Sampling-event dataset of short-term monitoring of Poblacion and Kadurong Reefs in Liloan, Cebu, Philippines

資料紀錄

此資源出現紀錄的資料已發佈為達爾文核心集檔案（DwC-A），其以一或多組資料表構成分享生物多樣性資料的標準格式。 核心資料表包含 814 筆紀錄。

亦存在 1 筆延伸集的資料表。延伸集中的紀錄補充核心集中紀錄的額外資訊。 每個延伸集資料表中資料筆數顯示如下。

此 IPT 存放資料以提供資料儲存庫服務。資料與資源的詮釋資料可由「下載」單元下載。「版本」表格列出此資源的其它公開版本，以便利追蹤其隨時間的變更。

版本

以下的表格只顯示可公開存取資源的已發布版本。

如何引用

研究者應依照以下指示引用此資源。:

Edullantes B (2025). Sampling-event dataset of short-term monitoring of Poblacion and Kadurong Reefs in Liloan, Cebu, Philippines. Version 1.11. ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB). Occurrence dataset. https://bkmd.aseanbiodiversity.org/ipt/resource?r=liloanmpa&v=1.11

權利

研究者應尊重以下權利聲明。:

此資料的發布者及權利單位為 ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB)。 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY 4.0) License.

GBIF 註冊

此資源已向GBIF註冊，並指定以下之GBIF UUID: 788eaed9-c607-4510-bd28-5db2ea598dc4。  ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) 發佈此資源，並經由ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity同意向GBIF註冊成為資料發佈者。

關鍵字

coral reef; reef fish; zooplankton; phytoplankton; water quality; MPA; Observation; Occurrence

聯絡資訊

地理涵蓋範圍

The study covered two of the Marine Protected Areas in Municipality of Liloan, Cebu, Philippines - namely the Poblacion and Kadurong Reefs.

分類群涵蓋範圍

無相關描述

計畫資料

無相關描述

參與計畫的人員:

Brisneve Edullantes

• 研究主持人

http://orcid.org/https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4998-5018

Fleurdeliz Maglangit

• 研究主持人

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0159-8337

Eukene Bensig

取樣方法

Twenty (20) of the locations were sampling sites for the physico-chemical assessment and phytoplankton survey (S01 - S20) and for zooplankton survey (S01 - S03 and S07 - S09). Ten (10) of the locations were transects for the coral reef and fish assessments (T01 - T10). Different measurements were conducted in these sampling locations between March 2015 - July 2016.

方法步驟描述:

1. Physico-chemical measurements were conducted in all sampling sites (S01-S20) in March 2015 and 2016. The following physico-chemical parameters were measured in situ for each of the sampling sites (S01-S20): temperature (°C) using a calibrated thermometer, pH with a standard portable pH meter (Mettler Toledo), and salinity (ppm) using a refractometer (Fisherbrand™ handheld analog salinity refractometer). All in situ parameters were measured in triplicate. Water samples were collected by grab sampling for the analysis of Dissolved Oxygen (DO, mg L-1), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD, mg L-1), Total Suspended Solids (TSS, mg L-1), total phosphates (mg L-1), and nitrates (mg L-1). All sampling bottles were acid-washed, cleaned, rinsed with distilled water, and dried before use. Collected water samples were stored in an ice bucket (4 °C) and transported to the laboratory for analysis. The samples were kept at this temperature (4 °C) for 24 h if treatment is not immediate. All the analyses were performed in triplicate as described previously following the standard protocols in APHA (2005). In brief, the DO was determined by azide modification (Winkler) method, BOD by azide modification (dilution) technique, TSS by gravimetric method, total phosphates by chromotropic-colorimetric method, and nitrates by stannous chloride reduction method. For analysis of chlorophyll a concentration , another 1 L surface seawater was taken in each sampling point and was processed immediately in the laboratory. About 500 mL of water sample was filtered using a Whatman GF/C filter . The filtered phytoplankton sample was extracted in 8 mL 90% acetone for 24 hours. Chlorophyll a concentration (Chl a, μg L-1) was estimated spectrophotometrically following the protocol of Eaton et. al. (1995) with three replicates. Mean values of the physico-chemical parameters were reported in the emof.txt dataset.
2. Phytoplankton samples were collected in each of the sampling sites (S01 - S20). Fifteen (15) L of surface seawater was collected 0.5 m below the surface. The collected water sample will be subsequently sieved with a 20 μM mesh phytoplankton net and was stored in a 1L polyethylene bottle preserved with roughly 5mL Lugol’s solution. The seawater samples were labelled accordingly and were brought to the laboratory for analysis. The samples were allowed to stand for 48 hours. Thereafter, the upper portion was decanted leaving 100 mL of concentrated phytoplankton sample. The sample was gently homogenized before a 1mL aliquot was pipetted out for microscopy. One to two drops of the 1 mL aliquot was examined under the microscope under 10x and 40x magnification at a time using the drop-count method (Verlencar and Desai, 2004). Phytoplankton individuals were counted and photographed. Phytoplankton were identified at the lowest taxonomic level possible using . In the case of colonial and filamentous phytoplankton, filaments and colonies were considered individual phytoplankton. The phytoplankton found were verified in the WoRMS database (WoRMS Editorial Board 2015). The database returns information about the taxonomic classification of genera sent. Abundance per sampling site was computed using the following formula: Abundance = (I x A) / L, where I is equal to the number of phytoplankton individuals found per 1 mL aliquot, A is equal to the 100 mL concentrated phytoplankton sample, and L is equal to the total amount of seawater sieved in the phytoplankton net which is 15 L. Occurrence and abundance (individual L-1) of phytoplankton were reported in occurence.txt dataset.
3. Composite sampling was employed for zooplankton thus there were three points per sampling site (S01 - S03 and S07 - S09). Collection of zooplankton was done using the standard mesh net with a stopcock at the lower end to allow opening and closing. A calibrated dipper was used to get water samples at approximately 0.1 - 0.5 m from the surface. The collected water sample was passed through the mesh net (stopcock closed) to allow sieving of zooplankton. This provided a more concentrated number of species. Total water sample passed through the net was 30 L. The stopcock was opened when the last few milliliters of water sample was passed through the mesh net, with a sample collection (PE) bottle at the end of the tube. The PE bottle was removed from the mouth of the net. The 250 mL zooplankton sample was preserved with 1.5 mL of stock Lugol’s solution. All collected samples were labeled accordingly. The mesh net was rinsed with distilled water after use and was allowed for air-drying after rinsing. The water samples that were set aside for at least 24 hours were decanted leaving only 150 mL of the sample. Quantitative assessment of zooplankton species was adopted from the protocol of Onyema (2007). Here, 1 mL per point per site was obtained after swirling the contents of the remaining solution and was mounted on a glass slide and was covered with a cover slip. In each drop, zooplankton species were counted using the compound light microscope and were identified at the lowest taxonomic level possible using the identification guides (Australian Marine Zooplankton 2013, Conway 2012). Since each drop amounts to approximately 0.1 mL, the results on the density of species were multiplied by 10 to represent 1 mL. The zooplankton found were verified in the WoRMS database (WoRMS Editorial Board 2015). Occurrence and abundance (individual L-1) of zooplankton were reported in occurrence.txt dataset.
4. The percent cover of benthic components in Kadurong and Poblacion Reefs were determined by the Point Intercept Transect (PIT) method. Ten 50 m-long transects (T01-T10) were sampled in these reefs. Readings for the benthic life forms were recorded every 0.5 m and a total of 101 points were recorded per transect. The benthic components were characterized using the categories cited in English et al. (1997) and grouped into the following general components: live hard corals, soft corals, dead corals, and “others” for other invertebrates and abiotic. The biotic components comprised the live hard corals and soft corals. Live hard corals were specifically categorized into coral morphologies or forms (i.e. branching, massive, sub-massive, encrusting, millepora or fire coral). Dead corals were classified into dead coral with algae, newly dead coral, and rubble. Algae were considered as flora. Non-coralline rocks, sand and silt were herein referred to as abiotic components. Raw data points were collated and summarized into data codes per transects. Each data point identified was given a score of 1 point. All points were then added and divided by the total number of points from all transects, and % was taken by multiplying this with 100. The percent cover (%) of each of the components was calculated and reported in the emof.txt dataset.
5. The total number of fish families and species were assessed through Underwater Visual Census (UVC) using the same transects (T01-T08) used in PIT. UVC monitoring techniques provide qualitative and quantitative assessments with a limited impact on the ecosystem, and are therefore particularly suited for marine reserves (Claudet, et al., 2006). Divers swam one way along each transect, identifying and recording the number of fish species observed within a distance of 2.5 m on each side of the 50-m transect for 15 minutes. Fishes were identified at the lowest taxonomic level possible. Fish size estimates were also recorded (Samoilys et.al. 2007). Fish density per class size (individual per 250 m2) was derived by dividing the total number of individual fish in a 250 m2 area. The fishes found were verified in the WoRMS database (WoRMS Editorial Board 2015). Occurrence and density per class size of fishes were reported in occurrence.txt dataset.

額外的詮釋資料