The Effect of Water Quality Disturbances on MacrozoobenthosCommunities in Jakarta Bay Waters, Indonesia.

Melati Ferianita-FachrulDepartment of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Landscape Architecture & Environmental Technology,

Universitas Trisakti, Jakarta, IndonesiaE-mail: melatif@hotmail.com, melatif_99@yahoo.com

Tel: +62-21-5563232 ext. 767, +60-07-5576160 ext. 3223, 3014Fax: +62-21-5602575, +60-07-5566157

Mohd. Razman SalimMohd. Ismid Mohd. Said

Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering,Universiti Teknologi MalaysiaSkudai, Johor Bahru, Malaysia

m_razman@hotmail.comismid@fka.utm.my

Abstract

Jakarta Bay a semi-enclose bay, is located to the North of Jakarta City near the JavaSea. The bay received discharges from thirteen rivers around Jakarta. Beside itsimportance as being the site of the international port, Jakarta Bay is also a source oflivelihood for fishermen and also acts as a recreation as well as tourist attraction areas.The protection of the bay is therefore essential in view of its productivity economicallyand ecologically. However, the bay and its rivers have been receiving industrial anddomestic effluent ever since the start of the First Long-term Development Plan I1969/1970.

The bay and its rivers are being subject to various species of pollution arising fromhuman activities, such as domestic and industrial effluent. Eventhough the country ismarching towards prosperity, the environmental pollution is steadily increasing and hasbecome a matter of public concern. The pollution, if left unchecked, would result in thedegradation of water quality and environmental alteration, ultimately limiting thebeneficial uses of the coastal waters.

Benthic macrofauna were sampled on 27 stations from 1995 - 1997 from Jakarta Bay,Indonesia to assess the effects of water quality disturbances on these organisms and todetermine fluctuations in community structure within the vicinity of inner waters. Resultsof abundance and diversity analysis indicated that benthic community within the rivermouth and 5 km from a shoreline were affected by the water quality disturbances.

Key words : Coastal Waters Quality, Pollution, Benthic Community

Introduction

The rapid development of the Indonesian economy, which has mostly occurred incoastal areas, was achieved primarily at the expense of the environment. Expansion ofsectoral economic development, such as industrial sites, marine culture, marine resorts,urban area and off-shore mining, triggered competing resource use and conflict of coastalmanagement. The conflict caused interest group to ignore the sustainability of theresources and have led to marine and coastal resource deterioration.

Coastal waters are economically important, used intensively by mankind, whichinclude tourism and recreation, fishing, aqua-culture, shipping and sand extraction.Furthermore, they from valuable nature resources. Conflicts between user function occur,often in the form of pollution problems, due to the discharge of domestic and industrialwaste water, run off and drainage from agriculture areas, accidental spill from ships andinstallations an the shore, construction and dredging works. Common problems are thepollution of beaches, the deterioration of water quality in general and the subsequentdeterioration of aquatic ecosystem (van Gils, Ziogou, Ganoulis, 1995).

Environmental deterioration called pollution are define as discharges by man, ofsubstances or energy into an environment such as to create a hazard to its living resources.Studies of pollution in natural ecosystem have many aspects, physical, chemical andbiological. The physical aspects include the distribution of potential contaminants withinthe ecosystem. The chemical aspects include the level and chemical form of contaminantsfound within both the biotic and the abiotic components of ecosystem. But, it is arecognition of the biological effects of contamination that defines the true significance ofthe physical and chemical contamination.

As a consequence of human population increase and industrial and agriculturaldevelopment, the quantity of anthropogenic wastes dumped in the coastal waters of Jakartabay has increase considerably. Therefore, a monitoring programme was initiated toexamine the use of biological indicator to monitor pollutant contaminants in a tropicalmarine environment.

Jakarta bay is a semi-enclose coastal bay located north of Jakarta City and marine inletof Java sea (Figure 1). It is a relatively large bay an area of 490 km2 receiving fresh waterfrom 14 major rivers. The bay is significant to Indonesia’s economy due to three majorreasons. Firstly, Jakarta Bay is the sea gate connecting the capital city with otherIndonesia archipelago regions, and it is also the main international port for trading andcommerce. Secondly, Jakarta Bay is a source of livelihood for fisherman. Thirdly, JakartaBay is also known to be a favourite attraction for tourist. Despite it’s importance as aseaport and tourist attraction, the bay has in the past decade, been the main recipient ofwastewater from domestic and industrial activities located in the surrounding catchment(Ferianita-Fachrul, Mohd. Said, Salim, Dahuri, 1999). Coastal areas, especially those thathave seaport area are considered to be productive areas for economy and industry. In thecase of Jakarta Bay this fact has resulted in the increase of development andindustrialisation of various sectors in the areas surrounding the bay (KPPL and PPLH-IPB,1997).

Industrial activities contaminate coastal environments, restricting land use andcreating adverse impacts on aquatic biota and human health. Physical, chemical and

biological effect may be seen in estuarine and coastal environments (Ellis, 1987) andsediments are a medium of transport, accumulating and storage of pollutants (Forstner andSchoer, 1984) indicators of environmental quality (Literathy, 1987), and a benthic biotadamage agent (Litlepage et al., 1984). Furthermore, the coastal marine environmentreceives a diversity of pollutants derive from anthropogenic activities. A major transportmechanism for such contaminants from terrestrial to marine environments are rivers (Jaffe,Leal, Alvarado, Gardinali, Sericanos, 1995).

Furthermore, Jakarta Bay is known in the last decade to undergo importanteconomical development. The rapid increase of urban population has introduced a newrisk pollution for the coastal environment. Though the country is marching towardprosperity, the problems of pollution are steadily increasing and have become a matter ofpublic concern. Untreated domestic, industrial, agricultural, and other wastes are pollutingits coastal water, causing damage to fisheries and recreation, etc.

This is paper present of the effect of water quality disturbances on structure ofmacrozoobenthos communities in Jakarta Bay waters, Indonesia.

Materials and Methods

Study area

Jakarta Bay and its tributaries, which receive substantial values of treated anduntreated sewage as well as industrial wastes from a heavy populated and industrialisedarea, which includes the cities of Jakarta, Bogor and Bekasi, represent the most importantriverine source of contaminants into the bay.

The study area that is located in inner Jakarta Bay includes 8 river mouths (Figure 1).The selected sampling points were chosen based on different type of activities along theshoreline. The activities are: industry, terminal port of fisheries, offshore drilling, tourism,and sea-lanes.

The boundaries of the study area are Pantai Ancol in the south, Tanjung Karawang inthe east, Pulau Damar in the North and Tanjung Pasir in the West. The study area wasdivided into four zones (zone A, B, C and D). Each of the zones was divided into severalsampling points. Grade of system was used to determine the sampling point as shown inFigure 1. There are twenty seven (27) strategically located sampling points around theinner bay. For each of the zones, samples were collected at 5, 10, 15, and 20 km fromshoreline, and then eight river mouths (zone D), namely Muara Kamal, Muara Angke,Muara Karang, Muara Ancol, Muara Sunter, Muara Cakung Drain, Muara Blencong andMuara Bekasi (KP2L DKI Jakarta, 1995).

The macrozoobenthos samples were collected at bottom from 27 sampling points ofJakarta Bay and its rivermouth, using the Van Veen grab sampler. Samples were collectedduring 1995 to 1997 for station indicated in Figure 1. Each grab sample was emptied intoa clean plastic container and excess water sieved through a 0.5 mm mesh screen to avoidloss of organisms. Samples were then transferred to plastic bags for transport to thelaboratory.

Individuals sediment samples were sieved through 0.335 cm, 0.279 cm and 0.098 cmmesh screen to separate macrozoobenthos from sediment. The collected fauna was thentransferred to jars, fixed in 10% buffered formalin and identified to genera level.

Diversity, Evenness and Dominance

Species diversity was measured using the Shannon-Wiener index (H) (Krebs, 1985),which is calculated as :

where : pi = ni/Ni ni = number of that particular species and N = total number of individuals of all species

The Evenness index (E) (Pielou, 1969) was also evaluated

where : H = Shannon-Wiener index S = number of species

Species dominance in the various stations was assessed with the Simpson’s index(Magurran. 1988):

where : nI = number of individuals in the i th species N = the total number of individuals

The Species Abundance Models

Although species abundance data will frequently be describe by one more of a familyof distribution, diversity is usually examined in relation to three models. These are the lognormal distribution, the geometric series and the broken stick model.

( )∑=

−=S

iii ppH

1

ln'

( )SH

HH

Eln

'

max

'

==

( )( )( )( )∑ −

−=

11

NNnn

D ii

The Geometric Series ( Motomura Model)

where:

n i = the number of individuals in the i th speciesN = The total number of individuals

Log normal distribution (Preston Model)

where:S( R ) = the number of species in the Rth class to the right and left of the symmetrical

curveS0 = the number of species in the modal octave

The broken stick model (model MacArthur)

where:N = total number of individualsS = total number of speciesS(n) = the number of species in abundance class with n individuals

Furthermore, to evaluate the suitability the model was conducted calculate by Matsusita(DM) Distance test

where:

( ) ( )220 exp RaSRS −=

∑=

=S

in

i

nS

NN

/1

( ) ( )[ ]( ) 2/1/1 −−−= sNnNSSnS

∑ −= )a( iiM pD

Species abundance theory

Species abundance observation=oiq;q/qa

;q/qp

oioii

titii

∑∑

=

= =tiq

( ) 11 −−= iki kkNCn

( )[ ] 111

−−−= s

k kC And is a constant which ensures that ∑ = Nn 1and is a constant which ensures that

( ) 2/122σ=a = the inverse width of the distribution

Results and Discussion

Generally, the waters quality can be detected and measured by using various kinds ofmethods, such as chemical-physical and biological analysis. To support the interpretationto the result obtained from the chemical-physical parameter analysis from the Jakarta Baywaters, the analysis is continued with the biological analysis, i.e. an analysis of themacrozoobenthos community structure. This analysis is conducted to the community ofrelatively immovably living animals, for instance the structure analysis on themacrozoobenthos community. The monitoring using macrozoobentos needs to be done,because in some cases the monitoring upon the waters quality by using only the waterchemical-physical analysis sometimes does not give thorough description on the quality ofthe waters. This analysis can also give inevitable deviations. Because, the range of itschanging value is heavily influenced by the momental situation (Hynes, 1978). In adynamic environment, such as coastal waters area, the biological analysis especially themacrozoobenthos community structure analysis, can give clearer figurine the existence ofthe pollutant materials impact to the community structure of the organism which is areliving in the waters. For instance, if the waters surrounding undergoes a pressure, then inthe waters surrounding there will a decrease in the number of the biota diversity (Krebs,1985).

Beside that, the macrozoobenthos can also reflect the condition of the waters, not onlyat the time of sampling, but also the condition of the previous time (Warwick, 1993).There are some special which macrozoobenthos is always used as a means to detect theecological pressure which happens on a waters, i.e., it can be easily found, it is notdifficult to take, its distribution in the bottom of the waters is limited, can be detected untilthe species level, eventhough it has been long time preservation (Leppakoski, 1975), andthe animals are sensitive at the level where chemical method does not give any influence indetecting the contamination (Weston, 1990). Person and Rosenberg (1978) explained thatbenthos can conduct a succession in relation with the change of condition in theenvironment.

Species Abundance of Macrozoobenthic

The identification of macrozoobenthos conducted along the coastal waters area showsthat the results are as follows: in 1995 (Table 1). It was identified that there were 3 classeswith 37 species of macrozoobenthos, consisting of 34 species of Molusca, with the onewhich had the high value of abundance was the Anadara (8335 individuals/m2), Arca(1205 individuals/m2) and Donax (23591 individuals/m2), while the other species werefound in relatively small value. From the Annelida was found Platyhelminth (10individuals/m2), and from the Crustacea was found Balanus (92 individuals/m2). Theobservation conducted on every sampling stations shows that the highest value existing atthe station C2 was (16 species) and the smallest one was at station B2 (2 species). Thehighest abundance was at the station D3 (10053 individuals/m2) and the smallestabundance was at station B6 (1 individualsal/m2).

The result identification in 1996 (Table 2), it was found that there were also 3 classeswith 38 species of macrozoobenthos, consisting of 34 species of Molusca, with the onewhich had the high values of abundance Anadara (24730 individuals/m2), Conus (1341individuals/m2), Cyprae (5220 individuals/m2), Dentalium (76077 individuals/m2), Donax

(3395922 individuals/m2), Meretrix (2208 individuals/m2), Nassarius (1073individuals/m2), Nuculinae (3844 individuals/m2), Ringicula (1582 individuals/m2),Turitella (14020 individuals/m2), dan Turris (1207 individuals/m2). Meanwhile thesmallest value of abundance was Ceratium (84 individuals/m2), Gastropod (42individuals/m2), Heliacus (15 individuals/m2), Hemifucus (84 individuals/m2), Mitra (99individuals/m2), Paphia (42 individuals/m2), Polycladida (29 individuals/m2), Solemia (42individuals/m2) dan Tellina (83 individuals/m2). From Annelida 1 species was found,Choea (168 individuals/m2) and from Crustacea was found in high values of abundanceBalanus (1985 individuals/m2), and the smallest one was Squilla (42 individuals/m2). Theobservation conducted on every sampling stations shows that the highest value existing atthe station B1 was (23 species) and the smallest one was at station D6 (10 species). Thehighest abundance was at the station D5 (166794 individuals/m2) and the smallestabundance was at station A6 (2346 individuals/m2).

The identification of macrozoobenthos in 1997 (Table 3), it was identified that therewere 3 classes with 28 species of macrozoobenthos, consisting of 23 species of Molusca,with the one which had the high value of abundance was Anadara (2393 individuals/m2),Architectonica (1428 individuals/m2), Cyprae (3415 individuals/m2), Dentalium (2087individuals/m2), Donax (170438 individuals/m2), Meretrix (3489 individuals/m2), Modiolus(1750 individuals/m2), Nassarius (2618 individuals/m2), Rhinoclavis (1470 individuals/m2),Terebra (1603 individuals/m2), dan Turitella (3117 individuals/m2), meanwhile thesmallest value of abundance was Corbula (44 individuals/m2), Policines (60individuals/m2), dan Strombus (15 individuals/m2). From Annelida, Nereis (1056individuals/m2) had the highest value of abundance and the smallest one was Choea (15individuals/m2) and from Crustacea, Balanus (5675 individuals/m2) had the highest valueof abundance and the smallest one was Mysid (15 individuals/m2). The observationconducted on every sampling stations shows that the highest value existing at the stationD4 was (19 species) and the smallest one was at station A4 (4 species). The highestabundance was at the station D3 (166794 individuals/m2) and the smallest abundance wasat station A6 (67122 individuals/m2).

The high abundance of the above stated species, had been caused by the suitability ofthe habitat, where generally the condition of the suitable substrate has mud texture.According to Odum, (1971) the benthic fauna especially the one of infauna species givesdifferent response to the particle and substrate size, this has a relationship with the feedingsystem of the biota. Sandy substrate is usually dominated by filter feeder animals, and themuddy or clay substrate is much dominated by deposit feeder.

Diversity Index, Evenness Index and Dominance Index

The index values of the waters quality obtained from the result of the calculation tothe macrozoobenthos (Table 4), throughout the whole sampling station is as follows: in1995, the diversity index (H’) was at the range between 0.000 – 1,943 with the smallestvalue in the station B6 and the highest value in station C6, evenness index (E) at the rangebetween 0.000 – 1.000 with the smallest value in station B6, M1, M3 and M7 and thehighest value in station B4 and the dominance index (C) at the range between 0.000 –1.000 with the smallest value in station M1 and M5 and the highest value in station B6,M3 and M7.

The result observation in 1996, the diversity index (H’) was at the range between0.044-2.209 with the smallest value in the D3 station and the highest value in station B5.Evenness index (E) at the range between 0.001-0.264 with the smallest value in station D4and the highest value in station B5 and the dominance index (C) at the range between0.042-0.997 with the smallest value in station A2 and the highest value in station D4.

Meanwhile, the result observation in 1997 the diversity index (H’) was at the rangebetween 0.045-2.621 with the smallest value in the station D3 and the highest value instation A2. Evenness index (E) at the range between 0.004 – 0.370 with the smallest valuein station D3 and the highest value in station A2. The dominance (C) index at the rangebetween 0.089-0.989 with the smallest value in station A2 and the highest value in stationD3.

And then, the species richness (S), which is found at every sampling stations are low,i.e. at the range between 2 – 23 species.

Analysis of the Suitability Model

It has been known that no community which has the same distribution, where in anarea was found an abundance species. Some species are less abundant and even there aresome which have only in small value. The effect of environmental quality of themacrozoobenthos community was analyzed by using abundance distribution model. Thosemodels are the geometric series (Motomura model), log normal distribution (Prestonmodel) and the broken stick model (Mac Arthur model). The species abundance modelsshow a natural resource mechanism in a community, also to know precisely the stability ofwaters ecosystem (Dennis and Patil, 1977).

Based on the result from the community structure analysis on macrozoobenthos,abundance and diversity analysis on macrozoobenthos by using the above stated models,get a result that every observation sampling station have different models, It means thateach station gives reflection on the condition of the different community. Matsusita’sDistance test (Dm) to each stations shows the following values: in 1995 (Table 5), thevalue was obtained that at zone A (0.2064), zone B (0.4843), zone C (0.6155), zone D(0.2793), and zone M (0.1939). All of those show the Preston Model. This shows that thecommunity structure at that time can be regarded as stable, having a stable niche so thatthe division of the waters’ natural resources to the existing community tends to spreadevenly.

Beside that the value obtained from the research in 1996 (Table 6), at zone A (0.6040)shows the Mac Arthur model, zone B (0.2390) and zone C (0.6632), both show Prestonmodel. In zone D (0.7784) and zone M (0.8279), where both of them show the Motomuramodel. This shows that, there has been a change in the structure model, where the animalshave shown a high species value and the waters quality has started to change so that inzone D and M there is a change in model, becoming the Motomura model. Then, it showsthat there has been a strong pressure from the outside, so that its environment changes, soit cause the structure in that zone becomes unstable. While in zone C and D theenvironment does not change, but in zone A there has been a change but not seriously andbecomes Mac Arthur model, which according to Giller (1984) this structure is stable, but

there is a confusing and overlapping distribution of the niche, which actually this may nothappen because the condition of the substrate which mostly contains of sand.

The results from 1997 (Table 7), zone A (0.0964), zone B (0.2784) and zone C(0.5142), which each of them have distance of 20 km, 15 km and 10 km from the shoreline,all of them show the Preston model. While zone D, which is 5 km distance from theshoreline and zone M which is in the river mouth, both show the Motomura model.Because of the change in its environment, furthermore, in 1997, in zone D and M, stillshow the Motomura model, but the number of species decrease if it is compared with theone in 1996. This shows the existence of competition so only the strugglemacrozoobenthos which can survive. While in zone A, B and C show Preston model withhigh number of species, where it was said that this condition has stared to be stable, itscommunity organization has been feasible, the distribution of niche which is even enough,so it was said that the community structure becomes more stable.

Conclusion

From the result of the above discussion, were concluded that: At zone A and zone Bwhich are 20 km and 15 km from the shoreline has less species if it is compared with zoneC and D which are 10 km and 5 km from the shoreline. But if it is compared with zone Mwhich is on the river mouth, zone A and zone B have more species. This means thatmacrozoobenthos is more suitable with the habitat in zone C and D which have mudtexture.

While in zone A and B its bottom has been mixed with sand so that it cause that thespecies number met is only a little. To the contrary of that, in zone M there is onlymacrozoobenthos which still survive with the condition at that time. The species that staypermanently in the rivermouth zones are Donax, Meretrix and Modiolus from Molusca,Nereis from Annelida and Balanus from the Crustacea.

Species macrozoobenthos, which are categorized as dominant species in Jakarta Bayis Architectonica, Cyprae, Dentalium, Donax, Meretrix, Anadara, Naculinae, Modiolus,Turitella from Molusca, and Balanus from Crustacea.

The Quality Index values (Table 4) are shown that the diversity index value of eachsampling station in river mouth zone, i.e. M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, M7 and M8, thediversity index obtained as a whole is relatively smaller to be compared with the othersampling station. This means that in this area there has been pollution. This is also shownby the small diversity index value i.e. less than 1.00.

AcknowledgementsThe author wish to thank ibu Lilian Sari (Program Director of the Jakarta bay

Monitoring Program) for the necessary information provided. Thank also goes to Bpk. JoniTagor Harahap, Head of Laboratory of KPPL for his assistance in the collection of thesamples.

References

Denis, B. and G. P Patil. 1977. The Use of community diversity indices for monitoring trend in waterpollution impact. Trop. Ecol. 18, 36-51.

Ellis ,D.V. 1987. Case histories of coastal and marine mines. In chemistry and biology of solid waste, dredgematerial and mine tailing (W. Salomons and U. Forstner, eds.) pp 73-100. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Ferianita-Fachrul, M., M.R. Salim, M.I. Mohd. Said, R. Dahuri. 1999. Trends in heavy metal (Pb, Cu, Dr andCd) concentration in water and sediment of Inner Jakarta bay, Indonesia. EnvironmentalEngineering. Proceeding World Engineering Congress 1999, Towards the Engineering Vision:Global Challenges & Issues (Abdul Samad, A.A, et al, eds). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Forstner, U and J. Schoer. 1984 Some typical examples of the importance of the role sediments inpropagation and accumulation of pollutants. In Sediments and Pollution in Watersways: GeneralConsiderations. pp.137-158. IAEA-TECDOC-302. IAEA, Vienna.

Hynes, H.B.N. 1978. The ecology of running waters. Liverpool Univ. Press.

Jaffe, R., Ivan, Leal, J. Alvarado, P. Garninal and J. Sericano. 1995. On effects of the Tuy River on centralVenezuelan Coast: Anthropogenic organic compounds and heavy metals in Tivela mactroidea.Marine Pollution Bulletin 30:12. Pp820-825.

KPPL DKI Jakarta. 1995. Pemantauan Kualitas Perairan Teluk Jakarta. Kantor Pengkajian Perkotaan danLingkungan DKI Jakarta.

KPPL and PPLH-IPB. 1997. Study potensi kawasan perairan Teluk Jakarta. Final Repot. Bogor.

Krebs, C.J. 1985. Ecology The Experimental Analysis of distribution and Abudance. Harper InternationalEdition. Harper and Row Publisher. New York, Everston San Francisco, London.

Leppakoski, E. (1975). Assessment of degree of pollution on basis of macrozoobenthos in marine andbrackish-water environment. Acta Academiae Aboensis Series B 35 (2), 235-260.

Literathy, P., N Ali, M.A. Zarba and M.A. Ali. 1987. The Role and Problems of monitoring bottomsediment for pollution assessment in the coastal marine environment. Water Science. Technology19, 781-792

Litlepage, J.l., D.V. Ellis and J. M. McInerney. 1984. Marine Disposal of mine tailing. Marine PollutionBulletin 15, pp 242-244..

Magurran, A. E. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

Odum, E.P. 1971. Fundamental of ecology. 3rd Edition. W.B. Saunders Comp ., Philadelphia.

Pearson, T.H and Rosenberg, R. 1978. Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic enrichment andpollution of the marine environment. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review 16, 229-311.

Pielou,E.C. 1969. An Introduction to Mathematical Ecology, Wiley, New York.

van Gils,J., I. Ziogou, and J. Ganoulis. 1995. Water quality management of semi enclosed bays in Greece, In:water Pollution III, Modelling Measuring and Prediction (eds. L.C. Wrobel and P. Latinipoulus)pp. 448-456. Computational Mechanics Publications, Southampton, UK.

Warwick, P.M. 1993. A new method for detecting pollution effect on marine macrobenthic communities.Marine Biology 97, 193 - 200.

Weston, D.P. 1990. Quantitative examination of macrozoobenthic community changes along an organicenrichment gradient. Marine Ecology Progress Series 61, 233-244.

Table 1: Number of Macrozoobenthos (individuals/m2) in Jakarta Bay waters 1995No. Benthos Sampling Station

A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 B1 B3 B4 B5 B6

I. Molusca

1 Anadara 19 1 0 0 0 35 3 0 15 272 Arca 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 Architectonica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 Cantharus 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 05 Ceratium 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

6 Conus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 Clavagelidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 Crassopsterea 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 1 1 09 Cypraea 7 1 2 3 2 2 0 0 0 0

10 Dentallium 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0

11 Donax 6 3 2 0 0 3976 0 0 0 0

12 Epitonium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 013 Heliacus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 Hemifucus 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 Hemitoma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 Lingula 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 017 Littorina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18 Mitra 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 Nassarius 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 020 Neverita 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 Nuculinae 2 5 18 0 1 0 2 0 0 0

22 Ophiura 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

23 Paphea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 024 Polinices 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

25 Polycladida 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

26 Rinoclavis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

27 Ringicula 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 028 Strombus 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0

29 Tapes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

30 Tellina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

31 Terebra 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 032 Trochus 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

33 Turitella 7 113 5 11 12 0 0 0 0 0

34 Turris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0II Annelida

35 Plathyhelminth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

III Crustacea

36 Balanus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 037 Mysid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

No. of genera/St. 9 10 4 3 6 8 3 2 3 1

No. of ind./station 50 130 27 15 19 4035 7 2 19 27

No. Benthos Sampling StationC2 C3 C4 C5 C6 D3 D4 D5 D6

I. Molusca1 Anadara 38 21 0 46 30 8017 73 4 6

2 Arca 0 0 0 0 0 1197 8 0 0

3 Architectonica 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0

4 Cantharus 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 05 Ceratium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 Conus 6 3 3 4 6 0 0 1 2

7 Clavagelidae 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 08 Crassopsterea 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0

9 Cypraea 28 16 5 10 8 6 0 6 24

10 Dentallium 34 4 0 17 19 0 9 9 0

11 Donax 4542 69 90 60 17 0 1037 7455 477412 Epitonium 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 Heliacus 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

14 Hemifucus 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 Hemitoma 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 016 Lingula 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 Littorina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18 Mitra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 Nassarius 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 020 Neverita 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

21 Nuculinae 2 2 1 5 3 0 1 0 0

22 Ophiura 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 023 Paphea 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 0 0

24 Polinices 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

25 Polycladida 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

26 Rinoclavis 0 0 0 1 3 814 0 2 027 Ringicula 5 2 0 2 1 1 1 0 5

28 Strombus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

29 Tapes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

30 Tellina 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 0 031 Terebra 1 1 1 0 2 1 0 2 0

32 Trochus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

33 Turitella 2 0 0 20 0 0 0 17 14

34 Turris 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2II Annelida

35 Plathyhelminth 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

III Crustacea36 Balanus 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 16 0

37 Mysid 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

No. of genera/St. 16 11 5 12 12 9 11 11 7

No. of ind./station 4678 123 100 169 94 10053 1213 7514 4827

No. Benthos Sampling Station Total

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8

I. Molusca

1 Anadara 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8335

2 Arca 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1205

3 Architectonica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 144 Cantharus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7

5 Ceratium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

6 Conus 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 267 Clavagelidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

8 Crassopsterea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26

9 Cypraea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 120

10 Dentallium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9711 Donax 0 1286 0 271 0 3 0 0 23591

12 Epitonium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

13 Heliacus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

14 Hemifucus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 315 Hemitoma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

16 Lingula 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2

17 Littorina 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 29 31

18 Mitra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 619 Nassarius 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

20 Neverita 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

21 Nuculinae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4222 Ophiura 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

23 Paphea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68

24 Polinices 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

25 Polycladida 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 Rinoclavis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 820

27 Ringicula 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47

28 Strombus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

29 Tapes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 Tellina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

31 Terebra 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 14

32 Trochus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

33 Turitella 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20134 Turris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

II Annelida

35 Plathyhelminth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10III Crustacea

36 Balanus 0 1 65 2 0 0 0 1 92

37 Mysid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

No. of genera/St. 0 3 1 2 0 2 1 4No. of ind./station 0 1289 65 273 0 4 1 34

Table 2: Number of Macrozoobenthos (individuals/m2) in Jakarta Bay waters 1996No. Benthos Sampling Station

A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 B1 B3 B4 B5 B6

I. Molusca1 Anadara 42 325 57 110 83 3869 702 42 113 778

2 Cantharus 84 42 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 42

3 Ceratium 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0

4 Conus 0 0 0 0 84 125 42 0 167 845 Corbula 0 42 0 0 0 42 42 0 0 0

6 Cypraea 303 306 298 147 391 113 141 15 487 421

7 Dentallium 971 1208 1188 411 680 1168 499 489 1208 15278 Donax 1333 2413 320 9680 291 142 5071 3568 351 42

9 Gastropod 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 Heliacus 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 Hemifucus 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 012 Lingula 0 0 0 83 83 84 83 125 0 84

13 Littorina 42 0 0 83 242 0 0 0 42 0

14 Meretrix 83 42 42 0 0 99 0 42 0 42

15 Mitra 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 15 016 Modiolus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 Nassarius 125 113 0 43 0 0 112 0 15 85

18 Natica 0 127 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 15

19 Nuculinae 667 621 524 42 84 113 168 101 334 12720 Oliva 84 181 42 57 0 42 0 0 0 84

21 Ophiura 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 Paphia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 023 Policines 85 251 42 42 0 29 0 84 84 57

24 Polycladida 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

25 Rinoclavis 0 0 0 0 42 42 0 42 84 0

26 Ringicula 0 42 85 108 84 167 0 57 99 14327 Solemia 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

28 Strombus 0 85 0 0 0 15 0 0 42 0

29 Tapes 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0

30 Tellina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 031 Terebra 0 42 42 0 42 0 0 0 0 83

32 Trochus 42 15 42 0 42 125 0 0 71 57

33 Turitella 777 5414 994 2736 198 0 541 1935 450 0

34 Turris 0 0 0 0 0 126 42 0 748 0II Annelida

35 Choea 0 42 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0

III Crustacea36 Balanus 0 0 0 0 0 42 42 83 0 42

37 Crabt 42 0 42 0 0 42 0 249 0 84

38 SquiIla 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0

No. of genera/St. 16 19 13 12 13 23 14 15 16 18No. of ind./station 4764 11326 3718 13542 2346 6595 7569 6916 4310 3797

No. Benthos Sampling Station

C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 D3 D4 D5 D6

I. Molusca

1 Anadara 2651 1371 1414 2251 1339 6579 724 1541 6842 Cantharus 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 42 0

3 Ceratium 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 Conus 42 125 84 42 125 88 186 125 05 Corbula 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 Cypraea 1344 208 291 101 292 0 195 125 42

7 Dentallium 1996 927 415 374 2330 570 0 33731 26297

8 Donax 112862 12321 27331 7896 9322 1226347 1270004 130589 156009 Gastropod 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 Heliacus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 Hemifucus 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 Lingula 42 0 42 15 0 42 250 42 013 Littorina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 Meretrix 0 12 1706 42 0 0 15 83 0

15 Mitra 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 Modiolus 0 0 42 0 0 42 0 15 2917 Nassarius 84 40 99 0 71 29 115 83 0

18 Natica 0 0 0 15 0 0 15 0 59

19 Nuculinae 42 126 210 182 57 57 264 83 4220 Oliva 42 137 57 42 15 42 71 42 0

21 Ophiura 0 84 0 0 0 0 0 42 0

22 Paphia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 Policines 0 0 29 42 57 0 0 0 024 Polycladida 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29

25 Rinoclavis 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0

26 Ringicula 166 126 167 98 57 84 57 42 0

27 Solemia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 028 Strombus 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0

29 Tapes 0 0 42 42 0 0 0 0 0

30 Tellina 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 0 0

31 Terebra 126 42 84 43 0 0 42 42 032 Trochus 0 42 0 22 0 42 0 0 0

33 Turitella 0 42 43 167 84 205 191 83 57

34 Turris 0 42 84 108 0 57 0 0 0II Annelida

35 Choea 42 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0

III Crustacea

36 Balanus 42 0 42 0 84 1453 0 84 4237 Crabt 0 83 0 42 0 0 0 0 0

38 SquiIla 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

No. of genera/St. 14 18 19 18 16 14 14 17 10

No. of ind./station 119523 15812 32224 11524 14001 1235637 1272212 166794 42881

No. Benthos Sampling Station Total

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8

I. Molusca

1 Anadara 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 24730

2 Cantharus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 294

3 Ceratium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 844 Conus 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 1341

5 Corbula 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 168

6 Cypraea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5220

7 Dentallium 0 0 0 0 0 88 0 0 760778 Donax 1289 44 0 39732 69153 450001 0 220 3395922

9 Gastropod 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42

10 Heliacus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15

11 Hemifucus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8412 Lingula 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 975

13 Littorina 0 0 0 15 88 11 15 0 538

14 Meretrix 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 220815 Mitra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99

16 Modiolus 0 0 0 0 0 33 15 15 191

17 Nassarius 0 0 0 44 15 0 0 0 107318 Natica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27319 Nuculinae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 384420 Oliva 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93821 Ophiura 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12622 Paphia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4223 Policines 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 81724 Polycladida 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2925 Rinoclavis 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 29626 Ringicula 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 158227 Solemia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4228 Strombus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18429 Tapes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12630 Tellina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8331 Terebra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58832 Trochus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50033 Turitella 0 0 0 0 59 44 0 0 1402034 Turris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1207II Annelida

35 Choea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 168III Crustacea36 Balanus 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 198537 Crabt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58438 SquiIla 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42

No. of genera/St. 2 1 0 3 6 7 2 2No. of ind./station 1347 44 0 3979 69374 450254 30 235

Table 3: Number of Macrozoobenthos (individuals/m2) in Jakarta Bay waters 1997

No. Sampling StationBenthos

A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 BI B3 B4 B5 B6

I Molusca

1 Anadara 88 0 0 0 0 221 132 29 88 59

2 Architectonica 15 0 852 74 15 0 15 118 0 0

3 Conus 29 15 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0

4 Corbula 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0

5 Cypraea 59 74 15 397 74 0 191 118 191 88

6 Dentalium 103 250 29 353 103 0 88 132 250 103

7 Donax 132 29 0 88 59 6174 0 103 118 0

8 Littorina 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

9 Meretrix 88 103 0 29 44 0 74 147 59 74

10 Mitra 29 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 15 4

11 Modiolus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 Nassarius 191 0 0 43 59 0 15 118 103 15

13 Natica 44 0 0 0 30 0 0 15 0 15

14 Nuculinae 0 74 44 74 29 0 15 74 88 29

15 Policines 15 0 0 15 0 15 15 0 0 0

16 Rhinoclavis 0 0 0 15 15 0 15 30 0 15

17 Ringicula 118 0 0 0 15 29 15 0 0 0

18 Strombus 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 Terebra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 15

20 Trochus 15 0 0 0 0 29 0 15 0 0

21 Turitella 15 1470 0 279 0 0 559 88 250 0

22 Turris 59 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 0 0

23 Vexillium 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

II Annelida

24 Choea 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0

25 Nereis 0 0 0 15 0 0 118 15 0 0

III Crustacea

26 Balanus 176 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0

27 Crabt 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0

28 Mysid 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0

No. of genera/St. 17 9 4 12 11 8 16 15 9 10

No. of ind./station 1191 2059 940 1397 458 6571 1312 1046 1162 457

No. Benthos Sampling Station

C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 D3 D4 D5 D6

I Molusca

1 Anadara 338 309 323 74 88 59 290 59 206

2 Architectonica 0 0 118 74 29 0 44 59 15

3 Conus 0 0 0 44 0 0 29 0 0

4 Corbula 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 Cypraea 309 176 397 206 221 74 590 59 118

6 Dentalium 147 59 235 29 29 0 162 0 15

7 Donax 21609 1691 10451 740 2646 66753 25240 16302 13319

8 Littorina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

9 Meretrix 88 338 0 809 44 15 221 132 0

10 Mitra 29 0 29 15 29 0 59 44 15

11 Modiolus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 Nassarius 206 103 206 88 88 103 338 59 59

13 Natica 15 59 15 0 0 15 59 15 0

14 Nuculinae 59 59 73 29 29 0 88 0 29

15 Policnes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 Rhinoclavis 59 59 235 74 15 15 290 74 0

17 Ringicula 15 15 59 0 88 0 176 15 29

18 Strombus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 Terebra 15 0 15 0 15 0 29 1162 0

20 Trochus 15 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 Turitella 0 15 29 412 0 0 0 0 0

22 Turris 29 0 15 0 0 29 15 0 0

23 Vexillium 0 0 30 0 0 0 59 15 0

II Annelida

24 Choea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

25 Neresis 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 500 0

III Crustacea

26 Balanus 44 0 15 191 0 59 132 2690 59

27 Crabt 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0

28 Mysid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

No. of genera/St. 16 12 16 13 12 9 19 14 10

No. of ind./station 22992 2912 12245 2785 3321 67122 27880 21185 13864

No. Benthos Sampling Station Total

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8

I Molusca

1 Anadara 0 0 15 0 0 0 15 0 2393

2 Architectonica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1428

3 Conus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132

4 Corbula 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44

5 Cypraea 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 29 3415

6 Dentalium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2087

7 Donax 632 44 838 0 809 1294 1367 0 170438

8 Littorina 0 0 353 0 0 0 0 0 383

9 Meretrix 29 0 573 191 221 4 206 0 3489

10 Mitra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 283

11 Modiolus 74 0 750 0 15 0 911 0 1750

12 Nassarius 0 0 662 0 44 0 74 44 2618

13 Natica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 282

14 Nuculinae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 793

15 Policines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60

16 Rhinoclavis 15 0 500 0 44 0 0 0 1470

17 Ringicula 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 574

18 Strombus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15

19 Terebra 0 0 323 0 0 0 0 0 1603

20 Trochus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103

21 Turitella 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3117

22 Turris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 206

23 Vexillium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 133

II Annelida

24 Choea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15

25 Neresis 0 0 15 29 0 0 0 349 1056

III Crustaceae

26 Balanus 0 382 1573 118 0 0 221 0 5675

27 Crabt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59

28 Mysid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15

No. of genera/St. 4 2 11 3 5 2 6 3

No. of ind./station 750 426 5631 338 1133 1368 2794 422

Table 4: Index values the water quality base on analysis of macrozoobenthos structure community in Jakarta Bay waters

Sampling StationA2 A3 A4 A5 A6 B1 B3 B4 B5 B6

WaterQualityIndex

Year

1995 50 130 27 15 19 4035 7 2 19 271996 9528 11326 3718 13542 2346 6595 7569 6916 4310 3797

N(SpeciesNumber) 1997 1191 2059 940 1397 458 6571 1312 1046 1162 457

1995 9 10 4 3 6 8 3 2 3 11996 16 19 13 12 13 23 14 15 16 18

S(SpeciesRichnes) 1997 17 9 4 12 11 8 16 15 9 10

1995 1.839 0.479 0.968 1.025 1.229 0.092 0.721 0.693 0.634 0.0001996 1.365 1.709 1.857 0.909 1.993 1.468 1.316 1.352 2.209 2.024

H'(Diversity

Index) 1997 2.621 1.040 0.407 1.808 2.194 0.306 1.930 2.408 2.008 1.8791995 0.047 0.098 0.294 0.379 0.418 0.011 0.371 1.000 0.215 0.0001996 0.149 0.183 0.226 0.096 0.257 0.167 0.147 0.153 0.264 0.246

E(Evenness

Index) 1997 0.370 0.136 0.059 0.249 0.358 0.035 0.269 0.347 0.285 0.3071995 0.213 0.760 0.490 0.582 0.413 0.970 0.266 0.250 0.651 1.0001996 0.042 0.290 0.207 0.553 0.151 0.378 0.468 0.351 0.150 0.222

C(Dominance

Index) 1997 0.089 0.529 0.825 0.196 0.132 0.884 0.230 0.099 0.152 0.139

Sampling StationC2 C3 C4 C5 C6 D3 D4 D5 D6

WaterQualityIndex

Year

1995 4678 123 100 169 94 10053 1213 7514 48271996 119523 15812 32224 11524 14001 1235637 1272212 166794 42881

N(SpeciesNumber) 1997 22992 2912 12245 2785 3321 67122 27880 21185 13864

1995 16 11 5 12 12 9 11 11 71996 14 18 19 18 16 14 14 17 10

S(SpeciesRichnes) 1997 16 12 16 13 12 9 19 14 10

1995 0.140 1.356 0.257 1.764 1.943 0.655 0.536 0.061 0.0751996 0.279 0.969 0.722 1.126 1.147 0.044 0.015 0.602 0.779

H'(Diversity

Index) 1997 0.479 1.498 0.587 1.961 0.934 0.045 0.509 0.860 0.2321995 0.017 0.282 0.006 0.344 0.428 0.071 0.076 0.007 0.0091996 0.024 0.100 0.070 0.120 0.120 0.003 0.001 0.050 0.073

E(Evenness

Index) 1997 0.048 0.188 0.062 0.247 0.115 0.004 0.050 0.086 0.0241995 0.951 0.362 0.814 0.229 0.189 0.657 0.738 0.984 0.9781996 0.893 0.618 0.725 0.509 0.481 0.985 0.997 0.654 0.508

C(Dominance

Index) 1997 0.884 0.369 0.732 0.191 0.641 0.989 0.820 0.612 0.923

Sampling StationM1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8

WaterQualityIndex

Year

1995 0 1289 65 273 0 4 1 341996 1347 44 0 3979 69374 450254 30 235

N(SpeciesNumber) 1997 750 426 5631 338 1133 1368 2794 422

1995 0 3 1 2 0 2 1 41996 2 1 0 3 6 7 2 2

S(SpeciesRichnes) 1997 4 2 11 3 5 2 6 0.003

1995 0.000 0.024 0.000 0.042 0.000 0.563 0.000 0.5561996 0.106 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.033 0.006 0.693 0.238

H'(Diversity

Index) 1997 0.578 0.332 1.989 0.901 0.869 0.014 1.233 0.5771995 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.406 0.000 0.1581996 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.204 0.044

E(Evenness

Index) 1997 0.087 0.055 0.230 0.155 0.124 0.002 0.155 0.0961995 0.000 0.995 1.000 0.985 0.000 0.626 1.000 0.7361996 0.958 1.000 0.000 0.997 0.994 0.999 0.250 0.880

C(Dominance

Index) 1997 0.720 0.815 0.157 0.448 0.549 0.994 0.357 0.700

Table 5. Structure Macrozoobenthos Model in Jakarta Bay Waters 1995Zone N S H E Motomura Preston MacArthur Model (*)

m DM m DM DMA 241 14 2.09 0.5489 0.7134 0.3366 0.1267 0.2064* 0.4201 PrestonB 4090 10 0.2252 0.0678 0.4753 0.5877 0.0636 0.4843* 0.8281 PrestonC 5154 23 0.6005 0.1328 0.7550 0.7616 0.1053 0.6155* 0.8754 PrestonD 23607 21 1.4755 0.0359 0.6475 0.4251 0.0522 0.2793* 0.7571 PrestonM 1666 6 0.4198 0.1624 0.2295 0.2494 0.0379 0.1939* 0.6348 Preston

Table 6. Structure Macrozoobenthos Model in Jakarta Bay Waters 1996Zone N S H E Motomura Preston MacArthur Model (*)

m DM m DM DMA 35738 27 2.5873 0.5441 0.8133 1.0000 0.1434 0.8473 0.6040* MacArthurB 29187 31 3.1473 0.6346 0.8459 0.3289 0.1760 0.2390* 0.7119 PrestonC 193084 30 0.8693 0.1772 0.8165 0.7775 0.1249 0.6632* 0.8101 PrestonD 271752 22 0.2126 0.0477 0.7096 0.7784* 0.0722 0.8005 0.9587 MotomuraM 561075 12 0.0143 0.0040 0.5998 0.8279* 0.0902 0.9134 1.2821 Motomura

Table 7. Structure Macrozoobenthos Model in Jakarta Bay Waters 1997Zone N S H E Motomura Preston MacArthur Model (*)

m DM m DM DMA 6635 24 3.5128 0.7662 0.8210 0.1414 0.2030 0.0964* 0.2606 PrestonB 14810 24 2.5754 0.5617 0.7884 0.3760 0.1399 0.2784* 0.4766 PrestonC 44255 20 1.1808 0.2732 0.7523 0.6301 0.1318 0.5142* 0.7142 PrestonD 130051 19 0.5533 0.1302 0.7425 0.8358* 0.1192 0.8886 0.8465 MotomuraM 12792 11 2.6305 0.7603 0.6430 0.0985* 0.1547 0.1894 0.1526 Motomura

Note : * suitability model by Distance Test (Dm)

Figure 1. Sampling sites in Jakarta Bay waters