volume 2, number 1, january 2014 - icmr.crru.ac.thicmr.crru.ac.th/journal/journal 3/9 biodiversity...

Volume 2, Number 1, January 2014

131

biodiversity and abundance of benthic fauna along ban-don coastal, thailand

Dr. Chalinda Ariyadet 1Panadda Rachsiri 2

Faculty of Science and Technology,Suratthani Rajabhat University, Thailand.1

Center of Excellence for Environmental and Hazardous Waste Management(EHWM), Southern University Consortium, Prince of Songkla University, Thailand.2

abstract

The research was investigated the structural characteristics and the biodiversity of benthic communities and their relationships with environ-mental factors along Ban-Don coastal, Thailand. The 4 study sites were ranged from Loem-Pho, Leeled, Don-Sak and Ma-Thuean, collected 6 times per site between March to October 2012. The samples were collected by the Ekman Grab of 15x15 centimeters and Galvanized Steel Soil Sampler. Ecological indices, structure of benthic fauna community and multivariate analysis were analyzed by using the Primer program. We obtained 66 families (8 phylum, 11 class, 38 or-der) of which 23 families were Mol-lusca (34.85% of total family num-ber), 20 families were Arthropoda (30.30%), 17 families were annelida (25.76%), 2 families were Nemertea (3.03%), and only one family (1.52%) for Brachiopoda, Bryozoa, Echider-mata and Nematoda. About 6 fami-

lies were found at every sites; such as Glyceridae, Capitellidae, Opheliidae, Lineidae, Potamididae and Veneridae. The most abundance was Nereididae with 759 individuals/m2 at Don-Sak in March. Multivariate analyses (cluster analysis and MDS) divided the samples into three communities for each area. The highest diversity index (Shannon-Weiner Index; H’) and the evenness was record at Loem-Pho in September (0.9097 and 0.95 respectively). We also measured a suite of environmental variables. We employed co-correlation analysis to relate these with the benthos com-munity structure. The results were not shown the co-correlated between those. Although the organic matter was high condition but low of nutrient content. Therefore, physico chemical characteristic were unable to indicate the trophic level of the area. Cause of the distribution and growth of benthic organisms were feeding on the source of nutrients as organic matter. Salin-


132

ity and organic matter were seem to be the higher of the environmental factors which influence the benthic fauna in the area.

introduction

Ban-Don coastal is situated in Surat Thani Province, South Thai-land. This area is one of the most productive of natural spawning, nursery and feeding grounds for shell-fish such as oyster, blood cockles, green mussels, short-necked clams, mud crabs and shrimps, and the estu-ary also serves as an excellent area for mariculturing of shellfish. The impor-tant source is the Tapi River and 18 channels, which are the main sources of dissolved nutrients, organic and inorganic particles, with the latter causing the high diverse and abundant of the aquatic animal. The other resultwas the coastal have its well-de-veloped mangrove forest, formerly served as an important nursery ground and feeding area for juvenile shellfish of great economic importance (Wat-tayakorn et al.1999). Streams, rivers, wetlands and lakes are home for many smalls’ animals called benthos. These animals generally include insects,crustaceans, mollusks, arachnids and annelids. These animals or benthic fauna live in the water for all or part of their lives, so their survival is related to the water quality. Most benthic organisms feed on debris that settle on the bottom of the water and turn serve as food for wide range of fishs

(Imevbore and Bakare, 1970; Adebisi,1989; Ajao, 1990; Oke, 1990; Idowu and Ugwumba, 2005). They are significant within the food chain as larger animals such as fish and birds rely on them as a food source. The most common types of aquatic benthic fauna are insects. As insects grow from an egg to an adult they change their body shape or metamorphosis. The feeding of some benthic fauna; Shredders, such as amphipods, isopods, feed on organic material. Collectors/Filter feeders feed on fine organic particles that has been produced by shredders, microorganisms and by physical processes. Such animals include mayfly nymph, mussels, water fleas, some fly larvae and worms. Scrapers graze algae and other organic matter that is attached to rocks and plants. Such animals include snails, limpets and mayfly larvae. Predators feed on live prey and found where smaller collectors and shredders exist. Such animals includedragonfly and damselfly larvae, adult beetles and beetle larvae, some midge larvae and some stonefly larvae. Benthic fauna live in many different places in a waterbody. Some live on the water’s surface, some in the water itself, others in the sediment or on the bottom or on submerged rocks, logs, and leaf litter. Each type of habitat provides a surface or spaces on or within which benthic fauna can live. The most important feature around a water body is vegetation. Aquatic plants, particularly rushes and sedges,


133

International Conference Proceedings

70

Figure 1. Map of sampling points in the Ban-Don coastal.

1. Loem-Pho 2. Leeled

4. Ma-Thuean 3. Don-Sak

Figure 2. The sampling site. Figure 2. The sampling site.


provide a surface on which benthos can live. In addition, they balance the water flow, light availability and temperature around them. Shade by native trees and shrubs beside the water can reduce the extremes in temperature. Native trees, shrubs, rushes and sedges protect banks from erosion, help to control the water flow, and act as nutrient filters. Logs, branches, bark and leaves that fall into the water provide habitat for aquat-ic organisms. Leaf litter forms an important part of a food web for benthic fauna which feed on this material, or on the bacteria and fungi which cause it to decay. Environmental modifications or pollution can alter benthic fauna communities. Poor catchment management can exaggerate the turbidity of water. In highly turbid water, the light penetration is reduced affecting photosynthesis of plants and also increases the temperature of the water. The suspended solids may clog respiratory surfaces or interfere with

feeding appendages. Filter feeders receive reduced nutritional value and expend more energy to collect food, as otherwise they will starve. High levels of suspended solids may begin to settle and change the composition of the bed of the water body as it coats rocks and vegetation. This can affect movement, feeding, habitat and reproduction of some benthos. Benthic fauna communities have varying tolerances to different levels of environment parameters.

site description

The study of biodiversity and abundance of benthic fauna was carried out along Ban-Don coastal, Thailand. The 4 study sites were ranged from Loem-Pho situated at 9.372746N 99.269606E, Leeled (9.209254N 99.295276E), Don-Sak (9.324612N 99.682024E) and Ma-Thuean (9.324612N 99.682024E) show at Fig. 1 and Fig.2.


134

materials and methods

The research was carried out for one year from March to October 2012 in 4 stations Loem-Pho, Leeled, Don-Sak and Ma-Thuean at Ban-Don coastal west coast of Thailand. The water and sediment samples were collected in 6 times for all stations. The samples were collected by the Ekman Grab of 15x15 centimeters and Galvanized Steel Soil Sampler and preserved in 5% formalin or 70% isopropylalcohol. The animals were separated, counted, identified up to family level using standard references and expressed in no./m2. Water and sediment samples were nutrient analysis by adopting standard procedure (APHA, 1998). The sediment organic content and grain size composition were also analyzed. Ecological indices, structure

of benthic fauna community was used Shannon-Wiener Diversity index or H’(Gerritsen et al. 1998) and mul-tivariate analysis were analyzed by using the Primer program.

results and discussion

biodiversity and abun-dance of benthic fauna

A total of 66 families of benthic fauna belonging to 8 phy-la have been recorded (Table 1) from Ban-Don coastal. The list was Annelida (17 Families), Nemertea (2), Arthropoda (20), Brachiopoda (1), Ectoprocta (1), Echinodermata (1), Mollusca (23), Nematoda (1). Rate in 11 classes, as follow; Polychaeta (17 Families), Anopla (2), Malacostraca (17), Insecta (3), Inarculata (3), Phy-lactoemata (1), Ophiuroidea (1),


70


1. Loem-Pho 2. Leeled

4. Ma-Thuean 3. Don-Sak

Figure 2. The sampling site. Figure 2. The sampling site.



135


72

Table 1. Checklist of benthic fauna taxa family within 8 phyla record in four stations.

The 6 families have been found at all stations: 1. Glyceridae , 2. Capitellidae, 3. Opheliidae in Annelida, 4. Lineidae in Nemertea, 5. Potamididae (Gastropoda) and 6. Veneridae (Bivalvia) in Mollusca

Table 1. Checklist of benthic fauna taxa family within 8 phyla record in four stations. Annelida Nemertea Arthropoda Brachiopoda Bryozoa Echinodermata Mollusca Nematoda Glyceridae Carinomidae Gammaridae Lingulacea Plumatellidae Ophiuroicidae Eulimidae Oxyuridae Lumbrineridae Lineidae Maeridae Haminoeidae Nereidae Alpheidae Thiaridae Nephtyidae Porcellanidae Pyramidellidae Eunicidae Palaemonidae Architectonicidae Nareididae Penaeidea Littorinoidae Onuphidae Pilumnidae Ranellidae Pholoidae Sesarmidae Columbellidae Syllidae Sergestidae Nassariidae Ampharetidae Epialitidae Fasciolariidae Oweniidae Paguridae Cerithiidae Orbiniidae Ocypodidae Naticidae Maldanidae Upogebiidae Neritidae Capitellidae Ephemeridae Viviparidae Questidae Cirolanidae Potamididae Opheliidae Balanidae Arcidae Terebellidae Limulidae Mytilidae Elmidae larva Anomiidae Chironomidae Pteriidae Fanniidae Cardiidae Petricolidae Veneridae Dentaliidae

The 6 families have been found at all stations: 1. Glyceridae , 2. Capitellidae, 3. Opheliidae in Annelida, 4. Lineidae in Nemertea, 5. Potamididae (Gastropoda) and 6. Veneridae (Bivalvia) in Mollusca

Figure 3. Family recorded in all stations.

Figure 3. Family recorded in all stations.

Gastropoda (15), Bivalva (7), Scapho- poda (1), Secernentea (1). Range in 38 orders; Aciculata, Canalipalpata, Capitellida, Orbiniida, Questida, Sco- lecida, Terebellida, Paleonemertea, Heternemertea, Amphipoda, Decapoda, Ephemeroptera, Isopoda, Sessilia, Xiphosura, Coleoptera, Diptera, Lin- gulida, Plumatellida, Ophiurida, Caenogastropoda, Cephalaspidea, Ce-rithimorpha,Heterobranchia, Heter-

stropha, Littorinimorpha, Neogas-tropoda, Neotaenioglossa, Neritoida, Prosobranchia, Sorbeoconcha, Ar-coida, Mytiloida, Ostreoida, Pterioda,Veneroida, Dentaliida, Oxyurida. Only 6 families of these have been found at all stations: namely. Glyceridae, Capitellidae, Opheliidae in Annelida, Lineidae in Nemertea, Potamididae (Gastropoda) and Veneridae (Bival-via) in Mollusca (Fig. 3).


136


73

At Ma-Thuean in March have the highest component of family (24), and the lowest (2) at the same area in October (Figure 4). The most abundance was found at Don-Sak with the highest number of 1,389 Individual per square meter in March, and Nereididae was exhibit high proportion of 759 individuals. The lowest abundance (8 individuals) was shown at Loem-Pho in April and Leeled in May (Fig. 5).

Families

Figure 4. The number of family of benthic fauna at study sites.

No./m2

Figure 5. The number of benthic fauna family at studies sites. Figure 5. The number of benthic fauna family at studies sites.

diversity index and even-ness index of benthic fauna

The 6 families have been found at all stations: 1. Glyceridae , 2. Capitellidae, 3. Opheliidae in

Annelida, 4. Lineidae in Nemertea, 5. Potamididae (Gastropoda) and 6. Veneridae (Bivalvia) in Mollusca. At Ma-Thuean in March have the highest component of family (24), and the lowest (2) at the same area in October (Figure 4).

The most abundance was found at Don-Sak with the highest number of 1,389 Individual per square meter in March, and Nereididae


73

At Ma-Thuean in March have the highest component of family (24), and the lowest (2) at the same area in October (Figure 4). The most abundance was found at Don-Sak with the highest number of 1,389 Individual per square meter in March, and Nereididae was exhibit high proportion of 759 individuals. The lowest abundance (8 individuals) was shown at Loem-Pho in April and Leeled in May (Fig. 5).

Families

Figure 4. The number of family of benthic fauna at study sites.

No./m2

Figure 5. The number of benthic fauna family at studies sites. Figure 5. The number of benthic fauna family at studies sites.

was exhibit high proportion of 759 individuals. The lowest abundance (8 individuals) was shown at Loem- Pho in April and Leeled in May (Fig. 5).


137

Mollusca was the most diverse organisms which account for 23 Families or 34.85% of total fam-ily number, follow with Arthropoda (20 or 30.30%), Annelida (17 or 25.76%), Nemertea (2 or 3.03%), and

1 for each of Brachiopoda, Bryozoa, Echidermata and Nematoda (1.52%) respectively. The highest composition was Ma-Thuean (34 Familes), the lowest was Leeled (28 Families) (Table 2).

diversity index and even-ness index of benthic fauna

The highest diversity index and evenness index (Figure 6 and Figure7) were 0.91 and 0.95 in Sep-tember at Leeled whereas the lowest were 0.19 and 0.19 respectively in September at Don-Sak. The diversity indexes at Ma-Thuean seem to be high-er than others, but the higher evenness index was Leeled. The high diversity index could be indicated that the poor quality of habitat, which were present

at Leeled and Ma-Thuean. The low evenness indexes at Ma-Thuean have shown the poor distribution of benthic fauna. The similarity index of benthic fauna in every pair of sampling sites was found to have a range from 0.360656 to 0.59375 High dissimilarity was between Loem-Pho and Leeled, and the closest was the pair of Don-Sak and Ma-Thuean. This parameter might indicated that the similarity of benthic fauna were quite low in all sites along the coastal.


74

Table 2. Percentage composition of benthic community.

Mollusca was the most diverse organisms which account for 23 Families or 34.85% of Total family number, follow with Arthropoda (20 or 30.30%), Annelida (17 or 25.76%), Nemertea (2 or 3.03%), and 1 for each of Brachiopoda, Bryozoa, Echidermata and Nematoda (1.52%) respectively. The highest composition was Ma-Thuean (34 Familes), the lowest was Leeled (28 Families) (Table 2).

Samples LP %LP LL %LL DS %DS MT %MT Total sample %Sampling

1 Annelida 14 43.75 9 32.14 7 23.33 5 14.71 17 25.76

2 Nemertea 1 3.13 1 3.57 2 6.67 1 2.94 2 3.03

3 Arthropoda 5 15.63 10 35.71 9 30.00 9 26.47 20 30.30

4 Brachiopoda 1 3.13 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.52

5 Bryozoa 0 0.00 1 3.57 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.52

6 Echinodermata 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 2.94 1 1.52

7 Mollusca 11 34.38 7 25.00 11 36.67 18 52.94 23 34.85

8 Nematoda 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 3.33 0 0.00 1 1.52

Total 32 100.00 28 100 30 100 34 100 66 100.00

Index

Figure 6. Taxonomic Diversity index (H') of benthic fauna at sampling times. Figure 6. Taxonomic Diversity index (H’) of benthic fauna at sampling times.


138

The community structure analysis conducted with MDS in Bray - Curtis (Bray - Curtis - Similarity Index) similarity coefficient clustering


75

Diversity index and evenness index of benthic fauna The highest diversity index and evenness index (Figure 6 and Figure7) were 0.91 and 0.95 in September at Leeled whereas the lowest were 0.19 and 0.19 respectively in September at Don-Sak. The diversity indexes at Ma-Thuean seem to be higher than others, but the higher evenness index was Leeled. The high diversity index could be indicated that the poor quality of habitat, which were present at Leeled and Ma-Thuean. The low evenness indexes at Ma-Thuean have shown the poor distribution of benthic fauna. The similarity index of benthic fauna in every pair of sampling sites was found to has range from 0.360656 to 0.59375. High dissimilarity was between Loem-Pho and Leeled, and the closest was the pair of Don-Sa and Ma-Thuean. This parameter might indicated that the similarity of benthic fauna were quite low in all sites along the coastal.

Index

Figure 7. Taxonomic Evenness index of benthic fauna at sampling times. Figure 7. Taxonomic Evenness index of benthic fauna at sampling times.


74

Table 2. Percentage composition of benthic community.

Mollusca was the most diverse organisms which account for 23 Families or 34.85% of Total family number, follow with Arthropoda (20 or 30.30%), Annelida (17 or 25.76%), Nemertea (2 or 3.03%), and 1 for each of Brachiopoda, Bryozoa, Echidermata and Nematoda (1.52%) respectively. The highest composition was Ma-Thuean (34 Familes), the lowest was Leeled (28 Families) (Table 2).

Samples LP %LP LL %LL DS %DS MT %MT Total sample %Sampling

1 Annelida 14 43.75 9 32.14 7 23.33 5 14.71 17 25.76

2 Nemertea 1 3.13 1 3.57 2 6.67 1 2.94 2 3.03

3 Arthropoda 5 15.63 10 35.71 9 30.00 9 26.47 20 30.30

4 Brachiopoda 1 3.13 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.52

5 Bryozoa 0 0.00 1 3.57 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.52

6 Echinodermata 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 2.94 1 1.52

7 Mollusca 11 34.38 7 25.00 11 36.67 18 52.94 23 34.85

8 Nematoda 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 3.33 0 0.00 1 1.52

Total 32 100.00 28 100 30 100 34 100 66 100.00

Index

Figure 6. Taxonomic Diversity index (H') of benthic fauna at sampling times. Figure 6. Taxonomic Diversity index (H’) of benthic fauna at sampling times.

and Multidimensional Sorting scale (MDS) reflect to three group at each sites with the stress 0 and upper 80% similarity clustering (Fig. 8).


139


76

Loem-Pho Leeled

Don-Sak Ma-Thuean

Figure 8. Classification analysis MDS ordination (Stress = 0)

Letters to month groups separated at >50% dissimilarity.

Figure 8. Classification analysis MDS ordination (Stress = 0) Letters to month groups separated at >50% dissimilarity.

The community structure analysis conducted with MDS in Bray-Curtis (Bray-Curtis-Similarity Index) similarity coefficient clustering and Multidimensional Sorting scale (MDS) reflect to three group at each sites with the stress 0 and upper 80% similarity clustering (Fig. 8).

Table 3. Physico chemical and sediment parameters of samples.

The environmental characteristics of the area were found to fluctuate periodically during the study times (Table 3). The concentration of organic carbon is range from 0.22 to 8.37%. The high proportion of soil was sand (56.93-96.48%).

Env.factors LP3 LP4 LP5 LP6 LP7 LP9 LL3 LL5 LL6 LL7 LL9 LL10 DS3 DS5 DS6 DS7 DS9 DS10 MT3 MT5 MT6 MT7 MT9 MT10

ATemp. (Co) 37.2 35.4 36 32 37.5 32.2 36.3 34 36 34 34.3 35 36 34.7 35 36 37 36.2 37.3 37.2 34 32 34 35.3

WTemp. (Co)

32 30.1 34.2 30 33.7 29.3 29 29 28 27 29 31 31 29.5 29.3 28.3 34 32.8 32 30.12 29.2 30.2 30.5 32

pH 7.73 7.78 7.76 7.83 7.61 7.72 7.45 7.65 7.19 7.54 7.11 6.75 7.6 8 7.81 7.78 7.55 7.2 7.43 8.76 7.68 7.93 7.72 7.22

DO(mg/l) 6.45 5.43 4.56 7.25 7.25 7 5.75 4.3 5.5 7.35 6.7 6.6 5.35 3.47 4.8 2.75 6.05 4.42 7.2 5.54 5.3 4.47 6.85 7.35

BOD(mg/l) 6.45 5.43 4.56 7.25 4.2 3.6 10.6 9.43 10.4 12 6.47 5.43 12.2 15 16.5 18.2 10 18 11.6 6.43 4.6 5 4.7 5.5

Alk.(mg/l) 114 110 112 102 107 100 74 100 92 110 97 95 180 160 138 140 133 120 130 122 162 126 126 120

TSS (mg/l) 35 64.4 50.2 74.3 72 53.5 72 92.56 56 88 90.02 85.4 110 110 152 182 98.8 110 63.2 68.9 70.2 92 86.3 53.4

Sali.(ppt.) 29.6 28.7 28.3 27.9 30.9 28.5 7 6.45 4.1 8.4 8.4 4.6 28.9 26.5 28.9 24.6 32 30.5 30.4 32 20.8 33.1 33.1 30.6

Org.Carbo%

2.39 1.87 2.83 2.86 2.7 2.83 3.414 6.18 7.12 8.12 8.37 1.219 2.39 4.23 4.09 2.7 5.9 1.845 2.46 2.04 2.23 1.88 4.02 0.22

Clay% 2.787 4.337 20.16 19.43 12.83 10.29 26.95 24.9 31.52 24.01 24.01 17.21 7.229 17.34 15.31 18.21 19.13 19.07 2.198 11.16 6.693 5.899 10.27 6.234

Sand% 96.48 95.22 74.17 75.94 82.83 88.23 57.01 61.93 56.93 65.08 63.51 73.96 88.21 73.76 74.86 79.73 77.22 76.75 95.9 88.26 93.16 91.26 89 90.84

Silt% 0.738 0.44 5.674 4.637 4.337 1.,481 16.04 13.17 11.54 10.91 12.48 8.828 4.557 8.896 9.829 2.055 3.656 4.175 1.903 0.588 0.147 2.845 0.727 2.926


76

Loem-Pho Leeled

Don-Sak Ma-Thuean








ATemp. (Co) 37.2 35.4 36 32 37.5 32.2 36.3 34 36 34 34.3 35 36 34.7 35 36 37 36.2 37.3 37.2 34 32 34 35.3

WTemp. (Co)

32 30.1 34.2 30 33.7 29.3 29 29 28 27 29 31 31 29.5 29.3 28.3 34 32.8 32 30.12 29.2 30.2 30.5 32

pH 7.73 7.78 7.76 7.83 7.61 7.72 7.45 7.65 7.19 7.54 7.11 6.75 7.6 8 7.81 7.78 7.55 7.2 7.43 8.76 7.68 7.93 7.72 7.22

DO(mg/l) 6.45 5.43 4.56 7.25 7.25 7 5.75 4.3 5.5 7.35 6.7 6.6 5.35 3.47 4.8 2.75 6.05 4.42 7.2 5.54 5.3 4.47 6.85 7.35

BOD(mg/l) 6.45 5.43 4.56 7.25 4.2 3.6 10.6 9.43 10.4 12 6.47 5.43 12.2 15 16.5 18.2 10 18 11.6 6.43 4.6 5 4.7 5.5

Alk.(mg/l) 114 110 112 102 107 100 74 100 92 110 97 95 180 160 138 140 133 120 130 122 162 126 126 120

TSS (mg/l) 35 64.4 50.2 74.3 72 53.5 72 92.56 56 88 90.02 85.4 110 110 152 182 98.8 110 63.2 68.9 70.2 92 86.3 53.4

Sali.(ppt.) 29.6 28.7 28.3 27.9 30.9 28.5 7 6.45 4.1 8.4 8.4 4.6 28.9 26.5 28.9 24.6 32 30.5 30.4 32 20.8 33.1 33.1 30.6

Org.Carbo%

2.39 1.87 2.83 2.86 2.7 2.83 3.414 6.18 7.12 8.12 8.37 1.219 2.39 4.23 4.09 2.7 5.9 1.845 2.46 2.04 2.23 1.88 4.02 0.22

Clay% 2.787 4.337 20.16 19.43 12.83 10.29 26.95 24.9 31.52 24.01 24.01 17.21 7.229 17.34 15.31 18.21 19.13 19.07 2.198 11.16 6.693 5.899 10.27 6.234

Sand% 96.48 95.22 74.17 75.94 82.83 88.23 57.01 61.93 56.93 65.08 63.51 73.96 88.21 73.76 74.86 79.73 77.22 76.75 95.9 88.26 93.16 91.26 89 90.84

Silt% 0.738 0.44 5.674 4.637 4.337 1.,481 16.04 13.17 11.54 10.91 12.48 8.828 4.557 8.896 9.829 2.055 3.656 4.175 1.903 0.588 0.147 2.845 0.727 2.926

The environmental charac-teristics of the area were found to fluctuate periodically during the study times (Table 3). The concentration of organic carbon is ranged from 0.22 to 8.37%. The high proportion of soil was sand (56.93-96.48%). The fraction of clay and loam had high organic matter than sand and silt in general. The sand content was increased from top to down along the coastal (Loem-Pho, Leeled, Don-Sak, Ma - Thuean). Annelida is a settle animal and feed on organic matter was the dominant organism almost every study, except only Ma-Thuean with predominant of Mollusk, cause of high component of sand. Although, Leeled were high component of organic matter, but

the diverse animal was Arthropod. Because of the high level and low sa-linity of the water, cause to suitable for the Arthropod to predominant. Loem - Pho has indicated the low nutrient component, the point may be from the rapid absorb nutrient organ-ism as macro algae. Large algae such as Padina, Gracilaria, Rhipidosiphon were found at Ma-Thuean, Cladophora at Loem - Pho and sea weed at Don-Sak. For plankton was general of those of water structure. The low fluctuated water temperature have been recorded 27-34.2 0C, Do, pH6.75-8.76. The high fluctuated air temperature (32-37.5 0C), Alkalinity (74-180 mg/l), TSS (35-182 mg/l), Salinity (4.1-33.1 ppt.), DO (2.75-7.35 mg/l), BOD (3.6-18.2 mg/l), were found aceordingly.


140

Environmental factors seem to be controlling the diversity and abundance of benthic fauna of the study area. Salinity also was more clear to alter the animal distribution at Leeled

The results suggest that different characteristics of benthic fauna communities in coastal can be affected in different ways by physic chemical and soil structure processes involved in the area.

acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Asst. Prof. Dr. Prayote Kupgan-janagool the president of Suratthani Rajabhat University for public opera-tions, and also to The ASEAN Com-munity Knowledge Networks for the Economy, Society, Culture, and Environmental Stability Conference. This research was supported by NRCT: Office of the National Research Council of Thailand. In the grace note to Assoc. Prof. Pranee Petkaew and Dr.Wattana Rattanaprom from thought of fullness in the development process this research. The last thanks to Panadda Rachsiri and Anakanong Rachsiri for co-ordinating of this project.


76

Loem-Pho Leeled

Don-Sak Ma-Thuean








ATemp. (Co) 37.2 35.4 36 32 37.5 32.2 36.3 34 36 34 34.3 35 36 34.7 35 36 37 36.2 37.3 37.2 34 32 34 35.3

WTemp. (Co)

32 30.1 34.2 30 33.7 29.3 29 29 28 27 29 31 31 29.5 29.3 28.3 34 32.8 32 30.12 29.2 30.2 30.5 32

pH 7.73 7.78 7.76 7.83 7.61 7.72 7.45 7.65 7.19 7.54 7.11 6.75 7.6 8 7.81 7.78 7.55 7.2 7.43 8.76 7.68 7.93 7.72 7.22

DO(mg/l) 6.45 5.43 4.56 7.25 7.25 7 5.75 4.3 5.5 7.35 6.7 6.6 5.35 3.47 4.8 2.75 6.05 4.42 7.2 5.54 5.3 4.47 6.85 7.35

BOD(mg/l) 6.45 5.43 4.56 7.25 4.2 3.6 10.6 9.43 10.4 12 6.47 5.43 12.2 15 16.5 18.2 10 18 11.6 6.43 4.6 5 4.7 5.5

Alk.(mg/l) 114 110 112 102 107 100 74 100 92 110 97 95 180 160 138 140 133 120 130 122 162 126 126 120

TSS (mg/l) 35 64.4 50.2 74.3 72 53.5 72 92.56 56 88 90.02 85.4 110 110 152 182 98.8 110 63.2 68.9 70.2 92 86.3 53.4

Sali.(ppt.) 29.6 28.7 28.3 27.9 30.9 28.5 7 6.45 4.1 8.4 8.4 4.6 28.9 26.5 28.9 24.6 32 30.5 30.4 32 20.8 33.1 33.1 30.6

Org.Carbo%

2.39 1.87 2.83 2.86 2.7 2.83 3.414 6.18 7.12 8.12 8.37 1.219 2.39 4.23 4.09 2.7 5.9 1.845 2.46 2.04 2.23 1.88 4.02 0.22

Clay% 2.787 4.337 20.16 19.43 12.83 10.29 26.95 24.9 31.52 24.01 24.01 17.21 7.229 17.34 15.31 18.21 19.13 19.07 2.198 11.16 6.693 5.899 10.27 6.234

Sand% 96.48 95.22 74.17 75.94 82.83 88.23 57.01 61.93 56.93 65.08 63.51 73.96 88.21 73.76 74.86 79.73 77.22 76.75 95.9 88.26 93.16 91.26 89 90.84

Silt% 0.738 0.44 5.674 4.637 4.337 1.,481 16.04 13.17 11.54 10.91 12.48 8.828 4.557 8.896 9.829 2.055 3.656 4.175 1.903 0.588 0.147 2.845 0.727 2.926

bibliographyAdebisi, A.A.(1989). The physic- chemical hydrology of a tropi- cal seasonal roiver Upper Ogun River. Hydrologia, 79: 159-165.Ajao, E.A. and Fagade, S.O. (1990). A study of sediment communities in Lagos lagoon, Nigeria. J.Oil Chem. Pullut, 7:85-105.APHA. (1998). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 18th ed. American Public Health Association. American Waters Works Association & Water Pollu- tion Control Federation. Washington. 1134pp.


141

Gerritsen, J., Carlson, R.E., Dycus, D.L., Faulkner, C., Gibson, Harcum,J., and Makowitz,S.A., (1998). Lake and Reservoir Bioassessment and Biocriteria. Technical Guidance Document. US environment Protection Agancy. EPA 841-B-98-007. 10 Chapters, Appendices AS-G (http://www.epa./owow/moni toring/tech/lakes.html)Idowu, E.O. and Ugwumba, A.A.A. (2005). Physical chemical and benthic fauna characteristics of a Southern Nigeria Reser- voir. The Zoologist, 3:15-25.

Imervbore, A.M.A. and Bakare, O. (1970). The food and feeding habits of non cichid fishs of the River Niger in the Kainji Reservoir area in Kaiji-a Nigeria man made lake, Kaiji Lake Studies, Ecology, 7:87-98. Oke, O.O.(1990). Limnology and Macrobenthos of Owena Reservoir. M.Phil. Thesis, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. Pp.96.Wattayakorn, G.et al. (1999). Eco- nomic Evaluation and Biogeo- chemical Modeling of Bandon Bay, Suratthani, Thailand. Final Report submitted to SARCS/WOTRO/LOTCZ. 118 pp.

volume 2, number 1, january 2014 - icmr.crru.ac.thicmr.crru.ac.th/journal/journal 3/9 biodiversity...

Documents