APPENDIXES

Table S1. Main categories and subcategories (also referred to as ‘types’) ofsubstratumrecorded in photoquadrats, structural complexity (complex, simple), frequency of observation (f, number of quadrats) and abundance (d, percentage of total cover) of each, and the total number of shrimps (n) associated with them. Treatment of each substratum during analysis is shown also, with substrata that were included indicated in bold.
Main substratum categories / Substratum types / Complexity / f / d / n / Treatment for analysis
1. Bedrock, large rocks / Rock / simple / 27 / 6 / 0 / included as pooled category with sand-rubble and living massive Porites spp.
2.Loose (unconsolidated) rubble / Loose rubble / simple / 9 / 3 / 4 / not included due to low frequency of observation and abundance
3. Consolidated rubble / Consolidated rubble / simple / 50 / 15 / 54 / included
4. Sand-rubble (sand mixed with small pieces of loose rubble) / Sand-rubble / simple / 52 / 16 / 1 / included as pooled category with bedrock and living massive Porites spp.
5. Soft coral (Alcyonacea) / Soft coral / complex / 7 / 2 / 0 / not included due to low frequency of observation and abundance
6. Bleached or recently-dead hard coral (white Scleractinia not yet overgrown) / Bleached coral / complex / 1 / <0.1 / 0 / not included due to low frequency of observation
7. Dead hard coral (dead Scleractinia with its original structure overgrown by fouling organisms) / Dead Poritesrus / complex / 27 / 5 / 17 / included as subcategory
8. Living hard coral (living Scleractinia) / living branching Acropora spp. / complex / 49 / 7 / 7 / included as subcategory
living foliate-columnar Poritesrus / complex / 88 / 22 / 97 / included as subcategory
living branching Porites spp. / complex / 31 / 4 / 13 / included as subcategory
living massive Porites spp. / simple / 21 / 4 / 1 / included as pooled category with bedrock and sand-rubble

1

Table S2. Carnivorous fishes observed within the survey area.
Family / Species
DAY
APOGONIDAE / Cheilodipterusquinquelineatus
Cheilodipterus sp.
GOBIIDAE / Amblygobiussphynx
HAEMULIDAE / Plectorhinchuschaetodonoidesa
HOLOCENTRIDAE / Sargocentrondiademaa
LABRIDAE / Bodianusaxillaris
Cheilinuschlorourusa
Cheilinusfasciatus
Cheilinusoxycephalusa
Cheilinustrilobatusa
Epibulusinsidiator
Epibulus sp.
Gomphosusvarius
Halichoereshortulanus
Halichoeresmelanurus
Halichoeresvrolikii
Hemigymnusmelapterus
Labridae spp.
Oxycheilinusdigramma
Pseudocheilinushexataenia
Thalassomalunare
Thalassomalutescens
Thalassoma sp.
LETHRINIDAE / Lethrinuserythropterusa
NEMIPTERIDAE / Scolopsisbilineatus
Scolopsis ciliates
Scolopsismargaritifer
OSTRACIIDAE / Ostracionmeleagrisa
POMACANTHIDAE / Pomacanthussexstriatus
SERRANIDAE / Cephalopholis argus
Cephalopholis boenak
SYNODONTIDAE / Synodus variegatus
TETRAODONTIDAE / Arothronmappaa
NIGHT
APOGONIDAE / Apogoncompressus
Apogon trimaculatus
Cheilodipterusquinquelineatus
Cheilodipterus spp.
DIODONTIDAE / Diodonliturosus
HAEMULIDAE / Plectorhinchuschaetodonoides
HEMISCYLLIDAE / Chiloscylliumpunctatum
HOLOCENTRIDAE / Sargocentrondiadema
MURAENIDAE / Gymnothoraxjavanicus
NEMIPTERIDAE / Scolopsismargaritifer
SERRANIDAE / Cephalopholis argus

aspecies observed during preliminary surveys. Not included in the analysis of fish abundances.

Table S3. Selection of shrimp for substratum of different (a) complexity categories and (b) types. Total quadrats = 140; total shrimp sampled = 215.Bold p-values are significant after Bonferroni correction = 0.017 and  = 0.005, corrected for 3 substratum complexity and 6 substratum type categories, respectively.
Substratum categories
(i) / Proportion available () / se() / Proportion used
(oi) / Selection index
(ŵi) / se(ŵi) / 95% Confidence Intervala / P
lower / upper
a. Substratum complexity
1-3 / 0.379 / 0.041 / 0.107 / 0.283 / 0.064 / 0.147 / 0.418 / <0.001
4 / 0.314 / 0.039 / 0.330 / 1.051 / 0.166 / 0.697 / 1.404 / 0.796
5 / 0.307 / 0.039 / 0.563 / 1.832 / 0.257 / 1.285 / 2.380 / 0.001
b. Substratum types
Porites rus / 0.220 / 0.035 / 0.451 / 2.055 / 0.362 / 1.188 / 2.921 / <0.001
Consolidated rubble / 0.147 / 0.030 / 0.251 / 1.710 / 0.402 / 0.747 / 2.674 / <0.001
Branching Acropora spp. / 0.069 / 0.021 / 0.033 / 0.475 / 0.230 / 0.000a / 1.026 / 0.044
Sand-rubble + rock + massive Porites spp. / 0.263 / 0.037 / 0.009 / 0.035 / 0.025 / 0.000a / 0.096 / <0.001
Dead coral Porites rus / 0.051 / 0.019 / 0.079 / 1.566 / 0.680 / 0.000a / 3.193 / 0.062
Branching Porites spp. / 0.051 / 0.019 / 0.060 / 1.194 / 0.542 / 0.000a / 2.492 / 0.522

a Negative lower limits have been changed to zero

Table S4. Tables of contingency of shrimp presence under (a) high,(b) intermediate and (c) low predation risk scenarios on branching Acropora spp., P. rus and sand-rubble + massive Porites spp. pooled together. Proportion of shrimp presence for substratum categories with similar superscript lowercase (low predation risk scenario) and capital (intermediate predation risk scenario) letters did not differ at the level of error  = 5% (see also text). NA = not analysed because shrimp presence was constant over all substratum categories.
Shrimp presence / Dependent variable / Substrata
Branching Acropora spp. / Porites rus / Sand-rubble+massive Porites spp. (pooled)
a. High predation risk scenario (experiment duration = 30 min, tether length = 15 cm)
0 / Counts (observed) / 5 / 5 / 10
Counts (expected) / NA / NA / NA
1 / Counts (observed) / 0 / 0 / 0
Counts (expected) / NA / NA / NA
b. Intermediate predation risk scenario (experiment duration = 30 min, tether length = 40 cm)
0 / Counts (observed) / 12A,B / 10B / 15A
Counts (expected) / 11.8 / 12.6 / 12.6
1 / Counts (observed) / 2A,B / 5B / 0A
Counts (expected) / 2.2 / 2.4 / 2.4
c. Low predation risk scenario (experiment duration = 10 min, tether length = 40 cm)
0 / Counts (observed) / 10a / 5b / 15c
Counts (expected) / 9.0 / 10.2 / 10.2
1 / Counts (observed) / 4a / 10b / 0c
Counts (expected) / 4.5 / 4.8 / 4.8

1