Electronic Supplementary Material: Detailed Methods

Electronic supplementary material: detailed methods

Overview

Study site and species

Three binary-style feeding preference trials were conducted using the surf parrotfish, Scarusrivulatus, between May and August 2014, at Orpheus Island Research Station (OIRS; 18°32’ S, 146°20’ E). Orpheus Island is located on the inner-shelf of the Great Barrier Reef and lies close to the boundary of the inshore terrigenous sediment wedge (Woolfe et al. 2000; Larcombe et al. 2001). 1)Scarusrivulatus is the most abundant grazing herbivore on Orpheus Island (Fig. 1a, b),2) when housed in schools of 3, S. rivulatus of this size readily acclimated to captive conditions, and 3)fishes in this size class feed as adults, by scraping EAMs from the reef surface; smaller juveniles crop individual algal filaments (Bonaldo and Bellwood 2008).

Underwater visual censuses

To initiallyquantifythe abundance ofS. rivulatusand compare it to other herbivorous specieson Orpheus Island, the abundance and biomass of roving herbivores was estimated using underwater visual censuses. Each census consisted of a 10 min timed swim on the reef crest/outer flat of Pioneer Bay on SCUBA (following Fox and Bellwood 2007). Twenty-four replicate transects were swum in Pioneer Bay, each separated by a minimum of 10 m. This design essentially resulted in a survey spanning the entire bay. Fishes were categorised into 2.5cm size classes <10 cm and 5 cm size classes >10 cm. To supplement the abundance data, the size-class data were used to estimate biomass of each species (following Fox and Bellwood 2007).

Sediment sampling

Sediment collection

The three feeding preference trials used in the study assessed the effects of differing sediment source (terrigenous or reefal), grain size (fine or coarse), and organic content (high or low) on grazing by S. rivulatus. This required the production of six different sediment treatments, each replicating the mass and, where applicable, the grain size distribution of benthic sediments fromthe reef flat of Orpheus Island. To quantify the mass and grain size distribution of sediments bound in EAMs at Orpheus Island, EAM sedimentswere collected from fourreef flat sites (>400 m apart) on the leeward side of theisland.Sediments were collected from flat, low-complexity EAM-covered surfaces using a submersible 12 Velectronic vacuum sampler (adapted from Kramer et al. 2012). Eight replicate samples were collected at each site from87mm diameter circular quadrats placed randomly along a 50 m transect (32 sediment samples in total). Of the eight replicatesamples from each site, five were randomly selected for mass analysis and three for particle size analysis, and were processed as described below.

Sediment processing: mass analysis

Five samples from each site were selected for mass analysis.We used a series of three processes to sequentially determine the mass of all particulates, all inorganic sediments, and silicates in each sample.

Initially, total particulate mass (including all sediments and organic material) was determined by rinsing samples three times with fresh waterto remove salts (leaving at least 3 h for samples to settle between rinsing) then drying them to constant weight at 60ºC.

Inorganic sediment mass was determined by bleaching the samples with 30% hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) for a minimum of 7 d following Cortés and Risk (1985; hereafter treatment with hydrogen peroxide is termed ‘bleaching’). Samples werethen dried and re-weighed. The bleaching removed organic material in the samples through oxidation (Lavkulich and Wiens 1970; Cortés and Risk 1985). Bleached sediment mass therefore represents the inorganic sediment only, and:

organic material mass = total particulate mass –inorganic sediment mass.

To determine the mass of silicates following bleaching, the sediments were acidified with 5% hydrochloric acid (HCl)until no bubbles evolved within a 24 hperiod (following Brown-Saracino et al. 2006). Sediments were rinsed to remove any salts formed, then dried andre-weighed to give a final mass.The acid dissolved the carbonate sediments, thus the final mass represents that of the silicates in the sediment (Brown-Saracino et al. 2006)and:

carbonate material mass = inorganic sediment mass –silicate mass.

Sediment processing: particle size analysis

The remaining three samples from each site were used to assess the particle sizedistribution of samples. These samples were subjected to the same sequence of processes butat each stage sediment particle size was measured using a laser particle analyser (LPA; Mastersizer 2000). LPA sampling was conducted on separate samples as it results in loss of material which cannot be accounted for in the mass analysis. Following processing and LPA analyseswe could determine the particle size distributions of the organic material,the inorganic sediments,and the silicates,using the comparisonsdescribed above.

Sediment properties

Mass and particle size analysis of Orpheus Island sediments indicated that the EAM of the reef flat of Orpheus Island contained1.19 ± 0.20 kg m-2(mean ± SE) of particulate matter.On average 84.79 ± 1.41% of the particulate material was composed of carbonates, while only 14.73 ± 1.34% was silicates and 2.67 ± 0.34% organic material.Silicate sediments were predominantly silts (<63 µm diameter; 89.11% by volume), whereas inorganic sediments (carbonates and silicates) were predominantly sands (>125 µm; 52.18% by volume; Fig. S1a).

Sediment treatment selection

The mean sediment load (1.19 kg m-2)and grain size distribution(Fig. S1) of the reef flat of Orpheus Island were used as a baseline for experimental sediment loads. This baseline was selected because 120–170 mm TL S. rivulatusare most abundant and display their highest grazing rateson the reef flat at Orpheus Island (Fox and Bellwood 2007).

To create the sediment treatments for the sediment source preference trials, siliceous terrigenous sediments were collected from Ross River estuary, Townsville (19°18’ S, 146°48’ E) and reefal carbonate sediments from Lizard Island lagoon (14°42’ S, 145°27’ E). Sediments were bleached for 7 d, as per sediment analysis (following Cortés and Risk

1985) then dried and sieved into grain size fractions. This process removed organic materialwhile leaving no chemical residue (Cortés and Risk 1985). Hydrogen peroxide was selected rather than sodium hypochlorite in trials to avoid olfactory residues in the sediment, i.e. to avoid the smell of bleach. The treated fractions from each location were then combined separately to form two treatments: terrigenous (Ross River) and reefal (Lizard Island), with a grain size distribution matching that of Orpheus Island reef flat (Fig. S1a).

For grain size preference trials, sediments were collected from the reef at Orpheus Island and were bleached and sieved as above. The sediments were then mixed to form two treatments with contrasting grain size distributions: fine (<63–250 µm) and coarse (>125– 1000 µm; Fig. S1b). The treatments replicated the finer 50% and the coarser 50% of the sediment grain size distributions (by percentage volume) of the Orpheus Island reef flat, as determined by grain size analysis.

Sediments for the organic load preference trials were also collected from the reef at Orpheus Island. Sediments were processed as above with a grain size distribution matching Orpheus Island reef flat, but with the addition of organic material (Hikari Marine A) to form two treatments: high and low organic load (14 and 2% organic material, respectively; Fig. S1c, d). These values are representative of the mean organic content in sediments on the reef crest of Lizard Island (a mid-shelf reef, 14%; Purcell and Bellwood 2001) and the reef flat of Orpheus Island (2%; as described above). The organic material was selected to approximate the nutritional composition of detrital aggregates (Tenore 1981). The material was ground, sieved and used to replace proportions of the fine sediment fractions (<125 µm), matching high-nutrient detrital aggregates found in reef EAMs (Wilson et al. 2003).

Feeding preference trials

Scarusrivulatusused in the feeding preference trials were collected from Pioneer Bay, Orpheus Island, using barrier nets while on SCUBA. Fish were randomly allocated into schools of three and housed in 45 L aquaria. Eighteen schools (54 fish) were used as replicates for each of the sediment source and grain size trials, and 11 schools (33 fish) were used as replicates for the organic load trials. Schools were independent replicates and only exposed to a trial once. The feeding surfaces used in preference trials were prepared from flat, EAM-covered pieces of coral rubble, collected from the reef flat of Orpheus Island. To control for size, the surfaces were shaped into 50 cm2 circular pieces using a chisel and mallet.All preference trials followed the same experimental procedure.

For each trial, two prepared feeding surfaces were placed into one end of an aquarium containing three fish. Once placed into a tank, the feeding surfaces were immediately covered with a PVC pipe, to prevent feeding, and a sediment treatment was randomly assigned to each. The sediment treatments were then applied to each feeding surface by pouring the wetted sediment into the pipe. The fish and sediments were then left to starve and settle, respectively, for 24 h. After this, a video camera (GoPro) was placed into the aquarium to record feeding preferences, and the PVC pipes removed. The feeding behaviour of the S. rivulatus schools was then filmed for a minimum of 3 h.

The video footage was analysed to quantify the bite rates of S. rivulatusschools on each feeding surface. The initial five minutes of the recording were discarded toaccount for acclimation of the fish after the removal of the pipes and placement of the camera, and to ensure that all fishes had sampled both feeding surfaces before the bite rate was recorded,. The numbers of bites taken on each surface for the next 30 min were recorded. This observation period was selected due to a significant decrease in bite rate by S. rivulatusover time. The location of the first bite taken by any fish from each school and of each individual in a school was also recorded immediately after pipe removal.Bite rates and first bites by each individual werecompared between sediment treatments using paired t-tests on untransformed data while the first bites taken by any fish were compared with Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank tests. All values are presented as means ± standard error unless otherwise noted.

References

Bonaldo RM, Bellwood DR (2008) Size-dependent variation in the functional role of the parrotfish Scarusrivulatus on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Mar EcolProgSer 360:237–244

Brown-Saracino J, Peckol P, Curran HA, Robbart ML (2006) Spatial variation in sea urchins, fish predators, and bioerosion rates on coral reefs of Belize. Coral Reefs 26:71–78

Cortés J, Risk MJ (1985) A reef under siltation stress: Cahuita, Costa Rica. Bull Mar Sci 36:339–356

Fox RJ, Bellwood DR (2007) Quantifying herbivory across a coral reef depth gradient. Mar EcolProgSer 339:49–59

Kramer MJ, Bellwood DR, Bellwood O (2012) Cryptofauna of the epilithic algal matrix on an inshore coral reef, Great Barrier Reef. Coral Reefs 31:1007–1015

Larcombe P, CostenA, Woolfe KJ (2001) The hydrodynamic and sedimentary setting of nearshore coral reefs, central Great Barrier Reef shelf, Australia: Paluma Shoals, a case study. Sedimentology 48:811–835

Lavkulich LM, Wiens JH (1970) Comparison of organic matter destruction by hydrogen peroxide and sodium hypochlorite and its effects on selected mineral constituents. Soil SciSoc Am J 34:755–758

Purcell SW, Bellwood DR (2001) Spatial patterns of epilithic algal and detrital resources on a windward coral reef. Coral Reefs 20:117–125

Tenore KR (1981) Organic nitrogen and caloric content of detritus: 1. Utilization by the deposit-feeding polychaete, Capitellacapitata. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 12:39–47

Wilson SK, Bellwood DR, Choat JH, Furnas MJ (2003) Detritus in the epilithic algal matrix and its use by coral reef fishes.Oceanogr Mar BiolAnnu Rev 41:279–309

Woolfe KJ, Larcombe P, Stewart LK (2000) Shelf sediments adjacent to the Herbert River delta, Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Aust J Earth Sci 47:301–308

1