Biodiversity Data Journal :
Research Article
|
Corresponding author: B. Mabel Manjaji-Matsumoto (mabel@ums.edu.my)
Academic editor: Felipe Ottoni
Received: 11 Dec 2021 | Accepted: 02 Mar 2022 | Published: 12 Aug 2022
© 2022 Nur Farhana-Azmi, B. Mabel Manjaji-Matsumoto, Nasrulhakim Maidin, Jonathan John, Elvin Bavoh, Ejria Saleh
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Farhana-Azmi N, Manjaji-Matsumoto BM, Maidin N, John JB, Bavoh EM, Saleh E (2022) Checklist of coral reef fishes of Darvel Bay, Sabah, Malaysian Coral Triangle, with a note on the biodiversity and community structure. Biodiversity Data Journal 10: e79201. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.10.e79201
|
The Darvel Bay is a large semi-enclosed bay with spectacular natural land and seascape. The inward side of the Bay has only been recently known to be an important foraging ground for the endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) elasmobranch species, such as the Whale Shark and mobulid rays. Following a recent scientific expedition, we present a checklist of the coral reef fishes of Darvel Bay. A note on the biodiversity and community structure is presented, based on our analysis using diversity indices, univariate and multivariate approaches. Seven natural coral reefs comprising two fringing reefs and five patch reefs, were surveyed at 10 m depth using underwater visual census (UVC) and baited remote underwater video station (BRUVS) methods. A diverse list of 66 species of reef fishes from 17 families is recorded. However, this is overwhelmingly dominated by the small-sized omnivorous damselfish, family Pomacentridae (62%; N = 1485 individuals). Species richness and abundance were observed to increase at sites surveyed furthest from the coast within the Bay. Significantly distinct reef fish assemblages were observed between three priori groups, based on proximity to shore (ANOSIM, R = 0.65, p < 0.05). SIMPER analysis further revealed that 22 species of the total reef fish species recorded drive 76% dissimilarities between the groups. The pattern of the reef fish communities observed, reflected as a logseries distribution model, is that commonly found in disturbed habitats or habitats characterised by restricted resources in a community, where the dominant species takes up a high proportion of available resources. The ecological indices (Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index, 2.05; Simpson Index of Diversity, 0.79; Simpson Dominance Index, 0.20; and Pielou’s Evenness Index, 0.43), all reflect the relatively low diversity and uneven species distribution of the reef fish community. We conclude that the present status of the coral reef fish community dominating Darvel Bay as having undergone a rapid shift in structure following intense and rampant fishing pressure, as reported by the media.
anthropogenic impacts, ichthyology, land-use change, Malaysian Borneo, overfishing
Darvel Bay, the largest bay located in the east coast of Sabah, is interconnected with the Pacific Ocean through the Sulu Sea (
Located at the north-corner of the Coral Triangle region, Darvel Bay is recognised as one of the most biologically diverse marine environments in the world (
According to past literature, the biodiversity of Darvel Bay is under threat from the increasing pressure of coastal development activities and destruction of marine ecosystems (
A recent study highlights the conservation importance of the Bay as a critical habitat for the endangered whale shark (Rhincodon typus, Smith 1828) (
Following this plan, Darvel Bay Scientific Expedition was conducted on 11 – 15 February 2019, aiming to assess the status of its biodiversity and to provide preliminary baseline data of Darvel Bay as one of the proposed areas for such gazettement. Coral reef fishes are undeniably a crucial biological component of the marine ecosystem and ecological measures of species abundance and diversity could provide hindsight to the health status of the reefs. In this survey, we aim to provide the recent baseline information on the diversity, abundance and community structure of reef fish in the area.
Administratively located within Tawau jurisdiction, Darvel Bay borders three main districts of Sabah - with Lahad Datu on the north side, Kunak in the middle and Semporna on the south of the Bay. A field survey was conducted on 11 – 15 February 2019 at seven reefs (Fig.
Surveys were conducted at 10 m depth at all sites during daylight hours 0900 to 1500 following underwater visual census (UVC), coupled with baited remote underwater video stations (BRUVS). UVC was carried out over a 100 m transect where the diver recorded fish species and abundance data every 3 m distance ahead of them within 3 m transect width and 3 m height from the substrate. Mobile species were recorded first and were followed by those that were less mobile. BRUVS were deployed simultaneously at least 100 m away from the transect and were left for 60 minutes recording time before retrieving. For every deployment, 0.5 kg of chopped scads (Decapterus spp.) was used as a standard bait for this research as scads are known to have high consistency of fish oil that will increase bait plume to attract more fish (
Fish abundance data were combined both from UVC and BRUVS and average abundances were analysed using univariate and multivariate methods. General ecological measures were calculated including species diversity (Shannon-Weiner Index and Simpson Diversity Index), Dominance Index and Pielou’s Evenness Index were determined using Paleontological Statistics (PAST Inc. Palaeontological Association) (
Multivariate analysis was carried out using PRIMER-e V.7 (PRIMER-E: Plymouth, United Kingdom) with PERMANOVA package add-ons (
Site, with their proximity to shore of the Bay; near or far and reef type; fringing or patch
Site | Proximity to shore | Reef type |
Pulau Baik | Near | Fringing |
Terumbu Misan-misan 1 | Near | Patch |
Terumbu Misan-misan 2 | Near | Patch |
Pulau Tabawan | Far | Fringing |
Terumbu Batik | Far | Patch |
Terumbu Tingkayu | Near | Patch |
Terumbu Maganting | Far | Patch |
A total of 2402 individuals of reef fishes from 66 species and 17 families were identified throughout the survey (Table
Reef fish species list at each reef surveyed. Mean is the mean number of the individuals between locations
Species name | N | Mean ± S.E | Pulau Baik | Terumbu Misan-misan 1 | Terumbu Misan-misan 2 | Pulau Tabawan | Terumbu Batik | Terumbu Tingkayu | Terumbu Maganting |
Apogonidae | |||||||||
Cheilodipterus artus (Smith 1961) | 1 | 0.14 ± 0.14 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 |
Carangidae | |||||||||
Pseudocaranx dentex (Bloch & Schneider 1801) | 1 | 0.14 ± 0.14 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 |
Centriscidae | |||||||||
Aeoliscus strigatus (Günther 1861) | 30 | 4.28 ± 4.28 | - | - | - | 30 | - | - | - |
Chaetodontidae | |||||||||
Chaetodon octofasciatus (Bloch 1787) | 6 | 0.85 ± 0.59 | - | - | - | - | 2 | 4 | - |
Chelmon rostratus (Linnaeus 1758) | 2 | 0.28 ± 0.28 | - | - | - | - | 2 | - | - |
Ephippidae | |||||||||
Platax pinnatus (Linnaeus 1758) | 1 | 0.14 ± 0.14 | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | - |
Epinephelidae | |||||||||
Anyperodon leucogrammicus (Valenciennes 1828) | 1 | 0.14 ± 0.14 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 |
Cephalopholis argus (Schneider 1801) | 14 | 2 ± 0.43 | - | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
Epinephelus merra (Bloch 1793) | 1 | 0.14 ± 0.14 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 |
Epinephelus ongus (Bloch 1790) | 3 | 0.42 ± 0.42 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 3 |
Labridae | |||||||||
Anampses meleagrides (Valenciennes 1840) | 10 | 1.42 ± 1.42 | - | 10 | - | - | - | - | - |
Bodianus mesothorax (Bloch & Schneider 1801) | 4 | 0.57 ± 0.2 | - | - | - | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Cheilinus fasciatus (Bloch 1791) | 17 | 2.42 ± 0.89 | 2 | 5 | - | 6 | 3 | 1 | - |
Choerodon anchorago (Bloch 1791) | 1 | 0.14 ± 0.14 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 |
Cirrhrilabrus rubripinnis (Randall & Carpenter 1980) | 20 | 2.85 ± 2.85 | - | - | - | 20 | - | - | - |
Coris aurilineata (Randall & Kuiter 1982) | 3 | 0.42 ± 0.29 | - | 1 | - | - | - | 2 | - |
Diproctacanthus xanthurus (Bleeker 1856) | 1 | 0.14 ± 0.14 | - | - | - | 1 | - | - | - |
Halichoeres chrysus (Randall 1981) | 1 | 0.14 ± 0.14 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 |
Halichoeres hortulatus (Lacepède 1801) | 1 | 0.14 ± 0.14 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Halichoeres melanurus (Bleeker 1851) | 6 | 0.85 ± 0.4 | 1 | - | - | - | 1 | 3 | 1 |
Halichoeres podostigma (Bleeker 1854) | 6 | 0.85 ± 0.85 | - | - | 6 | - | - | - | - |
Halichoeres richmondi (Fowler & Bean 1928) | 3 | 0.42 ± 0.29 | - | - | 1 | - | - | 2 | - |
Labroides dimidiatus (Valenciennes 1839) | 20 | 2.85 ± 0.98 | - | 3 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 1 | - |
Oxycheilinus orientalis (Günther 1862) | 3 | 0.42 ± 0.29 | - | - | - | - | 1 | 2 | - |
Oxycheilinus unfasciatus (Streets 1877) | 1 | 0.14 ± 0.14 | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | - |
Thalassoma lunare (Linnaeus 1758) | 66 | 9.42 ± 3.19 | - | - | 5 | 20 | 9 | 20 | 12 |
Liopropomatidae | |||||||||
Diploprion bifasciatum (Cuvier 1828) | 2 | 0.28 ± 0.18 | - | - | - | - | 1 | 1 | - |
Lutjanidae | |||||||||
Caesio cuning (Bloch 1791) | 55 | 7.85 ± 6.34 | - | 45 | 10 | - | - | - | - |
Caesio teres (Seale 1906) | 100 | 14.28 ± 7.51 | - | - | - | 50 | 30 | - | 20 |
Lutjanus biguttatus (Valenciennes 1830) | 1 | 0.14 ± 0.14 | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | - |
Lutjanus decussatus (Cuvier 1828) | 1 | 0.14 ± 0.14 | - | - | - | 1 | - | - | - |
Mullidae | |||||||||
Parupeneus macronemus (Lacepède 1801) | 1 | 0.14 ± 0.14 | - | - | 1 | - | - | - | - |
Upeneus tragula (Richardson 1846) | 4 | 0.57 ± 0.42 | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | 3 |
Nemipteridae | |||||||||
Scolopsis bilineata (Bloch 1793) | 2 | 0.28 ± 0.28 | - | - | - | 2 | - | - | - |
Scolopsis margaritifera (Cuvier 1830) | 8 | 1.14 ± 0.45 | - | - | - | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
Plotosidae | |||||||||
Plotosus lineatus (Thunberg 1787) | 330 | 47.14 ± 31.37 | - | 130 | - | - | - | 200 | - |
Pomacanthidae | |||||||||
Chaetodontoplus mesoleucus (Bloch 1787) | 2 | 0.28 ± 0.28 | - | - | - | - | 2 | - | - |
Pomacentridae | |||||||||
Abudefduf vaigiensis (Quoy & Gaimard 1825) | 125 | 17.85 ± 8.16 | 11 | 52 | 43 | 19 | - | - | - |
Amblyglyphidodon aureus (Cuvier 1830) | 3 | 0.42 ± 0.29 | - | 2 | - | - | 1 | - | - |
Amblyglyphidodon leucogaster (Bleeker 1847) | 7 | 1 ± 0.84 | - | - | - | - | 6 | 1 | - |
Amblypomacentrus breviceps (Schlegel & Müller 1840) | 5 | 0.71 ± 0.71 | 5 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Amphiprion akallopisos (Bleeker 1853) | 2 | 0.28 ± 0.28 | - | - | - | - | 2 | - | - |
Amphiprion frenatus (Brevoort 1856) | 2 | 0.28 ± 0.28 | - | - | 2 | - | - | - | - |
Chromis analis (Cuvier 1830) | 1 | 0.14 ± 0.14 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Chromis notata (Temminck & Schlegel 1843) | 331 | 47.28 ± 17.2 | 8 | 99 | 45 | - | 24 | 120 | 35 |
Chrysiptera brownriggii (Bennett 1828) | 3 | 0.42 ± 0.42 | - | - | - | 3 | - | - | - |
Chrysiptera glauca (Cuvier 1830) | 408 | 58.28 ± 42.93 | - | - | 3 | 15 | 312 | 22 | 56 |
Chrysiptera rollandi (Whitley 1961) | 20 | 2.85 ± 1.43 | - | 4 | 8 | - | - | 8 | - |
Chrysiptera springeri (Allen & Lubbock 1976) | 239 | 34.14 ± 22.66 | 4 | - | - | 150 | 85 | - | - |
Neopomacentrus nemurus (Bleeker 1857) | 67 | 9.57 ± 8.46 | - | - | 7 | - | 60 | - | - |
Pomacentrus amboinensis (Bleeker 1868) | 27 | 3.85 ± 2.49 | 18 | - | 4 | - | - | 5 | - |
Pomacentrus auriventris (Allen 1991) | 4 | 0.57 ± 0.57 | 4 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Pomacentrus burroughi (Fowler 1918) | 161 | 23 ± 9.63 | 7 | 14 | 3 | 9 | 60 | 8 | 60 |
Pomacentrus stigma (Fowler & Bean 1928) | 78 | 11.14 ± 5.09 | - | 26 | - | 7 | - | 12 | 33 |
Scaridae | |||||||||
Chlorurus bleekeri (de Beaufort 1940) | 18 | 2.57 ± 1.63 | - | - | - | - | 1 | 6 | 11 |
Chlorurus sordidus (Forsskål 1775) | 49 | 7 ± 2.5 | - | 11 | - | - | 11 | 13 | 14 |
Scarus flavipectoralis (Schultz 1958) | 36 | 5.14 ± 3.26 | - | - | - | 12 | 2 | - | 22 |
Scarus ghobban (Fabricius 1775) | 3 | 0.42 ± 0.42 | - | - | - | 3 | - | - | - |
Scarus globiceps (Valenciennes 1840) | 61 | 8.71 ± 8.71 | - | - | - | - | - | 61 | - |
Scarus russelii (Valenciennes 1840) | 2 | 0.28 ± 0.18 | - | - | - | 1 | 1 | - | - |
Siganidae | |||||||||
Siganus corallinus (Valenciennes 1835) | 2 | 0.28 ± 0.28 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2 |
Siganus puellus (Schlegel 1852) | 4 | 0.57 ± 0.36 | - | - | 2 | 2 | - | - | - |
Siganus virgatus (Valenciennes 1835) | 2 | 0.28 ± 0.28 | - | - | - | - | - | 2 | - |
Siganus vulpinus (Schlegel & Müller 1845) | 10 | 1.42 ± 0.52 | - | - | - | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
Zanclidae | |||||||||
Zanclus cornutus (Linnaeus 1758) | 1 | 0.14 ± 0.14 | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | - |
Observed species accumulation curve (Sobs) reached maxima without indication of reaching asymptotic ends (Fig.
The Rank abundance curve revealed fish community structure following logseries model (α = 12.55, X2 = 0.99, p <0.05) (Fig.
Ecological Indices | Pulau Baik | Terumbu Misan-misan 1 | Terumbu Misan-misan 2 | Pulau Tabawan | Terumbu Batik | Terumbu Tingkayu | Terumbu Maganting |
Shannon-Wiener Diversity (H') | 2.04 | 1.91 | 2.12 | 2.16 | 1.83 | 1.95 | 2.34 |
Simpson Diversity (1-D) | 0.84 | 0.8 | 0.81 | 0.79 | 0.72 | 0.76 | 0.87 |
Dominance Index (C) | 0.16 | 0.2 | 0.19 | 0.21 | 0.28 | 0.24 | 0.13 |
Pielou's Evenness (E) | 0.7 | 0.48 | 0.49 | 0.38 | 0.21 | 0.27 | 0.45 |
The dendogram (hierarchical cluster analysis), based on reef fish assemblages across sites, reflects the proximity to the Bay (Cophenetic coefficient: 0.85). SIMPROF grouped the sites into two distinct clusters with one single outlier. Outlier A is represented by Pulau Baik, cluster B comprises of Terumbu Maganting, Pulau Tabawan and Terumbu Batik and cluster C comprises of Terumbu Misan-misan 1, Terumbu Misan-misan 2 and Terumbu Tingkayu (Fig.
Analysis of Similarity (ANOSIM) of priori groups, based on proximity to shore and reef type. Italicised value indicates significance, p < 0.05.
ANOSIM (One-Way) | ||
Factors | R | p |
Proximity to shore | 0.648 | 0.029 |
Reef type | 0.111 | 0.314 |
Results of SIMPER analysis of species contributing most to assemblage differences between clusters. Symbol “*” indicates species were not representative of the sites due to species low relative abundance as compared to other species at the particular sites.
Species | Priori groups | ||||||
Average abundance | Dissimilarities contribution (%) | ||||||
Outlier A | Cluster B | Cluster C | A & B | A & C | B & C | ||
Abudefduf vaigiensis | 3.32 | 4.59 | 1.45 | 5.62 | 3.18 | 4.58 | |
Aeoliscus strigatus | - | - | 1.83 | * | 2.34 | 2.01 | |
Amblypomacentrus breviceps | 2.24 | - | - | 3.62 | 2.8 | * | |
Caesio cuning | - | 3.29 | - | 5.62 | * | 3.68 | |
Caesio teres | - | - | 5.67 | * | * | 6.1 | |
Chlorurus sordidus | - | 2.31 | 2.35 | 3.27 | 2.93 | 1.84 | |
Chromis notata | 2.83 | 9.2 | 3.61 | 9.79 | 3.39 | 5.82 | |
Chrysiptera glauca | - | 2.14 | 9.67 | 3.16 | 11.51 | 8.03 | |
Chrysiptera rollandi | - | 2.55 | - | 4.15 | * | 2.75 | |
Chrysiptera springeri | 2 | - | 7.16 | 3.24 | 7.92 | 7.47 | |
Cirrhilabrus rubripinnis | - | * | 1.49 | * | 1.91 | * | |
Labroides dimidiatus | - | 1.73 | 9.67 | 2.97 | * | * | |
Neopomacentrus nemurus | - | 0.88 | 2.58 | * | 2.8 | 2.95 | |
Plotosus lineatus | - | 8.51 | - | 11.99 | * | 8.44 | |
Pomacentrus amboinensis | 4.24 | 1.41 | - | 4.57 | 5.31 | * | |
Pomacentrus auriventris | 2 | - | - | 3.24 | 2.51 | * | |
Pomacentrus burroughi | 2.65 | 2.77 | 6.16 | * | 4.36 | 3.87 | |
Pomacentrus stigma | - | 2.85 | 2.8 | 4.14 | 3.79 | 2.82 | |
Scarus flavipectoralis | - | - | 3.19 | * | 4.16 | 3.55 | |
Scarus globiceps | - | 2.6 | - | 3.34 | * | 2.43 | |
Thallasoma lunare | - | 2.24 | 3.65 | 3.41 | 4.6 | 2.14 | |
Chlorurus bleekeri | * | 0.82 | 1.44 | * | * | 1.64 |
A) Non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) ordination with SIMPROF contours at 20, 30 and 50 similarity slices. Priori groups between sites surveyed in which Blue indicate single outlier A, green indicate Cluster B and red indicate Cluster C. B) Vectors of 22 species identified in SIMPER analysis.
Pulau Baik was characterised by mostly damselfish species, Pomacentrus amboinensis, P. auriventris, Abudefduf vaigiensis and Amblypomacentrus breviceps. Cluster B shared average similarity of 44.89%, contributed by common species Chrysiptera glauca, P. burroughi, Caesio teres, Thallasoma lunare and Scarus flavipectoralis, whereas Cluster C with average similarity of 44.21% were characterised by Chromis notata, Plotosus lineatus, Caesio cuning and Scarus globiceps.
Reef fish assemblage recorded reflects a typical reef fish community, dominated mainly by small-sized damselfishes (Pomacentridae) and wrasse (Labridae), which are not unusual as both groups are highly diverse and naturally occurring in large numbers on tropical coral reefs (
The low abundance of commercial species and predatory fishes in the region is plausible due to Darvel Bay's historical and ongoing fishing pressure. Destructive fishing methods, such as blast fishing and poison fishing (
Reef fish assemblage differed significantly based on their proximity to shore. This suggests ongoing anthropogenic factors that are tied to "distance from shore" as a proxy, may be influencing different assemblages observed. The inner bay located near the mainland is subjected to high sedimentation, resulting in very turbid reefs (
Sites located further offshore from the inner bay were observed to have higher abundance and fish species richness, potentially due to visibly improved reef conditions. Low sedimentation and clear visibility were observed throughout the survey at sites located further away from the inner bay. Sites located furthest from coastline namely Pulau Tabawan, Terumbu Batik and Terumbu Maganting contributed to the high abundance of parrotfishes. In Sabah, parrotfish are high on the menu, often targeted by artisanal fisherman (
Darvel Bay's historical and ongoing IUU fishing activities and rapid land-use change may cause a possible phase shift in macroalgae communities resulting in reef fish community observed to follow a logseries model. The logseries model is commonly used to characterise the biological community experiencing disturbances and/or living in restricted environmental conditions (
The results, presented here, serve as preliminary fish species recorded in Darvel Bay in recent years. In comparison with a similar survey conducted by
The study formed part of the first authors’ (NFA) MSc research in coral reef fish ecology. This work was conducted during a scientific expedition dated 11–15 February 2019, organized by Sabah Parks in collaboration with Sabah Foundation in the Silam Coast Conservation Area (SCCA) managed by the latter. The participation of NFA, BMMM and ES in the expedition was partially supported by the research grant (“Pelaksanaan Penyelidikan Inisiatif Segitiga Karang, Institut Penyelidikan Marin Borneo”; Project Code: SDK0031-2018), awarded to ES.
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.