participatory resource …faspselib.denr.gov.ph/sites/default/files/publication files/2008 pra final...

PARTICIPATORY RESOURCE ASSESSMENTPARTICIPATORY RESOURCE ASSESSMENTPARTICIPATORY RESOURCE ASSESSMENTPARTICIPATORY RESOURCE ASSESSMENT

OF THE COASTOF THE COASTOF THE COASTOF THE COASTAL AND MARINE HABITATS OF AL AND MARINE HABITATS OF AL AND MARINE HABITATS OF AL AND MARINE HABITATS OF

CAMIGCAMIGCAMIGCAMIGUUUUIIIIN ISLANDN ISLANDN ISLANDN ISLAND::::

Section 5:Section 5:Section 5:Section 5:

MUNICIPALITY OF MUNICIPALITY OF MUNICIPALITY OF MUNICIPALITY OF MAMBAJAOMAMBAJAOMAMBAJAOMAMBAJAO

MUNICIPALITY OF MAMBAJAOMUNICIPALITY OF MAMBAJAOMUNICIPALITY OF MAMBAJAOMUNICIPALITY OF MAMBAJAO

The Participatory Resource Assessment (PRA) of the Municipality of Mambajao

on May, 2008 with coral and fish survey methods training on May 20, 2008, field habitat

assessment on May 21 2008, and the analysis and presentation of results on May 22, 2008

(Fig. 5.1). The list of participants is shown in Table

AAAA

CCCC

EEEE

Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)

MUNICIPALITY OF MAMBAJAOMUNICIPALITY OF MAMBAJAOMUNICIPALITY OF MAMBAJAOMUNICIPALITY OF MAMBAJAO

The Participatory Resource Assessment (PRA) of the Municipality of Mambajao



1). The list of participants is shown in Table 5.1.

FFFFigure 5.1. igure 5.1. igure 5.1. igure 5.1. Photographs showing Photographs showing Photographs showing Photographs showing

participants during the PRA training at participants during the PRA training at participants during the PRA training at participants during the PRA training at

Mambajao with the facilitators for fish Mambajao with the facilitators for fish Mambajao with the facilitators for fish Mambajao with the facilitators for fish visual census, Bernard Jasma, Jr. (A) visual census, Bernard Jasma, Jr. (A) visual census, Bernard Jasma, Jr. (A) visual census, Bernard Jasma, Jr. (A)

and Ryan Neri (B), for coral reef and Ryan Neri (B), for coral reef and Ryan Neri (B), for coral reef and Ryan Neri (B), for coral reef

assessment, Oliver Paderanga (C) and assessment, Oliver Paderanga (C) and assessment, Oliver Paderanga (C) and assessment, Oliver Paderanga (C) and

Ron Kirby Manit (D), for fish catch Ron Kirby Manit (D), for fish catch Ron Kirby Manit (D), for fish catch Ron Kirby Manit (D), for fish catch

enumeration, Julie Jadman (E).enumeration, Julie Jadman (E).enumeration, Julie Jadman (E).enumeration, Julie Jadman (E).

BBBB

DDDD

(Final Report), page - 158158158158

The Participatory Resource Assessment (PRA) of the Municipality of Mambajao was conducted



Photographs showing Photographs showing Photographs showing Photographs showing

participants during the PRA training at participants during the PRA training at participants during the PRA training at participants during the PRA training at

Mambajao with the facilitators for fish Mambajao with the facilitators for fish Mambajao with the facilitators for fish Mambajao with the facilitators for fish visual census, Bernard Jasma, Jr. (A) visual census, Bernard Jasma, Jr. (A) visual census, Bernard Jasma, Jr. (A) visual census, Bernard Jasma, Jr. (A)

and Ryan Neri (B), for coral reef and Ryan Neri (B), for coral reef and Ryan Neri (B), for coral reef and Ryan Neri (B), for coral reef

assessment, Oliver Paderanga (C) and assessment, Oliver Paderanga (C) and assessment, Oliver Paderanga (C) and assessment, Oliver Paderanga (C) and

Ron Kirby Manit (D), for fish catch Ron Kirby Manit (D), for fish catch Ron Kirby Manit (D), for fish catch Ron Kirby Manit (D), for fish catch

Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.1. Participants of the participatory resource assessment of coastal and marine 1. Participants of the participatory resource assessment of coastal and marine 1. Participants of the participatory resource assessment of coastal and marine 1. Participants of the participatory resource assessment of coastal and marine

habitats of the Municipality of Mambajao*.habitats of the Municipality of Mambajao*.habitats of the Municipality of Mambajao*.habitats of the Municipality of Mambajao*.

BARANGAY BARANGAY BARANGAY BARANGAY CORAL CORAL CORAL CORAL

ASSESSMENTASSESSMENTASSESSMENTASSESSMENT

NaasagNaasagNaasagNaasag George Dizon

YumbingYumbingYumbingYumbing George Dizon

AgohoAgohoAgohoAgoho Gil Julius T. S

BugBugBugBug----ongongongong Gil Julius T. S

KuguitaKuguitaKuguitaKuguita Gil Julius T. S

BaylaoBaylaoBaylaoBaylao Raul Remigoso

Poblacion Poblacion Poblacion Poblacion Raul Remigoso

BalbagonBalbagonBalbagonBalbagon Raul Remigoso

AnitoAnitoAnitoAnito Tito Castino

MagtingMagtingMagtingMagting Tito Castino

Tupsan Tupsan Tupsan Tupsan

GrandeGrandeGrandeGrande Tito Castino

* Seagrass team composed of Dr. Janet S. Estacion (CCRMP Monitoring and (DENR-10) validated the seagrass bed mapped during the previously conducted PRCA and PSES activity.


1. Participants of the participatory resource assessment of coastal and marine 1. Participants of the participatory resource assessment of coastal and marine 1. Participants of the participatory resource assessment of coastal and marine 1. Participants of the participatory resource assessment of coastal and marine

habitats of the Municipality of Mambajao*.habitats of the Municipality of Mambajao*.habitats of the Municipality of Mambajao*.habitats of the Municipality of Mambajao*.

CORAL CORAL CORAL CORAL

ASSESSMENTASSESSMENTASSESSMENTASSESSMENT

FISH VISUAL FISH VISUAL FISH VISUAL FISH VISUAL

ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT

(FVC)(FVC)(FVC)(FVC)

FACILITATOR FACILITATOR FACILITATOR FACILITATOR

(Coral & FVC)(Coral & FVC)(Coral & FVC)(Coral & FVC)

FISH CATCHFISH CATCHFISH CATCHFISH CATCH

SURVEYSURVEYSURVEYSURVEY

George Dizon

GUILLERMO

LLIMIT

JOSE PAGUICAN,

JR.

Bernardo Jasma, Jr. Ronnie L. Almasor

George Dizon

GUILLERMO

LLIMIT

JOSE PAGUICAN,

JR.

Bernardo Jasma, Jr.

Ely Arro,

Jaime

Eleonor

Reynaldo Rivera

T. Sia Benjamin Cablay,

Josepth Llanasa

Oliver Paderanga

and Bernardo

Jasma, Jr.

Fe Aranas


Josepth Llanasa

Oliver Paderanga

and Bernardo

Jasma, Jr.

Emerita Sumili


Josepth Llanasa Ron Kirby Manit

RhizaAbamonga,

Francisca Ragas

aul Remigoso Breseldo Ladera,

James Gayramon Ron Kirby Manit

Edie Lagunay,

PaulBacor,

Amy Bacolcol

Remigoso Breseldo Ladera,

James Gayramon Ryan Neri

SofronioRealista,

George Bunglay

Raul Remigoso Breseldo Ladera,

James Gayramon Ryan Neri

PetraAlogar,

Lorna Lago

ito Castino Carlo Carrillo,

Simplicio Flores Oliver Paderanga Nestor


Simplicio Flores Oliver Paderanga Teddy Galagar


Simplicio Flores Julie Jadman Rene Menciano

* Seagrass team composed of Dr. Janet S. Estacion (CCRMP Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist) and Jean O. Polo 10) validated the seagrass bed mapped during the previously conducted PRCA and PSES activity.


1. Participants of the participatory resource assessment of coastal and marine 1. Participants of the participatory resource assessment of coastal and marine 1. Participants of the participatory resource assessment of coastal and marine 1. Participants of the participatory resource assessment of coastal and marine

FISH CATCHFISH CATCHFISH CATCHFISH CATCH

SURVEYSURVEYSURVEYSURVEY

Ronnie L. Almasor

Ely Arro,

Jaime Boholano,

Eleonor Borromeo,

Reynaldo Rivera

Fe Aranas-Belara

Emerita Sumili

RhizaAbamonga,

Francisca Ragas

Edie Lagunay,

PaulBacor,

Amy Bacolcol

SofronioRealista,

George Bunglay

PetraAlogar,

Lorna Lago

Nestor Labadan

Teddy Galagar

Rene Menciano

Evaluation Specialist) and Jean O. Polo 10) validated the seagrass bed mapped during the previously conducted PRCA and PSES activity.

GENERAL PRA RESULTSGENERAL PRA RESULTSGENERAL PRA RESULTSGENERAL PRA RESULTS

Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment.

Live coral cover in the different barangays of Mambajao ranged from 0

Highest live coral cover was obtained in Magting (34.67%) and lowest at Naasag (6.67%).

Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.2. Average cover of the various benthic life forms (in percent) of t2. Average cover of the various benthic life forms (in percent) of t2. Average cover of the various benthic life forms (in percent) of t2. Average cover of the various benthic life forms (in percent) of t

barangays of the Municipality of Mambajao. C = classification of coral reef based on barangays of the Municipality of Mambajao. C = classification of coral reef based on barangays of the Municipality of Mambajao. C = classification of coral reef based on barangays of the Municipality of Mambajao. C = classification of coral reef based on

Gomez et al. (1991): Gomez et al. (1991): Gomez et al. (1991): Gomez et al. (1991):

‘excellent’ 75‘excellent’ 75‘excellent’ 75‘excellent’ 75----100; NA = not applicable.100; NA = not applicable.100; NA = not applicable.100; NA = not applicable.

BarangaysBarangaysBarangaysBarangays CCCC

Naasag Poor

Yumbing Poor

Agoho NA

Bug-ong NA

Kuguita Poor

Baylao Poor

Poblacion Fair

Balbagon Poor

Anito Poor

Magting Fair

Tupsan Grande Fair

Using the classification of Gomez et al (1991), reef condition of more than half of the

barangays (six of the 11, about 55%) is in ‘poor’ condition (Fig.

and Bug-ong) were not classified since their inclusion would lead to several misconceptions.

Firstly, this would show that Mambajao was the only municipality within the entire Camiguin

Province without reefs. This is untrue si

depth limitation of PRA methods.

tourist boat operators and even resort owners showed that it was local knowledge that the

mainland coastline from Agoho to Bug

small reefs were present at deeper areas.


GENERAL PRA RESULTSGENERAL PRA RESULTSGENERAL PRA RESULTSGENERAL PRA RESULTS

Live coral cover in the different barangays of Mambajao ranged from 0-34.67% (Table


2. Average cover of the various benthic life forms (in percent) of t2. Average cover of the various benthic life forms (in percent) of t2. Average cover of the various benthic life forms (in percent) of t2. Average cover of the various benthic life forms (in percent) of t


Gomez et al. (1991): Gomez et al. (1991): Gomez et al. (1991): Gomez et al. (1991): ‘Poor’ 0‘Poor’ 0‘Poor’ 0‘Poor’ 0----24.9%, ‘fair’ 2524.9%, ‘fair’ 2524.9%, ‘fair’ 2524.9%, ‘fair’ 25----49.950%, ‘good’ 5049.950%, ‘good’ 5049.950%, ‘good’ 5049.950%, ‘good’ 50

100; NA = not applicable.100; NA = not applicable.100; NA = not applicable.100; NA = not applicable. Live Live Live Live

CoralCoralCoralCoral

Soft Soft Soft Soft


Dead Dead Dead Dead

CoralCoralCoralCoral RubbleRubbleRubbleRubble SandSandSandSand

6.67 - 57.00 11.00 5.33

8.00 - 65.33 17.33 4.00

- - - - 54.67

- - - - 32.00

6.67 - - - 77.33

24.00 28.00 13.33 9.33 21.33

25.33 10.67 21.33 16.00 25.33

21.33 13.33 22.67 9.33 18.67

20.00 - 12.00 25.33 25.33

34.67 8.00 16.00 10.67 21.33

30.27 1.33 17.00 21.97 18.67


barangays (six of the 11, about 55%) is in ‘poor’ condition (Fig. 5.2). Two of the sites (Agoho

ong) were not classified since their inclusion would lead to several misconceptions.


Province without reefs. This is untrue since reefs are present yet beyond the capability and

depth limitation of PRA methods. Informal interactions with local participants, fisherfolks,


om Agoho to Bug-ong was mainly composed of sand and rock and that

small reefs were present at deeper areas.


34.67% (Table 5.2).


2. Average cover of the various benthic life forms (in percent) of t2. Average cover of the various benthic life forms (in percent) of t2. Average cover of the various benthic life forms (in percent) of t2. Average cover of the various benthic life forms (in percent) of the different he different he different he different


49.950%, ‘good’ 5049.950%, ‘good’ 5049.950%, ‘good’ 5049.950%, ‘good’ 50----74.9% and 74.9% and 74.9% and 74.9% and

RockRockRockRock OthersOthersOthersOthers

20.00 -

- 5.33

45.33 -

68.00 -

16.00 -

1.33 2.67

1.33 -

8.00 6.67

17.33 -

9.33 -

10.77 -


2). Two of the sites (Agoho

ong) were not classified since their inclusion would lead to several misconceptions.


nce reefs are present yet beyond the capability and

Informal interactions with local participants, fisherfolks,


ong was mainly composed of sand and rock and that

Secondly, this may lead to the concept that these areas are ‘disposable and unimportant’ since

reefs were not present, thus, diminishing the impor

In reality, this is an attraction to bathers and swimmers who prefer sandy sea bottom. It

should be noted that a number of resorts are present along this part of Mambajao coast.

Thirdly, it is strongly suspected

presence of another benthic community, a

fishing ground. Informal interviews with fisher folks indicated that wrasses associated with

Sargassum beds are often targeted when the

Lastly, the inclusion of these sites would indicate that 72.7% of the Mambajao coastline has

reefs in ‘poor’ condition.

BAYLAOKUGUITA

ANITO MAGTING

Figure Figure Figure Figure 5.5.5.5.2. Average benthic lifeform (in percent) of the different barangays surveyed 2. Average benthic lifeform (in percent) of the different barangays surveyed 2. Average benthic lifeform (in percent) of the different barangays surveyed 2. Average benthic lifeform (in percent) of the different barangays surveyed

during the PRA of the Municipality of Mambajao.during the PRA of the Municipality of Mambajao.during the PRA of the Municipality of Mambajao.during the PRA of the Municipality of Mambajao.

NAASAG YUMBING



reefs were not present, thus, diminishing the importance of the rock-sand benthic community.



Thirdly, it is strongly suspected that the rocky substrate within these sites may represent the

presence of another benthic community, a Sargassum (‘samo’) bed and may be an alternative


beds are often targeted when the Sargassum beds are present.


Live Hard Coral

Soft Coral

Dead Coral

Rubble

Legend:

BAYLAO POBLACION BALBAGON

MAGTING TUPSAN GRANDE

2. Average benthic lifeform (in percent) of the different barangays surveyed 2. Average benthic lifeform (in percent) of the different barangays surveyed 2. Average benthic lifeform (in percent) of the different barangays surveyed 2. Average benthic lifeform (in percent) of the different barangays surveyed

during the PRA of the Municipality of Mambajao.during the PRA of the Municipality of Mambajao.during the PRA of the Municipality of Mambajao.during the PRA of the Municipality of Mambajao.

YUMBING BUG-ONGAGOHO



sand benthic community.



that the rocky substrate within these sites may represent the

(‘samo’) bed and may be an alternative



Live Hard Coral

Dead Coral

Sand

Rock

Others

BALBAGON

2. Average benthic lifeform (in percent) of the different barangays surveyed 2. Average benthic lifeform (in percent) of the different barangays surveyed 2. Average benthic lifeform (in percent) of the different barangays surveyed 2. Average benthic lifeform (in percent) of the different barangays surveyed

ONG

Fish Visual CensusFish Visual CensusFish Visual CensusFish Visual Census. . . .

Fish Composition. Fish Composition. Fish Composition. Fish Composition. A total of 53 local names (Table

census of the Mambajao. Of these 49 were traced to 27 fish families, three (klamyan’, ‘lapis

lapis’ and ‘tangka-tangka’) still needs to be classified and one unknown species (‘isda’

identified families can be categorized as:

(1) Indicator species (those

from 1 family):

(2) Target species (those

of fishermen)(12 families) which can be further subdivided into

(A) Permanent residents (26 local names from 13 families): Acanthuridae

(‘bagis’, ‘lunab’ and ‘mongit’), Balistidae (‘pakol’ and ‘pogot’),

Carangidae (‘talakitok’), Haemulidae (‘p

Holocentrid

(‘bongkalit’, ‘kambiray’, ‘lubayan’, ‘logatis’, ‘topit’, ‘maming’,

‘pedlok’, ‘taad’ and ‘tangis’), Lutjanidae (‘katambak’),

(‘bodbod’), Nemipteridae (‘lakambini’ and ‘

(‘molmol’),

(B) Transient residents (2 local names from 1 family): Engraulidae

(‘dalirag’, and ‘mogkas’);

(3) Non-target species (those that are do not fetch high market prices and are

favored targets of fishermen)(19 local names from 12 families):

Apogonidae (‘moong’), Fistulariidae (‘tobo

lobay’), Muraenidae (‘agmang’ and ‘ogdo

Pinguipedidae (‘sobok’), Pomacanthidae (‘an

Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’, ‘bantay

manggolob’, ‘pata’ and ‘tugas

Synodontidae (‘tiki


A total of 53 local names (Table 5.3) were recorded during the fish visual

census of the Mambajao. Of these 49 were traced to 27 fish families, three (klamyan’, ‘lapis

tangka’) still needs to be classified and one unknown species (‘isda’

can be categorized as:

those whose presence shows the health of the reef)

from 1 family): Chaetodontidae (‘alibangbang’);

those that are commercially important and are fav

(12 families) which can be further subdivided into



Carangidae (‘talakitok’), Haemulidae (‘panapsapan’),

Holocentridae (‘baga-baga’), Kyphosidae (‘ilak’, ‘sono’


‘pedlok’, ‘taad’ and ‘tangis’), Lutjanidae (‘katambak’),

(‘bodbod’), Nemipteridae (‘lakambini’ and ‘song’),

(‘molmol’), Siganidae (‘dangit’), and Sphyraenidae (‘lambana’);


(‘dalirag’, and ‘mogkas’);

target species (those that are do not fetch high market prices and are


Apogonidae (‘moong’), Fistulariidae (‘tobo-tobo’), Malacanthidae (‘lobay

lobay’), Muraenidae (‘agmang’ and ‘ogdo-ogdo’), Pempheridae (‘tabas’),

Pinguipedidae (‘sobok’), Pomacanthidae (‘anyel-anyel’ and ‘suwat

Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’, ‘bantay-botbot’, ‘kabatingan’, ‘kapaw’,

manggolob’, ‘pata’ and ‘tugas-tugas’), Scorpaenidae (‘bantol’),

Synodontidae (‘tiki-tiki’) and Tetraodontidae (‘botete’).


3) were recorded during the fish visual

census of the Mambajao. Of these 49 were traced to 27 fish families, three (klamyan’, ‘lapis-

tangka’) still needs to be classified and one unknown species (‘isda’). The 27

whose presence shows the health of the reef)(1 ‘species’

that are commercially important and are favored targets



anapsapan’),

, ‘sono’), Labridae


‘pedlok’, ‘taad’ and ‘tangis’), Lutjanidae (‘katambak’), Mullidae

song’), Scaridae

and Sphyraenidae (‘lambana’);


target species (those that are do not fetch high market prices and are not


tobo’), Malacanthidae (‘lobay-

ogdo’), Pempheridae (‘tabas’),

anyel’ and ‘suwat-suwat’),

botbot’, ‘kabatingan’, ‘kapaw’,

tugas’), Scorpaenidae (‘bantol’),

Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.3. Local names of fishes, family which the local names belong and the common names of the 3. Local names of fishes, family which the local names belong and the common names of the 3. Local names of fishes, family which the local names belong and the common names of the 3. Local names of fishes, family which the local names belong and the common names of the

family recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of the Municipality of family recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of the Municipality of family recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of the Municipality of family recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of the Municipality of

Mambajao and their categories (C) Legend: + = present; I = indicator sMambajao and their categories (C) Legend: + = present; I = indicator sMambajao and their categories (C) Legend: + = present; I = indicator sMambajao and their categories (C) Legend: + = present; I = indicator s

species (reef residents); T(P) = target species (pelagic / transient species) and NT = nonspecies (reef residents); T(P) = target species (pelagic / transient species) and NT = nonspecies (reef residents); T(P) = target species (pelagic / transient species) and NT = nonspecies (reef residents); T(P) = target species (pelagic / transient species) and NT = non

species. species. species. species.

Local NameLocal NameLocal NameLocal Name Family Family Family Family

(Common Name)(Common Name)(Common Name)(Common Name)

1 Alibang-bang Chaetodontidae

(Butterflyfishes)

2 Bagis Acanthuridae (Surgeon

Fishes)

3 Lunab Acanthuridae (Surgeon Fishes)

4 Mongit Acanthuridae (Surgeon

Fishes)

5 Pakol Balistidae (Triggerfishes)

6 Pogot Balistidae (Triggerfishes)

7 Talakitok Carangidae (Jacks)

8 Panapsapan Haemulidae (Sweetlips)

9 Baga-baga Holocentridae

(Squirrelfishes)

10 Ilak Kyphosidae (Drummers)

11 Sono Kyphosidae (Drummers)

12 Bongkalit Labridae (Wrasses)

13 Kambiray Labridae (Wrasses)

14 Labayan Labridae (Wrasses)

15 Logatis Labridae (Wrasses)

16 Lopit Labridae (Wrasses)

17 Maming Labridae (Wrasses)

18 Pedlok Labridae (Wrasses)

19 Taad Labridae (Wrasses)

20 Tangis Labridae (Wrasses)

21 Katambak Lutjanidae (Snappers)

22 Bodbod Mullidae (Goatfishes)

23 Makabinhi Nemipteridae (Breams)

24 Song Nemipteridae (Breams)

25 Molmol Scaridae (Parrotfishes)

26 Danggit Siganidae (Rabbitfishes)

27 Lambana Sphyraenidae

(Barracudas)

28 Dalirag Engraulidae (Anchovies)

29 Mogkas Engraulidae (Anchovies)

30 Moong Apogonidae (Cardinal

Fishes)

31 Tambal Leon Blenniidae (Blennies)


3. Local names of fishes, family which the local names belong and the common names of the 3. Local names of fishes, family which the local names belong and the common names of the 3. Local names of fishes, family which the local names belong and the common names of the 3. Local names of fishes, family which the local names belong and the common names of the


Mambajao and their categories (C) Legend: + = present; I = indicator sMambajao and their categories (C) Legend: + = present; I = indicator sMambajao and their categories (C) Legend: + = present; I = indicator sMambajao and their categories (C) Legend: + = present; I = indicator species; T(R) = target pecies; T(R) = target pecies; T(R) = target pecies; T(R) = target

species (reef residents); T(P) = target species (pelagic / transient species) and NT = nonspecies (reef residents); T(P) = target species (pelagic / transient species) and NT = nonspecies (reef residents); T(P) = target species (pelagic / transient species) and NT = nonspecies (reef residents); T(P) = target species (pelagic / transient species) and NT = non

(Common Name)(Common Name)(Common Name)(Common Name) CCCC

Naasa

gN

aasa

gN

aasa

gN

aasa

g

Yum

bin

gYum

bin

gYum

bin

gYum

bin

g

Agoho

Agoho

Agoho

Agoho

Bug

Bug

Bug

Bug-- -- o

ng

ong

ong

ong

Kuguita

Kuguita

Kuguita

Kuguita

Bayla

oBayla

oBayla

oBayla

o

Pobla

cion

Pobla

cion

Pobla

cion

Pobla

cion

Balb

agon

Balb

agon

Balb

agon

Balb

agon

I + + + +

Acanthuridae (Surgeon T(R) + +

Acanthuridae (Surgeon T(R) +

Acanthuridae (Surgeon T(R) +

Balistidae (Triggerfishes) T(R) +

Balistidae (Triggerfishes) T(R) + + + + + +

T(R) +

Haemulidae (Sweetlips) T(R) + +

T(R) + + +

Kyphosidae (Drummers) T(R) +

Kyphosidae (Drummers) T(R) + +

Labridae (Wrasses) T(R)

Labridae (Wrasses) T(R) +

Labridae (Wrasses) T(R) + + +

Labridae (Wrasses) T(R) + + + + +


Labridae (Wrasses) T(R) + + + +

Labridae (Wrasses) T(R) + + + + +


Labridae (Wrasses) T(R)

Lutjanidae (Snappers) T(R) +

Mullidae (Goatfishes) T(R) + + + +

Nemipteridae (Breams) T(R) + + +

Nemipteridae (Breams) T(R) +

Scaridae (Parrotfishes) T(R) + + + + + + +

Siganidae (Rabbitfishes) T(R) +

T(R) + +

Engraulidae (Anchovies) T(P) + +

Engraulidae (Anchovies) T(P) +

Apogonidae (Cardinal NT + + + + + +

Blenniidae (Blennies) NT + +


3. Local names of fishes, family which the local names belong and the common names of the 3. Local names of fishes, family which the local names belong and the common names of the 3. Local names of fishes, family which the local names belong and the common names of the 3. Local names of fishes, family which the local names belong and the common names of the


pecies; T(R) = target pecies; T(R) = target pecies; T(R) = target pecies; T(R) = target

species (reef residents); T(P) = target species (pelagic / transient species) and NT = nonspecies (reef residents); T(P) = target species (pelagic / transient species) and NT = nonspecies (reef residents); T(P) = target species (pelagic / transient species) and NT = nonspecies (reef residents); T(P) = target species (pelagic / transient species) and NT = non----target target target target

Balb

agon

Balb

agon

Balb

agon

Balb

agon

Anito

Anito

Anito

Anito

Magting

Magting

Magting

Magting

Tupsa

n

Tupsa

n

Tupsa

n

Tupsa

n

Gra

nde

Gra

nde

Gra

nde

Gra

nde

+ + + +

+ +

+

+ +

+

+ + +

+ +

+ + +

+ + + +

+ + +

+ +

+ + + +

+

+ + + +

+ + + +

+ +

+

+ +

+

+ +

+

Local NameLocal NameLocal NameLocal Name Family Family Family Family

(Common Name)(Common Name)(Common Name)(Common Name)

32 Tobo-tobo Fistulariidae

(Flutemouths)

33 Lobaylobay Malacanthidae

(Tilefishes)

34 Agmang Muraenidae (Moray

Eels)

35 Ogdo-ogdo Muraenidae (Moray

Eels)

36 Tabas Pempheridae (Sweepers)

37 Sobok Pinguipedidae (Sand

Perches)

38 Anyel-anyel Pomacanthidae (Angelfishes)

39 Suwat-suwat Pomacanthidae

(Angelfishes)

40 Salikoko Pomacentridae (Damsel

fishes)

41 Bantay-

botbot

Pomacentridae (Damsel

fishes)

42 Kabatingan Pomacentridae (Sergeant

Majors)

43 Kapaw Pomacentridae (Damsel

Fishes)

44 Manggolob Pomacentridae (Damsel

Fishes)

45 Pata Pomacentridae (Damsel

Fishes)

46 Tugas-tugas Pomacentridae (Damsel

Fishes)

47 Bantol Scorpaenidae (Stone

Fishes)

48 Tiki-tiki Synodontidae (Lizard

Fishes)

49 Botete Tetraodontidae

(Pufferfishes)

50 Klamyan Unknown

51 Lapis-lapis Unknown

52 Tangka-

tangka Unknown

53 Isda Unknown

TOTAL NUMBER OF ‘SPECIES’ (BASED ON LOCA

NAMES) PER BARANGAY


(Common Name)(Common Name)(Common Name)(Common Name) CCCC

Naasa

gN

aasa

gN

aasa

gN

aasa

g

Yum

bin

gYum

bin

gYum

bin

gYum

bin

g

Agoho

Agoho

Agoho

Agoho

Bug

Bug

Bug

Bug-- -- o

ng

ong

ong

ong

Kuguita

Kuguita

Kuguita

Kuguita

Bayla

oBayla

oBayla

oBayla

o

Pobla

cion

Pobla

cion

Pobla

cion

Pobla

cion

Balb

agon

Balb

agon

Balb

agon

Balb

agon

NT +

NT +

Muraenidae (Moray NT + +

Muraenidae (Moray NT

Pempheridae (Sweepers) NT +

Pinguipedidae (Sand NT + + +

NT +

NT + +

Pomacentridae (Damsel NT + + + + +

Pomacentridae (Damsel NT + + + + + +

Pomacentridae (Sergeant NT + + + + +

Pomacentridae (Damsel NT + +

Pomacentridae (Damsel NT + +

Pomacentridae (Damsel NT + + + + +

Pomacentridae (Damsel NT +

Scorpaenidae (Stone NT

Synodontidae (Lizard NT + + + +

NT + + + +

U + +

U +

U

U

CIES’ (BASED ON LOCAL

20 16 15 12 16 25 22 24


Balb

agon

Balb

agon

Balb

agon

Balb

agon

Anito

Anito

Anito

Anito

Magting

Magting

Magting

Magting

Tupsa

n

Tupsa

n

Tupsa

n

Tupsa

n

Gra

nde

Gra

nde

Gra

nde

Gra

nde

+ +

+ +

+

+

+ + +

+ + +

+ + + +

+

+ + + +

+

+

+ + +

+ + +

+

+

+

24 17 22 18

Fish Diversity. Fish Diversity. Fish Diversity. Fish Diversity. Among the different barangays, highest number of ‘species’ was recorded for

Baylao (25), Balbagon (24), Poblacion and Magting (22 each)(Table

these sites had low hard coral cover, they relatively higher coral co

(Naasag, Yumbing, Agoho, Bug

obtained for Bug-ong (12), which was expected considering that Bug

However, the site at Agoho had 15 ‘species’ despite having

Anito with 20% coral cover and Tupsan Grande with 30.27% coral cover.

Using the categories indicator, target, non

species were more diverse than non

‘species’ compared to 19 non-

level was almost similar between target (14) and non

Comparing the number of ‘species’ between target and non

generally had higher numbers (in 7 of the 11 barangays) while non

higher than target species in three of the 11 barangays (Fig.

Figure 5.3. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) and number of families Figure 5.3. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) and number of families Figure 5.3. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) and number of families Figure 5.3. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) and number of families

represented of fishes recorded during the fish visual census of represented of fishes recorded during the fish visual census of represented of fishes recorded during the fish visual census of represented of fishes recorded during the fish visual census of

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

NU

MBER

NU

MBER

NU

MBER

NU

MBER


Among the different barangays, highest number of ‘species’ was recorded for

Baylao (25), Balbagon (24), Poblacion and Magting (22 each)(Table 5.3). Note that although

these sites had low hard coral cover, they relatively higher coral cover than other sites

(Naasag, Yumbing, Agoho, Bug-ong and Kuguita)(Table 5.2). Lowest number of species was

ong (12), which was expected considering that Bug-ong had no reef area.

However, the site at Agoho had 15 ‘species’ despite having no reef, yet was comparable to

Anito with 20% coral cover and Tupsan Grande with 30.27% coral cover.

Using the categories indicator, target, non-target and unclassified, it appears that the target

species were more diverse than non-target species. Target species were represented by 28

-target species (Fig. 5.3). However, representation at the family

level was almost similar between target (14) and non-target (12) species (Fig. 5.

Comparing the number of ‘species’ between target and non-target species, target species

generally had higher numbers (in 7 of the 11 barangays) while non-target species were only

higher than target species in three of the 11 barangays (Fig. 5.4).


represented of fishes recorded during the fish visual census of represented of fishes recorded during the fish visual census of represented of fishes recorded during the fish visual census of represented of fishes recorded during the fish visual census of Mambajao.Mambajao.Mambajao.Mambajao.

Indicator Species

Target Species

Non-Target Species

Spec iesSpec iesSpec iesSpec ies FamiliesFamiliesFamiliesFamilies


Among the different barangays, highest number of ‘species’ was recorded for

3). Note that although

ver than other sites

2). Lowest number of species was

ong had no reef area.

no reef, yet was comparable to

target and unclassified, it appears that the target

target species. Target species were represented by 28

entation at the family

5.3).

target species, target species

target species were only


Mambajao.Mambajao.Mambajao.Mambajao.

At Yumbing, there was equal representation of both. At Magting, target ‘species’ were almost

three times higher than non-target ‘species’. Note that among the 11 barangay, three (Agoho,

Bug-ong and Kuguita) did not have indicator species. This agrees with

results where the Agoho and Bug

mainly a sandy community rather than a coral reef community (refer to Table

5.2).

For the number of families represented by the

represented by more families, indicating higher diversity of target species at the family level

(Fig. 5). Highest number of target species was observed in Baylon (12), Poblacion (10) and

Magting (8). Eight families of target species were also recorded for Balbagon, similar to the

number of families of non-target species (Fig.

This aspect is important since some fish families are herbivores (eating algae and other

photosynthetic organisms) like the parrot fi

prey on invertebrates in the sand like the goatfish, ‘bodbob’ and there are the predators like

the snappers, ‘katambak’ and barracuda, ‘lambana’. Target species like ‘molmol’ and ‘bodbob’

are commonly found in reefs but the predators are less common. Their presence indicates the

Indicator Species

Target Species

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Naa Yum Ago

Num

ber

of

'Specie

s'N

um

ber

of

'Specie

s'N

um

ber

of

'Specie

s'N

um

ber

of

'Specie

s'

Figure 5.4. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) of fishes recorded during the PRA fish Figure 5.4. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) of fishes recorded during the PRA fish Figure 5.4. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) of fishes recorded during the PRA fish Figure 5.4. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) of fishes recorded during the PRA fish

visual census of Mambajao. Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, visual census of Mambajao. Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, visual census of Mambajao. Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, visual census of Mambajao. Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho,

BBBBug = Bugug = Bugug = Bugug = Bug----ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon,

Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.



target ‘species’. Note that among the 11 barangay, three (Agoho,

ong and Kuguita) did not have indicator species. This agrees with the coral reef assessment

results where the Agoho and Bug-ong sites did not have any coral reefs while Kuguita was

mainly a sandy community rather than a coral reef community (refer to Table

For the number of families represented by the local names, target species were generally



es of target species were also recorded for Balbagon, similar to the

target species (Fig. 5.5).


photosynthetic organisms) like the parrot fish, ‘molmol’ and the wrasses like ‘lubayan’, others



nd in reefs but the predators are less common. Their presence indicates the

Non-Target Species

Unclassified

Ago Bug Kug Bay Pob Bal Ani

BARANGAYBARANGAYBARANGAYBARANGAY



ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon,




target ‘species’. Note that among the 11 barangay, three (Agoho,

the coral reef assessment

ong sites did not have any coral reefs while Kuguita was

mainly a sandy community rather than a coral reef community (refer to Table 5.2 and Fig.

local names, target species were generally



es of target species were also recorded for Balbagon, similar to the


sh, ‘molmol’ and the wrasses like ‘lubayan’, others



nd in reefs but the predators are less common. Their presence indicates the

Mag TupG




health of the fisheries, that is, they are present in distinct numbers if prey is sufficient.

Furthermore, target species can also be subdivided into reef residents and transients.

species like the anchovies, ‘dalirag’ and ‘mogkas’, are transient residents which occur in

schools. Their presence, if not qualified, can give the impression that the reefs support a large

number of target species when in actuality the permanent r

for their survival are in small densities.

Fish DensiFish DensiFish DensiFish Densitytytyty. The total density of the fishes and the density per size class range of fishes

recorded during the PRA of all the barangays is shown in Table

Balbagon had the highest average total fish density (535 organisms/500 m

Poblacion (414 organisms/500 m

organisms/500 m2)(Table 5.4). Of these results, high fish density at Agoho was the most

surprising, considering that the area’s substrate cover was 54.7% sand and 45.3%

similar to that of the adjacent barangay, Bug

the third highest fish density while Bug

density at Agoho was attributed to very densities of the po

99-148 organisms/500 m2 (average = 126 organisms/500 m

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Naa Yum Ago

Num

ber

of

Fis

h F

am

ilie

s R

epre

sente

dN

um

ber

of

Fis

h F

am

ilie

s R

epre

sente

dN

um

ber

of

Fis

h F

am

ilie

s R

epre

sente

dN

um

ber

of

Fis

h F

am

ilie

s R

epre

sente

d

Indicator Species

Target Species

Non-Target Species

Figure 5.5. Number of fish families represented by the local names of fishes recorded during the Figure 5.5. Number of fish families represented by the local names of fishes recorded during the Figure 5.5. Number of fish families represented by the local names of fishes recorded during the Figure 5.5. Number of fish families represented by the local names of fishes recorded during the

PRA fish PRA fish PRA fish PRA fish visual census of Mambajao. Unclassified fishes were not included. Legend: Naa visual census of Mambajao. Unclassified fishes were not included. Legend: Naa visual census of Mambajao. Unclassified fishes were not included. Legend: Naa visual census of Mambajao. Unclassified fishes were not included. Legend: Naa

= Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = Bug= Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = Bug= Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = Bug= Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = Bug

Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.



Furthermore, target species can also be subdivided into reef residents and transients.



number of target species when in actuality the permanent residents who depend on the reef

for their survival are in small densities.

. The total density of the fishes and the density per size class range of fishes

recorded during the PRA of all the barangays is shown in Table 5.4. Among all the barangays,

Balbagon had the highest average total fish density (535 organisms/500 m

Poblacion (414 organisms/500 m2), Agoho (374 organisms/500 m2) and Baylao (342

4). Of these results, high fish density at Agoho was the most

surprising, considering that the area’s substrate cover was 54.7% sand and 45.3%

similar to that of the adjacent barangay, Bug-ong (32% sand and 68% rock). Yet, Agoho had

the third highest fish density while Bug-ong had one of the lowest fish density. The high fish

density at Agoho was attributed to very densities of the pomacentrid, ‘salikoko’, ranging from

(average = 126 organisms/500 m2), the wrasse, ‘logatis’ at densities

Ago Bug Kug Bay Pob Bal Ani Mag


Indicator Species

Target Species

Target Species


visual census of Mambajao. Unclassified fishes were not included. Legend: Naa visual census of Mambajao. Unclassified fishes were not included. Legend: Naa visual census of Mambajao. Unclassified fishes were not included. Legend: Naa visual census of Mambajao. Unclassified fishes were not included. Legend: Naa

= Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = Bug= Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = Bug= Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = Bug= Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = Bug----ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay =




Furthermore, target species can also be subdivided into reef residents and transients. Pelagic



esidents who depend on the reef

. The total density of the fishes and the density per size class range of fishes

4. Among all the barangays,

Balbagon had the highest average total fish density (535 organisms/500 m2), followed by

) and Baylao (342

4). Of these results, high fish density at Agoho was the most

surprising, considering that the area’s substrate cover was 54.7% sand and 45.3% rock, very

ong (32% sand and 68% rock). Yet, Agoho had

ong had one of the lowest fish density. The high fish

macentrid, ‘salikoko’, ranging from

), the wrasse, ‘logatis’ at densities

Mag TupG


visual census of Mambajao. Unclassified fishes were not included. Legend: Naa visual census of Mambajao. Unclassified fishes were not included. Legend: Naa visual census of Mambajao. Unclassified fishes were not included. Legend: Naa visual census of Mambajao. Unclassified fishes were not included. Legend: Naa

ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay =


of 0-136 organisms/500 m2 (average = 83 organisms/500 m

densities of 13-90 organisms/500 m

Reports).

Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.4. Density (number of individuals/500 m4. Density (number of individuals/500 m4. Density (number of individuals/500 m4. Density (number of individuals/500 m

recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of Mambajao. Values in recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of Mambajao. Values in recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of Mambajao. Values in recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of Mambajao. Values in

parenthesis parenthesis parenthesis parenthesis are standard deviation of the mean.are standard deviation of the mean.are standard deviation of the mean.are standard deviation of the mean.

BarangayBarangayBarangayBarangay 1111----10 cm10 cm10 cm10 cm

Naasag 213 (57.5)

Yumbing 280 (77.3)

Agoho 374 (132.9)

Bug-ong 63.7 (29.1)

Kuguita 146 (104.9)

Baylao 327.7 (104.5)

Poblacion 406.7 (84.5)

Balbagon 523.3 (159.7)

Anito 89.0 (26.2)

Magting 178.7 (204.7)

Tupsan Grande 145.3 (78.5)

Comparing density of target and non

transects were non-target fishes in eight of the 11 barangays (Fig.

Poblacion and Magting that the density of target species was higher than non

However, if the target species were examined closely, the high density can actually be

attributed to the transient or pelagic species and

Fish Fish Fish Fish SizesSizesSizesSizes. Fish sizes were generally small (Fig.

only five of the 11 baragangays (Baylon, Poblacion, Balbagon, Anito and Magting) recording

organisms within the 11-20 cm range and only Poblacion with >30 cm (Table

11-20 cm fishes was highest at Baylao with a mean of 14 organisms/500 m

Balbagon with 11 organisms/500 m


(average = 83 organisms/500 m2) and the apogonid, ‘moong’ at

90 organisms/500 m2 (average = 42 organisms/500 m2)(refer to Barangay

4. Density (number of individuals/500 m4. Density (number of individuals/500 m4. Density (number of individuals/500 m4. Density (number of individuals/500 m2222) per size class and the total density of fishes ) per size class and the total density of fishes ) per size class and the total density of fishes ) per size class and the total density of fishes


are standard deviation of the mean.are standard deviation of the mean.are standard deviation of the mean.are standard deviation of the mean.

10 cm10 cm10 cm10 cm 11111111----20 cm20 cm20 cm20 cm 21212121----30 cm30 cm30 cm30 cm > 30 cm> 30 cm> 30 cm> 30 cm

213 (57.5)

280 (77.3)

374 (132.9)

63.7 (29.1)

(104.9)

327.7 (104.5) 14.3 (12.6)

406.7 (84.5) 7.0 (6.6) 0.3 (0.6)

523.3 (159.7) 11.7 (13.9)

89.0 (26.2) 4.0 (5.3)

178.7 (204.7) 3.3 (2.5)

145.3 (78.5) 1.7 (2.9)

Comparing density of target and non-target species, the bulk of the fishes recorded within the

target fishes in eight of the 11 barangays (Fig. 5.6). It is only at Baylon,

Poblacion and Magting that the density of target species was higher than non


attributed to the transient or pelagic species and not to the permanent reef residents (Fig.

. Fish sizes were generally small (Fig. 5.7), falling within the 1-10 cm size range with


20 cm range and only Poblacion with >30 cm (Table

20 cm fishes was highest at Baylao with a mean of 14 organisms/500 m

Balbagon with 11 organisms/500 m2.


) and the apogonid, ‘moong’ at

)(refer to Barangay

) per size class and the total density of fishes ) per size class and the total density of fishes ) per size class and the total density of fishes ) per size class and the total density of fishes


Total DensityTotal DensityTotal DensityTotal Density

213.0 (57.5)

280.0 (77.3)

374.0 (132.9)

63.7 (29.1)

146 .0 (104.9)

342.0 (116.1)

414.0 (87.7)

535.0 (151.6)

93.0 (20.9)

182 (207.0)

147 (81.4)

target species, the bulk of the fishes recorded within the

6). It is only at Baylon,

Poblacion and Magting that the density of target species was higher than non-target fishes.


not to the permanent reef residents (Fig. 5.6).

10 cm size range with


20 cm range and only Poblacion with >30 cm (Table 5.4). Density of

20 cm fishes was highest at Baylao with a mean of 14 organisms/500 m2, followed by

Figure 5.7. Density (number of organisms/500 mFigure 5.7. Density (number of organisms/500 mFigure 5.7. Density (number of organisms/500 mFigure 5.7. Density (number of organisms/500 m


Bug = BugBug = BugBug = BugBug = Bug----ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon,


1-10 cm

11-20 cm

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

Naa Yum

Densi

ty (

No.

of

Indiv

iduals

/500m

2)

Densi

ty (

No.

of

Indiv

iduals

/500m

2)

Densi

ty (

No.

of

Indiv

iduals

/500m

2)

Densi

ty (

No.

of

Indiv

iduals

/500m

2)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Naa Yum Ago

Density

(N

o.

of

Indiv

iduals/5

00 m

2)

Density

(N

o.

of

Indiv

iduals/5

00 m

2)

Density

(N

o.

of

Indiv

iduals/5

00 m

2)

Density

(N

o.

of

Indiv

iduals/5

00 m

2) Indicator Species

Target Species

Target Species

Figure 5.6. Fish density (number of fishes/500 mFigure 5.6. Fish density (number of fishes/500 mFigure 5.6. Fish density (number of fishes/500 mFigure 5.6. Fish density (number of fishes/500 m

unclassified fishes recorded during unclassified fishes recorded during unclassified fishes recorded during unclassified fishes recorded during

Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = BugLegend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = BugLegend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = BugLegend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = Bug

Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG =

Tupsan Grande.Tupsan Grande.Tupsan Grande.Tupsan Grande.


Figure 5.7. Density (number of organisms/500 mFigure 5.7. Density (number of organisms/500 mFigure 5.7. Density (number of organisms/500 mFigure 5.7. Density (number of organisms/500 m2222) of ) of ) of ) of fishes recorded during the PRA fish fishes recorded during the PRA fish fishes recorded during the PRA fish fishes recorded during the PRA fish




10 cm

20 cm

Ago Bug Kug Bay Pob Bal Ani Mag TupG


Bug Kug Bay Pob Bal Ani Mag


Non-Target Species

Unclassified

Indicator Species

Target Species – Reef

Target Species – Pelagic

Figure 5.6. Fish density (number of fishes/500 mFigure 5.6. Fish density (number of fishes/500 mFigure 5.6. Fish density (number of fishes/500 mFigure 5.6. Fish density (number of fishes/500 m2222) of indicator, target, non) of indicator, target, non) of indicator, target, non) of indicator, target, non----target and target and target and target and

unclassified fishes recorded during unclassified fishes recorded during unclassified fishes recorded during unclassified fishes recorded during the PRA fish visual census of Mambajao. the PRA fish visual census of Mambajao. the PRA fish visual census of Mambajao. the PRA fish visual census of Mambajao.

Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = BugLegend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = BugLegend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = BugLegend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = Bug----ong, Kug = ong, Kug = ong, Kug = ong, Kug =



fishes recorded during the PRA fish fishes recorded during the PRA fish fishes recorded during the PRA fish fishes recorded during the PRA fish



TupG

TupG

target and target and target and target and

the PRA fish visual census of Mambajao. the PRA fish visual census of Mambajao. the PRA fish visual census of Mambajao. the PRA fish visual census of Mambajao.

ong, Kug = ong, Kug = ong, Kug = ong, Kug =


Survey of Seagrass Survey of Seagrass Survey of Seagrass Survey of Seagrass BedsBedsBedsBeds. . . .

Paderanga and Apugan (2002

Mambajao except for that at Lagunde, Poblacion and Baylao. However, PCRA coastal maps

drawn by barangay-level consultation showed the presence of large seagrass beds

coastal barangays. Dr. Janet S. Estacion (CCRMP Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist) and

Ms. Jean O. Polo of DENR-10 conducted a rapid validation of the seagrass beds indicated in

the PCRA maps. Riding a motorized boat from Agoho to Tupsan Gran

the PCRA maps and any area encountered in the trip that may have seagrass beds were

examined through snorkeling. Particular attention was paid to the Poblacion and Baylao, sites

which were positively identified as having seagrass be

Seagrass beds were not seen at Kuguita and Baylao but rather the greenish color of the sea

bottom (often mistaken for seagrasses) was due to the presence of the green alga,

Enteromorpha intestinalis, attached to rocks. To

Actinotrichia, Dictyota, Mastophora, and Galaxaura

covered with remnants and stipes of the brown algae,

Turbinaria, were present.

Two sites had confirmed seagrass beds: Poblacion (between Balintawak and the warehouse,

near the opening of the creek, and Anito. The bed at Poblacion was small (about 10 m wide)

composed of Cymodocea rotundata

thalli. Present at the edges of the bed were the pioneering species,

Halophila ovalis. A portion of the bed was unique in that it was composed of

isoetifolium, almost a pure bed except for a few

Enteromorpha on rocks followed by

bed about 15 m wide and about 50 m long, located at a depth of about 20 ft.

Seagrass beds do not thrive in areas with unstable substrate

wave action. This may be the case of Mambajao as indicated by its steep underwater

topography and large-grained sediment type.

* Paderanga, O.R.T. and R.S. Apugan. 2002. Coastal Marine Resource Assessment of Mambajao, Camiguin (Terminal Report,

September 2002).


Paderanga and Apugan (2002*) showed that seagrasses do not form extensive beds at


level consultation showed the presence of large seagrass beds


10 conducted a rapid validation of the seagrass beds indicated in

the PCRA maps. Riding a motorized boat from Agoho to Tupsan Grande, places indicated at



which were positively identified as having seagrass beds by Paderanga and Apugan (2002).



attached to rocks. Together with this were other algae such as

Actinotrichia, Dictyota, Mastophora, and Galaxaura. At the deeper portion, the rocks were

covered with remnants and stipes of the brown algae, Sargassum alone or



Cymodocea rotundata and Halodule uninervis with few Thalassia hem

thalli. Present at the edges of the bed were the pioneering species, Halodule pinifolia

. A portion of the bed was unique in that it was composed of

, almost a pure bed except for a few Thalassia shoots. At the deeper portion were

on rocks followed by Sargassum. At Anito, there was a pure Halodule pinifolia


Seagrass beds do not thrive in areas with unstable substrate, often exposed to high energy


grained sediment type.

and R.S. Apugan. 2002. Coastal Marine Resource Assessment of Mambajao, Camiguin (Terminal Report,


) showed that seagrasses do not form extensive beds at


level consultation showed the presence of large seagrass beds in several


10 conducted a rapid validation of the seagrass beds indicated in

de, places indicated at



ds by Paderanga and Apugan (2002).



gether with this were other algae such as

. At the deeper portion, the rocks were

alone or Sargassum and



Thalassia hemprichii

Halodule pinifolia and

. A portion of the bed was unique in that it was composed of Syringodium

At the deeper portion were

Halodule pinifolia


, often exposed to high energy


and R.S. Apugan. 2002. Coastal Marine Resource Assessment of Mambajao, Camiguin (Terminal Report,

RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS

Habitat Assessment Activity (PRA Training, Survey and Analysis)Habitat Assessment Activity (PRA Training, Survey and Analysis)Habitat Assessment Activity (PRA Training, Survey and Analysis)Habitat Assessment Activity (PRA Training, Survey and Analysis)

Among the municipalities of the Province, Mambajao had a low turn

thus participants of other barangays had to survey those barangays that were not

represented. One of the apparent reasons for the low turn

participants regarding the activity. According to one participant, he was informed only in the

late afternoon, the day before the training. Another participant was anxious to go home

early since he had already scheduled crop harvesting in his farm.

If the PRA activity were to be sustained as an annual municipal activity, there is a need to

involve more barangay residents particularly those from barangay Tupsan Grande. Training

could be conducted by identified participants who had previous PRA training

involvement, and who showed an aptitude and understanding of the entire activity. Also,

since this PRA already showed that two barangays (Agoho and Bug

PRA should be concentrated in areas with reefs.

The data for fish catch collected during the PRA was intentionally not analyzed since data

collected was sparse and any analysis may lead to misconceptions regarding the state of the

fisheries. Thus, the continued data collection for fish catch is strongly recommended.

A disadvantage of the reliability of the PRA data is the differences in the levels of expertise

among the observers for FVC and data gatherers for fish catch since these need fish

identification which has to be validated by experts. Usually, a ‘Fish Album’ is use

this problem. The album contains pictures of the common fishes of the area, their local

names, their scientific names and the unique characteristics of each species. Since this PRA has

generated a collection of the local names, a ‘Fish Album’

and disseminated for use.


RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS

Habitat Assessment Activity (PRA Training, Survey and Analysis)Habitat Assessment Activity (PRA Training, Survey and Analysis)Habitat Assessment Activity (PRA Training, Survey and Analysis)Habitat Assessment Activity (PRA Training, Survey and Analysis). . . .

the municipalities of the Province, Mambajao had a low turn-out of participants and


represented. One of the apparent reasons for the low turn-out was the delay in informing t



early since he had already scheduled crop harvesting in his farm.

f the PRA activity were to be sustained as an annual municipal activity, there is a need to


could be conducted by identified participants who had previous PRA training


since this PRA already showed that two barangays (Agoho and Bug-ong) does not have reefs,

PRA should be concentrated in areas with reefs.

collected during the PRA was intentionally not analyzed since data



vantage of the reliability of the PRA data is the differences in the levels of expertise


identification which has to be validated by experts. Usually, a ‘Fish Album’ is use



generated a collection of the local names, a ‘Fish Album’ can be generated after a workshop


out of participants and


out was the delay in informing the



f the PRA activity were to be sustained as an annual municipal activity, there is a need to


could be conducted by identified participants who had previous PRA training and


ong) does not have reefs,

collected during the PRA was intentionally not analyzed since data



vantage of the reliability of the PRA data is the differences in the levels of expertise


identification which has to be validated by experts. Usually, a ‘Fish Album’ is used to address



can be generated after a workshop

Status of Marine and Coastal Habitats of MambajaoStatus of Marine and Coastal Habitats of MambajaoStatus of Marine and Coastal Habitats of MambajaoStatus of Marine and Coastal Habitats of Mambajao

The participants were tasked to determine the best reef areas to be surveyed. As such, it is

assumed that the surveyed sites represented ei

barangay (like PRA sites located within MPAs

typical marine habitat of the barangay.

Generally, the status of the coral reefs of Mambajao ranges from poor to fair with high

coral cover at Magting (34.67%) and Tupsan Grande (30.27%)(Table 2). This is despite the

fact that the PRA sites were not located within their MPAs. Since it is customary to protect the

best reefs in the area, it is possible that coral cover withi

PRA sites. Thus it appears that among the barangays of Mambajao, Magting and Mambajao

have conditions that are favorable for reefs. Rather than establishing sanctuaries at other

barangays, it is recommended that the size o

Grande be increased.

Despite having the highest coral cover within Mambajao, Magting and Tupsan Grande had

relatively low fish densities (Table

the PRA or may be because of fishing pressure within the area. Close attention should be paid

to the analysis of future PRA data to generate reliable trends for proper management.


Status of Marine and Coastal Habitats of MambajaoStatus of Marine and Coastal Habitats of MambajaoStatus of Marine and Coastal Habitats of MambajaoStatus of Marine and Coastal Habitats of Mambajao. . . .


assumed that the surveyed sites represented either the best coral reef area within the

barangay (like PRA sites located within MPAs – example, Kuguita and Poblacion) or the

typical marine habitat of the barangay.

Generally, the status of the coral reefs of Mambajao ranges from poor to fair with high



best reefs in the area, it is possible that coral cover within the MPAs may be higher than the



barangays, it is recommended that the size of the existing MPAs at Magting and Tupsan


relatively low fish densities (Table 4.3). This may be due to the different observers conducting

or may be because of fishing pressure within the area. Close attention should be paid




ther the best coral reef area within the

example, Kuguita and Poblacion) or the

Generally, the status of the coral reefs of Mambajao ranges from poor to fair with highest live



n the MPAs may be higher than the



f the existing MPAs at Magting and Tupsan


3). This may be due to the different observers conducting

or may be because of fishing pressure within the area. Close attention should be paid



The surveyed site for coral reef assessment was composed primarily of dead coral (Fig.

reaching high as 75% at Transect 1 (Table

the last two transects was composed of rock with 24% and 36%, respec

cover of the transects at Naasag ranged from 4

categorizing the area as “poor” (0

Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.5. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Naasag, Mambajao.5. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Naasag, Mambajao.5. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Naasag, Mambajao.5. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Naasag, Mambajao.

Live Live Live Live


Transect 1 8

Transect 2 4

Transect 3 8

Average 6.67

Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3

Figure 5.8. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.8. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.8. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.8. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as

drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao. drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao. drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao. drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao.

Legend:Legend:Legend:Legend:


NAASAG, MAMBAJAONAASAG, MAMBAJAONAASAG, MAMBAJAONAASAG, MAMBAJAO


reaching high as 75% at Transect 1 (Table 5.5) to 48% at Transects 2 and 3. A sizeable part of

the last two transects was composed of rock with 24% and 36%, respectively. The live coral

cover of the transects at Naasag ranged from 4-8%, with an average of 6.67% (Fig.

categorizing the area as “poor” (0-24.9%).

5. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Naasag, Mambajao.5. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Naasag, Mambajao.5. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Naasag, Mambajao.5. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Naasag, Mambajao.

Soft Soft Soft Soft


Dead Dead Dead Dead

CoralCoralCoralCoral RubbleRubbleRubbleRubble SandSandSandSand RockRockRockRock

0 75 9 8 0

0 48 16 8 24

0 48 8 0 36

0 57.0 11.0 5.33 20

Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3



Live Coral Dead Coral Rubble

Sand Rock


The surveyed site for coral reef assessment was composed primarily of dead coral (Fig. 5.8),

5) to 48% at Transects 2 and 3. A sizeable part of

tively. The live coral

8%, with an average of 6.67% (Fig. 5.8),

5. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Naasag, Mambajao.5. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Naasag, Mambajao.5. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Naasag, Mambajao.5. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Naasag, Mambajao.

OthersOthersOthersOthers

0

0

0

0




FishFishFishFish Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.

the FVC of Naasag, Mambajao.

Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.6. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 6. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 6. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 6. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I =

indicator; T(R) = indicator; T(R) = indicator; T(R) = indicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonresident coral reef target species, NT = nonresident coral reef target species, NT = nonresident coral reef target species, NT = non

total density and their percent contribution (%) to total fish density. SD = total density and their percent contribution (%) to total fish density. SD = total density and their percent contribution (%) to total fish density. SD = total density and their percent contribution (%) to total fish density. SD =

standard deviation.standard deviation.standard deviation.standard deviation.

Local NameLocal NameLocal NameLocal Name Common NameCommon NameCommon NameCommon Name

1 Alibangbang Butterfly Fish

2 Mongit Surgeon Fish

3 Pogot Triggerfishes

4 Panapsapan Sweetlips

5 Baga-baga Squirrel Fish

6 Kambiray Wrasse

7 Logatis Wrasses

8 Maming Wrasse

9 Molmol Parrot fish

10 Moong Cardinal Fish

11 Lobay-lobay Sand Tilefishes

12 Agmang Moray Eel

13 Sobok Sand Perch

14 Salikoko Damsel Fish

15 Bantay-botbot Anemone Fish

16 Kabatingan Sergeant Major

17 Kapaw Damsel Fish

18 Manggolob Damsel Fishes

19 Botete Pufferfishes

20 Klamyan

Except for the local name, ‘klamyan’, the other 19 local names were traced to 13 families that


(A) Indicator species: Chaetodontidae (‘alibang

(B) Target Species:

(‘panapsapan’), Holocentridae (‘baga

and ‘maming’), and Scaridae (‘molmol’);


Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity. A total of 20 local names (Table 5.6) were recorded during

the FVC of Naasag, Mambajao.

6. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 6. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 6. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 6. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I =

resident coral reef target species, NT = nonresident coral reef target species, NT = nonresident coral reef target species, NT = nonresident coral reef target species, NT = non----target species), mean target species), mean target species), mean target species), mean


Common NameCommon NameCommon NameCommon Name FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily CCCC 1111----10 cm10 cm10 cm10 cm

MeanMeanMeanMean SDSDSDSD

Butterfly Fish Chaetodontidae I 1.00 1.00

Surgeon Fish Acanthuridae T(R) 0.33 0.58

Triggerfishes Balistidae T(R) 0.33 0.58

Sweetlips Haemulidae T(R) 0.33 0.58

Squirrel Fish Holocentridae T(R) 0.67 0.58

Wrasse Labridae T(R) 0.67 1.15

Wrasses Labridae T(R) 5.00 1.00

Wrasse Labridae T(R) 0.33 0.58

Parrot fish Scaridae T(R) 3.00 2.65

Cardinal Fish Apogonidae NT 1.33 1.53

Sand Tilefishes Malacanthidae NT 0.33 0.58

Moray Eel Muraenidae NT 0.33 0.58

Sand Perch Pinguipedidae NT 0.67 0.58

Damsel Fish Pomacentridae NT 29.00 12.17

Anemone Fish Pomacentridae NT 8.67 5.86

Sergeant Major Pomacentridae NT 66.67 115.47


Damsel Fishes Pomacentridae NT 25.33 7.77

Pufferfishes Tetraodontidae NT 0.33 0.58

Unknown U 66.67 57.74


(A) Indicator species: Chaetodontidae (‘alibang-bang);

(B) Target Species: Acanthuridae (‘mongit’), Balistidae (‘pogot’), Haemulidae

(‘panapsapan’), Holocentridae (‘baga-baga’), Labridae (‘kambiray’, ‘logatis’

and ‘maming’), and Scaridae (‘molmol’);


6) were recorded during


target species), mean target species), mean target species), mean target species), mean


10 cm10 cm10 cm10 cm

SDSDSDSD %%%%

1.00 0.47

0.58 0.16

0.58 0.16

0.58 0.16

0.58 0.31

1.15 0.31

1.00 2.35

0.58 0.16

2.65 1.41

1.53 0.63

0.58 0.16

0.58 0.16

0.58 0.31

12.17 13.62

5.86 4.07

115.47 31.30

2.65 0.94

7.77 11.89

0.58 0.16

57.74 31.30


Acanthuridae (‘mongit’), Balistidae (‘pogot’), Haemulidae

baga’), Labridae (‘kambiray’, ‘logatis’

(C) Non-Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Malacanthidae (‘lobay

Muraenidae (‘amang’), Pinguipedidae (‘subok’), Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’,

‘batay bot-bot, ‘kabatingan’, ‘kapaw’, ‘manggolob’) and Tetraodontidae

(‘botete’).

Using this classification scheme, the number of ‘species’ (based on local names) and the

number of families they represent between target and non

5.9). There were eight target species from six families and 10 non

families.

Fish DensityFish DensityFish DensityFish Density and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. Mean total fish density per transect at Naasag ranged from 174

279 individuals/500 m2 with a mean of 213 individuals/500 m

In terms of their contribution to total fish density, the non

majority (63.22%) of the fishes observed within the transects (Fig.

consisted of 5% and indicator species 0.47%. A substantial percentage (3

Figure 5.9. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.9. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.9. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.9. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families

and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of indicator, target and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of indicator, target and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of indicator, target and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of indicator, target

and nonand nonand nonand non----target species.target species.target species.target species.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

SpeciesSpeciesSpeciesSpecies

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Indicator Species

Target Species

Non-Target Species

Unclassified


Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Malacanthidae (‘lobay

enidae (‘amang’), Pinguipedidae (‘subok’), Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’,

bot, ‘kabatingan’, ‘kapaw’, ‘manggolob’) and Tetraodontidae


number of families they represent between target and non-target species were similar (Fig.

9). There were eight target species from six families and 10 non-target sp

Mean total fish density per transect at Naasag ranged from 174

with a mean of 213 individuals/500 m2 (SD = 57).

In terms of their contribution to total fish density, the non-target species composed the

majority (63.22%) of the fishes observed within the transects (Fig. 5.9). Target species only

consisted of 5% and indicator species 0.47%. A substantial percentage (31.3%) number of the



target species.target species.target species.target species.

SpeciesSpeciesSpeciesSpecies FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily % Contr ibution% Contr ibution% Contr ibution% Contr ibution

Indicator Species

Target Species

Target Species

Unclassified


Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Malacanthidae (‘lobay-lobay’),

enidae (‘amang’), Pinguipedidae (‘subok’), Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’,

bot, ‘kabatingan’, ‘kapaw’, ‘manggolob’) and Tetraodontidae


target species were similar (Fig.

target species from six

Mean total fish density per transect at Naasag ranged from 174-

target species composed the

9). Target species only

1.3%) number of the



% Contr ibution% Contr ibution% Contr ibution% Contr ibution

fishes cannot be classified (Fig.

density of 66 individuals/500 m

All 20 ‘species’ of recorded fishes were within the 1

contribution from the non-target species of Family Pomacantridae (damsel fishes).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5

Density

(N

o.

of

Indiv

iduals/5

00 m

2)

Density

(N

o.

of

Indiv

iduals/5

00 m

2)

Density

(N

o.

of

Indiv

iduals/5

00 m

2)

Density

(N

o.

of

Indiv

iduals/5

00 m

2)

Figure Figure Figure Figure 5.105.105.105.10. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 mMambajaoMambajaoMambajaoMambajao. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.

1 = Alibangbang 6 =

2 = Mongit 7 =

3 = Pogot 8 =

4 = Panapsapan 9 =

5 = Baga-baga 10 =


fishes cannot be classified (Fig. 5.9). These were the unclassified ‘klamyan’ which had a mean

density of 66 individuals/500 m2 (Table 5.6).

All 20 ‘species’ of recorded fishes were within the 1-10 cm size range (Fig.

target species of Family Pomacantridae (damsel fishes).

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'

. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m2222) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at . See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.

6 = Kambiray 11 = Lobaylobay 16 =

7 = Logatis 12 = Agmang 17 =

8 = Maming 13 = Sobok 18 =

9 = Molmol 14 = Salikoko 19 =

10 = Moong 15 = Bantay-botbot 20 =


). These were the unclassified ‘klamyan’ which had a mean

10 cm size range (Fig. 5.10) with most

target species of Family Pomacantridae (damsel fishes).

18 19 20

) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at NaasagNaasagNaasagNaasag, , , ,

16 = Kabatingan

17 = Kapaw

18 = Manggolob

19 = Botete

20 = Klamyan

YUMBING, MAMBAJAOYUMBING, MAMBAJAOYUMBING, MAMBAJAOYUMBING, MAMBAJAO



ranging from 64-68% (Table

coral cover of the transects ranged from 4

categorizing the area as “poor” (0

Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.7. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Yumbing, Mambajao.7. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Yumbing, Mambajao.7. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Yumbing, Mambajao.7. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Yumbing, Mambajao.

Live Live Live Live


Transect 1 4

Transect 2 4

Transect 3 16

Average 8.00

Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3


drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Yumbing, drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Yumbing, drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Yumbing, drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Yumbing,

Mambajao. Mambajao. Mambajao. Mambajao.

LegLegLegLegend:end:end:end:


YUMBING, MAMBAJAOYUMBING, MAMBAJAOYUMBING, MAMBAJAOYUMBING, MAMBAJAO


68% (Table 5.7) with an average cover of 65.3% for Yumbing. The live

coral cover of the transects ranged from 4-16%, with an average of 8.0% (Fig.

categorizing the area as “poor” (0-24.9%).

7. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Yumbing, Mambajao.7. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Yumbing, Mambajao.7. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Yumbing, Mambajao.7. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Yumbing, Mambajao.

Soft Soft Soft Soft


Dead Dead Dead Dead


0 64 28 4 0

0 64 20 4 0

0 68 4 4 0

0 65.33 17.33 4.00 0





Sand Rock Others


The surveyed site for coral reef assessment was composed primarily of dead coral (Fig. 5.11),

7) with an average cover of 65.3% for Yumbing. The live

16%, with an average of 8.0% (Fig. 5.11),

7. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Yumbing, Mambajao.7. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Yumbing, Mambajao.7. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Yumbing, Mambajao.7. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Yumbing, Mambajao.


0

8

8

5.33





the FVC of Yumbing, Mambajao.

Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.8. Local names 8. Local names 8. Local names 8. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;

T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non

and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.

Local NameLocal NameLocal NameLocal Name CommonCommonCommonCommon



3 Sono Drummer

4 Logatis Wrasses

5 Maming Wrasse

6 Taad Wrasse


8 Mogkas Anchovy

9 Tambal Leon Blenny

10 Sobok Sand Perch




14 Manggolob Damsel Fishes

15 Pata Damsel Fish

16 Klamyan




(B) Target Species: Balistidae (‘pogot’), Kyphosidae (‘sono’), Labridae (‘logatis’,

‘maming’ and ‘taad’), Scaridae (‘molmol’) and Engraulidae (‘mogkas’);

(C) Non-Target Species: Blenniidae (‘tambal leon’),

Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’, ‘batay bot



the FVC of Yumbing, Mambajao.

of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;

T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non----target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density


CommonCommonCommonCommon NameNameNameName FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily CCCC 1111----10 cm10 cm10 cm10 cm

MeanMeanMeanMean

Butterfly Fish Chaetodontidae I 1.00

Triggerfishes Balistidae T(R) 1.00

Drummer Kyphosidae T(R) 1.00

Wrasses Labridae T(R) 3.00

Wrasse Labridae T(R) 0.67



Anchovy Engraulidae T(P) 66.67 57.74

Blenniidae NT 1.00

Sand Perch Pinguipedidae NT 0.67



Damsel Fish Pomacentridae NT 0.33

Damsel Fishes Pomacentridae NT 2.33


Unknown U 66.67 57.74


Indicator species: Chaetodontidae (‘alibang-bang);



Target Species: Blenniidae (‘tambal leon’), Pinguipedidae (‘sobok’), and

Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’, ‘batay bot-bot, ‘kapaw’, ‘manggolob’ and ‘pata’).



of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;

target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density



SDSDSDSD %%%%

1.73 0.36

1.00 0.36

1.73 0.36

2.65 1.07

1.15 0.24

0.58 0.12

15.39 5.00

57.74 23.81

1.00 0.36

0.58 0.24

26.10 33.69

11.50 9.52

0.58 0.12

4.04 0.83

0.58 0.12

57.74 23.81




Pinguipedidae (‘sobok’), and

bot, ‘kapaw’, ‘manggolob’ and ‘pata’).

Using this classification scheme, the number of ‘species’ (based on local names) of target and

non-target species was similar (Fig.

families and seven target species from five families. Target species was represented by six

permanent reef residents and one transient/pelagic resident, ‘mogkas’ (Family Engraluidae).

Fish DensityFish DensityFish DensityFish Density and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. Mean total fish density per transect at Yumbing ranged from 197


In terms of the contribution to total fish density, the non

(44.9%) of the fishes observed within the transects (Fig.

30.95%, most (23.8%) of which was composed of the pelagic tar

percentage (23.83%) number of the fishes cannot be classified (Fig.

unclassified ‘klamyan’ which had a mean density of 66 individuals/500 m

All 16 ‘species’ (based on local names) of recorded

(Fig. 5.13) with most contribution from the non

(‘salikoko’ and ‘bantay bot-bot) and the target species, ‘mogkas’ and ‘molmol’.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Spec iesSpec iesSpec iesSpec ies

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Indicator Species

Target Species

Non-Target Species

Unclassified



and nonand nonand nonand non----target species.target species.target species.target species.



target species was similar (Fig. 5.12). There were seven non-target species from three



Mean total fish density per transect at Yumbing ranged from 197


In terms of the contribution to total fish density, the non-target species composed the majority

(44.9%) of the fishes observed within the transects (Fig. 5.12). Target species only consisted of

30.95%, most (23.8%) of which was composed of the pelagic target species. A substantial

percentage (23.83%) number of the fishes cannot be classified (Fig. 5.12). These were the

unclassified ‘klamyan’ which had a mean density of 66 individuals/500 m2 (Table

All 16 ‘species’ (based on local names) of recorded fishes were within the 1-

13) with most contribution from the non-target species of Family Pomacantridae

bot) and the target species, ‘mogkas’ and ‘molmol’.

FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily % Contr ibution% Contr ibution% Contr ibution% Contr ibution

Indicator Species

et Species

Target Species

Unclassified






target species from three



Mean total fish density per transect at Yumbing ranged from 197-

target species composed the majority

12). Target species only consisted of

get species. A substantial

12). These were the

(Table 5.8).

-10 cm size range

target species of Family Pomacantridae

bot) and the target species, ‘mogkas’ and ‘molmol’.



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4

Density

(N

o.

of

Indiv

iduals/5

00 m

2)

Density

(N

o.

of

Indiv

iduals/5

00 m

2)

Density

(N

o.

of

Indiv

iduals/5

00 m

2)

Density

(N

o.

of

Indiv

iduals/5

00 m

2)

Figure Figure Figure Figure 5.135.135.135.13. Density of fishes . Density of fishes . Density of fishes . Density of fishes

MambajaoMambajaoMambajaoMambajao. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.

1 = Alibangbang 5 =

2 = Pogot 6 =

3 = Sono 7 =4 = Logatis 8 =


5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14


. Density of fishes . Density of fishes . Density of fishes . Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m(number of organisms/500 m(number of organisms/500 m(number of organisms/500 m2222) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at

. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.

= Maming 9 = Tambal Leon 13 =

= Taad 10 = Sobok 14 =

= Molmol 11 = Salikoko 15 = = Mogkas 12 = Bantay-botbot 16 =


15 16

) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at YumbingYumbingYumbingYumbing, , , ,

Kapaw

Manggolob

Pata Klamyan


The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Agoho, Mambajao was composed of almost

equal proportions of sand and rock (Table

than half of the substrate cover (Table

caution since it was conducted along Agoho’s mainland coast and the reef at White Island was

not included. Informal interactions with local participants, tourist boat operators and even

resort owners showed that it was local knowledge tha

to Bug-ong was mainly composed of sand and rock. Reef areas were present but at deeper

depths beyond the capability of PRA participants (Fig.

Since there was no live coral cover was recorded in the surveyed sit

assume no reefs existed within its perimeters. Although the classification of Gomez et al (1991)

includes a zero value under “poor” conditions (0

will not be categorized in view of the fact t

reef community.

Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.9. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Agoho, Mambajao.9. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Agoho, Mambajao.9. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Agoho, Mambajao.9. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Agoho, Mambajao.

Live Live Live Live


Transect 1 0

Transect 2 0

Transect 3 0

Average 0


AGOHO, MAMBAJAOAGOHO, MAMBAJAOAGOHO, MAMBAJAOAGOHO, MAMBAJAO


equal proportions of sand and rock (Table 5.9, Fig. 5.14), with sand always comprising more

than half of the substrate cover (Table 5.9) in all transects. This result should be taken with



resort owners showed that it was local knowledge that the mainland’s coastline from Agoho

ong was mainly composed of sand and rock. Reef areas were present but at deeper

depths beyond the capability of PRA participants (Fig. 5.14).

Since there was no live coral cover was recorded in the surveyed site, it is reasonable to


includes a zero value under “poor” conditions (0-24.9%), this site (together with Bug

will not be categorized in view of the fact that it is a rock-sand community and not a coral

9. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Agoho, Mambajao.9. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Agoho, Mambajao.9. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Agoho, Mambajao.9. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Agoho, Mambajao.

Soft Soft Soft Soft


Dead Dead Dead Dead


0 0 0 60 40

0 0 0 52 48

0 0 0 52 48

0 0 0 54.67 45.33



14), with sand always comprising more

uld be taken with



t the mainland’s coastline from Agoho

ong was mainly composed of sand and rock. Reef areas were present but at deeper

e, it is reasonable to


24.9%), this site (together with Bug-ong)

sand community and not a coral

9. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Agoho, Mambajao.9. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Agoho, Mambajao.9. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Agoho, Mambajao.9. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Agoho, Mambajao.


0

0

0

0



the FVC of Agoho, Mambajao which belonged to seven families and can be categorized as:

(A) Target Species: Balistidae (‘pogot’), Labridae (‘labayan’, ‘logatis’, ‘lopit’

‘pedlok’, and ‘taad’), and Scaridae (‘molmol’);

(B) Non-Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Pinguipedidae (‘sobok’),

Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’, ‘batay bot

Synodontidae (‘tiki

Indicator species such as chaetodontids or butterfly fishes (‘alibang

Moorish idols (‘kanding-kanding’) were not observed. This is expected since the substrate of

survey area was rock-sand and thus confirms the role of these fishes as indicators of reefs.

TransectTransectTransectTransect

1111


2222

Figure 5.14. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the Figure 5.14. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the Figure 5.14. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the Figure 5.14. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the

different transects as drawn by participants (below) and the average different transects as drawn by participants (below) and the average different transects as drawn by participants (below) and the average different transects as drawn by participants (below) and the average

cover (above) of Agoho, Mambajao. cover (above) of Agoho, Mambajao. cover (above) of Agoho, Mambajao. cover (above) of Agoho, Mambajao.




(A) Target Species: Balistidae (‘pogot’), Labridae (‘labayan’, ‘logatis’, ‘lopit’

‘pedlok’, and ‘taad’), and Scaridae (‘molmol’);

Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Pinguipedidae (‘sobok’),

Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’, ‘batay bot-bot, ‘kabatingan’, ‘pata’) and

Synodontidae (‘tiki-tiki’).

chaetodontids or butterfly fishes (‘alibang-bang’) and zanclids or

kanding’) were not observed. This is expected since the substrate of

sand and thus confirms the role of these fishes as indicators of reefs.



3333



cover (above) of Agoho, Mambajao. cover (above) of Agoho, Mambajao. cover (above) of Agoho, Mambajao. cover (above) of Agoho, Mambajao.

Legend:Legend:Legend:Legend: Sand Rock




(A) Target Species: Balistidae (‘pogot’), Labridae (‘labayan’, ‘logatis’, ‘lopit’, ‘maming’,

Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Pinguipedidae (‘sobok’),

bot, ‘kabatingan’, ‘pata’) and

bang’) and zanclids or





Using this categorization (target and non

number of families they represent are similar (Fig.

three families and seven non-target species from four families.

TabTabTabTable le le le 5.5.5.5.10. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 10. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 10. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 10. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;


and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviatioand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviatioand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviatioand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviatio



2 Labayan Wrasse

3 Logatis Wrasses

4 Lopit Blackeye Thicklip

5 Maming Wrasse

6 Pedlok Moon Wrasse

7 Taad Wrasse



10 Sobok Sand Perch



13 Kabatingan Sargeant Major

14 Pata Damsel Fish

15 Tiki-tiki Lizard Fish

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent


and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of



ing this categorization (target and non-target species), the number of local names and the

number of families they represent are similar (Fig. 5.15). There were eight target species from

target species from four families.

10. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 10. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 10. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 10. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;


and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviatioand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviatioand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviatioand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviatio

Common NameCommon NameCommon NameCommon Name FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily CCCC 1111----10 cm10 cm10 cm10 cm

MeanMeanMeanMean

Triggerfishes Balistidae T(R) 0.3 0.6

Labridae T(R) 23.3 26.4


Blackeye Thicklip Labridae T(R) 2.7 4.6


Moon Wrasse Labridae T(R) 21.3 15.0



Cardinal Fish Apogonidae NT 42.3 41.6

Sand Perch Pinguipedidae NT 1.0 1.7



Sargeant Major Pomacentridae NT 24.0 28.7


Lizard Fish Synodontidae NT 0.3 0.6

Target Species

Non-Target Species

SpeciesSpeciesSpeciesSpecies FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily % Contribution% Contribution% Contribution% Contribution


and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nontarget and nontarget and nontarget and non



target species), the number of local names and the

15). There were eight target species from



and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviatioand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviatioand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviatioand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.n.n.n.


SDSDSDSD %%%%

0.6 0.1

26.4 6.2

73.0 22.3

4.6 0.7

7.5 1.9

15.0 5.7

1.5 0.4

1.5 0.4

41.6 11.3

1.7 0.3

25.1 33.9

5.3 5.6

28.7 6.4

10.7 4.6

0.6 0.1


target and nontarget and nontarget and nontarget and non----

Fish DensityFish DensityFish DensityFish Density and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. Mean total fish density per transect at Agoho ranged from 228


In terms of contribution to total fish density, the non

(62.2%) of the fishes recorded (Fig.

As shown in Figure 5.16, all the 15 ‘species’ were within the 1

target pomacentrid, ‘salikoko’ contributing 33.9% to total density (Table

the targeted labrid, ‘logatis’ and the non

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 2 3

Density

(N

o.

of

Indiv

iduals/5

00 m

2)

Density

(N

o.

of

Indiv

iduals/5

00 m

2)

Density

(N

o.

of

Indiv

iduals/5

00 m

2)

Density

(N

o.

of

Indiv

iduals/5

00 m

2)

Figure Figure Figure Figure 5.165.165.165.16. Density of fishes (number of organisms/. Density of fishes (number of organisms/. Density of fishes (number of organisms/. Density of fishes (number of organisms/

See legend below for fish ‘species’.See legend below for fish ‘species’.See legend below for fish ‘species’.See legend below for fish ‘species’.

1 = Pogot 2 = Labayan

3 = Logatis

4 = Lopit

5 = Maming


Mean total fish density per transect at Agoho ranged from 228


In terms of contribution to total fish density, the non-target species composed the majority

(62.2%) of the fishes recorded (Fig. 5.15) with target species consisting the remaining 37.8%.

all the 15 ‘species’ were within the 1-10 cm size range with the non

target pomacentrid, ‘salikoko’ contributing 33.9% to total density (Table 5.10), followed by

the targeted labrid, ‘logatis’ and the non-target cardinal fishes, ‘moong’.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Fish 'Spec ies'Fish 'Spec ies'Fish 'Spec ies'Fish 'Spec ies'

. Density of fishes (number of organisms/. Density of fishes (number of organisms/. Density of fishes (number of organisms/. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m500 m500 m500 m2222) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at AgohoAgohoAgohoAgoho


6 = Pedlok 11 = Salikoko 7 = Taad 12 = Bantay-botbot

8 = Molmol 13 = Kabatingan

9 = Moong 14 = Pata

10 = Sobok 15 = Tiki-tiki


Mean total fish density per transect at Agoho ranged from 228-

target species composed the majority

15) with target species consisting the remaining 37.8%.

cm size range with the non-

10), followed by

13 14 15

AgohoAgohoAgohoAgoho, , , , MambajaoMambajaoMambajaoMambajao. . . .

BUGBUGBUGBUG


The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Bug

all transects (Table 5.11). The only other substrate type recorded in the site was sand (24

44%). Informal interactions with local participants, tourist boat operators and even resort

owners showed that it was local knowledge that the mainland’s coastline from Agoho to Bug

ong Agoho’s was mainly composed of sand and rock. Reef areas were present but at deeper

depths beyond the capability of PRA participants (Fig.


assume no reefs existed within its perimeter. Although the classification of Gomez et al (1991)

includes a zero value under “poor” conditions (0

not be categorized in view of the fact that it is a rock

community.

Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.11. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Bug11. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Bug11. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Bug11. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Bug

Live Live Live Live


Transect 1 0

Transect 2 0

Transect 3 0

Average 0


BUGBUGBUGBUG----ONG, MAMBAJAOONG, MAMBAJAOONG, MAMBAJAOONG, MAMBAJAO

The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Bug-ong was predominantly rocky (56

11). The only other substrate type recorded in the site was sand (24


owners showed that it was local knowledge that the mainland’s coastline from Agoho to Bug

goho’s was mainly composed of sand and rock. Reef areas were present but at deeper

depths beyond the capability of PRA participants (Fig. 5.17).


sted within its perimeter. Although the classification of Gomez et al (1991)

includes a zero value under “poor” conditions (0-24.9%), this site (together with Agoho) will

not be categorized in view of the fact that it is a rock-sand community and not a cor

11. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Bug11. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Bug11. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Bug11. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Bug----ong, Mambajao.ong, Mambajao.ong, Mambajao.ong, Mambajao.

Soft Soft Soft Soft


Dead Dead Dead Dead


0 0 0 28 72

0 0 0 44 56

0 0 0 24 76

0 0 0 32 68


ong was predominantly rocky (56-76%), in

11). The only other substrate type recorded in the site was sand (24-


owners showed that it was local knowledge that the mainland’s coastline from Agoho to Bug-

goho’s was mainly composed of sand and rock. Reef areas were present but at deeper


sted within its perimeter. Although the classification of Gomez et al (1991)

24.9%), this site (together with Agoho) will

sand community and not a coral reef

ong, Mambajao.ong, Mambajao.ong, Mambajao.ong, Mambajao.


0

0

0

0



the FVC of Bug-ong, Mambajao. These belonged to eight families and can be categorized as:

(A) Target Species: Labridae (‘labayan’, ‘logatis’, ‘lopit’, ‘pedlok’, and ‘taad’), Mullidae

(‘bodbob’) and Sphyraenidae (‘lambana’);

(B) Non-Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Fistulariidae (‘tubo

Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’) and Synodontidae (‘tiki



survey area was rock-sand and thus confirms the role of these fishes


1111

Figure 5.17. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.17. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.17. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.17. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different

transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (right) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (right) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (right) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (right) of

BugBugBugBug----ong, ong, ong, ong, Mambajao.Mambajao.Mambajao.Mambajao.



ong, Mambajao. These belonged to eight families and can be categorized as:

Species: Labridae (‘labayan’, ‘logatis’, ‘lopit’, ‘pedlok’, and ‘taad’), Mullidae

(‘bodbob’) and Sphyraenidae (‘lambana’);

Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Fistulariidae (‘tubo

Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’) and Synodontidae (‘tiki-tiki’).

Indicator species such as chaetodontids or butterfly fishes (‘alibang-bang’) and zanclids or




2222


3333

Sand

Rock



Mambajao.Mambajao.Mambajao.Mambajao.



ong, Mambajao. These belonged to eight families and can be categorized as:

Species: Labridae (‘labayan’, ‘logatis’, ‘lopit’, ‘pedlok’, and ‘taad’), Mullidae

Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Fistulariidae (‘tubo-tubo’),



as indicators of reefs.

Sand

Rock



Using the above categorization, the target species were represented by eight species from four

families while the non-target species had four from four families (Fig.

Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.12. Local names of fishes, their common 12. Local names of fishes, their common 12. Local names of fishes, their common 12. Local names of fishes, their common




1 Labayan Wrasse

2 Logatis Wrasses

3 Lopit Blackeye Thicklip


5 Taad Wrasse

6 Bodbob Goat Fish


8 Lambana Big Eye Barracuda


10 Tobo-tobo Flutemouths



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Num

ber/

Perc

ent

Num

ber/

Perc

ent

Num

ber/

Perc

ent

Num

ber/

Perc

ent

Target Species

Non

Figure 5.18. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.18. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.18. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.18. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish

families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target

and nonand nonand nonand non----


the above categorization, the target species were represented by eight species from four

target species had four from four families (Fig. 5.18).

12. Local names of fishes, their common 12. Local names of fishes, their common 12. Local names of fishes, their common 12. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;



Common NameCommon NameCommon NameCommon Name FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily CCCC MeanMeanMeanMean

Labridae T(R) 14.0

Labridae T(R) 1.0

Blackeye Thicklip Labridae T(R) 0.3

Moon Wrasse Labridae T(R) 0.7

Labridae T(R) 1.0

Goat Fish Mullidae T(R) 3.7

Parrot fish Scaridae T(R) 3.0

Big Eye Barracuda Sphyraenidae T(R) 2.7

Cardinal Fish Apogonidae NT 6.0

Flutemouths Fistulariidae NT 0.7


Lizard Fish Synodontidae NT 0.3


Target Species

Non-Target Species



----target species. target species. target species. target species.


the above categorization, the target species were represented by eight species from four

names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;



1111----10 cm10 cm10 cm10 cm

SDSDSDSD %%%%

6.9 22.0

1.7 1.6

0.6 0.5

1.2 1.0

1.0 1.6

4.7 5.8

3.0 4.7

4.6 4.2

2.6 9.4

1.2 1.0

15.5 47.6

0.6 0.5



Fish DensityFish DensityFish DensityFish Density and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. Mean total fish density per transect at Bug

individuals/500 m2 with a mean of 63 individuals/500 m

density can be attributed to the rocky

As shown in Figure 5.19, all 12 ‘species’ were within the 1

non-target pomacentrid, ‘salikoko’ contributing 47.6% to total density (Table

mean density of 30 organisms/500 m

a mean density of 14 organisms/500 m

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3

Densi

ty (

No.

of

Indiv

iduals

/500 m

2)

Densi

ty (

No.

of

Indiv

iduals

/500 m

2)

Densi

ty (

No.

of

Indiv

iduals

/500 m

2)

Densi

ty (

No.

of

Indiv

iduals

/500 m

2)

Figure Figure Figure Figure 5.195.195.195.19. De. De. De. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 mnsity of fishes (number of organisms/500 mnsity of fishes (number of organisms/500 mnsity of fishes (number of organisms/500 m


1 = Labayan

2 = Logatis

3 = Lopit

4 = Pedlok


Mean total fish density per transect at Bug-ong ranged from 31

with a mean of 63 individuals/500 m2 (SD = 29). This very low fish

density can be attributed to the rocky-sand habitat.

, all 12 ‘species’ were within the 1-10 cm size range (Fig.

target pomacentrid, ‘salikoko’ contributing 47.6% to total density (Table

mean density of 30 organisms/500 m2, followed by the targeted labrid, ‘lubayan’ (22%) with

a mean density of 14 organisms/500 m2 (Table 5.12).

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11


nsity of fishes (number of organisms/500 mnsity of fishes (number of organisms/500 mnsity of fishes (number of organisms/500 mnsity of fishes (number of organisms/500 m2222) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at


5 = Taad 9 = Moong

6 = Bodbod/Bawis 10 = Tobo-tobo

7 = Molmol 11 = Salikoko

8 = Lambana 12 = Tiki-tiki


ranged from 31-87

(SD = 29). This very low fish

10 cm size range (Fig. 5.19) with the

target pomacentrid, ‘salikoko’ contributing 47.6% to total density (Table 5.12) with a

, followed by the targeted labrid, ‘lubayan’ (22%) with

11 12

) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at BugBugBugBug----ongongongong, , , ,

KUGUITA, MAMBAJAOKUGUITA, MAMBAJAOKUGUITA, MAMBAJAOKUGUITA, MAMBAJAO


The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Kuguita was predominantly sand (72

all transects (Table 5.13). The only other substrate type recorded in the site was rock (8

and live coral (8-12%). Informal interactions with local participants, tourist boat operators

and even resort owners showed that it was local knowledge that the mainland’s coastline

from Agoho to Bug-ong Agoho’s was mainly composed of sand and rock. Reef areas were

present but at deeper depths beyond the capability of PRA participants (Fig.

Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.13. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Kuguita, Mambajao.13. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Kuguita, Mambajao.13. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Kuguita, Mambajao.13. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Kuguita, Mambajao.

Live Live Live Live


Transect 1 8

Transect 2 0

Transect 3 12

Average 6.67

Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 1 Transect 2


drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Kuguita, Mambajao. drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Kuguita, Mambajao. drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Kuguita, Mambajao. drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Kuguita, Mambajao.



KUGUITA, MAMBAJAOKUGUITA, MAMBAJAOKUGUITA, MAMBAJAOKUGUITA, MAMBAJAO

The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Kuguita was predominantly sand (72

13). The only other substrate type recorded in the site was rock (8

12%). Informal interactions with local participants, tourist boat operators


ong Agoho’s was mainly composed of sand and rock. Reef areas were

present but at deeper depths beyond the capability of PRA participants (Fig. 5.

13. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Kuguita, Mambajao.13. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Kuguita, Mambajao.13. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Kuguita, Mambajao.13. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Kuguita, Mambajao.

Soft Soft Soft Soft


Dead Dead Dead Dead


0 0 0 72 20

0 0 0 80 20

0 0 0 80 8

0 0 0 77.3 16

Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 3Transect 3Transect 3



Live Coral Sand Rock


The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Kuguita was predominantly sand (72-80%), in

13). The only other substrate type recorded in the site was rock (8-20%)

12%). Informal interactions with local participants, tourist boat operators


ong Agoho’s was mainly composed of sand and rock. Reef areas were

5.20).

13. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Kuguita, Mambajao.13. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Kuguita, Mambajao.13. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Kuguita, Mambajao.13. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Kuguita, Mambajao.


0

0

0

0



Live coral cover averaged at 6.67% for Kuguita. Excluding the Bug

cover, this site had the lowest values recorded for the municipality and for all the sites

surveyed within the Province.



the FVC of Kuguita, Mambajao. These belonged to ninefamilies and can be categorized as:

(A) Target Species: Balistidae (‘pogot’), Labridae (‘labayan’, ‘logatis’ and ‘pedlok’),

Lutjanidae (‘katamb

Scaridae (‘molmol’);

(B) Non-Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’, ‘bantay

bot-bot’, ‘kabatingan’ and ‘pata’) and Tetraodontidae (‘botete’).



survey area was primarily sandy and thus confirms the role of these fishes as indicators of

reefs.

Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.14. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 14. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 14. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 14. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;


and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard dand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard dand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard dand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard d



2 Labayan Wrasses

3 Logatis Wrasses


5 Katambak Snapper

6 Bodbod Goat Fish

7 Makabinhi Bream






13 Pata Damsel Fish



averaged at 6.67% for Kuguita. Excluding the Bug-ong with its 0% live coral





Lutjanidae (‘katambak’), Mullidae (‘bodbob’), Nemipteridae (‘makabinhi’) and


Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’, ‘bantay

bot’, ‘kabatingan’ and ‘pata’) and Tetraodontidae (‘botete’).

chaetodontids or butterfly fishes (‘alibang-bang’) and zanclids or





and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard dand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard dand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard dand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.eviation.eviation.eviation.

Common NameCommon NameCommon NameCommon Name FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily CCCC 1111----

MeanMeanMeanMean


Labridae T(R) 11.0

Labridae T(R) 3.0


Lutjanidae T(R) 0.7


Nemipteridae T(R) 1.0


Cardinal Fish Apogonidae NT 42.0


Anemone Fish Pomacentridae NT 4.0

Sergeant Major Pomacentridae NT 27.3


Pufferfishes Tetraodontidae NT 2.3


ong with its 0% live coral





ak’), Mullidae (‘bodbob’), Nemipteridae (‘makabinhi’) and

Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’, ‘bantay

bot’, ‘kabatingan’ and ‘pata’) and Tetraodontidae (‘botete’).






eviation.eviation.eviation.eviation.

----10 cm10 cm10 cm10 cm

SDSDSDSD %%%%

1.2 0.5

11.5 7.5

5.2 2.0

9.0 7.0

1.2 0.5

2.9 1.1

1.7 0.7

13.3 5.2

41.6 28.6

16.3 12.5

3.6 2.7

18.0 18.6

2.9 11.4

2.3 1.6

Using the above categorization, the target species were represented by eight ‘species’ from six

families while the non-target species had six from three families (Fig.

Fish Fish Fish Fish DensityDensityDensityDensity and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. Mean total fish density per transect at Kuguita ranged from 65


were within the 1-10 cm size range (Fig.

contributing 28.6% to total density (Table

followed by another non-target species, ‘kabatingan’ (Pomacentridae) (18.6%) with a mean

density of 27 organisms/500 m



and nonand nonand nonand non----

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Target Species

Non


the above categorization, the target species were represented by eight ‘species’ from six

target species had six from three families (Fig. 5.21).

Mean total fish density per transect at Kuguita ranged from 65


10 cm size range (Fig. 5.22) with the non-target apogonid, ‘

contributing 28.6% to total density (Table 5.14) with a mean density of 42 organisms/500 m

target species, ‘kabatingan’ (Pomacentridae) (18.6%) with a mean

density of 27 organisms/500 m2 (Table 5.14).



----target species. target species. target species. target species.


Target Species

Non-Target Species


the above categorization, the target species were represented by eight ‘species’ from six

Mean total fish density per transect at Kuguita ranged from 65-

(SD = 104). All 14 ‘species’

target apogonid, ‘moong’

14) with a mean density of 42 organisms/500 m2,

target species, ‘kabatingan’ (Pomacentridae) (18.6%) with a mean



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 2 3

Densi

ty (

No.

of

Indiv

iduals

/500 m

2)

Densi

ty (

No.

of

Indiv

iduals

/500 m

2)

Densi

ty (

No.

of

Indiv

iduals

/500 m

2)

Densi

ty (

No.

of

Indiv

iduals

/500 m

2)

Figure Figure Figure Figure 5555.22.22.22.22. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m


1 = Pogot

2 = Labayan

3 = Logatis 4 = Pedlok

5 = Katambak


4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13


. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m2222) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at


6 = Bodbob 11 = Bantay-botbot

7 = Makabinhi 12 = Kabatingan

8 = Molmol 13 = Pata 9 = Moong 14 = Botete

Katambak 10 = Salikoko


14

) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at KuguitaKuguitaKuguitaKuguita, , , ,

botbot


The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Baylao was a mixture of soft coral (16

coral (20-28%) and sand (20

was 24% (Fig. 5.23), categorizing the area as “poor” (0

cover was obtained for soft corals (28%) with parts of the area covered by sand (21%) and

dead coral (13%).

Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.15. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Baylao, Mambajao.15. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Baylao, Mambajao.15. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Baylao, Mambajao.15. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Baylao, Mambajao.

Live Live Live Live


Transect 1 20

Transect 2 28

Transect 3 24

Average 24.00

Live Hard Coral

Soft Coral

Dead Coral

Rubble

Sand

Rock

Others


transects as drawn by participants (right) and the average cover (left) of transects as drawn by participants (right) and the average cover (left) of transects as drawn by participants (right) and the average cover (left) of transects as drawn by participants (right) and the average cover (left) of

Baylao, Mambajao.Baylao, Mambajao.Baylao, Mambajao.Baylao, Mambajao.


BAYLAO, MAMBAJAOBAYLAO, MAMBAJAOBAYLAO, MAMBAJAOBAYLAO, MAMBAJAO

The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Baylao was a mixture of soft coral (16

28%) and sand (20-24%)(Table 5.15, Fig. 5.23). On the average, live coral cover

23), categorizing the area as “poor” (0-24.9%). Highest mean substrate


15. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Baylao, Mambajao.15. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Baylao, Mambajao.15. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Baylao, Mambajao.15. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Baylao, Mambajao.

Soft Soft Soft Soft


Dead Dead Dead Dead


16 12 20 20 4

28 16 4 24 0

40 12 4 20 0

28.00 13.33 9.33 21.33 1.33


Live Hard Coral



Baylao, Mambajao.Baylao, Mambajao.Baylao, Mambajao.Baylao, Mambajao.


The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Baylao was a mixture of soft coral (16-40%), live

23). On the average, live coral cover

st mean substrate


15. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Baylao, Mambajao.15. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Baylao, Mambajao.15. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Baylao, Mambajao.15. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Baylao, Mambajao.


8

0

0

2.67






A total of 25 local names (Table

Except for the local name, ‘lapis



(B) Target Species, Reef Residents: Acanthuridae (‘bagis’ and ‘lunab’), Balistidae

(‘pogot’), Carangidae (‘talakitok’), Haemulidae (‘panapsapan’), Holocentridae

(‘baga-baga’),

Nemipteridae (‘makabinhi’), Scaridae (‘molmol’) and Siganidae (‘danggit’);

(C) Target Species, Transient Residents/Pelagic: Engraulidae (‘dalirag’);

(D) Non-Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’),

Pempheridae (‘tabas’), Pomacanthidae (‘sowat

bot-bot, ‘kabatingan’, ‘pata’ and ‘tugas

Tetraodontidae (‘botete’).

Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.16. Local names of fishes, their16. Local names of fishes, their16. Local names of fishes, their16. Local names of fishes, their

T(R) = resident coral reef target species, T(P) = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, T(P) = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, T(P) = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, T(P) = non

NT = nonNT = nonNT = nonNT = non----target species), mean total density and their percent contribution to total target species), mean total density and their percent contribution to total target species), mean total density and their percent contribution to total target species), mean total density and their percent contribution to total

fish density. Values in fish density. Values in fish density. Values in fish density. Values in

Local NamesLocal NamesLocal NamesLocal Names Common Common Common Common

NamesNamesNamesNames


2 Bagis Surgeon Fish

3 Lunab Surgeon Fishes


5 Talakitok Trevally

6 Panapsapan Sweetlips


8 Ilak Drummer


Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.

local names (Table 5.16) were recorded during the FVC of Baylao, Mambajao.

Except for the local name, ‘lapis-lapis’, the other local names were traced to 20 families that




baga’), Kyphosidae (‘ilak), Labridae (‘pedlok’), Mullidae (‘bodbob’),



Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Blenniidae (‘tambal leon’),

Pempheridae (‘tabas’), Pomacanthidae (‘sowat-sowat’), Pomacentridae (‘batay

bot, ‘kabatingan’, ‘pata’ and ‘tugas-tugas’), Synodontidae (‘tiki

Tetraodontidae (‘botete’).

16. Local names of fishes, their16. Local names of fishes, their16. Local names of fishes, their16. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;

T(R) = resident coral reef target species, T(P) = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, T(P) = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, T(P) = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, T(P) = non----reef resident/pelagic target species, reef resident/pelagic target species, reef resident/pelagic target species, reef resident/pelagic target species,

target species), mean total density and their percent contribution to total target species), mean total density and their percent contribution to total target species), mean total density and their percent contribution to total target species), mean total density and their percent contribution to total

fish density. Values in fish density. Values in fish density. Values in fish density. Values in parenthesis are standard deviation.parenthesis are standard deviation.parenthesis are standard deviation.parenthesis are standard deviation.

FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily CCCC 1111----10 cm10 cm10 cm10 cm 11111111----20cm20cm20cm20cm

MeanMeanMeanMean %%%% MeanMeanMeanMean %%%%

Chaetodontidae I 4.3

(3.8) 1.3

0.7

(1.2) 4.7

Acanthuridae T(R) 1.7

(2.9) 0.5


(1.0) 0.3

2.3

(3.2) 16.3

Balistidae T(R) 1.7

(1.5) 0.5

0.7

(1.2) 4.7

Carangidae T(R) 1.7

(2.1) 0.5

Haemulidae T(R) 1.3

(0.6) 0.4

0.3

(0.6) 2.3

Holocentridae T(R) 2.7

(4.6) 0.8

1.7

(2.9) 11.6

Kyphosidae T(R) 0.3

(0.6) 0.1

0.3

(0.6) 2.3


16) were recorded during the FVC of Baylao, Mambajao.

lapis’, the other local names were traced to 20 families that



Kyphosidae (‘ilak), Labridae (‘pedlok’), Mullidae (‘bodbob’),


Blenniidae (‘tambal leon’),

sowat’), Pomacentridae (‘batay

tugas’), Synodontidae (‘tiki-tiki’) and

common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;

reef resident/pelagic target species, reef resident/pelagic target species, reef resident/pelagic target species, reef resident/pelagic target species,

target species), mean total density and their percent contribution to total target species), mean total density and their percent contribution to total target species), mean total density and their percent contribution to total target species), mean total density and their percent contribution to total


MeanMeanMeanMean %%%%

5.0

(4.6) 1.5

1.7

(2.9) 0.5

3.3

(4.0) 1.0

2.3

(0.6) 0.7

1.7

(2.1) 0.5

1.7

(1.2) 0.5

4.3

(7.5) 1.3

0.7

(1.2) 0.2

Local NamesLocal NamesLocal NamesLocal Names Common Common Common Common

NamesNamesNamesNames


10 Bodbod Goat Fish

11 Makabinhi Bream


13 Danggit Rabbit Fish

14 Dalirag Anchovy



17 Tabas Sweepers

18 Suwat-suwat Angel Fish

19 Bantay-

botbot Anemone Fish

20 Kabatingan Sergeant

Major

21 Pata Damsel Fish

22 Tugas-tugas Damsel Fish



25 Lapis-lapis

Using this classification scheme, the number of ‘species’ (based on local names) of target fishes

was higher than the non-target fishes (Fig.

compared to the nine non-target species from seven families. Target species was represented

by 12 permanent reef residents and one transient/pelagic resident, ‘dalirag’ (Family

Engraluidae).


FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily CCCC 1111----10 cm10 cm10 cm10 cm 11111111----20cm20cm20cm20cm

MeanMeanMeanMean %%%% MeanMeanMeanMean %%%%

Labridae T(R) 2.0

(3.5) 0.6

Mullidae T(R) 1.3

(2.3) 0.4


(1.2) 0.2

Scaridae T(R) 51.0

(35) 15.6

4.7

(4.7) 32.6

Siganidae T(R) 5.0

(5.0) 1.5

3.3

(5.8) 23.3

Engraulidae T(P) 100 (100)

30.5

Apogonidae NT 5.3

(8.4) 1.6

Blenniidae NT 0.7

(0.6) 0.2

Pempheridae NT 1.7

(1.5) 0.5

Pomacanthidae NT 2.3

(4.0) 0.7

Pomacentridae NT 8.0

(6.2) 2.4


(31.8) 11.7


(15.5) 24.6


(8.7) 1.5

Synodontidae NT 3.7

(2.5) 1.1

0.3

(0.6) 2.3

Tetraodontidae NT 1.3

(1.5 0.4

Unknown U 6.0

(10.4) 1.8


target fishes (Fig. 5.24); with 13 target ‘species’ from 12 families

target species from seven families. Target species was represented





2.0

(3.5) 0.6

1.3

(2.3) 0.4

0.7

(1.2) 0.2

55.7

(31.5) 16.3

8.3

(10.4) 2.4

100 (100)

29.2

5.3

(8.4) 1.6

0.7

(0.6) 0.2

1.7

(1.5) 0.5

2.3

(4.0) 0.7

8.0

(6.2) 2.3

38.3

(31.8) 11.2

80.7

(15.5) 23.6

5.0

(8.7) 1.5

4.0

(2.6) 1.2

1.3

(1.5) 0.4

6.0

(10.4) 1.8


24); with 13 target ‘species’ from 12 families

target species from seven families. Target species was represented


Fish DensityFish DensityFish DensityFish Density and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. Mean total


of the fishes observed within the transects belonged to 1


14.3 organisms/500 m2)(Table

Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.17. Density (number of organisms/500 m17. Density (number of organisms/500 m17. Density (number of organisms/500 m17. Density (number of organisms/500 m

density (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 m

deviation.deviation.deviation.deviation.

Transect 1111

Total 207

Average (SD) 327.7 (104.5)

Figure 5.24. Number of ‘species’ (based on local namFigure 5.24. Number of ‘species’ (based on local namFigure 5.24. Number of ‘species’ (based on local namFigure 5.24. Number of ‘species’ (based on local nam

the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonthe contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonthe contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonthe contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and non

species. species. species. species.

Indicator Species

Target Species

Non-Target Species

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent


Mean total fish density per transect at Baylao ranged from 208

with a mean of 342 individuals/500 m2 (SD = 116)(Table

of the fishes observed within the transects belonged to 1-10 cm size range with an average

s/500 m2; only a few individuals belonged to 11-20 cm (average =

)(Table 5.17).

17. Density (number of organisms/500 m17. Density (number of organisms/500 m17. Density (number of organisms/500 m17. Density (number of organisms/500 m2222) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total

density (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 m2222) of fishes recorded at Baylao.) of fishes recorded at Baylao.) of fishes recorded at Baylao.) of fishes recorded at Baylao. SD = standard SD = standard SD = standard SD = standard

Size Class RangesSize Class RangesSize Class RangesSize Class Ranges Total DensityTotal DensityTotal DensityTotal Density

1111----10 cm10 cm10 cm10 cm 11111111----20 cm20 cm20 cm20 cm

2222 3333 1111 2222 3333 1111

388 388 1 26 16 208 414

327.7 (104.5) 14.3 (12.6) 342 (116.2)

Figure 5.24. Number of ‘species’ (based on local namFigure 5.24. Number of ‘species’ (based on local namFigure 5.24. Number of ‘species’ (based on local namFigure 5.24. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families and es), number of fish families and es), number of fish families and es), number of fish families and

the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonthe contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonthe contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonthe contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and non

Indicator Species

Target Species

Target Species



fish density per transect at Baylao ranged from 208-

(SD = 116)(Table 5.17). Most

10 cm size range with an average

20 cm (average =

) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total

SD = standard SD = standard SD = standard SD = standard


2222 3333

414 404

342 (116.2)

es), number of fish families and es), number of fish families and es), number of fish families and es), number of fish families and

the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonthe contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonthe contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonthe contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and non----target target target target

% Contribution% Contribution% Contribution% Contribution

In terms of contribution to total fish density, the target species composed 53.7% of the fishes

recorded (Fig. 5.24) while 41.6% were the non

was composed of target species, only 24.5% were reef residents;

transients of the reef (the anchovy, ‘dalirag’) which were found in densities estimated at about

100 individuals/500 m2.

As shown in Figure 5.25 and Table

11-20 cm range; four of which were target species and had densities > 1 organism/500 m

(‘lunab’, ‘baga-baga’, molmol’, and ‘danggit’).

Figure Figure Figure Figure 5.255.255.255.25. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 mSee legend below for fish ‘species’.See legend below for fish ‘species’.See legend below for fish ‘species’.See legend below for fish ‘species’.

1 = Alibangbang 6 =

2 = Bagis 7 =

3 = Lunab 8 =

4 = Pogot 9 =

5 = Talakitok 10 =

1-10 cm

11-20 cm

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5 6

Densi

ty (

No.

of

Indiv

iduals

/500m

2)

Densi

ty (

No.

of

Indiv

iduals

/500m

2)

Densi

ty (

No.

of

Indiv

iduals

/500m

2)

Densi

ty (

No.

of

Indiv

iduals

/500m

2)



24) while 41.6% were the non-target species. Although half of the fish density

was composed of target species, only 24.5% were reef residents; most of them (29.2%) were


25 and Table 5.16, eight ‘species’ had individuals that were within the

four of which were target species and had densities > 1 organism/500 m

baga’, molmol’, and ‘danggit’).

. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m2222) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at BaylaoBaylaoBaylaoBaylaoSee legend below for fish ‘species’.See legend below for fish ‘species’.See legend below for fish ‘species’.See legend below for fish ‘species’.

Panapsapan 11 = Makabinhi 16 = Tambal Leon

Baga-baga 12 = Molmol 17 = Tabas

Ilak 13 = Danggit 18 = Suwat-suwat

Pedlok 14 = Dalirag 19 = Bantay-botbot

Bodbod 15 = Moong 20= Kabatingan

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22




target species. Although half of the fish density

most of them (29.2%) were


16, eight ‘species’ had individuals that were within the

four of which were target species and had densities > 1 organism/500 m2

BaylaoBaylaoBaylaoBaylao, , , , MambajaoMambajaoMambajaoMambajao. . . .

21= Pata

22= Tugas-tugas

23= Tiki-tiki

24= Botete

25= Lapis-lapis

22 23 24 25

POBLACION, MAMBAJAOPOBLACION, MAMBAJAOPOBLACION, MAMBAJAOPOBLACION, MAMBAJAO


The live coral cover of the transects at Poblacion, Mambajao ranged from 12

5.18). The composition of the three transects were very different from each other. The first

transect was a combination of live coral (48%) with dead coral (24%), sand (

rubble (12%)(Fig. 5.26). The second transect was mainly composed of rubble (24%), and

equal proportions of sand, soft coral and dead coral. Live coral cover was only 12%. The third

transect was mainly sand (40%).

Despite the relatively high live

area was 25.3%, falling under the category of “fair” (25


transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of

Poblacion, Mambajao. Poblacion, Mambajao. Poblacion, Mambajao. Poblacion, Mambajao.



POBLACION, MAMBAJAOPOBLACION, MAMBAJAOPOBLACION, MAMBAJAOPOBLACION, MAMBAJAO

The live coral cover of the transects at Poblacion, Mambajao ranged from 12

18). The composition of the three transects were very different from each other. The first

transect was a combination of live coral (48%) with dead coral (24%), sand (

26). The second transect was mainly composed of rubble (24%), and


transect was mainly sand (40%).

Despite the relatively high live coral cover of Transect-1, the average live coral cover of the

area was 25.3%, falling under the category of “fair” (25-49.95%)(Fig. 5.26).

Transect 1Transect 1Transect 1Transect 1 Transect 2Transect 2Transect 2Transect 2



Poblacion, Mambajao. Poblacion, Mambajao. Poblacion, Mambajao. Poblacion, Mambajao.

Live Coral Soft Coral Dead Coral

Sand Rock Rubble


The live coral cover of the transects at Poblacion, Mambajao ranged from 12-48% (Table

18). The composition of the three transects were very different from each other. The first

transect was a combination of live coral (48%) with dead coral (24%), sand (16%) and

26). The second transect was mainly composed of rubble (24%), and


1, the average live coral cover of the

Transect 3Transect 3Transect 3Transect 3



Dead Coral

Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.18. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Poblacion, Mambajao.18. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Poblacion, Mambajao.18. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Poblacion, Mambajao.18. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Poblacion, Mambajao.

Live Live Live Live


Transect 1 48

Transect 2 12

Transect 3 16

Average 25.3



during the FVC transect survey

and can be classified as (Table

(1) Indicator species (1 family):

(2) Reef Associated T

‘pugot’), Holocentridae (‘baga

(‘pedlok’), Mullid

Scaridae (‘molmol’)

(3) Pelagic/Transient Target Species: Engraulidae (‘dalirag’)

(4) Non-target species

Pomacanthidae (‘anyel

botbot’, ‘kabatingan’ and ‘pata’), Synodontidae (‘tiki

(‘botete’).


18. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Poblacion, Mambajao.18. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Poblacion, Mambajao.18. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Poblacion, Mambajao.18. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Poblacion, Mambajao.

Soft Soft Soft Soft


Dead Dead Dead Dead


0 24 12 16 0

20 20 24 20 4

12 20 12 40 0

10.7 21.3 16.0 25.3 1.3

Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity. A total of 22 ‘species’ (based on local names) were recorded

during the FVC transect survey of Poblacion, Mambajao. These represented 17 fish families

and can be classified as (Table 5.19):

(1 family): Chaetodontidae (‘alibangbang’)

Reef Associated Target species: Acanthuridae (‘bagis’), Balistidae (‘pakol’ and

, Holocentridae (‘baga-baga’), Kyphosidae (‘sono’), Labridae

ullidae (‘bodbob’), Nemipteridae (‘makabinhi

(‘molmol’) and Sphyraenidae (‘lambana’).

(3) Pelagic/Transient Target Species: Engraulidae (‘dalirag’)

rget species (3 families): Apogonidae (‘moong’), Muraenidae (‘agmang’),

Pomacanthidae (‘anyel-anyel’ and ‘suwat-suwat’), Pomacentrid

botbot’, ‘kabatingan’ and ‘pata’), Synodontidae (‘tiki-tiki’) and Tetraodontidae


18. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Poblacion, Mambajao.18. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Poblacion, Mambajao.18. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Poblacion, Mambajao.18. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Poblacion, Mambajao.


0

0

0

0

‘species’ (based on local names) were recorded

of Poblacion, Mambajao. These represented 17 fish families

: Acanthuridae (‘bagis’), Balistidae (‘pakol’ and

baga’), Kyphosidae (‘sono’), Labridae

makabinhi’ and ‘sung’),

(3 families): Apogonidae (‘moong’), Muraenidae (‘agmang’),

Pomacentridae (‘bantay

tiki’) and Tetraodontidae



and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are sand their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are sand their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are sand their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are s

deviation. * = fish density was very low since only 1 individual was seen in the three deviation. * = fish density was very low since only 1 individual was seen in the three deviation. * = fish density was very low since only 1 individual was seen in the three deviation. * = fish density was very low since only 1 individual was seen in the three

transects. transects. transects. transects.

LOCAL NAMELOCAL NAMELOCAL NAMELOCAL NAME COMMON COMMON COMMON COMMON

NAMENAMENAMENAME

1 Alibangbang Butterfly Fish Chaetodontidae

2 Bagis Surgeon Fish Acanthuridae

3 Pakol Triggerfishes Balistidae

4 Pogot Triggerfishes Balistidae

5 Baga-baga Squirrel Fish Holocentridae

6 Sono Drummer Kyphosidae

7 Pedlok Moon Wrasse Labridae

8 Bodbod Goat Fish Mullidae

9 Makabinhi Bream Nemipteridae

10 Song Monocle

Bream Nemipteridae

11 Molmol Parrot fish Scaridae

12 Lambana Big Eye

Barracuda Sphyraenidae

13 Dalirag Anchovy Engraulidae

14 Moong Cardinal Fish Apogonidae

15 Agmang Moray Eel Muraenidae

16 Anyel-anyel Angel Fish Pomacanthidae

17 Suwat-suwat Angel Fish Pomacanthidae

18 Bantay-

botbot Anemone Fish Pomacentridae


Major Pomacentridae

20 Pata Damsel Fish Pomacentridae

21 Tiki-tiki Lizard Fish Synodontidae

22 Botete Pufferfishes Tetraodontidae




and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are sand their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are sand their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are sand their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are s


FAMILYFAMILYFAMILYFAMILY CCCC 1111----10 10 10 10

cmcmcmcm

11111111----20 20 20 20

cmcmcmcm

21212121----30 30 30 30

cmcmcmcm >30cm>30cm>30cm>30cm

Chaetodontidae I 4.7

(3.1)


(1.5)

Balistidae T(R) 1.0

(1.7)

Balistidae T(R) 0.3

(0.6)

Holocentridae T(R) 0.7

(0.6)

Kyphosidae T(R) 1.3

(2.3)

Labridae T(R) 1.0

(1.7)

Mullidae T(R) 2.7

(4.6)


(0.6)

0.3

(0.6)


(3.5)

Scaridae T(R) 50.0

(3.0)

6.7

(6.5)

Sphyraenidae T(R) ****

Engraulidae T(P) 166.7 (57.7)

Apogonidae NT 1.0

(1.0)

Muraenidae NT 0.0 ****


(8.1)


(6.5)


(7.2)


(1.2)

Pomacentridae NT 124

(34)

Synodontidae NT 2.7

(2.9)

Tetraodontidae NT 1.7

(1.5)




and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are sand their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are sand their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are sand their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are standard tandard tandard tandard




4.7

(3.1) 1.1

1.3

(1.5) 0.3

1.0

(1.7) 0.2

0.3

(0.6) 0.1

0.7

(0.6) 0.2

1.3

(2.3) 0.3

1.0

(1.7) 0.2

2.7

(4.6) 0.6

1.0

(1.0) 0.2

2.0

(3.5) 0.5

56.7 13.7

**** **** 166.7 (57.7)

40.3

1.0

(1.0) 0.2

**** **** 4.7

(8.1) 1.1

10.7

(6.5) 2.6

11.0

(7.2) 2.7

18.7

(1.2) 4.5

124

(34) 30.0

2.7

(2.9) 0.6

1.7

(1.5) 0.4

Using the classification scheme (indicator/target/non

on local names) and number of families represented was recorded for the target species with

12 species from 10 families (Fig.

pelagic/transient (‘dalirag’, Family Engraulidae). The non

‘species’ from six families (Fig.

Fish DensityFish DensityFish DensityFish Density and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes.

ranged from 336-509 individuals/500 m

87.7)(Table 5.20). Most of the fishes observed within the transects belonged to 1

range with an average density of 406 organisms/500 m

an average of 7 organisms/500 m

for >30 cm (Table 5.20).


of of of of organisms/500 morganisms/500 morganisms/500 morganisms/500 m2222) of fishes recorded at Poblacion, Mambajao. SD = standard deviation.) of fishes recorded at Poblacion, Mambajao. SD = standard deviation.) of fishes recorded at Poblacion, Mambajao. SD = standard deviation.) of fishes recorded at Poblacion, Mambajao. SD = standard deviation.

1111----10cm10cm10cm10cm

Transect Transect Transect Transect No.No.No.No.

1111 2222 3333

Total 328 496 396

Ave (SD) 406.7 (84.5)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Indicator Species

Target Species

Non-Target Species



and nonand nonand nonand non----target species. target species. target species. target species.


Using the classification scheme (indicator/target/non-target), highest number of ‘species’ (based


12 species from 10 families (Fig. 5.27). Of these, 11 were reef residents and one

pelagic/transient (‘dalirag’, Family Engraulidae). The non-target species were represented by 9

‘species’ from six families (Fig. 5.27).

and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. Mean total fish density per transect at Poblacion, Mambajao


20). Most of the fishes observed within the transects belonged to 1

range with an average density of 406 organisms/500 m2. Only a few individuals were larger:

an average of 7 organisms/500 m2 for 11-20 cm, none for 21-30 cm and <1 organism/500 m

20. Density (number of organisms/500 m20. Density (number of organisms/500 m20. Density (number of organisms/500 m20. Density (number of organisms/500 m2222) per transect per size class and total density (number ) per transect per size class and total density (number ) per transect per size class and total density (number ) per transect per size class and total density (number

) of fishes recorded at Poblacion, Mambajao. SD = standard deviation.) of fishes recorded at Poblacion, Mambajao. SD = standard deviation.) of fishes recorded at Poblacion, Mambajao. SD = standard deviation.) of fishes recorded at Poblacion, Mambajao. SD = standard deviation.

SIZE CLASS RANGES SIZE CLASS RANGES SIZE CLASS RANGES SIZE CLASS RANGES

11111111----20cm20cm20cm20cm 21212121----30cm30cm30cm30cm >30cm>30cm>30cm>30cm

1111 2222 3333 1111 2222 3333 1111 2222 3333

8 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

7.0 (6.6) 0.0 0.3 (0.6)

FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily % Contribution% Contribution% Contribution% Contribution

Indicator Species

Target Species

Target Species



target species. target species. target species. target species.


target), highest number of ‘species’ (based


esidents and one

target species were represented by 9

at Poblacion, Mambajao

with a mean of 414 individuals/500 m2 (SD =

20). Most of the fishes observed within the transects belonged to 1-10 cm size

ly a few individuals were larger:

30 cm and <1 organism/500 m2

) per transect per size class and total density (number ) per transect per size class and total density (number ) per transect per size class and total density (number ) per transect per size class and total density (number

) of fishes recorded at Poblacion, Mambajao. SD = standard deviation.) of fishes recorded at Poblacion, Mambajao. SD = standard deviation.) of fishes recorded at Poblacion, Mambajao. SD = standard deviation.) of fishes recorded at Poblacion, Mambajao. SD = standard deviation.


1111 2222 3333

336 509 397

414 (87.7)



In terms of their contribution to total fish density, the target species composed the majority

(56.7%) of the fishes observed within the transects (Fig.

contributed by the transient reef resident, ‘dalirag’. The permanent reef r

composed 16.4% of the total density of target species. The non

to a substantial 40.3% to the total fish density (Fig.

Most of the species observed within the transects were small (Fig.

parrotfish, ‘molmol’ can be seen in the graph. These species were seen at densities of 6

organisms/500 m2. Highest mean densities were recorded ‘dalirag’ and the non

‘pata’.

1-10 cm

11-20 cm

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1 2 3 4

Density

(N

o. of

Indiv

iduals/5

00 m

2)

Density

(N

o. of

Indiv

iduals/5

00 m

2)

Density

(N

o. of

Indiv

iduals/5

00 m

2)

Density

(N

o. of

Indiv

iduals/5

00 m

2)

Figure Figure Figure Figure 5.285.285.285.28. Density of fis. Density of fis. Density of fis. Density of fis


1 Alibangbang 6

2 Bagis 7 3 Pakol 8

4 Pogot 9

5 Baga-baga 10



(56.7%) of the fishes observed within the transects (Fig. 5.27) with the bulk (40.3%)

contributed by the transient reef resident, ‘dalirag’. The permanent reef r

composed 16.4% of the total density of target species. The non-target species also contributed

to a substantial 40.3% to the total fish density (Fig. 5.28).

Most of the species observed within the transects were small (Fig. 5.28) and only


. Highest mean densities were recorded ‘dalirag’ and the non

10 cm

20 cm

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18


. Density of fis. Density of fis. Density of fis. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 mhes (number of organisms/500 mhes (number of organisms/500 mhes (number of organisms/500 m2222) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at


6 Sono 11 Molmol 16 Anyel-anyel

Pedlok 12 Lambana 17 Suwat-suwat Bodbod 13 Dalirag 18 Bantay-botbot

Makabinhi 14 Moong 19 Kabatingan

Song 15 Agmang 20 Pata



27) with the bulk (40.3%)

contributed by the transient reef resident, ‘dalirag’. The permanent reef residents only

target species also contributed

28) and only the


. Highest mean densities were recorded ‘dalirag’ and the non-target species,

19 20 21 22

) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at PoblacionPoblacionPoblacionPoblacion, , , ,

21 Tiki-tiki

22 Botete

BALBAGON, MAMBAJAOBALBAGON, MAMBAJAOBALBAGON, MAMBAJAOBALBAGON, MAMBAJAO


The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Balbagon was a mixture of dead coral (12

live coral (8-36%), and sand (16

was 21.33% (Fig. 5.29), categorizing the area as “poor” (0

cover was obtained for dead corals (22.67%).

Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.21. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Balbagon, Mambajao.21. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Balbagon, Mambajao.21. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Balbagon, Mambajao.21. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Balbagon, Mambajao.

Live Live Live Live


Transect 1 20

Transect 2 8

Transect 3 36

Average 21.33


transects as drawn by participants (left) and the average cover (right) of transects as drawn by participants (left) and the average cover (right) of transects as drawn by participants (left) and the average cover (right) of transects as drawn by participants (left) and the average cover (right) of

Balbagon, Mambajao. Balbagon, Mambajao. Balbagon, Mambajao. Balbagon, Mambajao.



BALBAGON, MAMBAJAOBALBAGON, MAMBAJAOBALBAGON, MAMBAJAOBALBAGON, MAMBAJAO

The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Balbagon was a mixture of dead coral (12

36%), and sand (16-20%)(Table 5.21, Fig. 5.29). On the average, live coral cover

29), categorizing the area as “poor” (0-24.9%). Highest mean substrate

cover was obtained for dead corals (22.67%).

21. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Balbagon, Mambajao.21. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Balbagon, Mambajao.21. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Balbagon, Mambajao.21. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Balbagon, Mambajao.

Soft Soft Soft Soft


Dead Dead Dead Dead


24 32 0 16 0

4 24 24 20 8

12 12 4 20 16

13.33 22.67 9.33 18.67 8.00



Balbagon, Mambajao. Balbagon, Mambajao. Balbagon, Mambajao. Balbagon, Mambajao.


Live Hard Coral

Soft Coral

Dead Coral

Rubble

Sand

Rock

Others


The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Balbagon was a mixture of dead coral (12-32%),

29). On the average, live coral cover

Highest mean substrate

21. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Balbagon, Mambajao.21. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Balbagon, Mambajao.21. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Balbagon, Mambajao.21. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Balbagon, Mambajao.


8

12

0

6.67



Live Hard Coral

Soft Coral

Dead Coral

Rubble

Sand

Rock

Others



were recorded during the FVC of Balbagon, Mambajao. Except for the local name, ‘lapis

lapis’, the other local names were traced to 17 families that can be categorized as:


(B) Target Species, Reef Residents: Balistidae (‘pakol’), Holocentridae (‘baga

Labridae (‘pedlok’ and ‘taad’), Mullidae (‘bodbob’), Nemipteridae

(‘makabinhi’ and ‘song’), Scaridae (‘molmol’) and Sphyraenidae (‘lambana’).

(C) Target Species, Transi

(D) Non-Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Blenniidae (‘tambal leon’),

Pempheridae (‘tabas’), Pomacanthidae (‘anyel

Pomacentridae (‘batay bot

Scorpaenidae (‘bantol’), Synodontidae (‘tiki

(‘botete’).



and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are standard and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are standard and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are standard and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are standard


Local NameLocal NameLocal NameLocal Name Common Common Common Common

NameNameNameName


2 Pakol Triggerfishes


4 Pedlok Moon

Wrasse

5 Taad Wrasse

6 Bodbod Goat Fish

7 Makabinhi Bream

8 Song Monocle

Bream



Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity. A total of 23 ‘species’ (based on local names, Table

the FVC of Balbagon, Mambajao. Except for the local name, ‘lapis



(B) Target Species, Reef Residents: Balistidae (‘pakol’), Holocentridae (‘baga





Pempheridae (‘tabas’), Pomacanthidae (‘anyel-anyel’ and sowat

Pomacentridae (‘batay bot-bot’, ‘kabatingan’, ‘pata’ and ‘tugas

Scorpaenidae (‘bantol’), Synodontidae (‘tiki-tiki’) and Tetraodontidae


T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non----target specietarget specietarget specietarget species), mean total density s), mean total density s), mean total density s), mean total density


Common Common Common Common

FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily CCCC

1111----10 10 10 10

cmcmcmcm

11111111----20 20 20 20

cmcmcmcm MeanMeanMeanMean


(3.1) 2.7


(1.7) 1.0

Squirrel Fish Holocentridae T(R) 1.3

(2.3) 1.3

Labridae T(R) 1.3

(2.3) 1.3

Labridae T(R) 0.3

(0.6)

1.3

(1.5) 1.7

Mullidae T(R) 1.3

(2.3) 1.3


(0.6)

2.0

(1.7) 2.3


(2.6) 3.0

Parrot fish Scaridae T(R) 60

(37)

4.7

(5.0) 64.7


ies’ (based on local names, Table 5.22)

the FVC of Balbagon, Mambajao. Except for the local name, ‘lapis-


(B) Target Species, Reef Residents: Balistidae (‘pakol’), Holocentridae (‘baga-baga’),




anyel’ and sowat-sowat’),

bot’, ‘kabatingan’, ‘pata’ and ‘tugas-tugas’),



s), mean total density s), mean total density s), mean total density s), mean total density



SDSDSDSD %%%%

3.1 0.5

1.7 0.2

2.3 0.2

2.3 0.2

1.2 0.3

2.3 0.2

2.1 0.4

2.6 0.6

41.0 12.1


NameNameNameName

10 Lambana Big Eye

Barracuda

11 Dalirag Anchovy



14 Tabas Sweepers

15 Anyel-anyel Angel Fish

16 Suwat-suwat Angel Fish

17 Bantay-botbot Anemone

Fish


Major

19 Pata Damsel Fish

24 Tugas-tugas Damsel Fish

20 Bantol Stone Fish



23 Lapis-lapis

Using the classification scheme (indicator, target and non

the families they represented were similar for target and non

‘species’ from eight families for target fishes and 11 ‘species

fishes.



FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily CCCC

1111----10 10 10 10

cmcmcmcm

11111111----20 20 20 20


Barracuda Sphyraenidae T(R)

3.3

(5.8) 3.3

Engraulidae T(P) 33.3

(57.7) 33.3

Cardinal Fish Apogonidae NT 12

(10) 12.0

Blenniidae NT 1.0

(1.0) 1.0

Pempheridae NT 33.3

(57.7) 33.3

Angel Fish Pomacanthidae NT 112.7

(102) 112.7

Angel Fish Pomacanthidae NT 1.3

(2.3) 1.3

Anemone Pomacentridae NT

17.7

(7.5) 17.7

Pomacentridae NT 71

(44) 71.0


(32.9) 149.7


(20.8) 12.0

Stone Fish Scorpaenidae NT 0.3

(0.6) 0.3


(3.6)

0.3

(0.6) 6.3


(0.6) 0.3

Unknown U 1.3

(2.3) 1.3

Using the classification scheme (indicator, target and non-target), the number of ‘species’ and

the families they represented were similar for target and non-target species (Fig.

‘species’ from eight families for target fishes and 11 ‘species’ from eight families for non



SDSDSDSD %%%%

5.8 0.6

57.7 6.2

10.4 2.2

1.0 0.2

57.7 6.2

102.4 21.1

2.3 0.2

7.5 3.3

44.2 13.3

32.9 28.0

20.8 2.2

0.6 0.1

3.8 1.2

0.6 0.1

2.3 0.2

target), the number of ‘species’ and

target species (Fig. 5.30) with 10

’ from eight families for non-target

Fish DensityFish DensityFish DensityFish Density and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. Mean total fish density per transect at Balbagon ranged from 400


of the fishes observed within the transects belonged to 1


11 organisms/500 m2)(Table 5.

Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.23. Density (number of organisms/523. Density (number of organisms/523. Density (number of organisms/523. Density (number of organisms/5



Transect 1111

Total 506

Average (SD) 523.3 (159.7)

Figure 5.30. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families and the Figure 5.30. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families and the Figure 5.30. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families and the Figure 5.30. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families and the

contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and noncontribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and noncontribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and noncontribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and non

Indicator Species

Target Species

Non-

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent


Mean total fish density per transect at Balbagon ranged from 400


fishes observed within the transects belonged to 1-10 cm size range with an average

density of 523 organisms/500 m2; only a few individuals belonged to 11-20 cm averaging only

5.23).

23. Density (number of organisms/523. Density (number of organisms/523. Density (number of organisms/523. Density (number of organisms/500 m00 m00 m00 m2222) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total

density (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 m2222) of fishes recorded at Balbagon. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Balbagon. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Balbagon. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Balbagon. SD =




2222 3333 1111 2222 3333 1111

373 691 0 27 8 506 400

523.3 (159.7) 11.7 (13.9) 535 (151.6)


contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and noncontribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and noncontribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and noncontribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and non----target species. target species. target species. target species.

Indicator Species

Target Species

-Target Species



Mean total fish density per transect at Balbagon ranged from 400-

(SD = 151)(Table 5.23). Most

10 cm size range with an average

20 cm averaging only


) of fishes recorded at Balbagon. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Balbagon. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Balbagon. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Balbagon. SD =


2222 3333

400 699

535 (151.6)



% Contribution% Contribution% Contribution% Contribution

Fish density was primarily composed of non

only comprised 21.2% (Fig.

range)(Fig. 5.31) and only four ‘species’ (‘taad’, ‘lakambinhi’, ‘molmol’ and ‘lambana’), all

target fishes had larger individuals (11


MambajMambajMambajMambajaoaoaoao. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.

1 Alibangbang 6 Bodbod

2 Pakol 7 Makabinhi

3 Baga-baga 8 Song

4 Pedlok 9 Molmol

5 Taad 10 Lambana

1-10 cm

11-20 cm

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 2 3 4 5

Density

(N

o. of

Indiv

iduals/5

00 m

2)

Density

(N

o. of

Indiv

iduals/5

00 m

2)

Density

(N

o. of

Indiv

iduals/5

00 m

2)

Density

(N

o. of

Indiv

iduals/5

00 m

2)


Fish density was primarily composed of non-target species (75.8%) while the target species

only comprised 21.2% (Fig. 5.30). Most of the fishes were small (within 1

and only four ‘species’ (‘taad’, ‘lakambinhi’, ‘molmol’ and ‘lambana’), all

target fishes had larger individuals (11-20 cm) that had densities >1 organism/500 m



Bodbod 11 Dalirag 16 Suwat-suwat 21

Makabinhi 12 Moong 17 Bantay-botbot 22

13 Tambal Leon 18 Kabatingan 23

Molmol 14 Tabas 19 Pata 24

Lambana 15 Anyel-anyel 20 Tugas-tugas

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20



target species (75.8%) while the target species

30). Most of the fishes were small (within 1-10 cm size

and only four ‘species’ (‘taad’, ‘lakambinhi’, ‘molmol’ and ‘lambana’), all

20 cm) that had densities >1 organism/500 m2.

) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at BalbagonBalbagonBalbagonBalbagon, , , ,

Bantol

Tiki-tiki

Botete

Lapis-lapis

20 21 22 23 24


The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Anito was a mixture of rubble and sand (25.3%

each) with some live coral (20%), rock (17.3%) and dead coral (12%)(Table

Live coral cover averaged 20% (range = 16

Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.24. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Anito, Mambajao.24. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Anito, Mambajao.24. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Anito, Mambajao.24. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Anito, Mambajao.

Live Live Live Live


Transect 1 16

Transect 2 20

Transect 3 24

Average 20.00



Anito, Mambajao. Anito, Mambajao. Anito, Mambajao. Anito, Mambajao.



ANITO, MAMBAJAOANITO, MAMBAJAOANITO, MAMBAJAOANITO, MAMBAJAO


each) with some live coral (20%), rock (17.3%) and dead coral (12%)(Table

Live coral cover averaged 20% (range = 16-24%), categorizing the area as “poor” (0

24. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Anito, Mambajao.24. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Anito, Mambajao.24. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Anito, Mambajao.24. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Anito, Mambajao.

Soft Soft Soft Soft


Dead Dead Dead Dead


0 16 16 28 24

0 12 36 16 16

0 8 24 32 12

0 12.00 25.33 25.33 17.33




Anito, Mambajao. Anito, Mambajao. Anito, Mambajao. Anito, Mambajao.


Sand Rock



each) with some live coral (20%), rock (17.3%) and dead coral (12%)(Table 5.24, Fig. 5.32).

s “poor” (0-24.9%).

24. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Anito, Mambajao.24. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Anito, Mambajao.24. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Anito, Mambajao.24. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Anito, Mambajao.


0

0

0

0

Transect 3Transect 3Transect 3Transect 3





(based on local names, Table 5.


(B) Target Species: Acanthuridae (‘bagis’), Labridae (‘bongkalit’, labayan’, ‘maming’,

‘pedlok’ and ‘tangis’), Mullidae (‘bodbob’), Nemipteridae (‘song’) and


(C) Non-Target Species: Muraenidae (‘ogdo

bot-bot’, ‘kabatingan’ and ‘pata’), Synodontidae (‘tiki

(‘botete’).


indicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT indicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT indicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT indicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT

total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in

parenthesis are standard deviation.parenthesis are standard deviation.parenthesis are standard deviation.parenthesis are standard deviation.




3 Bongkalit Sixbar wrasse

4 Labayan Wrasse

5 Maming Wrasse


7 Tangis Wrasse

8 Bodbob Goat Fish

9 Song Monocle Bream


11 Ogdo-ogdo Moray Eel




15 Pata Damsel Fish




Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity. During the FVC of Anito, Mambajao, a total of

5.25) from 17 fish families were recorded:





Target Species: Muraenidae (‘ogdo-ogdo’), Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’, ‘batay

bot’, ‘kabatingan’ and ‘pata’), Synodontidae (‘tiki-tiki’) and Tetraodontidae


indicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT indicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT indicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT indicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non= non= non= non----target species), mean target species), mean target species), mean target species), mean



Common NameCommon NameCommon NameCommon Name FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily CCCC 1111----10 10 10 10

cmcmcmcm

11111111----20 20 20 20



(2.6)

Surgeon Fish Acanthuridae T(R) 2.0

(3.5)

Sixbar wrasse Labridae T(R) 1.3

(1.2)

Labridae T(R) 3.0

(2.6)

Labridae T(R) 1.7

(1.2)


(1.0)

Labridae T(R) 0.7

(1.2)

Goat Fish Mullidae T(R) 1.0 (1.0)

Monocle Bream Nemipteridae T(R) 1.3

(2.3)


(4.9)

3.0

(3.6)

Moray Eel Muraenidae NT 3.0 (0) 3.0 (0)


(3.5)

Anemone Fish Pomacentridae NT 1.0

(1.7)

Sergeant Major Pomacentridae NT 29.0

(18.5)

1.0

(1.7) (17.0)

Damsel Fish Pomacentridae NT 9.0 (9.5)


(1.0)


(0.6)


During the FVC of Anito, Mambajao, a total of 17 ‘species’



(‘salikoko’, ‘batay



target species), mean target species), mean target species), mean target species), mean




3.0

(2.6) 3.2

2.0

(3.5) 2.2

1.3

(1.2) 1.4

3.0

(2.6) 3.2

1.7

(1.2) 1.8

2.0

(1.0) 2.2

0.7

(1.2) 0.7

1.0 (1.0)

1.1

1.3

(2.3) 1.4

12.7

(7.8) 13.6

3.0 (0) 3.2

19.0

(3.5) 20.4

1.0

(1.7) 1.1

30.0

(17.0) 32.3

9.0 (9.5)

9.7

1.0

(1.0) 1.1

1.3

(0.6) 1.4

Of the 17 local names, target species were represented by nine local names from five fish

families while non-targets, seven local names from four families (Fig.

Fish DensityFish DensityFish DensityFish Density and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. Mean total fish density per transect at Anito ranged from 69

individuals/500 m2 with a mean of 93 individuals/500 m

fishes observed within the transects belonged to 1

89 organisms/500 m2; only a few individuals belonged to 11

organisms/500 m2)(Table 5.26).


density (number of density (number of density (number of density (number of


Transect 1111

Total 101

Average (SD) 89 (26.2)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Indicator Species

Target Species

Non



and nonand nonand nonand non----target species. target species. target species. target species.



targets, seven local names from four families (Fig. 5.33).

Mean total fish density per transect at Anito ranged from 69

with a mean of 93 individuals/500 m2 (SD = 20)(Table 5.

fishes observed within the transects belonged to 1-10 cm size range with an average density of

; only a few individuals belonged to 11-20 cm averaging only 4

26).


density (number of density (number of density (number of density (number of organisms/500 morganisms/500 morganisms/500 morganisms/500 m2222) of fishes recorded at Anito. SD = standard ) of fishes recorded at Anito. SD = standard ) of fishes recorded at Anito. SD = standard ) of fishes recorded at Anito. SD = standard



2222 3333 1111 2222 3333 1111

59 107 2 10 0 103

89 (26.2) 4 (5.3) 93 (20.9)


Indicator Species

Target Species

Non-Target Species






Mean total fish density per transect at Anito ranged from 69-107

5.26). Most of the

range with an average density of

20 cm averaging only 4


) of fishes recorded at Anito. SD = standard ) of fishes recorded at Anito. SD = standard ) of fishes recorded at Anito. SD = standard ) of fishes recorded at Anito. SD = standard


2222 3333

69 107

93 (20.9)



Fish density was primarily composed of non

only comprised 27.6% (Fig. 5.

range)(Fig. 5.34) and only two ‘species’ (‘molmol’ and ‘kabatingan’) rea

size range is possible for the parrotfish (‘molmol’) which are known to reach large sizes but

doubtful for the damselfish, ‘kabatingan’. It is possible for pomacentrids or damsel fishes to

reach this size range but only at areas which a

considering this particular data.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4

Density

(N

o. of

Indiv

iduals/5

00m

2)

Density

(N

o. of

Indiv

iduals/5

00m

2)

Density

(N

o. of

Indiv

iduals/5

00m

2)

Density

(N

o. of

Indiv

iduals/5

00m

2)

1-10 cm

11-20 cm



1 = Alibangbang

2 = Bagis

3 = Bongkalit

4 = Labayan 5 = Maming


Fish density was primarily composed of non-target species (69.2%) while the target species

5.33). Most (95.7%) of the fishes were small (within 1

34) and only two ‘species’ (‘molmol’ and ‘kabatingan’) reached 11



reach this size range but only at areas which are not fished. Caution should be taken when

considering this particular data.

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16




6 = Pedlok 11 = Ogdo-ogdo 16 =

7 = Tangis 12 = Salikoko 17 =

8 = Bodbod 13 = Bantay-botbot

9 = Song 14 = Kabatingan 10 = Molmol 15 = Pata


target species (69.2%) while the target species

33). Most (95.7%) of the fishes were small (within 1-10 cm size

ched 11-20 cm. This



re not fished. Caution should be taken when

16 17

) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at AnitoAnitoAnitoAnito, , , , MambajaoMambajaoMambajaoMambajao. . . .

16 = Tiki-tiki

17 = Botete

MAGTING, MAMBAJAOMAGTING, MAMBAJAOMAGTING, MAMBAJAOMAGTING, MAMBAJAO


The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Magting was primarily composed of live coral

(32-36%) and sand (20-24%)(Table

(36%) and sand (20%); the second, live coral (36%), sand (24%) and rubble (20%); and the

third transect, live coral (32%), dead coral (24%) and sand (20%)(Fig. 35). On the average,

live coral cover was 34.67% (Fig.

Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.27. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Magting, Mambajao.27. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Magting, Mambajao.27. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Magting, Mambajao.27. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Magting, Mambajao.

Live Live Live Live


Transect 1 36

Transect 2 36

Transect 3 32

Average 34.67



Magting, Mambajao. Magting, Mambajao. Magting, Mambajao. Magting, Mambajao.



MAGTING, MAMBAJAOMAGTING, MAMBAJAOMAGTING, MAMBAJAOMAGTING, MAMBAJAO


24%)(Table 5.27). The first transect was composed of live coral



67% (Fig. 5.35), categorizing the area as “fair” (25-49.9%).

27. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Magting, Mambajao.27. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Magting, Mambajao.27. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Magting, Mambajao.27. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Magting, Mambajao.

Soft Soft Soft Soft


Dead Dead Dead Dead


4 16 8 20 16

4 8 20 24 8

16 24 4 20 4

8.00 16.00 10.67 21.33 9.33




Magting, Mambajao. Magting, Mambajao. Magting, Mambajao. Magting, Mambajao.


Sand Rock Rubble



27). The first transect was composed of live coral



49.9%).

27. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Magting, Mambajao.27. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Magting, Mambajao.27. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Magting, Mambajao.27. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Magting, Mambajao.


0

0

0

0






were recorded during the FVC of Magting, Mambajao. Except for the local name, ‘tangka

tangka’ and the unidentified fish (‘isda’),

be categorized as:


(B) Target Species, Reef Residents: Acanthuridae (‘bagis’), Balistidae (‘pogot’), Labridae

(‘bongkalit’, ‘labayan’, ‘maming’, ‘p

(‘bodbob’), Nemipteridae (‘song’), Scaridae (‘molmol’) and Siganidae

(‘danggit’);

(C) Target Species, Transient Residents/Pelagic: Engraulidae (‘dalirag’ and ‘mogkas’);

(D) Non-Target Species: Muraenidae (‘odgo

‘kabatingan’ and ‘pata’) and Tetraodontidae (‘botete’).


indicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonindicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonindicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonindicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonmean mean mean mean total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in



NameNameNameName





5 Labayan Wrasse

6 Maming Wrasse


8 Taad Wrasse

9 Tangis Wrasse

10 Bodbod Goat Fish

11 Song Monocle

Bream



were recorded during the FVC of Magting, Mambajao. Except for the local name, ‘tangka

tangka’ and the unidentified fish (‘isda’), other local names were traced to 12 families that can



(‘bongkalit’, ‘labayan’, ‘maming’, ‘pedlok’, ‘taad’ and ‘tangis’), Mullidae



Target Species: Muraenidae (‘odgo-ogdo’), Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’,

‘kabatingan’ and ‘pata’) and Tetraodontidae (‘botete’).


indicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonindicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonindicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonindicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non----target species), target species), target species), target species), total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in



NameNameNameName FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily CCCC

1111----10 10 10 10

cmcmcmcm

11111111----20 20 20 20



(4.0)

Surgeon Fish Acanthuridae T(R) 0.3

(0.6)


(0.6)

Sixbar wrasse Labridae T(R) 1.0

(1.0)


(0.6)


(0.6)


(0)


(0.6)


(0.6)


(1.2)

Monocle

Bream Nemipteridae T(R)

0.3

(0.6)



were recorded during the FVC of Magting, Mambajao. Except for the local name, ‘tangka-

other local names were traced to 12 families that can


edlok’, ‘taad’ and ‘tangis’), Mullidae



, Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’,


target species), target species), target species), target species), total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in



5.7

(4.0) 3.1

0.3

(0.6) 0.2

0.7

(0.6) 0.4

1.0

(1.0) 0.5

0.3

(0.6) 0.2

0.7

(0.6) 0.4

3.0

(0) 1.6

0.3

(0.6) 0.2

0.3

(0.6) 0.2

0.7

(1.2) 0.4

0.3

(0.6) 0.2


NameNameNameName



14 Dalirag Anchovy

15 Mogkas Anchovy

16 Ogdo-ogdo Moray Eel



Major

19 Pata Damsel Fish


21 Tangka-tangka

22 Isda

Of the 22 local names, target species the most represented with 14 local names re

eight fish families while non-targets had five from three families (Fig.

were composed of 12 reef residents and two pelagic species. This means that in terms of

diversity, target species at Magting was more diverse than

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Indicator Species

Target Species

Non-Target Species


families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of

target and nontarget and nontarget and nontarget and non



NameNameNameName FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily CCCC

1111----10 10 10 10

cmcmcmcm

11111111----20 20 20 20



(14.6)

3.0

(2.0) (15.9)

Rabbit Fish Siganidae T(R) 1.3

(2.3)

0.3

(0.6)

Anchovy Engraulidae T(P) 33.3

(57.7)

(57.7)

Anchovy Engraulidae T(P) 66.7

(115.5)

(115.5)

Moray Eel Muraenidae NT 3.7

(3.8)


(10.8)

(10.8)

Sergeant

Pomacentridae NT

23.7

(8.1)


(3.6)


(1.3)

Unknown U 0.3

(0.6)

Unknown U 2.3

(4.0)

Of the 22 local names, target species the most represented with 14 local names re

targets had five from three families (Fig. 5.36). The target species


diversity, target species at Magting was more diverse than the non-target species.

FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily % Contribution% Contribution% Contribution% Contribution

Indicator Species

Target Species

Target Species



target and nontarget and nontarget and nontarget and non----target species. target species. target species. target species.




19.3

(15.9) 10.6

1.7

(2.1) 0.9

33.3

(57.7) 18.3

66.7

(115.5) 36.6

3.7

(3.8) 2.0

12.7

(10.8) 7.0

23.7

(8.1) 13.0

4.0

(3.6) 2.2

1.0

(1.3) 0.5

0.3

(0.6) 0.2

2.3

(4.0) 1.3

Of the 22 local names, target species the most represented with 14 local names representing

36). The target species


target species.



Fish DensityFish DensityFish DensityFish Density and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. Mean total fish density per transect at Magting ranged from 61


density of Transect-1 was distinctly higher than that of the other two transects and may have

artificially increased the fish density and thus increased the SD value. This is due to the two

schools of reef pelagic anchovies that were encountered at Transect 1: ‘dalirag’ estimated a

100 organisms/500 m2 and ‘mogkas’ estimated at 200 organisms/500 m

were removed, the mean density would approach that of the other transects.




Transect 1111

Total 415

Average (SD) 178 (204.7)

Fish density was primarily composed of target species (70.7%) while the non

only comprised 24.7% (Fig.

contributed 54.9% while the permanent reef residents composed only 15.8%.

Most (95.7%) of the fishes were small (within 1

‘species’ (‘molmol’ and ‘danggit’) reached 11

>1 organism/500 m2. This means that although there is a high number of target

the area, these are small. Protection if present will enhance the fish population by allowing

these target species to grow and reach maturity before being fished out.


Mean total fish density per transect at Magting ranged from 61


distinctly higher than that of the other two transects and may have


schools of reef pelagic anchovies that were encountered at Transect 1: ‘dalirag’ estimated a

and ‘mogkas’ estimated at 200 organisms/500 m2. If these two values



density (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 m2222) of fishes recorded at Magting. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Magting. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Magting. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Magting. SD =




2222 3333 1111 2222 3333 1111

63 58 6 1 3 421

178 (204.7) 3.3 (2.5) 182 (207)

Fish density was primarily composed of target species (70.7%) while the non

only comprised 24.7% (Fig. 5.36). Among the target species, the pelagic anchovies


(95.7%) of the fishes were small (within 1-10 cm size range)(Fig. 5.37) and only two

‘species’ (‘molmol’ and ‘danggit’) reached 11-20 cm. However, only ‘molmol’ had a density of

. This means that although there is a high number of target


these target species to grow and reach maturity before being fished out.


Mean total fish density per transect at Magting ranged from 61-

(SD = 207)(Table 5.29). Fish

distinctly higher than that of the other two transects and may have


schools of reef pelagic anchovies that were encountered at Transect 1: ‘dalirag’ estimated at

. If these two values



) of fishes recorded at Magting. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Magting. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Magting. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Magting. SD =


2222 3333

64 61

182 (207)

Fish density was primarily composed of target species (70.7%) while the non-target species

36). Among the target species, the pelagic anchovies


37) and only two

20 cm. However, only ‘molmol’ had a density of

. This means that although there is a high number of target species within


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5

Density

(N

o. of

Indiv

iduals/5

00 m

2)

Density

(N

o. of

Indiv

iduals/5

00 m

2)

Density

(N

o. of

Indiv

iduals/5

00 m

2)

Density

(N

o. of

Indiv

iduals/5

00 m

2)

1-10 cm

11-20 cm

Figure Figure Figure Figure 5.375.375.375.37. Density of fishes. Density of fishes. Density of fishes. Density of fishes


1 Alibangbang 6

2 Bagis 7

3 Pogot 8

4 Bongkalit 9

5 Labayan 10


5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19


. Density of fishes. Density of fishes. Density of fishes. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m(number of organisms/500 m(number of organisms/500 m(number of organisms/500 m2222) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at


6 Maming 11 Song 16 Ogdo-ogdo 21

7 Pedlok 12 Molmol 17 Salikoko 22

8 Taad 13 Danggit 18 Kabatingan

9 Tangis 14 Dalirag 19 Pata

10 Bodbod 15 Mogkas 20 Botete


20 21 22

) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at MagtingMagtingMagtingMagting, , , ,

Tangka-tangka

Isda

TUPSAN GRANDE, MAMBAJAOTUPSAN GRANDE, MAMBAJAOTUPSAN GRANDE, MAMBAJAOTUPSAN GRANDE, MAMBAJAO


The first transect at the surveyed site for coral

composed of live coral (37%) and rubble (29%); the second transect, live coral (33.8%) and

dead coral (25%); and the third transect, sand (24%) in combination with live coral (20%),

rubble (20%) and rock (20%)

5.30), categorizing the area as “fair” (25

Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 1 Transect 2


different transects as drawn by participants (above) and the different transects as drawn by participants (above) and the different transects as drawn by participants (above) and the different transects as drawn by participants (above) and the

average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao. average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao. average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao. average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao.



TUPSAN GRANDE, MAMBAJAOTUPSAN GRANDE, MAMBAJAOTUPSAN GRANDE, MAMBAJAOTUPSAN GRANDE, MAMBAJAO

The first transect at the surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Tupsan Grande was mainly



rubble (20%) and rock (20%)(fig. 5.38). On the average, live coral cover was 30.27% (

), categorizing the area as “fair” (25-49.9%).




average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao. average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao. average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao. average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao.


Sand Rock Rubble


reef assessment at Tupsan Grande was mainly



. On the average, live coral cover was 30.27% (Table



Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.30. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Tupsan Grande, Mambajao.30. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Tupsan Grande, Mambajao.30. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Tupsan Grande, Mambajao.30. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Tupsan Grande, Mambajao.

Live Live Live Live


Transect 1 37

Transect 3 33.8

Transect 3 20

Average 30.27



were recorded during the FVC of Tupsan Grande, Mambajao and can be classified as:


(B) Target Species: Balistidae (‘pogot’), Labridae (‘bongkalit’, ‘maming, ‘pedlok’ and

‘tangis’), Mullidae (‘bodbob’), Nemipteridae (‘song’), Scaridae (‘molmol’),

Siganidae (‘danggit’) and Engraulidae (‘mogkas’);

(C) Non-Target Species: Pempheridae (‘tabas’), Pomacentridae (‘bantay bot

‘kabatingan’, ‘kapaw’, ‘pata’ and ‘salikoko’) and Synodontidae (‘tiki


T(RT(RT(RT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non

and their percent contribution (%) total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution (%) total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution (%) total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution (%) total fish density. SD = standard deviation.


NameNameNameName


2 Pogot Trigger Fish


4 Maming Wrasse

5 Pedlok Wrasse

6 Tangis Wrasse

7 Bodbod Goat Fish

8 Song Monacle Bream



11 Mogkas Anchovy


30. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Tupsan Grande, Mambajao.30. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Tupsan Grande, Mambajao.30. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Tupsan Grande, Mambajao.30. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Tupsan Grande, Mambajao.

Soft Soft Soft Soft


Dead Dead Dead Dead


0 14 29 16 4

0 25 16.9 16 8.3

4 12 20 24 20

1.33 17.00 21.97 18.67 10.77



species: Chaetodontidae (‘alibang-bang);



Siganidae (‘danggit’) and Engraulidae (‘mogkas’);

Target Species: Pempheridae (‘tabas’), Pomacentridae (‘bantay bot

‘kabatingan’, ‘kapaw’, ‘pata’ and ‘salikoko’) and Synodontidae (‘tiki


) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non----target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density


FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily CCCC 1111----10cm10cm10cm10cm 11111111----20cm20cm20cm20cm

MeanMeanMeanMean SDSDSDSD MeanMeanMeanMean SDSDSDSD MeanMeanMeanMean

Chaetodontidae I 4.0 1.7 4.0

Balistidae T(R) 4.0 6.1 4.0

Labridae T(R) 1.7 1.5 1.7




Mullidae T(R) 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.7

Nemipteridae T(R) 0.7 0.6 0.7

Scaridae T(R) 8.3 9.1 8.3

Siganidae T(R) 0.7 1.2 0.7

Engraulidae T(P) 33.3 57.7 33.3


30. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Tupsan Grande, Mambajao.30. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Tupsan Grande, Mambajao.30. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Tupsan Grande, Mambajao.30. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Tupsan Grande, Mambajao.


0

0

0

0





Target Species: Pempheridae (‘tabas’), Pomacentridae (‘bantay bot-bot,

‘kabatingan’, ‘kapaw’, ‘pata’ and ‘salikoko’) and Synodontidae (‘tiki-tiki’).





MeanMeanMeanMean SDSDSDSD %%%%

4.0 1.7 2.7

4.0 6.1 2.7

1.7 1.5 1.1

0.3 0.6 0.2

2.0 2.0 1.4

0.3 0.6 0.2

0.7 0.6 0.5

0.7 0.6 0.5

8.3 9.1 5.7

0.7 1.2 0.5

33.3 57.7 22.7


NameNameNameName

12 Tabas Sweepers

13 Bantay-

botbot Anemone Fish



16 Pata Damsel Fish



Of the 18 local names, target fishes were represented by more ‘species’ (10) and more families

(7) while non-target fishes were represented by seven ‘species’ from three families (Fig.

Most of the target species were permanent reef residents (9 spe

transient resident (‘mogkas’).


and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonand the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonand the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonand the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and non


Indicator Speci

Target Species

Non

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent

Num

ber

/ Perc

ent


FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily CCCC 1111----10cm10cm10cm10cm 11111111----20cm20cm20cm20cm

MeanMeanMeanMean SDSDSDSD MeanMeanMeanMean SDSDSDSD MeanMeanMeanMean

Pempheridae NT 0.3 0.6 0.3

Pomacentridae NT 1.0 1.0 1.0



Pomacentridae NT 33.3 16.1 1.3 2.3 34.7


Synodontidae NT 1.0 1.0 1.0


target fishes were represented by seven ‘species’ from three families (Fig.

Most of the target species were permanent reef residents (9 species) with one pelagic or


and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonand the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonand the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonand the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and non


Indicator Species

Target Species

Non-Target Species

SpeciesSpeciesSpeciesSpecies FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily % Contribu tion% Contribu tion% Contribu tion% Contribu tion



MeanMeanMeanMean SDSDSDSD %%%%

0.3 0.6 0.2

1.0 1.0 0.7

23.3 16.9 15.9

8.3 9.1 5.7

34.7 17.0 23.6

22.3 8.1 15.2

1.0 1.0 0.7


target fishes were represented by seven ‘species’ from three families (Fig. 5.39).

cies) with one pelagic or


and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonand the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonand the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonand the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and non----

% Contribu tion% Contribu tion% Contribu tion% Contribu tion

Fish DensityFish DensityFish DensityFish Density and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes.

from 140 – 160 organisms/500 m

other sites at Mambajao, most fishes were small; falling within the 1

5.32, Fig. 5.40).


density (number of organisms/500density (number of organisms/500density (number of organisms/500density (number of organisms/500


Transect 1111

Total 160

Average (SD) 145.3 (12.9)

In terms of fish density, 61.9% of the fishes were non

contributing only 35.4% to total fish density, among which reef residents had 12.7% while

the transients composed 22.7%.

Figure Figure Figure Figure 5.405.405.405.40. Density of fishes (number of. Density of fishes (number of. Density of fishes (number of. Density of fishes (number of

GrandeGrandeGrandeGrande, , , , MambajaoMambajaoMambajaoMambajao. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.

1 = Alibangbang 6 =

2 = Pogot 7 =

3 = Bongkalit 8 =

4 = Maming 9 =

5 = Pedlok 10 =

1-10 cm

11-20 cm

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2 3 4 5

Densi

ty (

No.

of

Org

anis

ms/

500 m

2)

Densi

ty (

No.

of

Org

anis

ms/

500 m

2)

Densi

ty (

No.

of

Org

anis

ms/

500 m

2)

Densi

ty (

No.

of

Org

anis

ms/

500 m

2)


and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. Mean total fish density per transect at Tupsan Grande ranged

160 organisms/500 m2 (average = 147 organisms/500 m2, SD = 11.3). As with

other sites at Mambajao, most fishes were small; falling within the 1-10 cm size range (Table


density (number of organisms/500density (number of organisms/500density (number of organisms/500density (number of organisms/500 mmmm2222) of fishes recorded at Tupsan Grande. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Tupsan Grande. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Tupsan Grande. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Tupsan Grande. SD =




2222 3333 1111 2222 3333 1111

140 136 0 0 5 160 140

145.3 (12.9) 1.7 (2.9) 147 (11.3)

In terms of fish density, 61.9% of the fishes were non-target species with target species


the transients composed 22.7%.

. Density of fishes (number of. Density of fishes (number of. Density of fishes (number of. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 morganisms/500 morganisms/500 morganisms/500 m2222) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at


Tangis 11 = Mogkas 16 Pata

Bodbod 12 = Tabas 17 Salikoko

Song 13 = Bantay-botbot 18 Tiki

Molmol 14 = Kabatingan

Danggit 15 = Kapaw

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17



Mean total fish density per transect at Tupsan Grande ranged

, SD = 11.3). As with

10 cm size range (Table


) of fishes recorded at Tupsan Grande. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Tupsan Grande. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Tupsan Grande. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Tupsan Grande. SD =


2222 3333

140 141

147 (11.3)

target species with target species


) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at Tupsan Tupsan Tupsan Tupsan

Pata

Salikoko

Tiki-tiki

17 18

participatory resource …faspselib.denr.gov.ph/sites/default/files/publication files/2008 pra final...

Documents