GVI Seychelles - Mahé

Report Series No. 101

ISSN 1751-2255 (Print)

GVI Seychelles – Mahé

Marine Conservation Expedition

Phase Report 101

January - March 2010

GVI Seychelles – Mahé

Marine Conservation Expedition Report 101
Submitted in whole to:
Global Vision International (GVI)
Seychelles National Parks Authority (SNPA)

Produced by:
Sharon Drabsch – Science Coordinator & General Staff Member
 And:

Tim Kirkpatrick Country Director Chris Mason-Parker Program Director

Administration Officer &
Tom Cripps Base Manager - Mahé Rowana Walton
General Staff Member
Dive Instructor &
Carl Brown Base Manager - Curieuse Simon Dixon
General Staff Member
Science Assistant &
Samantha Courtney
General Staff Member
Sally Conyers Dive Master Intern Edward Bridge Dive Master Intern
Nels Carlson Expedition Member Juan Corbi Expedition Member

Katherine Monroe Expedition Member Charlotte Pryor Expedition Member

Jacqueline Trassierra Expedition Member Amber Herzog Lyman Expedition Member

Cody Lyman Expedition Member Katie Agostino Expedition Member

Rachael Lewus Expedition Member Anna Hoch Expedition Member
Inka Bauermeister Expedition Member Claudia Brullmann Expedition Member
Oliver Christiansen Expedition Member Christine Dybwad Expedition Member
Evan Edwards Expedition Member Kriss Hemming Expedition Member
Rebecca Lyal Expedition Member Niels Prinssen Expedition Member

GVI Seychelles – Mahé

Marine Conservation Expedition

Address: GVI
c/o SNPA
PO Box 1240, Victoria
SEYCHELLES

Email: Seychelles@gvi.co.uk

Web pages: http://www.gvi.co.uk and http://www.gviusa.com

Executive Summary
This report summarises the training, methodology and results of the 23rd phase of the Seychelles
Global Vision International (GVI) Marine Conservation Expedition on Mahé, conducted over 10 weeks
from 8 January to 19 March 2010.
Underwater visual census (UVC) surveys were completed to assess fish and invertebrate diversities
and densities at 17 reef sites around the north-west coast of the island of Mahé, the largest and most
populated island in the Seychelles.

Fish surveyed included species that are likely influencers and/or indicators of reef coral health, plus
species targeted by local fisheries. The abundance and diversity of fish were assessed by SCUBA
divers via 2 methodologies; Stationary Point Count surveys and swum Belt Transect surveys. The
size (body length) of the fisheries species individuals was also estimated. The abundance data was
converted to density of individuals per square meter (m-2) to standardise the data before comparisons.

Belt Transect surveys were done to assess the diversity and density of invertebrates important to reef
health and to commerce.

Data was collected on incidental sightings of sea turtles, cetaceans, crown-of-thorns starfish, octopus
and lobster.

Plankton samples were collected weekly to assist the MCSS with their ongoing whale shark research.

Repairs, maintenance and development work was carried out by staff and Expedition Members at the
GVI Expedition base on the island of Curieuse.

Some novel (for GVI Seychelles) data explorations were done on the fish and the turtle data to
investigate if other data summary techniques and comparisons would reveal new information. Findings
include:

• Some fish families including the 2 with the highest densities, Scaridae (Parrotfish) and
Acanthuridae (Surgeonfish and Bristletoothfish), showed markedly different densities at the
Carbonate versus the Granitic sites
• Overall fish density was slightly higher at sites within Marine National Parks versus sites not in
Marine Parks. However, only 2 fish families (Butterflyfish and Grouper) returned higher
densities inside versus outside the Marine Parks
• Mean overall density of fish counted by the Stationary Point Count survey technique was
higher than that surveyed via Belt Transects. Only 1 fish family (Acathuridae) was reported in
higher density via Belt Transects.
• Graphs of fish diversity and density versus hard coral diversity and cover revealed no clear
correlations
• Densities of the reef health influencing/indicating invertebrates had changed little since last
phase, except for an increase in short spine sea urchins at Granitic sites
• Densities of sea cucumbers has been variable over time
• Encouragingly, the frequency of sightings of Hawksbill Sea Turtles this phase was the highest it
has been since April – June 2007. Frequency of Green Turtle sightings was the highest it has
been during all the compared phases (back to July – September 2005).
• Mean carapace length of Hawksbill Turtles sighted on dives has decreased gradually but
consistently over the past 5 years, which is cause for concern.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary...........................................................................................................i
Table of Contents.............................................................................................................ii
List of Figures..................................................................................................................iii
1 Introduction.................................................................................................................4
2 Reef Survey Programme............................................................................................6
2.1 Aims.................................................................................................................6
2.2 Survey sites......................................................................................................7
2.3 Species surveyed.............................................................................................7
2.4 Training............................................................................................................8
2.5 Methodology.....................................................................................................9
2.5.1 Stationary Point Count surveys.................................................................9
2.5.2 Fish Belt Transect surveys......................................................................10
2.5.3 Fish size estimation................................................................................11
2.5.4 Invertebrate abundance & diversity Belt Transect surveys......................11
2.5.5 Environmental Parameters......................................................................12
2.6 Results...........................................................................................................12
2.6.1 Surveys completed.................................................................................12
2.6.2 Recorded fish densities...........................................................................12
2.6.3 Diversity and density of fish at the sites within versus outside Marine
National Parks....................................................................................................15
2.6.4 Density of the surveyed invertebrates.....................................................18
2.6.5 Sea cucumber, lobster and octopus density............................................19
2.7 Discussion......................................................................................................20
2.7.1 Reported fish abundance........................................................................20
2.7.2 Comparison between Point Counts and Belt Transects..........................20
2.7.3 Future recommendations........................................................................21
3 Additional Ecosystem Monitoring..............................................................................22
3.1 Crown-of-thorns Starfish................................................................................22
3.2 Sea Turtles.....................................................................................................23
3.2.1 Incidental sightings of turtles...................................................................24
3.3 Cetacean sightings.........................................................................................26
3.4 Whale shark sightings....................................................................................27
3.5 Plankton sampling..........................................................................................27
4 Non-survey Programmes..........................................................................................28
4.1 Community Development...............................................................................28
4.1.1 National Scholarship Programme............................................................28
4.1.2 Community Education.............................................................................28
5 Literature cited..........................................................................................................29
6 Appendices...............................................................................................................31

2
 Appendix A Details of sites surveyed by GVI Seychelles – Mahé, year round. Sites
shaded grey were not surveyed this phase. Sites in bold type are within Marine
National Parks..........................................................................................................31
Appendix B Fish families, genera and species surveyed by GVI Seychelles during
the January – March 2010 phase............................................................................32
Appendix C Invertebrates surveyed by GVI Seychelles during the January – March
2010 phase..............................................................................................................34

List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Location and substrate type of GVI survey sites...............................................7

Figure 2.2 Schematic diagram of the layout of Stationary Point Count and Belt Transect
surveys at each site. Circles represent Stationary Point Counts.......................................10

Figure 2.3 Mean density of fish (m-2) in each major family/group, recorded on Stationary
Point Count and Belt Transect surveys.............................................................................13

Figure 2.4 Mean overall density of fish recorded on Stationary Point Count surveys versus
Belt Transect surveys........................................................................................................14

Figure 2.5 Species diversity at the survey sites. Sites are arranged south to north which
gives an indication of the proximity of the sites to the Marine Parks..................................15

Figure 2.6 Mean overall density of fish recorded at sites within versus outside the Baie
Ternay and Pt Launay Marine National Parks...................................................................16

Figure 2.7 Comparison of fish diversity data and fish density data from this phase, with
hard coral diversity and percent hard coral cover data from the last coral monitoring phase,
at each site........................................................................................................................17

Figure 2.8 Mean density of the three most abundant reef invertebrates at Carbonate and
Granitic sites, for comparable survey periods between January 2009 and March 2010....19

Figure 2.9 Mean density of sea cucumbers for the survey periods from January – March
2009 to January – March 2010. * denotes commercially exploited species.....................19

Figure 3.1 Frequency (%) of green and hawksbill turtles incidental sightings between July
2005 and March 2010 during GVI diving surveys in bays and coastal waters of north-
western Mahé...................................................................................................................24

Figure 3.2 Mean estimated carapace length of Hawksbill Turtles sighted incidentally
during GVI dives from July 2005 to March 2010. Trend line indicates a gradual reduction in
carapace length over this time..........................................................................................25

Figure 3.3 Frequency of incidental sightings of turtles during GVI dives since January
2005, in 10cm-increment size classes...............................................................................26

Figure 3.3 Number of incidental sightings of turtles during GVI dives since January 2005,
in 10cm-increment size classes.

2
1 Introduction
The Global Vision International (GVI) Seychelles – Mahé Expedition is based on the
inner granitic island of Mahé at Cap Ternay which is surrounded by Morne Seychellois
National park and located between the 2 Marine National Parks of Baie Ternay and
Port Launay. An expedition has also been recently established on the island of
Curieuse. All of GVI’s work in the Seychelles is carried out on behalf of our local
partners at their request, using their methodology; GVI supplies experienced staff,
trained volunteers and equipment to conduct monitoring surveys to support of their
ongoing work. GVI’s key partner is the Seychelles Centre for Marine Research and
Technology. Additional local partners include the Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA)
and the Marine Conservation Society Seychelles (MCSS).

Seychelles National Parks Authority (SNPA): Partly funded by the government, the
SNPA includes the Seychelles Centre for Marine Research and Technology
(SCMRT) and the Marine Parks Authority (MPA). These organisations have the
respective aims of carrying out marine research in the Seychelles and protecting the
marine parks. The coral and fish surveys carried out for the SCMRT constitutes the
majority of the work done by GVI. Expedition Members also collect fish and
invertebrate data for the SFA, and collect data and plankton for the MCSS.

Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA): Oversees the management and regulation of

commercial and artisanal fisheries in the Seychelles. This government agency sets
annual catch, bag and seasonal limits to local fish stocks, and manages the
international export industry generated from fisheries in the Seychelles Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ).

Marine Conservation Society Seychelles (MCSS): A non-government organisation

(NGO) that carries out research in the Seychelles, currently monitoring whale sharks,
cetaceans, sea turtles and plankton around Mahé. GVI assists with all 3 of these
research programmes by reporting incidental sightings of cetaceans and whale sharks,
documenting the frequency of sea turtle sightings on dives, conducting nesting turtle
beach surveys (during nesting season) and collecting plankton samples.

© GVI - 2010 Page 3

Background information on the Seychelles coral reefs and the GVI expeditions

The Seychelles was one of the areas most severely affected by the 1997-1998 global
mass bleaching event; coral mortality due to bleaching was as high as 95% on the
reefs around the Seychelles inner granitic islands (Spencer et al., 2000). This was
believed to be caused by high sea surface temperatures associated with an El Niño-
Southern Oscillation event. Efforts to monitor the regeneration of coral reefs in the
Seychelles were initiated as part of the Shoals of Capricorn, a 3-year programme
started in 1998. The SCMRT was set up by the Shoals of Capricorn to continue this
work, and also to assist the MPA in marine park management. The main objective of
the GVI Seychelles expeditions is to contribute data to this and associated monitoring
programmes. This data assists with knowledge of the status and trends of coral reefs
(and related fisheries resources), and development of management plans for recovery
of the reefs in the area and globally.

Between the end of the Shoals of Capricorn programme in 2001 and the beginning of
the GVI expedition in 2004, monitoring was continued by Reefcare International. The
protocols established by Reefcare International provide the foundation for those
adopted by GVI, differing only in the more precise taxonomic criteria adopted by GVI,
and GVI’s surveys around Mahé being restricted to the north-west coast due to
logistical constraints.

The data collected by GVI Expedition Members contributes to an extremely valuable

long-term monitoring programme that has been in progress for 11 years. The aim of
this data is to enhance the SCMT’s capacity to monitor, manage and ultimately
conserve the reefs of the Seychelles during this fragile period of regeneration,
especially challenging in a time of increasing pressures on reefs. It also contributes to
our knowledge of the status and trends of coral reefs world-wide, and aids the SFA in
managing fisheries stocks.

GVI Seychelles expeditions have survey ‘phases’ that are 10 weeks long. Four phases
are run every year, with coral diversity and abundance surveyed once per year, and
coral recruitment surveyed once per year, interspersed with fish surveys done twice per
year.

In 2009, two staff members took up residence on the island of Curieuse to become the
first permanent staff of the new GVI Seychelles – Curieuse Expedition. Prior to this,
Curieuse had been run as a satellite camp with 4 – 5 Expedition Members sent from
Mahé to Curieuse with some staff members each phase. Curieuse became an

© GVI - 2010 Page 4

independent Expedition last phase (October – December 2009), receiving its first full-
time volunteers. However, unusually low numbers of volunteers for the Seychelles
Expeditions this phase meant surveying off Curieuse could not be done due to lack of
personnel. However, the Curieuse base was used (along with Cap Ternay) as a
training venue. Being a very different and special place, Curieuse base also greatly
enhanced the Expedition Members’ GVI experience. Expedition members were sent to
Curieuse in 2 groups for 9 – 14 days, the entire group of 11 during the first 5 weeks of
phase, and 8 constituting the second group of five-week Expedition Members during
the second 5 week period. While on Curieuse, Expedition Members performed repairs,
maintenance and improvements to the base. The Expedition Members also assisted
with sea turtle nesting surveys. The beaches from Anse St José (where the GVI base is
located) north-west to Pointe Caimant, and from Papaie north-east to Grande Anse
were surveyed on foot for presence of nesting turtles, hatchlings and turtle tracks and
nests on a daily basis during turtle nesting season. This data is submitted to SCMRT
separately.

Health and Safety: The safety of all Expedition Members is paramount. All Expedition
Members are given health and safety briefings on the camp as soon as they arrive, and
conservative diving guidelines are adhered to for the duration of the expedition.
Expedition Members also complete the PADI Emergency First Response first aid
course, and are taught how to administer oxygen in the event of a diving-related
incident.

2 Reef Survey Programme

2.1Aims

The aims for the phase were to collect data on the abundance and diversity of reef fish,
including commercially valuable species for which size was also recorded, and the
abundance and diversity of certain invertebrates, at the 18 sites selected for the phase.
These sites include 16 sites that are surveyed every phase (thus are surveyed twice a
year for fish), plus 2 sites where fish are surveyed once per year (see Appendix A, Fig.
2.1).

Half of the sites are carbonate-based reefs and half are granitic-based reefs, and they
represent varying degrees of exposure to wave action and currents. Five of the sites
are within Marine National Parks where all types of fishing and collecting is illegal.

Each survey site is divided into ‘shallow’ and ‘deep’ zones, with depth ranges of 1.5 –
5.0m and 5.1 – 15.0m respectively. The sites have a central point and are further

© GVI - 2010 Page 5

 divided into left, centre and right areas (Figure 2.2). All depths are standardised with
respect to chart datum for consistency.

2.2Survey sites

Figure 2.1 Location and substrate type of the GVI Seychelles – Mahé survey sites

2.3Species surveyed

2.3.1Fish

The fish species chosen for the surveys are those that are likely to be indicators of the
condition status of the reefs, but are not overly difficult to locate, identify and count.
These species also usually directly or indirectly influence reef condition. For example,
Butterflyfish are obligate or facultative corallivores thus would be affected by the
amount, health and diversity of hard corals on the reefs. Reef-associated species of
commercial concern are also surveyed. This data can be used to help determine the
status of the reefs and of the fisheries especially when compared with the data from
previous phases.

© GVI - 2010 Page 6

Fish are surveyed to the highest taxonomic resolution practicable, with most identified
to species level. The resolution depends on difficulty of identification, and also the
species’ characteristics and the data requirements of our partners. The taxonomic
level needed varies according to the ecological function of the species within the
ecosystem; for example, if different species within a genus feed on different types of
food, it is highly desirable to distinguish them to species. However, Expedition
Members are instructed to record only to the level to which they are confident of the
identification, thus if they are sure of the family but not genus or species, they record
only as an “unknown species” of that family.

See Appendix B for the list and taxonomic resolution of fish species surveyed.

2.3.2Invertebrates

Mobile invertebrate species that influence reef health either positively by consuming
algae and other Scleractinian (hard) coral competitors or negatively by predating on
hard corals, plus invertebrates of commercial or conservation importance, are surveyed
every phase.

Hard coral predation pressure at survey each site was investigated via density of 2
types of sea star; cushion stars (Culcita spp.) and crown-of-thorns (Acanthaster planci)
as well as gastropods in the genus Drupella, all of which are hard coral predators.
Algal grazing pressure was investigated as density of sea urchins. Commercially
important sea cucumbers, some of which are listed as fully or over-exploited
(Aumeeruddy & Conand, 2008), plus octopus and spiny lobsters are surveyed to help
determine status and trends in these fisheries. The giant clam is also surveyed due to
its high conservation interest and threatened status.

See Appendix C for the list of invertebrates surveyed.

2.4Training

Dive training: All Expedition Members must have at least the PADI Open Water
SCUBA Diver qualification to join the expedition. Expedition Members then undertake
the PADI Advanced Open Water course, which teaches them Peak Performance
Buoyancy, Navigation, Underwater Naturalist, Boat and Deep Diving skills.

All participants also complete the PADI Coral Reef Research Diver (CRRD) course
which includes training in the use of equipment that they will use during surveys. The
CRRD course also includes a series of lectures on various aspects of the marine
environment.

© GVI - 2010 Page 7

Species identification: On-land training is provided via PowerPoint presentations,
workshops and informal discussions with expedition staff. Self-study sessions and
materials including a variety of books, and paper and electronic “flash-cards” are also
provided. Knowledge is tested on land using PowerPoint presentations; a 95% pass
mark is required.

Expedition Members are also taken for in-water training and testing dives with staff;
their responses are recorded and the dives continue until the Expedition Member has
demonstrated precise and consistent identification to the necessary level of taxonomic
resolution.

Survey methodology: Expedition Members receive on-land and in-water training and
testing in the survey methods used and skills required.

2 Methodology

2 Stationary Point Count surveys

The Stationary Point Count is the preferred method for us to survey fish due to
recommendation, its common use and inherent advantages. It is an Underwater Visual
Census (UVC) technique (Kulbicki 1998, Engelhardt 2004) employed by respected reef
assessment programs like the Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment, and the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Coral Reef Monitoring Program (Hill &
Wilkinson 2004). Engelhardt (2001) recommended that Stationary Point Count surveys
be used for the assessment of Seychelles reef fish density and diversity. Lack of
spear-fishing in the Seychelles increases the reliability of this technique here (Jennings
et al., 1995), and variations of the method have been used in several studies in the
Seychelles (see Jennings et al., 1995, Spalding & Jarvis 2002, Engelhardt 2004,
Graham et al., 2007). This method also has the clear advantage that a greater number
of replicates can be done owing to the relatively short time these surveys take, thus
decreasing standard error.

Circles with a radius of 7 – 7.5m have been shown to create the most suitable sized
area for surveying coral reef fish (Samoilys & Gribble 1997). The post-bleaching
surveys conducted by Reefcare International as part of the Seychelles Marine
Ecosystem Management Project and adopted by GVI used 7-minute long Stationary
Point Counts within a 7m radius (Engelhardt 2001, 2004).

Figure 2.2 Schematic diagram of the layout of Stationary Point Count and Belt Transect
surveys at each site. Circles represent Stationary Point Counts.

© GVI - 2010 Page 8

Twelve Stationary Point Counts were carried out at every site. Six Stationary Point
Counts were done in each of the shallow and deep zones, evenly spread amongst the
left, centre and right of the site (Fig. 2.2). Divers recorded depth at the centre of each
Point Count area, visibility and the start time for each survey. A tape measure laid
along the reef was used to delineate the circle radius, reducing survey area size
estimation errors. Point Counts were conducted by buddy pairs of SCUBA divers, with
each diver responsible for counting a different selection of the fish surveyed, thus
reducing the number of fish 1 diver is required to count. During the last minute, both
divers swam around inside the survey circle to help ensure that hiding and cryptic fish
were also counted.

2.5.2 Fish Belt Transect surveys

Since Phase 21, GVI Seychelles now monitors only fish (or coral) in any 1 phase
instead of fish and coral together, thus we have the capacity to include more surveys.
Colvocoresses and Acosta (2007) reported that Belt Transect surveys can cover more
area with a similar observer effort than Point Count surveys, although behavioural
avoidance of fish towards divers was frequently noted and, possibly as a result, lower
densities of fish have been recorded on Belt Transects than on Point Counts. We
decided to introduce Belt Transects in addition to the Stationary Point Counts, but to
incorporate mechanisms to reduce behavioural avoidance. Variety in methodologies
also has the advantages of adding to the skills set of the Expedition Members and
enhancing their experience, and interesting results may be drawn from a comparison of
the results from 2 techniques.

The transect belts were 50m long by 5m wide, a standard area often used for reef
assessments (Samoilys & Gribble 1997, Hill & Wilkinson 2004). Surveys were
conducted by buddy pairs with, as with the Point Counts, each diver responsible for
counting a different selection of fish. Two Belt Transects were completed at each site,
1 in the deep zone and 1 in the shallow (Fig. 2.2). A measuring tape was laid parallel
to the reef by 1 diver while the other swims in front counting fish. Samoilys and Gribble
(1997) recommend this techniques of simultaneously counting fish and laying the
transect tape as it avoids disturbing the fish prior to counting. After completion of the
outward stage of the Transect, the observers hover away from the end of the tape for 3
minutes to allow fish to return to the survey area before beginning the return stage. On
the return journey, the second diver swims back along the tape counting the other fish
while the buddy reels in the tape behind them.

© GVI - 2010 Page 9

 2.5.3Fish size estimation

By recording the size of fish, biomass can be estimated using published length/weight
ratios. This is of particular interest for commercial species, where concerns exist over
decreasing average size of targeted fish. In addition, relative abundances by size
category can indicate fishing pressure levels. Previous studies have shown that the
steepness the slope of this relationship increases and midpoint decreases under
increasing fishing pressure as proportionally more large fish are caught (Graham et al.,
2005).

The SFA were keen for us to collect size estimation data for commercially important
fish. We agreed to record size data for the following families: Serranidae, Lutjanidae,
Lethrinidae, Siganidae and Haemulidae. The size categories were as follows: 0 – 10
cm, 11 – 20 cm, 21 – 30 cm, 31 – 40 cm, 41 – 50 cm, 51 – 60 cm and 61+ cm.
Surveyors were trained and tested underwater using lengths of PVC pipe, and their
scores recorded so that each had an accuracy rating.

2.5.4Invertebrate abundance & diversity Belt Transect surveys

Two 50m transects were laid out using tape measures. The transects both started in
the shallow centre of the site, with 1 heading out to the deep left, 1 to the deep right,
beginning and ending within the depth range 1.5 – 15.0 m. Thus both the depth and
spread of each site is sampled. Target species falling within 2.5m either side of the
tape were recorded, giving a Belt Transect survey area of 50m by 5m (250m2).

2 Environmental Parameters

During each survey dive, the boat skipper recorded certain abiotic factors pertaining to
the conditions during the dive:

• Water clarity (which indicates turbidity), recorded using a Secchi disk from the boat
• Cloud cover, estimated in eighths
• Sea state, evaluated using the Beaufort Scale
• Surface and bottom water temperatures, recorded using personal dive computers.

© GVI - 2010 Page 10

2.6Results

2.6.1Surveys completed

Only 17 out of the 18 target sites were surveyed due to insufficient time and personnel.
All 12 fish Stationary Point Count surveys, plus the 2 fish and 2 invertebrate Belt
Transect surveys were completed at each of the 17 sites.

2.6.2Recorded fish densities

The fish data collected by GVI Seychelles has been analysed by “feeding guild” for
years, with little change in densities of each guild, and relative densities overall
remaining in much the same order. The feeding guilds used may mask fishing effects it
combined commercial with non-commercial fish. It also lumped some fish families with
quite different specific foods types e.g. Emperors, Wrasses and Pufferfish.

For this report, other ways of exploring the data were employed to investigate if
different analyses revealed any novel information. The major families of fish were
grouped by taxonomic similarity but with consideration of ecological function and
fishing pressure. For example, Angelfish and Moorish Idol were grouped together as
they are all predators of sessile invertebrates thus help control hard coral competitors
(and are also of high visual appeal to divers) but are not commercial fisheries species.
Corallivores, a group that are highly sensitive to hard coral health and abundance and
thus are good indicators of reef health, are represented by the Butterflyfish.
Acanthuridae and Rabbitfish are grazers, thus are important controllers of algae which
compete with hard coral (especially recruits) for space and light; however, Rabbitfish
are much more highly sought-after by local fisheries so the two groups of grazers were
kept separate in the analyses. Lutjanoids (Snappers, Emperors and Sweetlips) all
have similar ecological roles (piscivores and scavengers) and habitat plus are under
similar fishing pressure, thus could be combined. Groupers are also under
considerable fishing pressure but are listed as piscivores (Obura & Grimsditch, 2009).

Species density and diversity was investigated for influence of substrate type or
protection status (within versus outside a Marine National Park). An investigation for
correlation between fish diversity and abundance, in relation to coral diversity and
cover was also done.

Substrate and survey type comparisons

© GVI - 2010 Page 11

Figure 2.3 Mean density of fish (m-2) in each major family/group, recorded on Stationary
Point Count and Belt Transect surveys

The mean overall abundance of fish was slightly higher at the Granitic sites (0.0461m-2)
than the Carbonate sites (0.0441m-2). However, as Figure 2.3 shows, some fish
groups were more abundant at the Granitic sites, but some were more abundant at the
Carbonate sites. For most of the groups, if a group was found to have higher density
for example at Carbonate sites than Granitic ones, this finding was consistent between
methodologies. However, higher Rabbitfish density was recorded at Granitic sites when
surveyed via Stationary Point Counts, but higher Rabbitfish density at Carbonate sites
when surveyed via Belt Transects; the opposite was found for Groupers.

Mean overall density of fish counted on Stationary Point Count surveys was higher
(0.0475 m-2 ± 0.0132) than that on the Belt Transects (0.0379 m-2 ± 0.0128, Figure 2.4).
This result was consistent across all the major families/groups except Acanthuridae
which were recorded in higher density on the Belt Transects. Markedly more
Lutjanoids (Snappers, Emperors and Sweetlips), Rabbitfish and Grouper were
recorded on the Stationary Point Counts. The difference for Rabbitfish and Grouper
may be due to these fish tending to be shy, respectively swimming away or hiding from
divers, but being less intimidated by stationary divers than swimming divers.

The fish Belt Transects reported similar patterns in relative densities of the different
groups to the Stationary Point Counts, but some inconsistencies in order of dominance
(Fig. 2.4).

Figure 2.4 Mean overall density of fish recorded on Stationary Point Count surveys
versus Belt Transect surveys

2.6.3Diversity and density of fish at the sites within versus outside Marine
National Parks

Fish species diversity (number of species recorded) was slightly higher at sites within
the Marine National Parks, with a mean number of 39.4 species seen within the Parks
compared to 37.7 outside the Parks. Three sites within the Marine Parks had the
highest diversity overall, but 1 site within the Marine Parks had the lowest (Baie Ternay
North-West). Species diversity showed no clear pattern including in relation to
proximity to the Marine Parks (Figure 2.5).
Figure 2.5 Species diversity at the survey sites. Sites are arranged south to north which
gives an indication of the proximity of the sites to the Marine Parks

© GVI - 2010 Page 12

Surprisingly, only Butterflyfish and Grouper were recorded in higher densities at sites
within versus outside Marine Parks. This may reflect the fact that (at least artisanal
and recreational) fishing still occurs regularly within the Marine Parks sampled (Baie
Ternay and Port Launay). Fish traps are seen regularly by GVI divers on the seafloor
and being deployed by small local fishing boats in the Parks, as are people fishing with
hand-lines and rods from boats and from the shores (pers. comms., pers. obs.).
Rabbitfish, which are much sought-after by fishers, are often seen in large numbers in
these traps and Parrotfish are also vulnerable. Both Baie Ternay and especially Pt
Launay may be more attractive to fishers as they are easy and quick to get to by boat
plus look like good fishing grounds. Also Baie Ternay is quite hidden from view as it is
surrounded by steep-sided, inaccessible capes (Cap Matoopa and Cap Ternay) and
the shoreline is not publicly accessible thus fishers may feel they are unlikely to be
seen and reported for fishing here.

Therefore, the assumption that there is virtually no fishing in these Marine Parks thus
stocks of targeted species should be higher within the Parks may not be correct. Many
of the sites we survey outside the Parks are relatively remote thus take more time, fuel
and larger boats to access (plus many do not look like good fishing grounds), thus may
be less attractive to artisanal fishers.

Figure 2.6 Mean overall density of fish recorded at sites within versus outside the Baie
Ternay and Pt Launay Marine National Parks

Another reason for lower number of medium-sized fish like the Lutjaniods, Rabbitfish
and Parrotfish may be higher predatory pressure on these fish in the Parks due to
lower incidence of fishing of top predators especially sharks within the Marine Parks.

The Marine Parks are also not large; it is possible that they are enhancing fish numbers
in the vicinity but the Parks are not of sufficient size that fish reside within the Parks
permanently thus reflect this as higher fish densities within. Many of the survey sites
outside the Marine Parks are in close proximity to the Parks, thus there may be
cascade effects as fish move from the Parks to these areas. Baie Ternay does appear
to be home to many and varied juvenile fish (pers. obs.) thus is probably an important
spawning ground and source of recruits to the region.

A graphical investigation of fish diversity (number of species) versus hard coral

diversity and cover was done in order to reveal any correlations. Graphical
investigation of mean density of fish versus hard coral diversity and cover was also
done. The data used for these graphs were this phase’s Stationary Point Count fish
data, and the coral data from the most recent applicable coral monitoring phase (April –

© GVI - 2010 Page 13

June 2009 for all sites except Auberge Reef and Therese South as these sites were
not surveyed in April – June 2009; Oct – Dec 2008 data was used for these sites).
There may be a weak correlation between fish diversity (number of survey species
reported at the site) and hard coral cover, but no correlations were evident in the other
comparisons (Figure 2.7).

Figure 2.7 Comparison of fish diversity data and fish density data from this phase, with
hard coral diversity and percent hard coral cover data from the last coral monitoring
phase, at each site.

2.6.4Densities of the surveyed invertebrates

Mean density of the 3 most abundant surveyed reef indicator/influencing invertebrates

had changed little since last phase, except for an in short spine sea urchins
(Echinothrix diadema) at the Granitic sites (Fig. 2.8).

Short spine urchins had the highest overall density of all invertebrates surveyed.
Density of these urchins has been consistently higher at the Granitic sites; this phase
there was approximately twice as many at the Granitic sites (0.5067m2) than at the
Carbonate sites (0.2483m2). Long spine urchins (Diadema sp.) reported the next
highest overall abundance with similar densities at both the Carbonate and Granitic
sites.

Table 2.1 Mean density of algal grazer and coral predator invertebrates plus giant clams
recorded on the invertebrate Belt Transect surveys at the Carbonate and Granitic sites,
and the overall numbers and mean density recorded, Jan – March 2010.

© GVI - 2010 Page 14

 Density at Density at Mean overall
Total
Group Common name Carbonate Granitic density
number
sites (m-2) sites (m-2) (m-2)
Short Spine Urchin 0.2483 0.5067 2859 0.3851

Long Spine Urchin 0.0913 0.1116 611 0.1020

Pencil Urchin 0.0205 0.0029 95 0.0112

Sea
Urchins Flower Urchin 0.0008 0.0004 5 0.0006

Mathae’s Urchin 0.0005 0.0009 2 0.0007

Cake Urchin 0.0003 0.0002 2 0.0002

Other urchins 0.0008 0.0033 16 0.0021

Cushion sea star 0.0023 0.0056 31 0.0040

Sea
Stars Crown-of-thorns 0.0003 0.0002 2 0.0002

Other sea stars 0.0040 0.0118 53 0.0081

Drupella 0.0020 0.0011 12 0.0015

Molluscs
Giant Clams 0.0020 0.0022 17 0.0021

Figure 2.8 Mean density of the three most abundant reef invertebrates at the Carbonate
and Granitic sites, for the comparable survey periods between January 2009 and March
2010

2.6.5Sea cucumber, lobster and octopus density

Figure 2.9 Mean density of sea cucumbers for the survey periods from January – March
2009 to January – March 2010. * denotes commercially exploited species

Stichopus spp. were the most abundant sea cucumbers recorded on the Belt Transects
for the third phase in a row (Fig. 2.9). Mean densities of 3 commercially exploited
species, Thelenota ananas, Holothuria fuscopunctata and Actinopyga mauritiana, had
decreased since last phase.

Only 1 spiny rock lobster (Panulirus sp.) and 1 octopus were recorded on the
invertebrate Belt surveys. Twenty Panulirus sp., 1 slipper lobster and 10 octopus were
sighted incidentally (i.e. not including those counted on the invertebrate Belt surveys)
during dives.

© GVI - 2010 Page 15

2.7Discussion

This report presents the results of the fish and invertebrate surveys done by GVI -
Seychelles during the January – March 2010 survey period. Conclusions on the
causes of differences between just 1 three-month GVI phase to the next are not
possible. Therefore, this report seeks only to present the methodology and data from
the survey period, to explore some assumptions and potential influencing factors, and
to discuss possible directions for future study.

The true value of this data is in its contribution to the data set comprising data from the
same sites over the last 11 years. Comparison of the data over the years provides
insights into the trends and status of reef fish in the Seychelles inner islands and the
coral reefs on which they rely, and subsequently contributes to our knowledge of the
status of reef fish populations and coral reefs around the world.

2 Reported fish abundance

One of the great advantages of the comprehensive GVI expeditions in the Seychelles
is that we also collect data on coral and other epibiota cover plus coral diversity, and
coral recruitment data from the same sites that we survey for fish and grazing
invertebrates. In this report, a basic exploration for a correlation between coral
diversity and hard coral cover versus fish diversity and density was made, with no clear
relationships revealed. However, only data from 1 coral monitoring phase (the most
recent applicable one) and the fish data from this phase was compared; it would be
more robust to perform explorations and statistical tests for correlations with data from
many phases.

2.7.2Comparison between Point Counts and Belt Transects

Two 50*5 m Belt Transects gave a total area surveyed by this method of 500m 2 per
site. The 12 Stationary Point Counts with 7m radius gave a total area surveyed at each
site by this method of 1847m2. Therefore, Point Counts achieved greater area and
replication, thus should provide more reliable results with a lower standard error.
However, the effort required to achieve the Belt surveys is the same as is required to
complete 6 Point Counts, making Belts a more efficient method.

In line with the results, a study conducted by Engelhardt (2001) comparing Belt
Transects and Point Counts indicated that Belt Transects return higher densities of
surgeonfish (Acanthuridae) than Point Counts. However, Engelhardt also reported
higher densities of parrotfish on Belt Transects, which we did not. The reason for much
of the differences between Belt Transects and Point Counts remains unclear.

© GVI - 2010 Page 16

 2.7.3Future recommendations

The combination of the 2 fish survey methods worked well in our schedules and the
extra variety was popular with Expedition Members. Also, the findings from the 2
methods can vary, thus 1 method may reveal an important trend that the other may not.
Therefore, we recommend that that GVI Seychelles continue to conduct both
Stationary Point Counts and Belt Transects for fish.

Size estimation of commercial fish species should continue during both survey types,
but with improved training and testing of Expedition Members’ ability to precisely and
consistently estimate size underwater, e.g. as per method detailed in English et al.
(1997) Survey Manual for Tropical Marine Resources.

Engelhardt (2001) and the SNPA (pers. comms.) recommend that fusiliers
(Caesionidae) be removed from the survey list owing to the difficulty in obtaining
reliable recordings of their numbers. Fusiliers swim quickly through survey areas in
large aggregations thus are difficult to count accurately, and skew the data. In addition,
they are not particularly considered to be reef indicator species, or a group of concern
commercially.

If seen regularly, any additional grouper (Serranidae) may be monitored to species as

they are of particular commercial interest and their diversity appears to be increasing,
particularly within Baie Ternay Marine Reserve and off Curieuse (pers. obs.).

It may be better to combine the Emperor (Lethrinidae) species that are notoriously
difficult to tell apart from one another e.g. the red ear, pink ear and variegated, in order
to improve certainty of identification thus quality of the data. Expedition Members
expressed concern that these fish are difficult to tell apart thus the quality of the data
for these species is uncertain at the species level.

The feeding guilds that fish have been assigned to by GVI Seychelles needs to be
revised; some families were not assigned as per the reference quoted but instead were
combined with unlike groups, for example Sweetlips and Emperors (listed in Obura and
Grimsditch (2009) along with the closely related Snappers as Piscivores/Scavengers)
were listed as Invertivores and analysed combined with Puffer and Porcupinefish plus
Triggerfish and some Wrasses.

Unicornfish should be identified to species level, and each species assessed and
assigned to feeding guilds individually, as some species are algal grazers while others
are planktivores.

© GVI - 2010 Page 17

Prior to 2009, fish species surveyed included all of the wrasses (Labridae). This survey
list was reduced to just those in the Cheilinus genus in 2009. As there are at least 18
commonly-seen species of Labridae in this area, for future temporal comparisons of
fish data, the non-Cheilinus species data should be removed before comparing data
before and after the list change. As stated in the last fish monitoring phase’s report
(Sullivan 2009), there is a strong possibility that this change in target list is responsible
for the decline in invertivores recorded in that report. Changes made to other fish
species surveyed included the removal of angelfish in the genus Centropyge and
addition of the African whitespotted rabbitfish (Siganus sutor), which may also have to
be removed before any potentially-affected temporal comparisons if significant
numbers of them were reported.

Such changes and data manipulations mentioned above are very difficult with the data
in its current form (individual Microsoft Excel workbooks for each site). What is needed
for rigour and ease of data entry, checking, storage, explorations and analyses is a
proper (preferable Microsoft Access) database for at least the fish, coral and
invertebrate data.

2 Additional Ecosystem Monitoring

3.1Crown-of-thorns Starfish

Outbreaks of the coral predator Crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci) were

reported in the Seychelles from 1996 until 1998 when the reefs suffered mass
bleaching-induced coral mortality (Engelhardt 2004). Normal density levels are less
than 1 A. planci per hectare (Pratchett 2007); in these numbers A. planci may assist
coral diversity as it feeds on the faster-growing corals like Acropora and Pocillopora
which are its preferred prey items (Pratchett 2007) and early colonisers of degraded
reefs that can out-compete slower-growing corals (Veron 2000). In high numbers
however, competition for food drives the starfish to eat all species of corals, and reefs
can become severely degraded with coral cover reduced to as little as 1% (CRC Reef
2001). The causes of outbreaks are not well understood; it may be connected to
overfishing of A. planci predators, such as the giant triton shell which is popular with
shell collectors, or to natural fluctuations (CRC Reef 2001). The most influential factor
could be increased nutrient levels in the oceans (Engelhardt pers. comm.), from
agricultural, domestic or industrial sources.

A. planci were surveyed on the invertebrate abundance and diversity Belts, and
incidental sightings during other dives were also documented.

© GVI - 2010 Page 18

The number of A. planci reported this phase was lower than for the previous phase.
Only 2 A. planci were recorded on the invertebrate Belt Transect surveys, compared to
October – December 2009 when 6 were recorded. Thirteen A. planci were seen
incidentally during dives, a decrease from last phase when 21 were seen. Distribution
was fairly patchy; A. planci were seen at 6 of the 17 sights surveyed, with 5 individuals
seen within approximately 50m of one another at 1 site (Willy’s Bay Point, a Granitic
site).

3.2Sea Turtles

Five species of marine turtles are found around the Seychelles: the leatherback
(Dermochelys coriacea), loggerhead (Caretta caretta), olive ridley (Lepidochelys
olivacea), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), and green (Chelonia mydas) (IUCN
1996). The leatherback, loggerhead and olive ridley, although common in the western
Indian Ocean, are not known to nest in the Seychelles and are rarely seen. In contrast,
the hawksbill and green are resident in coastal waters of the Seychelles, nest on the
beaches, and are seen regularly. The sea turtle species found around the Seychelles
face a range of current threats including poaching, pollution, loss of nesting sites and
introduced predators, and are listed by IUCN as endangered or critically endangered.
The Seychelles is considered one of the most important sites for the critically
endangered hawksbill turtle and is one of few localities in the world where they nest
during daylight hours.

Expedition Members were trained to identify the turtle species via lectures and
PowerPoint presentations so that they could identify any turtles seen while diving.

3.2.1Incidental sightings of turtles

For every dive done by GVI, a record is kept on how many turtles were seen, including
if none were seen. From this, the frequency of ‘turtle sightings per dive’ can be
calculated which enables the numbers of turtle seen during the different phases to be
compared as in indication of trends in turtle numbers in the area. When a turtle is
seen, the species, estimated carapace length, tail length, any identifying features plus
depth and location were recorded as possible.

Out of the 98 dives completed this phase, 43 turtles were seen; 28 hawksbill, 11 green
and 4 unidentified. Thus, turtles were seen on 43.9% of dives.

Encouragingly, hawksbill sighting frequencies were substantially higher this phase

(28.6%), after a general marked decline since April – June 2007 (Figure 3.1).
Frequency of hawksbill sightings has been consistently higher than green turtles in all

© GVI - 2010 Page 19

phases. Green turtle sighting frequency showed a consistent upward trend throughout
the past year, with this phase having the highest frequency since July – September
2005.

Carapace length can be used as a guide to the stage of sexual maturity of sea turtles.
The approximate minimum carapace length of breeding-age female green and
hawksbill turtles is 105cm and 80cm respectively (Mrosovsky, 1983).

Figure 3.1 Frequency (%) of green and hawksbill turtles incidental sightings between
July 2005 and March 2010 during GVI diving surveys in bays and coastal waters of north-
western Mahé

While the apparent recovery in Hawksbill turtle numbers as evidenced by the higher
sighting frequencies over the past year is encouraging, there has been an apparent
gradual but consistent decrease in estimated carapace length since July 2005 (Figure
3.2). This indicates a less mature population, thus fewer turtles close to breeding age
which may have implications for the population in the future.

Figure 3.2 Mean estimated carapace length of Hawksbill Turtles sighted incidentally
during GVI dives from July 2005 to March 2010. Trend line indicates a gradual reduction
in carapace length over this time.

The largest hawksbill turtle (by estimated carapace length) sighted since 2005 was
120cm, and the smallest was 2 hatchlings of 5cm carapace length seen 5-10m off Baie
Ternay beach this phase; mean was 55.9cm (+/- SE of 1.28). The largest green turtle
that has been sighted was 100cm and the smallest was 30cm; mean was 59.6cm (+/-
SE of 6.36). Using size as the indicator of maturity, most turtles seen have been
sexually immature sub-adults (Figure 3.3). In support of this, no long tails (that extend
well beyond the end of the carapace which indicates that it is a sexually mature male)
were noted on any of the turtles this phase.

Figure 3.3 Number of incidental sightings of turtles during GVI dives since January 2005,
in 10cm-increment size classes.

© GVI - 2010 Page 20

3.3Cetacean sightings

Cetaceans are considered to be under threat in most parts of the world. In response to
this threat, a national database of cetacean sightings, the Seychelles Marine Mammal
Observatory (SMMO), has been set up. GVI records all incidental cetacean sightings
and passes this data to MCSS for inclusion in the national database. Data recorded
includes date, time, location, number of individuals, species, size, distinguishing
features, and behaviour.

There were only 2 sightings of cetaceans during this phase. A pod of 3 bottlenose
dolphins (Tursiops truncates) was seen at Lighthouse, and a pod of 8 unidentified
dolphins was seen at Site Y. The dolphins were seen from the boat; there were no
sightings of dolphins while diving.

3.4Whale shark sightings

The Seychelles are famous for whale shark sightings (Rhincodon typus). Despite the
high public profile of whale sharks, relatively little is known about the factors that
influence their marked seasonal fluctuations in abundance. A tagging programme, run
by the MCSS in 2001 – 2003 to study their migratory patterns, showed that the whale
sharks seen in the Seychelles are not resident, but range throughout the Indian Ocean.
It is possible that the sharks follow seasonal variations in the abundance of plankton on
which they feed.

All sightings of whale sharks by GVI are documented in as much detail as possible.
Photographs are taken whenever possible of the left and right side of the thorax as the
pattern of spots here is used by MCSS to identify individuals.

There were no whale sharks sighted during this phase which is not surprising as
sightings are uncommon at this time of year. Dr David Rowat from the MCSS visited
the GVI base at Cap Ternay to give a lecture to Expedition Members on whale sharks
that explained their research and the current state of knowledge, and also the
guidelines for behaviour during in-water encounters with whale sharks.

3.5Plankton sampling

Since 2003, MCSS has also run a plankton monitoring programme to enable
investigation of correlations between frequencies of whale shark sightings and plankton
density. GVI have been assisting the MCSS with collection of plankton since 2004 by
carrying out weekly plankton collection tows during phases. To collect plankton, a
plankton net is towed along 5 parallel Transects north-west of Grouper Point, just

© GVI - 2010 Page 21

 outside Baie Ternay Marine Park. In order to sample over a range of depths, the net
rope is let out 5m every 30 seconds, up to a rope length of 45m. Samples are passed
to the MCSS for measurement of wet weight and identification of species.
Environmental conditions are also noted (sea state, cloud cover and turbidity).

Plankton sampling tows were conducted on 7 occasions during this phase.

4Non-survey Programmes
4.1Community Development

4.1.1National Scholarship Programme

The National Scholarship Programme is funded by GVI Expedition Members’ payments

and aims to increase the Seychelles’ capacity to monitor and manage their marine
environment and resources. Recruits such as rangers, researchers and students are
selected by our local partner organisations and are brought into the programme as
Expedition Members.

There were no applicants for the National Scholarship Programme this phase.

4.1.2Community Education

The GVI Seychelles community education project collaborates with the International
School of the Seychelles (ISS) to teach children about the marine environment. To do
this, lessons and games are usually held twice per week with children from the ISS on
Port Launay beach, which is within 1 of the National Marine Parks on Mahé. The
children are taught about the value of the marine environment and organisms, and also
about threatening processes and conservation.

There were insufficient personnel due to the low Expedition Member numbers to
conduct lessons during this phase, but lessons will resume next phase.

© GVI - 2010 Page 22

5Literature cited
Aumeeruddy, R., Conand, C. 2008. Seychelles: a hotspot of sea cucumber fisheries in
Africa and the Indian Ocean region. In Toral-Granda, V., Lovatelli, A.,
Vasconcellos, M. (eds). Sea cucumbers. A global review of fisheries and trade.
FAO. Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 516. Rome, FAO. pp.
195–209.
CRC Reef 2001. Crown-of-thorns starfish on the Great Barrier Reef: Current state of
knowledge: April 2001. Coral Reef Research Centre James Cook University,
Townsville
Colvocoresses J., Acosta A. 2007. A large scale field comparison of strip Transect and
Stationary Point Count methods for conducting length-based underwater visual
surveys of reef fish populations. Fisheries Research 85, 130-141
Engelhardt U. 2001. Interim Report No. 1 (December 2001): Report on scientific field
studies and training activities conducted in June / July 2001. Seychelles Marine
Ecosystem Management Project. Reefcare International Pty Ltd, Townsville
Engelhardt U. 2004. The status of scleractinian coral and reef-associated fish
communities 6 years after the 1998 mass coral bleaching event. Seychelles
Marine Ecosystem Management Project. Global Environment
Facility/Government of Seychelles/World Wildlife Fund, Victoria
English, S., Wilkinson, C., Baker, V. 1997. Survey Manual for Tropical Marine
Resources 2nd Ed. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville.
Graham N. A. J., Wilson S. K., Jennings S., Polunin N. V. C., Robinson J., Bijoux J. P.,
Daw T. M. 2007. Lag Effects in the Impacts of Mass Coral Bleaching on Coral
Reef Fish, Fisheries, and Ecosystems. Conservation Biology 21(Issue 5), 1291-
1300
Graham, N.A.J., Dulvy, N.K., S Jennings, Polunin, N.V.C. 2005. Size-spectra as
indicators of the effects of fishing on coral reef fish assemblages. Coral Reefs
24, 118–124
Hill J., Wilkinson C. 2004. Methods for Ecological Monitoring of Coral Reefs: Version 1.
A Resource for Managers. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville.
IUCN 1996. A Marine Turtle Conservation Strategy and Action Plan for the Western
Indian Ocean. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources.
Jennings S., Boulle D. P., Polunin N. V. C. 1995. Habitat correlates of the distribution
and biomass of Seychelles reef fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 46, 15-
25
Kulbicki M. 1998. How the acquired behavior of commercial reef fishes may influence
the results obtained from visual censuses. Journal of Experimental Marine
Biology and Ecology 222, 11-30
Obura, D.O., Grimsditch, G. (2009). Resilience Assessment of coral reefs –
Assessment protocol for coral reefs, focusing on coral bleaching and thermal
stress. IUCN working group on Climate Change and Coral Reefs. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland.70 pages.
Pratchett M.S. 2007. Feeding preferences of Acanthaster planci (Echinodermata:
Asteroidea) under controlled conditions of food availability. Pacific Science 61
(Issue 1), 113-120

© GVI - 2010 Page 23

Samoilys M., Gribble N. 1997. Manual for Assessing Fish Stocks on Pacific Coral
Reefs. Queensland Training Series. Department of Primary Industries,
Brisbane.
Spalding M. D., Jarvis G. E. 2002. The impact of the 1998 coral mortality on reef fish
communities in the Seychelles. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44, 309-321
Spencer T., Telek K.A., Bradshaw C., Spalding M.D. 2000. Coral bleaching in the
Southern Seychelles During the 1997 – 1998 Indian Ocean Warm Event.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 40 (Issue 7), 569-586.
Sullivan L., 2009, Phase Report 003: July – September 2009. GVI Seychelles –
Mahé/Marine Conservation Expedition. Global Vision International, Victoria.
Veron J.E.N., 2000, Corals of the world. Australian Institute of Marine Science,
Townsville, p. 295.

© GVI - 2010 Page 24

 6 Appendices
Appendix A Details of sites surveyed by GVI Seychelles – Mahé, year round. Sites
shaded grey were not surveyed this phase. Sites in bold type are within Marine National
Parks.
Site Survey Granitic /
Site Name GPS
No. frequency Carbonate

1 Conception North Point S 04°39.583, E 055°21.654 Bi-annual Granitic

2 Conception Central East Face S 04°39.891, E 055° 22.258 Bi-annual Carbonate
4 Port Launay West Rocks S 04º39.416, E 055º23.382 Bi-annual Granitic
5 Port Launay South Reef S 04º39.158, E 055º23.695’ Bi-annual Carbonate
7 Baie Ternay Lighthouse S 04°38.373, E 055°21.993 Additional Granitic
8 Baie Ternay Reef NE S 04°38.013, E 055°22.405 Bi-annual Granitic
9 Baie Ternay Reef Centre S 04°38.321, E 055°22.504 Bi-annual Carbonate
10 Baie Ternay Reef NW S 04°38.382, E 055°22.133 Bi-annual Carbonate
11 Ray’s Point S 04°37.347, E 055°23.145 Additional Granitic
12A Willie’s Bay Reef S 04°37.650, E 055°22.889 Annual Carbonate
12B Willie’s Bay Point S 04°37.589, E 055°22.776 Bi-annual Granitic
13A Anse Major Reef S 04°37.546, E 055°23.121 Bi-annual Carbonate
13B Anse Major Point S 04°37.509, E 055°23.010 Additional Granitic
14 Whale Rock S 04°37.184, E 055°23.424 Bi-annual Granitic
15 Auberge Reef S 04°37.024, E 055°24.243 Annual Carbonate
16 Corsaire Reef S 04°37.016, E 055°24.447 Bi-annual Carbonate
17 White Villa Reef S 04º36.935, E 055º24.749 Bi-annual Carbonate
18 L’ilot North Face S 04°38.652, E 055°25.932 Annual Granitic
19 Site Y S 04°37.771, E 055°22.660 Bi-annual Granitic
20 Aquarium S 04°36.155, E 055°25.376 Additional Carbonate
21 Therese North End S 04°40.101, E 055°23.737 Bi-annual Granitic
22 Therese North East S 04°40.099, E 055°23.891 Bi-annual Carbonate
23 Therese South S 04°40.764, E 055°24.310 Annual Granitic
24 Site X S 04°37.059, E 055°23.783 Bi-annual Granitic

© GVI - 2010 Page 25

 Appendix B Fish families, genera and species surveyed by GVI Seychelles during the
January – March 2010 phase.

Family Scientific name Common name Relevance

(Engelhardt 2004)
Chaetodon vagabundus Vagabond Coral recovery
Chaetodon auriga Threadfin Coral recovery
Chaetodon trifascialis Chevroned Coral recovery
Chaetodon melannotus Black-backed Coral recovery
Chaetodon mertensii Merten's Coral recovery
Chaetodon triangulum Triangular Coral recovery
Chaetodon trifasciatus Indian Redfin Coral recovery
Indian Ocean
Chaetodon interruptus Coral recovery
teardrop
Butterflyfish Chaetodon bennetti Bennett's Coral recovery
(Chaetodontidae Chaetodon lunula Raccoon Coral recovery
)
Chaetodon kleinii Klein's Coral recovery
Chaetodon citrinellus Speckled Coral recovery
Chaetodon guttatisimus Spotted Coral recovery
Chaetodon lineolatus Lined Coral recovery
Chaetodon falcula Saddleback Coral recovery
Chaetodon meyersi Meyer's Coral recovery
Chaetodon xanthocephalus Yellow-headed Coral recovery
Chaetodon zanzibariensis Zanzibar Coral recovery
Forcipiger spp. Longnose sp. Coral recovery
Apolemichthys trimaculatus Three-spot Coral vs. other
Angelfish Pomacanthus imperator Emperor Coral vs. other
(Pomacanthidae
) Pomacanthus semicirculatus Semicircle Coral vs. other
Pygoplites diacanthus Regal Coral vs. other
Zanclidae Zanclus cornutus Moorish idol Coral vs. other
Acanthurus spp. Surgeonfish Algae vs. coral
Surgeonfish
Ctenochaetus spp. Bristletooths Algae vs. coral
(Acanthuridae)
Naso spp. Unicornfish Algae vs. coral
Siganus puelloides Blackeye Algae vs. coral
Siganus corallinus Coral Algae vs. coral
Rabbitfish
Siganus stellatus Honeycomb Algae vs. coral
(Siganidae)
Siganus argenteus Forktail Algae vs. coral
Siganus sutor African whitespotted Algae vs. coral
Lutjanus gibbus Paddletail Fishing pressure
Lutjanus sebae Red emperor Fishing pressure
Lutjanus fulviflamma Longspot Fishing pressure
Lutjanus kasmira Blue-lined Fishing pressure
Lutjanus bengalensis Bengal Fishing pressure
Lutjanus monostigma Onespot Fishing pressure
Snappers
Lutjanus vitta Brownstripe Fishing pressure
(Lutjanidae)
Lutjanus fulvus Flametail Fishing pressure
Lutjanus argentimaculatus Mangrove jack Fishing pressure
Lutjanus bohar Red Fishing pressure
Lutjanus russelli Russell's Fishing pressure
Macolor niger Black Fishing pressure
Aprion virescens Green jobfish Fishing pressure
Triggerfish Balistoides viridescens Titan Urchins & COTs
(Balistidae) Sufflamen chrysopterus Flagtail Urchins & COTs

© GVI - 2010 Page 26

 Balistidae Other triggerfish Urchins & COTs
Monotaxis / Gymnocranius
Bream Urchins & COTs
spp.
Lethrinus olivaceous Longnosed Urchins & COTs
Lethrinus nebulosus Blue-scaled Urchins & COTs
Lethrinus rubrioperculatus Redear Urchins & COTs
Emperors Lethrinus xanthochilus Yellowlip Urchins & COTs
(Lethrinidae) Lethrinus harak Thumbprint Urchins & COTs
Lethrinus lentjan Pinkear Urchins & COTs
Lethrinus obsoletus Orange-striped Urchins & COTs
Lethrinus erythracanthus Yellowfin Urchins & COTs
Lethrinus mahsena Mahsena Urchins & COTs
Lethrinus variegatus Variegated Urchins & COTs
Anyperodon leucogrammicus Slender Fishing pressure
Cephalopholis argus Peacock Fishing pressure
Cephalopholis urodeta Flagtail Fishing pressure
Cephalopholis miniata Coral Hind Fishing pressure
Cephalopholis sonnerati Tomato Fishing pressure
Epinephelus merra Honeycomb Fishing pressure
Epinephelus spilotoceps Foursaddle Fishing pressure
Groupers Epinephelus polyphekadion Camouflage Fishing pressure
(Serranidae) Epinephelus caeruleopunctatus Whitespotted Fishing pressure
Epinephelus fuscoguttatus Brown-marbled Fishing pressure
Epinephelus tukula Potato Fishing pressure
Epinephelus fasciatus Blacktip Fishing pressure
Aethaloperca rogaa Redmouth Fishing pressure
Variola louti Yellow-edged lyretail Fishing pressure
Plectropomus laevis Saddleback Fishing pressure
Plectropomus punctatus African coral cod Fishing pressure
Serranidae Other groupers Fishing pressure
Plectorhinchus orientalis Oriental Urchins & COTs
Sweetlips
Plectorhinchus picus Spotted Urchins & COTs
(Haemulidae)
Plectorhinchus gibbosus Gibbus Urchins & COTs
Plectorhinchus spp. Other sweetlips Urchins & COTs
Parrotfish Bolbometopon muricatum Bumphead parrotfish Coral damage
(Scaridae) Scaridae Other parrotfish Algae vs. coral
Cheilinus trilobatus Tripletail Urchins & COTs
Cheilinus fasciatus Redbreasted Urchins & COTs
Wrasses
(Labridae) Cheeklined
Oxycheilinus digrammus Urchins & COTs
splendour
Cheilinus undulatus Humphead Urchins & COTs
Caesionidae Caesionidae Fusiliers Upwelling areas
Tetraodontidae Arthothron spp. Puffers Urchins & COTs
Diodontidae Diodon spp. Porcupinefish Urchins & COTs
Myripristis/Plectrypops spp. Soldierfish Habitat, upwelling
Holocentridae
Neoniphon/Sargocentron spp. Squirrelfish Habitat, upwelling

© GVI - 2010 Page 27

Appendix C Invertebrates surveyed by GVI Seychelles during the January - March
2010 phase

Group Scientific name Common Name Relevance

Gastropod
Molluscs Drupella spp. Drupella Coral predator
(Gastropoda)
Bivalve Molluscs
Tridacnidae Giant Clam Drupella
(Bivalvia)
Culcita spp. Cushion Sea Star Coral predator
Sea Stars Crown-of-thorns Sea Coral predator
Acanthaster planci
(Asteroidea) Star
Other Sea Stars
Diadema sp. Long Spine Urchin Algal control
Echinometra spp. Mathae’s Urchin Algal control
Sea Urchins Echinothrix spp. Short Spine Urchin Algal control
(Echinoidea) Pencil Urchin Algal control
Toxopneustes pileolus Flower Urchin Algal control
Cake Urchin Algal control
Other urchins Algal control
Fishing
Holothuria atra Lollyfish
pressure
Fishing
Holothuria fuscopunctata Elephant Trunk
pressure
Fishing
Holothuria fuscogilva White teatfish
pressure
Fishing
Holothuria nobilis Black teatfish
pressure
Holothuria (undescribed Fishing
Pentard
sp.) pressure
Fishing
Bohadschia spp. Bohadschia
Sea Cucumbers pressure
(Holothuroidea) Fishing
Actinopyga spp. Actinopyga
pressure
Fishing
Actinopyga mauritiana Yellow Surfish
pressure
Fishing
Stichopus spp. Stichopus
pressure
Fishing
Thelenota ananas Prickly Redfish
pressure
Fishing
Pearsonothurian graeffei Flowerfish
pressure
Fishing
Thelenota anax Royal
pressure
Cephalopod
Molluscs Fishing
Octopus cyanea Common Reef Octopus
pressure
(Cephalopoda)

© GVI - 2010 Page 28

 Fishing
Panulirus spp. Spiny Lobster
Lobsters pressure
(Palinuridae) Parribacus sp./Scyllarides Fishing
Slipper Lobster
sp. pressure

© GVI - 2010 Page 29