844 



Fishery Bulletin 101(4) 



6 

 5 

 4- 

 3- 



9-Sep 



10-Sep 



11 -Sep 



12-Sep 



B combined spp. - A. troschclii 



p.,, 

 0- 



m 



W 



6- 

 5- 

 4- 

 3- 



2 - 



1- 



9-Sep 10-Sep 11 -Sep 



C Lla%at'\s bipi)nuilnta only 



12-Sep 



mi 



9-Sep 



10-Scp 



11 -Sop 



12-Sep 



Figure 7 



Effects of fouling community (fouled vs. unfouled [control]) 

 on aggregation size (mean no. of fishes) ior Ahudefduf tros- 

 chelii alone (A), for all species combined less A. troschelii 

 (B), and for Elagatis bipinnulata alone (C). See Tables 3-5 

 for sample sizes and ANOVA results for assemblage size 

 and diversity measures. 



on Abudefduf troschelii were generally the strongest. It is 

 not clear whether this is a species-specific effect or if these 

 results are due to the fact that A. troschelii was the most 

 numerically important species. 



The absence of a significant treatment main effect in the 

 fish-removal experiments suggests that recruitment and 

 loss from these anchored FADs is sufficiently rapid so that 



the complete removal of all fishes on a daily basis has no 

 effect on the next day's assemblage size or diversity. These 



