Safia Slater & Kaipo Perez III Bot 440 Advanced Ethnobotany Professors McClatchey and Bridges 12/05/08 Investigating Hawai’i residents and their perception and education on locally distributed invasive algae. Abstract Hawai´i’s coral reef ecosystem has suffered great ecological and economic loss as a result of invasive algae. Solutions have been implemented that have slowed the detrimental growth of invasive algae, but none have proposed to end this devastating problem. Much of the solutions have come from top- bottom controls like the government and little have been a result of the public at large. The purpose of this research project was to document the residential perspective of marine ecosystems as well as to determine if Hawai´i (O´ahu) residents possess basic algal knowledge on locally distributed species. The reasons for asking these questions are as followed: to observe what residents perceive as major marine ecological problems, investigate the connectivity between the isle’s residents and common algae, and the ability for residents to discern invasive algal species. Knowing such information is important as this may indicate how the public-at-large views coastal regions influenced by algae. The information from this study inferred that the public is uneducated and naïve to the problems that stem from invasive algae. Rectifying this situation lies in the education and altering the perspectives of the public towards viewing invasive algae as a severe problem. This is the stepping-stone in the direction of a solution. Introduction In Hawai´i, detriment to coral reef communities has been associated with native and nonnative marine algae. These algae are appropriately coined, marine invasive species as they have been able to grossly overpopulate regions, resulting in ecological and economic loss. In terms of economic loss invasive algae has negatively impacted local revenues. Hypnea musciformis for example has affected tourism and property value on the West coast of Māui. In ecological terms, overgrowth of invasive algae has caused a phase shift in community structure, to which they have replaced areas once dominated by corals. Kappaphycus spp., which occupies Kane´ohe Bay, has overrun reef habitats resulting in coral mortality (Conklin and Smith 2005). Invasive species have been linked to declines in biodiversity as they have suppressed native species through competition, parasitism, and/or disease (Chornesky and Randall 2003), ultimately altering coral reef communities. Nevertheless the presence of marine algae has not always been a problem for the balance of coral reefs. In traditional times, algae, or “limu” as known by the Hawaiians, has always been an important facet of their lifestyle (“nohona”) and traditional culture. Their value was apparent by the assignment of specific names to certain algae, and their applications. For general practices algae served as a sort of commodity to which it was bartered off in return for other goods. In addition algae served in cultural ceremonies (such as Ho´oponopono) and were the bases of Hawaiian legends (McDermid and Stuercke 2003). In terms of food, algae were traditionally consumed either on its own or in combination with seafood (ex. fish) or meat products. As mentioned by Abbott (1996) algae was even known to be a condiment/relish blended with “poi” (which also served as a Hawaiian staple). In fact, before Western contact (in 1779) algae served as a regular staple of their diet (McDermid and Stuercke 2003). It is believed that Hawaiians acquired high vitamin and mineral content, as well as proteins and polysaccharides from algae as it is a product of high nutritional value (Chapman and Chapman 1980, Arasaki and Arasaki, 1983,

Lahaye 1991, Darcy-Vrillon 1993, McDermid and Stuercke 2003). It was their value, as well as the understanding of “land and sea interactions” by the Hawaiians that allowed algal populations to be regulated. In recent times, algal populations have grown exponentially as a result of eutrophication and herbivore reduction, which have been driven by anthropogenic factors. As for eutrophication, the quantity of nutrients within the water column determines the magnitude of algae that can be propagated and for that reason has aided in the uncontrollable growth of invasive algae. Without an ample supply of essential nutrients like nitrogen, which is limiting in coastal ecosystems, algal growth due to eutrophication is suppressed (Larned and Stimson 1996, Larned 1998, Howarth and Marino 2006). Hence the addition of these nutrients is extremely vital to the survival and resilience of these marine invasive algae. On the other hand if nutrient inputs are great, algal populations driven by eutrophication takes off. In some areas like the Florida coast the rising influx of nutrients along with other cofactors has increased the spread of some species of invasive seaweeds (Anderson 2007). To better comprehend nutrient addition their sources into coastal ecosystems must be understood. Point and non-point sources are the main means to which nutrients are added to coastal marine environments (like reefs). Nearly all the nutrients that make its way to the ocean are of terrigenous origin. In the past, ample levels of nutrients were added to the ocean in a manner that allowed algal growth to occur without having an explosion in population size. In recent times these once regulating nutrient additions have increased as a result of but not limited to urban development (ex. deforestation). These actions have uprooted many integral root systems, which normally act as filters and reservoirs of nutrients. These reservoirs would capture, trap, and reduce the quantity of nutrients before they make it to the ocean, thus limiting the amount of nutrients that are deposited. With the influx of available nutrients associated with deforestation, the alteration/diversion of streams into levees or runoff drain ways act as point sources of nutrients into the ocean. Although termed “point sources” these transporters are not the main contributors to ocean eutrophication. Anderson (2002) noted that non-point sources were of greater concern than point sources because of their great abundance and difficulty to control. For example, fertilizers are a main ingredient delivered by non-point sources which are commonly used by golf courses, which has been shown to cause structural and functional destruction in coastal ecosystems as significant algal growth was noted by the influx of nutrients (Bokn et al. 2003). Coupled with sewage outfalls that are directly dumped into coastal regions, these methods of introduction have been shown to increase macroalgae growth in particular invasive algae growth. For example, prior to 1977 sewage outfalls were located atop coastal reef locations in Kane’ohe Bay, Hawai’i and were thought to have caused an outbreak in Dictyospheria cavernosa as a result of eutrophicaton from sewage discharge (Stimson J. et al. 2001). Whether coastal eutrophication is a result of point or non-point sources they nevertheless influence invasive algal growth. In addition to nutrient addition, the presence of herbivores is integral to “trim” back invasive algae overgrowth. It has been mentioned that on reefs where there is a healthy herbivore population, the rate of herbivory matched that of the rate of growth by algae (Jompa and McCook 2002), thus regulating their growth. Therefore greater herbivore populations prevent and possibly reverse phase shifts. Although it sounds good, there still needs to be an increase in herbivores. The reality is that there is only a small population of herbivores living on the world’s reefs. The declining abundance of herbivores has been proposed as a cause of escalating algal over growth within the reef community (Jompa and McCook 2002). Thus is it fortuitous to understand why there is a declining abundance of herbivores in reef communities. Key factors that have negatively influence herbivore populations include over fishing, disturbances, and disease. The main dilemma that has led to the demise and collapse of

herbivores is anthropological activities like over fishing. In places like Jamaica over fishing of herbivores before they reach maturation has caused fishing markets to collapse, as fewer herbivores have not been able to reproduce and replenish fish stocks. This allowed local marine invasive algae to grow untamed. In places like Hawai’i, declines have been felt in the local economy (ex. fisheries market), as well as observed by the lack of macroalgal consumption. Another cause in herbivore decline is the presence of both diseases and disturbance events. In Jamaica disturbance events like hurricanes killed herbivores in the area. The remanding urchins were then subject to diseases, which brought them to the brink of extinction. These three factors (over fishing, disease, and disturbance events) have severely impacted herbivore populations in Jamaica, ultimately causing a phase shift from coral to algal domination to occur (Hughes,T.P. 1994). Following the identification of aspects that contribute to invasive algae overgrowth, steps should be taken to ameliorate the problem. In Hawai’i there have been three different approaches to combat the invasion of algae of which does not include laws: increase herbivore populations, public cleanups, and use of the “super sucker”. In terms of herbivores, Hawai’i researchers have been working to restock depleted populations. For example, scientists are working with Tripneustes gratilla, the collector urchin, has to been shown to consume Kappaphycus, an invasive algae in Kāne´ohe Bay, Hawai´i. They are trying to culture these urchins in the lab so they can be released onto the reef and regulate the growth of invasive algae. As for clean ups, groups like “´a´ohe limu ´ē” have organized different events that allows the public to get involved and help in the clean up of areas like Waikiki, which have been overrun with the invasive algae Gracilaria salicornia. Another project by Hawai’i researcher includes the invention of the “super sucker” machine. These are floating boats that use the same technologies of gold miners. Vacuums aboard these boats suck algae out of the water onto a sorting to which invasive algae is placed into bags and other marine life is returned back into the ocean. These methods are effective but are only a short-term solution to the problem. In Hawai’i the presence of invasive algae seems to go unnoticed and is low on the priority list of its residents. Understanding why this occurs is important towards the remedies against invasive algae. Therefore the purpose of this research project is to document the residential perspective of marine ecosystems as well as to determine if Hawai´i (O´ahu) residents possess basic algal knowledge on locally distributed species. The reasons for posing these questions are as followed: to observe what residents perceive as major marine ecological problems, investigate the connectivity between the isle’s residents and common algae, and the ability for residents to discern invasive algal species. Knowing such information is important as this may indicate how the public-at-large views coastal regions influenced by algae. Depending on the outcome, this information may also infer that the public maybe uneducated and naïve to the problems that stem from invasive algae. Rectifying this situation, if existent, is an important stepping-stone towards a positive solution. Methodology Materials and Methods: Development of Consent Form A consent form was developed as public interviews played an integral role in the methodology of this research project (Appendix 1). This form first established who the surveyors were and the topic covered in this interview. The subsequent paragraph briefly explained the goal of this experiment and the solutions that may arise from this research. The following paragraph gave a detailed explanation of the methodology employed in this study and its justification. Thereafter vital paragraphs were developed to establish the voluntary and confidential nature of this research. In all this consent form was developed to protect the

interviewer and interviewee from conducting or participating on an individual that is unwilling to partake in this experiment. Construction of Questionnaire Questionnaires are important tools that allow the extrapolation of data from a sample population to which inferences of the entire population can be drawn. In this study a questionnaire was constructed in order to understand how Hawai’i residents perceive coastal marine problems and their knowledge of invasive algae and its impacts (Appendix 2). The first few questions of the questionnaire were developed to relax and gain general background information on the interviewee. These questions established their residency, place of residence, and age. This is very important as place of residency and age may indicate the amount of information they possess on coastal marine ecosystems. The next couple questions were constructed to identify the frequency and reasons for attending the beach. Knowing these details are important questions as their frequency and reasons may influence their perception of the marine ecosystem. For example, if the individual rarely goes to the beach changes might not be as evident them and thus could mold their perception. The following subset of questions dealt specifically with the perception of the interviewees. These questions were based off of two photographs with different focal points. The first is centered on a sandy shore area littered with invasive algae in the foreground. The other captures invasive algae at its core with a sandy beach in the background. Major ecological problems observed by the individuals wanted to be identified. These questions test the perception and provide incite to how the individuals critically analyze a picture. In terms of invasive algae, this finding is pivotal to understanding if the public is aware of invasive algae as a threat to the coastal marine environment. If not seen as a problem, then a solution or remedy may not be imagined. Information and questions until this point of the questionnaire lack the mention of invasive algae, as results during this section did not want to be smeared or influenced. Successively questions were asked in order to establish and evaluate the education or knowledge possessed by the public concerning invasive algae. The first question of this subset asked if the individual knows the Hawaiian work for algae or seaweed. Although this question seems very trivial, it is important as much of the conservation and management organizations use this word to associate and promote their cause of the removal/control of invasive algae. The next question was constructed to see how often algae is observed by the interviewee. This piece of information can establish and infer if the public views algae as a problem in the marine ecosystem. If not seen then a problem may not be perceived. Successively questions were asked to test their ability, either based on education or intellectual knowledge, to discern invasive algal species from common species. These are indeed vital questions as this may also influence their sensitivity towards invasive algae and its detrimental effects. The final questions of this inquiry merged both concepts of perception and education or intellectual knowledge possessed on invasive algae. These questions directly asked if they perceived invasive algae as a threat, aid, or neutral player in the coral reef ecosystem. Knowing their perception and education is significant to understanding how the problem of invasive algae can be resolved. Photo Selection In this study photographs were used to analyze the perceptive ability as well as the knowledge possessed by the individuals who were interviewed. The aforementioned photographs concerning perception were taken on the 10th of November 2008 at Kaimana Beach Park. Kaimana Beach was selected as the location of choice as it is heavily trafficked by tourist and residents as well as it suffers from the impact of invasive algae. The first picture taken tried

to emphasize the beach with light regard to the invasive algae (figure 1). This served at the “average beach” perception to which it is well balanced by all facets of the shoreline. The other picture on the other had highlighted invasive algae at its core and served as the “phycologist or marine biologist” perception the shoreline (figure 2). It is thought these pictures will allow the free range of perception considered by the interviewee. The next set of photos was a combination of invasive and common algal species found in Hawai´i. The selected species for this experiment were Gracilaria salicornia, Acanthophora specifera, Asparagopsis taxiformis, and Halimeda discoidea. Gracilaria salicornia is an intertidal to shallow species of algae (figure 3). This was selected as a species of interest for this study as this algal is very invasive to the Hawaiian and is common culprit of degradation to the coral reef ecosystem. Like G. salicornia, A. specifera was selected as a species for this experiment as it is another culprit that plays a major role in the detriment or coast ecosystems (figure 4). Unlike the other algae mentioned A. taxiformis or “limu kohu” is a common species found in the Hawaiian but it is not an invasive species (figure 5). This algal was selected as the Hawaiian people used it as a source of food and can give incite to the intellectual knowledge possessed by the interviewee. The final algae selected for this experiment was Halimeda discoidea (figure 6). This is a common but not invasive species found in the islands. It was selected, as its calcified structure and appearance possess the power to distract the interviewees from assessing the right choices of invasive species. Collectively these pictures served as the basis to test the public of their knowledge on the discernment of invasive algae. Experimental Design Interviews served as the tool or machinery to test the hypothesis being questioned in this experiment. Therefore a site, range, quantity, structure, and analysis needed to be selected in order to make these hypothesize testable. The site selected for this experiment was Waikiki. This location was selected as it is heavily trafficked by both resident and tourist. It was also chosen as the Waikiki area is profoundly influenced by invasive algae which causes great detriment to the coral reef ecosystem. In terms or range, the section between Kaimana beach and the Groin (located at the intersection of Kalakaua and Kapahulu avenue) served as the site of interview. This was selected as the range as this area encompasses the greater population of resident who commute to Waikiki beach. Areas further east or west of this experiment lack suffice interviewees or residents this would be faulty to the evaluation of this experiment. The quantity of interviewees selected for this experiment was fifty. It is thought that this number was suffice as the information gained in this experiment would asymptote at this point. The selection and process of interviewing in this experiment was done in a haphazard manner. Interviews started from Kaimana beach and ended at the Groin. Interviews were conducted on the 11th of November 2008, Veteran’s Day, as resident frequent the beach on this day. Individuals or groups (each individual were allowed their own response) were interviewed using the questionnaire previously discussed. Interviewees were approached asked to participate and then the questionnaire was administered. During the interview process one individual administered the questionnaire while the other recorded the responses of the interviewee. At the end of the process the interviewees were asked one again if the information they provided could be used in the analysis of this experiment. If they agreed they were asked to sign the consent form. If they denied their results remained as conversations and we tossed from the analysis process. After this process was complete questions posed by the interviewee were entertained. Subsequently other interviews were conducted until an ample amount of interviews were completed. Analyses were conducted on responses to see significance. Percentages were assessed to perception and knowledge questions. Correlations were then made between the

perception and knowledge question to assess the over all problem of invasive algae as perceived by the residential community. Results Questionnaire Background Fifty resident of O´ahu, Hawai´i were interviewed. Interviewees ranged from all parts of the island: Aiea, Daimond Head, Ewa Beach, Hawai´i Kai, Honolulu, Kailua, Kaimukī, Kalihi, Kāne ´ohe, Mānoa, Moanalua, Moilili, Nu´uanu, Palolo, Pearl City, Wahiawa, Waianae, Waikiki, Waimanalo, Waipio (refer to figure 7). Majority of the interviewees were from Honolulu (n = 11), and Kāne´ohe (n = 9). Of the people interviewed majority of them were post-college (n = 34) in age, followed by elementary school (n = 8), college (n=4), middle school (n = 2), and high school (n = 2) [refer to figure 8]. The reasons for attending the beach given by the interviewees varied, with the most common being recreation/ relax (n = 31), followed by surf/ body board/ kayak (n = 7), swimming (n = 5), fish/ spear fishing/ diving (n =4), work (n = 2), and exercise (n = 1) [refer to figure 9]. Perspective Experiment Photo one or the “average beach” displayed a beach balanced out with urban development, and tourist in the fore and background. When asked what is the major ecological problem found in this photo four common responses was given: pollution (68% ), limu (18%), urban development (10%), and none (4%) [refer to figure 10]. Photo two or the “marine biologist/ phycologist beach” flaunted a beach overrun by algae with urban development and tourist minimally note in the photo. When asked what is the major ecological problem associated with this photo four common response was given: pollution (54%), limu (36%), urban development (6%), and none (4%) [refer to figure 11]. Comparing both photos there is a 200% increase in the identification of algae being a major ecological by the interviewee. Algal Knowledge Experiment The knowledge of the interviewees was first test by their ability to give the Hawaiian name for “algae”. Of the people interviewee a little more than half (64%) knew the Hawaiian word or algae as being limu. The frequency of algae observed by the interviewee when the go to the beach was asked in order to gauge their interaction with algae. Majority of the interviewees said that algae were seen on a moderate basis (38%) to which it was not neither seen or absent in their visits to the beach (refer to figure 13). Four pictures were shown to the interviewees. Two of the four pictures were invasive species. Of the interviews conducted 98% were able to identify at least one of the invasive species (refer to figure 14). Of the 98% of the interviewees to identify an invasive species only 35% could recognize both species and 65% could recognize only one species. (refer to figure 15). To fully understand the selection of invasive species chosen by the interview polls were to see they picked those particular algal species. Of the interviewees who were able to identify both species a majority of them (64%) stated that they were making an educated guess based off their observation, followed by education (18%) and pure guessing (18%) [refer to figure 16]. This was also done for those who were able to identify at least one of the invasive algae: pure guess (48%), educated guess (34%), and education (18%) [refer to figure 17]. In terms algal education only 18% of the participants have received some form of teachings (ex. traditional, formal) [refer to figure 18]. On a side note the interviewees were also asked how they felt algae influenced the coral reef ecosystem. From this question three responses were given: negative (64%), positive (22%), and neutral (14%) [refer to figure 19].

Discussion Perspective A person’s perspective plays an integral role in their ability to decipher important and detrimental factors in any setting. In this experiment for example, the interviewee’s perception changed as the focal point in each photo emphasized different key aspects. In the snapshot “average beach”, the beach as a whole served as the focal point. It featured images of the ocean, sand, tourist, invasive algae, and urban development. The general consensus gathered from this photo is that the residents perceived pollution as the greatest ecological problem. This was an interesting finding as little, and other forms of pollution were minimally portrayed in this picture. On the other hand factors like invasive algae (18%), and urban development (10%0 are of great prevalence in this photo and yet aren't perceived as greater threats than pollution. In relations to invasive algae, the interviewee's perception may have been haltered as they lack education (or general information) on algae. During the interviews, residents often asked if the algae in the photo were "good" or "bad". Responses weren't given in these situations as it was the participant's goal to drawn their own conclusions. It is thought that this is reason why the percentage of residents viewing invasive algae as a major ecological problem was much lower than that of pollution. Also it is believed that the participants might not understand relationships that exist between the coral reef ecosystem and algae to know that true detriment of invasive algae. As for snapshot two a "marine biologist/ phycologist beach" the invasive algae, which lines the beach served as the focal point. Unlike photo one, this photo is dominated with invasive algae and is minimally influenced by factors like the ocean, sand, pollution, and urban development. The general consensus gathered from this photo again showed that pollution was the greatest ecological problem. An interesting thing to note is that although algae ranked second among the major ecological problems present in this photo, the number of individuals who perceived the invasion of algae as a major problem almost doubled from photo one. It is thought a doubling occurred as there was more emphasis on algae in the picture. In fact during the interviews the participants would look at the photo and have such responses as "whoa, and wow" as they seen a great mount of algae. It appears that this photo convinced the interviewees that there was a growing amount of algae from the last photo when in reality these photos were taken on the same day except were taken from a different angle. Algal Knowledge The level of algal knowledge a person possesses differs from individual to individual. Given the results of this experiment it is thought that Hawai'i residents lack general algal knowledge concerning both introduced and locally distributed species. The grounds of this statement lie in the inability of the interviewees to confidentially discern which algae are invasive and which aren't. Although the results are contradictory, further exploration into the results explicitly disproves the participant's ability to identify invasive algae. From the results it is seen that 98% of the individuals could discern at least one of the invasive species. This is a value that over accentuates level of discernment. Looking a step further into the results it is documented that only 65%, and 35% of the interviewees could identify only one and both the invasive algae respectively. In order to qualify the choices that were made the participants were asked to explain their selection. In terms of the individuals who were able to identify one of the invasive species most of them make their selection based on guessing, whether it be an educated guess or a pure guess. The remainder of the participants, which is dismal 18% were able to identify the invasive algae based on education either (formal or traditional knowledge). This is also the same result acquired from the participants that were able to identify both species. In both cases the interviewees who guessed were unsure of their choices. Some of the interviewees could only

positively identify one of the invasive and the other choice was just a guess. When guessing the participants sometimes choose Halimeda as the invasive species as they had never seen this algal before and thought it looked out of place. In collaboration with this some of the participants didn’t choose Gracilaria salicornia as an invasive species as they thought it was the common “ogo” that is eaten. These two deliberating reasons give evidence to the fact that people lack education about algae found in Hawai´i. This is especially true in the case of Gracilaria salicornia as if the public doesn’t realize that this is indeed an invasive species they may never recognize it as being a major ecological problem. Conclusion A lack of education and a naïve perspective is the barrier between resolving and the lingering of this detrimental problem. Educating the public on basic algal knowledge, the coral reef ecosystem, and “land-sea relationships” is the first step towards a solution. Making these changes in the local communities (i.e. school, public service announcements) will alter the perspectives of the resident. They will realize the importance of not only sea but the land as well. In fact after the completion of each interview, the participants always asked what they could do to rectify this situation. At the end of the interview they realized the negative impact of invasive algae on the environment and wanted to make a different. This is a true testament that all levels of society (ex. politicians, and residents) need to be involved in the resolution of any problem in order for it to be successful. In research, problems are frequently identified but solutions are seldomly proposed. As previously mentioned, education and a change in perspective are both needed as a guide towards a solution. Realistically a resolution lies in reduction of nutrients in the marine ecosystem and the reduction herbivorous fish caught. Bottom-up and top-down controls via the reduction/dilution of coastal eutrophication, and the increase in herbivore populations are both essential in controlling marine invasive algae. With the reduction of nutrients (i.e. reforestation), algal populations will decline as a result of the inability to sustain large populations without essential and ample nutrient requirements. In the presence of greater herbivore abundances with lowered fishing pressure, algal populations will once again decline, as the herbivory rate will equal that of the growth rate of (invasive) algal groups. If both of these controls aren’t collectively applied this may still yield an outbreak in invasive algae. For example if coastal eutrophication isn’t reduced, there will be a greater demand for larger herbivore populations, which might not be able to keep up with invasive algae growth rates. Some may question and argue that controls like these are too stringent and costly. It is from a science standpoint that the long-term cost outweighs those of what might appear to be “expensive” short-term cost. In the Hawaiian culture a wise proverb is taught that can better explain why it is so important to protect our investment in the air, land, and sea. “He ´āina ke ali´i, he kāua ke kanaka”. Literally translated this means, “the land is chief and the people are its servants”. Metaphorically this means, “take care of the land (nature) and the land will take care of you. If you fail to take care of the land, it will fail to take care of you”. In any event efforts to reduce invasive algal populations need to be taken in order to reverse a phase shift and once more promote the recruitment of juvenile corals. Nevertheless the fight first begins with education/ awareness and changing perspectives.

Literature Cited Abbott, I. A. 1996. Limu. An Ethnobotanical Study of Some Hawaiian Seaweeds. National Tropical Botanical Garden, Kauai: 39. Anderson, D.M. P.M., Gilbert, J.M., Burkholder. Harmful algal blooms and eutrophication: nutrient sources, composition, and consequences. Estuaries. 25: 704-736. Anderson L.W.J. 2007. Control of invasive seaweeds. Botanica Marina. 50:418-437. Arasaki, S.and T. Arasaki. 1983.Vegetables from the Sea. Japan Pub. Inc, Tokyo: 196 pp. Bokn, T.L., Duarte, C.M., Pedersen, M.F., Marba, N., Moy, F., Barron, C., Bjerkeng, B., Borum, J., Christie, H., Engelbert, S., Fotel, F.L., Hoell, E.E., Karez, R., Kersting, K., Kraufvelin, P., Lindblad, C., Oslen, M., Sanderud, K.A., Sommer, U., Sorensen, K. 2003. the response of experimental rocky shore communities to nutrient additions. Ecosystems. 6: 577-594. Chapman, V. J. and D. J. Champman. 1980. Seaweeds and Their Uses, 3rd edn. Chapman and Hall, New York: 334. Chornesky, E.A. and J.M. Randall. 2003. The threat of invasive alien species to biological diversity: setting a future course. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 90: 67-76. Conklin, E.J. and J.E. Smith. 2005. Abundance and spread of the invasive red algae, Kappaphycus spp., in Kane´ohe Bay, Hawai´i and an experimental assessment of management options. Biological Invasions 7: 1029-1039. Darcy-Vrillon, B. 1993. Nutritional aspects of the developing use of marine macroalgae for the human food industry. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 44: S23–S35. Howarth, R.W. and R. Marino. 2006. Nitrogen as the limiting nutrient for eutrophication in coastal marine ecosystems: Evolving views over three decades. Limnol. Oceanogra. 51: 364-376. Hughes, T.P. 1994. Catastrophes, phase-shifts, and large-scale degradation of a Caribbean coral reef. Science. 265: 1547-1551. Jompa, J., McCook, L.J. 2002. The effects of nutrients and herbivory on competition between a hard coral ( Porites cylindrical) and a brown alga (Lobophora variegata). Limnology and Oceanography. 47: 527-534. Lahaye, M. 1991. Marine algae as sources of fibres: determination of soluble and insoluble dietary fibre contents in some ‘seavegetables’. J. Sci. Food Agric. 54: 587–594. Larned, S. and Stimson, J. 1996. Nitrogen-limited growth in the coral reef cholorphyte Dictyosphaeria cavernosa, and the effect of exposure to sediment-derived nitrogen on growth. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 145:95-108. Larned, S. T. (1998) Nitrogen- versus Phosphorous-limited growth and sources of nutrients for coral reef macroalgae. Mar. Biol. 132:409-421. Lowrance, R., Todd, R. Fail Jr., J., Hendrickson Jr., O. Leonard, R., and Asmussen, L. 1984. Riparian Forest as nutrient filters in agricultural watersheds. Bioscience. 34: 374-377. McDermid, K. J. and B. Stuercke. 2003. Nutritional composition of edible Hawaiian seaweeds. Journal of Applied Phycology 15: 513- 524. Smith, S.V., Kimmerer, W.J., Laws, E.A., Brock, R.E., and Walsh, T.W. 1981. Kaneohe Bay sewage diversion experiment: Persecptives on ecosystem responses to nutritional perturbation. Stimson, J., S.T. Larned, and E. Conklin. 2001. Effects of herbivory, nutrient levels, and introduced algae on the distribution and abundance of the invasive marcoralga Dictyosphaeria cavernosa in Kane’ohe Bay, Hawai’i. Coral Reefs. 19: 343-357.

Figure 1: Perspective of an “average beach”

Figure 2. Perspective of a “marine biologist/ phycologist beach”

Figure 3. Gracilaria salicornia

Figure 4. Acanthophora specifera

Figure 5. Asparagopsis taxiformis or “limu kohu”

Figure 6. Halimeda discoidea

Tables, Figures, and Appendix 12

No. of Interviewee(s)

10 8 6 4 2

D

ia m

on Ai d ea H E ea w a d B H e aw a ai ch 'i K H on ai ol ul u K ai K lu a ai m uk K i a K l ih an i e' oh M e M an oa oa na lu M a oi N lili u' ua nu Pa Pe lo ar lo l W Cit ah y ia W wa ai an W ae W aik ai i m ki an a W lo ai pi o

0

P la c e o f R e s ide nc e

Figure 7. Indicating the number and location of residence of all interviewees.

Interviewee's Level of Education

Ele m e nta ry Sc h o o l 16 %

Po s t Co lle g e 68%

Middle Sc h o o l 4% Hig h Sc h o o l 4% Co lle g e 8%

Figure 8. Pie chart showing the age of interviewees in terms of their placement of education

Reasons for Going to Beach Wo rk 4% Sw im 10 % Re c re a tio n / Re la x 62%

Surf / Bo dy Bo a rd / Ka ya k 14 %

Exe rc is e 2%

Fis h / Spe a r Fis h / Div e 8%

Figure 9. Showing interviewees purpose for going to the beach.

"Average Beach" No ne 4%

Lim u 18 %

Po llutio n (e x. c ig a re tte b utts , pla s tic s ) 68% Urb a n De v e lo pm e nt (ie . Building s , to uris t) 10 %

Figure 10. Interviewees responses concerning their perspective of an “average beach” to which they identified the major ecological problem associated with this photo.

"Marine Biologist/Phycologist Beach" None 4%

Pollution (ex. cigarette butts, plastics) 54%

Limu 36%

Urban Development (ie. Buildings, tourist) 6%

Figure 11. Interviewees responses concerning their perspective of an “marine biologist/ phycologist beach” to which they identified the major ecological problem associated with this photo.

Know Hawaiian Word For "Algae" (Limu)

No 40%

Yes 60%

Figure 12. Showing the ability of the interviewees to give the Hawaiian word for algae. This is important as many groups use this word in their effort to combat invasive algae.

Observed Frequency of Algae/ Limu at Beach Frequently Observed (4) 14%

Always Observed (5) 20% N ot Observed At All (0) 2%

Moderately Observed (3) 38%

Rarely Observed (1) 14% Minimally Observed (2) 12%

Figure 13. Frequency of limu observed by the interviewees when they visit the beach.

Discern Which Algae Are Invasive Could 98%

Could Not 2%

Figure 14. The ability for the interviewees to discern atleast one of the invasive species.

Discernment of Invasive Algae 2

Could 50% 65%

Could 100% 35%

Figure 15. The percentage of interviewees to identify one or both invasive species.

Reason For Invasive Species Choice (Discernment 100%) Educ a tio n (i.e . tra ditio na l, fo rm a l) 18 %

Gue s s ing 18 % Educ a te d Gue s s (Ba s e d o n Ob s e rv a tio ns ) 64%

Figure 16. Selective reasoning of the interviewees who were able to discern both species of invasive algae.

Reason For Invasive Species Choice (Discernment 50%) Educ a te d Gue s s (Ba s e d o n Ob s e rv a tio ns ) 3 4% Gue s s ing 48%

Educ a tio n (i.e . tra ditio na l, fo rm a l) 18 %

Figure 17. Selective reasoning of the interviewees who were able to discern at least one species of invasive algae.

Received Algae Education (I.e. traditional, formal)

No 82%

Ye s 18 %

Figure 18. Showing the percentage of participants who have received algal educational training (i.e. traditional, and/or formal)

Environmental Impact of Algae on Coral Reef Ecosystem Neutral 14%

Negatively 64%

Positively 22%

Figure 19. The interviewees perspective of how algae influenced the coral reef ecosystem.