Global Vision International, Seychelles - Mah Report Series No.

121 ISSN 1751-2255 (Print)

GVI Seychelles Mah

Marine Conservation Expedition

January - June 2012

GVI Seychelles Mah / Marine Conservation Expedition Report January - June 2012 Submitted in whole to
Global Vision International Seychelles National Parks Authority (SNPA)

Produced by Lee Cassidy Science Coordinator Grace Frank Science Coordinator

And Rowana Walton Elizabeth Harris Joe Daniels Alexander Crawford Chris Petchey Expedition Leader Expedition Staff Expedition Staff Scholar Scholar Christophe Mason-Parker Emily Allen Tessa Turnbull Lee Bush Susie Lilley Country Director Dive Instructor Scholar Scholar Scholar

Thank you also to our hardworking volunteers for the collection of all data;

Nadia Aamoum, Michael Ashbrook, Robin Bater, Ann-Sophie Behrendt, Eva Blaas, Jordan Bonnett, Sophie Borner, Charlotte Broadhead, Andy Burkinshaw, Emmalee Carr, Rebecca Chan, John Clark, Julia Constable, Adam Crowther, Danielle Curtis, Glyn Curtis, Thomas Daly, Simon Delabays, Annalisa DiTano, Matthew Fletcher, Kimberley Gardiner, Callum Gilbert, Allison Goodman, James Goodman, Sean Hanczor, Louie Heist, Ash Hemraj, Ellis Howes, Brianna Jones-Mattes, Johan Karlsson, Louise Kendall, Muhammad Khalis, Oliver Leamon, Qing Loh, Tove Lundgren, Phil Maxam, Amelia McGowan-Whelan, Christopher McGrath, Markus Mehrwald, Brbel Meister, Isobel Mitic, Whitney Moore, Christopher Naco, Paul Nauta, Josh Oliphant, Bronwyn Palmer, Sarah Pevey, Carly Reeves, Nicole Ryan, Andrew Scoon, Simon Sinclair, Mark Smith, Yanni Smith, Muriel Stirnimann, Patrick Sukop, Tom Sweet, Marie-Louise Therkelsen, John Colin Thielan, Sarah Thomas, Tina Thorburn, Tara Tibshirani, Leanne Van Niekerk, Daniel Wilson & May Yap.

GVI Seychelles Mah / Marine Conservation Expedition Address: GVI c/o SNPA, PO Box 1240, Victoria, Mah, Seychelles Email: seychelles@gvi.co.uk Web page: http://www.gvi.co.uk and http://www.gviusa.com

Abstract

The survey period for GVI coral reef monitoring was revised with the income of 2012; wherein instead of completing set phases of individual monitoring, GVI monitors all fish, coral and invertebrates on a year-round basis to analyse the state of the reefs as a whole. Within the first six months of the year coral surveys are to focus on coral and epibenthic organism coverage, with the second six months dedicated to monitoring recruitment rates for scleractinian coral. Methodologies for both fish and invertebrates are the same for the entire 12-month period. Additionally, all survey sites are now considered 'core' sites so the full complement of 24 sites are monitored on a rotational basis twice per year. Surveys from January to June 2012 examined coverage of all epibenthic organisms, as well as scleractinian coral diversity, density of both reef and commercial fish species and the abundance of key indicator invertebrate species. All sites were completed. Overall results gained from January to June 2012 show coral cover has increased reaching 36.42% (SE 1.78); the highest coverage seen yet in the monitoring program. This increase is seen over both carbonate and granitic reefs where coral increased by the same amount on both substrates. Analysis of the structural complexity shows that branching coral coverage increased again this year maintaining its dominance from 2011. This continued increase in the growth of the physical matrix of the reefs is a very positive sign for the future of these reefs being able to support a wider diversity of life. Coverage of all other epibenthic organisms show steady increases across all sites; carbonate reefs display a much greater spread in coverage of sessile organisms and are dominated by corallimorphs and zoanthids. Conversely, granitic reefs record sessile organisms at much lower densities, predominantly under 3- 4% coverage, with the exception of coralline algae, which has been decreasing in coverage since a maximum seen in 2006. Fish results seem to have stabilised over the past two years of surveying, with density levels, diversity and feeding guilds recording insignificant changes. Only a few minor fluctuations occurred within the results; with obligate corallivore species within the Chaetodontid, Butterflyfish, family again increasing in density to be the second-most dominant feeding guild overall. Marine Protected Areas continued to hold the highest density of fish per m, regardless of substrate composition, and highlighted again the need to maintain correct management of these critical areas. 3

Contents
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................9 1.1. 2. Survey Sites ........................................................................................................................ 11

Aims .............................................................................................................................................12 2.1. Species Lists ....................................................................................................................... 12 Coral ............................................................................................................................ 12 Fish.............................................................................................................................. 12 Invertebrates ............................................................................................................... 13

2.1.1. 2.1.2. 2.1.3. 2.2.

Training ............................................................................................................................... 13 Dive Training ............................................................................................................... 13 Survey Methodology ................................................................................................... 14

2.2.1. 2.2.2. 3.

Methodology.................................................................................................................................14 3.1. Coral .................................................................................................................................... 14 Line Intercept Transects (LIT) ..................................................................................... 14 Coral Diversity Belt Transccts ..................................................................................... 15

3.1.1 3.1.2 3.2.

Fish ..................................................................................................................................... 15 Stationary Point Count ................................................................................................ 15 50m Belt Transects ..................................................................................................... 16

3.2.1 3.2.2 3.3.

Invertebrates ....................................................................................................................... 16 10m Belt Transect ....................................................................................................... 16 50m Belt Transect ....................................................................................................... 16

3.3.1 3.3.2 3.4. 4.

Environmental Parameters ................................................................................................. 18

Results .........................................................................................................................................19 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 Surveys Completed ............................................................................................................. 19 Percentage mean live hard coral cover .............................................................................. 19 Benthic Assemblage ........................................................................................................... 20 Structural Complexity .......................................................................................................... 23 Coral Diversity ..................................................................................................................... 25 Overall Fish Results ............................................................................................................ 26 Combined Fish Density 2005 2012 .................................................................................. 26 Fish Densities with regards to Feeding Guilds ................................................................... 28 Influence of Marine Protected Areas on Fish Densities 2005 2012................................. 29 Fish Species Diversity ......................................................................................................... 30 Commercial Fish Sizing Results ......................................................................................... 32 Invertebrate Densities from 10m Transects ........................................................................ 33

4.13 4.14 5.

Invertebrate Densities from 50m Belts ................................................................................ 35 Sea Cucumber Densities .................................................................................................... 37

Discussion ....................................................................................................................................38 5.1 5.2 5.3 Coral Surveys ...................................................................................................................... 38 Fish Surveys ....................................................................................................................... 41 Invertebrate Surveys ........................................................................................................... 45

6.

Additional Ecosystem Monitoring .................................................................................................47 6.1. Turtles ................................................................................................................................. 47 Incidental Turtle Sightings ........................................................................................... 47 Beach Patrols for Nesting Turtles ............................................................................... 50 In-water Surveys of Turtle Behaviour.......................................................................... 50 Photo Identification of Turtles ..................................................................................... 52

6.1.1. 6.1.2. 6.1.3. 6.1.4. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4. 6.5. 7.

Crown of Thorns.................................................................................................................. 53 Cetacean Sightings ............................................................................................................. 53 Whale Shark Sightings ........................................................................................................ 53 Plankton Sampling .............................................................................................................. 54

Non-survey Programmes .............................................................................................................55 7.1 Extra Programmes .............................................................................................................. 55 Internships ................................................................................................................... 55 BTEC Courses ............................................................................................................ 55

7.1.1 7.1.2 7.2

Community Development .................................................................................................... 55 International School Seychelles (ISS) ......................................................................... 55 GVI Charitable Trust ................................................................................................... 56 National Scholarship Programme ............................................................................... 57

7.2.1 7.2.2 7.2.3 8. 9.

References ...................................................................................................................................58 Appendices ..................................................................................................................................60 Appendix A. Details of sites surveyed by GVI Seychelles Mah, year round. Sites in bold-type text are located within Marine Protected Areas. ............................................................................. 60 Appendix B. Scleractinian coral genera surveyed by GVI Seychelles - Mah. ........................... 61 Appendix C. Fish families, genera and species surveyed by GVI Seychelles - Mah. .................. 62 Appendix D. Fish feeding guilds analysed by GVI Seychelles Mah. ......................................... 65 Appendix E. Fish species lists divided into commercial and reef species analysed by GVI Seychelles Mah. ......................................................................................................................... 66 Appendix F. List of invertebrate species surveyed on 50m belt transects by GVI Seychelles Mah. .............................................................................................................................................. 67 Appendix G. Invertebrates surveyed on 10m LIT transects by GVI Seychelles Mah. ............... 68

Figures List
FIGURE 1. 1. LOCATION AND SUBSTRATE TYPE OF GVI SURVEY SITES. .............................................................. 11 FIGURE 3. 1. LAYOUT OF CORAL LIT AND DIVERSITY BELTS AT EACH SURVEY SITE, WHERE THE SHORELINE IS REPRESENTED BY THE TOP OF THE FIGURE AND THE DISTANCE FROM SHORE INDICATES INCREASING DEPTH. ....................................................................................................................................................... 17 FIGURE 3. 2. LAYOUT OF FISH SPC AND BELTS, AND 50M INVERTEBRATE TRANSECTS AT EACH SURVEY SITE, WHERE THE SHORELINE IS REPRESENTED BY THE TOP OF THE FIGURE AND THE DISTANCE FROM SHORE INDICATES INCREASING DEPTH. ................................................................................................................ 17 FIGURE 4.2.1. MEAN PERCENTAGE CORAL COVER ( SE) AT THE CARBONATE AND THE GRANITIC SITES, FOR EACH SURVEY PERIOD FROM 2005 TO 2012 ............................................................................................. 20 FIGURE 4.3.1. MEAN PERCENTAGE COVERAGE FOR CORAL, ALGAE, OTHER BENTHIC ORGANISMS AND BARE SUBSTRATE FROM ALL SITES FOR JAN JUN 2012 .................................................................................... 20 FIGURE 4.3.2 LARGE SCALE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF PERCENTAGE COVERAGE OF CORAL, ALGAE, VARIOUS BENTHIC ORGANISMS AND BARE SUBSTRATE ACROSS ALL SITES, RUNNING EAST TO WEST ACROSS NORTH WEST MAH FROM 2012 .............................................................................................................. 21 FIGURE 4.3.3 MEAN PERCENTAGE COVERAGE OF ALGAE AND BENTHIC ORGANISMS ON SURVEYED CARBONATE REEFS FROM 2005 2012..................................................................................................... 22 FIGURE 4.3.4 MEAN PERCENTAGE COVERAGE OF ALGAE AND BENTHIC ORGANISMS ON SURVEYED GRANITIC REEFS FROM 2005 2012.......................................................................................................................... 22 FIGURE 4.4.1. PERCENTAGE COVERAGE OF HARD CORAL FOUND ACROSS ALL REEFS FURTHER DIVIDED BY CORAL LIFEFORM PREVALENCE FROM 2005 - 2012 .................................................................................. 23 FIGURE 4.4.2. PERCENTAGE COVERAGE OF CORAL LIFEFORM FOUND ACROSS ALL REEFS FROM 2005 2012 ................................................................................................................................................................... 24 FIGURE 4.4.3. PERCENTAGE OF CORAL LIFE FORMS ON CARBONATE SITES 2005 2012 ................................. 24 FIGURE 4.4.4. PERCENTAGE OF CORAL LIFE FORM ON GRANITIC SITES FROM 2005 2012 ............................ 24 FIGURE 4.5.1. COMPARISON OF MEAN CORAL GENERA RICHNESS ( SE) FOR CARBONATE AND GRANITIC SITES FROM 2005 2012. .......................................................................................................................... 25 FIGURE 4.7.1. MEAN DENSITY PER M OF ALL SURVEYED FISH SPECIES ACROSS ALL SURVEY SITES, 2005 2012. .......................................................................................................................................................... 27 FIGURE 4.7.2. A COMPARISON OF MEAN DENSITY PER M OF ALL SURVEYED FISH SPECIES BETWEEN CARBONATE AND GRANITIC SUBSTRATE SITES, 2005 - 2012. ................................................................... 27

FIGURE 4.8.1. COMPARISON OF FISH FEEDING GUILDS THROUGH DENSITY PER M ACROSS ALL SITES, 2005 2012. .......................................................................................................................................................... 28 FIGURE 4.8.2. COMPARISON OF FEEDING GUILDS THROUGH DENSITY PER M ACROSS ALL SITES, 2005 2012, DISREGARDING HERBIVORES. .......................................................................................................... 29 FIGURE 4.9.1. OVERALL MEAN DENSITY PER M OF FISH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE MARINE PROTECTED AREAS, NOV-DEC 2005 TO JAN-JUN 2012. ............................................................................................................. 29 FIGURE 4.9.2. MEAN DENSITY OF FISH PER M ON CARBONATE SUBSTRATE SITES INSIDE AND OUTSIDE MARINE PROTECTED AREAS, NOV-DEC 2005 TO JAN-JUN 2012. .............................................................. 30 FIGURE 4.9.3. MEAN DENSITY OF FISH PER M ON GRANITIC SUBSTRATE SITES INSIDE AND OUTSIDE MARINE PROTECTED AREAS, NOV-DEC 2005 TO JAN-JUN 2012. ............................................................................ 30 FIGURE 4.10.1. SPECIES-RICHNESS (NUMBER OF FISH SPECIES FOUND) ACROSS ALL SURVEY SITES ALONG NW MAH, 2012. GREEN DENOTES SITES WITHIN MARINE PROTECTED AREAS AND BLUE DENOTES UNPROTECTED SITES. ................................................................................................................................ 31 FIGURE 4.10.2. A COMPARISON OF SPECIES-RICHNESS (NUMBER OF FISH SPECIES) BETWEEN THE SAME SITES OF NW MAH IN 2005 AND IN 2012. ............................................................................................... 31 FIGURE 4.12.1. MEAN DENSITY (INDIVIDUALS M) OF INVERTEBRATE PHYLA AND BLACK SPINED SEA URCHINS AT CARBONATE REEF SITES, FOR EVERY SURVEY PERIOD FROM 2005 TO 2012 ....................................... 33 FIGURE 4.12.2. MEAN DENSITY (INDIVIDUALS M) OF INVERTEBRATE PHYLA AND BLACK SPINED SEA URCHINS AT GRANITIC REEF SITES, FOR EVERY SURVEY PERIOD FROM 2005 TO 2012............................................ 34 FIGURE 4.12.3. MEAN DENSITY (INDIVIDUALS M) OF INVERTEBRATE PHYLA AND BLACK SPINED SEA URCHINS AT CARBONATE REEF SITES, FOR EVERY SURVEY PERIOD FROM 2005 TO 2012. ...................... 34 FIGURE 4.13.1. MEAN DENSITY PER M OF ALL SURVEYED INVERTEBRATE SPECIES ACROSS NORTH-WEST MAH, 2012. .............................................................................................................................................. 35 FIGURE 4.13.2. A COMPARISON OF THE MEAN DENSITY PER M OF SHORT SPINE (ECHINOTHRIX SPP.) AND LONG SPINE (DIADEMA SPP.) URCHINS ON GRANITIC VERSUS CARBONATE SUBSTRATE ALONG NORTHWEST MAH, JAN - MAR 2009 TO 2012. ................................................................................................... 36 FIGURE 4.13.3. MEAN DENSITY PER M OF CUSHION SEASTAR (CULCITA SPP.), CROWN OF THORNS (ACANTHASTER PLANCI) AND THE GASTROPODS DRUPELLA SPP. ............................................................ 36 FIGURE 4.14.1. MEAN NUMBER OF SEA CUCUMBERS RECORDED PER SITE FROM 2006 -2012........................ 37 FIGURE 4.14.2. DENSITY PER M OF INDIVIDUAL SEA CUCUMBER SPECIES ACROSS ALL SURVEY SITES OF NORTH-WEST MAH, OCT - DEC 2008 TO JAN - JUN 2012. ....................................................................... 37 FIGURE 6.1.1. FREQUENCY OF HAWKSBILL AND GREEN TURTLE SIGHTINGS AROUND NORTH-WEST MAH FROM OCT- DEC 2005 TO APR- JUN 2012. ................................................................................................ 49
2 2 2 2

FIGURE 6.1.2. MEAN CARAPACE LENGTH OF HAWKSBILL TURTLES AROUND NORTH-WEST MAH FROM JANMAR 2006 TO APR- JUN 2012. ................................................................................................................... 49

1. Introduction
Global Vision International (GVI) Seychelles comprises of two expeditions based on the granitic inner islands of Seychelles. One on Mah, the largest and most heavily populated island in the Seychelles group, located at the Cap Ternay Research Centre in Baie Ternay National Park and one on Curieuse Island within the Curieuse national marine park, located north of Praslin. The marine parks at which both GVI bases are located are controlled and managed by the Seychelles National Parks Authority (SNPA). All of GVIs scientific work in the Seychelles is carried out on behalf of our local partners and at their request, using their methodology; GVI supplies experienced staff, trained volunteers and equipment to conduct research in support of their on-going work. GVIs key partner is the Seychelles Centre for Marine Research and Technology (SCMRT), the research arm of SNPA. Additional local partners include the Marine Conservation Society Seychelles (MCSS) and the Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA). Seychelles National Parks Authority (SNPA): A local organisation partly funded by the government, encompassing the Seychelles Centre for Marine Research and Technology (SCMRT) and the Marine Parks Authority (MPA). These organisations have the respective aims of carrying out marine research in the Seychelles and of protecting the marine parks. The coral and fish monitoring carried out for SCMRT constitutes the majority of the work conducted by the volunteers. Marine Conservation Society Seychelles (MCSS): A local non-governmental organisation (NGO) that carries out environmental research in the Seychelles, currently monitoring whale sharks, cetaceans and turtles around Mah. GVI assists with all three of these research programmes by documenting the presence or absence of turtles on every dive throughout the phase, conducting in-water turtle behaviour survey dives and also turtle nesting surveys. Along with the turtle work GVI reports incidental sightings of cetaceans and whale sharks and undertakes weekly plankton sampling to aid with year round monitoring of plankton levels in conjunction with the arrival of whale sharks to Mah Island. Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA): The governing body which oversees the management and regulation of commercial and artisanal fisheries in the Seychelles. This government agency is directly concerned with setting the catch, bag and seasonal limits that apply to local stocks on an annual basis, as well as managing the international export industry that is generated from the harvest of fisheries across the Seychelles Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

In 1998, a worldwide coral bleaching event decimated much of the coral surrounding the inner granitic islands of the Seychelles, with hard coral mortality reaching 95% in some areas (Spencer et al. 2000). It is thought that this was caused by the high ocean

temperatures associated with an El Nino Southern Oscillation event at that time. Efforts to monitor the regeneration of reefs in the Seychelles were initiated as part of the Shoals of Capricorn, a three year programme started in 1998 and funded by the Royal Geographic Society in conjunction with the Royal Society. SCMRT was set up by the Shoals of

Capricorn in an effort to ensure continuation of the work started, as well as to assist the Marine Parks Authority (MPA) with the management of the existing marine parks. The predominant objective for the Seychelles GVI expedition is to aid this monitoring programme and thereby assist in the construction of management plans that will benefit the future recovery of coral reefs in the area. Between 2000 and the beginning of the GVI expedition in 2004 the Seychelles marine ecosystem management program (SEYMEMP) took place, this was the most

comprehensive assessment of the coral reefs within the inner islands of the Seychelles to date. Eighty one carbonate and granitic reef sites throughout the inner islands were monitored using fine scale monitoring techniques. Monitoring efforts were continued by Reefcare International, a non-governmental organisation based in Australia. The protocols established by Reefcare International provided a foundation for those adopted by GVI. Although GVIs logistical constraints restrict monitoring efforts to the north-west coast of Mah at sites selected by SNPA. The survey data collected by GVI volunteers allows for analysis of trends in coral reef health seen over the past 12 years of monitoring. Along with this core research GVI Seychelles also endeavours to aid in any of the other projects undertaken by all their partners where it can; as it is hoped that with this help they will be able to increase their capacity to monitor, manage and ultimately conserve the marine environment of the Seychelles for the future.

The GVI expedition comprises of survey programs that are four, eight or twelve weeks long, running continuously throughout the year from January - December. Within the 12 months fish and invertebrates are surveyed continuously at all survey sites in set time periods. Line Intercept Transects and Coral Diversity transects are undertaken in the first 6 months to evaluate coral coverage and site diversity, and Coral Recruitment quadrats are used within the second 6 months to survey newly recruited colonies and gain a picture of site recovery.

10

Health and Safety: The safety of all volunteers is paramount. All volunteers are given a health and safety brief on the camp upon arrival and conservative diving guidelines are adhered to for the duration of the expedition. In addition, volunteers complete the PADI Emergency First Response first aid course, and are taught how to administer oxygen in the event of a diving related incident. 1.1. Survey Sites

GVI surveys a maximum of 24 separate sites around north-west Mah in the course of a year (fig 1.1.).The 24 sites are surveyed twice a year; once in the first 6 months and then again in the second half of the year. All sites are now listed as core sites (see Appendix A for site details). The sites are evenly divided between carbonate and granitic reefs and they represent varying degrees of exposure to wave action and currents. Five of the sites are within Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) where restrictions on all fishing as well as regulations on the recreational use of the park are in place.

Figure 1. 1. Location and Substrate Type of GVI Survey Sites.

11

Each survey site is divided into shallow and deep zones, where the shallow zone is defined by the depth range 1.5 5.0m and the deep zone is defined by the depth range 5.1 15.0m. Each site has a central point, marked by a distinctive landmark on the

coastline, and is further divided into left, centre and right areas (fig 3.1.). These areas are loosely defined as such by their position with respect to the centre marker of the site. All depths are standardised with respect to tidal chart datum so as to eliminate tidal influence.

2. Aims
The focus of January to June 2012 was on surveying commercial and reef fish species as well as hard coral coverage around North-West Mah. The specific aims of the phase were;

Assess diversity and density of fish species across all survey sites Estimate size of commercially important fish species Diversity of hard coral genera across all sites Assess benthic assemblage, including evaluation of hard coral, soft coral, sessile organisms coverage and substrate composition Monitor coral predation and algal grazing pressures through density estimates of hard coral predators, sea urchins and specific fish feeding guilds Assess abundance and diversity of commercially targeted invertebrate species including sea cucumbers, lobster and octopus

2.1.

Species Lists 2.1.1. Coral

The list of surveyed scleractinian corals covers 50 separate genera (See Appendix B for the complete species list). Corals are identified to genus level only as in situ identification beyond genus level is not possible in the case of some corals, and is also beyond the requirements of the project aims. Volunteers are also encouraged to record the genus as unknown if they are not able to confidently identify a coral beyond the family level, and similarly to record unknown hard coral where even the family is not determinable with a level of confidence. 2.1.2. Fish The fish species chosen for surveys are those that are likely to indicate status of the reefs along with fishing pressure, but are not overly difficult to locate, identify and count as specified by SCMRT. For example, Surgeonfish are herbivores and grazers and thus would 12

influence the algal coral dynamics within the reef ecosystem. Reef-associated species of commercial concern are also surveyed. This data can be used to help determine the status of the reefs and of the fisheries especially when compared with the data from previous phases. Fish are surveyed to the highest taxonomic resolution practicable, with most identified to species level. The resolution depends on difficulty of identification, and also the species characteristics and the data requirements of our partners. The taxonomic level needed varies according to the ecological function of the species within the ecosystem; for example, if different species within a genus feed on different types of food, it is highly desirable to distinguish them to species. However, volunteers are instructed to record only to the level to which they are confident of the identification, thus if they are sure of the family but not genus or species, they record only as an unknown species of that family. See Appendix B for the list and taxonomic resolution of fish species surveyed. 2.1.3. Invertebrates Invertebrate species which influence and can indicate the health and conditions of coral reefs are surveyed alongside the coral genera, as well as commercially viable species which are under fishing pressure. A full list of surveyed invertebrate species is included in Appendix E. 2.2. Training 2.2.1. Dive Training All volunteers must be at least PADI Open Water qualified to join the expedition. Volunteers then receive the PADI Advanced Open Water course covering Boat, Peak Performance Buoyancy, Navigation, Underwater Naturalist, and Deep dives. Particular attention is paid to buoyancy as surveys are conducted in water as shallow as two metres and over delicate reef ecosystems. Volunteers are required to learn hard corals, with invertebrate identification an additional aspect of the program. Training is initially provided in the form of presentations, workshops and informal discussion with the expedition staff. Self-study materials are also available in the form of electronic and hard copy flashcards, as well as Indian Ocean identification publications. Knowledge is tested using pictures on land, for which a 95% pass mark is required. Volunteers are taken on identification dives with staff members for in-water

testing; their responses are recorded and the dives continue until the volunteer has demonstrated accurate identification of all necessary species/genera.

13

2.2.2. Survey Methodology Volunteers receive on land briefings and lectures, navigation practice and in-water training in the skills required to conduct reef surveys. Participants complete the PADI Coral Reef Research Diver (CRRD) course, which is specifically developed for GVI and offered in only one other marine expedition in the world, Mexico. All are trained in the use of a delayed surface marker buoy and tape reels, plus any other survey equipment specific to the research they will be conducting. The course also includes a series of lectures on various aspects of the marine environment. Before completing any Underwater Visual Census (UVC) independently, volunteers participate in practice UVCs in which they are taught and supervised by a member of staff.

Improvements to the quality of species identification training materials are an ongoing and extremely important component to this marine expedition. Photographs taken locally of species underwater are the best materials to use they are accurate and portray how the organism appears underwater. New electronic and hardcopy flashcards are produced to enhance the self-study materials available and to develop the exams by the same means. Volunteers are encouraged to donate their underwater pictures to add to the library.

3. Methodology
3.1. Coral 3.1.1 Line Intercept Transects (LIT)

The LIT is a cost-effective method for assessing reef composition (Leujak & Ormond 2007) which produces good results, replicates easily and can be taught to volunteers within time and knowledge constraints. At every site, six 10 metre LITs were carried out, each running parallel to shore along a single depth contour and using reeled tape measures. Three LITs were completed in both the shallow and deep zones, evenly spread amongst the left, centre and right of the site (Fig. 3.1.). Divers record a start and end depth for each transect. The benthic assemblage and substrate is recorded in a continuous series of data of what is directly under the tape, with start and end points for each entry, to the nearest cm. Where coral is found, it is identified to genus level and the life form describing the majority of the colony is recorded. Transects were laid randomly where possible, however placement of the 2lb weight at the beginning of the transect generally meant avoiding delicate organisms, therefore the start point would not be chosen randomly. Additionally, the topography at some of the granitic sites creates limited possible places where 10 m of tape can be laid 14

inside the 1.5 5.0 m zone and meant that shallow transects must be laid wherever the diver can achieve it and thus diver selection must drive the process. 3.1.2 Coral Diversity Belt Transccts

Two belt transects were conducted at each site to assess diversity of coral genera. The transects started within the shallow zone at the centre of the site, heading out either to the deep left (belt B) or to the deep right (belt A) at a 45 angle from shore; thus both the depth and spread of each site is sampled (Fig 3.1). Divers conduct the survey by searching for coral genera within 2.5m of either side of the line, completing tight s-shaped search patterns, thus together surveying a 5m wide corridor along the 50m. Each diver records the presence of any coral genera seen in their search area once. 3.2. Fish 3.2.1 Stationary Point Count

The stationary point count is a commonly used UVC technique (Kulbicki 1998, Engelhardt
2004) employed by well-respected reef assessment programs such as the Atlantic and Gulf

Rapid Reef Assessment (AGGRA) and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Coral Reef Monitoring Program (FKNMS CRMP) (Hill & Wilkinson 2004). Variations of the method have been used as part of several studies in the Seychelles (Jennings et al. 1995; Spalding &
Jarvis 2002; Engelhardt 2004; Graham et al. 2007) where the lack of spear fishing increases the

reliability of this technique (Jennings et al. 1995). The post-bleaching surveys conducted by Reefcare International as part of the Seychelles Marine Ecosystem Management Project (SEYMEMP) used 7 minute long stationary point counts and defined the area for the point count with a 7m radius (Engelhardt 2001; 2004); 7 7.5m radius circle has been shown to create an area of the most suitable size for the size groups into which coral reef fish typically fall (Samoilys & Gribble 1997). When GVI assumed responsibility for the

continuation of this assessment in 2005, the same methodology was adopted. At each site eight stationary point counts were carried out. Four stationary point counts were done in each of the shallow and deep zones, two centre, one left and one on the right (Fig. 3.2.). Divers recorded depth at the centre of each point count and start time for each survey. A tape measure was used to delineate the circle radius, laid in any direction along the reef. This allows for visual reference for the census boundary, increasing accuracy for density calculations. Point counts were conducted by buddy pairs of divers where each was responsible for counting a different selection of surveyed fish, thus reducing the number of fish one person is required to count. During the last minute both divers swam around the circle to attempt to ensure that more cryptic fish were counted. 15

3.2.2

50m Belt Transects

Colvocoresses and Acosta (2007) reported that Belt Transect surveys can cover more area with a similar observer effort than Point Count surveys, although behavioural avoidance of fish towards divers was frequently noted and, possibly as a result, lower densities of fish have been recorded on Belt Transects than on Point Counts. We decided to introduce Belt Transects in addition to the Stationary Point Counts, but to incorporate mechanisms to reduce behavioural avoidance. Variety in methodologies also has the advantages of

adding to the skills set of the Expedition Members and enhancing their experience. The transect belts were 50m long by 5m wide, a standard area often used for reef assessments (Samoilys & Gribble 1997; Hill & Wilkinson 2004). Surveys were conducted by buddy pairs with each diver responsible for counting a different selection of fish. Four belt transects were completed at each site, 2 in the deep zone and 2 in the shallow ( Fig. 3.2). A measuring tape was laid parallel to the shoreline on the reef by one diver while the other swims in front counting fish. Samoilys and Gribble (1997) recommend this technique of simultaneously counting fish and laying the transect tape as it avoids disturbing the fish prior to counting. After completion of the outward stage of the transect, the observers hover away from the end of the tape for 3 minutes to allow fish to return to the survey area before beginning the return leg. On the return journey, the second diver swims back along the tape counting the other fish while the buddy reels in the tape behind them. 3.3. Invertebrates 3.3.1 10m Belt Transect

The diver conducting the invertebrate belt transects dives as a buddy to the coral LIT diver and transects are conducted along the same tape as the LITs, thus six invertebrate belts were completed at each site (Fig. 2.2). Invertebrate divers searched the area extending to 1 m either side of the tape for targeted species (see Appendix G), covering 10*2 m total. 3.3.2 50m Belt Transect

Extent of hard coral predation was measured as the density of two types of sea star; cushion stars (Culcita spp.) and Crown of Thorns (Acanthaster planci), and gastropods in the genus Drupella at each survey site, all of which are hard coral predators. Algal grazing pressure was measured as the density of sea urchins. Two 50m transects were laid out at each site, using polyprophelene reel tape measures. The transects start at the shallow centre point and head out at opposing 45 angles towards the deep zone, thus covering the whole depth range of 1.5 15.0m and the spread of the site. Target species within 2.5m either side of the tape were recorded (see Appendix F). 16

Figure 3. 1. Layout of coral LIT and diversity belts at each survey site, where the shoreline is represented by the top of the figure and the distance from shore indicates increasing depth.

Stationary point count Fish belt transect Invertebrate belt

Figure 3. 2. Layout of fish SPC and belts, and 50m invertebrate transects at each survey site, where the shoreline is represented by the top of the figure and the distance from shore indicates increasing depth.

17

3.4.

Environmental Parameters

During each survey dive the boat captain records abiotic factors pertaining to the environmental conditions during the dive.

Turbidity is recorded using a Secchi disk Cloud cover is estimated in eighths Sea state is evaluated using the Beaufort scale, a copy of which is kept on the boat Surface and bottom sea temperatures are recorded using personal dive computers

18

4. Results
4.1. Surveys Completed

During January to June 2012, substrate composition, commercial and reef fish species density and mobile invertebrate density were recorded. For substrate composition surveys 22 survey sites were successfully completed, for fish density 23 survey sites were completed out a possible 24 survey sites across the north-west Mah coastline. Bad weather conditions didnt allow for a full composite of sites to be completed. Within each site all stationary point counts, fish belts, LIT transects, coral diversity transects and invertebrate belt transects were completed. This created a total of 184 SPCs, 92 fish belts (51,324m), 132 LIT transects, 44 coral diversity transects (11,132m), 132 invertebrate transects and 46 invertebrate density belts (14,140m) across the 23 completed sites. In addition to the core surveys, in-water behavioural turtle surveys were conducted weekly as well as turtle nesting surveys within the season of January to March. Data was also collected on incidental sightings of mega-fauna including turtles, cetaceans, sharks, rays and invertebrates of commercial importance. 4.2. Percentage mean live hard coral cover

Percentage hard coral cover was determined from the line intersect transects. Percentage coral cover has seen an overall increase between survey phases 2005 to 2012. Results from 2012 found coral cover reaching maxima since surveys began at 36.42% ( 1.78) mean live hard coral cover. Overall mean percentage cover has increased every year with the exception on 2009. Percentage coverage of coral has continued its increase over the years, however when results are analysed by substrate type (Fig 4.2.1) differences in the rate of change can be seen. Coverage on carbonate reefs has again reached its maximum coverage seen since surveys began of 34.74%; increasing by 1.7% from 2011 the same amount as between 2010 2011. Coral coverage on granitic reefs reached its new maxima of 38.1%, also returning to the positive trend found in most years as opposed to the decline in coverage for 2011. The overall percentage coral cover remains higher for granitic reefs, continuing the trends found since 2005. Maximum difference between the percentage cover between the two substrates was found in 2006 at 8.23%. Although fluctuating, this gap has now narrowed with time. Current results show a difference of just 3.36%, consistent with the previous years difference of 3.33%.

19

45 Mean Percentage Coral Cover % (SE) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Engelhardt 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Carbonate Granitic

Figure 4.2.1. Mean percentage coral cover ( SE) at the carbonate and the granitic sites, for each survey period from 2005 to 2012

4.3.

Benthic Assemblage

Along with coverage of coral species, benthic assemblage is also recorded on the line intersect transects. When combining the data from all sites results found for 2012 show a higher percentage of algae at 49.54% than that of coral at 36.57%; with areas of bare substrate (5.93%) and other benthic organisms (7.96%) showing significantly lower coverage (Fig ). The various benthic organisms consist mainly of soft corals, sponges, corallimorphs and zoanthids.

Coral Cover % Algal cover % Various % Bare %

Figure 4.3.1. Mean percentage coverage for coral, algae, other benthic organisms and bare substrate from all sites for Jan Jun 2012

20

Although sites show high coverage of algae the actual distribution of coverage differs when looking at site specifics. It is observed that sites that show low coral cover have significantly higher algal cover; this is also true with the reverse. Willies Bay Reef shows the highest algal dominance of all sites (fig. 4.3.2.).

L'ilot North Face White Villa Corsaire Reef Auberge Reef Site X Whale Rock Rays Point Anse Major Reef Anse Major Point Willie's Bay Reef Willie's Bay Point Site Y Baie Ternay North East Secret Beach Reef Baie Ternay Centre Baie Ternay North West Baie Ternay Lighthouse Port Launay South Reef Port Launay West Rocks Conception Central East Therese North Point Therese South

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Bare % Various % Algal cover % Coral Cover %

Figure 4.3.2 Large scale spatial distribution of percentage coverage of coral, algae, various benthic organisms and bare substrate across all sites, running East to West across North West Mah from 2012

Excluding the continual growth seen with the Scaleractinian corals, distributions of algae and other benthic organisms can be analysed across both the carbonate and granitic substrates. Coverage of these benthic organisms differs between the two reef substrates. Carbonate showing higher coverage of the different organisms whilst granitic is dominated by coralline algal with all other species having stable low level densities (fig. 4.3.3; fig. 4.3.4). Benthic organisms on carbonate reefs display a wide range in densities, all however are found at significantly lower percentages than coral; below 9% coverage. Fluctuations are seen with regards to each group, relative dominance has however remained stable throughout the monitoring program with the exception of macro algal where this organism is currently found as the least abundant on carbonate reefs (fig. 4.3.3). there has been a decline in the density of the 3 most abundant benthic organisms, Corallimorphs / Zoanthids, soft coral and coralline algal although the drop is relatively small and can be seen in previous years (2008, 2009 and 2010 with respect to these organisms) with subsequent increase the following years. The trends overall are remaining stable. 21

9.00

Mean Percentage Coverage %

8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Soft Coral Sponge Corallimorphs / Zoanthids Coralline Algae Macro Algae

Figure 4.3.3 Mean percentage coverage of algae and benthic organisms on surveyed carbonate reefs from 2005 2012.

Granitic reefs differ in the benthic assemblage from carbonate reefs wherein the spread of coverage is dominated by Coralline Algae which consistently shows higher percentage cover than all other benthic organisms (with the exception of coral). Percentage coverage has seen a marked reduction from the peak at 10.56% in 2006. Current coverage found for 2012 is 5.19% yet this organism still remains dominant. All other surveyed benthic organisms have shown consistent low level coverage of below 4% with little fluctuation in coverage throughout the phases (fig. 4.3.4).

12.00

Mean Percentage Coverage %

10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Soft Coral Sponge Corallimorphs / Zoanthids Coralline Algae Macro Algae

Figure 4.3.4 Mean percentage coverage of algae and benthic organisms on surveyed granitic reefs from 2005 2012.

22

4.4.

Structural Complexity

Structural complexity of the reefs is derived from the coverage of coral life forms which increase the physical matrix of the reefs; primarily the branching and sub massive life forms. Encrusting and massive coral life forms, although responsible for building up the reef structure, provided limited habitat space for other reef inhabitants. The coverage of coral life forms is independent from abundance of coral genus as a single genus can exhibit a multitude of life forms.

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Mushroom Submassive Massive Foliose Encrusting Branching

Figure 4.4.1. Percentage coverage of hard coral found across all reefs further divided by coral lifeform prevalence from 2005 - 2012

Figure 4.4.1 shows that across all sites the percentage coverage of coral has increased, along with this there have been changes in the abundance of the key life forms related to the structural complexity of the reefs. Figure 4.4.2 shows the changes in the percentage coverage of life forms across all reefs. Increase in the branching corals is clearly identifiable through the monitoring program. In 2005 branching corals made up 6.13% of the total coral cover, whereas encrusting coral was dominating the reefs at this time with 49.94% of coral found in this life form. Branching corals have increased year on year since monitoring began. In 2011 branching coral became the dominant coral life form; results in 2012 show a continuation of this dominance. Results from 2012 show branching corals making up 43.03% of hard coral cover whereas encrusting has fallen to 29.17%. Massive coral life forms have also decreased in coverage from 2005 2012. Significantly sub massive corals have seen an increase in cover although at a much slower rate than that of the branching life form; increasing from 3.97% in 2005 to 9.56% in 2012. 23

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Percentage cover of coral lifeforms %

Mushroom Submassive Massive Foliose Encrusting Branching

Figure 4.4.2. Percentage coverage of coral lifeform found across all reefs from 2005 2012

Overall distribution of lifeform differs significantly depending on substrate type. Branching lifeforms dominate the carbonate reefs whereas encrusting lifeforms dominate the granitic (fig 4.4.4). The higher rate of growth in the branching corals on the carbonate reefs is the reason for the dominance. Granitic reefs have displayed increased coverage of branching corals however the rate is markedly slower than that seen on the carbonate reefs (fig 4.4.3).
Mean Percentage Coverage % 100 80 60 40 20 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Mushroom Submassive Massive Foliose Encrusting Branching

Figure 4.4.3. Percentage of coral life forms on carbonate sites 2005 2012

Mean Percentage Coverage %

100 80 60 40 20 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Mushroom Submassive Massive Foliose Encrusting Branching

Figure 4.4.4. Percentage of coral life form on granitic sites from 2005 2012

24

4.5

Coral Diversity

Survey of coral diversity found a total of 43 different genera from 14 families of Scleractinian corals for 2012. Figure 4.5.1 shows the mean number of genus found at each site, divided by substrate type. Results found mean coral diversity across all sites to be 31.30 coral genera per site. From 2005 an initial increase in coral diversity is seen which continued until 2007, from this point on coral genera have remained stable at around a mean of 31 per site. Throughout the surveys the difference between diversity at both the granitic and carbonate reefs has been relatively stable, which is seen in the 2012 results. For 2012 granitic sites showed a mean coral diversity of 31.18 and carbonate sites showed 31.10 genera per site.

35.0 30.0

Mean Genera Richness per site( SE)

25.0 20.0 Carbonate 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Granitic

Figure 4.5.1. Comparison of mean coral genera richness ( SE) for carbonate and granitic sites from 2005 2012.

25

4.6

Overall Fish Results

Overall abundance for all surveyed commercial and reef fish species using both point count and belt methodologies came to 15,384 individuals across a total survey area of 46,862m2, giving an average fish density of 0.29 individuals per m2. Per specific survey site, the highest total abundance levels were found at Baie Ternay Centre with 1,297 individuals (0.58 per m2). The next closest site in terms of overall density was Auberge Reef with 810 individuals (0.36 per m2). The lowest abundance levels were found at Corsaire Reef, 376 individuals (0.17 per m2), and Willies Bay Reef, 435 individuals (0.19 m2). Baie Ternay Centre, the site with the highest density, is central in location to GVIs survey area and is also a Marine Protected Area (MPA). Although liable to high levels of traffic from both tourist charters and dive boats, the protection from fishing within this site is arguably the highest compared to all marine protected areas around north-west Mah. The same comparison cannot be made for the second most abundant site, Auberge Reef, it is subject to the same pressures as the sites usually found on the lower scale of fish densities. Further analysis into the sites specific densities will need to be made to determine the huge increase in apparent fish population health at this site.

The sites found to have the lowest abundance and density levels are towards the eastern extent of the survey sites and in close proximity to Beau Vallon and Bel Ombre harbour; an area of high boat traffic and high artisanal fishing pressure on both the granitic and carbonate reefs (fig. 1.1.). These sites are also not within marine protected areas. 4.7 Combined Fish Density 2005 2012

The data used to analyse fish abundance over all sites is taken from the stationary point count surveys, as the belt transect was only introduced into GVIs set survey methodology in 2009. The analysis of all data 2011 has also been modified to adapt to the new surveyed species list revised in 2009 and 2010, and all pre-existing data from 2005 onwards has been adapted to represent this. This finally allows for correct interpretation of the feeding guilds and total fish density across all of the survey years, and hence any relevant fluctuations in density or predominance of guilds can be accurately seen. The mean density of fish for January to June 2012 was found to be 0.29 individuals per m 2, very similar to the findings from 2011. Minor fluctuations in density are present across all years of surveys, however the density has never been seen to rise or fall outside of 0.25 and 0.35 per m2 since 2005 (fig. 4.7.1.). 26

0.4 Mean density of fish per m2 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Survey Year 2010 2011 2012

Figure 4.7.1. Mean density per m of all surveyed fish species across all survey sites, 2005 - 2012.

When dividing the densities between site substrate (granitic vs. carbonate) the results from 2012 show an insignificant difference between the two; granitic sites had a density of 0.2999 compared to 0.2995 per m2 within the granitic sites (fig.4.7.2.). This finding is in tune with previous results; as minor fluctuations in substrate relative richness have occurred across all years and the predominance of either site switches. This is interesting in itself, as the two substrate compositions have greatly differing environments and food resources for fish species and so would theoretically harbour varying levels of fish density per m.

0.4 Mean density of fish per m2 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Survey Year
Figure 4.7.2. A comparison of mean density per m of all surveyed fish species between carbonate and granitic substrate

Carbonate

Granitic

sites, 2005 - 2012.

27

4.8

Fish Densities with regards to Feeding Guilds

All data on the abundance of fish species can be analysed using feeding guilds; determined by the primary food source of individual species. These feeding guilds and the species that fall within them are taken from Obura and Grimsditch (2009), and further adapted to the specific species found within Seychelles in agreement with our partners. A full list of the relative guilds and the divided species can be found in appendices C. As with fish density results, the density of feeding guilds is also only taken from the stationary point counts to eliminate the consequences from the change in survey methodology in 2009.

The most dominant feeding guild across all sites is the herbivores (fig. 4.8.1.), comprising surgeonfish (Acanthuridae), rabbitfish (Siganidae) and parrotfish (Scaridae). This guild has remained at a relatively stable abundance during all survey years, increasing slowly in density from 2006 onwards. 2012 has risen slightly from the drop in numbers seen in 2011; the first downward turn for herbivores seen since 2006.

Density of Fish Species per m2

0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 2005 Planktivores Piscivorous Corallivores Varied diet Invertivores Herbivores Corallivore / Herbivore 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Corallivore / Invertivore Survey Year

Figure 4.8.1. Comparison of fish feeding guilds through density per m across all sites, 2005 - 2012.

Figure 4.8.2 reveals the greatest change in density that has occurred for any feeding guilds across all survey years. The corallivores, a feeding guild consisting of obligate coral feeders within the butterflyfish family (Chaetodontidae), is the guild which has displayed the greatest change in abundance across the survey years, from 0.001 in 2005 to 0.036 per m2 in 2011.

28

0.06 0.05 Density per m2 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Survey Year Corallivores Piscivorous Varied diet Corallivore / Herbivore Corallivore / Invertivore Invertivores Planktivores

Figure 4.8.2. Comparison of feeding guilds through density per m across all sites, 2005 2012, disregarding herbivores.

4.9

Influence of Marine Protected Areas on Fish Densities 2005 2012

In analysing the data between the mean density of fish per m2 within marine protected areas (MPAs) and unprotected areas there is a consistently higher density within MPAs (fig. 4.9.1.). With the exception of the Jan- Mar 2010 survey phase, MPAs have had an average greater density of 0.049 per m2 0.004 SE.
0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0

Mean Density of Fish per m2

Overall Protected

Overall Unprotected

Survey Phases
Figure 4.9.1. Overall mean density per m of fish inside and outside marine protected areas, Nov-Dec 2005 to Jan-Jun 2012.

Separating the sites into granitic and carbonate reveals that this substrate has no influence on mean density levels of fish; the protected sites on either type harboured a higher density overall (fig. 4.9.2; fig. 4.9.3.). Carbonate sites within MPAs have always held a higher density of fish since 2005, with the January June 2012 phase containing a mean density of 0.366 per m2 within MPAs compared to 0.287 per m2 in the carbonate sites outside protected zones (fig. 4.9.2.). 29

Mean Densitiy of Fish per m

0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Carbonate Protected Carbonate Unprotected

Survey Phases
Figure 4.9.2. Mean density of fish per m on carbonate substrate sites inside and outside marine protected areas, Nov-Dec 2005 to Jan-Jun 2012.

Granitic sites have had a much less significant difference between the years, continuously fluctuating in relevant densities. The January - June 2012 results show that mean density within granitic protected sites is currently slightly higher at 0.351 per m2 compared with 0.325 per m2 outside protected zones (fig. 4.9.3.).
0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0

Mean Density of Fish per m

Granitic Protected

Granitic Unprotected

Survey Phases
Figure 4.9.3. Mean density of fish per m on granitic substrate sites inside and outside marine protected areas, Nov-Dec 2005 to Jan-Jun 2012.

4.10 Fish Species Diversity Diversity refers to the species-richness, or number of separate species, within the survey site as opposed to the relative abundance of fish. The site found to have the highest diversity in 2012 was Anse Major Point with 43 species (fig. 4.10.1.). The lowest diversity was found at Port Launay South Reef with 26 species and Conception Central East Face with 27 (fig. 4.10.1.). In addition, comparing sites inside Marine Protected Areas to those

30

outside revealed that MPAs contained a higher number of species on average than nonprotected areas with 36.7 species in MPAs and 34.0 in areas outside.
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

No. of surveyed species present

Survey Site
Figure 4.10.1. Species-richness (number of fish species found) across all survey sites along NW Mah, 2012. Green denotes sites within Marine Protected Areas and blue denotes non-protected sites.

A comparison of species-richness between the same sites surveyed in 2005 and the results from 2012 reveal a significant increase in the number of surveyed fish species present across all areas (fig. 4.10.2.); with a mean increase of 6.63 species ( 1.35 SE) over all sites. The only exception of this rise was Therese North End and Conception Central East Face survey sites which both recorded a drop of 1 species.

No. of surveyed species present

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

2005 2012 Survey Site

Figure 4.10.2. A comparison of species-richness (number of fish species) between the same sites of NW Mah in 2005 and in 2012.

31

4.11 Commercial Fish Sizing Results

All volunteers are assessed on their ability to estimate size of the commercial fish species when sighted underwater. Assessment was carried out by use of on-land training, where volunteers are asked to size objects from varying distances and instant feedback is given. On-land testing is also given by sizing a line with artificial fish attached from a distance of no closer than 2m. In-water assessment was carried out using a line with sections of polyurethane piping of known length. Volunteers estimate the lengths underwater and results and feedback are given after each dive. Along with practice methodology, assessment is also undertaken within the fish survey practice methodology under the supervision of a staff member. All volunteers sizings are checked against the staffs recording. Only when a volunteer displayed 100% accuracy in sizing fish to the 10cm bandwidth on both in-water piping assessment and the practice surveys were they allowed to conduct surveys. All volunteers from the past survey phase could accurately define the size of all commercial fish species to within the 10cm bandwidth required.

32

4.12 Invertebrate Densities from 10m Transects Specific surveyed invertebrate species have been increasing across all sites since surveys began in 2005. Accelerated rates of increase have been observed since 2008 with the exception of densities for the Platyhelminthes and black spined urchins of the Echinothrix sp. and Diadema sp. which have remained relatively stable. The most significant of the increases in densities are seen in the Arthropoda and Mollusca phyla. The Arthropoda phyla has increased from low level densities found in 2005 of 0.01 individuals per m 2 up to one of the most abundant species with a current maxima of 1.53 individuals per m2 for 2012, the Mollusca phyla has shown a similar increase with time. In 2005 Mollusca densities were found at 0.11 individuals per m2 and in 2012 density had increased to 1.54 individuals per m2 averaged across all sites. Echinodermata phyla has also been increasing throughout the survey program however results from 2012 show a reduction in the densities dropping from 1.64 individuals per m2 in 2011 to 1.50 individuals per m2 in 2012 (see figure 4.12.1).
1.80 Invertebrate Density (individuals/m2) 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00
Annelida Platyhelminthes Arthropoda Mollusca Echinodermata Black Spined Sea Urchins

Survey Phases
Figure 4.12.1. Mean density (individuals per m) of invertebrate phyla and black spined sea urchins at carbonate reef sites, for every survey period from 2005 to 2012

When the results are divided by substrate type the invertebrate densities show differences between them. Granitic sites show a greater spread in the densities of the surveyed invertebrates. The most significant increase is found in the mollusc phyla which has increased from 0.17 individuals per m2 in 2005 to 2.38 individuals per m2 for 2012 and has become the dominant invertebrate phyla on granitic sites. The Arthropoda phyla has also continued its increasing trend seen in recent years. Echinodermata densities have dropped since 2011 decreasing from 1.84 per m2 to 1.35 per m2 in 2012. (Figure 4.12.2). 33

Invertebrate Density (individials/m2)

3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Annelida Platyhelminthes Arthropoda Mollusca Echinodermata Black Spined Sea Urchins

Figure 4.12.2. Mean density (individuals per m) of invertebrate phyla and black spined sea urchins at granitic reef sites, for every survey period from 2005 to 2012.

Carbonate sites show a similar increase in density for most of the surveyed invertebrate species. Arthropoda phyla have increased significantly over the monitoring program however in 2012 the densities have stabilised. Densities of black spined urchins have decreased over the past two year, however the Echinodermata phyla has continued to increase showing that this increase in the other surveyed urchin species (Figure 4.12.3.).
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

Figure 4.12.3. Mean density (individuals per m) of invertebrate phyla and black spined sea urchins at carbonate reef sites, for every survey period from 2005 to 2012.

Invertebrate Density (individials/m2)

Annelida Platyhelminthes Arthropoda Mollusca Echinodermata Black Spined Sea Urchins

34

4.13 Invertebrate Densities from 50m Belts

In total 46 invertebrate abundance belts were completed across all the 23 sites surveyed, covering a total area of 11,500m2. The trends in density levels found during 2012 continue those found with all previous survey phases. Short-spine (Echinothrix sp.) at 0.31 per m2 SE 0.05 and long-spine (Diadema sp.) at 0.15 per m2 SE 0.08 (fig. 4.13.1.) still show the highest abundance of all the surveyed invertebrates; significantly higher than all other invertebrate species found with the exception of Drupella snails.

0.35 Mean density per m2 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00

Invertebrate Species
Figure 4.13.1. Mean density per m2 of all surveyed invertebrate species across north-west Mah, 2012.

When dividing the two most abundant invertebrates by substrate type some interesting trends can be observed (figure 4.13.2.). Short-spine sea urchins show a preference to granitic substrate, indicated by the higher density levels on these reefs; whereas long-spine sea urchins display similar density levels over both substrates; not indicating any preference. Up until 2011 there has been a general increasing trend for these two species groups, with the exception of short spine urchins on carbonate reefs displaying stable density throughout. However monitoring through 2011 - 2012 shows a decrease in the abundance of long spine urchins on both carbonate and granitic sites. Short spine urchins have remained relatively stable on both substrates.

35

0.70 0.60 0.50 Mean Density per m2 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Long Spine Carbonate Long Spine Granitic Short Spine Carbonate Short Spine Granitic

Survey Phases
Figure 4.13.2. A comparison of the mean density per m 2 of short spine (Echinothrix spp.) and long spine (Diadema spp.) urchins on granitic versus carbonate substrate along north-west Mah, Jan - Mar 2009 to 2012.

Studies of the trends in the corallivorous invertebrates show significant, almost alarming, increases in abundances across the survey sites. Figure 4.13.3. shows the density levels of the major corallivorous invertebrates of Crown of Thorns seastar (Acanthaster planci), Cushion Starfish (Culcita spp.) and Drupella snails.

0.12 Mean density per m2 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Cushion seastar Crown of Thorns seastar Drupella

Survey Phase

Figure 4.13.3. Mean density per m2 of Cushion Seastar (Culcita spp.), Crown of Thorns (Acanthaster planci) and the gastropods Drupella spp.

Density levels of both the Crown of Thorns Seastar (Acanthaster planci) and the Cushion Seastar (Culcita sp.) have remained at very low and stable densities. The density of Drupella snails however have been increasing significantly since early 2010; reaching its maximum for 2012 of 0.11 per m2. 36

4.14 Sea Cucumber Densities The total number of sea cucumbers found across all survey sites of north-west Mah was 336 individuals for 2012. Figure 4.14.1 shows the total number of sea cucumbers found per site averaged for each year of survey. This graph clearly displays after the initial rapid decrease in abundance of sea cucumbers seen in 2007 the populations are increasing across all the survey sites
16.0
Mean number of Cucumbers found per site surveyed

11.0 6.0 1.0 2006 -4.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Figure 4.14.1. Mean Number of sea cucumbers recorded per site from 2006 -2012

Analysis of individual sea cucumber species reveals that both Pearsonothurian graeffei and Stichopus spp. remain the most abundant sea cucumbers across all sites with both finding densities of 0.011 (fig. 4.14.2.). Interestingly, P. graeffei numbers have rebounded rapidly in 2012, this resurgence was seen across many sites with high abundances found relative to recent years of surveying. High abundances of these two species is significant as they are of little commercial value, compared to the other surveyed sea cucumbers which show lower abundance levels.
0.014 0.012 Density per m2 0.01 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0
*Actinopyga mauuritiana Stichopus sp. Holothuria atra *Holothuria fuscopunctata *Holothuria fuscogilva *Holothuria nobilis *Holothuria sp. (Pentard) Bohadschia sp. Actinopyga sp.

Figure 4.14.2. Density per m2 of individual sea cucumber species across all survey sites of north-west Mah, Oct - Dec 2008 to Jan - Jun 2012.

37

5. Discussion
5.1 Coral Surveys

Overall mean coral coverage has increased significantly over the past seven years of reef monitoring conducted by GVI across North West Mah. Mean percentage coral coverage has increased from 10.25% 1.27 SE in 2005 up to 36.42% 1.78 SE in 2012. Currently both granitic and carbonate reefs have reached a maxima for coral cover since surveys began; granitic reefs with 38.10% coral cover and carbonate at 34.74%. However, since 2010 the rate of coral growth seems to have slowed; coral cover only increased by 1.99% between 2010 and 2012, a significantly lower rate than the 8.16% increase between 2008 and 2010. Yet, overall any increase in cover is encouraging for the continued regeneration of the reefs after the mass coral bleaching event in 1998. When analysing the results by substrate type this years results display a similar increase in coral cover on both granitic and carbonate reefs at a mean of 1.7%. For carbonate sites this is a similar change to that which was seen between 2010 - 2011, however for granitic sites it shows an increase this year compared to a drop in coral cover seen between 2010 2011. Granitic reefs maintain the higher coral coverage in results from 2012, a trend which has been seen since surveys began. Engelhardt (2004) attributes the elevated coral cover at granitic sites to higher water clarity linked to their position. Granitic sites are found at more exposed points with high water flow, whereas many carbonate sites are within sheltered bays receiving lower water flow rates resulting in higher nutrient and sediment levels through run off from terrestrial sources. The lower flow rates found in these sheltered bays means these high nutrient and sediment levels persist which can negatively affect coral growth (Nugues & Roberts 2003; Ferrier-Page`s et al. 2000; Ward & Harrison 2000). This hypothesis is also represented in the site specific information; the two sites displaying highest coral cover are Site X (49.73%) and Port Launay West Rocks (49.53%) both of which are exposed granitic sites. However, Baie Ternay Centre exhibited high coral coverage at 49.18% despite being a relatively sheltered carbonate reef. Baie Ternay Centre is located within the Baie Ternay Marine Park and benefits from the protection from fishing, which creates a more natural state ecosystem and increases reef resilience to stresses (Belwood et al. 2004; Graham et al. 2006; Mumby 2006). Most of the other carbonate sites with lower percentage coral cover do not benefit from the protection from fishing found within the Marine Parks. Overall percentage coral cover within the Marine Parks of both Baie Ternay and Port Launay show higher coral cover. Inside the Marine Parks average

38

percentage coral cover was 40.10% whereas outside these protected areas was 35.25% attesting to the importance of overall ecosystem health for resilience of the corals species. Continual benthic coverage is recorded for all line intersect transects, results averaged over all sites for 2012 found 49.54% of coverage was algae compared to 36.57% for coral cover. This shows algal dominance across all sites for 2012; however analysing the coverage of algal species shows that 92.3% of the algae recorded was turf algae; this diminutive, filamentous algal is associated with relatively pristine, healthy reef systems and is a major contributor to high algal productivity (Steneck 1988; Klumpp & McKinnon 1989). While it is well established that macroalgae can outcompete and overgrow corals (Birkeland 1977; Hughes
1994; Jompa & McCook 2002a, 2002b) results from 2012 found these species to compose just

0.2% of total algal coverage.

Analysis of the other algae and epibenthic organisms, with the exception of Scleractinian corals, shows low coverage of below 12.0% on both granitic and carbonate reefs. The carbonate reefs shows a larger range in the densities of these other organisms however the relative dominance has remained stable, with corallimorphs / zooanthids and soft coral achieving highest densities on this substrate, notable as they compete rigorously with scleractinian coral for space (Lindn et al. 2002); although densities are still much lower than that of the coral. Granitic sites show lower coverage of all algae and epibenthic organisms. The most dramatic trend on this substrate is the decrease in coralline algae seen since 2005. High coverage of coralline algae indicates consolidation of reef structure ( Grimsditch
et al. 2006). This reduction could slow the consolidation of loose rubble on the surface of the

reef which would damage adult coral colonies, but would have a more dramatic affect on the coral recruitment rates; as the abrasion of the loose rubble can damage and remove newly settled recruit corals (Turner et al. 2002). Coralline algae on carbonate reefs seem to be at a relatively stable coverage.

Analysis of the structural complexity of the reefs of the Seychelles is showing very positive recovery post the 1998 bleaching event. Structural complexity of the reefs is important for the overall health and diversity of the reef ecosystem, a complex reef structure allows for extensive habitat space for other organisms such as fish and invertebrate species to flourish (Garpe et al. 2006; Glynn 2006; Graham et al. 2006). Branching coral lifeforms have the effect of increasing the physical matrix of the reef by increasing its structural complexity. Acropora and Pocillopora species predominantly display the branching lifeforms (Veron
2000) these fast growing species are hardest hit by coral bleaching events ( McClanahan et al. 2004), but also fastest to recover. Previous coral surveys from Seychelles post 1998

39

found very low coverage of the coral species Acropora and Pocillopora. Whereas the massive species, those that are more resilient to coral bleaching, such as Porites and Goniopora dominated the coverage (Engelhardt et al. 2003). Figure 4.4.2 shows the trends in the recovery of the reef after the initial surveys completed by Engelhardt et al. 2003. The results show a significant increase in branching corals from 2005 - 2012 currently making up 43.03% of the coral surveyed; a maximum since surveys began. Branching corals have now become the dominant coral lifeform, rising above coverage of encrusting corals. Submassive corals also show an increase in coverage across all reefs since 2005; however the rate is much slower. The continued growth of both these lifeforms is a positive sign of continued reef recovery and increasing structural complexity, which has the potential to support a greater abundance and diversity of reef organisms. Surveys have also shown decreases in percentage coverage of both encrusting and massive corals from 2007 onwards; this could be due to the faster growing, branching species, outcompeting these corals for space on the reef.

Differences in the structural complexity of the two substrate types is also evident. Carbonate reefs currently maintain a very high percentage of branching corals; making up 52.02% of corals found. Granitic sites have been continuously dominated by encrusting corals which contribute little to structural complexity of the reefs, however the granitic sites have inherent complexity from granitic boulders located across the sites; this is a common feature of all the granitic sites that are surveyed. On granitic sites the coverage of encrusting corals has been slowly decreasing as the branching corals increase and if these trends persist within the next few years branching corals will dominant both granitic and carbonate reef substrate. A positive sign in terms of structural complexity.

The diversity of coral on the surveyed reefs has increased through the monitoring program. Initially a rapid increase in the mean diversity was seen up until 2007, then stabilised from this point at a mean diversity of around 31 genera per site. Diversity divided by carbonate and granitic reefs has always been similar and the results from 2012 are no exception, finding an average of 31 genera on both the substrate types. It is interesting to note that although the number of different genera found overall seems to have stabilised, the spread of coral genera found at every site is increasing. Through analysing the number of coral genera found at every site; in 2005 only four coral genera were found at each, however in 2012 19 coral genera were found at every single site; a new maxima for the monitoring program. Indicating that although overall diversity has remained relatively stable the corals already established on some of the reefs are settling further into new areas.

40

5.2

Fish Surveys

The fish section of this report contains results from surveys conducted between January to June 2012, recording the abundance and diversity of both reef and commercial fish species. The true value of this data is in the contribution it makes to the larger data set comprising results from the last 11 years; the insights this provides on the status of coral reefs in the Seychelles inner-islands; and subsequently on the status of coral reef knowledge around the world.

It is not possible to analyse specifically the causes of any density fluctuations which occur from one survey period to the next, and false, redundant conclusions would be made without further specific studies into each. However, the wealth of information that the data provides in terms of viewing the long-term phase shifts after mass coral reef mortality are invaluable, and comparisons can be made between the results discovered in Seychelles to other reef studies about the world.

One approach to viewing the relative health of survey sites is to compare the speciesrichness, or diversity, of the areas both to one another and over time. High speciesrichness indicates a reef, which can support the needs of varying species and an associated complex food web. Many studies have highlighted the positive correlation of species-richness of both fish and other targeted organisms to the structural complexity of the reef substrata of a site (Chabanet et al. 1996; Luckhurst & Luckhurst 1978; Talbot et al. 1978;
Roberts & Ormond 1987).

Arguably, the greatest impact on Seychelles fish populations after the coral bleaching in 1998 was in species-richness (Graham et al. 2006). The immediate loss of live coral cover and physical structure of the reef (fig. 4.4.1.) eliminated resources for fish; both physical habitats and prey. With the lack of resources, the ability to provide for a range of species was diminished and the diversity of all sites declined dramatically. In viewing the change of coral lifeforms since 1998, (fig. 4.4.2.), it can be seen that the reefs have increased from only massive and encrusting lifeforms remaining to a much higher percentage of branching.

Comparing current diversity results at all sites to initial diversity recording in 2005 has shown an average improvement across all sites of +6.63 species, with the exception of only two sites (fig. 4.10.2.). The diversity results also revealed that Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) harboured a higher number of targeted survey species, with an average of 36.7 species inside protected areas compared to 34.0 outside. 41

When viewing fish densities along north-west Mah it is necessary to divide the results into protected and unprotected areas. MPAs within Seychelles are designated zones where the removal of any species is illegal and the anchoring of boats and level of tourism is monitored. These no-take zones have been developed to serve as both safe-houses for targeted fish species and coral reefs, but also so that they may potentially benefit fish stocks through the theory of spillover, the net export of adult fish, from an area of high density to adjacent non-protected areas of lower fish density (Abesamis & Russ 2005). The results show that MPAs do harbour a higher mean density of fish per m2, with an average of 0.359 fish per m found within the MPAs compared to 0.306 per m outside. Both carbonate and granitic substrate sites held higher densities levels inside protected zones, although granitic sites constantly fluctuate between dominance. It is also interesting to note that sites immediately adjacent to MPAs, such as Baie Ternay Lighthouse and Site Y also have comparatively high numbers of fish.

Despite clearly holding healthier abundance levels of fish, it is difficult to measure the effectiveness of MPAs due to many reasons, and multiple studies have attempted to do so (Field et al. 2006). It is also difficult to control for the selectiveness of MPAs. Most MPAs are chosen for their higher densities and species-richness of fish and other organisms, as well as their potential for recruitment and juvenile species habitat. It is reasonable, then, that in studying the densities of fish within and outside of the protected areas that the MPA would hold a higher number than non-protected areas as it originally did so. In analysing the data of both fish densities and coral health since 1998, however, MPAs clearly recovered faster than non-protected areas and have achieved higher density levels overall.

It is undeniable that as management tools, MPAs potentially offer a form of insurance against overexploitation of target species and a reduction in undesirable fishing induced impacts on non-target species and fishing-induced impacts to habitat (NRC 2001; Gerber et
al. 2003; Halpern 2003). The continued protection of these areas is paramount to maintaining

healthy fish populations.

Separating the fish results into feeding guilds, a system based on the prey preference of individual species, allows for a clearer viewing of the internal trends of fish population dynamics across the years. Most notably the herbivore class have been the most dominant

42

in density across all sites and have had a stable density level irrespective of the years (fig. 4.8.1.).

Herbivores are key components to the coral reef ecosystem; mediating competition between benthic algae and scleractinian corals (Miller 1998). Their pressure on the growth of algae allows corals to flourish in areas where competition for resources and overgrowth is minimised and substrate is freed for recruitment (Sluka & Miller 2001). Theoretically, the impact of the 1998 bleaching event in Seychelles would have had a minimal effect on the density levels of herbivores and the density results found across the years reflect this (fig. 4.8.1.). Having very little or no direct reliance on scleractinian coral itself, the dramatic decrease in coral coverage would not have had the same impacts on resource availability for herbivores. In fact, the decrease in coral coverage had a reverse effect on algal growth, with the algae coverage at an all-time high in the years directly following the bleaching. The stable populations of herbivores on the reefs kept this bloom in check, allowing the slow regrowth of coral. Macroalgae, or more specifically seaweed, if not removed by herbivores would be the most competitively dominant organism on a coral reef and would be capable of destroying reefs as we know them (Hughes 1994). Research conducted on the Great Barrier Reef immediately following the 1998 bleaching event also solidified the importance of herbivory; with experimental manipulations removing herbivores from degraded areas causing a dramatic explosion in macroalgae which in turn suppressed the fecundity, recruitment, and survival of corals (Hughes et al. 2007).

As the second most dominant feeding guild the planktivores have shown a steady decline in numbers across survey years (fig. 4.8.1.). As their prey comes solely from the water column above the reef, planktivores are not sensitive to the phase shifts in the coral beneath them (Sluka & Miller 2001) and were unaffected by the initial degradation of the reefs post the 1998 bleaching. This decline in numbers in recent years is therefore due to influences outside of the coral reef ecosystem. High density levels of planktivores can indicate areas of upwelling and nutrient-rich water; however between the months of January to June Seychelles water clarity is at its highest. This clear water has low levels of plankton, seen both through the turbidity measurements of each survey and the lessened plankton densities in the sample tows conducted each week. If this hypothesis of planktivore density linked to visibility is correct, densities will rise in the following six months of the year as the south-westerly monsoon brings upwellings of plankton to the north-west coast of Mah. In addition, it is also difficult to accurately survey the planktivores specifically, as many are nocturnal species (primarily the Holocentridae family; soldierfish

43

and squirrelfish) and during the day reside in the dark areas of the reef. When visibility, and therefore light penetration through the water column, is at its highest, Holocentrids retreat further into the crevices.

Another key trend emerging from the long-term data set is the steady increase in the corallivore feeding guild. Obligate corallivores rely solely on the live tissue of corals for their food and their energetic demand is intimately linked to the health of the coral ecosystem (Jones & McCormick 2002); if corals are adversely affected by stressful conditions their health will deteriorate and this deterioration will be mirrored by the fish that feed on them (Crosby & Reese 1996; Pratchett et al. 2004). This strong linkage has led to many corallivore species being used as indicator species in different coral ecosystems about the world, allowing researchers to gather a picture of the health of a reef area by only recording the distribution and specific abundance of corallivorous species.

The data since 1998 shows a steady rise in the corallivore guild from the initial density recordings of 0.001 to 0.036 fish per m. This rise has mainly been due to the increase in two butterflyfish species; Chaetodon trifascialis (Chevroned) and Chaetodon trifasciatus (Indian Redfin). When overlaid with the rise in percentage hard coral cover through the survey years (fig. 4.2.1.), corallivore density perfectly mirrors that of coral coverage. In addition to this, studies directly after 1998 alerted that four Chaetodontid species, C. meyersi, C. trifascialis, C. lineolatus and C. melannotus, were possibly locally extinct or in critically low abundance on Seychelles coastal reefs (Graham et al. 2006). Three of these four species are now in healthy density levels along many of the surveyed sites, with only C. lineolatus at a low level. All Chaetodontids are corallivorous, however many species also predate upon invertebrates, algae and other benthic organisms and so are not as intrinsically linked to the health of scleractinian coral and are able to adapt their diet somewhat to feed on prey in proportion to their abundance (Crosby & Reese 1996). This aside, a similar increase in the corallivore/ invertivore guild can be seen (fig. 4.8.2.) and the same assumptions of associations between abundance of species and health of coral can also be made for this guild. Consequently, all results combine highlight the need for thorough management of both fish stocks and of coral reef areas to provide some insurance against larger-scale disturbances, such as the 1998 event, which are impractical to manage directly.

44

5.3

Invertebrate Surveys

Invertebrates have been studied as biological indicators within terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems extensively, including coral reef habitats. Their importance lies in their interactions with the reef habitat, and density may reflect changes in reef composition and structure. Densities of surveyed invertebrates from the 10m belt transects have been increasing since surveys began with the exception of black spine urchins and Platyhelminthes. Platyhelminthes show low densities due to their lifestyle; these species are generally nocturnal and found mostly under the rock and rubble of the reef ( Coleman
2000), but are also hard to spot as most species are small and camouflaged.

The overall increases in all surveyed species indicate that the diversity of the reefs is continuing to grow; following an increase in coral coverage. One of the most significant increases seen is within the Arthropoda and Mollusca phylum. Increases in the Arthropoda phylum can be linked to the build-up of structural complexity. The main families within the Arthropoda phylum are the coral crabs and hermit crabs, the increases in branching corals allow for more habitat space for the coral crab to flourish, the hermit crabs which make up the other bulk of the Arthropods, show a continual increase with the mollusc families which provide the crabs with the shell used for refuge.

Mollusca density increases was largely due to the vast oyster abundance recorded, mainly of the species Hyotissa hyotis. These bivalves attach to rocks or coral on reef faces and walls, which corresponds to the high abundance within granitic sites. The driver behind the increase in oyster abundance is unclear. Density of Annelids has been increasing slowly since 2005; high abundance of this phylum can be an indicator of water quality as they filter feed organic matter in the water column. The overall lower densities seen are perhaps an indicator of clear water with a low food source, which isnt able to support high populations. The increasing trend seen is probably linked to the increasing coverage of massive corals across the reefs. The two main genera of Annelids found during the survey are the Sabellidae sp. and Serulidae sp. which are coral borers and prefer the massive corals such as Porites (Coleman 2000). It is more likely that the increase in density seen is due to the availability of habitat rather than deterioration in water quality.

Echinodermata have different functions on the reef; the Echinoidea influence algal cover, two species of Asteroidea are coral predators whereas Crinoidae feed on plankton species in the water column and Ophiuroidea feed on a variety of prey. Increased numbers within 45

this phylum on both granitic and carbonate reefs indicates towards the continued recovery of the reefs. As the Echinoderms feed on a variety of prey the overall ecosystem must be stable to be able to support this diverse group.

The survey list for invertebrates on the 50m belts focuses on commercially important invertebrates and key species which indicate ecosystem change. Results from 2012 show continuation in trends seen in recent years with regards to the Echinoidea phyla. The most dramatic change is within the corallivorous species, Drupella snails, where density levels have increased significantly since 2010 reaching a new maximum this year. The most likely explanation for the increase in the Drupella numbers is that it is coupled with the increase in the branching coral Acropora spp., their preferred food source and habitat. Although densities have increased, overall it is still quite low with only 0.11 Drupella per m. With continued monitoring it will indicate whether this population is increasing to damaging levels.

46

6. Additional Ecosystem Monitoring

6.1. Turtles

Five species of marine turtles are found in the Seychelles EEZ waters: the leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), loggerhead (Caretta caretta), olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), and green (Chelonia mydas) (IUCN 1996). The

leatherback, loggerhead and olive ridley, although common to parts of the Western Indian Ocean, are not thought to currently nest in the Seychelles and are rarely seen. In contrast, the hawksbill and green are residents in coastal waters of the Seychelles, nest on the beaches, and are commonly observed. All five species found in the Seychelles face the combined threats of poaching, pollution and loss of nesting sites, and are listed by IUCN as endangered or critically endangered. The Seychelles is considered one of the most

important sites for the critically endangered hawksbill turtle and is one of the only localities in the world where they can be observed nesting during daylight hours. GVI staff and volunteers are trained in turtle biology and the identification of the two species commonly seen around north-west Mah, C. mydas and E. Imbricata, through lectures and PowerPoint presentations. Volunteers are also trained in survey methodology for water based and land based turtle surveys.

6.1.1. Incidental Turtle Sightings For every dive undertaken by GVI, a record of turtle observations is kept. The parameters for each of GVIs dives are logged, regardless of whether or not a turtle was seen, enabling the calculation of turtle frequency per dive and thus effort-related abundance. The species, carapace length, sex, distinguishing features and behaviour of all turtles sighted is recorded wherever possible. Incidental sightings of sea turtles are divided into three month periods to more accurately view the fluctuations that occur in and outside of nesting season. Within the January to March time period of this report phase, a total of 111 turtles were sighted on 164 boat outings whereby dives were completed in that period (discounting dives that were specifically looking for turtles as part of the focal behaviour study). 72 of these sightings were identified as hawksbill turtles and 39 as green turtles, with an overall sighting frequency for all dives of 67.7%. Within the April to June period following this, only 57 turtles were sighted on 149 dives; consisting of 40 hawksbills and 17 green turtles, giving a much lower overall sightings frequency of only 38.3% (Fig. 6.1.1).

47

In analysing the sightings results, the frequency found within January to March is comparatively high; agreeing with the similar findings from October to December 2011. This shows a remaining stationary population of turtles within the bay in this time. Green turtle sightings were also particularly high for this period, mainly due to continuous sightings of a number of resident immature turtles within Baie Ternay Marine Park, known individually from photo-identification and carapace characteristics. The results from the April to June period, however, were significantly lower. Within a relatively short time period of 2-3 weeks during May sightings of both green and hawksbill turtles declined rapidly. It is unknown what caused this immediate departure from the area. It is known, however, that October to January is the typically the time at which turtle encounters increase within certain Seychelles' coastal waters due to an immigration of sexually mature turtles to these designated nesting areas, and hence the months outside of the time have lessened sightings of turtles. Previous studies on the nesting turtles of Cousin and Silhouette Islands, Seychelles, have shown that adult turtles rarely reside in the area in which they nest on a year round basis; undertaking short migrations to other habitats along the Mah plateau in the off-season months of April through September (Witzell 1983; Houghton 2003; Ellis & Balazs 1998). Findings from other studies in the Seychelles area also indicate that smaller turtles within the sub-adult category (35 - 80cm) generally reside in coastal coral reef habitats year-round; regardless of nesting season (Witzell 1983; Houghton 2003; Ellis & Balazs 1998). To further understand the ecology of turtles within Northwest Mah, the curved carapace length (CCL) of any turtle sighted is also estimated. Carapace length can be used as a guide to the stage of sexual maturity of sea turtles. The approximate minimum carapace length of breeding-age female green and hawksbill turtles is 105cm and 80cm respectively (Mrosovsky 1983). The mean estimated carapace length for hawksbill turtles during the January to March and April to June period was 50.1cm ( 1.2 SE) and 52.4cm ( 2.4 SE) respectively (fig. 6.1.2.). This reveals a steady population of sexually immature sea turtles. Turtles within this life stage are known to recruit to coastal developmental habitats for some months, and not to migrate during the nesting season. It is therefore unlikely that migration is key to this sudden departure of turtles during April. One hypothesis may be that the migration of adult turtles to the nesting beaches elsewhere in Seychelles increases competition in those coastal waters, and hence the immature turtles are forced to move elsewhere, collecting in the North of Mah where nesting turtles do not and increasing sightings numbers.

48

It also may be that the seasonal changes that occur around the month of May influence the change in turtle sightings frequency; including a drop in sea temperature from 29-30 C to 25-27 C. Without additional studies it is impossible to determine whether environmental parameters have any effect upon sea turtle recruitment to coastal areas. In breaking down the data to specific dive sites it is important to note that most, or rather almost all, turtle sightings were within the confines of Baie Ternay Marine National Park; specifically towards the centre and northwest areas. Furthermore, in the January to March period, sightings of more than one turtle on each dive often occurred in these areas, with the maximum number of turtles sighted within a single dive being three.

Frequency of Sighting (%)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Hawksbill Turtles Green Turtles

Survey Phase
Figure 6.1.1. Frequency (%) of hawksbill and green turtle sightings around north-west Mah from Oct- Dec 2005 to Apr- Jun 2012.

Mean carapace length (cm)

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Survey Phase
Figure 6.1.2. Mean carapace length of hawksbill turtles around north-west Mah from Jan- Mar 2006 to Apr- Jun 2012.

49

6.1.2. Beach Patrols for Nesting Turtles Beach patrols are conducted on north-west Mah during the Hawksbill turtle nesting season from October to March. This land-based turtle monitoring work includes beach walks, documentation of nesting tracks, and investigation of newly hatched clutches. Beach patrols are carried out weekly at beaches local to the Cap Ternay research station (Anse du Riz and Anse Major) to monitor nesting turtle activity. The surveys are conducted on foot, with the teams searching for signs of tracks or body pits walking along the upper beach, on the main beach, and also within the coastal vegetation. Within the January to March period beach patrols on both Anse du Riz and Anse Major beaches were conducted on 8 occasions. No evidence of tracks, nesting or of hatched nests were found during this time. Two hawksbill hatchlings were sighted in the shallows of Baie Ternay beach, however the strong sea currents and waves at that time suggested the hatchlings were blown into Baie Ternay by stormy weather and did not come from a local nest. 6.1.3. In-water Surveys of Turtle Behaviour In studies concentrating on the home ranges of sea turtles it has been found that normal daily activities of sea turtles centre around areas of high food availability and resource quality. When sufficient resources are available, individuals develop affinities for specific areas (Makowski et al. 2006). Preliminary results from research conducted by Von Brandis in the Amirantes, Seychelles, established that philopatric behaviour is common among foraging hawksbill turtles, and extensive information on individuals and their energy budgets can be gathered using relatively non-invasive sampling protocols (Von Brandis pers.
comm.). Focal behavioural studies work on the philosophy that an individual, when followed

and observed correctly, can provide a wealth of ecological information that would otherwise be unnoticed in a simple point count survey.

Our objective is to document important interactions between hawksbill turtles and their environment while obtaining information of prey preference and the number of individuals displaying philopatric behaviour within the Baie Ternay Marine Reserve. Volunteers use SCUBA equipment to undertake a U-shaped search pattern. Divers look for focal animals and, upon finding an individual, follow and document all behaviours observed. Environmental conditions can dictate at what distance accurate observations are made without altering normal behaviour but in general a distance of no closer than 5m is sufficient. A continuous time scale of data is used; divers stay with any individual 50

encountered for as long as possible even if another individual is located. In the event that another turtle is found, the second member of the buddy pair may start to document behaviour but at no time are buddy pairs to become separated by more than 2m. Any characteristic markings should be documented and the use of underwater photography is highly desirable for turtle identification and determining unknown prey items. Due to logistical constraints, it is only possible for the study in Baie Ternay to be carried out on a weekly basis, incorporating two 45 minute dives with most volunteers participating in one dive; however it is an interesting addition to the routine for volunteers, enhancing their skill set and appreciation for marine ecological fieldwork.

Between January and June of 2012, two turtle behavioural dives were conducted each week; wherein a combined total of 51 turtle sightings over 40 separate dives. These sightings comprised 40 hawksbill, 10 green turtle and one unknown sighting. The estimated mean carapace length (CCL) of all turtles sighted was 59.31cm 2.09 SD. The range of sizes of turtles varied from 35cm to 120cm, and most were accurately identified through photo-identification and individual characteristics as being residential turtles of Baie Ternay Marine Park. Of these turtles sighted in the previous phase, again the greatest frequency of sightings occurred within the 0-10m depth class, with only two sightings recorded outside of these depths at 14m and 11m. The shallow reef slope of Baie Ternay Centre does bias the results towards the shallower depth class, as the 0-10m range covers a larger area of reef and therefore a larger area of foraging grounds. From the studies, it was noted that algae, hard coral and soft coral were all common chosen food items.

Through the use of photo identification methods, spoken about in the following section, a number of individual turtles have been seen returning to, or residing within, specific areas of Baie Ternay marine park over a long time scale. It is impossible to correctly determine the specific home range of sea turtles without the use of remote telemetry, however one or more areas of disproportionately heavy use (i.e. core areas) can be identified for some of the more frequently spotted turtles. Understanding the spatial use patterns of sea turtles is fundamental to their conservation. This study reveals that Baie Ternay remains an important habitat for both the endangered green and hawksbill turtles; thus, further underscoring the need to develop and maintain conservation strategies that address the impacts that threaten this region.

51

6.1.4. Photo Identification of Turtles Throughout 2011 the use of photo identification methods for turtles was implemented into all dives where volunteers or staff had an underwater camera. The post-ocular area of scales on the left and right cheeks of both hawksbill and green turtles are unique to each individual, allowing for comparisons to be made between identification shots taken on different dives. Individuals can be recognised through analysis of the photographs, based on a code defined from the localisation and the number of sides of each scale of the head profile. This method has been taken from the Kelonia Observatory for Sea Turtles in Reunion Island (Ciccione et al. n.d.). The ability to recognise individuals in a population allows for reliable information to be collected on distribution, habitat use, or life history traits. It is from the increased emphasis on the importance of photographic identification that resident turtles have been accurately re-identified, and their home ranges consequently estimated within Baie Ternay marine national park. A number of individual turtles, both hawksbill and greens, have been accurately re-identified over varying time scales within the MPA. From data collected from these sightings it has been noted that many have distinct habitat preferences and feeding and resting areas. Photo-identification has also been critical in identifying the reasons behind the low trend in carapace length and any incidence of philopatric behaviour.

52

6.2.

Crown of Thorns

Outbreaks of the coral predator, the Crown of Thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci), were first reported in 1996 and were active until 1998, when the reefs suffered from the bleaching-induced coral mortality (Engelhardt 2004). Normal density levels are less than one individual per hectare (Pratchett 2007) and in these numbers A. planci can assist coral diversity by feeding on the faster growing corals such as Acropora and Pocillopora, which are its preferred prey items (Pratchett 2007) and early colonisers of degraded reefs that can out-compete slower growing corals (Veron 2000). In high numbers however the level of competition for food drives the starfish to eat all species of corals and reefs can become severely degraded with coral cover reduced to as little as 1% (CRC Reef 2001). The causes of outbreaks are still not completely understood; it may be connected to overfishing of A. planci predators, such as the giant triton shell which is popular with shell collectors, or to natural fluctuations (CRC Reef 2001). The most influential factor could be increased nutrient levels in the oceans (Engelhardt pers. comm.), from agricultural, domestic or industrial sources. A. planci are surveyed as part of the invertebrate abundance and diversity belts and incidental sightings are also documented after every dive. There were 37 recordings of A. planci across all sites during January and March and a further 57 seen during April to June 2012. Most sightings of A. planci were at Anse Major Reef and the adjoining Ray's Point. These numbers are high in comparison to previous year's sightings, however are not concerning. 6.3. Cetacean Sightings

Cetaceans are considered to be under threat in many parts of the world and in response to this threat, a national database of cetacean sightings, the Seychelles Marine Mammal Observatory (SMMO), has been set up. GVI records all incidental cetacean sightings and passes all data to MCSS for inclusion in the national database. Data recorded includes date, time, location (including GPS coordinates where possible), environmental conditions, number of individuals, distinguishing features, size, behaviour and species. There were only 4 separate recordings of dolphin sightings within January to June 2012. Pod sizes ranged from 3 to 4 individuals and all were sighted from the boat. 6.4. Whale Shark Sightings

The Seychelles is famous for its seasonal fluctuations in the abundance of whale sharks (Rhincodon typus). However despite their public profile, relatively little is known about their behaviour or the ecological factors which influence their migratory patterns. A whale shark monitoring programme was started by volunteers in 1996 and is now the cornerstone of a lucrative eco-tourism operation run by MCSS. From 2001-2003, a tagging programme was 53

initiated to study migratory patterns as part of the Seychelles Marine Ecosystem and Management Project (SEYMEMP); it is now clear that the sharks seen in the Seychelles are not resident, but range throughout the Indian Ocean. The oceanographic or biological conditions that determine the movements are unclear, it is possible however that the sharks follow seasonal variations in the abundance of the plankton on which they feed. All

sightings of whale sharks are documented in as much detail as possible; including time, date, GPS point, number, size of the individuals, sex, distinguishing features, behaviour and tag numbers if present. Photographs are also taken whenever possible of the left and right side of the thorax from the base of the pectoral fin to behind the gill area to be used as identification in the global and regional database. Within the January to June period there were three separate sightings of whale sharks. The first sighting was at Baie Ternay North West on the 25/1/2012, coinciding with the very end of the 2011 season. The last two sightings both occurred on the 17/6/2012 at two different locations; Conception North Face and Lighthouse. These two sightings were 'early comers' to the 2012 September- December season. All data collected, including any photographs taken, were sent on to MCSS for inclusion into their database. 6.5. Plankton Sampling

MCSS initiated a plankton monitoring programme in conjunction with the tagging and incidental recording surveys in an attempt to correlate the frequency of whale shark sightings with plankton levels. Plankton sampling has been run by MCSS since 2003 in conjunction with their on-going monitoring and tagging programmes. GVI started to assist MCSS in the collection of plankton data in July 2004, and have since carried out the survey on a weekly basis. Five plankton tows are carried out to the North West side of Grouper Point, just outside of Cap Ternay, between 08:00 and 11:00 hours. The tows are carried out along a North Westerly course from Grouper Point. In order to sample over a range of depths the net is let out 5m every 30 seconds (up to 45m). Samples are collected in the cod end of the net, decanted into a receptacle and preserved in formalin. After the survey and the filtering process, they are sent to MCSS for measurement of wet weight and species classification. Environmental conditions are also noted (sea state, cloud cover and turbidity). Plankton tows were successfully conducted each week from January to June and all samples were sent on to MCSS for analysis.

54

7. Non-survey Programmes
7.1 Extra Programmes 7.1.1 Internships

GVI Seychelles currently runs a Divemaster Internship program in conjunction with their marine research activities. Interns typically spend twelve weeks with GVI on the marine expedition and then twelve weeks at a dive shop in the Seychelles gaining the PADI divemaster qualification and professional divemaster experience. They also take courses in Team Leadership and Supervision of Biological Surveys. We continued this program with twelve divemasters successfully completing their internships at The Underwater Centre, Big Blue Divers and Blue Sea Divers in Beau Vallon.

The Short Term Marine Conservation Internship program was also continued. Interns on this program take a course in Team Leadership, and also gain experience and knowledge of marine conservation whilst participating on the expedition. 7.1.2 GVI additional courses

GVI Seychelles has also expanded their programmes to include two additional courses. These are in the Supervision of Biological Surveys and Team Leadership. These courses are available to those on the internship programmes (see above) and the Biological Surveys course can be added additionally to the expedition if volunteers so choose. Both courses are designed to expand the skill set and knowledge that volunteers gain whilst on the expedition/internship and to provide an accreditation for the work they complete. This can then be used in reference to future employment in this field.

7.2

Community Development International School Seychelles (ISS)

7.2.1

The GVI Seychelles community education program works in conjunction with the International School of the Seychelles (ISS). Lessons are held on Port Launay Beach, within one of the National Marine Parks on Mah, where children aged 7-9 from ISS are taught about the marine environment and marine conservation in a location that ignites and stimulates their interest. During this six months the lessons conducted by volunteers were tailored towards the Indian Ocean and the Seychelles in particular. This aspect of the

55

expedition is key to the overall impact of our role within the Seychelles. It also increases the extent to which volunteers are able to contribute on an individual level, to help raise vital awareness of marine conservation issues related directly to the Seychelles. 7.2.2 GVI Charitable Trust

As part of the GVI Charitable Trust, GVI Seychelles has partnered with the Presidents Village Childrens Home in Port Glaud. The Presidents Village is part of The Childrens Home Foundation, which has several childrens homes in the Seychelles. The Presidents Village provides a home for abused, neglected and orphaned children and currently houses 56 children from birth to 18 years old. GVI volunteers during the past six months have organized bi-weekly snorkel trips to Port Launay Marine Park for the children at Presidents Village. Some of the children were able swimmers so were shown some of the fish and corals by the volunteers which they attempted to identify back on the beach. Other children are new swimmers and the experience is an introduction to water safety and an appreciation of the marine environment. These snorkelling trips provide an opportunity for the children to interact with other members of their local community and spend some time away from the Childrens home in a structured, educational and fun activity. In addition to the bi-weekly snorkel sessions, every quarter a Creole Day is held at the Presidents Village. GVI volunteers and staff attended two of these days in the past six months with the children from the Presidents Village. The day involves fun and creative activities such as jewellery making and crafts, and then usually finished with some dancing, games or a snorkel. These days are a great opportunity for the children to get some additional care and attention, and for the volunteers to interact with members of the local community.

GVI Seychelles is successfully raising funds for the Presidents Village to contribute towards the costs of housing and clothing the children, as well as purchasing special items not included in the children homes budget. In the past six months two fundraisers have been held at Cap Ternay to raise these funds. Our project partner SNPA joined one of the fundraisers and both events have raised awareness in the local area of both GVI and the Presidents Village. In total we raised just over 2000.

In the past six months a new initiative was started of providing swimming lessons for the carers working at the Presidents Village. Many Seychellois residents cannot swim despite their close proximity to the sea. Teaching water safety and swimming techniques to the carers improves their interest and confidence in the ocean surrounding them. And more 56

importantly it means that they can take the children from the home swimming or snorkelling whilst confident of their safety and the ability to rescue them if needed. So far two lessons have been completed with ten Seychellois staff attending each session. These lessons will continue over the next six months. 7.2.3 Other Community events

Alongside the Charitable Trust and ISS lessons GVI Seychelles also takes part in other one-off community events and partnerships. GVI is continually seeking to extend their reach in the local community and often these events are a way to educate and communicate with new people.

GVI were invited by the Seychelles Ministry of Environment to host snorkelling activities as part of a national Biodiversity day. This day was an opportunity for students from schools around Mahe to experience the marine environment and learn more about its biodiversity. Several other organisations also joined GVI staff and volunteers in hosting this day including; Wildlife Clubs of Seychelles, MCSS, SNPA and Mangroves for the Future. In April Akyson pour lanvironmann, a local youth group, invited GVI to attend an environmental fair being hosted by their group at Port Glaud. At this one day event GVI set up a stand with various environmental activities for visiting children to participate in. Activities included: make a turtle, snorkelling in the marine park, ball games and many more. Around 400 children of all ages from the local area attended the event. This was linked in with the international event Earth Day. This worldwide event encourages people to raise awareness of the environment and how it can be conserved.

7.2.4

National Scholarship Programme

As part of GVIs local capacity program GVI runs a National Scholarship programme in each country. The National Scholarship Programme is directly funded by GVI volunteers payments and aims to increase long-term capacity building within the country. National recruits such as rangers, researchers and students are selected by the local partner organisations and are brought into the programme as volunteers. In order for SNPA to continue and build upon the research conducted by GVI, scholars are invited to join every expedition from the pool of SNPA staff. Unfortunately we did not have any applicants for the programme this phase.

57

8. References
Abesamis, R.A. & Russ, G.R., (2005), Density-dependent spillover from a marine reserve: long-term evidence, Ecological Applications, 15 (5), pp. 17981812 Achituv, Y., Dubinsky, Z. (1990) Evolution and zoogeography of coral reefs. In: Dubinsky Z (ed.) Ecosystems of the world. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 110 Bellwood, D. R., T. P. Hughes, C. Folke, and M. Nystrm. (2004) Confronting the coral reef crisis. Nature 429:827833. Cassidy, L. (2011), GVI Phase Report 112 Status of the Coral Reefs of North-West Mah, Seychelles Chabanet, P., Ralambondrainy, H., Amanieu, M., Faure, G. & Galzin, R., (1996), Relationships between coral reef substrata and fish, Coral Reefs 16, pp. 93-102 Ciccione, S., Jean, C., Ballorain, K. & Bourjea, J. (n.d.), Photo-identification of marine turtles: an alternative method to markrecapture studies, Kelonia lObservatoire des Tortues Marines, Region Reunion. Coleman, N. (2000) Marine Life of the Maldives, Atoll Editions, Apollo Bay, Australia Courtney, S. (2010), GVI Phase Report 111 Status of the Coral Reefs of North-West Mah, Seychelles Crosby, M.P. & E.S. Reese, (1996), A Manual for Monitoring Coral Reefs With Indicator Species: Butterflyfishes as Indicators of Change on Indo Pacific Reefs. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD. 45 pp. Ellis, D. M. & Balazs, G. H. (1998) Use of a generic mapping tools program to plot Argos tracking data for sea turtles, in S. P. Epperly and J. Braun (comp.) Proceedingsof the 17th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, NOAA Tech. Memo, NMFS-SEFSC-415, pp. 166168 Engelhardt U. (2004) The status of scleractinian coral and reef-associated fish communities 6 years after the 1998 mass coral bleaching event. Seychelles Marine Ecosystem Management Project. Global Environment Facility/Government of Seychelles/World Wildlife Fund, Victoria. Engelhardt U.M., Russell & Wendling B. (2003), Coral Communities around the Seychelles Islands 19982002, p.212 p.231 Ferrier-Page`s, C., Gattuso , J.P., Dallot, S. & Jaubert, J. (2000) Effect of nutrient enrichment on growth and photosynthesis of the zooxanthellate coral Stylophorapistillata. Coral Reefs 19 : pp.103 113 Garpe, K.C., Yahya, S.A.S., Lindahl, U. & Ohman M.C. (2006) Longterm effects of the 1998 coral bleaching event on reef fish assemblages. Marine Ecology Progress Series 315:237247. Glynn, P.W. (2006) Fish utilization of simulated coral reef frameworks versus eroded rubble substrates off Panama, eastern Pacific. Proceedings of the 10th International Coral Reef Symposium 1:250256. Graham, N.A.J., Wilson, S.K., Jennings, S., Polunin, N.V.C., Bijoux, J.P., & Robinson, J. (2006) Dynamic fragility of oceanic coral reef ecosystems, PNAS, 103, no. 22 Grimsditch, G.D. & Salm, R.V. (2006). Coral Reef Resilience and Resistance to Bleaching. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 52pp. Houghton, J.D.R., Callow, M.J. & Hays, G.C. (2003) Habitat utilization by juvenile hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata, Linnaeus, 1766) around a shallow water coral reef, Journal of Natural History, 37, pp. 12691280 Hughes, T.P., (1994), Catastrophes, phase shifts and large scale degradation of a coral reef, Science 256, pp. 1547-1551 Hughes et al., (2007), Phase Shifts, Herbivory, and the Resilience of Coral Reefs to Climate Change, Current Biology 17, pp. 360-365 Jones, G.P. & McCormick, M.I., (2002) Numerical and energetic processes in the ecology of coral reef fishes, Sale P (ed) Coral reef fishes; dynamics and diversity in a complex ecosystem, Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 221238

58

Lindn, O., Souter, D., Wilhelmsson, D. & Obura, D. 2002, Coral Reef Degradation in the Indian Ocean, CORDIO, Kalmar, Luckhurst, B. & Luckhurst, K., (1978), Analysis of the influence of substrate variables on coral reef communities, Mar Biol 49, pp. 317-323 McClanahan, T.R., Baird, A.H., Marshall & Toscano, M.A. (2004) Comparing bleaching and mortality responses of hard corals between southern Kenya and the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Marine Pollution Bulletin 48: 327 335. Miller, M.W., (1998), Coral/ Seaweed competition and the control of reef community structure within and between latitudes, Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 36, pp. 65-96 Mumby, P.J., et al. (2006) Fishing, trophic cascades, and the process of grazing on coral reefs, Science 311, pp. 98101. Nugues, M. & Roberts, C. (2003) Partial mortality in massive reef corals as an indicator of sediment stress on coral reefs, Marine Pollution Bulletin,46, 314 323 Payet, R., Bijoux, J. & Adam, P.A. (2005) Status and recovery of carbonate and granitic reefs in the Seychelles inner islands and implication for management, Coral Reef Degradation in the Indian Ocean, Status Report 2005, Cordio, Stockholm

Pratchett, M.S. Wilson, S.K., Berumen, M.L. & McCormick, M.I., (2004), Sublethal effects of coral bleaching on an obligate coral feeding butterflyfish, Coral Reefs 23, pp. 352-256 Roberts, C.M. & Ormond, R.F., (1987), Habitat complexity and coral reef diversity and abundance on Red Sea fringing reefs, Mar Ecol Prog Ser 41, pp. 1-8 Shepard, C., Spalding, M., Bradshaw, C., Wilson, S., 2002. Erosion vs. Recovery of coral reefs after 1998 El Nino: Chagos reefs, Indian Ocean. Ambio 31, 40 47. Sluka, R.D. & Miller, M.W., (1998), Coral/Seaweed competition and the control of reef community structure within and between latitudes, Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev, pp. 65-96 Spencer, T., Telek, K.A., Bradshaw, C. & Spalding, M.D. (2000), Coral bleaching in the Southern Seychelles During the 1997 1998 Indian Ocean Warm Event, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40 (Issue 7), pp. 569-586 Talbot, F.H., Russel, B.C. & Anderson, G.R., (1978), Coral reef fishes communities: unstable high-diversity systems?, Ecol Monogr, pp. 425-440 Turner, J., Klaus, R. & Engelhardt, U. (2002) The reefs of the granitic islands of the Seychelles, CORDIO Veron, J.E.N., (2000) Corals of the World, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Australia, Vol 13 Ward, S. & Harrison, P. (2000) Changes in gametogenesis and fecundity of acroporid corals that were exposed to elevated nitrogen and phosphorus during the ENCORE experiment. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 246 : 179 221 Witzell, W. (1983) Synopsis of biological data on the hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata (Linnaeus, 1766), FAO Fish, Synop., pp. 137

59

9. Appendices
Appendix A. Details of sites surveyed by GVI Seychelles Mah, year round. Sites in
bold-type text are located within Marine Protected Areas.

Site No 1 2 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 A 12 B 13 A 13 B 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 N/A

Site Name Conception North Point Conception Central East Face Port Launay West Rocks Port Launay South Reef Baie Ternay Lighthouse Baie Ternay Reef North East Baie Ternay Reef Centre Baie Ternay Reef North West Rays Point Willies Bay Reef Willies Bay Point Anse Major Reef Anse Major Point Whale Rock Auberge Reef Corsaire Reef White Villa Reef Lilot North Face Site Y Therese North End Therese North East Therese South Site X Secret Beach Reef

GPS S 0439.583, E 05521.654 S 0439.891, E 055 22.258 S 0439.416, E 05523.382 S 0439.158, E 05523.695 S 0438.373, E 05521.993 S 0438.013, E 05522.405 S 0438.321, E 05522.504 S 0438.382, E 05522.133 S 0437.347, E 05523.145 S 0437.650, E 05522.889 S 0437.589, E 05522.776 S 0437.546, E 05523.121 S 0437.509, E 05523.010 S 0437.184, E 05523.424 S 0437.024, E 05524.243 S 0437.016, E 05524.447 S 0436.935, E 05524.749 S 0438.652, E 05525.932 S 0437.771, E 05522.660 S 0440.101, E 05523.737 S 0440.099, E 05523.891 S 0440.764, E 05524.310 S 0437.059, E 05523.783 N/A

Survey Status Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core

Granitic/Carbonate Granitic Carbonate Granitic Carbonate Granitic Granitic Carbonate Carbonate Granitic Carbonate Granitic Carbonate Granitic Granitic Carbonate Carbonate Carbonate Granitic Granitic Granitic Carbonate Granitic Granitic Carbonate

60

Appendix B. Scleractinian coral genera surveyed by GVI Seychelles - Mah.

Acropora Acroporidae Astreopora Montipora Pocillopora Pocilloporidae Stylophora Seriatopora Porites Poritidae Goniopora Alveopora Dendrophylliidae Turbinaria Siderastrea Siderastreidae Pseudosiderastrea Coscinaraea Psammocora Lobophyllia Mussidae Symphyllia Acanthastrea Blastomussa Oculinidae Euphyllidae Galaxea Physogyra Pectinia Pectinidae Mycedium Echinophyllia Merulinidae Merulina Hydnophora Agaricidae Astrocoeniidae Faviidae Fungiidae

Fungia Herpolitha Diaseris Cycloseris Podabacia Halomitra Polyphyllia Favia Favites Montastrea Plesiastrea Goniastrea Echinopora Diploastrea Leptasrea Cyphastrea Platygyra Leptoria Oulophyllia Stylocoeniella Pavona Leptoseris Gardineroseris Coeloseris Pachyseris

61

Appendix C. Fish families, genera and species surveyed by GVI Seychelles - Mah.

Relevance Family Scientific name Common name Feeding guild (Engelhardt 2004)
Chaetodon vagabundus Chaetodon auriga Chaetodon trifascialis Chaetodon melannotus Chaetodon mertensii Chaetodon triangulum Chaetodon trifasciatus Chaetodon interruptus Chaetodon bennetti Butterflyfish (Chaetodontidae) Chaetodon lunula Chaetodon kleinii Chaetodon citrinellus Chaetodon guttatisimus Chaetodon lineolatus Chaetodon falcula Chaetodon meyersi Chaetodon xanthocephalus Chaetodon zanzibariensis Forcipiger sp. Apolemichthys trimaculatus Angelfish (Pomacanthidae) Pomacanthus imperator Pomacanthus semicirculatus Pygoplites diacanthus Acanthurus sp. Surgeonfish (Acanthuridae) Ctenochaetus sp. Naso sp. Zanclus cornutus Siganus puelloides Rabbitfish (Siganidae) Siganus corallinus Siganus stellatus Vagabond Threadfin Chevroned Black-backed Merten's Triangular Indian Redfin Indian Ocean Teardrop Bennett's Raccoon Klein's Speckled Spotted Lined Saddleback Meyer's Yellow-headed C/I C/I C C/I C/I C C C/I C C/I C/I C/I C/I C/I C/I C C/I Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery

Zanzibar Longnose sp. Three-spot Emperor Semicircle Regal Surgeonfish Bristletooths Unicornfish Moorish idol Blackeye Coral Honeycomb

C C/I V V V V H H Pl V H H H

Coral recovery Coral recovery Visual appeal Visual appeal Visual appeal Visual appeal Algae vs. coral Algae vs. coral Algae vs. coral Visual appeal Algae vs. coral Algae vs. coral Algae vs. coral

62

Siganus argenteus

Forktail

Algae vs. coral

Siganus sutor

African Whitespotted

Algae vs. coral

Lutjanus gibbus Lutjanus sebae Lutjanus fulviflamma Lutjanus kasmira Lutjanus bengalensis Lutjanus monostigma Snappers (Lutjanidae) Lutjanus vitta Lutjanus fulvus Lutjanus argentimaculatus Lutjanus bohar Lutjanus russelli Macolor niger Aprion virescens Balistoides viridescens Triggerfish (Balistidae) Sufflamen chrysopterus Balistidae Monotaxis sp. Gymnocranius grandoculis Lethrinus olivaceous Lethrinus nebulosus Lethrinus Emperors (Lethrinidae) rubrioperculatus Lethrinus xanthochilus Lethrinus harak Lethrinus lentjan Lethrinus obsoletus Lethrinus erythracanthus Lethrinus mahsena Lethrinus variegatus Anyperodon leucogrammicus Groupers (Serranidae) Cephalopholis argus Cephalopholis urodeta Cephalopholis miniata Cephalopholis sonnerati

Paddletail Red emperor Longspot Blue-lined Bengal Onespot Brownstripe Flametail Mangrove jack Red Russell's Black Green jobfish Titan Flagtail Other triggerfish Redfin/Bigeye bream Blue-lined bream Longnosed Blue-scaled Redear Yellowlip Thumbprint Pinkear Orange-striped Yellowfin Mahsena Variegated Slender Peacock Flagtail Coral Hind Tomato large-eye

Pi Pi Pi Pi Pi Pi Pi Pi Pi Pi Pi Pi Pi I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Pi Pi Pi Pi Pi

Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure

63

Epinephelus merra Epinephelus spilotoceps Epinephelus polyphekadion Epinephelus caeruleopunctatus Epinephelus fuscoguttatus Epinephelus tukula Epinephelus fasciatus Aethaloperca rogaa Variola louti Plectropomus laevis Plectropomus punctatus Plectorhinchus orientalis Sweetlips (Haemulidae) Plectorhinchus picus Plectorhinchus gibbosus Bolbometopon Parrotfish (Scaridae) muricatum Scaridae Cheilinus trilobatus Cheilinus fasciatus Wrasse (Labridae) Oxycheilinus digrammus Cheilinus undulatus Tetraodontidae Diodontidae Holocentridae

Honeycomb Foursaddle Camouflage

Pi Pi Pi

Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure

Whitespotted

Pi

Fishing pressure

Brown-marbled Potato Blacktip Redmouth Yellow-edged Lyretail Saddleback African Coral Cod Oriental Spotted Gibbus Bumphead parrotfish Other parrotfish Tripletail Redbreasted Cheeklined splendour Humphead Puffers Porcupinefish Soldierfish Squirrelfish

Pi Pi Pi Pi Pi Pi Pi I I I C/H H I I I I I I Pl Pl

Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Coral damage Algae vs. coral Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Upwelling areas Upwelling areas

64

Appendix D. Fish feeding guilds analysed by GVI Seychelles Mah.

Code Pl

Feeding guild Planktivores

Description (adapted from Obura and Grimsditch, 2009) Resident on reef surfaces, but feed in the water column. Their abundance is related to quality of reef habitat for refuge, and water column conditions. High level predators. Exert top-down control on lower trophic levels. Important fisheries species but very vulnerable to overfishing thus good indicators of the fishing pressure on a reef.

Key species Soldierfish, Squirrelfish, Unicornfish Groupers, Snappers Butterflyfish (Chevroned, Triangular, Bennetts, Indian Redfin, Meyers, Longnose sp.) Angelfish, Moorish Idol Sweetlips, Emperors, Pufferfish, Porcupinefish, Wrasse (Tripletail, Redbreasted, Cheeklined Splendor, Humphead), Triggerfish (Titan, Flagtail, Other) Parrotfish, Surgeonfish, Bristletooth, Rabbitfish Bumphead parrotfish Butterflyfish (Vagabond, Threadfin, Blackbacked, Mertens, Indian Ocean Teardrop, Racoon, Kleins, Speckled, Spotted, Lined, Saddleback, Yellow headed, Zanzibar)

Pi

Piscivores

Corallivores

Relative abundance is an indicator of coral community health

Varied diet

Feed on coral competitors such as soft corals and sponges. Relative abundances may be an indicator of abundance of these prey items and of a phase shift.

Invertivores*

Second-level predators with highly mixed diets including small fish, invertebrates and dead animals. Important fisheries species thus abundances are a good indicator of fishing pressure.

Exert the primary control on coral-algal dynamics. H Herbivores May indicate phase shift from coral to algal dominance in response to mass coral mortality or pressures such as eutrophication. Relative abundance is a secondary indicator of coral community health

C/H

Corallivore/Herbivore

C/I

Corallivore/Invertivore

Relative abundance can be a secondary indicator of coral community health

65

Appendix E. Fish species lists divided into commercial and reef species analysed by
GVI Seychelles Mah.

Commercial Fish Species Siganidae (Rabbitfish) Lutjanidae (Snappers) Lethrinidae (Emperors) Serranidae (Groupers) Haemulidae (Sweetlips) Scaridae (Parrotfish)

Reef Fish Species Chaetodontidae (Butterflyfish) Pomacanthidae (Angelfish) Acanthuridae (Surgeonfish) Balistidae (Triggerfish) Labridae (Wrasse) Tetradontidae (Pufferfish) Diodontidae (Porcupinefish) Holocentridae (Soldierfish & Squirrelfish) Zanclus cornutus (Moorish Idol) Bolbometopon muricatum (Bumphead Parrotfish)

66

Appendix F.

List of invertebrate species surveyed on 50m belt transects by GVI

Seychelles Mah.

Mollusca (Gastropoda)

Drupella spp.

Drupella

Mollusca (Bivalvia)

Tridacnidae Culcita spp.

Giant Clam Cushion Sea Star Crown of Thorns Sea Star Other Sea Stars

Sea Stars (Asteroidea)

Acanthaster planci

Diadema spp. Echinometra spp. Sea Urchins (Echinoidea) Echinothrix spp.

Long Spine Urchin Mathaes Urchin Short Spine Urchin Pencil Urchin

Toxopneustes pileolus

Flower Urchin Cake Urchin

Holothuria artra Holothuria fuscopunctata Holothuria fuscogilva Holothuria nobilis Holothuria sp.(undescribed) Bohadschia spp. Sea Cucumbers (Holothuroidea) Actinopyga spp. Actinopyga mauritiana Stichopus spp. Thelenota ananas Pearsonothurian graeffei Thelenota anax Holothuria edulis (Cephalopoda) Lobsters (Palinura) Octopus spp. Panulirus spp. Parribacus spp./Scyllarides spp.

Lollyfish Elephant Trunk White teatfish Black teatfish Pentard Bohadschia Actinopyga Yellow Surfish Stichopus Prickly Redfish Flowerfish Royal Edible Sea Cucumber Common Reef Octopus Spiny Lobster Slipper Lobster

67

Appendix G. Invertebrates surveyed on 10m LIT transects by GVI Seychelles Mah.

Sabellidae Annelida (Polychaeta) Serpulidae Terebellidae (Platyhelminthes) Polycladida Caridea Arthropoda (Crustacea) Stomatopoda Muricidae Drupella sp. Strombidae Cypraeidae Mollusca (Gastropoda) Ranellidae Conidae Trochidae Cassidae Nudibranchia Mollusca (Bivalvia) Ostreidae Tridacnidae Sepoidea Teuthoidea Culcita sp. Sea Stars (Asteroidea) Acanthaster planci

Feather Duster worms Christmas Tree worms Spaghetti worms Flatworms Shrimps Mantis shrimps Crabs Murex Drupella Conch Cowrie Triton Cone Top Helmet Other shells Nudibranchs Oysters Giant Clam Cuttlefish Squid Cushion Sea Star Crown of Thorns Sea Star Other Sea Stars

Mollusca (Cephalopoda)

Ophiuroidea Crinoidea Diadema sp. Echinometra sp. Echinothrix sp. Sea Urchins (Echinoidea) Toxopneustes sp.

Brittle Stars Feather Stars Long Spine Urchin Mathaes Urchin Short Spine Urchin Pencil Urchin Flower Urchin Cake Urchin Other Urchins

68