Surface Zooplankton Community Composition in Whale shark

(Rhincodon typus) Feeding Grounds Off Sogod Bay, Southern Leyte

during August 2013 to March 2014

by

PAUL MATTHEW L. MUNCADA

A research paper submitted to the

Division of Natural Sciences and Mathematics
University of the Philippines Visayas
Tacloban College, Tacloban City

As partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the Degree of
B.S. BIOLOGY

May 2014

Permission is given for the following people to have access to this research:
Available to the general public
Available only after consultation with author/adviser
Available only for those bound by confidentiality agreement
Students signature:
Signature of Research Adviser:

Yes
No
No

ii

This is to certify that this research paper, entitled: Surface Zooplankton

Community Composition in Whale shark (Rhincodon typus) Feeding Grounds
Off Sogod Bay, Southern Leyte during August 2013 to March 2014 and
submitted by PAUL MATTHEW L. MUNCADA to fulfill part of the requirements
for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Biology is hereby endorsed.

LENI G. YAP-DEJETO
Research Adviser

The Division of Natural Sciences and Mathematics (DNSM) accepts this

research paper in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Bachelor of
Science in Biology.

ROBERTO E. CAPON
DNSM Chair

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to all the people who have guided
me to achieve the accomplishment of this research:
to my adviser, Prof. Leni Yap-Dejeto, for suggesting and entrusting this study
to us. We would have never been able to make it if not for her valuable advices and
support throughout the study period from the proposal up to the oral presentations;
to the LAMAVE Project researchers, especially to Ms. Jessica Labaja, and to
their project head, Dr. Alessandro Ponzo, for their kindness and willingness to help
every time we visit Pintuyan despite their hectic research schedules;
to Pastor Ernesto Felicio, kuya Gerry, Mr. Virgilio Flores and the whole
barangay of Son-ok dos, for being so accommodating and for providing us motor
boats;
to Mr. Rey Verona, for letting us borrow laboratory instruments;
to Mr. Joseph Dominic Palermo, for answering our questions regarding
zooplankton and confirming the zooplankton we identified;
to kuya James Ostrea and ate Kim Ruizo, for the help during our first
sampling and additional information regarding the methods of this study;
to Ms. Sharmaine Ida, for the company, assistance and shared struggles during
the whole study period;
to Ms. Retsie Corado, Mr. Daniel Licayan, Ms. Pearl Joy Angelie Sigua and
ate Coleen Alonzo, for the shared plankton experiences and overnights;
to Mr. John dela Cruz and Mr. John Paul Ada, for the help during the final
stages of this research paper;

iv

to Ms. Haide Batula, who has always been there for me like the phytoplankton
for the zooplankton;
to my family, who never stopped believing and prayed for me always; and,
most importantly, to God, for these great people above and all the blessing He
bestowed upon the duration of this study.

ABSTRACT

Sampling stations in the study site off Sogod Bay, Southern Leyte were
established along the feeding grounds of whale shark (Rhincodon typus). The whale
shark season in the area is known to last from November to July. Water samples and
physico-chemical parameters from three sampling stations were taken and collected
once a month in August and October in year 2013 within the off whale shark season
period, and March 2014 within the whale shark season. Abundance, composition, and
diversity of zooplankton groups encountered were quantified. Copepods dominated by
66% (Order Calanoida 26%, copepod nauplius 16%, Order Cyclopoida 14% and
Order Harpacticoida 10%) of the total zooplankton population. October 2013 had the
least mean density of 1.9x103 ind./L. August 2014 samples had the least zooplankton
diversity of H = 1.58. Samples obtained during the whale shark season, March 2014,
showed the highest total zooplankton abundance at 7.7x103 ind./L. This also yielded
the highest zooplankton community diversity of H = 2.53.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Acknowledgements...

iii

Abstract ........

List of Tables....

viii

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

ix

Introduction...

Literature Review........

Importance of Zooplankton in Marine Communities..

Marine Zooplankton in Southeast Asia...

Rhincodon typus and its Feeding Habits..

Rhincodon typus in the Philippines....

Sogod Bay, Southern Leyte....

Methodology...

Study Site....

Physico-chemical Analysis..

Collection and Preparation of Samples...

10

Zooplankton Identification..

11

Cell Density Determination.

11

Data Analyses..

12

Results..

13

Zooplankton Abundance and Composition.

13

Quantitative Analysis..

13

Qualitative Analysis

17

vii

Zooplankton Diversity.

17

Physico-chemical Parameters......

18

Discussion....

21

Zooplankton Abundance off Sogod Bay, Southern Leyte..

21

Diversity and Composition of Zooplankton Groups off

Sogod Bay, Southern Leyte.

22

Zooplankton Abundance and Diversity per Sampling Station

23

Conclusion......................................................................................................

24

Recommendation.........

25

References....

26

Appendix.........

29

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Table 1. Zooplankton groups observed off Sogod Bay, Southern Leyte.

14

Table 2. Summary of physico-chemical parameters during August (2013),

October (2013) and March (2014) sampling in Sogod Bay,
Southern Leyte, Philippines.

20

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Figure 1. Sampling Stations off Sogod Bay, Southern Leyte from
August 2013 to March 2014...

Figure 2. Zooplankton composition and density in Stations 1, 2 and 3 in the

sampling months August and October 2013, and March 2014 off
Sogod Bay, Southern Leyte......

15

Figure 3. Mean zooplankton abundance in the months of August and October

2013, and March 2014 off Sogod Bay, Southern Leyte ...

16

Figure 4. Actinotrocha larvae from Family Phoronidae of Phylum Phoronida

in Station 2 during March 2014 sampling....

17

Figure 5. Zooplankton diversity (H) in Stations 1, 2, and 3 in the months of

August and October 2013, and March 2014 off Sogod Bay,
Southern Leyte..

18

INTRODUCTION

Zooplankters are essential in every marine community because of their

richness and number. The most prominent zooplankton, the copepods, is regarded to
be the most abundant multicellular animals on Earth (Schminke 2007). Zooplankton
communities are proven to have high diversity and thus perform a variety of
important ecosystem functions and roles especially in aquatic food webs. They are
considered to make up the trophic level of primary consumers which makes them
critical to the functioning of ocean food webs (Richardson 2008).
Almost all of zooplankton preys upon the primary producers, the
phytoplankton. They also feed on other zooplankton groups (e.g. medusae), fish eggs
and larvae in their diet. They are in turn preyed upon by bigger fish larvae and many
adult planktivorous fish. The position of zooplankton in the food web is thus between
primary producers and predators. Zooplankton serves as a link between bottom-up
climate-related control of phytoplankton and fish and paves the pathway for energy
transfer from primary producers to consumers at higher trophic levels (Lalli and
Parsons 1997, Ayon et al. 2008, Richardson 2008).
Large animals in the ocean such as filter-feeding sharks and whale rely solely
to feed on plankton and small fishes (Richardson 2008). The whale shark or
Rhincodon typus is one of three species of large pelagic sharks that rely on plankton
and small nekton as their food source (Colman 1997). Whale sharks have two feeding
strategies; passive sub-surface ram-feeding and active surface feeding (Gudger 1941).
Passive feeding involves opening of the mouth while swimming and filtering water in
its path. Active surface feeding on the other hand makes use of a suction filter-feeding

mechanism that sucks in and filters water while remaining still (Gudger 1941). These
kinds of feeding behavior make R. typus dependent on densely populated patches of
plankton (Heyman et al. 2001).
Whale sharks are migratory and are known to inhabit tropical and warm
temperate water (Stacey et al. 2008). This includes Philippine waters as site of whale
shark migrations (Barut et al. 2003) . There are reports of whale shark sightings at
Donsol and Bohol Sea (Alava and Cantos 2004) and recently, Sogod Bay, Southern
Leyte (Bochove et al. 2007). The sampling stations established in Sogod Bay are
feeding grounds of whale sharks suggested by Dr. Alessandro Ponzo, president of
Physalus, a non-profit organization. Physalus conducts the LAMAVE (Large Marine
Vertebrate) Project in the Philippines which aims to raise environmental awareness of
large marine vertebrates through scientific research.
This research will provide baseline data of the abundance of zooplankton
species that the Rhincodon typus feed on along its migration path in Sogod Bay,
Southern Leyte. It will also serve to validate the hypothesis that these areas are
feeding grounds of the whale shark, Rhincodon typus. Consequently, this study has
the following objectives:
1. To identify the zooplankton groups present in the study site; and
2. To quantify the abundance and diversity of zooplankton present in
the feeding ground off Sogod Bay, Southern Leyte.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Importance of Zooplankton in Marine Communities

Microscopic animals that are found in bodies of water are known as

zooplankton. They take part in the marine food web and are essential in the study of
marine ecology and diversity. Zooplankton communities are considered to have high
diversity. The most prominent zooplankton, the copepods, is regarded to be the most
abundant multicellular animals on Earth. Copepods, by possibly three orders of
representatives, are able to outnumber the insects (Schminke 2007).
Restrictions in the swimming capabilities of zooplankters make these
organisms be carried easily by the water current. Thus, zooplankters are grazed upon
and eaten by planktivorous organisms since they are an easy prey and are usually
found in patches (Nybakken 1982). Zooplankton species acquire energy in different
ways. Different species of zooplankters employs a variety of carnivory, herbivory,
omnivory, and detritivory. With wide food choices available for these organisms,
zooplankton are among the primary consumers of the marine food webs and are
considered as key organisms, playing an important role in energy transfer and a link
to nutrients from the producers to bigger organisms such as fishes (Lalli and Parsons
1997, Ayon et al. 2008, Richardson 2008).
In addition, zooplankton such as larvaceans, copepods, and euphausiids are
capable of reprocessing marine snow and other nutrients eaten into much dense and
larger fecal pellets (Wilson et al. 2013). These nutrient packed pellets sink faster
down the water column, which is exported to be eaten by other organisms below
(Turner 2002).

Zooplankton takes part in the biogeochemical cycling processes especially in

the carbon cycle in the ocean since they expend carbon for their respiration processes
(del Giorgio and Duarte 2002). In a study conducted by Hernandez-Leon and Ikeda
(2005), it was found that more than one-third of the organic carbon ow in the ocean
is contributed by mesozooplankton through cycling that makes up to a 1732%
respiratory loss of photosynthetic carbon produced in the open ocean.

Marine Zooplankton in Southeast Asia

Southeast Asia has a high species diversity of macro fauna because of this
regions unique settings. In fact, Southeast Asia is referred to as the worlds center of
marine biodiversity. To prove this, an estimate of more than 550 species or one fourth
of the total species of pelagic copepods are identified and are known to inhabit this
region. The discoveries and count of zooplankton are still growing in this region.
Twenty-nine planktonic copepods and 16 mero-planktonic or non-planktonic
copepods, 4 amphipods, and 2 isopods were described as new to science in recent
studies and an additional of 37 species of mysids were described as new from
Southeast Asia and Japanese waters. Many of these new species are found in
untouched and poorly investigated areas such as estuaries, benthopelagic zones, coral
reefs and marginal basins (Nishida and Nishikawa 2011).

Rhincodon typus and its Feeding Habits

Rhincodon typus, commonly called the whale shark, is the only representative
of the family Rhincodontidae and the current known largest extant fish species

(Compagno 1984). The whale shark, together with the Basking Shark (Cetorhinus
maximus) and the Megamouth Shark (Megachasma pelagios), are considered to be the
only filter-feeding shark species relying solely on plankton and nekton as their food
source (Colman 1997). Whale sharks are distributed along tropical, sub-tropical and a
few recorded in warm temperate waters and are known to be highly migratory but
returns to same sites annually (Compagno 1984, Colman 1997).
Whale sharks are usually harmless to humans even though they are enormous
in size. The largest whale shark, found in Taiwan, reached a length of 20 meters and
weighed 34 tons (Chen and Phipps 2002). Since whale sharks are filter-feeders, their
food preferences include a variety of almost all suspended organisms in the ocean
such as zooplankton, nekton, and several small fish (Gudger 1941, Compagno 1984,
Colman 1997).
Whale sharks are usually found individually but sometimes they aggregate. In
Gladden Spit, Belize, about 25 whale sharks are found aggregating mainly feeding on
fresh spawn of cubera, Lutjanus cyanopterus, and dog snappers Lutjanus jocu
(Heyman et al. 2001). Recently, a newly discovered aggregation site of whale sharks
was found at Al Shaheen oil field, which is 90 kilometers off the coast of Qatar in the
Arabian Gulf. About 100 individuals were estimated within an area of 1 km2 feeding
on surface zooplankton, consisting primarily of mackerel tuna (Euthynnus affinis)
eggs (Robinson et al. 2013).
The whale sharks are observed to exhibit two types of feeding behavior:
passive sub-surface ram-feeding and active surface feeding. Passive feeding involves
opening of the mouth while slowly swimming and filtering water in its path. Active
surface feeding on the other hand makes use of a suction filter-feeding mechanism.

An active feeder sucks in and filters water while remaining still either horizontally or
vertically (Gudger 1941).

Rhincodon typus in the Philippines

In a study conducted by Eckert et al. (2002), using satellite telemetry, the

movements and distances travelled by individual whale sharks starting from the
greater Sulu Sea region were recorded. The rate of travel of the whale sharks observed
averages 24 km/day, a proof that sharks were highly mobile and did not seem to
remain in any particular area.
The Philippines is a tropical country making it a part of the whale sharks
migration route (Barut et al. 2003). Whale shark is commonly called butanding in
the Philippines. Whale shark sightings occurring singly or in groups nearshore and
offshore are recorded in many areas of the Philippines (Barut et al. 2003). Fishery
records show abundance of whale shark particularly around the Bohol and Sulu Seas
and southeastern Mindanao (Alava and Cantos 2004). Other places in the Philippines
where seasonal aggregation of whale sharks can be observed include Donsol,
Sorsogon, Honda Bay, Palawan, Zambales coasts (Alava and Cantos 2004), and
Sogod Bay, Southern Leyte (Bochove et al. 2007).

Sogod Bay, Southern Leyte

Sogod Bay can be found in the southernmost part of Southern Leyte, one of
the six provinces of Eastern Visayas. Some of the coral reefs in the Philippines that
remain to be the least disturbed and least researched are found in the waters of

Southern Leyte. A large body of water in Southern Leyte, which is the Sogod Bay,
serves as an important fishing spot for fishermen living by the coastlines of the bay.
Sogod Bay is known to host a variety of reef fish and other commercially marketed
fish such as tuna, flying fish, herrings, anchovies, shellfish, and mackerel (Bochove et
al. 2007). The abundance of fish also means that the bay is a major breeding ground
of fishes where they spawn and reproduce making it an attractive food source for
large opportunistic forager organisms such as pilot whales, melon-headed whales,
dolphins, and whale sharks (Bochove et al. 2007). According to Mr. Ernesto Felicio
(pers. comm.), whale sharks were often found drifting along the Pintuyan point and
Son-ok point as long as he can remember.

METHODOLOGY

Study Site

Three sampling stations were established along the southern part of Sogod
Bay, Southern Leyte. Sampling Station 1 is situated near the tip of Pintuyan (N 09
54 56.9, E 125 15 10.9), Station 2 is situated near Bennet Port of San Ricardo (N
09 54 53.69, E 125 17 32.7), and Station 3 is situated in deeper waters ().

Physico-chemical Analysis

Physico-chemical parameters of the waters in each sampling station were

taken and recorded. These include current velocity, depth, light intensity, temperature,
salinity, dissolved oxygen, and pH. Velocity of the current was assessed with the use
of a fabricated drogue. The drogue was allowed to drift freely in the direction of the
current until it reached one meter. The time it took to reach one meter was recorded
and the direction of the current was estimated using a compass.

Current was

calculated using the following formula:

Depth was measured using a calibrated rope. Light intensity was measured
with the use of EXTECH light meter. Temperature was measured with the use of a
centigrade field thermometer. Salinity was examined using a handheld Attago

refractometer. Dissolved Oxygen, and the pH of the water was measured using a
EUTECH multiparameter.

Station 2

Station 3
Station 1

Figure 1. Sampling Stations off Sogod Bay, Southern Leyte from August 2013 to
March 2014. Red dots indicate the sampling stations

10

Collection and Preparation of Samples

Water samples at each station were collected once every sampling period in
the months of August and October of year 2013 and March 2014.

Qualitative Analysis
A conical plankton net extending up to one meter in length with a 30 cm
diameter and 20 m mesh size was used for obtaining water samples. The plankton
net was lowered one meter below the surface and then towed vertically. Water
collected was dispensed to a 100 mL pre-labeled plastic bottle then, ten milliliters of
formalin was added for preservation. Water samples were collected twice per station.

Quantitative Analysis
A 2.2L capacity WILDCO vertical sampler was lowered one meter below
water surface at each station followed by a messenger that triggered the trapping
mechanism of the sampler, sealing the water. Water collected was transferred to a prelabeled one liter plastic bottle. Ten milliliters of formalin was added for fixation and
preservation. Water samples were collected twice per station.

Preparation of Samples
The preserved one liter samples were stored undisturbed for 24 hours which
allowed settlement of the preserved and suspended plankton. After settling, a capillary
tube was placed carefully in the bottle which sucked out 800mL of supernatant. The
remaining 200mL of the sample was transferred into a 250mL graduated cylinder and
was stored again for 24 hours undisturbed. After settling, 150mL of supernatant was

11

dispensed using the same suction technique. A concentrated final volume of

approximately 50mL of the sample was acquired and transferred into a 50mL amber
bottle.

Zooplankton Identification

One-milliliter of the 250mL sample for qualitative analysis was placed on a

glass slide. It is then viewed under a light compound microscope with 150x
magnification. Zooplankton samples were identified based on their structure and
morphology using the taxonomic keys of Yamaji (1984) and Larink and Westheide
(2006). Identification was conducted up to family or order level. Photomicrograph
softcopies of the zooplankton identified was verified by Mr. Joseph Dominic Palermo
from Marine Science Institute, University of the Philippines Diliman.

Cell Density Determination

One-milliliter of the 50mL concentrated sample was obtained for cell density
determination. The storage bottle was shaken first to even out the suspended
zooplankton in the sample then one-milliliter of aliquot was drawn out from the
bottle. The aliquot was dispensed on a Sedgwick-Rafter counting chamber and then
viewed under a light compound microscope. At least 300 cells were counted in the
sample. Cell density was determined using the following formula:

12

Data Analyses

Diversity was estimated using Shannon-Wiener index:

Where:
H = the Shannon diversity index
Pi = fraction of the entire population made up of species i
S = numbers of species encountered
= sum from species 1 to species

13

RESULTS

Zooplankton Abundance and Composition

Quantitative Analysis
There were nineteen zooplankton groups encountered in the study. Copepod
nauplii were observed but grouped as one since each species from different orders
were morphologically indiscernible from one another under an ordinary light
microscope. All zooplankton groups were observed in the month of March 2014.
Families Phyllodocidae and Veneridae were absent in the month of October 2013
while families Atlantidae and Limacinidae were absent in the month of August 2013.
(See Table 1)
Copepod nauplius dominated the August and October 2013 sampling periods
with densities of 5.8x102 ind./L and 4.7x102ind./L respectively. By March 2014, all
stations were dominated by family Calanidae (1.1x103 ind./L) copepods. (See figure
2)
The highest total density (7.9x103 ind./L) was observed in Station 2 during
March 2014 sampling while the lowest (1.3x103 ind./L) was observed in October 2013
sampling (See figure 2). Accounting for all stations and comparing each month, the
highest mean total density was 7.7x103 ind./L in the month of March 2014 and the
lowest was 1.9x103 ind./L in the month of October 2013. (See figure 3)

14

Table 1. Zooplankton groups observed off Sogod Bay, Southern Leyte. Orders Calanoida, Cyclopoida, Harpacticoida, and
Poecilostomatoida are classified as copepods. Teleost eggs and ophiuroid larvae were not identified to family level due to
the lack of morphological features
Order

Calanoida

Cyclopoida

Harpacticoida

Poecilostomatoida

Sessilia

Oligotrichida

Family

Calanidae

Oithonidae

Ectinosomatidae

Oncaeidae

Balanidae

Rhabdonellidae

Paracalanidae

Corycaeidae

Tintinnidae
Codonellidae

Phylum

Mollusca

Annelida

Chordata

Echinodermata

Family

Atlantidae

Phyllodocidae

Oikopleuridae

Ophiuroidea (class)

Limacinidae

Sabillaridae

Teleost Eggs (not family)

Veneridae

15

August
Station 2
Station 1
0

October
Station 3
Station 2
Station 1
0

March
Station3
Station 2
Station 1
0

4
density

(x103ind./L)

Copepod Nauplius

Calanidae

Paracalanidae

Oithonidae

Corycaeidae

Ectinosomatidae

Oncaeidae

Balanidae

Rhabdonellidae

Codonellidae

Tintinnidae

Ophiuroidea

Atlantidae

Limacinidae

Veneridae

Phyllodocidae

Sabellaridae

Oikopleuridae

Teleost Egg

Figure 2. Zooplankton composition and density in Stations 1, 2 and 3 in the sampling

months August and October 2013, and March 2014 off Sogod Bay, Southern
Leyte. The colored section of the bars refer to copepod zooplankton groups
and the shades of grey refer to non-copepod zooplankton groups

16
Teleost Egg
8

Oikopleuridae
Sabellaridae
Phyllodocidae
Veneridae

Limacinidae
Atlantidae
Ophiuroidea

Tintinnidae
Codonellidae
Rhabdonellidae

density (x103ind./L)

Balanidae
Oncaeidae
Ectinosomatidae
Corycaeidae

Oithonidae
Paracalanidae
Calanidae

Copepod Nauplius

0
August

October

March

Sampling Months

Figure 3. Mean zooplankton abundance in the months of August and October 2013, and
March 2014 off Sogod Bay, Southern Leyte. The colored section of the bars
refer to copepod zooplankton groups and the shades of grey refer to noncopepod zooplankton groups

17

Figure 4. Actinotrocha larvae from Family Phoronidae of Phylum Phoronida in Station 2

during March 2014 sampling.

Qualitative Analysis
The same zooplankton groups observed in quantitative analysis were also
observed in the qualitative analysis. However, an additional zooplankton group
(Actinotrocha larvae from Family Phoronidae of Phylum Phoronida) was observed in the
sample from Station 2 in the March 2014 sampling.

Zooplankton Diversity

Diversity values for the three stations during the months of August and October
2013 and March 2014 is shown in figure 5. Station 2 during the March 2014 sampling
has the highest recorded diversity of H=2.56. On the other hand, Station 1 was the least
diverse station in October 2013 sampling with a diversity value of H=1.44.

18

Station 3

2.54

Station 2

2.56

March 2014

Station 1

October 2013

2.49

Station 3

1.66

Station 2

1.77

Station 1

1.44

August 2013 Station 2

1.70

Station 1

1.47
0

0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index (H')

Figure 5. Zooplankton diversity (H) in Stations 1, 2, and 3 in the months of August and
October 2013, and March 2014 off Sogod Bay, Southern Leyte

Physico-chemical Parameters

Values of physico-chemical parameters determined per station are

summarized in Table 1. Depth ranged from 4.5 to 10 m in Stations 1 and 2. The deepest
sampling station was Station 3 with depths reaching approximately 15 m 27 m. Light
intensity values range from 1.77103 Fc to 7.51.103 Fc. Temperature ranged from 2830.4 C with the highest temperature, 30.4C, recorded in Station 2 during March 2014
sampling and the lowest temperature, 28 C, recorded Station 1 during the month of

19

October 2013. Values for pH measured varied from 7.9 - 8.53. Salinity was highest
during the month of March with the highest value of 38 ppt recorded in Station 3 while
values for the months of August 2013 and October 2013 ranged from 29 - 30. However,
dissolved oxygen during the month of August in Stations 1 and 2 were recorded with DO
values of 8.01 mg/L and 7.55 mg/L, respectively. DO was not measured for the sampling
months of October and March.

20

Table 2. Summary of physico-chemical parameters during August (2013), October (2013) and March (2014) sampling in Sogod Bay,
Southern Leyte, Philippines. (N.d. = no data)
Depth
(m)

Light Intensity
(Fc)

Temperature
(C)

Salinity
(ppt)

pH

Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/L)

August

6.5

3.93103 7.51.103

29 30.3

30 30.3

8.02 8.03

7.55 8.01

October

7- ~27 m

1.77103 5.3103

28 30

29 35

7.9 - 8.02

N.d.

March

10-20

2.53103 6.46103

29 30.4

32 38

8.23 8.53

N.d.

21

DISCUSSION

Zooplankton Abundance off Sogod Bay, Southern Leyte

Copepods, according to a review by (Kiorboe 2011) are successful due to their

predator escaping and prey capturing capabilities. Copepods are also efficient in
locating mate in the dilute community they thrive in (Kiorboe 2011). High abundance
of copepod nauplii throughout the whole sampling period can be attributed to the high
productivity of copepod species in the study site. As stated earlier, copepod nauplii
and other small zooplankton are mostly preyed upon by bigger omnivorous and
carnivorous zooplankton. Hence, contribution of copepod nauplii in the marine
community is ecologically significant. Figure 2 testifies the large contribution of
copepod nauplii in the zooplankton population in all sampling periods dominating the
sampling months of August and October 2013. In proportion, the contribution of
copepod nauplii in the population decreased during March 2014, showed in Figure 2,
due to the increased number of possible planktonic predators such as larger
zooplankters.
Figure 3 shows that the month of October 2013 had the least zooplankton
abundance and in contrary March 2014 had the greatest, up to three times more than
October 2013. A contemporary study conducted by Ida (2014) off Sogod Bay shows
the least and the greatest value of phytoplankton abundance and diversity in the same
months of October 2013 and March 2014 respectively. Zooplankton depend primarily
on phytoplankton as food source, the occurrence of abundant phytoplankton species
will therefore increase zooplankton abundance.

22

As mentioned earlier, the month of March is included in the duration of whale

shark season off Sogod Bay from November to July. Increased zooplankton grazing
on phytoplankton might be a factor for the whale shark migration in the mentioned
bay. According to (Martin 2007), like the baleen whale and some procellariid birds,
the whale shark might also take the chemical released by phytoplankton when they
are grazed upon by zooplankton as a foraging cue.
Also, a notable observance is the significant inflation in harpacticoid
abundance (see Figure 2). The large increase in number of harpacticoid species
compared to other zooplankton in the month of March 2014 can be attributed to the
warm season during this month. Compared to August and October 2013 as shown in
Table 1, the month of March 2014 has the highest recorded temperature, salinity and
light intensity. According to (Uye et al. 2002), most harpacticoid species tend to
reproduce more during warm season because the duration time from egg laying to
adulthood best depends on higher temperature.

Diversity and Composition of Zooplankton Groups off Sogod Bay, Southern

Leyte

The increased diversity in the month of March 2014 can be attributed to the
increase in zooplankton abundance and composition. Additional zooplankton groups
were encountered in samples taken during the same month. These additional groups
include the free swimming larvae of Family Phoronidae Actinotroch, and Class
Ophiuroidea Pluteus. Adult forms of phoronids or horshoe worms and ophiuroids or
brittle stars are basically bottom dwelling organisms. Also an increase in teleost egg
density from 13 ind./L during October 2013 to 100 ind./L during March 2014 was

23

observed. Though these zooplankton groups are not plentiful enough to be considered
as significant contributors to the total zooplankton population in the three stations,
occurrence of more meroplanktonic forms and increase in their diversity in the month
of March may suggest that this presence of a number of prey resources are part of the
whale sharks prey diet despite the fact that majority of what they consume are
holoplanktonic zooplankton (e.g. copepods) (Nelson and Eckert 2007).
However, krills or euphausiids, were not encountered in any of the stations in
the study site during the three sampling events. Krills are also one of the preferred
food of the whale shark. In some parts of Bohol Sea, Philippines, locals use krills and
mysis shrimp commonly called as alamang to hand feed and lure whale sharks
(Alava et al. 1997).

Zooplankton Abundance and Diversity per Sampling Station

In contrast to the other sampling stations, Station 2 was the nearest station to
the Bennet Port where there is better mixing of nutrients in the water. Nearby
residential structures are also observed which can be sources of additional nutrients to
run-offs. The same station was also observed to have the most abundant and diverse
zooplankton composition and phytoplankton (Ida 2014). This suggests that key
nutrients for some zooplankton are accessible in Station 2 but are either inaccessible
or absent in Stations 1 and 3. For instance, the actinotroch larva was only observed in
Station 2 during the March 2014 sampling because dinoflagellates were part of the
larvas diet (Strathmann and Bone 1997). A report by Bochove et al. (2007) and a
study by Labaja et al. (2013) account more sightings of whale shark near Station 2
which can be attributed to its zooplankton abundance.

24

CONCLUSION

A total of 19 zooplankton groups were identified. The study site were

dominated by Copepods (66%) followed by Oligotrichida (15%) and then Polychaetes
(11%). High copepod nauplii abundance (16%) can be attributed to the high
productivity of copepods. March 2014, the sampling event during the whale shark
season, yielded the highest mean abundance (7.7x103 ind./L) of zooplankton. And
October 2013, during the off peak season, had the least (1.9x103 ind./L) zooplankton
mean abundance. March 2014 also was the most diverse (H= 2.53) zooplankton
community compared to the first two sampling events.

25

RECOMMENDATION

More sampling stations including the non-feeding grounds of whale is highly

recommended for comparative data. Additional depths for each station and longer
sampling duration are also essential to sample more zooplankton groups.
Identification up to genus or species level is also recommended.

26

REFERENCES

Alava, M. N. R. and J. A. B. Cantos. 2004. Marine Protected Species in the

Philippines. In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries:109117.
Alava, M. N. R., E. R. Z. Dolumbal, A. A. Yaptinchay, and R. B. Trono. 1997.
Fishery and trade of whale sharks and manta rays in the Bohol Sea,
Philippines. Pages 132-148 in S. L. Fowler, T. M. Reed, and F. A. Dipper,
editors. Elasmobranch Biodiversity, Conservation and Management:
Proceedings of the International Seminar and Workshop on Sharks and Ray
Biodiversity, Conservation and Management, Sabah, Malaysia, July 1997.
Ayon, P., M. I. Criales-Hernandez, R. Schwamborn, and H.-J. Hirche. 2008.
Zooplankton research off Peru: A review. Progress in Oceanography 79:238255.
Barut, N. C., M. D. Santos, L. L. Mijares, R. Subade, N. B. Armada, and L. R.
Garces. 2003. Philippine Coastal Fisheries Situation. Assessment,
Management and Future Directions for Coastal Fisheries in Asian Countries.
WorldFish Center Conference Proceedings 67:885-914.
Bochove, J.W., L. F. Campo, S. Harding, and A. Quiros. 2007. Whale Shark PhotoIdentification Project, Sogod Bay, Philippines March 29-April 5, 2007. Coral
Cay Conservation.
Chen, V. Y. and M. J. Phipps. 2002. Management and Trade of Whale Shark in
Taiwan. TRAFFIC East Asia-Taipei.
Colman, J. G. 1997. A review of the biology and ecology of the whale shark. Journal
of Fish Biology 51:12191234.
Compagno, L. 1984. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Species Fact Sheets Rhincodon
typus (Smith, 1828). Retrieved 2013, from Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/fishery/species/2801/en
del Giorgio, P. A. and C. M. Duarte. 2002. Respiration in the ocean. Nature 420:379384.
Eckert, S. A., L. L. Dolar, G. L. Kooyman, W. Perrin, and R. A. Rahman. 2002.
Movements of whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) in South-east Asian waters as
determined by satellite telemetry. The Zoological Society of London 257:111115.
Gudger, E. W. 1941. The food and feeding habits of the whale shark, Rhineodon
typus. J Elisha Mitchell Sci Soc 57:5772.
Henandez-Leon, S. and T. Ikeda. 2005. A global assessment of mesozooplankton
respiration in the ocean. Journal of Plankton Research 27:153158.

27

Heyman, W. D., R. T. Graham, B. Kjerfve, and R. E. Johannes. 2001. Whale sharks

Rhincodon typus aggregate to feed on fish spawn in Belize. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 215:275-282.
Ida, S. 2014. Surface Phytoplankton community composition in whale shark
(Rhincodon typus) feeding grounds off Sogod Bay, Southern Leyte during
August 2013 to March 2014. Undergradute Research Paper, University of the
Philippines Visayas Tacloban College, Tacloban City, Leyte.
Kiorboe, T. 2011. What makes pelagic copepods so successful? Journal of Plankton
Research 33:677685.
Labaja, J., A. Ponzo, S. Snow, G. Araujo, D. Geary, C. So, V. Stuit, S. Craven, and A.
Lucey. 2013. A Corridor Between Seas: Journeys of whale sharks in the
Bohol Sea as depicted through photo identification. 12th Conference of the
Philippines Association of Marine Science, Tacloban, Philippines 2013.
Lalli, C. M. and T. R. Parsons. 1997. Biological oceanography an introduction. 2nd
edition. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. 74-111.
Larink, O. and W. Westheide. 2006. Coastal Plankton Photo Guide for European
Seas, Germany.
Martin, R. A. 2007. A review of behavioural ecology of whale sharks (Rhincodon
typus). Fisheries Research 84:10-16.
Nelson, J. A. and S. A. Eckert. 2007. Foraging ecology of whale sharks (Rhincodon
typus) within Baha de Los Angeles, Baja California Norte, Mexico.
Fisheries Research 84:4764.
Nishida, S. and J. Nishikawa. 2011. Biodiversity of marine zooplankton in Southeast
Asia (Project-3: Plankton Group). Pages 51-71 in S. Nishida, M. D. Fortes,
and N. Miyazaki, editors. Coastal Marine Science in Southeast Asia
Synthesis Report of the Core University Program of the Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science: Coastal Marine Science (20012010). TERRAPUB.
Nybakken, J. W. 1982. Marine biology an ecological approach. Harper & Row,
Publishers, Inc., New York. 273-280.
Richardson, A. J. 2008. In hot water: zooplankton and climate change. ICES Journal
of Marine Science 65:279-295.
Robinson, D. P., M. Y. Jaidah, R. W. Jabado, K. Lee-Brooks, N. M. N. El-Din, A. A.
A. Malki, K. Elmeer, P. A. McCormick, A. C. Henderson, S. J. Pierce, and R.
F. G. Ormond. 2013. Whale Sharks, Rhincodon typus, Aggregate around
Offshore Platforms in Qatari Waters of the Arabian Gulf to Feed on Fish
Spawn. PLOS One 8:1-10.
Schminke, H. K. 2007. Entomology for the copepodologist. Journal of Plankton
Research 29:i149-i162.
Stacey, N., J. Karam, D. Dwyer, C. Speed, and M. Meekan. 2008. Assessing
Traditional Ecological Knowledge of Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus) in

28

eastern Indonesia: A pilot study with fishing communities in Nusa Tenggara

Timur. School for Environmental Research Charles Darwin University.
Strathmann, R. and Q. Bone. 1997. Ciliary Feeding Assissted by Suction from the
Muscular Oral Hood of Phoronid Larvae. Biology Bulletin 193:153-162.
Turner, J. 2002. Zooplankton fecal pellets, marine snow and sinking phytoplankton
blooms. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 27:57-100.
Uye, S., I. Aoto, and T. Onb. 2002. Seasonal population dynamics and production of
Microsetella norvegica, a widely distributed but little-studied marine
planktonic harpacticoid copepod. J. Plankton Research. 24:143-153.
Wilson, S. E., H. A. Ruhl, and J. K. L. Smith. 2013. Zooplankton fecal pellet flux in
the abyssal northeast Pacific: A 15 year time-series study. Limnology and
Oceanography 58:881892.
Yamaji I. 1984. Illustrations of Marine Plankton of Japan. 3rd edn. Hoikusha
Publishing, Osaka, Japan.

29

APPENDIX

Zooplankton Identified

Order Calanoida

Family Calanidae

Family Paracalanidae

Order Cyclopoida

Family Corycaeidae

Family Oithonidae

30

Order Harpacticoida

Family Ectinosomatidae

Copepod Nauplius

Order Sessilia

Family Balanidae Nauplius

Order Poecilostomatoida

Family Oncaeidae

31

Order Oligotrichida

Family Rhabdonellida

Family Tintinnidae

Family Codonellidae

Phylum Mollusca
Class Gastropoda

Family Atlantidae

Family Limacinidae

32

Class Bivalvia

Family Veneridae
Phylum Tunicata
Class Appendicularia

Family Oikopleuridae
Phylum Annelida
Class Polychaeta

Family Sabellaridae

Family Phyllodocidae

33

Phylum Echinodermata
Class Ophiuroidea Pluteus Larvae

Teleost Eggs