Global Vision International, Seychelles - Mah Report Series No.

131 ISSN 1751-2255 (Print)

GVI Seychelles Mah

Marine Conservation Expedition

January - June 2013

GVI Seychelles Mah/Marine Conservation Expedition Report January - June 2013 Submitted in whole to
Global Vision International Seychelles National Parks Authority (SNPA) Produced by Lee Cassidy Science Coordinator Sam Howlett Science Coordinator And Christophe Mason-Parker Emily Allen Kate Poss Joe Daniels Lee Bush Country Director Base Manager Community Leader Dive Officer Dive Officer Charlotte Broadhead Jordon Bonnett Carly Reeves Jessica Skippen Scholar Scholar Scholar Scholar

Thank you also to our hardworking volunteers for the collection of all data; Mary Brown, Bill Bawden, George Hazeldine, FabienneJoos, Billy Rich, Eden Yeandle, Jessica Skippen, Victoria Beasley, Janis Pizics, James Clack, James Mckenzie, Clare Walkden, Lauren Hall, Kais Khoury, MajaLofqvist, Melanie Knabel, Denise Renninger, Rolf Engels, Johan Molgard Sorenson, MichealTejellsen, Charlotte Orba, Alex Wilson, Carl Baden, Charlotte Abraham, SebasteinWesterholm, BogdanMihalceaEliade, Andrew Leach, Marion Heyer, Shawn Middleton, Rachel Duczynski, Matthew Waller, PhillippaSturges, Bradley Knight, JayeBransgrove, CharlieDorey, Carl-Johann Renner, Beth Stuart, Kyle Thomas, Gaius Timms, Jennifer Laurence, Silvia Helfenstien, Hannah Wolstenholm, Ashleigh McNie, Gabi Rudolf, Christopher Connell, Susanne JafariChamgavi, Thomas Kitchen, Rory Langman, Sarah Taylor, Lewis Plush, Philipp Ding, Charlotte Hilton, StanislavShub& Florian Klein.

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 summaries the findings from surveys conducted between January to June 2013 which examined coverage of all epibenthic organisms, along with scleractinian coral diversity, in addition to density of both reef and commercial fish species and the abundance of key indicator invertebrate species. Results were then combined with previous survey data from the program to assess and analyse trends and changes in the coral reef communities along the North-West coastline of Mah. Analysis of the surveys focussing on the epibenthic communities show that overall coral cover has increased to 37.64% ( 1.94); the highest coverage seen yet in the monitoring program.Granitic sites increased by 2.67% in 2013 whilst carbonate reefs remained stable from 2012. Analysis of the structural complexity shows that branching coral coverage increased again this year maintaining its dominance from 2011.This continued increase in the growth of the physical matrix of the reefs is a very positive sign for the future of these reefs being able to support a wider diversity of life. Fish results show that the overall density of fish on survey sites has changed very little over the last couple of years, with changes mainly to the community composition. Corallivores continue to increase; coral cover and corallivores density were correlated (R2 =0.926), highlighting the importance of live coral cover for specialist species. Protected areas showed higher density and diversity of fish species, highlighting again the need to maintain correct management of these critical areas. Abundance of invertebrate species has increased since the initial surveys conducted in 2005. Results from 2013 however show a decrease in most of the invertebrate phyla. The most significant decrease for 2013 was seen in the Mollusca and Arthropoda phyla. Further analysis of species abundance within these phyla showed that the decrease in mean abundance was mainly due to a drop in Oyster numbers at granitic sites for Mollusc's and crab species on carbonate reefs for the Arthropoda phylum. Indicating that these are issues effecting specific species on specific substrate types, as opposed to larger scale problems effecting overall phyla numbers in the survey area.

Contents
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 2 Survey Sites ............................................................................................................10

Aims .............................................................................................................................. 11 2.1 Species Lists ...........................................................................................................11 Coral .................................................................................................................11 Fish...................................................................................................................11 Invertebrates ....................................................................................................12

2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.2

Training....................................................................................................................12 Dive Training ....................................................................................................12 Species Identification .......................................................................................12 Survey Methodology.........................................................................................13

2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3

3. Methodology ................................................................................................................. 13 3.1. Coral ........................................................................................................................13 Line Intercept Transects (LIT) ..........................................................................13 Coral Diversity Belt Transects ..........................................................................14

3.1.1. 3.1.2 3.2

Fish ..........................................................................................................................14 Stationary Point Count .....................................................................................14 50m Belt Transects ..........................................................................................15

3.2.1 3.2.2 3.3

Invertebrates............................................................................................................15 10m Belt Transect ............................................................................................15 50m Belt Transect ............................................................................................15

3.3.1 3.3.2 3.4

Environmental Parameters ......................................................................................17

4. Results .......................................................................................................................... 18 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 Surveys Completed .................................................................................................18 Percentage mean live hard coral cover ...................................................................18 Benthic Assemblage ................................................................................................19 Structural Complexity ..............................................................................................22 Coral Diversity .........................................................................................................24 Overall Fish Results ................................................................................................25 Combined Fish Density 2005 2013 ......................................................................25 Fish Densities with regards to Feeding Guilds ........................................................27 Influence of Marine Protected Areas on Fish Densities 2005 2013 .....................29 4

4.10 Fish Species Diversity .............................................................................................31 4.11 Commercial Fish Sizing Results ..............................................................................32 4.12 Invertebrate Densities from 10m Transects.............................................................33 4.13 Invertebrate Densities from 50m Belts ....................................................................35 4.14 Sea Cucumber Densities .........................................................................................37 5 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 38 5.1 5.2 5.3 6 Coral Surveys ..........................................................................................................38 Fish Surveys ............................................................................................................41 Invertebrate Surveys ...............................................................................................44

Additional Ecosystem Monitoring.................................................................................. 45 6.1. Turtles......................................................................................................................45 Incidental Turtle Sightings ................................................................................45 Beach Patrols for Nesting Turtles.....................................................................47 In-water Surveys of Turtle Behaviour ...............................................................47 Photo Identification of Turtles ...........................................................................49

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

Crown of Thorns ......................................................................................................50 Cetacean Sightings .................................................................................................50 Whale Shark Sightings ............................................................................................50 Plankton Sampling...................................................................................................51

7. Non-survey Programmes .............................................................................................. 52 7.1 Extra Programmes...................................................................................................52 Internships ........................................................................................................52

7.1.1 7.2

Community Development ........................................................................................52 Community Education Programmes.................................................................52 GVI Charitable Trust.........................................................................................52 National Scholarship Programme.....................................................................53

7.2.1 7.2.2 7.2.3

8. References ................................................................................................................... 54 9. Appendices ................................................................................................................... 56 Appendix A. Details of sites surveyed by GVI Seychelles Mah, year round. Sites in bold-type text are located within Marine Protected Areas. .................................................56 Appendix B. Scleractinian coral genera surveyed by GVI Seychelles - Mah. ..................57 Appendix C. Fish families, genera and species surveyed by GVI Seychelles - Mah. ......58 Appendix D. Fish feeding guilds analysed by GVI Seychelles Mah. .............................61

Appendix E. Fish species lists divided into commercial and reef species analysed by GVI Seychelles Mah. ............................................................................................................62 Appendix F. List of invertebrate species surveyed on 50m belt transects by GVI Seychelles Mah. ............................................................................................................63 Appendix G. Invertebrates surveyed on 10m LIT transects by GVI Seychelles Mah. ...64

Figures List
FIGURE 1.1 LOCATION AND SUBSTRATE TYPE OF GVI SURVEY SITES. ...................................................................................... 10 FIGURE 3. 1 LAYOUT OF CORAL LIT AND DIVERSITY BELTS AT EACH SURVEY SITE, WHERE THE SHORELINE IS REPRESENTED BY THE TOP OF THE FIGURE AND THE DISTANCE FROM SHORE INDICATES INCREASING DEPTH. ................................. 16 FIGURE 3.2. LAYOUT OF FISH SPC AND BELTS, AND 50M INVERTEBRATE TRANSECTS AT EACH SURVEY SITE, WHERE THE SHORELINE IS REPRESENTED BY THE TOP OF THE FIGURE AND THE DISTANCE FROM SHORE INDICATES INCREASING DEPTH. ............................................................................................................................................................................ 16 FIGURE 4. 1 MEAN PERCENTAGE CORAL COVER ( SE) AT THE CARBONATE AND THE GRANITIC SITES, FOR EACH SURVEY PERIOD FROM 2005 TO 2013 .......................................................................................................................................... 19 FIGURE 4. 2 MEAN PERCENTAGE COVERAGE FOR CORAL, ALGAE, OTHER BENTHIC ORGANISMS AND BARE SUBSTRATE FROM ALL SITES FOR JAN JUN 2013 ............................................................................................................................. 19 FIGURE 4. 3 LARGE SCALE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF PERCENTAGE COVERAGE OF CORAL, ALGAE, VARIOUS BENTHIC ORGANISMS AND BARE SUBSTRATE ACROSS ALL SITES, RUNNING EAST TO WEST ACROSS NORTH WEST MAH FROM 2013 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 20 FIGURE 4. 4 MEAN PERCENTAGE COVERAGE OF ALGAE AND BENTHIC ORGANISMS ON SURVEYED CARBONATE REEFS FROM 2005 2013. ................................................................................................................................................................... 21 FIGURE 4. 5 MEAN PERCENTAGE COVERAGE OF ALGAE AND BENTHIC ORGANISMS ON SURVEYED GRANITIC REEFS FROM 2005 2013. ................................................................................................................................................................... 22 FIGURE 4. 6 PERCENTAGE COVERAGE OF HARD CORAL FOUND ACROSS ALL REEFS FURTHER DIVIDED BY CORAL LIFEFORM PREVALENCE FROM 2005 - 2013 .................................................................................................................................... 22 FIGURE 4. 7 PERCENTAGE COVERAGE OF CORAL LIFEFORM FOUND ACROSS ALL REEFS FROM 2005 2013 ........................ 23 FIGURE 4. 8 PERCENTAGE OF CORAL LIFE FORMS ON CARBONATE SITES 2005 2013 ........................................................... 23 FIGURE 4. 9 PERCENTAGE OF CORAL LIFE FORM ON GRANITIC SITES FROM 2005 2013 ...................................................... 24 FIGURE 4. 10 COMPARISON OF MEAN CORAL GENERA RICHNESS ( SE) FOR CARBONATE AND GRANITIC SITES FROM 2005 2013. ............................................................................................................................................................................... 24 FIGURE 4. 11 MEAN DENSITY PER M OF ALL SURVEYED FISH SPECIES ACROSS ALL SURVEY SITES, 2005 - 2013. .................. 26 FIGURE 4. 12 A COMPARISON OF MEAN DENSITY PER M OF ALL SURVEYED FISH SPECIES BETWEEN CARBONATE AND GRANITIC SUBSTRATE SITES, 2005 2013 ...................................................................................................................... 26 FIGURE 4. 13 COMPARISON OF FISH FEEDING GUILDS THROUGH DENSITY PER M ACROSS ALL SITES, 2005 2013. ........... 27

FIGURE 4. 14 COMPARISON OF FEEDING GUILDS THROUGH DENSITY PER M ACROSS ALL SITES, 2005 2013, DISREGARDING HERBIVORES. ......................................................................................................................................... 28 FIGURE 4. 15 COMPARISON OF LINEAR TREND LINES FOR CORAL COVER AND CORALLIVORE DENSITY ACROSS ALL SITES FROM 2004 TO PRESENT. ................................................................................................................................................ 28 FIGURE 4. 16 MEAN CORAL COVER AGAINST CORALLIVORE DENSITY FOR ALL SITES FROM 2005 TO PRESENT. .................... 29 FIGURE 4. 17 OVERALL MEAN DENSITY PER M OF FISH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE MARINE PROTECTED AREAS, NOV-DEC 2005 TO JAN-JUN 2013. ................................................................................................................................................................. 29 FIGURE 4. 18 MEAN DENSITY OF FISH PER M ON CARBONATE SUBSTRATE SITES INSIDE AND OUTSIDE MARINE PROTECTED AREAS, NOV-DEC 2005 TO JAN-JUN 2013. ...................................................................................................................... 30 FIGURE 4. 19 MEAN DENSITY OF FISH PER M ON GRANITIC SUBSTRATE SITES INSIDE AND OUTSIDE MARINE PROTECTED AREAS, NOV-DEC 2005 TO JAN-JUN 2013. ...................................................................................................................... 30 FIGURE 4. 20 SPECIES-RICHNESS (NUMBER OF FISH SPECIES FOUND) ACROSS ALL SURVEY SITES ALONG NW MAH, 2013. GREEN DENOTES SITES WITHIN MARINE PROTECTED AREAS AND BLUE DENOTES NON-PROTECTED SITES. ................ 31 FIGURE 4. 21 A COMPARISON OF SPECIES-RICHNESS (NUMBER OF FISH SPECIES) BETWEEN THE SAME SITES OF NW MAH IN 2005 AND IN 2013. ..................................................................................................................................................... 32 FIGURE 4. 22 MEAN DENSITY (INDIVIDUALS PER M) OF INVERTEBRATE PHYLA AND BLACK SPINED SEA URCHINS AT CARBONATE REEF SITES, FOR EVERY SURVEY PERIOD FROM 2005 TO 2013 .................................................................. 33 FIGURE 4. 23 MEAN DENSITY (INDIVIDUALS PER M) OF INVERTEBRATE PHYLA AND BLACK SPINED SEA URCHINS AT GRANITIC REEF SITES, FOR EVERY SURVEY PERIOD FROM 2005 TO 2013. ..................................................................... 34 FIGURE 4. 24 MEAN DENSITY (INDIVIDUALS PER M) OF INVERTEBRATE PHYLA AND BLACK SPINED SEA URCHINS AT CARBONATE REEF SITES, FOR EVERY SURVEY PERIOD FROM 2005 TO 2013. ................................................................. 34 FIGURE 4. 25 MEAN DENSITY PER M OF ALL SURVEYED INVERTEBRATE SPECIES ACROSS NORTH-WEST MAH, 2013. ........ 35 FIGURE 4. 26 MEAN DENSITY PER M OF ALL SURVEYED INVERTEBRATE SPECIES ACROSS NORTH-WEST MAH FROM 2009 - 2013. ............................................................................................................................................................................... 36 FIGURE 4. 27 MEAN DENSITY PER M OF CUSHION SEASTAR (CULCITA SPP.), CROWN OF THORNS (ACANTHASTERPLANCI) AND THE GASTROPODS DRUPELLA SP. FROM 2009 - 2013 ACROSS ALL SITES. .............................................................. 36 FIGURE 4. 28 MEAN NUMBER OF SEA CUCUMBERS RECORDED PER SITE FROM 2006 - 2013. ............................................... 37 FIGURE 4. 29 DENSITY PER M OF INDIVIDUAL SEA CUCUMBER SPECIES ACROSS ALL SURVEY SITES OF NORTH-WEST MAH FROM 2008 - 2013. ......................................................................................................................................................... 37 FIGURE 6. 1 FREQUENCY (%) OF HAWKSBILL AND GREEN TURTLE SIGHTINGS AROUND NORTH-WEST MAH FROM OCT- DEC 2005 TO APRIL-JUN 2013. ............................................................................................................................................... 46 FIGURE 6. 2 MEAN CARAPACE LENGTH OF HAWKSBILL TURTLES AROUND NORTH-WEST MAH FROM JAN- MAR 2006 TO APR- JUN 2013 ................................................................................................................................................................ 47
2 2 2 2

1 Introduction
Global Vision International (GVI) Seychelles comprises of two expeditions based on the granitic inner islands of Seychelles. One on Mah, the largest and most heavily populated island in the Seychelles group, located at the Cap Ternay Research Centre in Baie Ternay National Park and one on Curieuse Island within the Curieuse national marine park, located north of Praslin. The marine parks at which both GVI bases are located are controlled and managed by the Seychelles National Parks Authority (SNPA). All of GVIs scientific work in the Seychelles is carried out on behalf of our local partners and at their request, using their methodology; GVI supplies experienced staff, trained volunteers and equipment to conduct research in support of their on-going work. GVIs key partner is the conservation and research section, which is the research arm of SNPA. Additional local partners include the Marine Conservation Society Seychelles (MCSS) and the Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA). Seychelles National Parks Authority (SNPA): A local organisation partly funded by the

government, encompassing the conservation and research section and the Marine Parks Authority (MPA). These organisations have the respective aims of carrying out marine research in the Seychelles and of managing and patrolling the marine parks. The coral and fish monitoring carried out for SNPA constitutes the majority of the work conducted by the volunteers. Marine Conservation Society Seychelles (MCSS): A local non-governmental organisation (NGO) that carries out environmental research in the Seychelles, currently monitoring whale sharks, cetaceans and turtles around Mah. GVI assists with all three of these research programmes by documenting the presence or absence of turtles on every dive throughout the phase, conducting in-water turtle behaviour survey dives and also turtle nesting surveys. Along with the turtle work GVI reports incidental sightings of cetaceans and whale sharks and undertakes weekly plankton sampling to aid with year round monitoring of plankton levels in conjunction with the arrival of whale sharks to Mah Island. Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA): The governing body, which oversees the management and regulation of commercial and artisanal fisheries in the Seychelles. This government agency is directly concerned with setting the catch, bag and seasonal limits that apply to local stocks on an annual basis, as well as managing the international export industry that is generated from the harvest of fisheries across the Seychelles Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

In 1998, a worldwide coral bleaching event decimated much of the coral surrounding the inner granitic islands of the Seychelles, with hard coral mortality reaching 95% in some areas (Spencer et al. 2000). It is thought that this was caused by the high ocean temperatures associated with an El Nino Southern Oscillation event at that time. Efforts to monitor the regeneration of reefs in the Seychelles were initiated as part of the Shoals of Capricorn, a three year programme started in 1998 and funded by the Royal Geographic Society in conjunction with the Royal Society. Theresearch and conservation section of the SNPA was set up by the Shoals of Capricorn in an effort to ensure continuation of the work started, as well as to assist the Marine Parks Authority (MPA) with the management of the existing marine parks. The predominant objective for the Seychelles GVI expedition is to aid this monitoring programme and thereby assist in the construction of management plans that will benefit the future recovery of coral reefs in the area. Between 2000 and the beginning of the GVI expedition in 2004 the Seychelles marine ecosystem management program (SEYMEMP) took place, this was the most comprehensive assessment of the coral reefs within the inner islands of the Seychelles to date. Eighty one carbonate and granitic reef sites throughout the inner islands were monitored using fine scale monitoring techniques. Monitoring efforts were continued by Reefcare International, a non-governmental organisation based in Australia. The protocols established by Reefcare International provided a foundation for those adopted by GVI. Although GVIs logistical constraints restrict monitoring efforts to the north-west coast of Mah at sites selected by SNPA. The survey data collected by GVI volunteers allows for analysis of trends in coral reef health seen over the past 13 years of monitoring. Along with this core research GVI Seychelles also endeavours to aid in any of the other projects undertaken by all their partners where it can; as it is hoped that with this help they will be able to increase their capacity to monitor, manage and ultimately conserve the marine environment of the Seychelles for the future. The GVI expeditioncomprises of survey programs that are four, eight or twelve weeks long, running continuously throughout the year from January - December. Within the 12 months fish and invertebrates are surveyed continuously at all survey sites in set time periods. Line Intercept Transects and Coral Diversity transects are undertaken in the first 6 months to evaluate coral coverage and site diversity, and Coral Recruitment quadrats are used within the second 6 months to survey newly recruited colonies and gain a picture of site recovery. Health and Safety: The safety of all volunteers is paramount. All volunteers are given a health and safety brief on the camp upon arrival and conservative diving guidelines are 9

adhered to for the duration of the expedition. In addition, volunteers complete the PADI Emergency First Response first aid course, and are taught how to administer oxygen in the event of a diving related incident. 1.1 Survey Sites

GVI surveys a maximum of 24 separate sites around north-west Mah in the course of a year(fig1.1.).The 24 sites are surveyed twice a year; once in the first 6 months and then again in the second half of the year. All sites are now listed as core sites(see Appendix A for site details). The sites are evenly divided between carbonate and granitic reefs and they represent varying degrees of exposure to wave action and currents. Six of the sites are within Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) where restrictions on all fishing as well as regulations on the recreational use of the park are in place.

Figure 1.1 Location and Substrate Type of GVI Survey Sites.

Each survey site is divided into shallow and deep zones, where the shallow zone is defined by the depth range 1.5 5.0m and the deep zone is defined by the depth range 5.1 15.0m. Each site has a central point, marked by a distinctive landmark on the coastline, and 10

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

2 Aims
The focus of January to June 2013 was on surveying commercial and reef fish species as well as benthic assemblage around North-West Mah. The specific aims of the phase were; Assess diversity and density of fish species across all survey sites Estimate size of commercially important fish species Diversity of hard coral genera across all sites Assess benthic assemblage, including evaluation of hard coral, soft coral, sessile organisms coverage and substrate composition Monitor coral predation and algal grazing pressures through density estimates of hard coral predators, sea urchins and specific fish feeding guilds Assess abundance and diversity of commercially targeted invertebrate species including sea cucumbers, lobster and octopus 2.1 Species Lists 2.1.1 Coral

The list of surveyed scleractinian corals covers 50 separate genera (See Appendix B for the complete species list). Corals are identified to genus level only as in-situ identification beyond genus level is not possible in the case of some corals, and is also beyond the requirements of the project aims. Volunteers are also encouraged to record the genus as unknown if they are not able to confidently identify a coral beyond the family level, and similarly to record unknown hard coral where even the family is not determinable with a level of confidence. 2.1.2 Fish

The fish species chosen for surveys are those that are likely to indicate status of the reefs along with fishing pressure, but are not overly difficult to locate, identify and count as specified by SNPA / SFA. For example, Surgeonfish are herbivores and grazers and thus would influence the algal coral dynamics within the reef ecosystem. Reef-associated species of commercial concern are also surveyed. This data can be used to help determine

11

the status of the reefs and of the fisheries especially when compared with the data from previous phases. Fish are surveyed to the highest taxonomic resolution practicable, with most identified to species level. The resolution depends on difficulty of identification, and also the species characteristics and the data requirements of our partners. The taxonomic level needed varies according to the ecological function of the species within the ecosystem; for example, if different species within a genus feed on different types of food, it is highly desirable to distinguish them to species. However, volunteers are instructed to record only to the level to which they are confident of the identification, thus if they are sure of the family but not genus or species, they record only as an unknown species of that family. See Appendix C - E for the list and taxonomic resolution of fish species surveyed. 2.1.3 Invertebrates

Invertebrate species, which influence and can indicate the health and conditions of coral reefs are surveyed along with commercially viable species which are under fishing pressure. The full list of surveyed invertebrate species is included in Appendix F - G. 2.2 Training 2.2.1 Dive Training

All volunteers must be at least PADI Open Water qualified to join the expedition. Volunteers then receive the PADI Advanced Open Water course covering Boat, Peak Performance Buoyancy, Navigation, Underwater Naturalist, and Deep dives. Particular attention is paid to buoyancy as surveys are conducted in water as shallow as two metres and over delicate reef ecosystems. 2.2.2 Species Identification

Volunteers are required to learn species identification of assigned group either one or a combination of fish, benthic organisms or invertebrates along with all additionally recorded species such as turtles, sharks and rays. Training is initially 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. Knowledge is tested using assessment in the classroom, for which a 95% pass mark is required. Volunteers are taken on identification dives with staff members for in-water testing; their responses are recorded and the dives

12

continue until the volunteer has demonstrated accurate identification of all necessary species/genera. 2.2.3 Survey Methodology

Volunteers receive on land briefings and lectures, navigation practice and in-water training in the skills required to conduct reef surveys. Volunteers complete the PADI Coral Reef Research Diver (CRRD) course, which is specifically developed for GVI and offered only at GVI marine expeditions in Mexico and Fiji. All volunteers are trained in the use of a delayed surface marker buoy and tape reels, plus any other survey equipment specific to the research they will be conducting. The course also includes a series of lectures on various aspects of the marine environment. Before completing any recorded surveys independently, volunteers participate in practice surveys in which they are taught and assessed by a member of staff. Improvements to the quality of species identification training materials are an ongoing and extremely important component to this marine expedition. Photographs taken locally of species underwater are the best materials to use they are accurate and portray how the organism appears underwater. New electronic and hardcopy flashcards are produced to enhance the self-study materials available and to develop the exams by the same means. Volunteers are encouraged to donate their underwater pictures to add to the library.

3. Methodology
3.1. Coral

3.1.1. Line Intercept Transects (LIT) The LIT is a cost-effective method for assessing reef composition (Leujak & Ormond 2007) which produces good results, replicates easily and can be taught to volunteers within time and knowledge constraints. At every site, six 10 metre LITs were carried out, each running parallel to shore within the specific depth range and using reeled tape measures. Three LITs were completed in both the shallow and deep zones, evenly spread amongst the left, centre and right of the site (Fig. 3.1.). Divers record a start and end depth for each transect. The benthic assemblage and substrate is recorded in a continuous series of data of what is directly under the tape, with start and end points for each entry, to the nearest cm. Where coral is found, it is identified to genus level and the life form describing the majority of the colony is recorded. Transects were laid randomly where possible, however placement of the

13

2lb weight at the beginning of the transect generally meant avoiding delicate organisms, therefore the start point would not be chosen randomly. Additionally, the topography at some of the granitic sites creates limited possible places where 10 m of tape can be laid inside the 1.5 5.0 m zone and meant that shallow transects must be laid wherever the diver can achieve it and thus diver selection must drive the process. 3.1.2 Coral Diversity Belt Transects

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

3.2.1

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

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

reliability of this technique (Jennings et al. 1995). The post-bleaching surveys conducted by Reefcare International as part of the Seychelles Marine Ecosystem Management Project (SEYMEMP) used 7 minute long stationary point counts and defined the area for the point count with a 7m radius (Engelhardt 2001; 2004); 7 7.5m radius circle has been shown to create an area of the most suitable size for the size groups into which coral reef fish typically fall (Samoilys& Gribble 1997). When GVI assumed responsibility for the continuation of this assessment in 2005, the same methodology was adopted. At each site eight stationary point counts were carried out. Four stationary point counts were done in each of the shallow and deep zones, two centre, one left and one on the right (Fig.
3.2.). Divers recorded depth at the centre of each point count and start time for each survey.

A tape measure was used to delineate the circle radius, laid in any direction along the reef. This allows for visual reference for the census boundary, increasing accuracy for density calculations. Point counts were conducted by buddy pairs of divers where each was 14

responsible for counting a different selection ofsurveyed fish, thus reducing the number of fish one person is required to count. During the last minute both divers swam around the circle to attempt to ensure that more cryptic fish were counted. 3.2.2 50m Belt Transects

Colvocoresses and Acosta (2007) reported that Belt Transect surveys can cover more area with a similar observer effort to Point Count surveys, although behavioural avoidance of fish towards divers was frequently noted and, possibly as a result, lower densities of fish have been recorded on Belt Transects than on Point Counts. We decided to introduce Belt Transects in addition to the Stationary Point Counts, but to incorporate mechanisms to reduce behavioural avoidance. Variety in methodologies also has the advantages of adding to the skills set of the volunteers and enhancing their experience. The transect belts were 50m long by 5m wide, a standard area often used for reef assessments (Samoilys& Gribble 1997; Hill & Wilkinson 2004). Surveys were conducted by buddy pairs with each diver responsible for counting a different selection of fish. Four belt transects were completed at each site, 2 in the deep zone and 2 in the shallow (Fig. 3.2). One diver laid a measuring tape parallel to the shoreline on the reef while the other swam in front counting fish. Samoilys and Gribble (1997) recommend this technique of simultaneously counting fish and laying the transect tape as it avoids disturbing the fish prior to counting. After completion of the outward stage of the transect, the observers hover away from the end of the tape for 3 minutes to allow fish to return to the survey area before beginning the return leg. On the return journey, the second diver swims back along the tape counting the other fish while the buddy reels in the tape behind them. 3.3 Invertebrates 3.3.1 10m Belt Transect

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

Extent of hard coral predation was measured as the density of two types of sea star; cushion stars (Culcita spp.) and Crown of Thorns (Acanthaster planci), and gastropods in the genus Drupella at each survey site, all of which are hard coral predators. Algal grazing pressure was measured as the density of sea urchins. Two 50m transects were laid out at each site, 15

using polyprophelene reel tape measures. The transects start at the shallow centre point and head out at opposing 45 angles towards the deep zone, thus covering the whole depth range of 1.5 15.0m and the spread of the site. Target species within 2.5m either side of the tape were recorded (see Appendix F).

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

Stationary point count Fish belt transect Invertebrate belt

Figure 3.2.Layout of fish SPC and belts, and 50m invertebrate transects at each survey site, where the shoreline is represented by the top of the figure and the distance from shore indicates increasing depth.

16

3.4

Environmental Parameters

During each survey dive the boat captain records abiotic factors pertaining to the environmental conditions during the dive. Turbidity is recorded using a Secchi disk Cloud cover is estimated in eighths Sea state is evaluated using the Beaufort scale, a copy of which is kept on the boat Surface and bottom sea temperatures are recorded using personal dive computers

17

4. Results
4.1. Surveys Completed

During January to June 2013, substrate composition, commercial and reef fish species density and mobile invertebrate density were recorded. For substrate composition surveys 23 survey sites were successfully completed, for fish density 22 survey sites were completed out a possible 24 survey sites across the north-west Mah coastline. Bad weather conditions didnt allow for a full composite of sites to be completed. Within each site all stationary point counts, fish belts and LIT transects were completed. In addition 50m coral diversity transects (excluding 2 core sites) and 50m invertebrate belt transects were surveyed (excluding 3 core sites. This created a total of 176 SPCs, 88 fish belts (49,093m), 138 LIT transects, 44 coral diversity transects (12,380m), 138 invertebrate transects and 42 invertebrate density belts (13,260m) across the completed sites. In addition to the core surveys, in-water behavioural turtle surveys were conducted weekly as well as turtle nesting surveys within the season of January to March. Data was also collected on incidental sightings of mega-fauna including turtles, cetaceans, sharks, rays and invertebrates of commercial importance. 4.2. Percentage mean live hard coral cover

Percentage hard coral cover was determined from the line intersect transects completed across the 23 core survey sites. Percentage coral cover has seen an overall increase between survey phases 2005 to 2013. Results from 2013 found coral cover reaching maxima since surveys began at 37.64% ( 1.94) mean live hard coral cover. Overall mean percentage cover has increased every year with the exception on 2009. Percentage coverage of coral has continued its increase over the years, however when results are analysed by substrate type (figure 4.1) differences in the rate of change can be seen. Carbonate reef systems show stability in coral cover from 2011 at between 34 - 35%. Results from 2013 found coverage of 34.51% indicating a decrease of 0.23% from 2012 but still maintaining the current trend. The overall percentage coral cover remains higher for granitic reefs, at 40.76% for 2013. A new maxima for coverage on granitic sites since surveys began. This continues the trends found since 2005. Maximum difference between the percentage cover between the two substrates was found in 2006 at 8.23%, although fluctuating, this gap has now narrowed with time. Current results show a difference of 6.25%.

18

45 40
Mean Percentage Coral Cover % (SE)

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Carbonate GraniVc

Figure 4. 1 Mean percentage coral cover ( SE) at the carbonate and the granitic sites, for each survey period from 2005 to 2013

4.3.

Benthic Assemblage

Along with coverage of coral species, benthic assemblage is also recorded on the line intercept transects. When combining the data from all sites results found for 2013 show a higher percentage of algae at 53.22% than that of coral at 38.24%; with areas of bare substrate (1.86%) and other benthic organisms (6.86%) showing significantly lower coverage (figure 4.2). The various benthic organisms consist mainly of soft corals, sponges, corallimorphs and zooanthids.

Coral Cover % Algal cover % Various % Bare %

Figure 4. 2 Mean percentage coverage for coral, algae, other benthic organisms and bare substrate from all sites for Jan Jun 2013

19

Although sites show high coverage of algae the actual distribution of coverage differs when looking at site specifics. It is observed that sites that show low coral cover have significantly higher algal cover; this is also true with the reverse. Special reference to survey sites, Baie Ternay Centre and Anse Major reef. Figure 4.3 also displays a difference in percentage cover of both algae and coral distribution across an east-west gradient, with coral more abundant to the west. In addition to this, comparison of algal vs. coral dynamics can be analysed with regard to marine protected areas, overall algae still shows higher percentage coverage than that of coral in both areas, yet within the marine parks the range is smaller. Specific results show 54.33% algae vs. 37.24% coral outside the marine parks with 50.08% algae vs. 41.06% coral within.

Figure 4. 3 Large scale spatial distribution of percentage coverage of coral, algae, various benthic organisms and bare substrate across all sites, running East to West across North West Mah from 2013

Excluding the continual growth seen with the Scaleractinian corals, distributions of algae and other benthic organisms can be analysed across both the carbonate and granitic substrates. Coverage of these benthic organisms differs between the two reef substrates. Carbonate reefs show a greater range in coverage of sessile organisms whilst granitic sites are dominated by coralline algal; with all other species having stable low level densities (figure 4.4; figure 4.5). Benthic organisms on carbonate reefs display wide ranges in densities, all however are found at significantly lower percentages than coral; below 9% coverage. Fluctuations are 20

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

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

Bare % Various % Algal cover % Coral Cover %

seen with regards to each group, however relative dominance has remained stable throughout the monitoring program. The exception is macro algae, which remains the least abundant organism found on carbonate reefs (figure 4.4). There has been a decline in the coverage of the two most abundant benthic organisms, Corallimorphs / Zooanthids, and soft corals over the past two years. These changes range between 2 - 4%, fluctuations of this size have been seen in previous years. Coralline algae shows an increase in coverage from 2010 and exceeds the coverage of soft corals this year, again fluctuations are seen in the coverage year on year.
9.0 Mean Percentage Coverage % 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Soe Coral Sponge Corallimorphs / Zoanthids Coralline Algae Macro Algae

Figure 4. 4 Mean percentage coverage of algae and benthic organisms on surveyed carbonate reefs from 2005 2013.

The benthic assemblage of granitic reefs differs from that of carbonate reefs and is dominated by coralline algae. The percentage cover of coralline algae at the granitic sites is consistently higher than that of other benthic organisms (with the exception of coral). Percentage coverage has seen a reduction from the peak at 10.56% in 2006. Current coverage found for 2013 is 7.55% yet this algal group still remains dominant. Interestingly the minimum coverage of coralline algae was seen in 2010 for both carbonate and granitic reefs. Since then there has been an increase in coralline algae for each substrate type. All other surveyed benthic organisms have shown consistent low level coverage of below 4% with little fluctuation in coverage throughout the phases (figure 4.5).

21

Mean Percentage Coverage %

12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Soe Coral Sponge Corallimorphs / Zoanthids Coralline Algae Macro Algae

Figure 4. 5 Mean percentage coverage of algae and benthic organisms on surveyed granitic reefs from 2005 2013.

4.4.

Structural Complexity

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

40

Percentage coverage of coral %

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Mushroom Submassive Massive Foliose EncrusVng Branching

Figure 4. 6 Percentage coverage of hard coral found across all reefs further divided by coral lifeform prevalence from 2005 - 2013

Figure 4.6 shows that across all sites the percentage coverage of coral has increased, along with this there have been changes in the abundance of the key lifeforms related to the structural complexity of the reefs.

22

Figure 4.7 shows the changes in the percentage coverage of lifeforms out of the total coral cover through the monitoring program. An increase in the abundance of branching coral is clearly identifiable. In 2005 branching corals made up just 6.13% of the total coral cover, this has increased year on year reaching its current maxima of 50.65% for 2013. In 2011 branching coral became the overall dominant coral lifeform a trend that has continued in this year surveys results. Results from 2013 show branching corals making up 50.65% of hard coral cover with encrusting corals making up 32.65%. Massive coral lifeforms have also decreased in coverage from 2005 2013.
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Figure 4. 7 Percentage coverage of coral lifeform found across all reefs from 2005 2013

Mushroom Submassive Massive Foliose EncrusVng Branching

Overall distribution of coral life forms differs significantly depending on substrate type. Branching life form dominates the carbonate reefs whereas encrusting life forms dominate the granitic (figure 4.8, figure 4.9). The higher rate of growth in the branching corals on the carbonate reefs is the reason for the dominance. Granitic reefs have displayed increased coverage of branching corals, however the rate is markedly slower than that seen on the carbonate reefs.
Mean Percentage Coverage %

100 80 60 40 20 0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Mushroom Submassive Massive Foliose EncrusVng Branching

Figure 4. 8 Percentage of coral life forms on carbonate sites 2005 2013

23

Mean Percentage Coverage %

100 80 60 40 20 0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Mushroom Submassive Massive Foliose EncrusVng Branching

Figure 4. 9 Percentage of coral life form on granitic sites from 2005 2013

4.5

Coral Diversity

Survey of coral diversity found a total of 42 different genera from 14 families of Scleractinian corals for 2013. Figure 4.10 shows the mean number of genus found at each site, divided by substrate type. Results found mean coral diversity across all sites to be 30.50 coral genera per site. From 2005 an initial increase in coral diversity which continued until 2007, from this point on coral genera have remained stable at around a mean of 30 per site. Throughout the surveys the difference between diversity at both the granitic and carbonate reefs has been relatively stable, which is seen in the 2013 results. For 2013 granitic sites showed a mean coral diversity of 30.23 and carbonate sites showed 30.78 genera per site.

35.0 Mean Genera Richness per site( SE) 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Carbonate GraniVc

Figure 4. 10 Comparison of mean coral genera richness ( SE) for carbonate and granitic sites from 2005 2013.

24

4.6

Overall Fish Results

Overall abundance for all surveyed commercial and reef fish species using both point count and belt methodologies came to 12,548 individuals across a total survey area of 49,093m2,giving an average fish density of 0.30 individuals per m2. Per specific survey site, the two sites showing the highest total abundance levels were Baie Ternay Lighthouse and Therese North End, with 907individuals (0.41 per m2). The next closest site in terms of overall density was Baie Ternay North West with 843individuals (0.38 per m2). The lowest abundance levels were found at Willies Bay Reef, 406individuals (0.18 per m2), and Anse Major Reef, 420 individuals (0.19m2). All three sites showing the highest densities of fish are granitic sites and are located at exposed areas. Benefits of exposed areas include having higher current and nutrient availability. There is also a higher percentage of coral cover at granitic sites (see figure 4.1). Complexity of the reef habitat has been linked to diversity of fish populations in some studies, but not necessarily to fish abundance (Chabanet et al. 1996). This stems from the variation in different niches it provides. Two of the sites are also located within the Baie Ternay Marine Park, therefore benefitting from the protection of this no take zone. Willies Bay Reef and Anse Major Reef showed some of the lowest coral coverage of all sites surveyed during this phase, therefore suggesting that these sites are lacking in the structural and ecological complexity that the coral cover provides. They are also located towards Bel Ombre and Beau Vallon, which are areas of high boat and fishing activity.

4.7

Combined Fish Density 2005 2013

The data used to analyse fish abundance over all sites is taken from the stationary point count surveys, as the belt transect was only introduced into GVIs set survey methodology in 2009. The analysis of all data up to 2011 has also been modified to adapt to the new surveyed species list revised in 2009 and 2010, and all pre-existing data from 2005 onwards has been adapted to represent this. This finally allows for correct interpretation of the feeding guilds and total fish density across all of the survey years, and hence any relevant fluctuations in density or predominance of guilds can be accurately seen. The mean density of fish for January to June 2013 was found to be 0.30 individuals per m2, very similar to the findings from 2011 and 2012. The mean density of fish over all survey sites shows minor fluctuations throughout the years, however the density has never been 25

seen to rise or fall outside of 0.25 and 0.35 per m2 since 2005 (figure 4.11). This suggests that populations are relatively stable, and could be oscillating around a maximum carrying capacity or have stabilised at the current fishing pressure.
0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Mean density of sh per m2

Mean density of sh per m2

Figure 4. 11 Mean density per m of all surveyed fish species across all survey sites, 2005 - 2013.

When dividing the densities between site substrate (granitic vs. carbonate) the results from January June 2013 show that granitic sites had a higher density than carbonate (figure 4.12). This has been consistent since 2011, however prior to this there have been fluctuations in substrate relative richness since surveys began. This is interesting in itself, as the two substrate compositions have greatly differing environments and food resources for fish species, so would theoretically harbour varying levels of fish density per m.
0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 GraniVc Carbonate

Figure 4. 12 A comparison of mean density per m of all surveyed fish species between carbonate and granitic substratesites, 2005 2013

26

4.8

Fish Densities with regards to Feeding Guilds

By analysing fish abundance by their functional role in the marine ecosystem it can give an indication of changes within the community that may not initially be apparent by studying population changes of individual species (Micheli & Halpern 2005). Analysis using feeding guilds; determined by the primary food source of individual species, is a common approach to assessing functional diversity. These feeding guilds and the species that fall within them are taken from Obura and Grimsditch (2009), and further adapted to the specific species found within Seychelles in agreement with our partners. A full list of the relative guilds and the divided species can be found in appendix C. As with fish density results, the density of feeding guilds is also only taken from the stationary point counts to eliminate the consequences from the change in survey methodology in 2009. The most dominant feeding guild across all sites is herbivores (figure 4.13), comprising surgeonfish (Acanthuridae), rabbitfish (Siganidae) and parrotfish (Scaridae). This is normal for most ecosystems as they support the higher trophic levels. This guild has remained at a relatively stable abundance during all survey years, increasing slowly in density from 2006 onwards. 2013 is beginning to rise slightly from the drop in numbers seen in 2011; the first downward turn for herbivores seen since 2006.

0.25 Density of Fish Species per m2 PlankVvores 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Piscivorous Corallivores Varied diet InverVvores Herbivores Corallivore / Herbivore Corallivore / InverVvore

Figure 4. 13 Comparison of fish feeding guilds through density per m across all sites, 2005 2013.

If we look at feeding guilds excluding herbivores (Figure 4.14), there are relatively small fluctuations for most guilds. We see a decline in planktivores and those with varied diet, with piscivores being one of the only guilds to remain relatively stable. All other guilds show some form of increase, however this is most notable in the corallivores. This guild consists of

27

obligate coral feeders within the butterfly fish family Chaetodontidae and has displayed the greatest change in abundance across the survey years, increasing from 0.006 in 2005 to 0.055 per m2 in 2013.
0.06 0.05 Density per m2 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Survey Phases Corallivores Piscivorous Varied diet Corallivore / Herbivore Corallivore / InverVvore InverVvores PlankVvores

Figure 4. 14 Comparison of feeding guilds through density per m across all sites, 2005 2013, disregarding herbivores.

To explore why corallivores have had such a relatively rapid and consistent increase, corallivore density was overlaid with mean percentage coral cover since 2004 (Figure 4.15). Both show a continuous increase, except in 2009 where a dip in coral cover ties in with a plateau in corallivore density. By adding trend lines to look at the linear relationships between these two sets of data it suggests that they are highly correlated.

45 Mean percentage Coral Cover % 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Coral Corallivore

0.06 Corallivore density per m2 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 -0.01

Figure 4. 15 Comparison of linear trend lines for coral cover and corallivore density across all sites from 2004 to present.

28

By plotting mean percentage coral cover against corallivore density we can test the correlation between the two data sets. Figure 4.16 shows a highly correlated exponential increase (R2 =0.926), supporting the idea that these two data sets are related, and that an increase in coral cover results in an increase in corallivore density. Further study is required into other factors affecting corallivore density to better understand how important coral cover is to corallivore populations.

0.06 Corallivore density per m2 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Mean coral cover %

Figure 4. 16 Mean coral cover against corallivore density for all sites from 2005 to present.

4.9

Influence of Marine Protected Areas on Fish Densities 2005 2013

In analysing the data between the mean density of fish per m2 within marine protected areas (MPAs) and unprotected areas there is a consistently higher density within MPAs (figure 4.17). With the exception of the Jan- Mar 2010 survey phase, MPAs have had an average greater density of 0.047 per m2 0.024 SE.
0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0

Mean Densitys of sh (per m2)

Overall Protected

Overall Unprotected

Survey Phases
Figure 4. 17 Overall mean density per m of fish inside and outside marine protected areas, Nov-Dec 2005 to Jan-Jun 2013.

29

Separating the sites into granitic and carbonate reveals that this substrate has no influence on mean density levels of fish; the protected sites on either type harboured a higher density overall (figure 4.18; figure 4.19).Carbonate sites within MPAs have always held a higher density of fish since 2005, with the January June 2013 phase containing a mean density of 0.380 per m2 within MPAs compared to 0.279 per m2 in the carbonate sites outside protected zones (fig. 4.18).

0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Carbonate Protected Carbonate Unprotected

Figure 4. 18 Mean density of fish per m on carbonate substrate sites inside and outside marine protected areas, NovDec 2005 to Jan-Jun 2013.

Granitic sites have had a much less significant difference between the years, continuously fluctuating in relevant densities. The January - June 2013 results show that mean density for granitic unprotected sites is currently slightly higher at 0.370 per m2 compared with 0.322 per m2within protected zones (figure 4.19).
0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0

GraniVc Protected GraniVc Unprotected

Figure 4. 19 Mean density of fish per m on granitic substrate sites inside and outside marine protected areas, Nov-Dec 2005 to Jan-Jun 2013.

30

4.10 Fish Species Diversity Diversity refers to the species-richness, or number of separate species, within the survey site as opposed to the relative abundance of fish. The site found to have the highest diversity in 2013 was Baie Ternay Lighthouse with 47 species. The lowest diversity was found at Anse Major Reef with 28 species and Corsaire with 32 (figure 4.20). In addition, comparing sites inside Marine Protected Areas to those outside revealed that MPAs contained a higher number of species on average than non-protected areas with 39 species in MPAs and 38.4 in areas outside.

Figure 4. 20 Species-richness (number of fish species found) across all survey sites along NW Mah, 2013. Green denotes sites within Marine Protected Areas and blue denotes non-protected sites.

A comparison of species-richness between the same sites surveyed in 2005 and the results from 2013 reveal a significant increase in the number of surveyed fish species present across all areas (figure 4.21); with a mean increase of 9.79 species ( 1.56 SE) over all sites. Therese North End was the only site to see a decrease in species richness. This has been the trend for this site for the last 2 years, which is interesting as this site is not characterised by seeing much anthropogenic activity. More research into why exactly this site is dropping in diversity would be insightful.

No. of individual species surveyed

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

31

No. of surveyed species present

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

2005 2013

Figure 4. 21 A comparison of species-richness (number of fish species) between the same sites of NW Mah in 2005 and in 2013.

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

32

4.12 Invertebrate Densities from 10m Transects Specific surveyed invertebrate species have increased across all sites since surveys began in 2005 with the exception of Platyhelminthes and Black Spined Urchins, which are found at stable densities. The most significant increases in density are seen in the Arthropoda and Mollusca phyla. The Arthropoda phyla has increased from low level densities found in 2005 of 0.01 individuals per m2 up to the most abundant invertebrate found in 2013, the Mollusca phyla has shown a similar increase with time until 2012; results from 2013 shows a drop in the density of 0.67 individuals per m2. Echinodermata phyla has also been increasing throughout the survey program but results from 2012 - 2013 shows a consecutive reduction in the density, falling from 1.64individuals per m2 in 2011 to 1.32individuals per m2 in 2013 (figure 4.22).

1.80 Invertebrate Density (individuals/m2) 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00
Annelida Platyhelminthes Arthropoda Mollusca Echinodermata Black Spined Sea Urchins

Figure 4. 22 Mean density (individuals per m) of invertebrate phyla and black spined sea urchins at carbonate reef sites, for every survey period from 2005 to 2013

When the results are divided by substrate type the invertebrate densities show differences between them. Granitic sites show a greater spread in the densities of the surveyed invertebrates. The Arthropoda phyla has increased significantly from 2005 but there is a marked increase in their abundance from 2008, results for 2013 show Arthropoda phyla to be the dominant group on granitic sites. This has mainly been due to the significant decrease in the Mollusca phyla in 2013 reducing by 1.1 individuals per m2 in a single year, this large change in density over a single year is seen in the results previously. In 2010 Mollusca increased by 1.4 individuals per m2 in a single year (figure 4.23).

33

3.0 Invertebrate Density (individials/m2) 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

Annelida Arthropoda Echinodermata

Platyhelminthes Mollusca Black Spined Sea Urchins

Figure 4. 23 Mean density (individuals per m) of invertebrate phyla and black spined sea urchins at granitic reef sites, for every survey period from 2005 to 2013.

Carbonate reef sites have shown a decrease in all survey invertebrates in 2013 however the relative dominance of the phyla remain consistent with 2012, with highest abundance being Echinodermata. Black Spined Urchins have continued the decrease, which started in 2010 and is now at a minima for the survey program of 0.45 individuals per m2 (figure 4.24).
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

Invertebrate Density (individials/m2)

Annelida Arthropoda Echinodermata

Platyhelminthes Mollusca Black Spined Sea Urchins

Figure 4. 24 Mean density (individuals per m) of invertebrate phyla and black spined sea urchins at carbonate reef sites, for every survey period from 2005 to 2013.

34

4.13 Invertebrate Densities from 50m Belts In total 42 invertebrate abundance belts were completed across all the 21 sites surveyed, covering a total area of 10,500m2. The trends in density levels found during 2013 continue those found with all previous survey phases. Short-spine (Echinothrix sp.) at 0.30 per m2 SE 0.04 and long-spine (Diadema sp.) at 0.11 per m2 SE 0.03 (figure 4.25) still show the highest abundance of all the surveyed invertebrates; significantly higher than all other invertebrate species found.

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

Invertebrate Species
Figure 4. 25 Mean density per m of all surveyed invertebrate species across north-westMah, 2013.
2

When dividing the two most abundant invertebrates by substrate type some interesting trends can be observed (figure 4.26). Short-spine sea urchins show a preference to granitic substrate, indicated by the higher density levels at these sites; whereas long-spine sea urchins display similar density levels over both substrates; not indicating any preference. Through the monitoring program short spine urchins have been decreasing at a steady rate on carbonate sites and a similar decrease is seen from 2011 on the granitic sites, after an initial rise in 2010. Long spine urchins have been much more stable in numbers from 2009, however 2013 results show a decrease in number at the granitic sites which hasn't been seen previously in the monitoring program.

35

0.60 0.50
Mean density (per m2)

Long Spine Carbonate Short Spine Carbonate Long Spine GraniVc

0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Figure 4. 26 Mean density per m of all surveyed invertebrate species across north-westMah from 2009 - 2013.

Figure 4.27shows the density levels of the major corallivorous invertebrates of Crown of Thorns seastar (Acanthaster planci), Cushion Starfish (Culcita spp.) and Drupella snails.Studies of the trends in the corallivorous invertebrates show significant, almost alarming, increases in abundances for the Drupella sp. in recent years, however the density has decreased for 2013 these species still remain in much higher abundance levels than the other corallivorous invertebrates.

0.14 Mean Density per m2 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Cushion Crown of Thorns Drupella

Figure 4. 27 Mean density per m of Cushion Seastar (Culcita spp.), Crown of Thorns (Acanthasterplanci) and the gastropods Drupella sp. from 2009 - 2013 across all sites.

36

4.14 Sea Cucumber Densities The total number of sea cucumbers found across all survey sites of north-west Mah was 280 individuals for 2013 across the 21 sites surveyed. Figure 4.28 shows the total number of sea cucumbers divided by the number of sites surveyed for each year. This graph clearly displays after the initial rapid decrease in abundance of sea cucumbers seen in 2007 the populations are increasing across all the survey sites.
16.0 No. Of Cucumbers found per site surveyed 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Figure 4. 28 Mean Number of sea cucumbers recorded per site from 2006 - 2013.

Analysis of individual sea cucumber species reveals that both Pearsonothurian graeffei and Stichopus spp. remain the most abundant sea cucumbers across all sites (figure 4.29). Interestingly, the combination of a steep reduction in the density of Stichopus sp. and a continued increase in Pearsonothurian graeffei numbers,has lead to Pearsonothurian graeffei becoming the dominant sea cucumber species for 2013. High abundances of the top 3 is significant as they are of little commercial value, compared to the other surveyed sea cucumbers which show lower abundance levels.

0.014 0.012 Density per m2 0.010 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.000 2008
2

Holothuria atra *Holothuria fuscopunctata *Holothuria fuscogilva *Holothuria nobilis *Holothuria sp. (Pentard) Bohadschia sp. AcVnopyga sp. *AcVnopyga mauuriVana SVchopus sp. *Thelenota ananas Pearsonothurian graeei Holothuria edulis Thelenota anax

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Figure 4. 29 Density per m of individual sea cucumber species across all survey sites of north-westMah from 2008 2013.

37

5 Discussion
5.1 Coral Surveys

Overall mean coral coverage has increased significantly over the past seven years of reef monitoring conducted by GVI across North West Mah. Mean percentage coral coverage has increased from 10.25% 1.27 SE in 2005 up to 37.64% 1.98 SE in 2013. Granitic sites have reached a new maxima in percentage coral cover for the survey program in 2013 whilst cover at carbonate sites has reduced by 0.23% since 2012. However overall since 2010 the rate of coral growth seems to have slowed; coral cover only increased by 3.21% between 2010 and 2013, around half the rate for 2008 - 2010 an 8.16% increase. Yet, overall any increase in cover is encouraging for the continued regeneration of the reefs after the mass coral bleaching event in 1998. Granitic sites have maintained the higher coral coverage throughout the survey program. Engelhardt (2004) attributes the elevated coral cover at granitic sites to higher water clarity linked to their position. Granitic sites are found at more exposed points with high water flow, whereas many carbonate sites are within sheltered bays receiving lower water flow rates resulting in higher nutrient and sediment levels through run off from terrestrial sources. The lower flow rates found in these sheltered bays means these high nutrient and sediment levels persist which can negatively affect coral growth (Nugues & Roberts 2003; Ferrier-Page`s
et al. 2000; Ward & Harrison 2000). Overall percentage coral cover within the Marine Parks of

both Baie Ternay and Port Launay show higher coral cover. Inside the Marine Parks average percentage coral cover was 41.06% whereas outside these protected areas was 37.24% attesting to the importance of overall ecosystem health for resilience of the corals species. Additional comparisons can be made between site specific data from the monitoring conducted in 2005 directly to the results of 2013. Overall coral cover has increased significantly between these yearsbut the rate of change is different depending on which survey site is focused on. Highest coral cover found in 2005 was 16.67% at Therese North End whereas for 2013 maximum was found at Baie Ternay Centre with 64.53%. The range in coral cover (sites displaying highest and lowest coral cover) is also drastically different between the years. 2005 displayed a range of 14.98% whereas 2013 displayed 45.91% difference in coral cover. This indicates that the more derogated sites are lagging far behind the sites with a higher rate in coral growth. In general there has been a three-fold increase in percentage cover across all sites but Anse Major Reef and Willie's Bay Reef are increasing at rates of around half the mean. 38

Continual benthic coverage is recorded for all line intersect transects, results averaged over all sites for 2013 found 53.22% of coverage was algae compared to 38.24% for coral cover. This shows algal dominance across all sites for 2013; however analysing the coverage of algal species shows that 88.2% of the algae recorded was turf algae; this diminutive, filamentous algal is associated with relatively pristine, healthy reef systems and is a major contributor to high algal productivity (Steneck 1988; Klumpp & McKinnon 1989). While it is well established that macro algae can outcompete and overgrow corals (Birkeland 1977; Hughes
1994; Jompa & McCook 2002a, 2002b) results from 2013 found this algal to compose just 0.1%

of total algal coverage. Analysis of the other algae and epibenthic organisms, with the exception of Scleractinian corals, shows low coverage of below 12.0% on both granitic and carbonate reefs. The carbonate reefs show a larger range in the densities of these other organisms. Corallimorphs / Zooanthids and soft corals on carbonate sites have relative high densities, notable as they compete rigorously with scleractinian coral for space (Lindn et al. 2002); although densities are still much lower than that of coral. Granitic sites show lower coverage of algae and epibenthic organisms with the exception of coralline algae. Coralline algae coverage shows a similar trend on both substrates. Increase in coverage from the minimum in 2010. High coverage of coralline algae indicates consolidation of reef structure (Grimsditch et al. 2006). This slow rise in the coverage of coralline algae could increase the consolidation of loose rubble on the surface of the reef, which is important as loose rubble can damage adult coral colonies, but has a more dramatic effect on the coral recruitment rates; as the abrasion can damage and remove newly settled recruit corals (Turner et al. 2002). Structural complexity of the reefs of the Seychelles is showing very positive recovery post the 1998 bleaching event. Structural complexity of the reefs is important for the overall health and diversity of the reef ecosystem, a complex reef structure allows for extensive habitat space for other organisms such as fish and invertebrate species to flourish (Garpe et
al. 2006; Glynn 2006; Graham et al. 2006). Branching coral life forms have the effect of

increasing the physical matrix of the reef by increasing its structural complexity. Acropora and Pocillopora species predominantly display the branching life forms (Veron 2000) these fast growing species are hardest hit by coral bleaching events (McClanahan et al. 2004), but also fastest to recover. Previous coral surveys from Seychelles post 1998 found very low coverage of the coral species Acropora and Pocillopora. Whereas the massive species, those that are more resilient to coral bleaching, such as Porites and Goniopora dominated

39

the coverage (Engelhardt et al. 2003). Branching coral cover continued to increase on both substrates in 2013, following the trend seen throughout the monitoring program. Since 2010 the encrusting life form has made up around 30% of the corals surveyed whereas branching corals have increased from 40% to 50% in the same time period. The continued growth of this life form is a positive sign of reef recovery and increasing structural complexity, which has the potential to support a greater abundance and diversity of reef organisms. Differences in the structural complexity of the two substrate types is also evident. Carbonate reefs currently maintain a very high percentage of branching corals; making up 61.37% of corals found. Granitic sites have been continuously dominated by encrusting corals which contribute little to structural complexity of the reefs, however the granitic sites have inherent complexity from granitic boulders located across the sites; this is a common feature of all the granitic sites that are surveyed. On granitic sites the coverage of encrusting corals has been slowly decreasing as the branching corals increase and if these trends persist within the next few years branching corals will dominant both granitic and carbonate reef substrate. The diversity of coral on the surveyed reefs has increased through the monitoring program. Initially a rapid increase in the mean diversity was seen up until 2007, then stabilised from this point at a mean diversity of around 30 genera per site. Diversity divided by carbonate and granitic reefs has always been similar and the results from 2013 are no exception, finding an average of 30.5 genera on both the substrate types. It is interesting to note that although the number of different genera found overall seems to have stabilised, the spread of coral genera found at every site is increasing. Through analysing the number of coral genera found at every site; in 2005 only four coral genera were found at each, however in 2012 15 coral genera were found at every single site. Indicating that although overall diversity has remained relatively stable the corals already established on some of the reefs are settling into new areas.

40

5.2

Fish Surveys

This section of the report contains results from surveys conducted between January to June 2013, assessing the abundance and diversity of both reef and commercial fish species. The true value of the data set is in the contribution it makes to the larger data set over the last 8 years of surveying. This not only gives important insights into the status of coral reefs around Mah, but also helps increase knowledge on reefs around the world, and helps us to understand how reefs in general can recover from bleaching events such as in 1998. After 1998 reefs around the North-West of Mah saw up to 90 per cent coral mortality, resulting in a huge drop in coral cover and diversity. The main life forms that survived were the more resilient massive and encrusting corals, such as those within the Faviidae and Porites families. This affected many of the biotic and abiotic resources for reef fish, and subsequently affected the composition of the reef fish community. One way of assessing these changes is to look at the trends of the functional diversity of the community (Figure 4.13). Breaking down the data by feeding guilds can indicate phase shifts within the coral reef ecosystem. Herbivores and piscivores show very little changes throughout survey history, with only a few fluctuations. Without having direct reliance on the scleractinian coral itself the dramatic decrease in coral coverage would not have had the same impacts on resource availability for these guilds. In fact, the decrease in coral coverage had a reverse effect on algal growth, with the algae coverage at an all-time high in the years directly following the bleaching. The stable populations of herbivores on the reefs kept this bloom in check, allowing the slow regrowth of coral. It is interesting to see a gradual but steady decline in planktivores across our survey sites, as their resources come solely from the water column and are therefore unaffected by the phase shifts in the coral beneath them (Sluka & Miller 2001). Plankton density is related to changes in water temperature and coastal currents. When the winds switch direction in May and June, this results in upwelling around the North-West of Mah bringing cold, nutrient rich water towards the surface. This results in cycles of phyto and zooplankton blooms until the winds switch once more in September. Analysing fish densities on a yearly basis excludes these short term cycles, and does not explain the gradual decline. More research into factors affecting plankton density over long timescales is required in order to explain this trend. Studies have indicated that the most notable changes to reef fish communities following a large scale stochastic event, such as in 1998, are most apparent in specialist species (Graham et al. 2007). We can see this in the data set with the changes to the density of 41

corallivores. Corallivores have gone from being one of the lowest feeding guilds when surveys began to one of the most dominant, second only to herbivores (figure 4.13). The corallivore guild comprises of 6 species, but density increase has primarily been seen for Chaetodon trifasciatus,Chaetodon trifascialis andChaetodon zanzibariensis. It may be that for the obligate corallivores within the butterflyfish family these 3 are the most competitive species.The increase in coral cover and corallivore density show similar linear trend lines (figure 4.15), and by plotting these together we can see that they are highly correlated (figure 4.16). It makes sense that as their main food source increases so too does the population. Not stating that coral cover is the singular variable controlling corallivore densities, but it suggests that it is highly influential. Since 2005 diversity in coral life forms has increased, with branching now being one of the dominant life forms. Studies have linked complexity of the reef substrata with fish diversity, but not necessarily fish abundance (Chabanet et al. 1996; Luckhurst & Luckhurst 1978; Talbot et
al. 1978; Roberts & Ormond 1987). This can be seen in the data set whereby mean density of

all fish surveyed does not change very much throughout survey history, it is the composition of species that changes. Branching corals, such as Acropora spp. provide areas for refuge for small fish and invertebrates, helping to increase diversity and create a more complex food web. This is extremely important, as reefs with a more natural and diverse composition of fauna are more likely to recover from stochastic events. If ecosystems are built upon a simplified food chain, then if one species is removed this affects the entire chain. For those ecosystems that are more complex and varied, if one species suffers and is lost from the food web, other options for food and resources are still available and species can adapt. A number of studies support this theory whereby an increase in coral diversity results in an increase in micro-habitats which in turn supports a wider variety of species (Carpenter et al.
1981; Sano et al. 1984, 1987; Bell and Galzin 1984, 1988, Barbault 1992).

MPAs within Seychelles are designated zones where the removal of any species is illegal and the anchoring of boats and level of tourism is monitored. These no-take zones provideimportant refuge areas for targeted fish species, but also may potentially benefit fish stocks through the theory of spillover, the net export of adult fish, from an area of high density to adjacent non-protected areas of lower fish density (Abesamis & Russ 2005). A number of studies show evidence that density of species targeted by fisheries increases within MPAs (Gell & Roberts 2002, Halpern 2003, Sobel & Dahlgren 2004). The results show that MPAs do harbour a higher mean density of fish per m2, with an average of 0.35 fish per m found within the MPAs compared to 0.32 per m outside. Carbonate sites typically hold higher density levels inside protected zones, whereas granitic sites constantly fluctuate 42

between dominance. This could be in part due to the fact that these deeper and typically more exposed sites usually home species within the families Lutjanidae and Lethrinidae which tend to be less territorial than those that are more closely associated with the carbonate reefs. It is also interesting to note that sites immediately adjacent to MPAs, such as Baie Ternay Lighthouse and Site Y also have comparatively high numbers of fish. Site Y had the highest density of commercial fish species out of all survey sites at 0.16 individuals per m. These sites also showed high greater species diversity (figure 4.20). This supports the theory that MPAs help to protect and create a more natural complex ecosystem. Despite clearly holding healthier abundance levels of fish, it is difficult to measure the effectiveness of MPAs due to many reasons, and multiple studies have attempted to do so (Field et al. 2006). It is also difficult to control for the selectiveness of MPAs. Most MPAs are chosen for their higher densities and species-richness of fish and other organisms, as well as their potential for recruitment and juvenile species habitat. It is reasonable, then, that in studying the densities of fish within and outside of the protected areas that the MPA would hold a higher number than non-protected areas as it originally did so. In analysing the data of both fish densities and coral health since 1998, however, MPAs clearly recovered faster than non-protected areas and have achieved higher density levels overall. From the data we can see that MPAs are an important management tool to help protect against over exploitation of target species and a reduction in undesirable fishing induced impacts on non-target species and fishing-induced impacts to habitat (NRC 2001; Gerber et al.
2003; Halpern 2003). The continued protection of these areas is paramount to maintaining

healthy fish populations. The findings within this report highlight the need for thorough management of both fish stocks and of coral reef areas to provide some insurance against larger-scale disturbances, such as the 1998 event.

43

5.3

Invertebrate Surveys

Invertebrates have been studied as biological indicators within terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems extensively, including coral reef habitats. Their importance lies in their interactions with the reef habitat, and density may reflect changes in reef composition and structure. Densities of surveyed invertebrates from the 10m belt transects have increased since the beginning of the monitoring in 2005, however 2013 results show a reduction in all survey invertebrates from 2012 with the exception of black spine urchins and Platyhelminthes. Platyhelminthes show low densities due to their lifestyle; these species are generally nocturnal and found mostly under the rock and rubble of the reef (Coleman 2000), but are also hard to spot as most species are small and camouflaged. Results from 2013 show a drop in density for all but two phyla, this is most noted in the Mollusc's and Arthopod's and also this is the first reduction seen in both phylum since 2009. Mollusca shows the greatest decrease overall which is primarily due to a reduction in the number of oyster species Hyotissahyotis on granitic sites, which usually hold high abundance.These bivalves attach to rocks or coral on reef faces and walls and are more prevalent on these sites, but 2013 saw the large drop in numbers, whereas on carbonate sites the density is has still seen a slight increase. The Arthropoda phyla has decreased in density at carbonate sites. Again when looking at species changes within the Arthopoda phyla the overall reduction in the mean is caused by a decrease in the numbers of crabs seen on carbonate sites which has reduced by 0.28 individuals per m2, whereas density has continued to rise on granitic sites. Reductions in the Annelida and Echinodermata phylum are not as dramatic and follow trends seen since 2012. In these cases the driver's behind the reductions is unclear and will be focused on through the monitoring program 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 2013 show continuation in trends seen in recent years with regards to the Echinoidea phyla with slow reductions through the years. The most dramatic change is within the corallivorous species, Drupella snails, where density levels have increased significantly since 2010 reaching a maximum in 2012, results in 2013 show density has decreased but is still significantly higher than the other corallivorous invertebrates surveyed. The most likely explanation for the high numbers of Drupella is that it is coupled with the increase in the branching coral Acropora spp., their preferred food source and habitat. With continued monitoring it will indicate whether this population is increasing to damaging levels. Continued monitoring of these invertebrate species will be critical for identifying the trends and causes for the reduction in their numbers in recent years. 44

6 Additional Ecosystem Monitoring

6.1. Turtles

Five species of marine turtles are found in Seychelles waters: the leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), loggerhead (Caretta caretta), olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), and green (Chelonia mydas) (IUCN 1996). The leatherback, loggerhead and olive ridley, although common to parts of the Western Indian Ocean, are not thought to currently nest in the Seychelles and are rarely seen, especially in the Inner Islands. However, the hawksbill and green are residents in coastal waters of the Seychelles, nest on the beaches, and are commonly observed. All five species found in the Seychelles face the combined threats of poaching, pollution and loss of nesting sites, and are listed by IUCN as endangered or critically endangered. The Seychelles is considered one of the most important sites for the critically endangered hawksbill turtle and is one of the only localities in the world where they can be observed nesting during daylight hours. GVI staff and volunteers are trained in turtle biology and the identification of the two species commonly seen around north-west Mah, C. mydas and E. Imbricata, through lectures and Power Point presentations. Volunteers are also trained in survey methodology for water based and land based turtle surveys. 6.1.1. Incidental Turtle Sightings For every dive undertaken by GVI, a record of turtle observations is kept. The parameters for each of GVIs dives are logged, regardless of whether or not a turtle was seen, enabling the calculation of turtle frequency per dive and thus effort-related abundance. The species, carapace length, sex, distinguishing features and behaviour of all turtles sighted is recorded wherever possible. Incidental sightings of sea turtles are divided into three month periods to more accurately view the fluctuations that occur in and outside of nesting season. From January to March out of the 169 boats that went out a total of 59 turtles were sighted. This figure discounts any turtle behaviour dives, as the focus of these dives is to search for turtles, therefore sightings are not incidental. Of these sightings, 41 were identified as hawksbill turtles and 18 as green turtles, which gave an overall sighting frequency of 36.9%. Within the April to June period following this, 32 turtles were sighted on 126 dives; consisting of 24 hawksbills and 8 green turtles, giving a lower overall sighting frequency of 25.40% (figure 6.1).

45

60 Frequency of SighLng (%) 50 40 30 20 10

Hawksbill Turtles Green Turtles

Figure 6. 1 Frequency (%) of hawksbill and green turtle sightings around north-westMah from Oct- Dec 2005 to AprilJun 2013.

In analysing the sightings results the frequency found for the months within October to December is comparatively higher than for those within July to September; a pattern that can be observed for hawksbills throughout our recorded data. This increase in encounters in the Seychelles coastal waters during this time can in part be explained by the immigration of sexually mature turtles to these designated nesting areas (Witzell 1983, Houghton et al. 2003,
Ellis & Balazs 1998). This can be seen by a 100% increase in sighting frequency for adult

hawksbills in October to December. Carapace length can be used as a guide to the stage of sexual maturity of sea turtles, therefore for every turtle sighting the curved carapace length (CCL) is estimated. The approximate minimum carapace length of breeding-age female green and hawksbill turtles is 105cm and 80cm respectively (Mrosovsky 1983). The mean estimated carapace length for hawksbill turtles during the January to March and April to June period was 56.80cm ( 2.57 SE) and 49.60cm ( 2.93 SE) respectively (figure 6.2.). This reveals a general steady population of sexually immature sea turtles. There was only one recorded sighting of a male during the January-March period, likely due to the influx of adult females during this time.

Jul-Sep 05 Oct-Dec 05 Jan-Mar 06 Apr-Jun 06 Jul-Sep 06 Oct-Dec 06 Jan-Mar 07 Apr-Jun 07 Jul-Sep 07 Oct-Dec 07 Jan-Mar 08 Apr-Jun 08 Jul-Sep 08 Oct-Dec 08 Jan-Mar 09 Apr-Jun 09 Jul-Sep 09 Oct-Dec 09 Jan-Mar 10 Apr-Jun 10 Jul-Sep 10 Oct-Dec 10 Jan-Mar 11 Apr-Jun 11 Jul- Sep 11 Oct - Dec 11 Jan - Mar 12 Apr - Jun 12 Jul - Sep 12 Oct-Dec 12 Jan-March 13 Apr-Jun 13 Survey Phase

46

Mean carapace lengtrh (cm)

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Survey Phase
Figure 6. 2 Mean carapace length of hawksbill turtles around north-west Mah from Jan- Mar 2006 to Apr- Jun 2013

6.1.2. Beach Patrols for Nesting Turtles Beach patrols are conducted on north-west Mah during the Hawksbill turtle nesting season from October to March. This land-based turtle monitoring work includes beach walks, documentation of nesting tracks, and investigation of newly hatched clutches. Beach patrols are carried out weekly at beaches local to the Cap Ternay research station (Anse du Riz and Anse Major) to monitor nesting turtle activity. The surveys are conducted on foot, with the teams searching for signs of tracks or body pits walking along the upper beach, on the main beach, and also within the coastal vegetation. Within the January to March period, due to bad weather, only 2 beach patrols were conducted on both Anse du Riz and Anse Major beach, with no signs of turtle activity during this time. 6.1.3. In-water Surveys of Turtle Behaviour In studies concentrating on the home ranges of sea turtles it has been found that normal daily activities of sea turtles centre around areas of high food availability and resource quality. When sufficient resources are available, individuals develop affinities for specific areas (Makowski et al. 2006). Preliminary results from research conducted by Von Brandis in the Amirantes, Seychelles, established that philopatric behaviour is common among foraging hawksbill turtles, and extensive information on individuals and their energy budgets can be gathered using relatively non-invasive sampling protocols (Von Brandis pers. comm.). Focal behavioural studies work on the philosophy that an individual, when followed and observed correctly, can provide a wealth of ecological information that would otherwise be unnoticed in

47

a simple point count survey. These in water behavioural studies also help to ground truth studies done using electronic data such as satellite tagging (Houghton et al. 2003). Our objective is to document important interactions between hawksbill turtles and their environment while obtaining information on feeding preferences and the number of individuals displaying philopatric behaviour within the Baie Ternay Marine Reserve. Volunteers use SCUBA equipment to undertake a U-shaped search pattern. Divers look for focal animals and, upon finding an individual, follow and document all behaviours observed. Environmental conditions can dictate at what distance accurate observations are made without altering normal behaviour but in general a distance of no closer than 5m is sufficient. A continuous time scale of data is used; divers stay with any individual encountered for as long as possible even if another individual is located. In the event that another turtle is found, the second member of the buddy pair may start to document behaviour but at no time are buddy pairs to become separated by more than 2m. Any characteristic markings should be documented and the use of underwater photography is highly desirable for turtle identification and determining unknown prey items. Due to logistical constraints, it is only possible for the study in Baie Ternay to be carried out on a weekly basis, incorporating two 45 minute dives with most volunteers participating in one dive; however it is an interesting addition to the routine for volunteers, enhancing their skill set and appreciation for marine ecological fieldwork. Between January to March of 2013 a total of 47 individual buddy pairs completed the behavioural surveys sighting 12 turtles. Of these 5 were hawksbills and 7 were green. The mean carapace length (CCL) was 55.45 cm 3.78 SD. April to June showed a much higher sighting frequency with 27 turtles being spotted on 53 individual dives. Interestingly, only 6 of these were green turtles and 20 being hawksbills, with 1 turtle sighted but not identified to species level. The mean CCL for this phase was 55.38cm 3.97 SD. Both phases show similar mean CCL values, however there is a greater range for the second phase. This is interesting as we would expect to see a higher sighting frequency of larger turtles during the first phase as it sits at the end of the nesting season. Of the turtles sighted,the greatest frequency of sightings occurred within the 0-10m depth class, with four sightings recorded outside of these depths with 3 at 11m and one at 13.8m. The shallow reef slope of Baie Ternay Centre does bias the results towards the shallower depth class, as the 0-10m range covers a larger area of reef and therefore a larger area of

48

foraging grounds. From the studies it was noted that algae and soft coral were all common chosen food items. Through the use of photo identification methods, spoken about in the following section, a number of individual turtles have been seen returning to, or residing within, specific areas of Baie Ternay Marine Park over a time scale of several months. It is impossible to correctly determine the specific home range of sea turtles without the use of remote telemetry, however one or more areas of disproportionately heavy use (i.e. core areas) can be identified for some of the more frequently spotted turtles. Understanding the spatial use patterns of sea turtles is fundamental to their conservation. This study reveals that Baie Ternay remains an important habitat for both the endangered green and hawksbill turtles; thus, further underscoring the need to develop and maintain conservation strategies that address the impacts that threaten this region. 6.1.4. Photo Identification of Turtles Throughout 2012 the use of photo identification methods for turtles was implemented into all dives where volunteers or staff had an underwater camera. The post-ocular area of scales on the left and right cheeks of both hawksbill and green turtles are unique to each individual, allowing for comparisons to be made between identification shots taken on different dives. Individuals can be recognised through analysis of the photographs, based on a code defined from the localisation and the number of sides of each scale of the head profile. This method has been taken from the Kelonia Observatory for Sea Turtles in Reunion Island (Ciccione et
al. n.d.).

The ability to recognise individuals in a population allows for reliable information to be collected on distribution, habitat use, or life history traits. It is from the increased emphasis on the importance of photographic identification that resident turtles have been accurately re-identified, and their home ranges consequently estimated within Baie Ternay marine national park. A number of individual turtles, both hawksbill and greens, have been accurately re-identified over varying time scales within the MPA. From data collected from these sightings it has been noted that many have distinct habitat preferences and feeding and resting areas. Photo-identification has also been critical in identifying the reasons behind the low trend in carapace length and any incidence of philopatric behaviour.

49

6.2.

Crown of Thorns

Outbreaks of the coral predator, the Crown of Thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci), were first reported in 1996 and were active until 1998, when the reefs suffered from the 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 Reef2001). 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 111 separaterecordings of A. planci across all sites during January - June 2013. 6.3. Cetacean Sightings

Cetaceans are considered to be under threat in many parts of the world and in response to this threat, a national database of cetacean sightings, the Seychelles Marine Mammal Observatory (SMMO), has been set up. GVI records all incidental cetacean sightings and passes all data to MCSS for inclusion in the national database. Data recorded includes date, time, location (including GPS coordinates where possible), environmental conditions, number of individuals, distinguishing features, size, behaviour and species. There were only 6 separate recordings of dolphin sightings within January to June 2012. Pod sizes ranged from 5 to 10 individuals and all were sighted from the boat. 6.4. Whale Shark Sightings

The Seychelles is famous for its seasonal fluctuations in the abundance of whale sharks (Rhincodontypus). However despite their public profile, relatively little is known about their behaviour or the ecological factors, which influence their migratory patterns. A whale shark monitoring programme was started in 1996 and is now the cornerstone of an eco-tourism operation run by MCSS. From 2001-2003, a tagging programme was initiated to study migratory patterns as part of the Seychelles Marine Ecosystem and Management Project (SEYMEMP); it is now clear that the sharks seen in the Seychelles are not resident, but range throughout the Indian Ocean. The oceanographic or biological conditions that 50

determine the movements are unclear, it is possible however that the sharks follow seasonal variations in the abundance of the plankton on which they feed. All sightings of whale sharks are documented in as much detail as possible; including time, date, GPS point, number, size of the individuals, sex, distinguishing features, behaviour and tag numbers if present. Photographs are also taken whenever possible of the left and right side of the thorax from the base of the pectoral fin to behind the gill area to be used as identification in the global and regional database. Within the January to June 2013 period there were no sightings of whale sharks. 6.5. Plankton Sampling

MCSS initiated a plankton monitoring programme in conjunction with the tagging and incidental recording surveys in an attempt to correlate the frequency of whale shark sightings with plankton levels. Plankton sampling has been run by MCSS since 2003 in conjunction with their on-going monitoring and tagging programmes. GVI started to assist MCSS in the collection of plankton data in July 2004, and have since carried out the survey on a weekly basis. Five plankton tows are carried out to the North West side of Grouper Point, just outside of Baie Ternay, between 08:00 and 11:00 hours. The tows are carried out along a North Westerly course from Grouper Point. In order to sample over a range of depths the net is let out 5m every 30 seconds (up to 50m). Samples are collected in the cod end of the net, decanted into a receptacle and preserved in formalin. After the survey and the filtering process, they are sent to MCSS for measurement of wet weight and species classification. Environmental conditions are also noted (sea state, cloud cover and turbidity). Plankton tows were successfully conducted on a weekly basis from January to June when weather conditions allowed and all samples were sent on to MCSS for analysis.

51

7. Non-survey Programmes
7.1 Extra Programmes 7.1.1 Internships

GVI Seychelles currently runs internship programs in conjunction with the marine research activities. Interns typically spend 8 - 12 weeks with GVI on the marine expedition and then if the volunteer is participating in the dive master internship a further twelve weeks at a dive shop in either Seychelles or Thailand gaining the PADI divemaster qualification and professional dive master experience. Additional courses run through the internships include a short course on team leadership and/or biological survey techniques. Additional assignments included written and formal presentations given to the group, along with management of one day of surveying and one community event where the intern must plan and run an effective schedule. 7.2 Community Development 7.2.1 Community Education Programmes

The GVI Seychelles community education program works in conjunction with the International School of the Seychelles (ISS) and the Presidents Village Children's Home. Lessons and activities are held on a weekly basis within one of the National Marine Parks on Mah, either Port Launay or Baie Ternay. Activities include lessons on marine biology and conservation along with snorkelling and swimming lessons. This aspect of the expedition is key to the overall impact of our role within the Seychelles. It also increases the extent to which volunteers are able to contribute on an individual level, to help raise vital awareness of marine conservation issues related directly to the Seychelles. 7.2.2 GVI Charitable Trust

As part of the GVI Charitable Trust, GVI Seychelles has partnered with the Presidents Village Childrens Home in Port Glaud. The Presidents Village is part of The Childrens Home Foundation, which has several childrens homes in the Seychelles. The Presidents Village provides a home for children who are either orphaned or do not have parents able to take care of their needs and currently houses approximately 60 children from birth to 18 years old. GVI Seychelles currently is raising funds for the Presidents Village to develop a renewable energy system by installing solar panels to reduce the overall utilities costs, enabling them to allocate those funds to be spent on the children, and educate the children on the benefits of renewable energy sources. GVI volunteers attend weekly snorkel trips to 52

Port Launay Marine Park for the children at Presidents Village. Some of the children are confident swimmers so were shown some of the fish and corals by the volunteers which they attempted to identify back on the beach. Other children are new swimmers and the experience is an introduction to water safety and an appreciation of the marine environment. These snorkelling trips provide an opportunity for the children to interact with other members of their local community and spend some time away from the Childrens home in a structured, educational and fun activity. 7.2.3 National Scholarship Programme

As part of GVIs local capacity program GVI runs a National Scholarship programme in each country. The National Scholarship Programme is directly funded by GVI volunteer's payments and aims to increase long-term capacity building within the country. National recruits such as rangers, researchers and students are selected by the local partner organisations and are brought into the programme as volunteers. In order for SNPA to continue and build upon the research conducted by GVI, scholars are invited to join every expedition. To date The NSP Programme has been used to train 12 national park rangers from the SNPA in monitoring conducted by GVI. In the period between January and June 2013, two NSP's from the University of Seychelles Environmental Science undergraduate course joined the expedition for a four week program as part of their work based experience. The focus of their studies on the expedition was fish species identification and surveying.

53

8. References
Barbault TR (1992) Htrognit spatiale, variabilit, temporelleetpeuplements. In: Ecologie des peuplements: structure, dynamiqueet volution. Masson, pp 141-163 Bell JD, Galzin R (1984) Influence of live coral cover on a coral reef fish communities. Mar EcolProgSer15 : 265-274 Birkeland C (1977) The importance of rates of biomass accumulation in early successional stages of benthic communities. Proc 3rd Int Coral Reef Symp 1:1521 Carpenter KE, Miclat RI, Albaladejo VD, Corpuz VT (1981) The influence of substrate structure on the local abundance and diversity of Philippine reef shes. Proc 4th Int Coral Reef Symp2 : 497-502 Chabanet, P., Ralambondrainy, H., Amanieu, M., Faure, G. &Galzin, R. (1998) Relationships between coral reef substrata and fish.Coral Reefs. 16. 93-102. Coleman, N. (2000) Marine Life of the Maldives, Atoll Editions, Apollo Bay, Australia 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 Research85, 130-141 Ciccione, S., Jean, C., Ballorain, K. &Bourjea, J. (n.d.), Photo-identification of marine turtles: an alternative method to markrecapture studies, KelonialObservatoire des Tortues Marines, Region Reunion. 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 Ellis, D. M. & Balazs, G. H. (1998) Use of a generic mapping tools program to plot Argos tracking data for sea turtles, in S. P. Epperly and J. Braun (comp.) Proceedings of the 17th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, NOAA Tech. Memo, NMFS-SEFSC-415, pp. 166168 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.M., Russell & WendlingB. (2003), Coral Communities around the Seychelles Islands 19982002, p.212 p.231 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. Ferrier-Page`s, C., Gattuso,J.P., Dallot, S. &Jaubert, J. (2000) Effect of nutrient enrichment on growth and photosynthesis of the zooxanthellate coral Stylophorapistillata. Coral Reefs 19 :pp.103 113 Garpe, K.C., Yahya, S.A.S., Lindahl, U. &Ohman M.C. (2006) Longterm effects of the 1998 coral bleaching event on reef fish assemblages. Marine Ecology Progress Series 315:237247. Gell, F. R., and C. M. Roberts.(2003). Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of marine reserves. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18:448455. Glynn, P.W. (2006) Fish utilization of simulated coral reef frameworks versus eroded rubble substrates off Panama, eastern Pacific. Proceedings of the 10th International Coral Reef Symposium 1:250256. Graham, N.A.J., Wilson, S.K., Jennings, S., Polunin, N.V.C., Bijoux, J.P., & Robinson, J. (2006) Dynamic fragility of oceanic coral reef ecosystems, PNAS, 103, no. 22 Graham N. A. J., Wilson S. K., Jennings S., Polunin N. V. C., Robinson J., Bijoux J. P., Daw T. M., (2007), Lag Effects in the Impacts of Mass Coral Bleaching on Coral Reef Fish, Fisheries, and Ecosystems. Conservation Biology 21(Issue 5), 1291-1300 Grimsditch, G.D. &Salm, R.V. (2006).Coral Reef Resilience and Resistance to Bleaching.IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 52pp. Halpern, B. S. (2003). The impact of marine reserves: Do reserves work and does size matter? Ecological Applications 13:S117S137. Hill J., Wilkinson C., (2004), Methods for Ecological Monitoring of Coral Reefs: Version 1. A Resource for Managers.Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville. Houghton, J.D.R., Callow, M.J. & Hays, G.C. (2003) Habitat utilization by juvenile hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata, Linnaeus, 1766) around a shallow water coral reef, Journal of Natural History, 37, pp. 12691280 Hughes, T.P., (1994), Catastrophes, phase shifts and large scale degradation of a coral reef, Science 256, pp. 1547-1551

54

IUCN (1996), A Marine Turtle Conservation Strategy and Action Plan for the Western Indian Ocean. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Jennings S., Boulle D. P., Polunin N. V. C., (1995), Habitat correlates of the distribution and biomass of Seychelles reef fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 46, 15-25 Jompa J, McCook (2002a) Effects of competition and herbivory on interactions between a hard coral and a brown alga. J Exp Mar BiolEcol 271:2539

Jompa J, McCook (2002b) The effects of nutrients and herbivory on competition between a hard coral (Poritescylindrica) and a brown alga (Lobophora variegata). Limnol Oceanogr 47:527538 Klumpp DW, McKinnon AD (1989) Temporal and spatial patterns in the primary production of a coral reef epilithic algal community. J Exp Mar BiolEcol 131:122 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 Leujak W., Ormond R.F.G.,(2007), Comparative accuracy and efficiency of six coral community survey methods. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology351, 168-187. Lindn, O., Souter, D., Wilhelmsson, D. &Obura, D. (2002), Coral Reef Degradation in the Indian Ocean, CORDIO, Kalmar, Makowski, C., Seminoff, J.A. & Salmon, M. (2006). Home range and habitat use of juvenile Atlantic green turtles (Cheloniamydas L.) on shallow reef habitats in Palm Beach, Florida, USA. Marine Biology. 128. 1167-1179. McClanahan, T.R., Baird, A.H., Marshall &Toscano, M.A. (2004) Comparing bleaching and mortality responses of hard corals between southern Kenya and the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Marine Pollution Bulletin 48: 327 335. Micheli, F. & Halpern, S. (2005) Low functional redundancy in coastal marine assemblages.Ecology Letters. 8. 391-400. Mrosovsky, N., (1983). Conserving Sea Turtles. The British Herpetological Society, London, p. 4 Nugues, M. & Roberts, C. (2003) Partial mortality in massive reef corals as an indicator of sediment stress on coral reefs, Marine Pollution Bulletin,46, 314 323 Pratchett M.S., (2007), Feeding preferences of Acanthasterplanci (Echinodermata: Asteroidea) under controlled conditions of food availability.Pacific Science 61 (Issue 1), 113-120 Samoilys M., Gribble N., (1997), Manual for Assessing Fish Stocks on Pacific Coral Reefs.Queensland Training Series.Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane. Sano M, Shimizu M, Nose Y (1984) Changes in structure of coral reef fish communities by destruction of hermatypic corals: observational and experimental views. Pac Sci 38 (1) : 51-79 Sluka, R. D. & Miller, M. W. (2001) Herbivorous Fish Assemblages and Herbivory Pressure on Laamu Atoll, Republic of Maldives. Coral Reefs, 20. Pp. 255-262 Sobel, J. A., and C. P. Dahlgren. (2004). Marine reserves. A guide to science, design and use. Island Press, Washington D.C., USA. Spalding M. D., Jarvis G. E., (2002), The impact of the 1998 coral mortality on reef fish communities in the Seychelles. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44, 309-321 Steneck RS (1988) Herbivory on coral reefs: a synthesis. Proc 6th Int Coral Reef Symp 1:3749 Turner, J., Klaus, R. &Engelhardt, U. (2002)The reefs of the granitic islands of the Seychelles, CORDIO Veron, J.E.N., (2000) Corals of the World, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Australia, Vol13 Ward, S. & Harrison, P. (2000) Changes in gametogenesis and fecundity of acroporid corals that were exposed to elevated nitrogen and phosphorus during the ENCORE experiment. J Exp Mar BiolEcol246 : 179 221 Witzell, W. (1983) Synopsis of biological data on the hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelysimbricata (Linnaeus, 1766), FAO Fish, Synop., pp. 137

55

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

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

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

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

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

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

56

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

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

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

57

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

Relevance Family Scientific name Common name Feeding guild (Engelhardt 2004)
Chaetodonvagabundus Chaetodonauriga Chaetodontrifascialis Chaetodonmelannotus Chaetodonmertensii Chaetodontriangulum Chaetodontrifasciatus Chaetodoninterruptus Chaetodonbennetti Butterflyfish (Chaetodontidae) Chaetodonlunula Chaetodonkleinii Chaetodoncitrinellus Chaetodonguttatisimus Chaetodonlineolatus Chaetodonfalcula Chaetodonmeyersi Chaetodonxanthocephal us Chaetodonzanzibariensis Forcipiger sp. Apolemichthystrimaculat us Angelfish (Pomacanthidae) Pomacanthus imperator Pomacanthussemicircula tus Pygoplitesdiacanthus Acanthurus sp. Surgeonfish (Acanthuridae) Ctenochaetus sp. Naso sp. Zancluscornutus Siganuspuelloides Siganuscorallinus Rabbitfish (Siganidae) Siganusstellatus Siganusargenteus Honeycomb Forktail H H Algae vs. coral Algae vs. coral Vagabond Threadfin Chevroned Black-backed Merten's Triangular Indian Redfin Indian Ocean Teardrop Bennett's Raccoon Klein's Speckled Spotted Lined Saddleback Meyer's Yellow-headed Zanzibar Longnose sp. Three-spot Emperor Semicircle Regal Surgeonfish Bristletooths Unicornfish Moorish idol Blackeye Coral C/I C/I C C/I C/I C C C/I C C/I C/I C/I C/I C/I C/I C C/I C C/I V V V V H H Pl V H H Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Coral recovery Visual appeal Visual appeal Visual appeal Visual appeal Algae vs. coral Algae vs. coral Algae vs. coral Visual appeal Algae vs. coral Algae vs. coral

58

Siganussutor Lutjanusgibbus Lutjanussebae Lutjanusfulviflamma Lutjanuskasmira Lutjanusbengalensis Lutjanusmonostigma Snappers (Lutjanidae) Lutjanusvitta Lutjanusfulvus Lutjanusargentimaculatu s Lutjanusbohar Lutjanusrusselli Macolorniger Aprionvirescens Balistoidesviridescens Triggerfish (Balistidae) Sufflamenchrysopterus Balistidae Monotaxis sp. Gymnocraniusgrandoculi s Lethrinusolivaceous Lethrinusnebulosus Lethrinusrubrioperculatus Emperors (Lethrinidae) Lethrinusxanthochilus Lethrinusharak Lethrinuslentjan Lethrinusobsoletus Lethrinuserythracanthus Lethrinusmahsena Lethrinusvariegatus Anyperodonleucogrammi cus Cephalopholisargus Groupers (Serranidae) Cephalopholisurodeta Cephalopholisminiata Cephalopholissonnerati Epinephelusmerra

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

H Pi Pi Pi Pi Pi Pi Pi Pi Pi Pi Pi Pi Pi I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Pi Pi Pi Pi Pi Pi

Algae vs. coral Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Sea urchins & COTs Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure Fishing pressure

59

Epinephelusspilotoceps Epinepheluspolyphekadi on Epinepheluscaeruleopun ctatus Epinephelusfuscoguttatu s Epinephelustukula Epinephelusfasciatus Aethalopercarogaa Variolalouti Plectropomuslaevis Plectropomuspunctatus Plectorhinchusorientalis Sweetlips (Haemulidae) Plectorhinchuspicus Plectorhinchusgibbosus Parrotfish (Scaridae) Bolbometoponmuricatum Scaridae Cheilinustrilobatus Cheilinusfasciatus Wrasse (Labridae) Oxycheilinusdigrammus Cheilinusundulatus Tetraodontidae Diodontidae Holocentridae

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

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

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

60

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

Code Pl

Feeding guild Planktivores

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

Key species Soldierfish, Squirrelfish, Unicornfish Groupers, Snappers Butterflyfish (Chevroned, Triangular, Bennetts, Indian Redfin, Meyers, Longnose sp.) Angelfish, Moorish Idol Sweetlips, Emperors, Pufferfish, Porcupinefish, Wrasse (Tripletail, Redbreasted, CheeklinedSplendor, Humphead), Triggerfish (Titan, Flagtail, Other) Parrotfish, Surgeonfish, Bristletooth, Rabbitfish

Pi

Piscivores

Corallivores

Varied diet

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

Invertivores*

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

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

C/H

Corallivore/Herbivore

Bumphead parrotfish Butterflyfish (Vagabond, Threadfin, Blackbacked, Mertens, Indian Ocean Teardrop, Racoon, Kleins, Speckled, Spotted, Lined, Saddleback, Yellow headed, Zanzibar)

C/I

Corallivore/Invertivore

Relative abundance can be a secondary indicator of coral community health

61

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

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

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

62

Appendix F.List of invertebratespecies surveyed on 50m belt transects by GVI Seychelles

Mah.

Mollusca (Gastropoda)

Drupella spp.

Drupella

Mollusca (Bivalvia)

Tridacnidae Culcita spp.

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

Sea Stars (Asteroidea)

Acanthasterplanci

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

Long Spine Urchin Mathaes Urchin Short Spine Urchin Pencil Urchin

Toxopneustespileolus

Flower Urchin Cake Urchin

Holothuriaartra Holothuriafuscopunctata Holothuriafuscogilva Holothurianobilis Holothuria sp.(undescribed) Bohadschia spp. Sea Cucumbers (Holothuroidea) Actinopyga spp. Actinopygamauritiana Stichopus spp. Thelenotaananas Pearsonothuriangraeffei Thelenotaanax Holothuriaedulis (Cephalopoda) Lobsters (Palinura) Octopus spp. Panulirus spp. Parribacus spp./Scyllarides spp.

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

63

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

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

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

Mollusca (Cephalopoda)

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

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

64