WATER QUALITY AND FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT OF RIVERS IN JOHOR
(SUNGAI DENGAR, SUNGAI TUI, AND SUNGAI MENGKIBOL)
HERNI BINTI HALIM
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
To:
My beloved Abah and Mak,
Halim bin Din and Shamsiah binti Kasim
M y dear Angah and Ayin,
Hafiza binti Halim and Hazren binti Halim
My soulmate,
Mohamad Firdaus bin Mahamad Yusob
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In particular, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my supervisor, Assoc.
Prof. Dr. Mohd Ismid bin Mohd Said for encouragement, guidance, advices and
motivation. Without the continous support and interest, this thesis would not have been
the same as presented here. Thousand of thanks I wish to my co-supervisor, Dr. shamila
binti Azman for guidance, critics and friendship as she helped me a lot in producing this
thesis.
All my fellow friends should be recognized for their helps and supports. Thank
you to my co-researcher Nurul Hana binti Mokhtar Kamal for your views and tips
during completing this thesis. Thank you also to Mardiyah binti Zahidi for her guidance
of ACAD drawing. My sincere appreciation also extends to all my colleagues; Harizah
binti Hamzah, Siti Sarah binti adnan, Nur Nabilah binti Abdullah and Nor Hafizah
Hussian for their moral support and advices.
I also wish to thank all staffs of Environmental Engineering Laboratory,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia; Pak Usop, Mr. Ramli, Mr. Azrin, Miss Syuhada and
Miss Ros because they have helped me a lot during the experimental works. Without
their helps, this thesis cannot be produced.
Finally, a word of thousand thanks to all that I might not have forgotten to
mention who have contributed directly or indirectly to the compilation of this thesis.
v
ABSTRACT
Implementation of river rehabilitation programs are due to the apprehension
expressed by local community and other stakeholders over the degradation of river
and loss of livelihood from fishing and other natural resource-based activities.
Usually, river rehabilitation involves works on water quality improvement and
landscape enhancement rather than provides essential habitat for aquatic life
especially fish. Consequently, this study is carried out in order to reveal the
correlation between habitats and fish species towards improving the river
rehabilitation efforts. Sungai Dengar near Gunung Belumut, Kluang, Sungai Tui in
Bukit Kepong and Sungai Mengkibol in Kluang Town are three rivers that have
been chosen for the purpose of the study as the rivers have different landuse and
physical conditions. Sungai Dengar which is located in palm oil plantation and
recorded as Class II of WQI, exhibits lowers composition of fish species compared
to Sungai Tui. However it comprises two species which are not present in the other
two rivers; Julong and Bujuk. Nevertheless, Sungai Tui, even though classified
under Class III of WQI, exhibits a rich and diverse fish species composition with
high economical value species such as Baung akar and Ketutu. Sungai Mengkibol of
Class IV is dominated by hardy and tolerant species such as Bandaraya and Tilapia
hitam. This study discovers that bankside vegetation, channel units, river size,
migratory species and large woody debris are considered as the influential factors in
shaping fish species community. The physical characteristics are important as they
influence food availability, provide spawning or breeding ground, and protection
from predators.
vi
ABSTRAK
Perlaksanaan program pemuliharaan sungai selalunya dilakukan setelah
penduduk setempat dan pihak yang bertanggungjawab menyuarakan kebimbangan
terhadap pencemaran sungai dan kehilangan mata pencarian dari segi penangkapan ikan
dan lain- lain kegiatan yang melibatkan sumber alam. Kebiasaannya, pemuliharan
sungai melibatkan kerja- kerja seperti peningkatan kualiti air dan pengindahan lanskap
berbanding penyediaan habitat yang sesuai untuk hidupan air terutamanya ikan. Oleh
sebab itu, kajian ini dilakukan untuk melihat hubungkait antara habitat dan spesies ikan
ke arah memperbaiki usaha menjalankan program pemuliharaan sungai. Sungai Dengar
yang terletak berhampiran Gunung Belumut, Kluang, Sungai Tui di Bukit Kepong dan
Sungai Mengkibol di Bandar Kluang adalah tiga sungai yang dipilih dalam kajian ini
kerana ketiga-tiga sungai tersebut mempunyai kegunaan tanah dan keadaan fizikal yang
berbeza. Sungai Dengar yang terletak di dalam kawasan lading kelapa sawit dan
mencatatkan Indeks Kualiti Air di Kelas II menunjukkan komposisi spesies ikan yang
kurang berbanding Sungai Tui. Sungguhpun begitu, sungai tersebut mempunyai dua
spesies ikan yang tidak terdapat di sungai- sungai lain dalam kajian ini; Julong and
Bujuk. Walaupun Sungai Tui berada di Kelas III dalam Indeks Kualiti Air, mempunyai
kekayaan and kepelbagaian spesies ikan yang mempunyai nilai ekonomi yang tinggi
seperti Baung akar dan Ketutu. Sungai Mengkibol yang terdapat dalam Kelas IV
didominasi oleh spesies ikan yang tahan lasak seperti Bandaraya dan Tilapia hitam.
Kajian ini mendapati tumbuhan tepi tebing, unit-unit sungai, saiz sungai, spesies hijrah
dan kayu-kayu dianggap sebagai faktor- faktor berpengaruh dalam membentuk
komuniti spesies ikan. Ciri-ciri fizikal ini penting kerana menyumbang kepada
ketersediaan makanan, menyediakan tempat bertelur atau membesar, dan tempat
berlindung daripada pemangsa.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
TITLE
PAGE
DECLARATION
ii
DEDICATION
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
iv
ABSTRACT
v
ABSTRAK
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vii
LIST OF TABLES
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES
xvii
1
INTRODUCTION
1
`
1.1
Background of Study
1
1.2
Statement of problem
3
1.3
Objective of Study
4
1.4
Scope of Study
4
1.5
Limitations
5
1.5.1
Depth of Water Surface and Accessibility
5
1.5.2
Topographical Condition
6
1.5.3 Data Collection Equipment
viii
2
LITERATURE REVIEW
7
2.1
Assessing Stream Health
7
2.2
Physico-Chemical Assessment
9
2.3
Habitat Assessment
10
2.3.1
15
Primary Parameters – Substrate and
Instream Cover
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.1.1 Bottom Substrate
15
2.3.1.2 Embeddedness
16
2.3.1.3 Stream Flow and/or Stream Velocity
16
2.3.1.4 Types of Flow
18
2.3.1.5 Discharge
19
Secondary Parameters – Channel Morphology
19
2.3.2.1 Channel Alteration
20
2.3.2.2 Bottom Scouring and Deposition
20
2.3.2.3 Pool/riffle or Run/Bend Ratio
20
Tertiary Parameters – Riparian and Bank
23
Structure
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.3.3.1 Bank Stability
23
2.3.3.2 Bank Vegetative Stability
24
2.3.3.3 Streamside Cover
24
Characteristics of Aquatic Habitat
25
2.4.1 Flow Regime
26
2.4.2
Physical Habitat Structure
28
2.4.3
Biotic Interations
29
2.4.4
Food (Energy) Sources
30
2.4.5
Chemical Variables (Water Quality)
30
Bioassessment
31
2.5.1
Macrophytes
31
2.5.2
Riparian Vegetation
32
Freshwater Habitats
32
ix
2.6.1 Protection of Freshwater Habitats
32
2.6.2
33
Importance of Conserving Freshwater
Habitats
2.7
Effect of Land Use on Stream Flow
33
2.8
Fish
35
2.8.1
2.9
Family Cyprinidae
35
2.8.2 Family Siluridae
36
Biological Monitoring
37
2.9.1
Advantages of Electrofishing
39
2.9.2
Disadvantages of Electrofishing
39
STUDY AREA
40
3.1
Introduction
40
3.2
Sungai Dengar in Felda Hulu Dengar, Kluang
41
3.3
Sungai Tui in Bukit Kepong, Muar
43
3.4
Sungai Mengkibol in Kluang
45
METHODOLOGY
48
4.1
Introduction
48
4.2
Fish Survey Work
48
4.3
Total Length
51
4.4
Individual Weight
51
4.5
Characterisation of River Habitats
52
4.6
Measurement of Average River Velocity
53
4.7
Water Quality Assessment
54
3
4
x
5
5.1
55
Fish Species Composition
55
5.1.1
Fish Species Assemblages In Sungai Dengar
55
5.1.2
Fish Species Assemblages in Sungai Tui
60
5.1.3
Fish Assemblages in Sungai Mengkibol
66
5.2
Water Quality Assessment
71
5.3
Fish and Habitat
74
5.3.1 Sungai Dengar
74
5.3.2 Sungai Tui
77
5.3.3
81
5.4
6
Sungai Mengkibol
Relations between Fish Assemblages and Physical
Characteristics of Rivers
84
5.4.1 Sungai Dengar
84
5.4.2 Sungai Tui
85
5.4.3
86
Sungai Mengkibol
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
95
6.1
Conclusions
95
6.2
Recommendations
96
REFERENCES
Appendices
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
98-101
102- 131
xi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO.
2.1
TITLE
Descriptive variable for assessment of
PAGE
8
stream health
2.2
General measurement parameters used
9
for assessing aquatic system health
2.3
Habitat assessment field data sheet
14
3.1
Locations and coordinates of study sites
40
5.1
Fish species composition caught in
56
Event I and II in Sungai Dengar
5.2
Number of individuals, weight and
57
percentage according to species caught
in Sungai Dengar
5.3
Size range of specimens caught at
59
Sungai Dengar
5.4
Fish species composition caught in
60
Event I, II and III in Sungai Tui
5.5
5.6
Number of individuals, weight and
percentage according to species caught
in Sungai Tui
Size range of specimens caught at
63
66
Sungai Tui
5.7
Fish species composition caught in
67
Event I, II and III in Sungai Mengkibol
5.8
Number of individuals, weight and
68
xii
percentage according to species caught
in Sungai Mengkibol
5.9
Size range of specimens caught at
70
Sungai Mengkibol
5.10
INWQS results for water quality
73
parameters
5.11
Fish species and habitat description in
75
Sungai Dengar
5.12
Fish species and habitat description of
77
Sungai Tui
5.13
Fish species and habitat description of
82
Sungai Mengkibol
5.14
Sungai Dengar Channel Form and
88
Instream Habitat
5.15
Sungai Tui Channel Form and Instream
91
Habitat
5.16
Sungai Mengkibol Channel Form and
Instream Habitat
93
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO.
2.1
TITLE
PAGE
Theoretical relationship between physical
11
habitat quality and biological condition.
2.2
Bottom substrate
15
2.3
Embeddedness
16
2.4
Example of current velocity patterns in a
17
river
2.5
Cross-section of a river showing the general
17
pattern of current velocity
2.6
A hydrograph that plotted discharge vs.
19
time
2.7
Alteration of pools and riffles in a river
21
2.8
Steeper bank may not support stable
24
vegetation
2.9
Grass as streamside cover
25
2.10
Aquatic habitat characteristics
26
2.11
Fishes of Cyprinidae family
36
2.12
Fishes of Siluridae family
37
3.1
Location of study area (red box) in Sungai
41
Dengar
3.2
Gunung Belumut scenary from Felda Hulu
42
Dengar
3.3
Palm oil plantation surrounding study area
42
xiv
in Sungai Dengar
3.4
The location of Sungai Tui and its
43
sampling site
3.5
Old Bukit Kepong Police Station
44
3.6
The location of Sungai Mengkibol and its
45
sampling site
3.7
Sungai Mengkibol as the main stormwater
46
drainage in Kluang Town
3.8
Sungai Mengkibol Riverine Park
47
4.1
Battery-powered backpack electro-fisher
49
4.2
Gill net is located at downstream of study
50
area and at deep water area
4.3
Fish collection after biosurvey work
50
4.4
Total length measurement of a fish
51
4.5
Total weight measurement
52
4.6
River bank vegetation is one of the
53
characteristics of river habitat
4.7
River water sample is taken for laboratory
54
test purposes
5.1
The distribution of fish families recorded
58
during Event I of Sungai Dengar
5.2
The distribution of fish families recorded
58
during Event II of Sungai Dengar
5.3
The distribution of fish families recorded
64
during Event I of Sungai Tui
5.4
The distribution of fish families recorded
64
during Event II of Sungai Tui
5.5
The distribution of fish families recorded
65
during Event III of Sungai Tui
5.6
The distribution of fish families recorded
during Event I of Sungai Mengkibol.
69
xv
5.7
The distribution of fish families recorded
69
during Event II of Sungai Mengkibol
5.8
The distribution of fish families recorded
70
during Event III of Sungai Mengkibol
5.9
Water Quality Index values at respective
73
rivers
5.10
Submerged woody plants was the location
74
of Bujuk caught in Sungai Dengar
5.11
Culverts was the location of Julong caugh
76
in Sungai Dengar
5.12
Sebarau was caught in Sungai Tui
79
5.13
Typical habitat when Haruan were caught at
80
Sungai Tui
5.14
Lais were caught under a bridge at Sungai
80
Tui
5.15
Location Udang Galah caught in Sungai Tui
81
5.16
Sungai Mengkibol that inhabited mostly
83
by Bandaraya and Tilapia hitam
5.17
Location of Keli kayu was caught in Sungai
84
Mengkibol
5.18
Number of Channel Units in Three Rivers;
87
Sungai Dengar, Sungai Tui and Sungai
Mengkibol
5.19
Shrub on both side of river bank in Sungai
89
Dengar
5.20
Artificial structure at Sungai Dengar
89
5.21
Palm oil trees along Sungai Dengar
89
5.22
Wood debris in Sungai Dengar
90
5.23
Leaf litter in Sungai Dengar
90
5.24
Root mass in Sungai Dengar
90
5.25
Shrub on the river bank of Sungai Tui
92
xvi
5.26
Bare soil at certain area of Sungai Tui
92
5.27
Woody debris in Sungai Tui
92
5.28
Herbaceous vegetation along Sungai
94
Mengkibol
5.29
Retention wall as artificial structure at
94
Sungai Mengkibol
5.30
Bare soil at certain area of Sungai
Mengkibol
94
xvii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX
TITLE
PAGE
A
Habitat Survey Form
102
B
Sketches of Sungai Dengar
110
C
Sketches of Sungai Tui
116
D
Sketch of Sungai Mengkibol
121
E
Fish species caught in Sungai Dengar
123
F
Fish species caught in Sungai Tui
125
G
Fish species caught in Sungai
130
Mengkibol
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background of Study
Natural streams resources provide goods in form of fish, and other wildlife for
harvest and enjoyment, as well as services such as regulation of hydrologic and nutrient
cycles, and purification of water. In Malaysia, there are 1,800 rivers comprising 150
systems that run up to 38,000 km (Kalithasan Kailasam, 2007). As in many parts of the
world, water from rivers and streams in Malaysia is used extensively for domestic needs,
agriculture, aquaculture, industry and hydroelectric power as well as provide
recreational use. Rivers are important as they support nation’s economic development,
social and cultural needs, religious beliefs and the natural environment. Clean water
body and the riparian area in its vicinity support diverse and delicately balanced natural
aquatic ecosystems.
Highly degraded ecosystems are not effective providers of goods and services,
so this way, conservation and economics are inextricably linked. Disturbance to the
stream ecosystem can result from floods, prolonged droughts, volcanic activity,
wildfires as well as anthropogenic factors such a s pollution, channel modification, flow
2
modification or direct interference to biota, such as clearing vegetation or introducing
alien species. Landuse changes can have an impact on streams by affecting runoff rates
and the input rates of sediment, woody debris and chemical pollutants. Well vegetated
catchments with deep soils will absord rainwater, releasing it slowly. If the vegetation is
removed or change, as by clearing lands for farmland, logging, or by grazing, changes
in stream hydrographs can occur. Clearing a large percentage of a catchment for
urbanization, agriculture or timber harvest is generally thought to increase flood peak
discharges and reduce their duration, and baseflow can also be altered (Gordon, N.D. et
al., 2004).
Channel modifications directly impact streams. The impacts can occur not only
in the modified reach but also in upstream and downstream sections. Channelisation is
typically carried out to improve drainage or flood carrying capacity, usually leaving a
smooth, trapezoidal channel with improved conveyance and more predictable hydraulic
behaviour. In extreme cases the riverbed may be reduced to a concrete channel or a
buried conduit. In terms of habitat, channelisation reduces the structural diversity of
streams through the reduction in meanders, smoothing of pools and riffles and irregular
bank boundaries and removal of snags and riparian vegetation. This not only reduces
the total amount of stream area and natural diversity of velocity and substrate patterns.
Fish no longer have backwaters, pools or low-velocity regions for refuge during high
flows, and fish eggs may be swept downstream by the higher velocities. Changes in
hydraulics conditions selectively alter or reduce fish fauna, as increased velocities and
shear stresses affect the hydrodynamics of body shape (Gordon, N.D. et al., 2004).
Riffles, which aerate the flow, are removed, shelter in the form of undercut banks and
overhanging vegetation is eliminated, and the substrate is typically more unstable,
reducing benthic invertebrate production
More attention is needed to rehabilitate river from time to time. It should be well
cared and concerned of it importance as the aesthetic value of well managing river may
increase the rate of country economic generation (Global Environment Centre, 2009). In
3
order to manage rivers and streams effectively, a necessary first step is to measure the
availability and condition of the resources. Stream condition has traditionally been
measured in terms of physico-chemical parameters, because this was appropriate to the
emphasis on utilitarian use of the resource. Physico- characteristics are still important,
but there has been a paradigm shift in the way stream condition is perceived and
measured. Stream health now is measure in terms of water quality, habitat availability
and suitability, energy sources, hydrology and the biota themselves. Stream
classification operates at a different scale to stream health assessment, although
measures of stream health can and often do form the basis of classification schemes.
The main purpose of classification is to simplify the inherent complexity of streams
systems. Classification is used as a communication tool that helps to facilitate many
aspects of the management process, such a s taking an inventory of the resource,
prioritizing issues or areas for management action, allowing stakeholders to make tradeoffs, and documenting and demonstrating the effectiveness of management to the public
(Gordon, N.D. et al., 2004).
1.2
Statement of Problem
River rehabilitation has a tradition rooted in civil and hydraulic engineering
where most of the work was grounded in well-established theory of stable channel
design. Stream restoration activities are often focused on highly modified urban
landscapes where the chances of achieving ecological restoration are extremely slim.
This led to an emphasis on control of flow and structure using embankments, re-shaping
channels to trapezoidal cross-sections, clearing snags and riparian vegetation, rock
beaching of banks and construction of training structures. The inherently dynamic
nature of rivers was seen as an annoyance that should be controlled, or if structures
failed, as a catastrophic and unusual event. This conventional paradigm is now falling
out of favour, where it is recognized that a level of channel instability is desirable from
an ecological perspective, and that a high level of channel stability is difficult and
4
expensive to attain. Habitats are important in the fish life cycle requirements for food,
shelter, reproduction, and movement. If the various life cycle requirements are not met
due to loss of habitat, fish numbers drops, and eventually over time the entire
population may even die out.
Man's activities have had profound, and usually negative, influences on
freshwater fishes from the smallest streams to the largest rivers. Some negative effects
are due to contaminants, while others are associated with changes in watershed
hydrology, habitat modifications, and alteration of energy sources upon which the
aquatic biota depends. Regrettably, past efforts to evaluate effects of man's activities on
fishes have attempted to use water quality as a surrogate for more comprehensive biotic
assessment. A more refined biotic assessment program is required for effective
protection of freshwater fish resources.
1.3
Objectives of Study
The study concentrates on fieldwork of investigating the fish species
composition and its habitat in running waters for the development of biological criteria
for river rehabilitation. Therefore the objectives of the study are:
i.
To identify fish species in the river in terms of fish species composition
and richness
ii.
To quantify physical features of aquatic habitat
iii.
To determine water quality of the river ; and
5
iv.
To establish the relationship between fish species composition, stream
morphological condition and water quality condition.
1.4
Scope of Study
This study focuses on the description of the present ecological environment of three rivers with
different level of disturbance or physical conditions: Sungai Mengkibul, in Kluang, Sungai Dengar, near
Gunung Belumut National Park, and Sungai Tui, in Muar. Three main processes involve in this study are
physical, biological, and chemical. They involve:
i.
Physical classification – general characteristic that are important in
influencing river’s aquatic ecology such as channel forms, instream
habitats, substrates, bank vegetation and structure. Additional habitat
attributes such as anthropogenic alterations to the river is briefly
described.
ii.
Biological environment – the focus is on the composition and
abundance of fish species
iii.
Chemical elements- documentation of the existing conditions related to
commonly observed water quality parameters.
The study also involves in describing the correlation between the physical
attributes with variation in the fish assemblages.
6
1.5
Limitations
There are a few environmental constraint identified that may interrupt with the
process of collecting the essential data for this project. The constraints are listed as
below:
1.5.1
Depth of Water Surface and Accessibility
Electro-fishing cannot be conducted if the water depth is higher than the waist
level of the conductor, since the battery and cables for the electrode are carried with a
backpack. The instruments shall not be immersed in water as this will caused shortcircuits and thus endanger the conductor and the others in the river. Therefore, at certain
sections, samplings cannot be conducted continuously along the gradient.
1.5.2
Topographical Condition
Health and safety is the main priority while performing the study, especially
during the biological and habitat surveying. Physical conditions of river such as the
slope of the banks, riverbed substrate, and surrounding vegetation that might pose
hazards to the researchers (i.e. steep and slippery slopes, silt riverbed etc) were avoided.
General and brief data could be obtained, however details of the morphological and
biological features might be impaired.
7
1.5.3
Fish Collection Equipment (Gill Net)
Fish collection in deep water is conducted using gill net. The gill net is
positioned across the river width as electro-fishing cannot be conducted in water depth
higher than conductor waist. However, unexpected cases such as the lost of the gill net
due to stolen activities in study area are far from prediction. Therefore, data of fish
collection in deep water is difficult to be conducted. Fish collection equipment (gill net)
turns out to be limitation factor in field work study.
8
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Assessing Stream Health
A stream is classified as a body of water that flows across the Earth's surface via
a current and is contained within a narrow channel and banks. Stream health
assessments usually measure in-stream and riparian vegetation, channel bank and bed
stability, water quality, water quantity and aquatic organisms (Gordon, N.D. et al.,
2004). The description of stream health can refer to present static conditions (i.e. on the
day of the survey) or dynamic aspects (i.e. rate and direction of changes). Stream
condition or health can be assessed across a hierarchy of measurement scales and
various survey techniques have been devised to capture such data in a systematic way.
An assessment of stream health therefore must consider the stream's natural setting as
well as how human activities have changed it (Stoker, D.G. et al.1972). Also important
to an assessment are evaluations of activities that can directly affect water quantity or
quality. Method for surveying stream health vary according to the objectives they were
originally designed to satisfy, the level of detailed involved as shown in Table 2.1, and
the nature of the rivers used in the development of the method.
9
Table 2.1: Descriptive variable for assessment of stream health
Measure
Example
Visual description of presence or absence “Native vegetation was absent from the
at one point in time
reach, with willows being the only species
present”
“The water looked turbid”
Measured description of presence or “Willows were present at density of one
absence at one point in time
tree per 20m2”
“ Turbidity was 43 NTU on 26/12/96
Visual comparison with a template reach “ The upstream, uncleared reach had a
or original state
dense stand of Eucalyptus camaldulensis,
whereas
the
target
reach
had
only
willows”
Measured comparison with template reach
“ The template reach had twice as many
fish as the target reach when it was
sampled”
Visual description of change through time
“According to the landholder the head-cut
had migrated 200 m since 1974”
Measured description of change through “ Three electro-fishing sweeps, one year
time
apart, showed a statistically significant
decline in the number of blackfish
present”
Source: Gordon, N.D et al., 2004
The approaches can be divided into four main groups:
i.
physico-chemical assessment
ii.
habitat assessment
iii.
bioassessment
10
2.2
Physico-Chemical Assessment
Physico-chemical characteristics have long been used as indicators of stream
and catchment health, because these variables react to changes in stream flow, land use
and riparian conditions as shown in Table 2.2. Physical measurement parameters
include flow, temperature, conductivity, suspended solids, turbidity and colour.
Chemical measurement parameters include pH, alkalinity, hardness, salinity,
biochemical oxygen demand, dissolved oxygen and total organic carbon. Other major
controls on water chemistry include specific major anions and cations, and nutrient
species. Table 2.2 shows general measurement parameters used for assessing aquatic
system health.
Table 2.2: General measurement parameters used for assessing aquatic system health
Measurement Parameter
Input
Potential Effects
Electrical conductivity
Salt
Loss of sensitive biota
Total phosphorus
Phosphorus
Ratio of total phosphorus
to total nitrogen
Phosphorus and nitrogen
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand
Eutrophication
ealgae)
(nuisance
Cyanobacterial blooms
Carbon in organic material Asphyxiation of respiring
organisms, e.g. fish kills
Turbidity
Sediment
Changes in ecosystem
habitat
Loss of sensitive species
Altered light climate that
affects productivity and
predator-prey
relationships
Suspended solids
sediment
Changes in ecosystem
habitat, loss of sensitive
species
11
Table 2.2: Continued
Chlorophyll
Nutrients
Eutrophication
pH
Acid drainage
Loss of sensitive biota
Metals,
organics Toxicants
Loss of sensitive species
compounds
Source: Gordon, N.D. et al.., 2004
2.3
Habitat Assessment
As described by Paul D.N. Hebert (2008), habitat usually refers to the in-stream
and riparian physical and chemical conditions suitable for habitation by biota, and may
even vary according to the life cycle of biota. Habitat quality can be expressed as the
presence or absence of suitable habitat (noting the presence of elements that prevent the
habitat being accessed), the volume or area available of ideal habitat or a rating of the
relative quality of the habitat that is present.
Habitat, as affected by instream and surrounding topographical features, is a
major determinant of aquatic community potential (Lafont, M. et al., 2008). Both the
quality and quantity of available habitat affect the structure and composition of resident
biological communities. Effects of such features can be minimized by sampling similar
habitats at all stations being compared. However, when all stations are not physically
comparable, habitat characterization is particularly important for proper interpretation
of biosurvey results (Plafkin, J.L. et al., 1989).
In general, spatial and temporal habitat variability and biological diversity in
rivers are closely linked. Assuming that 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. Habitat quality can range from zero to 100%
12
of reference conditions, and can be categorised as non-supporting (< 59%), partially
supporting (60-74%), supporting (75-89%) or comparable (> 90%). The quality of the
biological community can range from zero to 100% of the reference, and can be
categorized as severely impaired, moderately impaired, slightly impaired or nonimpaired (Plafkin, J.L. et al., 1989). Figure 2.1 shows the theoretical relationship
between physical habitat quality and biological condition.
Figure 2.1: Theoretical relationship between physical habitats
quality and biological condition (Plafkin, J.L, et al., 1989).
Where habitat quality is similar, detected impacts can be attributed to water
quality factors. However, where habitat quality differs substantially from reference
conditions, the question of use attainability and physical habitat alteration/restoration
must be addressed. Final conclusions regarding the presence and degree of biological
impairment should thus include an evaluation of habitat quality to determine the extent
that habitat may be a limiting factor.
13
Because this habitat assessment approach is intended to support biosurvey
analysis, the various habitat parameters are weighted to emphasize the most biologically
significant parameters (Sooley, D.R, 1998). All parameters are evaluated for each
station studied. The ratings are then totaled and compared to a reference to provide a
final habitat ranking. Scores increase as habitat quality increases. To ensure consistency
in the evaluation procedure, descriptions of the physical parameters and relative criteria
are included in the rating form.
Reference conditions are used to normalize the assessment to the “best
attainable” situation. This approach is critical to the assessment because stream
characteristics will vary dramatically across different regions. Other habitat assessment
approaches may be used; or a more rigorously quantitative approach to measuring the
habitat parameters may be used. However, the importance of a holistic habitat
assessment to enhance the interpretation of biological data cannot be overemphasized.
Habitat parameters pertinent to the assessment of habitat quality are separated
into three principal categories: primary, secondary, and tertiary parameters. Primary
parameters are those that characterize stream “microscale” habitat and have the greatest
direct influence on the structure of the indigenous communities (Sooley, D.R, 1998).
The primary parameters, which include characterization of the bottom substrate and
available cover, estimation of embeddedness, and estimation of the flow or velocity and
depth regime, have the widest score range (0-20) to reflect their contribution to habitat
quality. The secondary parameters measure the “macroscale” habitat such as channel
morphology characteristics. These parameters evaluate: channel alteration, bottom
scouring and deposition, and stream sinuosity. The secondary parameters have a score
range of 0-15. Tertiary parameters evaluate riparian and bank structure and comprise
three parameters: bank stability, bank vegetation, and streamside cover. These tertiary
parameters include those that are most often ignored in biosurveys. The tertiary
parameters have a score range of 0-10 (Plafkin, J.L, et al., 1989).
14
Habitat evaluations are first made on instream habitat, followed by channel
morphology, and finally on structural features of the bank and riparian vegetation.
Stream segment length or area assessed will vary with each site. Generally, primary
parameters are evaluated within the first riffle/pool sequence, or the immediate
sampling area, such as in the case of fishing sampling. Secondary and tertiary
parameters are evaluated over a larger stream area, primarily in an upstream direction
where conditions will have the greatest impact on the community being studied. The
actual habitat assessment process involves rating the nine parameters as excellent, good,
fair, or poor based on the criteria included on the Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
in Table 2.3.
A total score is obtained for each biological station and compared to a sitespecific control or regional reference station. The ratio between the score for the station
of interest and the score for the control or regional reference provides a percent
comparability measure for each station (Plafkin, J.L, et al., 1989). The station is then
classified on the basis of its similarity to expected conditions (as represented by the
control or reference station), and its apparent potential to support an acceptable level of
biological health.
Use of a percent comparability evaluation allows for regional and stream-size
differences which affect flow or velocity, substrate, and channel morphology. Some
regions are characterized by streams having a low channel gradient. Such streams are
typically shallower, have a greater pool/riffle or run/bend ratio, and less stable substrate
than streams with a steep channel gradient. Although some low gradient streams do not
provide the diversity of habitat or fauna afforded by steeper gradient streams, they are
characteristic of certain regions. Using the approach presented here, these streams may
be evaluated relative to other low gradient streams. Listed below is a general
explanation for each of the nine habitat parameters to be evaluated (Plafkin, J.L, et al.,
1989).
15
Table 2.3: Habitat assessment field data sheet (Plafkin, J.L. et al., 1989)
Habitat
Parameter
Bottom
substrate
available cover
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Greater than 50%
rubble,
gravel,
submerged
logs,
undercut banks, or
other stable habitat
(16-20)
30-50% rubble,
gravel or other
stable habitat.
Adequate habitat
(11-15)
Less than 10%
rubble gravel or
other stable habitat.
Lack of habitat is
obvious.(0-5)
Embeddedness
Gravel, cobble, and
boulder particles are
between 0 and 25%
surrounded by fine
sediment(16-20)
≤ 0.15 cms
Or
Cold >0.05 cms
Warm > 0.15cms
Gravel, cobble,
and
boulder
particles
are
between 25 and
50% surrounded
by
fine
sediment(11-15)
0.03-0.05 cms
0.05-0.15
cms
(11-15)
10-30% rubble,
gravel or other
stable
habitat.
Habitat
availability less
than desirable (610)
Gravel, cobble,
and
boulder
particles
are
between 50 and
75% surrounded
by
fine
sediment(6-10)
0.01-0.03 cms
0.03-0.05 cms
≥0.15 cms
Velocity/depth
Slow (< 0.3 m/s),
deep (>0.5m); slow,
shallow (<0.5m); fast
(0.3 m/s), deep; fast,
shallow habitats all
present(16-20)
Only 2 of 4
habitat categories
present (missing
riffles/
runs
receive
lower
score)(6-10)
Dominated by one
velocity/depth
category (usually
pool)(0-5)
Channel
alteration
Little
or
no
enlargement
of
islands or point bars,
and/or
no
channelisation(12-15)
Moderate
deposition of new
gravel,
coarse
sand on old and
new bars; pools
partially
filled
with silt; and/or
embankments on
both banks(4-7)
30-50% affected.
Deposits
and
scour
at
obstructions,
constrictions and
bends.
Some
filling of pools(47)
Heavy deposits of
fine
material,
increased
bar
development; most
pools filled with
silt;
and/or
extensive
channelisation(0-3)
Bottom
Scouring
deposition
and
Less than 5% of the
bottom affected by
scouring
and
deposition(12-15)
Only 3 of the 4
habitat categories
present (missing
riffles or runs
receive
lower
score
than
missing
pools)(11-15)
Some
new
increase in bar
formation, mostly
from
coarse
gravel;
and/or
some
channelisation
present(8-11)
5-30% affected.
Scour
at
constrictions and
where
grades
steepen.
Some
deposition
in
pools(8-11)
Gravel, cobble, and
boulder
particles
are
over
75%
surrounded by fine
sediment(0-5)
<0.01 cms
<0.03 cms (0-5)
More than 50% of
the
bottom
changing
nearly
year long. Pools
almost absent due
to deposition. Only
large rocks in riffle
exposed,(0-3)
16
2.3.1 Primary Parameters – Substrate and Instream Cover
The primary instream habitat characteristics directly pertinent to the support of
aquatic communities consist of substrate type and stability, availability of refuge, and
migration/ passage potential. These primary habitat parameters are weighted the highest
to reflect their degree of importance to biological communities.
2.3.1.1 Bottom Substrate
This refers to the availability of habitat for support of aquatic organisms. A
variety of substrate materials and habitat types is desirable. The presence of rock and
gravel in flowing streams is generally considered the most desirable habitat. However,
other forms of habitat may provide the niches required for community support. For
example, logs, tree roots, submerged or emergent vegetation, and undercut bank, will
provide excellent habitat for a variety of organisms, and particularly fish. Bottom
substrate is evaluated and rated by observation (Plafkin, J.L. et al., 1989).
Figure 2.2: Bottom substrate
17
2.3.1.2 Embeddedness
The degree to which boulders, rubble, or gravel are surrounded by fine sediment
indicates suitability of the stream substrate as habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates and
for fish spawning and egg incubation plus enabled deeper scour for better pool
development (Plafkin, J.L. et al., 1989). This phenomenon also allowed for greater
retention of water to potentially moderate the effects of seasonal low flows, and helped
reduce the flashy nature of stream discharge under certain circumstances.
Embeddedness is evaluated by visual observation of the degree to which larger particles
are surrounded by sediment.
Figure 2.3: Embeddedness (Mc Culloch, M.P., 2005)
2.3.1.3 Stream Flow and/or Stream Velocity
A river's current is defined as the downstream movement of water. It determines
the extent of erosion of the river channel, the degree of particle deposition and the
nature of sediments and benthic organisms. Figure 2.4 shows an example of current
velocity patterns in a river. The current velocity is complex since the movement of
18
water is not homogenous throughout the channel (Plafkin, J.L. et al., 1989). This is a
result of varying degrees of friction exerted upon the water when it flows across its
channel bed, when it carries materials, or between the surface of the water and the
atmosphere. The velocity is highest near the middle of the river just below the surface
and lowest close to the banks and bottom. Figure 2.5 illustrates cross-section of a river
showing the general pattern of current velocity.
Figure 2.4: Example of current velocity patterns in a river.
(Wikipedia, 2009)
Figure 2.5: Cross-section of a river showing the general
pattern of current velocity. (Wikipedia, 2009)
Stream flow relates to the ability of a stream to provide and maintain a stable
aquatic environment. Stream flow (water quantity) is most critical to the support of
19
aquatic communities when the representative low flow is ≤ 0.15 cm/s. In these small
streams, flow should be estimated in a straight stretch of run area where banks are
parallel and bottom contour is relatively flat. Even where a few stations may have flows
in excess of 0.15 cm/s, flow may still be the predominating constraint. Therefore, the
evaluation is based on flow rather than velocity. In larger stream and rivers (> 0.15
cm/s), velocity, in conjunction with depth, has a more direct influence than flow on the
structure of benthic communities and fish communities. The quality of the aquatic
habitat can therefore be evaluated in terms of a velocity and depth relationship. Four
general categories of velocity and depth are optimal for benthic and fish communities
are as follow and habitat quality is reduced in the absence of one or more of these four
categories (Plafkin, J.L. et al., 1989):
i.
Slow (<0.3 m/s), shallow (<0.5 m)
ii.
Slow (<0.3 m/s), deep (>0.5 m)
iii.
Fast (>0.3 m/s), deep (>0.5 m) and
iv.
Fast (>0.3 m/s), shallow (<0.5 m).
2.3.1.4 Types of Flow
There are two principal types of flow in lotic systems. Laminar flow is much
less common and occurs only in water that is moving very slowly. It is a smooth flow
with all the water molecules moving parallel to each other at the same speed and with
no mixing between them (Wikipedia, 2009). Turbulent flow is much more common and
arises as the velocity of the water increases. It is characterized by irregular, random
motion, which occurs when the water molecules move in different directions and at
different velocities from the average of the flow. It is an erratic and mixing progression
of water, transferring frictional forces throughout the fluid and redistributing suspended
particles. Turbulence explains why streams do not achieve greater velocity down a
channel of even gradient, since it counteracts the accelerating forces. Channel
20
roughness also induces turbulence and therefore reduces acceleration. Many small
organisms depend on thin layers of laminar flow near the channel bed or over stones to
avoid turbulence.
2.3.1.5 Discharge
A river's discharge is defined as the volume of water passing through the crosssectional area of the channel per unit time. It is a product of channel width, depth and
velocity of water (any of which can vary). The total discharge can be separated into
components based on the source of the water (i.e., overland flow, channel precipitation,
through flow, groundwater flow) (Wikipedia, 2009). Discharge can be depicted using a
hydrograph, which is simply a plot of discharge vs. time as shown in Figure 2.6.
Rainfall and air temperature affect discharge causing it to vary significantly with the
seasons. Discharge is cumulative down a watershed and is accordingly affected by the
shape of the drainage basin.
21
Figure 2.6: A hydrograph that plotted discharge vs. time
(Wikipedia, 2009)
2.3.2 Secondary Parameters – Channel Morphology
Channel Morphology is determined by the flow regime of the stream, local
geology, land surface form, soil, and human activities. The sediment movement along
the channel, as influenced by the tractive forces of flowing water and the sinuosity of
the channel, also affects habitat conditions.
2.3.2.1 Channel Alteration
The character of sediment deposits from upstream is an indication of the severity
of watershed and bank erosion and stability of the stream system. The growth or
appearance of sediment bars tends to increase in depth and length with continued
watershed disturbance. Channel alteration also results in deposition, which may occur
on the inside of bends, below channel constrictions, and where stream gradient flattens
out. Channelisation (e.g. straightening, construction of concrete embankments)
decreases stream sinuosity thereby increasing stream velocity and the potential for
scouring (Plafkin, J.L. et al., 1989).
22
2.3.2.2 Bottom Scouring and Deposition
These parameters relate to the destruction of instream habitat resulting from the
problems described above. Characteristics to observe are scoured substrate and degree
of siltation in pools and riffles. Scouring results from high velocity flows. The potential
for scouring is increased by channelisation (Plafkin, J.L. et al., 1989). Deposition and
scouring result from the transport of sediment or other particulates and may be an
indication of large scale watershed erosion. Deposition and scouring is rated by
estimating the percentage of an evaluated reach that is scoured or silted (i.e., 50 feet
silted in a 100 feet stream length equals 50 percent).
2.3.2.3 Pool/riffle or Run/Bend Ratio
A stream pool, in hydrology, is a stretch of a river or creek in which the water
depth is above average and the stream velocity is quite low. Such pools can be
important for juvenile fish habitat, especially where many stream reaches attain high
summer temperatures and very low flow dry season characteristics. A stream pool may
be bedded in sediment or armoured with gravels; in some cases the pool formations may
have been formed as basins in bedrock materials. This portion of a stream often
provides specialized aquatic habitat for organisms that have difficulty feeding or
navigating in swifter reaches of the stream (Plafkin, J.L. et al., 1989).
Besides that, a riffle (also known as a swift) is a shallow stretch of a river or
stream, where the current is below the average stream velocity and where the water
forms small rippled waves as a result. It often consists of a rocky bed of gravels or other
small stones. This portion of a stream is often an important habitat for small aquatic
invertebrates and juvenile fishes. Pools and riffles are always altered in a stream as
shown in Figure 2.7 (Wikipedia, 2009).
23
Pool
Riffle
Figure 2.7: Alteration of pools and riffles in a river
(http://www.filter.ac.uk)
In self-reformed pool-riffle channels, riffles are formed by the deposition of
gravel bars in a characteristic alteration from one side of the channel to the other, at a
distance of approximately 5-7 channel widths. Pool-riffle sequences are the result of
particle sorting and require a range of sediment sizes to develop. At low flows, riffles
have a high slope, tend to be shallow relative to pools, and have higher velocities. At
high flows the water surface slope becomes more uniform between riffles and pools,
although pools remain deeper, and velocities increase more in pools than in riffles. This
results in changes in the distribution of forces on the streambed. At flood stage, when
flows are high enough to mobilize the bed, riffles are the locations of lowest transport
capacity and thus the locations of gravel deposition.
These parameters assume that a stream with riffles or bends provides more
diverse habitat than a straight (run) or uniform depth stream. Bends are included
because low gradient streams may not have riffles areas, but excellent habitat can be
provided by the cutting action of water at bends. The ratio is calculated by dividing the
average distance between riffles or bends by the average stream width. If a stream
contains riffles and bends, the dominant feature with the best habitat should be used.
24
Aquatic habitat composition would have likely consisted of a greater percentage
of pool habitats that were larger and deeper than the in frequent, small, and shallow
pools typically present today. Much of this pool habitat would have been formed and
maintained by complexes of large woody debris that consisted of larger, more stable
forms than streams possess today. The high quality pools with complex woody debris
features would have served as excellent trout rearing habitat as well as cover and refuge
for all aquatic inhabitants during periods of potential distress (e.g. flooding and low
flow conditions). In addition, wood debris complexes would have provided excellent
substrate for aquatic macro-invertebrates and other organisms that would bolster aquatic
food webs.
Rivers differ among themselves and through time. An individual river can vary
significantly downstream, changing its dimensions and pattern dramatically over a short
distance. River differs in three different ways (Schumm, S.A, 2005):
i.
There is a spectrum of river types that is dependent upon hydrology,
sediment loads, and geologic history;
ii.
River change naturally through time as a result of climate and hydrologic
change;
iii.
There can be considerable variability of channel morphology along any
one river, as a result of geologic and geomorphic controls.
2.3.3
Tertiary Parameters – Riparian and Bank Structure
Well-vegetated banks are usually stable regardless of bank undercutting;
undercutting actually provides excellent cover for fish. The ability of vegetation and
other materials on the streambanks to prevent or inhibit erosion is an important
determinant of the stability of the stream channel and instream habitat for indigenous
25
organisms (Plafkin, J.L. et al., 1989). Because riparian and bank structure indirectly
affect the instream habitat features, they are weighted less than the primary or
secondary parameters.
Tertiary parameters are evaluated by observation of both upper and lower bank
characteristics. The upper bank is the land area from the break in the general slope of
the surrounding land to the normal high water line. The upper bank is normally
vegetated and covered by water only during extreme high water conditions. Land forms
vary from wide, flat floodplains to narrow, steep slopes. The lower bank is the
intermittently submerged portion of the stream cross section from the normal high water
line to the lower water line. The lower channel defines the stream width.
2.3.3.1 Bank Stability
Bank stability is rated by observing existing or potential detachment of soil from
the upper and lower stream bank and its potential movement into the stream. Steeper
banks are generally more subject to erosion and failure as shown in Figure 2.8 and may
not support stable vegetation. Streams with poor banks will often have poor instream
habitat. Adjustments should be made in areas with clay banks where steep, raw areas
may not be as susceptible to erosion as other soil types (Plafkin, J.L. et al., 1989).
26
Figure 2.8: Steeper bank may not support stable vegetation
(http://www.streamkeeper.org)
2.3.3.2 Bank Vegetative Stability
Bank soil is generally held in place by plant root systems. Erosion protection
may also be provided by boulder, cobble, or gravel material (Plafkin, J.L. et al., 1989).
An estimate of the density of bank vegetation (or proportion of boulder, cobble, or
gravel material) covering the bank provides an indication of bank stability and potential
instream sedimentation.
2.3.3.3 Streamside Cover
Streamside cover vegetation is evaluated in terms of provision of stream –
shading and escape cover or refuge for fish. A rating is obtained by visually
determining the dominant vegetation type covering the exposed stream bottom, bank,
and top of bank (Plafkin, J.L. et al., 1989). Streamside cover consisting primarily of
shrub had a higher fish standing crop than similar-size streams having tree or grass
streamside cover. Figure 2.9 shows a stream with grass as streamside cover.
27
Figure 2.9: Grass as streamside cover
(http://www.cfiglobal.com)
2.4
Characteristics of Aquatic Habitat
The issues surrounding aquatic habitats and the life they support are very broad.
Urban aquatic habitats are defined here as natural or constructed freshwater bodies,
defined by their physical features (Lafont, M. et al., 2008).
Habitats, defining physical boundaries of aquatic ecosystems, create conditions
for the development and functioning of their biotic component, aquatic life. Freshwater
aquatic life includes all species of plant, animals, and micro-organisms that, at some
stage of their lifecycles, must live in freshwater. Among the various forms of aquatic
life, much of the discussion focuses on fish, benthic invertebrates and phytoplankton
and to some extent, on vascular flora typically found in riparian ecotones of freshwater
bodies.
28
The main aquatic habitat characteristics fall into five groups: flow regime,
physical habitat structure, chemical variables (water quality), energy (food) sources and
biotic interactions.
Chemical
variables
Flow
Regime
Habitat
structure
Biological
Community
performance
Energy
sources
Biotic
interactions
Figure 2.10: Aquatic habitat characteristics (Lafont, M. et al., 2008)
The assessment of the physical quality of habitats is based on the quality and
degree of change of the above factors shown in Figure 2.10 usually in comparison to
reference (natural/un-impacted) conditions. It should be understood that any
modification of the physical characteristics of a habitat is followed by changes in the
aquatic biota’s structure and performance
2.4.1
Flow Regime
Although the characterization of flow regimes into regionally distinct groups
may continue to be refined, the concept that each individual river has a natural flow
29
regime upon which its ecological integrity depends has become firmly established. The
magnitude of flow is the volume of water moving past a point per unit time. Frequency
is a measure of how often a flow of a given magnitude occurs, and is inversely related
to magnitude. Duration, timing (predictability) and rate of change all describe temporal
aspects of flow events. Climate, vegetation, geology, and terrain determine the natural
of flow regime. Human alter flow regimes by changing flow pathways and response
times, and even by altering climate (Allan, J.D. and Castillo, M.M., 2008).
There is a general agreement that flow regime controls, to a great extent, affects
the development of the physical habitat structure in non-channelized rivers, with respect
to both macro and micro habitat features, while creating variables condition for the
associated aquatic life (Lafont, M. et al., 2008). Analysis of flow regimes should focus
on the aspects that are most important for creating and maintaining the habitat’s
physical structure an supporting the requirement of aquatic organisms during various
life stages. High flow are important for stream geomorphology, bed erosion and
sediment transport; affect fish migration; and create periodical connectivity between the
river and its floodplains, thereby providing additional spawning grounds for biota and
juvenile rearing. Low flows usually have a greater impact on water quality, for example
by lowering dissolved oxygen (DO), increasing temperature or increasing
concentrations of many pollutants. Moreover, in the case of long-lasting and deep
droughts, low flows may also set limits on the proper functioning of the ecological
processes
in
river
ecosystems.
Urbanization greatly affects the hydrological cycle and by extension the flow
regime as well. Such changes more frequent and higher flows, increased duration of
geomorphically significant flows, flashier/less predictable flows, altered timing and rate
of change relative to riparian and floodplain connections, altered duration of low-flow
periods, and conversion of subsurface distributed discharge( interflow) to surface point
discharges (Allan, J.D. and Castillo, M.M., 2008).
30
The management of urban habitats usually implies high levels of flow control,
particularly intermediate and large-scale flood flows, and river channelisation. This
limits the regime causes changes in the sediment transport and stream morphology. The
isolation of surface water bodies from groundwater and floodplains reduces water
storage capacity and results in dramatic changes of discharges patterns. This increases
freshwater ecosystems’ susceptibility to droughts, and short and extremely high peak
flows impact their stability. Frequently, magnitude and irregularity of events change
environmental templates, creating conditions unsuitable for the inhabiting organisms.
Intended or unintended modifications of flow regime should be examined for key
features of the creation and maintenance of the habitat’s physical structure, supporting
the requirements of aquatic organisms during various life stages.
2.4.2
Physical Habitat Structure
The physical habitat structure in water bodies is important for the structure and
functioning of aquatic communities. The physical habitat structure in water bodies
inhabited
by
aquatic
organisms
results
from
interactions
between
natural
geomorphology, flow and waves, sediments entering the water body, and riparian
vegetation, and is characterized by macro and micro features. Macro-habitats, also
referred to as hydraulic biotopes are classified into fast and slow water micro habitats;
the former containing features such as low-gradient stream sections or riffles, and high
gradient sections with rapids, cascades, falls, steps or chutes, and the latter including
pools, straight scours, backwater eddies, plunge pools, and dammed or abandoned
channels. Micro habitats are usually described by substrate type, cover, depth, hydraulic
complexity and current velocity. Substrate is generally classified according to the
particle size, ranging from silt and clay (< 0.059 mm), to sand (0.01 to 1 mm), gravel ( 2
to 5 mm), pebble ( 16 to 63 mm), cobble ( 64 to 256 mm) and boulders (>256mm).
Besides the substrate size, embeddedness is also important and ranges from negligible
(less than 5 percent of gravel, pebble, cobble and boulder surfaces are covered by fine
31
sediment, grain size < 2 mm) to very high, when more than 75 percent of the surface is
covered by fine sediment, which is typical for urban waters. Other important habitat
features include the following:
i.
Cover and refuge, provided by boulders, large wooden debris, aquatic
vegetation, water turbulence and depth. Such features can provide shelter for
fish from predators and physical conditions like fast currents and sunlight
ii.
Stream-bank and shore conditions, which provide a transition between
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Stream-banks in good condition provide
cover and refuge for fish. Both natural and anthropogenic impacts may
reduce bank vegetation, erosion resistance, structural stability and eventually
fish cover value
iii.
Barriers obstructing fish life cycles (e.g., migration), flow, sediment
transport and thermal regime. The degree of disruption depends on the
structure height; in urban areas, low to intermediate barriers (1 to 10 cm) can
be expected in the form of dams forming reservoirs.
Heterogeneous physical habitat structure is essential for supporting biodiversity.
Complex and varied physical habitats contribute to good performance of fish and
benthic communities, and provide habitats for water vegetation, while their
simplification reduces biological community performance. Straightening banks and
enlarging or flattening river bottoms lead to shallow waters, low concentration of
dissolved oxygen, elevated water temperature and a lack of shadow and shelter during
low flow season. Forced linear flow of water unifies physical conditions within a river
and thus diminishes the ecosystem’s hydrological heterogeneity.
32
2.4.3
Biotic Interations
Biotics interactions include such processes as competition, predation, parasitism,
feeding, reproduction and disease. Whenever the natural balance of such processes is
disturbed, the biological integrity of the ecosystem is also affected. Habitat
simplification significantly limits food sources for the aquatic biota, possibly causing
the strength of biotic interactions and the trophic structure of assemblages to undergo
irreversible degradation (Lafont, M., 2008). Changes in primary and secondary
productions, the disruption of life cycle of native organisms or the introduction of alien
species may further impact biological interactions by changing the relationship between
predator and prey other competitive interactions and increasing the frequency of
disease.
2.4.4 Food (Energy) Sources
To meet organism growth and reproduction requirements, an adequate supply of
energy is required (Lafont, M., 2008). Thus, physical, chemical and biological
processes in the water body and the riparian ecotone must be adequate to produce food
resources corresponding to the natural range of abundance. Such requirements are
generally poorly understood and often replaced by surrogate requirements of
maintaining a corresponding level of primary production and the appropriate riparian
vegetation.
2.4.5
Chemical Variables (Water Quality)
Good water quality is an important requirement for habitat integrity. The list of
constituents generally includes water temperature, turbidity (suspended solids),
33
dissolved gases (e.g oxygen), nutrients, heavy metals, selected inorganic and organic
chemicals, and pH (Lafont, M., 2008).
Both inorganic and organic solids occur in urban water in high concentrations,
contribute to high turbidity and cause many adverse impacts on habitats. Inorganic
solids come from streambed erosion, which undercuts stream banks, causes the loss of
riparian vegetation and sweeps away habitats. Eroded materials may be transported to
other stream reaches, ponds, lakes and wetlands, with direct and indirect impacts,
including interference with photosynthesis, changes in algal productivity, the physical
abrasion of fish gills and other sensitive tissues, the blanketing of gravel spawning
substrates, the burial of benthic organisms, and influxes of adsorbed pollutants (Lafont,
M., 2008).
2.5
Bioassessment
Bioassessment methods directly measure a biotic characteristic of the health of a
stream. Bioassessment methods have also been applied to measuring the health of
estuaries. Alteration of stream habitat, hydrology or water quality can produce a range
of effects on aquatic organisms:
i.
Changes in the 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
34
The methods of bioassessment measure these effects using a wide range of
biotic parameters, or bioindicators, although benthic macroinvertebrates are the most
popular choice.
2.5.1
Macrophytes
Macrophytes are aquatic plants, growing in or near water that are emergent,
submerging or floating. These plants provide cover for fish and habitat for aquatic
invertebrates. Reduced numbers of fish and waterbirds can be expected in systems
where macrophytes have been lost (Plafkin, J.L, et al., 1989). Absence or degradation
of macrophytes may indicate high levels of turbidity, salt or toxic substances, while
prolific macrophyte growth can result from high nutrients levels. Advantages of
macrophytes as bioindicators are their ease of sampling, the possibility of mapping at
broad spatial scales using remote sensing and no requirement for laboratory analysis.
2.5.2
Riparian Vegetation
Riparian systems have an intimate connection with in-stream systems and
appear to be sensitive indicators of environmental change. The riparian zone is the link
between terrestrial aquatic systems argued that this zone is now well integrated into
conceptual models of stream ecosystem functioning. It also takes into account
differences in the geomorphology of the river from its headwaters to the lower reaches
(Plafkin, J.L, et al., 1989).
35
2.6
Freshwater Habitats
Important freshwater habitats in the country are the highland forests and
wetlands (both forested wetlands and water bodies such as rivers, lakes and
lagoon). Forests in the highlands, often referred to as natural ‘water towers’ because of
their water catchments function, provide continuous clean supply of water. They are the
source for most of the country’s water resources (Stoker, D.G., 1972). Wetlands provide
a range of natural ecological and hydrological functions therefore they have important
roles in water supply, water purification and flood control. In addition to the functions
that relate directly to providing freshwater resource, both the highland forests and
wetlands also contribute many socio-economic benefits in terms of the goods and
services (such as forestry and fisheries resources) and they are also critical biodiversity
conservation as they provide refuge for many species of plants and animals (WWF,
2007).
2.6.1
Protection of Freshwater Habitats
Forest areas within the Permanent Reserve Forest (PRF) particularly those in the
highlands that have been identified as critical for ensuring continuous source of water
are categorised as protection forests. Water catchment forest constitutes one of the ten
classifications under the protection forest category. Designation of forest as catchment
forest helps safeguard the quality as well as availability of water and rivers in PRF.
A number of state governments have taken steps to gazette their PRF as water
catchment forest. For example, as of 2004, the Pahang state government has gazetted a
total of 287,077 ha of its forest reserve as water catchment area while the state
governments of Negeri Sembilan and Selangor have approved the gazettement of
43,678 ha and 51,020 ha of their PRF as catchment forests respectively. The other states
in Peninsular Malaysia are in the process of gazetting the identified areas within their
36
PRF as water catchment forest. Overall, about 18.8% (i.e. 880,538 ha) of the total PRF
is identified as water catchment forest (WWF, 2007).
2.6.2
Importance of Conserving Freshwater Habitats
Conserving the freshwater habitats ensures their vital hydrological and
ecological functions are safeguarded for the economic and social benefits of the
population. If priority is not given to conserve these habitats, there will be adverse
consequences to our health, prosperity and well-being (WWF, 2007).
2.7
Effect of Land Use on Stream Flow
Human alteration of land use can have major effects on streamflow by altering
evapotranspiration and runoff, and by altering runoff pathways. In extreme
circumtances land-use change can even alter precipitation, as when deforestation
reduces evapotranspiration over alarge area, thus lowering atmospheric moisture.
Owing to their extensive canopy coverage and deeper roots relative to the majority of
shorter vegetation, interception and transpiration of water by forests is near maximal.
Thus deforestation usually increases streamflow, especially dry-season flow. Where
agriculture replaces forest with crops, it tends to increase average flow, dry-season
flow, and peak flows for smaller floods but has little effect on larger floods.
Development of drainage systems, such as tiles beneath the soil surface and channel
deepening and straightening for flow conveyance, have the further effects of speeding
subsurface flows and downstream routing of a rain events (Lafont, M. et al., 2008).
Conversion of wetlands into agricultural usage may also contribute to river flooding,
since wetlands naturally are locations of surface storage and frequently of groundwater
recharge as well.
37
Urbanisation can have a very strong influence on streamflows. Replacement of
vegetation with pavement and buildings reduces transpiration and infiltration, and these
impervious surfaces substantially increase the amount of runoff that travels by rapid
overland flow. Storm sewers and roadways transport water quickly, and so may require
the construction of retention ponds in an effort to retard the flood peak. Runoff
approximately doubles when impervious surface area is 10-20% of catchments area and
triples at 35-50% impervious surface area. Flood peaks increase, time to peak shortens,
and the peak becomes narrower. Because a greater fraction of the water is exported as
runoff, less recharge of groundwater occurs, and so base flows are reduced as well
(Allan, J.D. and Castillo, M.M., 2008).
Urban populations cause large demands on life-support resources and services,
including water. The provision of life necessities is becoming a major challenge in all
parts of the world (Lafont, M. et al., 2008). It is well organized that many resources can
be provided by sustainable aquatics habitats, which have the potential to produce and
sustain a range of ecosystem services of great importance for economic development
and human welfare. These include renewable supplies of fresh water, waste treatment
by self-purification in receiving waters, land irrigation, local climate regulation, the
buffering of some climate change impacts, educational and recreational services,
biodiversity maintenance, and the provision of food, fuel and fiber. However, a broad
range of direct and underlying effects of increasing urban pressures may threaten the
ability of aquatic habitats to provide such support.
2.8
Fish
Fish are popular bioindicators because they are known to be sensitive to water
quality, they are known to have characteristic habitat preferences, are relatively easy to
sample and identify in the field, and they tend to integrate effects of lower trophic
levels; thus, fish assemblage structure is reflective of integrated environmental health.
38
As they have a relatively large range, fish are best suited to assessing macrohabitat and
regional differences (Wikipedia, 2009). They are long-lived, so fish can integrate the
effects of long-term changes in stream health. Fish populations and communities can
respond actively to changes in water quality, but are also strongly influenced by
changes in hydrology and physical habitat structure. Additionally, fish are highly visible
and much valued by the wider community, so fish monitoring usually has strong
community approval and interest.
2.8.1
Family Cyprinidae
This family, with the most frequently used common names is minnows or carp;
comprises of highly variable genera and species. Morphologically, the abdomens of
cyprinids are usually rounded, protractile jaws, scaly body with head naked, short-based
anal fin, barbells often present but large, the upper jaw is formed of premaxillae only,
and the mouth are toothless but from one to three rows of teeth are present in the
inferior pharyngeal bones. Various members of this family are important in biological
research, while Malaysian cyprinids are very beautifully coloured, thus are important as
aquarium fishes (Mohsin and Ambak, 1983).
Some species, such as Sebarau (Hampala macrolepidota), jelawat (Leptobarbus
hoevenii), Lampam jawa (Puntius gonionotus) and Kelah (Tortambroides) are very
good food fish. Since they are abundant in all types of waters, this family is considered
with economic significance. Moreover, they are very important in food chain of all the
predacious fishes. The spawning habits vary among the species. Some make nests under
stones, loges and other heavy objects, with male’s guarding the eggs, whilst others may
bury the eggs under the gravel and leave them without care (Mohsin and Ambak, 1983).
Sebarau, for example, spawn in the upstreams of rivers, and has been seen by tourists to
climbing the rapids to go to its breeding ground. Figure 2.11 shows some of the species
within this family, with their local and common names.
39
Scientific Name: Osteochilus hasselti
Local Name: Terbul
Common Name: Hasselt’s Bony Lip
Barb
Scientific Name: Labiobarbus cuvieri
Local Name: Kawan
Common Name: Signal Barb
Figure 2.11: Fishes of Cyprinidae family
2.8.2
Family Siluridae
The members of the siluridae family, which are also known as sheatfishes,
exhibit features such as elongated, scales and compressed body, remote nostrils from
each other and have 2-4 pairs of barbells. The dorsals fin is very short and spineless,
and usually with fewer than seven rays or may be absent (Mohsin and Ambak, 1983).
The Malaysian Siluridae may be easily recognized by the presence of a pair of
well-developed maxillary barbells and a pair of
feebly- developed mandibulary
barbells, very small and spineless dorsal fin, absence of adipose fin and an extremely
long anal fin. The size ranges from 30-60cm of average length, but it may reach a length
of more than 150cm, especially for Tapah (Wallago attu) (Mohsin and Ambak, 1983).
Tapah and Lais (Krytopteris bicirrhis) are some of the species that are very tasty food
40
fish and are highly priced. However, most of the species are carnivorous, and they feed
on small fishes, frogs and crustaceans. These fishes live in mid to deep waters (Mohsin
and Ambak, 1983). Figure 2.12 shows some of the species within this family, with their
local names.
Scientific Name: Krytopteris bicirrhis
Local Name: Lais
Common Name: Glass Catfish
Figure 2.12: Fishes of Siluridae family
2.9
Biological Monitoring
Biological communities reflect watershed conditions since they are sensitive to
changes in a wide array of environmental factors. Many groups of organisms have been
proposed as indicators of environmental quality, but no single group has emerged as the
favorite of most biologists (Stoker, D.G. 1972). However, fishes are common as
bioassay organisms but they have rarely been used in comprehensive monitoring. Fishes
have numerous advantages as indicator organisms for biological monitoring programs.
These advantages include (James R. Karr, 1981):
i.
Life-history information is extensive for most fish species.
ii.
Fish communities generally include a range of species that represent a
41
variety
of
trophic
levels
(omnivores,
herbivores,
insectivores,
planktivores, piscivores) and include foods of both aquatic and terrestrial
origin. Their position at the top of the aquatic food web in relation to
diatoms and invertebrates also helps to provide an integrative view of the
watershed environment.
iii.
Fish are relatively easy to identify. Technicians require relatively
little training. Indeed, most samples can be sorted and identified at the
field site, with release of study organisms after processing.
iv.
The general public can relate to statements about conditions of the fish
community.
iv.
Both acute toxicity and stress effects (depressed growth and reproductive
success) can be evaluated. Careful examination of recruitment and
growth dynamics among years can help to pinpoint periods of unusual
stress.
vi.
Fish are typically present, even in the smallest streams and in all but the
most polluted waters.
A number of disadvantages of monitoring fish can also be cited. These include
the selective nature of sampling, fish mobility on seasonal time scales, and manpower
needs for field sampling. However, as training periods for fish identification are likely
to be shorter and the technology required is less sophisticated, therefore fishes are
chosen as resolution of monitoring and assessment programs (James R. Karr,1981).
Electrofishing is recommended for most fish field surveys because of its greater
applicability and efficiency. Advantages and disadvantages of using electrofishing are
presented below.
42
2.9.1
Advantages of Electrofishing
i.
Electrofishing allows greater atandardisation of catch per unit of effort.
ii.
Electrofishing requires less time and manpower than some sampling
methods (e.g. use of ichthyocides)
iii.
Electrofishing is less selective than seining( although it is selective towards
size and species)
iv.
If properly used, adverse effects on fish are minimized
v.
Electrofishing is appropriate in a variety of habitats
2.9.2
Disadvantages of Electrofishing
1) Sampling efficiency is affected by turbidity and conductivity.
2) Although less selective than seining, electrofishing increase with body size.
Species specific behavioral and anatomical differences also determine
vulnerability to electroshocking
3) Alactrofishing is a hazardous operation that can injure field personnel if proper
safety procedures are ignored (Plafkin, J.L, et al., 1989).
43
CHAPTER 3
STUDY AREA
3.1
Introduction
Three rivers that were studied in this report exhibit different degrees of
disturbances and physical conditions. The rivers, namely Sungai Dengar, Sungai Tui,
and Sungai Mengkibol are located in areas as described in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Locations and coordinates of study sites
River
Name
Location
Coordinate
Predominant Landuse
N 02° 04'39.1'' to
Sungai
Felda Hulu
02°04'25.3''
Dengar
Dengar, Kluang
E 103°30'38.4 to
Palm oil Plantation
103°30'47.5''
Sungai
Bukit Kepong,
Tui
Muar
N 02° 19' 30'' to 02° 22'20''
E 102° 49' 80'' to 102°
55'15''
Villages and
settlements
44
Table 3.1: Continued
N 01° 55' to 02° 06'
Sungai Mengkibol
Kluang Town
E 103° 18' to 103°
23'
3.2
Residential and
commercial area
Sungai Dengar in Felda Hulu Dengar, Kluang
Sungai Dengar is located in Kluang reserve forest with a length of 23 km (14
miles). The study area is as shown in Figure 3.5 with red line (in Felda Hulu Dengar
palm oil plantation).
Sungai Dengar
Figure 3.1: Location of study area (red box) in Sungai Dengar
Sungai Dengar originally flows from Gunung Belumut (1010m) waterfall; a
well- known waterfall for bath purposes by residents of Felda Hulu Dengar itself and
people in Kluang. Figure 3.2 shows Gunung Belumut scenery from Felda Hulu Dengar.
45
The study area is actually located in the middlestream of Sungai Dengar where the river
flows in palm oil plantation (Figure 3.3). Moving towards Sungai Kahang, this river is
also popular as fishing spot by residents of Felda Hulu Dengar.
Figure 3.2: Gunung Belumut scenery from Felda Hulu Dengar
Figure 3.3: Palm oil plantation surrounding study area
in Sungai Dengar
46
3.3
Sungai Tui in Bukit Kepong, Muar.
Located in the district of Muar, Sungai Tui distance is about 10 km from the
Bukit Kepong town. Bukit Kepong is situated near the towns of Lenga, Chaah, and
Labis. In a length of approximately 10 km and known as one of tributaries of Sungai
Muar, Sungai Tui (Figure 3.4) is about 1 km away from the old Bukit Kepong Police
Station (Figure 3.5), 10 km north from town of Lenga and 18 km south of Segamat.
Figure 3.4: The location of Sungai Tui and its sampling site
47
Figure 3.5: Old Bukit Kepong Police Station
Bukit Kepong area is common with flood phenomena and experienced an
extreme event in December 2006 until January 2007. As a result of the extreme events,
Sungai Tui experienced some physical changes, especially in the hydrographical
conditions. Therefore, as a restorative measure, the Department of Irrigation and
Drainage (DID) had deepened and widened the river channels at the downstream areas
(Hamzah and Mahamud, 2007 in Nurul Huda, 2008).
According to Pejabat Daerah Muar, the statistics for the population of Bukit
Kepong in 2007 in 9931 while the overall population for the district of Muar is
estimated as 318620 persons (Majlis Daerah Muar, 2008 in Nurul Huda, 2008). Most of
the residents in the town of Bukit Kepong are hawkers and shop owners, while the
villagers involve in agricultural activities such as in palm oil, rubber and vegetables
plots. Besides that, there are some fish and shrimp ponds within the catchments.
Whereas, the major landuses in Sungai Tui river basin are palm oil plantation, rubber
estate, vegetable plots and fruit farming, as well as village settlements.
48
The study was conducted at the middlestream reach of Sungai Tui, where the
landuse is mostly covered by palm oil plantations and secondary forests. No village or
settlement was observed in a 100 m radius from the study site. Contrary from the map,
it was observed that the smaller streams are dry; therefore the study site is categorized
as a second-order river.
3.4
Sungai Mengkibol in Kluang
Sungai Mengkibol (20 km in length) is a small river that flows northward
through the town of Kluang. Sungai Mengkibol receives flows from Sungai Melantai
before joining Sungai Semberong. The studied reach was located at the middle section
of the river, nearby the bus station as shown in Figure 3.6.
Figure 3.6: The location of Sungai Mengkibol and its sampling site.
49
Kluang town has a population of approximately 56000 residents, where the area
is largely occupied with residential areas (1437 ha), commercial buildings (100 ha), and
facilities, while in overall Kluang district is mainly covered with agricultural lands with
11500 ha in total (Majlis Perbandaran Kluang, 2004 in Nurul Huda, 2008). The
agricultural activities here consist mainly of palm oil plantations, rubber planting as
well as fruit plantations. From observations, about two-third of Kluang Town is covered
by impervious areas, which comprised of road pavement, building and storm drainage.
The river, which act as the main stormwater drainage for the town( as shown in
Figure 3.7) had experienced many flood events, which the most recent and worst was
during the abnormally high rainfall in 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 in Nurul Huda, 2008)). About 6 km stretch of the river,
starting from Taman Muhibah area until the downstream, has undergone major flood
mitigation works, such as dredging, channel widening, bank stabilizations and riparian
vegetations. The enhancement of the amenity and recreational sites has been recently
developed at some areas along the riverbank, especially at 700 m stretch along Jalan
Cantik, namely Sungai Mengkibol Riverine Park (Figure 3.8). The river is observed to
support some fish species such as Tilapia Hitam and Haruan, which are frequently
fished or captured by immigrants as source of food.
50
Figure 3.7: Sungai Mengkibol as the main stormwater drainage in
Kluang Town
Figure 3.8: Sungai Mengkibol Riverine Park
51
CHAPTER 4
METHODOLOGY
4.1
Introduction
This study is based on description and assessment of the biological and physical
characteristics at every three rivers. The process of evaluating each river status
involving physical characteristics; fish collection and habitat description, and water
quality parameters which is verified via Water Quality Index and Interim National
Water Quality Standard.
4.2
Fish Survey Work
Fish collection is carried out along each river using a battery-powered backpack
electro-fisher (as shown in Figure 4.1), while gill nets (Figure 4.2) is located at the
downstream of the study reach and in river with deep water where electrofishing cannot
be conducted at the area. Electro-fishing is conducted in a slow zig-zag pattern, against
the water flow as that is the perfect technique to capture fish that has been currented.
52
The fishes captured (Figure 4.3) were sorted and recorded according to its family and
species with reference of catalogues from Department of Fisheries.
Biosurvey works were carried out at Sungai Dengar on 18th January 2009 (Event
I) and 21st March 2009 (Event II). Meanwhile the fish sampling at Sungai Tui were
conducted three times; Event I and Event II were carried out in 2008 while Event III
was completed on 15th February 2009. Besides that, in Sungai Mengkibol, fish survey
works were carried out in three times too; Event I in early 2008, Event II in November
2008 while Event III on 20th March 2009.
Figure 4.1: Battery-powered backpack electro-fisher.
53
Figure 4.2: Gill net is located at downstream of study area and in
deep water area.
Figure 4.3: Fish collection after biosurvey work
54
4.3
Total Length
A measuring board made of perspex and a fixed meter scale (Figure 4.4) was
used to measure the total length of each individual samples. At the zero end of the scale,
a suitable stop is placed at 90o angle. The anterior end of the fish is placed against this
stop. The total length is recorded for comparison to the known maximum size of the
species. Total length is defined as the greatest length of a fish from the anterior most
projection of the head or upper lip to the longest caudal ray, with lobes squeezed
together. For prawns, the length is measured from the tip of its longest whiskers to the
caudal fin. The length is measured in centimeter (cm).
Figure 4.4: Total length measurement of a fish
4.4
Individual Weight
An electronic weight scale is used to weigh the individual mass of the fish. In
addition, the total number and weight for each batch and species was also determined to
represent the overall abundance in the specific river. The weight of fish, together with
55
its size distribution would indicate the fish life stages. The weight is measured in gram
(g).
Figure 4.5: Total weight measurement
4.5
Characterisation of River Habitats
Surveys of the physical attributes of the reaches were carried out at the same
segments as the fish survey. This field survey element consists of recognition and
identification of physical components that relates to the channel form and habitat. The
attributes of channel form consist of the river morphology and landuse or features at the
banktop (Figure 4.6). Habitat types generally can be divided into two categories;
instream habitat and channel units. Instream habitat basically consist of the physical
features or structures within the river channel and at the banksides, whereas channel
units are flow-dependant habitats (i.e habitats that are influenced by hydraulics regimes)
such as riffles, runs and pools. Habitat survey form was used to record the habitat
survey’s observation (Appendix A).
Mapping and photographs of the segments along the studied reaches are
essential as they aided the estimations of the distributions of the physical features.
56
Besides, maps of a reach can provide a useful store of information of stream
morphology and extent of various habitat types. Sketches of the river are as shown in
Appendices B, C, and D.
Figure 4.6: River bank vegetation is one of the characteristics
of river habitat
4.6
Measurement of Average River Velocity
Velocity measurement of the water flow is necessary, not only to get the
hydrological loading of the river but also to evaluate the importance of the streamflow
to the distribution of fish and habitat features. The measurement of the velocity was
conducted using floatation method.
Therefore the surface velocity (Vsurf) calculated for each section as
V surf =
L
t
57
Where L is measured reach length in metre(m) while t is travel time second(s).
4.7
Water Quality Assessment
Based on expectation of water quality have an effect on the fish species in a
river, water quality assessment of the rivers is necessary to be carried out to get the
general overview of the river conditions. The status of the rivers was determined
according to the Department of Environment (DOE) physico-chemical analysis, Water
Quality Index (WQI) and Interim National Water Quality Standard (INWQS).
Figure 4.7: River water sample is taken for laboratory test purposes.
58
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
5.1
Fish Species Composition
The fish assemblage structure and the abundance of individual fish species were
examined. A total of 15 species was recorded at Sungai Dengar based on fish survey
work that has been carried out on Event I and Event II. Meanwhile the sampling at
Sungai Tui documented 22 species based on three times fish survey work; Event I,
Event II and Event III. Other than that, in Sungai Mengkibol, 13 species were caught
based on three times of samplings.
5.1.1
Fish Species Assemblages in Sungai Dengar
Table 5.1 shows a total of four families and 15 species caught during the
sampling events. Both events come up to with the same total species which is 10
species. The dominant family observed in this study is Cyprinidae with 88% (Figure
5.1) composition. 12 species of cyprinids was observed while the other three families
59
(Palaemonidae, Hemiramphidae, Channidae) consisted of one species each. The main
cyprinids were Kawan and Seluang dua titik.
Table 5.1: Fish species composition caught in Event I and II in Sungai Dengar
Family
Species
Local Name
Event I
Event II
Cyprinidae
Labiobarbus cuvieri
Kawan
√
√
Labiobarbus festivus
Kawan
√
−
Osteochilus vittatus
Rong
√
√
Rasbora sumatrana
Seluang
√
√
Luciosoma trinema
Jejuang/nyenyuar
√
−
Temperas
√
−
Rasbora elegans
Seluang 2 titik
√
−
Osteochilus hasselti
Terbul
−
√
Chela anommalura
Lalang
−
√
Crossocheilus oblongus
Selimang siam
−
√
Daun
−
√
Puntius lateristriga
Baguh
√
−
Palaemonidae
Macrobrachium sp
Udang gantung
√
√
Hemiramphidae
Dermogenys pusillus
Julong
√
√
Channidae
Channa lucius
Bujuk
−
√
Total Species
10
10
Cyclocheilichthys
heteronema
Neolissochilus
hexagonolepis
Overall Total
Species
15
A total of 26 individuals were caught in Event I survey with a total weight of
202.4 grams as shown in Table 5.2. The species of Kawan was the most abundance,
with 10 individuals which represent 38% out of total fishes caught and followed by
Seluang Dua Titik with 15% as shown in Table 5.2. Meanwhile the lowest catch was
60
the species of Seluang, Temperas, Baguh and Julong, with only one specimen for each
species.
However, Event II recorded an increase in the number of fishes caught
compared to Event I by 50 individuals with total weight of 668 grams a shown in Table
5.2. For this event, the highest catch obtained was Udang gantung with 17 individuals
followed by Kawan, Seluang and Julong that recorded 10, 6, and 5 individuals
respectively. The lowest catch during Event II was Daun, Baguh, and Bujuk with one
specimen for each species. New species were obtained during Event II such as Bujuk,
Terbul, Lalang, Selimang Siam, and Daun. Cyprinids still the dominated family with
54% (Figure 5.2).
61
Table 5.2: Number of individuals, weight and percentage according to species caught in
Sungai Dengar
Local Name
Event I
No of
Weight
ind
(g)
Kawan
10
Kawan
Event II
No of
Weight
%
ind
(g)
%
45
38
10
220
20
3
14
11
−
−
0
Rong
1
20
4
2
40
4
Seluang
1
7
4
6
40
12
Jejuang/nyenyuar
2
30.4
8
−
−
0
Temperas
1
30
4
−
−
0
Seluang dua titik
4
36
15
−
−
0
Terbul
−
−
0
4
100
8
Lalang
−
−
0
3
20
6
Selimang siam
−
−
0
1
1
2
Daun
−
−
0
1
20
2
Baguh
1
5
4
−
−
0
Udang gantung
2
<1
8
17
20
34
Julong
1
15
4
5
3
10
Bujuk
−
−
0
1
240
2
Total
26
202.4
100
50
668
100
62
Figure 5.1: The fish families recorded during Event I of Sungai Dengar
Figure 5.2: The fish families recorded during Event II of Sungai Dengar
63
Based on the size range of fishes caught, as shown in Table 5.3, it is likely to
assume that the river is inhabited by yearlings and adults. Specimen of Bujuk with 28
cm in length in Event II shows that the specimen is an adult, which can grow to a
maximum size of 40 cm.
Table 5.3: Size range of specimens caught at Sungai Dengar
known Maximum
Local Name
Kawan
Kawan
Rong
Seluang
Jejuang/nyenyuar
Temperas
Seluang 2 titik
Terbul
Lalang
Selimang siam
Daun
Baguh
Size Range (cm)
size (cm)
Event I
Event II
7.5-11.7
12.4 - 14.5
−
−
−
11.2 - 14.5
−
5.1 - 13.2
13 - 14.7
−
10.4
−
8.2-10.3
−
−
14.7 - 11
−
11.7 - 13.7
−
6.9
−
−
12
18
11.4
25
25
30
13
26.5
25.5
−
30
22
15
−
64
Udang gantung
−
Julong
Bujuk
5.1.2
6.0-6.5
29.7
40
4.3 - 14.2
4.6 - 7.4
−
28
Fish Species Assemblages in Sungai Tui
Table 5.4 shows a total of 10 families and 22 species during the three sampling
events at the upstream of Sungai Tui. Based on Event I, 20 species were caught. The
dominant family observed in Event I, with 11 of overall caught species is the family of
Cyprinidae, followed by the families of Palaemonidae and Bagridae with 2 species
each. The other families of fishes that caught on Event I are Nandidae, Cobitidae,
Eleotridae, Mastacembelidae, and Channidae.
Meanwhile, for Event II only 16 species were caught. Only 8 species of
Cyprinids were recorded but still represent the dominant species in the river. The
Palaemonidae were the second dominant family in the river. However, none fishes
recorded from families of Nandidae and Eleotridae. Only one type of species recorded
in Bagridae family which is baung akar (Mystus nemurus). New families that existed in
the river have been recorded which were Siluridae and Osphronemidae. Siluridae
represented by Lais while Osphronemidae represented by Sepat Padi.
Other than that, in Event III with only 10 species from 5 families caught during
the event, Cyprinids still dominated the river with 6 species have been caught.
Palaemonidae still the second species that dominated the river. No new species caught
in this event. The other families that recorded in Event III were Nandidae, Channidae,
Palaemonidae, and Siluridae.
65
Table 5.4: Fish species composition caught in Event I, II and III in Sungai Tui
Event
Event
Event
I
II
III
Terbul
√
√
√
Rong
√
√
√
Family
Species
Local Name
Cyprinidae
Osteochilus hasselti
Osteochilus vittatus
Table 5.4: Continued
Chela
Lalang
√
√
√
Kawan
√
√
√
Nyenyuar
√
−
−
Selimang siam
√
−
−
macrolepidota
Sebarau
√
√
√
Cyclocheilichthy
s heteronema
Temperas
√
√
−
√
−
−
anommalura
Labiobarbus
cuvieri
Luciosoma
trinema
Crossocheilus
oblongus
Hampala
Cyclocheilichthy
s apogon
Nandidae
Temperas mata
merah
Rasbora
sumatrana
Seluang sumatra
√
√
√
Rasbora elegans
Seluang dua titik
√
√
−
Pristoplepis
fasciatus
Patung
√
−
√
66
Bagridae
Mystus nemurus
Mystus
negriceps
Baung akar
Baung akar
sengat
√
√
−
√
−
−
Cobitidae
Acanthopsis
choirorhyhchos
Lali
√
√
−
Eleotridae
Oxyeleotris
marmorata
Ketutu
√
−
−
mastacembelidae
Mastacembelus
armatus
Tilan
√
√
−
Channidae
Channa striatus
Haruan
√
√
√
Palaemonidae
Macrobrachium
resenbergii
Udang galah
√
√
√
√
√
−
Lais
−
√
√
Sepat padi
−
√
−
Total Species
20
16
10
Macrobrachium
Udang gantung
sp
Table 5.4: Continued
Siluridae
Osphronemidae
Krytopteris
bicirrhis
Trichogaster
trichopterus
Overall Total
Species
22
In Event I, the total number of fishes caught was 217 with 7054 grams. The
main family observed in this survey, with 81 % (Figure 5.3) of overall caught species
was still the family of Cyprinidae, followed by the families of Palamonidae and
Nandidae. The cyprinids were mainly represented by Terbul(68), Kawan(42), Rong(16)
and Seluang dua titik (16) as shown in Table 5.5.
Meanwhile, Event II shows the highest number of fishes caught compared to the
other two events. A total of 261 numbers of fishes with 4428.27 grams were recorded.
Although the number of fishes caught is the highest, but the weight of the fishes shows
the lowest weight among the three events. This statement is proven by Kawan species.
67
DuringEvent I, 42 individuals of Kawan were caught by the weight of 877 grams.
However, in Event II, 63 individuals of Kawan were caught but the weight recorded
only 514.5 grams. Tilan from family of Mastacembelidae also recorded the same
phenomenon. 6 grams of Tilan represents yearling compared to Event I where two
individuals of Tilan recorded 81 grams. Tilan in Event I were adults. Yearling Udang
galah also were recorded in Event II where 27 individuals of Udang Galah recorded
334.5 grams. In contrast, five Udang galah in Event I recorded 290 grams which can be
classified that the Udang galah that were caught were adults.
Other than that, Event III shows quite a large number of fishes that were caught.
253 fishes with 6122 grams were recorded in Event III. The highest numbers of fishes
recorded were Terbul and Seluang Sumatra with 94 and 70 individuals’ respectively.
Cyprinidae were recorded as the main family in the river in Event III with 86 % (Figure
5.5) of total fishes caught is cyprinids. Haruan recorded in this event were adults as the
weight (1370 grams for four individuals) shows the highest weight among other Haruan
in the two other events.
68
Table 5.5: Number of individuals, weight and percentage according to species caught in
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
Total
Event I
Event II
%
18
0.7
0.7
24
0
0
0.3
6.6
No
of
ind
94
9
2
43
−
−
1
−
Weight
(g)
2940
115
310
637
−
−
30
−
%
37
3
0.9
18
0
0
0.5
0
−
0
−
−
0
44
19
−
2
116.3
200
−
50
17
7
0
0.7
70
250
2
−
40
−
27
0
0.9
0
−
2
−
1
6
27
24
2
1
261
−
30
−
6
1230
334.5
57.47
170
6
4428.27
0
0.7
0
0.3
2
11
10
0.7
0.3
100
−
−
−
−
4
23
−
5
−
253
−
−
−
−
1370
170
−
260
−
6122
0
0
0
0
1.7
9
0
2
0
100
%
31
7
5
19
0.5
1.5
3
3
No
of
ind
48
2
2
63
−
−
1
17
Weight
(g)
1540
1
12.5
514.5
−
−
40
120
145
2
−
1
16
11
3
19
110
350
81
0.5
7
5
1.5
6
4
1
2
3
5
7
−
−
217
118
50
64
81
971
290
7
−
−
7054
3
3
0.5
1
1.5
2
3
0
0
100
No
of
ind
68
16
12
42
1
3
4
7
Weight
(g)
3131
243
195
877
35
29
161
97
5
Event III
69
Figure 5.3: The fish families recorded during Event I of Sungai Tui
Figure 5.4: The fish families recorded during Event II of Sungai Tui
70
Figure 5.5: The fish families recorded during Event III of Sungai Tui
Based on Table 5.6, In Event I, most of the fishes that have been caught were
adults. For example, Baung akar sengat that has go above known maximum size where
the range of size is 10.4 to 16.6 cm with the maximum known size is 15 cm. However,
in Event II, only few species that has reached adult size where the other species were
yearlings. For example, Tilan has the range of 22.5 to 40 cm which shows adults size
because the known maximum size of Tilan is 40 cm. Other than that, Event III recorded
a lot of adult size of fishes that have been caught. Haruan, Udang galah, Lais, and
Udang gantung recorded the adult size. Meanwhile, other species shows range of size of
juvenile.
71
Table 5.6: 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
5.1.3
Known
Maximum size
(cm)
Size Range (cm)
30
30
22
25
26.5
15
70
25.5
Event I
8-22.3
7-15.8
9.4-18.2
7.5-18.5
18.5-19.7
8.8-10.7
14.4-17.4
7.7-14.3
Event II
7.1-18
5.1-7.4
6.7-10.4
4-16.1
−
−
15.5
5.6-14.7
Event III
7.9 - 20.3
6.1 - 17
7.4 - 13.2
7.9 - 14.7
−
−
14
−
25.5
13
0
20
65
11.2-17.7
14
7.5-12.5
7.2-15.0
8.8-19.2
−
−
4.5-16.0
4.5-13.5
26.0-28.0
−
5.3 - 11.7
15
0
60
45
100
30
0
15
0
10.4-16.6
13.6-17.6
17.5
20.0-22.5
30-41.2
10.8-25
6.0-6.5
−
−
11.8-13.9
−
17
22.5-40
5.0-41.0
4.25-11.5
13.0-13.5
13.0-13.5
9
−
−
−
−
31.8 - 35.6
4.3 - 50.8
−
28.5 - 41
−
8.4 - 10.9
−
Fish Assemblages in Sungai Mengkibol
Table 5.7 shows a total of 8 families and 13 species including a crustacean
species was caught. Based on Event I, Cyprinidae and Poeciliidae are the main species
that have been caught with two species for each family. The other family recorded in
Event I were Channidae, Claridae, Cichlidae, Loricariidae, Parastacidae, and
Osphronemidae.
72
For Event II, Cyprinidae recorded the highest species during the fish sampling
work which are Terbul and Kawan. Families of Channidae, Claridae, and Loricariidae
recorded one species only in Event II. However, Event III recorded the the lowest
diversity of species compared to the other two events. Only one species recorded for
families of Cyprinidae, Cichlidae and Loricariidae. Two species were recorded in
Family Poeciliidae.
Table 5.7: Fish species composition caught in Event I, II and III in Sungai Mengkibol
Family
Species
Cyprinidae
Osteochilus hasselti
Rasbora sumatrana
Channidae
Claridae
Cichlidae
Poeciliidae
Loricariidae
Parastacidae
Osphronemidae
Labiobarbus cuvieri
Channa striatus
Clarias batrychus
Walking catfish
Oreochromis
mossambica
Poecilia reticulata
Poecilia phenops
Gambusia holbrooki
Hypostomus
plecostomus
Cherax
quadricairnatus
Trichogaster
trichopterus
Local/common
Event
Event
Event
Name
I
II
III
Terbul
√
√
−
−
−
√
√
√
√
−
√
√
−
√
−
−
−
−
Tilapia hitam
√
−
√
Gapi
Molly
Mosquito fish
Amoured
Catfish
Red claw
lobster
−
√
√
−
−
−
√
−
√
√
√
√
√
−
−
Sepat padi
√
−
−
Total Species
Overall Total
Species
10
5
5
Seluang
sumatra
Kawan
Haruan
Keli
Keli kayu
13
Based on Event I in Table 5.8, it can be concluded that Sungai Mengkibol is
dominated by hardly and highly adaptable species. The most abundance is Molly with
25 individuals that represent 43% of the caught specimens, followed by Mosquito fish
(27%), Tilapia hitam (10) and Bandaraya (8%). Event II recorded 16 individuals (73%)
73
of Bandaraya which the dominated species during the sampling work. Two individuals
are recorded from Terbul, Kawan and Keli kayu which represent 9% each.
74
Table 5.8: Number of individuals, weight and percentage according to species caught in
Sungai Mengkibol
Local/common
Name
Event I
Event II
No
of
ind
Weight
(g)
%
%
−
−
0
2
0.8
−
−
0
−
−
0
−
−
0
−
−
0
0
11
50
0
5
10
0
3
<1
73
1
10
−
−
0
−
−
0
−
−
0
22
70.8
100
%
2
60
9
−
−
2
60
45
7.0
−
−
0
Kawan
1
13
1
Haruan
1
310
1
−
−
Keli
1
40
1
−
−
Keli kayu
−
−
0
2
540
Tilapia hitam
6
1800
10
−
−
−
−
0
−
−
Mosquito fish
Amoured
Catfish
16
<1
27
−
−
5
235
8
16
580
Sepat padi
Red claw
lobster
1
5
1
−
−
1
15
1
−
−
25
6
43
−
−
58
2469
100.0
22
1240
Total
Weight
(g)
Weight
(g)
4
Molly
No
of
ind
No
of
ind
Terbul
Seluang
sumatra
Gapi
Event III
0
9
0
0
9
0
0
0
100
9
50
23
14
4
75
Fish Families Distribution in Event I of Sungai Mengkibol
8%
8%
10%
66%
Cyprinidae
Poeciliidae
Channidae
Loricariidae
Claridae
Parastacidae
Cichlidae
Osphronemidae
Figure 5.6: The fish families recorded during Event I of Sungai Mengkibol.
Fish Families Distribution in Event II of Sungai Mengkibol
17%
4%
9%
70%
Cyprinidae
Channidae
Claridae
Loricariidae
Figure 5.7: The fish families recorded during Event II of Sungai Mengkibol
76
Fish Families Distribution in Event III of Sungai Mengkibol
5%
9%
36%
50%
Cyprinidae
Cichlidae
Poeciliidae
Loricariidae
Figure 5.8: The fish families recorded during Event III of Sungai Mengkibol
Based on the size range of fishes caught, as shown in Table 5.9, it is likely to
assume that the river is inhabited by yearlings and adults. Specimen of Tilapia hitam
with the highest range of 19.5 cm in size in Event I show that the specimen is an adult.
Keli kayu with the range of 9.4 to 14.5 cm from Event II shows that some of the species
are yearlings and adults. Mosquito fish in Event III shows with range 1.3 to 4.3 cm that
the species has achieved adult size.
Table 5.9: Size range of specimens caught at Sungai Mengkibol
Local/common
Name
Terbul
Seluang
sumatra
Kawan
Haruan
Keli
Keli kayu
Tilapia hitam
Gapi
Mosquito fish
Amoured
catfish
known Maximum
size (cm)
30
Event I
6.6 - 13.0
Size Range (cm)
Event II
5.2 - 5.8
13
25
100
35
35
−
−
3.5
−
13.1
38.5
26
−
16-19.5
−
−
−
5.8 - 5.9
−
−
9.4 - 14.5
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
4.8 - 10.2
7.9 - 14.7
1.3 - 4.3
50
−
2.5 - 10.8
13
event III
−
6.1 - 17
77
Sepat padi
15
Red claw
lobster
−
Molly
−
5.2
Water Quality Assessment
8.3
−
−
14.6
2.1-5.2
−
−
−
−
The surface water quality conditions for the rivers were measured and compared
with the Department of Environment (DOE) values of Water Quality Index (WQI) and
Interim National Water Quality Standard (INWQS). The water level of Sungai Dengar
increased due to continuous heavy rainfall the night before the sampling. Sungai
Mengkibol and Sungai Tui’s water levels remain at the same level (comparison with the
water level of previous study). However, the weather was fine during all of the
sampling events.
Results of WQI in Figure 5.9 shows that Sungai Dengar is in Class II, Sungai
Tui is in Class III, whilst Sungai Mengkibol is in Class IV. Based on the classification
by DOE, Class II condition are suitable and can support most of river species while
Class III can only sustain tolerant or hard river species. However water body that is
classified in Class IV is polluted and suitable for irrigation only. The Class II water
quality of Sungai Dengar can be attributed to its location in old palm oil plantation
where less dissolved nutrients enter the river. The sampling site at Sungai Tui was
expected to demonstrate lower quality conditions, even though it was situated at the
upstream, since the surroundings of this reach are mainly covered with shrubs and palm
oil trees, thus, degradation of the water quality is associated with the dissolved nutrients
from the plantation as well as suspended organic matter and sediments. On the other
hand, the degradation of water quality in Sungai Mengkibol was expected as the river is
the main stormwater drainage that caters the entire Kluang town. Other than that,
effluent from waste water treatment plant (located at the side of the river) is also
channeled to Sungai Mengkibol.
78
WQI classified Sungai Dengar in Class II, but INWQS shows that Sungai
Dengar is categorized in Class I. Parameters such as DO, BOD5, COD, AN, TSS and
turbidity(as shown in Table 5.13 contributes to the higher class of Sungai Dengar in
INWQS. The clarity of Sungai is high as the values of TSS and turbidity were low with
0.0034 mg/l and 2.52 NTU respectively. Although, most of the parameters in Table 5.13
show Sungai Dengar classified in Class I, however pH put Sungai Dengar in Class III
with value of 5.33(acidic). pH is an indicator of the existence of biological life as most
of them thrive in a quite narrow and critical pH range. Sungai Dengar is quite acidic
because of decomposition of leaves, palm frond, and wood debris in the river. However,
Class III is suitable for fishes with common, economic value and tolerant.
Although the WQI values demonstrate acceptable water conditions, however the
results for Sungai Tui are notably high especially for BOD5, and COD values (11.76
mg/l and 60 mg/l respectively) in class IV of INWQS (Table 5.13). The AN, an
indicator of pollution from the excessive usage of the ammonia rich fertilizers, value is
within Class III, but it’s typical for waters running through agricultural lands. AN is an
essential nutrient required for fishes, therefore the amount of AN in the river is
sufficient that encourage many fishes to inhabit the river. Meanwhile, turbidity of the
river is high with value of 53 NTU (Class IIA). Organic constituents contribute to the
high value of turbidity and this was clearly shown by the brownish, muddy water
throughout the whole river. High turbid water with fine suspended and deposited
sediment provides a suitable hiding condition from predators.
The results for Sungai Mengkibol exhibit very poor quality and polluted status
in BOD5 (Class V of INWQS), COD (Class IV) and AN (Class V). However the
BOD5/COD ratio is insensible. The BOD5 result is expected for an urban river, however
the COD results is significantly low for water body which receives various sources of
effluent and surface runoff. However, the results might be due to errors during
laboratory analysis, as it was observed that the repeated analysis of the same samples
exhibit high distinctions.
79
Class I
88
Class II
72
Class III
36
Class IV
Class V
Figure 5.9: Water Quality Index values at respective rivers
Table 5.10: INWQS results for water quality parameters
Parameters
Sungai Dengar
Sungai Tui
Sungai Mengkibol
Values
Class
Values
Class
Values
Class
DO(mg/l)
8.70
I
6.83
I
6.53
I
BOD5 (mg/l)
1.95
I
11.76
IV
22.87
IV
COD (mg/l)
23.6
I
60
IV
53
IV
pH
5.33
III
6.77
I
6.91
I
AN (mg/l)
0.11
I
0.69
III
2.93
V
TSS (mg/l)
0.0034
I
9.975
I
68
III
80
Turbidity
5.3
(NTU)
2.52
I
53
IIA
40
IIA
Colour
25
IIA
471
−
−
−
Fish and Habitat
Each fish has its own habitat. This section explains the habitat that favours each
fish according to the rivers that has been studied.
5.3.1
Sungai Dengar
Bujuk, a species that lives in temperature of 22-26 °C with maximum length up
to 40 cm is known as a species with commercial value in fisheries. Inhabits slow
moving streams and rivers, Bujuk is a common species in forest streams and always
found in areas with plenty of aquatic vegetation, as well as submerged woody plants.
Figure 5.1 shows the location of Bujuk that has been caught at Sungai Dengar in
submerged woody plants.
Other than that, Julong, with common length is 7 cm and lives in pH range of
7.0 to 8.0, has minor commercial value in fisheries but marketable for aquarium
purpose. This species of fish which is mostly found in rivers, rivulets, canals, drains,
ponds and lakes, favours to inhabit medium to large rivers, flooded fields and mainly
stagnant waters. Figure 5.2 shows the location of Julong that was caught in Sungai
Dengar, mostly in culverts.
81
Figure 5.10: Submerged woody plants was the location of Bujuk
caught in Sungai Dengar
Table 5.11: Fish species and habitat description in Sungai Dengar
Local Name
Kawan (cuveiri)
Habitat Description
Found in clear to black waters and rarely in extremely or slightly
muddy waters. Feeds on detritus and insect larvae
Kawan (festivus)
Rong
Seluang
Jejuang/Nyenyuar
Temperas
Seluang 2 titik
Baguh
Udang gantung
Mainly in rivers and also lakes
Inhabits streams and creeks with moderate to swift, relatively cold
and well-oxygenated water. Lives in hill streams to lowland peats
Occurs in river mainstream and low gradient tributaries with logs
and leaf-litter on the bottom.
Inhabits rivers over muddy substrate as well as forest streams.
Occur near the bottom of large rivers.
Inhabits forest streams
Usually inhabits clear mountain streams strewn with rocks and
boulders; frequently found below waterfalls
Easily found in rivers
82
Found in rivers, rivulets, canals, drains, ponds and lakes. Inhabits
medium to large rivers, flooded fields and mainly stagnant waters.
Julong
Most common in areas with floating plants or rooted aquatics that
reach the surface. Larvae and early juveniles are sometimes found
in the upper reaches of mangroves during the wet season
Inhabits slow moving streams and rivers, as well as lakes, ponds
Bujuk
and swamps. A common species in forest streams. Often found in
areas with plenty of aquatic vegetation, as well as submerged
woody plants.
Source: http://www.fishbase.org
Figure 5.11: Culverts was the location of Julong caught in
Sungai Dengar.
83
5.3.2
Sungai Tui
Sebarau, a species with commercial value both in fisheries and aquarium,
inhabit a river with high flow and have small fishes and prawns as its diet. They tend to
favour fallen logs (lying horizontally in the water), weed banks, stream or river mouths.
a. As Sungai Tui is one of the tributaries of Sungai Muar, it is expected that Sebarau
(migratory species) originated from Sungai Muar. However, because of the predators in
the river, Sebarau migrates to Sungai Tui to protect its species. Figure 5.3 shows the
location of Sungai Tui that inhabited by Sebarau.
Besides that, the river was also inhabited by Haruan. Mature/adult Haruan riches
with Vitamin A and Amino acid which is good for wound recuperation, therefore it is
consider as economic importance species. Haruan preference habitat is deep, still
muddy water where it survives by burrowing in the mud. Therefore, during the fish
survey works, four Haruan were caught in an area covered by aquatic vegetation with
muddy bottom. Figure 5.4 shows the location of Sungai Tui that populated by Haruan.
Furthermore, Lais was the other species that inhabit Sungai Tui. Requires
current and free swimming space, combined with some form of shelter (floating plants,
large leaves) underneath which they will stand, a Lais can achieve a size of 15 cm and
lives in pH of 6.0-7.5. Lais that originally has transparent body and turns milky white
when dead favor dark places to being out in the open light (http://www.fishbase.org).
Therefore, Lais was found under a bridge in Sungai Tui as shown in Figure 5.5.
Besides that, Udang galah is commercially important for its value as a food
source. Udang galah favours to inhabit habitat with a lot of woody debris (as shown in
Figure 5.6) with a small velocity as the area contains food source for Udang galah.
84
Table 5.12: Fish species and habitat description of Sungai Tui
Local name
Habitat Description
Occurs in all type of habitats, but usually associated with large
streams with slow current and muddy to sandy substrate. Migrates
from river to flooded areas during the onset of the flood season and
Terbul
returns to river habitats at the end of that period. Spends the flood
season in seasonally inundated areas. Juveniles are usually seen first
in August, they move back to permanent water as flooded lands dry
up.
Lalang
Found at the surface of small mountain rivers with complete or
nearly complete forest canopy.
Table 5.12: Continued
Found in clear to black waters and rarely in extremely or slightly
Kawan
Rong
muddy waters.
Mainly in rivers and also lakes
Occurs mainly in clear rivers or streams with running water and
Sebarau
sandy to muddy bottoms. Found in most water bodies, except small
creeks, torrents, and shallow swamps. A migratory species.
Inhabits streams and creeks with moderate to swift, relatively cold
Seluang
and well-oxygenated water. Lives in hill streams to lowland peats
Inhabits ponds, streams and rivers, preferring stagnant and muddy
water of plains. Found mainly in swamps, but also occurs in the
Haruan
lowland rivers. More common in relatively deep (1-2 m), still water.
Very common in freshwater plains. Occurs in medium to large
rivers, brooks, flooded fields and stagnant waters including sluggish
85
flowing canals. Survives dry season by burrowing in bottom mud of
lakes, canals and swamps as long as skin and air-breathing
apparatus remain moist and subsists on the stored fat
Inhabits large rivers with turbid waters. Reported to prefer fast
flowing water and usually occurs along the shores. Enters flooded
Lais
fields. Found in lowland streams to peat adjacent in large school up
to 100 fish.
Found in slow or standing waters, among bushes of shore
Patong
vegetation. Occurs in medium to large-sized rivers and flooded
fields
Inhabit in a lot of woody debris area with a small velocity as the
Udang galah
area has a lot of food
Occurs in river mainstream and low gradient tributaries with logs
Jejuang/nyenyuar
and leaf-litter on the bottom.
Usually occurs in hill streams or near rapids, in clear, fast flowing
Selimang siam
water. Found at bottom depths of rivers and streams.
Table 5.12: Continued
Temperas
Inhabits rivers over muddy substrate as well as forest streams.
Occur near the bottom of large rivers.
Inhabits small streams, reservoirs, lakes, canals, ditches, and
generally areas with slow moving or standing water. Occurs in
Temperas mata
merah
medium to large-sized rivers. Stomach contents are composed of
fish and insect remains. Typically found around surfaces, such as
plant, leaves, branches and tree roots where it browses for small
plankton and crustaceans. Moves into flooded forests and nonforested floodplains.
Seluang titik
Inhabits forest streams
Source: http://www.fishbase.org
86
Figure 5.12: Sebarau was caught in Sungai Tui
Figure 5.13: Typical habitat when Haruan were caught at Sungai Tui
87
Figure 5.14: Lais were caught under a bridge at Sungai Tui
Figure 5.15: Location Udang Galah caught in Sungai Tui
88
5.3.3
Sungai Mengkibol
During breeding time of Bandaraya, the female will lay her eggs in an area that
is sheltered such as a cave, or inside a log; it is then up to the male to fan the eggs which
helps to oxygenate and clean them, and defend them from predators. Ikan Bandaraya
occurs along Singai Mengkibol as shown in Figure 5.7.
Keli kayu favours to live alone by submerging itself in a mud area. It comes out
from the hiding place just for food and oxygen on the surface of water. A Keli Kayu
habitat is in deep, calm pool in the river with muddy bed (http://www.fishbase.org).
Keli populated water temperature of 28°C and can grow up to 35 cm. Figure 5.8 shows
the location with muddy bottom of Keli kayu was caught during fish survey work.
Tilapia Hitam lives in any type of freshwater and tends to eat food that consists
of weeds and detritus. Tilapia is originally from Africa and Levant. Therefore in
Malaysia, the fish is categorized as introduced fish. Tilapia Hitam inhabited along
Sungai Mengkibol.
89
Table 5.13: Fish species and habitat description of Sungai Mengkibol
Local/common
Habitat Description
Name
Found in extreme environments, from anoxic conditions (slack
Ikan bandaraya
water zones bordered by dense vegetation) to slightly turbid but free
flowing streams. When its biotope becomes dry, it can move pout of
the water, due to its ability to breathe intestinally, in
Thrives in standing waters. Inhabits reservoirs, rivers, creeks,
Tilapia hitam
drains, swamps and tidal creeks; commonly over mud bottoms,
often in well-vegetated areas. Also found in warm weedy pools of
sluggish streams, canals, and ponds. Most common in blind estuari
Seluang sumatra
Mosquito fish
Inhabits streams and creeks with moderate to swift, relatively cold
and well-oxygenated water. Lives in hill streams to lowland peats
Inhabits warm, still waters typically seen shoaling at the edges of
streams and lakes
Occurs in warm springs and their effluents, weedy ditches and
canals. Found in various habitats, ranging from highly turbid water
Gapi
in ponds, canals and ditches at low elevations to pristine mountain
streams at high elevations. Inhabits slow-flowing or still water near
the margin of pools among vegetation.
Occurs in all type of habitats, but usually associated with large
streams with slow current and muddy to sandy substrate. Migrates
Terbul
from river to flooded areas during the onset of the flood season and
returns to river habitats at the end of that period. Spends the flood
season in seasonally inundated areas.
90
Table 5.13: Continued
Kawan
Found in clear to black waters and never to rarely in extremely or
slightly muddy waters.
Inhabits ponds, streams and rivers, preferring stagnant and muddy
water of plains. Found mainly in swamps, but also occurs in the
lowland rivers. More common in relatively deep (1-2 m), still
Haruan
water. Very common in freshwater plains. Occurs in medium to
large rivers, brooks, flooded fields and stagnant waters including
sluggish flowing canals. Survives dry season by burrowing in
bottom mud of lakes, canals and swamps as long as skin and airbreathing apparatus remain moist and subsists on the stored fat
Inhabits lowland streams, swamps, ponds, ditches, rice paddies,
and pools left in low spots after rivers have been in flood. Usually
confined to stagnant, muddy water. Found in medium to large-
Keli kayu
sized rivers, flooded fields and stagnant water bodies including
sluggish flowing canals. Can live out of water for quite sometime
and move short distances over land. Can walk and leave the water
to migrate to other water bodies using its auxiliary breathing
organs.
Source: http://www.fishbase.org
Figure 5.16: Sungai Mengkibol that inhabited mostly
by Bandaraya and Tilapia hitam
91
Figure 5.17: Location of Keli kayu was caught in Sungai Mengkibol
5.4
Relations between Fish Assemblages and Physical Characteristics of Rivers
5.4.1
Sungai Dengar
Cyprinids are the dominant species with biggest population in Sungai Dengar.
However, there are other interesting fish species that inhabit the river. Bujuk, a species
that inhabits slow moving forests streams and rivers generally populates aquatic
vegetation area as well as submerged woody plants. Therefore, in Sungai Dengar, Bujuk
was found in area with submerged woody plant. Other than that, Julong is mostly
populate at the surface water in shallow rivers, rivulets, canals, drains, ponds and lakes
as the area has low level of water. Therefore, in Sungai Dengar, Julong was found in
culverts because of the shallow water and as a shelter for the fish species. Based on the
discovery of several fish species in partially submerged woody plant and culverts, an
assumption can be made that fish not only inhabit natural habitat but also artificial
92
structure. Therefore, any artificial structure for rehabilitation of a river need to consider
a suitable structure that can support fish habitat. Besides that, water quality of Sungai
Dengar also plays an important role of fish species diversity in the river. None of the
species recorded during fish survey works shows migration species. This migration may
not occur in Sungai Dengar as it is a ‘stand alone’ river that flows in palm oil plantation.
Moreover, the river recorded the highest number of pools among the other two rivers. A
stream pool, in hydrology, is a stretch of a river in which the water depth is above
average and the stream velocity is quite low. Such pools can be important for juvenile
fish habitat, especially where many stream reaches attain high temperatures and very
low flow during dry season. This portion of a stream often provides specialized aquatic
habitat for organisms that have difficulty feeding or navigating in swifter reaches of the
stream (Plafkin, J.L. et al., 1989). Other than that, run, an unbreakable water flow in
rivers provides accessible passage for fishes to travel from one spot to another for food
seeking purposes. Based on observation during fish survey work in the three rivers, less
fishes are recorded in this area as run only provided route for fishes and does not have
adequate criteria for fishes to inhabited in run. Table 5.14 shows channel form and
instream habitat of Sungai Dengar.
5.4.2
Sungai Tui
Fish usually migrate because of diet or reproductive needs; although in some
cases the reason for migration remains unknown. One possible factor that contributes to
the species richness in Sungai Tui is migration of species from Sungai Muar. Predation
might be the likely factor influencing this migration, where smaller fishes and
crustaceans such as Udang galah seek for better spawning grounds and for living, away
from predators such as larger fishes and crocodiles. Moreover, as the river is generally a
lowland area, therefore when the water level of Sungai Muar increases (due to floods or
heavy precipitations), the water overflows into its tributaries, and thus bring in or
introducing species till the upstream of Sungai Tui. Other than that, large woody debris
93
(LWD) in the stream helps create habitat complexity. As soon as they are placed, they
immediately create cover for fish and a substrate for invertebrates (diet for fishes). In
addition, trunks deflect flows in complex ways, boosting the dynamics of scour and
deposition. Debris accumulation create backwater and inundate the bank areas,
depositing sediment and affecting the riparian vegetation. Woody structure makes the
best places for fish to hide both in the stream and the undercut banks, whether from
anglers or from the predators. In particular, tangled root wads and logs with pools
scoured beneath them are the ideal place to find fish. LWD has been shown to have
large effects on fish populations, serving as both a refuge from predation and a substrate
for food resources. The rich species and abundance in Sungai Tui is estimated to be
highly influenced by these distributions of large woody debris. A riffle (also known as a
swift) is a shallow stretch of a river or stream, where the current is below the average
stream velocity and where the water forms small rippled waves as a result (Wikipedia,
2009). It often consists of a rocky bed of gravels or other small stones. This portion of a
stream is often an important habitat for small aquatic invertebrates and juvenile fishes.
Based on Figure 5.18, Sungai Tui recorded higher number of riffle compared to Sungai
Mengkibol. Therefore, it is assumed that many fish species composition is recorded in
Sungai Tui due to ample riffle provided in the river as riffle increases DO levels in
water plus scouring organic matter that attached to the riffle materials (food for fishes).
Based on the variety of fishes habitat as described in sub-section 5.4, an assumption of
specific fishes inhabit a specific habitat can be made. Table 5.15 shows channel form
and instream habitat of Sungai Tui.
5.4.3
Sungai Mengkibol
On the other hand, Sungai Mengkibol was dominated by introduced fishes. The
hardy and non-native species such as the armored catfish might be introduced into
Sungai Mengkibol through various factors (e.g intentionally released by fish breeders
and aquarists). These species such as Tilapia hitam, are highly reproductive and can be
94
a possible threat to native species through competition for food and nest space, and they
occupy a wide range of habitat. These invasive species can affect the physical,
biological and ecological condition of rivers; therefore restrict the recovery of native
species from disturbance (Global Invasive species database, 2006). Besides that,
vegetation (trees, shrubs, and herbs) are important for bank stability (as it provides
deep, binding roots), control nutrient cycling, reduce water velocity, provide fish cover
and food, trap sediments, reduce erosion and reduces the rate of evaporation.
Appropriate riparian vegetation shield soil and water from wind, sunlight and raindrop
impact. This reduces erosion due to wind and the disruptive impacts of rainfall as well
as promoting groundwater recharge by enhancing stormwater infiltration. Vegetation
canopy cover provides shade, thereby reducing water temperatures and improving
aquatic habitat. Declination in riparian condition can result in altered habitat and food
web structure and can promote invasion by alien fish species. This factor might be one
of the causes of the observed species composition in Sungai Mengkibol. Stream bank of
Sungai Mengkibol with bank stabilisation structure (artificial structure) has less fishes
inhabited that area (based on observation during fish survey work) compared to stream
bank with vegetation. Other than that, due to low number of canopy cover in Sungai
Mengkibol, it is assumed that the water temperature increases and contributes to less
species in the river compared to the other rivers in this study. Table 5.16 shows Sungai
Mengkibol channel form and instream habitat.
Number of Channel Units in Studied Rivers
70
60
50
Sungai Dengar
40
Sungai Tui
30
Sungai Mengkibol
20
10
0
Pool
Riffle
Run
Figure 5.18: Number of Channel Units in Three Rivers;
Sungai Dengar, Sungai Tui and Sungai Mengkibol
95
Table 5.14: Sungai Dengar Channel Form and Instream Habitat
Channel Form
Range
Bank angle ( degree)
20 - 75
Banktop height (m)
0.2 - 1.7
Banktop width (m)
5 - 13
Percentage trees (woody vegetation > 3 m tall)
50 - 85
Percentage shrub (woody vegetation < 3 m tall)
5 - 93
Percentage herbaceous vegetation
3 - 75
Percentage artificial structure
0-5
Percentage bare soil
0.5 - 10
Instream Habitat
Depth (m)
0.15 - 1.3
Mean velocity (m/s)
Wet width (m)
3-9
Percentage silt/clay
0-4
Percentage sand
30 - 95
Percentage leaf litter
10 - 40
Percentage woody debris per m2
3 - 37
Percentage root mass per m2
10 - 30
Percentage canopy cover per m2
50 - 85
96
Figure 5.19: Shrub on both side of river bank in Sungai Dengar
Figure 5.20: Artificial structure at Sungai Dengar
Figure 5.21: Palm oil trees along Sungai Dengar
97
Figure 5.22: Wood debris in Sungai Dengar
Figure 5.23: Leaf litter in Sungai Dengar
Figure 5.24: Root mass in Sungai Dengar
98
Table 5.15: Sungai Tui Channel Form and Instream Habitat
Channel Form
Range
Bank angle ( degree)
20 - 75
Banktop height (m)
0.4 - 1.8
Banktop width (m)
4.5 - 8.5
Percentage trees (woody vegetation > 3 m tall)
0 - 33
Percentage shrub (woody vegetation < 3 m tall)
3.5 - 33
Percentage herbaceous vegetation
30 - 93
Percentage bare soil
2.5 - 32
Instream Habitat
Depth (m)
0.17 - 1.3
Mean velocity (m/s)
0.15 - 0.33
Wet width (m)
1.6 - 8.5
Percentage silt/clay
8.5 - 53
Percentage sand
0.25 - 14
Percentage gravel
0.3 - 5
Percentage rock/cobble
0 - 17
Percentage leaf litter
6 - 30
Percentage woody debris per m2
3 - 12
Percentage root mass per m2
0-2
Percentage canopy cover per m2
0-2
99
Figure 5.25: Shrub on the river bank of Sungai Tui
Figure 5.26: Bare soil at certain area of Sungai Tui
Figure 5.27: Woody debris in Sungai Tui
100
Table 5.16: Sungai Mengkibol Channel Form and Instream Habitat
Channel Form
Range
Bank angle ( degree)
35 - 90
Banktop height (m)
3.5 - 5
Banktop width (m)
15 - 23
Percentage trees (woody vegetation > 3 m tall)
0 - 15
Percentage shrub (woody vegetation < 3 m tall)
0 - 30
Percentage herbaceous vegetation
30 - 84
Percentage artificial structure
0 - 35
Percentage bare soil
0.5 - 25
Instream Habitat
Depth (m)
0.02 - 0.85
Mean velocity (m/s)
0.22 - 1.06
Wet width (m)
7.5 - 16.70
Percentage sand
35 - 78
Percentage litter per m2
3 - 35
Percentage artificial boulder/concrete per m2
0 - 10
Percentage woody debris per m2
0-5
Percentage canopy cover per m2
0-8
101
Figure 5.28: Herbaceous vegetation along Sungai Mengkibol
Figure 5.29: Retention wall as artificial structure at
Sungai Mengkibol
Figure 5.30: Bare soil at certain area of Sungai Mengkibol
102
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1
Conclusions
Monitoring fish communities is a viable alternative to physiochemical
monitoring programs for assessment of biotic integrity. This study suggests that changes
to fish species composition are related primarily to habitat structure and habitat loss,
rather than to factors such as water chemistry. Sungai Tui exhibits a rich and diverse
fish composition (with 10 families and 22 species) despite of its impaired environment
in terms of water quality and channel conditions compared to the natural-state of Sungai
Dengar. There were also species of high economical values observed inhabit in Sungai
Tui such as Ketutu, Baung akar, Sebarau and Udang galah. Nevertheless, there are two
species in Sungai Dengar which was not present in the other two rivers; Julong and
Bujuk. In Sungai Mengkibol, it is clearly evident that the completed rehabilitation
works focused on flood mitigation efforts and beautification of the riversides, whereas
efforts in the restoration of biota were neglected.
103
Furthermore, bankside vegetation (e.g. trees, canopy cover), fish species
migratory, velocity, channel units and large woody debris appear to be the most
influential factors in shaping species assemblages, and should be taken into
consideration when defining aquatic habitat types for conservation and rehabilitation
planning. Therefore, the distribution and variability of instream habitats and channel
units are essential in influencing the degree of food availability, protection from
predators as well as for breeding, thus in turn significantly enhance the liveability and
composition of aquatic lives, especially fish species. Besides that, artificial structure
such as culverts helps to provide habitat to certain fish in river.
According to water quality Index (WQI), Sungai Dengar in Class II Sungai Tui
is classified in Class III and Sungai Mengkibol in Class IV. The water quality results of
Sungai Tui and Sungai Mengkibol, especially BOD5, COD, AN, and TSS, were highly
influenced by the surrounding landuse activities, together with the lack composition of
riparian vegetation and channel form.
6.2
Recommendations
Recommendation for future works to further understand the correlation between
fish species composition and distribution of physical habitats in rivers are listed as
follow:
i.
Frequent samplings or replicates should be conducted to quantify
variability within a river, between different streams and/or over time,
104
since the channel morphology itself change over time, thus instream
habitats and channel units locations may change.
ii.
Involvement of interdisciplinary teamwork of professionals is required in
order to come up with improved outcome in the study. This requires
coordination and cooperation among the individuals involved.
iii.
Evaluation of fish composition and habitat assessment during different
seasons; dry and rainy
iv.
Comparison of fish composition and its habitat during daytime and night
v.
Assessment of relationship between fish composition and its habitat
during migratory time.
105
REFERENCES
Allan, J.D. and Castillo, M.M. (2008). Stream Ecology- Structure and Function of
Running Water. AA Dordrecht: Springer.
Barbour, M.T. (1991).Stream Survey- The Importance of the Relation between Habitat
Quality and Biological condition. Sediment and Stream Water Quality in a Changing
Environment: Trends and Explanation. Proceeding of the Vienna Symposium. August.
Vienna: IAHS, 161-168.
Birk, S., and Hering, D. (2008). A New Procedure for Comparing Class Boundaries of
Biological Assessment Methods: A Case Study from Danube Basin. Essen: Elsevier.
Wide Web electronic publication. Available online at: http://www.elsevier.com.
Briney, A. (2009). Stream Order. World Wide Web electronic publication. Available
online at: http://geography.about.com
Bureau of Reclamation (2003). Essential Fish Habitat Assessment for Bureau of
Reclamation Rogue River Basin Project Operations. Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific
Northwest Region. 203-214.
Capuli and Emily.E. (2009). Channa lucius (Cuvier, 1831). World Wide Web
electronic publication. Available online at:http://www.fishbase.org.
Dash, M.C. (2001). Fundamentals of Ecology. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill
DWNP (2009). Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP). World Wide Web
electronic publication. Available online at: http://www.wildlife.gov.my
Eberstaller, J. (2005). The Best Fishway – a combination of River Type, Topography
and Design Flow.Bureau for Applied River Ecology, Fisheries and Water Management.
Ecology Home (2007). Data Quality Assurance. World Wide Web electronic
publication. Available online at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov
Fish Plaza (2007). Ikan Haruan. World Wide Web electronic publication. Available
online at: http:// akuakulturplaza. Blogspot.com.
George S. M. (1938). Fresh-water Fishes and West Indian Zoogeography. 339-364.
Available online at: http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/biogeog/MYER1938.htm
106
Global Environment Centre (2009). Nenggiri River Rehabilitation Programme.
Available online at: http://www.gecnet.info/index.cfm
Global Invasive species database (2006). Gambusia affinis (fish). World Wide Web
electronic publication. Available online at: http:// www.issg.org
Gordon, N.D et al. (2004). Stream Hydrology: An Introduction for Ecologists. England:
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 233- 350.
Grenouillet, G., Pont, D., Herisse, C. (2003). Within-basin Fish Assemblages Structure:
The relative Influence of Habitat versus Stream Spatial Position on Local
Species Richness. NRC Research Press. World Wide Web electronic
publication. Available online at: http://cjfas.nrc.ca.
Heidi Hopkins (1999). Large woody debris. World Wide Web electronic publication.
Available online at: http://www.monolake.org.
Kalithasan Kailasam (2007). Community Water Quality Monitoring Programme in
Malaysia. Global Environment Centre.
Kleinschmidt (2008). Large River Atlantic Salmon Nursery Habitat Assessment
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission
(MASC) Upper Kennebec River. World Wide Web electronic publication. Available online
at: http://www.kassociates.com
Lafont, M., Marsalek, J., and Breil, P. (2008). Urban Aquatic Habitats: Characteristics
and Functioning. In: Wagner, I., Marsalek, J., and Breil, P. Aquatic Habitat in
Sustainable Urban Water Management- Science Policy and Practice. Leiden:
Taylor & Francis. 9-22.
Loeb, S.L and Spacie, A. (1994). Biological Monitoring of Aquatic Systems. Florida:
Lewish Publishers.
Malaysian Nature Society Johor Blog (2008). Endau-Rompin (Selai) Visit and Orang
Asli Community Service. Available online at: http://mnsjohor.blogspot.com
Mefford, B., and Higgs, J. (2006). Link River Falls Fish Passage Investigation- Flow
Velocity Simulation. Bureau of Reclamation. Technical Paper 954.
Mohammad Mohsin and Mohd Azmi Ambak (1983). Freshwater Fishes of Peninsular
Malaysia. Serdang: Universiti Pertanian Malaysia.
107
Mongabay. com. (2006). Halfbeak, Malayan Halfbeak, Wrestling Halfbeak. World
Wide Web electronic publication. Available online at: http://www.mongabay.com
Nurul Huda Adnan (2008). Fish Habitat Assessment for River Rehabilitation. Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia. M. Eng. Thesis.
Paul D. N. Hebert (2008). Physical properties of rivers. World Wide Web electronic
publication. Available online at: http://www.eoearth.org.
Plafkin, J.L, Barbour, M.T., Porter, K.D., Gross, S.K., Hughes, R.M. (1989). Rapid
Bioassessment
Protocols
for
Use
in
Streams
and
Rivers-Benthic
Macroinvertebrates and Fish. Washington: United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
Saha, S.K and Barrow, C.J. (1981). River Basin Planning: Theory and Practice.
Swansea: John Wiley & Sons.
Sarjana Arshad (2008). Selongkar Lubuk Bujuk. World Wide Web electronic
publication. Available online at:http://pancingbacaria.blogspot.com.
Schumm, S.A (2005). Rivers and Humans. River Variability and Complexity. United
Kingdom: University Press, Cambridge.173-197.
Sebarau (2008). Merdeka Celebrations. World Wide Web electronic publication.
Available online at: http:// sebarau.org.
Segers, H and Martens, K. (2005). Development in Hydrobiology: The Diversity of
Aquatic Ecosystems. Dordrecht: Springer.
Sooley, D.R., Luiker, E.A., and Barnes, M.A. (1998). Standard Method Guide for
Freshwater Fish and Fish Habitat Surveys in Newfoundland and Labrsdor: Rivers and
Streams. Fisheries and Oceans, St. John’s, NF. 50 pp.
Spellman, F.R. (1996). Stream Ecology and Self-Purification: An Introduction for
Wastewater and Water Specialists. Pennsylvania:Tachnomic Publishing Co,.
Inc.
Spellman, F.R and Drinan J.E (2001). Stream Ecology and Self-Purification: An
Introduction. Pennsylvania:Tachnomic Publishing Co,. Inc. of America:
Technomic Publishing Co., Inc.15- 24.
Stoker, D.G, Agsteribbe, M, Windsor, N.R, Andrews, W.A. 1972. A Guide to the Study
of Freshwater Ecology. New Jersey:Prentice-Hall, Inc.
108
Streamkeeper.org. 2009. Habitat Assessment and Habitat Analysis. World Wide Web
electronic publication. Available online at: http://www.streamkeeper.org
Trent, Z. 2003. National River Classifications Scheme. European Environment Agency.
1-7.
World
Wide
Web
electronic
publication.
Available
online
at:
themes.eea.europa.eu
United States of Geological Survey. 1995. Major Issues And Findings-Fish
Communities and Stream Habitat. World Wide Web electronic publication. Available
online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov.
Wikipedia. 2009. Channa Striata. World Wide Web electronic publication. Available
online at: http://en. Wikipedia.org.
Wikipedia 2009. Fish Migration. World Wide Web electronic publication. Available
online at: http://en. Wikipedia.org
Wikipedia. 2009. Upland and lowland (freshwater ecology). World Wide Web
electronic publication. Available online at:http://en.wikipedia.org
Wlosinski, J.H., Rogala, J.T., Owens T.W., Dalrymple, K.L., Busse, D. 2000. Response
of Vegetation and Fish During an Experimental Drawdown in ThreePools, Upper
Mississippi River. Geological Survey La Crosse Wi Upper Midwest Environmental
Sciences Center. World Wide Web electronic publication. Available online at:
http://www.stormingmedia.us.
Wright, P. and Flecker, A.S.2002. Effects of Large Woody Debris On Fish
Communities in A Venezuelan Piedmont Stream. Department of Ecology and
Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
WWF (2007). World Wildlife Fund(WWF). Conserving Freshwater Habitats. World
Wide Web electronic publication. Available online at: http://www.wwf.org.my
Zapalac, J., Liou, I., Priesmeyer, W., and Gayler, M. 2006. Distribution and Habitat
Preferences of Five Species of Prawns in Checkhall River, Dominica.
109
APPENDIX A:
HABITAT SURVEY FORM
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
APPENDIX B:
SKETCHES OF SUNGAI DENGAR
118
119
120
APPENDIX C:
SKETCH OF SUNGAI TUI
121
122
123
APPENDIX D:
SKETCH OF SUNGAI MENGKIBOL
124
Plan View of Sungai Mengkibol
125
Appendix E
Fish Species Caught in Sungai Dengar
Scientific Name: Labiobarbus cuvieri
Local Name: Kawan
Common Name: Signal Barb
Scientific Name: Labiobarbus fectivus
Local Name: Kawan
Common Name: Signal Barb
Scientific Name: Osteochilus vittatus
Local Name: Rong
Common Name: Sharkminnow
Scientific Name: Rasbora sumatrana
Local Name: Seluang
Common Name: Signal Barb
Scientific Name: Luciosoma trinema
Local Name: Jejuang/nyenyuar
Common Name: Long-fin Apollo Shark
126
Scientific Name: Cyclocheilichthys
heteronema
Local Name: Temperas
Common Name: Indian River Barb
Scientific Name: Rasbora elegans
Local Name: Seluang 2 titik
Common Name: Two-spot Rasbora
Scientific Name: Osteochilus hasselti
Local Name: Terbul
Common Name: Hasselt’s Bony Lip
Barb
Scientific Name: Chela anommalura
Local Name: Lalang
Common Name: -
Scientific Name: Crossocheilus oblongus
Local Name: Selimang siam
Common Name: Barb
Scientific Name: Neolissochilus
hexagonolepis
Local Name: Daun
Common Name: -
127
Scientific Name: Puntius lateristriga
Local Name: Baguh
Common Name: Spanner Barb
Scientific Name: Macrobrachium sp
Local Name: Udang gantung
Common Name: Signal Barb
Scientific Name: Dermogenys pusillus
Local Name: Julong
Common Name: Halfbeak
Scientific Name: Channa lucius
Local Name: Bujuk
Common Name: Forest Snakehead
128
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
129
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
130
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
131
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
132
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
Scientific Name: Channa striatus
Local Name: Haruan
Common Name: Snake head
133
Scientific Name: Clarias batrychus
Local Name: Keli
Common Name: catfish
Scientific Name: Oreochromis
mossambica
Local Name: Mozambique Tilapia
Common Name: Walking catfish
Scientific Name: Poecilia phenops
Local Name: Common Name: Molly
Scientific Name: Hypostomus
plecostomus
Local Name: Bandaraya
Common Name: Amoured Catfish