Status of Coral Reefs in and Around Komodo National Park: 2009

Coral Reefs in and around Komodo National Park: Status Report 2010
Coral Reefs in and

around Komodo
National Park:
Status Report 2009.
PT. PUTRI NAGA KOM DO

KomodoNationalPark
2
C o r a l R e e f s i n a n d a r o u n d K o m o d o N a t i o n a l Pa r k
Status Report 2009
Harvey A & Yusamandra H

M a rch 2 0 1 0
Komodo National Park Coral Reef Status Series: 2009

KomodoNationalPark
The Nature Conservancy
The mission of The Nature Conservancy is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that
represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. The Conservancy
launched the Global Marine Initiative in 2002 to protect and restore the most resilient examples of ocean
and coastal ecosystems in ways that benefit marine life, local communities and economies. The Conservancy
operates over 100 marine conservation projects in more than 21 countries and 22 US states; they work with
partners across seascapes and landscapes through transformative strategies and integrated planning and
action. The focus is on: (1) Setting priorities for marine conservation using ecoregional assessments and
tools for ecosystem based management; (2) Ensuring coral reef survival by creating resilient networks of
marine protected areas; (3) Restoring and conserving coastal habitats by utilizing innovative new methods;
(4) Building support for marine conservation through strategic partnerships and working to shape global
and national policies. Marine conservation in The Nature Conservancy builds upon the organizations core
strengths: achieving demonstrable results; working with a wide range of partners, including non-traditional
partners; science-based, robust conservation planning methodologies; our experience with transactions; and,
perhaps most importantly, our ability and commitment to back up our strategies with human, financial and
political capital. For more information e-mail marine@tnc.org or go to www.nature.org/marine.
PT Putri Naga Komodo
PT Putri Naga Komodo is a non-for-profit tourism destination management company and holds the sole
tourism concession license to operate within Komodo National Park. Putri Naga Komodos mission is to
achieve financial sustainability for park management through the development of tourism, and to support
biodiversity conservation and compatible community development initiatives lead by the Komodo National
Park Authority. The company is a joint partnership majority owned by The Nature Conservancy, who provide
technical expertise and support to science-based management initiatives.
4
Published by: The Nature Conservancy and PT Putri Naga Komodo
Copyright: 2010 The Nature Conservancy/ PT Putri Naga Komodo
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is

authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holders provided the source
is fully acknowledged.
Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited

without prior written permission of the copyright holders.
Citation: Harvey A & Yusamandra H (2010), Coral Reefs in and around Komodo National Park: Status
Report 2009. The Nature Conservancy & PT Putri Naga Komodo, Bali, Indonesia.
Illustrations: Donald Bason
Available from:
The Nature Conservancy, Jl. Pengembak No. 2, Sanur, Bali 80228, Indonesia.
PT Putri Naga Komodo, Gang Mesjid, Labuan Bajo, Manggarai Barat, NTT, Indonesia. www.
gokomodo.org
Komodo National Park
6
Sumary for Decision Makers
KNPs coral reefs provide goods and services that support

local livelihoods, economies and food security. Coral
reefs are worth an estimated US$ 129,000 per hectare
per year (TEEB 2009). Coral reef monitoring assists park
managers to identify threats and trends, and to sustain
these local, national and global benefits.
Between 1996 and 2002 reef health increased both
inside and outside KNP, but declined from 2003 to 2006
due to natural factors. Reefs outside KNP subsequently
recovered at a rate of 1.40% per year. Reefs inside KNP
showed no evidence of recovery.
No evidence of recent bomb damage to reefs was
detected in 2009, and surveillance, enforcement and
education efforts should be maintained. No evidence of
bleaching, Crown-of-Thons Starfish, or anchor damage
were detected, although these threats are localized in
space and time.
Live hard coral cover is an indicator of reef health. Highest
coral cover was recorded in West Komodo, and lowest
in east Komodo. Low coral cover and high rubble were
recorded in North KNP..
Regions of low coral cover, fish biomass and reef
recovery coincided with regions of high resource use
intensity. Application of the precautionary principle is
advisable, pending further assessment of cause-and-
effect relationships. Coral cover and fish biomass within
no-take areas may be inhibited as a result of limited
implementation of KNPs zonation system and high
levels of fishing activity within no-take areas.
!"#$%&' (%&"' )*#+",-+./%' Nutrient enrichment

0+*$1"2+' detected
3"+2'4%/+*' within Loh Lawi
5*"+.6'4%/+*' !788*"'may
result in ecological phase shifts. Enrichment may be
!"#"$"%&'()% *+)(,$'%-./% 0122% 0133% 0144% 0100% 34156%
a result of sewage, organic rubbish or animal waste
%% 789$,),":9;%<('% 3100% 0156% 0133% 0100% 301=>%
discharge from Komodo Village. Development of waste
%% &,;$'8:'((% 4136% 3100% 0100% 0100%
management objectives within outreach and education 33100%
!"#"$"%?9()% 789$,),":9;%<('% 41=@% programs,
0100%and environmental
0100% monitoring
0100% of Low Lawi,
301@@%
%% &,;$'8:'((% 0100%
would 0100%
assist park managers
0100%
to minimize
0100%
related adverse
A1A0%
fishery or tourism impacts.
B,:C9%&'()% &,;$'8:'((% 0133% 0105% 0133% 0100% 351=@%
B,:C9%?9()% *+)(,$'%-./% 0105% 0100% 0100% 0100% =1@>%
%% 789$,),":9;%<('% 0153% 0100% 0105% 0100% 40100%
%% &,;$'8:'((% 0133% 0100% 0100% 0100% 431@@%
D"8)E%!D.% *+)(,$'%-./% 0164% 0100% 01A0% 0100% 3A133%
%% 789$,),":9;%<('% 0102% 0100% 0102% 0100% @615A%
%% &,;$'8:'((% 0100% 0105% 0105% 0100% @01=>%
KomodoNationalPark
Biological diversity enhances climate change resilience.

High coral diversity exists throughout KNP, and consists
of several geographic community types. This report
establishes a baseline for herbivorous fish biomass,
against which reef resilience, phase shifts, and future
trends can be assessed. Herbivorous fish management
in Loh Lawi through small no-take areas could assist park
managers to address phase-shift risks.
Destructive fishing (e.g. bomb fishing) is greatly reduced

in KNP, and current management efforts should continue.
Low reef health coincides with high resource use, and a
review of management objectives, gaps and needs (esp.
zonation system) would assist park managers to apply
precautionary principles and safeguard KNPs global,
national and local benefits.
8
Abbreviations
BTNK Balai Taman Nasional Komodo (Komodo National Park Authority)

FRS Floating Ranger Station
GIS Geographic Information System
GPS Global Positioning System
IFC International Finance Corporation
KNP Komodo National Park
LHCC Live Hard Coral Cover
LIPI Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia (The Indonesian Institute of Sciences)
MDS Multi-Dimensional Scaling
PHKA Perlindungan Hutan dan Konservasi Alam, Departemen Kehutana (Forest Protection and Nature
Conservation, Ministry of Forestry)
PNK PT Putri Naga Komodo
RHM Reef Health Monitoring
RUM Resource Use Monitoring
Acknowledgements
This biennial status report is based on data collected by PNK during 2009. It incorporates analysis of long-
term trends, using data collected by BTNK, TNC and PNK between 1996 and 2009.
Between 2005 and 2009 fieldwork was supported by grants from the IFC and TNC. Before 2005, TNC and
their donors financed fieldwork.
The authors are grateful for the efforts of all BTNK, PNK and TNC staff that have contributed to collecting
the information presented in this report.
The authors acknowledge the critical role of current and past directors of Komodo National Park for
recognising the importance of Reef Health Monitoring, supporting the programme, and their commitment
to securing KNPs success as a biodiversity refuge, traditional use area and tourism destination.
The authors are thankful to the District Government of West Manggarai, local communities and other
stakeholders who have supported the reef health monitoring program, recognised its value, and
incorporated results into local sustainable development strategies.
10
Executive Summary
Komodo National Park (KNP), Indonesia incorporates both terrestrial and marine habitats of the Lesser
Sunda ecoregion of the Coral Triangle, and is designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site and Man and
Biosphere Reserve. KNPs marine ecosystems provide goods and services at the global, national and local
level. The maintenance of healthy marine ecosystems is critical for sustainable development within the West
Manggarai region, strengthening local livelihoods, tourism and fishery economies, and food security.
This report presents the 2009 phase of coral reef health monitoring in Komodo National Park. Between 5th
and 23rd October 2009, 35 sites were sampled inside and outside KNP using survey techniques conforming
to internationals standards to assess benthic community structure, coral diversity, fish biomass and fish
diversity.
No evidence of recent bomb fishing was detected, suggesting that surveillance, enforcement and outreach
programs within KNP have successfully diminished the threat of bomb fishing to KNPs marine habitats. No
evidence of Crown-of-Thorns damage, anchor damage or bleaching was detected. However these impacts
may be localised in time and space, and management response plans should be developed..
Between 1996 and 2002 the health of coral reefs both inside and outside KNP increased. Following a
Crown-of-Thorns impact in 2003, coral reefs outside KNP recovered at a rate of 1.40% per year. However
reefs inside KNP showed no signs of recovery.
The healthiest reefs (highest live hard coral cover (LHCC) and fish biomass) were recorded in West Komodo.
The least healthy reefs were recorded in East Komodo and North KNP, and correspond to areas of high
resource use pressure. Pending further study to identify cause-and-effect relationships between resource
use and reef health, a precautionary approach is advised. Review of management objectives, gaps and needs
would assist park managers to mitigate resource use pressures on reef health, especially via strengthened
implementation of KNPs zonation system.
Indications of eutrophication risk were detected in Loh Lawi, East Komodo, possibly arising from sewage,
animal or organic waste discharge from Komodo village. Further monitoring of this area is advised to detect
trends. Strengthening of waste management objectives in outreach and education programs would assist
park managers to minimise eutrophication risks.
A baseline for fish abundance and biomass has been established, against which future assessments of
ecosystem change can be assessed. Diverse functional groups of fish increase resilience to climate change
and phase shift impacts. Management of herbivorous fish through small-scale, strictly enforced no-take
areas near Loh Lawi may assist park managers to mitigate eutrophication impacts and enhance stakeholder
engagement.
KNPs marine ecosystems provide valuable natural assets that support local economies, livelihoods and
food security. Precautionary management approaches are advisable. Review of management objectives,
gaps and needs would assist park managers to build on existing success stories (e.g. reduction in bomb
fishing) and adapt management approaches to address current threats (e.g. close correlation between
resource use patterns and reef status). Priority areas include East Komodo and North KNP, and seven hot
spots of high tourism and fishing activity.
KomodoNationalPark
12
Contents
1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 15
1.1 Komodo National Park.......................................................................................... 16
1.1.1 Physical Features and Biodiversity.............................................................. 16
1.1.2 Ecosystem Services and Benefits................................................................. 17
1.1.3 Governance................................................................................................... 18
1.1.4 Marine Threats and Impacts......................................................................... 18
1.2 Coral Reef Management and Monitoring.............................................................. 20
2 Methodology..................................................................................................... 21
2.1 Site selection.......................................................................................................... 22
2.2 Survey schedule..................................................................................................... 22
1.1 Survey Team........................................................................................................... 22
2.3 Transect deployment.............................................................................................. 23
2.4 Fish Stock Assessments......................................................................................... 23
2.5 Benthic Assessments............................................................................................. 23
3 Results.............................................................................................................. 25
3.1 Benthic cover......................................................................................................... 26
3.1.1 Long-Term Temporal Trends........................................................................ 26
3.1.2 Reef Community Structure........................................................................... 26
3.1.3 Indicators of reef health and resilience: hard coral cover and diversity....... 28
3.1.4 Indicators of reef degradation: eutrophication and other impacts................ 29
3.2 Fish diversity and biomass..................................................................................... 29
3.2.1 Indicators of Management Effectiveness: Fish biomass.............................. 29
3.2.2 Indicators of reef resilience: fish diversity and functional groups................ 30
4 Discussion......................................................................................................... 31
4.1 Long-Term Trends in Reef Status.......................................................................... 32
4.2 Success Stories and Diminished Threats to Reef Status........................................ 32
4.3 Current Threats to Reef Status............................................................................... 33
4.4 Management Effectiveness.................................................................................... 33
4.5 Resilience to Climate Change and Other Threats.................................................. 34
4.6 Priority Considerations for Adaptive Management............................................... 35
4.7 Limitations and Future Monitoring........................................................................ 35
5 Conclusions........................................................................................................ 37
6 Recommendations............................................................................................... 39
6.1 Management........................................................................................................... 40
6.2 Monitoring............................................................................................................. 40
Appendix A: Site map & coordinates.......................................................................... 47
Appendix B: Survey Equipment.................................................................................. 53
Appendix C: Survey Proforma.................................................................................... 55
Appendix D: Indicator Fish....................................................................................... 57
Appendix E: Statistical Tests..................................................................................... 61
Appendix F: Raw Data.............................................................................................. 69
KomodoNationalPark
14
1
Introduction
Komodo National Park (KNP) contains extensive coral long-term effective management of KNP through
reef habitats that support high marine biodiversity a collaborative management approach. A key
and provide ecosystem services essential for human performance indicator for coral reef management
well-being and economic development. KNPs coral was defined no significant reduction in live hard
reefs and associated ecosystems face growing coral cover (LHCC) due to local human impacts (IFC
pressure from natural and anthropogenic threats, 2004).
including climate change, tourism, and unregulated
resource use. This report describes the 2009 status of coral
reefs in KNP, and examines long-term trends and
In 1996 the Government of Indonesia invited The implications for management.
Nature Conservancy (TNC) to assist the Komodo
National Park Authority (BTNK) to strengthen
marine and terrestrial management strategies in
KNP. A long-term management plan for KNP was 1.1 Komodo National Park
developed with specific objectives to sustain coral 1.1.1 Physical Features and
reef ecosystem goods and services (PHKA & TNC Biodiversity
2000), including: Komodo National Park (119 30 E, 8 35 S) is located
in the Lesser Sunda islands of Indonesia, East Nusa
Establish a terrestrial and marine reserve in KNP
Tenggara province. Lying in the Sape straits between
that fully protects the natural communities, Flores and Sumbawa, it comprises the three islands
species, and the terrestrial, coastal and marine of Komodo, Rinca and Padar, smaller surrounding
ecosystems. islands, the straits between the main islands and all
waters within 1000 m of shore (Figure 1 ). Komodo
Use the Parks resources in a sustainable way, for National Park (KNP) encompasses both marine and
terrestrial environments, including habitats of the
tourism, education, tourism, and research. vulnerable Komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis)
and 132,000 ha of the worlds richest marine
Protect the stocks of exploited reef fish and environments, including coral reefs, mangroves,
invertebrates in the reserve, thereby creating a seagrass meadows, seamounts and bays.
source of recruits to enhance fisheries on fishing KNPs marine ecosystems support high biodiversity,
grounds in and around the Park. including over 1,000 species of fish, 385 species
of reef building corals (Beger & Turak 2005), 70
In 2005 the Komodo project was extended species of sponge (PHKA & TNC 2000) and 9 species
with investment from the Global Environment of seagrass (Pedju 2004). Large charismatic fauna,
Facility (GEF) through the International Finance including 10 species of dolphin, 7 species of whale
Corporation (IFC), with the aim of ensuring the (Kahn 2000) and two species of sea turtle, contribute
Figure 1: Location of Komodo National Park, Indonesia within the Lesser Sunda and Coral Triangle marine eco-region.
16
to KNPs appeal as a tourism destination. Threatened Box 1 - MPA benefits

or endangered species (IUCN 2009) have been
recorded within KNPs waters, including dugongs MPAs provide a range of global, national and local benefits (Kelle-
her 1999), including:
(Dugong dugon), manta rays (Manta birostris),
Conservation of biodiversity, especially critical habitats of
whitetip reef shark (Triaenodon obesus), blacktip reef threatened species;
shark (Carcharhinus melanopterus), Baramundi cod
Protection of attractive habitats and species on which sustain-
(Cromileptes altivelis), Napoleon wrasse (Cheilinus able tourism can be based;
undulates), hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata),
Increased productivity of fisheries by:
green turtle (Chelonia mydas), and giant clam
insurance against stock collapse;
(Tridacna gigas) (Erdman 2004).
buffer against recruitment failure;
1.1.2 Ecosystem Services and increase in densities and average sizes of individuals;
Benefits
increase in reproductive output;
KNP maintains ecosystem goods and services
(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005) that provision of centres for dispersal of propagules and adults
(spillover);
provide benefits at the local, national and global level
containing more natural species composition, age struc-
(Box 1). High economic values have been attributed ture, spawning potential and genetic variability;
to the types of coastal ecosystems contained within
Contribute to increased knowledge of marine science through:
KNP due to the services they provide: mangrove
systems are worth an estimated US$ 4,290 annually information on functional linkages,
per hectare, seagrasses and lagoons provide implementation of the precautionary principle,
benefits of around US$ 73,900 per year per hectare, provision of control sites for research and ecological
while coral reefs are among the most economically benchmarks against which to measure human-induced
change;
valuable of all ecosystems at US$ 129,000 per year
per hectare (TEEB 2009). potential as nodes in monitoring networks;
more natural systems where natural mortality can be
As a protected area containing marine and coastal compared with fishing mortality;
ecosystems, KNP plays a key role in: A refuge for intensely exploited species;
Protection of genetic diversity of heavily exploited popula-
Maintaining Indonesias healthy coasts and seas in tions;
order to sustain social and economic development; Protection of cultural diversity, e.g. sacred places, wrecks and
lighthouses.
and
Growth of tourism and resulting revenue through
Maintaining significant natural resources on behalf
gate, guide, and camping fees, rental of boats and
of the global community (IUCN et al 2008).
equipment, and hotel expenses (Malindi/ Watamu,
At the local level, KNPs marine ecosystems underpin Mobasa and Kisite/ Mpunguti National Parks and
economies, livelihoods and food security through, Reserves, Kenya); and
for example:
Increased diving tourism and resulting revenues Accrual of indirect benefits through the creation of
(Bonaire Marine Park, Netherlands Antilles); jobs in hotels and for guides and boatmen (Salm
et al 2000).
Increased subsistence fish catches, expanded
The economic value of KNP, in terms of income
tourist activity, and greater involvement of local from fisheries and tourism alone for the residents
people in managing resorts and boats (Tai Island, of Komodo District is estimated at around 60 billion
Fiji); rupiah (approximately USD 6 million) per annum
KomodoNationalPark
(Statistics Indonesia 2009). The figure is possibly KNP has been established and is managed within a
even larger when supporting industries such as framework of international law and multi-national
transport are considered. With approximately 90% treaties (Box 1), national policy and legislation
of working people in the park relying on fishing as (UNEP-WCMC 2005). Designation as a national park
their primary income (PHKA & TNC 2000), marine occurred in 1984 under PHKA Decree 46/kpts/VI-Sek/
ecosystem goods and services are critical to the 1984, with a zoning system and associated resource
social and economic welfare of local communities use regulations authorised in 2001 under PHKA
(Moberg & Folke 1999). Park management and Decree 65/kpts/DJ-V/ 2001. Specific management
governance seeks to sustain and enhance KNPs objectives result from designation as a Man and
biodiversity, ecosystem services, and the benefits Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Site in 1986,
they provide contributing to commitments under the CBD and
fulfilling recommendations of the Jakarta Mandate
1.1.3 Governance on Marine and Coastal Diversity.
KNP lies within the 45 million ha Lesser Sunda
marine eco-region of the Coral Triangle, and is 1 . 1 . 4 M a r i n e T h r e a t s a n d
part of an interconnected network of three Marine I m p a c t s
KNPs high biodiversity and associated ecosystem
Box 2: International law and treaties applicable to KNP services are maintained by the high variety of
habitat types and conditions in KNP (Beger & Turak
UNESCO Man and Biosphere Programme 1986 designates KNP as
a UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve with three functions: conser- 2005), including coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass
vation; sustainable economic development; and provision of sites meadows, seamounts and bays. Ecosystem services
and facilities to support research, education and training. often rely on ecological pathways connecting
World Heritage Convention 1986 designates KNP as a World different habitats (Box 3). Processes and disturbances
Heritage Site under criteria:
upstream may affect the quantity and quality of
(vii) contains superlative natural phenomena and areas of aes- KNPs ecosystem services provided downstream
thetic importance due to outstanding universal value;
(Box 4), with resulting impact on local economies,
(x) contains important habitats for conservation, including livelihoods and food security.
those of threatened species.
Convention on Biological Diversity 1992 KNP contributes to KNPs marine ecosystems have always been subject
commitments made by Indonesia, as a Party to the Convention on to natural disturbances (Box 5) that may periodically
Biological Diversity (CBD) to:
affect or devastate habitats with resulting ecosystem-
develop a national biodiversity strategy; wide repercussions. Healthy habitats are resilient to
to establish systems of protected areas to conserve biodiver- these impacts and will recover with time (Hughes &
sity; and
Connell 1999).
to promote environmentally sound and sustainable develop-
ment in areas adjacent to protected areas.
Jakarta Mandate on Marine and Coastal Diversity 1995 - em- Box 4: Ecosystem Services
phasised the importance of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas in
national biodiversity strategies. Coral reefs and associated habitats provide a suite of ecosystem
services falling within four broad categories:
Provisioning services e.g. fisheries, mariculture;
Protected Areas (MPA) covering a combined area of Regulating services e.g. protection of beaches and coastlines
approximately 3.5 million ha (Komodo National Park, from erosion or damage by storm surges, waves and tsuna-
mis;
Nusa Penida MPA, Savu Sea MPA). These marine areas
make a significant contribution to national targets, Cultural services e.g. tourism, recreation and traditional
practices;
committed to under the Convention on Biological
Supporting services e.g. nursery habitats, nutrient and car-
Diversity (CBD), to protect 10% of Indonesias bon cycling.
marine and coastal environments by 2012, and 20%
(UNEP-WCMC 2006) (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005)
by 2020.
18
Box 3: Connectivity between coral reef, mangrove and sea grass habitats (CRMP 2004).
KNPs human populations, which depend principally vulnerable to natural disturbances and taking
on fishing for their livelihoods, have increased by longer to recover (Brown 1997).
1000% since 1930, bringing a resulting increase in
anthropogenic disturbances (PHKA & TNC 2000). Primary threats to the ecosystem goods and services
Global issues such as climate change and ocean derived from KNPs marine ecosystems include
acidification add to these threats. The impact of destructive fishing (especially blast and cyanide
multiple stressors, both natural and anthropogenic, fishing), overfishing, Crown-of-Thorns Starfish, mass
have a multiplicative effect on ecosystems (Bryant bleaching events and anchor damage (Mous et al
et al 1998), with human-damaged reefs more 2007; PHKA & TNC 2000).
Box 5: Disturbance to Coral Reefs Polunin 1996; Pennisi; Pinnegar et al 2002; Roberts 1995).
Natural disturbances to coral reefs include: Destructive fishing practices, including bomb and cyanide fish-
ing, muroami and trawling, are non-selective, remove large
disease, numbers of undersized target species and non-target species
and cause habitat damage. Cyanide fishing to support the live
temperature extremes,
food fish trade has led to widespread reductions in groupers, Na-
pest outbreaks including Crown-of-Thorns Starfish, poleon wrasse and other species (Johannes & Riepen 1995).
cyclones, Climate change will increase background disturbances (through
e.g. elevated sea surface temperatures, ocean acidification and
seismic events including earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes increased storm frequency and intensity) reducing resilience to
Anthropogenic disturbances to coral reefs include: other human disturbances (Bryant et al 1998).
Pollution, including mine runoff and sewage discharge, poi- Coastal development, including reclamation and construction,
sons reef communities, pollutes reef waters and promotes algal alters coastal dynamics, removes important nursery grounds, and
growth (Bjork et al 1994; Brown 1997; Richmond 1994); increases terrestrial run-off and pollution (Wilkinson 2004).
Overfishing results in shifts in fish size, abundance and species Unregulated tourism can impact on coral reefs through tram-
composition of reef communities. The removal of key herbivore pling by swimmers and divers, anchor damage, and sewage dis-
and predator species may cause cascading effects in the trophic charge from hotels (Global Environment Facility 1996).
web, bringing large scale changes to ecosystems and the servic-
es they provide (Bohnsack 1993; Dulvy et al 2004; Jennings &
KomodoNationalPark
Table 1: Summary of similarities and differences between

previous and new survey methodologies.
!"#$%&'()*#+,&-&.&/0) 12-3+#-)*#+,&-&.&/0)
!"#$%&'()*(&+,'"(",-& !"#$%&'()*(&+,'"(",-&
."/$%&'0"/&,1$*&2-%$3"-$%&)*$)& 4$3"-$%&(*)-'$5(&6$-7(8&
.*)-'$5(&%"*$5(",-&%"5()($%&9:&52**$-(&*$'26("-7&"-&1)*")(",-& !"#$%&(*)-'$5(&%"*$5(",-&
;%$-("3"5)(",-&,3&9*,)%&9$-(8"5&5)($7,*"$'&<6"1$&5,*)6=&%$)%& ;%$-("3"5)(",-&,3&%$()"6$%&9$-(8"5&5,//2-"(:&5,/+,-$-('&)-%&
5,*)6=&*,5>?& 6"3$@3,*/'&
A'("/)($&,3&5,*)6&5,1$*& B*$5"'$&)-%&)552*)($&/$)'2*$&,3&9$-(8"5&5)($7,*:&3*$C2$-5:&
0"(8&*$+6"5)(",-&&
D,&'+$5")6"'(&(,,6'&*$C2"*$%& 4$+6,:/$-(&,3&(*)-'$5('&*$C2"*$%=&0"(8&*$'(*"5("-7&"-362$-5$&
,3&8"78&52**$-('&
E,0$*&'>"66&6$1$6& F"78$*&'>"66&6$1$6&
!
1.2 Coral Reef Management trends and resilience;
and Monitoring
Provide a benthic community baseline for future
KNPs Reef Health Monitoring (RHM) program was
assessment of phase-shifts;
established in 1996 to provide an early warning
of ecological change, evaluate management
Begin in-situ assessments of fish stocks in KNP,
approaches, inform adaptive management and
increase the field presence of park staff, thereby and establish a baseline for monitoring any future
preventing illegal resource use (Mous et al 2007). change;
Monitoring of 185 sites was repeated every two
years between 1996 and 2006 (Mous et al 2007). Develop a database on reef fish community
This report describes the 2009 phase of biennial reef structure, abundance, biomass and distribution to
health monitoring in KNP. It adds to KNPs globally provide management insights into current status,
rare long-term database on coral reef status, threats, trends and resilience;
provides park management with critical information
on temporal and spatial trends in reef status within Examine similarities and differences in reef
KNP, and supports evaluation and adaptation of
effective management within KNP. status between management zones, and evaluate
management approaches;
RHM 2009 extends this biennial assessment
through updated monitoring protocols (Wilson Assist in indentifying key threats, areas of
& Green 2010) that reflect current international
standards adopted by LIPI. These protocols improve resilience and management priorities within KNP,
integration of KNPs RHM into national and global providing an early warning of ecological change,
assessments, and enhance data precision and and implementing adaptive management.
replicability (e.g. through accurate GPS positions
and defined transect directions). Key differences
are summarised in Table 1. Data derived from these
protocols remain comparable with previous data,
while providing additional information and finer
resolution.
RHM 2009 aimed to:
Establish a database on KNP reef community

structure, diversity and distribution to provide
management insights into current status, threats,
20
2
Methodology
KomodoNationalPark
2.1 Site selection same zone, continuing in the direction of travel.
Survey sites were selected from 185 long-term coral Sites coordinates were derived from (Mous et al
reef monitoring sites (Mous et al 2007) (Appendix 2005). Some coordinates had to be adjusted in the
A). field, due to published coordinates not locating a
reef. In all cases, documented site coordinates and
All site coordinates were added to a Geographical site descriptions were carefully reviewed before a
Information System (GIS) and categorised into five decision was made to relocate. Coordinates were
regions. adjusted to locate the nearest reef corresponding to
documented site characteristics using a best guess
Komodo West;
approach (Appendix A).
Komodo East;
Rinca West (incl. Padar); 2.2 Survey schedule

Monitoring was conducted between 5th and 23rd
Rinca East; and
October 2009. Survey teams were fully equipped
for the planned work (Appendix B). Surveys were
North KNP.
completed through a combination of multiday
These regions were considered to posses similar expeditions using the Floating Ranger Station and
environmental characteristics (exposure, slope) single day excursions using speedboat (Table 2).
based on a combination of personal observation T a b l e 2 : S u r v e y s c h e d u l e a n d v e s s e l
and previous studies (Beger & Turak 2005; Mous et u s e d .
al 2005). !"#$% &$''$(% )*+"#,*-%
!"#"$"%&'()*+" ,-."/0123045*+" 6*4'"/(7(8(9":;4'"/(7(8("
Within each region, sites were further categorised <="%&'()*+" >(+;10" %?'408*"@(+'5"/@A"
<B"C"<D"%&'()*+" ,-."/0123045*+" :;4'"-01&;9"@(+'5"/@A"
based on management zone: <$"C"=<"%&'()*+" ,-."/0123045*+" @(+'5"/@A9"6*4'"-01&;";18"A;8;+"
=$"%&'()*+" >(+;10" %?'408*"@(+'5"/@A"
Wilderness zone; !
Traditional use zone; 1.1 Survey Team

Each survey dive consisted of two benthic surveyors,
Outside KNP. two fish surveyors and one standby safety diver on
the surface. The team consisted of:
For each zone within each region, three replicate
sites were selected for sampling at random (using Andrew Harvey PNK Conservation Manager
a random number generator) (Appendix A). Two
depths were sampled at each site (shallow, deep), Hery Yusamandra PNK Science and Monitoring
providing a nested survey design (Figure 2). Coordinator
If conditions in the field did not allow us to dive at a Rafael PNK FRS crew
pre-selected site, we relocated to the next site in the Sukardin PNK speed crew
Figure 2: Schematic representation of the nested survey design illustrating five regions, three management zones (traditional use,
wilderness, outside KNP), three replicate sites, and two depths (shallow, deep).
22
Harris PNK speed Captain Green (2010). Transects were initially surveyed for
large and/ or transient fish that may be disturbed
Sinta WCS Fish Biologist
by the presence of divers. The transect was then
Udin WCS Fish Biologist resurveyed for smaller, resident and cryptic species.
All fish were identified to species level, enumerated,
and classified into 5cm size categories. Data were
2.3 Transect deployment recorded on waterproof proforma (Appendix C).
Survey sites were approached by dinghy or Fish biomass per hectare was calculated using the
speedboat, using a handheld GPS (Garmin eTrex lengthweight relationship W = aL (Kulbicki et al
b
HCx) to accurately locate the site. Divers were fully 2005).

kitted up and had completed all pre-dive buddy To identify broad patterns of similarity in fish
checks. Once over the site (20m) divers entered community structure between sites, non-metric
the water and rapidly descended to avoid drifting. Multi-Dimensional Scaling (MDS) plots were
Divers descended to a depth of 10m, where they developed, based on Bray-Curtis similarity matrices
marked transects using 50m fibreglass roll meters of square-root transformed measures of species
affixed to the reef substrate following protocols presence/ absence within PRIMER v.6 (Plymouth
described by Wilson & Green (2010). All transects Routines in Multivariate Ecological Research).
were deployed reef-right following the 10m The DIVERSE routine within PRIMER v.6 was used
contour. Transect deployment and fish surveys were to calculate the number of genera identified at
conducted simultaneously, with the transect-man each site (S), loge Shannon diversity index (H), and
remaining close behind the fish-surveyor to avoid Pielous index of evenness (J).
disturbing fish, and communicating transect start
and end using a tank-clanger. Six commercially important food fish families
(Acanthuridae, Carangidae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae,
We deployed three 50m replicate transects at 10m. Scaridae and Serranidae) (Beger & Turak 2005 and
In contrast to (Wilson & Green 2010), only three personal observations), important species in the
fish transects were completed at each depth due to ornamental fish trade (Wood 2001 and personal
available time and tide windows. For future RHM, a observations), and functional groups of herbivorous
well practiced team could complete five transects fish (Green & Bellwood 2009) were identified
at each depth during neap tides or on sheltered (Appendix D). The influence of management zone
sites. After all fish and benthic surveys had been and region on biomass of commercially important
completed, transects were recovered and divers food fish, ornamental fish and herbivorous functional
ascended to 5m (2m) and repeated the survey at groups was investigated using a General Linear
this depth. Model (GLM) in SPSS of fourth-root transformed
Environmental parameters were recorded during measures of fish biomass as the dependent variable,
the survey, including visibility, exposure, reef slope, with the main effects region, zone, and the nested
and current. effect region(zone).
2.4 Fish Stock 2.5 Benthic Assessments

Assessments Benthic communities were assessed using a
Fish community composition and biomass was Point Intercept Transect (PIT) following protocols
assessed along three replicate 50m transects at described by Wilson & Green (2010). Three replicate
each site following protocols described by Wilson & 50m transects were used, with substrate category
and life-forms (Table 3) recorded at 0.5 m intervals,
KomodoNationalPark
Table 3: Substrate codes and corresponding life

forms recorded during benthic assessments.
!"#$%$#&&'() *+#'),$#+-) ./01#213#+21() !-4+1) 563(2#+21()
!"#$ !%&'('&)$*$ "#$ "'&)/$*$ 0"$ 0'12$"'&)/$ "!$ ")/%)&3'45$ 0$ 0)+6$
#&)+%,-+.$ #&)+%,-+.$ !/.)3$
!"7$ !%&'('&)$*$ "7$ "'&)/$*$ 89$ 83+-)$ :!$ :)/-;36)$ <$ <4==/3$
7+%&452-+.$ 7+%&452-+.$
!"0$ !%&'('&)$*$ "?$ "'&)/$*$ 0@$ 0('+.3$ A!$ A)%&')/.)3$ 0B$ 0-/2$
04=;)55->3$ ?'/-'53$
!"C$ !%&'('&)$*$ "A$ "'&)/$*$ :D$ :E6&'-6$ C!$ C4&1$!/.)3$ <"F$ <'%G$H-2,$
C)=4/)23$ A)55->3$ )55'%-)236$
;-%&'=-)/$
/)E3&$
$ "0$ "'&)/$*$ IC$ I2,3&$ $ J"$ J3)6$"'&)/$
04=;)55->3$
$ "A<$ "'&)/$*$ $ $ #"$ #/3)%,36$
A45,&'';$ "'&)/$
$ "CK$ "'&)/$*$ $ $ $
C4=-('&)$
$ "A7$ "'&)/$L$ $ $ $
A-/3('&)$
$ ":M$ "'&)/$L$ $ $ $
:3/-'('&)$
!
providing 100 data points per transect. The average in SPSS using square-root transformed measures of
percentage cover for each benthic category was live hard coral percentage cover as the dependent
calculated for each depth and site. variable to identify significant trends between the
main effects region, zone, depth, exposure, and the
Long-term LHCC trends were assessed by reference nested effect region(zone).
to historical RHM data (Mous et al 2007).
All soft and hard corals encountered on the PIT
To indicate any broad trends and patterns, non- were identified to genus level (NB: taxonomic data
metric MDS plots were developed, based on Bray- was not collected for sites within the Komodo
Curtis similarity matrices of square-root transformed West and Komodo East regions). An approximate
measures of the relative abundance within PRIMER identification was made in-situ, and 2-5 reference
v.6. Survey sites were grouped according to the photos collected. All identifications were confirmed
relative homogeneity of species assemblages. To by reference to (Veron 2000).
accommodate the unbalanced sampling design,
Analysis of Similarities (ANOSIM) was applied to The DIVERSE routine within PRIMER v.6 was used
detect significant differences in the community to calculate the number of genera identified at
assemblage between region, zone, depth, exposure each site (S), loge Shannon diversity index (H), and
and reef type. Pielous index of evenness (J). To detect significant
differences in diversity due to the main effects region
Given the importance of LHCC as an indicator of reef and zone, and the nested effect region(zone), a GLM
health and consequently in management decision- was built in SPSS capable of accommodating the
making, the hard coral component was isolated from unbalanced survey design using Shannon diversity
the community assemblage. A GLM was constructed index (H) as the dependent variable.
24
3
Results
KomodoNationalPark
3.1 Benthic cover (Figure 5).
3.1.1 Long-Term Temporal The small differences in reef community structure

Trends indicated by this clustering were further examined in
Between 1996 and 2002 LHCC increased significantly relation to exposure, reef type, depth, management
inside KNP from 15% to 24%. From 2002 to 2006 zone and park region, using ANOSIM to test for
hard coral cover decreased inside KNP to 15%, and significance.
outside KNP to 17% (Mous et al 2007).
In 2009, recovery of LHCC to 19% was detected on
reefs outside KNP. Inside KNP LHCC remained at
15%, with no recovery from 2006 impacts detected
(Figure 3).
Figure 3: Long-term trends (1996-2009) in live hard coral cover

(a) inside; and (b) outside KNP. Status thresholds used by LIPI
national reef health assessments provided for context (Siring- Figure 4: Community structure (% cover) for all (a) shallow and
oringo 2008a; Siringoringo 2008b; Souhoka 2004). (b) deep survey sites.
3.1.2 Reef Community

Structure
The datasets examined in this study are complex.
Multiple factors have a potential impact on the many
components of the reef community. To identify
basic trends and patterns, the benthic community
structure was first calculated and plotted for all
survey sites (Figure 4).
The highest LHCC was recorded at site 3143 (63.3%;
wilderness zone, Komodo West). For all sites, the
Figure 5: MDS plot of benthic community structure across all sur-
dominant components of the benthic community
vey sites, with similarity clusters marked.
were hard coral, soft coral, rubble, sand and rock,
with relative proportions varying between sites.
3.1.2.1 Region and Reef Community Structure
MDS was used to identify patterns of similarity Sites were sampled within five regions of KNP
between sites. MDS plots all benthic variables onto (Komodo West, Komodo East, Rinca West, Rinca
x- and y-axes, with similar sites represented closer East, North KNP). Region had a significant influence
together on the MDS plot. MDS at 75% similarity on benthic community structure (Global R: 0.079, p
revealed one outlier (<60% similarity), three distinct <0.01). Highest LHCC were recorded in the Komodo
clusters, and a complex of four overlapping clusters West region. Soft coral cover was highest in Komodo
East. Reefs of North KNP were dominated by rubble.
26
Table 4: Mean per cent cover for selected benthic

variables across all regions and zones.
!"#$%&' (%&"' )*#+",-+./%' 0+*$1"2+' 3"+2'4%/+*' 5*"+.6'4%/+*' !788*"'
!"#"$"%&'()% *+)(,$'%-./% 0122% 0133% 0144% 0100% 34156%
%% 789$,),":9;%<('% 3100% 0156% 0133% 0100% 301=>%
%% &,;$'8:'((% 4136% 3100% 0100% 0100% 33100%
!"#"$"%?9()% 789$,),":9;%<('% 41=@% 0100% 0100% 0100% 301@@%
%% &,;$'8:'((% 0100% 0100% 0100% 0100% A1A0%
B,:C9%&'()% &,;$'8:'((% 0133% 0105% 0133% 0100% 351=@%
B,:C9%?9()% *+)(,$'%-./% 0105% 0100% 0100% 0100% =1@>%
%% 789$,),":9;%<('% 0153% 0100% 0105% 0100% 40100%
%% &,;$'8:'((% 0133% 0100% 0100% 0100% 431@@%
D"8)E%!D.% *+)(,$'%-./% 0164% 0100% 01A0% 0100% 3A133%
%% 789$,),":9;%<('% 0102% 0100% 0102% 0100% @615A%
%% &,;$'8:'((% 0100% 0105% 0105% 0100% @01=>%
!
Sand and silt dominated in Komodo East and Rinca
East regions, both of which are characterised by
sheltered bays.
Figure 7: Reef community structure within different management

zones.
Figure 6: Reef community structure within different regions of

KNP.
3.1.2.2 Zone and Reef Community Structure

Sites were sampled within three management
zones: traditional use, wilderness and outside KNP.
Management zone had a significant influence on
community structure (Global R: 0.079 p <0.01).
Highest average LHCC was recorded outside KNP.
Traditional use zones were dominated by rubble,
sand and silt.
3.1.2.3 Depth and Reef Community Structure

Sites were sampled at 5m (shallow) and 10m (deep).
Depth had a significant influence on benthic Figure 8: Reef community structure at different depths.
KomodoNationalPark
community structure (Global R: 0.092, p < 0.01%). significant variation with reef type. Reef type did not
The greatest LHCC was recorded on shallow reefs, have a significant influence on community structure
with sand/silt more prevalent on deeper reefs. (Global R: 0.103, p >0.01).
3.1.3 Indicators of reef
1.1.0.1 Exposure and Reef Community Structure health and resilience: hard
Reefs were classified into three exposure types coral cover and diversity
(sheltered; semi-exposed; exposed). Exposure had LHCC is an indicator of overall reef health. Region
a significant influence on community structure (F4,131=5.549, p<0.001) was a significant predictor of
(Global R: 0.073, p <0.01). Exposure had the greatest LHCC.
influence on abiotic components of the community
(rubble, sand/ silt, microbial/ rock). Exposed reefs
had lower LHCC.
Figure 9: Reef community structure under different exposure

regimes.
Figure 11: Mean percent LHCC within management zones across
park regions. Status thresholds used by LIPI national reef health
assessments provided for context (Siringoringo 2008a; Siring-
oringo 2008b; Souhoka 2004).
Figure 10: Reef community structure on different reef types.
3.1.2.4 Reef Type and Reef Community Structure

Sites were classified into four reef types (gentle Figure 12: Number of hard coral genera, diversity (H (loge)) and
evenness (J) across (a) management zones and (b) park regions.
slope; slope; reef flat; wall). Hard corals showed no
28
Highest average LHCC was recorded in the Komodo 3.2 Fish diversity and
West region within wilderness zones (29.33% LHCC) biomass
and outside KNP (29.66% LHCC). All remaining reefs
had <25% LHCC. In Komodo East LHCC was higher MDS was used to identify patterns of similarity in
in Traditional Use zones compared to Wilderness fish community structure between sites (Figure 13),
Zones. In North KNP LHCC was higher Outside KNP and revealed low-level (40% similarity) clustering of
and within Traditional Use zones, compared to Komodo East and Komodo West sites, overlapping
Wilderness Zones (Figure 10). with a separate cluster comprised of North KNP,
Rinca West and Rinca East sites. A number of distinct
Coral diversity was similar throughout the park, outliers were identified, indicative of distinct regions
with no significant influence of region (F2,13=3.399, of biodiversity throughout KNP.
p=0.065) or zone (F2,13=1.260, p=0.316) detected
(Figure 11). 3.2.1 Indicators of
Management Effectiveness:
3.1.4 Indicators of reef Fish biomass
degradation: eutrophication The relationship between region and zone on fish
and other impacts biomass was examined for all fish species, and for
Indicators of nutrient enrichment and eutrophicaton ornamental fish and commercially important food
were low across all sites (average algae-macro: fish components (Figure 14).
0.67%, average halimeda: 0.19%). Macroalgal cover
was greatest within the traditional use zones of the
Komodo East region (2.83%) (Table 4).
Indications of coral disease and mortality were also
low for all sites (average bleach coral: 0%, average
dead coral: 0.09%), and distributed evenly across all
regions and zones.
Figure 14: Variation in fish biomass between regions and manage-
Rubble comprised a very high proportion of the ment zones of KNP for (a) all fish, (b) ornamental fish, and (c)
benthic community in North KNP within both commercially important food fish (note different scales).
wilderness (30.89%) and traditional use zones
(37.65%). Across all other regions and zones, the Region was the most significant predictor of total
rubble component was relatively equal at around fish biomass (F4,152=5.315, p<0.001), with biomass
10-12% declining from west to east across KNP. Within regions,
management zone had a significant influence on
fish biomass (F5,152=3.567, p<0.005), with highest
biomass values recorded within wilderness zones
of Komodo West. In North KNP and Rinca East, fish
biomass was lowest within wilderness zones.
Region was also a significant predictor of ornamental
fish biomass (F4,151=9.337, p<0.001), which similarly
declined west to east. No significant influence from
management zone (F2,151=0.988, p=0.375) or the
nested effect region(zone) (F5,151=1.657, p=0.148)
was detected.
The highest biomass of commercially important
Figure 13: MDS plot of fish community structure across all survey
food fish was recorded outside North KNP and within
sites, with similarity clusters marked. the Wilderness Zone of Rinca West (Padar). However
KomodoNationalPark
neither region (F4,143= 2.358, p=0.056) nor zone

(F2,143=3.178, p=0.045) were significant predictors of
food fish biomass.
3.2.2 Indicators of reef
resilience: fish diversity and
functional groups
The highest biomass of herbivorous fish was
recorded for browsers in West Rinca, and resulted
from a large number (50) of large (>40cm) Naso
brachycentron. Total biomass of herbivorous fish was
low throughout the park, with grazers/ detritivores
and scrapers/ small scrapers dominating at most
sites (Figure 15).
Figure 16: Number of fish species, diversity (H (loge)) and even-
No significant influence from region, management ness (J) across (a) management zones and (b) park regions.
zone, or the nested effect region(zone) was detected
on biomass of these four herbivorous fish functional
groups (Appendix E)
Fish species diversity was similar throughout KNP,
and showed no significant correlation with region
(F4,23 =1.924, p=0.141), management zone (F2,23
=0.153, p =0.859), or the nested effect region(zone)
(F5,23 =0.578, p =0.716) (Figure 16).
Figure 15: Variation in biomass of functional groups of herbivorous fish between regions and management zones of KNP.
30
4
Discussion
KomodoNationalPark
4.1 Long-Term Trends in 4.2 Success Stories and

Reef Status Diminished Threats to
Between 1996 and 2002 average LHCC increased at
Reef Status
a rate of 1.40% per year inside KNP, and 0.93% per KNP management plans define and prioritise the
year outside KNP. A decline in LHCC between 2002 following threats to KNPs coral reefs and associated
and 2006 (8.59% inside KNP, 6.11% outside KNP) ecosystem services:
was attributed to a COTS outbreak to the northwest
of KNP and continued blast fishing around Banta 1. Overfishing;
Island, northwest of KNP (Mous et al 2007). 2. Destructive fishing methods (most notably
Since 2006 this situation has reversed, with blast fishing);
higher rates of recovery recorded on sites outside 3. Crown-of-Thorns Starfish;
KNP (1.58% per year). Reefs under management
supervision inside KNP showed no significant 4. Mass bleaching events;
recovery (0.06% per year). This finding relates to
5. Anchor damage
community perceptions within KNP, which indicate
declining environmental quality (Manalus & During this survey, no evidence of threats 2 4
Fajarudin 2010). above were recorded. However it is important to
note the following:
LHCC recovery rates of 1.58% per year outside
KNP indicate a high potential for reef recovery in Crown-of-Thorns Starfish plagues are periodic,
and around KNP. High rates of coral settlement
and growth have also been recorded on artificial unpredictable, and can arise without warning;
substrates within KNP (Fox 2005). Between 2006
and 2009 rates of coral recovery were lower inside Surveys were carried out during a period of
KNP than outside, suggesting that coral growth seasonally cool sea surface temperatures, and the
or settlement rates are locally inhibited inside risk of bleaching was low;
KNP. The identification and management of those
agents inhibiting reef recovery would assist park Surveys were not conducted on or near key dive
managers to achieve objectives specified in long-
and tourism sites, where the risk of anchor damage
term management plans (PHKA & TNC 2000) of:
may be higher.
Fully protecting the natural communities,
The absence of these threats during this survey
species, and the terrestrial, coastal and marine
should not grant complacency, and continued
ecosystems; monitoring, early detection and predefined
management plans are essential to minimise the
Sustainable resource use by tourism, education, extent of any future incidents.
and research sectors; and
Most notably, no evidence of recent bomb damage
was recorded on reefs both inside and outside KNP.
Protecting the stocks of exploited reef fish and
This is a considerable success story, given records
invertebrates in the reserve, thereby creating a from the early 1990s that indicate up to 30-recorded
source of recruits to enhance fisheries on fishing incidents of bomb fishing per month (Mous et al
grounds in and around the Park. 2007). Existing management plans appear to have
been highly effective at controlling and reducing
bomb fishing through targeted enforcement and
outreach campaigns. Again this should not grant
32
complacency, and the continuation of management by Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on
efforts is essential to prevent any re-emergence Environment and Development and in the preamble
of bomb fishing within KNP. However, this survey to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity.
suggests that bomb fishing is no longer the primary Strategies that clarify management zone definitions
threat to the health of marine ecosystems and (particularly designated no-take areas) and their
associated services in KNP. associated regulations, and that seek to reduce
and redistribute resource use intensity from critical
habitats would assist park managers to minimise
anthropogenic effects on reduced fish biomass,
4.3 Current Threats t o LHCC, and coral reef recovery rates.
Reef Status
Indications of potential nutrient enrichment and
eutrophication were detected within traditional 4.4 M a n a g e m e n t
use zones of the Komodo East region. This may be Effectiveness
indicative of sewage, organic rubbish or animal
waste enrichment from Komodo village. Phase KNPs 25-year Management Plan specifies the
shifts arising from nutrient enrichment have following objectives:
been widely reported, with resulting ecological,
economic and climate change resilience impacts Establish a terrestrial and marine reserve in KNP
(Done 1992; Haas et al 2009; Hughes et al 2007; that fully protects the natural communities,
McClanahan et al 2002; McClanahan 2003; McCook species, and the terrestrial, coastal and marine
1999; McManus & Polsenberg 2004; Nystrm et al
2000). At present this enrichment appears to be ecosystems.
localised, and this report provide a baseline against
which any future enrichment or phase shift can be Use the Parks resources in a sustainable way, for
assessed. Integration of sewage, rubbish and animal tourism, education, tourism, and research.
waste management plans into existing community
outreach programs, and monitoring of nutrient Protect the stocks of exploited reef fish and
loading and ecological impacts in this area, would invertebrates in the reserve, thereby creating a
assist park managers to detect early indications
source of recruits to enhance fisheries on fishing
of phase shift and adapt management strategies
accordingly. grounds in and around the Park.
A close correlation between low LHCC, low fish A zonation scheme was endorsed by PHKA in 2001
biomass, reduced recovery of rubble-dominated to support these management objectives. KNPs
reefs, high fishing intensity (Harvey & Yusamandra zonation scheme defines no-take areas (Wilderness,
2010), and high tourism intensity (Harvey & Tourism and Research zones) within which natural
Yusamandra 2010) was detected. This is particularly resource use restrictions apply. This protection
true within the North KNP and Rinca East regions, permits recovery of habitats and fish stocks and
including within Wilderness Zones. There is spill-over to adjacent fishing grounds, and provides
compelling evidence that fishing pressure within a fish bank for KNP.
KNP has increased, with significant growth of the
KNP fishing fleet since 2003 (Harvey & Yusamandra In 2009 no increase in fish biomass or LHCC was
2010). While no cause-and-effect relationship detected within no-take areas. However low fish
between resource use and reef status has yet been biomass and low LHCC were recorded in areas
established in KNP, consideration should be given with high resource use intensity. The absence of
to the precautionary approach recommended full implementation for KNPs zonation scheme,
including continued resource use pressure within
KomodoNationalPark
no-take areas (Harvey & Yusamandra 2010), is likely current flows. RHM in 2009 adds to the evidence
to limit the extent to which management objectives for high reef recovery potential in and around KNP.
have been achieved. A review of management High LHCC was recorded on previously severely
objectives and supporting legislation is urgently degraded reefs of Banta Island (Mous et al 2007),
required to assist park managers to maximise comprised predominantly of Acropora and Montipora
management impacts on LHCC and fish biomass recent growth. No evidence of bomb fishing, other
within KNP. acute impacts, or fishing activity was recorded
around Banta Island. The inclusion of Banta Island
in RUM would assist park managers to evaluate the
influence of resource use patterns on reef status,
4.5 Resilience to Climate and to distinguish the relative roles of substrate
Change and Other mobility (Fox & Caldwell 2006; Fox et al 2005; Fox et
Threats al 2003), resource use pressure and other factors on
reef recovery in North KNP and other regions.
No evidence of bleaching, disease, COTS or dead
coral were detected during this study, however these Severe human impacts on coral reefs are often
impacts can occur periodically and unpredictably. associated with a phase shift from coral-dominated
to algal- or microbial-dominated reefs. Algal cover
The main ecological factor that affects coral reef was low throughout KNP, with some evidence
resilience is diversity (Grimsditch et al 2006). A of localised eutrophication within Traditional
relatively high diversity of coral genera, but low Use zones of Komodo East. Background nutrient
diversity of fish species was recorded throughout enrichment levels in KNP are relatively high due
KNP. Region was a strong predictor of coral diversity. to upwelling of deep oceanic waters. Any future
Benthic community structure correlated with increase in anthropogenic nutrient sources (e.g.
region, management zone, exposure and depth, from agricultural run-off, sewage discharge from
suggesting that KNPs marine biodiversity is not settlements or hotels) will elevate background
evenly distributed throughout the park. KNPs high nutrient level causing an additive effect that may
levels of biodiversity result from several distinct rapidly reach a tipping threshold. Maintenance of
community types influenced by environmental a healthy community of herbivorous fish can assist
parameters, and characterised by sheltered, semi- park managers to regulate algal growth, minimise
sheltered and exposed types (Beger & Turak 2005). risk of ecological phase shift, and enhance resilience
Management strategies that equally encompass all to climate change and other threats.
community and habitat types are essential to assist
park managers to maintain KNPs high biodiversity This report established a baseline assessment of
value, genetic diversity and resilience. functional groups of herbivorous fish in KNP, and
spatial trends across park regions and management
The Komodo West region contained the healthiest zones. Grazers/ detritivores and scrapers/ small
reefs encountered during this survey, with high excavators dominated on most reefs. Herbivorous
LHCC, fish biomass, and diversity. Low fishing fish biomass was low in Komodo East, Rinca West
intensity, low tourism intensity and low surveillance and within Traditional Use zones of Rinca East. No
and enforcement intensity are also recorded in this influence of management zone on herbivorous
area (Harvey & Pasya 2010; Harvey & Yusamandra fish biomass was detected universally across all
2010). Further analysis in this region could assist regions. This information provides a baseline for
evaluations of cause and effect from fishing, tourism assessing future change in KNP. Assessment of
and surveillance and enforcement on reef status. historical herbivorous fish populations (e.g. via
Rates of coral settlement and growth are high government fishery records, traditional knowledge
within KNP (Fox 2004; Fox 2005), indicative of or diver logbooks) would incorporate consideration
good larval supply, connectivity, and favourable for shifting baselines (Pauly 1995) into KNP
34
management planning. in KNP (Harvey & Yusamandra 2010). Reef status is

a critical component in the sustainability of KNPs
marine resource use. Management strategies
focussed on these hot spots would assist park
4.6 P r i o r i t y managers to secure tourism and related sustainable
Considerations f o r financing objectives in KNP through the maintenance
A d a p t i v e M a n a g e m e n t of key ecological attractions and selling points.
Low LHCC, low fish biomass and high rubble cover High LHCC and fish biomass were recorded in the
were recorded within the Rinca East and North KNP Komodo West region, and correlate with low levels of
regions. In North KNP, LHCC and fish biomass were tourism and fishing activity (Harvey & Yusamandra
lower within wilderness zones than inside traditional 2010). This area provides park managers with an
use zones. These regions are currently important for opportunity to improve understandings of resource
both marine tourism and fisheries, and experience use patterns in coral reef status. However current
high resource use by both sectors that may result limited understanding of cause and effect should
in resource user conflict and dispute (Harvey & not inhibit management action and application of
Yusamandra 2010). the precautionary principle.
To minimise potential for negative impacts on
local livelihoods, economies and food security
resulting from reef degradation in these regions, 4.7 Limitations and
management plans prioritise maintaining tourism Future Monitoring
and fishery potentials. Review of management
plans and objectives would assist park managers to Limitations of time and access resulted in benthic
ensure that precautionary principles are applied to surveys being completed at only one depth in
the management of KNPs marine resources. Such a the Komodo West and Komodo East regions. No
review might consider: taxonomic assessments of corals were made in these
regions. This limited the extent of diversity and reef
Objectives of existing management plans and degree status assessments, and resulted in an unbalanced
to which they have been achieved, including fish experimental design. Statistical approaches used
in this report accounted for this imbalance, but are
bank objectives;
complex. Future KNP-RHM should adopt a balanced
nested experimental design to aid rapid analysis.
Status of policy and supporting legislation
governing resource use in KNP, particularly zoning Limitations of time and access resulted in fish
community assessments being completed for
schemes and resource use restrictions;
only three replicate transects at each depth.
Measurement precision could be enhanced by use
Levels of compliance with resource use of five replicate transects (Wilson & Green 2010).
regulations; Assessments of large transient species (e.g. sharks)
could be improved through incorporation of a long
Ecological condition and trends in KNP; swim (Wilson & Green 2010).
Integration between KNP management plans and This study categorised KNP into five regions:
Komodo West, Komodo East, Rinca West, Rinca East
wider spatial planning and marine and fishery and North KNP. Other marine monitoring programs
management within the West Manggarai district. in KNP refer to 12 biogeographic regions (S1 - S12).
Additional RHM within specific biogeographic
North KNP contained lowest LHCC and reef health, regions would help improve understandings of the
and two of seven hot spots of high resource use
KomodoNationalPark
correlation between resource use patterns and reef

status. RHM across all 12 biogeographic regions is
likely to be unfeasible in terms of cost and time.
Focus on a few key biogeographic regions, selected
for extreme high or low resource use intensity, would
provide sufficient assessment of any cause and
effect, in addition to the long-term and broadscale
patterns derived from the KNP-RHM program.
36
5
Conclusions
KomodoNationalPark
Between 1996 and 2003 reef health increased both region.

inside and outside KNP. Following a decline in reef
health between 2003 and 2006 attributed to natural Climate change presents a growing threat to global
factors, LHCC of coral reefs outside KNP recovered at coral reefs. Diverse functional groups of marine
a rate of 1.58% per year. However reefs inside KNP fish enhance resilience to climate change impacts.
showed no recovery (0.06% per year). This report establishes a baseline for herbivorous
fish biomass and functional diversity within KNP,
In 2009 no evidence of acute threats to KNPs coral to assist park managers to evaluate future change
reefs were detected, including no bomb fishing, and likely climate change impacts. Consideration of
bleaching, or COTS evidence. However these shifting baselines could be incorporated into KNP
impacts can occur periodically and unpredictably. management plans through review of historical
Surveillance, enforcement and education programs herbivorous fish stocks from government fishery
appear to have successfully mitigated destructive records, traditional knowledge or diver logbooks.
fishing threats, and efforts should continue to
prevent re-emergence. Management of KNPs marine ecosystems aims
to secure critical ecosystem services that support
Spatial patterns of resource use (Harvey & tourism, fisheries and related sectors within West
Yusamandra 2010) correlate with patterns of reef Manggarai, and provide livelihoods, revenues and
health. Low LHCC, low fish biomass and low rates of food security. Sustainable development and growth
reef recovery were detected within regions of high within West Manggarai is closely linked to KNPs
tourism and fishery activity. No enhancement of environmental quality through fish bank and
fish biomass or LHCC was recorded within no-take tourist attraction effects. High levels of resource use
areas, due to lack of full implementation of zonation in KNP correlate with reduced reef health, and may
systems and high resource use within no-take areas inhibit local development objectives. This effect
(Harvey & Yusamandra 2010). Opportunities exist may be exacerbated by limited implementation
for further studies to examine cause-and-effect of KNPs zonation scheme. Through review of KNP
relationships between reef health and resource use management objectives, assessment of gaps and
patterns in KNP: Banta Island and Komodo West are needs (particularly related to zonation schemes and
areas of low resource use, high LHCC and high fish supporting legislation), and integration between
biomass, and contrast with North KNP and RInca KNP management plans and West Manggarai
East where low LHCC, low fish biomass and high coastal planning, park managers can take steps to
resource use were recorded. In the absence of these conserve KNPs coral reefs, secure West Manggarai
studies, application of the precautionary principle is sustainable development objectives, and ensure
advisable. Park managers could strengthen marine that KNP continues to deliver benefits at the global,
conservation in KNP by reviewing management national and local level.
objectives and compliance, and assessing gaps and
needs (especially regarding supporting legislation)
for implementation of KNPs zonation system.
Possible indications of nutrient enrichment and
eutrophication were detected in Komodo West,
particularly within Loh Lawi. Enrichment may
originate from sewage, organic rubbish or animal
waste from Komodo Village, and brings a risk of
potential ecological phase shift. Strengthening of
waste management objectives within outreach and
education programs, coupled with environmental
monitoring of this area, would assist park managers
to minimise risk of ecological phase shift in this
38
6
Recommendations
KomodoNationalPark
6.1 Management managers to manage species and habitats not

constrained by administrative boundaries, sustain
Continuation of existing surveillance, enforcement
West Manggarais fishery and tourism economies,
and education programs would assist park managers
and maximise local, national and global benefits
to maintain trends for reduced destructive fishing
derived form KNP.
in KNP.
Regions of low reef health correlate with regions

of high resource use, and application of the 6 . 2 M o n i t o r i n g
precautionary principle is advisable. Review of
Future RHM should aim to ensure a balanced survey
management objectives, gaps and needs (especially
design. Limitations of time and access in 2009
related to zonation systems and supporting
enabled only partial sampling in Komodo West and
legislation) would assist park managers to minimise
Komodo East, resulting in an unbalanced design
resource use impacts and enhance tourism and
and complicating statistical analysis.
fishery potential. Of particular importance are
seven hot spots of high fishery and tourism All sites surveyed during 2009 should be considered
activity (Harvey & Yusamandra 2010). as permanent monitoring stations, and revisited
during subsequent RHM to identify long-term
Development of waste management objectives
trends. Additional sites may be selected from Mous
within existing communication and outreach
Mous et al 2007 as required.
programs, coupled with targeted environmental
monitoring within Loh Lawi, would assist park Additional sites should be pre-selected for
managers to address detected nutrient enrichment environmental variables (region, zone, depth,
and eutrophication (possibly from sewage, organic exposure) to ensure a balanced survey design.
rubbish or animal waste from Komodo village) and Broadscale mapping of KNPs reefs using in-situ
mitigate phase-shift impacts on reef ecosystems, (e.g. manta tow) or remote sensing approaches
fisheries and other resource uses. (e.g. Quickbird, CASI-LIDAR) would assist site
selection.
Diverse and abundant stocks of herbivorous fish
provide resilience to algal phase shifts, and are Benthic surveys incorporating video transects
low within Loh Lawi and the Komodo East region. or photo quadrats would provide a documented
A trial program of strictly enforced small-scale record of reef status, facilitating future checking
no-take areas near to Loh Lawi would enable park or reanalysis of results using existing or emerging
managers to evaluate the role of herbivorous fish techniques. Video or photo transects could be
management for enhancing reef resilience to climate completed rapidly by trained non-specialists, and
change and algal phase shifts, with potential for analysed later by scientists.
additional community engagement benefits.
Stakeholder engagement with RHM could be
Close integration between KNP and West Manggarai enhanced, increasing data while reducing costs.
coastal management strategies would assist park Dive site status provides an opportunity for
40
assessment by communities or dive operators (e.g.

by Reef Check methodology).
Use of five replicate fish transects and long-swims

would enhance fish monitoring (Wilson & Green
2010). Complementary monitoring programs
(e.g. market surveys, fish landings) could provide
additional management information. Historical
fishery records (government records, tradition
knowledge, diver logbooks) could improve
consideration of shifting baselines.
In addition to biennial RHM, additional monitoring

within biogeograhic regions (S1 S12) indentified
as important by other monitoring programs (e.g.
RUM) would assist park managers to evaluate
correlations between resource use and reef status.

KomodoNationalPark
42
7
References
KomodoNationalPark
Beger M, Turak E (2005). A Rapid Ecological Assessment of organic nutrient addition on coralalgae assem-
the reef fishes and scleractinian corals of Komodo blages from the Northern Red Sea, Journal of
National Park, Indonesia in 2005. The Nature experimental marine biology and ecology 380:
Conservancy, 99-105.
Bjork M, Mohammad SM, Bjorkland M & Semesi A (1994). Harvey AH, Pasya A (2010). Surveillance and Enforcement in
Coralline Algae, Important Coral Reef Builders Komodo National Park, Indonesia: 1996 - 2010. PT
Threatened by Pollution, Ambio 24: 502-504. Putri Naga Komodo,
Bohnsack, J., 1993, Proceedings of the Colloqium on Global As- Harvey AH, Yusamandra H (2010). Resource Use Monitoring in
pects of Coral Reefs: Health, Hazards and History, Komodo National Park, Indonesia 1996-2010. PT
University of Miami, . Putri Naga Komodo,
Brown B (1997). Life and death of Coral Reefs. IN: Birkeland C Hughes TP & Connell JH (1999). Multiple stressors on coral
(ed), Disturbances to Reefs in Recent Times, Chap- reefs: a long-term perspective, Limnology and
man and Hall, New York, pp. 370-2. Oceanography 44: 932-940.
Bryant D, Burke L, McManus J, Spalding M (1998). Reefs at Hughes TP, Rodrigues MJ, Bellwood DR, Ceccarelli D, Hoegh-
Risk: A Map-Based Indicator of Threats to the Guldberg O, McCook L, Moltschaniwskyj N,
Worlds Coral Reefs. World Resources Institute Pratchett MS, Steneck RS & Willis B (2007). Phase
(WRI), International Centre for Living Resources shifts, herbivory, and the resilience of coral reefs
Management (ICLARM), World Conservation Moni- to climate change, Current Biology 17: 360-365.
toring Centre (WCMC), United Nations Environ- IFC (2004). Komodo National Park Collaboratve Management
ment Programme (UNEP), Initiative: Project Document. International Finance
CRMP (2004). Environment and Coastal Ecosystem Corporation,
Done TJ, (1992). Phase shifts in coral reef communities and IUCN, 2009, IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version
their ecological significance, Hydrobiologia 247: 2009.1, IUCN, . Retrieved October 18, 2009.
121-132. IUCN, CORDIO, ICRAN (2008). Managing Marine and Coastal
Dulvy NK, Freckleton RP & Polunin NV (2004). Coral reef cas- Protected Areas: A Toolkit for South East Asia.
cades and the indirect effects of predator removal IUCN,
by exploitation, Ecology Letters 7: 410-416. Jennings S & Polunin N (1996). Impacts of fishing on tropical
Erdman AM, (2004). A Natural History Guide to Komodo Reef Ecosystems, Ambio 25: 44-46.
National Park (Books 1 - 3), The Nature Conser- Johannes RE, Riepen M (1995). Environmental, Economic and
vancy, Indonesia Coastal and Marine Program, Bali, Social Implications of the Live Fish Trade in Asia
Indonesia. and teh Westren Pacific. Fisheries Development
Fox HE & Caldwell RL (2006). Recovery from blast fishing on Associates,
coral reefs: a tale of two scales, Ecological Applica- Kahn B, (2000). Komodo National Park Cetacean surveys, A
tions 16: 1631-1635. rapid ecological assessment of Cetacean diversity,
Fox HE, (2004). Coral recruitment in blasted and unblasted abundance and distribution. Monitoring report-
sites in Indonesia: assessing rehabilitation poten- April 1999-2000.
tial, Marine Ecology Progress Series 269: 131-139. Kelleher G, (1999). Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas,
Fox HE, (2005). Rapid coral growth on reef rehabilitation treat- Phillips, A. ed. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cam-
ments in Komodo National Park, Indonesia, Coral bridge, UK.
Reefs 24: . Kulbicki M, Guillemot N & Amand M (2005). A general ap-
Fox HE, Mous PJ, Pet JS, Muljadi AH & Caldwell RL (2005). proach to length-weight relationships for New
Experimental assessment of coral reef rehabilita- Caledonian lagoon fishes, Cybium 29: 235-252.
tion following blast fishing, Conservation Biology Manalus RC, Fajarudin (2010). Monitoring Persepsi Masyarakat
19: 98-107. di dalam dan sekitar Taman Nasional Komodo:
Fox HE, Pet JS, Dahuri R & Caldwell RL (2003). Recovery in Laporan 2009. PT Putri Naga Komodo,
rubble fields: long-term impacts of blast fishing, McClanahan T, Polunin N & Done T (2002). Ecological states
Marine Pollution Bulletin 46: 1024-1031. and the resilience of coral reefs, Conservation Ecol-
Global Environment Facility (1996). The Hashemite Kingdom of ogy 6: 18.
Jordon: Gulf of Aquba Environmental Action Plan. McClanahan TR, (2003). The near future of coral reefs, Environ-
World Bank, mental conservation 29: 460-483.
Green AL, Bellwood DA (2009). Monitoring Functional Groups McCook LJ, (1999). Macroalgae, nutrients and phase shifts on
of Herbivorous Reef Fishes as Indicators of Coral coral reefs: scientific issues and management con-
Reef Resilience: A practical guide for coral reef sequences for the Great Barrier Reef, Coral Reefs
managers in the Asia Pacifi c Region . IUCN, 18: 357-367.
Grimsditch GD, Salm RV & Conservancy N (2006). Coral reef McManus JW & Polsenberg JF (2004). Coralalgal phase shifts
resilience and resistance to bleaching, IUCN,. on coral reefs: Ecological and environmental as-
Haas A, Al-Zibdah M & Wild C (2009). Effect of inorganic and pects, Progress In Oceanography 60: 263-279.
44
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, (2005). Ecosystems and TEEB (2009). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for
Human Well-being: Synthesis, World Resources National and International Policy Makers - .
Institute ed. Island Press, Washington, DC.. UNEP-WCMC (2005). Komodo National Park, Indonesia. United
Moberg F & Folke C (1999). Ecological goods and services of Nations Environment Program - World Conserva-
coral reef ecosystems, Ecological Economics 29: tion Monitoring Centre,
215-233. UNEP-WCMC (2006). In the front line: shoreline protection and
Mous PJ, Katherina, McCorry D, Pet JS (2007). Status of coral other ecosystem services from mangroves and
reefs in and around Komodo National Park: Results coral reefs. UNEP-WCMC, 33pp.
of a bi-annual survey over the period 1996 2002, Veron JEN, (2000). Corals of the World, Stafford-Smoth, M. ed.
with an update of the status in 2006. The Nature Australian Institue of Marine Science, Townsville.
Conservancy, Wilkinson, C. (ed.), 2004, Status of the Coral Reefs of the
Mous PJ, Mulijadi A, Purwanto, Pet JS (2005). Status of coral World: 2004, Australian Institute of Marine Sci-
reefs in and around Komodo National Park - Re- ence, Townsville.
sults of a bi-annual survey over the period 1996 Wilson J, Green A (2010). Biological monitoring methods for
2002 . The Nature Conservancy, assessing coral reef health and management ef-
Nystrm M, Folke C & Moberg F (2000). Coral reef disturbance fectiveness of Marine Protected Areas in Indone-
and resilience in a human-dominated environ- sia, version 1.0. TNC Indonesia Marine Program,
ment, Trends in Ecology & Evolution 15: 413-417. Report No. 1/09
Pauly D, (1995). Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome Wood EM, (2001). Collection of coral reef fish for aquaria:
of fisheries, Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10: global trade, conservation issues and management
430. strategies, UK: Marine Conservation Society 80: .
Pedju M, (2004). Report on seagrass monitoring in Komodo
National Park, July 2002--July 2003, Report from
The Nature Conservancy Southeast Asia Center for
Marine Protected Areas, Sanur, Bali, Indonesia 55:
.
Pennisi, Brighter Prospects, New Reference .
PHKA, TNC (2000). 25-Year Master Plan for Management, Ko-
modo National Park (Book 1-3). Komodo National
Park Authority,
Pinnegar JK, Polunin NVC, Francour P, Badalamenti F, Chemello
R, Harmelin-Vivien ML, Hereu B, Milazzo M, Zabala
M, Danna G & others (2002). Trophic cascades in
benthic marine ecosystems: lessons for fisheries
and protected-area management, Environmental
Conservation 27: 179-200.
Richmond R, (1994). Coral Reef Resources: Pollutions Impacts,
Forum for Applied Reserach and Public Policy 9:
55-56.
Roberts C, (1995). Effects of Fishing on the Ecosystem Structure
of Coral Reefs, Conservation Biology 9: 989-992.
Salm RV, Clark J & Siirila E (2000). Marine and Coastal Pro-
tected Areas: A guide for planners and managers,
IUCN, Washington DC.
Siringoringo RM (2008a). Sumberdaya Laut Di Perairan Laut
Cina Selatan dan Sekitarnya. IN: Aziz A (ed), Kondisi
Dan Distribusi Karang Batu (Scleractinia) Di Perai-
ran Pulau Bintan, LIPI Press, Indonesia, pp. 63-78.
Siringoringo RM (2008b). Sumberdaya Laut Di Perairan Laut
Cina Selatan dan Sekitarnya. IN: Aziz A (ed), Kondisi
Dan Distribusi Karang Batu (Scleractinia) Di Perai-
ran Pulau Bintan, Provinsi Kepulauan Riau, LIPI
Press, Indonesia, pp. 63-78.
Souhoka J, (2004). Kondisi Terumbu Karang Di Perairan Selat
Lembeh, Sulawesi Utara, Oseanologi dan Limnolo-
gi di Indonesia 36: 33-50.
Statistics Indonesia (2009). Badan Pusat Statistik.
KomodoNationalPark
46
A
Site map &
coordnates
KomodoNationalPark
Figure A1: Sketch map of Komodo National Park showing shortlisted survey sites categorised by region ( = Komodo West, = Ko-
modo East, = Rinca West, = Rinca East, = North KNP) and management zone (red = traditional use, green = wilderness, yellow
= outside KNP).
48
Table A1: All KNP-RHM long-term monitoring sites from {Mous}. Sites surveyed during KNP-RHM 2009 in bold. Region (1: Komodo
West, 2: Komodo East, 3: Rinca West, 4: Rinca East, 5: North KNP), Zone (1: Traditional Use, 2: Wilderness, 3: Outside MPA), Exposure
(1: Sheletered, 2: Semi-Exposed, 3: Exposed) and Slope (1: Gentle Slope, 2: Slope, 3: Reef Flat, 4: Wall). Adjustments to published
indicated.
Exposure
Region
Slope
Zone
Published Adjusted Posi-
No Name Position tion Reason
3011 Takatengirri 5 3 2 2 S 827.150
E 11947.640
3012 S 829.750
E 11947.560
3018 S 832.730
E 11948.670
3020 S 831.650
E 11947.750
3021 Pulau Pungu Kecil 5 3 2 4 S 830.900
E 11947.650
3022 S 833.200
E 11947.900
3025 S 830.000
E 11945.300
3026 S 829.470
E 11945.130
3027 S 829.160
E 11943.700
3032 S 831.700
E 11944.130
3033 S 832.410
E 11944.130
3034 S 832.630
E 11943.140
3035 Papagarang West 5 1 2 2 S 833.380 S 8 33.703 Depth at published coordinates >20m
E 11944.400 E 119 44.387
3038 Pulau Panikia 5 2 2 2 S 835.220
E 11944.200
3039 S 836.100
E 11942.470
3039 S 836.100
E 11942.470
3040 S 835.160
E 11941.850
3042 Pulau Mangiatan 5 1 2 2 S 833.220
E 11941.120
3043 S 833.000
E 11940.380
3045 Pulau Siaba Besar North 5 2 2 3 S 831.470
E 11939.760
3046 S 832.230
E 11938.310
3047 S 833.310
E 11938.580
3052 Suknar 4 1 1 2 S 840.500 S 8 40.726 Depth at published coordinates >20m
E 11947.700 E 119 47.964
3054 S 841.100
E 11945.600
KomodoNationalPark
Exposure
Region
Slope
Zone
3055 Pulau Muang 4 1 1 3 S 842.560 S 8 42.768 Published coordinates on sand with no proximate
E 11945.770 E 119 45.847 reef.
3056 S 842.500
E 11945.960
3057 S 842.930
E 11948.400
3058 Tororase 4 3 3 4 S 843.820 S 8 43.772 Published coordinates on sand with no proximate
E 11947.660 E 119 47.842 reef.
3059 S 845.000
E 11948.100
3060 Pulau Baleh 4 3 3 4 S 846.540 S 8 46.923 Depth at published coordinates >20m
E 11948.240 E 119 48.300
3062 S 847.660
E 11946.640
3063 Gili Mota East 4 2 3 2 S 848.420 S 8 48.273 Depth at published coordinates >20m
E 11948.400 E 119 48.125
3064 Torokeritator 4 3 3 2 S 847.200 S 8 47.304 Published coordinates on land
E 11950.100 E 119 49.563
3065 Loh Baru West 4 1 1 1 S 842.140 S 8 41.876 Published coordinates on land
E 11942.270 E 119 42.589
3066 Loh Baru South 4 2 1 3 S 844.000
E 11942.220
3067 Torowalu 4 2 2 2 S 845.120 S 8 45.286 Published coordinates on land
E 11943.460 E 119 43.594
3072 S 835.210
E 11945.390
3074 Kalong Rinca 5 1 2 2 S 836.570 S 8 36.570 Depth at published coordinates >20m
E 11945.260 E 119 45.260
3087 Tj. Lohkerbau 3 2 3 2 S 840.690
E 11937.730
3090 S 842.190
E 11937.520
3091 Padar 3 2 3 1 S 842.450
E 11937.400
3094 S 845.260
E 11936.190
3095 S 830.980
E 11938.640
3095 S 830.980
E 11938.640
3096 S 830.360
E 11938.160
3097 S 832.820
E 11935.870
3098 S 832.490
E 11935.310
3099 S 832.230
E 11934.480
3100 S 833.770
E 11935.700
3101 S 833.520
E 11935.450
50
Exposure
Region
Slope
Zone
3104 S 830.290
E 11935.450
3107 Pulau Bugis 5 2 2 2 S 829.580
E 11935.460
3119 Loh Wau 2 1 1 1 S 840.410
E 11926.260
3120 S 839.120
E 11928.250
3121 Loh Namo 2 2 1 1 S 838.480 S 8 38.495 Published coordinates on land
E 11928.930 E 119 28.889
3122 S 838.340
E 11929.300
3123 S 836.600
E 11929.380
3124 Loh Lawi 2 1 1 1 S 836.950 S 8 36.479 Depth at published coordinates >20m
E 11928.360 E 119 28.304
3125 S 836.200
E 11929.560
3128 S 836.130
E 11931.400
3129 S 836.390
E 11931.130
3130 S 836.930
E 11931.900
3132 S 837.970
E 11935.160
3138 S 840.820
E 11933.480
3139 Padar 3 2 1 1 S 839.240
E 11934.520
3141 S 847.290
E 11936.780
3143 Loh Sarikaya 1 2 2 1 S 833.290 S 8 33.209 Published coordinates on land
E 11924.800 E 119 24.510
3144 S 833.000
E 11924.580
3145 S 831.750
E 11925.250
3146 Loh Wenci 1 2 3 3 S 831.240
E 11924.720
3147 Loh Boko South 1 1 2 1 S 830.360 S 8 29.865 Published coordinates on land
E 11925.800 E 119 25.204
3148 Loh Boko North 1 1 2 1 S 829.270 S 8 28.344 Depth at published coordinates >20m
E 11925.580 E 119 25.838
3149 Loh Boko Headland 1 2 3 3 S 828.280
E 11925.490
3150 S 827.280
E 11925.160
3150 S 827.280
E 11925.160
3151 S 827.320
E 11918.950
KomodoNationalPark
Exposure
Region
Slope
Zone
3152 Gili Banta South 1 3 1 2 S 826.410
E 11919.560
3153 Gili Banta East 1 3 2 2 S 825.490 S 8 25.533 Depth at published coordinates >20m
E 11920.700 E 119 19.982
3156 Gili Banta North 1 3 1 2 S 824.990 S 8 28.084 Depth at published coordinates >20m
E 11917.000 E 119 17.003
3163 S 825.920
E 11918.800
3164 Loh Sera 2 2 1 1 S 841.800
E 11926.970
3165 S 841.100
E 11927.770
3177 Loh Langtoi 1 2 2 2 S 843.350 S 8 43.204 Depth at published coordinates >20m
E 11922.450 E 119 22.510
3178 S 842.350
E 11922.920
3179 S 840.450
E 11924.200
3181 Loh Wia 1 1 2 3 S 837.960 S 8 37.965 Depth at published coordinates >20m
E 11923.640 E 119 23.788
3182 S 837.410
E 11923.250
3183 S 837.350
E 11922.760
3184 S 835.610
E 11922.730
3185 S 834.550
E 11922.300
52
B
Survey Equipment
KomodoNationalPark
TOOLS MEALS (Example) for 10 days
GPS 3 unit beras 50 kg
roll meter 6 unit mie kering 5 box
small buoys 6 unit telur ayam 6 ppn
underwater paper 2 rim gula pasir 8 kg
plastict slates 10 pieces teh celup 5 ktk
lackban 10 roll kopi NTC 400 gr 5 bks
first aid kid 1 package garam yudium 4 bks
DAN O2 kit 1 unit kerupuk udang 2 bks
pencil 2 box masako 5 ppn
sharper 10 pieces bimoli 1 ltr 7 ltr
tools box 1unit sirup marjan 3 btl
1 mm rope 1 ball tepung mamasuka 12 bks
cutter 5 pieces tabung elpiji 2 tbg
underwater camera 1 unit blue band 1 kg
tears drop 1 btl tepung beras 3 kg
survei manual 2 books tepung terigu 3 kg
survei map 5 pieces sambal botol besar 2 btl
saos botol besar 2 btl
DIVE EQUIPMENT kecap manis besar 1 btl
BCD 8 unit fermipan 1 btl
regulator 8 unit saos tiram 1 btl
dive com 8 unit baterei kecil (alkaline) 1 doss
masker 10 pieces baterei besar 6 psg
snorkel 10 pieces rinso 3 kg
knive dive 4 pieces molto 2 btl
fins open hill 8 psg sunlight cair 3 btl
equipment service tools 1 unit majun 6 kg
wet suit 8 pcs vixal 3 btl
weight 40 kgs bayfress 1 btl
belt 8 pcs baygon 1 btl
float sosis 6 pcs ajinomoto 2 ppn
fanta/coca-cola 2 krat
pocari sweat 4 krat
buah2an secukupnya
bumbu2 secukupnya
sayur2an secukupnya
cuka makan kecil 3 btl
54
C
Survey Proforma
KomodoNationalPark
PIT
Island/Reef: Site no and GPS:: Habitat (slope, exposure, depth):
Date: Observer: Visibility:
Notes (COTS/ disease/bleaching):
TRANSECT I TRANSECT II TRANSECT III

Code Point Code Point Code Point Code Point Code P oint Code Point Code
Acrop ora Branching ACB 0.5 25.5 0.5 25.5 0.5 25.5
Acrop ora Encrustin g ACE 1 26 1 26 1 26
Acrop ora Submassive ACS 1.5 26.5 1.5 26.5 1.5 26.5
Acrop ora Tab le ACT 2 27 2 27 2 27
2.5 27.5 2.5 27.5 2.5 27.5
Coral Branchin g CB 3 28 3 28 3 28
Coral Encrusting CE 3.5 28.5 3.5 28.5 3.5 28.5
Coral Foliose CF 4 29 4 29 4 29
Coral Massive CM 4.5 29.5 4.5 29.5 4.5 29.5
Coral Submassive CS 5 30 5 30 5 30
Coral Mushroom CMR 5.5 30.5 5.5 30.5 5.5 30.5
6 31 6 31 6 31
6.5 31.5 6.5 31.5 6.5 31.5
Soft Coral SC 7 32 7 32 7 32
Xen ia XN 7.5 32.5 7.5 32.5 7.5 32.5
Spo nge SP 8 33 8 33 8 33
Hydroids HY 8.5 33.5 8.5 33.5 8.5 33.5
Other OT 9 34 9 34 9 34
9.5 34.5 9.5 34.5 9.5 34.5
10 35 10 35 10 35
Coralline Alg ae CA 10.5 35.5 10.5 35.5 10.5 35.5
Halimed a HA 11 36 11 36 11 36
Macro algae MA 11.5 36.5 11.5 36.5 11.5 36.5
San d S 12 37 12 37 12 37
Rubble R 12.5 37.5 12.5 37.5 12.5 37.5
Silt SI 13 38 13 38 13 38
Rock/Turf Algae RCK 13.5 38.5 13.5 38.5 13.5 38.5
14 39 14 39 14 39
14.5 39.5 14.5 39.5 14.5 39.5
15 40 15 40 15 40
15.5 40.5 15.5 40.5 15.5 40.5
16 41 16 41 16 41
16.5 41.5 16.5 41.5 16.5 41.5
17 42 17 42 17 42
17.5 42.5 17.5 42.5 17.5 42.5
18 43 18 43 18 43
18.5 43.5 18.5 43.5 18.5 43.5
19 44 19 44 19 44
19.5 44.5 19.5 44.5 19.5 44.5
20 45 20 45 20 45
20.5 45.5 20.5 45.5 20.5 45.5
21 46 21 46 21 46
21.5 46.5 21.5 46.5 21.5 46.5
22 47 22 47 22 47
22.5 47.5 22.5 47.5 22.5 47.5
23 48 23 48 23 48
23.5 48.5 23.5 48.5 23.5 48.5
24 49 24 49 24 49
24.5 49.5 24.5 49.5 24.5 49.5
25 50 25 50 25 50
56
D
Indicator Fish
KomodoNationalPark
Table D1: Categorisation of reef fish into species categories: Chaetodon ocellicaudus 1
-OF: Ornamental Fish, FF: commercially important Food Fish, FH:
Chaetodon octofasciatus 1
Functional groups of Herbivorous fish (1: Browsers, 2: Grazers/
Chaetodon punctatofasciatus 1
detritivores, 3: Scrapers, 4: Scrapers/ small excavators)
Chaetodon rafflesi 1
Family Species OF FF FH Chaetodon speculum 1
ACANTHURIDAE Acanthurus auranticavus 1 2 Chaetodon trifascialis 1
Acanthurus guttatus 1 2 Chaetodon trifasciatus 1
Acanthurus leucocheilus 1 2 Chaetodon unimaculatus 1
Acanthurus lineatus 1 1 Chaetodon vagabundus 1
Acanthurus mata 1 1 Chelmon rostratus 1
Acanthurus nigricans 1 1 Coradion chrysozonus 1
Acanthurus nigrofuscus 1 Forcipiger flavissimus 1
Acanthurus nubilus 1 Heniochus acuminatus 1
Acanthurus olivaceus 1 1 Heniochus chrysostomus 1
Acanthurus pyroferus 1 2 Heniochus pleurotaenia 1
Acanthurus thompsoni 1 Heniochus varius 1
Ctenochaetus binotatus 1 Parachaetodon ocellatus 1
Ctenochaetus cyanocheilus 1 HAEMULIDAE Diagramma melanacrum 1
Ctenochaetus marginatus 1 Plectorhinchus chaetodonoides 1
Ctenochaetus striatus 1 Plectorhinchus flavomaculatus 1
Ctenochaetus strigosus 1 Sargocentron cornutum 3
Ctenochaetus tominiensis 1 Sargocentron spiniferum 3
Naso brachycentron 1 1 KYPHOSIDAE Kyphosus biggibus 3
Naso brevirostris 1 1 Kyphosus vaigiensis 3
Naso hexacanthus 1 LABRIDAE Anampses geographicus 4
Naso lituratus 1 1 1 anampses meleagrides 4
Naso minor 1 Bodianus axilaris 4
Naso vlamingii 1 Bodianus bilunulatus 4
Paracanthurus hepatus 1 1 Bodianus mesothorax 4
Prionurus chrysurus 1 Cheilinus chlorurus 4
Zebrasoma desjardinii 1 1 2 Cheilinus oxycephala 4
Zebrasoma scopas 1 1 2 Cheilio inermis 4
APOGONIDAE Apogon komodoensis 1 Choerodon anchorago 4
BALISTIDAE Balistoides conscipillum 1 Choerodon zosterophorus 4
CAESIONIDAE Caesio cuning 1 Cirrhilabrus aurantidorsalis 4
Caesio lunaris 1 Cirrhilabrus cyanopleura 4
Caesio teres 1 Cirrhilabrus lubbocki 4
Pterocaesio digramma 1 Cirrhilabrus solorensis 4
CARANGIDAE Caranx ignobilis 1 LETHRINIDAE Gnathodentex aurolineatus 1
CHAETODONTIDAE Chaetodon adiergatos 1 Lethrinus erythracanthus 1
Chaetodon auriga 1 Lethrinus erythrophterus 1
Chaetodon baronessa 1 Lethrinus harak 1
Chaetodon citrinellus 1 Lethrinus obsoletus 1
Chaetodon ephipium 1 Lethrinus ornatus 1
Chaetodon falcula 1 Monotaxis grandoculis 1
Chaetodon kleinii 1 LUTJANIDAE Aphareus furca 1
Chaetodon lineolatus 1 Lutjanus argentimaculatus 1
Chaetodon lunula 1 Lutjanus biguttatus 1
Chaetodon lunulatus 1 Lutjanus bohar 1
Chaetodon melannotus 1 Lutjanus carponotatus 1
Chaetodon mertensii 1 Lutjanus decussatus 1
58
Lutjanus ehrenbergii 1 Scarus globiceps 1

Lutjanus fulviflamma 1 Scarus juv 1
Lutjanus fulvus 1 Scarus niger 1
Lutjanus gibbus 1 Scarus prasiognathus 1
Lutjanus kasmira 1 Scarus psittacus 1
Lutjanus lutjanus 1 Scarus quoyi 1
Lutjanus penh 1 Scarus rivulatus 1
Lutjanus quinquelineatus 1 Scarus rubroviolaceus 1
Lutjanus vitta 1 Scarus schlegeli 1
Macolor macularis 1 Scarus sp 1
Macolor niger 1 Scarus spinus 1
OSTRACIDAE Ostracion cubicus 1 Scarus tricolor 1
POMACANTHIDAE Centropyge bicolor 1 SERRANIDAE Aetheloperca rogaa 1
Pomacanthus imperator 1 Anyperodon leucogrammiscus 1
Pomacanthus navarchus 1 Cephalopholis argus 1 1
Pomacanthus semicirculatus 1 Cephalopholis boenak 1 1
Pomacanthus sexstriatus 1 Cephalopholis cyanostigma 1 1
Pomacanthus xanthometopon 1 Cephalopholis miniata 1 1
Pygoplites diacanthus 1 Cephalopholis sexmaculata 1 1
POMACENTRIDAE Pomacentrus adelus 1 Cephalopholis spiloparaea 1 1
Pomacentrus alexanderae 1 Cephalopholis urodeta 1 1
Pomacentrus amboiensis 1 Cromileptes altivelis 1 1
Pomacentrus auriventris 1 Diploprion bifasciatum 1
Pomacentrus bankanensis 1 Epinephelus caeruleopunctatus 1 1
Pomacentrus brachialis 1 Epinephelus fasciatus 1 1
Pomacentrus burroughi 1 Epinephelus merra 1 1
Pomacentrus cf. brachialis (spot on 1 Epinephelus ongus 1 1
dorsal)
Plectropomus areolatus 1 1
Pomacentrus chrysurus 1
Plectropomus laevis 1 1
Pomacentrus coelestis 1
Plectropomus leopardus 1 1
Pomacentrus geminospilos 1
Plectropomus oligacanthus 1 1
Pomacentrus komodoensis 1
Pseudanthias dispar 1
Pomacentrus lepidogenys 1
Pseudanthias evansi 1
Pomacentrus littoralis 1
Pseudanthias huchti 1
Pomacentrus moluccensis 1
Pseudanthias hypselosoma 1
Pomacentrus nigromanus 1
Pseudanthias squamipinnis 1
Pomacentrus philippinus 1
Pseudanthias tuka 1
Pomacentrus reidi 1
Variola louti 1 1
Pomacentrus smithi 1
Variola louti 1 1
Pomacentrus vaiuli 1
SIGANIDAE Siganus corallinus 1
Premnas biaculeatus 1
Siganus guttatus 1
SCARIDAE Cetoscarus bicolor 1
Siganus magnificus 1
Chlorurus bleekeri 1
Siganus puellus 1
Chlorurus bowersi 1
Siganus virgatus 1
Chlorurus capistratoides 1
Siganus vulpinus 1
Chlorurus microrhinos 1
Chlorurus sordidus 1
Scarus dimidiatus 1
Scarus flavipectoralis 1
Scarus forsteni 1
Scarus fraenatus 1
Scarus ghobban 1
KomodoNationalPark
60
E
Statistical Tests
KomodoNationalPark
GLM: Hard Coral Cover by Factors
UNIANOVA SqRtHC BY Region Zone Slope Exposure Depth

/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/INTERCEPT=INCLUDE
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(.05)
/DESIGN=Region Zone Slope Exposure Depth Depth*Exposure Depth*Region Depth*Slope Depth*Zone Exposure*Region Exposure*Slope Exposure*Zone
Region*Slope Region*Zone Slope*Zone.
Between-Subjects Factors
Region Komodo East 12
Komodo West 30
North KNP 54
Rinca East 52
Rinca West 18
Zone Outside MPA 40
Traditional Use 54
Wilderness 72
Slope Gentle Slope 39
Reef Flat 27
Slope 84
Wall 16
Exposure Exposed 40
Semi-exposed 78
Sheltered 48
Depth D 105
S 61
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable:SqRt-HC
Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 189.165a 34 5.564 4.604 .000
Intercept 1107.040 1 1107.040 916.103 .000
Region 26.823 4 6.706 5.549 .000
Zone 3.546 2 1.773 1.467 .234
Slope 10.427 3 3.476 2.876 .039
Exposure 1.790 2 .895 .741 .479
Depth 7.779 1 7.779 6.437 .012
Exposure * Depth 4.464 2 2.232 1.847 .162
Region * Depth 6.587 2 3.293 2.725 .069
Slope * Depth 2.595 3 .865 .716 .544
Zone * Depth .830 2 .415 .343 .710
Region * Exposure .000 0 . . .
Slope * Exposure .000 0 . . .
Zone * Exposure .000 0 . . .
Region * Slope .000 0 . . .
Region * Zone 7.052 1 7.052 5.836 .017
Zone * Slope .000 0 . . .
Error 158.303 131 1.208
Total 2906.000 166
Corrected Total 347.468 165
a. R Squared = .544 (Adjusted R Squared = .426)
62
GLM: Coral Diversity by Region and Zone
UNIANOVA Hloge BY Region Zone

/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/INTERCEPT=INCLUDE
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(0.05)
/DESIGN=Region Zone Region*Zone.
Region North KNP 9
Rinca East 8
Rinca West 3
Zone Outside MPA 6
Traditional Use 5
Wilderness 9
Dependent Variable:H(loge)
Corrected Model 1.701 a

6 .283 1.361 .300
Intercept 94.377 1 94.377 453.193 .000
Region 1.416 2 .708 3.399 .065
Zone .525 2 .262 1.260 .316
Region * Zone .187 2 .094 .450 .647
Error 2.707 13 .208
Total 104.402 20

KomodoNationalPark
GLM: Fish Biomass by Region & Zone

COMPUTE Transform=SQRT(SQRT(Total)).
EXECUTE.
UNIANOVA Transform BY Region Zone
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/INTERCEPT=INCLUDE
/EMMEANS=TABLES(Region) COMPARE ADJ(LSD)
/EMMEANS=TABLES(Zone) COMPARE ADJ(LSD)
/EMMEANS=TABLES(Region*Zone)
Komodo West 30
North KNP 51
Rinca East 53
Rinca West 18
Zone Outside MPA 41
Traditional Use 51
Wilderness 72
Dependent Variable:Transform
Intercept 2504.004 1 2504.004 2784.080 .000
Region 19.121 4 4.780 5.315 .000
Zone 2.529 2 1.264 1.406 .248
Region * Zone 16.039 5 3.208 3.567 .004
Error 136.709 152 .899
Total 3451.659 164
64
GLM: Ornamental Fish by Region and

Zone
EXECUTE.
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/INTERCEPT=INCLUDE
Komodo West 30
North KNP 51
Rinca East 52
Rinca West 18
Zone Outside MPA 41
Traditional Use 50
Wilderness 72
Intercept 1215.236 1 1215.236 2700.929 .000
Region 16.804 4 4.201 9.337 .000
Zone .889 2 .445 .988 .375
Region * Zone 3.729 5 .746 1.657 .148
Error 67.940 151 .450
Total 1657.759 163

KomodoNationalPark
GLM: Food fish by region and zone
GET DATA
/TYPE=XLS
/FILE=E:\Fish Stats\Fish-Env Matrix.xls
/SHEET=name SiteBiomass-FF
/CELLRANGE=full
/READNAMES=on
/ASSUMEDSTRWIDTH=32767.
DATASET NAME DataSet1 WINDOW=FRONT.

EXECUTE.
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/INTERCEPT=INCLUDE
/CRITERIA=ALPHA(0.05)
Komodo West 30
North KNP 49
Rinca East 46
Rinca West 18
Zone Outside MPA 41
Traditional Use 46
Wilderness 68
Intercept 1343.045 1 1343.045 1247.079 .000
Region 10.158 4 2.539 2.358 .056
Zone 6.844 2 3.422 3.178 .045
Region * Zone 13.582 5 2.716 2.522 .032
Error 154.004 143 1.077
Total 1916.670 155
66
GLM: Herbivorous Functional Groups by Region and Zone
COMPUTE TrBrow=SQRT(SQRT(Brow)).
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE TrGraz=SQRT(SQRT(Graz)).
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE TrScra=SQRT(SQRT(Scra)).
EXECUTE.
COMPUTE TrExca=SQRT(SQRT(Exca)).
EXECUTE.
SAVE OUTFILE=E:\Fish Stats\GLM_ResFishBmass-RegionZone.sav

/COMPRESSED.
GLM TrBrow TrGraz TrScra TrExca BY Region Zone
/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/INTERCEPT=INCLUDE
Komodo West 27
North KNP 43
Rinca East 33
Rinca West 14
Zone Outside MPA 33
Traditional Use 38
Wilderness 56
KomodoNationalPark
GLM: Fish Diversity by Region and Zone
UNIANOVA Hloge BY Region Zone

/METHOD=SSTYPE(3)
/INTERCEPT=INCLUDE
N
Komodo West 10
North KNP 9
Rinca East 9
Rinca West 3
Zone Outside MPA 9
Traditional Use 11
Wilderness 15

Dependent Variable:Hloge
Source Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 3.812 a
11 .347 1.031 .453
Intercept 266.849 1 266.849 793.871 .000
Region 2.587 4 .647 1.924 .141
Zone .103 2 .051 .153 .859
Region * Zone .971 5 .194 .578 .716
Error 7.731 23 .336
Total 337.592 35
68
F
Raw Data
Table A: PIT Benthic Categories
70
KomodoNationalPark
3011
3021
3029
3035
3038
3042
3045
3052
3055
3058
3060
3063
3064
3065
3066
Site:
Data Depth: D S D S D D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S
Hard Coral 10.3 22.0 12.7 32.0 22.7 11.0 31.2 5.7 10.7 12.0 4.0 19.0 16.7 14.0 24.3 7.0 17.3 8.7 24.0 9.3 14.0 6.0 19.3 11.3 15.0 15.7 31.7 6.3 21.0
Soft Coral 21.0 20.0 3.3 1.7 7.0 4.3 10.0 6.7 7.3 43.7 43.3 28.0 32.0 1.7 12.3 8.3 31.3 18.0 35.0 7.0 34.7 24.3 49.0 19.0 42.3 8.3 14.3 0.3 1.3
Sponge/ Asc. 3.7 2.7 8.0 0.7 3.3 3.3 1.5 1.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 5.0 0.3 3.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 3.0 7.0 3.0 3.7 2.3 0.7 1.0 2.0 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.7
Inverts 7.3 5.3 6.0 3.7 2.3 4.3 2.2 1.0 0.3 1.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.3 2.0 2.7 1.3 2.0 8.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0
Algae-Macro 0.3 0.3 3.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Halimeda 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Rubble 12.7 5.3 29.0 5.0 19.3 37.0 43.2 64.7 42.7 16.0 35.0 22.3 19.0 15.3 35.3 7.3 28.3 11.0 1.0 13.0 10.0 22.7 6.0 9.3 1.0 14.7 19.0 10.0 60.3
Sand/ Silt 13.3 6.0 17.7 19.0 11.0 33.3 5.0 18.0 33.0 16.7 13.7 8.0 23.0 46.7 5.0 72.0 15.3 20.7 0.0 42.3 6.3 34.3 2.0 31.7 1.3 53.3 20.7 79.3 10.7
Dead Coral 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.7 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bleach Coral 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Rock 28.0 35.3 12.7 37.3 30.7 5.7 6.7 2.0 5.7 7.3 3.7 15.0 9.0 17.3 20.3 4.7 5.0 33.7 19.0 20.0 26.0 7.3 15.7 20.0 24.0 5.3 13.7 2.7 5.7
3067
3074
3087
3091
3107
3119
3121
3124
3139
3143
3146
3147
3148
3149
3152
3153
3156
3164
3177
3181
Site:
Data Depth: D S D S D S D S D S D D D D S D D D D D D D D D D D
Hard Coral 38.3 31.3 13.0 17.3 16.7 14.0 14.0 25.7 7.0 19.0 12.7 8.0 20.7 8.7 6.0 63.3 7.7 9.3 12.3 19.0 31.7 19.0 38.3 7.0 27.3 11.3
Soft Coral 12.0 32.3 1.0 0.0 34.0 44.3 22.7 29.3 48.7 59.3 54.0 47.3 8.7 13.3 18.3 28.3 10.3 49.3 49.7 16.0 56.3 49.7 12.3 61.7 19.3 4.7
Sponge/ Asc. 0.3 0.3 1.7 1.3 0.7 0.0 1.3 7.0 1.3 0.7 0.0 1.0 2.3 0.0 1.7 0.0 2.7 2.3 1.0 0.7 0.3 4.0 1.3 0.7 7.0 4.0
Inverts 0.3 3.3 3.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.7 0.0 3.0 0.0 5.0 1.7 0.0 2.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.3
Algae-Macro 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.0 8.7 3.0
Halimeda 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 4.0 2.0
Rubble 18.0 11.0 41.7 51.0 28.7 24.7 21.3 1.3 23.0 13.7 3.3 8.3 17.3 8.3 16.7 5.7 9.0 9.7 6.0 29.3 4.3 11.3 22.3 2.7 0.0 17.0
Sand/ Silt 28.3 18.7 18.0 20.0 14.3 8.7 24.7 0.3 7.3 2.0 26.3 28.0 32.0 54.3 9.3 0.0 52.0 16.3 23.0 8.3 2.3 3.7 3.0 25.0 1.0 36.3
Dead Coral 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bleach Coral 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Rock 2.3 2.7 20.7 8.3 4.3 5.7 13.7 28.0 7.7 4.7 2.7 5.3 12.7 14.3 44.0 2.7 11.0 9.3 7.7 15.3 4.3 10.3 18.7 3.0 23.0 19.7
Table B: PIT Coral Genera
Site: 3011 3021 3029 3035 3038 3042 3045 3055 3058 3060 3063 3064 3065 3066 3067 3074 3087 3091 3107 3139
Genus Depth: D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S
Acropora 17 5 39 78 33 50 6 20 2 11 5 7 21 33 5 27 6 1 7 8 1 38 5 8 10 19 6 2 16 8 19 26 18 22 10 23 12 50 5 2
Actinopora 3
ALCYOMIDAE 3
Alveopora 1
Amplexidiscus 1
Anacropora 1 1 2 1 1
Anthelia 1 8 2 5 16 13 6 14 4 2 5 11 53 27 5 14 2 1 1 1 1 34 31 10 8 56 27
Astreopora 1 2 1 1
Briareum 2 5 3 1 2
Brirarium 3 4 4 1 5
Capnella 2 26 50 5 5 7
Cespitularia 2
Cladiela 1
Cladiella 1 2
Clavularia 1 1 1 2 1
Cyphastera 1
Cyphastrea 1 4 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1
Dendronepthya 2
Dendroneptia 2
Dendroneptya 2 2
Dendronyptia 1
Dentronyptia 1 1
Diploastrea 1 3 11 2 1
Dirareum 1
Dirarium 1 3 1 4 1 1 1
Discosoma 2
Echinopora 1 2 1 3 2 3 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 1
Echinpora 1
Euphylia 1 3
Euphyllia 1
Favia 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 4
Favides 1
Favites 6 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 4 1
Fungia 1 1 5 1 1 1 8 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 1
Galaxea 1 1 2 3 1 1
Goniastrea 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
72
KomodoNationalPark
Site: 3011 3021 3029 3035 3038 3042 3045 3055 3058 3060 3063 3064 3065 3066 3067 3074 3087 3091 3107 3139
Goniopora 1 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 4 1 1 2 2 3
Gonoastrea 1
Haliclona 3
Halicrona 1
Halithoa 1
Herpolita 1
Herpolitha 1 1 1
Herpolitha 1
Hitnopora 5 1
Hydnopora 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 1
Isis 1 1 2 1 4 3
Leptastrea 1 1
Leptoria 1
Leptoseris 1 1 1 1
Leptostrea 1
Lissoclinum 1
Lithophyton 20 13 1 4 5 1 1 4 1 6 3 5 4 1 2 1 10 3 4 2 15 2 1 9 11
Lithophytum 2 4 1 1
Litophyton 1 2
Lobophilia 1
Lobophyllia 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 1 2 1
Lobophyta 2 1
Lobophyton 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 4 10 24 1 1
Lobophytum 1 2 3 4 2 26
Merulina 4
Milepora 1 2
Millepora 1 1 1 3 2 5 1 4 2 1 2 4 1 4 1 1 7 2 3 4
Millepora 3
Montastrea 1 1
Montipora 19 7 23 25 9 11 2 3 15 4 3 6 3 3 1 3 2 2 3 7 2 21 2 2 2 3 2 3 21 2 1
Montopora 1 2
Mycedium 1
Mycidium 1 4 1 2 1 4
Neophytum 1 1
Nepthea 4 1
Oulophyllia 1
Site: 3011 3021 3029 3035 3038 3042 3045 3055 3058 3060 3063 3064 3065 3066 3067 3074 3087 3091 3107 3139
Oxypora 1 3 1 5 2
Pachysaris 1
Pachyseris 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 5 11 1
Pactinia 1
Palythoa 1 2 1 1
Palythora 2
Paralemnalia 21 76 7 2 7 2 8
Pasammocora 1 1 2
Pavona 1 1 1 1 58
Pectinia 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 2
Phyllospongia 1
Phyllospongia 1
Physogyra 1 3 1 2 1 1
Platygyra 1 5 1 2 2 1
Pocillopora 1 10 3 3 5 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4
Pocilopora 1 1
Porites 16 19 5 3 5 4 1 4 2 3 1 2 3 6 1 1 2 3 3 6 2 11 2 1 5 2 1 1 3 3
Protopalythoa 4 2
Psammocora 2 1 3 1 2 1 2
Psamocora 2
Sacrophyton 1
Sandalolitha 1
Sarcophyton 5 1 2 3 10 2 10 2 5 3 19 11 37 3 7 23 23 2 9 5 10 8 1 9 13
Sarcopyton 2
Scleronyptia 1
Seiatopora 1
Seriatopora 5 30 35 2 12 3 4 2 15 2 7 3 1 1 2 9 1 42 58 4 7 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Simphyllia 1 1 1
Sinul 1
Sinularia 12 10 1 2 3 5 2 1 4 1 3 1 2 17 29 1 45 8 80 31 47 22 12 3 4 29 1 9 11 16 7 9 15
Siphongeorgia 1
Siphonogorgia 2 1 1 2 1
Steligera 1
Stycodactyla 1
Stycogactyla 2
Stylophora 1
74
KomodoNationalPark
Site: 3011 3021 3029 3035 3038 3042 3045 3055 3058 3060 3063 3064 3065 3066 3067 3074 3087 3091 3107 3139
Stylopora 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 3 3 9 1 1 1 1 3 3 5 1
Symbhylia 1
Symphilia 1 1 1
Symphillia 1 2
Symphylia 1
Symphyllia 1
Tentacle 1
Trachyphilia 2
Trachyphylia 1
Tubastrea 3 1 1 6 2 4 1
Tubipora 3 2 1 1 10 11 5 7 1 1
Turbinaria 1 2 4 1 4 6 1 1
Unidentified genera 1 17
Xenia 1 4 2 1 3 13 5 97 ## 32 18 70 2 4 11 2 8 16 8 16 85 ## 1
Zoanthid 1 1 1 3
Table C: Fish Biomass
Family Species 3011 3021 3029 3035 3038 3042 3045 3052 3055 3058 3060 3063 3064 3065 3066 3067 3074 3087 3091 3107 3119 3121 3124 3139 3143 3146 3147 3148 3149 3152 3153 3156 3164 3177 3181
ACANTHURIDAE Acanthurus auranticavus 5.72 13.28 2.10 9.97 6.05 41.60
Acanthurus guttatus 12.10
Acanthurus leucocheilus 205.70 5.72 250.06 5.72 11.43 217.80 5.72 3.14 41.16
Acanthurus lineatus 217.80 24.20 52.69 22.02 12.10 50.20 24.20
Acanthurus mata 10.37 19.79 14.61 7.62 4.87 10.37 259.25 44.12 388.76 71.12 14.61 96.60 4.87 60.87 10.37 3.32 48.69 54.62 1.77 4.87
Acanthurus nigricans 11.43
Acanthurus nigrofuscus 7.12 5.09 3.54 36.77 5.22
Acanthurus nubilus 12.10 8.91
Acanthurus olivaceus 5.72 24.20 2.10 5.72 2.10 5.72 2.10 36.30 14.29 4.00 4.57 6.25 12.89 19.06 94.80 11.94 1.14 4.19 37.10 21.98
Acanthurus pyroferus 2.10 9.75 26.96 3.91 2.10 5.21 5.72 2.10 14.58 9.97 30.25 2.10 12.10 2.10 2.10 18.10 12.10 37.83 6.29 17.78 9.15 15.34 2.10
Acanthurus thompsoni 5.72 2.10 2.10 32.57
Ctenochaetus binotatus 6.18 5.21 7.13 5.15 4.47 5.58 2.98 4.47 6.15 12.72 4.47 3.52 98.58 7.32 3.35 3.52 5.71 5.64 3.35 6.49 9.08 4.47 7.40 9.29 5.45 12.73 20.44
Ctenochaetus cyanocheilus 2.41 6.40 6.40
Ctenochaetus marginatus 11.93
Ctenochaetus striatus 2.12 5.29 16.79 21.54 13.13 6.07 55.35 9.57 17.79 12.81 8.90 11.86 7.52 10.34 6.71 40.78 5.93 25.24 5.51 21.92 27.32 15.79
Ctenochaetus strigosus 5.96 25.71 29.82 2.24
Ctenochaetus tominiensis 5.96 2.13
Naso brachycentron 26.40 3.73 27.87 69.67 2880.07 307.29
Naso brevirostris 10.39
Naso hexacanthus 19.09 8.29 20.06 246.90 70.61 72.62 187.89
Naso lituratus 16.19
Naso minor 8.43 28.53 21.09 139.34 1.19
Naso vlamingii 0.59 40.48 27.87 6.26
Paracanthurus hepatus 3.42 82.93 11.41
Prionurus chrysurus 92.32
Zebrasoma desjardinii 11.03
Zebrasoma scopas 1.21 1.82 2.23 2.23 6.70 2.23 12.28 9.46 2.23 1.21 1.72 2.23 31.04 6.33 6.60 1.21 4.14 4.47 3.35 2.23 6.21 4.19 4.38 8.60 4.24 2.23
APOGONIDAE Apogon aureus 0.75 21.08 3.76 3.76 3.01 12.05 9.04 7.15 18.82 15.06
Apogon compressus 3.04 0.76 1.97 1.52 1.52 2.28 0.76 0.30 0.76 3.55 0.76 6.84 4.56 6.98 6.84 3.80
Apogon cyanosoma 10.68
Apogon fragilis 37.55
Apogon hoevenii 10.01
Apogon komodoensis 0.83 4.17 4.17
Apogon parvulus 5.84 0.14 0.46
Apogon perlitus 29.21
Apogon sp 90.95
Apogon sp (white dorsal) 3.00
Apogon sp 13 227.39 66.76 41.72
Archamia fucata 12.60
Archamia zoosterophora 3.56
Cheilodipterus artus 2.63 4.21 0.53 5.79 1.58 13.17
Cheilodipterus macrodon 13.01 2.18 0.90 0.90 1.90
Cheilodipterus quinquelineatus 1.36
Sphaeramia nematoptera 18.07
AULOSTOMIDAE Aulostomus chinensis 0.91
Aulostomus chinensis 7.83 1.64 0.32
BALISTIDAE Balistapus undulatus 2.48
Balistapus undulatus 3.76 4.36 1.20 3.76 1.20 4.37 1.20 0.87 0.87 3.76 1.20 1.06 1.20 2.48 1.47 0.53 2.48
Balistoides conscipillum 20.47 40.94 40.94
Balistoides viridescens 1.96 35.09 21.19 11.57
Melichthys vidua 3.76 3.76 3.76
Odonus niger 10.61 3.76 0.53 18.43 18.43 14.47 4.47 17.66 7.53 3.76 45.79 52.97
Sufflamen bursa 8.43 6.73 4.23 2.12 4.23 7.78 5.67 2.12 5.67 6.73 5.67 5.67 2.12 4.23 2.12
Sufflamen chrysoptera 2.12 2.12 2.64 5.31 2.12 4.23 2.12 4.71 6.19 4.23 2.64 3.43 2.12 4.23 5.67 5.67 21.84 2.12 5.67 8.26
BLENNIIDAE Meiacanthus grammistes 0.73 0.73 2.88 1.47 2.88
Meiacanthus smithi 0.73
Plagiotremus rhinorhynchos 0.61
CAESIONIDAE Caesio caerulaurea 203.80 26.58 70.89 205.79
Caesio cuning 38.92 108.84 113.84 50.20 18.51 10.27 176.19 13.55
Caesio lunaris 87.16 37.21 176.85 46.49 28.91 129.96 123.39 67.18 61.69 90.28 83.84
76
KomodoNationalPark
Family Species 3011 3021 3029 3035 3038 3042 3045 3052 3055 3058 3060 3063 3064 3065 3066 3067 3074 3087 3091 3107 3119 3121 3124 3139 3143 3146 3147 3148 3149 3152 3153 3156 3164 3177 3181
Caesio teres 18.63
Pterocaesio chrysozona 65.14 332.41
Pterocaesio digramma 117.77 36.36 65.55 47.11 38.27 24.35 1.28 18.18 88.95 31.40 31.40
Pterocaesio marri 36.57
Pterocaesio pisang 53.22 12.98 69.49 25.31 9.09 6.49 77.07 115.60
Pterocaesio tessellata 317.03 68.79 75.28
Pterocaesio tile 45.02 56.97 1.30 59.73 7.75 24.50 3.89 381.48 19.27 43.08 11.56 19.47 304.00 217.14 486.65 173.71
CARANGIDAE Caranx ignobilis 1247.27 1152.19 1.56
CHAETODONTIDAE Chaetodon adiergatos 2.20 2.20 1.31 1.31 2.20 2.20 4.40
Chaetodon auriga 1.21 1.21 4.10 2.05 1.21
Chaetodon baronessa 1.60 2.63 1.75 1.31 1.31 3.92 2.20 2.61 4.40 3.92 2.20 3.92 1.31 1.31 4.40 2.20 2.40 4.40 4.40
Chaetodon citrinellus 12.79 0.05
Chaetodon ephipium 11.46 1.07 4.09 5.73 17.19
Chaetodon falcula 2.20
Chaetodon kleinii 3.26 2.61 2.28 2.24 2.61 3.13 6.53 1.89 0.53 3.26 4.97 0.68 3.65 1.75 2.36 3.93 1.96 3.13 3.48 2.61 1.04 7.40 12.27 3.59 9.28 5.99 9.41 6.81 17.62 9.25 7.18 10.89 33.24 7.41
Chaetodon lineolatus 9.73 7.12
Chaetodon lunula 2.20 1.31 2.20 2.20 1.31 2.20
Chaetodon lunulatus 4.40 1.19 1.31 1.31 1.31 2.18 3.30 1.31 1.60 8.79 2.61 1.31 6.53
Chaetodon melannotus 2.36 3.15 5.41 3.93 8.26 5.90 7.08 1.86 4.72 4.72 2.98 2.98 7.70 2.98 5.59 3.98 8.29 4.72 1.24
Chaetodon mertensii 1.79 0.90 0.90 1.34 1.34 1.79
Chaetodon ocellicaudus 6.55 4.25 10.19
Chaetodon octofasciatus 1.31 2.20 3.05 2.20 2.63 0.68
Chaetodon punctatofasciatus 1.31
Chaetodon rafflesi 4.40 4.40 2.20 4.40 1.31 2.85
Chaetodon speculum 0.15 0.01 0.24 0.48
Chaetodon trifascialis 1.25 2.29 2.30 0.02 0.33 2.29 2.86 2.29 3.75 2.29 1.25 4.57 7.49 3.25 11.43 2.08 5.72 0.65
Chaetodon trifasciatus 2.50 2.29 4.57 3.02
Chaetodon unimaculatus 2.73
Chaetodon vagabundus 2.70 2.03 4.06 3.04 7.55 3.45 2.03 3.04 4.06 1.11 6.53 2.03 2.03 4.06
Chelmon rostratus 3.35
Coradion chrysozonus 1.77 6.70 4.47 1.30 4.47
Forcipiger flavissimus 1.30 1.30 3.91 2.61
Heniochus acuminatus 3.78 2.52 9.03
Heniochus chrysostomus 14.61
Heniochus pleurotaenia 6.83 27.33
Heniochus varius 2.42 13.66 4.84 3.05 4.84 16.95 3.05 6.98 2.51 4.84 4.84 13.66 1.84 6.59 9.52 6.83 2.42 6.83 6.83 11.85 3.59 2.42
Parachaetodon ocellatus 1.77 4.47
CIRRHITIDAE Paracirrhites forsteri 1.43 1.43
DASYATIDAE Taeniura lymma 331.77 575.38 575.38 343.20 1336.01
DIODONTIDAE Diodon hystrix 27.96
Diodon liturosus 87.78
EPHIPPIDAE Platax pinnatus 8.25 19.79
FISTULARIIDAE Fistularia commersonni 18.10
GOBIIDAE Goby sp 0.52
Valenciennea strigata 2.98
GRAMMISTIDAE Diploprion bifasciatum 4.23
HAEMULIDAE Diagramma melanacrum 18.96
Plectorhinchus chaetodonoides 12.68 42.19 27.30 4.16 21.87 68.26 32.86 27.30
Plectorhinchus flavomaculatus 87.25 44.36
Plectorhinchus lessonii 16.30 3.86 8.15 111.42 8.15 14.79 37.14
Plectorhinchus lineatus 7.34 3.39 35.39 13.62
Plectorhinchus polytaenia 8.15 14.79 14.79 3.86 74.28
Plectorhinchus vittatus 5.80 8.15 8.15
HOLOCENTRIDAE Myripristis adusta 6.45 32.24 29.01 13.81 58.03 6.45 69.03
Myripristis kuntee 58.10 8.10 68.67 77.47 129.33
Myripristis murdjan 116.05 21.79 4.65
Myripristis violacea 52.58 6.57 13.14 13.76 6.57
Neoniphon sammara 8.12 57.25 4.29
Sargocentron caudimaculatus 24.17 10.74 7.16 11.28 5.37 1.93 5.37 42.35 11.55 21.29 21.29
Sargocentron cornutum 21.48

Family Species 3011 3021 3029 3035 3038 3042 3045 3052 3055 3058 3060 3063 3064 3065 3066 3067 3074 3087 3091 3107 3119 3121 3124 3139 3143 3146 3147 3148 3149 3152 3153 3156 3164 3177 3181
Sargocentron spiniferum 32.00
KYPHOSIDAE Kyphosus biggibus 53.10
Kyphosus vaigiensis 757.50
LABRIDAE Anampses geographicus 1.05 0.63
anampses meleagrides 0.63 0.50 1.05 0.63 1.05
Anampses twisti 1.57 0.98 1.36
Bodianus axilaris 1.31 2.61 3.27 2.55 1.31 1.31 1.31 5.10 3.80
Bodianus bilunulatus 8.43 31.88
Bodianus diana 7.60 5.50 1.63 1.31 1.76 1.31 2.18
Bodianus mesothorax 1.31 2.55 3.27 1.31 1.31 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.31 1.63 1.31 4.87 2.93 0.65 4.57 1.31 1.63 2.61 1.31 3.80 1.31 3.80
Cheilinus chlorurus 2.83 4.14 1.43
Cheilinus fasciatus 8.46 12.69 8.46 6.04 3.92 8.15 12.04 1.40 8.46 4.33 1.07 3.08 2.24 1.40 4.97 2.66 6.57
Cheilinus oxycephala 0.73
Cheilinus trilobatus 8.87 4.11 8.87 1.47 1.47 8.87 0.03
Cheilio inermis 2.06 0.95 1.50 6.39
Choerodon anchorago 7.32 8.56 4.59 7.25 7.94 10.06 3.90 3.10 2.70 21.12 7.32
Choerodon zosterophorus 4.59 4.59 0.81
Cirrhilabrus aurantidorsalis 9.26 0.65
Cirrhilabrus cyanopleura 8.47 3.55 2.93 1.43 3.93 5.17 7.97 13.57 3.23 1.08 0.65 9.91 12.92 0.33 18.03
Cirrhilabrus exquisitus 1.06 1.51 0.26 0.65 2.26 0.68 0.02 11.63 5.17
Cirrhilabrus lubbocki 3.23 3.23
Cirrhilabrus solorensis 6.16 5.01 9.18 8.55 9.21 3.23 10.34 10.98 7.11 4.20 5.57 2.91 4.42 0.06 17.77 32.31 3.23 19.71 32.31 21.19 6.86
Cirrhilabrus sp 1.42
Coris batuensis 1.37 0.69 0.76 0.80 0.93 0.61 0.61 0.69 0.37 0.76 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.94 1.37 0.46 1.08 1.93 0.46 0.59 0.91 0.31 0.96 1.19 0.46
Coris gaimard 2.88 0.46 0.96 4.71 13.06 0.46 0.46 25.10 0.96 25.10
Coris pictoides 0.46 0.65 0.23 1.83 0.91 0.96 1.19 1.93 0.96 1.92
Diproctacanthus xanthurus 0.65 1.29 1.29 1.62 1.94 0.65 1.45 1.29 0.52 0.97 3.06 2.26 2.18 4.10 0.97 1.29 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.67 1.94 0.05 1.29 0.97 0.02 0.25 0.50
Epibulus insidiator 9.44 4.35 4.35 9.44 2.95 1.54 17.52 4.35 9.44 7.35 9.19 1.54 8.77
Gomphosus varius 1.68 0.57 1.80 0.57 6.61 2.24 3.35 0.90
Halichoeres chloropterus 1.21 1.72
Halichoeres chrysus 0.99 0.05 1.97 0.07
Halichoeres hortulanus 2.26 2.86 5.98 6.05 1.21 3.02 9.91 1.46 1.72 3.73 3.15 4.62 6.61 2.71 5.43
Halichoeres leucurus 0.66 0.66 1.16 0.66 0.26 1.32 0.66 1.64 0.66 2.10 0.66
Halichoeres margaritaceus 1.97 0.23 0.21 0.26 0.02
Halichoeres marginatus 1.98 0.66 1.03 0.93 0.66
Halichoeres melanurus 0.67 0.67 0.89 4.66 0.67 1.66 0.67 0.67 2.66 1.33 0.67 0.67 0.67 1.12 3.11 9.98
Halichoeres meleagris 1.64 0.66 1.32
Halichoeres nebulosus 4.93 0.79 0.66 2.42 1.97 1.10
Halichoeres pallidus 1.32 1.97 0.66 1.97 1.97 0.66 0.66
Halichoeres podostigma 0.66 0.66 1.21 4.62 0.66
Halichoeres prosopeion 1.97 1.32 1.91 1.64 1.98 1.30 1.97 2.60 0.26 0.66 1.32 2.47 1.24 9.21 1.32 3.19 3.29 2.63 1.71 0.67 3.29 0.39 1.00 1.21
Halichoeres purpurescens 1.33
Halichoeres richmondi 0.66 1.32 0.87 0.66 1.92 1.21 1.21
Halichoeres scapularis 3.29 1.32 0.80 0.92 2.14
Halichoeres solorensis 0.66 0.66 1.26 3.02 2.30 1.21 1.97 4.60 2.63 1.50 2.34 0.66 3.23 4.27 0.93 0.87 3.02 1.74 1.14 1.26 1.25 8.59 1.21
Halichoeres vrolikii 0.88 1.32 1.97 0.66 0.66 0.66
Halichoeres zeylonicus 0.66 6.05
Hemigymnus fasciatus 2.86 4.16 3.11 1.56 0.87 1.56 1.56 0.87 25.42
Hemigymnus melapterus 4.16 1.22 4.16 4.16 2.86 1.56 1.22 1.56 5.12 8.68 4.16 0.87 1.65 25.42 17.35 8.32 31.71 1.94 17.35
Hologymnosus annulatus 1.50 1.90 3.82 3.82 6.18
Hologymnosus doliatus 2.06 2.66 2.06 1.12
Labrichthys unilineatus 0.65 0.97 0.65 1.08 0.65 1.31 3.27 32.11 3.82 4.90 2.73
Labroides bicolor 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.99 0.40 0.20 0.40 0.20 0.83 0.68 1.65 2.32 0.83
Labroides dimidiatus 2.38 0.48 0.99 0.79 0.40 0.40 0.59 0.87 0.40 0.66 0.40 1.19 1.29 0.47 0.79 0.80 0.40 0.69 0.79 0.40 0.59 0.01 0.84 2.11 1.59 0.62 0.12 1.40 0.28 0.94 0.74 0.50
Labropsis manabei 0.40 0.79 0.83 0.40
Macropharyngodon meleagris 0.91 1.47 0.46 0.96 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.46 1.91
Macropharyngodon ornatus 0.46
Oxycheilinus celebicus 2.33 3.92 1.47 2.33 1.96 1.40 4.55 1.47
Oxycheilinus chlorurus 1.47
Oxycheilinus digramma 1.40 5.28 1.40 2.86 1.40 0.73 1.07 0.73 3.92 8.46 5.74 1.78 0.73 1.07 1.77
78
KomodoNationalPark
Family Species 3011 3021 3029 3035 3038 3042 3045 3052 3055 3058 3060 3063 3064 3065 3066 3067 3074 3087 3091 3107 3119 3121 3124 3139 3143 3146 3147 3148 3149 3152 3153 3156 3164 3177 3181
Oxycheilinus unifasciatus 0.73 1.40 0.71 0.73 1.07 1.42
Pseudocheilinus hexataenia 1.29 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.97 0.65 1.31 0.23 0.67
Pseudodax moluccanus 9.94 3.82 8.49 8.49 1.31 16.06 6.30 32.11 16.06 6.15 16.06
Pteragogus cryptus 0.02 0.65
Pteragogus enneacanthus 0.65
Stethojulis balteata 1.10 0.63 2.20
Stethojulis bandanensis 0.82
Stethojulis strigiventer 1.88 4.36
Stethojulis trilineata 0.63 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 0.63 1.77 1.10 0.63
Thalassoma amblycephalum 1.23 1.23 1.26 1.86 0.63 4.30
Thalassoma hardwicke 4.24 2.03 1.32 1.32 0.72 1.32 6.58 0.92
Thalassoma janseni 1.23 1.23 1.44 1.76 1.68 1.82 12.54 1.78
Thalassoma lunare 2.06 2.57 2.88 10.39 2.80 2.16 1.59 1.67 6.38 1.80 1.08 1.92 3.16 2.35 0.63 2.09 3.17 0.08 4.02 1.02 3.45 3.49 2.80 0.63 3.75
LETHRINIDAE Gnathodentex aurolineatus 89.23 39.91 39.91 18.45 9.98 4.62 299.36
Lethrinus erythracanthus 16.25
Lethrinus erythrophterus 8.83 8.83 8.83
Lethrinus harak 2.79 8.83 16.25 16.25
Lethrinus obsoletus 27.02
Lethrinus ornatus 2.95 10.18
Monotaxis grandoculis 36.90
LUTJANIDAE Aphareus furca 220.87 38.67
Lutjanus argentimaculatus 18.11 33.50 7.85 13.89
Lutjanus biguttatus 24.65 24.65 3.81 19.05 9.53 819.30 7.62 12.32
Lutjanus bohar 15.78 8.54 26.30 3.96 6.25 219.22 0.74
Lutjanus carponotatus 16.22 25.29 32.03 25.29 25.29
Lutjanus decussatus 8.22 30.35 8.22 12.85 8.22 14.22 15.17 15.17 8.22 15.17 8.22 30.35 15.17 15.17
Lutjanus ehrenbergii 57.21 25.07 25.29
Lutjanus fulviflamma 8.25
Lutjanus fulvus 8.87 8.87
Lutjanus gibbus 136.70
Lutjanus kasmira 31.35 247.74
Lutjanus lutjanus 15.06 7.53
Lutjanus penh 195.80
Lutjanus quinquelineatus 4.17 60.19 28.40 158.35
Lutjanus vitta 0.00 0.00
Macolor macularis 9.38 38.15
Macolor niger 8.15
MALACANTHIDAE Malacanthus brevirostris 1.05
Malacanthus latovittatus 1.05 8.53
MICRODESMIDAE Gunnelichthys viridescens 1.93
MONACANTHIDAE Amanses scopas 2.12 2.65 1.06 1.06 3.18 2.12 1.06 1.06 1.06
Cantherhines pardalis 3.18 2.12 3.18
Paramonacanthus japonicus 0.01
MULLIDAE Mulloidichthys flavolineatus 29.95 1.21
Parupeneus barberinoides 7.87 3.15 6.52 3.15 7.82 1.58 4.72 1.57 9.02 4.51 7.23 1.57
Parupeneus barberinus 3.98 7.96 8.73 1.39 5.97 1.41 32.66 8.86 48.98 8.41 16.33 8.73 26.18 3.98 8.73 2.79 11.38 23.81 3.98 22.40 4.18
Parupeneus bifasciatus 9.90 9.02 4.51 3.15 10.69 5.74
Parupeneus cyclostomus 4.10 18.56 9.90 19.81 9.90 7.21 4.51 18.56
Parupeneus indicus 18.45 17.24 15.54 1.48 4.22 18.45
Parupeneus macronema 3.61 1.57 1.57 10.40 5.74 1.57 4.88 10.19 7.66 4.51 1.18 2.38 1.57 2.51 9.90 7.21 4.13
Parupeneus multifasciatus 3.04 10.02 3.04 1.98 5.43 1.47 11.94 14.01 2.60 7.24 1.52 6.19
Parupeneus pleurostigma 9.90
Upeneus tragula 7.42 7.71 146.56 7.71 12.03 14.28
MURAENIDAE Gymnothorax javanicus 102.21 147.42
Rhinomuraena quaesita 0.64 1.09
NEMIPTERIDAE Pentapodus emeryi 59.33 33.37 1.35 9.36 13.65 1.35 21.98 7.42 16.07 3.15 6.30 14.83 7.89 6.91 13.29 118.33 23.67 28.24
Pentapodus trivitatus 7.89 3.71 7.89 6.34 9.62 3.71 5.10 1.35 27.49 3.71 7.65
Scolopsis affinis 7.86 8.46
Scolopsis bilineata 4.08 4.59 1.67 3.90 2.85 3.35 8.08 1.00 4.30 8.05 5.02 6.33 1.67 0.10 1.12 6.97 2.79 3.79 6.24 4.94 3.12 10.81 10.57 10.27 18.65 16.03
Scolopsis ciliatus 3.93 8.46 20.95 15.71 3.93

Family Species 3011 3021 3029 3035 3038 3042 3045 3052 3055 3058 3060 3063 3064 3065 3066 3067 3074 3087 3091 3107 3119 3121 3124 3139 3143 3146 3147 3148 3149 3152 3153 3156 3164 3177 3181
Scolopsis ciliatus 8.46
Scolopsis margaritifer 16.93 6.20 3.93 3.93 4.70
Scolopsis monogramma 7.86 3.93 8.46 3.93 8.46 7.00 6.34 2.95 4.26 8.46 8.46 7.86
Scolopsis sp.1 8.46
Scolopsis trilineata 0.74 2.81 3.93 4.43 7.86 1.41 3.93
Scolopsis xenochrous 1.41 15.62
OSTRACIDAE Ostracion cubicus 2.99 13.13 2.06 2.99 21.76 13.13
PEMPHERIDAE Pempheris adusta 13.90 7.33
Pempheris vanicolensis 3.79 0.99 0.53 0.53 1.06 5.29 1.23
PINGUIPEDIDAE Parapercis clathrata 2.42 0.90 0.90 1.66 1.08 0.90
Parapercis hexophthalma 2.28 10.10 0.79 1.58 0.98 1.18 2.28 2.92 0.79 2.28 0.79 4.60 5.05 1.29
Parapercis sp 0.50 2.13 0.67 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.20 1.50 0.50 0.50 1.08 1.10 1.50 0.50 0.70 0.50 1.00
Parapercis sp 1(yellowtail) 1.90 2.42
Parapercis sp. (greyish) 0.50
Parapercis sp.2 0.50 0.90 0.90
Parapercis tetracantha 2.87 0.50 0.50 1.80 3.89
PLESIOPIDAE Calloplesiops altivelis 1.83
PLOTOSIDAE Plotosus lineatus 6.10 35.09
POMACANTHIDAE Apolemichthys trimaculatus 2.24 2.24
Centropyge bicolor 3.01 2.00 2.67 2.68 2.00 6.70 1.34 5.57 2.68 2.68 2.01 4.02 2.00 1.34 1.84 2.68 2.32
Centropyge bispinosa 1.30 1.30
Centropyge eibli 1.34
Centropyge flavicauda 0.16 0.08 1.38
Centropyge multispinis 3.35
Centropyge nox 4.02 2.01 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34
Centropyge tibicen 1.34 2.92 1.37 2.06 2.75 3.66 2.06 1.37 1.37 2.75 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.42 5.50 4.08 1.37 2.10 5.49 3.53 4.28 4.12 5.58 2.52 4.12
Centropyge vrolikii 2.01 1.34 2.01 2.68 2.68 1.34 2.68 1.34 1.34 1.38 1.34
Chaetodontoplus dimidiatus 0.77 8.95 5.59
Chaetodontoplus mesoleucus3.91 2.24 2.24 2.29 1.40 1.40 2.63 6.71 5.59 2.24 3.20 1.73 1.40 4.28 4.48 13.04 2.94 1.82 7.83 4.48 2.24 1.40
Geniacanthus lamarck 3.49 13.30 6.98
Pomacanthus imperator 35.14 6.51 12.91 22.30 22.30 2.60 1.62 103.26 26.58
Pomacanthus navarchus 19.38 13.02 3.90 12.91
Pomacanthus semicirculatus 6.51 12.91
Pomacanthus sexstriatus 20.83 22.30 22.30 25.81 12.91
Pomacanthus xanthometopon 12.91 35.14
Pygoplites diacanthus 9.27 6.13 2.24 5.59 6.70 8.38 11.17 22.23 13.77
POMACENTRIDAE Abudefduf bengalensis 494.84
Abudefduf sexfasciatus 4.07 3.05 12.21 9.77 1.22 4.89 20.45
Abudefduf vaigiensis 2.46 6.22 4.93 7.39
Acanthochromis polyacanthus 1.17 2.33 4.95 5.43 1.17 4.19 7.03 11.65 14.87 10.47 9.31 4.08
Amblyglyphidodon aureus 18.12 1.18 1.18 2.36 1.31 1.18
Amblyglyphidodon batunai 3.54 1.18 3.85 0.03
Amblyglyphidodon curacao 30.01 9.96 1.28 11.54 5.87 141.75 4.26 12.77 7.02 1.28 5.11 7.02 2.55 10.22 6.39 16.54 3.19 19.16 14.69 9.56 4.31 15.96
Amblyglyphidodon leucogaster
3.81 1.10 2.20 10.31 4.00 4.41 1.21 0.44 1.97 3.45 9.55 2.95 4.41 12.64 6.16 5.52 5.82 10.23 34.64 6.61
Amphiprion clarkii 1.75 2.34 2.34 5.09 7.02 1.79 2.92 1.40 4.97 7.42 2.34 2.34 2.34 3.96 3.17 2.80 1.17 2.36 1.81 0.44 4.05 2.37 3.93
Amphiprion frenatus 0.07
Amphiprion ocellaris 7.16 1.17 1.21
Amphiprion perideraion 2.92 0.60 6.43 5.85 2.34 1.99 2.34 5.00 5.85 2.36
Amphiprion sandaricinos 2.34 3.54 5.85 2.34 4.68 3.51 3.51
Chromis amboiensis 8.25 6.87 8.25 6.19 14.20
Chromis analis 10.31 15.12 1.37 2.06 32.99 2.78 13.92
Chromis atripectoralis 71.94 14.93 1.36 67.87 1.36 20.36 114.08
Chromis atripes 2.75 1.40 2.75 8.25 1.37 6.87 1.37 13.06 1.37
Chromis caudalis 3.44 1.37 1.37 11.00 1.37
Chromis cf. alpha 40.51
Chromis delta 2.78
Chromis fumea 10.47 1.23 3.70 6.56 2.73 1.23
Chromis lepidolepis 0.97 4.85 14.55 4.85
Chromis margaritifer 2.75 2.75 22.91 3.24 6.87
Chromis retrofasciata 2.06 0.08 4.12 1.37 1.44 0.71 0.79 0.13 1.58 0.17
80
KomodoNationalPark
Family Species 3011 3021 3029 3035 3038 3042 3045 3052 3055 3058 3060 3063 3064 3065 3066 3067 3074 3087 3091 3107 3119 3121 3124 3139 3143 3146 3147 3148 3149 3152 3153 3156 3164 3177 3181
Chromis sp.1 (Kuiter) 24.30
Chromis ternatensis 3.07 4.61 6.14 38.27 3.07 12.80 4.82 35.83 1.54 36.86 58.36 15.36 255.96 5.74 0.73 1.45 1.09 23.04
Chromis viridis 6.46 18.16 4.24 13.92 49.63 24.21 6.05
Chromis weberi 28.87 5.04 25.20 1.37 5.96 2.75 14.43 5.50 10.29 4.12 6.87 2.08 2.78 6.00 18.50 2.78 8.26 5.53
Chromis xanthura 1.83 1.37 1.37 27.83
Chrysiptera bleekeri 0.94 0.94
Chrysiptera cyanea 1.89 1.42 1.89 0.94 4.13 2.23 0.94 1.92 2.85 0.94 0.94 7.24 5.04 2.83
Chrysiptera hemicyanea 0.89
Chrysiptera rex 0.94
Chrysiptera rollandi 2.06 4.25 5.04 3.54 3.82 6.14 2.36 11.34 4.91 0.55 3.31 1.73 1.93 2.85 0.30 0.51 10.03 4.72 0.04 0.54 0.09 3.83 1.04
Chrysiptera springeri 0.19 0.19
Chrysiptera talboti 0.96 1.89 2.61 11.58 3.78 1.57 5.67 0.72 11.34 0.94 0.98 0.94 0.30 0.19 0.94 0.04 0.06 0.19 0.46 0.19 0.04
Chrysiptera unimaculata 14.17
Dascyllus aruanus 3.42 2.57 10.27 19.69 3.42 11.99 6.88 17.12 1.71 11.44 0.96
Dascyllus reticulatus 15.44 5.72 3.13 7.47 90.13 2.57 14.15 6.36 2.79 8.58 0.38 4.29 5.26 5.72 8.00 0.11 2.57 8.58 17.15 18.15 21.46 22.16 0.27 11.42
Dascyllus trimaculatus 1.44 7.20 12.97 2.88 4.32 5.76 2.63 13.29 3.60 4.80 3.36 0.15 2.88 4.32 1.44 1.44 3.36 15.18 1.44 8.18 2.19 6.52 3.73 2.80 7.20
Dischistodus melannotus 1.13 2.34
Hemiglyphidodon plagiomethopon 2.65 2.65 5.29
Neoglyphidodon melas 2.90 1.13 2.34 6.88 2.90 2.34 2.34 4.61 1.73 4.67 1.13 2.30 2.34 1.73 3.50 14.01 2.26 7.38 4.67 6.88 2.34
Neoglyphidodon nigroris 4.33 8.67 1.08 4.33 1.08 2.17 3.25 2.20 1.08 17.61 2.20
Neoglyphidodon scotochiloptera 23.35
Neoglyphidodon thoracotaeniatus 2.26 4.53 4.61 9.05 4.07 15.16
Neopomacentrus azysron 5.82
Neopomacentrus cyanomos 3.88 8.25 5.82 1.96
Plectroglyphidodon dickii 1.30 1.30 1.30
Plectroglyphidodon lacrymatus 6.48 1.94 2.65 3.89 11.01 2.59 6.48 1.30
Pomacentrus adelus 15.22 2.67 6.69
Pomacentrus alexanderae 8.68 3.72 2.48 2.89 4.34 14.88 7.44 8.68 2.48 1.24 21.09 3.72 3.72 1.24 3.14 26.86 8.32
Pomacentrus amboiensis 6.90 5.98 4.33 27.43 12.83 10.18 5.20 8.08 4.42 1.30 5.06 11.72 10.83 10.61 11.26 12.39 8.05 7.14 1.95 6.17 20.35 32.04 6.50 10.39 4.61 35.92 4.39 7.79 7.79 30.31
Pomacentrus auriventris 1.24 6.20 10.23 4.96 2.48 2.48 1.24 6.20 2.08 6.82 3.72 1.24 3.79 6.20 2.48 8.54 6.20 10.33
Pomacentrus bankanensis 7.03 4.65
Pomacentrus brachialis 8.15 6.20 3.31 18.38 4.96 8.93 10.74 4.13 4.46 4.96 9.50 1.24 7.93 11.16 3.72 11.16 5.27 19.56 16.19 2.48 6.20 17.39 34.35 24.80 3.12 32.83 11.65 25.21 2.48
Pomacentrus burroughi 5.58 1.24 3.10 3.10
Pomacentrus cf. brachialis (spot on dorsal) 0.50 11.16 1.24
Pomacentrus chrysurus 2.63 5.27 2.63 1.58 1.32 3.07 2.63 17.11
Pomacentrus coelestis 72.89 74.39 6.20 43.75 6.20 12.40 54.14
Pomacentrus geminospilos 7.44
Pomacentrus komodoensis 2.48 1.24
Pomacentrus lepidogenys 2.77 3.69 2.77 8.31 13.39 9.52 2.77 4.15 2.77 11.77 18.46
Pomacentrus littoralis 3.72 2.48 2.48 8.68
Pomacentrus moluccensis 11.86 7.03 7.91 2.20 5.87 16.15 1.05 1.32 17.28 32.52 8.78 21.09 5.27 10.92 3.95 9.23 4.61 10.55 1.06 7.91 2.64 5.24 16.89 6.59 27.14 5.11 6.16
Pomacentrus nigromanus 9.92
Pomacentrus philippinus 1.10 2.19 1.10 2.19
Pomacentrus reidi 1.24 2.48 83.67 4.96 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 5.58 2.32 2.32
Pomacentrus smithi 8.68 1.24 2.48 27.89 37.19
Pomacentrus vaiuli 2.43 2.53 7.59 1.68 3.80 5.69 1.27 5.99 1.27 1.27 2.21 3.80 3.86 1.27 2.53 2.53 2.53 9.70 4.64 0.06 3.80
Premnas biaculeatus 2.39
PRIACANTHIDAE Priacanthus hamrur 7.36 7.36 7.36
PSEUDOCHROMIDAE Labracinus cyclophthalmus 1.42 0.93 0.93 0.74 2.40 0.93 4.87 2.13 2.40 0.93 4.87
Pseudochromis fuscus 1.13 0.57 0.57 0.45 0.57 0.57 1.14
Pseudochromis paccagnellae 0.85
Pseudochromis perscipillatus 0.23 1.14
Pseudochromis perspicillatus 1.13 1.13 0.86 0.86 0.57 0.57
PTERELEOTRIDIDAE Ptereleotris evides 0.60 0.89 1.19 0.59
SCARIDAE Cetoscarus bicolor 1.37 3.50 0.03 1.27
Chlorurus bleekeri 10.05 10.05 29.95 10.05 18.24 4.77 18.61 13.36
Chlorurus bowersi 20.11 29.95
Chlorurus capistratoides 18.24 29.95 36.48 10.05
Chlorurus microrhinos 18.24
Chlorurus sordidus 8.38 6.52 8.07 7.41 10.36 8.12 10.05 10.05 7.41 9.53 7.41 1.76 4.77 29.95 45.60 9.88 3.51 15.51
Family Species 3011 3021 3029 3035 3038 3042 3045 3052 3055 3058 3060 3063 3064 3065 3066 3067 3074 3087 3091 3107 3119 3121 3124 3139 3143 3146 3147 3148 3149 3152 3153 3156 3164 3177 3181
Scarus dimidiatus 13.95 3.85 4.42 9.30 13.06 9.30 9.30 9.30
Scarus flavipectoralis 25.97
Scarus forsteni 3.03 33.65
Scarus fraenatus 28.41 15.32 17.86 6.09 30.65 28.32
Scarus ghobban 23.59 109.19 3.98 7.89 7.96 1.43 8.54 15.72 40.38 3.13 2.74 26.13 8.54 8.54
Scarus globiceps 16.82
Scarus juv 13.16 8.12
Scarus niger 15.50 31.74 28.81 4.82 15.50 11.31 4.82 5.50
Scarus prasiognathus 98.50 9.30
Scarus psittacus 185.07 16.82
Scarus quoyi 16.82 9.30 9.30 27.89 9.30
Scarus rivulatus 17.16 12.98 10.96 9.62 12.19 23.38 12.19 10.04 38.67 1.92 22.89 10.45 5.54 3.25 3.85
Scarus rubroviolaceus 13.27 9.30 53.90 49.85
Scarus schlegeli 12.31 46.06 5.62 23.03 23.03
Scarus sp 16.82
Scarus spinus 10.48
Scarus tricolor 18.43 1.64 9.30 9.30 216.42 40.09 19.92 16.82 4.42 14.05 9.30 9.30 18.59 18.59
SCORPAENIDAE Pterois antennata 1.30 5.49 0.82
Pterois volitans 1.30 1.30 10.91
SERRANIDAE Aetheloperca rogaa 6.72
Anyperodon leucogrammiscus 0.44 29.95 1.44 12.95 7.16 1.44 7.16
Cephalopholis argus 1.15 7.44 7.44 7.44
Cephalopholis boenak 7.06 3.30 3.30 5.35
Cephalopholis cyanostigma 14.71 7.36 23.08 4.13 46.16 7.36 13.73
Cephalopholis miniata 21.85 218.50 341.17
Cephalopholis sexmaculata 7.36
Cephalopholis spiloparaea 1.18 1.18 13.73
Cephalopholis urodeta 7.29 12.83 12.83 12.83
Cromileptes altivelis 4.78 14.71 9.75 31.84
Diploprion bifasciatum 1.40 2.82 1.40 4.23 2.81 3.81 2.81 4.23 1.40 1.40 8.46
Epinephelus caeruleopunctatus 4.96
Epinephelus fasciatus 7.14 15.64 13.15 18.06 7.14 7.14 8.81 7.14 1.20
Epinephelus merra 6.48 6.48 9.11 12.95 3.07
Epinephelus ongus 0.69 6.92 6.92 6.92 21.66 3.31 1.24 3.31
Plectropomus areolatus 11.84 30.83
Plectropomus laevis 2.50
Plectropomus leopardus 19.97
Plectropomus oligacanthus 2.93 2.93 131.47 54.11 30.83 1.04 11.38
Pseudanthias dispar 9.10 78.03 109.25
Pseudanthias evansi 45.26 11.71
Pseudanthias huchti 1.56 1.56 10.92 4.68 2.34 9.36 0.15 34.22 3.90 117.05
Pseudanthias hypselosoma 15.61
Pseudanthias squamipinnis 3.12 7.51 1.17 0.07 10.40 8.99 2.73 3.90 10.92 5.07 15.35 4.50 65.03 44.24 42.92 82.52 88.10 101.45
Pseudanthias tuka 9.36 3.12 1.56 6.63 39.02 0.49 53.92
Variola louti 13.19
Variola louti 12.67 7.11 22.06 3.28
SIGANIDAE Siganus corallinus 4.29 10.34 27.01 0.51 35.82 27.01
Siganus fucescens 16.65 2.54
Siganus guttatus 206.67 142.78 60.89
Siganus javus 4.41
Siganus magnificus 8.82
Siganus puellus 4.09 20.44 16.06
Siganus virgatus 7.42 4.41 8.82 8.82 1.54 9.68 1.54 1.54 9.89 18.47 0.78
Siganus vulpinus 22.04 3.08 9.76 11.58 0.78 6.46
SPHYRAENIDAE Sphyraena forsteri 351.85
SYNODONTIDAE Saurida gracilis 5.03 2.27 4.54 5.03 3.65
Synodus dermatogenys 0.88
Synodus jaculum 0.42
Synodus variegatus 12.82 2.66 1.64 1.64
TETRAODONTIDAE Arothron mappa 34.24

82
KomodoNationalPark
Family Species 3011 3021 3029 3035 3038 3042 3045 3052 3055 3058 3060 3063 3064 3065 3066 3067 3074 3087 3091 3107 3119 3121 3124 3139 3143 3146 3147 3148 3149 3152 3153 3156 3164 3177 3181
Arothron nigropunctatus 5.68 11.78 2.14 2.14 5.68 2.14 11.78 2.55 5.68 11.37 5.68
Arothron stellatus 25.67
Canthigaster compressa 1.25
Canthigaster papua 1.25 2.50
Canthigaster vallentini 1.38 1.38 0.55 2.76 0.05 1.38 0.72 2.07 2.07
ZANCLIDAE Zanclus cornutus 2.77 2.61 4.39 4.23 2.92 5.85 2.61 4.39 2.92 2.38 63.58 2.12 10.78 2.92 24.18 5.85 5.12 27.26 2.92 8.90 5.85 9.09
KomodoNationalPark
COMMITTED TO CONSERVATION, SUPPORTIVE OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND

FOCUSED ON FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH NATURE-BASED TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
FOR KOMODO NATIONAL PARK, WORLD HERITAGE SITE
PT. PUTRI NAGA KOM DO

An enterprise partnership between The Nature Conservancy, the Global Environment Facility, and the International Finance Corporation
that supports the Komodo National Park Authority under the Directorate General for Forest Protection & Nature Conservation, Ministry of Forestry
84 K O M O D O C O L L A B O R AT I V E M A N A G E M E N T I N I T I AT I V E

Status of Coral Reefs in and Around Komodo National Park: 2009

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Status of Coral Reefs in and Around Komodo National Park: 2009

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Coral Reefs in and around Komodo National Park: Status Report 2010

Coral Reefs in and

Status Report 2009.

PT. PUTRI NAGA KOM DO

Harvey A & Yusamandra H

Komodo National Park Coral Reef Status Series: 2009

The Nature Conservancy

PT Putri Naga Komodo

Published by: The Nature Conservancy and PT Putri Naga Komodo

Copyright: 2010 The Nature Conservancy/ PT Putri Naga Komodo

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is

Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited

Illustrations: Donald Bason

Sumary for Decision Makers

KNPs coral reefs provide goods and services that support

!"#$%&' (%&"' )*#+",-+./%' Nutrient enrichment

Biological diversity enhances climate change resilience.

Destructive fishing (e.g. bomb fishing) is greatly reduced

BTNK Balai Taman Nasional Komodo (Komodo National Park Authority)

to KNPs appeal as a tourism destination. Threatened Box 1 - MPA benefits

Table 1: Summary of similarities and differences between

Establish a database on KNP reef community

2.1 Site selection same zone, continuing in the direction of travel.

Rinca West (incl. Padar); 2.2 Survey schedule

Traditional use zone; 1.1 Survey Team

HCx) to accurately locate the site. Divers were fully 2005).

2.4 Fish Stock 2.5 Benthic Assessments

Table 3: Substrate codes and corresponding life

3.1 Benthic cover (Figure 5).

3.1.1 Long-Term Temporal The small differences in reef community structure

Figure 3: Long-term trends (1996-2009) in live hard coral cover

3.1.2 Reef Community

Table 4: Mean per cent cover for selected benthic

Figure 7: Reef community structure within different management

Figure 6: Reef community structure within different regions of

3.1.2.2 Zone and Reef Community Structure

3.1.2.3 Depth and Reef Community Structure

Figure 9: Reef community structure under different exposure

Figure 10: Reef community structure on different reef types.

3.1.2.4 Reef Type and Reef Community Structure

neither region (F4,143= 2.358, p=0.056) nor zone

4.1 Long-Term Trends in 4.2 Success Stories and

management planning. in KNP (Harvey & Yusamandra 2010). Reef status is

correlation between resource use patterns and reef

Between 1996 and 2003 reef health increased both region.

6.1 Management managers to manage species and habitats not

Regions of low reef health correlate with regions

assessment by communities or dive operators (e.g.

Use of five replicate fish transects and long-swims

In addition to biennial RHM, additional monitoring

TOOLS MEALS (Example) for 10 days

GPS 3 unit beras 50 kg

roll meter 6 unit mie kering 5 box

small buoys 6 unit telur ayam 6 ppn

underwater paper 2 rim gula pasir 8 kg

plastict slates 10 pieces teh celup 5 ktk

lackban 10 roll kopi NTC 400 gr 5 bks

first aid kid 1 package garam yudium 4 bks

DAN O2 kit 1 unit kerupuk udang 2 bks

pencil 2 box masako 5 ppn

sharper 10 pieces bimoli 1 ltr 7 ltr

tools box 1unit sirup marjan 3 btl

1 mm rope 1 ball tepung mamasuka 12 bks