Design for sustainable management of seagrass ecosystems for supporting fisheries in the Spermonde Archipelago, South Sulawesi

 

DESIGN FOR SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF SEAGRASS
ECOSYSTEMS FOR SUPPORTING FISHERIES IN SPERMONDE
ARCHIPELAGO, SOUTH SULAWESI

NADIARTI

 

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
BOGOR AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
 
BOGOR
2012

 

DECLARATION OF DISSERTATION AND
SOURCE OF INFORMATION
Here I declare that a dissertation entitled “Design for Sustainable Management of

Seagrass Ecosystems for Supporting Fisheries in the Spermonde Archipelago,
South Sulawesi” is true as a work of mine under direction of supervisor team and
it has not been submitted in any form to any university or higher education
institute. Any information source or citation from any published or unpublished
works from other authors have been stated in the text and included within
References List at the end part of this dissertation.

Bogor, January 2012

Nadiarti
P061060021

 

ABSTRAK
NADIARTI. Rancangan Pengelolaan Ekosistem Lamun Berkelanjutan untuk
Mendukung Perikanan di Kepulauan Spermonde, Sulawesi Selatan. Dibimibing
oleh ETTY RIANI, ITA DJUWITA, SUGENG BUDIHARSONO, and ARI
PURBAYANTO.
Tujuan utama penelitian ini adalah untuk merancang strategi pengelolaan

ekosistem lamun yang berkelanjutan di Pulau Barrang Lompo (BL) dan
Kapoposang (KP) untuk mendukung perikanan. Sub tujuan adalah untuk 1).
Menganalisis struktur komunitas ikan di padang lamun yang didominasi oleh
Thalassia hemprichii (TH) dan Enhalus acoroides (EA), 2). Menganalisis
aktivitas penangkapan di padang lamun Pulau Barrang Lompo (BL) dan
Kapoposang (KP) dan statusnya, 3). Merancang srategi pengelolaan ekosistem
lamun berkelanjutan di BL dan KP. Struktur komunitas ikan dianalisis
menggunakan teknik non-metric multidimensional scaling and analisis kelompok
Bray-Curtis, spesies ikan yang paling berkontribusi terhadap perbedaan struktur
komunitas dianalisis menggunakan prosedur SIMPER (similarity of percentages)
menggunakan perangkat lunak PRIMER v6. Aktivitas penangkapan dianalisis
melalui hasil observasi perilaku nelayan selama penangkapan di padang lamun,
status penangkapan ditentukan berdasarkan skala status menyerupai skala FAO
dan dianalisis melalui pengukuran tangkapan per unit upaya (CPUE), tangkapan
total dalam satu tahun (Y), mortalitas alami dalam bentuk mortalitas berbasis
bobot (Mw), estimasi biomassa pada tahun yang sama (B), dan hasil tangkapan
maksimum lestari (MSY). Analisis RAPSECS (rapid appraisal technique for
evaluating seagrass ecosystems sustainability) menggunakan multidimensional
scaling (MDS) diaplikasikan untuk menganalisis status keberlanjutan ekosistem
lamun untuk setiap dimensi (ekologi, ekonomi, sosial, teknologi, institusi).

Gabungan metode perbandingan berpasangan dengan geomean digunakan untuk
menentukan status keberlanjutan umum dari ekosistem lamun. Analisis leverage
digunakan untuk menemukan atribut yang paling berpengaruh terhadap status
keberlanjutan setiap dimensi. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa secara umum
struktur komunitas dan pola distribusi ikan pada kedua padang lamun TH dan EA
ditemukan berbeda. Penangkapan ikan di padang lamun (baik BL ataupun KP)
bukan merupakan pekerjaan utama dan hanya nelayan tertentu yang melakukan
penangkapan. CPUE total maupun laju eksploitasi ikan lamun antara BL dan KP
adalah relatif sama, dan status penangkapan mereka masih dalam kategori underexploitation. Secara umum, prioritas strategi pengelolaan ekosistem lamun di BL
meliputi penguatan kelembagaan, pengembangan sumberdaya manusia, dan
perbaikan lingkungan, sementara di KP meliputi penguatan kelembagaan dan
pengembangan sumberdaya manusia.
Kata kunci: strategi pengelolaan, keberlanjutan, ekosistem lamun, penangkapan
ikan, Kepulauan Spermonde

 

SUMMARY

NADIARTI. Design for Sustainable Management of Seagrass Ecosystems for

Supporting Fisheries in the Spermonde Archipelago, South Sulawesi. Supervised
by ETTY RIANI, ITA DJUWITA, SUGENG BUDIHARSONO, and ARI
PURBAYANTO.
Seagrasses have been well known as important habitat for various fauna,
including numbers of economic important fishes, especially in the nursery stage.
Therefore, seagrass ecosystems management is an important part of managing the
marine fisheries. Spermonde Archipelago, a hotspot of coral and seagrass, consist
of ± 120 small islands and have dense population (most of them depends on
subsistence and small scale fisheries), especially in the south east of the
archipelago implements an increased pressure to the seagrass ecosystems. The
pressure to the ecosystems will affect the fisheries productivity. By knowing the
sustainability status of the seagrass ecosystems, it will facilitate an assessment of
the effectiveness of fisheries management and it will provide a valuable
information to policy makers about the best policy option for the sustainability
management of seagrass ecosystems in the future. Based on that, the main goal of
this study was to determine the sustainability status of seagrass ecosystems in
Barrang Lompo Island (BL) and Kapoposang Island (KP) for supporting fisheries.
In order to achieve the main goal, there are three specific objectives were
performed, namely 1). to analyze fish community structure in the seagrass beds,
2). to analyze the fishing activities and their status in the seagrass beds, 3). to

design the sustainable management of seagrass ecosystems. Fish community
structure was analyzed using non-metric multidimensional scaling technique and
Bray-Curtis cluster analysis, while the most contributed species to difference of
fish community structure was analyzed using SIMPER (similarity of percentages)
procedure. All statistics analysis were carried out using PRIMER v6 software.
The difference between fish distribution in both seagrass beds was analyzed with
t-test and Bonferroni post-test using PRISM v5 software.
Fishing activities were analyzed through fisher recognition based on the
latest census data from village office and by interviews, observation of fisher’s
behaviour during fishing in the seagrass beds, classification of their catches,
analysis of maturity size of their catches based on life stage classification using
fish maximum length. Status of fishing in the seagrass beds were determined
based on FAO-like exploitation status scale and analyzed through measurement of
catch per unit effort (CPUE), total catch in one year (Y), natural mortality as
weight-dependence of mortality (Mw), estimated biomass in the same year (B),
and maximum sustainable yield (MSY).
RAPSECS (rapid appraisal technique for evaluating seagrass ecosystems
sustainability) analysis using multidimensional scaling (MDS) was applied to
analyze the sustainability status of seagrass ecosystems for each dimension
(ecology, economic, social, technology, institution). A combination of pairwase

comparison and geomean was used to determine the general sustainability status

 

of each seagrass fisheries. Leverage analysis was applied to identify the most
influence attributes to the sustainability status of each dimension. Strategy
intervention was formulated based on the most influence attributes within each
dimension.
The results of non-metric multidimensional scaling technique and BrayCurtis cluster analysis revealed that overall, there were significant differences of
fish community structure and distribution pattern in the seagrass beds dominated
by Thalassia hemprichii (TH) and Enhalus acoroides (EA). Fish abundance was
higher in TH- than in EA-dominated beds, but fish biomass and species richness
were lower in TH- than in EA-dominated bed, indicating that there were more
smaller fish assemblage in TH site than in EA site, while larger sizes and more
variety of fish species utilize EA site. The major contributor fish species to the
difference of fish community structure between these two seagrass beds were
Apogon bandanensis, Lethrinus harak, A. hoeveni, Liza vaigiensis for fish
abundance, and Tylosurus crocodilus, Siganus canaliculatus, A. bandanensis for
fish biomass dry weight.
More abundance larger fish was found during day time than night time in

EA-dominated bed. It indicates that EA site may facilitate foraging efficiency of
larger fish during day time because more abundant and higher biomass dry weight
(DW) of fishes were found in EA site during day time compare with night time.
The higher canopy provided by the seagrass E. acoroides in EA site may also
improve the predation efficiency and so that beneficial for some fishes, especially
predators, such as Choerodon anchorago, Dyodon histrix, and Saurida gracilis.
Abundance and biomass of fish juvenile and adults were comparable in the
two seagrasss beds. Meanwhile, abundance of fish subadults was higher in T.
hemprichii- than in E. acoroides-dominated beds and vice versa for the subadults
biomass. The higher occurrence of juvenile fish than adults in the seagrass beds
either dominated by TH or EA indicated that seagrass is an important nursery
habitat for various fish spesies.
Small fish (0-7.5 cm) more abundance in TH-dominated bed, while more
larger fish sizes were found in EA-dominated bed indicating that fish assemblage
in the seagass bed dominated by TH was majority small fish (juvenile and/or
small, inconspicuous adult fish), however in the seagrass bed dominated by EA
harbored larger fishes. The reason is because EA sites, provide higher canopy
height and facilitating the improvement of predation efficiency for some larger
predators, such as Choerodon anchorago, Dyodon histrix, and Saurida gracilis.
Meanwhile, smaller fish (including juvenile and small inconspicuous adult fish)

preferred TH site as this site provide lower canopy heights that is not beneficial
for predators.
The results of fishing activities analysis in the seagrass beds showed that
fishing in the seagrass beds, either in BL or in KP, was not a main job and they
did fishing in the seagrass beds only when they got rest from their main job.
Besides, only certain fisher who did fishing in the seagrass beds. Fishing
practices in BL was considered to have more negative impact on seagrass beds
than in KP, as the fishers in BL always made trampling and boat anchoring during
fishing in the seagrass beds. Most fishes in both islands were captured before
maturity, and one of the captured fish family (Dasyatidae) has been considered

 

internationally to be conserved. Total CPUE of seagrass fish in BL was lower
than in KP, however, the fishing rate of seagrass fish in both islands were
relatively the same and categorized as under exploitation.
Multidimensional evaluation results revealed that generally, seagrass fishery
of Kapoposang Island is better than of Barrang Lompo Island, mainly on
ecological and technological dimensions. “seagrass percent cover”, “catch before
maturity”, “limited entry”, “price”, “education level”, environmental knowledge”,

“selectivity gear”, “fishing practice”, “education & training”, and “seagrass
protection” are the most influence attributes found in both seagrass fisheries.
Overall, it was concluded that prioritized strategies for seagrass ecosystems
management include institution strengthening, human resource development, and
environmental improvement (for BL) and institution strengthening and human
resource development (for KP). The recommendations are fishing status in BL
and KP should be maintained to the level under-exploitation through strict control
and monitoring by fisheries authorization. Additionally, mitigation effort on
seagrass beds in the Spermonde Archipelago is important to be made in order to
maintain the sustainable function of the seagrass beds, especially in fisheries
sectors.
Keywords: management strategy, sustainability, seagrass ecosystems, fishing,
Spermonde Archipelago

 

© Hak Cipta milik Institut Pertanian Bogor, Tahun 2012
Hak Cipta dilindungi Undang-undang
1. Dilarang mengutip sebagian atau seluruh karya tulis ini tanpa
mencantumkan atau menyebutkan sumber

a. Pengutipan hanya untuk kepentingan pendidikan, penelitian, penulisan
karya ilmiah, penyusunan laporan, penulisan kritik atau tinjauan suatu
masalah
b. Pengutipan tidak merugikan kepentingan yang wajar bagi IPB
2. Dilarang mengumumkan dan memperbanyak sebagian atau seluruh karya
tulis dalam bentuk laporan apapun tanpa izin IPB

 

DESIGN FOR SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF
SEAGRASS ECOSYSTEMS FOR SUPPORTING FISHERIES
IN SPERMONDE ARCHIPELAGO, SOUTH SULAWESI

NADIARTI

A dissertation
submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in
Study Program of Environment and Natural Resources Management

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
BOGOR AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
BOGOR
2012

 

Penguji pada Ujian Tertutup: Prof. Dr. Budimawan, DEA
Dr. Ir. Fredinan Yulianda, MSc

Penguji pada Ujian Terbuka: Prof. Dr. Ir. Jamaluddin Jompa, MSc
Prof. Dr. Ir. Dietrich G. Bengen, DEA

 

Dissertation Title

:

Design for Sustainable Management of Seagrass
Ecosystems for Supporting Fisheries in Spermonde
Archipelago, South Sulawesi

Name
Reg. No.

:
:

Nadiarti
P061060021

Acknowledged by
Supervisor Team

Dr. Ir. Etty Riani, MS
Main Supervisor

Dr. drh. Ita Djuwita, M.Phil
Co-supervisor

Dr. Ir. Sugeng Budiharsono
Co-supervisor

Prof. Dr. Ir. Ari Purbayanto, M.Sc
Co-supervisor

Approved by
Head of Study Program
Environment and Natural Resources
Management

Dean of Graduate School

Prof. Dr. Ir. Cecep Kusmana, MS

Dr. Ir. Dahrul Syah, MSc, Agr

Examination Date: January 19th, 2012

Approval Date:

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author thank profusely to supervisor team, Dr. Ir. Etty Riani, MS, Dr.
drh. Ita Djuwita, M.Phil, Dr. Sugeng Budiharsono, and Prof. Dr. Ari Purbayanto,
MSc, for their invaluable supports and constructive criticism. The author is also
much obliged to Prof. Surjono H. Sutjahjo for his support and spirit provided
since the research idea was proposed. The author also thank plentyfully to Prof.
Dietrich G. Bengen, Prof. Jamaluddin Jompa, Dr. Harald Asmus, and Dr. Suaedi
Fachruddin for sharing idea that enlighten author’s mind to start formulate a
research related to seagrass management. Author also have a great gratitudes to
Dr. Harald Asmus together with Dr. Rachnild Asmus for their hospitality and their
helps during study visit of the author in Alfred Wegener Institute, Sylt-Germany.
A thankful also to Prof. Budimawan and Dr. Khusnul Yaqin for interesting
discussion and great ideas that supporting field study preparation, and to Dr.
Fredinan Yulianda for his valuable suggestions. The author is grateful to Irfan
Ambas and Sharifuddin Hasyim for providing numbers of international journals,
to Dr. Abd. Rasyid for providing maps of study area, to Dr. Hasni Y. Azis, Dr.
Fatmawati, Dr. Andi Irwan Nur, Dr. David Hermawan for interesting discussion.
The author has a great appreciation to Munandar Jakasukmana, Muh.
Ikhsan, Syahinullah, Mosriullah, Andi Muarifah, Abdul Razak (deceased),
Tanjung, Halidja, Ridwan, Daeng Ngerang, and all seagrass fishers in Barrang
Lompo and Kapoposang Islands, for their assistance during field study, to Dr.
Nita Rukminasari and Tauhid Umar for providing software of analysis tools.
This dissertation would not have been possible without the assistance of staffs of
Water Quality Lab of Fisheries Department and Fisheries Biology Lab within
Hasanuddin University, Makassar (Prof. Sharifuddin Omar, Dr. Joeharnani
Tresnati, Badraeni, Fitriani, Funky, and more..) who facilitate the author during
study. The author particularly indebted to the assistance and enthusiasm of ‘Team
SPICE (Science for Protection of Indonesian Coastal Ecosystems) Seagrasses’–
an enormous thanks to Dody Priosambodo, Claudia Pogoreutz, Dominik Kneer.
The author also appreciates the staffs of Centre for Coral Reef Research (CCRR)
within Hasanuddin University, especially to Dr. Dewi Yanuarita and Dr.
Magdalena Lithaay, Dr. Lukman for providing several literatures and facilities
during laboratory analysis.
The author is grateful to Indonesian Higher Education of Directorate
General, Ministry of Education and Culture for providing doctoral studentship,
and to Governor of South Sulawesi, Local Government of Bantaeng Regency,
Toyota and Astra Foundation as well as COREMAP II for providing additional
doctoral fellowship.
The author could not complete these acknowledgements without thanking
all people from a big family in Wesabbe A.36 Makassar for their caring and loves.
Special thanks to adored Father (deceased Nurdin Kadir) and to a lovely Mother
Hj. Muslinah Abdullah for her ever present encouragement and love. To a beloved
Father (deceased) and adorable Mother, sisters (Isriani, Nur Masyitha, Imelda,
Nita) and brothers (M. Riski Nurdin, M. Irfan Nurdin, Syaharuddin, and Andi
Erwin), this dissertation is dedicated to you all.
Bogor, January 2012
Nadiarti

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Nadiarti was born in Makassar at January 6th, 1968, South Sulawesi,
Indonesia. In 1985, she completed a bachelor’s degree in fisheries from
Hasanuddin University in Makassar, South Sulawesi, Indonesia and become a
lecturer at the same university since 1991 to date. Through Marine Science
Education Project (MSEP) funded by ADB-loan for Indonesia, she was selected
as one of Indonesian lecturers to study at Humberside University, United
Kingdom for Postgraduate Diploma in Fisheries Management and graduated at
1994. With the same funding source, she continued her study to University of
Wales, Bangor, in the same country and then she was graduated as Master of
Science (MSc) in Marine Environmental protection at 1996. Her thesis focused
on a simple model to test for euthrophication in marine waters. Two years later,
Nadiarti was selected as a Secretary (Vice Head) of Fisheries Department within
Hasanuddin University, Makassar, Indonesia, for four years.
At 2006, Nadiarti began a PhD program in the Study Program of
Environment and Natural Resources Management at Bogor Agricultural
University, Bogor, Indonesia. As a part of her PhD study, at 2009, she was
selected to pursue sandwich program in the field of coastal ecology for three
months at Alfred Wegener Institute, Germany.

The sandwich program was

funded by Indonesian Higher Education of Directorate General (DGHE), Ministry
of Education and Culture

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... xiv
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. xvi
LIST OF APPENDICES ...................................................................................... xix
GENERAL INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 22
Background ....................................................................................................... 22
Research Objectives .......................................................................................... 30
Research Benefit................................................................................................ 31
Scope of Research ............................................................................................. 31
A COMPARISON OF FISH DISTRIBUTIONS PATTERN IN TWO
DIFFERENT SEAGRASS SPECIES-DOMINATED BEDS IN
KAPOPOSANG ISLAND, SOUTH SULAWESI......................................... 32
Abstract ............................................................................................................. 32
Abstrak .............................................................................................................. 33
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 34
Material and Methods ........................................................................................ 35
Results ............................................................................................................... 41
Discussion ......................................................................................................... 55
Conclusion and Recommendation ..................................................................... 59
References ......................................................................................................... 61
FISHING ACTIVITY AND THEIR STATUS IN THE INTERTIDAL
SEAGRASS BEDS IN SOUTH SULAWESI ............................................... 66
Abstract ............................................................................................................. 66
Abstrak .............................................................................................................. 67
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 68
Material and Methods ........................................................................................ 69
Results ............................................................................................................... 76
Discussion ......................................................................................................... 85
Conclusion and Recommendation ..................................................................... 92
References ......................................................................................................... 92
MULTIDIMENSIONAL EVALUATION OF SUSTAINABILITY STATUS OF
SEAGRASS ECOSYSTEMS TO SUPPORT FISHERIES IN THE
SPERMONDE ARCHIPELAGO, SOUTH SULAWESI.............................. 99
Abstract ............................................................................................................. 99

 

Abstrak ............................................................................................................ 100
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 101
Material and Methods ...................................................................................... 102
Results ............................................................................................................. 109
Discussion ....................................................................................................... 118
Conclusion and Recommendation ................................................................... 121
References ....................................................................................................... 122
GENERAL DISCUSSION ................................................................................. 127
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .................................................. 143
REFERENCES.................................................................................................... 144
APPENDICES .................................................................................................... 158

 

LIST OF TABLES
Page 
1 Seagrass recorded in Indonesian waters ................................................................
4 
2 Estimated seagrass and coral percent cover of continues seagrass beds in the
20  
surrounding waters of Kapoposang Island .........................................................
22  
3 Environment characteristic data at each fish sampling site ..................................
24  
4 Summary of t-test results ......................................................................................
5 Major species contributor to dissimilarity between both study sites .....................
26  
6 The top 10 ranked mean fish abundance (ind. ± SE 100 m-2) captured during
28  
day and night in both study sites ........................................................................
34  
7 Dominant fish sizes found in the seagrass beds dominated by T. hemprichii.......
8 Description of fishing status scale.........................................................................
56  
57  
9 The common captured fish family in both study areas .........................................
10 Estimated Y and MSY values of each captured fish family in both study areas
65  
11 Estimated fishing rate of various fish family in both study areas .......................
67  
12 Matrix for weight determination of each dimension according to pairwise
comparison .........................................................................................................
87  
88  
13 Sustainability status of seagrass ecosystems .......................................................
14 Kruskal’s stress and RSQ values for the different evaluation field ....................
88  
15 Sustainability status of seagrass ecosystems in Barrang Lompo Island and
Kapoposang Island .............................................................................................
91  
16 Priority order of each dimension in seagrass ecosystems of Barrang Lompo
112  
Island (BL) .........................................................................................................
17 Priority order of each dimension in seagrass ecosystems of Kapoposang Island
(KP) ....................................................................................................................
112  
112  
18 Prioritized attributes to be improved in Barrang Lompo Island (BL) .................
113  
19 Prioritized attributes to be improved in Kapoposang Island (KP) ......................
20 Strategy Intervention for Seagrass Ecosystems Management in Barrang Lompo
(BL) and Kapoposang (KP) Islands ...................................................................
113  

 

21 Estimated sustainability score improvement of seagrass ecosystems of Barrang
Lompo (BL) Island after applying strategy intervention ...................................
115  
22 Estimated sustainability score improvement of seagrass ecosystems of
Kapoposang (KP) Island after applying strategy intervention ...........................
116  
23 Sustainability status of seagrass ecosystems in Barrang Lompo Island (BL)
and Kapoposang Island (KP) after intervention .................................................
117  

 

LIST OF FIGURES
Page 
1 Nomenclature commonly used to describe parts of seagrasses and attributes of
the canopy they form (adopted from Koch et al. 2006) .....................................1  
2 General morphology of seagrasses. A. Enhalus acoroides. Scale = 3 cm. B.
Halophila engelmanni. Scale = 3 mm. C. Halophila minor. Scale = 2 cm. D.
Zostera asiatica. Scale = 15 cm. E. Posidonia sinuosa. Scale = 3.5 cm. F.
Halodule uninervis. Scale = 2.5 cm. G. Cymodocea serrulata. Scale = 5 cm.
H. Syringodium isoetifolium. Scale = 4.5 cm. I. Thalassodendron
pachyrhizum. Scale = 4 cm. (Pictures adopted from Kuo and den Hartog
2006). .................................................................................................................
3 
3 Seagrass distribution in the world (source: UNEP-WCMC 2001) .....................
3 
4

Illustration of marine food web in seagrass ecosystems (Fortes 1990 In:
Unsworth 2007). ................................................................................................
5 

5 Map of Spermonde Archipelago South Sulawesi and the study area mentioned
in the text. Source: Landsat ETM + Satellite image, acquisition year 2002. .....
15  
6

Position of transect line and quadrates for seagrass cover estimation in the
continues seagrass beds of Kapoposang Island..................................................
17  

7 A map of Kapoposang Island showing the location of seagrass beds dominated
by Thalassia hemprichii (TH site) and by Enhalus acoroides (EA site). .........
18  
8 Dominant seagrass species in the waters surrounding Kapoposang Island. (A)
Enhalus acoroides, (B) Thalassia hemprichii (Pictures: Nadiarti), illustrations
of (C) E. acoroides, (D) T. hemprichii (pictures: adopted from McKenzie et
al. (2001). ...........................................................................................................
21  
9 Dominant species caught in abundance (A) and biomass DW (B) during the
study. ..................................................................................................................
23  
10 Mean abundance (A), mean DW (B), and mean species richness (C) of fish
in both sampling sites. Error bars show standard error of the means. Number
above the bars in (C) indicate total number of fish species collected in each
sampling site during the study. ..........................................................................
24  
11 Two dimensional nMDS ordination of fish abundance (A) and DW (B) at TH
(d) and EA (z) sampling sites. ........................................................................
25  
12 Mean fish abundance (A) and Dry Weight (DW) (B) at each sampling site
during the day and night. Error bars show standard error of the means. ..........
27  

 

13 Mean fish abundance (A) and mean fish DW (B) of juvenile, subadults and
adults stages. Error bars indicate standard error of the means. .........................
29 
14 Two dimensional nMDS ordination of fish life stage for abundance (A) and
biomass DW (B). Juveniles at TH site (S), subadults at TH site ( ), adults at
TH site (z), juveniles at EA site (V), subadults at EA site (‡), adults at EA
site ({). ..............................................................................................................
30  
15 Mean abundance of fishes that most contribute (>10%) to differences among
life stages. Error bars indicate standard error of the means. .............................
32  
16 Mean fish DW of fishes that most contribute to differences among life stages.
Error bars indicate standard error of the means. ................................................
33  
17 Mean fish density of several different size class at TH and EA site. Error
bars indicate standard error of the means...........................................................
35  
18 Map of Spermonde Archipelago South Sulawesi and the study area
mentioned in the text. Inset: Indonesian Archipelago.......................................
45  
50  
19 Barrang Lompo Island (Picture: Nadiarti) ..........................................................
20 Part of Kapoposang Island. The picture taken from the top of lighthouse
(Picture: Nadiarti). .............................................................................................
51  
21 Corresponding of exploitation status to the areas of catch per effort diagram.
TAC = total allowable catch, U = under exploited, M = moderately exploited,
F = fully exploited, H = heavily exploited, O = overexploited. .........................
55  
22 Steps of gill net operation within the seagrass beds in Barrang Lompo Island,
begin with spanning the net from the boat (A), and then encircled the net (B).
......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
58  
23 Gill net operation during fishing in the seagrass bed of Barang Lompo Island.
(A) water surface hitting within the encircled net, (B) net pulling for taking
the catch. ......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
59  
24 Various gears for catching fish in the seagrass beds of Kapoposang Island.
(A,B) Single line fishing used by kids and young people to catch fish,
(C,D,E) Bamboo fish traps and (F) Gill-nets as an alternative for capturing
fish................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
60  
25 Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE, kg DW d-1) of the most exploited fish family in
Barrang Lompo Island (BL) and Kapoposang Island (KP). ..............................
64  
26 Fish exploitation level in the seagrass beds of study areas. Numbers in black
shadow explain the exploitation rate in Barrang Lompo Island (BL) and
Kapoposang Island (KP). ...................................................................................
68  

 

27 Map of study area, showing the location mentioned in the text (dotted line is
approximate shelf edge). Inset: Indonesian Archipelago. ..................................
82 
28 Sequential steps in sustainability analysis of seagrass ecosystems (modified
from Alder et al. 2004).......................................................................................
84 
29 Block diagram showing Rapsecs Excel software architecture (Modified from
Kavanagh and Pitcher 2004). .............................................................................
85 
30 Two dimensional Rapsecs plots of the MDS ordination of the seagrass
ecosystems in Barrang Lompo Island (¡) and Kapoposang island (‘). ..........
89  
31 Median with inter-quartile error bars (50% of scatter). .....................................
90  
32 Median with error bars showing 95% confidence of median. ...........................
90  
33 Kite representation of the evaluation of seagrass ecosystems in Barrang
Lompo Island (BR) and Kapoposang Island (KP). ............................................
91  
34 Leverage analysis of ecological dimension for seagrass ecosystems of Barrang
Lompo Island (A) and Kapoposang Island (B). .................................................
92  
35 Leverage analysis of economic dimension for seagrass ecosystems in Barrang
Lompo Island (A) and Kapoposang Island (B). .................................................
93  
36 Leverage analysis of social dimension for seagrass ecosystems in Barrang
Lompo Island (A) and Kapoposang Island (B). .................................................
94  
37. Leverage analysis of technology dimension for seagrass ecosystems in
Barrang Lompo Island (A) and Kapoposang Island (B). ..................................
95  
38 Leverage analysis of institutional dimension for seagrass ecosystems in
Barrang Lompo Island (A) and Kapoposang Island (B). ..................................
96  
39 A conceptual model of dissertation, showing the topics of the different
chapters. .............................................................................................................
107 
40 A conceptual model of how the interconnected most influence attributes to
the seagrass ecosystems sustainability will improve the fisheries productivity
in the seagrass ecosystems and the fisher’s household income. ........................
110 
41 Kite representation of the evaluation of seagrass ecosystems in Barrang
Lompo (BL) and Kapoposang (KP) Islands after intervention strategies ..........
116 

 

LIST OF APPENDICES
Page 
1A Estimated seagrass cover within the seagrass beds in the geographic position
of S04o41'42.5"; E118o56'59.5 (Site A) .............................................................
138  
1B Estimated seagrass cover within the seagrass beds in the geographic position
of S04o41'48.8"; E118o56'57.7" (Site B)............................................................
139  
1C Photograph of seagrass cover in the geographic position S04o41'42.5";
E118o56'59.5 (Site A). Total cover: 85% (A), 90% (B), 85% (C), 85% (D),
85% (E), 75% (F) (Pictures: Nadiarti). ..............................................................
140  
1D Photograph of seagrass cover in the geographic position S04o41'48.8";
E118o56'57.7" (Site B). Total cover: 55% (A), 75% (B), 85% (C), 35% (D),
20% (E), 20% (F) (Pictures: Nadiarti). ..............................................................
141  
1E Estimated seagrass cover within the seagrass beds in the geographic position
of S04o41'52.5"; E118o57'00.3" (Site C)............................................................
142  
1F Estimated seagrass cover within the seagrass beds in the geographic position
143  
of S04o41'56.7"; E118o57'20.3" (Site D) ...........................................................
1G Estimated seagrass cover within the seagrass beds in the geographic position
of S04o41'57.8"; E118o57'45.7" (Site E) ............................................................
144  
1H Photograph of seagrass cover in the geographic position S04o41'52.5";
E118o57'00.3" (Site C). Total cover: 75% (A), 75% (B), 55% (C), 55% (D),
55% (E), 55% (F) (Pictures: Nadiarti). ..............................................................
145  
1I Photograph of seagrass cover in the geographic position S04o41'56.7";
E118o57'20.3" (Site D). Total cover: 35% (A), 55% (B), 55% (C), 85% (D),
35% (B), 30% (F) (Pictures: Nadiarti). ..............................................................
146  
1J Photograph of seagrass cover in the geographic position S04o41'57.8";
E118o57'45.7" (Site E). Total cover: 100% (A), 85% (B), 100% (C), 100%
(D), 95% (B), 90% (F) (Pictures: Nadiarti). ......................................................
147  
2A Sampling data during the study ..........................................................................
148  
2B Ranking order of mean abundance and biomass DW of all fish species caught
at the seagrass beds dominated by Thalassuia hemprichii at Kapoposang
Island, South Sulawesi .......................................................................................
149  
2C Ranking order of mean abundance and biomass DW of all fish species caught
at the seagrass beds dominated by Enhalus acoroides at Kapoposang Island,
South Sulawesi ...................................................................................................
150  

 

2D Most dominant species caught during field sampling at Kapoposang Island.
Dominant in abundance (A, B, C) and dominant in biomass (D,E,F,G). ..........
152 
2E Top ten ranked species (in abundance) caught during field sampling in
Thalassia hemprichii-dominated seagrass beds of Kapoposang Island. ............
153 
2F Top ten ranked species (in biomass) caught during field sampling in Thalassia
hemprichii-dominated seagrass beds of Kapoposang Island. ............................
154 
2G Top ten ranked species (in abundance) caught during field sampling in
155 
Enhalus acoroides-dominated seagrass beds of Kapoposang Island. ................
2H Top ten ranked species (in biomass) caught during field sampling in Enhalus
156 
acoroides-dominated seagrass beds of Kapoposang Island. ..............................
2I The top 10 ranked mean fish abundance (ind. ± SE 100 m-2) captured during
study at day and night at Kapoposang Island .....................................................
157 
2J The top 10 ranked mean fish DW (g. ± SE 100 m-2) captured during study at
day and night at Kapoposang Island ..................................................................
158 
3A Data of captured fish from seagrass beds of Barrang Lompo Island .................
159 
3B Data of captured fish from seagrass beds of Kapoposang Island .......................
160 
4A Attributes within ecological dimension used in Rapsecs analysis for seagrass
ecosystems sustainability ...................................................................................
163 
4B Attributes within economic dimension used in Rapsecs analysis for seagrass
ecosystems sustainability ...................................................................................
164  
4C Attributes within social dimension used in Rapsecs analysis for seagrass
165  
ecosystems sustainability ...................................................................................
4D Attributes within technological dimension used in Rapsecs analysis for
seagrass ecosystems sustainability .....................................................................
166  
4E Attributes within institutional dimension used in Rapsecs analysis for seagrass
ecosystems sustainability ..................................................................................
167
4F Scoring attributes within ecological dimension for Barrang Lompo Island and
Kapoposang Island .............................................................................................
168  
 

 

4G Scoring attributes within economic dimension for Barrang Lompo Island and
169  
Kapoposang Island .............................................................................................
4H Scoring attributes within social dimension for Barrang Lompo Island and
Kapoposang Island .............................................................................................
170  
4I Scoring attributes within technological dimension for Barrang Lompo Island
171  
and Kapoposang Island ......................................................................................
4J Scoring attributes within institutional dimension for Barrang Lompo Island
and Kapoposang Island ......................................................................................
172  
4K Weight determination and the whole sustainability status for seagrass fishery
of Barrang Lompo Island ...................................................................................
173  
4L Weight determination and the whole sustainability status for seagrass fishery
of Kapoposang Island........................................................................................
174  

 

GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Background
Seagrass Taxonomy
Seagrasses have similar organs and tissues as the other flowering plants, but
because they have to live in marine environment, this has strongly influenced their
morphology and anatomy. So that, morphologically, seagrasses are closely similar
to terrestrial grasses, but botanically, they are more closely related to lilies than
grasses. Seagrasses have a horizontal rhizome linking clusters of leaves referred
to as shoots, and roots are usually found at each shoot (Figure 1). Seagrasses as
other flowering plants, also have flowers and seeds. The flowers of some species
(e.g., Halodule wrightii, Thalassia testudinum) are found near the sediment
surface while other seagrass species (e.g., Zostera marina, Ruppia maritima),
when reproductive, form long vertical stems that can occupy most of or the entire
water column. The above-ground vegetation that occupies the water column is
referred to as seagrass canopy (Figure 1, Koch et al 2006).

Figure 1 Nomenclature commonly used to describe parts of seagrasses and
attributes of the canopy they form (adopted from Koch et al. 2006)

2
 

Seagrasses can be grouped into three main morphological categories with
some taxonomic implications (Kuo and den Hartog 2006):
a. Plants without strap-shaped leaves but with either a pair of petiolate leaves at
the rhizome node or two or more leaflets on each of the distal nodes of the
erect stem. This category is restricted to Halophila, which has the smallest
shoots among seagrasses. Shoots can be less than 1 cm in length, as for H.
beccarii and H. minor (Figure 2B and 2C), and up to 20 cm long as for H.
australis.
b. Shoots with a distinct erect stem and strapshaped leaves borne at the top of an
erect stem. This group includes Thalassia of the Hydrocharitaceae and all
genera of the Cymodoceaceae (Figure 2F and 2I).
c. Plants without visible erect stems, but with strap-shaped leaves derived from
the rhizome nodes. Enhalus of the Hydrocharitaceae, the Posidoniaceae and all
members of the Zosteraceae belong to this group (Figure 2A, 2D and 2E). The
leaves of some members of Zostera subgenus Zosterella can be as small as 10
cm; while for Enhalus, Posidonia, Zostera subgenus Zostera and Phyllospadix,
it is not uncommon for them to reach 1 m or more.

Seagrass Distribution
Seagrasses have been found in almost all part of the world, with the
exception of Antarctic (Hemminga and Duarte 2000; Short and Cole 2001), and
globally they consist of two families, Potamogetonaceae and Hydrocharitaceae,
and they are grouped into 12 genera containing about 50-60 species (Hemminga
and Duarte, 2000). The most diverse of this flora is found in the Tropical IndoPacific (Figure 3, UNEP-WCMC 2001; Short et al. 2007) of which 12 seagrass
species (UNEP 2004) occur in the Indonesian coastal waters, and one new
recently found species, Halophila sulawesii,  grows in deep water around reef
island of the Spermonde Archipelago Kuo (2007). Table 1 provide list of seagrass
species that grow in Indonesian coastal waters.

3

Figure 2 Geeneral morphhology of seeagrasses. A.. Enhalus accoroides. Scaale = 3 cm.
F
B. Halophila engelmanni.. Scale = 3 mm.
m C. Haloophila minorr. Scale = 2
m. D. Zosterra asiatica. Scale = 15 cm.
c E. Posiddonia sinuossa. Scale =
cm
3.5 cm. F. Halodule
H
unninervis. Sccale = 2.5 cm. G. Cymodocea
C
seerrulata. Scaale = 5 cm. H
H. Syringodiium isoetifollium. Scale = 4.5 cm. I.
Th
halassodenddron pachyrhhizum. Scalee = 4 cm. ((Pictures adoopted from
Kuo
K and den Hartog
H
20066).

Figure 3 Seagrass distribution
d
inn the world (source: UN
NEP-WCMC 2001)

4
 

Tabel 1 Seagrass recorded in Indonesian waters
Family/Genus

Species

Enhalus
Halophila

Thalassia
Cymodoceaceae
Cymodocea
Halodule
Syringodium
Thalassodendron
*

♦

1. E. acoroides*
2. H. decipiens*
3. H. minor*
4. H. ovalis*
5. H. spinulosa*
6. H. sulawesii♦
7. T. hemprochii*
8. C. rotundata*
9. C. serrulata*
10. H. pinifolia*
11. H. unineris*
12. S. isotifolium*
13. T. ciliatum*

Source: Tomascik et al. (1997), Source: Kuo (2007)

Importance of Seagrass Ecosystems in Supporting Fisheries
Seagrasses consist of less 0.02% of the angiosperm flora in the world
(Hemminga and Duarte 2000). Even though the contribution is small, the
seagrasses are of great ecological importance and have a high conservational
value. There are various function of seagrass beds in marine coastal ecosystems.
Seagrasses absorb carbon dioxide from marine water and then they provide
oxygen to the water and sediments through photosynthesis process. Their roots
have important role in stabilizing sediments and their leaves are playing role in
preventing eutrophication in the seawater by trapping suspended solids and
absorbing inorganic salts, so that contributing to water quality improvement in
coastal waters (Hemminga and Duarte 2000).
The seagrass meadows, moreover, have been known as one of the most
productive marine ecosystems following the mangrove and coral reefs (Rasheed et
al. 2006; Blankenhorn 2007). The total economic value of seagrass systems
services is at least US$ 3.8 trillion per year globally, and is likely to increase
(Costanza et al. 1997).
The primary productivity of seagrasses is highest in the Indo-Pacific
(Hemminga and Duarte 2000) where Indonesian waters are included. The high
primary production of the seagrasses provide valuable contribution to marine

5
 

productivity. The primary production is derived not only from tissue of seagrasses
themselves but also from epiphytes that grow and attach to the leaves surface of
the seagrasses. So, seagrasses provide service as one of nutrient sources in the
coastal ecosystems, including as a source of food for associated organism directly
and indirectly via detritus and epiphytes.

Several authors have proved this

argument (MacArthur and Hyndes 2007; Unsworth et al. 2007b; Kneer et al.
2008b; Lepoint et al. 2006; Kaiser 2008). Consequently, high abundance of fauna
species can be found in the seagrass beds as showed by Unsworth et al. (2007c);
Manik (2007) and Sabarini and Kartawijaya (2006) in their study results. The
productive seagrass communities contribute also the diets of consumers (including
transient predators) that spend a portion of their time foraging in seagrass habitat
(Ganter 2000; Valentine et al. 2002).

Decomposition of seagrass litters

supporting also a microbial marine food web (Peduzzi 1991). This is making the
seagrass ecosystems play an important role to the marine food webs. It is because
seagrass together with mangrove and coral species create a series of connected
habitats and ecosystems that supporting a variety of complex trophic-interaction
(Figure 4).

Figure 4 Illustration of marine food web in seagrass ecosystems (Fortes 1990 In:
Unsworth 2007).
In addition to provide living space, shelter, and protection for fauna,
seagrasses are also vitally important for fisheries productivity as they form habitat

6 
for many species especially for spawning ground and nursery habitat (Dorenbosch
et al. 2006; Polte and Asmus 2006; Kaiser 2008; Nakamura et al. 2009a,b).

Seagrass Degradation and Loss
Although seagrass ecosystems are commonly well-known as important
features of coastal zones, unfortunately, they are seldom given the attention or
protection they deserve. In last decade, seagrass beds have drastically declined in
tropical and temperate zone worldwide (Robblee et al. 1991; Hall et al. 1999;
Westphalen et al. 2004; Orth et al. 2006; Murdoch et al. 2007; Waycott et al.
2009; Hughes et al. 2009). New research showed that 58% of world's seagrass
meadows are currently declining (UMCES 2009), including Indonesia lost about
30-40% of its seagrass beds (UNEP 2004).
The assessment result of the research of UMCES (2009) showed that
seagrasses are disappearing at rates similar to coral reefs and tropical rainforests.
The decline results from direct, indirect human impacts, and from natural causes.
Direct human impacts including mechanical damage (by dredging, fishing, and
anchoring) (Hasting et al. 1995; Francour et al. 1999; Creed and Amado 1999;
Badalamenti et. al. 2006), eutrophication (van Katwijk et al. 1997; Burkholder et
al. 2007), aquaculture and siltation (Alexandre et al. 2005; Frederiksen et al. 2007;
Marianne et al. 2008), effects of coastal constructions (Cambridge et al. 1984;
Freeman et al. 2008), food web alterations (Douglas et al. 2007) and declining
water quality (Jacobs 1980; Macinnis-Ng and Ralph 2002; Hughes et al. 2009);
and from indirect human impacts, including negative effects of climate change
(erosion by rising sea level, increased storms, increased sea surface temperature,
increased ultraviolet irradiance) (Robblee et al. 1991), as well as from natural
causes, such as cyclones an