3.6 Fish Fauna

3.6.1 Introduction Fish are one of the major sources of high-quality protein, providing about 16% of animal protein for human consumption around the world /18/. The fish are either caught in the wild or raised through fish farming or aquaculture. The distribution pattern of fish depends on behavioral response to refuge availability provided by structural complexity /19, 20/ and available resources i.e. food /21, 22/ or they may be due to interactions of predation and competition /21, 23/.

In Kuala Linggi, Malacca is one of the main fisheries areas for many of the fishermen there. Fishermen from Tanjung Selamat, Tanjung Agas, and Kuala Sungai Baru were use fish nets, longline and fish traps (bubu). The catch is either consumed or sold to the market. One of the main factors contributing to the high abundance of fish in the area may be due to the mangrove forest, which acts as nursery for juvenile fishes /24, 25/. In addition, the structural complexity of the mangrove, due to the roots and branches, provides a refuge, especially for juvenile fish /26,27, 28/

In conclusion, the high productivity in both mangrove forests and seagrass beds provides greater availability of food for juvenile fishes than other habitats, either directly as detritus or indirectly through the structural complexity that attracts greater numbers of prey items. High abundance of invertebrates is usually found in vegetated areas /29/ which becomes suitable prey for these juveniles. Therefore, it is important to conserve these habitats, which is to ensure the continuous supply of these fishes.

3.6.2 Methodology The fish fauna surveys were carried out on five (5) separate occasions, representing the fish fauna caught during different tidal stages, during day and night time and fish trap surveys, as follows:  Neap (daytime) - 3 February 2016 to 4 February 2016  Neap (night time) - 26 March 2016  Spring (daytime) - 13 March 2016  Spring (night time) - 15 March 2016  Fish trap (for F5 and F6 station) - 2 April 2016 to 18 April 2016

The coordinates and locations of the fish fauna sampling stations are provided in Table 3.5 and displayed in Figure 3.16.

Table 3.5 Coordinate of fish survey location (WGS84-decimal degrees)

Station Latitude Longitude F1 2.406009 102.006226 F2 2.408758 101.94133 F3 2.395839 101.959969 F4 2.360881 101.980429 F5 2.37336 101.868373 F6 2.30834 101.91313 F7 2.311717 102.059405

3-62 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

Figure 3.16 Location of fish fauna monitoring stations.

3.6.2.1 Fish Net Deployment The fish net method was carried out at five (5) survey stations (F1, F2, F3, F4 and F7) using a set of 6 trammel/gill nets similar to those being used by local fishermen, as shown in Photo 3.41.

Each sampling period consisted of a standardised immersion time of the trammel nets to approximately half an hour per sampling station. Observations of any marine mega fauna were also conducted during the sampling period. Any observation of marine mega fauna was then recorded into a data sheet, along with the location, time and other human activity observed during sighting.

Samples collected at each station were stored in a labelled multi-purposed bag and then brought back to the laboratory for analysis. The samples were then identified to species level (where possible), and then measured, weighed and photographed. All recorded data were then tabulated and analysed.

The catch per unit effort (CPUE) is an index of abundance based on a fundamental relationship widely used in quantitative fisheries analysis. The CPUE for each fish fauna species found at

3-63

each monitoring station during a monitoring campaign was calculated based on density and biomass. The calculation of both CPUE shown below;

퐶푃푈퐸 (퐷푒푛푠𝑖푡푦, 푠푝푒푐𝑖푒푠) = (푡표푡푎푙 푛푢푚푏푒푟)/(푚푒푠ℎ 푠𝑖푧푒) /(푡표푡푎푙 ℎ표푢푟)

퐶푃푈퐸 (푏𝑖표푚푎푠푠, 푠푝푒푐𝑖푒푠) = (푡표푡푎푙 푚푎푠푠)/(푚푒푠ℎ 푠𝑖푧푒) /(푡표푡푎푙 ℎ표푢푟)

Where mesh size is the total area of the trammel nets used in a monitoring campaign.

Photo 3.41 Trammel net deployment

3.6.2.2 Fish Trap Deployment The fish traps were deployed at stations F5 and F6 only. Deployment of the fish traps at these two locations was due to hard substrate. Photo 3.42 shows the deployment of fish trap by fishermen. The sampling time of fish traps at both locations were deployed between 5 to 14 days, similar with the sampling time normally practiced by local fishermen.

Samples collected at both monitoring stations were stored in a labelled multi-purposed bag and then brought back to the laboratory for analysis. The samples were then identified to species level (where possible), and then measured, weighed and photographed. All recorded data were then tabulated and analysed.

3-64 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

Photo 3.42 Fish trap deployment

3.6.3 Findings

3.6.3.1 Neap tide (Daytime) A total number of 299 individuals of fish, 60 individuals of prawn and a single individual of crab were caught at the study area. The fish, prawn and crab caught belonged to 12 families and comprised of 16 species (Table 3.6). At all the sampling stations (F1-F7), fish were caught using a trammel net, except stations F5 and F6 where the fish trap was deployed. These results are detailed in Section 3.6.3.5.

Among the species caught, Kasai (Setipinna taty) was the most dominant species, represented by 140 individuals (2 individuals at F2 and 138 individuals at F3) with a respective CPUE (catch per unit effort) of 0.0147 ind/m2/hour at F2 and 1.0135 ind/m2/hour and F3. Selangat (Anodontastoma chacunda) was the second most abundant species caught with 62 individuals at F3, 2 individuals at F4 and a single individual at F7, with a respective CPUE of 0.4553 ind/m2/hour at F3, 0.0147 ind/m2/hour at F4 and 0.0073 ind/m2/hour at F7.

Belukang (Arius sagor) was also among the most abundant species recorded during the neap tide (daytime) represented by 24 individuals (2 individuals at F1 and 22 individuals at F3) and with a respective CPUE of 0.0147 ind/m2/hour at F1 and 0.1616 ind/m2/hour at F3.

The rest of the species recorded a CPUE of less than 0.1 ind/m2/hour, which are Semilang (Plotosus canius), Duri (Arius sp.), Timah (Trichiurus sp.), Gelama (Johnius sp.), Kapak (Secutor sp.), Bawal Hitam (Parastromateus niger), bilis (Stolephorus sp.), Bulu Ayam (Thryssa sp.), Selampai (Otolithoides sp.), Tamban (Sardinella sp.) and Baji (Platycephalus sp.).

In terms of maturity, most of the species caught were adult fish belonging to small size species for example gelama (Johnius sp.), kasai (Setipinna taty) and selangat (Anodontastoma chacunda) reached maturity only at 9 cm of length. The overall lengths of fish fauna caught in a range of 4 cm to 49 cm and weights of 3 g to 603.4 g.

3-65

As for shrimps (Penaeus sp.), a total number of 108 individuals (59 individuals at F2, 48 individuals at F3 and a single individual at F4) were recorded with a CPUE of 0.4333 ind/m2/hour at F2, 0.3525 ind/m2/hour at F3 and 0.0073 ind/m2/hour at F4. Most of the shrimps were adult with the overall length of 5-15.0 cm and weight of 5-22 g. A single individual crab (Portunus pelagicus) was found at F7 with a CPUE of 0.0073 ind/m2/hour. This crab was juvenile with a length of 10.5 cm and weight of 97.5 g.

In terms of biomass, Belukang (Arius sagor) recorded the highest value with 37.35 g/m2/hour (see Figure 3.17). The second highest species in terms of biomass was Selangat (Anodontastoma chacunda) (10.64 g/m2/hour), followed by shrimp (Penaeus sp.) (9.77 g/m2/hour).

Station F3, recorded the highest number of individuals (278 individuals) followed by station F2 (65 individuals), while station F1 recorded 7 individuals. Among the lowest were station F4 (6 individuals) while station F7 recorded the least number with only 4 individuals. In term of species diversity, station F3 recorded the highest number of species with 10 species, followed by station F4 with 5 species. Stations F2 and F7 both recorded a total of 4 species. Station F1 recorded the least number of species, with only 3 species recorded during the neap tide (daytime).

Figure 3.18 shows the overall fish fauna caught in relation to their commercial value. The highest representation of fish fauna caught were considered to be of low commercial value (76%), followed by high commercial value (17%) and medium value (7%).

Figure 3.19 shows the catch per unit effort (CPUE) biomass of fish fauna per station, in relation to commercial value. It is noted that the highest CPUE of high commercial value fish was recorded at station F3 with 5.9907 g/m2/hour, followed by station F2 with 4.8788 g/m2/hour and station F1 with 1.991 g/m2/hour. The remaining stations F7 and F4 recorded low CPUE in high value fish fauna with less than 1.0 g/m2/hour.

As for medium value fish fauna, station F4 recorded the highest CPUE of 4.8039 g/m2/hour while other stations show low catches of medium value fish fauna, with less than 1.0 g/m2/hour. Lastly, the low value fish fauna recorded the highest CPUE at station F3 with 49.4863 g/m2/hour, followed by station F1 with 6.1567 g/m2/hour and station F7 with 3.7867 g/m2/hour. The other stations, station F4 and F2 showed low CPUE with 1.0091 g/m2/hour and 0.2945 g/m2/hour, respectively.

3-66 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

Table 3.6 Fish Species Caught at the Study Area during Neap Tide (Daytime)

Station Family Local Name Scientific name Commercial No. Total Weight (g) CPUE Value Length Density Biomass (cm) (No./m2/hr) (g/m2/hr) Plotosidae Semilang Plotosus canius High 1 43.1 271.1 0.0073 1.9910 87-165 (CW: Ariidae Duri Arius sp. Low 4 8-26.2 0.0294 2.6322 F1 358.4) 210-270 (CW: Aridae Belukang Arius sagor Low 2 28.5-30 0.0147 3.5245 479.9)

Trichiuridae Timah Trichiurus sp. Low 1 45 33.7 0.0073 0.2475

F2 Sciaenidae Gelama Johnius sp. Medium 3 11.1-14.5 12-22 (CW: 52.7) 0.0220 0.3870 Engraulidae Kasai Setipinna taty Low 2 8.5 3-3.5 (6.4) 0.0147 0.0470 Penaeidae Udang Penaeus sp. High 59 8-8.5 3-38 (664.3) 0.4333 4.8788 Anodontastoma Clupeidae Selangat Low 62 7-13 10-34(CW:1318.2) 0.4553 9.6812 chacunda Engraulidae Kasai Setipinna taty Low 138 8-14 3-17 (CW: 683.2) 1.0135 5.0176 Leiognathidae Kapak Secutor sp. Low 2 10 8.5-7.5 (CW:16.1) 0.0147 0.1182 Parastromateus Carangidae Bawal Hitam Low 2 7 7 (CW: 14.7) 0.0147 0.1080 niger Engraulidae Bilis Stolephorus sp. Low 1 9 5.5 0.0073 0.0404 F3 Engraulidae Bulu Ayam Thryssa sp. Low 1 10 3.1 0.0073 0.0228 Penaeidae Udang Penaeus sp. High 48 5-15 5-22 (CW:660.6) 0.3525 4.8516 100- Aridae Belukang Arius sagor Low 22 20-30 0.1616 33.8276 400(CW:4606) Trichiuridae Timah Trichiurus sp. Low 1 36 91.3 0.0073 0.6705

Plotosidae Semilang Plotosus canius High 1 30 155.1 0.0073 1.1391 Sciaenidae Gelama Johnius sp. Medium 1 16 50.7 0.0073 0.3724 Otolithoides Selampai Otolithoides sp. Medium 1 46.4 603.4 0.0073 4.4315 Clupeidae Tamban Sardinella sp. Low 1 16.6 48 0.0073 0.3525 F4 Anodontastoma Clupeidae Selangat Low 2 13-14 40-50 (CW: 89.4) 0.0147 0.6566 chacunda Penaeidae Udang Penaeus sp. High 1 9 5.9 0.0073 0.0433 F7 Sciaenidae Gelama Johnius sp. Medium 1 14.2 42.2 0.0073 0.3099 Anodontastoma Clupeidae Selangat Low 1 14.4 41 0.0073 0.3011 chacunda

3-67

Station Family Local Name Scientific name Commercial No. Total Weight (g) CPUE Value Length Density Biomass (cm) (No./m2/hr) (g/m2/hr) Platycephalus Platycephalidae 0.0073 3.4856 Baji sp. Low 1 37 474.6 Portunus Ketam Bunga High 0.0073 0.7161 Portunidae pelagicus 1 10.5 97.5 Total 360 - 10873 2.6439 79.8540

3-68 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

Figure 3.17 Fish biomass (g/m2/hour) at the study area during neap tide (daytime).

3-69

Figure 3.18 Commercial value of fish fauna during neap tide (daytime).

Figure 3.19 CPUE biomass at each station based on commercial value during neap tide (daytime)

3-70 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

Plat 1: Fish caught at study area during neap tide (day time). A) Ikan duri (Arius sp.), B) Ikan timah (Trichiurus sp.), C) Ikan gelama (Johnius sp.),D) Ikan kasai (Setipinna taty), E) Udang (Penaeus sp.), F) Ikan Selangat (Anodontastoma chacunda), G) Ikan Kapak (Secutor sp.), H) Ikan Bilis (Stolephorus sp.), I) Ikan bulu ayam (Thryssa sp.), J) Ikan tamban (Sardinella sp.), K) Ikan Baji (Platycephalus sp.), L) Ketam bunga (Portunus pelagicus), M) Ikan Sembilang (Plotosus canius)

E F

G

3-71

3-72 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

3.6.3.2 Neap tide (Night Time) A total number of 711 individuals of fish, 168 individuals of shrimps, 49 individuals of crab and 2 individuals of horseshoe crab were caught at the study area. The fishes, shrimps, crabs and horseshoe crab caught belonged to 18 families and comprised of 20 species (Table 3.7).

At all the sampling stations (F1-F7), fish were caught using a trammel net, except stations F5 and F6 where the fish trap was deployed. Sampling was not carried out at station F1 due to safety reasons as station F1 is located at the river of Sg. Linggi where crocodiles have been reported hunting for food, mostly at nightime.

Among the species caught, Gelama (Johnius sp.) was the most dominant species, represented by 284 individuals (11 individuals at F2, 23 individuals at F4 and 250 individuals at F7) with a respective CPUE of 0.0808 ind/m2/hour at F2, 0.1689 ind/m2/hour at F4 and the highest CPUE of 1.8361 ind/m2/hour at F7. Kasai (Setipinna taty) was the second most dominant species, represented by 279 individuals (116 individuals at F2, 125 individuals at F4 and 38 individuals at F7) and with a respective CPUE of 0.8519 ind/m2/hour at F2, 0.9180 ind/m2/hour at F4 and 0.2791 ind/m2/hour at F7.

Duri (Arius sp.) also dominated the species caught during the neap tide (night-time) represented by 85 individuals (a single individual at F2, 13 individuals at F3 and 71 individuals at F7) and with a respective CPUE of 0.0073 ind/m2/hour at F2, 0.0955 ind/m2/hour at F3 and 0.5214 ind/m2/hour at F7. Selangat (Anodontastoma chacunda) and Bulu Ayam (Thryssa sp.) recorded relatively low CPUE between 0.1395 ind/m2/hour to 0.1616 ind/m2/hour. The remaining species of fish caught recorded CPUE of less than 0.1 ind/m2/hour which is Lidah (Cynoglossus sp.1(lingua)), Belanak (Mugil cephalus), Loban (Liza vaigeinsis), Semilang (Plotosus canius), Malong (Gymnothorax sp.), Bulus (Sillago sihama), Yu bodoh (Chiloscyllium indicum), Senangin (Eleutheronema tetradactylum), Tunjang Langit (Triacanthus biaculeatus) and Sebelah (Pseudorhombus sp.).

In terms of maturity, most of the species caught were adult fish belonging to small size species for example gelama (Johnius sp.), kasai (Setipinna taty) and selangat (Anodontastoma chacunda) reached maturity only at 9 cm of length. The overall lengths of fish fauna caught in a range of 4.9 cm – 68.0 cm and weights of 3.1 g – 631 g.

As for shrimps (Penaeus sp.), a total number of 129 individuals (34 individuals at F2, 45 individuals at F3, 8 individuals at F4 and 42 individuals at F7) were recorded during this survey with a respective CPUE of 0.2497 ind/m2/hour at F2, 0.3305 ind/m2/hour at F3, 0.0588 ind/m2/hour at F4 and 0.3085 ind/m2/hour at F7. Most of the shrimps caught were adult with the length of 6 cm - 19 cm and 4 g - 110.3 g weight. Other species recorded were Udang Lipan (Harpiosquilla raphidea) (38 individuals; 4 individuals at F2, 2 individuals at F3, 2 individuals at F4 and 30 individuals at F7) and Udang Kipas (Thenus orientalis) (a single individual) with respective CPUE of 0.2791 ind/m2/hour and 0.0073 ind/m2/hour.

Crabs (Portunus pelagicus) were caught at F4 and F7 with a total number of 49 individuals recorded (10 individuals at F4 and 39 individuals at F7) and CPUE of 0.0734 /m2/hour and 0.2864/m2/hour, respectively. The maturity of crabs caught were mixture of adult and juvenile with lengths of 4.5 cm - 15 cm and weight of 4.3 g - 88.6 g. Horseshoe crabs were recorded at station F7 only (2 individuals), with lengths of 30.5 cm – 31.0 cm and weight of 198 g - 290 g.

In terms of biomass, Gelama (Johnius sp) recorded the highest value with 93.15 g/m2/hour (Figure 3.20). The second highest species in terms of biomass was Duri (Arius sp.) (50.61 g/m2/hour), followed by Kasai (Setipinna taty) (24.07 g/m2/hour).

Station F7, recorded the highest number of individuals comprising fishes, crabs, horseshoe crabs and shrimps (506 individuals), followed by F2 (181 individuals), while F4 recorded 178 individuals. The station with the least number of individuals was F3 (65 individuals). In term of species diversity, station F7 recorded the highest number of species (12 species), followed by station F4 (9 species) and station F2 (8 species). Station F3 recorded the least number of

3-73

species (7 species). Figure 3.21 shows the overall fish fauna caught in relation to their commercial value. The highest proportion of fish fauna caught were of medium commercial value (43%), followed by low commercial value (40%), while the lowest proportion of fish fauna were of high commercial value (16%).

Figure 3.22 shows the CPUE biomass per station, in relation to the commercial value of the fish fauna. It is noted that the highest CPUE for high commercial value of fish fauna was caught at station F3 (16.9439 g/m2/hour), followed by station F7 (13.3893 g/m2/hour) and station F4 (4.1120 g/m2/hour). F2 recorded the lowest CPUE in high value fish fauna (2.4530 g/m2/hour).

As for medium value fish fauna, station F7 recorded the highest CPUE (86.4315 g/m2/hour), followed by station F4 (5.3400 g/m2/hour), station F3 (3.4327 g/m2/hour) and station F2 (2.0322 g/m2/hour). The highest CPUE biomass of low value fish fauna was recorded at station F7 (54.9247 g/m2/hour), followed by station F4 (17.5851 g/m2/hour) and station F2 (9.8523 g/m2/hour). Station F3 recorded the lowest CPUE with 7.8782 g/m2/hour.

3-74 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

Table 3.7 Fish Species Caught at the Study Area during Neap Tide (Night time)

CPUE Local Commercial Total Station Family Scientific name No. Weight (g) Density Biomass Name Value Length (cm) (No./m2/hr) (g/m2/hr) Sciaenidae Gelama Johnius sp. Medium 11 9-16 10-59 (CW: 265) 0.0808 1.9462 Engraulidae Kasai Setipinna taty Low 116 8-17 4-44 (905.6) 0.8519 6.6509 Anodontastoma Clupeidae Selangat Low 13 10-13 10-34(CW:220) 0.0955 1.6157 chacunda Cynoglossus Cynoglossidae Lidah Low 1 36 137 0.0073 1.0062 F2 sp.1(lingua) Ariidae Duri Arius sp. Low 1 14 23.9 0.0073 0.1755 Mugilidae Belanak Liza subviridis Medium 1 9.9 11.7 0.0073 0.0859 Penaeidae Udang Penaeus sp. High 34 9.7-13 4-15 (334) 0.2497 2.4530 Udang Harpiosquilla Low 4 5-15 3-23(CW:55) 0.0294 0.4039 Squillidae lipan raphidea Mugilidae Loban Liza vaigeinsis High 1 32 482.3 0.0073 3.5421 570-631 (CW: Plotosidae Semilang Plotosus canius High 1 43-49 0.0073 8.8131 1200) 28-246 (CW: Ariidae Duri Arius sp. Low 13 13-26 0.0955 7.7019 1048.7) F3 Muraenidae Malong Gymnothorax sp. Medium 1 68 440 0.0073 3.2315 Harpadon Synodontidae Bulus Medium 1 4.9 27.4 0.0073 0.2012 nehereus 4.5- Penaeidae Udang Penaeus sp. High 45 6-19 0.3305 4.5887 95.3(CW:624.8) Udang Harpiosquilla Squillidae Low 2 8.5-15 8.5-15.5(CW:24) 0.0147 0.1763 lipan raphidea Chiloscyllium Hemiscylliidae Yu Bodoh Low 1 45 359.6 0.0073 2.6410 indicum 3.3- Engraulidae Kasai Setipinna taty Low 125 8-18 0.9180 13.4951 45(CW:1837.5) F4 6.4- 91.6 Sciaenidae Gelama Johnius sp. Medium 23 8-19 0.1689 5.3400 (CW:727.1) Anodontastoma 17.5-34(CW: Clupeidae Selangat Low 6 11-14.5 0.0441 1.3095 chacunda 178.3)

3-75

CPUE Local Commercial Total Station Family Scientific name No. Weight (g) Density Biomass Name Value Length (cm) (No./m2/hr) (g/m2/hr) Polydactylus Polynemidae senangin High 1 26.5 153.6 0.0073 1.1281 sextarius Engraulidae Bulu Ayam Thryssa sp. Low 2 11-13 4.2-6 (CW:10.2) 0.0147 0.0749 Ketam Portunus 6.1-88.6 Portunidae High 10 5-15 0.0734 2.4258 Bunga pelagicus (CW:330.3) 6.1-12.6 (CW: Penaeidae Udang Penaeus sp. High 8 6-7.5 0.0588 0.5582 76) Udang Harpiosquilla Squillidae Low 2 4.5-7 3.8-5 (CW:8.8) 0.0147 0.0646 lipan raphidea Harpadon 30.5-47.1 Synodontidae Bulus Medium 2 15.4-18.3 0.0147 0.5699 nehereus (CW:77.6) Tunjang Triacanthus Triacanthidae Low 1 14.5 30.3 0.0073 0.2225 langit biaculeatus 3.1-7.6 Engraulidae Bulu Ayam Thryssa sp. Low 20 10.3-13.8 0.1469 0.8115 (CW:110.5) 31.9-239.9 Ariidae Duri Arius sp. Low 71 16-28 0.5214 42.7303 (CW:5818.2) 19.9-137.6 Sciaenidae Gelama Johnius sp. Medium 250 13-23.5 1.8361 85.8616 (CW:11691) 4.4-19.8 Engraulidae Kasai Setipinna taty Low 38 9.2-15 0.2791 3.9218 F7 (CW:534) Pseudorhombus 7.7-56.6 Paralichthyidae Sebelah Low 10 8-16.7 0.0734 1.2544 sp. (CW:170.8) Ketam Portunus 4.3-76.9 Portunidae High 39 4.5-10.7 0.2864 7.8517 Bunga pelagicus (CW:1069.1) Horseshoe 198-290 Limulidae Tachypleus gigas Low 2 30.5-31 0.0147 3.5950 crab (CW:489.5) Udang Harpiosquilla 3.2- Squillidae Low 30 4-11.5 0.2203 2.2833 lipan raphidea 16.4(CW:310.9) 4.2- Penaeidae Udang Penaeus sp. High 42 9-19 0.3085 5.5376 110.3(CW:754) Udang Scyllaridae Low 1 8.5 14.4 0.0073 0.1058 kipas Thenus orientalis Total 929 6.8228 224.3734

3-76 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

Figure 3.20 Fish biomass (g/m2/hour) at the study area during neap tide (night time)

3-77

Figure 3.21 Commercial value of fish fauna during neap tide (nightime)

Figure 3.22 CPUE biomass at each station based on commercial value during neap tide (night time)

Plat 2: Fish caught at study area during neap tide (night time). A) Ikan duri (Arius sp.), B) Ikan gelama (Johnius sp.), C) Ikan kasai (Setipinna taty), D) Ikan selangat (Anodontastoma chacunda), E) Udang (Penaeus sp.), F) Ikan bulu ayam (Thryssa sp.) G) Ketam bunga (Portunus pelagicus), H) Ikan lidah (Cynoglossus sp.1(lingua)), I) Udang lipan (Harpiosquilla raphidea), J) Udang kipas (Thenus orientalis), K) Ikan tunjang langit (Triacanthus biaculeatus), L) Ikan sebelah (Pseudorhombus sp.), M) Ikan bulus (Harpadon nehereus), N) Horseshoe crab (Tachypleus gigas), O) Ikan belanak (Liza subviridis).

3-78 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

3-79

3.6.3.3 Spring tide (Daytime) A total number of 532 individuals of fish, 231 individuals of shrimps and 15 individuals of crab were caught at the study area during spring tide (daytime). The fishes, shrimps and crabs caught belonged to 20 families and comprised of 25 species (Table 3.8). At all the sampling stations (F1-F7), fish were caught using a trammel net, except stations F5 and F6 where the fish trap was deployed.

Among the species caught, Kasai (Setipinna taty) was the most dominant species, represented by 301 individuals (6 individuals at F1, 221 individuals at F2, 66 individuals at F3, a single individual at F4 and 7 individuals at F7), with a respective CPUE of 0.0441 ind/m2/hour at F1, 1.6231 ind/m2/hour at F2, 0.4847 ind/m2/hour at F3, 0.0073 ind/m2/hour at F4 and 0.0514 ind/m2/hour at F7. Selangat (Anodontastoma chacunda) was the second most abundant species, represented by 80 individuals (2 individuals at F1, a single individual at F3 and 77 individuals at F7), with a respective CPUE of 0.0147 ind/m2/hour at F1, 0.0073 ind/m2/hour at F3 and 0.5655 ind/m2/hour at F7.

Gelama (Johnius sp.) was also presented in high abundances during the spring tide (daytime), represented by 50 individuals (21 individuals at F2, 13 individuals at F3, 4 individuals at F4 and 12 individuals at F7), with a respective CPUE of 0.1542 ind/m2/hour at F2, 0.0955 ind/m2/hour at F3, 0.0294 ind/m2/hour at F4 and 0.0881 ind/m2/hour at F7. Duri (Arius sp.) recorded a CPUE value of 0.1542 ind/m2/hour.

3-80 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

The remaining fish species recorded a CPUE of less than 0.1 ind/m2/hour, consisting of Belukang (Arius sagor), Gerut (Pomadasys sp.), Bilis (Stolephorus sp), Belanak (Mugil cephalus), Senangin buih (Polydactylus sp.), Timah (Trichiurus sp.), Malong (Gymnothorax sp.), Bulu Ayam (Thryssa sp.), Sebelah (Pseudorhombus sp.), Lidah (Cynoglossus sp.1 (lingua)), Kekek (Leiognathus brevirostris), Tunjang langit (Triacanthus biaculeatus), Biji Nangka (Upeneus sp.), Beliak mata (Ilisha elongata), Daun baru (Drepane punctate), Kapas (Gerres sp.), Yu Cicak (Chiloscyllium indicum) and Pari (Dasyatis sp.1).

In terms of maturity, most of the species caught were adult fish belonging to small size species for example gelama (Johnius sp.), kasai (Setipinna taty) and selangat (Anodontastoma chacunda) reached maturity only at 9 cm of length. The overall lengths of fish fauna caught in a range of 3.0 cm to 67.2 cm and weights of 1.8 g to 226.9 g.

As for shrimps (Penaeus sp.), a total number of 212 individuals (166 individuals at F2, 40 individuals at F4, and 6 individuals at F7) were recorded, with a respective CPUE of 1.2191 ind/m2/hour at F2, 0.2938 ind/m2/hour at F4, and 0.0441 /m2/hour at F7. Most of the shrimps caught were adult with a length of 7 cm - 19 cm and weights of 1.5 g - 49 g. Other shrimp species recorded were Udang Lipan (Harpiosquilla raphidea) (19 individuals; 7 individuals at F2, 2 individuals at F4 and 10 individuals at F7) with an overall CPUE of 0.1395 ind/m2/hour.

Crabs (Portunus pelagicus) were caught at F2, F3 and F7 with a total number of 15 individuals recorded (2 individuals at F2, 5 individuals at F3 and 8 individuals at F7) and a respective CPUE of 0.0147 ind/m2/hour, 0.0367 m2/hour and 0.0588 ind/m2/hour respectively. All crabs were juvenile with lengths of 4.6 cm - 9.5 cm and weights of 5 g - 34.1 g.

In terms of biomass, Selangat (Anodontastoma chacunda) recorded the highest value with 20.60 g/m2/hour (Figure 3.23). The second highest species in terms of biomass was shrimp (Penaeus sp.) (14.11 g/m2/hour), followed by Gelama (Johnius sp) (12.48 g/m2/hour).

Station F2, recorded the highest number of individuals, comprising fishes, crabs and shrimps (424 individuals), followed by F7 (168 individuals) and F3 (92 individuals). Station F1 recorded the least number of individuals (25 individuals). In term of species diversity, station F7 recorded the most number of species (18 species), followed by station F4 (10 species) and stations F2 and F3 (8 species). Station F1 recorded the least number of species (5 species).

Figure 3.24 shows the overall fish fauna caught in relation to their commercial value. The highest proportion of fish fauna were of low commercial value (59%), followed by medium commercial value (21%) and high value (20%). Figure 3.25 shows the CPUE biomass per station, in relation to the commercial value of the fish fauna. It is noted that the highest CPUE biomass for high commercial value fish fauna was recorded at station F2 (9.2596 g/m2/hour), followed by station F7 (4.0643 g/m2/hour) and station F4 (3.9475 g/m2/hour). Station F1 recorded no high value fish fauna and station F3 recorded a CPUE biomass for high value fish of 0.4245 g/m2/hour.

As for medium value fish fauna, station F7 recorded the highest CPUE biomass (7.1401 g/m2/hour), followed by station F2 (7.0835 g/m2/hour), while stations F1, F3 and F4 recorded low CPUE biomass of medium value fish fauna (0 g/m2/hour, 3.6200 g/m2/hour and 0.4891 g/m2/hour, respectively). In terms of low value fish fauna, station F7 recorded the highest with 30.5690 g/m2/hour, followed by station F1 (10.1270 g/m2/hour) and station F3 (6.4012 g/m2/hour). Stations F2 and F4 recorded lower values (3.1272 g/m2/hour and 2.0762g/m2/hour, respectively).

3-81

Table 3.8 Fish Species Caught at the Study Area during Spring Tide (Daytime)

CPUE Commercial Station Family Local Name Scientific name No. Total Length (cm) Weight (g) Density Biomass Value (No./m2/hour) (g/m2/hour) Aridae Belukang Arius sagor Low 1 28.2 221.2 0.0073 1.6245 Ariidae Duri Arius sp. Low 15 12.9-25.2 12-162.7(CW:999.8) 0.1102 7.3428 Setipinna taty F1 Engraulidae Kasai Low 6 10-11 8-12(CW:61.5) 0.0441 0.4517 Anodontastoma Clupeidae Selangat Low 2 10-15 16-37(CW:53.3) 0.0147 0.3914 chacunda

Haemulidae Gerut Pomadasys sp. Low 1 14.2 43.1 0.0073 0.3165 Sciaenidae Gelama Johnius sp Medium 21 8.2-18.6 4.3-58.7(CW:901) 0.1542 6.6172 Engraulidae Kasai Setipinna taty Low 221 9.2-13.6 6.2-18.6(CW:204.9) 1.6231 1.5048 Engraulidae Bilis Stolephorus sp Low 3 4.2-10 0.9-9.6(CW:17.4) 0.0220 0.1278 Mugilidae Belanak Mugil cephalus Medium 1 17.6 63.5 0.0073 0.4664 F2 Ariidae Duri Arius sp. Low 3 13-15.5 21.8-45.6(CW:111) 0.0220 0.8152 Portunidae Ketam Bunga Portunus pelagicus High 2 5-5.6 10.7-18.3(CW:29) 0.0147 0.1344 Penaeidae Udang Penaeus sp. High 166 8-19 2.1-37(CW:1242.5) 1.2191 9.1252 Harpiosquilla Squillidae Udang lipan Low 7 9-12.5 10-19.3(CW:92.5) 0.0514 0.6793 raphidea Sciaenidae Gelama Johnius sp Medium 13 9-16 5.2-51.9 (CW:309.8) 0.0955 2.2752

Polynemidae Senangin Buih Polydactylus sp. Low 3 12-14.5 15.5-17 (CW:72.5) 0.0220 0.5325

Engraulidae Kasai Setipinna taty Low 66 6-17.7 1.8-42.6(CW:567.5) 0.4847 4.1679 Anodontastoma Clupeidae Selangat Low 1 14 38.2 0.0073 0.2806 F3 chacunda Ariidae Duri Arius sp. Low 2 14-25.5 29.8-116.6 (CW:146.4) 0.0147 1.0752

Trichiuridae Timah Trichiurus sp. Low 1 39 47 0.0073 0.3452

1.3447 Muraenidae Malong Gymnothorax sp. Medium 1 57 183.1 0.0073

3-82 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

CPUE Commercial Station Family Local Name Scientific name No. Total Length (cm) Weight (g) Density Biomass Value (No./m2/hour) (g/m2/hour) Portunidae Ketam Bunga Portunus pelagicus High 5 4.6-7.0 5-15(CW:57.8) 0.0367 0.4245 Engraulidae Bulu Ayam Thryssa sp. Low 9 10.5-15.5 5.9-10.4 (CW:72.9) 0.0661 0.5354 Paralichthyidae Sebelah Pseudorhombus sp. Low 3 10.5-11.5 10.4-44.2(CW:71.8) 0.0220 0.5273 Cynoglossus Cynoglossidae Lidah Low 2 11.5-12.4 16.6-17.9(CW:34.5) 0.0147 0.2534 sp.1(lingua) Engraulidae Kasai Setipinna taty Low 1 14 21.3 0.0073 0.1564 Sciaenidae Gelama Johnius sp Medium 4 10.2-12 12.4-27.5(CW:66.6) 0.0294 0.4891 F4 Leiognathus Leiognathidae Kekek Low 6 7.4-9.5 2.4-7.8 (CW:36) 0.0441 0.2644 brevirostris Triacanthus Triacanthidae Tunjang langit Low 1 9 7 0.0073 0.0514 biaculeatus Mullidae Biji Nangka Upeneus sp. Low 1 11 15 0.0073 0.1102 Penaeidae Udang Penaeus sp. High 40 7-18 1.5-32.1(CW:537.5) 0.2938 3.9475 Harpiosquilla Squillidae Udang lipan Low 2 9.5-11.5 9.7-14.5 (CW:24.2) 0.0147 0.1777 raphidea Anodontastoma Clupeidae Selangat Low 77 12.5-18 25-49.7(CW:2713) 0.5655 19.9249 chacunda Sciaenidae Gelama Johnius sp Medium 12 9-16 11-54.8(CW:422.3) 0.0881 3.1015 Paralichthyidae Sebelah Pseudorhombus sp. Low 10 6.2-8.6 5-11.3 (CW:87.9) 0.0734 0.6456 Cynoglossus Cynoglossidae Lidah Low 2 12.5-27.5 10.2-87.8 (CW:98) 0.0147 0.7197 sp.1(lingua) F7 Mullidae Biji Nangka Upeneus sp. Low 11 8.6-13 8.9-25.2(CW:199.8) 0.0808 1.4674 Engraulidae Kasai Setipinna taty Low 7 10-16.5 13.4-40.2(CW:177.2) 0.0514 1.3014

Clupeidae Beliak mata Ilisha elongata Low 7 10.5-13.5 15.9-20.1 (CW:139.1) 0.0514 1.0216

Leiognathus Leiognathidae Kekek Low 6 3-12.7 17.5-28.3 (CW:130) 0.0441 0.9548 brevirostris Ariidae Duri Arius sp. Low 1 22 39.5 0.0073 0.2901

3-83

CPUE Commercial Station Family Local Name Scientific name No. Total Length (cm) Weight (g) Density Biomass Value (No./m2/hour) (g/m2/hour) Drepanidae Ikan daun Drepane punctata Low 1 6.2 8.5 0.0073 0.0624 baru Engraulidae Bilis Stolephorus sp Low 2 8-10.5 3.2-12.4 (CW:15.6) 0.0147 0.1146 Drepanidae Kapas Gerres sp. Low 4 9-10.5 4.4-15.7 (CW:56.9) 0.0294 0.4179

Muraenidae Malong Gymnothorax sp. Medium 1 67.2 546.9 0.0073 4.0386 Chiloscyllium Hemiscylliidae Yu Cicak Low 1 52 352.4 0.0073 2.5881 indicum Dasyatidae Pari Dasyatis sp.1 High 2 12.5-34 43-226.9 (CW:269.8) 0.0147 1.9815 Penaeidae Udang Penaeus sp. High 6 8.5-18.5 3.6-49.1 (CW:141.1) 0.0441 1.0363 Harpiosquilla Squillidae Udang lipan Low 10 6.5-14.5 10.5-37.9 (CW:144.4) 0.0734 1.0605 raphidea Portunidae Ketam Bunga Portunus pelagicus High 8 5-9.5 7.5-34.1(CW:142.5) 0.0588 1.0466

Total 778 5.7138 88.3293

3-84 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

Figure 3.23 Fish biomass (g/m2/hour) at the study area during spring tide (Daytime)

3-85

Figure 3.24 Commercial value of fish fauna during neap tide (nightime)

Figure 3.25 CPUE biomass at each station based on commercial value during spring tide (daytime)

Plat 3: Fish caught at study area during spring tide (day time). A) Ikan duri (Arius sp.), B) Ikan timah (Trichiurus sp.), C) Ikan gelama (Johnius sp),D) Ikan kasai (Setipinna taty), E) Udang (Penaeus sp.), F) Ikan selangat (Anodontastoma chacunda), G) Ikan bilis (Stolephorus sp), H) Ikan bulu ayam (Thryssa sp.), I) Ketam bunga (Portunus pelagicus), J) Ikan biji nangka (Upeneus sp.), K) Ikan daun baru (Drepane punctate), L) Ikan pari (Dasyatis sp.1), M) Ikan senangin buih (Polydactylus sp.), N) Ikan belanak (Liza subviridis), O) Udang lipan (Harpiosquilla raphidea), P) Ikan tunjang langit (Triacanthus biaculeatus), Q) Ikan sebelah (Pseudorhombus sp.), R) Ikan kekek (Leiognathus brevirostris)

3-86 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

E

3-87

3-88 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

3.6.3.4 Spring tide (Night time) A total number of 312 individuals of fish, 51 individuals of shrimps and 3 individuals of crab were caught at the study area during spring tide (night time). The fishes, shrimps and crabs caught belonged to 16 families and comprised of 19 species (Table 3.9). At all the sampling stations (F1-F7), fish were caught using a trammel net, except stations F5 and F6 where the fish trap was deployed. Sampling was not carried out at station F1 due to safety reasons as station F1 is located at the river of Sungai Linggi where crocodiles have been reported hunting for food, mostly at nightime.

Among the species caught, Kasai (Setipinna taty) was the most dominant species, represented by 140 individuals (49 individuals at F2, 85 individuals at F4 and 6 individuals at F7), with a respective CPUE of 0.3599 /m2/hour at F2, 0.6243 /m2/hour at F4 and 0.0441 /m2/hour at F7.

Gelama (Johnius sp) was the second most abundant species, represented by 76 individuals (32 individuals at F2, 7 individuals at F3, a single individual at F4 and 36 individuals at F7) and with a respective CPUE of 0.2350 ind/m2/hour at F2, 0.0514 ind/m2/hour at F3, 0.0073 ind/m2/hour at F4 and 0.2644 ind/m2/hour at F7. Bulu Ayam (Thryssa sp.) was also present in high abundances, represented by 41 individuals (a single individual at F4 and 40 individuals at F7), with a respective CPUE of 0.0073 ind/m2/hour at F4 and 0.2938 ind/m2/hour at F7.

Duri (Arius sp.) recorded a CPUE of 0.1175 ind/m2/hour at all stations and Kekek (Leiognathus brevirostris) recorded a CPUE of 0.1028 ind/m2/hour. The remaining species recorded CPUE values of less than 0.1 ind/m2/hour, these included: Belukang (Arius sagor), Jalung-Jalung (Hemiramphus sp.), Selangat (Anodontastoma chacunda), Bilis (Stolephorus sp), Bawal (Pampus argentus), Kitang (Scatophagus argus), Usat (Plotosus lineatus), Lidah (Cynoglossus sp.1 (lingua)), Timah (Trichiurus sp.) and Sebelah (Pseudorhombus sp.).

In terms of maturity, most of the species caught were adult fish belonging to small size species for example gelama (Johnius sp.), kasai (Setipinna taty) and selangat (Anodontastoma chacunda) reached maturity only at 9 cm of length. The overall lengths of fish fauna caught in a range of 4.5 cm – 36.4 cm and weights of 2.8 g – 651.2 g.

As for shrimps (Penaeus sp.), a total of 48 individuals (37 individuals at F2, 7 individuals at F3, a single individual at F4 and 3 individuals at F7) were recorded, with a respective CPUE of 0.2717 ind/m2/hour at F2, 0.0514 ind/m2/hour at F3, 0.0073 ind/m2/hour at F4 and 0.0220 ind/m2/hour at F7. Most of the shrimps caught were adult with lengths of 9 cm - 13.5 cm and weights ranging from 3.4 g to 18.1 g. Other species of shrimp included Udang Lipan (Harpiosquilla raphidea) (2 individuals; a single individual each at F2 and F7, CPUE of 0.0147 ind/m2/hour) and Udang Kipas (Thenus orientalis) (a single individual at F7, CPUE of 0.0073 ind/m2/hour).

Crabs (Portunus pelagicus) were found at F2 and F7, with a total number of 4 individuals recorded (3 individuals at F3 and a single individual at F7) and a respective CPUE of 0.0220 ind/m2/hour and 0.0073 ind/m2/hour. All crabs were juvenile with lengths of 5 cm - 7.6 cm and weights of 13.7 g - 22.9 g.

In terms of biomass, Gelama (Johnius sp) recorded the highest value with 25.75 g/m2/hour (Figure 3.26). The second highest species in terms of biomass was Duri (Arius sp.) (13.96 g/m2/hour), followed by Kasai (Setipinna taty) (11.56 g/m2/hour).

Station F2, recorded the highest number of individuals comprising fishes, shrimps and crabs (148 individuals), followed by F7 (102 individuals) and F4 (93 individuals). The station with the least number of individuals was F3 (23 individuals). In term of species diversity, stations F2 and F7 recorded the highest number of species (11 species), followed by station F3 (7 species). Station F4 recorded the least number of species (6 species). Figure 3.27 shows the overall fish fauna caught in relation to their commercial value. The highest proportion of fish fauna caught were of low commercial value (53.5%), followed by medium commercial value (40.5%) and high commercial value (6%).

3-89

Figure 3.28 shows the CPUE biomass per station, in relation to the commercial value of the fish fauna. The highest CPUE biomass for high commercial value fish fauna was recorded at station F2 (2.6395 g/m2/hour), followed by station F3 (0.7447 g/m2/hour) and station F7 (0.4135 g/m2/hour). Station F4 recorded the lowest CPUE biomass in high value fish fauna with 0.0588 g/m2/hour.

As for medium value fish fauna, station F2 recorded the highest CPUE biomass (13.6361 g/m2/hour), followed by station F7 (10.1769 g/m2/hour). For the low value fish fauna, the highest CPUE biomass was recorded at station F7 (16.5495 g/m2/hour), followed by station F4 (8.6053 g/m2/hour).

3-90 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

Table 3.9 Fish Species Caught at the Study Area during Spring Tide (Nighttime)

CPUE Commercial Station Family Local Name Scientific name No. Total Length (cm) Weight (g) Density Biomass Value (No./m2/hour) (g/m2/hour) Aridae Belukang Arius sagor Low 1 30 326.6 0.0073 2.3986 16.2- Sciaenidae Gelama Johnius sp Medium 32 11.3-23.7 0.2350 13.6361 176.9(CW:1856.7) Hemiramphidae Jalung-jalung Hemiramphus Low 1 18.3 20.5 0.0073 0.1506 Engraulidae Kasai Setipinna taty Low 49 8.5-15.5 4.7-21.7(CW:400.1) 0.3599 2.9384 Ariidae Duri Arius sp. Low 2 16.6-20.5 46.4-84 (CW:130.4) 0.0147 0.9577 Anodontastoma Clupeidae Selangat Low 1 13.7 31.4 0.0073 0.2306 F2 chacunda Engraulidae Bilis Stolephorus sp Low 9 6.9-9.2 2.8-7.5(CW:50.7) 0.0661 0.3724 Leiognathus Leiognathidae Kekek Low 14 7.2-10.5 5.3(CW:98.6) 0.1028 0.7241 brevirostris Stromateidae Bawal Pampus argentus Low 1 5.9 3.4 0.0073 0.0250

Penaeidae Udang Penaeus sp. High 37 9.0-13.5 4.5-18.1(CW:359.4) 0.2717 2.6395 Harpiosquilla Squillidae Udang lipan Low 1 4.5 3.4 0.0073 0.0250 raphidea Sciaenidae Gelama Johnius sp Medium 7 8.3-15.6 5.9-51.4 (CW:253.1) 0.0514 1.8588

Scatophagidae Kitang Scatophagus argus Low 2 9-9.5 21.9-34.3 (CW:56.2) 0.0147 0.4127 Plotosidae Usat Plotosus lineatus Low 2 14-16 24.5-34.9 (CW:59.4) 0.0147 0.4362 Cynoglossus F3 Cynoglossidae Lidah Low 1 14 23.8 0.0073 0.1748 sp.1(lingua) Engraulidae Bilis Stolephorus sp Low 1 8.4 6.4 0.0073 0.0470 Portunidae Ketam Bunga Portunus pelagicus High 3 6-7.6 13.7-22.9 (CW:59.3) 0.0220 0.4355 Penaeidae Udang Penaeus sp. High 7 10-11.8 3.4-7.9 (42.1) 0.0514 0.3092 Engraulidae Kasai Setipinna taty Low 85 6.5-17.5 4.3-46.5(CW:991.1) 0.6243 7.2789 F4 Stromateidae Bawal Pampus argentus Low 1 5.5 3.4 0.0073 0.0250 Engraulidae Bulu Ayam Thryssa sp. Low 1 13 7 0.0073 0.0514

3-91

CPUE Commercial Station Family Local Name Scientific name No. Total Length (cm) Weight (g) Density Biomass Value (No./m2/hour) (g/m2/hour) Sciaenidae Gelama Johnius sp Medium 1 9.5 11.3 0.0073 0.0830 Ariidae Duri Arius sp. Low 4 14-19 30.7-70.4 (CW:170.2) 0.0294 1.2500 Penaeidae Udang Penaeus sp. High 1 10.5 8 0.0073 0.0588 41.5-651.2 Ariidae Duri Arius sp. Low 10 15.2-36.4 0.0734 11.7493 (CW:1599.8) Sciaenidae Gelama Johnius sp. Medium 36 8.3-18.9 7.1-83 (CW:1385.7) 0.2644 10.1769 Engraulidae Kasai Setipinna taty Low 6 12.5-19.4 13-56.2 (CW:183) 0.0441 1.3440 Cynoglossus Cynoglossidae Lidah Low 1 24.5 111.8 0.0073 0.8211 sp.1(lingua) Engraulidae Bulu Ayam Thryssa sp. Low 40 11.2-14.8 4.0-8.8 (CW:249.2) 0.2938 1.8302

F7 Trichiuridae Timah Trichiurus sp. Low 1 32 32.6 0.0073 0.2394

Portunidae Ketam Bunga Portunus pelagicus High 1 5 17.5 0.0073 0.1285 Pseudorhombus Paralichthyidae Sebelah Low 2 8.3-8.8 7.6-10.5 (CW:18.1) 0.0147 0.1329 sp. Harpiosquilla Squillidae Udang lipan High 1 19.5 38.8 0.0073 0.2850 raphidea Penaeidae Udang Penaeus sp. Low 3 10.4-11.2 15.4-16.8(CW:47.9) 0.0220 0.3518 Scyllaridae Udang kipas Thenus orientalis Low 1 7.5 11 0.0073 0.0808

Total 366 2.6880 63.6592

3-92 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

Figure 3.26 Fish biomass (g/m2/hour) at the study area during spring tide (Daytime)

3-93

Figure 3.27 Commercial value of fish fauna during spring tide (nighttime)

Figure 3.28 CPUE biomass at each station based on commercial value during spring tide (nighttime)

Plat 4: Fish caught at study area during spring tide (night time). A) Ikan gelama (Johnius sp), B) Ikan Jalung-Jalung (Hemiramphus), C) Ikan kasai (Setipinna taty), D) Ikan duri (Arius sp.), E) Ikan Selangat (Anodontastoma chacunda), F) Ikan bilis (Stolephorus sp), G) Ikan kekek

3-94 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

(Leiognathus brevirostris), H) Ikan Bawal (Pampus argentus), I) Udang (Penaeus sp.), J) Udang Lipan (Harpiosquilla raphidea), K) Ikan Kitang (Scatophagus argus), L) Ikan Usat (Plotosus lineatus), M) Ikan Lidah ((Cynoglossus sp.1(lingua), N) Ketam Bunga (Portunus pelagicus), O) Ikan Bulu Ayam (Thryssa sp.), P) Ikan Timah (Trichiurus sp.), Q) Ikan Sebelah (Pseudorhombus sp.), R) Udang Kipas (Thenus orientalis)

3-95

3-96 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

3.6.3.5 Fish Trap (Bubu) Fish Traps (Bubu) were deployed at stations F5 and F6, measuring 1.5 m in length, 0.9 m in width and 0.5 m in height. The deployment of the fish traps at these two locations was due to hard substrate at these survey stations which made the use of fish nets impractical. Section 3.5 and Figure 3.14 of this report detailed the location of coral coverage around the proposed project area. The fish trap was deployed for 2 weeks, following the normal practice of local fishermen, deploying around 7 to 10 days.

The fish fauna results for station F6 is not available due to missing fish trap reported by fishermen on the day of data collection. The fish fauna caught using this method comprised of nine (9) individuals from four (4) different species represented in Table 3.10.

Table 3.10 Fish Species Caught at the Study Area during Spring Tide (Nighttime)

Scientific Commercial Total Station Local Name No. Weight (g) name Value Length (cm)

Pomacanthus 595.6-1173.6 Ikan karang Low 3 26.5-31.2 annularis (CW:2645.4) Ikan Karang? Scolopsis sp? Low 1 25.6 229 F5 141.3- Ikan Pasir Scolopsis sp. Low 3 20-29 377.2(CW:768.8) Fucilier caesio 134.2-151.7 Ikan Tauhu Low 2 19.2-20.6 sp. (CW:285.9)

Photo 3.43 Fish caught at station F5 using bubu.

3-97

3.6.3.6 Local Landing Sites Visit to landing site was conducted on 14 March 2016 and 22 April 2016 located at fisherman jetty at Rural Transformation Centre (RTC), Kuala Linggi, Melaka, which is one (1) of the 27 fish landing areas in Malacca while in Negeri Sembilan there are 11 fish landing areas, according to the respective Department of Fisheries. At landing site, fishermen brought to the shore the catches comprising mostly high value fishes, shrimps and squids to be sold off to middleman. Most of the fishing activities are conducted along the coastline from Pasir Panjang, Negeri Sembilan to Tg. Kling, Malacca. The common fishing grounds cover an area of 48,369 ha.

The species caught during these visit were talang (Scomberoides tala), pari (Dasyatis sp.), mandi abu (Diagramma pictum) and jenahak (Lutjanus sp.) with total weight of each day is around 150 kg.

Photo 3.44 Weighting of the catches before being loaded onto the lorry

3-98 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

Photo 3.45 Close up picture of species diversity at landing site

Photo 3.46 Close up picture of species diversity at landing site

Local landing sites will be visited on a number of occasions and fishermen interviewed as to location, catch size and species caught

3-99

3.7 Plankton Communities

Plankton are microscopic organisms that form a major link in the aquatic food web. The biological productivity of a marine ecosystem is largely dependent on the primary production by phytoplankton which is subsequently consumed by heterotrophs such as zooplankton, fish or marine mammals and benthos.

These planktonic communities are generally influenced by various environmental factors. Main factors contributing to the heterogeneity of plankton composition and distribution are light and nutrients. Moreover, spatial variation is also largely influenced by hydrodynamic processes such as water currents, tides and wind.

The purpose of the present study is to investigate the composition and spatial distribution of plankton communities, during flood and ebb tides, within the perimeters of the proposed project area.

3.7.1 Methodology

3.7.1.1 Sampling Methodology Plankton samples were collected by lowering the plankton net to eight tenths of the water column depth and gradually towing up to the sea surface (vertical tow). The phytoplankton net had a mesh size of 40 µm and the zooplankton net a mesh size of 122 µm. At each station, water sample tows for both phytoplankton and zooplankton were replicated twice. The nets were washed and the plankton material was collected at the cod end of the net. The plankton material was then transferred into polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic bottles. To prevent sample degradation, the phytoplankton and zooplankton samples were preserved with Lugol solution and 5% formalin, respectively. The sample bottles were then stored in an icebox with temperature below 10ºC for transport to the laboratory. Figure 3.29 shows the sampling stations while the corresponding coordinates and sampling depths are given in Table 3.11.

3-100 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

Figure 3.29 Sampling location for plankton survey

Table 3.11 Plankton sampling station coordinates.

Survey Coordinates (Decimal Sampling Remark Volume filtered Station Degrees) Depth (m) Longitude Latitude Phytoplankton Zooplankton (E) (N) P1 102.005585 2.407569 2 River 907 814 P2 101.979776 2.392528 3.5 River 1588 1425 P3 101.950102 2.380867 9 Marine 4083 3664 P4 102.046309 2.317154 12 Marine 5444 4886 P5 102.107902 2.253063 14 Marine 6351 5700 P6 101.847467 2.386217 40 Marine 18146 16286 P7 101.894086 2.33064 30 Marine 13609 12214 P8 101.935662 2.298292 30 Marine 13609 12214

3-101

3.7.1.2 Laboratory Methodology

Phytoplankton a) Density estimation

Individual samples containing phytoplankton were poured into a beaker and its volume was recorded. The sample inside the beaker was stirred gently to allow random mixing of the phytoplanktonic content. 1 ml of subsample was extracted using a standardized 1 ml Hansen Stempel pipette and transferred onto a Sedgewick-Rafter cell for identification and enumeration. The samples were viewed at 200x magnification using an inverted microscope. Phytoplankton were identified to the lowest practical taxa and enumeration, including individual cells that formed long chains. The density of phytoplankton cells was calculated based on the following equation:

푁푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 푝ℎ푦푡표푝푙푎푛푘푡표푛 푐푒푙푙푠 𝑖푛 1 푚푙 × 푉표푙푢푚푒 표푓 푝푟푒푠푒푟푣푒푑 푠푎푚푝푙푒 퐷푒푛푠𝑖푡푦 (푐푒푙푙 퐿−1) = 푉표푙푢푚푒 표푓 푠푒푎푤푎푡푒푟 푓𝑖푙푡푒푟푒푑 (퐿)

b) Biodiversity

Biodiversity of phytoplankton was determined using the Shannon-Wiener diversity index (H’) and Pielou’s evenness (J’) of each identified taxa from each sampling station. A Shannon- Wiener diversity index of 0 would indicate that only one species is present in the community and this index value increases with increasing species richness. The value of H’ was expressed using the following formula:

푆ℎ푎푛푛표푛 − 푊푒𝑖푛푒푟 퐼푛푑푒푥, 퐻′ = −Σ(pi ln pi)

푁푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 𝑖푛푑𝑖푣𝑖푑푢푎푙 표푓 푒푎푐ℎ 푡푎푥푎 푤ℎ푒푟푒, 푃𝑖 = 푇표푡푎푙 푛푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 𝑖푛푑𝑖푣𝑖푑푢푎푙푠

Pielou’s index was used to determine the evenness of species distribution or similarity of species proportion in a community. This index is represented by J. The maximum value of this index is 1 which means that all the species are evenly distributed in a community. Pielou’s index was derived from Shannon-Wiener diversity index as shown by the following formula:

퐻′ 푃𝑖푒푙표푢′푠 퐼푛푑푒푥, 퐽′ = ln 푠 푤ℎ푒푟푒, 푠 = 푛푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 푠푝푒푐𝑖푒푠

Zooplankton a) Abundance estimation

Zooplankton were subsampled from 30 ml to 40 ml of sample using a 1 ml Stempel pipette and transferred onto a Sedgewick-Rafter cell for enumeration. All individuals on the Sedgewick-Rafter cell were counted and identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level. Total abundance for each sampling station was estimated using the following equation:

푁푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 푧표표푝푙푎푛푘푡표푛 퐴푏푢푛푑푎푛푐푒 (𝑖푛푑 푚−푠) = 푉표푙푢푚푒 표푓 푠푒푎푤푎푡푒푟 푓𝑖푙푡푒푟푒푑 (푚3)

b) Biodiversity

Biodiversity indices of zooplankton which include species richness (S), Shannon-Wiener diversity index (H’) and Pielou’s evenness (J’) were calculated for the identified zooplankton

3-102 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

taxa (excluding copepod nauplius and unidentified calanoids and eggs). Formulas used for biodiversity indices are as stated in the previous section.

3.7.2 Results

3.7.2.1 Phytoplankton

Density Cells count was highest at P1 during ebb condition (4,251±1,476 cells L-1) (Figure 3.30) due to the dominance of the Bacillariophyta, Cyclotella sp. The dominance of Cyclotella sp. cells resulted in the lowest values for diversity and evenness of the phytoplankton community at P1 (H’=0.16, J’0.09) and P2 (H’=0.89, J’=0.38) during ebb condition. High cell count was also observed at P8 during both ebb (354±2 cells L-1) and flood conditions (423±31 cells L-1) due to the dominant presence of the chained Bacillariophyta, Hemiaulus sp. and Eucampia sp. cells.

During flood condition, the dominant presence of Hemiaulus sp. cells resulted in the high cell count at P5 (338±31 cells L-1), P6 (325±129 cells L-1) and P7 (338±101 cells L-1). However, the phytoplankton community was the least diverse at these stations (H’ between 1.43 and 1.77, J’ between 0.50 and 0.58) (Table 3.12). The total number of taxa during ebb condition ranged between 9 and 25 taxa whereas during flood condition, the number of taxa was relatively higher at all stations (except P8), ranging between 20 and 27 taxa.

Figure 3.30 Density of phytoplankton cells (cells L-1) by station and tidal condition.

Table 3.12 Total density (cells L-1), total taxa, Shannon-Wiener diversity index and Pielou’s index of evenness of phytoplankton community at each station.

Tide Station Total Taxa Total Density (cells Shannon-Wiener Pielou’s Index, L-1) Index, H’ J’

Ebb P1 9 4,251±1,476 0.16±0.08 0.09±0.03

P2 15 382±220 0.89±0.10 0.38±0.08

P3 23 108±11 2.24±0.12 0.76±0.00

3-103

Tide Station Total Taxa Total Density (cells Shannon-Wiener Pielou’s Index, L-1) Index, H’ J’

P4 25 222±39 2.50±0.02 0.82±0.00

P5 22 161±80 1.92±0.69 0.69±0.14

P6 17 101±4 2.31±0.08 0.83±0.03

P7 17 48±19 1.87±0.12 0.68±0.01

P8 23 354±2 2.03±0.14 0.69±0.05

Flood P1 24 245±44 2.35±0.02 0.78±0.00

P2 27 148±31 2.57±0.02 0.84±0.01

P3 26 109±16 2.30±0.01 0.76±0.02

P4 25 131±12 2.15±0.00 0.70±0.01

P5 25 338±31 1.77±0.09 0.58±0.02

P6 22 325±129 1.61±0.25 0.55±0.06

P7 20 338±101 1.43±0.13 0.50±0.04

P8 20 423±31 1.64±0.07 0.57±0.04

Taxa Composition Figure 3.31 shows the number of taxa found at each station during each tidal condition while Table 3.13 and Table 3.14 show the list of phytoplankton taxa identified for each tidal condition. A total of 39 phytoplankton taxa were identified, belonging to groups Bacillariophyta (30 taxa), Pyrrophyta (3), Cyanobacteria (3), Foraminifera (2) and Tintinnida (1). Cells of Bacillariophyta formed the majority of cells at all stations during both flood and ebb tide, comprising 89% - 98% of the total cell count at each station.

During ebb condition, the cells of Cyclotella sp. comprised an overwhelming majority of the total cell count at P1 (97%) and P2 (68%). The solitary cells of Coscinodiscus sp. were dominant at P3, P4, P5 and P7, comprising between 29% - 47% of the total cell count. The long chained cells of Eucampia sp. and Hemiaulus sp. formed between 16% and 32% of the total cell count at both P6 and P8, forming the majority cells. Cells of Skeletonema sp., Chaetoceros sp., Rhizosolenia sp. and foraminifera comprised a substantial portion of the total cell count at P2 (26%), P5 (22%), P6 (14%) and P7 (11%), respectively.

During flood condition, cells of Hemiaulus sp. formed the majority of cells at all stations, except P1 with a composition that ranged between 14% and 62% of the total cell count. This was followed by cells of Cyclotella sp. and Thalassionema sp. at P2 (13% and 14% respectively), Coscinodiscus sp. at P3 (12%) and P4 (17%), Nitzschia sp. cells at P4 (13%), Rhizosolenia sp. cells at P3 (13%) and P5 (11%), and Eucampia sp. cells at P7 (16%) and P8 (19%). At P1, cells of Skeletonema sp. predominated with 33% of the total cell count followed by Scenedesmus sp. and Cyclotella sp. cells with 13% and 11% compositions respectively. Other phytoplankton taxa constituted less than 10% of the overall phytoplankton cells at each of the station during both tidal conditions.

3-104 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

Figure 3.31 Total number of phytoplankton taxa by station and tidal condition.

Tide Station Total Taxa Total Density (cells Shannon-Wiener Pielou’s Index, L-1) Index, H’ J’

Ebb P1 13 2556±1478 1.77±0.25 0.73±0.16

P2 14 2527±1042 2.02±0.09 0.78±0.05

P3 18 1169±192 2.09±0.10 0.73±0.03

P4 17 589±311 2.18±0.01 0.79±0.03

P5 15 370±9 1.89±0.16 0.73±0.02

P6 15 433±79 2.29±0.10 0.87±0.00

P7 18 597±73 2.04±0.21 0.71±0.06

P8 16 348±29 2.22±0.08 0.82±0.00

Flood P1 15 2332±140 1.98±0.34 0.75±0.10

P2 21 3679±1110 2.15±0.11 0.71±0.04

P3 14 510±70 2.07±0.15 0.80±0.04

P4 14 334±180 1.89±0.16 0.72±0.06

P5 18 492±47 2.12±0.05 0.75±0.00

P6 17 341±138 2.32±0.23 0.85±0.04

P7 21 795±47 2.50±0.10 0.85±0.01

P8 18 778±359 2.23±0.10 0.83±0.05

3-105

Table 3.13 Percent composition (%) of phytoplankton by station during ebb tide.

Group Taxa Station (during ebb condition)

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8

Bacillariophyta Amphiprora sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.3 0.0 1.2 0.0

Amphora sp. 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.2

Bacteriastrum 0.0 0.2 3.1 3.6 6.4 3.7 1.4 6.5 sp.

Biddulphia sp. 0.1 0.5 3.5 6.5 4.6 3.9 1.7 1.7

Coscinodiscus 0.2 1.4 36.9 28.9 35.1 10.5 46.9 4.4 sp.

Chaetoceros 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 sp.

Cyclotella sp. 96.8 68.3 12.2 5.1 22.4 2.1 8.4 1.5

Dactyliosolen 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sp.

Diploneis sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ditylum sp. 0.0 0.1 1.4 1.1 1.2 0.2 0.3 0.3

Dityocha sp. 0.0 0.0 3.5 2.1 1.6 0.7 0.9 0.1

Eucampia sp. 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 21.7 0.0 29.5

Guinardia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5

Hemiaulus sp. 0.0 0.0 2.9 1.1 2.2 15.8 3.8 32.2

Lauderia sp. 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.1 0.0 6.1 0.0 3.3

Leptocylindrus 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 sp.

Leucosolenia 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sp.

Melosira sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Navicula sp. 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.5 0.4 0.0 2.0 0.8

Nitzschia sp. 0.0 0.4 7.7 4.0 3.4 8.8 9.6 4.3

Paediastrum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 sp.

Pleurosigma sp. 0.0 0.1 5.4 2.9 1.8 1.2 4.4 0.6

Rhizosolenia 0.0 0.2 4.1 2.3 3.3 13.5 3.8 4.6 sp.

Scenedesmus 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 sp.

Skeletonema 1.6 26.1 2.7 3.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 sp.

Stauroneis sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Surirella sp. 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.1

3-106 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

Group Taxa Station (during ebb condition)

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8

Thalassionema 0.1 0.2 1.3 7.9 2.3 0.7 0.0 1.6 sp.

Thalassiothrix 0.0 0.3 2.1 6.6 4.1 4.6 0.0 1.6 sp.

Triceratium sp. 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Cyanobacteria Anabaena sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1

Arthrospira sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Oscillatoria sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Foraminifera Globigerinella 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.7 0.5 2.3 0.0 sp.

Unidentified 0.0 0.1 2.3 2.0 1.4 2.5 11.3 0.0 foraminifera

Pyrrophyta Ceratium sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dinophysis sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Protoperidinium 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sp.

Tintinnida Unidentified 0.6 0.9 6.3 9.9 3.3 3.3 0.9 0.6 tintinnida

Table 3.14 Percent composition (%) of phytoplankton by station during flood tide.

Group Taxa Station (during flood condition)

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8

Bacillariophyta Amphiprora sp. 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.7 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1

Amphora sp. 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.3

Bacteriastrum 0.2 0.2 0.9 1.7 1.5 2.2 2.4 2.0 sp.

Biddulphia sp. 2.9 2.6 2.6 1.4 1.7 1.1 0.5 1.1

Coscinodiscus 3.7 3.8 12.3 17.4 9.4 3.8 2.4 1.5 sp.

Chaetoceros 1.8 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 sp.

Cyclotella sp. 10.8 12.6 1.9 3.7 1.6 0.7 0.3 0.0

Dactyliosolen 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 2.1 1.7 3.1 sp.

Diploneis sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0

Ditylum sp. 3.2 3.2 1.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.7

Dityocha sp. 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0

Eucampia sp. 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.0 0.5 9.6 16.2 18.6

3-107

Group Taxa Station (during flood condition)

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8

Guinardia sp. 0.3 3.9 0.0 0.4 1.1 0.0 0.4 1.8

Hemiaulus sp. 4.7 14.2 32.8 35.5 52.8 60.7 61.5 53.5

Lauderia sp. 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.1 0.2 3.2 3.1 5.0

Leptocylindrus 0.0 1.4 1.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sp.

Leucosolenia 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sp.

Melosira sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Navicula sp. 0.7 0.4 0.7 1.3 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.9

Nitzschia sp. 1.6 0.7 4.5 13.0 9.6 1.7 0.7 2.1

Paediastrum 2.1 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 sp.

Pleurosigma 1.2 3.6 2.1 1.1 1.7 0.2 0.6 0.6 sp.

Rhizosolenia 3.7 6.4 13.4 8.8 10.9 8.3 6.7 6.2 sp.

Scenedesmus 12.5 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sp.

Skeletonema 33.0 5.0 3.0 0.6 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 sp.

Stauroneis sp. 0.0 1.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Surirella sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1

Thalassionema 6.0 13.5 4.3 2.4 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.2 sp.

Thalassiothrix 2.3 6.5 3.8 1.4 1.4 2.5 0.4 1.0 sp.

Triceratium sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Cyanobacteria Anabaena sp. 3.2 4.3 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Arthrospira sp. 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Oscillatoria sp. 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Foraminifera Globigerinella 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 sp.

Unidentified 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 foraminifera

Pyrrophyta Ceratium sp. 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dinophysis sp. 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Protoperidinium 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sp.

3-108 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

Group Taxa Station (during flood condition)

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8

Tintinnida Unidentified 1.1 1.7 3.7 3.4 1.1 1.1 0.4 0.2 tintinnida

Table 3.15 Composition of phytoplankton group by station.

Species Identification Photo 3.47 to Photo 3.53 shows species from phytoplankton taken from the sampling station under microscope.

3-109

Photo 3.47 Species from the left: Amphiprora sp., unidentified Tintinnida and Skeletonema sp.

Photo 3.48 Species from the left: Triceratium sp., Scenedesmus sp. and Thalassionema sp.

Photo 3.49 Clockwise from top left: Bacteriastrum sp., Navicula sp., Eucampia sp. and Dityocha sp.

3-110 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

Photo 3.50 Clockwise from top left: Hemiaulus sp., Ditylum sp., Lauderia sp. and Coscinodiscus sp.

Photo 3.51 Clockwise from top left: Arthrospira sp., Cyclotella sp. and Nitzschia sp.

3-111

Photo 3.52 Clockwise from top left: Biddulphia sp., Thalassiothrix sp., Rhizosolenia sp. and Pleurosigma sp.

Photo 3.53 Diploneis sp. (left) and an unidentified foraminifera (right).

3.7.2.2 Zooplankton

Abundance The highest zooplankton abundance recorded throughout the eight stations was at Station P2 during the flood tide with 3679±1110 ind m-3 recorded. Station P1 and P2 had relatively higher zooplankton abundance compared to other stations due to the high density of calanoid copepods. The dominance of Parvocalanus crassirostris and Acartiella sinensis resulted in the lowest diversity and evenness of the zooplankton community at P1 (H’ = 1.77±0.25, J’ = 0.73±0.16).

During the flood tide, station P7 recorded the highest diversity (H’ = 2.50±0.10, J’ = 0.85±0.01) but with lower abundance (795±47 ind m-3) (Table 3.16 and Figure 3.32). The total number of taxa recorded during flood tide ranged between 14 and 21 taxa, whereas lower numbers of

3-112 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

taxa were recorded during the ebb tide, which ranged between 13 and 18 taxa (Table 3.16 and Figure 3.33).

Table 3.16 Total abundance (individual/m3), total taxa, Shannon-Wiener diversity index and Pielou’s index of evenness of zooplankton community at each station.

Figure 3.32 Abundance of zooplankton (ind/m3) by station and tidal condition.

Figure 3.33 Total number of zooplankton taxa by station and tidal condition

Taxa Composition Figure 3.34 shows the percentage composition of zooplankton across the eight sampling stations. Figure 3.29 shows the list of zooplankton taxa identified. There were a total of 37 taxa comprising copepods from the order Calanoida, Monstrilloida, Cyclopoida, Harpaticoida, crustacean (copepod nauplii, cirriped larvae, decapod larvae, amphipod, mysid) and non- crustacean (chaetognath, cnidarian, polychaete larvae, fish larvae, mollusc and identified eggs).

Calanoid copepods formed the majority of the zooplankton community in all stations, comprising between 54% (station P6) and 81% (station P4) of the total abundance (Figure 3.34). The two dominant calanoid species that were present in all stations were Paracalanus aculeatus, that comprised 32% of the total abundance during flood tide at P4, and Parvocalanus crassirostris, that comprised at 32% of the total abundance at P1 during the ebb tide.

3-113

During the flood tide, the major calanoid copepods were Acrocalanus gibber (P8 with 6%), Bestiolina similis (P5 with 9%), Subeucalanus subcrassus (P6 with 15%) and Temora longicornis (P5 with 9%). The cyclopoid, Oithona sp. comprised 15% of total abundance at P2 (Table 3.17). Other non-crustacean zooplankton such as chaetognaths were present at all stations but with low density and composition that ranged from 0.6% (P2) to 4.5% (P6).

During ebb tide, Acartiella sinensis (28%) and Bestiolina similis (15%) formed a substantial portion of the zooplankton community at P1 with 28% and 15% compositions respectively, whereas Corycaeus andrewsi comprised 11% of the zooplankton at P7. Other crustaceans such as cirriped larvae had highest composition at P2 with 10% (Figure 3.34). Molluscs comprised 11% of the recorded zooplankton at P8.

Figure 3.34 Composition of various zooplankton groups at eight sampling stations.

Table 3.17 Percent composition (%) of zooplankton taxa by station during flood tide.

Taxa Flood Tide (%)

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8

Copepod nauplius 7.4 10.5 13.7 7.7 5.7 11 6.2 11.1

Calanoida

Acartia spinicauda 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0

Acartiella sinensis 0 1.1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bestiolina similis 0 2.1 0 8.3 9.3 0.5 4.1 0.5

Euchaeta concinna 0 0 2.6 1.5 0 0 0 0

Paracalanus aculeatus 24.2 14.9 17.7 31.9 18.6 9.4 15.5 15.3

Parvocalanus 6.8 21.2 13.7 21.8 22.8 3.1 1.5 5.3 crassirostris

Acrocalanus gibber 5.3 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.9 4 5.2 5.8

3-114 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

Taxa Flood Tide (%)

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8

Canthocalanus pauper 0 0 3.2 0 0 0 0 0

Centropages gracilis 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 6.3

Centropages tenuiremis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Corycaeus andrewsi 0 0 0 0 0 5.8 7.2 10.5

Subeucalanus 0.1 0.4 4.8 0.6 2.1 14.4 8.2 13.2 subcrassus

Pseudodiaptomus 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 annandalei

Temora longicornis 0 0 1.6 7.1 8.6 3.8 3.1 0.5

Tortanus barbatus 0 0 0 0 0.7 0 0 0

Pseudodiaptomus sp. 0 0.8 0 0.9 0.7 0 0.5 1.1

Labidocera sp. 0 0.6 1.6 0 0 0 0 0

Paracalanidae 5.8 7.4 13.7 8.9 11.4 11.2 8.8 11.6 copepodid

Acartia copepodid 1.1 0.8 0.8 1.5 1.4 0 0 0

Monstrilloida 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 0.5 0

Cyclopoida

Oitona sp. 6.8 14.9 11.2 2.5 5 5.1 6.7 3.2

Harpaticoida

Euterpina acutifrons 5.8 4.4 2.4 1.5 5.7 2.2 3.1 1.6

Harpaticoid sp. 0 1.5 0 1.2 0 4.9 1 0

Cirriped larvae 21.1 4.8 3.2 0 0 0 0.5 1.1

Decapod larvae

Acetes protozoea 6.3 3.8 2.4 0 1.4 2.2 1 0.5

Caridean larvae 3.7 1.1 0 0 0.2 9.6 0.5 1.1

Crab zoea 1.6 0.8 0.8 0 0.7 1.1 0.5 0

Euphausiid nauplius 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.9 0

Chaetognath 0.8 0.6 0.9 1.2 1 4.5 3.1 5.3

Amphipod 0 0.8 0 0 0.1 0.7 0 0

Cnidaria (jellyfish) 0 0.4 2.4 0 0 0 0.5 0

Polychaete larvae 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.1 1.5 2 2.1 2.6

Mysid 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fish larvae 1.6 0 0 0.9 0.1 1.4 0 1.1

Mollusk 0 0 0 0 0 2.2 4.6 2.6

Unidentified eggs 0.1 2.9 0.1 0 0 0 0 0

3-115

Table 3.18 Percent composition (%) of zooplankton taxa by station during ebb tide.

Taxa Ebb Tide (%)

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8

Copepod nauplius 0.7 0.4 4.1 9.4 12.1 8.5 21.3 15.1

Calanoida

Acartia spinicauda 3.6 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Acartiella sinensis 28.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 12.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bestiolina similis 15.1 6.3 8.2 9.9 5.0 1.1 2.1 2.1

Euchaeta concinna 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

Paracalanus aculeatus 5.0 16.7 20.8 17.2 18.5 12.8 11.2 11.5

Parvocalanus 32.0 25.8 23.2 12.5 24.2 7.4 3.0 6.4 crassirostris

Acrocalanus gibber 0.0 1.7 3.4 4.2 9.3 3.2 3.1 1.2

Canthocalanus pauper 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0

Centropages gracilis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.9

Centropages tenuiremis 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

Corycaeus andrewsi 0.0 0.0 1.9 3.1 0.0 4.3 11.3 10.6

Subeucalanus 0.0 0.0 4.6 4.2 0.7 5.3 10.3 2.8 subcrassus

Pseudodiaptomus 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 annandalei

Temora longicornis 0.0 0.4 5.1 5.7 5.0 7.4 1.4 3.3

Tortanus barbatus 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pseudodiaptomus sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Labidocera sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Paracalanidae copepodid 0.0 22.9 9.9 18.8 5.0 12.8 18.1 9.2

Acartia copepodid 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Monstrilloida 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.4 0.0

Cyclopoida

Oitona sp. 1.0 6.7 2.0 2.6 1.4 3.2 2.1 4.5

Harpaticoida

Euterpina acutifrons 0.0 0.8 7.5 4.2 0.7 2.1 2.5 0.9

Harpaticoid sp. 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.2

Cirriped larvae 2.6 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.1 0.0 0.0

Decapod larvae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

3-116 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

Taxa Ebb Tide (%)

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8

Acetes protozoea 0.7 0.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.2

Caridean larvae 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.5 1.2

Crab zoea 0.7 0.8 3.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2

Euphausiid nauplius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Chaetognath 0.1 0.8 0.3 1.2 0.9 5.3 1.4 7.5

Amphipod 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Cnidaria (jellyfish) 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.6 0.7 5.3 1.7 2.1

Polychaete larvae 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.6 0.0 7.4 0.5 4.0

Mysid 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0

Fish larvae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0

Mollusca 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.5 0.0 9.6 5.5 11.3

Unidentified eggs 0.0 0.4 2.3 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 1.9

Species Identification Photo 3.54 to Photo 3.59 shows species of zooplankton taken from the sampling stations under the microscope.

Photo 3.54 Clockwise from top left: Euchaeta concinna, Pithona sp., Euterpina acutifrons and Corycaeus andrewsi.

3-117

Photo 3.55 Clockwise from top left: mysid, caridean larvae, Subeucalanus subcrassus and Acartiella sinensis.

Photo 3.56 Clockwise from top left: chaetognath, mollusc (bivalve), Bestiolina similis and Paracalanus aculeatus.

3-118 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

Photo 3.57 Clockwise from top left: Parvocalanus crassirostris, polychaeta larva, unidentified egg and fish larvae

Photo 3.58 Clockwise from top left: Temora longicornis, decapod (lucifer), copepod nauplius and amphipod.

3-119

Photo 3.59 Acrocalanus gibber (left) and Acartia sp. (right).

3.8 Macrobenthos

Macrobenthos refers to marine or freshwater organisms adapted to living on and in the substrates. These organisms are defined by size of equal to or more than 0.5 mm length. Typical macrobenthic groups include polychaetes, crustaceans, molluscs and juvenile or larvae fishes. Macrobenthos forms an important component in energy transfer from primary producers to consumers of a higher trophic level. For example, marine macrobenthos such as polychaetes, hermit crabs, bivalves and echinoderms can digest the sediment detrital material through deposit feeding and some of these animals are also capable of ingesting seston through suspension feeding /30/. On the other hand, these ubiquitous organisms also serve as food items for larger predatory fishes and crabs /31/. Activities of macrobenthos, such as burrowing and deposit feeding (which are collectively known as bioturbation processes), increase the quality of sediments by allowing displacement and mixing of sediment particles /32/. Additionally, this process also serves as an important factor in modulating the structure of the infaunal communities /33/.

3.8.1 Methodologies

3.8.1.1 Sampling Methodology Sediment samples were obtained using a Van Veen grab. All grab samples were stored in zip lock bags before being taken to land where sediment samples were sieved through a 1 mm sieve plate to remove sediment larger than 1 mm in size. Organisms left on the sieve were stored in bottles and preserved in 10% formalin solution and sent to the laboratory for identification. Figure 3.35 shows the sampling stations while the corresponding coordinates are given in Table 3.19.

3-120 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

Figure 3.35 Macrobenthos survey locations

Table 3.19 Macrobenthos sampling stations coordinates.

Sampling Coordinates Stations Longitude (E) Latitude (N) B1 101.9446 2.3966 B2 101.9566 2.3916 B3 101.9603 2.3841 B4 101.9664 2.3763 B5 101.9779 2.3659 B6 101.9743 2.3615 B7 101.9626 2.3721 B8 101.9552 2.3786 B9 101.9488 2.3835 B10 101.9392 2.3908 B11 101.9342 2.3855

3-121

Sampling Coordinates Stations Longitude (E) Latitude (N) B12 101.9432 2.3784 B13 101.9493 2.3725 B14 101.9570 2.3661 B15 101.9692 2.3559 B16 101.9301 2.3656

3.8.1.2 Laboratory Methodology The presence of organisms was visually sighted with the aid of magnifier and sorted into a petri dish. Large organisms were taken out and identified to the lowest taxa while the remaining small organisms were identified with the aid of a dissecting microscope. The density of macrobenthos at each station was calculated as follow:

푇표푡푎푙 푛푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 𝑖푛푑𝑖푣𝑖푑푢푎푙 퐷푒푛푠𝑖푡푦표푓 푚푎푐푟표푣푏푒푛푡ℎ표푠 = 퐴푟푒푎 표푓 푠푒푑𝑖푚푒푛푡 푠푎푚푝푙푒푑

Similar to the indices used to assess planktonic communities, Shannon-Wiener index of diversity was also used to express the level of species richness in the macrobenthic community taking into account the proportion of each species. The value of this index is represented by H’. Index value of 0 indicates that only one species is present in the community and this value would increase with increasing species richness.

푆ℎ푎푛푛표푛 − 푊푒𝑖푛푒푟 퐼푛푑푒푥, 퐻′ = −Σ(pi ln pi)

푁푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 𝑖푛푑𝑖푣𝑖푑푢푎푙 표푓 푒푎푐ℎ 푡푎푥푎 푤ℎ푒푟푒, 푃𝑖 = 푇표푡푎푙 푛푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 𝑖푛푑𝑖푣𝑖푑푢푎푙푠

Pielou’s index was used to determine the evenness of species distribution or similarity of species proportion in a community. This index is represented by J. The maximum value of this index is 1 which means that all the species is evenly distributed in a community. Pielou’s index was derived from Shannon-Wiener diversity index as shown by the following formula:

퐻′ 푃𝑖푒푙표푢′푠 퐼푛푑푒푥, 퐽′ = ln 푆 푤ℎ푒푟푒, 푆 = 푛푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 푠푝푒푐𝑖푒푠

3.8.2 Results There were a total of 29 macrobenthos taxa identified from the samples, belonging to Annelida (11 taxa) (Photo 3.60, Photo 3.61 and Photo 3.62), Echinodermata (1 taxa) (Photo 3.63), Mollusca (5 taxa) (Photo 3.64 and Photo 3.65), Arthropoda (9 taxa) (Photo 3.66 and Photo 3.67), Sipuncula (1 taxa), Nematoda (1 taxa) and Chordata (1 taxa) (Photo 3.68) groups. The list of taxa and their composition percentage by station are shown in Table 3.20 whereas the group compositions by station is shown in Figure 3.36. Annelida was present in most of the stations except B4 and B6. Among the annelids, Eunice sp. had the highest frequency of occurrence, being present in seven of the 16 stations. Station B14 had five annelid taxa, the highest taxa recorded among all stations.

3-122 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

Echinodermata was present at stations B1, B2, B5, B7, B9, B10, B11, B12, B14 and B16. Mollusca were present at B1, B5, B6, B8, B12, B13 and B16. The group Sipuncula, Nematoda, and Chordata were represented by only one taxa respectively; Sipunculus robustus (B7, B8, B12, B13, B14 and B16), Nematode (B11) and Gobiidae (B3).

Photo 3.60 Annelids clockwise from top left: Orbiniidae, Eunice sp. Maldanidae and Lumbrineris sp.

Photo 3.61 Annelids clockwise from top left: Syllidae, Lysidice sp., Capitellidae and Amphinomidae.

3-123

Photo 3.62 Annelids clockwise from top left: Augneria sp., Polynoidae and Nephtyidae.

Photo 3.63 An echinodermata from the family Ophiuroidea. Oral side (left) and aboral side (right)

3-124 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

Photo 3.64 Mollusca from the family Solenidae (top) and species Anadara formosa

Photo 3.65 Mollusca clockwise from top left: Tegillarca granosa, Tellinidae and Nassariidae.

3-125

Photo 3.66 Antropoda: Xenophthalmus pinnotheroides (top), Hexapus sp. (middle) and Upogebia sp. (bottom).

3-126 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

Photo 3.67 Anthropoda clockwise from top left: Macrophthalmus sp., Amphipoda, Scyllarus sp., Pinnotheirdae and Alpheidae.

Photo 3.68 Clockwise from top left: Sipunculus robustus (Sipuncula), Nematode (Nematoda) and Gobiidae (Chordata)

3-127

Biological Environment

Table 3.20 List of taxa and composition percentage (%) by station.

Group Taxa B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16

Annelida Orbiniidae 13 8 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 0

Eunice sp. 25 0 25 0 11 0 0 13 0 25 25 0 0 6 0 0

Lumbrineris sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 75 0 0 0 0 17 0 0

Maldanidae 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 6 0 29

Lysidice sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0

Amphinomidae 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0

Capitellidae 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Augneria sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

Polynoidea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

Syllidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0

Nephtyidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0

Echinodermata Ophiuroidea 6 8 0 0 11 0 50 0 25 25 50 16 0 28 0 16

Mollusca Tegillarca granosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0

Anadara formosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

Tellinidae 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0

Solenidae 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nassariidae 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arthropoda Xenophthalmus pinnotheroides 13 0 0 100 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pinnotheridae 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 6 0 10

Macrophthalmus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hexapus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0

3-129

Group Taxa B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16

Scyllarus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

Upogebia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0

Alpheidae 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

Tanaidacea 25 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0

Amphipoda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0

Sipuncula Sipunculus robustus 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 75 0 0 0 33 29 11 0 10

Nematoda Nematode 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0

Chordata Gobiidae 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3-130 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

Figure 3.36 Composition (%) of macrobenthos groups by station.

3-131

The number of taxa, density and the diversity indices by station are shown in Table 3.21. The highest density of macrobenthos was observed at B5 (381.9 ±245.5 ind/m2). Substantially high numbers of taxa were also observed at B14 and B16 (n=9) (Figure 2). Apparent density peaks were also observed at B12, B16 (225.7 ±73.7 ind/m2), and B14 (208.3 ±147.3 ind/m2), while stations with relatively lower density were B3, B10 (34.7 ±49.1 ind/m2) and B6, B15 (17.4 ±24.6 ind/m2).

B16 recorded the highest values of Shannon-Wiener Index (H’=1.64 ±0.04), followed by B12 (H’=1.53 ±0.28) (Figure 4). High evenness of distribution among the taxa as indicated by Pielou’s index (J) was observed in stations (B1, B11, B12, B13, B14 and B16) with the values ranged from 0.96 to 1.00.

Table 3.21 Number of taxa, density, species richness (Shannon-Wiener Index) and evenness of species distribution (Pielou’s Index) of macrobenthos by station.

Station No. of taxa Density (ind/m2) Shannon-Wiener Pielou's index, J’ Index, H’

B1 7 173.6 ±147.3 1.13 ±0.61 0.98 ±0.02

B2 5 121.5 ±122.8 0.66 ±0.94 0.48

B3 2 34.7 ±49.1 0.35 ±0.49 0.50

B4 1 121.5 ±24.6 0.00 0.00

B5 7 381.9 ±245.5 1.35 ±0.15 0.82 ±0.11

B6 1 17.4 ±24.6 0.00 0.00

B7 3 52.1 ±24.6 0.35 ±0.49 0.50

B8 3 104.2 ±49.1 0.52 ±0.74 0.47

B9 2 52.1 ±24.6 0.35 ±0.49 0.50

B10 2 34.7 ±49.1 0.35 ±0.49 0.50

B11 3 69.4 ±0.0 0.69 ±0.00 1.00

B12 8 225.7 ±73.7 1.53 ±0.28 0.96

B13 5 121.5 ±24.6 1.24 ±0.20 1.00

B14 9 208.3 ±147.3 1.49 ±0.56 0.99 ±0.02

B15 1 17.4 ±24.6 0.00 0.00

B16 9 225.7 ±73.7 1.64 ±0.04 0.97 ±0.05

3-132 62801230-APP-C Biological Environment

Figure 3.37 Number of macrobenthos taxa by station.

Figure 3.38 Density (ind/m2) of macrobenthos by station.

3-133

Figure 3.39 Shannon Wiener Index (H’) of species richness of macrobenthos by station.

Figure 3.40 Pielou’s Index (J) of evenness of macrobenthos species distribution by station.

3-134 62801230-APP-C Human Environment

4 Human Environment

4.1 Summary

A summary of the survey carried out for the biological environment is as per Figure 4.1.

Table 4.1 Overview of surveys carried out for the biological environment

Component No. of Stations No. of Campaigns Survey Date

Land use 5 km radius 1 26 January 2016

4.2 Landuse

The proposed project is located at an estuary area called K. Linggi, nestled in between Tg. Agas and Tg. Serai (Figure 4.1). At the eastern boundary of the proposed project (near the proposed connecting bridge) is the Kota Bukit Supai, a monument built after the war between the Dutch and Bugis, now a tourist attraction site.

The land use adjacent to the project area is mainly agriculture with several densely populated villages located along the coastline adjacent to the proposed project. Further west on the Malacca side industrial areas can be found. Key land use features are shown in Figure 4.1. Tourism attractions reported along Sg. Linggi include the nipah and mangrove forest, associated fireflies and eateries outlets near the Fort Supai heritage site. Aquaculture activities using cage culture farming can be found along Sg. Linggi and this area has been declared an Aquaculture Industry Zone (ZIA).

4-1

Figure 4.1 Existing land use according to JUPEM Topographic Map, 1996.

4.2.1 Methodologies Surveys were carried out up until a 5 km radius from the proposed project site to identify existing features that fall within any of the land use categories as specified in the survey plan.

The latest Google Earth maps covering the study area were printed and features seen on the maps were identified by ground-truthing. Using a GPS-enabled camera, pictures and the coordinates of the sensitive features were documented and any related observations were noted. Sensitive areas that were recorded include:  Worship area  School and college  Administrative buildings (Police Station, Maritime Office and etc.)  Eatery  Recreational area  Cemetery  Clinics and hospitals  Resort and chalet  Library

4-2 62801230-APP-C Human Environment

Figure 4.2 Locations of landuse ground-truthing survey

4.2.2 Findings The existing land use pattern is based largely on Draft Alor Gajah District Local Plan 2020 and Port Dickson District Local Plan 2020 and the coastal areas around the project site in both the Malacca and Negeri Sembilan are delineated as tourism corridors. On-site investigation and ground truthing were undertaken on January 26, 2016 around Kg. Kuala Linggi, Kg. Tg. Agas, Kg. S. Raya, Kg. Nelayan, Kg. Tk. Perun, Kg. Seberang Parit, Kg. Tg. Serai, Kg. Tg. Dahan, Kg. Tengah Sek, Kg. Sungai Baru, Kuala Sungai Baru and Port Dickson to verify land use activities around these settlements and town. In general, the total area covered inside the 5 km impact zone is approximately 4377 hectares on land.

4-3

Figure 4.3 Landuse within 5 km from project area.

4-4 62801230-APP-C Human Environment

Table 4.2 Description of landuse of the study area from the survey

Administrative building: MARDI Administrative building: Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia (part of RTC building)

Administrative building: RTC Melaka Administrative building: Pondok Polis Kuala Linggi

Administrative building: ALAM Administrative building: Post office

Administrative building: Balai Polis Pasir Panjang Chalet: PLKN Kem PDS Resort

4-5

Chalet: Rizalan Chalet Resort: Desa Balqis Beach Resort

Resort: Nusa Dusun Orchard Resort Chalet: NDK Chalet

Chalet: Anjung Kota Chalet Chalet: Umang Umang Chalet

Chalet: Donut Chalet Chalet: Keluarga Chalet

4-6 62801230-APP-C Human Environment

Chalet: Nuriesah Chalet School: SK Kuala Linggi

School: SJK (C) Chung Hua Pasir Panjang School: SK Pasir Panjang

School: SK Tanjung Agas School: SMK Pasir Panjang

School: Tabika Kemas Kg. Tg. Agas School: Tabika Kemas Kg. Telok Pasir Panjang

4-7

College: Kolej Uniti Clinic: Klinik Kesihatan Pasir Panjang

Clinic: Klinik Desa Sungai Raya Clinic: Klinik Desa Kuala Linggi

Cemetery: Tanah Perkuburan Islam Kg. Tg. Agas Cemetery: Tanah Perkuburan Islam Kg. Tg. Dahan

Library: Perpustakaan Desa Mukim Pasir Panjang Library: Perpustakaan Desa Kg. Sg. Raya

4-8 62801230-APP-C Human Environment

Recreational area: Hutan Rekreasi Paya Laut Recreational area: Hutan Lipur Pasir Panjang Kuala Linggi

Community Hall: Balai Raya Kg. Telok Community Hall: Dewan Orang Ramai Pasir Panjang

Community Hall: Balai Raya Pasir Panjang Historical site: Kota Bukit Supai

Mosque: Masjid Kariah Kg. Tg. Agas Surau: Surau An Nur

4-9

Mosque: Masjid AlMutaqqin, Kg. Kuala Linggi Mosque: Masjid Jamek Pasir Panjang

Mosque: Masjid Kariah Sg. Raya Surau: Surau Al Raudah

Landuse within 5 km boundary from the project site are mainly concentrated along the main road and coast of Sg. Linggi and the Negeri Sembilan shoreline. The dominant landuse at the study area are tourism based facilities (e.g. chalet, resort, eatery and recreational area) and settlements. The chalets and resorts are concentrated along the coast of Kg. Kuala Linggi adjacent to project area. Community facilities; clinics, post office; police stations and community hall were observed to be concentrated at Kuala Sungai Baru and Pasir Panjang. There is one historical site: Kota Bukit Supai, located within 5 km vicinity of the project area.

4-10 62801230-APP-C References

5 References

5-1

/1/ Global Sea Temperature by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). vailable at seatemperature.org/asia/Malaysia/kuala-sungai-baru.htm. Accessed on 1st April 2016. /2/ Sarva Mangala Praveena, Siti Shapor Siraj, Ahmad Zaharin Aris, Noraidi Mustafa Al- Bakri, Ahmad Kimon Suleiman & Ahmad Anuar Zainal. 2013. Assessment of Tidal and Anthropogenic Impacts on Coastal Waters by Exploratory Data Analysis: An Example from Port Dickson, Strait of Malacca, Malaysia. Environmental Forensics, 14:2, 146- 154, DOI:10.1080/15275922.2013.781081 /3/ Garrison, T. 2010. Oceanography: An Invitation to Marine Science, Seventh Edition. Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning. Pp 154-199. /4/ Connell, D.W., and Miller, G.J. 1984. Chemistry and Ecotoxicology of Pollution. John Wiley & Sons, N.Y /5/ Nellemann, C., Hain, S., ad Adler, J. (Eds). February 2008. In Dead Water – Merging of climate change with pollution, over-harvest, and infestations in the world’s fishing grounds, United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal. /6/ Fundamental of Environment Management. 2015. Fondriest Environmental Inc. Retrieve from http://www.fondriest.com/. /7/ Steel, E.A. and Neuhauser, S.A. Comparison of Methods for Measuring Water Clarity. Technical Report Series. Washington. 19pp. Available at: http://www.ncrse.washington.edu/pdf.trs23_clarity.pdf /8/ Wollast R (1993) Interactions of Carbon and Nitrogen Cycles in the Coastal Zone in Interactions of C, N, P and S Biogeochemical Cycles and Global Change, NATO ASI Series Volume 4, 1993, pp 195-210 /9/ Nedwell DB, Jickells TD, Trimmer M, Sanders R (1999) Nutrients in estuaries. Adv. Ecol. Res 29:43–92 /10/ Wollast R (1993) Interactions of Carbon and Nitrogen Cycles in the Coastal Zone in Interactions of C, N, P and S Biogeochemical Cycles and Global Change, NATO ASI Series Volume 4, 1993, pp 195-210 /11/ UNESCO, World Health Organization, United Nations Environment Programme. 1996. Water Quality Assessments: A Guide to the Use of Biota, Sediments, and Water in Environmental Monitoring. Deborah V. Chapman (ed). E & FN Spon. 626pp. /12/ LIU Li, JI Hongwei, LIU Ying and XIN Huizhen. 2005. Chemical Oxygen Demand of Seawater Determined with a Microwave Heating Method. Journal of Ocean University of China (Oceanic and Coastal Sea Research). ISSN 1672-5182 (2005) 02-152-05. /13/ Gladstone Pacific Nickel Ltd. 2008. Environmental Assessment of Treated Water Discharge to Port Curtis; Development of Water Quality-Section 5. /14/ Study on Riverbank Filtration at Sungai Linggi, Seremban, Negeri Sembilan. 2014. Report No.:PKH/2014. /15/ Gerlach, S. A., Ekstrøm, D. K., & Eckardt, P. B. (1976). Filter feeding in the hermit crab. Oecologia, 24(3), 257-264. /16/ Concise International Chemical Assessment Document. Manganese and its Compounds: Environmental Aspects. World Health Organization, Geneva, 2004 /17/ Andrew Marshall and Bruce Beehler. 2013. Ecology of Indonesian Papua Part Two. Tuttle Publishing. /18/ Blaber, S.J.M., D.T. Brewer and J.P. Salini. 1995. Fish Communities and the Nursery Role of the Shallow Inshore Waters of a Tropical Bay in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Marine and Freshwater Resource, 40: 177 – 193.

5-2 62801230-APP-C References

/19/ Cocheret de la Morinière, E., B.J.A. Pollux, I. Nagelkerken and G. van der Velde. 2004. Diet Shifts of Caribbean Grunts (Haemulidae) and Snappers (Lutjanidae) and the Relation with Nursery-to-Coral Reef Migrations. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 57: 1079 - 1089. 20 Pittman, S.J., C.A. McAlpine and K.M. Pittman. 2004. Linking Fish and Prawns to Their Environment: A Hierarchical Landscape Approach. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 283: 233 - 254. 21 Laegdsgaard, P. and C. Johnson. 2001. Why Do Juvenile Fish Utilize Mangrove Habitats? Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 257: 229 - 253. 22 Verweij, M.C., I. Nagelkerken, S.L.J. Wartenbergh, I.R. Pen and G. van der Velde. 2006. Caribbean Mangroves and Seagrass Beds as Daytime Feeding Habitats for Juvenile French Grunts, Haemulon flavolineatum. Marine Biology, 149: 1291 - 1299. 23 Almany, G.R. 2004. Does Increased Habitat Complexity Reduce Predation and Competition in Coral Reef Fish Assemblages? Oikos. 106:275-284. 24 Blaber, S.J.M., D.T. Brewer and J.P. Salini. 1989. Species Composition and Biomasses of Fishes in Different Habitats of a Tropical Northern Australian Estuary: Their Occurrence in the Adjoining Seas and Estuarine Dependence. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 29: 509 – 531. 25 Blaber, S.J.M., D.T. Brewer and J.P. Salini. 1995. Fish Communities and the Nursery Role of the Shallow Inshore Waters of a Tropical Bay in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Marine and Freshwater Resource, 40: 177 – 193. 26 Thayer, G.W., D.R. Cloby, and Hettler Jr., W.F. 1987. Utilization of the Red Mangrove Prop Root Habitat by Fishes in South Florida. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 35:25- 38. 27 Blaber, S.J.M. 2000. Tropical Estuarine Fishes: Ecology, Exploitation and Conservation. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. 372p. 28 MacDonald, J.A., S. Shahrestani and J.S. Weis. 2009. Behavior and Space Utilization of Two Common Fishes Within Caribbean Mangroves: Implications for the Protective Function of Mangrove Habitats. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 84: 195 - 201 29 Bell, Johann D., Westoby, Mark (1986), Abundance of macrofauna in dense seagrass is due to habitat preference, not predation, Oecologic (Berlin) (1986) 68: 205-209. 30 Gerlach, S.A., Ekstrom, D.K., & Eckardt, P.B. (1976). Filter feeding in the hermit crab. Oecologia, 24(3), 257-264. Lopez, G.R. & Levinton, J.S. (1987). Ecology of deposit- feeding animals in marine sediments. The Quarterly Review of Biology 62(3):235-260. Yokohama, H., Sakami, T. & Ishihi, Y. (2009). Food sources of benthic animals on intertidal and subtidal bottoms in inner Ariake Sound, southern Japan, determined by stable isotopes. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 82:243-253. 31 Virsntein, R.W. (1977). The importance of predation by crabs and fishes on benthic infauna in Chesapeake Bay. Ecology 58(6): 1200-1217. Gilinsky, E. (1984). The role of fish predation and spatial heterogeneity in determining benthic community structure. Ecology 65(2): 455-468. Rochette, R. & Dill, L.M. (2000). Mortality and behavior and the effects of predators on the intertidal distribution of littorinid gastropods. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 253: 165-191. 32 Gerino, M. (1990). The effects of bioturbation on particle redistribution in Mediterranean coastal sediment. Preliminary results. Hydrobiologia 207:251-258. 33 Widdicombe, S., Austen, M.C., Kendall, M.A., Warwick, R.M. & Jones, M.B. (2000). Bioturbation as a mechanism for setting and maintaining levels of diversity in subtidal macrobenthic communities. Hydrobiologia 440: 369-377.

5-3