i
COMPARISON OF WATER QUALITY AND HABITAT ASSESSMENT
BETWEEN WETLAND AND RIVER
NURUL HANA BINTI MOKHTAR KAMAL
A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the award of the degree of
Master of Engineering
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
JUNE 2009
iii
My special dedication to my family:
My beloved Abah and Mama,
Mokhtar Kamal Muslimina and Rusmina Md Radzi
Thank you for always being there whenever I need you the most
My dearest sisters and brothers
Nurul Izzah
Nurul Asyikin
Mohamad Faiz
Mohamad Naim
and
Mohamad Azim
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, I would like to express my greatest gratitude towards my
supervisor, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mohd Ismid Mohd Said for his encouragement,
guidance, advices and motivation. Without his continuous support and guidance in
completing this report, it would not have been completed successfully. Also my
sincere appreciation to my co-supervisor, Dr. Shamila bt Azman for her attention and
never waver support towards the completion of this report.
For all my best friends, thank you for always being helpful and supportive.
Herni Halim as my co-researcher, thank you for always being hardworking and
informative. For Mardiyah Zahidi, thank you for a being a big help in the drawings
completion. Also, not forgotten, Harizah Hamzah, Sarah Adnan, Hafizah Hussian,
and Nabilah Abdullah, thank you for helping in laboratory works, transportation and
moral support.
I also would like to share my highest gratitude towards all staffs of
Environmental Engineering Laboratory, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia; Pak Usop,
Mr. Ramli, Mr. Azreen, Mr Suhaimi, Miss Shuhada and Mrs Ros for their help
during the experiments. Without their assistance the report will not be completed.
Last but not least, my thousand thanks to all that might not be listed above
who have contributed in the completion of this thesis either directly or in directly.
v
ABSTRACT
River management trend nowadays always concentrate on beautifying and
aesthetical improvement along a small stretch that is considered polluted; without
taken into consideration the affect of water flowing from the watershed. Previously,
the main concern was the functional uses of a stream such as erosion control where
quite often the biotic factors of a river are overlooked. Furthermore, wetlands are
usually drained as they hold great potentials to be transformed into agricultural land
without considering the impact to the wetland values and functions. Thus, this study
intends to emphasize on the importance of habitats and fish species to be
implemented on river and wetland rehabilitation studies. Three rivers with different
physical condition and land uses were selected for habitat assessment; i.e. Sungai
Lukah Wetland in Ulu Sedili Kecil, Sungai Tui in Bukit Kepong, and Sungai
Mengkibol in Kluang. Sungai Lukah, which is a part of freshwater swamp area of
Ulu Sedili Kecil was classified as Class III using Water Quality Index (WQI).
Regardless of the water quality, the swampy area of Sungai Lukah provides a
suitable environment for swamp fishes that was dominated by Cyprinidae as they
exist in abundance. Besides the importance of hydrological and biogeochemical
function of Lukah wetland, it also provides food, spawning ground and protection
from predators for the aquatic ecosystem.
In contrast, Sungai Tui, which is a
tributary from Sungai Muar, eventhough classified as Class III in WQI, provides a
rich and diverse fish and crustaceans communities with high commercial value such
as Udang Galah. On the other hand, Sungai Mengkibol which was classified in Class
IV served as main storm drain for Kluang town and is only inhabited by hard and
tolerant species.
vi
ABSTRAK
Pengurusan sungai dan saliran masa kini pada kebiasaannya hanya
menumpukan pada kerja-kerja pencantikan di sepanjang saliran yang dianggap
tercemar tanpa mengambil kira kesan kualiti air yang mengalir daripada kawasan
tadahan ke dalam saliran tersebut. Sebelum ini, kepentingan sungai hanya dipandang
dari segi fungsinya, di mana kebiasaannya kaedah pemuliharaan yang diutamakan
adalah seperti kawalan hakisan tetapi mengabaikan kepentingan biotik sungai
tersebut.
Tambahan pula, telah menjadi suatu kebiasaan bagi tanah bencah
dikeringkan kerana ia berpotensi tinggi untuk dijadikan sebagai kawasan pertanian,
tanpa mengambil kira kesan terhadap nilai dan fungsi tanah bencah tersebut. Oleh
itu, kajian ini bertujuan untuk menekankan kepentingan peranan sesebuah habitat dan
komposisi spesies ikan dalam sesuatu kajian yang melibatkan pemuliharaan sungai
dan tanah bencah. Tiga sungai yang berbeza keadaan fizikal serta penggunaan tanah
telah dipilih untuk penilaian habitat iaitu tanah bencah Sungai Lukah di Ulu Sedili
Kecil, Sungai Tui di Bukit Kepong, dan Sungai Mengkibol di Kluang. Sungai Lukah
yang juga merupakan sebahagian daripada kawasan tanah bencah air tawar di Ulu
Sedili Kecil, telah diklasifikasikan sebagai Kelas III mengikut Indeks Kualiti Air
(WQI). Walaupun kualiti air di kawasan tanah bencah Sungai Lukah berada di dalm
Kelas III, ia menyediakan persekitaran yang sempurna untuk spesies ikan di kawasan
tersebut yang banyak dijumpai terutamanya dari keluarga Cyprinidae.
Selain
daripada kepentingan fungsinya dari sudut hidrologi dan biogeokimia, kawasan tanah
bencah tersebut juga menyediakan sumber makanan, kawasan pembiakan, dan juga
perlindungan daripada pemangsa kepada hidupan akuatik di situ. Sebaliknya, bagi
Sungai Tui yang merupakan salah satu anak sungai bagi Sungai Muar, mempunyai
banyak spesies ikan dan udang dengan nilai komersil yang tinggi seperti Udang
Galah sungguhpun dikelaskan sebagai Kelas III. Walau bagaimanapun, Sungai
Mengkibol yang dikelaskan sebagai Kelas IV dan merupakan saliran utama di tengah
Bandar Kluang dan hanya mampu menampung spesies ikan yang tahan lasak.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1
2
TITLE
PAGE
DECLARATION
ii
DEDICATION
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
iv
ABSTRACT
v
ABSTRAK
vi
LIST OF CONTENTS
vii
LIST OF TABLES
x
LIST OF FIGURES
xi
LIST OF APPENDICES
xv
INTRODUCTION
1
1.1
Introduction
1
1.2
Statement of Problem
4
1.3
Objectives of Study
5
1.4
Scope of Study
5
LITERATURE REVIEW
6
2.1
Wetland
6
2.1.1 Wetland Classification
9
2.1.2
Functions, Values and Benefit of Wetlands
12
2.1.2.1 Physical/ Hydrological Functions
13
2.1.2.2 Chemical Functions
14
2.1.2.3 Biological Functions
15
viii
2.2
2.3
2.4
3
4
5
2.1.3
Hydrology of a Freshwater Wetland
16
2.1.4
Biogeochemistry of a Freshwater Wetland
19
Lotic Ecosystem
20
2.2.1
22
Physical Characteristics of a River
2.2.2 Value of a River
25
Stream Health
27
2.3.1
Physico-Chemical Assessment
28
2.3.2
Habitat Assessment
29
2.3.3
Bioassessment
30
Freshwater Fish Species in Malaysia
31
2.4.1
Family Cyprinidae
32
2.4.2 Family Channidae
33
2.5
Diversity
35
2.6
Wetland Management for River Improvement
36
STUDY AREA
38
3.1
Introduction
38
3.2
Sungai Lukah Wetland, Ulu Sedili Kecil
39
3.3
Sungai Tui, Bukit Kepong
44
3.4
Sungai Mengkibol, Kluang
47
METHODOLOGY
51
4.1
Introduction
51
4.2
Fieldwork
53
4.2.1
Assessment of Fish Composition
53
4.2.1.1 Fish Species Composition
54
4.2.1.2 Total Length
54
4.2.1.3 Total Weight
56
4.2.2 Characterization of River Habitats
56
4.3
Water Quality Assessment
60
4.4
Diversity Index
62
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
63
5.1
63
Fish Species Composition
ix
6
7
5.1.1
Fish Assemblages in Sungai Lukah
63
5.1.2
Fish Assemblages in Sungai Tui
67
5.1.3
Fish Assemblages in Sungai Mengkibol
73
5.2
River Habitat Survey
77
5.3
Water Quality Assessment
82
5.4
Diversity and Species Richness
85
5.5
Fish Assemblages, Physical Characteristics, Water
Quality Relationship
86
5.5.1
87
Species Migration and Introduced Species
5.5.2 Water Clarity and Vegetation
88
5.5.3 Woody Debris, Vegetation and Bed Material
89
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
90
6.1
Conclusion
90
6.2
Recommendations
92
REFERENCES
93
APPENDICES
99
x
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO.
TITLE
PAGE
3.1
Location and coordinates of study site
39
4.1
DOE Water Quality Index classification
60
4.2
Interim
Standard
61
Fish species and local name caught at Sungai
64
National
Water
Quality
classification
5.1
Lukah
5.2
Relative abundance of each species caught in
66
Sungai Lukah
5.3
Fish species composition caught in Sungai Tui
68
5.4
Relative abundance and total weight of each
71
species caught at Sungai Tui
5.5
Size range of specimens caught at Sungai Tui
72
5.6
Fish species composition caught in Event I, II
74
and III at Sungai Mengkibol
5.7
Relative abundance and weight of each species
76
caught in Sungai Mengkibol
5.8
Size range of specimens caught at Sungai
77
Mengkibol
5.9
Range of values of channel form and instream
80
habitat characteristic in Sungai Tui
5.10
Range of values of channel form and instream
81
habitat characteristic in Sungai Mengkibol
5.11
INWQS results for water quality parameters
84
5.12
Shannon’s H and Evennes, EH value
85
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO.
2.1 (a) and (b)
TITLE
Wetlands are often located (a) between dry
PAGE
8
terrestrial systems and permanently flooded
deepwater aquatic systems such as rivers, lakes,
estuaries, or oceans or (b) as isolated basins with
little outflow and no adjacent deepwater system.
2.2
Diagrammatic sketch of wetland types
12
2.3
Conceptual diagram illustrating the effects of
17
hydrology on wetland function and the biotic
feedbacks that affect wetland hydrology. Pathway
A and B are feedbacks to the hydrology and
physicochemistry of the wetland
2.4
The effects of flooding upon fish using the
19
floodplains of tropical rivers
2.5
Zones of an ‘ideal’ fluvial system
24
2.6
Associations of geomorphic pattern and their
25
ecological implications
2.7
Theoretical relationship between physical habitat
29
quality and biological condition
2.8
Some of the most common Cyprinids species in
33
Malaysian freshwater
2.9
Some of the most common Channa species in
35
Malaysian freshwater
3.1
The location of Sungai Lukah and the sampling
sites (the dark blue lines are the main
distinguished rivers)
40
xii
3.2
The hilltop view of the valley and Sungai Lukah
41
wetland.
3.3
Wetland area that has been turned into palm oil
41
plantation
3.4
Sampling site at Sungai Lukah Wetland
42
3.5
The upstream area of Sungai Lukah (Ulu Lukah)
43
3.6
The location of Sg Tui and its sampling site
44
3.7
Sungai Muar near the old Bukit Kepong police
45
station
3.8
The old Bukit Kepong Police Station
46
3.9
Palm oil plantation is the dominant landuse
46
around the study area
3.10
The location of the sampling reach for Sungai
47
Mengkibol
3.11
Sungai Mengkibol runs through the commercial
48
areas in Kluang town.
3.12
The riverbanks that are stabilized with concrete
49
wall
3.13
Sungai Mengkibol Riverine Park
50
3.14
The waste water treatment plant that discharge the
50
effluent into Sungai Mengkibol
4.1
Flowchart of research study
51
4.2
Measurement of total length by using measuring
55
board
4.3
Tilapia, showing certain morphological characters
55
and their measurement
4.4
Weight measurement using weighing scale
56
4.5
Cross-section of channel showing definitions used
57
to define where spot-check recording and channel
dimensions measured
4.6
Examples of the location and type of physical
features of a river channel
58
xiii
5.1
The total of all events for fish families obtained in
66
Sungai Lukah
5.2
The families obtained during Event I at Sungai
69
Tui
5.3
The families obtained during Event II at Sungai
69
Tui
5.4
The families obtained during Event III at Sungai
70
Tui
5.5
Families obtained for Event I in Sungai
74
Mengkibol
5.6
Families obtained for Event II in Sungai
75
Mengkibol
5.7
Families obtained for Event III in Sungai
75
Mengkibol
5.8
The wetland area that is permanently inundated
78
and filled with wetland vegetation
5.9
A submerged woody debris
79
5.10
Bed and bank sediments at the downstream of
80
Sungai Lukah
5.11
Estimated relative abundance of channel units for
82
the rivers
5.12
Water Quality Index of the respective rivers
83
5.13
Diversity, Shannon’s H and evenness, EH for the
86
respective rivers
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX
TITLE
PAGE
A
Habitat Survey Form
99
B
Sketches of Sungai Lukah
107
C
Sketches of Sungai Tui
109
D
Sketch of Sungai Mengkibol
114
E
Fish species caught in Sungai Lukah
116
F
Fish species caught in Sungai Tui
121
G
Fish species caught in Sungai Mengkibol
126
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Introduction
Water is a widespread, life-sustaining substance, comprising some 50-90% of
living materials and covering nearly three-fourth of the Earth’s surface (Gordon et. al.,
2004). However, out of the Earth’s total moisture, about 97% comprise of the ocean
meanwhile less than 0.0002% are flowing in the streams and rivers.
The water is
recycled globally, and as the earth warms and cools the relative proportions of ice, water
vapour, fresh water and salt water changed.
Freshwater is a renewable but limiting natural resource.
As availability of
freshwater in freshwater ecosystems decreases, nature restores it through the water cycle
in the form of precipitation. Freshwater can only be renewed through the process of the
water cycle, where water from seas, lakes, rivers, and dams evaporates, forms clouds, and
returns to water sources as precipitation. However, if more freshwater is consumed
through human activities than is restored by nature, the result is that the quantity of
2
freshwater available in lakes, rivers, dams and underground waters is reduced which can
cause serious damage to the surrounding environment.
Freshwater is needed not only to fulfill human daily needs such as for drinking
and washing but also plays the role in generating electricity, as machines cooler fluid and
used for agricultural purposes.
Nevertheless, nowadays human seems to treat the
freshwater ways as a ‘dumping site’ for every daily activities. For instance, changing
landscape for the use of agriculture creates a great effect on flow of freshwater and
surrounding. Reshaping a large scale of landscape to creating lands that are suitable for
agriculture changed the flow and sustainability of freshwater which result in effecting the
sustainability of the local ecosystem. Changes in landscape through the removal of trees
and soils changed the local environments flow of freshwater and also effect the cycle of
freshwater. As a result more freshwater are consumed and stored in soil which benefits
agriculture. However, since agriculture is the human activity that consumes the most
freshwater, freshwater would be used up completely which result in scarcity and destroy
of local ecosystem. Redesigning lands for the maximum use of agriculture will certainly
bring a great damage to the environment and reduces the available freshwater supply
since freshwater is a limiting natural resource.
In the past, wetlands were considered as worthless and only as wasteland and the
only themes when considering them are changing and transforming.
Wetlands are
usually drained as they hold a great potential to be transformed into agricultural land.
Apart from that, their flatness, coastal location and apparent worthlessness made them
obvious location for large plants, harbours and waste disposal. Even though wetlands
were such major landscape, but only since late 1960s that they had engaged the scholar
attention to understand their variety and complexity, yet essential unity (Williams, 1990).
Unlike other landscapes of comparable size, wetlands are not climatically based although
they occupied 6% of earth’s surface.
contiguous stretches of land.
Wetlands, as a result do not occupy large
3
The most frequent question that the amateur would ask about wetlands is “What is
wetland?” or “Is that some kind of swamp?” Since there are so many terms for wetlands,
it is often confusing and some are even contradictory. According to Mitsch and Gosselink
(2000), during the 19th century during the time where wetland drainage was the norm, a
wetland definition was unimportant as it was considered desirable to produce uplands
from wetland by draining them. As a matter of fact, the term ‘wetland’ was only
commonly used during the mid-20th century. The simplest definition of wetlands is lands
with soils that are seasonally inundated. Except Antarctica, wetlands were ubiquitous and
found in nearly every climatic zone from the tundra mires of the poles to the tropical
mangroves of the equator, and in every continent.
River management and rehabilitation trend nowadays has always concentrating on
beautifying and aesthetical improvement along a small stretch that is considered polluted;
without taken into consideration the affect of water flowing from the watershed. With
increasing knowledge and technology, it appears that in river rehabilitation works there is
an urgent need to restore the natural hydrology and morphology simultaneously in order
to recover the river ecology (Brookes and Shield, 1996). Therefore, to manage rivers
effectively, it is a must to first measure the availability and condition of the resources. In
earlier studies, the stream was only evaluated in terms of physico-chemical parameters as
to stress on the functional use of the resource. Evidently, physico-chemical parameters
are still important, but nowadays the ‘stream health’ is the main importance. The ‘stream
health’ measurement takes into consideration the water quality, habitat availability and
suitability, energy sources, hydrology and the biota themselves (termed bioassessment)
(Gordon et. al., 2004). However, stream and river chemistry and morphology have been
altered drastically as a result of wetland loss and visa versa. Thus, in order to achieve the
best result in river rehabilitation work, the quality of the catchment area of a stream or
river should be improved first. This is because rivers, streams, and wetlands work as
integrated ecosystems in maintaining stability and function of a water body.
4
1.2
Statement of Problem
Previously, stream management has only been focusing on the functional uses of
streams where the main factors of concern were the amount of water available, and the
quality of water with respect to its suitability for agricultural, industrial, domestic or
recreational use. Often overlooked the consequences in terms of habitat loss during the
attempt to put the freshwater sources to productive use and to tame and control
floodwaters and their pathways. However, the level of environmental awareness has now
reach a point where many of the modification of streams and their catchments have been
viewed by a large sector of society as undesirable and in need of some alteration. As a
result of increasing knowledge on streams many had realized that protection of natural
ecological process in streams would be a great aid in protecting the some of their
functional values, although there will still be conflicts over the best way to use the
resources.
The increasing complexity of water-resource problems and the overwhelming
amount of information available had formed a need for a multi-disciplinary team that
include zoologist, botanist, microbiologist, geomorphologist, hydrologist, economist,
communicators, hydraulic engineers, chemists, anthropologists, and sociologist (King &
Brown, 2003). Generally, maximum biotic diversity is maintained in streams by a level
of disturbance that creates environmental heterogeneity, yet still allows the establishment
of communities.
5
1.3
Objectives of Study
This research is to identify the composition of fish species and its habitat for its
significance as one of the biological factor in the river rehabilitation progamme. Hence,
the objectives of this research are as listed followed:
i)
To describe and quantify the existing biological aquatic environment in
wetland area and river in terms of fish
species composition and spatial
distribution;
ii)
To differentiate and describe the physical features of wetland and river
habitat;
iii)
To assess the wetland and river status according to water quality condition;
and
iv)
To describe the relationship between fish species composition, and
river/wetland morphological condition
1.4
Scope of Study
This study covered the existing ecological environment of three rivers which
display different degree of disturbance, physical conditions and landuse: Sungai Lukah
(mildly disturbed/freshwater wetland), Sungai Tui (mildly disturbed / suburban river),
and Sungai Mengkibol (highly disturbed/urban river). For the existing environment
characterization, it is based on physical characteristics (stream structure, instream
habitats, etc), biological characteristics (fish species), and chemical characteristics (water
quality parameter). In addition, this study also involves in describing the relationship
between physical characteristics of a stream and landuse with the fish assemblages.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Wetland
Wetlands are one of the most biologically diverse and productive ecosystems
on earth. They occur on almost all continents (except Antarctica), in all climatic
zones, on the coast, inland, and can be formed naturally or man-made. The term
‘wetland’ is a relatively new one to describe the landscape that many people knew
before under different names. During the Ramsar Convention in 1971, the wetland is
defined as “areas of marsh, peat land, or water, whether natural or artificial,
permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh brackish or salt,
including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed 6
meters”.
However, there are many more terms that describe different type of
wetlands such as swamp, marsh and mire that have been used over the years. Each
of the terms has a specific meaning to some, and many are still widely used by both
scientist and laypersons alike. Some of the most common wetland terms used is
listed as follows:
7
i) Fen
: A peat accumulating wetland that receive some drainage
from surrounding mineral soil and usually support marshlike
vegetation.
ii) Mangrove
: Subtropical and tropical ecosystem dominated by halophytic
trees, shrubs, and other plants growing in brackish to saline
tidal waters. The word ‘mangrove’ also refers to the dozens
of trees and shrub species that dominate mangrove wetland.
iii) Marsh
: A frequently or continually inundated wetland characterized
by emergent herbaceous vegetation adapted to saturation soil
conditions
iv) Mire
: Synonymous with any peat-accumulating wetland
v) Swamp
: Wetland dominated by trees or shrubs (U.S. definition). In
Europe, forested wetlands dominated by reed grass
(Phragmites) are also called swamps.
The main criteria that would distinguish a wetland are the area must be
permanently or seasonally inundated, the area must be able to support hydrophytic
vegetation and also the soil in the area must be water logged for a sufficient time to
be anaerobic (Burke et al., 1988). in addition, according to Mitsch and Gosselink
(2007), all wetlands have some features in common: (a) all have shallow water or
saturated soil; (2) all accumulate organic plant material that decomposes slowly; and
(3) all support a variety of plants and animals adapted to the saturated conditions.
The following Figure 2.1 illustrates the location of wetlands.
8
(a)
(b)
Figure 2.1: Wetlands are often located (a) between dry terrestrial systems and
permanently flooded deepwater aquatic systems such as rivers, lakes, estuaries, or
oceans or (b) as isolated basins with little outflow and no adjacent deepwater system.
(Source: Mitsch and Gosselink, 2007)
9
Wetlands are important components of watersheds and provide many
valuable functions to the environment and to society (U.S. EPA, 2002). Wetland
ecosystem functions include the transfer and storage of water, biochemical
transformation and storage, the production of living plants and animals, the
decomposition of organic materials, and the communities and habitats for living
creatures (Richardson 1994). Based on these and other ecological functions, wetlands
provide “values” to humans and naturally functioning ecosystems. Important values
include, but are not limited to, flood control, filtering and cleansing water, erosion
control, food production (shrimp, ducks, fish, .), timber production, recreation
(boating, fishing, bird watching, .), winter deer yards, and habitat for plants and
animals, including many rare or endangered species.
2.1.1
Wetland Classification
The definition and classification of wetlands has gone through many stages.
According to Williams (1990), the most elaborate categorization is that formulated
by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) of the United States in 1979 as a response to
the new protective legislation of two years before and to facilitate the making of an
inventory of the natural wetlands in the country. The wetlands were then classified
into five major divisions or systems, each which share similar locationalgeomorphological, hydrological and biological characteristics, were recognized.
There are the coastal wetlands which include marine and estuarine wetlands and the
interior wetland that are riverine, lacustrine and palustrine wetlands.
In this
classification, the first four systems include wetland and deep water habitats, but the
palustrine includes only wetland habitat.
The descriptions of all five classes
according to Idaho Fish and Game (2007) are as follows:
10
i) Marine Wetlands (saltwater wetlands along coasts)
Water levels rise and fall with the daily tides; they can be subject to the
force of waves and storms and to ocean currents. Characteristics of marine
wetlands vary with the level of tidal, wave, and current effects. Salt-tolerant
plants called halophytes are dominant. Common halophytes include grasses such
as Spartina species.
Subtidal marine wetlands are submerged continuously;
intertidal marine wetlands are periodically exposed.
ii) Estuarine Wetlands (Coastal wetlands within estuaries)
Estuarine wetlands usually have some access to oceans, with significant
inflows of freshwater. Water levels rise and fall with the daily tides and can be
subject to the force of waves and storms. Characteristics vary with the level of
tides, waves and amount of salinity, which can vary with location and
interactions with oceans and freshwater sources.
Halophytes are dominant.
Subtidal estuarine wetlands are submerged continuously, while intertidal
estuarine wetlands are only periodically exposed.
iii) Riverine Wetlands (wetlands in the channels of rivers and streams)
Riverine wetlands which are also known as riparian areas occur along
streams, rivers, and irrigation canals. Riverine wetlands play an essential role in
maintaining healthy streams and rivers. They typically support dense stands of
trees such as cottonwood and quaking aspen, shrubs such as mountain maple and
red alder, and grasses. These plants help bind the soil of banks, protect the banks
from erosion during floods, and trap additional sediment from floodwaters. The
plants also provide habitat for wildlife. For example, birds use riparian areas for
cover from the weather and for breeding, resting, and foraging sites. Many
species of fishes are dependent on healthy riverine wetlands and riparian areas
for survival.
11
iv) Lacustrine Wetlands (wetlands around lakes and reservoirs)
These freshwater wetlands form around the perimeter of lakes and
reservoirs. They are larger than twenty acres or contain water depths of six feet.
Like marine and estuarine wetlands, lacustrine wetlands are exposed to wave
action.
v) Palustrine Wetlands (isolated, inland wetland not associated with lakes or
reservoirs)
Smaller and shallower than lacustrine wetlands, palustrine wetlands
include marshes, wet meadows, bogs, potholes, and playas. Palustrine wetlands
may be connected by surface or groundwater to rivers or lakes, or they may be
isolated. Forested palustrine wetlands occur in areas with abundant moisture,
such as in the mountains. Forested wetlands are easily missed, but if you walk
into a forest wetland, your senses will detect the difference. The air is often
cooler, the ground damp if not soggy. Ferns and mosses may be abundant and
other understory plants thicker. Figure 2.2 shows the distribution of these five
systems diagrammatically.
12
Figure 2.2: Diagrammatic sketch of wetland types (Source: Williams, 1990).
2.1.2
Functions, Values and Benefit of Wetlands
The recent rise in awareness of the importance of wetlands has much to do
with an enhanced appreciation of their many positive, ecological and environmental
functions and the values that society puts on those functions. There are many ways
in categorizing wetland functions and values.
Tiner (1984) provided three
categories; fish and wildlife values, environmental quality values, and socioeconomic values.
Whereas the OTA report (OTA, 1984) gave two categories;
intrinsic values and ecological services and ecological services and resource values.
13
However according to Williams (1990), there were four broad categories of functions
were employed; physical/hydrological, chemical, biological and socio-economic.
2.1.2.1Physical/ Hydrological Functions
Mainly in the lowland areas, flood is the main hazard to human occupation.
Constantly being reclaimed and dried up, wetland hold the key to flood mitigation.
Wetlands play the role to temporarily store the runoff water and thereby protect the
downstream localities which are often former wetlands now reclaimed. By this way,
the flood bank-full height is reduced and the moving water velocity is reduced. The
slow water movement from a number of tributaries is thus ‘desynchronized’ with the
flood water reaching the same channel at different period.
Due to the tsunami event that had destroyed most of Acheh in Indonesia in
2004, the function of coastal marshes in protecting the shoreline has been
highlighted. It is clear that coastal marshes could absorb wave energy and reduce
erosion on the shoreline, and so buffer the land from storm. According to Knutson
(1978) more than 50 percent of wave energy could be dissipated within the first 2.5
m of marsh, 80 percent at 10 m and is virtually eliminated at 30 m.
Wetlands also play the role of trapping sediments, therefore it could clear
suspended matter in both marine and fresh water, thereby improve water quality.
The range of deposition could be between 2 and 45 mm/yr, although extremes of
many meters have been known to occur in sheltered estuaries and river outfall.
Sedimentation is greater with slower flowing water and entrapment is enhanced by
vegetation taking hold either naturally or after having been deliberately planted.
14
2.1.2.2 Chemical Functions
Wetlands trap water and filter out pollutants as they intercept the runoff from
uplands before reaching the channels, thus improving its quality. Foremost is their
role in removing the nitrogen and phosphorus from the use of ever-increasing
quantities of nitrogenous and superphoshate fertilizer (Van der Valk et al., 1979).
The water with extreme nutrient content would causes rapid plant and algal growth
(eutrophication), and the rapid spread of undesirable aquatic plants that absorb
oxygen in lakes, ponds and slow moving waters reduces the ability of water to
support the marine life and would also affects the quality of drinking water and
recreational activities.
The removal of nitrogen and phosphorus by wetland is achieved by a number
of means. For phosphorus, there are either reduced by the plants uptake and also
being absorbed and settled in the anaerobic sediments.
However, the removal
amount is limited. In contrast, the nitrogen removal is very effective in wetland
through the nitrification-denitrification process.
In almost the same way, the toxic from water such as heavy metal can be
removed from water by ion exchange and adsorption in the organic and clay
sediments, and by plant uptake particularly the bulrush (Schoenoplectus lacustrus),
the common reed (Phragmites australis) and the water hyacinth (Eichhornia
crassipes), which is an aggressive colonizer of warm still water. Depending on the
pollutant and wetland type, the effectiveness and efficiency of these processes varies
between 20 and 100 percent.
15
2.1.2.3 Biological Functions
Wetland were always known to be the most productive ecosystems in the
world, rivaled only by some tropical rainforests and the most intensively cultivated
areas of land such as prime con field in the Midwest of the United States (Williams,
1990). Mainly, wetland plants (autotroph) were perennials and nearly all leaf with
little or no woody or thickened tissues. Thus, they were constant and efficient
converters of solar energy (photosynthesis) to fix carbon and create biomass.
Besides, their root systems were specially adapted to take up inorganic nutrients and
incorporate them into organic forms. Moreover, constant new supplies of nutrients
were provided due to the repeated flooding and/or tidal flux.
Not much of the wetland natural production could be eaten directly, except
for wild rice and cranberries. However the greatest food value comes from the dead
plants forming detritus on which heterotrophic organisms such as larvae, fungi,
bacteria and protozoa thrived. Aquatic food web of high-yielding animals and fish
would be formed. According to Tiner (1984), wetlands could be regarded as ‘the
farmlands of the aquatic environment’ as large volume of food are produced. Even if
the relationship between wetlands, net primary productivity and abundant
invertebrate life, and consequently fish and animal life, is beyond doubt, the
mechanisms of the food chain were still imperfectly understood. However, the facts
would always remain that an abundant natural production would be lost to have the
wetland drained.
Providing habitats for invertebrates and cold-blooded vertebrates, wetlands
also figured largely in the cycle of many freshwater and coastal fish that fed on
wetland-dependent food, used the wetlands as nursery grounds and often spawn in
the aquatic parts of wetlands. According to Turner and Boesch (1988), the greater the
extend of wetland, the greater the yield of fish, and the nature and abundance of
vegetation would also affected the numbers.
16
2.1.3
Hydrology of a Freshwater Wetland
The hydrology of a wetland creates the unique physico-chemical conditions
that make such an ecosystem different from both well-drained terrestrial systems and
deepwater aquatic systems. Wetlands, as shown in Figure 2.1 (a), are transitional
between terrestrial and open-water aquatic ecosystems.
In terms of spatial
arrangements, they are usually found between uplands and aquatic systems. In
addition, they are also transitional in the amount of water they store and process, and
in other ecological processes that result from the water regime (Mitsch and
Gosselink, 2007). Since wetlands form the aquatic boundary of the habitats for many
terrestrial plants and animals and also form the terrestrial edge for many aquatic
plants and animal, thus a small change in hydrology could demonstrate significant
biotic changes.
A modification of the physico-chemical environment would have a direct
impact on the biota in the wetland. With slight change in the hydrologic conditions
of the wetland, the biota might respond with massive changes in species composition
and richness in ecosystem productivity.
Figure 2.3 illustrates the effects of
hydrology on wetland function and the biotic feedbacks that affect wetland
hydrology.
17
Figure 2.3: Conceptual diagram illustrating the effects of hydrology on wetland
function and the biotic feedbacks that affect wetland hydrology. Pathway A and B
are feedbacks to the hydrology and physicochemistry of the wetland. (Source: Mitsch
and Gosselink, 2007).
Flooding has many benefits, however due to human development on
watersheds, such as draining wetland that associated with water course, often
increases economics lossess from floods. It is apparent that the amplitude and
frequency of water level fluctuations control the characteristics of wetlands. High
water periods create wetlands by destroying any existing terrestrial plants and
allowing wetland species to become established.
18
Flooding shows an important impact upon fish ecology. According to LoweMcConnell (1975), the annual cycle of tropical fish is closely tied to the period of
inundation. Where much of the land is very flat peneplain, the rivers inundate vast
areas. Submerged seasonally and drying out for part of each year, these floodplains
are interspersed with creeks, pools and swamps, some of which retain water
throughout the year. Although the rain occurs, flood peaks occur well after the rain
have started; the delay depends upon the origin of the main floodwater and the time
taken to travel downstream. As the rising water floods up channels and creeks, it
releases fish imprison within pond and swampy areas. Still higher levels then create
an immense sheet of water that is enriched in nutrients from decaying organic matter.
Thus leads to an explosive growth of bacteria, algae and zooplankton, which in turn
supports a rich fauna of aquatic insects and other invertebrates.
Meanwhile, the aquatic vegetation, both rooted and floating, grows rapidly.
Many fish then migrate upstream and migrate laterally onto the floodplain to spawn.
The eggs laid hatch within a few days, so the yearlings appear when the food is
abundant. For nearly all species, the highwater period is the main feeding, growing
and fattening season before the water level falls and nutrients are depleted, the fish
move back into the main river. Figure 2.4 shows the effects of flooding upon fish
using the floodplains of tropical rivers.
19
Figure 2.4: The effects of flooding upon fish using the floodplains of tropical rivers
(Lowe-McConnell, 1975)
2.1.4 Biogeochemistry of a Freshwater Wetland
Lockaby and Walbridge (1998) describe the biogeochemistry of a freshwater
swamp as ‘the most complex and difficult to study with any forest ecosystem type’.
The freshwater swamps have soil and water chemistry that varies from the rich
sediment of alluvial river swamps to the extremely low mineral and acidic waters of
surface water depression red maple swamps and cypress domed (Mitsch and
Gosselink, 2000). Furthermore, a wide range of pH, dissolved substances, and
nutrients are found in the soils and waters of these swamps. Follows are several facts
that should be noted from this wide range of soil and water chemistry:
20
i) Swamps are generally acidic to circumneutral, depending on the
accumulation of peat and the degree to which precipitation dominates the
hydrology.
ii) Nutrient conditions vary from nutrient- and mineral-rich conditions in alluvial
river swamps and groundwater discharge swamps.
iii) An alluvial river swamp often has a very different water quality from the
adjacent river. Swamps in alluvial settings are generally fed by both
groundwater discharge and flooding rivers and can have the water chemistry
quite different from either source.
Mitsch and Gosselink (2000) have also stated that many fresh water swamps
are ‘open’ to river flooding and other input of neutral and generally well-mineralized
waters. In United States, the Cypress domes and perched-basin swamps are usually
in the pH range of 3.0 to 5.0 which is acidic. This is caused by the humic acids
produced within the swamp. Colloidal humic substances contribute to both the low
pH and the tea-coloured or ‘blackwater’ appearance of the standing water in many
forested wetland.
2.2
Lotic Ecosystems
Running water bodies, rivers and streams could be also known as lotic
ecosystems which are characterized by continuously running water or current flow;
also erode the land surface, transport and deposit materials (Spellman, 1996;
Spellman & Drinan, 2001). These running water systems are fed from precipitation
that does not infiltrate into the ground or evaporate. The life of a stream could be
divided in to 4 stages (Spellman, 1996):
21
i) Stream establishment : Starting as an outlet of ponds or lakes, or arising from
seepage areas or springs, a stream might be a dryrun or a head water
streambed before it is eroded to the level of groundwater.
ii) Young stream (Headwater zone): A stream became permanent or youthful as
its bed eroded below the groundwater level and thus received spring water
and runoff. Typically the upper, ‘young’ reaches of a stream that are incised
into V-shaped valleys, with steep slopes and a few, short tributaries. The
channel bed material is generally of coarse gravels, boulders and rock
outcrops.
Water temperature is relatively cool and stable.
The upland
streams are more shaded by riparian vegetation and there is portionately more
material entering the stream as leaves and logs with their narrow width.
Shading and the scouring action of course sediments restrict the growth of
algae and other plants. Thus most of the food supply for fungi, bacteria,
macroinvertebrates and others, which in turn become food for higher
microorganisms such as small fish, are from organic matter from outside of
the stream. Habitat diversity might be low as for the restricted temperature
range and low input or production of nutrients.
iii) Mature stream (Middle-order zone): A wider, deeper, and turbid stream with
low velocity. Generally, the water is warmer and the bottom is formed of
sand, silt, mud or clay. These reaches transport sediment from bank erosion
and from upstream supplies, and have highly variable physical characteristic.
The coarse substratum, diversity in channel form, diversity of nutrient
sources, variable discharge and wider range of temperature favour a diverse
fauna since the range of conditions encompass the optimum conditions for a
large number of species (Petts and Foster, 1985).
iv) Old stream (Lowland zone): They have approached geologic base level. The
floodplain might be very broad and flat. During the normal flow periods, the
channel is refilled and many shifting bars are developed. Bed materials are
22
composed of fine sediments, discharges are relatively stable, and temperature
fluctuations are buffered by the large volume of water. Valleys are very
broad, deeply filled with alluvium, and marked with the evidence of frequent
channel changes; meanders, oxbow lakes and swamps.
Deposition of
sediment occurs through this zone to the terminus of river, where the
sediment might deposit out on an alluvial plain, delta or an estuary. Increased
turbidity and depth in lowland zone streams might restrict the growth of
aquatic plants, and the macroinverebrate population tends to be dominated by
those which collect fine particles of organic matter received from upstream.
Overall, biotic diversity might be low, although fish species diversity might
increase with the presence of larger fish, which feed on smaller ones.
2.2.1
Physical Characteristic of a River
These running water bodies naturally consist of three (3) zones: riffle, run and
pool.
i) Riffle Zone
:
Faster-flowing,
well-oxygenated
water,
with
coarse
sediments. The water velocity at this zone is great enough to keep the bottom
clear of silt and sludge, thus a firm bottom for organisms is created.
Specialized organisms that are adapted to live in running water, for instance,
trout, are able to live as they have streamlined bodies, which help in
respiration and obtaining food (Smith, 1974). Stream organisms that live
under rocks in avoiding strong current have flat or streamlined bodies.
Others have hooks or suckers with which to cling or attach to a firm substrate
to avoid the washing-away effect of the strong current (Allen, 1996)
23
ii) Run Zone
: Also known as intermediate zone. The stream part with slow-
moving, relatively shallow stream part with moderately low velocities and
little or no surface turbulence.
iii) Pool Zone
: Deeper water region where water velocity decreased and silt
and other settling solids provide a soft bottom (more homogeneous
sediments), which is unfavourable for sensitive bottom dwellers.
The
dissolved oxygen (DO) will be depleted with the decomposition of these
solids.
Natural and human modification of a stream or upland areas could have
profound effects on the state of a stream. The most common and ‘ideal’ fluvial
system is as shown in Figure 2.5. Life in a stream is not necessarily constrained by a
stream’s bed and banks. Some researchers such as Benchala (1984), Fortner and
White (1988), have done some study on the sub-surface character of stream. Their
work demonstrates that the interstitial zones in streambeds are important in the
storage of dissolved gases and nutrients, and that for ecological purposes, the stream
boundary might lie deep within the streambed. Triska et al. (1989 a, b) defined this
boundary as the interface between the groundwater and channel water. Water might
seep into the streambed, travel for a certain distance underground and then re-enter
the stream. These recharge, underflow and discharge process are dependent on the
proximity of the water table to the channel bed surface, streamflow level, bed
permeability and topography. Thus, the patterns of flow movement could affect the
distribution of hyporheic organisms, rooted aquatic plants and fish spawning area.
24
Figure 2.5: Zones of an ‘ideal’ fluvial system. (Modified from Schumm (1977) in
Gordon et al. (2004)).
A method has been developed by Amoros et al. (1987) that was applied at
Rhone River, France to develop predictive scenario for the impact of engineering
works on channel morphology and ecology. This method took onto consideration
fluvial hydrosystem as interactive ecosystems over four dimensions: 1) the upstreamdownstream progression; 2) the interconnections between the main stream, side
arms, flood plain and marshes; 3) the vertical interchange between regions above
(epigean) and below (hypogean) the channel bed surface and 4) the changes in the
river’s dynamics and ecosystem over time. The examples of some of the geomorphic
patterns and associated biological functions used as spatial units in the study are as
shown in Figure 2.6.
25
Figure 2.6: Associations of geomorphic pattern and their ecological implications.
(Redrawn from Amoros et al. (1987) in Gordon et al. (2004)).
2.2.2
Value of a River
Natural stream resources provide products in the forms of fish, and other
wildlife for harvest and enjoyment, as well as services for instance regulation of
hydrologic and nutrient cycles, purification of water (Gordon et al., 2004). Thus,
conservation of natural stream is crucial as a highly degrade ecosystem would not be
efficient in providing goods and services. This argument also emphasized the now
growing contribution of natural stream to human daily life. This approach is being
used to bridge the gap between scientific understanding of environmental, economic
and social aspects of river resources and perceptions by the members of public about
the tradeoffs the usually made concerning river resources.
26
Several ethical perspectives on the environment were presented by Burgman
and Lindenmayer (1998) for the search of general principle that may guide the
protection and management of biological diversity. Two main categories of values
were identified, each with sub-categories:
i) Functional Value
a) Consumptive use value
b) Productive use value
c) Service value
d) Scientific and educational
e) Cultural, spiritual, experiential and existence value
f) Aesthetic, recreational and tourist use
ii) Intrinsic Value
a) Ecocentric ethic
b) Biocentric ethic
Intrinsic values differ from functional perspectives in that the intrinsic values
place importance on species and communities, independent of people, while the later
take into consideration the role and needs of people. For the ecocentric ethic, the
parameters involved is the biological community as a whole, with criteria for stream
values based on naturalness, representativeness, diversity, rarity or special features
(Dunn, 2000).
Meanwhile the biocentric value argues for the value of all the
individual organisms. In its purest sense, ecological potential is based on the
ecocentric ethic, while the philosophical stance of practical stream management is
highly depended on the wider community’s priority for the protection of the
functional values. However, in the event of nowadays resource management policy,
stream health assessment programs and stream rehabilitation program would struggle
to reach consensus on a definition of ecological potential.
27
2.3
Stream Health
According to Karr (1996) and Karr and Chu (1999), ecosystem health is the
preferred state of ecosystems that are modified by human activity, while ecological
integrity is an unimpaired condition, reflective of natural, pristine, reference or
benchmark ecosystem. The natural condition would typically exist as dynamic, often
changing in an indeterminate way rather than always in an equilibrium state
(Belovsky, 2002).
The health of an aquatic ecosystem is degraded when the
ecosystem’s assimilative capacity to absorb a stress has been exceeded. A healthy
ecosystem is composed of biotic communities and abiotic characteristics, which form
a self-regulating and self-sustaining unit (Loeb, 1994). Although natural events
would also resulted in ecosystem changes, anthropogenic activities always impose
stress on these system.
When exposed to stress, the organism resistance to
displacement from that ecosystem may be exceeded. Depending upon the magnitude
and temporal nature of the stress, the organisms may not be sufficiently resilient to
reestablish their pre-stress community structure.
However, to define a fixed state of an ideal stream condition to set as a
reference point to grade stream health is not possible. Pristine condition of a river
could be understood as the original state that exists before intensive and widespread
disturbance by human. The term ‘natural’ for a stream could be defined as not
affected by humans or civilization but it would probably be too vague to be of any
real value of describing the condition of a stream. In defining ecological potential, it
would be better to define in terms of what could be achieved under the current
situation with respect to factors that are not easily remedied or for which change is
considered undesirable such as established landuse systems. Streams also suffer
major natural disturbances, and from a narrow management perspective, stream
suffering such disturbances could be regarded as being temporarily in less than ideal
health.
One significant difference between human disturbances and natural
disturbances is that human disturbances were frequently undertaken with the
intention of altering the stream to a desirable condition that could be maintained,
28
whereas after a natural disturbance the stream might recover to its previous state, or
perhaps shift to another condition.
As these days, natural and human impact are both superimposed, the nature
of the impact might change. The stream health could only be assessed relative to
arbitrary benchmarks.
The establishment of benchmark would involve the
application of value judgments usually associated with the normative concepts that
biodiversity should be maximized and that ecological systems should be sustainable.
In most scientific formulations of ecosystem health, there would be a premise that
natural system is healthier than human altered system (Lackey, 2001). Stream health
achievement was driven by societal preferences and the crux of policy challenge is
deciding which of the diverse set of societal preferences were to be adopted.
2.3.1
Physico-Chemical Assessment
The physico-chemical parameters would react to changes in stream flow,
landuse and riparian condition and it is generally used in indicating stream and
catchments health. Physical parameters included flow, temperature, conductivity,
suspended solids, turbidity and colour.
Meanwhile, the chemical parameters
included pH, alkalinity, hardness, salinity, biochemical oxygen demand, dissolved
oxygen, total organic carbon and also nutrient species such as phosphate and nitrate.
In Malaysia, the physico-chemical assessment was conducted according to the
Department of Environment (DOE) physico-chemical analysis, Water Quality Index
(WQI) and Interim National Water Quality Standard (INWQS).
29
2.3.2
Habitat Assessment
Habitat is defined as the in-stream and riparian physical and chemical
conditions suitable for habitation by biota, so it is specific to the biota, and might
even vary according to the life cycle of a biota (Townsend and Hildrew, 1994).
According to Gordon et al. (2004), habitat quality could be expressed as the presence
or absence of suitable habitat, the volume or area available of ideal habitat or a rating
of the relative quality of the habitat that is present. Generally, spatial and temporal
habitat variability and biological diversity in rivers are closely related. As shown in
Figure 2.7, assuming water quality and hydrology remains constant over time, the
hypothetical relationship between physical habitat quality and biological condition is
linear over most of the range. There are four categories of habitat quality, ranging
between 0 to 100 % of reference condition; non-supporting (< 59 %), partially
supporting (60 % - 74 %), supporting (75 % - 89 %) or comparable (> 90 %). The
quality of the biological community are also divided into four classes; severely
impaired, moderately impaired, slightly impaired and non-impaired.
Figure 2.7: Theoretical relationship between physical habitat quality and biological
condition (Plafkin et al., 1989)
30
The target of habitat assessment is to generally measure the instream and
riparian conditions that influence the structure and function of aquatic community in
a stream. One of the major stressors of aquatic system is the presence of an altered
habitat structure. The stream health assessment techniques are designed for a diverse
range of problems and environment. The habitat-based approach is primarily based
on physical habitat, although many also took into consideration the water chemistry
and biota. Some examples of the habitat-based stream health assessment are Rapid
Bioassessment Protocol (U.S. EPA), Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP), Habitat
Suitability Index (HSI) and Hydrogeomorphic Index (HGM).
2.3.3
Bioassessment
Bioassessment methods directly measure a biotic characteristic of the health
of stream.
According to Friedrich et al. (1992) alteration of stream habitat,
hydrology or water quality could affect the aquatic organisms, which were as
follows:
i)
changes in species composition of aquatic communities
ii)
changes in the dominant groups of organisms in a habitat
iii)
impoverishment of species
iv)
high mortality of sensitive life stages, e.g. eggs, larvae
v)
mortality in the whole population
vi)
changes in behaviour of the organisms
vii)
changes in physiological metabolism
viii)
histological changes and morphological deformities
31
Although the benthic macroinvertebrates were the most popular choice as
bioindicators, the bioassessment method consists of a wide range of bioindicators. It
is impossible to sample all biotic parameters as it would need a huge sum of money
time. As an alternative, target species are selected. Species that were easy to catch
and identify might be the practical choice of indicator, but a meaningful assessment
of stream health could only be obtained if the relationship between the ecosystem
and the selected indicator were identified. Hence, in assessing stream health, the
most promising target species appeared to be found among benthic algae,
macroinvertebrates and fish.
Fish are popular indicators as they are known to be sensitive to water quality,
had characteristic habitat preferences, relatively easy to sample and identify in the
field, and they tend to integrate effects of the lower trophic level; thus fish
assemblage structure is reflective of integrated environmental health (Barbour et al.,
1999). Furthermore, they have relatively large range and are able to detect subtle
environmental changes (Ziglio et al., 2006). Thus, fish are best suited in assessing
macrohabitat and regional differences. They are long-lived, thus fish could integrate
the effects of long term changes in stream health (Simon and Lyons, 1995).
Additionally, fish are highly visible and much valued by wider community, thus fish
monitoring usually has strong community approval and interest.
2.4
Freshwater Fish Species in Malaysia
Malaysia’s freshwater comprised of highly diverse ecosystem and support
extensive fisheries. According to Mongabay (2008), there are 614 freshwater fish
species in Malaysia with 47 of them were categorized as threatened (EarthTrends,
2007). The largest family which in terms of the number of genera, species and
present almost in every water body was Cyprinidae (Mohsin and Ambak, 1983),
followed by other families such as family Channidae.
32
2.4.1
Family Cyprinidae
The cyprinids were most commonly known as minnows or carps. It was the
largest family of fresh-water fish and was highly important food fish. In land-locked
countries in particular, cyprinids were often the major species of fish eaten, although
the prevalence of inexpensive frozen fish products made this less important now than
it was in earlier times. Nonetheless, in certain places they remained popular for food
as well as recreational fishing, and had been deliberately stocked in ponds and lakes
for centuries for this reason.
Several cyprinids had been introduced to waters outside their natural range to
provide food, sport, or biological control for some pest species such as the Common
Carp (Cyprinus carpio). In some cases, these had become invasive species that
compete with native fishes or disrupt the environment; carp in particular could stir up
the riverbed reducing the clarity of the water making it difficult for plants to grow.
Morphologically, the Cyprinids usually had thin lips, plicae or papillae
absent; mouth sometimes suckerlike.
Barbels might present, premaxilla usually
borders the upper jaw making the maxilla entirely or almost entirely excluded from
the gape, usually had protrusible upper jaw and Dorsal fin with spinelike rays in
some. A number of this family was important in research studies, and Malaysian
cyprinids had beautiful colours, thus they were valued as aquarium fishes (Mohsin
and Ambak, 1983; Nelson, 2006).
Some species, such as Terbul (Osteochilus hasselti), Seluang Sumatra
(Rasbora sumatrana) and Temperas Mata Merah (Cyclocheilichthys apogon) were
very good fish as they were abundant in all types of water; thus it has high economic
significance. The spawning habits were different between each species. Some chose
under stones, loges and other heavy objects for their nest, with the male guarding the
eggs, whilst others would bury their eggs under the gravel and left them ((Mohsin
33
and Ambak, 1983; Nelson, 2006). Figure 2.8 as follows shows some of the species
within this family, along with their local names.
a) Species
: Osteochilus
Scientific name: Osteochilus hasselti
Local Name : Terbul
b) Species
: Rasbora
Scientific name: Rasbora sumatrana
Local Name : Seluang Sumatra
b) Species
: Cyclocheilichthys
Scientific name: Cyclocheilichthys
apogon
Local Name : Temperas Mata Merah
Figure 2.8: Some of the most common Cyprinids species in Malaysian freshwater
a )Terbul, b) Seluang Sumatra, c) Temperas Mata Merah
2.4.2
Family Channidae
Channidae is a family of freshwater fish, commonly known as snakeheads,
that is native to Africa and Asia. There are two extant genera, Channa in Asia, and
Parachanna in Africa, consisting of 30-35 species (Wikipedia, 2009).
These
predatory fishes are distinguished by a long dorsal fin, small head with large head
scales on top, large mouth and teeth. They have a physiological need to breathe
34
atmospheric air, which they do with a suprabranchial organ; a primitive form of a
labyrinth organ.
They are considered valuable food fish. Larger species like Channa striata,
Channa maculata, and Parachanna obscura are farmed in aquaculture. Some of the
species such as Channa striatus (Snakehead Murrel) and Channa marulius (Bullseye
Snakehead) has high nutritive value and its flesh is said to have wound healing effect
and recuperative attributes.
Snakeheads feed on plankton, aquatic insects, and
mollusks when small. When adult, they mostly feed on other fish like carp, or frogs.
In rare cases, small mammals such as rats are taken. The size of the snakehead
species differs greatly. "Dwarf snakeheads" like Channa gachua grow to 10 inches
(25 cm). Most snakeheads grow up to 2 or 3 feet (60–100 cm). Only two species
(Channa marulius; Bullseye Snakehead and Channa micropeltes; Giant Snakehead)
can reach a length of more than 1 meter and a weight of more than 6 kg.
It is illegal to keep snakeheads as pets in all states of the USA and other
countries as they have become an invasive species due to irresponsible owners
releasing them into the wild when they could/would no longer take care of them. If
in an enclosed area they will try anything to escape. If kept in an aquarium they will
charge at full force and tend to knock over the aquarium or shatter the glass. Figure
2.9 follows shows some of the most common species within this family along with
their local name.
35
a) Species
: Channa
Scientific name: Channa micropeltes
Local Name : Toman
b) Species
: Channa
Scientific name: Channa striatus
Local Name : Haruan
Figure 2.9: Some of the most common Channa species in Malaysian freshwater
a) Toman, and b) Haruan.
2.5
Diversity
A fundamental property of any ecosystem or habitat is the number of species
it contains. Thus, diversity has long been of keen interest to ecologists and to
conservation biologist (Keddy, 2000).
Some of the terms used to describe the
number of species in a sample is called alpha diversity, species density, or species
richness. In contrasts, the number of species in an entire community or larger
geographical area is referred to as biodiversity or the species pool of that area. The
tem diversity is often used synonymously with all the terms; however, precisely
speaking it includes the relative abundance of species. In case all species are equally
abundant, then diversity and richness area the same.
However, this is rarely
observed in nature; there will be a species that dominates the community.
36
Providing only a list of species that exist in a habitat will lead to a
misunderstanding; only a few species on the list are abundant whilst the others are
often rare.
According to Peet (1974), to express these differences in relative
abundance of species in a site or sample, data are often presented in a ranked
abundance list, which is also called a dominance diversity curve. Naturally, after the
number of species is obtained, how environment affects the number of species should
be enquired. In answering this question, the number of species in a sample is used as
the dependent variable, and the environmental factors leading to the species number
is determined. Regarding any such study, the starting point is the species-area
relationship. It is well established by now that the number of species in any habitat
increases with area and decreases with isolation (Peet, 1974).
As any other
ecosystem, this applies to wetland; the pattern applies to all major taxa including
mammals, herptiles and plants.
2.6
Wetland Management for River Improvement
Natural river-floodplain ecosystems exhibit a hydrodynamic gradient from
the main channel to inundation-free areas. A wide variety of riverine habitats exist
along this gradient, in space and time, created by the dynamic interaction of water
sediment and biota, which lead to high biodiversity. Stream and river chemistry and
morphology have been altered drastically as a result of wetland loss and visa versa.
Rivers, streams, and wetlands work as integrated ecosystems to maintain stability
and function. The wetlands, including riparian, fringe, and instream wetlands,
function to protect and provide nutrients to neighboring streams and rivers (Mitsch
and Gosselink, 2000). Studies have shown that the effects of riparian zone loss are
so great, that the morphology of even large rivers can change drastically.
37
Wetland and forest riparian zones provide streams and rivers with organic
material, such as leaves, that make up the waterway's greatest resource of nutrients
(Mitsch 1993). Flora, macroinvertebrates, and vertebrates rely on the area around
them for nutrients and food: the riparian area is a source of energy, like the sun, in
the trophic cascade. Without riparian organic matter, these lotic ecosystems have no
nutrients to support the diverse life that they host. Wetland loss has been associated
with the direct loss of species diversity due to destruction and lowered recruitment of
infringing vegetation communities and displacement of fauna.
Biodiversity is
important in an ecosystem in that it is the multitude of organisms in a system, each
having their own role, which drives the ecological processes. The loss of wetlands
may end with a loss of flora and fauna, which not only support human interests, but
also contribute to the health of other ecosystems, such as streams and rivers (Mitsch
and Gosselink 2000). The loss of flora is especially devastating in an ecosystem
because primary producers, such as wetland plants, are the basis of any ecosystem.
The effects of the loss or lowered recruitment of these plants ripples throughout the
trophic ladder: fauna that depend on wetland plants as a source of food or shelter
perish or migrate, resulting in the loss of fauna that are predaceous, and so on.
CHAPTER III
STUDY AREA
3.1
Introduction
For this study, three rivers in Johor were chosen. The rivers are Sungai
Lukah, sungai Tui, and Sungai Mengkibol. These rivers display different degrees of
disturbances and physical conditions especially Sungai Lukah which is connected to
wetland area. The location selections are based on the different type of landuse and
river type. The location and area description of the rivers are as in Table 3.1
39
Table 3.1: Location and coordinates of study site
River Name Location
Sg Lukah
Sg Tui
Predominant Landuse
• Freshwater wetland,
N 01º 40’06.6”
coastal forest
Ulu Sedili Kecil E104º09’46.4” upstream
• Palm oil plantation
N 01º 43’ 43.6”
E 104º 09’ 59.9” downstream
• Rubber & Palm oil
Bukit Kepong,
N 02º 19’ 30” to 02º 22’ 20” plantations
Muar
• Forest reserve
E 103º 18’ to 103º 23’
• Village & settlements
Sg
Kluang Town
Mengkibol
3.2
Coordinate
N 01º 55’ to 02º 06’
E 103º 33’ to 103º 40’
• Rubber & Palm oil
plantations
• Residential & commercial
areas
Sungai Lukah Wetland, Ulu Sedili Kecil
The wetlands of Sungai Lukah, which is located between Tanjung Balau and
Jason Bay is the last vestige of non-peaty, freshwater swamps in Johor. This river
begins from Ladang Hulu Papan and flows southward for approximately 14 km
before joining with Sg Sedili Kecil which then flows out into the South China Sea.
Another main river that receives water from the project site is Sg Tengah which also
flows out into the South China Sea. Figure 3.1 shows the area of Sungai Lukah
wetland.
The Lukah wetlands represent a rare and unique wetland type in South East
Asia; the freshwater swamp forest. A freshwater swamp forest is one of the most
endangered wetland types in South East Asia since much of it has been converted to
other land uses. Most of the surrounding areas were already drained and turned into
oil palm plantations. Figure 3.2 shows the hilltop view of the wetland in the Ulu
Lukah area while Figure 3.3 shows the wetland that has been turned into plantation
40
Aquaculture
Shrimp Pond
Kemajuan Tanah
Lok Heng Selatan
(FELDA)
Sungai
Lukah
Ulu Lukah
Kemajuan Tanah
Papan Timur
(FELDA)
Figure 3.1: The location of Sungai Lukah and the sampling sites (the dark blue lines
are the main distinguished rivers)
41
Figure 3.2: The hilltop view of the valley and Sungai Lukah wetland.
Figure 3.3: Wetland area that has been turned into palm oil plantation.
Furthermore, the area is also logged where most of the access dirt/laterite
roads were built for logging purposes. These roads also changed the hydrology of
the wetlands as their presence blocked the surface and groundwater movements of
the water. The extent of freshwater swamp forest in and around Sedili Kecil has
42
been reduced due to agriculture and village settlements. What remain in this area are
the riverine habitats and some small pockets of freshwater swamp forests. The
riverine vegetation is in a good condition with distinct gradation vegetation zones in
Sungai Sedili Kecil (i.e. mangrove belt ‘nypa’ belt ‘Barringtonia conoidea’ belt
‘pandanus’ belt to freshwater tidal belt). This gradation of vegetation types along
the Sungai Lukah is extremely rare now in South East Asia. Therefore the project
area must be conserved and protected to reduce further losses of this unique type of
wetland habitat. Both Sungai Sedili Besar and Sedili Kecil Rivers which are also
associated in this freshwater wetland, qualify to be protected under the Ramsar
Convention since it fulfils 62.5% of the criteria to be listed as a Wetlands of
International Importance. Figure 3.4 below is the view of Sungai Lukah sampling
site and Figure 3.5 is the view of the upstream area.
Figure 3.4: Sampling site at Sungai Lukah Wetland.
The Asean Regional Centre for Biodiversity Conservation has stated that the
area has humid tropical climate with an annual rainfall of 3,000-3,500 mm. The wet
season during the northeast monsoon lasts from October to January, with December
as the wettest month (over 500 mm). Whilst, the driest month is April (just over 100
43
mm), during the southwest monsoon dry period. According to the Wetlands
International Malaysia, the floral and general biodiversity of the Sedili swamps is
high. 49 Bird species, 7 species of mammals, 21 species of fish, 4 species of reptiles
and 5 species of amphibians were recorded at the project sites. There are 16
dominant species of freshwater swamp forest trees at the site, which makes it very
interesting from the point of the gradation from true mangroves into different
freshwater vegetation belts.
Figure 3.5: The upstream area of Sungai Lukah (Ulu Lukah)
It is probable that such a distinct gradation of riverine vegetation in
freshwater ecosystems exists nowhere else in Malaysia. The Sedili swamps are very
important areas for bird watching, recreational fishing and wetland interpretation.
Moreover, the rivers and their associated floodplains are probably very important as
flood water storage areas, especially the Sedili Kecil basin. Any drainage of the
swamp areas and consequent loss of this capacity may result in increased danger of
flooding in downstream areas. The Sedili wetlands are an important refuge for wild
life and have high conservation and biodiversity values.
44
3.3
Sungai Tui, Bukit Kepong
Sungai Tui is located in the district of Muar, about 10 km from Bukit Kepong
town. Bukit Kepong is situated near the towns of Chaah, Lenga, and Labis. Sungai
Tui is one of the tributaries of Sungai Muar, where the main channel of the river is
approximately 10 km in length (Nurul Huda, 2008). The river mouth is located
about 1 km away from the old Bukit Kepong Police Station at a coordinate of
2º21’20.22” N and 102º49’50.16” E, 10 km north from Lenga Town and 18 km south
of Segamat.
Figure 3.6 illustrate the location of Sungai Tui from the map of
Peninsular Malaysia.
Figure 3.6: The location of Sg Tui and its sampling site.
The area is generally flat lying. Sungai Tui, with the highest ground level is
249m while the lowest is 30m from the mean sea level. Bukit Kepong, that includes
Sungai Tui, is prone to minor flood that the area had experienced quite a number of
times, with exception of the heavy flood episode in December 2006 to January 2007.
45
Consequently, some changes in the physics especially the hydrographical condition
occur due to the events. For that reason, the Department of Irrigation and Drainage
(DID) had deepened and widened the river channels at the downstream areas
(Hamzah and Mahamud, 2007). Figure 3.7 shows Sungai Muar that flows near the
old Bukit Kepong police station and Figure 3.8 is the old police station.
Figure 3.7: Sungai Muar near the old Bukit Kepong police station
Pejabat Daerah Muar stated that the statistics for the population of Bukit
Kepong in 2007 is 9931 while the overall population for the Muar district is
estimated as 318 620 people (Majlis Daerah Muar). Mostly the Bukit Kepong
residents are hawkers and shop owners, whilst the villagers involve in agricultural
activities such as in palm oil, rubber and vegetable plots. Besides, some fish and
shrimp ponds are also found within the catchments. However the major landuses in
Sungai Tui river basin are palm oil plantation, rubber estate, vegetable plots and fruit
farming, as well as village settlement. The study was conducted at the upstream
reach of Sungai Tui, where the major landuse is palm oil plantations (Figure 3.9) and
secondary forest. For a 100m radius from the study site, no village settlement was
present. Dissimilar from the map, it was observed that the smaller streams are dry;
thus the study site is categorized as a second-order river.
46
Figure 3.8: The old Bukit Kepong Police Station.
Figure 3.9: Palm oil plantation is the dominant landuse around the study area.
47
3.4
Sungai Mengkibol, Kluang
Sungai Mengkibol is a small river that flows northward through the town of
Kluang. It receives flows from Sungai Melantai before joining Sungai Semberong.
The upstream of the river is located in palm oil estate near to Kg Sayong with an
approximate length of 20 km. Kluang town lies about 110km north of Johor Bahru,
west of Mersing and south of Segamat. The studied reach is located in the middle
section of the river, near the Kluang Bus Station, as shown in Figure 3.8 follows.
Figure 3.10: The location of the sampling reach for Sungai Mengkibol
48
Generally, Kluang lies in an area of undulating hills. The highest point in the
area is Gunung Lambak (510m) that lies about 6km southeast from the centre of
town. Kluang town is landlocked and has no seafront. According to the Majlis
Perbandaran Kluang (2004), Kluang town has a population of over 140 000
residents, where the area is largely occupied with residential areas (1437 ha),
commercial building (100 ha), and facilities, whilst in overall Kluang district is
mainly covered with agricultural lands with 11 500 ha in total (Majlis Perbandaran
Kluang, 2004; Wikipedia, 2009). The agricultural activities are mainly of palm oil
plantations, rubber plantation as well as fruit plantation. From observation, about
two-third of Kluang town are impervious areas, which includes road pavement,
building and storm drainage. Figure 3.11 shows Sungai Mengkibol that runs through
the town.
Figure 3.11: Sungai Mengkibol runs through the commercial areas in Kluang town.
49
The river acts as the main stormwater drainage and had faced many storm
events including the worst one on December 2006 to January 2007. More than 400
mm of rain was recorded which was far exceeding the long-term mean monthly
rainfall for Johor (Md Jafri, 2007). As a mitigating measure, 6km stretch of the
river; starting from Taman Muhibah area until the downstream; has undergone major
flood mitigation works, such as dredging, channel widening, bank stabilization and
riparian vegetation that is as shown in Figure 3.12. The enhancement of the amenity
and recreational sites has been recently developed at some stretch of the riverbank,
especially at 700m stretch along Jalan Cantik, namely Sungai Mengkibol Riverine
Park (Figure 3.13).
Figure 3.12: The riverbanks that are stabilized with concrete wall.
50
Figure 3.13: Sungai Mengkibol Riverine Park
The study was conducted at the middle reach of Sungai Mengkibol, starting at
the bus terminal to the bridge before the wet market. Besides receiving flows from
town drainages, the river also receives effluents from waste water treatment plant
(Figure 3.14), food stall, wet market and domestic discharge. The reach is a secondorder river.
Figure 3.14: The waste water treatment plant that discharge the effluent into Sungai
Mengkibol
CHAPTER IV
METHODOLOGY
4.1
Introduction
The main works involved in this study are the assessment of the biological and
physical features at each of the three rivers. The river status assessment are based on the
fish assemblages and composition, types of existing habitat and its distribution in the
river, other physical characteristics of the surrounding area of the river such as land uses
and canopy cover that might influence the fish assemblages and also the status of the
water quality of the river. The physical characteristics of each river were sketched in
obtaining a general condition of the area.
In this chapter, the methods and procedure of the habitat assessment, and also
water quality analysis in order to achieve the objectives of this study would be
discussed. The operational framework for this study is as illustrated in Figure 4.1:
52
Research overview
Site Selection
Preliminary Survey
Objective of Study
Literature
Review
Scope of Study
Fieldworks
Biosurvey and
Fish Collection
River Habitat
Survey
Water Quality
Result Analysis and
Habitat Assessment
Report
Figure 4.1: Flowchart of research study
53
4.2
Fieldwork
For the field work, there are three different components; fish species
composition, river habitat survey the water quality assessment.
Both physical
characteristics and water quality parameters are relevant to the characterization of river
habitat. There were 4 sampling works carried out for this study. The frequency of the
sampling works for each study area is twice for Sungai Lukah; 19th of November 2008
and 29th May 2009, and only one sampling work for both Sungai Tui and Sungai
Mengkibol; on 15th of February 2009 and 20th of March 2009 respectively. Previous
studies for all three rivers are available in supporting the data obtained from sampling
works.
4.2.1
Assessment of Fish Composition
For the fish species composition, the data are obtained from sampling works and
previous study. Both of the data groups; previous study and sampling work, are labeled
as ‘Event’. For Sungai Tui and Sungai Mengkibol, there were three events; the first and
the second events are obtained from previous study while the last event is the sampling
work. However, the data for Sungai Lukah wetland area study was summed up as the
number of fishes caught during sampling work is small. The captured fishes are sorted
into each family type before the total weight and range of length is recorded.
54
4.2.1.1 Fish Species Composition
Sampling for fish sample data is conducted by using nets and electro-fishing.
The sampling works were carried out at ten equally spaced spot-checks or segments,
along each of the channel within approximately same time spaces (Environment
Agency, 2003). The electro-fishing was applied for fish collection in each segment
while gill net was located at the downstream of the study reach. Electro-fishing was
used and recommended method for fish surveyas it is more applicable and more efficient
in a variety of habitat. It is conducted in a slow zigzag pattern, against the water flow
(USEPA, 1989; Angermeier and Davideanu, 2004; Gerhad et al., 2004). All the stunned
fish would be captured, before being sorted, measured and weighed.
Each caught individual was identified through its family species, with reference
from previous studies and catalogues from the Department of Fisheries. For the species
that was unable to be identified at side, its photograph was taken for further
identification. The fish species and abundance data was recorded according to batch
sequence of spot-checks.
4.2.1.2 Total Length
The total length of each individual was measured by using a measuring board
made of plastic and a fixed graduated meter scale. At the zero end of the scale a suitable
stop is placed at 90º angle. The anterior end of the fish is placed against the stop, as
shown in Figure 4.2.
55
Figure 4.2: Measurement of total length by using measuring board
Mohsin and Ambak (1983) had stated that total length is defined as the greatest
length of a fish from the anterior most projection of the head or upper lip the longest
caudal ray, with lobes squeeze together. However, in some fishes like Baung (Mystus
nemurus) the upper lobe of the caudal fin which is longer than the lower lobe is used for
measurement. As in the case of prawns, the measured length is from the tip of its
longest whiskers to the caudal fin. The length is recorded in centimeter (cm).
Figure 4.3: Tilapia, showing certain morphological characters and their measurement
(Mohsin and Ambak, 1983)
56
4.2.1.3 Total Weight
The total weight of each fish species was measured by using weight scale as
shown in Figure 4.4. The total number and weight of each species was determined by
the overall abundance for the whole river reach. The fish weight, along with its size
distribution indicates the fish life stages.
Figure 4.4: Weight measurement using weighing scale
4.2.2
Characterization of River Habitats
As for the river habitat survey, river mapping were carried out at the same
segment as the fish survey to determine the physical feature and structures of the rivers.
This field survey element consists of the recognition and identification of physical
components that relates to the channel form and habitat. The features of a channel form
include the river morphology and landuse or banktop characteristics. Generally, the
57
habitat types are divided into two categories which are instream habitat and channel
units. Instream habitat basically is the physical features or structures within the river
channel and at the banksides, while channel units are flow-dependant habitats such as
riffle runs and pools. In this study, the survey form of River Habitat Survey (RHS)
established by UK Environment Agency is implemented as it represents the overall
survey and assessment of the physical features of a river (Environment Agency, 2003).
In recording the data, the rivers are being sectioned into equal length. The segments
applied for biosurvey were used for the river habitat data collection. Figure 4.5 shows
the cross section of a channel that defined where spot-check recording and measured
channel dimension and the example is shown in Figure 4.6.
Figure 4.5: Cross-section of channel showing definitions used to define where spotcheck recording and channel dimensions measured
58
Submerged woody debris
Unvegetated bank, 45º
Sand accumulation
Figure 4.6: Examples of the location and type of physical features of a river channel
Mapping and photographs of the segments along the studied reaches are essential
in aiding the estimation of the distribution of the physical features. Besides, maps of a
reach could provide useful information of stream morphology and extend of various
habitat types. For this study, freehand sketches of the physical surroundings were
carried out at the site including the location of channel units, woody debris, vegetation
types and banks characteristics before a more proper drawing was produced by using
computer software.
The distribution and composition of habitat features were derived and estimated
from both survey forms and river mappings. The vegetation types and other structural
features within 5m of the banks were assessed by estimating the percentage of trees
(woody vegetation > 3m), shrubs (woody vegetation < 3m), herbaceous (and grass)
vegetation, bare soil which includes unvegetated bars, artificial structures and debris in
59
the river channel at the segments. However the composition of channel units were
estimated based on the cumulative number of their distribution along the whole surveyed
reach. As for the Sungai Lukah area, the RHS form is only applicable at certain part of
the side as the area especially in the upstream area does not show any river
characteristics.
One of the main parameter in the habitat survey is the average river velocity. For
this study, in the preliminary survey it was observed that the predominant flow type for
all rivers are smooth, with occasional rippled except for the wetland area; the water is
stagnant. The water flow velocity measurement is necessary as not only to obtain the
hydrological loading of the river but also to evaluate the importance of streamflow to the
distribution of fish and habitat features. Velocity measurement was conducted by using
floatation method, following the DID Hydrological Procedure (HP) No.15. the
measurements of surface velocity were conducted at several sections (straight flows are
preferred) of the river, where the cross-sections were divided into three subsections.
Floats were introduced at the midpoint of each section. Therefore the surface velocity
(Vsurf) is calculated as:
Vsurf
Where L = measured reach length, m
t = travel time, s
= L/t
(4.1)
60
4.3
Water Quality Assessment
Water quality assessments for the rivers were carried out in order to obtain the
general overview and comparisons of the river conditions, that might affected the fish
assemblages of the rivers. In water quality analysis of this study, for each rivers, three
sampling stations are selected; upstream, middlestream, and downstream. Except for
Sungai Lukah where the upstream and middle stream sampling station is taken in the
wetland area which is the catchments area of Sungai Lukah. The Water Quality Index
(WQI) and Interim National Water Quality Standard (INWQS) as shown in Table 4.2,
are used in the analysis of water quality. INWQS is also used in the analysis as the six
parameters listed in WQI (DO, BOD, COD, AN, TSS, pH) that is as shown in Table 4.1,
are not adequate in determining the water quality (e.g. phosphorus and iron ferrous) of
the three rivers.
The other INWQS parameters used in this study are colour and
turbidity.
Table 4.1: DOE Water Quality Index classification
Class
WQI Value
Classification of
Water Quality
I
> 92.7
Very Good
II
76.5 – 92.7
Good
II
51.9 – 76.5
Average
IV
31.0 – 51.9
V
< 31.0
(Source: DOE 2006)
Polluted
Very Polluted
Details
Natural Condition
Water Supply – no treatment required
Aquaculture – support sensitive river
species
Water Supply – basic treatment required
Aquaculture – supports most river species
Recreation – for recreational purpose
Water Supply – extensive treatment required
Aquaculture – supports hardened river
species
Source of drinking for animals
Irrigation only
None of the above
61
Table 4.2: Interim National Water Quality Standard classification.
PARAMETERS
CLASSES
UNIT
I
IIA
IIB
III
IV
V
DO
mg/L
7
5-7
5-7
3-5
<3
<1
BOD
mg/L
1
3
3
6
12
>12
COD
mg/L
10
25
25
50
100
>100
6.5-8.5
6-9
6-9
5-9
5-9
-
pH
AN
mg/L
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.9
2.7
›2.7
TSS
mg/L
25
50
50
150
300
300
Turbidity
NTU
5
50
50
-
-
-
Colour
TCU
15
150
150
-
-
-
Note:
Class
Uses
I
Conservation of natural environment
Water Supply 1 – practically no treatment needed
Fishery 1 – very sensitive aquatic species
IIA
Water Supply II – conventional treatment needed
Fishery II – sensitive aquatic species
IIB
Recreational use with body contact
III
Water Supply III – extensive treatment required
Fishery III – common, of economic value, and tolerant species
livestock drinking
IV
Irrigation
(Source: DOE 2006)
62
4.4
Diversity Index
The Shannon diversity index (H) which is also known as Shannon-Weiner Index,
is an index that is commonly used to characterize species diversity in a community.
Shannon's index accounts for both abundance and evenness of the species present. The
proportion of species i relative to the total number of species (pi) is calculated, and then
multiplied by the natural logarithm of this proportion (lnpi). The resulting product is
summed across species, and multiplied by -1:
(4.2)
Shannon's equitability (EH) can be calculated by dividing H by Hmax (here Hmax = lnS).
Equitability assumes a value between 0 and 1 with 1 being complete evenness.
(4.3)
CHAPTER V
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
5.1
Fish Species Composition
Based on the previous and fieldwork data sample, the fish assemblage structure
and the abundance of individual fish species were examined. A total of 16 species were
recorded at Sungai Lukah wetland, 22 species were discovered at Sungai Tui, whilst 13
species were present at Sungai Mengkibol. All the species recorded in the three rivers
were determined at site
5.1.1
Fish Assemblages in Sungai Lukah
The sampling works for Sungai Lukah were conducted in end of 2008 and in
May 2009. There were a total of 16 species belonging to 7 families overall as shown in
64
Table 5.1. Among all the samples caught were dominated by the Cyprinids. Among the
cyprinids collected in this study, the Temperas (Cyclocheilichthys apogon), Terbul
(Osteochilus hasselti) and Seluang (Rasbora) were the most common species caught.
Temperas Mata Merah was the most abundant in the swampy areas of Sg Lukah
(downstream and upstream).
Table 5.1: Fish species and local name caught at Sungai Lukah.
Family
Cyprinidae
Osphronemidae
Nandidae
Channidae
Clariidae
Aplocheilidae
Hemiramphidae
Species
Cyclocheilichthys apogon
Osteochilus hasselti
Rasbora gracilis
Rasbora elegans
Puntius lateristriga
Puntius binotatus
Puntius tetrazona
Trichogaster trichopterus
Luciocephalus pulcher
Pristolepis fasciatus
Channa striatus
Channa micropeltes
Channa lucius
Clarias macrocephalus
Aplocheilus panchax
Hemirhamphodon pogonognathus
Local Name
Temperas mata merah
Terbul
Seluang bada
Seluang titik
Baguh
Tebal Sisek
Tempurong
Sepat Ronggeng
Tembok Tebing
Patong
Haruan
Toman
Bujuk
Keli Bunga
Mata lalat
Julong
The first event data were obtained through a previous study in early 2008.
During this sampling work, the Temperas Mata Merah is the most abundant as
illustrated in Figure 5.1. A total of 102 specimens of Temperas Mata Merah were
caught in the study. The Temperas Mata Merah is known to inhabit small streams,
reservoirs, lakes, canals, ditches, and generally areas with slow moving or standing
water. It could be typically found around surfaces, such as plant, leaves, branches and
tree roots where it browsed for small plankton and crustaceans.
65
The other species of interest are the Bujuk, Haruan and the Sepat Ronggeng. The
Bujuk and Haruan were caught in relatively large numbers the upstream area which is a
small swamp area within the site. Bujuk is known to inhabit slow moving streams and
rivers, as well as lakes, ponds and swamps. It is also a common species in forest
streams, and is often found in areas with plenty of aquatic vegetation, as well as
submerged woody plants. Haruan is typically found in shallow, open water and was
capable of lying buried in mud for a lengthy period. Just like Bujuk, Sepat Ronggeng
normally inhabit lowland wetlands and could be found in marshes, swamp and canals,
and in water bodies with a lot of aquatic vegetation. It feeds mainly on zooplankton,
crustaceans and insect larvae.
During Events II and III which were conducted in November 2008 and May
2009 respectively, the numbers of species being captured were reduced greatly as shown
in Table 5.2. Compared to the first event, the time duration for the sampling work was
reduced from 3 days to just a few hours. As a result, most of the fish recorded in Event
II and Event III were from observation data only, resulting in lack of size ranges and
weight data. Furthermore, the presence of wetland vegetation and large woody debris
and muddy bed material might have provided a good environment for the fishes to hide
and avoiding them from being captured.
66
Figure 5.1: The total of all events for fish families obtained in Sungai Lukah.
Table 5.2: Relative abundance of each species caught in Sungai Lukah
Family
Cyprinidae
Osphronemidae
Nandidae
Channidae
Clariidae
Aplocheilidae
Hemiramphidae
Species
Cyclocheilichthys apogon
Osteochilus hasselti
Rasbora gracilis
Rasbora elegans
Puntius lateristriga
Puntius binotatus
Puntius tetrazona
Trichogaster trichopterus
Luciocephalus pulcher
Pristolepis fasciatus
Channa striatus
Channa micropeltes
Channa lucius
Clarias macrocephalus
Aplocheilus panchax
Hemirhamphodon pogonognathus
Local
Temperas mata
merah
Terbul
Seluang bada
Seluang titik
Baguh
Tebal Sisek
Tempurong
Sepat Ronggeng
Tembok Tebing
Patong
Haruan
Toman
Bujuk
Keli Bunga
Mata lalat
Julong
No of
Ind
121
17
13
6
3
10
6
17
1
18
5
1
11
10
3
1
67
5.1.2
Fish Assemblages in Sungai Tui
From the three assessments conducted at Sungai Tui (first and second event were
from previous study, third event was done in February 2009), Cyprinidae was the
dominant family recorded. Cyprinids occurred for all three sampling intervals and were
always in abundance as shown in Table 5.3. Figures 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 illustrate the
highest percentage captured was 86% and the lowest was 75 % of total specimen
obtained. The most occurrence among the Cyprinids itself are Terbul, Kawan, and
Seluang Sumatera.
Other than that, Lalang, Rong and Sebarau were also found
frequently. However, the number of individuals obtained was smaller.
Following the Cyprinidae was the Palaemonidae with the highest occurrence of
20% of the total specimen; mainly the specimen obtained was Udang Galah which is
more to Udang Gantung. Another species of interest was Haruan from the family of
Channidae. Even though the number of individuals captured each sampling work were
rather insignificant, however the constant occurrence might indicate that Haruan is one
of the main species inhabiting Sungai Tui. Haruan has been a species that is hard to be
captured. In addition, there were also some species that seldom occurred i.e. Ketutu,
Sepat Padi and Baung Akar Sengat. The abundance of these species in Sungai Tui could
not be verified as the small occurrence might be due to sampling method and time was
unsuitable for these species. For example, the Baung Akar Sengat is known to be
nocturnal. Thus, if sampling is conducted during night time, the Baung Akar Sengat
occurrence might increase.
68
Table 5.3: Fish species composition caught in Sungai Tui.
Family
Species
Local Name
Cyprinidae
Osteochilus hasselti
Osteochilus vittatus
Chela anommalura
Labiobarbus cuvieri
Luciosoma trinema
Crossocheilus oblongus
Hampala macrolepidota
Cyclocheilichthys
heteronema
Cyclocheilichthys
apogon
Rasbora sumatrana
Rasbora elegans
Pristoplepis fasciatus
Mystus nemurus
Mystus negriceps
Acanthopsis
choirorhyhchos
Oxyeleotris marmorata
Terbul
Rong
Lalang
Kawan
Nyenyuar
Selimang siam
Sebarau
Nandidae
Bagridae
Cobitidae
Eleotridae
Mastacembelidae
Channidae
Palaemonidae
Siluridae
Osphronemidae
Temperas
Event
I
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Event Event
II
III
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
−
−
−
−
√
√
√
√
−
√
−
−
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
−
√
−
√
−
√
−
−
Lali
√
√
−
Ketutu
√
−
−
Mastacembelus armatus
Tilan
√
√
−
Channa striatus
Macrobrachium
resenbergii
Macrobrachium sp
Krytopteris bicirrhis
Trichogaster
trichopterus
Total Species
Overall Total Species
Haruan
√
√
√
Udang galah
√
√
√
Udang gantung
Lais
√
−
√
√
−
√
Sepat padi
−
√
−
19
15
22
10
Temperas mata
merah
Seluang sumatra
Seluang dua titik
Patung
Baung akar
Baung akar sengat
69
Figure 5.2: The families obtained during Event I at Sungai Tui.
Figure 5.3: The families obtained during Event II at Sungai Tui.
70
Figure 5.4: The family distribution obtained during Event III at Sungai Tui.
Based on data recorded as in Table 5.2, a total of 217 individuals with total
weight of 7054g were caught during the first sampling work, 261 individuals with total
weight of 4428.27g for Event II and 253 individuals with 6122 g total weight. From the
data shown, it could be observed that Cyprinids such as the Terbul and Kawan were the
most abundant in Sungai Tui population. By referring to Angermeier and Karr (1983),
the size of the fish could be classified as small (< 4cm of total length) and large (> 10cm
of total length).
One major point that could be highlighted from the captured species is that
Sungai Tui is a rich and well diversified river.
The species caught ranging from
yearlings to the adult, and were captured in abundant. As shown in Tables 5.4 and 5.5,
the sizes of the captured samples especially the Cyprinids (Terbul, Kawan and etc.) were
mainly nearing the maximum known sizes of the species. There were also a large
amount of yearlings caught along the adult fish. Some of the species captured were all
71
recorded to be nearly equal in size and weight such as the Haruan. The Haruan caught in
all three events were only in a small amount, however the captured ones were usually
the adults and contributes a big portion to the total weight of the captured samples. Some
species like, Nyenyuar, Selimang Siam, Temperas Mata Merah, Baung Akar Sengat,
Ketutu and Sepat Padi were rarely captured with only capture in one event each.
Furthermore, the occurrences of captured ones were low with only not more than 10
individuals in small to medium sizes range for each species.
Table 5.4: Relative abundance and total weight of each species caught at Sungai Tui
Local Names
Terbul
Rong
Lalang
Kawan
Nyenyuar
Selimang Siam
Sebarau
Temperas
Temperas Mata
Merah
Seluang Sumatra
Seluang Dua Titik
Patung
Baung Akar
Baung Akar
Sengat
Lali
Ketutu
Tilan
Haruan
Udang Galah
Udang Gantung
Lais
Sepat Padi
Total
Event I
No of
Weight
Ind
(g)
68
3131
16
243
12
195
42
877
1
35
3
29
4
161
7
97
Sungai Tui
Event II
No of
Weight
Ind
(g)
48
1540
2
1
2
12.5
63
514.5
−
−
−
−
1
40
17
120
Event III
No of
Weight
Ind
(g)
94
2940
9
115
2
310
43
637
−
−
−
−
1
30
−
−
5
145
−
−
−
−
1
16
11
3
19
110
350
81
44
19
−
2
116.3
200
−
50
70
−
2
−
250
−
40
−
6
118
−
−
−
−
4
1
2
3
5
7
−
−
217
50
64
81
971
290
7
−
−
7054
2
−
1
6
27
24
2
1
261
30
−
6
1230
334.5
57.47
170
6
4428.27
−
−
−
4
23
−
5
−
253
−
−
−
1370
170
−
260
−
6122
72
Table 5.5: Size range of specimens caught at Sungai Tui
Local Name
Terbul
Rong
Lalang
Kawan
Nyenyuar
Selimang Siam
Sebarau
Temperas
Temperas Mata Merah
Seluang Sumatra
Seluang Dua Titik
Patung
Baung Akar
Baung Akar Sengat
Lali
Ketutu
Tilan
Haruan
Udang Galah
Udang Gantung
Lais
Sepat Padi
Known Maximum
Size (cm)
30
30
22
25
26.5
15
70
25.5
25.5
13
0
20
65
15
0
60
45
100
0
0
15
0
Size Range (cm)
Event I
Event II
Event III
8-22.3
7.1-18
7.9 - 20.3
7-15.8
5.1-7.4
6.1 - 17
9.4-18.2
6.7-10.4
7.4 - 13.2
7.5-18.5
4-16.1
7.9 - 14.7
18.5-19.7
−
−
8.8-10.7
−
−
14.4-17.4
15.5
14
7.7-14.3
5.6-14.7
−
11.2-17.7
−
−
14
−
5.3 - 11.7
7.5-12.5
4.5-16.0
7.2-15.0
4.5-13.5
8.4 - 10.9
8.8-19.2
26.0-28.0
−
10.4-16.6 11.8-13.9
−
13.6-17.6
−
−
17.5
17
−
20.0-22.5
22.5-40
−
30-41.2
5.0-41.0
31.8 - 35.6
10.8-25
4.25-11.5
4.3 - 50.8
6.0-6.5
13.0-13.5
−
−
13.0-13.5
28.5 - 41
−
9
−
From the data presented in Tables 5.4 and 5.5, it could be concluded that
Cyprinides was the most abundant family that dominated the Sungai Tui population.
The Terbul, Kawan and Seluang Sumatera were the main species of Cyprinids that
present during each sampling work with the biggest percentage of the total sample
recorded.
73
5.1.3
Fish Assemblages in Sungai Mengkibol
Similar to Sungai Tui, the fish assessment at Sungai Mengkibol was conducted
for three different events; data for Event I and II were taken from previous study,
meanwhile, Event III were conducted in March 2009. As shown in Table 5.6, a total of
13 species from 8 families were recorded during the three events including a species of
crustaceans. The types of fish discovered at this river were mainly tolerant fish and half
of them were non-native species.
In Event I, a total of 10 species from all 8 families discovered at Sungai
Mengkibol were recorded. The dominant species obtained was from Poeciliidae family
with 66% of the total caught sample. This is followed by Cichlidae (10%) and both
Loricariidae and Cyprinidae with 6% each and the rest of the sample are only a small
portion for the other families. The Molly and Mosquito Fish from Poecilidae family
were caught the most during the first sampling work. The percentage of families caught
during sampling are as illustrated in Figure 5.6.
During the second sampling work, only 4 families involving 5 species were
being recorded as shown in Table 5.6. As illustrated in Figure 5.6, the Loricariidae
contributes to the largest percentage with 70% over the whole sample caught, followed
by Cyprinidae (17%), Claridae (9%) and lastly, Channidae (4%). The dominant species
recorded during the sampling work was the Armoured Catfish (Hypostomus
plecostomus). For the last event, only 4 families with 5 species were present during the
last sampling work. Half of the samples obtained during the sampling work were from
Cichlidae family. This is followed by Poeciliidae (36%), Cyprinidae (9%) and lastly the
Loricariidae (5%). During this sampling work, the most species caught were Gapi and
Mosquito Fish.
74
Table 5.6: Fish species composition caught in Event I, II and III at Sungai Mengkibol
Family
Species
Local/common Name
Cyprinidae
Osteochilus hasselti
Rasbora sumatrana
Labiobarbus cuvieri
Channidae
Channa striatus
Claridae
Clarias batrychus
Clarias batrychus
Oreochromis
Cichlidae
mossambica
Poeciliidae
Poecilia reticulata
Poecilia phenops
Gambusia holbrooki
Loricariidae
Hypostomus plecostomus
Parastacidae
Cherax quadricairnatus
Ttrichogaster
Osphronemidae
trichopterus
Terbul
Seluang Sumatra
Kawan
Haruan
Keli
Keli Kayu
Event Event Event
I
II
III
√
√
−
−
−
√
√
√
−
√
√
−
√
−
−
−
√
−
Tilapia Hitam
√
−
√
Gapi
Molly
Mosquito Fish
Armoured Catfish
Red claw lobster
−
√
√
√
√
−
−
−
√
−
√
−
√
√
−
Sepat Padi
√
−
−
Total Species
Overall Total Species
10
5
13
5
Fish Families Distribution in Event I of Sungai Mengkibol
8%
8%
10%
66%
Cyprinidae
Poeciliidae
Channidae
Loricariidae
Claridae
Parastacidae
Cichlidae
Osphronemidae
Figure 5.5: Families obtained for Event I in Sungai Mengkibol
75
Fish Families Distribution in Event II of Sungai Mengkibol
17%
4%
9%
70%
Cyprinidae
Channidae
Claridae
Loricariidae
Figure 5.6: Families obtained for Event II in Sungai Mengkibol
Fish Families Distribution in Event III of Sungai Mengkibol
5%
9%
36%
50%
Cyprinidae
Cichlidae
Poeciliidae
Loricariidae
Figure 5.7: Families obtained for Event III in Sungai Mengkibol
76
Based from the data as in Table 5.7 and Table 5.8, the main caught species was
the Armoured Catfish that occurred in all three sampling works and the Tilapia Hitam
that occurred for the first and last sampling works being conducted. Sungai Mengkibol,
being an urban river that received mainly surface runoffs from the activities in the
Kluang Town, it could only support hard species such as the Armoured Catfish and
Tilapia Hitam in it.
Haruan, Keli, Tilapia Hitam and Armoured Catfish were all
recorded to be in the adult stages.
Introduced species such as the Mosquito Fish and Molly were also captured in
abundant for the first sampling work. Even though Molly and Mosquito Fish were the
most abundant, they only contribute a small portion on the total weight. In first event,
with 25 individuals, Molly only contributed 0.2% of total weight, while Mosquito Fish
only contributed less than 0.045% of the overall weight. This might be caused by the
fishes were the small type fishes and the maximum known size of the fishes is only 3.5
cm. In Event III the Mosquito Fish reached the maximum size of 4.3cm.
Table 5.7: Relative abundance and weight of each species caught in Sungai Mengkibol
Local/Common Name
Terbul
Seluang Sumatra
Kawan
Haruan
Keli
Keli Kayu
Tilapia Hitam
Guppy
Mosquito Fish
Armoured Catfish
Sepat Padi
Red Claw Lobster
Molly
Total
Event I
No of Weight
Ind
(g)
4
45
−
−
1
13
1
310
1
40
−
−
6
1800
−
−
16
<1
5
235
1
5
1
15
25
6
58
2469
Event II
No of Weight
Ind
(g)
2
60
−
−
2
60
−
−
−
−
2
540
−
−
−
−
−
−
16
580
−
−
−
−
−
−
22
1240
Event III
No of Weight
Ind
(g)
−
−
2
0.8
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
11
50
5
10
3
<1
1
10
−
−
−
−
−
−
22
70.8
77
Table 5.8: Size range of specimens caught at Sungai Mengkibol
Local/Common Name
Terbul
Seluang Sumatra
Kawan
Haruan
Keli
Keli Kayu
Tilapia Hitam
Gapi
Mosquito Fish
Ikan Bandaraya
Sepat Padi
Red Claw Lobster
Molly
5.2
Known
Maximum
Size (cm)
Event I
Event II
Event III
30
13
25
100
−
−
−
−
3.5
50
15
−
−
6.6 - 13.0
−
13.1
38.5
26
−
16-19.5
−
−
−
8.3
14.6
2.1-5.2
5.2 - 5.8
−
5.8 - 5.9
−
−
9.4 - 14.5
−
−
−
2.5 - 10.8
−
−
−
−
6.1 - 17
−
−
−
−
4.8 - 10.2
7.9 - 14.7
1.3 - 4.3
13
−
−
−
Size Range (cm)
River Habitat Survey
The river habitat survey was done in order to determine the physical feature and
instream habitat and riparian structures of the rivers. The river habitat survey was
conducted at the respective reach of Sungai Tui on 15 February 2009, Sungai Mengkibol
on 20 March 2009 and on 29 May 2009 for Sungai Lukah.
This section would
summarizes the results of analysis derived from the application of river habitat survey
form (Appendix) established by UK Environment Agency.
The Tables 5.9 and 5.10 show the values of channel form and characterization of
instream habitat in the studied reaches. The bankside landuse of Sungai Tui was mainly
of herbaceous vegetation and grass (61.5%), while Sungai Mengkibol was covered with
grass along with the 25% of man made structure mainly existed as an anti erosion
78
measure such as retaining wall. The mean depth of the water level of Sungai Tui was
recorded as 0.74m depth and as for Sungai Mengkibol the water depth was recorded at
an average of 0.44 m depth. Due to recent excavation activity to stabilize the bank of
the river, deeper parts of the river (pool) were increased. As for the case of Sungai
Lukah, as a freshwater wetland, most of the area (> 95 %) was being covered by wetland
vegetation and the area was permanently inundated as shown in Figure 5.8
Figure 5.8: The wetland area that is permanently inundated and filled with wetland
vegetation
As for the instream habitat, almost 15% of the whole reach studied of Sungai Tui
comprised of either partially or fully submerged large woody debris or leafy debris.
However in Sungai Mengkibol, the percentage of area covered by instream habitat is
less than 5% as the studied reach was previously being cleaned and dredged for
rehabilitation purpose. On the other hand, Lukah wetland area is an area with dense
wetland vegetation and submerged woody and leafy debris. The whole area that is
inundated would be filled with the vegetation and the roots of trees that have been
79
removed for the purpose of building access road for logging and plantation. Figure 5.9
as follow illustrates an example of the submerged woody debris where the swamp fishes
seek for food and protection.
Figure 5.9: A submerged woody debris
Based from the previous study conducted by Nurul Huda (2008), the riverbed
sediment of Sungai Tui could be categorized as well-graded (Cu > 5) and comprises
mainly of gravel (26.72 % composition from sieve analysis), finer sand and silt.
Meanwhile for Sungai Mengkibol, the bed sediment mainly comprised of sands and
traces of litter could also be found that covered 0.34% of the wetted area. However for
Sungai Lukah no test on the sediments was carried out. However, from observation the
main sediments were clayey silt and compose as shown in Figure 5.10.
80
Figure 5.10: Bed and bank sediments at the downstream of Sungai Lukah
Table 5.9: Range of values of channel form and instream habitat characteristic in Sungai
Tui
Sungai Tui
Channel Form
Bank angle ( degree)
Banktop height (m)
Banktop width (m)
Percentage trees (woody vegetation > 3 m tall)
Percentage shrub (woody vegetation < 3 m tall)
Percentage herbaceous vegetation
Percentage bare soil
Range
20 - 75
0.4 - 1.8
4.5 - 8.5
0 - 33
3.5 - 33
30 - 93
2.5 - 32
Instream Habitat
Depth (m)
Mean velocity (m/s)
Wet width (m)
Percentage silt/clay
Percentage sand
Percentage gravel
Percentage rock/cobble
Percentage leaf litter
Percentage woody debris per m2
Percentage root mass per m2
Percentage canopy cover per m2
0.17 - 1.3
0.15 - 0.33
1.6 - 8.5
8.5 - 53
0.25 - 14
0.3 - 5
0 - 17
6 - 30
3 - 12
0-2
0-2
81
Table 5.10: Range of values of channel form and instream habitat characteristic in
Sungai Mengkibol.
Sungai Mengkibol
Channel Form
Range
Bank angle ( degree)
Banktop height (m)
Banktop width (m)
Percentage trees (woody vegetation > 3 m tall)
Percentage shrub (woody vegetation < 3 m tall)
Percentage herbaceous vegetation
Percentage artificial
structure
Percentage bare soil
35 - 90
3.5 - 5
15 - 23
0 - 15
0 - 30
30 - 84
0 - 35
0.5 - 25
Instream Habitat
Depth (m)
Mean velocity (m/s)
Wet width (m)
Percentage sand
Percentage litter per m2
Percentage artificial boulder/concrete per m2
Percentage woody debris per m2
Percentage canopy cover per m2
0.02 - 0.85
0.22 - 1.06
7.5 - 16.70
35 - 78
3 - 35
0 - 10
0-5
0-8
Figure 5.11 shows the relative abundance of channel units for Sungai Tui and
Sungai Mengkibol. Sungai Mengkibol has lower total number of channel units (20),
while Sungai Tui has 27 units. The study on Sungai Tui had proven that the river
comprised mostly of pools that mainly occurred at the river meanders, while Sungai
Mengkibol had less number of channel units as it was generally a straight channel. The
distribution of channel units especially riffle had been reduce as there were river bed
cleaning works carried out prior to sampling works were conducted. The lack of woody
debris had resulted in the reducing of riffle in the channel. As for Sungai Tui, the
presence of larger percentage of woody debris had provided good habitat for the fish and
prawns to live. Sungai Lukah assessment did not provide any data for the channel unit as
the area was inundated with no or minimum water flowing on the wetland area and the
Sungai Lukah itself it inaccessible for data collection.
82
Relative Abundance of Channel Units
14
12
Total Number
10
8
Sg Tui
Sg Mengkibol
6
4
2
0
Run
Riffle
Pool
Types
Figure 5.11: Estimated relative abundance of channel units for the rivers
5.3
Water Quality Assessment
The surface water quality for the rivers were analysed by the application of the
Department of Environtment (DOE) values of Water Quality Index (WQI) and Interim
Water Quality Standard (INWQS). The water level of Sungai Tui was decreased due to a
long period of dry episodes. The same condition was observed at Sungai Mengkibol. For
Sungai Lukah, the second event that occurred during November was raining season.
Even during the sampling day, was a short drizzle. However, the last event was done in a
fine weather but it rained the day prior to sampling work.
83
As illustralised in Figure 5.12, the WQI results shows that Sungai Tui was in
Class III, Sungai Mengkibol was in Class IV and the upstream of Sungai Lukah (the
swamp area) was in Class III; along with the downstream of Sungai Lukah was also in
Class III. Based on the Classification by DOE, Class III could only sustain tolerant or
hard river species and a water body that is classified into Class IV is suitable for
irrigation only. Sungai Mengkibol water quality was expected as the river served as the
main stormwater drainage that catered the entire Kluang town. The water quality index
for Sungai Tui showed that even though the river was located in the upstream, since the
surrounding of this reach was mainly shrubs and palm oil plantation, thus the
degradation of water quality was associated with the dissolved nutrients from the
plantation as well as the suspended organic matter and sediments. On the other hand, the
water qualities of both upstream and downstream of Sungai Lukah were not as expected.
From observation, the water is nice and clear. However, the new plantation development
surrounding the wetland area might contribute to the elevation of nutrient levels in the
water by the utilization of fertilizers.
Cl I
Cl II
Cl III
Cl IV
Cl V
Figure 5.12: Water Quality Index of the respective rivers.
84
Although the WQI values displayed acceptable water quality, the results of
Sungai Tui was remarkably high especially for BOD5, COD and AN. Both BOD5 (11.76
mg/L) and COD (60 mg/L) values, were within Class IV of INWQS as displayed in
Table 5.11. AN value was also high (Class III), however this could be considered as
normal as the reach flows through agricultural lands. The turbidity was also high and
this was clearly shown by the muddy, brownish water throughout the river. The
increased siltation of the water column and stream bed might be caused by the reduced
flow in river (Growns, 2008). High turbid water could also provide suitable hiding
conditions from predators.
The state of Sungai Mengkibol was very poor and polluted, with the BOD5, COD
and AN especially is highly elevated. As for the case of Sungai Lukah; both upstream
and downstream, the BOD5, COD, TSS and turbidity were in the best state (Class I) and
this reflected the expected water quality during the sampling work. However, the DO
level and pH were classified as Class III with the water being slightly acidic. The AN
level for the downstream of Sungai Lukah was slightly elevated from the upstream part
of the river as new palm oil plantation was launched and the river received a lot of
surface runoffs from the plantation. The usage of more fertilizer and lack of surface
vegetation had resulted in more of the fertilizers to be washed away during heavy
precipitation in the downstream area of Sungai Lukah.
Table 5.11: INWQS results for water quality parameters
Parameters
Sungai Tui
Values
DO(mg/l)
6.83
BOD5 (mg/l)
COD (mg/l)
pH
AN (mg/l)
TSS (mg/l)
Turbidity (NTU)
Colour
11.76
60
6.77
0.69
9.975
53
471
Class
I
IV
IV
I
III
I
IIA
−
Sungai
Mengkibol
Values
Class
6.53
I
22.87
53
6.91
2.93
68
40
−
IV
IV
I
V
III
IIA
−
Sungai Lukah
Upstream
Values Class
3.70
III
0.14
9
6.57
0.09
0.04
1.05
27
I
I
III
I
I
I
IIA
Sungai Lukah
Downstream
Values
Class
4.08
III
0.27
12.00
5.31
0.16
0.08
4.33
59
I
I
III
IIA
I
I
IIA
85
5.4
Diversity and Species Richness
Diversity indices provide more information about community composition than
simply species richness (i.e., the number of species present); they also take the relative
abundances of different species into account. The Shannon Weiner index accounts for
both abundance and evenness of the species present. It combines two quantifiable
measures; the species richness, S (the number of species in the community) and
abundance, N (is the total number of individuals in the sample).
By using the Shannon Weiner Index formula to calculate diversity (Equation 4.2)
and evenness of species (Equation 4.3), the species diversity of all the three rivers could
be obtained. From the calculation, the Shannon’s H and evenness value for the three
rivers are as listed as in Table 5.13:
Table 5.12: Shannon’s H and Evennes, EH value
Name of River
Shannon's H
EH
Sungai Tui
2.211
0.715
Sungai Mengkibol
2.012
0.784
Sungai Lukah
1.992
0.719
Theoretically, when there were similar proportions of all subspecies then
evenness is one, but when the abundances were very dissimilar (some rare and some
common species) then the value increases. Based on the results as displayed in Tables
5.2, 5.5 and 5.8, when the subspecies distribution is near similar such as in Sungai
Mengkibol, the value of the evenness decreases.
86
2.5
2.211
2.012
1.992
2
1.5
H, E
Shannon's H
EH
1
0.715
0.784
0.719
0.5
0
Sungai Tui
Sungai Mengkibol
Sungai Lukah
Station
Figure 5.13: Diversity, Shannon’s H and evenness, EH for the respective rivers.
5.5
Fish Assemblages, Physical Characteristics, Water Quality Relationship
Previous understanding in the quality of a good river was to maintain the best
water quality in order to support fishes in abundant or of high economical value.
However, based on the results displayed in this research, some species such as Temperas
Mata Merah and Bujuk which are discovered at Sungai Lukah and also Terbul, Kawan
and Seluang Sumatera, which were categorized as non-tolerant species, were proved to
be the most abundant in Sungai Tui which both were categorized as Class III according
to WQI. On the other hand, Sungai Mengkibol which was in polluted condition had
proven to only capable in providing suitable environment for very tolerant fish species
such as Armoured Catfish. Thus, the statement that water quality remained the only
factor influencing the abundance and assemblage of species in a water body was
87
inaccurate. Therefore, channel and habitat features could also be influencing the fish
existence and abundance.
5.5.1
Species Migration and Introduced Species
All the rivers studied demonstrated a diverse and rich population of fishes, given
that the studied reach and point were quite short. For Sungai Lukah wetland area, all the
species discovered are the type of fish that usually inhabit a slow moving or stagnant
water. None of the species caught are classified as migratory fish. Randomly picked date
of sampling, Sungai Tui was proven to be constantly rich in species abundance. One
possible factor that contributed to the species richness in the river was the species
migration from Sungai Muar. As one of the few tributaries of Sungai Muar, that was
well-known for the predators such as crocodile, the species migration from Sungai Muar
by smaller fish and crustaceans such as Udang Galah, were to seek protection and better
spawning grounds. In addition, being in a lowland area, due to recent flood episodes and
heavy precipitation, the water overflowed into its tributaries, migrating along the species
inhabiting the main stream. On the other hand, the same migration factor as in Sungai
Tui might be applied at Sungai Mengkibol. The hardy and tolerant fish such as
Armoured Catfish and Tilapia Hitam might be introduced into Sungai Mengkibol
through various factors such as intentionally released by fish breeders and aquarist. The
species are classified as invasive species as they are highly productive and could be a
possible thread to native species. These invasive species could affect the physical,
biological and ecological condition of rivers; thus would restrict the recovery of native
species from disturbance.
88
5.5.2
Water Clarity and Vegetation
The flooding of a wetland area besides ‘desynchronizing’ the water movement
from a number of tributaries entering the same channel ant the same time by spreading it
over a large area, also contributes to sediment trapping by the wetland vegetation. As the
water moves slowly among the wetland vegetation, the sediments brought along by the
water are trapped. The further the water travels, more the sediments are being deposited
to the bottom of the surface bed. As the water reach the main channel, the clarity of the
water has been highly improved. The vegetation of the wetland also works as an
‘absorber’ to help decreasing the nitrogen and phosphorus in the water as the vegetation
accumulates the nutrients for its growth.
The water of Sungai Lukah wetland had shown high clarity. However the colour
is slightly ‘teaish’ as the presence of tannin is high due to the decomposition process of
the wetland. Due to this process humic acid are produced. Even though the humic acid is
not that acidic, however if the acid is produced in a lot in an area, this could decrease the
pH of the water. This was proven as the pH especially for the downstream area of
Sungai Lukah wetland was slightly acidic. As for Sungai Tui and Sungai Mengkibol, the
rivers are flowing faster than Sungai Lukah wetland and also with less presence of
vegetation inside the river itself. This has resulted in the inability for sediment
deposition due to slow water movement. However, the high turbidity level of Sungai Tui
has provided protection from predators for the river species.
89
5.5.3
Woody Debris, Vegetation and Bed Material
Woody debris might greatly affect channel form and process by increasing or
decreasing the stability of banks, influencing the sediment transport and creating fish
habitat (Woodlot Alternatives, 2000). Besides vegetation, the presence of woody debris
in the water has significantly creates a suitable habitat for fish spawning and protection
from predator for Sungai Lukah. This could be indicated by the presence of abundance
of yearlings observed at the sampling site. Furthermore most of the abundant fish
species captured in Sungai Lukah are the type of fish that feeds on the zooplankton and
other small crustacean that lives on the woody debris. Animals (mostly microconsumers)
feeding on algae or involved in shredding and consuming leaves and fine litter are the
key components of aquatic ecosystems as they, in turn, bocomes food for larger aquatic
lives (macroconsumers) such as fish and crustaceans (Rutherfurd et al., 2002). On the
other hand, the decomposition process that occurs in the water has provided the best
habitat for some species such as Haruan and Bujuk that have a preference to live in a
stagnant water area and hiding under the decomposing matter. On the other hand, the
rich species and abundance in Sungai Tui are higly influenced by the large woody debris
distribution in the river. However, since large woody debris is considered aesthetically
unpleasant, often in river rehabilitation work such as in Sungai Mengkibol, it is
removed.
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
6.1
Conclusions
Previous understanding in the quality of a good river is to maintain the best water
quality in order to support fishes in abundance or of high economical value. Although
water quality could be improved and could be regarded as one of the success stories of
river rehabilitation, the return of indigenous flora and fauna has been a slow and often
unpredictable process. Thus, stream and river management nowadays could not only
focus on the improvement of the river alone. This is because rivers, streams, and
wetlands work as an integrated ecosystem in maintaining the stability and function of a
water body. Often the wetland that mainly serves as a catchment area of a river is being
overlooked in a river improvement or rehabilitation project.
This study put forward that the changes in fish species assemblages are related
mainly to the presence and conditions of the habitat structure and habitat loss, rather
than other factors such as physico-chemical assessment. Sungai Lukah wetland, being
91
the last vestige of non-peaty, freshwater swamps in Johor, it displays a rich and diverse
fish composition with 16 species belonging to 7 families despite the water quality is
classified in Class III of WQI. In addition, most of the discovered fish species of Sungai
Lukah are categorized as non-tolerant species and could only be found in the slow
moving or stagnant water such as Temperas Mata Merah. Besides, the species
composition of Sungai Tui also displays its richness and diversity (22 species belonging
to 10 families) disregarding the water quality and the channel condition. Some of the
species inhabiting Sungai Tui has high economical value such as Ketutu, Sebarau and
Udang Galah. On the other hand, Sungai Mengkibol condition shows obviously that the
rehabilitation works that has been completed only focused on the flood mitigation efforts
and beautification of the riversides and the biota restoration is completely neglected. The
river has recorded to inhabit predominantly by tolerant and invasive fish species, such as
Armoured Catfish, whilst the instream habitat composition and distribution is very low.
The wetland vegetation plays an important role in ‘desynchronizing’ the water
movement to prevent flooding on the downstream part where the runoff water is
temporarily stored causing the flood water reaching the same channel at different period.
The Lukah Wetland might also plays a role as ‘buffer zone’ to the water that flows into
the wetland by removing the high nutrient content such as phosphorus and nitrogen in
the water that might originate from the palm oil plantation on the perimeter of the area.
Besides, the presence of the wetland vegetation that covers nearly 95% of the total area
along with the slow moving waters of Lukah Wetland has resulted in the sediment
deposition to the bed, hence increasing the water clarity and quality simultaneously.
Besides, the present of woody debris along with the wetland vegetation in the wetland
has increased the habitat quality of the biota as it provides habitat, food and also
protection from the predators. Zooplankton and other small crustacean that lives on the
woody debris are being fed by the wetland fishes. Whilst, the decomposition of
vegetation in the surface bed of the wetland along with the dense vegetation provides
good habitat and hiding place for certain kind of fishes.
92
As for the water quality, both the upstream and the downstream parts of Sungai
Lukah are classified as Class III in the WQI. The DO level of both sampling point were
low due to the stagnant or slow-flowing water. Furthermore, the presence of the
decomposing of plants in the water has increased the pH value to be acidic due to the
production of humic acid in the water from the decomposing process. However, other
parameters such as BOD, COD and especially TSS and turbidity indicate that the water
is very clean. Whilst Sungai Tui is also classified in Class III and Sungai Mengkibol is
in Class IV of the WQI classification.
As a conclusion, the planning of river rehabilitation projects that has always been
only in small scale and only involving in improving a certain stretch of the river should
take into consideration the wetland areas that always bordered a river as watershed.
Particularly, if the downstream and especially upstream area of the river is still
degraded, this would affect the effectiveness of the project. Therefore, river
rehabilitation process should always include the watershed management and
improvements as they work as an integrated ecosystem in order to achieve sustainable
and living rivers.
6.2
Recommendations
For further improvement of this research, some of the recommendations for
future works in order to understand better the relationship of habitat distribution and fish
species composition are as follows:
93
i)
More sampling work should be conducted in evaluating the wetland area as the
area is vast and the assessments were done only in the accessible part of the
wetland.
ii)
The influence of sampling time should be taken into consideration. This is
because for example the raining season and dry season would affect the fish
species composition due to the flooding effect and water level increase and
decrease. Even the sampling time during day and night time would differ as
some species tends to be nocturnal.
iii)
For wetland habitat assessment, the River Habitat Survey form is not very
applicable as wetlands morphology is different from the river itself. Thus, further
study should be done in how to evaluate a wetland by implementing a better
approach such as the Hydrogeomorphic Index (HGM) in assessing the value of a
wetland.
94
7.0
REFERENCE
Angermeier, P.L and Davideanu, G. (2004). Using Fish Communities to Assess Streams
in Romania: Initial Development of an Index of Biotic Integrity. Hydrobiologia.
511: 65-78. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Angermeier, P.L. and Karr, J.R. (1983). Fish communities along environmental
gradients in a system of tropical streams. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 9(2):
177 – 135. Dr. W. Junk Publishers. In Nurul Huda Adnan (2008). Fish Habitat
Assessment for River Rehabilitation. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Msc Thesis.
Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Synder, B.D., and Stribling, J.B. (1999). Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton,
Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, 2nd Edition. EPA-440-5-91-002. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Belovsky, G.E. (2002) Ecological stability :reality, misconceptions and implications for
risk assessment. Journal of Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 8(1). pp 99 108
Bencala, K.E (1984). Interaction of solutes and streambed sediment. 2. A dynamic
analysis of coupled hydrologic and chemical processes that determine solute
transport. Water Resour. Res. Vol. 20, pp 1804-1814
Brookes, A., Shields, F.D., Jr (1996) River Channel Restoration – Guiding Principles
for Sustainable Projects. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Burke, D.G., Meyers, E.J., Tiner, R.W., and Groman, H. (1988). What are wetlands, and
why are they important? In Protecting Nontidal Wetlands. Planning Advisory
Service Report No. 412/413, Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. pp. 116.
Dunn, H. (2000) Identifying and Protecting Rivers of High Ecological Value,
Occasional Paper No. 01/00. Canberra: Land and Water Resource Research and
Development Corporation.
95
EarthTrends (2007). Water Resources and Freshwater Ecosystems – Malaysia.
Unpublished. Available online at:
http://earthtrends.wri.org/
Environment Agency (2003). River Habitat Survey in Britain and Ireland. Field Survey
Guidance Manual: 2003 Version. United Kingdom: Environment Agency.
FishBase (2009). Froese, R. and Pauly, D. (Ed.). World Wide Web electronic
publication. Available online at:
http://fishbase.org/
Fortner, S.L. and White, D.S. (1988). Interstitial water patterns: a factor influencing the
distribution of some lotic aquatic vascular macrophytes. Aquatic Botany Vol. 31.
pp 1-12.
Friedrich, G., Chapman, D., and Beim, A. (1992). The use of biological material.
Chapter 5 in Water Quality Assessment – A Guide to Use of Biota, Sediments and
Water in Environmental Monitoring, 2nd edition.
Gerhad, P., Moraes, R., Molander, S. (2004). Stream Fish Communities and Their
Associations to Habitat Variables in a Rain Forest Reserve in Southeastern
Brazil. Environmental Biological of Fishes. 71: 321-349. Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Gordon, N.D., McMahon, T.A., Finlayson, B.L., Gippel, C.J., Nathan, R.J (2004)
Stream Hydrology: An Introduction to Ecologist, Second Edition. West Sussex,
England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Hamzah, H. and Mahamud, A. (2007). Johor: The Sinking State? Case Study of District
of Muar and Batu Pahat, Introduction of FHM. East and Southeast Asia Reginal
Seminar on Flood Hazard Mapping. 8 February. Unpublished. Department of
Irrigation and Drainage.
Idaho Fish and Game (2007). Available online at:
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wetlands/types.cfm
Karr, J.R. (1996). Ecological integrity, and ecological health are not the same. In
Schulze, P.C. (ed), National Academy of Engineering, Engineering Within
Ecological Constrains. Washington DC: National Academy Press, pp 97 – 109.
96
Karr, J.R. and Chu, E.W. (1999). Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological
Monitoring. Washington DC: Island Press.
Keddy, P.A. (2000). Wetland Ecology: Principles and Conservation. United Kingdom:
Cambridge University Press.
Loeb, S.L. (1994). An ecological context for biological monitoring. In Loeb, S.L. and
Spacie, A., Biological Monitoring of Aquatic Ecosystems. Florida: Lewis
Publishers. pp. 3-10.
Lowe-McConnell, R.H. (1975). Fish Communities in Tropical Freshwaters. Their
Distribution, Ecology and Evolution. London: Longman.
Majlis Daerah Muar (2008). Statistic Penduduk 2007. Rancangan Tempatan Daerah
Muar. Majlis Daerah Muar.
Majlis Perbandaran Kluang (2004). Rancangan Tempatan Daerah Kluang 2002-2010.
Majlis Perbandaran Kluang.
Meffe, G.K., and Sheldon, A.L. (1990). Post-Defaunation recovery of fish assemblages
in soutern blackwater streams. Ecology 71. pp. 657-667
Mitsch, W.J. and Gosselink, J.G. (2000). Wetlands, 3rd Ed. New York: Jon Wiley and
Sons, Inc.
Mitsch, W.J. and Gosselink, J.G. (2007). Wetlands, 4th Ed. New York: Jon Wiley and
Sons, Inc.
Mohsin, A.K.M., and Ambak, M.A. (1983). Freshwater Fishes of Peninsular Malaysia.
Malaysia: Penerbit Universiti Pertanian Malaysia. pp. 15 – 225. In Nurul Huda
Adnan (2008). Fish Habitat Assessment for River Rehabilitation. Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia. Msc Thesis.
Moyle, P.B. (1994). Biodiversity, biomonitoring, and the structure of stream fish
communinities. In Loeb, S.L. and Spacie, A., Biological Monitoring of Aquatic
Ecosystems. Florida: Lewis Publishers. pp. 171-186
Nelson, J.S. (2006). Fishes of the World. 4th edition. United States: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc. pp. 139 – 184. In Nurul Huda Adnan (2008). Fish Habitat Assessment for
River Rehabilitation. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Msc Thesis.
Nurul Huda Adnan (2008). Fish Habitat Assessment for River Rehabilitation. Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia. M.Eng. Thesis.
97
OTA (Office of Technology Assessment) (1984). Wetlands: Their Use and Regulations.
Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, OTA-F-166. In Williams, M.
(1990) Wetlands: A Threatened Landscape. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Peet, R.K. (1974). The measurement of species diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics, Vol. 5. pp 285-307.
Petts, G.E. and Foster, I. (1985). Rivers and Landscape. London: Edward Arnold.
Plafkin, J.L., Barbour, M.T., Porter, K.D., Gross, S.K, Hughes, R.M. (1989). Rapid
Bioassessemnt
Protocols
for
Use
in
Streams
and
Rivers:
Benthic
Macroinvertebrate and Fish. EPA/444//489-001. Washington, DC.
Richardson, C.J. (1994). Ecological functions and human values in wetlands: A
framework for assessing forestry impacts. Wetlands 14:1-9.
Roni, P., Hanson, K., Beechie, T., Pess, G., Pollock, M., Bartley, D.M. (2005) Habitat
Rehabilitation for Inland Fisheries: Global Review of Effectiveness and
Guidance for Rehabilitation of Freshwater Ecosystems. Rome: Food and
Agriculture Organization of The United Nations.
Rutherford, I., Marsh, N., Price, P., and Lovett, S. (2002). Managing woody debris in
rivers. Fact Sheet 7. Canberra: Land & Water Australia.
Spellman, F.R. (1996). Stream Ecology and Self-purification: An Introduction for
Wastewater and Water Specialist.U.S.A.: Technomic.
Tiner, R.W. (1984). Wetlands of the United States: Current Status and Recent Trends.
Washington, DC: Fish and Wildlife Service. In Williams, M. (1990) Wetlands: A
Threatened Landscape. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Townsend, C.R., Hildrew A.G. (1994). ‘Species traits in relation to habitat templet for
river systems.’ Freshwater Biology. pp 265-275.
Triska, F.J., Kennedy, V.C., Avanzino, R.L., Zellweger, G.W. and Bencala,
K.E.(1989a). Retention and transport of nutrients in a third-order stream: channel
processes.Ecology Vol. 70. pp 1877-1892.
Triska, F.J., Kennedy, V.C., Avanzino, R.L., Zellweger, G.W. and Bencala,
K.E.(1989b). Retention and transport of nutrients in a third-order stream in
northwestern California: hyporheic processes. Ecology Vol. 70. pp 1893-1905.
98
Turner, R.E. and Boesch, D.F. (1988). Aquatic animal production and wetland
relationships: insight gleaned following wetland loss or gain. In Williams, M.
(1990) Wetlands: A Threatened Landscape. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
U.S. EPA (1989). EPA/444/4-89-001. United States: Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA (2002). EPA 822-R-02-014. Methods for evaluating wetland condition: Vol.1
Introduction to Wetland Biological Assessment. United States: Environmental
Protection Agency.
Van der Valk, A.G., Davis, C.B., Baker, J.L. and Beer, C.E. (1979). Natural freshwater
wetlands as nitrogen and phosphorus traps for land runoff. In Williams, M.,
Wetlands: A Threatened Landscape. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Wetland International Malaysia (2007). Ecological assessment of potential Ramsar sites
in South-East Johor, Malaysia. Available online at:
http://malaysia.wetlands.org/WHATWEDO/Allourprojects/tabid/513/mod/601/ar
ticleType/ArticleView/articleId/99/Default.aspx
Williams, M. (1990). Wetlands: A Threatened Landscape. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Woodlot Alternatives (2000). Aquatic Habitat Assessment: 11/2 Mile Reach – GEPittsfield/Housatonic River Side, Pittsfield Massachusetts. Unpublished.
Woodlot Alternatives.Inc.
Ziglio, G., Siligardi, M., and Flaim, G., (2006) Biological monitoring of Rivers:
Applications and Perspectives. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. pp 135153.
99
APPENDIX A
RIVER HABITAT SURVEY FORM
RIVER HABITAT SURVEY 2003 VERSION: SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY ASSESSMENT
1
Site Number :
Site Ref:
River Name:
Date:
Grid References/Co-ordinates: Spot 12:
Mid-site:
End of site2:
Surveyor Name:
Accredited Surveyor Code:
1 Leave blank if new site.
2 Optional
Weather Conditions:
Flow Conditions:
Site details: (enter comments or circle if applicable and give details)
Risk Level
(Low/Mod/High)
Access and Parking:
(entry & exit)
Conditions: comment on ground stability, footing, exposure/remoteness
Obstacles/Hazards: fencing, stiles, dense vegetation, steep bank
Occupied/Unoccupied: people, livestock, animals
Activities/Land-use: agriculture, woodland, residential, industrial, construction, recreational
Risk if lone-working
IF THERE ARE ANY HIGH RISKS OR MORE THAN THREE MODERATE RISKS
DO NOT CONTINUE WITH THE SURVEY.
Weil’s Disease (Leptospirosis)
Instructions to card holders
1. As infection may enter through breaks in the skin, ensure that any cut, scratch or abrasion is
thoroughly cleansed and covered with a waterproof plaster.
2. Avoid rubbing your eyes, nose and mouth during work.
3. Clean protective clothing, footwear and equipment etc. after use
4. After work, and particularly before taking food or drink, wash hands thoroughly.
5. Report all accidents and/or injuries, however slight.
6. Keep your card with you at all times.
Lyme Disease
1. Dress appropriately with skin covered up.
2. Regularly inspect for ticks when in the field.
3. Check for, and remove, any ticks as soon as possible after leaving the site.
4. Seek medical attention if bitten by a tick.
River Habitat Survey Manual: 2003 version
2.2
RIVER HABITAT SURVEY 2003 VERSION: SPOT-CHECK KEY
Page 1 of 2
PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES (SECTION E)
CHANNEL
BANKS
Predominant bank
material
NV = not visible
BE = bedrock
BO = boulder
CO = cobble
GS = gravel/sand
EA = earth (crumbly)
PE = peat
CL = sticky clay
CC = concrete
SP = sheet piling
WP = wood piling
GA = gabion
BR = brick/laid stone
RR = rip-rap
TD = tipped debris
FA = fabric
BI = bio-engineering
materials
Bank modifications
Predominant substrate
Channel modifications
NK = not known
NO = none
NV = not visible
NK = not known
NO = none
RS = resectioned (reprofiled)
RI = reinforced
PC = poached
PC(B) = poached (bare)
BM = artificial berm
EM = embanked
Marginal and bank
features
NV = not visible (e.g. far
bank)
NO = none
Predominant flow-type
EC = eroding cliff (EC if
sandy substrate)
SC = stable cliff (SC if
sandy substrate)
PB = unvegetated point bar
VP = vegetated point bar
SB = unvegetated side bar
VS = vegetated side bar
NB = natural berm
BE = bedrock
BO = boulder
CO = cobble
GP = gravel/pebble
(G or P if
predominant)
SA = sand
SI = silt
CL = clay
PE = peat
EA = earth
AR = artificial
NV = not visible
FF = free fall
CH = chute
B = broken standing
UW
waves (white water)
UW = unbroken standing
waves
CF = chaotic flow
RP = rippled
UP = upwelling
SM = smooth
NP = no perceptible flow
DR = no flow (dry)
CV = culverted
RS = resectioned
RI = reinforced
DA = dam/weir/sluice
FO = ford (man-made)
Channel features
NV = not visible
NO = none
EB = exposed bedrock
RO = exposed boulders
VR = vegetated rock
MB = unvegetated midchannel bar
VB = vegetated midchannel bar
MI = mature island
TR = Trash (urban debris)
FLOW-TYPES
DESCRIPTION
FF: Free fall
clearly separates from back-wall of vertical feature ~ associated with waterfalls
CH: Chute
low curving fall in contact with substrate ~ often associated with cascades
BW: Broken standing waves white-water tumbling waves must be present ~ mostly associated with rapids
UW: Unbroken standing waves upstream facing wavelets which are not broken ~ mostly associated with riffles
CF: Chaotic flow
a chaotic mixture of three or more of the four fast flow-types with no predominant
one obvious
RP: Rippled
no waves, but general flow direction is downstream with disturbed rippled surface ~
mostly associated with runs
UP: Upwelling
heaving water as upwellings break the surface ~ associated with boils.
SM: Smooth
perceptible downstream movement is smooth (no eddies) ~ mostly
associated with glides
NP: No perceptible flow
no net downstream flow ~ associated with pools, ponded reaches and marginal
deadwater
DR: No flow (dry)
dry river bed
Scale
NB: assessed by intermediate axis
Coarse sand
Gravel
Pebble
SA
2.3
GP
Cobble (to size of A4 page)
CO
River Habitat Survey Manual: 2003 version
RIVER HABITAT SURVEY: SPOT-CHECK KEY
LEFT
Banks are determined by looking downstream
Page 2 of 2
RIGHT
CHANNEL MODIFICATION INDICATORS
One or more of the following may be indicative of resectioning:
1. Uniform bank profile
2. Straightened planform
3. Bankfull width/bankfull height ratio <4:1
4. Uniform/low energy flow-types
5. No trees/uniformly-aged trees along bank
6. Intensive/urban land-use
LAND-USE WITHIN 5m OF BANKTOP (SECTION F) & 50m (SECTION H)
BL =
BP =
CW =
CP =
SH =
OR =
WL =
MH =
Broadleaf/mixed woodland (semi-natural)
Broadleaf/mixed plantation
Coniferous woodland (semi-natural)
Coniferous plantation
Scrub & shrubs
Orchard
Wetland (e.g. bog, marsh, fen)
Moorland/heath
AW = Artificial open water
OW = Natural open water
RP = Rough unimproved
grassland/pasture
IG =
Improved/semi-improved grassland
TH = Tall herb/rank vegetation
RD = Rock, scree or sand dunes
SU = Suburban/urban development
TL =
IL =
PG =
NV =
Tilled land
Irrigated land
Parkland or gardens
Not visible
BANKTOP AND BANKFACE VEGETATION STRUCTURE To be assessed within a 10m wide transect (SECTION F)
vegetation types
bare
B
bare earth/rock etc.
uniform
U
predominantly one type (no scrub or trees)
bryophytes
short/creeping
herbs or grasses
simple
S
two or three vegetation types
tall herbs/
grasses
scrub or shrubs
complex
C
four or more types
saplings and
trees
Channel dimensions guidance (Section L)
Select location on
uniform section.
Cross-section of channel showing definitions
used to define where spot-check recording
and channel dimensions measured
If riffle is present,
measure there. If not,
measure at straightest
and shallowest point.
Break in slope
Bankface vegetation
structure
Vegetation structure
within 1m of banktop
Bank slope too steep
for cultivation
Banktop = first major
break in slope above which
cultivation or development
is possible.
Land-use within
5m and 50m
Banktop
height
Bankfull width
Bankfull = point where
river first spills on to floodplain.
Bankfull
height
Banktop
and
Bankfull
height
Water
width
Water depth
EMERGENCY HOTLINE 0800 80 70 60
24 hour free emergency telephone line for reporting all environmental incidents relating to air, land and water.
River Habitat Survey Manual: 2003 version
2.4
Page 1 of 4
RIVER HABITAT SURVEY 2003 Version
A
FIELD SURVEY DETAILS
leave blank if new site
Site Number:
Is the site part of a river or an artificial channel?
Site Reference:
Are adverse conditions affecting survey?
Spot-check 1 Grid Ref:
If yes, state ........................................................................................
Spot-check 6 Grid Ref:
Is bed of river visible? barely or not
End of site Grid Ref:
Yes
+ entirely
partially
Yes
No
Number of photographs taken:
River name:
/
Artificial
No
Is health and safety assessment form attached?
Reach Reference:
Date
River
Photo references:
/20
Time:
Site surveyed from:
left bank
right bank
channel
Surveyor name:
When options shown with ‘shadow boxes’, tick one box only
Accredited Surveyor code:
B
LEFT
banks determined by facing downstream
PREDOMINANT VALLEY FORM (within the horizon limit)
RIGHT
(tick one box only)
(tick one box only)
concave/bowl
shallow vee
asymmetrical valley
deep vee
U-shape valley
gorge
Distinct flat valley bottom?
C
no obvious valley sides
No
Yes
Natural terraces?
NUMBER OF RIFFLES, POOLS AND POINT BARS
Yes
(enter total number in boxes)
Riffle(s)
Unvegetated point bar(s)
Pool(s)
Vegetated point bar(s)
D
No
ARTIFICIAL FEATURES (indicate total number of occurrences of each category within the 500m site)
If
none,
Weirs/sluices
tick
Culverts
box
Bridges
Major
Intermediate
Minor
Major
Intermediate
Minor
Outfalls/
intakes
Fords
Deflectors/
groynes/croys
Other - state
Is channel obviously realigned?
No
Is channel obviously over-deepened? No
Is water impounded by weir/dam? No
2.5
Yes, <33% of site
Yes, <33% of site
Yes, <33% of site
River Habitat Survey Manual: 2003 version
>33% of site
>33% of site
>33% of site
RIVER HABITAT SURVEY: TEN SPOT-CHECKS
SITE REF.
Spot-check 1 is at:
upstream end
Page 2 of 4
of site (tick one box)
downstream end
E PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES (to be assessed across channel within 1m wide transect)
When boxes ‘bordered
bordered’, only one entry allowed
1 GPS
2
3
4
5
6 GPS
7
8
9
10
GPS
Ring EC or SC if composed of sandy substrate
LEFT BANK
Material NV, BE, BO, CO, GS, EA, PE, CL, CC, SP, WP, GA, BR, RR, TD, FA, BI
Bank modification(s)
NK, NO, RS, RI, PC(B), BM, EM
Marginal & bank feature(s) NV, NO, EC, SC, PB, VP, SB, VS, NB
CHANNEL
Channel substrate
Flow-type
GP- ring either G or P if predominant
NV, BE, BO, CO, GP, SA, SI, CL, PE, EA, AR
NV, FF, CH, BW, UW, CF, RP, UP, SM, NP, DR
Channel modification(s)
NV, NO, EB, RO, VR, MB, VB, MI, TR
For braided rivers only: number of sub-channels
RIGHT BANK
Ring EC or SC if composed of sandy substrate
Material NV, BE, BO, CO, GS, EA, PE, CL, CC, SP, WP, GA, BR, RR, TD, FA, BI
Bank modification(s)
NK, NO, RS, RI, PC(B), BM, EM
Marginal & bank feature(s) NV, NO, EC, SC, PB, VP, SB, VS, NB
F BANKTOP LAND-USE AND VEGETATION STRUCTURE (to be assessed over a 10m wide transect)
Land-use: choose one from BL, BP, CW, CP, SH, OR, WL, MH, AW, OW, RP, IG, TH, RD, SU, TL, IL, PG, NV
LAND-USE WITHIN 5m OF LEFT BANKTOP
LEFT BANKTOP (structure within 1m)
B/U/S/C/NV
LEFT BANK-FACE (structure)
B/U/S/C/NV
RIGHT BANK-FACE (structure)
B/U/S/C/NV
RIGHT BANKTOP (structure within 1m)
B/U/S/C/NV
Enter channel substrate(s) not occurring as predominant in
spot-checks but present in >1% of whole site.
Channel feature(s)
NK, NO, CV, RS, RI, DA, FO
LAND-USE WITHIN 5m OF RIGHT BANKTOP
G CHANNEL VEGETATION TYPES
None (
(to be assessed over a 10m wide transect: use E ( > 33% area),
(present) or NV (not visible)
) or Not Visible (NV)
Liverworts/mosses/lichens
Emergent broad-leaved herbs
Emergent reeds/sedges/rushes/grasses/horsetails
Floating-leaved (rooted)
Free-floating
Amphibious
Submerged broad-leaved
Submerged linear-leaved
Submerged fine-leaved
Filamentous algae
Use end column for overall assessment over 500m, including types not occurring in spot-checks (use
River Habitat Survey Manual: 2003 version
, E or NV)
2.6
H
Page 3 of 4
RIVER HABITAT SURVEY : 500m SWEEP-UP
SITE REF.
LAND-USE WITHIN 50m OF BANKTOP
L
Use
(present) or E (> 33% banklength)
R
Broadleaf/mixed woodland (semi-natural) (BL)
Natural open water (OW)
Broadleaf/mixed plantation (BP)
Rough/unimproved grassland/pasture (RP)
Coniferous woodland (semi-natural) (CW)
Improved/semi-improved grassland (IG)
Coniferous plantation (CP)
Tall herb/rank vegetation (TH)
Scrub & shrubs (SH)
Rock, scree or sand dunes (RD)
Orchard (OR)
Suburban/urban development (SU)
Wetland (e.g. bog, marsh, fen) (WL)
Tilled land (TL)
Moorland/heath (MH)
Irrigated land (IL)
Artificial open water (AW)
Parkland or gardens (PG)
L
R
L
R
Not visible (NV)
I
BANK PROFILES
Use
(present) or E (> 33% banklength)
Natural/unmodified
L
R
Artificial/modified
Vertical/undercut
Resectioned (reprofiled)
Vertical with toe
Reinforced - whole
Steep (>45 )
Reinforced - top only
Gentle
Reinforced - toe only
Composite
Artificial two-stage
Natural berm
Poached bank
Embanked
Set-back embankment
J
EXTENT OF TREES AND ASSOCIATED FEATURES
TREES
(tick one box per bank)
Left
Right
ASSOCIATED FEATURES (tick one box per feature)
E (>33%)
Present
None
Shading of channel
None
K
*record even if <1%
Isolated/scattered
*Overhanging boughs
Regularly spaced, single
*Exposed bankside roots
Occasional clumps
*Underwater tree roots
Semi-continuous
Fallen trees
Continuous
Large woody debris
EXTENT OF CHANNEL AND BANK FEATURES
None
(tick one box for each feature)
*record even if <1%
Present E(>33%)
None
*Free fall flow
Exposed bedrock
Chute flow
Exposed boulders
Broken standing waves
Vegetated bedrock/boulders
Unbroken standing waves
Unvegetated mid-channel bar(s)
Rippled flow
Vegetated mid-channel bar(s)
*Upwelling
Mature island(s)
Smooth flow
Unvegetated side bar(s)
No perceptible flow
Vegetated side bar(s)
No flow (dry)
Unvegetated point bar(s)
Marginal deadwater
Vegetated point bar(s)
Eroding cliff(s)
*Unvegetated silt deposit(s)
Stable cliff(s)
*Discrete unvegetated sand deposit(s)
*Discrete unvegetated gravel deposit(s)
2.7
River Habitat Survey Manual: 2003 version
Present
E (>33%)
RIVER HABITAT SURVEY : DIMENSIONS AND INFLUENCES
SITE REF.
L
Page 4 of 4
CHANNEL DIMENSIONS (to be measured at one location on a straight uniform section, preferably across a riffle)
LEFT BANK
CHANNEL
RIGHT BANK
Banktop height (m)
Bankfull width (m)
Banktop height (m)
Is banktop height also bankfull
height? (Y or N)
W ater width (m)
Is banktop height also bankfull
height? (Y or N)
Embanked height (m)
W ater depth (m)
Embanked height (m)
If trashline lower than banktop, indicate: height above water (m) =
Bed material at site is:
consolidated
Location of measurements is: riffle
M
other
FEATURES OF SPECIAL INTEREST
width from bank to bank (m) =
unconsolidated (loose)
unknown
(state)
Use
or E (> 33% length) *record even if <1%
None
Very large boulders (>1m)
Backwater(s)
Marsh(es)
Braided channels
*Debris dam(s)
Floodplain boulder deposits
Flush(es)
Side channel(s)
*Leafy debris
Water meadow(s)
*Natural waterfall(s) > 5m high
Fringing reed-bank(s)
Fen(s)
Natural
open water
*Natural waterfall(s) < 5m high
Quaking bank(s)
Bog(s)
Natural cascade(s)
*Sink hole(s)
Wet woodland(s)
N
CHOKED CHANNEL (tick one box)
Is 33% or more of the channel choked with vegetation?
O
Others (state)
NOTABLE NUISANCE PLANT SPECIES
No
Use
Yes
or E (> 33% length)
bankface banktop to 50m
None
P
*record even if <1%
bankface banktop to 50m
*Giant hogweed
*Himalayan balsam
*Japanese knotweed
*Other (state)..........................
OVERALL CHARACTERISTICS
(Circle appropriate words, add others as necessary)
Major impacts: landfill - tipping - litter - sewage - pollution - drought - abstraction - mill - dam - road - rail - industry - housing
mining - quarrying - overdeepening - afforestation - fisheries management - silting - waterlogging - hydroelectric power
Evidence of recent management: dredging - bank mowing - weed cutting - enhancement - river rehabilitation gravel extraction - other (please specify)
Animals: otter - mink - water vole - kingfisher - dipper - grey wagtail - sand martin - heron - dragonflies/damselflies
Other significant observations: if necessary use separate sheet to describe overall characteristics and relevant
observations
Q
ALDERS (tick one box in each of the two categories )
*Alders?
None (tick Present
Extensive
Q ALDERS
appropriate box(es))
R
FIELD SURVEY QUALITY CONTROL (
*record even if <1%
*Diseased Alders? None
Present
Extensive
boxes to confirm checks)
Have you taken at least two photos that illustrate the general character of the site and additional photos of any weirs/ sluices
and major/intermediate structures across the channel?
Have you completed all ten spot-checks and made entries in all boxes in E & F on page 2?
Have you completed column 11 of section G (and E if appropriate) on page 2?
Have you recorded in section C the number of riffles, pools and point bars (even if 0) on page 1?
Have you given an accurate (alphanumeric) grid reference for spot-checks 1, 6 and end of site (page 1)?
Have you stated whether spot-check 1 is at the upstream or downstream end of the site (top of page 2)?
Have you cross-checked your spot-check and sweep-up responses with the channel modification indicators
given on page 2 of the spot-check key?
River Habitat Survey Manual: 2003 version
2.8
107
APPENDIX B
SKETCHES OF SUNGAI LUKAH
Wetland boundaries
Main Rivers
108
Sedili Kecil Wetland
Aquaculture
Shrimp Pond
Kemajuan Tanah
Lok Heng Selatan
(FELDA)
Sungai
Lukah
Ulu Lukah
Kemajuan Tanah
Papan Timur
(FELDA)
109
APPENDIX C
SKETCHES OF SUNGAI TUI
110
111
112
113
114
APPENDIX D
SKETCHES OF SUNGAI MENGKIBOL
115
Plan View of Sungai Mengkibol
116
APPENDIX E
FISH SPECIES CAUGHT IN SUNGAI LUKAH
117
Appendix
Fish Species Caught in Sungai Lukah
Scientific Name: Cyclocheilichthys
apogon
Local Name: Temperas mata merah
Common Name: Red-eyed Barb
Scientific Name: Osteochilus hasselti
Local Name: Terbul
Common Name: Hasselt’s Bony Lip
Barb
Scientific Name: Rasbora elegans
Local Name: Seluang 2 titik
Common Name: Two-spot Rasbora
Scientific Name: Rasbora gracilis
Local Name: Seluang Bada
Common Name: Blackstripe Rasbora
118
Scientific Name: Puntius lateristriga
Local Name: Baguh
Common Name: Spanner Barb
Scientific Name: Puntius binotatus
Local Name: Tebal Sisek
Common Name: Common Barb
Scientific Name: Puntius binotatus
Local Name: Sepat Ronggeng
Common Name: Two-spot Gouramy
Scientific Name: Luciocephalus pulcher
Local Name: Tembok Tebing
Common Name: Geddehoved
119
Scientific Name: Pristoplepis fasciatus
Local Name: Patung
Common Name: Marroon perch
Scientific name: Channa micropeltes
Local Name
: Toman
Common Name: Indonesian Snakehead
Scientific name: Channa striatus
Local Name
: Haruan
Common Name: Snakehead
Scientific Name: Channa lucius
Local Name: Bujuk
Common Name: Forest Snakehead
Scientific Name: Clarias macrocephalus
Local Name: Keli Bunga
Common Name: Freshwater Catfish
120
Scientific Name: Aplocheilus panchax
Local Name: Mata Lalat
Common Name: Blue Eye
Scientific Name: Dermogenys pusillus
Local Name: Julong
Common Name: Halfbeak
121
APPENDIX F
FISH SPECIES CAUGHT IN SUNGAI TUI
122
Appendix F
Fish Species Caught in Sungai Tui
Scientific Name: Osteochilus hasselti
Local Name: Terbul
Common Name: Hasselt’s Bony Lip
Barb
Scientific Name: Osteochilus vittatus
Local Name: Rong
Common Name: Sharkminnow
Scientific Name: Chela anommalura
Local Name: Lalang
Common Name: -
Scientific Name: Labiobarbus cuvieri
Local Name: Kawan
Common Name: Signal Barb
Scientific Name: Luciosoma trinema
Local Name: Jejuang/nyenyuar
Common Name: Long-fin Apollo Shark
123
Scientific Name: Crossocheilus oblongus
Local Name: Selimang siam
Common Name: Barb
Scientific Name: Hampala
macrolepidota
Local Name: Sebarau
Common Name: Hampala Barb
Scientific Name: Cyclocheilichthys
heteronema
Local Name: Temperas
Common Name: Indian River Barb
Scientific Name: Cyclocheilichthys
apogon
Local Name: Temperas mata merah
Common Name: Red-eyed Barb
Scientific Name: Rasbora sumatrana
Local Name: Seluang
Common Name: Signal Barb
Scientific Name: Rasbora elegans
Local Name: Seluang 2 titik
Common Name: Two-spot Rasbora
124
Scientific Name: Pristoplepis fasciatus
Local Name: Patung
Common Name: Marroon perch
Scientific Name: Mystus nemurus
Local Name: Baung akar
Common Name: Bagrid catfish
Scientific Name: Acanthopsis
choirorhyhchos
Local Name: Lali
Common Name: Hoarse-faced loach
Scientific Name: Oxyeleotris marmorata
Local Name: Ketutu
Common Name: Marbled goby
Scientific Name: Mastacembelus armatus
Local Name: Tilan
Common Name: Spiny eel
Scientific Name: Channa striatus
Local Name: Haruan
Common Name: Snake head
125
Scientific Name: Macrobrachium
resenbergii
Local Name: Udang galah
Common Name: Giant River Prawn
Scientific Name: Macrobrachium sp
Local Name: Udang gantung
Common Name: Signal Barb
Scientific Name: Krytopteris bicirrhis
Local Name: Lais
Common Name: Marroon perch
126
APPENDIX G
FISH SPECIES CAUGHT IN SUNGAI MENGKIBOL
127
Appendix G
Fish Species Caught in Sungai Mengkibol
Scientific Name: Osteochilus hasselti
Local Name: Terbul
Common Name: Hasselt’s Bony Lip
Barb
Scientific Name: Rasbora sumatrana
Local Name: Seluang
Common Name: Signal Barb
Scientific Name: Labiobarbus cuvieri
Local Name: Kawan
Common Name: Signal Barb
Channa batrychus
striatus
Scientific Name: Clarias
Local Name: Haruan
Keli
Common Name: Snake
Catfishhead
128
Scientific Name: Oreochromis
mossambica
Local Name: Tilapia hitam
Common Name: Mozambique Tilapia
Scientific Name: Poecilia phenops
Local Name: Common Name: Molly
Scientific Name: Hypostomus
plecostomus
Local Name: Bandaraya
Common Name: Amoured Catfish