Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research REPORT 103 Misali Island

Frontier-Tanzania Environmental ResearchREPORT 103Misali IslandA detailed description of the subtidal regionsFrontier-Tanzania2004

Frontier-Tanzania Environmental ResearchREPORT 103Misali IslandA detailed description of the subtidal regionsDaniels, C., Fanning, E. & Jiddawi, N. (eds.)Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources,Environment and Co-operatives ZanzibarRevolutionary GovernmentUniversity of Dar es Salaam, TanzaniaInstitute of Marine Sciences, Zanzibar, TanzaniaSociety for Environmental ExplorationPemba 2004

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsSuggested Technical Report citation:Frontier-Tanzania (2004) Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regions. Frontier-TanzaniaEnvironmental Research Report 103. Society for Environmental Exploration, UK with the University of Dar esSalaam including the Institute of Marine Sciences and the Ministry of Agriculture Natural Resources andEnvironment Co-operatives, Zanzibar.Suggested Section citations:Daniels, C. (2004) Benthic substrata mapping. In: Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regions.Pp. 13-29, 53-54.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103. Society for EnvironmentalExploration, UK with the University of Dar es Salaam including the Institute of Marine Sciences and theMinistry of Agriculture Natural Resources and Environment Co-operatives, Zanzibar.Daniels, C. (2004) Benthic invertebrate census. In: Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regions.Pp. 30-37, 55-57.. Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103. Society for EnvironmentalExploration, UK with the University of Dar es Salaam including the Institute of Marine Sciences and theMinistry of Agriculture Natural Resources and Environment Co-operatives, Zanzibar.Daniels, C., Redding, D. (2004) Commercial fish visual census. In: Misali Island: A detailed description of thesubtidal regions. Pp. 38-43, 60-62. Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103. Society forEnvironmental Exploration, UK with the University of Dar es Salaam including the Institute of Marine Sciencesand the Ministry of Agriculture Natural Resources and Environment Co-operatives, Zanzibar.Daniels, C., Redding, D. (2004) Reef fish visual census. In: Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidalregions. Pp. 44-47, 63-64. Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103. Society for EnvironmentalExploration, UK with the University of Dar es Salaam including the Institute of Marine Sciences and theMinistry of Agriculture Natural Resources and Environment Co-operatives, Zanzibar.Daniels, C., Redding, D., Mumby, R. (2004) Systematic fish inventory. In: Misali Island: A detailed descriptionof the subtidal regions. Pp. 48-52, 63-64.. Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103. Society forEnvironmental Exploration, UK with the University of Dar es Salaam including the Institute of Marine Sciencesand the Ministry of Agriculture Natural Resources and Environment Co-operatives, Zanzibar.The Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report Series is published by:The Society for Environmental Exploration50-52 Rivington StreetLondon, EC2A 3QPUnited KingdomTel: +44 (0)20 7613 3061Fax: +44 (0)20 7613 2992Email: research@frontier.ac.ukWeb Page: www.frontier.ac.ukISSN 1479-1161 (Print)ISSN 1748-3670 (Online)ISSN 1748-5124 (CD-ROM)© Frontier-Tanzania 2004, 2005Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103i

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsMinistry of Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment & Co-operatives (MANREC)The Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Co-operatives is part of the ZanzibarRevolutionary Government. The Department of Commercial Crops, Fruits and Forestry (DCCFF) is part ofthe Ministry and is responsible for the management and implementation of forest policy and protected areamanagement, including Misali Island Marine Conservation Area (MIMCA), in Zanzibar.Frontier-Tanzania (FT)Frontier-Tanzania is a collaboration between the Society for Environmental Exploration and the Universityof Dar es Salaam. Research activities have continued since July 1989 and involve researchers fromTanzania and overseas. Field research is being undertaken on a variety of habitats chosen for theirbiological interest and conservation value. Habitats under investigation include coastal forests, catchmentforests, tropical savanna, inland and marine fisheries, coral reefs, mangroves and seagrass beds.Frontier-Tanzania Marine Research Programme (FT MRP)The programme has conducted a variety of collaborative marine research: Mafia Island (1989-1994), theSongo Songo archipelago (1994-1995), Mtwara and Mnazi Bay areas (1996-2000). The Programme movedto Pemba, part of the Zanzibar archipelago, in 2001 to initially focus research on Misali Island. Frontier-Tanzania work in collaboration with MANREC and the Institute for Marine Science (IMS) in theimplementation of this programme.The University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM) & The Institute of Marine Sciences (IMS)The University of Dar es Salaam was established in July 1970 as a centre for learning and research in thearts and the physical, natural, earth, marine, medical and human sciences. The University is surveying andmapping the flora and fauna of Tanzania and is conducting research into the maintenance and improvementof the environment and the sustainable exploitation of Tanzania’s natural resources. IMS is the marinedepartment of UDSM and is located in Unguja.The Society for Environmental Exploration (SEE)The Society is a non-profit making company limited by guarantee and was formed in 1989. The Society’sobjectives are to advance field research into environmental issues and implement practical projectscontributing to the conservation of natural resources. Projects organised by The Society are joint initiativesdeveloped in collaboration with national research agencies in co-operating countries.FOR MORE INFORMATIONMinistry of Agriculture Natural ResourcesEnvironment & Co-operativesP.O. Box 159, Zanzibar, TanzaniaTel: +255 24 223 2840 Fax: +255 24 223 0290Frontier-Tanzania: Head QuartersPO Box 9473, Dar es SalaamTel: +255 22 2780 063Email: frontier@africaonline.comDepartment for Commercial Crops Fruits & ForestryPO Box 3526, Zanzibar, TanzaniaTel: +255 24 223 8628Fax: +255 24 223 6089Email: dccff@zanlink.comDept. of Zoology & Marine BiologyUniversity of Dar es SalaamP.O. Box 35064, Dar es Salaam, TanzaniaTel: +255 22 2410462E-mail: zoology@udsm.ac.tzThe Institute for Marine SciencesUniversity of Dar es SalaamP.O. Box 668, Zanzibar, TanzaniaTel: +255 24 223 0741 / 2128 / 3472Fax: +255 24 223 3050Society for Environmental Exploration50-52 Rivington StreetLondon, EC2A 3QP. U.K.Tel: +44 (0)20 7613 3061Fax: +44 (0)20 7613 2992E-mail: research@frontier.ac.ukInternet: www.frontier.ac.ukFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103ii

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsFOREWORDTanzania’s coastline is approximately 800km long and supports an estimated 600km of coral reef, thelargest area of mangrove in East Africa at the Rufiji delta and extensive highly productive fisheries. Thiswealth of resources is, however, being heavily over-exploited and threatened through the use ofunsustainable and destructive techniques. With the possible exception of the Mafia Island Marine Park,and Menai Bay, Chumbe Island and Misali Island conservation areas, there is little effective managementto safeguard these resources.The problems have been recognised for some time (Ray 1968, Bryceson 1981) but many attempts to setup and implement management plans have failed because of a lack of finance, trained personnel and data(baseline and monitoring) to implement such schemes. Following studies undertaken by the UnitedNations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1987 one of the priority recommendations of thesubsequently proposed action plan (UNEP 1989) was the quantification of coastal resources in Tanzaniasites.The UNEP action plan (1989) recognised both Unguja and Pemba (the main islands that constitute theZanzibar archipelago) as having a number of sites of regional and international importance for marinebiodiversity. Pemba Island has been renowned worldwide for its spectacular marine resources.However, there is little data to support this. This is of particular concern since short-term assessmentsand site visits have revealed that surrounding marine areas suffered badly from the 1998 global coralbleaching event (pers. obs., Mohammed et. al. 2000, Richmond & Mohammed 2001) and that this regionis also increasingly threatened through resource use (Horrill et. al. 1994, pers. obs. 2002). Moreover, ithas been considered likely that Misali Island is influenced by, and can influence, other regional reefs andcoastal habitats - in terms of larval supply, resource use and anthropogenic impacts (Horrill 1992). TheIsland is also important with regards to the local fishing industry and has extensive seagrass andmangrove stands.The paucity of biophysical information necessitates further research on which to base future managementinitiatives for the Pemba region. The surveys are conducted by Frontier-Tanzania, a joint venture betweenthe University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM) and the Society for Environmental Exploration (SEE), togetherwith the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Co-operatives (MANREC), theDepartment of Commercial Crops, Fruits and Forestry (DCCFF) and the Department of Fisheries and MarineResources (DFMR). The aim of the surveys is to assess the marine resources within the Misali IslandMarine Conservation Area (MIMCA), and provide technical advice as an input to management planningand decision-making. Alongside the baseline surveys, training will be conducted for fisheries officers,Misali Island Conservation Project (MICP) personnel, local resource users, and students from UDSM,including the Institute of Marine Sciences (IMS). Additionally, the Project will work with communityrepresentatives and teachers to increase environmental awareness of the coastal communities of Pemba.The surveys have been carried out over ten-week field phases. The programme involves short-termexpatriate volunteer research assistants and permanent Frontier-Tanzania and local staff, as well as a networkof other experts. Surveys encompass all the marine aspects of MIMCA: subtidal reef-associated fish,commercial fish, benthic invertebrates and substrate assessments; intertidal shore and mangrove assessmentsand fisheries assessments.The reports are the result of the work of many people – a collaboration of too many to mention. We wouldlike to thank all those who have been involved for their invaluable support and continued enthusiasm. Wehope that the surveys will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of this region and can be usedas a basis for longterm monitoring. Ultimately, therefore, we hope that the work by the Frontier-TanzaniaMarine Research Programme will ensure future sustainable use of the marine resources by all partiesconcerned; from resident communities to occasional visitors that will continue to be amazed by thebiodiversity and status of the area.Dr Dubi Dr Asseid Ms FanningDirector, IMS Director, DCCFF Managing Director, SEEFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103iii

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis Research Programme was conducted in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture,Natural Resources, Environment and Co-operatives (MANREC), Zanzibar and the Universityof Dar es Salaam (UDSM). With particular regard to collection of data for this report, theProgramme has collaborated with the Department for Commercial Crops, Fruits and Forestry(DCCFF), Misali Island Conservation Association (MICA) and CARE-International, Tanzania.The authors would like to thank all staff representatives of the afore-mentioned organisations,particularly the following for their continued support and enthusiasm for the Programme:MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, NATURAL RESOURCE, ENVIRONMENT ANDCO-OPERATIVES (which includes DCCFF & Department of Fisheries and MarineResources)Principal Secretary, MANREC: Ms Rahma MshangamaDirector, DCCFF, Zanzibar: Dr Bakari S AsseidPerson in charge, DCCFF, Pemba: Mr MbaroukMICP Project Manager:Mr Ali Said HamadMICA Secretary General:Mr Hamoud S AbdullaMIMCA Warden:Mr Salim Ali KhamisDirector of DFMR, Pemba:Mr Mussa HamadDirector of DFMR, Zanzibar: Mr Sadiq OsmanCARE-International, TanzaniaMICP Research Co-ordinator, CARE: Mr James HutchinsMisali Ethics Conservation Programme Mr Ali Khamis ThaniManager & Education Officer:Assistant Zanzibar Area Co-ordinator: Mr Amour Bakar OmarSOCIETY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EXPLORATIONManaging Director: Ms Eibleis FanningDevelopment Programme Manager: Ms Elizabeth HumphreysResearch Programme Manager: Ms Nicola BeharrellOperations Programme Manager: Mr Matthew WillsonUNIVERSITY OF DAR ES SALAAM & INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCESFrontier-Tanzania Co-ordinators: Dr M Muruke & Prof K M HowellDirector of IMS:Dr DubiAssistant Director of IMS:Dr Narriman JiddawiLecturer, Marine BiologyDr Greg WagnerFRONTIER-TANZANIAProject Co-ordinator:Assistant Research Co-ordinators:Dive Officer:Logistics Managers:Boat Crew:Cook & Askaris:Ms Carol DanielsMs Ruth Mumby, Mr David Redding, Ms BethBrierley, Mr Angus McVean & Mr Adam PharaohMr Paolo PizzollaMr Andrew Woods Ballard & Mr Luke GordonMr Mussa Abdullah, Mr Hashim Abdullah &Mr Mzee Salum SeifuMr Ramadhan, Mr Ali Osman Khamis, Mr JumaMbaya Juma & Mr Saburi Makame KomboFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103iv

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsResearch Assistants:Phase 022 Phase 023 Phase 023 Phase 031April-June 2002 July-Sept 2002 Oct-Dec 2002 Jan-Mar 2003Gordon Beaven Andrew Ashton Andrew Ashton Alice AddisonEmma Blackmore Adam Cooper Anna Franheim Michael BrownElisabeth Blackwell Deborah Helsdon Peter Nestory Gabagambi Hilary Cartwright-TaylorSarah Charnaud Philip Joseph Jacqui Height Charlotte CranfieldLeila Ghullam Hakimu Matola Frances Illsley Christopher GoatleyMark Griffiths Magreth Mchome Ben Jones Eleanor HarrisonJames Hoggett Iain Morrison Helen Lofthouse Andrea LeedaleRobert Hughes Tim Myall Adam Partington Edward LousleyCatherine Kelly Matt Neale Rashid Juma Rashid Chris LovettSean Mayer Edward Reeves Andy Roddis Christine McIntyreJonathan Martin Claudine Scholtus Zahor MohammedJohn Mcloughlin Sarah Taylor James MossTamsin Mcrae David Wilby Mathias MsafiriCary MonrealOlivia PalinHugo ParkerRachael SmithOliver PattendenEike StubnerKala PayneElinor ThomasDebbie PaynterJohn RappleRoberta RobinsonYuval ShimratHelen StephensonHenry TaylorDavid WilbyAndrew WilkinsonEditorial Comments:Dr M Muruke, Prof K M Howell (UDSM), Ms NBeharrell (SEE), Mr David Obura (CORDIO)Gratitude is expressed to all supporting staff in Tanzania, both in the field and at the CountryOffice in Dar es Salaam. In addition to the ‘behind the scenes’ work, it is thanks to the hardwork and dedication of the Programme staff that its goals are continually achieved.All staff wish to thank the residents of the villages surrounding Tundaua for their warmwelcome and support during the Programme. Gratitude is expressly given to the Sheha, MrAbuu Abdullahman, and Diwani, Mr. Ali Osman Khamis, for their assistance and localguidance throughout the Programme and during its dissemination and education programme.Field support for this work was provided by the Frontier-Tanzania Marine ResearchProgramme. This Programme is financed by the Society for Environmental Exploration withfuel contribution from BP.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103v

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsCONTENTSFOREWORD..................................................................................................................iiiACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................iv1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................11.1 TANZANIAN MARINE RESOURCES..............................................................................................................11.2 ZANZIBAR ARCHIPELAGO & MISALI ISLAND..........................................................................................21.3 CURRENT MANAGEMENT STATUS OF MISALI ISLAND............................................................................21.4 MISALI ISLAND............................................................................................................................................41.5 FRONTIER-TANZANIA MARINE RESEARCH PROGRAMME AIMS...........................................................41.6 RESEARCH & SURVEY OBJECTIVES...........................................................................................................41.7 SURVEY RATIONALE ...................................................................................................................................51.8 REPORT STRUCTURE ...................................................................................................................................82 METHODS .............................................................................................................102.1 SITE SELECTION.........................................................................................................................................102.2 RUGOSITY MEASUREMENTS.....................................................................................................................122.3 DEPTH PROFILE TRANSECTS.....................................................................................................................123 RESULTS ...............................................................................................................133.1 SAMPLING INTENSITY ...............................................................................................................................133.2 BENTHIC SUBSTRATA MAPPING...............................................................................................................133.3 BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE CENSUS............................................................................................................303.4 COMMERCIAL FISH VISUAL CENSUS........................................................................................................373.5 REEF FISH VISUAL CENSUS........................................................................................................................433.6 SYSTEMATIC FISH INVENTORY ................................................................................................................474 Discussion & Recommendations ...........................................................................524.1 BENTHIC SUBSTRATA MAPPING...............................................................................................................524.2 BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE CENSUS............................................................................................................544.3 COMMERCIAL FISH VISUAL CENSUS........................................................................................................594.4 REEF FISH VISUAL CENSUS & SYSTEMATIC FISH INVENTORY ............................................................615 Summary .................................................................................................................636 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................65Appendix 1.....................................................................................................................68Appendix 2.....................................................................................................................77Appendix 3.....................................................................................................................78Appendix 4.....................................................................................................................84Appendix 5.....................................................................................................................87Appendix 6.....................................................................................................................88Appendix 7.....................................................................................................................94Appendix 8.....................................................................................................................96Appendix 9...................................................................................................................100Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103vi

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsEXECUTIVE SUMMARYFrontier-Tanzania was invited by the Zanzibar Government (the Ministry ofAgriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Co-operatives (MANREC)) toundertake surveys of the marine environment around Misali Island. At the acceptanceof this invitation Frontier-Tanzania Marine Research Programme (FT MRP) establisheda research base on the west coast of Pemba in February 2001.Research that has been undertaken by FT MRP on Misali Island since February 2001has consisted of surveys of the benthic substrata, commercial fish, reef-associated fish,benthic invertebrates, natural and anthropogenic effects on the coral reefs, mangroves,intertidal areas, resource-user census and marine mammal census. Some of theseresearch topics are ongoing but the former four shall be reported within this technicaldocument.Fish and invertebrate abundance and diversity are usually associated with the extent ofreef cover. FT MRP’s data show there is an association between the reef-associatedfish diversities and the benthic substrata type. Coral reefs have been predominantlyrecorded to the west of Misali Island with some bommies to the east and small reefareas to the north and south. Coral cover within the reef areas was intermittent andranged from small bommies and patchy reefs to physically complex coral walls. Thenumber of coral genera and morphotypes indicated a high species diversity aroundMisali Island. Fleshy algae and soft coral growth were minimum, which implied thatthe hard corals were able to establish themselves without competition from theseorganisms.FT MRP have recorded 350 species of fish within the waters surrounding Misali Island.Invertebrate abundances were fairly low at all sites, particulalry with regard to thelarger curios trade species. Commercial fish were not found in large abundances orlarge sizes at any site and very few larger species such as Epenephelini (groupers) andCheilinus undulatus (napolean wrasse) were recorded overall.It is possible that Misali Island has been dramatically affected by environmental factorssuch as global warming events, and anthropogenic influences such as fishing pressureor destructive practices. This report summarises the marine resources within the waterssurrounding Misali Island. Further longterm studies will be required to test the effectof the use and exploitation of the resources within MIMCA. More stringentmanagement implementation for the area will be required in order to establish whetherthe non-extraction zone is successful.In conjunction with ongoing and future studies undertaken by FT MRP results of thepresent study will contibute to future management plans and recommendations for thearea. It will also serve as a baseline for future studies that wish to determine andquantify ecological responses to exploitation over time within this region.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103vii

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsMISALI ISLAND: A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THESUBTIDAL REGIONS1 INTRODUCTIONThe Frontier-Tanzania Marine Research Programme undertook studies around MisaliIsland, which is located approximately 10km to the west of Pemba (northern part ofland mass centered at GPS Latitude S 05º14'25" Longitude E 039º36'13"). Pemba issituated to the north of Unguja (see Figure ). The latter two islands form the bulk oflandmass within the Zanzibar archipelago.1.1 TANZANIAN MARINE RESOURCESTanzania’s coastline is approximately 800km long and supports an estimated 600km ofcoral reef, the largest area of mangrove in East Africa at the Rufiji delta and extensivehighly productive fisheries. This wealth of resources is, however, being heavily overexploitedand threatened through the use of unsustainable and destructive techniques.With the possible exception of the Mafia Island Marine Park, Menai Bay ConservationArea, Chumbe Island Coral Park and Misali Island Marine Conservation Area, there islittle effective management to safeguard these resources.The major causes of resource over-use and habitat destruction include coral mining,destructive fishing methods such as dynamite fishing, using small mesh fishing netsand kigumi fishing. The latter method involves surrounding a reef area with a net andpounding the substrate with sticks or poles to scare fish into the net. All these practicesare illegal except for small mesh being used for dagaa (a local sardine-like fish oftenused for human consumption).The problems have been recognised for some time (Ray 1968, Bryceson 1981) butattempts to set-up and implement management plans have usually failed because of alack of finance, trained personnel and data (baseline and monitoring) to implement suchschemes. Other reasons for failure are due to not recognising the importance ofcommunity-involvement in establishing and implementing management measures.Such failure at effective management has led to the continued destruction of habitats asexemplified by only two of seven reserves proposed in 1975 in Tanzania still havingintact reefs (Salm 1983).In recognition of the problem of increasing coastal degradation and loss of coastalresources the government of Tanzania approached UNEP in 1987 with a request forassistance in assessing the coastal and environmental problems of the country and indrawing up a national action plan for protection, management and development of itsmarine and coastal environment. One of the priority recommendations of thesubsequently proposed action plan (UNEP 1989) was the quantification of coastalresources in Tanzania.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 1

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regions1.2 ZANZIBAR ARCHIPELAGO & MISALI ISLANDPemba Island is the northern landmass which, along with Unguja, contributes to theZanzibar archipelago (see Figure 1). Pemba is world renowned for its spectacularmarine resources and in addition to Unguja, a number of sites of regional andinternational importance for marine biodiversity have been identified (UNEP 1989).However, this archipelago is increasingly threatened through resource use (Horrill et.al. 1994) and there is a paucity of biophysical information for this region. Therefore,further research is necessary on which to base future management initiatives for thePemba region.The importance of the present research area, Misali Island, was highlighted bypreliminary site visits, which revealed that surrounding marine areas suffered badlyfrom the 1998 global coral bleaching event (Mohammed et.al. 2000, Richmond &Mohammed 2001, pers. obs. 2002). The degraded reef areas could also be due topreviously-practiced destructive fishing techniques such as the use of dynamite (Arnold1997). Moreover, it has been considered likely that Misali Island is influenced by, andcan influence, other regional reefs and coastal habitats - in terms of larval supply,resource use and anthropogenic impacts (Horrill 1992).Misali Island is socio-economically important in terms of local resources such asfishing and tourism. It also supports ecologically important ecosystems such as coralreefs, extensive seagrass beds and mangrove stands. These habitats and resources, andthose on mainland Pemba that interact with them, all need to be examined andsubsequently considered in the ultimate recommendations for development of thecurrent management plan.1.3 CURRENT MANAGEMENT STATUS OF MISALI ISLANDAt present, management for Misali Island is limited, although in comparison to the restof Pemba, it has an improved system in that it is within the only conservation area. TheMisali Island Marine Conservation Area (MIMCA) was legally established by theformer Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources, Zanzibar, through 1)Fisheries Act, No.8 of 1988 and 2) Forest Resources Management and ConservationAct, No.10 of 1996. The main implementations are a core zone or non-extraction zone(1.4km 2 ) within a designated conservation area (21.6km 2 in total), which wereestablished May 1998 (see Figure for relative positions of the conservation area andnon-extraction zone). Recreational activities, passage and scientific research arepermitted within the non-extraction zone, but any type of activity that depletes thearea's natural resources is not. The Misali Island Conservation Association (MICA)manages these areas, which includes co-ordination of a team of Rangers (between threeand five each day) who reside on the island on a rotation basis.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 2

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsMisali Island Marine Conservation Area BoundaryMISALIISLANDMisali Island Marine Conservation Area Core ZoneFigure 1: Map showing an inset of Pemba Island, with the main figure of Misali Island MarineConservation Area boundary (dashed orange line) and non-extraction (core) zone (solid red line) tothe west of Misali Island (modified from Richmond and Mohammed 2001)Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 3

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regions1.4 MISALI ISLANDThere are no permanent inhabitants of Misali Island, although the Rangers who patrolthe Misali Island Marine Conservation Area (MIMCA) remain on the island for arotational period of 365 days per year and fishermen camp there for approximately twoweeks each month. The island is about 0.9km 2 in area and constructed of coral rag,therefore much of the vegetation consists of coral rag forest and coral rag bush orcoastal thicket (Cooke 1997). There are some mangrove stands scattered around theintertidal areas of the island, but also in small stands within its interior (pers. obs.2001). There is a relatively large fishing practice associated with the island's watersand intertidal region relative to it’s area (Arnold 1997, Cooke 1998, Richmond &Mohammed 2001, pers. obs. 2002).All the surveys discussed in detail within this report relate to subtidal assessmentsundertaken by SCUBA techniques. There have previously been limited surveysconducted around Misali Island and therefore a paucity of data for its marine resources:abundance and diversity of fish; location of, composition of and damage extent to thecoral reefs; invertebrate diversity and distribution. Such information is important togather in terms of assessing regional biodiversity and essential to incorporate intofuture management plans.1.5 FRONTIER-TANZANIA MARINE RESEARCH PROGRAMME AIMS1.5.1 FT MRP Aims• To assess the marine resources within Pemba, and provide technical advice asan input to management planning and decision-making• To conduct training for fisheries officers, local resource users, students from theInstitute of Marine Sciences (IMS), the University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM),and Misali Island Conservation Project (MICP) personnel• To work with community representatives and teachers to increase theenvironmental awareness of the coastal communities of Pemba.These activities and resulting information will assist with recognition of the biologicaldiversity of the area. They also aim for a comprehension of the distribution of habitattypes and associated fauna to be reached.1.6 RESEARCH & SURVEY OBJECTIVES1.6.1 Research ObjectivesThis study aims to describe the physical and biological characteristics in theimmediate waters that surround Misali Island. Methods and findings aresummarised from five types of subtidal surveys (benthic substrata mapping, benthicinvertebrate census, commercial fish visual census, reef-associated fish visualcensus, and systematic fish species inventory).Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 4

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regions1.6.2 Survey Objectives1.6.2.1 Benthic substrata mappingTo determine the types, locations and extent of subtidal habitats that surroundMisali Island. This is with the view towards...• locating areas of high biodiversity around Misali Island., relative to localand regional areas• gaining an understanding of why certain areas are more intensely fishedthan others• allowing further comparisons to be made with regards to associatedfauna found within and outside of each survey site.1.6.2.2 Benthic invertebrate censusTo commence analysis of the diversity of these organisms with respect to arepresentative list of 45 taxa.1.6.2.3 Commercial fish visual censusTo allow derivation of abundances and lengths of the main groups ofcommercially important fish and other groups such as Muraenidae (moray eels),Carcharhinidae (requiem sharks), and Dasyatidae, Myliobatidae and Mobulidae(sting, eagle and manta rays respectively).1.6.2.4 Reef-associated fish visual censusTo determine the species richness and species diversity indices of selected,representative reef fish species at each survey site.1.6.2.5 Systematic fish inventoryTo increase knowledge of the biological diversity within this region.1.7 SURVEY RATIONALE1.7.1 Benthic substrata mappingLimited research has been conducted with regards to assessment of the benthicsubstrata surrounding Misali Island (Horrill 1992, Horrill et.al. 1994, Mohammedet.al. 2000, Richmond & Mohammed 2001). Site visits since the global bleachingevent in 1998 have revealed that hard coral cover on one area to the west of MisaliIsland has decreased dramatically, from 74% (Horril et.al. 1994) to 7%(Mohammed et.al. 2000). However, survey repetition and variety of sites havebeen minimal. Therefore the degree to which this has changed over recent years,the extent, and hence the possible effects of human activities within waterssurrounding Misali, are not well understood.Studies that have been conducted around Misali have shown that the waters host acomparatively high abundance and diversity of fish, intermediate densities ofmacro-invertebrates and a reduction of macroalgae following the bleaching in 1998within Tanzania’s coastline (Horril et.al. 1994, Mohammed et.al. 2000, Richmondand Mohammed 2001). Also, the number of coral genera observed in Zanzibarduring studies undertaken in the 1990’s have almost doubled the numbersFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 5

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionspreviously reported for the whole East African coast (Veron pers.comm.). Suchbiological diversity is likely to be due to its remote location, which has limitedhuman impact and sedimentation from the mainland. More importantly in terms ofbiodiversity are the strong currents around Misali, which mean that this area is alsolikely to act as an important larval source and sink for regional reefs and coastalhabitats. However, with Misali reefs receiving greater direct oceanic waters incomparison to reefs in bays and shallower waters, this may be to its detrimentduring bleaching events. Supporting this, in 1999 Mohammed et.al. (2000)recorded corals with lower levels of bleaching and mortality in sheltered andshallower waters such as Chole Bay in Mafia Island, Mnazi Bay in Mtwara,Zanzibar and Dar es Salaam. This was possibly due to night cooling, high cloudcover and rainfall reducing solar radiation and the warming of the surface water. Incontrast, Pemba dive operators were concerned in 1998 that Misali Island coralreefs may have lost their tourist potential after the bleaching event (Muhando1999).Despite the identification of Misali’s high marine biodiversity through variousshort-term surveys, it has not proven enough to ensure recent and continuedrecognition at the global level. Worldwide recognition is important in terms ofestablishing an international status of protection and sourcing funds to implementmanagement programmes and increase awareness and collaboration amongstresource users to ensure implementation of these. As such more detailedobservations would help generate a greater understanding of Misali’s marine statusand will form the basis for future management initiatives for the Pemba region.1.7.2 Benthic invertebrate censusBenthic invertebrates are important in terms of their ecological role within allsubtidal and intertidal tropical habitats. For example, molluscs form the largestgroup of fauna in the marine environment. However, these organisms are oftenoverlooked and overshadowed by the more charismatic marine vertebrates such asfish, mammals and reptiles. Given that the invertebrates are found with greatspecies diversity the conservation of this group is important in terms of maintaininglevels of biological diversity. Additionally, some species are collected in largenumbers for the marine curios trade, and in certain cases such as Charonia tritonis(Triton’s Trumpet) removal of keystone species can result in detrimental ecosystemeffects.Certain invertebrate 'indicator' species are useful in terms of analysing the status of,and threats to, the marine environment. Examples include the following…• Acanthaster planci (Crown-of-Thorns starfish) is known to predate uponscleractinian corals and can have detrimental effects on reefs when populationoutbreaks occur• Charonia tritonis is an important predator, and therefore regulator of,populations of Acanthaster planci. It is vulnerable to collection for the curiostrade in addition to other larger predatory species such as Lambis lambis(common spider conch). Declines in the markets for such species have beenFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 6

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsnoted (Marshall et. al. 2001), which indicates either a decline in the populationor in the interest of exploiting this organism• Echinoidea (sea urchins) can assist settlement of coral larvae by limitingcompetition from algae through their habitual ‘grazing’. However, if found inlarge numbers, this may indicate heavy fishing pressure on Echinoideapredators such as Labridae (wrasse) and Balistidae (triggerfish)• Holothuroidea (sea cucumbers) are essential in ingesting and recycling detritusand nutrients on and around reef areas. However, there is a large trade of ediblespecies within Tanzania, which reduces numbers found on the reef and result inimbalances within the marine environment. Landings of sea cucumber haveincreased from 324 metric tonnes in 1989 to 1,460 metric tonnes in 1995 withinTanzania (Marshall et. al. 2001)• Mollusca (shellfish) are collected for food consumption and the marine curiostrade, both locally and for export. Threatened species include the following:Tridacna sp (giant clam); various Cypraeidae (cowries); Strombidae (conchshells). Tridacna sp. are occsionally used for food but also sold to tourists asornaments. Their slow growth rate means that they are susceptible to rapidpopulation declines if collected regularly and/or intensively. The operculumcover of the Pleuroploca trapezium (tulip shell) is regularly exported to Kenyafrom Misali Island and the meat of this mollusc is eaten locally• Porifera (sponges) are important with regards to their species diversity. Thereare about 7,000 ‘valid’ species in existence within worldwide literature althoughabout 15,000 species are estimated to exist in all the world’s seas and lakes(Hooper 2000). However, the Porifera ecology in the West Indian Ocean isvirtually unknown (Barnes & Bell 2002). The vast array of species that havebeen discovered have resulted in many uses, including medicinal purposes.The rationale for the benthic invertebrate survey is to provide data on speciesexploited by local resource-users, which therefore may be threatened through themarine curios trade. It also includes certain other invertebrates such as sponges andurchins that are not collected for the curios trade but nonetheless have importantbiological or ecological values.1.7.3 Commercial fish visual censusThese surveys are designed to investigate the distribution of commerciallyimportant groups of fish species. Used in conjunction with the benthic substratadata and observations of resource-user activities within the same area, it will bepossible to investigate the effects of fishing on their distribution.Although SCUBA visual census has some limitations (e.g. disturbance of fishwithin the observed area) it does allow non-selective observations in terms of fishlength and abundance, which would not be possible if the same observations weremade at a fish-landing site.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 7

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regions1.7.4 Reef-associated fish visual censusOnce the species richness and species diversity indices of the pre-selected reefassociatedfish species are recorded, comparisons can then be made between surveysites, indicating areas of high or low diversity. Such information can then becompared to the benthic substrata and invertebrate data for a more comprehensiveanalysis of species diversity within the immediate area.1.7.5 Systematic fish species inventoryIn previous reports (Horrill et.al. 1994, Richmond & Mohammed 2001)approximately 244 and 270 species of fish were identified respectively, but theauthors stated that these surveys were not extensive and that further identificationswould be expected in the future.The continuing inventory will result in formulating a fish species inventory forMisali Island. This is important in a number of ways…• As background information for Frontier-Tanzania surveys• As a measure of the region’s biodiversity• As useful information for tourists and non-experts• In identification of rare and indicator species1.8 REPORT STRUCTUREThe aim for information collected by FT MRP is for it to be presented in a variety oftechnical reports that will summarise data for use in future management discussions,implementation and monitoring.Data for this report are presented in written, graphical and tabular formats and will aidunderstanding of the Misali Island marine environment. Data on the physical andbiological characteristics of Misali Island are presented in separate sections within thisreport and includes a full fish species list recorded to date (see Appendix 1).1.8.1 Benthic substrata mappingBenthic substrata data is presented on visually-representative substrata maps, whichaim to satisfy the above criteria. Coral morphological types are presented on 3-Dgraphs that visualise the depth profiles for each survey site. On these site profilesthe presence of coral morphological forms is represented pictorally.Where the more extensive coral reefs exist around Misali Island, there is a maze ofsand lagoons on their landward side. Such areas are not discussed within this reportas SCUBA surveys to date have concentrated on the seaward side of reef crests.From in-water observations, the lagoons range mainly from 4m to 15m, dependenton area and tidal height and are therefore difficult to survey using snorkeltechniques alone.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 8

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regions1.8.2 Benthic invertebrate censusBenthic invertebrate data is presented graphically showing mean abundance andstandard error per taxa group at each survey site.1.8.3 Commercial fish visual censusCommercial fish data is presented graphically showing means and standard errorbars of fish abundance and length at each survey site.1.8.4 Reef-associated fish visual censusSpecies diversity and dominance indices have been calculated for the mean numberof reef-associated fish species found at each survey site, and are presented in bargraphs. Species richness is represented graphically as a mean per site with standarderror bars. Certain groups of reef-associated fish such as the Surgeons(Acanthuridae) and Butterfly fish (Chaetodontidae) have been graphicallyrepresented to compare species between sites.1.8.5 Systematic fish species inventoryThe fish species inventory is presented in a list in Appendix 1.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 9

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regions2 METHODS2.1 SITE SELECTIONSystematic surveys were undertaken to quantify the bio-physical characteristics ofMisali Island ecosystems. Initially ten survey sites were positioned above the 8m-depthcontour line approximately every kilometre around the coast of Misali Island. Afterpreliminary surveys some of these sites were repositioned to ensure a betterrepresentation of the subtidal ecosystem and density of associated organisms in thelocal area (Horrill 1992, Horrill et.al. 1994, Richmond & Mohammed 2001, pers. obs.2001). For example, sites to the south-east of Misali's coast were spaced further apartas there was little change observed in respect to fauna and flora along this region. Incontrast, additional sites were positioned along the west coast of Misali to incorporatethe varying, diverse and physically complex reef structures located there. It has notbeen possible to complete the proposed ten survey sites due to various logisticalrestrictions but the total eight that are complete give a comprehensive representation ofthe Misali Island marine area.Figure 2 shows the eight survey site locations around Misali Island that weresystematically positioned. Longitude, latitude and UTM reference points for eachsurvey site are listed in Appendix 2.Figure 2: Location of eight survey sites around Misali Island (map modified from Richmond andMohammed, 2001)Each survey was replicated at least eight times at each site and depth to facilitate futurestatistical analyses. Each station was re-located via GPS at the start of every visit.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 10

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsSurvey sites 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 were outside the non-extraction zone whereas sites 5, 6 and7 were located within its boundaries.The methods for each of the surveys undertaken between April 2001 and December2002 are summarised in Table 1. Full details of these methods are described inAppendix 4. Percentage cover has been analysed using the categorical P6 scale asdescribed in English et.al. 1997 (see below).P6 Scale Representative % cover P6 Scale Representative % cover0 0 3 31-501 1-10 4 51-752 11-30 5 76-100Table 1: Summary of survey methodsSurvey Aims MethodBenthic substratamappingTo determine types, locations andextent of subtidal habitatsSCUBA benthic substrata mapping surveys are conductedby ascending the reef profile following its maximum fallline.Two 2.5mx2.5m quadrats are surveyed every 2mdepth change from 18m to 4m or reef crest (whichever isdeeper). Information recorded for each quadrat includes:i) % cover of underlying substratum; ii) % cover of livingcoral, seagrass and coralline algae; iii) presence orabsence of coral morphological forms; iv) dominantmorphological form; v) approximate gradient of slope.BenthicinvertebratecensusCommercial fishvisual censusReef-associatedfish visual censusSystematic fishspecies inventoryTo determine the diversity andabundance relative to invertebrateinventory of 45 taxaTo determine the composition,abundance and lengths of themain groups of commerciallyimportant fish families and theirdistributionTo determine the diversity andrelative abundance of 78 preselectedreef fish speciesTo determine the species diversityof all fish around Misali IslandSCUBA census is conducted within 1m 2 quadrats,recording the following information: i) abundance ofinvertebrates relative to inventory of 45 taxa; ii) % coverand number of morphologically different sponges.Benthic invertebrate taxa are surveyed along two depthcontours: 16m and 6m.SCUBA visual census of families of commerciallyimportant fish within five 5-minute intervals for a total of25-minutes, surveying within a 5m x 5m x 5m area.Within each 5m 3 imaginary 'box' surveyors record: i)identification of fish family ii) frequency of individualfish seen or approximation if large shoal; iii) size ofindividual fish or average size of fish within shoal (tonearest 10cm). Commercial fish families are surveyedalong two depth contours: 16m and 6m.SCUBA visual census of the 78 pre-selected reef fishspecies within 5-minute intervals for a total of 25-minutes,surveying within a 5mx5mx5m box area. Within each5m 3 imaginary 'box' surveyors record: i) identification offish species ii) frequency of fish seen within each 5-minute interval. Reef fish species are surveyed along twodepth contours: 16m and 6m.SCUBA and snorkel visual census by senior biologist atselected survey sites, within recorded time period thatmay vary between 20 and 60 minutes. All previouslyunrecorded fish sighted during the survey are noted andreferenced later in an attempt to identify the species. Ifthe identification is uncertain then diagrams of keyidentification features are made and if a species issuspected its name is recorded. When there is more thanone positive identification of the same fish it is added tothe list.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 11

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsNB. Reef-associated fish species diversity was calculated with Shannon-Weiner andSimpson’s indices using the Species Diversity and Richness programme 1 . The reasonfor this is that the former is used as a measure of species richness whereas the lattertends towards species dominance. The diversity index values were calculated for eachsite. The diversity index results were then tested for significant differences in diversitybetween two sites. The test used for this comparison was a randomisation test asdescribed by Solow (1993).2.2 RUGOSITY MEASUREMENTSRugosity measurements were taken for each survey site. This was done by laying a 25-metre tape measure (transect line) as level and directly as possible across the substratecontour at approximate depths of 6m and 16m. A small-link, 25-metre chain was thenlaid along the transect but closely following the reef topography. The length at whichthe end of the chain met the transect line was recorded. A rugosity ratio was calculatedby dividing the transect length (variable) by the length of chain (25 metres). Eachtransect was conducted three times at each depth and site.All surveys described were conducted in the waters immediately surrounding MisaliIsland. Depths were recorded at the time and date of individual surveys. These depthswere not converted to chart datum levels relative to the regional tide levels (TanzaniaHarbour Authority 2001 & 2002) because of the maximum 4-metre tidal range. It wasconsidered that a 4-metre depth range within surveys conducted at the same site wouldstill give sufficient representation for that location. For example, a shallow surveycarried out at 6m may have translated to between 2 metres and 10 metres if convertedto chart datum levels. However, this was considered not to affect the results from thatarea, hence complicated chart datum calculations for each survey were not considered anecessity.2.3 DEPTH PROFILE TRANSECTSDepth profiles were measured using a NASA Marine Clipper Range Depth Sounderwith speed and distance logger mounted on the research vessel in order to visualise thedifferences between each site. Depths were recorded at certain time intervals, rangingfrom 2 – 5 seconds, dependant on the gradient and therefore extent of the site between4-metre and 20-metre chart datum depth.The research vessel was positioned shallower than the 4-metre chart datum depth ateach survey site, and this starting point was marked using GPS. The vessel then headedaway from the island in a direction perpendicular to the coastline, noting depths at theappropriate time intervals. The depth transect was terminated beyond the 20-metrechart datum depth, and the finish GPS location was marked. Each survey site depthprofile was repeated and the data corrected to chart datum levels using regional tidedata (Tanzania Harbour Authority 2001 & 2002). This was necessary to allow exactand direct comparison between sites. The distance of the transect was estimated usingthe start and finish GPS points, which allowed the depths to be plotted against distance.1 Species Diversity and Richness, Version 2.64. Designed by Dr P.A.Henderson and Dr R.M.H.Seaby. Pisces Conservation Ltd,IRC House, The Square, Pennington, Lymington, SO41 8GN, England.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 12

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regions3 RESULTS3.1 SAMPLING INTENSITYTable 2 summarises the number of survey person dives to date at each survey site andfor each survey type.Table 2: Summary of the survey person dives at each survey site to date (January 2003)Survey Site FixNumber of survey person dives toJanuary 2003Survey Site no.Lat. (S)Long. (E)SubstratumReef FishInvertebratesCommercialFishTotals1 05º14’ 10.1 39º36’ 35.5 24 21 28 19 922 05º14’ 25.2 39º36’ 50.8 38 23 22 20 1033 05º15’ 07.3 39º36’ 50.0 54 22 24 22 1224 05º15’ 28.6 39º35’ 24.6 42 17 24 18 1015 05º14’ 42.6 39º35’ 32.1 34 32 20 23 1096 05º14’ 26.6 39º35’ 41.5 34 22 22 20 987 05º14’ 16.0 39º35’ 47.1 22 18 22 18 808 05º14’ 02 8 39º36’ 04.9 36 18 18 22 94Totals 284 173 180 162 799NB Total number of survey person dives vary for each site as access to these is weather dependent3.2 BENTHIC SUBSTRATA MAPPING3.2.1 Site ReportsRugosity measurements and comments for each survey site are summarised inTable 4. Each site is summarised with respect to substratum composition and bioticcover of ‘hard’ 2 corals, seagrass and coralline algae. Table 3 summarises thesubtidal regions within the north, east, south and west regions around Misali Island.Categories of coral morphological forms are described in Appendix 5. All seawater depths are approximate as they are not corrected to chart datum.2 NB. Hard coral is the term used to describe Scleractinian corals but also solid-structured, reef-building, non-Scleractinian'corals' such as Tubiporidae ('organ pipe' coral), Heloporidae ('blue' coral), Milleporidae ('fire coral') and Stylasteridae.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 13

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsTable 3: Summary of Misali Island’s benthic substrataSiteGeneral description of siterelative to depthPercentage live hardcoral cover (P6)Bleaching damage aspercentage of livehard coral cover(P6)Percentage recentlykilled hard coral(P6)Dominant hard coral generaGradientNorthEastNorth-WestNorthNorth-EastCoral reef slope 6m-15m,sand gulley 15m withnarrow coral band. 15-20msand gulley withintermittent coral bommiesNarrow reef 3m-16m, coralbommies 16m-20mRubble and seagrass 4-6m,predominantly sand 6m-18mSeagrass beds and soft coralpatches 4-8m. 18-8m –sand with intermittent coralbommies.1-10% 1-10% 1-10% Tubastrea micrantha 18m+ 30-40°High generic diversity

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsTable 4: Average rugosity measurements for each survey siteSurvey siteAverage depth(metres)1 6162 6163 6104 8125 8186 6167 6168 616Average ratio0.550.800.930.970.900.890.930.870.580.640.630.590.760.580.610.89RugosityHighLowLowLowLowLowLowLowHighHighHighHighHighHighHighLow3.2.1.1 Site 1Substratum compositionThis consisted of a shallow band of reef of moderate rugosity, which extendedfrom the reef crest (20º decline) at approximately 3m depth. The reef slopecontinued from 3m to 16m as a solid reef. Between approximately 16m and20m (slope 45º) coral bommies (i.e. not extensive, irregularly sized and notuniformly distributed patches of coral) existed intermittently until giving way toa predominantly sand covered bottom. At 19m depth the slope decreased toapproximately 15º gradient and a low rugosity. The width of the reef wasapproximately 5m at the GPS start-point, and widened towards the east of thisposition to approximately 10m.Biotic coverThe ‘hard’ coral covered approximately 20% of the area on the reef crest.Substrata on the reef slope were recorded, showing some areas of living hardcoral covering approximately 50% of the substrata, with a high number ofgenera relative to other Misali survey sites. However, on the whole, percentageof hard coral cover was not more than 10% at this site. Dominant coralmorphological forms recorded from 4 to 14m were arborescent, encrusting,staghorn and submassive. Arborescent, staghorn and encrusting forms were theonly morphotypes recorded between 16 and 18m.On the individual coral bommies hard coral cover was approximately 60%, alsowith a relatively high number of genera (compared to other sites aroundMisali),. Coralline algae was observed in clusters within fleshy algae attachedto various hard corals although there were mainly staghorn and arborescentforms.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 15

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regions3.2.1.2 Site 2Substratum compositionAt site 2 the reef sloped gently with low levels of rugosity, 0° at the reef crest(at 3m depth), to a 10º slope at 7m. There was a sandy slope below 7m with agradient that increased to approximately 30º at 20m. Below the reef crest (atabout 10m) the substrate consisted mainly of rocks with dead, algae-coveredcoral and empty Tridacna sp. (giant clam) shells. At 15m the predominantlysandy substrate had limited live coral cover except for intermittent coralbommies, some 5m in diameter. 100% sandy substrate was recorded at 20m.Biotic coverOn the reef crest (4 – 8m) there was limited coral cover with submassive andencrusting forms dominating between 4m and 8m. Between 10m and 18m therewere no hard corals recorded, but there was a sparse covering of seagrass.3.2.1.3 Site 3Substratum compositionThis site consisted of a gentle slope (5º - 10º) with low levels of rugosity. Themain substrata consituent was sand, with some rubble and small rock patches.Small (10cm - 50cm diameter) coral bommies were present along the 14-16mcontour.Biotic coverThere was sparse and patchy cover of live coral on the rock patches, but thiswas minimal. Unattached coral species such as Heteropsammia sp. andGoniopora stokesi were found on the sandy substrate between 14m and 16m.The dominant hard coral morphotype between 4m and 14m was arborescent.Seagrass was present but distributed with a patchy range from 10% to 75%cover between 6m and 12m.3.2.1.4 Site 4Substratum compositionThe shallow regions at survey site 4 were of low levels of rugosity,approximately 10º incline and consisted of a sandy slope with coral bommies at3-6m. Coral patches were found on the sandy slope intermittent with rubbleareas between 10m and 20m.Biotic coverArborescent, submassive, encrusting and massive coral morphological formswere the only ones recorded on the shallow (4-8m) coral bommies, and arelisted in order of dominance. In addition to these, laminar and tabular formswere recorded between 10m and 14m. The massive and submassive formsdominated between 10m and 14m. Coralline algae was recorded at both depthranges.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 16

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regions3.2.1.5 Site 5Substratum compositionThe rugosity of site 5 was moderately high. The reef crest was at a depth of 3mand had a patchy cover of live coral, intermittent with sand and bare rock. Theseaward side of the crest led down a reef wall at approximately 70º, and livecoral increased to about 20% cover until 20m.In the deeper waters of this area (20-27m) there was a sand lagoon, whichextended into a full bed of live coral over a relatively flat area.Biotic coverCoral cover was patchy and between 5% and 10% cover on the reef crest (4-8m). All observed morphological forms were recorded at the site for all depths.Dominant morphological forms recorded between depths 4m and 8m, 10m and14m, and 16m and 18m were encrusting and mushroom corals. Coralline algaewas present with a low coverage (1-10%) in the coral reef areas between 4mand 18m.The coral cover at 25m consisted of extensive explanate Echinopora sp., withapproximately 95% cover.3.2.1.6 Sites 6 & 7Substratum compositionSite 6 and 7 were both very dramatic reef-covered wall regions (45-80º) withhigh rugosity. Some sections were of less severe gradients (10º) and overhangs.The underlying substratum consisted mainly of coral rock with small patches ofsand and rubble.Biotic coverDominant coral growth forms recorded between 4m and 14m were arborescentand encrusting. There was approximately 10% live coral cover and 10% rubble.Live coral cover increased to approximately 15% between 8m and 14m, and20% between 14m and 30m. The dominant morpohological forms recordedfrom 16m to 18m were arborescent, encrusting and explanate corals. Corallinealgae was present in patches amongst fleshy algae and corals throughout thereef areas with low, intermittent coverage of 1-10%. There was seagrasscoverage recorded between 10m and 18m at site 7.3.2.1.7 Site 8Substratum compositionPatchy coral reefs, ranging from small coral bommies to patchy cover werepresent. This was true from 4m to 25m although there was a sand gulley at 15mwith a narrow coral band (approximately 5m in width) at the base. The slopethat led from the 4m-deep reef crest at a 40º gradient flattened to 0º in the sandygulley at 15m and continued deeper at a slope of approximately 15º.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 17

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsBiotic coverFrom 4m to 18m of patchy reef, the dominant coral morphologies recordedwere arborescent, encrusting and submassive. The number of coral genera washigh relative to other sites around Misali, and coral cover was between 20% and40%. The reef became more extensive at about 20m but live coral cover wasonly approximately 10%. Cirrhipathes sp. (coral whips) were present between20 and 25m in depth. There was patchy cover of coralline algae amongst fleshyalgae and branching corals on the reef areas. Seagrasses were recorded atdepths from 4m to 18m.3.2.2 Substrata representationEach substrata type (bare rock, sand, silt, rubble, recently killed coral, live coral) isrepresented in a separate map (Figure 3 to 8). Each map is divided into the sectionsthat represent the eight surveyed sites. Each figure consists of both tables andcharts that represent median, minimum and maximum P6 values for each depth(shallow (4-8m recorded survey depth), mid (10-14m) and deep (16-18m)) at eachsurvey site.3.2.3 Depth profiles and coral morphological form representationFigure 9 and Figure 10 show cross-sections of substrate depth against distance forall survey sites in order to visualise and compare the differences between the extentand gradients from 4m to 20m chard datum depth.The depth profiles for separate survey sites are graphically presented in Figure 11and Figure 12, survey sites 1 to 8. These include the presence of coralmorphological forms, coralline algae and seagrass if observed at the shallow, midand/or deep regions of each site.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 18

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsKey to substrate P6 cover:Figure 3: P6 values for subtidal bare rock surrounding Misali IslandP0 0%P1 1-10%P2 11-30%P3 31-50%P4 51-75%P5 76-100%Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 19

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsFigure 4: P6 values for subtidal sand surrounding Misali IslandKey to substrate P6 cover:P0 0%P1 1-10%P2 11-30%P3 31-50%P4 51-75%P5 76-100%Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 20

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsFigure 5: P6 values for subtidal silt surrounding Misali IslandKey to substrate P6 cover:P0 0%P1 1-10%P2 11-30%P3 31-50%P4 51-75%P5 76-100%Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 21

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsFigure 6: P6 values for subtidal rubble surrounding Misali IslandKey to substrate P6 cover:P0 0%P1 1-10%P2 11-30%P3 31-50%P4 51-75%P5 76-100%Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 22

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsKey to substrate P6 cover:P0 0%P1 1-10%P2 11-30%P3 31-50%P4 51-75%P5 76-100%Figure 7: P6 values for subtidal live coral surrounding Misali IslandFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 23

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsKey to substrate P6 cover:Figure 8: P6 values for subtidal recently killed coral surrounding Misali IslandP0 0%P1 1-10%P2 11-30%P3 31-50%P4 51-75%P5 76-100%Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 24

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsDistance along transect (m)0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.000.05.0Site 1Site 210.0Site 5Chart datum depth (m)15.020.0Site 6Site 7Site 8Figure 9: Depth profiles of survey sites 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 & 8: Short distance with a surface length 1000mFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 25

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 26

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsFigure 11: Depth profiles of survey sites 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8: Short distance with a surface length

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsFigure 12: Depth profiles of survey sites 3 and 4: Long distance with a surface length >1,000m,showing presence of morphological coral forms, coralline algae and seagrass.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 28

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regions3.2.4 Results summary of site reports and depth profiles• Misali Island has extensive coral reef slopes and wall along its west subtidalregion with contrasting shallow-sloping seagrass and sandy substratum to theeast;• There is a narrow band of coral reef to the north, near the Ranger station, andsmall coral bommies sparsely distributed around the shallower easterly andsoutherly waters;• Towards the south, coral bommies are distributed more densely until the southwestforms patchy reef leading to the more extensively covered reef slopes onthe west;• The coral reef slopes increase in gradient from the south-west regions towardsthe north-west, as a wall with the highest coral cover in comparison to the restof the island becomes more dominant;• North of the wall, in the waters to the north-west of Misali Island, the reefs areconstructed of less severe slopes that lead to sand gulleys and more patchyribbons of coral reef;• The coral cover is fairly low in most reef areas (1-30%). Recently killed coralwas recorded amongst the live coral, more commonly towards the north-westand west of Misali;• Bare rock (1-75% cover) and rubble (0-10% cover) are found amongst the reefareas, predominantly along the westerly and north-westerly regions of Misali;• None of the survey sites were shown to have a silt substrate when medianvalues were calculated from the data (Fig. 5), although silt was recorded insome individual surveys at all sites except 5;• Sand dominated, or was the only substrate, to the north, east and south of Misaliand was present, though with less percentage cover, to the west.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 29

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regions3.3 BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE CENSUSData from the benthic invertebrate census surveys are represented per 1m 2 areas bymean and standard error values within taxonomic groups for each site. Kruskal-Wallistests were used to analyse whether there were significant differences between depths ateach site. 17% of all the diffferences in values tested were found to be significant (seeAppendix 6). Depths are represented separately when more than half the sites showedsignificant differences between shallow and deep surveys for each taxa analysed.Echinoidea (sea urchins) were observed in greater abundance at sites 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 incomparison to the other sites. Site 8 was recorded with the greatest mean number ofEchinoidea, at 1.7 per 1m 2 . However, the abundance per 1m 2 quadrat varied greatly ascan be seen from the error bars in Figure 13 and the fact that 30 and 11 individualswere recorded within two separate quadrats.There were no Acanthaster planci (Crown-of-thorns starfish) observed within the810m 2 area of substrate surveyed amongst all the sites. The maximum number of otherAsteroidea (starfish) recorded per 1m 2 quadrat was 2 but the greatest average wasrecorded at site 8 as 1.5 individuals per 1m 2 (see Figure 14).Holothuroidea (sea cucumbers), both edible and non-edible, were recorded with amaximum of 2 per 1m 2 quadrat. These were recorded with the greatest abundance atsites 4, 5 and 8 and the maximum mean value for these sites was 0.15 per 1m 2 quadratat site 5 for edible Holothuroidea. The overall mean value per 1m 2 quadrat for allsurvey sites was 0.06 for edible and 0.02 for non-edible Holothuroidea. See Figure 15for mean and error bar values for Holothuroidea at each site.Ophiuroidea (brittlestars) and Crinoidea (featherstars) were found at all survey sitesexcept that no Ophiuroidea were recorded at site 6. Maximum numbers recordedwithin a 1m 2 quadrat were 25 (site 8) and 7 (site 3) for Ophiuroidea and Crinoidearespectively. See Figure 16 for mean and error bar values for Ophiuroidea andCrinoidea at each site.Gastropoda (marine snails and slugs) were observed with the largest mean abundancesat sites 4, 5 and 7 (see Figure 17) and were generally more abundant in the shallowerregions at each site. There were six Pleuroploca trapezium (tulip shells) observed inthe total 810m 2 area of substrate surveyed and these were at sites 2, 3 and 7. A total offour Charonia tritonis (Triton’s trumpet) were observed within all the invertebratesurveys, recorded at sites 1, 3 and 7.Actiniaria (sea anemones) were observed at all sites with the maximum number in anyone 1m 2 quadrat being 5. Alcyonacea (soft corals) were also observed at all sites. SeeFigure 18 for the means and standard error values for both Actiniaria and Alcyonaceaat each site.Bivalvia (bivalves) were observed predominantly at sites 3 and 8 in the shallow regions(4 – 8m depth) and site 6 in the deeper region (14 – 18m) (see Figure 19). Whenobserved, Tridacna sp. (giant clam) was recorded mainly in the shallower regions, andFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 30

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionswas most abundant at sites 5, 6, 7 and 8. In total, 58 Tridacna sp. were recorded withinthe 810m 2 substrate area surveyed.Nudibranchia (nudibranchs) were separated from the other Gastropoda to assess theirindividual abundances. There were 26 of this order observed in total and theseindividuals were recorded at sites 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8. There were 14 Platyhelminthes(flatworms) recorded in total, and these were observed predominantly at site 4 (10individuals) but also at sites 5, 6, 7 and 8. Sabellidae (fanworms) were most abundantat sites 2, 4 and 8, with mean values of 0.65, 0.40 and 0.31 Sabellidae per 1m 2 quadratrespectively. See Figure 20 and Figure 21 for mean and standard error values forNudibranchia, Platyhelminthes and Sabellidae observations.Crustacea (Stomatopoda (mantis shrimp), Stenopodus hispidus (Banded cleanershrimp), and Palinuridae (spiny lobsters)) were absent in most of the surveyed quadrats.The only observations of these taxa were of two Stenopodus hispidus, one each at sites1 and 7.Octopoda were not observed at any site from the 810m 2 total surveyed area between4m and 18m. However, many Octopoda have been observed during a separate study ofthe octopus fishery. Fishermen have collected such individuals from the intertidal areasurrounding Misali Island. Sepioidea (cuttlefish) and Teuthoidea (squid) wereobserved outside of the surveys (see p67).In total, the following number of Cirrhipathes (coral whips) were recorded within the810m 2 surveyed area: three at site 1; two at site 7; one each at sites 2, 6 and 8. Thetotal number of Gorgoniidae (sea fans) observed were four, which were recorded atsites 1, 4 and 5.Porifera modal values per 1m 2 quadrats are displayed in Figure 22. This phylum wasrecorded throughout the surveyed sites except at shallow depths at site 2. Maximum P6values ranged from 0 to 5, with the greatest cover by encrusting Porifera at site 1.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 31

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsDEPTH: Shallow & DeepMean +- 2 SE Echinoidea3.02.52.01.51.0.50.0-.5N =10011085120801301107512345678Survey siteFigure 13: INVERTEBRATE ABUNDANCE: Mean and standard error values per 1m 2 forEchinoidea, surveyed in the shallow (4-8m) and deep (14-18m) regionsDepth: Shallow & DeepMean +- 2 SE Asteroidea.30.25.20.15.10.050.00-.05N =10011085120801301107512345678Survey siteFigure 14: INVERTEBRATE ABUNDANCE: Mean and standard error values per 1m 2 for Asteroidea(not including Acanthaster plancii), surveyed in the shallow (4-8m) and deep (14-18m) regionsFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 32

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsDEPTH: Shallow & DeepMean +- 2 SE.30.25.20.15.10.050.00Holothurian edible-.05N =100 100 110 110 85 85 120 120 80 80 130 130 110 110 75 751 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Holothurian non-edSurvey siteFigure 15: INVERTEBRATE ABUNDANCE: Mean and standard error values per 1m 2 forDEPTH: Shallow & DeepMean +- 2 SE3.02.52.01.51.0.50.0Crinoidea-.5N =100 100 110 110 85 85 120 120 80 80 130 130 110 110 75 751 2 3 4 5 6 7 8OphiuroideaSurvey siteHolothuroidea, surveyed in the shallow (4-8m) and deep (14-18m) regionsFigure 16: INVERTEBRATE ABUNDANCE: Mean and standard error values per 1m 2 for Crinoideaand Ophiuroidea, surveyed in the shallow (4-8m) and deep (14-18m) regionsFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 33

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsMean +- 2 SE Gastropoda.50.45.40.35.30.25DEPTH: Shallow & Deep.20.15.10.050.00-.05N =10011102853120480513061107758Survey siteFigure 17: INVERTEBRATE ABUNDANCE: Mean and standard error values per 1m 2 forGastropoda, surveyed in the shallow (4-8m) and deep (14-18m) regionsDEPTH: Shallow & DeepMean +- 2 SE3.53.02.52.01.51.0.50.0Actiniaria-.5N =100 100 110 110 85 85 120 120 80 80 130 130 110 110 75 751 2 3 4 5 6 7 8AlcyonaceaSurvey siteFigure 18: INVERTEBRATE ABUNDANCE: Mean and standard error values per 1m 2 for Actiniariaand Alcyonacea, surveyed in the shallow (4-8m) and deep (14-18m) regionsFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 34

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsDEPTH: ShallowMean +- 2 SE Bivalvia1.11.0.9.8.7.6.5.4.3.2.10.0-.1N =556040704060753512345678Survey siteDEPTH: DeepMean +- 2 SE Bivalvia1.21.11.0.9.8.7.6.5.4.3.2.10.0-.1N =451502453504405706357408Survey siteFigure 19: INVERTEBRATE ABUNDANCE: Mean and standard error values per 1m 2 for Bivalvia,surveyed in the shallow (4-8m) and deep (14-18m) regions, displayed separatelyFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 35

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsDEPTH: Shallow & DeepMean +- 2 SE.30.25.20.15.10.050.00Nudibranchia-.05N =100 100 110 110 85 85 120 120 80 80 130 130 110 110 75 751 2 3 4 5 6 7 8PlatyhelminthesSurvey siteFigure 20: INVERTEBRATE ABUNDANCE: Mean and standard error values per 1m 2 forPlatyhelminthes and Nudbranchia, surveyed in the shallow (4-8m) and deep (14-18m) regionsDEPTH: Shallow & DeepMean +- 2 SE Sabellidae1.0.9.8.7.6.5.4.3.2.10.0-.1N =10011085120801301107512345678Survey siteFigure 21: INVERTEBRATE ABUNDANCE: Mean and standard error values per 1m 2 for Sabellidaesurveyed in the shallow (4-8m) and deep (14-18m) regionsFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 36

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsModal value per 1m 2432101 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Survey siteBarrelTubeEncrustingBranchingExplanateOtherFigure 22: INVERTEBRATE ABUNDANCE: Modal values per 1m 2 for Porifera morphotypes,surveyed in the shallow (4-8m) and deep (14-18m) regions3.4 COMMERCIAL FISH VISUAL CENSUSKruskal-Wallis tests were used to analyse whether there were significant differencesbetween depths for commercial fish visual census surveys at each site. The resultsindicated that survey depth was not a significant factor to take into account. As such,data from different survey depths were grouped together within each survey site.The graphs shown in Figure 23 and Figure 24 imply differences are present whencomparing sites (see Appendix 8). For example, mullids (goatfish) and labrids(wrasses) were observed amongst the dominant fish families at sites 2, 3 and 4. Incontrast, dominant fish families at sites 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were Caesionidae (fusiliers) andAcanthurinae (surgeon fish).Kruskal-Wallis tests were conducted on the observed commercial fish families to testfor significance between sites with coral reefs and those without, such as survey sites 5with 8, and 3 with 6 (see Appendix 6). Significant differences were recorded for thefollowing families when comparing sites 5 and 8: Acanthurinae; Haemulidae(sweetlips); Holocentridae (squirrel / soldierfish); Lethrinidae (emperors); Lutjanidae(snapper); Mullidae. Significant differences were recorded for the following familieswhen comparing sites 3 and 6: Acanthurinae; Caesionidae; Carangidae (jacks andtrevallys); Holocentridae; Nasinae (unicorns); Scaridae (parrotfish); Epinephelini(grouper).Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 37

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsNo sphyraenids (barracudas) or carcharhinids (requiem sharks) were observed at any ofthe survey sites during the commercial fish census surveys. There have been sightingsof sphyraenids during observations outside of the commercial fish surveys, but none ofcarcharhinids. The total number of dasyatids, myliobatids and mobulids (sting, eagleand manta rays respectively) recorded during the commercial fish surveys was 4, allwithin the deep surveys (14 – 18m): 3 at site 5; 1 at site 7. There were 2 muraenids(moray eels) recorded from all the surveys, both observed during the deep surveys atsite 3. Given the absence, or infrequent presence, of the above taxa these have not beenincluded in the graphs that follow.The mean lengths of the observed rays were 0.14m and 0.35m at sites 5 and 7respectively. The mean length of the observed eels was 0.20m. A total of four rayswere observed at site 5 and 7, all during the deeper surveys.Carangids (jacks and trevallys) were found to have the largest mean length(approximately 0.45m) amongst all the fish families observed at sites 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8.Overall their size showed a relatively large variation (0.14m – 0.80m), indicated by thelong standard error bars (refer to Figure 24, sites 5 and 6).Labrids were observed with smaller mean lengths at sites 2 and 3 ( ≤ 10cm ) incomparison to the remaining sites ( ≥ 15cm ). However, these lengths were not foundto be significantly different (e.g. sites 3 and 6, Kruskal-Wallis, χ 2 = 2.665, p 0.103).However, the other fish families were observed with similar mean lengths at all sites.The observed frequency of fish seen can be derived using both the figures for meanabundance and mean length at each site. For example, at site 6 the mean number ofCaesionidae observed was about 80 within 19 surveys (N=19, refer to Figure 25, site6). Figure 26, site 6, shows that N=14, where N is the number of surveys out of thetotal conducted in which that fish family was present. In summary, for the 19 surveysconducted, Caesionidae were not observed in 5 of these. The mean abundance from allthe surveys conducted (i.e. 19) was approximately 80 and the mean lengthapproximately 0.17m.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 38

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsSITE: 1SITE: 2Mean +- 2 SE140.0120.0100.0Mean +- 2 SE140.0120.0100.080.080.060.060.040.040.020.020.00.00.0-20.0-20.0N =1919191919191919191919191919N =2020202020202020202020202020Mean +- 2 SE140.0120.0100.0AcanthurinaeBalistidaeCaesionidaeSITE: 3CarangidaeHaemulidaeHolocentridaeLabridaeLethrinidaeLutjanidaeMullidaeNasinaeScaridaeSerranidaeSiganidaeMean +- 2 SE140.0120.0100.0AcanthurinaeBalistidaeCaesionidaeSITE: 4CarangidaeHaemulidaeHolocentridaeLabridaeLethrinidaeLutjanidaeMullidaeNasinaeScaridaeSerranidaeSiganidae80.080.060.060.040.040.020.020.00.00.0-20.0N = 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21-20.0AcanthurinaeBalistidaeCaesionidaeCarangidaeHaemulidaeHolocentridaeLabridaeLethrinidaeLutjanidaeMullidaeNasinaeScaridaeSerranidaeSiganidaeN = 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18AcanthurinaeBalistidaeCaesionidaeCarangidaeHaemulidaeHolocentridaeLabridaeLethrinidaeLutjanidaeMullidaeNasinaeScaridaeSerranidaeSiganidaeFigure23: COMMERCIAL FISH ABUNDANCE: Mean and standard error values, survey sites 1, 2, 3 & 4. N = total number of surveys conducted at each siteFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 39

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsSITE: 5Mean +- 2 SE140.0120.0100.0Mean +- 2 SE140.0120.0100.0SITE: 680.080.060.060.040.040.020.020.00.00.0Mean +- 2 SE-20.0N = 20 20 20 20140.0120.0100.0AcanthurinaeBalistidaeCaesionidaeCarangidaeSITE: 720Haemulidae20Holocentridae20Labridae20Lethrinidae20Lutjanidae20Mullidae20Nasinae20Scaridae20Serranidae20SiganidaeMean +- 2 SE-20.0N = 19 19 19140.0120.0100.0AcanthurinaeBalistidaeCaesionidaeSITE: 819Carangidae19Haemulidae19Holocentridae19Labridae19Lethrinidae19Lutjanidae19Mullidae19Nasinae19Scaridae19Serranidae19Siganidae80.080.060.060.040.040.020.020.00.00.0-20.0N =1818181818181818181818181818-20.0AcanthurinaeBalistidaeCaesionidaeCarangidaeHaemulidaeHolocentridaeLabridaeLethrinidaeLutjanidaeMullidaeNasinaeScaridaeSerranidaeSiganidaeN =20Acanthurinae20Balistidae20Caesionidae20Carangidae20Haemulidae20Holocentridae20Labridae20Lethrinidae20Lutjanidae20Mullidae20Nasinae20Scaridae20Serranidae20SiganidaeFigure24: COMMERCIAL FISH ABUNDANCE: Mean and standard error values, survey sites 5, 6, 7 & 8. N = total number of surveys conducted at each siteFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 40

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsMean +- 2 SE / metres.6.5.4SITE: 1Mean +- 2 SE / metres.6.5.4SITE: 2.3.3.2.2.1.10.0N =1851421101786171517710.0AcanthurinaeBalistidaeCaesionidaeSITE: 3CarangidaeHaemulidaeHolocentridaeLabridaeLethrinidaeLutjanidaeMullidaeNasinaeScaridaeSerranidaeSiganidaeN = 6 3 1 2AcanthurinaeBalistidaeCaesionidaeCarangidaeSITE: 4Haemulidae2Holocentridae9Labridae3Lethrinidae3Lutjanidae6Mullidae1Nasinae6ScaridaeSerranidae1SiganidaeMean +- 2 SE / metres.6.5.4Mean +- 2 SE / metres.6.5.4.3.3.2.2.10.0.1-.10.0N =91121443157N =14145AcanthurinaeBalistidaeCaesionidaeCarangidaeHaemulidaeHolocentridaeLabridaeLethrinidaeLutjanidaeMullidaeNasinaeScaridaeSerranidaeSiganidae151882182104AcanthurinaeBalistidaeCaesionidaeCarangidaeHaemulidaeHolocentridaeLabridaeLethrinidaeLutjanidaeMullidaeNasinaeScaridaeSerranidaeSiganidaeFigure25: COMM. FISH AVERAGE LENGTHS: Mean and standard error values, survey sites 1, 2, 3 & 4. N = no. of surveys in which family was observedFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 41

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsSITE: 5Mean +- 2 SE / metres.6.5.4.3Mean +- 2 SE / metres.6.5.4.3SITE: 6.2.2.1.10.0N =201116261918111217201110.0Mean +- 2 SE / metres.6.5.4.3AcanthurinaeBalistidaeCaesionidaeSITE: 7CarangidaeHaemulidaeHolocentridaeLabridaeLethrinidaeLutjanidaeMullidaeNasinaeScaridaeSerranidaeSiganidaeMean +- 2 SE / metresN = 18 8 14 6.6.5.4AcanthurinaeBalistidaeCaesionidaeCarangidaeSITE: 83Haemulidae8Holocentridae17Labridae5Lethrinidae2Lutjanidae13Mullidae12Nasinae18Scaridae9SerranidaeSiganidae.2.3.1.20.0.1-.1N =1871337111842161518820.0AcanthurinaeBalistidaeCaesionidaeCarangidaeHaemulidaeHolocentridaeLabridaeLethrinidaeLutjanidaeMullidaeNasinaeScaridaeSerranidaeSiganidaeN =18Acanthurinae9Balistidae14Caesionidae1Carangidae14Haemulidae12Holocentridae18Labridae10Lethrinidae8Lutjanidae20Mullidae14Nasinae19Scaridae9Serranidae2SiganidaeFigure 26: COMM. FISH AVERAGE LENGTHS: Mean and standard error values, survey sites 5, 6, 7 & 8. N = no. of surveys in which family was observedFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 42

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regions3.5 REEF FISH VISUAL CENSUSThe reef-associated fish visual census data was analysed in terms of species richnessand species diversity per site. Analysis was also conducted on the abundances ofspecies from three families; Acanthuridae (Surgeon and Unicorn fish), Zanclidae(Moorish Idol) and Chaetodontidae (Butterfly fish). The species analysed from each ofthese families were considered to be representive of certain types of reef areas, beingdependant on a range of habitats from dead coral rubble to sandy patches and livingcorals.Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to analyse whether there were significant differencesbetween depths for reef-associated fish visual census surveys at each site. Few valueswere significantly different between the two survey depths at each site so data weregrouped together (see Figure 27 to Figure 33).Species richness (number of species) of reef-associated fish was calculated as a meanvalue per site relative to the 78-species list used during these surveys. In order to dothis data were transformed from abundance of each species into presence (1) or absence(0) only. A mean was then calculated from the sum of species ‘present’ at each site, i.e.the number of different species observed within all the surveys undertaken at each site.Figure 27 shows the mean species richness observed at each site. It indicates adifference in number of species observed between sites 2, 3 and 4 (15 species). From the 78 species of reef-associated fish surveyed themaximum number of species recorded in any one transect was 32 (site 8) with thehighest mean of approximately 19 recorded at site 5. Taking all the survey sites intoaccount the total number of species recorded from the list of 78 reef-associated fish was50. Of the 28 species not observed within the reef-associated fish surveys, only 3species remain unobserved by the systematic fish inventory: Balistoides conspicullum(Clown trigger); Acanthurus coeruleus (Blue tang); Naso tuberosus (Humpnoseunicorn).Standard error bars on Figure 27 indicate that those sites with greater average speciesrichness show more variation than the sites with lower species richness. This indicatesthat sites 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were not only observed with a greater number of species butalso showed a greater variation in the total number of species seen within each survey.Reef-associated fish species diversity was calculated with both Shannon-Wiener (S-W)and Simpson’s indices. Indices from both calculations resulted in similar valuesrelative to the survey sites (see Figure 28 and Figure 29).Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 43

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsAverage species richness25201510501 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Survey siteFigure 27: Graph showing the mean number of reef-associated species observed at each survey siteThe S-W diversity index values are usually between 1.5 and 3.5, only rarely beinggreater than 4.5 (Margalef 1972). This index assumes that all species are represented inthe sample, hence estimating a diversity of the unsampled as well as the sampledportion of the community (Magurran 1988), thus being a more ‘fair’ representation ofspecies richness.In comparison, Simpson’s index is considered a dominance measure as it is weightedtowards the abundances of the commonest species rather than providing a measure ofspecies richness (Magurran 1988). In other words, if this index is of a high value, itmay mean lots of fish of one species but not necessarily lots of fish from a largenumber of species.The S-W indices show similar patterns to that indicated by Figure (species richness)with sites 2, 3 and 4 having low diversity indices (approximately 2) and 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8with high diversity indices (approximately 3).A randomisation test using a S-W index (Solow 1993) was run to compare the S-Windex values statistically between sites 3 and 8. Results from this test are shown below.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 44

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsShannon-Weiner Index3.53.02.52.01.512345678Survey siteFigure28: Shannon-Wiener indices for reef-associated fish at each survey siteSimpson's Index (D)605040302010012345678Survey siteFigure29: Simpson’s indices for reef-associated fish at each survey siteFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 45

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsOne sided test:-Null hypothesis:Degrees of freedom 1Probability (P) at 5% level 0.000Observed S-W Diversity, site 3 1.773Observed S-W Diversity, site 8 3.364Delta 1.592Reef-associated fish species observed at site 3 are notsignificantly less than or equal to those reef-asscociatedfish species observed at site 8.ConclusionSite 3 is significantly less diverse than site 8 relative tothe species list used during these surveys conducted byFT MRPThe levels of observed diversity calculated for each site and the delta value indicatewhether the diversity indices from the two sites are significantly different. The SpeciesDiversity and Richness II programme 1 automatically shows the conclusion drawn fromthe randomisation test. Results of the randomisation tests that compared diversityindices between site 3 and 8 in addition to others are summarised in Table 5.Table 5: Results from randomisation tests using a S-W index for different combinations of sitesObserved S-WSurvey sitediversity3 1.7738 3.3644 2.1257 2.9472 2.0957 2.9473 1.7737 2.947DeltaDegrees offreedomP (5%)1.592 1 0.0000.822 1 0.0710.853 1 0.359-1.174 1 0.997ConclusionSite 3 is less diverse thansite 8Site 4 has the samediversity as site 7Site 2 has the samediversity as site 7Site 3 is less diverse thansite 7The results of the randomisation tests described above and observations from Figureindicate that sites 1 and 5, 6, 7 and 8 have greater species diversity than sites 2, 3 and 4.However, there were no significant differences between sites 2 and 7 or 4 and 7 butsites 3 and 7 showed a significant difference in species diversity.The Simpson’s indices pattern indicates less differences between sites 2, 3, 4 and 1, 5,6, 7, 8 in comparison to species richness and S-W values (Figure and Figure). Site 3has the lowest diversity index (4.9) and site 8 the highest (38.1).Randomisation tests using a Simpson’s D index (Solow 1993) were run to compare theSimpson’s index values statistically between sites: 3 and 8; 2 and 7; 3 and 7. Resultsfrom these tests are shown in Table 6.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 46

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsTable 6: Results from randomisation tests using a Simpson’s index for different combinations of sitesObserved S-WSurvey sitediversity3 4.8848 49.5002 16.5007 18.9833 4.8847 18.983DeltaDegrees offreedomP (5%)44.616 1 0.000-2.483 1 0.66614.100 1 0.002ConclusionSite 3 is less diverse thansite 8Site 2 has the samediversity as site 7Site 3 is less diverse thansite 7The results of the randomisation tests summarised in Table 6 and observations fromFigure indicate that sites 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have a greater number of the ‘common’species than sites 2, 3 and 4. Significant differences between these two groups of sitesare not found between 2 and 7 but are found between 3 and 7.Mean and standard error values in Figure to Figure indicate a marked differencebetween sites 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in comparison to sites 2, 3 and 4. This is shown by thereduced abundance of acanthurids, zanclid and chaetodontids species at the latter sites.Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed on the acanthurids and zanclid, and chaetondontidmean abundances between sites 3 and 7. From a total of 22 acanthurid and zanclidspecies surveyed, 15 were observed at one or other of sites 3 and 7. From these 15species, 9 were found to be significantly different between sites (df = 1, p ≤ 0.05).From a total of 21 Chaetodontid species surveyed, 17 were observed at one or other ofsites 3 and 7. From these 17 species, 11 were found to be significantly different whencomparing sites (df = 1, p ≤ 0.05) (see Appendix 6).3.6 SYSTEMATIC FISH INVENTORY350 species of fish have been recorded through the systematic fish inventory survey todate (see Appendix 1). Richmond and Mohammed recorded 270 species in totalaround Misali Island in 2001. When these fish species lists were analysed incombination the total species count was 403. The additional species that were recordedby Richmond and Mohammed (2001) and not by FT MRP to date are also listed inAppendix 1.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 47

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsSTATION: 1STATION: 2Mean +- 2 SE1514131211Mean +- 2 SE15141312111010998877665544332210-1N =212121212121212121212121212121212121212110-1N =2323232323232323232323232323232323232323Mean +- 2 SE1514131211109876543210-1N =Acanthurus aurantica22Acanthurus dussumier22Acanthurus leucoster22Acanthurus lineatus22Acanthurs nigricaudaSTATION: 3Acanthurus auranticaAcanthurus dussumierAcanthurus lineatusAcanthurus leucoster22Acanthurs nigricaudaAcanthurus nigrofusc22Acanthurus nigrofuscAcanthurus tennenti22Acanthurus tennentiAcanthurus triostegu22Acanthurus triosteguAcanthurus xanthopte22Acanthurus xanthopteCtenochaetus binotat22Ctenochaetus binotatCtenochaetus striatu22Ctenochaetus striatuCtenochaetus strigos22Ctenochaetus strigosParacanthurus hepatu22Paracanthurus hepatuZebrasoma scopas22Zebrasoma scopasZebrasoma veliferum22Zebrasoma veliferumNaso brevirostris22Naso brevirostrisNaso lituratus22Naso lituratusNaso tuberosus22Naso tuberosusNasinae other22Nasinae otherZanclus cornutus22Zanclus cornutusFigure 30: REEF-ASSOCIATED FISH ABUNDANCE Mean and standard error values, Acanthurids & Zanclids, Sites 5,6, 7 & 8. N = no. of surveys conductedFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Technical Report 103 48Mean +- 2 SE1514131211109876543210-1Acanthurus auranticaAcanthurus dussumierAcanthurus leucosterAcanthurus lineatusAcanthurs nigricaudaAcanthurus nigrofuscSTATION: 4N =17Acanthurus aurantica17Acanthurus dussumier17Acanthurus leucoster17Acanthurus lineatus17Acanthurus tennentiAcanthurus tennenti17Acanthurus triosteguAcanthurus triostegu17Acanthurs nigricaudaAcanthurus xanthopte17Acanthurus nigrofuscCtenochaetus binotat17Acanthurus xanthopteCtenochaetus striatu17Ctenochaetus binotatCtenochaetus strigos17Ctenochaetus striatuParacanthurus hepatu17Ctenochaetus strigosZebrasoma scopas17Paracanthurus hepatuZebrasoma veliferum17Zebrasoma scopasNaso brevirostris17Zebrasoma veliferumNaso lituratus17Naso brevirostrisNaso tuberosus17Naso lituratusNasinae other17Naso tuberosusZanclus cornutus17Nasinae other17Zanclus cornutus

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsSTATION: 5STATION: 6Mean +- 2 SE1514131211Mean +- 2 SE15141312111010998877665544332210-1N =323232323232323232323232323232323232323210-1N =1818181818181818181818181818181818181818Acanthurus auranticaAcanthurus dussumierAcanthurus leucosterAcanthurus lineatusAcanthurs nigricaudaAcanthurus nigrofuscAcanthurus tennentiSTATION: 7Acanthurus triosteguAcanthurus xanthopteCtenochaetus binotatCtenochaetus striatuCtenochaetus strigosParacanthurus hepatuZebrasoma scopasZebrasoma veliferumNaso brevirostrisNaso lituratusNaso tuberosusNasinae otherZanclus cornutusAcanthurus auranticaAcanthurus dussumierAcanthurus leucosterAcanthurus lineatusAcanthurs nigricaudaAcanthurus nigrofuscAcanthurus tennentiSTATION: 8Acanthurus triosteguAcanthurus xanthopteCtenochaetus binotatCtenochaetus striatuCtenochaetus strigosParacanthurus hepatuZebrasoma scopasZebrasoma veliferumNaso brevirostrisNaso lituratusNaso tuberosusNasinae otherZanclus cornutusMean +- 2 SE1514131211Mean +- 2 SE15141312111010998877665544332210-1N =181818181818181818181818181818181818181810-1N =1818181818181818181818181818181818181818Acanthurus auranticaAcanthurus dussumierAcanthurus leucosterAcanthurus lineatusAcanthurs nigricaudaAcanthurus nigrofuscAcanthurus tennentiAcanthurus triosteguAcanthurus xanthopteCtenochaetus binotatCtenochaetus striatuCtenochaetus strigosParacanthurus hepatuZebrasoma scopasZebrasoma veliferumNaso brevirostrisNaso lituratusNaso tuberosusNasinae otherZanclus cornutusAcanthurus auranticaAcanthurus dussumierAcanthurus leucosterAcanthurus lineatusAcanthurs nigricaudaAcanthurus nigrofuscAcanthurus tennentiAcanthurus triosteguAcanthurus xanthopteCtenochaetus binotatCtenochaetus striatuCtenochaetus strigosParacanthurus hepatuZebrasoma scopasZebrasoma veliferumNaso brevirostrisNaso lituratusNaso tuberosusNasinae otherZanclus cornutusFigure 31: REEF-ASSOCIATED FISH ABUNDANCE Mean and standard error values, Acanthurids & Zanclid, Sites 5,6, 7 & 8. N = no. of surveys conductedFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Technical Report 103 49

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsSTATION: 1STATION: 2Mean +- 2 SE54Mean +- 2 SE5433221100Mean +- 2 SE-1N = 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21543Chaetodon aurigaChaetodon bennettiChaetodon falculaChaetodon guttatissiChaetodon kleiniiChaetodon leucopleurChaetodon lineolatusChaetodon lunulaChaetodon melannotusChaetodon mertensiiChaetodon meyeriChaetodon trifascialChaetodon trifasciatChaetodon unimaculatChaetodon vagabundusChaetodon xanthocephChaetodon zanzibarieForcipiger flavissimHeniochus acuminatusHeniochus monocerosHemitaurichthys polySTATION: 3Mean +- 2 SE-1N = 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23543Chaetodon aurigaChaetodon bennettiChaetodon falculaChaetodon guttatissiChaetodon kleiniiChaetodon leucopleurChaetodon lineolatusChaetodon lunulaChaetodon melannotusChaetodon mertensiiChaetodon meyeriChaetodon trifascialChaetodon trifasciatChaetodon unimaculatChaetodon vagabundusChaetodon xanthocephChaetodon zanzibarieForcipiger flavissimHeniochus acuminatusHeniochus monocerosHemitaurichthys polySTATION: 4221100-1N = 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22Chaetodon aurigaChaetodon bennettiChaetodon falculaChaetodon guttatissiChaetodon kleiniiChaetodon leucopleurChaetodon lineolatusChaetodon lunulaChaetodon melannotusChaetodon mertensiiChaetodon meyeriChaetodon trifascialChaetodon trifasciatChaetodon unimaculatChaetodon vagabundusChaetodon xanthocephChaetodon zanzibarieForcipiger flavissimHeniochus acuminatusHeniochus monocerosHemitaurichthys poly-1N = 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17Chaetodon aurigaChaetodon bennettiChaetodon falculaChaetodon guttatissiChaetodon kleiniiChaetodon leucopleurChaetodon lineolatusChaetodon lunulaChaetodon melannotusChaetodon mertensiiChaetodon meyeriChaetodon trifascialChaetodon trifasciatChaetodon unimaculatChaetodon vagabundusChaetodon xanthocephChaetodon zanzibarieForcipiger flavissimHeniochus acuminatusHeniochus monocerosHemitaurichthys polyFigure 32: REEF-ASSOCIATED FISH ABUNDANCE Mean and standard error values, Chaetodontids, Sites 5,6, 7 & 8. N=no. of surveys conductedFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Technical Report 103 50

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsMean +- 2 SE543STATION: 5Mean +- 2 SE543STATION: 6221100-1N =323232323232323232323232323232323232323232-1Chaetodon aurigaChaetodon bennettiChaetodon falculaChaetodon guttatissiChaetodon kleiniiChaetodon leucopleurChaetodon lineolatusChaetodon lunulaSTATION: 7Chaetodon melannotusChaetodon mertensiiChaetodon meyeriChaetodon trifascialChaetodon trifasciatChaetodon unimaculatChaetodon vagabundusChaetodon xanthocephChaetodon zanzibarieForcipiger flavissimHeniochus acuminatusHeniochus monocerosHemitaurichthys polyN = 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18Chaetodon aurigaChaetodon bennettiChaetodon falculaChaetodon guttatissiChaetodon kleiniiChaetodon leucopleurChaetodon lineolatusChaetodon lunulaChaetodon melannotusChaetodon mertensiiChaetodon meyeriChaetodon trifascialChaetodon trifasciatChaetodon unimaculatChaetodon vagabundusChaetodon xanthocephChaetodon zanzibarieForcipiger flavissimHeniochus acuminatusHeniochus monocerosHemitaurichthys polySTATION: 8Mean +- 2 SE54Mean +- 2 SE5433221100-1-1N =181818181818181818181818181818181818181818N =181818181818181818181818181818181818181818Chaetodon aurigaChaetodon bennettiChaetodon falculaChaetodon guttatissiChaetodon kleiniiChaetodon leucopleurChaetodon lineolatusChaetodon lunulaChaetodon melannotusChaetodon mertensiiChaetodon meyeriChaetodon trifascialChaetodon trifasciatChaetodon unimaculatChaetodon vagabundusChaetodon xanthocephChaetodon zanzibarieForcipiger flavissimHeniochus acuminatusHeniochus monocerosHemitaurichthys polyChaetodon aurigaChaetodon bennettiChaetodon falculaChaetodon guttatissiChaetodon kleiniiChaetodon leucopleurChaetodon lineolatusChaetodon lunulaChaetodon melannotusChaetodon mertensiiChaetodon meyeriChaetodon trifascialChaetodon trifasciatChaetodon unimaculatChaetodon vagabundusChaetodon xanthocephChaetodon zanzibarieForcipiger flavissimHeniochus acuminatusHeniochus monocerosHemitaurichthys polyFigure 33: REEF-ASSOCIATED FISH ABUNDANCE Mean and standard error values, Chaetodontids, Sites 5,6, 7 & 8. N=no. of surveys conductedFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Technical Report 103 51

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regions4 DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS4.1 BENTHIC SUBSTRATA MAPPINGEcosystems that have been identified range from dramatic coral reef walls to shallowslopingsandy areas extending beyond the relatively extensive intertidal regions. To thenorth of Misali (to the east of the Ranger Station) there is a narrow band of reef thatincreases in width towards East Island. Moving clockwise from East Island, coral reefbreaks into coral bommies and extensive shallow-sloping sandy regions along the eastcoast towards the south-west of Misali.The main reef areas identified are located to the west side of Misali Island where itextends to depths well beyond 30m. The reef in this area had patchy live coral coverand physical complexity, the latter of which was shown by the high levels of rugosity.This may be due to a number of factors that include the natural formation andrecruitment of the reef and previous environmental incidents such as coral bleachingevents. It is evident from previous studies that the coral cover has reduced markedlyfrom early to late 1990s (Horrill 1992, Horrill et.al. 1994, Mohammed et.al. 2000). In1992 Horrill reported that with the exception of the southern portion, much of the coralgrowth was undamaged and pristine. In 1994 Horrill et.al. results from line-intercepttransects (LIT) of Misali reefs on the west and north coast stated a dominant live hardcoral of 74% and 51% cover respectively. In contrast, surveys undertaken by IMS andCORDIO in 1999 (Mohammed et.al. 2000) stated that this cover decreased to 7% and17% respectively. Surveys undertaken by IMS in 2001 reported that there were signsof recovery of the reef (Mohammed and Jiddawi 2002). This was partly because thelive coral cover was slightly increased in 2001 when compared to 1999 (fromapproximately 15% to 20% at one site and 20% to 28% at the site that was recordedwith the highest hard coral cover percentage). However, these surveys onlyincorporated one line-intercept transect at each site and depth so it was not possible forstatistical analysis to substantiate such conclusions. This report shows that coral coverremains relatively low at 10 – 20% cover in regions to the west of Misali.Threats to the benthic substrata around Misali Island include anthropogenic activitiessuch as over-exploitation through fishing, destructive fishing practices, tour and diveoperations, and pollution from sources such as rubbish and boat emissions. In addition,environmental threats include storms, cyclones and coral bleaching events. The mostrecent and severe coral bleaching in Tanzania probably occurred from February andcontinued through to May 1998 (Muhando 1999). Thus the results from previousstudies suggests that the living hard coral cover was affected by this event and perhapsthe less severe bleaching event in 1994. It appears that the reefs are still recovering if itis assumed that they will return to pre-bleaching levels. Long-term monitoring mayhelp answer the question of whether the reefs have degraded as a result of the coralbleaching event alone. Areas where there was extensive rubble (sites 5 and 6) seemedmore evident of destructive fishing practices such as dynamite or kigumi fishing, or ofnatural subsidence due to a build-up and collapse of physically complex reef areas,wave action and / or severe weather conditions.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 52

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsUnfortunately there has been a lack of detailed studies with regards to resource-useraround Misali so it is difficult to assess resultant impacts. However, damage has beenrecorded in the more utilised, shallower regions as a result of anchor and trap damage,possible damage from kigumi fishing practices and dynamite fishing (Horrill 1992,Forstle and Vierkotter 2001, pers.obs.). It is recommended that studies should beundertaken to assess resource-use activities in detail: type of activities, methods andequipment used; areas where these activities take place; seasonal preference if any.This would be an ideal opportunity to also assess the general opinion of the nonextractionzone, MIMCA and management of the area. All this information isimportant to ensure that the management of the area is successful, and as a basis withregards to future monitoring of such activities.Results of the distribution of live coral (Figure 7) indicates a sparse coverage of livingcoral, even in areas where the reefs are more extensive (to the west of Misali). Withinthe reef areas, recently killed coral was also recorded although its cover appears low.This is likely to be from natural causes such as strong winds and storms but alsoimpacts from resource-users such as recreational divers and boat users. Steep walls,such as at sites 6 and 7, are often characterised by whole colonies or portions ofcolonies that have tumbled down the slope when destabilised by water movement. Thisgives the impression of progressively damaged, recently killed coral and rubble, but itis in fact part of a natural process of reef dynamics. The areas where the most recentlykilled coral was recorded were popular sites for divers and it is likely that shallow andmid-depth damage has been caused by anchors being dropped on the reefs. FT MRPhas observed anchor practice that is likely to have resulted in reef damage during theirtime at various survey sites, mainly to the west of Misali (pers. obs. 2001-2003).The damage to observed areas are unlikely to be due to visitors or fishers walking overthe areas at low tide. This is because surveys were conducted in subtidal regions, onthe seaward side of the reef crest, which is far from the landmass. This side of the reefusually drops down to the reef slope so would be difficult to walk on. The deeper sitesare less likely to be affected by natural causes due to the natural protection of the watermass above it. Damage here is likely to be caused by SCUBA divers and certain reeforganisms that may break up the reef for foraging purposes.Rubble (unattached fragments of coral rock) was recorded amongst the living coral reefareas, as would be expected, but there was less rubble than living coral. This impliesthat coral recruitment was sufficient to replenish broken, old and damaged corals inthese areas and therefore ensure continuity of the living coral reef. Certain areas suchas at sites 5 and 8 were covered extensively by rubble with the only living substrate inthe form of intermittent coral recruits. It is unlikely that these areas have resulted fromcoral bleaching events as this process would be more selective. These extensivelyimpacted areas are more likely to have resulted from destructive fishing practices suchkigumi or dynamite.Much of the reef area to the west (site 5 and 6) of Misali is solid (that is not recentlykilled, loose fragments) but not covered by live coral. From personal observations(2001-2003) it seems as though there were obvious areas that used to have extensiveFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 53

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionslive coral cover. Now, much of what remains is dead coral skeleton such as largetabular and laminar morphotypes attached to the reef. However, there was limitedestablishment from Alcyonacea, or turf or macro-algae, which would normally beconsidered a threat to recruitment of hard corals. Mohammed and Jiddawi (2002)stated that in 2001 the growth of fleshy algae and soft corals that are normallycompeting for space with hard corals were minimal and did not pose any threat to hardcorals at Misali. Hard coral cover around Mnemba Island in Unguja has been observedas being low but in contrast to Misali, turf and macro-algae were growing prolifically insome areas (Ngoile 1990, Mbije et.al. 2002, pers. obs. 2002), which may affect coralrecruitment and recovery of the reefs. However, as Misali did not appear to besuffering from establishment by competitive taxa, corals around are likely to have agreater chance of settling on the bare rock. The problems faced by a recovering reefmay have been minimised by the same factors that resulted in Misali being severelyaffected during the bleaching event; strong currents and open-ocean circulation.Extensive sandy and seagrass areas were located to the east of Misali. As identified byHorrill in 1992 the seagrass populations of Misali Island are diverse and this ecosystemis a potential area for further, more detailed studies.It appears that the reefs have not been irreversibly damaged around Misali due tojuvenile corals of a variety of species becoming established (pers. obs. 2001-2003).This is indicated by the range of coral morphotypes present at each site, particularly atthe dominant reef areas; sites 5, 6, 7 and 8 (see Figure 9). An up-to-date coral speciesinventory is recommended to compare results to the pre-bleaching surveys that DrJ.E.N. Veron conducted in 1997. Such surveys would have to be conducted by arecognised coral taxonomy expert to ensure that all species were recorded, andaccurately. It is also recommended that size-frequency distribution of hard corals arerecorded and assessed to generate information on their recovery. This latter surveycould be incorporated into the monitoring currently undertaken by IMS.4.2 BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE CENSUSBenthic invertebrates were recorded in low abundance at each of the survey sites.However, this can be interpreted both positively and negatively, depending on the taxain question.Although Echinoidea (sea urchins) are a diverse group with a range of test diametersfrom approximately 3cm to 20cm, when grouped together this taxa were not recordedwith high abundance. Additional surveys specifically on the Echinoidea populationsaround Misali are recommended particularly as they have been considered a keyindicator for fishing intensity and over-fished reef areas (McClanahan and Muthiga1989, McClanahan 1995). It has been shown that an over-fished reef area has anincreased number of Echinoidea in comparison to a controlled, unfished area(McClanahan and Muthiga 1989, McClanahan 1995, McClanahan 2000).The low numbers of Echinoidea found around Misali may indicate that the reefs are notintensively fished. This taxa was recorded with greater abundance on the reef areasFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 54

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regions(sites 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8) but three of these sites (5, 6 and 7) were located inside the nonextractionzone and so fishing is unlikely to be a factor that influences Echinoideaabundance. The difference noted between survey sites is likely to be due to thetopography rather than fishing intensity around Misali. However, this is a difficulthypothesis to test presently as often fishermen are seen within the non-extraction zoneand there are limited comparable areas outside this zone in terms of substrata type andphysical reef complexity (pers. obs. 2001 - 2003).The absence of Acanthaster planci (Crown-of-Thorns starfish) from surveys is positive.There have been a few sightings of this species but as the results in this report indicate,there does not appear to be a large population around Misali. It is unknown whattriggers vast population outbreaks of this species but when this phenomenon occurs ithas devastating effects on corals. However, if there was to be a trigger (such as a resultof environmental changes) that would result in a rapid increase in the population of A.planci this could be detrimental to Misali reefs. Given their seemingly fragile state dueto recovering from the 1998 bleaching event an epidemic of A. planci would causefurther concern for recovery of the corals. This is especially true when consideringhow few Charonia tritonis (Triton’s trumpet) were observed during the surveysreported here. C. tritonis is the only known natural predator of A. planci and if it’spopulation continues to decline from present numbers (such as through collection forthe curios trade) it is almost certain to be completely removed from Misali.In comparison to other local areas such as reefs at Unguja, off the Kunduchi coast inDar es Salaam, Mafia Island Marine Park and Mnazi Bay, gastropod densities per m 2were fairly high in Misali. Gastropods were found at an overall average density of0.17m -2 (average density from all surveys at all sites) at Misali Island in comparison todata from surveys undertaken in 2000 (Mohammed et.al. 2000): 0.00m -2 at Unguja;0.003m -2 at Mafia; 0.13m -2 at Mnazi Bay. However, during the same study,Mohammed et.al. recorded 0.00m -2 gastropods for Misali (1999) and directcomparisons are difficult to assess due to different survey methodologies. Despite this,densities were low and it seems likely that the absence or low abundance of species thatare often collected for food and the curios trade is more than a coincidence. It may bethat collection of such species has naturally declined due to rarity of these species.Collection and export of Pleuroploca trapezium to Kenya is known to be prominent byfishers at Misali (pers. obs. 2003). However, McClanahan’s study in Kenya (1989)concluded that “Kenya’s coral reef-associated gastropod fauna, like other tropical Indo-Pacific regions, is typified by low density and high variability and diversity” (Kohn1959, 1968, Kohn and Nybakken 1975, Reichelts 1982, cited in McClanahan 1989). Inaddition to collection, gastropods may be threatened indirectly by the impact ofoverfishing on complex ecosystem interactions. It is also likely that if the gastropodpopulation were affected by collection, their recovery rate would be slow due to theirslow rate of growth and reproduction. As such, longterm monitoring is once againrecommended to assess this taxa in terms of abundance and diversity. In addition,assessment should be made in conjunction with resource-user surveys to analysewhether there is a significant marine curios trade pressure on these organisms. Thesestudies would determine gastropod abundances over a long period of time and whetherlow densities are due to external influences or natural population dynamics.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 55

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsExploitation of resources within MIMCA is not permitted using SCUBA gear.However, it is possible that this has been conducted recently (pers. obs. 2002) in orderto collect and trade in holothuroids (sea cucumbers). As discussed in the researchobjectives, holothuroids play a vital role in recycling detritus on and around reef areas.They have been observed fairly regularly but densities were low with an overallaverage of 0.03m -2 from all surveys and sites. The overall average for this taxa showeda similar density in comparison to that recorded in 1999, which was 0.02m -2 for Misali(Mohammed et.al. 2000). In comparison to the 1999 studies, Misali showed similardensities to Chapani, Changuu and Bawe regions near Unguja’s main town, Stonetown(0.07m -2 ) (Mohammed et.al. 2000). There seems to be no significant difference orobvious correlation between substrate type or the non-extraction zone for the densitiesof Holothuroids.The absence of the surveyed crustacean genera was surprising for a number of reasons.Although the surveyed organisms tend to hide in crevices or burrows, their antennae,claws and colouration tend to make them more conspicuous. The individual areassurveyed were small (1m 2 ) and this was mainly for the purpose of being able to searcheach quadrat thoroughly. There were a few palinurids (spiny lobsters) observed outsideof survey dives, and therefore known to abide around Misali (pers. obs. 2001-2003),near to site 5. This area, and that surrounding sites 6 and 7 seemed ideal for palinuridsdue to the physical complexity of the reef and the extensive lagoons, which wouldprovide many niches for this organism. Although surveys have not been conducted inthe lagoon areas, observational dives have been undertaken in this region, yet nopalinurids were observed.The absence of these crustaceans is not surprising when the Tanzania lobster fishery isconsidered. Since Tanzania’s economic liberalisation process, which commenced in1985 (coupled with an increase in tourism), fishing effort, both on an artisanal andcommercial level, more than tripled (Bakari and Andersson 1998). Although prior tothis liberalisation lobsters were not in demand, tourists have played the largest part inchanging this. Findings by Bakari and Andersson (1998) were unanimous in thatlobster fishing had reached its upper limit and was being over-exploited. At this time,despite the relative price of lobster increasing (signalling that the resource wasbecoming scarce) the demand, and therefore effort, did not drop. As a result the catchper unit effort showed a declining trend with an increase in registered fishing boats inTanzania between 1983 (131) and 1995 (379). This evidence suggests that the smallpopulation found around Misali is due to external pressure such as from fishers, mainlyfor the tourist trade. It would be hoped that if the non-extraction zone is managedeffectively the population would show some recovery. It is recommended that touroperators in Pemba are approached in order to explain the dire situation with regards tothe lobster populations, both locally and regionally. The aim would be to encourage orenforce prohibition of serving lobster during seasons that are essential to regenerationof their populations.The absence of octopods (octopus) during the surveys could be due to a number ofreasons. Octopi are extremely cryptic so measures were taken to minimise surveyorsFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 56

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsoverlooking such organisms during surveys. Their absence in the survey data could bedue to reasons such as their cryptic nature, or that their abundance is low in the subtidalregions. An octopus fisheries study undertaken by FT MRP has identified thisorganism as one of the many that should be monitored. The study has shown that at thetime of writing there was a thriving octopus fishery on Misali and the other islands tothe west of Pemba. Anecdotal evidence suggests that between 60 and in excess of 250octopus were being caught daily during approximately ten intertidal octopus fishingdays per month from the Misali Island intertidal areas only. During these days acollector bought octopus from the fishermen and took them by boat on ice to Tanga,from where they were exported to markets in Europe. The fishermen tended to campon Misali for two, five-day periods. They sometimes collected octopus for more thanten days per month but this additional catch was for local markets or personalconsumption only as the collector would not be there.There was no size restriction implemented by the octopus processor in Tanga at thetime of this study. Despite active campaigns of the processor in Tanga, it has so farproven financially unviable to implement a minimum size due to competition withother processors in Kenya, and the market demand for baby octopus (less than 100g)from India. However, it is hoped that a minimum size of 600g will be implemented byall the processors that purchase octopus from Misali by January 2004 (Allard, pers.comm. 2003).There was a relatively large range of weights and sizes noted during the study (seeTable 7).Table 7: Summary of the values for individual octopus during a study on MisaliIslandNumber Weight / g Mantle length / m Total length / mMinimum 60 50 0.02 0.23Maximum >250 5,250 0.22 1.70Average 125 868 0.10 0.79Guard and Mgaya (2002) found that of the octopus analysed at Mafia, the smallest sizeof a mature female was 600g with over 80% of mature females weighing over 2,500g.At Mtwara and Tanga only 13% and 20% of females respectively were over 600g,hence the majority of these were likely to be immature. Preliminary results from theoctopus fishery surveys on Misali Island showed that 45% of all the individualsmeasured were greater than, or equal to, 600g. Very few of the octopus collected onMisali were over 2,500g in weight. It is likely that a number of the octopus caughtaround Misali Island were female and unless the size at which the female octopusreaches maturity is substantially different from those at Mafia, it would seem that themajority of these were also immature. Given that a female octopus only broods once ina lifetime, after which she dies, her survival is integral to the success of the eggs andtherefore maintenance of the population.It is unlikely that the number of octopus being collected around Misali can beeconomically sustainable in the near future, as demonstrated by Guard and Mgaya(2002) during studies of octopus fisheries at Mafia, Mtwara and Tanga. This is alsoFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 57

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsapparent since octopus previously abundant in certain coastal areas of Pemba are nolonger found there due to overfishing (pers.obs. 2002). In order to ensure thesustainability of this population it is essential that the octopus fishery is monitoredclosely to note any changes in the abundance and size of catch over the next one or twoyears. It is recommended that a minimum size be implemented and adhered to by theprocessors who purchase Misali octopus, and therefore by fishermen and the collector.In order for this to be successful it is also necessary for the appropriate Governmentdepartment(s) to be pro-active and for the Misali Island Rangers to be fully briefedwith regard to the importance of management initiatives and how to carry them outeffectively. The reason behind the management initiatives and the advantages ofensuring a sustainable and profitable fishery should also be fully explained to the localfishermen and villagers to ensure their co-operation.Both cuttlefish and squid are motile, with the former being semi-benthic and the latterbeing pelagic. Therefore these organisms were unlikely to be recorded within arandomly placed quadrat, especially with diver presence, and were therefore notincluded in the invertebrate taxa list. There were, however, a few sightings of theseorganisms and they are known to be caught and landed at fish landing sites in Pemba(pers. obs. 2001 – 2003). As such it is recommended that catches of these organismsbe monitored to gain a better understanding of the distribution, seasonal patterns andextent of their fishery.Species richness and diversity values are two principal measures used for theinterpretation of biological diversity (Barnes and Bell 2002). Therefore, the presenceof Porifera (sponges) of varying morphotypes at all survey sites is important as itimplies that there is a high level of marine biodiversity surrounding Misali Island. Thisimplication is strengthened by previous reports, and this report, of the coral and fishspecies diversity (Horrill 1992, Horrill et.al. 1994, Veron 1997, Richmond andMohammed 2001). As with the corals, it is recommended that an expert Poriferataxonomist be invited to Misali to undertake surveys of the species and diversity of thistaxa. This would assist Misali in being recognised as an area of high biodiversity andcould increase it’s publicity worldwide.Some of the results from the invertebrate surveys raise areas for concern and futuremanagement initiatives. These include macro-Mollusca such as: Charonia tritonis(Triton’s trumpet); Pleuroploca trapezium (tulip shells); Tridacna sp. (giant clams);Cypraeidae (cowries); Cassidae (helmet shells); Strombidae (conch shells), in additionto Holothuroidea (sea cucumbers), crustaceans such as lobsters, and octopus. It islikely that these species are affected, or will be affected by the level of fishing andpersonal or commercial collection within MIMCA and the surrounding regions.Further studies of Echinoidea (sea urchins) and Asteroidea (seastars) would result ingaining an increased understanding for their species diversity and abundance. TheEchinoidea study could also help with comprehension of the level of fishing, but inorder for comparative surveys to be undertaken the non-extraction zone needs to bemanaged effectively. This will only be achieved if local resource-users (fishers, touroperators and tourists) are made aware of the importance of prioritising the effectiveFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 58

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsmanagement of these resources to avoid future problems and potential lack ofresources.4.3 COMMERCIAL FISH VISUAL CENSUSSCUBA visual census has some limitations, including disturbance of fish within theobserved area. Precautionary measures were taken to reduce disturbance, such asconducting the fish surveys before any others and remaining as still as possible withinthe 5-minute intervals.It was important to gain an insight into the natural population of fish and not just aselective representation, as would be the case if only fish landing sites were utilised. Ifthe only data collection were at landing sites it would be unlikely to include the smallerspecies or smaller individuals of certain species (i.e. juveniles). The latter statementassumes that legal fishing nets and techniques were employed.With regards to abundance surveys, there were few significant findings between depthsat each survey site. The two sites with the most significant differences were 2 and 8.Seven of the fish families observed at site 2 were recorded with significantly greaterabundances during shallow (4 – 8m) surveys in comparison to the deeper (14 – 18m)surveys: Acanthurinae (surgeon fish), Balistidae (trigger fish), Labridae (wrasse),Lethrinidae (emperors), Lutjanidae (snapper), Mullidae (goatfish) and Scaridae(parrotfish). As described in the benthic substrata results there was limited hard coralcover on a coral-rock substrate between 4m and 8m at site 2. In contrast, between 10mand 18m there were no hard corals and the substrate was predominantly sand. Theresults therefore imply that the physical complexity and diversity of the reef at this siteinfluenced certain families of fish. This relationship has been studied on a number ofoccasions with a variety of correlations (Chabanet et.al. 1997). In most studies, thephysical complexity of the reef sustratum is positively correlated with the diversity offish community, but not with fish abundance (e.g. Luckhurst and Luckhurst 1978,Talbot et.al. 1978, Roberts and Ormond 1987, cited in Chabanet et.al. 1997). Fishfamilies that differed significantly in abundance between depths at site 2 were thosethat are often associated with, and dependant on, reef areas such as for sources of foodand for shelter (Randall et.al. 1997). These would therefore be expected in lessabundance in non-reef areas such as the deeper section of site 2. In contrast,abundances of pelagic fish families such as jacks and fusiliers were not significantlydifferent between deep and shallow observations. This is not surprising as they are notdirectly dependant on the reef so would not be expected to show a relationship betweentheir abundance and the reef topography.Similar explanations to those for site 2 can be applied to site 8, where significantdifferences were observed for reef-associated fish families and not for pelagic groups.Site 8 was also different in terms of physical complexity and coral cover when theshallow and deeper sites were compared.Certain evidence from the surveys discussed in this report implies that abundances, andtherefore distribution, of commercial fish families were affected by the type ofsubstrate, which often changed with depth at each site. For example, Acanthurinae,Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 59

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionscaesionids (fusiliers), carangids (jacks and trevallys), holocentrids (squirrel / soldierfish), nasinae (unicorn fish), scarids and Epinephelini (grouper) families were recordedin significantly greater abundance at site 6 (coral reef wall) in comparison to site 3(shallow sloping sand) (see Appendix 9). The other families, with no significantdifferences between sites 3 and 6, were those that may be considered less specific intheir ecological preferences, inhabiting and foraging amongst both reef and sandyareas; mullids, labrids and lethrinids (Carpenter & Allen 1989, Nelson 1994, Randallet.al. 1997).Large commercial fish such as carangids, sphyraenids (barracuda), Epinephelini, raysand sharks were recorded in low abundance or were absent from the surveys. This maybe a reflection on their abundances within the area but the pelagic nature of jacks,barracuda and sharks means they are less likely to be recorded during relatively shallowdives close to the substrate. Statements referring to increasing fishing pressure, overfishingand reduced artisanal fish landings have been recorded within Tanzania, mainlyas a result of the increasing coastal population (UNEP 1989 and 2001). Shark fin tradeand the shark and ray catches have declined and “some fish species are now rarely seenin Tanzanian waters” (UNEP 2001). Removal of target groups such as sharks, rays andlarge groupers may explain why these have been absent or observed in limitedabundances during surveys (similar absences were reported by Richmond &Mohammed, 2001) and why less groupers were observed in the extraction zonecompared to the non-extraction zone. Such observations are similar to those recordedby Jennings and Polunin (1997), who found that only the piscivorous species appearedto show a decline in numbers as a result of increased fishing levels. It is likely thatmany habitat-dependant factors such as food availability, territorial behaviour and thoseinvolving oceanographic factors such as current patterns with respect to planktivorousspecies (Chabanet et.al. 1997) influence the remaining dietary groups differently. Thiswould help explain contradictory or insignificant findings when comparing areas withdifferent levels of fishing pressure such as inside and outside the non-extraction zone(see Appendix 9).Fishing practice (excluding intertidal) around Misali Island is predominantly fromoutrigger canoes (ngalawa) by hand-line (mshipi) at night in the deeper waters aroundMisali Island. The majority of the fish catch consists of carangids, labrids, lethrinids,lutjanids and sphyraenids (Richmond & Mohammed 2001, data recorded by MIMCARangers, pers. obs.). Sites 5 and 8 represent areas within and outside the nonextractionzone respectively, and are as similar as possible in the waters immediatelysurrounding Misali. When commercial fish data are compared from these sites, thepredominantly fished families listed above, except the carangids, were recorded withgreater abundances in the extraction zone (site 8). The differences between sites wereonly significant for Lethrinidae (Kruskal-Wallis, χ 2 = 10.56, p < 0.001) and Lutjanidae(Kruskal-Wallis, χ 2 = 6.71, p < 0.010). The results indicate that abundance differenceswere not due to fishing practice levels but this assumes that the non-extraction zone isnot being exploited. However, personal observations have noted that some fishing isconducted within the non-extraction zone, though far less than outside it.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 60

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsThere were less significant differences between fish lengths and survey depths at eachsite. This was to be expected as it is unlikely that the different depths surveyed wouldinfluence total lengths for fish of the same family. However, the labrids (wrasse) weresignificantly longer in the shallower surveys at site 2 (Kruskal-Wallis, χ 2 = 4.33, p

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsIn conjunction with the benthic substrata and commercial fish surveys, the reefassociatedspecies richness and diversity was greater within sites 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Thiswas particularly obvious when the chaetodontid (butterfly fish) abundances werecompared between sites. When sites 3 and 6 were compared to test the significance ofthe difference in abundances, chaetodonids were significantly more abundant at site 6(Kruskal-Wallis, χ 2 = 13.686, p < 0.000). Acanthurids and zanclids were also found tobe significantly more abundant at site 6 compared to site 3 (Kruskal-Wallis, χ 2 =24.346, 21.828, 13.058, p < 0.000, 0.000, 0.000 respectively), as were Aulostomidae(Trumpetfish), Epinephelini and Pomacanthidae (Angelfish) (Kruskal-Wallis, χ 2 =5.285, 9.267, 7.704, p < 0.022, 0.002, 0.006 respectively). Sites 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 werealso those that were found to have greater coral reef coverage in the benthic substratasurveys. Therefore the reef-associated fish species richness and diversity graphscorroborate the locations of the reef areas as established in benthic substrata mapping.In addition, they indicate that certain fish families show preference for particular typesof substrata.Cheilinus undulatus (humphead/napolean wrasse) is a conspicuous species but nonewere recorded during commercial or reef-associated fish surveys. However, thepresence of this species was recorded during other surveys conducted around MisaliIsland. This species is one of the largest associated with reefs and anecdotal evidenceleads to an estimation that ten reside around Misali Island. As with all reef-associatedfish species and commercial fish families, comparative reefs need to be surveyed inorder to establish whether the fish located around Misali Island have suffered fromfishing pressure or naturally occur in such abundance within the Pemban region.The fish species inventory has accumulated 350 species to date, but these did notinclude cryptic species. As such, FT MRP foresee that many more species are presentin the waters surrounding Misali. It is recommended that fish species inventories arecontinued to strengthen support in terms of biodiversity for funding and management ofthis region.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 62

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regions5 SUMMARYThis report comprehensively covers all the main features of the marine environmentthat surrounds Misali Island. In conjunction with ongoing and future studiesundertaken within this area these results will be useful for future management plans,recommendations and comparitive assessments.The physically complex areas with the greater number of reef-associated fish aroundMisali Island were mainly located within the non-extraction zone (established 1998). Itwill be necessary to conduct comparative research in an area that has no exploitationrestriction in order to assess the impact from resource-users such as fishers. Such areasinclude Uta-wa-limani reef, within MIMCA, to the north-west of Misali, and theislands outside of MIMCA, north of Misali. The substrata around Uta-wa-limani reefis similar to that to the west of Misali Island and can therefore be used to directlycompare the substrata cover, invertebrates and fish communities. All the abovementionedareas would allow more extensive comparisons with Misali, thus supportingscientific information of the status of this area. As stated by Francis et.al. (2002) whencomparing marine protected areas in East Africa, research is an essential component informulating management plans for conservation areas. As such, this report will aidmanagement initiatives by having identified characteristics of the key ecosystems andareas that need to be approached in order to manage resources in a sustainable manner.Misali Island is currently in a fairly unique position due to its management status andthe fact that it has a history of recognition for its high levels of fish, coral and spongebiodiversity (Horrill 1992, Horrill et.al. 1994, Veron 1997, Richmond and Mohammed2001, pers.obs. 2001 - 2003). However, if management initiatives are not developed ormaintained the resources will continue to be exploited and this may result indegradation of the marine areas.One of the problems with effectively implementing management of the non-extractionzone is the lack of ranger equipment. At the time of writing usually one ranger visitsthe non-extraction zone beach (Turtle Beach) a few times a day. If there are intertidalfishermen in this area the ranger will ask them to leave and report the incident in thelogbook held at the ranger station. However, if the ranger observes fishing boats withinthe non-extraction zone, he would have to get back to the ranger station, out in thepatrol boat and around to the site. By the time this is done the illegal fishermen haveusually already left. It would be much more efficient for the rangers to have handheldVHF radios, or walkie-talkies if the range were good enough. This would mean that aranger could be constantly positioned at turtle beach and inform the rangers remainingat the visitors centre of any problems encountered and whether back-up is needed or ifthe boat should to be driven to the area. Ideally there should also be a shelter for therangers on turtle beach if they are to stay there throughout the day, which wouldpreferably be on rotation with the team of rangers on the island. Constant observationsof the non-extraction zone and immediate response to illegal practices may help tightenthe management of this area and ensure its future preservation.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 63

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsIt seems as though the rangers are also restricted in the use of the patrol boat due to fuelallowances. This doesn’t provide incentive for rangers to make a number of journeysthat may be necessary during management of MIMCA. Night-time observations arealso restricted because the rangers do not have torches and some do not have shoes.Both of these are necessary for walking through the forest at night to get to the variousbeaches to observe fishing practices. If there were funding for torches and shoes therangers would also be able to assist FT MRP in resource-user observations, which isessential information that should be continued in the long term future to continuallyassess and gain an understanding of the utilisation of resources within MIMCA. Withthe natural marine resources surveyed it is necessary to assess external influences inorder to improve management initiatives within this area.Another component that needs to be taken into consideration is the extent of interactionbetween MIMCA and the surrounding areas. Horrill (1992) speculated that the levelsof biodiversity around Misali were due to strong tidal currents and therefore that it maybe important in terms of maintaining regional diversity through ‘seeding’ other areas ofTanzania and East Africa. It is recommended that this should be an area for furtherresearch. An understanding should be reached of the larvae sources and sinks, anddirection and flow of currents in the region, and effects this has on local marinerecruitment. As previously stated, species richness and diversity values are twoprincipal measures used for the interpretation of biological diversity (Barnes and Bell2002). If the source of biodiversity is discovered, management plans will be moreeffective in ensuring they are maintained in the long-term so that resource-users canbenefit from them in a sustainable manner.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 64

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regions6 REFERENCESArnold, S. (1997) Current status of the proposed non-extractive area, Misali Island,Pemba and the potential effects of its closure on Misali’s leading fisheries. School forInternational Training (SIT), Zanzibar Coastal Ecology, Spring 1997. 42pp.Bakari, R. & Andersson, J. (1998) Economic liberalisation and its effect on theexploitation of crustaceans in Tanzania. Ambio, 8, 761 - 762Barnes, D.K.A. & Bell, J.J. (2002) Coastal sponge communities of the West IndianOcean: taxonomic affinities, richness and diversity. African Journal of Ecology, 40,337 - 349Bryceson, I. (1981). A review of some problems of tropical marine conservation withparticular reference to the Tanzanian coast. Biological Conservation, 20, 163-171Chabanet, P., Ralambondrainy, H., Amanieu, M., Faure, G. & Galzin, R. (1997)Relationships between coral reef substrata and fish. Coral Reefs 16: 93-102Cooke, A. & Hamad, A.S. (1998) Misali Island Conservation Area, Pemba – ananalysis of activities and lessons learned. Workshop on Experiences in Local andCommunity International Coastal Zone Management Projects – Lessons to date.Zanzibar 4 th – 6 th March 1998. Zanzibar Protected Areas Project (Misali IslandProject). 25pp.Cooke, B. (1997) Misali Island Project. Vegetation survey with proposals for a naturetrail. The Environment & Development Group (EDG) Zanzibar Project (Misali IslandProtected Area). 27pp.English, S., Wilkinson, C., Baker, V (Eds.) (1997) Survey manual for tropical marineresources, 2nd edition. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Australia.261pp.Forstle, A & Vierkotter, RY (2001) A report on fieldwork on Misali Island, Pemba1999 – 2001: Two years of ranger training in the Misali Island Marine ConservationArea. Internal report, MICA. 28ppFrancis, J., Nilsson, A. & Waruinge, D. (2002) Marine protected areas in the EasternAfrican region: how successful are they? Ambio, 31 (7 – 8), 503 - 511Guard, M. & Mgaya, Y.D. (2002) The artisanal fishery of Octopus cyanea Gray inTanzania. Ambio, 31 (7 – 8), 528 - 536Hooper, J.N.A. (2000) Sponguide: Guide to sponge collection and identification(Version August 2000). Queensland Museum, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.129pp.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 65

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsHorrill, J.C. (1992) The status of coral reefs of Misali Island, Pemba. TheCommission for Lands and Environment, Zanzibar. Zanzibar environmental studyseries No.13. 12pp.Horrill, J.C., Machano, H., Omar, S.H. (1994) Misali Island: Rationale for a MarineProtected Area. The Commission for Lands and Environment, Zanzibar. Zanzibarenvironmental study series No. 17. 9pp.Horrill, J.C., Kamukuru, A.T., Mgaya, Y.D. & Risk, M. (2000) Coral reefs of theIndian Ocean: Their ecology and conservation. McClanahan, T.R., Sheppard, C.R.C.& Obura, D.O. (Eds.). Oxford University Press. p167-198.Jennings, S. & Polunin, N.V.C (1997) Impacts of predator depletion by fishing on thebiomass and diversity of non-target reef fish communities. Coral Reefs 16, 71-82Magurran, A.E. (1988) Ecological diversity and its measurement. Chapman & Hall.177pp.Margalef, R. (1972) Homage to Evelyn Hutchinson, or why is there an upper limit todiversity. Trans. Connect. Acad. Arts Sci., 44, 211-235Marshall, N., Milledge, S.A.H. & Afonso P.S. (Eds.) (2001) Trade Review: Stormyseas for marine invertebrates. Trade in sea cucumbers, seashells and lobsters in Kenya,Tanzania and Mozambique. Traffic: East/Southern Africa. ISBN 9966-9698-0-2.Mbije, N.E., Wagner, G.M., Francis, J., Ohman, M.C and Garpe, K. (2002) Patterns inthe distribution and abundance of hard corals around Zanzibar Island. Ambio, 31 (7 –8), 609 – 611McClanahan, T.R. (1989) Kenyan coral reef-associated gastropod fauna: a comparisonbetween protected and unprotected reefs. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 53, 11 – 20McClanahan, T.R. (1995) Fish predators and scavengers of the sea urchin Echinometramathaei in Kenyan coral-reef marine parks. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 43, 187 -193McClanahan, T.R. (2000) Recovery of a coral reef keystone predator, Balistapusundulatus, in East African marine parks. Biological Conservation, 94, 191 - 198McClanahan, T.R. & Muthiga, N.A. (1989) Patterns of predation on a sea urchin,Echinometra mathaei (de Blainville), on Kenyan coral reefs. Journal of ExperimentalMarine Biology and Ecology, 126, 77 - 94Mohammed, S. & Jiddawi, N.S. (2002) Misali Island environmental monitoring: Coralreef monitoring. Internal Report: Institute for Marine Sciences & CARE-International,Tanzania. 9pp.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 66

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsMohammed, S., Muhando, C. & Machano, H. (2000) Assessment of coral reefdegradation in Tanzania: Results of coral reef monitoring 1999. Souter, D., Obura,D.O. & Linden, O. (Eds.). In: Coral reef degredation in the Indian Ocean. Statusreports 2000. CORDIO / SAREC Marine Science Science Program. p35 – 42Muhando, C. (1999) Assessment of the extent of damage, socio-economics effects,mitigation and recovery in Tanzania. Linden, O. & Sporrong, N. (Eds.). In: Coral reefdegredation in the Indian Ocean. Status reports and project presentations 1999.CORDIO / SAREC Marine Science Science Program. p43 – 47Randall, J.E., Allen, G.R. & Steene, R.C. (1997) Fishes of the Great Barrier Reef andCoral Sea: Crawford House Publishing, Bathurst, Australia. ISBN 1 86333 140 9.557ppRay, G.C. (1968) Marine Parks for Tanzania. Washington Conservation Foundation.Richmond, M.D. & Mohammed, S.M. (2001) A review of the fisheries of the MisaliIsland Marine Conservation Area (MIMCA), Pemba, with recommendations formonitoring. CARE Tanzania, Commission for Natural Resources, Zanzibar, Tanzania.67pp.Salm, R.V. (1983) Coral reefs of the Western Indian Ocean: a threatened heritage.Ambio 12, 349-353Soley, N. (1997) Socio-economic profile of the fisheries of Misali Island, Pemba. TheEnvironment and Development Group, Oxford, UK. 8th August 1997. 25pp.Solow, A.R. (1993) A simple test for change in community structure. Journal ofAnimal Ecology, 62 (1), 191-193Tide Tables for Tanzania Port (2001 & 2002) Tanzania Harbour Authority. p45-81UNEP (1989) Coastal and marine environmental problems of the United Republic ofTanzania. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies. No. 106. 114pp.Veron, J.E.N (1997). Pilot survey of coral species around Unguja and Pemba Island.Internal Report. University of Dar es Salaam, Institute of Marine Sciences, Zanzibar,Tanzania.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 67

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsFamily Common Family Name Species Common Species NameBlenniidae Blennies Ecsenius nalolo Nalolo blennyBlenniidae Blennies Meiacanthus mossambicus Mozambique fangblennyBlenniidae Blennies Plagiotremus rhinorhynchus Bluestriped fangblennyBlenniidae Blennies Plagiotremus tapeinosoma Scale-eating fangblennyBothidae Lefteye flounders Bothus mancus Peacock flounderCaesionidae Fusilier Caesio caerulaurea Scissor-tailed fusilerCaesionidae Fusilier Caesio lunaris Lunar fusilierCaesionidae Fusilier Caesio striataCaesionidae Fusilier Caesio teres Yellowback fusilerCaesionidae Fusilier Caesio varilineata Yellowlined fusilerCaesionidae Fusilier Caesio xanthonota Yellowtop fusilierCaesionidae Fusilier Pterocaesio chrysozona Goldband fusilierCaesionidae Fusilier Pterocaesio diagramma Two-lined fusilerCaesionidae Fusilier Pterocaesio marri Twinstripe fusilierCaesionidae Fusilier Pterocaesio pisang Ruddy fusilierCaesionidae Fusilier Pterocaesio tile Bluestreak fusilerCarangidae Jacks and Trevallys Carangoides bajad Orangespotted trevallyCarangidae Jacks and Trevallys Carangoides ferdau Bar jackCarangidae Jacks and Trevallys Carangoides orthogrammus Yellowspotted trevallyCarangidae Jacks and Trevallys Carangoides plagiotaenia Barcheek trevallyCarangidae Jacks and Trevallys Caranx ignobilis Giant trevallyCarangidae Jacks and Trevallys Caranx lugubris Black jackCarangidae Jacks and Trevallys Caranx melampygus Bluefin trevallyCarangidae Jacks and Trevallys Caranx papuensis Brassy trevallyCarangidae Jacks and Trevallys Caranx sexfasciatus Bigeye trevallyCarangidae Jacks and Trevallys Elagatis bipinnulata Rainbow runnerCarangidae Jacks and Trevallys Gnathodon speciosus Golden trevallyCarangidae Jacks and Trevallys Trachinotus bailloni Small Spotted PompanoCarcharhinidae Requiem sharks Carcharhinus melanopterus Reef blacktip sharkChaetodontidae Butterflyfish Chaetodon auriga Threadfin butterflyfishChaetodontidae Butterflyfish Chaetodon bennetti Bennett's butterflyfishChaetodontidae Butterflyfish Chaetodon falcula Saddleback butterflyfishChaetodontidae Butterflyfish Chaetodon guttatissimus Spotted butterflyfishChaetodontidae Butterflyfish Chaetodon kleinii Klein's butterflyfishChaetodontidae Butterflyfish Chaetodon lineolatus Lined butterflyfishChaetodontidae Butterflyfish Chaetodon lunula Racoon butterflyfishChaetodontidae Butterflyfish Chaetodon madagascariensis Madagascar butterflyfishChaetodontidae Butterflyfish Chaetodon melannotus Black-backed butterflyfishChaetodontidae Butterflyfish Chaetodon meyeri Meyer's butterflyfishChaetodontidae Butterflyfish Chaetodon trifascialis Chevroned butterflyfishChaetodontidae Butterflyfish Chaetodon trifasciatus Redfin butterflyfishChaetodontidae Butterflyfish Chaetodon unimaculatus Teardrop butterflyfishChaetodontidae Butterflyfish Chaetodon vagabundus Vagabond butterflyfishChaetodontidae Butterflyfish Chaetodon xanthocephalus Yellowhead butterflyfishChaetodontidae Butterflyfish Chaetodon zanzibariensis Zanzibar butterflyfishChaetodontidae Butterflyfish Forcipiger flavissimus Long-nosed butterflyfishChaetodontidae Butterflyfish Hemitaurichtys zoster Black pyramid butterflyfishChaetodontidae Butterflyfish Heniochus acuminatus Longfin bannerfishChaetodontidae Butterflyfish Heniochus diphreutes Schooling bannerfishChaetodontidae Butterflyfish Heniochus monoceros Masked bannerfishFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 69

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsFamily Common Family Name Species Common Species NameCirrhitidae Hawkfishes Cirrhitichthys oxycephalus Pixy hawkfishCirrhitidae Hawkfishes Cyprinocirrhites polyactis Swallowtail hawkfishCirrhitidae Hawkfishes Oxycirrhites typus Longnose hawkfishCirrhitidae Hawkfishes Paracirrhites arcatus Arc-eye hawkfishCirrhitidae Hawkfishes Paracirrhites forsteri Freckled hawkfishClupeidae Herrings Herklotsicthys quadrimaculatus Goldspot herringCongridae Garden eels Conger cinereus Moustache conger eelCongridae Garden eels Heteroconger hassi Spotted garden eelDasyatidae Stingrays Taeniura lymma Bluespotted ribbontail rayDiodontidae Porcupinefish Chilomycterus reticulatus Spottedfin burrfishDiodontidae Porcupinefish Diodon histrix PorcupinefishEcheneidae Remoras Echeneis naucrates SharksuckerEphippidae Spadefish Platax orbicularis Circular spadefishEphippidae Spadefish Platax pinnatus Pinnate spadefishFistulariidae Cornetfish Fistularia commersonii CornetfishGerreidae Mojarras Gerres oyena Blacktip mojarraGobiidae Gobies Amblyeleotris aurora Beautiful prawn-gobyGobiidae Gobies Bryaninops yongei Seawhip gobyGobiidae Gobies Eviota pellucida Pellucida / Neon pygmy gobyGobiidae Gobies Gnatholepis cauerensis Eyebar gobyGobiidae Gobies Valenciennea helsdingeni Twostripe gobyGobiidae Gobies Valenciennea strigata Bluestreak gobyHaemulidae Sweetlips Diagramma pictum Paintes/Slatey sweetlipsHaemulidae Sweetlips Plectorhinchus albovittatus Giant sweetlipsHaemulidae Sweetlips Plectorhinchus chubbi Dusky sweetlipsHaemulidae Sweetlips Plectorhinchus flavomaculatus Goldspotted sweetlipsHaemulidae Sweetlips Plectorhinchus gaterinus Blackspotted sweetlipsHaemulidae Sweetlips Plectorhinchus plagiodesmus Red-lined sweetlipsHaemulidae Sweetlips Plectorhinchus schotaf Somber sweetlipsHaemulidae Sweetlips Plectorhinchus sordidus Black sweetlipsHaemulidae Sweetlips Plectorhinchus vittatus Oriental sweetlipsHaemulidae Sweetlips Plectorhinchus orientalis Indian Ocean oriental sweetlipsHemipheridae Half-beaks Hemiramphus archipelagicus Island halfbeakHolocentridae Soldier and squirrelfish Myripistis hexagona Doubletooth soldierfishHolocentridae Soldier and squirrelfish Myripristis adusta Bronze soldierfishHolocentridae Soldier and squirrelfish Myripristis kuntee Pearly soldierfishHolocentridae Soldier and squirrelfish Myripristis melanosticta Fin-spot soldierfishHolocentridae Soldier and squirrelfish Myripristis pralinia Scarlet soldierfishHolocentridae Soldier and squirrelfish Myripristis violacea Violet soldierfishHolocentridae Soldier and squirrelfish Neoniphon sammara Bloodspot squirrelfishHolocentridae Soldier and squirrelfish Sargocentron caudimaculatum Tailspot squirrelfishHolocentridae Soldier and squirrelfish Sargocentron spiniferum Long jawed squirrelfishHolocentridae Soldier and squirrelfish Sargocentron praslin Dark LinedHolocentridae Soldier and squirrelfish Neoniphon argenteus ClearfinKyphosidae Rudderfish/Chubs Kyphosus cinerascens Highfin rudderfishLabridae Wrasse Anampses meleagrides Yellowtail wrasseLabridae Wrasse Anampses twistii Yellowbreasted wrasseLabridae Wrasse Bodianus anthioides Lyretail hogfishLabridae Wrasse Bodianus axillaris Axilspot hogfishLabridae Wrasse Bodianus bilunulatus Saddleback hogfishFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 70

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsFamily Common Family Name Species Common Species NameLabridae Wrasse Bodianus diana Diana's hogfishLabridae Wrasse Bodianus mesothorax Mesothorax hogfishLabridae Wrasse Cheilinus fasciatus Red-banded wrasseLabridae Wrasse Cheilinus trilobatus Tripletail wrasseLabridae Wrasse Cheilinus undulatus Humphead/Napoleon wrasseLabridae Wrasse Cheilio inermis Cigar wrasseLabridae Wrasse Cirrhilabrus exquisitus Exquisite wrasseLabridae Wrasse Coris africana African corisLabridae Wrasse Coris aygula Clown corisLabridae Wrasse Coris caudimacula Spottail corisLabridae Wrasse Coris frerei / formosa Queen CorisLabridae Wrasse Cymolutes torquatus Finescale razorfishLabridae Wrasse Epibulus insidiator Slingjaw wrasseLabridae Wrasse Gomphosus caeruleus Indian Ocean bird wrasseLabridae Wrasse Halichoeres biocellatus Two-spotted wrasseLabridae Wrasse Halichoeres hortulanus Checkerboard wrasseLabridae Wrasse Haliochoeres iridis Rainbow wrasseLabridae Wrasse Haliochoeres nebulosus Nebulous wrasseLabridae Wrasse Haliochoeres zeylonicus Goldstripe wrasseLabridae Wrasse Halichoeres scapularis Zig zag wrasseLabridae Wrasse Hemigymnus fasciatus Barredthicklip wrasseLabridae Wrasse Hemigymnus melapterus Blackedged thicklip wrasseLabridae Wrasse Hologymnosus annulatus Ring wrasseLabridae Wrasse Hologymnosus doliatus Candycane wrasseLabridae Wrasse Labrichthys unilineatus Tubelip wrasseLabridae Wrasse Labroides bicolor Bicolor Cleaner wrasseLabridae Wrasse Labroides dimidiatus Bluestreak Cleaner wrasseLabridae Wrasse Macropharyngodon bipartitus Vermiculate wrasseLabridae Wrasse Oxycheilinus diagrammus Bandcheek wrasseLabridae Wrasse Pseudochelilinus hexataenia Sixline wrasseLabridae Wrasse Pseudodax moluccanus Chiseltooth wrasseLabridae Wrasse Pteragogus sp. Poss p.taeniops (Cryptic wrasse)Labridae Wrasse Stethojulis bandanensis Red-shoulder wrasseLabridae Wrasse Thalassoma hardwicke Six bar wrasseLabridae Wrasse Thalassoma hebraicum Goldbar wrasseLabridae Wrasse Bodianus sp. Red Stripe Hogfish??Labridae Wrasse Labropsis xanthonota Wedgetail WrasseLethrinidae Emperor Lethrinus harak Blackspot emperorLethrinidae Emperor Lethrinus lentjan Pinkear emperorLethrinidae Emperor Monotaxis grandoculis Bigeye emperorLethrinidae Emperor Lethrinus erythracanthus OrangefinLethrinidae Emperor Gnathodentex aurolineatus YellowspotLutjanidae Snapper Aprion virescens Green jobfishLutjanidae Snapper Lutjanus bohar Twinspot/Red snapperLutjanidae Snapper Lutjanus fulviflamma Blackspot snapperLutjanidae Snapper Lutjanus kasmira Blue lined snapperLutjanidae Snapper Lutjanus lutjanus Bigeye snapperLutjanidae Snapper Lutjanus monostigma Onespot snapperLutjanidae Snapper Lutjanus gibbus Humpback/Paddletail snapperLutjanidae Snapper Macolor niger Black snapperFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 71

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsFamily Common Family Name Species Common Species NameLutjanidae Snapper Paracaesio xanthura Yellowtail false fusilierMalacanthidae Sand tilefish Malacanthus brevirostris QuakerfishMalacanthidae Sand tilefish Malacanthus latovittatus Striped blanquilloMicrodesmidae Dartfish Nemateleotris magnifica Fire dartfishMicrodesmidae Dartfish Ptereleotris evides Blackfin dartfishMicrodesmidae DartfishTwo-tone dartfishMobulidae Manta rays Manta birostris Manta rayMobulidae Manta rays Mobula japonica DevilrayMonacanthidae Filefish Aluterus scriptus Scribbled filefishMonacanthidae Filefish Amanses scopas Broom filefishMonacanthidae Filefish Cantherhines pardalis Wire-net filefishMonacanthidae Filefish Paraluteres prionurus Black-saddle toby mimic filefishMonacanthidae Filefish Cantherhines dumerilii Barred FilefishMonacanthidae Filefish Oxymonacanthus longirostris Long-nose filefishMullidae Goatfish Mulloidichthys flavolineatus Yellowstripe goatfishMullidae Goatfish Mulloidichthys vanicolensis Yellowfin goatfishMullidae Goatfish Parupeneus bifasciatus Two barred goatfishMullidae Goatfish Parupeneus barberinus Dash-and-dot goatfishMullidae Goatfish Parupeneus cyclostomus Yellowsaddle goatfishMullidae Goatfish Parupeneus macronema Longbarbel goatfishMullidae Goatfish Parupeneus pleurostigma Sidespot goatfishMuraenidae Moray eels Echidna nebulosa Snowflake morayMuraenidae Moray eels Gymnothorax zonipectis Barredfin morayMyliobatidae Eagle rays Aetobatus narinari Spotted eagle rayNemipteridae Spinecheck Scolopsis ghanam Arabian spinecheekNemipteridae Spinecheck Scolopsis bimaculatus Thumbprint spinycheekOstraciidae Trunkfish Lactoria cornuta Longhorn cowfishOstraciidae Trunkfish Ostracion cubicus Yellow boxfishOstraciidae Trunkfish Ostracion meleagris Spotted trunkfishOstraciidae Trunkfish Lactoria fornasini Thornback CowfishPegasidea Sea Moths/Dragonfish Eurypegasus draconis Short DragonfishPempheridae Sweeper Pempheris oualensis Copper sweeperPempheridae Sweeper Pempheris schwenkii Schwenk's sweeperPempheridae Sweeper Pempheris vanicolensis Vanikoro sweeperPinguipedidae Sandperches Parapercis hexophthalma Speckled sandperchPinguipedidae Sandperches Parapercis schauinslandi Redspotted sandperchPlatycephalidae Flatheads Papilloculiceps longiceps Indian Ocean crocodile fishPlatycephalidae Flatheads Eurycephalus arenicola Broadhead flatheadPlesiopidae Prettyfins Calloplesiops altivelis CometPlotosidae Catfish Plotosus lineatus Striped catfishPomacentridae Damselfish Abudefduf sexfasciatus Scissor-tail sergeantPomacentridae Damselfish Abudefduf sparoides False-eye sergeantPomacentridae Damselfish Abudefduf vaigiensis Indo-Pacific sergeantPomacentridae Damselfish Amblyglyphidodon leucogaster White-belly damselPomacentridae Damselfish Amphiprion akallopisos Skunk anemonefishPomacentridae Damselfish Amphiprion allardi Allard's anemonefishPomacentridae Damselfish Amphiprion clarkii Clark's anemonefishPomacentridae Damselfish Amphiprion latifasciatus Madagascar anemonefishPomacentridae Damselfish Chromis agilis Bronze reef chromisPomacentridae Damselfish Chromis amboinensis Ambon chromisFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 72

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsFamily Common Family Name Species Common Species NamePomacentridae Damselfish Chromis atripectoralis Blackaxil chromisPomacentridae Damselfish Chromis dimidiata Twotone chromisPomacentridae Damselfish Chromis opercularis Doublebar chromisPomacentridae Damselfish Chromis pembae Yellow edge chromisPomacentridae Damselfish Chromis ternatensis Ternate chromisPomacentridae Damselfish Chromis vanderbilti Vanderbilt's chromisPomacentridae Damselfish Chromis viridis Blue-green chromisPomacentridae Damselfish Chromis weberi Weber's chromisPomacentridae Damselfish Chrysiptera annulata Footballer demoisellePomacentridae Damselfish Chrysiptera biocellata Twospot desmoisellePomacentridae Damselfish Chrysiptera unimaculata Onespot demoisellePomacentridae Damselfish Dascyllus carneus Indian dascyllusPomacentridae Damselfish Dascyllus trimaculatus Three-spot dascyllusPomacentridae Damselfish Lepidozygus tapeinosoma Fusiler damselPomacentridae Damselfish Neoglyphidodon melas Black / Bowtie damselPomacentridae Damselfish Neopomacentrus azysron Yellowtail demoisellePomacentridae Damselfish Neopomacentrus cyanomos Regal demoisellePomacentridae Damselfish Neopomacentrus fuliginosus African demoisellePomacentridae Damselfish Plectroglyphidodon lacrymatus Jewel damselPomacentridae Damselfish Pomacentrus sulfureus Sulphur damselPomacentridae Damselfish Chromis nigrura Blacktail chromisPomacanthidae Angelfish Apolemichthys trimaculatus Three-spot angelfishPomacanthidae Angelfish Centropyge acanthops African pygmy angelfishPomacanthidae Angelfish Centropyge bispinosus Two-spined or dusky angelfishPomacanthidae Angelfish Centropyge flavicauda White-tail angelfishPomacanthidae Angelfish Centropyge multispinis Many-spined angelfishPomacanthidae Angelfish Pomacanthus imperator Emperor angelfishPomacanthidae Angelfish Pomacanthus maculosus Yellowbar angelfishPomacanthidae Angelfish Pomacanthus semicirculatus Semicircle angelfishPomacanthidae Angelfish Pygoplites diacanthus Regal angelfishPomacanthidae Angelfish Pomacanthus sexstriatus Ear-spot AngelfishPriacanthidae Bigeyes Heteropriacanthus cruentatus GlasseyePriacanthidae Bigeyes Priacanthus hamrur Goggle-eyeScaridae Parrotfish Bolbometopon muricatum Bumphead parrotfishScaridae Parrotfish Cetoscarus bicolor Bicolor parrotfishScaridae Parrotfish Chlorurus bleekeri Bleeker's parrotfishScaridae Parrotfish Chlorurus strongylocephalus Indian Ocean steephead parrotfishScaridae Parrotfish Hipposcarus harid Indian Ocean longnose parrotfishScaridae Parrotfish Leptoscarus vaigiensis Seagrass parrotfishScaridae Parrotfish Scarus dimidiatus Turquoise-capped parrotfishScaridae Parrotfish Scarus frenatus Bridled parrotfishScaridae Parrotfish Scarus ghobban Bluebarred parrotfishScaridae Parrotfish Scarus niger Swarthy parrotfishScaridae Parrotfish Scarus psitticatus Palenose parrotfishScaridae Parrotfish Scarus rubroviolaceus Redlipped parrotfishScaridae Parrotfish Scarus russelli Russell's parrotfishScaridae Parrotfish Scarus scaber Dusky-capped parrotfishScaridae Parrotfish Scarus sordidus Bullethead parrotfishScaridae Parrotfish Scarus tricolor Tricolor parrotfishScombridae Mackerels Scomberomorus commerson Narrow banded king mackeralFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 73

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsFamily Common Family Name Species Common Species NameScombridae Mackerels Euthynnus affinis Kawa kawaScorpaenidae Scorpionfish Pterois radiata Clearfin lionfishScorpaenidae Scorpionfish Pterois miles Lionfish; TurkeyfishScorpaenidae Scorpionfish Scorpaenopsis oxycephala Tassled ScorpionfishScorpaenidae Scorpionfish Taenianotus tricanthus Leaf ScorpionfishScorpaenidae Scorpionfish Pterios antennata Spot-fin LionfishSerranidae Grouper Cephalopholis formosa Bluelined hindSerranidae Grouper Epinephelus caeruleopunctatus Whitespotted grouperSerranidae Grouper Aethaloperca rogaa Redmouth grouperSerranidae Grouper Anyperodon leucogrammicus Slender grouperSerranidae Grouper Cephalopholis argus Peacock grouperSerranidae Grouper Cephalopholis boenak Chocolate hind grouperSerranidae Grouper Cephalopholis miniata Coral hind grouperSerranidae Grouper Cephalopholis sexmaculata Sixspot grouperSerranidae Grouper Epinephelus fasciatus Blacktip grouperSerranidae Grouper Epinephelus flavocaeruleus Blue-and-yellow grouperSerranidae Grouper Epinephelus fuscoguttatus Brown-marbled grouperSerranidae Grouper Epinephelus tukula Potato grouperSerranidae Grouper Gracila albomarginata Slenderspine grouperSerranidae Grouper Plectropomus laevis Saddleback grouperSerranidae Grouper Cephalopholis spiloparaea Strawberry grouperSerranidae Grouper Variola albimarginata Whitemargin lyretail grouperSerranidae Grouper Variola louti Lyretail grouperSerranidae Grouper Cephalopholis leopardus Leopard HindSerranidae Grouper Epinephelus spilotoceps Four-saddled grouperSerranidae Soapfish Belonoperca chabanaudi Arrowhead soapfishSerranidae Soapfish Grammistes sexlineatus Six Stripe SoapfishSerranidae Anthiases Nemanthias carberryi Threadfin anthiasSerranidae Anthiases Pseudanthias evansi Yellowback anthiasSerranidae Anthiases Pseudanthias squamipinnis Lyretail anthiasSiganidae Rabbitfish Siganus argenteus Forktail rabbitfishSiganidae Rabbitfish Siganus stellatus Stellate rabbitfishSphyraenidae Barracuda Sphyraena barracuda Great barracudaSphyraenidae Barracuda Sphyraena qenie Blackfin barracudaSphyraenidae Barracuda Sphyraena putnamiae Sawtooth BarracudaSynodontidae Lizardfish Synodus indicus Indian lizardfishSynodontidae Lizardfish Synodus jaculum Blackblotch lizardfishSynodontidae Lizardfish Synodus variegatus Variegated lizardfishSyngnathidae Pipefish Corythoichthys amplexus Brown-banded pipefishSyngnathidae Pipefish Corythoichthys flavofasciatus Network pipefishSyngnathidae Pipefish Corythoichthys intestinalis Scribbled pipefishSyngnathidae Pipefish Doryramphus japonicus PipefishTorpedinidae Electric Rays Torpedo fuscomaculata Blackspotted electric rayTetraodontidae Puffers Arothron hispidus Whitespot pufferTetraodontidae Puffers Arothron mappa Map pufferfishTetraodontidae Puffers Arothron meleagris Guineafowl pufferTetraodontidae Puffers Arothron nigropunctatus Blackspotted pufferTetraodontidae Puffers Arothron stellatus Star pufferTetraodontidae Puffers Canthigaster bennetti Bennett's tobyTetraodontidae Puffers Canthigaster janthinopera Honeycomb tobyFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 74

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsFamily Common Family Name Species Common Species NameTetraodontidae Puffers Canthigaster smithae Bicolored tobyTetraodontidae Puffers Canthigaster solandri Spotted tobyTetraodontidae Puffers Canthigaster valentini Black-saddled tobyTetraodontidae Puffers Canthigaster rivulata Rivulated tobyZanclidae Moorish Idol Zanclus cornutus Moorish idolFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 75

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsAdditional fish species from Richmond & Mohammed’s inventory, 2001Family Common Family Name Species Common Species NameAcanthuridae Surgeonfish Acanthurus lineatus Striped surgeonfishBalistidae Triggerfish Sufflamen albicaudatum Bluethroat triggerfishBelonidae Needlefish/Garfish Tylosurus spCarangidae Trevally Decapterus russelli Russell's mackerel scadChaetodontidae Butterflyfish Forcipiger longirostris Big long-nose butterflyfishFistularidae Cornetfishes Fistularia petimba Serrate cornetfishGerreidae Silver Biddy Gerres filamentosusHaemulidae Grunts/Sweetlips Plectorhinchus orientalis Oriental sweetlipsHemipheridae Half-beaks Hemiramphus far Spotted halfbeakHemipheridae Half-beaks Hyporamphus dussumieri Dussumier's halfbeakHolocentridae Soldier/Squirrelfish Myripristis murdjan Red soldierfishHolocentridae Soldier/Squirrelfish Sargocentron diadema Crown soldierfishLabridae Wrasse Anampses caeruleopunctatus Blue-spotted wrasseLabridae Wrasse Anampses lineatus Lined wrasseLabridae Wrasse Cheilinus diagrammusLabridae Wrasse Halichoeres marginatus Dusky wrasseLabridae Wrasse Novaculichtys taeniourus Dragon / Rockmover wrasseLabridae Wrasse Oxycheilinus areanatus Arenatus wrasseLabridae Wrasse Xyrichtys pavo Indianfish (juv.); Blue razorfish (adult)Labridae Wrasse Pseudocheilinus octotaenia Eightline wrasseLabridae Wrasse Thalassoma amblycephalum Twotone wrasseLabridae Wrasse Thalassoma lunare Crescent wrasseLethrinidae Emperor Gymnocraneus robinsiLethrinidae Emperor Lethrinus borbonicus Snubnose emperorLethrinidae Emperor Lethrinus mahsena Sky emperorLethrinidae Emperor Lethrinus nebulosus Spangled emperorLethrinidae Emperor Lethrinus ramakLutjanidae Snapper Aphareus farcatus ?Lutjanidae Snapper Lutjanus argentimaculatus River snapper; mangrove jackLutjanidae Snapper Lutjanus rivulatus Scribbled snapperMullidae Goatfishes Parapeneus cinarescensMullidae Goatfishes Parapeneus indicus Indian goatfishMullidae Goatfishes Perupeneus rubescensPinguipedidae Sandperch Parapercis hexophthalma Speckled sandperchPomacentridae Damselfishes Abudefduf saxatalis Sergeant major damselfishPomacentridae Damselfishes Chromis sulfureusPomacentridae Damselfishes Dascyllus aruanus Humbug dascyllusPomacentridae Damselfishes Dascyllus reticulatus Reticulated dascyllusPomacentridae Damselfishes Plectroglyphidodon dickii Dick's damselfishPomacentridae Damselfishes Pomacentrus caeruleus Caerulean damselfishPomacentridae Damselfishes Pomacentrus pavo Blue damselfishPomacentridae Damselfishes Pomacentrus trichourus Pailtail damselfishPomacentridae Damselfishes Stegastes fasciolatus Pacific gregory damselfishPomacentridae Damselfishes Stegastes nigricans Dusky gregory damselfishScaridae Parrotfish Scarus bleekeriScaridae Parrotfish Scarus gibbusScaridae Parrotfish Scarus rubroviolaceus Redlip parrotfishScombridae Tunas, mackerels Auxis thezand Frigate mackerel?Scorpaenidae Scorpion fish Pterois volitans Lionfish; TurkeyfishSerranidae Anthias, Basslets Anthias evansi Yellowback anthiasSerranidae Anthias, Basslets Anthias squamipinnis Goldie; Lyretail anthiasSerranidae Groupers Epinephelus nigripinisSerranidae Anthias, Basslets Holanthiaus borboniusFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 76

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsAppendix 2Locations of survey sitesTable 8 summarises the Global Positioning System (GPS) locations of each of thesystematically chosen survey sites. At each of these survey sites the surveys describedin section 2 and Appendix 4 have been undertaken around Misali Island.Table 8: Frontier-Tanzania Survey site Global Positioning System (GPS) fixes around Misali IslandSurveySurvey Site LocationSite GPS (ARC 1960) UTM/UPS (WGS 84)No. Latitude (S) Longitude (E) 37M UTM1 05º14’ 10.1 39º36’ 35.5 37M 0567582 94212002 05º14’ 25.2 39º36’ 50.8 37M 0568053 94207363 05º15’ 07.3 39º36’ 50.0 37M 0568026 94194444 05º15’ 28.6 39º35’ 24.6 37M 0565398 94187925 05º14’ 42.6 39º35’ 32.1 37M 0565630 94202066 05º14’ 26.6 39º35’ 41.5 37M 0565920 94206987 05º14’ 16.0 39º35’ 47.1 37M 0566093 94210228 05º14’ 02 8 39º36’ 04.9 37M 0566641 9421424Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 77

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsAppendix 3Data sheet layoutsBenthic substrata mappingStation Date VisibilitySurveyor Name Buddy Diver CurrentTime InTime OutMax. DepthTemp. at DepthDepth Station 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16DepthReef ClassWallCrestBommieGradientSubstrateP6 Bare RockP6 SandP6 Silt/ClayP6 RubbleP6 Recently Killed CoralP6 Live CoralP6 Coralline algaeP6 SeagrassLive HC growth formsMassiveSub-MassiveStaghornArborescentDigitateColumnarLaminarTabularExplanateMushroomEncrustingDominant growth formP6 Scale % cover0 01 1-102 11-303 31-504 51-755 76-100Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 78

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsBenthic invertebrate censusSurvey site Date VisibilitySurveyor Name Buddy Diver CurrentTime inTime outSurvey depth Deep or shallow Temp. at depth1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10DepthECHINODERMATASEA URCHINS (Echinoids)Diadema sp.Echinothrix sp.Echinometra sp.Tripneustes sp.Pencil (Heterocentrotus sp.)Red (Astropyga radiata)Toxic (Toxopneustes pileolus)BRITTLESTARS (Ophiuroids)FEATHERSTARS (Crinoids)STARFISH (Asteroids)COTs (Acanthaster planci)OtherSEACUCUMBERS (Holothurians)EdibleNon-edibleMOLLUSCA (Gastropods)Horned helmet (Cassis cornuta)Red helmet (Cypraecassis rufa)Conch (Strombidae)Cowrie (Cypraeidae)Murex shells (Murex sp.)Tulip shell (Pleuroploca trapezium)Thick shell (Cymatium muricinum)Harp shell (Harpa harpa)Cone shells (Conidae)Tube mollusc (Vermetus sp.)Triton trumpet (Charonia tritonis)OtherMOLLUSCA (Cephalopods)OctopusFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 79

2004, calculée par la méthode de Hargreaves sont présentées sur la figure 4.2. Cette figuremontre bien les variabilité spatiale et temporelle de ET0. A l’échelle temporelle, les valeurs deET0sont élevées pendant la période Juin-Août; variant de 45 à 230 mm par mois selon leclimat et les régions. Les valeurs minimales ont été observées de Novembre au Janvier. Al’échelle spatiale, les valeurs élevées de ET0ont été observées dans les régions de la plaine duHaouz qui se caractérisent par des températures de l’air élevées, alors que les faibles valeursde ET0sont enregistrées en montagne et en mer. Ceci s’explique par le fait que la montagnequi se caractérise par des altitudes élevées est le siège de faibles températures.Afin de valider les résultats obtenus par le modèle de Hargreaves, nous avons comparé lesvaleurs de ET0estimées par ce modèle avec celles calculées par l’équation de FAO-Penman-Monteith (Eq. A.8) en utilisant les paramètres climatiques mesurés par les stationsmétéorologiques installées dans notre région (fig. 4.3). D’après cette figure, nous constatonsque la méthode de Hargreaves estime bien l’évapotranspiration de référence à l’échellespatiale (Eq. A.6). Le coefficient de détermination R 2 est proche de 1 et la valeur du RootMean Square Error (RMSE) est faible (16.01 mm/mois); il représente 13% de la valeurmoyenne de ET0(120 mm/mois).Nous tenons à signaler que dans cette étude, nous avons utilisé uniquementl’évapotranspiration de référence ET0calculée par l’équation de FAO-Penman-Monteith,utilisant les paramètres climatiques mesurés par une station météorologique installée dans lesite test (station R3 dans la fig. 4.1). Comme notre étude de spatialisation est limitéeuniquement au carré 3x3 km 2 du blé, nous avons fait l’hypothèse que le climat dans ce champest homogène sans utiliser les cartes de ET0.74

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsCommercial fish censusSurvey Site Date VisibilitySurveyor Name Buddy Diver CurrentTime InTime OutSurvey DepthTemp. at DepthF 0-5mins 5-10mins 10-15mins 15-20mins 20-25minsMullidae (Goat) 0Mullidae 1Mullidae 2Mullidae 3Mullidae 4Scaridae (Parrot) 0Scaridae 1Scaridae 2Scaridae 3Scaridae 4Scaridae 5Labridae (Wrasse) 0Labridae 1Labridae 2Labridae 3Labridae 4Labridae 5Acanthurinae (Surgeon) 0Acanthurinae 1Acanthurinae 2Acanthurinae 3Nasinae (Unicorn) 0Nasinae 1Nasinae 2Nasinae 3Caesionidae (Fusilier) 0Caesionidae 1Caesionidae 2Holocentridae (Squir/Sold) 0Holocentridae 1Holocentridae 2Holocentridae 3Lethrinidae (Emperor) 0Lethrinidae 1Lethrinidae 2Lethrinidae 3Lutjanidae (Snapper) 0Lutjanidae 1Lutjanidae e 2Lutjanidae 3Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 81

ET0-HARG_model, (mm/mois)30025020015010050Y=0.84X+16.45R 2 = 0.92n=85RMSE=16.01 mm/mois00 50 100 150 200 250 300ET0-FAO-PM_station (mm/mois)Figure 4. 3. Comparaison entre ET0 mensuelle estimée par la méthode de Hargreaves en utilisant les donnéesclimatiques issues du modèle ALADIN et celle calculée par l’équation de FAO-Penman-Monteith (EquationA. 8) en utilisant les paramètres climatiques mesurés par les stations météorologiques.4.2.2 Carte des besoins en eau du blé (ET c )Les équations établies à partir des données collectées au sol des caractéristiques de lavégétation ( Kcb, f c etreproduire des cartes deK e) et le NDVI ont été appliquées sur des cartes de NDVI pourETc. Avant d’appliquer ces relations, nous avons utilisé une méthode declassification. Le principe de cette méthode est de regrouper les pixels qui possèdent des sériestemporelles d’indice de végétation comparables, en faisant l’hypothèse que ces pixels sontcomparables d’un point de vue agro-climatique (mêmes pratiques agricoles réelles, mêmesconditions environnementales). L’avantage de cette classification est de minimiser le temps decalcul, au lieu de faire le calcul sur 7204 pixels de blé, le calcul se fait seulement sur 50 classesde végétation. La méthode utilisée est la classification non supervisée basée sur l’algorithme desK-means (MacQueen, 1967), qui a été adaptée et appliquée sur des images de NDVI (Ben Hadj,2004). Le nombre de classes choisi est 50 (fig. 4.4). Ces classes se différencient dans l’évolutionde profils de NDVI (fig. 4.5). On constate qu’il y a une grande variabilité intra-classe. Ceci est dûaux pratiques agricoles (date de semis, itinéraires techniques, apport d’eau….) qui sont différentsd’une classe à l’autre. Nous constatons aussi qu’il y a principalement deux groupes de classes: ungroupe ayant une date de semis précoce (avant le 15 Décembre) et un autre ayant une date de76

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsAppendix 4MethodsDetailed methods are described below for the following surveys, specifically in the order that they wouldnormally be conducted...i. commercial fish visual census by SCUBAii. reef-associated fish visual census by SCUBAiii. benthic substrata mapping by SCUBAiv. benthic invertebrate census by SCUBAv. systematic fish inventory by SCUBA/snorkelDeep Commercial Fish (DCF)1. Dive pair to descend with both weighted and free Surface Marker Buoys (SMBs)2. Weighted SMB left at starting point of 16m depth3. Surveyors to record number of commercial fish, (categorising by family, with individual sizes orestimated average if in schools) for 5-minutes in 5m x 5m x 5m area4. Surveyors to swim 5m along contour during 5 th survey minute, continuing to observe the area5. Commercial fish families, numbers and sizes recorded in 5-minute intervals (total survey time25mins).a. Each 5-minute survey to be conducted from stationary pointb. Sizes recorded in “size classes” using F9 scale (see below) for each 5-minute interval…F9 scale:0 0-9cm 6 60-69cm1 10-19cm7 70-79cm2 20-29cm8 80-89cm3 30-39cm9 90-99cm4 40-49cm+ >100cm5 50-59cm6. Survey to be repeated with 2 nd dive pair, 4 data sets in totalShallow Commercial Fish (SCF)1. Dive pair to descend with both weighted and free SMBs2. Weighted SMB left at starting point of 6m depth3. Surveyors to record number of commercial fish, (categorising by family, with individual sizes orestimated average if in schools) for 5-minutes in 5m x 5m x 5m area4. Surveyors to swim 5m along contour during 5 th survey minute, continuing to observe the area5. Commercial fish families, numbers and sizes recorded in 5-minute intervals (total survey time25mins).a. Each 5-minute survey to be conducted from stationary pointb. Sizes recorded in “size classes” using F9 scale for each 5-minute interval6. Survey to be repeated with 2 nd dive pair, 4 data sets in totalDeep Reef Fish (DRF)1. Dive pair to descend on weighted DCF SMB with free SMBs2. Surveyors to record the abundance of each fish from a pre-determined list of 78 species for 5-minutes in a 5m x 5m x 5m area3. Surveyors to swim 5m along contour during 5 th survey minute, continuing to observe the same areaa. Each 5-minute survey to be conducted from stationary pointb. Indicator fish species abundance recorded in 5-minute intervals (total survey time 25mins)4. Survey to be repeated with 2 nd dive pair, 4 data sets in totalShallow Reef Fish (SRF)1. Dive pair to descend on weighted SCF SMB2. Weighted SMB taken with surveyorsFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 84

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regions3. Surveyors to record the abundance of each fish from a pre-determined list of 78 species for 5-minutes in a 5m x 5m x 5m area4. Surveyors to swim 5m along contour during 5 th survey minute, continuing to observe the same areaa. Each 5-minute survey to be conducted from stationary pointb. Indicator fish species abundance recorded in 5-minute intervals (total survey time 25mins)5. Survey to be repeated with 2 nd dive pair, 4 data sets in totalHabitat survey method (HAB)1. Dive pair to descend on DCF SMB2. Divers to ascend reef profile following maximum fall-line3. Divers to survey stations at every 2m depth change4. At each 2m-depth station, each diver to survey 2.5m x 2.5m visualised area5. Observations to record at each station:-a. Depthb. Directional bearing of slope profile followedc. P6 scale for substratum - bare rock, sand, silt, rubble, dead coral, living coral (includeMillepora, organ coral), seagrass, coralline algaed. P6 scale:0 - 0 %1 -` 1-10 %2 - 11-30 %3 - 31-50 %4 - 51-75 %5 - 76-100%e. Presence / Absence of coral morphological forms – massive, sub-massive, staghorn,arborescent, tabular, laminar, explanate, encrusting, mushroom, digitate, columnarf. Dominant morphological coral form – circle this on slateg. Slope angle – estimate slope gradient at each 2m depth change (to nearest 10°)6. GPS to be taken at end point7. Collect minimum of 8 data sets in total (4 dive pairs)Invertebrates method (INV)1. Dive pair to descend on DCF SMB2. Weighted SMB taken with surveyors3. Each diver to record data from five, 1m 2 quadrats at 16m4. Observations to record within 1m 2 quadrats:-a. Depthb. Quantitative analysis of invertebratesc. Invertebrates to include sponges, soft coral, algae, sea whips, octocorals. In addition, spongeson P6 scale for each morphotype.5. Diver pair to swim on noted reef profile bearing, and repeat approx. at 6m6. GPS to be taken at end point7. Survey to be repeated with 2 nd dive pair, 4 data sets in totalSystematic Fish Inventory (SFI)1. Surveyors to undertake dives in addition to those for baseline surveys, or surveyors to noteobservations during snorkelling2. On each dive / snorkel the surveyor notes the following physical data…a. dateb. depthc. total survey timed. time of daye. currentf. reef typeg. GPS position3. Fish species’ key identification features noted on pre-prepared slate during dives or snorkels, suchas…a. tail fin shape (forked, truncate, emarginate, lunate, lanceolate, rounded)Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 85

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsb. body shape (dorsally or ventrally flattened, cigar-shaped)c. mouth shape (beak, longnosed, short snout)d. dorsal, ventral, pectoral shape and numbere. swimming behaviourf. behavioural activityg. sizeh. colouration (head, body, fins, tail)i. striking feature4. Limited number of fish species noted on each dive to gain detailed notes that are necessary for fullidentification5. Identification features compared with taxonomic books, and discussed with buddy if relevant, assoon as possible after surveyFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 86

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsAppendix 5Categories of coral morphological formsMassiveColony is solid and similar in shape in all dimensions.Sub-massiveAs massive, but not completely uniform, such as the colony may consist of tiers of massive sections, orhave a lumpy surface.BranchingStaghorn - one growth point, simple branching only.Arborescent - tree-like with many growth points resulting in compound branching.DigitateLooks ‘baby’s fingers’ with stumpy branches of a similar size and shape. Smooth overall shape.ColumnarColony forms vertical columns of different shapes and sizes, growing from a baseplate that is usuallyencrusting.Laminar (or Plate-like)Horizontal growth of the colony, extending from a side growth point.TabularHorizontal growth of the colony, extending outwards from a central growth point.Explanate (or Foliose)Colony forms solid, fairly delicate and thin sheets. Polyps are sometimes only on one side of the sheet(monofacial) or on both sides (bifacial).MushroomMostly detached, individual polyps with a central mouth and radiating septa from the mouth. Shapesvary from elongate to circular and can be uniform or irregular.EncrustingColony adheres to its underlying substrate, growing over it and thus taking the shape of this substrate. Alip at the edge of the colony often depicts that it is encrusting.Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 87

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsAppendix 6Kruskal-Wallis test results comparing depths at each survey siteKey:Key name Common name Scientific nameANEMON Anemone ActiniariaBIVTOT Bivalvia BivalviaBRITTL Brittle start OphiuroidsCEPHTOT Octopus CephalopodsCOTS Crown-of-Thorns starfish Acanthaster planciCRUSTOTCrustacea total:Mantis shrimpBanded shrimpLobsterCrustacea:StomatopodaStenopus hispidusPalinuraECHTOT Sea urchins total EchinoidsFANWRM Fanworm SabellidaeFEATHE Featherstar CrinoidsFLATWM Flatworms PlatyhelminthesGORGON Sea fan GorgoniidaeMOLTOT Sea snail total GastropodsNUDIB Sea slug NudibranchsSEAED Edible seacucumber HolothurianSEANON Non-edible seacucumber HolothurianSEAWHI Sea whip GorgoniidaeSOFTCO Soft coral AlcyonaceaSTAROT Starfish AsteroideaBenthic InvertebratesSite 1ANEMON BIVTOT BRITTL CEPHTOT COTS CRUSTOT ECHTOT FANWRM FEATHE FLATWM GORGON MOLTOT NUDIB SEAED SEANON SEAWHI SOFTCO STAROTChi-SquaredfAsymp. Sig.a. Kruskal Wallis Test3.742 1.039 .025 .000 .000 .818 .144 4.171 8.916 .000 1.222 .436 2.505 .168 1.653 .168 .080 .0201 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Site 2Test Statistics a,b,c.053 .308 .875 1.000 1.000 .366 .704 .041 .003 1.000 .269 .509 .113 .682 .199 .682 .778 .886b. Grouping Variable: DEPTHc. SITE = 1.00ANEMON BIVTOT BRITTL CEPHTOT COTS CRUSTOT ECHTOT FANWRM FEATHE FLATWM GORGON MOLTOT NUDIB SEAED SEANON SEAWHI SOFTCO STAROTChi-SquaredfAsymp. Sig.a. Kruskal Wallis TestTest Statistics a,b,c.218 .709 2.546 .000 .000 .000 10.062 .211 5.237 .000 .000 6.507 .833 2.547 .833 .833 6.560 3.4281 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.640 .400 .111 1.000 1.000 1.000 .002 .646 .022 1.000 1.000 .011 .361 .111 .361 .361 .010 .064b. Grouping Variable: DEPTHc. SITE = 2.00Site 3ANEMON BIVTOT BRITTL CEPHTOT COTS CRUSTOT ECHTOT FANWRM FEATHE FLATWM GORGON MOLTOT NUDIB SEAED SEANON SEAWHI SOFTCO STAROTChi-SquaredfAsymp. Sig.a. Kruskal Wallis TestTest Statistics a,b,c.021 11.148 2.277 .000 .000 .000 1.463 .442 .021 .000 .000 3.404 .000 .000 .000 .000 3.601 4.5211 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.886 .001 .131 1.000 1.000 1.000 .226 .506 .886 1.000 1.000 .065 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .058 .033b. Grouping Variable: DEPTHc. SITE = 3.00Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 88

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsSite 4ANEMON BIVTOT BRITTL CEPHTOT COTS CRUSTOT ECHTOT FANWRM FEATHE FLATWM GORGON MOLTOT NUDIB SEAED SEANON SEAWHI SOFTCO STAROTChi-SquaredfAsymp. Sig.a. Kruskal Wallis TestTest Statistics a,b,c.714 4.471 2.312 .000 .000 .000 13.786 3.731 1.876 5.261 1.400 1.730 .000 5.814 .714 .000 .935 .1911 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.398 .034 .128 1.000 1.000 1.000 .000 .053 .171 .022 .237 .188 1.000 .016 .398 1.000 .333 .662b. Grouping Variable: DEPTHc. SITE = 4.00Site 5Chi-SquaredfAsymp. Sig.ANEMON BIVTOT BRITTL CEPHTOT COTS CRUSTOT ECHTOT FANWRM FEATHE FLATWM GORGON MOLTOT NUDIB SEAED SEANON SEAWHI SOFTCO STAROT.000 5.230 .190 .000 .000 .000 25.249 2.247 .309 1.000 2.026 1.283 .001 .325 2.026 .000 .000 .000a. Kruskal Wallis TestTest Statistics a,b,c1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.986 .022 .663 1.000 1.000 1.000 .000 .134 .579 .317 .155 .257 .970 .568 .155 1.000 1.000 1.000b. Grouping Variable: DEPTHc. SITE = 5.00Site 6Test Statistics a,b,cChi-SquaredfAsymp. Sig.ANEMON BIVTOT BRITTL CEPHTOT COTS CRUSTOT ECHTOT FANWRM FEATHE FLATWM GORGON MOLTOT NUDIB SEAED SEANON SEAWHI SOFTCO STAROT1.371 .896 .000 .000 .000 .000 25.911 2.566 .751 .857 .000 .094 .202 1.420 .012 .857 .041 2.275a. Kruskal Wallis Test1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.242 .344 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .000 .109 .386 .355 1.000 .759 .653 .233 .913 .355 .840 .131b. Grouping Variable: DEPTHc. SITE = 6.00Site 7Test Statistics a,b,cChi-SquaredfAsymp. Sig.ANEMON BIVTOT BRITTL CEPHTOT COTS CRUSTOT ECHTOT FANWRM FEATHE FLATWM GORGON MOLTOT NUDIB SEAED SEANON SEAWHI SOFTCO STAROT1.050 6.706 .762 .000 .000 .467 36.975 .974 .323 2.143 .000 .579 .010 .467 3.455 .942 1.521 1.900a. Kruskal Wallis Test1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.306 .010 .383 1.000 1.000 .495 .000 .324 .570 .143 1.000 .447 .922 .495 .063 .332 .217 .168b. Grouping Variable: DEPTHc. SITE = 7.00Site 8Test Statistics a,b,cChi-SquaredfAsymp. Sig.ANEMON BIVTOT BRITTL CEPHTOT COTS CRUSTOT ECHTOT FANWRM FEATHE FLATWM GORGON MOLTOT NUDIB SEAED SEANON SEAWHI SOFTCO STAROT.857 20.853 23.297 .000 .000 .000 3.460 .183 2.744 1.143 .000 .094 2.317 2.850 1.143 1.143 23.139 4.064a. Kruskal Wallis Test1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.355 .000 .000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .063 .668 .098 .285 1.000 .759 .128 .091 .285 .285 .000 .044b. Grouping Variable: DEPTHc. SITE = 8.00Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 89

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsCommercial Fish Visual CensusCommercial Fish AbundancesNB. Sphyraenidae, shark, ray and eel taxa were not tested for significance due to limited or absence ofrecordings.(take out shark, ray and eel from tables – shouldn’t be there!)Site 1Test Statistics a,b,cChi-SquaredfAsymp. Sig.a. Kruskal Wallis TestACANT BALIS CAESI CARAG EEL HAEMU HOLOC LABRI LETHR LUTJA MULLI NASIN RAY SCARI SERRA SHARK SIGAN SPHYR1.412 .469 .061 1.900 .000 1.111 5.911 6.021 4.191 1.081 .889 .027 .000 .000 .081 .000 1.111 .0001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.235 .493 .805 .168 1.000 .292 .015 .014 .041 .298 .346 .869 1.000 1.000 .776 1.000 .292 1.000b. Grouping Variable: DEPTHc. SITE = 1.00Chi-SquaredfAsymp. Sig.Site 2a. Kruskal Wallis TestAcanthurinae Balistidae Caesionidae Carangidae Haemulidae Holocentridae Labridae Lethrinidae Lutjanidae Mullidae Nasinae Scaridae Serranidae Siganidaeb. Grouping Variable: DEPTHc. Survey site = 2Test Statistics a,b,c7.826 3.327 1.000 2.111 .000 2.105 10.423 3.327 3.327 7.826 1.000 7.835 .000 1.0001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.005 .068 .317 .146 1.000 .147 .001 .068 .068 .005 .317 .005 1.000 .317Site 3Test Statistics a,b,cChi-SquaredfAsymp. Sig.Acanthurinae Balistidae Caesionidae Carangidae Haemulidae Holocentridae Labridae Lethrinidae Lutjanidae Mullidae Nasinae Scaridae Serranidae Siganidae2.952 .359 .000 .000 .000 1.909 .021 1.056 3.647 .368 .000 4.577 .000 .0001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1a. Kruskal Wallis Testb. Grouping Variable: DEPTHc. Survey site = 3.086 .549 1.000 1.000 1.000 .167 .886 .304 .056 .544 1.000 .032 1.000 1.000Site 4Test Statistics a,b,cChi-SquaredfAsymp. Sig.Acanthurinae Balistidae Caesionidae Carangidae Haemulidae Holocentridae Labridae Lethrinidae Lutjanidae Mullidae Nasinae Scaridae Serranidae Siganidae.161 4.378 .450 1.000 .000 .200 .239 1.415 2.118 5.343 .007 2.660 4.800 .000a. Kruskal Wallis Testb. Grouping Variable: DEPTHc. Survey site = 41 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.688 .036 .502 .317 1.000 .655 .625 .234 .146 .021 .936 .103 .028 1.000Chi-SquaredfAsymp. Sig.Site 5Acanthurinae Balistidae Caesionidae Carangidae Haemulidae Holocentridae Labridae Lethrinidae Lutjanidae Mullidae Nasinae Scaridae Serranidae Siganidae.981 .104 4.898 .302 9.952 .836 .000 .818 1.222 4.474 .327 .526 .235 .818a. Kruskal Wallis Testb. Grouping Variable: DEPTHc. Survey site = 5Test Statistics a,b,c1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.322 .747 .027 .582 .002 .361 1.000 .366 .269 .034 .567 .468 .628 .366Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 90

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsSite 6Test Statistics a,b,cChi-SquaredfAsymp. Sig.a. Kruskal Wallis TestAcanthurinae Balistidae Caesionidae Carangidae Haemulidae Holocentridae Labridae Lethrinidae Lutjanidae Mullidae Nasinae Scaridae Serranidae Siganidaeb. Grouping Variable: DEPTHc. Survey site = 61.719 2.694 .749 .000 .698 4.033 .332 .338 2.353 .063 1.798 .243 5.175 .0001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.190 .101 .387 1.000 .403 .045 .565 .561 .125 .802 .180 .622 .023 1.000Site 7Test Statistics a,b,cChi-SquaredfAsymp. Sig.a. Kruskal Wallis TestAcanthurinae Balistidae Caesionidae Carangidae Haemulidae Holocentridae Labridae Lethrinidae Lutjanidae Mullidae Nasinae Scaridae Serranidae Siganidaeb. Grouping Variable: DEPTHc. Survey site = 73.125 .651 6.034 .226 2.285 .208 .576 1.473 2.118 1.674 .159 6.828 .117 2.1181 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.077 .420 .014 .634 .131 .648 .448 .225 .146 .196 .690 .009 .733 .146Chi-SquaredfAsymp. Sig.Site 8a. Kruskal Wallis TestAcanthurinae Balistidae Caesionidae Carangidae Haemulidae Holocentridae Labridae Lethrinidae Lutjanidae Mullidae Nasinae Scaridae Serranidae Siganidaeb. Grouping Variable: DEPTHc. Survey site = 8Test Statistics a,b,c3.447 2.946 .612 .667 .038 11.550 .054 4.776 1.282 3.918 7.100 8.063 9.744 .0491 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.063 .086 .434 .414 .845 .001 .817 .029 .258 .048 .008 .005 .002 .824Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 91

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsCommercial Fish LengthsNB. Sphyraenidae, shark, ray and eel taxa were not tested for significance due to limited or absence ofrecordings.Chi-SquaredfAsymp. Sig.a. Kruskal Wallis TestSite 1Site 2Haemulidae Holocentridae Labridae Lethrinidae Lutjanidae Mullidae Nasinae Scaridae Serranidae Siganidaeb. Grouping Variable: DEPTHc. SITE = 1Chi-SquaredfAsymp. Sig.Test Statistics a,b,c1.111 6.799 .376 1.619 .627 .484 .347 .241 .441 1.1111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.292 .009 .540 .203 .429 .487 .556 .624 .507 .292Haemulidae Holocentridae Labridae Lethrinidae Lutjanidae Mullidae Nasinae Scaridae Serranidae Siganidae.000 2.573 4.330 4.066 .539 4.056 .818 3.691 .000 1.222a. Kruskal Wallis Testb. Grouping Variable: DEPTHc. SITE = 2Test Statistics a,b,c1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11.000 .109 .037 .044 .463 .044 .366 .055 1.000 .269Chi-SquaredfSite 3Asymp. Sig.a. Kruskal Wallis TestHaemulidae Holocentridae Labridae Lethrinidae Lutjanidae Mullidae Nasinae Scaridae Serranidae Siganidaeb. Grouping Variable: DEPTHc. SITE = 3Test Statistics a,b,c.000 1.909 2.494 .953 3.667 1.648 .000 5.323 .000 .0001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11.000 .167 .114 .329 .056 .199 1.000 .021 1.000 1.000Chi-SquaredfSite 4Asymp. Sig.Haemulidae Holocentridae Labridae Lethrinidae Lutjanidae Mullidae Nasinae Scaridae Serranidae Siganidae.000 .378 .502 1.046 2.118 2.874 .007 1.236 4.772 .000a. Kruskal Wallis Testb. Grouping Variable: DEPTHc. SITE = 4Test Statistics a,b,c1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11.000 .539 .479 .306 .146 .090 .936 .266 .029 1.000Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 92

Chi-SquaredfMisali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsSite 5Asymp. Sig.a. Kruskal Wallis TestHaemulidae Holocentridae Labridae Lethrinidae Lutjanidae Mullidae Nasinae Scaridae Serranidae Siganidaeb. Grouping Variable: DEPTHc. SITE = 5Test Statistics a,b,c9.576 .175 1.136 .818 1.222 1.080 1.406 .013 .159 .8181 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.002 .676 .286 .366 .269 .299 .236 .909 .690 .366Chi-SquaredfSite 6Asymp. Sig.a. Kruskal Wallis TestHaemulidae Holocentridae Labridae Lethrinidae Lutjanidae Mullidae Nasinae Scaridae Serranidae Siganidaeb. Grouping Variable: DEPTHc. SITE = 6Test Statistics a,b,c.500 3.475 7.984 .070 2.353 .394 1.585 .107 3.445 .0001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.480 .062 .005 .791 .125 .530 .208 .744 .063 1.000Chi-SquaredfSite 7Asymp. Sig.Haemulidae Holocentridae Labridae Lethrinidae Lutjanidae Mullidae Nasinae Scaridae Serranidae Siganidae1.841 .034 .383 .943 2.118 .207 .447 .861 .605 2.118a. Kruskal Wallis Testb. Grouping Variable: DEPTHc. SITE = 7Test Statistics a,b,c1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.175 .855 .536 .332 .146 .649 .504 .354 .437 .146Chi-SquaredfSite 8Asymp. Sig.a. Kruskal Wallis TestHaemulidae Holocentridae Labridae Lethrinidae Lutjanidae Mullidae Nasinae Scaridae Serranidae Siganidaeb. Grouping Variable: DEPTHc. SITE = 8Test Statistics a,b,c2.894 10.458 .071 4.643 .002 .036 3.173 .093 7.804 .0211 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.089 .001 .790 .031 .966 .849 .075 .760 .005 .884Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 93

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsAppendix 7Kruskal-Wallis test results; comparing reef-associated fish visual censusabundances at survey sites within and outside the non-extraction zoneKey:Key name Common name Latin nameButterfly fishChaetodontidaeBENNET Bennetts Chaetodon bennettiBKBACK Blackback Chaetodon melannotusBKPYRA Black pyramid Hemitaurichthys zosterCHEVRO Chevron Chaetodon trifascialisDBSADD Double saddleback Chaetodon falculaKLEINS Klein’s Chaetodon kleiniiLINED Lined Chaetodon lineolatusLONGFN Longfin (Bannerfish) Heniochus acuminatusLONGNS Long-nosed Forcipiger flavissimusMADAGA Madagascar Chaetodon mertensiiMASKED Masked (Bannerfish) Heniochus monocerosMEYERS Meyers Chaetodon myeriRACOON Racoon Chaetodon lunalaREDFIN Redfin Chaetodon trifasciatusSOMALI Somali Chaetodon leucopleuraSPOTTE Spotted Chaetodon guttatissimusTEARDR Teardrop Chaetodon unimaculatusTHREAD Threadfin Chaetodon aurigaVAGABO Vagabond Chaetodon vagabundusYELHED Yellowhead Chaetodon zanthocephalusZANZIB Zanzibar Chaetodon zanzibariensisSurgeons and Unicorns AcanthuridsBKSTRK Blackstreak surgeon Acanthurus nigricaudaBLUTAN Blue tang Acanthurus coeruleusBRUTAN Brushtail tang Zebrasoma scopesCONVIC Convict surgeon Acanthurus triostegusDUSKY Dusky surgeon Acanthurus nigrofuscusEYESTR Eyestripe surgeon Acanthurus dussumieriGOLDRI Goldring surgeon Ctenochaetus strigosusHUMPNS Humpnose unicorn Naso tuberosusLIEUTE Lieutenant surgeon Acanthurus tennetiORSOCK Orange-socket surgeon Acanthurus auranticavusORSPIN Orange-spine unicorn Naso lituratusPALETT Palette surgeon Paracanthurus hepatusPOWDBL Powder blue surgeon Acanthurus leucosternonSAILFI Sailfin tang Zebrasoma veliferumSPOTUN Spotted unicorn Naso brevirostisSTBRIS Striped bristletooth Ctenochaetus strigosusSTRIPE Striped surgeon Acanthurus lineatusTWOSPO Two spot surgeon Ctenochaetus binotatusUNICOT Unicorn other -YELFIN Yellowfin surgeon Acanthurus xanthopterusMOORIS Moorish Idol Zanclus cornutusFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 94

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsChaetodontid species at survey sites 3 and 7Test between sites 3 and 71 Kruskal Wallis Test2 Grouping Variable: STATIONBENNET BKBACK BKPYRA CHEVRO DBSADD KLEINS LINED LONGFN LONGNS MADAGA MASKEDChi-Square 1.22 0.00 2.98 0.04 1.22 3.47 0.00 6.77 19.65 7.42 3.86df 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Asymp. Sig. 0.27 1.00 0.08 0.84 0.27 0.06 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.05MEYERS RACOON REDFIN SOMALI SPOTTE TEARDR THREAD VAGABO YELHED ZANZIBChi-Square 6.78 10.00 3.86 0.00 13.19 3.86 6.29 2.83 3.86 0.00df 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Asymp. Sig. 0.01 0.00 0.05 1.00 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.09 0.05 1.00Acanthurid and Zanclid species at survey sites 3 and 7Test between sites 3 and 71 Kruskal Wallis Test2 Grouping Variable: STATIONBKSTRK BLUTAN BRUTAN CONVIC DUSKY EYESTR GOLDRI HUMPNS LIEUTE MOORIS ORSOCKChi-Square 2.90413 0 7.10829 0 7.78411 2.50877 19.5946 0 8.34225 27.71122 3.85965df 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Asymp. Sig. 0.08835 1 0.00767 1 0.00527 0.11321 9.6E-06 1 0.00387 1.41E-07 0.04946ORSPIN PALETT POWDBL SAILFI SPOTUN STBRIS STRIPE TWOSPO UNICOT YELFIN YELTANChi-Square 3.86486 2.58257 2.50712 0 1.22222 9.44078 0 6.2662 1.22222 0 0df 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Asymp. Sig. 0.04931 0.10805 0.11333 1 0.26892 0.00212 1 0.012306 0.26892 1 1Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 95

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsAppendix 8Commercial fish visual census data summariesSurvey site 1Descriptive StatisticsAcanthurinaeBalistidaeCaesionidaeCarangidaeHaemulidaeHolocentridaeLabridaeLethrinidaeLutjanidaeMullidaeNasinaeScaridaeSerranidaeSiganidaeValid N(listwise)1. Survey site = 1Survey site 2AcanthurinaeBalistidae AcanthurinaeCaesionidae BalistidaeCarangidae CaesionidaeHaemulidae CarangidaeHolocentridaeHaemulidaeLabridae HolocentridaeLethrinidae LabridaeLutjanidae LethrinidaeMullidae LutjanidaeNasinae MullidaeScaridae NasinaeSerranidae ScaridaeSiganidae SerranidaeValid Siganidae N(listwise)Valid N1. (listwise) Survey site = 21. Survey site = 3Survey site 3N Minimum Maximum Mean19 .00 34.00 12.6316 9.650619 .00 5.00 .6842 1.455019 .00 63.00 20.2632 21.026019 .00 10.00 .6842 2.358319 .00 1.00 5.263E-02 .229419 .00 9.00 2.0000 2.494419 .00 24.00 8.7368 6.918919 .00 20.00 2.5789 4.970119 .00 25.00 2.9474 6.794419 .00 41.00 10.8947 11.174819 .00 15.00 3.2105 3.457319 .00 12.00 5.6316 4.071719 .00 3.00 .5789 .901619 .00 5.00 .2632 1.147119Std.DeviationStd.N Minimum Maximum Mean DeviationStd.N20Minimum.00Maximum24.00Mean3.3000Deviation7.204520 21 .00 17.00 4.00 2.6190 .3500 4.3872 .988120 21 .00 28.00 9.00 1.4000 1.7143 6.2610 2.452420 21 .00 1.00 .1000 .0000 .3078 .000020 21 .00 .00 .0000 .000020 21 .00 12.00 .7500 .0000 2.7314 .000020 21 .00 44.00 7.00 6.1000 .4286 11.4611 1.567520 21 .00 108.00 6.00 17.2381 .6500 24.0102 1.725220 21 .00 13.00 4.00 1.0000 .5238 3.0608 1.249820 21 .00 19.00 10.00 3.4000 1.0952 6.1934 3.031620 21 .00 28.00 2.00 10.3810 .1000 10.2151 .447220 21 .00 20.00 3.1000 .0000 7.0255 .000020 21 .00 50.00 7.9048 .0000 15.1588 .000020 21 .00 1.00 5.000E-02 .0000 .2236 .000020 21 .00 .00 .0000 .000021Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 96

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsSurvey site 4AcanthurinaeBalistidaeCaesionidaeCarangidaeHaemulidaeHolocentridaeLabridaeLethrinidaeLutjanidaeMullidaeNasinaeScaridaeSerranidaeSiganidaeValid N(listwise)1. Survey site = 4N Minimum Maximum Mean18 .00 170.00 16.6111 40.718718 .00 5.00 1.7222 1.406118 .00 6.00 .8333 1.653918 .00 1.00 5.556E-02 .235718 .00 .00 .0000 .000018 .00 5.00 .6667 1.372018 4.00 66.00 12.3333 14.200218 .00 3.00 .6111 .849818 .00 10.00 .7222 2.420618 1.00 29.00 10.5000 7.540118 .00 10.00 .8333 2.572518 .00 12.00 1.5556 2.812218 .00 3.00 .3333 .767018 .00 .00 .0000 .000018Std.DeviationFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 97

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsSurvey site 5AcanthurinaeBalistidaeCaesionidaeCarangidaeHaemulidaeHolocentridaeLabridaeLethrinidaeLutjanidaeMullidaeNasinaeScaridaeSerranidaeSiganidaeValid N(listwise)1. Survey site = 5N Minimum Maximum Mean20 3.00 56.00 22.8500 11.527020 .00 6.00 1.2500 1.681920 .00 232.00 55.2500 73.567620 .00 20.00 1.1500 4.463620 .00 1.00 .3000 .470220 .00 51.00 14.3500 11.352120 .00 21.00 6.8000 5.717920 .00 1.00 5.000E-02 .223620 .00 12.00 .6000 2.683320 .00 3.00 .9000 .967920 .00 57.00 8.4000 12.592420 2.00 30.00 11.4500 7.598320 .00 9.00 1.3000 2.130020 .00 2.00 1.000E-01 .447220Std.DeviationSurvey site 6AcanthurinaeBalistidaeCaesionidaeCarangidaeHaemulidaeHolocentridaeLabridaeLethrinidaeLutjanidaeMullidaeNasinaeScaridaeSerranidaeSiganidaeValid N(listwise)1. Survey site = 6N Minimum Maximum Mean19 .00 39.00 14.0526 11.472119 .00 5.00 1.0526 1.649019 .00 393.00 79.3158 122.598319 .00 171.00 19.1053 44.614319 .00 6.00 .4737 1.428619 .00 7.00 1.3158 2.056219 .00 22.00 5.7895 5.513419 .00 3.00 .4211 .837719 .00 1.00 .1053 .315319 .00 17.00 3.8421 5.112819 .00 59.00 12.5789 16.671119 .00 17.00 5.8947 4.135119 .00 8.00 1.6316 2.671019 .00 .00 .0000 .000019Std.DeviationFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 98

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsSurvey site 7AcanthurinaeBalistidaeCaesionidaeCarangidaeHaemulidaeHolocentridaeLabridaeLethrinidaeLutjanidaeMullidaeNasinaeScaridaeSerranidaeSiganidaeValid N(listwise)1. Survey site = 7N Minimum Maximum Mean18 7.00 47.00 24.3333 12.704818 .00 4.00 .9444 1.474218 .00 190.00 36.2778 53.210818 .00 20.00 1.7778 5.128418 .00 42.00 5.5000 12.599018 .00 12.00 3.0000 3.678218 2.00 33.00 11.6667 7.475518 .00 22.00 1.4444 5.158918 .00 40.00 2.3889 9.413018 .00 11.00 4.2778 3.626818 .00 100.00 24.1111 29.874018 1.00 117.00 18.2222 25.906118 .00 7.00 1.0000 1.748918 .00 3.00 .2778 .826418Std.DeviationSurvey site 8AcanthurinaeBalistidaeCaesionidaeCarangidaeHaemulidaeHolocentridaeLabridaeLethrinidaeLutjanidaeMullidaeNasinaeScaridaeSerranidaeSiganidaeValid N(listwise)1. Survey site = 8N Minimum Maximum Mean20 .00 34.00 13.4000 10.080720 .00 14.00 1.6500 3.166920 .00 137.00 26.9000 41.505720 .00 8.00 .4000 1.788920 .00 17.00 4.2500 5.014520 .00 12.00 3.1500 3.990420 .00 26.00 9.2500 7.676920 .00 31.00 5.6500 9.195420 .00 35.00 6.0000 10.736120 1.00 44.00 10.0500 11.473020 .00 51.00 7.9000 12.838720 .00 29.00 8.7000 6.292020 .00 2.00 .5500 .686320 .00 6.00 .3500 1.348520Std.DeviationFrontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 99

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsAppendix 9Kruskal-Wallis and mean values; comparing commercial fish visual censusabundance data between survey sites 5 and 8RanksRanksSurvey site N Mean Rank Survey site N Mean RankAcanthurinae 5 20 25.20 Lethrinidae 5 20 15.778 20 15.80 8 20 25.23Total 40 Total 40Balistidae 5 20 20.63 Lutjanidae 5 20 17.008 20 20.38 8 20 24.00Total 40 Total 40Caesionidae 5 20 23.08 Mullidae 5 20 12.358 20 17.92 8 20 28.65Total 40 Total 40Carangidae 5 20 21.48 Nasinae 5 20 21.928 20 19.52 8 20 19.08Total 40 Total 40Haemulidae 5 20 14.70 Scaridae 5 20 22.458 20 26.30 8 20 18.55Total 40 Total 40Holocentridae 5 20 28.00 Epinephelini 5 20 22.238 20 13.00 8 20 18.77Total 40 Total 40Labridae 5 20 18.65 Siganidae 5 20 20.008 20 22.35 8 20 21.00Total 40 Total 40Chi-SquaredfAsymp. Sig.Acanthurinae Balistidae Caesionidae Carangidae Haemulidae Holocentridae Labridae Lethrinidae Lutjanidae Mullidae Nasinae Scaridae Serranidae Siganidae1. Kruskal Wallis Test2. Grouping Variable: Survey siteTest Statistics 1,26.480 .005 1.972 1.026 11.358 16.702 1.006 10.557 6.705 20.091 .604 1.123 1.037 .3511 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.011 .942 .160 .311 .001 .000 .316 .001 .010 .000 .437 .289 .309 .554Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 100

Misali Island: A detailed description of the subtidal regionsKruskal-Wallis and mean values; comparing commercial fish visual censusabundance data between survey sites 3 and 6RanksRanksSurvey site N Mean Rank Survey site N Mean RankAcanthurinae 3 21 13.69 Lethrinidae 3 21 20.056 19 28.03 6 19 21.00Total 40 Total 40Balistidae 3 21 21.74 Lutjanidae 3 21 21.006 19 19.13 6 19 19.95Total 40 Total 40Caesionidae 3 21 13.50 Mullidae 3 21 23.606 19 28.24 6 19 17.08Total 40 Total 40Carangidae 3 21 17.50 Nasinae 3 21 14.506 19 23.82 6 19 27.13Total 40 Total 40Haemulidae 3 21 19.00 Scaridae 3 21 16.506 19 22.16 6 19 24.92Total 40 Total 40Holocentridae 3 21 17.52 Epinephelini 3 21 16.006 19 23.79 6 19 25.47Total 40 Total 40Labridae 3 21 23.10 Siganidae 3 21 20.506 19 17.63 6 19 20.50Total 40 Total 40Chi-SquaredfAsymp. Sig.Acanthurinae Balistidae Caesionidae Carangidae Haemulidae Holocentridae Labridae Lethrinidae Lutjanidae Mullidae Nasinae Scaridae Serranidae Siganidae1. Kruskal Wallis Test2. Grouping Variable: Survey siteTest Statistics 1,215.558 .584 21.851 7.542 3.489 4.962 2.210 .124 .245 3.195 17.725 5.473 12.294 .0001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.000 .445 .000 .006 .062 .026 .137 .725 .621 .074 .000 .019 .000 1.000Frontier-Tanzania Environmental Research Report 103 101