Ornamental marine species culture in the coral triangle: seahorse demonstration project in the Spermonde Islands, Sulawesi, Indonesia.

Ornamental marine species ('OMS') provide valuable income for developing nations in the Indo-Pacific Coral Triangle, from which most of the specimens are exported. OMS culture can help diversify livelihoods in the region, in support of management and conservation efforts to reduce destructive fishing and collection practices that threaten coral reef and seagrass ecosystems. Adoption of OMS culture depends on demonstrating its success as a livelihood, yet few studies of OMS culture exist in the region. We present a case study of a land-based culture project for an endangered seahorse (Hippocampus barbouri) in the Spermonde Islands, Sulawesi, Indonesia. The business model demonstrated that culturing can increase family income by seven times. A Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats (SWOT) analysis indicated good collaboration among diverse stakeholders and opportunities for culturing non-endangered species and for offshoot projects, but complicated permitting was an issue as were threats of market flooding and production declines. The OMS international market is strong, Indonesian exporters expressed great interest in cultured product, and Indonesia is the largest exporting country for H. barbouri. Yet, a comparison of Indonesia ornamental marine fish exports to fish abundance in a single local market indicated that OMS culture cannot replace fishing livelihoods. Nevertheless, seahorse and other OMS culture can play a role in management and conservation by supplementing and diversifying the fishing and collecting livelihoods in the developing nations that provide the majority of the global OMS

Large-scale coral reef rehabilitation after blast fishing in Indonesia

The severely degraded condition of many coral reefs worldwide calls for active interventions to rehabilitate their physical and biological structure and function, in addition to effective management of fisheries and no-take reserves. Rehabilitation efforts to stabilize reef substratum sufficiently to support coral growth have been limited in size. We documented a large coral reef rehabilitation in Indonesia aiming to restore ecosystem functions by increasing live coral cover on a reef severely damaged by blast fishing and coral mining. The project deployed small, modular, open structures to stabilize rubble and to support transplanted coral fragments. Between 2013 to 2015, approximately 11,000 structures covering 7,000 m2were deployed over 2 ha of a reef at a cost of US$174,000. Live coral cover on the structures increased from less than 10% initially to greater than 60% depending on depth, deployment date and location, and disturbances. The mean live coral cover in the rehabilitation area in October 2017 was higher than reported for reefs in many other areas in the Coral Triangle, including marine protected areas, but lower than in the no-take reference reef. At least 42 coral species were observed growing on the structures. Surprisingly, during the massive coral bleaching in other regions during the 2014–2016 El Niño–Southern Oscillation event, bleaching in the rehabilitation area was less than 5% cover despite warm water (≥30°C). This project demonstrates that coral rehabilitation is achievable over large scales where coral reefs have been severely damaged and are under continuous anthropogenic disturbances in warming waters

The sound of recovery:Coral reef restoration success is detectable in the soundscape

Pantropical degradation of coral reefs is prompting considerable investment in their active restoration. However, current measures of restoration success are based largely on coral cover, which does not fully reflect ecosystem function or reef health. Soundscapes are an important aspect of reef health; loud and diverse soundscapes guide the recruitment of reef organisms, but this process is compromised when degradation denudes soundscapes. As such, acoustic recovery is a functionally important component of ecosystem recovery. Here, we use acoustic recordings taken at one of the world's largest coral reef restoration projects to test whether successful restoration of benthic and fish communities is accompanied by a restored soundscape. We analyse recordings taken simultaneously on healthy, degraded (extensive historic blast fishing) and restored reefs (restoration carried out for 1–3 years on previously degraded reefs). We compare soundscapes using manual counts of biotic sounds (phonic richness), and two commonly used computational analyses (acoustic complexity index [ACI] and sound-pressure level [SPL]). Healthy and restored reef soundscapes exhibited a similar diversity of biotic sounds (phonic richness), which was significantly higher than degraded reef soundscapes. This pattern was replicated in some automated analyses but not others; the ACI exhibited the same qualitative result as phonic richness in a low-frequency, but not a high-frequency bandwidth, and there was no significant difference between SPL values in either frequency bandwidth. Furthermore, the low-frequency ACI and phonic richness scores were only weakly correlated despite showing a qualitatively equivalent overall result, suggesting that these metrics are likely to be driven by different aspects of the reef soundscape. Synthesis and applications. These data show that coral restoration can lead to soundscape recovery, demonstrating the return of an important ecosystem function. They also suggest that passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) might provide functionally important measures of ecosystem-level recovery—but only some PAM metrics reflect ecological status, and those that did are likely to be driven by different communities of soniferous animals. Recording soundscapes represents a potentially valuable tool for evaluating restoration success across ecosystems, but caution must be exercised when choosing metrics and interpreting results

Data from: The sound of recovery: coral reef restoration success is detectable in the soundscape

1. Pantropical degradation of coral reefs is prompting considerable investment in their active restoration. However, current measures of restoration success are based largely on coral cover, which does not fully reflect ecosystem function or reef health. 2. Soundscapes are an important aspect of reef health; loud and diverse soundscapes guide the recruitment of reef organisms, but this process is compromised when degradation denudes soundscapes. As such, acoustic recovery is a functionally important component of ecosystem recovery. 3. Here, we use acoustic recordings taken at one of the world’s largest coral reef restoration projects to test whether successful restoration of benthic and fish communities is accompanied by a restored soundscape. We analyse recordings taken simultaneously on healthy, degraded (extensive historic blast fishing) and restored reefs (restoration carried out for 1–3 years on previously-degraded reefs). We compare soundscapes using manual counts of biotic sounds (phonic richness), and two commonly used computational analyses (acoustic complexity index [ACI] and sound-pressure level [SPL]). 4. Healthy and restored reef soundscapes exhibited a similar diversity of biotic sounds (phonic richness), which was significantly higher than degraded reef soundscapes. This pattern was replicated in some automated analyses but not others; the ACI exhibited the same qualitative result as phonic richness in a low-frequency, but not a high-frequency bandwidth, and there was no significant difference between SPL values in either frequency bandwidth. Further, the low-frequency ACI and phonic richness scores were only weakly correlated despite showing a qualitatively equivalent overall result, suggesting that these metrics are likely to be driven by different aspects of the reef soundscape. 5. Synthesis and applications: These data show that coral restoration can lead to soundscape recovery, demonstrating the return of an important ecosystem function. They also suggest that passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) might provide functionally important measures of ecosystem-level recovery – but only some PAM metrics reflect ecological status, and those that did are likely to be driven by different communities of soniferous animals. Recording soundscapes represents a potentially valuable tool for evaluating restoration success across ecosystems, but caution must be exercised when choosing metrics and interpreting results