New research project: diversity in Wallacea

A few weeks ago I wrote about starting an exciting new project at the University of Leeds. At the time I didn’t go into details, but now that I’m a few months in and I am starting to understand what is going, so it’s time to enlighten you as well.

Leaf scorpionfish

Coral reef critter research coming up!

For the next two years I’m part of a team that will study marine biodiversity on coral reefs in central Indonesia. The overarching goal of of the project is to improve the management and conservation of coral reefs by discovering how impacts such as pollution or overfishing change the way coral reefs function. After all, the best way to start solving a problem is by properly understanding it.

Obviously, there’s a lot more to it than the lofty big goal as the title of the project indicates: “Gradients of marine biodiversity and linkages with eDNA across the Wallacea Region”. There are two components to the project: traditional visual surveys and environmental DNA (“eDNA”) surveys. We will use both methods to create ecological networks and see how they differ when they are threatened by different impacts.

At this point you might be asking a few (logical) questions:

  • Where is the Wallacea region and why do you go there?
  • What is eDNA?
  • What is an ecological network?
  • Why should I care? I came to this site to read about critters!

The Wallacea region is the central part of Indonesia, from Lombok eastward almost all the way to Papua, and up all the way to Halmahera (check out the map below). It was named after Alfred Russel Wallace, the scientist who, together with Darwin, developed the theory of evolution. The region represents an interesting boundary area where fauna and flora from the Asian and Australian continents meet. So it is home to some amazing wildlife, but also to a large human population that depends on natural resources to survive. The marine diversity in the region has not been studied very well (except for a few local exceptions), so finding out how healthy the marine ecosystems are is quite important.

Central Indo

The Wallacea Region

Environmental DNA (eDNA for short), is a relatively new method to detect species. I have written about it extensively here if you want a long explanation and background. The method detects tiny fragments of DNA in the water column that are shed through poop, mucus, etc. By filtering and analysing a scoop of water, we can tell what animals (and plants, microbes, etc) live in the water nearby. It’s pretty powerful and very exciting, but still needs a lot of additional testing to know just how precise it is compared to other survey methods.

I will then build ecological network models with all the data we collect. The easiest way to imagine what those are, is to see them as a different kind of food web. Where food webs focus on who eats who, we are more interested in who lives close to who, and who interacts with who. In the ideal situation I will include all the information on fish, corals, algae, invertebrates (crabs, sea stars, etc.) in one big model which will show how they rely on each other. More importantly, it will also show what happens with the networks if sites are overfished or polluted and how that differs from untouched sites.

Species-interaction-networks-at-Norwood-Farm-Somerset-UK-revised-from-Pocock-et-al

Example of an interaction network on land, figure by Bohal et al. 2013. Source here.

So yes, my job for the next few years is less critter-focused than before, but it doesn’t mean I will be ignoring them! Besides the obvious fact that there’s a lot of cool critters to be found on the coral reefs I’ll be visiting, I am still involved in a few very cool projects on the side. It’s too early to go into details, but more seahorse and seadragon work is coming up, and even some exciting pygmy seahorse news as well! I’ll regularly be posting updates on the Wallacea project, as well as more critter features, so stay tuned 🙂

Advertisements

New publication: Finding the species that make a muck diver tick

Now that my PhD thesis has been submitted, it is time to start blogging again! In the very near future I will write a new blog about this whole PhD-writing experience, but for now I will tell you about a new paper that has been published recently in the scientific journal Ocean and Coastal Management.

The paper, “Known unknowns: Conservation and research priorities for soft sediment fauna that supports a valuable scuba diving industry“, describes which species are most important to muck dive tourism, and how much research and conservation work has been done on them. I investigated this using a specific method that is pretty new and has not been used in conservation work until now.

Froggie pair_MDB

Who doesn’t like a frogfish (Antennarius pictus)?

Since these the method and the results will be of interest to different people, this blog is split in two parts:

  1. How did I do the research?
  2. What are the results?

If you are a scuba diver, a dive professional, a travel agent or otherwise mostly interested in the cute animals, it’s completely fine to head straight to number two (even though you will be missing out). If you are a resource manager, work for an NGO, are interested in marketing, or conduct research on flagship species, definitely read the first part of this blog as well!

First section: the Best – Worst Scaling method and why everyone should start using it

wwf-logoIt is important to first think about why anyone would care about which species are important to muck dive tourism, or any kind of tourism by extension. The obvious answer would be “marketing”, if you know which species attract the tourists, you can use them in your advertising and that way attract more tourists. If that is too capitalistic for you, remember that dive tourism provides (mostly) sustainable incomes to thousands of people around the world. But there is more, people might not visit a destination, but still care very deeply about certain species. This principle has been used (very successfully) by many conservation organisations to set up fundraising campaigns. The best known example is probably the World Wildlife Fund, which uses the panda bear as a logo, even if they are trying to protect many more species.

Best of Dauin_Blue ringed octopus_small

Blue ringed octopus (Hapalochlaena sp.) are popular with divers, maybe because of the cuteness combined with its deadly bite?

With that in mind, how do you find out which are the animals that people care about? You can obviously just ask people what they like, get them to make a list of top 5 animals, rank a number of animals in preferred order, give scores to certain animals, etc. But there are some serious problems with most of these methods such as:

  • They are not always reliable, since some people will be consistently more or less positive, or have cultural biases, throwing off your scaling
  • They can be very labour-intensive (=expensive) to properly design and collect data on
  • Statistical analyses of the results are usually very hard to get right
  • It is very difficult to say how the preferences vary between different groups of people (male-female, age, nationality, etc.)

To overcome these issues, we used the “Best-Worst scaling method” and compared it to a traditional survey. This method has been around for a few years, but is mostly used in food marketing (wine!) and patient care in medical research. The big benefit of Best-Worst scaling is that doing the stats is really easy, and without too much extra effort you can also easily interpret how different groups have different preferences.

flamboyant-cuttlefish2

Flamboyant cuttlefish (Metasepia pfefferi) might not be popular with researchers, but divers love them!

Without going into too much detail, the basic design of Best-Worst scaling is that you ask people what they would like MOST and LEAST from a fixed set of animals (or any other thing you are investigating). There are plenty of online platforms (we used Qualtrics) that allow you to design this kind of question, so it’s quick, easy and cheap. Getting results is as simple as subtracting the amount of times an animal was picked as most preferred and the number of times it was least preferred.

Figure 1

Example of a Best-Worst Scaling question

The reason I am describing this method here, is that it is just not known enough in the conservation, or even tourism world. It has the potential to allow all kinds of organisations with limited funding (NGOs, marine parks, or even dive centers) to investigate why people would visit / where they will go / what they care about. Which, eventually, might lead to more research and conservation on those species.

Second section: Which species drive muck dive tourism?

Mimic Octopus

The mimic octopus (Thaumoctopus mimicus), number 1 on many muck divers’ wish list

The results of the surveys won’t come as a shock for avid muck divers or people in dive tourism, but do seem to surprise from people unfamiliar with muck diving. Here is the top 10:

  1. Mimic octopus / wunderpus
  2. Blue ringed octopus
  3. Rhinopias
  4. Flamboyant cuttlefish
  5. Frogfish
  6. Pygmy seahorses
  7. Other octopus species (e.g. Mototi octopus)
  8. Rare crabs (e.g. Boxer crabs)
  9. Harlequin shrimp
  10. Nudibranchs

While other species such as seahorses or ghostpipefishes are also important to muck divers, a dive location that does not offer the potential to see at least a few of the top 10 species is unlikely to attract many divers.

3_MDeBrauwer_Nudie_name

Nudibranchs (Tambja sp.) are always popular with photographers

Some differences did occur between diver groups of divers. Older and experienced divers seemed more interested in rare shrimp than other groups. The preferences of starting divers was poorly defined, but their dislikes were most pronounced than experienced divers. Photographers in particular are interested in species like the mimic octopus, potentially because of their interesting behaviour, although that would have to be investigated in a follow-up study.

The final step of our study was to look at how much we know about the animals most important for muck dive tourism. The answer is simple: not much. For most species researchers have not yet investigated if they are threatened, or not enough is known about them to assess their risk of extinction. It does not look like this will chance soon either. The combined amount of research conducted on the top 10 species in the last 20 years is less than 15%  of the numbers of papers published on bottlenose dolphins (1 species) in the same time. Which are not threatened by extinction in case you were wondering. To give you another comparison, from 1997 until now, 2 papers have been published on the flamboyant cuttlefish, compared to more than 3000 on bottlenose dolphins.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying we should stop researching dolphins, but perhaps it is time that some of the research effort and conservation money is also invested in the critters that make muck divers tick?

Harlequin shrimp_MDB

Harlequin shrimp (Hymenocera elegans), popular with divers AND the aquarium trade

Guestblog: Frogfish history

IMG_0737This is the second guestblog by Daniel Geary, resident marine biologist  and frogfish-enthusiast at Atmosphere Resort in Dauin, Philippines. You can read his first blog here. In this new guestblog Daniel explores the history of frogfish research and provides an introduction to a few common and not-so-common frogfish species.


There are many places across the globe where divers can see frogfish, but the Philippines (especially the Dauin area) is one of the best frogfish destinations of them all. I have personally seen thirteen species in this country, including 11 species here in Dauin. Sometimes we will see over 30 individuals on a single dive! It is not uncommon for some of the frogfish to stay on the same site for over a year, especially Giant Frogfish. Another great destination for frogfish is Indonesia, especially Lembeh, Ambon, and also some places in Komodo. Generally, if there is good muck diving, there is good potential for frogfish action. Australia also has some unique frogfish species, as well as the Caribbean, where there are a few places with reliable frogfish sightings.

Although frogfish are relatively well known critters to divers in the Indo-Pacific, this has not always been the case. Stories of frogfish and their accompanying drawings and sketches have existed for hundreds of years, with encounters spanning the globe. The first ever documented frogfish comes from Brazil. At some point before 1630, a drawing was given to the director of the Dutch West India Company. A woodcut was made from this drawing, and that woodcut was published in 1633. The first color drawing appeared in 1719, published by Louis Renard, an agent to King George I of England. He published a collection of color drawings of Indo-Pacific fish and other organisms and some of these represent the earliest published figures of Indo-Pacific frogfish. One was called Sambia or Loop-visch which translates directly to “walking fish.”

photo 1 - louis renard

First colour drawing of a frogfish – Louis Renard 1719

Albertus Seba and Philibert Commerson were two important scientists in the 1700s when it comes to frogfish. Seba believed frogfish were amphibians and tried very hard -incorrectly of course – to prove that they were the link between tadpoles and frogs, although anyone who has seen a baby frogfish knows this to be false. Even though he incorrectly identified a few nudibranchs as juvenile frogfish, he was still able to identify two species, the Hairy Frogfish (Antennarius striatus) and the Sargassumfish (Histrio histrio) during his studies. Commerson was the first scientist to focus solely on frogfish. He was a botanist and naturalist employed by the King of France and he described three species from Mauritius (Painted Frogfish – Antennarius pictus, Giant frogfish – Antennarius commerson, Hairy Frogfish – Antennarius striatus).

photo 2 - hairy frogfish

Commerson’s drawing of the hairy frogfish – Antennarius striatus

There have been plenty of identification problems when it comes to frogfish, even today.  Frogfish colorations and patterns are highly variable, so it is nice to know people have been struggling with frogfish identification for hundreds of years. Albert Gunther, a scientist who attempted describe the different species of frogfish, said in 1861 that “[their] variability is so great, that scarcely two specimens will be found which are exactly alike…although I have not the slightest doubt that more than one-half of [the species] will prove to be individual varieties”. He listed over 30 species, but only 9 of those species are still accepted today. Since 1758 there have been over 165 species described and over 350 combinations of names. Currently there are around 50 accepted species, roughly one third of the total species described.

FROGFISH SPECIES PROFILES

Painted Frogfish – Antennarius pictus

This is the most abundant frogfish species in the Indo-Pacific. They can be identified by having 3 distinctive spots on their tail. They prefer to live near sponges, rocks, ropes, mooring blocks, and car tires. They can grow to a maximum size of around 15 cm.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Painted frogfish (Antennarius pictus) with its typical three tail spots

Sargassumfish – Histrio histrio

This is the species with the largest distribution. They can be found in floating seaweed or debris as well as anchored seaweed and other marine plants. They can reach a maximum size of around 15 cm and are often sold in the marine aquarium trade.

sargassumfish.jpg

Sargassumfish (Histrio histrio), a surprisingly good swimmer that lives on floating seaweed

Psychedelic Frogfish – Histiophryne psychedelica

This is one of the rarest frogfish species. They are only found in Ambon, Indonesia at a handful of dive sites, usually at around 2-3m hidden in rock crevices or in coral rubble.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

“Snooted” picture of a psychedelic frogfish (Histiophryne psychedelica)

Giant Frogfish – Antennarius commerson

This is the biggest frogfish species, reaching lengths of more than 40 cm. They prefer to live on sponges and have two large spots on their tail, as well as lines coming from the eye and enlarged dorsal spines.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Giant frogfish (Antennarius commerson) resting on a sponge. Note the two tail spots

Ocellated Frogfish – Nudiantennarius subteres

This frogfish species is the “newest” frogfish species. Originally thought to be a new species, it turns out this species is the previously described, relatively unknown “Deepwater Frogfish”, although the lure is incorrect in the original drawing. It was thought that the adults lived deep and only the juveniles were found in the shallows, but  adult mating pairs of this species have been seen at less than 10m depth. They grow to around 5 cm.

ocellated.jpg

Typical coloration of the Ocellated frogfish (Nudiantennarius subteres)

On the origin of muck diving

The last 3 years of my life have been dedicated to intensely studying critters and socio-economics related to “muck diving”. While this is a relatively common term in the scuba diving world, the vast majority of people haven’t got a clue what muck diving is. I can’t count the number of times people at conferences, meetings, drinks, etc. have gone: “You study what diving???”. Marine scientists seem to prefer hearing “Cryptobenthic fish assemblages on tropical sublittoral soft sediment habitats” than “Critters in the muck”. Each to its own I guess?

Seahorse_muck

Classic muck diving scene (Photo: Dragos Dumitrescu)

It’s not just scientists who are confused, a lot of divers have questions about muck, or at the very least are curious about how it started and where the name came from, so I decided to dig a bit deeper and find out some interesting facts about the origins of muck diving. If you have never heard of muck diving or just aren’t sure what it is, here is how I defined it in my last paper:

“Scuba diving in soft sediment habitats with limited landscape features, with
the explicit goal to observe or photograph rare, unusual, or cryptic species that are seldom seen on coral reefs.”

Or easier: Diving on sand/mud/rubble to find cool animals you don’t see on normal divesites. The word “muck” means either “Dirt, rubbish, or waste matter” or even worse “Farmyard manure, widely used as fertilizer”. In British English it is also used for “Something regarded as distasteful, unpleasant, or of poor quality”. I would guess that it’s the combination of the first and last meanings that inspired the people who started this type of diving.

Muck diving in its current shape has its origins in Milne Bay, Papua New Guinea. On a site called Dinah’s beach,  where Bob Halstead decided to try to do a dive on the site where their boat (the MV Telita) was anchored. The divers were skeptical at first as the site was mostly sand and did not look very appealing, but after discovering tonnes of creatures they had never seen before they were sold and muck diving was born. From its origins in Papua New Guinea, muck diving caught on and became popular across the world, but no place is as well known for muck diving as Lembeh Strait in Indonesia.

Map Milne Bay

Milne Bay, Papua New Guinea, where it all started

It is clear why Lembeh is famous with muck divers, as it really is a great place to dive and find some of the world’s most amazing critters. But how did muck diving in Lembeh kick off? What many people don’t know, is that Lembeh’s origin-story as the world’s most famous muck dive destination is pretty grim. The first resort in Lembeh (Kungkungan Bay Resort) was built in 1994, but the owners did not build their resort with critters in mind….

Back in those days, Lembeh was one of the best sites in the region to watch the big stuff. The plankton-rich waters of Lembeh Strait attracted scores of manta rays, dolphins, sharks,… Until 1996, when mankind showed just how destructive it could be. In March of that year, foreign fishermen came in and (illegally) installed the “Curtains of death”. These were huge nets, placed across the migratory routes of the large fish near Lembeh Strait. The nets were deadly efficient, during the 11 months they were used they caught:

  • 1424 manta rays
  • 577 pilot whales
  • 18 whales
  • 257 dolphins
  • 326 sharks (including whale sharks)
  • 84 turtles
  • many other animals including turtles and marlins

The original article about the curtains of death can’t be found online, but if you are interested, send me an email and I can send a copy. If you want to know more about destructive fishing in Indonesia, this is an interesting source start with.

Rainbow2

Peaceful Lembeh Strait has a turbulent history

The numbers are staggering, and for the few tourism operators in the area it must have been quite a shock. Until they discovered that Lembeh had much more to offer than just the big stuff. While there are no records of it, the story goes that muck diving in the area only properly got started when people started looking down at the sand instead of up at the manta rays. It makes me wonder what the area would have looked liked otherwise, and if muck diving would exist in the way it does now…

As it is now, muck diving is big, it attracts divers from across the globe and new critter hot spots keep on being discovered far beyond from where it all started. It’s exciting to think about how much more we will discover in the future! For me, one of the changes I would like to see, is the actual term “muck diving”. The name coined by Bob Halstead stuck, but I think most people in the diving (and academic) world agree that it isn’t really the most inviting name. I’d like to hear your suggestions (below in comments) on more suitable names for this type of diving and the divers doing it. If I get enough suggestions, I’ll organise a poll later to see what is preferred by divers around the world!

2_MDeBrauwer_JuvenileFrogfish_MDB

It’s all about finding the small stuff – baby Painted frogfish (Antennarius pictus)

PS: Originally I wanted the full title of this blog to be “On the origin of muck diving by Means of Photographer Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured divesites in the search for Critters”. But the long title might have put off those readers who didn’t immediately get the very nerdy biology pun.