes, so preserving their capacity to perform important functional roles essential to reef resilience. These results add to a growing body of evidence about the importance of habitat complexity for reef fishes, and represent the first large-scale examination of this question on the Great Barrier Reef.

Citation: Emslie MJ, Cheal AJ, Johns KA (2014) Retention of Habitat Complexity Minimizes Disassembly of Reef Fish Communities following Disturbance: A Large-Scale Natural Experiment. PLoS ONE 9(8): e105384. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105384

Editor: Maura (Gee) Geraldine Chapman, University of Sydney, Australia

Received: April 10, 2014; Accepted: July 23, 2014; Published: August 20, 2014

Copyright: © 2014 Emslie 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.

Data Availability: The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. Data are freely available from the AIMS Data Centre for all researchers upon request. Data are from the Long Term Monitoring Project whose authors may be contacted at m.emslie@aims.gov.au.

Funding: The study was supported by Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Australian Government's Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility and National Environment Research Program (Tropical Ecosystems Hub). 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

Habitat complexity is fundamentally important for the maintenance of high biodiversity across a range of ecosystems [1]–[5]. Coral reef ecosystems are among the most diverse on the planet with reefs with higher habitat complexity often housing more species than less complex reefs due to the greater variety of niches and shelter [6]–[8]. Habitat complexity on coral reefs has two major components; the underlying substrate rugosity and the skeletal structure provided by live and dead hard corals. Coral reefs are subject to many types of disturbance that can have negligible to severe impacts on coral cover and habitat complexity. For example, disturbances such as Acanthaster planci (crown-of-thorns starfish) outbreaks and coral bleaching cause coral mortality but leave skeletons intact [9]–[11], so habitat complexity remains largely unchanged in the short term. Subsequently, coral skeletons may erode due to natural processes causing longer term declines in habitat complexity. Conversely, waves from storms can obliterate entire coral colonies removing the habitat complexity previously afforded by their skeletons [11], [12]. However, loss of coral structures due to storms or skeletal erosion will not necessarily lead to low habitat complexity if substrate rugosity is high. Indeed, reefs with high substrate rugosity should maintain a greater diversity of organisms than reefs with low substrate rugosity once hard corals are removed, with the exception of those organisms fundamentally dependent on intact coral skeletons or living coral tissue for survival.

Disturbances on coral reefs can dramatically impact the diversity, abundance and community structure of reef fishes, because many fish species are closely associated with live corals and their structures [6]–[8], [13]–[15]. To date, many studies have attributed changes in fish communities to loss of hard coral cover [9], [13], [16]–[20]. Numerous reef fishes rely on hard corals for food and/or shelter and many of these species decline in abundance following hard coral decline [9], [16]–[22]. However, numerous fish species with seemingly limited reliance on hard corals per se (e.g. non-corallivorous butterflyfishes, large predators, some herbivorous fishes) have also declined in abundance following disturbances, and in these cases the role of habitat complexity has been implicated [8], [9], [11], [13], [20], [23]. Declines in abundance and diversity of reef fishes following disturbances can be detrimental to ecosystem functioning and reef resilience due to a reduction in the capacity of reef fishes to perform trophic functions. For example, a reduction in the number and diversity of herbivorous fishes decreases their capacity to prevent proliferation of macro-algae that may limit recovery of corals following disturbances [24]–[32]. Clearly, declines in both live corals and habitat complexity must be important to reef fishes, and disentangling the relative influence of each will provide clues to the relative threat to reef fishes of disturbances which do and do not alter habitat complexity.

It has previously been demonstrated through experimentation [7], [33], [34] and longer term datasets [12]–[14], [16]–[22] that reductions in habitat complexity and live coral cover adversely affect reef fish communities. Manipulative experiments have generally been conducted at restricted spatio- temporal scales, typically small (∼10 s of m2) patch reefs surveyed over several months [7], [33], [34], and results are difficult to scale up to ecosystem levels. Projects conducted over larger spatio-temporal scales have generally employed gradient/regression type analyses (e.g. [13]) or meta-analyses (e.g. [11]), which are useful approaches for highlighting relationships among variables, changes in variables along a gradient and for integrating many disparate datasets, but lack rigorous experimental designs with which to definitively attribute causation. Here we use data collected from reefs spread over 115,000 km2 of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), gathered over 20 years and employ a natural experiment to formally test how the loss of live coral versus loss of habitat complexity influences reef fish community structure, the diversity of reef fish families and functional groups, and the abundance of individual species.

Methods

Sampling

Data were gathered as part of the Long Term Monitoring Program at the Australian Institute of Marine Science (GBRMPA permit number G13/36390.1); in which fish and benthic communities have been surveyed on 47 reefs of the GBR since 1995. Large-scale disturbances, such as storms and A. planci outbreaks that have occurred over the last two decades on the GBR [22], [35]–[36], facilitate opportunities to test macro-ecological hypotheses that due to their scope, require manipulations of a scale (100 s kilometres) that are logistically impossible for researchers to attempt using traditional experimental frameworks [37].We were able to perform a natural experiment to investigate the effects of reductions in live coral cover versus habitat complexity on reef fish communities, by retrospectively assigning replicate reefs into three treatments based on the effects of disturbances. Eight reefs were chosen based on comparable levels of live coral cover (>50%) and subsequent similar and very large relative declines in cover (∼90%) due to disturbances. These reefs were separated into two equal treatments based on relative reductions in habitat complexity: 1. a major decline in habitat complexity from high/moderate to very low levels (hereafter “Major Decline”), and 2. a minor decline in habitat complexity from high to moderate levels (hereafter “Minor Decline”). A further four reefs had minimal declines in hard coral cover and no change in habitat complexity (hereafter “Control”; Fig. 1). Even though reefs in each treatment were unevenly distributed geographically (Fig. 1), 77% of fish species were common to all reefs in the study thus enabling valid comparisons of changes to fish communities. Furthermore, our analysis determined the magnitude of change in individual species abundance and community structure, plus the proportion of the community affected (irrespective of identity) before and after disturbances. Thus species identity per se was not important but rather the magnitude of changes and the proportion of the community affected.

thumbnail
Download:
Figure 1. Location of the study reefs in each of the three treatments (Major Decline, Minor Decline and Control).

Small panels display trends in hard coral cover and habitat complexity, along with shaded periods of time when disturbances (COTS = Acanthaster planci outbreaks, storms & coral disease) occurred. Points are raw data means, while solid lines indicate modelled average trends and dotted lines show 2 x standard errors from a linear mixed effects model fitted separately to hard coral cover and habitat complexity. Arrows mark the years of greatest and least hard coral cover.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105384.g001

Three sites of five permanently marked 50 m transects were situated in comparable reef slope habitats (n = 15 transects per reef) and were surveyed on SCUBA annually from 1995 until 2006 and then biennially thereafter. From 1995 until 2005, the benthic community was described using a 30-cm video swathe along the transects. Forty frames from each video transect were sampled and the benthic organisms beneath five points projected on to each frame in a quincunx pattern were identified to the finest taxonomic resolution possible, yielding 200 samples per transect. After 2006, a digital still image was taken every metre along each transect, and forty images were selected and analysed as before [38]. These data were then converted to percent cover of total hard coral for use in univariate analyses. For multivariate analyses, data were converted to percent cover of finer taxonomic groupings that included different growth forms of the most abundant coral family Acroporidae and other hard corals (including all other non-Acroporidae hard coral families), fire coral (genus Millepora), soft corals, coralline, turf and macro-algae, rubble, dead coral, sand, abiotic, sponges and other (rare benthic organisms of very low abundance e.g., ascidians, anemones). Fish communities were surveyed concurrently on the same transects using underwater visual census. The abundance and number of species of fishes recorded during surveys were taken from a list of 215 mobile, diurnally active species (including the families Acanthuridae, Chaetodontidae, Labridae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Pomacentridae, Scaridae, Siganidae, Zanclidae and the commercially important Plectropomus spp., hereafter “coral trout”). While parrotfishes are now considered as a tribe Scarinae within the family Labridae, we use the term “Scaridae” to distinguish this group of fishes from other Labridae. We define “species richness” as the number of species recorded and use this term hereafter. Cryptic species such as gobies and blennies were not included. Two transect widths were used: 50×1 m belts for the Pomacentridae and 50×5 m belts for the remaining families [39]. Habitat complexity was independently estimated retrospectively by two observers using a scale of zero (least complex - minimal vertical relief, few holes, crevices and overhangs) to five (most complex - high vertical relief, many holes, crevices and overhangs) from 360o video panoramas taken at the start of each transect. This 0 to 5 scale correlates strongly with a range of other rugosity metrics and has been found to be a good predictor of reef fish diversity and abundance [40].

Analyses

To provide the clearest picture of absolute changes in fish communities under varying degrees of change in habitat complexity, we compared metrics of reef fish communities at times of greatest (hereafter “Before”) and least (hereafter “After”) percent coral cover (indicated by arrows in Fig 1). All analyses were conducted in R [41]. To visualise the changes in fish and benthic communities before and after disturbances, we performed a non-metric Multi-Dimensional Scaling (nMDS) based on the Bray-Curtis similarity co-efficient using the iso-MDS package. To reduce the influence of highly abundant taxa, benthic cover data were row centred and square-root transformed. Similarly, to visualise changes to the whole community rather than a few highly abundant species, fish abundances were row centred and fourth root transformed prior to analysis. To examine the magnitude of change in fish and benthic communities before and after disturbances, we conducted a permutational multivariate analysis of variance using distance matrices and assessed the sums of squares for each Treatment and used the ADONIS function from the VEGAN package in R [41]. As the Treatment by Time interaction was significant, we re-ran the analysis separately for each Treatment (Major Decline, Minor Decline, Control).

Changes in fish and benthic communities were further investigated using Bayesian hierarchical models [42], fitted separately for hard coral cover, habitat complexity, total fish species richness and the species richness of eight reef fish families surveyed (Acanthuridae, Chaetodontidae, Labridae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Pomacentridae, Scaridae, Siganidae), plus the commercially important coral trout (Plectropomus spp.). In order to assess the effects of loss of habitat complexity and live coral on functional roles performed by reef fishes, we examined changes to the species richness of broad functional groups including corallivorous and generalist butterflyfishes, herbivores, planktivores and predators. Models had the fixed factors of Time (Before or After) and Treatment (Major Decline, Minor Decline, Control), and random factors of reef, site and transect. Most variables were modelled against a gaussian distribution in the MCMCglmm package [43]; however some were modelled against negative binomial distributions (log link) to account for zero-inflation and over-dispersion inherent in ecological count data [44] (Table S1). Negative-binomial models were fitted through Just Another Gibbs Sampler (JAGS) via the R2JAGS package in R and used non-informative, flat gaussian priors and the posterior distributions were derived from three Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) (see Table S1 for further model details including number of iterations, burn in and thinning). Model convergence and mixing of Markov chains was assessed visually from trace plots and autocorrelation of the chains was always less than 0.2. Inferences about temporal changes were based on 95% Bayesian Higher Posterior Density (HPD) intervals of cell means predicted from posterior distributions of model parameters. Specific post-hoc contrasts were examined including differences in Time (before and after disturbance) among Treatments and differences among Treatments.

We assessed changes in the abundance of individual reef fish species by plotting a comparable metric to account for differences in initial coral cover [45], calculated as the percent change in abundance from before to after disturbance;Where Ab and Aa were mean values at before and after disturbance respectively. Fish species were only included in these analyses if their summed abundance was ≥10 per reef ( = 15 transects) in one of the two years. Changes in individual species abundance were then averaged across the four reefs within each Treatment.

Results

Benthic and fish community structure changed from times of greatest to least coral cover, but the magnitude of change varied among habitat complexity treatments (Fig 2). On reefs with a major decline in complexity, there were substantial shifts in the structure of both fish communities (ADONIS Time: F = 19.134, d. f. = 1, Pr(>F) = 0.001) and benthic communities (ADONIS Time: F = 85.902, d. f. = 1, Pr(>F) = 0.001) (Fig 2). Similarly, a large shift occurred in the benthic communities on reefs with minor declines in habitat complexity, (ADONIS Time: F = 32.429, d. f. = 1, Pr(>F) = 0.001), but a much smaller shift was evident for the fish communities (ADONIS Time: F = 2.1751, d. f. = 1, Pr(>F) = 0.059) on these reefs compared to those in the Major Decline treatment (Fig 2). Very little change occurred in either the fish communities (ADONIS Time: F = 0.3885, d. f. = 1, Pr(>F) = 0.909) or benthic communities (ADONIS Time: F = 1.0507, d. f. = 1, Pr(>F) = 0.304) on Control reefs (Fig 2).

thumbnail
Download:
Figure 2. Multi-dimensional plot based on Bray-Curtis similarity coefficients of (a) square-root transformed percent benthic cover and (b) fourth-root transformed fish species abundances.

Each panel presents changes to communities following disturbances for the three treatments (Major Decline, Minor Decline and Control). A full model ADONIS analysis revealed a significant interaction for both benthic communities (ADONIS Treatment*Time: F = 14.293, d. f. = 2, Pr(>F) = 0.001) and fish communities (ADONIS Treatment*Time: F = 4.9225, d. f. = 2, Pr(>F) = 0.001). Changes from times of greatest to least coral cover were further examined by separate ADONIS for each individual Treatment (Major Decline, Minor Decline and Control), and the small inset bar graphs display the effect sizes (Sums of Squares) from these individual analyses. ***: Pr(>F) = <0.001

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105384.g002

Hard coral cover declined in all treatments but the decline was negligible on Control reefs. Habitat complexity only declined substantially on Major Decline reefs; reductions were minimal on reefs in the Minor Decline treatment and were similar to changes at Control reefs (Fig 3). Reductions in fish total species richness and the species richness of the Chaetodontidae and Labridae occurred on reefs in both complexity decline treatments, though the loss was greatest on in the Major Decline reefs (Fig 3). Also, species richness of Acanthuridae, Lutjanidae, Pomacentridae, Scaridae and coral trout declined on reefs in the Major Decline treatment, but not on those in the Minor Decline or Control treatments (Fig 3). There were large declines of species richness of all functional groups of fishes on Major Decline reefs (Fig 3). However, the species richness of only two functional groups, corallivorous butterflyfishes and predators, declined on Minor Decline reefs and these reductions were substantially smaller than those on reefs in the Major Decline treatment. There was no substantial decline in species richness of any functional group on Control reefs (Fig. 3).

thumbnail
Download:
Figure 3. Differences in hard coral cover, habitat complexity, total species richness of fishes and species richness of eight fish families and five broad functional groups for each of the three treatments (Major Decline, Minor Decline and Control).

Data are average effect sizes from generalized linear mixed effects model expressed as a per cent change from the time of greatest to least coral cover. Inferences about temporal changes were based on 95% Bayesian Highest Posterior Density (HPD) intervals of cell means predicted from posterior distributions of model parameters derived via Markov-chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling. Effects are considered significant if the HPD intervals do not intersect zero.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105384.g003

Changes in the abundance of individual species varied substantially among the three habitat complexity treatments (Fig 4), with major declines in habitat complexity impacting a greater number of species than minor declines. On Major Decline reefs, 75% of species declined in abundance, 56% of species lost half their abundance and 18% were locally extirpated (declined to zero) (Fig 4). In comparison, the abundance of less than half (48%) of the fish species declined on reefs in the Minor Decline treatment, 24% declined in abundance by half and only 3% of species were locally extirpated (Fig 4). Fish species on Control reefs were far less affected; 22% of species declined in abundance, with only 3% declining by half and no species being locally extirpated (Fig 4).

thumbnail
Download:
Figure 4. Average percentage change in abundance of individual fish species between times of greatest and least hard coral cover for (a) control reefs (b) reefs that underwent minor declines in complexity (c) reefs that underwent major decline in complexity.

Fish species were only included in analyses if their reef wide abundance was ≥10 in one of the two years. Changes in individual species abundance at each reef were then averaged across the four reefs in each Treatment (Major Decline, Minor Decline and Control). Note that the y axis scale is in natural log units and dotted horizontal lines represent 10, 50 and 100% changes in abundance and that error bars were not included to improve clarity. Coloured bars represent trophic affiliations: green with right diagonal hatching = herbivores, blue with left diagonal hatching = planktivores, red with horizontal hatching = corallivorous butterflyfishes, orange solid bars = generalist (non-coral feeding) butterflyfish, black solid bars = predators. A list of species abbreviations on the x-axis and their corresponding species names are found in Table S2.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105384.g004

The major loss of habitat complexity also greatly reduced the capacity of reef fishes to perform their functional roles. Among the functionally important herbivorous fishes, fourteen species declined in abundance by 50% or more on reefs that underwent major declines in habitat complexity, compared to four species on reefs with a minor decline and only one species on Control reefs. Additionally, abundances of some commercially important fishery species such as coral trout, were reduced to zero on Major Decline reefs, but declined by less than 5% on Minor Decline reefs. In addition, obligate corallivores accounted for a large proportion of the species that declined in abundance in the Minor Decline treatment, but accounted for a much smaller proportion of the substantially greater number of species that declined on reefs with major declines in complexity.

Discussion

Using long-term data at ecologically meaningful scales on the GBR, this study has demonstrated the fundamental importance of habitat complexity for the maintenance of diverse fish communities, which is critical for maintaining healthy ecosystem function. Among reefs which underwent large declines in live coral cover, it was only on those reefs where habitat complexity also declined markedly that reef fish communities underwent wholesale reductions in diversity, species abundances and functional capacity. Previously small scale manipulative experiments [7], [33], [34], gradient/regression type analyses [13], [20], or meta-analyses [11] had proposed the importance of habitat complexity for reef fishes, but whether these results reflected a broad-scale truth had not been rigorously tested. Our large-scale, natural experiment was able to demonstrate the generality of habitat complexity as a fundamental driver of reef fish community structure on the GBR, supporting findings in other regions [11], [13], [20], [46], [47]. We showed that major loss of habitat complexity affected a broad array of reef fishes from all trophic/functional groups. Additionally, although major loss of hard coral but not habitat complexity caused declines in some fish species, mostly those intimately associated with hard corals, the role of corals was not as important if overall habitat complexity remained moderate to high. Such results suggest that reefs which undergo major reductions in overall habitat complexity following disturbances will support depauperate reef fish communities, with a reduced ability to perform critical functional roles that contribute to the resilience of coral reefs.

While decreases in abundance of coral dependent species following loss of live coral were expected irrespective of changes in habitat complexity [20], [22], the sweeping reductions in abundance of most reef fish species following major reduction in habitat complexity was more surprising (but see [11], [13]). Large predatory fishes, planktivorous damselfishes and various herbivores were included in these decreases despite most having no obvious dependence on corals, implying that these fishes are dependent on habitat complexity for their survival, most likely through the provision of shelter and food sources. Clearly, habitat complexity affords shelter not only through live corals, but also through dead coral skeletons and by caves, cracks and fissures in the substrate. Where fish abundance declined due to lack of shelter, it was uncertain whether this resulted from migration to more suitable habitat, either around the reef or into deeper water, or from increased mortality resulting from the lack of refugia from predation. Whatever the mechanism of these declines, such dramatic shifts in reef fish community structure have implications for the ecological functioning of coral reef communities.

The extirpation of numerous species of fishes following major declines in habitat complexity contributed to a major reduction in fish diversity, with species from a range of trophic affiliations lost. High fish diversity usually equates to increased functional diversity (the number of functional groups at a site) and functional redundancy (the number of species within a functional group), both key components of reef resilience [48]–[53]. Higher functional diversity should enhance the capacity of a reef to deal with disturbances while functional redundancy provides a form of ecological insurance for the maintenance of a functional role despite losses of some species due to disturbances. Thus it seems highly likely that resilience will be diminished following major losses of habitat complexity. For example, the functional contribution of herbivorous fishes to reef resilience has been well established. Many species of herbivorous reef fishes have the capacity to prevent algal overgrowth and aid coral recovery through their grazing activities, thereby preventing undesirable shifts to a macro-algal dominated state [24], . In this study, the disappearance of fourteen species of herbivorous fishes on reefs where there were major declines of habitat complexity is likely to result in increased vulnerability to such phase shifts (but see [55]).

While the role of herbivorous fishes in reef resilience has been well established, the contributions of many other reef fishes to reef resilience and healthy ecosystem functioning is less clear. However, what is certain is that the loss of a range of coral reef species performing many functional roles will likely have unknown consequences for ecosystem functioning. For example, reductions in the diversity and abundance of corallivorous fishes (e.g. butterflyfishes) will lower coral mortality [56], because corallivorous butterflyfishes can consume between 9 and 13% of the available tissue biomass of coral, representing 50 to 80% of the total annual productivity [57]. The loss of corallivorous fishes following disturbances will therefore remove substantial predation pressures from newly recruited corals and may ultimately aid recovery. Conversely, the loss of corallivorous fishes may deleteriously affect recovery as high diversity and abundance of corallivorous butterflyfishes has been demonstrated to slow or halt the transmission of coral disease [58]. Future research focused on the role played by corallivorous butterflyfishes in coral dynamics shortly following disturbances could aid our understanding of what impact, if any, the loss of corallivorous fishes plays in reef resilience and ecosystem functioning.

It appears that the short term loss following disturbances of adult fishes not directly dependent on live coral relates more closely to the lack of available shelter rather than to loss of living corals per se. Similarly, findings of diverse coral reef fish assemblages on artificial structures largely devoid of corals supports the idea that shelter provided by habitat complexity is fundamentally important to coral reef fish communities [59]–[61]. However, many reef fishes use live coral as a cue for settlement, including taxa that do not utilise live coral as adults [18]. Although fish communities may be relatively unaffected by coral mortality when habitat complexity is retained, shifts in community structure may lag behind disturbances if fish recruitment is suppressed by limited availability of living coral, while natural mortality of surviving fishes continues. Furthermore, the erosion of coral skeletons after some disturbances such as A. planci outbreaks, coral bleaching and coral disease slowly decreases habitat complexity, and may also produce lagged declines in fishes [20], [62]. However, in this study adult fish populations were not depleted while habitat complexity remained, providing a buffer to fish population declines while coral is recovering in those cases. Thus in normal circumstances, lagged effects are likely to be balanced by coral recovery and new fish recruitment as long as complexity remains following disturbance. Nevertheless, lagged effects in reef fishes may potentially become more important in future decades, especially if predictions of increased coral bleaching and ocean acidification are correct [63]. In summary, while the retention of habitat complexity reduces the short term impact of disturbances on fish communities, the regeneration of live coral is essential for the maintenance of complex habitats and therefore, to the recovery and long term persistence of diverse reef fish communities.

While previous studies have identified the link between habitat complexity and reef fishes, many of these studies have focused on subsets of the fish community (e.g. [20], [21], [64], but see [46]). We were able to tease apart the roles of reductions in coral cover versus habitat complexity on a large proportion of diurnally active and conspicuous reef fish communities over ecologically meaningful scales. To our knowledge, this is the first large-scale natural experiment conducted on the GBR to investigate the fundamental contribution of habitat complexity in driving reef fish community change. These results illustrated that reef fish communities are more adversely affected by disturbances which degrade both live coral cover and habitat complexity (i.e. storms), than those which reduce cover of live corals only (i.e. coral bleaching and outbreaks of A. planci). Such results should be of interest to reef managers, particularly given our finding that the major fishery target species, the coral trout (Plectropomus spp.) disappeared from sites of major complexity decline, with socio-economic ramifications for fishers utilising this resource. In addition, the impact of storms on reef fish communities at sites where coral skeletons account for most of the habitat complexity will be equally devastating irrespective of any zoning to protect target species from fishing. In effect, the benefits afforded by reserve zoning can be reversed almost instantaneously. Conversely, protection of fish communities at sites where complexity of the underlying substrate is high would better preserve important functional processes performed by reef fishes, encouraging rapid recovery in the event that coral cover is removed. Given the prospect of increases in storm intensity with climate change [65] which may lead to the architectural collapse of coral reefs [66], protecting sites with high underlying substrate complexity should be considered to alleviate vulnerability to disassembly of reef fish communities, reductions in the functional roles they perform and much diminished reef resilience.

Supporting Information

Table S1.

Model specification for hard coral cover, complexity, total species richness and the species richness of eight families of reef fishes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105384.s001

(DOCX)

Table S2.

Full names for species codes and trophic affiliations used in Figure 4.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105384.s002

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank all colleagues, past and present, who have contributed to gathering the data used in this study. The insightful comments of Nick Graham, Aaron MacNeil and Murray Logan are also appreciated.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: MJE AJC KAJ. Performed the experiments: MJE AJC KAJ. Analyzed the data: MJE KAJ. Contributed to the writing of the manuscript: MJE AJC KAJ.

References

  1. 1. MacArthur RH, MacArthur JW (1961) On bird species diversity. Ecology 42: 594–598.
  2. 2. Heck KL Jr, Wetstone GS (1977) Habitat complexity and invertebrate species and abundance in tropical seagrass. J Biogeogr 4: 135–142.
  3. 3. Russell BC (1977) Population and standing crop estimates for rocky reef fishes of North-East New Zealand, New Zealand. J Mar Freshw Res 11: 23–36.
  4. 4. Crowder LB, Cooper WE (1982) Habitat structural complexity and the interactions between bluegills and their prey. Ecology 63: 1802–1813.
  5. 5. Spies TA (1998) Forest structure: a key to the ecosystem. Northwest Sci 72: 34–39.
  6. 6. Risk MJ (1972) Fish diversity on a coral reef in the Virgin Islands. Atoll Res Bull 153: 1–7.
  7. 7. Syms C, Jones GP (2000) Disturbance, habitat structure and the dynamics of a coral reef fish community. Ecology 81: 2714–2729.
  8. 8. Gratwicke B, Speight MR (2005) Effects of habitat complexity on Caribbean marine fish assemblages. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 292: 301–310.
  9. 9. Sano M, Shimizu M, Nose Y (1987) Long-term effects of destruction of hermatypic corals by Acanthaster planci infestation on reef fish communities at Iriomote Island, Japan. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 37: 191–199.
  10. 10. Sano M (2004) Short-term effects of a mass coral bleaching event on a reef fish assemblage at Iriomote Island, Japan. Fish Sci 70: 41–46.
  11. 11. Wilson SK, Graham NAJ, Pratchett MS, Jones GP, Polunin NVC (2006) Multiple disturbances and the global degradation of coral reefs: are reef fishes at risk or resilient? Glob Change Biol 12: 2220–2234 (doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01252.x).
  12. 12. Halford AR, Cheal AJ, Ryan D, Williams DMcB (2004) Resilience to large-scale disturbance in coral and fish assemblages on the Great Barrier Reef. Ecology 85: 1892–1905.
  13. 13. Graham NAJ, Wilson SK, Jennings S, Polunin NVC, Bijoux JP, et al. (2006) Dynamic fragility of oceanic coral reef ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103: 8425–8429.
  14. 14. Emslie MJ, Cheal AJ, Sweatman H, Delean S (2008) Recovery from disturbance of coral and reef fish communities on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 371: 177–190.
  15. 15. Pratchett MS, Munday PL, Wilson SK, Graham NAJ, Cinner JE, et al. (2008) Effects of climate induced coral bleaching on coral-reef fishes – ecological and economic consequences. Ocean Mar Biol Ann Rev 46: 251–296.
  16. 16. Woodley JD, Chornesky EA, Clifford PA, Jackson JBC (1981) Hurrican Allen's impact on Jamaican coral reefs. Science 214: 749–755.
  17. 17. Bell JD, Galzin R (1984) Influence of live coral cover on coral reef fish communities. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 15: 265–274.
  18. 18. Jones GP, McCormick MI, Srinivasan M, Eagle J (2004) Coral declines threaten fish biodiversity in marine reserves. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101: 8251–8253.
  19. 19. Cheal AJ, Wilson SK, Emslie MJ, Dolman AM, Sweatman H (2008) Response of reef fish communities to coral declines on the Great Barrier Reef. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 372: 211–223.
  20. 20. Graham NAJ, Wilson SK, Pratchett MS, Polunin NVC, Spalding MD (2009) Coral mortality versus structural collapse as drivers of corallivorous butterflyfish decline. Biodivers Conserv 18: 3325–3336.
  21. 21. Luckhurst BE, Luckhurst K (1978) Analysis of influence of substrate variables on coral-reef fish communities. Mar Biol 49: 317–323.
  22. 22. Emslie MJ, Pratchett MS, Cheal AJ (2011) Effects of different disturbance types on butterflyfish communities of Australia's Great Barrier Reef. Coral Reefs 30: 461–471 (doi10.1007/s00338-011-0730-x).
  23. 23. Wilson SK, Dolman AM, Cheal AJ, Emslie MJ, Pratchett MS, et al. (2009) Maintenance of fish diversity on disturbed coral reefs. Coral Reefs 28: 3–14.
  24. 24. Hughes TP (1994) Catastrophes, phase shifts and large-scale degradation of a Caribbean coral reef. Science 265: 1547–1551.
  25. 25. Hughes TP, Rodrigues MJ, Bellwood DR, Ceccarelli D, Hoegh-Guldberg O, et al. (2007) Phase shifts, herbivory and the resilience of coral reefs to climate change. Curr Biol 17: 360–365.
  26. 26. Lewis SM (1986) The role of herbivorous fishes in the organisation of a Caribbean reef community. Ecol Monogr 56: 183–200.
  27. 27. Mantyka CS, Bellwood DR (2007) Direct evaluation of macroalgal removal by herbivorous coral reef fishes. Coral Reefs 26: 435–442.
  28. 28. Burkepile DE, Hay ME (2008) Herbivore species richness and feeding complementarity affect community structure and function on a coral reef. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105: 16201–16206.
  29. 29. Burkepile DE, Hay ME (2010) Impact of herbivore identity on algal succession and coral growth on a Caribbean reef. PLoS ONE 5(1): e8963.
  30. 30. Mumby PJ (2006) The impact of exploiting grazers (Scaridae) on the dynamics of Caribbean coral reefs. Ecol Appl 16: 747–769.
  31. 31. Mumby PJ, Hastings A, Edwards HJ (2007) Thresholds and resilience of Caribbean coral reefs. Nature 450: 98–101.
  32. 32. Cheal AJ, MacNeil MA, Cripps E, Emslie MJ, Jonker M, et al. (2010) Coral-macroalgal phase shifts or reef resilience: links with diversity and functional roles of herbivorous fishes on the Great Barrier Reef. Coral Reefs 29: 1005–1015.
  33. 33. Lewis AR (1997) Effects of experimental coral disturbance on the structure of reef fish communities on large patch reefs. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 161: 37–50.
  34. 34. Coker DJ, Graham NAJ, Pratchett MS (2012) Interactive effects of live coral and structural complexity on the recruitment of reef fishes. Coral Reefs 31: 919–927 (doi10.1007/s00338-012-0920-1).
  35. 35. Osborne K, Dolman AM, Burgess SC, Johns KA (2011) Disturbance and the dynamics of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef (1995-2009). PLoS ONE 6(3): e17516
  36. 36. De'ath G, Fabricius KE, Sweatman H, Puotinen M (2012) The 27-year decline of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109 (44): 17995–17999 (doi/10.1073/pnas.1208909109).
  37. 37. Wellington GM, Victor BC (1985) El Nino mass coral mortality: a test of resource limitation in a coral reef damselfish population. Oecologia 68: 15–19.
  38. 38. Jonker M, Johns K, Osborne K (2013) Surveys of benthic reef communities using underwater digital photography and counts of juvenile corals. Long-term Monitoring of the Great Barrier Reef Standard Operational Procedure Number 10. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
    • 39. Halford AR, Thompson AA (1994) Visual census surveys of reef fish. Long-term Monitoring of the Great Barrier Reef Standard Operational Procedure Number 3. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
      • 40. Wilson SK, Graham NAJ, Polunin NVC (2007) Appraisal of visual assessments of habitat complexity and benthic composition on coral reefs. Mar Biol 151: 1069–1076 (doi10.1007/s00227-006-0538-3).
      • 41. R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Available: http://www.R-project.org. Accessed 2014 Jul 20.
        • 42. Gelman A, Hill J (2007) Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge University Press: New York.
          • 43. Hadfield JD (2010) MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J Stat Softw 33: 1–22.
          • 44. Zuur AF, Saveliev AA, Ieno EN (2012) Zero inflated models and generalized linear mixed models with R. Highland Statistics Limited, Newburgh, UK.
            • 45. Graham NAJ, McClannahan TR, MacNeil MA, Wilson SK, Polunin NVC, et al. (2008) Climate warming, Marine Protected areas and the ocean-scale integrity of coral reef ecosystems. PLoS ONE 3(8): e3039 (doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003039).
            • 46. Friedlander AM, Parrish JD (1998) Habitat characteristics affecting reef fish assemblages on a Hawaiian coral reef. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 224: 1–30.
            • 47. Graham NAJ, Nash KL (2012) The importance of structural complexity in coral reef ecosystems. Coral Reefs 32: 315–326.
            • 48. Elmqvist T, Folke C, Nyström M, Peterson G, Bengtsson J, et al. (2003) Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Front Ecol Environ 1: 488–494.
            • 49. Folke C, Carpenter S, Walker B, Scheffer M, Elmqvist T, et al. (2004) Regime shifts, resilience and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35: 557–581.
            • 50. Walker B (1992) Biodiversity and ecological redundancy. Conserv Biol 6: 18–23.
            • 51. Petersen GC, Allen CR, Holling CS (1998) Ecological resilience, biodiversity and scale. Ecosystems 1: 6–18.
            • 52. Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, et al. (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75: 3–35.
            • 53. Folke C (2006) The re-emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Glob Environ Change 16: 253–267.
            • 54. Bellwood DR, Hughes TP, Folke C, Nyström M (2004) Confronting the coral reef crisis. Nature 429: 827–833.
            • 55. Cheal AJ, Emslie MJ, MacNeil MA, Miller I, Sweatman H (2013) Spatial variation in the functional characteristics of herbivorous fish communities and the resilience of coral reefs. Ecol Appl 23: 174–188.
            • 56. Rotjan RD, Lewis SM (2008) Impact of coral predators on tropical reefs. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 367: 73–91.
            • 57. Cole AJ, Lawton RJ, Wilson SK, Pratchett MS (2012) Consumption of tabular acroporid corals by reef fishes: a comparison with plant-herbivore interactions. Funct Ecol 26(2): 307–316.
            • 58. Cole AJ, Chong-Seng KM, Pratchett MS, Jones GP (2009) Coral feeding fishes slow progression of black band disease. Coral Reefs 28: 965.
            • 59. Alevizon WS, Gorham JC (1989) Effects of artificial reef deployment on nearby resident fishes. Bull Mar Sci 44: 646–661.
            • 60. Burt JA, Feary DA, Cavalcante G, Bauman AG, Usseglio P (2013) Urban breakwaters as reef fish habitat in the Persian Gulf. Mar Poll Bull 72: 342–350.
            • 61. Pradella N, Fowler AM, Booth DJ, Macreadie PI (2014) Fish assemblages associated with oil industry structures on the continental shelf of north-western Australia. J Fish Biol 84: 247–255 (doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12274).
            • 62. Graham NA, Wilson SK, Jennings S, Polunin NVC, Robinson J, et al. (2007) Lag effects in the impacts of mass coral bleaching on coral reef fish, fisheries and ecosystems. Cons Biol 21: 1291–1300 (doi10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00754.x).
            • 63. Hoegh-Guldberg O, Mumby PJ, Hooten AJ, Steneck RS, Greenfield P, et al. (2007) Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science 318: 1737–1742 (doi10.1126/science.1152509).
            • 64. Noonan SHC, Jones GP, Pratchett MS (2012) Coral size, health and structural complexity: effects on the ecology of a coral reef damselfish. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 456: 127–137.
            • 65. Webster PJ, Holland GJ, Curry JA, Chang HR (2005) Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration and intensity in a warming environment. Science 309: 1844–1846.
            • 66. Alvarez-Filip L, Dulvy NK, Gill JA, Cote IM, Watkinson AR (2009) Flattening of Caribbean coral reefs: region-wide declines in architectural complexity. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 276: 3019–3025.