Now 50 % more Biomas and 260 species

September 10, 2009 · Filed under Antulang

FISH AND CORAL SUBSTRATE TRENDS, DIVE HUB SANCTUARY 2008-2009

 

Portia Joy Nillos-Kleiven1, MSc & Brian Stockwell, MSc1

___________________________

[1]Silliman University-Angelo King Center for Research and Environmental Management (SUAKCREM)

2/F Silliman University-Institute of Environmental and Marine Sciences, Bantayan, Dumaguete City, 6200

Telefax: (035) 4225698 email: portianillos@yahoo.com, suakcrem@yahoo.com

 

 

Introduction/Rationale

 

            Marine protected areas or marine sanctuaries have proven to be the best option in the Philippines for addressing the issue of declining near-shore and coral reef fisheries. In the Visayas, there are currently 564 marine protected areas that are established, with the majority being community-based and small I size (about 5 hectares on average).  Among major islands with established MPAs, Negros Island has the highest percentage (ca. 50.98%) of functional marine protected areas (Alcala, Bucol, and Nillos-Kleiven, in press), with the municipality of Dauin unsurprisingly heading the list of municipality with the most number of functional MPAs.

 

            Sadly, in the municipality of Siaton, only one marine protected area made it to the list of functional MPAs—and it is not even legally considered as a marine sanctuary yet.  This is the proposed Dive Hub Antulang MPA located in Sitio Antulang, Si-it, Siaton.  This report contains the results of technical surveys conducted in August 2008 and July 2009 inside and outside the proposed MPA.  It is hoped that these results will encourage the local government unit of the municipality to fast track the legal process of establishing the said MPA, and also to encourage better management of other MPAs in the municipality.

 

Study Site

 

            The study site is a small reserve/sanctuary that was protected since 2007 thru the efforts of a local resort, Dive Hub Philippines (Figure 1, next page).   The area is directly in front of the resort, and has an area of approximately 300 sq meters (1/3 hectare), which is very small in terms of marine sanctuary standards.  Heavy fishing pressure is evident in the area, with many commercial fishing boats regularly fishing not far from shore, as well as locals regularly fishing outside the proposed MPA with spear guns, fishing pots, and hook-and-lines. 

 

            However, because of the constant protection and vigilance of the Dive Hub staff, the small area inside the boundaries have remarkably recovered well, and is fast becoming a favorite dive site for divers, both local and foreign.  The reef inside the boundaries of the MPA is remarkably diverse for such a small area, and the fish community one can observe is akin to areas that have been protected for a long time.  This small area is a microcosm of what the reefs around Siaton probably used to be—and perhaps a vision of what these reefs can be if only they are properly protected.

Dive Hub Antulang proposed MPA

Fig. 1. Location of the proposed Dive Hub marine protected area study site (white arrow), with adjacent control site (yellow arrow)

 

 

 


Materials and Methods

 

Standard survey methods for fish (Fish Visual Census) and corals (Point-Intercept method) (English et al., 1997) were used in this survey. Fish species identification was confirmed using field guides (Allen and Steene 1997; Allen, Steene, Humann, and Deloach, 2003). Only easily visible, non-cryptic species were included. Corals were classified only according to life-forms (massive, branching, etc.)  For each study area, a deep (10-12 m) and a shallow (3-5m) station was surveyed, each station composing of  three 50-m transects. The transects were laid out in a consistent depth following the contour of the reef, separated by 10 m in between transects.

 

            Fish biomass was calculated using the formula:  W= a x Lb, where a and b  are constants that were obtained from FishBase 2000.  Fish density is expressed as the average number of fish observed for 500 m2 in three transects.  Fish were also categorized as target (those that are often targeted by fishers, such as parrotfishes (Scaridae), breams (Nemipteridae), fusiliers (Caesionidae), goatfishes (Mullidae), snappers (Lutjanidae), emperors (Lethrinidae), jacks (Carangidae) and groupers (Serranidae) among others. The last 4 families are considered as “Predators”. Non-target fish are butterflyfishes (Chaetodontidae), angelfishes (Pomacanthidae), damselfishes (Pomacentridae), wrasses (Labridae), anthias (Anthininae), cardinalfishes (Apogonidae), and others. 

 

For corals, percentage cover for a particular substrate was determined using the following formula:                   __number of substrate points_ ­­­­­  x 100

                                        Total number of points (100)

 

The category LHC or Live Hard Coral is determined by adding up the following categories: CB (branching non-acroporid), CBA (branching acroporid), CE (encrusting corals), CF (foliose coral), CFUNG (fungiid), CM (massive corals), and CSUB (sub-massive corals). 

 

 

Results and Discussion

 

            a. Corals

            There was a slight improvement in the average live hard coral cover (LHC) inside and outside the proposed reserve from 2008 to 2009.  The LHC increased from 21% in 2008 to 25% in 2009 outside the proposed reserve, and from 19.33% to 21% in the same period inside the reserve.  The average percentage of dead coral (DC) and dead coral with algae (DCA), however, decreased considerably inside the proposed reserve from 8.33% in 2008 to a mere 2.33% in 2009, while the percentages were approximately maintained outside the reserve. 

 

Whether this increase in coral cover constitutes a real increase or is a result of sampling design cannot be ascertained, as the researchers did not use permanent transects which is the best method to use if monitoring coral growth.  However, the drastic decrease of dead coral inside the reserve is indicating that the reef here is not receiving as much damage as outside the boundaries, which over time will eventually result to higher coral cover inside the reserve.

 

 One thing that is sure however, is that live hard coral cover  inside and immediately outside the reserve are relatively stable, and if conditions remain the same (constant protection), this trend will continue over time and real improvements will be noted in the future.

 

 

           

            Figure 2. Substrate trend from 2008-2009 inside and immediately outside the proposed MPA.

 

 

            b. Fish

            While the recovery of damaged corals might take time, this situation is not applicable to fish communities. Fish, especially top predators and target species, respond very quickly to protection, and this is why their biomass, density, and diversity are more reliable to gauge the effectivity of newly established MPAs. 

 

            Biomass, or the weight of living tissue, is the best indicator of reserve effectivity, as these take time to build up, and is the best “tell-tale” sign of whether an area has been protected constantly.  The constant protection of the proposed MPA in Dive Hub is very evident—total fish biomass increased by a factor of 2.6, and target fish biomass increased by a factor of 3.4  in only one year inside the reserve (Figure 5). The same parameters have also increased outside, although not by the same magnitude—it increased by a factor of 1.7 for total fish biomass, and by a factor or 2.8 for target species (Figure 4).

 

This general over-all increase in fish biomass inside and immediately outside the proposed reserve is a

very good indicator that the area is recovering well. It also means good news for the community, as there are more fish outside the reserve now than farther away that they can harvest for their daily consumption.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3. A school of parrotfish in the reserve. (Photo: A.W. Kleiven)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4 (left) & Figure 5 (right).   Trends in average biomass for total, target, and  top predatory species outside (control) and inside (reserve) the proposed MPA from 2008-2009.

 

 

 

 

`Fish density for all categories (total, target, and top predator species) increased both inside (Figure 5)  and immediately outside (Figure 6) the reserve.  Although at first glance, the control area seems to have more fish compared to the reserve area, it should be noted that the reserve had much higher densities of target fish and top predatory species compared to outside. The presence of a large number of juvenile groupers in the reserve and adjacent fished area was also noted. The increase in top predator densities in the control area might be an indication that some species are moving out of the reserve.  Most probably, their presence in the control area could mean that the reserve is simply too small to contain their territories, and thus they were also  observed outside.  

Figure 5 (left) and Figure 6 (right). Trends in density of target, top predatory species, as well as total density of fishes observed inside the proposed reserve and immediately outside.

 

 

            In terms of relative abundance, pomacentrids (damselfishes) were the most numerous fish observed in all areas from 2008 to 2009, followed by serranids (groupers and fairy basslets) (Figure 7, 8). Pomacentrids are the most dominant fish family in disturbed reefs.   However, it should be noted that the relative percentage of other fish families increased considerably in both the control and reserve areas for 2009, indicating that the diversity of other fish species is on the increasing trend.

 

Figure 7. A large school of fairy basslets inside the reserve. (Photo: A.W. Kleiven)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 8 . Trends in family abundance for fish species outside and inside the reserve from 2008- 2009. 

 

            The diversity of fish species observed in the area has also increased significantly, from 201 species noted in 2008, to 260 fish species noted in 2009, which is a significant increase of 29% more compared to the year before (see Annex A for complete species list).

 

Conclusions and Recommendations

 

            The proposed Dive Hub MPA is a well-managed, functional reserve, based on the scientific evidence that was gathered from surveys in 2008 and 2009.  It is a shining example of what a small group of dedicated people can do if they really put their hearts and hands into protecting the coral reef. It is remarkable that such a rich variety of marine life can thrive in such a small area.  The small reserve offers hope for all the reefs in the Siaton area—if such a small area can create such an impact on the nearby fisheries, how much more beneficial would it be if we protected all our MPAs properly and establish more MPAs?

The protection regime that has been followed for the past 2 years is indeed bearing fruit. This constant protection should continue so that the benefits of a functional reserve—increased fish diversity, biomass and density—can be realized not only inside the reserve but in the in the nearby fished areas as well. 

 

Figure 9.  A school of fusiliers observed inside the reserve. (Photo: A.W. Kleiven)

It is also recommended that the area of the reserve be increased eventually, as it is currently too small to afford full protection to species that need large areas of reef to thrive, such as jacks, snappers, and other commercially important fish species.

 

 

Acknowledgements

 

            The authors would like to thank the entire staff of Dive Hub for making this survey very enjoyable for us.  Mr. Arne Willy Kleiven took the underwater photos and provided important logistics support, We look forward to future collaborations and a better, bigger MPA.  May the tribe grow.

 

 

References:

 

Alcala, A.C., A. Bucol, and P. Nillos-Kleiven. In press. Directory of Marine Protected Areas in the Visayas, Philippines. Oceanfriends Foundation Inc, Dumaguete City, Philippines. 192 pp.

 

Allen, G., R. Steene, P. Humann, and N. Deloach. 2003. Reef fish identification: Tropical Pacific. New World Publications, Inc. 457 pp.

 

Allen, G., and R. Steene. 1998. Indo-Pacific Coral Reef Field Guide. Tropical Reef Research; Singapore. 378pp.

 

English, S., C. Wilkinson, and V. Baker. 1997. Survey Manual for Tropical Marine Resources, 2nd ed. Australian Institute of Marine Science. ASEAN-Australia Marine Science Project. Townsville, Australia. 390 pp.

 

Froese, R. and D. Pauly, eds. 2000. FishBase 2000: concepts, designs and data sources. ICLARM, Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines. 344 pp.

 

Lieske, E., and R. Myers. 2002.  Coral reef fishes: Indo-Pacific and Caribbean. Revised ed. Princeton University Press, USA. 400 pp.

 

 

ANNEX A

Family

Spname

2008

2009

Grand Total

Acanthuridae

Acanthurus lineatus

1

1

1

 

Acanthurus mata

1

1

1

 

Acanthurus nigricans

 

1

1

 

Acanthurus nigrofuscus

1

1

1

 

Acanthurus pyroferus

1

1

1

 

Acanthurus xanthopterus

 

1

1

 

Ctenochaetus binotatus

1

1

1

 

Ctenochaetus cyanocheilus

1

1

1

 

Ctenochaetus striatus

1

1

1

 

Naso annulatus

 

1

1

 

Naso brachycentron

1

1

1

 

Naso caeruleacauda

1

1

1

 

Naso hexacanthus

1

  

1

 

Naso lopezi

 

1

1

 

Naso minor

1

1

1

 

Naso unicornis

 

1

1

 

Naso vlamingii

 

1

1

 

Zebrasoma scopas

1

1

1

Apogonidae

Apogon aureus

1

1

1

 

Apogon bandanensis

 

1

1

 

Apogon compressus

1

1

1

 

Apogon cyanosoma

 

1

1

 

Apogon sealei

 

1

1

 

Archamia melasma

 

1

1

 

Cheilodipterus artus

 

1

1

 

Cheilodipterus macrodon

 

1

1

 

Cheilodipterus quinquelineatus

1

1

1

Aulostomidae

Aulostomus chinensis

1

1

1

Balistidae

Balistapus undulatus

1

1

1

 

Balistoides conspicillum

1

  

1

 

Balistoides viridescens

1

1

1

 

Melichthys vidua

 

1

1

 

Odonus niger

1

1

1

 

Rhinecanthus verrucosus

1

1

1

Belonidae

Tylosurus crocodilus

 

1

1

Blennidae

Plagiotremus rhinorhynchos

1

1

1

 

Plagiotremus tapeinosoma

1

1

1

Caesionidae

Caesio caerulaurea

1

1

1

 

Pterocaesio pisang

 

1

1

 

Pterocaesio tesselata

 

1

1

Chaetodontidae

Chaetodon auriga

1

1

1

 

Chaetodon baronessa

1

1

1

 

Chaetodon citrinellus

 

1

1

 

Chaetodon kleini

1

1

1

 

Chaetodon lunulatus

1

1

1

 

Chaetodon melannotus

1

1

1

 

Chaetodon ornatissimus

1

1

1

 

Chaetodon punctatofasciatus

1

1

1

 

Chaetodon rafflesi

1

1

1

 

Chaetodon selene

1

  

1

 

Chaetodon trifascialis

1

1

1

 

Chaetodon ulietensis

1

  

1

 

Chaetodon unimaculatus

1

1

1

 

Chaetodon vagabundus

1

1

1

 

Coradion melanopus

 

1

1

 

Cordion chrysozonus

1

  

1

 

Forcipiger flavissimus

1

1

1

 

Forcipiger longirostris

1

1

1

 

Heniochus chrysostomus

 

1

1

 

Heniochus diphreutes

 

1

1

 

Heniochus flavissimus

 

1

1

 

Heniochus singularis

 

1

1

 

Heniochus varius

1

1

1

Cirrhitidae

Cirrhitichthys falco

1

1

1

 

Paracirrhites forsteri

1

1

1

Diodontidae

Cyclichthys orbicularis

 

1

1

Echeneidae

Echeneis naucrates

1

 

1

Ephippidae

Platax pinnatus

 

1

1

 

Platax teira

1

1

1

Fistulariidae

Fistularia commersoni

 

1

1

Gobiidae

Amblyeleotris guttata

 

1

1

 

Amblyeleotris randalli

 

1

1

 

Amblyeleotris steinitzi

 

1

1

 

Amblygobius decussatus

 

1

1

 

Amblygobius hectori

1

1

1

 

Amblygobius phalaena

 

1

1

 

Ctenogobius tangaroai

 

1

1

 

Valenciennea puellaris

 

1

1

 

Valenciennea strigata

 

1

1

Haemulidae

Diagramma pictum

 

1

1

 

Plectorhicnhus chaetodonoides

1

  

1

 

Plectorhicnhus lessoni

 

1

1

 

Plectorhicnhus vittatus

1

  

1

Holocentridae

Myripristis berndti

 

1

1

 

Myripristis kuntee

1

  

1

 

Myripristis murdjan

 

1

1

 

Sargocentron cornutum

 

1

1

 

Sargocentron diadema

 

1

1

 

Sargocentron melanospilos

 

1

1

 

Sargocentron spiniferum

 

1

1

Kyphosidae

Kyphosus sp.

 

1

1

Labridae

Anampses geographicus

1

1

1

 

Anampses melanurus

 

1

1

 

Anampses meleagrides

1

1

1

 

Anampses twistii

1

1

1

 

Bodianus axillaris

 

1

1

 

Bodianus diana

1

1

1

 

Bodianus mesothorax

1

1

1

 

Cheilinus fasciatus

 

1

1

 

Cheilinus oxycephalus

1

1

1

 

Cheilinus trilobatus

1

1

1

 

Cheililnus undulatus

 

1

1

 

Cheilio inermis

1

1

1

 

Cirrhilabrus cyanopleura

1

1

1

 

Cirrhilabrus lubbocki

1

1

1

 

Coris aygula

 

1

1

 

Coris batuensis

1

1

1

 

Coris gaimard

1

1

1

 

Diproctacanthus xanthurus

1

1

1

 

Epibulus insidiator

1

1

1

 

Gomphosus varius

1

1

1

 

Halichoeres argus

 

1

1

 

Halichoeres chrysus

1

1

1

 

Halichoeres hortulanus

1

1

1

 

Halichoeres marginatus

1

1

1

 

Halichoeres melanurus

1

1

1

 

Halichoeres podostigma

1

1

1

 

Halichoeres prosopeion

1

1

1

 

Halichoeres richmondi

1

1

1

 

Halichoeres scapularis

1

1

1

 

Halichoeres solorensis

1

1

1

 

Hemigymnus fasciatus

1

1

1

 

Hemigymnus melapterus

1

1

1

 

Hologymnosus annulatus

 

1

1

 

Labrichthys unilineatus

1

1

1

 

Labroides bicolor

1

1

1

 

Labroides dimidiatus

1

1

1

 

Labropsis manabei

1

  

1

 

Macropharyngodon meleagris

1

1

1

 

Macropharyngodon negrosensis

1

1

1

 

Oxycheilinus celebicus

1

1

1

 

Oxycheilinus diagrammus

1

1

1

 

Pseudocheilinus evanidus

1

1

1

 

Pseudocheilinus hexataenia

1

1

1

 

Pseudocoris yamashiroi

1

1

1

 

Pseudodax mollucanus

1

1

1

 

Pteragogus enneacanthus

 

1

1

 

Pterogogus cryptus

1

1

1

 

Stethojulis bandanensis

1

1

1

 

Stethojulis interupta

1

1

1

 

Stethojulis trilineatus

 

1

1

 

Thalassoma hardwicke

1

1

1

 

Thalassoma lunare

1

1

1

Lethrinidae

Lethrinus erythracanthus

1

1

1

 

Lethrinus ornatus

1

1

1

 

Monotaxis grandoculis

1

1

1

Lutjanidae

Lutjanus argentimaculatus

 

1

1

 

Lutjanus biguttatus

1

1

1

 

Lutjanus bohar

 

1

1

 

Lutjanus decussatus

1

1

1

 

Lutjanus ehrenbergii

1

1

1

 

Lutjanus fulviflamma

1

1

1

 

Lutjanus fulvus

1

1

1

 

Lutjanus gibbus

 

1

1

 

Lutjanus monostigma

 

1

1

 

Lutjanus rivulatus