Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources -

National Fisheries Research and Development Institute

Coprorate 101 Mo. Ignacia Ave., South Triangle,
Quezon City Metro Manila, Philippines 1103
Telfax: +63 (2) 376 - 1178
Email: fisheriesjournal@nfrdi.da.gov.ph
journal.nfrdi@gmail.com

P-ISSN: 0048-377X

Philippine Copyright © 2016

by Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
National Fisheries Research and Development Institute

All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of

materials in this information product for educational or
other non-commercial purposes are authorized without
any prior written permission from the copyright holders
provided the sources is fully acknowledged. Reproduction
of materials in this information product for resale or other
commercial purposes is prohibited.

Recommended Citations:

Santos, M.D., Furio, E.F., Lopez, G.DV., Torres, F.SB., Borja, V.M., Bognot, E.DC.,
Gatdula, N.C., Perez, M.A. and Gonzales, F.L. 2017
Fisheries Resources and Ecological Assessment of Manila Bay 2012-2015.
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources -
National Fisheries Research and Development Institute
Quezon City Philippines . 207 pages

Book Layout: Jennifer A. Poniente

Cover Design: Jin Kevin P. Dionisio
 FISHERIES RESOURCES AND
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF
MANILA BAY
2012 - 2015
A SPECIAL ISSUE OF THE PHILIPPINE JORNAL OF FISHERIES

Edited by:

Mudjekeewis D. Santos
Elsa F. Furio
Grace DV. Lopez
Francisco SB. Torres Jr.
Valeriano M. Borja
Eunice DC. Bognot
Norvida C. Gatdula
Marco A. Perez
Fe L. Gonzales

Published by:
BUREAU OF FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES
NATIONAL FISHERIES RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE
Quezon City, Metro Manila
Philippines
2017

i
 ForeworD

My most ardent congratulations to our partners and colleagues in

the National Fisheries Research and Development Institute (NFRDI) for their
successful implementation, documentation and publication of their research
“Fisheries Resources and Ecological Study of Manila Bay”.

With an area of 1,994 km2 (769.9 sq mi) and a coastline of 190 km (118.1 mi) straddling the five
heavily populated provinces of Pampanga, Bataan, Bulacan, Cavite and the cities of Metro Manila,
Manila Bay contributes significantly to the economy by generating employment for millions of its
coastline residents, increasing export earnings, providing cheap source of protein and nutrition for the
people and offering both the local and foreign visitors the best harbors and the most awesome sunsets
and tourist attractions.

All of us are, however, aware that the precious resources of the Bay are in serious danger.
Population expansion and rapid urbanization, uncontrolled coast and basin development, pollution
and destruction of the habitats, the red tide phenomenon and resource mismanagement have all led to
the continued degradation and depletion of the Bay’s resources.

Thankfully, through linkages with various concerned Manila Bay fishery and coastal manage-
ment stakeholders, our fisheries bureau (BFAR) has formed the “Save Manila Bay Task Force” a few
years ago. This research project and publication are therefore part of the contribution of the DA and
BFAR, through the NFRDI, to the task of judiciously managing Manila Bay’s resources by collecting,
synthesizing and disseminating scientific information on the bay’s fishery resource and water quality
status.

I therefore invite policy makers, the scientific and teaching community, the fisherfolk and fish-
ing entrerpreneurs, and other stakeholders to savor the plethora of facts, figures, analyses and insights
on Manila Bay that this publication offers, all of which can be of tremendous help in evaluating man-
agement strategies and identifying gaps in our understanding of the Manila Bay challenge.

Buhayin ang Manila Bay! Mabuhay ang mga Mangingisda at Mamamayang Pilipino!

EMMANUEL F. PIÑOL
Secretary
Department of Agriculture

ii
 ForeworD

The Department of Agriculture – Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic

Resources (DA-BFAR) congratulates the Save Manila Bay
Project Committee and the National Fisheries Research and Development
Institute (NFRDI) for coming up with this book titled “Fisheries
Resources and Ecological Assessment of Manila Bay”. We thank NFRDI for
continuing its assessment in the state of fisheries resource of Manila Bay.

The Mandamus of Manila Bay mandates 13 government agencies, including DA-BFAR, to
address the environmental pollution in Manila Bay with the ultimate goal of bringing back its water
quality and improve and restore the marine life. The Mandamus requires the agencies to concretize
measurable and time-bound strategies for the comprehensive rehabilitation program of Manila Bay.

Manila Bay provides an estimated 22, 952.08 metric tons of fish supply for Metro Manila and
neighboring provinces. It also supports 62, 402 registered fisherfolk from 29 municipalities of Bataan,
Pampanga, Cavite, Bulacan and Metro Manila. In order to protect the livelihood of these fisherfolk and
ensure sufficient fish supply from Manila Bay, DA-BFAR, in coordination with other agencies, works
for the development, management, and conservation of fisheries and aquatic resources of Manila Bay.
The restoration of Manila Bay is also in-line with the Department of Agriculture’s main thrust. Under
the esteemed leadership of Secretary Emmanuel Piñol, the Department seeks to ensure food sufficiency
and improve the livelihood of the fisherfolk through the implementation of various marine conserva-
tion programs in the country’s major fishing grounds including Manila Bay.

This book presents NFRDI’s assessment on the extent of the effect of environmental pollution
on the fisheries resources of Manila Bay. Such information is necessary in identifying factors and for-
mulating policies and action plans for the restoration of Manila Bay.

I hope that we will continue to rehabilitate and make an effort as one nation to restore, protect
and conserve the Manila Bay.

Maraming salamat po at mabuhay kayo!

COMMODORE EDUARDO B GONGONA PCG (Ret)

Undersecretary for Fisheries and Concurrent BFAR National Director

iii
 ForeworD

Congratulations to the Capture Fisheries Research and Develop-

ment Division (formerly Resource and Ecological Assessment Division) of
NFRDI for the success of the “Fisheries Resources and Ecological Assess-
ment of Manila Bay” Project. This Special Publication of The Philippine
Journal of Fisheries is a significant scientific contribution in response to the
Supreme Court Mandamus to clean up, rehabilitate and preserve Manila Bay.

After five successful years of data gathering, it is notable that a number of breakthroughs have
been achieved to produce an informative and management-responsive publication. I would like to
acknowledge the Project Team members who have successfully implemented their respective under-
takings, the Project Leader, the Study Leaders, the Research Asssitants, Analysts, and Data Enumer-
ators. Without their dedication and tireless efforts, this Publication would not have been possible.

Let us look forward to more relevant and useful research activities to support the quest for the
total rehabilitation of Manila Bay.

Drusila Esther E. Bayate, CESO IV

Interim Deputy Executive Director
National Fisheries Research and Development Institute

iv
 PrefacE

Manila Bay is a semi–enclosed bay ecosystem located in the western part of Luzon, Philippines
between 14.23° and 14.87°N and 120.53° and 121.03°E. It is bounded by Cavite and Metro Manila in the
East, Bulacan and Pampanga in the North, Bataan in the West and Northwest. It has suffered from seri-
ous water quality deterioration due to pollution and habitat degradation.

Due to the alarming situation of Manila Bay, a group, which identified themselves as
“Concerned Residents of Manila Bay” filed a complaint on January 29, 1999 against concerned govern-
ment agencies before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the clean-up, rehabilitation, and protection of the
Manila Bay. The defendant-government agencies included Metropolitan Manila Development Authority
(MMDA), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Department of Education (DepEd),
Department of Health (DOH), Department of Agriculture (DA), Department of Public Works and High
ways (DPWH), Department of Budget and Management ((DBM), Philippine Coast Guard (PCG), the Phil-
ippine National Police Maritime Group, and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG).

In September 13, 2002, the RTC ruled in favour of the “Concerned Citizens” and elevated the
case to the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the lower court’s decision on September 28, 2005.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court (SC) affirmed both the CA and the RTC and issued a Mandamus Order
to several government agencies to implement the clean-up, rehabilitation, and preservation of Manila
Bay. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) was directed by the SC to be the
lead agency since it is responsible for the conservation, management, development, and proper use of
the country’s environment and natural resources. The DA, through the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resource (BFAR), was designated to improve and restore the marine life of the Manila Bay and assist
the LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal, Cavite, Laguna, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan in developing (using
recognized methods) the fisheries and aquatic resources in the Manila Bay (http:// www.lawphil.net).

In November, 2011, the BFAR tasked the Capture Fisheries Research and Development
Division (formerly Resource and Ecological Assessment Division) of the National
Fisheries Research and Development Institute (NFRDI) under the BFAR “Save Manila Bay
Task Force” to conduct a Fisheries Resources and Ecological Assessment of the Bay with
Dr. Mudjekeewis D. Santos as Project Leader, Ms. Grace Lopez as Study Leader for the
Fisheries Resources Assessment and Ms. Elsa Furio as Study Leader for the Ecological Assessment.

This Publication is a product of the efforts and sacrifices of many people. And we would like to
acknowledge the cooperation and support of the following individuals and institutions which helped
in the compilation and development of this book.

First and foremost, we want to thank the support and guidance of the management of the Bu-
reau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Central Office, including former BFAR Director Asis G. Perez
and the National Fisheries Research and Development Institute, including former Interim Executive
Director Melchor M. Tayamen and Interim Assistant Executive Director Noel C. Barut.

Secondly, we acknowledge the efforts of former Research Assistants and Data Enumerators
without whom, some studies under the ecological assessment and the full landed catch and effort moni-
toring would not have been possible: Research Assistants – Louie Adrienne R. Cediño, Clarissa Gomez

v
 PrefacE

and Joey Arboleda; Data Enumerators - Maricris A. Lopez, Verlen N. Guintu, Christopher T. Roque,
Kareen H. Buizon, Francis F. Samson, Maria Clara R. Labrador, Rodolfo S. Tabing, Jr. Kim John
A. Castillo, Philip Jessele Jay M. Dicdiquin, Bernard P. Malubago, Roberto S. Lanto, Michelle V.
Arriola, Aries C. Felipe, Joseph Ryan N. Ligsa, Verlyn F. Parra, Ariel M. Fernandez, Vivian G. Alegre,
Jeffrey P. Beltran, Joan O. Bautista, Angelito Ortiz(†), Jamie Lee B. Agustin, Benster Candelaria, Carlos
Aloysious Pasano, Joanna Marie T. Aniete, Lawrence M. Calapan, Arsenio V. Maglaya III, Jonathan F. Reyes,
Rosalie Salud, Mario Young S. Sebastian, Monalissa R. Ysug II, Victor B. Zapanta and Jay-ar Seth Magdaluyo.

The authors would also like to thank BFAR Regional Field Offices III and IVA, Local Govern-
ment Units and Municipal Agricultural Offices of Bulacan, Parañaque, and Cavite, the Bantay Dagat
and Provincial Fishery Office in Bataan, the Philippine Maritime Police (NCR and Cavite), the Navotas
Fisheries Inspection Quarantine & Licensing Station, the Bataan School of Fisheries and the Cavite State
University, all the fishermen, concessionaries and fish vendors in Navotas, Parañaque, Bulacan, Bataan
and Cavite,.

Finally, we thank our expert evaluators who provided valuable comments and suggestions
during the Project output evaluation workshops; Dr. Gerry Silvestre (ECOFISH Project), Prof. Nygiel
Armada (ECOFISH Project), Dr. Cesar Villanoy (UP MSI), Dr. Ephrime Metillo (MSU-IIT) and Ms.
Sandy Arcamo (BFAR). And we thank Dr, Ephrime Metillo (MSU-IIT) for reviewing the manuscript.

We only wish that the information contained in this Publication will serve as a reminder of
how rich Manila Bay was, how we managed to destroy it, and that we know what ails it and the means
to cure it, and that we need do do something drastic to save and rehabilitate it for the sake of future
generations of Filipinos to come.

May 10, 2017

Mudjekeewis D. Santos
Elsa F. Furio
Grace DV. Lopez
Francisco SB. Torres Jr.
Valeriano M. Borja
Eunice DC. Bognot
Norvida C. Gatdula
Marco A. Perez
Fe L. Gonzales

vi
BFAR Bureau of Fisheries Research and Development Institute
CPUE Catch per Unit Effort
E Exploitation rate
ELEFAN I Electronic Length Frequency Analysis
F Fishing mortality
FiSAT II FAO-ICLARM Stock Assessment Tool II
GSI Gonadosomatic Index
K Growth coefficient
L Length
Lc length at 1st capture
Linf Length infinity or asymptotic length
Lm50 Length at 50% maturity
Lmax Maximum length
Lmin Smallest length
M Natural mortality
ML Midlength
MADECOR Mandala Agricultural Development Corporation
NFRDI National Fisheries Research and Development Institute
RF Raising factor
VBGF von Bertalanffy Growth Function
Z Total mortality

vii
 Title Page ......................................................................................................................................................... i

Forewords

Secretary Emmanuel F. Piñol................................................................................................ ii

Undersecretary Eduardo B. Gongona................................................................................. iii

Interim Executive Director Drusila Esther E. Bayate......................................................... iv

Preface.............................................................................................................................................................. v

Acronyms........................................................................................................................................................ vii

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... viii

List of Tables.................................................................................................................................................... x

List of Figures.................................................................................................................................................. xiii

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... ixx

PART 1 : Fisheries Resources Assessment of Manila Bay ........................................................................ 1

Fish Landing Centers Around Manila Bay

Monitored for Landed Catch and Effort................................................................................. 2

Population Parameters of Common Small Pelagic Fishes

Caught by Ringnet in Manila Bay, Philippines..................................................................... 17

viii
 TablE of ContentS

Species Composition, Distribution,
Biomass Trends, and Exploitation of
Dominant Fish Species in Manila Bay Using
Experimental Trawl Survey.................................................................................................... 31

Reproductive Biology of Common Small Pelagic

Fishes in Manila Bay, Philippines.......................................................................................... 47

Preliminary Inventory of Boats and Gears in Manila Bay ................................................ 61

PART 2: Ecological Assessment of Manila Bay......................................................................................... 82

Spatio - Temporal Distribution of Ichthyoplankton

in Manila Bay in Relation to Oceanographic Conditions .................................................. 83

` Spatio - Temporal Variability of Zooplankton Distribution

and Abundance in Manila Bay from 2013 - 2015................................................................. 94

Spatio - Temporal Distribution and Abundance of
Phytoplankton in Manila Bay................................................................................................. 106

Profile of Salinity, Temperature, Heavy Metal (Pb, Cd, Hg)

and Sediment Hydrogen Sulfide Concentration of Manila Bay,
Philippines from 2012 to 2015................................................................................................ 116

Effect of Nutrient Over - Enrichment on Spatio - Temporal

Variability of Phytoplankton in Manila Bay, Philippines................................................. 140

Spatio - Temporal Variability of Hypoxia and

Eutrophication in Manila Bay During the Northeast and
Southwest Monsoons from 2012 to 2015 .............................................................................. 166

PART 3: Comparative Analysis of Remote Sensing, Fisheries and

Ecological Data of Manila Bay.................................................................................................... 182

Preliminary Comparison of Remote Sensing-Derived

Chlorophyll a Concentration and Sea Surface Temperature
with the Fisheries Resources and Ecological Data in Manila Bay.................................... 183

ix
 Table 1.1 Summary Table of Landing Sites in Manila Bay...................................................................... 16

Table 2.1. Comparison of Growth Parameter Estimates for

Sardinella gibbosa, Sardinella fimbriata, and
Rastrelliger brachysoma by Fishing Ground.............................................................................. 24

Table 2.2. Comparison of Mortality Parameter Estimates,

L50, and E-values for Sardinella gibbosa,
Sardinella fimbriata and Rastrelliger brachysoma by Fishing Ground...................................... 25

Table 3.1 List of Top 20 Species Recorded from 2014 to

2015 Trawl Fishing in Manila Bay. .......................................................................................... 36

Table 3.2 Top 50 Fish and Invertebrate Species Caught in

Manila Bay During the Trawl Fishing Survey from 2014
to 2015 by Biomass Abundance by Province.......................................................................... 37

Table 3.3 Historical Information on the Demersal Stock Density

of Manila Bay.............................................................................................................................. 40

Table 3.4 Compilation of Information on the Trawl Fishing

Survey Conducted in Manila Bay............................................................................................ 41

Table 3.5 Results of the Shannon – Weiner

Diversity Index and Evenness.................................................................................................. 42

Table. 4.1 Five Point Maturity Scale (Manual of Fisheries Science of

Holden & Raitt, 1974)................................................................................................................. 51

Table 4.2 Monthly Variation in Sex Ratio of Sardinella gibbosa,

S. fimbriata, and Rastrelliger kanagurta in Manila Bay
Philippines (pooled data C.Y: 2014-2015)............................................................................... 52
x
 LisT of TableS

Table 4.3 Cumulative Percentage of Female and Male Sardinella gibbosa,

S. fimbriata, and Rastrelliger kanagurta in Manila Bay (2014 - 2015)...................................... 58

Table 5.1 Distribution of Municipal and Commercial Fishing

Boats by Province/Municipality in Manila Bay....................................................................... 64

Table 5.2 Distribution of Motorized and Non-motorized Fishing

Boats by Province/Municipality in Manila Bay...................................................................... 65

Table 5.3 Fishermen to Boat Ratio by Province / Municipality in

Manila Bay.................................................................................................................................. 67

Table 5.4. Profile of Fishing Boats in Manila Bay...................................................................................... 68

Table 5.5 Distribution of Fishing Gears by Province in Manila Bay. .................................................. 70

Table 5.6 Distribution of Fishing Gears by Province/Municipality in Manila Bay............................ 71

Table 5.7 List of Fishing Gears with Corresponding Local Names

by Provinces in Manila Bay........................................................................................................ 72

Table 6.1 Monte-Carlo Permutation Test................................................................................................. 91

Table 6.2. Legend of Fish Families............................................................................................................. 91

Table 6.3. Legend of Environmental Parameters..................................................................................... 92

Table 8.1 List of Phytoplankton Identified in Manila Bay 2012-2015.

(a) Diatoms; (b) Dinoflagellates and Cyanobacteria............................................................... 110

Table 9.1 Water Quality Criteria of Pb, Cd, & Hg

(Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) Administrative Order (DAO)
No. 34 (Series of 1990) (DENR 1995))...................................................................................... 117

Table 9.2 Average Middle and Bottom Depths (m) of the

Manila Bay Survey Stations....................................................................................................... 119

Table 9.3 Ranges of Salinity and Temperature Data from 2012-2015................................................... 133

Table 9.4 Averages of of Salinity and Temperature Data from 2012-2015........................................... 134

Table 9.5 Ranges and Averages of Cadmium Concentration

in the Manila Bay...................................................................................................................... 136

xi
 LisT of TableS

Table 9.6 Ranges and Averages of Mercury Concentration

in the Manila Bay...................................................................................................................... 136

Table 10.1 Dominant Species in Manila Bay. The 12 Most Abundant

Species per Year were Noted, with Percentages in Relation
to Annual Population Indicated.............................................................................................. 153

Table 10.2 Canonical Correspondence Analysis Multiple Stepwise

Regression by Monte Carlo Permutation for Physicochemical
Explanatory Variables and Phytoplankton Species
Abundance................................................................................................................................. 161

Table 11.1 Water Quality Criteria Values (Department

of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
Administrative Order (DAO) No. 34 (Series of 1990)
(DENR 1995)............................................................................................................................. 174

xii
Figure 1.1 Map of Manila Bay Showing the Fish Landing Sites........................................................... 2

Figure 1.2 Rosario Fish Port....................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 1.3 Munting Mapino Fish Landing Site....................................................................................... 4

Figure 1.4 Labac Fish Landing Site........................................................................................................... 5

Figure 1.5 Julugan Fish Landing Site........................................................................................................ 6

Figure 1.6 San Roque Market Fish Landing Site................................................................................... 7

Figure 1.7 Ronquillo (Brgys. 14 & 29A) Fish Landing Site..................................................................... 7

Figure 1.8 Fisherman’s Wharf, Parañaque.............................................................................................. 8

Figure 1.9 PFDA Market 3, Navotas Fishport Complex........................................................................ 9

Figure 1.10 Panasahan Fish Landing Site.................................................................................................. 10

Figure 1.11 San Sebastian Fish landing Site.............................................................................................. 11

Figure 1.12 San Carlos Fish Landing Site.................................................................................................. 12

Figure 1.13 Pto.Rivas Fish Landing Site................................................................................................... 12

Figure 1.14 Tortugas Fish Landing Site.................................................................................................... 13

Figure 1.15 Capunitan Fish Landing Site................................................................................................. 14

Figure 1.16 Townsite Fish Landing Site.................................................................................................... 14

xiii
 LisT of FigureS
Figure 1.17 Batangas II Fish Landing Site.............................................................................................. 15

Figure 2.1 Map of Manila Bay Showing the Data

Collection Fish Landing Sites............................................................................................. 19

Figure 2.2 Percentage Contribution of Gears in Terms of Catch

in Manila Bay, 2014............................................................................................................... 21

Figure 2.3 Relative Abundance of Major Species Caught by

Rignet in Manila Bay, 2014.................................................................................................. 21

Figure 2.4 Midlength Frequency Distribution of

a. Sardinela gibbosa b. Sardinela fimbriata
c. Rastrelliger brachysoma Caught by Ringnet in
Manila Bay, 2014.................................................................................................................... 22

Figure 2.5. Results of Analyses Using FiSAT II for Sardinella gibbosa

from Manila Bay, Philippines............................................................................................. 26

Figure 2.6. Results of Analyses Using FiSAT II for Sardinella fimbriata

from Manila Bay, Philippines ............................................................................................. 27

Figure 2.7. Results of Analyses Using FiSAT II for Rastrelliger

brachysoma from Manila Bay, Philippines ....................................................................... 28

Figure 2.8. Exploitation Rate Values Obtained for Sardinella gibbossa,

Sardinella fimbriata, and Rastrelliger brachysoma in
Manila Bay, 2014.................................................................................................................. 25

Figure 3.1 Map of the Study Area Showing the Trawl Dragging Stations..................................... 34

Figure 3.2 Estimated Mean Biomass and CPUE from 2014 and 2015............................................... 38

Figure 3.3 Map Showing the Demersal Biomass Distribution from the
Year 2014 and 2015................................................................................................................ 39

Figure 3.4 Catch Composition (families) Obtained from

Four Trawl Surveys of Manila Bay Conducted
in 1947, 1993, 2014 and 2015................................................................................................ 41

Figure 3.5 Exploitation Values of the Dominant Species Caught During

the Trawl Fishing Survey from 2014 to 2015.................................................................... 43

Figure 4.1 Data Collection Sites in Manila Bay, Philippines............................................................. 49

Figure 4.2 Common Small Pelagic fishes in Manila Bay................................................................... 50

xiv
 LisT of FigureS
Figure 4.3 Monthly Distribution of Gonad Maturity Stages of
Female Sardinella gibbosa, S. fimbriata, and Rastrelliger kanagurta
in Manila Bay (2014-2015)........................................................................................................ 53

Figure 4.4 Monthly Variation in Sex Ratio of Sardinella gibbosa,

S. fimbriata & Rastrelliger kanagurta in Manila Bay, 2014-2015.......................................... 54

Figure 4.5 Monthly Gonadosomatic Index of Female (FIV)

Sardinella gibbosa, S. fimbriata, and Rastrelliger
kanagurta in Manila Bay (2014-2015)...................................................................................... 55

Figure 4.6 Length Distribution by Maturity Stages of Female:

Sardinella gibbosa, S. fimbriata, and Rastrelliger
kanagurta in Manila Bay, 2014-2015....................................................................................... 56

Figure 4.7 Cumulative Frequency of Length at First Maturity (Lm50)

of Female and Male Dominant Species in Manila Bay (2014-2015).................................. 57

Figure 5.1 Map of Manila Bay Showing the Surveyed Coastal

Barangays Around the Bay..................................................................................................... 63

Figure 5.2 Profile of Fishing Gears in Manila Bay.................................................................................. 68

Figure 6.1 Sampling Stations and Bathymetric Map of Manila Bay................................................... 85

Figure 6.2 Total Species Composition of Fish Larvae in Manila Bay.................................................. 86

Figure 6.3 Composition of Fish Larvae in Manila Bay.......................................................................... 87

Figure 6.4 Spatial Distribution and Abundance of Fish Eggs

in Manila Bay (2012 - 2015)..................................................................................................... 88

Figure 6.5 Spatial Distribution and Abundance of

Fish Larvae in Manila Bay (2012 - 2013)................................................................................ 88

Figure 6.6 Biplot (CCA) of Species and Environmental Parameters

(Plankton, Physical and Chemical Parameters) in Manila Bay.......................................... 90

Figure 7.1 Study Site: Manila Bay (14°31′00″N120°46′00″E) Showing

16 Pre-established Sampling Stations..................................................................................... 96

Figure 7.2 Dominant Zooplanktonic Taxa in 2013-2015 in Manila Bay............................................... 97

Figure 7.3 Spatio-Temporal Variations in Zooplankton

Abundance in 2013-2015 (density= ind/m3)......................................................................... 99

Figure 7.4 Spatio-Temporal Variations in Zooplankton

Diversity in 2013-2015............................................................................................................ 100
xv
 LisT of FigureS
Figure 7.5 Biplot of Environmental Factors x Zooplankton
Composition in 2013 (RDA)................................................................................................... 101

Figure 7.6 Biplot of Environmental Factors x Zooplankton

Composition in 2014 (RDA)................................................................................................... 102

Figure 7.7 Biplot of Environmental Factors x Zooplankton

Composition in 2015 (RDA)................................................................................................... 103

Figure 8.1 Sampling Stations for Hydrobiological Surveys in

Manila Bay (2012-2015)........................................................................................................... 108

Figure 8.2 Densities of Diatoms, Dinoflagellates and Cyanobacteria

in Manila Bay (2012-2015........................................................................................................ 109

Figure 8.3 Twelve Most Dominant Phytoplankton Species Found in

Manila Bay (2012-2015).......................................................................................................... 109

Figure 8.4 Spatiotemporal Abundance of Phytoplankton in

Manila Bay (2012-2015).......................................................................................................... 112

Figure 8.5 Spatiotemporal Diversity Index (H’) of Phytoplankton in

Manila Bay (2012-2015)........................................................................................................... 112

Figure 9.1 Manila Bay Sampling Stations.............................................................................................. 118

Figure 9.2 2012 Salinity Profile of Manila Bay....................................................................................... 120

Figure 9.3 2013 Salinity Profile of Manila Bay...................................................................................... 121

Figure 9.4 2014 Salinity Profile of Manila Bay...................................................................................... 123

Figure 9.5 2015 Salinity Profile of Manila Bay....................................................................................... 124

Figure 9.6 2012 Temperature Profile of Manila Bay............................................................................. 126

Figure 9.7 2013 Temperature Profile of Manila Bay.............................................................................. 127

Figure 9.8 2014 Temperature Profile of Manila Bay............................................................................... 128

Figure 9.9 2015 Temperature Profile of Manila Bay............................................................................... 129

Figure 9.10 (a) 2012, (b) 2013, (c) 2014, (d) 2015 Salinity
Vertical Profile of Manila Bay ................................................................................................ 131

Figure 9.11 (a) 2012, (b) 2013, (c) 2014, (d) 2015 Temperature
Vertical Profile of Manila Bay................................................................................................. 132

xvi
 LisT of FigureS
Figure 9.12 Lead Distribution of Surface Seawater in Manila Bay..................................................... 135

Figure 9.13 Cadmium Distribution of Surface Seawater in Manila Bay............................................ 135

Figure 9.14 Mercury Distribution of Surface Seawater in Manila Bay.............................................. 137

Figure 9.15 Contour Maps of H2S in Bottom Sediments of Manila Bay

for September, November, and December 2015............................................................... 138

Figure 10.1 Study Site: Manila Bay (14°31′00″N120°46′00″E) Showing

16 Pre-established Sampling Stations................................................................................ 142

Figure 10.2 Temperature Profile of Manila Bay from January 2012

to November 2015................................................................................................................. 144

Figure 10.3 Salinity Profile of Manila Bay from January 2012

to November 2015................................................................................................................. 145

Figure 10.4 Dissolved Oxygen Profile of Manila Bay from January 2012
to November 2015................................................................................................................. 146

Figure 10.5 Chlorophyll a Profile of Manila Bay from January 2012

to November 2015................................................................................................................. 147

Figure 10.6 Nitrate Profile of Manila Bay from January 2012

to November 2015................................................................................................................. 149

Figure 10.7 Nitrite Profile of Manila Bay from January 2012

to November 2015................................................................................................................. 150

Figure 10.8 Phosphate Profile of Manila Bay from January 2012

to November 2015................................................................................................................. 151

Figure 10.9 Silicate Profile of Manila Bay from January 2012

to November 2015................................................................................................................. 152

Figure 10.10 a. Phytoplankton Density in Manila Bay for 2012........................................................... 154

b. Phytoplankton Density in Manila Bay for 2013........................................................... 154

c. Phytoplankton Density in Manila Bay for 2014........................................................... 155

d. Phytoplankton Density in Manila Bay for 2015........................................................... 155

Figure 10.11 a. Canonical Correspondence Analysis of Phytoplankton

to Physico-chemical parameters for 2012.......................................................................... 158

b. Canonical Correspondence Analysis of Phytoplankton

xvii
 LisT of FigureS

to Physico-chemical parameters for 2013........................................................................ 158

c. Canonical Correspondence Analysis of Phytoplankton

to Physico-chemical parameters for 2014........................................................................ 159

d. Canonical Correspondence Analysis of Phytoplankton

to Physico-chemical parameters for 2015........................................................................ 159

Figure 10.12 a. Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index for Phytoplankton for 2012.................................. 156

b. Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index for Phytoplankton for 2013.................................. 156

c. Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index for Phytoplankton for 2014.................................. 157

d. Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index for Phytoplankton for 2015................................. 157

Figure 11.1 Manila Bay Sampling Stations........................................................................................... 166

Figure 11.2 (a) Map of the Depth (in meters) of the Bottom Layer
of Manila Bay; (b) Average Middle and Bottom Depths
(in meters) of the Manila Bay Survey Stations................................................................ 169

Figure 11.3 2012 Dissolved Oxygen Profile of Manila Bay................................................................ 171

Figure 11. 4 2013 Dissolved Oxygen Profile of Manila Bay................................................................ 172

Figure 11.5 2014 Dissolved Oxygen Profile of Manila Bay................................................................ 173

Figure 11. 6 2015 Dissolved Oxygen Profile of Manila Bay................................................................ 175

Figure 11.7 (a) 2012, (b) 2013, (c) 2014, (d) 2015 Temperature
Vertical Profile of Manila Bay............................................................................................ 177

Figure 11.8 (a) 2012, (b) 2013, (c) 2014, (d) 2015 Salinity
Vertical Profile of Manila Bay........................................................................................... 178

Figure 12.1 Chlorophyll a Concentration (mg m-3 ) in Manila Bay in 2014..................................... 186

Figure 12.2 Sea Surface Temperature (ºC) in Manila Bay 2014.......................................................... 186

Figure 12.3 Chlorophyll a Concentration (mg m-3 ) in Manila Bay in 2015..................................... 187

Figure 12.4 Sea Surface Temperature (ºC) in Manila Bay 2015.......................................................... 187

Figure 12.5 Manila Bay Temporal Trends for 2012 - 2015.................................................................. 188
xviii
 T he Supreme Court (SC) was specific in its 2011 mandamus to the Bureau of Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources (BFAR) regarding Manila Bay to wit:

“To report on areas in Manila Bay where marine life has to be restored or improved
and the assistance it has extended to the LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal, Laguna, Cavite,
Bulacan, Pampanga and Bataan in developing the fisheries and aquatic resources in
Manila Bay. The Report shall contain monitoring data on the marine life in the said
areas.”

To meet this SC order and following the tasking from BFAR, the Capture Fisheries Research
and Development Division (formerly Resource and Ecological Assessment Division) of the National
Fisheries and Development Institute (NFRDI) conducted a comprehensive fisheries resource and
ecological assessment of Manila Bay using several methodologies including landed catch and effort
monitoring, experimental trawl surveys, hydrobiological surveys, water quality assessments and remote
sensing from 2012 – 2015. Specifically, the Project aimed at answering the following management questions:

• What is the current fisheries profile of Manila Bay?

• Any immediate IUU concerns observed in the Bay’s fisheries?
• Is overfishing happening in the Bay? What kind?
• Is there over-enrichment of nitrate (NO3) in the Bay? Where?
• Is there hypoxia or lack of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the Bay? Where?
• Any information seen that can help boost fish stocks of the Bay?
• When is the peak spawning time of sardines in the Bay?
• Where are the spawning sites of sardines in the Bay?

Based on our results, Manila Bay fisheries is still existing and there are still fishes being caught
in the Bay being by about 25 types of fishing gears dominated by bottom gillnets. However, its status
when referenced to historical accounts and outlook is not encouraging.

At the outset, our landed catch and effort monitoring revealed that destructive and illegal fish-

ixx
 ExecutivE SummarY

ing methods such as trawl, “hulbot-hulbot” and blast fishing are still rampant in Manila Bay. In
addition, we have established the presence of an invasive blackchin tilapia, Sarotherodon
melanotheron locally named “Arroyo” in the Bay, which apparently emerged just recently and
is anecdotally reported to already causing problems in fish farms in Bulacan and Pampanga.

The fish stocks in Manila Bay are almost gone as about 90% of the demersal biomass
relative to 1947 baseline has already disappeared. This is compounded by unsustainable fishing prac-
tices as evidenced by high exploitation rates for the remaining small pelagic species in the Bay, the
presence of high concentration of pollutants in the water, and the presence of
hydrogen sulfide H2S concentration indicating that some parts of the seafloor is biologically dead.

We have determined that the general peak spawning for small pelagic in Manila Bay is around
February to April and then again on October to December. We also found that fish larvae were consis-
tently found in the eastern part of the bay where there were also high concentrations of phytoplankton,
zooplankton, and nutrients. High abundance of fish eggs and fish larvae was observed during northeast
monsoon than southwest monsoon. In addition, fish larvae family was dominated by small pelagic fish
such as sardines, slipmouths, and mullets. It is important to note that based on the temporal trends of
the Manila Bay, every March (2012-2015), high concentrations of fish eggs and fish larvae were observed
in the southeast side of the Bay.

Phytoplankton typically converged in the coasts of the bay, particularly at the eastern portion,
but it is noteworthy to say that the sporadic pattern seen maybe attributed to the presence of their
predators. The dramatic drop in the phytoplankton densities seems to coincide with the spawning of
sardines.

Trends in both phytoplankton and physico-chemical properties suggest that the ecosystem of
the bay is highly dependent on rainfall. Shannon-Wiener diversity index does not go higher than 2.46,
and based on monthly averages, the Bay can be categorized as moderately heavy to heavy polluted.
Hypoxia or low levels of dissolve oxygen have also been occurring year-round in Manila Bay with
varying intensity but more prominent during the wet season.

xx
 ExecutivE SummarY

MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
This scientific report strongly suggests that indeed the fishery of Manila Bay is in near collapse
and that its waters are almost biologically dead validating the impetus for the Supreme Court manda-
mus.

This report also shows a number of scientific information that can be used as basis for management for
actions such as the formulation of key policies and programs to revitalize Manila Bay.

• Illegal Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) fishing is still prevalent in the Bay e.g. blast fishing,
“hulbot hulbot” fishing and trawl fishing. As such, law enforcement should be fully pursued.

• Boat and gears, whether Municipal or Commercial, operating in the Bay are not fully registered.
Hence, boat licensing and registration should be vigorously implemented for monitoring and regula-
tory purposes.

• Specifically, “Zafra” or stationary liftnets operating in the Bay appears to cause growth over-
fishing as it targets juvenile fishes of sardines etc. These gears should be regulated and managed.

• Sardine species caught in the Bay occurs in the months of February to April and October to De-
cember. Hence, a seasonal fishing closure for commercial fishing boats targeting these species could be
implemented similar to Zamboanga Peninsula, Visayan Sea and Northern Palawan.

• Specifically, spawning of sardine species that occur in March have clear aggregation patterns
for its spawners and larvae in the southeast side of the Bay. In addition, there is indication that its sea-
floor is biologically dead. These are evidently the main causes of the deterioration of the Bay’s fisheries
resources and ecosystem. This area can be declared as a special Fisheries Management Area (FMA)
where an area based seasonal fishing closure during March could be established.

• Finally, our data points to a Manila Bay seafloor as biologically dead due to siltation, effluents
and other pollutants, which may be the primary cause of the collapsing fish stocks, fisheries and ecol-
ogy of the Bay. Dredging and cleaning the Bay is probably the only option for revitalizing life of the
Bay. Otherwise, it may only be used for other purposes such as reclamation and transport.

xxi
Chapter 1

Fish Landing Centers around

Manila Bay Monitored for Landed Catch and Effort

Marianne O. Anit, Mudjekeewis D. Santos, and Grace DV. Lopez*

Vertebrate Section
Capture Fisheries Research and Development Division
National Fisheries Research and Development Institute

*Corresponding Author: gmvlopez@yahoo.com

I NTRODUCTION
The fisheries resource assessement compo-
nent was conducted using the landed catch and
effort monitoring as one of its sampling frame-
work. Sixteen fish landing sites were identified
in Cavite, Metro Manila, Bulacan, and Bataan
(Figure 1.1) and Data Enumerators were hired to
monitor and collect fish landing information i.e.
catch & effort, length, and reproductive biology
data.

Figure 1.1. Map of Manila Bay Showing the Fish Landing Sites.

2
 ChapteR 1
SAMPLING SITES
Areas selected surrounding the bay
were in the provinces of Cavite (6), Bulacan (2)
Bataan (6), and Metro Manila (2). The designa-
tion of the major and minor landing sites was
based on the volume of boat landings. Greater
number of boat landings were designated as
major landing sites. Two landing sites (PFDA,
Navotas and Fisherman’s Wharf, Parañaque)
were exempted from the usual sampling sched-
ule (10-11 days per month for each landing site)
for each has a total of 20-21 days per month. Catch
unloading in the different landing sites in
Manila Bay vary. There are sites that unload
their catch during daytime and in other sites
during night time or a combination of both.
The common practice of selling catch in
almost all fish landing sites in Manila Bay is by
Figure 1.2. Rosario Fish Port
3
Description of Landing Sites
bidding the fish through “whisper “(“Bulong
System”). The fish are traded either in wholesale
(were the fish are sold in fish containers i.e. “ban-
yera” or galvanized tin tub, large plastic tub,
Styrofoam box ) or retail (where the fish are placed
in small plastic bags or “piled” (“tumpok”) on
the floor. Bidding the fish is usually done by
a “Consignacion” (or Concessionaire) and each
fishing boat has its respective “Consignacion”.
CAVITE
Rosario Fish Port
Rosario Fish Port (Figure 1.2) is located
in Rosario, Cavite at latitude 14˚25’7.84’’N and
longitude is 120˚50’57.04’’E. This is one of the
biggest fish ports in Cavite where both the com-
mercial and municipal fishing boats land their
ChapteR 1
catch. Arrival of the fishing boats usually starts
at around 12 midnight to 8:00 am. For the com-
mercial fishing boats, the service boats bring the
catch to the landing site directly to their respec-
tive consignacion. The catch are usually landed
in fish containers (i.e. “banyeras”) ready for bid-
ding. For the municipal fishing boats, their catch
are placed either in Styrofoam box or pail and
directly brought to their respective consignacion.
There are also fish retailers inside the market
who resell the fish to small buyers/vendors. The
most common gears are ringnet (commercial &
municipal) and bottom gillnet (municipal) and
the common catch are Rastrelliger brachysoma
(hasa-hasa), Stolephorus commersonii (dilis) and
Photololigo edulis (pusit).
Figure 1.3. Munting Mapino Fish Landing Site
Description of Landing Sites
Munting Mapino Fish Landing Site
Munting Mapino Fish Landing site (Fig-
ure 1.3) in Naic, Cavite is a located at latitude
14˚20’6 86’’N and longitude 120˚46’16.26’’E.
Fishing boats start to arrive at around 2:00 am
to 8:00 am. There are four consignaciones in the
area and the catch of both the commercial and
municipal boats are brought directly to their re-
spective consignacion. Aside from the fish, a lot of
invertebrates (i.e. shrimps/prawns, squids, crabs)
are also being landed in the area. The catch are
being sold in “tumpok” or pile of about 1 or
more kilogram, depending on the size of the fish.
Municipal catch are usually landed in small
plastic bags (weighing about ½ to 1 kg per bag)
or in small pails and are directly brought to the
4
 Chapter 1
Figure 1.4. Labac Fish Landing Site
consignacion. There are also fish retailers/ven-
dors in the area who resell the fish to small
buyers. Majority of the boats that land are
gillnetters (drift gillnet and encircling gillnet) and
trawlers. The common fish species caught are
Rastrelliger brachysoma (hasa-hasa)
Trichiurus lepturus (Espada). The com-
mon catch of trawl are shrimps/prawns.
Labac Fish Landing Site
Labac Fish Landing site (Figure 1.4) is
located in Naic, Cavite at latitude 14˚18’54.61’’N
and longitude 120˚43’54.53’’E. All boats that
land in the area are municipal fishing boats and
they start to arrive from about 6:00 am to 5:00
pm. There are only two consignaciones in the
area and the bidders are vendors from nearby
fish markets or barangays. The common gears
are drift gillnets and the common species landed
are Rastrelliger brachysoma (hasa-hasa), Valamugil
seheli (Aligasin), and Pomadasys maculatus (Bako-
ko).
5
Description of Landing Sites
Sometimes, catch from “blast fishing” are
brought to the area for bidding.
Julugan Fish Landing Site
and
The Julugan Fish Landing Site (Figure 1.5)
in Tanza, Cavite is just beside the Market and the
Office of the Maritime Police. It is located
at latitude 14˚24’15.05’’N and at Longitude
120˚50’31.56’’ E. Daily boat landing usually starts
at around 5:00 am to 11:00 am. The catch of the
municipal fishing boats are directly brought to
the market and to the respective consignacion.
There are five consignaciones in the area. The catch
are usually piled (“tumpok”) on the floor with-
out any container ready for retail. . The common
gears used are bottom gillnet and trawl (com-
mercial and municipal) and common species are
Rastrelliger brachysoma (hasa-hasa), Trichiurus
lepturus (Espada) and Terapon Jarbua (Bagaong).
Chapter 1
San Roque Market, Cavite City
The fish landing site in San Roque (Figure
1.6) is located beside the Cavite City Public Mar-
ket. It is located at Latitude 14˚28’42-33’’North
and Longitude 120˚53’13.79’’East. There are
three consignaciones in the area and fishing boats
start to arrive at about 6:00 am until 8:00 am.
The catch are placed in pails and “banyera” and
brought directly to their respective consignacion.
Some bidders are vendors inside the market and
nearby barangays. Fishing boats from nearby
Barangays transport their catch to this market in
“tricycle” (a three-wheel small vehicle similar to
a bicycle). The common gears are bottom gillnet
and lift net and the common species are Valamugil
seheli (Aligasin), Photololigo edulis (Pusit), and
Sardinella gibbosa (Lawlaw, Tunsoy).
Sarotherodon melanotheron (Tilapiang Arroyo or
Gloria) are also observed in the catch of Lift Net.
Figure 1.5. Julugan Fish Landing SIte
Description of Landing Sites
Ronquillo Fish Landing Site
Ronquillo Fish Landing Site includes
Barangays 14 and 29A (Figure 1.7). It is located
in Cavite City at Latitute 14028’30.05’’ North and
Longitude 14028’30.05’’ East. The municipal
fishing boats usually arrive at about 6:00am until
10:00am. The catch are placed in pails and imme-
diately sold to vendors waiting in the landing area
through bidding. It is usually the wife of the fish-
erman who conducts the bidding. The common
gears are bottom gillnet and the common catch are
Rastrelliger brachysoma (hasa-hasa), Nemipterus ja-
ponicas (bisugo), and Nemipterus bathybius (bisugo).
6
 ChapteR 1 Description of Landing Sites

Figure 1.6. San Roque Market Fish Landing Site

Figure 1.7. Brgy 29A &14 Ronquillo Fish Landing Site

7
ChapteR 1
Figure 1.8. Fisherman’s Wharf Fish Landing Site
METRO MANILA
Fisherman’s Wharf, Parañaque
Fisherman’s Wharf (Figure 1.8) is lo-
cated along Cavite Expressway (CAVITEX)
at Latitude 14˚30’4.83’’North and Longitude
120˚59’20.36’’East. Fish unloading usually starts
at 1:00 am to 4:00 am. Both commercial and mu-
nicipal boats land in the area and the catch (in
“banyeras”) are directly brought to the respective
“consignacion”. There are more than 10 consig-
naciones in the area. The catch from commercial
boats are usually brought to the site by their ser-
vice boats. The common gears are liftnet and
gillnets (encircling, bottom, and surface gillnets)
and the common catch are sardines (Sardinella
fimbriata and Sardinella gibbosa), Sarotherodon mel-
anotheron (Tilapiang Arroyo or Gloria) and Stole-
phorus commersonii (Dilis). There are also frozen
fish being sold inside the market, transported
by land, but caught outside Manila Bay or from
Description of Landing Sites
other fishing grounds (i.e. Palawan).
Market 3, Navotas Fish Port Complex
Market 3 is part of the Navotas Fish
Port Complex (Figure 1.9) located at Lati-
tude 14˚38’52.26’’North and Longitude
120˚56’52.27’’East. It is a major fishing port and
fish market under the exclusive jurisdiction, con-
trol and supervision of the Philippine Fisheries
Development Authority (PFDA). Both commer-
cial and municipal fishing boats land their catch
in this port and the usual fish unloading starts
from 5:00 am to 12:00n. The catch are unloaded
in “Banyeras” and they go directly to the respec-
tive “consignacion”. There are more than 10 con-
signaciones in the market. Fishing boats from the
provinces of Cavite, Bataan, and Bulacan most
often bring their catch to this port because of the
very high selling price compared in the province.
The common gears are trawl, encircling gillnet,
ringnet and liftnet and the common catch are
Sardi-
8
 ChapteR 1
Figure 1.9. PFDA Market 3, Navotas Fish Port Complex
nella fimbriata (lawlaw, Lapad), Sardinella gibbosa
(lawlaw. Tunsoy), and Rastrelliger brachysoma
(hasa-hasa).
BULACAN
Panasahan Fish Port
Panasahan Fish Port (Figure 1.10) is lo-
cated in Malolos Bulacan. Fishing boats start to
arrive at about 3:00 pm to 8:00 pm. The catch are
usually unloaded in “banyera” or they use “pail”
(specifically the municipal fishing boats) and go
directly to the respective consignacion. There are
eight consignaciones in the area and the common
gears are bottom gillnet, trawl and motorized
pushnet and the common catch are Portunus
pelagicus (Alimasag), Sarotherodon melanotheron
9
Description of Landing Sites
(Tilapiang Arroyo or Gloria), and Sillago sihama
(Asohos).
San Sebastian Fish Landing Site
San Sebastian Fish Landing (Figure 1.11)
is located in Hagonoy, Bulacan. Landing time of
both the commercial and municipal fishing boats
usually starts from 7:00am to 12:00 n. The ser-
vice boat of the commercial fishing boat serves
as carrier in transporting the catch to the landing
site and go directly to the consignacion. There are
10 consignaciones in the area. The catch are usu-
ally unloaded in containers (i.e. “banyera”, large
plastic box, or pail). Catch (i.e. milkfish, crabs
and shrimps) coming from fish ponds are also
brought to this site for bidding. The common
gears used are bottom gillnet and motorized
pushnet, and the common species caught are Sil-
ChapteR 1
lago sihama (Asohos), Portunus pelagicus (Alima-
sag), and Mugil cephalus (Kapak).
In April 2015, fishing boats landing in
San Sebastian temporarily moved to Sto. Niño,
Hagonoy, Bulacan. However, they returned
again to San Sebastian after a month.
BATAAN
San Carlos Fish Landing Site
San Carlos Fish Landing Site (Figure
1.12) in Mariveles is located just in front the town
market at Latitude 14˚26’13.60’’North and Lon-
gitude 120˚29’16.31’’East. All the boats that land
are municipal boats and they commonly arrive at
Figure 1.10. Panasahan Fish Landing Site
Description of Landing Sites
about 6:00am to 12:00 n. The catch are placed in
“banyera” or pail and go directly to the respective
consignaciones, where there are 5, for bidding.
Some of the catch are just piled (“tumpok”) on
the floor, ready for retail. Most of the bidders
are just vendors of the town market, where they
sell the fish at a higher price. The common gears
used are bottom gillnet and the common catch
are Saurida tumbil (kalaso), Rastrelliger brachysoma
(hasa-hasa) and Selar crumenopthalmus (Matang
baka).
Pto. Rivas Fish Landing Site
Pto. Rivas fish landing site (Fig-
ure 1.13) is located in Balanga, Bataan at
Latitude 14˚42’1.95’’North and Longitude
120˚33’39.24’’East. Fish are landed in the morn-
ing from 6:00 am to 10:00 am and in the after-
noon from 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm.
10
 ChapteR 1
Both commercial and municipal fishing boats
land in the area. The service boat of the commer-
cial fishing boat serves as carrier in transporting
the catch and brought directly to the consigna-
cion. The catch are either placed in “banyera”,
Styrofoam box or pail. The regular buyers are
just residents within the area with fish process-
ing business such as, salted fish and smoked
fish, which is the common livelihood in the area.
However, there are also buyers from other place.
The common gears are fish corral and ringnet
and the common catch are Sardinella fimbriata
(lawlaw, Lapad), Sardinella gibbosa (lawlaw, Tun-
soy), and Rastrelliger brachysoma (hasa-hasa).
Figure 1.11. San Sebastian Fish Landing Site
11
Description of Landing Sites
Tortugas Fish Landing Site
Tortugas fish landing site (Fig-
ure 1.14) is located in Balanga, Bataan at
Latitude 14˚41’51.14’’North and Longitude
120˚33’39.24’’East. The fishing boats are all mu-
nicipal with two landing schedules, in the morn-
ing at 6:00am to 10:00am and in the afternoon
at 2:00pm to 4:00pm. The catch are immedi-
ately sold to vendors waiting in the landing area
through bidding. The common gears are encir-
cling gillnet and drive-in-net and the common
catch are Valamugil seheli (Aligasin), Mugil cepha-
lus (Kapak), and Penaeus merguiensis (Sugpo).
ChapteR 1 Description of Landing Sites

Figure 1.12. San Carlos Fish Landing Site

Figure 1.13. Pto.Rivas Fish Landing Site

12
 ChapteR 1
Capunitan Fish Landing Site
Capunitan fish landing site (Figure
1.15) is located in Orion, Bataan. The boats are
all municipal which start to arrive at 6:00am to
12:00noon. The catch are placed in pails and
brought directly to the consignacion for bidding.
The common gear is drift Gillnet and the com-
mon catch are sardines particularly, Sardinella
gibbosa (lawlaw, Tunsoy), Sardinella fimbriata
(lawlaw, Lapad), and Sardinella lemuru (Tamban).
Townsite Fish Landing Site
Townsite fish landing site (Figure 1.16) is
located in Mariveles, Bataan. It is a small landing
Figure 1.14. Tortugas Fish Landing Site
13
Description of Landing Sites
area with all municipal boats which start to ar-
rive at around 6:00 am until 1:00 pm. The catch
are immediately brought to the consignacion for
bidding. There are two consignacion in the area
and they are also fish dealers. They also buy the
fish and gather them in large plastic closed tubs
and when they have already sufficient quantity,
they usually deliver them to Limay and other
parts of Bataan. The common gears are bottom
set longline and bottom gillnet and the major
catch are Nemipterus japonicus (Bisugo), Epinephe-
lus sexfasciatus (lapu-lapu), and Leiognathus equu-
lus (Sapsap).
ChapteR 1 Description of Landing Sites

Figure 1.15. Capunitan Fish Landing Site

Figure 1.16. Townsite Fish Landing Site

14
 ChapteR 1 Description of Landing Sites

Figure 1.17. Batangas II Fish Landing Site

Batangas II Fish Landing Site

Batangas II fish landing site (Figure 1.17)

is located in Mariveles Bataan. The boats are all
municipal where they return immediately after
an hour of fishing around 6:00am to 1:00pm. In
times when the catch is favorable, the fishermen
go back to the fishing ground on the same day
and return at around 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm. The
catch are brought to the consignacion for bidding.
The only gear is drift gillnet and the common
catch are sardines particularly, Sardinella fimbri-
ata (lawlaw, Lapad), and Sardinella gibbosa (law-
law, Tunsoy).
L ITERATURE CITED
Zaragoza, E.C., Moreno E.P., Baling N.S.,
Colorado F.G., Guerrero III R.D., 2005.
Pilot monitoring of the fisheries
resources of Manila Bay, p. 20.DOST –
PCAMRD, DENR and PEMSEA.
http://www.lawphil.net
http://themanilabay.denr.gov.ph/supreme-
court-decision/

15
ChapteR 1 Description of Landing Sites

Table 1.1. Summary table of landing sites in Manila Bay

16
 ChapteR 2 Population Parameters of Common Small Pelagic Fishes

Population Parameters of Common Small Pelagic Fishes

Caught by Ringnet in Manila Bay, Philippines

Noimie Rose B. Dicdiquin, Francisco SB. Torres,

Eunice DC. Bognot, Mudjekeewis D. Santos,
and Grace DV. Lopez*

Vertebrate Section
Capture Fisheries Research and Development Division
National Fisheries Research and Development Institute

*Corresponding Author: gmvlopez@yahoo.com

Abstract

The growth and mortality parameters, exploitation ratios and annual recruitment patterns of sardines
(Sardinella gibbosa and Sardinella fimbriata) and mackerel (Rastrelliger brachysoma), caught by ring net in
Manila Bay, were estimated based from raised length-frequency data collected for one year (January to
December 2014). Data were regularly collected in selected fish landing sites where ringnetters regularly
unload their catch. Results of the length frequency analysis are summarized. The growth parameters
for the three species are as follows, Sardinella gibbosa (L∞ = 18.49 cm, K = 0.88 yr-1); Sardinella fimbriata
(L∞ = 18.5 cm, K = 0.95 yr-1); and Rastrelliger brachysoma (L∞ = 28. 67 cm, k = 1.3 yr-1). The results showed only
a slight difference from previous studies conducted in Manila Bay. For the mortality parameters, L50 and
E-values, results showed an increased values compared to previous studies. The E-values of the three spe-
cies already exceeded the optimum exploitation value of E=0.5, indicating that overfishing is occurring.

Keyword: Growth parameters, mortality parameters, exploitation rate, recruitment pattern

17
ChapteR 2 Population Parameters of Common Small Pelagic Fishes
I NTRODUCTION
Manila Bay is one of the major fishing
grounds of the Philippines. It is a multi-gear
and multispecies fisheries with moderately flat
bottom contour particularly suited for trawl and
other similar fishing operations involving drag-
ging or pushing nets. Manila Bay is located in
the western part of Luzon bounded by the prov-
inces of Cavite, Metro Manila, Bulacan, Pampan-
ga, and Bataan.
Sardines and mackerels are the most
abundant species caught in Manila Bay using
various fishing gears. Ringnet is one of the ma-
jor gears that exploit the small pelagic stocks of
the Bay, particularly Sardinella gibbosa (82.76 %),
S. fimbriata (12.31 %), and Rastrelliger brachysoma
(2.41 %) comprising the top three dominant catch
of the gear in 2014. The ringnetters use a 15-25
gross ton motorized fishing boats (also known as
small-scale commercial fishing vessels) with a 3.0
cm stretched mesh size net.
Up until 1958, there was a rapid increase
in the total production of Manila Bay (Muñoz,
1991) making it the country’s second biggest
source of fish catch until the 1970s. Previous
studies also reported the Bay to be abundant
in demersal and invertebrates species based on
trawl survey (Ronquillo et al., 1960; Ronquillo et
al., 1989; BFAR, 1995). However, recent studies
already show that the Bay’s resources are ex-
periencing overfishing as proven by the declin-
ing fish catch and in the change of the quality of
fish caught to lesser valued species. There was
a change in species composition and the abun-
dance of small pelagic species, dominated by
sardines (Sardinella gibbosa and S. fimbriata) and
mackerel species (Rastrelliger brachysoma) (Lopez
et al., 2013 annual report, unpublished). In addi-
tion, the Bay is also suffering from habitat deg-
radation and its water quality deteriorating due
to pollution (PEMSEA and MBEMP TWG-RRA,
2004; Su et al., 2009; Chang et al., 2009).
Studies on the population parameters of
these species in Manila Bay are very limited. The
knowledge of the fish mortality parameters are
significant to fishery scientists studying the dy-
namics of fish population (Youngs and Robson,
1978; Marshall, 1993). Estimates of the mortal-
ity and exploitation rate are vital in determining
the status of the sardine and mackerel fisheries
in Manila Bay. This study will provide estimates
of population parameters of Sardinella gibbosa,
Sardinella fimbriata and Rastrelliger brachysoma.
Results will serve as baseline information for the
proper management of these fish resources in
Manila Bay.
M
ATERIALS AND
METHODS
Study Area and Data Collection
This study analyzed the length fre-
quencies of the three species namely, Sardinella
ysoma, collected monthly at random from ringnet
catches. Data gathering was every after two days
or 10-11 days per month in the selected fish land-
ing sites in Manila Bay (except in PFDA Market
3 and Fisherman’s Wharf which was 20-21 days
per month), where ringnetters regularly unload
their catch (Figure. 2.1). Data were collected for
one year from January 2014 to December 2014
and individual fish specimens were measured
to total length (cm) using a measuring board.
Analysis of Data
The pooled monthly length-frequency
data coming from the nine fish landing sites
were grouped into ascending midlengths, using
0.5 cm class interval for the sardines and 1.0 cm
class interval for the mackerel species.
The accumulated length-frequencies
were raised to estimate the number of pieces in
18
 ChapteR 2 Population Parameters of Common Small Pelagic Fishes

Figure 2.1. Map of Manila Bay Showing the Data Collection Fish Landing Sites.

the entire population per species per day using

the weighted value using the formula:
routines (e.g. ELEFAN I) incorporated in the
software were used to estimate the population
parameters:

Growth Parameters Estimation:

Growth parameters were determined

The raised length frequencies per spe-
cies were encoded and processed using the FAO-
ICLARM Stock Assessment Tools (FiSAT II)
(Gayanilo et al., 2005) to estimate growth, mor-
tality, exploitation rate, recruitment pattern, and
probabilities of capture for each species. Several
first by estimating the initial asymptotic length
(L∞), and the ratio of the total mortality to growth
coefficient (Z/K) using Powell-Wetherall method
(Gayanilo and Pauly, 1997) based on the equa-
tion of Beverton and Holt method (1966), except
for Sardinella fimbriata wherein the L∞ value used

19
ChapteR 2 Population Parameters of Common Small Pelagic Fishes
in the estimation was from the previous study of
BFAR (1995). The initial seed value of L∞ was
further analyzed in ELEFAN I (Electronic Length
Frequency Analysis) where the growth constant
(k) was estimated from k-scan routine that com-
bines finding the best fitting growth curve. The
estimated values of L∞ and k were visually as-
sessed for progression of modes in the growth
curve utilizing the von Bertalanffy Growth Func-
tion or VBGF (Pauly, 1982).
Mortality Parameters Estimation:
The mortality parameters (Z, M, and F)
and Exploitation Rate (E) were estimated via the
Length Converted Catch Curve method (Pauly,
1984) and using a mean annual habitat tempera-
ture of 28˚C. Z is total instantaneous mortality,
M is natural mortality and F is mortality caused
by fishing. The instantaneous Total Mortality (Z)
was estimated following the formula:
Expanding the equation for mortality would
lead to the estimation of Exploitation Rate (E) via
the following equation:
Recruitment Pattern Estimation:
The Annual Recruitment Pattern was
determined through backward projection of the
restructured data onto the time axis using the es-
timated values of L∞ and k.
Probabilities of Capture Estimation:
Estimation of the Length at First Capture
(~equivalent to L50) was derived from probabili-
ties of capture generated from the Length Con-
verted Catch Curve Analysis.
Growth Performance Index Estimation:
The Phi-Prime Index (Ø’) was estimat-
ed from Growth Performance Index using the
L∞ and k values. This was used to compare the
growth performance index of species studied
with previous estimates in Manila Bay.
R ESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
Ringnet is one of the major gears that
operate in Manila Bay which contributes about
82% of the total landed catch (Figure 2.2). In
terms of species composition, Sardinella gibbosa
was the most dominant comprising about 83% of
the ringnet catch followed by Sardinella fimbriata
(about 12%) and Rastrelliger brachysoma (about
2%) (Figure 2.3). These three dominant species
are the focus of this study.
Size Frequency Distribution
A total of 17,991 individuals taken from
ringnet catches in Manila Bay were measured
and analyzed. The minimum and maximum
“midlength” sizes of the samples range between
5.75 cm and 18.75 cm out of the 12,607 Sardinella
gibbosa measured. Majority of the samples col-
lected (14% to 17%) had midlength sizes that
range from 12.25 cm to 13.75 cm and the mid-
length size mode was 13.25 cm. In the case of
Sardinella fimbriata, a total of 3,561 samples mea-
sured with size range from 9.75 cm to 17.75 cm.
Most of the samples collected (11% to 18%) had
midlength sizes that range from 11.75 cm to 13.25
cm. For Rastrelliger brachysoma, a total of 1,823
samples were collected with midlength sizes that
range from 10.5 cm to 27.5 cm. Bulk of the sam-
ples collected (10% to 12%) had midlength sizes
that range from 16.5 cm to 20.5 cm (Figure 2.4).
20
 ChapteR 2 Population Parameters of Common Small Pelagic Fishes

Figure 2.2. Percentage contribution of gears in terms of catch in Manila Bay, 2014.

Figure 2.3. Relative abundance of major species caught by ringnet in Manila Bay, 2014.

21
ChapteR 2 Population Parameters of Common Small Pelagic Fishes

Figure 2.4 Midlength frequency distribution of (A) Sardinela gibbosa, (B) S. fimbriata and (C) Rastrelliger
brachysoma caught by ringnet in Manila Bay, 2014.

22
 ChapteR 2 Population Parameters of Common Small Pelagic Fishes
Growth Parameter Estimates
The comparison of the growth parameter
estimates of the three species are shown in Table
2.1. While there is quite a difference in the com-
puted value of L∞ for Sardinella gibbosa from Ma-
nila Bay (which was smaller at 18.5 cm) against
the 20.6 cm from Guimaras Strait, this could be
compensated by the growth coefficient (k) value
of Manila Bay (which was higher at 0.88 cm/year-
1) than the value estimated for Guimaras Strait
which was only 0.8 cm/year-1. Thus, the growth
performance indices (Ø’) are nearly equal at 2.47
and 2.53, respectively. In addition, there is no
significant difference in the estimated Lmax val-
ues for Manila Bay at 16.84 cm with the 17.0 cm
for Guimaras Strait.
In the case of Sardinella fimbriata, a slight
difference was observed in the growth param-
eters from this study compared to the previous
studies (Ingles et al., 1984 and MADECOR, 1995)
however, the performance index (Ø’) values are
comparable. Result showed that the S. fimbriata
from Manila Bay has slower growth rate and
much smaller in size compared to the same spe-
cies from other fishing grounds (i.e. Palawan,
Leyte Gulf, Guimaras Strait, and Tayabas Bay).
For Rastrelliger brachysoma, the growth
performance index (Ø’) value of 3.03 in this
study showed no significant difference com-
pared with previous studies. However, the Lmax
(27.5 cm) and L∞ (28.7 cm) values are quite lower
compared to the previous results in Manila Bay
at 34.5 and 34.0, respectively (Ingles et al., 1984).
But, the L∞ result in 1993 was much lower at 24.5
cm (MADECOR, 1995) than this latest study. L∞
results conducted in other fishing grounds, also
showed a smaller values.
23
Mortality Parameter Estimates
The mortality parameter values obtained
using FiSAT are shown in Table 2.2. The fish-
ing mortality (F) values (derived after subtract-
ing M to Z) of the three species were very high
compared to their estimated natural mortality
(M) indicating a high extraction of these species
through fishing. The length at first capture (~L50)
for the two sardines were quite similar (Sardinella
gibbosa, 11.0 cm and Sardinella fimbriata, 11.5 cm)
but still below the reported length at first matu-
rity of 12.7 cm and 13.8 cm for S. fimbriata and
S.gibbosa, respectively. Although the estimated
length at first capture for Rastrelliger brachysoma
was 17.4 cm. which is above the reported length
at first maturity of 17 cm. the estimated fishing
mortality is more than twice the estimated rate
of natural mortality.
The Exploitation rate
The Exploitation rate (E) generally in-
dicate the state of exploitation of a stock via the
proportion of fishing mortality rendered along-
side that of the natural mortality. Results showed
that the three species (Sardinella gibbosa, 0.76; Sar-
dinella fimbriata, 0.66; and Rastrelliger brachysoma,
0.71) already exceeded the desired exploitation
value of 0.5. This suggests that these stocks are
experiencing overfishing or are being harvested
unsustainably (Figure 2.8).
Recruitment Pattern
Recruitment pattern refers to the stage in
which a stock enters the fishery. The recruitment
pattern for most fish stocks in the Philippines
usually generate two pulses per year (Ingles and
Pauly, 1984). In this study, the three species in
Manila Bay showed a year round recruitment
pattern. Sardinella gibbosa has two peaks (bimod-
al pattern, specifically in February and Septem- 
ChapteR 2 Population Parameters of Common Small Pelagic Fishes

ber (Figure 2.5) while Sardinella fimbriata, has

only one peak ant it was in August (Figure 2.6).
On the other hand, Rastrelliger brachysoma also
showed a bimodal pattern with peaks during
April and September (Figure 2.7).

Table 2.1. Comparison of Growth Parameter Estimates for Sardinella gibbosa, S. fimbriata and
Rastrelliger brachysoma by Fishing Ground.

24
 ChapteR 2 Population Parameters of Common Small Pelagic Fishes

Table 2.2. Comparison of Mortality Parameter Estimates, L50, and E-values for Sardinella gibbosa,
Sardinella fimbriata and Rastrelliger brachysoma by Fishing Ground.

Figure 2.8. Exploitation rate values obtained for Sardinella gibbossa, Sardinella fimbriata, and Rastrelliger
brachysoma in Manila Bay, 2014

25
ChapteR 2 Population Parameters of Common Small Pelagic Fishes

Figure 2.5. Results of analyses using FiSAT II for Sardinella gibbosa from Manila Bay, Philippines.
Growth curve superimposed over restructured raised length frequency data;
Powell-Wetherall Plot to estimate L∞ and Z/K value;
Annual Recruitment pattern (bi-modal);
Length-converted catch curve. (See Table 1 and 2 for parameter estimates.)

26
 ChapteR 2 Population Parameters of Common Small Pelagic Fishes

Figure 2.6. Results of analyses using FiSAT II for Sardinella fimbriata from Manila Bay, Philippines
Growth curve superimposed over restructured raised length frequency data;
Did not estimate the L∞ (L∞ value used was from the result of BFAR, 1995);
Annual Recruitment pattern (bi-modal);
Length-converted catch curve. (See Table 1 and 2 for parameter estimates.)

27
ChapteR 2 Population Parameters of Common Small Pelagic Fishes

Figure 2.7. Results of analyses using FiSAT II for Rastrelliger brachysoma from Manila Bay, Philippines
Growth curve superimposed over restructured raised length frequency data;
Powell-Wetherall Plot to estimate L∞ and Z/K value;
Annual Recruitment pattern (bi-modal);
Length-converted catch curve. (See Table 1 and 2 for parameter estimates.)

28
 ChapteR 2 Population Parameters of Common Small Pelagic Fishes

L ITERATURE CITED


World Wide Web electronic publication.
www.fishbase.org, (08/2013)

Agasen, E.V. and C.M. Del Mundo 1986. Gayanilo, F.C. Jr., P. Sparre and D. Pauly. 2005.
Growth, Mortality and Exploitation FAO-ICLARM Stock Assessment Tools
Rates of Penaeus indicus in (FiSAT II) User’s Manual. FAO Interna
Manila Bay, Philippines and Southeast tional Center for Living Aquatic
India. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM),
Resources, Philippines. 89-100p. Rome.

Aripin, I.E. and P.A.T. Showers 2000. Ingles, J. and D. Pauly. 1984. An Atlas of the
Population Parameters of small growth, mortality and recruit
pelagic fishes caught off Tawi-Tawi, ment of Philippine fishes. ICLARM
Philippines. ICLARM Fishbyte: 21-26p. Technical Reports 13, 12p. Institute of
Fisheries Development and Research,
BFAR, 1995. Fisheries Sector Program-Resource College of Fisheries, Univ. of the
and Ecological Assessment of Manila Philippines in the Visayas, Q.C., Phil.
Bay. Final Report. Bureau of Fisheries and International Center for Liv
and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), Dept. of ing Aquatic Resources Managment,
Agriculture, Quezon City, Philippines. Manila, Phil.

Chang, K-H, A. Amano, T. Miller, T. Isobe, R. Jabat, M. and P. Dalzell. 1988. Preliminary stock
Maneja, F. Siringan, H. Imai and S-I. assessment of the Davao ring net fishery
Nakano. 2009. Pollution Study in for bullet tunas and small pelagic fishes
Manila Bay: Eutrophication and Its in the Camotes Sea, Central Visayas,
Impact on Plankton Community. Philippines. BFAR Tech. Pap. 11(1)34p.
Interdisciplinary Studies on Environ
mental Chemistry — Lavapie-Gonzales, F., S.R. Ganaden and F.C.
Environmental Research in Asia, Eds., Gayanilo, Jr. 1997. Some Population
Y. Obayashi, T. Isobe, A. Subramanian, parameters of commercially important
S. Suzuki and S. Tanabe, pp. 261–267. fishes in the Philippines. Bureau
TERRAPUB. of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources,
Philippines, 114p.
Corpuz, A., J. Saeger and V. Sambilay Jr. 1985.
Population parameters of commercially Lopez, G., F. Gonzales, F. Torres Jr., E. Bognot,
important fishes of Philippine E. Jaen, A. Bendaño, and M. Santos.
waters. Tech. Rep. Dep. Mar. Fish. (6): Resource and Biological Assessment of
1-99. Commercially Important Finfishes in
Manila Bay. Annual Report (January –
Dalzell, P. and R.A. Ganaden. 1987. A review of December 2013) Submitted to BFAR.
the fisheries for small pelagic fishes in
the Philippine waters. BFAR Tech Paper Madecor and National Museum, 1995,
Ser. 10(1):54 p. Resources and Ecological Assessment of
Manila Bay. Final Report (244p.).
Froese, R. and D. Pauly. Editors. 2011. FishBase. Fisheries Sector Program. Bureau of

29
ChapteR 2 Population Parameters of Common Small Pelagic Fishes

Fisheries and Aquatic Resources,

Department of Agricultures. Quezon
City Philippines.

Marshall, B.E., 1993. The biology of the African

Clupeid Limnothrisa miodon with
special reference to its small size in
artificial lakes. Rev. Fish Biol., 3: 14-22.

Munoz, J. 1991. Manila Bay: Status of its

fisheries and management. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 23:311-214, Dec. 1991.

PEMSEA and MBEMP TWG-RRA. 2004. Manila

Bay: Refined Risk Assessment. PEMSEA
Technical Report No. 9, 169 p.

Ronquillo, IA, Caces-Borja, P and A Mines

(1960) Preliminary observations on the
otter trawl fishery of Manila Bay.
Philippine Journal of Fisheries 8(1):47-56.

Ronquillo I. A., M.E. GabralLlana and J.C.

Muñoz, 1989. The Proposed 20km ban
on trawl and purse seine fishing: A
Deterrent to National Economic
Recovery. Fish.Res. J. Philipp. 14(1-2):
37 – 48.

Su, G.S., K.J. Martillano, T.P. Alcantara, E.

Ragragio, J. de Jesus, A. Hallare and G.
Ramos. 2009. Assessing Heavy Metals
in the Waters, Fish and Macroin
vertebrates in Manila Bay, Philippines.
Journal of Applied Sciences in
Environmental Sanitation, vol. 4, No. 3:
187-195, Sept-Dec, 2009. ISSN 0126-2807.

Youngs, W.D. and D.S. Robson, 1978. Estimation

of Population Number and Mortality
Rates. In: Methods for Assessment of
Fish Production in Freshwaters.
T.B. Bevgenal, (Ed.). 3rd Edn. Blackwell
Scientific Publications, London, pp: 137-
164.

30
 ChapteR 3

Species Composition, Distribution, Biomass Trends and Exploitation of

Dominant Fish Species in Manila Bay using Experimental Trawl Survey

Adonis P. Bendaño1, Grace DV. Lopez1,

Marco A. Perez , Mudjekeewis D. Santos1, and Francisco SB. Torres Jr.1*
2

1
Vertebrate Section
2
Fishing Technology Section
Capture Fisheries Research and Development Division
National Fisheries Research and Development Institute

*Corresponding Author: francisco_torresjr@yahoo.com

Abstract

An experimental trawl fishing survey was conducted in Manila Bay from March 2014 to Octo-
ber 2015 at sixteen (16) pre-established dragging stations adapted from an earlier study (MADE-
COR, 1995). Using a commercial otter trawl, the average trawling speed during fishing operations
was 6 - 7 km/hour. Analysis of catches focused on biomass trends, species composition, distribu-
tion and exploitation of dominant species. A total of 146 fish and invertebrate species belonging to
48 families were recorded during the survey period wherein most of the catches were dominated
by small pelagic species such as anchovies and sardines. Exploitation rates (E) for the six (6) dom-
inant species (Sardinella gibbosa, Sardinella fimbriata, Valamugil seheli, Mugil cephalus, Encrasicho-
lina devisi and Stolephorous commersonnii) shows signs of overfishing. The estimated demersal fish
biomass of the bay revealed that the relative decline was about 90% from the 1947 baseline study.

Keywords: Manila Bay, overfishing, demersal fish biomass, trawl

31
ChapteR 3
I NTRODUCTION
Manila Bay is a semi-enclosed body of wa-
ter located in the southwest coast of Luzon, bound-
ed by the provinces of Cavite and Metro Manila
on the east, Bulacan and Pampanga on the north,
Bataan peninsula in west and by Corregidor and
Caballo islands at the southern portion near its
mouth. Its harbor is considered as one of the busiest
national and international port in the country that
provides livelihood for millions of Filipinos. The
hydrographic condition of the bay especially its
water circulation is greatly affected by wind driven
forces (De las Alas and Sodusta, 1985; Villanoy and
Martin, 1997). Large volume of freshwater influx is
contributed by the two main river systems (Pam-
panga and Pasig) that drains into the bay. Jacinto et
al., (2006) estimates that almost 49% of freshwater
in the bay comes from the discharge of the Pam-
panga River. The bottom substrate of the entire bay
is classified as sandy muddy with a few patches
of coral reefs in Cavite and Bataan. Fisheries and
aquaculture are major sources of livelihood in areas
surrounding the bay (PEMSEA, MBEMP-MBIN,
2007).
The bay is a multispecies and multi-gear
fisheries, wherein, most of the species caught are
representatives of various families/species groups.
During the 1970s, the bay was the second most
productive fishing ground in the country (Muñoz,
1991) and from the period 1982–1987, belongs to the
top 10 most productive fishing grounds for small
pelagic fishes (Zaragoza et al., 2004). In an earlier
period, Ronquillo et al., (1960) reported that the bay
possibly reached its maximum sustainable yield
during the second half of 1950s. The decrease in
average annual catches/landings even with an in-
crease in the number of fishing vessels operating in
the area is an evidence of declining biomass. Fox
(1986) also considered the bay as one of the most
heavily fished areas in the country and needs to re-
duce the fishing effort to one third of its 1983 – 1984
levels to attain an economic rent of US$ 1.5 – 4.8
Trawl Survey
million (Silvestre et al., 1986). The demersal
resource was also subjected to economic and
biological overfishing as evidenced by fluctu-
ations in annual production, decreasing CPUE
and a decline in number of species caught per
fishing operation (Muñoz, 1991). The 1993
study conducted by MADECOR and National
Museum also shows a decrease in the volume
of its demersal biomass and a change in spe-
cies composition. The disappearance of apex
predators and the increase in biomass of small
pelagic species was also noticed. A change
in species composition implies the collective
action of fishers and their subsequent effects
on the function in the ecosystem (Sherman
and Alexander, 1986). Another factor which
influences species change and exploitation is
the industrialization that degrades the water
quality and rapid urbanization.
In 1947, the first trawl research survey
in Manila bay was conducted by Warfel and
Manacop (1950) which is exploratory in na-
ture, with no pre-establisheddragging stations
and standard trawling duration. Other studies
that followed were the demersal trawl surveys
done by Ronquillo et al, (1960), Cases- Borja
et al., (1963), Cases-Borja (1972), and Bautista
and Rubio, (1981). The last comprehensive de-
mersal survey was conducted by MADECOR
and National Museum (1995) from 1992 – 1993
covering all the coastal municipalities around
Manila Bay. After that, no further study espe-
cially on demersal biomass was conducted in
the bay.
To assess the current condition of the
demersal stocks in Manila Bay, a trawl fishing
survey was conducted.
This study examined the current sta-
tus of the demersal biomass in the bay and
compared it with previously recorded bio-
mass, including species composition, distribu-
tion and levels of exploitation.
32
 ChapteR 3
M ATERIALS AND
METHODS
Study area and sampling
The trawl fishing survey was conducted
from March 2014 to October 2015 at 16 pre-deter-
mined fishing stations adapted from a previous
study executed under the BFAR-Fisheries Sec-
tor Program in 1993 (MADECOR and National
Museum, 1995). A commercial otter trawl weigh-
ing more than 15 gross tons equipped with a
V10 engine (525 horsepower) was used during
the survey. Trawling was done only during day
time with fishing duration varying from 30 to 60
minutes depend ing on the prevailing sea condi-
tion (a standard 60 minute drag is done when-
ever possible) at an average trawling speed of
6 to 7 km/hour. A total of 156 tows were made
in depths ranging from 3.0 – 46.0 meters (Figure
3.1). Information such as distance trawled, spe-
cies catch composition, fishing effort and indi-
vidual length measurements were also gathered
and subsequently recorded in specific forms.
Data Analysis
The species list was based on all 156
hauls made at the pre-determined fishing sta-
tions throughout the duration of the survey. To
estimate the demersal fish biomass in the bay,
the swept area method was used. This method
is based on the total area (a) swept by the gear,
(D) is the distance swept, (V) is the velocity of
the trawl, (t) is the time spent trawling, (hr) is the
head rope length, and X2 is that fraction of the
head rope length equal to the width of the path
swept (the wing spread), whose suggested com-
promise value is 0.5. The mathematical equation
is as followed;
a = D*hr* X2,
where D = V*t
33
Trawl Survey
To estimate the catch per unit area, we estimate
the mean catch per unit area of all hauls Cw/a,
then estimate the average biomass per unit area,
is computed as;
( Cw/a )
ƃ =
X1
X1 is the fraction of the biomass in the path being
swept which is actually retained in the gear.
To compute for the total biomass (B) of
the area, let A be the total size of the area being
investigated. Then the total biomass estimate is
expressed as,
ƃ = ( Cw/a )
X1
The value of X1 is usually chosen between 0.5 and
1.0. Dickson (1974) suggests X1 = 1.0, since using
X1 = 0.5 doubles the estimate biomass compared
to that obtained by using X1 = 1.0.
The Shannon-Wiener diversity index (H’)
and Pielou’s evenness index (J), which includes
the data on species richness (number of species)
and biomass was calculated using the PRIMER 5
statistical software.
Shannon-Wiener diversity index (H’) is calcu
lated as follows;
s
H’ = ̵ Σ pi log2 pi
i=1
Where s is the total number of species
and Pi is the relative abundance of the i species,
calculated as the proportion of individuals of a
given species to the total number of individuals
recorded in the community.
Species evenness can be represented by
Pielou’s evenness index (J) which is calculated as,
ChapteR 3 Trawl Survey

Figure 3.1. Map of the study area showing the trawl dragging stations.

J = H’ log S
2

Where H’ is the Shannon-Wiener diversity index Where F is the fishing mortality compo-
and S is the total number of species. nent estimated after subtracting the natural mor-
tality estimate (M) from (Z), the total mortality
In addition, the exploitation rates (E) of estimate, with all units expressed in (yr-1).
the six dominant species (Sardinella fimbriata, S.
gibbosa, Mugil cephalus, Valamugil seheli, Stolepho-
rous commersonnii and Encrasicholina devisi) were
estimated using the FAO ICLARM Stock Assess-
ment Tools (FiSAT) utilizing the collected length
frequency data. To estimate the exploitation
rates, the formula used was

E = F/Z

34
 ChapteR 3
R ESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
Species Composition and Distribution
Small pelagic species such as anchovies
(Family Engraulidae) and sardines (Family Clu-
piedae) were the dominant fish species recorded
during the duration of the survey. These species
are in the low trophic level category and consid-
ered mostly as planktivorous species. Encrasicho-
lina devisi (devi’s anchovy) dominated the catch
having the mean biomass of 59.89 kg/km2 or a
relative abundance of 15.23%. It is followed by
Sardinella gibbosa (51.16 kg/km2), Sardinella fim-
briata (40.25 kg/km2), Rhabdamia cypselurus (39.63
kg/km2), Sardinella lemuru, (25.69 kg/km2) and
Photololigo edulis, (23.70 kg/km2). The large vol-
ume of non-commercially important species (i.e.
swallowtail cardinal fish, Rhabdamia cypselurus
and puffer fish Lagocephalus lagocephalus) caught in the bay could be the cause of the noteworthy
in the eastern part during the month February
and in northern part during the month of April,
respectively, significantly contributed to the esti-
mated total biomass of the bay. It was notable that
jellyfish would amass during the warm months,
as evidenced by the large quantity caught dur-
ing February and April, that would have con-
tributed a relative abundance of 32% and 38%,
respectively (excluded in Table 3.1). However,
their volume would be almost negligible dur-
ing the months of June, August and October.
A total of 146 species of fish and inverte-
brate belonging to 48 families were caught dur-
ing the survey. The most number of species was
recorded in the trawling area near Cavite with
100, followed by stations in the Pampanga – Bu-
lacan area with 93 species while stations near
Metro Manila has 80 species. Areas near Bataan
recorded a total of 55 species while in the waters
near the island of Corregidor there were 42 spe-
cies recorded. Biomass distribution and species
abundance varies within the bay. The dominant
species such as devi’s anchovies (Encrasicholina
35
Trawl Survey
devisi) and fringescale sardinella (Sardinella fim-
briata) including the swallowtail cardinalfish
(Rhabdamia cypselurus) exhibited higher biomass
in the eastern portion (Metro Manila) of the bay.
In contrast, a higher distribution of goldstripe
sardinella (Sardinella gibbosa) was recorded in the
eastern and southern part, while the squid (Photo-
loligo edulis) is more prevalent in the western part.
The flat head mullet (Mugil cephalus) was abun-
dant in northern part while the hairtal (Trichuirus
lepturus), the black pomfret (Parastromateus niger)
and the common ponyfish (Leiognathus equulus)
were more abundant in the southern part (near
Corregidor Island) of the bay (Table 3.2).
Majority of the fishes caught during the
survey were immature individuals. It was more
evident in species with longer life span such as
hairtail, needle fish, mackerel, carangids and
groupers. The severe fishing pressure exerted
situation wherein species of sardines, mullets
and ponyfish caught in smaller sizes are already
matured, and in some instances have shown evi-
dence of reproduction.
Catches and Biomass
The catches, survey recorded a total catch
of 8.14 metric tons of fish and invertebrates (3.24
mt in 2014; 4.9 mt in 2015) during the ten fish-
ing trips done from March 2014 to October 2015
with a mean Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) of 79.6
kg/hour (Figure 3.2). While the catches in 2015
would show a higher volume compared to 2014,
it may only be coincidental, since the two high-
est volumes recorded in the months of February
and April 2015 was due to the high abundance
of the cardinal fish (Rhabdamia cypselurus) and
pufferfish (Lagocephalus lagocephalus), amount-
ing to 67% and 18% of the catch respectively.
Unfortunately, these two species are of very
low commercial value. In 1991, Muñoz (1991)
reported that the bay is experiencing a decline
ChapteR 3
Table 3.1. List of top 20 species recorded from 2014 to 2015 trawl fishing in Manila Bay.
in CPUE, having a maximum of 88 kg/hour in
1985, and drastically decreasing in the nexttwo
years at 40 kg/hour and 29 kg/hour, respec-
tively. The CPUE values cannot be directly
compared, because of the large variation in the
sizes of the gear and boats used.
Biomass analysis of the current trawl
survey reveal variations in the distribution
pattern when compared to the MADECOR and
National Museum (1995) study in 1993. Figure
3.3 shows the distribution of the biomass in the
bay. In 2014 a mean biomass of 0.73 mt/km2
was observed in northern part of the bay (Pam
Trawl Survey
panga–Bulacan area) followed by the eastern
part (Metro Manila area) with a mean biomass
of 0.349 mt/km2 and the lowest biomass was re-
corded in the southern part (near Corregidor)
with a value of 0.102 mt/km2 (Figure3.3a). In the
2015 survey a slight change was observed in bio-
mass distribution. The water near Corregidor Is-
land now has the second highest biomass with a
mean value of 0.797mt/km2, next only to the wa-
ters near Metro Manila with a biomass of 1.254
mt/km2. The lowest recorded biomass was now
in the waters of Cavite with mean of 0.203 mt/
km2 (Figure 3.3b). Still, the middle part of the bay
records lower biomass values in both 2014 and
36
 ChapteR 3 Trawl Survey

Table 3.2. Top 50 fish and invertebrate species caught in Manila Bay during the trawl fishing survey
from 2014 to 2015by biomass abundance by province. The symbols used for commonness at each prov-
inces are; ††††: 30 – 50% of the hauls; †††: 20 – 30% of the hauls; ††: 5 – 20% of the hauls; †: less than 5%
of the hauls and; —: not found.

37
ChapteR 3
2015. Analysis of per station data also reveal
a high variation of species dominance. High
catches of the swallowtail cardinal fish (Rhabda-
mia cypselurus), during the February 2015 survey
contributed to the sudden increase of demersal
biomass in the eastern part (Metro Manila area)
of the bay. Nevertheless, the change in biomass
distribution may possibly be due to among
other changing climatic conditions and avail-
ability of food in the area.
Studies conducted in 1993 (MADECOR
and National Museum, 1995) have shown that
highest demersal biomass was recorded near
Corrigedor Island and Bataan followed by the
waters near the mouth of the bay. They also ob-
served a lower density in areas near Metro Ma-
nila, Bulacan and Pampanga with values ranging
from 0 to 0.25mt/km2. The current study shows
the opposite, wherein, higher demersal biomass
was recorded in the latter areas.
Figure 3.2. Estimated mean biomass and CPUE from 2014 and 2015.
Trawl Survey
The demersal biomass estimate using the swept
area method shows a stock density of 0.32 mt/
km2 with standing biomass of 618 mt in 2014 and
getting slightly higher in 2015 with a stock den-
sity 0.48 mt/km2 for a standing biomass of 928
mt for the entire bay. The 2014 results is much
lower compared to the 1993 survey which reg-
istered a 0.47 mt/km2 and 908 mt standing bio-
mass (MADECOR and National Museum, 1995).
Demersal biomass recorded in 2015 when com-
pared to 1993 survey shows a slight increase of
0.2%. Warfel and Manacop (1950) stated that the
bay has stock density of 4.61 mt/km2 amounting
to a standing demersal biomass of 8,908 mt based
on their 1947 survey results. The current study
would place the relative density to just 10.4% of
the 1947 baseline value (Table 3.3). Apparently,
the decrease in biomass from 1947 to the pres-
ent is associated to the more serious problem of
increasing number of fishers, habitat destruction
and water quality deterioration.
38
 ChapteR 3
Figure 3.3. Map showing the demersal biomass distribution from the year 2014 and 2015.
In comparison with the demersal trawl survey
conducted by M/V DA – BFAR in various fishing
grounds of the Philippines, Manila Bay still has
a low biomass, higher than Davao Gulf, which
only has a demersal biomass of 0.13 mt/ km2 in
the year 2014. The highest biomass in the country
was estimated in Basilan – Sulu with a density of
3.69 t/km2 followed by Samar Sea having 2.88 t/
km2 (De la Cruz, 2016).
While significant changes in species
dominance were observed in comparison with
the previous study done by MADECOR and Na-
tional Museum in 1993, such as the increas ing
catch of sardines, anchovies and other species
with low commercial value (e.g. cardinal fish
and puffer fish), these must be given importance.
The problem of over exploitation and degrada-
tion of habitat is still happening in the bay. Ex-
cessive fishing requires not just a single solution
but more holistic and wide ranging approach
that may include biological, cultural, political,
economic and an
39
Trawl Survey
thropological interventions. Fishers change the
habitat and function of the ecosystem (Sherman
and Alexander, 1986) including the normal in-
teraction of species among its population. Re-
cent reviews describe the effect of fishing in the
ecosystem and its negative impact on resources
(Munro et al., 1987; McClanahan and Muthiga,
1988; Hutchings, 1990; Russ, 1991; Jones, 1992;
Gislason, 1994; Hughes, 1994; Matishov and
Pavlova, 1994; Anon, 1995; Dayton et al., 1995;
McClanahan and Obura, 1995; Roberts, 1995;
Jennings and Lock, 1996; Jennings and Polunin,
1996).
Change in Species Composition
Manila Bay is a multispecies and multi-
gear fisheries, wherein, most of the fishes caught
are represented by various families and sever-
alindividual species. The bay is experiencing
Malthusian overfishing, which relates to the con-
tinued increase in fisher density and the unabated
ChapteR 3
Table 3.3. Historical information on the demersal stock density of Manila Bay.
use of destructive fishing methods (Pauly et al.,
1989). Results of the survey show a significant de-
cline in the quantity and quality of landed catch.
Another indication of over exploitation and de-
terioration of fisheries resources is the apparent
decrease of demersal fish biomass. The manifes-
tation of the deterioration in fisheries includes
the change in catch composition from economi-
cally valuable to less valuable species, increasing
relative abundance of pelagic species, disappear-
ance of large, long lived individual fishes and the
dominance of smaller sized species. This situa-
tion has also been experienced in the Gulf Thai-
land, where there was an increase of smaller and
less valuable species (Christensen, 1998; Supong-
pan, 2001). The current results indicate a signifi-
cant shift in catch composition and an entirely
different pattern of distribution compared to
previous surveys. Sardines (Family Clupiedae)
and anchovies (Family Engraulidae) forms the
bulk of catches in 2014 and 2015, with occasional
large volumes coming from other groups like the
croakers (Family Scienidae) and squids (Loligi-
nidae) in 2014. However, in both 1947 and 1993
surveys, slipmouths (Family Leiognathidae)
dominated the catch, with notable contributions
from the goatfishes (Family Mullidae) and mo-
jarras (Family Gerreidae). It is noteworthy that
in the 1947 catch composition there was the pre-
Trawl Survey
dominance of large, long-lived species such as
hairtails (Family Trichiuridae), snappers (Fam-
ily Lutjanidae) and sweetlips (Family Haemuli-
dae). In contrast, the catches in the 2014 and 2015
survey showed high abundance of small pelagic
species and invertebrates such as sardines, an-
chovies, shrimps and squids (Figure 3.4). A com-
parison of survey results utilizing the proportion
of pelagic, demersal and invertebrates’ in the
catches would show an erratic trend. However, in
the majority of surveys conducted, the demersal
fish contribution still forms the bulk of catches,
ranging from a low of 38% to a high of 76%. Only
in the 1981 and 1986 surveys of Bautista and Ru-
bio (1981) and Ronquillo et al. (1989) did the con-
tribution of demersals decreased considerably,
amounting to only 6% and 24 % respectively. On
the other hand, in the 1981 survey, pelagic spe-
cies dominated the catch (71%), while in the 1986
survey, it was dominated by the invertebrates
(squids and shrimps) (Table 3.4). Current catches
are dominated by pelagic species with a relative
abundance of 57.74%, followed by demersal and
invertebrate species having relative abundances
of 37.76% and 4.50%, respectively. This shifting
of species dominance (from demersal to pelagic
species) led us to hypothesize that the bottom
part of the bay could probably not support life
for a variety of fish species. This hypothesis is
40
 ChapteR 3 Trawl Survey

Figure 3.4. Catch composition (families) obtained from four trawl surveys of Manila Bay conducted in
1947, 1993, 2014 and 2015.

Table 3.4. Compilation of information on trawl fishing surveys conducted in Manila Bay.

supported by the study of Sotto et al., (2014), is alarming, probably because of overfishing (Sil-
wherein the nearbottom waters experience hy- vestre et al., 1986) and of the different climatic
poxic condition. High sedimentation rates (Sir- condition and species preference (Sutcliffe et al.,
ingan and Ringor, 1998) and wind driven water 1976).
circulation (Villanoy and Martin, 1997) could
also influence the survival and distribution of the The interaction to any climatic condition
fish, especially the recruits/juveniles in the bay. induces species fluctuation and stabilized bio-
At present, the status of the resources in the bay mass (McCann et al., 1998, Berlow, 1999).

41
ChapteR 3
In addition, the deterioration of water quality
could possibly contribute to the shifting of spe-
cies and eventual exploitation of the fisheries re-
sources.
Species Diversity
The Shannon diversity index (H’) and
Pielou’s evenness index (J) are presented in Ta-
ble 3.5. Higher diversity was observed during
the southwest monsoon (Habagat), as compared
with the computed indices during the northeast
monsoon (Amihan) in 2014 and 2015. Fluctua-
tion in H’ index seems to correspond with the
decrease of species evenness through both mon-
soons.
Exploitation
Most scientific literature states a thresh-
old of fishing mortality value that is half of the
total mortality endured by the stock, so as to be
able to reproduce and replenish itself. Simply
put the fishing mortality should be equal to the
natural mortality or the exploitation rate should
be 0.5. Pauly and Ingles (1984) also suggested
that the optimum exploitation a rate for marine
fishes (Eopt) is 0.5 year-1 and when exceeded,
overfishing is certainly happening.
Table 3.5. Results of the Shannon – Weiner diversity index and Evenness.
Trawl Survey
Exploitation rates of the six dominant species
were investigated to evaluate if overfishing is oc-
curring in the bay. Results of the survey shows
that Sardinella gibbosa, Sardinella fimbriata, Val-
amugil seheli, Mugil cephalus and Encrasicholina
devisi is experiencing overfishing with the E val-
ues of 0.55 year-1, 0.51 year-1, 0.66 year-1, 0.67year-1
and 0.6 year-1, respectively . Stocks of Stolepho-
rous commersonnii have a slightly lower E val-
ues of 0.47 year-1 (Figure 3.5), much closer to the
estimated value by MADECOR and National
Museum of 0.45 year-1 from their trawl survey in
1993 (MADECOR and National Museum 1995) .
However for the mullet species such as
Mugil cephalus and Valamugil seheli, the comput-
ed E values of 0.66 year-1 and 0.71 year-1 during
the 1993 trawl survey were very much the same,
but nevertheless still above the recommended
threshold.
42
 ChapteR 3 Trawl Survey

Figure 3.5. Exploitation values of the dominant species caught during the trawl fishing survey from
2014 to 2015.

L ITERATURE CITED

Caces – Borja P., 1972. On the ability of otter
trawls to catch pelagic fish in Manila
Anon., 1995. Report of the study group on Bay. The Philippine Journal of Fisheries.
ecosystem effects of fishing activities. Vol. 10, Nos. 1and 2. pp. 39 – 55.
ICES Co-operative Research Report 200.
pp.120. Christensen, V., 1998. Fishery-induced changes
in a marine ecosystem: insight from
Bautista, R. and Rubio, 1981. Preliminary report models of the Gulf of Thailand.
on the Manila Bay survey. BFAR Fish. J. Fish Biol. 53 (Supplement A).
Res. Div. Tech. Rep.; (1): lop. pp.128–142.

Berlow, E.L., 1999. Strong effects of weak Dayton, P.K., Thrush, S.F., Agardy, M.T. and
interactions in ecological communities. Hofman, R.J., 1995. Environmental
Nature. 398, pp. 330 - 334. effects of marine fishing. Aquatic
Conservation: Marine and Freshwater
Caces-Borja P., Bustillo R., and Ganaden S., Ecosystems 5, pp.205-232.
1963. Further observations on the
commercial trawl fishery in Manila Bay, Dela Cruz, W.S., 2016, Demersal Fisheries Stock
Philippine Fisheries Commission. Proc. Assessment in West Basilan – Sulu Shelf.
Indo – Pacific Fish Council, 13 (III). pp. 7th Fisheries Scicon, Agham Suporta
631 – 637.

43
ChapteR 3 Trawl Survey

para sa Pangistaang Industriya. C.M. Roberts, eds). Chapman and Hall,

Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic London. pp. 193-218.
Resources, National Fisheries Research
and Development Institute, pp.73 Jennings, S. and Polunin, N.V.C., 1996. Impacts
of fishing on tropical reef ecosystems.
De Las Alas, J.G., Sodusta, J.A., 1985. A model Ambio 25. pp. 44-49.
for the wind driven circulation of
Manila Bay. Nat. Appl. Sci. Bull.; 37, Jones, J.B., 1992. Environmental imact of
pp.159–170. trawling on the seabed: a review. New
Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwa
Dickson W., 1974. A review of the efficiency of ter Research 26.pp. 59-67.
bottom trawl. Inst. Fish. Techn.
Res., Capture Dep., Bergen.; 44s MADECOR (Mandala Agricultural
Fox, P.J., 1986. A manual of rapid Development Corporation) and
appraisal for Philippine coastal fisheries. National Museum, 1995. Fisheries Sector
pp. 43 Program- Resource and ecological
assessment of the Manila Bay. Final
Gislason, H., 1994. Ecosystem effects of fishing Report.
activities in the North Sea. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 29. pp.520-527. Matishov, G.G. and Pavlova, L.G., 1994.
Degradation of ecosystems of the north
Hughes, T.P., 1994. Catastrophes, phase shifts European seas under the effects of
and large-scale degradation of a fishing and pathways of their recovery.
Caribbean coral reef. Izvestiya Akademii Nauk Seriya Bio
Science 265. pp.1547-1551. logicheskaya. 1, pp.119-126.

Hutchings, P., 1990. Review of the effects of McCann, K., Hastings, A., Huxel, G.R., 1998.
trawling on macrobenthic epifaunal Weak tropic interactions and the
communities. Australian balance of nature. Nature 395. pp.
Journal of Marine and 794±798.
Freshwater Research 41. pp.111-120.
McClanahan, T.R. and Muthiga, N.A., 1988.
Jacinto, G.S., Velasquez, I.B., San Diego- Changes in Kenyan coral reef
McGlone,M.L.,Villanoy, C.L. and community structure and function due
Siringan, F.B., 2006. Bio to exploitation. Hydrobiologia 166. pp.
physical Environment of Manila 269-276.
Bay - Then and
Now”, in Wolanski, E.(ed.)The McClanahan, T.R. and Obura, D., 1995. Status
Environment in Asia Pacific Harbours. of Kenyan coral reefs. Coastal
Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Management 23.pp. 57-76.
pp. 293-307.
Munoz, J.C., 1991. Manila Bay: Status of its
Jennings, S. and Lock, J.M., 1996 . Population fisheries and management. Marine
and ecosystem effects of fishing. Pollution Bulletin 23, pp.311–314.
In “Reef Fisheries” (N.V.C. Polunin and

44
 ChapteR 3 Trawl Survey

Munro, J.L., Parrish, J.D. and Talbot,

F.H., 1987. The biological effects Ronquillo I. A., M.E. GabralLlana and J.C.
of intensive fishing upon reef Muñoz, 1989. The Proposed 20km ban
fish communities. In “Human on trawl and purse seine fishing:
impacts on coral reefs: facts A Deterrent to National Economic
and recommendations” Recovery. Fish.Res. J. Philipp. 14(1-2).
(B. Salvat, ed). pp. 41-49. Antenne pp. 37 – 48.
Museum E.P.H.E., French Polynesia.
Russ, G.R., 1991. Coral reef Fisheries: effects and
Pauly D, Silvestre G, Smith I.R., 1989. On yields. In “The ecology of fishes on coral
development, fisheries and dynamite, a reefs” (P.F. Sale, ed) Academic Press,
brief review of tropical fisheries San Diego. pp. 601-635.
management. Nat Res Mod 3(3).pp. 307–
29. Silvestre, G.T., Regalado R.B. and Pauly D.,
1986. Status of Philippine demersal
Pauly, D. and Ingles J., 1984. Atlas of the stocks-inferences from underutilized
Growth, Mortality and Recruitment of catch rate data, p.47-96. In D. Pauly ,
the Philippine Fishes. Institute of J. Saeger and G. Silvestre (eds.)
Fisheries Development and Research, Resources, management and
College of Fisheries, University of the socioeconomics of Philippine marine
Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City and fisheries. Tech. Rep. Dep. Mar.
ICLARM, Metro Manila. Fish. Tech. Rep. pp.10:217.

PEMSEA, MBEMP-MBIN, 2007. Manila Bay Siringan, F.P., Ringor, C.L., 1998. Changes in
Area Environmental Atlas, PEMSEA bathymetry and their implications to
Technical Report 20. sediment dispersal and rates of
Global Environment Facility/United sedimentation in Manila Bay. Sci.
Nations Development Programme/ Diliman 10. pp.12–26.
International Maritime Organization
Regional Programme on Building Sherman, K. and Alexander, L.M. (eds), 1986.
Parterships in Environmental Variability and management of large
Management for the Seas of East Asia marine ecosystems. Westview Press,
(PEMSEA) and the Manila Bay Boulder.
Environmental Management, Quezon
City, Philippines. Sotto L.P.A, Jacinto G.S, Villanoy C.L., 2014.
Spatiotemporal variability of hypoxia
Roberts, C.M., 1995. The effects of fishing on the and eutrophication in Manila
ecosystem structure of coral reefs. Bay, Philippines during
Conservation Biology 9. pp.988-995. the northeast and southwest monsoons.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. http://
Ronquillo, IA, Caces-Borja, P and Mines A., dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.
1960. Preliminarynobservations on the 2014.02.028
otter trawl fishery of Manila Bay.
Philippine Journal of Fisheries Supongpan, M., 2001. Possible indicators for
8(1). pp.47-56 improved management of marine

45
ChapteR 3 Trawl Survey

capture fisheries in ASEAN countries.

In: Proceedings of the Regional
Technical Consultation on Indicators for
Sustainable Fisheries Management in
ASEAN Region. SEAFDEC, Thailand.
pp. 122–135.

Sutcliffe, W.H.J., Drinkwater, K., Muir, B.S.,

1976. Correlations of fish catch and
environmental factors in the Gulf of
Maine. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 34. 19±30.

Villanoy, C.L. and Martin, M., 1997. Modeling

the circulation of Manila Bay: assessing
the relative magnitudes of wind
and tide forcing. Sci. Diliman 9.
pp.26–35.

Warfel, H.E. and Manacop P.R., 1950. Otter

trawl explorations in
Philippine waters.
Research Report 25, Fish and Wildlife
Service. US Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC.

Zaragoza, E.C., Pagdilao C.R. and Moreno E.P.,

2004. Overview of the small pelagic
fisheries, In DA – BFAR(Department of
Agriculture – Bureau of Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas:
The status of Philippine marine
fisheries. Coastal Management Project,
Cebu City, Philippines. pp. 32 – 37

46
 ChapteR 4

Reproductive Biology of Common Small Pelagic Fishes in

Manila Bay, Philippines

Eleanor Rivera, Adonis Bendaño, Eunice DC. Bognot, Fe Gonzales, Francisco SB. Torres Jr.,
Mudjekeewis D. Santos, and Grace DV. Lopez1*

Vertebrate Section
Capture Fisheries Research and Development Division
National Fisheries Research and Development Institute

*Corresponding Author: gmvlopez@yahoo.com

Abstract

Reproductive biology of the three dominant species (Sardinella gibbosa, Sardinella fimbriata, and Rastrel-
liger kanagurta) were studied in Manila Bay from January 2014 to December 2015. The data were collect-
ed from landed catch (coming from gillnet, liftnet, purse seine, ringnet and trawl) and during the actual
trawl fishing survey. A total of 2,383 Sardinella gibbosa, 2,334 Sardinella fimbriata, and 549 Rastrelliger
kanagurta were analyzed by pooling the two years data. The overall female to male ratio conformed
to the expected 1:1 sex ratio. These species spawn throughout the year with major peak in March and
April and minor peak in October to December for Sardinella gibbosa; with major peak in February to
May and minor peak in October to December for Sardinella fimbriata; and for Rastrelliger kanagurta, with
major peak in October to December and minor peak in May and June. The GSI values correlate with the
maturation of the gonads of these species. The length at maturity (Lm50) was calculated at 12.75 cm in
males and 13.25 cm in females for S. gibbosa; 12.25 cm in males and 12.75 cm in females for S. fimbriata;
and 25.5 cm in males and 24.5 cm in females for R. kanagurta.

Keyword: Gonadosomatic index, sex ratio, length at first maturity, spawning season,
reproductive biology, Manila Bay

47
ChapteR 4
I NTRODUCTION
Manila Bay, one of the traditional fish-
ing grounds in the Philippines, has a multi-gear-
multi-species fishery. It is also one of the busiest
national and international ports of the country.
Previous studies reported the Bay to be abundant
in demersal fishes and invertebrates (Ronquillo
et al., 1960; Ronquillo et al., 1989; BFAR, 1995)
however, recent studies already showed a shift in
species dominance to pelagic species (Zaragosa,
2005; Lopez et al., 2012, annual report). Sardines
and mackerels are presently the most abundant
catch in Manila Bay specifically, Sardinella gibbosa
(Goldstripe sardinella), the most dominant, fol-
lowed by Sardinella fimbriata (Fringescale sardi-
nella) then, Rastrelliger kanagurta (Indian mack-
erel) (Lopez et al., 2014). The sardines’ peak of
productivity and spawning in Philippine water
often occur during southwest monsoon (Dalzell
et al, 1990; Olaño et al., 2009) while in the Visayan
Sea, it occur in October, November and Decem-
ber (Mesa, 2014).
Understanding the fish reproductive bi-
ology is very important for fish culture and for
science based fishery management. It is the re-
productive success that allows a species to per-
sist thus, it is vital to any population (Gervasi,
2015). Species like R. kanagurta (Indian mack-
erel) is a prolific breeder utilizing favorable en-
vironmental conditions i.e. suitable temperature
and availability of food for spawning (Yohannan
and Abdurahiman, 1998 as cited by Zaki et al.,
2016). Maturity is reached in two to three years
for many Philippine sardine species but, as little
as one year for some Sardinella species (as cited
by Willette et al., 2011).
Fish have developed reproductive strate-
gies and traits that ensure their survival under
variable and often unfavorable conditions (cited
by Tsikliras and Antonopoulou, 2006), expressed
by certain characteristics. This study is impor-
tant in order to understand the reproductive sta-
Reproductive Biology
tus of the three selected species (Sardinella gib-
bosa, S. fimbriata, and Rastrelliger kanagurta) espe-
cially with the rapid fish exploitation combined
with the present poor water quality of Manila
Bay. Different reproductive parameters such
as, Gonadosomatic Index (GSI), sex ratio, length
at maturity (Lm50), and spawning season were
investigated to provide scientific advice for the
proper management of these fish resources in
Manila Bay.
M
ATERIALS AND
METHODS
A total of 2,383 Sardinella gibbosa, 2,334
Sardinella fimbriata, and 549 Rastrelliger kanagurta
were collected for two years (January 2014 to De-
cember 2015) from landed catch in selected fish
landing sites and during the actual trawl fishing
surveys conducted in Manila Bay (Figure 4.1).
The fish samples (Figure 4.2) were collected at
random from gillnet, liftnet, purse seine, ringnet
and trawl for the Sardinella species, and from gill-
net and ringnet for the Rastrelliger kanagurta. Be-
fore dissection, the total length (cm) and weight
(g) of the fish were taken first. Dissection was
done by opening the abdominal cavity to de-
termine the sex and degree of gonad maturity
through visual examination of the gonad in fresh
individuals. The gonads were removed (particu-
larly stages II to IV) and weighed to the nearest
0.01 g. The data were analyzed by pooling 2014
& 2015 data.
Sex Ratio
The proportion of the two sexes relative
to one another was used to calculate the sex ratio.
The sex ratio values obtained every month were
subjected to chi-quare (X2) analysis to test the sig-
nificant deviations from an expected 1:1 sex ratio
for male and female fishes by employing the for-
mula:
48
 ChapteR 4 Reproductive Biology

Figure 4.1. Data Collection Sites in Manila Bay, Philippines.

stages were determined monthly and the over-

all percentage frequencies observed were used
to indicate the seasonal distribution of the go-
nad maturity stages. The average duration for
Where O is the observed frequency and E is the
the spawning season was identified as the time
expected frequency.
when at least 50% of the adult population has
reached maturity.
Gonad Maturity Determination and Spawning
Season
Gonadosomatic index
The degree of gonad maturity stages
were determined by visual examination of the
Gonadosomatic index (GSI) gives an in-
female gonads based from the five-point gonad
dication of the percentage of the fish weight used
maturity scale of Holden & Raitt, 1974 (Table
in egg production. Only female gonads in stage
4.1). Seasonal distribution of gonads by maturity
49
ChapteR 4
Figure 4.2. Common Small Pelagic Fishes in Manila Bay.
IV (mature/spawning) were used in the analysis
to verify the strength of spawning during the
biological months. The GSI was computed as
follows:
Length at Maturity (Lm50)
Gonads in stages III and IV were consid-
ered sexually mature. They were used to deter-
mine the length at 50% maturity (Lm50). The fre-
quency of occurrence of samples having mature
gonads was plotted against the length class of
0.5 cm interval for Sardinella species and 1.0 cm
interval for Rastrelliger kanagurta. The Lm50 was
deduced from the size class at which the cumula-
tive maturity percentage is 50% mature (Ekokotu
and Olele, 2014).
Reproductive Biology
R
ESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
A total of 1,204 (50.52%) female & 1,179
(49.48%) male Sardinella gibbosa; 1,275 (54.62%)
female & 1,059 (45.37%) male Sardinella fim-
briata; and 272 (53.15%) female & 257 (46.85%)
male Rastrelliger kanagurta were collected for two
years. The size of the female Sardinella gibbosa
ranged from 8.0-17.6 cm while the male ranged
from 8.1-17.5 cm. For Sardinella fimbriata, the size
of the female ranged from 7.5-19.0 cm while the
male ranged from 7.9-16.5 cm. In the case of Ras-
trelliger kanagurta, the size of the female ranged
from 11.3-29.9 cm while the male ranged from
11.5-29.9 cm.
50
 ChapteR 4
Table 4.1. Five-point gonad maturity scale (Holden & Raitt, 1974).
Sex Ratio
Females usually outnumbered males in
the collected fish samples in Manila Bay. The ra-
tio between female and male ranged from 1:1 to
1:1.63 for Sardinella gibbosa, 1.09:1 to 1.67:1 for S.
fimbriata, and 1:1 to 2.13:1 for Rastrelliger kanagur-
ta. Monthly sex ratio significantly departed from
the expected 1:1 ratio in the months of April and
September for S. gibbosa; during April, May, July
and August for S. fimbriata; and during February,
May and June for R. kanagurta (P < 0.05 = 3.84).
During these months, the females significantly
outnumbered the males except for S. gibbosa in
April, which was the other way around. Howev-
er, the overall female to male sex ratio was 1.02:1,
1.2:1, and 1.13:1, respectively. An overall bal-
anced sex ratio (Table 4.2) was observed in this
study, which is in agreement with the results of
other related studies (Kudale and Rathod, 2016;
Arrafi et al., 2015;).
51
Reproductive Biology
Spawning Season
Monthly observation of the gonad matu-
rity stages of the female gonads of Sardinella gib-
bosa, S. fimbriata and Rastrelliger kanagurta from
2014-2015 shows varying gonadal maturity lev-
el indicating that they tend to spawn as partial
spawners and thus spawn throughout the year.
Similar result was also observed in other related
studies (Bhendarkar et al., 2013; Jufaili, 2012). The
prolonged spawning may be associated with the
availability of planktonic prey (Chang et al., 2009,
Jose et al., 2015) and Manila Bay’s zooplankton
biomass and composition may possibly influ-
ence the seemingly untiring spawning behav-
ior of these species in the bay. Mature/spawn-
ing male and female (Stage IV) species were
recorded in most months with two spawning
peaks. For Sardinella gibbosa, the major spawn-
ing peak occurred in March and April and the
minor spawning peak in October to December.
For Sardinella fimbriata, the major peak occured
ChapteR 4 Reproductive Biology

in February to May and the minor spawning

peak in October to December. In the case of Ras-
trelliger kanagurta, the females were dominant
during the minor spawning (May & June) but
were replaced by the males during the major
spawning (October to December) (Figure 4.4).

Table 4.2. Monthly variation in sex ratio of Sardinella gibbosa, S. fimbriata, and Rastrelliger kanagurta
in Manila Bay Philippines (pooled data C.Y: 2014-2015)

52
 ChapteR 4 Reproductive Biology

Figure 4.3. Monthly Distribution of Gonad Maturity Stages of female Sardinella gibbosa, S. fimbriata, and
Rastrelliger kanagurta in Manila Bay (2014-2015).

Gonado Somatic Index (GSI)
The monthly mean GSI values of the
three species ranged from 3.29 (+ 1.94) to 7.30 (+
4.22) for Sardinella gibbosa, with the lowest GSI
value recorded in January and the highest in
March; 2.80 (+ 1.57) to 16.72 (+ 9.13) for Sardinella
fimbriata, with the lowest GSI value recorded in
September and the highest in May; and 2.66 (+
1.89) to 8.10 (+ 9.84) for Rastrelliger kanagurta,
with the lowest GSI value recorded in March and
August and the highest in October. GSI values
showed correlation with the maturation of go-
nads of these species (Figure 4.5).
Length at Maturity (Lm50)
The collected female fish with mid-
length 9.25 cm and less (Sardinella gibbosa), with

53
ChapteR 4 Reproductive Biology

Figure 4.4: Monthly variation in sex ratio of Sardinella gibbosa, S. fimbriata & Rastrelliger kanagurta in
Manila Bay, 2014-2015.

54
 ChapteR 4
mid-length 9.75 cm and less (Sardinella fimbriata),
and with mid-length 12.5 cm and less (Rastrel-
liger kanagurta) were immature (gonads in Stages
I and II) (Figure 4.6). The smallest mature female
and male were respectively at 9.5 cm and 11.1 cm
(Sardinella gibbosa), 10.4 cm and 9.3 cm (Sardinella
fimbriata), and 17.2 cm and 22.3 cm (Rastrelliger ka-
nagurta). High frequencies of mature/spawning
Figure 4.5. Monthly Gonadosomatic Index of Female (FIV) Sardinella gibbosa, S. fimbriata, and Rastrelliger
kanagurta in Manila Bay (2014-2015).
55
Reproductive Biology
stage were observed at mid-length size ranges of
13.25-13.75 cm (22%), 12.75-13.25 cm (22%),
and 26.5-27.5 cm (31%), respectively. The length
at 50% maturity (Lm50) was calculated at 13.25
cm in females and 12.75 cm in males for S. gibbo-
sa; 12.75 cm in females and 12.25 cm in males for
S. fimbriata; and 24.5 cm in females and 25.5 cm in
males for R. kanagurta (Figure 4.7, Table 4.3)
ChapteR 4 Reproductive Biology

Figure 4.6. Length distribution by maturity stages of Female: Sardinella gibbosa, S. fimbriata, and Rastrel-
liger kanagurta in Manila Bay, 2014-2015).

56
 ChapteR 4 Reproductive Biology

Figure 4.7. Cumulative Frequency of Length at First Maturity (Lm50) of Female and Male Dominant
Species in Manila Bay (2014-2015).

57
ChapteR 4 Reproductive Biology

Table 4.3. Cumulative Percentage of Female and Male Sardinella gibbosa, S. fimbriata, and Rastrelliger
kanagurta in Manila Bay (2014-2015).

L ITERATURE CITED BFAR. 1995. Fisheries Sector Program-Resource

and Ecological Assessment of Manila
Arrafi M., Azmi Ambak M., Piah Rumeaida, M. Bay. Final Report. Bureau of Fisheries
and Muchlisin, Z.A. 2015. Biology of and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), Dept. of
Indian Mackerel, Rastrelliger kanagurta Agriculture, Quezon City, Philippines.
(Cuvier, 1817) in the Western Waters
if Aceh. Iranian Journal of Fisheries Chang, K-H, A. Amano, T. Miller, T. Isobe,
Sciences. 15(3): 957-972. R. Maneja, F. Siringan, H. Imai and
S-I. Nakano. 2009. Pollution Study in
Bhendarkar MP, Naik SD, Mohite SA, Kulkarni Manila Bay: Eutrophication
GN. 2013. Reproductive Biology of and Its Impact on Plankton Community.
Indian Mackerel, Rastrelliger kanagurta Interdisciplinary Studies
(Cuvier, 1817) off Ratnagiri Coast, on Environmental Chemistry
Maharashtra, India. Discovery — Environmental Research in Asia,
Sci., 2013, 3(9), 24-26. Eds., Y. Obayashi, T.
Isobe, A. Subramanian, S. Suzuki and S.
Tanabe, pp. 261–267. TERRAPUB.

58
 ChapteR 4 Reproductive Biology

Dalzell P, P Corpuz, F Arce, R Ganaden. 1990. Lopez, G., F. Gonzales, F. Torres Jr.,
Philippine small pelagic fisheries and E. Bognot, E. Jaen, A. Bendaño, and
their management. Aquaculture M. Santos. Resource and Biological
and Fisheries Management 21: 77-94. Assessment of Commercially Important
Finfishes in Manila Bay. (Annual
Ekokotu, P.A. and N.F. Olele. 2014. Cycle Report, January–December 2012).
of Gonad Maturation, Condition Index
and Spawning of Clarotes Laticeps Lopez, G., F. Gonzales, F. Torres Jr., E. Bognot,
(Claroteidae) in the Lower River Niger. N. Bigalbal, A. Bendaño, E. Rivera, and
International Journal of Fisheries and M. Santos. Resource and Biological
Aquatic Studies 2014; 1(6): 144-150 Assessment of Commercially Important
Finfishes in Manila Bay. (Annual
Gervasi, C. 2015. The Reproductive Biology Report, January–December 2014).
of Striped Bass (Morone Saxatilis) in
Chesapeake Bay. A Master Thesis.
Mesa S.V. 2014. The fisheries resource status
Holden, M.J. and D.F.S. Raitt (eds.), 1974. of Visayan Sea. National Stock
Manual of Fisheries. Part 2: Method of Assessment Program, Bureau of
resource investigation and their Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. Stake
application FAO Fish Tech. Ref. 115 holders Meeting, Iloilo Grand
(Rev. 1), Rome, Italy. Hotel, Iloilo City, pp. 11.

Jose EC, Furio EF, Borja VM, Gatdula NC,
Santos MD. 2015. Zooplankton
omposition and abundance and its
relationship physic-chemical
parameters in Manila Bay.
Oceanography 3: 136. Doi: 10.4172/2332- Ronquillo, IA, Caces-Borja, P and A Mines.
2632.1000136.
Jufaili, SM Al. 2012. Reproductive Biology
of the Indian Oil Sardine Sardinella
longiceps. Fisheries and Aquaculture
Journal, vol. 2012: FAJ-44.
Kudale, RG. & JL. Rathod. 2016. Sex
composition of the fringe scale,
Sardinella fimbriata (Cuvieer and
Valenciennes, 1847) from Karwar
aters, Karnataka. Int’l. Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Studies, 4(2): 19-
21.
Olaño VL, MB Vergara, and FL Gonzales. 2009.
Assessment of the fisheries of Sorsogon
Bay (Region 5) BFAR NFRDI Technical
Paper Series 12: (4) 1-33.
1960. Preliminary observations on the
otter trawl fishery of Manila Bay.
Philippine Journal of Fisheries 8(1):47-
56.
Ronquillo I. A., M.E. Gabral-Llana and J.C.
Muñoz. 1989. The Proposed
20km ban on trawl and purse
seine fishing: A
Deterrent to National Economic
Recovery. Fish.Res. J. Philipp. 14(1-2): 37
– 48.
Tsikliras, A.C. and E. Antonopoulou. 2006.
Reproductive Biology of Round

59
ChapteR 4 Reproductive Biology

Sardinella (Sardinella aurita) in the

North-Eastern Mediterranean. Scientia
Marina 70(2): 281-290.

Willette D, Bognot E, Mutia M, Santos M. 2011.

Biology and ecology of sardines in the
Philippines: a review. BFAR
Technical Paper Series 13: Zaki, S., N.
Jayabalan, F. Al-Kiyumi, and L.
Al-Kharusi. 2016.
Reproductive biology of the Indian
mackerel Rastrelliger kanagurta
(Cuvier, 816) from the Mahout
Coast, Sultanate of Oman. Indian J.
Fish, 63(2): 24-32.

Zaragoza, E.C., Moreno E.P., Baling N.S.,

Colorado F.G., Guerrero III R.D. 2005.
Pilot monitoring of the fisheries re
sources of Manila Bay, p. 20.DOST –
PCAMRD, DENR and PEMSEA.

60
 ChapteR 5

Preliminary Inventory of Boats and Gears in Manila Bay

James Lee B. Abad1, Grace DV. Lopez1, Mudjekeewis D. Santos1, and Marco A. Perez2*

1
Vertebrate Section
2
Fishing Technology Section
Capture Fisheries Research and Development Division
National Fisheries Research and Development Institute

*Corresponding Author: macoyfish@yahoo.com

Abstract

Recent information about the number and types of boats and gears used in Manila Bay is lacking. Here
we discuss the results of the initial boat and gear inventory conducted in Manila Bay from May 2015 to
October 2016. The survey was done in the coastal barangays of Cavite, Bataan, Bulacan, Pampanga, and
Metro Manila. A total of 3,659 fishing boats were recorded from 84 coastal barangays, or about 40% out
of the 212 coastal barangays in Manila Bay. About 94.45% of the boats are municipal fishing boats and
only 5.55% are commercial boats and the highest number of boats recorded was in Cavite (1,461 boats).
91.04% of the fishing boats are motorized and only 8.96% are non-motorized. The average fisher to
boat ratio for the five provinces is 3.0:1, which is higher compared to the 2.4:1 result of MADECOR and
National Museum Assessment (1995). There are 25 types of fishing gears recorded during the survey
with a total of4,946 units. Gillnet, specifically bottom gillnet, is the most dominant gear being used in
Manila Bay.

Keywords: Manila bay, fishing boat and fishing gear

61
ChapteR 5
I NTRODUCTION
The country’s marine fisheries is conven-
tionally subdivided into municipal (small-scale)
sector and commercial sector depending on the
vessel gross tonnage. The municipal sector in-
cludes capture operations using fishing boats of
3 gross tons or less and they are allowed to fish
within the municipal waters or 15 km from the
shoreline. The commercial sector includes cap-
ture fishing operation using vessels of 3.1 gross
tons and above and they are required to fish out-
side the municipal waters that is beyond the 15
km from the shoreline. The commercial fishing
boats are categorized into small (>3.1-20 GRT),
medium (20.1-150 GRT), and large (>150 GRT).
Manila Bay is a multi-gear fishery with
both commercial and municipal boats operating
in the bay. The last known boat and gear survey
conducted in Manila Bay was during the resource
and ecological assessment study conducted in
1994 (MADECOR and National Museum, 1995).
They reported a total of 48,031 fisher folks, 19,966
fishing boats, and 21 types of fishing gears oper-
ating in the Bay. Zaragoza et al. (1995) recorded
17 types of fishing gears during their 5-month
(December 2004 to April 2005) pilot monitoring
of the fisheries resources in Manila Bay. Recent
stock assessment study conducted in the Bay
recorded 22 types of fishing gears operating in
the Bay (Lopez et al., 2014 annual report, unpub-
lished). This study only provides a partial result
of the boat and gear survey conducted in the dif-
ferent coastal barangays in Manila Bay from May
2015 to October 2016. boats recorded was in Cavite (1,461 boats) from
Boat and Gear Survey
M ATERIALS AND
METHODS
The fishing boat and gear inventory was
conducted in 84 coastal barangays along Manila
bay, in the provinces of Cavite (33), Bataan (23),
Bulacan (12), Pampanga (4) and Metro Manila
(12) (Figure 5.1). Data on fishing boat and gear
information and the distribution of fisherfolks in
the coastal barangays were taken first from the
Office of the Municipal Agriculturist. If such in-
formation are not available, an actual inventory
was conducted through interview and actual
boat measurements (i.e. length, width/breadth,
and depth). Other information asked are: hull
type, gross tonnage, horse power, engine type,
and number of fishermen on board. The boats
were classified as commercial or municipal based
on the gross tonnage. For the gear particulars,
the type of gear used was asked including the
corresponding gear specifications.
R
ESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
Fishing boat
A total of 3,659 fishing boats were re-
corded from 84 coastal barangays or about 40%
out of the 212 coastal barangays in Manila Bay in
the provinces of Cavite, Bataan, Bulacan, Pam-
panga and Metro Manila. About 94.45% of the
boats are municipal fishing boats and only 5.55%
are commercial boats. The highest number of
5 municipalities followed by Bataan (1,312 boats)
from 7 municipalities. The least number of boats
recorded was in Pampanga (85 boats) from only
one municipality. More than 90% of the boats in
Bataan, Cavite, and Pampanga are municipal
62
 ChapteR 5
Figure 5.1. Map of Manila bay showing the surveyed coastal barangays around the bay.
boats (Table 5.1). Of these number, 91.04% are
motorized while the 8.96% are non-motorized.
This shows that majority of the fishing boats in
Manila Bay are motorized, particularly in Bu-
lacan, Cavite, and Pampanga (Table 5.2), wherein
more than 90% are motorized boats. Unlike in
some fishing grounds where high percentage of
non-motorized boats were recorded, like in Lag
63
Boat and Gear Survey
onoy Gulf, 74% (Olaño et al., 2009); in Honda
bay, 47% (Ramos et al., 2009); and Northern Zam-
bales, 20.54% (Rueca et al., 2009).
The average fisher to boat ratio for the
five provinces is 3.0:1, which is higher compared
to the 2.4:1 result of MADECOR and National
Museum (1995). Bulacan has the highest boat
ChapteR 5 Boat and Gear Survey

Table 5.1. Distribution of municipal and commercial fishing boats by province/municipality in Manila
Bay.

64
 ChapteR 5 Boat and Gear Survey

Table 5.2. Distribution of motorized and non-motorized fishing boats by province/municipality in

Manila Bay.

65
ChapteR 5 Boat and Gear Survey

ratio with 6.2:1 while in Cavite, has the lowest
with 2.5:1 (Table 5.3). Result of previous sur-
vey, reported Cavite with the highest (3.8:1)
while NCR (Metro Manila) was the lowest (1.4:1)
(MADECOR and National Museum, 1995). In
provinces with high fisher to Banca ratio shows
that most of these fishers are either employed
or are being utilized in commercial fishing. On
the other hand, in provinces with low fisher to
banca ratio shows that majority of these fishers
have their own boat but, these are only munici-
pal boats that are used primarily for fishing sus-
tenance.
The motorized municipal boats in Ma-
nila Bay are equipped with 6.5-16 horsepower
gasoline or diesel engines and are usually used
by gillnet, hand line, traps and small trawl. The
commercial fishing boats with size ranges from
4-25 GRT are categorized under small commer-
cial boats. They are equipped with four piston
engines and can accommodate 10-15 fishermen.
These types of boat are usually used for the fish-
ing operation of ringnet, encircling gillnet and
big trawl. The detailed information of the boats
are presented in Table 5.4.
Based from 2002 Census of Fisheries, al-
most 1.19 million gillnets were operating in the
Philippines (NSO, 2005). In Manila Bay, gillnet
(specifically bottom gillnet) is the most domi-
nant gear, as recorded in this survey and in the
landed data (Lopez et al., 2014 annual report,
unpublished). Based from this partial survey,
fish pot and blast fishing were only recorded in
Cavite; barrier net, in Bulacan; fyke net, in Bu-
lacan and Pampanga; danish seine, squid jig and
squid trap, in Bataan and Cavite; drive in net, in
Bataan and Metro Manila; and stationary liftnet,
in Cavite and Metro Manila. The major gears be-
ing used in Bataan are bottom gillnet, bottom set
longline, crab gillnet, and drift gillnet; in Bulacan,
bottom gillnet, encircling gillnet, and fyke net;
in Cavite, bottom gillnet, drift gillnet, and spear
gun; and bottom gillnet for both Metro Manila
and Pampanga, (Table 5.5). The specific distribu-
tion of fishing gear by municipality is presented
in Table 5.6 and the list of fishing gear with local
names by province in Table 5.7. Drawings of the
different fishing gears in Manila Bay with mea-
surements are presented in Figure 5.2.

Fishing Gear

Various types of fishing gears are ex-

ploiting the resources of Manila Bay. These
gears are either active or passive type depending
on the target species. A total of twenty five types
of fishing gears were recorded (totaling to 4,946
units) during the survey in the five provinces of
Manila Bay. In every provinces of Manila Bay
different types of fishing gear recorded specifi-
cally, Cavite, 22 types; Bataan, 12 types; Bulacan,
7 types; Pampanga, 5 types; and Metro Manila,
11 types. More types of fishing gears were re-
corded in this survey compared to previous re-
ports, which were only 21 types (MADECOR
and National Museum, 1995) and 18 types (Zara-
gosa et al., 2005).

66
 ChapteR 5 Boat and Gear Survey

Table 5.3. Fishermen to boat ratio by province/ municipality in Manila Bay.

67
ChapteR 5 Boat and Gear Survey

Table 5.4. Profile of fishing boats in Manila Bay.

68
 ChapteR 5 Boat and Gear Survey

(cont.) Table 5.4. Profile of fishing boats in Manila Bay.

69
ChapteR 5 Boat and Gear Survey

Table 5.5. Distribution of fishing gears by province in Manila Bay.

70
 Boat and Gear Survey

Table 5.6. Distribution of fishing gears by province/municipality in Manila Bay

ChapteR 5

71
ChapteR 5 Boat and Gear Survey

Table 5.7. List of fishing gears with corresponding local names by province in Manila Bay.

72
 ChapteR 5 Boat and Gear Survey

Figure 5.2. Profile of fishing gears in Manila Bay.

73
ChapteR 5 Boat and Gear Survey

(cont.) Figure 5.2. Profile of fishing gears in Manila Bay.

74
 ChapteR 5 Boat and Gear Survey

(cont.) Figure 5.2. Profile of fishing gears in Manila Bay.

75
ChapteR 5 Boat and Gear Survey

(cont.) Figure 5.2. Profile of fishing gears in Manila Bay.

76
 ChapteR 5 Boat and Gear Survey

(cont.) Figure 5.2. Profile of fishing gears in Manila Bay.

77
ChapteR 5 Boat and Gear Survey

(cont.) Figure 5.2. Profile of fishing gears in Manila Bay.

78
 ChapteR 5 Boat and Gear Survey

(cont.) Figure 5.2. Profile of fishing gears in Manila Bay.

79
ChapteR 5 Boat and Gear Survey

(cont.) Figure 5.2. Profile of fishing gears in Manila Bay.

80
 ChapteR 5 Boat and Gear Survey

L ITERATURE CITED Zaragoza, E.C., C.R. Pagdilao and E.P. Moreno.

2004. Overview of the small pelagic
Aguilar, G.D. 2004. Philippine fishing boats. pp. fisheries, p. 32 – 37. In DA – BFAR
118–121. In: DA-BFAR, 2004, q.v. (Department of Agriculture – Bureau of
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In
BAS (Bureau of Agricultural Statistics). 2005. turbulent seas: The status of Philippine
Fisheries Statistics of the marine fisheries. Coastal Management
Philippines, 2001–2003. Project, Cebu City, Philippines.

Dickson J., E. Alba, A. Munprasit, B. Chokesan

guan and S. Siriraksophon. 2003.
Fishing gear and methods in Southeast
Asia: III Philippines, Part 1 and Part 2:
SEAFDEC.

FAO. 2005. Fishery Country Profile-Republic of

the Philippines.

Lopez, G., F. Gonzales, F. Torres Jr., E. Bognot,

N. Bigalbal, A. Bendaño, E. Rivera, and
M. Santos. Resource and Biological
Assessment of Commercially Important
Finfishes in Manila Bay. Annual Report
(January – December 2014) Submitted to
BFAR.

MADECOR-National Museum. 1995. FSP-

Resources and Ecological Assessment of
the Manila Bay. Final report submitted
to the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources.

Olaño V. L., M. B. Vergara, F. L. Gonzales. 2009.

Assessment of the Fisheries of Lagonoy
Gulf (Region 5).

Ramos M.H., M.B. Candelario, E.M Mendoza

and F.L. Gonzales. 2009. The Honda Bay
Fisheries: An Assessment, 12-12 p.

Rueca L.M., N.B. Bien, R.M. Bathan, J.I. Yuzon

and G.B. Salamat. 2009. Fish Stock
Assessment in Northern Zambales
Coast.

81
 ChapteR 6

Spatio-Temporal Distribution of Ichthyoplankton in

Manila Bay in Relation to Oceanographic Conditions

Marvin L. Tobias1, Angelica Gabrielle A. Sy1,Valeriano M. Borja1,

Ephrime B. Metillo3, Mudjekeewis D. Santos2 , and Elsa F. Furio1*

Aquatic Ecology Section

1

2
Vertebrate Section
Capture Fisheries Research and Development Division
National Fisheries Research and Development Institute
3
Mindanao State University - Iligan Institute of Technology, Iligan City

*Corresponding Author: efurio2010@yahoo.com

Abstract

Manila Bay faces serious problems today such as pollution, coastal area reclamation and infrastructure,
overfishing, and other activities that worsen the present condition of the bay. It is considered as one of
the major fishing grounds in the Philippines. Fish eggs and larvae collection was carried out to deter-
mine their distribution, abundance, and composition in the bay. Eight established sampling stations
were placed throughout the bay with an average distance of 5-6 nautical miles apart and sampled every
other month on monsoonal basis. Bongo net (360 microns mesh size, 1.5 meters in length, and diameter
of 50 centimeter mouth opening) with attached calibrated flowmeter was used in collecting fish larvae.
Physical (salinity, temperature,), chemical (nitrite, nitrate, phosphate, silicate, dissolved oxygen), and
biological (phytoplankton, and zooplankton) parameters were also carefully studied to be able to ex-
plain such uncommon event within the bay. In spite of the current status and worsening condition of
water quality of the bay, high abundances of fish eggs and larvae were consistently observed during
the northeast monsoon surveys (March) from 2012 to 2015. A total of 3,008 individuals were identified
belonging to 34 fish families. The highest fish egg density was observed during March 2013 with 1,550
ind./100m3, followed by March 2012 and 2015 with 1,484 ind./100m3 and 1,182 ind./100m3, respectively.
Abundance of fish larvae were observed during March 2015 with 414 ind./100m3, followed by March
2012 (329 ind./100m3) and March 2014 (311 ind./100m3). The lowest density observed was in September
2012 with a density of 132 ind/100m3 fish eggs and 46 ind/100m3 fish larvae. The results were consistent
that most fish eggs aggregates in the middle part of the bay especially in Stations 4 and 2 from 2012-
2015. For fish larvae, they were consistently found in the eastern part of the bay (stations 6, 8, and 7)
throughout the duration of the study, it was also the areas where high concentrations of phytoplankton,
zooplankton, and nutrients were observed. High abundance of fish eggs and fish larvae was observed
during northeast monsoon than southwest monsoon. In addition, fish larvae family was dominated by
small pelagic fish such as sardines, slipmouths, and mullets. The most dominant fish families found
were Clupeidae, followed Leiognathidae and Nemipteridae. Other groups that include in the top five
abundant families that occur every sampling period were Sillaginidae and Mugilidae.

Key words: Ichthyoplankton, Manila Bay

83
ChapteR 6
I
NTRODUCTION
A key role in understanding the ecology
and evolution of fish fauna and their constituent
population is through ichthyoplankton research
(Moser and Smith, 1993). Koutrakis et al. (2004)
also added that the relationship between spatial
and temporal distribution of ichthyoplankton in
relation to geographic and oceanographic con-
ditions is important to ecological and economic
perspectives. The importance of the interaction
between physical and biological processes need
specific studies on spawning and life cycle of
fish larvae for a better understanding of recruit-
ment variability in fisheries resources and for an
enhancement in the knowledge of life cycles
of fish species (Nonaka et al. 2000). A sea-
sonal examination of species composition
of ichthyoplankton in coastal marine waters
and in-depth study of seasonal variations in
the distribution patterns and possible effects
of hydrographic and climatological condi-
tions on larval transport are therefore needed.
Ichthyoplankton studies are important
for stock assessment purposes. The timing and
intensity of spawning in fishes is believed to be
adaptive, reflecting the phase of the mean sea-
sonal cycle of the environment favourable for off-
spring survival (Somarakis et al. 2000). Fish eggs
and larvae occurrence and abundance facilitate
the location of probable spawning and nursery
grounds of fishes. Ichthyoplankton data provide
a base for research into population dynamics of
major fishery species (Brodeur et al.,1995; Ruth-
erford et al., 1997; Butler et al., 2003), and infor-
mation on ichthyoplankton ecology comprise an
important component of stock assessment and
fishery management plans (Rutherford, 2002).
Manila Bay is a semi-enclosed body of wa-
ter facing West Philippine Sea. It is situated in the
western part of Luzon and is bounded by Cavite
and Metro Manila on the east, Bulacan and Pam-
panga on the north, and Bataan in the west and
Ichthyoplankton
northwest. It has 190 km coastline, surface area of
1, 700 km2, and 2.89 x 1010 m3 and has an average
depth of 17 m. Pampanga River and Pasig River
was the major contributor of fresh water influx
into the bay (Jacinto et al. 2006). It plays an im-
portant role in the country’s economy in terms
of industry and commerce, agriculture, aquacul-
ture, and tourism (Perez et al. 1999). Moreover,
it is one of the most important bodies of water in
the Philippines because of its historical, cultural,
and economic value (Jacinto et al. 2006). Human-
related activities such as conversion of man-
grove and mudflat areas into fishponds change
the physical properties of the bay particularly its
shoreline (MADECOR and National Museum,
1995 and MBEMP TWG-RRA 2004). Densely
populated coastal communities around the bay
rely mainly on fishing for their living which re-
sulted to continuous depletion of fisheries re-
sources due to increase in fishing pressure.
M
ATERIALS AND
METHODS
Collection of ichthyoplankton was car-
ried out on board motorized fishing vessel (ca. >7
gross tonnage) in Manila Bay every other month
starting January 2012, given a representative
sampling period during tradewinds/southeast
monsoon(May), southwest monsoon (July and
September) and northeast monsoon (November,
January, and March). Eight sampling stations
were established strategically in the entire bay
with a distance of about 4-5 nautical miles away
from each other (Figure 6.1). Horizontal towing
of Bongo net (50 cm diameter, 2.5 length and 364
µm mesh size) in the water that was partially
submerged about half a meter below surface was
done for 10 minutes at a speed of 2-3 knots in
each station to collect ichthyoplankton samples.
The bongo net was attached with calibrated flow-
meter to estimate the volume of water being fil-
tered. All samples were preserved in 10% sea wa-
84
 ChapteR 6
ter buffered formalin solution. The preserved
samples were brought to laboratory for further
processing, sorting and identification of fish
eggs and larvae, up to the lowest possible taxa
(SEAFDEC, 2004). To ensure good quality data,
replicate samples were also collected for ichthyo-
plankton. All densities were reported as indi-
viduals (fish eggs or larvae) per 100m3. As an aid
to the identification, taxonomic publications of
Ahlstrom (1965), Fahay (1975, 1983), Moser et al.
(1984), Richards (2006), and Baldwin (2013) were
used.
R
ESULTS
Species composition of total fish larvae
assemblage
A total of 3,008 individual specimens
Figure 6.1. Sampling stations (left) and Bathymetric map (right) of Manila Bay
85
Ichthyoplankton
of fish larvae represented by 34 families were
collected in all sampling stations in Manila Bay.
Fish larvae family was dominated by Clupei-
dae throughout the entire duration of the study
which comprises 27% of the total population, fol-
lowed by Leiognathidae and Mugilidae (mullets)
with 15% and 10%, respectively (Figure 6.2). The
other families occur in order of abundance were
Nemipteridae (sea breams), Sillaginidae (whit-
ings), Mullidae (goatfishes), Carangidae (jacks
and pompanos), Gobiidae (gobbies), and En-
graulidae (anchovies).
From the first year of the project (2012),
up to the last year (2015), the Clupeidae were con-
sistently the most abundant fish family in Manila
Bay every sampling period (Figure 6.3). How-
ever, the top two to five families varied in rank
every sampling month but mostly Leiognathidae
and Mugilidae switch places from top two and
three, respectively. The Carangidae which claims
the second spot during the early part of 2012
ChapteR 6
Figure 6.2.Total Species Composition of Fish Larvae in Manila Bay
slowly slides below top five during latter part of
2012 up to 2015 as it appear in low density. The
families rank top six and below every sampling
period were identified and clustered as others as
they appear in small concentration.
Abundance and distribution of total fish eggs
and larvae
Fish Eggs
High abundance of fish eggs was ob-
served in March 2012, a representative of north-
east monsoon with a total of 1,484.47 ind./100m3
(Figure 6.4, row 1 column b). Fish eggs concen-
trations were found in station 7, located in the
western side (592.8 ind/100m3) and station 2, near
the southwestern side (449.8 ind/100m3). January
Ichthyoplankton
and November 2012 surveys with 633 ind./100m3
and 371 ind./100m3 observed in stations 7 and 2,
both were also representative by the northeast
monsoon.
On the following year (2013), the abun-
dance of fish eggs was again observed in March
survey, having a total of 1,550.42 ind./100m3 (Fig-
ure 6.4, row 2 column b), slightly higher com-
pared to March of the previous year (2012).The
concentrations were found in station 6 (568.8
ind/100m3) and station 7 (290.2 ind/100m3), both
in eastern side. The November 2013 survey ac-
counted for 860 ind/100m3, followed by January
2013 with 531 ind/100m3; their concentrations ag-
gregate both in station 3, in the western side. The
succeeding year (2014), egg abundance was again
noticed in high density in March 2014 survey
with 1,119 ind/100m3 (Figure 6.4, row 3 column b
86
 ChapteR 6
Figure 6.3. Composition of Fish Larvae in Manila Bay
much lower compared to the previous surveys,
they were found amassing in the southwestern
side (station 2) with 412 ind/100m3. It was fol-
lowed by November 2014 (682 ind/100m3) and
January 2014 (566 ind/100m3).
For the last survey (2015), high abun-
dance of fish eggs was again observed during
March, with a total density of 1,182 ind/100m3
(Figure 6.4, row 4 column b) that are concentrat-
ed in the southwestern side of the bay in station
3 (347 ind/100m3) and station 4 (245 ind/100m3).
The results validated all the data from 2012-2015
that fish eggs were abundant every March, as
shown in Figure 6.4. However, the lowest re-
corded number of fish eggs was observed in Sep-
tember 2012 (Figure 6.4, row 1 column e) survey
with only 132 ind/100m3, because of unfavorable
weather conditions during this season. Most fish
eggs were found amassing in the middle part to-
wards the eastern part of the bay (Metro Manila
87
Ichthyoplankton
and Cavite area). Moreover, fish eggs show a
clear shoreward transport as more fish eggs were
found amassing offshore.
Fish Larvae
High fish larvae density was observed in
March 2012 survey with 329 ind./100m3 which ag-
gregated in station 7 (150 ind./100m3) and station
2 (65 ind./100m3) respectively (Figure 6.5, row 1
column b). The abundance of fish larvae in May
2012 (305.43 ind./100m3) was closer to March 2012
(329 ind./100m3)and followed by July 2012 with
237 ind./100m3. The following year (2013), high
abundance of fish larvae was again observed in
March survey with 306 ind./100m3, they were
amassing in station 6 with 82 ind./100m3 and sta-
tion 4 with 78 ind./100m3, followed by July (232
ind./100m3) and May 2013 (194 ind./100m3) both
in station 6 (Figure 6.5).
ChapteR 6 Ichthyoplankton

Figure 6.4. Spatial Distribution and Abundance of Fish Eggs in Manila Bay (2012-2015)

Figure 6.5. Spatial Distribution and Abundance of Fish Larvae in Manila Bay (2012-2015)

88
 ChapteR 6
The succeeding year (2014), fish larvae
were much higher during March survey com-
pared to the other months with 311 ind/100m3,
they were found in station 6 (81 ind./100m3) and
station 7 (67 ind./100m3) (Figure 6.5, row 3 col-
umn b).
The highest concentration of fish larvae
were observed during March 2015 survey with
414 ind./100m3 compared to the previous sur-
veys. They were noticed in stations 6 and 7 with
107 ind./100m3 and 76 ind./100m3, respectively.
The abundance of fish larvae was consistently ob-
served every March as shown in Figure 6.5. Fish
larvae were usually found in the stations near
the shore especially in Metro Manila, Cavite and
Bataan areas (Station 6, 8 and 7).
D
ISCUSSION
A total of 3,008 fish larvae individuals
representing 34 families were collected and iden-
tified in Manila Bay from 2012-2015. It was ob-
served that during northeast monsoon (January,
November, and March) high density of fish larvae
were recorded especially in March 2015 with 414
ind./100m3. According to Campos et al. (2008),
this was the season that many tropical small or-
ganisms spawn. Somarakis et al. (2000) also have
the same findings and it coincides with the stud-
ies in Western Mediterranean Sea wherein dur-
ing early summer was the reproductive season of
summer spawning fishes (Sabates, 1990; Sabates
and Maso, 1992; Sabates and Olivar, 1996).
Bone et al., (1995) stated that most shal-
low water fish produce pelagic eggs and carried
away by ocean currents, similar to what we ob-
served as fish eggs were distributed throughout
the bay. There were two gyres present in the bay,
one from the northern part, and another one on
the southern part which moves opposite from
each other depending on the dominant prevail-
ing wind (de Las Alas and Sodusta, 1985).
89
Ichthyoplankton
This oceanographic pattern was revali-
dated by Villanoy and Martin (1997). Abun-
dance of fish eggs were observed in Manila Bay
all year round, its highest was recorded during
the northeast monsoon in March 2013 with 1,550
ind./100m3 and found amassing in the middle
and northern parts of the bay and can be attrib-
uted to the narrow mouth and circulation pattern
of the bay. We tested the significant correlation
of the abundance of ichthyoplankon to the physi-
cal and chemical parameters of the bay using
canonical ordination analysis (CANOCO). Of all
the parameters tested, only temperature, salinity
and dissolved oxygen showed positive correla-
tion and they fall together with most of the lar-
vae in one quadrant (Figure 6.6). Monte Carlo
Permutation test show the significant correlation
of salinity, and nitrate with P values of 0.032 and
0.05, respectively. The significant correlation may
not be that strong but the result only means that
those environmental parameters in the bay were
necessary and needed by the fish larvae in order
to survive. Boeing and Duffy-Anderson (2008)
said that there were other factors that influence
the abundance and distribution of ichthyoplank-
ton such as environmental forcing factors (cli-
mate), predation and competition. In conclusion,
although we did not find strong significant corre-
lation among physical and chemical parameters
in relation to the distribution and abundance of
ichthyoplankton in the bay, the result itself will
be very useful for biological information and
stock assessment purposes in the area. For future
study, tidal fluctuation, circulation pattern, and
climatological condition must be included in the
parameters to determine whether these forcing
conditions affect the distribution pattern of ich-
thyoplankton.
ChapteR 6 Ichthyoplankton

Figure 6.6. Biplot (CCA) of species and environmental parameters (plankton, physical and chemical
parameters) in Manila Bay.

Table 6.1. Monte Carlo Permutation Test

90
 ChapteR 6 Ichthyoplankton

Table 6.2. Legend of Fish Families

Table 6.3. Legend of Environmental Parameters

91
ChapteR 6 Ichthyoplankton

L ITERATURE CITED

de Las Alas, J. G., Sodusta, J. A. (1985). A model
from the wind driver circulation in
Ahlstrom, E. H. (1965). A review of the effects of Manila Bay. Nat. Appl. Sci. Bull. 37(2):
environment population of the Pacific 159-170
sardine. ICNAF Spec. Publ. 6: 53-76
Fahay, M. P. (1975). An annotated List of Larval
Baldwin, C.C.(2013). The phylogenetic and Juvenile Fishes Captured with a
significance of colour patterns inmarine Surface Towed Meter Net in the
teleost larvae; Zoological Journal of the South Atlantic Bight During
Linnean Society, 2013, 168, 496–563. Four RV DOLPHIN Cruises Between
May 1967 and February
Boeing, W. L. and Duffy-Anderson, J. T. (2008). 1968. NOAA Technical
Ichthyoplankton dynamics and biodi Report NMFS SSRF-685.
versity in the Gulf of Alaska: Responses
to environmental change. Ecological Fahay, M. P. (1983).Guide to the Early Stages of
Indicators 8 (292-302) Marine Fishes occurring in the
Western North Atlantic Ocean, Cape
Hatteras to the Southern Scotian Shelf.
Bone, Q., N. B. Marshall and J. H. S. Blaxter. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery
(1995). Biology of Fishes 2nd ed., Balckie Science, Volume 4: 3-423ISSN-0250-7408
Academic and
Professional, London,332p. Jacinto, G.S.,Velasquez, I.B., San Diego-
McGlone,M.L.,Villanoy, C.L. and
Brodeur, R.D., Busby, M.S., Wilson, M.T., (1995). Siringan,F.B.(2006).”Biophysical
Summer distribution of early-life stages Environment of Manila Bay - Then and
of Walleye Pollock, Theragra Now”, in Wolanski, E.(ed.)
chalcogramma, and associated species The Environment in Asia Pacific
in the Western Gulf of Alaska. Harbours.Springer:Dordrecht,The
Fish B: NOAA 93, 603–618. Netherlands.p. 293-307.

Butler, J.L., Jacobson, L.D., Barnes, J.T., Moser, Kuotrakis, E. T., Kallianiotis, A. A., and Tsikliras,
H.G., (2003). Biology and A. C., (2004). Temporal patterns of fish
population dynamics of cowcod distribution and abundance in a coastal
(Sebastes levis) in the southern Califor area of northern Greece. SCI. MAR, 68
nia Bight. Fish B: NOAA 101, 260–280. (4): 585-595

Campos, W. L., Beldia II, P. D., Villanoy, C. L., MADECOR and National Museum. (1995).
and Aliño, P. M., (2008). Using Resources and ecological assessment of
Ichthyoplankton Distribution in Manila Bay. FinalReport (244p).
Selecting Sites for an MPA Network in Fisheries Sector Program. Bureau of
the Sulu Sea, Philippines. Proceedings Fisheries and Aquatic Resources,
of the 11th Interntional Department ofAgriculture. Quezon
Coral Reef Symposium, Ft. Lauderdale, City, Philippines.
Florida, 7-11 July 2008, Session number
23
92
 ChapteR 6 Ichthyoplankton

CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group

Moser, H. G., and Smith, P. E. (1993). Larval fish Rutherford, E.S., Houde, E.D., Nyman,
assemblages and oceanic boundries. R.M., (1997). Relationship of larval-stage
Bull. Mar, Sci., 53:283-289 growth and mortality to recruitment of
Nonaka, R. H., Matsuura, Y., Suzuki, K. striped bass, Morone saxatilis, in
(2000). Seasonal variation in fish Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 20, 174–1983.
larval assemblages in relation to
oceanographic condition in the Abrolhos Rutherford, E.S., (2002). Fishery management.
Bank region off eastern In: Fuiman, L.A., Werner, R.G. (Eds.),
Brazil. Fish. Bull., 98:767-784 Fishery Science. The Unique
Contributions of Early Life Stages.
PEMSEA and MBEMP TWG-RRA. ( 2004). Fishery Blackwell Publishing, pp. 206–
Manila Bay: Refined Risk Assessment. 221.
(PEMSEA Technical
Sabates, A. (1990). Distribution pattern of larval
Report No.9, 169 p.). Global Environment fish populationsin the Northwestern
Facility/United Nation Development Mediterranean. Mar. Ecol. Prog.Ser., 59:
Programme/International Maritime 75-82.
Organization Regional Programme on
Building Partnerships inEnvironmental Sabates, A., Maso, M. (1992). Unusual larval fish
Management for the Seas of East Asia distributionpattern in a coastal zone of
(PEMSEA), and Manila Bay the western Mediterranean.
Environmental Project (MBEMP), Limnol. Oceanogr., 37(6): 1252-1260.
Technical Working Group for Refined
Risk Assessment (TWG-RRA) Quezon Sabates, A.,Olivar M.P (1996). Variation of larval
City, Philippines fish distributionsassociated with
variability in the location of ashelf-slope
Perez, R. T., Amadore, A. L., Feir, R. B. (1999). front. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 135: 11-20.
Climate Change Impacts and Responses shelf-slope front. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.,
in the Philippines Coastal Sector. 135: 11-20.
Climate Research, Vol. 12: 97-107
Somarakis, S., Maraveya, E., Tsimenides, N.
(2000).Multispecies Ichthyoplankton
Richards, W. J., (2006). Early Stages of Atlantic associations in epipelagic species: is
Fishes: An identification guide for the there any intrinsic adaptive function?
Western Central North Atlantic. Belg. J. Zool., 130 (Supplement 1): 125-
CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group 129
Rutherford, E.S., Houde, E.D., Nyman,
R.M., (1997). Relationship of larval-stage Villanoy, C., Martin, M. (1997). Modeling of
growth and mortality to recruitment of Manila Bay: Assessing the relative
striped bass, Morone saxatilis, in magnitude of wind and tide forcing.
Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 20, 174–1983. Science Diliman 9 (1-2), 26-53

Richards, W. J., (2006). Early Stages of Atlantic

Fishes: An identificationguide for the
Western Central North Atlantic.

93
ChapteR 7

Spatio-Temporal Variability of Zooplankton Distribution

and Abundance in Manila Bay from 2013-2015

Ellaine C. Jose1, Valeriano M. Borja1, Norvida C. Gatdula1, James Dominic D. Vergara1,

Ephrime B. Metillo3 , Mudjekeewis D. Santos2, and Elsa F. Furio1*

Aquatic Ecology Section

1

2
Vertebrate Section
Capture Fisheries Research and Development Division
National Fisheries Research and Development Institute
3
Mindanao State University - Iligan Institute of Technology, Iligan City

*Corresponding Author: efurio2010@yahoo.com

Abstract

The study characterized the spatio-temporal variations in composition, abundance and diversity of
zooplankton community in Manila Bay. Zooplankton samples were collected every two months within
three years from 2013 to 2015. The zooplankton composition of Manila Bay includes 29, 52 and 50 taxa
in 2013, 2014 and 2015, respectively belonging to the major groups: Copepoda, Decapoda, Cladocera,
Chordata, Annelida, Mollusca, Chaetognatha, Ciliophora, Foraminifera, Echinodermata, and Chrom-
ista. Copepod nauplii consistently dominated the zooplankton community in the bay from 2013 to 2015
followed by Tintinnids, Oithona spp., Euterpina acutifrons, and Paracalanus spp. Highest concentration of
zooplankton was specifically observed in the southwestern side near the mouth of the bay (Station 4) in
July 2015. In 2014, the highest recorded zooplankton density was in the month of November in the east-
ern side (Station 10). In general, relatively high diversities of zooplankton community were recorded in
many months in 2015 as compared to 2013 and 2014 although the highest recorded diversity occurred
in March of 2014. Redundancy Analysis revealed salinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll
a, PO4, SiO and NO3 to have strong correlation with the zooplankton abundances and distribution.

Keywords: Zooplankton, Diversity, Environmental Factors, Redundancy Analysis

94
 ChapteR 7
I NTRODUCTION
Manila bay is one of the most important
bodies of water in the Philippines because of its
socio-economic impact (Jacinto et al., 2006). The
natural resources available have been the pri-
mary source of livelihood for people living in
the coastal areas surrounding the bay. Rapid in-
crease in population and industrialization in the
watershed cause the bay to suffer from serious
water quality deterioration. (Chang et al., 2009).
Zooplanktons are essential in marine
ecosystem because they serve as consumers of
microbial production. They also influence the re-
sources available to microbes by revitalizing and
discharging dissolved organic matter (Lalli and
Parsons, 1993). Their distribution is influenced by
biotic (Isari et al., 2007) and abiotic (David et al.,
2005; Marques et al., 2007a, b) factors. Zooplank-
ton plays a major role in the functioning and the
productivity of aquatic ecosystems through its
impact on the nutrient dynamics and its key po-
sition in the food webs (Etilé et al., 2009). Zoo-
plankton community is highly sensitive to envi-
ronmental change (Joseph and Yamakanamardi,
2011) and they respond to disturbances in the en-
vironment like nutrient loading (Pace, 1986; Dod-
son, 1992) and fish densities (Canfield and Jones,
1996).
Several studies have examined and re-
ported about zooplankton, both locally and inter-
nationally in different parts of the world (Joseph
and Yamakanamardi, 2011). Studies have been
conducted on zooplankton as indicators of water
quality done in Discovery Bay in Jamaica (Web-
ber et al., 2005); and the identification of water
quality and zooplankton characteristics in Daya
Bay in China (Wang et al., 2011) however, in Ma-
nila Bay, despite the studies done concentrating
on the pollution of the bay especially regarding
its water quality and harmful algal bloom issues,
only a very few studies are presently available on
95
zooplankton
the structure of zooplankton community, one
study was done by Chang et al. in 2009.
The study aimed to describe the spatio-
temporal variations in composition, abundance
and diversity of zooplankton community in Ma-
nila Bay.
M
ATERIALS AND
METHODS
Study Site
The investigations were carried out
in Manila Bay for three years with six survey
months every year (January 2013, March 2013,
May 2013, July 2013, September 2013, November
2013; January 2014, March 2014, May 2014, July
2014, September 2014, November 2014; January
2015, March 2015, May 2015, July 2015, Septem-
ber 2015, November 2015).
Sixteen transect stations in Manila bay
were established for investigation (Figure 7.1).
Manila bay has an area of 1,994 km2 (769.9 sq
mi) with an average depth of 17 m (55.8 ft). It is
bounded by the province of Cavite and Metro
Manila in the east, Bulacan and Pampanga on the
north and the province of Bataan on the west. (Ja-
cinto et al., 2006)
Physico-chemical Analysis of Water
Physico-chemical parameters like tem-
perature, salinity, dissolved oxygen and chloro-
phyll-a concentration were measured using CTD
19 Plus, SeaBird Electronics, Inc. USA. Particulate
and dissolved matter was separated by filtration.
The water samples were filtered through a 0.45
µM membrane filters. Dissolved nutrients such
as phosphate, nitrate, nitrite and silicate were
analysed by spectrophotometry.
ChapteR 7 zooplankton

Figure 7.1. Study Site: Manila Bay (14°31′00″N120°46′00″E) showing 16 pre-established sampling
stations

Collection and Analysis of Zooplankton The zooplankton samples were observed and
Samples counted using Sedgewick Rafter Counting Cell
under a microscope with 400x magnification.
Zooplankton samples were collected us- Individual zooplankton was identified up to
ing a conical plankton net about two feet in length lowest possible taxa. The density expressed in
with 64µM mesh size. The plankton net is slowly ind/m3 was computed using the formula:
vertically towed from near bottom layer to the
surface layer to collect the zooplankton samples
throughout the water column in each station.
Each filtered seawater sample was placed in a
bucket, poured into a polyethylene plastic bottle
then reduced to 100 ml and preserved in 4% for-
malin solution. An aliquot of 1 ml was subjected
to counting and identification of the specimen.
96
 ChapteR 7
The zooplankton taxonomic diversity
was measured using the Shannon-Wiener Index.
Shannon-Wiener (H’) was computed using the
formula:
Redundancy analysis was done using CANOCO
5 software (Lepš and Šmilauer, 2003).
R
ESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
The zooplankton composition of Manila
Bay includes 29, 52 and 50 zooplanktonic taxa in
2013, 2014 and 2015, respectively belonging to the
major groups: Copepoda, Decapoda, Cladocera,
Chordata, Annelida, Mollusca, Chaetognatha,
Figure 7.2. Dominant zooplanktonic taxa in 2013-2015 in Manila Bay
97
zooplankton
Ciliophora, Foraminifera, Echinodermata, and
Chromista. Copepod nauplii constantly domi-
nated the zooplankton community in the bay
from 2013 to 2015 (Figure 7.2) with a total
abundance of 2,929,864 ind/m3 followed by co-
pepodite with total abundance of 1,048,691 ind/
m3, Tintinnids (892,427 ind/m3), Oithona spp.
(774,197 ind/m3), Euterpina acutifrons (475,376
ind/m3), Paracalanus spp. (455, 202 ind/m3),
Microsetella norvegica (428,320 ind/m3) Oiko-
pleura sp. (284,607 ind/m3), Oncaea sp. (155,697
ind/m3) and Corycaeus spp. (162,774 ind/m3).
Generally, the highest concentrations of
zooplankton species were recorded in 2015, spe-
cifically the highest density was observed in the
southwestern side near the mouth of the bay (sta-
tion 4) in July (Figure 7.3). In 2014, the highest
recorded density was in the month of November.
In general, high diversities of zooplankton com-
munity were recorded in many months in 2015 as
ChapteR 7
compared to 2013 and 2014 although the highest
diversity recorded occurred in month of March
in 2014.
The zooplankton composition of Ma-
nila Bay in the sampling months in 2013 in-
cludes 29 zooplanktonic taxa belonging to the
major groups: Copepoda, Decapoda, Cladocera,
Chordata, Annelida, Mollusca, Chaetognatha,
Ciliophora, Foraminifera, Echinodermata, and
Chromista. Copepod nauplii dominated the zoo-
plankton community in 2013 (Figure 7.2) reach-
ing a density of 274,663 ind/m3.
Zooplanktons are most abundant near
the mouth and in the northern part of the bay
near Bulacan (Figure 7.3).Station 2 (near the
mouth) has the highest density while station 12
(near Manila) has the lowest density. The zoo-
plankton population of those stations was found
to be dominated by adults and nauplii of cope-
pods both in number and families followed by
tunicates (Oikopleura) and chaetognath. The zoo-
plankton community was the most diverse in the
month of September in general while the lowest
diversity was recorded in the month of January
(Figure 7.4).
There was an increase in the total num-
ber of zooplanktonic taxa found in the bay from
29 in 2013 to a total of 52 zooplanktonic taxa
identified in 2014 belonging to the major groups:
Copepoda, Decapoda, Ostracoda, Maxillopoda,
Cladocera, Chordata, Cnidaria, Annelida, Mol-
lusca, Chaetognatha, Ciliophora, Foraminifera,
Echinodermata, and Chromista. The dominant
species shown in Figure 2, copepod being the
most abundant with a density of 823,072 ind/m3.
In this study it was noted that the total density of
zooplanktons varied from 4,812 to 103,185 ind/m3
during the months of January to November 2014.
An increase in the total densities was observed in
2014 compared to 2013.
Zooplanktons were most abundant in the
zooplankton
eastern part of the bay near Manila and Cavite, in
the western part of the bay and near the mouth
(Figure 7.3). The highest density of zooplankton
was recorded in the month of November reach-
ing about 105,000 ind/m3 which occurred in sta-
tion 10 near Manila. There was an increase in the
highest density recorded in 2013 from 73,000 ind/
m3 in 2013 to 103,000 ind/m3 in 2014. The zoo-
plankton community of those stations was found
to be dominated by adults and nauplii copepods
both in number and families. The zooplankton
community was generally most diverse in the
month of May while lowest diversity was record-
ed in the month of November (Figure 7.4).
The zooplankton composition of Manila
Bay during the survey in 2015 includes 50 zoo-
planktonic taxa belonging to the major groups:
copepods, decapods, ostracods, branchiopods,
maxillopods, echinoderms, ciliophorans, chor-
dates, annelids, molluscs, and nemerteans. Co-
pepod nauplii still comprised the bulk of zoo-
plankton in the bay in the sampling months of
2015 with a density of 1,723,849 ind/m3, other
dominant species observed in 2015 was shown in
Figure 2.
The zooplankton concentrations were
observed generally in the central to the eastern
part of the bay, near Bulacan and Manila area,
for the whole year of 2015 (Figure 3). There was
an increase in densities of zooplankton in 2015
as compared to 2013 and 2014. The zooplankton
community was the most diverse in the months
of January, March and May while the lowest di-
versity was observed in the different stations in
the month of July (Figure 4).
Copepod nauplii consistently dominated
the zooplankton community in the three years
of sampling. Copepod nauplii are widespread,
abundant and productive in marine waters and
they are food for many fish larvae. Harpacticoid
species such as Microsetella norvegica and Euter-
98
 zooplankton

Figure 7.3. Spatio-Temporal Variations in Zooplankton Abundance in 2013-2015 (density= ind/m3)

ChapteR 7

99
 100
Figure 7.4. Spatio-Temporal Variations in Zooplankton Diversity in 2013-2015
zooplankton
ChapteR 7
 ChapteR 7
pina acutifrons, were also observed to belong in
the most abundant species from 2013-2015. This
group usually occupy superficial or interstitial
sediments and for the most part live in a benthic
environment (Dussart and Defaye, 2001). The
high abundance of harpacticoid species could be
attributed to the turbidity of the bay. Cyclopoid
species (Corycaeus, Oithona and Oncaea) were also
recorded to be one of the most abundant groups
in the three years of sampling (2013-2015). Cy-
clopoids act as intermediate hosts to different
parasitic worms that parasitize a variety of ver-
tebrates; including fish, domestic animals, and
humans (Dussart and Defaye, 2001). They first
Figure 7.5. Biplot of Environmental factors x Zooplankton Composition in 2013 (RDA)
101
zooplankton
serve as intermediate hosts and are eaten up by
fish, which in turn will be the second intermedi-
ate hosts. But some cyclopoid copepods are ben-
eficial being known to be ravenous predators on
mosquito larvae and have been utilized in large-
scale mosquito control programs (Marten et al.
1994).
Measures of diversity indices are sensi-
tive to the extent of dominance and the number
of species present in the community (Mcgowan
and Miller, 1980). Months with recorded high di-
versities was shown to have low abundance.
ChapteR 7
Figure 7.6. Biplot of Environmental factors x Zooplankton Composition in 2014 (RDA)
There are significant correlations be-
tween zooplankton abundances and environ-
mental parameters in 2013. RDA revealed that
the 30.5% of the zooplankton composition and
abundance variance was explained by the pa-
rameters: salinity (F = 7.2, p =0.002), tempera-
ture (F= 6.4, p =0.002), dissolved oxygen (F= 6.6,
p =0.002), phosphate (PO4) (F= 2.6 p =0.006) and
chlorophyll-a (F= 1.6, p =0.084), although P value
of chlorophyll a suggests a not so strong correla-
tion (Figure 7.5). In 2014, significant correlations
were found between zooplankton distribution
and abundances and environmental parameters
such as salinity (F= 15.3, p =0.002), phosphate
(PO4) (F= 10.7, p =0.002), temperature (F= 4.9, p
=0.002), silicate (SiO) (F= 2.6, p =0.002) and dis-
zooplankton
solved oxygen (F= 2.5, p =0.01). RDA explains
35.6 of the variance in the species-environment
relationships (Figure 7.6). In 2015, temperature
(F= 9.5, p =0.002), chlorophyll-a (F= 2.9, p =0.002),
silicate (SiO) (F= 2.6, p =0.004), nitrate (NO3) (F=
2.5, p =0.006) were found to have effect on the
abundance and distribution of zooplankton in
Manila Bay RDA explains 31% of the variance
of the species-environment relationships (Figure
7.7).
Most zooplankters abundance is affected
by the fluctuations in environmental factors. Sa-
linity is known to bring an immense change in
aquatic communities, it causes the disappearance
of species that cannot adapt to increase in salt
102
 ChapteR 7
Figure 7.7. Biplot of Environmental factors x Zooplankton Composition in 2015 (RDA)
concentrations. Also, in a study done by Pardo
and Armengol in 2011 CCA ordination showed
that chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen and pH
seem to be important variables in structuring
zooplankton community. Hypoxic/anoxic condi-
tions may play a role in the decrease of zooplank-
ton abundance in eutrophic systems (Soetaert
and Van Rijswijk, 1993; Yacobi et al., 1993; Stalder
and Marcus, 1997; Park and Marshall, 2000). Our
results showed same result having dissolved ox-
ygen and chlorophyll a and salinity as key factors
in determining the community of zooplankton in
the bay. Distribution of zooplankton can also be
affected by the circulating current of which there
are two present in the bay, one coming from the
northern part and the other from the southern
part. These two gyres move in opposite direc-
tions depending on the prevalent wind (de Las
Alas and Sodusta, 1985).
103
zooplankton
L
ITERATURE CITED
Canfield, T.H. and J.R. Jones. (1996).
Zooplankton abundance and biomass,
and size-distribution in selected Mid
western water bodies and relation with
trophic state. J. Freshwat. Ecol., 11, 171-
181
Chang K.H., Amano A., Miller T.W., Isobe T.,
Maneja R., Siringan F.P., Imai H.
and Nakano S. (2009). Pollution
Study In: Manila Bay:
Eutrophication And Its Impact On
Plankton Community, In:
Interdisciplinary Studies On
Environmental Chemistry
ChapteR 7 zooplankton

Environmental Research In Asia, edited (eastern Mediterranean). Marine Biology

by Obayashi Y, Isobe T, Subramanian 151, 1035–1050.
AM, Suzuki S and Tanabe S, Terrapub
261–267 Jacinto, G.S., Velasquez, I.B., San Diego-
McGlone,M.L.,Villanoy, C.L.
David, V., Sautour, B., Chardy, P., Leconte, M., and Siringan,F.B. (2006).”Biophysical
(2005). Long-term changes of the Environment of Manila Bay - Then and
zooplankton variability in a Now”, in Wolanski, E.(ed.)The
turbid environment: the Gironde Environment in Asia Pacific Harbours.
estuary (France). Estuarine, Coastal and Springer:Dordrecht,TheNetherlands.p.
Shelf Science 64, 171–184. 293-307.

de Las Alas, J. G., Sodusta, J. A. (1985). A model Joseph, B. and Yamakanamardi,S.M. (2011)
from the wind driver circulation in Monthly Changes in the Abundance and
Manila Bay. Nat. Appl. Sci. Bull. 37(2): Biomass of Zooplankton and Water
159-170 Quality Parameters in Kukkarahalli
Lake of Mysore, India. Journal of
Dodson, S.I., (1992) Predicting zooplankton Environmental Biology 32(5): 551–7.
species richness.Limnol. Oceanogr.,37,
848-856. Lalli, C. M. and T. R. Parsons. (1993).
Biological Oceanography, An
Dussart, B. H., and D. Defaye. (2001). Introduction, Pergamon Press, New
Introduction to the Copepoda. 2nd York, 293 p.
edition. Guide to the identification of
the microinvertebrates of the continental Lepš, J., & Šmilauer, P. (2003). Multivariate
waters of the world, No. 16. Backhuys analysis of ecological data using
Publishers, Leiden. 344pp. CANOCO. Cambridge university press.

Etilé, R.N., Kouassi A.M., Aka M.N., Pagano, Marten, G.G., Bordes E.S., and Nguyen M.,
M., N’douba, V., Kouassi, N.J., (2009) (1994). Use of cyclopoid copepods for
Spatio- Temporal Variations of the mosquito control.
Zooplankton Abundance and Hydrobiologia 292/293:491-496.
Composition in a West African Tropical
Coastal Lagoon Mcgowan J.A., Miller C.B. (1980). Larval Fish
(Grand-Lahou, Côte d’Ivoire). and Zooplankton Community Structure.
Hydrobiologia 624(1): 171–189. CalCOFI Report, XXI: 29-36.

Isari, S., Psarra, S., Pitta, P., Mara, P., Tomprou, Marques, S.C., Azeiteiro, U.M., Martinho, F.,
M.O., Ramfos, A., Somarakis, S., Pardal, M.A., (2007a). Climate variability
Tselepides, A., Koutsikopoulos, C., and planktonic communities: the effect
Fragopoulu, N., (2007). of an extreme event (severe drought) in
Differential patterns of a southern European estuary. Estuarine,
mesozooplankters’ distribution in Coastal and Shelf Science 73, 725–734.
relation to physical and biological
variables of the northeastern Aegean Sea Marques, S.C., Pardal, M.A., Pereira, M.J., Gon-

104
 ChapteR 7 zooplankton

çalves, F., Marques, J.C., Azeiteiro, U.M., quality in Discovery Bay, Jamaica
(2007b). Zooplankton distribution and Hydrobiologia 545:177-193
dynamics in a temperate shallow
estuary. Hydrobiologia 587, 213–223. Yacobi, Y.Z., Kalikhman, I., Gophen, M., Walline,
P., (1993). The spatial distribution of
Pace, M.J. (1986) An empirical analysis of temperature, oxygen, plankton and fish
zooplankton communitysize structure determined simultaneously in Lake
across lake trophic gradients. Limnol. Kinneret, Israel. Journal of Plankton
Oceanaogr., 31, 45-55 Research 15, 589–601.sio

Pardo A.M., Ortells, R., Armengol, X., (2011).

„Patterns of zooplankton richness and
diversity in shallow peridunal ponds:
effect of local and regional
factors“. 7th Symposium of the Europe
an Freshwater Sciences, June 2011;
Girona, Spain (oral communication).

Park, G.S., Marshall, H.G., (2000). Estuarine

relationships between zooplankton
community structure and trophic
gradients. Journal of Plankton Research
22, 121–135.

Soetaert, K., Van Rijswijk, P., (1993). Spatial and

temporal patterns of the zooplankton in
the Westerschelde estuary. Marine
Ecology Progress Series 97, 47–59.

Stalder, L.C., Marcus, N.H., 1997. Zooplankton

responses to hypoxia: behavioral
patterns and survival of three species of
calanoid copepods. Marine Biology 127,
599–607.

Wang Y.S., Sun C.C., Lou Z.P., Wang H.,
Mitchell B.G., Wu M.L., Sub Z.X., (2011).
Identification of water quality, benthos
characteristics in Daya Bay, China, from
2001 to 2004, OceanolHydrobiol Stud
40(1):82-95

Webber M., Edwards-Myers E., Campbell C.,

Webber D. (2005). Phytoplankton
and zooplankton as indicators of water

105
ChapteR 8

Spatio-Temporal Distribution and Abundance of Phytoplankton in

Manila Bay

Norvida C. Gatdula, Valeriano M. Borja, Jane Abigail Santiago and Elsa F. Furio*

Aquatic Ecology Section

Capture Fisheries Research and Development Division
National Fisheries Research and Development Institute

*Corresponding Author: efurio2010@yahoo.com

Abstract

Understanding the dynamics and production of phytoplankton may contribute to the elucidation of
the status of fishery resources and may be the key for better fisheries management since phytoplankton
is at the base of the food chain. The changes and succession of phytoplankton community structure
in Manila Bay was studied by conducting hydrobiological survey every other month from January
2012 to November 2015. It was determined from this study that diatoms dominated the phytoplankton
composition all throughout the survey period and the total phytoplankton density was generally high-
est during southwest monsoons. Dinoflagellates and cyanobacteria, on the other hand, were relatively
most dense during tradewinds. Although causative species for harmful algal blooms and fish kills were
present, only the bloom of red Noctiluca scintillans was observed in January 2014 albeit no harmful
implication to consumers was reported. Phytoplankton typically converged in the coasts of the bay,
particularly at the eastern portion, but it is noteworthy to say that the sporadic pattern seen maybe at-
tributed to the presence of their predators. The dramatic drop in the phytoplankton densities seem to
coincide with the spawning of Sardinella fimbriata and Sardinella gibbosa.

Keywords: phytoplankton, Manila bay, ichthyoplankton, Sardinella fimbriata, Sardinella gibbosa

106
 ChapteR 8
I NTRODUCTION
Management of fisheries resources is
likely to succeed if there is true appreciation of
the environment of the resource. The elements
that are vital to the preservation and conserva-
tion of fish must be taken into account so that sci-
entific decisions may be made not only for man-
agement but for the marine habitat’s eventual
revitalization.
The deterioration of the water quality to
highly eutrophicated state of Manila Bay was due
to the increased anthropogenic activities along
its surrounding coastal areas (Chang et al., 2009).
Water quality is affected by the physico-chemical
and hydrobiological parameters. The biologi-
cal components of the said parameters include
phytoplankton, a community of microscopic alga
that is at the base of the food web. They are an im-
portant resource that supports the higher trophic
levels in the bay (MBRRA, 2004). Generally, in-
crease in phytoplankton density is actually a ben-
eficial condition to the fisheries (Legendre 1990)
since they fuel the production of the food of fish.
However, algal bloom may become so dense that
they become the cause of fish kills due to oxygen
depletion and the cause of shellfish poisoning to
humans (Hallegraeff 2002).
Phytoplankton, as a primary producer,
can be an indicator of ecological problems (MBR-
RA, 2004). Algal monitoring is a very useful tool
in surveillance of harmful algal blooms and early
warning for shellfish toxicity (Aune et al. 1995).
Because of this, studies of phytoplankton in Ma-
nila Bay were either usually limited to the areas
previously affected by toxic shellfish poisoning
and fish kills or conducted in a short survey pe-
riod – phytoplankton were included in the study
as a support parameter in an attempt to prove or
disprove hypothesis. With the many changes in
the ecosystem, there were claims that there is a
decline in the phytoplankton population, but
107
phytoplankton
there are no concrete data to support this (Bid-
aure, 2009). Nonetheless, an investigation was
made to know the extent of the phytoplankton
population change. This information may lead
to a cohesive understanding of the dynamics
of the present marine environment. This study
shall assess the changes and succession in phyto-
plankton community structure and correlate the
results with the studies on distribution of ichthy-
oplankton and spawning of Sardinella spp.
M
ATERIALS AND
METHODS
Collection of phytoplankton samples was
done in Manila Bay (lat. 14°53’ N, long. 120°76’
E) every two months starting January 2012 up to
November 2015. Plankton net (ca. 20 µm mesh
size, 30cm mouth diameter, 1m long) was verti-
cally towed from surface waters down to 10m
depth throughout the water column of the 16 es-
tablished stations (Figure 8.1). Plankton samples
were placed in Nalgene bottles, treated with 10%
buffered seawater-formalin solution for its pres-
ervation and stored in a cooler on board prior to
its analysis.
In the laboratory, the volume of sam-
ples was measured using graduated cylinder. A
1ml aliquot sample was taken for light micros-
copy using Sedgewick Rafter counting chamber.
Quantitative and taxonomic analysis of phyto-
plankton was done using the method of Omura
et al. (2012).
R
ESULTS
Phytoplankton population was com-
posed of diatoms, dinoflagellates and cyanobac-
teria (Figure 8.2). Diatoms dominated the phyto-
plankton community throughout the survey
ChapteR 8
period. There were 15 families of dinoflagellates,
24 families of diatoms and 1 species of cyanobac-
teria (Table 8.1). Thalassiosira sp., Skeletonema spp.
and Chaetoceros spp., were the most dominant
species among the diatoms while Ceratium spp.,
Protoperidinium sp. and Noctiluca scintillans domi-
nated the dinoflagellates population. Trichodes-
mium spp. also occurred in densities high enough
Figure 8.1. Sampling stations for hydrobiological surveys in Manila Bay (2012-2015)
phytoplankton
to be included in the list of 10 most dominant spe-
cies (Figure 8.3). Relative abundance of all spe-
cies from 2012 to 2015 are shown in Table 8.1.
By and large, phytoplankton were most
dense during the Southwest Monsoon (July and
September) (Figure 8.4). On the other hand, the
108
 ChapteR 8 phytoplankton

Figure 8.2. Densities of Diatoms, Dinoflagellates and Cyanobacteria in Manila Bay (2012-2015)

Figure 8.3. Twelve most dominant phytoplankton species found in Manila Bay (2012-2015)

109
ChapteR 8 phytoplankton

Table 8.1. List of phytoplankton identified in Manila Bay 2012-2015. (a) Diatoms; (b) Dinoflagellates and
Cyanobacteria

110
 ChapteR 8 phytoplankton

111
ChapteR 8 phytoplankton

Figure 8.4. Spatiotemporal abundance of phytoplankton in Manila Bay (2012-2015)

Figure 8.5. Spatiotemporal diversity index (H’) of phytoplankton in Manila Bay (2012-2015) 

112
 ChapteR 8
density of dinoflagellates and cyanobacteria in-
creased during tradewinds or Southeast (SE)
Monsoon. The highest record of phytoplankton
abundance was observed in July 2013 while the
lowest was recorded in March 2015. survey. Although species known to cause harm-
The coast of Manila Bay was where phy-
toplankton often abound. It is usually observed
in the eastern portion of the bay at Manila area
which characteristically had the highest phyto-
plankton concentrations (Figure 8.4). These accu-
mulations seemed to ‘flush out’ into the mouth
of the bay located in the southwestern side on the
succeeding months of sample collections. This
could be the effect of the double-gyre horizontal
water circulation system in Manila Bay located at
the western side and eastern side (Yniquez et al.,
2000). Aggregations on the northern portion of
the bay were rare.
Phytoplankton communities were typi-
cally more diverse in the northwestern, western
and southeastern parts of the bay (Figure 8.5).
The lowest diversity was recorded on March 2013
while the highest was on March 2015. November
had the most fairly moderate diversity (0.9 – 2.3)
albeit the inconsistencies at what portions of the
bay these occur. The phytoplankton species di-
versity indices (Shannon-Weiner Index) mea-
sured in the bay within the span of four years
(2012 – 2015) ranged from 0.1 to 2.8, an indication
that the bay has a low to moderate species diver-
sity.
D
ISCUSSION
The identified phytoplankton species
from this study is lower compared to the 61 gen-
era that was identified by Bidaure in the same
bay (1999). The result on the phytoplankton com-
position and dominant species, echo the results
of Azanza and Miranda (2001). However, in the
present study, Coscinodiscus sp. was bumped
into the last place by Lauderia annulata, Thalas-
113
phytoplankton
sionema nitzschioides, Chaetoceros sp., Bacteriastrum
furcatum, Rhizosolenia alata, Thalassiosira rotula,
and Trichodesmium spp. (Figure 8.3) in terms
of total abundance for the whole duration of the
ful algal bloom were present (Alexandrium tami-
yavanichii, Noctiluca scintillans, Dinophysis spp.,
Nitzschia spp.), their densities did not reach den-
sities high enough to cause an alarm. However, a
short-lived bloom of red Noctiluca scintillans was
observed on January 2014 at the eastern portion
of the bay. The appearance of red N. scintillans
coincided with the coldest temperature (17.66°C)
recorded during the survey. Trichodesmium spp.
is a cyanobacteria known to form blooms which
cause fish mortality. Several species possess neu-
rotoxin similar to anatoxin-a (Rorig et.al. 1997).
Thus, this species should be kept in check.
It can be said that the prevalence of di-
noflagellates during tradewinds or SE monsoon
is an indication that they thrive in warmer water
temperature. However, during an exceptionally
hot water surface temperature of 35.59°C in May
2014 (Sy et al., unpublished, also included in this
chapter), dinoflagellates community were rela-
tively lower. Perhaps the temperature exceeded
the required optimum for most of the dinoflagel-
lates’ growth as in the laboratory experiment con-
ducted by Boyd et al. (2013) where the maximum
tolerated temperature of the dinoflagellates,
A. sanguinea, is only 35°C while P. donghaiense is
only 30°C. Even though the phytoplankton exhib-
ited thermal adaptation in the study of Padfield et
al. (2012), it took about 10 generations of culture
before the phytoplankton finally adapted to the
temperature increase. In this regard, the abrupt
increase in the water temperature may also
have triggered the decrease in the population.
No remarkable values of temperature,
salinity, dissolved oxygen (DO), silicates, chloro-
phyll-a and nutrients in July 2013 to explain the
extraordinary increase in the phytoplankton den-
sity (Vergara et al., unpublished, also included in
this chapter). In fact, the abundance may even be
ChapteR 8
the culprit for the dissolved oxygen depletion in
the water column since it recorded the lowest DO
value for the said year. Afterall, phytoplankton
can also modify the aspects of its physical envi-
ronment (Jenkinson and Wyatt, 1993).
Interestingly, the study of Harvey et al.
(2012) about the fleeing behaviors of phytoplank-
ton away from predators seemed to be one of the
factors for the phytoplankton distribution when
the occurrence of the zooplankton and fish larvae
is factored in. Phytoplankton was observed to be
usually abundant at the opposite side or the ad-
jacent portion of the bay where zooplankton and
fish larvae is distributed (Jose, et al., and Tobias
et al., unpublished, also included in this chapter).
This perspective might explain the intermittent
pattern in the phytoplankton distribution even
though the physico chemical parameters of the
bay was relatively consistent with the seasons.
Obviously, the possibility of prey-pred-
ator factor cannot also be discounted on this es-
pecially since phytoplankton diet provides the
reserve material needs of the highly opportunis-
tic feeder, sardines (Garrido and van der Lingen,
2014). The decrease in the density of the phyto-
plankton was observed to correspond with the
major peak of the spawning seasons of Sardinella
gibbosa from October to December and Sardinella
fimbriata from October to December and Febru-
ary (Bendaño, 2016). There was also a drop in the
density during the minor peaks in March, April
and August for S. gibbosa and from May to June
for S. fimbriata. It appears that S. gibbosa is a more
voracious eater than S. fimbriata because phyto-
plankton density can recover more easily after
the minor peak of the latter. Needless to say,
although the spawning of these species occurs
all year round, the peak for spawning appear to
commence at the height of the phytoplankton
population. Unfortunately, the survey periods
for phytoplankton sampling did not cover the
exact months of the spawning peak of these two
species to be able to infer the relationship.
phytoplankton
Species diversity indices are also a good
indicator of pollution in aquatic ecosystem. Di-
versity index value greater than 3.00 indicates
clean water. Values in the range of 1.00 to 3.00
are characteristics of moderately polluted water
and values less than 1.00 characterize heavily de-
teriorated condition (Mason, 1998). With the re-
corded diversity index value ranges of 0.1 to 2.8,
Manila bay can be classified as moderately heavy
to heavily polluted. Diversity is better during
northeast monsoon though especially just before
the onset of tradewinds.
L
ITERATURE CITED
Aune, T. Dahl, E. and Tangen K. 1995.
Algal monitoring, a useful tool in early
warning of shellfish toxicity? 6th
Proceedings International Conference
on Harmful Algae (765-770)
Bendaño, A.P., Rivera, E.L., Lopez, G.D.V.,
Bognot, E.C., Gonzales, F.L., Torres,
F.S.B.Jr., Santos, M.D., 2016.
Reproductive Biology of Common Small
Pelagic Fishes in Manila Bay,
Philippines. 7th Fisheries Scientific
Conference. 29-30 September 2016;
CFRDD-03(78)
Bidaure, W., 2000. Phytoplankton in the Manila
Bay waters: their ecological and
economic importance, Canopy
International, 2000 September to
October; 26(5)
Boyd, P. W., Rynearson, T. A., Armstrong, E.
A., Fu, F., Hayashi, K., Hu, Z., Hutchins,
D. A., Kudela, R. M., Litchman,
E., Mulholland, M. R., Passow, U.,
Strzepek, R. F., Whittaker, K. A., Yu, E.,
and Thomas, M. K. 2013. Marine
114
 ChapteR 8 phytoplankton

Phyto plankton Temperature versus Jennings, S., Yvon-Durocher, G. 2015.

Growth Responses from Polar to Rapid evolution of metabolic traits
Tropical Waters – Outcome of a explains thermal adaptation in
Scientific Community-Wide Study. PLoS phytoplankton. Ecology Letters,; DOI:
One.; 8(5): e63091 10.1111/ele.12545

Chang, K.H., Amano, A., Miller, T.W., Isobe, T.,

Maneja, R., Siringan, F.P., Imai, H. and
Nakano, S. 2009. Pollution Study
in Manila Bay: Eutrophication
and Its Impact on Plankton Community.
In Interdisciplinary Studies on
Environmental Chemistry —
Environmental Research in Asia, Eds., Y.
Obayashi, T. Isobe, A. Subramanian, S.
Suzuki and S. Tanabe. (261–267)

Garrido, S. and Van der Lingen, C.D., Feeding

Biology and Ecology. Biology and
Ecology of Sardines and Anchovies
2014, Ed. Ganias, K.(122-189)

Harvey EL, Menden-Deuer S. 2012. Predator-

Induced Fleeing Behaviors in
Phytoplankton: A New Mechanism for
Harmful Algal Bloom
Formation? PLoS ONE 7(9): e46438 DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0046438

Jenkinson, I.R., Wyatt, T. 1993. Does bloom

phytoplankton manage the physical
oceanographic environment? 6th
Proceedings International Conference
on Harmful Algae. (603-608)

Manila Bay: Refined Risk Assessment, 2004

Mason, C.F. 1998. Biology of Freshwater

Pollution. Langman scientific &
technical press. U.S.A.

Omura, T., Iwataki, M., Borja, V.M., Takayama,

H., Fukuyo, Y. 2012. Marine
phytoplankton of the western pacific.

Padfield, D., Yvon-Durocher, G., Buckling, A.,

115
ChapteR 9

Profile of Salinity, Temperature, Heavy Metal (Pb, Cd, Hg) and

Sediment Hydrogen Sulfide Concentration of
Manila Bay, Philippines from 2012 to 2015

Angelica Gabrielle A. Sy1, Marvin L. Tobias1, Valeriano M. Borja1,

Norvida C. Gatdula1, Mudjekeewis D. Santos2 , and Elsa F. Furio1*

1
Aquatic Ecology Section
2
Vertebrate Section
Capture Fisheries Research and Development Division
National Fisheries Research and Development Institute

*Corresponding Author: efurio2010@yahoo.com

Abstract

The physical parameters of seawater are important determinants of water quality. Heavy metals are
components that are naturally present in considerable amount in the ocean, but are observed to be ris-
ing above the allowable level due to pollution outputs of industrialization. Heavy metal contamination
is among the environmental pollution problems that the world faces. Additionally, hydrogen sulfide
(H2S) is also a toxic compound that accumulates in the ocean floor posing threat to the marine organ-
isms when present in high concentrations. The objective of this study is to document the distribution of
temperature and salinity in the water column, heavy metals (Pb, Cd, Hg) and sediment H2S in Manila
Bay from 2012 to 2015. Stratification in the bay was generally a factor of salinity and less of tempera-
ture. Stratification due to salinity was consistently observed in September with the halocline occurring
around 10 m to 15 m. Most of the time, the bay had evenly distributed temperatures, but the slightly
higher temperatures were usually recorded near the coast. Inverse trends were observed for the salin-
ity and temperature of the bay. Pb, Cd, and Hg concentrations in the bay occasionally exceeded the
permissible limits especially the lead concentration in January 2013 (ave: 809.81 µg/L), March 2013 (ave:
1102.88 µg/L) and November 2015 (1507.50 µg/L). Cd and Hg concentrations were generally below the
permissible limit and the reported limit of analysis. H2S concentration ranged from <4 mg/kg to 9.99
mg/kg for all the survey months. Distribution was higher in the northwestern part and southeastern
areas of the bay.

Keywords: Manila bay, salinity, temperature, heavy metal, hydrogen sulfide

116
 ChapteR 9
I
NTRODUCTION
A number of parameters affect the ocean
and its marine life. These physical parameters
can either be beneficial or detrimental to the pro-
cesses of the marine ecosystem. Of these, tem-
perature, and salinity were included in the study.
These characteristic properties of seawater can
be used to distinguish the layers of the ocean,
especially the bottom water from overlying wa-
ters. These are important in assessing the overall
status of Manila Bay as well as the temporal and
spatial distribution of fish species in the bay.
Salinity is the measure of the total salt
content of seawater. Together with temperature,
salinity can be used to determine the density, an
important environmental condition in the marine
ecosystem. Plankton and other floating marine
organisms are able to float because of the ocean’s
density. For example, if the density of the water
is too high, less food will sink to the bottom of the
ocean for the fish to eat.
Other parameters of great importance
are the heavy metal pollution of a bay and, the
hydrogen sulfide (H2S) accumulation in sedi-
ments. Heavy metals are toxic pollutants and
its contamination is detrimental to both marine
life and human life. Heavy metals are naturally
present in trace amounts in the marine ecosystem
but are found to have increased due to industrial
and economic growth (Saeed et al., 2014; Zeitoun
& Mehana, 2014). H2S is a product of anaerobic
decomposition of organic compounds and has a
characteristic odor of rotten eggs. H2S often ac-
cumulates in the ocean floor where dissolved
oxygen concentration is recorded to be lowest. It
may be indicative of hypoxic conditions.
In the Philippines, the Department of En-
vironment and Natural Resources (DENR) has
provided basis for appraising some of the water
qualities. Manila Bay has been classified under
117
physical parameters profile
Class SB (DENR, 1990). This study made use of
the criteria value for heavy metals set by the De-
partment of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) Administrative Order (DAO) No. 34 (Se-
ries of 1990) (McGlone et al, 2004) (Table 9.1).
Table 9.1 Water Quality Criteria of Pb, Cd, & Hg
(Department of Environment and Natural Re-
sources (DENR) Administrative Order (DAO)
No. 34 (Series of 1990) (DENR 1995))
This study aims to analyze the profiles of
temperature and salinity of Manila Bay for cer-
tain periods of time. This study also includes the
distribution of heavy metal concentrations and
the sediment H2S content and distribution in Ma-
nila Bay. This will serve as an assessment of the
water quality of the bay with regards to the said
parameters. Also, the study is to serve as refer-
ence material for further studies in Manila Bay,
especially those that aim to revitalize the resourc-
es of the bay.
M
ATERIALS AND
METHODS
On-site Survey
The investigations were carried out in
Manila Bay for four years (2012, 2013, 2014, and
2015) with six survey months every year (Janu-
ary, March, May, July, September, November). A
total of 16 transect stations (Figure 9.1) were sam-
pled every field survey. The profiling of physi-
cal parameters (depth, temperature, and salin-
ity) was done using the SBE 19 multi-parameter
ocean profiler throughout the water column in
each station.
ChapteR 9
Figure 9.1. Manila Bay Sampling Stations
Laboratory Analysis
Heavy Metals
For heavy metal analysis, 500 ml of sur-
face seawater was collected in each of the 16 des-
ignated sampling stations in Manila Bay (2013-
2015). A few drops of nitric acid were added as
preservation agent. The water samples were kept
frozen and then sent to ELARSI, Inc. for heavy
metal analysis.
The water samples were subjected to
atomic absorption spectroscopy for the determi-
nation of lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), and mercury
(Hg) concentrations. Cold vapor technique AAS
(Method 3112B, Standard methods for examina-
physical parameters profile
tion of water and wastewater, APHA-AWWA,
21st ed., 2005) was used for Hg analysis; and
flame AAS (Method 3111C, Standard methods
for examination of water and wastewater, APHA-
AWWA, 21st ed., 2005) for Pb and Cd.
Hydrogen Sulfide
For H2S analysis, a one-inch diameter
mud corer was deployed in all 16 sampling sta-
tions on September 2015, November 2015 and
December 2015. Of the 16 stations, no samples
were collected at Station 2 because of the sandy
property of the sediments distribution in the said
station. As much as 5 cm sediment samples were
collected at the surface layer and placed in Nal-
118
 ChapteR 9 physical parameters profile

gene bottles. The samples were treated with a
few drops of Zinc acetate, just enough to cover
the samples, and kept refrigerated at around 4°C
for preservation until further laboratory analysis.
The sediment samples were sent to Mach
Union Laboratory, where the samples were sub-
jected to analysis using the 4500-D. Methylene
Blue method (Method 3050B. Acid Digestion
of Sediments, Sludges, and Soils. US EPA. 1996
Standard methods for examination of water and
wastewater, 22nd Ed., APHA, AWWA, WEF,
Washington D.C. 2012).
ity concentration was most evident in the surface
layer. A fairly well-mixed column was observed
in the deeper layers for all survey months. Salin-
ity concentration averaged to around 30 ppt for
the 20 m and 30 m depths.
In 2014 and subsequent surveys, a change
was done in the method to better see the distri-
bution of the parameters, in each area of the bay
and layer of the water column particularly the
near-bottom layer. Samples were collected from
the surface (S) (<1 m), middle (M) and bottom (B)
(Table 9.2) layers of the entire water column per
station instead of the previous surface, 10 m, 20

R
m, 30 m depth.

ESULTS
Salinity Table 9.2. Average middle and bottom depths (m)
of the Manila Bay survey stations
Salinity profiles during the wet season of
2012 varied through the water column. Whereas
the profiles during the dry season of 2012, dis-
played a well-mixed water column with lower
salinity concentration in the east and north east
area near the coast. Surface salinity was lowest
during September, averaging to 24.53 ppt, for the
whole survey duration. Widest salinity range dif-
ference in minimum and maximum values was
observed in the September surveys as well. The
very low salinity in September, and the wet sea-
son as a whole, may be explained by rain during
the survey period, as seen in the surface layer.
The surface layer is easily affected by different
factors. Gradual increase in salinity concentra-
tion was observed as the depth increased (Figure
9.2).

Similar with the previous year, variation

in the salinity concentration in the water column
was observed in the wet season of 2013. Lowest
salinity was from the September survey, with an
average of 23.43 ppt. A well-mixed salinity pro-
file through the water column was recorded dur-
ing the dry season (Figure 9.3). Variation in salin-

119
 120
physical parameters profile

Figure 9.2. 2012 Salinity profile of Manila Bay

ChapteR 9
 Figure 9.3. 2013 Salinity profile of Manila Bay
physical parameters profile
ChapteR 9

121
ChapteR 9
Similar with the 2012 and 2013 surveys,
surface salinity was lowest during September.
Salinity was highest in November and lowest in
May and July and the surface of September. Sa-
linity concentration for September reached 22.87
ppt, the lowest salinity value for 2014. A visible
change in the bay wide salinity concentration
from the surface to the deeper layers during Sep-
tember was observed. Salinity was well distribut-
ed throughout the bay for each sampling period
with slightly higher values usually in the middle
to the mouth of the bay (Figure 9.4). Gradual
continuous increase in salinity, though well dis-
tributed, was observed in the deeper areas of the
water column. May and July salinity concentra-
tions, with averages of 28.25 ppt and 27.87 ppt
respectively, were lower by around 3 ppt than
the rest of the 2014 survey months, except for
the surface layer of September. The dynamic dis-
tribution of salinity concentration in the surface
may be attributed to the rain and other weather
interferences which greatly affect the surface. Sa-
linity concentration was highest in November,
averaging to 32.10 ppt with a range of 28.48 ppt
to 33.70 ppt. Apart from the salinity in the surface
of September, the bay’s salinity was relatively
well mixed all throughout the year with slightly
decreasing concentrations near the coast. Salin-
ity had increasing concentrations in the deeper
middle areas of the bay.
In 2015, recorded salinity was higher in
the first quarter (January, March) than in the sec-
ond quarter (May) regardless of depth. Average
salinities were 32.84 ppt and 29.17 ppt for the first
and second quarters, respectively. Salinity con-
centrations were highest in January and March
with slightly lower salinity aggregation near the
eastern coast. May and July salinity concentra-
tions were around 2 ppt lower than the previous
months. Surface salinity for September ranged
from 22.65 ppt to 26.67 ppt with an average of
25.07 ppt. Lowest recorded salinity of 2.36 ppt
was from November and this was from the ab-
normality in station 1 in that survey month (Fig-
ure 9.5). A yearly increase, from 2013 to 2015, in
physical parameters profile
average salinity of ~2 ppt was observed for the
January, March, May, July surveys, while de-
crease was seen in the salinity concentration from
the September and November surveys of 2014
and 2015.
Surface salinity was lowest near the coast
of Cavite and NCR. Similar with the previous re-
ports, salinity increases gradually when nearing
the near-bottom areas of the bay. A maximum
salinity of 33.82 ppt was recorded in the near-
bottom waters. The slightly higher salinity val-
ues can be found near the mouth of the bay for
the near-bottom layer. Slightly increasing salin-
ity concentration towards the mouth of the bay
for all layers was observed for all surveys except
November.
While salinity near the mouth of the bay
was usually slightly higher compared to the near
coastal waters, the opposite was observed for
November. November surface salinity concen-
trations varied widely. Variation in distribution
of the surface salinity of the bay was present with
lower concentrations running from the coast of
Bataan to the middle of the bay and to the coasts
of Bulacan and Manila. Surface salinity in No-
vember ranged from 2.36 ppt to 33.07 ppt averag-
ing to 24.05 ppt. The minimum value was from
the irregular low salinity concentration recorded
in station 1 throughout the column. This varied
mixing and aggregation of salinity may be at-
tributed to the turbulent seas during the survey.
Unlike in the surface layer, November salinity
concentrations were uniformly distributed in the
middle and near-bottom layers, both throughout
the bay and the water column, except for the re-
corded very low salinity in Station 1.
Temperature
The temperature ranged from 22.21°C
to 31.49°C for field surveys of the year 2012. The
highest temperature was observed during the
months of May (max: 31.49°C; ave: 29.05°C) and
122
 Figure 9. 4. 2014 Salinity profile of Manila Bay
physical parameters profile
ChapteR 9

123
 124
physical parameters profile

Figure 9.5. 2015 Salinity profile of Manila Bay

ChapteR 9
 ChapteR 9
July (max: 30.04°C; ave: 28.33°C), particularly in
the surface layer. Lowest recorded temperature
of 22.21°C was from the November survey. Little
variation in the water column of each survey was
seen. 2012 temperature vertical profile averaged
to 27.39°C. Distribution of temperature for 2012
was well mixed for every layer of each survey
month. Gradual decrease in temperature was ob-
served as the depth increased (Figure 9.6).
The temperature for the 2013 surveys
ranged from 24°C to around 33°C. Similar with
the previous year, May and July remained the
hottest months in 2013. Not much variation was
seen in the temperature distribution in the bay.
There was very little decrease in temperature as
the bay got deeper. The values averaged 27°C in
the 30 m depth and 28°C in the Surface and 10 m
depth (Figure 9.7). Highest temperature was ob-
served in May followed by the month of July. The
temperature becomes cooler in September until
March.
The bay was relatively colder in January
and March for 2014 (Figure 9.8). Similar with the
previous years, May and July remained the hot-
test months. Bay-wide temperature for January
and March ranged from 17.66°C to 24.64°C and
23.44°C to 27.35°C, respectively. The January and
March temperature profiles were colder this year
compared to previous years by around 2 to 3°C.
Temperature was highest during the May
and July surveys and lowest during January. This
was consistently observed for three years, 2012,
2013 and 2014, with the maximum temperature
increasing ~2°C every year. It was highest in May
followed by July for all sampling years because it
is the summer season. The highest recorded tem-
perature (35.59°C) was from May 2014. During
the May survey, the surface layer gathered the
highest temperature of 35.59°C in the northern
area while the lowest temperature of 30.27°C in
the southern area near the mouth. This tempera-
ture pattern continued in the deeper middle and
bottom layers, except that the lower temperature
125
physical parameters profile
was more widespread in its distribution from the
south west to the middle part of the bay. The
average temperature of the bay recorded for
July was at 29.70°C. Temperature was low in the
northern area then gradually increased towards
the southern part of the bay. This trend in tem-
perature, which was not observed in the 2012 and
2013 data, can be seen in all survey depths of July
2014. The highest recorded July 2014 temperature
of 32.91°C was from the southern part of the bay.
The average recorded temperature of the
bay for the September 2014 survey was at 29.19°C.
An average of 29.37°C was observed at the sur-
face layer, which then increased to up to 30°C
towards the northeastern part of the bay. Tem-
perature profile for November 2014 averaged to
28.40°C and ranged from 27.36°C to 29.68°C and
was relatively well-mixed compared to the other
survey months.
Unlike the previous years, wherein tem-
perature reached its peak in May or July, in 2015
the highest recorded temperatures were from
September, ranging from 27.95°C to 32.12°C and
averaging to 30.03°C. Temperature had an in-
creasing trend from January to September. A de-
crease in around 2°C was observed from Septem-
ber to November. The surface layer was found to
be ~2°C hotter than the near-bottom layer of the
bay. A decrease in temperature was readily ob-
served in the deepening water column. The low-
est recorded temperature for 2015 was 24.52°C
which is from the bottom layer of the May sur-
vey.
The average temperature for January
and March sampling periods was around 26°C.
The values ranged from 24.57°C to 27.87°C. The
temperature for the January 2015 survey was
~2°C higher compared to the January 2014 sur-
vey. Compared to January, higher temperatures
were recorded for March with values highest in
the northern parts of the bay. The distribution of
higher temperature in the northern area of the
bay was observed for all sampling depths of
 126
Figure 9.6. 2012 Temperature profile of Manila Bay
physical parameters profile
ChapteR 9
 Figure 9.7. 2013 Temperature profile of Manila Bay
physical parameters profile
ChapteR 9

127
 128
Figure 9.8. 2014 Temperature profile of Manila Bay
physical parameters profile
ChapteR 9
 physical parameters profile

Figure 9.9. 2015 Temperature profile of Manila Bay

ChapteR 9

129
ChapteR 9
March and May. Higher temperatures were re-
corded near the coast for both months, but this
observation was more evident for May, especial-
ly the in surface layer. May and July 2015, with
averages of 27.09°C and 27.20°C, respectively,
were relatively colder compared to the previous
year’s May and July surveys. The maximum tem-
perature of 29.97°C in May 2015 was far lower
than that of the May 2014 survey, with a 35.59°C
highest recorded temperature. July 2015 was
relatively colder compared to last year and the
previous years’ July surveys as well. For July,
the bay’s temperature was uniformly distribut-
ed both throughout the bay and the column of
around 27°C.
The bay-wide temperature for Septem-
ber and November 2015 ranged from 27.95°C
to 32.12°C and from 25.93°C to 30.03°C, respec-
tively, with averages of 30.03°C and 28.17°C. Sep-
tember was slightly hotter than November for all
depths. Slight increase in temperature near the
coasts was observed but the temperature was
seen to be uniformly constant throughout Manila
Bay for the two survey months (Figure 9.9). The
temperatures for the 2015 survey months were
generally uniformly distributed throughout the
bay and the water column with little noticeable
changes.
Heavy Metals
Pb concentration in Manila Bay exceeded
the water quality criteria in January 2013, March
2013 and November 2015 with averages of 809.81
µg/L, 1102.88 µg/L, and 1507.50 µg/L, respec-
tively (Figure 9.12). Pb concentration in Manila
Bay for the rest of the survey all fell below the set
water quality criteria of 50 µg/L and the reported
limit (30 µg/L) of the AAS analysis (Table 9.1).
Of the surveys with high Pb concen-
tration, January 2013 garnered the lowest val-
ues among the three months. Pb concentration
ranged from 29 µg/L to 2260 µg/L for the said
physical parameters profile
month. Values were highest in the mouth and ex-
tending to the middle of the bay. The March 2013
survey, on the other hand, ranged from 45 µg/L
to 2750 µg/L with aggregation near the coast par-
ticularly in the western to the middle part of the
bay. As with the January and March 2013 sur-
veys, Pb concentrations in the month of Novem-
ber 2015 have far exceeded the water quality cri-
teria with values ranging from 1050 µg/L to 2370
µg/L. As seen in the contour map, higher concen-
trations of Pb were more prominent bay-wide in
November 2015. The highest recorded value was
from Station 3 near Cavite.
Generally, majority of the Cd concentra-
tions fell below the set standard of 10 µg/L and
the reported limit of the analysis (<5 µg/L, Tables
1 & 5). Cd concentrations in the bay occasionally
spiked above the criteria value. These were Janu-
ary, March, and November 2013, January, March,
September and November 2014, and September
2015 (Figure 9.13).
Except for September 2014, all minimum
values were <5 µg/L. Highest recorded value was
from March 2013 (186 µg/L) followed by Septem-
ber (308 µg/L) and then January 2013 (186 µg/L).
These values were from stations in the northwest
part of the bay (Stations 12 and 13).
Hg concentrations were generally below
the permissible value of 2 µg/L and the reported
limit of analysis of <0.6 µg/L (Tables 9.1 & 9.6).
Survey months with exceeding Hg concentra-
tions were January and March 2013, and March,
May, July and September 2015 (Figure 9.14).
Of these, all averages, except that of September
2015, were below the criteria value. Spikes of Hg
concentration were from varying stations, in usu-
ally only 1 to 3 stations per survey, of different
survey months. Only the September 2015 survey
had a consistent recorded Hg concentration of >2
µg/L among the stations. Hg concentrations for
2015 ranged from <0.6 µg/L to 16.3 µg/L. The re-
corded maximum value was from the station 5 of
the March 2015 survey.
130
 Figure 9.10. (a) 2012, (b) 2013, (c) 2014, (d) 2015 Salinity Vertical Profile of Manila Bay
physical parameters profile
ChapteR 9

131
 132
Figure 9.11. (a) 2012, (b) 2013, (c) 2014, (d) 2015 Temperature Vertical Profile of Manila Bay
physical parameters profile
ChapteR 9
 ChapteR 9 physical parameters profile

Table 9.3. Ranges of salinity and temperature data from 2012-2015

133
ChapteR 9
Table 9.4. Averages of salinity and temperature data from 2012-2015
Hydrogen Sulfide
Stations 1, 8 and 12 had H2S values rang-
ing from 4.6 – 5.41 mg/kg while the rest of the sta-
tions had <4 mg/kg of H2S for the September 2015
survey. November and December H2S concentra-
tions averaged to 5.69 mg/kg and 5.84 mg/kg, re-
spectively. The November values ranged from <4
mg/kg to 9.54 mg/kg, while the December values
ranged from <4 mg/kg to 9.99 mg/kg. Higher H2S
concentrations were on the northwest part of the
bay and near the mouth of the bay (Figure 9.15).
Increased H2S concentration was more
widespread in November and December 2015
compared to September 2015. Distribution of H2S
for November 2015 concentrated on the north-
western part (near station 14 and the coast of
Pampanga) and the southeast part (near station 5
and the coast of Cavite) of the bay.
physical parameters profile
D ISCUSSION
Stratification in the bay was generally a
function of salinity and less of temperature. The
salinity profiles of September from all years con-
sistently showed the same pattern of gentle slope
near the surface. Salinity horizontal profiles of
the months of 2012, 2013 and 2015 were closer to
each other unlike the vertical profile of the month
from 2014. Stratification consistently observed in
September plots. From around 10 m to 15 m, a
stratified layer can be observed as indicated by
the sudden change in salinity concentration (Fig-
ure 9.10).
The indistinct variation and homogenous
distribution in temperature and salinity of Ma-
nila Bay can be attributed to the mixing arising
from strong winds and the current system that
causes well-mixed waters of the bay. This kind of
mixing usually affects up to the 200-meter depth
134
 ChapteR 9 physical parameters profile

Figure 9.12. Lead Distribution of Surface Seawater in Manila Bay

Figure 9.13. Cadmium Distribution of Surface Seawater in Manila Bay

135
ChapteR 9
Table 9.5. Ranges and Averages of Cadmium
Concentration in the Manila Bay
Table 9.6 Ranges and Averages of Mercury Concentration in the Manila Bay
of the ocean. The deepest parts of the bay are
only ~30 m and the average depth of the whole
bay is 17 m.
Most of the time, the bay had evenly dis-
tributed temperatures with higher temperatures
usually recorded near the coast. Inverse trends
were observed for the salinity and temperature
of the bay. Areas with lower salinity had higher
temperature, and vice versa. Slight increase in
temperature near the coasts was observed but the
temperature was seen to be uniform throughout
Manila Bay for most survey months.
In 2012, except for March and May, fresh-
water signal can be seen in the salinity vertical
profile, as characterized by the almost horizontal
vertical lines from 0m to 5m. This pattern can be
evidently seen in the September plot. Stratifica-
tion can also be observed in the September plot
at depths of 5 m to 10 m. Slight stratification was
physical parameters profile
present in the July plot at the 5m to the 15 m
depth. Salinity concentrations stabilized in the
deeper layers at around 30 ppt for all survey
months.
The 2012 and 2013 vertical profiles were
fairly similar. The freshwater signal can be seen
in the surface layer particularly that of Septem-
ber. Stratification was also observed in Septem-
ber at the 5 m to the 15 m depth. And slight strati-
fication in July and November. Salinity concentra
tions were found to be around 29 ppt year-round.
The 2014 salinity vertical profile were
very dynamic horizontally as seen in the dif-
ferences among the plots of the different sur-
vey months. Salinity concentration varied from
one another with January and March lumping
together at around 30 ppt; the May and July at
around 27 to 28 ppt; and the November at around
31 to 33 ppt. As with previous years, the same
observation can be said with the September 2014
plot.
January and September of 2015 showed
stratification in the 5m to the 15 m depths. Slight
stratification can also be seen in July. May and
July salinity concentrations were around 29 ppt
while the rest of the survey months lumped at
around 33 ppt.
The 2012 to 2015 temperature plot of Ma-
136
 ChapteR 9
nila Bay (Figure 9.11) showed a range in tem-
perature from 23 C to 34 C. Except in 2015, May
was consistently the hottest month with regards
to the surface (<1 m). Temperature in May was
consistently observed to be decreasing with the
increase in depth.
The 2012 temperature plots converge to
a cooler temperature in the deeper depths (>20
m). The same can be said in the 2015 plots. The
2012 and 2015 vertical profiles were closer to one
another unlike those of 2013 and 2014. The 2014
temperature vertical profile showed variation in
the surface even after in the deeper waters. The
temperature vertical profiles showed a slightly
warmer surface and a cooler bottom.
Figure 9.14. Mercury Distribution of Surface Seawater in Manila Bay
137
physical parameters profile
The midsection of the bay is deeper and is exhib-
iting more water column stratification (Siringan
et al, 1998 as cited in Jacinto et al., 2011). Stratifi-
cation hinders the aeration of bottom waters and
promotes anaerobic decomposition of organic
matter. H2S is the by-product of anaerobic respi-
ration by sulfate reducing bacteria in the ocean
sediments. Thus, making the presence of H2S in
the marine sediments indicative of hypoxic con-
ditions in the near bottom waters. H2S is higher
near the coast especially in the coasts of Pampan-
ga and Manila.
Stratification in the bay was generally a
factor of salinity and less of temperature. Stratifi-
cation was consistently observed in September
ChapteR 9
Figure 9.15. Contour maps of H2S in bottom sediments of Manila Bay for September, November, and
December 2015
plots from around 10 m to 15 m, as indicated by
sharp halocline at these depths. Most of the time,
the bay had evenly distributed temperatures,
but the slightly higher temperatures were usu-
ally recorded near the coast. Inverse trends were
observed for the salinity and temperature of the
bay.
Pb concentration in Manila Bay exceeded
the water quality criteria in January 2013, March
2013 and November 2015 with averages of 809.81
µg/L, 1102.88 µg/L, and 1507.50 µg/L, respec-
tively. Cd and Hg concentrations were generally
below the criteria value and the reported limit
of analysis. Cd and Hg concentration exceeding
the criteria level were from varying stations, of
different survey months. Increased H2S concen-
tration was more widespread in November and
December 2015 compared to September 2015.
H2S ranged from <4 mg/kg to 9.99 mg/kg. Further
monitoring of the heavy metal concentrations in
Manila Bay, especially its accumulation in the
sediments, is recommended.
physical parameters profile
L
ITERATURE CITED
Chang, K.H., Amano, A., Miller, T.W., Isobe, T.,
Maneja, R., Siringan., F.P., Imai, H., and
Nakano, S. (2009) Pollution Study in
Manila Bay: Eutrophication and Its
Impact on Plankton Community.
Interdisciplinary Studies on
Environmental Chemistry –
Environmental Research in Asia, Eds,
pp. 261-267.
DENR Administration Order No. 34, Series 1990;
Revised Water Usage and Classification/
Water Quality Criteria Amending
Section Nos: 68 and 69, Chapter
III of the 1978 NPCC Rules and
Regulations Criteria of Water Use
Regulation (EMB/DENR, March 20, 1990)
Diaz, Robert, Rabalais, Nancy, and Breitburg,
Denise. (2012). Agriculture’s
Impact on Aquaculture: Hypoxia and
Eutrophication in Marine
Waters. ORGANISATION FOR
ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND
DEVELOPMENT.
138
 ChapteR 9 physical parameters profile

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2001). Programme/International Maritime

Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Organization Regional Programme on
Manual. – Estuarine and Coastal Marine Building Partnerships in Environmental
Waters. Management for the Seas of East
Asia (PEMSEA), Quezon City,
Jacinto, G.S., Sotto, L.P.A., Senal, A.I.S., Philippines.
McGlone, M.L., Escobar, M.T.L., Amano,
A., and Miller, T.W. (2011).Hypoxia in Saeed Shanbehzadeh, Marzieh Vahid Dastjerdi,
Manila Bay, Philippines during Akbar Hassanzadeh, and Toba
the northeast monsoon. Marine Kiyanizadeh. (2014). Heavy Metals in
Pollution Bulletin 63, 243-248. Water and Sediment: A Case Study of
Tembi River. Hindawi
Luther, G.W. et al (2004). The Roles of Anoxia, Publishing Corporation Journal of
H2S, and Storm Events in Fish Kills of Environmental and Public Health
Dead-end Canals of Delaware Volume 2014, Article ID 858720, 5 pages
Inland Bays. Estuaries Vol. 27, No. 3, p. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/858720
551–560.
Samir M. Nasr, Mohamed. A. Okbah, Shaif. M.
McGlone, M.L.S.D., G. Jacinto, I. Velasquez and Kasem (2006). Environmental
D. Padayao. (2004). Status of water Assessment of Heavy Metal Pollution in
quality in Philippine coastal and marine Bottom Sediments of Aden Port, Yemen.
waters, p. 96-108. In DA-BFAR International Journal of
(Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Oceans and Oceanography ISSN
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). 0973-2667 Vol.1 No.1 (2006), pp. 99-109
In turbulent seas: The status of
Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal Siringan, F.P., Ringor, C.L. (1998). Changes in
Resource Management Project, Cebu bathymetry and their implications to
City, Philippines.378 p. sediment dispersal and rates of
sedimentation in Manila Bay. Science
National Science and Technology Council Diliman10 (2), 12–26.
Committee on Environment and
Natural Resources (NSTC). (2003). An Zeitoun, M.M., and Mehana, E.E. (2014). Impact
Assessment of Coastal Hypoxia of Water Pollution with Heavy Metals
and Eutrophication in U.S. Waters. on Fish Health: Overview and
Updates. Global Veterinaria 12 (2): 2019-
Parsons, T. R., Y. Maita and C. M. Lalli. (1984). 231.
A Manual of Chemical and Biological
Methods for Seawater Analysis.
Pergamon Press, Inc. United Kingdom.
Pp 3-8, 22-27, 101-103.

PEMSEA. (2001). Manila Bay: initial risk

assessment. PEMSEA Technical
Information Report No. 2001/01 112 p.
Global Environment Facility/United
Nations Development
139
ChapteR 10

Effect of Nutrient Over-enrichment on

Spatiotemporal Variability of Phytoplankton in Manila Bay,
Philippines

James Dominic D. Vergara1, Ellaine C. Jose1, Valeriano M. Borja1, Norvida C. Gatdula1,

Ephrime B. Metillo3, Mudjekeewis D. Santos2 , and Elsa F. Furio1*

1
Aquatic Ecology Section
2
Vertebrate Section
Capture Fisheries Research and Development Division
National Fisheries Research and Development Institute
3
Department of Biological Sciences, Mindanao State University-Iligan Institute of Technology, Iligan City

*Corresponding Author: efurio2010@yahoo.com

Abstract

To understand Manila Bay’s current state of pollution, physico-chemical parameters were correlated
with net phytoplankton composition from 2012 to 2015. Nitrate concentrations reached 24.18 µM,
which is above the critical value (5 µM) recommended by the Philippine Department of Environment
and Natural Resources and ASEAN. Hypoxia has been observed with dissolved oxygen levels as
low as 1.47 mg L-1. Phytoplankton composition varies but dominated by Chaetoceros curvisetus, Skel-
etonema costatum, Thalassiosira sp., and Thalassionema nitzchiodes. Phytoplankton densities also vary
between seasons but mostly concentrated in stations near the tributaries and urban areas. Trends in
both phytoplankton and physico-chemical properties suggest that the ecosystem of the bay is highly
dependent on rainfall. Shannon-Wiener diversity index does not go higher than 2.46, and based on
monthly averages, the bay can be categorized as moderately heavy to heavy polluted. A watershed
system approach is urgently needed since found heavy eutrophication generally occurs in estuaries
near urban and industrial areas.

Keywords: eutrophication, Manila Bay, hypoxia, watershed, nutrients

140
 ChapteR 10
I NTRODUCTION
Manila Bay has long been significant to
Philippine history and livelihood. It has been,
and still is, the venue for most of the domestic
and international trades in the island of Luzon
through the ports in Metro Manila. Recently,
however, much industrialization around Manila
Bay and its watershed has caused pollution in its
waters. In 2008, the Supreme Court of the Philip-
pines issued a mandamus to investigate the status
of the Bay, in an attempt to restore and revitalize
its ecosystem (Supreme Court General Registry
Nos. 171947-98, 2008).
Despite the international importance of
Manila Bay as an aquatic environmental pollu-
tion model (Chang, et al. 2009), most literature
about its waters were either on Harmful Algal
Species (HAS) (Azanza & Miranda, 2001; Azanza
et al., 2004; Furio et al., 1996; Furuya, et al. 2006)
or studies on its water quality and physical pro-
files (Hayashi, et al., 2006), which tend to focus
on the near bottom layer of the bay (Jacinto, et
al. 2006; Prudente, et al., 1994; Sotto, et al., 2014.).
However, not much on the correlation among
these factors has been reported. In 2009, Chang,
et al., released a study that determined the effect
of Manila Bay’s polluted waters on its ecosystem
function. It determined that the bay is already
suffering from eutrophication, especially in am-
monium and that the eutrophication is causing
undesirable effects to the bay’s ecosystem.
The study aimed to determine correla-
tions of physico-chemical parameters of the sur-
face waters of Manila Bay with its phytoplankton
community by (1) determining species composi-
tion and spatio-temporal trends in distribution,
(2) determining if there are spatio-temporal
trends in the bay’s physico-chemical properties,
and (3) identifying the degree of pollution in the
bay through assessment of phytoplankton spe-
cies diversity.
141
chemical parameters profile
M ATERIALS AND
METHODS
The semi-enclosed Manila Bay has a sur-
face area of 1,994 km2 (769.9 sq. mi.), and a coast-
line of 190 km (118.1 mi.), surrounded by Metro
Manila in the east and the provinces of Bulacan
and Pampanga in the north, Bataan in the west,
and Cavite in the southeast (Figure 10.1).
A total of 16 north to south transect
stations were established in the entire bay for
hydrobiological sampling. Sampling was con-
ducted every two months from January 2012 to
November 2013. Depth, temperature, salinity,
dissolved oxygen, and chlorophyll a levels were
determined using a YSI MDS 6600 CTD from sur-
face to one meter above recorded bottom depth
via an echo sounder. Only data from zero to one
meter below surface was used for this study.
Water samples were collected using a 5L Niskin
sampler and filtered through a 0.45 µm Whatt-
man filter using an Eyela A-3S vacuum filter and
were frozen until analysis. Afterwards, inorganic
nutrients content (NO3-, NO2-, PO4-, SiO32-) were
determined by methods modified from Parsons
et al. (1974) using a Merck Spectroquant Pharo
300 UV-VIZ spectrophotometer.
Phytoplankton samples were obtained
by vertically towing a conical net (0.3 m mouth
diameter, 20um mesh) from a depth of 3 m to
to the surface. These were then preserved in a
10% formaldehyde solution and stored in 25ml
Nalgene bottles. Phytoplankton cell counts or
density were performed using the formula rec-
ommended by the American Public Health
Association (WEF & APHA, 2005). Morpho-
logical analysis of phytoplankton samples was
performed on an Olympus CX41 equipped with
Infinity Capture Digital Camera (Lumenera Cor-
poration, Ontario, Canada) at 100x and 400x
magnifications. Specimens were identified up to
the lowest possible taxa. As an aid to the identi-
fication, taxonomic publications of Tomas (1978),
ChapteR 10
Figure 10.1. Study Site: Manila Bay (14°31′00″N120°46′00″E) showing 16 pre-established sampling
stations.
Hasle (1978), Heimdal (1993),and Omura et al.
(2012) were used.  Physico-chemical parameters
Profile of water’s physico-chemical pa-
rameters and phytoplankton abundance and dis-
tribution were analyzed and interpreted using
isopleths generated through Surfer 11 (Golden
Software, 2012); multivariate canonical cor-
respondence analyses in CANOCO 5 (Leps &
Šmilauer, 2012). Phytoplankton species diver-
sity was calculated using Shannon-Wiener Index
and computed using the software PRIMER 5
(Clarke & Warwick, 2001).
chemical parameters profile
R
ESULTS
Sea surface temperature (SST) in Manila
Bay peaked during May and July all years, as the
summer transitions into the Southwest Monsoon
(SWM). Lower temperature are observed during
SWM across all years. SST in almost all sam-
pling periods is generally uniform throughout
the bay’s surface water. Although 2012 had the
highest average surface temperature among the
sampling years (27.74±1.68°C), highest tempera-
ture was recorded in May 2014 at 35.59°C. Low-
est recorded SST was at 23.97°C on September
2013 (Figure 10.2).
Salinity profiles during the wet season
when the SWM is prevalent for July and Septem-
142
 ChapteR 10
ber varies across the surface of the bay. Across
all years, the salinity is almost uniform from
January to May. Surface salinity ranged from
2.36 parts per million (ppm) (November 2015)
to 31.31ppm (March 2012). Surface salinity was
lowest during September for the whole survey
duration. Widest salinity range difference in
minimum and maximum values was observed
in the September surveys as well. The very low
salinity in September may be explained by rain
during the survey period. The salinity was lower
near the coast particularly in the eastern (MB9,
MB10), northern (MB14, and MB16) and western
areas (Figure 10.3).
The surface of the bay is relatively well-
oxygenated, however, dissolved oxygen concen-
tration in the surface greatly varies among years
and seasons. Only one hypoxic (very low DO
concentration) occurrence was observed in the
eastern side for 2012 in March (4.61 mg L-1). For
2013, sections of the bay reached hypoxic levels,
varying in location and size. There were instanc-
es wherein the entire surface of the bay had hy-
poxia (November 2013 and July 2014). Lowest
DO level recorded was at 1.06 mg L-1 on January
2015 (Figure 10.4).
Chlorophyll a
In general, the trend for chlorophyll a is
that it reaches its highest levels in Manila Bay
during the tradewinds or Southeast Monsoon
(SEM), that prevails from March to June, or an
intermonsoon especially when the climate starts
to transition from tradewinds to the southwest
monsoon. No data was collected on March 2012,
July 2013 and September 2013. Across the sur-
face, Chl a is commonly concentrated in either
the northern, northeastern, or eastern parts of the
bay, near the Meycauayan and Pasig River sys-
tems (Figure 10.5). The highest levels were ob-
served on May 2013 reached 18.54 µg L-1. This
was due to an algal bloom that lasted until July
143
chemical parameters profile
2013, which was also reported in Chapter 8 of
this volume.
Nutrients
Nitrates (N-NO3) on the surface of Ma-
nila Bay occasionally exceed the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) critical value
of 4.29 µM (McPherson, et al. 2001) especially in
stations near the tributaries and urban areas sur-
rounding the bay. In September and November
2013, N-NO3 concentrations above the critical
value were observed on the northern half of the
Bay. Highest recorded amount of N-NO3 on the
surface water was on September 2013 at 24.18 µM
in Station 14. The highest average value, how-
ever, was noted on November 2013 at 8.39±7.38
µM. September 2013 had an average N-NO3 con-
centration of 7.99±7.41 µM (Figure 10.6).
Mean concentrations of N-NO2 do not
exceed the ASEAN (McPherson, et al. 2001) criti-
cal value of 3.95 µM (Figure 10.7). The only in-
stances where N-NO2 exceeded the critical value
took place on September 2013 (4.52 µM) and July
2015 (4.86 µM). Highest mean concentration on
the surface was observed on November 2013 at
1.00±0.52 µM.
Average concentrations of phosphates
(P-PO4) have not exceeded the ASEAN (McPher-
son, et al. 2001) critical value of 0.48 µM. Howev-
er, concentrations slightly below this value have
been observed in many of the sampling periods,
particularly near the river tributaries and urban
areas. P-PO4 concentrations above the critical
value were observed on January 2012 and Sep-
tember 2013 in the northern part, near the Pam-
panga River (Station 14) and the mouth of the
Bay. Highest recorded P-PO4 concentration on
the surface water was at 0.72 µM on May 2014 in
Station 16 (Figure 10.8).
Silicate (S-SiO3) concentrations have the
 144
Figure 10.2. Temperature Profile of Manila Bay from January 2012 to November 2015.
chemical parameters profile
ChapteR 10
 Figure 10.3. Salinity Profile of Manila Bay from January 2012 to November 2015.
chemical parameters profile
ChapteR 10

145
 146
Figure 10.4. Dissolved Oxygen Profile of Manila Bay from January 2012 to November 2015.
chemical parameters profile
ChapteR 10
 Figure 10.5. Chlorophyll-a Profile of Manila Bay from January 2012 to November 2015.
chemical parameters profile
ChapteR 10

147
ChapteR 10
highest average values during the months of July
and September. High concentrations relative to
each sampling period can again be observed near
tributaries and urban areas. Highest average
concentration was observed in September 2013
at 53.20 ± 31.42 μM. Highest S-SiO3 concentration
was recorded in the same month amounting to
96.83 μM (Figure 10.9).
Phytoplankton Distribution, Composition,
and Abundance
The phytoplankton tend to be more abun-
dant in stations near the coast of the Bay and, in
many instances, can be found on the eastern side
of the Bay. Average values range from 21,108 ±
18,841 to 95,323 ± 83,178 cells L-1. Highest concen-
tration of 121,919 cells L-1 was recorded near the
mouth (Station 1) of the bay on September 2012.
In 2013 the highest phytoplankton concentration
of 282,989 cells L-1 was recorded on November in
the western part off Bataan coast (Station 6) (Fig-
ures 10.10).
A total of 135 phytoplankton species
consisting of 72 Bacillariophyceae (diatoms), 62
Pyrrophyceae (dinoflagellates) and 1
Cyanophyceae (blue green algae) were identi-
fied throughout the sampling periods. The fol-
lowing species, all of which are diatoms, domi-
nated the population across all sampling years:
Chaetoceros curvisetus, Skeletonema costatum,
Thalassiosira sp., and Thalassionema nitzchioides.
These are followed by the species which were
dominant in three out of four years: Chaetoceros sp.,
Skeletonema sp., and the cyanobacteria Trichodes-
mium sp.
Canonical Correspondence Analyses
Only the 12 most abundant species per
year are shown in the canonical correspondence
analyses (CCA) as it comprises the majority of
the phytoplankton communities (2012 – 85.90%;
chemical parameters profile
2013 – 88.82%; 2014 – 87.62%; 2015 – 86.33%). The
rest of the species were included in the analyses
but omitted in the CCA triplots. Results of the
multiple stepwise regressions by Monte Carlo
simulation are presented in Table 2. Based on the
P-values, temperature is the most important
parameter that affects the species composition.
This is followed by both salinity and dissolved
oxygen which posed a highly significant corre-
lation to species composition from 2012-2014.
Chlorophyll a also indicated P-values of high
significance for 2013 and 2015, where relatively
high chlorophyll levels were observed. Other nu-
trients showed P-values that show high to mod-
erate correlation (Figures 10.11).
Species Diversity (Shannon-Weiner Index)
Relatively high species diversity index
values can be found near the middle of the bay
for most sampling periods. In July 2012 for most
sampling periods. In July 2012 and 2013, high
values were observed in the northern half of the
bay. Throughout the sampling period, the Shan-
non-Weiner index values only had a range of
0.02 to 2.46 (Figures 10.12).
Most of the dominating species seem to
be resilient towards any changes in the measured
water quality parameters.
148
 chemical parameters profile

Figure 10.6. Nitrate Profile of Manila Bay from January 2012 to November 2015.
ChapteR 10

149
 150
Figure 10.7. Nitrite Profile of Manila Bay from January 2012 to November 2015.
chemical parameters profile
ChapteR 10
 Figure 10.8. Phosphate Profile of Manila Bay from January 2012 to November 2015.
chemical parameters profile
ChapteR 10

151
 152
Figure 10.9. Silicate Profile of Manila Bay from January 2012 to November 2015.
chemical parameters profile
ChapteR 10
 ChapteR 10 chemical parameters profile

Table 10.1. Dominant species in Manila Bay. The 12 most abundant species per year were noted, with
percentages in relation to annual population indicated.

153
ChapteR 10 chemical parameters profile

Figure 10.10a. Phytoplankton density in Manila Bay for 2012.

Figure 10.10b. Phytoplankton density in Manila Bay for 2013.

154
 ChapteR 10 chemical parameters profile

Figure 10.10c. Phytoplankton density in Manila Bay for 2014.

Figure 10.10d. Phytoplankton density in Manila Bay for 2015.

155
ChapteR 10 chemical parameters profile

Figure 10.12a. Shannon-Weiner diversity index for phytoplankton for 2012

Figure 10.12b. Shannon-Weiner diversity index for phytoplankton for 2013

156
 ChapteR 10 chemical parameters profile

Figure 10.12c. Shannon-Weiner diversity index for phytoplankton for 2014

Figure 10.12d. Shannon-Weiner diversity index for phytoplankton for 2015

157
ChapteR 10 chemical parameters profile

Figure 10.11a. Canonical Correspondence Analysis of Phytoplankton to Physico-chemical

parameters for 2012.

Figure 10.11b. Canonical Correspondence Analysis of Phytoplankton to Physico-chemical

parameters for 2013.

158
 ChapteR 10 chemical parameters profile

Figure 10.11c. Canonical Correspondence Analysis of Phytoplankton to Physico-chemical

parameters for 2014.

Figure 10.11d. Canonical Correspondence Analysis of Phytoplankton to Physico-chemical

parameters for 2015.

159
ChapteR 10
Maximum value for nitrates is higher
than those from previous studies (Chang, et al.,
2009; Sotto, et al., 2012). However, Sotto, et al.
(2012) observed higher values in August 2012 for
silicates and phosphates at 2.42 μM and 14.5 μM,
respectively. The same sampling period in their
study showed a lower maximum nitrite value
as compared to the rest of the values obtained
for 2012 in this study. A higher value for nitrites
however, was recorded in 2010 and 2011. This
demonstrates the high variation of nutrient input
and cycling in the bay (Hayashi et al., 2010) as
well as the ongoing over-enrichment.
Temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO),
silicates, salinity, and chlorophyll a, are the sig-
nificant environmental factors affecting the phy-
toplankton species variability for 2012, with DO
being the most significant as it was able to ac-
count or 17.8% of the variability in species data.
The second most important parameter is tem-
perature, accounting for 9.5% of variability. Most
of the phytoplankton species that were dominant
for 2012 and 2013 were reported to flourish in
waters of very high nutrient content (Santiago
et al., 2010; Carli, et al., 1994). Particularly, Skel-
etonema costatum is reported as an indicator spe-
cies for pollution (Lo, 1998, as discussed in Lo,
2004; Larsen, et al. 2004). Trichodesmium thiebautii,
dominant in May 2012, is different from the other
species as it prefers oligotrophic waters and that
particular sampling period experienced waters
of relatively low nutrient concentrations. It may
even have contributed to the reduction in N-NO3
and N-NO2 levels as it is a nitrogen fixator (Car-
penter & McCarthy, 1975). In our redundancy
analysis, nitrate and phosphate were not signifi-
cant factors for both 2012 and 2015. This sug-
gests that these eutrophication-linked macro-
nutrients may no longer be limiting factors for
phytoplankton growth as their concentration
levels are generally very high throughout Manila
Bay in 2012 and 2015.
The Shannon-Weiner index confirms the
chemical parameters profile
state of pollution in the bay. According to Ma-
son (1998), the index should have a value above
3.0 for phytoplankton for the area to be consid-
ered as clean. An index value of 1.0 to 3.0 would
indicate that the area is moderately polluted,
while values lower than 1.0 would characterize
the area as heavily polluted (Fig. 10.15) Monthly
average values of the index indicate that the bay
isexperiencing moderately heavy to heavy pollu-
tion, with lowest average values in March, Sep-
tember, and November for both 2012 and 2015.
There are, however, instances where the value
almost reached a value of 3.0.
C
ONCLUSION
Temperature, salinity, and dissolved
oxygen are the most significant factors for the
phytoplankton species composition in Manila
Bay, as they have consistently displayed high
correlations across all years. However, it can
be noted that nutrient levels – particularly of
nitrates – may also affect the amount of s dis-
solved oxygen present, which poses them also as
significant factors contributing to the changes in
species composition. This has then affected the
phytoplankton composition in the bay such that
it already has a low diversity, with different spe-
cies dominating in almost every sampling peri-
od. Consequently, this greatly lowered the Shan-
non- Weiner index values in the bay to as low as
0.02, indicating that at a certain ecosystem being
dependent on rainfall, as most of the observed
trends coincide with either Northeast Monsoon
or Southwest Monsoon. However, these needs to
be compared to the rainfall data during this sam-
pling period before it can be confirmed. Observa-
tions on the nutrient levels have also determined
the degree of pollution the bay is currently ex-
periencing. Further analysis of the bay’s deeper
waters and the sediments need to be analyzed in
order to fully grasped the severity of the pollu-
tion occurring in the bay.
160
 ChapteR 10 chemical parameters profile

Table 10.2. – Canonical Correspondence Analysis multiple stepwise regression by Monte Carlo per-
mutation for physicochemical explanatory variables and phytoplankton species abundance. P-value of
0.002 indicates that Factor has a significant effect on species abundance.

161
ChapteR 10 chemical parameters profile

L ITERATURE CITED

Maneja, R., Siringan, F. P., & Nakano,
S. I. (2009). Pollution study in Manila
Azanza, R. V., & Miranda, L. N. (2001). Bay: e utrophication and its impact on
Phytoplankton composition and plankton community. OBAYASHI, Y.;
Pyrodinium bahamense toxic blooms in ISOBE, T.; SUBRAMANIAN, A,
Manila Bay, Philippines [Abstract]. 2009-261.
Journal of Shellfish Research,
20(3), 1251-1255.
Clarke, K., & Warwick, R. (2001). Change in
Azanza, R. V., Siringan, F. P., San Diego- marine communities: an approach to
Mcglone, M. L., Yñiguez, A. T., statistical analysis and interpretation.
Macalalad, N. H., Zamora, P. B., .. Plymouth, UK: Primer.
& Matsuoka, K. (2004). Horizontal
dinoflagellate cyst distribution, Corcoran, A. A., & Boeing W.J. (2012).
sediment characteristics and benthic Biodiversity Increases the Productivity
flux in Manila Bay, Philippines. and Stability of Phytoplankton
Phycological Research, 52(4), 376-386. Communities. PLoS ONE 7 (11): e49397.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049397.
Boyce, D. G., Lewis, M. R., & Worm, B. (2010).
Global phytoplankton decline over the De Las Alas, J.G., & Sodusta, J. A. (1985). A
past century. Nature, 466(7306), 591-596. model for the wind driven circulation of
Manila Bay. Nat. Appl. Sci. Bull. 37(2),
Bureau of Soils and Water Management. 159-170.
(2012). Assessment of Non-Point Source
Pollution from Croplands of the Manila Clarke, K., & Warwick, R. (2001). Change in
Bay System. Bureau of Soils and Water marine communities: an approach to
Management. Quezon City, Philippines statistical analysis and interpretation.
Plymouth, UK: Primer.
Carli, A., Fraschetti, S., Magni, P., Mariottini,
G. L., Pane, L., Pruzzo, C., & Corcoran, A. A., & Boeing W.J. (2012).
Roamirone, V. (1994). A study of Biodiversity Increases the Productivity
planktonic populations in relation to and Stability of Phytoplankton
the eutrophication state of the water in a Communities. PLoS ONE 7 (11): e49397.
Ligurian Sea zone. Final Reports on doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049397.
Research Projects Dealing with
Eutrophication Problems. De Las Alas, J.G., & Sodusta, J. A. (1985). A
model for the wind driven circulation of
Carpenter, E.J. & McCarthy, J.J. (1975). Nitrogen Manila Bay. Nat. Appl. Sci. Bull. 37(2),
fixation and uptake of combined 159-170.
nitrogenous nutrients by Oscillatoria
(Trichodemium) Chang, K. H., Amano, Environmental Management Bureau (EMB).
A., Miller, T. W., Isobe, T., thiebautii in (1992). Manila Bay Monitoring Program.
the western Sargasso Sea. Limnology EMB, Department of Environment and
and Oceanography 20(3). 389-401. Natural Resources. Quezon City,
Philippines.
162
 ChapteR 10 chemical parameters profile

Federation, W. E., & American Public Health Heimdal, B. R. (1993). Modern coccolithopo
Association. (WEF & APHA) (2005). horids. In Tomas, C. R. [Ed.] Marine
Standard methods for the examination Phytoplankton. A Guide to Naked
of water and wastewater. Ameri Flagellates and Coccolithophorids.
can Public Health Association Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 147–249.
(APHA): Washington,
DC, USA. Islam, M. S., & Tanaka, M. (2004). Impacts of
pollution on coastal and marine
Fisher, T. R., Hagy III, J., Boynton, W. R., & ecosys tems including coastal and
Williams, M. R. (2006). Cultural management: a review and synthesis.
eutrophication in the Choptank and Marine pollution bulletin, 48(7), 624-649.
Patuxent estuaries of Chesapeake Bay.
Limnology and Oceanography, Jacinto, G., Sotto, L., &Senal, M. San Diego-Mc
51(1part2), 435-447. Glone, M L.., Escobar. M., Amano. A.
and Miller, T. (2011). Hypoxia in Manila
Furio, E. F., Fukuyo, Y., Matsuoka, K., & Bay, Philippines during the northeast
Gonzales, C. L. (1996). The vertical monsoon. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 63,
distribution of resting cysts of PSP- 243-248.
producing dinoflagellate Pyrodinium
bahamense var. compressum in Jacinto, G. S., Velasquez, I. B., Villanoy, C. L., &
Manila Bay, Philippines. Harmful and Siringan, F. B. (2006). Biophysical
Toxic Algal Blooms (eds. Yasumoto T, environment of Manila Bay—then and
Oshima Y, Fukuyo Y). IOC-UNESCO now. In The Environment in Asia Pacific
Paris, 185-188. Harbours (pp. 293-307). Springer.
Netherlands.
Furuya, K., Saito, H., Rujinard, S., Vijayan, A.
K., Omura, T., Furio, E. E. ... & Thaitha Jingzhong, Z., Liping, D., & Baoping, Q. (1985).
worn, L. (2006). Persistent whole-bay Preliminary studies on eutrophication
red tide of Noctiluca scintillans in and red tide problems in Bohai
Manila Bay, Philippines. Bay. Hydrobiologia, 127(1), 27-30.

Golden Software Inc., (2012). Surfer 11: Larsen, M. F., Brammi M. E., Richardson, K.,
contouring and 3D surface mapping for Yussof, F., & Shariff, M. (2004). Phyto
scientists and engineers. plankton community composition
and size distribution in the Langat River
Hasle, G. R. (1978). Diatoms. In Sournia, A. [Ed.] Estuary, Malaysia.
Monographs on Oceanographic Estuaries 27: 716-727.
Methodology. No. 6. Phytoplankton
Manual. UNESCO Press, Paris, Lepš, J., & Šmilauer, P. (2003). Multivariate
pp. 136–42. analysis of ecological data using CANO
CO. Cambridge university press.
Hayashi, M., Yanagi, T., & San Diego-Mcglone,
M. L. (2006). Nitrogen cycling in Manila Liu, D., Sun, J., Zou, J., & Zhang, J. (2005).
Bay during dry and rainy seasons. Phytoplankton succession during a
Coastal Marine Science 30(1). pp. 49 – 53. red tide of Skeletonema costatum in

163
ChapteR 10 chemical parameters profile

Jiaozhou Bay of China. Marine Pollution Mutshinda, C. M., Finkel, Z. V., & Irwin,
Bulletin, 50(1), 91-94. A. J. (2013). Which environmental
factors control phytoplankton
Lo, W.T. (1998). The Investigation of Oil populations? A Bayesian variable
Pollution on Water Quality and selection approach. Ecological
Ecological Communities in the Waters Modelling, 269, 1-8.
off Kaohsiung Harbor. − Zooplankton
and Phytoplankton. Technique O’neil, J. M., Davis, T. W., Burford, M. A., &
Report of China Oil Company, Gobler, C. J. (2012). The rise of
Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 342-353. harmful cyanobacteria blooms:
and Technology 12(5). pp. 372-379. the potential roles of eutrophication and
climate change. Harmful Algae, 14, 313-
334.
Mason, C. F. (1998). Biology of Freshwater
Pollution. Longman scientific and Omura, T., Iwataki, M., Borja, V.M., Takayama,
technical press. U.S.A. H., & Fukuyo, Y. (2012). Marine
McPherson, C.A., Chapman, P.M., Phytoplankton of the Western Pacific.
Vigers, G.A., & Ong, K.S. (1999). ASE Kouseisha Kouseikaku, Tokyo 160pp.
AN Marine Water Quality Criteria: Con
textual Framework, Principles, Parsons, T. R., Maita, Y., & Lalli, C. M. (1984).
Methodology and Criteria for 18 A Manual of Chemical and Biological
Criteria - Working Group Methods for Seawater Analysis.
(AMEQCWG), ASEAN- Pergamon Press, Inc. United Kingdom.
Canada Cooperative Programme Pp. 3-8, 22-27, 101-103.
on Marine Science - Phase II (CPMS-II).
EVS Environment Consultants, Prudente, M. S., Ichihashi, H., & Tatsukawa,
North Vancouver and Department of R. (1994). Heavy metal concentrations in
Fisheries, Malaysia. 568 pp.` sediments from Manila Bay, Philippines
and inflowing rivers. Environmental
McGlone, M. L. S. D., Jacinto, G., Velasquez, I., Pollution, 86(1), 83-88.
& Padayao, D. (2004). Status of
water quality in Philippine coastal and Santiago, M.F., Cunha, M.D.G.G.D.S., Leitão,
marine waters. p. 96-108. In DA BFAR S.N., da Costa, K.M.P., Palmeira,
(Department of Agriculture-Bureau of G.C.B., Neto, F.D.F.P., & Nuñes, F.S.
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In (2010). Phytoplankton Dynamics in a
Turbulent Seas: The Status Highly Eutrophic Estuary in Tropical
of Philippine Marine Fisheries. Coastal Brazil. Brazilian Journal
Resource Management Project, of Oceanography, 58(3). pp. 189-205.
Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.

Moss, B., Kosten, S., Meerhof, M., Battarbee, R., Sotto, L. P. A., Jacinto, G. S., & Villanoy, C. L.
Jeppesen, E., Mazzeo, N., ... & Scheffer, (2014). Spatiotemporal variability of
M. (2011). Allied attack: climate change hypoxia and eutrophication in Manila
and eutrophication. Inland waters, 1(2), Bay, Philippines during the northeast
101-105. and southwest monsoons. Marine
pollution bulletin, 85(2), 446-454.
164
 ChapteR 10 chemical parameters profile

Supreme Court General Registry Nos. 171947- Effect of urban emissions on the horizon
98. (2008). Metropolitan Manila tal distribution of metal concentration
Development Authority, Dept. of in sediments in the vicinity of
Environment and Natural Resources, Asian large cities. Journal of Water and
Dept. of Education, Culture, and Environment Technology, 4(1), 61-71.
Sports, Dept. of Health, Dept. of
Agriculture, Dept. of Public Works and
Highways, Dept. of Budget and Iwasa, T., Suzuki, Y., Siringan, F. ...
Management, Phil. Coast Guard, Phil. &Thao, T. T. (2006). Effect of urban
National Police Maritime Group, missions on the horizontal distribution
and Dept. of Interior and Local of metal concentration in sediments in
Government vs. Concerned residents of the vicinity of Asian large cities. Journal
Manila Bay, represented and joined of Water and Environment Technology,
by Divina V. Ilas, Sabiniano Albarracin, 4(1), 61-71.
Manuel Santos Jr., Dinah dela Peña,
Paul Dennis Quintero, Ma. Victoria Villanoy, C., & Martin, M. (2007). Modeling the
Llenos, Donna Caloza, Fatima Quitain, circulation of Manila Bay: assessing the
Venice Segarra, Fritzie Tangkia, Sarah relative magnitudes of wind and tide
Joelle Lintag, Hannibal Augustus Bobis, forcing. Science Diliman, 9.
Felimon Santiamiguel, and Jaime
Agustin R. Oposa. Supreme Court of
the Philippines.http://sc.judiciary.gov.
ph/ jurisprudence/2008/
december2008/171947-48.htm.

Taniguchi, M., Burnett, W. C., Dulaiova, H.,

Siringan, F., Foronda, J., Wattayakorn,
G., ... & Ishitobi, T. (2008).
Groundwater discharge as an important
land-sea pathway into Manila
Bay, Philippines. Journal of Coastal
Research, 24(sp1), 15-24.

Ter Braak, C.J.F. & Šmilauer, P. (2012): Canoco

reference manual and user’s guide:
software for ordination, version 5.0.
Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, USA,
496pp.

Tomas, C. R. [Ed.] 1997. Identifying Marine

Phytoplankton. Academic Press, San
Diego, 858 pp.

Urase, T., Nadaoka, K., Yagi, H., Iwasa, T., Suzu

ki, Y., Siringan, F. ... &Thao, T. T. (2006).

165
ChapteR 11

Spatio-Temporal Variability of Hypoxia and Eutrophication in

Manila Bay During the Northeast and Southwest Monsoons
from 2012 to 2015

Angelica Gabrielle A. Sy1, Marvin L. Tobias1, Valeriano M. Borja1,

Norvida C. Gatdula1 , Mudjekeewis D. Santos2 , and Elsa F. Furio1*

1
Aquatic Ecology Section
2
Vertebrate Section
Capture Fisheries Research and Development Division
National Fisheries Research and Development Institute

*Corresponding Author: efurio2010@yahoo.com

Abstract

Manila Bay is a major source of livelihood for the fishermen living around it. Occurrence of hypoxia, a
state wherein dissolved oxygen (DO) is not enough to support marine life, poses a serious threat to the
bay and consequently to its fisheries sector. This study documents the variation of hypoxia throughout
the bay for a sampling period of four years, from January 2012 to November 2015, with a monthly inter-
val each survey. A total of 24 field surveys on 16 designated sampling stations, at varying depths, were
conducted. Results show that hypoxia was present all year round but was more severe during the wet
season (July, September, November) compared to the dry season. The averages of bay-wide DO con-
centration ranged from 3.42 to 7.63mg/l during the 4 year survey. Low DO concentrations were associ-
ated with high concentrations of nutrients, particularly nitrate. Nitrate spiked to a 44.6 µM concentra-
tion while bay-wide DO concentration dropped to as low as 0.01 mg/l in the wet season. An occurrence
of hypoxia along the coasts, transitioning from western, northern and eastern areas, was observed as a
common trend for all surveys. However, DO concentrations in areas near the coast, in depths around
5m to 15m, and in the deeper areas near the mouth of the bay, from around 10m to 35m depths were
noted to be lower. In conclusion, hypoxia has been occurring year-round in Manila Bay with varying
intensity but more prominent during the wet season.

Keywords: Manila bay, hypoxia, eutrophication, dissolved oxygen

166
 ChapteR 11
I NTRODUCTION
Manila Bay, located at the southwest
portion of Luzon, is a semi-enclosed estuary that
is linked to the West Philippine Sea. It is a recipi-
ent to about 17,000 km2 of watershed made up of
26 catchment areas (PEMSEA, 2001). Economic
activities around the coast of Manila Bay include
agriculture, fisheries, aquaculture, and industrial
activities. Fishery is part of the major livelihood
sources in the Philippines. It provides livelihood
to about 5% of the Philippines’ total labor force
(Barut et al, 2004). The occurrence of hypoxia
will cause fish kills and lead to the formation of
dead zones in the sea where very little marine life
could survive.
Hypoxia and anoxia, or the presence of
low to none dissolved oxygen (DO), has been
a recurring problem in coastal and marine wa-
ters throughout the world (Diaz and Rosenberg,
2008). These occurrences are serious threat in the
maintenance of high value fisheries of the affect-
ed coastal ecosystems. Of the fishing grounds in
the Philippines, Manila Bay is said to be among
those already experiencing hypoxia as confirmed
by previous studies (Chang et al., 2009; Jacinto et
al., 2011; Sotto et al., 2014). Hypoxia was attrib-
uted to the increased nutrient loading or eutro-
phication in the bay (Jacinto et al., 2011).
Hypoxia is a state wherein the level of
DO, an aspect of the marine ecosystem that is
important for marine life sustainability, drops to
a low enough concentration causing conditions
that can be detrimental to both the marine eco-
system and aquatic organisms (NSTC, 2003). In
the Philippines, the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources ((DENR) has provided
basis for appraising some of the water qualities.
Manila Bay has been classified as under Class SB
(DENR, 1990). Thus for this study, hypoxia was
defined as DO falling to <5 mg/l, the set required
minimum value of DO for Class SB waters, as
167
hypoxia and eutrophication
mandated by the DENR Administration Order
No. 34, Series 1990.
Atypical hypoxic conditions can be detri-
mental to both the marine ecosystem and aquatic
organisms by causing physiological stress and
worse, even death (NSTC, 2003). Many factors
contribute to hypoxia. One of which is the eu-
trophication or “nutrients over-enrichment” of
coastal ecosystems. Nutrients are essential to ma-
rine life but too much of these lead to eutrophica-
tion, an occurrence that pose a greater problem
to the marine ecosystem. Eutrophication may
lead to phytoplankton blooms or, worse, harm-
ful algal blooms. These initially affects the dis-
solved oxygen levels in the bay and then eventu-
ally on the organisms and the environment itself
(PEMSEA, 2001).
Previous studies on hypoxia in Manila
Bay during the northeast (February 2010 and
February 2011) and southwest monsoon (July
2010, August 2011, August 2012) had been con-
ducted (Sotto et al., 2014). For this study, a to-
tal of 24 surveys were conducted, covering the
northeast monsoon (January and November
2012, 2013, 2014 & 2015), southeast monsoon
(March and May 2012, 2013, 2014 & 2015) and
southwest monsoon (July and September 2012,
2013, 2014 and 2015).
This study aims to document the occur-
rence of hypoxia in Manila Bay at varying depth
and time. Included are the effects of seasons,
monsoons and parameters such as salinity and
temperature in the occurrence of hypoxia in the
bay. This study also serves as an evaluation tool
for the correlation of hypoxia and eutrophication
in the bay. This will serve as basis for further
studies to help monitor and revitalize the aquatic
resources of Manila Bay.
ChapteR 11
M ATERIALS AND
METHODS
On-site Survey and Field Collection
The investigations were carried out in
Manila Bay for four years with six survey months
every year (January 2012, March 2012, May 2012,
July 2012, September 2012, November 2012; Jan-
uary 2013, March 2013, May 2013, July 2013, Sep-
tember 2013, November 2013; January 2014,
Figure 11.1. Manila Bay Sampling Stations
hypoxia and eutrophication
March 2014, May 2014, July 2014, September
2014, November 2014; January 2015, March 2015,
May 2015, September 2015, November 2015,
December 2015). A total of 16 transect stations
(Figure 11.1) were sampled every field survey.
DO profiling was done using the SBE 19 multi-
parameter vertical profiler throughout the water
column in each station. Other physical param-
eters of the water (depth, temperature, salinity)
were also measured using the same equipment.
The water samples for the inorganic nutrient
content (nitrate, nitrite, phosphate, and silicate)
analysis were collected using
168
 ChapteR 11
using a 2.5-L Niskin bottle from various depths
(surface (S), middle (M), and bottom (B) (Figure
11.2) of each station. The water samples were
filtered through a 0.45 µm membrane disc filter
and kept frozen until further analysis.
Laboratory Analysis
The inorganic nutrient content of the wa-
ter samples were measured spectrophotometri-
cally (Parsons et al., 1984). The contour maps of
the different parameters were generated using
the Golden Software 11 (Golden Software Inc.,
2012). The IBM SPSS Statistics 21 software was
used to analyze was used to analyze the gathered
data.
Figure 11.2. (a) Map of the depth (in meters) of the bottom layer of Manila Bay; (b) Average middle and
bottom depths (in meters) of the Manila Bay survey stations
169
hypoxia and eutrophication
R ESULTS
Hypoxia
2012
In 2012, the surface water of Manila Bay
was highly oxygenated. Surface DO ranged from
4.61 - 9.77 mg/l and averaged to 6.52 mg/l. The
distribution of DO in the surface water of the bay
varied, with slightly higher values in the western
and northern areas of the bay. Dropping DO con-
centration was observed from the middle depth
onwards (Figure 11.3). Very low DO concentra-
tion, referred to as hypoxia, was predominant,
especially in the month of September, in the
ChapteR 11
northern areas of the bay, near the coasts of Pam-
panga, Bulacan and Manila. Values dropped to
as low as 0.687 mg/l for the middle depth. Hy-
poxic conditions became more pronounced in
the bottom depth, with DO concentrations rang-
ing from 0.328 mg/l to 5.46 mg/l and averaging
to 2.36 mg/l. Bottom hypoxia was most intense in
September. Hypoxia was observed in the west-
ern, eastern and northern parts of the bay near
the coast extending up to the middle of the bay.
Low bottom DO concentrations were common
near the coast for all surveys. Hypoxia was least
observed in July but the same DO concentration
distribution pattern was observed. DO concentra-
tions for the 2012 surface layer were higher near
the mouth of the bay for the dry season (January,
March and May). Hypoxic conditions occurred
near the coast of Bataan, Manila and Cavite (east
and northeast area) for the dry season. Generally
all the 20 m and 30 m deep waters were hypoxic.
Values ranged from 5.30 mg/l to as low as 0.332
mg/l (Figure 11.3).
2013
The surface layer of Manila Bay in the
dry season of 2013 had DO values above the cri-
teria value of <5 mg/l. Unlike that of 2012, low
DO was present in the surface layer during the
wet season (July, September and November).
DO concentrations were lowest near Pampanga
for July, near Bataan and Cavite for September
and lowest in Manila and Bulacan areas for No-
vember. Hypoxia was observed throughout the
bay for all depths during the wet season of 2013.
All monthly minimum values were far below the
criteria level of 5 mg/l and the highest attained
maximum value was 8.46 mg/l. The following
averages for January, March, May, July, Sep-
tember and November were 4.47, 4.86, 4.17, 2.91,
2.99, 2.03 mg/l, respectively. While the ranges for
the same months were 0.45 - 7.38 mg/l, 0.61 – 7.91
mg/l, 0.30 – 8.44 mg/l, 0.082 – 7.74 mg/l, 0.85 –
5.83 mg/l and 0.34 – 3.91 mg/l , respectively (Fig-
ure 11.4).
hypoxia and eutrophication
2014
Surface DO concentrations were above
the criteria value for the January, September and
November 2014 surveys, with averages of 8.12
mg/l, 6.94 mg/l, and 7.01 mg/l, respectively (Fig-
ure 11.5). Surface DO for March, May and July
fell slightly below the critical value with the low-
est DO concentration near the mouth of the bay
for March and in the northern to the western and
southwestern areas of Manila Bay for May and
June. DO concentrations for January were homo-
geneously distributed in the water column, with
a gradual decreasing pattern. It ranged from 4.55
mg/l to 9.76 mg/l with an average of 7.63 mg/l.
March DO concentrations were relatively lower
compared to the January survey. Higher concen-
trations were recorded near the mouth of the bay
particularly the bottom layer with the highest
DO value of 7.75 mg/l from the said layer for this
month. For the May (average: 3.42 mg/l) and July
(average: 3.79 mg/l) surveys, the DO concentra-
tions were generally below the criteria value of
<5 mg/l throughout the bay regardless of depth.
The range of values decreased with depth, how-
ever. This was a general trend throughout the
year.
DO concentrations were lowest in the
western to the middle areas of the bay and for
the middle and bottom depth layers. DO values
reached as low as 0.02 mg/l for the bottom layer
of all sampling stations. September and Novem-
ber DO distribution had similar patterns of hy-
poxic areas from the middle to the western and
mouth part of the bay, though the September
profile had more widespread hypoxia particu-
larly in the bottom layer. The average bottom DO
values of 2.88 mg/l for September and 4.21 mg/l
for November were recorded.
170
 hypoxia and eutrophication

Figure 11.3. 2012 Dissolved Oxygen Profile of Manila Bay

ChapteR 11

171
 172
Figure 11.4. 2013 Dissolved Oxygen Profile of Manila Bay
hypoxia and eutrophication
ChapteR 11
 hypoxia and eutrophication

Figure 11.5. 2014 Dissolved Oxygen Profile of manila Bay

ChapteR 11

173
ChapteR 11
2015
Similar with the 2014 DO profile of Ma-
nila Bay, in 2015, the hypoxic areas concentrat-
ed in the west passing through the middle and
northern parts of the bay (Figure 11.6). Near-
bottom DO also concentrated in the west spread-
ing to middle part of the bay, as observed every
survey. The surface DO for 2015 in Manila Bay
averaged to 6.16 mg/l with the lowest surface
average being 5.82 mg/l, recorded in May, and
the highest being 6.78 mg/l, recorded in Septem-
ber. Similar with the previous years, the surface
of the bay was very well oxygenated year-round
for 2015. Decrease in DO concentration in the
middle layer was observed. Unlike the other sur-
vey months, the drop of DO concentration in the
middle layer was very pronounced in Septem-
ber, particularly in the western side of the bay
near the Bataan coast. The middle DO concen-
trations for the other months were only slightly
lower compared to the concentrations in the sur-
face layer.
DO concentrations dropped further in
the near-bottom layer of the bay. Near bottom
DO values ranged from 0.86-8.38 mg/l, 1.39-5.98
mg/l, 1.34-5.32 mg/l, 0.12-10.97 mg/l, and 0.59-
7.44 mg/l in the months of January, March, May,
September, and November, respectively. The
minimum DO concentration of 0.12 mg/l for the
2015 surveys was recorded in the near-bottom
layer of September and the maximum value in
the surface layer of the same month. Of the near
bottom layers, low DO concentrations were more
widespread in May and September.
Table 11 .1. Water Quality Criteria Values (De-
partment of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) Administrative Order (DAO) No. 34 (Se-
ries of 1990) (DENR 1995))
hypoxia and eutrophication
Generally, the lower DO concentrations
for January and March were near the coast of
Cavite; bay-wide for May; and near the coast of
Bataan for September and November. Bay-wide
averages of DO were lowest in May, September
and November with concentrations of 4.48 mg/l,
4.46 mg/l and 4.94 mg/l, respectively. The low-
est recorded DO, 0.12 mg/l, was from the near-
bottom layer of September. All minimum values
were lower than the declared <5 mg/l critical lev-
el of dissolved oxygen. All survey months, how-
ever, had minimum DO values below the critical
level. As a commonly observed trend, DO values
dropped further in the near-bottom layers with
lower recorded DO in the western to the north-
ern areas of Manila Bay for all months.
Nutrients
According to the study of Vergara et al.
(included in this book), inorganic nutrients Bu-
lacan, Manila and Cavite areas with values even
higher in deeper areas of the bay. Nitrate abun-
dance was bay-wide, horizontally and vertically,
and was highest in the northern part of the bay.
In most areas, the Nitrate concentration exceeded
the criteria value for pollution of 4.29 µM (Table
11.1) as set by the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) (McGlone et al., 2004). Nitrite
concentration did not exceed these criteria value
for pollution, but was considerably high on the
eastern side of the bay, near the Metro Manila
area. The same pattern was also observed for the
nutrient Phosphate, which did not reach its crite-
ria value. Silicate concentrations were lower dur-
ing the dry season compared to the wet season.
Spatially, the Silicate concentration was higher in
the northern part of the bay.
Temperature
The temperature ranged from 24°C to
34°C for field surveys of the year 2012 to 2015
(Figure 11.7). Except that of 2015, the highest
174
 Figure 11.6 2015 Dissolved Oxygen Profile of manila Bay.
hypoxia and eutrophication
ChapteR 11

175
ChapteR 11
temperature was consistently observed during
the month of May, particularly in the surface
layer. Temperature in May was consistently
observed to be decreasing with the increase in
depth. The 2012 and 2015 temperature vertical
profiles converge to a cooler temperature in the
deeper depths (>20 m). The 2012 and 2015 tem-
perature plots were closer to one another un-
like those of 2013 and 2014. Temperatures of the
2013 and 2014 survey months were too dynamic
compared to the 2012 and 2015 survey months.
2014 Manila Bay surface temperature ranged
from 24°C to 34°C. The 2014 temperature vertical
profiles (24°C to 32°C) showed greater variation
even below the surface. The temperature vertical
profiles of Manila Bay showed a warmer surface
and a slightly cooler bottom.
Salinity
Salinity profiles for July 2012, July 2013,
September 2012, September 2013, November
2012, and November 2013, sampling months
during the wet season, showed stratification
in the water column (Figure 11.8). Whereas the
sampling months during the dry season, Janu-
ary 2012, January 2013, March 2012, March 2013,
May 2012, and May 2013 displayed a well-mixed
water column. Salinity concentrations were ob-
served to be lowest during September for both
2012 and 2013. Widest salinity range difference
was observed for the September surveys as well.
The 2014 salinity vertical profile were very dy-
namic as seen in the differences among the plots
of the different survey months. Salinity concen-
tration varied from one another with January
and March lumping together at around 30 ppt;
the May and July at around 27 to 28 ppt; and the
November at around 31 to 33 ppt. As with previ-
ous years, the same observation can be said with
the September 2014 plot. January and September
of 2015 showed stratification in the 5 m to the 15
m depths. Slight stratification can also be seen
in July. May and July salinity concentrations
were around 29 ppt while the rest of the survey
months lumped at around 33 ppt.
hypoxia and eutrophication
D ISCUSSION
Generally, no hypoxia was observed
throughout the surface layer of the bay for the
2012 surveys. But low DO levels were observed
in the middle section (~5 m to15 m depth) of the
bay and in areas near the coast.
Hydrodynamic studies in Manila Bay
revealed two major gyres (Siringan, 1998). These
two gyres that converge in the middle can cause
organic matter to accumulate and settle in the
center of the bay and result to hypoxia because
of the increase in oxygen demand for the organic
matter decomposition (Siringan, 1998; Villanoy,
1997).
The midsection of the bay is relatively
deep compared to other parts of the bay, accord-
ing to Siringan et al. (1998) (as cited in Jacinto et
al., 2011). Deeper waters have more water column
stratification that hinders aeration of the bottom
waters and the mixing of nutrients throughout
the column. Low bottom DO and high bottom ni-
trate were found in the midsection of the bay.
Hypoxia is more widespread in strati-
fied systems compared to vertically mixed sys-
tems. This is because of the limited downward
movement of oxygen from the atmosphere due
to stratification. Stratification also causes reten-
tion of nutrients in the photic zone, thus more
growth of phytoplankton (Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, 2001).
In general, surface nutrient levels were
higher in sampling stations along and near the
coast. There was no over enrichment of nitrite,
phosphate, and silicate in the bay. Among the
nutrients, Nitrate concentration was observed
to have far exceeded the set criteria value. Simi-
lar with the results of the study by Chang, et al.,
(2009), Manila Bay is considered as highly eutro-
phicated with nitrogen species. The concentra-
tion of nitrate in the bay for this study is higher
176
 Figure 11.7. (a) 2012, (b) 2013, (c) 2014, (d) 2015 Temperature Vertical Profile of Manila Bay
hypoxia and eutrophication
ChapteR 11

177
 178
Figure 11.8. (a) 2012, (b) 2013, (c) 2014, (d) 2015 Salinity Vertical Profile of Manila Bay
hypoxia and eutrophication
ChapteR 11
 ChapteR 11
compared to previous similar studies (Chang, et
al., 2009; Jacinto, et al., 2011; Sotto, et al., 2014).
The variation in distribution and concen-
tration of nutrients in the bay may be attributed
to the difference in inflow from surrounding
catchment areas and to the seasonal differenc-
es in nutrient cycling in the bay (Hayashi et al.,
2006).
Nitrification is a major cause of DO de-
pletion. Though other nutrients cannot be disre-
garded as reasons for eutrophication, nitrogen
loading is the most common cause of estuarine
eutrophic conditions (EPA, 2001).Nitrogen run-
off is greatly affected by the activities, mainly
agricultural and urban, caused by the increased
population in the surrounding coast waters
(NSTC, 2003).
The susceptibility of a body of water to
hypoxia and eutrophication is affected by depth,
freshwater inflow, tidal exchange, and varia-
tions in climate (NSTC, 2003). In this study, it
was observed that DO is negatively correlated
with depth, nutrient concentration and salinity.
DO has a moderately significant correlation with
depth. Hypoxia in Manila Bay is also affected by
season and eutrophication, particularly nitrate
enrichment and seasonal heavy rainfall.
In summary, the amount of DO decreased
with the increase in depth. It was also observed
to be lower near the coast. High nutrient con-
centration, particularly nitrate, was found to be
accompanied by low DO concentration. Further-
more, hypoxia in the bay was greater during the
wet season compared to the dry season, when
there is less rain and discharge from surround-
ing fresh waters. It was widespread throughout
the bay especially in the bottom layer during wet
season.
The focus of this paper is on the docu
mentation of variations of the occurrence of hy-
179
hypoxia and eutrophication
hypoxia in Manila Bay across space and time.
Hydrographic surveys were carried out for this
purpose to give the recent information of the dis-
tribution of DO concentrations in the bay at vary-
ing depth and time.
Hypoxia in Manila Bay can be attributed
to varying factors. Dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions vary with season. Hypoxia is more promi-
nent in bay during the wet season likely because
of more rain thus more discharge from surround-
ing fresh bodies of water like the Pampanga and
Pasig rivers. Influx from rivers promotes nutri-
ent input in the bay. This in turn results to an
increase in organic matter production that aids in
DO depletion in the system. No over enrichment
was observed for other nutrients except nitrate.
But the same trend of aggregation of the nutri-
ents, especially for the surface layer, in the east-
ern and northern coasts of the bay was observed.
High level of nutrients is associated with low
DO level. Nitrate enrichment was present in the
midsection of the bay where hypoxia was most
prominent. Both hypoxia and eutrophication in
Manila Bay varied in space and time.
This study gave some insight of the
threatening occurrences of hypoxia and eutro-
phication in the bay with updated figures on
every two months concentrations of DO in the
entire bay and these can be compared to earlier
studies (Chang et al., 2009; Jacinto et al., 2011;
Sotto et al., 2014). Thus, the results of this study
could be forwarded to fishery managers and
other stakeholders that could be the basis in the
proper planning and management for the resto-
ration and improvement of Manila Bay.
ChapteR 11 hypoxia and eutrophication

L ITERATURE CITED
Jacinto, G.S., Sotto, L.P.A., Senal, A.I.S.,


McGlone, M.L., Escobar, M.T.L., Amano,
A., and Miller, T.W. 2011. Hypoxia in
Barut, N.C., M.D., Santos, and L.R. Garces. Manila Bay, Philippines during
(2004). Overview of Philippine Marine the northeast monsoon. Marine
Fisheries, 6p. 22-31. In DA-BFAR Pollution Bulletin 63, 243-248.
(Department of Agriculture-Bureau of
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). Luna, C.Z., Silvestre, G.T., Green., S.J., Carreon
In turbulent seas: The status of III, M.F., and White, A.T. (2004).
Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal Profiling the status of Philippine
Resource Management Project, Cebu marine fisheries: A general introduction
City, Philippines. 378 p. and overview, p. 3-11.In DA-BFAR
(Department of Agriculture-Bureau of
Buskey, E.J. (2008). How does eutrophication Fisheries and Aquatic Resources).
affect the role of grazers in harmful n turbulent seas: The status of
algal bloom dynamics? Harmful Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal
Algae 8, 152-157 Resource Management Project. Cebu
City, Philippines. 378 p.
Chang, K.H., Amano, A., Miller, T.W., Isobe, T.,
Maneja, R., Siringan., F.P., Imai, H., and Luther, G.W. et al (2004). The Roles of Anoxia,
Nakano, S. (2009). Pollution Study in H2S, and Storm Events in Fish Kills of
Manila Bay: Eutrophication and Its Dead-end Canals of Delaware
Impact on Plankton Community. Inland Bays. Estuaries Vol. 27, No. 3, p.
Interdisciplinary Studies on 551–560.
Environmental Chemistry –
Environmental Research in Asia, Eds, McGlone, M.L.S.D., G. Jacinto, I. Velasquez and
pp. 261-267. D. Padayao. (2004). Status of water
quality in Philippine coastal and marine
Diaz, Robert, Rabalais, Nancy, and Breitburg, waters, p. 96-108. In DA-BFAR
Denise. (2012). Agriculture’s (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of
Impact on Aquaculture: Hypoxia and Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In
Eutrophication in Marine turbulent seas: The status of Philippine
Waters.ORGANISATION FOR marine fisheries. Coastal Resource
ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND Management Project, Cebu City,
DEVELOPMENT. Philippines.378 p.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). National Science and Technology Council

(2001). Nutrient Criteria Technical Committee on Environment and
Guidance Manual. – Estuarine and Natural Resources (NSTC).(2003). An
Coastal Marine Waters. Assessment of Coastal Hypoxia
and Eutrophication in U.S. Waters.
Hayashi, M., Yanagi, T., and McGlone, M.L.
(2006). Nitrogen cycling in Parsons, T. R., Y. Maita and C. M. Lalli. (1984).
Manila Bay during dry and rainy A Manual of Chemical and Biological
seasons. Coastal Marine Science, 49, 49- Methods for Seawater Analysis.
53. Pergamon Press, Inc. United Kingdom.
180
 ChapteR 11 hypoxia and eutrophication

Pp 3-8, 22-27, 101-103. Villanoy, C., Martin, M. (1997). Modeling the

PEMSEA.(2001). Manila Bay: initial risk
assessment. PEMSEA Technical
Information Report No. 2001/01 112 p.
Global Environment Facility/United
Nations Development Programme/
International Maritime Organization
Regional Programme on Building
Partnerships in Environmental
Management for the Seas of East Asia
(PEMSEA), Quezon City, Philippines.
circulation of Manila Bay: Assessing the
relative magnitudes of wind and tide
forcing. Science Diliman 9 (1–2), 26–35.
Yang, X., Wu, X., Hao, H., and He, Z. (2008).
Mechanisms and assessment of
water eutrophication. Journal of
Zhejiang University Science B 9(3): 197-
209.

Selman, M., Greenhalgh, S., Diaz, R., and Sugg,

Z. (2008). Eutrophication and Hypoxia
in Coastal Areas: A Global Assessment
of the State of Knowledge. World
Resources Institute Policy Note, Water
Quality: Eutrophication and Hypoxia.

Siringan, F.P., Ringor, C.L. (1998). Changes in

bathymetry and their implications to
sediment dispersal and rates of
sedimentation in Manila Bay. Science
Diliman10 (2), 12–26.

Sotto, L.P.A., et al. Spatiotemporal variability

of hypoxia and eutrophication in
Manila Bay, Philippines during the
northeast and southwest
monsoons. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
(2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2014.02.028

Striebel, M. et al. (2010). Water Column

Stratification, Phytoplankton Diversity
and Consequences for Resource and Use
Productivity. Hydralab III, Hannover.

Thibodeau B., Vernal, A., and Mucci, A. (2006).

Recent eutrophication and consequent
hypoxia in the bottom waters of
the Lower St. Lawrence Estuary:
Micropaleontological and geochemical
evidence. Marine Geology 231 p 37-51.

181
 ChapteR 12 remote sensing

Preliminary Comparison of Remote Sensing-Derived

Chlorophyll a Concentration and Sea Surface Temperature
with the Fisheries Resources and Ecological Data in Manila Bay

Jennifer A. Poniente and Mudjekeewis D. Santos*

Vetebrate Section
Capture Fisheries Research and Development Division
National Fisheries Research and Development Institute

*Corresponding Author: mudjiesantos@yahoo.com

Abstract

Remote sensing is used to determine the chlorophyll a concentration and the sea surface temperature.
Here, obtained remote-sensed chlorophyll a and sea surface temperature data from MODIS for Manila
Bay from 2014 – 2015 was analyzed and initially correlated with the results from the fisheries resources
and ecological assessment (this study).

Chlorophyll a concentration was generally concentrated on the eastern part of the bay all throughout
2014. Sea surface temperature was observed to be high during May, July, August and October of 2014.
During the first quarter of 2015, high concentration of chlorophyll a was generally concentrated on the
eastern and southwestern part of the bay, while sea surface temperature was high and almost uniform
except in the southern side of the bay. The second quarter of 2015 showed that the chlorophyll a is still
concentrated in the eastern side of the bay, while the highest sea surface temperature was observed
during May reaching more than 30 °C. Comparative analysis indicated that there is correlation between
remote sensing and actual chlorophyll a data vis-à-vis egg and larval aggregations. Further studies are
warranted.

Keywords: Manila bay, chlorophyll a, sea surface temperature, remote sensing

183
ChapteR 12
I NTRODUCTION
Manila Bay is one of the most important
coastal and marine area in the Philippines as it
provides an array of uses such as food resources,
employment and income, services and recreation
to the people along the fringe of the Bay. It is lo-
cated on the west of Luzon Island of Philippines
and opens up to West Philippine Sea. The 190
km coastline of the bay is under the provinces
of Cavite, Metro Manila, Bulacan, Pampanga,
and Bataan. Its average depth is 17 meter (PEM-
SEA, 2007) and the bay’s watershed consists of 26
catchment zones (Jacinto et al., 2011).
Previous studies reported that Manila
Bay until the 1970s was the country’s second
biggest source of fish catch. In fact, it was once
known as one of the premier fishing grounds in
the country. More than 50% gross national prod-
uct comes from the Manila Bay (Carlo Castillo,
2000).
However, close to the largest popula-
tion center, the bay and adjacent waters today
constitute one of the most heavily exploited
areas in the country (Silvestre et al., 1987).
Natural conditions (topography, pres-
ence of tributaries, wind forcing, circulation, etc.)
coupled with different activities in and around
the bay contribute to the significant variability,
both at temporal and spatial scales, in the bay
water quality conditions.
The moderate-resolution imaging spec-
troradiometer (MODIS) is a payload scientific
instrument that was launched into Earth orbit by
NASA in 1999 on board the Terra (EOS AM) Sat-
ellite, and in 2002 on board the Aqua (EOS PM)
satellite. The instruments capture data in 36 spec-
tral bands ranging in wavelength from 0.4 µm to
14.4 µm. The instruments image the entire Earth
every 1 to 2 days. They are designed to provide
measurements in large-scale global dynamics
remote sensing
including changes in Earth’s cloud cover, ra-
diation budget and processes occurring in the
oceans, on land, and in the lower atmosphere.
With its low spatial resolution but high tem-
poral resolution, MODIS data is useful to track
changes in the landscape over time. Examples of
such applications are the monitoring of vegeta-
tion health by means of time-series analyses with
vegetation indices, long term land cover changes
(e.g. to monitor deforestation rates), global snow
cover trends, water inundation from pluvial, riv-
erine, or sea level rise flooding in coastal areas,
change of water levels of major lakes, and the de-
tection and mapping of wild land fires.
Although remote sensing techniques
possess considerable potential for monitoring on
an operational basis due to the data acquisition
mode and periodic onsite revisit capability, its
application to assess the water quality conditions
particularly for Manila Bay remains scarce and
untapped.
The study aims to compare the seasonal
patterns of spatial remote sensing data with the
fisheries resources and ecological data gathered
for the Manila Bay from 2014 - 2015.
M
ATERIALS AND
METHODS
Monthly satellite chlorophyll a and sea
surface temperature imagery were obtained
from Giovanni Interactive Visualization Analysis
(http://giovanni.gsfc.nasa.gov/) of NASA.
A list of modified settings to generate the
products based on global parameters, climatolo-
gies derived from NASA’s ocean color sensors,
including SeaWiFS, MODIS-Aqua and MODIS-
Terra were controlled in Ocean Color Radiom-
etry Online Visualization and Analysis - Global
184
 ChapteR 12
Monthly Products. The first setting was the spa-
tial area of interest which provided the coordi-
nates of Manila Bay, followed by “climatology”
in the analysis options. The latter was verified
to determine the available data from the list of
sensors, which displayed the spatial resolution
and the period of activity. Among these sensors,
The MODIS-Aqua 4 km box, which is used to
determine the chlorophyll a concentration and
sea surface temperature was chosen. The final
setting was the time. Visualization had multiple
options, but the time-averaged, default Lat-Lon
map was used to generate visualization.
The climatological chlorophyll a and sea
surface temperature were processed using quan-
tum GIS.
Temporal trends were drawn from
monthly data of this Manila Bay project. TRMM
precipitation data was obtained from NASA’s
precipitation measurement.
Fisheries and physico-chemical data ob-
tained from this study and rainfall data from
PAG-ASA from 2012-2015 were plotted in a line
graph to compare general trends.
R
ESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
Remote Sensing
Remote sensing showed that the chloro-
phyll a concentration was generally concentrated
on the eastern side of the bay near Manila and
Cavite all throughout 2014 and the first half of
2015. During March 2014, chlorophyll a was con-
centrated on the western and eastern side of the
bay, which supported the phytoplankton survey
that time. While in April, it was still concentrated
on the eastern side. During May, chlorophyll a was
patchy with the largest concentration found near
the boundary of Manila and Cavite. This again
185
remote sensing
coincided with the survey of the hydrobiologi-
cal study component which had the highest
concentration of phytoplankton found near the
boundary. A high concentration was also ob-
served near the boundary of Manila and Bulacan
which supported the in situ data for chlorophyll
a concentration. For July 2014, chlorophyll a was
concentrated on the eastern and northern side of
the bay and in August of the same year, it was
concentrated towards the center and northeast-
ern of the bay. During October, chlorophyll a was
concentrated throughout the bay particularly on
the western and southeastern. November chlo-
rophyll a concentration was concentrated on the
northeastern portion of the bay.
However, the chlorophyll a concentra-
tion was generally concentrated on the northern
and southern part of the bay during January 2015
and on the eastern and southwestern during Feb-
ruary, March and April of the same year. During
May, largest concentration of chlorophyll a was
found near Metro Manila (see Figure 12.1).
Figure 12.2 showed that sea surface tem-
perature showed that the highest temperature
was observed during May, July, August and
October. During March, the highest temperature
was observed at the northwestern side of the bay
which supported the in situ measurement of the
hydrobiological study component. Same pat-
tern was observed during April, however, tem-
perature was hotter. July 2014 sea surface tem-
perature was uniform and high reaching 31°C
throughout the bay. During August, tempera-
ture was also high and almost uniform except
in the southeastern and northwestern side along
Cavite and between Pampanga and Bataan,
respectively. Sea surface temperature showed
higher temperature during October compared
to November. During October, the temperature
was almost uniform except on the southeast-
ern side that had a lower temperature. During
November, temperature was higher on the north-
western side of the bay than the rest of the area.
January 2015 sea surface temperature was high
ChapteR 12 remote sensing

Figure 12.1. Chlorophyll concentration (mg m-3) in Manila Bay in 2014

Figure 12.2. Sea surface temperature (ºC) in Manila Bay in 2014

186
 ChapteR 12
Figure 12.3. Chlorophyll concentration (mg m-3) in Manila Bay in 2015
Figure 12.4. Sea surface temperature (ºC) in Manila Bay in 2015
reaching 27°C, lower than February sea surface
temperature with 28°C. Temperature was really
high during May 2015 reaching more than 30 ° C.
Figure 12.5 focused on the identification of tem-
poral trends in selected measures of the environ-
mental quality of Manila Bay. The values were
averaged to yield the average parameter for a
specific month.
Our data supports the findings of the
actual chlorophyll a data of the hydrobiological
survey in Manila Bay. Vergara et al. (2015) inves-
tigated that across the surface, chlorophyll a was
commonly concentrated in either the northern,
northeastern, or eastern parts of the bay. Gener-
ally, the concentration of it was on the eastern-
187
remote sensing
side of the bay which had the highest concentra-
tion of phytoplankton based on the study of Gat-
dula et al. (this Volume). This also coincided with
the study of Tobias et al. (2015) (this Volume) that
fish larvae were consistently found in the east-
ern part of the bay throughout the duration of
his study. Those were the areas where high con-
centrations of zooplankton and nutrients were
observed (Hydrobiological study of Manila Bay).
We drew the temporal trends of the
Manila Bay, every month of March (2012-2015),
and it appears that high concentrations of fish
eggs and fish larvae were amassing in the south-
east side of the bay correlated with actual and
remote sensing-detected chlorophyll a content.
It is possible that the phytoplankton and
ChapteR 12 remote sensing

Figure 12.5. Manila Bay Temporal Trends for 2012 - 2015

Source: Fisheries Resources and Ecological Assessment of Manila Bay Project

188
 ChapteR 12 remote sensing

Figure 12.5. Manila Bay Temporal Trends for 2012 - 2015

Source: Fisheries Resources and Ecological Assessment of Manila Bay Project

189
ChapteR 12 remote sensing

Figure 12.5. Manila Bay Temporal Trends for 2012 - 2015

Source: Fisheries Resources and Ecological Assessment of Manila Bay Project

190
 ChapteR 12 remote sensing

zooplankton communities appearing in the bay

were influenced by the interactions between
temperature, nutrients availability and the water
quality.

L ITERATURE CITED
Carlo Castillo, 2000. Canopy International.
Volume 27. No. 5. Ecosystem Research
and development Bureau, Department
of Environment and Natural Resources.

Jacinto, G.S et al. (2011). Hypoxia in Manila

Bay, Philippines during the northeast
monsoon. Marine Pollution Bulletin 63,
243-248.

PEMSEA. 2007. Manila Bay: Initial risk assess

ment. PEMSEA Technical Information
Report No. 2007/01112 p. Global
Environment Facility/United
Nations Development Programme/
International Maritime Organization
Regional Programme on Building
Partnerships in Environmental
Management for theSeas of East Asia
PEMSEA), Quezon City, Philippines.

Silvestre, G.T., R.B. Regalado and D. Pauly,

1986. Status of Philippine
demersal stocks-inferences from
underutilized catch rate data, p.47-96.
In D. Pauly , J. Saeger
and G. Silvestre (eds.)
Resources, management
and socioeconomics of
Philippine marine fisheries. Tech. Rep.
Dep. Mar. Fish. Tech. Rep. 10:217.

191
 GlossarY

Abundance Community
An ecological concept referring to the The associations of species that co-occur
relative representation of a species in a particular in the same geographical area and at the same
ecosystem. time.

Apex predator Composition
Large fish species that feed in small or The identity of all the different organ-
medium size prey. isms that make up a community.

Aquatic ecosystem Concentration

Ecosystem in a body of water within The aggregation of species in an area.
these aquatic ecosystems are living things that
depend on the water for survival, such as fish, Consignacion
plants, and microorganisms. Station or cubicle inside the fishport
wherein transaction of payment for the fish catch
Basin between the bidder and fish vendor happened.
A sink or a bowl also known as “bañera”.
It used to hold large volume of catch. CPUE
Catch per Unit Effort
Benthic
Bottom portion of ocean or lakes. Data Enumerator
A person who gathered fish landing
Biomass information from the fisherman and fish port.
Total mass of organisms in a given area
or volume. Demersal Fish
Type of fish which usually tribe in ben-
Bidding thic area.
A way of buying fish catch by raising
price to bidder. Density
Is the number of individuals within a
Bongo Net given area or volume.
A Bongo net is named because the nets
look like bongo drums. It is towed obliquely, ver- Deterioration
tically, and horizontally to collect ichthyoplank- Process of becoming progressively
ton samples. worse.

Bulungan System Dissolve oxygen

Atraditional way of buyingfish or catch
in fish port through “bulong/ear-whisper”.
Climatic condition
Condition of weather.
The available state of oxygen a body of
water needed by marine organisms such as fish
and planktons to survive.
Distribution
Way in which something is shared out
among a group or spread over an area.

192
 GlossarY

Disturbance trient loading.

Is a temporary change in environmental
conditions that causes a pronounced change in an Family
ecosystem. Group term for classifying organ-
isms which contain one or more closely related
Diversity genera.
The effective number of species repre-
sented in a data set. FAO-ICLARM Stock Assessment Tools (FiSAT)
Is the software that resulted from the
Diversity index merging of LFSA (Length-based Fish Stock As-
A mathematical measure of species di- sessment) developed by FAO and the ELEFAN
versity in a community. (Electronic Length Frequency Analysis) package
developed at ICLARM (International Center for
Dominant species Living Aquatic Resources Management, now
Species that predominates in an ecologi- WorldFish Center), and the addition of some
cal community. routines found useful for the analysis of length
frequencies.
Ecosystem
A system, or a group of interconnected Fecundity
elements, formed by the interaction of a commu- A number of ripe eggs in the fe-
nity of organisms with their environment. male prior to the next spawning season was
estimated.
ELEFAN I(Electronic Length Frequency
Analysis) Findings
Is a routine that can be used to identify Action of finding something.
the (seasonally oscillating) growth curve that
“best” fits a set of length-frequency data, using Fishing
the value of Rn as a criterion. The activity of trying to catch fish.

Exploitation Fish catch

Fact of treating resources unfairly. The species landed or catch after fishing.

Exploitation ratio Fisherman

Applied on a fish stock, is the proportion
of the numbers or biomass removed by fishing or
proportion of a population at the beginning of a
given time period that is caught during that time
period (usually expressed on a yearly basis).This
is the fraction of an age class that is caught during
the life span of a population exposed to fishing
pressure, i.e., the number caught versus the total
number of individuals dying due to fishing and
other reasons.
Eutrophication stock through death.
Process in which there is increased nu-
193
A person who attempt to catch fish and
other animals or gathered shellfish.
Fishing
Taking of fishery species from their wild
state or habitat, with or without the use of fishing
vessel.
Fish mortality
A parameter used in fisheries population
dynamics to account for the loss of fish in a fish
 GlossarY
Fishing mortality
Loss of fish from the stock due to fishing
activities using any fishing gear. It is denoted by
(F) in fisheries models.
Fishery Species
All aquatic flora and fauna including, but
not restricted to fish, algae, coelenterates, mol-
lusc, crustaceans, echinoderm, and cetaceans.
Fishing Boat
A municipal or commercial fishing boat
used for fishing.
Fishing gear
Any instrument or device and its acces-
sories used in taking fish and other fishery spe-
cies.
Fishing trips tion of sulfur-containing organic matter and has
Departure and arrival of boat for fishing.
Fishport
A port or harbour for landing and dis-
tributing fish. It may be a recreational facility,
but it is usually commercial. A fishing port is the
only port that depends on an ocean product.
Fluctuation The state wherein the level of dissolved
Decrease of species composition or
something.
Gonad
Male or female sex gland where gamete
developed.
Gonadosomatic Index (GSI)
An index of gonad size relative to fish
size relative is a good indicator of gonadal devel-
opment. The percentage of body weight of fish
that is used for production of eggs is determined
by the GSI.
Gonochoristic
Male and female reproductive organs are
in different individual.
Gyre
Is a large system of rotating ocean cur-
rents.
Hauls
Pull or drag with effort and force.
Head rope
Part of a trawl that are sewed in anterior
upper edge part.
Heavy metals
Effluent toxic metals that have the abil-
ity to bioaccumulate and affect quality of water,
sediments and fish tissue; examples are mercury
(Hg), lead (Pb), and cadmium (Cd).
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
The product of the anaerobic decomposi-
a characteristic odor of rotten eggs.
Hypothesis
Proposed explanation made on the basis
of limited evidence as a starting point for inves-
tigation.
Hypoxia
oxygen falls to a level that can be detrimental to
both the marine ecosystem and aquatic organ-
isms by causing physiological stress.
Industrialization
Advent of various industry.
Interstitial
Pertaining to being between things, es-
pecially between things that are normally closely
spaced.
Invertebrate
Animal that don’t have backbone.
194
 GlossarY
Ichthyoplankton
Are the eggs and larvae of fish found
mainly in the upper 200 meters of the water col-
umn, also called the near-surface waters.
K ties of capture.
This is a parameter of the von Bertalanffy
growth function (also known as growth coeffi-
cient), expressing the rate (1/year) at which the
asymptotic length is approached. K is a “curva-
ture parameter” which determines how fast the
fish approaches its L¥.
Landings
The number of poundage of fish unload-
ed by commercial fisherman or brought to shore
by recreational fisherman or personal use. Land-
ings are reported at the location at which fish are
brought to shore.
Landing centre
A centre wherein the actual landings of
fish catch and other aquatic resources from the
fishing boatwhich normally carried by fisher-
man. It usually located along coastal areas and
nearer to fish port.
Large scale commercial fishing
Fishing utilizing active gears and vessels
of more than one hundred fifty (150) GT.
Length-frequency data
Are widely used to derive growth esti-
mates, especially in small tropical fishes.
L maturity
Numeric field, which gives the value of
length at first maturity obtained.This is the aver-
age length (Lm) at which fish of a given popula-
tion mature for the first time.
L infinity
The fish of a population would reach if
they were to grow indefinitely also known as
195
asymptotic length “the mean length of very old
(strictly: infinitely old) fish”.
Length-converted Catch Curve
Estimates of Z, F, M, E, L’, and probabili-
Length at first Maturity (Lm50)
Sized by which fish spawning for the
first time.
Load
Anything put in or on something for
conveyance or transportation.
Manila Bay
Semi-closed water bodies in southwest
coast of Luzon, bounded by Cavite and Metro
Manila on the east, Bulacan and Pampanga on
the north, Bataan in west and Corregidor and
Caballo islands in the mount of the bay.
Medium scale commercial fishing
Fishing utilizing active gears and vessels
of 20.1 GT up to one hundred fifty (150) GT.
Major Landing sites
The landing centre with large volume of
landings in terms of catch and commercial fish-
ing boat.
Maturity stages.
Refers to the degree of ripeness of the
ovaries and testes of the fish (that is, how close
an individual fish is to spawning).
Minor Landing sites
The landing centre with minimal vol-
ume of landings in terms of catch and commonly
landed by municipal fishing boat.
Mortality
State of being subject to death.
 GlossarY
Mortality Estimation
Estimate mortality and related param-
eters incorporated in FiSAT II require estimates
of growth parameters as obtained from the pre-
vious set of routines. They are grouped in FiSAT
II as either (1) routines to estimate total mortal-
ity (Z) from steady-state sample or (2) routines to
estimate mortality from natural causes (M), here
assumed to be constant for all sizes.
Municipal fishing
Fishing using vessels of 3 GT or less, or
nor requiring the use of fishing vessels.
Natural mortality
Loss of fish from the stock causes by dis-
ease, competition, cannibalism, old age, preda-
tion, pollution or any other natural factor that
causes the death of fish. In fisheries models natu-
ral mortality is denoted by (M).
Niskin bottle funnel shape with 64 μm mesh size that allows
Sampling device for collection of seawa-
ter samples.
Nitrate-Nitrogen (NO3-N)
Nitrogen species that when occur in high
levels can cause hypoxia, eutrophication and al-
gal bloom; less toxic than NO2-N.
Nitrite-Nitrogen (NO2-N)
Nitrogen species that when occur in high
levels can cause hypoxia; toxic in high concentra-
tions.
Nitrogen
An important biological parameter and
one of the limiting nutrients in photosynthesis.
Nutrient
Chemical substance dissolved in sea-
water needed by marine organisms to grow
and survive.
Ocean Current
Is a continuous, directed movement of sea water
generated by forces acting upon this mean flow
such as breaking waves, winds ,temperature and
salinity differences.
Overfishing
Deplete the stock of fish or other marine
resources by too much fishing.
Ovary
Typically paired female reproductive or-
gan that produces egg.
Pale
A small tub or “timba” use to hold catch.
Weighed about 15-25 kilos.
Plankton net
A modification on the standard trawl
used to collect planktonic organisms, have a long
them to catch zooplankton when towed.
Plastic/Styrofoam box
A box use to hold fish, weighed about 25-
35 kilos and usually carried by commercial fish-
ing boat.
Parameter
Any summary number, like an average
or percentage that describes the entire popula-
tion.
Pelagic fish
Types of fishes that live in pelagic devi-
sion of ocean or lakes.
Phosphate (PO4)
The limiting nutrient for the growth of
algae and aquatic plants but when in high con-
centration can cause algal blooms; commonly
from detergents, fertilizers and soil-runoff.
196
 GlossarY
Planktinovore a shoal of pelagic fish with a ‘wall’ of netting
Species of fish or invertebrate that feed
on plankton.
Population
Group of individuals of the same species
living in a given area or habitat at a given time.
Population parameter
A quantity or statistical measure that, for
a given population, is fixed and that is used as
the value of a variable in some general distribu-
tion or frequency function to make it descriptive
of that population.
Powell-Wetherall Plot
This method allows estimation of L¥ and
Z/K from a sample representing a steady-state
population, as can be approximated by pooling
a time series of length-frequency data.
Probabilities of Capture
Estimates of L25, L50 and L75
Recruitment Patterns
This routine reconstructs the recruitment
pulses from a time series of length-frequency
data to determine the number of pulses per
year and the relative strength of each pulse. Plot
showing the seasonal pattern of recruitment.
Reproduction
The sexual or asexual process by which
organism generate new individuals of the same
kind.
Resources twenty (20) gross tons.
Stock or supply of fisheries related indi-
viduals.
Ring net
A surrounding net the form of which is
intermediate hybrid between a purse seine and a
lampara net: Net operated by surrounding
197
sometimes operated by two boats.
Salinity
The total mass in grams of dissolved salts
in one kilogram of seawater.
Stratification
Having different layers of the water col-
umn in terms of density, temperature and/or sa-
linity.
Sample manipulation
File manipulation pertains to file opera-
tions which alter the original content of the file.
Sedgewick rafter
Counting chambers used widely in wa-
ter analysis, culture inspection and for other
applications where particles per unit volume in
fluid must be determined.
Sex Ratio
Representation of male and female fish
present in a population. It states proportion of
the male to female fish in a population and in-
dicate the dominance of sex of fish species in a
given population.
Shannon Weiner Index
Statistical model that are used to com-
pute for species diversity in certain ecosystem.
Small scale commercial fishing
Fishing with passive or active gear utiliz-
ing fishing vessels of 3.1 gross tons (GT) up to
Socio-economic importance
How social and economic factors both
influence something (e.g needs of people in the
bay and economy of the country).
Species
Group of living organisms consisting of
 GlossarY

similar individuals capable of exchanging genes Variation

or interbreeding. A change or difference in condition,
amount, or level, typically with certain limits.
Spawning
Act or processed of releasing or depos- Water quality
iting eggs or sperm often in large quantity into Chemical, physical, biological, and ra-
water by aquatic animal. diological characteristics of water.

Status Watershed
Condition or standing of the resources. Basin-like landform defined by high-
points and ridgelines that descend into lower el-
Survey evations and stream valleys.
Examine and record the condition of the
area. Zooplankton
Invertebrates that live all or part of their
Swept area methods life as plankton suspended and drifting in fresh
Methods and statistical equation use to or salt water rarely, if ever, coming in contact
estimate the biomass of the certain are. with hard surfaces.

Taxa
Any unit used in the science of biological
classification, or taxonomy.

Temperature
The degree of hotness or coldness of an
object.

Trawl
An active fishing gear consisting of a bag
shaped net with or without otter boards to open
its opening which is dragged or towed along the
bottom or through the water column to take fish-
ery species by straining them from the water, in-
cluding all variations and modification of trawls.

Tray
Shallow flat receptacle with a raised edge
or rim, used for carrying and holding catch.

Unload
To remove the load or cargo from.

Urbanization
Gradual increase in the proportion of
people living in urban areas.

198
 AnneX 1

FORMS USED BY STUDY 1 IN LANDED CATCH MONITORING

199
 AnneX 1

FORMS USED BY STUDY 1 IN LANDED CATCH MONITORING

200
 AnneX 1

FORMS USED BY STUDY 1 IN LANDED CATCH MONITORING

201
 AnneX 1

FORMS USED BY STUDY 1 IN LANDED CATCH MONITORING

202
 2013 RDA Biplot Species Legend
AnneX 2

203
 204
2014 RDA Biplot Species Legend
AnneX 2
 2015 RDA Biplot Species Legend
AnneX 2

205
About the authorS

206
 About the authorS

207