1

FIJI MARINE CONSERVATION &

DIVING

Beqa Island, Fiji

FJM Phase 143 Science Report

16th

June 2014 – 22nd

September 2014

Kristian J Miles MSc BSc (Hons) AMSB (Principal Investigator)

2

Field Staff

Role Staff member

Project Coordinator & Principal Investigator:

Kristian Miles (KM)

Dive Officer: Clare Brown (CB)

Assistant Research Officer: Elizabeth O’Connor (EO)

3

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction 4

1.1 Frontier 4

1.2 Location 4

1.3 Background 5

1.3.1 Natural Sources of Reef Degradation 5

1.3.2 Anthropogenic Sources of Reef Degradation 5

2.0 Aims and Objectives 6

3.0 Phase Objectives 6

4.0 Methods 7

4.1 Study Sites 7

4.2 Science Training 8

4.3 Survey Methodology 8

4.3.1 Surveyor Roles 9

4.3.2 Field Data Collection 9

4.3.3 Data Input 10

4.3.4 Statistical Analysis 10

5.0 Results 10

5.1 Benthic Forms 10

5.2 Fish Biodiversity and Abundance 10

5.3 Statistical Analysis 12

6.0 Discussion 12

7.0 Proposed Work Programme for Next Phase 14

8.0 References 15

9.0 Appendices 17

9.1 Appendix 1 17

9.2 Appendix 2 19

4

1. Introduction

1.1 Frontier

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

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

marginalised and under resourced communities in the world’s poorest countries and to create solutions

that are apolitical, forward-thinking, community- driven and innovative, and which take into consideration

the long-term needs of low income communities”.

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

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

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

the South Pacific and the International Ocean Institute since 2006. After working on Gau Island in Fiji

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

the status of the coral reef systems around Beqa and within Beqa Lagoon. Subsequently the project hopes

to work in collaboration with the local communities of Beqa to establish seasonal no take zones and

sustainable harvest rates for both their commercial sale and own consumption.

1.2 Location

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

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

inhabited and, of these, the two largest islands Viti Levu and Vanua Levu contain approximately 90% of

Fiji’s population (Vuki et al., 2000).

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

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

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

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

Fiji is world renowned as the Soft Coral Capital of the World and is also home to Beqa Lagoon which is

famous amongst divers. It features over 50 world class dive sites and is frequented by numerous species

of mega fauna including dolphins, whales, sharks, rays and turtles. The primary source of income on Beqa

is tourism, largely through recreational scuba diving. No large scale agriculture or horticulture occurs and

heavy industry is non-existent, therefore the reefs within Beqa Lagoon are unaffected by the potential

negative environmental impacts that such industries can bring.

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

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

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

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

inhabitants of Beqa Island. Studies on other reefs elsewhere have shown that similar traditional methods

5

are an effective way to control and sustainably manage harvest rates of marine resources (Hoffmann,

2002).

1.3 Background

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

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

ecosystems (Reaka-Kudla, 1996).

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

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

human populations were low and fish were harvested only for subsistence (Lovell et al. 2004). Poisons

were used occasionally to retrieve large catches for festivals and ceremonial occasions. Even 30 years

ago, remote reefs remained healthy; however reefs near dense populations began to be overexploited.

Some Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) had been created, however the threats to coral reefs were not yet

fully understood. In the last 20 years, pollution, sedimentation and overfishing around dense population

centres have increased. As a result, MPAs near urban areas have incurred significant stress and

consequently their health has declined. Most other reefs situated in rural and isolated areas have remained

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

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

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

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

and anthropogenic activities continue to increase, there are concerns about the detrimental impact that

will be incurred by reefs. In addition, as climate change intensifies over the next 50 years, the frequency

of destructive environmental events will increase and will occur at a greater frequency than coral reefs

will be able to recover (Hutchings et al., 2008).

1.3.1 Natural Sources of Reef Degradation

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

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

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

2002, significant damage has been sustained on coral reefs within the Southwest Pacific region as a

result of cyclones (Lovell et al., 2004). Coral predator outbreaks, specifically the Crown of Thorn

starfish (Acanthaster planci), have occurred on Fijian reefs since 1965 for periods ranging from two to

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

1.3.2 Anthropogenic Sources of Reef Degradation

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

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

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

6

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

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

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

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

(Cumming et al., 2002).

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

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

overseas. This is a major problem in Fiji as it significantly diminishes reef ecosystems. In 2001, a

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

greater as a substantial quantity is lost in the trimming and grading process (Lovell et al., 2004).

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

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

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

at recycling them. When marine ecosystems are enriched with chemical nutrients; this results in excessive

plant growth in the form of macro algae. Such algae are detrimental to the health of the reef because they

use all available oxygen within the water column, causing fish populations to die off. In addition, these

algal blooms reduce the amount of light penetrating the water column inhibiting coral photosynthesis,

subsequently causing rapid declines in reef system biodiversity. Unmanaged disposal of raw sewage is

common in areas of dense population as well as in popular tourist destinations. Incidents of dumping on

reefs along the Coral Coast of Viti Levu, Mamanuca and Suva have been observed (Mosley and

Aalbersberg, 2002, Tamata and Thaman, 2001; Zann and Lovell, 1992).

2. Aims & Objectives

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

coral reefs within Beqa Lagoon in order to ascertain the health of the reef. Data is collected on benthic

forms, fish species biodiversity, abundance and size, invertebrate species and coral genus. The project

will be developed with the creation and delivery of environmental education workshops in the local

communities focusing on awareness of marine resources, conservation and how to sustainably use and

manage the resources that the coral reefs provide.

3. Phase Objectives

The overall objective of this phase was to continue to develop the project and expand the data set. This

entailed:

Creating and developing training resources on survey species and methodology.

Selecting new survey sites based on their size, depth and continuity.

7

Deploying mooring lines at new sites and replacing broken mooring lines at existing sites.

Deploying permanent transect markers.

Maintaining good relationships with local communities by visiting church and attending

events.

Continuing to developing the FJM camp into a fully functional research outpost.

4. Methods

4.1 Study Sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

can only be completed at high tide. At high tide the survey area is approximately 6 m, however

the site is also comprised of steep drop offs and coral bombies.

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

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

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

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

The fourth site, named ‘Rabbit’ (S4), is nearshore with the coordinates S 18˚24’.07.5” E 178˚06’09.9”. It

is also located within Vaga Bay; however it is closer to the river outflow and is generally shallower, with

an average depth of 6 m dropping down to 12 m at the reef edge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

has an average depth of 8 m, but the edge of the reef also has a steep drop off down to a depth of 22 m.

There is potential for strong currents to occur, therefore careful planning and caution is taken when

conducting surveys at this site.

8

4.2 Science training

Before Research Assistants (RAs) were permitted to conduct surveys, rigorous testing was undertaken. A

programme of lectures and theory tests were given before in-water identification tests were conducted. A

pass rate of 95% accuracy was required for theory tests before in-water tests could begin. Each fish

species/family and coral form had to be successfully identified in the water three times before progressing

on to practice surveys. RAs were then required to complete two practice surveys before actual benthic and

fish surveys could be undertaken and data recorded. The lectures and associated theory and in-water tests

given are shown below.

Table 1. Briefing sessions conducted during phase 143.

Lecture Theory Test In-water Test

1) Introduction to coral reefs No No

2) Indicator fish species Yes Yes

3) Other fish families Yes Yes

4) Other butterflyfish and damselfish Yes No

5) Fish anatomy No No

6) Marine hazards No No

7) Benthic forms Yes Yes

8) Invertebrates No No

9) Survey methodology No Yes

4.3 Survey methodology

Baseline Survey Protocol (BSP) was used which follows standardised Reef Check methodology

(Hodgson, 2001). In order to initially set up the permanent transects, fifty metre survey tapes were used to

create transect lines spaced 10 m apart. Four permanent transect sites were set up at each of the six survey

sites and highly visible markers deployed in order to allow RAs to easily locate the transect start points.

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

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

completed separated by a 5 m gap. Benthic data was collected using line intercept methodology, whereas

fish surveys were completed using belt transect methodology. During the fish surveyor methodology,

RAs recorded all fish seen within a 5m x 5m square from the base of the transect tape measure (Fig.1).

9

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

base of the transect tape measure.

4.3.1 Surveyor Roles

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

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

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

role. Data was collected on benthic forms and fish biodiversity, abundance and size.

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

Provided that RAs were able to undertake all survey roles, the allocated role rotated on a daily basis.

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

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

bearings. The physical surveyor recorded the depth and time at the start and end of each transect and

navigated the set bearing of each transect whilst laying out the tape measure. During fish surveys the

physical surveyor remained behind the fish surveyor to reduce disturbance to the fish within the transect

area. On completion of the survey the physical surveyor reeled in the tape. When surveying benthic

forms, the benthic surveyor conducted the survey with the physical surveyor swimming alongside.

4.3.2 Field Data Collection

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

branching, massive, submassive, corymbose, digitate, laminar, tabular, singular, foliose, sponge, soft and

dead coral, rock and sand.

Fish biodiversity, abundance and size were recorded using 5x5x20 m belt transects. RAs were trained on

45 indicator species and 20 other fish families; however, some are rarely encountered (Appendix 1). Fish

size was recorded in categories; 1-10 cm, 11-20 cm, 21-30 cm, 31-40 cm, 41-50 cm and >50 cm. When a

10

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

common average size category.

4.3.3 Data Input

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

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

4.3.4 Statistical Analysis

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

to quantify the biodiversity of the sample sites because it takes into account the number of flora and fauna

present, as well as the abundance of each. As richness and evenness increase, so does the diversity.

Therefore, Simpson's Diversity Index measures diversity based on both richness and evenness. The index

values calculated range between 0 and 1 and the greater the value, the greater the sample diversity. The

index represents the probability that two individuals randomly selected from a sample will not belong to

the same species or category of individuals.

5. Results

5.1 Benthic Forms

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

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

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

tabular coral forms failed to be represented, however S1 was the only site where digitate forms were not

encountered. On the other hand, Site 2; ‘Lunch’ (S2), dominated by massive, submassive and tabular

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

by three benthic forms and had one benthic form with the lowest abundance. ‘Mala’s’ (S3), had the

highest intercept values of benthic forms including foliose, solitary, soft and sand forms. The data

suggests that S3 had the lowest abundance of branching, corymbose and encrusting coral. Site 4, ‘Rabbit’

(S4), had two coral forms that were most abundant and had one coral form that was least abundant when

compared with the other survey sites. These included encrusting rock and solitary, which unlike the other

sites, were not encountered. S5 was dominated by branching, corymbose and digitate forms, but it had the

lowest abundance of soft coral. Site 6, ‘Wreck’, had one benthic form that dominated and one coral form

that was least abundant; sponge and massive respectively (Appendix 2; Figures 1a-6b).

5.2 Fish biodiversity and abundance

Indicator species are defined as species that use the reef primarily as habitat for recruitment, protection

and food, seldom straying from their respective territories. The data gathered from the survey sites

illustrates that S6 had the greatest biodiversity with 40 indicator species sampled. Site 1 was the second

11

most biodiverse site with 37 indicator species sampled. Site 4 was the third most biodiverse site with 35

indicator species encountered. Sites 2 and 5 followed with 33 and 32 species respectively. S3 was the

least biodiverse survey site with 29 indicator species sampled (Appendix 2; Figure 7).

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

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

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

2; Figure 7).

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

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

by S1 with 5 species. S4 and S3 had the lowest dominance with 4 and 3 respectively. In the case of other

fish families S1 had the greatest abundance with 9 families dominating. Site 4 followed with 6 dominant

species closely followed by S3 and S6 with 4 species, S2 and S5 had the lowest dominance with 3 species

each (Appendix 2; Table 1).

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

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

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

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

barracuda) were only encountered on S3.

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

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

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

(Chaetodon baronessa) dominated at S1, S3, S5 and S6, the Vagabond (Chaetodon vagabundus)

dominated at S2 and Redfin (Chaetodon trifasciatus) dominated at S4. With regards to the Damselfish,

the data shows that the Reticulated Dascylus (Dascyllus reticulatus) dominated at S1, S5 and S6, the

Bicolor Chromis (Chromis margaritifer) dominated at S2 and Black Axil Chromis (Chromis

atripectoralis) dominated at S3 and S4. As far as ‘other families’ are concerned, the four most abundant

species found were Fusiliers (Caesio spp.), Other Damselfish (Pomacentrus/Chrysiptera/Chromis spp.),

Wrasse (Bodianus/Labroides/ Cheilinus spp.), and Bristletooth (Ctenochaetus spp.) (Appendix 2; Table

1).

12

5.3 Statistical Analysis

Figure 2; Scatter graph illustrating Simpson’s Index of Diversity (1-D) values for benthic and fish

data at each survey site.

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

S5 whereas S2 had the lowest richness and diversity. In comparison, the fish data illustrated that S1 and

S2 had the greatest richness and diversity of species followed by S3 whilst S6 had the lowest species

richness and diversity (Fig. 2).

6. Discussion

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

species, specifically Butterflyfish and Damselfish. Both sites were inshore reefs, however S6 was prone to

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

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

addition to this; although each of the survey sites showed equal diversity in terms of the number of coral

forms identified, sponges were found to be significantly higher in abundance at S6 than all other sites.

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

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

which had three large dive vessels and various smaller crafts operating daily. As sponges have evolved to

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

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

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

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

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1.000

1 2 3 4 5 6

Simpsons Diversity Index Values for

Benthic and Fish Data

Benthic Fish

Ind

ex

Val

ue

13

Angelfish (Veitayaki et al., 2012). This was potentially the main factor behind the high biodiversity of

indicator species at S6.

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

This was also the case for S2, however when comparing the abundance of ‘other families’, S2 and S3 had

the lowest values. It is possible that ‘other families’ were less abundant at S2 and S3 but not at S1 because

S2 and S3 were open to spear fishing using SCUBA by local villages, and thus were more commonly

harvested, reducing the abundance of fish populations, whereas S1was a no-take zone and so free from

fishing threats. Furthermore, sites that were designated no-take zones such as S4 had limited visibility

resulting from freshwater outflows. One potential reason to explain why biodiversity of ‘other families’

was high at S3was that the reef was inshore within Vaga Bay and consequently more protected from

environmental stresses such as strong currents and wave action, providing the conditions necessary for

spawning. Studies have shown that species diversity and community structure are significantly restricted

with increased wave exposure (Connell et al., 1997, Kilar and McLachlan, 1989).

The data also showed that indicator abundance was lowest at S3 and S2 followed by S4 and S5. This

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

that flowed out of one of the local villages (Rukua) and then diffused into the surrounding sea water.

This significantly reduced the salinity of the seawater and consequently certain indicator species may

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

al., 2001).

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

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

of phosphates in the water from the local resort and coastal villages depositing sewage into the sea.

This would encourage the growth of the long filamentous cyanobacterium Lyngbya, which readily

attach to substrates such as soft corals and gorgonians consequently limiting the ability to absorb

available light and oxygen causing them to perish (Crosby et al., 1995). As S1 and S6 possessed very

similar levels of soft coral; 0.6 and 0.54 cm respectively, and because they were in the same area, they

potentially had similar levels of phosphates in the water surrounding them. Site 5 was further offshore

than S1 and S6; therefore north easterly currents could have been driving phosphate-enriched water

through S1 and S6, followed by common south easterly winds driving the water toward S5. This

hypothesis however could only be tested by taking water samples and testing them for phosphate

levels.

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

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

species were more commonly sampled. Both species are found in coral-rich areas and feed on

filamentous algae. Their abundance at the survey sites is likely to be indicative of healthy reef systems

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

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

preference for sheltered seaward reefs and bays.

14

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

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

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

of Acropora coral (Pratchett, 2005). This species therefore suggests that Acropora species dominate the

reefs within Beqa lagoon. Similarly, C. trifasciatus is an obligate corallivore, however, it is commonly

found in coral rich areas feeding on a wide range of different coral species (Pyle, 2001). Their common

occurrence at survey sites indicates a healthy range of coral biodiversity. In contrast C. citrinellus is a

facultative corallivore that feeds on hard coral, algae, polychaetes and other benthic invertebrates. This

indicates that the studied reefs possess substantial diversity in nonvascular and invertebrate taxa.

Chaetodon vagabundus feeds on soft coral, coral polyps, polychaete worms and algae. The species can

tolerate ecologically stressful habitats such as reduced salinity which consequently explains the increased

abundance of this species at S1 and S4.

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

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

were most common across all survey sites. Both C. atripectoralis and D. aruanus were commonly found

above staghorn Acropora and therefore indicate a healthy population of Acropora cervicornis. In contrast

A. Leucogaster was found in coral rich areas and therefore this indicates biodiverse and healthy reef

systems. Dascyllus reticulatus commonly inhabit branching coral heads, specifically Pocillopora eydouxi;

this implies such coral species are common at the survey sites, specifically S5 and S6.

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

needs to be collected from additional inshore and offshore reefs.

7. Proposed work programme for next phase

Additional survey sites need to be located and permanent transect markers deployed. In order to achieve

this; the GPS coordinates of additional sites need to be calculated using a nautical chart. Sites then have to

be scouted and their suitability for surveying assessed based on size, depth and continuity. If a site is

found to be suitable, a permanent mooring line needs to be installed to prevent regular anchor damage to

the reef, and permanent transects markers need to be deployed. Data can then be collected on these sites

and compared against the current data. Data also needs to be collected on the distribution and abundance

of coral families at each of the current survey sites.

In an attempt to assess coral biodiversity and invertebrate abundance, common genus and species need to

be identified. Training on in-water identification and survey methodology needs to be conducted for both

staff and RAs, and then surveys conducted to collect data on such taxa. This data could then be used

alongside the fish biodiversity and abundance data so that reliable conclusions can be drawn on the state of

the reefs in the localised area.

15

Plans are also in place to initiate a mangrove health assessment programme. This will begin with

mapping the mangrove system within Vaga bay and conducting surveys on species diversity and

density.

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

and disturbance at several scales in space and time. Ecol Monogr. 67: 461-488.

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

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

Reef Symposium – January 26-27, 1995. 1-83.

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

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

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

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

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

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

food conversion efficiency and osmoregulatory status in the spotted wolfish. Journal of Fish Biology. 59:

416–426.

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

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

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

Science. 69: 861-868.

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

Marine Pollution Bulletin. 44: 1281–1293.

Hutchings, P., Kingsford, M & Hoegh-Guldberg, O. 2008. The Great Barrier Reef; Biology, Environment

and Management. CSIRO Publishing. 298.

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

plantdominated, fringing-reef platform: intermediate disturbance and disturbance mediated

competition. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 54: 265-276.

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

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

16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rome, pp. 3224–3265.

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

Reaka-Kudld ML, Wil- son DE, Wilson E0 (eds) Biodiversity 11. Joseph Henry Press, Washington. 83-

108.

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

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

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

University of the South Pacific.

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

Reef and Environment Impact Assessment of Naitauba Island. 67.

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

Environmental Evaluation. Sheppard C (ed). Elsevier.

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

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

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

and recommendations for management. National Environmental Management Project. Report on the

Marine Environment. Annex 3.

17

9. Appendices

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

ANGELFISH

Bicolour Centropyge bicolor

Lemonpeel Centropyge flavissimus

Regal Pygoplites diacanthus

Semicircle Pomacanthas semicirculatus

BARRACUDA

Great Sphyraena barracuda

Yellowtail Sphyraena flavicauda

BUTTERFLYFISH

Blackbacked Chaetodon melannotus

Dotted Chaetodon semeion

Eastern triangle Chaetodon baronessa

Humphead Heniochus varius

Latticed Chaetodon rafflesi

Lined Chaetodon lineolatus

Longnosed Forcipiger flavissimus

Longfin bannerfish Heniochus acuminatus

Masked bannerfish Heniochus monoceros

Pacific double saddle Chaetodon ulietensis

Penant bannerfish Heniochus chrysostomus

Racoon Chaetodon lunula

Redfin Chaetodon trifasciatus

Saddleback Chaetodon falcula

Saddled Chaetodon ephippium

Speckled Chaetodon citrinellus

Teardrop Chaetodon unimaculatus

Vagabond Chaetodon vagabundus

DAMSELFISH

Bicolor chromis Chromis margaritifer

Black axil chromis Chromis atripectoralis

Blue devil Chrysiptera cyanea

18

Humbug dascylus Dascyllus aruanus

Indopacific sergeant Abudefduf vaigiensis

Jewel Plectroglyphidodon lacrymatus

Pink anemonefish Amphiprion perideraion

Dusky anemonefish Amphiprion melanopus

Scissortail sergeant Abudefduf sexfasciatus

Staghorn Amblyglyphidodon curacao

Threespot dascylus Dascyllus trimaculatus

Whitebelly Amblyglyphidodon leucogaster

Speckled Pomacentrus bankanensis

Black Neoglyphidodon melas

Grey demoiselle Chrysiptera glauca

Reticulated dascylus Dascyllus reticulatus

Golden damsel Amblyglyphidodon aureus

EMPEROR

Bigeye Monotaxis grandoculis

Blackspot Lethrinus harak

Longface Lethrinus olivaceus

Pink ear Lethrinus lentjan

OTHER FAMILIES

Other Damselfish Pomacentrus/Chrysiptera/Chromis/Stegastes spp.

Surgeonfish Acanthurus spp.

Bristletooth Ctenochaetus spp.

Tang Zebrasoma spp.

Unicornfish Naso spp.

Wrasse Bodianus/Labroides/ Cheilinus spp.

Goatfish Mulloidichthys/ Parupeneus spp.

Cardinalfish Cheilodipterus spp.

Parrotfish Chlorurus/Scarus spp.

Triggerfish Sufflamen spp.

Grouper Epinephelus spp.

Other Butterflyfish Chaetodon spp.

Blenny Exyrias spp.

Snapper Lutjanus/Macolor spp.

Squirrelfish Neoniphon/Sargocentron spp.

Coral Bream Scolopsis spp.

Rabbitfish Siganus spp.

Goby Amblyeleotris spp.

Ray Taeniura spp.

19

Pufferfish Canthigaster

Porcupinefish Diodon spp.

Trumpetfish Aulostomus spp.

Fusilier Caesio spp.

Jack Caranx spp.

Other Angelfish Centropyge/Pomacanthus spp.

Moorish Idol Zanclus cornutus

File Fish Oxymonacanthus

Spadefish Platax spp.

Sweetlips Plectorhinchus

Shark Carcharhinus/Triaenodon spp.

9.2. Appendix 2: Tables and graphs illustrating fish species and families and benthic forms

sampled between survey sites.

Species Bikini Lunch Mala's Rabbit Vuvalae Wreck

Bicolour Angelfish 427 49 67 59 125 400

Lemonpeel Angelfish 117 80 19 0 15 63

Regal Angelfish 76 17 5 1 89 41

Semicircle Angelfish 0 0 0 1 0 1

Angelfish 621 152 103 71 237 505

Great Barracuda 0 0 3 0 0 0

Yellowtail Barracuda 1492 0 0 695 0 0

Blackbacked Butterflyfish 4 5 0 6 0 0

Dotted Butterflyfish 0 6 0 0 17 7

Eastern Triangle 264 29 64 119 249 220

Humphead Bannerfish 26 2 1 35 152 59

Latticed Butterflyfish 53 7 3 22 10 10

Lined Butterflyfish 3 0 1 3 0 2

Longnosed Butterflyfish 16 27 1 0 5 14

Longfin Bannerfish 2 0 0 18 0 2

Masked Bannerfish 9 2 9 10 8 14

Pacific Doublesaddled Butterflyfish 2 10 0 4 3 13

Penant Bannerfish 5 1 0 12 2 10

Racoon Butterflyfish 1 8 0 12 0 7

Redfin Butterflyfish 89 14 34 216 40 18

Saddleback Butterflyfish 3 2 0 1 0 14

Saddled Butterflyfish 13 9 0 0 4 30

Speckled Butterflyfish 6 58 0 1 32 79

Teardrop Butterflyfish 5 19 0 1 6 17

Vagabond Butterflyfish 146 34 56 78 34 59

Butterflyfish 742 525 179 564 729 906

20

Bicolor Chromis 127 1739 57 62 169 2769

Black Axil Chromis 1007 1413 1091 1480 3029 1487

Blue Devil 152 1726 65 182 265 1086

Humbug Dascylus 1641 0 522 60 1515 609

Indopacific Sergeant 11 0 2 47 0 218

Jewel Damsel 86 134 38 12 5 39

Pink Anemonefish 8 0 24 6 4 0

Dusky Anemonefish 16 3 18 53 0 75

Scissortail Sergeant 772 251 11 139 274 1119

Staghorn Damsel 114 0 87 544 4 4

Threespot Dascylus 122 35 5 20 393 152

Whitebelly Damsel 2509 0 649 1147 88 115

Speckled Damsel 22 14 1 15 4 19

Black Damsel 79 31 62 40 106 218

Grey Demoiselle 957 185 205 860 1365 872

Reticulated Dascylus 1756 1664 441 120 5687 8164

Golden Damsel 240 7 43 6 122 629

Damsel 16642 8806 6827 11603 18872 22248

Bigeye Emperor 9 1 1 3 4 8

Blackspot Emperor 0 0 9 2 0 1

Longface Emperor 20 0 0 0 0 3

Pinkear Emperor 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other Damsel 7023 1604 3506 6810 5842 4673

Surgeonfish 149 97 36 196 1003 497

Bristletooth 717 469 190 1374 400 469

Tang 733 236 122 432 157 258

Unicornfish 91 3 1 19 27 142

Wrasse 991 390 172 567 400 391

Goatfish 231 26 14 78 66 113

Cardinalfish 36 0 31 535 12 56

Parrotfish 670 181 27 165 279 381

Trigger 33 19 3 6 19 31

Grouper 66 3 30 72 13 31

Other Butterfly 95 292 10 26 167 331

Blenny 62 0 54 30 14 6

Snapper 13 6 9 12 3 3

Squirrelfish 83 12 6 14 2 13

Coral Bream 177 4 31 39 66 137

Rabbitfish 84 19 14 469 25 9

Goby 5 0 7 2 1 4

Bluespot Ray 3 0 1 0 0 0

21

Soldierfish 14 9 8 27 2 3

Pufferfish 7 0 3 5 5 3

Trumpet Fish 15 2 2 2 6 24

Fusilier 3711 383 1234 867 4053 450

Jack/ Travally 0 1 0 0 3 0

Other Anglefish 1 6 12 10 8 0

Moorish Idol 74 25 1 5 6 11

File fish 42 8 3 28 0 30

Spade 0 0 0 2 0 2

Sweetlips 0 1 0 7 2 0

White Tip Reef Shark 16 1 6 5 3 0

Other Families 8052 1896 2015 4963 6571 3076

TOTAL INDIVIDUALS 9477 11379 2029 5678 26409 3065

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

each site.

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

22

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

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

23

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

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

24

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

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

25

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

.

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

26

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

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

27

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

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

40

3231

38

32

40

28

24

29 29

2726

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 2 3 4 5 6

Number of Indicator and Other Families Surveyed Between

Survey Sites

Indicator Other Families

Survey Site

Nu

mb

er

of

Sp

ecie

s S

urv

ey

ed

28

Figure 8; Comparison of Angelfish Species Sampled Between Survey Sites

Figure 9; Comparison of Barracuda Species Sampled Between Survey Sites

427

49

6759

125

400

117

80

19

0

15

6376

175 1

89

41

0 0 0 1 0 1

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1 2 3 4 5 6

Distribution of Angelfish Between Survey Sites

Bicolour Angelfish

Lemonpeel Angelfish

Regal Angelfish

Semicircle Angelfish

Survey Site

Su

rvey

Fre

qu

en

cy

0 0 3 0 0 0

1492

0 0

695

0 0

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1 2 3 4 5 6

Distribution of Barracuda Species Between Survey Sites

Great Barracuda

Yellowtail Barracuda

Survey Site

Su

rvey

Fre

qu

en

cy

29

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

Survey Sites

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

Damselfish between Survey Sites

127

1739

57 62 169

2769

1007

1413

1091

1480

3029

1487

957

185 205

860

1365

872

1756 1664

441

120

5687

8164

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

1 2 3 4 5 6

Distribution of Bicolor Chromis, Black Axil Chromis, Grey

Demoiselle and Reticulated Dascylus Between Survey Sites

Bicolor Chromis

Black Axil Chromis

Grey Demoiselle

Reticulated Dascylus

Survey Site

Su

rvey

Fre

qu

en

cy

264

29

64

119

249

220

26

2 1

35

152

59

89

14

34

216

40

18

146

34

56

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 2 3 4 5 6

Distribution of Eastern Triangle, Humphead Bannerfish, Redfin

and Vagabond Butterflyfish Between Survey Sites

Eastern Triangle

Humphead Bannerfish

Redfin Butterflyfish

Vagabond Butterflyfish

Survey Site

Su

rvey

Fre

qu

en

cy