Distribution of Phytoplankton Diversity and ... - Science Direct

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Procedia Environmental Sciences 33 (2016) 496 – 504

The 2nd International Symposium on LAPAN-IPB Satellite for Food Security and Environmental Monitoring 2015, LISAT-FSEM 2015

Distribution of phytoplankton diversity and abundance in Mahakam Delta, East Kalimantan Hefni Effendia,*, Mujizat Kawaroeb, Dea Fauzia Lestaria, Mursalina, Tri Permadia a

Center for Environmental Research, Bogor Agricultural University, PPLH Building 2nd-4th Floor, Jl. Lingkar Akademik, Dramaga, Bogor 16680, Indonesia b Department of Marine Science and Technology, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, Bogor Agricultural University, Dramaga, Bogor 16680, Indonesia

Abstract The Mahakam Delta typically consisting of several ecosystems has been identified as one of biodiversity hotspot in Kalimantan Island. In order to provide phytoplankton distribution, diversity and abundance data, a research on 4 stations representing delta plain (ST1) and delta front (ST2, ST3, ST4) was performed. The studies describe phytoplankton community existing in this region and multivariate analysis using correspondent analysis (CA). There were 48 taxa phytoplankton belonging to Bacillariophyceae (35), Dinophyceae (6), Chlorophyceae (4), and Cyanophyceae (3). The highest taxa occurred in ST3 with diversity index of 2.09, followed by ST2 (1.95), ST1 (1.15), and ST4 (0.9). Diversity index of ST3, ST2, and ST1 delta was categorized as moderate stable community, while ST4 was categorized as unstable community. Bacillariophyceae was not only as the highest diversity class but also as the highest abundance, recorded in ST3. The abundance class ranged 1.4x105 cell/m3 to 2.2x106 cell/m3. Generally, phytoplankton diversity and abundance in delta front was higher than that in delta plain. Human activities and physical process likely influenced diversity and abundance of phytoplankton in Delta Mahakam. © 2016 2016The TheAuthors. Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license Published by Elsevier B.V. This (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of LISAT-FSEM2015. Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of LISAT-FSEM2015 Keywords: distribution; diversity; abundance; phytoplankton; Mahakam Delta.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +62-821-1434-0924. E-mail address: [email protected].

1878-0296 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of LISAT-FSEM2015 doi:10.1016/j.proenv.2016.03.102

497

Hefni Effendi et al. / Procedia Environmental Sciences 33 (2016) 496 – 504

1. Introduction Mahakam Delta is one of watershed area in East Kalimantan and formed through sedimentation process [1]. Those are zones linking freshwater and marine systems, and are therefore characterized by gradients of chemical, physical and biological components in the water column [2]. Based on position and lithology, Mahakam Delta is divided into three important locations namely plain delta, front delta, and prodelta which have different characteristic [3]. These area become habitat for producer, consumer, until top predator creatures. The enhanced productivity increases consumer abundance and attracts higher trophic level organisms, creating biological hotspots in the ecosystem [4, 5]. Most studies analyzed sedimentation, environmental quality or forest biodiversity, however there are still less of water organism research and publication particularly about phytoplankton which actually has an important role in food chain. Environmental monitoring activities have been carried out by NGOs and companies who concern in oil and gas mining to observe biodiversity condition of sites around the Mahakam Delta. The spatial mapping of phytoplankton assists to determine hotspots area based on abundance and diversity. Some studies analyze the spatial distribution and diversity of plankton [6, 7, 8]. The knowledge of phytoplankton distribution with reference to spatial pattern is important to determine the status of the ecosystem structure and functioning. Measures of diversity are frequently seen as indicators of the status of ecological systems. Phytoplankton diversity has relationship with productivity in ecology [9, 10]. In addition, the diversity index may be used for habitat characterization [11, 12]. This study in Mahakam Delta, East Kalimantan describes phytoplankton, focusing on the spatial distribution of abundance and diversity. Considering the importance of plankton communities in these area for ecological role and conservation, we hypothesized that there are different spatial distribution and diversity of phytoplankton in several sampling locations. 2. Materials and methods The study was performed in Mahakam Delta, East Kalimantan Province, Indonesia. The samples were taken from 4 stations representing plain delta and front delta. Station 1 (ST1) is categorized to delta plain which consists of active and inactive river channel, while ST2, ST3, and ST4 belong to delta front in center, north and south direction of Mahakam Delta. Delta front is sub-environments with high energy and sediments are constantly influenced by tidal currents, ocean currents along the shore, and the wave action [13]. Plankton sampling was carried out by filtering water samples as much as 50 liters by plankton net. Filtered water samples were stored in the sample bottle, and then preserved with Lugol solution of 10%. The samples were brought to be identified and classified by a binocular microscope and identification book [13, 14, 15]. The abundance of each plankton was calculated. Univariate analysis approach was used to describe some ecological indicators through diversity index. The indicators were diversity and dominance index of the identified plankton species. Diversity index was based on Shannon and Wiener index [16] with the following formula: ୬

ᇱ ൌ ෍

(1)

୧ୀଵ

Description: H'=Shannon-Wiener diversity index; pi=ni/N; ni=number of individual species-ith; N=total number of individuals Dominance index was determined using the following formula [16]: ୱ

ൌ ෍ሺ ሻଶ

(2)

୧ୀଵ

Description: D=Simpson dominance index; ni= number of individual-ith; N=total number of individuals; S=number of genera

498


Fig. 1. Map of sampling location in Mahakam Delta showing the position of delta plain (ST1) and delta front (ST2, ST3, ST4).

Plankton abundance is the number of individuals or cells per unit volume. The number of individual plankton was calculated using the following formula [17]: ൌ

ͳ

(3)

K=phytoplankton abundance (cell/m3); n=number of observed phytoplankton; B=total area/container area of Sedgwick-Rafter Counting Cell (mm2); V=volume of filtered water (30 ml); v=concentrate volume of Sedgwick Rafter Counting Cell (ml); A=volume of filtered water sample (50 l); C=observation area (mm2) Phytoplankton data were analyzed using correspondent analysis (CA) to determine the relationship between sampling station and phytoplankton diversity and abundance. The plot distribution describes nominal data in rows and columns [18, 19]. 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Phytoplankton diversity A list of phytoplankton collected from the study area is presented in Table 1. The total number of phytoplankton listed in each of the four stations, varied considerably. The phytoplankton consisted of 48 taxa belonging to Bacillariophyceae (35), Dinophyceae (6), Chlorophyceae (4), and Cyanophyceae (3). The highest number of taxa (35) was recorded at ST3, 29 taxa were observed at ST2, ST1 and ST4 had 27 and 14 taxa, respectively. The result was similar with others research indicating that Bacillariophyceae as the dominant genera on water sample [2, 6, 7, 20].

499


Table 1. Diversity of phytoplankton in Mahakam Delta. No

Class

Station 1

Station 2

Station 3

Station 4

CYANOPHYCEAE 1

Trichodesmium sp.

++++

+++++

+++++

-

2

Oscillatoria sp.

++++

-

-

+++

3

Nodularia sp.

-

-

-

+++++

Scenedesmus sp.

++

-

++++

-

2

Closterium sp.

++

-

-

-

3

Pediastrum sp.

++

-

-

++

-

-

-

++

CHLOROPHYCEAE 1

4

Spirogyra sp.

5

BACILLARIOPHYCEAE

6

Chaetoceros sp.

-

++++

+++++

-

7

Bacteriastrum sp.

-

+++

+++++

-

8

Navicula sp.

++

+++

+++

-

9

Nitzschia sp.

+++

+++++

++++

++

10

Guinardia sp.

++

+++

++

-

11

Coscinodiscus sp.

++

+++++

++++

++

12

Cyclotella sp.

++

+++

+++

+++

13

Melosira sp.

++++

+++

+++

+++

14

Surirella sp.

++

+++

+++

-

15

Lauderia sp.

++

+++

++

-

16

Thalassiosira sp.

++

+++++

++++

++

17

Thalassiothrix sp.

++

+++++

+++++

++

18

Thalassionema sp.

-

++

++++

-

19

Leptocylindrus sp.

++

++++

++++

-

20

Pinnularia sp.

++

-

-

21

Mostogloia sp.

+

-

-

-

22

Pleurosigma sp.

++

++++

++

-

23

Fragilaria sp.

++

-

++

-

24

Ditylum sp.

+

++++

++++

-

25

Biddulphia sp.

+

++++

++++

-

26

Bacillaria sp.

++

++++

++++

++ -

27

Frustulia sp.

++

-

-

28

Campylodiscus sp.

+

++

++

29

Hemidiscus sp.

-

-

++++

30

Streptotheca sp.

-

++++

+++

++

31

Corethron sp.

-

++++

-

-

32

Bellerochea sp.

-

+++++

-

-

33

Skeletonema sp.

-

++

-

-

34

Amphiprora sp.

-

-

+++

-

35

Licmophora sp.

-

-

++

-

36

Achnanthes sp.

-

-

++

+

-

500


No

Class

Station 1

Station 2

Station 3

Station 4

37

Amphora sp.

-

-

++

-

38

Rhizosolenia sp.

-

+++

++++

-

39

Stephanopyxis sp.

-

-

+++

-

40

Hemiaulus sp.

-

-

+++

-

DINOPHYCEAE 1

Peridinium sp.

-

+++

+++

++

2

Ceratium sp.

++

+++

+++

-

3

Noctiluca sp.

+

-

-

-

4

Dinophysis sp.

-

+++

++++

-

5

Gymnodinium sp.

-

+++

-

-

6

Prorocentrum sp.

-

-

+

-

Note: (-): 0 cell/m3; (+): 1-100 cell/m3; (++): 101-1000 cell/m3; (+++): 1001-10000 cell/m3; (++++): 10001-100000 cell/m3; (+++++): >100000 cell/m3

The research explained that diatoms are usually the common element of epipelic communities [21]. It is well known that diatoms diversity are sensitive to a wide range of environmental variables, and that their community structure may quickly respond to changing physical, chemical and biological conditions in the environment [22]. Distribution of Bacillariophyceae species are known to be able to develop harmful algae blooms that increasingly affect aquaculture and tourism in wide areas of the subtropical [23]. The research on Bacillariophyceae to identify species diversity that caused harmful algae blooming were pursued by several researchers [24, 25]. Fig. 2 shows the diversity distribution according to class of phytoplankton using correspondent analysis. 0.5 0.4

F2 (5.53 %)

0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1

ST3

Bacillariophycea e

Chlorophyceae

ST1

ST2 Dinophyceae

ST4

-0.2 Cyanophyceae

-0.3 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3 0.4 0.5 F1 (94.47 %)

Phytoplankton class

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Station

Fig. 2. Correspondent analysis of phytoplankton diversity index in Mahakam Delta.

High value of Shannon-Wiener's index (H ') was recorded in ST3 (2.09), followed by ST2 (1.95), ST1 (1.15), and ST4 (0.9). It means that diversity index of ST3, ST2, and ST1 delta are categorized as moderate stable community, while ST4 is categorized as unstable community. The Simpson (dominance) index varies between 0.18 and 0.48. The highest value was in ST4 (0.48) followed by ST1 (0.43), ST2 (0.23), and ST3 (0.18). The index ranges from 01, meaning moderately dominance since the value was less than 0.5. Diversity is dependent on key ecological

501


processes such as competition, predation, and succession, and therefore changes in these processes can alter the species diversity index through changes in evenness [26]. 2.50

Index

2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 ST1

ST2

ST3

ST4

Station Dominance

Diversity

Fig. 3. Diversity and dominance index of phytoplankton in Mahakam Delta.

3.2. Phytoplankton abundance Distribution of phytoplankton abundance varied with different stations. The maximum abundance appeared at ST3 (2.2x106 cell/m3), followed by ST2 (2.1x106 cell/m3), ST1 (1.5x105 cell/m3), while minimum abundance was recorded at ST4 (1.4x105 cell/m3). Fig. 4 shows the result from multivariate analysis to determine the relation and distribution of phytoplankton class based on abundance. 1

F2 (1.32 %)

0.5 Bacillariophyceae ST4 ST1 Dinophyceae ST3

0

Cyanophyceae

ST2

-0.5 Chlorophyceae

-1 -0.5

0

0.5

1 F1 (98.64 %)

Phytoplankton class

1.5

2

Station

Fig. 4. Correspondent analysis of phytoplankton abundance in Mahakam Delta.

2.5

502


9 8

(cell/m3 x 105)

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Species ST1

ST2

ST3

ST4

Fig. 5. Abundance of phytoplankton in Mahakam Delta.

It shows that ST3 and ST 4 are distinguished by high abundance of Bacillariophyceae and Dinophyceae. This plot has different explanation and can describe that high abundance is not similar with high diversity. Bacillariophyceae is the most abundance class especially in ST3 (1.9x106 cell/m3) and ST4 (1.8x106 cell/m3). Thalassiosira sp., Thalassiothrix sp., Nitzschia sp. are dominant genera strongly growing in that habitat and belonging to diatom. This abundance is categorized as normal situation compared to blooming of species abundance according to [27] which the abundance was more than 4.5x106 cell/m3. They are conventionally considered as a euryhaline and eurythermal phytoplankton species, which grow quickly under eutrophic conditions [28]. On the other hand, dinoflagellates (e.g. Dinophysis sp., Ceratium sp., Gymnodinium sp., Prorocentrum sp. in Dinophyceae class) mostly prefer oligotrophic condition, then hard to survive in eutrophic habitat [29-31]. Phytoplankton production is essentially reflecting the resource supply into the ecosystem. Moreover diatoms found are indicative of moderate to high nutrient levels [32]. The changes in nutrients have strongly influenced the phytoplankton community structure in this area. In Mahakam Delta many activities such as port, oil and gas platform, settlement, fishpond, and fish capture activity produce anthropogenic discharge to the water [33]. Increasing nutrients from anthropogenic discharge stimulate the growth of phytoplankton through photosynthesis. The delta has a large hydrocarbon accumulation from run off and river channel and also been influenced by enormous tidal and fluvial activities. In general the Mahakam Delta was formed under the low energy flow of river


sediment and tidal currents. The low exposure in ST1 (delta plain) inhibits circulation process in that area [33] then increases turbidity and suspended solid, likely limiting diversity of phytoplankton. This situation is similar with ST4 consisting of mud, though this area is categorized as front delta, but the exposure is moderate than ST2 and ST3 [1, 33]. The exposure of ST2 and ST3 are relatively higher, this reason may cause water mixing and community combination of estuarine and marine phytoplankton. Besides that, phytoplankton abundance is negatively correlated with suspended solid and nutrient concentration on the water, suggesting that turbidity and nutrient availability are the crucial factors regulating phytoplankton biomass. Phytoplankton abundance in the outer estuary is enhanced by increasing irradiance and continued to be enhanced until phosphorus-limitation [2]. 4. Conclusion Phytoplankton communities may be used as an indicator of ecological status. In Mahakam Delta, phytoplankton community is still considered to normal status. Bacillariophyceae is the most diverse and high abundance class because it possesses a wide range of environmental variables. Diversity index of phytoplankton varied from unstable to stable moderate. Diversity and abundance of phytoplankton communities is essentially reflecting the resource supply into the ecosystem. References 1. Zain Z, Hutabarat S, Prayitno B, Ambaryanto. Potency of Mahakam Delta in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. International Journal of Science and Engeneering 2014;6(2):126-30. 2. Xia Z, Jingping Z, Xiaoping H, Liangmin H. Phytoplankton assemblage structure shaped by key environmental variables in the Pearl River Estuary, South China. Journal of Ocean University China (Ocean and Coastal Sea Research) 2014;13(1):73-82. DOI 10.1007/s11802-0141972-3. 3. Allen GP, Chambers JLC. Sedimentation in the Modern and Miocence Mahakam Delta, Indonesia. Indonesia Petroleum Association, Field Trip Guidebook; 1998. 4. Molinero JC, Ibanez F, Souissi S, Bosc E, Nival P. Surface patterns of zooplankton spatial variability detected by high frequency sampling in the NW Mediterranean: role of density fronts. Marine System 2008;69:271–82. 5. Munk P, Hansen BW, Nielsen TK, Thomsen HA. Changes in plankton and fish larvae communities across hydrographic fronts off West Greenland. Plankton Resource 2003;25:815–30. 6. Badsi H, Ali HO, Loudiki M, Aamir A. Phytoplankton diversity and community composition along the salinity gradient of the mass estuary. American Journal of Human Ecology 2012;1(2):58-64. 7. Nassar MZA, Gharib SM. Spatial and temporal patterns of phytoplankton composition in Burullus Lagoon, Southern Mediterranean Coast, Egypt. Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Research 2014;40:133–42. 8. Ahmed A, Wanganeo A. Phytoplankton succession in a tropical freshwater lake, Bhoj Wetland (Bhopal, India): spatial and temporal perspective. Environmental Monitoring Assessment 2015;187:192. 9. Newall EJL, Chu VT, Pringault O, Amouroux D, Arfi R, Bettarel1 Y, Bouvier1 T, Bouvier C, Got P, Nguyen TMH, Mari X, Navarro P, Duong TN, Cao TTT, Pham TT, Ouillon S, Torr´eton JP. Phytoplankton diversity and productivity in a highly turbid, tropical coastal system (Bach Dang Estuary, Vietnam). Biogeosciences Discussion 2011;8:487–525. doi:10.5194/bgd-8-487-2011. 10. Vallina SM, Follows MJ, Dutkiewicz S, Montoya JM, Cermeno P, Loreau M. Global relationship between phytoplankton diversity and productivity in the ocean. Natural Community 2014;5:4299. doi:10.1038/ncomms5299. 11. de Domitrovic YZ, de Neiff ASGP, Casco SL. Abundance and diversity of phytoplankton in the Paraná River (Argentina) 220 km downstream of the Yacyretá reservoir. Brazilian Journal of Biology 2007;67(1):53-63. 12. Cardoso SJ, Roland F, Oliveira SML, Huszar VLM. Phytoplankton abundance, biomass and diversity within and between Pantanal wetland habitats. Limnology 2012;42: 235– 41. 13. Davis CC. The marine and fresh water plankton. USA. Michigan State University Press; 1955. 14. Yamaji I. Illustrations of the marine plankton of Japan. Japan: Hiokusha Publishing.co.ltd.; 1979a. 15. Yamaji I. Illustrations of the freshwater plankton of Japan. Japan: Hiokusha Publishing.co.ltd.; 1979b. 16. Odum EP. Fundamental of ecology. 3rd edition. London: W.B Saunders Co.; 1971. 17. APHA (American Public Health Association). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 17thd. APHA, AWWA (American Waste Water Association) and WPCF (Water Pollution Control Federation). Baltimore, Maryland: Poet City Press; 1979. 18. ter Braak CJE, Verdonschot PEM. Canonical correspondence analysis and related multivariate methods in aquatic ecology. Aqua Sci. 1995;57(3). doi:10.1007/BF00877430. 19. Goldyn R, Madura KK. Interactions between phytoplankton and zooplankton in the hypertrophic Swarze˛dzkie Lake in western Poland. Journal of Plankton Research 2008;30(1):33–42. 20. Bazin PFJ, Friedl T, Cabanillas AFD, Le Roy B, Veron B. Phytoplankton diversity and community composition along the estuarine gradient of a temperate macrotidal ecosystem: combined morphological and molecular approaches. Plos one 2014;9(4):e94110.

503

504


21. Moore JW. Benthic algae of Southern Baffin Island, II. The epipelic communities in temporary ponda. Ecology 1974;62:809-19. 22. Mooser KA, Macdonald GM, Smol JP. Applications of freshwater diatoms to geographical research. Progress Physical Geography 1996;20:21-52. 23. Philips EJ, Badylak S, Youn S, Kelley K. The occurrence of potentially toxic dinoflagellates and diatoms in a subtropical lagoon, the Indian River Lagoon, Florida, USA. Harmful Algae 2004;3:39-49. 24. Cremer H, Sangiorgi F, Cremer FW, Mcgee V, Lotter AF, Visscher H. Diatoms (Bacillariophyceae) and Dinoflagellate Cysts (Dinophyceae) from Rookery Bay, Florida, U.S.A. Caribbean Journal of Science 43(1):23-58. 25. Ruggiero MV, Sarno D, Barra L, Kooistra WHCF, Montresor M, Zingone A. Diversity and temporal pattern of Pseudo-nitzschia species (Bacillariophyceae) through the molecular lens. Harmful Algae 2015;42:15–24. 26. Stirling G, Wilsey B. Empirical relationships between species richness, evenness, and proportional diversity. The American Naturalist 2001;158:286–99. 27. Biswas SN, Rakshit D, Sarkar SK, Sarangi RK, Satpathy KK. Impact of multispecies diatom bloom on plankton community structure in Sundarban mangrove wetland India. Journal Marine Pollution Bulletin 2014;(85):306-11. 28. Huang L, Jian W, Song X, Huang X, Liu S, Qian P, Yin K, Wu M. Species diversity and distribution for phytoplankton of the Pearl River estuary during rainy and dry seasons. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2004;49:588-96. 29. Ignatiades L. The standing stock of diatoms and Dinoflagellates in the oligotrophic waters of Southern Aegean Sea. International Revueges Hydrobiology 1976;61(2):193-9. 30. Prince EK, Myers TL, Naar J, Kubanek J. Competing phytoplankton undermines allelopathy of a bloom-forming dinoflagellate. Proceeding of The Royal Society B 2008;75:2733–41. doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.0760. 31. Hinder SL, Hays GC, Edwards M, Roberts EC, Walne AW, Gravenor MB. Changes in marine dinoflagellate and diatom abundance under climate change. Natural Climatology Change 2012;2. Doi: 10.1038/Nclimate1388. 32. Hubble DS, Harper DM. Phytoplankton community structure and succession in the water column of Lake Naivasha, Kenya: a shallow tropical lake. Hydrobiologia 2002;488:89–98. 33. Mursalin, Nurjaya IW, Effendi H. Analyze of environmental sensitivity for oscp (oil spill contingency plan) at southern coast of Mahakam Delta, East Kalimantan Province. Natural Resources and Environment 2014;4(1):82-94.