Barna Volume I Spring 2018
BARNA Journal of Student Initiated Research
Volume I Spring 2018 1
CIEE Perth
Photograph credits Front Cover: Alex Kidd Title page: Alex Kidd Biography Photos: Kate Rodger, Paul Hollick, Alicia Sutton, Dani Bandt, Rebekah Hamley, Lawrence Lesser, Anna Lindquist, Camila Mirow, Emily Robins Table of contents: Rebekah Hamley, Lawrence Lesser, Anna Lindquist, Camila Mirow, Emily Robins Back Cover: Alex Kidd
Editors Editor-in-Chief: Alicia Sutton Text Editor: Kate Rodger Format Editor: Alicia Sutton
i
Barna Journal of Student Initiated Research
CIEE Perth Biology and Ecology Field Studies Volume I Spring 2018
ii
FOREWORD
Students who participated in the Independent Field Research Project for Biology and Ecology Field Studies were given the opportunity to showcase their research in the student journal Barna: Journal of Student Initiated Research. This course was part of a semester program that took place at Perth and Ningaloo Reef in Western Australia. Lectures and weekly meetings with each student allowed for the formulation of project ideas and project design, and students assisted each other in the field at Ningaloo Reef which meant they received exposure to a number of different research topics and research methods different from their own.
Ningaloo Reef is the longest fringing coral reef in the world, spanning 300 km, and was listed as a World Heritage site in 2011 due to its rich biodiversity. More than 250 species of coral and more than 500 species of fish have been documented from the reef. The town of Coral Bay is situated right next to the reef and provided an ideal study location for students to undertake their research. The marine environment included rocky and sandy intertidal shores through to densely populated coral reefs less than a few meters swim from shore.
Since 1947, CIEE has helped thousands of students gain the knowledge and skills necessary to live and work in a globally interdependent and culturally diverse world by offering the most comprehensive, relevant, and valuable exchange programs available. This particular Biology and Ecology Field Studies course has equipped students with knowledge on how to design and conduct an independent research project, how to problem solve and adapt to changing conditions in the field, and how to write a scientific publication.
Thank you to the students and staff for participating in the program and creating a successful and enjoyable experience. To the students, best of luck on your journey through research and discovery and we hope you had a unique and memorable experience in Australia!
Dr Kate Rodger
iii
Barna Volume I Spring 2018
FACULTY AND STAFF
Dr Kate Rodger With a background in wildlife conservation Kate’s research areas of interest looks at the social aspects of biodiversity conservation including governance and protected area planning and management. Past projects include human- wildlife interactions in the marine and terrestrial environment, identifying and minimising visitor impacts through visitor management techniques in protected areas, improving links between science and policy, and integrating ecological and social sciences in nature-based tourism research. A key focus of her work now focuses on exploring human values, perceptions and attitudes, all of which are of particular importance to the sustainable management of our natural areas.
Paul Hollick Paul has worked with the CIEE program in Perth since 2001 and has a range of experience in the fields of tertiary and sports administration and recreation. His work with CIEE equips him with considerable experience in revealing his native state of Western Australia to students from across the United States. Though he has lived most of his life in Perth, Paul has travelled extensively in Europe, Southeast Asia, and the United States. Paul earned a bachelor's degree in environmental science from Edith Cowan University, demonstrating his lifelong commitment to the environment.
Dr Alicia Sutton Alicia is a marine scientist specialising in zooplankton and biological oceanography. Alicia's research has been conducted primarily throughout the Leeuwin Current system and she has an in depth understanding of the marine environment and physical processes off the Western Australian coast and the wider Indian Ocean. Alicia has worked on a diverse range of projects involving zooplankton, seagrasses, fishes and cetacean communities, and is an experienced field scientist having collected a variety of biological and oceanographic data from tropical and temperate environments. She also has a
keen interest in citizen science not-for-profit organisations that have a focus on conserving marine biodiversity.
Dani Bandt Dani completed her Honours degree in marine science specialising in the intertidal environment along the Ningaloo Reef coastline and, in particular, Giant Clams. Since completing her studies, Dani has worked with CIEE students around Exmouth and Coral Bay in a field supervisor role, bringing a wealth of local knowledge to the program and projects. Dani is about to undertake her PhD continuing on with research into Giant Clams and the surrounding intertidal communities around Ningaloo.
iv
STUDENTS
Rebekah Hamley Lawrence Lesser Bethel University University of Virginia St Paul, Minnesota Charlottesville, Virginia
Anna Lindquist Camila Mirow Eckerd College Mount Holyoke College Saint Petersburg, Florida South Hadley, Massachusetts
Emily Robins Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester, New York
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A comparison of abundance and grouping of Fungia and Herpolitha solitary corals in human impacted areas of Ningaloo Reef, Western Australia
Rebekah Hamley……………………………………..1-6.
Coverage, richness, and diversity of intertidal macroalgae communities at sites with varying levels of human disturbance in Coral Bay, Western Australia Lawrence Lesser……………………………………..7-13.
Microplastic contamination in Ningaloo Marine Park, Western Australia Anna Lindquist……………………………………..14-18.
Coral disease within different anthropogenically stressed areas of Coral Bay, Western Australia Camila Mirow………………………………………19-23.
The impact of anthropogenic influences on growth form, diversity and abundance of hard coral at Ningaloo Marine Park
Emily Robins……………………………………….24-30.
vi
Barna Volume I Spring 2018
RESEARCH PAPER A comparison of abundance and grouping of Fungia and Herpolitha solitary corals in human impacted areas of Ningaloo Reef, Western Australia Rebekah Hamley - Bethel University - [email protected]
Abstract Not all corals are permanently (Goreau et al., 1971). Solitary corals belong attached to a substrate. Solitary corals are able to the order Scleractinia, and even though to migrate to different areas according to their these corals can move, many still partner with habitat needs. In order to further determine zooxanthellae. For example, one common what affects a solitary coral’s habitat choice, solitary coral, Fungia scutaria, is host to an two bays, Bill’s Bay and Paradise Bay, were algal strain known as Symbiodinium studied in Ningaloo Marine Park. Bill’s Bay (Rodriguez-Lanetty et al., 2005). Therefore, has a higher level of human activity than solitary corals are also reliant on sunlight just Paradise Bay. The abundance and grouping as immobile corals are. With this need for sizes of solitary corals from two different sunlight, solitary corals need to find habitats genus, Fungia and Herpolitha, were recorded that are suitable to accommodate their needs. using a random transect sampling method. The project primarily focused on whether In order to determine what kind of habitats human activity would affect the abundance of solitary corals prefer, one study by Chadwick- solitary corals and whether they preferred to Furman and Loya (1992) observed the be in groups. Each site was tested daily for migration of solitary corals from the family four days, and the data was then analyzed. Fungiidae (mushroom corals). The Results showed that Bill’s Bay had a higher researchers discovered that the solitary corals abundance of solitary corals contrary to the often migrated to areas with sandy substrates hypothesis that the lower human activity in and deeper waters. Additionally, they found Paradise Bay would result in a higher solitary that approximately half of the solitary corals coral abundance. Additionally, a higher observed were in cavities. These cavities number of solitary corals were found in consisted of spaces under and among other groups in Bill’s Bay while more were found corals and rubble (Chadwick-Furman and individually in Paradise Bay. When the two Loya, 1992). Another study by Goffredo and habitats of the two bays were compared, Bill’s Chadwick-Furman (2000) researched the Bay seemed to fulfill more of the solitary abundance and distribution of corals from the corals’ environmental requirements including Fungiidae family on a fringing reef in the Red more open spaces and access to sunlight. Sea. Overall, the mushroom corals were most abundant in waters of about 6m depth on the Introduction reef flat. The solitary corals were typically found in the deeper depths of the reef. Solitary Because of their high biodiversity, coral reefs corals were more likely than attached corals are popular among snorkelers and scuba to be in open spaces rather than shaded areas divers to explore. While many may think of (Goffredo and Chadwick-Furman, 2000). corals as immobile plant-like structures, there are corals that are mobile: solitary corals. One Solitary corals may be observed in groups of of the aspects that makes corals so unique is two or more or individually. Little research is that they partner with zooxanthellae (tiny available on why solitary corals choose to be algae) to produce their own food, which in a group or not. A study investigating the makes them autotrophs. Because the interactions between fungiids and non-fungiid zooxanthellae produce food, they require corals found some species of fungiids are able sunlight in order to carry out photosynthesis to damage other types of coral; however, they
1
Barna Volume I Spring 2018 did not damage each other (Chadwick- in groups of two or more rather than Furman and Loya, 1992). This allows them to individually in both bays. prevent branching and massive corals from overcrowding the fungiids. While they do not Methods overcrowd each other, they can compete for Two different bays in Coral Bay, Western food and sunlight. The mobility of the corals Australia, were studied to see if there was a allows them to find areas that are open and difference in the number of solitary corals unable to be inhabited by other corals. The between areas that were subject to more or specific reasons for corals of Fungiidae to less human activity. Bill’s Bay had more daily group together, however, is still unknown. activity from people including snorkeling, It is well acknowledged within the scientific boats, paddle boats, etc. (Fig. 1). Meanwhile, community that humans have a certain Paradise Bay experienced much less human amount of impact on coral reefs, whether it is activity (Fig. 2). Bill’s Bay was deeper on harmful or beneficial. Human activities such average than Paradise Bay and also had more as overfishing and pollution have had impacts sandy, open areas. Paradise Bay had coral that on vast areas of the oceans including the coral was more densely packed than in Bill’s Bay, reefs. While coral reefs have been resilient for which covered more of the bottom surface. many years, there is concern that humans The research lasted over a period of four days: have tested this resiliency beyond repair April 16-20, 2018. Each day, typically at high (McClanahan et al., 2002). While some fear tide (late morning/early afternoon) when the that coral reefs will be forever lost, others water was clear and deep enough, five 30m believe that they will instead change. transects using a field measuring tape at each Research has shown that there are some corals site were surveyed. The location of each that are more tolerant to increasing transect was chosen through random temperatures and other human-related threats sampling. All solitary corals of the Fungia (Hughes et al., 2003). Perhaps solitary corals (Fig. 3) and Herpolitha (Fig. 4) genera were will be the future of the coral reefs. counted within 5m either side of the transect, The aim of this study was to determine and group size was recorded. Pictures were whether human activity would have an impact taken of the corals for identification purposes. on the abundance of solitary corals in Coral Data was visually analyzed using graphs and Bay of Ningaloo Marine Park, Western histograms and statistically analyzed using Australia. Furthermore, the grouping pattern Excel and IBM SPSS. A two-tailed t-test of the corals was also examined. The research assuming unequal variances was performed questions are (a) will human activity result in on total numbers of solitary corals between a lower number of solitary corals in an area Paradise and Bill’s Bay. Data were and (b) will solitary corals be more likely to transformed to the square root to achieve a group together? normal distribution. IBM SPSS Statistics was used to perform a Mann Whitney U test on the The alternative hypotheses are H1: Paradise Bay will have a higher number of Fungia and difference in the grouping of the solitary Herpolitha solitary corals than Bill’s Bay due corals because the data was not normally distributed. to a lower level of human activity, and H2: solitary corals will be more likely to be found
2
Barna Volume I Spring 2018
Figure 1. Bill’s Bay in Coral Bay, WA (Google Maps). Figure 2. Paradise Bay in Coral Bay, WA (Google Maps).
Figure 3. An example of a Fungia solitary coral. Figure 4. An example of a Herpolitha solitary coral.
Results 350 Bill’s Bay had over 300 hundred solitary 300 corals with Fungia being the most abundant 250 (Fig. 5). Meanwhile, Paradise Bay had fewer than 100 solitary corals observed with the 200 majority being Fungia as well (Fig. 5). 150
The t-test on the number of solitary corals Number coralsof 100 from one location to another obtained a p- 50 value less than 0.05 which means there was a 0 statistical significance in the total number of Fungia Herpolitha solitary corals from Paradise Bay to Bill’s Bay (Table 1). An outlier was removed prior Figure 5. The total number of Fungia and Herpolitha to testing to reduce potential bias; an solitary corals in Paradise Bay (blue) and Bill’s Bay additional 204 solitary corals were observed (green). in Bill’s Bay from one transect. found most often to be in a group; however, Next, the grouping sizes of the corals were they also made up the majority of solitary analyzed. The first step was to determine how corals found (Fig. 6). many corals of each genus were observed in a group of two or more. The Fungia corals were
3
Barna Volume I Spring 2018
Table 1: Mean, variance, and p-value for the total 12 number of corals in Bill’s Bay vs. Paradise Bay. 10 Bill's Bay Paradise Bay 8 6 Mean 18.050 3.900
Frequency 4 Variance 1958.050 9.674 2 P-value (two-tailed) 0.011 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 More Number of individuals in group Figure 7. The frequency of solitary corals occurring in 300 a group size in Paradise Bay. The most common group size was 2. 250 16 200 14 150 12
10 Number Number coralsof 100 8
Frequency 6 50 4 2 0 0 Fungia Herpolitha 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 More
Number of individuals in group Figure 6. The number of Fungia and Herpolitha corals observed in a group in Paradise Bay (blue) and Bill’s Figure 8. The frequency of solitary corals occurring Bay (green). in a group size in Bill’s Bay. The most common group Histograms show the size of groups and sizes ranged from 1-5. frequency of solitary corals found in those Table 2. The total number of solitary corals found in a groups. Solitary corals that were discovered group and individually, mean, variance, and p-values in groups were typically found in groups of 2 for grouped versus not grouped in Bill’s Bay and Paradise Bay. in Paradise Bay (Fig. 7) and in groups ranging from 1-5 in Bill’s Bay (Fig. 8). Bill's Bay Paradise Bay The Mann Whitney U tests presented P- Grouped 273 34 values less than 0.05 for grouping versus non- Not grouped 88 44 grouping in both Paradise and Bill’s Bay Mean (grouped) 5.151 2.429 (Table 2). This means that there was a Mean (not grouped) 1 1 significant difference between corals in a group and corals found individually. More Variance (grouped) 29.246 .725 corals were found in groups in Bill’s Bay than Variance (not grouped) 0 0 individually; however, more corals were P-value (two-tailed) <0.0001 <0.0001 found individually than in groups in Paradise Bay (Table 2). Discussion prefer areas of lower human activity. It is also evident that the most abundant species The alternative hypothesis, H1, that Paradise observed was that of the order Fungia. Bay would have a higher number of solitary Concerning the grouping of the solitary corals is rejected as Bill’s Bay had a corals, the most common group sizes ranged significantly higher number. This suggests from 2-4 individuals in a group, and grouping that the solitary corals did not necessarily was significantly more common than
4
Barna Volume I Spring 2018 individual presence for Bill’s Bay, but not for grouping together, the solitary corals are able Paradise Bay. Thus, the alternative to decrease competition for resources with hypothesis, H2, is accepted when comparing other types of corals. grouping in Bill’s Bay, but rejected in Paradise Bay. There were some limitations to this project in terms of methods. While swimming 5m out Despite the higher level of human activity in on each side of the transect allowed a larger Bill’s Bay, the solitary corals were more area to be studied, it also increased the abundant there than in Paradise Bay, which likelihood of missing a solitary coral in the has less activity. One possible explanation is count. Having two swimmers/counters at a that the solitary corals were more concerned time helped remedy this somewhat, but also with habitat types than the human activity. introduced the possibility of a solitary coral Bill’s Bay was slightly deeper than Paradise being counted twice. Additionally, with Bay but offered more open spaces and access different observers each day, there was some to sunlight which was described in previous inconsistency such as each individual having studies as being the preferred habitat types of different estimates for 5m, etc. Paradise Bay solitary corals (Chadwick-Furman and Loya, was also packed very densely with corals 1992). While Paradise Bay had more dense making it possible that some solitary corals areas of corals and places to hide, Bill’s Bay were hiding in places not visible to a offered more soft substrates and sunlight. snorkeler. Another potential explanation is that the human activity is what made Bill’s Bay more Regarding future research on solitary corals, ideal for solitary corals. With a higher number it would be beneficial to continue looking at of swimmers and boats in the area, the how human activity may impact them. humans may have opened up some of those Studies on a larger scale could continue to free spaces themselves by breaking and compare habitats with higher human activity damaging branching and massive corals. This to those with less. If solitary corals are more would free up space for the solitary corals to resistant to human impacts or even thrive off inhabit without competition from other corals. some level of human activity, they may be the The Fungia and Herpolitha corals are small future of the coral reefs. and flatter than other corals making them less Acknowledgements likely to be damaged from people directly. The author would like to acknowledge Dani In addition to being more abundant in Bill’s Bandt for the inspiration to study solitary Bay, the solitary corals were also more likely corals and Alicia Sutton for advice and to be grouped in Bill’s Bay than in Paradise answering all data analysis questions. Further Bay. A possible explanation for this acknowledgements go to Reid Schuster, difference is that there was more open space Arianna Untereker, Kelly Cubberly, and in Bill’s Bay for the corals to group. Because Emily Robins for assistance in gathering data. the space was much more limited in Paradise A special thanks to Paul Hollick and the rest Bay, it would have been more difficult for the of the CIEE program staff for making this corals to congregate in close proximity to research project possible. each other and limited the size of the groups. It is not yet known why some solitary corals References will group up. It may provide safety in Chadwick-Furman, N., Loya, Y. 1992. numbers, especially in open spaces such as Migration, habitat use, and competition Bill’s Bay, from predators and other among mobile corals (Scleractinia: environmental factors. As Chadwick-Furman Fungiidae) in the gulf of Eilat, Red and Loya (1992) discovered, fungiid corals Sea. Marine Biology 114 (4), 617-623. did not damage each other; but they did doi:10.1007/bf00357258. compete with other sessile corals. Perhaps by
5
Barna Volume I Spring 2018
Goffredo, S., Chadwick-Furman, N. 2000. Abundance and distribution of mushroom corals (Scleractinia: Fungiidae) on a coral reef at Eilat, northern Red Sea. Bulletin of Marine Science, 66 (1), 241-254. Goreau, T. F., Goreau N. I., Yonge C. M. 1971. Reef corals: Autotrophs or heterotrophs? The Biological Bulletin 141 (2), 247-260. doi:10.2307/1540115. Hughes, T. P., Baird A. H., Bellwood D. R., Card M., Connolly S. R., Folke C., Grosberg R., et al. 2003. Climate change, human impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs. Science 301 (5635), 29-933. doi:10.1126/science.1085046. McClanahan, T., Polunin N., and Done T. 2002. Ecological states and the resilience of coral reefs. Conservation Ecology 6 (2). Rodriguez-Lanetty, M., Wood-Charlson E. M., Hollingsworth L. L., Krupp D. A., Weis V. M. 2006. Temporal and spatial infection dynamics indicate recognition events in the early hours of a dinoflagellate/ coral symbiosis. Marine Biology 149 (4), 713-719. doi:10.1007/s00227-006-0272-x.
6
Barna Volume I Spring 2018
RESEARCH PAPER
Coverage, richness, and diversity of intertidal macroalgae communities at sites with varying levels of human disturbance in Coral Bay, Western Australia Lawrence Lesser - University of Virginia - [email protected]
Abstract Macroalgae plays a key role in macroalgae are habitat-forming, adding intertidal ecosystems. For example, it’s an vertical structure to the sea floor (Shiel and important provider of vertical structure to the Lilley, 2011). This provides shelter and sea floor, providing habitat and shelter for surfaces for other organisms to live in, on, or various organisms. Although many under. Macroalgae also serves as a major food anthropogenic activities and developments source for a diverse range of herbivores threaten macroalgal beds, direct human (Diaz-Pulido and McCook,2008). trampling is the most widely studied and Macroalgae play other important ecological perhaps the most pertinent threat. This study roles, including primary production and compared macroalgae coverage, richness, and nitrogen fixation, indirectly contributing to diversity between study sites with high levels coral establishment and reef building of human disturbance, and study sites with (McCook, 1999; Silva et al., 2012). lower levels of human disturbance in and around Coral Bay, Western Australia. The In intertidal zones, macroalgae is usually main forms of human disturbance in Coral dominant and provides cover for other Bay stem from tourism: snorkeling, boating, organisms against harsh sunlight, wind, and fishing, and direct trampling. Consistent with high air temperatures when the tide is down previous studies from across the globe, this (Shiel and Lilley, 2011). The intertidal zone is study yielded evidence for significantly vulnerable to anthropogenic disturbances, and higher percent cover of macroalgae in less combined with natural stressors, it can be a disturbed areas. Additionally, when harsh environment to live in (Micheli et al., comparing different macroalgae genera, less 2016). With a rise in recreational and disturbed areas had significantly higher commercial use of shorelines accompanying a richness and diversity. Human disturbance on rise in coastal populations and subsequent macroalgae beds should be limited in the development, the amount of anthropogenic future in order to protect macroalgae and the disturbance to intertidal zones increases services it provides to the rest of the (Schiel and Taylor, 1999). These disturbances ecosystem. include physical trampling, pollution, eutrophication, sedimentation alteration, Introduction shoreline modification, introduction of species, and overharvesting of organisms The term “macroalgae” refers to benthic (Micheli et al., 2016). marine algal species usually found attached to a hard substrate and distinguishable by the Physical trampling has a profound effect on naked eye (Diaz-Pulido and McCook, 2008). macroalgae specifically; algae is crushed, Although serving similar ecological roles as dislodged, or partially detached from its marine plants, macroalgae lack the root substrate (Micheli et al., 2016). When taller systems to anchor themselves down in sandy macroalgae species are damaged or and rocky substrate (Diaz-Pulido and dislodged, understory algae receive more McCook, 2008). Ranging from a few sunlight exposure than they are normally millimeters to multiple meters in height adapted to receiving (Fletcher and Frid, (Diaz-Pulido and McCook, 2008), 1996). This may in turn reduce species
7
Barna Volume I Spring 2018 richness (Shiel and Lilley, 2011). If loss of proximity. Travelling south of Monk’s Head, macroalgae becomes severe, turfing algae the amount of infrastructure, boating traffic, may take over and the amount of bare space and human traffic suddenly decreases. The may increase, decreasing available habitat following research attempts to compare and reducing crucial shelter of benthic sessile macroalgae abundance, diversity, and organisms (Fletcher and Frid, 1996). A rise in richness in the heavily trafficked areas, Bill’s turfing algae cover subsequently reduces the Bay and the jetty, versus the more natural available substrate for macroalgae area, South Monk’s Head. It was recruitment, hindering recovery of canopy hypothesized that trampling and other human cover (Shiel and Lilley, 2011). Because disturbance would produce a negative impact macroalgae are important components of on macroalgae cover, and that the natural intertidal food webs, reductions in community areas would have more species richness and sizes alters trophic dynamics and interactions diversity than the areas with a relatively high between species (Shiel and Lilley, 2011). amount of human traffic. Because the amount Studying the effects of trampling on intertidal of disturbance at Coral Bay is relatively low macroalgae in southern New Zealand, Schiel when comparing it to larger coastal developed and Taylor (1999) found that up to 25% of areas, this is a good location for comparing macroalgae cover can be reduced by as few as disturbed and natural areas. 10 tramples. After 200 tramples, they found a reduction of more than 90% of the macroalgae Methods species H. banksii canopy cover. More This research was conducted at Coral Bay, experimental evidence that trampling Western Australia. Samples were taken four significantly decreases macroalgae cover has different days in April 2018 at the four been found in studies at multiple different locations (Fig. 1). Day 1 was April 16th, Day locations (e.g. Fletcher and Frid, 1996; Shiel 2 was April 17th, Day 3 was April 18th, and & Lilley, 2011; Silva et al., 2012; Micheli et Day 4 was April 19th. Bill’s Bay and the Jetty al., 2016). Anthropogenic disturbance may were chosen as disturbed sites due to nearby also cause a decrease in macroalgae developments, tourist activities, water community diversity and species richness. recreation, and boating. Two different nearby Experimental evidence for this was found by coves south of the Jetty were chosen as the Shiel and Lilley (2011) and Silva et al (2012). less disturbed sites/ natural sites. These two Ningaloo Marine Park in Western Australia is sites are located in the southern part of the a relatively pristine ecosystem. With only a area called Monk’s Head, herein referred to as few coastal towns centered on tourism, there North South Monk’s Head (NSMH) and is not a large amount of development and South Monk’s Head (SSMH). The four study infrastructure along the coastline. Extensive locations were visited at varying times of the macroalgae beds are present in the region day. For each study site, 20 haphazard 0.5m2 (Johansson, 2012). Coral Bay is one of these quadrats were sampled in the rocky intertidal tourist towns located in the Ningaloo Marine area. Each quadrat was recorded with photos. Park. This town contains a bay, Bill’s Bay, Percent cover of rock, sand, coral, and that has a relatively heavy amount of macroalgae within the quadrat were recorded recreational and boating use, and a jetty with and an extensive set of photos were taken for a relatively heavy amount of boat traffic and later identification purposes and for error fishing. Bill’s Bay is also in close proximity checking. Presence of turfing or encrusting to the town’s infrastructure, potentially algae was noted, but not used in percent cover creating additional indirect disturbance. calculations. Of the macroalgae cover, the Many tourists snorkel, swim, and walk proportions of each genus present was through the intertidal zones of both sites, estimated in the field and later checked using while boating and fishing occur in close photographs.
8
Barna Volume I Spring 2018
Figure 1. Map of Coral Bay and the labelled 4 study locations chosen to be sampled.
Two-tailed T-tests assuming unequal mean Shannon-Weiner scores for the Jetty, variances at a significance level of 0.05 were NSMH, and SSMH. Bill’s Bay was excluded utilized to compare two sample means at a because diversity indices cannot be calculated time. The first test compared the mean percent when no species are found. Two-tailed T-tests macroalgae cover in all 40 disturbed quadrats assuming unequal variances were used for (20 from Bill’s Bay, 20 from the Jetty) against pairwise comparisons of mean Shannon- the mean percent macroalgae cover in all 40 Weiner scores amongst the three study sites. less disturbed quadrats (20 from NSMH, 20 To also assess richness, two-tailed T-tests from SSMH). Because no macroalgae was assuming unequal variances were used for found at all amongst the Bill’s Bay quadrats, pairwise comparisons of mean amount of and this potentially creates bias in the above different genera found per quadrat at each of t-test result, a series of pairwise t-tests were the three study sites. completed for the remaining three sites. Results A Shannon-Weiner diversity index was calculated for all quadrats where macroalgae Percent Cover was present. Algae was grouped at the genus All four sites are rocky intertidal areas, with level. A single factor ANOVA test was varying proportions of rock cover, sand cover, completed to assess difference among the
Figure 2. These pie charts represent the average percent cover of rock, sand, coral, and macroalgae in the 20 intertidal zone quadrats for each of the four locations. From left to right: Jetty, Bill’s Bay, North SMH, and South SMH.
9
Barna Volume I Spring 2018 and macroalgae cover (Fig. 2). Coral cover is disturbed sites (the Jetty and Bill’s Bay), with minimal to non-existent and rock accounts for an extremely low p-value of < 0.0001. The a large amount of the substrate in the four fact that no macroalgae was found at Bill’s study sites (Fig. 2). On most rocky surfaces, Bay might skew the mean to a lower value for turfing algae was present. Table 1 shows the the disturbed sites. Therefore, pairwise tests wide range of algae found throughout the were completed to compare means across the four-day study. Although no macroalgae was four sites. Percent cover in the Jetty and Bill’s found in any of the Bill’s Bay quadrats, Bay varied very significantly, with a p-value turfing algae was vastly present. of <0.0001, while percent cover was not significantly varied amongst the two natural There was a significantly greater mean areas (p = 0.90). This provides further percent macroalgae cover in the two less evidence that Bill’s Bay may be an outlier. disturbed sites (North and South SMH) than However, the Jetty still contained a in the more disturbed sites (the Jetty and Bill’s significantly lower percent macroalgae cover Bay), with an extremely low p-value of < than both North and South Monk Head 0.0001. The fact that no macroalgae was locations (Fig. 3), with p-values of 0.010 and found at Bill’s Bay might skew the mean to a 0.0022, respectively. lower value for the disturbed sites. Therefore, pairwise tests were completed to compare means across the four sites. Percent cover in the Jetty and Bill’s Bay varied very significantly, with a p-value of <0.0001, while percent cover was not significantly varied amongst the two natural areas (p = 0.90). This provides further evidence that Bill’s Bay may be an outlier. However, the Jetty still contained a significantly lower percent macroalgae cover than both North and South Monk Head locations (Fig. 3), with p- Figure 3. Average percent cover of macroalgae at each values of 0.010 and 0.0022, respectively. of the four study sites based on the 20 quadrats at each There was a significantly greater mean site. percent macroalgae cover in the two less Diversity disturbed sites (North and South SMH) than in the more Average Shannon-Weiner diversity index scores varied significantly among the three Table 1. List of all algae types and identified genera study sites that contained macroalgae (Fig. 4), in the four-day study. with a p-value of 0.019. The Jetty had a significantly lower mean diversity index than Red algae Brown algae Green algae both South Monk Head study sites (Fig. 4), with p-values of 0.0499 and 0.011. Diversity Macroalgae Macroalgae Filamentous index scores did not vary significantly Encrusting Encrusting algae algae between the two less disturbed/natural sites algae Turfing algae Turfing algae Turbinaria themselves (Fig. 4), as a p-value of 0.27 was Laurencia Sargassum obtained. Figure 5 presents a general idea of Champia Dictyota the varying levels of diversity by comparing Hypnea Padina the average percent cover of each genus found Hormophysa amongst the study sites in a pie chart. Stypopodium Colpomenia
10
Barna Volume I Spring 2018
the same original conclusion as the comparison between the combined natural sites and the combined disturbed sites. All of these test results provide evidence for the hypothesis that macroalgae cover is greater in less disturbed areas, and similar among less disturbed areas themselves. These findings are consistent with those of previous studies, where it was found with Figure 4. Compares the average Shannon-Weiner experimental evidence that human diversity indices for the three locations where disturbance significantly reduced macroalgae macroalgae was present. cover (Schiel and Taylor, 1999; Fletcher and Richness Frid, 1996; Shiel and Lilley, 2011; Silva et al., 2012; Micheli et al., 2016). The amount of different genera seen and their relative abundances are shown in Figure 5. Diversity and Richness There was significantly less genera found per Significantly different average Shannon- quadrat in the Jetty than in either South Monk Weiner diversity indices were found when Head site (Fig. 6), with p-values of 0.017 and comparing all three sites that contained 0.0028. The amount of genera found at each macroalgae. The average diversity index for SMH site did not vary significantly (Fig. 6), the Jetty was significantly lower than that for as a p-value of 0.15 was obtained. both SMH locations, while the average Discussion diversity indices between the two SMH locations were not significantly different. Abundance This provides evidence that diversity is similar amongst less disturbed areas but Significantly less macroalgae cover was reduced in disturbed areas. Similar results found at disturbed sites compared to natural were obtained when considering species sites. However, there was significant richness. The average number of genera variation amongst the two disturbed sites found per quadrat was significantly lower in themselves. No macroalgae was found at the Jetty than at either SMH location, while Bill’s Bay, but extensive amounts of turfing the average amount of genera did not vary algae were present. Bill’s Bay has constant significantly amongst the SMH locations trampling and other disturbances, so turfing themselves. This provides evidence that algae may have replaced dislodged richness is similar amongst less disturbed macroalgae, preventing its future recruitment areas but reduced in disturbed areas. All of the (Shiel and Lilley, 2011). Bill’s Bay might also above results from the various tests of just be a different type of habitat not suitable diversity and richness are consistent with the for macroalgae growth. The Jetty still had a original hypotheses made on species richness significantly lower percent macroalgae cover than both natural sites, providing evidence for
Figure 5. Average percent cover of different macroalgae genera found among the 20 quadrats for each location. From left to right: Jetty, North SMH, and South SMH
11
Barna Volume I Spring 2018
no macroalgae in any quadrat, it couldn’t be used for diversity indices and it was left out of pairwise comparisons. Therefore, only one disturbed site, the Jetty, was used for pairwise comparisons. A greater number of both disturbed and natural study sites should have been utilized in order to remove these potential areas of bias. Also, differences found amongst these sites may not be only due to varying levels of human disturbance. Figure 6. Compares the average number of genera The locations may just have different present per quadrat for the three locations where structures in general. Wave exposure and macroalgae was present. vulnerability to natural disasters also greatly impact macroalgae abundance (Micheli et al., and diversity. The findings are also consistent 2016). Study locations were not composed of with the findings of Shiel and Lilley (2011) the same exact amount and type of substrate. and Silva et al (2012), where human disturbance was experimentally found to Conclusions decrease macroalgae community diversity and richness. Macroalgae is an important part of the ecosystem structure and food web. If human Limitations trampling and other activities are major stressors to macroalgae communities at Quadrats were taken at varying levels of high Ningaloo Reef, conservation related policies and low tide, decreasing consistency. are a future direction for this issue. However, this was not considered a major Conservation policies could include protected source for error because macroalgae is areas that ban human trampling, or just benthic and sessile so the composition won’t educating tourists on how stepping on change with the tides. Total percent cover of seaweed actually affects the whole algae was not difficult to estimate, but algae ecosystem. genus identification and percent cover estimation of the genera found were difficult Acknowledgements to complete. Photos taken at low tide were sometimes difficult to interpret when only a Special thanks to CIEE and all staff for the small coating of water was over them. In these opportunity and for providing all the cases, the camera couldn’t be put underwater, equipment used in the field for this study. and the above water pictures weren’t clear. References Sometimes photos revealed new species that weren’t noticed or counted in percent genus Diaz-Pulido, G., McCook, L. J. 2008. cover estimates in the field. Photos taken at Environmental Status: Macroalgae high tide had issues with blurriness. Percent (Seaweeds). State of the Reef Report cover of different genera was easier to Environmental Status of the Great Barrier estimate in high tide photos, but identification Reef. IBSN:1876945346. was more difficult with these photos. Fletcher, H., Frid, C. L. 1996. Impact and A major limitation with the results of this management of visitor pressure on rocky study is that there could have been more study intertidal algal communities. Aquatic locations used. Both less disturbed sites were Conservation: Marine and Freshwater very close together. This might account for Ecosystems, 6 (4), 287-297. doi:10.1002/ the lack of significant differences found (sici)1099-0755(199612)6:43.3.co;2-h. between them in abundance, diversity, and richness. Also, because Bill’s Bay contained
12
Barna Volume I Spring 2018
Johansson, C. L. 2012. A functional analysis of herbivory on Ningaloo Reef, Australia. PhD Thesis, James Cook University. McCook, L. J. 1999. Macroalgae, nutrients and phase shifts on coral reefs: Scientific issues and management consequences for the Great Barrier Reef. Coral Reefs,18 (4), 357- 367. doi:10.1007/s003380050213. Micheli, F., Heiman, K. W., Kappel, C. V., Martone, R. G., Sethi, S. A., Osio, G. C., et al. 2016. Combined impacts of natural and human disturbances on rocky shore communities. Ocean & Coastal Management, 126, 42-50. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016. 03.014. Schiel, D. R., Taylor, D. I. 1999. Effects of trampling on a rocky intertidal algal assemblage in southern New Zealand. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 235 (2), 213-235. doi:10.1016/s0022-0981(98)00170-1. Schiel, D. R., Lilley, S. A. 2011. Impacts and negative feedbacks in community recovery over eight years following removal of habitat- forming macroalgae. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 407 (1), 108- 115. doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2011.07.004. Silva, I. B., Fujii, M. T., Marinho-Soriano, E. 2012. Influence of tourist activity on the diversity of seaweed from reefs in Maracajaú, Atlantic Ocean, Northeast Brazil. Revista Brasileira De Farmacognosia, 22 (4), 889- 893. doi:10.1590/s0102- 695x2012005000078.
13
Barna Volume I Spring 2018
RESEARCH PAPER
Microplastic contamination in Ningaloo Marine Park, Western Australia Anna Lindquist - Eckerd College - [email protected]
Abstract Microplastics are microscopic When plastics reside in the ocean for inorganic particles that are created from the extended periods of time, this allows for them degradation of larger plastic waste. Plastic to travel vast distances. This extensive travel can break apart into smaller particles, but it causes microplastics to act as a vector for will not disappear. A large amount of this dispersing toxins and pathogenic waste ends up in the world’s oceans and is microorganisms (Löder and Gerdts, 2015). ingested by marine life. This study looks for Dispersed by winds and currents, the plastics the presence of microplastics in a relatively accidentally dumped or deliberately trashed, pristine region: Ningaloo Marine Park in become fragmented over the course of time. Western Australia. Large quantities of These pieces of plastic debris floating in the inorganic waste were found in all samples, ocean then become brittle over time from and significantly more microplastics were ultraviolet light and heat, causing them to found out at the reef crest than at sites close break apart from the waves and wind to shore. It was hypothesized that the larger (Andrady, 2015). The distribution of amount farther from shore come from the microplastics in the oceans is reliant on their Leeuwin Current bringing pollutants from density. Most synthetic polymers have a heavily populated countries north of Western lower density than seawater, and therefore Australia. An evolving suite of sampling microplastic particles usually float at the sea techniques has revealed that microplastics are surface. At a lower extent, they are found a ubiquitous and widespread marine suspended in the water column and even contaminant throughout the world’s oceans. buried within the benthos. Beaches can accumulate neutrally buoyant and sinking Introduction plastics alike (Hidalgo-Ruz et al., 2012). The term “microplastics” was first used in Although plastic was probably not created in 2004 and classified based on size (Thompson order to pollute the oceans, the massive scale et al., 2004). Microplastics are tiny plastic of waste that plagues the world’s oceans is not particles <5mm, and they are found in by accident but instead design. The largest significant quantities in the oceans (Andrady world market section for plastic materials is 2011). Microplastics are separated by “large for packaging designed for immediate microplastics” which are 1-5mm and “small disposal. By using modeling tools, it has been microplastics” which are 20µm-1mm (Hanke projected that a total of 15-51 trillion et al., 2013). Many everyday human microplastics particles have amassed in the endeavors that use plastic and other inorganic ocean (Sebille et al., 2015). materials will release microplastic particles. When plastic is tossed directly into the marine For example, fibers are released from environment or when discarded plastic clothing garments during washing (Browne et eventually finds its way into waterways that al., 2011). Plastic and other inorganic human lead into the oceans, it becomes an waste is a large polluter of the world’s oceans, environmental hazard. The presence and and production of plastics has increased since accumulation of microplastics in the ocean is the development of synthetic polymers of great concern for a multitude of reasons, (Andrady, 2011). particularly because they are ingested by
14
Barna Volume I Spring 2018 marine organisms. Microplastics are ingested untouched area with little human disturbance, by marine birds and fish species at varying the Leeuwin Current can bring waters from trophic levels (Andrady, 2011). Ingestion of heavily populated countries to the region. plastics by birds and turtles is documented Therefore, there may be more microplastics often, and around 44% of marine bird species out by the reef crest where the Leeuwin are known to ingest plastics (Rios and Moore, Current is stronger, and less by the coastline 2007). Fish will also ingest plastic and in turn, of Ningaloo. humans along with sea bird predators, accumulate the inorganic waste from Methods consuming the affected fish. The plastic Study site moves into higher and higher concentrations throughout the food web, a process known as The study was conducted at two coastal sites bioaccumulation. Despite the known effects and one reef crest site in Coral Bay on mentioned above, scientists really do not Ningaloo Marine Park, Western Australia. know much about the true impact of The three locations that were chosen were consuming microplastics, due to a lack of Paradise Bay, Bill’s Bay, and Asho’s Gap research into this issue. Early studies have (Fig. 1). Each site was in the reef flat of shown the universal existence of microplastic Ningaloo Reef. Bill’s Bay is the most popular the oceans (Hidalgo-Ruz and Thiel, 2013; beach in the area and receives heavy tourist Van Cauwenberghe et al., 2013; Vianello et traffic and can be classified as an area of high al., 2013). However, current microplastic recreational activity. Paradise Bay is a research suffers from insufficient reliable secluded area that data on concentrations of microplastics in the oceans and on the composition of involved polymers. This is due to a lack of a standard operation protocol (SOP) for microplastic sampling and detection (Hidalgo-Ruz et al., 2012; Imhof et al. 2012). The European Union by TSG-ML has started the process of creating a standard, however, the data collected on microplastics varies across different methods, becoming incomparable (Hanke et al., 2013). This study aims to address microplastic presence and abundance at different study sites in Coral Bay, Western Australia. In respect to this study, microplastics will refer to all inorganic microscopic waste.
Collections were taken at two coastal sites, Figure 1. Map of Asho’s Gap, Paradise Bay, and and one reef crest site. Water samples were bill’s Bay, the three collection sites on Ningaloo Reef analyzed for the presence of inorganic in Western Australia. microscopic particles, and amounts were compared between sites. It was hypothesized comes right off the boat ramp in the area. This that there would be microplastics found at all site is located away from other developments sites, and that a greater amount would be and housing. found at the deeper reef crest site than at Sampling method either coastal site. This hypothesis was created because although Coral Bay, and the A total of six water samples were collected at Ningaloo Reef as a whole, is a relatively each site during the middle of April 2018. Samples were collected when the depth was 2
15
Barna Volume I Spring 2018 ft in the case of the two coastal sites. The measured, and SD values of 19.45 for samples collected from Asho’s Gap were Paradise Bay, 12.86 for Bill’s Bay, and 56.90 collected while scooping through 1 ft of the for Asho’s Gap were obtained (Fig. 2). water column. Bulk water samples were collected in 2-liter plastic jugs and then filtered through stainless steel sieves at 1mm, 300.00 500 µm, 212 µm, and 100 µm sieve sizes. This was rinsed into a water filtering device 250.00 with Whatman 47mm glass microfiber filter circles using both deionized and distilled 200.00 water. Filters were placed onto a metal tray 150.00 and after the filters were sufficiently dry, they were each individually examined for 100.00
inorganic material using a dissecting Inorganic # Particles microscope, and compound microscope. 50.00 A series of statistical tests were completed in 0.00 excel to analyze the data. An ANOVA Single Paradise Average Bill's Average Ashos Average Factor test was completed to compare Figure 2. Average amount of microplastics found per microplastic counts across the three study two-liter sample at the three study sites in Coral Bay. sites. To analyze for potential differences in Error bars denote standard deviation. the coastal sites and the reef crest site, two Table 1. Summary of the statistical tests taken to Two-tailed Two Sample t-Tests Assuming compare counts among the three study areas. Unequal Variances were completed, comparing Paradise Bay to Asho’s Gap and Test type Sites Used p-value Bill’s Bay to Asho’s Gap. ANOVA Single Paradise, Bill’s, 0.0001 Factor Asho’s Results Two-Tailed t-Test Paradise, Asho’s 0.005 Microplastics were found in large numbers at Two-Tailed t-Test Bill’s, Asho’s 0.004 all sites (Fig. 2). In analyzing the data from Two-Tailed t-Test Bill’s, Paradise 0.773 the ANOVA Single Factor test, a p-value of 0.0001 (p<0.05) was obtained (Table 1) which means there was a significant Discussion difference between the microplastic counts at Microplastics were present in the water the different locations (Fig. 2). In analyzing column at all sites studied in Coral Bay. There the results from the t-Test between Paradise were also significantly more inorganic waste Bay and Asho’s Gap, a p-value of 0.005 was particles out in the coral reef crests than close obtained (Table 1). This provides evidence to shore. Both of these results support the that there is significantly more microplastics original hypotheses created that the larger at the reef crest site than at this coastal site. amount farther from shore come from the Similarly, the t-Test between Bill’s Bay and Leeuwin Current bringing pollutants from Asho’s Gap yielded a significant p-value of heavily populated countries north of Western 0.004 (p<0.05), also providing evidence that Australia. Many microplastics were found there is significantly more microplastics at here even though Ningaloo Marine Park is a the reef crest site than at this coastal site relatively pristine area. This is evidence that (Table 1). The t-Test between Bill’s and leads to the theory and results that Paradise Bay yielded an insignificant p-value microplastics span waterways even in areas of 0.773 (p>0.05), which shows an with little human inhabitants. insignificant difference between the two coastal sites. Standard deviation was
16
Barna Volume I Spring 2018
Due to bulk sampling being the method used Currently, the consistency and comparability for collection, many different size classes of of data on ocean microplastic concentrations microplastics from the water column were is hindered by the large variety of different able to be measured and reported (Gago et al., methodologies used (Hidalgo-Ruz et al., 2016). Sampling of microplastics in the sea 2012). One large objective should be the surface require different approaches: standardization of methodologies for selective, bulk, or volume-reduced. Using quantification and identification of bulk samples refer to samples where the microplastics in the ocean and development whole or entire volume of the sample is taken of standard operating procedures (SOPs). without reducing it during the sampling More research is required in sampling designs process. Bulk samples are most appropriate for this specific field, particularly in sample when microplastics cannot be easily water from the bays and beaches. Though identified visually because their abundance is sampling in it of itself is not a difficult task, small requiring sorting or filtering of large selecting the suitable sampling locations and volumes of sediment of water (Gago et al., number of replicates to represent the plastic 2016). contamination of a place like a beach is difficult. However, there are proposals made When wet sieving occurred, it did not take by the TSG-ML and they are taking the first place in a sterile environment and other non- steps towards a standard of beach sampling organic particles had the small possibility to within the microplastic monitoring programs become included during the process. Size of the member states of the European Union fractionated filtering of large volumes of (Hank et al., 2013). water was the best possible method found to adequately represent the different Acknowledgements microplastic size classes. However, since the sieves can easily clog, with sand and other This work was conducted within the CIEE particles the microplastic particle count may Perth center with support from the Ningaloo be inaccurate due to not being able to collect Marine Interaction company, Frazer all the particles into the water filtering McGregor, Dani Bandt, Alicia Sutton for system. Because no sieve <100µm was used their kind assistance collecting samples in this class size is not represented. Methods for otherwise difficult to reach areas of the reef sampling microplastics are incredibly crest and for pushing me to keep looking variable and thus a general standardization through the microscope. cannot be achieved. For monitoring of References microplastics, long-term observations could lead to the creation of standardized sampling Andrady, A. L. 2011. Microplastics in the measures. marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62 (8), 1596–1605. Over the past decade, increased scientific interest has produced an expanding Andrady, A. L. 2015. Persistence of plastic knowledge base for microplastics. litter in the oceans. In M. Bergmann., L. Nevertheless, fundamental questions and Gutow, M. Klages (Eds.), Marine issues remain unresolved, such as how anthropogenic litter (pp. 57–72). Berlin: microplastics affect the human body. An Springer. evolving suite of sampling techniques has Browne, M. A., Crump, P., Niven, S. J., revealed that microplastics are a ubiquitous Teuten, E., Tonkin, A., Galloway, T. S., et al. and widespread marine contaminant, present 2011. Accumulation of microplastic on throughout the water column, but future shorelines worldwide: Sources and directions included standardizing these sinks. Environmental Science and techniques and study methods. Technology, 45, 9175–9179.
17
Barna Volume I Spring 2018
Gago, J., Galgani, F., Maes, T., & Thompson, floating plastic debris. Environmental R. C. 2016. Microplastics in Seawater: Research Letters, 10 (12), 124006. Recommendations from the Marine Strategy doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/124006. Framework Directive Implementation Process. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3. Thompson, R. C. 2004. Lost at Sea: Where Is doi:10.3389/fmars.2016.00219 All the Plastic? Science, 304 (5672), 838- 838. doi:10.1126/science.1094559. Hanke, G., Galgani, F., Werner, S., Oosterbaan, L., Nilsson, P., Fleet, D., et al. Thompson, R. C. 2015. Microplastics in the 2013. MSFD GES technical subgroup on marine environment: Sources, consequences marine litter. Guidance on monitoring of and solutions. In M. Bergmann, L. Gutow & marine litter in European Seas. Luxembourg: M. Klages (Eds.), Marine anthropogenic Joint Research Centre–Institute for litter (pp. 185–200). Springer, Berlin. Environment and Sustainability, Publications Van Cauwenberghe, L., Vanreusel, A., Mees, Office of the European Union. J., Janssen, C. R. 2013. Microplastic pollution Hidalgo-Ruz, V., Gutow, L., Thompson, R. in deep-sea sediments. Environmental C., & Thiel, M. 2012. Microplastics in the Pollution, 182, 495–499. marine environment: A review of the Vianello, A., Boldrin, A., Guerriero, P., methods used for identification and Moschino, V., Rella, R., Sturaro, A., et al. quantification. Environmental Science and 2013. Microplastic particles in sediments of Technology, 46 (6), 3060–3075. Lagoon of Venice, Italy: First observations on Hidalgo-Ruz, V., Thiel, M. 2013. occurrence, spatial patterns and Distribution and abundance of small plastic identification. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf debris on beaches in the SE Pacific (Chile): A Science, 130, 54–61. study supported by a citizen science project. Marine Environmental Research, 87–88, 12–18. Imhof, H. K., Schmid, J., Niessner, R., Ivleva, N. P., Laforsch, C. 2012. A novel, highly efficient method for the separation and quantification of plastic particles in sediments of aquatic environments. Limnology and Oceanography-Methods, 10, 524–537. Löder, M. G., Gerdts, G. 2015. Methodology Used for the Detection and Identification of Microplastics—A Critical Appraisal. Marine Anthropogenic Litter, 201-227. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-319-16510-3_8 Rios, L. M., Moore, C., Jones, P. R. 2007. Persistent organic pollutants carried by synthetic polymers in the ocean environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54 (8), 1230-1237. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul. 2007.03.022 Sebille, E. V., Wilcox, C., Lebreton, L., Maximenko, N., Hardesty, B. D., Franeker, J. A., et al. 2015. A global inventory of small
18
Barna Volume I Spring 2018
RESEARCH PAPER
Coral disease within different anthropogenically stressed areas of Coral Bay, Western Australia
Camila Mirow - Mount Holyoke College - [email protected]
Abstract Human disturbance impacts the Disease is a present threat for corals and is a health and resilience of coral reef ecosystems. factor for deterioration of the health of coral This study analyzed the distribution of communities (Richardson, 1998). Common diseased corals and healthy corals in two bays coral diseases include brown band, white along Ningaloo Reef, where the amount of band disease, black band disease, white spots, anthropogenic disturbance varied. Eight 30 x aspergillosis, bacterial bleaching, white 2 meter transects were completed in Bill’s plague, white pox, white syndrome and Bay and Paradise Bay documenting healthy yellow band, skeletal eroding band and non- and diseased corals. 16.27% of all the corals cyanobacterial band. What we do know based documented in this study were found to be on previous research at Ningaloo is that there unhealthy. The number of diseased corals in is more black band disease in areas with relation to human disturbance at either site greater coral abundance (Onton et al. 2011). was not found to be significant. There was Finding a correlation between anthropogenic also not a significant difference between the disturbance and coral health, specifically overall presence of black band disease out of susceptibility and presence of disease, is the total number of corals. Although there are important to understanding how humans are differences in coral abundance between the affecting coral reefs and how these variables sites, there is no indication that an increased impact the coral reef ecosystems’ resistance level of human disturbance affects the to disease. If there is a clear understanding of prevalence of disease in this area of Ningaloo how anthropogenic disturbance influences Reef. coral reef health and the spread of disease, proper action can be taken to regulate the Introduction negative effects of anthropogenic stressors The study of the Ningaloo Reef ecosystem is and implement better coral reef management incredibly important because it is one of the plans within the communities that pose the largest fringing reefs in the world that may greatest threats to the nearby reefs. soon become threatened like the rest of the Based on some of the methods and analysis worlds coral reefs. Variables such as climate conducted by Onton (2011), an updated change, sea-level rise, ocean acidification, comprehensive study of disease and pollution and anthropogenic disturbance are anthropogenic disturbance in Coral Bay at already threatening coral reefs like Ningaloo Ningaloo Reef was conducted in 2011. Reef. With an increase in marine tourism Onton’s research looked at the prevalence of there is more human disturbance around these seven different coral diseases amongst seven delicate ecosystems. Research has shown that coral families. It was found that tabulate and human disturbance can negatively affect the Montipora spp. were the only corals affected worlds’ coral reefs (Lamb and Willis, 2011) by black band disease (BBD). Based on this causing coral reef health to decrease. research, this project is dedicated to analyzing Therefore, a less healthy environment makes the number of diseased corals and healthy coral more susceptible to disease (Page et al., corals in two different areas of Ningaloo Reef 2009). where the amount of anthropogenic
19
Barna Volume I Spring 2018 disturbance varies in each site. It is (e.g. Fig. 2 and 3) were completed at both hypothesized that Bill’s Bay will have higher sites. In Bill’s bay there were smaller more percentage of coral disease because it has scattered colonies. Every coral colony visible higher anthropogenic activities. The number within this area of the transect was classified of diseased and healthy corals were examined as healthy or diseased. There were branching in Bill’s Bay and Paradise Bay, as well as, the corals, meandering corals, massive corals, prevalence of BBD within the unhealthy encrusting corals, plating corals, and solitary corals. Methods This study was conducted over the course of one week in April 2018, in Coral Bay, Western Australia (Fig. 1a). Two sites were surveyed in
Figure 2. Black band disease found on coral transects in Coral Bay.
Figure 3. Other commonly found diseases on corals in Coral Bay. corals in these areas. Unhealthy corals were Figure 1. a) Coral Bay, Western Australia and b) study identified and photographed. sites Bill’s Bay (1) and Paradise Bay (2). Three Mann-Whitney U tests were used to this study: Bill’s Bay and Paradise Bay at analyze the data. The first test analyzed Ningaloo Reef (Fig. 1b). Paradise Bay was amount of disease per site, the second looked the less anthropogenically stressed area and at the amount of BBD per site and the third Bill’s Bay was the more anthropogenically analyzed the percent of BBD out of the total stressed area because it is currently the most diseased coral per site. easily accessible recreational area in Coral
Bay. Eight 30 x 2 meter transects counting the number of healthy and diseased coral species
20
Barna Volume I Spring 2018
Results Coral’s were identified as healthy and diseased in both sites (Fig. 4). There was a total number of 934 corals counted at Bills Bay across 8 transects. Of all the corals, 819 of them were classified as healthy and 115 were classified as diseased. There was a total number of 688 corals at Paradise Bay. Of all Figure 5. Percent of black band disease out of all the corals, 539 of them were healthy and 149 diseased corals in a) Bill’s Bay and b) Paradise Bay. were diseased. There was no significant difference between the levels of disease in Figure 6 shows the amount of coral that was either bay (Mann-Whitney U=20, Z=- affected by BBD. Bill’s Bay had 934 corals 1.20774, p=0.22628). Bill’s Bay had 12.31% and 24 cases of BBD meaning that only of its corals affected by disease, while 2.56% of the corals were affected by BBD. Paradise Bay had 21.65% of its corals Paradise bay had 688 corals and 31 cases of affected by disease. BBD meaning that 4.50% were affected by BBD. There was also not a significant 1000 difference of the overall presence of BBD out 800 of the total number of corals (Mann-Whitney U= 22.5, Z= -0.94519, p=0.34212). 600
400
NumberCorals of 200
0 Bill's bay Paradise bay Surveyed Sites healthy diseased Figure 6. Percent of diseased and black band disease out of all total corals for a) Bill’s Bay and b) Paradise Figure 4. Amount of healthy coral and diseased coral Bay. in Bill’s Bay and Paradise Bay. Table 1. Prevalence of diseased coral at Bill’s Bay and The percentage of BBD was analyzed out of Paradise Bay, Ningaloo Reef. Discussion all the diseased corals in both sites (Fig. 5). Bill’s Paradise Out of the 115 diseased corals in Bill’s Bay, Variables Combined 24 corals had black band disease. Bill’s Bay Bay Bay Diseased/ total had more solitary corals and patches of larger 16.27% 12.31% 21.65% branching corals but less continuous coral coral cover. Paradise bay had 149 diseased corals BBD/diseased 20.83% 20.87% 20.81% with 31 cases of BBD. Paradise Bay had BBD/ total almost 100% coral cover consisting of mostly 3.39% 2.56% 4.50% coral plating and branching coral. BBD was the most identifiable disease found in both bays but there was no significant difference Ningaloo Reef is one the few large reefs that between the amount of BBD out of the does not have huge amounts of anthropogenic diseased corals in each site, (Mann-Whitney stressors from highly populated areas in close U= 25, Z= -0.68264, p= 0.4965). Most of the proximity to the reef. This means that it has observed BBD was found on branching and relatively untouched reef systems rich in plating corals in both sites. coral biodiversity and healthy populations of marine life. A desire to increase tourism in
21
Barna Volume I Spring 2018 this part of the world could threaten this kayakers and activity from small boats ecosystem. A rise in the number of divers, (Nyström et al., 2000). snorkelers and boaters means more human disturbance to this ecosystem. Previous The corals sampled in Ningaloo Reef are in studies have shown that coral disease is more relatively good condition compared to other likely to be found in heavily used tourist sites reefs in the world. For example, 6.5% of coral that include diving (Lamb et al., 2014). In this death between 1995 to 2009 in the Great area of Ningaloo Reef, the heavily used Barrier Reef, was due to disease (GBRMPA, tourist site is Bill’s Bay. Different coral 2018). The area being researched in Coral diseases also target different coral species. Bay may not be anthropogenically stressed BBD is commonly known to affect branching enough to show the negative effects of human corals like Acropora and plating corals. disturbance. There should be more research Because there were more branching and being done on Ningaloo Reef in deeper areas plating corals observed in Paradise Bay, it especially in parts of the reef that are was hypothesized that there would be more constantly being dived. BBD in that area but less disease overall. This study did have some limitations. The Although there were more cases of BBD in selection of the sites had to be in shallow Paradise Bay than in Bill’s Bay, the waters close to shore away from frequent boat difference was not enough to be significantly activity. We did not have accessibility to a different. boat and could not use SCUBA to sample The hypothesis that there is more disease in deeper reefs. Analysis of disease related to Bill’s Bay was not supported. Paradise Bay, human activity must consider the time of year the less human affected area, had large tourists are most active around these sites and masses of plating coral making it impossible what time of year disease or outbreaks of to see and count any other corals below them. certain diseases might be more common in This could have skewed the results for total this area of Ningaloo Reef. The detection of amount of coral in this area because coral unhealthy and healthy corals was challenging colonies being overshadowed or hidden by as there are growth abnormalities and these larger plating corals could not be predation scars that resemble diseases. counted. Coral count for Bill’s Bay was Further specialization and study about coral higher because there were a greater number disease would have been helpful. of smaller corals and fewer large plating Conclusions corals in this area. There were less fragile corals such as branching and plating corals The experiment looked at the distribution of and more individual coral colonies in Bill’s diseased corals and healthy corals in Bill’s Bay because there was more human Bay and Paradise Bay in Ningaloo Reef, disturbance. Human activities are known to where the amount of anthropogenic affect coral reef growth, resilience and health disturbance varied. The levels of human (Nyström et al., 2000). Human disturbance disturbance vary at each site but do not seem like snorkeling, diving, swimming and other to be a factor in the presence of disease in this recreational activities are more likely to harm study. We need to know more about how we fragile corals. Smaller more isolated corals affect reefs and how we contribute to coral are less likely to be interacted with or disease. Although there was no direct damaged due their small size and patchy correlation of disease to human disturbance in distribution. This might explain why there this study, this does not mean that an increase were greater numbers of smaller corals in in tourism to this area will not negatively Bill’s Bay. Most coral disease was found in impact coral health in Coral Bay. The more areas accessible to snorkelers, swimmers, we know about coral disease pertaining to anthropogenically stress and coral health, the closer we are to knowing how to better
22
Barna Volume I Spring 2018 regulate and measure coral health as marine Page, C., Baker, D., Harvell, C., Golbuu, Y., tourism continues to grow in Ningaloo Reef. Raymundo, L., Neale, S., Rosell, K., Rypien, K., Andras, J., Willis, B. 2009. Influence of Acknowledgements marine reserves on coral disease Special thanks to Dani Bandt, Alicia Sutton, prevalence. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, Paul Hollick, and Kate Rodger for their 87, 135-150. guidance and help. Special thanks to CIEE for Richardson, L. 1998. Coral diseases: what is providing all the equipment used in the field. really known? Trends in Ecology & Thank you Murdoch University Ningaloo Evolution, 13 (11), 438-443. Research Station for your facilities. References Beeden R., Willis B., Raymundo L., Page C.,Weil E. 2008. Underwater Cards for Assessing Coral Health on Indo-Pacific Reefs Coral Bay, Western Australia. http://d1008278.myweb.iinethosting.net.au/c bbr/about-coral-bay-2/. “Coral Disease on the Great Barrier Reef.” 2018 Australia Government - Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-the- reef/threats-to-the-reef/climate-change/what- does-this-mean-for-species/corals/coral- disease/coral-disease-on-the-great-barrier- reef. Lamb, J., True, J., Piromvaragorn, S., Willis, B. 2014. Scuba diving damage and intensity of tourist activities increases coral disease prevalence. Biological Conservation, 178, 88-96. Lamb, J., Willis, B. 2011. Using Coral Disease Prevalence to Assess the Effects of Concentrating Tourism Activities on Offshore Reefs in a Tropical Marine Park. Conservation Biology, 25 (5), 1044- 1052. Nyström, M., Folke, C., Moberg, F. 2000. Coral reef disturbance and resilience in a human-dominated environment. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 15 (10), 413-417. Onton, K., Page, C., Wilson, S., Neale, S., Armstrong, S. 2011. Distribution and drivers of coral disease at Ningaloo reef, Indian Ocean. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 433, 75-84.
23
Barna Volume I Spring 2018
RESEARCH PAPER
The impact of anthropogenic influences on growth form, diversity and abundance of hard coral at Ningaloo Marine Park
Emily Robins - Rochester Institute of Technology - [email protected]
Abstract Coral reefs are diverse and decline could transform into a degeneration productive ecosystems supplying a variety of of the many functions coral reefs contribute benefits to marine species and humans. to the ecosystem. Reefs provide an array of Unfortunately, these same reefs are under ecosystem services which influence the increased stress from human presence and economy and its reliant industries (van contact and are becoming increasingly Zanten et al., 2014). threatened by humans drawn to their colorful ecosystems, such as at Ningaloo Reef. To There is value in researching the effects of look at the diversity of hard coral growth high and low anthropogenic stressors on hard forms, benthic composition, and hard coral corals at Ningaloo Reef, Western Australia. abundance, multiple transects and photo The Ningaloo Marine Park (NMP) quadrats were taken at two sites at Coral Bay, encompasses a large portion of the Ningaloo one with more human stress than the other. Reef (Cassata and Collins, 2008). The NMP Randomly generated points were created with is one of the major tourism destinations in the Coral Point Count to assess percent cover of Western Australian region, with 200,000 hard coral forms as well as sand and rock. The people visiting the NMP throughout 2004 and study found that the site with a greater human participating in outdoor activities. Due to the and tourist presence had more sand and rock large annual visitation numbers and increase while also showing a smaller percent of coral in visits over the holidays (Ingram, 2008), the cover. The diversity between areas with high NMP is heavily reliant on its tourism and and low human-induced stress showed a ecotourism industry. relatively equal relationship. Understanding A vast species diversity at Ningaloo Reef is the differences in these two environments can dependent on the complexity and foundation assist in the assessment of a changing of the reef system (Cassata and Collins, environment’s impact on hard coral growth 2008). The lagoon of Coral Bay in the NMP forms. Through this, policies can be put into is mostly comprised of large coral colonies place to constrict the strain placed onto coral with diverse morphology. These corals are reefs due to human activity. mainly found in staghorn, massive, and sub- Introduction massive growth forms (Cassata and Collins, 2008). Careless tourism, such as direct Coral reefs, hotspots for biodiversity, are physical contact with reefs and dropping increasingly threatened by human presence anchors easily affects the presence of hard and their interactions with the environment coral. Coral tissue damage can occur from (Burke and Maidens, 2004). Anthropogenic walking, touching, kicking, or standing. influences have placed a significant portion (Shivlani, 2007; Freund, 2017). Branching of the world’s coral structures into imminent coral growth forms, like staghorn, are easily danger of destruction. By 2007, 20% of coral susceptible to physical disturbance and reefs worldwide had become severely damage (Hughes, 1989). Humans have damaged (Alquezar and Boyd, 2007). Studies created disturbances such as the addition of have shown that humans have a large impact dynamic and chronic stress along with the on the decline in reefs (Mora, 2008). This suppression and removal of other
24
Barna Volume I Spring 2018 disturbances such as building jetties to block actions to protect coral reefs from excessive wind, changing water patterns and creating human contact at NMP. new and unfamiliar events for corals to experience (Nyström et al., 2000). Methods Sedimentation is another stressor which Study site affects Ningaloo Reef. This investigation is This study was conducted on the reefs in continued by examining the role of the Coral Bay on Ningaloo Marine Park, Western NMP’s benthic composition in the context of Australia (Fig. 1). Two sites were chosen: coral growth and survival influenced by Paradise Bay (-23.152751, 113.767778) and human presence. Sediments that settle Bill’s Bay (-23.141018, 113.767999). Each directly onto coral can interfere with the site was located along the reef flat of organism’s photosynthesis and feeding Ningaloo Reef. Paradise Bay is a secluded abilities (Huston, 1985) and can be caused by area located away from housing and other common marine recreational activities, such developments and determined to be the area as walking, kicking, and standing (Shivlani, of low human contact. Bill’s Bay is the area’s 2007). Sedimentation also reduces the most popular beach, therefore heavily amount of suitable habitat. Calcium trafficked with high levels of recreation. carbonate sand and other sedimentary Bill’s Bay represents an area with high human materials shift easily and cover the hard contact. substrates that corals require for growth (Huston, 1985). Sand and rock percent cover will be examined to assess the sedimentation at Paradise Bay and Bill’s Bay. Understanding the status of corals helps look at changing levels of stress and how they affect the organism through time. Specifically, this study examined the variety and percentage of hard coral growth forms at Ningaloo Reef between areas with different levels of anthropogenic stress on the marine environment. Based on preliminary observations, the following hypotheses were formed: H1: The diversity of hard coral growth forms is negatively correlated with the presence of Figure 1. Map of Coral Bay, including Paradise Bay and Bill’s Bay, the two research sites on Ningaloo Reef anthropogenic stressors such as in Western Australia (Map.net.au & EarthExplorer). human contact and recreation Study organisms H2: The percent of sand and rock cover is positively correlated with Hard coral is recognized as coral which builds the presence of human contact. a calcium carbonate skeleton and relies on a symbiotic relationship with zooxanthellae. H3: The abundance of hard coral is The hard coral on the tropical Ningaloo Reef negatively correlated with the flat was classified into seven major growth presence of human contact. forms for identification: plate, branching, encrusting, tubular, massive, solitary, and Knowledge from this project can help to columnar as per the coral ID guide (Kelley, better inform policies and management 2016).
25
Barna Volume I Spring 2018
Field research Results All data was collected between 6:30 am and A total of 220 frames were analyzed and the 3:00 pm at mid- to high-tide. Five 50 m benthic composition or coral cover of 6,600 transects were run parallel to the shore. points were identified over the course of the Between April 16th and 20th of 2018, data was study. collected twice at both Bill’s Bay and Paradise Bay. The fifty-meter tape was Overall, the diversity of hard corals at loosely tied around dead coral or rock at one Paradise Bay was less than the diversity at end and the transect was swum out. Pictures Bill’s Bay (Fig. 3). Most corals at Bill’s Bay were taken of an estimated 0.5 m x 0.5 m were plate growth forms (Fig. 4) while most quadrat every 5 m along the transect, growth forms observed at Paradise Bay were including the 0 m mark and totaling 11 branching forms (Fig. 4). Paradise Bay had an photographs each transect. average diversity of 7.30 +/- 2.00 (mean +/- SD) while Bill’s Bay had a mean diversity of Data analysis 8.6 +/- 1.17 (mean +/- SD), though this was not statistically significant (p = 0.07). Growth form diversity and percentage cover were analyzed through the Coral Point Count A substantial difference was observed with Excel extensions (CPCe) software between the combined percent cover of sand (Kohler, 2006). CPCe assigned 30 randomly and rock between the two sites. Paradise Bay generated points to each photograph. Coral was 9.97% +/- 7.18 (mean +/- SD) and Bill’s growth forms under each point were Bay was 29.12% +/- 9.36 (mean +/- SD), and identified and labeled, along with this difference was significant (p = 0.01). invertebrate organisms, sand, rock, and algae (Fig. 2). A greater coverage of hard coral was visually observed at Paradise Bay than Bill’s Bay Statistical analysis was used to determine (Fig. 5). Hard coral covered 75.61% +/- 17.64 significant differences in data. A T-test, (mean +/- SD) of Paradise Bay for all seven assuming unequal variances, was used to growth forms combined. Hard coral covered assess if there was a difference in the diversity 56.91% +/- 8.89 (mean +/- SD) of Bills Bay. between Bill’s Bay and Paradise Bay as well Further statistical analysis showed a as a difference in abundance of sand and rock significance in percent hard coral cover at between sites. Another T-test, assuming both sites (p = 0.005). unequal variances, was used to look at the difference in percent cover of hard coral Discussion between both sites. This study looked at the effect of human contact on the diversity of hard coral growth forms. It was hypothesized that the diversity would be negatively impacted in an area with a higher level of stressors. Results indicate that there is a similar diversity count in both sites. The percent of sand and rock in the benthic cover was examined for assessing sedimentation levels, suggesting that that areas with a larger human presence would Figure 2. CPCe software (Kohler, 2006) with an image hold more sediment. Findings from this study from the benthic environment at Bill’s Bay, transect 1 supported this claim and more sand and rock frame 5. Red crosses with letters represent the points was found at Bill’s Bay. Third, it was to identify. hypothesized that the abundance of hard coral
26
Barna Volume I Spring 2018
Figure 3. Diversity count of hard coral per transect at Paradise Bay (dark blue) and Bill’s Bay (light grey). Across Paradise Bay, the standard deviation for diversity counts was 2.00 and Bill’s was 1.17.
Figure 4. Average percent of each hard coral growth form observed at Paradise Bay (dark blue) and Bill’s Bay (light grey) with standard deviations of 17.64 for Paradise Bay and 8.89 for Bill’s Bay.
27
Barna Volume I Spring 2018
푔 푚−2푑푎푦−1(Huston, 1985). Along the Indian coast, on a reef flat, the number of coral species increased by 450% per 30 푚2 as the sand and coral rubble decreased by 83% (Mergner, 1974). Against other studies however, at both Discovery Bay, Jamaica and Eilat, Israel, coral species diversity show no relation between the amount of cover of sand and debris (Huston, 1985). Figure 5. Average percent abundance of all hard coral At Paradise Bay, an area with a smaller growth forms per transect at Paradise Bay (dark blue) and Bill’s Bay (light grey). human presence than Bill’s Bay, a higher mean percent hard coral cover was found. would be negatively impacted by the Much of this coral was identified as having a existence of human presence. Results branching growth form. This could be due to supported this assertion as there is a branching corals being one of the fastest significant difference of hard coral cover growing hard coral growth forms between the sites and more at Paradise Bay, (Shimokawa, 2014). Known for easy an area separated from the tourist attraction destruction by waves and other physical beach, Bill’s Bay. factors, branching forms can quickly While most findings supported the original regenerate (Hughes, 1989; Shimokawa, hypotheses, the diversity was surprising 2014). Since Paradise Bay contained such a (Mergner, 1974; Huston, 1985). A slightly large presence of hard coral, a fast-growing more diverse population of growth forms was coral growth form would be more abundant found at Bill’s Bay (Paradise 9.97%, Bill’s since there is more opportunity for new corals 29.12%). Mergner 1974 found that areas of to grow. With more people in the water at reef with more sediment have a more reduced Bill’s Bay, branching coral could be easily diversity than areas with less sediment, broken off by recreational boaters, swimmers, including rock and sand. There was no and snorkelers, decreasing the surface area of significant statistical difference in diversity the coral colony. The average amount of hard considering Bill’s Bay had more sand and coral at Bill’s Bay was 56.91 +/- 8.89 (+/- SD) rock cover (Paradise 56.91%, Bill’s 75.61%). and most of the hard coral there classified as The similar diversity could be due to the plate growth form. relative closeness of the sites. Within two Building a structure to hold a camera at a kilometers of one another, coral larvae could fixed distance above each reef structure to easily be scattered to either site before it accurately capture a picture of the quadrat attaches. would improve this study. For each picture, T-test analysis showed a significant the observer had to free dive and estimate difference between the two sites (p < 0.0005). how far away to hold the handheld camera to The large presence of sediment at Bill’s Bay capture a 0.5 m x 0.5 m frame. To advance may be due to the area being heavily this study, additional coral could be observed trafficked by humans as it is a popular tourist at more sites to increase the probability of destination (Ingram, 2008). Sedimentation correctly examining the population of hard and coral species diversity was tested in coral at NMP. studies in Puerto Rico, Jamaica, and Israel. Education on anthropogenic stress and how it Reduced coral cover and diversity was affects the coral reef ecosystem helps present in areas which saw a greater constrict the strain put on these organisms. It concentration of silt, 150 푔 푚−2푑푎푦−1, is important to recognize the different reef compared to areas which received only 30 formations at different sites along the NMP,
28
Barna Volume I Spring 2018 even sites found close together as in this Hughes, T. P. 1989. Community Structure study. In conclusion, human contact can lead and Diversity of Coral Reefs: The Role of to an increase in sedimentation through ruble, History. Ecology, 70 (1), 275–279. such as broken coral pieces, and an increase in sand turbation along with physical damage Huston, M. A. 1985. “Patterns of Species due to human activity, further progressing the Diversity on Coral Reefs.” Annual Review of destruction of hard coral. Regions impacted Ecology and Systematics, 16, 149–177. by human tourism are at a greater risk of Ingram, C. B. 2008. Parks, People and deteriorating faster than more secluded areas. Planning: Local Perceptions of Park Understanding of the dynamics of corals, Management on the Ningaloo Coast, North humans, and sediments will not only help us West Cape, Western Australia. Curtin to understand how to better protect coral University of Technology, espace.curtin.edu. reefs, but will help us grasp the scope of au/handle/20.500.11937/1073. impact coral growth form has on a changing environment. Kelley, R.. 2016. The Australian Coral Reef Society Coral Finder, Indo-Pacific. Acknowledgments BYOGUIDES. I would like to thank CIEE Perth for allowing Kohler, K. E, 2006. Coral Point Count with me the opportunity to move forward with my Excel extensions (CPCe): A Visual Basic career in marine ecology. Special thanks to program for the determination of coral and Alicia Sutton for the numerous hours with substrate coverage using random point count software assistance and for helping me methodology. Computers and Geosciences, organize my thoughts. Thanks to Rebekah 32, (9), 1259-1269, DOI: 10.1016/j.cageo. Hamley, Abby Ditton, and Anna Lindquist 2005.11.009. for assisting with field work and keeping me focused. Mergner, H., Scheer, G. 1974. The physiographic zonation and ecological References conditions of some South Indian and Ceylon Alquezar, R., Boyd, W. 2007. Development coral reefs. Proceedings of the Second of Rapid, Cost Effective Coral Survey International Coral Reef Symposium 2, 3-31. Techniques: Tools for Management and Mora, C. 2008. A Clear Human Footprint in Conservation Planning. Journal of Coastal the Coral Reefs of the Caribbean. Caribbean Conservation, 11 (2) 105–119. Quarterly, 54 (3), 11–25. Burke, L. M., Maidens, J. 2004. Reefs at risk Nyström, M., Folke, C., Moberg F. 2000. in the Caribbean. World Resources Institute Coral Reef Disturbance and Resilience in a Washington, DC. 80p. Human-Dominated Environment. Trends in Cassata, L., Collins, L.B. 2008. Coral Reef Ecology & Evolution, 15 (10), 413-417. Communities, Habitats, and Substrates in and “Outline Map of Australia.” Map.net.au, near Sanctuary Zones of Ningaloo Marine www.map.net.au/outline-map. Park. Journal of Costal Research, 24 (1) 139– 151. Shimokawa, S., Murakami, T., Ukai, A., Kohno, H., Mizutani, A., Nakase, K. 2014. EarthExplorer courtesy of the U.S. Relationship between Coral Distributions and Geological Survey Physical Variables in Amitori Bay, Iriomote Freund, J. 2017. “Coral Reefs: Threats.” Island, Japan. Journal of Geophysical WWF, Research: Oceans, 119 (12), 8336–8356. wwf.panda.org/our_work/oceans/coasts/cora Shivlani, M. 2007. A Literature Review of l_reefs/coral_threats/. Sources and Effects of Non-Extractive
29
Barna Volume I Spring 2018
Stressors to Coral Reef Ecosystems. Reef Resilience, Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative, www.reefresilience.org/pdf/Shivlani /2007 van Zanten, B. T., van Beukering, P.J.H., Wagtendonk, A.J. 2014. Coastal Protection by Coral Reefs: A Framework for Spatial Assessment and Economic Valuation. Ocean & Coastal Management, 96, 94–103.
30
31