Status and trends of giant clam populations demonstrate the effectiveness of village-based protection in American Sāmoa

Introduction

Giant clams provide important ecological benefits in coral reef systems, contributing to reef productivity and benefitting species at all trophic levels (Neo et al., 2015a). Tridacna species derive nutrition either through filter feeding (Guest et al., 2008), photosynthetic algae living symbiotically in their tissues (Munro, 2005), or both (Fatherree, 2006; Toonen et al., 2012). This mixotrophic flexibility allows them to thrive in both clear, oligotrophic waters and turbid, nutrient-rich lagoonal areas. Additionally, clams filter water of organic detritus, inorganic nitrogen, and pollutants (Fitt, Heslinga & Watson, 1993), increasing visibility, reducing nutrient loads, and promoting the growth of other photosynthetic organisms such as corals (Edinger et al., 2000; Neo et al., 2015b). Giant clams also potentially prevent eutrophic algal blooms by fixing organic particulate matter following large terrestrial inputs (Officer, Smayda & Mann, 1982; Heslinga & Fitt, 1987; Hily, 1991; Waters, Story & Costello, 2013; Neo et al., 2015a; Zhang et al., 2023). As ecosystem engineering species, they provide settlement surfaces for epibionts such as macroalgae, sponges, and corals, forming communities dependent on their provided habitat, making them ecologically important to a wide range of reef organisms (Fatherree, 2006; Mekawy, 2014; Neo et al., 2015a). Yet, despite their crucial ecological role, giant clams face escalating threats that have led to widespread population declines and heightened conservation concerns (Meadows, 2016; Lee et al., 2022; Dolorosa et al., 2024).

Recognizing their vulnerable status, all species of giant clams are of conservation concern and currently listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (Tisdell, 1989; Wells, 1997; Neo et al., 2017). Overharvesting is widely attributed as the primary cause for the low abundances of these species, and since the IUCN evaluation in 1996, populations have continued to decline across their range (Meadows, 2016; Lee et al., 2022; Dolorosa et al., 2024). In 2024, the IUCN reassessed all giant clam species, updating their Red List classifications to reflect ongoing threats such as overexploitation and habitat degradation (Rippe et al., 2024). Tridacna gigas now ranks as critically endangered, while T. derasa and T. mbalavuana are listed as endangered, and Hippopus hippopus and H. porcellanus are considered vulnerable. Most remaining species (T. crocea, T. noae, T. maxima, T. squamosina) are categorized as least concern, though T. rosewateri and the recently described T. elongatissima remain data deficient due to limited information.

In response to these continued declines, a petition was filed in 2016 to list all species of Tridacninae giant clams (excluding Tridacna rosewateri, due to a lack of information) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) pursuant to section ‘Discussion’ (b) of the ESA. In July 2024, the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service completed a status review for seven species (Hippopus hippopus, H. porcellanus, Tridacna derasa, T. gigas, T. mbalavuana, T. squamosa, and T. squamosina) and “determined that the most significant threats to H. hippopus, T. derasa, and T. gigas are overexploitation and inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to address overutilization” but that “T. squamosa is at low risk of extinction throughout all of its range” (Rippe et al., 2024). If the proposed listings are finalized, six of the seven species would be classified as “threatened” under the ESA, prompting prohibitions on import, export, and interstate commerce without a permit (Rippe et al., 2024). Additionally, four species (T. crocea, T. maxima, T. noae, and T. squamosa) are proposed for listing as threatened due to their “similarity of appearance” with each other, which would result in the prohibition of the import and export of derivative products (raw tissue, shells, carvings, jewelry, pearls) from these species.

Tridacna species are particularly vulnerable to overharvesting due to their sensitive life history traits. These clams are slow-growing, have relatively late reproductive maturity, and are sedentary as adults, making them easy targets for exploitation and local extirpation (Craig, 2009; Neo et al., 2015b; Meadows, 2016). Evaluating the population stability of giant clam species requires measuring the effective population size that is determined by spatial aggregations and abundance across size classes at each location (Levitan, 2005; Guy, Smyth & Roberts, 2019). For example, other mollusk species such as oysters showed decreased brooding rates as distances between conspecifics increased over 1.5 m apart (Guy, Smyth & Roberts, 2019), and complete fertilization failure was found in mussels when densities were below 10 mussels/m² (Downing et al., 1993). For a multitude of reasons, giant clam populations are susceptible to the Allee effect, an ecological phenomenon where individual fitness and population growth decline at low population densities, making it harder for the population to recover (Stephens & Sutherland, 1999; Donahue, 2006). Fertilization success in adults relies on the reception of chemical cues to activate spawning synchrony, and larval dispersal is driven primarily by ocean currents (Neo et al., 2013). Larvae and juveniles exhibit high sensory abilities and have strong preference for close proximity, actively moving towards directions of higher conspecific effluents for gregarious settlement (Dumas et al., 2014).

As protandrous hermaphrodites, individuals first mature as males after about 3 years (Ellis, 1997) and become simultaneous hermaphrodites after 9–10 years (Munro, 1993; Chambers, 2008). Because of their slow growth rate of 2–4 cm/year (Beckvar, 1981; Hart, Bell & Foyle, 1998; Chambers, 2008; Toonen et al., 2012), individuals may never successfully produce eggs before reaching the minimum legal size for harvest. This size-selective harvest of larger individuals further exacerbates reproductive issues by altering the natural sex ratio by removing the larger females, thereby reducing successful fertilization. Reproductive success in giant clams is heavily influenced by their size, as there is a direct relationship between clam size and fecundity, indicating that smaller species or individuals require more animals to produce the same number of eggs as larger ones (Ellis, 1997). Braley (1987) reported that 70% of Tridacna gigas individuals that released gametes naturally had neighboring conspecifics within a 9-m radius. Even where some large individuals remain, low population densities isolate them from potential mates, leading to reproductive failure and, in some extreme cases, functional extinction of local populations (Waters, Story & Costello, 2013).

Cryptic species have long confounded population estimates of giant clams (e.g., Penny & Willan, 2014; Su et al., 2014). For example, T. noae can only be identified definitively through soft tissue or genetic characters. In some locations, such as Ningaloo Reef in Australia, previously misidentified populations of T. maxima have been described as the new species T. ningaloo (Penny & Willan, 2014) only to later be genetically confirmed as T. noae (Johnson et al., 2016). Furthermore, broad-scale genetic surveys suggest the existence of additional cryptic species, which have not yet been identified or named (Huelsken et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2020), and identification of live animals in the field based on morphological characters of the shell that is often embedded within the reef matrix is fraught with challenges (Fatherree, 2023). As a result, population estimates for many giant clam species are likely confounded by species misidentification and resulted in the NOAA Fisheries proposal to consider Tridacna squamosa, T. noae, T. maxima, and T. crocea as threatened throughout their range based on the similarity of appearance (Rippe et al., 2024).

Faisua (giant clams in Samoan) are deeply woven into the traditional food systems of American Sāmoa and other Pacific Island cultures. In Sāmoa and other Pacific Island nations, giant clams are valued for their status as food items and their potential in small-scale mariculture, providing both nutrition and economic opportunity (Munro, 1993; Bell et al., 2005). These dual roles, as both a food source and cultural symbol, have made them a focal species in conservation strategies across the Pacific. Similarly, in American Sāmoa, they are considered a delicacy and a valued component of subsistence harvests, often gathered for daily consumption and special occasions (Levine & Allen, 2009; Rippe et al., 2024). Their use in fa‘alavelave (ceremonial obligations), communal feasts, and gift exchanges emphasizes their cultural significance (Levine & Allen, 2009). Yet, despite continued conservation concerns, the population status of all giant clam species across American Sāmoa has not been assessed by any published studies since the surveys conducted by Green & Craig (1999), which was conducted prior to recognition of T. noae (Su et al., 2014), so the authors assumed all visually similar samples were T. maxima (A Green, Pers. comm., January 2025). Since then, genetic research has confirmed the presence of previously unreported T. noae in American Sāmoa (Marra-Biggs et al., 2022). The distribution and abundance of T. noae across American Sāmoa remains unknown, because historical population surveys may have misidentified this species as T. maxima, further confounding population estimates for both species.

American Sāmoa is a territory of the United States, located near the edge of the known geographic range of some species of Tridacninae, leading to expectations of decreased abundances and greater population vulnerability (Hidas, Ayre & Minchinton, 2010; Neo et al., 2017; Masanja et al., 2023). Previous surveys have identified the presence of Tridacna maxima, T. squamosa, and historical records have found shell remnants of Hippopus hippopus. T. derasa was introduced for aquaculture in the late 1980’s, but are no longer present within territorial waters (Ponwith, 1990; Green & Craig, 1999; Linnekin et al., 2006).

The coastline of American Sāmoa falls under various levels of jurisdiction and protection status, the majority under the resource management of the local American Samoan Government (ASG) Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources (DMWR), with supported enforcement staff from Marine Patrol. The enforcement of fisheries regulations in American Sāmoa is constrained by limited governmental resources, including insufficient vessel availability and staffing shortages (Levine & Richmond, 2014). Fa‘asao (village-based fishery closures) represent a traditional form of Indigenous management recently formalized to enhance local resource stewardship. Each village establishes its own terms and commitment periods for fishery restrictions, which in many cases have been integrated into the Community-based Fisheries Management Program (CFMP) (Levine & Allen, 2009). The CFMP serves a dual purpose: it strengthens the capacity of village communities to manage and protect nearshore resources with government support, while simultaneously expanding the enforcement and surveillance capabilities of the Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources (DMWR) (King & Faasili, 1999; Fa’asili & Sauafea, 2001). This collaborative approach helps mitigate limited capacity for fisheries regulation enforcement by the American Samoan government, which is constrained by restricted vessel access and staffing resources. Additionally, there are federal agencies, such as US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NOAA National Marine Sanctuary in American Sāmoa (NMSAS), which each have established no take zones within the territorial waters that have been present for over 40 years (Wegman & Holzwarth, 2006; Raynal, Levine & Comeros-Raynal, 2016). Likewise, the National Park of American Sāmoa restricts take to subsistence fishing only within park boundaries (National Park of American Samoa (NPSA), 2023).

Dispersal potential of faisua (giant clams), across the Samoan Archipelago are not yet fully understood, but given the proximity of neighboring islands and the speed of the South Equatorial Current (SEC), it is plausible that larvae are dispersed across the region (Kendall & Poti, 2011). Muliāva (Rose Atoll National Marine Monument), is a remote, uninhabited atoll that is fully protected as a Marine National Monument. It has been identified as a potential population refuge for giant clams, harboring an estimated 27,800 clams during a 1994 survey (Radtke, 1985; Green & Craig, 1999). The SEC flows westward from Muliāva towards the rest of the archipelago at a speed of approximately 1 km/hour (Kendall & Poti, 2011), making larval dispersal from Muliāva to the nearest islands, 138 km away, likely given a larval duration of 10–14 days for these species (Ellis, 1997). However, empirical studies of multispecies connectivity across similar distances often challenge assumptions about dispersal potential based simply on proximity and currents, so additional work is needed to confirm dispersal patterns among sites within the archipelago (Weersing & Toonen, 2009; Toonen et al., 2011; Crandall et al., 2019).

This population status assessment is a first step in evaluating the population trend dynamics and extinction risk of giant clam species within the Samoan Archipelago. Considering the pending ESA listing petition and the recent 2024 status review conducted by the National Marine Fisheries Service, which identified overexploitation and inadequate regulatory mechanisms as primary threats to several Tridacninae species, this research is critical. By providing updated, region-specific data on the distribution, abundance, and potential misidentification of species such as T. noae, this study addresses key gaps identified in the petition and status review. The findings will inform conservation strategies, enhance resource management, and contribute to the broader understanding of giant clam population dynamics. Ultimately such data are needed to support efforts to mitigate extinction risks and promote sustainable management of these ecologically significant species.

Materials & Methods

To remain consistent with previous historical surveys, all methods were based on Green & Craig (1999), which consisted of archipelago wide surveys across American Sāmoa. Abundance was estimated via SCUBA surveys on three 50 m × 2 m belt transects at 10 m depth for each site across the archipelago (see Fig. 1). Surveys were conducted on Tutuila, Manuʻa Islands (Ofu, Olosega, and Taʻu). Due to remote diving restrictions, shallow water (<2.5 m depth) snorkel surveys were conducted at Muliāva (Rose Atoll). Additional sites were added around Tutuila, Ofu, Olosega, and Taʻū, to improve geographically survey coverage and island representation.

Surveys were conducted during four expeditions occurring between 2022 and 2024 (see Table 1). Sites were surveyed across multiple years because of the spatial extent, vessel access, or inaccessibility due to weather conditions within a single expedition. We completed a total of 194 transects, covering 2.32 hectares across 88 sites, among six islands of the archipelago. For the purpose of this research, sites were classified into the following levels of marine management: federal no take (NMSAS); subsistence & remote harvest (NPSA waters); remote, inaccessible (Muliāva); village protected areas; or none (Existing Government Regulations) (see Table S1). Remoteness was categorized by limited road access and increased distance from population center.

Population densities were categorized based on Neo et al. (2017) into three classes of abundance: Abundant (100–10,000/ha); Frequent (1–10/ha) and Rare (<0.1/ha). For each clam found on our transects, we recorded: size, depth, species, valve margins, photo documentation, and notes about morphology (intake siphon tentacles, papillae, teardrop shape, etc.). Following Green & Craig (1999), clams were assigned to one of three size classes based on shell length measured in a straight line from tip to tip along the longest axis of the shell: Recruit < five cm, Immature 5 < 12, and Mature ≥ 12 cm. These size categories are consistent with best fit functions of shell size by gonadosomatic index of Tridacna maxima in French Polynesia (Menoud et al., 2016).

It is noteworthy that the surveys conducted in 2018 in Manuʻa islands (Ofu, Olosega, and Taʻū) were impacted by weather conditions, and clam abundances were likely underestimated due to difficulty surveying and limited survey sites (A Green, pers. comm., 2025). Due to the incomplete surveys in 2018, we also ran comparative analyses of the time series, one with all years included, and another omitting the data from 2018.

Results

Temporal trends in giant clam populations across American Sāmoa

Due to inclement weather, we were unable to survey historically high abundance sites, so the 2018 time series datapoint was not included in our analysis. Supplemental Data was provided from territorial reports, compiled by the CRAG and DMWR (Green et al., 2022).

Comparing data from all survey years reveals clam densities strongly linked to island (F_(4,118) = 17.47, p < 0.01,η²= 0.37), but not time (Fig. 2, Table 2). Even including 2018, when severe weather prevented surveys at the historically highest density sites on Ofu, Olosega, and Taʻū, there was no significant relationship between clam abundance and year (F_(3,119) = 1.703, p > 0.05,η²= 0.04). Tutuila measured an average clam density of 83.5 in 2022–2024, with specific sites showing a density of over 400 clams per hectare.

On reef slope surveys, the highest mean density was observed on Taʻū (n = 21), with 811.89 clams per hectare (SE = 288.6), followed by Aunuʻu (n = 3) at 300 clams per hectare. Ofu (n = 18) had a mean density of 138.57 clams per hectare (SE = 72.66), while Olosega (n = 6) exhibited a mean density of 116.85 clams per hectare (SE = 83.15). In contrast, Tutuila (n = 114) exhibited the lowest mean density at 83.47 clams per hectare (SE = 18) (Fig. 2).

Impact of protection levels on clam populations

We investigated differences among sites, starting with broad categorizations of sites where take is allowed compared to those that are fully protected (Fig. 3). Using the most recent survey data (2022–2024), we compared Open Access sites, where fishing is allowed in various forms, to Marine Managed Areas, where all forms of fishing are banned (Federal No Take, Village Protected, and Inaccessible sites) (Fig. 3). Clam density varied widely among Open Access sites (n = 32, mean = 87.4, SE = 21.2) (n = 138 transects, mean = 207 clams/ha, SE = 44.7) but did not differ significantly (F_(1,121) = 0.655, p 0.42, η²= 0.005), from Marine Managed Areas (n = 53 transects, mean = 958 clams/ha, SE = 468). However, this comparison confounds island with level of protection because only one type of site exists on most islands. Tutuila is the only island with both Marine Managed Areas and Open Access sites (Fig. 3). To further investigate how management impacts clam density, these two protection categories were further partitioned into various forms of marine management strategies (Federal No Take, Village Protected, remote, subsistence and remote, none, and Inaccessible sites) for further analysis (Fig. 4).

Table 2:

Clam densities across surveyed timepoints along the American Samoan islands, with standard deviation and standard error.

	1994			2002			2018			2022–2024
	Mean	SD	SE	Mean	SD	SE	Mean	SD	SE	Mean	SD	SE
Aunuʻu	80	–	–	100	–	–	67	–	–	300	–	–
Tutuila	14.1	26.23	6.6	119.6	31.3	7.8	41.2	89.4	22.3	83.5	112.2	18.2
Ofu	260.0	311.13	220	266.7	236.9	167.5	50.0	70.7	50.0	138.6	178	72.7
Olosega	230.0	183.85	130	420.0	141.4	100.0	50.0	70.7	50.0	116.9	117.6	83.2
Tau	305.0	305.0	152.5	860.0	577.1	288.6	350.0	23.6	11.8	811.9	288.6	109.1

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.20290/table-2

Throughout the 30 years of surveys (Fig. 2), giant clam densities did not change significantly over time (F_(3,119) = 1.703, p > 0.1,η²= 0.04), but showed consistent large variation among islands (F_(4,118) = 17.47, p < 0.001,η²= 0.37) and across levels of protection (F_(5,117) = 3.206, p < 0.01,η²= 0.12).

Remote areas (n = 27 transects) had relatively high clam densities, averaging 461.3 clams per hectare (SE = 138.32), whereas Subsistence & Remote zones within National Parks (n = 33 transects) had a lower average density of 207 clams per hectare (SE = 42.54). Federal no-take zones (n = 9 transects) exhibited an average density of 100 clams per hectare (SE = 100), while Village Protected areas (n = 19 transects) had a mean density of 90.0 clams per hectare (SE = 12.7). Areas under Local Government Regulations (n = 72 transects) showed an average density of 119 clams per hectare (SE = 57). Muliāva, classified as Inaccessible, had the highest recorded clam densities due to its uninhabited status, averaging 1,166.39 clams per hectare (n = 34 transects, SE = 573.98).

Because many islands contain only one or a few types of management regime, we also compare among surveys (n = 99 transects) on Tutuila, the only island on which all management types exist (Figs. 4B & 4C). Among these Tutuila management zones, clam densities differed significantly based on protection level (F_(4,33) = 10.3, p < 0.001,η²= 0.56; Fig. 4B). Among management regimes, Subsistence & Remote sites had the highest densities of giant clams, followed by Remote and Village Protected, whereas the Federal no-take sites held the lowest mean density of clams overall on the island of Tutuila (Fig. 4B).

Size distribution

Within the 2022–2024 surveys, Tridacna size varied significantly across both levels of protection (p < 0.001,η²= 0.14), and across islands (p < 0.001,η²= 0.14) (see Fig. 5, Table 3).

Incorporating historical surveys, clam sizes varied significantly between islands (p < 0.001,η²= 0.18) and across years (p < 0.001,η²= 0.07); Fig. 6, Table 4). Muliāva (n = 58) and Aunuʻu (n = 37) had the largest average clam sizes, measuring 14.2 cm (SE = 0.428) and 13.35 cm (SE = 1.519), respectively. In contrast, Taʻū (n = 40) exhibited smaller average clam sizes at 8.79 cm (SE = 0.390). Tutuila (n = 85) displayed a wide range of sizes, with an overall average of 12.21 cm (SE = 0.733).

Figure 5 further highlights substantial differences in size class distributions between islands. Tutuila had moderate population densities across size classes, averaging 82.06 clams per hectare. However, in the Manuʻa islands, where population densities are much higher (116–718 clams per hectare), there were minimal recruits on Ofu and Olosega islands.

Species composition

This was the first population survey that distinguished between cryptic species in American Sāmoa since the discovery of T. noae (Marra-Biggs et al., 2022) (Fig. 7). The vast majority of individuals (96.7%) in this survey were identified as T. maxima. Only 14 T. noae and nine T. squamosa were recorded across all transects, with 10 of the T. noae and all T. squamosa observed on the island of Tutuila.

Table 3:

Giant clam density (mean/ha) across islands during 2022–2024 surveys, delineated by size classes, with standard deviation and standard error.

Classes are categorized as (Recruit ≥ 5 cm, Juvenile 6 ≥ 12 cm, and Mature ≤ 12 cm) as defined by Green & Craig (1999), Menoud et al. (2016) and Green et al. (2022).

		Density				St Dev			St Error
	Survey Count	Recruit	Juvenile	Mature	Total	Recruit	Juvenile	Mature	Recruit	Juvenile	Mature
Tutuila	114	12.61	25.23	36.94	82.06	24.0	58.5	50.2	3.9	9.5	8.1
Aunuʻu	3	100.00	0.00	200.00	300.00	–	–	–	–	–	–
Ofu	18	22.22	11.11	88.89	139.57	40.4	27.2	75.0	16.5	11.1	30.6
Olosega	6	16.67	16.67	83.33	116.85	23.6	23.6	70.7	16.7	16.7	50.0
Tau	21	242.86	238.10	280.95	811.89	135.7	138.0	141.2	51.3	52.2	53.4
Muliāva	102	41.65	220.90	843.37	116.39	232.1	812.3	2,588.1	39.8	139.3	443.9

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.20290/table-3

Table 4:

Giant clam size (cm) on reef slopes (10m) with standard deviation and standard error in 1994–2024 surveys.

	Mean Size				N				SD				SE
	1994/95	2002	2018	2022/24	1994/95	2002	2018	2022/24	1994/95	2002	2018	2022/24	1994/95	2002	2018	2022/24
Tutuila	14.08	17.98	18.89	11.56	12	24	22	80	10.16	8.71	4.45	6.40	2.93	1.78	0.95	0.72
Aunuʻu	10.00	19.17	22.25	11.78	4	3	2	9	6.78	5.39	15.20	7.14	3.39	3.11	10.75	2.38
Ofu	8.35	13.11	15.33	13.35	26	35	3	20	7.29	5.64	2.52	6.79	1.43	0.95	1.45	1.52
Olosega	17.09	13.42	17.67	12.43	23	42	3	7	7.01	6.11	12.50	5.00	1.46	0.94	7.22	1.89
Taʻū	6.89	9.29	12.65	8.79	92	311	21	165	4.03	3.75	3.15	5.01	0.42	0.21	0.69	0.39

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.20290/table-4

Discussion

Giant clam populations are decreasing throughout much of their native ranges due to overharvesting and habitat destruction (Meadows, 2016; Dolorosa et al., 2024), reinforcing the need for consistent monitoring protocols to assess the rate of decline. American Sāmoa is no exception to these anthropogenic pressures, and limited territorial resources has resulted in large spatial and temporal data gaps. This study replicated historical surveys to assess the state of current giant clam populations, and to provide management agencies data needed for mitigative actions. To inform management agencies, these survey data identified areas with high and stable abundances, highlighting how different marine resource protection strategies can affect clam populations and best maintain clam stocks under territorial resource constraints.

Conclusions

Our findings reinforce that community-based management approaches can effectively sustain clam populations and may serve as a more adaptive and culturally sensitive alternative to top-down enforcement under ESA. To further improve conservation outcomes, giant clam monitoring should be incorporated into the existing annual survey programs, providing a finer resolution of temporal trends in the Samoan archipelago. Additionally, since current assessments are limited to a single depth contour (10 m), a more comprehensive survey across depth gradients is recommended to identify potential depth refugia, assess habitat limitations, and improve our understanding of species-specific ecological affinities in the archipelago. Such efforts require hosting workshops to help local fishers correctly identify cryptic species (T. noae and T. squamosa), particularly given their detection primarily in village-managed areas to date. Further education and community training is needed for the reliable monitoring of species-specific populations and to better inform species-specific management plans. Frequent, spatially distributed monitoring—especially when paired with community engagement—will be key to ensuring long-term persistence of giant clam populations under changing environmental conditions.

Population densities of giant clams are variable across American Sāmoa, with highest densities concentrated in a limited number of remote and village-protected areas. Although global concern over giant clam declines has prompted consideration for endangered species listing, our findings suggest that such designation does not appear to be the best management pathway for American Sāmoa where ESA status would equate to federal no-take management and would likely limit village management efforts. The relative stability of clam densities relative to historical baselines, alongside clear evidence that village-enforced protection currently outperforms other management strategies, highlights the value of strengthening local stewardship rather than relying solely on federal regulations to conserve these iconic coral reef species.

Supplemental Information