Journal of Threatened
Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 December 2022 | 14(12): 22270–22276
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893
(Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7553.14.12.22270-22276
#7553 | Received 02 July 2021 | Final
received 20 October 2022 | Finally accepted 10 November 2022
Photographic evidence of fish
assemblage in artificial reef site of Palk Bay - an implication for marine
resource management
Koushik Sadhukhan
1, T. Shanmugaraj 2, Ramesh Chatragadda 3 &
M.V. Ramana Murthy 4
1–3 National Centre for Coastal
Research (NCCR), Ministry of Earth Sciences (MoES),
Mandapam Field Research Centre, Mandapam Camp, Ramnathapuram,
Tamil Nadu 623519, India.
4 National Centre for Coastal
Research (NCCR), Ministry of Earth Sciences (MoES), Pallikaranai, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600100, India.
1 sadhukhan.1985@gmail.com
(corresponding author), 2 raj@nccr.gov.in, 3 chrameshpu@gmail.com,
4 mvr@nccr.gov.in
Editor: R. Ravinesh, Gujarat Institute of Desert Ecology, Kachchh,
India. Date of
publication: 26 December 2022 (online & print)
Citation: Sadhukhan,
K., T. Shanmugaraj, R. Chatragadda
& M.V.R. Murthy (2022). Photographic evidence of fish
assemblage in artificial reef site of Palk Bay - an implication for marine
resource management. Journal of Threatened Taxa 14(12): 22270–22276. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7553.14.12.22270-22276
Copyright: © Sadhukhan
et al. 2022. Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and
distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to the
author(s) and the source of publication.
Funding: The project is funded
by Ministry of Earth
Sciences, Government of India under
“Coastal Research scheme” implemented by National Centre for Coastal Research (NCCR),
Chennai.
Competing interests: The authors
declare no competing interests.
Author details: Dr Koushik
Sadhukhan has been working in NCCR since
2018. He has experienced with
eight years of R & D work on coral reef monitoring and coral restoration
programme in India.
His research interest lies in the area of
marine biology, taxonomy and ecology. Dr.
Ramesh Chatragadda has been working on different aspects of coral reefs, such
as coral diseases, coral restoration, coral reef monitoring, and reef diversity. His research is aimed
at molecular taxonomy of
reef communities and microbial ecology of coral communities for drug discovery and reef conservation. Dr T. Shunmugaraj
is the senior scientist of
NCCR (Scientist-G) and he
has excellent research experience of 27 years in the field of marine biology and mariculture.
His research is focused on marine biodiversity
assessment in Indian Ocean. He has also worked on stock enhancement and sea ranching
programme of cultivable
marine species in India. Dr M.V. Ramana Murthy serves as Scientist
G and director of NCCR who
has been engaged in R & D work
for 30 years in the field of offshore and coastal hydrodynamics, coastal conservation and Information service programme
in India.
Author contributions:
KS conceived
and designed the study, conducted
the fieldwork and statistical analysis of the data,
and prepared the manuscript. TS designed the study, assist in the field study, corrected the draft manuscript.
RC helped in statistical
analysis, edited the
manuscript. MVRM coordinated the
study and gave technical advice.
Acknowledgements: Authors thank Secretary, MoES, New Delhi for constant encouragement and support to
carry out the work. Authors also express sincere thanks to the field assistants
for the field support.
Abstract: In 2021, a reef restoration programme was introduced to the selected sites of Palk Bay
to improve coral nurseries and assist with the establishment of artificial
reefs by implementing local coral transplantation. To monitor the growth and
survival of transplanted corals, numerous fish assemblages have been observed
in restoration sites which are positive sign of reef recovery and also enrich
marine resources in Palk Bay. Photographic evidence of the fish assemblages
were collected during surveys and detailed observations have been discussed in
the present paper.
Keywords: Coral restoration, enrich marine
resources, fish resources, survivability, transplanted corals.
INTRODUCTION
Coral reefs provide several
ecosystem services such as fisheries, tourism and protection to the coastal
habitats of tropical and subtropical countries (Yap 2012). Despite of their
global importance, the ecological, economic and social integrity of this
ecosystem is degrading at an alarming rate due to several natural and
anthropogenic disturbances (Barbier 2017; Cox et al.
2017; Woodhead et al. 2019). Therefore, we need to prioritize the conservation
of coral reef habitats and the protection of marine fisheries from natural and
anthropogenic threats (Simon et al. 2011; Burta et
al. 2013). In recent times, coral restoration is emerging as a potential
management strategy to protect the degraded reefs along with its associated
biota (Edwards & Gomez 2007; Lirman & Schopmeyer 2016). Therefore, the presence of submerged
artificial reef structures in the marine ecosystems have proven to play a key
role in providing suitable habitat for the enrichment of fish diversity, while
serving as a breeding and nursery ground for many fish assemblages (Campbell et
al. 2011; Rybicki & Hanski
2013). Reef fishes specifically rely on living corals and the structural
complexity provided by the reef environment (Coker et al. 2014). Few
experimental studies have documented that fish numbers and diversity are
greater in restored coral reefs rather than control or natural environments
within a week of the transplantation either on single substrate or multiple
substrate which demonstrate the fast rate of fish recolonization (Clynick et al. 2008; Burta et al.
2013; Opel et al. 2017). Reef associated
fishes are also important in benthic cover dynamics as they help in the growth
and survival of corals by feeding on unwanted macroalgae that grow on live
corals (Hughes et al. 2007; Seraphim et al. 2020).
In India, successful coral
restoration stories are rare, few completed studies on coral restoration can be
found in Gulf of Kutch and the Lakshadweep archipelago (Babu
& Sureshkumar 2016; Kumar et al. 2017). Previous
studies have used artificial frames and slabs used to transplant corals and
make artificial reef structures enabling the restoration of the reef ecosystem
(Maragos 1974; Quinn & Kojis 2006; Ferse et al. 2021).
Hence, to protect and improve the health and cover of the tropical coral
reef and to restore the structure and function of reef ecosystem, a research
team from the National Centre for Coastal Research (NCCR) implemented coral
reef restoration and submerged artificial reef formation concept in Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay regions of southeastern coast of India.
The present study highlights the growth and survival of transplanted corals and
provides a preliminary report on the fish assemblages in the region which
grouped into seven families.
Materials
and Methods
In February 2021, a reef
restoration programme was initiated by the NCCR
research team in two selected sites of Palk bay (Site1: Munaikadu,
9.28930N, 79.13250E; Site2: Thonithurai,
9.28470N, 79.17450E). The waters of Palk Bay joins the
Bay of Bengal from the northeast and joins the Gulf of Mannar
in the south. The Palk Strait is just 35 km long and is narrower than the
English Channel (Azeez et al. 2016). It separates the northern coast of Sri
Lanka and southeastern coast of India. It is well known for its rich seagrass
ecosystem and its associated biota, it is also an important habitat for
endangered marine mammals like Dugongs (Azeez et al. 2016). However, coral
reefs in this region are under developed. More than 344 animals from different
taxa have been reported by various studies, 186 species of birds, 16 species of
mangroves, and nine seagrass species (Bhatt et al. 2012). A traditional method
of coral transplantation technique (Ramesh et al. 2020) was used to build the
submerged artificial reefs. Iron frames and cement slabs were deployed
underwater at a depth of 2.5 m and the deployment was done at a distance of 40
m away from the Low Tide Line (LTL) of seashore in Palk Bay. Frames were
installed near to the seagrass bed and few outgrowths of Padina
gymnospora were observed. The iron frames and
cement slabs of the artificial reefs were designed in such a way to reduce
sediment deposition on the coral fragments and break the high waves near the
sea shore, thus restricting beach erosion (Figure 1). Iron frames are placed in
45° angle with respect to the land and coral fragments (5.00–6.00 cm in size)
are tied to the cement slabs with plastic tags and placed on the iron frames.
Each frame contains 40 slabs with coral fragments. A total of 6 frames and 240
coral fragments were initially installed underwater at a depth of 2.5 m on 05
February 2021. The location of the restoration site was marked with handheld
GPS etrex30 device. Sampling and monitoring was done every month to assess the
growth and survival of coral fragments used in coral restoration. During
regular monitoring and underwater marine biodiversity surveys in Palk Bay on 09
June 2021, excellent fish assemblages were documented and photographed, by
using the NIKON underwater W300 camera. Furthermore, samples were collected and
described. Most of fish identification was done up to the family level whereas
three fishes were identified up to the species level (Allen & Steene 1998).
Results
The present study analyzed the
growth and survival rate of restored corals. A total of 240 scleractinian
coral fragments were used for making the artificial reef structure. Acropora
sp. and Montipora sp. were installed on
the cement slabs. During installation in February 2021, the initial size of the
coral fragments ranged from 6.00±0.05 cm (Figure 2). After five months of coral
transplantation, the Acropora corals attained the size of 10.19±0.53 cm
in site 1 (Munaikadu) and 9.48±0.61 cm in site 2 (Thonithurai), whereas Montipora
corals attained a size of 8.52±0.30 cm in Munaikadu
and 8.10±0.58 cm in Thonithurai (Figure 2). The
average monthly growth rate of Acropora sp. (0.94 cm/month) was higher
than Montipora sp. (0.56 cm/month) in a
combined assessment of both sites (Figure 2). The survival rate of Acropora
sp. was (65.0%) higher than Montipora sp.
(50%) (Figure.3). Based on field observations, it was found that regular
bleaching during the month of April and May causes high mortality to the Montipora fragments. In the present study, a total
of 173 individuals of seven families of fishes have been found on the
restoration site. School of fishes was
also recorded during the survey that was conducted on 9 June 2021. Within five
months of restoration in Palk Bay, observations revealed a high abundance of Scaridae (Parrot fish), Terapontidae
(Grunter fish), Acanthuridae (Surgeonfish), Siganidae
(Rabbitfish), Pempheridae (Sweepers), Pomacentridae (Damselfish), Lethrinidae
(Sea bream) near the restoration site (Image1). Three fish species, named as Terapon jarbua
(Grunter fish), Pomacentrus trilineatus
(Three line Damsel fish), and Siganus javus (Rabbit fish) were found more frequently near the
artificial substrate used for coral transplantation(Image 1). Similar
observations were made as large assemblages of T. jarbua
fish were documented on the artificial substrates after three months of
deployment (Balaji et al. 2019). Among these three fish species, S. javus is commercially important fish species found to
be abundant near to the coral transplantation area, whereas T. jarbua is used as fish bait by small scale fishers.
Seasonal variation in the fish abundance was not studied.
The Palk Bay contains diversified
and productive ecosystems such as estuaries, salt marshes, coral beds, seagrass
beds and mangroves that are sensitive to human activities (Azeez et al. 2016).
However, over the past few decades, this region is highly disturbed by
anthropogenic activities such as fishing and aquaculture (Sathiadhas
et al. 2014). Over-exploitation and destructive fishing activities are one of
the major threats to the coral reefs in India leading to the patchy nature of
coral cover. Hence a significant fish assemblage has been found on the coral
restoration site as compared to the natural reef site (authors’ personal
observation). The growth and survivability of transplanted corals (0.94
cm/month for Acropora sp. and 0.56 cm/month for Montipora
sp.) shows a promising sign for a healthy artificial reef structure similar to
the earlier studies of corals transplanted in other parts of the world (>
0.39–0.68 cm) (Xin et al. 2016). Habitat plays a critical role in regulating
fish community structure (Zhenhua 2015). The
observations made by present study revealed that the frames used to set up the
artificial reef can act as a substrate for organisms and can additionally
create suitable habitats for the fish to take shelter and forage organisms
attached to the frame (Image 1). Fish and invertebrates use both natural and
artificial structures for shelter, feeding, spawning, energy economy and
orientation (Osenberg et al. 2002; Ropicki et al. 2006). The larvae of small invertebrates,
zooplankton and phytoplankton aggregate in the reef which provides sufficient
food and nutrition to fishes. Present study observed the accumulation of many
fishes to the artificial structure used for coral restoration. In India, Kasim
et al. (2013) studied the income of fishery from artificial reef and
non-artificial reef sites by gillnet and hook during 2007–08 from 11 fishing villages
in six coastal districts of Tamil Nadu. As per the studies, the artificial reef
site offered economic benefit from fisheries (net income INR 1,242 by gill net
& INR 4,650 by hook & line) which was higher by INR 1,705.9 per net
unit compared to natural site (INR 449 by gill net & INR 1,919 by hook
& line) (Kasim et al. 2013). Therefore, development of artificial reef in a
degraded site or selected no reef zone site could improve the abundance of
marine bio-resources and provide income generation to the local communities in
Palk Bay. Recently, establishment of
artificial reef concept was also carried out in Sethubhavachattiram,
a fish landing center in northern Palk Bay, India which revealed that
artificial reefs provide better sheltering ground for fishes (Balaji et al.
2019). However, in the present study, the NCCR team is developing an artificial
reef aimed to increase the reef building coral cover in Palk Bay and as well as
provide artificial structure to improve the marine resources available especially
fishes, molluscs, and echinoderms. Therefore, the
present study aims to develop a coral nursery garden and provide the marine
habitat for fishery resources. It also provides a hope for successful coral restoration practice to be done
in Palk Bay for the first time. Regular monitoring of coral growth,
survivability and seasonal fish abundance near the restoration site is under
the progress and detail report on the current investigation will be delivered
in future.
For figures &
images - - click here for full PDF
References
Ropicki A., C. Adams, B. Lindberg &
J. Stevely (2006). The economic benefits associated
with Florida’s artificial reefs. ADIS D.C FE 649. Food and Resource Economics
Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/.
Allen G.R.
& R. Steene (1998). Indo-Pacific Coral reef Field
Guide. Tropical reef research, Singapore, 378 pp.
Azeez P.A.,
G. Quadros, M. Mahendiran,
S. Manchi, A.M. Mane, K.A. Nishadh,
V.J. Jins & M.P. Swathi (2016). The Ecological Baseline Study of
the Palk Bay. CMPA Technical Series No. 06. Indo-German Biodiversity Programme, GIZ India, New Delhi.
Babu, K.K.I. & S. Sureshkumar (2016). Survival and Growth of
Transplanted Coral Fragments in Lagoons of Lakshadweep with notes on Fish
Aggregation. International Journal of Applied and Pure Science and
Agriculture 2(5): 19–26.
Balaji, V.V.,
Sekar & M.M. Selvam (2019). Fish assemblages associated with
natural and artificial habitats in Palk Bay, southeast coast of India:
Comparison using Baited Remote Underwater Video, Journal of Marine
Biological Association of India 61(1): 54─60.
Barbier, E.B. (2017). Marine ecosystem services. Current
Biology 27(11): R507–R510.
Burta, J.A., D.A. Feary,
G. Cavalcante, A.G. Baumand & P. Usseglio (2013). Urban breakwaters as reef fish
habitat in the Persian Gulf. Marine Pollution Bulletin 72:
342–350.
Campbell,
M.D., K. Rose, K. Boswell & J. Cowan (2011). Individual-based modeling of an
artificial reef fish community: Effects of habitat quantity and degree of
refuge. Ecological Modelling 222: 3895–3909.
Clynick, B.G., M.G. Chapman & A.J.
Underwood (2008). Fish assemblages associated with urban structures and natural reefs in
Sydney, Australia. Austral Ecology 33: 140–150.
Coker, D.J.,
S.K. Wilson & M.S. Pratchett (2014). Importance of live coral habitat
for reef fishes. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 24(1): 89–126.
Cox, C.E., A.
Valdivia, M. McField, K. Castillo & J.F. Bruno
(2017).
Establishment of marine protected areas alone does not restore coral reef
communities in Belize. Marine Ecology Progress Series 563: 65–79.
Edwards, A.J.
& E.D. Gomez (2007). Reef restoration concepts and guidelines: making sensible management
choices in the face of uncertainty. Coral reef targeted research &capacity
building for management program, St Lucia, Australia. Available at:
http://www.reefbase.org/download/download.aspx?type=10&docid=A0000003675_1
Ferse, S.C.A., M.Y. Hein & L. Rölfer (2021). A survey of current trends and suggested future
directions in coral transplantation for reef restoration. PLoS
ONE 16(5): e0249966. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249966.
Hughes, T.P.,
M.J. Rodrigues, D.R. Bellwood. D. Ceccarelli, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, L. McCook, N. Moltschaniwskyj,
M.S. Pratchett, R.S. Steneck
& B. Willis (2007). Phase shifts, herbivory, and the resilience of coral reefs to climate
change. Current Biology 17: 360–365.
Kasim, H.M.,
G.S. Rao, M. Rajagopalan, E. Vivekanandan, G. Mohanraj, D. Kandasami, P. Muthiah, I. Jagadis, G. Gopakumar & S. Mohan (2013). Economic performance of
artificial reefs deployed along Tamil Nadu coast, South India. Indian
Journal of Fisheries 60(1): 1–8.
Lirman, D. & S. Schopmeyer
(2016). Ecological
solutions to reef degradation: optimizing coral reef restoration in the
Caribbean and Western Atlantic. PeerJ 4:
e2597. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2597
Maragos, J.E.
(1974). Coral transplantation:
a method to create, preserve and manage coral reefs. Sea Grant advisory report
UINHISEAGRANT-AR-74-03, CORMAR- 14, 30 pp. nsgl.gso.uri.edu/hawau/hawaut74005.pdf
Opel, A.H.,
C.M. Cavanaugh, R.D. Rotjan & J.P. Nelson (2017). The effect of coral restoration
on Caribbean reef fish communities. Marine Biology 164: 221.
Osenberg, C.W., C.M. Mary, J.A. Wilson
& W.J. Lindberg (2002). A quantitative framework to evaluate the attraction-production
controversy. ICES Journal of Marine Sciences 59: 214–221.
Quinn, N.J. & B.L. Kojis (2006). Evaluating the Potential of Natural Reproduction and
Artificial Techniques to Increase Acropora cervicornis
Populations at Discovery Bay, Jamaica. Revista
de Biología Tropical 54(3): 105–116.
Rybicki, J. & I. Hanski
(2013). Species-area
relationships and extinctions caused by habitat loss and fragmentation. Ecology
Letters 16: 27–38.
Sathiadhas, R., P.K. Katiha,
S.S. Shyam & R. Narayanakumar
(2014). Indian
Fisheries: The Setting, pp. 3–16. In: Livelihood Status of Fishers in India.
Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi.
Seraphim
M.J., K.A. Sloman, M.E. Alexander, N. Janetski, J. Jompa, R. Ambo-Rappe, D. Snellgrove, F. Mars
& A.R. Harborne (2020). Interactions between coral restoration and fish assemblages: implications
for reef management. Journal of Fish Biology 97(3): 633–655.
Simon, T.,
H.T. Pinheiro & J.C. Joyeux (2011). Target fishes on artificial
reefs: Evidences of impacts over nearby natural environments. Science of the
Total Environment 409: 4579–4584.
Woodhead,
A.J., C.C. Hicks, A.V. Norström, G.J. Williams &
N.A. Graham (2019). Coral reef ecosystem services in the Anthropocene. Functional Ecology
33(6): 1023–1034.
Xin, L.H., A.
Adziska, J. Hyde & Z.C. Cob (2016). Growth performance of Acropora
formosa in natural reefs and coral nurseries for
reef restoration. AACL Bioflux 9: 1090–1100.
Yap, H.T
(2012). Coral Reef
Ecosystems. In: Meyers, R.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of
Sustainability Science and Technology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0851-3_728
Kumar J.S.Y., C.H. Sathyanarayan, K. Venkataraman & K. Chandra (2017). Studies on survival and growth
rate of transplanted Acroporidae in
Gulf of Kachchh Marine National Park, India. Journal of Coastal conservation
21: 23–34.