Upload
dokhanh
View
219
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PARTICIPATORY RESOURCE ASSESSMENTPARTICIPATORY RESOURCE ASSESSMENTPARTICIPATORY RESOURCE ASSESSMENTPARTICIPATORY RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
OF THE COASTOF THE COASTOF THE COASTOF THE COASTAL AND MARINE HABITATS OF AL AND MARINE HABITATS OF AL AND MARINE HABITATS OF AL AND MARINE HABITATS OF
CAMIGCAMIGCAMIGCAMIGUUUUIIIIN ISLANDN ISLANDN ISLANDN ISLAND::::
Section 5:Section 5:Section 5:Section 5:
MUNICIPALITY OF MUNICIPALITY OF MUNICIPALITY OF MUNICIPALITY OF MAMBAJAOMAMBAJAOMAMBAJAOMAMBAJAO
MUNICIPALITY OF MAMBAJAOMUNICIPALITY OF MAMBAJAOMUNICIPALITY OF MAMBAJAOMUNICIPALITY OF MAMBAJAO
The Participatory Resource Assessment (PRA) of the Municipality of Mambajao
on May, 2008 with coral and fish survey methods training on May 20, 2008, field habitat
assessment on May 21 2008, and the analysis and presentation of results on May 22, 2008
(Fig. 5.1). The list of participants is shown in Table
AAAA
CCCC
EEEE
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
MUNICIPALITY OF MAMBAJAOMUNICIPALITY OF MAMBAJAOMUNICIPALITY OF MAMBAJAOMUNICIPALITY OF MAMBAJAO
The Participatory Resource Assessment (PRA) of the Municipality of Mambajao
on May, 2008 with coral and fish survey methods training on May 20, 2008, field habitat
assessment on May 21 2008, and the analysis and presentation of results on May 22, 2008
1). The list of participants is shown in Table 5.1.
FFFFigure 5.1. igure 5.1. igure 5.1. igure 5.1. Photographs showing Photographs showing Photographs showing Photographs showing
participants during the PRA training at participants during the PRA training at participants during the PRA training at participants during the PRA training at
Mambajao with the facilitators for fish Mambajao with the facilitators for fish Mambajao with the facilitators for fish Mambajao with the facilitators for fish visual census, Bernard Jasma, Jr. (A) visual census, Bernard Jasma, Jr. (A) visual census, Bernard Jasma, Jr. (A) visual census, Bernard Jasma, Jr. (A)
and Ryan Neri (B), for coral reef and Ryan Neri (B), for coral reef and Ryan Neri (B), for coral reef and Ryan Neri (B), for coral reef
assessment, Oliver Paderanga (C) and assessment, Oliver Paderanga (C) and assessment, Oliver Paderanga (C) and assessment, Oliver Paderanga (C) and
Ron Kirby Manit (D), for fish catch Ron Kirby Manit (D), for fish catch Ron Kirby Manit (D), for fish catch Ron Kirby Manit (D), for fish catch
enumeration, Julie Jadman (E).enumeration, Julie Jadman (E).enumeration, Julie Jadman (E).enumeration, Julie Jadman (E).
BBBB
DDDD
(Final Report), page - 158158158158
The Participatory Resource Assessment (PRA) of the Municipality of Mambajao was conducted
on May, 2008 with coral and fish survey methods training on May 20, 2008, field habitat
assessment on May 21 2008, and the analysis and presentation of results on May 22, 2008
Photographs showing Photographs showing Photographs showing Photographs showing
participants during the PRA training at participants during the PRA training at participants during the PRA training at participants during the PRA training at
Mambajao with the facilitators for fish Mambajao with the facilitators for fish Mambajao with the facilitators for fish Mambajao with the facilitators for fish visual census, Bernard Jasma, Jr. (A) visual census, Bernard Jasma, Jr. (A) visual census, Bernard Jasma, Jr. (A) visual census, Bernard Jasma, Jr. (A)
and Ryan Neri (B), for coral reef and Ryan Neri (B), for coral reef and Ryan Neri (B), for coral reef and Ryan Neri (B), for coral reef
assessment, Oliver Paderanga (C) and assessment, Oliver Paderanga (C) and assessment, Oliver Paderanga (C) and assessment, Oliver Paderanga (C) and
Ron Kirby Manit (D), for fish catch Ron Kirby Manit (D), for fish catch Ron Kirby Manit (D), for fish catch Ron Kirby Manit (D), for fish catch
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.1. Participants of the participatory resource assessment of coastal and marine 1. Participants of the participatory resource assessment of coastal and marine 1. Participants of the participatory resource assessment of coastal and marine 1. Participants of the participatory resource assessment of coastal and marine
habitats of the Municipality of Mambajao*.habitats of the Municipality of Mambajao*.habitats of the Municipality of Mambajao*.habitats of the Municipality of Mambajao*.
BARANGAY BARANGAY BARANGAY BARANGAY CORAL CORAL CORAL CORAL
ASSESSMENTASSESSMENTASSESSMENTASSESSMENT
NaasagNaasagNaasagNaasag George Dizon
YumbingYumbingYumbingYumbing George Dizon
AgohoAgohoAgohoAgoho Gil Julius T. S
BugBugBugBug----ongongongong Gil Julius T. S
KuguitaKuguitaKuguitaKuguita Gil Julius T. S
BaylaoBaylaoBaylaoBaylao Raul Remigoso
Poblacion Poblacion Poblacion Poblacion Raul Remigoso
BalbagonBalbagonBalbagonBalbagon Raul Remigoso
AnitoAnitoAnitoAnito Tito Castino
MagtingMagtingMagtingMagting Tito Castino
Tupsan Tupsan Tupsan Tupsan
GrandeGrandeGrandeGrande Tito Castino
* Seagrass team composed of Dr. Janet S. Estacion (CCRMP Monitoring and (DENR-10) validated the seagrass bed mapped during the previously conducted PRCA and PSES activity.
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
1. Participants of the participatory resource assessment of coastal and marine 1. Participants of the participatory resource assessment of coastal and marine 1. Participants of the participatory resource assessment of coastal and marine 1. Participants of the participatory resource assessment of coastal and marine
habitats of the Municipality of Mambajao*.habitats of the Municipality of Mambajao*.habitats of the Municipality of Mambajao*.habitats of the Municipality of Mambajao*.
CORAL CORAL CORAL CORAL
ASSESSMENTASSESSMENTASSESSMENTASSESSMENT
FISH VISUAL FISH VISUAL FISH VISUAL FISH VISUAL
ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT
(FVC)(FVC)(FVC)(FVC)
FACILITATOR FACILITATOR FACILITATOR FACILITATOR
(Coral & FVC)(Coral & FVC)(Coral & FVC)(Coral & FVC)
FISH CATCHFISH CATCHFISH CATCHFISH CATCH
SURVEYSURVEYSURVEYSURVEY
George Dizon
GUILLERMO
LLIMIT
JOSE PAGUICAN,
JR.
Bernardo Jasma, Jr. Ronnie L. Almasor
George Dizon
GUILLERMO
LLIMIT
JOSE PAGUICAN,
JR.
Bernardo Jasma, Jr.
Ely Arro,
Jaime
Eleonor
Reynaldo Rivera
T. Sia Benjamin Cablay,
Josepth Llanasa
Oliver Paderanga
and Bernardo
Jasma, Jr.
Fe Aranas
T. Sia Benjamin Cablay,
Josepth Llanasa
Oliver Paderanga
and Bernardo
Jasma, Jr.
Emerita Sumili
T. Sia Benjamin Cablay,
Josepth Llanasa Ron Kirby Manit
RhizaAbamonga,
Francisca Ragas
aul Remigoso Breseldo Ladera,
James Gayramon Ron Kirby Manit
Edie Lagunay,
PaulBacor,
Amy Bacolcol
Remigoso Breseldo Ladera,
James Gayramon Ryan Neri
SofronioRealista,
George Bunglay
Raul Remigoso Breseldo Ladera,
James Gayramon Ryan Neri
PetraAlogar,
Lorna Lago
ito Castino Carlo Carrillo,
Simplicio Flores Oliver Paderanga Nestor
ito Castino Carlo Carrillo,
Simplicio Flores Oliver Paderanga Teddy Galagar
ito Castino Carlo Carrillo,
Simplicio Flores Julie Jadman Rene Menciano
* Seagrass team composed of Dr. Janet S. Estacion (CCRMP Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist) and Jean O. Polo 10) validated the seagrass bed mapped during the previously conducted PRCA and PSES activity.
(Final Report), page - 159159159159
1. Participants of the participatory resource assessment of coastal and marine 1. Participants of the participatory resource assessment of coastal and marine 1. Participants of the participatory resource assessment of coastal and marine 1. Participants of the participatory resource assessment of coastal and marine
FISH CATCHFISH CATCHFISH CATCHFISH CATCH
SURVEYSURVEYSURVEYSURVEY
Ronnie L. Almasor
Ely Arro,
Jaime Boholano,
Eleonor Borromeo,
Reynaldo Rivera
Fe Aranas-Belara
Emerita Sumili
RhizaAbamonga,
Francisca Ragas
Edie Lagunay,
PaulBacor,
Amy Bacolcol
SofronioRealista,
George Bunglay
PetraAlogar,
Lorna Lago
Nestor Labadan
Teddy Galagar
Rene Menciano
Evaluation Specialist) and Jean O. Polo 10) validated the seagrass bed mapped during the previously conducted PRCA and PSES activity.
GENERAL PRA RESULTSGENERAL PRA RESULTSGENERAL PRA RESULTSGENERAL PRA RESULTS
Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment.
Live coral cover in the different barangays of Mambajao ranged from 0
Highest live coral cover was obtained in Magting (34.67%) and lowest at Naasag (6.67%).
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.2. Average cover of the various benthic life forms (in percent) of t2. Average cover of the various benthic life forms (in percent) of t2. Average cover of the various benthic life forms (in percent) of t2. Average cover of the various benthic life forms (in percent) of t
barangays of the Municipality of Mambajao. C = classification of coral reef based on barangays of the Municipality of Mambajao. C = classification of coral reef based on barangays of the Municipality of Mambajao. C = classification of coral reef based on barangays of the Municipality of Mambajao. C = classification of coral reef based on
Gomez et al. (1991): Gomez et al. (1991): Gomez et al. (1991): Gomez et al. (1991):
‘excellent’ 75‘excellent’ 75‘excellent’ 75‘excellent’ 75----100; NA = not applicable.100; NA = not applicable.100; NA = not applicable.100; NA = not applicable.
BarangaysBarangaysBarangaysBarangays CCCC
Naasag Poor
Yumbing Poor
Agoho NA
Bug-ong NA
Kuguita Poor
Baylao Poor
Poblacion Fair
Balbagon Poor
Anito Poor
Magting Fair
Tupsan Grande Fair
Using the classification of Gomez et al (1991), reef condition of more than half of the
barangays (six of the 11, about 55%) is in ‘poor’ condition (Fig.
and Bug-ong) were not classified since their inclusion would lead to several misconceptions.
Firstly, this would show that Mambajao was the only municipality within the entire Camiguin
Province without reefs. This is untrue si
depth limitation of PRA methods.
tourist boat operators and even resort owners showed that it was local knowledge that the
mainland coastline from Agoho to Bug
small reefs were present at deeper areas.
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
GENERAL PRA RESULTSGENERAL PRA RESULTSGENERAL PRA RESULTSGENERAL PRA RESULTS
Live coral cover in the different barangays of Mambajao ranged from 0-34.67% (Table
Highest live coral cover was obtained in Magting (34.67%) and lowest at Naasag (6.67%).
2. Average cover of the various benthic life forms (in percent) of t2. Average cover of the various benthic life forms (in percent) of t2. Average cover of the various benthic life forms (in percent) of t2. Average cover of the various benthic life forms (in percent) of t
barangays of the Municipality of Mambajao. C = classification of coral reef based on barangays of the Municipality of Mambajao. C = classification of coral reef based on barangays of the Municipality of Mambajao. C = classification of coral reef based on barangays of the Municipality of Mambajao. C = classification of coral reef based on
Gomez et al. (1991): Gomez et al. (1991): Gomez et al. (1991): Gomez et al. (1991): ‘Poor’ 0‘Poor’ 0‘Poor’ 0‘Poor’ 0----24.9%, ‘fair’ 2524.9%, ‘fair’ 2524.9%, ‘fair’ 2524.9%, ‘fair’ 25----49.950%, ‘good’ 5049.950%, ‘good’ 5049.950%, ‘good’ 5049.950%, ‘good’ 50
100; NA = not applicable.100; NA = not applicable.100; NA = not applicable.100; NA = not applicable. Live Live Live Live
CoralCoralCoralCoral
Soft Soft Soft Soft
CoralCoralCoralCoral
Dead Dead Dead Dead
CoralCoralCoralCoral RubbleRubbleRubbleRubble SandSandSandSand
6.67 - 57.00 11.00 5.33
8.00 - 65.33 17.33 4.00
- - - - 54.67
- - - - 32.00
6.67 - - - 77.33
24.00 28.00 13.33 9.33 21.33
25.33 10.67 21.33 16.00 25.33
21.33 13.33 22.67 9.33 18.67
20.00 - 12.00 25.33 25.33
34.67 8.00 16.00 10.67 21.33
30.27 1.33 17.00 21.97 18.67
Using the classification of Gomez et al (1991), reef condition of more than half of the
barangays (six of the 11, about 55%) is in ‘poor’ condition (Fig. 5.2). Two of the sites (Agoho
ong) were not classified since their inclusion would lead to several misconceptions.
Firstly, this would show that Mambajao was the only municipality within the entire Camiguin
Province without reefs. This is untrue since reefs are present yet beyond the capability and
depth limitation of PRA methods. Informal interactions with local participants, fisherfolks,
tourist boat operators and even resort owners showed that it was local knowledge that the
om Agoho to Bug-ong was mainly composed of sand and rock and that
small reefs were present at deeper areas.
(Final Report), page - 160160160160
34.67% (Table 5.2).
Highest live coral cover was obtained in Magting (34.67%) and lowest at Naasag (6.67%).
2. Average cover of the various benthic life forms (in percent) of t2. Average cover of the various benthic life forms (in percent) of t2. Average cover of the various benthic life forms (in percent) of t2. Average cover of the various benthic life forms (in percent) of the different he different he different he different
barangays of the Municipality of Mambajao. C = classification of coral reef based on barangays of the Municipality of Mambajao. C = classification of coral reef based on barangays of the Municipality of Mambajao. C = classification of coral reef based on barangays of the Municipality of Mambajao. C = classification of coral reef based on
49.950%, ‘good’ 5049.950%, ‘good’ 5049.950%, ‘good’ 5049.950%, ‘good’ 50----74.9% and 74.9% and 74.9% and 74.9% and
RockRockRockRock OthersOthersOthersOthers
20.00 -
- 5.33
45.33 -
68.00 -
16.00 -
1.33 2.67
1.33 -
8.00 6.67
17.33 -
9.33 -
10.77 -
Using the classification of Gomez et al (1991), reef condition of more than half of the
2). Two of the sites (Agoho
ong) were not classified since their inclusion would lead to several misconceptions.
Firstly, this would show that Mambajao was the only municipality within the entire Camiguin
nce reefs are present yet beyond the capability and
Informal interactions with local participants, fisherfolks,
tourist boat operators and even resort owners showed that it was local knowledge that the
ong was mainly composed of sand and rock and that
Secondly, this may lead to the concept that these areas are ‘disposable and unimportant’ since
reefs were not present, thus, diminishing the impor
In reality, this is an attraction to bathers and swimmers who prefer sandy sea bottom. It
should be noted that a number of resorts are present along this part of Mambajao coast.
Thirdly, it is strongly suspected
presence of another benthic community, a
fishing ground. Informal interviews with fisher folks indicated that wrasses associated with
Sargassum beds are often targeted when the
Lastly, the inclusion of these sites would indicate that 72.7% of the Mambajao coastline has
reefs in ‘poor’ condition.
BAYLAOKUGUITA
ANITO MAGTING
Figure Figure Figure Figure 5.5.5.5.2. Average benthic lifeform (in percent) of the different barangays surveyed 2. Average benthic lifeform (in percent) of the different barangays surveyed 2. Average benthic lifeform (in percent) of the different barangays surveyed 2. Average benthic lifeform (in percent) of the different barangays surveyed
during the PRA of the Municipality of Mambajao.during the PRA of the Municipality of Mambajao.during the PRA of the Municipality of Mambajao.during the PRA of the Municipality of Mambajao.
NAASAG YUMBING
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
Secondly, this may lead to the concept that these areas are ‘disposable and unimportant’ since
reefs were not present, thus, diminishing the importance of the rock-sand benthic community.
In reality, this is an attraction to bathers and swimmers who prefer sandy sea bottom. It
should be noted that a number of resorts are present along this part of Mambajao coast.
Thirdly, it is strongly suspected that the rocky substrate within these sites may represent the
presence of another benthic community, a Sargassum (‘samo’) bed and may be an alternative
fishing ground. Informal interviews with fisher folks indicated that wrasses associated with
beds are often targeted when the Sargassum beds are present.
Lastly, the inclusion of these sites would indicate that 72.7% of the Mambajao coastline has
Live Hard Coral
Soft Coral
Dead Coral
Rubble
Legend:
BAYLAO POBLACION BALBAGON
MAGTING TUPSAN GRANDE
2. Average benthic lifeform (in percent) of the different barangays surveyed 2. Average benthic lifeform (in percent) of the different barangays surveyed 2. Average benthic lifeform (in percent) of the different barangays surveyed 2. Average benthic lifeform (in percent) of the different barangays surveyed
during the PRA of the Municipality of Mambajao.during the PRA of the Municipality of Mambajao.during the PRA of the Municipality of Mambajao.during the PRA of the Municipality of Mambajao.
YUMBING BUG-ONGAGOHO
(Final Report), page - 161161161161
Secondly, this may lead to the concept that these areas are ‘disposable and unimportant’ since
sand benthic community.
In reality, this is an attraction to bathers and swimmers who prefer sandy sea bottom. It
should be noted that a number of resorts are present along this part of Mambajao coast.
that the rocky substrate within these sites may represent the
(‘samo’) bed and may be an alternative
fishing ground. Informal interviews with fisher folks indicated that wrasses associated with
Lastly, the inclusion of these sites would indicate that 72.7% of the Mambajao coastline has
Live Hard Coral
Dead Coral
Sand
Rock
Others
BALBAGON
2. Average benthic lifeform (in percent) of the different barangays surveyed 2. Average benthic lifeform (in percent) of the different barangays surveyed 2. Average benthic lifeform (in percent) of the different barangays surveyed 2. Average benthic lifeform (in percent) of the different barangays surveyed
ONG
Fish Visual CensusFish Visual CensusFish Visual CensusFish Visual Census. . . .
Fish Composition. Fish Composition. Fish Composition. Fish Composition. A total of 53 local names (Table
census of the Mambajao. Of these 49 were traced to 27 fish families, three (klamyan’, ‘lapis
lapis’ and ‘tangka-tangka’) still needs to be classified and one unknown species (‘isda’
identified families can be categorized as:
(1) Indicator species (those
from 1 family):
(2) Target species (those
of fishermen)(12 families) which can be further subdivided into
(A) Permanent residents (26 local names from 13 families): Acanthuridae
(‘bagis’, ‘lunab’ and ‘mongit’), Balistidae (‘pakol’ and ‘pogot’),
Carangidae (‘talakitok’), Haemulidae (‘p
Holocentrid
(‘bongkalit’, ‘kambiray’, ‘lubayan’, ‘logatis’, ‘topit’, ‘maming’,
‘pedlok’, ‘taad’ and ‘tangis’), Lutjanidae (‘katambak’),
(‘bodbod’), Nemipteridae (‘lakambini’ and ‘
(‘molmol’),
(B) Transient residents (2 local names from 1 family): Engraulidae
(‘dalirag’, and ‘mogkas’);
(3) Non-target species (those that are do not fetch high market prices and are
favored targets of fishermen)(19 local names from 12 families):
Apogonidae (‘moong’), Fistulariidae (‘tobo
lobay’), Muraenidae (‘agmang’ and ‘ogdo
Pinguipedidae (‘sobok’), Pomacanthidae (‘an
Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’, ‘bantay
manggolob’, ‘pata’ and ‘tugas
Synodontidae (‘tiki
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
A total of 53 local names (Table 5.3) were recorded during the fish visual
census of the Mambajao. Of these 49 were traced to 27 fish families, three (klamyan’, ‘lapis
tangka’) still needs to be classified and one unknown species (‘isda’
can be categorized as:
those whose presence shows the health of the reef)
from 1 family): Chaetodontidae (‘alibangbang’);
those that are commercially important and are fav
(12 families) which can be further subdivided into
(A) Permanent residents (26 local names from 13 families): Acanthuridae
(‘bagis’, ‘lunab’ and ‘mongit’), Balistidae (‘pakol’ and ‘pogot’),
Carangidae (‘talakitok’), Haemulidae (‘panapsapan’),
Holocentridae (‘baga-baga’), Kyphosidae (‘ilak’, ‘sono’
(‘bongkalit’, ‘kambiray’, ‘lubayan’, ‘logatis’, ‘topit’, ‘maming’,
‘pedlok’, ‘taad’ and ‘tangis’), Lutjanidae (‘katambak’),
(‘bodbod’), Nemipteridae (‘lakambini’ and ‘song’),
(‘molmol’), Siganidae (‘dangit’), and Sphyraenidae (‘lambana’);
(B) Transient residents (2 local names from 1 family): Engraulidae
(‘dalirag’, and ‘mogkas’);
target species (those that are do not fetch high market prices and are
favored targets of fishermen)(19 local names from 12 families):
Apogonidae (‘moong’), Fistulariidae (‘tobo-tobo’), Malacanthidae (‘lobay
lobay’), Muraenidae (‘agmang’ and ‘ogdo-ogdo’), Pempheridae (‘tabas’),
Pinguipedidae (‘sobok’), Pomacanthidae (‘anyel-anyel’ and ‘suwat
Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’, ‘bantay-botbot’, ‘kabatingan’, ‘kapaw’,
manggolob’, ‘pata’ and ‘tugas-tugas’), Scorpaenidae (‘bantol’),
Synodontidae (‘tiki-tiki’) and Tetraodontidae (‘botete’).
(Final Report), page - 162162162162
3) were recorded during the fish visual
census of the Mambajao. Of these 49 were traced to 27 fish families, three (klamyan’, ‘lapis-
tangka’) still needs to be classified and one unknown species (‘isda’). The 27
whose presence shows the health of the reef)(1 ‘species’
that are commercially important and are favored targets
(A) Permanent residents (26 local names from 13 families): Acanthuridae
(‘bagis’, ‘lunab’ and ‘mongit’), Balistidae (‘pakol’ and ‘pogot’),
anapsapan’),
, ‘sono’), Labridae
(‘bongkalit’, ‘kambiray’, ‘lubayan’, ‘logatis’, ‘topit’, ‘maming’,
‘pedlok’, ‘taad’ and ‘tangis’), Lutjanidae (‘katambak’), Mullidae
song’), Scaridae
and Sphyraenidae (‘lambana’);
(B) Transient residents (2 local names from 1 family): Engraulidae
target species (those that are do not fetch high market prices and are not
favored targets of fishermen)(19 local names from 12 families):
tobo’), Malacanthidae (‘lobay-
ogdo’), Pempheridae (‘tabas’),
anyel’ and ‘suwat-suwat’),
botbot’, ‘kabatingan’, ‘kapaw’,
tugas’), Scorpaenidae (‘bantol’),
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.3. Local names of fishes, family which the local names belong and the common names of the 3. Local names of fishes, family which the local names belong and the common names of the 3. Local names of fishes, family which the local names belong and the common names of the 3. Local names of fishes, family which the local names belong and the common names of the
family recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of the Municipality of family recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of the Municipality of family recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of the Municipality of family recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of the Municipality of
Mambajao and their categories (C) Legend: + = present; I = indicator sMambajao and their categories (C) Legend: + = present; I = indicator sMambajao and their categories (C) Legend: + = present; I = indicator sMambajao and their categories (C) Legend: + = present; I = indicator s
species (reef residents); T(P) = target species (pelagic / transient species) and NT = nonspecies (reef residents); T(P) = target species (pelagic / transient species) and NT = nonspecies (reef residents); T(P) = target species (pelagic / transient species) and NT = nonspecies (reef residents); T(P) = target species (pelagic / transient species) and NT = non
species. species. species. species.
Local NameLocal NameLocal NameLocal Name Family Family Family Family
(Common Name)(Common Name)(Common Name)(Common Name)
1 Alibang-bang Chaetodontidae
(Butterflyfishes)
2 Bagis Acanthuridae (Surgeon
Fishes)
3 Lunab Acanthuridae (Surgeon Fishes)
4 Mongit Acanthuridae (Surgeon
Fishes)
5 Pakol Balistidae (Triggerfishes)
6 Pogot Balistidae (Triggerfishes)
7 Talakitok Carangidae (Jacks)
8 Panapsapan Haemulidae (Sweetlips)
9 Baga-baga Holocentridae
(Squirrelfishes)
10 Ilak Kyphosidae (Drummers)
11 Sono Kyphosidae (Drummers)
12 Bongkalit Labridae (Wrasses)
13 Kambiray Labridae (Wrasses)
14 Labayan Labridae (Wrasses)
15 Logatis Labridae (Wrasses)
16 Lopit Labridae (Wrasses)
17 Maming Labridae (Wrasses)
18 Pedlok Labridae (Wrasses)
19 Taad Labridae (Wrasses)
20 Tangis Labridae (Wrasses)
21 Katambak Lutjanidae (Snappers)
22 Bodbod Mullidae (Goatfishes)
23 Makabinhi Nemipteridae (Breams)
24 Song Nemipteridae (Breams)
25 Molmol Scaridae (Parrotfishes)
26 Danggit Siganidae (Rabbitfishes)
27 Lambana Sphyraenidae
(Barracudas)
28 Dalirag Engraulidae (Anchovies)
29 Mogkas Engraulidae (Anchovies)
30 Moong Apogonidae (Cardinal
Fishes)
31 Tambal Leon Blenniidae (Blennies)
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
3. Local names of fishes, family which the local names belong and the common names of the 3. Local names of fishes, family which the local names belong and the common names of the 3. Local names of fishes, family which the local names belong and the common names of the 3. Local names of fishes, family which the local names belong and the common names of the
family recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of the Municipality of family recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of the Municipality of family recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of the Municipality of family recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of the Municipality of
Mambajao and their categories (C) Legend: + = present; I = indicator sMambajao and their categories (C) Legend: + = present; I = indicator sMambajao and their categories (C) Legend: + = present; I = indicator sMambajao and their categories (C) Legend: + = present; I = indicator species; T(R) = target pecies; T(R) = target pecies; T(R) = target pecies; T(R) = target
species (reef residents); T(P) = target species (pelagic / transient species) and NT = nonspecies (reef residents); T(P) = target species (pelagic / transient species) and NT = nonspecies (reef residents); T(P) = target species (pelagic / transient species) and NT = nonspecies (reef residents); T(P) = target species (pelagic / transient species) and NT = non
(Common Name)(Common Name)(Common Name)(Common Name) CCCC
Naasa
gN
aasa
gN
aasa
gN
aasa
g
Yum
bin
gYum
bin
gYum
bin
gYum
bin
g
Agoho
Agoho
Agoho
Agoho
Bug
Bug
Bug
Bug-- -- o
ng
ong
ong
ong
Kuguita
Kuguita
Kuguita
Kuguita
Bayla
oBayla
oBayla
oBayla
o
Pobla
cion
Pobla
cion
Pobla
cion
Pobla
cion
Balb
agon
Balb
agon
Balb
agon
Balb
agon
I + + + +
Acanthuridae (Surgeon T(R) + +
Acanthuridae (Surgeon T(R) +
Acanthuridae (Surgeon T(R) +
Balistidae (Triggerfishes) T(R) +
Balistidae (Triggerfishes) T(R) + + + + + +
T(R) +
Haemulidae (Sweetlips) T(R) + +
T(R) + + +
Kyphosidae (Drummers) T(R) +
Kyphosidae (Drummers) T(R) + +
Labridae (Wrasses) T(R)
Labridae (Wrasses) T(R) +
Labridae (Wrasses) T(R) + + +
Labridae (Wrasses) T(R) + + + + +
Labridae (Wrasses) T(R) + + +
Labridae (Wrasses) T(R) + + + +
Labridae (Wrasses) T(R) + + + + +
Labridae (Wrasses) T(R) + + +
Labridae (Wrasses) T(R)
Lutjanidae (Snappers) T(R) +
Mullidae (Goatfishes) T(R) + + + +
Nemipteridae (Breams) T(R) + + +
Nemipteridae (Breams) T(R) +
Scaridae (Parrotfishes) T(R) + + + + + + +
Siganidae (Rabbitfishes) T(R) +
T(R) + +
Engraulidae (Anchovies) T(P) + +
Engraulidae (Anchovies) T(P) +
Apogonidae (Cardinal NT + + + + + +
Blenniidae (Blennies) NT + +
(Final Report), page - 163163163163
3. Local names of fishes, family which the local names belong and the common names of the 3. Local names of fishes, family which the local names belong and the common names of the 3. Local names of fishes, family which the local names belong and the common names of the 3. Local names of fishes, family which the local names belong and the common names of the
family recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of the Municipality of family recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of the Municipality of family recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of the Municipality of family recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of the Municipality of
pecies; T(R) = target pecies; T(R) = target pecies; T(R) = target pecies; T(R) = target
species (reef residents); T(P) = target species (pelagic / transient species) and NT = nonspecies (reef residents); T(P) = target species (pelagic / transient species) and NT = nonspecies (reef residents); T(P) = target species (pelagic / transient species) and NT = nonspecies (reef residents); T(P) = target species (pelagic / transient species) and NT = non----target target target target
Balb
agon
Balb
agon
Balb
agon
Balb
agon
Anito
Anito
Anito
Anito
Magting
Magting
Magting
Magting
Tupsa
n
Tupsa
n
Tupsa
n
Tupsa
n
Gra
nde
Gra
nde
Gra
nde
Gra
nde
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+
+ + +
+ +
+ + +
+ + + +
+ + +
+ +
+ + + +
+
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ +
+
+ +
+
+ +
+
Local NameLocal NameLocal NameLocal Name Family Family Family Family
(Common Name)(Common Name)(Common Name)(Common Name)
32 Tobo-tobo Fistulariidae
(Flutemouths)
33 Lobaylobay Malacanthidae
(Tilefishes)
34 Agmang Muraenidae (Moray
Eels)
35 Ogdo-ogdo Muraenidae (Moray
Eels)
36 Tabas Pempheridae (Sweepers)
37 Sobok Pinguipedidae (Sand
Perches)
38 Anyel-anyel Pomacanthidae (Angelfishes)
39 Suwat-suwat Pomacanthidae
(Angelfishes)
40 Salikoko Pomacentridae (Damsel
fishes)
41 Bantay-
botbot
Pomacentridae (Damsel
fishes)
42 Kabatingan Pomacentridae (Sergeant
Majors)
43 Kapaw Pomacentridae (Damsel
Fishes)
44 Manggolob Pomacentridae (Damsel
Fishes)
45 Pata Pomacentridae (Damsel
Fishes)
46 Tugas-tugas Pomacentridae (Damsel
Fishes)
47 Bantol Scorpaenidae (Stone
Fishes)
48 Tiki-tiki Synodontidae (Lizard
Fishes)
49 Botete Tetraodontidae
(Pufferfishes)
50 Klamyan Unknown
51 Lapis-lapis Unknown
52 Tangka-
tangka Unknown
53 Isda Unknown
TOTAL NUMBER OF ‘SPECIES’ (BASED ON LOCA
NAMES) PER BARANGAY
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
(Common Name)(Common Name)(Common Name)(Common Name) CCCC
Naasa
gN
aasa
gN
aasa
gN
aasa
g
Yum
bin
gYum
bin
gYum
bin
gYum
bin
g
Agoho
Agoho
Agoho
Agoho
Bug
Bug
Bug
Bug-- -- o
ng
ong
ong
ong
Kuguita
Kuguita
Kuguita
Kuguita
Bayla
oBayla
oBayla
oBayla
o
Pobla
cion
Pobla
cion
Pobla
cion
Pobla
cion
Balb
agon
Balb
agon
Balb
agon
Balb
agon
NT +
NT +
Muraenidae (Moray NT + +
Muraenidae (Moray NT
Pempheridae (Sweepers) NT +
Pinguipedidae (Sand NT + + +
NT +
NT + +
Pomacentridae (Damsel NT + + + + +
Pomacentridae (Damsel NT + + + + + +
Pomacentridae (Sergeant NT + + + + +
Pomacentridae (Damsel NT + +
Pomacentridae (Damsel NT + +
Pomacentridae (Damsel NT + + + + +
Pomacentridae (Damsel NT +
Scorpaenidae (Stone NT
Synodontidae (Lizard NT + + + +
NT + + + +
U + +
U +
U
U
CIES’ (BASED ON LOCAL
20 16 15 12 16 25 22 24
(Final Report), page - 164164164164
Balb
agon
Balb
agon
Balb
agon
Balb
agon
Anito
Anito
Anito
Anito
Magting
Magting
Magting
Magting
Tupsa
n
Tupsa
n
Tupsa
n
Tupsa
n
Gra
nde
Gra
nde
Gra
nde
Gra
nde
+ +
+ +
+
+
+ + +
+ + +
+ + + +
+
+ + + +
+
+
+ + +
+ + +
+
+
+
24 17 22 18
Fish Diversity. Fish Diversity. Fish Diversity. Fish Diversity. Among the different barangays, highest number of ‘species’ was recorded for
Baylao (25), Balbagon (24), Poblacion and Magting (22 each)(Table
these sites had low hard coral cover, they relatively higher coral co
(Naasag, Yumbing, Agoho, Bug
obtained for Bug-ong (12), which was expected considering that Bug
However, the site at Agoho had 15 ‘species’ despite having
Anito with 20% coral cover and Tupsan Grande with 30.27% coral cover.
Using the categories indicator, target, non
species were more diverse than non
‘species’ compared to 19 non-
level was almost similar between target (14) and non
Comparing the number of ‘species’ between target and non
generally had higher numbers (in 7 of the 11 barangays) while non
higher than target species in three of the 11 barangays (Fig.
Figure 5.3. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) and number of families Figure 5.3. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) and number of families Figure 5.3. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) and number of families Figure 5.3. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) and number of families
represented of fishes recorded during the fish visual census of represented of fishes recorded during the fish visual census of represented of fishes recorded during the fish visual census of represented of fishes recorded during the fish visual census of
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
NU
MBER
NU
MBER
NU
MBER
NU
MBER
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
Among the different barangays, highest number of ‘species’ was recorded for
Baylao (25), Balbagon (24), Poblacion and Magting (22 each)(Table 5.3). Note that although
these sites had low hard coral cover, they relatively higher coral cover than other sites
(Naasag, Yumbing, Agoho, Bug-ong and Kuguita)(Table 5.2). Lowest number of species was
ong (12), which was expected considering that Bug-ong had no reef area.
However, the site at Agoho had 15 ‘species’ despite having no reef, yet was comparable to
Anito with 20% coral cover and Tupsan Grande with 30.27% coral cover.
Using the categories indicator, target, non-target and unclassified, it appears that the target
species were more diverse than non-target species. Target species were represented by 28
-target species (Fig. 5.3). However, representation at the family
level was almost similar between target (14) and non-target (12) species (Fig. 5.
Comparing the number of ‘species’ between target and non-target species, target species
generally had higher numbers (in 7 of the 11 barangays) while non-target species were only
higher than target species in three of the 11 barangays (Fig. 5.4).
Figure 5.3. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) and number of families Figure 5.3. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) and number of families Figure 5.3. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) and number of families Figure 5.3. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) and number of families
represented of fishes recorded during the fish visual census of represented of fishes recorded during the fish visual census of represented of fishes recorded during the fish visual census of represented of fishes recorded during the fish visual census of Mambajao.Mambajao.Mambajao.Mambajao.
Indicator Species
Target Species
Non-Target Species
Spec iesSpec iesSpec iesSpec ies FamiliesFamiliesFamiliesFamilies
(Final Report), page - 165165165165
Among the different barangays, highest number of ‘species’ was recorded for
3). Note that although
ver than other sites
2). Lowest number of species was
ong had no reef area.
no reef, yet was comparable to
target and unclassified, it appears that the target
target species. Target species were represented by 28
entation at the family
5.3).
target species, target species
target species were only
Figure 5.3. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) and number of families Figure 5.3. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) and number of families Figure 5.3. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) and number of families Figure 5.3. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) and number of families
Mambajao.Mambajao.Mambajao.Mambajao.
At Yumbing, there was equal representation of both. At Magting, target ‘species’ were almost
three times higher than non-target ‘species’. Note that among the 11 barangay, three (Agoho,
Bug-ong and Kuguita) did not have indicator species. This agrees with
results where the Agoho and Bug
mainly a sandy community rather than a coral reef community (refer to Table
5.2).
For the number of families represented by the
represented by more families, indicating higher diversity of target species at the family level
(Fig. 5). Highest number of target species was observed in Baylon (12), Poblacion (10) and
Magting (8). Eight families of target species were also recorded for Balbagon, similar to the
number of families of non-target species (Fig.
This aspect is important since some fish families are herbivores (eating algae and other
photosynthetic organisms) like the parrot fi
prey on invertebrates in the sand like the goatfish, ‘bodbob’ and there are the predators like
the snappers, ‘katambak’ and barracuda, ‘lambana’. Target species like ‘molmol’ and ‘bodbob’
are commonly found in reefs but the predators are less common. Their presence indicates the
Indicator Species
Target Species
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Naa Yum Ago
Num
ber
of
'Specie
s'N
um
ber
of
'Specie
s'N
um
ber
of
'Specie
s'N
um
ber
of
'Specie
s'
Figure 5.4. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) of fishes recorded during the PRA fish Figure 5.4. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) of fishes recorded during the PRA fish Figure 5.4. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) of fishes recorded during the PRA fish Figure 5.4. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) of fishes recorded during the PRA fish
visual census of Mambajao. Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, visual census of Mambajao. Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, visual census of Mambajao. Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, visual census of Mambajao. Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho,
BBBBug = Bugug = Bugug = Bugug = Bug----ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon,
Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
At Yumbing, there was equal representation of both. At Magting, target ‘species’ were almost
target ‘species’. Note that among the 11 barangay, three (Agoho,
ong and Kuguita) did not have indicator species. This agrees with the coral reef assessment
results where the Agoho and Bug-ong sites did not have any coral reefs while Kuguita was
mainly a sandy community rather than a coral reef community (refer to Table
For the number of families represented by the local names, target species were generally
represented by more families, indicating higher diversity of target species at the family level
(Fig. 5). Highest number of target species was observed in Baylon (12), Poblacion (10) and
es of target species were also recorded for Balbagon, similar to the
target species (Fig. 5.5).
This aspect is important since some fish families are herbivores (eating algae and other
photosynthetic organisms) like the parrot fish, ‘molmol’ and the wrasses like ‘lubayan’, others
prey on invertebrates in the sand like the goatfish, ‘bodbob’ and there are the predators like
the snappers, ‘katambak’ and barracuda, ‘lambana’. Target species like ‘molmol’ and ‘bodbob’
nd in reefs but the predators are less common. Their presence indicates the
Non-Target Species
Unclassified
Ago Bug Kug Bay Pob Bal Ani
BARANGAYBARANGAYBARANGAYBARANGAY
Figure 5.4. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) of fishes recorded during the PRA fish Figure 5.4. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) of fishes recorded during the PRA fish Figure 5.4. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) of fishes recorded during the PRA fish Figure 5.4. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) of fishes recorded during the PRA fish
visual census of Mambajao. Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, visual census of Mambajao. Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, visual census of Mambajao. Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, visual census of Mambajao. Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho,
ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon,
Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.
(Final Report), page - 166166166166
At Yumbing, there was equal representation of both. At Magting, target ‘species’ were almost
target ‘species’. Note that among the 11 barangay, three (Agoho,
the coral reef assessment
ong sites did not have any coral reefs while Kuguita was
mainly a sandy community rather than a coral reef community (refer to Table 5.2 and Fig.
local names, target species were generally
represented by more families, indicating higher diversity of target species at the family level
(Fig. 5). Highest number of target species was observed in Baylon (12), Poblacion (10) and
es of target species were also recorded for Balbagon, similar to the
This aspect is important since some fish families are herbivores (eating algae and other
sh, ‘molmol’ and the wrasses like ‘lubayan’, others
prey on invertebrates in the sand like the goatfish, ‘bodbob’ and there are the predators like
the snappers, ‘katambak’ and barracuda, ‘lambana’. Target species like ‘molmol’ and ‘bodbob’
nd in reefs but the predators are less common. Their presence indicates the
Mag TupG
Figure 5.4. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) of fishes recorded during the PRA fish Figure 5.4. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) of fishes recorded during the PRA fish Figure 5.4. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) of fishes recorded during the PRA fish Figure 5.4. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names) of fishes recorded during the PRA fish
visual census of Mambajao. Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, visual census of Mambajao. Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, visual census of Mambajao. Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, visual census of Mambajao. Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho,
ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon,
health of the fisheries, that is, they are present in distinct numbers if prey is sufficient.
Furthermore, target species can also be subdivided into reef residents and transients.
species like the anchovies, ‘dalirag’ and ‘mogkas’, are transient residents which occur in
schools. Their presence, if not qualified, can give the impression that the reefs support a large
number of target species when in actuality the permanent r
for their survival are in small densities.
Fish DensiFish DensiFish DensiFish Densitytytyty. The total density of the fishes and the density per size class range of fishes
recorded during the PRA of all the barangays is shown in Table
Balbagon had the highest average total fish density (535 organisms/500 m
Poblacion (414 organisms/500 m
organisms/500 m2)(Table 5.4). Of these results, high fish density at Agoho was the most
surprising, considering that the area’s substrate cover was 54.7% sand and 45.3%
similar to that of the adjacent barangay, Bug
the third highest fish density while Bug
density at Agoho was attributed to very densities of the po
99-148 organisms/500 m2 (average = 126 organisms/500 m
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Naa Yum Ago
Num
ber
of
Fis
h F
am
ilie
s R
epre
sente
dN
um
ber
of
Fis
h F
am
ilie
s R
epre
sente
dN
um
ber
of
Fis
h F
am
ilie
s R
epre
sente
dN
um
ber
of
Fis
h F
am
ilie
s R
epre
sente
d
Indicator Species
Target Species
Non-Target Species
Figure 5.5. Number of fish families represented by the local names of fishes recorded during the Figure 5.5. Number of fish families represented by the local names of fishes recorded during the Figure 5.5. Number of fish families represented by the local names of fishes recorded during the Figure 5.5. Number of fish families represented by the local names of fishes recorded during the
PRA fish PRA fish PRA fish PRA fish visual census of Mambajao. Unclassified fishes were not included. Legend: Naa visual census of Mambajao. Unclassified fishes were not included. Legend: Naa visual census of Mambajao. Unclassified fishes were not included. Legend: Naa visual census of Mambajao. Unclassified fishes were not included. Legend: Naa
= Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = Bug= Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = Bug= Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = Bug= Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = Bug
Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
health of the fisheries, that is, they are present in distinct numbers if prey is sufficient.
Furthermore, target species can also be subdivided into reef residents and transients.
species like the anchovies, ‘dalirag’ and ‘mogkas’, are transient residents which occur in
schools. Their presence, if not qualified, can give the impression that the reefs support a large
number of target species when in actuality the permanent residents who depend on the reef
for their survival are in small densities.
. The total density of the fishes and the density per size class range of fishes
recorded during the PRA of all the barangays is shown in Table 5.4. Among all the barangays,
Balbagon had the highest average total fish density (535 organisms/500 m
Poblacion (414 organisms/500 m2), Agoho (374 organisms/500 m2) and Baylao (342
4). Of these results, high fish density at Agoho was the most
surprising, considering that the area’s substrate cover was 54.7% sand and 45.3%
similar to that of the adjacent barangay, Bug-ong (32% sand and 68% rock). Yet, Agoho had
the third highest fish density while Bug-ong had one of the lowest fish density. The high fish
density at Agoho was attributed to very densities of the pomacentrid, ‘salikoko’, ranging from
(average = 126 organisms/500 m2), the wrasse, ‘logatis’ at densities
Ago Bug Kug Bay Pob Bal Ani Mag
BARANGAYBARANGAYBARANGAYBARANGAY
Indicator Species
Target Species
Target Species
Figure 5.5. Number of fish families represented by the local names of fishes recorded during the Figure 5.5. Number of fish families represented by the local names of fishes recorded during the Figure 5.5. Number of fish families represented by the local names of fishes recorded during the Figure 5.5. Number of fish families represented by the local names of fishes recorded during the
visual census of Mambajao. Unclassified fishes were not included. Legend: Naa visual census of Mambajao. Unclassified fishes were not included. Legend: Naa visual census of Mambajao. Unclassified fishes were not included. Legend: Naa visual census of Mambajao. Unclassified fishes were not included. Legend: Naa
= Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = Bug= Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = Bug= Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = Bug= Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = Bug----ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay =
Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.
(Final Report), page - 167167167167
health of the fisheries, that is, they are present in distinct numbers if prey is sufficient.
Furthermore, target species can also be subdivided into reef residents and transients. Pelagic
species like the anchovies, ‘dalirag’ and ‘mogkas’, are transient residents which occur in
schools. Their presence, if not qualified, can give the impression that the reefs support a large
esidents who depend on the reef
. The total density of the fishes and the density per size class range of fishes
4. Among all the barangays,
Balbagon had the highest average total fish density (535 organisms/500 m2), followed by
) and Baylao (342
4). Of these results, high fish density at Agoho was the most
surprising, considering that the area’s substrate cover was 54.7% sand and 45.3% rock, very
ong (32% sand and 68% rock). Yet, Agoho had
ong had one of the lowest fish density. The high fish
macentrid, ‘salikoko’, ranging from
), the wrasse, ‘logatis’ at densities
Mag TupG
Figure 5.5. Number of fish families represented by the local names of fishes recorded during the Figure 5.5. Number of fish families represented by the local names of fishes recorded during the Figure 5.5. Number of fish families represented by the local names of fishes recorded during the Figure 5.5. Number of fish families represented by the local names of fishes recorded during the
visual census of Mambajao. Unclassified fishes were not included. Legend: Naa visual census of Mambajao. Unclassified fishes were not included. Legend: Naa visual census of Mambajao. Unclassified fishes were not included. Legend: Naa visual census of Mambajao. Unclassified fishes were not included. Legend: Naa
ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay =
Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.
of 0-136 organisms/500 m2 (average = 83 organisms/500 m
densities of 13-90 organisms/500 m
Reports).
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.4. Density (number of individuals/500 m4. Density (number of individuals/500 m4. Density (number of individuals/500 m4. Density (number of individuals/500 m
recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of Mambajao. Values in recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of Mambajao. Values in recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of Mambajao. Values in recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of Mambajao. Values in
parenthesis parenthesis parenthesis parenthesis are standard deviation of the mean.are standard deviation of the mean.are standard deviation of the mean.are standard deviation of the mean.
BarangayBarangayBarangayBarangay 1111----10 cm10 cm10 cm10 cm
Naasag 213 (57.5)
Yumbing 280 (77.3)
Agoho 374 (132.9)
Bug-ong 63.7 (29.1)
Kuguita 146 (104.9)
Baylao 327.7 (104.5)
Poblacion 406.7 (84.5)
Balbagon 523.3 (159.7)
Anito 89.0 (26.2)
Magting 178.7 (204.7)
Tupsan Grande 145.3 (78.5)
Comparing density of target and non
transects were non-target fishes in eight of the 11 barangays (Fig.
Poblacion and Magting that the density of target species was higher than non
However, if the target species were examined closely, the high density can actually be
attributed to the transient or pelagic species and
Fish Fish Fish Fish SizesSizesSizesSizes. Fish sizes were generally small (Fig.
only five of the 11 baragangays (Baylon, Poblacion, Balbagon, Anito and Magting) recording
organisms within the 11-20 cm range and only Poblacion with >30 cm (Table
11-20 cm fishes was highest at Baylao with a mean of 14 organisms/500 m
Balbagon with 11 organisms/500 m
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
(average = 83 organisms/500 m2) and the apogonid, ‘moong’ at
90 organisms/500 m2 (average = 42 organisms/500 m2)(refer to Barangay
4. Density (number of individuals/500 m4. Density (number of individuals/500 m4. Density (number of individuals/500 m4. Density (number of individuals/500 m2222) per size class and the total density of fishes ) per size class and the total density of fishes ) per size class and the total density of fishes ) per size class and the total density of fishes
recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of Mambajao. Values in recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of Mambajao. Values in recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of Mambajao. Values in recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of Mambajao. Values in
are standard deviation of the mean.are standard deviation of the mean.are standard deviation of the mean.are standard deviation of the mean.
10 cm10 cm10 cm10 cm 11111111----20 cm20 cm20 cm20 cm 21212121----30 cm30 cm30 cm30 cm > 30 cm> 30 cm> 30 cm> 30 cm
213 (57.5)
280 (77.3)
374 (132.9)
63.7 (29.1)
(104.9)
327.7 (104.5) 14.3 (12.6)
406.7 (84.5) 7.0 (6.6) 0.3 (0.6)
523.3 (159.7) 11.7 (13.9)
89.0 (26.2) 4.0 (5.3)
178.7 (204.7) 3.3 (2.5)
145.3 (78.5) 1.7 (2.9)
Comparing density of target and non-target species, the bulk of the fishes recorded within the
target fishes in eight of the 11 barangays (Fig. 5.6). It is only at Baylon,
Poblacion and Magting that the density of target species was higher than non
However, if the target species were examined closely, the high density can actually be
attributed to the transient or pelagic species and not to the permanent reef residents (Fig.
. Fish sizes were generally small (Fig. 5.7), falling within the 1-10 cm size range with
only five of the 11 baragangays (Baylon, Poblacion, Balbagon, Anito and Magting) recording
20 cm range and only Poblacion with >30 cm (Table
20 cm fishes was highest at Baylao with a mean of 14 organisms/500 m
Balbagon with 11 organisms/500 m2.
(Final Report), page - 168168168168
) and the apogonid, ‘moong’ at
)(refer to Barangay
) per size class and the total density of fishes ) per size class and the total density of fishes ) per size class and the total density of fishes ) per size class and the total density of fishes
recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of Mambajao. Values in recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of Mambajao. Values in recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of Mambajao. Values in recorded during the fish visual census at the different barangays of Mambajao. Values in
Total DensityTotal DensityTotal DensityTotal Density
213.0 (57.5)
280.0 (77.3)
374.0 (132.9)
63.7 (29.1)
146 .0 (104.9)
342.0 (116.1)
414.0 (87.7)
535.0 (151.6)
93.0 (20.9)
182 (207.0)
147 (81.4)
target species, the bulk of the fishes recorded within the
6). It is only at Baylon,
Poblacion and Magting that the density of target species was higher than non-target fishes.
However, if the target species were examined closely, the high density can actually be
not to the permanent reef residents (Fig. 5.6).
10 cm size range with
only five of the 11 baragangays (Baylon, Poblacion, Balbagon, Anito and Magting) recording
20 cm range and only Poblacion with >30 cm (Table 5.4). Density of
20 cm fishes was highest at Baylao with a mean of 14 organisms/500 m2, followed by
Figure 5.7. Density (number of organisms/500 mFigure 5.7. Density (number of organisms/500 mFigure 5.7. Density (number of organisms/500 mFigure 5.7. Density (number of organisms/500 m
visual census of Mambajao. Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, visual census of Mambajao. Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, visual census of Mambajao. Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, visual census of Mambajao. Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho,
Bug = BugBug = BugBug = BugBug = Bug----ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon,
Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.
1-10 cm
11-20 cm
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
Naa Yum
Densi
ty (
No.
of
Indiv
iduals
/500m
2)
Densi
ty (
No.
of
Indiv
iduals
/500m
2)
Densi
ty (
No.
of
Indiv
iduals
/500m
2)
Densi
ty (
No.
of
Indiv
iduals
/500m
2)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Naa Yum Ago
Density
(N
o.
of
Indiv
iduals/5
00 m
2)
Density
(N
o.
of
Indiv
iduals/5
00 m
2)
Density
(N
o.
of
Indiv
iduals/5
00 m
2)
Density
(N
o.
of
Indiv
iduals/5
00 m
2) Indicator Species
Target Species
Target Species
Figure 5.6. Fish density (number of fishes/500 mFigure 5.6. Fish density (number of fishes/500 mFigure 5.6. Fish density (number of fishes/500 mFigure 5.6. Fish density (number of fishes/500 m
unclassified fishes recorded during unclassified fishes recorded during unclassified fishes recorded during unclassified fishes recorded during
Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = BugLegend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = BugLegend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = BugLegend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = Bug
Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG =
Tupsan Grande.Tupsan Grande.Tupsan Grande.Tupsan Grande.
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
Figure 5.7. Density (number of organisms/500 mFigure 5.7. Density (number of organisms/500 mFigure 5.7. Density (number of organisms/500 mFigure 5.7. Density (number of organisms/500 m2222) of ) of ) of ) of fishes recorded during the PRA fish fishes recorded during the PRA fish fishes recorded during the PRA fish fishes recorded during the PRA fish
visual census of Mambajao. Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, visual census of Mambajao. Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, visual census of Mambajao. Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, visual census of Mambajao. Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho,
ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon,
Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.Ani = Anito, TupG = Tupsan Grande.
10 cm
20 cm
Ago Bug Kug Bay Pob Bal Ani Mag TupG
BARANGAYBARANGAYBARANGAYBARANGAY
Bug Kug Bay Pob Bal Ani Mag
BARANGAYBARANGAYBARANGAYBARANGAY
Non-Target Species
Unclassified
Indicator Species
Target Species – Reef
Target Species – Pelagic
Figure 5.6. Fish density (number of fishes/500 mFigure 5.6. Fish density (number of fishes/500 mFigure 5.6. Fish density (number of fishes/500 mFigure 5.6. Fish density (number of fishes/500 m2222) of indicator, target, non) of indicator, target, non) of indicator, target, non) of indicator, target, non----target and target and target and target and
unclassified fishes recorded during unclassified fishes recorded during unclassified fishes recorded during unclassified fishes recorded during the PRA fish visual census of Mambajao. the PRA fish visual census of Mambajao. the PRA fish visual census of Mambajao. the PRA fish visual census of Mambajao.
Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = BugLegend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = BugLegend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = BugLegend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, Bug = Bug----ong, Kug = ong, Kug = ong, Kug = ong, Kug =
Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG =
(Final Report), page - 169169169169
fishes recorded during the PRA fish fishes recorded during the PRA fish fishes recorded during the PRA fish fishes recorded during the PRA fish
visual census of Mambajao. Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, visual census of Mambajao. Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, visual census of Mambajao. Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho, visual census of Mambajao. Legend: Naa = Naasag, Yum = Yumbing, Ago = Agoho,
ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, ong, Kug = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon,
TupG
TupG
target and target and target and target and
the PRA fish visual census of Mambajao. the PRA fish visual census of Mambajao. the PRA fish visual census of Mambajao. the PRA fish visual census of Mambajao.
ong, Kug = ong, Kug = ong, Kug = ong, Kug =
Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG = Kuguita, Bay = Baylao, Pob = Poblacion, Bal = Balbagon, Ani = Anito, TupG =
Survey of Seagrass Survey of Seagrass Survey of Seagrass Survey of Seagrass BedsBedsBedsBeds. . . .
Paderanga and Apugan (2002
Mambajao except for that at Lagunde, Poblacion and Baylao. However, PCRA coastal maps
drawn by barangay-level consultation showed the presence of large seagrass beds
coastal barangays. Dr. Janet S. Estacion (CCRMP Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist) and
Ms. Jean O. Polo of DENR-10 conducted a rapid validation of the seagrass beds indicated in
the PCRA maps. Riding a motorized boat from Agoho to Tupsan Gran
the PCRA maps and any area encountered in the trip that may have seagrass beds were
examined through snorkeling. Particular attention was paid to the Poblacion and Baylao, sites
which were positively identified as having seagrass be
Seagrass beds were not seen at Kuguita and Baylao but rather the greenish color of the sea
bottom (often mistaken for seagrasses) was due to the presence of the green alga,
Enteromorpha intestinalis, attached to rocks. To
Actinotrichia, Dictyota, Mastophora, and Galaxaura
covered with remnants and stipes of the brown algae,
Turbinaria, were present.
Two sites had confirmed seagrass beds: Poblacion (between Balintawak and the warehouse,
near the opening of the creek, and Anito. The bed at Poblacion was small (about 10 m wide)
composed of Cymodocea rotundata
thalli. Present at the edges of the bed were the pioneering species,
Halophila ovalis. A portion of the bed was unique in that it was composed of
isoetifolium, almost a pure bed except for a few
Enteromorpha on rocks followed by
bed about 15 m wide and about 50 m long, located at a depth of about 20 ft.
Seagrass beds do not thrive in areas with unstable substrate
wave action. This may be the case of Mambajao as indicated by its steep underwater
topography and large-grained sediment type.
* Paderanga, O.R.T. and R.S. Apugan. 2002. Coastal Marine Resource Assessment of Mambajao, Camiguin (Terminal Report,
September 2002).
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
Paderanga and Apugan (2002*) showed that seagrasses do not form extensive beds at
Mambajao except for that at Lagunde, Poblacion and Baylao. However, PCRA coastal maps
level consultation showed the presence of large seagrass beds
coastal barangays. Dr. Janet S. Estacion (CCRMP Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist) and
10 conducted a rapid validation of the seagrass beds indicated in
the PCRA maps. Riding a motorized boat from Agoho to Tupsan Grande, places indicated at
the PCRA maps and any area encountered in the trip that may have seagrass beds were
examined through snorkeling. Particular attention was paid to the Poblacion and Baylao, sites
which were positively identified as having seagrass beds by Paderanga and Apugan (2002).
Seagrass beds were not seen at Kuguita and Baylao but rather the greenish color of the sea
bottom (often mistaken for seagrasses) was due to the presence of the green alga,
attached to rocks. Together with this were other algae such as
Actinotrichia, Dictyota, Mastophora, and Galaxaura. At the deeper portion, the rocks were
covered with remnants and stipes of the brown algae, Sargassum alone or
Two sites had confirmed seagrass beds: Poblacion (between Balintawak and the warehouse,
near the opening of the creek, and Anito. The bed at Poblacion was small (about 10 m wide)
Cymodocea rotundata and Halodule uninervis with few Thalassia hem
thalli. Present at the edges of the bed were the pioneering species, Halodule pinifolia
. A portion of the bed was unique in that it was composed of
, almost a pure bed except for a few Thalassia shoots. At the deeper portion were
on rocks followed by Sargassum. At Anito, there was a pure Halodule pinifolia
bed about 15 m wide and about 50 m long, located at a depth of about 20 ft.
Seagrass beds do not thrive in areas with unstable substrate, often exposed to high energy
wave action. This may be the case of Mambajao as indicated by its steep underwater
grained sediment type.
and R.S. Apugan. 2002. Coastal Marine Resource Assessment of Mambajao, Camiguin (Terminal Report,
(Final Report), page - 170170170170
) showed that seagrasses do not form extensive beds at
Mambajao except for that at Lagunde, Poblacion and Baylao. However, PCRA coastal maps
level consultation showed the presence of large seagrass beds in several
coastal barangays. Dr. Janet S. Estacion (CCRMP Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist) and
10 conducted a rapid validation of the seagrass beds indicated in
de, places indicated at
the PCRA maps and any area encountered in the trip that may have seagrass beds were
examined through snorkeling. Particular attention was paid to the Poblacion and Baylao, sites
ds by Paderanga and Apugan (2002).
Seagrass beds were not seen at Kuguita and Baylao but rather the greenish color of the sea
bottom (often mistaken for seagrasses) was due to the presence of the green alga,
gether with this were other algae such as
. At the deeper portion, the rocks were
alone or Sargassum and
Two sites had confirmed seagrass beds: Poblacion (between Balintawak and the warehouse,
near the opening of the creek, and Anito. The bed at Poblacion was small (about 10 m wide)
Thalassia hemprichii
Halodule pinifolia and
. A portion of the bed was unique in that it was composed of Syringodium
At the deeper portion were
Halodule pinifolia
bed about 15 m wide and about 50 m long, located at a depth of about 20 ft.
, often exposed to high energy
wave action. This may be the case of Mambajao as indicated by its steep underwater
and R.S. Apugan. 2002. Coastal Marine Resource Assessment of Mambajao, Camiguin (Terminal Report,
RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
Habitat Assessment Activity (PRA Training, Survey and Analysis)Habitat Assessment Activity (PRA Training, Survey and Analysis)Habitat Assessment Activity (PRA Training, Survey and Analysis)Habitat Assessment Activity (PRA Training, Survey and Analysis)
Among the municipalities of the Province, Mambajao had a low turn
thus participants of other barangays had to survey those barangays that were not
represented. One of the apparent reasons for the low turn
participants regarding the activity. According to one participant, he was informed only in the
late afternoon, the day before the training. Another participant was anxious to go home
early since he had already scheduled crop harvesting in his farm.
If the PRA activity were to be sustained as an annual municipal activity, there is a need to
involve more barangay residents particularly those from barangay Tupsan Grande. Training
could be conducted by identified participants who had previous PRA training
involvement, and who showed an aptitude and understanding of the entire activity. Also,
since this PRA already showed that two barangays (Agoho and Bug
PRA should be concentrated in areas with reefs.
The data for fish catch collected during the PRA was intentionally not analyzed since data
collected was sparse and any analysis may lead to misconceptions regarding the state of the
fisheries. Thus, the continued data collection for fish catch is strongly recommended.
A disadvantage of the reliability of the PRA data is the differences in the levels of expertise
among the observers for FVC and data gatherers for fish catch since these need fish
identification which has to be validated by experts. Usually, a ‘Fish Album’ is use
this problem. The album contains pictures of the common fishes of the area, their local
names, their scientific names and the unique characteristics of each species. Since this PRA has
generated a collection of the local names, a ‘Fish Album’
and disseminated for use.
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
Habitat Assessment Activity (PRA Training, Survey and Analysis)Habitat Assessment Activity (PRA Training, Survey and Analysis)Habitat Assessment Activity (PRA Training, Survey and Analysis)Habitat Assessment Activity (PRA Training, Survey and Analysis). . . .
the municipalities of the Province, Mambajao had a low turn-out of participants and
thus participants of other barangays had to survey those barangays that were not
represented. One of the apparent reasons for the low turn-out was the delay in informing t
participants regarding the activity. According to one participant, he was informed only in the
late afternoon, the day before the training. Another participant was anxious to go home
early since he had already scheduled crop harvesting in his farm.
f the PRA activity were to be sustained as an annual municipal activity, there is a need to
involve more barangay residents particularly those from barangay Tupsan Grande. Training
could be conducted by identified participants who had previous PRA training
involvement, and who showed an aptitude and understanding of the entire activity. Also,
since this PRA already showed that two barangays (Agoho and Bug-ong) does not have reefs,
PRA should be concentrated in areas with reefs.
collected during the PRA was intentionally not analyzed since data
collected was sparse and any analysis may lead to misconceptions regarding the state of the
fisheries. Thus, the continued data collection for fish catch is strongly recommended.
vantage of the reliability of the PRA data is the differences in the levels of expertise
among the observers for FVC and data gatherers for fish catch since these need fish
identification which has to be validated by experts. Usually, a ‘Fish Album’ is use
this problem. The album contains pictures of the common fishes of the area, their local
names, their scientific names and the unique characteristics of each species. Since this PRA has
generated a collection of the local names, a ‘Fish Album’ can be generated after a workshop
(Final Report), page - 171171171171
out of participants and
thus participants of other barangays had to survey those barangays that were not
out was the delay in informing the
participants regarding the activity. According to one participant, he was informed only in the
late afternoon, the day before the training. Another participant was anxious to go home
f the PRA activity were to be sustained as an annual municipal activity, there is a need to
involve more barangay residents particularly those from barangay Tupsan Grande. Training
could be conducted by identified participants who had previous PRA training and
involvement, and who showed an aptitude and understanding of the entire activity. Also,
ong) does not have reefs,
collected during the PRA was intentionally not analyzed since data
collected was sparse and any analysis may lead to misconceptions regarding the state of the
fisheries. Thus, the continued data collection for fish catch is strongly recommended.
vantage of the reliability of the PRA data is the differences in the levels of expertise
among the observers for FVC and data gatherers for fish catch since these need fish
identification which has to be validated by experts. Usually, a ‘Fish Album’ is used to address
this problem. The album contains pictures of the common fishes of the area, their local
names, their scientific names and the unique characteristics of each species. Since this PRA has
can be generated after a workshop
Status of Marine and Coastal Habitats of MambajaoStatus of Marine and Coastal Habitats of MambajaoStatus of Marine and Coastal Habitats of MambajaoStatus of Marine and Coastal Habitats of Mambajao
The participants were tasked to determine the best reef areas to be surveyed. As such, it is
assumed that the surveyed sites represented ei
barangay (like PRA sites located within MPAs
typical marine habitat of the barangay.
Generally, the status of the coral reefs of Mambajao ranges from poor to fair with high
coral cover at Magting (34.67%) and Tupsan Grande (30.27%)(Table 2). This is despite the
fact that the PRA sites were not located within their MPAs. Since it is customary to protect the
best reefs in the area, it is possible that coral cover withi
PRA sites. Thus it appears that among the barangays of Mambajao, Magting and Mambajao
have conditions that are favorable for reefs. Rather than establishing sanctuaries at other
barangays, it is recommended that the size o
Grande be increased.
Despite having the highest coral cover within Mambajao, Magting and Tupsan Grande had
relatively low fish densities (Table
the PRA or may be because of fishing pressure within the area. Close attention should be paid
to the analysis of future PRA data to generate reliable trends for proper management.
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
Status of Marine and Coastal Habitats of MambajaoStatus of Marine and Coastal Habitats of MambajaoStatus of Marine and Coastal Habitats of MambajaoStatus of Marine and Coastal Habitats of Mambajao. . . .
The participants were tasked to determine the best reef areas to be surveyed. As such, it is
assumed that the surveyed sites represented either the best coral reef area within the
barangay (like PRA sites located within MPAs – example, Kuguita and Poblacion) or the
typical marine habitat of the barangay.
Generally, the status of the coral reefs of Mambajao ranges from poor to fair with high
coral cover at Magting (34.67%) and Tupsan Grande (30.27%)(Table 2). This is despite the
fact that the PRA sites were not located within their MPAs. Since it is customary to protect the
best reefs in the area, it is possible that coral cover within the MPAs may be higher than the
PRA sites. Thus it appears that among the barangays of Mambajao, Magting and Mambajao
have conditions that are favorable for reefs. Rather than establishing sanctuaries at other
barangays, it is recommended that the size of the existing MPAs at Magting and Tupsan
Despite having the highest coral cover within Mambajao, Magting and Tupsan Grande had
relatively low fish densities (Table 4.3). This may be due to the different observers conducting
or may be because of fishing pressure within the area. Close attention should be paid
to the analysis of future PRA data to generate reliable trends for proper management.
(Final Report), page - 172172172172
The participants were tasked to determine the best reef areas to be surveyed. As such, it is
ther the best coral reef area within the
example, Kuguita and Poblacion) or the
Generally, the status of the coral reefs of Mambajao ranges from poor to fair with highest live
coral cover at Magting (34.67%) and Tupsan Grande (30.27%)(Table 2). This is despite the
fact that the PRA sites were not located within their MPAs. Since it is customary to protect the
n the MPAs may be higher than the
PRA sites. Thus it appears that among the barangays of Mambajao, Magting and Mambajao
have conditions that are favorable for reefs. Rather than establishing sanctuaries at other
f the existing MPAs at Magting and Tupsan
Despite having the highest coral cover within Mambajao, Magting and Tupsan Grande had
3). This may be due to the different observers conducting
or may be because of fishing pressure within the area. Close attention should be paid
to the analysis of future PRA data to generate reliable trends for proper management.
Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment.
The surveyed site for coral reef assessment was composed primarily of dead coral (Fig.
reaching high as 75% at Transect 1 (Table
the last two transects was composed of rock with 24% and 36%, respec
cover of the transects at Naasag ranged from 4
categorizing the area as “poor” (0
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.5. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Naasag, Mambajao.5. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Naasag, Mambajao.5. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Naasag, Mambajao.5. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Naasag, Mambajao.
Live Live Live Live
CoralCoralCoralCoral
Transect 1 8
Transect 2 4
Transect 3 8
Average 6.67
Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3
Figure 5.8. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.8. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.8. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.8. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as
drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao. drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao. drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao. drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao.
Legend:Legend:Legend:Legend:
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
NAASAG, MAMBAJAONAASAG, MAMBAJAONAASAG, MAMBAJAONAASAG, MAMBAJAO
The surveyed site for coral reef assessment was composed primarily of dead coral (Fig.
reaching high as 75% at Transect 1 (Table 5.5) to 48% at Transects 2 and 3. A sizeable part of
the last two transects was composed of rock with 24% and 36%, respectively. The live coral
cover of the transects at Naasag ranged from 4-8%, with an average of 6.67% (Fig.
categorizing the area as “poor” (0-24.9%).
5. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Naasag, Mambajao.5. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Naasag, Mambajao.5. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Naasag, Mambajao.5. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Naasag, Mambajao.
Soft Soft Soft Soft
CoralCoralCoralCoral
Dead Dead Dead Dead
CoralCoralCoralCoral RubbleRubbleRubbleRubble SandSandSandSand RockRockRockRock
0 75 9 8 0
0 48 16 8 24
0 48 8 0 36
0 57.0 11.0 5.33 20
Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3
Figure 5.8. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.8. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.8. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.8. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as
drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao. drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao. drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao. drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao.
Live Coral Dead Coral Rubble
Sand Rock
(Final Report), page - 173173173173
The surveyed site for coral reef assessment was composed primarily of dead coral (Fig. 5.8),
5) to 48% at Transects 2 and 3. A sizeable part of
tively. The live coral
8%, with an average of 6.67% (Fig. 5.8),
5. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Naasag, Mambajao.5. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Naasag, Mambajao.5. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Naasag, Mambajao.5. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Naasag, Mambajao.
OthersOthersOthersOthers
0
0
0
0
Figure 5.8. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.8. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.8. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.8. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as
drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao. drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao. drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao. drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao.
Fish Visual CensusFish Visual CensusFish Visual CensusFish Visual Census. . . .
FishFishFishFish Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.
the FVC of Naasag, Mambajao.
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.6. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 6. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 6. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 6. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I =
indicator; T(R) = indicator; T(R) = indicator; T(R) = indicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonresident coral reef target species, NT = nonresident coral reef target species, NT = nonresident coral reef target species, NT = non
total density and their percent contribution (%) to total fish density. SD = total density and their percent contribution (%) to total fish density. SD = total density and their percent contribution (%) to total fish density. SD = total density and their percent contribution (%) to total fish density. SD =
standard deviation.standard deviation.standard deviation.standard deviation.
Local NameLocal NameLocal NameLocal Name Common NameCommon NameCommon NameCommon Name
1 Alibangbang Butterfly Fish
2 Mongit Surgeon Fish
3 Pogot Triggerfishes
4 Panapsapan Sweetlips
5 Baga-baga Squirrel Fish
6 Kambiray Wrasse
7 Logatis Wrasses
8 Maming Wrasse
9 Molmol Parrot fish
10 Moong Cardinal Fish
11 Lobay-lobay Sand Tilefishes
12 Agmang Moray Eel
13 Sobok Sand Perch
14 Salikoko Damsel Fish
15 Bantay-botbot Anemone Fish
16 Kabatingan Sergeant Major
17 Kapaw Damsel Fish
18 Manggolob Damsel Fishes
19 Botete Pufferfishes
20 Klamyan
Except for the local name, ‘klamyan’, the other 19 local names were traced to 13 families that
can be categorized as:
(A) Indicator species: Chaetodontidae (‘alibang
(B) Target Species:
(‘panapsapan’), Holocentridae (‘baga
and ‘maming’), and Scaridae (‘molmol’);
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity. A total of 20 local names (Table 5.6) were recorded during
the FVC of Naasag, Mambajao.
6. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 6. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 6. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 6. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I =
resident coral reef target species, NT = nonresident coral reef target species, NT = nonresident coral reef target species, NT = nonresident coral reef target species, NT = non----target species), mean target species), mean target species), mean target species), mean
total density and their percent contribution (%) to total fish density. SD = total density and their percent contribution (%) to total fish density. SD = total density and their percent contribution (%) to total fish density. SD = total density and their percent contribution (%) to total fish density. SD =
Common NameCommon NameCommon NameCommon Name FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily CCCC 1111----10 cm10 cm10 cm10 cm
MeanMeanMeanMean SDSDSDSD
Butterfly Fish Chaetodontidae I 1.00 1.00
Surgeon Fish Acanthuridae T(R) 0.33 0.58
Triggerfishes Balistidae T(R) 0.33 0.58
Sweetlips Haemulidae T(R) 0.33 0.58
Squirrel Fish Holocentridae T(R) 0.67 0.58
Wrasse Labridae T(R) 0.67 1.15
Wrasses Labridae T(R) 5.00 1.00
Wrasse Labridae T(R) 0.33 0.58
Parrot fish Scaridae T(R) 3.00 2.65
Cardinal Fish Apogonidae NT 1.33 1.53
Sand Tilefishes Malacanthidae NT 0.33 0.58
Moray Eel Muraenidae NT 0.33 0.58
Sand Perch Pinguipedidae NT 0.67 0.58
Damsel Fish Pomacentridae NT 29.00 12.17
Anemone Fish Pomacentridae NT 8.67 5.86
Sergeant Major Pomacentridae NT 66.67 115.47
Damsel Fish Pomacentridae NT 2.00 2.65
Damsel Fishes Pomacentridae NT 25.33 7.77
Pufferfishes Tetraodontidae NT 0.33 0.58
Unknown U 66.67 57.74
Except for the local name, ‘klamyan’, the other 19 local names were traced to 13 families that
(A) Indicator species: Chaetodontidae (‘alibang-bang);
(B) Target Species: Acanthuridae (‘mongit’), Balistidae (‘pogot’), Haemulidae
(‘panapsapan’), Holocentridae (‘baga-baga’), Labridae (‘kambiray’, ‘logatis’
and ‘maming’), and Scaridae (‘molmol’);
(Final Report), page - 174174174174
6) were recorded during
6. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 6. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 6. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 6. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I =
target species), mean target species), mean target species), mean target species), mean
total density and their percent contribution (%) to total fish density. SD = total density and their percent contribution (%) to total fish density. SD = total density and their percent contribution (%) to total fish density. SD = total density and their percent contribution (%) to total fish density. SD =
10 cm10 cm10 cm10 cm
SDSDSDSD %%%%
1.00 0.47
0.58 0.16
0.58 0.16
0.58 0.16
0.58 0.31
1.15 0.31
1.00 2.35
0.58 0.16
2.65 1.41
1.53 0.63
0.58 0.16
0.58 0.16
0.58 0.31
12.17 13.62
5.86 4.07
115.47 31.30
2.65 0.94
7.77 11.89
0.58 0.16
57.74 31.30
Except for the local name, ‘klamyan’, the other 19 local names were traced to 13 families that
Acanthuridae (‘mongit’), Balistidae (‘pogot’), Haemulidae
baga’), Labridae (‘kambiray’, ‘logatis’
(C) Non-Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Malacanthidae (‘lobay
Muraenidae (‘amang’), Pinguipedidae (‘subok’), Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’,
‘batay bot-bot, ‘kabatingan’, ‘kapaw’, ‘manggolob’) and Tetraodontidae
(‘botete’).
Using this classification scheme, the number of ‘species’ (based on local names) and the
number of families they represent between target and non
5.9). There were eight target species from six families and 10 non
families.
Fish DensityFish DensityFish DensityFish Density and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. Mean total fish density per transect at Naasag ranged from 174
279 individuals/500 m2 with a mean of 213 individuals/500 m
In terms of their contribution to total fish density, the non
majority (63.22%) of the fishes observed within the transects (Fig.
consisted of 5% and indicator species 0.47%. A substantial percentage (3
Figure 5.9. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.9. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.9. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.9. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families
and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of indicator, target and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of indicator, target and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of indicator, target and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of indicator, target
and nonand nonand nonand non----target species.target species.target species.target species.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
SpeciesSpeciesSpeciesSpecies
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Indicator Species
Target Species
Non-Target Species
Unclassified
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Malacanthidae (‘lobay
enidae (‘amang’), Pinguipedidae (‘subok’), Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’,
bot, ‘kabatingan’, ‘kapaw’, ‘manggolob’) and Tetraodontidae
Using this classification scheme, the number of ‘species’ (based on local names) and the
number of families they represent between target and non-target species were similar (Fig.
9). There were eight target species from six families and 10 non-target sp
Mean total fish density per transect at Naasag ranged from 174
with a mean of 213 individuals/500 m2 (SD = 57).
In terms of their contribution to total fish density, the non-target species composed the
majority (63.22%) of the fishes observed within the transects (Fig. 5.9). Target species only
consisted of 5% and indicator species 0.47%. A substantial percentage (31.3%) number of the
Figure 5.9. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.9. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.9. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.9. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families
and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of indicator, target and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of indicator, target and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of indicator, target and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of indicator, target
target species.target species.target species.target species.
SpeciesSpeciesSpeciesSpecies FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily % Contr ibution% Contr ibution% Contr ibution% Contr ibution
Indicator Species
Target Species
Target Species
Unclassified
(Final Report), page - 175175175175
Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Malacanthidae (‘lobay-lobay’),
enidae (‘amang’), Pinguipedidae (‘subok’), Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’,
bot, ‘kabatingan’, ‘kapaw’, ‘manggolob’) and Tetraodontidae
Using this classification scheme, the number of ‘species’ (based on local names) and the
target species were similar (Fig.
target species from six
Mean total fish density per transect at Naasag ranged from 174-
target species composed the
9). Target species only
1.3%) number of the
Figure 5.9. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.9. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.9. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.9. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families
and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of indicator, target and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of indicator, target and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of indicator, target and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of indicator, target
% Contr ibution% Contr ibution% Contr ibution% Contr ibution
fishes cannot be classified (Fig.
density of 66 individuals/500 m
All 20 ‘species’ of recorded fishes were within the 1
contribution from the non-target species of Family Pomacantridae (damsel fishes).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 2 3 4 5
Density
(N
o.
of
Indiv
iduals/5
00 m
2)
Density
(N
o.
of
Indiv
iduals/5
00 m
2)
Density
(N
o.
of
Indiv
iduals/5
00 m
2)
Density
(N
o.
of
Indiv
iduals/5
00 m
2)
Figure Figure Figure Figure 5.105.105.105.10. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 mMambajaoMambajaoMambajaoMambajao. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.
1 = Alibangbang 6 =
2 = Mongit 7 =
3 = Pogot 8 =
4 = Panapsapan 9 =
5 = Baga-baga 10 =
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
fishes cannot be classified (Fig. 5.9). These were the unclassified ‘klamyan’ which had a mean
density of 66 individuals/500 m2 (Table 5.6).
All 20 ‘species’ of recorded fishes were within the 1-10 cm size range (Fig.
target species of Family Pomacantridae (damsel fishes).
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'
. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m2222) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at . See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.
6 = Kambiray 11 = Lobaylobay 16 =
7 = Logatis 12 = Agmang 17 =
8 = Maming 13 = Sobok 18 =
9 = Molmol 14 = Salikoko 19 =
10 = Moong 15 = Bantay-botbot 20 =
(Final Report), page - 176176176176
). These were the unclassified ‘klamyan’ which had a mean
10 cm size range (Fig. 5.10) with most
target species of Family Pomacantridae (damsel fishes).
18 19 20
) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at NaasagNaasagNaasagNaasag, , , ,
16 = Kabatingan
17 = Kapaw
18 = Manggolob
19 = Botete
20 = Klamyan
YUMBING, MAMBAJAOYUMBING, MAMBAJAOYUMBING, MAMBAJAOYUMBING, MAMBAJAO
Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment.
The surveyed site for coral reef assessment was composed primarily of dead coral (Fig.
ranging from 64-68% (Table
coral cover of the transects ranged from 4
categorizing the area as “poor” (0
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.7. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Yumbing, Mambajao.7. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Yumbing, Mambajao.7. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Yumbing, Mambajao.7. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Yumbing, Mambajao.
Live Live Live Live
CoralCoralCoralCoral
Transect 1 4
Transect 2 4
Transect 3 16
Average 8.00
Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3
Figure 5.11. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.11. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.11. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.11. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as
drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Yumbing, drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Yumbing, drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Yumbing, drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Yumbing,
Mambajao. Mambajao. Mambajao. Mambajao.
LegLegLegLegend:end:end:end:
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
YUMBING, MAMBAJAOYUMBING, MAMBAJAOYUMBING, MAMBAJAOYUMBING, MAMBAJAO
The surveyed site for coral reef assessment was composed primarily of dead coral (Fig.
68% (Table 5.7) with an average cover of 65.3% for Yumbing. The live
coral cover of the transects ranged from 4-16%, with an average of 8.0% (Fig.
categorizing the area as “poor” (0-24.9%).
7. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Yumbing, Mambajao.7. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Yumbing, Mambajao.7. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Yumbing, Mambajao.7. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Yumbing, Mambajao.
Soft Soft Soft Soft
CoralCoralCoralCoral
Dead Dead Dead Dead
CoralCoralCoralCoral RubbleRubbleRubbleRubble SandSandSandSand RockRockRockRock
0 64 28 4 0
0 64 20 4 0
0 68 4 4 0
0 65.33 17.33 4.00 0
Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3
Figure 5.11. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.11. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.11. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.11. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as
drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Yumbing, drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Yumbing, drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Yumbing, drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Yumbing,
Live Coral Dead Coral Rubble
Sand Rock Others
(Final Report), page - 177177177177
The surveyed site for coral reef assessment was composed primarily of dead coral (Fig. 5.11),
7) with an average cover of 65.3% for Yumbing. The live
16%, with an average of 8.0% (Fig. 5.11),
7. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Yumbing, Mambajao.7. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Yumbing, Mambajao.7. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Yumbing, Mambajao.7. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Yumbing, Mambajao.
OthersOthersOthersOthers
0
8
8
5.33
Figure 5.11. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.11. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.11. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.11. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as
drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Yumbing, drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Yumbing, drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Yumbing, drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Yumbing,
Fish Visual CensusFish Visual CensusFish Visual CensusFish Visual Census. . . .
FishFishFishFish Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.
the FVC of Yumbing, Mambajao.
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.8. Local names 8. Local names 8. Local names 8. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;
T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non
and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.
Local NameLocal NameLocal NameLocal Name CommonCommonCommonCommon
1 Alibangbang Butterfly Fish
2 Pogot Triggerfishes
3 Sono Drummer
4 Logatis Wrasses
5 Maming Wrasse
6 Taad Wrasse
7 Molmol Parrot fish
8 Mogkas Anchovy
9 Tambal Leon Blenny
10 Sobok Sand Perch
11 Salikoko Damsel Fish
12 Bantay-botbot Anemone Fish
13 Kapaw Damsel Fish
14 Manggolob Damsel Fishes
15 Pata Damsel Fish
16 Klamyan
Except for the local name, ‘klamyan’, the other 15 local names were traced to 9 families that
can be categorized as:
(A) Indicator species: Chaetodontidae (‘alibang
(B) Target Species: Balistidae (‘pogot’), Kyphosidae (‘sono’), Labridae (‘logatis’,
‘maming’ and ‘taad’), Scaridae (‘molmol’) and Engraulidae (‘mogkas’);
(C) Non-Target Species: Blenniidae (‘tambal leon’),
Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’, ‘batay bot
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity. A total of 16 local names (Table 5.8) were recorded during
the FVC of Yumbing, Mambajao.
of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;
T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non----target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density
and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.
CommonCommonCommonCommon NameNameNameName FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily CCCC 1111----10 cm10 cm10 cm10 cm
MeanMeanMeanMean
Butterfly Fish Chaetodontidae I 1.00
Triggerfishes Balistidae T(R) 1.00
Drummer Kyphosidae T(R) 1.00
Wrasses Labridae T(R) 3.00
Wrasse Labridae T(R) 0.67
Wrasse Labridae T(R) 0.33
Parrot fish Scaridae T(R) 14.00 15.39
Anchovy Engraulidae T(P) 66.67 57.74
Blenniidae NT 1.00
Sand Perch Pinguipedidae NT 0.67
Damsel Fish Pomacentridae NT 94.33 26.10
Anemone Fish Pomacentridae NT 26.67 11.50
Damsel Fish Pomacentridae NT 0.33
Damsel Fishes Pomacentridae NT 2.33
Damsel Fish Pomacentridae NT 0.33
Unknown U 66.67 57.74
Except for the local name, ‘klamyan’, the other 15 local names were traced to 9 families that
Indicator species: Chaetodontidae (‘alibang-bang);
(B) Target Species: Balistidae (‘pogot’), Kyphosidae (‘sono’), Labridae (‘logatis’,
‘maming’ and ‘taad’), Scaridae (‘molmol’) and Engraulidae (‘mogkas’);
Target Species: Blenniidae (‘tambal leon’), Pinguipedidae (‘sobok’), and
Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’, ‘batay bot-bot, ‘kapaw’, ‘manggolob’ and ‘pata’).
(Final Report), page - 178178178178
8) were recorded during
of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;
target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density
and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.
10 cm10 cm10 cm10 cm
SDSDSDSD %%%%
1.73 0.36
1.00 0.36
1.73 0.36
2.65 1.07
1.15 0.24
0.58 0.12
15.39 5.00
57.74 23.81
1.00 0.36
0.58 0.24
26.10 33.69
11.50 9.52
0.58 0.12
4.04 0.83
0.58 0.12
57.74 23.81
Except for the local name, ‘klamyan’, the other 15 local names were traced to 9 families that
(B) Target Species: Balistidae (‘pogot’), Kyphosidae (‘sono’), Labridae (‘logatis’,
‘maming’ and ‘taad’), Scaridae (‘molmol’) and Engraulidae (‘mogkas’);
Pinguipedidae (‘sobok’), and
bot, ‘kapaw’, ‘manggolob’ and ‘pata’).
Using this classification scheme, the number of ‘species’ (based on local names) of target and
non-target species was similar (Fig.
families and seven target species from five families. Target species was represented by six
permanent reef residents and one transient/pelagic resident, ‘mogkas’ (Family Engraluidae).
Fish DensityFish DensityFish DensityFish Density and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. Mean total fish density per transect at Yumbing ranged from 197
350 individuals/500 m2 with a mean of 280 individuals/500 m
In terms of the contribution to total fish density, the non
(44.9%) of the fishes observed within the transects (Fig.
30.95%, most (23.8%) of which was composed of the pelagic tar
percentage (23.83%) number of the fishes cannot be classified (Fig.
unclassified ‘klamyan’ which had a mean density of 66 individuals/500 m
All 16 ‘species’ (based on local names) of recorded
(Fig. 5.13) with most contribution from the non
(‘salikoko’ and ‘bantay bot-bot) and the target species, ‘mogkas’ and ‘molmol’.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Spec iesSpec iesSpec iesSpec ies
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Indicator Species
Target Species
Non-Target Species
Unclassified
Figure 5.12. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.12. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.12. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.12. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families
and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of indicator, target and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of indicator, target and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of indicator, target and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of indicator, target
and nonand nonand nonand non----target species.target species.target species.target species.
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
Using this classification scheme, the number of ‘species’ (based on local names) of target and
target species was similar (Fig. 5.12). There were seven non-target species from three
families and seven target species from five families. Target species was represented by six
permanent reef residents and one transient/pelagic resident, ‘mogkas’ (Family Engraluidae).
Mean total fish density per transect at Yumbing ranged from 197
with a mean of 280 individuals/500 m2 (SD = 77).
In terms of the contribution to total fish density, the non-target species composed the majority
(44.9%) of the fishes observed within the transects (Fig. 5.12). Target species only consisted of
30.95%, most (23.8%) of which was composed of the pelagic target species. A substantial
percentage (23.83%) number of the fishes cannot be classified (Fig. 5.12). These were the
unclassified ‘klamyan’ which had a mean density of 66 individuals/500 m2 (Table
All 16 ‘species’ (based on local names) of recorded fishes were within the 1-
13) with most contribution from the non-target species of Family Pomacantridae
bot) and the target species, ‘mogkas’ and ‘molmol’.
FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily % Contr ibution% Contr ibution% Contr ibution% Contr ibution
Indicator Species
et Species
Target Species
Unclassified
Figure 5.12. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.12. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.12. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.12. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families
and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of indicator, target and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of indicator, target and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of indicator, target and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of indicator, target
target species.target species.target species.target species.
(Final Report), page - 179179179179
Using this classification scheme, the number of ‘species’ (based on local names) of target and
target species from three
families and seven target species from five families. Target species was represented by six
permanent reef residents and one transient/pelagic resident, ‘mogkas’ (Family Engraluidae).
Mean total fish density per transect at Yumbing ranged from 197-
target species composed the majority
12). Target species only consisted of
get species. A substantial
12). These were the
(Table 5.8).
-10 cm size range
target species of Family Pomacantridae
bot) and the target species, ‘mogkas’ and ‘molmol’.
Figure 5.12. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.12. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.12. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.12. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families
and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of indicator, target and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of indicator, target and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of indicator, target and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of indicator, target
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4
Density
(N
o.
of
Indiv
iduals/5
00 m
2)
Density
(N
o.
of
Indiv
iduals/5
00 m
2)
Density
(N
o.
of
Indiv
iduals/5
00 m
2)
Density
(N
o.
of
Indiv
iduals/5
00 m
2)
Figure Figure Figure Figure 5.135.135.135.13. Density of fishes . Density of fishes . Density of fishes . Density of fishes
MambajaoMambajaoMambajaoMambajao. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.
1 = Alibangbang 5 =
2 = Pogot 6 =
3 = Sono 7 =4 = Logatis 8 =
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'
. Density of fishes . Density of fishes . Density of fishes . Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m(number of organisms/500 m(number of organisms/500 m(number of organisms/500 m2222) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at
. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.
= Maming 9 = Tambal Leon 13 =
= Taad 10 = Sobok 14 =
= Molmol 11 = Salikoko 15 = = Mogkas 12 = Bantay-botbot 16 =
(Final Report), page - 180180180180
15 16
) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at YumbingYumbingYumbingYumbing, , , ,
Kapaw
Manggolob
Pata Klamyan
Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment.
The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Agoho, Mambajao was composed of almost
equal proportions of sand and rock (Table
than half of the substrate cover (Table
caution since it was conducted along Agoho’s mainland coast and the reef at White Island was
not included. Informal interactions with local participants, tourist boat operators and even
resort owners showed that it was local knowledge tha
to Bug-ong was mainly composed of sand and rock. Reef areas were present but at deeper
depths beyond the capability of PRA participants (Fig.
Since there was no live coral cover was recorded in the surveyed sit
assume no reefs existed within its perimeters. Although the classification of Gomez et al (1991)
includes a zero value under “poor” conditions (0
will not be categorized in view of the fact t
reef community.
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.9. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Agoho, Mambajao.9. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Agoho, Mambajao.9. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Agoho, Mambajao.9. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Agoho, Mambajao.
Live Live Live Live
CoralCoralCoralCoral
Transect 1 0
Transect 2 0
Transect 3 0
Average 0
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
AGOHO, MAMBAJAOAGOHO, MAMBAJAOAGOHO, MAMBAJAOAGOHO, MAMBAJAO
The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Agoho, Mambajao was composed of almost
equal proportions of sand and rock (Table 5.9, Fig. 5.14), with sand always comprising more
than half of the substrate cover (Table 5.9) in all transects. This result should be taken with
caution since it was conducted along Agoho’s mainland coast and the reef at White Island was
not included. Informal interactions with local participants, tourist boat operators and even
resort owners showed that it was local knowledge that the mainland’s coastline from Agoho
ong was mainly composed of sand and rock. Reef areas were present but at deeper
depths beyond the capability of PRA participants (Fig. 5.14).
Since there was no live coral cover was recorded in the surveyed site, it is reasonable to
assume no reefs existed within its perimeters. Although the classification of Gomez et al (1991)
includes a zero value under “poor” conditions (0-24.9%), this site (together with Bug
will not be categorized in view of the fact that it is a rock-sand community and not a coral
9. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Agoho, Mambajao.9. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Agoho, Mambajao.9. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Agoho, Mambajao.9. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Agoho, Mambajao.
Soft Soft Soft Soft
CoralCoralCoralCoral
Dead Dead Dead Dead
CoralCoralCoralCoral RubbleRubbleRubbleRubble SandSandSandSand RockRockRockRock
0 0 0 60 40
0 0 0 52 48
0 0 0 52 48
0 0 0 54.67 45.33
(Final Report), page - 181181181181
The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Agoho, Mambajao was composed of almost
14), with sand always comprising more
uld be taken with
caution since it was conducted along Agoho’s mainland coast and the reef at White Island was
not included. Informal interactions with local participants, tourist boat operators and even
t the mainland’s coastline from Agoho
ong was mainly composed of sand and rock. Reef areas were present but at deeper
e, it is reasonable to
assume no reefs existed within its perimeters. Although the classification of Gomez et al (1991)
24.9%), this site (together with Bug-ong)
sand community and not a coral
9. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Agoho, Mambajao.9. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Agoho, Mambajao.9. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Agoho, Mambajao.9. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Agoho, Mambajao.
OthersOthersOthersOthers
0
0
0
0
Fish Visual CensusFish Visual CensusFish Visual CensusFish Visual Census. . . .
FishFishFishFish Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.
the FVC of Agoho, Mambajao which belonged to seven families and can be categorized as:
(A) Target Species: Balistidae (‘pogot’), Labridae (‘labayan’, ‘logatis’, ‘lopit’
‘pedlok’, and ‘taad’), and Scaridae (‘molmol’);
(B) Non-Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Pinguipedidae (‘sobok’),
Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’, ‘batay bot
Synodontidae (‘tiki
Indicator species such as chaetodontids or butterfly fishes (‘alibang
Moorish idols (‘kanding-kanding’) were not observed. This is expected since the substrate of
survey area was rock-sand and thus confirms the role of these fishes as indicators of reefs.
TransectTransectTransectTransect
1111
TransectTransectTransectTransect
2222
Figure 5.14. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the Figure 5.14. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the Figure 5.14. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the Figure 5.14. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the
different transects as drawn by participants (below) and the average different transects as drawn by participants (below) and the average different transects as drawn by participants (below) and the average different transects as drawn by participants (below) and the average
cover (above) of Agoho, Mambajao. cover (above) of Agoho, Mambajao. cover (above) of Agoho, Mambajao. cover (above) of Agoho, Mambajao.
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity. A total of 15 local names (Table 5.10) were recorded during
the FVC of Agoho, Mambajao which belonged to seven families and can be categorized as:
(A) Target Species: Balistidae (‘pogot’), Labridae (‘labayan’, ‘logatis’, ‘lopit’
‘pedlok’, and ‘taad’), and Scaridae (‘molmol’);
Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Pinguipedidae (‘sobok’),
Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’, ‘batay bot-bot, ‘kabatingan’, ‘pata’) and
Synodontidae (‘tiki-tiki’).
chaetodontids or butterfly fishes (‘alibang-bang’) and zanclids or
kanding’) were not observed. This is expected since the substrate of
sand and thus confirms the role of these fishes as indicators of reefs.
TransectTransectTransectTransect
TransectTransectTransectTransect
3333
Figure 5.14. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the Figure 5.14. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the Figure 5.14. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the Figure 5.14. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the
different transects as drawn by participants (below) and the average different transects as drawn by participants (below) and the average different transects as drawn by participants (below) and the average different transects as drawn by participants (below) and the average
cover (above) of Agoho, Mambajao. cover (above) of Agoho, Mambajao. cover (above) of Agoho, Mambajao. cover (above) of Agoho, Mambajao.
Legend:Legend:Legend:Legend: Sand Rock
(Final Report), page - 182182182182
10) were recorded during
the FVC of Agoho, Mambajao which belonged to seven families and can be categorized as:
(A) Target Species: Balistidae (‘pogot’), Labridae (‘labayan’, ‘logatis’, ‘lopit’, ‘maming’,
Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Pinguipedidae (‘sobok’),
bot, ‘kabatingan’, ‘pata’) and
bang’) and zanclids or
kanding’) were not observed. This is expected since the substrate of
sand and thus confirms the role of these fishes as indicators of reefs.
Figure 5.14. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the Figure 5.14. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the Figure 5.14. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the Figure 5.14. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the
different transects as drawn by participants (below) and the average different transects as drawn by participants (below) and the average different transects as drawn by participants (below) and the average different transects as drawn by participants (below) and the average
Using this categorization (target and non
number of families they represent are similar (Fig.
three families and seven non-target species from four families.
TabTabTabTable le le le 5.5.5.5.10. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 10. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 10. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 10. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;
T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non
and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviatioand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviatioand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviatioand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviatio
Local NameLocal NameLocal NameLocal Name Common NameCommon NameCommon NameCommon Name
1 Pogot Triggerfishes
2 Labayan Wrasse
3 Logatis Wrasses
4 Lopit Blackeye Thicklip
5 Maming Wrasse
6 Pedlok Moon Wrasse
7 Taad Wrasse
8 Molmol Parrot fish
9 Moong Cardinal Fish
10 Sobok Sand Perch
11 Salikoko Damsel Fish
12 Bantay-botbot Anemone Fish
13 Kabatingan Sargeant Major
14 Pata Damsel Fish
15 Tiki-tiki Lizard Fish
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
SpeciesSpeciesSpeciesSpecies
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Figure 5.15. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.15. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.15. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.15. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families
and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of
target species.target species.target species.target species.
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
ing this categorization (target and non-target species), the number of local names and the
number of families they represent are similar (Fig. 5.15). There were eight target species from
target species from four families.
10. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 10. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 10. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 10. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;
T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non----target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density
and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviatioand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviatioand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviatioand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviatio
Common NameCommon NameCommon NameCommon Name FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily CCCC 1111----10 cm10 cm10 cm10 cm
MeanMeanMeanMean
Triggerfishes Balistidae T(R) 0.3 0.6
Labridae T(R) 23.3 26.4
Labridae T(R) 83.3 73.0
Blackeye Thicklip Labridae T(R) 2.7 4.6
Labridae T(R) 7.0 7.5
Moon Wrasse Labridae T(R) 21.3 15.0
Labridae T(R) 1.7 1.5
Parrot fish Scaridae T(R) 1.7 1.5
Cardinal Fish Apogonidae NT 42.3 41.6
Sand Perch Pinguipedidae NT 1.0 1.7
Damsel Fish Pomacentridae NT 126.7 25.1
Anemone Fish Pomacentridae NT 21.0 5.3
Sargeant Major Pomacentridae NT 24.0 28.7
Damsel Fish Pomacentridae NT 17.3 10.7
Lizard Fish Synodontidae NT 0.3 0.6
Target Species
Non-Target Species
SpeciesSpeciesSpeciesSpecies FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily % Contribution% Contribution% Contribution% Contribution
Figure 5.15. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.15. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.15. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.15. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families
and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nontarget and nontarget and nontarget and non
target species.target species.target species.target species.
(Final Report), page - 183183183183
target species), the number of local names and the
15). There were eight target species from
10. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 10. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 10. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 10. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;
target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density
and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviatioand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviatioand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviatioand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.n.n.n.
10 cm10 cm10 cm10 cm
SDSDSDSD %%%%
0.6 0.1
26.4 6.2
73.0 22.3
4.6 0.7
7.5 1.9
15.0 5.7
1.5 0.4
1.5 0.4
41.6 11.3
1.7 0.3
25.1 33.9
5.3 5.6
28.7 6.4
10.7 4.6
0.6 0.1
Figure 5.15. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.15. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.15. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.15. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families
target and nontarget and nontarget and nontarget and non----
Fish DensityFish DensityFish DensityFish Density and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. Mean total fish density per transect at Agoho ranged from 228
488 individuals/500 m2 with a mean of 374 individuals/500 m
In terms of contribution to total fish density, the non
(62.2%) of the fishes recorded (Fig.
As shown in Figure 5.16, all the 15 ‘species’ were within the 1
target pomacentrid, ‘salikoko’ contributing 33.9% to total density (Table
the targeted labrid, ‘logatis’ and the non
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1 2 3
Density
(N
o.
of
Indiv
iduals/5
00 m
2)
Density
(N
o.
of
Indiv
iduals/5
00 m
2)
Density
(N
o.
of
Indiv
iduals/5
00 m
2)
Density
(N
o.
of
Indiv
iduals/5
00 m
2)
Figure Figure Figure Figure 5.165.165.165.16. Density of fishes (number of organisms/. Density of fishes (number of organisms/. Density of fishes (number of organisms/. Density of fishes (number of organisms/
See legend below for fish ‘species’.See legend below for fish ‘species’.See legend below for fish ‘species’.See legend below for fish ‘species’.
1 = Pogot 2 = Labayan
3 = Logatis
4 = Lopit
5 = Maming
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
Mean total fish density per transect at Agoho ranged from 228
with a mean of 374 individuals/500 m2 (SD = 132).
In terms of contribution to total fish density, the non-target species composed the majority
(62.2%) of the fishes recorded (Fig. 5.15) with target species consisting the remaining 37.8%.
all the 15 ‘species’ were within the 1-10 cm size range with the non
target pomacentrid, ‘salikoko’ contributing 33.9% to total density (Table 5.10), followed by
the targeted labrid, ‘logatis’ and the non-target cardinal fishes, ‘moong’.
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Fish 'Spec ies'Fish 'Spec ies'Fish 'Spec ies'Fish 'Spec ies'
. Density of fishes (number of organisms/. Density of fishes (number of organisms/. Density of fishes (number of organisms/. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m500 m500 m500 m2222) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at AgohoAgohoAgohoAgoho
See legend below for fish ‘species’.See legend below for fish ‘species’.See legend below for fish ‘species’.See legend below for fish ‘species’.
6 = Pedlok 11 = Salikoko 7 = Taad 12 = Bantay-botbot
8 = Molmol 13 = Kabatingan
9 = Moong 14 = Pata
10 = Sobok 15 = Tiki-tiki
(Final Report), page - 184184184184
Mean total fish density per transect at Agoho ranged from 228-
target species composed the majority
15) with target species consisting the remaining 37.8%.
cm size range with the non-
10), followed by
13 14 15
AgohoAgohoAgohoAgoho, , , , MambajaoMambajaoMambajaoMambajao. . . .
BUGBUGBUGBUG
Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment.
The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Bug
all transects (Table 5.11). The only other substrate type recorded in the site was sand (24
44%). Informal interactions with local participants, tourist boat operators and even resort
owners showed that it was local knowledge that the mainland’s coastline from Agoho to Bug
ong Agoho’s was mainly composed of sand and rock. Reef areas were present but at deeper
depths beyond the capability of PRA participants (Fig.
Since there was no live coral cover was recorded in the surveyed site, it is reasonable to
assume no reefs existed within its perimeter. Although the classification of Gomez et al (1991)
includes a zero value under “poor” conditions (0
not be categorized in view of the fact that it is a rock
community.
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.11. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Bug11. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Bug11. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Bug11. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Bug
Live Live Live Live
CoralCoralCoralCoral
Transect 1 0
Transect 2 0
Transect 3 0
Average 0
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
BUGBUGBUGBUG----ONG, MAMBAJAOONG, MAMBAJAOONG, MAMBAJAOONG, MAMBAJAO
The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Bug-ong was predominantly rocky (56
11). The only other substrate type recorded in the site was sand (24
44%). Informal interactions with local participants, tourist boat operators and even resort
owners showed that it was local knowledge that the mainland’s coastline from Agoho to Bug
goho’s was mainly composed of sand and rock. Reef areas were present but at deeper
depths beyond the capability of PRA participants (Fig. 5.17).
Since there was no live coral cover was recorded in the surveyed site, it is reasonable to
sted within its perimeter. Although the classification of Gomez et al (1991)
includes a zero value under “poor” conditions (0-24.9%), this site (together with Agoho) will
not be categorized in view of the fact that it is a rock-sand community and not a cor
11. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Bug11. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Bug11. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Bug11. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Bug----ong, Mambajao.ong, Mambajao.ong, Mambajao.ong, Mambajao.
Soft Soft Soft Soft
CoralCoralCoralCoral
Dead Dead Dead Dead
CoralCoralCoralCoral RubbleRubbleRubbleRubble SandSandSandSand RockRockRockRock
0 0 0 28 72
0 0 0 44 56
0 0 0 24 76
0 0 0 32 68
(Final Report), page - 185185185185
ong was predominantly rocky (56-76%), in
11). The only other substrate type recorded in the site was sand (24-
44%). Informal interactions with local participants, tourist boat operators and even resort
owners showed that it was local knowledge that the mainland’s coastline from Agoho to Bug-
goho’s was mainly composed of sand and rock. Reef areas were present but at deeper
Since there was no live coral cover was recorded in the surveyed site, it is reasonable to
sted within its perimeter. Although the classification of Gomez et al (1991)
24.9%), this site (together with Agoho) will
sand community and not a coral reef
ong, Mambajao.ong, Mambajao.ong, Mambajao.ong, Mambajao.
OthersOthersOthersOthers
0
0
0
0
Fish Visual CensusFish Visual CensusFish Visual CensusFish Visual Census. . . .
FishFishFishFish Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.
the FVC of Bug-ong, Mambajao. These belonged to eight families and can be categorized as:
(A) Target Species: Labridae (‘labayan’, ‘logatis’, ‘lopit’, ‘pedlok’, and ‘taad’), Mullidae
(‘bodbob’) and Sphyraenidae (‘lambana’);
(B) Non-Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Fistulariidae (‘tubo
Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’) and Synodontidae (‘tiki
Indicator species such as chaetodontids or butterfly fishes (‘alibang
Moorish idols (‘kanding-kanding’) were not observed. This is expected since the substrate of
survey area was rock-sand and thus confirms the role of these fishes
TransectTransectTransectTransect
1111
Figure 5.17. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.17. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.17. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.17. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different
transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (right) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (right) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (right) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (right) of
BugBugBugBug----ong, ong, ong, ong, Mambajao.Mambajao.Mambajao.Mambajao.
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity. A total of 12 local names (Table 5.12) were recorded during
ong, Mambajao. These belonged to eight families and can be categorized as:
Species: Labridae (‘labayan’, ‘logatis’, ‘lopit’, ‘pedlok’, and ‘taad’), Mullidae
(‘bodbob’) and Sphyraenidae (‘lambana’);
Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Fistulariidae (‘tubo
Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’) and Synodontidae (‘tiki-tiki’).
Indicator species such as chaetodontids or butterfly fishes (‘alibang-bang’) and zanclids or
kanding’) were not observed. This is expected since the substrate of
sand and thus confirms the role of these fishes as indicators of reefs.
TransectTransectTransectTransect
2222
TransectTransectTransectTransect
3333
Sand
Rock
Figure 5.17. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.17. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.17. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.17. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different
transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (right) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (right) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (right) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (right) of
Mambajao.Mambajao.Mambajao.Mambajao.
(Final Report), page - 186186186186
12) were recorded during
ong, Mambajao. These belonged to eight families and can be categorized as:
Species: Labridae (‘labayan’, ‘logatis’, ‘lopit’, ‘pedlok’, and ‘taad’), Mullidae
Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Fistulariidae (‘tubo-tubo’),
bang’) and zanclids or
kanding’) were not observed. This is expected since the substrate of
as indicators of reefs.
Sand
Rock
Figure 5.17. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.17. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.17. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.17. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different
transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (right) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (right) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (right) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (right) of
Using the above categorization, the target species were represented by eight species from four
families while the non-target species had four from four families (Fig.
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.12. Local names of fishes, their common 12. Local names of fishes, their common 12. Local names of fishes, their common 12. Local names of fishes, their common
T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non
and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.
Local NameLocal NameLocal NameLocal Name Common NameCommon NameCommon NameCommon Name
1 Labayan Wrasse
2 Logatis Wrasses
3 Lopit Blackeye Thicklip
4 Pedlok Moon Wrasse
5 Taad Wrasse
6 Bodbob Goat Fish
7 Molmol Parrot fish
8 Lambana Big Eye Barracuda
9 Moong Cardinal Fish
10 Tobo-tobo Flutemouths
11 Salikoko Damsel Fish
12 Tiki-tiki Lizard Fish
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
SpeciesSpeciesSpeciesSpecies
Num
ber/
Perc
ent
Num
ber/
Perc
ent
Num
ber/
Perc
ent
Num
ber/
Perc
ent
Target Species
Non
Figure 5.18. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.18. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.18. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.18. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish
families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target
and nonand nonand nonand non----
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
the above categorization, the target species were represented by eight species from four
target species had four from four families (Fig. 5.18).
12. Local names of fishes, their common 12. Local names of fishes, their common 12. Local names of fishes, their common 12. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;
T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non----target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density
and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.
Common NameCommon NameCommon NameCommon Name FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily CCCC MeanMeanMeanMean
Labridae T(R) 14.0
Labridae T(R) 1.0
Blackeye Thicklip Labridae T(R) 0.3
Moon Wrasse Labridae T(R) 0.7
Labridae T(R) 1.0
Goat Fish Mullidae T(R) 3.7
Parrot fish Scaridae T(R) 3.0
Big Eye Barracuda Sphyraenidae T(R) 2.7
Cardinal Fish Apogonidae NT 6.0
Flutemouths Fistulariidae NT 0.7
Damsel Fish Pomacentridae NT 30.3
Lizard Fish Synodontidae NT 0.3
SpeciesSpeciesSpeciesSpecies FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily % Contribution% Contribution% Contribution% Contribution
Target Species
Non-Target Species
Figure 5.18. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.18. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.18. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.18. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish
families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target
----target species. target species. target species. target species.
(Final Report), page - 187187187187
the above categorization, the target species were represented by eight species from four
names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;
target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density
and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.
1111----10 cm10 cm10 cm10 cm
SDSDSDSD %%%%
6.9 22.0
1.7 1.6
0.6 0.5
1.2 1.0
1.0 1.6
4.7 5.8
3.0 4.7
4.6 4.2
2.6 9.4
1.2 1.0
15.5 47.6
0.6 0.5
Figure 5.18. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.18. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.18. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.18. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish
families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target
Fish DensityFish DensityFish DensityFish Density and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. Mean total fish density per transect at Bug
individuals/500 m2 with a mean of 63 individuals/500 m
density can be attributed to the rocky
As shown in Figure 5.19, all 12 ‘species’ were within the 1
non-target pomacentrid, ‘salikoko’ contributing 47.6% to total density (Table
mean density of 30 organisms/500 m
a mean density of 14 organisms/500 m
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1 2 3
Densi
ty (
No.
of
Indiv
iduals
/500 m
2)
Densi
ty (
No.
of
Indiv
iduals
/500 m
2)
Densi
ty (
No.
of
Indiv
iduals
/500 m
2)
Densi
ty (
No.
of
Indiv
iduals
/500 m
2)
Figure Figure Figure Figure 5.195.195.195.19. De. De. De. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 mnsity of fishes (number of organisms/500 mnsity of fishes (number of organisms/500 mnsity of fishes (number of organisms/500 m
MambajaoMambajaoMambajaoMambajao. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.
1 = Labayan
2 = Logatis
3 = Lopit
4 = Pedlok
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
Mean total fish density per transect at Bug-ong ranged from 31
with a mean of 63 individuals/500 m2 (SD = 29). This very low fish
density can be attributed to the rocky-sand habitat.
, all 12 ‘species’ were within the 1-10 cm size range (Fig.
target pomacentrid, ‘salikoko’ contributing 47.6% to total density (Table
mean density of 30 organisms/500 m2, followed by the targeted labrid, ‘lubayan’ (22%) with
a mean density of 14 organisms/500 m2 (Table 5.12).
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'
nsity of fishes (number of organisms/500 mnsity of fishes (number of organisms/500 mnsity of fishes (number of organisms/500 mnsity of fishes (number of organisms/500 m2222) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at
. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.
5 = Taad 9 = Moong
6 = Bodbod/Bawis 10 = Tobo-tobo
7 = Molmol 11 = Salikoko
8 = Lambana 12 = Tiki-tiki
(Final Report), page - 188188188188
ranged from 31-87
(SD = 29). This very low fish
10 cm size range (Fig. 5.19) with the
target pomacentrid, ‘salikoko’ contributing 47.6% to total density (Table 5.12) with a
, followed by the targeted labrid, ‘lubayan’ (22%) with
11 12
) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at BugBugBugBug----ongongongong, , , ,
KUGUITA, MAMBAJAOKUGUITA, MAMBAJAOKUGUITA, MAMBAJAOKUGUITA, MAMBAJAO
Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment.
The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Kuguita was predominantly sand (72
all transects (Table 5.13). The only other substrate type recorded in the site was rock (8
and live coral (8-12%). Informal interactions with local participants, tourist boat operators
and even resort owners showed that it was local knowledge that the mainland’s coastline
from Agoho to Bug-ong Agoho’s was mainly composed of sand and rock. Reef areas were
present but at deeper depths beyond the capability of PRA participants (Fig.
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.13. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Kuguita, Mambajao.13. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Kuguita, Mambajao.13. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Kuguita, Mambajao.13. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Kuguita, Mambajao.
Live Live Live Live
CoralCoralCoralCoral
Transect 1 8
Transect 2 0
Transect 3 12
Average 6.67
Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 1 Transect 2
Figure 5.20. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.20. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.20. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.20. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as
drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Kuguita, Mambajao. drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Kuguita, Mambajao. drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Kuguita, Mambajao. drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Kuguita, Mambajao.
Legend:Legend:Legend:Legend:
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
KUGUITA, MAMBAJAOKUGUITA, MAMBAJAOKUGUITA, MAMBAJAOKUGUITA, MAMBAJAO
The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Kuguita was predominantly sand (72
13). The only other substrate type recorded in the site was rock (8
12%). Informal interactions with local participants, tourist boat operators
and even resort owners showed that it was local knowledge that the mainland’s coastline
ong Agoho’s was mainly composed of sand and rock. Reef areas were
present but at deeper depths beyond the capability of PRA participants (Fig. 5.
13. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Kuguita, Mambajao.13. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Kuguita, Mambajao.13. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Kuguita, Mambajao.13. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Kuguita, Mambajao.
Soft Soft Soft Soft
CoralCoralCoralCoral
Dead Dead Dead Dead
CoralCoralCoralCoral RubbleRubbleRubbleRubble SandSandSandSand RockRockRockRock
0 0 0 72 20
0 0 0 80 20
0 0 0 80 8
0 0 0 77.3 16
Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 3Transect 3Transect 3
Figure 5.20. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.20. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.20. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.20. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as
drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Kuguita, Mambajao. drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Kuguita, Mambajao. drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Kuguita, Mambajao. drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Kuguita, Mambajao.
Live Coral Sand Rock
(Final Report), page - 189189189189
The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Kuguita was predominantly sand (72-80%), in
13). The only other substrate type recorded in the site was rock (8-20%)
12%). Informal interactions with local participants, tourist boat operators
and even resort owners showed that it was local knowledge that the mainland’s coastline
ong Agoho’s was mainly composed of sand and rock. Reef areas were
5.20).
13. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Kuguita, Mambajao.13. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Kuguita, Mambajao.13. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Kuguita, Mambajao.13. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Kuguita, Mambajao.
OthersOthersOthersOthers
0
0
0
0
Figure 5.20. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.20. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.20. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as Figure 5.20. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different transects as
drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Kuguita, Mambajao. drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Kuguita, Mambajao. drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Kuguita, Mambajao. drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of Kuguita, Mambajao.
Live coral cover averaged at 6.67% for Kuguita. Excluding the Bug
cover, this site had the lowest values recorded for the municipality and for all the sites
surveyed within the Province.
Fish Visual CensusFish Visual CensusFish Visual CensusFish Visual Census. . . .
FishFishFishFish Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.
the FVC of Kuguita, Mambajao. These belonged to ninefamilies and can be categorized as:
(A) Target Species: Balistidae (‘pogot’), Labridae (‘labayan’, ‘logatis’ and ‘pedlok’),
Lutjanidae (‘katamb
Scaridae (‘molmol’);
(B) Non-Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’, ‘bantay
bot-bot’, ‘kabatingan’ and ‘pata’) and Tetraodontidae (‘botete’).
Indicator species such as chaetodontids or butterfly fishes (‘alibang
Moorish idols (‘kanding-kanding’) were not observed. This is expected since the substrate of
survey area was primarily sandy and thus confirms the role of these fishes as indicators of
reefs.
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.14. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 14. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 14. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 14. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;
T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non
and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard dand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard dand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard dand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard d
Local NameLocal NameLocal NameLocal Name Common NameCommon NameCommon NameCommon Name
1 Pogot Triggerfishes
2 Labayan Wrasses
3 Logatis Wrasses
4 Pedlok Moon Wrasse
5 Katambak Snapper
6 Bodbod Goat Fish
7 Makabinhi Bream
8 Molmol Parrot fish
9 Moong Cardinal Fish
10 Salikoko Damsel Fish
11 Bantay-botbot Anemone Fish
12 Kabatingan Sergeant Major
13 Pata Damsel Fish
14 Botete Pufferfishes
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
averaged at 6.67% for Kuguita. Excluding the Bug-ong with its 0% live coral
cover, this site had the lowest values recorded for the municipality and for all the sites
Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity. A total of 14 local names (Table 5.14) were recorded during
the FVC of Kuguita, Mambajao. These belonged to ninefamilies and can be categorized as:
(A) Target Species: Balistidae (‘pogot’), Labridae (‘labayan’, ‘logatis’ and ‘pedlok’),
Lutjanidae (‘katambak’), Mullidae (‘bodbob’), Nemipteridae (‘makabinhi’) and
Scaridae (‘molmol’);
Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’, ‘bantay
bot’, ‘kabatingan’ and ‘pata’) and Tetraodontidae (‘botete’).
chaetodontids or butterfly fishes (‘alibang-bang’) and zanclids or
kanding’) were not observed. This is expected since the substrate of
survey area was primarily sandy and thus confirms the role of these fishes as indicators of
14. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 14. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 14. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 14. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;
T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non----target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density
and their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard dand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard dand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard dand their percent contribution to total fish density. SD = standard deviation.eviation.eviation.eviation.
Common NameCommon NameCommon NameCommon Name FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily CCCC 1111----
MeanMeanMeanMean
Triggerfishes Balistidae T(R) 0.7
Labridae T(R) 11.0
Labridae T(R) 3.0
Moon Wrasse Labridae T(R) 10.3
Lutjanidae T(R) 0.7
Goat Fish Mullidae T(R) 1.7
Nemipteridae T(R) 1.0
Parrot fish Scaridae T(R) 7.7
Cardinal Fish Apogonidae NT 42.0
Damsel Fish Pomacentridae NT 18.3
Anemone Fish Pomacentridae NT 4.0
Sergeant Major Pomacentridae NT 27.3
Damsel Fish Pomacentridae NT 16.7
Pufferfishes Tetraodontidae NT 2.3
(Final Report), page - 190190190190
ong with its 0% live coral
cover, this site had the lowest values recorded for the municipality and for all the sites
14) were recorded during
the FVC of Kuguita, Mambajao. These belonged to ninefamilies and can be categorized as:
(A) Target Species: Balistidae (‘pogot’), Labridae (‘labayan’, ‘logatis’ and ‘pedlok’),
ak’), Mullidae (‘bodbob’), Nemipteridae (‘makabinhi’) and
Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’, ‘bantay
bot’, ‘kabatingan’ and ‘pata’) and Tetraodontidae (‘botete’).
bang’) and zanclids or
kanding’) were not observed. This is expected since the substrate of
survey area was primarily sandy and thus confirms the role of these fishes as indicators of
14. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 14. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 14. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 14. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;
target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density
eviation.eviation.eviation.eviation.
----10 cm10 cm10 cm10 cm
SDSDSDSD %%%%
1.2 0.5
11.5 7.5
5.2 2.0
9.0 7.0
1.2 0.5
2.9 1.1
1.7 0.7
13.3 5.2
41.6 28.6
16.3 12.5
3.6 2.7
18.0 18.6
2.9 11.4
2.3 1.6
Using the above categorization, the target species were represented by eight ‘species’ from six
families while the non-target species had six from three families (Fig.
Fish Fish Fish Fish DensityDensityDensityDensity and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. Mean total fish density per transect at Kuguita ranged from 65
265 individuals/500 m2 with a mean of 146 individuals/500 m
were within the 1-10 cm size range (Fig.
contributing 28.6% to total density (Table
followed by another non-target species, ‘kabatingan’ (Pomacentridae) (18.6%) with a mean
density of 27 organisms/500 m
Figure 5.21. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.21. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.21. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.21. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish
families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target
and nonand nonand nonand non----
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
SpeciesSpeciesSpeciesSpecies
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Target Species
Non
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
the above categorization, the target species were represented by eight ‘species’ from six
target species had six from three families (Fig. 5.21).
Mean total fish density per transect at Kuguita ranged from 65
with a mean of 146 individuals/500 m2 (SD = 104).
10 cm size range (Fig. 5.22) with the non-target apogonid, ‘
contributing 28.6% to total density (Table 5.14) with a mean density of 42 organisms/500 m
target species, ‘kabatingan’ (Pomacentridae) (18.6%) with a mean
density of 27 organisms/500 m2 (Table 5.14).
Figure 5.21. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.21. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.21. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.21. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish
families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target
----target species. target species. target species. target species.
SpeciesSpeciesSpeciesSpecies FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily % Contribution% Contribution% Contribution% Contribution
Target Species
Non-Target Species
(Final Report), page - 191191191191
the above categorization, the target species were represented by eight ‘species’ from six
Mean total fish density per transect at Kuguita ranged from 65-
(SD = 104). All 14 ‘species’
target apogonid, ‘moong’
14) with a mean density of 42 organisms/500 m2,
target species, ‘kabatingan’ (Pomacentridae) (18.6%) with a mean
Figure 5.21. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.21. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.21. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.21. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish
families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1 2 3
Densi
ty (
No.
of
Indiv
iduals
/500 m
2)
Densi
ty (
No.
of
Indiv
iduals
/500 m
2)
Densi
ty (
No.
of
Indiv
iduals
/500 m
2)
Densi
ty (
No.
of
Indiv
iduals
/500 m
2)
Figure Figure Figure Figure 5555.22.22.22.22. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m
MambajaoMambajaoMambajaoMambajao. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.
1 = Pogot
2 = Labayan
3 = Logatis 4 = Pedlok
5 = Katambak
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'
. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m2222) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at
. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.
6 = Bodbob 11 = Bantay-botbot
7 = Makabinhi 12 = Kabatingan
8 = Molmol 13 = Pata 9 = Moong 14 = Botete
Katambak 10 = Salikoko
(Final Report), page - 192192192192
14
) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at KuguitaKuguitaKuguitaKuguita, , , ,
botbot
Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment.
The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Baylao was a mixture of soft coral (16
coral (20-28%) and sand (20
was 24% (Fig. 5.23), categorizing the area as “poor” (0
cover was obtained for soft corals (28%) with parts of the area covered by sand (21%) and
dead coral (13%).
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.15. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Baylao, Mambajao.15. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Baylao, Mambajao.15. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Baylao, Mambajao.15. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Baylao, Mambajao.
Live Live Live Live
CoralCoralCoralCoral
Transect 1 20
Transect 2 28
Transect 3 24
Average 24.00
Live Hard Coral
Soft Coral
Dead Coral
Rubble
Sand
Rock
Others
Figure 5.23. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.23. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.23. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.23. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different
transects as drawn by participants (right) and the average cover (left) of transects as drawn by participants (right) and the average cover (left) of transects as drawn by participants (right) and the average cover (left) of transects as drawn by participants (right) and the average cover (left) of
Baylao, Mambajao.Baylao, Mambajao.Baylao, Mambajao.Baylao, Mambajao.
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
BAYLAO, MAMBAJAOBAYLAO, MAMBAJAOBAYLAO, MAMBAJAOBAYLAO, MAMBAJAO
The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Baylao was a mixture of soft coral (16
28%) and sand (20-24%)(Table 5.15, Fig. 5.23). On the average, live coral cover
23), categorizing the area as “poor” (0-24.9%). Highest mean substrate
cover was obtained for soft corals (28%) with parts of the area covered by sand (21%) and
15. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Baylao, Mambajao.15. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Baylao, Mambajao.15. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Baylao, Mambajao.15. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Baylao, Mambajao.
Soft Soft Soft Soft
CoralCoralCoralCoral
Dead Dead Dead Dead
CoralCoralCoralCoral RubbleRubbleRubbleRubble SandSandSandSand RockRockRockRock
16 12 20 20 4
28 16 4 24 0
40 12 4 20 0
28.00 13.33 9.33 21.33 1.33
Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3
Live Hard Coral
Figure 5.23. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.23. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.23. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.23. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different
transects as drawn by participants (right) and the average cover (left) of transects as drawn by participants (right) and the average cover (left) of transects as drawn by participants (right) and the average cover (left) of transects as drawn by participants (right) and the average cover (left) of
Baylao, Mambajao.Baylao, Mambajao.Baylao, Mambajao.Baylao, Mambajao.
(Final Report), page - 193193193193
The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Baylao was a mixture of soft coral (16-40%), live
23). On the average, live coral cover
st mean substrate
cover was obtained for soft corals (28%) with parts of the area covered by sand (21%) and
15. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Baylao, Mambajao.15. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Baylao, Mambajao.15. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Baylao, Mambajao.15. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Baylao, Mambajao.
OthersOthersOthersOthers
8
0
0
2.67
Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3
Figure 5.23. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.23. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.23. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.23. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different
transects as drawn by participants (right) and the average cover (left) of transects as drawn by participants (right) and the average cover (left) of transects as drawn by participants (right) and the average cover (left) of transects as drawn by participants (right) and the average cover (left) of
Fish Visual CensusFish Visual CensusFish Visual CensusFish Visual Census. . . .
FishFishFishFish Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.
A total of 25 local names (Table
Except for the local name, ‘lapis
can be categorized as:
(A) Indicator species: Chaetodontidae (‘alibang
(B) Target Species, Reef Residents: Acanthuridae (‘bagis’ and ‘lunab’), Balistidae
(‘pogot’), Carangidae (‘talakitok’), Haemulidae (‘panapsapan’), Holocentridae
(‘baga-baga’),
Nemipteridae (‘makabinhi’), Scaridae (‘molmol’) and Siganidae (‘danggit’);
(C) Target Species, Transient Residents/Pelagic: Engraulidae (‘dalirag’);
(D) Non-Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’),
Pempheridae (‘tabas’), Pomacanthidae (‘sowat
bot-bot, ‘kabatingan’, ‘pata’ and ‘tugas
Tetraodontidae (‘botete’).
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.16. Local names of fishes, their16. Local names of fishes, their16. Local names of fishes, their16. Local names of fishes, their
T(R) = resident coral reef target species, T(P) = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, T(P) = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, T(P) = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, T(P) = non
NT = nonNT = nonNT = nonNT = non----target species), mean total density and their percent contribution to total target species), mean total density and their percent contribution to total target species), mean total density and their percent contribution to total target species), mean total density and their percent contribution to total
fish density. Values in fish density. Values in fish density. Values in fish density. Values in
Local NamesLocal NamesLocal NamesLocal Names Common Common Common Common
NamesNamesNamesNames
1 Alibangbang Butterfly Fish
2 Bagis Surgeon Fish
3 Lunab Surgeon Fishes
4 Pogot Triggerfishes
5 Talakitok Trevally
6 Panapsapan Sweetlips
7 Baga-baga Squirrel Fish
8 Ilak Drummer
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.
local names (Table 5.16) were recorded during the FVC of Baylao, Mambajao.
Except for the local name, ‘lapis-lapis’, the other local names were traced to 20 families that
(A) Indicator species: Chaetodontidae (‘alibang-bang);
(B) Target Species, Reef Residents: Acanthuridae (‘bagis’ and ‘lunab’), Balistidae
(‘pogot’), Carangidae (‘talakitok’), Haemulidae (‘panapsapan’), Holocentridae
baga’), Kyphosidae (‘ilak), Labridae (‘pedlok’), Mullidae (‘bodbob’),
Nemipteridae (‘makabinhi’), Scaridae (‘molmol’) and Siganidae (‘danggit’);
(C) Target Species, Transient Residents/Pelagic: Engraulidae (‘dalirag’);
Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Blenniidae (‘tambal leon’),
Pempheridae (‘tabas’), Pomacanthidae (‘sowat-sowat’), Pomacentridae (‘batay
bot, ‘kabatingan’, ‘pata’ and ‘tugas-tugas’), Synodontidae (‘tiki
Tetraodontidae (‘botete’).
16. Local names of fishes, their16. Local names of fishes, their16. Local names of fishes, their16. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;
T(R) = resident coral reef target species, T(P) = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, T(P) = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, T(P) = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, T(P) = non----reef resident/pelagic target species, reef resident/pelagic target species, reef resident/pelagic target species, reef resident/pelagic target species,
target species), mean total density and their percent contribution to total target species), mean total density and their percent contribution to total target species), mean total density and their percent contribution to total target species), mean total density and their percent contribution to total
fish density. Values in fish density. Values in fish density. Values in fish density. Values in parenthesis are standard deviation.parenthesis are standard deviation.parenthesis are standard deviation.parenthesis are standard deviation.
FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily CCCC 1111----10 cm10 cm10 cm10 cm 11111111----20cm20cm20cm20cm
MeanMeanMeanMean %%%% MeanMeanMeanMean %%%%
Chaetodontidae I 4.3
(3.8) 1.3
0.7
(1.2) 4.7
Acanthuridae T(R) 1.7
(2.9) 0.5
Acanthuridae T(R) 1.0
(1.0) 0.3
2.3
(3.2) 16.3
Balistidae T(R) 1.7
(1.5) 0.5
0.7
(1.2) 4.7
Carangidae T(R) 1.7
(2.1) 0.5
Haemulidae T(R) 1.3
(0.6) 0.4
0.3
(0.6) 2.3
Holocentridae T(R) 2.7
(4.6) 0.8
1.7
(2.9) 11.6
Kyphosidae T(R) 0.3
(0.6) 0.1
0.3
(0.6) 2.3
(Final Report), page - 194194194194
16) were recorded during the FVC of Baylao, Mambajao.
lapis’, the other local names were traced to 20 families that
(B) Target Species, Reef Residents: Acanthuridae (‘bagis’ and ‘lunab’), Balistidae
(‘pogot’), Carangidae (‘talakitok’), Haemulidae (‘panapsapan’), Holocentridae
Kyphosidae (‘ilak), Labridae (‘pedlok’), Mullidae (‘bodbob’),
Nemipteridae (‘makabinhi’), Scaridae (‘molmol’) and Siganidae (‘danggit’);
Blenniidae (‘tambal leon’),
sowat’), Pomacentridae (‘batay
tugas’), Synodontidae (‘tiki-tiki’) and
common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;
reef resident/pelagic target species, reef resident/pelagic target species, reef resident/pelagic target species, reef resident/pelagic target species,
target species), mean total density and their percent contribution to total target species), mean total density and their percent contribution to total target species), mean total density and their percent contribution to total target species), mean total density and their percent contribution to total
Total DensityTotal DensityTotal DensityTotal Density
MeanMeanMeanMean %%%%
5.0
(4.6) 1.5
1.7
(2.9) 0.5
3.3
(4.0) 1.0
2.3
(0.6) 0.7
1.7
(2.1) 0.5
1.7
(1.2) 0.5
4.3
(7.5) 1.3
0.7
(1.2) 0.2
Local NamesLocal NamesLocal NamesLocal Names Common Common Common Common
NamesNamesNamesNames
9 Pedlok Moon Wrasse
10 Bodbod Goat Fish
11 Makabinhi Bream
12 Molmol Parrot fish
13 Danggit Rabbit Fish
14 Dalirag Anchovy
15 Moong Cardinal Fish
16 Tambal Leon Blenny
17 Tabas Sweepers
18 Suwat-suwat Angel Fish
19 Bantay-
botbot Anemone Fish
20 Kabatingan Sergeant
Major
21 Pata Damsel Fish
22 Tugas-tugas Damsel Fish
23 Tiki-tiki Lizard Fish
24 Botete Pufferfishes
25 Lapis-lapis
Using this classification scheme, the number of ‘species’ (based on local names) of target fishes
was higher than the non-target fishes (Fig.
compared to the nine non-target species from seven families. Target species was represented
by 12 permanent reef residents and one transient/pelagic resident, ‘dalirag’ (Family
Engraluidae).
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily CCCC 1111----10 cm10 cm10 cm10 cm 11111111----20cm20cm20cm20cm
MeanMeanMeanMean %%%% MeanMeanMeanMean %%%%
Labridae T(R) 2.0
(3.5) 0.6
Mullidae T(R) 1.3
(2.3) 0.4
Nemipteridae T(R) 0.7
(1.2) 0.2
Scaridae T(R) 51.0
(35) 15.6
4.7
(4.7) 32.6
Siganidae T(R) 5.0
(5.0) 1.5
3.3
(5.8) 23.3
Engraulidae T(P) 100 (100)
30.5
Apogonidae NT 5.3
(8.4) 1.6
Blenniidae NT 0.7
(0.6) 0.2
Pempheridae NT 1.7
(1.5) 0.5
Pomacanthidae NT 2.3
(4.0) 0.7
Pomacentridae NT 8.0
(6.2) 2.4
Pomacentridae NT 38.3
(31.8) 11.7
Pomacentridae NT 80.7
(15.5) 24.6
Pomacentridae NT 5.0
(8.7) 1.5
Synodontidae NT 3.7
(2.5) 1.1
0.3
(0.6) 2.3
Tetraodontidae NT 1.3
(1.5 0.4
Unknown U 6.0
(10.4) 1.8
Using this classification scheme, the number of ‘species’ (based on local names) of target fishes
target fishes (Fig. 5.24); with 13 target ‘species’ from 12 families
target species from seven families. Target species was represented
by 12 permanent reef residents and one transient/pelagic resident, ‘dalirag’ (Family
(Final Report), page - 195195195195
Total DensityTotal DensityTotal DensityTotal Density
MeanMeanMeanMean %%%%
2.0
(3.5) 0.6
1.3
(2.3) 0.4
0.7
(1.2) 0.2
55.7
(31.5) 16.3
8.3
(10.4) 2.4
100 (100)
29.2
5.3
(8.4) 1.6
0.7
(0.6) 0.2
1.7
(1.5) 0.5
2.3
(4.0) 0.7
8.0
(6.2) 2.3
38.3
(31.8) 11.2
80.7
(15.5) 23.6
5.0
(8.7) 1.5
4.0
(2.6) 1.2
1.3
(1.5) 0.4
6.0
(10.4) 1.8
Using this classification scheme, the number of ‘species’ (based on local names) of target fishes
24); with 13 target ‘species’ from 12 families
target species from seven families. Target species was represented
by 12 permanent reef residents and one transient/pelagic resident, ‘dalirag’ (Family
Fish DensityFish DensityFish DensityFish Density and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. Mean total
414 individuals/500 m2 with a mean of 342 individuals/500 m
of the fishes observed within the transects belonged to 1
density of 327 organisms/500 m
14.3 organisms/500 m2)(Table
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.17. Density (number of organisms/500 m17. Density (number of organisms/500 m17. Density (number of organisms/500 m17. Density (number of organisms/500 m
density (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 m
deviation.deviation.deviation.deviation.
Transect 1111
Total 207
Average (SD) 327.7 (104.5)
Figure 5.24. Number of ‘species’ (based on local namFigure 5.24. Number of ‘species’ (based on local namFigure 5.24. Number of ‘species’ (based on local namFigure 5.24. Number of ‘species’ (based on local nam
the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonthe contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonthe contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonthe contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and non
species. species. species. species.
Indicator Species
Target Species
Non-Target Species
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
SpeciesSpeciesSpeciesSpecies
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
Mean total fish density per transect at Baylao ranged from 208
with a mean of 342 individuals/500 m2 (SD = 116)(Table
of the fishes observed within the transects belonged to 1-10 cm size range with an average
s/500 m2; only a few individuals belonged to 11-20 cm (average =
)(Table 5.17).
17. Density (number of organisms/500 m17. Density (number of organisms/500 m17. Density (number of organisms/500 m17. Density (number of organisms/500 m2222) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total
density (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 m2222) of fishes recorded at Baylao.) of fishes recorded at Baylao.) of fishes recorded at Baylao.) of fishes recorded at Baylao. SD = standard SD = standard SD = standard SD = standard
Size Class RangesSize Class RangesSize Class RangesSize Class Ranges Total DensityTotal DensityTotal DensityTotal Density
1111----10 cm10 cm10 cm10 cm 11111111----20 cm20 cm20 cm20 cm
2222 3333 1111 2222 3333 1111
388 388 1 26 16 208 414
327.7 (104.5) 14.3 (12.6) 342 (116.2)
Figure 5.24. Number of ‘species’ (based on local namFigure 5.24. Number of ‘species’ (based on local namFigure 5.24. Number of ‘species’ (based on local namFigure 5.24. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families and es), number of fish families and es), number of fish families and es), number of fish families and
the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonthe contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonthe contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonthe contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and non
Indicator Species
Target Species
Target Species
SpeciesSpeciesSpeciesSpecies FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily % Contribution% Contribution% Contribution% Contribution
(Final Report), page - 196196196196
fish density per transect at Baylao ranged from 208-
(SD = 116)(Table 5.17). Most
10 cm size range with an average
20 cm (average =
) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total
SD = standard SD = standard SD = standard SD = standard
Total DensityTotal DensityTotal DensityTotal Density
2222 3333
414 404
342 (116.2)
es), number of fish families and es), number of fish families and es), number of fish families and es), number of fish families and
the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonthe contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonthe contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonthe contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and non----target target target target
% Contribution% Contribution% Contribution% Contribution
In terms of contribution to total fish density, the target species composed 53.7% of the fishes
recorded (Fig. 5.24) while 41.6% were the non
was composed of target species, only 24.5% were reef residents;
transients of the reef (the anchovy, ‘dalirag’) which were found in densities estimated at about
100 individuals/500 m2.
As shown in Figure 5.25 and Table
11-20 cm range; four of which were target species and had densities > 1 organism/500 m
(‘lunab’, ‘baga-baga’, molmol’, and ‘danggit’).
Figure Figure Figure Figure 5.255.255.255.25. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 mSee legend below for fish ‘species’.See legend below for fish ‘species’.See legend below for fish ‘species’.See legend below for fish ‘species’.
1 = Alibangbang 6 =
2 = Bagis 7 =
3 = Lunab 8 =
4 = Pogot 9 =
5 = Talakitok 10 =
1-10 cm
11-20 cm
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 2 3 4 5 6
Densi
ty (
No.
of
Indiv
iduals
/500m
2)
Densi
ty (
No.
of
Indiv
iduals
/500m
2)
Densi
ty (
No.
of
Indiv
iduals
/500m
2)
Densi
ty (
No.
of
Indiv
iduals
/500m
2)
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
In terms of contribution to total fish density, the target species composed 53.7% of the fishes
24) while 41.6% were the non-target species. Although half of the fish density
was composed of target species, only 24.5% were reef residents; most of them (29.2%) were
transients of the reef (the anchovy, ‘dalirag’) which were found in densities estimated at about
25 and Table 5.16, eight ‘species’ had individuals that were within the
four of which were target species and had densities > 1 organism/500 m
baga’, molmol’, and ‘danggit’).
. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m2222) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at BaylaoBaylaoBaylaoBaylaoSee legend below for fish ‘species’.See legend below for fish ‘species’.See legend below for fish ‘species’.See legend below for fish ‘species’.
Panapsapan 11 = Makabinhi 16 = Tambal Leon
Baga-baga 12 = Molmol 17 = Tabas
Ilak 13 = Danggit 18 = Suwat-suwat
Pedlok 14 = Dalirag 19 = Bantay-botbot
Bodbod 15 = Moong 20= Kabatingan
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'
(Final Report), page - 197197197197
In terms of contribution to total fish density, the target species composed 53.7% of the fishes
target species. Although half of the fish density
most of them (29.2%) were
transients of the reef (the anchovy, ‘dalirag’) which were found in densities estimated at about
16, eight ‘species’ had individuals that were within the
four of which were target species and had densities > 1 organism/500 m2
BaylaoBaylaoBaylaoBaylao, , , , MambajaoMambajaoMambajaoMambajao. . . .
21= Pata
22= Tugas-tugas
23= Tiki-tiki
24= Botete
25= Lapis-lapis
22 23 24 25
POBLACION, MAMBAJAOPOBLACION, MAMBAJAOPOBLACION, MAMBAJAOPOBLACION, MAMBAJAO
Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment.
The live coral cover of the transects at Poblacion, Mambajao ranged from 12
5.18). The composition of the three transects were very different from each other. The first
transect was a combination of live coral (48%) with dead coral (24%), sand (
rubble (12%)(Fig. 5.26). The second transect was mainly composed of rubble (24%), and
equal proportions of sand, soft coral and dead coral. Live coral cover was only 12%. The third
transect was mainly sand (40%).
Despite the relatively high live
area was 25.3%, falling under the category of “fair” (25
Figure 5.26. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.26. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.26. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.26. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different
transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of
Poblacion, Mambajao. Poblacion, Mambajao. Poblacion, Mambajao. Poblacion, Mambajao.
Legend:Legend:Legend:Legend:
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
POBLACION, MAMBAJAOPOBLACION, MAMBAJAOPOBLACION, MAMBAJAOPOBLACION, MAMBAJAO
The live coral cover of the transects at Poblacion, Mambajao ranged from 12
18). The composition of the three transects were very different from each other. The first
transect was a combination of live coral (48%) with dead coral (24%), sand (
26). The second transect was mainly composed of rubble (24%), and
equal proportions of sand, soft coral and dead coral. Live coral cover was only 12%. The third
transect was mainly sand (40%).
Despite the relatively high live coral cover of Transect-1, the average live coral cover of the
area was 25.3%, falling under the category of “fair” (25-49.95%)(Fig. 5.26).
Transect 1Transect 1Transect 1Transect 1 Transect 2Transect 2Transect 2Transect 2
Figure 5.26. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.26. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.26. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.26. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different
transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of
Poblacion, Mambajao. Poblacion, Mambajao. Poblacion, Mambajao. Poblacion, Mambajao.
Live Coral Soft Coral Dead Coral
Sand Rock Rubble
(Final Report), page - 198198198198
The live coral cover of the transects at Poblacion, Mambajao ranged from 12-48% (Table
18). The composition of the three transects were very different from each other. The first
transect was a combination of live coral (48%) with dead coral (24%), sand (16%) and
26). The second transect was mainly composed of rubble (24%), and
equal proportions of sand, soft coral and dead coral. Live coral cover was only 12%. The third
1, the average live coral cover of the
Transect 3Transect 3Transect 3Transect 3
Figure 5.26. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.26. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.26. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.26. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different
transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of
Dead Coral
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.18. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Poblacion, Mambajao.18. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Poblacion, Mambajao.18. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Poblacion, Mambajao.18. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Poblacion, Mambajao.
Live Live Live Live
CoralCoralCoralCoral
Transect 1 48
Transect 2 12
Transect 3 16
Average 25.3
Fish Visual CensusFish Visual CensusFish Visual CensusFish Visual Census. . . .
FishFishFishFish Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.
during the FVC transect survey
and can be classified as (Table
(1) Indicator species (1 family):
(2) Reef Associated T
‘pugot’), Holocentridae (‘baga
(‘pedlok’), Mullid
Scaridae (‘molmol’)
(3) Pelagic/Transient Target Species: Engraulidae (‘dalirag’)
(4) Non-target species
Pomacanthidae (‘anyel
botbot’, ‘kabatingan’ and ‘pata’), Synodontidae (‘tiki
(‘botete’).
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
18. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Poblacion, Mambajao.18. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Poblacion, Mambajao.18. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Poblacion, Mambajao.18. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Poblacion, Mambajao.
Soft Soft Soft Soft
CoralCoralCoralCoral
Dead Dead Dead Dead
CoralCoralCoralCoral RubbleRubbleRubbleRubble SandSandSandSand RockRockRockRock
0 24 12 16 0
20 20 24 20 4
12 20 12 40 0
10.7 21.3 16.0 25.3 1.3
Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity. A total of 22 ‘species’ (based on local names) were recorded
during the FVC transect survey of Poblacion, Mambajao. These represented 17 fish families
and can be classified as (Table 5.19):
(1 family): Chaetodontidae (‘alibangbang’)
Reef Associated Target species: Acanthuridae (‘bagis’), Balistidae (‘pakol’ and
, Holocentridae (‘baga-baga’), Kyphosidae (‘sono’), Labridae
ullidae (‘bodbob’), Nemipteridae (‘makabinhi
(‘molmol’) and Sphyraenidae (‘lambana’).
(3) Pelagic/Transient Target Species: Engraulidae (‘dalirag’)
rget species (3 families): Apogonidae (‘moong’), Muraenidae (‘agmang’),
Pomacanthidae (‘anyel-anyel’ and ‘suwat-suwat’), Pomacentrid
botbot’, ‘kabatingan’ and ‘pata’), Synodontidae (‘tiki-tiki’) and Tetraodontidae
(Final Report), page - 199199199199
18. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Poblacion, Mambajao.18. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Poblacion, Mambajao.18. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Poblacion, Mambajao.18. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Poblacion, Mambajao.
OthersOthersOthersOthers
0
0
0
0
‘species’ (based on local names) were recorded
of Poblacion, Mambajao. These represented 17 fish families
: Acanthuridae (‘bagis’), Balistidae (‘pakol’ and
baga’), Kyphosidae (‘sono’), Labridae
makabinhi’ and ‘sung’),
(3 families): Apogonidae (‘moong’), Muraenidae (‘agmang’),
Pomacentridae (‘bantay
tiki’) and Tetraodontidae
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.19. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 19. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 19. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 19. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;
T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non
and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are sand their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are sand their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are sand their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are s
deviation. * = fish density was very low since only 1 individual was seen in the three deviation. * = fish density was very low since only 1 individual was seen in the three deviation. * = fish density was very low since only 1 individual was seen in the three deviation. * = fish density was very low since only 1 individual was seen in the three
transects. transects. transects. transects.
LOCAL NAMELOCAL NAMELOCAL NAMELOCAL NAME COMMON COMMON COMMON COMMON
NAMENAMENAMENAME
1 Alibangbang Butterfly Fish Chaetodontidae
2 Bagis Surgeon Fish Acanthuridae
3 Pakol Triggerfishes Balistidae
4 Pogot Triggerfishes Balistidae
5 Baga-baga Squirrel Fish Holocentridae
6 Sono Drummer Kyphosidae
7 Pedlok Moon Wrasse Labridae
8 Bodbod Goat Fish Mullidae
9 Makabinhi Bream Nemipteridae
10 Song Monocle
Bream Nemipteridae
11 Molmol Parrot fish Scaridae
12 Lambana Big Eye
Barracuda Sphyraenidae
13 Dalirag Anchovy Engraulidae
14 Moong Cardinal Fish Apogonidae
15 Agmang Moray Eel Muraenidae
16 Anyel-anyel Angel Fish Pomacanthidae
17 Suwat-suwat Angel Fish Pomacanthidae
18 Bantay-
botbot Anemone Fish Pomacentridae
19 Kabatingan Sergeant
Major Pomacentridae
20 Pata Damsel Fish Pomacentridae
21 Tiki-tiki Lizard Fish Synodontidae
22 Botete Pufferfishes Tetraodontidae
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
19. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 19. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 19. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 19. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;
T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non----target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density
and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are sand their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are sand their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are sand their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are s
deviation. * = fish density was very low since only 1 individual was seen in the three deviation. * = fish density was very low since only 1 individual was seen in the three deviation. * = fish density was very low since only 1 individual was seen in the three deviation. * = fish density was very low since only 1 individual was seen in the three
FAMILYFAMILYFAMILYFAMILY CCCC 1111----10 10 10 10
cmcmcmcm
11111111----20 20 20 20
cmcmcmcm
21212121----30 30 30 30
cmcmcmcm >30cm>30cm>30cm>30cm
Chaetodontidae I 4.7
(3.1)
Acanthuridae T(R) 1.3
(1.5)
Balistidae T(R) 1.0
(1.7)
Balistidae T(R) 0.3
(0.6)
Holocentridae T(R) 0.7
(0.6)
Kyphosidae T(R) 1.3
(2.3)
Labridae T(R) 1.0
(1.7)
Mullidae T(R) 2.7
(4.6)
Nemipteridae T(R) 0.7
(0.6)
0.3
(0.6)
Nemipteridae T(R) 2.0
(3.5)
Scaridae T(R) 50.0
(3.0)
6.7
(6.5)
Sphyraenidae T(R) ****
Engraulidae T(P) 166.7 (57.7)
Apogonidae NT 1.0
(1.0)
Muraenidae NT 0.0 ****
Pomacanthidae NT 4.7
(8.1)
Pomacanthidae NT 10.7
(6.5)
Pomacentridae NT 11.0
(7.2)
Pomacentridae NT 18.7
(1.2)
Pomacentridae NT 124
(34)
Synodontidae NT 2.7
(2.9)
Tetraodontidae NT 1.7
(1.5)
(Final Report), page - 222200000000
19. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 19. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 19. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 19. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;
target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density
and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are sand their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are sand their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are sand their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are standard tandard tandard tandard
deviation. * = fish density was very low since only 1 individual was seen in the three deviation. * = fish density was very low since only 1 individual was seen in the three deviation. * = fish density was very low since only 1 individual was seen in the three deviation. * = fish density was very low since only 1 individual was seen in the three
Total DensityTotal DensityTotal DensityTotal Density
MeanMeanMeanMean %%%%
4.7
(3.1) 1.1
1.3
(1.5) 0.3
1.0
(1.7) 0.2
0.3
(0.6) 0.1
0.7
(0.6) 0.2
1.3
(2.3) 0.3
1.0
(1.7) 0.2
2.7
(4.6) 0.6
1.0
(1.0) 0.2
2.0
(3.5) 0.5
56.7 13.7
**** **** 166.7 (57.7)
40.3
1.0
(1.0) 0.2
**** **** 4.7
(8.1) 1.1
10.7
(6.5) 2.6
11.0
(7.2) 2.7
18.7
(1.2) 4.5
124
(34) 30.0
2.7
(2.9) 0.6
1.7
(1.5) 0.4
Using the classification scheme (indicator/target/non
on local names) and number of families represented was recorded for the target species with
12 species from 10 families (Fig.
pelagic/transient (‘dalirag’, Family Engraulidae). The non
‘species’ from six families (Fig.
Fish DensityFish DensityFish DensityFish Density and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes.
ranged from 336-509 individuals/500 m
87.7)(Table 5.20). Most of the fishes observed within the transects belonged to 1
range with an average density of 406 organisms/500 m
an average of 7 organisms/500 m
for >30 cm (Table 5.20).
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.20. Density (number of organisms/500 m20. Density (number of organisms/500 m20. Density (number of organisms/500 m20. Density (number of organisms/500 m
of of of of organisms/500 morganisms/500 morganisms/500 morganisms/500 m2222) of fishes recorded at Poblacion, Mambajao. SD = standard deviation.) of fishes recorded at Poblacion, Mambajao. SD = standard deviation.) of fishes recorded at Poblacion, Mambajao. SD = standard deviation.) of fishes recorded at Poblacion, Mambajao. SD = standard deviation.
1111----10cm10cm10cm10cm
Transect Transect Transect Transect No.No.No.No.
1111 2222 3333
Total 328 496 396
Ave (SD) 406.7 (84.5)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
SpeciesSpeciesSpeciesSpecies
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Indicator Species
Target Species
Non-Target Species
Figure 5.27. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.27. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.27. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.27. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish
families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target
and nonand nonand nonand non----target species. target species. target species. target species.
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
Using the classification scheme (indicator/target/non-target), highest number of ‘species’ (based
on local names) and number of families represented was recorded for the target species with
12 species from 10 families (Fig. 5.27). Of these, 11 were reef residents and one
pelagic/transient (‘dalirag’, Family Engraulidae). The non-target species were represented by 9
‘species’ from six families (Fig. 5.27).
and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. Mean total fish density per transect at Poblacion, Mambajao
509 individuals/500 m2 with a mean of 414 individuals/500 m
20). Most of the fishes observed within the transects belonged to 1
range with an average density of 406 organisms/500 m2. Only a few individuals were larger:
an average of 7 organisms/500 m2 for 11-20 cm, none for 21-30 cm and <1 organism/500 m
20. Density (number of organisms/500 m20. Density (number of organisms/500 m20. Density (number of organisms/500 m20. Density (number of organisms/500 m2222) per transect per size class and total density (number ) per transect per size class and total density (number ) per transect per size class and total density (number ) per transect per size class and total density (number
) of fishes recorded at Poblacion, Mambajao. SD = standard deviation.) of fishes recorded at Poblacion, Mambajao. SD = standard deviation.) of fishes recorded at Poblacion, Mambajao. SD = standard deviation.) of fishes recorded at Poblacion, Mambajao. SD = standard deviation.
SIZE CLASS RANGES SIZE CLASS RANGES SIZE CLASS RANGES SIZE CLASS RANGES
11111111----20cm20cm20cm20cm 21212121----30cm30cm30cm30cm >30cm>30cm>30cm>30cm
1111 2222 3333 1111 2222 3333 1111 2222 3333
8 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
7.0 (6.6) 0.0 0.3 (0.6)
FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily % Contribution% Contribution% Contribution% Contribution
Indicator Species
Target Species
Target Species
Figure 5.27. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.27. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.27. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.27. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish
families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target
target species. target species. target species. target species.
(Final Report), page - 201201201201
target), highest number of ‘species’ (based
on local names) and number of families represented was recorded for the target species with
esidents and one
target species were represented by 9
at Poblacion, Mambajao
with a mean of 414 individuals/500 m2 (SD =
20). Most of the fishes observed within the transects belonged to 1-10 cm size
ly a few individuals were larger:
30 cm and <1 organism/500 m2
) per transect per size class and total density (number ) per transect per size class and total density (number ) per transect per size class and total density (number ) per transect per size class and total density (number
) of fishes recorded at Poblacion, Mambajao. SD = standard deviation.) of fishes recorded at Poblacion, Mambajao. SD = standard deviation.) of fishes recorded at Poblacion, Mambajao. SD = standard deviation.) of fishes recorded at Poblacion, Mambajao. SD = standard deviation.
Total DensityTotal DensityTotal DensityTotal Density
1111 2222 3333
336 509 397
414 (87.7)
Figure 5.27. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.27. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.27. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.27. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish
families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target
In terms of their contribution to total fish density, the target species composed the majority
(56.7%) of the fishes observed within the transects (Fig.
contributed by the transient reef resident, ‘dalirag’. The permanent reef r
composed 16.4% of the total density of target species. The non
to a substantial 40.3% to the total fish density (Fig.
Most of the species observed within the transects were small (Fig.
parrotfish, ‘molmol’ can be seen in the graph. These species were seen at densities of 6
organisms/500 m2. Highest mean densities were recorded ‘dalirag’ and the non
‘pata’.
1-10 cm
11-20 cm
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1 2 3 4
Density
(N
o. of
Indiv
iduals/5
00 m
2)
Density
(N
o. of
Indiv
iduals/5
00 m
2)
Density
(N
o. of
Indiv
iduals/5
00 m
2)
Density
(N
o. of
Indiv
iduals/5
00 m
2)
Figure Figure Figure Figure 5.285.285.285.28. Density of fis. Density of fis. Density of fis. Density of fis
MambajaoMambajaoMambajaoMambajao. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.
1 Alibangbang 6
2 Bagis 7 3 Pakol 8
4 Pogot 9
5 Baga-baga 10
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
In terms of their contribution to total fish density, the target species composed the majority
(56.7%) of the fishes observed within the transects (Fig. 5.27) with the bulk (40.3%)
contributed by the transient reef resident, ‘dalirag’. The permanent reef r
composed 16.4% of the total density of target species. The non-target species also contributed
to a substantial 40.3% to the total fish density (Fig. 5.28).
Most of the species observed within the transects were small (Fig. 5.28) and only
parrotfish, ‘molmol’ can be seen in the graph. These species were seen at densities of 6
. Highest mean densities were recorded ‘dalirag’ and the non
10 cm
20 cm
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'
. Density of fis. Density of fis. Density of fis. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 mhes (number of organisms/500 mhes (number of organisms/500 mhes (number of organisms/500 m2222) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at
. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.
6 Sono 11 Molmol 16 Anyel-anyel
Pedlok 12 Lambana 17 Suwat-suwat Bodbod 13 Dalirag 18 Bantay-botbot
Makabinhi 14 Moong 19 Kabatingan
Song 15 Agmang 20 Pata
(Final Report), page - 202202202202
In terms of their contribution to total fish density, the target species composed the majority
27) with the bulk (40.3%)
contributed by the transient reef resident, ‘dalirag’. The permanent reef residents only
target species also contributed
28) and only the
parrotfish, ‘molmol’ can be seen in the graph. These species were seen at densities of 6
. Highest mean densities were recorded ‘dalirag’ and the non-target species,
19 20 21 22
) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at PoblacionPoblacionPoblacionPoblacion, , , ,
21 Tiki-tiki
22 Botete
BALBAGON, MAMBAJAOBALBAGON, MAMBAJAOBALBAGON, MAMBAJAOBALBAGON, MAMBAJAO
Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment.
The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Balbagon was a mixture of dead coral (12
live coral (8-36%), and sand (16
was 21.33% (Fig. 5.29), categorizing the area as “poor” (0
cover was obtained for dead corals (22.67%).
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.21. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Balbagon, Mambajao.21. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Balbagon, Mambajao.21. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Balbagon, Mambajao.21. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Balbagon, Mambajao.
Live Live Live Live
CoralCoralCoralCoral
Transect 1 20
Transect 2 8
Transect 3 36
Average 21.33
Figure 5.29. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.29. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.29. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.29. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different
transects as drawn by participants (left) and the average cover (right) of transects as drawn by participants (left) and the average cover (right) of transects as drawn by participants (left) and the average cover (right) of transects as drawn by participants (left) and the average cover (right) of
Balbagon, Mambajao. Balbagon, Mambajao. Balbagon, Mambajao. Balbagon, Mambajao.
Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
BALBAGON, MAMBAJAOBALBAGON, MAMBAJAOBALBAGON, MAMBAJAOBALBAGON, MAMBAJAO
The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Balbagon was a mixture of dead coral (12
36%), and sand (16-20%)(Table 5.21, Fig. 5.29). On the average, live coral cover
29), categorizing the area as “poor” (0-24.9%). Highest mean substrate
cover was obtained for dead corals (22.67%).
21. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Balbagon, Mambajao.21. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Balbagon, Mambajao.21. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Balbagon, Mambajao.21. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Balbagon, Mambajao.
Soft Soft Soft Soft
CoralCoralCoralCoral
Dead Dead Dead Dead
CoralCoralCoralCoral RubbleRubbleRubbleRubble SandSandSandSand RockRockRockRock
24 32 0 16 0
4 24 24 20 8
12 12 4 20 16
13.33 22.67 9.33 18.67 8.00
Figure 5.29. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.29. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.29. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.29. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different
transects as drawn by participants (left) and the average cover (right) of transects as drawn by participants (left) and the average cover (right) of transects as drawn by participants (left) and the average cover (right) of transects as drawn by participants (left) and the average cover (right) of
Balbagon, Mambajao. Balbagon, Mambajao. Balbagon, Mambajao. Balbagon, Mambajao.
Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3
Live Hard Coral
Soft Coral
Dead Coral
Rubble
Sand
Rock
Others
(Final Report), page - 203203203203
The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Balbagon was a mixture of dead coral (12-32%),
29). On the average, live coral cover
Highest mean substrate
21. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Balbagon, Mambajao.21. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Balbagon, Mambajao.21. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Balbagon, Mambajao.21. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Balbagon, Mambajao.
OthersOthersOthersOthers
8
12
0
6.67
Figure 5.29. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.29. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.29. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.29. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different
transects as drawn by participants (left) and the average cover (right) of transects as drawn by participants (left) and the average cover (right) of transects as drawn by participants (left) and the average cover (right) of transects as drawn by participants (left) and the average cover (right) of
Live Hard Coral
Soft Coral
Dead Coral
Rubble
Sand
Rock
Others
Fish Visual CensusFish Visual CensusFish Visual CensusFish Visual Census. . . .
FishFishFishFish Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.
were recorded during the FVC of Balbagon, Mambajao. Except for the local name, ‘lapis
lapis’, the other local names were traced to 17 families that can be categorized as:
(A) Indicator species: Chaetodontidae (‘alibang
(B) Target Species, Reef Residents: Balistidae (‘pakol’), Holocentridae (‘baga
Labridae (‘pedlok’ and ‘taad’), Mullidae (‘bodbob’), Nemipteridae
(‘makabinhi’ and ‘song’), Scaridae (‘molmol’) and Sphyraenidae (‘lambana’).
(C) Target Species, Transi
(D) Non-Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Blenniidae (‘tambal leon’),
Pempheridae (‘tabas’), Pomacanthidae (‘anyel
Pomacentridae (‘batay bot
Scorpaenidae (‘bantol’), Synodontidae (‘tiki
(‘botete’).
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.22. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 22. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 22. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 22. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;
T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non
and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are standard and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are standard and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are standard and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are standard
deviation.deviation.deviation.deviation.
Local NameLocal NameLocal NameLocal Name Common Common Common Common
NameNameNameName
1 Alibangbang Butterfly Fish
2 Pakol Triggerfishes
3 Baga-baga Squirrel Fish
4 Pedlok Moon
Wrasse
5 Taad Wrasse
6 Bodbod Goat Fish
7 Makabinhi Bream
8 Song Monocle
Bream
9 Molmol Parrot fish
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity. A total of 23 ‘species’ (based on local names, Table
the FVC of Balbagon, Mambajao. Except for the local name, ‘lapis
lapis’, the other local names were traced to 17 families that can be categorized as:
(A) Indicator species: Chaetodontidae (‘alibang-bang);
(B) Target Species, Reef Residents: Balistidae (‘pakol’), Holocentridae (‘baga
Labridae (‘pedlok’ and ‘taad’), Mullidae (‘bodbob’), Nemipteridae
(‘makabinhi’ and ‘song’), Scaridae (‘molmol’) and Sphyraenidae (‘lambana’).
(C) Target Species, Transient Residents/Pelagic: Engraulidae (‘dalirag’);
Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Blenniidae (‘tambal leon’),
Pempheridae (‘tabas’), Pomacanthidae (‘anyel-anyel’ and sowat
Pomacentridae (‘batay bot-bot’, ‘kabatingan’, ‘pata’ and ‘tugas
Scorpaenidae (‘bantol’), Synodontidae (‘tiki-tiki’) and Tetraodontidae
22. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 22. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 22. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 22. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;
T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non----target specietarget specietarget specietarget species), mean total density s), mean total density s), mean total density s), mean total density
and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are standard and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are standard and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are standard and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are standard
Common Common Common Common
FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily CCCC
1111----10 10 10 10
cmcmcmcm
11111111----20 20 20 20
cmcmcmcm MeanMeanMeanMean
Butterfly Fish Chaetodontidae I 2.7
(3.1) 2.7
Triggerfishes Balistidae T(R) 1.0
(1.7) 1.0
Squirrel Fish Holocentridae T(R) 1.3
(2.3) 1.3
Labridae T(R) 1.3
(2.3) 1.3
Labridae T(R) 0.3
(0.6)
1.3
(1.5) 1.7
Mullidae T(R) 1.3
(2.3) 1.3
Nemipteridae T(R) 0.3
(0.6)
2.0
(1.7) 2.3
Nemipteridae T(R) 3.0
(2.6) 3.0
Parrot fish Scaridae T(R) 60
(37)
4.7
(5.0) 64.7
(Final Report), page - 204204204204
ies’ (based on local names, Table 5.22)
the FVC of Balbagon, Mambajao. Except for the local name, ‘lapis-
lapis’, the other local names were traced to 17 families that can be categorized as:
(B) Target Species, Reef Residents: Balistidae (‘pakol’), Holocentridae (‘baga-baga’),
Labridae (‘pedlok’ and ‘taad’), Mullidae (‘bodbob’), Nemipteridae
(‘makabinhi’ and ‘song’), Scaridae (‘molmol’) and Sphyraenidae (‘lambana’).
Target Species: Apogonidae (‘moong’), Blenniidae (‘tambal leon’),
anyel’ and sowat-sowat’),
bot’, ‘kabatingan’, ‘pata’ and ‘tugas-tugas’),
tiki’) and Tetraodontidae
22. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 22. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 22. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 22. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;
s), mean total density s), mean total density s), mean total density s), mean total density
and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are standard and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are standard and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are standard and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in parenthesis are standard
Total DensityTotal DensityTotal DensityTotal Density
SDSDSDSD %%%%
3.1 0.5
1.7 0.2
2.3 0.2
2.3 0.2
1.2 0.3
2.3 0.2
2.1 0.4
2.6 0.6
41.0 12.1
Local NameLocal NameLocal NameLocal Name Common Common Common Common
NameNameNameName
10 Lambana Big Eye
Barracuda
11 Dalirag Anchovy
12 Moong Cardinal Fish
13 Tambal Leon Blenny
14 Tabas Sweepers
15 Anyel-anyel Angel Fish
16 Suwat-suwat Angel Fish
17 Bantay-botbot Anemone
Fish
18 Kabatingan Sergeant
Major
19 Pata Damsel Fish
24 Tugas-tugas Damsel Fish
20 Bantol Stone Fish
21 Tiki-tiki Lizard Fish
22 Botete Pufferfishes
23 Lapis-lapis
Using the classification scheme (indicator, target and non
the families they represented were similar for target and non
‘species’ from eight families for target fishes and 11 ‘species
fishes.
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
Common Common Common Common
FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily CCCC
1111----10 10 10 10
cmcmcmcm
11111111----20 20 20 20
cmcmcmcm MeanMeanMeanMean
Barracuda Sphyraenidae T(R)
3.3
(5.8) 3.3
Engraulidae T(P) 33.3
(57.7) 33.3
Cardinal Fish Apogonidae NT 12
(10) 12.0
Blenniidae NT 1.0
(1.0) 1.0
Pempheridae NT 33.3
(57.7) 33.3
Angel Fish Pomacanthidae NT 112.7
(102) 112.7
Angel Fish Pomacanthidae NT 1.3
(2.3) 1.3
Anemone Pomacentridae NT
17.7
(7.5) 17.7
Pomacentridae NT 71
(44) 71.0
Damsel Fish Pomacentridae NT 149.7
(32.9) 149.7
Damsel Fish Pomacentridae NT 12.0
(20.8) 12.0
Stone Fish Scorpaenidae NT 0.3
(0.6) 0.3
Lizard Fish Synodontidae NT 6.0
(3.6)
0.3
(0.6) 6.3
Pufferfishes Tetraodontidae NT 0.3
(0.6) 0.3
Unknown U 1.3
(2.3) 1.3
Using the classification scheme (indicator, target and non-target), the number of ‘species’ and
the families they represented were similar for target and non-target species (Fig.
‘species’ from eight families for target fishes and 11 ‘species’ from eight families for non
(Final Report), page - 205205205205
Total DensityTotal DensityTotal DensityTotal Density
SDSDSDSD %%%%
5.8 0.6
57.7 6.2
10.4 2.2
1.0 0.2
57.7 6.2
102.4 21.1
2.3 0.2
7.5 3.3
44.2 13.3
32.9 28.0
20.8 2.2
0.6 0.1
3.8 1.2
0.6 0.1
2.3 0.2
target), the number of ‘species’ and
target species (Fig. 5.30) with 10
’ from eight families for non-target
Fish DensityFish DensityFish DensityFish Density and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. Mean total fish density per transect at Balbagon ranged from 400
699 individuals/500 m2 with a mean of 535 individuals/500 m
of the fishes observed within the transects belonged to 1
density of 523 organisms/500 m
11 organisms/500 m2)(Table 5.
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.23. Density (number of organisms/523. Density (number of organisms/523. Density (number of organisms/523. Density (number of organisms/5
density (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 m
standard deviation.standard deviation.standard deviation.standard deviation.
Transect 1111
Total 506
Average (SD) 523.3 (159.7)
Figure 5.30. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families and the Figure 5.30. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families and the Figure 5.30. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families and the Figure 5.30. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families and the
contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and noncontribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and noncontribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and noncontribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and non
Indicator Species
Target Species
Non-
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
SpeciesSpeciesSpeciesSpecies
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
Mean total fish density per transect at Balbagon ranged from 400
with a mean of 535 individuals/500 m2 (SD = 151)(Table
fishes observed within the transects belonged to 1-10 cm size range with an average
density of 523 organisms/500 m2; only a few individuals belonged to 11-20 cm averaging only
5.23).
23. Density (number of organisms/523. Density (number of organisms/523. Density (number of organisms/523. Density (number of organisms/500 m00 m00 m00 m2222) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total
density (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 m2222) of fishes recorded at Balbagon. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Balbagon. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Balbagon. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Balbagon. SD =
standard deviation.standard deviation.standard deviation.standard deviation.
Size Class RangesSize Class RangesSize Class RangesSize Class Ranges Total DensityTotal DensityTotal DensityTotal Density
1111----10 cm10 cm10 cm10 cm 11111111----20 cm20 cm20 cm20 cm
2222 3333 1111 2222 3333 1111
373 691 0 27 8 506 400
523.3 (159.7) 11.7 (13.9) 535 (151.6)
Figure 5.30. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families and the Figure 5.30. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families and the Figure 5.30. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families and the Figure 5.30. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families and the
contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and noncontribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and noncontribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and noncontribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and non----target species. target species. target species. target species.
Indicator Species
Target Species
-Target Species
SpeciesSpeciesSpeciesSpecies FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily % Contribution% Contribution% Contribution% Contribution
(Final Report), page - 206206206206
Mean total fish density per transect at Balbagon ranged from 400-
(SD = 151)(Table 5.23). Most
10 cm size range with an average
20 cm averaging only
) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total
) of fishes recorded at Balbagon. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Balbagon. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Balbagon. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Balbagon. SD =
Total DensityTotal DensityTotal DensityTotal Density
2222 3333
400 699
535 (151.6)
Figure 5.30. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families and the Figure 5.30. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families and the Figure 5.30. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families and the Figure 5.30. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families and the
target species. target species. target species. target species.
% Contribution% Contribution% Contribution% Contribution
Fish density was primarily composed of non
only comprised 21.2% (Fig.
range)(Fig. 5.31) and only four ‘species’ (‘taad’, ‘lakambinhi’, ‘molmol’ and ‘lambana’), all
target fishes had larger individuals (11
Figure Figure Figure Figure 5.315.315.315.31. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m
MambajMambajMambajMambajaoaoaoao. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.
1 Alibangbang 6 Bodbod
2 Pakol 7 Makabinhi
3 Baga-baga 8 Song
4 Pedlok 9 Molmol
5 Taad 10 Lambana
1-10 cm
11-20 cm
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1 2 3 4 5
Density
(N
o. of
Indiv
iduals/5
00 m
2)
Density
(N
o. of
Indiv
iduals/5
00 m
2)
Density
(N
o. of
Indiv
iduals/5
00 m
2)
Density
(N
o. of
Indiv
iduals/5
00 m
2)
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
Fish density was primarily composed of non-target species (75.8%) while the target species
only comprised 21.2% (Fig. 5.30). Most of the fishes were small (within 1
and only four ‘species’ (‘taad’, ‘lakambinhi’, ‘molmol’ and ‘lambana’), all
target fishes had larger individuals (11-20 cm) that had densities >1 organism/500 m
. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m2222) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at
. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.
Bodbod 11 Dalirag 16 Suwat-suwat 21
Makabinhi 12 Moong 17 Bantay-botbot 22
13 Tambal Leon 18 Kabatingan 23
Molmol 14 Tabas 19 Pata 24
Lambana 15 Anyel-anyel 20 Tugas-tugas
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'
(Final Report), page - 207207207207
target species (75.8%) while the target species
30). Most of the fishes were small (within 1-10 cm size
and only four ‘species’ (‘taad’, ‘lakambinhi’, ‘molmol’ and ‘lambana’), all
20 cm) that had densities >1 organism/500 m2.
) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at BalbagonBalbagonBalbagonBalbagon, , , ,
Bantol
Tiki-tiki
Botete
Lapis-lapis
20 21 22 23 24
Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment.
The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Anito was a mixture of rubble and sand (25.3%
each) with some live coral (20%), rock (17.3%) and dead coral (12%)(Table
Live coral cover averaged 20% (range = 16
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.24. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Anito, Mambajao.24. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Anito, Mambajao.24. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Anito, Mambajao.24. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Anito, Mambajao.
Live Live Live Live
CoralCoralCoralCoral
Transect 1 16
Transect 2 20
Transect 3 24
Average 20.00
Figure 5.32. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.32. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.32. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.32. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different
transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of
Anito, Mambajao. Anito, Mambajao. Anito, Mambajao. Anito, Mambajao.
Legend:Legend:Legend:Legend:
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
ANITO, MAMBAJAOANITO, MAMBAJAOANITO, MAMBAJAOANITO, MAMBAJAO
The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Anito was a mixture of rubble and sand (25.3%
each) with some live coral (20%), rock (17.3%) and dead coral (12%)(Table
Live coral cover averaged 20% (range = 16-24%), categorizing the area as “poor” (0
24. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Anito, Mambajao.24. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Anito, Mambajao.24. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Anito, Mambajao.24. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Anito, Mambajao.
Soft Soft Soft Soft
CoralCoralCoralCoral
Dead Dead Dead Dead
CoralCoralCoralCoral RubbleRubbleRubbleRubble SandSandSandSand RockRockRockRock
0 16 16 28 24
0 12 36 16 16
0 8 24 32 12
0 12.00 25.33 25.33 17.33
Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 3Transect 3Transect 3
Figure 5.32. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.32. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.32. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.32. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different
transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of
Anito, Mambajao. Anito, Mambajao. Anito, Mambajao. Anito, Mambajao.
Live Coral Dead Coral Rubble
Sand Rock
(Final Report), page - 208208208208
The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Anito was a mixture of rubble and sand (25.3%
each) with some live coral (20%), rock (17.3%) and dead coral (12%)(Table 5.24, Fig. 5.32).
s “poor” (0-24.9%).
24. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Anito, Mambajao.24. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Anito, Mambajao.24. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Anito, Mambajao.24. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Anito, Mambajao.
OthersOthersOthersOthers
0
0
0
0
Transect 3Transect 3Transect 3Transect 3
Figure 5.32. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.32. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.32. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.32. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different
transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of
Fish Visual CensusFish Visual CensusFish Visual CensusFish Visual Census. . . .
FishFishFishFish Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.
(based on local names, Table 5.
(A) Indicator species: Chaetodontidae (‘alibang
(B) Target Species: Acanthuridae (‘bagis’), Labridae (‘bongkalit’, labayan’, ‘maming’,
‘pedlok’ and ‘tangis’), Mullidae (‘bodbob’), Nemipteridae (‘song’) and
Scaridae (‘molmol’);
(C) Non-Target Species: Muraenidae (‘ogdo
bot-bot’, ‘kabatingan’ and ‘pata’), Synodontidae (‘tiki
(‘botete’).
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.25. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 25. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 25. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 25. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I =
indicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT indicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT indicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT indicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT
total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in
parenthesis are standard deviation.parenthesis are standard deviation.parenthesis are standard deviation.parenthesis are standard deviation.
Local NameLocal NameLocal NameLocal Name Common NameCommon NameCommon NameCommon Name
1 Alibangbang Butterfly Fish
2 Bagis Surgeon Fish
3 Bongkalit Sixbar wrasse
4 Labayan Wrasse
5 Maming Wrasse
6 Pedlok Moon Wrasse
7 Tangis Wrasse
8 Bodbob Goat Fish
9 Song Monocle Bream
10 Molmol Parrot fish
11 Ogdo-ogdo Moray Eel
12 Salikoko Damsel Fish
13 Bantay-botbot Anemone Fish
14 Kabatingan Sergeant Major
15 Pata Damsel Fish
16 Tiki-tiki Lizard Fish
17 Botete Pufferfishes
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity. During the FVC of Anito, Mambajao, a total of
5.25) from 17 fish families were recorded:
(A) Indicator species: Chaetodontidae (‘alibang-bang);
(B) Target Species: Acanthuridae (‘bagis’), Labridae (‘bongkalit’, labayan’, ‘maming’,
‘pedlok’ and ‘tangis’), Mullidae (‘bodbob’), Nemipteridae (‘song’) and
Scaridae (‘molmol’);
Target Species: Muraenidae (‘ogdo-ogdo’), Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’, ‘batay
bot’, ‘kabatingan’ and ‘pata’), Synodontidae (‘tiki-tiki’) and Tetraodontidae
25. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 25. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 25. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 25. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I =
indicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT indicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT indicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT indicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non= non= non= non----target species), mean target species), mean target species), mean target species), mean
total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in
parenthesis are standard deviation.parenthesis are standard deviation.parenthesis are standard deviation.parenthesis are standard deviation.
Common NameCommon NameCommon NameCommon Name FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily CCCC 1111----10 10 10 10
cmcmcmcm
11111111----20 20 20 20
cmcmcmcm MeanMeanMeanMean
Butterfly Fish Chaetodontidae I 3.0
(2.6)
Surgeon Fish Acanthuridae T(R) 2.0
(3.5)
Sixbar wrasse Labridae T(R) 1.3
(1.2)
Labridae T(R) 3.0
(2.6)
Labridae T(R) 1.7
(1.2)
Moon Wrasse Labridae T(R) 2.0
(1.0)
Labridae T(R) 0.7
(1.2)
Goat Fish Mullidae T(R) 1.0 (1.0)
Monocle Bream Nemipteridae T(R) 1.3
(2.3)
Parrot fish Scaridae T(R) 9.7
(4.9)
3.0
(3.6)
Moray Eel Muraenidae NT 3.0 (0) 3.0 (0)
Damsel Fish Pomacentridae NT 19.0
(3.5)
Anemone Fish Pomacentridae NT 1.0
(1.7)
Sergeant Major Pomacentridae NT 29.0
(18.5)
1.0
(1.7) (17.0)
Damsel Fish Pomacentridae NT 9.0 (9.5)
Lizard Fish Synodontidae NT 1.0
(1.0)
Pufferfishes Tetraodontidae NT 1.3
(0.6)
(Final Report), page - 209209209209
During the FVC of Anito, Mambajao, a total of 17 ‘species’
(B) Target Species: Acanthuridae (‘bagis’), Labridae (‘bongkalit’, labayan’, ‘maming’,
‘pedlok’ and ‘tangis’), Mullidae (‘bodbob’), Nemipteridae (‘song’) and
(‘salikoko’, ‘batay
tiki’) and Tetraodontidae
25. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 25. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 25. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 25. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I =
target species), mean target species), mean target species), mean target species), mean
total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in
Total DensityTotal DensityTotal DensityTotal Density
MeanMeanMeanMean %%%%
3.0
(2.6) 3.2
2.0
(3.5) 2.2
1.3
(1.2) 1.4
3.0
(2.6) 3.2
1.7
(1.2) 1.8
2.0
(1.0) 2.2
0.7
(1.2) 0.7
1.0 (1.0)
1.1
1.3
(2.3) 1.4
12.7
(7.8) 13.6
3.0 (0) 3.2
19.0
(3.5) 20.4
1.0
(1.7) 1.1
30.0
(17.0) 32.3
9.0 (9.5)
9.7
1.0
(1.0) 1.1
1.3
(0.6) 1.4
Of the 17 local names, target species were represented by nine local names from five fish
families while non-targets, seven local names from four families (Fig.
Fish DensityFish DensityFish DensityFish Density and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. Mean total fish density per transect at Anito ranged from 69
individuals/500 m2 with a mean of 93 individuals/500 m
fishes observed within the transects belonged to 1
89 organisms/500 m2; only a few individuals belonged to 11
organisms/500 m2)(Table 5.26).
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.26. Density (number of organisms/500 m26. Density (number of organisms/500 m26. Density (number of organisms/500 m26. Density (number of organisms/500 m
density (number of density (number of density (number of density (number of
deviation.deviation.deviation.deviation.
Transect 1111
Total 101
Average (SD) 89 (26.2)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
SpeciesSpeciesSpeciesSpecies
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Indicator Species
Target Species
Non
Figure 5.33. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.33. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.33. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.33. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish
families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target
and nonand nonand nonand non----target species. target species. target species. target species.
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
Of the 17 local names, target species were represented by nine local names from five fish
targets, seven local names from four families (Fig. 5.33).
Mean total fish density per transect at Anito ranged from 69
with a mean of 93 individuals/500 m2 (SD = 20)(Table 5.
fishes observed within the transects belonged to 1-10 cm size range with an average density of
; only a few individuals belonged to 11-20 cm averaging only 4
26).
26. Density (number of organisms/500 m26. Density (number of organisms/500 m26. Density (number of organisms/500 m26. Density (number of organisms/500 m2222) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total
density (number of density (number of density (number of density (number of organisms/500 morganisms/500 morganisms/500 morganisms/500 m2222) of fishes recorded at Anito. SD = standard ) of fishes recorded at Anito. SD = standard ) of fishes recorded at Anito. SD = standard ) of fishes recorded at Anito. SD = standard
Size Class RangesSize Class RangesSize Class RangesSize Class Ranges Total DensityTotal DensityTotal DensityTotal Density
1111----10 cm10 cm10 cm10 cm 11111111----20 cm20 cm20 cm20 cm
2222 3333 1111 2222 3333 1111
59 107 2 10 0 103
89 (26.2) 4 (5.3) 93 (20.9)
SpeciesSpeciesSpeciesSpecies FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily % Contribution% Contribution% Contribution% Contribution
Indicator Species
Target Species
Non-Target Species
Figure 5.33. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.33. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.33. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.33. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish
families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target
target species. target species. target species. target species.
(Final Report), page - 210210210210
Of the 17 local names, target species were represented by nine local names from five fish
Mean total fish density per transect at Anito ranged from 69-107
5.26). Most of the
range with an average density of
20 cm averaging only 4
) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total
) of fishes recorded at Anito. SD = standard ) of fishes recorded at Anito. SD = standard ) of fishes recorded at Anito. SD = standard ) of fishes recorded at Anito. SD = standard
Total DensityTotal DensityTotal DensityTotal Density
2222 3333
69 107
93 (20.9)
Figure 5.33. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.33. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.33. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.33. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish
families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target
Fish density was primarily composed of non
only comprised 27.6% (Fig. 5.
range)(Fig. 5.34) and only two ‘species’ (‘molmol’ and ‘kabatingan’) rea
size range is possible for the parrotfish (‘molmol’) which are known to reach large sizes but
doubtful for the damselfish, ‘kabatingan’. It is possible for pomacentrids or damsel fishes to
reach this size range but only at areas which a
considering this particular data.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1 2 3 4
Density
(N
o. of
Indiv
iduals/5
00m
2)
Density
(N
o. of
Indiv
iduals/5
00m
2)
Density
(N
o. of
Indiv
iduals/5
00m
2)
Density
(N
o. of
Indiv
iduals/5
00m
2)
1-10 cm
11-20 cm
Figure Figure Figure Figure 5.345.345.345.34. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m
See legend below for fish ‘species’.See legend below for fish ‘species’.See legend below for fish ‘species’.See legend below for fish ‘species’.
1 = Alibangbang
2 = Bagis
3 = Bongkalit
4 = Labayan 5 = Maming
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
Fish density was primarily composed of non-target species (69.2%) while the target species
5.33). Most (95.7%) of the fishes were small (within 1
34) and only two ‘species’ (‘molmol’ and ‘kabatingan’) reached 11
size range is possible for the parrotfish (‘molmol’) which are known to reach large sizes but
doubtful for the damselfish, ‘kabatingan’. It is possible for pomacentrids or damsel fishes to
reach this size range but only at areas which are not fished. Caution should be taken when
considering this particular data.
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'
. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m2222) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at
See legend below for fish ‘species’.See legend below for fish ‘species’.See legend below for fish ‘species’.See legend below for fish ‘species’.
6 = Pedlok 11 = Ogdo-ogdo 16 =
7 = Tangis 12 = Salikoko 17 =
8 = Bodbod 13 = Bantay-botbot
9 = Song 14 = Kabatingan 10 = Molmol 15 = Pata
(Final Report), page - 211211211211
target species (69.2%) while the target species
33). Most (95.7%) of the fishes were small (within 1-10 cm size
ched 11-20 cm. This
size range is possible for the parrotfish (‘molmol’) which are known to reach large sizes but
doubtful for the damselfish, ‘kabatingan’. It is possible for pomacentrids or damsel fishes to
re not fished. Caution should be taken when
16 17
) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at AnitoAnitoAnitoAnito, , , , MambajaoMambajaoMambajaoMambajao. . . .
16 = Tiki-tiki
17 = Botete
MAGTING, MAMBAJAOMAGTING, MAMBAJAOMAGTING, MAMBAJAOMAGTING, MAMBAJAO
Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment.
The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Magting was primarily composed of live coral
(32-36%) and sand (20-24%)(Table
(36%) and sand (20%); the second, live coral (36%), sand (24%) and rubble (20%); and the
third transect, live coral (32%), dead coral (24%) and sand (20%)(Fig. 35). On the average,
live coral cover was 34.67% (Fig.
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.27. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Magting, Mambajao.27. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Magting, Mambajao.27. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Magting, Mambajao.27. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Magting, Mambajao.
Live Live Live Live
CoralCoralCoralCoral
Transect 1 36
Transect 2 36
Transect 3 32
Average 34.67
Figure 5.35. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.35. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.35. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.35. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different
transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of
Magting, Mambajao. Magting, Mambajao. Magting, Mambajao. Magting, Mambajao.
Legend:Legend:Legend:Legend:
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
MAGTING, MAMBAJAOMAGTING, MAMBAJAOMAGTING, MAMBAJAOMAGTING, MAMBAJAO
The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Magting was primarily composed of live coral
24%)(Table 5.27). The first transect was composed of live coral
(36%) and sand (20%); the second, live coral (36%), sand (24%) and rubble (20%); and the
third transect, live coral (32%), dead coral (24%) and sand (20%)(Fig. 35). On the average,
67% (Fig. 5.35), categorizing the area as “fair” (25-49.9%).
27. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Magting, Mambajao.27. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Magting, Mambajao.27. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Magting, Mambajao.27. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Magting, Mambajao.
Soft Soft Soft Soft
CoralCoralCoralCoral
Dead Dead Dead Dead
CoralCoralCoralCoral RubbleRubbleRubbleRubble SandSandSandSand RockRockRockRock
4 16 8 20 16
4 8 20 24 8
16 24 4 20 4
8.00 16.00 10.67 21.33 9.33
Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3
Figure 5.35. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.35. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.35. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.35. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different
transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of
Magting, Mambajao. Magting, Mambajao. Magting, Mambajao. Magting, Mambajao.
Live Coral Soft Coral Dead Coral
Sand Rock Rubble
(Final Report), page - 212212212212
The surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Magting was primarily composed of live coral
27). The first transect was composed of live coral
(36%) and sand (20%); the second, live coral (36%), sand (24%) and rubble (20%); and the
third transect, live coral (32%), dead coral (24%) and sand (20%)(Fig. 35). On the average,
49.9%).
27. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Magting, Mambajao.27. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Magting, Mambajao.27. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Magting, Mambajao.27. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Magting, Mambajao.
OthersOthersOthersOthers
0
0
0
0
Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3
Figure 5.35. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.35. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.35. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different Figure 5.35. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the different
transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of transects as drawn by participants (above) and the average cover (below) of
Fish Visual CensusFish Visual CensusFish Visual CensusFish Visual Census. . . .
FishFishFishFish Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.
were recorded during the FVC of Magting, Mambajao. Except for the local name, ‘tangka
tangka’ and the unidentified fish (‘isda’),
be categorized as:
(A) Indicator species: Chaetodontidae (‘alibang
(B) Target Species, Reef Residents: Acanthuridae (‘bagis’), Balistidae (‘pogot’), Labridae
(‘bongkalit’, ‘labayan’, ‘maming’, ‘p
(‘bodbob’), Nemipteridae (‘song’), Scaridae (‘molmol’) and Siganidae
(‘danggit’);
(C) Target Species, Transient Residents/Pelagic: Engraulidae (‘dalirag’ and ‘mogkas’);
(D) Non-Target Species: Muraenidae (‘odgo
‘kabatingan’ and ‘pata’) and Tetraodontidae (‘botete’).
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.28. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 28. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 28. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 28. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I =
indicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonindicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonindicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonindicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonmean mean mean mean total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in
parenthesis are standard deviation.parenthesis are standard deviation.parenthesis are standard deviation.parenthesis are standard deviation.
Local NameLocal NameLocal NameLocal Name Common Common Common Common
NameNameNameName
1 Alibangbang Butterfly Fish
2 Bagis Surgeon Fish
3 Pogot Triggerfishes
4 Bongkalit Sixbar wrasse
5 Labayan Wrasse
6 Maming Wrasse
7 Pedlok Moon Wrasse
8 Taad Wrasse
9 Tangis Wrasse
10 Bodbod Goat Fish
11 Song Monocle
Bream
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity. A total of 22 ‘species’ (based on local names, Table
were recorded during the FVC of Magting, Mambajao. Except for the local name, ‘tangka
tangka’ and the unidentified fish (‘isda’), other local names were traced to 12 families that can
(A) Indicator species: Chaetodontidae (‘alibang-bang);
(B) Target Species, Reef Residents: Acanthuridae (‘bagis’), Balistidae (‘pogot’), Labridae
(‘bongkalit’, ‘labayan’, ‘maming’, ‘pedlok’, ‘taad’ and ‘tangis’), Mullidae
(‘bodbob’), Nemipteridae (‘song’), Scaridae (‘molmol’) and Siganidae
(C) Target Species, Transient Residents/Pelagic: Engraulidae (‘dalirag’ and ‘mogkas’);
Target Species: Muraenidae (‘odgo-ogdo’), Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’,
‘kabatingan’ and ‘pata’) and Tetraodontidae (‘botete’).
28. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 28. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 28. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 28. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I =
indicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonindicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonindicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = nonindicator; T(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non----target species), target species), target species), target species), total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in
parenthesis are standard deviation.parenthesis are standard deviation.parenthesis are standard deviation.parenthesis are standard deviation.
Common Common Common Common
NameNameNameName FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily CCCC
1111----10 10 10 10
cmcmcmcm
11111111----20 20 20 20
cmcmcmcm MeanMeanMeanMean
Butterfly Fish Chaetodontidae I 5.7
(4.0)
Surgeon Fish Acanthuridae T(R) 0.3
(0.6)
Triggerfishes Balistidae T(R) 0.7
(0.6)
Sixbar wrasse Labridae T(R) 1.0
(1.0)
Wrasse Labridae T(R) 0.3
(0.6)
Wrasse Labridae T(R) 0.7
(0.6)
Moon Wrasse Labridae T(R) 3.0
(0)
Wrasse Labridae T(R) 0.3
(0.6)
Wrasse Labridae T(R) 0.3
(0.6)
Goat Fish Mullidae T(R) 0.7
(1.2)
Monocle
Bream Nemipteridae T(R)
0.3
(0.6)
(Final Report), page - 213213213213
ies’ (based on local names, Table 5.28)
were recorded during the FVC of Magting, Mambajao. Except for the local name, ‘tangka-
other local names were traced to 12 families that can
(B) Target Species, Reef Residents: Acanthuridae (‘bagis’), Balistidae (‘pogot’), Labridae
edlok’, ‘taad’ and ‘tangis’), Mullidae
(‘bodbob’), Nemipteridae (‘song’), Scaridae (‘molmol’) and Siganidae
(C) Target Species, Transient Residents/Pelagic: Engraulidae (‘dalirag’ and ‘mogkas’);
, Pomacentridae (‘salikoko’,
28. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 28. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 28. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = 28. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I =
target species), target species), target species), target species), total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in total density and their percent contribution to total fish density. Values in
Total DensityTotal DensityTotal DensityTotal Density
MeanMeanMeanMean %%%%
5.7
(4.0) 3.1
0.3
(0.6) 0.2
0.7
(0.6) 0.4
1.0
(1.0) 0.5
0.3
(0.6) 0.2
0.7
(0.6) 0.4
3.0
(0) 1.6
0.3
(0.6) 0.2
0.3
(0.6) 0.2
0.7
(1.2) 0.4
0.3
(0.6) 0.2
Local NameLocal NameLocal NameLocal Name Common Common Common Common
NameNameNameName
12 Molmol Parrot fish
13 Danggit Rabbit Fish
14 Dalirag Anchovy
15 Mogkas Anchovy
16 Ogdo-ogdo Moray Eel
17 Salikoko Damsel Fish
18 Kabatingan Sergeant
Major
19 Pata Damsel Fish
20 Botete Pufferfishes
21 Tangka-tangka
22 Isda
Of the 22 local names, target species the most represented with 14 local names re
eight fish families while non-targets had five from three families (Fig.
were composed of 12 reef residents and two pelagic species. This means that in terms of
diversity, target species at Magting was more diverse than
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
SpeciesSpeciesSpeciesSpecies
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Indicator Species
Target Species
Non-Target Species
Figure 5.36. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.36. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.36. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.36. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish
families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of
target and nontarget and nontarget and nontarget and non
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
Common Common Common Common
NameNameNameName FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily CCCC
1111----10 10 10 10
cmcmcmcm
11111111----20 20 20 20
cmcmcmcm MeanMeanMeanMean
Parrot fish Scaridae T(R) 16.3
(14.6)
3.0
(2.0) (15.9)
Rabbit Fish Siganidae T(R) 1.3
(2.3)
0.3
(0.6)
Anchovy Engraulidae T(P) 33.3
(57.7)
(57.7)
Anchovy Engraulidae T(P) 66.7
(115.5)
(115.5)
Moray Eel Muraenidae NT 3.7
(3.8)
Damsel Fish Pomacentridae NT 12.7
(10.8)
(10.8)
Sergeant
Pomacentridae NT
23.7
(8.1)
Damsel Fish Pomacentridae NT 4.0
(3.6)
Pufferfishes Tetraodontidae NT 1.0
(1.3)
Unknown U 0.3
(0.6)
Unknown U 2.3
(4.0)
Of the 22 local names, target species the most represented with 14 local names re
targets had five from three families (Fig. 5.36). The target species
were composed of 12 reef residents and two pelagic species. This means that in terms of
diversity, target species at Magting was more diverse than the non-target species.
FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily % Contribution% Contribution% Contribution% Contribution
Indicator Species
Target Species
Target Species
Figure 5.36. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.36. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.36. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.36. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish
families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of
target and nontarget and nontarget and nontarget and non----target species. target species. target species. target species.
(Final Report), page - 214214214214
Total DensityTotal DensityTotal DensityTotal Density
MeanMeanMeanMean %%%%
19.3
(15.9) 10.6
1.7
(2.1) 0.9
33.3
(57.7) 18.3
66.7
(115.5) 36.6
3.7
(3.8) 2.0
12.7
(10.8) 7.0
23.7
(8.1) 13.0
4.0
(3.6) 2.2
1.0
(1.3) 0.5
0.3
(0.6) 0.2
2.3
(4.0) 1.3
Of the 22 local names, target species the most represented with 14 local names representing
36). The target species
were composed of 12 reef residents and two pelagic species. This means that in terms of
target species.
Figure 5.36. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.36. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.36. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish Figure 5.36. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish
families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of families and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of
Fish DensityFish DensityFish DensityFish Density and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. Mean total fish density per transect at Magting ranged from 61
421 individuals/500 m2 with a mean of 182 individuals/500 m
density of Transect-1 was distinctly higher than that of the other two transects and may have
artificially increased the fish density and thus increased the SD value. This is due to the two
schools of reef pelagic anchovies that were encountered at Transect 1: ‘dalirag’ estimated a
100 organisms/500 m2 and ‘mogkas’ estimated at 200 organisms/500 m
were removed, the mean density would approach that of the other transects.
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.29. Density (number of organisms/500 m29. Density (number of organisms/500 m29. Density (number of organisms/500 m29. Density (number of organisms/500 m
density (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 m
standard deviation.standard deviation.standard deviation.standard deviation.
Transect 1111
Total 415
Average (SD) 178 (204.7)
Fish density was primarily composed of target species (70.7%) while the non
only comprised 24.7% (Fig.
contributed 54.9% while the permanent reef residents composed only 15.8%.
Most (95.7%) of the fishes were small (within 1
‘species’ (‘molmol’ and ‘danggit’) reached 11
>1 organism/500 m2. This means that although there is a high number of target
the area, these are small. Protection if present will enhance the fish population by allowing
these target species to grow and reach maturity before being fished out.
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
Mean total fish density per transect at Magting ranged from 61
with a mean of 182 individuals/500 m2 (SD = 207)(Table
distinctly higher than that of the other two transects and may have
artificially increased the fish density and thus increased the SD value. This is due to the two
schools of reef pelagic anchovies that were encountered at Transect 1: ‘dalirag’ estimated a
and ‘mogkas’ estimated at 200 organisms/500 m2. If these two values
were removed, the mean density would approach that of the other transects.
29. Density (number of organisms/500 m29. Density (number of organisms/500 m29. Density (number of organisms/500 m29. Density (number of organisms/500 m2222) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total
density (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 mdensity (number of organisms/500 m2222) of fishes recorded at Magting. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Magting. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Magting. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Magting. SD =
standard deviation.standard deviation.standard deviation.standard deviation.
Size Class RangesSize Class RangesSize Class RangesSize Class Ranges Total DensityTotal DensityTotal DensityTotal Density
1111----10 cm10 cm10 cm10 cm 11111111----20 cm20 cm20 cm20 cm
2222 3333 1111 2222 3333 1111
63 58 6 1 3 421
178 (204.7) 3.3 (2.5) 182 (207)
Fish density was primarily composed of target species (70.7%) while the non
only comprised 24.7% (Fig. 5.36). Among the target species, the pelagic anchovies
contributed 54.9% while the permanent reef residents composed only 15.8%.
(95.7%) of the fishes were small (within 1-10 cm size range)(Fig. 5.37) and only two
‘species’ (‘molmol’ and ‘danggit’) reached 11-20 cm. However, only ‘molmol’ had a density of
. This means that although there is a high number of target
the area, these are small. Protection if present will enhance the fish population by allowing
these target species to grow and reach maturity before being fished out.
(Final Report), page - 215215215215
Mean total fish density per transect at Magting ranged from 61-
(SD = 207)(Table 5.29). Fish
distinctly higher than that of the other two transects and may have
artificially increased the fish density and thus increased the SD value. This is due to the two
schools of reef pelagic anchovies that were encountered at Transect 1: ‘dalirag’ estimated at
. If these two values
were removed, the mean density would approach that of the other transects.
) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total
) of fishes recorded at Magting. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Magting. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Magting. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Magting. SD =
Total DensityTotal DensityTotal DensityTotal Density
2222 3333
64 61
182 (207)
Fish density was primarily composed of target species (70.7%) while the non-target species
36). Among the target species, the pelagic anchovies
contributed 54.9% while the permanent reef residents composed only 15.8%.
37) and only two
20 cm. However, only ‘molmol’ had a density of
. This means that although there is a high number of target species within
the area, these are small. Protection if present will enhance the fish population by allowing
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 2 3 4 5
Density
(N
o. of
Indiv
iduals/5
00 m
2)
Density
(N
o. of
Indiv
iduals/5
00 m
2)
Density
(N
o. of
Indiv
iduals/5
00 m
2)
Density
(N
o. of
Indiv
iduals/5
00 m
2)
1-10 cm
11-20 cm
Figure Figure Figure Figure 5.375.375.375.37. Density of fishes. Density of fishes. Density of fishes. Density of fishes
MambajaoMambajaoMambajaoMambajao. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.
1 Alibangbang 6
2 Bagis 7
3 Pogot 8
4 Bongkalit 9
5 Labayan 10
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'
. Density of fishes. Density of fishes. Density of fishes. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 m(number of organisms/500 m(number of organisms/500 m(number of organisms/500 m2222) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at
. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.
6 Maming 11 Song 16 Ogdo-ogdo 21
7 Pedlok 12 Molmol 17 Salikoko 22
8 Taad 13 Danggit 18 Kabatingan
9 Tangis 14 Dalirag 19 Pata
10 Bodbod 15 Mogkas 20 Botete
(Final Report), page - 216216216216
20 21 22
) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at MagtingMagtingMagtingMagting, , , ,
Tangka-tangka
Isda
TUPSAN GRANDE, MAMBAJAOTUPSAN GRANDE, MAMBAJAOTUPSAN GRANDE, MAMBAJAOTUPSAN GRANDE, MAMBAJAO
Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment. Coral Reef Assessment.
The first transect at the surveyed site for coral
composed of live coral (37%) and rubble (29%); the second transect, live coral (33.8%) and
dead coral (25%); and the third transect, sand (24%) in combination with live coral (20%),
rubble (20%) and rock (20%)
5.30), categorizing the area as “fair” (25
Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 1 Transect 2
Figure 5.38. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the Figure 5.38. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the Figure 5.38. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the Figure 5.38. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the
different transects as drawn by participants (above) and the different transects as drawn by participants (above) and the different transects as drawn by participants (above) and the different transects as drawn by participants (above) and the
average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao. average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao. average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao. average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao.
Legend:Legend:Legend:Legend:
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
TUPSAN GRANDE, MAMBAJAOTUPSAN GRANDE, MAMBAJAOTUPSAN GRANDE, MAMBAJAOTUPSAN GRANDE, MAMBAJAO
The first transect at the surveyed site for coral reef assessment at Tupsan Grande was mainly
composed of live coral (37%) and rubble (29%); the second transect, live coral (33.8%) and
dead coral (25%); and the third transect, sand (24%) in combination with live coral (20%),
rubble (20%) and rock (20%)(fig. 5.38). On the average, live coral cover was 30.27% (
), categorizing the area as “fair” (25-49.9%).
Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3Transect 3Transect 3Transect 3
Figure 5.38. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the Figure 5.38. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the Figure 5.38. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the Figure 5.38. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the
different transects as drawn by participants (above) and the different transects as drawn by participants (above) and the different transects as drawn by participants (above) and the different transects as drawn by participants (above) and the
average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao. average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao. average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao. average cover (below) of Naasag, Mambajao.
Live Coral Soft Coral Dead Coral
Sand Rock Rubble
(Final Report), page - 217217217217
reef assessment at Tupsan Grande was mainly
composed of live coral (37%) and rubble (29%); the second transect, live coral (33.8%) and
dead coral (25%); and the third transect, sand (24%) in combination with live coral (20%),
. On the average, live coral cover was 30.27% (Table
Figure 5.38. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the Figure 5.38. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the Figure 5.38. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the Figure 5.38. Pie charts showing benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of the
different transects as drawn by participants (above) and the different transects as drawn by participants (above) and the different transects as drawn by participants (above) and the different transects as drawn by participants (above) and the
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.30. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Tupsan Grande, Mambajao.30. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Tupsan Grande, Mambajao.30. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Tupsan Grande, Mambajao.30. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Tupsan Grande, Mambajao.
Live Live Live Live
CoralCoralCoralCoral
Transect 1 37
Transect 3 33.8
Transect 3 20
Average 30.27
Fish Visual CensusFish Visual CensusFish Visual CensusFish Visual Census. . . .
FishFishFishFish Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.
were recorded during the FVC of Tupsan Grande, Mambajao and can be classified as:
(A) Indicator species: Chaetodontidae (‘alibang
(B) Target Species: Balistidae (‘pogot’), Labridae (‘bongkalit’, ‘maming, ‘pedlok’ and
‘tangis’), Mullidae (‘bodbob’), Nemipteridae (‘song’), Scaridae (‘molmol’),
Siganidae (‘danggit’) and Engraulidae (‘mogkas’);
(C) Non-Target Species: Pempheridae (‘tabas’), Pomacentridae (‘bantay bot
‘kabatingan’, ‘kapaw’, ‘pata’ and ‘salikoko’) and Synodontidae (‘tiki
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.31. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 31. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 31. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 31. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;
T(RT(RT(RT(R) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non
and their percent contribution (%) total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution (%) total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution (%) total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution (%) total fish density. SD = standard deviation.
Local NameLocal NameLocal NameLocal Name Common Common Common Common
NameNameNameName
1 Alibangbang Butterfly Fish
2 Pogot Trigger Fish
3 Bongkalit Sixbar wrasse
4 Maming Wrasse
5 Pedlok Wrasse
6 Tangis Wrasse
7 Bodbod Goat Fish
8 Song Monacle Bream
9 Molmol Parrot fish
10 Danggit Rabbit Fish
11 Mogkas Anchovy
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
30. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Tupsan Grande, Mambajao.30. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Tupsan Grande, Mambajao.30. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Tupsan Grande, Mambajao.30. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Tupsan Grande, Mambajao.
Soft Soft Soft Soft
CoralCoralCoralCoral
Dead Dead Dead Dead
CoralCoralCoralCoral RubbleRubbleRubbleRubble SandSandSandSand RockRockRockRock
0 14 29 16 4
0 25 16.9 16 8.3
4 12 20 24 20
1.33 17.00 21.97 18.67 10.77
Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity.Composition and Diversity. A total of 18 ‘species’ (based on local names, Table
were recorded during the FVC of Tupsan Grande, Mambajao and can be classified as:
species: Chaetodontidae (‘alibang-bang);
(B) Target Species: Balistidae (‘pogot’), Labridae (‘bongkalit’, ‘maming, ‘pedlok’ and
‘tangis’), Mullidae (‘bodbob’), Nemipteridae (‘song’), Scaridae (‘molmol’),
Siganidae (‘danggit’) and Engraulidae (‘mogkas’);
Target Species: Pempheridae (‘tabas’), Pomacentridae (‘bantay bot
‘kabatingan’, ‘kapaw’, ‘pata’ and ‘salikoko’) and Synodontidae (‘tiki
31. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 31. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 31. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 31. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;
) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non) = resident coral reef target species, NT = non----target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density
and their percent contribution (%) total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution (%) total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution (%) total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution (%) total fish density. SD = standard deviation.
FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily CCCC 1111----10cm10cm10cm10cm 11111111----20cm20cm20cm20cm
MeanMeanMeanMean SDSDSDSD MeanMeanMeanMean SDSDSDSD MeanMeanMeanMean
Chaetodontidae I 4.0 1.7 4.0
Balistidae T(R) 4.0 6.1 4.0
Labridae T(R) 1.7 1.5 1.7
Labridae T(R) 0.3 0.6 0.3
Labridae T(R) 2.0 2.0 2.0
Labridae T(R) 0.3 0.6 0.3
Mullidae T(R) 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.7
Nemipteridae T(R) 0.7 0.6 0.7
Scaridae T(R) 8.3 9.1 8.3
Siganidae T(R) 0.7 1.2 0.7
Engraulidae T(P) 33.3 57.7 33.3
(Final Report), page - 218218218218
30. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Tupsan Grande, Mambajao.30. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Tupsan Grande, Mambajao.30. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Tupsan Grande, Mambajao.30. Benthic lifeform cover (in percent) of Tupsan Grande, Mambajao.
OthersOthersOthersOthers
0
0
0
0
ies’ (based on local names, Table 5.31)
were recorded during the FVC of Tupsan Grande, Mambajao and can be classified as:
(B) Target Species: Balistidae (‘pogot’), Labridae (‘bongkalit’, ‘maming, ‘pedlok’ and
‘tangis’), Mullidae (‘bodbob’), Nemipteridae (‘song’), Scaridae (‘molmol’),
Target Species: Pempheridae (‘tabas’), Pomacentridae (‘bantay bot-bot,
‘kabatingan’, ‘kapaw’, ‘pata’ and ‘salikoko’) and Synodontidae (‘tiki-tiki’).
31. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 31. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 31. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator; 31. Local names of fishes, their common names, families, categories (C, I = indicator;
target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density target species), mean total density
and their percent contribution (%) total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution (%) total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution (%) total fish density. SD = standard deviation.and their percent contribution (%) total fish density. SD = standard deviation.
Total DensityTotal DensityTotal DensityTotal Density
MeanMeanMeanMean SDSDSDSD %%%%
4.0 1.7 2.7
4.0 6.1 2.7
1.7 1.5 1.1
0.3 0.6 0.2
2.0 2.0 1.4
0.3 0.6 0.2
0.7 0.6 0.5
0.7 0.6 0.5
8.3 9.1 5.7
0.7 1.2 0.5
33.3 57.7 22.7
Local NameLocal NameLocal NameLocal Name Common Common Common Common
NameNameNameName
12 Tabas Sweepers
13 Bantay-
botbot Anemone Fish
14 Kabatingan Sergeant Major
15 Kapaw Damsel Fish
16 Pata Damsel Fish
17 Salikoko Damsel Fish
18 Tiki-tiki Lizard Fish
Of the 18 local names, target fishes were represented by more ‘species’ (10) and more families
(7) while non-target fishes were represented by seven ‘species’ from three families (Fig.
Most of the target species were permanent reef residents (9 spe
transient resident (‘mogkas’).
Figure 5.39. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.39. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.39. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.39. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families
and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonand the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonand the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonand the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and non
target species. target species. target species. target species.
Indicator Speci
Target Species
Non
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
SpeciesSpeciesSpeciesSpecies
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Num
ber
/ Perc
ent
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily CCCC 1111----10cm10cm10cm10cm 11111111----20cm20cm20cm20cm
MeanMeanMeanMean SDSDSDSD MeanMeanMeanMean SDSDSDSD MeanMeanMeanMean
Pempheridae NT 0.3 0.6 0.3
Pomacentridae NT 1.0 1.0 1.0
Pomacentridae NT 23.3 16.9 23.3
Pomacentridae NT 8.3 9.1 8.3
Pomacentridae NT 33.3 16.1 1.3 2.3 34.7
Pomacentridae NT 22.3 8.1 22.3
Synodontidae NT 1.0 1.0 1.0
Of the 18 local names, target fishes were represented by more ‘species’ (10) and more families
target fishes were represented by seven ‘species’ from three families (Fig.
Most of the target species were permanent reef residents (9 species) with one pelagic or
Figure 5.39. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.39. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.39. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.39. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families
and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonand the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonand the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonand the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and non
target species. target species. target species. target species.
Indicator Species
Target Species
Non-Target Species
SpeciesSpeciesSpeciesSpecies FamilyFamilyFamilyFamily % Contribu tion% Contribu tion% Contribu tion% Contribu tion
(Final Report), page - 219219219219
Total DensityTotal DensityTotal DensityTotal Density
MeanMeanMeanMean SDSDSDSD %%%%
0.3 0.6 0.2
1.0 1.0 0.7
23.3 16.9 15.9
8.3 9.1 5.7
34.7 17.0 23.6
22.3 8.1 15.2
1.0 1.0 0.7
Of the 18 local names, target fishes were represented by more ‘species’ (10) and more families
target fishes were represented by seven ‘species’ from three families (Fig. 5.39).
cies) with one pelagic or
Figure 5.39. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.39. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.39. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families Figure 5.39. Number of ‘species’ (based on local names), number of fish families
and the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonand the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonand the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and nonand the contribution to total fish density (in percent) of target and non----
% Contribu tion% Contribu tion% Contribu tion% Contribu tion
Fish DensityFish DensityFish DensityFish Density and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes.
from 140 – 160 organisms/500 m
other sites at Mambajao, most fishes were small; falling within the 1
5.32, Fig. 5.40).
Table Table Table Table 5.5.5.5.32. Density (number of organisms/500 m32. Density (number of organisms/500 m32. Density (number of organisms/500 m32. Density (number of organisms/500 m
density (number of organisms/500density (number of organisms/500density (number of organisms/500density (number of organisms/500
standard deviation.standard deviation.standard deviation.standard deviation.
Transect 1111
Total 160
Average (SD) 145.3 (12.9)
In terms of fish density, 61.9% of the fishes were non
contributing only 35.4% to total fish density, among which reef residents had 12.7% while
the transients composed 22.7%.
Figure Figure Figure Figure 5.405.405.405.40. Density of fishes (number of. Density of fishes (number of. Density of fishes (number of. Density of fishes (number of
GrandeGrandeGrandeGrande, , , , MambajaoMambajaoMambajaoMambajao. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.
1 = Alibangbang 6 =
2 = Pogot 7 =
3 = Bongkalit 8 =
4 = Maming 9 =
5 = Pedlok 10 =
1-10 cm
11-20 cm
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 2 3 4 5
Densi
ty (
No.
of
Org
anis
ms/
500 m
2)
Densi
ty (
No.
of
Org
anis
ms/
500 m
2)
Densi
ty (
No.
of
Org
anis
ms/
500 m
2)
Densi
ty (
No.
of
Org
anis
ms/
500 m
2)
Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report)
and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. and Class Sizes. Mean total fish density per transect at Tupsan Grande ranged
160 organisms/500 m2 (average = 147 organisms/500 m2, SD = 11.3). As with
other sites at Mambajao, most fishes were small; falling within the 1-10 cm size range (Table
32. Density (number of organisms/500 m32. Density (number of organisms/500 m32. Density (number of organisms/500 m32. Density (number of organisms/500 m2222) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total
density (number of organisms/500density (number of organisms/500density (number of organisms/500density (number of organisms/500 mmmm2222) of fishes recorded at Tupsan Grande. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Tupsan Grande. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Tupsan Grande. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Tupsan Grande. SD =
standard deviation.standard deviation.standard deviation.standard deviation.
Size Class RangesSize Class RangesSize Class RangesSize Class Ranges Total DensityTotal DensityTotal DensityTotal Density
1111----10 cm10 cm10 cm10 cm 11111111----20 cm20 cm20 cm20 cm
2222 3333 1111 2222 3333 1111
140 136 0 0 5 160 140
145.3 (12.9) 1.7 (2.9) 147 (11.3)
In terms of fish density, 61.9% of the fishes were non-target species with target species
contributing only 35.4% to total fish density, among which reef residents had 12.7% while
the transients composed 22.7%.
. Density of fishes (number of. Density of fishes (number of. Density of fishes (number of. Density of fishes (number of organisms/500 morganisms/500 morganisms/500 morganisms/500 m2222) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at
. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.. See legend below for fish ‘species’.
Tangis 11 = Mogkas 16 Pata
Bodbod 12 = Tabas 17 Salikoko
Song 13 = Bantay-botbot 18 Tiki
Molmol 14 = Kabatingan
Danggit 15 = Kapaw
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'Fish 'Species'
(Final Report), page - 220220220220
Mean total fish density per transect at Tupsan Grande ranged
, SD = 11.3). As with
10 cm size range (Table
) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total ) per transect per size class and total
) of fishes recorded at Tupsan Grande. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Tupsan Grande. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Tupsan Grande. SD = ) of fishes recorded at Tupsan Grande. SD =
Total DensityTotal DensityTotal DensityTotal Density
2222 3333
140 141
147 (11.3)
target species with target species
contributing only 35.4% to total fish density, among which reef residents had 12.7% while
) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at ) recorded at Tupsan Tupsan Tupsan Tupsan
Pata
Salikoko
Tiki-tiki
17 18