ASSESSMENT OF SEAGRASS COMMUNITY

STRUCTURE IN GRANDE ISLAND, SUBIC

BAY, ZAMBALES

TEAM COMPOSITION

MICAH MARIE G. BERNALES, DENR-ERDB

RANEE CRISTINA M. TELOSA, DENR-ERDB
KIM CYRUS MIRANDA, DENR-BMB
CLAUDINE EBUENGA, DENR-Region 3, CENRO Masinloc

December 2023
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The assessment of seagrass and associated macroalgae was conducted at the back beach of
Grande Island. The survey employed the Transect-Plot method adopting the methods of English
et al. (1994). A 50-m to 100-m transect was laid perpendicular to the shore, depending on the
width of the seagrass. A total of three transects were established in the island that are 100 meters
apart from each other. Each transect was marked with a handheld GPS. Along the transect, a
0.5m x 0.5m quadrat was pressed at every 5m interval, starting at the 0-m mark. Each quadrat
was photographed.

The community of seagrass and associated macroalgae were assessed using the species richness,
percent cover, and shoot density, and diversity. Species richness was analyzed by identifying all
the species observed in the quadrat. Seagrass percentage cover is defined as the amount of
substrate covered by seagrass from a birds-eye-view (referred to simply as seagrass cover).
Percentage cover of seagrasses was visually estimated within the 0.25m 2 quadrats along each
transect line using a photo guide of percent cover indicated in the BMB Technical Bulletin 2017-
05, “Technical Guide on the assessment of Coastal and Marine Ecosystem”. Percent cover of
associated macroalgae/seaweeds and epiphyte cover were also estimated. Shoot density was
calculated by counting the number of shoots within the quadrat. Canopy height was obtained by
measuring the blade length from the bottom to the top using a meter stick. Measurements were
multiplied by 80%. Sediment composition within the quadrat was characterized by mud, fine
sand, sand, coarse sand, and gravel. Data on seagrass and macroalgae were subjected to diversity
index analysis using the JAMOVI Statistical tool.

Figure 1. Location of sampling stations for seagrass and associated macrobenthic assessment in
Grande Island, Subic, Zambales

1
Figure 2. Sampling site in Grande Island

2
Figure 3. Sampling methodology of seagrass community structure: establishment of transect,
delineation of subplot/quadrat, percent cover and density determination, and sediment
characterization. (Photo: DENR Region 3)

3
Figure 4. Illustration of percentage cover standards for seagrass (Adopted from the BMB
Technical Bulletin 2017-05)

4
Figure 5. Transect-plot method for assessing seagrass community structure adopted from English
et al., 1994

5
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Species composition, percent cover, and density

The seagrass bed on Grande Island was composed of seven species belonging to two families,
Hydrocharitaceae and Cymodoceaceae (Table 1). The seagrass bed on the island is characterized by a
mono-specific mixed seagrass community that extends up to approximately 100–150 meters seaward.

Table 1. List of seagrass species recorded in Grande Islands

Family Species Species Authority Common Name

Cymodoceaceae Cymodocea rotundata Ascherson & Schweinfurth, 1870 Smooth ribbon seagrass

Cymodocea serrulata (R.Brown) Ascherson & Magnus, 1870 Serrated ribbon seagrass

Halodule pinifolia (Miki) Hartog Needle leaf seagrass

Syringodium (Ascherson) Dandy, 1939 Noodle seagrass

isoetifolium

Hydrocharitaceae Enhalus acoroides (Linnaeus f.) Royle, 1839 Tape grass

Halophila ovalis (R.Brown) Hooker f., 1858 Spoon grass or dugong grass

Thalassia hemprichii (Ehrenberg) Ascherson, 1871 Turtle grass

6
Figure 6. Seagrass species observed in the Island. (A) C. rotundata, (B) C. serrulata, (C) S. isoetifolium,
(D) T. hemprichii, (E) H. pinifolia, (F) E. acoroides, and (G) H. ovalis

The bed was co-dominated by Thalassia hemprichii, and Syringodium isoetifolium species. The high
dominance of these species indicates that the seagrass beds are somewhat stable due to the presence of
climax species. Pioneering species such as Halodule pinifolia and Halophila ovalis were encountered,
which may indicate the succession of seagrass in some portions of the island. Figure 7 presents the mean
percentage covers of seagrass species across transect stations in Grande Island, resulting in 58.06%.
Transect 3 bore the highest percentage cover, while Transect 2 had the lowest. Not all of the 7 species
recorded on the island can be found in the laid transects, such as Cymodocea serrulata, which can only be
found in Transect 1. The same goes for H. ovalis, which can be observed in Transect 3. The most
dominant species in the area were T. hemprichii, with a mean percentage of 26.70%. On the other hand,
H. ovalis, and H. pinifolia have the least percentage cover among the species, with a mean percentage
cover of 0.61% and 0.15%. In general, having a percentage cover of 58.06% indicates that the condition
of seagrass cover on the island is in the “good” category.

7
 Figure 7. Mean percentage cover of seagrass species across transect stations in Grande Island

The mean seagrass density at 3 stations is presented in Figure 8. The mean density in Grande Island was
227 individuals per m2. The highest mean density was recorded in Transect 3, with 323 individuals per
m2. The mean density of seagrass species ranged from 2.42 individuals per m2 to 103 individuals per m2.
Among seagrass species, S. isoetifolium was the densest, with an average value of 103 individuals per
m2, followed by T. hemprichii and C. rotundata of 73.09 and 26.06 individuals per m2, respectively.

8
 Figure 8. Mean density of seagrass (individuals m-2) species across transect stations in Grande Island

The two main variables influencing the density and percentage of seagrass cover in the Grande Island
coastal area are light intensity and current velocity. As everyone is aware, seagrass productivity is
restricted by light intensity and nutrient availability (Ruiz and Romero, 2003), which is extremely
advantageous for the marine biota. But the seagrass ecosystem is also vulnerable and susceptible to
degradation, as evidenced by the 3-year post-monitoring assessment.
In the case of Grande Island, it has been observed that there is massive marine litter, and according to
Dahuri (2003), the seagrass species can still survive in the turbid waters with muddy substrate and can
form vegetation. Given this fact, the seagrass average percent cover has decreased from 62. 34% to
58.06% as well as the density 397.31 to 227.27 individuals/m 2 from the assessment conducted in 2021 as
compared to 2023.
Seagrass canopy height and epiphytic cover
The mean canopy height of seagrass species across transects in Grande Island is presented in Figure 9.
The species E. acoroides in Transect 1 bore the highest canopy height among the 3 Transects with 38.90
cm. For other species, relatively long S. isoetifolium, T. hemprichii and C. serrulata were measured in all
of the transects laid in Grande Island with an average of 11.18 cm, 10.79 cm and 7.21 cm,, respectively.

Figure 9. Mean canopy height of seagrass (cm) species across transect stations in Grande Island

In terms of average percentage epiphytic cover in Grande Island, Transect 1 bore the highest value of
35.91% while Transect 2 had the lowest with 20.63% (Figure 10).

Unfavorable environmental factors can make the leaf microenvironment harmful for plants, especially if
leaves are covered in epiphytic biofilms (Brodersen & Kuhl, 2022). These factors include even high
nutrient inputs, all of which are predicted to become more common in Grande due to the presence of
marine litter, even when human activity began to significantly impact the seagrass ecosystem.

9
Seagrasses have leaves that greatly expand the area available for algal settling. There are certain algae
species that have become so specialized that they can only be found on the seagrass surface (Connor et
al., 2022). In seagrass meadows, attached epiphytes frequently contribute significantly to the overall
primary output. They could also make seagrass environments more complex spatially. However, the
interactions between epiphytes and seagrasses may lead to the following possible threats: suppression of
growth in areas where epiphytes are undesirable and epiphytes that trigger environmental changes in
seagrass communities (Nelson, 2017).

Figure 10. Mean epiphytic cover (%) in seagrass beds of Grande Island

Associated macroalgae

For associated macroalgae, four species were identified in the sampling stations belonging to three
divisions namely, Rhodophyta, Phaeophyta, and Chlorophyta. Of those divisions, Phaeophyta formed the
dominant major group with two species recorded accounting for 50% of the total species composition.
Rhodophyta and Chlorophyta have one representative species each. The most common species
encountered in all sampling stations were Sargassum sp., Halimeda sp., Padina sp. and Gracilaria sp.

10
Figure 11. Associated macroalgae in Grande Island. (A) Sargassum sp., (B) Padina sp., (C) Halimeda sp.,
and (D) Gracilaria sp.

11
Comparative Analysis of the Seagrass Community Structure in Grande Island

Climax species such as Enhalus acoroides and Thalassia hemprichii have observed to decrease in
percentage cover from the result of the assessment conducted in 2021 as compared to 2023. A decrease of
4.28% (from 62.34% to 58.06%) from 2021 to 2023 in percentage cover and 170.04 individuals/m2
(397.31 to 227.27 individual/m2) in terms of density resulted from the analysis that was conducted. On
the other hand, an increase of 9.24% (from 20.67% to 29.91%) in epiphytic cover has been noted from
2021 to 2023.

Figure 12. Mean percentage cover of seagrass species between CY 2021 and 2023 across in Grande
Island

Figure 13. Mean density of seagrass species between CY 2021 and 2023 in Grande Island

12
 Figure 14. Mean epiphytic cover of seagrass species between CY 2021 and 2023 in Grande Island

Despite unprecedented global declines in seagrass (Orth et al., 2006; Waycott et al., 2009), these
ecosystems are resilient and have exhibited recovery when stressors are controlled and disturbances are
minimized (Macreadie et al., 2014). Nutrient loadings that are properly managed can reduce their input
into coastal zones and allow stressed seagrass populations to rebound (Greening and Janicki, 2006).
Therefore, monitoring the parameters that exert control on seagrass productivity, mainly light availability
and seagrass ecosystem structure and function, will allow early detection of habitat degradation.

Seagrass has been decreasing across the world, yet these ecosystems are tough and have recovered when
stresses are managed and disturbances are minimized (Orth et al., 2006; Waycott et al., 2009). (Macreadie
et al., 2014). Rebuilding stressed seagrass communities can be facilitated by appropriately controlled
nutrient loadings, which can lower their intake into coastal zones (Greening and Janicki, 2006).
Consequently, early identification of habitat deterioration will be made possible by monitoring the factors
that primarily regulate seagrass productivity: light availability and the structure and function of the
seagrass ecosystem.

13