A Rapid Biological Assessment Survey
Of The Lau Seascape In Fijiby:Semisi Meo, Mark Erdmann, Gerry Allen, Alexandra Dempsey, Schannel van Dijken, Doug Fenner, David
Kline, Tiko Lesi, Daniela Schulman, Bridget Kennedy and Susana Tuisese.

© 2021 Conservation International
All rights reserved.

ISBN: 978-982-9184-03-0

The designations of geographical entities in this publication, and the presentation of the material, do not
imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of Conservation International or its supportingorganizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning
the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Any opinions expressed in the RAP Bulletin of Biological
Assessment Series are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of Conservation International orits co-publishers. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment was formerly RAP Working Papers. Numbers 1-13 ofthis series were published under the previous series title.
The RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment is published by:Conservation International
2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500
Arlington, VA USA 22202
Tel: +1 703-341-2400
www.conservation.org
Cover photo: Karoni Island in the southern Lau group. Photos CI/MVErdmann
Maps: Selig et al. 2014; CI/Cheryl Sekkappan
Suggested citation
Meo, S., Erdmann, M., Allen, G., Dempsey, A., Van Dijken, S., Fenner, D., Kline, D., Lesi, T., Schulman, D.,
Kennedy, B and Tuisese, S. 2021. A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji. RAP Bulletinof Biological Assessment. Suva, Fiji: Conservation International.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

A Rapid Biological Assessment Survey
Of The Lau Seascape In Fijiby:Semisi Meo, Mark Erdmann, Gerry Allen, Alexandra Dempsey, Schannel van Dijken, Doug Fenner, David
Kline, Tiko Lesi, Daniela Schulman, Bridget Kennedy and Susana Tuisese.

Suva, Fiji, 2021

1.

Amphiprion chrysopterus

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in FijiContents
Participants and authors.................................................................................
Organizational profiles...................................................................................
Acknowledgements.........................................................................................

4
5
6

INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................
The Marine Rapid Assessment Program..................................................................
Description of MRAP survey sites...........................................................................
Reasons for the MRAP survey...................................................................................
Major results................................................................................................................
Conservation recommendations...............................................................................

7
7
7
10
11
13

Chapter 1: Benthic survey report...................................................................
Abstract........................................................................................................................
Introduction.................................................................................................................
Methods........................................................................................................................
Results...........................................................................................................................

15
15
15
16
16

Chapter 2: Stony reef corals of the Lau Islands..............................................
Abstract........................................................................................................................
Introduction.................................................................................................................
Methods........................................................................................................................
Results...........................................................................................................................
Discussion....................................................................................................................

34
34
34
35
36
42

Chapter 3: Coral reef fish of the Lau Islands..................................................
Abstract........................................................................................................................
Objective......................................................................................................................
Introduction.................................................................................................................
Methods........................................................................................................................
Results...........................................................................................................................
Discussion....................................................................................................................

44
44
44
44
45
45
56

Chapter 4: Sea cucumber fishery surveys.......................................................
Abstract........................................................................................................................
Introduction.................................................................................................................
Methods........................................................................................................................
Results...........................................................................................................................
Discussion....................................................................................................................

57
57
57
59
60
64

References........................................................................................................

66

Annex...............................................................................................................

713.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Participants and authors
RAP Scientific Team

Auckland 1010, New Zealand

Gerry Allen, (Marine Fish)
Conservation International, Consultant
Australia

Logistics Crew

Alexandra Dempsey, (Marine Benthic)
Living Oceans Foundation
821 Chesapeake Avenue #3568
Annapolis, MD 21403

Edgardo Ochoa (Marine Safety)
Conservation International

Marika Buaserau (Medic)

Katie Bryden (Photography)
Conservation International

Schannel van Dijken, (Sea Cucumber)Conservation International, Samoa
P. O. Box 2035
Apia, Samoa

Richard Sidey (Photography)
Tevita Vodivodi (Marine Fish)Mark Erdmann, (Marine Fish)
Conservation International, Asia-Pacific
c/o Dean of Science
6th Floor Science Building, Building 302
23 Symonds St.
University of Auckland
Auckland 1010, New ZealandFrank Hazelman (Marine Fish)
Volau Tiko (Sea Cucumber)
Seruqali Ledua (Tender captain)
Fisheries MRIS
Ministry of Fisheries and Forests (MFF)
PO Box 2218
Government Building
Suva, Fiji Islands

Doug Fenner, (Marine Coral)
NOAA NMFS Office of Protected Resources1315 East-West Highway
13th Floor
Silver Spring, MD 20910

Viliame Tui (Compressor Operator)
Suva Scuba

Cultural Guides

David Kline, (Benthic, Marine Coral)
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
Apartado 0843-03092, Balboa
Republic of Panama

Roko Josefa Cinavilakeba (Chief of Totoya)
Pacific Blue Foundation
P.O.B 13306, Suva.
Fiji Islands

Semisi Meo, (Marine Fish)
Conservation International, Fiji
3 Ma’afu Street
Suva, Fiji

Rusiate Misikivosa (Lau Provincial Office)Ron Vave (Marine Coral)
University of Hawai’i at Manoa
Hawai’i Institute of Marine Biology
46-007 Lilipuna Rd
Kaneohe, HI 96744

DonorsOlive Andrews (Cetaceans, Mammals)
Conservation International
c/o Dean of Science
6th Floor Science Building, Building 302
23 Symonds St.
University of Auckland

Editors

Matt Brooks & Pamela Rorke Levy
Greg Mitchell and the Pacific Blue Foundation.

Daniela J. Schulman
Bridget Kennedy
4.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Organizational profiles
Conservation International

Smithsonian Tropical Research InstituteConservation International (CI) is an international,
non-profit organization based in Arlington, VA.
CI believes that the Earth’s natural heritage must
be maintained if future generations are to thrive
spiritually, culturally and economically. Building
upon a strong foundation of science, partnership andfield demonstration, CI empowers societies to carefor nature and our global biodiversity responsibly
and sustainably for the well-being of humanity. Since
2003, Conservation International has worked inFiji to protect nature for the benefit of people, withmajor projects supporting the conservation of theSovi Basin, terrestrial restoration works in Ra andTuva, and marine components in Taveuni and the Lau
Seascape.

The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI)
was founded in 1910 with the purpose of increasing
and sharing knowledge about the past, present andfuture of tropical ecosystems and their relevanceto human welfare. STRI is a standard-setting global
platform for groundbreaking research on tropicalforests and marine ecosystems and their astounding
biodiversity.
Apartado 0843-03092, Balboa,
Republic of Panama
T: +507 212.8000
W: stri.si.edu

Hawai’i Institute of Marine Biology

Headquarter Office2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500
Arlington, VA 22202

The HIMB’s mission is to conduct, promote andsupport research and training in tropical marine
biology, and it is a world leader in research aimed
at understanding and conserving tropical marine
ecosystems.

T: (703) 341-2400
W: www.conservation.org
Fiji Office
3 Ma’afu Street
Suva, Fiji

46-007 Lilipuna Rd
Kaneohe, HI 96744
T: (808) 236-7401
W: www.himb.hawaii.edu

T: +679 331 4593
W: www.conservation.org/places/fiji

Pacific Blue Foundation

Living Oceans Foundation

Pacific Blue Foundation is a non-profit public benefit
charitable trust. Pacific Blue Foundation provides
basic research, education, encouragement anddissemination of sustainable practices in coastal
regions with the ultimate goal of preserving andpromoting the biological and cultural diversity of theregion.

The Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation
is a non-profit environmental science organizationand ocean research foundation established to help
preserve, protect and restore the world’s oceans andaquatic resources through research, education, andoutreach. Our mission is to protect and restore ocean
health by providing science-based solutions. We wantto make ocean conservation a high priority and hopethat our work empowers people to keep our ocean
resources healthy and sustainable.

Pacific Blue Foundation P.O.Box 2014
La Jolla, CA 92038
T: 679-839-0473
W: www.pacificbluefoundation.org

821 Chesapeake Avenue #3568
Annapolis, MD 21403
T: +1 443-221-6844
W: www.livingoceansfoundation.org

5.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in FijiAcknowledgements
Conservation International pays tribute to the organizations and individuals who contributed to the successof the Lau Seascape Marine Rapid Assessment Program (MRAP) survey. First and foremost, we thank Roko
Sau Josefa Cinavilakeba, the traditional chiefs and communities of the Lau Archipelago for hosting our MRAP
survey. We also thank our local consultants Mr Ron Vave (Coral Taxonomist, PhD Candidate University of
Hawaii), Mr Rusiate Misikivosa (Conservation Officer Lau Provincial Council) and Mr Marika Buaserau(medic) for their essential local knowledge and contributions to the team.
We also thank Fiji’s Ministry of Fisheries for the provision of marine survey experts Mr Tevita Vodivodi, Mr
Frank Hazleman, Mr Volau Tiko and Mr Seruqali Ledua. We extend our heartfelt appreciation to Vaughan
Wellington for allowing the use of the SV Viking sailboat, Mr Viliame Tui of Suva Scuba for keeping us diving,as well as the generous staff and management of the MV Sea Rakino, who modified the boat to fit our researchgoals.
The expedition would not have been possible without the financial and logistical support of Matt Brooks,
Pamela Rorke Levy, Greg Mitchell and the Pacific Blue Foundation.
And finally, thanks to all of the scientists who provided expertise essential to the success of this assessment:
Alexandra Dempsey from the Living Ocean Foundation, David Kline of Smithsonian Tropical ResearchInstitute, Doug Fenner, Gerry Allen, Schannel van Dijken, Mark Erdmann and Semisi Meo.

6.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in FijiINTRODUCTION
The Marine Rapid Assessment Program_______________________________The Marine Rapid Assessment Program conducts scientific surveys (MRAPs) to fill in data gaps on marine
biodiversity in areas where data are lacking or biodiversity is under threat. Surveys provide data on selectspecies of biological and commercial importance, as well as the health of the habitats sampled. Generally,in situ fieldwork, both underwater and on land, provides a snapshot status of the ecological threats anddocuments socioeconomic issues regarding marine resource use patterns. Scientists employ a rigorous scientificapproach and methods, and consult with all local stakeholders, including government and non-governmentalorganizations.
The information obtained during the MRAP is analyzed, synthesized and geo-spatially mapped with otherrelevant and available data to: a) outline the composition of key ecological species and habitats within theregion and recommended conservation strategies and activities (e.g. establishing locally managed marine
areas) for mitigating threats to biodiversity (e.g. curtailing destructive fishing techniques); b) identify data gaps
and topics for further study (e.g. stock assessments); and c) address questions regarding biodiversity and thedesign of marine protected areas.
Findings from MRAP surveys enable informed decision making, especially for the creation of marine managed
and protected areas and implementation of other conservation tools. The surveys also provide an exchange
and knowledge-sharing resource between national and international scientists to build capacity. Education andawareness on the importance of marine biodiversity and sustainable resource use are also raised as a result of
MRAPs.

Description of MRAP survey sites____________________________________
From 5–16 May 2017, the MRAP team surveyed along a 500 nautical mile (900 km) route, covering 28 sites(Table 1) over an estimated area of 27,520m2 (2.75 ha) in the Lau Group of the Fiji Islands (Figures 1 and 2).
Fiji is an island nation and archipelago of over 330 islands in the South Pacific, of which approximately 106
are permanently inhabited (Neall and Trewick, 2008). Most of the islands of Fiji are surrounded by coral reefs,
home to a great diversity of marine flora and fauna.

Figure 1. Site map showing the Lau Seascape7.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Figure 2: Map showing the route of the research vessel MV Sea Rakino. Photo: CI/MV Erdmann; Map: CI/
Cheryl Sekkappan.
Fiji’s Lau Seascape, a group of 60 islands east of Viti Levu, is a mecca of biodiversity, identified as a hotspot for
species richness (Selig et al. 2014; Trebilco et al. 2011; Tittensor, et al. 2010) and species endemism (Selig et al.
2014) (Figures 3a and 3b).

Figure 3a: Species richness (Selig, et al. 2014)

Figure 3b: Species endemism (Selig, et al.
2014)
8.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

In2003, southern Lau was declared one of Fiji’s five globally significant marine ecoregions by a group of morethan 80 scientific experts, community and government representatives convened by the World Wildlife Fund(WWF) (Nair et al. 2004). Lau’s 9,602 inhabitants depend on the continued health of the islands, coastal andocean ecosystems for food, livelihoods and climate resilience (Fiji Population and Housing Census 2017).
This MRAP survey recognizes the Lau Seascape Initiative, designed in consultation with local communities,
government officials and technical experts, as a high priority area for conservation.
Table 1. Summary of 28 surveyed sites on Lau Seascape MRAP expedition in May 2017
Site
no.

Site
code

Date
surveyed

1

ML01

5 May 17

2

ML02

3

Island nameCoordinates

Moala

Moala NE Pinnacles

18° 32.254’ S,
179° 55.721’ E

Lagoon

1–18

5 May 17

Moala

Moala NE Lagoon

18° 35.218’ S,
179° 57.169’ E

Lagoon

1–40

ML03

5 May 17

Moala

Moala E Outer Reef

18° 39.710’ S,
179° 54.936’ E

Fore reef slope

1–40

4

TY01

6 May 17

TotoyaTotoya Eastern Lagoon 18° 57.771’ S,
179° 46.399’ E

Lagoon

1–15

5

TY02

6 May 17

TotoyaTotoya Inner Channel
Pass

18° 59.848’ S,
179° 50.849’ E

Lagoon

1–25

6

TY03

6 May 17

TotoyaTotoya Western
Channel18° 57.760’ S,
179° 54.215’ E

Lagoon

1–30

7

NV01

7 May 17

NavatuNavatu Outer West18° 41.201’ S,
179° 35.379’ E

Fore reef slope

1–50

8

NV02

7 May 17

NavatuNavatu North Channel
Pass

18° 39.445’ S,
179° 34.885’ E

Fore reef slope

1–30

9

NV03

7 May 17

NavatuNavatu North Lagoon

18° 39.624’ S,
179° 34.587’ E

Lagoon

1–12

10

VT01

8 May 17

Vauna Vatu

Vanua Vatu North18° 20.909’ S,
179° 16.294’ E

Fore reef slope

1–45

11

VT02

8 May 17

Vauna Vatu

Vanua Vatu West18° 22.367’ S,
179° 17.214’ E

Fore reef slope

1–46

12

VT03

8 May 17

Vauna Vatu

Vanua Vatu North
Inner Channel

18° 21.644’ S,
179° 17.198’ E

Fore reef slope

1–12

13

TS01

9 May 17

Tavunasici

Tavunasici North18° 42.702’ S,
179° 05.398’ E

Fore reef slope

1–45

14

TS02

9 May 17

Tavunasici

Tavunasici West18° 43.030’ S,
179° 05.985’ E

Fore reef slope

1–45

15

TS03

9 May 17

Tavunasici

Tavunasici Channel

18° 42.929’ S,
179° 05.672’ E

Fore reef slope

1–40

16

OL01

10 May 17

OloruaOlorua North18° 35.631’ S,
178° 45.823’ E

Fore reef slope

1–20

17

OL02

10 May 17

OloruaOlorua South18° 37.364’ S,
178° 45.236’ E

Fore reef slope

1–22

18

OL03

10 May 17

OloruaOlorua West18° 33.244’ S,
178° 46.132’ E

Fore reef slope

1–20

19

MC01

11 May 17

Cakau
LekaLeka

Cakau LekaLeka

18° 32.971’ S,
178° 28.825’ E

Fore reef slope

1–50

20

MC02

11 May 17

Cakau Vate

Cakau Vate

18° 36.440’ S,
178° 19.421’ E

Fore reef slope

1–50

9.

Reef zone

Depth
range
(m)

Location nameA rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

21

MC03

12 May 17

Cakau Mota

Cakau Mota

18° 36.979’ S,
179° 25.459’ E

Fore reef slope

1–45

22

MC04

12 May 17

KaroniKaroni18° 41.345’ S,
179° 28.324’ E

Fore reef slope

1–40

23

MC05

12 May 17

KaroniKaroni Lagoon

18° 41.756’ S,
179° 28.744’ E

Lagoon

1–10

24

NV04

13 May 17

NavatuNavatu SW

18° 41.725’ S,
179° 35.153’ E

Fore reef slope

1–28

25

NV05

13 May 17

NavatuNavatu West 2

18° 41.138’ S,
179° 35.351’ E

Fore reef slope

1–10

26

MT01

14 May 17

MatukuMatuku West Lagoon

19° 09.115’ S,
179° 44.732’ E

Island slope reef

1–28

27

MT02

14 May 17

MatukuMatuku West Channel

19° 09.378’ S,
179° 43.909’ E

Fore reef slope

1–10

28

MT03

14 May 17

MatukuMatuku East Lagoon

19° 08.805’ S,
179° 47.345’ E

Lagoon1–30

Reasons for the MRAP survey _______________________________________
belong to indigenous peoples and local communities– in Fiji, over 87% of land is owned and managed byindigenous peoples, while the ocean belongs to thestate. Despite this legal designation of ocean rights,
governments and other stakeholders recognize that
customary stewardship of the ocean has existed for
centuries, grounded in strong cultural links with theocean, including traditional ocean voyaging.

Global analyses of marine biodiversity consistently
place the Lau archipelago among the highest
priorities for conservation, as a hotspot for species
richness (Selig et al. 2014; Trebilco et al. 2011;
Tittensor et al. 2010) and species endemism (Selig etal. 2014). Tittensor’s examination of global patterns
and predictors of marine species richness across 13
major species groups, ranging from zooplankton tomarine mammals, indicates that the Western Pacificcontains the world’s greatest diversity of coastal
species, while oceanic groups consistently peak acrossbroad mid-latitudinal bands in all oceans. In 2003,
southern Lau was declared one of Fiji’s five globallysignificant marine ecoregions by a group of more than80 scientific experts, community and government
representatives convened by the World Wildlife Fund
(Nair et al. 2004). Southern Lau is also categorized
as an ecologically or biologically significant area,with key biodiversity areas and important bird areas
in both northern and southern Lau (Government ofFiji 2017). Lau’s inhabitants depend on healthy island,
coastal and ocean ecosystems for food, livelihoods
and climate resilience.

Indigenous communities in Lau manage their coastal
fishing grounds, iqoliqoli, through establishment oftabu areas, traditional temporary closures made forcultural or ecological reasons, such as maintaining
fish stocks. They form modern-day nearshore marine
protected areas (MPAs). This project provided
primary support to the Vanua o Lau and worked
collaboratively with the Fiji Ministry of iTaukei
Affairs and its regional subsidiary, the Lau Provincial
Council, and the iTaukei Affairs Board to support
implementation of the Lau Seascape Strategy.
The precise boundaries of Fiji’s Lau Seascape were
designed through a consultative process with local
communities, government officials and technicalexperts (Figure 2). The Seascape’s 335,000 km2 area
comprises iqoliqoli and the archipelagic waters of the
Lau Province, including 60 islands, half of which arehome to approximately 9,602 people (Fiji Populationand Housing Census 2017). The primary objectiveof the MRAP survey was to assess the status andbiodiversity of the reefs of the southern Lau Islandgroup in order to help inform the management of the335,000 km2 Lau Seascape.

Indigenous communities across the Pacific region havestrong cultural and economic ties to the ocean and its
resources, as voyagers, fishers and island dwellers.
Lauans possess a rich and intact cultural heritage andboast 2,700 km2 of customary fishing areas (iqoliqoli)
and 52 Fiji Locally Managed Marine Areas (FLMMA).
Outside these areas, local subsistence fishers normallyuse spears, handlines or small nets, and often walk on
the shallow reef tops.
In the Pacific region, land and land-based resources10.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Major results_____________________________________________________
Benthic cover – The sites surveyed were dominatedby pavement (range 48.0–64.9%), with relatively
high living coral cover (range 20.2–34.3%) and low
coverage of sand (range 2.7–11.9%), rubble (range
2.3–4.0%) and recently dead coral (range 0.0–0.1%;
Chapter 1, Table 1). These benthic coverage results
suggest that all the Lau reefs surveyed had healthy
benthic communities, with almost no recently
dead coral, and that there was no bleaching-related
mortality associated with the 2016 global bleaching
event. The species recorded are shown in Table 2 andspecies of conservation concern documented during
the survey are shown in Table 3.

groupers (Epinephelus), Napoleon wrasse (Cheilinus
undulatus) and bumphead parrotfish (Bolbometopon
muricatum) were observed during the survey, an
indication of over-fishing. Importantly, reef sharks
were observed at 26 of the 28 survey sites. Whilenever observed in large numbers, their presence is agood sign that Lau’s reef ecosystems are still intact
and should rebound quickly if carefully managed.
Commercially important reef fish, such as grouper
and snapper, were ever-present but many reefs
showed significant signs of overfishing. A mixtureof remote reefs and populated islands showed thehighest biomass of food fish.

Reef coral – 206 hard coral species were recorded,
including a number of new records for Fiji and 10–
20 species that have yet to be classified. Reef healthwas highly variable. Some reefs were stunning, withover 80% live hard coral cover, while other reefs were
well under 20% live hard coral and showed signs ofpast mortality from bleaching and crown-of-thorns
starfish outbreaks. Some reefs showed extensive
overgrowth by cyanobacteria, perhaps precipitated by
the rampant overexploitation of sea cucumbers which
was evident on all sites.

Sea cucumber – A total of 63 individual sea
cucumber belonging to 15 species was recorded
over an estimated area of 27,520 m2 (2.75 ha) in thisassessment. Among sites, Navatu and Tavunasici had
the highest number of sea cucumber recorded. Five
species not observed in a 2013 Lau Group assessment
were recorded, two of which were not recorded in any
Fijian waters in 2013. On the other hand, three species
observed in 2013 within Lau Group were not observedin this assessment. Furthermore, four species known
to be present in Fiji’s waters that were not observedin 2013 were also not observed in 2017. Tiger fish
(B. argus) and amber fish (T.anax) were the mostfrequently encountered species from the assessment,with densities of about five individuals per hectare.
When compared with regional reference densities, allsea cucumber species recorded in the Lau Group in
this assessment are of low densities.

Coral reef fish – Over the course of the survey 527
reef fish species were recorded, including at least
six new species and over 50 new records for Fijian
waters. Gobies (Gobiidae), wrasses (Labridae) anddamselfishes (Pomacentridae) are the dominantfamily groups in the Lau Archipelago in both
number of species (99, 77, and 58 respectively) andnumber of individuals. Low numbers of sharks, large

Table 2. Species recorded during Lau Seascape MRAP survey, May 2017
Site no.

Island name

Reef corals

Coral fish

Sea cucumber

1

Moala

53

125

0

2

Moala

94

134

0

3

Moala

69

160

0

4

Totoya83

131

6 *(all 3 sites)

5

Totoya

81

172

*

6

Totoya

62

154

*

7

Navatu84

188

15 **(all 3 sites)

8

Navatu

66

173

**

9

Navatu

10

113

**

10

Vauna Vatu

83

150

5 †(all 3 sites)

11

Vauna Vatu

71

179

†

12

Vauna Vatu

85

123

†

11.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

13

Tavunasici

64

179

12 ††(all 3 sites)

14
15

Tavunasici

-

179

††

Tavunasici

28

153

††

16

Olorua74

146

4 *(all 3 sites)

17

Olorua

52

142

*

18

Olorua

53

141

*

19

Cakau Lekaleka

73

170

5

20

Cakau Vate

75

183

0

21

Cakau Mota

65

197

-

22

Karoni67

173

8 **(both sites)

23

Karoni

52

50

**

24

Navatu Reef72-

2 †(both sites)

25

Navatu Reef

-

-

†

26

Matuku42

195

6 ††(all 3 sites)

27

Matuku

70

207

††

28

Matuku

56

136

††

Potentially new to science:

15

6Total species count:

206

527

15

Table 3. Species of conservation concern documented during Lau Seascape MRAP survey, May 2017. VU –Vulnerable; EN – Endangered; NT – Near threatenedGroupSpecies

IUCN Category

Reef corals

Pocillopora danae

VU

Montipora caliculata

VU

Isopora crateriformis

VU

Isopora cuneata

VU

Acropora aculeus

VU

Acropora anthocercis

VU

Acropora carolineana

VU

Acropora echinata

VU

Acropora globiceps

VU

Acropora paniculata

VU

Acopora polystoma

VU

Acropora retusa

VU

Acropora speciosa

VU

Acropora verweyi

VU

Astreopora cucullata

VU

Euphyllia cristata

VU

Euphyllia paradivisa

VU

Galaxea astreata

VU

Pavona cactus

VU

Pavona cf. diffluens

VU

Pavona venosa

VU

Leptoseris incrustans

VU

Acanthastrea brevis

VU

Acanthastrea hemprichii

VU

Acanthastrea ishigakiensis

VU

12.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Coral fish

Sea cucumbers

Symphyllia hassi

VU

Porites horizontallata

VU

Porites nigrescens

VU

Turbinaria peltata

VU

Turbinaria reniformis

VU

Turbinaria stellata

VU

Carcharhinus albimarginatus

VU

Carcharhinus melanopterus

VU

Triaenodon obesus

VU

Taeniura meyeni

VU

Epinephelus polyphekadion

VU

Bolbometopon muricatum

VU

Oxymonacanthus longirostris

VU

Aetobatus narinariNT

Chaetodon trifascialis

NT

Bryaninops natans

NT

Scomberomorus commerson

NT

Siganus uspi

NT

Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos

EN

Cheilinus undulatus

EN

Actinopyga mauritiana

VU

Actinopyga miliaris

VU

Holothuria fuscogilva

VU

Holothuria whitmaei

EN

Thelenota ananas

EN

Conservation recommendations•

Establish a pathway for sustainable tourism
together with local communities and inalignment with ecological and social carrying
capacity: The coral reefs of the Lau Islands arediverse and intact (Figure 4), and offer a unique
tourism experience to recreational divers. If
practiced sustainably, diving offers one of themost environmentally friendly uses of coral
reefs, particularly when divers effectively
control their buoyancy, avoid physical contact
with pristine reefs, and even participate in reef
restoration activities. Other economic sectors
have a noticeably greater impact on reef health,such as modern and commercial agriculture
from which nutrient run-off of fertilizers
and pesticides can cause reef degradation. In
addition, many of Lau’s communities reject
traditional tourism approaches, such as resort
tourism, in order to protect their cultural
integrity, heritage and traditional way of life.
It is important that local communities areable to decide whether they want additional
development and ecotourism, and determine

what that entails. Dive tourism offers a moresustainable economic pathway and alternative
to resort tourism, with less cultural andecological impact, however, with less revenue
potential.
•

13.

Establish marine protected areas: Establish
new protections in areas with high species
richness, coral cover and fish abundance. Social
acceptance is a critically important factor forthe success of protected areas, and ensuring
alignment with community and government
priorities. As an example, on the fourth day of
the trip, CI and partners visited Navatu Reef,a remote atoll that is under the customary
tenure of Vanuavatu. The reef was particularly
stunning and new findings were documentsfrom the survey. Following the survey, thetraditional leaders of Vanuavatu declared theNavatu Reef atoll a marine protected area
(MPA)A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji•

Establish species bans and size restrictions forfishing in the Lau Seascape: One of the mosteffective tools in coastal fisheries management
and coastal protection, is establishment of Tabu
Areas. Establishing species bans (could be
temporal) and size restrictions help to protect
vulnerable fish species within coastal fishingareas.

•

Establish a coral reef monitoring program:
Additional support and effort is needed tomonitor the health of Lau’s reefs over time.
Critically, a monitoring program should beestablished to identify the most prominent
threats to coral reef ecosystems, assess reef
health over time, and proposed alternative
solutions to improve reef health andfunctioning.

CI looks forward to working closely with thegovernment, traditional communities of the Lau
Seascape and additional partners and stakeholder torealize a holistic vision of sustainability and economic
development for the people of Lau.

Figure 4. Doug Fenner surveys hard coral diversity
on Navatu reef. Photo: CI/MV Erdmann

Efforts to date____________________________________________________In 2017, the provincial chiefs of Lau made acommitment for the Lau Group to become organic
islands. Building on these commitments, the Lau
Seascape is now a multi-partner initiative driven by
CI and comprised of community and indigenous
representatives, as well as private sector and NGO
stakeholders, grounded in a joint memorandum of
understanding (MoU). At the time of this publication,
six partners have signed the MoU – the Coral Reef
Alliance, the Pacific Blue Foundation, Loving Islands,
Vatuvara Foundation, the Fiji Locally Managed Marine
Area Network and USP – and other organisations areinterested in joining.

sustainable agriculture and livelihood diversification,
renewable energy, coastal and nearshore fisheries
management, information and communications
frameworks, and many other critical support areas.
Stakeholders also prioritized a sequenced investment
pathway to direct allocation of resources at scale acrossthe islands. CI and partners are also working closelywith the Lau Provincial Office under the Ministry of
iTaukei Affairs, tasked with serving and representing
Fiji’s indigenous iTaukei communities, to ensurealignment of activities with their annual work plan.
At the national level, supporting sustainable
development in Lau is a priority of the Fiji
Government, the Ministry of Fisheries and theDepartment of Environment, the latter having
provided a letter of support for the initiative. In June
2017, at the United Nations Oceans Conference
for Sustainable Development of Goal 14, the Fiji
Government declared the Lau Seascape Initiative as
one of 17 voluntary commitments. Together withother area-based protection and management targets
for Fiji. Covering the largest maritime province inthe country, the Lau Seascape Initiative will help
Fiji achieve its commitment to the United Nations
Committee on Biological Diversity to protect 30% of
its seas by 2020, as well as Fiji National Ocean Policy

Under the Lau Seascape Initiative, CI is organizing
partners and national stakeholders around a sharedvision for Lau’s Islands that links sustainable
development with conservation efforts. In March
2018, CI led the development of a 10-year strategy for
the Lau Seascape initiative, together with MoU andgovernment partners. This strategy was designed using
the open standards for conservation methodology(Conservation Measures Partnership, 2013) and
Miradi software (www.miradi.org). Through thisprocess, the Lau Seascape stakeholders articulated theneed for investment in tourism infrastructure, suchas moorings for yachts that regularly visit the islands,
14.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

published in 2021 and other commitments to conserve
10% of inshore areas. In addition, CI is serving as amember of the Fiji Government Marine Protected
Area Technical Committee, aimed at increasing thenumber of offshore and inshore MPAs, to advance
MPA development in Lau. The Lau Seascape initiative
also aligns with the national Green Growth Framework(Thematic Areas 3 and 6), as well as sectoral policies
in fisheries, land use, forests, integrated coastalmanagement and sustainable development.
Equipped with a 10-year strategy, community
leadership, government endorsement and strong
partnership approach, the Lau Seascape now criticallyneeds resource mobilization to ensure national goals
and commitments translate to real and sustained
conservation impacts.

15.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Chapter 1: Benthic survey report
Alexandra Dempsey and David I. Kline

Abstract_________________________________________________________The sites surveyed were dominated by pavement(range 48.0–64.9%), with relatively high living coral
cover (range 20.2–34.3%) and low coverage of sand(range 2.7–11.9%), rubble (range 2.3–4.0%) andrecently dead coral (range 0.0–0.1%; Table 1). Thesebenthic coverage results suggest that all the Lau reefs

surveyed had healthy benthic communities withalmost no recently dead coral, and that there was no
bleaching-related mortality associated with the 2016global bleaching event.

Introduction_____________________________________________________
Coral reef benthic communities are critical for
maintaining the structural integrity of a reef
ecosystem. They are the basis for many marine foodwebs, and provide other important ecological services(Cinner et al. 2006). Regular monitoring and studies
to understand the community structure and conditionof benthic habitats are critical to determine the effectsof stressors on these vulnerable ecosystems. Cyclones,
bleaching events, ocean acidification, overfishing,and outbreaks of coral predators are hypothesized
to be the main stressors responsible for the observedchanges in the composition and structure of benthic
communities in Lau Province, Fiji (Cumming et al.
2002, Dulvy et al. 2004).

have contributed to the decline of these reef systems.
While less historic data are available on the conditionof coral reefs in Lau Province, these reefs haveexperienced large declines in coral cover since 1998.
Impacts from mass bleaching events have been
documented throughout Fiji as global bleaching
events have become more severe and frequent(Hughes et al 2017). Coral reef benthic studies in Lau
Province have previously been conducted by Dulvy etal. (2004), Turner et al. (2007), Wilson et al. (2008),
and Bruckner et al. (2013).
This study, spearheaded by Conservation International,
focuses on the evaluation of the benthic community
structure and composition, as well as documenting
impacts of broad scale disturbances and patternsof recovery. The 198 benthic surveys conducted in2017 for the Marine Rapid Assessment Program(MRAP) of the Lau Seascape initiative in the Eastern
Fiji Archipelago were designed to provide relevant
information on the changes to benthic communities
that occurred since the early 2000s. The MRAP
surveys provide data on select species of biologicaland commercial importance and descriptions of thestatus of the reef ’s habitats sampled. The benthic
coverage results from the 2017 MRAP suggest that
the Lau reefs surveyed had largely healthy benthic
communities with almost no recently dead coral or
bleaching-related mortality associated with the 2016global bleaching event.

The Lau Islands form one of 14 provinces in Fiji andare located in the South Pacific Ocean, east of theKoro Sea and separated from the Fiji Platform by
the Nanuku Channel. While most of the northern
islands are high and volcanic in origin, those in thesouth are a mix of extinct oceanic volcanoes andlow-lying carbonate islands (Bruckner et al. 2016).
These include several atolls and extensive fringing
reef systems that enclose a few smaller islands. These
small, remote islands are far from the tourist centres ofFiji, and are home to small villages of Pacific Islanders
run by traditional leaders. Approximately 30 islandsin the Lau Province are sparsely populated. These
communities rely heavily on the coral reef ecosystem
for their livelihood, mainly through engaging inartisanal and subsistence fishing. Although humanpopulations are relatively low, pollution and fishing16.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Methods________________________________________________________
The cover of major functional groups was assessedalong 10 m transects using recorded observations
and/or photographic assessments. The coverincluded: corals identified to genus, sponges, otherinvertebrates, and six groups of algae – macroalgae,
crustose coralline algae, erect coralline algae, fineturfs, turf algae with sediment and cyanobacteria,
and substrate type (hardground, sand, mud, rubble,
recently dead coral, bleached coral, live coral).
Recorded observations involved a point intercept
method, whereas the organism and substrate wereidentified every 10 cm along a 10 m transect (total
100 points/transect), with a minimum of six transects
examined per location. When possible, surveys werecompleted at 20, 15, and 10 m depth.

increments placed perpendicular to the transect tape
as a scale bar. Approximately 10 photographs weretaken per depth. Images were downloaded onto a
computer, and benthic community composition, coral
cover and cover of other organisms and substrate
type were analyzed using Coral Point Count with
Excel extensions (CPCe) software developed by the
National Coral Reef Institute. Cover was determinedby recording the benthic attribute located directly
below random points (50 points per photograph).
At each location, three replicate reef sites werechosen, and benthic coverage data represents data
averaged across the three reef sites. Three depths were
measured per site and approximately 90 photos with
4,500 annotations were taken per location.

Photographic assessment

Key benthic categories

A 10 m long transect tape was extended along depth
contours at 20, 15, and 10 m depth. Continuous digitalstill photographs were taken of the reef substrate froma height of approximately 0.6-0.75 metres above thesubstrate, using a one-metre bar divided into 10 cm

C= live coral, DC= dead coral, P= pavement, R=
rubble, S= sand, RD= recently dead coral
All values are presented as % cover ± standard error.

Results__________________________________________________________
Site descriptions and benthic coverage

I. Moala reefs(Note: the abbreviation in parentheses after the site name is the unique site code.)
Moala NE Pinnacles (ML01). This site was at the NE due to prior disease or bleaching events. The site iscorner of the island and included relatively protected a protected submerged patch reef in the lagoon.
reef pinnacles rising up from 15–18 m depth of the sea Cyanobacteria were abundant and often smothered
floor (Fig. 5A). It had relatively low live coral cover, live corals (Fig. 5B). The site had relatively low
with quite a bit of macroalgal and cyanobacteria living coral cover with many dead table corals still incover, and a fair bit of dead standing coral, possibly standing growth position (Fig. 5C, 4).
A)			
B)							C)Figure 5: Photographs of Moala NE Pinacles. A) shows the vertical profile of the reef. B) Cyanobacteria
overgrowing corals. C) Dead table corals in standing growth position.
17.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in FijiMoala NE Lagoon (ML02). This site was a series ofpatch reefs with a steep drop-off around the patch
reefs to about 30 m, with a gradual gradation into
sand to at least 45 m depth. It had 15–20% live coral
cover, significant macroalgal cover and also a fair bitof dead standing coral. One crown-of-thorns starfish
was observed feeding in the shallows (>3 m). The site
is a protected submerged patch reef in the lagoon withvery low visibility. The site had a higher biodiversityof corals but with less rugosity. Coral cover was still
below average (Fig. 8). Large branching corals werecommon on the sand flats and looked healthy (Fig.
6B). Much fewer cyanobacteria were observed thanin Moala NE Pinnacles. There was a particularly highabundance of non-colonial, free living Fungid corals(Fig. 6A).

A)							B)Figure 6: Photographs of Moala NE Lagoon. A) shows a typical reef in the lagoon with the highly abundantnon-colonial, Fungia corals shown with white arrows. B) Large branching Acropora colony growing on thesand flats.
Moala E. Outer Reef (ML03). This reef site had amore typical outer fringing reef ecosystem, with somespur and groove development in the wave-washedshallows and mostly small colonies (less than 6 cm
in diameter), possibly indicating a disturbance eventin the last five years (Fig. 7A). There was a relatively
steep drop-off to 35 m, and then moderate grade into
the depths, with scattered bommies. One crownof-thorns starfish was observed feeding on corals at
about 6 m depth. The fore reef site on the point of thechannel was emergent, with some protection fromA)		wind and wave action. The emergent site had more
complex reef morphology than previous sites (Fig.
7B). Crustose coralline algae (CCA) and recruitment
at the site were common, but large colonies ofleather corals were also observed. There was a highdiversity of Acropora corals at the site (Fig. 7C).
Fore reef communities often had a barrier reef witha reef flat leading to a series of pinnacles that drop
near vertically to 15–20 m depth, followed by a more
gradual slope. The walls and pinnacle faces often had
undercut ledges and small caves.

B)			C)

Figure 7: Photographs of Moala E outer reef. A) shows a typical shallow reef with spur and groove development
and small coral colonies. B) Fore reef site, showing more structural complexity and C) a high diversity of
Acropora species.

18.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Figure 8: Average benthic coverage of the Moala NE Pinnacles, NE Lagoon site and Moala E. Outer reef sites.
C = live coral, DC = dead coral, P = pavement, R = rubble, S = sand, RD = recently dead coral. All data arepresented as percentage cover +/- standard error.
Benthic coverage Moala Reefs: The Moala reefs
were dominated by pavement (55.0% ± 17.2%), withrelatively high living coral cover (20.2% ± 11.1%),

intermediate dead coral (9.6% ± 6.3%), and low rubble(3.4% ± 3.6%), sand (9.7% ± 9.8%) and recently deadcoral (0.0% ± 0.01%) (Fig. 8).

II. Totoya reefs
Totoya Eastern Lagoon (TY01J. The site is a
protected, diverse submerged patch reef in a lagoon,with relatively high live coral cover (Fig. 9). Twocrown-of-thorns starfish were observed feeding oncorals at about 6 m. Partial mortality was observed
on many corals and cyanobacteria were common on
recently dead corals.
A) 					Corallivore lesions/scars were common, but no active
feeding was observed. Vertical surfaces often had a richplating coral community dominated by Pachyseris,
Merulina, Echinopora, Turbinaria, Montipora andEchinophyllia, intermixed with soft corals, while thebases of some pinnacles had extensive assemblages ofplating and foliaceous coral.

B)		

		

C)

Figure 9: Photographs of Totoya Eastern Lagoon. A) shows a typical shallow submerged patch reef; B) highcoral coverage found on the patch reefs; and C) submerged patch reef starting at about 6 m depth.
19.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Totoya Inner Channel Pass (TY02). This is a diverseand healthy fringing fore reef site that was emergent
with full exposure to wind and wave action. Upwards of
75% live hard coral cover was observed in the shallows,with lots of big old colonies (some over 10 m across)(Fig. 10). There was abundant CCA with smaller
juvenile Acropora and Pocillopora colonies. There wasalso an abundance of encrusting Millerpora fire coralcolonies. Leather coral Lobophyton and Sacrophyton

were also common. Large Turbinaria colonies were
found in the sand grooves (Fig. 10A). Cyanobacteria
were observed in higher concentrations on large deadbranching corals. Shallow reef communities and theupper surfaces of pinnacles that were damaged ordegraded had large mats of leather corals, and several
deep reef communities were dominated by carpets of
Xenia (Fig 10B).

A)						B)Figure 10: Photographs of Totoya Inner Channel Pass. A) shows a large Turbinaria colony that was over 10 m
in diameter; B) shallow reef with high coral coverage and diversity
Totoya Western Channel (TY03). There is
exaggerated spur and groove formations on thesouthern side of the western channel, with 30–40% live
cover on the spurs and rubble/sand in grooves. Thereis a moderate slope to at least 35 m. and a fringing
fore reef site that was emergent with full exposure towind and wave action (Fig. 11A). Many dead corals
were observed in standing growth form that had
been covered in cyanobacteria. CCA was common.
There were table Acropora colonies over a metre indiameter (Fig. 11B). A lot of coral partial mortalityA)			

was observed that was not consistent with crown-ofthorns or Culcita cushion star corallivory. Damselfish
lawns were common. Large Echinpora, Merulina,
and Isopora coral colonies were observed. Encrusting
Hydnophora coral colonies were present and looked
healthy. This fore reef community often had a barrier
reef with a reef flat leading to a series of pinnacles thatdrop near vertically to 15–20 m depth, followed by amore gradual slope. The walls and pinnacle faces often
had undercut ledges and small caves.

B)

Figure 11: Photographs of Totoya Western Channel. A) shows a typical reef spur with relatively high coral and
CCA coverage. B) Typical reef with relatively high coral coverage that included large table Acropora colonies
shown with a white arrow, along with dead corals in standing growth form.
20.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Figure 12: Average benthic cover of the Totoya Eastern lagoon, Inner Channel Pass, and Western Channel reefsites. C = live coral, DC = dead coral, P = pavement, R = rubble, S = sand, RD = recently dead coral. All data
are presented as percentage cover +/- standard error.
Totoya benthic summary: The Totoya reefs were
dominated by pavement (64.9% ± 16.0%), withrelatively high living coral cover (21.3% ± 11.2%), andlow dead coral (6.5% ± 4.3%), rubble (2.3% ± 3.6%),

sand (2.9 % ± 4.1%) and recently dead coral (0.0% ±0.0%) (Fig. 12).

III. Navatu Reefs
Navatu Outer West (NV01). This reef site had arelatively healthy reef flat slope to about 4 m, then asteep drop to 14 m (Fig. 13A), then a small plateau
before a very steep slope into the depths. This site
has diverse and high cover coral assemblages, withupwards of 75% live hard coral cover (Fig. 13). The
fringing fore reef site was emergent, with full exposure
to wind and wave action. Shallow water areas had awell-developed zone, consisting of multiple canopy

layers constructed of table Acroporids (Fig 13BCD).
Gently sloping surfaces, especially at the edge ofthe vertical wall, often had a rich branching coral
community consisting of thickets of staghorn andbottlebrush Acroporids, Pocillopora, Hydnophora,
Stylophora, Seriatopora and other taxa. Verticalsurfaces often had a rich plating coral community
dominated by Pachyseris, Merulina, Echinopora,
Turbinaria, and Montipora coral genera.

A)		

C)			

B)			

D)

Figure 13: Photographs of Navatu Outer West. A) shows the reef flat at around 4 m with a steep drop to 14m. B) shows healthy reef flat slope at around 4 m depth with high coral coverage and high numbers of table
Acroporids. C) and D) show the high diversity and high structural complexity of reefs on the reef flat.
21.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Navatu North Channel Pass (NV02). This reef site
had a healthy reef flat with some spur and groove
formation and numerous old Porites colonies. There
was a drop-off to 20 m depth, where there was acurrent-swept sand plain, with a few isolated patch
reefs at 25–30 m depth. This site had high diversity
and high cover reefs with upwards of 40–50% live hardcoral cover (Fig. 14). The fringing fore reef site was
emergent, with full exposure to wind and wave action.
A)		

		

CCA and cyanobacteria were common. Some larger
Acropora colonies were observed (Fig. 14B) at depthsof 25–30 m. There were no obvious signs of bleaching.
A large number of damselfish lawns were observed
where turf algae mats were accumulating on old deadcorals. Large monospecific colonies of Echinopora andMerulina colonies were observed growing on the sides
of walls. Partial mortality was common on many of
the coral colonies observed.

B)					

		C)

Figure 14: Photographs of Navatu Outer West. A) shows the reef flat with a steep drop to 20 m depth. B) Large
Acroporid colonies were found at 25–30 m depth and most showed partial mortality. C) coral coverage anddiversity was relatively high on these reefs.
Navatu North Lagoon (NV03). This reef site had asandy lagoon floor at 10–14 m depth, with various
scattered coral bommies and several larger patch reefs
reaching almost to the surface (Fig. 15AB). Muchof the coral here was dead and had cyanobacteria
or macroalgal cover. There was a strong out-flowing
current from the centre of the lagoon through the
A)		

		

channel. No transects were recorded due to difficult
conditions. Large colonies of Porites and Pavona ofat least 2 m in diameter were observed (Fig. 15C).
Turf and damselfish lawns were abundant in old deadbranching corals. Brown encrusting sponges werecommon and were overgrowing clean surfaces andrecently dead corals.

B)						C)Figure 15: Photographs of Navatu North Lagoon. A) Top of a patch reef with large branching coral reachingalmost to the surface. B) Large patch reef surrounded by the sandy lagoon floor at about 14 m depth. C) Largecolonies of Porites and Pavona growing on the patch reefs.
22.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Figure 16: Average benthic cover of the Navatu Outer West and North Channel Pass reefs. Navatu North
Lagoon was not included because the currents were too strong to lay out transects. C = live coral, DC = deadcoral, P = pavement, R = rubble, S = sand, RD = recently dead coral. All data are presented as percentage
cover +/- standard error.
Navatu benthic summary: The Navatu reefs were
dominated by pavement (52.2% ± 18.8%), with highliving coral cover (31.0% ± 12.8%), and low dead coral(7.3% ± 6.0%), rubble (3.5% ± 5.2%), sand (7.3 % ±6.0%) and recently dead coral (0.0% ± 0.0%).

IV. Vanua Vatu reefs
Vanua Vatu North (VT01). This site had a healthy reef
with a wave-washed reef flat (>50% live coral cover) to
4 m, and then a wall to 15 m, including caves and a lotof CCA, a wide plateau from 15–22 m with 30-50%
live coral cover, and then a steep slope to 80 m+ (Fig.
17). The fringing fore reef site was submergent withfull exposure to wind and wave action. There were
little to no signs of predation and disease. Fishing lines
A)		

		

were found at the base and the top of the reef. Large
Porites colonies were common at the base of the slopeand coral pinnacles were separated by deep channels.
On horizontal and gently sloping fore reef areas there
were small boulders, mounds and overlapping sheetsof table Acroporids, often forming a canopy 1–2 m inheight.

B)					

C)

Figure 17: Photographs of Vanua Vatu North. A) Reef profile photo showing the reef flat at around 4 m witha steep wall to 15 m depth. B) Large Acropora table colony growing on the plateau between 15–22 m, C) Reef
flat with high coral diversity and coverage at around 4 m depth.
Vanua Vatu West (VT02). This site had a wave-washedreef flat with some spur and groove development
and 20–25% live hard coral cover. There was a steep
slope to 15 m, followed by a plateau from 15–20 m

and then a very steep slope into the depths (Fig. 18).
The fringing fore reef site on the point of the channel
was submergent, with some protection from wind
and wave action. About 50% of the deeper reefs were23.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fijidamaged and lacked extensive coral communities.
Many of these deeper reefs were dominated by rubble,A)						overgrown with macroalgae and/or cyanobacteria.

		

B)		

C)

Figure 18: Photographs of Vanua Vatu West. A) Reef flat with 20–25% hard coral cover B) Reef profile showing
the shallow reef flat with a steep slope down to 15 m. The reef flat and slope had decent coral coverage anddiversity. C) Deeper reef site dominated by rubble.
Vanua Vatu North Inner Channel (VT03). This site
has rugose spur and groove with numerous caves andtunnels at 1–12 m depth. The shallow reefs had live
coral cover of 15–25%, with significant CCA growthin caves. The fringing fore reef site was emergent,
A)		

		

with full exposure to wind and wave action. Live coral
cover increased at greater depths and was relatively
healthy. Fore reef sloped to rubble field, probably due
to intense wave action. (Fig 19).

B)						C)Figure 19: Photographs of Vanua Vatu North Inner Channel. A) wave exposed fore reef site with 15–25% coral
coverage. B) Close-up of a deeper reef (15–20 m) with high coral coverage and diversity. C) Reef extending
from the reef flat into greater depths.

24.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Figure 20: Average benthic cover of the Vanua Vatu North, West and North Inner Channel reef sites. C = live
coral, DC = dead coral, P = pavement, R = rubble, S = sand, RD = recently dead coral. All data are presented
as percentage cover +/- standard error.
Vanua Vatu benthic summary: The Vanua Vatu reefs
were dominated by pavement (48.4% ± 13.9%), withhigh living coral cover (34.3% ± 11.9%), and low deadcoral (8.2% ± 6.5%), rubble (2.5% ± 3.9%), sand (4.5 %± 7.3%) and recently dead coral (0.0% ± 0.0%)

V. Tavunasici reefs
Tavunasici North (TS01). This site is reef flat withhigh coral cover (40–60%) with a steep grade to
15–20 m (Fig. 21), where there is a narrow plateau
and then a steep grade into the depths. The fringing
fore reef on the point of the channel was submergent,
with some protection from wind and wave action.
A)		

		

Some predation lesions were observed, likely fromthe Culcita cushion star. Topography was rugose with
undercuts and small caves, where encrusting corals
were prevalent. Corals were observed as deep as 40 m.
Macroalgae mats were common at this site.

B)					

C)

Figure 21: Photographs of Tavunasici North. A) Profile photo showing the steep grade from the reef flat to15–20m. B) Close-up of the reef flat with high coral coverage and diversity. C) Reef flat with large tabletop
Acropora colonies.
TS02 Tavunasici West. This site is outer reef withwave-washed reef top (40–50% live coral cover),then a steep grade to 15 m (40–60% live coral cover),with a narrow sloping plateau at 15–25 m, before
becoming almost wall-like with a steep plunge togreater depths (Fig. 22). The fringing fore reef on

the point of the channel was submergent, with some
protection from wind and wave action. Rubble andturf algae were common around 12–15 m, where
there was approximately 35% coral cover but it waspatchy. Corallivore predation on small Pocillopora andAcropora colonies was common.
25.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

A)		

		

B)						C)Figure 22: Photographs of Tavunasici West. A) Profile photo showing the steep drop-off beyond 15–25m. B)
High wave energy reef top with relatively high coral cover. C) Reef plateau at 15–25m with high coral cover.
Tavunasici Channel (TS03). This site was a channel
where the reef flat expels water, with a big sand chuteto 25 m and large coral bommies with spur and groove
formations on either side, and numerous caves andswim-throughs. Bommies had extensive CCA growthand 15–20% hard coral cover. The fringing fore reefsite on the point of the channel was submergent, withsome protection from wind and wave action (Fig.
A)		

		

23). The outer reef slope near the reef crest slopes into
sand by the entrance to the lagoon. Coral was highlyvariable between pinnacles. Coral diseases observed
included white syndrome and yellow band disease,but overall prevalence was low. There were also areas
affected by a crustose coralline algae disease (Fig.
23C).

B)							

C)Figure 23: Photographs of Tavunasici Channel. A) Reef flat with large branching and massive coral colonies
B) Close-up of the large, massive colonies found on the reef flat. C) Reef plateau at 15–25 m with high coral
cover. C) Coralline algae disease.

26.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Figure 24: Average benthic cover of the Tavunasici North, West and Channel reef sites. C = live coral, DC= dead coral, P = pavement, R = rubble, S = sand, RD = recently dead coral. All data are presented aspercentage cover +/- standard error
Tavunasici benthic summary: The Tavunasici reefs
were dominated by pavement (58.6% ± 9.9%), withrelatively high living coral cover (26.7% ± 9.4%), andlow dead coral (5.2% ± 3.4%), rubble (3.7% ± 3.5%),
sand (5.8 % ± 6.2%) and recently dead coral (0.0% ±0.1%).

VI. Olorua reefs
Olorua North (OL01). Shallow reef on the top of the
pinnacles had 15-20% live coral cover, with a short wall
to 14m depth where there was approximately 5% live
coral and lots of CCA in caves, followed by a plateau
with sand, rubble and abundant cyanobacterial mats(Fig. 25). The fringing fore reef site on the point of thechannel was submergent with some protection fromwind and wave action with low visibility. Turf andcyanobacteria mats were common. The topographyof slopes to rubble field were variable with low
coral cover. Large Diploastrea colonies with partial
mortality were common on the sides of the pinnacle
slopes (Fig. 25C).

A)		

C)

		

B)		

Figure 25: Photographs of Olorua North reef. A) Shallow reefs on the top of pinnacles had15-20% live coral
cover with common turf algae and cyanobacterial mats (center). B) Habitat at base of pinnacles around 14m
depth with rubble and limited coral cover. C) Large Diploastrea colony with partial mortality.
Olorua South (OL02). This reef site had a gradualslope from 1–25 m, followed by a deep drop-off into
the depths (Fig. 26A). There was high coral cover(40–50%) from the shallows to 25 m depth (Fig. 26B).

The fringing fore reef site was submergent, with full
exposure to wind and wave action. There was a gentle
reef slope, with finger-like spurs. Most corals were ingood health; it is a very vibrant reef system.
27.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

A)					B)

Figure 26: Photographs of Olorua South reef. A) Shallow reefs with massive plating corals and high coral
cover with a gradual slope to 25 m depth. B) High coral cover with great structural complexity from 1–25 m
depth.
Olorua West (OL03). This site had a gradual slope
from 1–40 m, with numerous spur and groove areas
and depressions, and small colonies of Pocillopora
and Stylophora (Fig. 27A). Coral cover was variable,with some parts of the reef having over 50% live coral
cover (Fig. 27B), while other parts of the reef hadA)						only 20-30% live coral. There was high CCA coveracross the reef. The fringing fore reef was submergent,
with full exposure to wind and wave action. At 20 m
depth, coral cover averaged around 30–35%, but thenincreased to about 40% cover around 25 m.
		

B)Figure 27: Photographs of Olorua West reef. A) Shallow reefs with a gradual slope to 40 m depth with variable
live coral cover. B) There were parts of the reef with over 50% living coral with high coral diversity.

28.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Figure 28: Average benthic cover of the Olorua North, South and West reef sites. C = live coral, DC = deadcoral, P = pavement, R = rubble, S = sand, RD = recently dead coral. All data are presented as percentage
cover +/- standard error.
Olorua benthic summary: The Olorua reefs were
dominated by pavement (52.5% ± 2.4%), with highliving coral cover (32.4% ± 10.2%), intermediate deadcoral (9.0% ± 4.0%), and low rubble (2.4% ± 3.6%),
sand (1.9 % ± 2.7%) and recently dead coral (0.02%± 0.06%).

VII. Moce Reefs
Cakau LekaLeka (MC01): This reef site had a gradualslope with large patch reefs and bommies to 25 m
depth followed by a steep grade into deeper depths(Fig. 29). The site had variable coral cover, from
5–30%, with common cyanobacterial mats and turf
algae. The fringing fore reef was submergent, with
A)		

		

some protection from wind and wave action. Deadcorals in standing growth position were common andwere mostly covered in either cyanobacteria, turf, orCCA. There were some white, recently dead corals but
the cause of mortality was not clear.

B)					

		C)

Figure 29: Photographs of Cakau LekaLeka. A) The shallow part of the reef site had frequent bommies andpatch reefs. B) Patch reefs had large branching Acropora colonies and dead coral colonies in standing growth
position. C) There were reef areas with over 30% living coral coverage.
Cakau Vate (MC02): The shallowest part of the reef
was at 0–2 m with a steep drop to 10 m depth. Caves
and grooves were common on the shallow reefs, withapproximately 10–20% live coral cover, and a sandslope from 10 m to over 60 m depth, with scatteredcoral bommies and common encrusting Millepora
fire coral overgrowth (Fig. 30). The fringing fore reef
was submergent, with some protection from wind andwave action.

29.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

A)		

		

B)							

C)Figure 30: Photographs of Cakau Vate reef. A) This site had a steep drop from 2 m to 10 m depth, with 10–20%
living coral cover. B) The shallow reefs at this site had moderate coral cover, often with Millepora fire coral
overgrowth, as shown at the white arrow. C) The reef had a steep slope, with large sand patches starting ataround 10 m and down to more than 60 m.
Cakau Motu (MC03): This reef site had rugose reef
topography with large grooves and isolated spurs.
Caves were common and reef cover was generally
low, between 5% and 10%, with several sand andrubble patches (Fig. 31). The fringing fore reef was
A)		

		

submergent, with some protection from wind andwave action. There was a steep reef slope, starting at
20–25 m. CCA covered most of the substrate, but withlittle coral recruitment evident. Cyanobacteria werecommon on old dead Porites reef framework.

B)					

C)

Figure 31: Photographs of Cakau Motu reef. A) Large spur and grooves and a reef slope that started around
20 m depth. B) Low coral cover (5–10%) with common CCA growth on the dead reef framework. C) A steep
reef slope started at around 20–25 m and continued to greater depths.
Karoni (MC04): This reef site had a gradual channel
pass into Moce lagoon. There was a shallow reef,
starting at 1 m depth with a steep drop to 12 m depth.
The base of the reef was mostly sand and coral rubble,
with scattered coral bommies. There was a gradualsand slope with large patch reefs and 10–20% living
coral cover down to about 50 m depth (Fig. 32). The
back reef site in the lagoon was protected from wind

and wave exposure. At the base of the reef pinnacles
there were finger-like structures covered in CCA thatwere likely old monospecific, columnar frameworksof either Isopora or Pavona corals. There were coralbommies in the sand flats at around 20 m withpredominately small Acropora and Pocillopora coralcolonies. The reef site was dominated by small coralcolonies, around 10–20 cm in diameter.

30.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

A)		

			

B)						Figure 32: Photographs of Karoni reef. A). Channel pass on the Karoni reef that passed in to the Moce lagoon.
B) A gradual slope from 12 m to over 50 m depths with moderate living coral coverage (~10-20%).
Karoni Lagoon (MC05): Lagoon next to Karoni island– sand with scattered bommies and cyanobacterial

mats.

Figure 33: Average benthic cover of the Moce reef sites, including Cakau LekaLeka, Cakau Vate, Cakau Motu,
Karoni and Karoni Lagoon. C = live coral, DC = dead coral, P = pavement, R = rubble, S = sand, RD =recently dead coral. All data are presented as percentage cover +/- standard error.
Moce benthic summary: The Moce reefs were
dominated by pavement (56.7% ± 9.4%), withrelatively high living coral cover (23.6% ± 9.1%),

intermediate dead coral (9.2% ± 5.2%), and low rubble(3.6% ± 4.0%), sand (7.0% ± 8.7%) and recently deadcoral (0.02% ± 0.1%).

VIII. Matuku Reefs
Matuku West Lagoon (MT01): This reef site is amangrove-lined lagoon on the west side of Matuku.
The site has a gradual reef slope from 1 m to 15 m,
with 20-40% live coral cover. Beyond 15 m depth
there was mostly silty mud with scattered coralcolonies on a gradual slope to 28 m. The back reef site
within the lagoon was protected from wind and wave
exposure. The fore reef areas were interconnectedwith lagoonal habitats by a deep channel. Lagoonal
areas had extensive seagrass beds and often diverse
mangrove communities. Large plating corals werecommon, but were covered in fine silt and sediment.
The site had low coral diversity, likely due to the highsedimentation (Fig. 34). Several corallivores wereobserved, including crown-of-thorns starfish.

31.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

A)					

B)

Figure 34: Photographs of Matuku West Lagoon reefs. A) Relatively high coral coverage (20-40%) and low
coral diversity. B) Most of the reefs were dominated by a few coral species.
Matuku West Channel (MT02): Reef crest at 2 m
depth with 40–50% live coral cover (Fig. 35A). There
was then a steep reef slope to 15 m, followed by asandy rubble slope to 25 m, with a wide coral ridge
at 20–30 m depth with 30–40% live coral cover (Fig.
35B). Beyond 25 m depth there was a steep slope to
80 m depth and deeper. The fringing fore reef site
was emergent, with full exposure to wind and waveA)					

action. The reef site had spur and groove morphology,
with steep isolated pinnacles. There were diverse
communities of soft corals, especially on the verticalsurfaces of pinnacles (especially Dendronephthya), as
well as branching gorgonians and sea fans. Shallow
reef communities and the upper surfaces of pinnacles
that were degraded had large mats of leather corals.

B)

Figure 35: Photographs of Matuko West Channel reefs. A) The reef crest had high coral cover of 40–50%. B)
Reefs at 25–30 m depth had relatively high coral cover of 30-40%.
Matuku East Channel (MT03): This site is thechannel pass into the eastern Matuko lagoon. The
reef started at 1 m depth, with a steep drop-off witha lot of caves to 15 m. This was followed by a steep
sand slope to 30 m, with scattered large bommies andpinnacles, all with numerous caves. The site had low
live coral cover (10–20%) but a lot of CCA cover (Fig.
36). There was a high diversity of reef building corals,

including large Porites and Pavona colonies. Small
submassive corals, such as Favia and Goniastrea, werecommon in the shallow areas. Encrusting Millepora
fire coral was observed overgrowing dead coral instanding growth form. Leather corals were common
on the tops of the pinnacles, leaving little space forcoral recruits to settle.

32.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

A)					

B)

Figure 36: Photographs of Matuko East Channel reefs. A) The high diversity of corals, including submassive
Favia and Gonisastrea colonies. B) High cover of CCA shown with a white arrow.

Figure 37: Average benthic cover of the Matuku reef sites, including Matuku West Lagoon, Matuku West
Channel, and Matuku East Channel. C = live coral, DC = dead coral, P = pavement, R = rubble, S = sand, RD= recently dead coral. All data are presented as percentage cover +/- standard error.
Matuku benthic summary: The Matuku reefs were
dominated by pavement (48.0% ± 20.9%), withrelatively high living coral cover (25.7% ± 10.2%),

intermediate dead coral (9.5% ± 7.3%) and sand(11.9% ± 16.4%), with low rubble (3.2% ± 3.8%), andrecently dead coral (0.0% ± 0.0%).

Site comparison and conclusions
Overall, the sites surveyed were dominated bypavement (range 48.0–64.9%), with relatively highliving coral cover (range 20.2–34.3%) and low coverageof sand (range 2.7–11.9%), rubble (range 2.3–4.0%)
and recently dead coral (range 0.0–0.1%; Table 3).
These benthic coverage results suggest that all theLau reefs surveyed had healthy benthic communities
with almost no recently dead coral. This suggests that

there was not bleaching-related mortality associatedwith the 2016 global bleaching event. The highest
percentages of living coral were found in Vanuavatu(34.3% ± 11.9%), Olorua (32.4% ± 10.2%) and Navatu(31.0 ± 12.8), while the lowest percentages were foundin Moala (20.2% ± 11.1%), Totoya (21.3% ± 11.2%),
and Moce (23.5 ± 9.2%; Table 3).

33.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Table 3: Percentage cover of the dominant benthic types at each of the sites (± %SE). C = live coral, DC = deadcoral, P = pavement, R = rubble, S = sand, RD = recently dead coral.
Sites

%C

% DC

%P

%R

%S

%RD

Moce

23.5 ± 9.1

Moala20.2 ± 11.1

9.2 ± 5.2

56.7 ± 9.4

3.6 ± 4.0

7.0 ± 8.7

0.02 ± 0.08

9.6 ± 6.3

55.0 ± 17.2

3.4 ± 3.6

9.7 ±9.8

0.0 ± 0.01

Matuku25.7 ± 10.2

9.5 ± 7.3

47.9 ± 20.9

3.2 ± 3.8

11.9 ± 16.4

0.0 ± 0.0

Olorua32.4 ± 10.2

9.0 ± 4.0

52.5 ± 10.4

2.4 ± 3.6

1.9 ± 2.7

0.02 ± 0.06

Tavunasici

26.7 ± 9.4

5.2 ± 3.4

58.6 ± 9.9

3.7 ± 3.5

5.8 ± 6.2

0.0 ± 0.1

Totoya21.3 ± 11.2

6.4 ± 4.3

64.9 ± 16.0

2.3 ± 3.6

2.9 ± 4.1

0.0 ± 0.0

Vanuavatu

34.3 ± 11.9

8.2 ± 6.5

48.4 ± 13.9

2.5 ± 3.9

4.5 ± 7.3

0.0 ± 0.0

Navatu31.0 ± 12.8

7.3 ± 6.0

52.2 ± 18.8

3.5 ± 5.2

4.6 ± 5.4

1.0 ± 0.0

The Lau reefs with the highest living coral cover were
Vanuavatu, Olorua and Navatu reefs. These reefs all
had over 30% average living coral cover and are sitesthat should be a priority for protection. All of the reefs
surveyed had over 20% living coral cover and representhigh diversity, high cover reef ecosystems. Globally,

reefs like those documented on this expedition are
becoming rarer and degrading rapidly due to rapid
climate change. Corals of the Lau area seem to beresilient to climate change and are high diversity reefs
worthy of special protection.

34.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Chapter 2: Stony reef corals of the Lau Islands
Doug Fenner

Abstract_________________________________________________________The reefs of the Lau Islands have a high diversity(species richness) of stony (hard) corals, with a meanof 62 named species per dive site and a total of 281
species, including 228 named species in 59 genera
observed during 25 dives in this brief survey. Someor many of the 53 species which do not fit names incurrent use are likely to be new species. The numberof hard coral species found per dive site was similar tothat in New Caledonia, the main islands of Fiji, Tonga,
and American Samoa. The total number of stony corals
found in 25 dives was highest in the Coral Triangle and
New Caledonia, then decreased towards the east from
New Caledonia to Fiji, Tonga, and American Samoa.
This is consistent with the well-known longitudinal
diversity gradient in the Pacific. Astoundingly, theLau Islands have coral named species richness in 25
dives, which is 84% as high as the four areas in the
Coral Triangle the author has surveyed using the same
methods. Reef sites that were on outer reef slopes had
the greatest species richness of corals, followed by sites
in lagoons. One site on an island slope had the lowest
richness, but had endemic and micro-endemic species

found elsewhere in Fiji.
A total of 281 species, including 228 named species,
were found that had not been reported from theLau Islands before, 12 named species were foundthat had not been reported from Fiji before (with anadditional 15 possible, depending on confirmationfrom skeleton), and 13 species were recorded that
represented extensions of their known biogeographic
ranges. A total of 31 species were found that havebeen listed under the International Union for
the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List as
Vulnerable, and four species were found that havebeen listed under the US Endangered Species Act(ESA) as Threatened. Conservation recommendations
include the establishment of marine protected areas,
protecting the largest reef fish species wherever
possible, protecting sea turtles, and monitoring thereefs by repeating our benthic and fish transects
annually.

Introduction_____________________________________________________
Stony or hard corals are a critical component of coral
reefs worldwide. Coral reefs are the most diverse of
the marine ecosystems. Corals contribute to building
the calcium structure of coral reefs (along with certain
algae) and are critical to holding reefs together. Further,corals are a primary contributor of habitat diversity
used by many species associated with coral reefs,
notably fish but also cryptic, sessile and commensalorganisms. Corals are highly vulnerable to a range ofdisturbances, many of which are caused by humans,
and are undergoing rapid decline in many, but notall, parts of the world. Coral reefs produce many
ecosystem services for people, including fisheries thatprovide critical food security, shoreline protection,and tourism, worth billions of dollars annually aroundthe world.

taxonomic revisions (Hoeksema 1989; Wallace1999). In situ one can see the entire colony, and often
many colonies, while identification from collected
specimens often must be based on small samples
that do not show the colony shape or range ofmorphological variation. Although field identification
is difficult due to morphological variation within
species (Veron 1995, 2000; Todd 2008), it is at least
possible, compared with groups such as sponges or
ascidians that cannot be identified in the field andrequire extensive collecting and laboratory analysis.
The combination of the critical role of corals for coral
reefs, the high diversity of coral reefs, and the ability toidentify most coral species rapidly in the field makes
them a critical component in any rapid assessment ofcoral reefs.

Many corals can be identified in situ on coral reefs
using field identification guides (Veron 2000) and

The study of corals in Fiji began with the United States
Exploring Expedition, led by Charles Wilkes from35.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji1838 to 1842. The expedition collected corals fromFiji in July 1840, among many other locations in the
Pacific. James Dana later studied the Fijian corals andwrote a 740-page book, Zoophytes, which included
the descriptions of many new coral species, mostof which came from Fiji (Dana 1846). A total of 47
species of coral in Zoophytes, currently recognized asvalid, were described from skeletons collected in Fiji;
Fiji is the “type locality” for those species (Lovell and
McLardy 2008).

Cyclone Winston hit Fiji in 2016, an expedition led by
Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and Vatuvara
Foundation surveyed marine biodiversity at 33 sites in
the Northern Lau Group. The 2017 expedition found
47 coral genera and noted damage from Cyclone
Winston on more than half of the reef sites surveyed(Miller et al. 2018).
Most of the world’s reef coral species have now been
evaluated for their level of risk of global extinction(Carpenter et al. 2008) based on criteria developedby the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature (IUCN 2012). The status of individual species
is now available from the IUCN website, and species
with a heightened risk of extinction found in Fiji arereported in this marine RAP survey. Also, 15 coral
species in the Pacific have been listed as “threatened”
under the US Endangered Species Act (ESA). Species
found in Fiji in this study that are listed as “threatened”
under the ESA are also reported here.

The study of corals in Fiji has resumed in recent times.
These studies are summarized in a single report (Lovell
and McCardy, 2008). Six summarized studies report a
total of 354 species from Fiji, plus voucher specimens
in the University of the South Pacific collection andspecies for which Fiji is the type location. The studies
include one by the author (Fenner 2006). When three
additional species are added from a second study inFiji by the author (Fenner 2007), the total number of
species reported from Fiji rises to 357. After Tropical

Methods________________________________________________________
Coral species richness (the number of species) andabundance were surveyed at 27 (of 28, the author
did not dive at Site 25) sites while scuba diving for 60
minutes per site, using a ‘roving diver’ search method.
D. Fenner was unable to dive at sites 13 through 19,
but corals were identified from photos taken by R.
Vave at those sites, except for site 14, where photos
were lost. Data were not taken at site 25. A direct
descent was made in most cases to about 20–25 m
depth. The bulk of the dive consisted of a slow ascentalong the reef in a zigzag path to the top of the reefor the shallowest depth that could be reached with a
scuba tank, or the shallowest depth safe from heavy
surge. The roving diver search method detects moreof the species present than belt transects because it
covers a larger area. It also distinguishes differencesin species richness at different sites, as well as belttransects (Holt et al. 2013). The disadvantage is thatthe abundance of corals is a qualitative estimate, rather
than a quantitative count.

underwater slate. Species abundance was recorded at
the end of the dive using the DAFOR scale, where D
stands for dominant, A for abundant, F for frequent,
O for occasional and R for rare (Mumby et al. 1996).
Rare was defined as only one or two colonies seen, anddominant was defined as over half of all corals or coral
cover. Other studies of corals that have used this sortof scale include DeVantier et al. (1998, 2006), Fenner(2006, 2007, 2011, 2015a and 2015b), Richards et al.
(2008) and Richards and Beger (2013). Abundance
categories were next given a numerical value, by
assigning R = 1, O = 2, F = 3, A = 4, and D = 5.
Many corals can be identified to species withcertainty in the water and a few must be identified
alive, since they cannot be identified without living
tissues. In addition, there are some that are easier to
identify alive than from skeletons. However, there
are some species that normally require collection forverification. Samples of corals that could represent
new species were collected at most sites. Samples werelater bleached in a household bleach solution, thenrinsed in freshwater, dried, and mailed (with a CITES
permit) to D. Fenner in American Samoa for further
study and description of new species. The species
collected are listed below (Table 4).

Corals were usually identified in situ, but where an
identification could not be made rapidly, a photograph
was taken. About 1,170 photos of corals were taken by
the author. An attempt was made to take at least afew photographs of all species. Coral species and theirabundance were recorded on a printed form on an

36.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Table 4. List of corals collected with number of samples
Genus

No. samples

Genus

No. samples

1.

Acropora

68

8.

Millepora cf exesa

1

2.

Acropora cf jacquelineae

19.

Montipora4

3.

Alveopora1

10. Oxypora

74.

Astreopora

1

11. Pavona cf diffluens

15.

Cycloseris

1

12. Phymastrea

1

6.

Fungia cf granulosa

1

13. Porites

97.

Goniastrea

1

14. Porites nigrescens

4

The nomenclature of Veron et al. (2017) was used as
it is the most comprehensive, incorporates most of
the newer changes derived from genetics, and takes
a cautious approach to proposed name changes.
Several comprehensive guides assisted identification(Hoeksema 1989; Wallace 1999; Veron 2000; www.
coralsoftheworld.com). The nomenclature of Veron etal (2017) has been followed for fungiids, though theillustrations and descriptions in Hoeksema (1989)

were the primary source for actual identification. The
nomenclatures of these two authors differ primarily
at the level of genera and sub-genera, rather thanspecies (see also Gittenberger, et al. 2011). Additionalreferences used in identifying corals were Randall
and Cheng (1984), Veron (2002), Glynn et al. (2001),
Razak and Hoeksema (2003), Wolstenholme et al.
(2003), Fenner (2005) and Benzoni et al. (2007).

Results__________________________________________________________
Coral species richness: A total of 281 stony coral species, including 228 named species in 59 genera of named
species (including 222 named species in 55 genera of zooxanthellate Scleractinina) were found in this survey.
Almost all of the named species are illustrated in Veron (2000) and Veron et al. (2017), most Acropora areillustrated in Wallace (1999), and all fungiids are illustrated in Hoeksema (1989). In this data set, the number ofcoral species found was strongly and significantly positively correlated with the number of sites in the survey (r= .67, p < .01). It is difficult in this data set to detect the effect of longitude since the amount of effort (numberof sites) was not controlled; they are not comparable measures of species richness.
An average of 62 named coral species were found per dive in this Lau Island survey. The number of species
found on the average per dive is much more comparable between areas than the total number of species foundin a rapid assessment, because the amount of effort in a single dive (60 minutes) is much more equivalent
between studies than the total effort (number of dives), which differs greatly between studies. Figure 38 shows
the mean number of named coral species found per 60-minute roving search dive in similar rapid assessments
by the same author in the western and South Pacific. The sites are shown in order, going from west to eastand left to right. There appears to be a trend of decreasing species richness towards the east, but there isconsiderable variability in the data.

37.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Figure 38. The mean number of named coral species per dive at 13 locations in the Pacific, surveyed by theauthor, most of which were with Conservation International and all of which used the same methods
Sources: Calamianes: Veron and Fenner, 2000; Togian and Bangai Is.: Fenner, 2001; Raja Ampats: Fenner, 2002;
Milne Bay: Fenner and Turak, 2003; Nauru: Fenner, 2015a; New Caledonia 2007: Fenner, 2011; New Caledonia
2009: Fenner and Muir, 2009; Fiji 2005: Fenner, 2006; Fiji 2006: Fenner, 2007; Fiji 2017: Fenner, present report;
Tonga: Fenner, 2015b; Hawaii: Fenner, 2006.
A scatter plot of data points other than the two outliers(Nauru and Hawaii) plotted by longitude, shows alinear decrease in species richness in single dives fromthe Philippines to American Samoa (Figure 39). The
correlation of species richness in single dives withlongitude was strong (r = 0.78) and significant (p <.005). The Lau Islands had species richness that was
75% as high as the average of the four Coral Triangle
sites, a surprisingly high richness.

Figure 39. Scattergram of mean coral species richness versus longitude. Data from Figure 38.
The total number of species found in a larger numberof dives may be a more sensitive measure of the total
biodiversity in an area, since additional effort always
increases the total number of species found. With
greater effort, the total number of species should becloser to the total that occurs at the area, even thoughthat total is unknown. If the total effort is equatedbetween areas, perhaps that might produce a moresensitive measure than the average number foundin a single dive, total found in a survey or the total
known from all surveys. Figure 40 shows the total
number of coral species found in 25, 60-minuteroving search dives, for the same Pacific locations,based on the same data set as in Figure 38. The total
number of coral species in 25 dives differs consistently

between locations, showing a longitudinal gradientin diversity consistent with the overall pattern for
the Pacific (Veron 2000). The total number of species
in 25 dives decreases towards the east, similar to thedecrease across the entire Pacific. The data also showless variation than the data from single sites. The Lau
Islands have species richness that is slightly lower
than the main Fiji Islands, but higher than Tonga,
consistent with its location. The Lau Islands havecoral species richness at 25 dives that is 84% as great
as that in the Coral Triangle. This is even higher thanthe estimate derived from the average of single sites(75%), supporting the view that the Lau Islands have avery high coral species richness.
38.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Figure 40. The total number of named coral species recorded by the author in 25 dives at several Pacificlocations using the same methods (and most being Conservation International surveys). Nauru had only 20
dives, but would likely not have had many more species with 25 dives.
Sources: as in Fig. 38.
The number of coral species (named and unnamed)
at individual sites ranged from 10 to 94 species. The
sites with the greatest numbers of coral species weresites 2, 12, 7, 4 and 10, and the sites with the fewest
species were sites 9, 15, 26, 17 and 23. The number of

species found at each site is shown in Figure 41 andthe numbers of species in Table 5. A full list of species
found across sites is shown in the Annex (A.1). Figure
42 shows a species rich site.

Figure 41. The number of coral species found in each dive site
Table 5. The total number of coral species recorded at each site
Site

Species

Site

Species

Site

Species

1.

53

11.

71

21.

65

2.

94

12.

85

22.

67

3.

69

13.

64

23.

52

4.

83

14.

24.

72

5.

81

15.

28

25.

6.

62

16.

74

26.

42

7.

84

17.

52

27.

70

8.

66

18.

53

28.

56

9.

10

19.

73

10.

83

20.

75

39.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Figure 42. High coral species richness and cover at Site 24 (photo copyright by Douglas Fenner)
Three basic habitats were distinguished: Outer reef slope, lagoon patch reefs, and high island slope. The numberof coral species at each site grouped by habitat locations is shown in Figure 43. Outer reef slopes had the highest
coral species richness, followed by lagoon patch reefs, followed by the high island slope. There were 16 outerslope sites, eight lagoon sites, and only one island slope site.

Figure 43. The mean number of coral species in different habitats
General faunal composition: The coral faunaconsists mainly of zooxanthellate Scleractinia with
275 species, and only six hard coral species that are
not zooxanthellate Scleractinia (Tubipora musica,
Millepora dichotoma, Millepora cf. exaesa, Millepora
platyphylla, Stylaster sp. and Distichopora violacea).
Zooxanthellate Scleractinia are the main reef builders,
but Millepora species are also significant reef builders
because they are also zooxanthellate and have large
skeletons and sometimes are abundant. There were atotal of 279 zooxanthellate species and just two species
that were not zooxanthellate (Distichopora violacea
and Stylaster sp.). This pattern is typical of most reefs.
The genera with the most species were Acropora with74 species, Montipora with 21 species, Pavona with
12 species, Porites with 14 species, and Fungia with
11 species. In the Indo-Pacific as a whole, Acropora
has the most species, followed by Montipora, Porites
and Fungia in that order. The species that was present
at the highest percentageage of sites was Leptoria
Phrygia, which was present at 92% of the sites;

Pocillopora verrucosa present at 88% of the sites,
Fungia scutaria, Millepora platyphylla, and Pavonachiriquensis, which were present at 80% of the sites;
and Coscinaraea columna and Goniastrea pectinatathat were present at 76% of the sites. The species that
had the highest mean abundance ratings for the sites
where they were present were Porites horizontallata(mean rating = 4, based on only one site), Pavona
cactus (3, 1 site), Porites rus (2.75, 2 sites), Acropora
loripes (2.4, 15 sites), Acropora sp. 12 (2.3, 3 sites),Millepora platyphylla (2.2, 16 sites), and Acropora
hyacinthus (2.1, 10 sites). The lowest possible meanabundance score for sites where a species is present is
1.0, with 1 = rare, 2 = uncommon, and 3 = common.
Species of particular interest: Twelve species
represent new records from Fiji (see Appendix TableA.1); they had not been reported previously fromFiji. The 12 species that are new records are Acropora
navini, Acropora rosaria, Euphyllia paradivisa, Favia
truncatus, Leptoseris foliosa, Parascolymia australis
40.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji(previously referred to as Scolymia australis), Pavonachiriquensis, Porites arnaudi, Porites evermanni,
Porites myrmidonensis, Psammocora digitata, andSeriatopora guttatus. An additional 15 species are
possible new records, but require confirmationfrom skeleton samples (Acanthastrea rotundoflora,
Acropora bifurcata, Acropora jacquelineae, Acropora cf.
maryae, Acropora valenciennessi, Acropora variolosa,
Astreopora ocellata, Pavona cf. diffluens, Pavona
giganetea, Platygyra ryunkyuensis, Platygya verweyi,
Platygyra yaeyamaensis, Pocillopora brevicronis,
Pocillopora danae, and Pocillopora molokenis.
Seventeen species records represent range extensionsof the known ranges of these species.

The nearest Euphyllia paradivisa is presently known
to Fiji and American Samoa is Papua New Guinea(Veron et al. 2017). The author first found this species
in American Samoa, initially as a single colony. The
one colony found in this rapid survey (shown in
Figure 44) has the same copper color and contracted
tentacles as the initial colony in American Samoa.
Several additional colonies with extended green
tentacles have subsequently been found in American
Samoa by Anthony Montgomery. It is surprising
to find a species so far from its known range, withnothing in between, but the colony here helps to fill
the gap between American Samoa and Papua New
Guinea. It appears we may still have quite a bit to learn
about the ranges and occupancy of some coral species.

Figure 44. The tentacles of the colony of Euphyllia paradivisa found in the Lau Islands. The identification ispartly based on the dividing tentacles. Euphyllia is one of the very few corals where the soft tissue is needed
for species identification. Photo copyright Douglas Fenner.
Psammocora digitata is a name that was long applied
to a columnar species. A re-examination of typespecimens (Benzoni et al. 2007) showed that thecolumnar species is actually named Psammocora
haimeana (and the species that name was applied to isa synonym of Psammocora profundacella). The coral P.
digitata actually refers to is usually a massive species
that can grow quite large; colonies in American Samoa
reach two metres tall and one metre diameter. On

rare occasions it can grow in a more columnar shape,
which apparently was what it was named after.
The species referred to as ‘Pavona cf. diffluens’ shownin Figure 45 appears very similar to P. diffluens fromthe Red Sea and western Indian Ocean, illustrated in
Veron (2000) and Veron et al. (2017), but Veron (2014)
states that it is likely to be another, similar species.

Figure 45. A photo of the colony of Pavona cf. diffluens found in the Lau Islands.
Photo copyright Douglas Fenner.
41.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Several coral species have been designated as having an elevated risk of extinction according to the IUCN and/or the US Endangered Species Act. Carpenter et al. (2008) reviewed all of the world’s coral species, using thecriteria of the IUCN Red List of endangered species, and came to the conclusion that a third of the world’s reef
coral species have an elevated risk of extinction. Table lists species found in this study that have an elevated riskof extinction under the IUCN Red List criteria, and the category of risk that was assigned to it by Carpenter etal. (2008) and adopted by IUCN. Table 6 also lists the species listed under the US Endangered Species Act, allfour of which were listed as threatened. A total of 31 species were found in this study that were listed under the
IUCN Red List as Vulnerable. Four species were found in this study that were listed under the U.S. Endangered
Species Act as Threatened.
Table 6. IUCN Red List category assigned by Carpenter et al (2008), and final listings under the US Endangered
Species Act for species reported in this study
Species

IUCN Red List category

1.

Pocillopora danae

Vulnerable

2.

Montipora caliculata

Vulnerable

3.

Isopora crateriformis

Vulnerable

4.

Isopora cuneata

Vulnerable

5.

Acropora aculeus

Vulnerable

6.

Acropora anthocercis

Vulnerable

7.

Acropora carolineana

Vulnerable

8.

Acropora echinata

Vulnerable

9.

Acropora globiceps

Vulnerable

10. Acropora paniculata

Vulnerable

11. Acopora polystoma

Vulnerable

12. Acropora retusa

Vulnerable

13. Acropora speciosa

Vulnerable

14. Acropora verweyi

Vulnerable

15. Astreopora cucullata

Vulnerable

16. Euphyllia cristata

Vulnerable

17. Euphyllia paradivisa

Vulnerable

18. Galaxea astreata

Vulnerable

19. Pavona cactus

Vulnerable

20. Pavona cf. diffluens

Vulnerable

21. Pavona venosa

Vulnerable

22. Leptoseris incrustans

Vulnerable

23. Acanthastrea brevis

Vulnerable

24. Acanthastrea hemprichii

Vulnerable

25. Acanthastrea ishigakiensis

Vulnerable

26. Symphyllia hassi

Vulnerable

27. Porites horizontallata

Vulnerable

28. Porites nigrescens

Vulnerable

29. Turbinaria peltata

Vulnerable

30. Turbinaria reniformis

Vulnerable

31. Turbinaria stellata

Vulnerable

US Endangered Species Act

Threatened

Threatened

Threatened

Threatened

and referred to it as “Acropora pharaoensis” in Fenner(2007). The species listed as Acropora sp. 10 latistellalike appears to be a new species the author originallyfound in American Samoa. Acropora sp. 9 appears

Several species of coral appear to be new species.
The species listed in the Annex as Acropora sp. 12
fenneri-like appears to be a new species. The author
has also seen, photographed, and sampled it in Tonga,42.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

to be a new species the author first found in Tonga.
Astreopora sp. 1 also appears to be a new species theauthor has found in American Samoa. A distinctive
species of Porites listed in the Annex as Porites sp.
1 also appears to be a new species and is shown in
Figure 46. There are also several other species in thegenus Acropora which may be new species, one ofwhich is illustrated in Figure 47. Skeleton samples ofseveral of these species were collected, and will need
to be studied in detail to determine what they are andname any new species.

Figure 46. A photo of Porites sp. 1, a distinctive lumpy species found in the Lau Islands and listed inAppendix 1 that appears to be a new species. Photo copyright Douglas Fenner.

Figure 47. A photo of Acropora sp. 5, a possible new species found in the Lau Islands. Photo copyright
Douglas Fenner.

Discussion_______________________________________________________
The coral reefs in the Lau Islands host a diverse community of hard corals, about 3/4 of the species in the richest
area of coral diversity in the world, the Coral Triangle. This coral species richness is consistent with the Lau
Islands’ location and the fact that coral richness shows a longitudinal gradient in the Pacific, which is supportedby the author’s data showing the total number of coral species found in 25 dives in 13 areas of the Pacific. Thus,
the species richness of corals appears to be controlled primarily by the distance from the center of diversity,
located in the ‘Coral Triangle’ area of the Philippines, eastern Indonesia, northern Papua New Guinea and theSolomon Islands (Veron 2000; Veron et al. 2009, 2011).
Through this survey, a total of 219 species were found that had not been reported before from the Lau Islands,
eight species were found that had not been reported before from Fiji, and 13 species were recorded that
represented extensions of their known biogeographic ranges. This MRAP provides significant new information
about less or understudied reefs in the Lau Islands. Further study of Fiji reefs is likely to reveal additional
species, particularly new species.
43.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

The reefs of the Lau Islands have several quite different habitats, such as outer reef slopes, patch reefs in lagoons,and island slopes. The differences between the habitats at individual reef sites contribute to the area richnessof coral species, since individual coral species are often more common in specific habitats or even completely
restricted to specific habitats. Surveying more habitats increases the number of coral species found. Island
slopes were not surveyed adequately in this study, with only one
site surveyed. That site had several coral species not found elsewhere in this study, even though it had lower
total species richness than the other types of sites. In addition, reef flats were not surveyed in this study, andadditional surveys in shallow habitats like reef flats will very likely add to the total number of species found.
The reefs of the Lau Islands have significant conservation value. There were new records of coral species in Fijiand also range extensions of coral species to Lau reported by Wallace (1999) and Veron (1995). These include
corals appeared on lists of threatened species. New records and range extensions are numbered consecutively
in the report. All this supports the conservation value of the living corals in the Lau Islands and Fiji as a whole.
The information in this report details the number of coral species on individual sites, the coral replenishment
and rarity indices for each site, and the threatened species, provides information to assist in the selection of sites
for protection as marine protected areas.
The reefs appeared to be in relatively good condition, with limited numbers of dead corals, and limited visibleof coral bleaching and coral disease, as well as invertebrate predators (despite a few crown-of-thorn starfish
and Drupella snails). There was also limited storm damage, limited macroalgae abundance, and limited visible
terrestrial sediments. Cyanobacteria were common at some sites. However, large fish and predatory fish were
not common, suggesting that fishing pressure is significant. The healthy coral communities provide a strong
basis for dive tourism, which would be strengthened by increased populations of large fish, which usuallyappeal to divers.

Coral restoration in Dravuwalu
44.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Chapter 3: Coral reef fish of the Lau Islands
Semisi Meo, Gerry Allen, and Mark Erdmann

Abstract_________________________________________________________
A list was compiled of the species observed in 26 of
28 sites in the Lau Archipelago during May 2017. The
survey involved approximately 51 hours of diving toa maximum depth of 65 m. The survey yielded a totalof 531 species including 288 species not previously
recorded from the Lau Group, of which 39 represent
new records for Fiji. The present survey also affords
an opportunity to comprehensively summarize thereef fish fauna of the Greater Fijian Region, bringing
the overall total to 1090 species. The new total iscomprised of several elements, including major
museum collections, published records, and previous
observation by G. Allen.

and damselfish (Pomacentridae) are the dominantfamily groups in the Lau Archipelago in both numberof species (99, 77, and 58 respectively) and numberof individuals. Species numbers at visually sampledsites during the survey ranged from 50 to 207, with anaverage of 159.
One of the most important aspects of the Fijian fauna is
its high level of endemism, with 27 species known onlyin Fiji and an additional 14 species shared with Tonga.
At least six new species were collected or observed
during the survey, belonging to the following genera:
Symphysanodon (Symphysanodontidae), Luzonichthys(Serranidae),Pomacentrus(Pomacentridae),
Ennapterygius (Trypterygiidae), Grallenia (Gobiidae),and Vanderhorstia (Gobiidae). Low numbers ofsharks, large groupers (Epinephelus), Napoleon wrasse(Cheilinus undulatus), and bumphead parrotfish(Bolbometomon muricatum) were observed during
the survey, an indication of over-fishing.

A formula for predicting the total reef fish fauna basedon the number of species in six key indicator families(Chaetodontidae, Pomacanthidae, Pomacentridae,
Labridae, Scaridae, and Acanthuridae) indicates thatat least 868 species can be expected to occur in the Lau
Archipelago. Gobies (Gobiidae), wrasses (Labridae),

Objective________________________________________________________The objective of the coral reef fish study was to provide
a comprehensive inventory of reef fishes inhabiting
the Lau Archipelago, as well as an up-to-date reviewof the entire Fijian reef-fish community. This segmentof the fauna includes fish living on or near coral reefs

down to approximately 65 m depth. It therefore
excludes deep water fish and offshore pelagic species
such as flying fish, tunas (except a few reef-frequenting
species), and billfish.

Introduction_____________________________________________________
other faunal works published at the time, Fishes of Fiji isof limited value due to its non-comprehensive content
littered with mis- identifications and recognition ofinvalid junior synonyms.

Fijian ichthyological exploration is divisible into two
major eras. The first includes historical collections
procured from 1820 to 1936, mostly by Europeanand American expeditions. The second, or modern,era includes post World-War II collections, extending
to the present day. The early collections were wellsummarized by Australian ichthyologist Gilbert
Whitley (1927), as well as American scientist Henry
W. Fowler, who published a book, Fishes of Fiji (1959).
Although Fowler’s book was published in 1959, themajority of the manuscript was completed 19 years
earlier in 1940, then delayed due to World War II. Like

The first fish specimens from Fiji were procured
by French expeditions between about 1820 and
1837 aboard several ships. Most of the species fromthese expeditions, many of which were collected
or described by the famous naturalists Quoy andGaimard, were covered in the monumental 22-volumeseries Histoire Naturelle des Poissons by Georges
45.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Cuvier and Achille Valenciennes (1828–1849).
Additional collections, totaling 55 lots deposited at
the Smithsonian Institution (USNM), were obtainedby the U.S. Exploring Expedition, which visited Fijiin July 1840. Numerous fish were also reported fromFiji by Albert Gunther, Curator of Fishes at the British
Museum, in his 1880 publication on fish of the British
Challenger Expedition that visited Fiji in 1874.

Emery and Richard Winterbottom. Victor Springer
of USNM did extensive collecting in Fiji in 1982, andalso collected in Rotuma in 1986. Judging from thehuge size and comprehensive nature of the CAS, ROM
and USNM collections, it is easy to understand thatFiji is the most thoroughly investigated insular region
for reef fishes in the vast western and central Pacific.
Pacific Islanders rely on fish for their way of life. In
Fiji, fishing is a vital source of food and income formany households. Fiji’s main tourist attraction is also
its natural environment and spectacular waters, home
to over 1,000 species of reef fish fauna. The main
driver of threats to Fiji’s fish population is economic
development, with threats of over-fishing, pollution
from agriculture and industrial waste, urbanizationand species introduction (Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) “Fiji”).

The modern era is highlighted by large collections,mainly procured with the ichthyocide rotenone,
by various American and Canadian expeditions.
Especially prominent are the collections at the UnitedStates National Museum, Washington, D.C, theCalifornia Academy of Science, San Francisco (CAS)and the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto (ROM). The
largest holdings of Fiji fish specimens are at CAS, themajority of which were collected by David Greenfield
and associates on several trips between 1999-2003. The
ROM collection was mainly obtained in 1983 by Alan

Methods________________________________________________________
The fish survey involved approximately 51 hours (twopeople) of scuba diving to a maximum depth of 65 m.
A list of fish was compiled for 26 of 28 sites (Appendix
Table A.1). The basic method consisted of underwaterobservations, usually made during a 60–80 minutedive at each site. The name of each observed species
was recorded on an Excel spreadsheet, using a masterlist of expected species from the region as a guide.
The underwater technique usually involved rapid
descent to 25–50 m, then a slow, meandering ascentback to the shallows. Most of the time was spent in
the 5–12 m depth zone, which consistently harbors
the largest number of species. Each dive included a
representative sample of all major bottom types andhabitat situations, such as rocky intertidal, reef flat,
steep drop-offs, caves (utilizing a flashlight whennecessary), rubble and sand patches. In addition to
the routine inventory, the divers were especially on

the look-out for unusual/rare species, particularly
in deeper sections of the reef (i.e. 30–50 m). Visualobservations were supplemented by the occasional
collection of cryptic, crevice-dwelling species withclove oil. Spears were also employed for the collectionof specimens of interest.
Only the names of fish for which identification was
absolutely certain were recorded. However, less than
one per cent of those observed could not be identified
to species. This high level of recognition is based on
our extensive diving experience in the Indo-Pacificand an intimate knowledge of the reef fish of this vast
region as a result of extensive laboratory and fieldstudies.

Results__________________________________________________________
published literature (e.g. G. Allen’s Damselfishes of
the South Seas, 1975); (iii) underwater observations,many based on underwater photographs by G. Allen
during Fiji visits in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2008; and(iv) underwater images by Australian photographer
Josh Jensen and others taken in Fiji waters.

In order to obtain a comprehensive list of Lau
Archipelago reef fish resources we have combined theresults of the current survey with several other data
sources (Table 7): (i) museum specimens depositedat the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia; theBishop Museum, Honolulu; the California Academyof Sciences, San Francisco; the Field Museum of
Natural History, Chicago; the Royal Ontario Museum,
Toronto and the United States National Museum,Washington, D.C.; (ii) miscellaneous records from

The total reef fish fauna of the Lau Archipelago
reported herein consists of 725 species belonging to
72 families and 280 genera (see Annex Table A.1).
46.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

In addition, the total for the Greater Fiji Region now
stands at 1090 species in 388 genera and 85 families.
The totals include 288 new records for the Lau
Archipelago, of which 39 represent new records forFiji (see Annex Table A.1).

Table 7. Faunal elements of Fiji incorporated in this study
Data Source
2017 MRAP survey additions
Museum surveys (1982–2003)
G. Allen observations (2003–2008)
Josh Jensen & other photographers
Miscellaneous records from literature
Current total fauna

Lau spp.
288
437------725

General faunal composition: The most abundantfamilies in terms of number of species are gobies(Gobiidae),wrasses(Labridae),damselfish(Pomacentridae),cardinalfish(Apogonidae),groupers (Serranidae), butterflyfish (Chaetodontidae),surgeonfishes(Acanthuridae),
moray
eels

Fiji spp.
39
658
101
16
276
1090

(Muraenidae), parrotfish (Scaridae), blennies(Blenniidae), and squirrelfish (Holocentridae). These
11 families collectively account for 457 species orabout 63 per cent of the total reef fishes currently
known from the Lau Archipelago (Table 8).

Table 8. Most abundant families in the Lau Archipelago and Greater Fiji Region
Rank

FamilySpecies - Lau

Species - Fiji

99

151

1

Gobiidae2

Labridae

77

86

3

Pomacentridae

58

66

4

Apogonidae

44

64

5

Serranidae

38

62

6

Chaetodontidae

32

34

7

Acanthuridae

31

35

8

Scaridae

21

24

9

Blenniidae

19

52

10

Muraenidae

19

45

11

Holocentridae

19

23

The relative abundance of Lau families is very
similar to that found at other Indo-Pacific locations.
Gobiidae, Labridae, and Pomacentridae are typicallythe most speciose families, although the order ofthese groups varies according to location. The leading
position of the Gobiidae is not surprising, as this is
the world’s largest family of fish with an estimated2,000 species. Although few moray eels (Muraenidae)
were sighted during the survey, the family is well
represented in Fijian seas and has been thoroughly
sampled, thanks to the use of chemical ichthyocides
by museum expeditions. Blennies (Blenniidae) werepoorly represented during the Lau survey due to theirpredilection for very shallow water, both in protectedlagoons and on outer reef, and minimal time wasspent in these habitats.
The number of species found at each site during the
MRAP survey is presented in Table 9. The total foreach site ranged from 50 to 207, with an average of159. The latter figure is not particularly high, but no
doubt is due to the homogenous nature of the sampled
habitat, which usually consisted of outer-reef slopes.

47.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Table 9. Number of fish species observed at each site during the Lau Archipelago survey
SiteSpecies
Site
Species
1
125
8
173
2
134
9
113
3
160
10
150
4
131
11
179
5
172
12
123
6
154
13
179
7
188
14
179
		
The richest sites for fish diversity are indicated in Table
10. Matuku Island has the highest faunal diversity,with 298 species recorded for the three sites at this

Site
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Species
153
146
142
141
170
183
197

Site
22
23
26
27
28

Species
173
50
195
207
136

island, which included channels near the outer reef(sites 26 and 28) and sheltered lagoon habitat (site 26).

Table 10. Richest sites for fishes during 2017 Lau survey
Site No.

Location

Total fish spp.

27

Matuku West Channel

207

21

Cakau Motu

197

26

Matuku West Lagoon

195

7

Navatu Outer Reef West

188

20

Cakau Vate

183

Coral Fish Diversity Index (CFDI): ): In responseto the need for a convenient method of assessing
and comparing overall coral reef fish diversity
between areas in the Indo-Pacific region, the author
devised a rating system (see Allen and Werner, 2002)
based on the number of species present belonging
to the following six families: Chaetodontidae,
Pomacanthidae, Pomacentridae, Labridae, Scaridae,
and Acanthuridae. These families are particularly
good indicators of overall fish diversity for the reasons
below.
• They are taxonomically well documented.
• They are conspicuous diurnal fish that are
relatively easy to identify under water.
• They include the “core” reef species, which,more than any other fish, characterize thefauna of a particular locality. Collectively, theyusually comprise more than 50 per cent of theobservable fish.
• The families, with the exception of
Pomacanthidae, are consistently among the 10
most speciose groups of reef fish inhabiting aparticular locality in the tropical Indo-west
Pacific region.
• Labridae and Pomacentridae in particular
are very speciose and utilize a wide range ofassociated habitats in addition to coral-richareas.

The method of assessment consists simply of counting
the total number of species present in each of the six
families. It is applicable at several levels:• single dive sites• relatively restricted localities such as the Lau
Archipelago• countries, major island groups, or large regions.
CFDI values can be used to make a reasonably accurate
estimate of the total coral reef fish fauna of a particular
locality by means of a regression formula. This feature
is particularly useful for large regions, such the central
tropical Pacific, where reliable totals are lacking.
Because the CFDI groups can be comprehensively
documented over a short period of time (usually about
two weeks for areas such as the Lau Archipelago),
the CFDI predictor value can be used to gauge thethoroughness of a particular short-term survey that iseither currently in progress or already completed.
The above-mentioned regression formula was obtained
from an analysis of 35 Indo-Pacific locations that havebeen comprehensively studied and for which reliable
species lists exist. The data were first divided into
two groups: those from relatively restricted localities(surrounding seas encompassing less than 2,000km2) and those from much larger areas (surrounding
seas encompassing more than 50,000 km2). Simple
48.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fijiregression analysis revealed a highly significant
difference (P = 0.0001) between these two groups.
Therefore, the data were separated and subjected to an
additional analysis. The Macintosh program Statview
was used to perform simple linear regression analyses
on each data set in order to determine a predictor
formula, using CFDI as the predictor variable (x)for estimating the independent variable (y) or totalcoral reef fish fauna. The resultant formulae wereobtained: (i) total fauna of areas with surrounding
seas encompassing more than 50,000 km2 = 4.234(CFDI) – 114.446 (d.f = 15; R2 = 0.964; P = 0.0001);
and (ii) total fauna of areas with surrounding seasencompassing less than 2,000 km2 = 3.39 (CFDI) 20.595 (d.f = 18; R2 = 0.96; P = 0.0001).

species total with the following formula: total expectedfauna = 4.234 (232) – 114.446. Therefore, the expected
total species for the Lau Archipelago is 868 species. The
CFDI method is especially useful when time is limited
and there is heavy reliance on visual observations,as was the case for the present survey. This result
indicates that at least 145 additional species can be
expected with more complete sampling, including
the use of chemical ichthyocides. Using the same
formula for the Greater Fiji Region, which has a CFDI
of 263, the estimated total species is 999. However,
the actual number of species thus far recorded for theregion (1062) exceeds this total, indicating the very
comprehensive nature of the past collecting effort that
includes extensive use of chemical ichthyocides forrecording cryptic, seldom-seen species.

The following CFDI values were obtained for thearchipelago, after combining the results of this survey
with those of previous museum collections (mainlyCAS, ROM and USNM): Chaetodontidae (32),
Pomacanthidae (13), Pomacentridae (58), Labridae(77), Scaridae (21), and Acanthuridae (31). The total
CFDI (232) was then used to predict the expected

Table 11 presents a comparison of the Lau Archipelago
and Greater Fiji Region with various Indo-west andcentral Pacific locations that were surveyed in the pastby the author or colleagues.

Table 11. Coral fish diversity index (CFDI) values for selected localities in the Indo-west Pacific region. The
total number of fish thus far recorded from each region and estimated total, based on the CFDI regression
formula (see text for details) are also indicated.
Locality

CFDI

No. reef fishes

Estim. reef fishes

Raja Ampat Islands, Indonesia

374

1471

1469

Bali and Nusa Penida, Indonesia

339

1022

1320

Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea

333

1109

1313

Maumere Bay, Flores, Indonesia

333

1111

1108

Halmahera, Indonesia

327

974

1271

Fakfak-Kaimana, W. Papua, Indonesia

322

1007

1249

Timor I. (Indonesia) & East Timor

318

958

1232

Berau, E. Kalimantan, Indonesia

316

875

1051

Togean and Banggai Islands, Indonesia

308

819

1190

Cenderawasih Bay, W. Papua, Indonesia

308

1002

1190

North Sulawesi, Indonesia

307

967

1020

Solomon Islands

301

1019

1160

Calamianes Islands-N. Palawan, Philippines

292

1003

1122

Komodo Islands, Indonesia

280

722

929

Yap State, Micronesia

280

787

929

Verde Passage, Luzon, Philippines

278

750

922

Sabah, Malaysia

275

865

1050

Greater Fiji Region

263

1062

999

Madang, Papua New Guinea

257

787

850

Kimbe Bay, Papua New Guinea

254

687

840

Lau Archipelago, Fiji

232

723

868

Capricorn Group, Great Barrier Reef

232

803

765

49.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Brunei, Darussalam

230

673

759

Chuuk State, Micronesia

230

615

759

Western Thailand (Andaman Sea)

226

775

843

Ashmore/Cartier Reefs, Timor Sea

225

669

742

Kashiwa-Jima Island, Japan

224

768

738

Anambas Islands, Indonesia

216

667

801

Samoa Islands

211

852

694

Chesterfield Islands, Coral Sea

210

699

691

Pohnpei and nearby atolls, Micronesia

202

470

664

Layang Layang Atoll, Malaysia

202

458

664

Andaman Islands

200

535

732

Bodgaya Islands, Sabah, Malaysia

197

516

647

Pulau Weh, Sumatra, Indonesia

196

533

644

Izu Islands, Japan

190

464

Sipadan Island, Sabah, Malaysia

184

492

603

Phoenix Islands, central Pacific

176

514

576

Rowley Shoals, Western Australia

176

505

576

Cocos-Keeling Atoll, Indian Ocean

167

528

545

North-West Cape, Western Australia

164

527

535

Lord Howe Island, Australia

139

395

450

Monte Bello Islands, W. Australia

119

447

382

Bintan Island, Indonesia

97

304

308

Kimberley Coast, Western Australia

89

367

281

Johnston Island, Central Pacific

78

227

243

Midway Atoll

77

250

240

Rapa

77

209

240

Norfolk Island

72

220

223

Zoogeographic affinities of Fijian reef fish: Table 12 presents the major zoogeographic categories for reeffish of Fiji. The largest segment of the fauna consists of species that exhibit broad distributions, ranging fromcircumglobal species to those mainly distributed in the western and central Pacific. The vast majority of
species range widely in the Indo-west and central Pacific region, from the western and central Indian Ocean
to the islands of Oceania or, in the case of 19 species, to the mainland or offshore islands of Central and SouthAmerica. Such distribution patterns are not surprising, given that nearly all coral reef fish have pelagic larvalstages of variable duration. Dispersal capabilities and length of larval life of a given species are usually reflected
in its geographic distribution. For example, surgeonfish of the genus Acanthurus typically have extensive IndoPacific distributions and relatively long pelagic stages that range from about 36 to 69 days.
Table 12. Major Zoogeographic categories for Fijian reef fish
General distribution
No. species
Indo-west and central Pacific672
Western and central Pacific275
Fijian endemics
27
Southwestern Pacific25
Indo-Pacific to Americas
19
Circumglobal
16
Undetermined
15
50.

% of fauna
61.9
25.3
2.5
2.3
1.7
1.5
1.4

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Fiji and Tonga
South PacificCentral PacificFiji-Tonga-Samoa
Fiji and Samoa

14
12
7
3
1

1.3
1.1
0.6
0.3
0.1

A combined total of 37 species is mostly restricted to the South Pacific region, extending from New Guinea andAustralia’s Great Barrier Reef to French Polynesia. This group is divisible into 25 species that primarily occur inthe southwestern portion of this region (for example, frequently from the Coral Sea, Vanuatu, or New Caledonia
to Fiji or Samoa) and 15 species that range farther to the east, to the Marquesas or Tuamotu Archipelago. Fiji lies
just to the west of the Pacific Plate boundary (which passes between Fiji and Samoa, Springer 1982) and only
seven Fijian species are mainly confined to this region that encompasses the islands of central Oceania. Typicalexamples of this segment of the fauna include Anarchias leucurus (Muraenidae), Pseudocheilinus tetrataenia(Labridae), Helcogramma hudsoni (Tripterygiidae), and Cirrpectes variolosus (Blenniidae).
Reef fish diversity is greatest in the Indonesian region, and there is a more or less predictable attenuation of thefauna as one travels away from this area, especially in an eastward direction (Table 13).
Table 13. Comparison of total number of reef fish for various locations in the western and central Pacific
Ocean (adapted from Allen, 2002)
Location

Total species
2582
1823
1086
514
560
389
331

Indonesia
Papua New Guinea
Fiji
Phoenix Islands
Society Islands
Tuamotu Islands
Marquesas Islands

Endemism: Fiji has a remarkable number of endemic species, despite the broad dispersal capabilities via thepelagic larval stage of most reef fish. This study indicates that 27 species are presently known only in Fiji (Table
14 and Figure 48). This high number of endemics is perhaps the most outstanding aspect of the Fijian reef fish
fauna. Although forming a relatively small percentage of the overall species total, endemic species are extremely
important for their role as conservation icons and can be used to help justify the importance of local marine
protected areas. For example, the 15 endemic species that occur at Cenderawasih Bay in West Papua Provinceof Indonesia have been effectively used to promote conservation in the region, including the establishment of
the largest marine national park in Indonesia.
Table 14. Endemic reef fish of FijiFAMILY

SPECIES

Ophichthidae

Bascanichthys fijiensis

Congridae

Gorgasia thamani

Ophidiidae

Brotula flaviviridis

Bythitidae

Dermatopsis greenfieldi

Bythitidae

Diancistrus fijiensis

Bythitidae

Diancistrus robustus

Plesiopidae

Plesiops polydactylus
51.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Apogonidae

Zoramia febila

Pomacanthidae

Centropyge deborae

Labridae

Cirrhilabrus marjorie

Blenniidae

Ecsenius fijiensis

Blenniidae

Ecsenius pardus

Blenniidae

Meiacanthus ovalauensis

Blenniidae

Petroscirtes pylei

Callionymidae

Synchiropus springeri

Gobiidae

Eviota eyreae

Gobiidae

Eviota karaspila

Gobiidae

Eviota mimica

Gobiidae

Eviota richardi

Gobiidae

Eviota teresae

Gobiidae

Eviota thalmani

GobiidaeGrallenia new species

Gobiidae

Trimma bathum

Gobiidae

Trimma finistrinum

Gobiidae

Vanderhorstia bella

Ptereleotridae

Parioglossus triquetrus

Siganidae

Siganus uspi

Figure 48. A selection of Fijian endemic reef fish: A. Cirrhilabrus marjorie (Labridae); B. Ecsenius fijiensis(Blenniidae); C. Trimma finistrinum; D. Siganus uspi (Siganidae)
None of the Fijian endemics are confined to the Lau
Archipelago and the majority, including the cuskeel (Ophidiidae), viviparous brotulas (Bythitidae),longfin (Plesiopidae), gobies (Gobiidae), and dartfish(Ptereleotridae), are mainly tiny or cryptic inhabitantsof caves and ledges. The only endemics belonging
to the remaining, more obvious families that weredetected during the present Lau survey include
blennies (Ecsenius and Meiacanthus) and rabbitfish(Siganus).

of the 27 species listed above also occur in Tonga, but
due to their small size and/or cryptic habits they haveavoided detection. The present study indicates that14 species are shared by Fiji and Tonga (Table 15 andFigure 49) and three additional species, including two
anemonefishes (Amphiprion barberi and A. pacificus)
and a sandperch (Parapercis xanthogramma), arealso shared with the Samoan Archipelago. The two
anemonefish, in particular, are potentially importantconservation icons, due to their high visibility andgeneral public awareness of the symbiotic relationshipbetween anemonefish and their invertebrate host.

Fiji-Tonga endemism: It is highly probable that most52.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Table 15. Fiji-Tonga regional endemics
FAMILY

SPECIES

Bythitidae

Alionematichthys winterbottomi

Pseudochromidae

Pseudochromis melanurus

Apogonidae

Siphamia fraseri

Pomacentridae

Neoglyphidodon carlsoni*

Pomacentridae

Pomacentrus callainus

Pomacentridae

Pomacentrus maafu

Pomacentridae

Pomacentrus microspilus

Pomacentridae

Pomacentrus spilotoceps

Pomacentridae

Pomacentrus cf imitator

Tripterygiidae

Helcogramma ceracina

Blenniidae

Meiacanthus bindoon

Blenniidae

Plagiotremus flavus

Blenniidae

Rhabdoblennius nigropunctatus**

Gobiidae

Trimma anthrenum*Also known from New Caledonia from single “vagrant”.
**Also occurs in Niue.

Figure 49. Damelfish (family Pomacentridae) endemic to the Fiji-Tonga region: A. Neoglyphidodon carlsoni;
B. Pomacentrus maafu; C. Pomacentrus microspilus; D. Pomacentrus spilotocep.
Fiji colour variation: An interesting, unique aspectof the Fijian reef fish fauna is the presence of unusual
localized colour variation in several common, widelydistributed species. In at least three cases, involving
the damselfish Pomacentrus maafu and the blennies
Meiacanthus ovalauensis and Plagiotremus flavus,
genetic evidence reveals that the Fijian fish are distinct

species, separate from the widely distributed “parent”
species Pomacentrus mollucensis, Meiacanthus
atrodorsalis and Plagiotremus laudanus. Further
genetic testing will help to resolve the status ofother Fijian variants, including Scolopsis bilineatus,
Chrysiptera talboti and Labroides dimidatus, which areillustrated in Figure 50.

53.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Figure 50. Localized colour variation in three species of Fijian reef fish with Fiji population shown in the left
column and widespread Indo-Pacific equivalents in the right column: A-B Chrysiptera talboti (Pomacentridae);C-D Labroides dimidiatus (Labridae); E-F Scolopsis bilineatus (Nemipteridae), only juvenile (shown here)
exhibit unusual yellow colour.
New species: Several confirmed or potential new
species were collected or observed during the Lau
MRAP survey and each is briefly discussed below.

photographed on the outer reef slope at site 11 (Vanua
Vatu west) (Fig. 51). Several individuals were sighted
at about 55 m depth. The species belongs to a family
that usually inhabits depths below those frequented byscuba divers, known as the twilight zone. The species
reaches a maximum size of at least 8 cm TL.

Symphysanodon species (Symphysanodontidae) –This species, which appears to be undescribed, wasFigure 51. Symphysanodon species
Luzonichthys species (Serranidae) – Another
undescribed species that was photographed on thesteep outer reef slope at site 14 (Tavunasici west)(Fig. 52). It was relatively common, forming mixed

aggregations with the Lori’s Anthias (Pseudanthiaslori) in about 50–60 m depth. The species reaches amaximum size of about 7 cm TL

54.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Figure 52. Luzonichthys species
Pomacentrus species (Pomacentridae) – This
undescribed species was previously misidentified
as P. imitator (Whitley 1964), a similar fish now
known to be confined to the Coral Sea (Fig. 53).
The Fiji fish differs genetically and also has a slightly
different colour pattern. The yellow iris ring is a usefuldiagnostic feature. It is common throughout Fiji andalso the Tonga Archipelago, inhabiting the steep
walls of large coral formations in lagoons and also

adjacent to outer reef slopes in about 5–30 m depth.
A new species description is currently being preparedby the authors and geneticist Dian Pertiwi. The
species reaches a maximum size of about 10 cm TL.
It was common at most sites during the Lau MRAP
survey. Although no specimens were collected, it iswell represented in collections at the Royal Ontario
Museum, U.S. National Museum, and the Western
Australian Museum.

Figure 53. Pomacentrus species
Enneapterygius species (Tripterygiidae) – Several specimens of this apparent new triplefin were collected atsites 17 and 18 (Olorua south and west). It is characterized by a reddish overall coloration with white saddles on
the back, narrow white bars on the belly, and especially the large pale-edged dark spots covering the pectoralfin base (Fig. 54). It is a secretive species that occurs in wave-exposed areas of the outer reef in 2–5 m depth. Itreaches a maximum size of at least 3 cm TL.

Figure 54. Enneapterygius species
55.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Grallenia species (Gobiidae) – Two specimens of
this tiny (to 11.4 mm SL), inconspicuous goby werecollected from a sand bottom in 30–35 m depth (Fig.
55). It belongs to a poorly known genus that contains
two previously described species and several new taxa
that are currently being studied by the authors. There
are now at least five additional new species from thewestern Pacific, including the Lau fish, which will be
named G. lauensis in our forthcoming publication.
Although small in stature, the members of this genus
are easily separated on the basis of their amount ofbody scales, presence or absence of head pores, andfin-ray counts.

Figure 55. Grallenia species
Vanderhorstia species (Gobiidae) – No specimens
were collected, but this species was photographed in
the lagoon at site 23 (Karoni Lagoon), where it was
relatively abundant on sandy substrate (Fig. 56).
It appears to be the same undescribed species thatwas illustrated by Allen and Erdmann (2012, p. 892)
and is apparently widespread in the Western Pacific,
including Bali, East Timor and the Ryukyu Islands. It
inhabits sand bottoms at depths between 1 m and 15
m and is reported to attain 6 cm TL.

Figure 56. Vanderhorstia species

56.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Discussion_______________________________________________________
Conservation observations
Due to the short-term nature of the MRAP survey, it isdifficult to gather definitive information regarding theoverall abundance of individual species. Based on the divers’
considerable experience at numerous locations across the
Indo-Pacific, however, they noted a general paucity ofsharks and a few other large fish, such as groupers, whichindicate possible over-fishing.

The true picture

Certainly, consideration should be given to protecting
the remaining shark populations. Although the divers
did observe sharks on a regular basis, the numbers wererelatively low, with the exception of the Whitetip Reef Shark(Triaenodon obesus). Although they do not have any baseline
data for Lau shark populations, the numbers observed
during this survey indicate that stocks are generally low,
particularly with regard to grey reef and silvertip sharks(Carcharinus amblyrhynchos and C. albimarginatus). Shark
populations have been decimated by Asian fishing vessels,
operating both legally and illegally, in many areas of the
Indo-Pacific. Shark populations are extremely fragile andintense fishing over a relatively short period (even justa single month) can inflict considerable harm due to theterritoriality of reef sharks, their slow growth rate, and low
fecundity.

Though the targeted commercial fish populations wereintact in isolated reefs, the inhabited island reefs wereheavily exploited. The most common targeted species acrossthe islands were the surgeons, snappers, parrotfish, breams,
and jacks. The targeted fish abundance and densities weresimilar, but the biomass tipped for the isolated reefs incomparison to reefs around inhabited islands. The impactof over-exploitation and harvesting pressure on fishabundances and biomass was obvious. In addition, thebehavior patterns of fish reacting to divers were incongruent.
The divers swam into shoals of barracudas, unicorn fish,coral trout and pelagic dogtooth fish in isolated reefs, butwere deprived of the same experience in inhabited island
reefs. Fish sizes are smaller in the islands.

Our observations also indicate that both the Napoleon
wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus) and bumphead parrotfish(Bolbometopon muricatum) were relatively rare, comparedto other parts of the Central Pacific (e.g. Phoenix Islands).
However, without baseline data, it is difficult to assess thecurrent population levels and the need for conservation
measures in the Lau Group. Stocks of both species areseverely depleted over much of their Indo-Pacific range,
a consequence of their high value in the live-fish tradeassociated with the restaurant industry in South-east
Asia, particularly with regard to the Napoleon wrasse. As
more easily accessed fishing grounds in the Philippines
and Indonesia are being depleted, there is more pressure
on outlying regions to supply the demand for this fish.
Although the Napoleon wrasse was observed at 10 sites,
they were usually single individuals or just a few fish at
most. The bumphead parrotfish was seen at only a single site
during the Lau survey. These observations are in marked
contrast to the 20–25 Napoleon wrasse per dive and large
shoals of bumphead parrotfish that were observed by GRA
at the Phoenix Islands during a month-long survey in 2002.
Commercially targeted fish

The commercially targeted fish will continue to be
harvested for local consumption, but there needs to besome management exerted over the export of fish fromthe islands. Right now, unregulated harvesting is set to rise
rapidly to meet market demands, threatening the fisherywith collapse. Our people need to be educated and better
informed of ways to maintain a healthy ecosystem and ahealthy balance of diversity. Education will help shift mindsets and attitudes, encouraging sustainable means of wildlife
harvest and extraction. Alternative non-extractive meansof income generation could be explored, in particular
ecotourism of the rich biodiversity and pristine reefs in thearea. Community management planning will need to beorganized in order to address existing issues and concerns.
Partnership at local, national and international levels is
crucial in an MRAP process to enable access to experts
who will deliver information that makes sense to thecommunities and enables them to make effective andefficient decisions.

Anyone would attest that good data are an integral partof effective decision-making to ensure resources will beavailable for future generations. With this in mind, the teammade a comparison of reef locations surrounding inhabitedand uninhabited islands, together with isolated reefs.

Moving forward

57.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Chapter 4: Sea cucumber fishery surveys
Schannel van Dijken and Tiko Lesi

Abstract_________________________________________________________The objective of the sea cucumber study was toconduct a follow-up assessment on the status of sea
cucumbers in the Lau Group after a previous 2013
study. The results, detailed in this report, will be used
to help advise managers on the management of the
Lau Group sea cucumber fishery.

shown an urgent need for effective management of thesea cucumber fishery in the Lau Group, and this study
includes several recommendations for the Lau Group
communities and Ministry of Fisheries to consider.
•

A total of 63 individual sea cucumbers belonging to
15 of the 27 species of sea cucumbers that are foundin Fiji waters were recorded in this assessment. The
assessment also recorded five additional sea cucumber
species (spiky red fish, surf red fish, chalk fish, whitesnake fish and dragon fish) that were not observed in
the 2013 assessment. Tiger fish (B. argus) and amber
fish (T.anax) (both are medium value species) were themost frequently encountered species with densities
of about 5 indha-1. These species were particularly
in high density in the Tavunisici and Navatu sites.
Flower fish (P. graeffei) (medium value), which was
the only species considered healthy in 2013, had an
average density of 0.92 indha-1 which was lower than2013. No sea cucumber were observed in two sites(Moala and Cakau Vate).
Overall, average densities of all species across the
Lau Group were extremely low, even when comparedto Pacific Community (SPC) Regional indicators.
Densities were below the suggested threshold of 10–50
indha-1 that is required to avoid reproductive failure(Bell, Purcell and Nash, 2008). These results have

Consider implementing a complete andtemporary halt in harvesting to enable stocks
to rebuild, so that a fishery can exist in the
future. This strategy is ideal, followed by therecommendations below.
• Mandatory ban of UBA operations – thisfishing method is detrimental for all coastal
fisheries resources, as well as to the health offishers utilising the method.
• Seasonal closures on fishing sea cucumbers
to allow the stocks to recover from harvesting
periods. The status of stock will need to bemonitored frequently in order to determine
when to open and close the fishery.
• Endorsement and implementation of thesea cucumber management plan draft.
The plan should include guidelines for
harvest size limit, licensing for processing
and fishing, and fishery data submission to
the Ministry of Fisheries.
• Review export size limit regulations
to reflect mature size length for each sea
cucumber species.

Introduction_____________________________________________________
Bêche-de-mer is the well-known trade name fordried sea cucumber, and it is one of Fiji’s oldest tradecommodities. Trading began in the early 1800s at theclosing of the sandalwood trade boom, when tradersgathered sea cucumber to supplement sandalwood
cargo (Ram, Chand and Southgate 2016). Historicalsea cucumber exports in Fiji follow typical boom
and bust cycles. In recent years, sea cucumber
export has shown some increase, but production
volume today is less than half of that four decadesago. Today the sea cucumber fishery is Fiji’s second

most important commercial fishery, with the highest
average export price for sea cucumber compared toother Pacific Islands (Purcell 2014). The main market
for sea cucumber trade is Asia, where the productis considered a delicacy. Since 2003, the estimatedaverage annual income obtained by all households
involved in the fishery was FJD 10 million (Pakoa et
al. 2013). Sea cucumber not only provides a source ofincome for Fijian people, but also a food source in theform of certain species such as sandfish (H. scabra).
58.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Sea cucumbers are harvested by gleaning, snorkelingand free diving within Fiji’s shallow water lagoons
and reefs. Given the high value of sea cucumber asa coastal commodity, many fishers use underwater
breathing apparatus (UBA) for commercial fishingin deeper water habitats (Ram, Chand and Southgate2016). Commercial-scale UBA fishing harms sea
cucumber stocks, kills other coastal species caught asby-catch, and affects the social and financial lives offishers using unsafe gear and diving methods. UBA
operations cost Fiji about FJD 5.8 million from 2012

to 2014 due to the use of unsafe UBA gear, and dozens
of young divers sustained injuries or died (Lalavanua,
Mangubhai and Purcell 2017).
A total of 27 sea cucumber species can be found in
Fiji’s coastal waters (Friedman et al. 2010). The latest
sea cucumber assessment in 2013 recorded a total of
21 species in Fiji’s waters, 13 of which were found in
Lau (Table 16).

Table 16: List of the 27 sea cucumber species found in Fiji’s waters and its presence (+) during Fiji’s sea
cucumber assessment and particularly that of Lau Group in 2013 (Source: Pakoa, et al. 2013)
SCIENTIFIC NAMEENGLISH NAMEFIJIAN NAME

FIJI (2013)

LAU GROUP 2013

Actinopyga echinites

Deepwater redfish

Tarasea+

Actinopyga flammea

Spiky redfish

Tarasea

Actinopyga lecanora

Stone fish

Dritabua+

Actinopyga mauritiana

Surf redfish

Tarasea+

Actinopyga miliaris

Hairy blackfish

Dri

+

+

Actinopyga palauensis+

Deepwater black fish

Dri ni cakau

Bohadschia argus

Tiger fish

Tiga

+

Bohadschia similis

Chalk fish

Mudra

+

Bohadschia vitiensis

Brown sandfish

Vula

+

+

Holothuria atra

Lolly fish

Loliloli++

Holothuria coluber

Snake fishSamu ni uti+

Holothuria coronopertusa

Loli’s motherTina ni loli

Pink fish

Lolipiqi++

White teatfish

Sucuwalu++

Holothuria fuscopunctata

Elephant trunkfish

Tinani dairo++

Holothuria impatients

Slender sea cucumber

Holothuria edulis
Holothuria fuscogilva

Holothuria leucospilota

White snakefish

Holothuria lessoni

Golden sand fish

Dairo kula

Holothuria scabra

Sand fish

Dairo

+

Holothuria whitmaei

Black teatfish

Loaloa++Pearsonothuria graeffei

Flower fish

Senikau++Stichopus chloronotus

Green fish

Barasi+++Stichopus hermanni

Curry fish

Lauleva+

Stichopus horrens

Dragon fish

Katapila+

Stichopus vastus

Brown curryfish

Laulevu+

Thelenota ananasPrickly red fish

Sucudrau++

Thelenota anax

Amber fish

Basi

+

+

fish (H. edulis), mainly in the Totoya and Vanuabalavu
sites (Jupiter, Saladrau and Vave 2013).

The 2013 assessment was conducted by Fiji’s
Ministry of Fisheries in collaboration with the PacificCommunity (SPC), the Wildlife Conservation Society,
the University of the South Pacific and other key
stakeholders. Most sea cucumber densities recorded
were low in comparison to SPC regional density
indicators (Pakoa et al. 2013). Within the Lau Group,
the only exception was flower fish (P. graeffei) and pink

Guidelines for harvesting sea cucumbers were set
up by the Ministry of Fisheries in 1984 (Lalavanua,
Tuinasavusavu and Seru 2014), setting out a ban
on using UBA to prevent underwater incidents(Ram, Chand and Southgate 2016). The Permanent59.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Secretary can, however, allow the use of UBA uponrequest from certified divers and a fisher with a valid
inshore fishing license, a valid license to operate UBA
and a valid safety license (Pakoa et al. 2013). In 1988,
additional measures were imposed to restrict harvest,
including a minimum export size limit of 76 mm forall sea cucumber species (Lalavanua, Mangubhai and
Purcell 2017). There has not been any review of theseregulations or any new policies for sea cucumber since1988 but there is a sea cucumber management planfor Fiji in draft.

was in 1992 at Vuaqava village, and this was followedby another at Tuvuca village in 2000. Additional
iqoliqoli were set up in Lau between 2007 and 2016
(Lau Province 2018). Field officers are stationed atthese villages to help assist communities.
Results of the 2013 sea cucumber assessment showed
sea cucumber being threatened by overexploitation,
revealing a great need to review management
measures. Other coastal species were also being
targeted by UBA operations, which may affect theirhealth status (Pakoa et al. 2013). Recommendations
put forth by the assessment report have, however, notyet been implemented by the Fiji government, which
relates highly to the results found in this follow-up
study.

Fiji has traditional fisheries management areas called
iqoliqoli in communities that assist in sustainably
managing sea cucumber stocks. The first fisheries
management area established within the Lau group

Methods_______________________________________________________
Twenty-eight sites at 11 locations were selected in
the Lau Group (Cakau Lekaleka, Cakau Vate, Karoni
Island, Matuku Island, Moala, Navatu, Navatu reef,
Olorua, Tavunasici, Totoya, Vanua Vatu) to carry out
the assessment of sea cucumbers (Table 17). Four ofthese locations were also assessed in 2013, namely thatof Matuku island, Moala, Totoya and Vanua Vatu.

During the assessment, other observations wererecorded, such as habitat coverage, fish and otherinvertebrates, particularly that of giant clams. The
data collected were entered into Microsoft Excel forstorage and analysis.
Each location had a range of 1 to 3 sites, depending
on its habitat. Each location had belt transects that
ranged from 7 to 54, where each transect measuredout to be 80 m2. The total estimated area covered by
the assessment was 27,520 m2 (2.75 ha). The areas
covered per site are detailed below. The locations withthe highest area coverage were Navatu and Totoya at
4,320 m2 (0.43 ha). Navatu reef had the lowest area
coverage of 560 m2 (0.06 ha) (Table 17).

The assessment was conducted on 5–16 May 2017.
The method used was a belt transect (dive) of about
40 metres in length and 2 metres wide, covering an
estimated area of 80 m2. The transects were laid
within the lagoons, outer reefs and channels within adepth range of 1 to 50 metres. The duration of eachdive ranged from 60 to 85 minutes. (Note: This method
was different from 2013 where it was both manta andtransects 1 m x 40 m).

Table 17: Details of number of sites and transects conducted for each surveyed location
No. of sites

No. of Transects

Area surveyed (m2)

Area surveyed (ha)Cakau Lekaleka

Locations

1

16

1,280

0.13

Cakau Vate

1

13

1,040

0.10

Karoni Island

3

36

2,880

0.29

Matuku Island

3

40

3,200

0.32

Moala

3

18

1,440

0.14

Navatu

3

54

4,320

0.43

Navatu Reef

2

7

560

0.06

Olorua

3

29

2,320

0.23

Tavunasici

3

36

2,880

0.29

Totoya

3

54

4,320

0.43

Vanua Vatu

3

41

3,280

0.33

Total

28

344

27,5202.75

60.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Results__________________________________________________________
Species presence and occurrence
A total of 63 individual sea cucumber belonging to 15
species were recorded in the assessment (Table 18).
Amber fish (T. anax) and tiger fish (B. argus) werethe most recorded species of 19 and 16 specimens
respectively (Fig. 57). Prickly red fish was the third

most common species, followed by pink fish (H.
edulis) and white teatfish (H. fuscogilva). Other species
counts were very low, from one to three specimens, asdetailed in Table 18.

Figure 57: Amber fish (Left) and tiger fish (right) that were common in Lau Group
red fish (A. flammea), surf red fish (A. mauritiana),
chalk fish (B. similis), white snake fish (H. leucospilota)
and dragon fish (S. horrens) (Table 4). Two of thosespecies (spiky red fish and white snake fish) were notrecorded in any of Fiji’s waters in 2013.

Navatu and Tavunasici had the highest number of sea
cucumber recorded. Navatu had a high number ofamber fish (T. anax) and Tavunasici a high number oftiger fish (B. argus). Cakau Lekaleka was the only sitewhere a dragon fish (S. horrens) and spiky red fish (A.
flammea) were recorded. Green fish (S. chloronotus)
and black teatfish (H. whitmaei) were only recorded
in Tavunasici. Surf red fish (A. mauritiana) was
only recorded in Olorua. Lolly fish (H. atra), a very
common sea cucumber, and hairy black fish (A.
miliaris) were only found in Navatu. Matuku Island
had the highest number of species recorded while nosea cucumber were recorded in Moala and Cakau Vatesites. Sand fish, an important species in Fijians’ diet,was not observed in any of the sites.

On the other hand, three species that were observedin 2013 were not observed in this recent assessment.
These were elephant trunkfish (H. fuscopunctata),
curry fish (S. hermanni) and brown sandfish (B.
vitiensis). Furthermore, four species that are known
to be present in Fiji’s waters that were not observedin 2013, were also not observed in 2017. These weredeep water black fish (A. palauensis), loli’s mother(H. coronopertusa), golden sandfish (H. lessoni) andslender sea cucumber (H. impatients).

In comparison to the assessment in 2013 (Table 19),
five new species were recorded, namely that of spiky

Table 18: Count of sea cucumber species recorded by site
SEA
CUCUMBER
SPECIESCAKAU
LEKELEKE

Actinopyga
Flammea

1

KARONI MATUKU NAVATU NAVATUISLAND ISLANDREEF

TOTOYA VANUA
VATU

1Actinopyga
Miliaris

1

1
3

TOTALSPECIES
1Actinopyga
Mauritiana

Bohadschia
Argus

OLORUA TAVUNASICI

2

1
1

7

61.

2

1

16

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji
Bohadschia
Similis1

Holothuria
Atra

1

Holothuria
Edulis

1

2

Holothuria
Fuscogilva

1

1

1

4

2

4
1

Holothuria
Whitmaei

1

Pearsonothuria
Graeffei

1

1

3

3

3

1

1

Thelenota
AnanasTotal_Site

1

5

1
1

1

Stichopus
Chloronotus

Thelenota Anax

2
1

Holothuria
Leucospilota

Stichopus Horrens

1

2

6

1

10

8

6

15

2

4

2

12

6

5
2

19

5

63

Table 19: List of species found in Fiji’s waters (historical list) and their presence (+) during the 2013 and 2017assessments
SCIENTIFIC NAMEENGLISH NAMEFIJI
ASSESSMENT(2013)LAU GROUP(2013)LAU GROUP
2017

Actinopyga echinites

Deepwater redfish

Actinopyga flammea

Spiky redfish

Actinopyga lecanora

Stone fish+

Actinopyga mauritiana

Surf redfish+

Actinopyga miliaris

Hairy blackfish

+

+

+

Actinopyga palauensis

Deepwater black fish

Bohadschia argus

Tiger fish

+

+

+

Bohadschia similis

Chalk fish+

Bohadschia vitiensis

Brown sandfish++

Holothuria atra

Lolly fish

+

+

+

Holothuria coluber

Snake fish+

Holothuria coronopertusa

Loli’s mother

Holothuria edulis

Pink fish+++

Holothuria fuscogilva

White teatfish

+

+

+

Holothuria fuscopunctata

Elephant trunkfish++

Holothuria impatients

Slender sea cucumber

Holothuria leucospilota

White snakefish

Holothuria lessoni

Golden sand fish

Holothuria scabra

Sand fish+

Holothuria whitmaei

Black teatfish

+

+

+

Pearsonothuria graeffei

Flower fish

+

+

+

Stichopus chloronotus

Green fish

+

+

+

Stichopus hermanni

Curry fish

+

+

+
+
+

+

+

62.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Stichopus horrens

Dragon fish+

Stichopus vastus

Brown curryfish+

Thelenota ananasPrickly red fish

+

+

+

Thelenota anax

Amber fish

+

+

+

Densities and abundance of species+

present density of 17 indha-1. Lolly fish had a highestimated present mean density, mainly due to onesite having one lolly fish observed.

Tiger fish (B. argus) and amber fish (T. anax) werethe most frequently encountered species from theassessment, with densities of about five individuals
per hectare. These two species are of high value in
the Asian market. All other sea cucumber species
recorded were of low mean densities, ranging from 0.2
to 1 individual per hectare (Table 20).

Among the sites, Cakau Lekaleka and Tavunisici had ahigh density of tiger fish (B. argus) (Table 21). Greenfish was only recorded in Tavunisici with an averagedensity of about 11 indha-1. In Navatu, the species withhighest density was amber fish (T. anax) (23 indha-1),
while in Olorua it was prickly red fish (T. annas).

Tiger fish was widely spread out among the sites witha presence of about 36%. It is also evident in its mean

Table 20: Overall Lau Group sea cucumber mean densities (indha-1), standard errors (SE) and percentageage
present in sites
SEA CUCUMBER SPECIESOVERALL
MEAN
DENSITYSE OVERALL MEANPRESENTMEAN
DENSITY

Actinopyga
flammea
Actinopyga
mauritiana
Actinopyga
miliaris
Bohadschia
argus
Bohadschia
similisHolothuria atra
Holothuria
edulisHolothuria
fuscogilva
Holothuria
leucospilota
Holothuria
whitmaei
Pearsonothuria
graeffei
Stichopus
chloronotus
Stichopus
horrens
Thelenota
ananas
Thelenota anax

0.28

0.28

7.81

28

1

4

0.37

0.37

10.42

28

1

4

0.25

0.25

6.94

28

1

4

5.96

1.96

16.67

3.54

28

10

36

0.53

0.37

7.38

0.43

28

2

7

1.49

1.49

41.67

28

1

4

1.23

0.79

11.46

2.17

28

3

11

1.17

0.66

10.88

1.62

28

3

11

0.32

0.32

8.93

28

1

4

0.37

0.37

10.42

28

1

4

0.92

0.52

8.56

1.94

28

3

11

1.12

0.82

15.63

7.37

28

2

7

0.28

0.28

7.81

28

1

4

1.46

0.83

13.66

1.88

28

3

11

5.36

2.75

25.26

9.62

28

6

21

63.

SE PRESENT MEAN
DENSITYNO.
SITES

NO. SITES%PRESENT PRESENTA rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji
Note: Present density looks at the average density only of sites where sea cucumbers were recorded, no. sites present is the number of sites
where the species was recorded

Table 21: Sea cucumber mean densities (indha-1) by surveyed location
SEA CUCUMBER
SPECIESCAKAU KARONI MATUKU NAVATU NAVATU OLORUALEKELEIS.
IS.
REEF
KE

Actinopyga flammea

7.81

Actinopyga mauritiana

TOTOYA VANUA
VATU

24.31

4.63

3.79

2.31

2.60

3.47

Actinopyga miliaris
Bohadschia argus

TAVUNISICI

2.31
23.44

4.63

15.63

Bohadschia similis
Holothuria atra

20.83

Holothuria edulis

2.78

5.21

Holothuria
fuscogilva

2.78

3.47

3.47
4.63

Holothuria
leucospilota

2.98

Holothuria
whitmaei

3.47

Pearsonothuria
graeffei

3.47

2.78

Stichopus
chloronotus
Stichopus horrens

2.31
10.42

7.81

Thelenota ananas
Thelenota anax

3.47
16.67

3.47

5.56

4.63

23.15

6.76

Determining healthy mean densities and endangered species
The SPC Pacific regional reference density is a useful
tool to determine the health status of the sea cucumberin the Lau Group. When compared with regionalreference densities, all sea cucumber species recorded
from the Lau Group in this assessment are of low

density. Comparison of the estimated densities to thepast assessment in 2013 showed an increase in density
for one species (amber fish (T. anax). Five otherspecies observed in this assessment in low densities
were not observed in 2013 (Table 22).

Table 22: Recent assessment densities (indha-1) compared to past assessment, SPC reference indicators and
IUCN listing

SEA CUCUMBER SPECIESActinopyga Flammea
Actinopyga Mauritiana
Actinopyga Miliaris
Bohadschia Argus
Bohadschia Similis
Bohadschia Vitiensis
Holothuria Atra
Holothuria Edulis

OVERALL
MEAN
DENSITY 2017
0.28
0.37
0.25
5.96
0.53
1.49
1.23
64.

DENSITY 2013
ASSESSMENT1REGIONAL
REFERENCEDENSITY2

3.09
3.09

150
120

0.08
1.54
3.09

5600
260

IUCN
LISTING3VE
VE

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Holothuria Fuscogilva
1.17
0.08
20
VE
Holothuria Fuscopunctata
2.29
Holothuria Leucospilota
0.32
Holothuria Whitmaei
0.37
3.09
50
EE
Pearsonothuria Graeffei
0.92
55.56
100
Stichopus Chloronotus
1.12
0.84
3500
Stichopus Hermanni
0.23
Stichopus Horrens
0.28
Thelenota Ananas
1.46
0.23
30
EE
Thelenota Anax
5.36
1.54
?
1
Lau Combined Survey (2013), 2SPC Regional reference (2013), 3International Union for Conservation of NatureRed Listing: VE – Vulnerable to extinction, EE-Endangered with extinction
Three of the low-density sea cucumber species, namely
surf red fish (A. mauritiana), hairy black fish (A.
miliaris) and white teat fish (H. fuscogilva), are listed
as vulnerable to extinction under the International

Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red listing.
Two other species are listed as endangered withextinction: black teat fish (H. whitmaei) and prickly
red fish (T. ananas).

Discussion_______________________________________________________A positive outcome of this assessment was that itrecorded five additional sea cucumber species (spiky
red fish, surf red fish, chalk fish, white snake fishand dragon fish) that were not recorded in the pastassessment in the Lau Group. This may be due tothe fact that not all 2013 sites were reassessed, andthere were some new sites in the recent assessment.
However, for reassessed sites where these new species
were recorded, it may be a sign of shift to other targeted
species that these species have resurfaced.

in sea cucumber in Moala raises great concern overwhether the six iqoliqoli established in Moala from2009 to 2012 are working or being monitored but the
Matuku iqoliqoli may have helped in keeping the highdiversity of species recorded in Matuku Island.
Average densities of all species across the Lau Group
were very low, even when compared to SPC Regional
indicators. Five of the low-density species are redlisted under IUCN as vulnerable to extinction andendangered with extinction. These are the surf red
fish (A. mauritiana), black fish (A. miliaris), whiteteatfish (H. fuscogilva), black teatfish (H. whitmaei)
and prickly red fish (T. ananas). The white teatfish
and black teatfish were also reported by Lau fishers as
the hardest to find species (Jupiter, Saladrau and Vave2013).

The greatest concern is that no sandfish (H. scabra)
were recorded from this assessment. This is a species
that is being banned from export due to its local dietimportance. Three species that were recorded in thepast, elephant trunkfish (H. fuscopunctata), curry fish
(S. hermanni) and brown sandfish (B. vitiensis), werealso not observed. This may be a sign of overfishingof these species, as according to the 2013 perception
survey, brown sandfish was one of the commonlycaught species by Lau fishers (Jupiter, Saladrau andVave 2013) and there was no existing regulation on
the amount harvested. Lollyfish (H. atra) and surf
red fish (A. mauritiana) were other common species
recorded from Lau catches. Both species were only of
one specimen in Navatu and Olorua respectively.

All species densities were below the suggested
threshold of 10–50 indha-1 to avoid reproductive
failure (Bell, Purcell and Nash 2008). Only tiger fish
was widely spread across the sites (B. argus). The
highest average density recorded was 5 indha-1 for tiger
fish (B. argus) and amber fish (T. anax). These species
were particularly high in density in the Tavunisici
and Navatu sites. Both sites were described ashaving healthy reef of 40–70% coral coverage. Flower
fish (medium value), which was the only species
considered healthy in 2013, had an average densityof 0.92 indha-1, another indication of overfishing ofcertain species.

There were two sites without any observed sea
cucumbers: Moala and Cakau Vate. In 2013, Moala
had an average sea cucumber density of 25 indha-1
from belt transect and 7 indha-1 from manta tows
(Jupiter, Saladrau and Vave 2013). Such a decline65.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

References
Allen, G.R. 1975. Damselfishes of the South Seas. T.F.H Publications, Neptune City, N.J., USA. 240p
Allen, G. R. 2002. Reef fishes of the Raja Ampat Islands, Papua Province, Indonesia. In: McKenna, S.A., G.R.
Allen, and S. Suryadi (eds.). A Marine Rapid Assessment of the Raja Ampat Islands, Papua Province, Indonesia.
RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment 22, Conservation International, Washington, DC.
Allen, G. R. & Erdmann, M.V. 2012. Reef Fishes of the East Indies. Volumes I-III. Tropical Reef Research, Perth,
Australia, 1292 pp.
Allen, G.R. and Werner, T.B. 2002. Coral reef fish assessment in the ‘coral triangle’ of southeastern Asia.
Environmental Biology of Fishes 65: 209-214.
Bell, J.D., Purcell, S.W. and Nash, W.J. 2008. Restoring Small-Scale Fisheries for Tropical Sea Cucumbers. Ocean& Coastal Management, 51, 589-593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2008.06.011
Benzoni, F., Stefani, F., Stolarski, J., Pichon, M., Mitta, G. and Galli, P. 2007. Debating phylogenetic relationshipsof the scleractinian Psammocora: molecular and morphological evidences. Contributions to Zoology 76: 35−54.
Bruckner, A.W., Dempsey, A.C., Coward, G., Saul, S., Rauer, E.M. and Heemsoth, A. 2016. Global reef expedition:
Lau Province, Fiji. Final Report. Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation, Annapolis, MD.
Carpenter, K.E., Abrar, M., Aeby, G., Aronson, R., Bruckner, A., Delbeek, C., DeVantier, L., Edgar, G., Edwards,
A., Fenner, D. and 29 others. 2008. One third of reef building corals face elevated extinction risk from climatechange and local impacts. Science 321: 560−563.
Cinner, J., Marnane, J., McClanahan, T.R. and Almany, G.R. 2006. Periodic closures as adaptive coral reefmanagement in the Indo-Pacific. Ecology and Society: 11–31.
Conservation Measures Partnership. 2013. Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation. www.
conservationmeasures.org
Cumming, R., Aalbersberg, W.G.L., Lovell, E.R., Sykes, H.R. and Vuki, V.C. 2002. Coral reefs of the Fiji Islands:
current issue. [Professional and Technical Reports]
Cuvier, G. and Valenciennes, A. 1828–1849. Histoire naturelle des poissons. Vols. 1-22. Paris.
Dana, J.D. 1846. Zoophytes. United States Exploring Expedition during the years 1838-1842, Lea and Blanchard,
Philadelphia (1846-1849).
http://www.sil.si.edu/digitalcollections/usexex/navigation/ScientificText/USExEx19_08select.cfm
DeVantier, L.M., De’ath, G., Done, T.J. and Turak, E. 1998. Ecological assessment of a complex natural system:a case-study from the Great Barrier Reef. Ecological Applications 8: 480-496.
DeVantier, L.M., Turak, E., Skelton, P. 2006. Ecological Assessment of the coral communities of Bunaken
National Park: Indicators of management effectiveness. Proceedings of the 10th International Coral Reef
Symposium, Okinawa.

66.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Dulvy, N. K., Freckleton, R.P. and Polunin, N.V.C. 2004. Coral reef cascades and the indirect effects of predator
removal by exploitation. Ecology Letters, 7: 410–416.
Fenner, D. 2015a. Chapter 5: Reef Corals of Nauru. Appendix 10: Corals of Nauru. Appendix 11: Additional
Information. Pages 85–101 and 211212 in Mckenna, S.A., Butler, D.J., and Wheatley, A. (eds.), Rapid Biodiversity
Assessment of Republic of Nauru. Apia, Samoa: Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environmental Programme.
Fenner, D. 2002. Reef corals of the Raja Ampat Islands, Papua Province, Indonesia. Part II. Comparison ofindividual survey sites. Appendix 2. Coral species recorded at individual sites in the Raja Ampat Islands. In
McKenna, S. A., G. A. Allen, and S. Suryadi S. (eds) A marine rapid assessment of the Raja Ampat Islands,
Papua Province, Indonesia. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment 22. Conservation International, Wash, DC,
pp 29-36, 104-112.
Fenner, D. 2015b. Chapter 7: Stony corals of Vava’u. Annex 7.1: Coral species recorded in Vava’u, Tonga, during
the biorap survey. Pages 93-108 and 271-276 in Atherton, J.N., McKenna, S.A., Wheatley, A., Rapid biodiversity
assessment of Vava’u Archipelago, Kingdom of Tonga. Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environmental
Programme, Apia, Samoa.
Fenner, D. 2001. Reef corals of the Togian and Banggai Islands, Sulawesi, Indonesia. P. 18-25 and 63-71 inAllen, G. R. and S. A. McKenna (Eds.), A marine rapid assessment of the Togean and Banggai Islands, Sulawesi,
Indonesia. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment 20,
Fenner, D. 2005. Corals of Hawai’i, a field guide to the hard, black and soft corals of Hawai’i and the Northwest
Hawaiian Islands, including Midway. Honolulu: Mutual Publishing. 143 pp.
Fenner, D. 2006. Coral diversity survey Mamanuca Islands and Coral Coast, Fiji, 2005. IAS Technical Report
No. 2005/10.14 p.
Fenner, D. 2007. Coral diversity survey: Volivoli Beach, Viti Levu and Dravuni and Great Astrolabe Reef, Fiji,2006. IAS Technical Report No. 2007/03.
Fenner, D. 2011. Reef corals of the eastern lagoon (Touho-Ponerihouen) of Grande Terre, New Caledonia. Pp.
141−160 in: McKenna, S.A., Hosken, M.A. and Baillon, N. (eds.) A rapid marine biodiversity assessment of thenortheastern lagoon from Touho to Ponerihouen, Province Nord, New Caledonia. RAP Bulletin of Biological
Assessment 62, Washington, DC: Conservation International.
Fenner, D. and P. Muir. 2009. Reef corals of the northwestern lagoon of Grande-Terre, New Caledonia. Pages
25-39 in McKenna, S. (ed.), Rapid marine biodiversity assessment of the coral reefs of the northwest lagoon,
between Yandee and Koumac, Province Nord, New Caledonia. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment 53,
Conservation International.
Fenner, D. and Turak, E. 2003. Corals of Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea. In Allen, G. R., J. P. Kinch,
S. A. McKenna, and P. Seeto. (eds.). A rapid marine biodiversity assessment of Milne Bay Province, Papua New
Guinea – Survey II (2000). RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment 29. Conservation International, Washington,
DC, USA, pp 20-26.
Fiji Population and Housing Census. 2017. Fiji Bureau of Statistics, Government of Fiji, Suva.
Fowler, H.W. 1959. Fishes of Fiji. Government of Fiji, Suva. 670 pp.
Friedman, K., Eriksson, H., Tardy, E and Pakoa, K. 2010. Management of sea cucumber stocks: patterns ofvulnerability and recovery of sea cucumber stocks impacted by fishing. Fish Fish 12: 75–93.

67.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Gittenberger, A., Reijnen, B.T., Hoeksema, B.W. 2011. A molecularly based phylogeny reconstruction ofmushroom corals (Scleractinia: Funiidae) with taxonomic consequences and evolutionary implications for life
history traits. Contributions to Zoology 80: 107-132.
Glynn, P.W., Mate, J.L. and Stemann, T.A. 2001. Pavona chiriquiensis, a new species of zooxanthellatescleractinian coral (Cnidaria: Anthozoa: Agariciidae) from the eastern tropical Pacific. Bulletin of the BiologicalSociety of Washington 10: 210−225.
Government of Fiji. 2017. National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for Fiji 2017–2020. GoF, Suva, Fiji.
Hoeksema, B.W. 1989. Taxonomy, phylogeny and biogeography of mushroom corals (Scleractinia: Fungiidae).
Zoologische Verhandelingen 254: 1−295.
Holt, B.G., Rioja-Nieto, R., MacNeil, M.A., Lupton, J. and Rahbek, C. 2013. Comparing diversity data collectedusing a protocol designed for volunteers with results from a professional alternative. Methods in Ecology and
Evolution 2013: 1−10.
Hughes, T.P., Kerry, J.T., Álvarez-Noriega, M., et al. (43 more authors). 2017. Global warming and recurrent
mass bleaching of corals. Nature, 543 (7645). pp. 373-377. ISSN 0028-0836.
IUCN. 2012. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1, 2nd edn. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,
UK: IUCN. 32 pp. http://jr.iucnredlist.org/documents/redlist_cats_crit_en.pdf
Jupiter, S.D. and Egli, D.P. 2010. Ecosystem-based management in Fiji: Successes and challenges after five yearsof implementation. Journal of Marine Biology. 2011: Article ID 940765, doi:940710.941155/942011/940765.
Jupiter, S.D., Saladrau, W and Vave, R. 2013. Assessment of sea cucumber fisheries through targeted surveys of
Lau Province, Fiji. Wildlife Conservation Society/University of the South Pacific/Fiji Department of Fisheries/
Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation, Suva, Fiji, 22 pp.
Lalavanua, W., Tuinasavusavu, I and Seru, P. 2014. The status of the sea cucumber fishery in Batiki District,
Lomaiviti, Fiji. SPC Beche-de-mer Information Bulletin #34, Pacific Community, Noumea. 8–13pp.
Lalavanua, W., Mangubhai, S and Purcell, S.W. 2017. New report urges management reforms to save Fiji’s sea
cucumber fishery. SPC Fisheries Newsletter #152, Pacific Community, Noumea. 22–26pp
Lovell, E.R. and McLardy, C. 2008. Annotated checklist of the CITES-listed corals of Fiji with reference to
Vanuatu, Tonga, Samoa and American Samoa. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, JNCC Report No. 415:
1−79.
Lovell, E.R. and Sykes, H. 2008. Rapid recovery from bleaching events: Fiji coral reef monitoring network
assessment of hard coral cover from 1999–2007. 11th International Coral Reef Symposium, Ft. Lauderdale,
Florida. 830–834.
Marnane, M., Allen, G., Farley, L., Sivo, L. and Dulunaquio, S. 2003. Scientific report on an expedition to the
Vatu-i-Ra/Lomaiviti Passage. Wildlife Conservation Society, Suva, Fiji.
Miller K, Nand Y, Mangubhai S, Lee S, Naisilisili W, Sykes H. 2018. Marine Biological Surveys of the Northern
Lau Group. Report No. 01/18. Vatuvara Foundation and the Wildlife Conservation Society, Suva, Fiji. 46 pp.
Mumby, P.J., Clarke, K.R and Harborne, A.R. 1996. Weighting species abundance estimates for marine resources
assessment. Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. Fresh. Ecosys. 6:115-120.
Nair, V., Rupeni, E., Wilson, L., O’Gorman, D., Holloway, C., Sriskanthan, G., Tabunakawai, K., Afzal, D., Areki,
F., Fiu, M. 2004. Setting priorities for marine conservation in the Fiji Islands Marine Ecoregion. WWF – South
Pacific Program68.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Neal, V.E., and Trewick, S.A. 2008. The age and origin of the Pacific islands: a geological overview. Phil. Trans.
R. Soc. B 363: 3293-3308.
Pakoa, K., Saladrau, W., Lalavanua, W., Valotu, D., Tuinasavusavu, I., Sharp, M., Bertram, I. 2013. The status ofsea cucumber resources and fisheries management in Fiji. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New
Caledonia. p. 51.
Purcell, S.W. 2014. Value, market preferences and trade of Beche-de-mer from pacific island sea cucumbers.
PLoS One 9 (4), e95075.
Quoy, J.R. & Gaimard, J.P. (1824-1825) Description des Poissons. Chapter IX. In: Freycinet, L. de, Voyage
autour du Monde...exécuté sur les corvettes de L. M. “L’Uranie” et “La Physicienne,” pendant les années 1817,
1818, 1819 et 1820. Paris.
Ram, R., Chand, R.V., Southgate, P.C. 2016. An overview of sea cucumber fishery management in the fiji islands.
J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 11, 191–205.
Randall, R.H. and Cheng, Y-M. 1984. Recent corals of Taiwan. Part III. Shallow water Hydrozoan Corals. Acta
Geologica Taiwanica 22: 35−99.
Razak, T.B. and Hoeksema, B.W. 2003. The hydrocoral genus Millepora (Hydrozoa: Capitata: Milleporidae) in
Indonesia. Zoologische Verhandelingen Leiden 345: 313−336.
Richards, Z. and Beger, M. 2013. Regional conservation status of scleractinian coral biodiversity in the Republicof the Marshall Islands. Diversity 5: 522−540.
Richards, Z.T., Oppen, M.J.H., Wallace, C.C., Willis, B.L. and Miller, D.J. 2008. Some rare Indo-Pacific coral
species are probably hybrids. PLoS One 3: e3240.
Selig, E.R., Turner, W.R., Troëng, S., Wallace, B.P., Halpern, B.S., Kaschner, K., et al. (2014) Global Priorities
for Marine Biodiversity Conservation. PLoS ONE 9(1): e82898. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082898
Springer, V.G. 1982. Pacific plate biogeography with special reference to shorefishes. Smithsonian Contributions
to Zoology 367: 1-182.
Tittensor, D.P., Mora, C., Jetz, W., Lotze, H.K., Ricard, D., Vanden Berghe, E., Worm, B., 2010. Global patterns
and predictors of marine biodiversity across taxa. Nature 466, 1098–1107
Trebilco, R., Halpern, B.S, Joanna, M.F, Field, C, Blanchard, W, Worm, B. 2011. Mapping species richness andhuman impact drivers to inform global pelagic conservation prioritization. Biological Conservation. 144: 17581766
Todd, P.A. 2008. Morphological plasticity in scleractinian corals. Biological Reviews 83: 215−337.
Turner, R. A., Cakacaka, A., Graham, N., A.J., Polunin, N.V.C., Pratchett, M.S., Stead, S.M. and Wilson, S.K.
2007. Occupational shifts reduce reliance on marine resources. Coral Reefs, 26: 997–1008.
Veron, J. E. N. and D. Fenner. 2000. Corals (zooxanthellate Scleractinia) of the Calamianesslands, Palawan
Province, Philippines. Pages 24-26 in Werner, T. B. and G. R. Allen (eds.), A rapid marine biodiversity
assessment of the Calamianes Islands, Palawan Province, Philippines. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment
17. Washington, D.C.: Conservation International.
Veron, J.E.N. 1995. Corals in space and time; the biogeography and evolution of the Scleractinia. Sydney,
Australia: UNSW Press. 321 pp.
Veron, J.E.N. 2000. Corals of the World, Vols 1−3. Townsville, Australia: Australian Institute of Marine Science.
69.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Veron, J.E.N. 2002. New species described in Corals of the World. Australian Institute of Marine Science
Monograph Series 11: 1−206.
Veron, J.E.N., Devantier, L.M., Turak, E., Green, A.L., Kininmonth, S., Stafford-Smith, M. and Peterson, N.
2009. Delineating the coral triangle. Galaxea, Journal of Coral Reef Studies 11: 91−100.
Veron, J. E. N., Stafford-Smith, M. G., Turak, E., & DeVantier, L. M. 2017. Corals of the world. Retrieved fromhttps://coralsoftheworld.org
Wallace, C.C. 1999. Staghorn corals of the world, a revision of the genus Acropora. Collingwood, Australia:
CSIRO Publishing. 421 pp.
Whitley, G.P. 1927. A check-list of fishes recorded from Fijian waters. Pan-Pacific Research Institute Journal 2(1): 3-8.
Whitley, G.P. 1964. Fishes from the Coral Sea and the Swain Reefs. Records of the Australian Museum, 26(5),145–195.
Wilson, S.K., Fisher, R., Pratchett, M.S., Graham, N.A.J., Dulvy, N.K., Turner, R.A., Cakacaka, A., Polunin,
N.V.C. and Rushton, S.P. 2008. Exploitation and habitat degradation as agents of change within coral reef fish
communities. Global Change Biology, 14: 2796-2809. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01696.x
Wolstenholme, J.K., Wallace, C.C. and Chen, C.A. 2003. Species boundaries within the Acropora humilis
species group (Cnidaria; Scleractinia): a morphological and molecular interpretation of evolution. Coral Reefs
22: 155−166.

70.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

Annex
Table A.1 Full list of species recorded during the Lau Island MRAP in May 2017													FAMILY 				GENUS / SPECIES							FISH								CARCHARHINIDAE 		
Carcharhinus albimarginatus (Rüppell, 1837)
					C. amblyrhynchos (Bleeker, 1856)
					
C. melanopterus (Quoy and Gaimard, 1824)
					
Triaenodon obesus (Rüppell, 1835)DASYATIDIDAE			
Dasyatis kuhlii (Müller and Henle, 1841)					Taeniura meyeni (Müller and Henle, 1841)*
MYLIOBATIDAE			
Aetobatus narinari (Euphrasen, 1790)
MURAENIDAE			
G. javanicus (Bleeker, 1865)
CONGRIDAE			
Gorgasia species
					
Heteroconger hassi (Klausewitz and Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1959)
SYNODONTIDAE			
Synodus binotatus Schultz, 1953
					
S. dermatogenys Fowler, 1912
					
S. rubromarmoratus Russell and Cressy, 1979					
S. variegatus (Lacepede, 1803)
HEMIRAMPHIDAE		
Hyporhamphus affinis (Günther, 1866)
HOLOCENTRIDAE 			
Myripristis berndti Jordan and Evermann, 1902
					
M. kuntee Valenciennes, 1831
					
M. violacea Bleeker, 1851
					
M. vittata Valenciennes, 1831
					
Neoniphon argenteus (Valenciennes, 1831)
					
N. opercularis (Valenciennes, 1831)
					
N. sammara (Forsskål, 1775)
					Sargocentron caudimaculatum (Rüppell, 1835)
					S. diadema (Lacepède, 1802)
					
S. melanospilos (Bleeker, 1858)
					
S. spiniferum (Forsskål, 1775)
					
S. tiere (Cuvier, 1829)
AULOSTOMIDAE 		
Aulostomus chinensis (Linnaeus, 1766)
FISTULARIIDAE			
Fistularia commersoni Rüppell, 1835
SYNGNATHIDAE 			
Corythoichthys flavofasciatus (Rüppell, 1838)			
		
Dunckerocampus naia Allen & Kuiter, 2004
SCORPAENIDAE 			
Pterois antennata (Bloch, 1787)					
P. volitans (Linnaeus, 1758)
					Sebastapistes cyanostigma (Bleeker, 1856)
CARACANTHIDAE		Caracanthus maculatus (Gray, 1831)
					
Caracanthus unipinna (Gray, 1831)
SYMPHYSANODONTI-DAE
Symphysanodon species
SERRANIDAE 			
Anyperodon leucogrammicus (Valenciennes, 1828)
					
Belonoperca chabanaudi Fowler and Bean, 1930
					
Cephalopholis argus Bloch and Schneider, 1801					
C. leopardus (Lacepède, 1802)
					
C. polleni (Bleeker, 1868)					
C. sexmaculata Rüppell, 1828
					
C. spiloparaea (Valenciennes, 1828)
					
C. urodeta (Schneider, 1801)					
Epinephelus areolatus (Forsskål, 1775)					
E. hexagonatus (Bloch and Schneider, 1801)					E. macrospilos (Bleeker)					
E. maculatus (Bloch, 1790)
					
E. polyphekadion (Bleeker, 1849)
					
Grammistes sexlineatus (Thünberg, 1792)
					
Gracila albomarginata (Fowler and Bean, 1930)
71.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji					
Liopropoma multilineatum Lubbock & Randall, 1978*
					
L. susumi (Jordan & Seale, 1906)*
					Luzonichthys cf williamsi Mark photo deep					
Plectranthias longimanus (Weber, 1913)
					
P. winniensis (Tyler, 1966)
					
Plectropomus laevis (Lacepède, 1802)
					
P. leopardus (Lacepède, 1802)
					
Pseudanthias bicolor (Randall, 1979)					
P. carlsoni Randall & Pyle, 2001
					
P. cooperi (Regan, 1902)
					
P. hypselosoma Bleeker, 1878
					
P. lori (Lubbock & Randall, 1976)
					
P. pascalus (Jordan & Tanaka, 1927)
					
P. pleurotaenia (Bleeker, 1857)					
P. squamipinnis (Peters, 1855)					
P. ventralis (Randall, 1979)
					
Serranocirrhitus latus Watanabe, 1949
					
Variola albimarginata Baissac, 1953
					
V. louti (Forsskål, 1775)
PSEUDOCHROMIDAE		
Cypho purpurascens (De Vis, 1884)					Lubbockichthys sp.
					Pictichromis porphyrea (Lubbock & Goldmanm 1974)
					
P. jamesi Schultz, 1943
					
P. rosae Schultz, 1943
PLESIOPIDAE			
Calloplesiops altivelis (Steindachner, 1903)
CIRRHITIDAE 			
Cirrhitichthys falco Randall, 1963
					
					
					
					

Cirrhitus pinnuatus (Forster, 1801)
Neocirrhites armatus Castelnau, 1873
Paracirrhites arcatus (Cuvier, 1829)
P. forsteri (Schneider, 1801)

					
					
					
					
					
					
					
					
					
					
					
					
					
					

C. macrodon Lacepède, 1801
C. quinquelineatus Cuvier, 1828
F. vaiulae (Jordan and Seale, 1906)
Ostorhinchus angustatus (Smith and Radcliffe, 1911)
O. apogonides (Bleeker, 1856)
O. bryx (Fraser, 1998)
O. cyanosoma (Bleeker, 1853)
O. nigrofasciatus (Schultz, 1953)
O. novemfasciatus (Cuvier, 1828)
O. taeniophorus (Regan, 1908)
Pristiapogon exostigma (Jordan and Starks, 1906)
P. fraenatus (Valenciennes, 1832)
P. kallopterus Bleeker, 1856
Siphamia fraseri Gon & Allen, 2012					P. hemistictus(Gunther, 1874)
OPISTOGNATHIDAE		O. “wassi” Smith-Vaniz (ms)
PRIACANTHIDAE 		
Heteropriacanthus cruentatus (Lacepède, 1801)					
Priacanthus blochii Bleeker, 1853
					
Priacanthus hamrur (Forsskål, 1775)
APOGONIDAE			
C. artus Smith, 1961

					
MALACANTHIDAE 							
ECHENEIDAE			CARANGIDAE			
					
					
					
					
					
					
					

T. fucata (Cantor, 1850)
H. starcki Randall and Dooley, 1974
Malacanthus brevirostris Guichenot, 1848
Echeneis naucrates Linnaeus, 1758
Carangoides bajad (Forsskål, 1775)
C. ferdau (Forsskål, 1775)
C. orthogrammus (Jordan and Gilbert, 1882)
C. plagiotaenia Bleeker, 1857
C. lugubris (Poey, 1860)
C. melampygus Cuvier, 1833
D. macarellus (Cuvier, 1833)
Elegatis bipinnulatus (Quoy and Gaimard, 1825)
72.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji					
Scomberoides tol (Cuvier, 1832)
LUTJANIDAE 			
Aphareus furca (Lacepède, 1802)
				
Aprion virescens Valenciennes, 1830
				
Lutjanus argentimaculatus (Forsskål, 1775)					
L. bohar (Forsskål, 1775)
					
L. ehrenburgi (Peters, 1869)
					
L. fulvus (Schneider, 1801)					
L. gibbus (Forsskål, 1775)
					
L. kasmira (Forsskål, 1775)					
L. monostigma (Cuvier, 1828)
					
L. semicinctus Quoy and Gaimard, 1824
					
Macolor macularis Fowler, 1931
					
M. niger (Forsskål, 1775)
					Paracaesio sordidus Abe & Shinohara, 1962*
CAESIONIDAE 			
Caesio caerulaurea Lacepède, 1802
					
C. lunaris Cuvier, 1830
					
C. teres Seale, 1906
					
P. lativittata Carpenter, 1987
					
P. marri Schultz, 1953
					
P. pisang (Bleeker, 1853)
					
P. tile (Cuvier, 1830)
					
P. trilineata Carpenter, 1987
HAEMULIDAE 			P. chaetodontoides (Lacepède, 1800)
LETHRINIDAE 			
Gnathodentex aurolineatus Lacepède, 1802
					Gymnocranius grandoculus (Valenciennes, 1830)
					G. sp. (Carpenter & Allen, 1989)
					
Lethrinus atkinsoni Seale, 1909
					
L. erythracanthus Valenciennes, 1830
					
L. harak (Forsskål, 1775)
					
L. miniatus (Forster, 1801)					
L. obsoletus (Forsskål, 1775)
					
L. olivaceous Valenciennes, 1830
					Monotaxis grandoculis (Forsskål, 1775)
					
M. heterodon (Bleeker, 1854)
NEMIPTERIDAE (3 spp.)		
Pentapodus aureofasciatus Russell, 2001
					
Scolopsis bilineatus (Bloch, 1793)
MULLIDAE 			
Mulloidichthys flavolineatus (Lacepède, 1802)
					
M. vanicolensis (Valenciennes, 1831)
					
Parupeneus barberinoides (Lacepède, 1801)					
P. barberinus (Lacepède, 1801)					
P. crassilabris (Valenciennes, 1831)
					
P. ciliatus (Lacepède, 1802)
					
P. cyclostomus (Lacepède, 1802)
					
P. multifasciatus Bleeker, 1873
					
P. pleurostigma (Bennett, 1830)
PEMPHERIDAE 			
Pempheris oualensis Cuvier, 1831
KYPHOSIDAE 			
Kyphosus cinerascens (Forsskål, 1775)					
K. vaigiensis (Quoy and Gaimard, 1825)
					
K. sp. (low, dark fins, silvery body)
CHAETODONTIDAE 		
Chaetodon auriga Forsskål, 1775					
C. baronessa Cuvier, 1831					
C. bennetti Cuvier, 1831
					
C. citrinellus Cuvier, 1831
					
C. ephippium Cuvier, 1831
					
C. flavirostris Günther 1874
					
C. kleinii Bloch, 1790
					
C. lineolatus Cuvier, 1831					C. lunula Lacepède, 1803
					
C. lunulatus Quoy and Gaimard, 1824
					
C. melannotus Schneider, 1801					
C. mertensii Cuvier, 1831
					
C. ornatissimus Cuvier, 1831
					
C. oxycephalus Bleeker, 1853
73.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji					
C. pelewensis Kner, 1868
					
C. plebeius Cuvier, 1831
					
C. rafflesi Bennett, 1830
					C. reticulatus Cuvier, 1831
					
C. semeion Bleeker, 1855
					
C. speculum Cuvier, 1831*
					
C. trifascialis Quoy and Gaimard, 1824
					
C. ulietensis Cuvier, 1831
					
C. unimaculatus Bloch, 1787*					
C. vagabundus Linnaeus, 1758
					Forcipiger flavissimus Jordan and McGregor, 1898
					
F. longirostris (Broussonet, 1782)
					
Hemitaurichthys polylepis (Bleeker, 1857)*
					Heniochus acuminatus (Linnaeus, 1758)
					
H. chrysostomus Cuvier, 1831
					
H. diphreutes Jordan, 1903
					
H. monoceros Cuvier, 1831
					
H. singularius Smith and Radcliffe, 1911					H. varius (Cuvier, 1829)
POMACANTHIDAE 		C. bicolor (Bloch, 1798)
					
C. bispinosus (Günther, 1860)
					
C. flavicauda Fraser-Brunner, 1933
					
C. flavissima (Cuvier, 1831)
					
C. multicolor Randall & Wass, 1974
					
C. woodheadi Kuiter, 1998
					
Genicanthus bellus Randall, 1975
					
G. melanospilos (Bleeker, 1857)
					
Genicanthus watanabei (Yasuda & Tominaga 1970)
					Paracentropyge multifasciatus (Smith and Radcliffe, 1911)
					
Pomacanthus imperator (Bloch, 1787)
					
Pygoplites diacanthus (Boddaert, 1772)
POMACENTRIDAE 		
A. sexfasciatus Lacepède, 1802
					
A. vaigiensis (Quoy and Gaimard, 1825)
					
Amblyglyphidodon aureus (Cuvier, 1830)
					
A. curacao (Bloch, 1787)
					
A. orbicularis (Hombron & Jacquinot, 1853)
					
Amphiprion barberi Allen, Drew & Kaufman, 2008
					Amphiprion chrysopterus Cuvier, 1830
					
A. pacificus Allen, Drew & Fenner, 2010
					
A. perideraion Bleeker, 1855
					
Chromis acares Randall & Swerdloff, 1973					
C. agilis Smith, 1960					
C. alpha Randall, 1988
					C. amboinensis (Bleeker, 1873)
					C. analis (Cuvier, 1830)
					
C. atripectoralis Welander and Schultz, 1951
					
C. atripes Fowler and Bean, 1928
					
C. chrysura (Bliss, 1883)
					
C. delta Randall, 1988
					
C. elerae Fowler and Bean, 1928
					
C. iomelas Jordan & Seale, 1906*
					
C. lepidolepis Bleeker, 1877
					
C. margaritifer Fowler, 1946
					
C. retrofasciata Weber, 1913
					C. ternatensis (Bleeker, 1856)
					
C. vanderbilti (Fowler, 1941)
					
C. viridis (Cuvier, 1830)
					
C. weberi Fowler and Bean, 1928
					
C. xanthura (Bleeker, 1854)
					
Chrysiptera biocellata (Quoy and Gaimard, 1824)
					
C. caeruleolineata (Allen, 1973)
					
C. leucopoma (Cuvier, 1830)
					
C. starcki (Allen, 1973)74.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji					
C. talboti (Allen, 1975)
					
C. taupou (Jordan & Seale, 1906)
					
C. unimaculata (Cuvier, 1830)
					
Dascyllus aruanus (Linnaeus, 1758)
					
D. reticulatus (Richardson, 1846)
					
D. trimaculatus (Rüppell, 1928)
					
Neoglyphidodon carlsoni Allen, 195
					Neopomacentrus metallicus Jordan & Seale, 1906
					
Plectroglyphidodon dickii (Liénard, 1839)
					
P. imparipennis (Vaillant & Sauvage, 1875)
					
P. johnstonianus Fowler & Ball, 1924
					
P. lacrymatus (Quoy and Gaimard, 1824)
					
Pomacentrus bankanensis Bleeker, 1853
					
Pomacentrus callainus Randall, 2002
					Pomacentrus coelestis Jordan and Starks, 1901
					
P. cf imitator (Whitley, 1964)
					
P. maafu Allen & Drew, 2005
					
P. microspilusAllen & Randall, 2005
					
P. nigromarginatus Allen, 1973					
P. pavo (Bloch, 1878)
					
P. spilotoceps Randall, 2002
					
P. vaiuli Jordan and Seale, 1906
					
Pomachromis richardsoni (Snyder, 1909)
					Stegastes albifasciatus (Schlegel and Müller, 1839)
					
S. fasciolatus (Ogilby, 1889)
					
S. nigricans (Lacepède, 1802)
					
S. punctatus (Quoy & Gaimard, 1825)
LABRIDAE 			
Anampses caeruleopunctatus Rüppell, 1828					
A. geographicus Valenciennes, 1840
					
A. melanurus Bleeker, 1857
					
A. neoguinaicus Bleeker, 1878
					A. twistii Bleeker, 1856
					
Bodianus anthioides (Bennett, 1831)
					
B. axillaris (Bennett, 1831)
					
B. bimaculatus Allen, 1973					
B. dictynna Gomon, 2006
					
B. loxozonus (Snyder, 1908)
					
B. mesothorax Schneider, 1801					Cheilinus chlorourus (Bloch, 1791)
					
C. fasciatus (Bloch, 1791)
					
C. oxycephalus Bleeker, 1853
					
C. trilobatus Lacepède, 1802*
					
C. undulatus Rüppell, 1835
					
Choerodon jordani (Snyder, 1908)
					
C. punctatus Randall & Kuiter, 1989
					
C. rubrimarginatus Randall, 1992					
C. scottorum Randall & Pyle, 1989 600 SPP					Coris aygula Lacepède, 1802
					
C. batuensis (Bleeker, 1856)
					
C. gaimardi (Quoy and Gaimard, 1824)
					
Epibulus insidiator (Pallas, 1770)
					Gomphosus varius Lacepède, 1801					
H. biocellatus Schultz, 1960
					
H. hortulanus (Lacepède, 1802)					
H. marginatus (Rüppell, 1835)					H. melasmapomus					
H. melanurus Bleeker, 1853					H. claudiae					
H. prosopeion Bleeker, 1853
					
H. trimaculatus Griffith, 1834
					
Hemigymnus fasciatus Bloch, 1792					
H. melapterus Bloch, 1791
					
Hologymnosus annulatus (Lacepède, 1801)75.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji					
H. doliatus Lacepède, 1801
					Iniistius celebicus (Bleeker, 1856)
					
Labrichthys unilineatus (Guichenot, 1847)
					
Labroides bicolor Fowler and Bean, 1928
					
L. dimidiatus (Valenciennes, 1839)
					
Labropsis alleni Randall, 1981
					
L. australis Randall, 1981
					
L. xanthonota Randall, 1981
					
Macropharyngodon meleagris (Valenciennes, 1839)
					
M. negrosensis Herre, 1932
					
N. taeniourus (Lacepède, 1802)
					
Oxycheilinus bimaculatus Valenciennes, 1840
					O. diagramma (Lacepède, 1802)
					
O. unifasciatus (Streets, 1877)
					Pseudocheilinus evanidus Jordan and Evermann, 1902
					P. hexataenia (Bleeker, 1857)					
P. ocellatus Randall, 1999
					
P. octotaenia Jenkins, 1901
					
P. tetrataenia Schultz, 1960
					Pseudocoris aurantiofasciata Fourmanoir, 1971
					
Pseudocoris yamashiroi (Schmidt, 1930)
					Pseudodax moluccanus (Valenciennes, 1840)
					Pseudojuloides cerasina Snyder, 1904
					
Pteragogus cryptus Randall, 1981					Stethojulis bandanensis (Bleeker, 1851)
					
S. strigiventer (Bennett, 1832)
					
Thalassoma amblycephalum (Bleeker, 1856)
					
T. hardwicke (Bennett, 1828)					
T. lunare (Linnaeus, 1758)
					
T. lutescens (Lay & Bennett, 1839)
					
T. nigrofasciatum Randall, 2003
					
T. purpureum (Forsskål, 1775)
					
T. quinquevittatum (Lay and Bennett, 1839)
					
W. nigropinnata (Seale, 1901)
SCARIDAE			
Bolbometopon muricatum (Valenciennes, 1840)
					
Calotomus spinidens (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824)					Cetoscarus ocellatus
					
Chlorurus bleekeri (de Beaufort, 1940)
					
C. microrhinos (Bleeker, 1854)					
C. sordidus (Forsskål, 1775)
					Hipposcarus longiceps (Bleeker, 1862)
					
Scarus altipinnis (Steindachner, 1879)
					
S. chameleon Choat and Randall, 1986)
					
S. dimidiatus Bleeker, 1859					
S. forsteni (Bleeker, 1861)
					
S. frenatus Lacepède, 1802
					S. globiceps Valenciennes, 1840
					
S. longipinnis Randall & Choat, 1980
					
S. niger Forsskål, 1775
					
S. oviceps Valenciennes, 1839
					S. psittacus Forsskål, 1775					S. rubroviolaceus Bleeker, 1849
					
S. schlegeli (Bleeker, 1861)
					
S. spinus (Kner, 1868)
					
S. tricolor Bleeker, 1847
TRICHONOTIDAE		
Pteropsaron longipinnis Alllen & Erdmann, 2012
PINGUIPEDIDAE 		
P. clathrata Ogilby, 1911
					
P. hexophthalma (Cuvier, 1829)
					
P. schauinslandi (Steindachner, 1900)
TRIPTERYGIIDAE 		
Ceratobregma helenae Holleman, 1987					H. cf chica					
H. sp. (pectoral base ocellus )BLENNIIDAE 			
A. taeniatus Quoy & Gaimard, 1834
76.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji					
Cirripectes castaneus Valenciennes, 1836
					
C. quagga (Fowler & Ball, 1924)
					
C. stigmaticus Strasburg and Schultz, 1953
					
Crossosalarias macrospilus Smith-Vaniz and Springer, 1971					
E. fijiensis Springer, 1988 ENDEMIC
					
E. pardus Springer, 1988 ENDEMIC
					
Exallias brevis (Kner, 1868)
					
Meiacanthus bundoon Smith-Vaniz, 1976
					
Meiacanthus ovalauensis (Günther, 1880) ENDEMIC
					
Plagiotremus flavus Smith-Vaniz, 1976
					
P. rhinorhynchus (Bleeker, 1852)
					
P. tapeinosoma (Bleeker, 1857)
					
Stanulus seychellensis Smith, 1959
GOBIIDAE			
Amblyeleotris arcupinna Mohlmann & Munday, 1999
					
A. guttata (Fowler, 1938)
					
A. randalli Hoese & Steene, 1978
					
A. steinitzi (Klausewitz, 1974)
					
A. yanoi Aonuma & Yoshino, 1996
					
A. nocturnus (Herre, 1945)					A. phalaena (Valenciennes, 1837)
					
A. semipunctatus Rüppell, 1830
					
A. striata Allen and Munday, 1996
					
B. natans Larson, 1986
					
B. yongei (Davis & Cohen, 1968)					
C. strigilliceps (Jordan and Seale, 1906)					C. cf crocineus					C. feroculus Lubbock and Polunin, 1977
					
E. dorsogilva Greenfield & Randall, 2011					E. cf flebilis					
E. karaspila Greenfield & Randall, 2010					
E. prasites Jordan and Seale, 1906
					
E. punctulata Jewett and Lachner, 1983					
E. cf sigillata Jewett and Lachner, 1983
					
E. sp. (banded Mark photo)					E. teresae Greenfield & Randall, 2016
					
Fusigobius duospilus Hoese and Reader, 1985
					
F. inframaculatus (Randall, 1994)
					
F. neophytus (Günther, 1877)
					
F. signipinnis Hoese and Obika, 1988
					
G. cauerensis (Bleeker, 1853)
					
G. quinquestrigatus (Valenciennes, 1837)
					
G. rivulatus (Rüppell, 1830)					Grallenia sp.
					Istigobius decoratus (Herre, 1927)
					
I. rigilius (Herre, 1953)
					
K. rainfordi (Whitley, 1940)
					
Mahidolia mystacina (Valenciennes, 1837)
					Oxyurichthys takagi Pezold & Larson, 2015
					
P. semidoliatus (Valenciennes, 1837)					
P. sp. (Mark photo)					Trimma anaima Winterbottom, 2000
					
T. annosum Winterbottom, 2003
					
T. anthrenum Winterbottom, 2006					
T. benjamini Winterbottom, 1996
					
T. caesiura (Jordan and Seale, 1906)
					
T. emeryi Winterbottom, 1984*					
T. “finistrinum” Winterbottom, 2017					
T. flavatrum Hagiwara & Winterbottom, 2007
					
T. kitrinum Winterbottom & Hoese, 2015					
T. macrophthalmus (Tomiyama, 1936)
					
T. maiandros Hoese, Winterbottom & Reader, 2011					
T. nasa Winterbottom, 2005
					
T. okinawae (Aoyagi, 1949)
77.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji					
T. preclarum Winterbottom, 2006
					
T. sostra Winterbottom, 2004
					
T. taylori Lobel, 1979					T. cf xanthochrum					V. helsdingenii (Bleeker, 1858)					V. sexguttata (Valenciennes, 1837)
					
V. strigata (Broussonet, 1782)
					
Vanderhorstia sp. Allen & Erdmann, 2012					Yongeichthys nebulosus (Forsskål, 1775)
MICRODESMIDAE		
G. monostigma Smith, 1958
					
G. viridescens Dawson, 1968
PTERELEOTRIDAE		Nemateleotris decora Randall and Allen, 1973					
N. helfrichi Randall and Allen, 1973					
N. magnifica Fowler, 1938
					
Parioglossus nudus Rennis and Hoese, 1985
					
Ptereleotris evides (Jordan and Hubbs, 1925)
					
P. hanae (Jordan and Synder, 1901)
					P. heteroptera (Bleeker, 1855)
					
P. microlepis Bleeker, 1856
					
P.rubristigma Allen, Erdmann & Cahyani, 2012
EPHIPPIDAE			
P. teira (Forsskal, 1775)
SIGANIDAE 			
Siganus argenteus (Quoy and Gaimard, 1824)
					
S. doliatus Cuvier, 1830
					
S. punctatus (Schineider, 1801)					
S. spinus (Linnaeus, 1758)
					
S. uspi Gawel & Woodland, 1974 ENDEMICZANCLIDAE			
Zanclus cornutus Linnaeus, 1758
ACANTHURIDAE 		
Acanthurus albipectoralis Allen & Ayling, 1987
					Acanthurus blochi Valenciennes, 1835
					
A. guttatus (Forster, 1801)					
A. lineatus (Linnaeus, 1758)
					
A. nigricans (Linnaeus, 1758)
					
A. nigricauada Duncker and Mohr, 1929
					
A. nigrofuscus (Forsskål, 1775)					
A. nubilus (Fowler & Bean, 1929)
					
A. olivaceus Bloch and Schneider, 1801					
A. pyroferus Kittlitz, 1834
					A. thompsoni (Fowler, 1923)
					A. triostegus (Linnaeus, 1758)
					
A. xanthopterus Valenciennes, 1835
					
Ctenochaetus binotatus Randall, 1955
					
C. cyanocheilus Randall & Clements, 2001
					
C. striatus (Quoy and Gaimard, 1824)
					
Naso annulatus (Quoy and Gaimard, 1825)
					
N. brachycentron (Valenciennes, 1835)
					
N. brevirostris (Valenciennes, 1835)
					
N. caesius Randall & Bell, 1992
					N. hexacanthus (Bleeker, 1855)
					
N. lituratus (Bloch and Schneider, 1801)
					
N. lopezi Herre, 1927
					
N. minor (Smith, 1966)
					
N. thynnoides (Valenciennes, 1835)
					
N. tonganus (Valenciennes, 1835)
					
N. unicornis Forsskål, 1775					
N. vlamingii (Valenciennes, 1835)
					
Zebrasoma scopas Cuvier, 1829
					
Z. veliferum Bloch, 1797
SPHYRAENIDAE			
Sphyraena barracuda (Walbaum, 1792)					
S. forsteri Cuvier, 1829
SCOMBRIDAE			
Grammatorcynus bilineatus (Quoy and Gaimard, 1824)
					
Gymnosarda unicolor (Rüppell, 1836)
					
Katsuwonus pelamis (Linnaeus, 1758)
					
R. kanagurta (Cuvier, 1816)
78.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji					
Scomberomorus commerson (Lacepède, 1800)
BALISTIDAE			
Balistapus undulatus (Park, 1797)
					
Balistoides conspicillum (Bloch and Schneider, 1801)					
B. viridescens (Bloch and Schneider, 1801)
					Canthidermis maculatus (Bloch, 1786)
					
Melichthys niger (Bloch, 1786)
					
M. vidua (Solander, 1844)
					
Odonus niger Rüppell, 1836
					
Pseudobalistes flavimarginatus (Rüppell, 1828)					
P. fuscus (Bloch and Schneider, 1801)
					
Rhinecanthus aculeatus (Linnaeus, 1758)
					
R. rectangulus (Bloch and Schneider, 1801)
					
Sufflamen bursa (Bloch and Schneider, 1801)					
S. chrysoptera (Bloch and Schneider, 1801)
					
S. fraenatus (Latreille, 1804)
					
Xanthichthys auromarginatus (Bennett, 1832)
MONACANTHIDAE		
Aluterus scriptus (Osbeck, 1765)
					
Amanses scopas (Cuvier, 1829)
					
Cantherines dumerilii (Hollard, 1854)
					Cantherines pardalis (Rüppell, 1866)
					
Oxymonacanthus longirostris Bloch and Schneider, 1801
					
Paraluteres prionurus (Bleeker, 1851)
					
Pervagor janthinosoma (Bleeker, 1854)
OSTRACIIDAE			O. meleagris Shaw, 1796					
O. solorensis Bleeker, 1853
TETRAODONTIDAE		 Arothron hispidus (Linnaeus, 1758)
					
A. nigropunctatus (Bloch and Schneider, 1801)
					Canthigaster amboinensis (Bleeker, 1865)					
C. bennetti (Bleeker, 1854)
					
C. epilampra (Jenkins, 1903)
					
C. janthinoptera (Bleeker, 1855)					
C. ocellicincta Allen & Randall, 1977
					
C. solandri (Richardson, 1844)					
C. valentini (Bleeker, 1853)
SEA CUCUMBERS 		
Actinopyga flammea					Actinopyga mauritiana					Actinopyga miliaris					Bohadschia argus					Bohadschia similis					Holothuria atra					Holothuria edulis					Holothuria fuscogilva					Holothuria leucospilota					Holothuria whitmaei					Pearsonothuria graeffei					Stichopus chloronotus					Stichopus horrens					Thelenota ananas					Thelenota anax													

79.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji80.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji81.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji82.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji83.

A rapid biological assessment survey of the Lau Seascape in Fiji

84.