Species

Linear extension of branches in the same Acropora palmata (Lamarck, 1816) population in Curaçao was measured, employing exactly the same methods, in 1971–1973 and in 2002–2004, and the resulting coral growth rates are compared. Linear growth shows the same pattern over seasons in both periods with growth being significantly higher in summer than in winter. Growth in the 2002–2004 time interval was significantly slower than in 1971–1973. Mean monthly growth ranged from 0.69 cm (winter) to 0.81 cm (summer) in 1971–1973 and from 0.62 cm (winter) to 0.75 cm (summer) in 2002–2004. This means that linear growth rates in 2002–2004 were 7.2% lower in summer and 10.7% lower in winter compared with 1971–1973. Considering possible causative environmental factors relating to these decreases in growth rate, we cannot preclude the possibility that a change in ocean pH could be responsible for the drop in extension rate.

Abstract:

Lionfish are venomous, predatory reef fish native to the Indo-Pacific region, but have become widely distributed due to its popularity as an aquarium fish. Due to high fecundity, adaptability to non-native habitats and tolerance to large temperature and depth ranges, the lionfish invasion has the potential to become the most detrimental in history. Lionfish were first confirmed in Bonaire on 26th October, 2009. Since then, despite active eradication attempts, they have increased in abundance, occupying habitats at a range of depths. Trinidad and Tobago however have yet to be invaded by lionfish, but the presence of lionfish in aquariums in Trinidad and the availability of suitable prey and habitat, together with confirmed lionfish sightings in neighbouring territories make the lionfish invasion imminent. Questionnaires were conducted with target groups (lionfish-hunters, divers, dive- shops, fishermen and pet-shop owners) in Bonaire and Trinidad and Tobago. These revealed that there was a significant difference in the level of opinions and awareness between the invaded territory (Bonaire) and the un-invaded territory (Trinidad and Tobago). The current lionfish management strategies in Bonaire and the Caribbean were also appraised to suggest the best approach for Trinidad and Tobago in dealing with the future threat of lionfish. 

We document 29 butterfly species for the island of Aruba and 32 for Bonaire. We also document five new records for Curaçao, increasing the total to 58 species. The three islands have inherently similar faunas but those of Aruba and Bonaire are significantly impoverished compared to Curaçao. The decreased diversity is ascribed to human intervention and degradation of the environment. 

Reefs of the windward Netherlands Antilles (Saba, Saba Bank, St. Eustatius, St. Maarten) were assessed at 24 sites in the late 1999. The Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment (AGGRA) protocol was used with modifications to detect recent hurricane impacts. Live coral cover averaged 18%. The assemblage of >10 cm stony corals was primarily composed of small-sized colonies (mean diameter = 37 cm) of which the Montastraea annularis complex was the most abundant (30% of colonies). Overall, =1% of the individually surveyed colonies had been physically damaged by Hurricane Lenny but injury levels were higher in Saba (2.6%). Bleaching was noted in 23% of colonies at the time of the assessment with the greatest percentage occurring on St. Maarten (44%) and the lowest on Saba Bank (9%). Total (recent + old) partial mortality of reef-building corals averaged less than 18% although levels were higher (26%) in Colpophyllia natans. Coral recruitment densities were relatively consistent (mean = 5 recruits/m2) across sites. Commercially significant fish species (i.e. serranids, lutjanids, haemulids >5 cm) were present with mean densities of 4.5 individuals/100 m2. High biomass (mean = 5.8 kg/100 m2) of grazing, herbivorous fishes (acanthurids, scarids >5 cm, Microspathodon chrysurus) partially explains the relatively low macroalgal cover (mean = 7%) throughout this area. Saba’s fish community had a greater total biomass than those in the other three geographic areas (mean = 11 kg/100 m2 versus 7 kg/100 m2). While the coral reefs of St. Maarten show signs of disturbance (i.e., increased bleaching and sedimentation), those of Saba, Saba Bank, and southern St. Eustatius have been relatively little disturbed by coastal development and remain potential sources of marine life. Nevertheless, reef development in the windward Netherlands Antilles is limited by frequent hurricanes.

Autopsy records (1936-66) show esophageal cancer to be the most common tumor for both men and women among the locally-born negroid population of Curafao. Crude incidence rate of 20.9 per 100,000, virtually constant over 30 years, is exceeded only by that of certain parts of Russia and the Transkel region of South Africa. The island of Aruba (42 miles distant) has a very low incidence. Drought conditions and food and water supply are virtually identical in both islands, also reverse smoking by ~vomen only. But there are striking contrasts in the use of plants for remedies. In Curacao, more than 100 species of local plants are employed for self-medlcatlon and for "tea." Interrogation of living esophageal cancer victims and survivors of deceased has revealed consistent use of these plants. Species cited most frequently in interviews are being collected, lyophilized, and supplied to the Laboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, for animal-testing

Abstract:

The Netherlands are signatories of the international Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This implies that the nation will protect biodiversity on its territory. This includes the protection of natural fauna and vegetation from negative impact caused by invasive alien species (see 2.1. for a definition). By 10-10-2010 the BES islands (Bonaire, St Eustatius and Saba) became ‘special municipalities’ of the Netherlands. They together form “Caribisch Nederland” (Caribbean Netherlands, Hulanda Karibe). Due to this stronger link to the Netherlands many responsibilities have moved from the Antillean government to the Netherlands. This includes important responsibilities with respect to the protection of nature.

The present study was financed by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation and included a literature study, a field trip and writing of the present document with main observations, conclusions and recommendations. A major part of the report consists of an alphabetical list of (known) invasives with their current status (4.1.1.). Apart from the three islands belonging to Caribisch Nederland, for completeness, some attention is given to Aruba, Curacao and St. Maarten as well (esp. in 4.1.1. and Appendix II).

Stages of invasion
In order to define the problem of invasive alien (non-native) species of plants more accurately it is relevant to recognise the following categories:

Exotic: Species that are not part of the natural indigenous vegetation are called exotics. Examples are introductions as ornamental or agricultural species. If contained within the confines of gardens and farms, these species are not considered problematic.

Established: Species that occur ‘in the wild’, i.e. outside the control of cultivation or husbandry and are able to reproduce themselves resulting in new individuals, we call established (present). Species can stay in this phase, the ‘lag phase’ (see 2.1), for quite some time. It is the stage in which the species adapts to its new environment using its genetic flexibility. At this stage complete eradication is still an option, because the number of individuals and locations is limited. This means that the costs can be relatively low, compared to eradication at a later stage.

Naturalised: If given enough time, species may start to adapt genetically to the new environment, by optimising its physiology and/or growth habit. As a result the species will start spreading more rapidly and effectively and becoming part of the natural flora. In most cases this is not considered a major problem; the plants will get their own function within the ecology of the island and will not replace indigenous species entirely. Moreover, the costs of complete eradication have become prohibitive at this stage, so only containment is an option.

Invasive: It is generally believed that about one in one thousand exotics becomes really problematic, e.g. with respect to environmental, ecological or economical impact (Williamson 1995). They start to grow out of control, massively invade natural habitats and reduce or eliminate native species. They have broken down the dispersal barrier and have become invasive. At this stage one can only try to achieve a stage of equilibrium, of mitigation, by intensive control measures. These are usually limited by financial resources, and can normally only be successful with commitment of the local society, e.g. shown by the enthusiastic support and hand labour of many volunteers.

Invasives of the Caribbean Netherlands
In this report 65 species of invasives are enumerated (4.1.1.) with their history and properties, based on a literature survey and completed with experience and findings of the authors. Four of the main problematic species are treated more extensively in 4.1.2. These are the Coral vine (Antigonon leptopus) which poses a great threat to nature, especially in St. Eustatius; the Rubber vine (Cryptostegia grandiflora) which is able to overgrow and smother shrubs and trees and is especially spreading on the Leeward Islands; the neem tree (Azadirachta indica) which is planted for shade and medicinal purposes, but is escaping on Bonaire; and ‘Donna grass’ (Bothriochloa pertusa) which is a very problematic species replacing the more palatable local grasses on the Windward Islands, most notably on St. Eustatius.

In a complementary list a further 80 species that need more investigation are mentioned (4.1.3.). This list is not complete but it enumerates species that are present on at least one of the islands. They need special attention because it is best to prevent them from entering at all or to eliminate the few plants or populations that have established themselves. Some species in this list are already present at some scale, like some of the arable weeds, but need careful monitoring to prevent them from entering nature.

A general problem are the free-roaming animals, cows, donkeys and especially goats (all non- native species) that are destroying nature in an uncontrolled way. Their presence has a detrimental effect on biodiversity, eating young seedlings and trees, and thereby preventing the natural regeneration and succession. Moreover, the bare soils that result are susceptible to water and wind erosion; material that is deposited in the surrounding seas.

Management recommendations:

Before an exotic has been introduced prevention is the most important action, i.e. keep the chance that exotic species may be introduced as low as possible. As soon as a first introduction has been realised and the exotic still occurs at low densities at few sites, eradication after first observation will be the most important action. Finally, if an exotic has already spread over different sites or even different habitats and has increased in densities, eradication might not be an achievable option anymore. Then containment and population management will be the most relevant actions to minimise the negative impact (mitigation). In general, prevention will generate the most cost-effective options to avoid problems due to invasive exotic plants (Davis 2009). The main observations are:

Prevention: Prevention plans need to be developed with regulations restricting the import of exotic species. This includes the development of ‘Black lists’ for the Leeward and Windward Islands respectively. Public awareness (customs and other officials, general public, landscapers, new inhabitants) must be raised and alternatives for imported exotics must be offered. Agricultural departments and customs offices on all islands are understaffed and not able to control the many routes through which exotics enter.

Eradication after first observation: Rapid first observation of an exotic plant after introduction into the wild is essential for the success of an eradication action. Therefore a ‘Watch list’ or ‘Grey List’ needs to be developed. Since the difference in climates, these watch lists will partly differ between islands and differ even more between the Leeward and Windward islands. Also knowledge about the natural flora and invasives must be increased through education, at schools as well as for professionals (rangers, customs personnel, agricultural department, etc.). Floras for the Windward Islands are outdated and not accessible.

Containment/population management: Management plans need to be developed for the control Antigonon, Cryptostegia and neem to be able to stop further spreading and to mitigate the impact on nature. Research on the life cycle of invasives and experiments for their control have to be carried out. The problem of roaming animals must be tackled. Small island communities are not able to do this without outside assistance. If chemical control is considered, special Dutch Caribbean regulations apply based on restricted import permissions for crop protection agents.  

Abstract:

Although Bonaire’s coral reefs remain among the healthiest and most resilient in the Caribbean, this IUCN report based on the IUCN Resilience Assessment of Coral Reefs highlights some of the threats that exist to Bonaire’s coral reefs, and which could have serious implications for resilience to future climate change and other threats. The report identified recommendations for addressing the current threats, as well as high and low resilience sites.

The threats and recommendations identified include:

Coastal development and artificial beaches.
Recommendation: All coastal construction on Bonaire should be strictly regulated and follow the construction guidelines. The guidelines should become law in order to be enforced appropriately.

Leaching from septic tanks.
Recommendation: It is strongly recommended that Bonaire invest in appropriate sewage treatment facilities to improve water quality and increase the resilience of its valuable coral reefs. It is also recommended that a water quality monitoring program be set up and sustained.

Increasing damselfish populations.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the fishing of predatory fish species on Bonaire’s coral reefs be controlled and managed to a sustainable level to prevent population explosions of prey fish capable of modifying the reef habitat.

Trididemnum and Lobophora.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the populations of Trididemnum and Lobophora are closely monitored and the factors contributing to the unnatural abun- dance of these coral-overgrowing organisms should be studied and then eliminated.

Due to a variety of factors affecting resilience which were assessed using the IUCN methodology, sites were also ranked according to their overall resilience: 

It is noteworthy that sites with lowest resilience ratings (e.g. Chachácha) are those most impacted by coastal development, while sites with highest resilience ratings (e.g. Marine Reserve North, Playa Frans, Karpata, Margate Bay, Vista Blue and South Bay) are those furthest away and least impacted by coastal development. 

The invasion of lionfish in the Caribbean is causing grave concern because of its deleterious impacts on coral reef food-webs. We have used an Ecopath-with-Ecosim model to predict the impacts of lionfish invasion on a coral reef community based on pre-invasion fish community data. Forty-six groups were defined, and an initial Ecopath model was balanced with a near-zero biomass of lionfish. In Ecosim, the near-zero biomass was eradicated by applying a very high fishing pressure in the first year of simulation. We subsequently (re-)introduced lionfish with a very low biomass, and allowed them to increase to very high abundance. With a near-zero lionfish biomass, the great majority of mesocarnivorous/omnivorous coral reef fish were predicted to be dominant while sharks were predicted to be the apex predators. Different management scenarios were established in the ecosystem to explore the eradication and resilience of lionfish. The management scenarios showed that if all adult lionfish were exploitable it will in theory be possible to fish the lionfish to a very low level, but the fishing pressure will have to be maintained, or the lionfish will recover. If the largest individuals are unexploitable it will be much more difficult to control the lionfish population

Ocean acidification (OA) refers to the ongoing decline in oceanic pH resulting from the uptake of atmospheric CO2. Mounting experimental evidence suggests that OA will have negative consequences for a variety of marine organisms. Whereas the effect of OA on the calcification of adult reef corals is increasingly well documented, effects on early life history stages are largely unknown. Coral recruitment, which necessitates successful fertilization, larval settlement, and postsettlement growth and survivorship, is critical to the persistence and resilience of coral reefs. To determine whether OA threatens successful sexual recruitment of reef-building corals, we tested fertilization, settlement, and postsettlement growth of Acropora palmata at pCO2 levels that represent average ambient conditions during coral spawning (∼400 μatm) and the range of pCO2 increases that are expected to occur in this century [∼560 μatm (mid-CO2) and ∼800 μatm (high-CO2)]. Fertilization, settlement, and growth were all negatively impacted by increasing pCO2, and impairment of fertilization was exacerbated at lower sperm concentrations. The cumulative impact of OA on fertilization and settlement success is an estimated 52% and 73% reduction in the number of larval settlers on the reef under pCO2 conditions projected for the middle and the end of this century, respectively. Additional declines of 39% (mid-CO2) and 50% (high-CO2) were observed in postsettlement linear extension rates relative to controls. These results suggest that OA has the potential to impact multiple, sequential early life history stages, thereby severely compromising sexual recruitment and the ability of coral reefs to recover from disturbance

1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. CBD Implementation in EU Overseas Entities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1 CBD Commitments and Compliance an the EU Overseas Entities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2 Biodiversity Planning in the Overseas Entities, Status and Responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.3 Main Actions Implemented. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.4 Main Results Obtained. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Collaboration and Linkages in Support of CBD and Nbsap Implementation in the EU Overseas Entities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1 Between the Overseas Entities and the CBD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2 Between the Overseas Entities and Institutions in the EU Member States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3 Between and Among Overseas Entities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.4 Between the Overseas Entities and Their Geographic Regions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.5 Between the Overseas Entities and the EU Institutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.6 Between Overseas Entities and Global Networks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. Critical Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.1 Constitutional and Institutional Gap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2 Policy Gap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.3 Resource Gap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.4 Information and Knowledge Gap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.5 Implementation Gap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5. Principles to Guide Future Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6. Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6.1 Recommendations in Relation to EU Institutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6.2 Recommendations to EU Member States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6.3 Recommendations to Actors in ORs and OCTs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6.4 Recommendations to Regional Institutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.5 Recommendations to the CBD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.6 Recommendations to Glispa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.7 Recommendations to IUCN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21