1
FIJI MARINE CONSERVATION &
DIVING
Beqa Island, Fiji
FJM Phase 143 Science Report
16th
June 2014 – 22nd
September 2014
Kristian J Miles MSc BSc (Hons) AMSB (Principal Investigator)
2
Field Staff
Role Staff member
Project Coordinator & Principal Investigator:
Kristian Miles (KM)
Dive Officer: Clare Brown (CB)
Assistant Research Officer: Elizabeth O’Connor (EO)
3
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 5
1.3.2 Anthropogenic Sources of Reef Degradation 5
2.0 Aims and Objectives 6
3.0 Phase Objectives 6
4.0 Methods 7
4.1 Study Sites 7
4.2 Science Training 8
4.3 Survey Methodology 8
4.3.1 Surveyor Roles 9
4.3.2 Field Data Collection 9
4.3.3 Data Input 10
4.3.4 Statistical Analysis 10
5.0 Results 10
5.1 Benthic Forms 10
5.2 Fish Biodiversity and Abundance 10
5.3 Statistical Analysis 12
6.0 Discussion 12
7.0 Proposed Work Programme for Next Phase 14
8.0 References 15
9.0 Appendices 17
9.1 Appendix 1 17
9.2 Appendix 2 19
4
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 the project hopes
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.
Fiji is world renowned as the Soft Coral Capital of the World and is also home to Beqa Lagoon which is
famous amongst divers. It features over 50 world class dive sites and is frequented by numerous species
of mega fauna including dolphins, whales, sharks, rays and turtles. 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
5
are an effective way to control and sustainably manage harvest rates of marine resources (Hoffmann,
2002).
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, MPAs near urban areas have incurred significant stress and
consequently their health has declined. Most other reefs situated in rural and isolated areas 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 (Hutchings et al., 2008).
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 (Lovell, 2001; Vuki et al., 2000).
6
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).
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; this results in 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. In addition, 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 (Mosley and
Aalbersberg, 2002, Tamata and Thaman, 2001; Zann and Lovell, 1992).
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 is collected on benthic
forms, fish species biodiversity, abundance and size, invertebrate species and coral genus. The project
will be developed with the creation and delivery of environmental education workshops in the local
communities focusing on awareness of marine resources, conservation and how to sustainably use and
manage the resources that the coral reefs provide.
3. Phase Objectives
The overall objective of this phase was to continue to develop the project and expand the data set. This
entailed:
Creating and developing training resources on survey species and methodology.
Selecting new survey sites based on their size, depth and continuity.
7
Deploying mooring lines at new sites and replacing broken mooring lines at existing sites.
Deploying permanent transect markers.
Maintaining good relationships with local communities by visiting church and attending
events.
Continuing to developing the FJM camp into a fully functional research outpost.
4. Methods
4.1 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 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, but the edge of the reef also has a steep drop off down to a depth of 22 m.
There is potential for strong currents to occur, therefore careful planning and caution is taken when
conducting surveys at this site.
8
4.2 Science training
Before Research Assistants (RAs) were permitted to conduct surveys, rigorous testing was undertaken. A
programme of lectures and theory tests were given before in-water identification tests were conducted. A
pass rate of 95% accuracy was required for theory tests before in-water tests could begin. Each fish
species/family and coral form had to be successfully identified in the water three times before progressing
on to practice surveys. RAs were then required to complete two practice surveys before actual benthic and
fish surveys could be undertaken and data recorded. The lectures and associated theory and in-water tests
given are shown below.
Table 1. Briefing sessions conducted during phase 143.
Lecture Theory Test In-water Test
1) Introduction to coral reefs No No
2) Indicator fish species Yes Yes
3) Other fish families Yes Yes
4) Other butterflyfish and damselfish Yes No
5) Fish anatomy No No
6) Marine hazards No No
7) Benthic forms Yes Yes
8) Invertebrates No No
9) Survey methodology No Yes
4.3 Survey methodology
Baseline Survey Protocol (BSP) was used which follows standardised Reef Check methodology
(Hodgson, 2001). In order to initially set up the permanent transects, fifty metre survey tapes were used to
create transect lines spaced 10 m apart. Four permanent transect sites were set up at each of the six survey
sites and highly visible markers deployed in order to allow RAs to easily locate the transect start points.
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. Benthic data was collected using line intercept methodology, whereas
fish surveys were completed using belt transect methodology. During the fish surveyor methodology,
RAs recorded all fish seen within a 5m x 5m square from the base of the transect tape measure (Fig.1).
9
Figure 1. Fish surveyor methodology, recording all fish seen within a 5m x 5m square from the
base of the transect tape measure.
4.3.1 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. Data was collected on benthic forms and fish biodiversity, abundance and size.
Consequently, there were three surveyor roles; physical surveyor, benthic surveyor and fish surveyor.
Provided that RAs 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 recorded the depth and time at the start and end of each transect and
navigated the set bearing of each transect whilst laying out the tape measure. During fish surveys the
physical surveyor remained behind the fish surveyor to reduce disturbance to the fish within the transect
area. On completion of the survey the physical surveyor reeled in the tape. When surveying benthic
forms, the benthic surveyor conducted the survey with the physical surveyor swimming alongside.
4.3.2 Field Data Collection
Benthic forms were recorded using line intercept methodology. Fourteen benthic forms were recorded;
branching, massive, submassive, corymbose, digitate, laminar, tabular, singular, foliose, sponge, soft and
dead coral, rock and sand.
Fish biodiversity, abundance and size were recorded using 5x5x20 m belt transects. RAs were trained on
45 indicator species and 20 other fish families; however, some are rarely encountered (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
10
fish surveyor encountered a large school of fish, the abundance was estimated and recorded in the most
common average size category.
4.3.3 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.
4.3.4 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 takes into account the number of flora and fauna
present, as well as the abundance of each. As richness and evenness increase, so does the diversity.
Therefore, Simpson's Diversity Index measures diversity based on both 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.
5. Results
5.1 Benthic Forms
The benthic data collected showed that survey Site 1, ‘Bikini’ (S1), contained the lowest abundance of
benthic forms including submassive coral, 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 coral forms failed to be represented, however S1 was the only site where digitate forms were not
encountered. On the other hand, 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).
5.2 Fish biodiversity and abundance
Indicator species are defined as species that use the reef primarily as habitat for recruitment, protection
and food, seldom straying from their respective territories. The data gathered from the survey sites
illustrates that S6 had the greatest biodiversity with 40 indicator species sampled. Site 1 was the second
11
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.
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 distributions were
shown between survey sites (Appendix 2; Figures 10-11). This data shows that the Eastern Triangle
(Chaetodon baronessa) dominated at S1, S3, S5 and S6, the Vagabond (Chaetodon vagabundus)
dominated at S2 and Redfin (Chaetodon trifasciatus) dominated at S4. With regards to the Damselfish,
the data shows that the Reticulated Dascylus (Dascyllus reticulatus) dominated at S1, S5 and S6, the
Bicolor Chromis (Chromis margaritifer) dominated at S2 and Black Axil Chromis (Chromis
atripectoralis) dominated at S3 and S4. As far as ‘other families’ are concerned, the four most abundant
species found were Fusiliers (Caesio spp.), Other Damselfish (Pomacentrus/Chrysiptera/Chromis spp.),
Wrasse (Bodianus/Labroides/ Cheilinus spp.), and Bristletooth (Ctenochaetus spp.) (Appendix 2; Table
1).
12
5.3 Statistical Analysis
Figure 2; 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 S1 and
S2 had the greatest richness and diversity of species followed by S3 whilst S6 had the lowest species
richness and diversity (Fig. 2).
6. 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 were inshore reefs, however S6 was prone to
strong currents and S1 was designated as a ‘tabua’ or no take zone by the chief of the local village. It is
likely that these factors were, in part, responsible for the increased biodiversity of indicator species. In
addition to this; although each of the survey sites showed equal diversity in terms of the number of coral
forms identified, sponges were found to be 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 was more frequent at S6 because the site was located outside of Beqa Lagoon Resort
which had three large dive vessels and various smaller crafts 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
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
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000
1 2 3 4 5 6
Simpsons Diversity Index Values for
Benthic and Fish Data
Benthic Fish
Ind
ex
Val
ue
13
Angelfish (Veitayaki et al., 2012). This was potentially the main factor behind the high biodiversity of
indicator species at S6.
A further observation of the data obtained from S6 was that ‘other families’ were less well represented.
This was also the case for S2, however when comparing the abundance of ‘other families’, S2 and S3 had
the lowest values. It is possible that ‘other families’ were less abundant at S2 and S3 but not at S1 because
S2 and S3 were open to spear fishing using SCUBA by local villages, and thus were more commonly
harvested, reducing the abundance of fish populations, whereas S1was a no-take zone and so free from
fishing threats. Furthermore, sites that were designated no-take zones such as S4 had limited visibility
resulting from freshwater outflows. One potential reason to explain why biodiversity of ‘other families’
was high at S3was that the reef was 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 (Connell et al., 1997, Kilar and McLachlan, 1989).
The data also showed that indicator abundance was lowest at S3 and S2 followed by S4 and S5. This
could be attributed to the two freshwater sources that flowed into Vaga Bay and one freshwater source
that flowed out of one of the local villages (Rukua) and then diffused into the surrounding sea water.
This significantly reduced the salinity of the seawater and consequently certain indicator species may
not have been 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 were in the same area, they
potentially had similar levels of phosphates in the water surrounding them. Site 5 was further offshore
than S1 and S6; therefore north easterly currents could have been driving phosphate-enriched water
through S1 and S6, followed by common south easterly winds driving 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 were 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 likely to be 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 was most likely due to the species showing a habitat
preference for sheltered seaward reefs and bays.
14
When examining the Butterflyfish species; the eastern triangle (Chaetodon baronessa), redfin
(Chaetodon trifasciatus), speckled (Chaetodon citrinellus) and vagabond (Chaetodon vagabundus) were
most common respectively. Chaetodon baronessa is an obligate corallivore that feeds mainly on species
of Acropora coral (Pratchett, 2005). This species therefore suggests 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 nonvascular and invertebrate taxa.
Chaetodon 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)
were most common across all survey sites. Both C. atripectoralis and D. aruanus were commonly found
above staghorn Acropora and therefore indicate a healthy population of Acropora cervicornis. In contrast
A. Leucogaster was found in coral rich areas and therefore this indicates biodiverse and healthy reef
systems. Dascyllus 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.
7. Proposed work programme for next phase
Additional survey sites need to be located and permanent transect markers deployed. In order to achieve
this; the GPS coordinates of additional sites need to be calculated using a nautical chart. Sites then have to
be scouted and their suitability for surveying assessed based on size, depth and continuity. If a site is
found to be suitable, a permanent mooring line needs to be installed to prevent regular anchor damage to
the reef, and permanent transects markers need to be 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.
In an attempt to assess coral biodiversity and invertebrate abundance, common genus and species need to
be identified. Training on in-water identification and survey methodology needs to be conducted for both
staff and RAs, 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.
15
Plans are also in place to initiate a mangrove health assessment programme. This will begin with
mapping the mangrove system within Vaga bay and conducting surveys on species diversity and
density.
8. 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: 461-488.
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. 1-83.
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.
Hutchings, P., Kingsford, M & Hoegh-Guldberg, O. 2008. The Great Barrier Reef; Biology, Environment
and Management. CSIRO Publishing. 298.
Kilar, J. A & McLachlan, J. (1989). Effects of wave exposure on the community structure of a
plantdominated, 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.
16
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.
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, M.L. (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.
17
9. Appendices
9.1. Appendix 1: List of indicator fish species surveyed.
ANGELFISH
Bicolour Centropyge bicolor
Lemonpeel Centropyge flavissimus
Regal Pygoplites diacanthus
Semicircle Pomacanthas 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
18
Humbug dascylus Dascyllus aruanus
Indopacific sergeant Abudefduf vaigiensis
Jewel Plectroglyphidodon lacrymatus
Pink anemonefish Amphiprion perideraion
Dusky anemonefish Amphiprion melanopus
Scissortail sergeant Abudefduf 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 Pomacentrus/Chrysiptera/Chromis/Stegastes spp.
Surgeonfish Acanthurus spp.
Bristletooth Ctenochaetus spp.
Tang Zebrasoma spp.
Unicornfish Naso spp.
Wrasse Bodianus/Labroides/ Cheilinus spp.
Goatfish Mulloidichthys/ Parupeneus spp.
Cardinalfish Cheilodipterus spp.
Parrotfish Chlorurus/Scarus spp.
Triggerfish Sufflamen spp.
Grouper Epinephelus spp.
Other Butterflyfish Chaetodon spp.
Blenny Exyrias spp.
Snapper Lutjanus/Macolor spp.
Squirrelfish Neoniphon/Sargocentron spp.
Coral Bream Scolopsis spp.
Rabbitfish Siganus spp.
Goby Amblyeleotris spp.
Ray Taeniura spp.
19
Pufferfish Canthigaster
Porcupinefish Diodon spp.
Trumpetfish Aulostomus spp.
Fusilier Caesio spp.
Jack Caranx spp.
Other Angelfish Centropyge/Pomacanthus spp.
Moorish Idol Zanclus cornutus
File Fish Oxymonacanthus
Spadefish Platax spp.
Sweetlips Plectorhinchus
Shark Carcharhinus/Triaenodon spp.
9.2. Appendix 2: Tables and graphs illustrating fish species and families and benthic forms
sampled between survey sites.
Species Bikini Lunch Mala's Rabbit Vuvalae Wreck
Bicolour Angelfish 427 49 67 59 125 400
Lemonpeel Angelfish 117 80 19 0 15 63
Regal Angelfish 76 17 5 1 89 41
Semicircle Angelfish 0 0 0 1 0 1
Angelfish 621 152 103 71 237 505
Great Barracuda 0 0 3 0 0 0
Yellowtail Barracuda 1492 0 0 695 0 0
Blackbacked Butterflyfish 4 5 0 6 0 0
Dotted Butterflyfish 0 6 0 0 17 7
Eastern Triangle 264 29 64 119 249 220
Humphead Bannerfish 26 2 1 35 152 59
Latticed Butterflyfish 53 7 3 22 10 10
Lined Butterflyfish 3 0 1 3 0 2
Longnosed Butterflyfish 16 27 1 0 5 14
Longfin Bannerfish 2 0 0 18 0 2
Masked Bannerfish 9 2 9 10 8 14
Pacific Doublesaddled Butterflyfish 2 10 0 4 3 13
Penant Bannerfish 5 1 0 12 2 10
Racoon Butterflyfish 1 8 0 12 0 7
Redfin Butterflyfish 89 14 34 216 40 18
Saddleback Butterflyfish 3 2 0 1 0 14
Saddled Butterflyfish 13 9 0 0 4 30
Speckled Butterflyfish 6 58 0 1 32 79
Teardrop Butterflyfish 5 19 0 1 6 17
Vagabond Butterflyfish 146 34 56 78 34 59
Butterflyfish 742 525 179 564 729 906
20
Bicolor Chromis 127 1739 57 62 169 2769
Black Axil Chromis 1007 1413 1091 1480 3029 1487
Blue Devil 152 1726 65 182 265 1086
Humbug Dascylus 1641 0 522 60 1515 609
Indopacific Sergeant 11 0 2 47 0 218
Jewel Damsel 86 134 38 12 5 39
Pink Anemonefish 8 0 24 6 4 0
Dusky Anemonefish 16 3 18 53 0 75
Scissortail Sergeant 772 251 11 139 274 1119
Staghorn Damsel 114 0 87 544 4 4
Threespot Dascylus 122 35 5 20 393 152
Whitebelly Damsel 2509 0 649 1147 88 115
Speckled Damsel 22 14 1 15 4 19
Black Damsel 79 31 62 40 106 218
Grey Demoiselle 957 185 205 860 1365 872
Reticulated Dascylus 1756 1664 441 120 5687 8164
Golden Damsel 240 7 43 6 122 629
Damsel 16642 8806 6827 11603 18872 22248
Bigeye Emperor 9 1 1 3 4 8
Blackspot Emperor 0 0 9 2 0 1
Longface Emperor 20 0 0 0 0 3
Pinkear Emperor 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Damsel 7023 1604 3506 6810 5842 4673
Surgeonfish 149 97 36 196 1003 497
Bristletooth 717 469 190 1374 400 469
Tang 733 236 122 432 157 258
Unicornfish 91 3 1 19 27 142
Wrasse 991 390 172 567 400 391
Goatfish 231 26 14 78 66 113
Cardinalfish 36 0 31 535 12 56
Parrotfish 670 181 27 165 279 381
Trigger 33 19 3 6 19 31
Grouper 66 3 30 72 13 31
Other Butterfly 95 292 10 26 167 331
Blenny 62 0 54 30 14 6
Snapper 13 6 9 12 3 3
Squirrelfish 83 12 6 14 2 13
Coral Bream 177 4 31 39 66 137
Rabbitfish 84 19 14 469 25 9
Goby 5 0 7 2 1 4
Bluespot Ray 3 0 1 0 0 0
21
Soldierfish 14 9 8 27 2 3
Pufferfish 7 0 3 5 5 3
Trumpet Fish 15 2 2 2 6 24
Fusilier 3711 383 1234 867 4053 450
Jack/ Travally 0 1 0 0 3 0
Other Anglefish 1 6 12 10 8 0
Moorish Idol 74 25 1 5 6 11
File fish 42 8 3 28 0 30
Spade 0 0 0 2 0 2
Sweetlips 0 1 0 7 2 0
White Tip Reef Shark 16 1 6 5 3 0
Other Families 8052 1896 2015 4963 6571 3076
TOTAL INDIVIDUALS 9477 11379 2029 5678 26409 3065
Table 1; List of indicator species and other families with total numbers of individuals surveyed at
each site.
Figure 1a; Total Benthic Cover at S1 (Bikini).
22
Figure 1b; Variations in Live Coral present at S1 (Bikini).
Figure 2a; Total Benthic Cover at S2 (Lunch).
23
Figure 2b; Variations in Live Coral present at S2 (Lunch).
Figure 3a; Total Benthic Cover at S3 (Mala’s).
24
Figure 3b; Variations in Live Coral present at S3 (Mala’s).
Figure 4a; Total Benthic Cover at S4 (Rabbit).
25
Figure 4b; Variations in Live Coral present at S4 (Rabbit)
.
Figure 5a; Total Benthic Cover at S5 (Vuvalae).
26
Figure 5b; Variations in Live Coral present at S5 (Vuvalae).
Figure 6a; Total Benthic Cover at S6 (Wreck).
27
Figure 6b; Variations in Live Coral Present at S6 (Wreck).
Figure 7; Number of Indicator and Family Species Surveyed Between survey sites.
40
3231
38
32
40
28
24
29 29
2726
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of Indicator and Other Families Surveyed Between
Survey Sites
Indicator Other Families
Survey Site
Nu
mb
er
of
Sp
ecie
s S
urv
ey
ed
28
Figure 8; Comparison of Angelfish Species Sampled Between Survey Sites
Figure 9; Comparison of Barracuda Species Sampled Between Survey Sites
427
49
6759
125
400
117
80
19
0
15
6376
175 1
89
41
0 0 0 1 0 1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
Distribution of Angelfish Between Survey Sites
Bicolour Angelfish
Lemonpeel Angelfish
Regal Angelfish
Semicircle Angelfish
Survey Site
Su
rvey
Fre
qu
en
cy
0 0 3 0 0 0
1492
0 0
695
0 0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1 2 3 4 5 6
Distribution of Barracuda Species Between Survey Sites
Great Barracuda
Yellowtail Barracuda
Survey Site
Su
rvey
Fre
qu
en
cy
29
Figure 10; Distribution of Eastern Triangle, Redfin, Speckled and Vagabond Butterflyfish Between
Survey Sites
Figure 11; Distribution of Bicolor Chromis, Black Axil Chromis , Grey Demoiselle and Reticulated
Damselfish between Survey Sites
127
1739
57 62 169
2769
1007
1413
1091
1480
3029
1487
957
185 205
860
1365
872
1756 1664
441
120
5687
8164
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
1 2 3 4 5 6
Distribution of Bicolor Chromis, Black Axil Chromis, Grey
Demoiselle and Reticulated Dascylus Between Survey Sites
Bicolor Chromis
Black Axil Chromis
Grey Demoiselle
Reticulated Dascylus
Survey Site
Su
rvey
Fre
qu
en
cy
264
29
64
119
249
220
26
2 1
35
152
59
89
14
34
216
40
18
146
34
56
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1 2 3 4 5 6
Distribution of Eastern Triangle, Humphead Bannerfish, Redfin
and Vagabond Butterflyfish Between Survey Sites
Eastern Triangle
Humphead Bannerfish
Redfin Butterflyfish
Vagabond Butterflyfish
Survey Site
Su
rvey
Fre
qu
en
cy