Fig 1.
Map of the Tanga, Tanzania study location.
(a) the Tanga coastline and collaborative management areas (CMA) of the coastal zone management project and (b) satellite image of reefs and study sites in the Mtangata and Boza-Sange CMA.
Table 1.
The collaborative management areas (CMAs), year of establishment, the reefs within the CMAs and the year of closure of reefs within the CMA in the Tanga Region (a), and the physical characteristics of the study sites (b).
The study sites and the villages adjacent to these sties are shown in bold.
Table 2.
The biomass of eleven common finfish families (mean ± SD, kg/ha) and the total finfish biomass at Chanjale, Funguni, Makome and Taa reefs that were sampled in 1996, 2004 and 2010 and the Kruskal-Wallis comparison of finfish families between sites and between sampling periods.
Table 3.
The biomass of eleven common finfish families (mean ± SD, kg/ha) and the total finfish biomass at all reefs sampled in 2010 and the Kruskal-Wallis comparison of finfish families between sites.
Table 4.
The biomass finfish (mean ± SD, kg/ha) of different size classes at Chanjale, Funguni, Makome and Taa, that were sampled in 1996, 2004 and 2010 and results of Kruskal-Wallis tests of differences between reefs and years.
Fig 2.
The changes in the biomass of finfish in different size classes.
The biomass (mean kg/ha) was estimated for eleven common finfish families sampled in 1996, 2004 and 2010.
Table 5.
The biomass of sea urchin species (mean ± SD, kg/ha) sampled at Chanjale, Funguni, Makome and Taa in 1996, 2004 and 2010 and the results of Kruskal-Wallis tests of sites and of sampling periods (a), and the mean ± SD sea urchin predation index and the percent predation by fish and invertebrates in the sampled reefs and years.
Table 6.
Summary estimates of herbivory on the seagrass Thallasia hemprichii at Chanjale, Funguni, Makome and Taa in 2004 and 2010 presented as the mean (± SD) percent amount eaten, herbivory rate, the amount attributed to fish or to sea urchins and results of ANOVA tests of significance for differences between sites and time.
Table 7.
Benthic substrate composition (mean% cover ± SD) at Chanjale, Funguni, Makome and Taa reefs and the yearly averages for each substrate category for 1996, 2004 and 2010.
A Kruskal-Wallis comparison of changes between sites and time.
Table 8.
Hard coral genera at Chanjale, Funguni, Makome and Taa presented as the mean % (± SD) cover for each coral genera encountered along a 10m line transect in 1996, 2004 and 2010 and ANOVA comparison between sites and times.
Table 9.
Summary of key descriptors (mean ± SD) of the respondents in the three villages, results of a post-hoc Tukey test comparing individual village means, and the one-way ANOVA test of significance of the descriptors.
There is no significant difference between the villages where values are preceded by the same letters in the post-hoc Tukey test.
Fig 3.
The level of agreement for six fisheries management options.
The level of agreement (mean ± SEM; tests of significance) for six management options was calculated for respondents from Kigombe, Mwarongo and Ushongo villages.
Table 10.
Results of a forward stepwise regression analyses evaluating the association between socio-demographic and management restrictions variables.
Results presented are (a) various management restrictions (b) communities, all fishers pooled.
Fig 4.
The perception of the level of benefits accruing to beneficiaries of fisheries management.
The responses for perceived benefits (mean ± SEM; tests of significance) to the self, the community, and the government were estimated for six fisheries management options, for respondents from Kigombe, Mwarongo and Ushongo villages.
Fig 5.
The preferred minimum fish size limit.
The cumulative frequency of the preferred minimum fish size limit is plotted for respondents from Kigombe, Mwarongo and Ushongo villages.
Table 11.
Summary of the means (± SD) and one-way ANOVA test of significance of respondent’s responses for the minimum sizes of fish (cm), the size of protected and closed areas (km2).