GVI Seychelles Marine Report Jul 2014 - Dec 2015 (Cap Ternay)

Global Vision International,
Seychelles - Mah Report Series No. 154

ISSN 1751-2255 (Print)
GVI Seychelles Mah

Marine Conservation Expedition
July 2014 - December 2015
GVI Seychelles Mah

Marine Conservation Expedition Report July 2014 December 2015
Submitted in whole to
Global Vision International
Seychelles National Parks Authority (SNPA)
Produced by
Anna Koester Science Coordinator
Matthew Waller Science Officer
Hamadi Mwamlavya Science Officer
Lee Hankinson Science Officer
And
Mariliana Leotta Base Manager
Emily Sibley Dive Officer
Ben Hughes Dive Officer
Jillian Wheeler Community Coordinator
Christophe Mason-Parker Country Director
Thank you also to our hardworking volunteers for the collection of all data.
GVI Seychelles Mah/Marine Conservation Expedition

Address: GVI c/o SNPA, PO Box 1240, Victoria, Mah, Seychelles
Email: seychelles@gviworld.com Web page: http://www.gvi.co.uk and http://www.gviusa.com
Abstract
This report summarises the findings of data collected from July 2014 to December 2015,
covering all monitoring activities carried out by GVI Seychelles on the north-west coast of
Mah. This included surveys to determine benthic cover, hard coral genera diversity and
lifeforms, coral recruitment, reef and commercially important fish density, diversity and
biomass estimates of commercially important fish, as well as abundance of invertebrates
that are of commercial importance or ecosystem indicators.
Percentage hard coral cover across all surveyed sites was found to have further increased to
a current maximum of 45.66 ( 1.86) %, equating to an increase of 15% compared to the
previous survey period and 280% compared to 2005 (2014: 39.59 ( 1.51) %; 2005: 12.03 (
0.80) %). All granitic sites combined continue to have a higher percentage coral cover than
all carbonate sites combined (50.13 ( 2.04) % and 41.75 % ( 2.89%) respectively).
However, highest coral cover was found at the carbonate reef Baie Ternay Central within the
Baie Ternay Marine National Park with a mean of 66.03 (5.03) %. Lowest mean coral cover
was found at the carbonate site Anse Major Reef (23.45 (5.05) %). On all sites, the genus
Acropora was the most abundant coral genus found (comprising 52 % of mean live hard
coral cover), with mainly branching lifeforms being present.
The overall density of coral recruits was 13.04 (0.14) recruits per m2, a lower density
compared to the previous survey period. Highest coral recruit density was found at the
granitic site Whale Rock (19.36 (2.5) recruits per m2), lowest being recorded at Port Launay
South Reef (7.44 (0.72) recruits per m2). The highest level of recruitment was found for the
genus Porites with a mean of 2.57 (0.05) recruits per m2.
The mean fish density recorded in 2015 was the highest recorded since GVI began its
monitoring activities, equating to a 42% increase compared to 2005 (2015: 0.373 (0.005)
fish m-2; 2005: 0.26 (0.009) fish m-2). Higher densities of fish where recorded in surveys
conducted in the second half of the year when compared to the first six months of 2015
(January June 2015: 0.35 (0.007) fish m-2, July December 0.39 (0.007) fish m-2). This
stands in contrast to all previous survey periods, during which higher densities where
recorded within the first half of the year. Granitic reefs where found to hold a higher density
of fish, containing overall 8% more fish than carbonate reefs. As in previous years, reef fish
density was found to be higher than the density of commercial fish.
Short spined urchins (Echinothrix spp.), long spined urchins (Diadema spp.), as well as
drupe snails (Drupella spp.) were the most abundant invertebrates recorded (0.36 (0.001),
0.11 (0.001) and 0.45 (0.002) individuals m-2 respectively), which is consistent with results
3
of previous years. Short spined urchins occurred on granitic sites in higher densities, whilst
long spined urchins occurred on carbonate reefs in higher densities, a trend that has not
been observed in previous years. Drupella spp. were observed twice as frequently on
carbonate sites (0.61 (0.12) individuals m-2) compared to granitic sites (0.29 (0.05)
individuals m-2), indicating a correlation to the higher Acropora abundance on carbonate
sites. The abundance of sea cucumbers has dropped substantially from surveys undertaken
in 2014 compared to surveys undertaken in the first half of 2015.
The results indicate an ongoing trend of coral reef recovery. However, outside survey
activities increased numbers of Acanthaster planci have been observed and removal has
thus been initiated. In light of a potential coral bleaching event in 2016 and in order to
support the current status of live coral cover and thus a positive trend for ecosystem
recovery, it is of substantial importance to keep A. planci populations in control; an effort that
in order to be effective requires the continuing commitment of multiple stakeholders.
Contents
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................12
1.1 Coral reef monitoring ....................................................................................................12
1.2 Aims .............................................................................................................................13
2. Methodology ......................................................................................................................13
2.1 Survey sites ..................................................................................................................13
2.2 Expedition practice and general methodology .............................................................15
2.3 Survey methodologies ..................................................................................................17
Coral surveys ..................................................................................................................17
Fish surveys....................................................................................................................19
Invertebrate surveys .......................................................................................................22
Environmental parameters..............................................................................................22
3. Results ...............................................................................................................................23
3.1 Benthic cover................................................................................................................23
Live hard coral cover ......................................................................................................23
Coral genera dominance ................................................................................................25
Coral growth forms as proxy for structural complexity ....................................................26
Benthic assemblage .......................................................................................................29
3.2 Hard coral genera diversity ..........................................................................................32
3.3 Coral Recruitment ........................................................................................................34
3.4 Fish...............................................................................................................................37
Fish Densities .................................................................................................................37
Combined Fish Densities 2005 2015 ...........................................................................38
Protected Areas 2005 2015 .........................................................................................42
Commercial species analysis .........................................................................................50
Commercial species biomass analysis ...........................................................................53
Diversity ..........................................................................................................................53
3.5 Invertebrates ................................................................................................................54
5
Invertebrate densities (10m transects) ...........................................................................54

Invertebrate densities (50m transects) ...........................................................................59
Sea Cucumber Densities ................................................................................................62
4. Discussion..........................................................................................................................67
4.1 Benthic cover................................................................................................................67
4.2 Hard coral genera diversity ..........................................................................................69
4.3 Coral recruitment ..........................................................................................................69
4.4 Fish...............................................................................................................................71
4.5 Invertebrates ................................................................................................................75
5. Additional ecosystem monitoring .......................................................................................76
5.1 Turtles ..........................................................................................................................76
Incidental Turtle Sightings ..............................................................................................76
Beach Patrols for Nesting Turtles ...................................................................................76
Photo Identification of Turtles .........................................................................................77
Results ............................................................................................................................77
5.2 Crown-of-thorns sea star (COTS) ................................................................................78
Eradication Programme ..................................................................................................78
6. References.........................................................................................................................81
Appendix A.............................................................................................................................85
A.1. Coral genera (LIT, coral diversity belts and recruitment quadrat surveys) ..............85
Appendix B.............................................................................................................................86
B.1. Fish species list .......................................................................................................86
B.2. Fish species lists divided into commercial and reef fish ..........................................88
B.3. Fish feeding guilds as referred to in B.1. .................................................................90
Appendix C ............................................................................................................................91
C.1. List of invertebrates surveyed on 50m belts ...........................................................91
C.2. List of invertebrates surveyed on 10m belts ...........................................................93
List of Figures
Figure 1: Location and substrate type of survey sites (modified from Samantha Howlett, unpublished) ...................................... 14
Figure 2: Survey site schematic: Layout of benthos line intercept and invertebrate belt transects (10 m each) and coral diversity
as well as invertebrate belt transects (50 m each) ........................................................................................................................ 18
Figure 3: Layout of coral recruitment quadrats at each survey site. ............................................................................................. 19
Figure 4: Layout of fish species point counts and 50m fish visual census belt transects. ............................................................ 21
Figure 5: Mean percentage live hard coral cover for each survey period from 2005 2015, including survey results (means
only) of Engelhard (2004) prior to GVIs survey activities. Error bars indicate the standard error of the mean. ........................... 23
Figure 6: Mean percentage live hard coral cover at carbonate and granitic survey sites for each survey period from 2005
2015, including survey results (means only) of Engelhardt (2004) prior to GVIs survey activities. Error bars indicate the
standard error of the mean............................................................................................................................................................ 24
Figure 7: Mean percentage live coral cover found at each site surveyed between January and June 2015. Error bars indicate
the standard error of the mean. Sites are displayed in a west-east gradient according to location. Dark grey bars indicate
granitic reefs, light grey bars indicate carbonate reefs, framed bars indicate the location within marine protected areas. .......... 25
Figure 8: Percentage cover of the coral genera Acropora, Pocillopora, Porites and Favites against total live coral cover (%) of
surveys conducted between 2005 and 2015. Error bars indicate the standard error of the mean. Note that pre-2009 only
Acropora and Pocillopora where surveyed to genus level. ........................................................................................................... 26
Figure 9: Percentage of coral growth forms on mean coral cover on carbonate reefs from 2005 - 2015. .................................... 27
Figure 10: Percentage of coral growth forms on mean coral cover on granitic reefs from 2005 - 2015. ...................................... 27
Figure 11: Percentage of coral growth forms on total coral cover on carbonate reefs between 2005 and 2015. ......................... 28
Figure 12: Percentage of coral growth forms on total coral cover on granitic reefs between 2005 and 2015. ............................. 28
Figure 13: Percentage cover of different algae categories from 2005 2015. Error bars indicate the standard error of the mean.
Note that the categories Turf algae and Algae assemblage where added to the LIT categories in 2009.................................. 29
Figure 14: Mean percentage cover of algae categories at each site surveyed between January and June 2015. Error bars
indicate the standard error of the mean. Letters in brackets indicate the substrate type of the reef (granitic or carbonate). Sites
written in capital letters are located within marine national parks. ................................................................................................ 30
Figure 15: Mean percentage cover of other benthic organisms from 2005 2015. Error bars indicate the standard error of the
mean. ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 31
Figure 16: Mean percentage cover of other benthic organisms on each site surveyed between January and June 2015. Error
bars indicate the standard error of the mean. Letters in brackets indicate the substrate type of the reef (granitic or carbonate).
Sites written in capital letters are located within marine national parks. ....................................................................................... 31
Figure 17: Mean number of coral genera found at all survey sites for each year from 2005 2015. Error bars indicate the
standard error of the mean............................................................................................................................................................ 32
Figure 18: Number of coral genera found at each site surveyed between January and June 2015. Sites are displayed in a westeast gradient according to location. Dark grey bars indicate granitic reefs, light grey bars indicate carbonate reefs, framed bars
indicate the location within marine national parks. ........................................................................................................................ 33
Figure 19: Mean coral recruit density m recorded at each surveyed site between Jul Dec 2015. ............................................ 34
2
Figure 20: Mean coral recruit density ( SE) per m across surveyed sites from 2005 to 2015. Bars represent overall mean coral
2
recruit density ( SE) per m (primary y-axis), lines represent mean coral recruit density ( SE) of the genera Acropora and
Porites per m (secondary y-axis). ................................................................................................................................................ 35
2
Figure 21: Mean coral recruit density ( SE) per m of the most abundant coral genera in terms of number of recruits of all
surveyed sites of each survey year. .............................................................................................................................................. 35
2
Figure 22: Mean number of coral recruits ( SE) recorded per m on deep and shallow areas of the survey sites for each survey
year. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 36
Figure 23: Mean number of coral recruits ( SE) recorded per m in the size classes <2cm and 25cm for each survey year. .. 37
2
Figure 24: Mean density of fish from stationary point counts per year. Error bars showing standard error. ................................. 38
Figure 25: Mean density of fish from SPCs per survey period. Error bars showing standard error. ............................................. 39
Figure 26: Mean densities of reef and commercial fish species from SPCs across survey periods. Error bars showing standard
error. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 40
Figure 27: Mean densities of reef and commercial fish species from belt transects across survey periods. Error bars showing
standard error. ............................................................................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 28: Mean fish densities from SPCs of carbonate and granitic sites per year. Error bars showing standard error. ............ 42
Figure 29: Mean fish densities from SPCs of protected and unprotected sites per year. Error bars showing standard error. ..... 43
Figure 30: Mean density of reef fish species from SPCs in protected and unprotected areas per year. Error bars showing
standard error. ............................................................................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 31: Mean densities of commercial fish from SPCs in protected and unprotected areas per year. Error bars showing
standard error. ............................................................................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 32: Mean densities of fish from SPCs in Port Launay (PL) and Baie Ternay (BT) Marine National Parks per year. Error
bars showing standard error. ........................................................................................................................................................ 46
Figure 33: Mean density of reef fish from SPCs in Port Launay (PL) and Baie Ternay (BT) Marine National Parks per year. Error
bars showing standard error ......................................................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 34: Mean density of commercial fish species from SPCs in PL and BT marine national parks per year. Error bars
showing standard error. ................................................................................................................................................................ 48
Figure 35: Mean densities of fish from belt transects in Port Launay (PL) and Baie Ternay (BT) marine national parks per year.
Error bars showing standard error. ............................................................................................................................................... 49
Figure 36: Mean density of commercial fish from belt transects in Port Launay (PL) and Baie Ternay (BT) marine parks per
year. Error bars showing standard error. ...................................................................................................................................... 49
Figure 37: Mean density of commercial fish families from SPCs per year. Error bars showing standard error of the mean. ....... 51
Figure 38: Mean density of snappers from SPCs in protected and unprotected areas per year. Error bars showing standard
error. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 51
Figure 39: Mean density of rabbitfish from SPCs in protected and unprotected areas per year. Error bars showing standard
error. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 52
Figure 40: Mean density of groupers from SPCs in protected and unprotected areas per year. Error bars showing standard
error. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 52
Figure 41: Fish diversity of survey sites for the July-December 2015 survey period. ................................................................... 53
Figure 42: Mean density (individuals per m) of Annelida, Arthropoda and Platyhelminthes for every survey period from 2005 to
2015 across all survey sites. Error bars show standard error of the mean. Note: Means of Platyhelminthes are represented by
the secondary y-axis. .................................................................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 43: Mean density (individuals per m) of Mollusca, Echinodermata and black spined sea urchins for every survey period
from 2005 to 2015 across all survey sites. Error bars show standard error of the mean. ............................................................. 55
2015 across all granitic survey sites. Error bars show standard error of the mean. Note: Means of Platyhelminthes are
represented by the secondary y-axis. ........................................................................................................................................... 56
from 2005 to 2015 across all granitic survey sites. Error bars show standard error of the mean. ................................................ 57
from 2005 to 2015 across all carbonate survey sites. Error bars show standard error of the mean. ............................................ 58
2015 across all carbonate survey sites. Error bars show standard error of the mean. Note: Means of Platyhelminthes are
represented by the secondary y-axis. ........................................................................................................................................... 58
2
Figure 48: Mean density per m of surveyed invertebrates across all sites surveyed between January 2014 and June 2015.
Error bars showing standard error of the mean. ........................................................................................................................... 59
2
Figure 49: Mean density per m of surveyed invertebrates across of all carbonate and granitic sites surveyed in January 2014
and June 2015. Error bars showing standard error of the mean................................................................................................... 60
2
Figure 50: Mean density per m of short and long spined urchins across of all sites surveyed from 2009 to June 2015 (2015A).
Error bars showing standard error of the mean. ........................................................................................................................... 61
2
Figure 51: Mean density per m (SE) of cushion sea star (Culcita sp.), crown-of-thorns sea star (Acanthaster planci) and
Drupella spp. from all survey periods across all sites. The densities for cushion sea stars and crown-of-thorns sea stars (COTS)
is indicated on the secondary y-axis. Error bars showing standard error of the mean. ................................................................ 62
Figure 52: Mean number of sea cucumbers recorded per site surveyed from 2006 to July 2015. Error bars showing standard
error of the mean. *Within the last survey period, July December 2015 (2015B) only two sites where surveyed. .................... 63
Figure 53: Mean density of sea cucumbers recorded between June December 2014 and January-June 2015. Error bars
showing standard error. ................................................................................................................................................................ 64
2
Figure 54: Density per m of individual sea cucumber species across all sites surveyed from 2008 Jan Jun 2015. Error bars
showing standard error of the mean. ............................................................................................................................................ 65
2
Figure 55: Density per m of Stichopus spp. and P. graeffei across all sites surveyed from 2008 Jan Jun 2015. Error bars
showing standard error of the mean. ............................................................................................................................................ 65
Figure 56: Mean number of sea cucumber species found at all sites between January 2014 and June 2015. Error bars showing
standard error. ............................................................................................................................................................................... 66
10
Figure 57: Mean density of sea cucumbers recorded per site during July December 2014 and January June 2015 on
carbonate and granitic sights. Error bars showing standard error of the mean. ........................................................................... 67
Figure 58: Crown-of-thorns injected by divers (primary y-axis) and the Catch Per Unit Effort for the eradication performed for
the second half of 2015 (secondary y-axis). ................................................................................................................................. 79
List of Tables
Table 1: Survey sites information .................................................................................................................................................. 15
Table 2: Total number of turtle sightings recorded for each dive logged in 2015. ........................................................................ 77
Table 3: Total number of hawksbill and green turtle sightings recorded for each dive logged in 2015......................................... 77
11
1. Introduction
Global Vision International (GVI) is a globally operating volunteering organization, which has
two expedition bases within the inner granitic islands of Seychelles. One expedition base is
situated on Curieuse Island within the Curieuse Marine National Park to the north of Praslin.
The other expedition base is located adjacent to the Baie Ternay Marine National Park at
Cap Ternay in the north-west of Mah Island. All of GVIs scientific activities in Seychelles
are carried out on behalf and under the methodological directory of the Seychelles National
Parks Authority (SNPA), which manages all of Seychelles national parks. GVI provides
experienced staff, trains and utilizes volunteers and supplies equipment to support the
research section of the SNPA in their monitoring activities with the collection of long term
data sets.
1.1 Coral reef monitoring

The 1997/98 El Nio Southern Oscillation and the subsequent coral bleaching event caused
severe coral mortality worldwide (Spencer et al., 2000; Engelhardt, 2002). Scleractinian coral
mortality in the inner granitic islands of the Seychelles exceeded 90% due to the combined
effects of bleaching and an Acanthaster planci outbreak (Engelhardt, 2002), with dominant
branching genera Acropora and Pocillopora often suffering high rates of mortality (Spencer
et al., 2000). Monitoring of the recovery of the reefs surrounding the north-west coast of
Mah was initiated in 1998 by the Schoals of Capricorn, a three-year programme funded by
the Royal Geographic Society in conjunction with the Royal Society. Reef states and
development were further assessed between 2001 and 2004 as part of the Seychelles
Marine Ecosystem Management Project (SEYMEMP), which 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 Seychelles, which continued
reef monitoring along the north-west coast of Mah at sites selected by SNPA. This
continuing long-term data set, covering more than 10 years of surveying, shows a unique
trajectory of reef development, allowing for the assessment of ecosystem recovery after the
1998 bleaching event and provides implications for future coral reef and fisheries
management.
12
1.2 Aims
The aim of the continuous survey activities is to monitor hard coral cover, recruitment and
diversity, fish density and diversity as well as the density of invertebrates. Specifically, the
aims of GVIs survey activities along the northwest coast of Mah between July 2014 and
December 2015 were to:
Assess diversity and density of reef and commercially important fish species
Assess sizes of commercially important fish species
Assess benthic assemblage, including evaluation of hard coral, soft coral, sessile
organisms coverage and substrate composition
Assess diversity of hard coral genera
Evaluate coral juvenile recruitment rates
Assess density of invertebrate hard coral predators and sea urchins
Assess abundance and diversity of commercially targeted invertebrate species

including sea cucumbers, lobster and octopus
Monitor and manage the abundance of crown-of-thorns sea stars (Acanthaster

planci)
2. Methodology
2.1 Survey sites
Surveys are conducted at 13 granitic and 11 carbonate reefs around the northwest coast of
Mah (Figure 1). Each survey site is divided into shallow and deep zones, with the shallow
zone being defined at 1.5 5.0 m depth and the deep zone being between 5.1 15.0 m
depth. Each site has a central point, marked by a distinctive landmark on the coastline, and
is further divided into left, centre and right sections. 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. See Table 1 for further site
details.
13
Figure 1: Location and substrate type of survey sites (modified from Samantha Howlett, unpublished)
14
Table 1: Survey sites information

Site
No
Site Name
GPS
Reef type
Conception North Point
S 0439.583, E 05521.654
Granitic
Conception Central East Face
S 0439.891, E 055 22.258
Carbonate
Port Launay West Rocks
S 0439.416, E 05523.382
Granitic
Port Launay South Reef
S 0439.158, E 05523.695
Carbonate
Baie Ternay Lighthouse
S 0438.373, E 05521.993
Granitic
Baie Ternay Reef North East
S 0438.013, E 05522.405
Granitic
Baie Ternay Reef Centre
S 0438.321, E 05522.504
Carbonate
10
Baie Ternay Reef North West
S 0438.382, E 05522.133
Carbonate
11
Rays Point
S 0437.347, E 05523.145
Granitic
12 A
Willies Bay Reef
S 0437.650, E 05522.889
Carbonate
12 B
Willies Bay Point
S 0437.589, E 05522.776
Granitic
13 A
Anse Major Reef
S 0437.546, E 05523.121
Carbonate
13 B
Anse Major Point
S 0437.509, E 05523.010
Granitic
14
Whale Rock
S 0437.184, E 05523.424
Granitic
15
Auberge Reef
S 0437.024, E 05524.243
Carbonate
16
Corsaire Reef
S 0437.016, E 05524.447
Carbonate
17
White Villa Reef
S 0436.935, E 05524.749
Carbonate
18
Lilot North Face
S 0438.652, E 05525.932
Granitic
19
Site Y
S 0437.771, E 05522.660
Granitic
21
Therese North End
S 0440.101, E 05523.737
Granitic
22
Therese North East
S 0440.099, E 05523.891
Carbonate
23
Therese South
S 0440.764, E 05524.310
Granitic
24
Site X
S 0437.059, E 05523.783
Granitic
25
Secret Beach Reef
N/A
Carbonate
* Sites listed in bold are located within marine national parks
2.2 Expedition practice and general methodology

Expedition and survey periods: The GVI Seychelles expedition comprises of volunteering
programmes that are four, eight or twelve weeks long, running continuously throughout the
year from January - December. Within one year, the aim is to survey each site twice for fish
15
and invertebrates, with the first set of surveys being conducted from January June and the
second set conducted from July December. Line Intercept Transects and coral diversity
transects are undertaken from January June to evaluate coral coverage and diversity.
Coral recruitment quadrats are used from July December to survey newly recruited
colonies.
Health and Safety: The safety of all volunteers is paramount. All volunteers are given a
health and safety induction on base upon arrival and conservative diving guidelines are
adhered to for the duration of the expedition. In addition, volunteers complete the PADI
Emergency First Response course, and are taught how to administer oxygen in the event of
a diving related incident.
Dive Training: All volunteers must be at least PADI Open Water Diver qualified to join the
expedition. Volunteers then receive the PADI Advanced Open Water Diver course covering
Boat, Peak Performance Buoyancy, Navigation, Underwater Naturalist and Deep Dive.
Volunteers also complete the PADI Coral Reef Research Diver (CRRD) course, which is
specifically developed for GVI. All volunteers are trained in the use of surface marker buoys,
delayed surface marker buoys and tape reels, plus any other survey equipment specific to
the surveys they will be conducting. Volunteers gain sufficient dive experience during the
training period prior to conducting surveys. Particular attention is given to the training of
good buoyancy skills as surveys are conducted in water as shallow as two metres and over
delicate reef ecosystems.
Species Identification and survey methodology training: Volunteers are required to learn
identification of fish, coral or invertebrates along with all additionally recorded megafauna
such as turtles, rays, cetaceans and sharks. Training is provided in the form of
presentations, workshops and informal discussion with the expedition staff in the classroom.
Self-study materials are also available in the form of electronic and hard copy flashcards, as
well as Indian Ocean identification publications. 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.
Volunteers need to pass a final classroom exam with at least 95% before they can proceed
with the training in survey methodology. To learn GVIs survey methodology for the
respective surveys they aim to conduct, volunteers receive initial on land training and
subsequent in water training during which volunteers conduct practice surveys together with
a staff member. This training continues until volunteers are deemed confident and reliable to
conduct actual surveys.
16
2.3 Survey methodologies

Coral surveys
Genera surveyed
During all benthic surveys, hard corals are recorded to genus level, including 47 genera of
14 families. Prior to 2009 LIT surveys only recorded the genera Acropora and Pocillopora
and surveyed all other genera as other coral, broken down into growth forms. See Appendix
A for the full list of coral genera surveyed as well as the benthic categories used during the
LIT surveys.
Line Intercept Transects (LIT)

At each site, six 10 metre LITs were carried out between January and June 2015. Each
transect was placed parallel to the shore, with three transects placed within the shallow
depth range (1.5 m 5.0 m) and three transects placed within the deep depth range (5.1 m
15.0 m). All survey depths were standardised to the respective chart datum at the time of the
survey. Transects were haphazardly spread amongst the left, centre and right of the site with
at least 15.0 m distance between them to avoid overlap (Figure 2). The benthic assemblage
encountered directly under the tape as well as the respective substratum was identified and
recorded at each transition point to the nearest centimetre. Coral was identified to genus
level and growth form of the majority of the colony was recorded.
Coral Diversity Belt Transects

Two belt transects were conducted at each site to assess the diversity of coral genera. The
transect tapes were laid out from the shallow centre towards the deep left (Belt A) and the
deep right (Belt B) of the site at a 45 angle from shore where possible (Figure 2). Due to the
topography of some sites, some transects had to follow the reef instead of a 45 angle. Each
diver in a buddy pair surveyed 2.5 m in a tight S-shape pattern to the left or the right of the
transect tape, recording any coral genus encountered once.
17
Figure 2: Survey site schematic: Layout of benthos line intercept and invertebrate belt transects (10 m
each) and coral diversity as well as invertebrate belt transects (50 m each)
Coral recruitment quadrats

Reef regeneration around north-west Mah was investigated using 1m2 benthic quadrats.
Placement of quadrats was done across a specified depth range (1.5m 5m for shallow,
and 5.1m 15m for deep surveys; see figure 3 for the schematic presentation of the
orientation of quadrats across a site). Quadrats were placed over reef substratum, not over
large patches of sand or silt. Quadrats were held to a height of 1m above the area to be
sampled, carefully dropped, then allowed to settle before examining the area contained
within. To ensure safe diving practices, surveys were conducted in a buddy pair with each
diver working on any one quadrat and quadrats were placed 2m apart to maintain buddy
contact. The predominant substrate type was described for each quadrat together with
percentage algal cover and the depth. Individual coral recruits located within the quadrats
were assigned to one of two size classes (1-2 or 2-5 cm size class), identified to genus level
and counted. All recruits with distinct grazing marks or any other damage were recorded
separately. Ideally 36 quadrats where be completed; 18 for each depth range although a
minimum of 30 quadrats per site was aimed at. This methodology is based on the work
undertaken by Engelhardt (2002) for the coral recruit section.
18
Figure 3: Layout of coral recruitment quadrats at each survey site.
Fish surveys
Species list
The fish species chosen to survey represent a range of species that are commercially
important and those that play an important ecological role within the reef community as
chosen by SNPA. This data can be used to assess the status of coral reef fish assemblages
as well as giving an insight into coral reef dynamics and the state of local fisheries.
Fish are generally surveyed to the highest resolution possible with the majority, over 80,
being surveyed to species level. Resolution depends on the needs of our project partners
and the commercial or ecological importance of each species. For example, commercially
important species and genera which encompass species of more than one feeding guild are
generally identified to species level, whereas families or genus containing multiple species
that perform a similar ecological role are only surveyed to the highest appropriate level
required; for example, the majority of parrotfish species are surveyed to family level as
Scaridae. For a full list of species surveyed and the taxonomic levels used please see
Appenix B.
19
Stationary Point Counts (SPC)

Stationary point counts (SPC) are a commonly used underwater visual census technique for
assessing reef fish populations (Engelhardt, 2004; Kulbicki, 1998) and have been employed,
in different variations, by numerous studies internationally (Hill and Wilkinson, 2004) as well
as locally by several studies within Seychelles (Engelhardt, 2004; Graham et al., 2007;
Jennings et al., 1995; Spalding & Jarvis, 2002). For coral reef assemblages point counts with
a radius of 7-7.5 metres are thought to be the most appropriate for the size categories that
reef fish typically fall into (Samoilys & Gribble, 1997). The post bleach surveys undertaken
as part of the SEYMEMP project by Reefcare international utilised point counts with a radius
of 7 metres (Engelhardt, 2001; Engelhardt, 2004), when GVI took responsibility for the
monitoring programme in 2005 a similar point count methodology was adopted.
At each site eight SPCs were conducted spread evenly between the deep and shallow
zones (Figure 4). One SPC was conducted at the left and right sides of the site with two
further point counts conducted at the centre of the site in both the deep and shallow areas.
All surveys were conducted by a buddy pair of divers. A tape measure was used to delineate
the 7 metre radius of the SPC and also served as visual reference for the survey area while
surveying was taking place. The tape was laid perpendicularly towards the shore and the
depth of the centre of the point count was recorded as well as the start time of the survey
period. Each survey lasted a total of seven minutes with the two surveying divers remaining
stationary above the reef at the centre of the point count for the first six minutes, in order to
minimise behavioural disturbance, before conducting a brief search of the survey area for
the final minute in order to give a more accurate count of cryptic species. Fish species were
divided into two different groups with each member of the buddy pair responsible for
counting a different selection of fish species, thus reducing the number of species each
person had to count in order to increase accuracy (Samoilys and Gribble, 1997).
Belt Transects
Belt transects were used in conjunction with stationary point counts as they allow surveyors
to cover a greater area for a similar level of effort (Colvocoresses & Acosta, 2007). However
behavioural avoidance of fish species towards divers has been frequently noted and may
lead to lower densities of fish than those recorded from SPCs; therefore, steps were
incorporated into the methodology in order to minimise this (Samoilys and Gribble, 1997; Hill
and Wilkinson, 2004).
At each site 4 transect belts were conducted running parallel to the shore, two in the deep
zone and two in the shallow and were completed in conjunction with the left and right SPCs
20
(Figure 4). Transects were conducted by a buddy pair of divers with one diver leading while
counting one group of fish, typically more errant species that show a greater level of
avoidance behaviours, while the second diver laid the tape behind. This method of
simultaneously surveying and laying the tape has been recommended by Samoilys and
Gribble (1997) as it avoids disturbing fish prior to the start of the survey. Transect belts were
50m long and 5m wide, a standard survey area used by a number of previous studies
(Samoilys and Gribble, 1997; Hill and Wilkinson, 2004). After the initial survey, divers waited
outside of the survey area for three minutes before the second diver returned down the belt
counting the second group of fish while the tape was reeled up behind them. Each diver
completed their surveys in a time between 8 and 12 minutes allowing a more accurate count
of fish abundances as well as decreasing the impact of diver disturbance.
Figure 4: Layout of fish species point counts and 50m fish visual census belt transects.
Commercial fish size estimation

As well as assessing the abundance, diversity and densities of commercial species from
point counts and belt transects, size estimation was used as a surrogate for the biomass of
commercial reef fish species and to assess community responses to fishing pressure
(Jennings and Polunin, 1996; Samoilys and Gribble, 1997). Surveyed species that are
considered
commercially
important
include
the
emperors
(Lethrinidae),
groupers
(Serranidae), rabbitfish (Siganidae), snappers (Lutjanidae) and sweetlips (Haemulidae). Fish

were sized into 10 centimetre band widths, volunteers were assessed on their sizing during
species identification and methodology training dives, only once volunteers sizing matched
21
assessors completely were they allowed to survey. Size estimation was conducted during
both SPC and belt transect surveys by one member of the surveying pair.
Invertebrate surveys
Invertebrates surveyed
Invertebrate species, which influence and can indicate the health and conditions of coral
reefs are surveyed along with commercially viable species which are under fishing pressure.
The full list of surveyed invertebrate species is included in Appendix C.
Belt transects (10m)

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 (Figure 2). Invertebrate divers searched the area extending to
1m either side of the tape for targeted species (see Appendix C).
Belt transects (50m)

The 50m belt transects aim to quantify the abundance of key macro-invertebrate groups in a
given dive site. The extent of hard coral predation was measured as the density of two types
of sea star; cushion stars (Culcita sp.) and crown-of thorns sea stars (Acanthaster planci), as
well as the gastropods in the genus Drupella at each site, all of which are hard coral
predators. Algal grazing pressure was measured as the density of sea urchins. Sea
cucumbers and other species which are important to fisheries were also recorded. Two 50m
transects were laid out at each site, using 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 15m as well as the spread of the site (Figure 2).
Target organisms within 2.5m either side of the tape were recorded (see Appendix C).
Environmental parameters
During each survey dive, the boat captain records the following environmental parameters:
Turbidity, as measured with a Secchi disk
Cloud cover, as estimated in eights
Wind speed, as evaluated via the Beautfort wind force scale
Surface and bottom sea temperatures based on divers personal dive computers.
22
3. Results
3.1 Benthic cover
Live hard coral cover
Percentage hard coral cover was determined from line intersect transects completed across
15 survey sites between the survey period January June 2015, equating to 90 LIT
transects and 900m surveyed. Results found coral cover reaching maxima since surveys
began with mean live hard coral cover of 45.66 ( 1.86) % across all sites (Figure 5); an
increase of 15% compared to the previous survey period and 280% compared to 2005
(2014: 39.59 ( 1.51) %; 2005: 12.03 ( 0.80) %). On carbonate reefs (8 of the surveyed
sites) mean live hard coral cover was 41.75 % ( 2.89%), which accounts for an increase of
17% compared to 2014 and 364% compared to 2005 (2014: 35.53 ( 2.30) %; 2005: 9.00 (
0.90) %). On granitic reefs (7 of the sites surveyed), mean live coral cover was found to be
higher than on carbonate reefs and overall with a mean of 50.13 ( 2.04) %; an increase of
16 % compared to 2014 and by 248% compared to 2005 (2014: 43.05 ( 1.79) %; 2005:
14.40 ( 1.13) %) (Figure 6).
Mean percentage coral cover % (SE)
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 5: Mean percentage live hard coral cover for each survey period from 2005 2015, including
survey results (means only) of Engelhard (2004) prior to GVIs survey activities. Error bars indicate
the standard error of the mean.
23
Mean coral cover % (SE)
60
50
40
30
20
Carbonate
10
Grani,c
Figure 6: Mean percentage live hard coral cover at carbonate and granitic survey sites for each
survey period from 2005 2015, including survey results (means only) of Engelhardt (2004) prior to
GVIs survey activities. Error bars indicate the standard error of the mean.
In 2015, lowest mean coral cover was found at the carbonate Anse Major Reef with 23.45
(5.05) % and the granitic Auberge Reef with a mean of 26.33 (4.21) %. Highest mean in
overall coral cover was found at Baie Ternay Central (carbonate reef) with 66.03 (5.03) %.
Highest mean cover on all granitic sites was found at Conception North Point which had a
mean cover of 63.15 (3.05) % (Figure 7). The three carbonate reefs that lay within marine
protected areas were found to have a combined mean coral cover of 55.96 (4.44) % which
is higher than the combined mean of sites outside the protected areas (mean coral cover:
43.08 (1.95) %).
24
80
Mean live coral cover % (SE)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 7: Mean percentage live coral cover found at each site surveyed between January and June
2015. Error bars indicate the standard error of the mean. Sites are displayed in a west-east gradient
according to location. Dark grey bars indicate granitic reefs, light grey bars indicate carbonate reefs,
framed bars indicate the location within marine protected areas.
Coral genera dominance

Mean cover of Acropora corals on granitic and carbonate reefs combined increased from
1.36 (0.21) % in 2005 to 22.84 (1.77) % in 2015 (Figure 8). With the modification of the
survey methodology in 2009, identification of the most dominant corals became possible. In
2009, Porites corals were dominant on carbonate sites (~38% of mean live coral cover);
Acropora and Favites dominated on granitic sites (~21% and 20% of mean live coral cover,
respectively). In 2011, Acropora coral dominance was observed for the first time; in 2015
Acropora corals dominated across all sites (comprising 52 % of mean live hard coral cover),
being the most recorded genera on both, granitic and carbonate reefs (Figure 8).
25
50
Total live coral cover
Mean coral cover % (SE)
45
Acropora
40
Pocillopora
35
Porites
30
Favites
25
20
15
10
5
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Figure 8: Percentage cover of the coral genera Acropora, Pocillopora, Porites and Favites against
total live coral cover (%) of surveys conducted between 2005 and 2015. Error bars indicate the
standard error of the mean. Note that pre-2009 only Acropora and Pocillopora where surveyed to
genus level.
Coral growth forms as proxy for structural complexity

Since 2010 the branching growth form is the most dominant on carbonate reefs, a trend that
can be observed throughout the years (Figure 9). On granitic reefs encrusting corals have
been most prevalent since surveying began up until 2014. Since 2014, branching corals
have become the most abundant corals found on granitic reefs (Figure 10). Similar to 2014,
in 2015 about 55% of all corals surveyed on carbonate reefs where branching, about 18%
massive and 15% encrusting (Figure 11). At granitic reefs, 43% of the corals encountered in
2015 where branching, 27% encrusting and 12% massive (Figure 12).
26
55
50
Cover (%)
45
carbonate reefs
Other
Submassive
Massive
40
Encrusting
35
Branching
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Figure 9: Percentage of coral growth forms on mean coral cover on carbonate reefs from 2005 - 2015.
granitic reefs
55
50
45
Cover (%)
40
35
Other
Submassive
Massive
Encrusting
Branching
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Figure 10: Percentage of coral growth forms on mean coral cover on granitic reefs from 2005 - 2015.
27
carbonate reefs
Coral growth forms on total cover (%)
100
Other
90
Submassive
80
Massive
70
Encrusting
60
Branching
50
40
30
20
10
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Figure 11: Percentage of coral growth forms on total coral cover on carbonate reefs between 2005
and 2015.
granitic reefs
Coral growth forms on total cover (%)
100
Other
90
Submassive
80
Massive
70
Encrusting
Branching
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Figure 12: Percentage of coral growth forms on total coral cover on granitic reefs between 2005 and
2015.
28
Benthic assemblage
Highest cover of non-scleractinian organisms in 2015 was turf algae with a mean of 36.18
(1.95) % across all sites surveyed. Since the inclusion of turf algae as a LIT category in
2009, it was always found in high mean densities. Throughout GVIs survey activities, the
highest mean turf algae cover was recorded in 2013 and 2014 with a mean of 46.07 (1.51)
% and 46.31 (1.65) % respectively across all surveyed sites (Figure 13). Macro algae cover
stayed low throughout the years; the cover of coralline algae stayed relatively similar across
the years, with a mean cover of 6.46 (0.75) % recorded in 2015.
Cover % (SE)
50
Coralline Algae
45
Macro Algae
40
Turf Algae
35
Algae assemblage
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Figure 13: Percentage cover of different algae categories from 2005 2015. Error bars indicate the
standard error of the mean. Note that the categories Turf algae and Algae assemblage where
added to the LIT categories in 2009.
In 2015, highest cover of turf algae was recorded at the carbonate site Anse Major Reef
with a mean of 67.42 (6.77) % and the granitic site Willies Bay Point with a mean of 54.90
(7.59) %. Highest cover of coralline algae was recorded at the granitic reef Site Y with a
mean of 15.57 (4.62) % (Figure 14).
29
70
60
Macro algae
Turf algae
Mean cover % (SE)
Coralline algae
50
Algae assemblage
40
30
20
10
Figure 14: Mean percentage cover of algae categories at each site surveyed between January and
June 2015. Error bars indicate the standard error of the mean. Letters in brackets indicate the
substrate type of the reef (granitic or carbonate). Sites written in capital letters are located within
marine national parks.
The mean cover of other benthic organism is shown in Figure 15. Mean cover of soft coral,
sponge, corallimorphs and zoanthids was higher in the beginning of GVIs survey activities.
In 2015, mean cover of soft corals was 2.08 (0.44) %, whereas for sponges and
corallimorphs and zoanthids, a mean cover of 1.10 (0.15) % and 1.85 (0.34) %,
respectively was recorded across all sites surveyed from January June 2015. On the
carbonate reef White Villa highest mean soft coral cover was recorded at 10.47 (2.46) %.
On the carbonate reef Baie Ternay Central, highest mean cover of corallimorphs was
recorded at 8.10 (1.50) % (Figure 16).
30
10
Soft coral
Sponge
Mean cover % (SE)
Corallimorphs and Zoanthids
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Figure 15: Mean percentage cover of other benthic organisms from 2005 2015. Error bars indicate
the standard error of the mean.
14
Mean cover % (SE)
12
10
Soft coral
Sponge
Zoanthids
Corallimorphs
8
6
4
2
0
Figure 16: Mean percentage cover of other benthic organisms on each site surveyed between
January and June 2015. Error bars indicate the standard error of the mean. Letters in brackets
31
indicate the substrate type of the reef (granitic or carbonate). Sites written in capital letters are located
within marine national parks.
3.2 Hard coral genera diversity

Mean hard coral genera richness seems to fluctuate around 28 and 33 genera since
surveying began in 2005 (Figure 17). Highest richness was recorded on granitic reefs in
2008 with a mean of 32.58 ( 0.64) coral genera found across all granitic sites surveyed. In
2011 a mean of 32.67 ( 1.12) coral genera was found on all carbonate reefs surveyed that
year. Rare genera are Alveopora, Coeloseris, Diaseris, Pectinia, Seriatopora and
Siderastrea, but also the genera Oulophyllia and Polyphyllia are less common. These
genera appear to have been more widely encountered within the first two years of GVIs
survey activities. In the following years observations of rare genera have been limited to a
few recordings of Alveopora, with additional recordings of Siderastrea in 2007 and Pectinia
in 2008. With 2011 as an exception, recordings of rare genera where seldom. In 2011
Coeloseris, Alveopora, Pectinica and Siderastrea where recorded on different survey sites,
however Seariatopora and Diaseris where last recorded in 2005 and 2006, respectively.
Mean genera richness per site (SE)
35
Carbonate
Granitic
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Survey period
Figure 17: Mean number of coral genera found at all survey sites for each year from 2005 2015.
Error bars indicate the standard error of the mean.
32
In 2015 a mean of 30.40 ( 0.81) coral genera where recorded across all carbonate and
granitic sites. On Baie Ternay North East 36 coral genera where recorded. Lowest coral
genera richness was recorded at Willies Bay Point and Baie Ternay north-west with 26 coral
genera found on both of these sites (Figure 18).
40
35
Coral genera richness
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 18: Number of coral genera found at each site surveyed between January and June 2015.
Sites are displayed in a west-east gradient according to location. Dark grey bars indicate granitic
reefs, light grey bars indicate carbonate reefs, framed bars indicate the location within marine national
parks.
33
3.3 Coral Recruitment

The overall mean density of coral recruits in 2015 across all survey sites has been recorded
at 13.04 (0.14) coral recruits per m2; with 44 coral genera recorded from 14 different
families. The highest recorded density was at Whale Rock with a mean of 19.36 (2.5) coral
recruits per m2, the lowest being at Port Launay South Reef with a mean of 7.44 (0.72)
coral recruits per m2 (Figure 19). The genus Porites recorded the highest density of 2.57
(0.05) with the lowest being 0.0014 (0.0002) coral recruits per m2 (recorded from the
genera Mycedium, Physogyra and Polyphyllia). The genus Acropora recorded a mean
density of 2.00 (0.02) coral recruits per m2.
There has been an increase in the mean coral recruits per m2 from the initial surveys in 2005
(9.74 0.13 recruits per m2) to 2015 (13.04 0.14 recruits per m2). Porites has remained
the dominant coral genus in terms of mean coral recruit density per m2 with the genus
Acropora showing a steady increase (Figure 20 & 21). Analysis of percentage composition
for all coral genera have shown the genus Acropora has increased from 5.47% in 2005 up to
15.37% in 2015; whereas the genus Porites has dropped from 22.72% in 2005 to 19.84% in
2015. The highest recorded mean density came in 2014 with both Porites and Acropora
having record densities of 4.78 (0.07) and 2.39 (0.02) coral recruits per m2 respectively.
Mean coral recruit density m-2 (SE)
25
20
15
10
Figure 19: Mean coral recruit density m recorded at each surveyed site between Jul Dec 2015.
34
All
Coral recruit density m--2 (SE)
18
Acropora
16
Porites
14
12
10
8
2
6
4
2
0
Acropora/Porites recruit density m--2 (SE)
20
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Survey period
2
Figure 20: Mean coral recruit density ( SE) per m across surveyed sites from 2005 to 2015. Bars
2
represent overall mean coral recruit density ( SE) per m (primary y-axis), lines represent mean coral
2
recruit density ( SE) of the genera Acropora and Porites per m (secondary y-axis).
Coral recruit density m-2 (SE)
Acropora
Porites
Favites
Pocillopora
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Survey period
2
Figure 21: Mean coral recruit density ( SE) per m of the most abundant coral genera in terms of
number of recruits of all surveyed sites of each survey year.
35
Depth specific results show very similar mean recruit densities in the shallow and deep
areas for 2015. Mean densities of 12.98 (0.23) and 13.07 (0.25) coral recruits per m2 were
recorded for the shallows and deeps respectively (Figure 22). Other results from 2015 show
higher values from the 25cm size class compared to the 02cm size class, with mean
density of 6.99 (0.07) and 6.05 (0.08) coral recruits per m2 respectively. Values in the 2
5cm size class in comparison to the 02cm have remained high throughout the years from
the initial surveys in 2005 (Figure 23).
25
Coral recruit density m-2 (SE)
Deep
Shallow
20
15
10
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Survey period
2
Figure 22: Mean number of coral recruits ( SE) recorded per m on deep and shallow areas of the
survey sites for each survey year.
36
11
< 2cm
Mean recruit density m-2 (SE)
10
2 - 5cm
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Survey period
2
Figure 23: Mean number of coral recruits ( SE) recorded per m in the size classes <2cm and 25cm
for each survey year.
3.4 Fish
Fish Densities
During the most recent survey period, July-December 2015, a total of 19230 fish were
surveyed. The mean density of fish from the stationary point counts for this survey period
was 0.39 (0.007) individuals per m2. Reef fish species were slightly more abundant than
commercial species with a mean density across all sites of 0.21 (0.004) individuals per m2
compared to 0.18 (0.004) per m2. The sites supporting the highest densities of fish were
found to be Baie Ternay north-west (0.58 fish m-2), Conception North Point (0.576 m-2) and
Baie Ternay Lighthouse (0.56 m-2). The sites with the lowest overall densities were Corsaire
Reef (0.24 m-2), Anse Major Reef (0.25 m-2) and Willies Bay Point (0.27 m-2).
The results from the fish belt transects follow a similar pattern with a mean density for the
entire survey period of 0.39 (0.012) m-2. However, the differences in densities for reef and
commercial species is lower with reef fish species recording a mean density of 0.2 (0.007)
m-2 and commercial species a density of 0.19 (0.008) m-2. The sites with the highest
densities recorded from fish belts were BT Lighthouse (0.64 m-2), Conception North Point
(0.594 m-2) and Baie Ternay Centre (0.587 m-2). The sites with the lowest densities were
White Villa Reef (0.21 m-2), Willies Bay Reef (0.214 m-2) and Auberge Reef (0.28 m-2).
37
Combined Fish Densities 2005 2015

The mean density of fish from the SPCs for the whole of 2015 combined was 0.373 (0.005)
fish per m2 an increase from 2014 where the mean density was 0.368 (0.004) fish per m2
and as a result represents the highest density of fish observed since GVIs monitoring began
in 2005 (Figure 24). This also demonstrates a 42% increase in fish densities from the initial
2005 GVI surveys where a density of 0.26 (0.009) m-2 was recorded.
0.4
0.38
Density m2 (SE)
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.3
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.2
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
Figure 24: Mean density of fish from stationary point counts per year. Error bars showing standard
error.
The mean density of fish seems to show some seasonal variation fluctuating between 0.210.4 individuals per m2. The highest densities are typically observed in the first half of the year
during the January-June survey period (Figure 25). The most recent survey period however
does not follow this trend, increasing from 0.35 (0.007) fish m-2 during the first half of the
year; to 0.39 (0.007) m-2 between July and December 2015.
38
Density m2 (SE)
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
Survey Period
Figure 25: Mean density of fish from SPCs per survey period. Error bars showing standard error.
Results from the fish belts show a similar oscillatory pattern in fish densities between
different times of year and also indicate an increase in fish in the second half of 2015
compared to the first. However, as the fish belts were only introduced to the methodology in
2009 the data cannot be used to assess the change in fish populations from the beginning of
GVIs monitoring.
This seasonal variation is observed in both the reef and commercial species to varying
degrees across most years (Figure 26). The increase in fish densities observed during the
second half of 2015 seems to be attributed to an increase in commercial species, which
increased from 0.14 (0.004) m-2 to 0.18 (0.003) m-2, a percentage increase of 29% during
the year. The densities of reef fish species show a slight decrease from the start of the year,
in line with the expected pattern from previous survey periods.
39
0.25
COMMERCIAL
Density m2 (SE)
REEF
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
Survey Period
Figure 26: Mean densities of reef and commercial fish species from SPCs across survey periods.
Error bars showing standard error.
Reef fish species occur in higher densities than commercial species across all survey
periods from 2005-2015, this pattern is observed in both the SPC (Figure 26) and belt data
(Figure 27). However, the data from the SPC and belt surveys from the second survey
period of 2015 suggests that this gap may be beginning to narrow (Figure 26 & 27).
40
0.25
0.23
0.21
COMMERCIAL
REEF
Density m2 (SE)
0.19
0.17
0.15
0.13
0.11
0.09
0.07
0.05
Survey Period
Figure 27: Mean densities of reef and commercial fish species from belt transects across survey
periods. Error bars showing standard error.
Granitic sites were the most densely populated survey sites in 2015, containing 8% more
fish than carbonate sites. This trend is not repeated across all other years with fluctuations
between granitic and carbonate site fish densities between years (Figure 28).
41
0.4
CARBONATE
0.38
GRANITIC
Density m2 (SE)
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.3
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.2
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
Figure 28: Mean fish densities from SPCs of carbonate and granitic sites per year. Error bars showing
standard error.
Protected Areas 2005 2015

Protected areas were found to support higher densities of fish, with protected areas
containing a fish density 17% higher than that of unprotected areas (Figure 29). In 2014
protected areas supported a fish density 11% higher than unprotected sites indicating that
the gap between protected and unprotected may be widening. The positive effects of MPAs
on fish densities within protected areas have been observed in all years since 2005 when
GVIs monitoring programme began.
42
0.45
PROTECTED
UNPROTECTED
Density m2 (SE)
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
Figure 29: Mean fish densities from SPCs of protected and unprotected sites per year. Error bars
showing standard error.
Reef and commercial fish both seem to benefit from the protection afforded by protected
areas (Figure 30 & 31). Protected areas were found on average to hold a 20% higher density
of reef fish than areas outside of the marine parks, this is in contrast to the initial GVI
surveys which found that reef fish were more abundant outside of MPAs, however ever since
2005 higher densities of reef fish have been found in marine parks (Figure 30).
43
0.28
PROTECTED
Density m2 (SE)
0.26
UNPROTECTED
0.24
0.22
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
Figure 30: Mean density of reef fish species from SPCs in protected and unprotected areas per year.
For commercial fish protected areas were found to hold 13% more fish than unprotected
sites in 2015 (Figure 31). Unprotected areas had been found to hold higher densities of
commercial fish over the previous two years, although prior to this protected areas had
consistently been found to support larger populations of commercial species.
44
0.2
PROTECTED
UNPROTECTED
Density m2 (SE)
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
Figure 31: Mean densities of commercial fish from SPCs in protected and unprotected areas per year.
The SPC data is supported by that from the belt transects which from 2009 have consistently
recorded higher densities of both reef and commercial fish species in protected areas when
compared to unprotected sites.
The effects of marine national parks on fish communities can be hard to predict, with the
impacts of different MPAs showing a high degree of variability based on location and size
along with a range of other factors (McClanahan et al., 2007). As such a comparison was
made between the sites within the Baie Ternay and Port Launay marine national parks to
assess any differences in the protection afforded by the two marine national parks.
The data from the SPCs suggest that since both marine national parks have supported
similar densities of fish with the survey sites from within Baie Ternay usually containing
marginally higher mean densities (Figure 32). Prior to 2010 the difference between the fish
populations between marine national parks was much more pronounced with Baie Ternay
containing higher densities than Port Launay The densities recorded in Baie Ternay and Port
Launay in 2014 were almost identical with each MPA containing 0.402 (0.012) and 0.404
(0.016) fish per m2 respectively (Figure 32). The difference between the marine national
parks has widened in 2015 with Baie Ternay containing a mean density 32% higher than
that recorded for Port Launay in the same period (Figure 32).
45
0.55
PL
BT
0.5
Density m2 (SE)
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
Figure 32: Mean densities of fish from SPCs in Port Launay (PL) and Baie Ternay (BT) Marine
National Parks per year. Error bars showing standard error.
46
Reef fish have been consistently found in greater densities in Baie Ternay apart from in 2012
and 2013 (Figure 33). However, 2014 and 2015 have seen an increase in the density of reef
fish within Baie Ternay and a slight reduction in Port Launay resulting in Baie Ternay
containing 37% more reef fish compared to Port Launay (Figure 33).
0.4
PL
BT
0.35
Density m2 (SE)
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
Figure 33: Mean density of reef fish from SPCs in Port Launay (PL) and Baie Ternay (BT) Marine
National Parks per year. Error bars showing standard error
Baie Ternay was found to support higher densities of commercially important fish species
from 2005 until 2009 (Figure 34). From 2010 onwards the densities in both marine national
parks seemed to stabilise with Port Launay and Baie Ternay both containing similar levels of
commercial species with some fluctuation between years. 2015 has seen an increase in the
density of commercial species within Baie Ternay, this has been accompanied by a
decrease in the density of the commercial fish population in Port Launay. Data collected
from the two marine national parks shows fish numbers to be 27% higher in Baie Ternay
when compared with the Port Launay MNP (Figure 34).
47
0.25
PL
BT
0.23
Density m2 (SE)
0.21
0.19
0.17
0.15
0.13
0.11
0.09
0.07
0.05
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
Figure 34: Mean density of commercial fish species from SPCs in PL and BT marine national parks
per year. Error bars showing standard error.
The data from belt transects suggests that the difference between the marine parks may be
even larger, in 2015 Baie Ternay was found to support a mean density of fish 55% higher
than that found in Port Launay (Figure 35). Commercial fish densities recorded from the fish
belts have been consistently higher from sites within Baie Ternay than those in Port Launay,
including during 2013 and 2014 when SPCs densities were higher in Port Launay, the mean
density of commercial fish recorded in Baie Ternay was 43% more than that found in Port
Launay for 2015 (Figure 36).
48
0.5
Density m2 (SE)
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
PL
0.15
BT
0.1
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
Figure 35: Mean densities of fish from belt transects in Port Launay (PL) and Baie Ternay (BT) marine
national parks per year. Error bars showing standard error.
0.25
0.23
Density m2 (SE)
0.21
0.19
0.17
0.15
0.13
0.11
0.09
PL
0.07
BT
0.05
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
Figure 36: Mean density of commercial fish from belt transects in Port Launay (PL) and Baie Ternay
(BT) marine parks per year. Error bars showing standard error.
49
Commercial species analysis

A separate analysis of the families considered commercially important, and for which
biomass is estimated, was also conducted. This includes the rabbitfish (Siganidae),
snappers (Lutjanidae), emperors (Lethrinidae), groupers (Serranidae) and sweetlips
(Haemulidae), parrotfish are also considered commercial viable in Seychelles and are by far
the most abundant commercial family found on our survey sites, so they were not included in
this analysis. Many of these species particularly the groupers, snappers and sweetlips are
relatively slow to reach sexual maturity and as such are susceptible to the effects of over
fishing. Therefore, the status of communities needs to be closely monitored.
In 2015 the groupers were found in the highest densities, followed by the snappers,
rabbitfish and emperors. Sweetlips have always been found in lower densities than the other
families with little fluctuation in the population (Figure 37). Since 2005 there have been
several changes in the observed densities of the other commercial families. The density of
rabbitfish rose from 2007-2010 before decreasing to its lowest point in 2014, 2015 saw a
sharp increase in rabbitfish numbers with a 96% increase in the mean density from SPCs in
12 months. Between 2010 and 2013 snappers were the most abundant commercial family,
however their mean density dropped in 2014 though numbers have recovered slightly in
2015. The emperor population remained stable from the beginning of monitoring until 2011
when numbers began to decline, this decline has continued in subsequent years. Since
2012 the density of groupers has increased rapidly reaching a peak density of 0.158
(0.0004) m-2 in 2014. Numbers decreased slightly in 2015 though the observed density is
still 77% higher than that recorded during GVIs initial surveys (Figure 37.
0.02
Density m2 (SE)
0.018
0.016
RABBITFISH
0.014
SNAPPERS
0.012
0.01
EMPERORS
0.008
GROUPERS
0.006
SWEETLIPS
0.004
0.002
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
50
Figure 37: Mean density of commercial fish families from SPCs per year. Error bars showing standard
error of the mean.
MPAs are increasingly being used as an aspect of fisheries management with such areas
increasing recruitment to adult populations by providing refuge for juvenile fish to reach
sexual maturity and increasing population numbers through emigration of adults and larvae
from protected areas to fishing grounds (Gell & Roberts, 2003). The effect of protection on
the density of commercial families was therefore assessed to see if the Baie Ternay and Port
Launay MPAs can be beneficial in increasing fish stocks around north-west Mah.
Protection seems to benefit some families more than others. Snappers are often found in
higher densities in unprotected areas compared to protected sites (Figure 38).
0.025
PROTECTED
UNPROTECTED
Density m2 (SE)
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
Figure 38: Mean density of snappers from SPCs in protected and unprotected areas per year. Error
bars showing standard error.
The pattern for rabbitfish is harder to discern from 2005-2013 higher densities of rabbitfish
were recorded outside of MPAs, with the exception of 2010 (Figure 39). From 2014-2015
higher densities have been recorded within MPAs. The data also reveals that the increase in
rabbitfish in 2015 is a general increase across all sites with both protected and unprotected
sites seeing a rise in rabbitfish numbers (Figure 39).
51
0.018
PROTECTED
Density m2 (SE)
0.016
UNPROTECTED
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Figure 39: Mean density of rabbitfish from SPCs in protected and unprotected areas per year. Error
Of all the commercial families surveyed by GVI, the groupers seem to benefit the most from
protected areas (Figure 40). In 9 of the last 11 years since GVI began monitoring work
groupers have been found in greater densities within MPAs than outside. Despite a slight
decrease in overall grouper densities in 2015 the number within MPAs remained stable with
the reduction occurring in the populations of unprotected sites. In 2015 protected areas
supported a mean density of groupers 43% higher than that of unprotected areas.
0.02
PROTECTED
0.018
UNPROTECTED
Density m2 (SE)
0.016
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
Figure 40: Mean density of groupers from SPCs in protected and unprotected areas per year. Error
52
Commercial species biomass analysis

Since 2009 GVI has also estimated the sizes of all rabbitfish, snappers, emperors, groupers
and sweetlips surveyed in order to give an estimation of the biomass of commercial species.
A full analysis of this data has yet to be undertaken, however from the data it is clear that
large commercial fish are rare on our survey sites with only one individual recorded in the
51-60cm, 61-100cm and 100+ cm categories during the most recent survey period.
Diversity
A total of 76 species, genera and families were recorded during the July-December 2015
survey period across all survey sites. The sites with the highest diversity were found to be
Baie Ternay Lighthouse with 46 species and Site Y and Therese South both with 45 different
species. The least diverse sites were Anse Major Reef and Willies Bay Reef with 26 species
recorded at both sites (Figure 41).
50
45
Fish species
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Survey site
Figure 41: Fish diversity of survey sites for the July-December 2015 survey period.
Previous reports have attempted to compare the diversity of recent survey periods to the
initial 2005 surveys, however due to changes in the species list over the years this would be
inappropriate without the use of diversity indices which is beyond the scope of this status
report.
53
3.5 Invertebrates
Invertebrate densities (10m transects)
Specific surveyed invertebrate species have increased across all sites since surveys began
in 2005 with the exception of Platyhelminthes and long spined sea urchins and short spined
sea urchins (Diadematidae), referred to collectively as black spined sea urchins.
Platyhelminthes and black spined sea urchins are found at stable densities. The highest
increases in density are seen in the Arthropoda and Echinodermata phyla. The Arthropoda
phylum has increased from low-level densities found in 2005 of 0.01 individuals per m2 (
0.1) up to the most abundant invertebrate found in 2015. Results from 2015 show an
increase in the density to 2.44 individuals per m2 (0.27) (Figure 42). The Echinodermata
phylum has shown a steady increase with time and has become the second most abundant
group in 2015 with a density of 2.4 individuals m2 (0.27) (Figure 43).
2.5
0.005
Annelida
Arthropoda
Platyhelminthes
0.0045
0.004
0.0035
0.003
1.5
0.0025
0.002
0.0015
0.001
0.5
0.0005
0
Density of Platyhelminthes m-2 (SE)
Invertebrate density m-2 (SE)
Survey period
Figure 42: Mean density (individuals per m) of Annelida, Arthropoda and Platyhelminthes for every
survey period from 2005 to 2015 across all survey sites. Error bars show standard error of the mean.
Note: Means of Platyhelminthes are represented by the secondary y-axis.
54
Mollusca
2.5
Echinodermata
Black spined sea urchins
1.5
0.5
Survey period
Figure 43: Mean density (individuals per m) of Mollusca, Echinodermata and black spined sea
urchins for every survey period from 2005 to 2015 across all survey sites. Error bars show standard
error of the mean.
When the results are sorted by substrate type the invertebrate densities show differences
between them. The Arthropoda phylum has increased from 2005 but there is a marked
increase in their abundance from 2008. Results for 2015 show the Arthropoda phylum to be
the dominant group on granitic sites (Figure 44). This has mainly been due to the decrease
in the Mollusca phyla in 2015, which reduced by 0.52 individuals per m2 in a single year
(Figure 45). In 2015 Arthropoda increased by 1.72 individuals per m2 in a year, the largest
increase to date (Figure 44).
55
3.6
3.2
granitic reefs
0.006
Annelida
Arthropoda
0.005
Platyhelminthes
2.8
0.004
2.4
2.0
0.003
1.6
0.002
1.2
0.8
0.001
0.4
0.0
Survey period
survey period from 2005 to 2015 across all granitic survey sites. Error bars show standard error of the
mean. Note: Means of Platyhelminthes are represented by the secondary y-axis.
56
4.0
3.6
3.2
2.8
granitic reefs
Mollusca
Echinodermata
2.4
2
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
Survey period
urchins for every survey period from 2005 to 2015 across all granitic survey sites. Error bars show
standard error of the mean.
Carbonate reef sites have shown an increase in all survey invertebrates in 2015 (Figure 46 &
47) apart from black spined urchins and Mollusca. Echinodermata is now the most dominant
at 2.37 individuals m-2 (0.23), an increase of 35 % compared to the previous year. Mollusca
had a decrease from the most abundant phylum in 2014 from 2.88 individuals m-2 (0.09) to
2.30 individuals m-2 (0.15) (Figure 46).
57
carbonate reefs
2.5
Mollusca
Echinodermata
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Survey period
urchins for every survey period from 2005 to 2015 across all carbonate survey sites. Error bars show
standard error of the mean.
3.6
3.2
carbonate reefs
0.006
Annelida
Arthropoda
0.005
Platyhelminthes
2.8
0.004
2.4
2.0
0.003
1.6
0.002
1.2
0.8
0.001
0.4
0.0
Survey period
survey period from 2005 to 2015 across all carbonate survey sites. Error bars show standard error of
the mean. Note: Means of Platyhelminthes are represented by the secondary y-axis.
58
4.0
Invertebrate densities (50m transects)

In total 60 invertebrate abundance belts were completed across all the sites surveyed
between January 2014 and June 2015, covering a total area of 15,000m2. The trends in
density levels found during this phase continue those found with previous survey phases.
Short spined urchins (Echinothrix spp.) at 0.36 individuals m-2 (0.001), long spined urchins
(Diadema spp.) at 0.11 individuals m-2 (0.001) and drupe snails (Drupella spp.) at 0.45
individuals m-2 (0.002) (Figure 48) still show the highest abundance of all the surveyed
invertebrates; much higher than all other invertebrate species found.
0.5
Density m-2 (SE)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Invertebrate species
2
Figure 48: Mean density per m of surveyed invertebrates across all sites surveyed between January
2014 and June 2015. Error bars showing standard error of the mean.
When dividing the three invertebrate species with the highest abundances by substrate type
some interesting trends can be observed (Figure 49). There is a clear separation in habitat
preference observed for the two most prominent urchin species. Short spined urchins show
59
a preference to granitic substrate, indicated by the higher density levels at these sites;
whereas long spined sea urchins display a preference for carbonate substrate. Previously
long spined urchins have been monitored with similar density levels over both substrates;
not indicating any preference. Drupella spp. were observed twice as frequently in carbonate
sites (0.610.12 individuals m-2) compared to granitic sites (0.290.05 individuals m-2).
0.8
Mean overall density (m-2)
0.7
Carbonate
Granitic
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Invertebrates
2
Figure 49: Mean density per m of surveyed invertebrates across of all carbonate and granitic sites
surveyed in January 2014 and June 2015. Error bars showing standard error of the mean.
Through the duration of the monitoring programme, short spined urchins have been
observed returning to densities similar to initial observations in 2009 for carbonate sites
(0.240.03 individuals m-2). However, a decrease in short spined urchins is seen from 2011
on the granitic sites, after an initial rise in 2010. The survey period in 2014 showed the
steepest decrease in short spined urchin numbers at granitic sites, recording their lowest
level since surveying began. In the initial survey period of 2015, mean densities of short
spined urchins remained low. Long spined urchins have been much more stable in numbers
from 2009 at carbonate sites, however, 2015 results show a continuation in the decrease in
densities at the granitic sites.
60
Mean overall density m-2 (SE)
0.7
0.6
Carbonate Long
Carbonate Short
Granitic Long
Granitic Short
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015A
Survey year
2
Figure 50: Mean density per m of short and long spined urchins across of all sites surveyed from
2009 to June 2015 (2015A). Error bars showing standard error of the mean.
Studies of the trends in the corallivorous invertebrates show high, almost alarming,
increases in abundances for the Drupella spp. in recent years. After a reduction in recorded
abundance of Drupella spp. in the beginning of 2014, the density has dramatically increased
in the last two study phases to a new high of 0.48 (0.001) individuals m-2 (Figure 51).
Drupella spp. still remain in much higher abundance levels than the other corallivorous
invertebrates. The density levels of the other major corallivorous invertebrates of crown-ofthorns sea star (Acanthaster planci), and cushion starfish (Culcita sp.) have remained at
stable, low densities during the study record dating back to 2009. There seems to be a
potential correlation between the abundances of Drupella spp. and crown-of-thorns sea stars
as seen in figure 51 (not statistically tested).
61
0.5
0.009
Drupella spp.
0.008
Cushion sea star
0.007
Crown-of-thorns sea star

0.4
0.006
0.005
0.3
0.004
0.2
0.003
0.002
0.1
0.001
0
Survey Period
2
Figure 51: Mean density per m (SE) of cushion sea star (Culcita sp.), crown-of-thorns sea star
(Acanthaster planci) and Drupella spp. from all survey periods across all sites. The densities for
cushion sea stars and crown-of-thorns sea stars (COTS) is indicated on the secondary y-axis. Error
bars showing standard error of the mean.
Sea Cucumber Densities

The total number of sea cucumbers found across all surveyed sites was 225 individuals for
the second phase of 2014 and 168 for the first half of 2015. Figure 52 shows the total
number of sea cucumbers divided by the number of sites surveyed for each year. This graph
clearly displays a gradual increase in the abundance of sea cucumbers from 2007 to the
highest abundances seen in 2014 (14.6 (2.66) individuals m-2). The sea cucumber
populations decreased across survey sites for the last two survey phases.
62
Mean COTS and cushion sea star density m-2

(SE)
Mean Drupella density m-2 (SE)
0.6
Mean no. of cucumbers found/site

surveyed (SE)
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015A 2015B*
Survey year
Figure 52: Mean number of sea cucumbers recorded per site surveyed from 2006 to July 2015. Error
bars showing standard error of the mean. *Within the last survey period, July December 2015
(2015B) only two sites where surveyed.
There has been a reduction of all recorded sea cucumber species in the January - June
phase of 2015 compared to the July December phase of 2014 (Figure 53). The large
decrease in density of the typically abundant Stichopus spp. (from 0.21 (0.007) per m to
0.009 (0.004) per m) and Pearsonothuria graeffei, (from 0.009 (0.001) per m to 0.0003
(0.0002) per m) in particular are cause for most of the dramatic decrease in recorded
abundances.
63
Mean overall density m-2 (SE)
0.030
0.025
Jun - Dec 14
Jan - Jun15
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
Sea cucumbers
Figure 53: Mean density of sea cucumbers recorded between June December 2014 and JanuaryJune 2015. Error bars showing standard error.
The reduction of Stichopus spp. and P. graeffei in January to July 2015 was the contributing
factor to the decrease in recorded abundances for the sea cucumber species (Figure 54 and
55). Most of the other species were also observed at reduced densities (data not displayed).
64
Holothuria atra
Holothuria fuscogilva
Actinopyga sp.
Holothuria fuscopunctata
Bohadschia sp.
Actinopyga mauritiana
0.0035
Mean density m-2 (SE)
0.003
0.0025
0.002
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015A
Survey Year
2
Figure 54: Density per m of individual sea cucumber species across all sites surveyed from 2008
Jan Jun 2015. Error bars showing standard error of the mean.
0.025
Stichopus sp.
Mean overall density (m-2)
Pearsonothuria graeffei
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015A
Survey Year
2
Figure 55: Density per m of Stichopus spp. and P. graeffei across all sites surveyed from 2008 Jan
Jun 2015. Error bars showing standard error of the mean.
65
Analysis of individual sea cucumber species reveals that both Pearsonothuria graeffei (0.007
0.001 per m) and Stichopus spp. (0.015 0.006 per m) remain the most abundant sea
cucumbers across all sites for the last survey phase, although the densities were greatly
reduced compared to the previous phase. High abundances of the top two species reflect
their low commercial value, compared to the other surveyed sea cucumbers, which show
lower abundance levels (Figure 56).
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
Sea cucumbers
Figure 56: Mean number of sea cucumber species found at all sites between January 2014 and June
2015. Error bars showing standard error.
When comparing sea cucumber densities by substrate type, a clear separation in habitat
preference is observed for most species (Figure 57). The most abundant sea cucumbers
Stichopus spp. show a clear site preference as observations were recorded almost twice as
prevalently at granitic sites (0.02 (0.012) per m). Densities of Pearsonothuria graeffei and
Actinpyga mauritiana also indicate an observable preference for granitic sites, whereas
Bohadschia spp. and Holothuria atria were mainly observed on carbonate sites.
66
0.035
Carbonate
0.03
Granitic
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
Invertebrates
Figure 57: Mean density of sea cucumbers recorded per site during July December 2014 and
January June 2015 on carbonate and granitic sights. Error bars showing standard error of the
mean.
4. Discussion
4.1 Benthic cover
Mean percentage hard coral cover between January and June 2015 was the highest
recorded since surveying began and suggests an ongoing trend of coral reef recovery.
However, it is important to mention that during this survey period, nine of the twenty-four
survey sites where not surveyed, which affects the annual mean to some degree. Like
before, mean percentage cover was found to be higher on granitic reefs than carbonate
reefs. As described in previous GVI Cap Ternay annual reports and discussed by Engelhardt
(2004), granitic sites usually have a better water clarity due to their more exposed positions
with higher water flow. Carbonate sites are located in more sheltered areas that receive
more sediment runoff and nutrients, which could negatively influence coral growth and
standing cover (Engelhardt, 2004). Nevertheless, Baie Ternay Central (BTC) is a carbonate
reef, which was found to have the highest mean percentage coral cover of all sites surveyed.
67
This is in keeping with previous years, when BTC was found to have a high mean cover of
scleractinia. Previously, it has been argued this might be due to its location within the Baie
Ternay Marine National Park, within which fishing and anchoring on the reef is prohibited
(GVI Seychelles Mah Report January June 2012). However, in the case of BTC it is
assumed that the geomorphology of the reef system alone is beneficial for coral growth and
standing cover, which in turn benefits from the protection through the marine park. BTC is
characterized by an extensive shallow reef flat that slowly slopes off into sand along its east
side at around 5-7 m depth and by 45 - 60 at its north-east side at around 12-16 m depth
(pers. obs.). Its shallow south and south-west side is protected by seagrass. Terrestrial
runoff mostly enters through elevated uninhabited forest areas, granitic boulders and
mangroves and is unlikely to carry significant levels of nutrients or pollutants (pers. obs.). At
low tide a few centimetres of the reef are exposed to the air and usually it is only corals of
the genus Porites which are visible above the watermark. Increased wave action occurs
during the time of the north-west winds (from approx. November to February), which causes
higher turbidity, elevated nutrient levels and increased influx of litter in comparison to other
times of the year (pers. obs.). The relatively calm conditions, clear water and shallow
substratum are beneficial for coral growth, especially for branching Acropora spp. (Veron,
2000), which are by far the most abundant scleractinia in BTC, like most reefs in the IndoPacific (Veron, 2000). These corals are fast growing early colonisers, which often
outcompete other corals in shallow tropical reefs with clear water (Veron, 2000). The location
of this reef within the marine national park provides an additional benefit for ongoing coral
growth and subsequently the whole ecosystem, with the established cover of Acropora spp.
being seen as positive sign for recovery. However, damage by anchors is observed
frequently alongside signs of illegal fishing (pers. obs.) for which the consequences of the
wider ecosystems remain unstudied.
The general increase of hard coral cover, consisting of predominantly branching growth
forms, can be judged as positive. Scleractinian corals, especially branching growth forms
provide valuable habitat for reef organisms (Hennige et al., 2010; Gratwicke and Speight,
2005). Their health and abundance is therefore directly linked to the wider ecosystem and
subsequently the ecosystem goods and services provided to humanity (Graham and Nash,
2013). Over the survey periods, relative changes in the benthic community compositions
have been observed. However, a low percentage coverage of other organisms such as soft
corals, sponges, zooanthids and corallimorphs has been recorded since 2009. Fast-growing,
short-lived turf algae (Birkeland, 1977) remain the most abundant non-scleractinian
organisms on the survey sites, whilst the cover of macroalgae is very low. This indicates
68
sufficient herbivory pressure that prevents algae succession (Graham et al., 2008; Pratchett
et al., 2011) and/or low nutrient and sediment loading that could otherwise favour
macroalgae growth (e.g. (Stimson et al., 2001; Szmant, 2002) and thus negatively impact
coral cover (Birkeland (1977) and Bak and Van Eys (1975)). As data shows, the cover of
coralline algae remains below the 10% mark, similar to previous years, even though
personal observations suggest a wide coverage of coralline algae on many survey sites.
Crustose coralline algae are calcifying organisms that stabilize the reef substratum and
provide important areas for settlement and growth of coral recruits (Heyward and Negri,
1999 as cited in Burkepile and Hay, 2008; Fabricius and Death, 2001, Fabricius, 2005). The
differences between observation and collected data might be due to slight variations in the
benthic assessments during the LIT surveys, a disadvantage of this methodology which has
already been described by English et al. (1997) and later again by Hill and Wilkinson (2004).
Turf algae has been observed to cover a wide array of benthic substrates, amongst dead
substrate (rock, rubble, sand, dead coral) also living crustose coralline algae. The actual
coverage of crustose coralline algae therefore might be underrepresented in the collected
data; whilst the LIT surveyor is aware of the presence of crustose coralline algae, when it
shows some turf algae coverage, this information might get lost during data collection.
4.2 Hard coral genera diversity

Coral genera richness belt transects are a useful tool when seeking to cover a wide area of
the survey sites and increase the chance of finding rare coral genera, improving the overall
site assessment. Because GVI staff and volunteers spend an extensive amount of time with
training dives prior to the actual surveying of the sites, staff can gain an impression of the
coral genera that can be found which, from personal observation, is relatively consistent with
the data collected between January and June 2015. However, coral diversity belts only
deliver presence-absence data. Further data analysis is thus not possible and therefore no
assessment of the actual coral community composition can be made. The latter could be
achieved with the data collected through LIT surveys and analysing these data with that goal
in mind could reveal interesting developments over the past years and might hold useful
information for the future.
4.3 Coral recruitment

Current results from 2015 for mean coral recruit density seem to show a similar pattern to
previous survey periods. With the exception of 2014, mean density seems to stabilize
around 12 15 coral recruits per m2. There is much to be gained from future surveys to
confirm this pattern and whether the density has indeed stabilized at the aforementioned
69
value. Results from 2014 hit a record high since the inception of surveys in 2005, though the
general trend since then has been a gradual increase. This is a positive sign for the
continued growth of coral communities on the reefs within the survey area and indicates an
increased resilience to possible future degradation events (Engelhardt, 2002). This
information on patterns of coral recruitment over the years is crucial, as in addition to
understanding population dynamics, knowledge of recruitment patterns is a prerequisite for
the effective management of marine ecosystems, enabling informed responses to
disturbances, such as crown-of-thorns sea star outbreaks, storms and bleaching events
(Babcock et al., 2003). The genus Porites continues to dominate in terms of overall
abundance, though it has seen a slight drop since 2005. Acropora, a genus in focus, has
also seen an increase in the number of recruits recorded per m2. However, with a closer look
into the percentage composition for each genus, Acropora has the highest increment rate in
relative abundance. This again is a positive sign as branching, staghorn and plate corals
belonging to this genus are generally regarded as key structural components of healthy and
diverse coral reef ecosystem in the IndoPacific (Engelhardt, 2002). The high morphological
diversity and structural complexity found in this genus promotes ecological relationships with
other reef organisms including many invertebrates and fish species (Engelhardt, 2002). The
number of different genera recorded since 2005 has fluctuated. This could relate to coral
types that may have been present since the initial surveys but remained undetected due to
their potentially limited abundance and typically patchy distribution (Engelhardt, 2002).
Depth specific density results seem to conform to previous norm with the deep surveys
showing higher density compared to the shallows. On this occasion the difference is not as
significant as it has been in the previous years. Engelhardt (2002) suggests a pattern of
higher recruitment in the shallows for well-established reefs; though his results show
otherwise. Experiments by Wallace (1985) also confirm higher recruit rates in the shallow
zones; this could indicate that the reef community is slowly returning to a stable condition.
Variation in coral recruit rates at this spatial scale may be due to changes in illumination with
both depth and orientation, differences in algal biomass, sediment and grazing intensity
(Babcock & Mundy, 1996). Recruit size class analysis show that both the dominant size 25cm and 0-2cm have decreased in the overall mean density of coral recruits by 2015.
Throughout the survey period, the trend has been fluctuating with the 0-2cm showing the
least number of recruits in comparison. This drop could indicate a reduction in the spawning
of adult colonies or increased rates of mortality for the newly settled recruits (Engelhardt,
2002). It will be interesting to see if the drop in small size class density for this survey period
70
will have an affect on the number of recruits of the larger size class recorded in future survey
periods.
4.4 Fish
With the completion of the 2015 surveys, GVIs data set now represents 11 years of coral
reef monitoring activities. Data sets of this size and detail are vital in furthering our
understanding of coral reef population dynamics as well as providing an insight into the
mechanisms and trajectory of coral reef recovery following a large scale stochastic event.
There is little data on the fish populations of the reefs around north-west Mah prior to or
immediately after the 1998 bleach (Englehardt, 2001). However, fish densities have risen
consistently since GVIs monitoring began with 2015 showing a new peak high for overall fish
densities from both stationary point count and belt transect surveys. The increase in fish
abundances since monitoring began correlates with an increase in mean live coral cover as
well as an increase in the abundance of branching coral species. The relationship between
coral cover and fish abundances and diversity is however highly complex and the
relationships hard to discern (Chabanet et al., 1996).
An increase in coral diversity has been shown to correlate strongly with an increase in fish
diversity (Galzin et al., 1994). Coral cover also seems to be linked to fish diversity with an
increase in branching corals creating a more complex environment capable of supporting a
greater diversity of other species (Barbault, 1992), in addition destruction of coral has been
found to lead to a reduction in fish diversity (Chabanet et al., 1995b). This would explain why
heavily degraded sites such as Willies Bay Reef and Anse Major Reef contain a much lower
diversity of fish species than other less disturbed sites. Sites with the highest coral cover
such as BTC were found to contain high diversity, however the sites with the highest
diversity were found to be more exposed granitic sites. Englehardt (2001) reported following
the initial post bleach fish surveys that granitic reefs held greater fish diversity and attributed
this to greater availability of food and shelter.
The relationship between corals and overall fish abundance is much less clear with some
studies finding a significant correlation between live coral and abundance (Bell and Galzin,
1984 & 1988) and others finding no relationship (Roberts and Ormund, 1987). Physical
complexity of coral reefs has also been shown to have some effects on fish abundances in
some studies (Samoilys, 1988). Fish populations are affected by many different factors, such
as predation (including by humans), juvenile recruitment, inter and intraspecific competition
for resources and prey availability (Chabanet et al., 1996). The importance of such factors in
determining the observed abundances of fish will vary between species, populations and
71
temporally, thus making the drivers behind fish population dynamics hard to discern. Coral
cover is likely to be an important driver behind the abundances of fishes, as most are
dependent on corals for either food or shelter (Chabanet et al., 1995), for example the
densities of corallivorous butterflyfish have increased enormously since GVIs monitoring
began in 2005.
The levels of commercial fish species have remained stable across most years with a slight
increase in densities since 2013, suggesting that the populations of commercial fish are
relatively stable at the current level of fishing pressure. The second half of 2015 saw an
increase in commercial species which could indicate reduction in overall fishing pressure or
the effects of large scale juvenile recruitment to the population (Englehardt 2004) Future
surveys will be required to ascertain whether this increase in commercial species is the
beginning of a long term increase or a short term rise in numbers.
When analysed as separate families, changes in the composition in the structure of
commercial fish populations are revealed. The density of groupers has risen sharply since
2012 with groupers now representing the most abundant commercial family after the
parrotfish. This represents a substantial recovery in grouper populations, which were found
to be heavily depleted and in many cases over exploited following the 1998 bleaching event
(Englehardt, 2002). Though species of the genus Plectropomus and Variola have remained
uncommon on survey sites. Serranids are known to generally prefer carbonate reefs and
often show high habitat affinity (Samoilys, 1996; Englehardt, 2004; Popple and Hunte,
2005). Carbonate reefs, particularly those within the Baie Ternay marine park have shown
high levels of recovery since 1998, particularly in branching genera such as Acropora and
Pocillopra. Certain grouper species are known to require the complex reef habitats
associated with these branching corals (Englehardt, 2004) and so an increase in these
species would likely lead to an increase in associated grouper species such as the peacock
grouper (Cephalopholis argus). Engelhardt (2002) found that numbers of sweetlips
(Haemulidae) have been severely reduced; however, unlike the groupers, sweetlips
numbers have shown little signs of recovery being the least abundant commercial family
across all years since 2005.
Protected areas were found to have very little influence on fish populations (Englehardt,
2002). Since GVI took over monitoring in 2005, higher densities of fish have been recorded
within the marine national parks at Baie Ternay and Port Launay. This shift in the
effectiveness of protection is likely due to the gradual recovery of reefs within marine parks
as well as the influence of protection from fishing.
72
While protected areas are having a positive impact on the overall fish population, the marine
national parks within our study area do have limitations in the protection of some fish
species. The majority of the sites within the Baie Ternay and Port Launay marine parks are
sheltered carbonate reefs, with some granitic sites also found. Protecting only a few habitat
types only allows for the protection of those fish species associated with such environments.
As mentioned above many grouper species have a preference for carbonate reef
environments rich in branching corals (Englehardt, 2004), as such groupers benefit the most
from protection of all the commercial families discussed in this report. The majority of the
snapper family (Lutjanidae) however prefer exposed granitic sites with high levels of water
movement and as such gain little benefit from the MPAs in our study area (Englehardt 2002);
being found in higher densities outside marine parks. As a result, these species may be
more susceptible to the effects of an increase in fishing pressure.
The size of the Baie Ternay and Port Launay marine national parks may also not be
adequate for full protection of exploited species found within them. Both MPAs are small, 0.8
and 1.58 km2 respectively. The majority of reef fish are thought to be relatively sedentary
and may often have territories or small home ranges between 10 an 100m2. However, many
fish associated with reefs are known to have much larger ranges. For example, grouper
species
from
genera
Cephalopholis
(Cephalopholis
curentata)
and
Plectropomus
(Plectropomus leopardus) have been shown to have average home range sizes of 4000m2
(Popple and Hunte, 2005) and 2000m2 (Samoilys, 1996) respectively. Larger individuals are
thought to move greater distances and have larger home ranges in order to find food and for
mating behaviours (Jones, 1991). This would suggest that larger species of grouper and
other fish species are not protected over their full home ranges or throughout their entire life
cycles, which would provide a possible explanation for why large individuals are rarely
recorded on our surveys. Gell and Roberts (2003) noted the effect of reserve size on the
effectiveness of protected areas, they recommend that the key to success is in matching
reserve size to the range of the species that are targeted for protection, the effective reserve
size was estimated to be 16-24 km2 for larger and more mobile species.
The data also reveals that the two marine national parks offer differing levels of protection.
Baie Ternay typically holds higher densities of fish than Port Launay. Both protected areas
contain large carbonate reefs with some granitic habitats on the park boundaries. Port
Launay is the larger of the two marine parks so would normally be expected to hold more
fish than a smaller MPAs. The coral cover of Port Launay is lower than that of Baie Ternay,
and the water quality is often reduced within the confines of the Port Launay National Marine
Park (pers. obs.). There are several possible explanations for this. One could be reduced
73
water movement within Port Launay compared to Baie Ternay, there is also a large resort
and small village next to the Port Launay Marine National Park, though the effects of this on
the biota within Port Launay have not been fully assessed and require further study. The
differences in environmental conditions are likely to have led to the observed differences in
fish densities between the two MPAs. It is possible that both marine national parks may also
support communities of differing compositions though this has yet to be assessed.
It has long been hypothesised that protected areas may have positive effects on fish
populations beyond their boundaries (Gell & Roberts 2003). Previous GVI reports have
attempted to assess this effect by examining the densities of sites adjacent to MPAs such as
BT Lighthouse and Site Y. These sites often do support high densities of fish, in particular
Lighthouse which is often found to have the highest fish densities of any survey site. While
these higher densities may be a result of spill over from Baie Ternay it is worth noting that
both sites have very different environmental conditions to those found in Baie Ternay, being
fairly exposed granitic sites. Lighthouse is also subject to temporally strong currents, other
survey sites with physical conditions similar to those found at Lighthouse, such as
Conception North Point also show elevated fish densities. Without further study it is
impossible to make any firm conclusions on whether the change in environment or the
proximity to MPAs is the driving factor in governing fish densities at these sites.
In summary, the density of fish populations has increased to an all-time high in 2015. The
reason for this is likely to be multifaceted and species dependent with coral recovery, fishing
pressure and a range of other factors having controls on fish populations. Some commercial
species such as groupers have shown high levels of recovery, while others such as
sweetlips have shown little recovery. Protected areas support higher densities of fish than
unprotected areas though the effect varies between species, seemingly dependent on
habitat preference and the habitats protected within MPAs, as such a successful system of
protection should look to conserve a range of different habitats. The protected areas in this
study may also not be large enough to protect larger fish species. There is a difference in the
level of protection offered by the two marine national parks, Port Launay marine national
park supports lower fish densities than Baie Ternay, which is likely linked to altered
environmental conditions within the marine national park, though the reasons for this are yet
to be fully assessed. MPAs may produce elevated densities in areas adjacent to them,
however the importance of proximity to marine national parks or other environmental
conditions is difficult to assess and beyond the scope of this report.
74
4.5 Invertebrates
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 (Engelhardt, 2004). Densities of surveyed invertebrates from the 10m belt transects
have increased since the beginning of the monitoring in 2005, however 2015 results show
an increase in all surveyed invertebrates from 2014 with the exception of black spined
urchins and Molluscs. 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.
Mollusca shows the greatest decrease overall and is seen decreasing at both granitic and
carbonate sites. Whereas the black spined urchins decreased in density at carbonate sites
but have increased at granitic sites. In this case, the drivers behind the reductions is unclear
and need to be focused on through the monitoring programme should these decreases
continue.
The survey list for invertebrates on the 50m belts focuses on commercially important
invertebrates and key species, which indicate ecosystem change. Results from 2015 show a
change in trends seen in recent years with regards to the Echinoidea phylum. The most
dramatic change is within the corallivorous species, drupe snails. Density levels have
increased since 2010 and shown a major spike in 2014 before stabilizing in 2015. Drupella
spp. have remained higher than the other corallivorous invertebrates surveyed. The most
likely explanation for the high numbers of Drupella spp. is that it is coupled with the increase
in the branching coral Acropora spp., their preferred food source and habitat (Wilmes, 2014).
Continued monitoring will indicate whether this population is increasing to damaging levels. If
the expected bleaching event is to transpire in April 2016, the relationship between Acropora
coverage and Drupella spp. abundances should be monitored. Continued monitoring of
these invertebrate species will be critical for identifying the trends and causes for the
changing abundances in recent years.
In regards to cucumber densities, there has been a dramatic decrease in normally prevalent
species as well as slight decreases or continued low abundances in the rest of the surveyed
species. In particular, the decreased observations of Stichopus spp. and P. graeffei has
resulted in the lower observed densities. The previous years have seen a steady increase
for sea cucumber populations, therefore, the reduced observations seen during this survey
phase should be monitored closely.
75
5. Additional ecosystem monitoring

5.1 Turtles
There are seven species of turtles worldwide, of which five breed in the Western Indian
Ocean: the leatherback - Dermochelys coriacea, loggerhead - Caretta caretta, olive ridley Lepidochelys olivacea, hawksbill - Eretmochelys imbricata, and green - Chelonia mydas
(Hewell, 2011). 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 sites (Diamond, 1976). All five species
found in the Seychelles face the combined threats of poaching, pollution and loss of nesting
sites (Diamond, 1976), and are listed by IUCN as endangered or critically endangered
(Mortimer and Bresson, 1999). Seychelles is considered one of the most important sites for
the critically endangered hawksbill turtle (Spotila, 2004) and is one of the localities in the
world where they can be observed nesting during daylight hours (Mortimer and Bresson,
1999).
GVI staff and volunteers are trained in turtle biology and the identification of the two species
commonly seen around north-west Mah, the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) and the
hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata). Currently, turtle walks and recordings on incidental
sightings from megafauna data are the only records kept on turtles.
Incidental Turtle Sightings

For every dive undertaken by GVI, a record of megafauna observations is kept of which
turtle encounters are included.
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.
Beach Patrols for Nesting Turtles

Beach patrols were originally aimed to be conducted throughout the entire Hawksbill turtle
nesting season from October to March. This includes beach walks, documentation of nesting
tracks and investigation of newly hatched clutches. Beach patrols were carried out weekly at
beaches local to the Cap Ternay research station (Anse du Riz and Anse Major). Due to the
paucity of turtle nesting activity and the need to focus survey efforts on coral reef monitoring,
a decision was made in December 2015 to terminate turtle beach patrol activities.
76
Photo Identification of Turtles

Turtle photo identification had been carried out by GVI staff and volunteers until 2013 and
was implemented again in January 2016. All divers with a camera are encouraged to provide
any turtle photos they have taken throughout their time in Cap Ternay. 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 scale of each side of the head profile.
This is aided through the use of the software i33s that, when fed with enough data, can
analyse the photos using its own database.
Results
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 (Table 2). The highest
number of turtle sightings in 2015 where recorded between July and September, with 107
turtles recorded of which 98 were identified as Hawksbill turtles, 8 as Green turtles and one
was unidentified (Table 3). As there is no previous data currently available to make any
meaningful analysis, these results can form a baseline for any future turtle monitoring
activities.
Table 2: Total number of turtle sightings recorded for each dive logged in 2015.
Number of Dives
Number of Turtles
Encounter rate per dive
Jan-Mar
162
Apr-Jun
140
42
21.42857
Jul-Sept
139
107
70.5036
Oct-Dec
139
89
59.71223
Table 3: Total number of hawksbill and green turtle sightings recorded for each dive logged in 2015.
Species
Hawksbill
Green
Unidentified
Total
Jan-Mar*
Apr-Jun
Jul-Sept
Oct-Dec
41
1
0
42
98
8
1
107
82
7
0
89
*Data on turtle sightings for the period Jan March is not currently available.
77
5.2 Crown-of-thorns sea star (COTS)

Outbreaks of the coral predator, the crown-of-thorns sea star (Acanthaster planci), were first
reported in 1996 and were active until 1998, when the reefs suffered from the bleachinginduced 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 outcompete 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, 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 548 separate recordings of A. planci across all
sites during July 2014 to December 2015. This is an increase from the 395 recorded during
the last phase report.
Eradication Programme
GVI has assisted with a COTS eradication programme, which has been undertaken when
COTS have been observed at surveyed dive sites. The control dives have been undertaken
by staff and trained volunteers. Bile salts and Sodium Bisulphate have been used for COTS
reduction, with the former requiring a single injection to the COT and the latter requiring
multiple injections, dependant on the size of the COT. The injections are delivered via a
modified drenchgun,which connects to the injection solution. As of now, this is the best
tested method for removing COTS in situ and minimising damage to coral and the
surrounding environment (Rivera-Posada and Pratchett, 2013).
The dedicated COT reduction dives were undertaken in buddy pairs strung out along an
arranged target area of a dive site in order to maximize the coverage area. Divers recorded
the total divers, time in the water, depth ranges, total COTS and the size class of the COT
(<15 cm, 15-25 cm, 25-40 cm and >40 cm). The Catch per Unit effort is calculated by:
Total number of COTS injected / Dive time (minutes)
According to the Great Barrier Reef Authority (GBRMPA, 2014), a CPUE of 0.05 is a COT
outbreak when the coral cover for the area is below 40%. For areas exceeding coral
78
coverage of 40% an outbreak is recognised when the CPUE exceeds 0.1. All sites at which
COT eradication dives have been carried out had a coral cover exceeding 40%. The
eradication dives resulted in a total of 224 injected COTS during the second half of 2015.
December had the most COT injections with 101 COTS removed (Figure 58). The sites with
the highest recorded CPUE were BTNW (0.342 in December and 0.095 in August) and Port
Launay South reef (0.098 in November). The CPUE for December was calculated as 0.342,
well above the GBRMPA outbreak standard of 0.1 for sites above 40% cover, indicating that
as of December 2015, there is a COTS outbreak within the Baie Ternay Marine National
Park.
An area of concern when calculating the CPUE in accordance to GBRMPA is apparent with
the new, faster methodologies becoming more prevalent, such as the case with single shot
bile salts. The time needed to administer the dosage with the bile salts is greatly reduced in
comparison to the Sodium Bisulphate shots from up to 18 injections to one COT, meaning
that more time can be used to find and inject COTS. Therefore, a new methodology may be
needed to align the different methods in order to create a more robust CPUE.
250
0.4
COT
0.35
CPUE
Number of COTS
0.3
0.25
150
0.2
100
0.15
0.1
Catch per unit effort (CPUE)
200
50
0.05
0
0
August
September
October
November
December
2015
Figure 58: Crown-of-thorns injected by divers (primary y-axis) and the Catch Per Unit Effort for the eradication
performed for the second half of 2015 (secondary y-axis).
79
80
6. References
Bak, R.P.M. and Van Eys, G. (1975) Predation of the sea urchin Diadema antillarum Philippi
on living coral. Oecologia, 20: 111-115.
Bell, JD., Galzin, R., (1984) Influence of live coral cover on coral reef fish communities. Mar
Ecol Prog Ser 15: 265-274
Bell, JD., Galzin, R., (1988) Distribution of coral and fish in the lagoon at Mataiva: potential
for increase through mining? Proc 6th Int Coral Reef Symp 2: 347-352
Birkeland, C. (1977) The importance of rate of biomass accumulation in early successional
stages of benthic communities. Proceedings of the 3rd International Coral Reef Symposium,
1: 15-21.
Burkepile, D.E. and Hay, M.E. (2008) Herbivore species richness and feeding
complementarity affect community structure and function on a coral reef. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Science, 105: 16201-16206.
Chabanet P., Join, JL., Cuet, P., Naim, O., (1995a) Spatial variability in submarine
groundwater discharge (SDG) occurrence and benthic and fish community patterns on StGilles/la Saline reef: a tentative interpretation through a hydrological model (Reunion island).
Int Soc Reef Stud
Chabanet P., Dufour, V., Galzin, R., (1995b) Impact of disturbance on reef fish communities
in reunion Island (Indian Ocean). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 188: 29-48
Chabanet, P., Ralambondrainy, H., Amanieu, M., Faure, G., Galzin, R., (1996) Relationships
between coral reef substrate and fish. Coral Reefs 16: 93-102
Colvocoresses J., Acosta A., (2007), A large scale field comparison of strip transect and
stationary point count methods for conducting length-based underwater visual surveys of
reef fish populations. Fisheries Research 85: 130-141
CRC Reef, (2001), Crown-of-thorns starfish on the Great Barrier Reef: Current state of
knowledge: April 2001. Coral Reef Research Centre James Cook University, Townsville
Diamond, A.W. (1976) BREEDING BIOLOGY AND CONSERVATION OF HAWKSBILL
TURTLES, ERETMOCHELYS IMBRICATA L., ON COUSIN ISLAND, SEYCHELLES.
Biology Conservation, 9, 199-215.
Engelhardt U. ( 2001), Interim Report No. 1 (December 2001): Report on scientific field
studies and training activities conducted in June / July 2001. Seychelles Marine Ecosystem
Management Project.Reefcare International Pty Ltd, Townsville
Engelhardt, U., (2002) Interim report No. 3: Ecological characteristics of scleractinian hard
coral communities 4 years after the 1998 mass coral bleaching event. Seychelles Marine
Ecosystem Management Project. Reefcare International Pty Ltd, Townsville
81
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.
English, S., Wilkinson, C. and Baker, V. (1997) Survey manual for tropical marine resources.
2nd edition, pp 34-80, Townsville, Australian Institute of Marine Science.
Fabricius, K. and Death, G. (2001) Environmental factors associated with the spatial
distribution of crustose coralline algae on the Great Barrier Reef. Coral Reefs, 19: 303-309.
Fabricius, K.E. (2005) Effects of terrestrial runoff on the ecology of corals and coral reefs:
review and synthesis. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 50: 125146.
Galzin, R., Planes, S., Dufour, V., Salvat, B., (1994) Variation in diversity of coral reef fish
between French Polynesian atolls. Coral Reefs 13: 175-180
Gell, FR., Roberts, CM., (2003) Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of marine
reserves. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18: No. 9, 448-455.
Graham NAJ., Wilson SK., Jennings S., Polunin NVC., Robinson J., Bijoux JP. Daw TM,.
(2007) Lag effects in the impacts of mass coral bleaching on coral reef fish, fisheries and
ecosystems. Conservaton Biology 21: No. 5, 1291-1300
Graham, N.A.J., McClanahan, T.R., MacNeil, M.A., Wilson, S.K., Polunin, N.V.C., Chabanet,
P., Clark, S., Spalding, M.D., Letourneur, Y., Bigot, L., Galzin, R., hman, M.C., Garpe,
K.C., Edwards, A.J. and Sheppard, C.R.C. (2008) Climate Warming, Marine Protected Areas
and the Ocean-Scale Integrity of Coral Reef Ecosystems. PLoS ONE, 3: e3039.
Graham, N.A.J. and Nash, K.L. (2013) The importance of structural complexity in coral reef
ecosystems. Coral Reefs, 32: 315-326.
Gratwicke, B. and Speight, M.R. (2005) The relationship between fish species richness,
abundance and habitat complexity in a range of shallow tropical marine habitats. Journal of
Fish Biology, 66: 650-667.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 2014, Crown-of-thorns starfish control guidelines,
GBRMPA, Townsville.
Henige, S.J., Suggett, D.J., Hepburn, L.J., Pugsley, A. and Smith, D.J. (2010) Coral reefs of
the Wakatobi: processes of reef growth and loss. In Marine Research and Conservation in
the Coral Triangle: The Wakatobi National Park (eds. J. Clifton, R.K.F. Unsworth and D.J.
Smith), pp 33-48, Nova Science Publishers.
Hewell, K. (2011) CLASS REPTILIA - REPTILES. IN RICHMOND, M. D. (Ed.) A Field Guide
to the SEASHORES OF EASTERN AFRICA AND THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN
ISLANDS. 3 ed. Norwich, UK, Sida/WIOMSA.
82
Hill J., Wilkinson C., (2004), Methods for Ecological Monitoring of Coral Reefs: Version 1. A
Resource for Managers.Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville.
Jennings S., Marshall SS., Polunin NVC. (1995) Seychelles marine protected areas:
comparative structure and status of reef fish communities. Biological Conservation 75:
(1996) 201-209.
Jennings S., Polunin NVC. (1996) Impacts of predator depletion by fishing on the biomass
and diversity of non-target reef fish communities. Coral Reefs (1997) 16: 71-82
Kulbicki M., (1998), How the acquired behavior of commercial reef fishes may influence the
results obtained from visual censuses. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology
222: 11-30
Mortimer J. A., Bresson R. (1999) Temporal Distribution and Periodicity in Hawksbill Turtles
(Eretmochelys imbricata) Nesting at Cousin
Island, Republic of Seychelles, 1971-1997. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 3: 318325.
Popple, ID., Hunte, W., (2005) Movement patterns of Cephalopholis cruentata in a marine
reserve in St Lucia, W.I., obtained from ultrasonic telemetry. Journal of Fish Biology (2005)
67: 981-992
Prachett M.S., (2007), Feeding preferences of Acanthasterplanci (Echinodermata:
Asteroidea) under controlled conditions of food availability.Pacific Science 61: (Issue 1),
113-120
Prachett, M.S., Hoey, A.S., Wilson, S.K., Messmer, V. and Graham, N.A.J. (2011) Changes
in Biodiversity and Functioning of Reef Fish Assemblages following Coral Bleaching and
Coral Loss. Diversity, 3: 424-452.
Rivera-Posada JA and Pratchett MS. (2013), A review of existing control efforts for
Acanthaster planci; limitations to successes
Roberts, CM., Ormond, RF., (1987) Habitat complexity and coral reef diversity and
abundance on Red Sea fringing reefs. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 41: 1-8
Russ Babcock, C. M. (1996) Coral recruitment: Consequences of settlement choice for early
growth and survivorship in two scleractinians. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and
Ecology, 206: 179 - 201.
Rus C. Babcock, A. H. B., Srisakul Piromvaragorn, Damian P. Thomson, Bette L. Willis
(2003) Identification of Scleractinian Coral Recruits from Indo - Pacific. Zoological Studies,
42: 211 - 226.
Samoilys, MA., (1988) Abundance and species richness of coral reef fish on the Kenyan
coast: the effects of protective management and fishing. Proc 6th Int Coral Reef Symp 2:
261-266
83
Saolys, MA., (1996) Movement in a large predatory fish: coral trout, Plectropomus leopardus
(Pices: Serranidae), on Heron Reef, Australia. Coral Reefs (1997) 16: 151-158
Saoilys M., Gribble N., (1997) Manual for Assessing Fish Stocks on Pacific Coral
Reefs.Queensland Training Series.Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane.
Spencer, T., Teleki, K.A., Bradshaw, C. and Spalding, M.D. (2000) Coral Bleaching in the
Southern Seychelles during the 1997-1998 Indian Ocean warm event. Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 40: 569 586.
Spalding MD., Jarvis GE. (2002) The impact of the 1998 coral mortality on reef fish
communities in the Seychelles. Marine Pollution Bulletin (2002) 309-321.
Spotila, J.R. (2004) SEA TURTLES - A COMPLETE GUIDE TO THEIR BIOLOGY,
BEHAVIOR, AND CONSERVATION, Baltimore, Maryland, The Johns Hopkins University
Press and Oakwood Arts.
Stimson, J., Larned, S. and Conklin, E. (2011) Effects of herbivory, nutrient levels, and
introduced algae on the distribution and abundance of the invasive macroalga
Dictyosphaeria cavernosa in Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. Coral Reefs, 19: 343-357.
Szmant, A.M. (2002) Nutrient enrichment on coral reefs: Is it a major cause of coral reef
decline? Estuaries, 25: 743-766.
Veron, J. (2000) Genus Acropora. In Corals of the World Volume 1 (eds. M. Stafforf-Smith),
pp 176-177, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville
Veron, J.E.N., (2000) Corals of the World (eds. M. Stafforf-Smith), Australian Institute of
Marine Science, Townsville, Australia, Vol 13
Wallace, C. C. (1985) Seasonal peaks and annual fluctuations in recruitment of juvenile
scleractinian corals. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 21: 289 - 298.
Wilmes, J. (2014) The Crown-of-Thorns Starfish: Biology, Outbreaks and Control Methods.
Association of Marine Park Tourisms Operators.
84
Appendix A
A.1. Coral genera (LIT, coral diversity belts and recruitment quadrat surveys)
Family
Acroporidae
Agariciidae
Astrocoeniidae
Dendrophyllidae
Euphyllidae
Faviidae
Genus
Acropora
Astreopora
Montipora
Coeloseris
Gardineroseris
Leptoseris
Pachyseris
Pavona
Sytylocoeniella
Turbinaria
Physogyra
Cyphastrea
Diploastrea
Echinopora
Favia
Favites
Goniastrea
Leptastrea
Leptoria
Montastrea
Oulophyllia
Platygyra
Plesiastrea
Family
Fungidae
Merulinidae
Mussidae
Oculinidae
Pectiniidae
Pocilloporidae
Poritidae
Siderastridae
Genus
Cycloseris
Diaseris
Fungia
Herpolitha
Podabacia
Hydnophora
Merulina
Acanthastrea
Blastomussa
Lobophyllia
Symphyllia
Galaxea
Echinophyllia
Mycedium
Pectinia
Pocillopora
Seriatopora
Stylophora
Alveopora
Goniopora
Porites
Psammocora
Pseudosiderastrea
Siderastrea
A.2. Benthic organisms and substrate types (LIT surveys)

Algae
Macro algae, Turf Algae, Halimeda spp., Coralline algae, Algae

Assemblage
Other lifeforms recorded
Heliopora, Millepora Tubipora, Soft coral, Sponge, Corallimoprhs,

Zoanthid
Organisms recorded as other
Bryozoans, Ascidians, Bivalves, Anemones, Black coral,

Gorgonians, Sea Star, Holothurians
Substrate
Sand, Rubble, Rock, Dead coral, Silt, Water
85
Appendix B
B.1. Fish species list
Family
Butterflyfish
(Chaetodontidae)
Angelfish
(Pomacanthidae)
Surgeonfish
(Acanthuridae)
Moorish Idol
(Zanclidae)
Rabbitfish
(Siganidae)
Scientific name
Common name
Feeding guild
Relevance*
Chaetodon vagabundus
Vagabond
C/I
Coral recovery
Chaetodon auriga
Threadfin
C/I
Coral recovery
Chaetodon trifascialis
Chevroned
Coral recovery
Chaetodon melannotus
Black-backed
C/I
Coral recovery
Chaetodon mertensii
Merten's
C/I
Coral recovery
Chaetodon triangulum
Triangular
Coral recovery
Chaetodon trifasciatus
Indian redfin
Coral recovery
Chaetodon interruptus
Indian Ocean teardrop
C/I
Coral recovery
Chaetodon bennetti
Bennett's
Coral recovery
Chaetodon lunula
Raccoon
C/I
Coral recovery
Chaetodon kleinii
Klein's
C/I
Coral recovery
Chaetodon citrinellus
Speckled
C/I
Coral recovery
Chaetodon guttatisimus
Spotted
C/I
Coral recovery
Chaetodon lineolatus
Lined
C/I
Coral recovery
Chaetodon falcula
Saddleback
C/I
Coral recovery
Chaetodon meyersi
Meyer's
Coral recovery
Chaetodon xanthocephalus
Yellow-headed
C/I
Coral recovery
Chaetodon zanzibariensis
Zanzibar
Coral recovery
Forcipiger sp.
Longnose sp.
C/I
Coral recovery
Apolemichthys trimaculatus
Three-spot
Visual appeal
Pomacanthus imperator
Emperor
Visual appeal
Pomacanthus semicirculatus
Semicircle
Visual appeal
Pygoplites diacanthus
Regal
Visual appeal
Acanthurus sp.
Surgeonfish
Algae vs. coral
Ctenochaetus sp.
Bristletooth
Algae vs. coral
Naso sp.
Unicornfish
Pl
Algae vs. coral
Zanclus cornutus
Moorish idol
Visual appeal
Siganus puelloides
Blackeye
Algae vs. coral
Siganus corallinus
Coral
Algae vs. coral
Siganus stellatus
Honeycomb
Algae vs. coral
Siganus argenteus
Forktail
Algae vs. coral
Siganus sutor
African whitespotted
Algae vs. coral
86
Snappers
(Lutjanidae)
Triggerfish
(Balistidae)
Emperors
(Lethrinidae)
Groupers
(Serranidae)
Lutjanus gibbus
Paddletail
Pi
Fishing pressure
Lutjanus sebae
Red emperor
Pi
Fishing pressure
Lutjanus fulviflamma
Longspot
Pi
Fishing pressure
Lutjanus kasmira
Blue-lined
Pi
Fishing pressure
Lutjanus bengalensis
Bengal
Pi
Fishing pressure
Lutjanus monostigma
Onespot
Pi
Fishing pressure
Lutjanus vitta
Brownstripe
Pi
Fishing pressure
Lutjanus fulvus
Flametail
Pi
Fishing pressure
Lutjanus argentimaculatus
Mangrove jack
Pi
Fishing pressure
Lutjanus bohar
Red
Pi
Fishing pressure
Lutjanus russelli
Russell's
Pi
Fishing pressure
Macolor niger
Black
Pi
Fishing pressure
Aprion virescens
Green jobfish
Pi
Fishing pressure
Balistoides viridescens
Titan
Sea urchins & COTs
Sufflamen chrysopterus
Flagtail
Sea urchins & COTs
Balistidae sp.
Other triggerfish
Sea urchins & COTs
Monotaxis sp.
Bigeye bream
Sea urchins & COTs
Gymnocranius grandoculis
Blue-lined large-eye bream
Sea urchins & COTs
Lethrinus olivaceous
Longnosed
Sea urchins & COTs
Lethrinus nebulosus
Blue-scaled
Sea urchins & COTs
Lethrinus rubrioperculatus
Redear
Sea urchins & COTs
Lethrinus xanthochilus
Yellowlip
Sea urchins & COTs
Lethrinus harak
Thumbprint
Sea urchins & COTs
Lethrinus lentjan
Pinkear
Sea urchins & COTs
Lethrinus obsoletus
Orange-striped
Sea urchins & COTs
Lethrinus erythracanthus
Yellowfin
Sea urchins & COTs
Lethrinus mahsena
Mahsena
Sea urchins & COTs
Lethrinus variegatus
Variegated
Sea urchins & COTs
Anyperodon leucogrammicus
Slender
Pi
Fishing pressure
Cephalopholi sargus
Peacock
Pi
Fishing pressure
Cephalopholis urodeta
Flagtail
Pi
Fishing pressure
Cephalopholis miniata
Coral Hind
Pi
Fishing pressure
Cephalopholis sonnerati
Tomato
Pi
Fishing pressure
Epinephelus merra
Honeycomb
Pi
Fishing pressure
Epinephelus spilotoceps
Foursaddle
Pi
Fishing pressure
Epinephelus polyphekadion
Camouflage
Pi
Fishing pressure
Epinephelus
caeruleopunctatus
Whitespotted
Pi
Fishing pressure
87
Sweetlips
(Haemulidae)
Parrotfish
(Scaridae)
Wrasse
(Labridae)
Puffers
(Tetradontidae)
Porcupinefish
(Diodontidae)
Soldierfish &
Squirrelfish
(Holocentridae)
Epinephelus fuscoguttatus
Brown-marbled
Pi
Fishing pressure
Epinephelus tukula
Potato
Pi
Fishing pressure
Epinephelus fasciatus
Blacktip
Pi
Fishing pressure
Aethaloperca rogaa
Redmouth
Pi
Fishing pressure
Variola louti
Yellow-edged lyretail
Pi
Fishing pressure
Plectropomus laevis
Saddleback
Pi
Fishing pressure
Plectropomus punctatus
African coral cod
Pi
Fishing pressure
Plectorhinchus orientalis
Oriental
Sea urchins & COTs
Plectorhinchus picus
Spotted
Sea urchins & COTs
Plectorhinchus gibbosus
Gibbus
Sea urchins & COTs
Bolbometopon muricatum
Bumphead parrotfish
C/H
Coral damage
Scaridae
Other parrotfish
Algae vs. coral
Cheilinus trilobatus
Tripletail
Sea urchins & COTs
Cheilinus fasciatus
Redbreasted
Sea urchins & COTs
Oxycheilinus digrammus
Cheeklined splendour
Sea urchins & COTs
Cheilinus undulatus
Humphead
Sea urchins & COTs
Tetraodontidae
Puffers
Sea urchins & COTs
Diodontidae
Porcupinefish
Sea urchins & COTs
Soldierfish
Pl
Upwelling areas
Squirrelfish
Pl
Upwelling areas
Holocentridae
* based on Engelhardt (2004)
B.2. Fish species lists divided into commercial and reef fish
Commercial Fish Species*
Reef Fish Species*
Siganidae (Rabbitfish)
Chaetodontidae (Butterflyfish)
Lutjanidae (Snappers)
Pomacanthidae (Angelfish)
Lethrinidae (Emperors)
Acanthuridae (Surgeonfish)
Serranidae (Groupers)
Balistidae (Triggerfish)
Haemulidae (Sweetlips)
Labridae (Wrasse)
Scaridae (Parrotfish)
Tetradontidae (Pufferfish)
Diodontidae (Porcupinefish)
Holocentridae (Soldierfish & Squirrelfish)
Zanclus cornutus (Moorish Idol)
Bulbometopon muricatum (Bumphead Parrotfish)
88
according to GVI Seychelles (Mah) methodology
89
B.3. Fish feeding guilds as referred to in B.1.

Code
Feeding guild
Description (adapted from Obura and Grimsditch, 2009)
Key species
Pl
Planktivores
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.
Soldierfish,
Squirrelfish,
Unicornfish
Piscivores
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.
Groupers, Snappers
Pi
Corallivores
Relative abundance is an indicator of coral community

health
Butterflyfish
(Chevroned,
Triangular, Bennetts,
Indian Redfin,
Meyers, Longnose
sp.)
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.
Angelfish, Moorish
Idol
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.
Sweetlips,
Emperors,
Pufferfish,
Porcupinefish,
Wrasse (Tripletail,
Redbreasted,
CheeklinedSplendor,
Humphead),
Triggerfish (Titan,
Flagtail, Other)
Invertivores*
Exert the primary control on coral-algal dynamics.

H
Herbivores
C/H
Corallivore/Herbivore
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
Parrotfish,
Surgeonfish,
Bristletooth,
Rabbitfish
Bumphead parrotfish
Butterflyfish
C/I
Corallivore/Invertivore
Relative abundance can be a secondary indicator of coral

community health
(Vagabond,
Threadfin,
Blackbacked,
Mertens, Indian
Ocean Teardrop,
Racoon, Kleins,
Speckled, Spotted,
Lined, Saddleback,
Yellow headed,
Zanzibar)
90
Appendix C
Mollusca (Gastropoda)
Drupella spp.
Drupe snails
Mollusca (Bivalvia)
Tridacnidae
Giant clam
Culcita sp.
Cushion sea star
Acanthaster planci
Sea Stars (Asteroidea)
C.1. List of invertebrates surveyed on 50m belts
91
Other sea stars

Diadema spp.
Long spined urchin
Echinometra spp.
Mathaes urchin
Echinothrix spp.
Short spined urchin
Sea urchins (Echinoidea)
Pencil urchin
Toxopneustes pileolus
Flower urchin
Cake urchin
Sea cucumbers (Holothuroidea)
(Cephalopoda)
Lobsters (Palinura)
Holothuria artra
Lollyfish
Holothuria fuscopunctata
Elephant trunk
Holothuria fuscogilva
White teatfish
Holothuria nobilis
Black teatfish
Holothuria sp.(undescribed)
Pentard
Bohadschia spp.
Bohadschia
Actinopyga spp.
Actinopyga
Actinopyga mauritiana
Yellow surfish
Stichopus spp.
Stichopus
Thelenota ananas
Prickly redfish
Pearsonothurian graeffei
Flowerfish
Thelenota anax
Royal
Holothuria edulis
Edible sea cucumber
Octopus spp.
Common reef octopus
Panulirus spp.
Spiny lobster
Parribacus spp./Scyllarides spp.
Slipper lobster
92
C.2. List of invertebrates surveyed on 10m belts
Annelida (Polychaeta)
(Platyhelminthes)
Arthropoda (Crustacea)
Mollusca (Gastropoda)
Mollusca (Bivalvia)
Mollusca (Cephalopoda)
Sea stars (Asteroidea)
Sabellidae
Feather duster worms
Serpulidae
Christmas tree worms
Terebellidae
Spaghetti worms
Polycladida
Flatworms
Caridea
Shrimps
Stomatopoda
Mantis shrimps
Crabs
Muricidae
Murex
Drupella spp.
Drupe snails
Strombidae
Conch
Cypraeidae
Cowrie
Ranellidae
Triton
Conidae
Cone
Trochidae
Top
Cassidae
Helmet
Other shells
Nudibranchia
Nudibranchs
Ostreidae
Oysters
Tridacnidae
Giant Clam
Sepoidea
Cuttlefish
Teuthoidea
Squid
Culcita sp.
Cushion sea star
Acanthaster planci

Other sea stars
Brittle stars (Asterozoa)

Feather stars (Crinozoa)
Ophiuroidea
Brittle stars
Crinoidea
Feather stars
Diadema sp.
Long spined urchin
Echinometra sp.
Mathaes urchin
Echinothrix sp.
Short spined urchin

Pencil urchin
Sea urchins (Echinoidea)

Toxopneustes sp.
Flower urchin
Cake urchin
Other urchins
93

GVI Seychelles Marine Report Jul 2014 - Dec 2015 (Cap Ternay)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

GVI Seychelles Marine Report Jul 2014 - Dec 2015 (Cap Ternay)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Global Vision International,

Seychelles - Mah Report Series No. 154

GVI Seychelles Mah

July 2014 - December 2015

GVI Seychelles Mah

GVI Seychelles Mah/Marine Conservation Expedition

Invertebrate densities (10m transects) ...........................................................................54

1.1 Coral reef monitoring

Assess sizes of commercially important fish species

Assess diversity of hard coral genera

Evaluate coral juvenile recruitment rates

Assess density of invertebrate hard coral predators and sea urchins

Assess abundance and diversity of commercially targeted invertebrate species

Monitor and manage the abundance of crown-of-thorns sea stars (Acanthaster

Table 1: Survey sites information

Conception North Point

Conception Central East Face

S 0439.891, E 055 22.258

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

Willies Bay Reef

Willies Bay Point

Anse Major Reef

Anse Major Point

White Villa Reef

Lilot North Face

Therese North End

Therese North East

Secret Beach Reef

* Sites listed in bold are located within marine national parks

2.2 Expedition practice and general methodology

2.3 Survey methodologies

Line Intercept Transects (LIT)

Coral Diversity Belt Transects

Coral recruitment quadrats

Figure 3: Layout of coral recruitment quadrats at each survey site.

Stationary Point Counts (SPC)

Commercial fish size estimation

(Serranidae), rabbitfish (Siganidae), snappers (Lutjanidae) and sweetlips (Haemulidae). Fish

Belt transects (10m)

Belt transects (50m)

Turbidity, as measured with a Secchi disk

Cloud cover, as estimated in eights

Wind speed, as evaluated via the Beautfort wind force scale

Mean percentage coral cover % (SE)

Mean coral cover % (SE)

Mean live coral cover % (SE)

Coral genera dominance

Total live coral cover

Mean coral cover % (SE)

Coral growth forms as proxy for structural complexity

Coral growth forms on total cover (%)

Mean cover % (SE)

Mean cover % (SE)

Corallimorphs and Zoanthids

Mean cover % (SE)

3.2 Hard coral genera diversity

Mean genera richness per site (SE)

Coral genera richness

3.3 Coral Recruitment