21

Fiji Marine Conservation & Diving

Beqa Island

FJM 142 Quarterly Science Report

Dates: 24th

March 2014 – 16th

June 2014

Author: Kristian J Miles MSc BSc (Hons) AMSB

22

Field Staff

Role Staff member

Project Coordinator & Principle Investigator: Kristian Miles (KM)

Dive Officer: Clare Brown (CB)

Assistant Research Officer: Nikola Piesinger (NP)

Assistant Research Officer: Blue Raasch (BR)

23

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction 4

1.1 Frontier 4

1.2 Location 4

1.3 Background 5

1.3.1 Natural Sources of Reef Degradation 6

1.3.2 Anthropogenic Sources of Reef Degradation 6

2.0 Aims and Objectives 7

3.0 Phase Objectives 7

4.0 BTEC; Tropical Habitat Conservation 7

5.0 Methods 8

5.1 Study Sites 8

5.2 Science Training 8

5.3 Survey Methodology 9

5.3.1 Surveyor Roles 9

5.3.2 Field Data Collection 10

5.3.3 Data Input and Analysis 11

5.3.4 Statistical Analysis 11

6.0 Results 11

6.1 Benthic Forms 11

6.2 Fish Biodiversity and Abundance 12

6.3 Statistical Analysis 13

7.0 Discussion 13

8.0 Proposed Work Programme for Next Phase 16

9.0 References 17

10.0 Appendices 19

9.1 Appendix 1 19

9.2 Appendix 2 21

24

1. Introduction

1.1 Frontier

Frontier, established in 1989, is a UK-based non-profit NGO. Its mission statement is “to conserve

the world’s most endangered wildlife and threatened habitats and to build sustainable

livelihoods for marginalised and under resourced communities in the world’s poorest countries and to

create solutions that are apolitical, forward-thinking, community- driven and innovative, and which

take into consideration the long-term needs of low income communities”.

Frontier employs non-specialist volunteers, or Research Assistants (RAs), with basic science and

species identification training given at the beginning of their placement, to collect data on coral, fish,

algae and invertebrates. In Fiji, Frontier has been working alongside Dr Joeli Veitayaki (JV) from the

University of the South Pacific and the International Ocean Institute since 2006. After working on

Gau Island in Fiji conducting baseline surveys, Frontier relocated to Beqa Island, south of mainland

Fiji, in order to assess the status of the coral reef systems around Beqa and within Beqa Lagoon.

Subsequently we hope to work in collaboration with the local communities of Beqa to establish

seasonal no take zones and sustainable harvest rates for both their commercial sale and own

consumption.

1.2 Location

Fiji is an archipelago in the South Pacific Ocean composed of 332 islands and 500 islets and cays

with land mass occupying 18,376 km² (Cumming et al., 2002). Approximately one third of the

islands are inhabited and of these, the two largest islands Viti Levu and Vanua Levu contain

approximately 90% of Fiji’s population (Vuki et al., 2000).

Beqa is a large island in the Fijian archipelago and lies within Beqa Lagoon with the coordinates

18°24’S 178°08’E. The island is located approximately 10 km south of the main island of Viti Levu

and has a population of around 3,000 people. Nine villages are present on Beqa; these are Waisomo,

Lalati, Soliyaga, Dukuni, Dakuibeqa, Naceva, Naiseuseu, Rukua and Raviravi.

Beqa Lagoon is world renowned as the Soft Coral Capital of the World and features over 50 world

class dive sites. The primary source of income on Beqa is tourism, largely through recreational scuba

diving. No large scale agriculture or horticulture occurs and heavy industry is non-existent, therefore

the reefs within Beqa Lagoon are unaffected by the potential negative environmental impacts that

such industries can bring.

Fishing by indigenous people is largely subsistence and artisanal, however various no take or ‘tabua’

areas have been designated by chiefs of the villages. Although village chiefs have no legal right to

the reefs, they traditionally lay claim to certain reefs within their territories and consequently have

the power to create ‘tabua’ areas on reefs of their choice. This unofficial law is respected and adhered

to by all inhabitants of Beqa Island. Studies on other reefs elsewhere have shown that similar

traditional methods are an effective way to control and sustainably manage harvest rates of marine

resources (Hoffmann, 2002).

25

1.3 Background

Coral reefs are one of the most valuable resources on earth and provide an array of vital ecosystem

services (Done et al., 1996), with over one third of all described marine species dependent upon

coral reef ecosystems (Reaka-Kudla, 1996).

In recent years, coral reefs in the Southwest Pacific region have sustained large-scale damage as a

result of both natural phenomena and anthropogenic activities. One hundred years ago the reefs were

pristine, human populations were low and fish were harvested only for subsistence (Lovell et al.

2004). Poisons were used occasionally to retrieve large catches for festivals and ceremonial occasions.

Even 30 years ago, remote reefs remained healthy; however reefs near dense populations began to be

overexploited. Some Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) had been created, however the threats to coral

reefs were not yet fully understood. In the last 20 years, pollution, sedimentation and overfishing

around dense population centres have increased. As a result, the surrounding reefs have incurred

significant stress and consequently their health has declined. Most other reefs have remained healthy

and many are even recovering from mass bleaching events in 2000 and 2002, yet recovery rates vary

between sites with some showing complete recovery and others showing minimal or no recovery.

Beqa Barrier Reef in particular has been showing a slow recovery rate (Lovell et al., 2004).

Although many coral colonies around Fiji currently appear to be in good health, as human

populations and anthropogenic activities continue to increase, there are concerns about the

detrimental impact that will be incurred by reefs. In addition, as climate change intensifies over the

next 50 years, the frequency of destructive environmental events will increase and will occur at a

greater frequency than coral reefs will be able to recover.

1.3.1 Natural Sources of Reef Degradation

Natural sources of coral reef degradation include cyclones, coral bleaching and invasive predator

outbreaks. Sixty four per cent of all coral colonies surrounding Fiji suffered mass bleaching in 2000

and in the southern areas of Viti Levu 84% of colonies were affected (Cumming et al., 2002).

Since 2002, significant damage has been sustained on coral reefs within the Southwest Pacific

region as a result of cyclones (Lovell et al., 2004). Coral predator outbreaks, specifically the

Crown of Thorn starfish (Acanthaster planci), have occurred on Fijian reefs since 1965 for periods

ranging from two to five years and continue to this day (Zann et al., 1990).

1.3.2 Anthropogenic Sources of Reef Degradation

The main anthropogenic sources of reef degradation include overfishing, destructive fishing

practices (such as dynamite fishing), poisoning, pollution and coral harvesting for the curio and

marine aquarium trade (Vuki et al., 2000; Lovell, 2001).

Overfishing in Fiji has significantly reduced populations of certain species of reef fish including

three species of Lethrinus; the Thumbprint Emperor (Lethrinus harak), Yellowlip Emperor

(Lethrinus xanthochilus) and Spangled Emperor (Lethrinus nebulosus). Other species such as the

Bumphead Parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum) have now become almost completely extinct in

Fijian waters (Cumming et al., 2002).

26

The marine aquarium trade inflicts reef degradation in a variety of ways, including the harvesting of

‘live rock’ where dead coral rock covered with coralline algae is removed from the reef’s edge and

exported overseas. This is a major problem in Fiji as it significantly diminishes reef ecosystems. In

2001, a reported 800,000 kg of ‘live rock’ was harvested and exported; however the actual figure is

likely much greater as a substantial quantity is lost in the trimming and grading process (Lovell et

al., 2004).

Pollution in the form of sewage is a major threat to coral reefs in Fiji. Untreated sewage deposited

directly into the ocean causes increased levels of phosphates and consequently macro algal blooms

and eutrophication. Coral reefs are unique in that they possess low levels of nutrients and are highly

efficient at recycling them. When marine ecosystems are enriched with chemical nutrients, the result

is excessive plant growth in the form of macro algae. Such algae are detrimental to the health of the

reef because they use all available oxygen within the water column, causing fish populations to die

off.

Inaddition, these algal blooms reduce the amount of light penetrating the water column inhibiting

coral photosynthesis, subsequently causing rapid declines in reef system biodiversity. Unmanaged

disposal of raw sewage is common in areas of dense population as well as in popular tourist

destinations. Incidents of dumping on reefs along the Coral Coast of Viti Levu, Mamanuca and Suva

have been observed (Tamata and Thaman, 2001; Zann and Lovell, 1992; Mosley and Aalbersberg,

2002).

2. Aims & Objectives

The aims and objectives of the Fiji Marine Conservation project are to conduct baseline surveys on

the coral reefs within Beqa Lagoon in order to ascertain the health of the reef. Data will be collected

on benthic forms, fish species biodiversity, abundance and size, invertebrate species and coral genus.

To achieve this, survey sites must be selected mooring lines and permanent transect sites deployed.

Further work to be developed will be the creation and delivery of workshops to the local communities

that focus on education and awareness of marine resources, conservation and how to sustainably use

and manage the resources that the coral reefs provide.

3. Phase Objectives

The objectives of the second phase were to continue to develop the project and expand the data

set. This entailed;

Creating training resources on fish and invertebrate species morphology, anatomy,

survey species and survey methodology

Selecting new survey sites based on their size and depth

Deploying mooring lines

Deploying permanent transects

Building good relationships with the local communities by visiting church and attending

27

events

Developing the FJM camp into a fully functional research outpost

4. BTEC: Tropical Habitat Conservation

Two BTEC Certificates on ‘Tropical Habitat Conservation’ were completed during this phase.

Lectures were given to the candidates on the topics of surveying and monitoring techniques,

biodiversity and protected areas, and good environmental practice. Self-study and independent

project development and management were emphasised and the candidates were encouraged to

discuss and develop ideas for themselves with guidance and suggestions from staff given.

The candidates were assigned a mentor to provide guidance throughout the project, with regular

meetings to update the logbook and discuss project ideas including survey plans, data collection and

preparation of project presentations. The candidates were encouraged to consult with their mentors

as much as they felt necessary, in addition to officially scheduled mentor meetings.

A list of initial possible BTEC subjects was suggested based on topical issues that research staff

f e l t warranted further investigation and accommodate the broad research requirements of Frontier.

The candidates chose the subject which was of most interest to them. Subsequently, the project

title was confirmed through discussions between the RA and their mentor. The candidates had

six weeks after the completion of their placement to submit their evidence folder to the awarding

body for it to be marked and a grade given.

5. Methods

5.1. Study Sites

Six survey sites were used; two inshore, two nearshore and two offshore. The first site, named

‘Bikini’ (S1), is inshore with the coordinates S 18˚23’40.1” E 178˚05’26.0”. The reef is

protected from westerly winds but is more prone to northerly, southerly and easterly winds.

Average depth is 7.5m and a gentle slope drops down to a depth of 20 m on the outer reef.

The second site, named ‘Lunch’ (S2), is offshore with the coordinates S 18˚19’40.1” E

178˚06'33.0". The site is exposed and dramatically affected by strong winds from all

directions as a result. At low tide, the reef becomes too shallow to effectively collect data and

therefore surveys can only be completed at high tide. At high tide the survey area is

approximately 6 m, however the site is also comprised of steep drop offs and coral bombies.

The third site, named ‘Mala’s’ (S3), is nearshore with the coordinates S 18˚24’10.5” E

178˚05’58.2”. The site is found within Vaga Bay and as a result is relatively protected from

southerly and easterly winds. It is an estuarine environment with two freshwater streams

flowing into it. The majority of the reef is at around 8 m whereas the outer reef is at around 18

m.

The fourth site, named ‘Rabbit’ (S4), is nearshore with the coordinates S 18˚24’.07.5” E

28

178˚06’09.9”. It is also located within Vaga Bay; however it is closer to the river outflow and is

generally shallower, with an average depth of 6 m dropping down to 12 m at the reef edge.

The fifth site, named Vuvalae (S5), is offshore with the coordinates S 18˚24’07.6” E 178˚03’54.9”. It is

relatively protected from south easterly, easterly and north easterly winds and usually is not subjected to

strong currents. The reef is extremely large, comprising of numerous patch reefs and coral bombies.

Average depth is around 8 m dropping down to 16 m at the reef’s edge.

The sixth site, named ‘Wreck Reef ’ (S6), is inshore, with the coordinates S 18˚22’48.22” E

178˚05’18.3”. A purpose-sunk wreck is located on the seabed just off the reef at a depth of 22 m. The

reef has an average depth of 8 m, however the edge of the reef has a steep drop off down to a depth of

22 m. There can be strong currents present, therefore careful planning and caution must be taken when

conducting surveys at this site.

5.2. Science training

Research Assistants are given an array of lectures before beginning in water identification tests. These

lectures include an introduction to coral reefs, indicator fish species, other fish families, other

Butterflyfish and Damselfish species, fish anatomy, marine hazards, benthic forms, invertebrates and

survey methodology. Upon completion of in water identification tests Research Assistants are required

to complete two practice surveys before being permitting to complete actual surveys.

5.3. Survey methodology

The Baseline Survey Protocol (BSP) followed standardised Reef Check methodology (Hodgson,

2001). Benthic data was collected using line intercept methodology whereas fish surveys were

completed using belt transect methodology. Four permanent transect sites are used at each of the six

survey sites. Highly visible markers are placed at the transect start points allowing easy location by

RAs. Fifty metre survey tapes were used to create transect lines spaced 10 m apart. Transect bearings

were kept consistent in order to obtain independent samples to be replicated at each site. Transect

lines were laid for a total length of 45 m and this permitted 2 x 20 metre transects to be completed

separated by a 5 m gap.

5.3.1. Surveyor Roles

RAs undertook various roles during surveys depending on the data being collected and the level of

training they had received. As four weeks were required to become fish survey proficient, any RAs on

the project for less than four weeks were unable to survey fish and would therefore occupy another

surveyor role. As the project is still in the early stage of its development, data collected was on

benthic forms and fish biodiversity, abundance and size.

Consequently, there were three surveyor roles; physical surveyor, benthic surveyor and fish

surveyor. Provided that research assistants were able to undertake all survey roles, the allocated

role rotated on a daily basis.

The role of the physical surveyor was to lead the dive and therefore keep track of all surveyors’ air

consumption, dive depth and survey time, in addition to towing the surface marker buoy and

navigating bearings. The physical surveyor records the depth and time at the start and end of each

29

transect and navigates the set bearing of each transect whilst laying out the tape measure. During fish

surveys the physical surveyor remains behind the fish surveyor to reduce disturbance to the fish

within the transect area. On completion of the survey the physical surveyor reels in the tape. When

surveying benthic forms, the benthic surveyor conducts the survey with the physical surveyor

swimming alongside.

5.3.2. Field Data Collection

Benthic forms were recorded using line-intercept methodology. Fourteen benthic forms were recorded;

these included branching, massive, submassive, corymbose, digitate, laminar, tabular, singular, foliose,

sponge, soft and dead coral, rock and sand. Before RAs were permitted to conduct surveys, rigorous

testing was undertaken. Theory tests were carried out and a pass rate of 95% accuracy was required

before in-water tests were completed. Each coral form then had to be successfully identified in the

water three times before actual benthic surveys could be undertaken and data recorded.

Fish biodiversity, abundance and size were recorded using 5x5x20 m belt transects. Forty-five

indicator species and 20 other families were recorded (see Appendix 1). Fish size was recorded in

categories; 1-10 cm, 11-20 cm, 21-30 cm, 31-40 cm, 41-50 cm and >50 cm. When a fish surveyor

encountered a large school of fish, the abundance was estimated and recorded in the most common

average size category. As in benthic surveys, before fish surveys could be completed, theory tests

were taken and a pass mark of 95% accuracy was necessary before in-water tests were completed.

Each indicator species and fish family had to be successfully identified in water three times before

actual fish surveys could be undertaken and data recorded.

Figure 1; Fish surveyor methodology, recording all fish seen within a 5m x 5m square from the

base of the transect tape measure.

5.3.3. Data Input

Upon completion of a survey dive, RAs wrote up the data collected so that a hard copy was logged

and then, when time permitted, entered the data into the database.

5.3.4. Statistical Analysis

Simpson’s Index of Diversity (1-D) was used to analyse the data (Simpson, 1949). This method was

used to quantify the biodiversity of the sample sites because it took into account the number of

flora/fauna present, as well as the abundance of each flora/fauna. As richness and evenness increase,

so does the diversity. Therefore, Simpson's Diversity Index measures diversity based on both

30

richness and evenness. The index values calculated range between 0 and 1 and the greater the value,

the greater the sample diversity. The index represents the probability that two individuals randomly

selected from a sample will not belong to the same species or category of individuals.

6. Results

6.1. Benthic Forms

The benthic data collected shows that survey Site 1, ‘Bikini’ (S1), illustrated the lowest abundance of

benthic forms including submassive, sponge and sand, and had the greatest volume of dead coral.

Site 1 was also the only site where no bare rock was encountered. In addition to this, laminar,

digitate and tabular forms failed to be represented, however S1 was the only site where digitate forms

were not encountered. However, Site 2; ‘Lunch’ (S2), dominated by massive, submassive and tabular

forms, had the lowest abundance of dead coral. Similarly S2 and Site 5, ‘Vuvalae’ (S5), were

dominated by three benthic forms and had one benthic form with the lowest abundance. ‘Mala’s’

(S3), had the highest intercept values of benthic forms including foliose, solitary, soft and sand forms.

The data suggests that S3 had the lowest abundance of branching, corymbose and encrusting coral.

Site 4, ‘Rabbit’ (S4), had two coral forms that were most abundant and had one coral form that was

least abundant when compared with the other survey sites. These included encrusting rock and

solitary, which unlike the other sites were not encountered. S5 was dominated by branching,

corymbose and digitate forms, but it had the lowest abundance of soft coral. Site 6, ‘Wreck’, had one

benthic form that dominated and one coral form that was least abundant; sponge and massive

respectively (Appendix 2; Figures 1a-6b).

6.2. Fish biodiversity and abundance

The data gathered from the survey sites illustrates that S6 had the greatest biodiversity of 40 indicator

species sampled. Site 1 was the second most biodiverse site with 37 indicator species sampled. Site 4

was the third most biodiverse site with 35 indicator species encountered. Sites 2 and 5 followed with

33 and 32 species respectively. S3 was the least biodiverse survey site with 29 indicator species

sampled (Appendix 2; Figure 7).

The ‘other families’ data differs significantly from the indicator fish data. Site 4 had the greatest

biodiversity with 28 families followed by S3 and S5 with 27 families. S1 had the third greatest

biodiversity with 26 families and S2 and S6 had the lowest biodiversity, both with 24 families

(Appendix 2; Figure 7).

In contrast, the abundance of the indicator species sampled was greatest at S6 where 13 species

dominated followed by S5 with 9 dominant indicators. Site 2 had the third greatest dominance of 7

species followed by S1 with 5 species. S4 and S3 had the lowest dominance with 4 and 3

respectively. In the case of other fish families S1 had the greatest abundance with 9 families

dominating. Site 4 followed with 6 dominant species closely followed by S3 and S6 with 4 species,

S2 and S5 had the lowest dominance with 3 species each (Appendix 2; Table 1).

The distributions of species concerning Angelfish and Barracuda have been graphed between survey

sites (Appendix 2; Figures 8-9). As far as Angelfish were concerned, the dominant species was the

Bicolour Angelfish (Centropyge bicolor), having a relatively strong presence on all of the survey

sites. Yellowtail Barracuda (Sphyraena flavicauda) were common on S1 and S4 and the Great

Barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda) were only encountered on S3.

31

Since Butterflyfish and Damselfish are very well represented at all six sites and have a vast array of

species, the four most abundant species from each family were selected and their distribution was

shown between survey sites (Appendix 2; Figures 10-11). This data shows that the Eastern Triangle

dominated at S1, S3, S5 and S6, the Vagabond dominated at S2 and Redfin dominated at S4. With

regards to the Damselfish, the data shows that the Reticulated Dascylus dominated at S1, S5 and S6,

the Bicolor Chromis dominated at S2 and Black Axil Chromis dominated at S3 and S4. As far as

‘other families’ are concerned, the four most abundant species found are Fusiliers, Other

Damselfish, Wrasse, and Bristletooths (Appendix 2; Table 1).

6.3. Statistical Analysis

Diagram 3; Scatter graph illustrating Simpson’s Index of Diversity (1-D) values for benthic and

fish data at each survey site.

Basic data analysis of benthic forms illustrated that S6 had the greatest diversity and richness followed

by S5 whereas S2 had the lowest richness and diversity. In comparison, the fish data illustrated that S3

had the greatest richness and diversity of species followed by S4 while S5 had the lowest species

richness and diversity.

7. Discussion

The first clear observation from the results is that S6 and S1 exhibit the greatest number of indicator

species, specifically Butterflyfish and Damselfish. Both sites are inshore reefs, however S6 is prone to

strong currents and S1 is designated as a ‘tabua’ or no take zone by the chief of the local village. It is

likely that these factors are in part responsible for the increased biodiversity of indicator species. In

addition to this; at each of the survey sites are showing equal diversity in terms of the number of coral

forms; however sponge dominated corals are significantly higher in abundance at S6 than all other

sites. This is likely to be a result of the strong currents and consequent sediment that covers the site.

Sedimentation is more frequent at S6 because the site is located outside of Beqa Lagoon Resort which

32

has three large dive vessels and various smaller craft operating daily. As sponges have evolved to

obtain their energy from filtering sediment it is likely that the increased sediment and water flow at S6

has provided more favourable conditions for their growth compared to other sites. Sponge-dominated

corals are nursery areas for a variety of fish species including Damselfish and Butterflyfish as well as

a variety of invertebrates (Gratwicke and Speight, 2005) and are also a source of food for larger

Damselfish and Angelfish (Veitayaki et al., 2012). This is potentially the main factor behind the high

biodiversity of indicator species at S6.

A further observation of the data obtained from S6 is that ‘other families’ are less well represented.

This is also the case for S2 and S1, however when comparing the abundance of ‘other families’, S2

and S5 have the lowest values. It is possible that ‘other families’ are less abundant at S2 and S5 but

not at S1 because S2 and S5 are open to spear fishing using SCUBA by local villages, and thus are

more commonly harvested, reducing the abundance of fish populations, whereas S1 is a no-take zone

and so free from fishing threats. Furthermore, sites that are designated no-take zones such as S3 and

S4 have limited visibility resulting from freshwater outflows. One potential reason to explain why

biodiversity of ‘other families’ is high at S3 is that the reef is inshore within Vaga Bay and

consequently more protected from environmental stresses such as strong currents and wave action,

providing the conditions necessary for spawning. Studies have shown that species diversity and

community structure are significantly restricted with increased wave exposure (Kilar and McLachlan,

1989; Connell et al., 1997).

The data also shows that indicator abundance was lowest at S3 and S4 followed by S1. This could

be attributed to the two freshwater sources that flow into Vaga Bay and one freshwater source that

flows out of one of the local villages (Rukua) and then diffuses into the surrounding sea water.

This significantly reduces the salinity of the seawater and consequently certain indicator species

may not be able to tolerate the conditions, resulting in reduced abundance of populations (Foss et

al., 2001).

Soft coral was noticeably less abundant at S1, S5 and S6 when compared to the other sites. It is

unclear what the primary factor responsible for this is; however one possibility could be an

increased presence of phosphates in the water from the local resort and coastal villages depositing

sewage into the sea. This would encourage the growth of the long filamentous cyanobacterium

Lyngbya, which readily attach to substrates such as soft corals and gorgonians consequently

limiting the ability to absorb available light and oxygen causing them to perish (Crosby et al.

1995). As S1 and S6 possessed very similar levels of soft coral; 0.6 and 0.54 cm respectively, and

because they are in the same area, they potentially have similar levels of phosphates in the water

surrounding them. Site 5 is further offshore than S1 and S6; therefore north easterly currents could

be driving phosphate-enriched water through S1 and S6, then common south easterly winds drive

the water toward S5. This hypothesis however could only be tested by taking water samples and

testing them for phosphate levels.

When analysing the fish data against survey site in more depth, clear correlations are observable.

With respect to Angelfish, the bicolor (Centropyge bicolor) and lemonpeel (Centropyge

flavissimus) species were more commonly sampled. Both species are found in coral-rich areas and

feed on filamentous algae. Their abundance at the survey sites is indicative of healthy reef systems

within Beqa lagoon. Within the Barracuda species, yellowtail (Sphyraena flavicauda) was most

commonly sampled at Sites S1 and S4. This is most likely due to the species showing a habitat

preference for sheltered seaward reefs and bays.

33

When examining the Butterflyfish species; the eastern triangle (Chaetodon baronessa), redfin

(Chaetodon trifasciatus), speckled (Chaetodon citrinellus) and vagabond (Chaetodon vagabundus)

are most common respectively. C. baronessa is an obligate corallivore that feeds mainly on species

of Acropora coral (Pratchett, 2005). This species is therefore indicative that Acropora species

dominate the reefs within Beqa lagoon. Similarly, C. trifasciatus is an obligate corallivore, however

it is commonly found in coral rich areas feeding on a wide range of different coral species (Pyle,

2001). Their common occurrence at survey sites indicates a healthy range of coral biodiversity. In

contrast C. citrinellus is a facultative corallivore that feeds on hard coral, algae, polychaetes and

other benthic invertebrates. This indicates that the studied reefs possess substantial diversity in non-

vascular and invertebrate taxa. C. vagabundus feeds on soft coral, coral polyps, polychaete worms

and algae. The species can tolerate ecologically stressful habitats such as reduced salinity which

consequently explains the increased abundance of this species at S1 and S4.

Of all Damselfish surveyed, the black axil chromis (Chromis atripectoralis), humbug dascylus

(Dascyllus aruanus), whitebelly (Amblyglyphidodon leucogaster) and reticulated dascylus (Dascyllus

reticulatus) are most common across all survey sites. Both C. atripectoralis and D. aruanus are

commonly found above staghorn Acropora and therefore indicate a healthy population of Acropora

cervicornis. In contrast A. leucogaster is found in coral rich areas and therefore this indicates

biodiverse and healthy reef systems. D. reticulatus commonly inhabit branching coral heads,

specifically Pocillopora eydouxi, this implies such coral species are common at the survey sites,

specifically S5 and S6.

In order to obtain data that truly represents the reefs around Beqa Island and within Beqa Lagoon, data

needs to be collected from additional inshore and offshore reefs.

8. Proposed work programme for next phase

Additional survey sites need to be located and permanent transect markers deployed. Data can then be

collected on these sites and compared against the current data. Data also needs to be collected on the

distribution and abundance of coral families at each of the current survey sites. Water samples could

also be collected and tested to identify oxygen, phosphate and carbon dioxide levels. A salinometer

could be used to identify the salinity of seawater and a light metre could be used to measure

suspended sediment levels at each of the survey sites. In an attempt to assess coral biodiversity and

invertebrate abundance, common genus and species need to be identified and then surveys conducted

to collect data on such taxa. This data could then be used alongside the fish biodiversity and

abundance data so that reliable conclusions can be drawn on the state of the reefs in the localised area.

34

9. References

Connell, J. H., Hughes, T. E & Wallace, C. C. (1997). A 30-year study of coral abundance,

recruitment, and disturbance at several scales in space and time. Ecol Monogr. 67: p461-488.

Crosby, M. P., Gibson, G. R. Jr & Potts, K. W. (1995). A Coral Reef Symposium on Practical, Reliable,

Low Cost Monitoring Methods for Assessing the Biota and Habitat Conditions of Coral Reefs. Coral

Reef Symposium – January 26-27, 1995. p1-83.

Cumming, R. L., Aalbersberg, W. G. L., Lovell, E. R., Sykes, H. & Vuki, V. C. (2002). Institute

of Applied Sciences, The University of the South Pacific. IAS technical report 2002/11. 1-16.

Done, T. J., Ogden, J. C., Wiebe, W. J & Rosen B, R. (1996). Biodiversity and ecosystem function

of coral reefs. In: Mooney, H. A, Cushman, J. H & Medina E. Sala, O. E. Schulze ED (eds).

Functional roles of biodiversity: a global perspective. John LViley & Sons, New York. 394-427.

Foss, A., Evensen, T. H., Imsland, A.K & Olestad, V. (2001). Effects of reduced salinities on growth,

food conversion efficiency and osmoregulatory status in the spotted wolfish. Journal of Fish Biology.

59: 416–426.

Gratwicke, B & Speight, M. R. (2005). Effects of habitat complexity on Caribbean marine fish

assemblages. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 292: 301-310.

Hodgson, G. (2001). Reef Check; The first step in community-based management. Bulletin of Marine

Science. 69: 861-868.

Hoffmann, T. C. (2002). Coral reef health and effects of socio-economic factors in Fiji and Cook

Islands. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 44: 1281–1293.

Kilar, J. A & McLachlan, J. (1989). Effects of wave exposure on the community structure of a plant-

dominated, fringing-reef platform: intermediate disturbance and disturbance mediated competition.

Marine Ecology Progress Series. 54: 265-276.

Lovell, E. R. (2001). Status report: collection of coral and other benthic reef organisms for the

marine aquarium trade and curio trade in Fiji. Report for the WWF South Pacific Programme,

Suva, Fiji.

Lovell, E., Sykes, H., Deiye, M., Wantiez, L., Garrigue, C., Virly, S., Samuelu, J., Solofa, A., Poulasi,

T., Pakoa, K., Sabetian, A., Afzal, D., Hughes, A & Sulu, R. (2004). 12. Status of Coral Reefs in the

South West Pacific: Fiji, Nauru, New Caladonia, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. Status

of Coral Reefs of the World: 2004. 337 – 362.

Mosley, L. M., Aalbersberg, W. G. L. (2002). Nutrient levels in sea and river water along the

"Coral Coast" of Viti Levu, Fiji. South Pacific Journal of Natural Sciences. 7.

35

Pratchett, M. S. (2005). Dietary overlap among coral-feeding butterflyfishes (Chaetodontidae)

at Lizard Island, northern Great Barrier Reef. Marine Biology. 148, 373–382.

Pyle, R., (2001). Chaetodontidae: butterflyfishes. In: Carpenter, K.E., Niem, V.H. (Eds.), Species

Identification Guide for Fishery Purposes. The Living Marine Resources of the Western Central

Pacific. Bony fishes part 3 (Menidae to Pomacentridae). Food and Agricultural Organization,

Rome, pp. 3224–3265.

Reaka-Kudla ML (1996). The global biodversity of coral reefs: a comparison with rain forests. In:

Reaka-Kudld ML, Wil- son DE, Wilson E0 (eds) Biodiversity 11. Joseph Henry Press, Washington.

83-108.

Simpson, E. H. (1949). Measurement of diversity. Nature. 163: 688.

Tamata, B & Thaman, B. (2001). Water quality in the ports of Fiji – survey of various ports and

industrial point sources of pollution. IAS Environment Studies Report C103, Institute of Applied

Sciences, The University of the South Pacific.

Veitayaki, J., Morris, C., Bala, S., Manueli, F., Brown, K., Kumar, A & Pollard, E. (2012). Baseline

Coral Reef and Environment Impact Assessment of Naitauba Island. 67.

Vuki VC, Zann LP, Naqasima M & Vuki, M. (2000). The Fiji Islands. In Seas at the Millenium: An

Environmental Evaluation. Sheppard C (ed). Elsevier.

Zann, L. P., Brodie, J. E & Vuki, V. C. (1990). History and dynamics of the crown-of-thorns starfish

Acanthaster planci (L.) in the Suva area, Fiji. Coral Reefs. 9: 135-144.

Zann L. P & Lovell, E. R. (1992). The coral reefs of the Mamanuca group, Fiji: preliminary

descriptions and recommendations for management. National Environmental Management Project.

Report on the Marine Environment. Annex 3.

36

10. Appendices

10.1. Appendix 1: List of indicator fish species surveyed.

ANGELFISH

Bicolour Centropyge bicolor

Lemonpeel Centropyge flavissimus

Regal Pygoplites diacanthus

Semicircle Pomacanthaus semicirculatus

BARRACUDA

Great Sphyraena barracuda

Yellowtail Sphyraena flavicauda

BUTTERFLYFISH

Blackbacked Chaetodon melannotus

Dotted Chaetodon semeion

Eastern triangle Chaetodon baronessa

Humphead Heniochus varius

Latticed Chaetodon rafflesi

Lined Chaetodon lineolatus

Longnosed Forcipiger flavissimus

Longfin bannerfish Heniochus acuminatus

Masked bannerfish Heniochus monoceros

Pacific double saddle Chaetodon ulietensis

Penant bannerfish Heniochus chrysostomus

Racoon Chaetodon lunula

Redfin Chaetodon trifasciatus

Saddleback Chaetodon falcula

Saddled Chaetodon ephippium

Speckled Chaetodon citrinellus

Teardrop Chaetodon unimaculatus

Vagabond Chaetodon vagabundus

DAMSELFISH

Bicolor chromis Chromis margaritifer

Black axil chromis Chromis atripectoralis

Blue devil Chrysiptera cyanea

Humbug dascylus Dascyllus aruanus

Indopacific sergeant Abudefduf vaigiensis

37

Jewel Plectroglyphidodon lacrymatus

Pink anemonefish Amphiprion perideraion

Dusky anemonefish Amphiprion melanopus

Scissortail sergeant Abudeduf sexfasciatus

Staghorn Amblyglyphidodon curacao

Threespot dascylus Dascyllus trimaculatus

Whitebelly Amblyglyphidodon leucogaster

Speckled Pomacentrus bankanensis

Black Neoglyphidodon melas

Grey demoiselle Chrysiptera glauca

Reticulated dascylus Dascyllus reticulatus

Golden damsel Amblyglyphidodon aureus

EMPEROR

Bigeye Monotaxis grandoculis

Blackspot Lethrinus harak

Longface Lethrinus olivaceus

Pink ear Lethrinus lentjan

OTHER FAMILIES

Other Damselfish Pomacentru/Chrysiptera/Chromis/Stegastes sp

Surgeonfish Acanthurus sp

Bristletooth Ctenochaetus sp

Tang Zebrasoma sp

Unicornfish Naso sp

Wrasse Bodianus/Labroides/ Cheilinus sp

Goatfish Mulliodichthys/ Parupeneus sp

Cardinalfish Cheilodipterus sp

Parrotfish Chlorurus/Scarus sp

Triggerfish Sufflamen sp

Grouper Epinephelus sp

Other Butterflyfish Chaetodon sp

Blenny Exyrias sp

Snapper Lutjanus/Macolor sp

Squirrelfish Neoniphon/Sargocentron sp

Coral Bream Scolopsis sp

Rabbitfish Siganus sp

Goby Amblyeleotris sp

Ray Taeniura sp

Pufferfish Canthigaster

Porcupinefish Diodon sp

Trumpetfish Aulostomus sp

Fusilier Caesio sp

Jack Caranx sp

Other Angelfish Centropyge/Pomcanthus sp

Moorish Idol Zanclus cornutus

38

File Fish Oxymonacanthus

Spadefish Platax sp

Sweetlips Plectorhinchus

Shark Carcharhinus/Triaenodon sp

10.2. Appendix 2: Tables and Graphs illustrating fish species and families and benthic forms

sampled between survey sites.

Species S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6

Bicolour Angelfish 198 49 41 53 125 281 Lemonpeel Angelfish 45 80 16 0 15 55

Regal Angelfish 38 17 5 0 89 32

Semicircle Angelfish 0 0 0 1 0 1

Great Barracuda 0 0 3 0 0 0

Yellowtail Barracuda 1040 0 0 496 0 0

Blackbacked Butterflyfish 3 5 0 2 0 0

Dotted Butterflyfish 0 6 0 0 17 7

Eastern Triangle 130 29 46 79 249 153

Humphead Bannerfish 10 2 1 20 152 57

Latticed Butterflyfish 27 7 3 13 10 6

Lined Butterflyfish 0 0 0 2 0 2

Longnosed Butterflyfish 12 27 0 0 5 11

Longfin Bannerfish 0 0 0 0 0 2

Masked Bannerfish 2 2 8 9 8 14

Pacific Doublesaddled Butterflyfish

2 10 0 3 3 11

Penant Bannerfish 5 1 0 4 2 8

Racoon Butterflyfish 1 8 0 10 0 6

Redfin Butterflyfish 52 14 23 142 40 8

Saddleback Butterflyfish 2 2 0 1 0 13

Saddled Butterflyfish 6 9 0 0 4 27

Speckled Butterflyfish 0 58 0 1 32 54

Teardrop Butterflyfish 1 19 0 1 6 10

Vagabond Butterflyfish 93 34 39 43 34 25

Bicolor Chromis 85 1739 7 1 169 2019

Black Axil Chromis 795 1413 1075 1426 3029 1326

Blue Devil 107 1726 64 141 265 1078

Humbug Dascylus 768 0 429 23 1515 465

Indopacific Sergeant 7 0 2 6 0 200

Jewel Damsel 59 134 25 6 5 33

Pink Anemonefish 2 0 22 6 4 0

Dusky Anemonefish 12 3 16 47 0 34

Scissortail Sergeant 502 251 11 46 274 956

Staghorn Damsel 82 0 70 318 4 4

Threespot Dascylus 55 35 3 9 393 129

Whitebelly Damsel 1454 0 493 798 88 86

Speckled Damsel 14 14 1 9 4 13

Black Damsel 22 31 51 18 106 214

39

Grey Demoiselle 787 185 167 682 1365 830

Reticulated Dascylus 1004 1664 393 74 5687 6542

Golden Damsel 161 7 39 0 122 427

Bigeye Emperor 3 1 1 1 4 2

40

Blackspot Emperor 0 0 7 1 0 1

Longface Emperor 20 0 0 0 0 3

Pinkear Emperor 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other Damsel 3794 1604 2922 4921 5842 3080 Surgeonfish 91 97 36 195 1003 129

Bristletooth 368 469 151 981 400 366

Tang 334 236 82 286 157 176

Unicornfish 31 3 1 19 27 72

Wrasse 468 390 151 398 400 224

Goatfish 95 26 8 40 66 46

Cardinalfish 8 0 10 332 12 53

Parrotfish 384 181 25 142 279 296

Trigger 16 19 2 2 19 26

Grouper 30 3 24 49 13 25

Other Butterfly 35 292 4 16 167 220

Blenny 36 0 49 18 14 3

Snapper 1 6 5 4 3 2

Squirrelfish 48 12 5 3 2 11

Coral Bream 101 4 18 20 66 76

Rabbitfish 20 19 11 287 25 9

Goby 1 0 7 2 1 4

Bluespot Ray 0 0 1 0 0 0

Soldierfish 4 9 6 19 2 3

Pufferfish 4 0 3 5 5 0

Trumpet Fish 6 2 2 2 6 13

Fusilier 2040 383 1086 584 4053 318

Jack/ Travally 0 1 12 2 3 0

Other Anglefish 41 6 1 5 8 10

Moorish Idol 17 25 3 23 6 28

File fish 0 8 0 2 0 2

Spade 0 0 0 7 0 0

Sweetlips 9 1 6 3 2 0

White Tip Reef Shark 6 1 0 0 3 0

Table 1; List of indicator species and other families with total numbers of individuals surveyed at

each site.

41

Figure 1a; Total Benthic Cover at S1 (Bikini).

Figure 1b; Variations in Live Coral present at S1 (Bikini).

42

Figure 2a; Total Benthic Cover at S2 (Lunch).

Figure 2b; Variations in Live Coral present at S2 (Lunch).

43

Figure 3a; Total Benthic Cover at S3 (Mala’s).

Figure 3b; Variations in Live Coral present at S3 (Mala’s).

44

Figure 4a; Total Benthic Cover at S4 (Rabbit).

Figure 4b; Variations in Live Coral present at S4 (Rabbit).

45

Figure 5a; Total Benthic Cover at S5 (Vuvalae).

46

Figure 5b; Variations in Live Coral present at S5 (Vuvalae).

Figure 6a; Total Benthic Cover at S6 (Wreck).

47

Figure 6b; Variations in Live Coral Present at S6 (Wreck).

48

Figure 7; Number of Indicator and Family Species Surveyed Between survey sites.

49

Figure 8; Comparison of Angelfish Species Sampled Between Survey Sites

50

Figure 9; Comparison of Barracuda Species Sampled Between Survey Sites

51

Figure 10; Distribution of Eastern Triangle, Redfin, Speckled and Vagabond Butterflyfish Between

Survey Sites

52

Figure 11; Distribution of Bicolor Chromis, Black Axil Chromis , Grey Demoiselle and Reticulated

Damselfish Between Survey Sites