NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-52

April 2016 

Status Review Report:

Orange Clownfish (Amphiprion percula) 

Kimberly A. Maison and Krista S. Graham

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

U.S. Department of Commerce 

 doi:10.7289/V5J10152
About this document

The mission of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is to 

understand and predict changes in the Earth’s environment and to conserve and manage 

coastal and oceanic marine resources and habitats to help meet our Nation’s economic, 

social, and environmental needs. As a branch of NOAA, the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) conducts or sponsors research and monitoring programs to improve the 

scientific basis for conservation and management decisions. NMFS strives to make 

information about the purpose, methods, and results of its scientific studies widely available. 

NMFS’ Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) uses the NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS series to achieve timely dissemination of scientific and technical 

information that is of high quality but inappropriate for publication in the formal peerreviewed literature. The contents are of broad scope, including technical workshop 

proceedings, large data compilations, status reports and reviews, lengthy scientific or 

statistical monographs, and more. NOAA Technical Memoranda published by the PIFSC, 

although informal, are subjected to extensive review and editing and reflect sound 

professional work. Accordingly, they may be referenced in the formal scientific and 

technical literature.

A NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS issued by the PIFSC may be cited using the 

following format:

Maison, K. A., and K. S. Graham. 

2016. Status Review Report: Orange Clownfish (Amphiprion percula). U.S. 

Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo., NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-52, 69p. 

__________________________

For further information direct inquiries to

Director, Science Operations Division

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

U.S. Department of Commerce 

1845 Wasp Boulevard 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96818-5007 

Phone: 808-725-5331 

Fax: 808-725-5532 

___________________________________________________________ 

Cover: Photograph courtesy of ©Margaret Paton Walsh. 

doi:10.7289/V5J10152
Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

U.S. Department of Commerce

Status Review Report:

Orange Clownfish (Amphiprion percula) 

Kimberly A. Maison1

Krista S. Graham1

1

Pacific Islands Regional Office

National Marine Fisheries Service

1845 Wasp Boulevard 

Building 176 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96818 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-52

April 2016

 doi:10.7289/V5J10152
iv
v

ABSTRACT

This report was produced in response to a petition received from the Center for Biological 

Diversity on September 14, 2012, to list eight species of pomacentrid reef fish as endangered or 

threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to designate critical habitat for these 

species concurrent with the listing. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) evaluated 

the petition to determine whether the petitioner provided substantial information as required by 

the ESA to determine that listing these species may be warranted. On September 3, 2014, the 

NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO) announced in the Federal Register that the 

petition presented substantial information that listing may be warranted for the orange clownfish 

(Amphiprion percula), and NMFS requested information on this species from the public (79 FR 

52276). Subsequently, NMFS initiated a status review of this species, which we document in 

this report. This report summarizes the best available scientific and commercial information on 

the orange clownfish, and presents an evaluation of the species’ status and extinction risk. 

On September 3, 2014, NMFS PIRO also announced a negative 90-day finding for the six IndoPacific damselfishes: Hawaiian dascyllus (Dascyllus albisella), blue-eyed damselfish 

(Plectroglyphidodon johnstonianus), black-axil chromis (Chromis atripectoralis), blue-green 

damselfish (Chromis viridis), reticulated damselfish (Dascyllus reticulatus), and blackbar devil 

or Dick’s damselfish (Plectroglyphidodon dickii). The NMFS Southeast Regional Office led the 

response to the petition to list the yellowtail damselfish (Microspathodon chrysurus) and 

announced a negative 90-day finding (80 FR 8619) for that species on February 18, 2015. 

In assessing four demographic risks for A. percula -- abundance, growth rate/productivity, spatial 

structure, and diversity -- we determined that the likelihood of these risks individually 

contributing to the extinction risk for the species is low or unknown. We also assessed current 

and predicted threats to the species and determined that the likelihood of these individual threats 

contributing to the extinction risk of the species throughout its range varies between very low 

and low-to-medium. We acknowledge that uncertainties exist regarding how these demographic 

risks and current and predicted threats may affect the species at both the individual and 

population levels. 

Of the 12 identified current and predicted threats, our greatest concern relates to the species’ 

susceptibility and exposure to sedimentation and nutrients, as well as the inadequacy of 

regulatory mechanisms to address this threat, especially since juveniles and adults occur in 

shallow water and are non-migratory once they have settled into a host anemone. Therefore, we 

conservatively assigned a low-to-medium likelihood that both this threat and the inadequate 

regulatory mechanisms to address this threat may significantly contribute to the extinction risk 

for A. percula. 

The range of the species across heterogeneous habitats, the conservatively estimated abundance 

of 13-18 million individuals, the spatial and temporal variation in threats, coupled with resiliency 

and potential for trans-generational adaptive capabilities to future impacts all contribute to a low 

overall vulnerability of the species to the collective threats we have identified. We have 

determined that the overall extinction risk to A. percula is low, both now and in the foreseeable 

future. 
vi
vii

CONTENTS

Abstract............................................................................................................................................v

Introduction and Background ..........................................................................................................1

Scope and Intent of this Document............................................................................................1

Questions and Information Considered in ESA Evaluations.....................................................1

Life History and Ecology.................................................................................................................2

Classification and Distinctive Characteristics ...........................................................................2

Habitat........................................................................................................................................4

Diet, Feeding, and Growth.........................................................................................................6

Reproduction and Development ................................................................................................7

Settlement and Recruitment.......................................................................................................8

Longevity and Resilience...........................................................................................................9

Geographic Range....................................................................................................................10

Distribution and Connectivity..................................................................................................11

Estimated Abundance ..............................................................................................................14

Assessment of Extinction Risk ......................................................................................................15

Approach to Evaluating Extinction Risk .................................................................................15

Foreseeable Future ...................................................................................................................16

Demographic Risks..................................................................................................................17

Abundance ...............................................................................................................................17

Population Growth Rate/Productivity......................................................................................18

Spatial Structure/Connectivity.................................................................................................18

Diversity...................................................................................................................................19

Analysis of the ESA Section 4(A)(1) Factors..........................................................................20

Factor A: Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification or Curtailment of 

Habitat or Range ................................................................................................................21

Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific

or Education Purposes........................................................................................................27

Factor C: Disease or Predation ................................................................................................31

Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms....................................................32

Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors..........................................................................37

Summary of Threats.................................................................................................................40

Conservation Efforts......................................................................................................................41

Conclusions....................................................................................................................................42

Acknowledgments..........................................................................................................................44

Literature Cited ..............................................................................................................................44

Tables.............................................................................................................................................65

Figures............................................................................................................................................66
viii
1

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Scope and Intent of this Document

This report documents the status review conducted in response to a petition1 to list the orange 

clownfish (Amphiprion percula) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Under the ESA, if a 

petition is found to present substantial scientific or commercial information that the petitioned 

action may be warranted, a status review shall be promptly commenced (16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(3)(A)). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS or NOAA Fisheries) determined

that the petition presented substantial information that a status review was warranted for the 

orange clownfish (79 FR 52276; September 3, 2014), and promptly initiated a status review. The 

ESA stipulates that listing determinations should be made based on the best scientific and 

commercial information available, after taking into consideration any efforts by any State or 

foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect the species (16 

U.S.C. §1533(b)). 

NMFS assigned two Endangered Species Biologists in the Protected Resources Division of the 

NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO) to compile the best available data on this species, 

and complete a thorough review of the biology, population status, and future outlook for this 

species. An extensive literature search was undertaken and researchers were contacted regarding 

gray literature and additional information. As announced in the 90-day finding, NMFS also 

solicited the public for relevant data and information from September 3, 2014, through 

November 3, 2014. Relevant information submitted by the public, contributed by experts, and 

extracted from the literature search is incorporated into this status review. 

This status review includes an analysis of the biology, demography, and ecology of the species, 

threats to the species, and makes conclusions regarding the extinction risk of the species. For the 

risk assessment, we used a qualitative reference level of relative extinction risk modified from 

the reference levels commonly used in status reviews (e.g., rockfish in the Puget Sound, 

Banggai cardinal fish, etc.). Recommendations as to whether the species should be listed as 

threatened or endangered were not made. Rather, conclusions are drawn about the overall risk of 

extinction faced by the species based on an evaluation of the species’ current status, 

demographic risks, as well as present and future threats to the species and how the species is 

responding, or is likely to respond in the future, to those threats.

Questions and Information Considered in ESA Evaluations

In determining whether a listing under the ESA is warranted, two key questions must be 

addressed: 

1) Is the entity in question a “species” as defined by the ESA?

2) If so, is the “species” threatened or endangered? 

 1 Center for Biological Diversity to U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Acting through the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration and the National Marine Fisheries Service, September 14, 2012, “Petition to list 8 

species of Pomacentrid reef fish under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.”
2

Section 3 of the ESA defines a “species” to include “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, 

and any distinct population segment (DPS) of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which 

interbreeds when mature.” Section 3 further defines the term “endangered species” as “any 

species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The 

term “threatened species” is defined as “any species which is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” 

NMFS considers a variety of information in evaluating the level of risk faced by a species in 

deciding whether the species meets the statutory definition of either threatened or endangered. 

Important considerations include 1) absolute numbers of individuals and their spatial and 

temporal distribution, 2) current abundance in relation to historical abundance and carrying 

capacity of the habitat, 3) trends in abundance, 4) natural and human influenced factors that 

cause variability in survival and abundance, 5) possible threats to genetic integrity, and 6) recent 

events (e.g., a change in management) that have predictable short-term consequences for 

abundance of the species. Additional risk factors, such as disease prevalence or life history 

traits, may also be considered in evaluating risk to populations (NMFS 2013). 

Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, NMFS must determine whether one or more of the following 

factors is/are causing a species to be threatened or endangered: 

(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat or

range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or human factors affecting its continued existence.

The determination of whether a species is threatened or endangered must be based on the best 

available scientific and commercial information regarding its current status, after taking into 

consideration measures in place to conserve the species. The purpose of this document is to 

review and summarize the best available information/data to describe the status of the orange 

clownfish. A determination as to whether or not the species meets the statutory definition of 

threatened or endangered, and therefore may be warranted for listing, is not included in this 

document but will be included in the 12-month finding for the species.

LIFE HISTORY AND ECOLOGY

Classification and Distinctive Characteristics

The orange clownfish, Amphiprion percula, is a valid taxonomic species within the family 

Pomacentridae. The species was first described by Lacepède in 1802, as Lutjanus percula and 

later re-described as Amphiprion percula (Florida Museum of Natural History 2005). There are 

360 species in the Pomacentridae family that are classified into 29 genera. Two of those genera 

contain all 28 recognized species of clownfish: one species in the genus Premnas, and the 

remaining species in the genus Amphiprion. The number of recognized clownfish species has 
3

evolved over time due to inconsistent recognition of natural hybrids and geographic color 

variants of previously described species as separate species in the literature (Allen 1991; Fautin 

and Allen 1997; Buston and Garcia 2007; Ollerton et al. 2007; Allen et al. 2008; Thornhill 2012; 

Litsios et al. 2014; and Tao et al. 2014). Their mutualistic relationship with sea anemones is 

correlated with the adaptive radiation and accelerated speciation of clownfish species (Litsios et 

al. 2012). In addition, hybridization events are linked with diversification in clownfish, and 

several recently diverged clownfish lineages likely originated through hybridization. This

suggests that diversification, catalyzed by hybridization events, may still be happening (Litsios 

and Salamin 2014).

The taxonomic classification for A. percula is as follows:

Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata

Class: Actinopterygii

Order: Perciformes

Family: Pomacentridae

Genus: Amphiprion

Species: percula

The species is known by common English names that include orange clownfish, clown 

anemonefish, percula clownfish, percula anemonefish, orange anemonefish, true percula 

clownfish, blackfinned clownfish, eastern clownfish, eastern clown anemonefish, and orangeclown anemonefish (Animal-World 2015). Common names in other languages include bantay 

bot-bot (Cebuano); orangegul klovnfisk (Danish); pata (Davawenyo); maumanu ni masao (Gela); 

clownfisch (German); samok-samok (Kagayanen); paja-paja (Makassarese); clown fish biak, 

gelang roay (Malay); amfiprion (Polish); baro-baro (Visayan); and bantay-kibot (Waray-waray) 

(Florida Museum of Natural History 2005). A more comprehensive list of common names can 

be found at the Fishbase web site (www.Fishbase.org).

Amphiprion percula is bright orange with three thick white vertical bars (Fig. 1). The anterior 

bar occurs just behind the eye, the middle bar bisects the fish and has a forward-projecting bulge,

and the posterior bar occurs near the caudal fin. The white bars have a black border that varies in 

width. Orange clownfish have 30-38 pored scales with no interruptions along the lateral line, 

and their fins have black tips (Fautin and Allen 1997; Florida Museum of Natural History 2005). 

Although this describes the type specimen, some polymorphism does occur with diverse 

geographic regional and local color forms, mostly in the form of variation in the width of the 

black margin along the white bars (Militz 2015; Timm et al. 2008). 

While there is no difference in color pattern between sexes, dimorphic variation is present in size 

as females are larger than males (Fautin and Allen 1997; Florida Museum of Natural History 

2005). It is important to note that size alone cannot be used to identify the sex of an individual 

because individuals in different groups will vary in maximum and minimum size. Maximum 

reported length for this species is approximately 80 millimeters (mm) (Fautin and Allen 1997), 

but individuals up to 110 mm in length have been reported (Florida Museum of Natural History 

2005). Standard length is reported as 46 mm for females and 36 mm for males (Florida Museum 

of Natural History 2005). The total length of a fish has been correlated with the diameter of its 

host anemone (Fautin 1992), with larger anemones hosting larger clownfish. 
4

Amphiprion percula very closely resembles A. ocellaris, also known as the false percula

clownfish, and the two are considered sibling species. There are several morphological 

differences that may allow an observer, upon closer examination, to distinguish between the two 

species. Amphiprion percula has 9-10 dorsal spines while A. ocellaris has 10-11 (Timm et al.

2008), and the anterior part of A. percula’s dorsal fin is shorter than that of A. ocellaris. In 

addition, A. percula has a thick black margin around its white bars whereas A. ocellaris often has 

a thin or even non-existent black margin, though this is not always the case. Amphiprion percula 

has been described as more brilliant in color, and its iris is orange, giving the appearance of very 

small eyes while the iris of A. ocellaris is grayish-orange, thus giving the appearance of slightly 

larger eyes (Florida Museum of Natural History 2005). Ecologically, both species prefer some 

of the same host anemone species (Heteractis magnifica; Stichodactyla gigantean; S. mertensii) 

(Fautin and Allen 1997; Timm et al. 2008). 

Of noted difference is that these two species have an allopatric distribution, meaning their ranges 

do not overlap. Amphiprion percula is found in northern Queensland and Melanesia; A. ocellaris

is found in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Andaman Sea), Indo-Malayan Archipelago, 

Philippines, northwestern Australia, and the coast of Southeast Asia northwards to the Ryukyu 

Islands of Japan (Fautin and Allen 1997; Timm et al. 2008). Genetically, the two species appear 

to have diverged between 1.9 and 5 million years ago (Litsios et al. 2012; Nelson et al. 2000; 

Timm et al. 2008). In the aquarium trade, A. ocellaris is the most popular anemonefish with A. 

percula the second most popular (Animal-World 2015). The two species are often mistaken for 

one another and misidentified in the aquarium trade. They are also often reported as a species 

complex (i.e., reported as A. ocellaris/percula) in trade documentation and scientific research 

due to the difficulty in distinguishing between the two species. Even though their ranges do not 

overlap, source countries often catch and/or culture one or both species, exporting both wildcaptured and captive bred individuals.

Habitat

Amphiprion percula is described as a habitat specialist due to its symbiotic association primarily 

with three species of anemone: Heteractis crispa, H. magnifica, and Stichodactyla gigantea

(Fautin and Allen 1997; Elliott and Mariscal 1997a; Ollerton et al. 2007). The species has also 

been reported as associating with S. mertensii (Elliott and Mariscal 2001) and S. haddoni (Planes 

et al. 2009). As described in more detail below in the Geographic Range section, anemone 

habitat for A. percula is spread throughout northern Queensland (Australia), the northern coast of 

West Papua, northern Papua New Guinea (including New Britain), the Solomon Islands, and 

Vanuatu (Rosenberg and Cruz 1988; Fautin and Allen 1997; De Brauwer 2014) (Fig. 2). 

Anemones and their symbiotic anemonefish inhabit coral reefs and nearby habitats such as

lagoons and seagrass beds. Although Fautin and Allen (1992, 1997) estimate that as many 

anemone hosts and symbiotic fish live on sand flats or other substrate surrounding reefs as live 

on the reef itself, the symbiotic pairs are thought of as reef dwellers because most diving and 

observations occur on reefs. Both symbionts reside in shallow coastal waters primarily in depths 

of 1-12 meters (m) (though the anemones can be found in depths up to 50 m) and water 

temperatures ranging from 25-28 oC (77-82 oF) (Fautin and Allen 1997; Randall et al. 1997). 

Two anemone species, including one A. percula host (H. crispa), and two species of symbiotic 
5

anemonefish have been reported from mesophotic depths (>50m) in Australia (Bridge et al.

2012). 

Although anemonefishes have been the subject of considerable scientific research, less is known 

about the population dynamics or biology of the giant anemones that serve as their hosts. 

(Anemones and giant anemones are used interchangeably here and in the literature; several 

individual anemones may cluster together, forming what appears as a giant individual (Fautin 

and Allen 1997).) There are over 1,000 anemone species but only 10 of them are known to be 

associated with anemonefish. As described by Fautin and Allen (1992, 1997), giant anemones 

have a lower end known as the pedal, which attaches firmly to a solid object like a coral branch 

or rock. The opposite, unattached end is the mouth, or oral disc. Hollow tentacles emerge from 

the oral disc and come in varying shapes, lengths, sizes, and colors. Microscopic, single-celled 

algae known as zooxanthellae live within the tentacles and oral disc and provide energy to the 

anemone through photosynthesis. Microscopic nematocysts, or stinging cells, are found on the 

tentacles and internal structures and are used for defense and to capture prey (Fautin and Allen 

1997). Acting like microscopic harpoons or needles, nematocysts mechanically sting prey. 

Nematocyst toxins cause pain, loss of muscular coordination, paralysis, and tissue damage 

(Mebs 1994, 2009). Prey items include plankton, small fish, sea urchins, and crustaceans such 

as shrimp and crabs. The mucous coating of giant anemones also contains cytolytic poisons, 

which are lethal at dilute concentrations to most fish (Mebs 1994, 2009).

Relatively little is known about reproduction in giant anemones. Male and female H. crispa

anemones synchronously broadcast spawn sperm and eggs into the water column a few nights 

each year (Scott and Harrison 2007a). After spawning, fertilized eggs become ciliated planula 

larvae and become motile within 36 hours (Scott and Harrison 2007b). The larvae disperse for 

4-12 days (Scott and Harrison 2007b, 2008) before settling in appropriate habitat. High 

mortality is likely associated with this larval stage, as is common with broadcast spawning 

species, although dispersal distances and mortality rates have not been examined for any 

giant anemone species (Thornhill 2012). In addition to reproducing sexually, H. magnifica

is also able to reproduce asexually, whereby a polyp divides and becomes two polyps within the 

space of a few days. Each of the two smaller individuals continues to grow before dividing again 

(Fautin and Allen 1997). It is unknown which form of reproduction (i.e., sexual vs. asexual) is 

more common.

Giant anemones are likely slow growing and very long lived, living decades to several centuries 

(Fautin 1991; Fautin and Allen 1997). To be a viable host for anemonefish, an anemone must be 

of a sufficient size to provide shelter and protection from predators. The long-term growth rate 

and survival of anemones is correlated with the size and number of anemonefish they host, which 

provide protection for the anemone from predators (Porat and Chadwick-Furman 2004) among 

the other benefits listed below. As for locomotion, anemones are typically settled at their 

location, though if conditions are unfavorable, they are able to use their pedal disc to move a few 

millimeters a day, or may detach entirely and roll or be carried a longer distance via water 

currents (Fautin and Allen 1997).

The symbiosis between A. percula and its host anemones serves as an effective anti-predation 

measure for both symbionts. Clownfish, including A. percula, are a unique group of fish that can 

live unharmed among the stinging tentacles of anemones. A thick mucus layer cloaks the fish 
6

from detection and response by anemone tentacles (Rosenberg and Cruz 1988; Elliott and 

Mariscal 1997a, 1997b). Species that lack this physiological adaptation are immobilized by 

stinging tentacles and consumed by the anemone. Thanks to this symbiotic association and 

protection from their host anemones, adult A. percula have very few predators. Predators of both 

anemones and anemonefish are deterred by the anemone’s stinging tentacles and by the presence 

of territorial clownfish. In return, anemonefish swim through and create fresh water circulation 

for the stationary anemone, allowing it to access more oxygenated water, speed up its 

metabolism, and grow faster (Szczebak et al. 2013). Anemonefish also fertilize host anemones 

with their ammonia-rich waste (Roopin and Chadwick 2009; Cleveland et al. 2011)), leading to 

increases in anemone growth and asexual reproduction (Holbrook and Schmitt 2005). 

At most geographic locations where anemonefish populations have been studied, all or most 

anemones are occupied by anemonefish (Mariscal 1970; Allen 1972; Fautin 1985, 1992; Ochi 

1986; Hattori 1995; Elliott and Mariscal 2001). Unoccupied anemones are typically either very 

small or in shallow water (Elliott and Mariscal 2001) (~<1 m), presumably due to the potential 

for lower salinity, increased temperatures, and exposure at low tides. Typically, only one species 

of anemonefish occupies a single anemone at any given time due to niche differentiation; but this 

is not always the case. Elliott and Mariscal (2001) studied anemone use by anemonefish in the 

region of Madang, Papua New Guinea, which has the highest reported species diversity of both 

anemonefish (9 species) and their host anemones (10 species). Of 72 anemones occupied by A. 

percula, 4 also hosted other anemonefish species (Elliott and Mariscal 2001). As a 

demonstration of further niche differentiation, both A. percula and A. perideraion occupied H. 

magnifica anemones, but A. percula occupied the H. magnifica individuals in nearshore zones, 

while A. perideraion occupied H. magnifica in offshore zones. 

Amphiprion percula is a highly territorial species, likely due to intense competition for limited 

resources, with niche differentiation caused by the distribution, abundance, and recruitment 

patterns of competing species (Fautin and Allen 1997; Elliott and Mariscal 1997a, 2001; Randall 

et al. 1997). Once anemonefish settle into a host, they are unlikely to migrate between anemones 

(Mariscal 1970; Elliott et al. 1995). 

Diet, Feeding, and Growth

Anemonefish are omnivorous and feed on a variety of prey items consisting of planktonic algae 

and zooplankton, such as copepods and larval tunicates (Fautin and Allen 1997). Amphiprion

percula also feeds on prey remnants left over from its host anemone’s feeding activity and dead 

tentacles from its host (Fautin and Allen 1997; Florida Museum of Natural History 2005). 

An anemone will typically host a female and male breeding pair and up to four other 

subordinate, non-breeding and non-related percula clownfish (Buston 2003a; Buston and Garcia 

2007; Buston et al. 2007). Individuals rarely stray beyond the periphery of their anemone’s 

tentacles to feed (Buston 2003c). A size-based hierarchy develops within each group; the female 

is the largest (rank 1), the male second largest (rank 2), and the non-breeding males get 

progressively smaller as you descend the hierarchy (ranks 3-6) (Allen 1991). Subordinates tend 

to be 80% of the size of their immediate dominant in the hierarchy (Buston 2003b; Buston and

Cant 2006). Subordinates likely regulate their growth to avoid coming into conflict with their 

immediate dominant, and thereby avoid eviction from the social group (Buston 2003b; Buston 

and Wong 2014). When a fish is removed from the hierarchical social group structure (due to 
7

mortality or collection), all smaller members grow rapidly, filling in the size gap, to the point 

that they are once again 80% the size of their immediate dominant (Fautin and Allen 1997; 

Buston 2003b).

Reproduction and Development

Spawning for A. percula can occur year round due to perpetually warm waters within the 

species’ range (Fautin and Allen 1997). Spawning is also strongly correlated with the lunar 

cycle, with most nesting occurring when the moon is full or nearly so (Fautin and Allen 1997). 

Like all anemonefishes, all A. percula are born as males (Fautin and Allen 1997). Females 

develop through protandrous hermaphroditism, or sex change from male to female. This occurs 

when the female and largest member of the group dies (or is otherwise removed) and the next 

largest male changes sex to become the dominant breeding female. The second largest male 

subsequently becomes the dominant male (Rosenberg and Cruz 1988; Fautin and Allen 1997). 

Only the dominant pair contributes to the reproductive output of a group within an anemone. 

Non-breeders within the social group do not have an effect on the reproductive success of mating 

pairs (Buston 2004; Buston and Elith 2011). Within a social group, the rate of development from 

juvenile to adult and male to female is highly dependent on the mortality rates of individuals 

within the group (Fautin and Allen 1997; Buston 2004b). In other words, the larger the group 

size (up to six individuals), the longer an individual fish could remain as a sub-adult male (i.e., 

subordinate to the breeding female and male pair).

Courtship

Adult male and female A. percula form strong monogamous pair-bonds. Initiation of ritualized 

courtship is highly correlated with the lunar cycle (Fautin and Allen 1997) and typically 

commences three to five days prior to spawning. Social interaction increases noticeably during 

courtship and includes chasing and dorsal fin erection (Fautin and Allen 1997). During this time, 

the female’s belly begins to swell with eggs (Animal-World 2015). Courtship also includes 

preparation of the nest site, which is important for survival of the eggs. This is done by the 

mating male through nipping at the host anemone’s tentacles in order to create a flat patch of 

rock located under the anemone (Rosenberg and Cruz 1988; Myers 1999), and using his mouth 

to clear any algae or debris (Fautin and Allen 1997; Buston and Elith 2011). 

Spawning

Once the female is ready to spawn, a conical whitish tube known as an ovipositor becomes 

visible and eggs slowly descend from her belly onto the nest site. Once eggs are laid, the male 

follows closely behind and fertilizes them externally. Spawning can last anywhere from 30 

minutes to 2 hours (Fautin and Allen 1997; Dhaneesh et al. 2009). Clutch sizes vary widely 

between 100 to over 1000 eggs (Fautin and Allen 1997; Dhaneesh et al. 2009), with the average 

being 324 eggs ± 153 (mean ± one standard deviation) recorded in Madang Lagoon, Papua New 

Guinea (Buston and Elith 2011), depending on fish size and previous experience. Larger and 

more experienced mating pairs will produce more eggs per clutch (Fautin and Allen 1997; 

Buston and Elith 2011; Animal-World 2015), and can produce up to three clutches per lunar 

cycle (Gordon and Hecht 2002; Buston and Elith 2011). Buston (2004) reports 12 years as the 

typical expected tenure of breeding females in the field. While this is relatively long for a fish 
8

species of this small size, it is not unheard of among reef fish species (e.g., 13 years for A. clarkii

(Moyer 1986); 18 years for A. frenatus and 18+ years for A. perideraion (Fautin and Allen 

1997)). Reports of clownfish in captivity conclude that clownfish cease spawning several years 

before the end of their life expectancy (Animal-World 2015), but it is unknown if this is also the 

case in the wild. 

Development

After egg deposition has finished, a 6-8 day incubation period begins, with developmental rate 

varying with temperature and oxygen content of the water (Dhaneesh et al. 2009). Eggs are 

adhered to the nest surface via short filaments (Fautin and Allen 1997; Dhaneesh et al. 2009) and 

are attended to by the male. The male aerates the nest with his mouth and fans the eggs with his 

pectoral fins (Fautin and Allen 1997; Dhaneesh et al. 2011). The male also removes dead eggs 

and debris from the nest, ensuring ample oxygenation. Though the overhanging tentacles of the 

anemone provide some protection (Allen 1991; Arvedlund et al. 2000), the male fiercely guards 

the eggs against potential predators (Rosenberg and Cruz 1988). The most common egg 

predators during the day are Pseudochromis fuscus wrasses (family Labridae) and other 

damselfishes (family Pomacentridae); nighttime predators are typically not fish, but invertebrates 

such as brittle stars (families Ophiotrichidae, Ophiochimidae, and Ophiodermatidae) (Arvedlund 

et al. 2000 citing D.R. Bellwood, pers. comm.). During this period of male parental care, the 

female is occupied with feeding activity (Fautin and Allen 1997).

As eggs continue to incubate over the course of a week, embryos become visible through a

transparent membrane. Silvery pupils contained within large eyes and red-orange yolk sacs are 

two noticeable features during development (Buston and Elith 2011). Average hatch success 

recorded in Madang Lagoon, Papua New Guinea, is estimated at 87% (Buston and Elith 2011). 

Upon hatching, which typically occurs in the evening, larvae are 3-4 mm in length (Fautin and 

Allen 1997; Gordon and Hecht 2002; Dhaneesh et al. 2009). They initially sink to the benthic 

environment before swimming to the upper surface of the water column using a process called 

phototaxis where moonlight helps to orient them (Fautin and Allen 1997). Larvae then enter a 

pelagic phase and are likely engaged in active swimming and orientation, and also transported by 

ocean currents (Fautin and Allen 1997; Leis et al. 2011).

Settlement and Recruitment

The larval stage of A. percula ends when the larval anemonefish settles into a host anemone

approximately 8-12 days after hatching (Fautin and Allen 1997; Almany et al. 2007; Buston et 

al. 2007). Compared to many other coral reef species, this is considered a short pelagic larval 

duration, though is typical of genera restricted to the Indo-Pacific (Wellington and Victor 1989; 

Almany et al. 2007). The likelihood of successful recruitment depends on anemone saturation 

and habitat type (Buston 2003c; Dixson et al. 2008; Elliott and Mariscal 2001). Buston (2003c)

showed that removal of non-breeders resulted in recruitment of new individuals within a few 

months. Under natural conditions, populations are close to carrying capacity and resident A. 

percula prevent recruitment of new individuals; when residents are removed, new individuals 

recruit. Like most reef fish species, the egg, pelagic larval, and settlement life stages for A. 

percula experience the highest rates of natural mortality (there may be only one successful 

recruit for every 10,000 eggs produced – Peter Buston pers. obs.). Once they gain the protection 

of an anemone, mortality is greatly reduced. 
9

Anemonefishes search for and settle into a suitable host anemone using a variety of cues. 

Dixson et al. (2008, 2014) and Munday et al. (2009a) found that A. percula are attracted to 

olfactory cues such as leaf litter and tropical trees, a means of locating island reef habitats, when 

searching for a settlement site. Amphiprion percula are also attracted to unrelated conspecific 

adults (Munday et al. 2009a). Embryos and newly hatched juveniles may learn cues from the

host anemone where they hatched and respond to imprinted cues when searching for suitable 

settlement locations (Fautin and Allen 1997; Arvedlund et al. 2000; Paris et al. 2013; Dixson et 

al. 2014; Miyagawa-Kohshima 2014). Innate recognition is also used and refers to the ability of 

anemonefish to locate a suitable host without prior experience (Fautin and Allen 1997; 

Miyagawa-Kohshima 2014). Studies indicate that imprinting on anemone olfactory cues

complements innate recognition, leading to rigid species-specific host recognition (MiyagawaKohshima 2014). 

Fish acclimation to a host anemone lasts anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours (Fautin 

and Allen 1997; Arvedlund et al. 2000) and is accomplished by briefly touching the tips of the 

tentacles with pectoral fins. At first there is an adhesive effect and the fish typically flees the 

anemone but then continually returns, making progressively more contact until tenticular 

clinging no longer occurs due to a protective mucus coating that develops on the anemonefish 

(Davenport and Norris 1958; Elliott and Mariscal 1997a). Once acclimated, the mucus 

protection may disappear upon extended separation between host and fish. Continued contact 

with tentacles appears to reactivate the mucus coat (Arvedlund et al. 2000). Coloration of 

anemonefish usually also begins during this anemone acclimation process (Elliott and Mariscal 

2001). Upon settlement, the entire metamorphosis from larva to juvenile takes about a day 

(Fautin and Allen 1997). 

Longevity and Resilience

Fautin and Allen (1992, 1997) reported that some anemonefish are recorded to have lived at least 

6-10 years in nature, with 18 years the record in captivity. More recently, Buston and Garcia 

(2007) studied a wild population of A. percula in Papua New Guinea and their results suggest 

that females can live up to 30 years in the wild (lower 95% CI = 22.0 years, upper 95% CI = 89.9 

years), although this life expectancy estimate has not been empirically proven through otolith 

examination. This estimate is notably two times greater than the longevity estimated for any 

other coral reef damselfish and six times greater than the longevity expected for a fish that size 

(Buston and Garcia 2007). Their results are consistent with the idea that organisms subject to 

low levels of extrinsic mortality, like anemonefish, experience delayed senescence and increased 

longevity (Buston and Garcia 2007). For individuals that move up in social rank to eventually 

attain the female position, remaining life span or time spent as a female does not vary with group 

size. The amount of time spent queuing to attain the female position, however, does vary with 

group size, which leads to the variable overall life expectancy of a female based on group size 

(Buston and Garcia 2007).

As noted above, post-recruitment mortality associated with predation is quite low, ranging from 

2% (Elliott and Mariscal 2001) to ~7% for ranks 1-3 and ~30% for ranks 4-6 (Buston 2003a), 

especially compared to other coral reef fish. This is likely attributable to the amount of 

protection provided by host anemones (Buston 2003a). Social rank appears to be the only factor 

associated with mortality of the species post-settlement rather than factors such as number of 
10

individuals, density, standard length, anemone diameter, depth, or reef size (Buston 2003a, 

2003b). Competition for rank amongst individuals within an anemone can lead to eviction of 

subordinates. Buston (2003a) speculated that individuals probably compete for rank because it 

confers access to reproduction, and not because it confers access to food or shelter.

Using a methodology designed to determine resilience to fishing impacts, Fishbase.org rates A. 

percula as highly resilient, with an estimated minimum population doubling time of less than 15 

months (Florida Museum of Natural History 2005; Fishbase.org 2015). Another analysis, using 

the Cheung et al. (2005) “fuzzy logic” method for estimating fish vulnerability to fishing 

pressure, assigned A. percula a low vulnerability score, with a level of 23 out of 100 

(Fishbase.org 2015). Fujita et al. (2014) analyzed data deficient marine aquarium trade species, 

although they did not include A. percula. Using a recently developed semi-quantitative 

methodology known as the productivity susceptibility analysis (Patrick et al. 2010), A. ocellaris

and A. clarkii were assessed and both were rated as highly vulnerable due to their low 

productivity and high susceptibility to capture for the aquarium fishery. While this is 

informative, it is difficult to determine if these results are indicative of the status of A. percula as 

well due to several important differences including the species’ range and levels of exploitation 

in countries where they occur. While all of these analyses are specific to the threat of fishing 

pressure (which is not the only threat facing A. percula), they assess the life history 

characteristics of the species (or similar species) and determine how those characteristics may 

affect its response to population reduction, which is informative in the case of sources of 

mortality besides fishing pressure. As such, we consider the species-specific results to be 

reliable indicators of the species’ resilience overall. 

Geographic Range

Clownfish first appeared and diversified in the Indo-Australian Archipelago (Litsios et al. 2014). 

The orange clownfish is native to the Indo-Pacific region (Rosenberg and Cruz 1988), from 6o S 

- 26o S, 141o E - 155o E. Range countries include northern Queensland (Australia), the northern 

coast of West Papua, northern Papua New Guinea (including New Britain), the Solomon Islands, 

and Vanuatu (Rosenberg and Cruz 1988; Fautin and Allen 1997; De Brauwer 2014) (see Fig. 2). 

There are reports of A. percula occurring beyond these areas, including in the Andaman and 

Nicobar Islands off southeast India (Madhu and Madhu 2006); Tomini Bay in Sulawesi, 

Indonesia (Kuiter and Tonozuka 2004, cited by Timm et al. 2008); Cocos (Keeling) Islands and 

Christmas Island in the eastern Indian Ocean; Fiji; Micronesia; and as far north as the Ryukyu 

Islands in the East China Sea (Thornhill 2012). However, these reports are most likely cases of 

misidentification of A. ocellaris (Maarten De Brauwer, pers. comm. 2015), or indicative of a 

potential third, cryptic species in the species complex that has yet to be described. 

Phylogenetic analysis from Timm et al. (2008) shows that specimens from Tomini Bay 

(Sulawesi, Indonesia) belong to the A. percula clade, but were genetically distinct from A. 

percula sampled within the known range of the species at the sub-clade level. These results 

suggest the possibility of a third, cryptic species present within the A. ocellaris/percula species 

complex, which is not concordant to the current taxonomy. More genetic analyses are required 

to determine whether the range of A. percula is more extensive than what has been described 

previously or if a third cryptic species does exist. The existence of a third species would not 

affect our analyses here as we have not considered the geographic area where this third species 
11

might exist to be part of the range of A. percula. If further genetic research indicates there is no 

third species and the range of A. percula extends beyond what we have analyzed here, we could 

consider our conclusions to be conservative underestimates of range size and abundance. For the 

purposes of this analysis, we did not speculate as to which scenario is more likely; rather, we 

used the best available scientific and commercial information to determine the species’ current 

range. 

Overall, the area of coral reef habitat within the range of A. percula, based on satellite imagery 

and classification, is estimated between 36,000 km2 and 50,000 km2 (Burke et al. 2011; De 

Brauwer 2014 citing Fautin and Allen 1992 and Spalding et al. 2001). We are unable to provide 

an estimate of the non-coral reef habitat within the species’ range including sandy patches 

between patch reefs, parts of lagoons, and seagrass beds. As such, the likely area where A. 

percula occurs is actually much greater and thus the estimated area is likely an underestimate.

Distribution and Connectivity

Distribution within Reef Habitats

The distribution of suitable host anemone species essentially dictates the distribution of A. 

percula within its habitat (Elliott and Mariscal 2001). Although competition with other 

anemonefish species may lead to finer-scale niche differentiation as previously described. 

Heteractis crispa, H. magnifica, and S. gigantea range throughout and beyond A. percula’s 

geographic extent. Stichodactyla haddoni occurs in Australia and Papua New Guinea, but has 

not yet officially been recorded in Vanuatu or the Solomon Islands, and S. mertensii officially 

has been recorded only from Australia within A. percula’s range (Fautin and Allen 1997; Fautin 

2013). However, two recent observations extended the known distribution of S. haddoni, both 

northward and southward, indicating they have the ability to expand in range and facilitate the 

expanded occurrence of commensal species (Hobbs et al. 2014; Scott et al. 2014). Anecdotally, 

there are photo images and video footage of S. haddoni and S. mertensii in the Solomon Islands, 

Vanuatu, and Papua New Guinea (e.g., Shutterstock (Vanuatu, Solomon Islands), National 

Geographic (Solomon Islands), and Getty Images (Papua New Guinea)). Species experts, 

however, have not officially confirmed these reports.

Although geographically widespread, anemone species differ in their preferred habitat (e.g., reef 

zonation, substrate, depth (Fautin 1981)). Hattori (2006) found that H. crispa individuals were 

larger along reef edges and smaller in shallow inner reef flats. The larger anemones on reef 

edges experienced higher growth, probably because deeper (up to 4 m) reef edges provide more 

prey and lower levels of physiological stress. The author speculates that habitat and depth ideal 

for high anemone growth will vary by study site and occur at depths where there is a balance 

between available sunlight to allow for photosynthesis and low physiological stress, both of 

which are dependent on site-specific environmental conditions. Elliott and Mariscal (2001) 

found that coexistence of multiple clownfish species in close proximity is possible because of 

differences in their host anemone preference and differences in their habitat utilization. For 

example, in Madang, Papua New Guinea, both A. percula and A. perideraion primarily occupied 

H. magnifica hosts, but A. percula dominated H. magnifica in the nearshore zone while A. 

perideraion dominated in the offshore zone. 
12

It is difficult to generalize the likely distribution, abundance, and trends of anemone hosts 

throughout the range of A. percula; these parameters are likely highly variable across the 

species’ range. In an assessment done throughout the Great Barrier Reef, anemones, including 

those that host A. percula, were quantified as “common” (Roelofs and Silcock 2008). On the 

other hand, Jones et al. (2008) and De Brauwer et al. (in prep) note that anemones occur in 

relatively low densities throughout their range. Based on the available information, it is difficult 

to generalize the likely distribution of anemones, and therefore A. percula in coral reef 

environments throughout its range; it is likely to be variable and dependent on local 

environmental conditions. At least one study indicates that A. percula may prefer nearshore or 

shallower habitats (Elliott and Mariscal 2001).

Dispersal and Connectivity

Because orange clownfish are unable to migrate from one coral reef to another during their adult 

life stage, dispersal between reefs is limited to the species’ approximately 8-12 day pelagic larval 

stage. There is support that simply having a pelagic larval phase can lead to some degree of 

long-range dispersal for species (Saenz-Agudelo et al. 2012; Treml et al. 2012). Pelagic larval 

duration is likely to be a strong predictor of dispersal distances (Shanks et al. 2003), although no 

direct evidence exists where both dispersal distance and pelagic larval duration have been 

measured. On the other hand, in a review of research on connectivity on coral reefs, Jones et al.

(2009) conclude that variation in self-recruitment estimates within fish and coral species is more 

likely influenced by geographic isolation and spacing of reefs than pelagic larval duration, a 

conclusion supported by Pinsky et al. (2012). Williams and Hastings (2013) highlight the 

significance of temporally variable fluid dynamic processes leading to stochastic dispersal events 

for marine organisms. 

Despite evidence correlating pelagic larval duration with dispersal distance, it has typically been 

a poor predictor of genetic similarity (Bay et al. 2006; Bowen et al. 2006; Weersing and Toonen 

2009) and genetic population structure (Bay et al. 2006; Bowen et al. 2006; Luiz et al. 2012). 

Because small pelagic larvae are extremely difficult to track in the open ocean, population 

genetics is a useful technique to evaluate gene flow and connectivity between populations of 

coral reef associated organisms. Measuring self-recruitment rates in particular helps us to 

understand small scale connectivity in meta-populations of reef fish like A. percula. Using larval 

tagging, Almany et al. (2007) estimated that 60% of larvae they tagged around Kimbe Island, 

Papua New Guinea were spawned at Kimbe Island (self-recruiters) and the remaining 40% of 

tagged larvae were from reefs outside the study area, the closest of which is 10 km away. Using 

genetic parentage analysis, Planes et al. (2009) documented 42% self-recruitment for A. percula

at Kimbe Island and found that the Kimbe Island population produced larvae that successfully 

dispersed to other populations 15-35 km away, revealing significant demographic connectivity. 

Based on these data (Planes et al. 2009), Buston et al. (2012) found the probability of successful 

dispersal between populations decreasing fivefold over 1 km of distance from a natal site. In yet 

another study, a total of 110 juvenile orange clownfish collected on Kimbe Island were screened,

again using genetic parentage analysis; 46 were assigned to parents on Kimbe Island (“selfrecruiters”) and the remaining 64 were classified as “immigrants” that arrived from another reef 

at least 10 km away (Berumen et al. 2010). Overall, while A. percula dispersal between reef 

groups in Kimbe Bay appears variable over time (Berumen et al. 2012), the above studies’ 

findings consistently indicate that self-recruitment around Kimbe Island ranges from 42-60%, 
13

and there exists significant connectivity at the scale of 10s of km for A. percula. Anemonefish 

larvae possess significant locomotory and sensory abilities that may help them avoid dispersal 

away from the sensory halo of Kimbe Island (Fisher et al. 2000; Dixson et al. 2008); however, 

other factors, presumably including local current patterns, must also influence larval dispersal, to 

some degree (Berumen et al. 2012). While A. percula populations in Kimbe Bay have been well 

studied, it is unclear how representative these results may be of other areas within the species’ 

range. In addition to the density of A. percula likely being highest in Kimbe Bay and nearby 

areas, aspects of the geographical setting that influence dispersal will also vary among sites 

across the species’ range, leading to variable levels of self-recruitment. 

Research on congeners of A. percula has revealed similar variability in levels of self-recruitment 

at different locations. For example, along 28 km of coastline near Port Moresby, Papua New 

Guinea, study results showed highly variable levels of self-recruitment of A. polymnus among 

sites, but overall low observed self-recruitment rates, a high proportion of connectivity among 

sites, and a relatively high proportion of long-distance dispersal. This led to the conclusion that 

connectivity, not self-recruitment, dominates larval replenishment in this focal clownfish metapopulation (Saenz-Agudelo et al. 2011). The authors noted that differences in self-recruitment 

rates among sites within the meta-population were likely linked to different localized 

geographies that affect access and proximity to alongshore current flows (Saenz-Agudelo et al.

2011). In contrast, Jones et al. (2005) found high levels of self-recruitment for A. polymnus at 

sites within Kimbe Bay, which supports the notion that the level of self-recruitment in a metapopulation likely depends on the level of geographic isolation. Another congener, A. melanopus, 

was included in a list of species studied on the Great Barrier Reef and found to have generally 

high genetic diversity that did not differ significantly among species and locations (Bay et al.

2006). Additionally, genetic parentage analysis of A. bicintus in the Red Sea found minimal to 

no self-recruitment in two consecutive years, indicating a virtually open population over several 

kilometers (Nanninga 2013). Moreover, van der Meer et al. (2012) report 68-84% selfrecruitment at three island marine protected areas in Australia for the endemic A. mccullochi, 

while self-recruitment for A. ocellaris and A. perideraion ranged from 44-65% among sites and 

sampling periods in the Spermonde Archipelago, Indonesia (Madduppa et al. 2014). The 

variability in self-recruitment rates among these species and populations is likely to be driven by 

the variable nature of the geographical settings of the different study locations. In wellconnected populations, self-recruits are diffused by immigrants; the opposite is true for 

geographically isolated populations that tend to show higher rates of self-recruitment.

On a larger geographic scale, Treml et al. (2012), hypothesize that broad-scale connectivity is 

strongly influenced by reproductive output and length of pelagic larval duration based on a 

biophysical model of larval dispersal. However, there are limitations to this approach when 

considering species that actively swim during their pelagic larval phase, like some anemonefish, 

rather than passively disperse. This is evidenced by the fact that, for several clownfish species, 

there have been conflicting results regarding whether regional ocean currents are a good 

predictor of phylogeographic structure and, therefore, whether such passive dispersal modeling 

based on ocean currents is informative. For example, Nelson et al. (2000) mapped the 

phylogeography of A. ocellaris across its range and found that surface ocean currents in the 

region, which should influence larval dispersal, were poorly correlated with phylogeographic 

structure. Instead, A. ocellaris phylogeography is more reminiscent of Pleistocene sea level 

changes and flooding of the Sunda shelf. Omani clownfish populations on the other hand, 
14

separated by over 400 km, were found to be connected in both directions using genetic 

assignment tests; this long-distance dispersal matched predictions from a dispersal model based 

on oceanographic currents, demonstrating that simple physically forced models can give valuable 

predictions for realized patterns of connectivity in some cases (Simpson et al. 2014). 

In the absence of a broad-scale phylogeographic study for A. percula, we are left with smallscale meta-population connectivity studies as the best available information. Results from 

studies in Kimbe Bay, Papua New Guinea, indicate that A. percula have the ability to disperse at 

least up to 35 km away from natal areas (Planes et al. 2009). In addition, there is evidence that 

rates of self-recruitment are likely to be linked with not only pelagic larval duration, but also 

geographical isolation (Jones et al. 2009; Pinsky et al. 2012). Because of the size and 

distribution of A. percula’s range, there are likely areas of higher and lower connectivity 

throughout, linked with the variability in geographic isolation across locations, creating 

significant spatial structure. This is, however, speculative because no large-scale connectivity 

study has been conducted for this species. 

Based on the best available information, we consider that the species is likely to have highly 

variable small scale connectivity among and between meta-populations, but unknown large scale 

genetic structure across its entire range. 

Estimated Abundance

Based on the best available information, densities of meta-populations of A. percula are highly 

variable throughout the species’ range. Densities are highest in the northern region of Papua 

New Guinea, which has the greatest reported species diversity and densities of both 

anemonefishes and anemones (Elliott and Mariscal 2001). In Madang, Papua New Guinea, 

Elliott and Mariscal (2001) estimated the total density of A. percula at approximately 0.79 fish 

per 100 m2

, or approximately 7,900 individuals per km2 of reef area. In Kimbe Bay, Papua New 

Guinea, Planes et al. (2009) counted 975 individuals (506 adults and 469 juveniles) in 270 

anemones in a 1 km2area of reef. Density of A. percula is lower at survey locations in the 

Solomon Islands and Australia than Papua New Guinea sites (Maarten De Brauwer, pers. comm. 

2015). De Brauwer (2014) determined an average density for the species within its range from 

658 surveys across 205 sites throughout the species’ range. He calculated the global estimated 

mean density at 0.09 fish per 250 m2, or 360 fish per km2.

With no existing estimate of global abundance for A. percula, we estimated, based on the best 

available information a total of 13-18 million individuals for the species throughout its range. 

Acknowledging that density estimates for A. percula are highly variable throughout the species’ 

range, we used De Brauwer’s (2014) estimated average density of 360 fish per km2 to derive 

global abundance. In order to extrapolate this average density to estimate abundance, we used 

two different estimates of coral reef area within the species’ range. De Brauwer (2014) 

estimated 36,000 km2 of coral reef area within the species’ range based on Fautin and Allen 

(1992, 1997) and Spalding et al. (2001). We also used newer coral reef mapping data from 

Burke et al. (2011; ArcGIS shapefiles of coral reef area provided by K. Reytar) resulting in an 

estimate of approximately 50,000 km2 of coral reef area within A. percula’s range. We used both 

values to determine a range of estimated abundance (13-18 million) to reflect uncertainty. It is 

important to note that this may be an underestimate because it is based on coral reef area, which 

likely does not account for most of the non-reef area where the species occurs throughout its 
15

range. We found no information on historic abundance or recent population trends for A. 

percula throughout all or part of its range. 

ASSESSMENT OF EXTINCTION RISK

Approach to Evaluating Extinction Risk

In evaluating extinction risk to the species, we identified the four demographic risk factors 

suggested by Wainwright and Kope (1999) and McElhany et al. (2000), as well as the threat 

factors identified in section 4 of the ESA. The four demographic viability risk criteria, 

considered at the species level include: abundance, growth rate/productivity, spatial 

structure/connectivity, and diversity. These viability criteria reflect concepts that are well 

founded in conservation biology and that individually and collectively provide strong indicators 

of extinction risk. The approach of considering demographic risk factors to help frame the 

consideration of extinction risk has been used in many status reviews including Pacific 

salmonids, Pacific hake, walleye pollock, Pacific cod, Puget Sound rockfishes, Pacific herring, 

scalloped hammerhead sharks and black abalone.2

 In addition to these factors, we considered the 

five threat factors listed in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. Based on all of this information, we 

describe the likely level of extinction risk faced by the orange clownfish both now and in the 

foreseeable future (defined below). 

Because information on the orange clownfish is sparse and often non-quantitative, we used

qualitative risk categories to characterize the likelihoods of the four demographic viability 

criteria significantly contributing to extinction risk: very low, low, medium, high or unknown. In 

addition, because some threats to the orange clownfish are either poorly understood or 

unquantifiable, we characterized the relative likelihood (as very low, low, medium, high, or 

unknown) that threats (confirmed, potential or assumed) are significantly contributing to 

extinction risk for A. percula. We do not make recommendations as to whether the species 

should be listed as threatened or endangered. Rather, conclusions are drawn about the overall 

risk of extinction faced by the species under present conditions and in the foreseeable future 

based on an evaluation of the species’ demographic risks and threats. 

Although the orange clownfish is not officially listed under the IUCN Red List of Threatened 

Species, De Brauwer (2014) assessed extinction risk for all anemonefish species using the IUCN 

Red List criteria. De Brauwer used multiple methods to calculate values for each criterion (18 

methods in total to calculate different values for the 4 criteria) and A. percula was most 

commonly assigned to the “Least Concern” category. The Least Concern category is used to 

highlight species that have a relatively low extinction risk compared with those taxa that are 

assessed as Near Threatened, Threatened, Endangered or Critically Endangered. For De

Brauwer (2014), the only scenario where A. percula was conservatively assigned to a higher 

IUCN risk category (“Endangered”) resulted from one of the methods he used to calculate the 

area of occupancy. Using this most conservative method to determine area of occupancy to 

 2 See http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ for links to these reviews.
16

assess risk of extinction for all anemonefish, 20 species could potentially be classified as 

Endangered and 8 species as Critically Endangered (De Brauwer 2014). Although IUCN Red 

List criteria differ from how we assess species under the ESA, it is a useful exercise to inform 

our analysis of A. percula’s risk of extinction. Risk classifications by other organizations, or 

made under other Federal or state statutes, may be informative, but the classification alone may 

not provide the rationale for evaluating species status under the ESA. Rather, we evaluate the 

sources of information on which the classification is based and determine how this information 

informs our assessment of extinction risk and whether a species meets the definition of 

threatened or endangered under the ESA. 

According to the ESA, the determination of whether a species is threatened or endangered should 

be made on the basis of the best scientific information available regarding its current status, after 

taking into account efforts being made to protect the species. During the extinction risk 

assessment, likely or possible effects of conservation measures are taken into account to the 

extent they are reflected in metrics of population or species viability. Conservation measures 

that have not yet been implemented or shown to be effective are taken into account in a separate 

process by NMFS prior to proposing any listing determinations. In the last part of this section, 

we summarize the conservation efforts that are currently in place that may be benefiting the 

orange clownfish so that NMFS can consider them before making a listing determination. 

Foreseeable Future

The term “foreseeable future” is not defined in the ESA. The NMFS guidance for conducting 

status reviews under the ESA instructs us to interpret this phrase as the timeframe over which 

predictions about the future conservation status of the species can be reasonably relied upon 

(NMFS 2013). Those predictions can be in the form of extrapolation of population or threat 

trends, analysis of how threats will affect the status of the species, or assessment of future events 

that will have a significant new impact on the species. We consider the life history of the 

species, habitat characteristics, availability of data, kinds of threats, ability to predict threats, and 

the reliability of models used to forecast threats over that “foreseeable future” in determining the 

time period that constitutes the foreseeable future. This approach does not limit the time frame 

under consideration to the length of time into the future for which a species’ status can be 

quantitatively modeled or predicted within predetermined limits of statistical confidence, 

although uncertainties of any modeling efforts should be documented. Because a species may be 

susceptible to a variety of threats for which different data are available or which operate across 

different time scales, the foreseeable future is not necessarily reducible to a particular number of 

years. Thus, we may describe the foreseeable future in general or qualitative terms. 

In our consideration of the foreseeable future for this status review, we evaluated how far into 

the future we could reliably predict the operation of the major threats to this species, as well as 

the species’ response to those threats. We are reasonably confident in our ability to predict out 

several decades in assessing all threats listed below and their interaction with the life history of 

the orange clownfish. We considered generation length to reflect turnover of breeding 

individuals and account for non-breeding older individuals. Estimates for generation length, 

which is greater than first age of breeding but lower than the oldest breeding individual (IUCN 

2015), of the orange clownfish range between 6 and 15 years. Therefore, we conservatively 

define the foreseeable future as 30 years from the present, which is based on 2-3 generation 
17

lengths as well as the estimated lifespan of the orange clownfish. We note that, while we may 

have information with which to predict the trajectory of a particular threat into the future for a 

defined amount of time (e.g., climate projections out to the year 2100), we may lack information 

on the species’ response to that threat over the same time period, and therefore do not extend the 

foreseeable future as far as we can predict the trajectory of such a threat. 

Demographic Risks

Summarized below are various demographic risks to the viability of A. percula. As mentioned 

previously, we conducted a qualitative assessment of the overall status of the species using four 

demographic viability risk criteria: abundance, population growth rate/productivity, spatial 

structure/connectivity, and diversity. The relative likelihood that each particular demographic 

factor contributes, or will contribute in the foreseeable future as defined above, in a significant 

way to extinction risk of the species is summarized at the end of this section (Table 1) according 

to the following scale: 

(1) Very low – it is very unlikely that the particular factor contributes or will contribute 

significantly to risk of extinction; 

(2) Low – it is unlikely that the particular factor contributes or will contribute 

significantly to risk of extinction; 

(3) Medium – it is likely the particular factor contributes or will contribute significantly 

to risk of extinction; and, 

(4) High – it is highly likely that the particular factor contributes or will contribute 

significantly to risk of extinction. 

(5) Unknown – it is unknown how the particular factor contributes or will contribute to 

risk of extinction. 

(Note: The term “significantly” is used here as it is generally defined – i.e., in a 

sufficiently great or important way as to be worthy of attention.)

If there was some uncertainty between two of the qualitative categories for any particular 

demographic factor, and/or uncertainty in the available information for that factor, we 

conservatively assigned it to the higher level of likelihood out of the two. 

Abundance

In general, very low levels of a species’ abundance and density may cause difficulty in mate 

choice; sex-ratios; fertilization and recruitment success; reproductive or courting behaviors;

foraging success; and predator avoidance behaviors. There are no global historical or current 

abundance estimates for A. percula in the literature. However, we estimate global, wild 

population abundance for A. percula to be approximately 13-18 million individuals based on De 

Brauwer (2014) and estimates of total habitat area. We believe this estimate to be a conservative 

estimate for reasons discussed in section 2.9 above. 

Based on our estimate of global abundance and information gleaned from the literature on the 

reproductive strategy of the species, we determined that the species’ abundance is not so low that 

it is at risk of extinction due to environmental variation, anthropogenic perturbations or 

demographic stochasticity. Amphiprion percula’s reproductive strategy is not dependent on 

finding a mate or affected by sex ratios, so depensatory processes are not of great concern. An 
18

abundance of 13-18 million individuals is sufficiently high to provide genetic diversity, which is 

supported by results from several studies of connectivity for the species (Almany et al. 2007; 

Planes et al. 2009; Berumen et al. 2012; Buston et al. 2012). We found no evidence that the 

species is not fulfilling its ecological role due to low abundance in any part of its range. While 

we acknowledge that there is uncertainty associated with our estimate of population abundance, 

it was determined based on the best available information (De Brauwer 2014) and is deemed 

conservative as it does not encompass areas such as seagrass beds known to harbor significant 

numbers of anemones with anemonefish, especially in Papua New Guinea (Colette Wabnitz, 

pers. comm. 2015). Overall, the best available information indicates that the estimated current 

global, wild abundance of A. percula is unlikely to be contributing to the extinction risk of the 

species.

Population Growth Rate / Productivity

Amphiprion percula are estimated to have a minimum population doubling time of less than 15 

months (Florida Museum of Natural History 2005; Fishbase.org 2015), and low vulnerability to 

fishing based on biological and life history parameters (Cheung et al. 2005; Fishbase.org 2015). 

Natural mortality for juveniles and adults is low, ranging from 2% (Elliott and Mariscal 2001) to 

~7% for ranks 1-3 and ~30% for ranks 4-6 (Buston 2003a). The species is also highly 

productive and can spawn monthly, with an individual laying from 100 to over 1000 eggs during 

each spawning session, depending on fish size and previous experience (Fautin and Allen 1997). 

There are currently no data that provide an estimate of how long orange clownfish spawn during 

their life span. 

We do not know the recent or historical trend of the global population of orange clownfish and 

therefore cannot estimate an overall population growth rate or decline. However, their high 

fecundity in combination with low juvenile and adult mortality and estimated minimum

population doubling time of 15 months all indicate that populations are likely to be resilient to 

periodic disturbances. It is important to note that the suitable number of host anemones, not 

availability of new anemonefish recruits, is what limits anemonefish populations (Fautin and 

Allen 1997). This notion is supported by the observation in Madang Lagoon, Papua New Guinea 

in 1997 that when non-breeders were removed they were rapidly replaced (Buston 2003c),

indicating that the population was basically at carrying capacity. We recognize that, based on 

this limitation, the population growth rate and status of A. percula is very closely linked to the 

population status of its host anemone species. However, because data on anemones are virtually 

non-existent, it is difficult to generalize the likely distribution, abundance, and trends of A. 

percula’s anemone hosts, as described above in section 2.8. We use the best available 

information to assess threats to host anemones below in section 3.3.1. Based on the conclusion 

below in section 3.3.1 in combination with the best available information presented here, we 

determined that population growth rate/productivity of A. percula is unlikely contributing to 

extinction risk for the species.

Spatial Structure / Connectivity

We can consider spatial structure for A. percula on different scales and have variable amounts of 

evidence to inform each level of assessment. As described above, multiple DNA parentage 

analyses have been conducted in and around Kimbe Bay, Papua New Guinea, that offer some 

insight into meta-population connectivity for this species in those locations. Self-recruitment 
19

rates range from 40% to over 60% (Almany et al. 2007; Planes et al. 2009; Buston et al. 2012). 

In one study, up to 10% of A. percula larvae were long distance migrants that successfully 

recruited to reefs up to 35 km away (Planes et al. 2009). This was originally the longest direct 

measure of larval dispersal distance for any marine fish species reported using the genetic 

parentage methodology until Simpson et al. (2014) reported Omani clownfish (A. omanensis) 

migrating over 400 km from their natal origins. It also demonstrates significant demographic 

connectivity within Kimbe Bay. These results are also consistent with more general biophysical 

modeling for the tropical western Pacific region, which suggests high levels of connectivity in 

regions where reefs are only 20-30 km apart, including for species with a wide range of pelagic 

larval durations (Treml et al. 2008). Connectivity information for congeners that inhabit the 

same areas and habitat types support the variability reported in self-recruitment and high 

connectivity of meta-populations (Bay et al. 2006; Saenz-Agudelo et al. 2011; van der Meer et 

al. 2012; Nanninga 2013; Madduppa et al. 2014; and Saenz-Agudelo et al. 2015). As reported 

earlier, connectivity and self-recruitment rates for meta-populations are likely based on local 

geographic settings (Jones et al. 2009) and environmental conditions, which explains the 

variability between study sites in different locations.

On a broader geographic scale, Timm et al. (2008) report that the close relatedness of genetic 

samples of A. percula from sites in New Britain (Papua New Guinea) and the Solomon Islands 

could indicate connectivity in a southeast direction, at least historically. However, it remains 

unclear how closely related individuals from various parts of the species’ range are on a broad 

scale currently; there may be some dispersal barriers within the range of A. percula of variable 

strength (Treml et al. 2015). We have insufficient genetic information to identify whether 

critical source populations exist; this epistemic uncertainty can only be reduced through further 

research. 

Amphiprion percula’s spatial structure appears to consist of a series of meta-populations 

throughout the species’ range that have variable rates of both internal and external connectivity 

likely linked to varying degrees of geographic isolation. The best available information indicates 

that at a local scale, A. percula meta-populations experience variable levels of self-recruitment 

related to geographic isolation but can disperse up to 35 km away from their origins. Globally, 

however, there is no information available on the overall spatial and genetic structure for the 

species. Therefore, we conclude that the level to which spatial structure and connectivity is 

likely to be a factor contributing to extinction risk for A. percula is unknown.

Diversity

The loss of diversity can reduce a species’ reproductive fitness, fecundity, and survival, thereby 

contributing to declines in abundance and population growth rate and increasing extinction risk 

(e.g., Gilpin and Soulé 1986). There is some uncertainty, however, as to whether the loss of 

diversity by itself confers risk of extinction (see Brook et al. 2002). Although the loss of 

diversity certainly increases extinction risk through its compounding effects on other 

demographic factors, it is argued by some that the loss of diversity by itself plays a relatively 

minor role in extinctions. The loss of diversity can help bring species to a high risk status, but 

other demographic or environmental factors usually play the direct role in causing extinctions 

(Lande 1988; Caro and Laurenson 1994; Caughley 1994; Dobson 1999). 
20

For A. percula, we found no evidence that genetic diversity is a factor limiting the success of the 

species and contributing to extinction risk. Meta-populations of this species exhibit variable 

levels of connectivity that appear sufficient to maintain genetic diversity. Heterogeneity of 

habitats across the species’ range also likely leads to behavioral or physiological adaptations to 

local environmental conditions, thereby increasing diversity. Examples may be preference for 

one anemone species over another, preference for anemones that are nearshore versus offshore, 

or other local behavioral and/or physiological adaptations. In addition, a mixture of genetic and 

environmental factors usually causes phenotypic diversity; clownfish species often exhibit 

geographical color morphs or other phenotypic diversity (Moyer 1976). Militz (2015) reports a 

broad diversity in color forms for A. percula in Kavieng, New Ireland, Papua New Guinea 

including variation in the width of the black border along its white bars (also observed by Timm 

et al. 2008) or “mis-barred” individuals that have some variation in vertical white bars from the 

norm for the species. Based on genetic and phenotypic diversity exhibited by the species, we 

conclude that genetic diversity is unlikely to be contributing to extinction risk for A. percula. 

Based on the best available information/data, we assigned a low likelihood to three of the four 

demographic risk factors because we determined they are unlikely to contribute significantly to 

extinction risk for A. percula both now and in the foreseeable future. On a local scale, spatial 

structure and connectivity do not appear to be a cause for concern for this species but, because 

global genetic structure is unknown, we cannot assign a likelihood that this factor is contributing 

to extinction risk for A. percula. 

Analysis of the ESA Section 4(A)(1) Factors

According to section 4 of the ESA, the Secretary determines whether a species is threatened or 

endangered as a result of any of the following five factors: (A) Present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; (B) overutilization; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors. 

Collectively, these five factors are referred to here as “threats.” The following sections provide 

information on the threats from each of these five factors as they relate to the status of the orange 

clownfish. The likelihood that each particular threat is contributing to extinction risk for the

orange clownfish is summarized at the end of this section (Table 2) according to a qualitative 

scale:

(1) Very low – it is very unlikely that the particular threat contributes or will contribute 

significantly to risk of extinction; 

(2) Low – it is unlikely that the particular threat contributes or will contribute 

significantly to risk of extinction; 

(3) Medium – it is likely the particular threat contributes or will contribute significantly 

to risk of extinction; and, 

(4) High – it is highly likely that the particular threat contributes or will contribute 

significantly to risk of extinction.

(5) Unknown – it is unknown how the particular factor contributes or will contribute to 

risk of extinction. 

(Note: The term “significantly” is used here as it is generally defined, the same way it is 

used under section 3.2 – i.e., in a sufficiently great or important way as to be worthy of 

attention.)
21

If there was some uncertainty between two of the qualitative categories for any particular threat 

and/or uncertainty in the future projections or impacts of the threat, we conservatively assigned it 

to the higher level of concern. 

Factor A: Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification or Curtailment of Habitat or 

Range

Anemone Bleaching 

Amphiprion percula is described as a habitat specialist due to its symbiotic association primarily 

with three species of anemone: Heteractis crispa, H. magnifica, and Stichodactyla gigantea

(Ollerton et al. 2007), although the species has also been reported associating with S. mertensii

(Elliott and Mariscal 2001) and S. haddoni (Planes et al. 2009). As habitat specialists, the 

symbiotic relationship between A. percula and its host anemone makes this species indirectly 

susceptible to threats that are likely to impact its host anemone. Anemones and their symbiotic 

anemonefish inhabit coral reefs and nearby habitats such as lagoons, seagrass beds, and sand 

flats (Fautin and Allen 1997). NMFS recently reviewed and summarized the best available 

scientific information on the effects of climate change on corals and coral reefs in the final rule 

listing 20 coral species as threatened (79 FR 53851). 

In summary, increased ocean temperatures are already affecting coral reef communities 

worldwide and will continue to do so. While all model results provide evidence that coral reef 

communities will be negatively affected in the future, the magnitude of those effects varies 

widely over both spatial and temporal scales. Coral reefs and other nearshore areas are highly 

heterogeneous habitats that experience yearly, seasonal, daily, and even more frequent 

fluctuations in environmental conditions. While some models suggest disastrous effects of 

climate change on coral reefs by the year 2100, such projections are based on spatially coarse 

analyses associated with high uncertainty, especially at local spatial scales. In addition, the 

majority of relevant studies use models based on temperature anomalies and thresholds only; 

however, McClanahan et al. (2015) found that temperature threshold indices had weak or no 

significant relationship with observed coral cover and susceptibility before, during, and after a 

major bleaching event. A more comprehensive multiple parameter approach showed significant 

fit with those field observations, indicating heterogeneous environmental causes and responses to 

climate disturbances and warming over space and time. Determining the effects of global threats 

on an individual coral species over the foreseeable future was described in the coral final listing 

rule as complicated by the combination of (1) uncertainty associated with projected ocean 

warming and acidification threats; (2) regional and local variability in global threats; (3) large 

distributions and high habitat heterogeneity of the species; and (4) limited species-specific 

information on responses to global threats. These complicating factors also apply to determining 

the effects of future climate change on anemone species that host A. percula. The limited 

available information for anemones is described below.

Just like corals, anemones have symbiotic relationships with microscopic algae known as 

zooxanthellae. Because of this symbiosis, they are susceptible to thermally-induced bleaching, 

during which those symbionts are expelled due to thermal stress (Hill and Scott 2012). Anemone 

vulnerability to bleaching events is dependent on susceptibility, exposure, and adaptive capacity 
22

or response, each of which are influenced by a host of biological and environmental factors, 

differ across species and locations, and can change over time (Hobbs et al. 2013). 

Bleaching events may affect host anemone species by causing reductions in abundance of 

anemone populations and/or a reduction in size of bleached anemones (Hattori 2002; SaenzAgudelo et al. 2011; Hill and Scott 2012). The degree of impact of such bleaching events varies 

widely. Following a mass bleaching event off Sesoko Island, Japan, the number of observed H. 

crispa hosts decreased by over 80% (Hattori 2002). In comparison, near Port Moresby, Papua 

New Guinea, a bleaching event resulted in the loss of 3 out of 55 S. haddoni and H. crispa

anemones and a reduction in size of the bleached anemones by approximately 34% (SaenzAgudelo et al. 2011). While reductions in size were evident in shallower waters at the Papua 

New Guinea site, anemones found at depths >7 m were not affected by the bleaching and 

researchers noted that all remaining impacted anemones recovered full pigmentation two years 

after the bleaching event (Saenz-Agudelo et al. 2011). Variable impacts to anemonefish 

assemblages in response to anemone bleaching events have also been reported. These range

from the local extinction of one species of Amphiprion due to displacement by another 

Amphiprion species at one site (Hattori 2002), to only short-term changes in female egg 

production and recruitment at a different site (Saenz-Agudelo et al. 2011).

The evidence described above, while limited, indicates that thermally-induced bleaching can 

have negative impacts on orange clownfish host anemones, which may lead to localized impacts 

of unknown magnitude on the fish itself. Evidence thus far indicates high variability in the 

response of both anemones and anemonefish to localized bleaching events. As noted above, 

susceptibility to thermal stress varies between different species of the same taxon and is often 

variable within individual species; as a result of habitat heterogeneity across a species’ range, 

individuals of the same species may develop in very different environmental conditions. Hobbs 

et al. (2013) compiled datasets that were collected between 2005 and 2012 across 276 sites at 19 

locations in the Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean, and Red Sea to examine taxonomic, spatial, and 

temporal patterns of anemone bleaching. Their results confirm that bleaching has been observed 

in 7 of the 10 anemone species that host anemonefish (including four of the five A. percula host 

species), with anecdotal reports of bleaching in the remaining 3 host anemone species. In 

addition, they report anemone bleaching at 10 of 19 survey locations that are geographically 

widespread. Importantly, they report considerable spatial and inter-specific variation in 

bleaching susceptibility across multiple major bleaching events (Hobbs et al. 2013). Over the 

entire timeframe and across all study areas, 3.5% of all anemones observed were bleached, 

although during major bleaching events, the percentage at a given study area ranged from 19-

100%. At sites within the same study area, bleaching ranged between as much as 0 and 94% 

during a single bleaching event. To further highlight the variability and uncertainty associated 

with anemone bleaching susceptibility, Hobbs et al. (2013) report opposite patterns of 

susceptibility for the same two species at the same site during two different bleaching events. 

Additionally, the study reports decreased bleaching with increased depth in most of the major 

bleaching events, indicating that depth, in some cases as shallow as 7 m, offers a refuge from 

bleaching (Hobbs et al. 2013). Some anemone species have even been reported from mesophotic 

depths, including one A. percula host species (H. crispa) (Bridge et al. 2012). These depths 

likely serve as refugia from thermal stress. Although the capacity for acclimation or adaptation 

in anemones is unknown, evidence from one site indicated that prior bleaching history may 

influence subsequent likelihood of an anemone bleaching, as previously bleached individuals 
23

were less likely to bleach a second time (Hobbs et al. 2013). It is also of note that, similar to 

corals, bleaching does not automatically lead to mortality for anemones. Hobbs et al. (2013) 

report variable consequences as a result of bleaching between and among species and locations 

in their assessment of bleaching for all anemone species that host anemonefish (including those 

that host A. percula); some species decreased in abundance and/or size after bleaching events, 

while others showed no effect and recovered fully. 

When considering the effect of anemone bleaching into the foreseeable future, we evaluated the 

best available information on future projections of warming-induced bleaching events, but also

considered the existing information on the impacts of previous bleaching events on anemones. 

Evidence suggests that bleaching events will continue to occur and become more severe and 

more frequent over the next few decades (van Hooidonk 2013). However, newer multivariate 

modeling approaches indicate that traditional temperature threshold models may not give an 

accurate picture of the likely outcomes of climate change for coral reefs, and impacts and 

responses will be highly nuanced and heterogeneous across space and time (McClanahan et al. 

2015). Although observed anemone bleaching has thus far been highly variable during localized 

events, the overall effect of bleaching events on anemones globally (i.e., overall proportion of 

observed anemones that have shown ill effects) has been of low magnitude at sites across their 

ranges, as only 3.5% of the nearly 14,000 observed anemones were recorded as bleached across 

19 study sites and multiple major bleaching events (Hobbs et al. 2013). The low overall effect

thus far, high amount of variability in anemone susceptibility, existence of depth refugia for 

anemones, evidence of potential acclimation in some species, and the fact that A. percula has 

been observed in the wild to associate with at least five different species of anemone that have 

shown different levels of susceptibility to bleaching in different locations and over time, are all 

factors that, in combination, indicate that A. percula is likely resilient to bleaching impacts that 

may affect their hosts both now and in the foreseeable future. As such, we conclude that the 

threat of habitat loss due to anemone bleaching has a low likelihood of contributing to extinction 

risk for A. percula now or in the foreseeable future. 

Anemone Collection 

Just like the fish they host, anemones are often collected for the marine aquarium trade. There 

has been a recent shift in home aquaria from fish-only tanks to tanks that recreate mini-reef 

environments with the inclusion of live invertebrates and corals, as well as live rock along with 

tropical reef fish (Murray and Watson 2014). In a survey of 314 home aquarium hobbyists, 39% 

indicated they have anemones in their tanks (Murray and Watson 2014). Thus far, there has been 

limited successful aquaculture of anemones for aquaria; Moe (2003) reports the results from a 

survey of hobbyists, scientists, and commercial breeders indicating several species have been 

successfully propagated (typically via asexual reproduction), but anemones typically thwart both 

scientific and hobbyist attempts at captive culture, especially on a large scale. As such, the vast 

majority of anemone specimens in the trade are currently from wild collection. There is little 

information available on the amount of collection or trade in wild anemones; none are listed 

under the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna 

(CITES), so import/export of these species does not require CITES documentation, which 

otherwise might be a source of information about the magnitude of trade. 

Limited information is available on the impacts of collection to anemone populations in 

Australia. Jones et al. (2008) surveyed two different regions of the Great Barrier Reef with 
24

contrasting disturbance histories to determine the degree to which densities of anemones and 

anemonefish are driven by bleaching and collection. They found that collection has likely 

exacerbated the effects of bleaching and other disturbances on anemones in the Keppel Islands 

region. In contrast, high densities of anemones and anemonefish were recorded in the Far North 

Queensland region where collection also occurs, but fewer other disturbances have occurred. 

The authors note that the Keppel Islands region is isolated from other reef areas, which likely 

affects its ability to recover from disturbances via input from nearby reefs. Amphiprion percula

does not occur as far south as the Keppel Islands region and is therefore not experiencing the 

declines in anemone hosts reported for this area. The species does occur within the Far North 

Queensland region, which has experienced fewer disturbances and shows higher densities of 

both anemones and anemonefish. Based on a combination of criteria including accessibility, 

habitat/ecological niche, distribution, and abundance, Roelofs and Silcock (2008) found that all 

anemone species had low vulnerability due to collection in the Queensland fishery; however, 

similar information is not available for other parts of A. percula’s range. While not in A. 

percula’s range, Shuman et al. (2005) surveyed reefs and obtained catch records from marine 

ornamental collectors over a four-month period in the vicinity of Cebu, Philippines. Data 

showed that anemonefish and anemones comprised close to 60% of the total catch, and 

collection of anemones reduced the density of anemonefish at those sites by over 80% compared 

to non-fished areas. While there was no information on anemone collection available from the 

Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, or Papua New Guinea (likely because these countries tend to focus 

on exporting fish vs. invertebrates), our assessment reveals that collection and export of 

aquarium reef species, including anemones, in these three countries is relatively small-scale at 

just a few sites scattered throughout large archipelagos. The industry appears limited by freight 

costs and other financial burdens, and in each country exports leave from the largest cities 

(Kinch 2008). As such, it seems unlikely that collection would expand to other areas within the 

species’ range and have more success. 

In summary, although there is little information available on the threat of anemone collection to 

A. percula globally, the aquarium trade collection information from countries within the species’ 

range indicates that fisheries in general are relatively small scale, and tend to focus on fish rather 

than invertebrates for export. As such, we do not deem this threat as a cause for concern for this 

species. There is no information to indicate that demand for wild harvested anemones will 

increase over the next few decades within the range of A. percula; although speculative, 

scientists and hobbyists are likely to continue to engage in attempts to propagate anemones in 

captivity, which may lead to lower demand for wild capture if successful. Because there is some 

uncertainty and a lack of specific information associated with this threat to A. percula, we 

conclude that the threat of habitat loss from anemone collection poses a low (instead of very low) 

likelihood of contributing to extinction risk for A. percula, both now and in the foreseeable 

future.

Sedimentation and Nutrient Enrichment 

Localized impacts to coral reef habitat from land-based sources of pollution causing increases in 

sedimentation and nutrient enrichment are another potential source of habitat alteration that 

could affect A. percula and its anemone hosts. To date, efforts to examine the direct and indirect 

effects of nutrients and sedimentation to the orange clownfish throughout its range are lacking. 

However, we can provide some general information on the impacts of sedimentation and nutrient 
25

enrichment on the coral reef habitats where A. percula occurs. Elevated sediment levels are 

generated by poor and/or destructive land use practices (e.g., slash and burn, logging) and coastal 

and nearshore construction. Sediments are then introduced into the ocean by a variety of 

mechanisms, including river discharge, surface runoff, groundwater seeps, and atmospheric 

deposition. The main vectors of anthropogenic nutrients are point-source discharges (such as 

rivers, treatment plants, septic leakage, or sewage outfalls) and surface runoff from modified 

watersheds. Natural processes, such as in situ nitrogen fixation and delivery of nutrient-rich 

deep water by internal waves and upwelling, also bring nutrients to coral reefs. Exposure to both 

sedimentation and nutrients is expected to increase with further expansion of human settlement 

along coastal margins and activities that generate sediment and nutrients. 

While information for anemones is sparse, we know that some coral species can tolerate 

complete burial in sediment for several days; however, those that are unsuccessful at removing

sediment may be smothered, resulting in mortality (Nugues and Roberts 2003). Sediment can 

also induce sub-lethal effects in corals, such as reductions in tissue thickness, polyp swelling, 

zooxanthellae loss, and excess mucus production (Rogers 1990). In addition, suspended 

sediment can reduce the amount of light in the water column, making less energy available for 

photosynthesis and growth. Again for corals, sedimentation and nutrient enrichment can have 

interactive effects with other stressors including disease and climate factors such as bleaching 

susceptibility and reduced calcification (Ateweberhan et al. 2013; Suggett et al. 2013). 

Wiedenmann et al. (2013) found that unfavorable ratios of dissolved inorganic nutrients in the 

water column led to phosphate starvation of symbiotic algae in corals, reducing their thermal 

tolerance. Cunning and Baker (2013) found higher nutrient loads can lead to higher densities of 

symbionts, and corals with higher densities of symbionts were more susceptible to bleaching. 

There is very little information available regarding the susceptibility and exposure of anemones 

to sedimentation and nutrients. In the absence of this information, we consider it reasonable to 

assume that the susceptibility of corals as a direct result of their association with symbiotic algae 

(described above) is an indicator of the potential susceptibility of anemones, since they share a 

similar association with microscopic algal symbionts. Exposure of host anemones is likely to be 

variable across the range of A. percula, with impacts being more acute in areas of high coastal 

development. 

In addition to the potential impacts to host anemones, Wenger et al. (2014) found in a controlled 

experiment that suspended sediment increased pelagic larval duration for A. percula. A longer 

pelagic larval duration may reduce the number of larvae that make it to the settlement stage 

because of the high rate of mortality during this phase. Conversely, in this study longer pelagic 

larval durations led to larvae that were larger with better body condition, traits that may confer 

advantages during the first few days of settlement when mortality is still high for those that do 

recruit to settlement habitat. As such, the overall impact of increased sedimentation at the 

population level is hard to predict. 

Distance is less of a moderating factor for nutrients than for sedimentation. Exposure to 

sedimentation can be moderated by distance of some habitats from areas where these impacts are

chronically or sporadically heavy, resulting in some habitats being unaffected or very lightly 

affected by sedimentation. However, nutrient enrichment can still result from inputs from even 

sparsely populated areas, and these nutrients can be quickly transported large distances. 
26

Similarly, although the depth of some habitats may also moderate nutrient exposure, nutrient 

impacts tend to extend deeper than sedimentation impacts. 

Land-based sources of pollution are of primary concern for nearshore marine habitats in areas 

where human populations live in coastal areas and engage in any or all of the following: 

intensive farming and aquaculture, urbanization and industrialization, greater shipping traffic and 

fishing effort, and deforestation and nearshore development, all of which are growing in 

Southeast Asia (e.g., Todd et al. 2010; Schneider et al. 2015) and the Indo-Pacific (e.g., Edinger 

et al. 1998; Edinger et al. 2000). The range of A. percula is largely outside of areas that are 

experiencing the most rapid growth and industrialization, such as Indonesia and the Philippines. 

Throughout the range of A. percula, there are thousands of islands, many of which are 

uninhabited or have small, sparse human populations leading traditional lifestyles. These remote 

locations are unlikely to suffer from much exposure to increased sedimentation or nutrients. 

Williams et al. (2015) showed decreases in reef fish biomass with increasing human population 

densities and highest biomass at uninhabited islands. Most of Australia’s reefs also lie far from 

large human populations. Even where there are population centers, notably along parts of the 

coast of Queensland, the reefs generally lie >30 km offshore (Burke et al. 2011). However, there 

is evidence that some of these remote and otherwise pristine areas in countries like Papua New 

Guinea and the Solomon Islands are targeted for intense or illegal logging and mining 

operations, which may be causing degradation of the nearshore environment, even in remote and 

uninhabited areas (e.g., Seed 1986; Kabutaulaka 2005). In a recent consensus statement, the 

Independent Science Panel of the Queensland Government declared that the decline of marine 

water quality associated with terrestrial runoff from the adjacent catchments is a major cause of 

the current poor state of many of the key marine ecosystems of the Great Barrier Reef (Brodie et 

al. 2013). The statement identifies agriculture as a diffuse source of excess nutrients, fine 

sediments and pesticides. 

Organisms in coral reef ecosystems, including clownfish, are likely to experience continuing 

effects from anthropogenic sources of sedimentation and nutrient enrichment at some level as 

economies continue to grow. However, to date, efforts to examine the direct and indirect effects 

of nutrients and sedimentation to the orange clownfish throughout its range are lacking. Landbased sources of pollution on reefs act at primarily local and sometimes regional levels, with 

direct linkages to human population and land-use within adjacent areas. Amphiprion percula

occur mostly in shallow reef areas and rarely migrate between anemone habitats as adults; these 

are traits that may make this species more susceptible to land-based sources of pollution in 

populated areas than other, more migratory or deeper-ranging reef fish. To account for the 

uncertainty associated with the magnitude of this threat, and consider the species’ traits that may 

increase its susceptibility and exposure, we conservatively assign a low-to-medium likelihood 

that the threat is currently or will significantly contribute to extinction risk for A. percula. 

Spanning the low and medium categories indicates that the threat is likely to affect the species 

negatively and may have visible consequences at the species level either now and/or in the 

future, but we do not have enough confidence in the available information to determine the 

negative effect is of a sufficient magnitude to significantly increase extinction risk.
27

Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific or Educational 

Purposes

It is estimated that 1.5-2 million people worldwide keep marine aquaria, including 600,000 

households in the United States (U.S.) alone (Wabnitz et al. 2003). Estimates place the value of 

the marine ornamental trade at approximately U.S. $200-330 million per year (Wabnitz et al. 

2003). The largest importers of coral reef fish, corals and invertebrates for display in aquaria are

the U.S., followed by the European Union, Japan and China. The U.S. accounted for an average 

of 61% of global imports from 2000-2010 (Wood et al. 2012). A tremendous diversity and 

volume of species are involved in the marine aquarium trade (Rhyne et al. 2012). It is estimated 

that every year, approximately 14-30 million fish, 1.5 million live stony corals, and 9-10 million 

other invertebrates are removed from coral reef ecosystems across the world (Wood 2001a,b;

Wabnitz et al. 2003; Tsounis et al. 2010) although Rhyne et al. (2012) assert that the volume of 

marine fish has been overestimated. These include the trade in at least 1,802 species of fish, 

more than 140 species of corals, and more than 500 species of non-coral invertebrates (Wabnitz 

et al. 2003; Rhyne et al. 2012). Clownfish, specifically A. ocellaris and A. percula, are among 

the top five most imported and exported species of marine aquarium fish in the aquarium trade 

(Wabnitz et al. 2003; Rhyne et al. 2012). 

Collection in Papua New Guinea

Papua New Guinea did not have an aquarium fishery until 2007 when the National Fisheries 

Authority (NFA) commissioned a consulting company from the U.S. (EcoEZ Inc.) to do a 

resource assessment of marine species with the potential for the aquarium trade. Following the 

assessment, the project was funded for one year to develop a sustainable marine aquarium trade 

industry in Papua New Guinea. A total of 145 fishers in 8 communities were trained in proper 

collection techniques (Dandava-Oli et al. 2013). At the end of this first year, the project was 

extended for an additional two years, through 2010. Due to high operating costs, the project was 

shut down and no longer funded by the end of 2010. In 2011, detailed surveys of the Fishermen 

Island collection areas were conducted to assess fish, coral, and invertebrate abundance after the 

cessation of marine collection activities. Findings indicated that there were no significant 

differences between collection years and the 2011 assessment, indicating that collection areas 

were in good condition (Dandava-Oli et al. 2013). The NFA expressed concern at one point 

during the collection program because of many sea anemones spotted without their resident host 

clownfish, A. percula; however, more recent surveys found that few anemones were without 

clownfish, indicating the population had at least partially rebounded from previous collection 

pressure (Dandava-Oli et al. 2013). In early 2012, the NFA accepted a new proposal for a 

smaller operation called EcoAquariums. According to information on the EcoAquariums 

website, between November of 2011 and November of 2012, the company collected 15,000 fish, 

of which 30% were A. percula (4,970 individuals). However, the company shut down in 2013 

due to the economic non-viability of operations, leaving Papua New Guinea without an active 

marine aquarium fishery for almost two years. The major hurdle for this industry in Papua New 

Guinea has consistently been high shipping and freight costs (Kinch 2008; Wabnitz et al. 2013). 

The Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) conducted an assessment of marine aquarium 

activities in Papua New Guinea thus far and provided recommendations to the NFA regarding 

the future of the program including an economic viability assessment for aquarium trade 

activities, development of a solid business plan for future interested parties, and worked with the 
28

NFA to finalize a management plan and accompanying regulations and licensing conditions 

should an aquarium fishery develop in the future (Dandava-Oli et al. 2013). 

In summary, there is currently no export of marine ornamental species, including A. percula, 

from Papua New Guinea, where some of the highest species densities have been recorded. In 

2014, a research effort began to evaluate the feasibility of establishing marine aquarium

aquaculture in Papua New Guinea. Results as yet are few, but of note is that A. percula is the 

least affected by harvesting out of the species targeted thus far for this research (Thane Militz, 

pers. comm. 2015). This indicates that if A. percula collection in Papua New Guinea is resumed 

in the future, it will be informed by research, likely done sustainably, and may supply an 

aquaculture facility rather than support commercial export of wild caught individuals. 

 

Collection in Vanuatu

Vanuatu is an archipelago that comprises approximately 80 islands. Collection of marine 

aquarium organisms has occurred in Vanuatu for over 20 years. While there is limited recent 

information on the industry in Vanuatu, two companies, Reef-Farm Vanuatu and Sustainable 

Reef Suppliers (SRS) were the main companies exporting fish, corals, live rock and invertebrates 

for the aquarium trade (SPC 2010). As of early 2015, only SRS is still active though its facilities 

and equipment, as well as the country’s reefs, suffered major damage following the recent severe 

tropical cyclone, Pam, regarded as one of the worse natural disasters in the history of Vanuatu. 

According to both suppliers’ websites (Reef-Farm Vanuatu Ltd and Sustainable Reef 

Supplies Vanuatu), A. percula is not listed as a collected species.

Collection in Solomon Islands

The Solomon Islands is an archipelago of nearly 1,000 islands, of which around 300 are 

inhabited. The export of marine species from the Solomon Islands began in the mid-1990s with 

an export company called Solomon Islands Marine Export (SIME). A few years later Aquarium 

Arts Solomon Islands (AASI) was founded, and the two companies exported the vast majority of 

the islands’ live fish, corals and invertebrates destined for the aquarium trade (Kinch 2004a). 

Originally, 12 collection sites in the Western Province were identified, although as of 2004, only 

2 of those sites remained active (Kinch 2004a). One of the collection areas in the Western 

Province was located at Madou in Vonavona Lagoon and was a local family-run operation. 

Collectors at this location specialized in anemonefish including A. percula. A report from 2004 

shows 17,313 A. percula were purchased from fishers diving this collection area from 2002 

through May of 2004, averaging 6,787 per year across the two complete years of data (Kinch 

2004a). The second collection site, Rarumana, also listed A. percula as one of the primary target 

species. The same 2004 report indicates a total of 12,340 A. percula purchased from fishers 

collecting at this site from 2002 through May of 2004, with an average of 4,384 per year across 

the two years with complete data (Kinch 2004a). From the two locations combined, an average 

of 11,171 A. percula was purchased per year between 2002 and 2003. Seven communities in the 

Marau Sound area of Guadalcanal also collected fish as of 2004 (Kinch 2004b). However, there 

have been impediments to creating a profitable aquarium fishery in this area, including lack of 

capital and equipment, and the limited capacity and high cost of shipping and freight (Kinch 

2004b).
29

While the numbers listed above are informative, they are more than 10 years old. Although very 

little published information is available to update the figures from 2004, consultation with 

experts has revealed some useful insights and the aquarium industry in the Solomon Islands has 

changed significantly over the last several years. Since 2004, SIME has gone out of business and 

AASI is the only company exporting live fish (and corals) in the Solomon Islands (Colette 

Wabnitz, pers. comm. 2015). AASI has undergone management changes, which together with 

periodic challenges linked to coral collection permitting at the government level have slowed 

operations since 2012. One of the key connections for transport between provinces (a small 

airport) is also no longer operational, meaning fewer fish are coming from the Western Province,

although collection still occurs in Rarumana (Jeff Kinch, pers. comm. 2015). Additional 

collection still occurs around Guadalcanal in Marau and Ngella in the Central Province (Colette 

Wabnitz and Jeff Kinch, pers. comm. 2015). This information indicates that it is safe to assume

collection of all species, including A. percula, still occurs, but has significantly decreased in the 

Solomon Islands over the last few years. 

 

Collection in Australia/Great Barrier Reef

Aquarium fish have been collected from the Great Barrier Reef on a commercial basis since the 

beginning of the marine aquarium trade in the 1970s. The Queensland Marine Aquarium Fish 

Fishery (QMAFF) operates in an area from Cape York in the north and south to the New South 

Wales border; A. percula, however, only occurs in the northern portion of the Great Barrier Reef 

and only a small portion of its range occurs within the aquarium fishery area. No quantitative 

harvest or export information was available for review for A. percula in Australia, although a 

wealth of data are collected and reported from this fishery regularly and feed directly into 

sustainable management of the fishery. As an example, an assessment for the QMAFF was 

carried out in 2008 and identified A. percula as a species at low risk of overexploitation in the 

fishery (Roelofs 2008). An assessment in 2013 again declared A. percula as a species at low risk 

(Commonwealth of Australia 2014; State of Queensland 2014). As discussed above in section 

3.3.1, Jones et al. (2008) found that collection has likely exacerbated the effects of bleaching and 

other disturbances on anemones and anemonefish in the Keppel Islands region, which is outside 

of the range of A. percula. In contrast, higher densities of anemones and anemonefish were 

recorded in the Far North Queensland region (within the range of A. percula) where collection 

also occurs, but fewer other disturbances have occurred. 

Global Trade

Rhyne et al. (2012) reported a total of 400,000 individuals of the species complex A.

ocellaris/percula were imported into the U.S. in 2005 (the species were combined due to 

common misidentification leading to the inability to separate them out in the import records). 

More recently, the author provided NMFS with updated estimates based on newer data from 

2008-2011, which indicate the number of A. percula alone imported into the U.S. was less than 

50,000 per year (Szczebak and Rhyne, unpublished). Notably, this estimate does not distinguish 

between wild-caught and captively-propagated individuals from foreign sources. The 

Philippines and Indonesia account for 80% of A. percula imports into the U.S. according to the 

new species-specific information from Szczebak and Rhyne (unpublished), and these countries

are outside the geographic range of A. percula, indicating that 80% or more of the imported 
30

individuals were likely propagated in captivity and not collected from the wild, or mis-identified. 

According to Tissot et al. (2010), the U.S. imports 50-70% of ornamental reef fish in the global 

trade. If we extrapolate the U.S. import estimate to infer global harvest for the aquarium trade, 

the number of globally traded A. percula in 2011 was likely closer to approximately 70,000-

100,000 individuals, as many as 80% of which may be from aquaculture operations and not 

harvested from the wild, or mis-identified. Based on our conservative estimate of global 

population size of 13-18 million the collection of up to 100,000 A. percula (likely a vast overestimate) throughout the species’ range represents 0.0055% - 0.0076% of the population 

harvested annually.

Captive Propagation

Anemonefish were among the first coral reef fish raised in captivity throughout their entire life 

cycle and now represent one of the most well-known and well-developed captive breeding 

programs for marine fish (Dawes 2003). While no quantitative information was available to 

estimate the number of A. percula that are propagated in captivity, clownfish are widely 

described among the industry as an easily cultured aquarium species. In fact, an Internet search 

revealed numerous websites with instructions on how to breed clownfish in home aquaria. 

Oceans, Reefs, and Aquariums (ORA), the largest marine ornamental hatchery in North 

America, among others, cultures multiple species of clownfish, including A. percula, on a 

commercial scale; they note that clownfish were the first popular saltwater aquarium species to 

be cultured and have been bred for over 40 years (ORA 2015). 

Another source of qualitative information to help inform our analysis is related to the preferences 

and demand of aquarium hobbyists. Many discussion boards, blogs, websites, and other 

information sources for home aquarists list numerous benefits of purchasing cultured clownfish 

instead of wild caught clownfish. Benefits of cultured fish include hearty individuals of known 

age that have not been exposed to parasites in the wild; fish that have not been exposed to the 

long arduous transport process that wild-caught fish undergo; fish that are acclimated to tankstyle feeds; and fish that are typically less aggressive, less skittish, and are more visible and 

active in tanks (see the following hyperlinks: Sea and Reef Aquaculture; Mad Hatters Reef; 

Saltwater Smarts; and The Reef Tank; etc.). A survey of marine aquarium hobbyists in 2003 

revealed that only 16% of respondents had no concern over whether they purchased wild vs. 

cultured organisms; the majority of respondents indicated a preference for purchasing captive 

bred specimens (Moe 2003). A more recent study reports that 76% of respondents to the same 

question indicated they would preferentially purchase cultured animals and an additional 21% 

said it would depend on the price difference (Murray and Watson 2014). Murray and Watson 

(2014) surveyed aquarium hobbyists and 85% of them indicated they have clownfish in their 

aquaria. They also did a gap analysis based on demand for certain species and whether or not 

they are good captive breeding candidates and assigned each species a “traffic light” color. 

Clownfish were assigned “green” because although there is high demand for the species, there 

are already a number of successful captive breeding programs in operation for these species.

Conclusion

In summary, A. percula are currently collected at varying levels in three out of the four countries 

in which the species occurs. Papua New Guinea had a fishery for this species, but does not 
31

currently export for the aquarium trade. There is a small local aquarium industry but collection 

for this purpose is likely minimal (Colette Wabnitz, pers. comm. 2015). Research is ongoing to 

potentially re-open an aquaculture-based export industry out of Kavieng, Papua New Guinea. 

Collection from the wild appears relatively limited in Vanuatu, Australia, and the Solomon 

Islands, according to U.S. import information. While clownfish are targeted in these fisheries, 

they are not the most sought after species in most cases. 

While almost 50,000 A. percula were imported into the U.S. alone in 2011, the majority of those 

were from countries outside the species’ range indicating they were either mis-identified or from 

captive breeding facilities. Clownfish are easily propagated in captivity and are bred 

commercially by several of the largest reef fish suppliers in the U.S. and elsewhere. There 

appears to be a large and growing market for captive bred fish as consumers prefer fish of a 

known age that are already acclimated to a tank environment, and some wish to support reef 

conservation by reducing wild collection. Based on our conservative estimate of global wild 

population size of 13-18 million, the collection of up to 100,000 A. percula globally (likely a 

vast over-estimate extrapolated from the U.S. import estimate) throughout the species’ range 

represents 0.0055% - 0.0076% of the population harvested annually. Based on the principles of 

fisheries management and population growth, we have determined that overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes poses a low risk of global extinction 

to A. percula now or in the foreseeable future. 

Factor C: Disease or Predation

The available information on disease in A. percula indicates that the spread of some diseases is 

of concern in captive culture facilities (Ganeshamurthy et al. 2014; Siva et al. 2014); however, 

there is no information available indicating that disease may be a concern in wild populations. 

Captive cultured reef fish often experience rapid spreading of parasites, copepods, and other 

pathogens in captivity. Amyloodinium ocellatum is a parasitic dinoflagellate that causes “marine 

velvet disease” in aquacultured fish (Francis-Floyd and Floyd 2011). The parasitic copepod 

Caligus longipedis and the lymphocystis disease virus also are known to affect various fish 

species in aquaculture operations, including A. percula (Ganeshamurthy et al. 2014; Siva et al. 

2014). Some pathogens that affect the species in captivity are likely to exist in and be introduced 

from the wild. However, cultured individuals are often stressed and stress increases an 

individual’s susceptibility to pathogens. Close association in captivity also enables diseases to 

rapidly spread. Although diseases exist for captive A. percula, we could not find any records or 

reports of disease in wild A. percula populations. Because this is a well-studied species in at 

least parts of its range, we find this compelling evidence that disease does not currently pose a 

significant threat to the species. We therefore find that this threat is of very low importance to 

extinction risk for this species now and in the foreseeable future. 

As for the threat of predation, A. percula, like many reef fish species, is most susceptible to 

natural predation in its egg, pelagic larvae, and settlement life stages. Shelter and protection 

from predators is one of the primary benefits conferred to post-settlement juvenile and adult A. 

percula by their symbiotic relationship with host anemones, as described above. We found no 

information to indicate elevated predation levels due to invasive species or other outside 

influences in any part of A. percula’s range is a cause for concern. Moreover, we did not find 
32

any information to indicate that natural predation rates for the species are of a magnitude that 

would cause concern for their extinction risk now or in the foreseeable future. 

As discussed below, there is some experimental evidence that indicates future levels of ocean 

acidification have the potential to negatively impact predator avoidance behavior for A. percula. 

However, it is unclear if or how those impacts may manifest themselves in the wild over the 

expected timeframes of increasing acidification, and there is evidence that trans-generational 

acclimation will play a role in allowing populations to adapt over time. While the future impacts 

of acidification are still unclear, we allow for the potential for impacts to predator avoidance 

behavior from ocean acidification by concluding that the likelihood of predation contributing to 

extinction risk for A. percula now or in the foreseeable future is low (instead of very low). 

Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Threats (factors) that specifically affect the species related to habitat destruction (e.g., 

sedimentation and nutrient enrichment), overutilization (e.g., collection for the aquarium trade), 

and other natural or manmade factors (e.g., effects from climate change) are discussed in their 

respective sections above. This section specifically addresses the lack of adequate regulatory 

mechanisms, or their enforcement, of those aforementioned threats.

Greenhouse Gas Regulations 

While NMFS has acknowledged in several recent listing decisions that regulatory mechanisms 

are inadequate to address greenhouse gas emissions globally (see summaries at the following 

hyperlinks: bumphead parrotfish management report (NMFS 2012a); coral management 

report (NMFS 2012b); coral listing (79 FR 53851)), neither the habitat impacts nor the direct 

physiological impacts of global greenhouse gas emissions have risen to a level of concern for A. 

percula and its current or future extinction risk (see discussions above and below). As such, it is 

unlikely that the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms for greenhouse gas emissions 

will contribute significantly to the extinction risk for this species now or in the foreseeable 

future. 

Marine Aquarium Trade Regulations 

Coral reef species are collected for the aquarium trade in at least 45 different countries around 

the world (see Wood 2001a,b; Smith et al. 2008; and Rhyne et al. 2012 cited in Thornhill 2012). 

Indonesia and the Philippines are the two largest exporters of coral reef organisms destined for 

the aquarium trade (Wood 2001b; Wabnitz et al. 2003; Rhyne et al. 2012). The marine aquarium 

trade industry as a whole is poorly regulated in several source countries, and imports and exports 

are generally poorly documented. There is a severe lack of data documenting the impacts of this 

global industry for the majority of traded coral reef species. Information, when it is available, is 

often haphazardly collected, out of date, or confounded by other problems (Thornhill 2012). 

However, of note is that recent efforts are underway to change this. Development and 

implementation of management plans are at different stages in a range of source countries 

throughout the South Pacific (e.g., Marshall Islands, Cook Islands, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, 

Tonga, Kiribati, and others). Also, efforts are being undertaken by the Secretariat of the Pacific 

Community (SPC) to have countries consistently record species and quantities in a standardized 

database. Progress is ongoing, though slow because of lack of capacity, staff shortages, and 
33

challenges in the relationship between the private sector and government (Colette Wabnitz, pers. 

comm. 2015). Management and regulation of species collected for the marine aquarium trade 

are not sufficiently developed in most countries. Weak local and national governance capacity in 

major source countries, such as in Indonesia and the Philippines, combined with high 

international demand have resulted in limited and ineffective management (Tissot et al. 2010). 

On the other end of the industry, imports are poorly documented; Smith et al. (2008) found that 

in the U.S. from 2000-2005, only 3.8% of shipments of imported live fish were directly 

identified to the level of family, genus, or species. Often, labeling consisted only of general 

taxonomic designations such as “tropical marine species.” 

Amphiprion percula does not occur in the waters of major source countries for wild reef fish 

exports (e.g., Indonesia and Philippines), with the exception of the northern coast of West Papua, 

which is on the western edge of its range. Within the countries where A. percula does occur, 

marine aquarium collection fisheries are relatively small-scale and generally have at least some 

government oversight in the form of licenses or permits. For example, in 2009, the Vanuatu 

Department of Fisheries worked with the SPC and the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency to 

develop a marine aquarium trade management plan. The aquarium fishery is now managed 

under this plan, which recognizes the importance of research in marine ornamental culturing for 

export. In the Solomon Islands, anemonefish were listed as prohibited exports under the Wildlife 

Protection and Management Act of 1998; however, this is currently not enforced and export of 

these species, including A. percula, continues (Kinch 2004a). In Australia, fisheries are limited 

entry, meaning a new entrant must purchase a fishing license, the total number of which is 

limited, before fishing can occur. As of 2013, there were 24 active licenses in the QMAFF out 

of 44 total licenses (Donnelly 2013). In Australia, Pro-Vision Reef, Inc. is an association of 

aquarium fish and coral collectors and their membership accounts for 91% of active licenses in 

the QMAFF. They have a close partnership with both the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 

Authority and Fisheries Queensland, and together they developed the industry’s Stewardship 

Action Plan. The Action Plan places strong emphasis on minimizing ecological risks and 

maintaining healthy ecosystems upon which the industry depends. There are limits on the size of 

boats and number of divers used for collection activities, as well as several Special Management 

Areas in which no collection is allowed.

These regulated, small-scale fisheries, along with the prevalence of this species in commercial 

aquaculture operations, are factors contributing to our determination that overharvest for the 

marine aquarium trade has a very low likelihood of contributing to the extinction risk for this 

species. As such, it is unlikely that regulatory mechanisms related to marine aquarium collection 

and trade will contribute to the extinction risk for this species now or in the foreseeable future. 

Sedimentation and Nutrient Enrichment Regulations

We evaluated the threat of land-based sources of impact to coral reefs (sedimentation and 

nutrient enrichment) on A. percula and determined that it has a low-to-medium likelihood of 

significantly contributing to the extinction risk for the species now and in the foreseeable future. 

Many regulatory mechanisms exist within A. percula’s range to address land-based sources of 

pollution with varying levels of efficacy and enforcement. Regulatory mechanisms for the four 

countries within A. percula’s range are described in detail in the NMFS coral management report 

(NMFS 2012b). Summaries are provided for each country below.
34

In Papua New Guinea, most legislation does not specifically refer to marine systems, which has 

generated some uncertainty as to how it should be applied to coral reefs. Also, the laws relevant 

to different sectors (e.g., fisheries, mining, environmental protection) are not fully integrated,

which has led to confusion over which laws have priority, who is responsible for management, 

and the rights of the various interest groups. 

Traditional management systems are still considerably important in the Solomon Islands, with all

reefs being “owned” by particular groups with fishing rights under customary marine tenure.

There are 11 Community Marine Conservation Areas that use customary sea tenure in locally 

adapted management strategies. The Fisheries Act of 1998 states that marine biodiversity, 

coastal and aquatic environments of the Solomon Islands shall be protected and managed in a 

sustainable manner and calls for the application of the precautionary approach to the 

conservation, management, and exploitation of fisheries resources in order to protect fisheries 

resources and preserve the marine environment (Aqorau 2005).

Customary tenure of reef resources is legally recognized in the Vanuatu constitution and via the 

Environmental Management and Conservation Act of 2002 (Republic of Vanuatu 2002). Each 

cultural group in Vanuatu has its own traditional approaches to management, which may include 

the establishment of marine protected areas, initiating taboo sites, or periodic closures. These 

traditional management schemes have been supplemented by various legislative initiatives, 

including the Foreshore Development Act, which regulates coastal development. The primary 

related responsibility for marine and coastal resource management in Vanuatu rests jointly with

the Department of Fisheries within the Ministry of Agriculture, Quarantine, Forestry and 

Fisheries, and the Environment Unit within the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources (Naviti 

and Aston 2000). 

In Australia, A. percula occurs mostly, if not entirely, within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 

(GBRMP). In addition to the park, the Australian government has developed a National 

Cooperative Approach to Integrated Coastal Zone Management (Natural Resource Management 

Ministerial Council 2006). In response to recent reports showing declining water quality within 

the GBRMP, the State of Queensland recently developed and published a Reef Water Quality 

Protection Plan, outlining actions to secure the health and resilience of the Great Barrier Reef 

and adjacent catchments (State of Queensland 2013).

Overall, there is little information available on the enforcement or effectiveness of existing 

regulatory mechanisms addressing land-based sources of pollution throughout A. percula’s

range. As such, it is difficult to determine the likelihood of the inadequacy of regulatory 

mechanisms contributing significantly to extinction risk for this species. To account for the 

uncertainty associated with this factor, we have determined the inadequacy of regulatory 

mechanisms addressing land-based sources of pollution has a low-to-medium likelihood of 

contributing to extinction risk for A. percula. Spanning the low and medium categories indicates 

that the threat is likely to affect the species negatively and may have visible consequences at the 

species level either now and/or in the future, but we do not have enough confidence in the 

available information to determine the negative effect is of a sufficient magnitude to significantly 

increase extinction risk.
35

Marine Protected Areas/Regulations

According to the IUCN’s World Database of Protected Areas (WDPA), marine protected areas 

(MPAs) of all sizes exist throughout many areas of A. percula’s range in the Indo-Pacific. 

Though many MPAs exist, the overall effectiveness of these MPAs, let alone the conservation 

benefit that these MPAs provide specifically to A. percula, is unknown. However, experts 

generally agree that MPAs, if placed appropriately, are of sufficient size, and are enforced 

effectively, can enhance spawning stock biomass, allow for larval dispersal, maintain species 

diversity, preserve habitat, and sustain ecosystem function (e.g., Johnson et al. 1999; Russ and 

Alcala 1999; Bergen and Carr 2003; Shuman et al. 2005; McClanahan et al. 2006; Jupiter and 

Egli 2011). While there is some debate over whether many small MPAs or few large MPAs are 

more effective (e.g., Halpern 2003; Aswani and Hamilton 2004), there is widespread recognition 

that monitoring, evaluation, reporting and adaptive management are fundamental components of 

effective marine planning and management (e.g., Day 2008; Weeks and Jupiter 2013), regardless 

of size. There is also some empirical evidence that using indigenous ecological knowledge and 

existing customary management practices to design an MPA is showing signs of biological and 

social success for protecting coral reefs in Oceania (e.g., Aswani et al. 2007). 

Though shortcomings of MPAs may exist (e.g., a great majority of MPAs worldwide fail to meet 

all of their management objectives (Jameson et al. 2002)), on average several biological 

measures (density, biomass, size of organisms, and diversity) are significantly higher inside 

reserves compared to outside (or after a reserve establishment versus before) (Halpern 2003). As 

suggested by Halpern (2003), nearly any marine habitat can benefit from the implementation of a 

reserve or MPA. As such, the following paragraphs describe the MPAs/regulations that occur 

throughout the four countries where A. percula resides. Empirical data on the overall 

effectiveness and enforcement of these specific MPAs/regulations, as well as the conservation 

benefit specifically to A. percula, is, however, lacking.

According to MPA Global, Papua New Guinea has 22 MPAs designated under national law 

(Wood 2007; NMFS 2012a). On a finer-scale, there are MPAs known as Locally Managed 

Marine Areas (LMMAs), which use indigenous ecological knowledge and customary 

management practices. LMMAs here and elsewhere are managed either by independent not-forprofit organizations, or by local village chiefs. For example, the Papua New Guinea Centre for 

Locally Managed Areas was formed in 2002. This non-profit organization is focused on helping 

communities to improve the practice of marine resource management within Papua New Guinea. 

Tools used within the MPA/LMMAs here and elsewhere include fishing gear restrictions, 

species-specific restrictions, and total no-take areas. The majority of MPAs/LMMAs in Papua 

New Guinea have been established around the edge of the Bismarck Sea (see Figure 3). Coral 

reefs in Papua New Guinea total 7,126 km2 and the MPA/LMMA sites in the area total 4,550 

km2 (Coral Triangle Atlas 2012). Most recently, a network of nine LMMAs was established in 

Kimbe Bay, an area known for its high species diversity and high density of A. percula. These 

networks are linked through ocean currents, which promote resiliency for the coral reefs to 

withstand impacts from climate change (Green et al. 2009). Planes et al. (2009) assert that the 

MPA network in Kimbe Bay can function to sustain resident A. percula populations both by 

local replenishment and through larval dispersal from other reserves.
36

The Solomon Islands has nearly 1,000 islands, more than 2,802 km2 of coral reefs, and 116 coral 

reef MPAs listed in the WDPA (NMFS 2012a) (see Figure 3). Due to the vastness of the 

archipelago, the Solomon Islands are still largely unaffected by human activities. Traditional 

management systems are of considerable importance and particular reefs are placed under 

restriction for periods of time (Spalding et al. 2001). The Solomon Islands LMMA Network was 

formed in 2003, with LMMAs in all 9 provinces in the area, totaling over 402 km2 (Coral 

Triangle Atlas 2012) (see Figure 3). The Solomon Islands National Protected Areas Act also 

enables local communities to place their LMMAs under formal protection while restricting the 

activities of extractive industries (Coral Triangle Atlas 2012). Additionally, the eastern third of 

Rennell Island was declared a World Heritage Site in 1998, with boundaries extending seaward 

for 3 nautical miles and measuring 370 km2 (Spalding et al. 2001). A number of MPAs that 

prohibit aquarium fishing also exist in the Vonavona Lagoon (Kinch 2004a). 

Vanuatu consists of over 80 islands, 67 of which are inhabited by nearly 800 villages, with an 

average population of less than 200. There are 55 coral reef MPAs/LMMAs listed in the WDPA 

(NMFS 2012a) (see Figure 4). The Nguna-Pele Marine Protected Area Network manages the 

LMMAs. This network includes 16 indigenous communities engaged in conserving more than 

3,000 hectares of marine and terrestrial resources. There is also the Vanuatu Village-based 

Resource Managed Areas Network, established in 2009. In addition to these LMMAs, 

customary tenure of reef resources is legally recognized in the Vanuatu constitution and via the 

Environmental Management and Conservation Act of 2002 (Republic of Vanuatu 2002). This 

includes initiating taboo sites, or periodic closures, within MPAs/LMMAs as a form of 

customary management used by individual communities (Caillaud et al. 2004). For example, 

Hickey and Johannes (2002) describe how in the early 1990s, the Vanuatu Fisheries Department 

promoted a voluntary, village-based Trochus sea snail management program. Only a few fishing 

villages were part of the original program, but after conservation success of the program, many 

villages decided to implement their own conservation measures to protect an array of marine 

species as well as implement fishing gear and use restrictions. By 2001, there were over 50 

villages that had implemented marine resource management (MRM) activities. Dumas et al. 

(2010) investigated the effects of two very small (<0.05 km2

) taboo areas located along the

shallow fringing reef of Emau Island, Vanuatu. Surveys focused on heavily harvested species 

(namely Trochus giant clams and green snails) and results showed that under certain conditions, 

very small-scale reserves, such as those implemented by village-based conservation initiatives, 

can rapidly and efficiently enhance local reef invertebrate resources.

Lastly, in Australia, 75% of the total coral reef area is located within the 172 MPAs according to 

the WDPA (NMFS 2012a). In Queensland, the GBRMP Authority manages the comprehensive 

network of MPAs, which covers an expansive 345,400 km2 of area under the authority of the 

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act of 1975 (see Figure 5). The GBRMP, designated as a World 

Heritage Site in 1981, has jurisdictional arrangements that overlap between the Australian 

Government and the Queensland Government. Strong cooperative partnerships have been built 

between these governments and commercial and recreational industries, research institutions and 

universities, all with complementary legislation and adaptive management of the GBRMP 

(UNESCO 2015). There are different levels of use allowed in various regions within the 

GBRMP, which can lead to differences in density of target species between open and closed 

areas (Jones et al. 2008). Although fisheries for many target marine species are highly regulated 
37

in the GBRMP, no regulations exist specifically for clownfish. Additionally, the World Heritage 

status of the GBRMP has come under scrutiny recently by the United Nations Organization for 

Education, Science and Culture (UNESCO). The UNESCO World Heritage Committee working 

group “notes with concern” that the overall outlook for the reef is “poor,” and that climate 

change, poor water quality, and impacts from coastal development are major threats to its health 

and have been degrading key habitats, species, and ecosystem processes in the central and 

southern inshore areas (Dayton 2015).

In summary, a number of MPAs of varying degrees of size, management, and success exist 

throughout A. percula’s range. There is relatively little empirical data on the effectiveness of 

these particular MPAs; however, the general consensus is that these MPAs do provide some 

conservation benefits for marine species (e.g., Day 2002; McClanahan et al. 2006; McCook et al. 

2010). In Vanuatu, Hickey and Johannes (2002) report success of LMMAs due to a variety of 

reasons, including enforcement. The authors report that there is an increasing use of state police 

to informally support decisions made by the village chiefs. Individuals who break these village 

taboos, including taboos relating to MRM activities, may be turned over to the police. More 

specifically regarding orange clownfish, findings suggest that the MPA network in Kimbe Bay, 

Papua New Guinea might function to sustain resident A. percula populations both by local 

replenishment and through larval dispersal from other reserves (e.g., Almany et al. 2007; Green 

et al. 2009; Planes et al. 2009; Berumen et al. 2012). Although we cannot determine the overall 

benefit to the species from the network of protected areas throughout its entire range, the mere 

existence of MPAs is likely to confer at least some conservation benefit and is unlikely to 

contribute to extinction risk for A. percula now or in the foreseeable future. 

Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors

The demographic risks assessed separately above in section 3.2 are considered in the analysis of 

Factor E. The assessment of those demographic risks found that they either have a low or very 

low likelihood of significantly affecting extinction risk for A. percula. 

Physiological/Behavioral Impacts of Ocean Acidification

There is evidence that some species of reef fish may be affected by levels of ocean acidification 

predicted to occur before the end of this century. Amphiprion percula, along with several other 

pomacentrid species, has been the subject of several laboratory-based studies on this topic. The 

field of study is relatively new but here we summarize results that have been reported thus far. 

Research has been focused on the effects of acidification on two aspects of physiology: (1) 

growth and development, and (2) sensory capabilities that affect behavior. In one study, 

increased acidification at levels expected to occur circa 2100 had no detectable effect on 

embryonic duration, egg survival, or size at hatching and, in fact, increased larval growth rate in 

A. percula (Munday et al. 2009a). Similarly, there was no effect on otolith size, shape, 

symmetry, or elemental chemistry when A. percula larvae were reared at CO2 levels predicted by 

the year 2100 (Munday et al. 2011b). A different pomacentrid species, Acanthochromus 

polyacanthus, also showed no effect on juvenile growth, survival, skeletal elements or otolith 

size, shape, or symmetry when reared at high CO2 levels comparable to those predicted as a 

result of climate change (Munday et al. 2011a). 
38

When it comes to behavioral impairment, laboratory research has shown more consequential 

results regarding the potential impacts of future ocean acidification. An elevated CO2

environment can affect auditory sensory capabilities for juvenile A. percula, even in the absence 

of effects on otolith growth. This indicates other possible mechanisms for this interference, such 

as deterioration of neural transmitters or compromised processing of sensory information 

(Simpson et al. 2011). Auditory sensory capabilities guide larval fish during settlement as 

nocturnal reef sounds promote settlement and daytime predator-rich noises discourage settlement

(Simpson et al. 2011). 

Increased CO2 levels may affect olfactory cues used by larval clownfish to identify anemones 

and avoid predators. Larval clownfish use olfactory cues, such as odors from anemones, to 

locate suitable reef habitat for settlement (Munday et al. 2009b). Larval A. percula reared at 

CO2 levels comparable to those predicted by the end of this century showed no observable 

response to olfactory cues of different habitat types, whereas those reared in the control 

environment showed a strong preference for anemone olfactory cues over other habitat olfactory 

cues (Munday et al. 2009b). Newly hatched A. percula larvae also innately detect predators 

using olfactory cues, and they retain this ability through settlement (Dixson et al. 2010). When 

tested for behavioral responses to olfactory cues from predators, A. percula larvae raised in both 

the control environment (390 ppm CO2) and the lower of the two intermediate environments 

tested (550 ppm CO2) showed strong avoidance of predator cues. However, larvae reared at 700 

ppm CO2 showed variation in their responses, with half showing avoidance of predatory cues 

and the other half showing preference for predator cues (Munday et al. 2010). In this same 

study, larvae reared at 850 ppm showed strong preference for predator cues, indicating that 700 

ppm CO2 may be a threshold at which adaptation is possible or natural selection will take effect 

because of the mixed responses to olfactory cues (Munday et al. 2010). Additionally, Dixson et 

al. (2010) report that CO2 exposure at the egg stage does not appear to affect olfactory sensory 

capabilities of hatched larvae, but these capabilities are affected when settlement stage larvae are 

exposed to elevated CO2. 

The results discussed above indicate that ocean acidification associated with climate change has 

the potential to affect behavioral responses of A. percula to certain cues during critical life 

stages. However, if or how these effects will manifest at the population level requires an 

understanding of additional factors. All of the aforementioned authors acknowledge that the 

potential for acclimation or adaptation was not factored into their studies because it is generally 

unknown or hard to predict. Additionally, the authors did not measure possible effects of the 

synergy between increases in temperature and acidification. Murray et al. (2014) assert that 

there is mounting evidence of an important but understudied link between parent and offspring 

generations, known as parental conditioning or trans-generational plasticity (TGP), which may 

comprise a short-term adaptation mechanism to environmental acidification. This type of 

plasticity describes the ability of the parental environment prior to fertilization to influence 

offspring reaction norms without requiring changes in DNA sequence (Salinas and Munch 

2012). Trans-generational plasticity in CO2 resistance as a potential adaptation for coping with 

highly variable aquatic CO2 environments may be common (Salinas and Munch 2012; Dupont et 

al. 2013). One recent study found that the effects associated with rearing larval clownfish (A. 

melanopus) at high CO2 levels, including smaller length and mass of fish and higher resting 

metabolic rates, were absent or reversed when both parents and offspring were reared in elevated 
39

CO2 levels (Miller et al. 2012). These results show that non-genetic parental effects can have a 

significant influence on the performance of juveniles exposed to high CO2 levels with the 

potential to fully compensate for the observed effects caused by acute (within generation) 

exposure to increased CO2 levels (Miller et al. 2012). Murray et al. (2014) report the first 

evidence of TGP in a wild population of Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia). Their results 

showed that within one breeding season, seasonal fluctuations in CO2 levels in the environment 

led to different tolerances of increased CO2 conditions for juveniles; those born early in the 

season when environmental CO2 levels are low had reduced survival at high CO2 treatment 

levels, but offspring from parents collected later in the season, when environmental CO2 levels 

were naturally elevated, had equal survival at all CO2 treatment levels (Murray et al. 2014). 

In addition to the potential for acclimation and TGP, it is difficult to interpret the results of 

laboratory studies of acute exposure in terms of what is likely to happen in the foreseeable future 

in the wild or to predict potential population level effects for a species. The acute nature of the 

exposure and acclimation in the studies above is noteworthy because most species will not 

experience changes in acidification so acutely in their natural habitats. Rather, they are likely to 

experience a gradual increase in average CO2 levels over several generations, and therefore 

parental effects could be highly effective in moderating impacts. Moreover, there is ample 

evidence that coral reef ecosystems naturally experience wide fluctuations in pH on a diurnal 

basis (Gagliano et al. 2010; Gray et al. 2012; Price et al. 2012). Price et al. (2012) found that 

reefs experienced substantial diel fluctuations in temperature and pH similar to the magnitudes of 

warming and acidification expected over the next century. The pH of ocean surface water has 

decreased from an average of 8.2 to 8.1 (decrease of 0.1) since the beginning of the industrial era 

(IPCC 2013). The pH of reef water can vary substantially throughout the day, sometimes 

reaching levels below 8.0 in the early morning due to accumulated respiration of reef organisms 

in shallow water overnight(Ohde and van Woesik 1999; Kuffner et al. 2007). Primary 

producers, including zooxanthellae in corals, uptake dissolved CO2 and produce O2 and organic

matter during the day, while at night respiration invokes net CO2 release into the surrounding 

seawater. In fact, Ohde and van Woesik (1999) found one site that fluctuated between pH 8.7 

and 7.9 over the course a single day.

We conclude that the threat of physiological impacts from ocean acidification has a low 

likelihood of having a significant effect on the species’ risk of extinction now or in the 

foreseeable future. Studies clearly show that in a controlled setting, an increased CO2

environment can impair larval sensory capabilities that are required to make important decisions 

during critical life stages. However, a disconnect exists between these experimental results and 

what can be expected to occur in the wild over time, or even what is currently experienced on a 

daily basis on reefs. Even though projections for future levels of acidification go out to the year 

2100, we do not consider the effects of this potential threat to be foreseeable over that timeframe 

due to the variable and uncertain nature of effects shown in laboratory studies versus what the 

species is likely to experience in nature over several generations. The species has demonstrated 

susceptibility to ocean acidification in laboratory studies. However, there is evidence from a 

congener that susceptibility decreased or disappeared when tested over several generations. 

There is uncertainty associated with A. percula’s likely level of exposure to this threat in the 

foreseeable future given the uncertainty in future ocean acidification rates and the heterogeneity 

of the species’ habitat and current environmental conditions across its range. The best available 

information does not indicate that ocean acidification is currently creating an extinction risk for 
40

the petitioned species in the wild through impacts to fitness of a significant magnitude. Further, 

we do not have sufficient information to suggest future ocean acidification will significantly 

affect the extinction risk for A. percula in the foreseeable future. 

Physiological Impacts of Ocean Warming

The best available information does not indicate that ocean warming is currently creating an 

extinction risk for A. percula in the wild through impacts to fitness of a significant magnitude. 

While it has yet to be studied specifically for A. percula, researchers have begun to explore the 

potential impact of increasing temperature on the physiology of other pomacentrid species. 

Dascyllus reticulatus adults exposed to a high temperature (32o C) environment in a laboratory 

setting displayed significantly reduced swimming and metabolic performance (Johansen and 

Jones 2011). Other results include reduced breeding success of Acanthochromis 

polyacanthus (Donelson et al. 2010) and increased mortality rates among juvenile Dascyllus 

aruanus (Pini et al. 2011) in response to increased water temperatures that may be experienced 

later this century. Multiple references on the subject state that the effects of temperature changes 

appear to be species-specific (Nilsson et al. 2009; Lo-Yat et al. 2010; Johansen and Jones 2011); 

therefore, these results are not easily applied to A. percula. With regard to ocean warming 

impacts to respiratory and metabolic processes, Nilsson et al. (2009) and Johansen and Jones 

(2011) compared results of exposure to increased temperatures across multiple families or genera 

and species of reef fish. Both studies reported negative responses but the magnitude of the effect 

varied greatly among closely related species and genera. As such, it is difficult to draw analogies 

to unstudied species like A. percula. As with acidification, Price et al. (2012) found that reefs 

experienced substantial diel fluctuations in temperature similar to the magnitude of warming 

expected over the next century. In addition, TGP in temperature-dependent growth was recently 

documented for two fish species, where offspring performed better at higher temperatures if the 

parents had experienced these temperatures as well (Donelson et al. 2011; Salinas and Munch 

2012). There is epistemic uncertainty associated with the threat of future ocean warming to A. 

percula. Susceptibility of reef fish that have been studied varies widely and the role TGP may 

play in acclimation over time is unknown. In addition, we cannot predict the exposure of the 

species to this threat over time given the uncertainty in future temperature predictions and the 

heterogeneity of the species’ habitat and current environmental conditions across its range. 

Further, we do not have sufficient information to suggest future ocean warming will significantly 

affect the extinction risk for A. percula in the foreseeable future. 

Summary of Threats

Table 2 below summarizes our assessment of the likelihood that each threat contributes or will 

contribute to extinction risk for A. percula. For the threats to which we assigned a low 

likelihood, we determined based on the best available information that the factor was unlikely to 

contribute significantly to extinction risk for A. percula. For some threats, we considered this a 

conservative assignment of likelihood to account for some uncertainty associated with either the 

magnitude of the threat or the exposure of A. percula to the threat. We assigned a very low 

likelihood to threats where more information was available that provided more certainty about 

their likely magnitude and therefore their impact on extinction risk. We assigned a low-tomedium likelihood to sedimentation and nutrient enrichment and the inadequacy of regulatory 

mechanisms associated with this threat because this is a present and ongoing threat likely to 
41

worsen in the future. In addition, A. percula has traits that render it more susceptible to landbased sources of pollution, although its overall exposure is uncertain.

Conservation efforts

Higher rates of exploitation for wild orange clownfish have occurred in the past but recent data 

indicates that exploitation rates may be declining. Approximately 400,000 individuals of the 

species complex A. ocellaris/percula were imported into the U.S. (the largest importer of the 

species) in 2005 (Rhyne et al. 2012). This includes both wild-caught and captively-propagated 

individuals. More recent data specific to A. percula estimates that fewer than 50,000 individuals 

per year were imported into the U.S. from 2008-2011 (Szczebak and Rhyne, unpublished). 

When extrapolating out to infer quantity in the global aquarium trade, the number of globally 

traded A. percula during this time period was likely anywhere from 70,000-100,000 individuals, 

with as many as 80% from countries outside the species’ range, thus likely either from captive 

propagation and not harvested from the wild or are mis-identified. 

The shift from wild-caught exports of A. percula to captively-propagated individuals is 

supported by the available information about the marine aquarium industry throughout the 

species’ range and corroborated by survey data from hobbyists. As described previously in 

section 3.3.2, collection efforts in Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu have 

declined over the past decade for a variety of reasons. 

As of 2014, Papua New Guinea is actively supporting a research project with the ultimate goal of 

re-entering the marine aquarium industry. Research topics include both sustainable catch limits 

and aquaculture production of popular species like A. percula (Militz 2015). Specific research 

objectives include answering the following questions: (1) How does wild harvest of key 

anemonefish of value to the ornamental trade (including A. percula) influence abundance and 

population composition; (2) how can we establish the reproductive biology and ontogeny of key 

anemonefish under culture conditions and with different diets; (3) would restocking cultured 

anemonefish onto reefs impacted by commercial collection ameliorate the impacts of capture; (4)

would the chemical agent bisazir, used to sterilize temperate fish, be effective in sterilizing 

marine ornamental fish; and (5) do cultured fish experience less stress from ocean to aquarium 

than wild caught individuals (Thane Militz, pers. comm. 2015). As of the writing of this status 

review, data collection for question one is complete but the results are not yet published. The 

researcher provided some general summary information. He noted that the primary problem 

with clownfish collection in general is not simply the removal of the fish but rather competing 

low-value, less targeted species (A. clarkii, A. melanopus, A. perideraion) taking over anemones 

where fish have been removed and prohibiting recruitment of the original species. That being 

said, he noted that A. percula was the least affected by harvesting in the first part of the study in 

Papua New Guinea because it is almost exclusively hosted by S. gigantea anemones, so other 

species did not take over once A. percula was removed. Additionally, while H. magnifica

anemones are utilized by both A. percula and A. perideraion, the two fish species seem to have 

quite different habitat preferences, as supported by Elliott and Mariscal (2001). As opposed to 

the general observation of replacement by other species for most collected clownfish, results of 

this research saw little replacement by A. perideraion when exploiting A. percula (Thane Militz, 

pers. comm. 2015).
42

A collaborative research project was started in 2008 between the Vanuatu Fisheries Department, 

SPC, and the Japanese International Cooperation Agency and focused on the production of 

clownfish species in captivity (Kinch and Teitelbaum 2008). This project was, however, shortlived and Vanuatu currently does not export captive-bred specimens (Colette Wabnitz, pers. 

com. 2015).

In Australia, the aquarium fishery undergoes periodic ecological risk assessments to ensure that 

harvested resources are managed sustainably. In the 2008 assessment report, A. percula was

considered a species that is at a low risk of overexploitation in the fishery (Roelofs 2008). The 

species was again assessed as low risk in a 2013 assessment report (Commonwealth of Australia 

2014; State of Queensland 2014).

While export of A. percula still occurs throughout the species’ range, we can assume that overall 

harvest levels have decreased over recent years. Quantitative information on captivelypropagated A. percula is lacking; however, anecdotal evidence indicates that clownfish, 

including A. percula, are easily cultured for commercial trade. Oceans Reefs and Aquariums, a 

commercial aquaculture company, notes that “most reliable fish dealers will sell only tank-raised 

clownfish, knowing their customers will benefit” (ORA 2015) because wild-caught clownfish 

historically have higher than average mortality after transport. Additionally, captive-bred 

individuals are typically much less expensive than wild caught (Live Aquaria 2015). As such, 

captive broodstock of A. percula from countries such as Indonesia as well as within the U.S. are 

being used not only to meet the commercial demands for the species, including providing hardier 

and less expensive individuals, but also serve as a conservation tool to alleviate or reduce the 

demand from wild populations throughout the species’ range. Anecdotal Internet discussion 

board content and formal survey results both indicate that a significant proportion of aquarium 

hobbyists and owners preferentially purchase captively-propagated fish because of their higher 

quality and the conservation benefits. 

CONCLUSIONS

In assessing four demographic risks for A. percula -- abundance, growth rate/productivity, spatial 

structure/connectivity, and diversity -- we determined that the likelihood of three of these risks 

individually contributing in a significant way to the extinction risk for the species is low, and 

unknown for the fourth risk. We acknowledge that uncertainties exist regarding how these 

demographic risks may affect the species on an individual and population level. However, the 

species’ estimated wild abundance of 13-18 million individuals is at a level sufficient to 

withstand demographic stochasticity. Moreover, productivity appears to be at or above 

replacement levels, rates of dispersal and recruitment at the local scale appear sufficient to 

sustain meta-population structure (although global genetic structure is unknown), and species 

diversity may allow for trans-generational adaptation to environmental variability. As such, even 

with acknowledgement of uncertainties, we have determined that these demographic risks have a 

low or unknown likelihood of contributing in a significant way to the extinction risk of A. 

percula.
43

We also assessed current and predicted threats to the species and determined that the likelihood 

of these individual threats contributing to the extinction risk of the species throughout its range 

vary between very low and low-to-medium. We again acknowledge uncertainties in predicting 

the breadth of the threats and the extent of the species’ response, but we can assume these threats 

are reasonably certain to occur at some magnitude. For some threats, such as anemone 

bleaching, evidence indicates these events will become more severe and more frequent over the 

next few decades (van Hooidonk et al. 2013). However, anemone susceptibility and response is 

variable, and A. percula is known to associate with five anemone hosts, indicating that the 

species may be resilient to this threat. Additionally, the species may exhibit resiliency and 

adaptation to threats such as ocean acidification and ocean warming via trans-generational 

plasticity. While it is unknown how much adaptation the species will undergo, we anticipate 

such threats to occur over space and time rather than acutely. 

Of the 12 identified current and predicted threats, our greatest concern relates to the species’ 

susceptibility and exposure to sedimentation and nutrients, as well as the inadequacy of 

regulatory mechanisms to address this threat, especially since juveniles and adults occur in 

shallow water and are non-migratory once they have settled into a host anemone. Therefore, we 

conservatively assigned a low-to-medium likelihood that both this threat and the inadequate 

regulatory mechanisms to address this threat may significantly contribute to the extinction risk 

for A. percula. 

We have determined that the overall extinction risk to A. percula is low, both now and in the 

foreseeable future. We recognize that some of the demographic risks and threats to the species 

may work in combination to produce cumulative effects. For example, increased ocean 

acidification may affect the olfactory and auditory sensory capabilities of the species and 

potentially affect predation rates; ocean warming may affect the aerobic capacity of the species 

or the rates of disease; and harvest of sea anemones may eliminate important habitat for the 

species and potentially increase the likelihood of predation; and therefore, interactions within 

and among these threats may affect individuals of the species. However, despite our 

acknowledged uncertainties, even these synergistic effects that can be reasonably expected to 

occur from multiple threats and/or demographic risks are not anticipated to rise to the level of 

significantly affecting the extinction risk for this species. Individuals may be affected but we do 

not anticipate the species to respond to these threats in a way that may cause measurable impacts 

at the population level. The range of the species across heterogeneous habitats, the 

conservatively estimated abundance of 13-18 million individuals, the temporal variation in 

threats, coupled with the resiliency and trans-generational adaptive capabilities of the species to 

potential impacts contribute to a low overall vulnerability of the species.
44

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Numerous individual biologists, scientists, and managers provided information that aided in 

preparation of this report and deserve special thanks. We particularly wish to thank Maarten De

Brauwer, Jeff Kinch, Andrew Rhyne, and Colette Wabnitz for information, data, and

professional opinions. We would also like to thank those who submitted information through the 

public comment process.

We would especially like to thank the peer reviewers Peter Buston, Maarten De Brauwer, and 

Colette Wabnitz for their time and professional review of this report.

This document should be cited as: 

Maison, K.A. and K.S. Graham. 2015. Status review report: Orange clownfish (Amphiprion 

percula). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources. July, 

2015. 67 p.

LITERATURE CITED

Allen, G.R. 

1972. Anemonefishes: Their classification and biology. T.F.H. Publications, Inc.

Neptune City, NJ.

Allen, G.R.

1991. Damselfishes of the world. Mergus Publishers, Melle, Germany. 271 p.

Allen, G.R., J. Drew, and L. Kaufman.

2008. Amphiprion barberi, a new species of anemonefish (Pomacentridae) from Fiji, Tonga, 

and Samoa. Aqua Intl J of Ichthyology 14(3): 105-114. 

Almany, G.R., M.L. Berumen, S.R. Thorrold, S. Planes, and G.P. Jones. 

2007. Local replenishment of coral reef fish populations in a marine reserve. Science 316: 

742–744.

Animal-World. 

2015. True percula clownfish. Accessed January 28, 2015, http://animalworld.com/encyclo/marine/clowns/truepercula.php#Habitat:%20Distribution%20/

%20Background.

Aqorau, T. 

2005. Review of Solomon Islands Fisheries Act 1998: Where to and why? Paper presented at 

the National Fisheries Conference, 25 July – 4 August 2005, Honiara, Solomon Islands. 

FFA Report 05/21. 27 pp. 
45

Arvedlund, M., I. Bundgaard, and L. Nielsen. 

2000. Host imprinting in anemonefishes (Pisces: Pomacentridae): Does it dictate spawning 

site preferences? Environmental Biology of Fishes, 58(2): 203-213. 

Aswani, S. and R. Hamilton. 

2004. The value of many small vs. few large marine protected areas in the Western Solomon 

Islands. SPC Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information 

Bulletin (16): 3-14.

Aswani, S., S. Albert, A. Sabetian, and T. Furusawa. 

2007. Customary management as 

precautionary and adaptive principles for protecting coral reefs in Oceania. Coral Reefs 26: 

1009-1021. doi:10.1007/s00338-007-0277-z

Ateweberhan, M., D.A. Feary, S. Keshavmurthy, A. Chen, M.H. Schleyer, and C.R.C. Sheppard. 

2013. Climate change impacts on coral reefs: Synergies with local effects, possibilities for 

acclimation, and management implications. Mar Pol Bull 74(2): 526-539. 

Bay, L.K., R.H. Crozier, and M.J. Caley.

2006. The relationship between population genetic structure and pelagic larval duration in 

coral reef fishes on the Great Barrier Reef. Mar Biol 149(5): 1247-1256. 

doi:10.1007/s00227-006-0276-6

Bergen, L.K. and M.H. Carr. 

2010. Establishing marine reserves: How can science best inform policy? Environment:

Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 45(2): 8-19. 

doi:10.1080/00139150309604526

Berumen, M.L., H.J. Walsh, N. Raventos, S. Planes, G.P. Jones, V. Starczak, and S.R. Thorrold. 

2010. Otolith geochemistry does not reflect dispersal history of clownfish larvae. Coral Reefs

29(4): 883-891. 

Berumen, M.L., G.R. Almany, S. Planes, G.P. Jones, P. Saenz-Agudelo, and S.R. Thorrold. 

2012. Persistence of self-recruitment and patterns of larval connectivity in a marine protected

area network. Ecol Evol 2(2): 444-453. doi:10.1002/ece3.208

Bowen, B.W., A.L. Bass, A. Muss, J. Carlin, and D.R. Robertson. 

2006. Phylogeography of two Atlantic squirrelfishes (Family Holocentridae): Exploring links

between pelagic larval duration and population connectivity. Mar Biol 149(4): 899-913.

Bridge, T., A. Scott, and D. Steinberg. 

2012. Abundance and diversity of anemonefishes and their host sea anemones at two 

mesophotic sites on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Coral Reefs 31(4): 1057-1062.
46

Brodie, J., J. Waterhouse, B. Schaffelke, F. Kroon, P. Thorburn, J. Rolfe, J. Johnson, K. 

Fabricius, S. Lewis, M. Devlin, M. Warne, and L. McKenzie. 

2013. Land use impacts on Great Barrier Reef water quality and ecosystem condition: 2013 

scientific consensus statement. The State of Queensland 2013. Reef Water Quality 

Protection Plan Secretariat 12 pp. 

Brook, B.W., D.W. Tonkyn, J.J. O'Grady, and R. Frankham. 

2002. Contribution of inbreeding to extinction risk in threatened species. Conserv Ecol 6(1): 

16. 

Burke, L., K. Reytar, M. Spalding, and A. Perry. 

2011. Reefs at risk revisited. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. 130 pp. 

Buston, P.M. 

2003a. Mortality is associated with social rank in the clown anemonefish (Amphiprion 

percula). Mar Biol 143(4): 811–815.

Buston, P.M. 

2003b. Social hierarchies: Size and growth modification in clownfish. Nature 424(6945): 

145-146.

Buston, P.M. 

2003c. Forcible eviction and prevention of recruitment in the clown anemonefish. 

Behav Ecol 14(4): 576 –582. doi:10.1093/beheco/arg036

Buston, P. 

2004. Does the presence of non-breeders enhance the fitness of breeders? An experimental 

analysis in the clown anemonefish Amphiprion percula. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 57(1): 

23–31. doi:10.1007/s00265-004-0833-2

Buston, P.M. and M.A. Cant. 

2006. A new perspective on size hierarchies in nature: Patterns, causes and consequences. 

Oecologia 149: 362-372. doi:10.1007/s00442-006-0442-z

Buston, P.M. and M.B. Garcia.

2007. An extraordinary life span estimate for the clown anemonefish Amphiprion percula. J 

Fish Biol 70(6): 1710–1719.

Buston, P.M. and J. Elith. 

2011. Determinants of reproductive success in dominant pairs of clownfish: A boosted 

regression tree analysis. J Anim Ecol 80(3): 528-538.

Buston, P.M. and M.Y.L. Wong. 

2014. Why some animals forgo reproduction in complex societies. American Scientist 102.4: 

290-297.
47

Buston, P.M., S.M. Bogdanowicz, A. Wong, and R.G. Harrison. 

2007. Are clownfish groups composed of close relatives? An analysis of microsatellite DNA 

variation in Amphiprion percula. Mol Ecol 16(17): 3671–3678.

Buston, P.M., G.P. Jones, S. Planes, and S.R. Thorrold. 

2012. Probability of successful larval dispersal declines fivefold over 1 km in a coral reef. 

P R Soc B 279(1735): 1883-1888.

Caillaud, A., S. Boengkih, E. Evans-Illidge, J. Genolagani, P. Havemann, D. Henao, E. Kwa, D.

Llewell, A. Ridep-Morris, J. Rose, R. Nari, P. Skelton, R. South, R. Sulu, A. Tawake, B.

Tobin, S. Tuivanuavou, and C. Wilkinson. 

2004. Tabus or not taboos? How to use traditional environmental knowledge to support 

sustainable development of marine resources in Melanesia. SPC Traditional Marine 

Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin 17:14-35.

Caro, T. M., and M.K. Laurenson. 

1994. Ecological and genetic factors in conservation: a cautionary tale. Science-AAASWeekly Paper Edition-including Guide to Scientific Information 263(5146): 485-486.

Caughley, G. 

1994. Directions in conservation biology. J Anim Ecol 1994: 215-244.

Center for Biological Diversity. 

2012. Petition to list 8 pomacentrid reef fish under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. 

September 14, 2012. 85 pages.

Cheung, W.W.L., T.J. Pitcher and D. Pauly. 

2005. A fuzzy logic expert system to estimate intrinsic extinction vulnerabilities of marine 

fishes to fishing. Biol Conserv 124(1): 97-111.

Cleveland, A., E.A. Verde, and R.W. Lee. 

2011. Nutritional exchange in a tropical tripartite symbiosis: Direct evidence for the transfer 

of nutrients from anemonefish to host anemone and zooxanthellae. Mar Bio 158: 589-

602. doi:10.1007/s00227-010-1583-5

Commonwealth of Australia. 

2014. Assessment of the Queensland Marine Aquarium Fish Fishery. 41 pp. Available at: 

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/b03db4cb-a47a-4252-8360-

d7e38e9702b7/files/assessment-2014.pdf.

Coral Triangle Atlas. 

2012. Papua New Guinea. Accessed April 9, 2015 

http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs028/1108454596610/archive/1111186699061.ht

ml.
48

Coral Triangle Atlas. 

2012. Solomon Islands. Accessed April 10, 2015 

http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs113/1108454596610/archive/1111431476496.ht

ml.

Cunning, R. and A.C. Baker. 

2013. Excess algal symbionts increase the susceptibility of reef corals to bleaching. Nat Clim 

Chang 3(3): 259-262.

Dandava-Oli, L., P. Sokou, and C. Wabnitz. 

2013. The marine aquarium trade in Papua New Guinea: Historical context and current 

activities. SPC Fisheries Newsletter 141, May-August 2013. 4 pp.

Davenport, D. and K.S. Norris. 

1958. Observations on the symbiosis of the sea anemone Stoichactis and the pomacentrid 

fish, Amphiprion percula. Biol Bull 115(3): 397-410.

Day, J.C. 

2002. Zoning – lessons from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Ocean & Coastal Mgmt 45: 

139-156.

Day, J.C. 

2008. The need and practice of monitoring, evaluating and adapting marine planning and 

management—lessons from the Great Barrier Reef. Mar Pol 32: 823-831. 

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.023

Dayton, L. 

2015. Great Barrier Reef keeps World Heritage Site status. Science, June 1, 2015. 

doi:10.1126/science.aac4668

Dawes, J. 

2003. Wild-caught marine species and the ornamental aquatic industry. In: Cato, J.C., 

Brown, C.L. (eds.) Marine Ornamental Species: Collection, Culture, and Conservation. 

Iowa State Press Ames, Iowa, p. 363–370.

De Brauwer, M. 

2014. Assessing extinction risk in anemonefishes. B.S. Thesis submission, University of 

Western Australia. 55 pp.

Dhaneesh, K.V., T.T. Ajith Kumar, and T. Shunmugaraj. 

2009. Embryonic development of percula clownfish, Amphiprion percula (Lacepede, 1802). 

Middle-East J Sci Res 4(2): 84-89.
49

Dixson, D.L., G.P. Jones, P.L. Munday, S. Planes, M.S. Pratchett, M. Srinivasan, C. Syms, and 

S.R. Thorrold. 

2008. Coral reef fish smell leaves to find island homes. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 

275(1653): 2831–2839.

Dixson, D.L., P.L. Munday, and G.P. Jones. 

2010. Ocean acidification disrupts the innate ability of fish to detect predator olfactory cues. 

Ecol Lett 13(1): 68-75. 

Dixson, D.L., G.P. Jones, P.L. Munday, S. Planes, M.S. Pratchett, and S.R. Thorrold. 

2014. Experimental evaluation of imprinting and the role innate preference plays in habitat 

selection in a coral reef fish. Oecologia 174(1): 99-107. 

Dobson, A.P. 

1999. Introduction: Genetics and conservation biology. Pages xiii-xviii in L.F. Landweber 

and A.P. Dobson (eds.). Genetics and the extinction of species. Princeton University 

Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA. 

Donelson, J.M., P.L. Munday, M.I. McCormick, N.W. Pankhurst, and P.M. Pankhurst. 

2010. Effects of elevated water temperature and food availability on the reproductive 

performance of a coral reef fish. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 401: 233-243.

Donelson, J.M., P.L. Munday, M.I. McCormick, and C.R. Pitcher. 

2011. Rapid transgenerational acclimation of a tropical reef fish to climate change. Nat Clim 

Chang 2(1): 30-32. 

Donnelly, R.J. 

2013. Stewardship Action Plan 2013: Mitigating ecological risk in a changing climate. Provision Reef Inc., Cairns, Australia. 

Dumas, P., H. Jimenez, M. Leopold, G. Petro and R. Jimmy. 

2010. Effectiveness of village-based marine reserves on reef invertebrates in Emau, Vanuatu. 

Envir Conser 37(3): 364-372. doi:10.1017/S0376892910000536

Dupont, S., N. Dorey, M. Stump, F. Melzner, and M. Thorndyke. 

2013. Long-term and trans-life-cycle effect of exposure to ocean acidification in the green 

sea urchin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis. Mar Biol 160(8): 1835-1843. 

Edinger, E.N., J. Jompa, G.V. Limmon, W. Widjatmoko, and M.J. Risk. 

1998. Reef degradation and coral biodiversity in Indonesia: Effects of land-based pollution, 

destructive fishing practices and changes over time. Mar Pol Bull 36(8): 617-630.

Edinger, E.N., J. Kolasa, and M.J. Risk. 

2000. Biogeographic variation in coral species diversity on coral reefs in three regions of 

Indonesia. Diversity and Distributions 6: 113-127. 
50

Elliott, J.K, J.M. Elliott, and R.N. Mariscal. 

1995. Host selection, location, and association behaviors of anemonefishes in field settlement 

experiments. Mar Biol 122(3): 377-389.

Elliott, J.K. and R.N. Mariscal. 

1997a. Ontogenetic and interspecific variation in the protection of anemonefishes from sea 

anemones. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 208(1): 57-72. 

Elliott, J.K. and R.N. Mariscal. 

1997b. Acclimation or innate protection of anemone fishes from sea anemones? Copeia 284–

289.

Elliott, J. and R. Mariscal.

2001. Coexistence of nine anemonefish species: Differential host and habitat utilization, size 

and recruitment. Mar Biol 138(1): 23-36. 

Fautin, D. 

1981. The clownfish sea anemones: Stichodactylidae (Coelenterata: Actiniaria) and other sea 

anemones symbiotic with pomacentrid fishes. Transactions of the American 

Philosophical Society 71(1): 3-115. 

Fautin, D.G. 

1985. Competition by anemone fishes for host actinians. In: International Association of 

Biological Oceanographers Committee on Coral Reefs (eds). Proceedings of the Fifth 

International Coral Reef Congress, Tahiti, 27 May-1 June 1985, vol t. Antenne du 

Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle et de l’Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes en 

Polynesie Francaise, Moorea, French Polynesia, pp 373-377.

Fautin, D. 

1991. The anemonefish symbiosis: what is known and what is not. Symbiosis 10: 23-46.

Fautin, D.G. 

1992. Anemonefish recruitment: the roles of order and chance. Symbiosis 14: 143-160.

Fautin, D.G. 

2013. Hexacorallians of the World. Accessed April 9, 2015 

http://geoportal.kgs.ku.edu/hexacoral/anemone2/index.cfm.

Fautin, D.G. and G.R. Allen. 

1997. Anemone fishes and their host sea anemones. Revised edition. Western Australian 

Museum, Perth, 160 pp. 
51

Fishbase.org. 

Accessed January 28, 2015 

http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/speciesSummary.php?ID=9209&AT=orange+clownf

ish.

Fisher R., D.R. Bellwood, and S.D. Job. 

2000. Development of swimming abilities in reef fish larvae. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 202:163–

173.

Florida Museum of Natural History.

2005. Biological profiles: Orange clownfish. Ichthyology at the Florida Museum of Natural 

History: Education-Biological Profiles. FLMNH, University of Florida. Accessed 

January 28, 2015 

www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/OrangeClAnemone/ORangeClAnemone.ht

ml.

Francis-Floyd, R. and M.R. Floyd. 

2011. Amyloodinium ocellatum, an important parasite of cultured marine fish. Southern 

Regional Aquaculture Center publication No. 4705. 12 pp. 

Fujita, R., D.J. Thornhill, K. Karr, C.H. Cooper, and L.E. Dee. 

2014. Assessing and managing data-limited ornamental fisheries in coral reefs. Fish and 

Fisheries 15: 661-675.

Gagliano, M., M.I. McCormick, J.A. Moore, and M. Depczynski. 

2010. The basics of acidification: Baseline variability of pH on Australian coral reefs. Mar 

Biol 157(8): 1849-1856. 

Ganeshamurthy, R., M.M. Raj, V.S. Kumar, and N. Veerappan. 

2014. Effect of copepod parasites Caligus longipedis (Bassett-Smith in 1898) infection in 

marine ornamental fish Amphiprion percula and Amphiprion clarkii. Int J of Fish Aquat 

Stud 1(6): 173-175. 

Gilpin, M.E., and M.E. Soulé. 

1986. Minimum viable populations: The processes of species extinctions. In M. Soulé (Ed.). 

Conservation biology: The science of scarcity and diversity, pp. 13-34. Sunderland Mass: 

Sinauer Associates. 

Gordon, A.K. and T. Hecht. 

2002. Histological studies on the development of the digestive system of the clownfish 

Amphiprion percula at the time of weaning. J Appl Ichthyol 18(2): 113-117.

Gray, S.E.C., M.D. DeGrandpre, C. Langdon, and J.E. Corredor. 

2012. Short-term and seasonal pH, pCO2 and saturation state variability in a coral-reef 

ecosystem. Global Biogeochem Cy 26(3).
52

Green, A., S.E. Smith, G. Lipsett-Moore, C. Groves, N. Peterson, S. Sheppard, P. Lokani, R. 

Hamilton, J. Almany, J. Aitsi, and L. Bualia. 

2009. Designing a resilient network of marine protected areas for Kimbe Bay, Papua New 

Guinea. Oryx 43: 488-498 doi:10.1017/S0030605309990342

Halpern, B.S. 

2003. The impact of marine reserves: Do reserves work and does reserve size matter? Ecol 

Appl 13(1) Supplement: S117-S137. 

Hattori, A. 

1995. Coexistence of two anemonefishes, Amphiprion clarkii and A. perideraion, which 

utilize the same host sea anemone. Environ Biol Fish 42(4): 345-353.

Hattori, A. 

2002. Small and large anemonefishes can coexist using the same patchy resources on a coral 

reef, before habitat destruction. J Anim Ecol 71(5): 824-831.

Hattori, A. 

2006. Vertical and horizontal distribution patterns of the giant sea anemone Heteractis crispa

with symbiotic anemonefish on a fringing coral reef. J Ethol 24(1): 51-57. 

Hickey, F.R. and R.E. Johannes. 

2002. Recent evolution of village-based marine resource management in Vanuatu. SPC 

Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin #14: 8-

21. 

Hill, R. and A. Scott. 

2012. The influence of irradiance on the severity of thermal bleaching in sea anemones that 

host anemonefish. Coral Reefs 31(1): 273-284.

Hobbs, J.P.A., A.J., Frisch, B.M. Ford, M. Thums, P. Saenz-Agudelo, K.A. Furby, and M.L. 

Berumen. 

2013. Taxonomic, spatial and temporal patterns of bleaching in anemones inhabited by 

anemonefishes. PLoS ONE 8(8): e790966. 

Hobbs, J.P.A., M. Beger, M. De Brauwer, and M.J. Emslie. 

2014. North-eastern range extension of the anemone Stichodactyla haddoni to the Marshall 

Islands represents a new record of host use by the endemic anemonefish Amphiprion 

tricinctus. Mar Biodivers Rec 7: e106. doi:10.1017/S1755267214001055

Holbrook, S.J. and R.J. Schmitt. 

2005. Growth, reproduction and survival of a tropical sea anemone (Actinaria): benefits of 

hosting anemonefish. Coral Reefs 24: 67-73. doi:10.1007/s00338-004-0432-8
53

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 

2013. Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. 

Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Jameson, S.C., M.H. Tupper, and J.M. Ridley. 

2002. The three screen doors: Can marine “protected” areas be effective? Mar Poll Bull 

44(11): 1177-1183. 

Johansen, J.L. and G.P. Jones. 

2011. Increasing ocean temperature reduces the metabolic performance and swimming 

ability of coral reef damselfishes. Glob Change Biol 17(9): 2971-2979. 

Johnson, D.R., N.A. Funicelli, and J.A. Bohnsack. 

1999. Effectiveness of an existing estuarine no take fish sanctuary within Kennedy Space 

Center. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19:436–453.

Jones, A.M., S. Gardner, and W. Sinclair. 

2008. Losing “Nemo”: bleaching and collection appear to reduce inshore populations of

anemonefishes. J Fish Biol 73: 753-761. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2008.01969.x 

Jones, G.P., S. Planes, and S.R. Thorrold. 

2005. Coral reef fish larvae settle close to home. Curr Biol 15(14): 1314-1318. 

doi:10.1016/j.cub.2005.06.061

Jones, G.P., G.R. Almany, G.R. Russ, P.F. Sale, R.S. Steneck, M.J.H. van Oppen, and B.L. 

Willis. 

2009. Larval retention and connectivity among populations of corals and reef fishes: History, 

advances and challenges. Coral Reefs 28(2): 307-325.

Jupiter, S.D. and D.P. Egli. 

2011. Ecosystem-based management in Fiji: Successes and challenges after five years of 

implementation. J of Mar Bio, 14 pp. doi:10.1155/2011/940765

Kabutaulaka, T.T. 

2005. Rumble in the jungle: land, culture and (un)sustainable logging in the Solomon Islands. 

In: Culture and sustainable development in the Pacific. Antony Hooper (ed.). Asia Pacific 

Press at the Australian National University. 227 pp. Available at: 

http://ir.nmu.org.ua/bitstream/handle/123456789/119099/6d38de4104e23bed700378

8db7b8f845.pdf?sequence=1.

Kinch, J. 

2004a. The marine aquarium trade in the Western Province, the Solomon Islands. Report for 

the Marine Aquarium Council, Suva, Fiji. 27 pp. 
54

Kinch, J. 

2004b. The marine aquarium trade in the Solomon Islands, with specific notes on Marau 

Sound, Guadalcanal. Report for the Marine Aquarium Council and the Foundation of the 

Peoples of the South Pacific-International. 38 pp. 

Kinch, J. 

2008. A preliminary assessment of the viability of the development of the marine ornamental

aquarium fishery in Papua New Guinea. Report prepared for EcoEZ, Inc. and the 

National Fisheries Authority. 13 pp. 

Kinch, J. and A. Teitelbaum. 

2008. Proceedings of the sub-regional workshop on the marine ornamental trade in the 

Pacific. SPC Aquaculture Technical Papers. Issn: 1683-7568. 2-5 December 2008, 

Noumea, New Caledonia. 

Kuffner, I.B., A.J. Andersson, P.L. Jokiel, K.S. Rodgers, and F.T. Mackenzie. 

2007. Decreased abundance of crustose coralline algae due to ocean acidification. Nat Geosci 

1(2): 114-117.

Kuiter, R.H., and T. Tonozuka. 

2004. Pictorial guide to Indonesian reef fishes. Part 2. Bali, Indonesia PT Dive & Dives: 

376-377.

Lande, R. 

1988. Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science 241(4872): 1455-1460.

Leis, J.M., U. Siebeck, and D.L. Dixson. 

2011. How Nemo finds home: The neuroecology of dispersal and of population connectivity 

in larvae of marine fishes. Integr Comp Biol, May 2011: 1-18. doi:10.1093/icb/icr004

Litsios, G., C.A. Sims, R.O. Wuest, P.B. Pearman, N.E. Zimmermann, and N. Salamin 

2012. Mutualism with sea anemones triggered the adaptive radiation of clownfishes. BMC 

Evol Biol 12(1): 212.

Litsios, G. P.B. Pearman, D. Lanterbecq, N. Tolou, and N. Salamin. 

2014. The radiation of the clownfishes has two geographical replicates. J Biogeogr 41(11): 

2140-2149. 

Litsios, G. and N. Salamin. 

2014. Hybridisation and diversification in the adaptive radiation of clownfishes. BMC Evol 

Biol 14(1): 245.

Live Aquaria. 

2015. Accessed April 9, 2015, http://www.liveaquaria.com/product/aquarium-fishsupplies.cfm?c=15+27.
55

Lo-Yat, A., S.D. Simpson, M. Meekan, D. Lecchini, E. Martinez, and R. Galzin. 

2010. Extreme climatic events reduce ocean productivity and larval supply in a tropical reef 

ecosystem. Glob Change Biol 17(4): 1695-1702. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02355.x

Luiz, O.J., J.S. Madin, D.R. Robertson, L.A. Rocha, P. Wirtz, and S.R. Floeter. 

2012. Ecological traits influencing range expansion across large oceanic dispersal barriers: 

Insights from tropical Atlantic reef fishes. P R Soc B 279: 1033-1040. 

Madduppa, H.H., J. Timm, and M. Kochzius. 

2014. Interspecific, spatial and temporal variability of self-recruitment in anemonefishes. 

PLoS ONE. 9(2): e90648. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0090648 

Madhu, K. and R. Madhu. 

2006. Protandrous hermaphroditism in the clown fish Amphiprion percula from Andaman 

and Nicobar islands. Indian J Fish 53(4): 373-382.

Mariscal, R.N. 

1970. The nature of the symbiosis between Indo-Pacific anemone fishes and sea anemones. 

Mar Biol 6(1): 58-65.

McClanahan, T.R., M.J. Marnane, J.E. Cinner, and W.E. Kiene. 

2006. A comparison of marine protected areas and alternative approaches to coral reef 

management. Curr Bio, 16: 1408-1413. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2006.05.062.

McCook, L.J., T. Ayling, M. Cappo, J.H. Choat, R.D. Evans, D.M. De Freitas, M.Heupel et al. 

2010. Adaptive management of the Great Barrier Reef: A globally significant demonstration 

of the benefits of networks of marine reserves. Proc Natl A Sci 107(43): 18278-18285.

McElhany, P., M. H. Ruckelshaus, M. J. Ford, T. C. Wainwright, and E. P. Bjorkstedt. 

2000. Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. 

US Dept Commer. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC42, 156 p.

Mebs, D. 

1994. Anemonefish symbiosis: Vulnerability and resistance of fish to the toxin of the seaanemone. Toxicon 32(9): 1059–1068.

Mebs, D. 

2009. Chemical biology of the mutualistic relationships of sea anemones with fish and 

crustaceans. Toxicon 54(8): 1071–1074.

Militz, T. 

2015. Papua New Guinea Gearing up for Aquarium Market Again. Accessed August 4, 2015,

http://www.reef2rainforest.com/2015/04/06/papua-new-guinea-gearing-up-foraquarium-market-again.
56

Miller, G.M., S.A. Watson, J.M. Donelson, M.I. McCormick, and P.L. Munday. 

2012. Parental environment mediates impacts of increased carbon dioxide on a coral reef 

fish. Nat Clim Chang 2(12): 858-861. 

Miyagawa-Kohshima, K., S. Odoriba, D. Okabe, Y. Baba, H. Touma, A. Takemoto, N. 

Yamanishi, S. Matsuzaki, S. Nagata, Y. Kanaya, M. Wakai, H. Koyanagi, H. Igei, M. 

Nakazatochief, H. Miyahara, and S. Uchida. 

2014. Embryonic learning of chemical cues via the parents’ host in anemonefish 

(Amphiprion ocellaris). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 457: 160-172.

Moe, M.A. 

2003. Culture of Marine Ornamentals: For Love, for Money, and for Science. Chapter 2. In: 

Cato, J.C. and C.L. Brown, eds. 2003. Marine Ornamental Species: Collection, Culture, 

and Conservation. Iowa State Press. First Edition. 

Moyer, J.T. 

1976. Geographical variation and social dominance in Japanese populations of the 

anemonefish Amphiprion clarkii. Jpn J of Ichthyol 23(1): 12-22.

Moyer, J.T. 

1986. Longevity of the anemonefish Amphiprion clarkii at Miyake-jima, Japan with notes on 

four other species. Copeia (1): 135-139.

Munday, P.L., J.M. Donelson, D.L. Dixson, D.L., and G.G. Endo. 

2009a. Effects of ocean acidification on the early life history of a tropical marine fish. Proc R 

Soc B: Biol Sci 276 (1671): 3275-3283.

Munday, P.L., D.L. Dixson, J.M. Donelson, G.P. Jones, M.S. Pratchett, G.V. Devitsina, K.B. 

Doving, and D.M. Karl. 

2009b. Ocean acidification impairs olfactory discrimination and homing ability of a marine 

fish. P Natl A Sci 106(6): 1848-1852.

Munday, P.L., D.L. Dixson, M.I. McCormick, M. Meekan, M.C.O. Ferrari, and D.P. Chivers. 

2010. Replenishment of fish populations is threatened by ocean acidification. P Natl A Sci 

107(29): 12930-12934. 

Munday, P.L., M. Gagliano, J.M. Donelson, D.L. Dixson, and S.R. Thorrold. 

2011a. Ocean acidification does not affect the early life history development of a tropical 

marine fish. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 423: 211-221. 

Munday, P.L., V. Hernamen, D.L. Dixson, and S.R. Thorrold. 

2011b. Effect of ocean acidification on otolith development in larvae of a tropical marine 

fish. Biogeosciences 8: 1631-1641. 
57

Murray, C.S., A. Malvezzi, C.J. Gobler, and H. Baumann. 

2014. Offspring sensitivity to ocean acidification changes seasonally in a coastal marine fish. 

Mar Ecol Prog Ser 504: 1-11. 

Murray, J.M. and G.J. Watson. 

2014. A critical assessment of marine aquarist biodiversity data and commercial aquaculture: 

identifying gaps in culture initiatives to inform local fisheries managers. PLoS ONE 9(9) 

e105982. 

Myers, R.F. 

1999. Micronesian Reef Fishes: A comprehensive guide to the coral reef fishes of 

Micronesia. Coral Graphics, Territory of Guam. 330 pp. 

Nanninga, G.B. 

2013. Merging approaches to explore connectivity in the anemonefish, Amphiprion bicinctus, 

along the Saudi Arabian coast of the Red Sea. Dissertation. King Abdullah University of 

Science and Technology, Thuwal, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 

2012a. Management report for bumphead parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum) status 

review under the Endangered Species Act: Existing regulatory mechanism and 

conservation efforts. 281 pp.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 

2012b. Management report for 82 corals status review under the Endangered Species Act: 

Existing regulatory mechanisms and conservation efforts. 233 pp.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 

2013. Guidance on Responding to Petitions and Conducting Status Reviews Under the 

Endangered Species Act. 41 pp.

Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council. 

2006. National Cooperative Approach to Integrated Coastal Zone Management Framework 

and Implementation Plan. Australian Government, Department of the Environment and 

Heritage, Canberra, ACT. 

Naviti, W. and J. Aston. 

2000. Status of coral reef and reef fish resources of Vanuatu. Regional Symposium on Coral 

Reefs in the Pacific: Status and Monitoring. Resources and Management, Noumea, New 

Caledonia.

Nelson, J.S., R.J. Hoddell, L.M. Chou, W.K. Chan, and V.P.E. Phang. 

2000. Phylogeographic structure of false clownfish, Amphiprion ocellaris, explained by sea 

level changes on the Sunda shelf. Mar Biol 137(4): 727-736.
58

Nilsson, G.E., N. Crawley, I.G. Lunde, and P.L. Munday. 

2009. Elevated temperature reduces the respiratory scope of coral reef fishes. Glob Change 

Biol 15(6): 1405-1412.

Nugues, M.M. and C.M. Roberts. 

2003. Coral mortality and interaction with algae in relation to sedimentation. Coral Reefs 

22(4): 507-516. 

Oceans Reefs Aquariums. 

2015. Accessed April 9, 2015, http://www.orafarm.com/products/fish/clowns/.

Ochi, H. 

1986. Temporal patterns of breeding and larval settlement in a temperate population of the 

tropical anemonefish, Amphiprion clarkii. Jpn J Ichthyo. 32(2): 248-257.

Ohde, S. and R. van Woesik. 

1999. Carbon dioxide flux and metabolic processes of a coral reef, Okinawa. Bull Mar Sci 

65(2): 559-576. 

Ollerton, J. D. McCollin, D.G. Fautin, and G.R. Allen. 

2007. Finding Nemo: Nestedness engendered by mutualistic organization in anemonefish and 

their hosts. P R Soc B 274 (1609): 591-598.

Paris, C.B., J. Atema, J.O. Irisson, M. Kingsford, G. Gerlach, and C.M. Guigand. 

2013. Reef odor: A wake up call for navigation in reef fish larvae. PLoS ONE 8(8): e72808. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0072808 

Patrick, W.S., P. Spencer, J. Link, J. Cope, J. Field, D. Kobayashi, P. Lawson, T. Gedamke, E. 

Cortes, O. Ormseth, K. Bigelow, and W. Overholtz. 

2010. Using productivity and susceptibility indices to assess the vulnerability of United 

States fish stocks to overfishing. Fish Bull 108: 205-322.

Pini, J., S. Planes, E. Rochel, D. Lecchini, and C. Fauvelot. 

2011. Genetic diversity loss associated to high mortality and environmental stress during the 

recruitment stage of a coral reef fish. Coral Reefs 30(2): 399-404. 

Pinsky, M.L., S.R. Palumbi, S. Andrefouet, and S.J. Purkis. 

2012. Open and closed seascapes: Where does habitat patchiness create populations with 

high fractions of self-recruitment? Ecol Appl 22(4): 1257-1267. 

Planes, S. G.P. Jones, and S.R. Thorrold. 

2009. Larval dispersal connects fish populations in a network of marine protected areas. P 

Natl A Sci 106(14): 5693-5697.
59

Porat, D. and N.E. Chadwick-Furman. 

2004. Effect of anemonefish on giant sea anemones: Expansion, behavior, growth and 

survival. Hydrobiologia 530(1-3): 513-520.

Price, N.N., T.R. Martz, R.E. Brainard, and J.E. Smith. 

2012. Diel variability in seawater pH relates to calcification and benthic community structure 

on coral reefs. PLoS ONE 7(8): e43843.

Randall, J.E, G.R. Allen, and R.C. Steene. 

1997. Fishes of the Great Barrier Reef and Coral Sea. Bathurst: Crawford House Publishing. 

507 pp.

Republic of Vanuatu. 

2002. Environmental and Conservation Act. No. 12 of 2002. 25 pp.

Rhyne, A.L., M.F. Tlusty, P.J. Schofield, L. Kaufman, J.A. Morris, Jr., and A.W. Bruckner.

2012. Revealing the appetite of the marine aquarium fish trade: the volume and biodiversity 

of fish imported into the United States. PLoS ONE 7(5): e35808. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0035808

Roelofs, A. 

2008. Ecological risk assessment of the Queensland marine aquarium fish fishery. 

Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Brisbane, 18 pp. 

Roelofs, A. and R. Silcock. 

2008. A vulnerability assessment of coral taxa collected in the Queensland coral fishery. 

Dept. of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Brisbane. 12 pp.

Rogers, C.S. 

1990. Responses of coral reefs and reef organisms to sedimentation. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 

62(1): 185-202.

Roopin, M. and N.E. Chadwick. 

2009. Benefits to host sea anemones from ammonia contributions of resident anemonefish. J 

Exp Mar Biol Ecol 370(1): 27-34. doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2008.11.006

Rosenberg, S., and G. Cruz. 

1988. The anemonefishes of the Indo-Pacific. Sea Frontiers 34: 16-21.

Russ, G.R. and Alcala A.C. 

1999. Management histories of Sumilon and Apo marine reserves, Philippines, and their 

influence on national marine resource policy. Coral Reefs 18:307–319.
60

Saenz-Agudelo, P., G.P. Jones, S.R. Thorrold, and S. Planes. 

2011. Detrimental effects of host anemone bleaching on anemonefish populations. Coral 

Reefs 30: 497-506. 

Saenz-Agudelo, P., G.P. Jones, S.R. Thorrold, and S. Planes. 

2012. Patterns and persistence of larval retention and connectivity in a marine fish 

metapopulation. Mol Ecol, 11 pp. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05726.x

Saenz-Agudelo, P., G.P. Jones, S.R. Thorrold, and S. Planes. 

2015. Mothers matter: Contribution to local replenishment is linked to female size, mate 

replacement and fecundity in a fish metapopulation. Mar Biol 162: 3-14.

Salinas, S. and S.B. Munch. 

2012. Thermal legacies: Transgenerational effects of temperature on growth in a vertebrate. 

Ecol Lett, 15: 159-163. 

Schneider, A., C.M. Mertes, A.J. Tatem, B. Tan, D. Sulla-Menashe, S.J. Graves, N.N. Patel, J.A. 

Horton, A.E. Gaughan, J.T. Rollo, I.H. Schelly, F.R. Stevens, and A. Dastur. 

2015. A new urban landscape in East-Southeast Asia, 2000-2010. Environ Res Lett 10: 

034002. 

Scott, A. and P. Harrison. 

2007a. Broadcast spawning of two species of sea anemone, Entacmaea quadricolor and 

Heteractis crispa, that host anemonefish. Invertebr Reprod Dev 50(3): 163-171.

Scott, A. and P.L. Harrison. 

2007b. Embryonic and larval development of the host sea anemones Entacmaea 

quadricolour and Heteractis crispa. Biol Bull 213(2): 110–121.

Scott, A. and P.L. Harrison. 

2008. Larval settlement and juvenile development of sea anemones that provide habitat for 

anemonefish. Mar Biol 154(5): 833–839.

Scott, A., D. Harasti, T. Davis, and S.D.A. Smith. 

2014. Southernmost records of the host sea anemone, Stichodactyla haddoni, and associated 

commensal shrimps in a climate change hotspot. Mar Biodivers 1-2. doi:10.1007/s12526-

014-0237-0

Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC). 

2010. Marine ornamental trade in Vanuatu. Presentation; 9 pp.

Seed, J. 

1986. Logging disrupts Solomon Islanders’ customary way of life. Cultural Survival 

quarterly issue 10.1 (spring): Multilateral banks and indigenous peoples. Available at: 

http://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/solomonislands/logging-disrupts-solomon-islanders-customar.
61

Shanks, A.L., B.A. Grantham, and M.H. Carr. 

2003. Propagule dispersal and the size and spacing of marine reserves. Ecol Appl 13(1): 159-

S169.

Shuman, C.S., G. Hodgson, and R.F. Ambrose. 

2005. Population impacts of collecting sea anemones and anemonefish for the marine 

aquarium trade in the Philippines. Coral Reefs 24: 564-573. doi:10.1007/s00338-005-

0027-z

Simpson, S.D., P.L. Munday, M.L. Wittenrich, R. Manassa, D.L. Dixson, M. Gagliano, and H.Y. 

Yan.

2011. Ocean acidification erodes crucial auditory behaviour in marine fish. Biol Letters, 7(6): 

917-920.

Simpson, S.D., H.B. Harrison, M.R. Claereboudt, and S. Planes. 

2014. Long-distance dispersal via ocean currents connects omani clownfish populations 

throughout entire species range. PLoS ONE 9(9): e107610. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107610.

Siva, M.U., T. Marudhupandi, M.A.B. Haq, and T.T.A. Kumar. 

2014. Histopathological study of lymphocystis disease virus (LCDV) in cultured false 

clownfish, Amphiprion ocellaris (Cuvier, 1830) and true clownfish, Amphiprion percula

(Lacepede, 1802). J Coast Life Med 2(4): 264-269. 

Smith, K.F., M.D. Behrens, L.M. Max, and P. Daszak. 

2008. U.S. drowning in unidentified fishes: Scope, implications, and regulation of live fish 

import. Conserv Letters 1(2): 103–109.

Spalding, M.D., C. Ravilious, and E.P. Green 

2001. World Atlas of Coral Reefs. University of California Press. 424 pp.

State of Queensland. 

2013. Reef water quality protection plan 2013: Securing the health and resilience of the Great 

Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and adjacent catchments. Reef Water Quality 

Protection Plan Secretariat. 36 pp. 

State of Queensland. 

2014. Marine aquarium fish fishery: 2013 fishing year report. 10 pp. Available at: 

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/d0b1bd33-7784-450a-8b12-

2e5ed65cd44d/files/qld-marine-aquarium-2013-fishing-year.pdf.

Suggett, D.J., L.F. Dong, T. Lawson, E. Lawrenz, L. Torres, and D.J. Smith. 

2013. Light availability determines susceptibility of reef building corals to ocean 

acidification. Coral Reefs 32(2): 327-337. 
62

Szczebak, J.T., R.P. Henry, F.A. Al-Horani, and N.E. Chadwick. 

2013. Anemonefish oxygenate their anemone hosts at night. J Exp Biol 216(6): 970-976. 

doi:10.1242/jeb.075648

Tao, Y., J.L. Li, M. Liu, and X.Y. Hu. 

2014. Complete mitochondrial genome of the orange clownfish Amphiprion percula (Pisces: 

Perciformes, Pomacentridae). Mitochond DNA, Early Online: 1-2.

Thornhill, D.J. 

2012. Ecological impacts and practices of the coral reef trade. Defenders of Wildlife. 179 p.

Timm, J., M. Figiel, and M. Kochzius.

2008. Contrasting patterns in species boundaries and evolution of anemonefishes 

(Amphiprioninae, Pomacentridae) in the centre of marine biodiversity. Mol Phylogenet 

Evol 49(1): 268-276.

Tissot, B.N., B.A. Best, E.H. Borneman, A.W. Bruckner, C.H. Cooper, H. D’Agnes, T.P. 

Fitzgerald, A. Leland, S. Lieberman, A.M. Amos, R. Sumaila, T.M. Telecky, F. McGilvray, B.J. 

Plankis, A.L. Rhyne, G.G. Roberts, B. Starkhouse, and T.C. Stevenson. 

2010. How U.S. ocean policy and market power can reform the coral reef wildlife trade. Mar 

Policy 34(6): 1385-1388.

Todd, P.A., X. Ong, and L.M. Chou. 

2010. Impacts of pollution on marine life in Southeast Asia. Biodivers Conserv 19(4): 1063-

1082. doi: 10.1007/s10531-010-9778-0

Treml, E.A., P.N. Halpin, D.L. Urban, and L.F. Pratson. 

2008. Modeling population connectivity by ocean currents: A graph-theoretic approach for 

marine conservation. Land Ecol 23(1): 19-36.

Treml, E.A., J.J. Roberts, Y. Chao, P.N. Halpin, H.P. Possingham, and C. Riginos. 

2012. Reproductive output and duration of the pelagic larval state determine seascape-wide 

connectivity of marine populations. Integr Comp Biol 52(4): 525-537. 

doi:10.1093/icb/ics101

Treml, E.A., J. Roberts, P.N. Halpin, H.P. Possingham, and C. Riginos. 

2015. The emergent geography of biophysical dispersal barriers across the Indo-West 

Pacific. Divers Distrib 21(4): 465-476. doi:10.1111/ddi.12307

Tsounis, G., S. Rossi, R. Grigg, G. Santangelo, L. Bramanti, and J-M. Gili. 

2010. The exploitation and conservation of precious corals. Oceanogr Mar Biol 48: 161–212.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 

2015. Great Barrier Reef. Accessed June 3, 2015 http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/154.
63

van der Meer, M.H., G.P. Jones, J.-P.A. Hobbs, and L. van Herwerden. 

2012. Historic hybridization and introgression between two iconic Australian anemonefish 

and contemporary patters of population connectivity. Ecol Evol 2(7): 1592-1604.

van Hooidonk, R., J.A. Maynard, and S. Planes. 

2013. Temporary refugia for coral reefs in a warming world. Nat Clim Change 3(5): 508-

511.

Wabnitz, C., M. Taylor, E. Green and T. Razak. 

2003. From ocean to aquarium: the global trade in marine ornamental species. UNEPWCMC, Cambridge, UK. Available at: http://www.unepwcmc.org/resources/publications/UNEP_WCMC_bio_series/17.htm.

Wabnitz, C., P. Mimimulu, P. Southgate, T. Nahacky, and A. Teitelbaum. 

2013. Commercial marine ornamental fish surveys in Kavieng, Papua New Guinea. SPC 

Fisheries Newsletter #141, May-August 2013. Available at: 

http://www.spc.int/DigitalLibrary/Doc/FAME/InfoBull/FishNews/141/FishNews141

_18_PNG_Aquarium.pdf.

Wainwright, T.C., and R.G. Kope. 

1999. Methods of extinction risk assessment developed for 

U.S. West Coast salmon. ICES J Mar Sci 56(4): 444-448. 

Weeks, R., and S.D. Jupiter. 

2013. Adaptive co-management of a marine protected network in Fiji. Cons Biol 27(6): 

1234-1244. doi:10.1111/cobi.12153

Weersing, K. and R.J. Toonen.

2009. Population genetics, larval dispersal, and connectivity in marine systems. Mar Ecol 

Prog Ser 393(1): 1-12.

Wellington, G., B. Victor. 

1989. Planktonic larval duration of one hundred species of Pacific and Atlantic damselfishes 

(Pomacentridae). Mar Biol 101(4): 557-567.

Wenger, A.S., M.I. McCormick, G.G.K. Endo, I.M. McLeod, F.J. Kroon, and G.P. Jones. 

2014. Suspended sediment prolongs larval development in a coral reef fish. J Exp Biol 

217(7): 1122-1128. 

Wiedenmann, J., C. D’Angelo, E.G. Smith, A.N. Hunt, F.-E. Legiret, A.D. Postle, and E.P. 

Achterberg. 

2013. Nutrient enrichment can increase the susceptibility of reef corals to bleaching. Nat 

Clim Change 3(2): 160-164. 

Williams, I.D., J.K. Baum, A. Heenan, K.M. Hanson, M.O. Nadon, and R.E. Brainard. 
64

2015. Human, oceanographic and habitat drivers of Central and Western Pacific coral reef 

fish assemblages. PLoS ONE 10(4): e0120516. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120516 

Williams, P.D. and A. Hastings. 

2013. Stochastic dispersal and population persistence in marine organisms. Am Nat 182(2): 

271-282. 

Wood, E.M. 

2001a. Collection of reef fish for aquaria: Conservation issues and management needs. In: 

Roberts, C.M., Hawkins, J.P., McAllister, D.E. (eds.) Coral reef fish status report. 

Species Survival Commission, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 

Wood, E. 

2001b. Collection of coral reef fish for aquaria: Global trade, conservation issues and 

management strategies. Marine Conservation Society, Ross-on-Wye, UK. 56 p.

Wood, E.M., K. Malsch, and J. Miller. 

2012. International trade in hard corals: Review of management, sustainability and trends. 

Proceedings of the 12th International Coral Reef Symposium, Cairns, Australia, 9-13 July 

2012, 19C Trade in coral reef wildlife.

Wood, L.J. 

2007. MPA Global: A database of the world’s marine protected areas. Accessed April 20, 

2015, www.mpaglobal.org.
65

Table 1.-- Summary of demographic risk factors for A. percula and relative strength of the 

evidence indicating these factors are posing an extinction risk for the species. Characterizations 

of the relative likelihood (very low, low, medium, high, or unknown) that a particular factor is 

contributing in a significant way to the extinction risk of the species are explained further in 

Section 3.2.4.

Demographic Risk Likelihood

Abundance Low*

Growth rate / productivity Low*

Spatial structure and connectivity Unknown

Diversity Low*

*Low means it is unlikely that the particular threat contributes or will contribute significantly to extinction risk for 

the species.

Table 2.--Summary of threats for A. percula and relative strength of the evidence indicating these 

factors are posing an extinction risk for the species. Characterizations of the relative likelihood 

(very low, low, medium, high, unknown) that a particular factor is contributing in a significant 

way to the extinction risk of the species are explained further in Section 3.3.6.. 

Threat Likelihood

Habitat

Anemone Bleaching Low**

Anemone Collection Low**

Sedimentation and Nutrient Enrichment Low-to-Medium±

Overutilization

Collection for the Aquarium Trade Low** 

Disease or 

Predation

Disease Very Low*

Predation Low**

Inadequate 

Regulations

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulations Low**

Marine Aquarium Trade Regulations Low**

Sedimentation and Nutrient Enrichment Regulations Low-to-Medium± 

Marine Protected Area Regulations Low**

Other Physiological/Behavioral Impacts of Ocean Acidification Low**

Physiological Impacts of Ocean Warming Low**

*Very Low means it is very unlikely that the particular threat contributes or will contribute significantly to the 

extinction risk for the species.

**Low means it is unlikely that the particular threat contributes or will contribute significantly to the extinction risk 

for the species.

±Low-to-Medium means it is somewhere between unlikely and likely (i.e., possible but not necessarily probable) 

that the particular threat contributes or will contribute significantly to the extinction risk for the species.
66

Figure 1.--Photograph of A. percula. © www.aquaticcreationsgroup.com.

Figure 2.--Range map for A. percula based on Fishbase.org, Timm et al. 2008, and De Brauwer 

2014, also showing coral reef areas from Burke et al. 2011.
67

Figure 3.--General depiction of MPAs/LMMAs in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. 

Note that not all protected areas for both countries are shown. Green circles represent 

MPAs/LMMAs and orange areas represent coral reef areas. Map courtesy of the Coral Triangle 

Atlas interactive map available at http://ctatlas.reefbase.org/atlas/default.aspx?layers=8,68.

Figure 4.--General depiction of MPAs/LMMAs in Vanuatu. Note that not all MPAs/LMMAs 

are shown. Map courtesy of MPA Global (Wood 2007).

MPAs/LMMAs in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands
68

Figure 5.--General depiction of MPAs in Queensland, Australia. Note that not all MPAs are 

shown. Map courtesy of MPA Global (Wood 2007).
69

Availability of NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS

Copies of this and other documents in the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS series issued 

by the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center are available online at the PIFSC Web site 

http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov in PDF format. In addition, this series and a wide range of other 

NOAA documents are available in various formats from the National Technical Information 

Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, U.S.A. [Tel: (703)-605-6000]; URL: 

http://www.ntis.gov. A fee may be charged.

Recent issues of NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS–PIFSC are listed below:

NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-49 Development and testing of two towed volumetric hydrophone 

array prototypes to improve localization accuracy during 

shipboard line-transect cetacean surveys.

Y. BARKLEY, J. BARLOW, S. RANKIN, G. D’SPAIN, and E. 

OLESON

(March 2016)

50 Indury dterminations for marine mammals observed interacting 

with Hawaii and American Samoa longline fisheries during 

2009-2013. 

A. L. BRADFORD and K. A. FORNEY

(March 2016)

51 Stock assessment updates of the bottomfish management unit 

species of American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands, and Guam in 2015 Using Data through 2013.

A. YAU, M. NADON, B. RICHARDS, J. BRODZIAK, and E. 

FLETCHER.

(March 2016)