REPORT
CORAL REEF BIODIVERSITY COMMUNITY-BASED ASSESSMENT AND CONSERVATION
PLANNING IN THE MARSHALL ISLANDS: BASELINE SURVEYS, CAPACITY BUILDING
AND NATURAL PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF CORAL REEFS OF THE ATOLL OF
RONGELAP.
Silvia Pinca, Maria Beger, Editors
Authors:
Silvia Pinca – Ecological Section, Management Recommendations
Maria Beger – Fish Diversity, Management Recommendations
Eric Peterson – Management Recommendations
Zoe Richards – Coral Diversity
Emma Reeves – Management Recommendations
NRAS 1 TEAM AND CMI2
1
NATURAL RESOURCES AS SESSMENT SURVEYS (NRAS) TEAM:
Silvia Pinca PhD, Project Leader, milviapin@yahoo.com
Maria Beger, Project Co-Leader, mbeger@zen.uq.edu.au
Daniel Barshis, danbarshis@yahoo.com
Benjiamin Dominici, bendomo@hotmail.com
Robert Fournier, thewildlensman@aol.com
Sacha Jellinek, sacha_jellinek@hotmail.com
Ingolf Kuehrt, Ingolf.Kuehrt@agadobe.de
Craig Masburger, musburge@hawaii.edu
Berry Muller, sped_07@yahoo.com
Anna Mc Murray, annahayes99@hotmail.com
Eric Peterson, e.peterson@uq.edu.au
Emma Reeves, reevesemma@yahoo.com
Zoe Richards, zoer@mtq.qld.gov.au
Melba White, babbubz@yahoo.com
2
COLLEGE OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS
Marine Science Program
P.O. Box 1258
Majuro, MH 96960
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
2
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
3
Abstract
The project was undertaken to assess the reef health, status, fisheries potential, conservation value
and biodiversity of two atolls in the Marshall Islands: Rongelap and Bikini. The data produced
represent a first comprehensive reference of reef status at national and international level and are
used to recommend national marine conservation plans for Rongelap and Bikini. This report
focuses on Rongelap Atoll. There is much interest from the local Government for the management
of marine resources and the plans to re-inhabit the islands are imminent. The work carried out on
the expedition in Rongelap was for the Rongelap Atoll Local Government (RALGov) to assess
their marine resources, on which to base new eco-tourism and sport diving and fishing ventures.
The project was also successful in training local people to practices of reef assessment and
monitoring techniques for establishing marine protected areas (MPAs). The trained people have the
skills, knowledge and interest necessary to continue this work in the future. The project is also
promoting reef conservation among the population through newspaper and journal articles and
presentations.
During this project, a multidisciplinary team of scientists and trained volunteers carried out surveys
on the coral reef ecosystem. The surveys included several levels of detail, ranging from species
level biodiversity surveys to volunteer-based reef status surveys. The team assessed for each site
(a) the species diversity for fishes and corals, (b) quantitative ecological information including
abundance and biomass of fishes, coral cover and substratum, and algae cover and diversity, and
(c) community-level reef status information collected by the Reef Check method. In addition, the
team set up and conducted a detailed survey of two permanent transects for future monitoring.
The project team surveyed 12 sites around Rongelap Island from shore and a further 2 sites on
other islands west of Rongelap Island. The results show that this area could be divided into 5
biogeographical zones, encompassing lagoon sites, outer reef sites and passes. The outer reef zone
showed the highest coral cover and species richness. A high proportion of food fishes was also
found in these zones, although a different suite of fish species was abundant and large inside the
lagoon. High fish biomass, high percentages of coral cover and a total species number of 361
fishes and 170 corals indicated that the reefs around Rongelap Island are outstandingly pristine and
healthy. Considering the small size of the area surveyed, it is exemplary that the reef supported
more than two thirds of all fishes known from the Marshall Islands.
This report gives recommendations and scientific background to support the establishment of new
MPAs and community-based management practices. Once these MPAs are approved, they will
represent the first example of coral reef conservation in the RMI. This work has also been the first
example of collaborative monitoring between the government, individuals and local NGOs and
represented the first effort towards the participation into a regional network of research, monitoring
and management of reefs and their resources.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
4
Acknowledgements
There are different agencies and people that we wish to thank for permitting this work to be
accomplished. Without their help and support this research could not have been possible:
Mayor James Matayoshi, for having asked CMI and their associated people for technical help for
this research and for having demonstrated faith in our work and supporting us with housing,
transportation, fuel, tanks and a fantastic team of local supporters.
Senator Abbacca Maddison to be so supportive on Rongelap and to faciliate our introduction ot the
community.
John Fysh for helping with the painstaking work of organizing trips and accommodation for 14
scientists during the period of relocation celebration.
Kenneth Kramer from Pacific International Incorporation for lending us the use of his boat for a
day.
Alice Leeney for helping preparing field equipment and supervising the shipment of our gear to the
remote island of Rongelap.
Dr. Carden Wallace at the Museum of North Queensland for her help with identification of
Acroproa corals.
Dr. Douglas Fenner at the Australian Institute of Marine Science for the help in coral identification.
Dr. John Randall for help in fish identfication.
Adella Edwards, cartographer at the James Cook University, for her assistance in preparing maps.
This work could not have been possible without the financial support of grant agencies and local
organizations:
Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority, Rongelap Atoll Local Government (RALGov),
Marshall Energy Company, Marine Resources Pacific Consortium, US-Department of Interior,
Whitley Institute, Reef Check.
Photo by Robert Fournier
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
5
Table of Contents
Figures____________________________________________________________________9
Tables____________________________________________________________________
10
Photographs_______________________________________________________________
11
1.Introduction___________________________________________________________ 12
1.1 Marine resources and management_____________________________________ 12
1. 2 Background______________________________________________________ 15
2.Methods_______________________________________________________________17
2.1 Site selection______________________________________________________ 18
2.2.Training__________________________________________________________ 18
2.3 Transect Surveys___________________________________________________ 19
2.3.1
Fish data___________________________________________________ 20
2.3.2 Invertebrate data collection_______________________________________21
2.3.3
Benthic Line Intercept Transect (LIT)_____________________________22
2.3.4
Seaweed data collection________________________________________22
2.4 Biodiveristy
2.4.1 Fish Diversity_________________________________________________ 23
2.4.2 Coral Diversity________________________________________________ 23
2.5 Physical information and profiles_____________________________________ 25
2.6 Permanent transects________________________________________________25
2.7 Photographic documentation_________________________________________25
2.8 Summary of methods_______________________________________________26
3. Results_______________________________________________________________ 26
3.1 Summary of achievements____________________________________________27
3.2 Ecological data_____________________________________________________29
3.2.1
Substrate____________________________________________________29
3.2.1.1 Depth___________________________________________________ 29
3.2.1.2 Lagoon vs Ocean _________________________________________ 30
3.2.1.3 Geographical locations_____________________________________ 31
3.2.2
Coral target species___________________________________________ 33
3.2.2.1
Depth__________________________________________________ 33
3.2.2.2
Ocean vs lagoon__________________________________________34
3.2.2.3
Geographical zones______________________________________ 36
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
6
3.2.3 Fishes_______________________________________________________ 38
3.2.2.4 Depth____________________________________________________ 39
3.2.2.5 Ocean vs lagoon___________________________________________40
3.2.2.6 Geographical zones________________________________________ 39
3.2.4
Seaweeds___________________________________________________ 43
3.2.4.1 Depth____________________________________________________45
3.2.4.2 Ocean vs Lagoon___________________________________________46
3.2.4.3 Geographical zones_______________________________________
46
3.3 Diversity data______________________________________________________47
3.3.1
Fish diversity________________________________________________ 47
3.3.1.1 Community structure of fishes________________________________49
3.3.1.2 Endemism and Rarity_______________________________________ 50
3.3.1.3 Coral Fish Diversity Index (CFDI)____________________________ 52
3.3.1.4 Marine reserves: Facilitating reef biodiversity conservation_________53
3.3.2 Coral diversity________________________________________________ 54
3.3.2.1 Coral Diversity____________________________________________55
3.3.2.2 Coral community structure___________________________________57
3.3.2.3 Endemism and Rarity_______________________________________ 58
3.3.2.4 Coral Biodiversity Conservation_______________________________61
3.4 Permanent transects_________________________________________________ 62
4. Result summary and discussion______________________________________________65
5. Site Descriptions_________________________________________________________ 71
R1: Jaboan on SW tip of Rongelap Island___________________________________72
R2: _________________________________________________________________74
R3: _________________________________________________________________76
R4: _________________________________________________________________78
R5__________________________________________________________________80
R6__________________________________________________________________82
R7__________________________________________________________________84
R8__________________________________________________________________86
R9__________________________________________________________________87
R10_________________________________________________________________89
R11_________________________________________________________________91
R12_________________________________________________________________93
R13_________________________________________________________________94
R14_________________________________________________________________96
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
7
6. Recommendations________________________________________________________ 98
6.1 Fisheries__________________________________________________________ 98
6.2 Waste management__________________________________________________99
6.3 Tourism___________________________________________________________99
6.4 Aquaculture_______________________________________________________ 99
6.5 Energy
100
use________________________________________________________
6.7
Marine
areas_______________________________________________101
6.6.1
Why
establishing
site?________________________101
a
marine
protected
conservation
6.6.2 Marine Reserve at Rongelap island_______________________________ 101
6.6.2.1 Selecting a location_________________________________________101
6.6.2.2 Size of the proposed sanctuary________________________________102
6.6.2.3 Guidelines for the establishment of the sanctuary and its management
plan___________________________________________________________104
6.6.3 Community-based management planning___________________________106
6.6.3.1 Requirements for Community-Based Management________________106
6.6.3.2 Job opportunities__________________________________________ 107
Literature cited________________________________________________________________109
Appendices
Appendix 1 Sustratum, coral life fornms and coral target species ________________________ 115
Appendix 2 Target fishes _______________________________________________________ 118
Appendix 3 Target invertebrates__________________________________________________ 120
Appendix 4 Algae species and genera _____________________________________________ 121
Appendix 5 Presence and abundance of coral reef fishes at Rongelap atoll, by M. Beger _____ 122
Appendix 6 Presence and abundance of corals at Rongelap atoll, by Z. Richards ____________ 131
Appendix 7 Checklist of coral species at Rongelap atoll, by Z. Richards __________________ 135
Appendix 8 Special features of coral species at Rongelap atoll, by Z. Richards _____________ 139
Appendix 9 Habitat categories ___________________________________________________ 141
Appendix 10 Participants _______________________________________________________ 142
Appendix 11 Grants and In-kinds _________________________________________________ 150
Appendix 12 Schedule of field activities ___________________________________________ 151
Appendix 13 Reef Check results__________________________________________________ 153
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
8
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
9
Figures
Figure 1. Map of the Republic of the Marshall Islands (Micronesia, 2002)._________________ 12
Figure 2. Aerial photograph of Rongelap atoll. _______________________________________ 15
Figure 3. Layout of three transects at each survey site (Transect 1, 2, and 3 are T1, T2, and T3). 20
Figure 4. Patterns of swimming and observation radius for (a) large fishes and (b) small fishes. _ 21
Figure 5. Patterns of swimming and observation radius for target invertebrates. _____________ 22
Figure 6. Map of Rongelap atoll (after Spennemann, 1998) and detail of survey sites in southern
Rongelap. ________________________________________________________________ 28
Figure 7. Differences among the three depth layers for Acropora and non scleractinia corals.___ 29
Figure 8. Differences in substrate coverage between ocean and lagoon sites. Arrows indicate
significant results (p < 0.05). _________________________________________________ 30
Figure 9. Map of the pre-selected bio-regions, chosen as function of the sites exposure and
topography. _______________________________________________________________ 31
Figure 10. Relative percentage of substrate coverage among 5 bio-geographical zones. _______ 32
Figure 11. Depth preference in Acropora palifera/cuneata (Cricketbat coral). _______________ 33
Figure 12. Differences of coverage between ocean and lagoon sites for selected species. ______ 35
Figure 13.Difference of distribution of 10 selected coral species/genera among five biogeographical zones. _________________________________________________________ 36
Figure 14. Composition of each geographic zone by the selected coral species. ______________ 37
Figure 15. Relative abundance of the all fish including cardinalfish and damselfish, clumping
together the rest of the families. This graph shows the high predominance of these two
families in terms of numbers. _________________________________________________ 39
Figure 16. Relative abundance of the most important fish families in percent. ______________ 39
Figure 17. Distribution of total fish biomass at the three layers (p K-W = .0009). _____________ 40
Figure 18. Distribution of total abundance in lagoon and ocean sites for the most abundant families.
Numbers are average values. _________________________________________________ 41
Figure 19. Average abundance distribution of fish families among the five zones.____________ 42
Figure 20. Seaweed cover (in %) at all sites, missing values for sites R6 and R9. Lines connect
three transects in each site. R6 and R9 miss data from one transect. ___________________ 43
Figure 21. Variation of seaweeds coverage among the three depths, in % coverage. __________ 45
Figure 22. Statistical characteristics of algae coverage in lagoon and ocean sites, (a) mean algae
coverage and probability value associated to t-test (P), (b) difference in algae coverage. ___ 46
Figure 23. Difference of algae coverage among the five bio-geographic zones. ______________ 47
Figure 24. Species-area accumulation curve for fishes of Rongelap atoll for 14 sites, data from
single dives only. ___________________________________________________________ 48
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
10
Figure 25. Fish species richness at sites on Rongelap Rongelap and southern islands (inset, for
exact location compare Figure 6), numbers in colored squared represent total fish species
richness on a color scale (red – richest, blue – poorest sites). ________________________ 49
Figure 26. Dendrogram of Bray-Curtis similarity illustrating distinct fish communities for lagoon
and outer reefs. ____________________________________________________________ 50
Figure 27. Richness of rare
The map shows how
squared represent rare
sites)______________
fish species with the threshold of T=2 at 14 sites on Rongelap Atoll.
many rare fishes were reported from each site, numbers in colored
fish species richness on a color scale (red – richest, blue – poorest
______________________________________________________ 52
Figure 28. Priority sites for the conservation of fish species richness ______________________ 54
Figure 29. Species-area accumulation curve for corals of Rongelap atoll for 14 sites._________ 56
Figure 30. Coral species richness at sites on Rongelap Rongelap island and southern islands.___ 56
Figure 31. Dendogram of Bray-Curtis similarity showing distinct coral communities for lagoon
(R3, R8, R6, R11) and oceanic wall reefs (R7, R9, R10, R12, R13, R14; R1 = Jaboan Pass). 57
Figure 32. Species diversity (gray) overlaid with percent cover (black), showing a correlation
between diversity and percent coral cover at most sites in Rongelap Island. _____________ 58
Figure 33. Plot of species richness (gray) versus rarity (black) at Rongelap atoll, showing the
number of rare species (relative abundance) was related to overall diversity. ____________ 59
Figure 34. Priority sites for the conservation of coral species richness. _____________________ 62
Figure 35: Profiles of bottom topography at three neighboring locations at site R10. __________ 63
Figure 36: Percentage coverage of the three profiles at site R10.__________________________ 64
Figure 37: Profiles of bottom topography at three neighboring locations at site R1. ___________ 65
Figure 38: Percentage coverage of the three profiles at site R1.___________________________ 66
Figure 39. Core zone and buffer zone of sanctuary at Jaboan. 105
Figure 40. Jaboan point as a marine sanctuary._______________________________________105
Figure 41. Steps to MPA establishment on Rongelap Island.____________________________ on
page 107
Tables
Table 1. RMI legal instruments relevant to the marine environment, stating their outcome and
objectives. ________________________________________________________________ 13
Table 2. Semi-qua ntitative abundance rating for coral reef fishes. ________________________ 23
Table 3. A summary of all survey methodologies applied during NRAS. Levels refer to biological
detail as follows: A-species level identification, B-ecological/monitoring data, and Ccommunity- level data._______________________________________________________ 26
Table 4. Surveys accomplished at 14 survey sites at the southern Rongelap Atoll ____________ 27
Table 5. GPS co-ordinates of survey sites on Rongelap atoll. ____________________________ 28
Table 6. Matrix of ecological analysis to facilitate quick referencing.______________________ 29
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
11
Table 7. Difference of substrate coverage between ocean (O) and lagoon (L) sites. P is the
probability value associated with the statistical test (t-test). Categories with significant results
are marked in bold. _________________________________________________________ 30
Table 8. Sites grouped by bio-geographical zone. L = lagoon, O = ocean, J= Jaboan. _________ 31
Table 9. Summary of differences of substrate coverage among substrata in five biogeographical
locations. Values of p for each independent test are given. (L = lagoon; O = Ocean). Bold
characters indicate statistically significant results (p<0.05). _________________________ 32
Table 10. Selected target coral species and genera for comparisons of coverage, based on
abundance (highest record at one site > 10 %) and recurrence (present at least at 5 sites). Bold
corals had presence > 15 and total abundance > 5%, used in the regional differences
analysis.__________________________________________________________________ 34
Table 11. Difference of abundance between lagoon and the ocean sites, analyzed by t- tests for the
17 most recurrent species and genera. __________________________________________ 35
Table 12. Difference of selected coral target species/genera among the zones. (PK-W = probability
value, P< 0.05 = significant). _________________________________________________ 36
Table 13. Fish families that are most abundant (> 100). In bold the ones with strong ecological
significance or commercial value. _____________________________________________ 38
Table 14. Abundance of fish families showing difference of distribution between lagoon and ocean
sites._____________________________________________________________________40
Table 15. Distribution of fishes among five zones, PKW<0.05 = significant. _______________ 41
Table 16. Frequency of seaweeds in quadrats at all sites. In bold are algae present at more than 10
sites._____________________________________________________________________ 45
Table 17. Values of mean and standard deviation for total coverage of seaweeds in percent (StDev=
standard deviation, PKW = probability value associated with the Kruskal-Wallis test of
differences among groups average values). P = 0.0002._____________________________ 46
Table 18. Number of species from six target fish families at Rongelap atoll ________________ 53
Table 19. Genera with the greatest number of species. _________________________________ 55
Table 20. Major findings of the NRAS 2002 project on Rongelap Atoll. ___________________ 67
Table 21. Factors to be considered when creating a MPA at Jaboan Point.__________________104
Photographs
Photograph 1. Wooden fish prepared for a test on fish size estimation underwater. ___________ 19
Photograph 2: Example of a pin on permanent transect PT1._____________________________ 25
Photograph 3. Algae assemblage with a high diversity of coralline algae and fleshy algae. _____ 44
Photograph 4. Halimeda (a) on sand, and (b) in overhang on reef wall. ____________________ 44
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
12
1. Introduction
The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI, 168 00 E, 9 00 N) encompasses 29 atolls and 5 islands
(Figure 1). The atolls of the RMI encompass over 1,200 low coral limestone and sand islands, with
the highest point of approximately 10 m above sea level (CIA, 2001). RMI comprises more than
one-tenth of the world’s atolls (Micronesia, 2002) and ranks eleventh globally regarding coral reef
area (Spalding et al., 2001). With the exception of the two north-western atolls, Enewetak and
Ujelang, the Marshall Islands are arranged in two island chains running roughly NNW to SSE: the
western Ralik Chain and the eastern Ratak Chain. Both the atoll of Rongelap and the atoll of Bikini
are in the Ralik chain.
Figure 1. Map of the Republic of the Marshall Islands (Micronesia, 2002).
The RMI has an unusual history due to the nuclear weapons testing by the USA. The tests were
conducted for sixty-seven nuclear bombs between the years of 1947 and 1962 on the atolls of
Bikini and Enewetok, with many more atolls affected (CIA, 2001, Niedenthal 2001, Micronesia,
2002).
1.1
Marine resources and management
The RMI is a country with very diverse and unique natural resources (Fosberg, 1990) which are
very nearly totally marine (RMIBiodiversityProject, 2000), The Marshall Islands have an ancient
tradition of sustainable use of marine resources controlled by social rules (Weissler, 2001). The
natural environment has been well tendered with these customary practices. However, these values
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
13
have been lost to modern life styles acquired through the presence of western immigrants and,
more recently, investors from Western and Asian countries. As a consequence, the natural
resources are being depleted and degraded (Weissler, 2001). Sedimentation, pollution from big oil
stocking tankers and foreign fishing vessels, dredging, and overexploitation of the marine
biological resources for the live fish industry and corals for aquarium trade, and extraction for local
use (clams and turtles) are a list of many threats to coral reefs and the coastal environment.
Problems of over-fishing are becoming increasingly evident to fishermen in the outer islands, as in
Likiep and Jaluit (SP, pers. comm.). Moreover, population numbers are increasing rapidly (1.5 %
annual rate of increase), amplifying the threats to reefs with waste and sewage disposal. The
fisheries management has changed dramatically over the years. In the past it was managed by
traditional means, directed by chiefs in the form of ‘Mo’ areas. ‘Mo’s’ or taboo areas were set
apart as reserves for harvesting food, while conserving a food resource, as a way of living in
harmony with the environment (RMIBiodiversityProject, 2000). This tradition has been lost but
recently local people started asking the support of the national agencies – such as the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Marshall Islands Marine Resource Authority – in order
to regulate harvesting of resources in their atolls through re-introduction of the traditional fishing
restriction zones. The Marshallese people believe the reactivation of a ‘mo’ would ensure natural
resources not to be depleted while at the same time would create a necessary sanctuary to safe
guard areas for future generations (RMIBiodiversityProject, 2000).
Also, at a central government level there is increasing interest in sustainable use and restoration of
depleted resources. A “Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan” was issued in 2000 by the Marshall
Islands to plan for the conservation of RMI biodiversity and for the sustainable use of its biological
resources through (a) activation of conservation sites, (b) education and capacity building for local
people to gain the knowledge and skills for conservation of the natural resources; and (c) research
to gain a better understanding of the marine ecosystems. Similarly, the recently issued document
“Strategic Development Plan, Vision 2018” (RMI, 2001) is based on the recommendations made
by the Second National Economic and Social Summit held in March and April of 2001, and states a
strong need for natural — especially marine — conservation clearly. The document specifically
indicates the need to establish marine reserves to enhance (a) fisheries, (b) tourism, and (c) local
awareness. RMI is also party to the international environmental agreements on Biodiversity,
Climate Change, Desertification, Law of the Sea, Ozone layer protection and Ship pollution and
has also signed but not yet ratified to Climate Change-Kyoto Protocol (CIA, 2001). As part of the
RMI’s obligations to the international environmental agreements, Acts have been drawn up to
govern the law. Some of these Acts are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. RMI legal instruments relevant to the marine environment, stating their outcome and objectives.
Act
National Environmental
Protection Act, 1984
Outcome
Established the RMI
Environment Protection
Authority (EPA) as an
independent statutory
authority.
Coast Conservation Act, 1988
Calls for planning, monitoring
and controlling the
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
Objectives
-regulating individual and
communal activities to ensure
maintenance of safe, healthy and
aesthetically pleasing surroundings.
-prevent env. Degradation.
-monitoring of human impacts on
natural resources.
-preserving historical, cultural and
natural aspects of the nation’s
heritage.
-survey the resources and uses of
the coastal zone.
14
development of the coastal
zone.
The Act also directs RMI EPA
and provides for the
establishment of an EIA
program
-prepare a coastal zone
management plan to regulate and
control development activities in
the CZ.
-develop and implement plans for
coastal resource conservation.
Marshall Islands Marine
Resource Authority Act
(MIMRA), 1988
Established MIMRA to
coordinate and regulate the
exploration, exploitation and
management of biological and
physical resources.
Marine Resources (Trochus)
Act, 1983
Regulates the harvesting of
Trochus.
Marine Resource Act, TTPI
Code
Originates from preceding
Trust Territory Code.
-prohibiting destructive fishing
techniques such as the use of
dynamite or chemicals.
-define standards for fishing
equipment.
-prohibits foreign fishing vessels
from fishing within the EEZ
without appropriate licensing
- establish a licensing and
permitting system and define a
harvest season.
-prohibits the killing of turtles on
land and the collection of eggs
-sets minimum ocean-capture size
limits and establishes seasonal
capture quotas.
-limits for the harvesting of
cultivated sponges and black-lip
pearl oysters.
-prohibits harvesting, possessing,
selling or exporting any threatened
or endangered plant or animal sp.
Endangered Species Act, TTPI Protects certain Sp. Deemed to
Code, 1975
be endangered. The
endangered sp. List of the
Trust Territory was adopted.
Marshall Islands Marine
Long-term conservation and
Resource Authority Act
sustainable use of fishery
(MIMRA), 1997
resources
Fisheries conservation,
management and development.
Source: (adapted and summarized from Crawford, 1993).
Highlighted in the table is the MIMRA Act of 1997; it is under this Act MIMRA is enabled to take
measures for the management of fish in the fishery waters based on the precautionary principle.
The 1997 Act enables MIMRA to have open and closed fishing seasons, restrictions on fish size
and equipment used. MIMRA can protect nesting and breeding areas, while most importantly they
can declare any specified area as a protected area and establish reserve areas. The authority can
take measures for management and development of fisheries within the internal waters and inside 5
miles of the baseline from which the territorial sea of any atoll is measured. A local government
council may take measures for the management and development of local fisheries to the same
limits in accordance with the MIMRA Act, 1997, including the establishment of marine protected
areas with approval from the authority. The local government of Rongelap Atoll (RALGov) is
empowered by the MIMRA 1997 Act to establish marine protected areas (MPAs). The
establishment of MPAs is therefore a local government objective and a national government
priority.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
15
1. 2 Background
The target locations for the study were the two atolls of Rongelap and Bikini, located in the far
North of the western Ralik Chain. Rongelap Atoll, 125 miles south-east of Bikini, has been uninhabited for 5 decades. The population has been forced to abandon their island following the
explosion of the H-bomb ‘Bravo’ whose fall-out hit Rongelap in 1954 (Micronesia, 2002). An
unexpected change in wind direction at the time of the blast left Rongelap in the path of deadly
clouds of radioactive ash. The US claimed that Rongelap was safe and took no responsibility for
any relocation of the people from the atoll at the time. It was later proven by a US Congressional
Committee that there had been warnings of a change in wind direction the day before the test, and
also warnings that if the testing went ahead Rongelap would be affected. The US eventually had to
accept responsibility and in 1995 the US established a trust fund for the Rongelapese people. Part
of this US established trust fund is being spent on infrastructure on the islands of Rongelap Atoll as
a precursor to re-inhabitation.
Figure 2. Aerial photograph of Rongelap atoll.
Since 1954 the inhabitants have been moving in exile from atoll to atoll in search of a temporary
home. The people of Rongelap were moved to Mejatto, an island on Kwajalein Atoll, in 1985 by
Greenpeace, while the US still claimed the island was safe. Since 1985 Rongelap Atoll has been
uninhabited, the reefs and lagoons un-fished, until 1998, when the resettlement program was put
into effect with Phase 1 of the repatriation. Rongelapese are preparing to once again inhabit their
native islands and are at present working for a reestablishment of a community.
Rongelap local government (RALGOV) has formally requested the assistance of the College of the
Marshall Islands (CMI) Marine Science (MSP) team to undertake the study in order to collect
baseline information on the status of reef of the island that is soon to host about seven hundred new
inhabitants. As consequence of the historical events, Rongelap has effectively been protected from
exploitation for over 50 years. On a global scale, it might be one of the few untouched reefs
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
16
remaining. However, the government and the people themselves need to organize a plan for the
attentive exploitation of the natural resources that will take place when the imminent relocation
starts. The baseline assessment and the relative recommendations will help in such a task.
Moreover, the proximity of Bikini and Rongelap could lead to an expansion of the existing tourist
operation on Bikini. Divers and sport fishermen could visit the two atolls and practice different
activities. Such an opportunity could become advantageous for both atolls and could be used for
employment and development prospects for the relocating inhabitants on both atolls.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
17
2. Methods
This project entailed three phases, leading to a local institutionalization of a marine conservation
program in the long term. Phase one: training and education of local volunteer monitors. Phase
two: field work: surveys in the two atolls, with participation of both specialists and local
volunteers. Phase three: data processing, results issuing and preparation of recommendations for
guidance rules for the establishment of MPAs in RMI.
Phase 1. The first, educational, phase took place during the two weeks preceding the field work.
Marshallese students and volunteers were trained in marine resource assessment methods,
identification of marine organisms and data management. The following activities took place in
Majuro atoll:
?? Classroom teaching of students in species identification and survey design,
?? Practical training in survey operations
?? Practical teaching in diving-for-science procedures, safety and dive planning
?? Information of the public about the project and the marine environment through newspaper
articles
The second part of the education/awareness phase goes on in Majuro as after-field activity, through
participation to conferences, presentations, newspaper articles and lectures. This phase is valuable
in order to inform the Marshallese public — young students, fishermen and regional governments
— about the importance of coral reef ecosystems and their conservation.
Phase 2. This was the survey part of the project to check on the status of marine resources in line
with the local government’s requirements and wishes. This reef assessment phase was conducted
by experts and previously and newly trained local students. The training-by-doing aspect of this
phase was done conforming to the need expressed by the government to train Marshallese people
to the assessment of local marine biodiversity. The program collected three levels of data with
varying quality, reliability and utility: A. Biodiversity Information, B. Reef Status data and
Monitoring baseline, C. Community and volunteer data (Table 3). The field work involved several
stages of survey activities. The external specialists and assistants entered the project at this point.
Detailed survey of target sites. The following survey techniques were applied at the identified
target sites:
?? Coral and fish biodiversity: presence/absence and semi-qualitative abundance in timed
swims (two fish experts)
?? Algae diversity and abundance: points records for algal coverage with algae quadrats (25 x
25 cm, 4 replicate per transect, 4 x 3 replicates per site)
?? Line intercept transects for substrate, coral and algae: percent cover on a 50 m line (3
replicates per site, three different depths) and reef health transects: counts of Acanthaster
planci (coral eating crown-of-thorn starfish), dead and bleached coral
?? Line transects for invertebrates: counts of target species of invertebrates on a 50 m x 5 m
corridor (3 replicates per site, three different depths)
?? Line transects for fish (size and abundance): fish counts and size estimation of
commercially and ecologically important species, on a 50 x 5 m corridor m (3 replicates per
site, three different depths)
?? Reef Check: global volunteer reef health assessment scheme (www.reefcheck.org)
?? Permanent transect installation for repetitive monitoring programs and long time data
acquisition, such as coral recruitment, effects of re-location, fishing and diving activities,
and climatic effects such as coral bleaching.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
18
The survey methods were based on standard methodologies used in coral reef science (English et
al., 1997, for ecological and monitoring surveys, Werner and Allen, 1998, for biodiversity
assessments, Pinca, 2001, for the previous study in RMI), and Reef Check for the community
monitoring (www.reefcheck.org). Surveys were depth stratified at deep (18 m), medium (12 m)
and shallow (5 m) depth. Very shallow areas or lagoons were assessed only for coral and fish
biodiversity. Data were entered in situ and analysed in Majuro. For substrate categories, coral life
forms and target genera and species for: corals fish, seaweeds, invertebrates, see Appendix I.
Phase 3. Data processing, results issuing and preparation of recommendations took place in
Majuro, Australia, and the UK, between September and November 2002.
Each scientist
participated to the elaboration and preparation of the report. The results are being published as
well as used to prepare recommendations for the location and managing design for new MPAs in
the two atolls. Public presentations, lectures, articles and displays are being held in the town of
Majuro and will be presented at international conferences. The first conference to be attended by
Silvia Pinca will be the Second International Tropical Marine Ecosystems Management
Symposium (ITMEMS2) in Manila between March 25th -29th 2003. A special session in Micronesia
coral reef management will be held by Dr. Pinca.
2.1
Site selection
For logistical reasons, the sites in Rongelap Atoll were limited to the main island of RongelapRongelap (Rongelap main island) and to two sites at the south side of the atoll: on the ocean side of
the islands of Arubaru and Eniroruuri. On Rongelap-Rongelap balance was given to sites located
on the lagoon and the ocean side.
2.2.
Training
The participants in the NRAS team followed a program of training and validation appropriate to
the undertaking of marine surveys.
The training was organized for scientists, experienced
volunteers and Marshallese students on marine science courses. The team familiarized and revised
their knowledge on fish families and target fish species, coral forms and target coral species, target
species of seaweeds and target invertebrate species. The target species were chosen from
information on past studies done in the RMI by members of the NRAS team and published
literature on the Marshall Islands (Pinca, 2001). The validation was done through a series of
identification tests on the computer and in the water, combined with test surveys where buddy
scuba divers recorded the same information and then the results were compared. In order to
participate on the surveys, the divers had to pass the calibrated tests. Results had to be within 10%
of difference between the two divers, to assure good data quality and comparability between team
members.
Underwater fish size estimation was aided by a ruler with centimetres tags marked on the recording
slate. To learn this size estimation underwater with the natural magnification, trails with wooden
fish where prepared and suspended underwater. They had to be sized in a test (Photograph 1).
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
19
Photograph 1. Wooden fish prepared for a test on fish size estimation underwater.
2.3
Transect Surveys
The NRAS surveys included recording the fish, coral, invertebrate and seaweed data on a series of
3 transects; 2 divers were working on each of the three transects that were located at predetermined
depths. The diagram in Figure 3 below shows the layout of transects at one site, with the site
perimeter indicating the coverage of information gathered from one site. The transect method was
chosen to represent the characteristics of the whole site, over a range of depths (between 5 to 20 m)
to give a wide enough coverage on different zones on the reef (Figure 3). Each diver would swim
the transect four times, accomplishing different duties at a time.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
20
Figure 3. Layout of three transects at each survey site (Transect 1, 2, and 3 are T1, T2, and T3).
50m length
T1
18 m
Site perimeter
T2
12 m
T3
5m
A 50 meter tape measure was laid to allow quantitative analysis and used as a marker so the same
transect would be covered on return swims from one end of the transect to the other. 18 meters
was the maximum depth for the deep transect, allowing enough time for the pair of scuba divers to
complete the work without going in to decompression time. On each transect at each site two
scuba divers were collecting the information. Each diver had two jobs, accomplished on a transect
swim at a time.
“Fish” Surveyor (Diver to pass over site first): “Coral” surveyor:
Records large fish
Lays the 50m tape
Records smaller fish
Records the corals or substrate every 50cm
Records 4 quadrates of seaweed target genera
Records the number of target invertebrates
and percentage coverage (at the markers of
10, 20, 30, 40 m on the tape)
Helps buddy roll up the tape measure
Reels up the 50m measuring tape
2.3.1
Fish data
Fish counts were undertaken by 1 scuba diver, swimming along the 50 m length measuring tape.
On the first swim, the diver recorded fish of size C class (over 20 cm in size) and on a second
transect swim fish of size A (< 10 cm) and B class (6-10 cm). The fish surveyor swam along the
designated depth contour recording fish while the buddy laid the tape measure behind. Fish
surveyors recorded all target fish, within an estimated box of 5 meters, 2.5 m to either side of the
tape, 5 m above and 5 m forwards (Figure 4). The target fish were recorded at family and species
level for the fish families shown in the table in Appendix 2. The fish species recorded where
estimated into three size classes: A 6-10cm, B 10-20cm, C >20cm. The meandering swimming
pattern allowed to record the smaller species and the sedentary species.
The fish size classes allow the minimum average fish biomass to be calculated, according to the
formula:
W=a*L^b
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
21
Where W is weight in grams, L the Length in cm, and a and b are coefficients.
The biomass data could also be used as a baseline for future monitoring programs. Fish individuals
which were ‘observed twice’ on a transect i.e. fish, which crossed in front of the diver once and
shortly afterwards a similar fish (or the exactly same fish) was encountered again, were counted as
separate individuals unless the observer saw them turning around and hence could be sure it is the
same fish.
Figure 4. Patterns of swimming and observation radius for (a) large fishes and (b) small fishes.
2.3.2 Invertebrate data collection
The invertebrate data were collected by one scuba diver meandering across the 50 m measuring
tape looking to a distance of 2.5 m either side of the tape (Figure 5), counting the target species
(listed in Appendix 3). The purpose of criss-crossing the transect was to record the smaller species
and the sedentary species.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
22
Figure 5. Patterns of swimming and observation radius for target invertebrates.
2.3.3
Benthic Line Intercept Transect (LIT)
LITs were carried out according to AIMS-ASEAN methodology with minor adjustments.
Recorders noted all features at two levels, AIMS-ASEAM life-forms and target coral genera or
species (see Appendix 1). The coral data was collected by a diver, swimming along the length of
the 50 m measuring tape and recording the substrate below the tape at every 50 cm.
2.3.4
Seaweed data collection
A quadrat of 25 cm x 25 cm dimension was placed next to the transect at the 10 m, 20 m, 30 m, and
40 m marks. Density or percentage coverage was estimated inside the quadrats and averaged for
each depth. Target genera and larger groups were identified (Appendix 4). Samples of seaweeds
were taken for preservation (pressing of dry samples) and cataloguing at the library of the College
of the Marshall Islands.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
23
2.4.1 Fish Diversity
Fish species richness was assessed by Maria Beger, using timed swims for 60 to 90 minutes at each
survey site. All sites were sampled at least once; two sites had multiple samples. Underwater
observations were recorded onto a plastic sheet on a slate. The most commonly seen species were
pre-printed on the recording sheet and ticked when seen, other species were noted separately on the
same sheet. Fish species were only recorded when their identification was absolutely positive. A
small percentage of fishes could not be identified to species level because of constraints in
visibility, cryptic behavior and too great a distance from the observer. To supplement the visual
census, on some occasions samples were obtained by capturing the fish using the ichthyocide clove
oil, which stuns small fish. This technique was used for smaller or cryptic fishes that are difficult
to visually identify in situ. Underwater photos also aided with identification in a few cases.
All fish species were given a semi-quantitative rating, following the DAFOR scale (Table 2).
These ratings were given considering their relative abundance, i.e. fish species that usually occur in
large aggregations were rated at the higher end of the scale.
Table 2. Semi-quantitative abundance rating for coral reef fishes.
Rating
0
1
2
3
4
5
Abundance
None
Rare, 1 individual seen
Occasional, 2 to 6 individuals seen
Frequent, 7 to 50 individuals seen
Abundant, 30 to 200 individuals seen
Dominant, more than 200 individuals AND they
form a major part of the overall fish biomass
The timed swim method involved a rapid descent to 25 to 30 m, with the deepest dive being 52 m
on one occasion. Then the observer ascended slowly, swimming in a meandering fashion, and
spent a considerable time of the dive in the surge zone. The observer included all major habitat
types present at the site in the survey. Biological and topographical habitat types were also
recorded semi-quantitatively (for Habitat types see Appendix 9).
The data were analyzed using multivariate clustering to demonstrate zonation of fish communities
on Rongelap atoll and, in more detail, of Rongelap island. Using the Coral Fish Diversity Index
(CFDI) (Allen, 2002), an estimate of total expected coral reef fish fauna was calculated. The
reserve prioritization program WORLDMAP (Williams, 2000) was used to illustrate conservation
priorities on Rongelap-Rongelap form the point of view of fish species diversity.
2.4.2 Coral Diversity
Corals were surveyed by Zoe Richards during 16 scuba dives to a maximum depth of 52m
(average depth 30 m – exposed wall, 15 m – lagoon). Each of the 14 sites was sampled once apart
from R1 and R10 at which additional dives were conducted to establish permanent monitoring
transects.
Coral species richness was assessed using timed swims for 60 mins at each survey site. The timed
swim method involved a direct descent to 30 m, followed by a slow ascent, swimming in a zigzag
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
24
path to the shallow parts of the reef where a large proportion of time was spent surveying the reef
crest. All records were based on visual identifications made underwater, except where skeletal
detail was required for species determination. In the latter case, reference specimens were
collected and studied at the Museum of Tropical Queensland by the Zoe Richards and Dr Carden
Wallace (Acropora), and Dr Douglas Fenner (non-Acropora). Voucher specimens have been
deposited in the Museum of Tropical Queensland (Townsville, Australia) and are available for
viewing upon request. References for species identifications were Wallace, 1999; Veron, 2000;
Hoeksema and Best, 1991; Wells, 1954; Nemenzo, 1976.
Coral species were given a semi-quantitative abundance rating following the DAFOR scale (0 =
none; 1 = Rare, 1 colony; 2 = Occasional, 2-6 colonies; 3 = Frequent, 7 – 30 colonies; 4 =
Abundant, 30 – 200 colonies; 5 = Dominant, more than 200 colonies and form a major component
of the overall coral biomass). An estimate of percentage cover of coral was given for each site
along with recording the three most dominant species.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
25
Data was analyzed using multivariate clustering to demonstrate the zonation of coral communities
on Rongelap atoll, and in more detail, Rongelap-Rongelap island. The reserve prioritization
program WORLDMAP (Williams, 2000) was used to illustrate conservation priorities on
Rongelap atoll with respect to coral species diversity.
2.5
Physical information and profiles
Physical profile transect were accomplished with the all team collaborating. Three transects
perpendicular to the shore were deployed. Two divers were working on each transect, using a 10
m line. One dive buddy pair worked on each of the three transects. Diver 1 (D1) for each dive
buddy team was leading, holding one end of a 10 m rope to measure the length of the transect. D1
also took a depth reading every 10 m and estimated horizontal visibility. Diver 2 followed at
intervals while recording substrate type and coverage (following substrate categories detailed in
Appendix 1) and health of the reef for each segment. A fourth team was swimming instead parallel
to the shore at 20, 15, 10 and 5 m, covering 20 m at each depth, and describing substrate and main
physical features (presence of gullies, boulders etc.). Following the dive, the team completed a site
assessment form entering information on GPS reading and location description.
2.6
Permanent transects
Two permanent transects (see an example in Photograph 2) were deployed for future references
and monitoring. One transect was laid at 8-10 m off Jaboan point and one was laid on the wall, on
the east side of Rongelap-Rongelap, at a depth of 12 m. At each site, eleven metal pins were
deployed and hammered inside the bedrock, at 5 m apart between each other, along a 50 m line.
Underwater epoxy was used to glue the points inside the rock.
Photograph 2: Example of a pin on permanent transect PT1.
2.7 Photographic documentation
At each site a professional photographer (Robert Fournier) was in charge of taking underwater
pictures of individual fishes or corals for identification and documentation purposes, using a
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
26
professional underwater camera (Nikonos 4 ®). A digital underwater camera (Olympus Camedia ®
4.1, with Ikelite ® housing) was deployed to take general pictures of habitat and individual species
and to document the status of the permanent transects by S. Pinca, and in some occasion by other
participants. For the first week of surveys in Rongelap, an underwater videocamera was deployed
by Craig Musburger for taking videos of general habitat conditions and fish swimming behavior for
later identification purposes.
2.8
Summary of methods
In summary, a variety of survey methods were applied in order to obtain a comprehensive picture
of every aspect of coral reef ecology and status. To provide the reader with a quick reference of
the methods used, Table 3 gives a comprehensive summary of all methods.
Table 3. A summary of all survey methodologies applied during NRAS. Levels refer to biological detail as
follows: A-species level identification, B-ecological/monitoring data, and C-community-level data.
Name
Data collected
Method
Level
Coral and fish
biodiversity
Record presence – absence (corals)
and semi-qualitative abundance and Timed swims by experts
sizes (fish) for all species
A
Algae coverage and
diversity
Point records for algal coverage and Algae 4 x 3 quadrats (25 x 25
diversity at three depths
cm)
A
Algae coverage and
abundance
Line intercept transects, percent
coverage at three depths
3 x 50 m line
A, B
Records of distance since
Line intercept transects
interception, percent cover at three
for coral and benthos
depths
3 x 50 m line, life form level of
identification, substrate types
B
Line transects for
invertebrates
Counts of invertebrates
3 x 50 m line, 5m wide, target
species identification
B
Line transects for fish
(size and abundance)
Fish counts, target species, size
estimation, biomass (English et al.
1997).
3 x 50 line, 5 m wide, species
id, counts and length – biomass
conversion
B
Reef health transects
Counts of Acanthaster planci,
(Crown- of- thorns starfish),
Drupella sp. (coral eating snail),
dead coral and bleached coral
3 x 50 m line
B
Reef Check
Global volunteer reef health
assessment scheme
(www.reefcheck.org)
Low detail assessment, ideal
for community participation
and training.
C
Permanent transect
Installation of permanent transects
for temporal monitoring
50 m long, every 5 m a pin; map
substrate, corals, fish, algae
A, B
3. Results
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
27
3.1
Summary of achievements
In total, fourteen science divers were involved in the study of the health and biodiversity of coral
reefs in Rongelap. The collected information will be issued to local governments and international
organisations that study the status of coral reefs around the world. The survey team compiled a
range of different data at 14 sites at Rongelap Atoll (Table 4). 12 of these sites were based on
Rongelap-Rongelap island (Figure 6). In total 434 dives were conducted to accomplish this survey.
Table 4. Surveys accomplished at 14 survey sites at the southern Rongelap Atoll
Survey
50m fish census: biomass and abundance of beta-diversity
50m benthic census: substratum, corals and soft corals
50m algae survey: biodiversity and %cover in quadrats
Fish biodiversity
Coral biodiversity and collection
Photography
Digital Photography
GPS (Global Positioning System) co-ordinates
Effort
3 depths
3 depths
3 depths
1 person
2 persons
1 person
1 person
1 person
The team selected two sites which were outstanding in their biological diversity, and that represent
typical habitats found in the area. These sites were surveyed as above, but additionally there were
repeated biodiversity surveys, a deep survey to include deep dwelling organisms, and the
establishment of a permanent transect. The permanent transects are based at 11 meters of depth at
PT 2 (R10) and at 7 meters at PT1 (R1). They consist of 11 pins cemented into the reef matrix
along a 50 m transect; the pins are used to enable relocation of the transect, since, in order to avoid
adverse impacts on the reef condition and development on the permanent transect, the tape itself
was not placed permanently and needs to be re-laid at the next visit. Pins are located at either end
and in 5 m steps along the transect. The permanent transects enable temporal monitoring of the
reef. At Jaboan point (Site R1), the team conducted a Reef Check© survey. Reef Check is an
internationally acclaimed and established method of assessing and comparing reef health on a
global scale (ReefCheck, 2002). The location was recorded by Global Positioning System (GPS),
using the “Degree Minute.decimal-minute “ setting and WGS 84 projection (Table 5).
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
28
Table 5. GPS co-ordinates of survey sites on Rongelap atoll.
Site name
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
R11
R12
R13
R14
PT1
PT2
Reef Check
Latitude
N 11 09.20707
N 11 09.39472
N 11 10.74334
N 11 09.10086
N 11 08.93800
N 11 09.46714
N 11 09.43624
N 11 10.43048
N 11 09.12210
N 11 09.30557
N 11 09.23958
N 11 09.16394
N 11 11.49714
N 11 10.09542
N 11 09.23154
N 11 09.30557
N 11 09.20707
Longitude
E 166 50.18976
E 166 53.14641
E 166 53.74411
E 166 50.32076
E 166 50.58275
E 166 52.00121
E 166 52.92400
E 166 53.75506
E 166 50.25059
E 166 53.40841
E 166 50.62749
E 166 50.21003
E 166 43.42705
E 166 46.79730
E 166 50.12474
E 166 53.40841
E 166 50.18976
Figure 6. Map of Rongelap atoll (after Spennemann, 1998) and detail of survey sites in southern Rongelap.
Rongelap Atoll
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
29
3.2
Ecological data
We present here an ecological analysis of the set of data, separated by categories of target objects
and organisms (substrate, target corals, seaweeds, fish). We used simple statistical descriptors
(mean and standard deviation) for this analysis and we concentrated on the differences among
zones and regions with different location and topographical characteristics: depth layers, lagoon
versus ocean, geographical location around the island and the Southern side of the atoll (Table 6).
Table 6. Matrix of ecological analysis to facilitate quick referencing.
Categories analysed
Depth
Section No.
Lagoon vs Ocean
Substratum
Coral targets
Fish targets
Algae
3.2.1.1
3.2.2.1
3.2.3.1
3.2.4.1
3.2.1.2
3.2.2.2
3.2.3.2
3.2.4.2
Bio-geographic
zones
3.2.1.3
3.2.2.3
3.2.3.3
3.2.4.3
3.2.1 Substrate
We analyzed differences in distribution of the categories of substrate recorded. The comparisons
of average values analyzed were studied for 3 depth layers, ocean versus lagoon sites, and 5
geographical locations. For depth and locations we used the Kruskal-Wallis test for multiple
comparisons for non-parametric data (Zar, 1999) and for ocean vs lagoon we used a t-test.
Differences to be considered meaningful were only those that gave a statistically significant level
of probability equal or p < 0.05.
3.2.1.1 Depth
We analyzed the depth preference of different categories of corals recorded, such as the
zooxanthelleate hard corals (scleractinia) and other reef-building corals such as blue and fire corals.
Both Acropora (p Anova = 0.008) and non scleractinia corals (p Anova = 0.05) showed sharp
differences of coverage with the depth. Acropora corals are more abundant at shallower depths
(>10m) while non scleractinia (blue and fire corals) are more important at deeper layers (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Differences among the three depth layers for Acropora and non scleractinia corals.
Box Plot
Split By: depths
40
35
30
Units
25
shallow
20
intermediate
15
deep
10
5
0
-5
Acropora
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
non scleractinia
30
3.2.1.2
Lagoon vs Ocean
The substrate of lagoon and ocean sites was very different. Most of the components of what covers
the ocean floor (substrate categories) show very different proportions of coverage at the two
different locations: bedrock, live coral - among these, non-Acropora coral and non scelaractinia
corals (fire, lace and blue coral) - as well as seaweeds are more abundant at the ocean location.
Sand –as expected – shows higher coverage at the lagoon sites. Results are summarized in Table 7
and Figure 8. Dead coral, rubble, Acropora and soft corals were not significantly different at the
two locations.
Table 7. Difference of substrate coverage between ocean (O) and lagoon (L) sites. P is the probability value associated
with the statistical test (t-test). Categories with significant results are marked in bold.
Category
Significant/ Non
significant
Higher in
L or O
P value
S
NS
S
NS
S
NS
S
S
S
NS
O
L
O
O
O
O
-
<.0001
.38
<.0001
.18
<.0001
.95
<.0001
.04
.005
.37
Bedrock
Dead coral
Sand
Rubble
Live coral
Acropora
Non Acropora
Non scleractinia
Seaweeds
Soft
Figure 8. Differences in substrate coverage between ocean and lagoon sites. Arrows indicate significant results (p <
0.05).
2002
Box Plot
Split By: location
Box Plot
Split By: location
120
70
100
60
50
80
40
60
lagoon
ocean
40
30
20
20
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
31
soft corals
non scleractinia
non Acropora
total live corals
seaweed
rubble
-10
sand
-20
dead coral
0
bedrock
0
Acropora
10
3.2.1.3 Geographical locations
We analyzed the differences in percentage coverage of the same substrate categories among
preselected geographical zones around southern Rongelap atoll. Locations were classified as
lagoon and ocean sites, and sites containing both ocean and lagoon habitats, as observed in Jaboan.
The different regions were chosen by their differences in exposure, location in relation to passes
and topography (see Figure 9).
Table 8. Sites grouped by bio-geographical zone. L = lagoon, O = ocean, J= Jaboan.
Site name
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
R11
R12
R13
R14
Lagoon/ocean
L (J)
O
L
O
O
L
O
L
O (J)
O
L
O (J)
O
O
Geographical zone
Lagoon W
Ocean S
Lagoon N
Ocean S
Ocean S
Lagoon W
Ocean S
Lagoon N
Ocean W
Ocean S
Lagoon W
Ocean W
W Ocean (pass)
W Ocean (pass)
Figure 9. Map of the pre-selected bio-regions, chosen as function of the sites exposure and topography.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
32
Bedrock, rubble, sand, total live corals, non Acropora, non scleractinia and seaweeds show sharp
differences in their relative coverage. The differences were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis test
(Table 9) for multiple comparisons of average values.
Table 9.
K-W p
Summary of differences of substrate coverage among substrata in five biogeographical locations.
Values of p for each independent test are given. (L = lagoon; O = Ocean). Bold characters indicate
statistically significant results (p<0.05).
Dead
coral
Bedrock
0.3
0.0002
Rubble Sand
0.04
Sea- Total live Acropora
Non
non
Soft
Acropora scleractinia
weeds corals
0.0003 0.005 0.0004
0.31
< 0.0001
0.006
0.30
The proportions of substrata varied for different bio-geographical zones (Figure 10). Sites at
Jaboan point were an exception as they contained both lagoon and ocean features in one location.
They were included with the Ocean West and Lagoon West zones.
Sand is the typical substrate of lagoon areas, while bedrock and live corals are the typical substrate
of ocean sites. Non Acropora is characteristic of ocean areas, while Acropora does not present
preferences, different species being adapted to either ocean or lagoon location. Ocean West zone
supports the highest proportional coverage of non Acropora corals. In the zone Ocean South, off
the Southern side of Rongelap-Rongelap island, and West Ocean – West off the South pass – we
recorded more bedrock and sand compared to the Ocean West zone. This is probably related to
higher exposure compared to the West Ocean (at the tip of the island and on East side of the pass).
Seaweeds were of very low abundance at the northern lagoon locations.
Figure 10. Relative percentage of substrate coverage among 5 bio-geographical zones.
100%
90%
80%
Seaweeds
70%
Soft
non scleractinia
60%
Non acropora
50%
Acropora
Sand
40%
Rubble
30%
dead coral
20%
bedrock
total live
corals
10%
0%
Lagoon N Lagoon W Ocean W
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
Ocean S
W ocean
33
3.2.2
Coral target species
In the previous section we analyzed substrata coverage, which included coral target species in the
total live coral cover. We here look more closely at patterns within the target coral assemblages.
We selected 17 most abundant (highest record at a site > 10 %) or most recurrent (present at least
at 5 sites) species or genera of coral (Appendix 1) and analyzed their distribution at the three depth
layers, at the two locations lagoon and ocean, and among the six different geographical areas.
3.2.2.1
Depth
There was no significant preference of corals for certain depths from our data. All genera and
species were distributed relatively homogenously across depths. Only Acropora palifera/cuneata
has sharp depth preference and it is most abundant at the shallower layer (>10m; p k-w = 0.02,
Figure 11).
Figure 11. Depth preference in Acropora palifera/cuneata (Cricketbat coral).
Box Plot
Split By: depth
35
30
25
shallow
20
intermediate
15
deep
10
5
0
ckb
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
34
Table 10.
Selected target coral species and genera for comparisons of coverage, based on abundance (highest
record at one site > 10 %) and recurrence (present at least at 5 sites). Bold corals had presence > 15
and total abundance > 5%, used in the regional differences analysis.
Species or genus
Common name
Cricketbat coral
Acropora palifera/ cuneata
Porites lobata/austrlaliensis… Lobe coral
Seriatopora hystrix
Porites cylindrica
Montipora spp.
Pocillopora verrucosa
Pocillopora damicornis
Stylophora pistillata
Thorn coral
Gingerroot coral
Sand paper coral
Medium Broccoli coral
Broccoli coral
Finger coral
A. subglabra/echinata/speciosa Bottlebrush Acropora
Favites spp.
Crater coral sharing
Favia spp.
Crater coral with valleys
Astreopora
Volcano coral
Heliopora coerulea
Blue coral
Pocillopora eyduoxi/…
Large Broccoli coral
Leptastrea spp.
Angular crater coral
Oulophyllia spp.
Large brain coral
Ctenactis echinata, Herpolita
Long mushroom
limax
3.2.2.2
Abbreviation
Ckb
Lob
Th
Gr
Sdp
Mbc
Bc
Fn
BB
Cs
Cv
Vo
Bl
Lbc
Ac
Lbr
Lmu
No. of sites
Max
present
coverage (%)
22
32
34
32
22
22
19
18
22
16
15
10
12
9
11
8
6
8
20
7
15
5
26
6
14
6
10
5
14
5
11
3
11
2
Ocean vs lagoon
Depending on habitat and physical conditions, differences in the coral communities in lagoon and
ocean sites should be expected. The lagoon waters are shallower, and more turbid, and support
mainly small patch-reefs on sandy substratum. Ocean waters are very clear, allowing light to
penetrate deeper. Significant differences between these two locations were shown for Leptastrea,
Favites, Favia, Oulophyllia, Pocillopora eyduoxi, Porites massive, C. echinata/H. limax,
Monitopora and Helipora coerulea (in bold in Table 11). All of these corals are significantly more
abundant at the ocean sites. The differences between these corals were often due to a lack of
species or genera at sites inside the lagoon (Figure 12). This could be a function of the relative
scarcity of patch-reefs which makes encountering them on a 50 m transect difficult. More likely,
however, these species/ genera were less common or lacked on the small patch-reefs.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
35
Table 11. Difference of abundance between lagoon and the ocean sites, analyzed by t-tests for the 17 most recurrent
species and genera.
Lagoon
Species or genus
P t-test
Mean
0.2
2.2
Standard
deviation
8.2
<0.0001
1.6
2.4
12.3
7.8
0.6
2.2
5.6
1.6
2.7
0.15
1.2
2.8
3.3
5.1
0.02
1.0
1.7
4.1
4.7
0.09
0.07
0.3
0.9
1.8
0.09
0.5
1.8
1.8
2.5
0.12
0.13
0.4
0.9
1.8
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.6
1.7
0.003
0.2
0.4
2.1
2.3
0.002
0.07
0.3
1.3
0.3
0.3
0.9
1.6
1.5
1.4
0.005
0
0
1.2
1.5
0.2
0.13
0.4
0.6
1.2
0.01
0.07
0.3
1.3
1.7
0.01
0
0
0.6
0.8
0.04
0.07
0.3
0.4
0.57
A. palifera/cuneata(ckb)
Porites lobata/austrlaliensis (lob)
Seriatopora hystrix (th)
Porites cylindrica (gr)
Montipora spp.(sdp)
Pocillopora damicornis (bc)
Pocillopora verrucosa (mbc)
Stylophora pistillata(fn)
(bb) (bottlebrush Acropora)
Favites spp. (cs)
Favia spp.(cv)
Astreopora (vo)
Heliopora caerulea (bl)
Pocillopora eyduoxi/…(lbc)
Leptastrea spp.(Ac)
Oulophyllia spp.(lbr)
Ctenactis echinata, H. limax (lmu)
Ocean
Standard
Mean deviation
5.2
6.4
Figure 12. Differences of coverage between ocean and lagoon sites for selected species.
Box Plot
Split By: lagoon vs ocean
25
20
15
lagoon
10
ocean
5
0
-5
Ac
cs
cv
lbr
lbc
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
lob
lmu
sdp
bl
36
3.2.2.3
Geographical zones
Among the 17 selected target species we specifically analyzed the ones that have presence > 15 and
total abundance > 5% for differences among bio-geographical zones (compare Table 10), corals in
bold). The selected corals showed some variation among the zones. We applied the KruskalWallis test for multiple comparisons to illustrate the differentiations (Table 12).
Almost all the selected categories had preferential geographical locations, where they were more
abundant than anywhere else. Only Leptastrea, Montipora and Astreopora were not significantly
different among the regions. Acropora palifera/cuneata, (ckb), Favites (cs), P. cylindrica (gr),
Porites massive (lob) and Seriatopora hystrix (th) showed higher abundance at the ocean west
locations (OW) – off the Western tip of Rongelap-Rongelap. The genus Favia (cv) was more
abundant at the Southern ocean (SO) locations and Pocillopora verrucosa(mbc) at the outer pass
location (West ocean, WO, Figure 13).
Table 12.
Difference of selected coral target species/genera among the zones. (PK-W = probability value, P<
0.05 = significant).
Species or genus
Common name
Abbr.
PK-W
Ckb
0.006
A. palifera/cuneata
Cricket-bat coral
Leptastrea spp.
Angular crater coral
Ac
0.06- ns
Favites spp.
Crater coral sharing
Cs
0.004
Favia spp.
Crater coral with valleys
Cv
0.01
Porites cylindrica
Gingerroot coral
Gr
0.0002
Porites lobata/australiensis… Lobe coral
Lob
0.0001
Pocillopora verrucosa
Medium Broccoli coral
Mbc
0.002
Montipora spp.
Sand paper coral
Sdp
0.24 – ns
Seriatopora hystrix
Thorn coral
Th
0.03
Astreopora spp.
Volcano coral
Vo
0.27- ns
Figure 13.
Difference of distribution of 10 selected coral species/genera among five bio-geographical zones.
Box Plot
Split By: geographic location
35
30
25
lagoon mid
lagoon N
20
lagoon W
ocean S
15
ocean W
W ocean
10
5
0
ckb
Ac
cs
cv
gr
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
lob
mbc
sdp
th
vo
37
We used these differences to describe the composition of each geographical zone by composition
of most abundant and recurrent species and taxa (Figure 14).
The region at the North side of the island, on the lagoon side, is mostly composed by P. cylindrica
(gr) and S. hystrix (th). The Western side of the island, on the lagoon side, is instead mostly
composed by A. palifera/cuneata, especially around Jaboan Point, and P. lobata/austr...
All ocean regions had high coverage of both P. lobata and A. palifera/cuneata, but the Ocean West
area (ocean side of Jaboan point) supported a higher coverage of P. cylindrica and less Pocillopora
verrucosa compared to the other two regions on the ocean side. The region off the Southern pass
(W ocean) showed higher coverage of P. verrucosa and less Favia and Favites.
Figure 14. Composition of each geographic zone by the selected coral species.
100%
90%
80%
Th
Mbc
Lob
Gr
Cv
Cs
Ckb
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
lagoon N
lagoon W
ocean W
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
ocean S
W ocean
38
3.2.3 Fishes
The fishes counted to the level of species or genera along the transects were grouped by families.
The most abundant and recurrent ones were analysed for comparison of their total abundance at the
different sites (Table 13). The totally most abundant family were the Pomacentridae
(Damselfishes). The second most abundant fish family is the Apogonidae (Cardinalfish) (Figure
15).
Table 13. Fish families that are most abundant (> 100). In bold the ones with strong ecological significance or
commercial value.
English common name
Damselfishes
Cardinalfishes
Groupers
Surgeonfishes
Wrasses
Mackerels
Parrotfishes
Fusiliers
Butterflyfishes
Jacks
Snappers
Latin name
Pomacentridae
Apogonidae
Serranidae
Acanthuridae
Labridae
Scombridae
Scaridae
Caesionidae
Chaetodontidae
Carangidae
Lutjanidae
Total
abundance
6,478
1,787
847
831
619
536
410
320
255
204
199
Total
abundance / m3
0.126
0.035
0.017
0.016
0.012
0.010
0.008
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.004
Figure 15 shows the relative abundance of the all fish including cardinalfish and damselfish,
clumping together the rest of the families. The high predominance of these two families in terms of
numbers is clear in this graph. Figure 16 shows the percentage of total abundance of the major fish
families (excluding Damselfish and Cardinalfish, that are the most abundant ones but have almost
no commercial significance). Surgeonfish (Acanthuridae), Groupers (Serranidae), Makerels
(Scombridae) (including some reef visiting tunas) and Parrotfish (Scaridae) were the most
important in terms of abundance. However, the high abundance of Makerels was due to one
observation at R13, off the Southern pass.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
39
Figure 15.
Relative abundance of the all fish including cardinalfish and damselfish, clumping together the rest of
the families. This graph shows the high predominance of these two families in terms of numbers.
Cardinalfish
Damselfish
everything else
Figure 16.
Relative abundance of the most important fish families in percent.
Wrasses
15%
Parrotfish
10%
Butterflyfish
6%
Fusiliers
8%
Surgeonfish
19%
Snappers
5%
Jacks
5%
Groupers
19%
3.2.2.4
Makerels
13%
Depth
None of the fish families showed preference of depth in the depth range adopted in the surveys.
However, biomass was significantly higher (PK-W = 0.0009) at the first two layers (between 5 and
15 m, approximately), meaning that larger sizes of fish were found at this depth (Figure 17).
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
40
Figure 17. Distribution of total fish biomass at the three layers (p K-W = .0009).
Box Plot
Split By: depth
Row exclusion: FISH-totfam.SVD
7
6
5
shallow
4
intermediate
3
deep
2
1
0
tot biomass
3.2.2.5
Ocean vs lagoon
Snappers, Parrotfishes, Fusiliers, Butterflyfishes, Surgeonfishes, Angelfishes (total abundance
<100, in italics in Table 14), Rabbitfish (total abundance < 25, in italics in Table 14), showed
significant differences in between the two zones. All of these fish families were more abundant in
the ocean side (Figure 18). Angelfishes and Rabbitfishes were included in this analysis, although
their abundance is less than 100 total counts, because they displayed a significant difference
between the two habitats.
Table 14.
Abundance of fish families showing difference of distribution between lagoon and ocean sites.
Family
Surgeonfishes
Parrotfishes
Fusiliers
Butterflyfishes
Snappers
Angelfishes
Rabbitfishes
p t-test
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.04
Lagoon
Mean
St Dev
8.9
13.6
2.3
6.4
0
0
3.8
7.0
0.78
1.5
3.8
7.0
0
27.4
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
Ocean
Mean
27.4
19.1
12.6
7.7
7.0
7.7
0.8
St Dev
24.6
32.4
23.6
5.2
9.5
5.2
1.4
41
Figure 18. Distribution of total abundance in lagoon and ocean sites for the most abundant families. Numbers are
average values.
Box Plot
Split By: lagoon/ocean2
Row exclusion: FISH-totfam.SVD
40
35
30
25
lagoon
20
ocean
15
10
3.2.2.6
RABBITFISH
ANGELFISH
SURGEONFISH
BUTTERFLYFISH
FUSILIERS
PARROTFISH
0
SNAPPERS
5
Geographical zones
Varied fish assemblages were expected in the five distinct regions, as there were both differences
in habitat and coral communities. The Kruskal-Wallis multi-comparison test to analyze difference
in distribution among the five geographic zones resulted positive for 6 families (Table 15). This
means that fish communities differed between the locations.
Table 15. Distribution of fishes among five zones, PKW<0.05 = significant.
Latin name
Acanthuridae
Scaridae
Chaetodontidae
Lutjanidae
Pomacanthidae
Serranidae
English common name
Surgeonfish
Parrotfish
Butterflyfishes
Snappers
Angelfish
Emperors
PKW
0.004
0.001
0.03
0.0003
0.01
0.001
Each bio-geographical zone showed a distinct species composition (Figure 19). Surgeonfishes had
a very irregular distribution, and they were found in large abundance in both lagoon and ocean
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
42
sites. Lagoon regions had proportionally more butterflyfishes than the ocean regions. Rabbitfishes
lacked in the lagoon areas, however they were seen on fish diversity surveys, which covered a
larger area. The Northern lagoon zone contained a relatively abundant parrotfishes assemblage.
Amongst the ocean areas, West Ocean (off the Southern pass) had the least relative abundance of
Fusiliers and more Snappers. The Ocean South area held a comparatively higher number of
Parrotfish than the other ocean areas.
Figure 19. Average abundance distribution of fish families among the five zones.
100%
90%
80%
Rabbitfish
Angelfish
Snappers
Butterflyfish
Fusiliers
Parrotfish
Surgeonfish
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
LN
LW
OW
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
OS
WO
43
3.2.4
Seaweeds
The total coverage of seaweeds varied between 0% and 75%. Ocean sites appeared in certain areas
to be fairly covered by algae, but not to the point of overgrowing the corals (Figure 20). The most
common seaweeds (in terms of presence and abundance) were Micriodyction, Halimeda,
Udotea/Avrainvillea group, red coralline algae, and blue-green algae.
Macroalgae communities on rock substratum were very diverse (Photograph 3). Most overhangs
and caves were dominated over by several species of Halimeda. Microdyction competes with
Halimeda, but these two main seaweeds cover different depth layers, with Microdyction usually
deeper than Halimeda. Halimeda is a genus that is able to invade any habitat, from sand flats, to
caves, bedrock, dead coral, overhangs, and at any depth (Photograph 4).
Figure 20. Seaweed cover (in %) at all sites, missing values for sites R6 and R9. Lines connect three transects in each
site. R6 and R9 miss data from one transect.
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
R14
R13
R12
R11
R10
R9
R8
R7
R6
R5
R4
R3
R2
R1
0
44
Photograph 3.
Algae assemblage with a high diversity of coralline algae and fleshy algae.
Coralline algae
Udotea
Halimeda
Dictiosphaeria
Photograph 4.
Halimeda (a) on sand, and (b) in overhang on reef wall.
(a)
(b)
Algae data were collected by target species/genera list. We selected algae present at more than 10
sites for the subsequent analysis (Table 16).
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
45
Table 16. Frequency of seaweeds in quadrats at all sites. In bold are algae present at more than 10 sites.
Latin name
Common name
Number of counts
Microdyction
gauze seaweed
Halimeda
sand seaweed
Udotea/Avrainvillea
fan seaweed
Lithophyllum
coralline pink
Phormidium sp
purple hairy
Dictyosphaeria cavernosa
large bubble
Dictyosphaeria verslusii
small bubble
Venticaria ventricosa
sinking dark marble
Caulerpa serrulata
saw-blade
Caulerpa racemosa
sea grape
Caulerpa sertularioides
feather
1
Caulerpa
little daisy
Codium spp.
green velvet
Neomeris annulata
green finger
Enteromorpha cf
green filamentous
Jania spp.
purple spikes
Asparagopsis spp.
red fringy
Oscillatoria sp.
Red mat
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
51
111
41
20
41
1
1
1
7
5
3.2.4.1 Depth
The coverage of seaweeds does not change substantially among the three depth layers (Figure 21).
This indicates a homogeneous distribution of macroalgae across the depths. However, it is likely
that algae communities would change if deeper depths were included. The very clear waters
around Rongelap- Rongelap island probably meant that the expected community shift could not yet
be detected at 18 m depths.
Figure 21. Variation of seaweeds coverage among the three depths, in % coverage.
Box Plot
Split By: DEPTH
60
50
40
shallow
intermediate
30
deep
20
10
0
COVERAGE
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
46
3.2.4.2 Ocean vs Lagoon
Both coverage and number of identified species were significantly more abundant at the ocean
sites, as shown in Figure 22. In the lagoon, they were found on sandy substrate as well as boulders
and bommies.
Figure 22. Statistical characteristics of algae coverage in lagoon and ocean sites, (a) mean algae coverage and
probability value associated to t-test (P), (b) difference in algae coverage.
a)
b)
P < .0003
Mean
Std.
Deviation
lagoon
13.9
15.6
ocean
38.7
14.5
Box Plot
Split By: lagoon/ocean
80
70
60
50
40
lagoon
30
ocean
20
10
0
-10
COVERAGE
3.2.4.3 Geographical zones
When studying the coverage of total seaweeds among the five geographical zones, we discovered
sharp differences in the algal communities and coverage (Figure 23 and
Table 17 ). Value of p for the Kruskal-Wallis test of multiple comparison = 0.0002. Total coverage
was highest at the West Ocean sites (west off of Southern pass), and lowest at the lagoon west
sites.
Table 17.
Values of mean and standard deviation for total coverage of seaweeds in percent (StDev= standard
deviation, PKW = probability value associated with the Kruskal-Wallis test of differences among
groups average values). P = 0.0002.
Coverage (%)
Geographical area
Lagoon N
Mean
StDev
Lagoon W
Mean
StDev
Ocean W
Mean
StDev
Ocean S
Mean
StDev
W Ocean
Mean
StDev
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
25.4
17.7
5.3
5.6
36.6
10.7
35.3
14.6
49.1
13.9
47
Figure 23. Difference of algae coverage among the five bio-geographic zones.
Box Plot
Split By: geogr location
80
70
60
W ocean
50
lagoon W
40
ocean W
30
lagoon N
20
ocean S
10
0
-10
COVERAGE
3.3
Diversity data
3.3.1 Fish diversity
A total of 361 fish species were recorded from Rongelap atoll. They were observed on dives at 14
sites, additional dives and snorkels undertaken in the area. Fishes observed on the 14 sites
exclusively amount to 339 species. With higher sampling effort a much higher total species
number can be expected. Randall and Randall (1987) report 817 reef, shore and epipelagic fishes
from the Marshall Islands, Allen (2002) refer to a total of 795 reef fishes for the Marshall Islands
overall. The species accumulation curve from this survey suggests that a high number of additional
species can be expected if the area is increased and more dives are carried out (Figure 24 ).
Assuming that each dive adds a few new species to the accumulated total number, after around 50
to 60 dives a plateau is reached for a small regional setting such as an embayment, atoll or group of
islands. At the plateau, only 1 to 2 species are added per dive (Fenner, pers.comm., Beger,
unpublished data). At Rongelap we were still adding 10 to 15 species per dive. In order to
compile a comprehensive fish species list for the entire Rongelap atoll, a wider range of sites must
be sampled. Considering the small size of Rongelap Rongelap, however, it is indicative of the
health and pristine condition of these reefs that we recorded more than half of the fishes known
from the Marshall Islands.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
48
Figure 24. Species-area accumulation curve for fishes of Rongelap atoll for 14 sites, data from single dives only.
Rongelap fishes
Species Count (Cumulative)
350
300
250
200
150
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Sample
s
.
Amongst the sampled sites on Rongelap island and the southern atoll, species numbers per site
varied greatly (Figure 25). The number of fish species at each site varied from 80 to 179, with an
average of 135 species (28.5 Standard Deviation). The highest fish species counts with 179 species
per site were reported at R1 in the pass at Jaboan and R6, a lagoon site. Lagoon sites vary greatly
in their fish biodiversity, depending on the numbers, size and variety of coral mounds scattered on
the sandy substratum. The outer wall sites on the oceanward side of the island supported a
relatively uniform fish biodiversity. The tip of the island (R1 in Jaboan) supported a particularly
high variety of fishes, because its variety of habitats includes both exposed wall and lagoonal
features.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
49
Figure 25. Fish species richness at sites on Rongelap Rongelap and southern islands (inset, for exact location
compare Figure 6), numbers in colored squared represent total fish species richness on a color scale
(red – richest, blue – poorest sites).
80
100 120 140 145 150 180
R3
147
R14
R13
R8 83
R11 R6 179
80
R1
179 120
R9 148
R12 R4
142
144
R2 132
R7
136
R10
130
124
R5
3.3.1.1 Community structure of fishes
The fish fauna of Rongelap atoll was mainly composed of species associated with coral reefs. The
moray eel family (Muraenidae) was expected to be one of the most speciose groups (compare
Randall and Randall, 1987). However on this project not many species were detected owing to
their cryptic habits. They are best sampled using strong liquid ichthyocides such as rotenone,
which were avoided on this trip to minimize impacts. Although the goby family (Gobidae) ranked
highly amongst the families, it was not adequately sampled owing to their crypticism and small
size. One of the shortcomings of the visual census methodology used on this survey is that it often
fails to detect cryptic and nocturnal species. These species live in crevasses and caves, are
extremely small, have a camouflaged color pattern or hide during the day.
As mentioned above, we aimed to distribute sampling sites evenly between the sheltered lagoonal
reef and the exposed outer walls. Fish communities are distinctly different at these parts of the
atoll. The steep outer drop-offs harbor several epi-pelagic species such as Bluefin Jacks (Caranx
melampygus) and Rainbow Runners (Elagatis bipinnulata). Several fishes only occur at the deeper
section of the wall below 30 m of depth, such as Helfrich’s Dartfish (Nemateleotris helfrichi) and
Starck’s Tilefish (Hoplolatilus starki). Other specialists are associated with the outer reef surge
and are only found in the exposed shallows. Such species included, but were not limited to, the
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
50
Achilles Tang (Acanthurus achilles), the Whitespotted Surgeonfish (A. guttatus), mixed roaming
schools of parrotfish (Chlorusus frontalis, Scarus altipinnis, Cetoscarus bicolor), and the Midget
Chromis (Chromis acares).
The sheltered lagoon habitats supported different fish species, which were surprisingly diverse and
abundant. Most fishes were found associated with patch reefs on the sandy substratum. Large
schools of herbivorous fish were observed roaming between these coral bommies, usually these
schools included surgeonfish and parrotfish. An abundant variety of groupers was found near and
on the patch reefs. They were significantly more diverse in the lagoon sites than the outer sites.
The most abundant species were the Highfin Grouper (Epinephelus maculates) and the Speckled
Grouper (Epinephelus cyanopodus). A number of specialist species was reported from the
sheltered shallow zone that only experiences mild surge. The most prominent species observed
were sergeant damselfishes (Abudefduf sordidus) and the Grey Demoisielle (Chrysiptera glauca).
A cluster analysis based on Bray-Curtis similarity was used to determine community patterns in the
fishes. The resulting dendrogram illustrates the distinctive separation of lagoon and outer reef
habitats, which clustered with 42 percent and 60 percent similarity respectively (Figure 26).
Figure 26. Dendrogram of Bray-Curtis similarity illustrating distinct fish communities for lagoon and outer reefs.
Set A - Rongelap fishes
20
Similarity
40
60
Outer Reefs
R6
R3
R8
R11
R12
R4
R5
R9
R7
R14
R13
R1
R10
100
R2
80
Lagoon Reefs
3.3.1.2 Endemism and Rarity
Considering the ability of marine fish larvae to disperse in the water column and travel with ocean
currents, there are few endemic species on coral reefs compared to terrestrial environments.
However, the Marshall Islands are relatively isolated in the Central Pacific, with the northern atolls
being particularly remote. Huge distances to possible sources of larvae with few in between as
stepping stones for species dispersal, a prevailing north-easterly wind and current and large
distances between atolls have facilitated the development of several unique species of fish endemic
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
51
to the Marshall Islands or the northern central Pacific. Endemic species are fished that only occur
in a restricted geographical range.
The following endemic species were observed:
Cirrhilabrus rhomboidalis (Randall) – This small wrasse is only
known from the Marshall Islands, with specimen collected from
Kwajalein. It only occurs below 40m (120ft) on outer reef slopes,
and aggregates in groups above the substratum (picture from
Fishbase, (2002).
Cirrhilabrus balteatus (Randall) – This small wrasse occurs in
medium sized aggregations at a depth range from 10 to 25m on the
outer exposed reef slopes, but also around larger patchreefs inside
the lagoon. It is endemic to the Marshall Islands (picture from
Fishbase, 2002).
Cirrhilabrus luteovittatus (Randall) – This small wrasse occurs in
medium sized aggregations at a depth range from 10 to 25m on the
outer exposed reef slopes. It is only found in the Marshall Islands,
Phonpei and the Caroline Islands (picture from Fishbase, 2002).
Cirrhilabrus sp. (possibly katherinae) – This small wrasse
occurred on the outer drop-off on Rongelap Rongelap, and the
southern islands (site R13). After consultation with John E.
Randall from a picture we believe that the wrasse observed is
either a new species, or a species not previously recorded from the
Marshall Islands (C. katherinae).
Pseudocheilinus ocellaris (Randall) – This bright coloured wrasse
is only found below 25m of depth under ledges and overhangs. It
is wary and often difficult to see. It was only recently described
from the Northern Marshall Islands (Randall 1999).
Pomachromis exilis (Allen and Emery) – The slender reef damsel
is a shallow reef restricted range damselfish, which is only
recorded from the Marshall Islands and the Caroline Islands
(picture from Fishbase, 2002).
Amphiprion tricinctus (Schultz and Welander) – The three-banded
clownfish is endemic to the Marshall Islands. It is relatively
common around Rongelap and occurs associated with the anemone
Stichodactyla mertensi (black fish) and Heteractis aurora (orange
fish) (Fishbase 2002).
Rare species are fishes that only occur in relatively few spots on a reef, or are so cryptic that it is
difficult to assess the probability of their presence at a given site. For coral reef ecosystems, there
is little information on rarity and how to manage rare species. Recommendations on the
conservation of rare fish species highlight the need to establish marine protected area networks
incorporating the appropriate habitats (Jones et al., 2002). To demonstrate the potential locations
of rare species on Rongelap atoll, we plotted the abundance of fishes that only occur once or twice
throughout the whole dataset (14 sites, Figure 27). The hotspots for rare species richness do only
partially overlap with total species richness.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
52
Figure 27.
Richness of rare fish species with the threshold of T=2 at 14 sites on Rongelap Atoll. The map
shows how many rare fishes were reported from each site, numbers in colored squared represent rare
fish species richness on a color scale (red – richest, blue – poorest sites)
5
8
10
12
16
20
22
R3
8
R14
R13
R8
R11 R6 23
11
R1
17
R7
6
7
9
13
R10
4
R9 7
R12 R4
8
R2
20
6
R5
3.3.1.3 Coral Fish Diversity Index (CFDI)
A leading expert in Indo-Pacific reef fish diversity recently devised a convenient method for
assessing expected species richness in a site, a restricted geographic area or a region (Werner and
Allen, 1998). Six relatively conspicuous and easy to identify fish families are chosen to calculate
the Coral Fish Diversity Index: butterflyfishes (Chaetodontidae), angelfishes (Pomacanthidae),
damselfishes (Pomacentridae), wrasses (Labridae), parrotfishes (Scaridae), and surgeonfishes
(Acanthuridae). The number of species in these groups is added and inserted in a regression
formula for restricted localities less than 2,000 km2 ,
Total expected fish species richness = 3.39(CFDI) – 20.595
(1)
that calculates the total expected species richness (Allen, 2002). The fish fauna in Rongelap atoll
has a Coral Fish Diversity Index of CFDI= 172 (Table 18). The formula predicts a total expected
species number of 562 fish species at Rongelap-Rongelap and the southern part of the atoll. This
method enabled us to estimate fish species richness despite the low number of sites and the
likelihood that rare or cryptic species were overlooked. It is likely that this number would increase
with increasing reef area visited.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
53
Table 18. Number of species from six target fish families at Rongelap atoll
Fish families
Butterflyfishes (Chaetodontidae)
Angelfishes (Pomacanthidae)
Damselfishes (Pomacentridae)
Wrasses (Labridae)
Parrotfishes (Scaridae)
Surgeonfishes (Acanthuridae)
Total CFDI
Number of Species
24
10
39
57
16
26
172
Allen (2002) refers to a CFDI of 221 in the RMI, derived from Randall and Randall (1987). This
estimates a total of 822 reef fishes for the whole of the Marshall Islands (using a formula for large
regions). Considering the small size of the island, our data captured a large proportion of these
fishes, indicating the exceptional status of Rongelap reefs.
3.3.1.4
Marine reserves: Facilitating reef biodiversity conservation
Marine protected areas are a widely recognized means for both fisheries management and the
conservation of biodiversity (Roberts et al., 2001, Roberts et al., 2002). It is still a young and little
practiced approach to prioritize potential reserve sites by considering the conservation of marine
biodiversity. However, procedures based on complementarity, where sites are selected to
complement each other with respect to the species included in a reserve network, were shown to be
most efficient (Beger et al., in press, Leslie et al., in press). We used the complementarity reserve
prioritization method to highlight priority sites for coral reef fish conservation on Rongelap island
(Figure 28). This illustrates that while the ocean sites support on average a higher number of fishes
and more abundant species, the lagoon habitat forms an important ecosystem supporting many rare,
habitat specific and cryptic species. In the reserve prioritization for fishes, the first site selected
(R1) – a lagoon site- was one of the two sites with the highest species numbers. The second ranked
site (R6) was a lagoon site with a highly diverse but distinct fish assemblage. The third site (R3)
was also a lagoon site, which contained many rare species (threshold rarity, T=2). This indicates
that the importance of lagoonal sites should not be underestimated.
While selection procedures based on diversity are effective for including a large proportion of
fishes in a reserve network, there are significant limitations to these approaches. They do not take
into account the likely persistence of species in protected areas. A species is considered
represented when there is only one or a few individuals in a reserve, which is not likely to represent
a viable population. They also do not consider socio-economic factors, fisheries and ownership of
adjacent land.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
54
Figure 28. Priority sites for the conservation of fish species richness
R3
R14
R13
R1
R12
R8
R11 R6
R9 R4
R2
R7
R10
R5
3.3.2 Coral diversity
The principle aim of the coral survey was to provide an inventory of coral species and compare the
relative coral abundance and diversity at different sites with the view of selecting marine protected
areas. The primary group of corals surveyed were the zooxanthellate scleractinian corals (those
containing single-cell algae which contribute to building the reef). Also included were a small
number of zooxanthellate non-scleractinian corals which also produce large skeletons which
contribute to the reef {e.g. Millepora , fire coral; and Heliopora, blue coral), and a small number
of azooxanthellate corals (Balanophyllia and Stylaster) which also produce calcium carbonate
skeletons and contribute to reef building.
The results of this survey allow a comparison of the faunal richness of Rongelap atoll with other
parts of the Pacific and S.E. Asia. However the list of corals presented is probably an
underestimation, due to the limited number of sites sampled.
A total of 170 coral species were recorded from surveys of Rongelap atoll. Only 34 corals were
previously recorded from Rongelap atoll (Wells, 1954). These results compare well to previous
coral surveys in the Marshall Islands. Maragos (1994) found 269 species on a survey of several
atolls in the northern Marshall Islands. A recent survey of the neighbouring atoll of Alinginae
yielded 192 species (Maragos, pers.comm.). Rongelap atoll is the third largest atoll in the world.
Reef survey sites were generally of two distinct types: exposed walls and lagoonal sites. Wall
habitats comprised of a narrow fringing reef (up to 50 m wide) and reef crest interspersed with
deep channels leading to a steep wall drop-off. Lagoon sites were composed of small patch reefs
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
55
and bommie developments amongst sand.
report.
Further site information is provided elsewhere in this
3.3.2.1 Coral Diversity
The coral fauna consisted mainly of Scleractinia. Acropora is the most speciose genus (Table 19)
followed by Montipora. The total coral species richness for Rongelap atoll surpasses previous
records (Wells, 1956), yet is still considered to be an underestimation of the actual total coral
diversity of the entire atoll. The species accumulation curve (Figure 29) suggests that higher
diversity would be expected if the sampling intensity were increased. Thus the entire atoll must be
sampled in order to gain a comprehensive species list for Rongelap. Given the limited part of
Rongelap atoll that was sampled in this study, the coral diversity is high with respect to the
Marshall Islands as a whole which are estimated to have approximately 250 species of coral
(Veron and Fenner, 2000), and Bikini atoll, which was surveyed as part of this project and where
198 species of coral were recorded (Richards, personal communication). It is suggested that reefs
of Rongelap atoll are very healthy and some of the most pristine atoll reefs in the world.
Table 19. Genera with the greatest number of species.
RANK
GENUS
NO. SPP.
1
2
3
3
3
3
4
5
6
6
Acropora
Montipora
Favities
Favia
Fungia
Porites
Psammocora
Pocillopora
Pavona
Hydnophora
44
21
7
7
7
7
6
5
4
4
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
56
Figure 29. Species-area accumulation curve for corals of Rongelap atoll for 14 sites.
Coral species - Rongelap
Species Count (Cumulative)
200
150
100
50
0
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
R11
R12
R13
R14
Samples
Species numbers per site varied greatly with wall sites having consistently higher diversity than
lagoonal sites (Figure 30). The southern island of Eniroruuri had the highest coral diversity with
77 species per site. The exposed wall at Jaboan pass has the highest diversity on Rongelap island
(70 species). There is a distinct increase in coral species numbers around biogeographical features
such as exposed points, where it is considered some accumulation of larvae may occur in the lee of
currents.
Figure 30. Coral species richness at sites on Rongelap Rongelap island and southern islands.
R3
77
R14
R13
R8
63
R11 R6
35
R1
56
R7
65
53
R10
60
R5
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
32
69
71
R9 60
R12 R4
71
R2
39
38
57
3.3.2.2 Coral community structure
A cluster analysis based on Bray-Curtis similarity was used to determine community patterns in the
corals. The resulting dendogram illustrates the distinctive separation of lagoon and outer reef
habitats (Figure 31). Lagoonal sites (sites R3, R8, R6, R11) clustered together in a distinct
separation from wall sites. The corals of Jaboan Pass (site R1) are placed apart from other wall
sites, and the coral composition may indicate Jaboan Pass represents transitional habitat between
wall and lagoonal locations. There is high similarity between the three high diversity of exposed
wall sites (R12, R13, R14), which are adjacent to deep water passes and exposed to high water
movement.
Figure 31. Dendogram of Bray-Curtis similarity showing distinct coral communities for lagoon (R3, R8, R6,
R11) and oceanic wall reefs (R7, R9, R10, R12, R13, R14; R1 = Jaboan Pass).
Coral species - Rongelap
20
Similarity
40
60
R11
R6
R8
R3
R5
R4
R2
R14
R13
R12
R10
R9
R7
100
R1
80
11 out of 13 sites at Rongelap atoll had over 70% live coral cover (Figure 32). A higher coral
cover correlated to a high coral diversity at most sites. Coral cover was only 10% on bommies at
the northern tip of Rongelap island, but the species diversity was quite high compared with other
lagoon sites. This result may be a reflection of the very shallow nature and high energy regime of
this site, meaning that only very small isolated coral bommies persist.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
58
Figure 32.
Species diversity (gray) overlaid with percent cover (black), showing a correlation between diversity
and percent coral cover at most sites in Rongelap Island.
Species Diversity and Percent Coral Cover
120
100
Frequency
80
60
40
20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Site
3.3.2.3 Endemism and Rarity
No coral species recorded were endemic to the Marshall Islands. Seven major range extensions
were recorded in this study and many of these species were recorded from the Central Pacific
Ocean for the first time. Further 9 minor range extensions were recorded for species that have not
been recorded in the Marshall Islands before. Most of the species labelled “sp” are likely to be
undescribed; these species require further study.
The sampling undertaken was insufficient to draw conclusions about the abundance and range of
species recorded. However, the following analysis of rarity may provide insight into rarity
patterns at Rongelap island. There are two key elements of rarity: geographic range and
abundance. 20% of coral species at Rongelap atoll were locally rare in both the geographic and
abundance senses. 56 % of coral species within coral communities at Rongelap atoll had a low
relative abundance and occurred only once. A greater number of geographically rare species is not
usually explained by the presence of greater diversity (Fenner, 2002, Jones et al., 2002). Results
of this study do indicate however that the number of species with a rare relative abundance was
closely related to the presence of greater diversity (Figure 33). This indicates that the community
assemblage must be diverse to accommodate species with low abundances. 25 % of corals species
at Rongelap atoll are site-restricted or geographically rare as they were recorded from one site
only. It is expected that with further sampling this percentage will be reduced as a more
comprehensive estimate of the abundance and range of these species will be revealed.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
59
Figure 33. Plot of species richness (gray) versus rarity (black) at Rongelap atoll, showing the number of rare
species (relative abundance) was related to overall diversity.
Frequency
Species Diversity and Rarity
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14
Site
New Records for the Marshall Islands:
The following species were recorded from the Marshall Islands for the first time:
Acanthastrea brevis — This submassive coral was occassionally
observed at lagoon and wall sites around Rongelap Rongelap but
was not observed at the southern islands. Observed to growing as
relatively small colonies, the very tall septal teeth of this species
made it very conspicuous. This species is considered uncommon
and was previously recorded from SE Asia, the West Indian
Ocean and Red Sea. A voucher specimen of this species was
collected and is housed at the Museum of Tropical Queensland.
Coscinarea monile — This encrusting coral has free margins and
was observed at both lagoonal and wall sites at Rongelap
Rongelap island. It was not observed at the southern islands.
Colonies have a smooth surface due to the even and finely
serrated septa. All colonies were a uniform brown color. This
species is common in the western Indian Ocean but is considered
uncommon in S.E. Asia. It has not previously been recorded from
the Pacific Ocean. A voucher specimen of this species was
collected and is housed at the Museum of Tropical Queensland.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
60
Seriatopora dentritica — This compact bushy coral closely
resembles Seriatopora hystrix but it has much thinner and more
delicate branches. The fine branches have corallites that are
aligned in rows down the branch. An adult colony of this species
was observed only once at one wall location but was clearly
distinguished from the S. hystrix which was growing nearby. This
species is usually uncommon and has only been recorded from
S.E. Asia, it has never been recorded from the Central Pacific.
Montastrea salebrosa — This coral normally grows as massive
spherical colonies but at Rongelap island it was encrusting with free
margins. Single colonies were observed from two exposed wall
sites. This species has very circular corallites which are packed
close together. The exert polyps (some more exert than others)
which face different directions, and extensive extratentacular
budding distinguish this species in the field.
This species is
considered rare and previously known only from SE Asia, the GBR
and parts of the Western Pacific. A voucher specimen was collected
and is housed at the Museum of Tropical Queensland.
Acropra loisetteae — This species has usually has an open
branching growth form, but at the one lagoonal site on Rongelap
island it had more of an arborescent table growth form. The thin
curved branches with few radial corallites distinguish this
species. It has not been recorded often in the literature so there
is little known of its variability. It grows in lagoonal situations
and often with other branching species. At Rongelap island it
was brown in color with dark blue tips. This rare species has
previously only been recorded from Malaysia and Western
Australia. A voucher specimen of was collected and is housed at
the Museum of Tropical Queensland.
Acropora nana — This corymbose species has very slender upright and
non-tapering branches. It has evenly sized tubular radial corallites
which are pressed against the branch, calice openings are round to oval
with an upwardly extending lower wall. It was recorded from SE Asia,
Australia, PNG, Fiji, Samoa and the Society Islands. Previous records
from Northern Hemisphere Pacific Ocean localities were doubtful and
this is the first verified identification from this region. The growth form
of this species made it obvious in the field. It was located quite
commonly in shallow reef edge locations along the exposed walls of
Rongelap island and southern island sites. A voucher specimen was
collected and is housed at the Museum of Tropical Queensland.
Acropora speciosa — This species grows as a side attached thin plate
with fusing horizontal branches which give off tapering vertical branches.
There are few radial corallites apart from around the base of branchlets.
This species was recorded in small numbers from both lagoonal and wall
habitats at Rongelap island. Within the lagoon it occurred at the base of
walls on patch reefs. The tapering branchlets with narrow axial corallites
distinguished this species in the field. Previously this species had been
recorded from SE Asia, PNG, GBR and Fiji. Records of this species
from Pacific Ocean localities in the Northern Hemisphere were doubtful
and this is the first verified identification from this region.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
61
3.3.2.4
Coral Biodiversity Conservation
Increased human impacts have caused “massive and accelerating decreases in abundance of coral
reef species and have caused global changes in reef ecosystems over the last two centuries”
(Hughes et al., 2002). As a result, frequency and severity of coral bleaching and disease have also
increased. Rongelap atoll is in the unique situation of being both a very remote atoll, and having
very little recent fishing pressure or pollution. Stress responses such as coral bleaching or other
disturbances were not observed in this study and have never been recorded at Rongelap atoll.
Coral bleaching- even if very rare in the RMI- was however recorded in Majuro for the first time
in the past ten years, in 2002 (ReefBase, 2002). Thus the oceanic reefs of Rongelap atoll have
inadvertently been protected and are today some of the best representatives of oceanic reefs.
Although pristine today, the oceanic reefs of Rongelap atoll are highly vulnerable to future
overexploitation if the resource base is not protected. Marine reserves have been shown as the
most effective method of protecting reefs and their services in the long term.
We used the complementary reserve prioritization method to highlight priority sites for coral
conservation at Rongelap atoll (Figure 34). This method focused on those sites with high coral
diversity and species, which are site-restricted (occurring at one site only). It is proposed that the
south wall site at Eniroruuri Island (R13) would be the priority site for coral species conservation
amongst those sampled at Rongelap atoll. This site had the highest coral species diversity.
On Rongelap island, the oceanic wall site R10 was the priority site for coral conservation. This site
had relatively high diversity and a large number of site-restricted species. Occurring adjacent to
the airport terminal, this site was very accessible for shore-diving and had a relatively safe
entry/exit point compared with other wall sites. A permanent transect was established here. Sites
R4 and R12 are on the exposed wall side of Jaboan Pass are the next two priority sites. With high
diversity and coral cover, these sites may be both a source and a sink for coral larvae. Many
species of coral were recorded from these sites only.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
62
Figure 34. Priority sites for the conservation of coral species richness.
1
R3 10
R14
R13
R814
12
R11 R6 5
13
R1
8
4
R12
3.4
R2 6
R7 11
2
R10
9
R9
3
R4
7
R5
Permanent transects
Two permanent transects were pinned down at two representative sites for future references and
monitoring activities. One site is located on the windward site of the atoll, R10, and it has been
chosen as good location for a permanent transect for its accessibility and for the high level of
quality of reef and general fauna.
The other site, R1, is located at the Jaboan point, and it is been selected for a recommendation for a
conservation management. The presence of the permanent transect will help monitor the location.
TOPOGRAPHICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE TWO SITES
Two detailed physical profiles were done at the two permanent transect sites (R1 and R10).
Information on the topography of the ocean floor and on the substrate coverage was collected and
analyzed. The following figures describe these data.
At R10 the profile was done along three transects perpendicular to the shoreline. One of the
transects was inside a deep groove and two were on either side of it. The groove profile is much
flatter and longer than the two other parallel to it, indicating a cut into the slope, a feature that is
typical of windward ocean-side of atolls, as described by Emery et al. (1954).
As it can be noted from the Figure 35, the three profiles are quite different in their proportion of
substrate kinds. Along the second profile inside the groove (Figure 36) live coral is more abundant
at deeper strata; live coral is then substituted by dead coral, rubble and sand at shallower depths.
The bottom of grooves is usually covered by sand and rubble, due to the high current and the
eroding activity of waves. The other two transects present a high relative coverage of coral.
Seaweeds are generally proportionally more important at depths > 5m.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
63
At R1 four different profiles were accomplished, three perpendicular to the shore (Figure 37) and
one parallel to it at 4 different depths.
Along the first transect the proportion of live coral is low at depths shallower than 10 m. This
transect was close to a groove and the substrate most representative of this feature is a sand-rubble
bottom, as it is obvious in Figure 38. Overall, the proportion of live coral is higher along these
transects than at R10. This is a further indication of the particular health and richness of this site at
Jaboan point.
Figure 35: Profiles of bottom topography at three neighboring locations at site R10.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
64
Figure 36: Percentage coverage of the three profiles at site R10.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
65
Figure 37: Profiles of bottom topography at three neighboring locations at site R1.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
66
Figure 38: Percentage coverage of the three profiles at site R1.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
67
4. Results and Discussion
In order to summarize the results section and to highlight the most important results, we provided a
list of findings below (Table 1). For each previous chapter we summarize the main results.
Table 20. Major findings of the NRAS 2002 project on Rongelap Atoll.
Result
Substrate Hard oral cover was higher at shallower sites, averaging 39% of total
substrate.
Ocean had higher coral cover than the lagoon, particularly non-Acropora.
Lagoon had higher sand cover than the ocean.
Substrate proportions varied with bio-geographical zone.
More rock was recorded on exposed sites.
Coral
Targets
All species were evenly distributed by depth, only Acropora palifera/ cuneta
preferred shallower depths.
Higher coral cover was recorded on ocean sites.
Many coral species were lacking or in low numbers in the lagoon.
Most corals were relatively homogenously distributed between zones, but
subject to the above point.
Fish
Targets
The most abundant family was the damselfishes.
Shallower reefs contained a higher fish biomass than deeper reefs.
There was no depth differentiation by families.
Fishes were more abundant on the ocean side.
Fishes were heterogeneously distributed across bio-geographical zones.
Seaweeds Algae cover did not change with depth.
Ocean sites contained algae in higher abundances and more frequently.
The southwestern sheltered zones had a higher algae cover than other zones.
There were fewer algae in the western part of the lagoon.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
68
361 fish species were recorded on Rongelap Island.
Fish
Diversity
Sites with high species richness did not contain many rare species.
Lagoon sites ranked very high as fish conservation priorities, containing rare
and distinctly different species compared to ocean sites.
Both a lagoon and an ocean site should be considered for conservation
The survey raised the known coral species of Rongelap Atoll from 34 to 170.
Coral
Diversity
16 range extensions were recorded, with many of these species recorded in the
Pacific Ocean for the first time.
Most sites had high coral cover, diversity and new recruits.
Oceanic wall reef sites were the most species rich.
The NRAS team found a distinct zonation between the outer fringing and lagoonal patch reefs of
Rongelap Island. Coral reef zonation is a well-known characteristic of coral reefs (Alevizon et al.,
1985, Acosta and Robertson, 2002). Different habitats and associations of species present in
different areas of the island and depth zones resulted from the effect of wave action, exposure,
topography and light conditions (Dunning et al., 1992).
This zonation was represented by a variety of habitats present at Rongelap Island, with the
strongest differences apparent between lagoon and ocean side. On the lagoon the lesser water
circulation, the higher protection from the wind compared to the ocean side and the different
current patterns provid a calmer habitat. Here sand accumulates and corals usually do not construct
barriers of reef, but patches or mounts of reef accretion. However, still inside the lagoon there are
differences of coral associations and ecological communities due to the difference in wind impact
and current circulation that control sedimentation, light and temperature. These are major physical
parameters that control coral growth and community relations. The sharper differences were
usually found between windward and leeward side.
Similarly, on the ocean side we expected and found visible differences in both a geological and
biological structure of the reef between the windward and leeward side. Coral communities are
often influenced by exposure, including impacts from waves, currents, winds and storms, but also
sedimentation. These expectations were met at Rongelap Island. Windward reefs present usually
more marked zonation, with boulders and a rubble zone on the reef flat, and spurs and grooves on
the slope. There is usually more silting in the deeper part of the slope. Leeward reefs do not present
boulders and rubble zone, nor spurs and grooves. The reef slope drop more gently in these
protected areas, whereas exposed reefs usually had a very steep dropoff.
Ocean regions: Wall habitats that were studied comprised a narrow fringing reef (up to 50 m wide)
and reef crest interspersed with deep channels leading to a steep wall drop-off. The western side of
the South pass regions contains the highest total coral coverage. The Western tip of RongelapRongelap is represented by high coverage of Acropora palifera/cuneata, Favites, P. cylindrica,
Porites austr.- and Seriatopora hystrix. The outer wall sites on the oceanward side of the island
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
69
supports a relatively uniform fish biodiversity. The tip of the island (R1 in Jaboan) supports a
particularly high variety of fishes, because its variety of habitats include both exposed wall and
lagoonal features. The highest fish species counts with 179 species per site were reported here.
Lagoon regions: Lagoon sites are composed of small patch reefs and bommie developments
amongst sand. The sheltered lagoon habitats support different fish species, which were surprisingly
diverse and abundant. Most fishes were found associated with patch reefs on the sandy substratum.
Large schools of herbivorous fish were observed roaming between these coral bommies, usually
these schools included surgeonfish and parrotfish. An abundant variety of groupers was found near
and on the patch reefs. They were significantly more diverse in the lagoon sites than the outer sites.
This indicates that the importance of lagoonal sites should not be underestimated for future
conservation measures.
Corals:
A total of 170 coral species were recorded from surveys of Rongelap atoll, 136 more than
previously reported. Seven major range extensions were recorded in this study and several of these
species were recorded from the Central Pacific Ocean for the first time. Acropora was the most
speciose genus followed by Montipora. Both coral coverage and number of identified species were
significantly more abundant at the ocean sites. In the lagoon, they were found on sandy substrate as
well as boulders and bommies.
We recorded a high coral cover and beta-diversity throughout the survey sites, combined with good
fish biomass values.
Our coral diversity records indicate a high diversity of corals, and also a high likelihood that new
species may still be discovered there. Considering the small size of Rongelap Rongelap, this
relatively high number was indicative of the health and pristine condition of these reefs. The total
coral species richness for Rongelap atoll surpasses previous records yet is still considered to be an
underestimation of the actual total coral diversity of the entire atoll. .
Based on the current availability of data, we would propose that the south wall site at Eniroruuri
Island (R13) would be the priority site for coral species conservation amongst those sampled at
Rongelap atoll. This site had the highest coral species diversity. On Rongelap Island, the oceanic
wall site R10 was the priority site for coral conservation. This site had relatively high diversity and
a large number of site-restricted species. Site R1, or the tip of Jaboan point, is suggested for
conservation for both values of biodiversity, and for management reasons.
Fishes:
Fish biomass was significantly higher between 5 and 15 m, approximately, where the larger fish
were found. Snappers, Parrotfishes, Fusiliers, Butterflyfishes, Surgeonfishes, Angelfishes,
Rabbitfish prefered the ocean sites.
We recorded more than half of the fishes known from the Marshall Islands, including several
endemic species only known from the Northern Marshall Islands.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
70
In summary, the entire atoll must be sampled in order to gain a comprehensive species list for
Rongelap for both corals and fish.
We suggest that reefs of Rongelap Island were very healthy and were some of the most pristine
atoll reefs in the world.
Although pristine today, the oceanic reefs of Rongelap atoll are highly vulnerable to future
overexploitation if the resource base is not protected. Marine reserves have been shown as the most
effective method of protecting reefs and their services in the long term.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
71
5. Site Descriptions
The following tables and figures summarize the description of habitat and species richness for each
of the site samples in Rongelap.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
72
R1: Jaboan on SW tip of Rongelap
Island
o
R3
R8
o
Coordinates: N 11 09.20707’ E 166 50.18976’
Conservation value: very high
Fish species: 176
Visually estimated Measured
coral cover: 70%
cover:
Shallow
Medium
Deep
Habitats:
7 biological
9 topographical
R11
R1
R9
R12 R4 R5
Coral species:
R6
R2
R7
R10
51
coral
61%
2%
2%
Fish biomass:
Shallow
1.95 kg
4.46 kg (6.11)
Medium
0 kg
3
(2,500m of water
Deep
11.4 kg
sampled)
- biological
- topographical
Mixed corals
Slope (> 25o )
Monospecific corals on rocky substrate
Steep wall w/ slope (> 60o )
Sand with coral bommies
High energy reef crest / top
Sand
Flat reef
Description: Beach dive from Jaboan Point, where we saw several habitats on repetitive dives.
This description is an account of many dives, but the transects and profile only represent one area
(sandy flat to grooves and bommies). A more detailed description of Jaboan point is in the text of
the Results section.
The site was rich with corals and fish. Abundant plankton and salps caused a low visibility. In the
shallow area were complicated bommies creating caves and tunnels. Towards the western side
there was a coral garden approaching 100% cover, which contained Acropora palifera, Pocillopora
spp and Montipora spp. Large schools of parrotfish and humpback snappers (Lutjanus gibbus) and
unicorn-fish (Naso vlamingii and N. annulatus). At 15m there were small coral bommies on a
sandy flat that was home to expansive colonies of garden eels. In the south, we encountered a steep
wall which slopes sideways towards the sand flat, interrupted by large patch reefs. We observed a
tiger shark, saw several gra reef sharks, a nurse shark and eagle rays. Turtles constitute one of the
tiger shark’s favorite prey, and a half-eaten turtle was found on the reef flat. Large sea fans grew on
the wall and soft corals (Dendronephthya spp) in small caves. Sometimes there was Halimeda
seaweed hanging from the overhang. Channels occasionally led inshore into enclosed sandy
patches surrounded by steep coral formations. Schools of unicorn-fish, blue-fin trevallies (Caranx
melampygus), rainbow runners (Elagatis bipinnulata), and dog-tooth tunas hung around the wall.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
73
Profile:
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
74
R3
R2:
R8
o
o
Coordinates: N 11 09.39472’ E 166 53.14641’
Conservation value: average
Fish species: 132
Visually estimated
coral cover: 70 %
Habitats:
4 biological
7 topographical
R11
Coral species:
53
R1
R9
R12R4 R5
R6
R2
R7
Measured coral
cover:
Shallow
27%
Medium
36%
Deep
41%
Fish biomass:
Shallow
5.57 kg (2.22)
Medium
3
(2,500 m of water
Deep
sampled)
- biological
- topographical
Mixed corals
Bommies
Bedrock w/ sparse corals
Slope (> 45o )
Mixed coral on bommies and sand
Steep wall w/ slope (> 60o )
R10
7.72 kg
3.29 kg
5.71 kg
Monospecific corals on rocky
Flat reef
substrate
Description: Beach dive off far end of airport. A short entry because the reef flat has been filled in
with the contaminated soil scraped from the living compound area, in support for the landing strip.
Jumped off the edge crushed by waves at incoming tide, into deeper water. At 8-10 m the habitat
was dominated by bedrock and deep sandy grooves. Acropora palifera and cuneata, Heliopora
coerulea and Tubipora musica were the dominant coral forms, together with massive Porites. The
gentle slope with grooves went to about 13m, where it abruptly turned into a steep wall sloping
down into the blue. At the wall, there were many anthiases, surgeonfish Acanthurus thompsoni and
the Multicolour Angelfish (Centropyge multicolor). Corals were a little less dense than nearer the
surface, where the slope was less steep. Rich in life for both coral and fish. One eagle ray, one
white tip shark and one gray reef shark. Two Napoleon wrasses, one small, one medium size. A
few seaweeds, Halimeda spp. and coralline algae.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
75
Profile :
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
76
R3
R3:
R8
Coordinates: N 11o 10.74334’ E 166 o 53.74411’
Conservation value: very high
Fish species: 144
Visually estimated
coral cover: 10 %
Habitats:
6 biological
3 topographical
R11
Coral species:
Measured coral
cover:
Shallow
12%
Medium
7%
Deep
50%
38
R6
R1
R9
R12R4 R5
Fish biomass:
Shallow
2.91 kg (1.12)
Medium
(2,500 m3 of water
Deep
sampled)
- biological
- topographical
Sand
Flat reef
Mixed coral on bommies and sand
Bommies
Sand with algae
Monolith
R2
R7
R10
3.98 kg
3.01 kg
1.75 kg
Monospecific corals on sandy
substrate
Description: Truck dive off northern side of Rongelap. Very gentle slope. Sandy substrate and
some coral bommies with Porites cylindrica and Favia spp. and Favites spp., branching Acropora
(e.g. A. muricatum), bottlebrush Acropora and Seriatopora hystrix. On sand, lots of Halimeda. Lots
of damsels and chromis. Giant clams. Many Holoturia edulis.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
77
Profile :
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
78
R3
R4:
R8
Coordinates: N 11o 09.10086’ E 166 o 50.32076’
Conservation value: high
Fish species: 149
Visually estimated
coral cover: 90 %
Habitats:
7 biological
5 topographical
R11
Coral species:
Measured coral
cover:
Shallow
76%
Medium
42%
Deep
34%
- biological
Mixed corals
Monospecific
corals
on
substrate
Macroalgae w/ sparse coral
58
R1
R9
R12R4 R5
R6
R2
R7
Fish biomass:
Shallow
4.9 kg (3.96)
Medium
3
(2,500 m of water
Deep
sampled)
- topographical
Steep wall fragmented
rocky High energy reef crest / top
R10
9.44 kg
2.16 kg
3.09 kg
Cave
no light habitat
Slope (> 45o )
Description: Dive at the south end of Rongelap Island, off the wall on the ocean side, near the tip
of the island. Departure from sandy beach, across an intertidal bedrock flat that ends in gullies and
channels. After a quick jump over the reef edge, there was a deep gully which we followed down
until it took us out to the steep slope / wall at 10 m. Extremely clear water. Steep wall with very
diverse corals, many massive Porites spp, Heliopora coerulea, Favia and other mussids. High
diversity of fish and many of large sizes. In the slope, small caves with the ornamental wrasse
Pseudocheilinus ocellatus in it, and bushes of branching soft coral hanging in the water column.
Going shallower, the good coral cover on the fragmented wall became even better, with about 95%
or more of live coral coverage. The shallow ridge was covered by diverse abundant corals, like in a
picture book. One gray reef at 25 m, one large Napoleon wrasse. Abundant (ca. 40%) of Halimeda
spp. and fan seaweeds, some coralline algae, Caulerpa racemosa and C. racemosa peltata.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
79
Profile :
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
80
R3
R5:
R8
Coordinates: N 11o 08.93800’ E 166 o 50.58275’
Conservation value: average
Fish species: 124
Visually estimated
coral cover: 80 %
Habitats:
6 biological
8 topographical
R11
Coral species:
Measured coral
cover:
Shallow
44%
Medium
47%
Deep
54%
- biological
Mixed corals
Macroalgae w/ sparse coral
no light habitat
R6
R1
R9
R12R4 R5
61
R2
R7
R10
Fish biomass
Shallow
4.9 kg (3.02)
Medium
3
(2,500 m of water
Deep
sampled)
- topographical
Steep wall fragmented
High energy reef crest / top
1.98 kg
4.7 kg
8.02 kg
Grooves
Deep crevasse/ hole
Monospecific corals on rocky
substrate
Description: Truck dive off ocean side, side of the southern part of Rongelap- Rongelap Island,
next to site R4. Entrance on deep gullies of bedrock and then on a bed of sand and a slope with
bommies and a large mound (patch reef) reaching for the surface near the drop off. The wall was
deep and steep. Abundant massive corals (Porites) and Acropora palifera-cuneata at shallow
depths. A few fish on trail, mainly small damsels. Large school of rainbow runners, large school of
blue-fin trevallies (Caranx melampigus), 2 green turtles (one very large male), one deep grey reef
shark.
40% coverage of seaweeds, mainly Halimeda and Caulerpa racemosa peltata, and deeper (20m)
Microdyction. On shallow water (shallower than 10m) pink coralline algae. Good visibility, 40 +,
blue water.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
81
Profile :
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
82
R3
R6:
R8
Coordinates: N 11o 09.46714’ E 166 o 52.00121’
Conservation value: very high
Fish species: 178
Visually estimated
coral cover: 15 %
R11
Coral species:
42
R1
R9
R12R4 R5
R6
R2
R7
Measured coral
cover:
Shallow
4%
Medium
6%
Deep
3%
Fish biomass:
Shallow
70% on bommie
3.8 kg (2.84)
Medium
(2500m3 of water
Deep
sampled)
Habitats:
- biological
- topographical
Mixed coral on bommies and sand
Bommies
8 biological
Sand
Slope (> 25o )
6 topographical
Acropora tables on rock
Patch reef
R10
0.79 kg
no data
5.81 kg
Mixed corals
Patch reef
Description: Lagoon side off old house in Jaboan, half way between camp and Southern tip.
Gently sloping sandy flat with coral bommies, with large schools of Parrotfish and Surgeonfish
schooling around at 5m. Deeper, the bommies were fewer, and at 12 to 17m there were larger
bommies/ patch reefs, that were highly diverse. Huge schools of Pacific long-nose Parrotfish
(Hipposcarus longiceps) and Dash and Dot Goatfish (Parupeneus barbarinus). Many groupers
such as Speckled Grouper (Epinephelus cyanopodus) and High-fin Grouper (E. maculatus). One
large ray. Halimeda spp. growing on sand and Caulerpa serrulata and C. racemosa. Very good
spot, highest diversity so far.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
83
Profile :
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
84
R3
R7:
R8
Coordinates: N 11o 09.43624’ E 166 o 52.92400’
Conservation value: average
Fish species: 130
Visually estimated
coral cover: 70 %
Habitats:
6 biological
9 topographical
R11
Coral species:
Measured coral
cover:
Shallow
34%
Medium
47%
Deep
35%
- biological
Macroalgae w/ sparse coral
Mixed corals
no light habitat
67
R1
R9
R12R4 R5
R6
R2
R7
R10
Fish biomass:
Shallow
7.7 kg
8.19 kg (3.02)
Medium
11.4 kg
(2500m3 of water
Deep
5.44 kg
sampled)
- topographical
Steep wall w/ slope (> 60o )
High energy reef crest / top
Deep crevasse/ hole
Sand
Grooves
Description: Dive on ocean side at the end of the runaway. Entrance on bedrock, smooth surface,
no problem, at in-coming tide. Long swim to 10 m depth, where substrate was mainly live coral in
deep gullies, ups and downs. Abundant Acropora palifera, blue coral and organ-pipe coral
dominated the coral community. The drop off was not as steep as at other places, perhaps 60
degrees. Fish were diverse and abundant, including large giant coral groupers (Plectropomus
laevis), black and white snappers (Macolor niger) and emperors. We also recorded one gray reef
shark, one large white tip shark, and one napoleon wrasse. Much Halimeda spp., blue-green
encrusting sheets. Coverage of 30-35% of total seaweed at 10 m. Good visibility.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
85
Profile :
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
86
R3
R8:
R8
Coordinates: N 11o 10.43048’ E 166 o 53.75506’
Conservation value: average
Fish species: 84
Visually estimated
coral cover: 10 %
50% on bommy
Habitats:
5 biological
3 topographical
R11
Coral species:
31
R1
R9
R12R4 R5
R6
R2
R7
R10
Measured coral cover:
Shallow
19%
Medium
26%
Deep
9%
Fish biomass:
Shallow
2.42 kg
4.76 kg (2.31)
Medium
7.04 kg
3
(2500m of
Deep
4.83 kg
water sampled)
- biological
- topographical
Sand
Slope (> 25o )
Mixed coral on bommies and sand
Sheltered reef crest / top
Acropora tables on rock
Bommies
Macroalgae
Description: Late afternoon dive on sand, on NW point of island, by an old house. The substratum
was mostly sand and a few coral bommies with the corals Porites nigrescens and Acropora florida.
Some patches were covered by Halimeda spp. and some by Caulerpa serrulata. Lots of small
damselfish and many cardinal fish were associated with the bommies. One large stingray was seen.
Profile :
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
87
R3
R9:
R8
Coordinates: N 11o 09.12210’ E 166 o 50.25059’
Conservation value: average
Fish species: 120
Visually estimated
coral cover: 95 %
3 biological
4 topographical
Coral species:
65
R1
R9
R12 R4 R5
R6
R2
R7
R10
Measured coral cover:
Shallow
63%
Medium
Deep
Habitats:
R11
68%
59%
- biological
Mixed corals
Macroalgae w/ sparse coral
Sand with algae
Fish biomass:
Shallow
41.9 kg
17.4 kg (21.2)
Medium
5.63 kg
(2500m3 of
Deep
41.9 kg
water sampled)
- topographical
Steep wall fragmented
High energy reef crest / top
Cave
Groves
Description: Dive off the South wall, between R1 and R4. Nice wall, with access through shallow
bedrock and channels surrounded by big bommies of large blue coral colonies, Acropora palifera,
and pink coralline dam. The wall was vertical with small caves supporting good coral coverage.
Algal coverage was up to 40%, with dominant Halimeda spp. and Caulerpa racemosa. Only few
fish were seen on the steep wall. However on the fore reef there were many small fishes such as
damselfishes, snappers and very large groupers. One turtle.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
88
Profile :
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
89
R3
R10:
R8
Coordinates: N 11o 09.30557’ E 166 o 53.40841’
Conservation value: high
Fish species: 142
Visually estimated
coral cover: 70 %
Habitats:
6 biological
8 topographical
R11
Coral species:
Visually estimated
coral cover:
Shallow
55%
Medium
0%
Deep
43%
- biological
Mixed corals
no light habitat
Macroalgae w/ sparse coral
64
R1
R9
R12 R4 R5
R6
R2
R7
R10
Fish biomass:
Shallow
14.0 kg
15.3 kg (6.11)
Medium
21.9 kg
(2500m3 of water
Deep
9.91 kg
sampled)
- topographical
Steep wall fragmented
Steep wall w/ slope (> 60o )
High energy reef crest / top
Soft coral
Deep crevasse/ hole
Description: Opposite the airport terminal on ocean side. Parked on airstrip, walked down short
“road” to the beach. There was a deep basin behind some wall breaking the waves, ideal for
jumping in safely. The basin had intermittent surge channels connecting to the edge of the wall.
One of these crevasses channels led through to the reef wall. The wall dropped steeply continuing
well below 60 m, as seen from 30 m. At depth there were large cave structures, but were rather bare
of fish. We recorded a high coral coverage of ca. 75%. With decreasing depth the coral cover
increased to about 95% corals on the shallow fore reef. The substrate also supported small
seaweeds (Caulerpa spp. and Halimeda spp.), and many hydrozoans. Sand covered the bottom of
the canyons, otherwise the substratum consisted mainly of corals and bedrock, with large tabulate
Acropora spp. colonies and large black corals. Large schools of Scarids and Acanthurids played in
the surge, mainly Scarus altipinnis and Chlorusus frontalis, and Acanthurus nigricans and A.
guttatus. We also saw 6 Napoleon wrasses and big groupers (brown-marbled grouper, Epinephelus
fuscoguttatus, and giant coral-groupers, Plectropomus laevis)). A school of blue-fin trevallies
(Caranx melampygus), two large black jacks (Caranx lugubris), one big stingray, one turtle, and
one gray reef shark were sighted.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
90
Profile :
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
91
R3
R11:
R8
Coordinates: N 11o 09.23958’ E 166 o 50.62749’
Conservation value: average
Fish species: 81
Visually estimated
coral cover: 5 %
R11
Coral species:
Measured coral
cover:
Shallow
4%
Medium
39%
Deep
13%
33
R6
R1
R9
R12 R4 R5
Fish biomass
Shallow
50% on bommie
4.65 kg (5.38)
Medium
(2500m3 of water
Deep
sampled)
Habitats:
- biological
- topographical
Sand
Slope (> 25o )
4 biological
Mixed coral on bommies and sand
Sheltered reef crest / top
3 topographical
Sand with algae
Bommies
R2
R7
R10
3.35 kg
0.04 kg
10.6 kg
Macroalgae
Description: Lagoon side between 2nd house and R1 (Jaboan), about 0.5 miles away from Jaboan
point. Occasional small bommies on a lot of sand eventually sloping steeply down to 25-30m.
Steep slope entirely composed of rubble. One Crown-of-Thorns starfish with around 200 small fish
in it.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
92
Profile :
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
93
R3
R12:
R8
Coordinates: N 11o 09.16394’ E 166 o 50.21003’
Conservation value: high
Fish species: 142
Visually estimated
coral cover: 95 %
Habitats:
3 biological
4 topographical
R11
Coral species:
Visually estimated
coral cover:
Shallow
57%
Medium
69%
Deep
67%
- biological
Mixed corals
Macroalgae w/ sparse coral
Sand with algae
68
R1
R9
R12 R4 R5
R6
R2
R7
Fish biomass:
Shallow
6.02 kg (3.42)
Medium
(2500m3 of water
Deep
sampled)
- topographical
Steep wall fragmented
High energy reef crest / top
R10
9.95 kg
4.42 kg
3.7 kg
Cave
Grooves
Description: Survey dive on west tip wall off Jaboan Point. Transects at 20, 17 and 10m on the
vertical wall. School of blue-fin trevallies (Caranx melampygus), dog-tooth tuna, small school of
large snub-nose pompanos (Trachinotus blochii).
Profile :
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
94
R13:
Coordinates: N 11o 11.49714’ E 166 o 43.42705’
Conservation value: high
Fish species: 147
Visually estimated
coral cover: 70 %
Habitats:
7 biological
9 topographical
Coral species:
Measured coral cover:
Shallow
60%
Medium
45%
Deep
62%
- biological
Mixed corals
Sand
Macroalgae w/ sparse coral
Oceanside
Island
off
Eniroruuri
77
Fish biomass
Shallow
10.9 kg
46.4 kg (59.03) Medium
13.7 kg
3
(2500m of
Deep
114.57 kg
water sampled)
- topographical
Slope (>45o )
High energy reef crest / top
Grooves
Rubble with encrusted life
Steep wall w/ slope (>60o )
Description: Dive on the south ocean side, at the end of the island of Eniroruuri. Nice drop-off
starting at 20 m, not a real wall but a steep slope. Small sand patches on shallow water (<10), with
nice coral bommies and surge channels, or grooves. The valleys of the grooves have sandy bottoms
and the outcrops were covered with rich mixed coral assemblages. Very shallow, there was a bare
rock with bommies, and huge quantities of the endemic damselfish Pomachromis exilis. One grey
reef sharks and lots of large black and white snappers (Macolor niger) and two-spot snappers
(Lutjanus bohar).
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
95
Profile :
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
96
R14:
Arubaru (Southern Island)
on eastern tip outside the
pass.
Coordinates: N 11o 10.09542’ E 166 o 46.79730’
Conservation value: high
Fish species: 145
Visually estimated
coral cover: 70 %
Habitats:
6 biological
6 topographical
Coral species:
Measured coral cover:
Shallow
30%
Medium
28%
Deep
32%
- biological
Macroalgae w/ sparse coral
Macroalgae
Mixed corals
61
Fish biomass:
Shallow
12.9 kg (2.32)
Medium
(2500m3 of
Deep
water sampled)
- topographical
Slope (> 25o )
Slope (> 45o )
15.4 kg
12.4 kg
10.9 kg
High energy reef crest / top
Rubble with encrusted life
Flat reef
Description: Second dive of day, by the pass, island facing the ocean side. Murky water for tide
coming in. Gentle sandy gentle slope with bommies going down gradually with grooves, with
coarse sand at bottom of the valleys between the outcrops. The cover was at least 50% algae and
only sparse corals for most of the 20 to 7 m depth portion of the reef. Shallower, there was a lot of
rubble, and near the beach a rock ledge. High presence of seaweeds as well, somewhere up to
60 %. Caulerpa serrulata, Halimeda spp., Caulerpa racemosa, Microdyction spp. and blue green
algae were the dominant types. Big schools of large black and white snappers, several grey reef
sharks, one turtle.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
97
Profile :
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
98
6. Recommendations
The results of this study documented an outstandingly pristine and healthy coral reef ecosystem on
Rongelap Island. This detailed survey provided a baseline for future changes and impacts that
might occur as a result of resettlement. The most important and foremost recommendation is that
the resettlement should be carried out in a well-controlled and regulated manner, concerning all
activities that may impact the coral reef ecosystem. A completely intact and prosperous coral reef
is a highly valuable resource, which is becoming extremely scarce on a global scale. The
Rongelapese people now have the unique chance to prove that reef deterioration must not always
be the inevitable results of human habitation. Wisely managed uses of the resource as well as well
managed land-based activities would ensure that human populations and thriving coral reefs can
co-exist.
We provide below a list of important issues to consider in the context of coral reef management
and conservation. These include but are not limited to:
?? Fisheries,
?? Waste disposal,
?? Tourism,
?? Traditional use,
?? Aquaculture and pen holding, and
?? Energy use.
One of the most efficient methods of reef management is the establishment of no-take reserves
(sanctuaries) in combination with management of the adjacent reef zones. We will consider each
point below.
6.1 Fisheries
Artisanal fisheries can provide a source of income and food if properly managed. It is important to
establish the status of the resource by continuous monitoring and adapt exploitation accordingly.
Recreational fisheries are likely to target pelagic fish such as tuna, but also reef fishes such as
groupers or snappers. While this fishery appears fairly small compared to commercial operations,
it is important to keep track of quantities being caught as this usually is easily overlooked.
Industrial fishing activities such as shark fishing should be approached with caution. While
allowing foreign vessels into the local waters will generate short-term income by fees, on a longterm basis it could destroy the resource. Fishing on an industrial scale is likely to overexploit the
resources, particularly when foreigners move into new fishing grounds and become a main cause of
depletion of resources, since they use high extractive methods and are not concerned about future
uses and impacts on sites that belong to another country. It is very difficult to establish the status
of top-predators such as sharks or tuna. Sharks have a very low reproductive efficiency, they
mature late and only produce a few young. For animals with such characteristics, it is often too
late to maintain populations by the time it is realised that they are severely depleted.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
99
6.2 Waste management
Waste disposal on land is extremely important for the management of coral reefs. Nutrients from
effluents can cause the reef to experience a phase shift from coral reef to algal reef, as nutrients
facilitate algal growth, whereas corals require low nutrient levels. Garbage such as plastic bags,
soft drink cans and Styrofoam plates are easily removed from site on land by throwing them into
the sea, however this creates new problems. This waste smothers the corals, kills sea turtles that
eat plastic bags thinking they are jellyfish, suffocate seabirds and poison the waters. We
recommend a careful solid waste management. A well designed dumping site should be created,
featuring (a) a strong containing wall ensuring waste cannot be blown out of the pit, (b) a sealed
bottom to prevent seepage into the groundwater and the sea, and (c) a control outlet to monitor the
toxic and nutrient concentrations in the liquid collecting at the bottom of a pit.
Prevention is the best cure, so we recommend a wise use of one-way non-recyclable items such as
Styrofoam plates or cups. Drink cans should be recycled for their metal content. Household
sewage should be treated in three stages before disposal.
6.3 Tourism
Tourists can be attracted by healthy and abundant marine resources, which they like to view and
experience. Fully protected marine reserves can be highly attractive to tourists as the habitat is
protected from any activities and is pristine; larger fish and large school of big fish accumulate in
the area. Sustainable and environmentally sound tourism would be provided by ecotourism, where
tourists would benefit the island but not begin to take it over or degrade its environment. Tourism
can also bring prosperity to an area with creation of job opportunities (boat taxing, local shops,
dive shops, hotels), alternative livelihood, - often better than fishing - , and increased income.
However tourism always damage to a certain extent marine reserves and coral reefs in general.
Coral reefs are particularly susceptible to sediment release during hotel construction (sediments can
smother and kill corals), algal growth boosted by nutrient input from tourist sewage facilities,
anchor drops from boats. Tourist themselves can also create considerable damage by breaking
corals while diving or snorkeling.
We recommend strictly limiting numbers of tourists and utilising environmentally sound hotel
management practises, including composting food wastes and sewage treatment. Mooring buoys
prevent anchor damage and breakage of tourists has been proved to be reduced through education
and making them wear lifevests when snorkeling. This also increases their safety if they are not
confident swimmers. It is important to ensure that tourism development is properly regulated so
that it does not exceed the sustainable capacity of the environment. With careful management it is
possible to achieve a balance that is favourable to both environment and tourism.
6.4 Aquaculture
Aquaculture is a promising income generating venture for the people of Rongelap. It involves
growing marine species from a larval or young stage to saleable size. However, it can severely
impact reefs through nutrient enrichment of the water and catches of young or adult fish. There
have been proven successful aquaculture ventures in Majuro and the other atolls that have good
airfreight connections. The success of Rongelap aquaculture would depend upon improved and
reliable air services, or high speed catamaran sea freight. The species proven to be good for atoll
aquaculture are giant clams and pearl oysters. Local businesses in Majuro have profited from
oyster and giant clam farming. Simon Ellis was quoted to say that the southeast of Rongelap atoll
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
100
was promising for clam farming while the northwest has deep waters suitable for pearl production
(Pacific Business News, 18 June 2002).
Trade of fish and corals for the aquarium market is a temptation in the economic development of
Rongelap. This temptation will be enhanced since the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
and Queensland Government will be either closing or severely restricting this industry in Australia.
Australia is lucky to have alternative industries that have proven to yield export earnings. In the
case of RMI, the aquarium trade is one of the few private industries that have earned export
earnings. We are not advocating a blanket ban on all aquarium trade, but we unequivocally ask
RALgov to give Napoleon-wrasse and other endangered species full protection within the local
government area.
Personnel associated with Australian aquaculture and aquarium-trade industries are familiar with
opportunities in RMI, and so there may be opportunities for collaborative development. Beware
that opportunities come with risks, and so RALGov should be cautious with extraction of fish and
corals for the aquarium trade. In the case of the Great Barrier Reef, tourism has proven to be far
more valuable that extractive fishing, and so the Australian Government has applied very strict
regulations of fishing and vastly expanded the extent of marine protected areas. We recommend
that all aquaculture or aquarium industry proponents be required to provide a complete business
plan, including marketing research and an analysis of transport costs, environmental impacts and
risks.
Already there have been investment ventures aquaculture/aquarium trade from Rongelap. Sea cage
holding pens have been proposed for live fish trade (Pacific Island Report, 2001). This would
involve catching the fish on the adjacent reefs and storing them in holding pens until the fish can be
collected by freight ship. The impact of such an operation could be substantial, as it would remove
large quantities of fish to export it to the Asian markets. This could result in a severe depletion of
target species as well as the fish caught to feed them, and should be approached with care. Again, a
detailed business plan and environmental impact assessment should be required from any
proponent and scrutinized by third-party experts.
6.5 Energy use
Stage I of the Rongelap resettlement has included two 225 Kw diesel generators, a reverse-osmosis
desalinisation plant 40,000 gallons freshwater storage, warehouse and maintenance buildings, and a
Field Station to accommodate 40 people, including a kitchen, food storage, dining area, and
recreation room.
Stage II has been proposed to include over 50 family homes; Medical Centre; School; Library;
Municipal Buildings; Port and Airport Buildings; and a bulk fuel storage and loading facility. The
later would be tank farm that holds 150,000 gallons, with provision for expansion to 500,000
gallons (RALGov, 2002).
Non-renewal energy resources are extremely expensive on atolls, and should be used wisely.
Although this is only indirectly related to the health and status of reefs, there are some important
impacts:
- Firstly, the shipping of generator fuel increases the threat of oil and fuel spills in the lagoon.
- More importantly, burning fossil fuel increases the output of CO2, which feeds the global
climate change tendencies towards higher temperatures. This in turn has heavy impacts on
reefs as it is the major cause for coral bleaching (Reaser et al. 2000, Hughes et al. 2002).
- The lighting and cooling of all buildings on Rongelap Island are currently dependent on a
diesel-electric power plant. This facility creates a large amount of noise pollution and runs
24 hours per day.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
101
We recommend that acoustic attenuation be provided by way of a block wall screening around the
power plant. We also recommend that an energy audit be conducted to establish what size of
population the existing power plant is capable of servicing.
It is expected that diesel power generation requirements would be maximum during night-time,
while photovoltaic (PV) panels could provide a substantial amount of electric power during
daylight hours, when air-conditioning loads are greatest.
The existing power plant might suffice without added PV capacity if other renewable energy
resources were exploited. Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) has been demonstrated in
Hawaii (Halloran, 1990). The OTEC principle is to extract cold water available off the continental
shelf for air-conditioning purposes (Van Ryzin and Leraand, 1991). A by-product of OTEC is the
production of freshwater, as it condenses on air-conditioning cooling coils.
6.7 Marine protected areas
Marine conservation areas are needed to preserve these regions of reefs that are particularly high in
biodiversity, i.e. rich in species, as stated by the Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, Goal A1,
Strategic Theme A, B and D (Conservation of biodiversity and the marine environment). These
conservation sites would be a revitalization of traditional environmental practices, enhanced by
modern knowledge and scientific understanding. The need to reinvigorate the “traditional
environmental conservation practices” in order to “harmonize development with environmental
sustainability” is also stated in Vision 2018, Goal 10, Objective 5 (RMI, 2001).
Also
internationally, the interest in MPAs has increased widely.
We recommend to establish a community-based coastal resource management plan that can apply
the principles of participation, social equity, productivity and self-reliance along with
environmental sustainability. It should aim to (a) manage the fishery resources, (b) protect reef
ecosystems and all the goods and services they provide, and (c) mange land-based activities to
minimize impacts on reefs. We stress the importance on the community-based approach, since
when a community becomes responsible of its fishery resources, the people develop a sense of
ownership and become protective users.
This proposed action plan is the constitution of a network of small marine protected areas or nofishing zones, to be created around the atoll and monitored for a minimum of 5 years.
6.6.1 Why establishing a marine conservation site?
There are several benefits to establishing a marine reserve. We define a marine reserve as an area
of reef, ocean and adjacent intertidal zone where management measures are applied; these also
include sanctuaries or no-take areas, where no extractive activities are allowed. Conservation
measures should be applied on pristine reefs as well as on damaged or over-fished reefs. Pristine
reefs that were protected are found for example in the Great Barrier Reef in Australia and in Papua
New Guinea. Following the Precautionary Principle, the local government should facilitate
conservation of biodiversity and pristine habitats. Excellent results from the establishment of
marine protected areas are being witnessed all around tropical areas. The positive effects of notake zones are numerous:
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
102
?? protection of areas of habitat in pristine conditions. Pristine habitats are more likely to
receive higher levels of recruitment as a result of providing the correct environment for
young fish (Roberts and Polunin 1991);
?? enhanced social and economic opportunities, including activities such as wilderness
experiences, ecotourism, diving, underwater photography and advanced marine education
(Murray et al., 1999); in some regions the economical benefits originating from these
activities may exceed the extractive uses of marine reserves (Brock, 1994). Sanctuaries are
luring divers looking for healthy reefs and dense fish populations;
?? increased scientific knowledge and understanding of marine ecosystems and their
management (Murray et al., 1999). No-take marine ecological reserves are necessary to
provide essential reference areas to evaluate impacts of fishing and other human activities
on the ecosystem and to allow a better understanding of ecosystem structure, function and
performance. Reserves provide monitoring sites so that natural long-term changes can be
distinguished from anthropogenic changes;
?? conservation of large predatory fish - often the target of fishermen and the first to decline
on coral reefs (Russ and Alcala, 1996);
?? maintenance of intra-specific genetic diversity (Roberts and Polunin, 1991);
?? species and biological diversity and ecosystem structure conservation. Fishing activities
change species composition and alter the food web structure. Changes in ecosystem
structure and functioning become more likely as the pressure of fishing and other activities
increase (Murray et al., 1999);
?? increase in abundance, mean size and biomass of fish populations in overfished areas
(Bohnsack, 1995; Roberts and Polunin, 1991; Roberts et al., 1995; Rowley, 1994);
?? control of male-female sex ratio, that heavy fishing tends to change into a smaller sized
female dominated ratio (Bohnsack, 1998; Law et al., 1993; Ricker, 1981);
?? enhanced yield in adjacent areas via emigration of fishes from the reserves (Bohnsack,
1998; Robert and Polunin, 1991; Rowley, 1994; Russ and Alcala, 1989);
?? higher production of eggs by larger females (Roberts and Polunin, 1991).
The location of MPA should be based on:
?? Local needs (good fishing spots, accessibility, uses, heritage value, recreation);
?? Resource assessment (reef health, coral cover, fish abundance & size, diversity);
?? Enforcement ease (accessibility, observation);
?? Threats potential (pollution, erosion, coral bleaching);
?? Economics (potential for tourism).
Sizing a marine reserve is an important issue. Form a biological standpoint, the bigger a reserve
the better. However large areas are difficult to enforce, while small areas usually include fewer
features. In order to meet goals for fisheries and biodiversity conservation, reserves must
encompass the diversity of marine habitats. The concept of adding many small areas into a “chain
of pearls” leads to a large reserve, thereby facilitating connectivity between protected areas,
including larval exchange and adult fish migration. Sizes of reserves around the world vary
greatly, as do their zonation and management concepts. Below we provided examples of sizes
from MPAs around the world.
?? St Lucia – 2.6ha
?? Apo Island – 12 ha
?? Danjugan Island – 60ha
?? Bunaken NP – 1300ha
?? Tubbataha WHS – 33 200 ha
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
103
?? Great Barrier Reef - 2000km long, 100km wide
Recommended sizes of marine reserves range from 10%, 25% to 30-50% of the total available reef
area that should be protected as “no-take” marine reserves (Salm 1984, Salm et al. 2000, Hughes et
al. 2002). The large distances between oceanic reef habitats and sources of larvae means atoll reefs
may largely self-recruit. If this is the case, breeding populations of all species on the reef must
remain intact to ensure the integrity of the reef. Other features of the reef system that must be
managed include key functional groups and food webs. The structure of the reef must also be
protected to ensure that rates of reef growth balance rates of erosion or sea-level rise.
6.6.3 Marine reserve at Rongelap Island
Marine reserves should be established based on several factors to ensure maximum conservation
efficiency. The major selection criteria are (a) biological integrity, (b) low threats potential, (c)
social acceptance, and (d) logistical ease.
6.6.2.1 Selecting a location
The survey results suggested that there were two major biological zones on Rongelap island, the
lagoonal and outer reef ecosystems. An adequate portion of each habitat should be included in a
reserve network. We recommend here to locate a marine reserve at Jaboan, where the outer reef
and the lagoon habitats meet, and where there are also habitat features that do not occur elsewhere.
The highest count of fishes was found here. As the size of the proposed reserve will by far exceed
the size of our survey plots, several of the survey sites would be included in the proposed reserve,
thus incorporating sites that supported a high coral species count. Threat potentials are low as
there is adequate flushing through the pass, lower settlement potential and good forest cover on
land to prevent sedimentation. However, should there be the need to choose a different site
arrangement, other sites could also be selected. This should incorporate the outer site R10
(opposite the airport terminal) and R6 (lagoonal site half way between airport and Jaboan point)
where a large patch-reef is located. As this is an alternative suggestion that would require a higher
effort (i.e. 2 reserves), we will focus on Jaboan Point in the following part of the report.
There are several issues to be considered in establishing a marine reserve that are beyond
biological suitability. Consideration should be given also to the socio-economic and customary
use, the accessibility of the site and the ease of surveillance in addition to the biological factors
(Table 21).
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
104
Table 21. Factors to be considered when creating a MPA at Jaboan Point.
Positive factors
Negative factors
High biological integrity, including the
Other users (e.g. fishing) loose a good
presence of sharks and turtles; they also
spot.
act as tourist magnets.
Potential exit point for rubbish entering
Water exchange
the lagoon (but this must be avoided by
proper waste management)
High exposure to currents during tidal
Sheltered from prevailing wind
changes
Potential for pollution from ship traffic
Easy access by track or sea
through the pass, e.g. by oil-spills
Exposure to currents may translate into
Easy to enter and exit the water from the
higher maintenance of facilities such as
shore (diving or snorkelling)
buoys.
Safety issues for diving and snorkelling
Furthest site from population pressures
due to exposedness
The factors against establishing the sanctuary at Jaboan would be mitigated by creating a buffer
zone around the core zone. The buffer zone will protect sites R1 through R9 (all around Jaboan
point). Jaboan is owned by the alap Hemos Jiles and his permission will have to be sought to
establish an MPA on his property. Finally, a sanctuary at Jaboan achieves the aims of protecting a
high diversity of Marshallese food-fish and edible invertebrates within a biologically superior area
to encourage ecotourism.
6.6.2.2 Size of the proposed sanctuary
Literature suggests that a small MPA is better than no MPA at all (Dayton, 2000, Jones, 1992,
Ballantine, 1991), but also that any MPA should be accompanied by other management and
conservation measures of the surrounding reefs (Allison, 1998). The minimum size for an MPA
recommended in literature ranges from 20 to 50 % of the total reef area (Day, in press, Hughes,
2002). In the case of Rongelap Island, 20% area is from R1 to R9 extending out past the reef into
the pass, calculated using MapInfo® (Figure 39). The sanctuary in total should be comprised of an
area of land, a core zone and a buffer zone to be fully successful. The buffer zone protects the core
of the sanctuary with restrictions both on the land and in the sea. The buffer zone was drawn from
the chart and aerial photographs of the island around the reef surrounding the core zone (Figure
40).
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
105
Figure 39. Core zone and buffer zone of sanctuary at Jaboan.
N
Key:
Core zone
Buffer zone
Area sketched in figure 5.4.
Figure 40.
N
Jaboan point as a marine sanctuary.
Entry point
Deep water
Steep wall
Reef flat
Beach
Exit point
Office/information
centre
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
Lagoon
106
6.6.2.3 Guidelines for the establishment of the sanctuary and its management plan
The creation of an effective marine reserve is and ongoing, interactive process that does not end
with passing it into law. To maintain efficacy and satisfy all stakeholders in a long term, adequate
measures for monitoring (measuring the effect of the reserve), surveillance (enforcement) and
education (let local people experience their own reef) are crucial.
As outlined in the MIMRA Act, 1997, a management plan shall include a description of the fishery
by reference to the area, fish species and present state, objectives to be achieved and an outline
strategy to achieve these, methods for evaluating effectiveness and a date to review the
performance. A management plan should also address:
-
other beneficial objectives (ie conservation of biodiversity),
management of pollution,
user profiles and permits,
land- based activities in coastal strip,
waste disposal and sewage discharge,
social implications,
exceptions (if applicable),
monitoring,
surveillance, and
guidelines for future adaptive measures if necessary.
Non-negotiable guidelines on the sanctuary rules will be clearly displayed in English and the local
language of Marshallese.
The researched sanctuary eventually will be based within a wider scale management plan of the
whole atoll and possibly even the three atolls governed by RALGov. Linking the protected areas
means that they all benefit from each other, particularly the smaller sanctuaries, which can be
destroyed in single disaster events.
A marine sanctuary on the community’s doorstep may give it a better understanding of the other
proposed protected areas in the atoll. It is also important to establish the sanctuary well before the
resettlement, and commencement of anthropogenic uses and impacts in the surrounding area. The
present data set will provide a baseline for monitoring.
The permanent transect laid provide an ideal means for monitoring. It can be compared to the
other permanent transect laid outside the proposed reserve area, this will allow the community to
see the changes (growth, decline or stability). The monitoring will assess the impact over time
from fishing and diving activities as well as natural processes such as recruitment or coral
bleaching.
Once the MPA management plan is approved by RALGov and the other authorities involved, the
plan will represent the first example of coral reef conservation in the RMI and the model of
establishment could be used to help conserve further atolls in the country.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
107
Figure 41. Steps to MPA establishment on Rongelap Island.
Biological Survey
Recommendations by scientists
Site evaluation by stakeholders
Site agreed
Establish MPA by ordinance
Create management authority team
Develop management plan
Set up information centre
Rangers
Monitor biological
status of MPA
Marine
reserve
Surveillance
Concurrent
dynamic
and
interactive
process
Education
(community & visitors
Maintain site
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
108
6.6.4 Community-based management planning
Community-based resource management is taking force all over the world as new and best practice
for use of coastal resources in a sustainable manner. It is recognized that humans are part of the
ecological system: coastal habitats are the results of complex interactions among physical,
biological and human forces. Community based management should involve all level of users into
the detection of issues or problems (natural, environmental, economic problems) and the
determination of solutions. Through participatory approach, management gains several advantages:
?? Enforcement is easier: support (financial political, practical) is obtained from local
communities that recognize the need for conservation. The use of participatory techniques
reinforces people awareness, knowledge, ability, and motivation to make decisions about
their future. The community understands the principles involved. The outcome is a
guarantee of success that is much greater than when running a project from a governmental
agency. In return the communities benefit from shared income generated by MPAs, through
improved fishery yields, through increased employment.
?? Education: Community-level monitoring or participatory approach is an important way to
increase understanding of causes or resources degradation. Information an education are to
provide the community the necessary material and tools to increase their knowledge and
appreciation of coastal and marine environment, basic ecological principles, the various
threats to the environment, and what community members can do to help promote coastal
resource management.
6.6.3.1 Requirements for Community-Based Management
- Information: The users should be informed at all stages of a management plan development: they
should be consulted and involved in the process. Resources cannot be managed or protected in a
sustainable manner unless those who exploit them are committed to this goal and involved in the
management process (White, 1989).
- Education is important in order to build capacity for self-organization and self responsibility.
Education can help people understand why management is necessary and may help initiate their
participation. Workshops, public meetings, campaigns, citizen groups, school programs and special
projects involving the community can be used as participatory tools.
- Traditional leaders support. Lessons from different regions of the world highlight the need to
take into account customary supporting frameworks provided by traditional kings or leaders,
chiefs, religious leaders. These powerful key players must be fully involved in developing
strategies for wise use of resources. Future marine management plans need to include all levels of
the governmental hierarchy, the national government, local government, the iroij and the alaps
(traditional landowners).
- Traditional knowledge: The natural world has been protected from the most disruptive human
influences through laws or cultural or religious taboos preventing overexploitation. The loss of
traditional knowledge about resource use in one of the central problems of our times. Local people
have a knowledge of ecology in their context that is far subtler and sometimes superior to that of
outside "experts".
Traditional practices can be invaluable tools for management. However,
"traditional practices do not necessarily result in environmental sustainability" and they must be
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
109
assessed in the light of changes in population dynamics and pressures. Local explanations may
need to be reviewed in light of scientific understanding. It is important that researchers working
with local people ensure a two-way exchange of information, ensuring that local wisdom is
incorporated into management strategies, and feeding back scientific knowledge and data to the
communities. Local environmental knowledge can be a powerful source of authority. Moreover,
when park regulations for resource use are based on local traditions, the local people take an active
role in ensuring the respect of the rules.
- Coordination. Decentralization can lead to greater efficiency and reliance on co-management
structures, but if this decentralization is not coordinated it can result in competing and overlapping
jurisdictions, conflicts or a total abandonment of responsibility by government agencies. The focal
point of a community-based management and conservation plan should include education of local
communities and formation of marine management committees.
- Participatory Monitoring Programs: Important part in a management program is to monitor for
changes over a year or so to determine if changes are taking places and whether the reef is
improving or getting worse. Monitoring for changes and success of management is essential to
detect how systems are performing.
?Moreover, the government and the decision makers in the atoll need to know with more scientific
certainty how forces such as migration, urbanization, rapid population growth, tourism and high
rates of resource consumption will affect and are affecting the natural ecosystems. At the same
time it is important that the community itself participates in this analysis. Communities involved in
monitoring see for themselves the impacts of interventions and can recommend corrective actions
if necessary. In this way baseline and monitoring surveys can build awareness.
6.6.3.2 Job opportunities
With the creation of marine parks or conservation sites, there would be availability of local
employment opportunities for skilled marine surveyors and marine park rangers.
Marine park rangers would be needed to patrol and monitor marine reserves for local and global
threats. Specialized marine technicians could become the work force able to monitor reefs for
global warming effects, as part of a local plan “to counter the emerging threats resulting from the
adverse effects of Climate Change” (Goal 10 –Environmental Sustainability – Objective 2, Vision
2018 – RMI, 2001). Including local users of resources in their management would be part of the
process of instigating “the sense of ownership and responsibility” in people from all levels of
society (as demanded by Goal 5 – A productive people- Objective 2-4, Vision 2018 – RMI, 2001).
Tourist guides and awareness leaders for tourists would be especially needed as well. These
guides would not only have the responsibility of leading visitors groups in marine parks, but would
also be in charge of giving biological information on the local natural ecosystems as well as on
how to behave in the respect of the marine environment.
These people would have the skills to become the educators on atoll environments for both visitors
and the community, and thus they would take part in the environmental awareness promotion
whose necessity is claimed by Vision 2018, Goal 10, Objective 2-4 and Objective 5-2 and by
BSAP, goal D2 (RMI, 2001).
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
110
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
111
Literature cited
Acosta, C. A., and D. N. Robertson. 2002. Diversity in coral reef fish communities: the effects of
habitat patchiness revisited. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 227: 87-96.
Alevizon, W., R. Richardson, P. Pitts, and G. Serviss. 1985. Coral zonation and patterns of
community structure in Bahamian reef fishes. Bulletin of Marine Science 36:304-318.
Allen, G. R. 2002. Reef fishes of the Raja Ampat Islands, Papua Province, Indonesia. Pages 46-57
in: Conservation International.
Allison, G. W., J. Lubchenco, and M. H. Carr. 1998. Marine reserves are necessary but not
sufficient for marine conservation. Ecological Applications 8:79-92.
Ballantine, W. J. 1991. Marine reserves-the need for networks. New Zealand Journal of Marine
and Freshwater Research 25:115-116.
Beger, M., G. P. Jones, and P. L. Munday. in press. Conservation of coral reef biodiversity: a
comparison of reserve selection procedures for corals and fishes. Biological Conservation.
Bohnsack, J.A., 1995. Maintenance and recovery of reef fishery productivity, in: N.V.C. Polunin
and C.M. Roberts, (eds.) “Management of Reef Fisheries”, Chapman and Hall, London,
pages: 283-313.
Bohnsack, J.A., 1998. Application of marine reserves to reef fisheries management. Australian
Journal of Ecology, 23: 298-304.
Brock, R.E., 1994. Beyond fisheries enhancement: artificial reef and ecotourism. Bulletin of
Marine Science, 55: 1181-1188.
CIA. 2001. Marshall Islands Factbook. CIA., http://www.cia.gov
Crawford, M. J. 1993. Republic of the Marshall Islands, National Environmental Management
Strategy, Part A, State of the Environment Report. National Task Force on Environment
Management and Sustainable Development, SPREP.
Day, J. R., L. Fernandes, A. Lewis, G. De'ath, S. Slegers, B. Barnett, B. Kerrigan, D. Breen, J.
Innes, J. Oliver, T. J. Ward, and D. Lowe. in press. The representative areas programme. in
9th International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia.
Dayton, P. K., E. Sala, M. J. Tegner, and S. Thrush. 2000. Marine reserves: parks, baselines, and
fishery enhancement. Bulletin of Marine Science 66:617-634.
Dunning, J. B., B. J. Danielson, and H. R. Pulliam. 1992. Ecological processes that affect
populations in complex landscape. Oikos 65:169-175.
Emery, K. O., J.I. Tracey, Jr, H. Ladd. 1954. Geology of Bikini and nearby atolls: Part I, Geology.
Geological Survey Professional Paper, United States Department of the Interior, US
Government Printing Office, Washington 260-A: 1-265.
English, S. A., C. R. Wilkinson, and V. J. Baker (eds.) 1997. Survey manual for tropical marine
resources. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville.
Fenner, D. 2002. Rarity in corals. In: ”Australian Coral Reef Society Annula Conference”.
Fishbase. 2002. www.fishbase.org.
Fosberg, F. R. 1990. A review of the Natural History of the Marshall Islands. Atoll Research
Bulletin 330.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
112
Halloran, R. 1990. Tapping Ocean's Cold for Crops and Energy. The New York Times, 'The
Environment,' Tuesday, May 22, 1990, p. B6.
Hoeksema, B.W. 1990. Systematics and Ecology of Mushroom Corals (Scleractinia: Fungiidae).
Hoeksema, B. W. and M. B. Best. 1991. New observations on Scleractinian corals from Indonesia.
Zool. Med. Leiden 65 (16), Vol. 24, no. xii, 221-245.
Hughes, T. P., D. Bellwood, M. Card, S. R. Connolly, S. Debenham, C. Folke, R. Grosberg, O.
Hoegh-Guldberg, J. Jackson, J. Kelypas, J. M. Lough, P. Marshall, M. Nystrom, J. Pandolfi,
P. Pockley, B. Rosen and J. Roughgarden. 2002. The Townsville Declaration on Coral Reef
Research and Management. James Cook University Media Release, Townsville, Australia.
Jones, G. P., M. J. Caley, and P. L. Munday. 2002. Rarity in coral reef fish communities. Pages 81102 in P. F. Sale, (ed.). “Coral Reef Fishes. Dynamics and diversity in a complex
ecosystem”. Academic Press, San Diego.
Jones, G. P., R. C. Cole, and C. N. Battershill. 1992. Marine reserves: Do they work? Pages 29-45
in C. N. Battershill, D. R. Schiel, G. P. Jones, R. G. Creese, and A. B. MacDiarmid, (eds)
“Proceedings of the Second International Temperate Reef Symposium, 7-10 January 1992”.
NIWA Marine, Wellington.
Law, R., J.M.McGlade and T.K. Stokes, (eds.) 1993. The Exploitation of Evolving Resources:
Proceedings of an International Conference Held at Julich, Germany, 3-5 September 1991.
Lecture Notes in Biomathematics, 99, Springer Verlag, Berlin.
Leslie, H., M. Ruckelshaus, I. R. Ball, S. Andelman, and H. P. Possingham. in press. Using siting
algorithms in the design of marine reserve networks. In press Ecological Applications.
Maragos, J. 1994. Description of reefs and corals for the 1988 protected area survey of the
Northern Marshall Islands. Atoll Research Bulletin, 419.
Micronesia. 2002. http://www.mymicronesia.com/marshallislands
Murray, S.N., R.F. Ambrose, J.A. Bohnsack, L.W. Botsford, M.H. Carr, G.E. Davis, P.K. Dayton,
D. Gotshall, D.R. Gunderson, M.A. Hixon, J. Lubchenco, M. Mangel, A. MacCall, D.A.
McArdle, J.C. Ogden, J. Roughgarden, R.M. Starr, M.J. Tegner and M.M. Yoklavich, 1999.
No-take reserve networks: sustaining fishery populations and marine ecosystems. Fisheries,
24,11: 11-25
Nemenzo, F. 1976. Some new Phillipine Scleractinian Reef Corals. Natural Applied Science
Bulletin. Vol. 28. p.229-276.
Niedenthal, J. 2001. For the good of mankind: A History of the People of Bikini and their Islands,
2nd edition. Bravo Publishers, Majuro, Marshall Islands.
Pacific Business News 18 June 2002.
Pearl study completed in Marshall Islands.
http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2002/06/17/daily20.html
Pacific Islands Report. 2001. Innovative fishing future for Rongelap, Marshall Islands.
http://www.sidsnet.org/archives/coastal-newswire/2001/0140.html
.
Pinca, S. 2001. Marine Resource and Biodiversity Identification and: Likiep Atoll 2001, Majuro.
RALGov.
2000.
Rongelap
Atoll
http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/Rongelap/webpage/
Local
Government
Randall, J. E. 1999. Revision of the Indo-Pacific labrid fishes of the genus Pseudocheilinus, with
description of three new species. Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
113
Site
Randall, J. E., and H. A. Randall. 1987. Annotated checklist of the fishes of Enewetok Atoll and
othe Marshall Islands. Pages 289-324 in P. Helfrich, (ed.) :”The natural history of Enewetak
Atoll. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Scientific and Technical Information, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee.
Reaser, J. K., R. Pomerance, and P. O. Thomas. 2000. Coral bleaching and global climate change:
scientific findings and policy recommendations. Conservation Biology 14:1500-1511.
ReefBase 2002. www.reefbase.org/threats/thr_bleaching.asp
ReefCheck. 2002. www.reefcheck.org
Ricker, W.E., 1981 Changes in the average size and average age of Pacific Salmon. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 38: 1636-1656.
RMIBiodiversityProject. 2000. The Marshall Islands - Living atolls amidst the living sea - by the
National Biodiversity Team of the Marshall Islands. The National Biodiversity Team of the
Republic of the Marshall Islands - GEF/ UNDP, St. Hildegard Publishing Company, Santa
Clarita, CA, USA.
Roberts, C.M., W.J. Ballantine, C.D. Buxton, P. Dayton, L.B. Crowder, W. Milon, M.K. Orbach,
D. Pauli and J. Trexler, 1995. Review of the use of marine fishery reserves in the U.S.
Southwestern Atlantic. NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS-SEFSC 376, Miami, Florida.
Roberts, C. M., J. A. Bohnsack, F. Gell, J. P. Hawkins, and R. Goodridge. 2001. Effects of marine
reserves on adjacent fisheries. Science 294:1920-1923.
Roberts, C. M., C. J. McClean, J. E. N. Veron, J. P. Hawkins, G. R. Allen, D. E. McAllister, C. G.
Mittermeier, F. W. Schueler, M. Spalding, F. Wells, C. Vynne, and T. B. Werner. 2002.
Marine biodiversity hotspots and conservation priorities for tropical reefs. Science 295:12801284.
Roberts, C. M., and N. V. C. Polunin. 1991. Are marine reserves effective in management of reef
fisheries? Reviews in fish biology and fisheries 1:65-91.
Rowley, R.J., 1994. Marine reserves in fisheries management. Aquatic Conservation of Marine and
Freshwater Ecosystems, 4: 233-254.
Russ, D.A. and A.C. Alcala, 1989. Effects of extreme fishing pressure on an assemblage of coral
reef fishes. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 56: 13-27.
Russ, D.A. and A.C. Alcala, 1996. Marine Reserves: Rates and patterns of recovery and decline of
large predatory fish. Ecology of Applications, 6 (3): 947-961.
Salm, R. V. 1984. Ecological boundaries for coral-reef reserves: principles and guidelines.
Environmental Conservation 11:209-215.
Salm, R. V., J. Clark, and E. Siirila. 2000. Marine and coastal protected areas: A guide for
planners and managers. IUCN, Washington DC.
Spalding, M. D., C. Ravilious, and E. P. Green. 2001. World Atlas of Coral Reefs. University of
California Press, Berkeley, USA.
Spennemann, D. H. R. 1998. //marshall.csu.edu.au/html/atolls/geography.html
Van Ryzin, J.C., T.K. Leraand, 1991. Air Conditioning With Deep Seawater: A Reliable, Cost
Effective Technology. Proceeding of IEEE Oceans’91 Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Veron, J.E.N. 2000. Corals of the World. Australian Institute of Marine Science. Vol 1-3.
Townsville.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
114
Veron, J. E. N., and D. Fenner. 2000. Corals (zooxanthellate scleractinia) of the Calamianes
Islands, Palawan Province, Philippines. in G. R. Allen, (ed.). “A rapid marine biodiversity
assessment of the Calamianes Islands, Palawan Province, Philippines”. Conservation
International, Washington, D.C.
Republic of the Marshall Islands. 2001. “Strategic Development Plan Framework (2003-2018) Vision 2018 - The Broad Framework Presented In A Matrix” by SEDP, Steering
Committees, Sub-committees established by the cabinet, SEDP Project Office, Ministry of
Finance, Majuro, Marshall Islands.
Wallace, C. C. 1999. Staghorn corals of the world, a review of the genus Acropora. CSIRO Publ.,
Collingwood, Australia..
Weissler, M. I. 2001. Precarious landscapes: prehistoric settlement in the Marshall Islands.
Antiquity 75:31-32.
Wells, J.W. 1954. Recent corals of the Marshall Islands, U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Pap. 260-I, 385486.
Wells, J. W. 1956. Scleractinia, in: “Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part F. Coelenterata”.
Moore, R.C. (eds). Kansas. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press.
Werner, T. B., and G. R. Allen. 1998. A rapid biodiversity assessment of the coral reefs on Milne
Bay Province, Papua New Guinea. RAP Working Papers 11, Conservation International,
Washington, D.C.
White, A. 1989. The marine conservation and development program of Silliman University as an
example for Lingayen Gulf, p. 119-123. In G. Silvestre, E. Miclat and T.E. Chua (eds.)
"Towards sustainable development of the coastal resources of Lingayen Gulf, Philippines".
ICLARM Conference Proceedings, 17, 200 p. Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine
research and Development, Los Banos, Laguna, and International center for Living Aquatic
resources Management, Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines.
Williams, P. H. 2000. WORLDMAP iv WINDOWS: Software and help document 4.2.:Privately
distributed, London.
Zar, J. H. 1999. Biostatistical analysis, fourth edition. Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
115
Appendix 1
SUBSTRATUM, CORAL LIFE FORMS , CORAL TARGET SPECIES .
On the LIT two different information are acquired: 1) substratum types and 2) coral life form and
species/genera.
Substratum
The habitat type is linked to species ID as some species can only be found on a certain substratum
(e.g. sea pen on sand and mud). Reef health is often indicated by the presence of dead coral or
rubble, which will be found to support different species types.
Bedrock
Dead coral
Rubble
Sand
Mud
Rock, or coral rock, coral features (e.g. corallites) or life forms can not be
distinguished, on dense or medium dense coral cover this is the most likely
substratum.
Recently dead hard coral, newly dead still white) or longer dead. Former
corallites and / or coral life form are still visible and distinguishable.
Loose small to medium coral rock, mainly stemming from branching or
submassive coral, normally substratum for red coralline algae. Not much grows
on rubble, due to its loose status. Often accumulates below walls. Sometimes
indicates recent damage, e.g. due to destructive fishing or bleaching.
Sand – grains can be seen.
Mud, if disturbed the water becomes cloudy, grains cannot be distinguished.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
116
CORAL LIFE FORMS
LIFE FORMS
Stony corals
Acropora
Acropora branching
Acropora encrusting
Acropora digitate
Acropora tabulate
Acropora bottlebrush
SYMBOL
EXAMPLES
A-B
A.formosa, A.teres
A.-Isopora cuneata, A.-Isopora
A-E/Sm palifera
A-D
A. digitifera, A. humilis
A-T
A. hyacinthus, A. irregularis
A-Bb A. subglabra
Non Acropora
Branching
Encrusting
Massive
N-Br
N-E
N-M
Submassive
N-Sm
Foliose
Mushroom
Tube coral
Blue coral
Organ pipe
Fire coral
Lace coral
Fine Lace coral
N-F
Mu
Tub
Bl
Op
Fire
Lc
FLc
Seriatopora hystrix
Astreopora listeri
Favia speciosa
Alveopora, Goniopora, Leptoria
phygia
Montipora foliosa, Pachyserius
speciosa
Cycloseris
Tubastrea
Heliopora
Tubipora
Millepora
Distichopora
Stylaster
Soft exacorals
Anemone
bottle-cap
mushroom anemone
An
Bc
MA
Zoanthus, Palythoa
Discosoma
Soft octocoral (Alcyonacea)
Leather coral
Stiff Leather coral
Soft finger coral
Soft Christmas tree coral
Soft Cauliflower coral
Soft Flower
Pulsing flower
Fan coral
Bamboo coral
Whip coral
SLe
Sle
Sfn
SCt
SCf
SFl
SPf
SFan
SBc
SWc
Sarcophyton
Lobophytum
Sinularia
Dendronephtya
Lemnalia, Paralemnalia
Clavularia
Xenia
Subergorgia
Melithaea
Ctenocella, Junceella
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
O
O
H
H
H
8
8
A
Z
C
6
6
6
O-S
O-S
O-S
O-S
O-S
O-S
O-S
O-S
O-S
O-S
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8 = octocorals, 6 = exacorals, A= Actiniaria, O = Octocorals, O-S = Octocorals soft, Z = Zoanthidea, C =
corallimorphs, S = Scleractinia
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
117
CORAL TARGET GENERA/SPECIES
TARGET GENERA
Scleractinia genera
Cricket-bat coral
Bottlebrush Acropora
Angular crater coral
Broccoli coral
Cabbage coral
Crater coral sharing
Crater coral with valleys
Cup mushroom
Cylindrical brain coral
Daisy corals
Donut coral
Elephant coral
Fine brain coral
Finger coral
Flat spiny cup coral
Furry mushroom coral
Gingerroot coral
Large brain coral
Large Broccoli coral
Lobe coral
Long mushroom
Majuro coral
Medium Broccoli coral
Mushrooms
Sand paper coral
Sandy coral
Sausage brain coral
Small brain coral
Spaghetti coral
Star coral
Thorn coral
Volcano coral
code
Cb
Bb
Ac
Bc
Cb
Cs
Cv
Cup
Cbr
Ds
Dt
El
Fbr
Fn
Fsc
Fmu
Gr
Lbr
LBc
Lob
Lmu
Mj
MBc
Mu
Sdp
Snd
SBr
Sbr
Sp
St
Th
Vo
example
A. palifera
A. subglabra/echinata/speciosa
Leptastrea
Pocillopora damicornis
Turbinaria
Favites
Favia
Halomitra spp.
Scaphophyllia cylindrica
Alveopora/Goniopora
Lobophyllia
Pachyseris speciosa
Goniastrea
Stylophora pistillata
Acanthastrea echinata
Polyphillia talpina
P. cylindrica
Oulophyllia
Pocillopora Eydouxi, meandrina
Porites lobata, P.australiensis, P.lutea
Ctenactis echinata, H. limax
P. rus
Pocillopora verrucosa
Fungia, Cycloseris
Montipora
Psammocora
Symphyllia
Leptoria
Euphyllia
Pavona
Seriatopora hystrix
Astreopora
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
118
Appendix 2
TARGET FISHES
Family
Charcharinidae
Myliobatidae
Muraenidae
Synodontidae
Mugilidae
Holocentridae
Scorpaenidae
Serranidae
Name (Engl)
Morays
Lizardfish
Mullets
Squirrelfish
Soldierfish
Scorpionfish
Groupers
Cirrithidae
Apogonidae
Carangidae
Hawkfish
Cardinalfish
Trevallies
Jacks
Lutjanidae
Snappers
Caesionidae
Haemulidae
Fusiliers
Sweetlips
Lethrninidae
Emperors
Mullidae
Goatfish
Chaetodontidae
Butterflyfish
Pomacanthidae
Angelfish
Species
Carcharinus melanopterus
Triaenodon obesus
C. amblyrhynchos
C. albimarginatus
Aetobatis narinari
Gymnothorax javanicus
Common
Black-tip shark
White-tip shark
Gray-reef shark
Silver-tip shark
Spotted eagle ray
Giant morey eel
Pterois spp.
Anyperodon leucogrammicus
Cephalopholis argus
C. miniata
C. urodeta
Epinephelus fuscoguttatus
E. merra
Plectropomus laevis
Variola louti
Pseudanthias sp.
Paracirrhites arcatus
lionfish
Slender grouper
Peacock grouper
Coral hind
Flagtail grouper
Brown-marble g.
Honeycomb g.
Giant coral g.
Lyretail g.
Anthias
Arc-eye hawk
Caranx sexfasciatus
C. ignobilis
C. lugubris
C. melampygus
Carangoides orthogramus
Elegatis bipinnulata
Aprion virescens
Lutjanus. bohar
L. gibbus
L.kasmira
Macolor macularis
Big-eye trevally
Giant trevally
Black jack
Bluefin trevally
Yellow-spotted t
Rainbow runner
Green jobfish
Twinspot s.
Humpback s.
Blue-lined s.
Black & white s.
Plectorhinchus lineatus
P. picus
Lethrinus olivaceus
Monotaxis grandoculis
Parupeneus barberinus
P. pleurostigma
Mulloidichthys vanicolensis
Chaetodon auriga
C. reticulatus
C. lunulatus
C. punctatofascaitus
C. vagabundus
Forcipiger flavissimus
Hemitaurichthys polylepis
Heniocus chrysostomus
Centropyge bicolor
Lined sweetlips
Spotted sweetlips
Longface e.
Big-eye emperor
Dash and dot g.
Sidespot goat
Yellowfin goatf.
Threadfin buttrf.
Reticulated buttrf
Redfin/oval buttf
Spot-banded b.
Vagabond buttrf
Forcepsfish
Pyramid buttrf.
Pennant banner
Bicolor angelfish
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
119
Kyphosidae
Pomacentridae
Rudderfish
Damselfish
Labridae
Wrasses
Scaridae
Parrotfish
Blenniidae
Gobiidae
Microdesmidae
Siganidae
Blennis
Gobies
Dartfish
Rabbitfish
Zanclidae
Acanturidae
Moorish idol
Surgeonfish
C. flavissima
C. loricula
Pygoplites diacanthus
Pomacanthus imperator
Lemonpeel an.
Flame angelfish
Regal angelfish
Emperor a.
Amphripion spp.
Plectroglyphidodon dickii
Chromis spp.
Dascyllus auranus
D. reticulates
Adudefduf
Pomacentrus coelestis
Gomphosus varius
Hemigymnus melapterus
Labroides sp
Epibulus insidiator
Cheilinus undulates
C. fasciatus
Corys aigula
Halichoeres trimaculatus
Cirrhilabrus balteatus
Bolbometapon muricatum
Chloruus microrinhos
Cetoscarus bicolor
Hipposcarus longiceps
Anemonefish
Three banded an.
Chromis
Humbug dascyl.
Reticulated Dam.
Sergeants
Neon damsel
Bird wrasse
Blackeye thicklip
Cleaners
Slingjaw wrasse
Napoleon wrasse
Red breasted-wr.
Clown coris
Threespot wrasse
Girdled wrasse
bumphead parrot
Pacific steephead
Bicolor parrot
Pacific longnose
Siganus puellus
S. argenteus
Zanclus cornutus
Acanthurus olivaceus
A. nigricans
A. achilles
Masked rabbitfsh
Forktail rabbit
A. blochii
A. triostegus
A. lineatus
Ctenochaetus striatus
Naso lituratus
Naso vlamingii
Zebrasoma scopas
Sphyraenidae
Scombridae
Balistidae
Barracudas
Tunas Makerels
Triggerfish
Balistapus undulates
Balistoides viridescens
B . melichthys vidua
Rhinecanthus aculeatus
Sufflamen bursa
Monacanthidae
Ostraciidae
Tetraodontidae
Diodontidae
Filefish
Trunkfish
Pufferfish
Tobies
Porcupinefish
Ostracion spp.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
Orangeband s.
Whitecheeck
Achille’s tang
Ringtail s.
Convict s.
Bluebanded s
Striped br.letooth
Orange spine u.
Bignose u.
Sailfin tang
Orange-stripe tri.
Titan triggerfish
Pinktail tri.
Picassofish
Scythe trigger
Boxfish-trunkf
120
Appendix 3
TARGET INVERTEBRATES
Latin name
SPONGES
Branching
elephant ear
Lumpy
CRUSTACEANS
Lobster
MOLLUSCS
Cowrie
Oyster
Pearl oyster
small giant calm
T. maxima
real giant clam
Tridacna gigas
fluted giant clam
T. squamosa
smooth clam
T. derasa
horse’s hoof giant clam
Hippopus hippopus
Cuttlefish
Squid
Octopus
ECHINODERMS
Long-spined black sea urchins
Diadema spp.
Pencil urchin
black sea cucumber
spiky sea cucumber
Telenota ananas
giant sea cucumber
Telenota anas
Crown-of-thorns starfish
Achantaster plancii
Cushion star
skinny star
Linckia
chocolate chip star
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
121
Appendix 4
TARGET ALGAE SPECIES AND GENERA
Microdyction spp.
Halimeda spp.
Udotea spp.
Avrainvillea spp.
Dictyosphaeria cavernosa
Dictyosphaeria versluysii
Ventricaria ventricosa
Valonia aegagrophila
Caulerpa serrulata
Caulerpa racemosara
Codium spp.
Neomeris spp.
Jania spp.
Galaxaura spp.
Lithophyllum spp.
Peyssonnelia spp.
Schizothrix spp.
Phormidium spp.
Hydrocoleum coccineum
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
122
Appendix 5
PRESENCE AND ABUNDANCE OF CORAL REEF FISHES AT RONGELAP ATOLL, BY M ARIA BEGER.
Family
Genus
species
All R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14
Ginglymostomatidae Nebrius
ferrugineus
x
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Carcharhinidae
Carcharhinus
albimarginatus
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Carcharhinus
amblyrhynchos
x
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
1
0
1
2
3
Carcharhinus
melanopterus
x
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Galeocerdo
cuvrier
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Triaenodon
obesus
x
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Mylobatidae
Aetobatus
narinari
x
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Muraenidae
Echidna
polyzona
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Gymnothorax
flavimarginatus
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Gymnothorax
meleagris
x
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Heteroconger
haaser
x
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
Gorgasia
spA
x
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Synodus
dermatogenys
x
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Synodus
variegatus
x
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
Myripristis
berndti
x
1
1
1
1
0
3
1
2
1
0
0
0
1
1
Neoniphon
argenteus
x
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Neoniphon
opercularis
x
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Neoniphon
sammara
x
0
0
3
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Sargocentron
spiniferum
x
2
0
2
0
3
3
2
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
Sargocentron
cfrubrum
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Aulostomidae
Aulostomus
chinensis
x
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Fistularidae
Fistularia
commersonii
x
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
Syngnathidae
Corythoichthys
intestinalis
x
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Corythoichthys
schultzi
x
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Corythoichthys
sp
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
Caracanthus
maculatus
x
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
Caracanthus
unipinna
x
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Anyperodon
leucogrammicus
x
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
0
0
2
1
Cephalopholis
argus
x
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
Cephalopholis
leopardus
x
0
0
2
1
0
2
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
Cephalopholis
miniata
x
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
Cephalopholis
spiloparaea
x
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
Cephalopholis
urodeta
x
1
1
3
0
0
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
Epinephelus
corallicola
x
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Epinephelus
cyanopodus
x
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Epinephelus
fasciatus
x
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Epinephelus
fuscoguttatus
x
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Congridae
Synodontidae
Holocentridae
Caracanthidae
Serranidae
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
123
Epinephelus
hexagonatus
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Epinephelus
maculatus
x
0
0
4
0
0
3
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
Epinephelus
merra
x
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
2
1
0
2
0
0
0
Epinephelus
polyphekadion
x
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Epinephelus
spilotoceps
x
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
Gracila
albimarginata
x
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
3
0
Plectropomus
aerolatus
x
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
0
1
2
1
Plectropomus
laevis
x
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
0
2
3
0
3
1
2
Plectropomus
oligacanthus
x
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
Variola
louti
x
2
0
1
1
1
2
2
1
0
0
1
1
1
3
Belonoperca
chabanaudi
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Pseudanthias
pascalus
x
4
3
0
4
2
0
2
0
3
4
0
3
3
3
Pseudochromis
bitaeniatus
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Pseudochromis
marshallensis
x
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
Kuhlidae
Kuhlia
mugil
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Apogonidae
Apogon
apogonoides_cf
x
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Apogon
exostigma
x
0
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
Apogon
fragilis
x
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
Apogon
luteus
x
0
0
3
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
Apogon
savayensis_cf
x
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Apogon
taeniophorus
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Apogon
Y stripe sm
x
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Archamia
fucata
x
0
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Cheilodipterus
macrodon
x
0
0
3
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Cheilodipterus
quinquelineatus
x
0
0
3
1
1
4
0
3
0
2
3
0
0
0
Rhabdamia
gracilis
x
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
4
0
0
3
0
0
0
Hoplolatilus
starcki
x
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Malacanthus
brevirostris
x
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
Malacanthus
latovittatus
x
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Echeneidae
Echeneis
naucrates
x
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Carangidae
Carangoides
ferdau
x
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
Caranx
ignobilis
x
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Caranx
lugubris
x
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Caranx
melampygus
x
3
1
1
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
2
4
1
0
Decapturus
macarellus
x
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Elegatis
bispinnulata
x
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
Trachinotus
blochii
x
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
Aphareus
furca
x
1
1
1
2
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
2
2
1
Aprion
virescens
x
2
0
0
1
3
1
3
0
1
0
1
3
1
1
Lutjanus
bohar
x
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
0
2
2
1
2
3
3
Lutjanus
fulvus
x
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
2
0
0
Lutjanus
gibbus
x
2
2
4
3
1
1
3
0
2
2
0
1
2
2
Pseudochromidae
Malacanthidae
Lutjanidae
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
124
Lutjanus
kasmira
x
2
0
2
2
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
Lutjanus
monostigma
x
2
1
2
3
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
Macolor
niger
x
2
3
2
2
2
1
3
0
2
2
0
2
3
3
Caesio
teres
x
0
0
0
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pterocaesio
marri
x
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pterocaesio
tile
x
3
2
0
2
2
1
3
0
3
3
0
3
3
0
Pterocaesio
trilineata
x
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Haemulidae
Plectorhinchus
picus
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Nemipteridae
Pentapodus
caninus
x
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Lethrinidae
Gnathodentex
aurolineatus
x
0
0
2
2
0
2
3
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
Gymnocranius
spA
x
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Lethrinus
erythracanthus
x
2
2
0
2
2
0
1
0
2
1
0
1
2
2
Lethrinus
obsoletus
x
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Lethrinus
olivaceus
x
2
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
2
1
0
1
1
0
Lethrinus
xanthochilus
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
Monotaxis
grandoculis
x
4
3
2
4
2
3
2
2
2
1
1
3
1
3
Mulloidichthys
flavolineatus
x
0
1
2
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mulloidichthys
vanicolensis
x
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parupeneus
barberinoides
x
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parupeneus
barberinus
x
0
0
3
0
1
4
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
Parupeneus
bifasciatus
x
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
Parupeneus
cyclostomus
x
1
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
Parupeneus
multifasciatus
x
2
3
0
2
3
1
3
0
1
3
0
3
2
2
Parupeneus
pleurostigma
x
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
Pempheridae
Pempheris
oualensis
x
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Kyphosidae
Kyphosus
sp.
x
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
Chaetodontidae
Chaetodon
auriga
x
1
1
2
1
0
3
0
3
0
1
2
2
0
0
Chaetodon
benetti
x
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
Chaetodon
citrinellus
x
2
1
2
2
0
2
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
2
Chaetodon
ephippium
x
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
0
1
1
1
2
1
Chaetodon
lineolatus
x
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chaetodon
lunula
x
1
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Chaetodon
lunulatus/ tritus
x
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
0
3
2
3
Chaetodon
melannotus
x
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Chaetodon
mertensi
x
1
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Chaetodon
ornatissimus
x
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Chaetodon
punctatofasciatus x
3
2
1
3
3
2
2
0
1
2
0
3
2
3
Chaetodon
quadrimaculatus
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chaetodon
reticulatus
x
2
2
1
3
2
2
1
1
2
2
0
1
2
2
Chaetodon
semeion
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Chaetodon
trifascialis
x
2
0
2
1
1
2
0
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
Chaetodon
ulietensis
x
2
1
0
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
Caesionidae
Mullidae
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
125
Pomacanthidae
Pomacentridae
Chaetodon
unimaculatus
x
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
2
Chaetodon
vagabundus
x
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Forcipiger
flavissimus
x
1
2
0
2
1
3
2
0
1
2
0
2
2
2
Hemitaurichthys
polylepsis
x
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
Heniochus
accuminatus
x
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Heniochus
chrysostomus
x
2
0
0
0
2
2
1
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
Heniochus
monoceros
x
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Heniochus
varius
x
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Centropyge
bicolor
x
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Centropyge
bispinosus
x
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
0
2
0
0
2
3
3
Centropyge
flavissimus
x
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
Centropyge
heraldi
x
2
2
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
Centropyge
loriculus
x
0
2
0
3
2
0
1
0
2
1
0
3
1
1
Centropyge
multicolor
x
2
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
Centropyge
multifasciatus
x
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
Centropyge
vrolikii
x
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pomacanthus
imperator
x
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Pygoplites
diacanthus
x
2
2
0
2
1
2
2
0
1
1
0
1
2
2
Abudefduf
septemfasciatus
x
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Abudefduf
sordidus
x
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Abudefduf
vaigiensis
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Amblyglyphidodon
aureus
x
3
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
2
2
0
Amblyglyphidodon
curacao
x
0
0
3
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Amblyglyphidodon
leucogaster
x
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Amphiprion
melanopus
x
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Amphiprion
perideraion
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Amphiprion
tricinctus
x
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
Chromis
acares
x
0
1
0
3
2
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
3
0
Chromis
agilis
x
4
3
2
4
3
2
3
0
3
4
0
4
5
3
Chromis
alpha
x
1
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
2
2
Chromis
amboinensis
x
4
3
0
4
3
1
2
0
4
4
0
4
3
3
Chromis
atripectoralis
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Chromis
lepidolepsis
x
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Chromis
margaritifer
x
3
2
1
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
1
1
3
3
Chromis
ternatensis
x
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
2
Chromis
vanderbilti
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Chromis
viridis
x
3
0
3
0
0
3
0
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
Chromis
xanthura
x
2
0
0
2
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
Chrysiptera
biocellata
x
0
2
2
0
0
2
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chrysiptera
glauca
x
3
0
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chrysiptera
leucopoma
x
2
0
1
3
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
Chrysiptera
trayceyi
x
2
0
1
2
2
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
3
2
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
126
Cirrhitidae
Sphyranidae
Labridae
Dascyllus
aruanus
x
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
Dascyllus
reticulatus
x
2
2
0
0
1
3
2
0
0
2
3
0
2
3
Dascyllus
trimaculatus
x
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Plectroglyphidodon
dickii
x
3
2
0
3
2
1
3
0
2
2
0
3
1
2
Plectroglyphidodon
johnstonianus
x
3
2
0
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
0
4
3
2
Plectroglyphidodon
lacrymatus
x
2
3
0
2
2
0
2
0
3
2
0
2
2
2
Plectroglyphidodon
phoenixensis
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Pomacentrus
amboinensis
x
3
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
2
1
1
2
3
3
Pomacentrus
brachialis
x
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pomacentrus
coelestris
x
3
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
0
Pomacentrus
pavo
x
3
0
4
0
0
4
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
0
Pomacentrus
vaiuli
x
3
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
4
2
0
3
3
3
Pomachromis
exilis
x
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
3
Stegastes
fasciolatus
x
0
2
0
0
1
2
3
0
2
2
1
3
2
3
Stegastes
nigricans
x
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stegastes
lividus
x
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
Paracirrhitus
hemistictus
x
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Cirrhitus
pinnulatus
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Paracirrhites
arcatus
x
2
2
0
2
2
0
3
1
2
1
3
2
2
2
Paracirrhites
forsteri
x
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Sphyraena
barracuda
x
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sphyraena
helleri
x
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anampses
caeruleopunctatus x
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Anampses
melanurus
x
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Anampses
twistii
x
1
2
0
2
2
0
2
0
1
1
0
3
3
0
Bodianus
anthioides
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bodianus
axillaris
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Cheilinus
chlourosus
x
0
2
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
1
1
Cheilinus
digrammus
x
2
0
2
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
Cheilinus
fasciatus
x
1
0
0
2
2
1
1
0
1
0
0
2
2
2
Cheilinus
orientalis
x
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
Cheilinus
oxycephalis
x
0
2
0
1
2
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
3
1
Cheilinus
trilobatus
x
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
Cheilinus
undulatus
x
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cheilinus
unifasciatus
x
2
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
3
3
Cirrhilabrus
balteatus
x
2
0
0
2
2
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
2
Cirrhilabrus
katharinae
x
2
2
2
2
0
1
2
0
3
2
0
1
3
3
Cirrhilabrus
luteovittatus
x
2
0
0
0
0
3
2
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
Cirrhilabrus
rhomboidalis
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Coris
aygula
x
1
3
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
2
2
2
Coris
batuensis
x
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
Coris
gaimard
x
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
127
Scaridae
Epibulus
insidiator
x
3
1
0
2
2
1
2
2
0
1
0
2
3
2
Gomphosus
varius
x
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
Halichoeres
biocellatus
x
3
3
0
2
2
1
2
0
0
2
0
3
3
4
Halichoeres
chrysus
x
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
Halichoeres
hortulanus
x
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
0
2
3
3
Halichoeres
margaritaceus
x
1
2
2
2
3
1
3
0
0
1
1
3
2
2
Halichoeres
marginatus
x
1
1
0
2
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
Halichoeres
melanurus
x
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
Halichoeres
melasmapomus
x
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Halichoeres
trimaculatus
x
2
2
3
2
1
3
0
3
2
0
2
3
2
0
Hemigymnus
fasciatus
x
0
1
0
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
2
0
3
Hemigymnus
melapterus
x
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
Labrichthys
unilineatus
x
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
1
Labroides
bicolor
x
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
2
0
0
2
2
2
Labroides
dimidiatus
x
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
3
Labroides
pectoralis
x
2
0
2
2
1
0
2
0
2
1
0
1
2
0
Labropsis
micronesia
x
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
2
Labropsis
xanthonota
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
Macropharyngodon
meleagris
x
3
2
1
2
1
0
1
0
2
3
0
3
2
3
Macropharyngodon
negrosensis
x
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Novaculichtys
taenirourus
x
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
Pseudocheilinus
evanides
x
1
2
1
3
2
0
1
0
2
2
0
3
2
2
Pseudocheilinus
hexataenia
x
2
2
2
3
1
1
3
2
3
2
0
3
3
2
Pseudocheilinus
tetrataenia
x
2
1
0
3
2
0
1
0
3
1
0
2
2
1
Pseudocheilinus
ocellaris
x
2
0
0
2
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
Pseudocoris
aurantiofasciata
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Pseudocoris
yamashiroi
x
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
Pseudodax
moluccans
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Pteragogus
cryptus
x
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Stethojulis
bandanensis
x
1
2
0
2
1
1
0
1
1
3
0
2
1
2
Thalassoma
amblycephalum
x
2
0
1
2
0
2
1
0
0
0
2
2
3
1
Thalassoma
hardwicke
x
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
Thalassoma
lunare
x
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Thalassoma
lutescens
x
3
3
0
3
2
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
3
3
Thalassoma
pupureum
x
1
3
2
3
3
3
3
0
2
3
2
2
2
4
Thalassoma
quinquevittatum
x
1
2
0
1
2
0
2
0
2
3
0
1
2
2
Thalassoma
trilobatum
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Calotomus
spinidens
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
Cetoscarus
bicolor
x
2
2
1
3
2
1
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
2
Chlorurus
pyrrhurus
x
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hipposcarus
longiceps
x
1
3
3
3
2
4
0
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
Scarus
altipinnis
x
2
1
0
1
1
4
1
0
2
3
0
2
0
0
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
128
Pinguipedidae
Tripterygiidae
Blenniidae
Gobiidae
Scarus
forsteni
x
3
2
0
2
2
0
3
0
0
2
0
1
2
2
Scarus
frenatus
x
1
2
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
2
0
1
Scarus
frontalis
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Scarus
ghobban
x
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Scarus
globiceps
x
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Scarus
microrhinos
x
2
2
2
3
2
3
1
0
3
2
2
3
3
3
Scarus
niger
x
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Scarus
oviceps
x
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
1
Scarus
rubroviolacens
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
Scarus
schlegeli
x
3
3
0
3
2
2
3
0
2
3
0
2
2
3
Scarus
sordidus
x
3
3
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
3
0
3
3
3
Parapercis
clathrata
x
0
2
0
0
1
2
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
Parapercis
xanthozona
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Helcogramma
striata
x
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Aspidontus
dussimieri
x
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Blennieella
chrysospilos
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ecsenius
opsifrontalis
x
0
0
2
1
0
3
0
1
2
0
3
0
0
0
Exallias
brevis
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Plagiotremus
laudandus
x
2
2
0
3
1
2
1
0
3
1
0
2
4
2
Plagiotremus
rhinorhynchus
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Plagiotremus
tapeinosoma
x
0
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
0
2
1
Amblyeletoris
guttata
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Amblyeletoris
steinitzi
x
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
Amblygobius
phalaena
x
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
Amblygobius
rainfordi
x
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Asterropteryx
semipunctatus
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bryaninops
yongei
x
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
Coryphopterus
signipinnis
x
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Cryptocentrus
strigilliceps
x
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ctenogobiops
sp2
x
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ctenogobiops
tangaroai
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Ctenogobiops
sp1
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Eviota
guttata
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Eviota
melasma
x
0
0
1
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Eviota
prasites
x
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Eviota
sebreei
x
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
1
0
2
2
0
0
Eviota
cometae
x
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
Gnatholepsis
cauerensis
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gobidon
citrinus
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Gobidon
okinawae
x
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Istigobius
decoratus
x
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
Lotilia
graciliosa
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
129
Microdesmidae
Acanthuridae
Paragobidon
echinocephalus
x
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
Paragobidon
xanthosoma
x
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
3
3
0
2
1
2
0
Pleurosicya
micheli
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
Trimma
caesiura
x
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Trimma
naudei
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Trimma
tevegae
x
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
0
3
3
0
2
0
0
Trimma
benjamini
x
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Valenciennea
puellaris
x
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Valenciennea
sexguttata
x
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Valenciennea
strigata
x
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Nemateleotris
helfrichi
x
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nemateleotris
magnifica
x
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
Ptereleotris
evides
x
3
2
0
1
2
1
3
0
2
1
0
2
3
3
Ptereleotris
heteroptera
x
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ptereleotris
microlepsis
x
1
0
2
0
0
4
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
Ptereleotris
zebra
x
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
Acanthurus
achilles
x
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
2
2
Acanthurus
blochii
x
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Acanthurus
guttatus
x
0
2
0
3
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
3
0
1
Acanthurus
lineatus
x
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
2
0
2
Acanthurus
nigricans
x
3
3
0
2
2
0
3
0
2
3
0
2
3
2
Acanthurus
nigricauda
x
0
0
2
0
0
4
0
1
1
1
4
3
2
0
Acanthurus
nigrofuscus
x
3
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
2
Acanthurus
nigroris
x
2
3
1
3
2
3
3
0
0
4
0
3
0
2
Acanthurus
olivaceus
x
3
0
0
0
1
3
2
0
0
0
2
2
3
2
Acanthurus
pyroferus
x
2
2
0
3
3
0
3
0
2
3
0
3
3
3
Acanthurus
thompsoni
x
3
3
0
2
3
0
2
0
3
3
0
3
2
3
Acanthurus
triostegus
x
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
1
3
1
0
1
Acanthurus
xanthopterus
x
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ctenochaetus
binotatus
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ctenochaetus
hawaiiensis
x
0
0
0
1
0
2
2
0
0
2
2
0
3
2
Ctenochaetus
striatus
x
2
3
1
3
2
2
0
0
2
3
3
4
3
2
Ctenochaetus
strigosus
x
3
2
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
3
3
Naso
annulatus
x
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
2
Naso
brevirostris
x
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
Naso
caesius
x
4
2
0
2
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
2
4
2
Naso
lituratus
x
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
0
2
2
2
Naso
unicornis
x
1
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
Naso
vlamingii
x
2
1
0
0
2
1
2
0
3
1
0
1
0
1
Zebrasoma
flavescens
x
2
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
Zebrasoma
scopas
x
2
0
2
2
2
2
1
0
2
2
0
2
2
3
Zebrasoma
veliferum
x
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
0
2
1
0
2
2
1
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
130
Zanclidae
Zanclus
cornutus
x
2
3
2
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
Siganidae
Siganus
argenteus
x
3
0
2
3
3
2
2
0
0
2
0
2
3
2
Siganus
puellus
x
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Siganus
punctatus
x
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Siganus
spinus
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
Grammatorcynus
bilineatus
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gymnosarda
unicolor
x
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Rastrelliger
kanagurta
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
Bothidae
Arnoglossus
intermedius
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Balistidae
Balistapus
undulatus
x
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
0
2
1
1
2
3
2
Balistoides
viridescens
x
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
2
Melichthys
vidua
x
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
Melichthys
niger
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
Pseudobalistes
flavimarginatus
x
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pseudobalistes
fuscus
x
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
Rhinecanthus
aculeatus
x
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
Rhinecanthus
rectangulus
x
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Sufflamen
bursa
x
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
2
2
Sufflamen
chrysopterus
x
2
0
0
0
1
3
1
0
1
0
1
2
1
1
Amanses
scopas
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Cantherhines
perdalis
x
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oxymonacanthus
longirostris
x
2
0
0
2
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
Paraluteres
prionurus
x
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pervagor
alternans
x
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
3
Ostracion
cubicus
x
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ostracion
meleagris
x
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Arothron
caeruleopunctatus x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Arothron
meleagris
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Arothron
nigropunctatus
x
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
Arothron
stellatus
x
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Canthigaster
Solandr
x
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Canthigaster
valentini
x
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chilomycterus
reticulatus
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
Diodon
hystrix
x
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Scombridae
Monacanthidae
Ostraciidae
Tetraodontidae
Diodontidae
Total
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
361 179 132 144 148 124 179 130 83 120 136 80 142 147 145
131
Appendix 6
CORAL PRESENCE AND ABUNDANCE AT RONGELAP ATOLL, BY Z. RICHARDS
Species
Genus
Acropora
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14
acuminata
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
cerealis
0
1
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
1
2
1
0
1
grandis
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
muricata
1
0
2
2
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
solitaryensis
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
granulosa
0
0
0
2
2
3
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
loripes
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
gemmifera
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
robusta
2
0
0
1
2
0
1
0
2
1
0
2
0
2
cytherea
1
3
3
2
0
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
monticulosa
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
humilis
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
2
1
austera
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
nana
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
2
2
1
speciosa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
elseyi
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
digitifera
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
florida
0
0
1
1
0
3
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
0
nasuta
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
3
2
subulata
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
intermedia
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
secale
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
valida
2
2
1
1
2
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
2
millepora
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
1
hyacinthus
1
2
2
1
0
0
1
2
1
1
0
2
0
0
sarmentosa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
vaughani
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
unidentified
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
striata
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
2
2
0
0
1
0
verweyi
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
loisettae
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
unidentifiedsp1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
lutkeni
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
tenuis
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
elseyi
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
selago
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
unidentifiedsp2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
aculeus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
unidentifiedsp3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
132
unidentifiedsp4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
unidentifiedsp5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
horrida
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Isopora cuneata
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
2
2
0
1
0
2
Isopora palifera
4
4
1
3
3
3
0
2
3
3
0
4
3
3
crassituberculata
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
tuberculosa
3
3
0
2
2
0
1
0
1
2
0
2
1
1
aequituberculosa
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
monasteriata
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
foliosa
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
verrucosa
1
3
1
0
1
2
2
1
2
1
0
2
1
1
danae
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
2
0
nodosa
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
informis
2
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
2
3
0
0
foveolata
1
2
0
0
2
2
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
caliculata
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
venosa
0
1
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
efflorescens
2
1
0
2
2
1
2
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
mollis
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
1
peltiformis
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
2
2
2
capitata
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
unidentifiedsp6
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
incrassata
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
unidentifiedsp7
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
unidentifiedsp8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
unidentifiedsp9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
myriophthalma
2
2
3
2
3
2
1
0
2
2
2
0
1
1
gracilis
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
hystrix
0
2
1
3
2
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
caliendrum
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
dentritica
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
eydoxyi
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
2
2
2
verruosa
3
0
3
3
2
3
0
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
damicornis
1
0
2
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
0
0
meandrina
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
woodjonesi
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
Stylophora
pistillata
2
3
2
3
2
0
2
2
2
1
0
2
2
2
Fungia
scutaria
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
2
1
danai
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
repanda
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
concinna
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
scruposa
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
horrida
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
paumotensis
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Montipora
Seriatopora
Pocillopora
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
133
weberi
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
limax
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
2
1
Halomitra
pileus
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cycloseris
vaughani
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
tenuis
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
Ctenactis
crassa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Favities
pentagona
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
abdita
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
halicora
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
1
0
1
chinensis
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
complanata
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
flexuosa
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
unidentifiedsp10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
matthaii
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
pallida
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
rotumana
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
stelligera
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
1
2
1
speciosa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
rotundata
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
1
1
unidentifiedsp11
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
curta
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
salebrosa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
Plesiastrea
versipora
2
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
Cyphastrea
microphthalma
1
0
0
2
1
0
2
2
2
1
0
1
1
1
serialia
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
sinensis
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
2
1
1
ryukyuensis
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
2
0
0
pini
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
edwardsi
2
2
1
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
favulus
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
2
0
1
1
2
2
2
transversa
0
2
1
2
1
0
1
0
2
2
0
0
1
1
pruinosa
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
columna
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
marionensis
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
lobata
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
lutea
2
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
cylindricata
2
0
0
3
0
2
1
2
0
0
2
3
2
1
rus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
vaughani
0
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
horizontalata
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
lichen
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
hemprichii
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
corymbosa
2
2
0
2
2
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
pachysepta
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Herpolitha
Favia
Montastrea
Platygyra
Goniastrea
Leptastrea
Goniopora
Porites
Lobophyllia
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
134
Symphyllia
recta
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
valencinessi
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
1
0
brevis
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
echinata
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Scolymia
vitiensis
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Leptoseris
myceteroides
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
2
1
0
1
2
1
Pavona
maldiviensis
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
duerdeni
1
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
2
0
2
1
1
varians
2
2
1
0
2
1
2
0
2
0
1
1
1
2
clavus
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
2
2
0
0
1
2
1
Gardinoseris planulata
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Galaxea
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
2
profundacella
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
1
0
1
1
0
vaughani
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
explanulata
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
superficialis
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
nietzraszi
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
columna
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
monile
Pseudosideras
trea
tayami
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
1
2
0
3
2
0
1
1
1
Stylocoeniella guentheri
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
0
2
0
2
1
armata
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
retiformis
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
stellulata
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
microconos
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
pilosa
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
rigida
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hydnophora exesa
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Echinopora
lamellosa
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
0
3
0
0
2
1
1
Merulina
ampliata
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Scapophyllia cylindrica
0
0
1
2
2
0
1
1
2
1
0
2
2
1
Plerogyra
sinuosa
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Euphyllia
glabrescens
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Echinophyllia aspera
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
Ouphyllia
crispa
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
1
1
1
Podobacia
motuporensis
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Heliopora
coerulea
0
2
1
2
1
0
2
0
2
1
0
1
1
0
Tubipora
musica
0
3
0
3
2
0
4
0
2
2
1
1
2
0
OrderStylasterina Distichopora
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
2
2
1
OrderStylasterina Stylaster
0
1
0
2
2
0
1
0
2
2
0
2
1
2
OrderMillepora Millepora
2
2
1
0
0
1
2
0
1
1
0
2
1
0
OrderMillepora unidentifiedsp12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Acanthastrea hemprichii
horrescens
Psammocora haimeana
Coscinarea
Turbinarea
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
135
Appendix 7
CHECKLIST OF CORAL SPECIES AT RONGELAP ATOLL, BY ZOE RICHARDS.
Genus
Acropora
Species
acuminata
cerealis
grandis
muricata
granulosa
loripes
gemmifera
robusta
cytherea
monticulosa
humilis
austera
nana
speciosa
elseyi
digitifera
florida
nasuta
subulata
intermedia
secale
valida
millepora
hyacinthus
sarmentosa
vaughani
striata
verweyi
loisettae
lutkeni
tenuis
elseyi
selago
aculeus
solitaryensis
horrida
unidentified sp.1
unidentified sp. 2
unidentified sp. 3
unidentified sp. 4
unidentified sp. 5
danai
squarrosa
longicyathus
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
NRAS, 2002 Wells, 1956
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
136
Isopora
Montipora
Astreopora
Anacropora
Seriatopora
Pocillopora
Stylophora
Fungia
fungities
fungities
fungities
Herpolitha
teres distans
cuneata
palifera
crassituberculata
tuberculosa
aequituberculosa
monasteriata
foliosa
verrucosa
danae
nodosa
informis
foveolata
caliculata
venosa
efflorescens
mollis
peltiformis
capitata
unidentified sp. 6
incrassata
unidentified sp.7
unidentified sp. 8
unidentified sp. 9
socialis
myriophthalma
gracilis
forbesi
hystrix
caliendrum
dentritica
eydoxyi
verruosa
damicornis
meandrina
woodjonesi
elegans
pistillata
scutaria
danai
repanda
concinna
scruposa
horrida
paumotensis
dentata
haimei
incisa
weberi
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
137
Halomitra
Cycloseris
Ctenactis
Concinna
Favities
Favia
Montastrea
Plesiastrea
Cyphastrea
Platygyra
Goniastrea
Leptastrea
Goniopora
Alveopora
Porites
Lobophyllia
Symphyllia
limax
pileus
vaughani
tenuis
crassa
serrulata
pentagona
abdita
halicora
chinensis
complanata
flexuosa
unidentified sp.10
matthaii
pallida
rotumana
stelligera
speciosa
rotundata
unidentified sp. 11 11
curta
salebrosa
versipora
microphthalma
serialia
sinensis
ryukyuensis
pini
rustica
edwardsi
favulus
transversa
pruinosa
columna
marionensis
allingi
lobata
lutea
cylindricata
vaughani
horizontalata
lichen
austrialiensis
superfusa
hemprichii
corymbosa
pachysepta
recta
valencinessi
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
138
Acanthastrea
Scolymia
Leptoseris
Pavona
Gardinoseris
Galaxea
Psammocora
Coscinaraea
Pseudosiderastrea
Stylocoeniella
Turbinaria
Hydnophora
Echinopora
Merulina
Scapophyllia
Plerogyra
Euphyllia
Echiniphyllia
Ouphyllia
Podobacia
Order Helioporacea
Order Alcyonacea
Order Stylasterina
Order Millepora
nobilis
hemprichii
brevis
echinata
vitiensis
myceteroides
maldiviensis
duerdeni
varians
clavus
planulata
horrescens
haimeana
profundacella
vaughani
explanulata
superficialis
nietzraszi
columna
monile
tayami
guentheri
armata
retiformis
stellulata
microconos
pilosa
rigida
exesa
lamellosa
ampliata
cylindrica
sinuosa
glabrescens
aspera
crispa
motuporensis
Heliopora coerulea
Tubipora musica
Distichopora
Stylaster
Millepora
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
139
Appendix 8
SPECIAL FEATURES OF CORAL SPECIES AT RONGELAP ATOLL, BY ZOE RICHARDS.
Family
Acroporidae
Genus
Acropora
Pocillopora
Fungidae
Seriatopora
Fungia
Herpolitha
Cycloseris
Faviidae
Ctenactis
Favites
Favia
Montastrea
Plesiastrea
Species
acuminata
gemmifera
monticulosa
nana
speciosa
digitifera
subulata
intermedia
secale
sarmentosa
vaughani
loisettae
elseyi
selago
solitaryensis
horrida
unid. sp.1
unid. sp. 2
unid. sp. 3
unid. sp. 4
unid. sp. 5
palifera
nodosa
capitata
unid. sp. 6
unid. sp.7
dentritica
horrida
paumotensis
pileus
crassa
pentagona
abdita
chinensis
complanata
flexuosa
unid. sp.10
rotumana
speciosa
curta
salebrosa
serialia
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
Special Features
site restricted - R14: South Pass Wall
minor range extension
minor range extension
major range extension
major range extension
minor range extension
site restricted - R6: Lagoon
minor range extension/site restricted - R8: Lagoon
minor range extension
minor range extension
minor range extension
major range extension/site restricted - R3: Wall
minor range extension
site restricted - R10: Wall
minor range extension
minor range extension/site restricted: R12: Wall
site restricted - R2: Wall
site restricted - R4: Wall
site restricted - R10: Wall
site restricted - R11: Lagoon
site restricted - R14: South Pass Wall
minor range extension
site restricted - R7: Wall
site restricted - R12: Wall
site restricted - R2: Wall
site-restricted - R6: Lagoon
major range extension / site-restricted - R12: Wall
site-restricted - R13: South Wall
site-restricted - R10: Wall
site-restricted - R7: Wall
site-restricted - R12: Wall
site-restricted - R9: Wall
site-restricted - R1: Jaboan Pass
site-restricted - R4: Wall
site-restricted - R4: Wall
site-restricted - R5: Wall
site-restricted - R13: South Wall
site-restricted - R6: Lagoon
site-restricted - R13: South Wall
site-restricted - R3: Wall
major range extension
site-restricted - R4: Wall
140
Poritidae
Mussidae
Goniopora
Porites
Lobophyllia
Acanthastrea
Siderastreidae
Dendrophllidae
Merulinidae
Euphyllidae
Psammocora
Coscinaraea
Turbinaria
Hydnophora
Euphyllia
Podobacia
marionensis
horizontalata
pachysepta
valencinessi
brevis
echinata
superficialis
monile
stellulata
microconos
rigida
glabrescens
motuporensis
unid. sp.12
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
site-restricted - R1: Jaboan Pass
site-restricted - R9: Wall
site-restricted - R4: Wall
site-restricted - R12: Wall
major range extension
site-restricted - R1: Jaboan Pass
site-restricted - R10: Wall
major range extension
site-restricted - R4: Wall
site-restricted - R2: Wall
site-restricted - R3: Wall
site-restricted - R1: Jaboan Pass
site-restricted - R9: Wall
site-restricted - R9: Wall
141
Appendix 9
HABITAT CATEGORIES
Surveyor:
Location:
Transect/ Survey No:
Water temp:
Horizontal visibility:
Date:
Type of Main Survey:
Comments:
* Any area larger than 5 m across is recorded as a separate habitat, cave habitats are recorded as
any overhanging structure with at least 2 m depth, length or height.
DEPTH:
0-2 m
2-6 m
6-15 m
15-25 m
25-45
Below 45
BIOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION:
TOPOGRAPHICAL DESCRIPTION:
Sand with seagrass
Sand
Sand and mud
Sand with coral
Dense seagrass cover
Monospecific corals on sandy substrate
Monospecific corals on rocky substrate
Sparse coral on rock w/ algae (>50% coral)
Sparse coral, algae w/ recently dead coral
(>5% dead)
Mixed corals
Mixed corals mainly massive
Mixed coral mainly encrusting
Mixed coral on bommies and sand
Soft coral
Soft coral forests
Macroalgae w/ sparse coral (>50% algae)
Macroalgae
Filamentous algae and turf
Bluegreen algae
Rubble with encrusted life
Bedrock w/ sparse corals
Bedrock w/ sparse SC
Black Coral shelter trees (> 2m)
No light habitat
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
Cave
Overhanging steep wall
Steep wall fragmented
Steep wall w/ slope (>60o )
Slope (>45o )
Slope (>25o )
Deep ridge (>14 m depth)
High energy reef crest / top
Sheltered reef crest / top
Flat reef crest
Lagoon / reef flat
Flat reef
Groves
Bommies
Monolith
Deep crevasse / hole
142
Appendix 10
PARTICIPANTS
NAME
AFFILIATION AND
LEVEL OF
EDUCATION
NATIONALITY
PREVIOUS
EXPERIENCE IN UW
RESOURCE
ASSESSMENTS
DUTIES
Previous experience in
coral reef assessments;
Coral Cay
Conservation,
Philippines (4 months,
150 dives
Several expeditions in
the Philippines, PNG,
Australia for coral reef
assessments.
(hundreds of survey
dives). Speciality: fish.
Organization design, fund
raising, transects; algae
expert
CMI, 3 months, 40
survey dives
Gastropod biodiversity
Coral Cay
Conservation, 4
months, 80 assessment
dives
4 yrs experience in
coral reef ecology and
Assessments. Coral
Cay Conservation,
Science Officer, 3
months, 60 assessment
dives, GBR
Research at UH on
fish aggregations
Transects, physical,
permanent transects
PROJECT LEADERS
Silvia Pinca, Project
Leader
CMI, PhD
Italian
Maria Beger, Project
Co-Leader
University of
Queensland, PhD
student
German
University of Hawaii,
PhD student
American
Methods design; Fish
experts: Fish biodiversity
& assessment
PARTICIPANTS WITH
PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE IN
UNDERWATER ASSESSMEN TS
Dan Barshis
Benjiamin Dominici
British
Sacha Jellinek, MsC
University of
Tasmania, Honors
Australian
Craig Musburger
University of Hawaii,
PhD student
American
Emma Reeves
University of
Borthmouth, Master
of Science in Coastal
Management
British
Zoe Richards
Museum of Tropical
Queensland, AU
Australian
Coral Cay
Conservation, Science
Officer, 3 months, 120
assessment dives;
Likiep assessment
expedition 2001
Collaboration as coral
expert at the Museum;
speciality: Acropora
corals ID
Transects, physical,
permanent transects
Transects, physical,
permanent transects
Fish expert: fish
biodiversity; permanent
transects
Transects, physical,
permanent transects
Coral expert: coral
biodiversity
LOCAL TRAINEES
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
143
Melba White
CMI AA graduate,
with speciality in
Marine Science,
Candidate student at
Florida International
University
Marshallese
Bikini surveys 2002;
total dives for surveys
30
German
American
trainee
trainee
Australian
Trainee
American
200 dives for coral
reef surveys in Belize,
Fiji, Raratonga;
research dives for
shark studies; director
for whale shark film in
Australia;
photographic
expedition in Thailand
VOLUNTEERS
Ingolf Kuhrt
Anna McMurray
Eric Peterson
Adjunct Senior
Research Fellow,
Centre for Marine
Studies, University of
Queensland,
Brisbane, Australia
physical
physical, invertebrates,
corals
physical, invertebrates,
corals
PHOTOGRAPHER
Robert Fournier
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
photographer
144
SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS OF CO-LEADERS
Silvia Pinca
Date of Birth: February 24, 1967
Citizenship: Italian
EDUCATION
1994 PhD Marine Environmental Sciences, University of Genoa, Italy.
1990 MSc in Natural Sciences, University of Genoa, Italy. Best mention.
Specialization courses
2002
Island
2002
2001
1995
1991
1989
Coastal Management Workshop, College of the Marshall Islands and University of Rhode
Community-Based Fisheries Training, Secretariat of the Pacific Community
Environmentally Sustainable Development in the Rep. of the Marshall Islands Workshop
Numerical Analysis in Marine Ecology, University of Paris VI.
Numerical Analysis of data and signals in Marine Ecology, University of Paris VI.
Oceanology Course, University of Trieste.
WORK EXPERIENCE
Research positions held
Present coral reef research: coral reef management and conservation. Grant writing and fund
raising, project design, capacity building, field work, data collection, data analysis, report writing.
2002 World Heritage Site selection in Ailininae atoll, RMI. Participation to surveys with
University of Hawaii and US Fish and Wildlife and Service. Underwater assessments of
marine resources and biodiversity. Seaweed biodiversity.
2002 Bikini atoll coral reef resources assessments. Principal investigator.
2002 Resource assessment and conservation in the Marshall Islands. "NRAS 2002: Natural
resources assessments surveys in the atolls of Bikini and Mili". Principal investigator
2001 Resource assessment in the Marshall Islands: "Marine Resources Assessment: Likiep Atoll
2001". Principal investigator.
Previous ecology academic research
1999-2000 Research assistant at Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago.
1995-1997 Research assistant at the Marine Biology Research Division, Scripps Institution of
Oceanography, University of California San Diego.
1996 Research assistant at Station Zoologique, University Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris VI.
Other professional experiences
College-level teaching:
2001-ongoing Marine Science Instructor and Marine Science Program Coordinator, College of the
Marshall Islands.
Teaching work: Courses: Introduction to Marine Biology, Tropical Reef Ecosystems of the
Pacific, Ocean Management, Oceanography. Training for underwater coral reef
assessments.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
145
2001-ongoing MSc Mentor: External Supervisor for Anir Lal's Master degree thesis of, University
of the South Pacific (benthic algae)
2002 MSc Mentor: Supervision of Coastal Zone Management Master Degree graduate student
Emma Reeves from Bournemouth University, UK (conservation study in RMI)
2001
Honors Mentor: Supervisor to undergraduate Honors in Zoology student from UK: Lucy
Horton from Edinburgh University, UK (fish assessments in RMI and sociological
analysis at the College of the MI)
1997
Marine Biology Lecturer at a Biological Oceanography summer course at the University
of Southern California, LA.
Extension work and outreach:
2001-ongoing Translate coastal management and conservation material into vernacular, targeting
different groups in the community of the Marshall Islands: grade school students,
government officials, women groups.
2002
Collaboration on environment conservation with other conservation practitioners at
national (Environmental Protection Authority,- RMI-EPA, Marshall Islands Marine
Resources Authority - MIMRA) and international (Rhode Island University, US Fishery
and Wildlife Service,) level.
2002 Facilitation of the formation of a local NGO in the Marshall Islands: Nature Conservation
Communities of the MI, to involve more people college students, government officials
and citizens - into marine management and conservation issues, related to local traditions
and needs.
2000
Science Officer: science coordinator, instructor and surveyor for Coral Reefs Conservation
project, The Philippines.
1999 & 1995 Environmental education coordinator in coral reefs ecosystems, Maldive islands.
SCHOLARSHIPS
2002
US National Fishery and Wildlife Foundation Grant for coral reef conservation
2002
US Department of the Interior, Insular Affairs grant 2002 Marine Resources Pacific
Consortium grant
2002
Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority grant for education and capacity building
2002
Marshall Energy Company grant
2002
Rufford small grant, Whitley Conservation Society
1995-1997 Two years scholarship from the University of Genoa for Specialization abroad1996
Scholarship from European Union for the "Advanced Study Course in Marine Science
and Technology".
1992 Scholarship form the European Community for Science Activity Abroad
1991-1994 Scholarship from the University of Genoa for the Research Doctorate (Ph.D.)
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
146
OCEANOGRAPHIC MISSIONS
1997
Oceanographic cruise J-GOFS in the Ross Sea, Antarctica
1996
Oceanographic cruises in the Pacific Ocean, project HOTS: Hawai'i
1988-89 Oceanographic cruises for the University of Genova
AFFILIATIONS AND CERTIFICATES
2000
2000
1997
1989
Member of Royal Geographical Society
Scuba dive certification Dive Master PADI
Member of Nature Conservancy: project, Rescue the Reef
Underwater photographer certification
PUBLICATIONS
2000
Pinca S. "Spatial organization of plankton size composition in an eddy-jet system,
obtained through contiguity-constrained analysis", Deep-Sea Research I, 47, 973996
1997
Pinca S., Dallot S. "Zooplankton community structure in the Western Mediterranean
sea related to mesoscale hydrodynamics", Hydrobiologia, 356, 127-142.
1995
Pinca S., Dallot S. “Meso- and macrozooplankton composition patterns related to
hydrodynamic structures in the Ligurian Sea (Trophos 2 experiment, April-June
1986), Marine Ecology Progress Series,126, 49-65..0
ABSTRACTS
1996
Pinca S., Zhu Y., Zhou M., Huntely M.: “Small-scale zooplankton distribution in
the California Current System related to the hydrodynamic features”, EOS
Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 76, 3 suppl.
1994
Pinca S. “ Distribution et structure de la communaute zooplanctonique superficielle
de Trophos II”, Traveaux de l’Observatoire Oceanologique de Villefranche-surMer.
1994
Pinca S., Dallot S. “Repartition et structure de la communaute zooplanctonique
superficielle dans la region du front Liguro-Provencal”, Proceedings of the
International Meeting “Ecologie et methods statistiques”, Niort, 5-6 October 1994.
1994
Di Natale, A., Mangano A., Maurizi A., Montaldo L., Navarra E., Pinca S.,
Schimmenti G., Torchia G., Valastro M.: “A review of drifnet catches by the Italian
fleet: species, composition, observers data and distribution along the net”. Third
GFCM-ICCAT Expert Consultation on Stocks of Large Pelagic Fishes in the
Mediterranean, Fuengirola (Spain), September 1994.
1993
Di Natale, A., Mangano A., Maurizi A., Montaldo L., Navarra E., Pinca S.,
Schimmenti G., Torchia G., Valastro M.: “Swordfish (Xiphias gladius, L.) drifnet
fishery in the Western Italian Seas: 1990-1991 report”. Second GFCM-ICCAT
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
147
Expert Consultation on Stocks of Large Pelagic Fishes in the Mediterranean, Crete,
September 1992, 18 pp.
1993
Pinca S.: ”Meso- et macrozooplancton de la mission Trophos II”, Traveaux de
l’Observatoire Oceanologique de Villefranche-sur-Mer.
1992
Di Natale, A., Mangano A., Maurizi A., Montaldo L., Navarra E., Pinca S.,
Schimmenti G., Torchia G., Valastro M.: “Swordfish (Xiphias gladius, L.) long-line
fishery in the Western Italian seas and in the Sicily Channel: 1991 report”, ICCAT,
SCRS, Coll. Vol. Sci. Pap, 11 pp.
1991
Orsi Relini L., Pinca S.: ”Reproductvie patterns of Pasiphaea sivado in the Ligurian
Sea”, Rapport de la Communaute Internationale de la Mer Mediterranee, 32, 1.
REPORTS
2001
Pinca, S. “Marine Resources Assessment: Likiep Atoll 2001, final report”, MIMRA,
Republic of the Marshall Islands.
1993
Pinca, S. “Description of the distribution and structure of the surface zooplankton
community in the region of the Liguro-provencal front”, PhD thesis, University of
Genova, 156 + 65 pp.
1992
DiNatale A., Labanchi L., Mangano A., Maurizi A., Montaldo L., Montebello O.,
Navarra E., Pederzoli A., Pinca S., Placenti V., Schimmenti G., Sieni E., Torchia
G., Valastro M. "Pelagic drifting tools used for the fishing of the adult swordfish
(Xiphias gladius, L.): compared evaluation of functionality, capture capability,
global impact and economy of systems and re-conversion", Reserved report to the
Minister of the Navy.
1990
Pinca S.: Biological observations on pelagic decapods of the genus Pasiphaea in the
Ligurian Sea”, MSc Thesis, University of Genova.
?
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
148
Maria Beger
Interests
Marine Protected Areas: selection, implementation and management
Biodiversity on reefs, specifically fish
Monitoring of coral reefs
Address
Private:
PO Box 2321
Townsville, QLD, 4810, Australia
?
+61-7-4771 3910
?
mb@mariabeger.com
Work:
The Ecology Centre
University of Queensland
St Lucia, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia
?
mbeger@zen.uq.edu.au
Education
1993- ‘94 Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, UK
MSc Marine Resource Development and Protection
1994- ‘96 Technische Universität Dresden, Germany
1990- ‘93 Dipl.- Ing.:Wasserwirtschaft, Fachrichtung Grundwasserbewirtschaftung
Sept 2002- present
University of Queensland, Australia
enrolled as PhD candidate, Supervisor Professor Hugh Possingham.
Marine Work Experience
Oct 2002 The Nature Conservancy, PNG, Eastern Kimbe Bay — Fish Expert Consultant
Biodiversity survey for reef fishes as part of TNC’s rapid ecological assessment programme.
Nov 01- Sep 2002
Marshall Islands Marine Conservation Expedition — Co-Leader
Co-prepared and organised a reef survey expedition with the aim to train local students, collect reef
biodiversity and health status data and contribute to global databases.
Oct 2000 – Nov 2001 James Cook University, Australia — Visiting Researcher
Coral reef research answering the following questions:
How efficiently does a biodiversity
approach work to select tropical Marine Protected Areas (MPA’s)? Does reef size matter to fish
diversity?
Ongoing since 2000 Danjugan Island Marine Reserve & Sanctuary Monitoring, Philippines
Designed and implemented an annual monitoring and training programme on behalf of the
Philippine Reef and Rainforest Conservation Foundation Inc.
http://www.whitleyaward.org/rsg/beger.html
Sept 2000 Department of Fisheries Malaysia, — Scientific Team Leader
Led a team of five experts engaged in a rapid assessment of coral reef biodiversity, habitat and
health in MPA’s on the Malaysian peninsula. Responsible for fish biodiversity assessment.
Coral Cay Conservation Ltd., UK — Indo Pacific Marine Scientist
Responsible for managing the coral reef assessment programme of Coral Cay Conservation Ltd.,
whose paying volunteers survey natural resources in countries within the Indo-Pacific region.
Jun 98 – Aug 2000
Voluntary Marine Work Experience
Apr 2000
Eritrea’s Coastal, Marine and Island Biodiversity Project, Eritrean Ministry of
Fisheries/ UNDP — Voluntary Trainer, Eritrea
Jul97- Apr 98
Coral Cay Conservation Ltd. — Science Officer, Philippines and Indonesia
Professional Affiliations
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
149
Marine Conservation Society, UK; Reef Conservation UK; International Society for Reef Studies
(ISRS); ReefCheck Europe (Founding member); Royal Geographical Society, UK, (Fellow).
Publications and Presentations
Journals
Beger, M., Jones, G. and P.L. Munday. In press. Selecting sites for coral reef protected areas: a
comparison of biodiversity approaches for corals and fish. Biological Conservation.
Beger, M., T.P. Dacles, A.R. Harborne, G.L. Ledesma, A.W.M. Page, and P.S. Raines. In prep.
Addressing the problems of establishing and managing marine protected areas: a case study in
the Philippines. To be submitted to Environmental Conservation.
Beger, M., Jones, G. in prep. Marine biogeography theory: Does reef size matter to biodiversity?
Reports and Project Descriptions
Beger, M., J-L. Solandt, and T.P. Dacles. 2001. Coral Reef Bleaching at Danjugan Island, Negros
Occidental, Philippines. A two year monitoring programme. Danjugan Island Survey Summary
Report 2 to the Philippines Reef and Rainforest Conservation Foundation Inc.
Solandt, J-L, M. Beger and A.R. Harborne. 2001. Reef fish populations around Danjugan Island,
Negros Occidental, Philippines. Danjugan Island Survey Summary Report 3 to the Philippines
Reef and Rainforest Conservation Foundation Inc.
Harborne, A.R., D. Fenner, A.R. Barnes, M. Beger, S.P. Harding, and T. Roxburgh. 2000. Status
report on the coral reefs of the east coast of Peninsula Malaysia. 50 pp. Report to Department
of Fisheries, Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur.
Beger, M. and G.L. Ledesma. 2000. Taytay Bay Conservation Project — Project Proposal. Project
summary document submitted to Palawan Council of Sustainable Development, Palawan,
Philippines. 80 pp. Coral Cay Conservation Ltd. London.
Beger, M. and A.R. Harborne. 2000. Southern Negros Coastal Development Programme —
Municipality of Sipalay. Internal report. 100 pp. Coral Cay Conservation Ltd. London.
Beger, M., J.A. Ellis, and A.R. Harborne. 2000. Taytay Bay Conservation Project, Phase 1 —
Cagdanao Island. Internal report. 70 pp. Coral Cay Conservation Ltd. London.
Beger, M. 1999. Marine Science Staff Manual — Philippines. Internal working manual. 500 pp.
Coral Cay Conservation Ltd. London.
Conference Presentations
Beger, M., T.P. Dacles, A.R. Harborne, G.L. Ledesma, A.W.M. Page, and P.S. Raines. 2000.
Danjugan Island: A unique integrated approach to establish a community-based Marine
Protected Area in the Philippines. Presented at 9th International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali,
2000.
Teleki, K.A., A.R., Harborne, H. Hall, M. Beger, and E.M. Wood. 2000. Reef Conservation UK:
Carrying the philosophy of International Year Of The Reef into the future. Poster at 9th
International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, 2000.
Ledesma, G.L., M. Beger, G. Goby, A.R. Harborne, and P.S. Raines. 1999. The Philippine Reef
and Rainforest Project: An integrated approach to establishing marine protected areas.
Proceedings: The Symposium on Marine Biodiversity in the Visayas and Mindanao, 1998, Ilo
Ilo, Philippines.
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
150
Appendix 11
GRANTS
RALGOV (RONGELAP LOCAL GOVERNMENT)
US DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
MIMRA (MARSHALL ISLANDS MARINE RESOURCES AUTHORITY) FUND
WHITLEY AWARD – RUFFORD SMALL GRANT
REEFCHECK
MEC (MARSHALL ISLANDS ENERGY COMPANY)
MAREPAC (MARINE RESOURCES PACIFIC CONSORTIUM )
IN - KINDS
OUTRIGGER HOTEL
CMI, COLLEGE OF THE MARSHALL ISLAND
Contributions:
??
Use of facilities and library for training
??
Use of digital camera and underwater housing
??
Use of laptop computer and projector
??
Use of photocopy machine
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
151
Appendix 12
SCHEDULE OF FIELD ACTIVITIES
consecutive
location
dive
number
date
name of site
2/8/2002
R1
1
2/8/2002
R2
2
3/8/2002
R3
3
4/8/2002
R4
4
5/8/2002
R5
5
6/8/2002
R6
6
6/8/2002
R7
7
7/8/2002
ReefCheck
8
7/8/2002
Perm.trans.
9
7/8/2002
R8
10
8/8/2002
R9
11
8/9/2002
R10
12
8/9/2002
R11
13
8/10/2002
descriptive
14
8/10/2002
R12
15
8/11/2002
R10Ph1
16
8/12/2002
R1Ph1
17
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
activity
3 transects +
Jaboan
corals&fish
lagoon side
biodiversity
3 transects +
ocean wall,
corals&fish
S side
biodiversity
3 transects +
lagoon, Ncorals&fish
W
biodiversity
3 transects +
ocean wall,
corals&fish
S side
biodiversity
3 transects +
ocean wall,
corals&fish
S side
biodiversity
3 transects +
lagoon,
corals&fish
west
biodiversity
3 transects +
ocean wall,
corals&fish
off runway
biodiversity
Jaboan,
ReefCheck
lagoon side
Jaboan,
permanent
lagoon side transect
3 transects +
lagoon
corals&fish
side, N tip
biodiversity
3 transects +
ocean wall,
corals&fish
Jaboan
biodiversity
S wall, E 3 transects +
end of
corals&fish
runway biodiversity
3 transects +
lagoon E of
corals&fish
Jaboan
biodiversity
descriptive
dive off dives off wall
Jaboan
3 transects +
wall at
corals&fish
Jaboan
biodiversity
S wall, E topographical
end of description +
runway biodiversity
Jaboan
wall
topographical
description +
biodiversity
# divers transportation
13
truck
13
truck
13
truck
11
truck
11
truck
11
truck
11
truck
11
truck
11
truck
11
truck
11
truck
10
truck
10
truck
11
truck
11
truck
11
truck
11
truck
152
8/12/2002
R1Ph2
18
8/15/2002
R13
19
8/15/2002
R14
20
8/17/2002
PT2
21
8/17/2002
PT1
22
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
topographical
description +
biodiversity
9
truck
3 transects +
Enirouuri
corals&fish
wall
biodiversity
9
boat
3 transects +
corals&fish
biodiversity
9
boat
permanent
transect
9
walk
mapped
permanent
transect
9
truck
Jaboan
wall
Arubaru, E
channel
side
airport
terminal,
ocean side
Jaboan
153
Appendix 13
REEF CHECK RESULTS
Jaboan Point:
Site name
Date
Time of day that work started
Time of day that work ended
Longitude of transect start point
Latitude of transect start point
Shark Alley
Jabwan,
Rongelap
Atoll
8/7/2002
10am
11am
From chart or by GPS? (If GPS, indicate units)
chart_____
GPS 11deg 9' 12" N, 166 deg 50' 11"
Orientation of transect
Distance from shore
Distance from nearest river
N-S___
100 m
Atoll
NE-SW__X_
E-W___
River mouth width
Weather
Air temperature
<10m__
sunny_X__
34 degrees C
11-50m__
cloudy_____
51-100m__
raining_____
Water temperature at surface
Water temp erature at 3 m
Water temperature at 10 m
Distance to nearest population centre
Approximate population size
Horizontal visibility in water
27 degrees C
27 degrees C
27 degrees C
5 km
100 people
25 m
Why was this site selected?
Is this site -
Good
site,
easily
accessable
sheltered_____ exposed_X____
101-500m__
Any major coral damaging storms in past years? yes_____
no_____
unknown_X____
How do you rate this site overall in terms of
anthropogenic impact?
none_X___
low____
moderate____
heavy____
What types of impacts do you believe occur?
Dynamite fishing
Poison fishing
Aquarium fish collection
Harvest of invertebrates for food
Harvest of invertebrates for curio sales
Tourist diving
Sewage pollution
Industrial pollution
Other forms of fishing? (Specify)
Other impacts? (Specify)
low____
low____
low____
low____
low____
low____
low____
low____
low____
low____
moderate____
moderate____
moderate____
moderate____
moderate____
moderate____
moderate____
moderate____
moderate____
moderate____
heavy____
heavy____
heavy____
heavy____
heavy____
heavy____
heavy____
heavy____
heavy____
heavy____
none_X___
none_X___
none_X___
none_X___
none_X___
none_X___
none_X___
none_X___
none_X___
none_X___
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
154
Is there any form of protection (statutory or
other) at this site?
yes_____
If yes, what type of protection?
Other comments
Submitted by (enter TL/TS and your name)
no_X____
S Pinca
Fish “deep”
Site Name:
Depth:
Date:
Shark Alley
Jaboan,
Rongelap
Atoll
9m
8/7/2002
Dr Silvia
Team Leader: Pinca
Time:
10.00-11
Indo-Pacific Belt Transect : Fish
Data recorded by:
Craig
Musburger
0-20m
Butterfly fish
Sweetlips (Haemulidae)
Snapper (Lutjanidae)
Barramundi Cod (Cromileptes)
Grouper >30cm (Give sizes in comments)
Humphead wrasse
Steephead parrot
Other Parrotfish (>20cm)
Moray eel
Maria Beger
25-45m 50-70m
2
5
0
0
8
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
17
3
0
0
75-100m Total
8
7
0
0
15
17
0
0
2
3
0
1
1
0
3
4
0
1
Standard
Mean deviation
2.65
22
8.8
0.00
0
0
7.27
41
16.4
0.00
0
0
1.26
7
2.8
0.50
1
0.4
0.50
1
0.4
6.85
27
10.8
0.50
1
0.4
Indo-Pacific Belt Transect : Invertebrates
Data recorded by:
Eric Peterson
Dan Barshis
0-20m
Banded coral shrimp (Stenopus hispidus)
Diadema urchins
Pencil urchin (Heterocentrotus mammilatus)
Sea cucumber (edible only)
Crown-of-thorns star (Acanthaster)
Giant clam (Tridacna)
Triton shell (Charonia tritonis)
Lobster
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
25-45m 50-70m
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
For each segment, rate the following as: None=0, Low=1, Medium=2, High=3
Coral damage : Anchor
0
0
Coral damage:Dynamite
0
0
Coral damage : Other
0
0
Trash : Fish nets
0
0
Trash : Other
0
0
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
Standard
75-100m Total Mean deviation
0.00
0
0
0
0
1.00
0
0
2
0.8
0.00
0
0
0
0
1.50
0
0
3
1.2
0.00
0
0
0
0
0.58
0
1
2
0.8
0.00
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
155
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1
gray
reef shark,
1
nurse
shark, 1
tiger shark
Comments:
35
30cm
Grouper sizes (cm)
Bleaching (% of coral population)
Bleach (% of colony)
Suspected disease (type/%):
Rare animals sighted (type/#):
Other:
&
30 & 60cm
30, 30 &
15cm
Corals “deep”
Site name:
Depth:
Shark
Alley
Jaboan,
Rongelap
Atoll
9m
Silvia
Team Leader: Pinca
Time:
10
Substrate Code
HC hard coral
FS fleshy seaweed
RB rubble
OT other
Date:
8/7/2002
Eric
Peterson,
Dan
Data recorded by: Barshis
SC soft coral
SP sponge
SD sand
(For first segment, if start point is 0 m, last point is 19.5 m)
SEGMENT 1
SEGMENT 2
0 - 19.5 m
25 - 44.5 m
1 RC
21 SD
41RC
61 RC
2 SD
22 RB
42HC
62 HC
3 SD
23 RC
43RB
63 RB
4 RC
24 SD
44FS
64 HC
5 SD
25 RC
45HC
65 RC
6 RC
26 SD
46SC
66 HC
7 SC
27 RB
47HC
67 HC
8 RC
28 RB
48RB
68 HC
9 SD
29 HC
49HC
69 SD
10 SD
30 RC
50RC
70 FS
11 HC
31 SC
51RB
71 HC
12 HC
32 HC
52RC
72 RC
13 RC
33 RB
53RC
73 HC
14 SD
34 HC
54RC
74 RB
15 SD
35 RC
55HC
75 RB
16 SD
36 RC
56RC
76 RB
17 HC
37 SD
57SD
77 RB
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
RKC recently killed coral
RC rock
SI silt/clay
SEGMENT 3
50 - 69.5 m
81 SD
82 SD
83 SD
84 RB
85 RB
86 RB
87 RB
88 SD
89 HC
90 RB
91 RB
92 RB
93 HC
94 HC
95 RC
96 HC
97 HC
101 HC
102 FS
103 RB
104 RB
105 RB
106 HC
107 HC
108 SC
109 SD
110 SD
111 FS
112 RB
113 RC
114 SD
115 RC
116 RB
117 HC
SEGMENT 4
75 - 94.5 m
121 HC
122 SD
123 HC
124 RB
125 SD
126 HC
127 HC
128 HC
129 DC
130 HC
131 HC
132 SD
133 HC
134 RKC
135 HC
136 HC
137 HC
156
141 SC
142 SC
143 DC
144 RC
145 RC
146 RKC
147 SD
148 HC
149 HC
150 HC
151 HC
152 RC
153 SD
154 FS
155 HC
156 HC
157 HC
18 HC
19 HC
20 SD
38 RC
39 RB
40 HC
58SD
59SD
60RB
DO NOT TYPE DATA BELOW THIS LINE
Total S1
Total S2
Total S3
HC
9 HC
9 HC
SC
2 SC
2 SC
RKC
0 RKC
0 RKC
FS
0 FS
1 FS
SP
0 SP
0 SP
RC
11 RC
12 RC
RB
5 RB
9 RB
SD
13 SD
7 SD
SI
0 SI
0 SI
OT
0 OT
0 OT
#
40 #
40 #
78 RB
79 SD
80 RC
Total S4
12 HC
1 SC
0 RKC
2 FS
0 SP
10 RC
10 RB
5 SD
0 SI
0 OT
40 #
98 SC
99 RB
100 RB
Grand total
12 HC
1 SC
0 RKC
1 FS
0 SP
5 RC
15 RB
6 SD
0 SI
0 OT
40
118 RC
119 RB
120 HC
42
6
0
4
0
38
39
31
0
0
160
Mean
HC
SC
RKC
FS
SP
RC
RB
SD
SI
OT
138 HC
139 HC
140 RC
158 HC
159 HC
160 SC
SD
10.5 HC
1.5 SC
0 RKC
1 FS
0 SP
9.5 RC
9.75 RB
7.75 SD
0 SI
0 OT
4.93
0.837
0
0.837
0
5.03
5.63
4.658
0
0
Comments:
Fish “shallow”
Site Name:
Depth:
Date:
Shark
Alley
Jaboan,
Rongelap
Atoll
5-7m
8/7/2002
Team
Leader:
Time:
Sacha
Jellineck
Emma
Reeves
Dr Silvia
Pinca
10.00-11
Indo-Pacific Belt Transect : Fish
Data recorded by:
Standard
deviation
0-20m
Butterfly fish
Sweetlips (Haemulidae)
Snapper (Lutjanidae)
Barramundi Cod (Cromileptes)
Grouper >30cm (Give sizes in comments)
Humphead wrasse
Steephead parrot
Other Parrotfish (>20cm)
Moray eel
25-45m
7
0
2
0
1
0
0
9
0
50-70m
7
0
2
0
3
0
0
2
0
75-100m Total
Mean
9
11
34
8.5
0
1
1
0.25
4
1
9
2.25
0
0
0
0
1
0
5
1.25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
17
4.25
0
0
0
0
Indo-Pacific Belt Transect : Invertebrates
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
157
1.914854
0.5
1.258306
0
1.258306
0
0
3.593976
0
Anna
McMurray
Data recorded by:
0-20m
Zoe
Richards
25-45m
Banded coral shrimp (Stenopus hispidus)
Diadema urchins
Pencil urchin (Heterocentrotus mammilatus)
Sea cucumber (edible only)
Crown-of-thorns star (Acanthaster)
Giant clam (Tridacna)
Triton shell (Charonia tritonis)
Lobster
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
50-70m
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
0
For each segment, rate the following as: None=0, Low=1,
Medium=2, High=3
Coral damage : Anchor
0
0
Coral damage:Dynamite
0
0
Coral damage : Other
1
0
Trash : Fish nets
0
0
Trash : Other
0
0
75-100m Total
Mean
0
0
0
0
0
8
3
18
4.5 2.645751
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0.5 0.57735
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
0.57735
0
0
Good
condition
Comments:
Grouper sizes (cm)
Bleaching (% of coral population)
Bleach (% of colony)
Suspected disease (type/%):
Rare animals sighted (type/#):
Other:
30cm
Lyretail
60+cm
Corals “shallow”
Site name:
Depth:
Shark
Alley
Jaboan,
Rongela
p Atoll
5-7m
Date:
Anna
McMurray,
Zoe
Data recorded by: Richards
Silvia
Team Leader: Pinca
Time:
10
Substrate Code
HC hard coral
FS fleshy seaweed
RB rubble
OT other
8/7/2002
SC
soft
coral
SP sponge
SD sand
RKC recently killed coral
RC rock
SI silt/clay
(For first segment, if start point is 0 m, last point is 19.5
m)
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
158
SEGMENT 1
0 - 19.5 m
1 HC
2 RC
3 FS
4 HC
5 RC
6 RB
7 HC
8 HC
9 RC
10 RC
11 RC
12 RC
13 HC
14 RC
15 RC
16 HC
17 HC
18 HC
19 FS
20 RC
21 RC
22 FS
23 HC
24 HC
25 HC
26 HC
27 HC
28 RC
29 RC
30 RC
31 HC
32 HC
33 HC
34 RC
35 HC
36 HC
37 HC
38 RC
39 RC
40 RB
SEGMENT 2
25 - 44.5 m
41 RC
42 FS
43 HC
44 HC
45 FS
46 RC
47 HC
48 HC
49 RB
50 RB
51 FS
52 FS
53 RC
54 RC
55 HC
56 RKC
57 HC
58 RC
59 HC
60 FS
DO NOT TYPE DATA BELOW THIS LINE
Total S1
Total S2
Total S3
HC
19 HC
18 HC
SC
0 SC
0 SC
RKC
0 RKC
1 RKC
FS
3 FS
6 FS
SP
0 SP
0 SP
RC
16 RC
12 RC
RB
2 RB
3 RB
SD
0 SD
0 SD
SI
0 SI
0 SI
OT
0 OT
0 OT
#
40 #
40 #
61 FS
62 FS
63 FS
64 RC
65 FS
66 HC
67 FS
68 RC
69 HC
70 HC
71 FS
72 RC
73 FS
74 HC
75 FS
76 HC
77 RC
78 RC
79 RB
80 RB
Total S4
12 HC
0 SC
1 RKC
13 FS
0 SP
10 RC
4 RB
0 SD
0 SI
0 OT
40 #
SEGMENT 3
50 - 69.5 m
81 RKC
82 SD
83 SD
84 SD
85 FS
86 HC
87 FS
88 FS
89 RC
90 RB
91 HC
92 RC
93 RC
94 FS
95 SD
96 HC
97 RC
98 SD
99 SD
100 SD
Grand total
8 HC
0 SC
1 RKC
12 FS
0 SP
9 RC
3 RB
7 SD
0 SI
0 OT
40
101 SD
102 SD
103 RC
104 SD
105 RC
106 SD
107 HC
108 HC
109 RB
110 HC
111 RB
112 SD
113 SD
114 RB
115 SD
116 SD
117 RC
118 HC
119 FS
120 HC
57
0
3
34
0
47
12
7
0
0
160
Mean
HC
SC
RKC
FS
SP
RC
RB
SD
SI
OT
SEGMENT 4
75 - 94.5 m
121 HC
122 HC
123 RB
124 RB
125 SD
126 RC
127 SD
128 HC
129 RC
130 RC
131 HC
132 RB
133 RB
134 FS
135 HC
136 HC
137 HC
138 HC
139 HC
140 HC
SD
14.25 HC
0 SC
0.75 RKC
8.5 FS
0 SP
11.75 RC
3 RB
1.75 SD
0 SI
0 OT
Comments:
Biodiversity, ecology and conservation study in Rongelap, 2002
159
141 HC
142 RC
143 RC
144 RC
145 RC
146 RB
147 RB
148 RB
149 HC
150 RC
151 HC
152 HC
153 RC
154 HC
155 HC
156 HC
157 RC
158 HC
159 HC
160 HC
5.188
0
0.5
4.796
0
3.096
0.816
3.5
0
0
Zoe Richards