Monitoring of The HMNZS Canterbury Artificial Reef and Surrounding Deep Water Cove, December 2008

MONITORING OF THE
HMNZS CANTERBURY
ARTIFICIAL REEF AND
SURROUNDING DEEP WATER
COVE,
DECEMBER 2008
Investigation of colonisation,
succession and community
enhancement
Monitoring of the HMNZS Canterbury Artificial reef and Surrounding Deep Water Cove, December 2008
MONITORING OF THE HMNZS CANTERBURY ARTIFICIAL

REEF AND SURROUNDING DEEP WATER COVE,
DECEMBER 2008
Investigation of colonisation, succession and community
enhancement
This report was compiled and produced by

Joseph W. McKenzie
Project Co-ordinator
Caroline Schweder-Goad
Diploma in Marine Studies

Bay of Plenty Polytechnic
Tauranga
joey@o2dive.co.nz
Front images courtesy of Shane Housham, Julia Riddle and Darryl Harrison at Northland Dive
McKenzie, J, W Bay of Plenty Polytechnic Page 2 of 40

Abstract
The HMNZS Canterbury is a decommissioned Navy Vessel that was scuttled in November 2007 in
Deep Water Cove, Northland, New Zealand.
A monitoring plan was designed to investigate colonisation, marine community enhancement,
biodiversity of the wreck as an artificial reef, succession, the origin of inhabiting species and to
monitor any negative impacts of the ship wreck on its surrounding environment. This report details
the second survey of the artificial reef and surrounding areas of Deep Water Cove in December
2008. A previous survey of the HMNZS Canterbury wreck/artificial reef was carried out in July
2008 and surveys of Deep Water Cove were carried out in October 2007 prior to scuttling of the
wreck.
The objectives of the December survey were to investigate succession patterns, and the success of
the wreck as an artificial reef of the wreck/artificial reef to date and to also determine if the wreck
has benefited or hampered the surrounding regions of Deep Water Cove.
This report also places emphasis on the importance of incorporating marine protected areas with
management of artificial reefs in order to gain the full benefits artificial reefs can offer.
Methods used were repetitions of methods used in previous surveys and specific to each survey
zone. All were sub-tidal surveys and included horizontal and vertical transect lines, visual room
surveys, visual hand rail surveys, haphazard quadrat samples and visual fish surveys.
Average colonisation of sessile invertebrates had decreased in December 2008 in comparison to July
of the same year but average species richness of the same areas showed an increases or identical
results to those obtained by surveys carried out in July 2008; with the exception of the starboard
hull.
Macro mobile species that were present in on the HMNZS Canterbury wreck in both July and
December 2008 surveys an increased in average size, or maintained a constant average size.
Increases in species richness and individual species numbers were also recorded. Large pelagic fish
were also present on the wreck.
Increases in average fish sizes, individual fish numbers and species richness would indicate the
wreck is acting successfully as an artificial reef by offering protection and nutrition to a growing
community.
Further statistical analysis is still required for data collected in Deep Water Cove.

Acknowledgments
Thank you to
Shane Housham and Julia Riddle

Northland Dive
Robert Willoughby
Mike Fairweather
Rawhiti Iwi
Far North District Council
The Canterbury Charitable Trust
Darryl Harrison
Bay of Plenty Polytechnic
Monique Retter
Daniel Sharp
O2 Dive NZ
And a very special thank you to Caroline Schweder-Goad for your guidance and knowledge

Table of Contents
Section One Introduction ........................................................................................................ 6
1.1 Artificial Reefs ...................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Benefits of Artificial Reefs ................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Past Studies of Artificial Reefs ............................................................................................. 6
1.4 HMNZS Canterbury F421 ..................................................................................................... 7
1.5 Canterbury Charitable Trust .................................................................................................. 9
1.6 HMNZS Canterbury Monitoring Plan................................................................................... 9
1.7 HMNZS Canterbury Survey, July 2008 .............................................................................. 10
1.8 Artificial Reefs and Marine Protected Areas ...................................................................... 10
1.9 Survey, December 2008 ...................................................................................................... 11
Section Two Methods .............................................................................................................. 11
2.1 Surveying the HMNZS Canterbury..................................................................................... 11
2.1.1 Method .............................................................................................................................. 11
2.1.2 Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 14
2.1.3 Data analysis ..................................................................................................................... 16
2.2 Surveying of Deep Water Cove ............................................................................................... 18
2.2.1 Methods ............................................................................................................................. 18
2.2.2 Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 18
2.2.3 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 19
Section Three Results ............................................................................................................... 20
3.1 HMNZS Canterbury Wreck ................................................................................................ 20
3.1.1 Average Colonisation of Different Areas .......................................................................... 20
3.1.2 Species Richness ............................................................................................................... 21
3.1.3 Macro Mobile Species, Presence and Average Size ......................................................... 22
3.1.4 Species Diversity ............................................................................................................... 23
3.1.5 Presence of Pagrus auratus............................................................................................... 25
3.1.6 Presence of Pomatoceros sp. ............................................................................................. 25
3.2 Surrounding Areas of Deep Water Cove............................................................................. 26
3.2.1 Area One ........................................................................................................................... 26
3.2.2 Area Two ........................................................................................................................... 27
3.2.3 Area Three ......................................................................................................................... 28
Section Four Discussion ........................................................................................................... 29
4.1 HMNZS Canterbury Wreck ................................................................................................ 29
4.1.1 Average Colonisation of Different Areas .......................................................................... 29
4.1.2 Species Richness ............................................................................................................... 30
4.1.3 Macro Mobile Species, Presence and Average Size ......................................................... 31
4.1.4 Species Diversity ............................................................................................................... 33
4.1.6 Presence of Pomatoceros spp. ........................................................................................... 34
4.2 Surrounding areas of Deep Water Cove .............................................................................. 34
Section Five Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 34
Section Six References .......................................................................................................... 36
Section Seven Appendix .......................................................................................................... 39
7.1 Species List ......................................................................................................................... 39

Section One Introduction

1.1 Artificial Reefs
An artificial reef is defined by William Seaman as “one or more objects of natural or human origin
deployed purposefully on the seafloor to influence physical, biological, or socioeconomic processes
related to living marine resources” (Seaman & Jensen, 2000). Common artificial reef structures
include vessels, refrigerators, tires, specific built box structures and tractors.
Rationales for artificial reefs include commercial seafood harvesting, recreational diving,
aquaculture, environmental aid and scientific experimentation (Seaman & Jensen, 2000).
Though the world-wide application of artificial reefs is extensive, debate exists in certain scientific
communities regarding the true benefits of such structures.
1.2 Benefits of Artificial Reefs

Benefits of artificial reefs include economical, environmental, ecological, and intrinsic benefits.
The HMNZA Tui and the HMNZS Waikato are located off the coast of Tutukaka in Northland New
Zealand. The wrecks were sunk in 1999 and 2000 respectively, since then both wrecks have become
blanketed in encrusting marine life and are home to thousands of fish. Along with the Poor Knights
Islands, located near by, the wrecks have been a major attraction for international visitors, as well as
locals. Tutukaka has seen an estimated 20,000 divers diving on the Waikato alone (Schaffler, 2007).
Ship wrecks have benefited the diving and tourism industries economically the world over. Possibly
the most famous shipwreck in the world, the SS President Coolidge, was sunk in 1942 after hitting a
mine off the coast of Vanuatu’s largest Island, Espiritu Santo. The accident has transformed Espiritu
Santo into a renowned, must see destination for divers worldwide, for the Coolidge is the largest,
most in tack and accessible wreck of World War Two (Vanuatu Tourism Office, 2007).
Rationale for employment of artificial reefs in the Mediterranean Sea include protection of habitat
from bottom trawling, promotion of conservation, fisheries enhancement, natural reef reconstruction
enhancement of habitat for specific commercially viable stock and as bio filtration structures
(Jenson et. al., 2004).
Artificial reefs offer huge benefits to marine ecology with respect to understanding community
structures, relationships and succession patterns in different ecosystems (Svane & Pettersen, 2001).
1.3 Past Studies of Artificial Reefs

Similar studies of shipwrecks in northern New Zealand waters have been documented. These
include the Rainbow Warrior wreck at the Cavalli Islands (Ross-Watt & Clarke, 1997), the
Canterbury’s sister ship the HMNZS Waikato wreck off the coast of Tutukaka (Retter &

Newcombe, 2007) and the Taioma off the south-eastern side of Motiti Island in the Bay of Plenty
(Guinness, Betty & Kennedy, 2005).
The Rainbow Warrior rests in Matauri Bay, Cavalli Islands. This vessel is a prime example of a
wreck becoming an artificial reef, enhancing the surrounding marine community and becoming a
world class dive attraction. Once the Rainbow Warrior was rested in its final location, a succession
of marine algae and animals began to occupy the wreck and community composition visibly
changed over time (Grace, 2005). The wreck is now covered in invertebrate life, hosts schooling
fish, and attracts divers from all around the world (Enderby, 2002).
Past studies of the Rainbow Warrior wreck have shown an increase in large predatory fish
abundance after one year and full colonisation of the wreck occurred after approximately three years
(Muherami, 2004). In other cases, like the HMNZS Waikato, full blankets of marine life which help
attract other reef dwellers, developed after three years (Muherami, 2004).
A study of the Red Sea’s Kingston shipwreck concludes that even after a century, an artificial reef
will only mimic an adjacent natural reef in terms of community structure and composition of sessile
invertebrates if it possesses similar structural features. In particular, inclined and vertical surfaces
host communities with different species presence, composition and densities in comparison to
horizontal surfaces (Perkol-Fincel et. al. 2005).
Studies carried out on ship wrecks in South East Florida USA have shown that significantly larger
fish diversity has been present on the artificial vessel reefs compared to natural reefs within the
same area. These studies concluded that artificial reefs, like ship wrecks, do not attract fish away
from pre-existing natural reefs more that they create their own diverse communities (Arena, Jordan
& Spieler, 2007). This view is commonly supported by many scientists who believe that shipwrecks
and artificial reefs are tools that can help boost deteriorating fish stocks and repopulate local marine
communities (Gravitz, 2000).
Some experts believe that various fish species, especially commercially viable stocks, do not use
reefs to reproduce but simply as a location that provides shelter and food (Gravitz, 2000). They
therefore believe that target fish stocks are migrating from natural to artificial reefs, as a result,
stocks are merely being redistributed as appose to repopulated (Gravitz, 2000).
If the assumption of migrating fish stocks favouring artificial reefs is valid, this may result in
increased densities of fish populations congregating in one location; the artificial reef. This therefore
leaves fish populations more susceptible to over exploitation due to increased fishing pressure that
may be exerted on artificial reefs (Grossman, Jones & Seaman, 1997).
1.4 HMNZS Canterbury F421

The HMNZS Canterbury was built for the Royal New Zealand Navy in Scotland and was
commissioned in October 1971 as F421 (Middleton, 2005).
The Canterbury is a 113.4 metre long vessel and was decommissioned in 2005 (Canterbury
Charitable Trust, 2008).
The Canterbury Wreck was purchased by the Canterbury Charitable Trust and successfully scuttled
in November 2007 in Deep Water Cove, Bay of Islands, New Zealand (figure 1) (Canterbury
Charitable Trust, 2008).

The HMNZS Canterbury rests in Deep Water Cove and occupies a depth ranging from 12 to 37
metres in the water column (figure 2).
Figure 1. Location of Deep Water Cove, Cape Brett, Northland, New Zealand.
(Pikasa Web, 2008; Northland fishing 2008)
Figure 2. Diagram of the HMNZS Canterbury in its final location (Canterbury Charitable Trust, 2008)

1.5 Canterbury Charitable Trust

The Canterbury Charitable Trust is the party responsible for the state of the HMNZS Canterbury
Wreck (Canterbury Charitable Trust, 2008).
The objectives for the wreck held by the charitable trust include:
Enhancement of social and economic development in the Bay of Islands
Employment of local people
Fisheries and biodiversity enhancement
Creation of a world class dive site, and
Conservation of Deep Water Cove’s marine community (Canterbury Charitable Trust, 2008).
The Far North District Council value the wreck as an attraction to the region therefore benefiting
tourism and the local economy (Far North District Council, 2008).
1.6 HMNZS Canterbury Monitoring Plan

A long term monitoring plan was requested by the Canterbury Charitable Trust and the Far North
District council. This monitoring plan aims to:
Observe the colonisation, biological diversity and succession patterns of the wreck over
time,
Monitor potential enhancement or disruption of biodiversity and population characteristics in
areas surrounding the wreck, and
Determine the origins of fish inhabiting the wreck to test the following two hypothesis:
i. The artificial reef, the HMNZS Canterbury, supports fish populations that
have migrated from pre existing natural reefs to now inhabit the shipwreck.
ii. The artificial reef, the HMNZS Canterbury, has enhanced fish populations
within Deep Water Cove with inhabitants of the shipwreck being local and
not immigrants from pre existing natural reefs.
One major aim of the monitoring plan is the documentation of potential biodiversity enhancement in
Deep Water Cove. If the Canterbury is successful as an artificial reef an increase in population sizes
should occur as well as enhancement of biodiversity in Deep Water Cove. This could possibly have
flow on effects and benefit the surrounding environment and marine communities.
Upon achieving the aims of the monitoring plan, an evaluation can be made to determine if the
objectives of the wreck, held by the different stakeholders, are feasible given the success of the
wreck as an artificial reef.
Prior to the scuttling of the HMNZS Canterbury in November 2007, the area of Deep Water Cove
was surveyed. This baseline survey was completed by Retter and Newcombe in October 2007 to
determine the cove’s biotic state before the scuttling of the HMNZS Canterbury. This is to be used
as a benchmark for future monitoring of Deep Water Cove (Retter & Newcombe, 2008).

1.7 HMNZS Canterbury Survey, July 2008

Initial surveys of the HMNZS Canterbury wreck were carried out in July 2008 by Fairweather and
McKenzie. This survey identified the colonisation of the wreck as of July 2008 and also acted as the
first data set of the wreck for the long term monitoring plan.
July 2008 survey showed considerable colonisation of fish and invertebrate species had occurred on
the wreck since scuttling in November 2007 (Fairweather & McKenzie, 2008). Levels of
invertebrate colonisation of wreck surfaces showed variation in different locations of the wreck.
Seaward facing vertical surfaces received highest colonisation. Highest invertebrate colonisation
occurred on the Bridge Wheel House exterior forward wall (Fairweather & McKenzie, 2008).
Varying colonisation of different areas of the wreck was believed to be due to the areas contact with
currents, and spatial distributions and orientations. Species composition present between horizontal
and vertical/inclined surfaces was believed to be due to contact with currents, predation levels and
decreased sedimentation loads on inclined surfaces (Fairweather & McKenzie, 2008).
Fish were also present on and inside the wreck with large numbers present around the sea floor,
main deck level and inside the hanger (Fairweather & McKenzie, 2008).
Data obtained from the July 2008 surveys indicated the HMNZS Canterbury was acting successfully
as an artificial reef (Fairweather & McKenzie, 2008).
A recommendation of converting Deep Water Cove into a Marine Protected Area of some
description was also noted (Fairweather & McKenzie, 2008).
1.8 Artificial Reefs and Marine Protected Areas

With the belief that artificial reefs can restore depleted fish stocks due to over harvest and habitat
degradation it is important that conservational aspired artificial reefs become marine protected areas
(Pitcher & Seaman, 2000). Regardless to whether populations of the biological community are a
local population, a migrating population from surrounding natural reefs or a community made up of
both, protection must be provided to fish stocks to safe guard objectives such as environmental
enhancement and creating a biologically diverse recreational diving site.
One factor that threatens the success of the HMNZS Canterbury wreck/artificial reef is fishing
pressure. Exploitation of fish populations on wrecks set as diving attractions has been evident on the
HMNZS Waikato and HMNZS Tui located off the coast of Tutukaka, Northland, New Zealand.
Both wrecks have been featured in the fishing guide Spot X. This guide has publicised the wrecks as
a top fishing site as well as given tips on appropriate fishing techniques (Spot X Fishing, 2004).
Deep Water Cove, the location of the HMNZS Canterbury, is also featured in this publication.
However this is prior to the scuttling of the HMNZS Canterbury (Spot X Fishing, 2004)
Protection strategies have been enforced in similar artificial reefs such as the HMAS Swan. The
HMAS Swan was scuttled in Western Australia’s Geographe Bay (south of Perth), December 1997.
The wreck was intended to increase tourism and enhance marine biodiversity within Geographe
Bay; such objectives are similar to those of the HMNZS Canterbury’s (Dowling & Nichol, 2001).
A marine protected area has been designated for the surrounding 1640 feet of the wreck in which no
fishing practices are permitted. This is to promote the survival and growth of the HMAS Swan’s
abundant sea-life and also to safe guard the economic benefits the wreck generates through tourism
(Dowling & Nichol, 2001).

Surveys of Geographe Bay have documented a marked increase in the diversity of fish species
1.9 Survey, December 2008

This report corresponds to the survey of the HMNZS Canterbury Wreck and surrounding areas of
Deep Water Cove conducted from December 1st, 2008 through to December 5th 2008.
Techniques used to survey the wreck were a repetition of the July 2008 survey.
Techniques used to survey Deep Water Cove were based on Retter and Newcombe’s survey of Deep
Water Cove. Some additional surveys were added to the methods, however, only to an extent that
would not jeopardise the validity of data collected on previous surveys.
This report aims to investigate colonisation, succession and community enhancement of the
HMNZS Canterbury wreck/artificial reef by:
Comparing the state of colonisation of macro-sessile and macro-mobile inhabitants the
wreck/artificial reef in July and December 2008,
Compare the biodiversity of the wreck/artificial reef between July and December 2008,
Compare the population sizes and lengths of individual fish populations present on the
wreck/artificial reef in July and December 2008,
Compare presence of dominant species inhabiting the wreck/artificial reef in July 2008 with
their abundance in December 2008, and
Determine the origin of fish populations inhabiting the wreck/artificial reef using statistical
analysis.
This report also plans to investigate any potential impacts or benefits to the surrounding area of
Deep Water Cove by:
Comparing community and population structures of different areas of Deep Water Cove
between October 2007 (pre-scuttling) and December 2008, and
Comparing the biodiversity in different areas of Deep Water Cove between October 2007
and December 2008.
Section Two Methods

2.1 Surveying the HMNZS Canterbury
2.1.1 Method
Methods for surveying the HMNZS Canterbury wreck detailed in the monitoring plan are derived
from Ross-Watt and Clarke’s survey of the Rainbow Warrior in 1997 (Ross-Watt & Clarke, 1997).
Sub tidal surveys were completed at different pre-determined sites on the wreck (table 1 & figure 3).
Survey techniques are specific to each survey site and include visual surveys; quadrat readings at
regular intervals along pre-determined transect lines and haphazard quadrat sampling. Fish, macro
invertebrates, algae and other species present were recorded in these surveys.
The HMNZS Canterbury is located in Deep water cove at 35° 11’ 34.69” S, 174° 17’ 48.7” E.
The Survey was carried out December 1st, 2008, to December 5th, 2008.
Table 1. Methods used in the long term monitoring plan of the HMNZS Canterbury wreck/artificial reef.
Method no. Method description Zones Location Site details
The transect line was positioned
along a horizontal surface. The
bottom left hand corner of the 0.5 x
0.5m quadrat was placed in line
with the 0m mark. All macro- The centre line of the deck was used
as a guide for the transect line. The
1. Horizontal species present within the quadrat,
Zone A Aft Deck transect line was run from the aft
Transects their percentage cover or winch to the edge of the entrance to
abundance, and an estimate the the aft storage room.
over-all colonisation cover of the
quadrat was recorded. This was
repeated at 2m intervals along the
transect line.
Diver A was located at the top of the
stern hull in line with the centre line of
the vessel whilst Diver B ran out the
Zone B Stern Hull transect line along the centre line of
the hull. The 0m mark was located at
the deepest point of the vertical
surface of the hull.
Port The transect line was lowered in line

with the forward bollards at the top of
Zone C Forward the deck incline and ran to the sea
Hull floor.
A weighted transect line was

lowered from the top of the hull to The transect line was lowered in line
Port Mid-
the sea floor (unless otherwise Zone D with the forward arm of the davit and
ship Hull ran to the sea floor.
stated in site details section). The
bottom left hand corner of the 0.5 x
0.5m quadrat was placed in line
2. Vertical with the 0m located at the sea floor. The transect line was lowered in line
Transects All macro-species present within Zone E Port Aft Hull with the hanger entrance and ran to
the quadrat, their percentage cover the sea floor.
or abundance, and an estimate the
over-all colonisation cover of the
quadrat was recorded. This was Starboard The transect line was lowered in line
with the forward bollards at the top of
repeated at 2m intervals along the Zone F Forward the deck incline and ran to the sea
transect line. Hull floor.
Starboard The transect line was lowered in line

Zone G Mid-ship with the forward arm of the davit and
Hull ran to the sea floor.
The transect line was lowered in line

Starboard
Zone H with the hanger entrance and ran to
Aft Hull the sea floor.

Centre Line
The transect line was lowered from
Below
Zone I the bottom of the centre window of
Bridge the bridge and ran to the deck
Windows
A visual survey was carried out in the

Zone J Hanger hanger, all depths were covered.
Middle
Zone K
Funnel VOID
A visual survey not lasting more
than 10 minutes was carried out
recording all macro mobile species
Gun Turret A visual survey was completed in the
3. Visual Surveys present. Abundance and sizes were Zone L gun turret room.
Room
estimated and recorded (<10cm,
11-20cm, 21-30cm, 31-40cm, 41-
50cm, >50cm).
Bridge A visual survey was completed in the
Zone M bride wheelhouse.
Wheelhouse
Rear A visual survey was completed in the

Zone N rear bunkroom
Bunkroom
Port A visual survey was carried out

Zone O starting in line with the bridge
Forward wheelhouse entrance and finishing to
i.
Handrail the bow.
Starboard A visual survey was carried out

Zone O starting in line with the bridge
Forward wheelhouse entrance and finishing to
ii
A visual survey not lasting more Handrail the bow.
4.Visual Hand than 10 minutes was carried out
Rail Surveys recording all species present on the
top handrail. A visual survey was carried out
Zone P Port Art starting from stern and ran the entire
i. Handrail length of the rail.
A visual survey was carried out

Zone P Starboard starting from stern and ran the entire
ii Aft Handrail length of the rail.
A 0.5 x 0.5m quadrat was

haphazardly placed 5 times within
the given area. All macro-species
5. Haphazard present within the quadrat, their Survey was completed on the hanger
Zone Q Hanger roof roof.
Sampling percentage cover or abundance,
and an estimate the over-all
colonisation cover of the quadrat
was recorded.

Survey was completed 1.5m above

Zone R Sea floor the sea floor
The wreck was circumnavigated.
Diver A led the dive, maintaining a
constant depth whilst Diver B
6. recorded all fish species within 5
24 metres Survey was completed at a depth of
Circumnavigation metre of them. Species present, Zone S 24m
Depth
Fish Surveys estimates of their abundance and
size (<10cm, 11-20cm, 21-30cm,
31-40cm, 41-50cm, >50cm) were
recorded.
15 metres Survey was completed at a depth of
Zone T 15m
Depth
Figure 3. Location of survey zones of the HMNZS Canterbury.
2.1.2 Data Collection
For methods one, horizontal surveys; two, vertical surveys; and five, haphazard sampling, the
following was recorded:
Date the survey was preformed
The time the survey was carried out
The zone being surveyed
The location on the vessel the survey was carried out
The method being used
The waters visibility
Recorder of the survey
Total transect length (only applicable with methods 1 and 2)
Distance along transect line that individual quadrats were recorded (only applicable
to methods 1 and 2)
The depth of each individual quadrat
Estimation of the total percentage cover within each quadrat

Each individual species present within the quadrat The frequency and/or percentage
coverage of each species present within each quadrat
Any important observations or notes concerning the survey zone
The following table was filled out during the survey dive (figure 4).
Location (Location on vessel) Method No. (1-6)

Date (dd/mm/yy) Visibiltiy (metres)
Transect Length (metres) Notes
Zone (A-T)
Recorder
Time (time of the day)
Distance along T-line Depth Total % Cover Species Abundance Frequency
s)
al
e)
du
e)
e)
m
ivi
ag
ag
s)
s)
na
nd
re
re
nt
nt
c
fi
et
et
ce
ce
ifi
ro
(m
(m
nt
er
er
cie
be
(p
(p
um
(s
(n
Figure 4. Data collection table for methods 1, 2 and 5
For methods three, visual surveys; four, visual handrail surveys; and six, visual fish surveys, the
following data was recorded:
Location on the vessel that the survey was carried out
Method being used for the survey
Survey zone being recorded
The date the survey was preformed
The time the survey was preformed
The recorder of the survey
The depth that the survey was carried out at
Species present at/in the survey zone
Estimations of individual species size; the longest length of the animal (not applicable for
method 4)

The following table was filled out during the survey dive (figure 5).
Location (Location on vessel) Method No. (1-6)
Zone (A-T) Visibiltiy (metres)
Date (dd/mm/yy) Notes
Recorder
Depth (metres)
Species <10cm 10-19cm 20-29cm 30-39cm 40-49cm 50cm<
)
ze
si
s
hi
t
e)
at
m
s
na
al
du
c
ifi
ivi
nt
nd
cie
fi
(s
ro
be
um
(n
Figure 5. Data collection table for methods 3, 4 and 6
2.1.3 Data analysis
Average Colonisation of Different Areas:

An average percentage cover of colonising organisms was calculated for different areas of the
HMNZS Canterbury. These percentages were derived from all quadrats recorded in given areas of
the vessel. These areas were as follows:
Vertical surfaces, Port-side Hull: Consisting of quadrats recorded from zones C, D
and E
Vertical surfaces, Starboard-side Hull: Consisting of quadrats recorded from zones F, G
and H
Vertical Surfaces, Stern Hull: Consisting of quadrats recorded in zone B
Vertical Surfaces, Bridge Exterior Wall: Consisting of quadrats recorded in zone I
Horizontal Surfaces: Consisting of quadrats recorded in zone A and Q
These averages are used to compare the degree of colonisation on different areas of the wreck and
were also compared to results from the July 2008 survey.
The average colonisation of quadrats recorded at different depths of hull surfaces were also
calculated and compared with results from July 2008. I.e. An average percentage cover was derived
from all quadrats recorded on the hull at the 0m mark of the transect line (deepest point). This was
repeated for all quadrats recorded at 2m, 4m etc. of the transect line.
Species Richness:
Using the same areas as above, Vertical surfaces, Port-side Hull, Starboard-side Hull, Stern Hull,
Bridge Exterior Wall and Horizontal Surfaces, an average species richness ( x = ( ∑ x ) ∕ n ) was
calculated for each. This was achieved by finding the average species richness per quadrat in a given

area (species richness = number of individual species present, S). This gives the average species
richness for a quadrat recording in each area. These averages are used to compare the species
richness in different areas of the wreck and also compared to results from the July 2008 survey.
Macro Mobile Species:

Data obtained from the visual room surveys, method three, survey zones J through to N was used to
compare species presence in each zone and also calculate the average size of each species present in
each room. This allows comparison of species richness and average species size between rooms.
Average sizes of fish species are calculated using the mid point of the size class e.g. a fish in the size
class 10-19cm would be recorded at 15cm.
This was also repeated for data obtained from method six, Circumnavigation fish surveys.
Results were compared with results from July 2008.
Species diversity:
The Shannon Species Diversity Index was used to calculate the species diversity (H’) of the two
zones R and S from method six, visual fish surveys. This diversity index was also used to calculate
species richness (S), number of individuals (N) and species evenness (h/ln(S)) for each survey zone.
Shannon Species Diversity Index:
This was used to compare different aspects of the communities present at the different depths
surveyed. This included species diversity, species richness, species evenness and total number of
individuals.
Results were also used to compare with results obtained in July 2008 to determine any changes in
community structure and/or diversity.
The Shannon Species Diversity Index was also used to calculate the species diversity (H’), species
richness (S), number of individuals and species evenness of zones J through to N, method three,
visual surveys.
This was used to compare the species diversity, species richness, species evenness and total number
of individuals present in each of the five different rooms.
community structure and/or diversity.
Presence of Pagrus auratus:
Frequency of individual Pagrus auratus (Snapper) found in methods three, visual fish surveys and
six, circumnavigation fish surveys were compared with the frequency of the species recorded in July
2008 to determine any change in population density.
Presence of Pomatoceros sp.:
Average percentage cover of Pomatoceros sp. (Bristle worms) was calculated for survey zones A
through to I and Zone Q. Average percentage cover of each individual zone was calculated from the
percentage cover of Pomatoceros sp. in each quadrat recorded in that zone. Quadrats where no
Pomatoceros sp. were present were recorded as 0 and included in the average.
This was then compared with the results from July 2008 to indicate any change in abundance.

2.2 Surveying of Deep Water Cove

2.2.1 Methods
Fish Surveys:
Nine sites, located in three areas (three sites per area) of deep water cove surveyed in October 2007
were located using GPS and surveyed in December 2008.
A weighted drop line was positioned to mark each of the 9 GPS site.
A 50m transect line was swum out along the sea floor beginning at the GPS point and running along
a predetermined compass bearing, identical to that used in October 2007. Sub tidal surveyors
recorded the species name and estimated the lengths and abundance of all fish observed within 5m
of the transect line whilst swimming its length. Care was taken not to record individual species
twice.
Crayfish Survey:
Using the same transect line described above in each of the nine sites crayfish surveys were carried
out.
One sub-tidal surveyor investigated potential habitats for Jasus edwardsii (Red Rock Lobster) and
Sagmariasus verreauxi (Packhorse Crayfish)- dark rock over-hangs, caves and crevices (Wing,
2008)- 10m either side of the transect line for the entire 50m.
When an individual was located species type was recorded and a ruler was used to measure its
carapace length. This was also recorded.
This was a new survey employed to the monitoring plan and was not carried out in October 2007.
Kina Surveys:
Using the same transect line described above in each of the nine sites kina surveys were carried out.
The number of specimens of Evechinus chloroticus (New Zealand Sea Urchin, Kina) found on the
substrate 5m either side of the transect line were recorded as well as an estimation of individuals test
diameter.
This was a new survey employed to the monitoring plan and was not carried out in October 2007.
2.2.2 Data Collection
The following was recorded for each survey at all 9 sites.

Survey site being recorded
The date the survey was preformed
The time the survey was preformed
The sub-tidal surveyor recording
The depth that the survey was carried out at
Species present at/in the survey zone

Estimations of individual species size; the longest length of the animal

Exact lengths of carapace of Crayfish were recorded for the crayfish survey.
The following table was filled out for each site (figure 6).
Location Deep Water Cove
Date (dd/mm/yy) Visibiltiy (metres)
Transect Length (metres) Notes
Site (1-9)
Recorder
Species <10cm 10-19cm 20-29cm 30-39cm 40-49cm 50cm<
)
ze
si
is
th
e)
at
m
s
na
l
ua
ic
d
vi
tif
di
en
in
ci
of
(s
r
be
um
(n
Figure 6. Example of table used in surveying sites 1 to 9 of Deep Water Cove.
2.2.3 Data Analysis
Species diversity:
The Shannon Species Diversity Index was used to calculate the species diversity (H’) of fish species
from fish surveys conducted areas one two and three. This diversity index was also used to calculate
species richness (S), number of individuals (N) and species evenness (h/ln(S)) for each area.
Shannon Species Diversity Index:
This was used to compare different aspects of the communities present at the different areas of Deep
Water Cove surveyed. This included species diversity, species richness, species evenness and total
number of individuals.
community structure and/or diversity since the scuttling of the HMNZS Canterbury.
Areas One Two and Three:
The average size of each species present in area one (a combination of data from site one, two and
three) was calculated and compared to results obtained in October 2007.
Average sizes of fish species are calculated using the mid point of the size class e.g. a fish in the size
class 10-19cm would be recorded at 15cm.
This was repeated for area two and then area three.

Section Three Results

3.1 HMNZS Canterbury Wreck
3.1.1 Average Colonisation of Different Areas

Average colonisation of invertebrate species on surfaces of the HMNZS Canterbury in December
2008 showed a decreased since July 2008 in all areas surveyed (figure 7).
The largest drop in colonisation occurred on horizontal surfaces surveyed with a drop from 80%
average colonisation in July 2008 to 13% in December 2008. Standard deviation of this area also
dropped from 21.21% to 11.31% (figure 7).
Though the Stern hull showed the second smallest decrease in average colonisation, its standard
deviation increased 23.17% to 52.04%, the highest standard deviation of all zones surveyed (figure
7). This shows greater variation between the individual samples taken on the stern hull in December
2008.
The Bridge Wheel House forward wall remains the most colonised survey site on the wreck with an
average colonisation of 96.6% derived from December 2008’s survey (figure 7). This showed the
smallest decrease in average colonisation between surveys with a decrease in 3.4%. Standard
deviation increased from 0 to 2.89% (figure 7).
100%
90%
80%
Average Percentage Cover
70%
60%
Jul-08
50%
Dec-08
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Vertical Surface- Vertical Surface Vertical Surface Vertical Surface Horozontal
Port Hull - Starboard Hull - Stern Hull - Bridge Wall Surfaces
Areas
Figure7. Average percentage coverage/colonisation and standard deviation (displayed by error bars) of the port-side
hull, starboard-side hull, stern hull, exterior bridge wall and hanger roof and aft deck areas in July 2008 and December
2008. Derived from Zone surveys A-I and Q
The average colonisation of hull surfaces in December 2008 showed the greatest decreases at zero
and two metres above the sea floor (figure 8). The largest decrease in average colonisation was a
drop of 48.12% at two metres above the sea floor*.
*The transect zero point always occurred at the deepest point of the hull, therefore, two metres above the sea floor
would also be two metres along the transect line.
100%
3.1.2 Species Richness
90%
Average species richness
80%
along the starboard hull,
Average percentage cover
70% horizontal surfaces and the

60%
exterior bridge wall was
greater in December 2008
50% Jul-08 in comparison to July 2008
Dec-08
40% (figure 9).
30% The port side hull average
20% species richness remained
constant, however the
10%
standard deviation
0% increased by 0.53 (figure
0m 2m 4m 6m 8m 9).
Distance Above Sea Floor
Figure 8. Average percentage cover/colonisation at different depths of the hull

(0m/ sea floor - 8m above the sea floor) and their standard deviations (displayed
by the error bars) recorded in July 2008 and December 2008.
9.00
Average species
8.00
Average Species Richness Per Quadrat
richness of the stern

hull showed the only 7.00
decrease of the five
sites with an average 6.00
species richness of 3 5.00

derived from July’s Jul-08
Dec-08
data and then 4.00
decreasing to an 3.00
average of 2.25 in
December (figure 9). 2.00
The exterior bridge 1.00

wall maintained the
0.00
highest species Port Hull Starboard Hull Horozontal Exterior Brigde Stern hull
richness of colonising surfaces Wall
species in December Area
2008 with an average Figure 9. Average species richness per quadrat in five different areas located on the
of six species being HMNZS Canterbury in July 2008 and December 2008. Standard deviation is
present in each quadrat displayed by the error bars.
(Figure 9).

3.1.3 Macro Mobile Species, Presence and Average Size

All fish species that were recorded from the visual fish circumnavigation surveys in both July and
December 2008 showed an increase in average length, with the exception of Notolabris celidotus
(Spotty) which had an average length of 15cm derived from both July and Decembers data (figure
10).
Greater species richness was also recorded in the December surveys with sixteen different species
observed in comparison with the eleven different species observed in July (figure 10).
Both Seriola lalandi (Kingfish) and Gymnothorax nubilus (Grey Moray eel) were present in the
circumnavigation fish surveys. However, due to the large lengths of individuals, they were recorded
as >50cm. Therefore it became impossible to later determine an accurate average length and is
displayed as the graphs maximum figure of 50cm (figure 10).
50.00
45.00
Average Length (cm)
40.00
35.00
30.00
Jul-08
25.00
20.00 Dec-08
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
s
li s
ae
us
is
ru
s
r
ii
r
s
sa
s
eu as
pe p.
.
i
nd
ilu
be
od abe
er
sp
ru
as
tu
tu
at
bi
he
nn
ot
er
li
ub
g
e
la
a
ca
Pa ura
gl
e
ta
co
us
n
d
a
pt
l
ko
sp
f
n
a
la
eo
Fi
i
nd
c
s
ry
i
s
l
ro
an
ce
l
a
Do cis
ad
ax
a
a
s
l in
is
d
De ma
le
sa
ac
l
s
hy
ik
i
io
ad s s
er
us
er
,Z
t F sse hor
ip
ru
ym u s
is
r
is
m
er
ht
ris
pt
Tr
ap
s
ag
er
,B
r
rp
l
ry
ty
ab
ad , S
ic
ca
re , Ne ctyl
o
o
ph
he hth
co
ar
,P
lu
ac
t,
ne
,C
sh
n
l
em ish
, O oto
Sw ke
,P
ue cty
m
,S
da
er
Ko uic
pe
Fi
hn
ac
Pe
, N ngf
N
od
G
Le app
a
u,
lo
m
ep
U
iq
Jo
rJ
Fo
y,
ei
a
C
ag ay,
i
bl
e,
e
h,
K
r
Sn
Ch
W
he
ot
ey
is
or
e
Sp
at
s
Bl
i,
M
f in
ra
g
er
ok
Bi
oa
Po
hi
le
y
M
ip
G
ki
nd
G
ra
ed
Tr
Sa
Ta
R
g
in
m
im
Sw
ue
iq
bl
O
Fish
Figure 10. Average lengths (cm) of macro mobile species derived from the surveys of zones R, S & T, method six; Visual Fish
Circumnavigation surveys in July 2008 and December 2008. Averages are calculated from mid points of size classes.

25
All fish observed in the
visual room surveys in both
20
July and December 2008
Average Length (cm)

show an increase in average
15
length in December with
the exception of
Obliquichthys maryannae 10
(Oblique Swimming Triple

Fin) which maintained an 5
average size of 5cm in both
surveys (figure 11). 0
Snapper, Leather Sweep, Spotty, Oblique Koheru, Big Eye,
Pempheris adspersa (Big Pagrus Jacket, Parika Scorpis Notolabrus Swimming Decapteris Pempheris
Eyes) were absent in the auratus scaber lineolatus celidotus Triplefin, koheru adspersa
Obliquichthys
December surveys however maryannae
Decapteris koheru Fish Species
Jul-08 Dec-08
(Koheru), and Notolabris
celidotus (Spottys) were Figure 11. Average lengths (cm) of macro mobile species present in the survey zones
additional species to the J-N, method six; Visual Room Surveys in July 2008 and December 2008. Averages
July surveys (figure 11). are calculated from mid points of size classes.
Pagrus auratus (Snapper) showed the largest increase in average length with an average length of
7.5cm in July and 15cm in December (figure 11).
3.1.4 Species Diversity

All rooms surveyed showed an increase in individual fish numbers (N) in December in comparison
to July Diversity of species in December remained low as indicated by the low species richness (S)
and low diversity values (H’) (table 2).
The Bridge Wheel House showed the only increase in diversity value with July’s value being 0.305
and December’s 0.314 (table 2).
The Bridge Wheel House remained the most populated of the four rooms (table 2).

The Middle Funnel was removed from the survey.

Table 2. Species richness, the number of individual fish, the Shannon Wiener Index of Diversity value and species
evenness value derived from each survey zone (J, K, L, M and N) in method three; visual room surveys.
Shannon-Wiener
Species Richness Number of Species Evenness
Zone Index of Diversity
(S) Individuals (N) (h'/ln(S))
(H')
Jul-08 Dec-08 Jul-08 Dec-08 Jul-08 Dec-08 Jul-08 Dec-08
Zone J, Hanger 3 2 27 2501 0.749 0.004 0.682 0.005
Zone K, Middle
VOID
funnel
Zone L, Gun
2 5 3 46 0.637 0.549 0.918 0.341
Turret room
Zone M, Bridge
2 2 33 1100 0.305 0.314 0.439 0.439
wheel house
Zone N, Rear
3 2 9 3001 1.099 0.003 1 0.004
Bunk Room
Both zones S and R showed and increase species richness (S) and numbers of individuals (N) (table
3). More individual fish (N) were present at 24m depth than at 1.5m off the sea floor (table 3).
There was a large drop in species evenness (h’/ln(S)) and diversity value (H’) shown in Zone R in
December 2008 in comparison to July 2008, where as, Zone S improved in both these values in
December (table 3).
Table 3. Species richness, the number of individual fish, the Shannon Wiener Index of Diversity value and species
evenness value derived from each survey zone (T, S and R) in method six; Visual Fish Circumnavigation Surveys.
Shannon-Wiener
Zone Index of Diversity
(S) Individuals (N) (h'/ln(S))
(H')
Jul-08 Dec-08 Jul-08 Dec-08 Jul-08 Dec-08 Jul-08 Dec-08

Zone T: 15m
below the 3 N/A 6 N/A 1.011 N/A 0.921 N/A
surface
Zone S: 24m
below the 7 8 108 450 0.84 0.967 0.432 0.465
surface
Zone R:1.5m off

10 13 94 310 1.808 0.561 0.785 0.219
sea floor
Zone T, 15m below the surface, was not completed due to poor visibility and time constraints.

3.1.5 Presence of Pagrus auratus

Thought there has been an increase in the 120
average size of Pagrus auratus (Snapper) 100
Frequency
present on the HMNZS Canterbury in 80
December 2008 compared to July 2008 Jul-08
60
(figures 10 & 11), the numbers of Pagrus Dec-08
40
auratus present on the wreck have decreased
20
in both interior and exterior areas (figure
0
12).
Method Six, Wreck Method Three,
Only 1 Pagrus auratus was recorded in the Circumnavigation Wreck Room
interior rooms of the wreck in December Surveys Surveys
2008 compared to 19 recorded in July 2008 Zone
(figure 12).
Circumnavigation fish surveys of the wreck Figure12. Total number of Pagrus auratus surveyed by methods
in July 2008 recorded 108 Pagrus auratus in three and six in July 2008 and December 2008.
total, whereas the same surveys in
December 2008 only recorded 4 (figure 12).
40
3.1.6 Presence of
35 Pomatoceros sp.
30
Average Coverage (%)
25 From July 2008 to December

Jul-08
2008 Pomatoceros sp (a
20
Dec-08 sessile polychaeta worm)
15 have shown a decrease in
average colonisation of
10
wreck surfaces in all zones
5 surveyed on the wreck
excluding zones E and F,
0
A B C D E F G H I Q
Port Aft Hull and Starboard
Survey Zone
Forward Hull (figure 13).
Figure 13. Average Percentage Cover of Pomatoceros sp. in survey
zones A-I and Q in July 2008 and December 2008.

3.2 Surrounding Areas of Deep Water Cove

Table 4. Species Richness, Number of Individuals, Shannon-Wiener Index of Diversity
Value and Species evenness Values in October 2007 and December 2008 for Areas One,
Two and Three 3.2.1 Area One
Shannon-Wiener
Zone
(S) Individuals (N) All fish species present
Index of Diversity
(h'/ln(S))
(H')
Oct-07 Dec-08 Oct-07 Dec-08 Oct-07 Dec-08 Oct-07 Dec-08
in both the October
2007 and December
Area 1 16 12 261 186 2.222 1.78 0.801 0.716 2008 surveys showed
an increase in average
length with the
Area 2 17 14 143 465 2.431 1.314 0.858 0.498 exception of the triple
fin species, which
remained the same
Area 3 19 10 138 262 1.175 0.325 0.399 0.141
average length, and
Pagrus auratus
(Snapper) which dropped from an average length of 27.2cm in October 2007 to 15cm in December
2008 (figure 13).
Gymnothorax prasinus (Yellow Moray Eel) were present in area one. However, due to the large
lengths of individuals, they were recorded as >50cm. Therefore it became impossible to later
determine an accurate average length and is displayed as the graphs maximum figure of 50cm
(figure 13).
Species richness dropped from 16 species in October 2007 to 12 species in December 2008 along
with the number of individual species of 261 down to 186 (Table 4).
The Shannon-Wiener Index of Diversity value (H') also dropped from 2.222 in October 2007 to
50
45
Average Length (cm)
40
35
30
Oct-07
25
20 Dec-08
15
10
5
0
e s
th e
ee Co s a ens
is
s
F is
tis
er ap ct us ris
u
c ta
ch s m r
pl lla ap a
la
ng in, elle um cel s
as ry s
im 2 S Fis ty, orp nd s
R thy di s
l F Ka lab s k .
ys les
la ne ri
e
oa se et, s lin bili
tis na
ud ka tu
sp
h, aw rus her
tu
, D ma pilu
tt
ot Sc s sa ratu
id
u
ss e ple at
in ot , B oto s li ge
W er, lus ida
b
rri co
T a Ob , C im ido
ag Sn oda tric ula
os ru
is se ari ola
at
et
ru ola
Sw se, gru rt id
pe ola sca
i
ra , D Tri line
ya an
ra Jac rp cta
N pte in
M Po ar i, A uci
a
o
St iqu rom cul

lfi e, alb is t
s
u
co spe
f
u
h a
a
p
is
br
s
r i
th
ar at ao lus
ay s
b
ri
tF ,P P
a
e, ca
Sc Le om cty
P a
P
ei
, A re
o
a a
Lo lef ois us
in ich
n
ot
le he , S
ar ro m
i
a
sh G
k
ip m an
M ilod
N
h
Pi Sp p,
p
U
W eru
i
s
De od
ra
ue he
l
h,
g
tW r
r
ed oh
Bl , C
is
a
nd K
p h
s
i
ok
be
il
ge
M
g
An
nd
ed
Tr
Ba
Sa
k
R
g
ac
Bl
m
Sw
ue
iq
bl
O
Species
Figure 13. Average length (cm) of fish species present in Area One of Deep Water Cove in October 2007 and December 2008
1.780 in December 2008 indicating a drop in species diversity (Table 4).
3.2.2 Area Two

Six of the eleven species present in both the October 2007 and December 2008 surveys of Area 2
show and increase in average length (figure 14).
Triple fin sp and Scorpis lineolatus (Sweep) populations in area two were, on average, the same
length in October 2007 and December 2008 (figure 14).
Upeneichthys lineatus (Goatfish), Parika scaber (Leather Jacket) and Pagrus auratus (Snapper)
populations all showed a decrease in average length between the two surveys (figure 14).
Dasyatis thetidis (Long Tail Stingray) were present in area two. However, due to the large lengths of
individuals, they were recorded as >50cm. Therefore it became impossible to later determine an
accurate average length and is displayed as the graphs maximum figure of 50cm (figure 14).
Species richness dropped from 17 species in October 2007 to 14 species in December 2008.
However, the number of individual species increased from 143 to 465 in December 2008 (Table 4).
A drop in species evenness (h'/ln(S)) and species diversity value (H') occurred in December 2008 in
comparison to October 2007 (Table 4).
50
45
Average Length (cm)
40
35
30
Oct-07
25
20 Dec-08
15
10
5
0
t F , P t, P i neo li s
th e
ee Co s a ens
is
s
e, ca le F tis
tis
us is
u
c ta
ch s m r
pl ll a ap a
a pi s la
ng in, elle um cel s
as ry s
s
di s
l F Ka olab s k .
s
Tr Dem dia lab eo i

e
tis na
h, eud rika atu
Bo oto s l i ger
sp
w rus her
s at u
, D ma pi lu
tt
ot Sc s sa ratu
id
is at u
hy i le
ag Sn oda tri c l ar
i
W er, l us i da
br ab
co
a
T a Ob , C im ido
G ass cke pis tab
G lbo t ru
et
Sw se, gru rt id
ri p ine
ya an
N pte in
u
l
M Po Par i, A fuci
N rpi da
l
c
St iqu rom cul

p
s
u
ec
n
u
a
n
a
t W er Sc sp
, A i re sc
i
ri
l
u
r
pe la
ar at ao, lus
t
a
s
T
ri
y
o
R thy
or
a
ct
Sc Le om cty
h
o
a
P
ei
Lo lef oi s us
e
ch
n
ot
m
a
is ha
ay
s
M il od
i
Pi Sp p ,
p
,
r Ja
l fi e,
U
W eru
s
er ap
y,
ra
be ra
ue he
l
ss
g
h,
ed h
ar ro
in
sh
is
Bl , C
a
h
a
m Spo h,
nd K
s
i
is
ok
il
oa
ge
F
M
t
le
ip
g
An
nd
ed
Ba
Sa
k
R
g
2
ac
in
Bl
im
Sw
ue
iq
bl
O
Species
Figure 14. Average length (cm) of fish species present in Area Two of Deep Water Cove in October 2007 and December 2008

3.2.3 Area Three

Three of the seven species present in both October 2007 and December 2008 surveys show an
increase in average size (figure 15).
Bodianus umimaculatus (Pigfish) and Triple fin sp. maintained a consistent average length (figure
15).
Coris sandageri (Sandagers Wrasse) and Upeneichthys lineatus (Goatfish) populations in area three
showed a decrease in average size in December 2008 compared to those surveyed in October 2007
(figure 15).
Additional species observed in December 2008 surveys include Seriola lalandi (Kingfish),
Decapteris Koheru (Koheru) and Chromis dispilus (Two spot Demoiselle) (figure 15).
Area two’s species richness almost halved from 19 species in October 2007 to 10 species in
December 2008. However, the number of individual species increased from 138 to 262 in December
2008 (Table 4).
A drop in species evenness (h'/ln(S)) and species diversity value (H') in area two occurred in
December 2008 in comparison to October 2007 (Table 4).
50
45
Average length (cm)
40
35
30
Oct-07
25
20 Dec-08
15
10
5
0
e, bru aur s
Pa i neo ili s
di ae
W No agr ra s
pe rap a sc us
ym cty us ri s
ue , N ap F is
, B o y, nda is
l lo el f ae atr s f eru
nd S pp th ac ata
i c is er
om ya i
p, um ard er
ay plo ll a is c la
ot , O fis pi s cul is
lle ys la l a us
s
Pi n F Joh or s ce tus
ra , D Tr s l in s
m qui Se neo us
M Po ok tola ri s sp.
Sw ian en us ri
hr ar nd
u
p n
i lu
ia
Bl se ec ple eat
t
ge
l
ra to us sin
ne erc ab
M , A i re ps ico
ee us a c fab
is nn
er tty , P ax de
t
, G da tri c i lia
Fi sh, n D s sa l ido
2 lef K Sc im ina
b
t
h, Pa rik l a
at
hy col
na no l us pi d
, C m la
oi ch rio la
Ye rb ror i , L bru koh
sp
is ta
M o te in
ag po er or rt i
w ish , G ido uc
G lue ac orp ec
Sp in ing or a
B r J c sp
i
l
l
rp Z
i
S s
ht
at ao tylu
i
ss la
sh S o r
se th
a
t F Co et,
De bli h,
Le om ac
k
d
,
he ,
c
d
M eil o
W eru
o d
ue h
ed oh
s
is
Bl i, C
S
a
i
nd K
or
s
ok
oa
o
M
pi
ip
g
a
or
ed
Tr
Sc
Ba
Sa
R
g
in
m
im
Sw
ue
iq
bl
O
Species
Figure 15. Average length (cm) of fish species present in Area Three of Deep Water Cove in October 2007 and December 2008


Pagrus auratus recorded in areas one 10
and three also showed a decrease in
frequency between October 2007 and 8
Frequency
December 2008. Two less Pagrus
6 Oct-07
auratus were recorded in area one and
no Pagrus auratus were recorded in area 4 Dec-08
three in December 2008 compared to the
2
7 recorded in October 2007 (figure 16).
Unlike the wreck surveys (figures 10 & 0
11), all Pagrus auratus individuals Area 1 Area 2 Area 3
recorded in survey areas one and two of Area

Deep Water Cove have shown a Figure 16. Presence of Pagrus auratus in areas One, Two and Three
decrease in average size between of Deep Water Cove in October 2007 and December 2008.
October 2007 and December 2008
(figures 13 & 14).
Section Four Discussion

4.1 HMNZS Canterbury Wreck
4.1.1 Average Colonisation of Different Areas

The bridge exterior wall had the highest average colonisation, in July and December 2008, with all
quadrats containing 100 percent coverage in July 2008, and an average coverage of 96.6% in
December of the same year. This may be due to the vertical angle of the surface, its position in the
water column, its location in reference to currents entering Deep Water Cove or a combination of
these factors.
The bridge exterior wall faces approximately north-west towards the entrance to the cove therefore
gaining direct contact from currents entering Deep Water Cove. This would potentially provide a
high supply of juvenile planktonic larvae capable of colonising the wreck. The bridge exterior walls
surface would be favourable to colonising organisms as the available currents would circulate
nutrient rich water.
Similar studies of the Red Sea’s Kingston shipwreck have presented similar findings with different
species existence and community composition present between horizontal and vertical/inclined
surfaces. Such findings were determined to be due to increased contact with currents and decreased
sedimentation loads on inclined surfaces (Perkol-Finkel, Shashar & Benayahu, 2005).
One factor that brought down the average percentage coverage of colonisation on the other vertical
areas; the starboard-side, port-side and stern hulls is the anti-foul paint. This was present along the
first 2-4 metres of all transect lines of located on the hull. As the anti-foul paint is designed to
prevent fouling organisms inhabiting the hulls of vessels, little colonisation occurred in these
regions. This therefore brought down the average percentage of colonisation for all hull areas, both
in July and in December of 2008.

The anti foul paint used on the HMNZS Canterbury was Intersmooth 360 Ecoloflex SPC (J. Riddle,
personal communication, October 6, 2008). Intersmooth 360 Ecoloflex SPC is a tributyltin free
antifoul paint designed to stop fouling organisms inhabiting painted surfaces; the lifetime of
Intersmooth 360 Ecoloflex SPC is proportionately dependent on the paint thickness applied
(International Marine Coatings, 2004). Therefore, it is not possible to estimate the remaining life of
the antifoul paint.
The antifoul paint is applied to the lower areas of the hull surface, approximately 3 metres up the
hull surface. The antifoul paint appeared to have an increased effect on fouling organisms in
December 2008 in comparison to July with quadrats recorded at areas 0 and 2 metres up the hulls
surface showing a huge decrease in average percentage cover of colonisation. Quadrats recorded at
areas higher than 3 metres showed less variation to average percentage cover between July and
December of 2008. The dominant species on the antifoul areas was a green algae believed to be
Percursaria percursa. P. percursa showed a decrease in abundance on antifoul areas between July
and December 2008.
The stern hull faces an approximate direction of south-east. This location would receive little benefit
from currents entering the bay in comparison to the bridge exterior wall. A combination of this
location and the anti-foul paint could be responsible for the low average of colonisation on the stern
hull in both July and December 2008.
The similar study of the Red Sea’s Kingston shipwreck suggests that differences in community
structure may be present between vertical habitats closer to the seabed in comparison to those
elevated above the seabed. This is due to increased sedimentation levels, differences in currents and
potential increased predation levels (Perkol-Fincel et. al. 2005).
This study also suggests spatial orientation is the main cause of differences between community
compositions within different areas of an artificial reef (Perkol-Fincel et. al. 2005).
Horizontal surfaces surveyed showed huge decreases in average colonisation in December 2008.
During this survey, it was noted that Seriola lalandi (Kingfish) were using horizontal surfaces to rub
against. This behaviour is also known as flashing and is commonly seen in S. lalandi. Flashing is
used to remove parasites and other foreign matter from the scales of the fish (FishDoc, 2004). This
could result in destruction of sessile colonising species on the horizontal surfaces. Decreases in
sedimentation loads on these horizontal surfaces were also noted. It is believed this could also be
due to the flashing of S. lalandi.
Of all surfaces surveyed, the exterior bridge wall showed the least decrease in average colonisation
level. This may be due to the lack of antifoul paint on this surface and also its vertical incline
inhibiting rubbing behaviours of S. lalandi.
Another factor that may have influenced changes between results in July and December 2008 is
potential variance between surveyor’s estimations. Due to the nature of the surveys, accurate
measures of the artificial reefs colonisation would be difficult to obtain. Therefore, estimations are
taken and can result in variance between surveyors.
Similar studies of the HMNZS Waikato wreck off the coast of Tutukaka stated that full blankets of
marine life, which help attract other reef dwellers, developed after three years (Muherami, 2004).
4.1.2 Species Richness
Average species richness was highest on the exterior bridge wall both in July and December 2008.
This could be due to the wrecks location in the cove in relation to water currents, elevation above
the sea bed and the vertical position in the water column. Such characteristics in community

structure and species richness have also been observed in a past study of the Red Sea’s Kingston
shipwreck (Perkol-Finkel, Shashar & Benayahu, 2005). The lack of anti-foul paint, as mentioned
above in section 4.1, may also contribute to the high species richness of the exterior bridge wall.
A high supply of juvenile planktonic larvae maybe more capable of colonising the exterior bridge
wall as it faces approximately north-west towards the entrance to the cove therefore gaining direct
contact from currents entering Deep Water Cove. The bridge exterior walls surface would be
favourable to colonising organisms as the available currents would circulate nutrient rich water.
Species richness increased in all areas surveyed with the exception of the starboard hull which
remained the same, and the stern hull which showed a decrease. Such results suggest a climax
community had not been reached at the time of July’s survey. A climax community is defined as
“the end point of succession and most stable community that can exist in that particular
environment” (Putman & Wratten, 1984).
4.1.3 Macro Mobile Species, Presence and Average Size
No species were surveyed in the Zone K, the middle funnel. The funnel was considered to
dangerous and unsafe to penetrate during the survey conducted in July 2008. Therefore the survey
was completed with torch light from the entrance. This was un-effective as the torch light did not
reach the complete depth of the middle funnel. The survey zone was eliminated from future
monitoring of the wreck.
All fish species that were recorded from the visual fish circumnavigation surveys in both July and
December 2008 showed an increase in average length, with the exception of Notolabris celidotus
(Spotty) which had an average length of 15cm derived from both July and Decembers data.
Greater species richness was also recorded from the visual fish circumnavigation surveys in
December with sixteen different species observed in comparison with the eleven different species
observed in July.
All fish observed in the visual room surveys in both July and December 2008 show an increase in
average length in December with the exception of Obliquichthys maryannae (Oblique Swimming
Triple Fin) which maintained an average size of 5cm in both surveys. This is to be expected as O.
maryannae has a maximum length of 8cm, therefore, will be recorded in the <10cm category and
averaged as 5cm (Francis, 2001).
If the assumption is made that fish present in both surveys were from the same populations, in other
words constant resident populations, these results would suggest that the wreck is acting
successfully as an artificial reef by offering protection to these species as the grow.
With resident fish species surveyed in July 2008 being consistently small in length it is possible that
theses individuals have inhabited the artificial reef from a juvenile stage without migration from a
near by natural reef. This is similar to past studies carried out on ship wrecks in South East Florida
USA, which have suggested that artificial reefs like ship wrecks do not attract fish away from pre-
existing natural reefs more that they create their own diverse communities (Arena, Jordan & Spieler,
2007).
This theory is still to be further investigated with a comparative analysis of the results from Retter
and Newcombe’s survey of Deep Water Cove, pre-scuttling, October 2007 and results obtained from
surveys of Deep Water Cove in December 2008. Average fish sizes of wreck populations could be
compared with average sizes of Deep Water Cove populations prior and post scuttling. If the wreck
populations are significantly smaller than the populations recorded by Retter and Newcombe this
could verify that the wreck is not attracting fish populations from surrounding natural reefs.

However, if this theory is disproved, this could imply that fish from surrounding areas are migrating
to dense communities on the wreck as suggested by Gravitz in 2000. If this is the case, it is strongly
suggested that Deep Water Cove and near by areas are established as a marine protected area as
fishing pressure may be exerted on the artificial reef that is the HMNZS Canterbury. This could
potentially over exploit fish populations in this area as suggested by Grossman, Jones & Seaman in
1997.
Protection strategies have been enforced in similar artificial reefs such as the HMAS Swan. The
HMAS Swan was scuttled in Western Australia’s Geographe Bay (south of Perth), December 1997.
The wreck was intended to increase tourism and enhance marine biodiversity within Geographe
Bay; such objectives are similar to those of the HMNZS Canterbury’s (Dowling & Nichol, 2001).
A marine protected area has been designated for the surrounding 1640 feet of the wreck in which no
fishing practices are permitted. This is to promote the survival and growth of the HMAS Swan’s
abundant sea-life and also to safe guard the economic benefits the wreck generates through tourism
Surveys of Geographe Bay have documented a marked increase in the diversity of fish species
Presence of large predatory fish was surveyed on the wreck in December 2008, the most dominant
being Seriola lalandi. This is similar to a similar study of The Rainbow Warrior shipwreck, situated
in the Northern New Zealand’s Cavalli Islands which did not record large predatory fish being
present on the wreck until one year after the scuttling (Muherami, 2004).
S. lalandi commonly occur in schools of several hundred and occupy a large home range commonly
up to 50km. Their home range may encompass many different habitats including reefs, harbours and
bays at all depths of the water column. S. lalandi are a carnivorous species which prey on small
pelagic fish such as D. koheru or also small reef fish (Francis, 2001). S. lalandi was possibly
attracted to the HMNZS Canterbury due to the presence of many juvenile D. koheru in interior
regions of the wreck. S. lalandi populations may have also been present on the wreck for spawning
which occurs in spring and summer (Francis, 2001)
The average size of Seriola lalandi was estimated at over 50cm. This and S. lalandi’s pelagic nature
suggests that the population present on the wreck have migrated from other areas. Though S. lalandi
juveniles can reach 50cm in one year (Francis, 2001), their absence on the wreck in July 2008 would
imply they are merely using the wreck as a feeding and/or spawning ground. This supports the
beliefs that targeted fish stocks are migrating from natural to artificial reefs, as a result, stocks are
merely being redistributed as appose to repopulated (Gravitz, 2000). This is could be detrimental to
such populations if fishing pressure is placed upon the HMNZS Canterbury wreck/artificial reef.
Throughout the December survey, it was noted that fishing pressure was exerted on the reef with the
S. lalandi populations being targeted. Lost jig traces were collected on the wreck by divers and
confrontations between surveyors and fishermen were also documented. It was believed the
presence of S. lalandi populations on the wreck was well known by fishermen.
Regardless to the origin of the wrecks biological community (whether they have migrated from
natural reefs or are new local populations supported by the artificial reef), it is recommended that a
marine protected area is established in Deep Water Cove and includes surrounding areas of the
wreck outside of the cove. This is to protect the interests of stakeholders in respect to the
enhancement of Deep Water Cove’s marine biodiversity and economic benefits to local tourism
operators.

4.1.4 Species Diversity

The greatest species diversity in method three was evident in Zone N, the rear bunk room in July
2008. However, it showed the lowest species diversity in December 2008. This was due to the high
abundance of juvenile Decapteris koheru (Koheru), therefore resulting in the lowest species
evenness score of 0.004. Similar results were obtained from the bridge wheel house due to D.
koheru.
Numbers of individual fish present in the rooms surveyed increased in December 2008 due to the
large schools of juvenile D. koheru present in the wreck. D. koheru generally school in mid-water in
areas near by reefs (Francis, 2001), therefore their occurrence in interior regions of the wreck is
unusual. This may suggest they were in hiding from predators such as S. lalandi or Zeus faber.
The bridge wheel house and hanger are more accessible and generally larger in size in comparison
to the rear bunk and gun turret rooms. This factor could contribute to the high individual fish species
being present in these rooms.
A higher species diversity value was present in zone S compared to zone R in December 2008
compared to July 2008 in which zone R derived a higher species diversity value. This is due to the
huge drop in species evenness in zone R in December 2008 with a score of 0.219 being derived
compared to 0.785 which was recorded in July (a score of 1 indicates complete evenness between
species presence).
Fish present at 1.5 metres off the bottom and at a 24 metre depth level is an indication that the
HMNZS Canterbury is acting successfully as an artificial reef and attracting fish species.
It is recommended that a new species diversity index is used in future reports. Incorporation of
species evenness in the Shannon-Wiener Index could possibly be considered to be causing a
distorted view of the diversity and community dynamics of the artificial reef over time.

Pagrus auratus (Snapper or Tamure) is possibly New Zealand’s most popular and well known
marine fish (Paul, 2000). This slow growing, generally non-migratory fish is valued to commercial
and recreational fishermen (Paul, 2000).
Juvenile P. auratus occupy shallow, sheltered habitats in their first summer before moving to deeper
coastal waters in winter. These migratory patterns happen throughout their lives (Paul, 2001).
Populations of P. auratus averaged 14.44cm in exterior regions of the wreck and 7.5cm in interior
regions in July 2008. With individuals usually reaching 11-14cm in length at the end of their first
year (Francis, 2001), it is possible that these individuals had recently migrated from shallow
sheltered habitats at the beginning of winter.
Though the average length of P. auratus had increased in December 2008, the abundance of the
species had decreased from 112 individuals surveyed on the wreck in July 2008 to only 20
individuals surveyed in December of the same year.
Though the 15m circumnavigation survey was not completed in December 2008’s survey, this zone
did not have any P. auratus present in July 2008.
P. auratus are a slow growing species with individuals reaching sexual maturity at about 3-5 years
old at approximately 23-26cm in length (Francis, 2001). Therefore, individuals present around
exterior areas the wreck in December 2008 would be immigrants from pre-existing natural reefs as
their average size was 33.95cm.

Smaller individual of P. auratus may have migrated back to shallower waters for summer by the
time of December 2008. The disappearance of smaller P. auratus may also be due to the presence of
S. lalandi and Zeus faber which have been known to prey upon small reef fish (Francis, 2001).
4.1.6 Presence of Pomatoceros spp.
Pomatoceros spp. (a sessile polychaeta worm) was a dominant species in the July 2008 survey.
Pomatoceros spp. has been recorded on Meola Reef in Waitamata harbour, New Zealand. The worm
was surveyed in submerged areas. Abundance of the species declined over time with their presence
being replaced by Crassostrea gigas (Pacific Oysters), (Auckland Regional Council, 2006).
The average percentage cover is being recorded to determine change in species dominance in
concern to community dynamics and succession patterns. The decrease in percentage cover of
Pomatoceros spp. in all applicable survey zones, except for zone E and F, in December 2008 is
possibly due to succession patterns of the wreck though it could also be due to seasonal variation.
The decrease in cover of Pomatoceros spp. in zones A and Q in December 2008 may also be due to
the flashing behavior of Seriola lalandi (Kingfish) on these horizontal surfaces. Further monitoring
of the HMNZS Canterbury in July 2009 will be needed to determine such questions.
4.2 Surrounding areas of Deep Water Cove
Further statistical analysis of this data is still needed at this point.
Section Five Conclusion

The bridge exterior wall remained, on average, the most colonised area of the HMNZS Canterbury.
This is believed to be due to its inclined surface, its seaward facing direction and elevation off the
sea floor. These conditions allow for contact with nutrient rich prevailing currents which also supply
planktonic juvenile larvae, lower predation from benthic organisms, lack of anti-foul paint and lower
sediment loading.
The stern hull receives little benefit from currents entering the bay in comparison to the bridge
exterior wall. A combination of this location and the anti-foul paint could be responsible for the low
average of colonisation on the stern hull in both July and December 2008.
All areas surveyed under methods one, two and five showed a decrease in average colonisation but
an increase or constant rate in average species richness per quadrat; with the exception of the
starboard hull. The largest drop in average colonisation of hull surfaces occurred in areas covered by
the anti-foul paint (0 to 2 metres above the sea floor). It is unknown why the anti-foul paint was
more successful in preventing fouling organisms in December 2008 in comparison to July 2008.
Horizontal surfaces showed a decrease in average colonisation and were also noted to have less
sedimentation loads compared to July 2008. This is believed to be due to the flashing/rubbing
behaviour of S. lalandi on such surfaces.
Surveyor and seasonal variation may also account for decreases in average colonisation of the
wreck/artificial reefs surfaces.
With changes in average species richness per quadrat between July and December 2008 it is highly
possible a climax community was not reached in July 2008.
All fish that were recorded in method six, visual fish, circumnavigation surveys in both July and
December 2008 showed an increase in size in December with exception of N. celidotus which
remained the same average length. Species richness was also greater in exterior regions of the
wreck/artificial reef in December 2008.
Such increases in average fish size and species richness would indicate the wreck is acting
successfully as an artificial reef in offering protection and nutrition to a growing community.
Comparative statistical analysis of data obtained from Deep Water Cove and the HMNZS
Canterbury is yet to be carried out to determine the origin of fish populations on the wreck/artificial
reef.
Large pelagic fish were present on the wreck in December 2008 with large schools of S. lalandi
surveyed in exterior regions of the HMNZS Canterbury. Large populations of S. lalandi are believed
to have been attracted from pre existing natural reefs. Large numbers of juvenile D. koheru were
also present in interior regions of the wreck.
It is strongly suggested that Deep Water Cove and surrounding areas of Deep Water Cove are
converted into a marine protected area to guard commercially and recreationally targeted fish stocks.
This is important to conserve the marine community development of the HMNZS Canterbury
artificial reef and the tourism interests of the stakeholders.
In general, species diversity, as measured by the Shannon-Wiener Index of Diversity, showed a
decrease in December 2008 in comparison to July 2008. This is mainly due to a lack of species
evenness in each survey zone. However, generally speaking, species richness and number of
individual species within populations have increased. On this note it is recommended that a new
species diversity index is used in future reports.
P. auratus populations present on the wreck were larger in average size in December 2008
compared to those in July of the same year. However, there has been a huge decrease in abundance
of P. auratus in this time. Such rapid changes in abundance may be due to fishing pressure exerted
on the artificial reef or due to increased intra-specific competition.
A decrease in Pomatoceros spp. on surfaces of the HMNZS Canterbury indicates potential
succession patterns occurring in respect to colonising sessile invertebrates. This however, may also
be due to seasonal or surveyor variation.
Further statistical analysis is still required for data collected in Deep Water Cove.

Section Six References

Arena. P., Jordan. L., Spieler. R. (2007). Fish assemblages on sunken vessels and natural reefs in
south east Florida, U.S.A. Springer Science and Business Media B.V. Dordrecht: Netherlands
Auckland Regional Council (ARC). (2006). Review of Environmental Information on the Kaipara
Harbour Marine Environment. Retrieved March 17, 2009 from
http://www.arc.govt.nz/albany/fms/main/Documents/Plans/Technical%20publications/351-
400/TP354%20Review%20of%20Environmental%20Information%20on%20the%20Kaipara%2
0Harbour%20Marine%20Environment%20-%20Part%209.pdf
BBS Divers (n.d) Diving down the corridor. Retrieved August 15, 2008 from
http://www.bbsdivers.co.nz/site/images/129255.jpg
Canterbury Charitable Trust. (2008). HMNZS Canterbury. Retrieved, June, 5, 2008, from
www.canterburywreck.co.nz
Dive HQ Bay of Islands (n.d) View from the Bridge. Retrieved August 15, 2008 from
http://www.divenz.com/images/canterbury_dive.JPG
Dowling, R. K. & Nichol, J. (2001). The HMAS Swan Artificial Dive Reef. Elsevier Science Ltd.
Great Britain
Enderby, J. and Enderby T. (2002). Diving and Snorkelling New Zealand. Lonely Planet Publication
Pty Ltd. Footscray: Australia
Fairweather, M. & McKenzie, J. W. (2008). Monitoring of the HMNZS Canterbury artificial reef,
July 2008: Investigation of colonisation, succession and community enhancement. Bay of Plenty
Polytechnic. New Zealand
Far North District Council (2008) Retrieved July 17, 2008 from
http://www.fndc.govt.nz/misc/ifrigatecanterbury.asp
FishDoc (2004). Rubbing on Rocks Retrieved March 10, 2009 from

www.fishdoc.co.uk/disease/parasites.htm
Francis. M (2001) Coastal Fishes of New Zealand. Reed Publishing (NZ) Ltd. Auckland, New
Zealand.
Grace, R (2007) Rainbow Warrior - Twenty Years after the Big Bang! Retrieved June 5, 2008 from
http://www.marinenz.org.nz/index.php/the_undersea_world/roger_grace_archive/rainbow_warri
or_-_twenty_years_after_the_big_bang
Gravitz, L (2000). The double-edged lure of man-made reefs. Christian Science Monitor, 92(177),
16. Retrieved August 15, 2008 from EBSCO Search Host Premier

Grossman, G. D., Jones G. P., Seaman, Jr, W. J (1997) Do Artificial Reefs Increase Regional Fish
Production? A Review of Existing Data, American Fisheries Society, 22(4) 17-23. Retrieved
August 15, 2008 from Google Scholar.
Guinness, S., Betty, G. & Kennedy. (2005). Colonisation of the artificial reef: Taioma. Bay of
Plenty Polytechnic: New Zealand.
International Marine Coatings. (2004). Intersmooth 360 Ecoloflex SPC. Retrieved October 6, 2008
from http://www.cpbsupply.com/paint/pdfs/intersmooth360.pdf
Jensen, A.C., Collins, K.J., & Lockwood, A.P.M. (2000) Artificial Reefs in European Seas Kluwer
Academic Publishers. The Netherlands.
Muherami, J., (Producer/Director). (2004). Life in the Graveyards of the Pacific. [Documentary].
Australia: Big Fish Productions.
Middleton, J. (2005). All hands on deck to farewell a grand dame. New Zealand Herald. Retrieved
March 05, 2005 from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/organisation/story.cfm?o_id=105&ObjectID=10113651
Military Images (2006) HMNZS Canterbury. Retrieved August 15, 2008 from
http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/592/New_Zealand_Navy_-
_frigate_HMNZS_Canterbury_-_3.jpg
Northland Fishing (2008) Map. Retrieved August 08, 2008 from

http://northlandfishing.net.nz/map2.jpg
Paul, L. (2000). New Zealand Fishes: Identification, natural history and fisheries. Reed Books.
Auckland: New Zealand.
Perkol-Finkel, S., Shashar, N., & Benayahu, Y. (2005). Can artificial reefs mimic natural reef
communities? The role of structural features and age. Elsevier Science Ltd. Great Britain.
Picasa Web (2008) Map. Retrieved August 08, 2008 from

http://picasaweb.google.com/terawhitimarae/TheExCanterburySinkingManawahunaRoheDeep
WaterCove/photo#5136381985908414674
Pitcher, T.J. & Seaman W. (2001). Petrarch’s Principle: how protected human-made reefs can
help the reconstruction of fisheries and marine ecosystems. Blackwell Science Ltd.
Putman, R., J. & Wratten, S., D. (1984). Principles of Ecology. University of California Press. Los
Angeles: U.S.A.
Retter, M. & Newcombe, H. (2007). The scuttling of the HMNZS Canterbury. Bay of Plenty
Polytechnic. New Zealand.
Ross-Watt, T., Clarke P., R. (1997) Colours of the Rainbow. Bay of Plenty Polytechnic: New
Zealand

Schaffler, L. (2007, May 28). Waikato's happy grave. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from
http://www.tradeaboat.co.nz/ArticleDetails.aspx?Ne=145&N=4294967237&item=447&sid=11
AFAEE5E973
Seaman, W., Antony, J. (2000). Artificial Reef Evaluation: With application to Natural Marine
Habitats. CRC Press. United Kingdom.
Spot-X Publications Ltd (2004). Spot-X Fishing. Fairfax Ltd. Australia.
Stewart Island Nov 2004 (2004). Canterbury in the distance. Retrieved August 15, 2008 from
http://staples-moon.net/bruce/pics/rakiura/140024.jpg
Svane, I.B. & Petersen, J.K. (2001). On the Problems with Epibiosis, Fouling and Artificial Reefs: A
Review. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118975240/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Tapeka (n.d) Swimming though a hole. Retrieved August 15, 2008 from
http://www.tapeka.com/HMNZS%20Waikato%20Sunk2.jpg
Vanuatu Tourism Office. (n.d) Colonial History of Vanuatu – President Coolidge. Retrieved August
15, 2008 from
http://www.vanuatutourism.com/vanuatu/export/sites/VTO/en/history/president_coolidge.html

Section Seven Appendix

7.1 Species List
Scientific name Common Name
Actinothoe albocincta Orange anemone
Aplodactylus arctidens Marble Fish
Arripis trutta Kahawai
Balanus spp. Barnacle
Bodianus sp. Fox Fish
Bodianus umimaculatus Pig Fish
Carpophylum flexuosum
Carpophylum maschlocarpum
Cheilodactylus spectabilis Red Moki
Chironemus marmoratus Hiwiwhiwi
Chromis dispilus Two Spot Demoiselle
Cliona celata
Coris sandageri Sandagers Wrase
Corynactis haddoni Jewel Anemone
Dasyatis thetidis Long Tail Stingray
Decapteris koheru Koheru
Demadactylus douglasii Porae
Ecklonia radiata
Evechinus chloroticus Kina
Forsterygion sp. Triple fin species
Girella tricuspidata Parore
Gymnothorax nubilus Grey Moray Eel
Gymnothorax prasinus Yellow Moray Eel
Jasus edwardsii Red Rock Lobster
Latridopsis ciliaris Blue Moki
Lithothamnion spp.
Notolabrus celidotus Spotty
Notolabrus fucicola Banded Wrasse
Obliquichthys maryannae Oblique Swimming Triplefin
Pagrus auratus Snapper
Palaemon affinis Glass Shrimp
Parapercis colias Blue Cod
Parika scaber Leather Jacket
Parma alboscapularis Black Angel Fish
Pecten novaezelandiae Scallop
Pempheris adspersa Big Eye
Pomatoceros spp.
Pseudolabrus miles Scarlett Wrasse
Scorpaena cardinalis Scorpian Fish
Scorpis lineolatus Sweep
Scorpis violaceus Blue Maomao
Seriola lalandi Tarakihi
Seriola lalandi Kingfish
Talochlamys zelandiae Fan Shell
Upeneichthys lineatus Goat Fish
Yet to be identified Brown Sponge
Yet to be identified green hydroid
Yet to be identified tube annelid sp.
Yet to be identified red algae
Yet to be identified black and white barnacle
Yet to be identified White Striped Anemone
Yet to be identified Green algae
Zeus faber John Dory


Monitoring of The HMNZS Canterbury Artificial Reef and Surrounding Deep Water Cove, December 2008

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Monitoring of The HMNZS Canterbury Artificial Reef and Surrounding Deep Water Cove, December 2008

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

MONITORING OF THE

MONITORING OF THE HMNZS CANTERBURY ARTIFICIAL

This report was compiled and produced by

Diploma in Marine Studies

McKenzie, J, W Bay of Plenty Polytechnic Page 2 of 40

McKenzie, J, W Bay of Plenty Polytechnic Page 3 of 40

Shane Housham and Julia Riddle

McKenzie, J, W Bay of Plenty Polytechnic Page 4 of 40

McKenzie, J, W Bay of Plenty Polytechnic Page 5 of 40

Section One Introduction

1.2 Benefits of Artificial Reefs

1.3 Past Studies of Artificial Reefs

McKenzie, J, W Bay of Plenty Polytechnic Page 6 of 40

1.4 HMNZS Canterbury F421

McKenzie, J, W Bay of Plenty Polytechnic Page 7 of 40

McKenzie, J, W Bay of Plenty Polytechnic Page 8 of 40

1.5 Canterbury Charitable Trust

1.6 HMNZS Canterbury Monitoring Plan

McKenzie, J, W Bay of Plenty Polytechnic Page 9 of 40

1.7 HMNZS Canterbury Survey, July 2008

1.8 Artificial Reefs and Marine Protected Areas

McKenzie, J, W Bay of Plenty Polytechnic Page 10 of 40

1.9 Survey, December 2008

Section Two Methods

Port The transect line was lowered in line

A weighted transect line was

Starboard The transect line was lowered in line

The transect line was lowered in line

McKenzie, J, W Bay of Plenty Polytechnic Page 12 of 40

A visual survey was carried out in the

Rear A visual survey was completed in the

Port A visual survey was carried out

Starboard A visual survey was carried out

A visual survey was carried out

A 0.5 x 0.5m quadrat was

McKenzie, J, W Bay of Plenty Polytechnic Page 13 of 40

Survey was completed 1.5m above

Figure 3. Location of survey zones of the HMNZS Canterbury.

2.1.2 Data Collection

McKenzie, J, W Bay of Plenty Polytechnic Page 14 of 40

Location (Location on vessel) Method No. (1-6)

Distance along T-line Depth Total % Cover Species Abundance Frequency

McKenzie, J, W Bay of Plenty Polytechnic Page 15 of 40

Species <10cm 10-19cm 20-29cm 30-39cm 40-49cm 50cm<

Figure 5. Data collection table for methods 3, 4 and 6

2.1.3 Data analysis

Average Colonisation of Different Areas:

McKenzie, J, W Bay of Plenty Polytechnic Page 16 of 40

Macro Mobile Species:

Shannon Species Diversity Index:

McKenzie, J, W Bay of Plenty Polytechnic Page 17 of 40

2.2 Surveying of Deep Water Cove

2.2.2 Data Collection

The following was recorded for each survey at all 9 sites.

McKenzie, J, W Bay of Plenty Polytechnic Page 18 of 40

Estimations of individual species size; the longest length of the animal

Species <10cm 10-19cm 20-29cm 30-39cm 40-49cm 50cm<

Figure 6. Example of table used in surveying sites 1 to 9 of Deep Water Cove.

2.2.3 Data Analysis

Shannon Species Diversity Index:

McKenzie, J, W Bay of Plenty Polytechnic Page 19 of 40

Section Three Results

3.1.1 Average Colonisation of Different Areas