the diversity of amphibian species in urban lake as

UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA Alam Cipta Vol 8 (Special Issue 1) December 2015

70

THE DIVERSITY OF AMPHIBIAN SPECIES IN URBAN LAKE AS ECOLOGICAL INDICATOR FOR HEALTHY AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT

Zainul Mukrim Baharuddin1*, Lukman Ramli2 and Rashidi Othman3

Landscape Ecology and Herbarium Unit, Department of Landscape Architecture,Kulliyyah of Architecture and Environmental Design (KAED),

International Islamic University Malaysia, Jalan Gombak, 53100 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia1,2&3

*Corresponding authors: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Urban expanse problem causes degradation of biodiversity, while forest contemporaneous is experiencing defaunation alteration for the need of more living spaces. Consequently, the world has just been alerted with the inclination of the urban biodiversity. Human tendency to ignore healthy ecology causes the research on urban wildlife to be bawl in these recent years, which later lead to severe effects such as loss of natural habitat, fragmentation and disturbance. However, the research conducted specifically on amphibian as bioindicator to environmental changes is still very low, as it covers only 4 percent every decade analysis, though many researchers believe amphibian such as frog is the best indicator to healthy environment. Momentarily, this research aimed to identify and record the number of amphibian population that can be used as new bio-indicator for a healthy environment in Perdana Botanical Lake Garden, Kuala Lumpur. Four areas of wetlands were assessed and conducted on amphibian active time which is at night as well as landscape setting. Results showed that six amphibian species of Duttaphrynus melanostictus (Common Sunda Toad), Hylarana erythraea (Green Paddy Frog), Polypedates leucomystax (Four-line Tree Frog), Fejervarya cancrivora (Crab-eating Frog), Microphyla heymonsi (Dark sided chorus frof) and Fejervarya limnocharis (Indian Rice Frog) were observed. The highest species of amphibian recorded were Hylarana erythraea with (n=80) which were found at all stations of Wetland 2 (largest wetland) and two stations at Wetland 3 (natural wetland), while others were less than (n=10).

Keywords: amphibian, frogs, ecological indicator, urban lakes and aquatic ecosystem

1. INTRODUCTION Urbanization shift seems to be increasing globally [7], which is also alerting the world on an incidental sign of nature conversation lost. There is actually a significant link between human and ecosystem health [8] [9], but human tends to put healthy ecology necessities out of their primary concern [1, 2, 3, 4]. As a result, this phenomenon is insensibly altering the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem within the urban area. This modification was proven via pollution run-off, and also changing water flows [6] and infiltration of domestic waste into water bodies which are now found to be rampant and inexorable. Thus, it is proven that the increase number of amphibian mortality and their population disappearance were caused by habitat degradation and hydrology alteration in urban area [6]. Consequently, the interest of researching the wildlife in urban area is also seen as a positive growth [36] and got a high potential in contributing to the better milieu for all stakeholders.

1.1 Indicator and Monitoring

Most of the signs resulted from environmental detrition is hardly seen and often be overlooked. A standard changes can be accessed via indicator whereby it should act as an ‘alarm’ that tell the alteration has begun to happen at surroundings; [10] and also act as barometer for trends in ecological resources [11]. Using living things as tools to evaluate the research’s result become favour among researchers. The technique used to read the biological indicator is by biological monitoring that uses aquatic organisms to measure the health of aquatic environment, besides these organisms also active in decaying dead organisms, which clean the water [12]. Due to difficulties to identify all the interactions of physical, chemical as well as biological, monitoring method is used. Thus, indicator is used as a character that provides quantitative information in evaluating the state of ecological resources [13].


71

This method is also known for its practicability in revising the previous data obtained, aiming to make some assessments, to determine the relevancy of law enforced and the criteria that are being set up for a good aquatic ecosystem [14]. For instance, Noss, (1990) [15] strongly agreed on the use of indicator species to assess environment condition especially when dealing with environmental toxicology, pollution control, agriculture, forestry, and wildlife and range management. However, using indicator alone will not really measure something accurately, more variables need to be identified in understanding the relationship of them [16], thus assessing the other factor which influencing the indicator is needed.

2. WHY AMPHIBIAN IS A GOOD INDICATOR?

2.1 Amphibian in Scientific View

‘Amphibia’ derived from Greek word means ‘two life’. It refers to any animals with two complete cycle of life. They are the only wildlife that experience both ecosystem, aquatic and terrestrial. With their sensitive semi-permeable skin, they are prone with contamination on both aquatic and terrestrial environment [17]. Contamination is proven to negatively impact the growth [18] of the amphibian and the worst scenario, it causes malformed and increase mortality [6].

Amphibian is a cold-blooded animal and they cannot produce their own heat to balance their body temperature. They need to depend on environment temperature to sustain their lives. Amphibians can benefit human life in many ways [19]. In addition, many researchers believe that amphibian such as frog is the best indicator for aquatic environment [20].The reliability of frog as indicator is less argued. The only argument is whether amphibian is being treated as single or suite [21]. They have a sensitive skin that was used for breathing [22]. As they absorbed oxygen through their skin, it is believed that contamination also could easily absorb through their skin. The reason why most of the anurans are nocturnal is because of their sensitive skin. Their skin is permeable enough for them to absorb and release gas during respiratory activity [23]. This sensitive skin also allows them to absorb the water surrounding, retains the moisture in their whole body.

In short, no matter how, their skin needs to be wet most of the time [23]. Thus, they prefer night time to find food and mate. The blazing sunlight on daylight can dry out their body. A research shows that anurans skin is more sensitive than mammals. Based on the research finding, the amount of molecules (mannitol and antipyrine) and three heavily used herbicides (atrazine, paraquat and glyphosate) were found abundantly in frog skin than

in pig skin. The test were conducted by introducing the molecules through each skin[24]. Henry, (2000) [25] agreed that changes in environment can be detected by some frog and toad species; because of their eco-toxicological sensitivity to environment. Thus, both type of species have a high potential as biological indicator that can measure the effect of environmental factors to the dwindling of amphibian population instead of having the ability to absorb toxicant through their sensitive, [26] permeable and moist skin; thus the amount of heavy metals absorbed could be means to measure environmental pollution level [27], while the research done were still below the enviable stage. Extensive research should be conducted, as amphibian owned a special skin [28]. To see the defection on environmental quality and health, amphibian population plummet is the signal for it, while many of people still failed to find the reason because they are not vigilant by this indicator.

2.2 Amphibian and Built Environment

Various aspects and factors can become indicator to detect the existence of amphibian, as their living is highly depending on their surrounding appearance. Site features like complexity and cover of fringing and aquatic vegetation (1), presence of fish (2), hydrology (3), pond size (4) and water depth (5) are to be considered when investigating on amphibian habitat occupancy, which is only applicable at smaller scale of research [29, 30, 31, 32]. However, Hamer and McDonnell, (2008) [29, 30] agreed that the smaller size of pond might also convert into an ecological traps because of pollutant accumulation, which should be averted. The amphibian is also being classified in certain group, also known as guild; that share the same environmental resource of a certain habitat [33]. Although this method of detecting the same guild is helpful to detect the amphibian population changes in a group, Verner (1984) [34] reckoned that more research shall be done to get more accurate and precise data.

3. METHODOLOGY

For the earlier stage of amphibian survey, only one site has been selected, which is Perdana Botanical Lake Garden. The whole site can be accessed within an hour with fast walk. Although amphibian can possibly be at all parts of the park, this research scope is being specifically focus into wetlands areas at the park.

The researcher first started to make a walk and surveyed all parts of the site to find wetlands. The observation being conducted on a day time to enable researcher recorded and drew the detail features of each wetlands. From a day observation, four wetlands were recorded and it was found that all of the


72

wetland flow to the main pond of the site. For record and data management, they were being drawn roughly in few pieces of A4 paper on the first visit.

Secondly, all four wetlands could be divided into few parts to ease the data analysis. The division made based on few characteristics might become a manipulating variables to the number of amphibian. The characters included water quality, water depth, rate of water flow, steepness, type of wetland edges, and lastly the flora arrangements and species (upper density, lower density, non-aquatic and aquatic). For Wetland 1 (dry area) & 4 (contaminated area), they were considered as a whole and no part had been divided because they were smaller than the other two wetlands. Wetland 2 (the largest) had been divided into 3 parts because of its physical appearance (type of edge) as some parts had retaining wall, different water depth, width of the wetland and density of shrub. Meanwhile, Wetland 3 was being divided even more; which had 4 parts as some points are bushy (floral density), some was steep (topographical aspect) and some got manmade edge (e.g. gabion wall). To count the number of amphibian, the technique used was ‘Quadrant Sampling’, the standard quadrant was being set in metre (m), in which 5 x 5 m and 10 x 10 m were the measurement used. Wetland 1, 3 and 4 were using

Figure 1: The overview map of Perdana Botanical Garden shows the location of the wetlands.

5 x 5 m quadrant, while 10 x 10 for Wetland 2 because it was relatively bigger than all other wetlands. Accessing amphibian begin at night, 3 days duration began from 7.00 pm to 9.00 pm. The session conducted at night because that was the suitable time when the amphibian only came out from its hidden habitat. Type of amphibian species, stage of growth and the number of amphibian found were recorded on respective map of four wetlands which was being drawn previously. Symbols were formed as indicator of different type of amphibian found. High performance torchlight was being used as aided tool in night vision and for distanced amphibian, netting was being used to capture unique amphibian species (if found available). Camera was being used to capture the image of amphibian found for species identification process later.

Some amphibians were not to be reached by bare eyes and may be hidden, but the voice can still be heard clearly. Thus, sound recording method was also being used to count the number of amphibian that cannot be reached. The voice identification would be conducted by experts and the number of amphibian at one time record being counted approximately.

The raw data then was being processed using AutoCAD drafting software for proper and clear presentation. The data obtained being plotted properly and the data also being processed in table using Microsoft Excel for analysis process.

4. FINDINGS & RESULT

4.1 Species of Amphibian

Seven major amphibian species have been recorded throughout the survey. All of them are found at all wetland areas with different number and morphological

Table 1: The species of amphibian and its number count founded at the wetland.


73

stage including egg, juvenile and adult. The species include Duttaphrynus melanostictus (Common Sunda Toad), Hylarana erythraea (Green Paddy Frog), Polypedates leucomystax (Four-line Tree Frog), Fejervarya cancrivora (Crab-eating Frog), Microphyla heymonsi (Dark Sided Chorus Frog) and Fejervarya limnocharis (Indian Rice Frog).The highest species of amphibian recorded were Hylarana erythraea with (n=80) which found at all part of Wetland 2 (largest wetland) and two parts at Wetland 3 (natural wetland). This species were found dominant at the garden compared to other species that less than (n=10). Other species counted include Duttaphrynus melanostictus (n=5), Polypedates leucomystax (n=3), Fejervarya cancrivora (n=2), Microphyla heymonsi (n=7) and Fejervarya limnocharis (n=1). Only one ‘unidentified’ species recorded at Wetland 4, (n=2) amphibian’s egg clump found at Wetland 3 while (n=3) of juvenile frogs found at Wetland 2 and 3 respectively.

4.1 Species of Amphibian

Water quality affects the existence of amphibian at the wetland. For the research, the water quality being measured based on its physical features, and they are further classified into 4; clear, less clear, cloudy and oily. From observation made at the site on all 4 wetlands involved, clear water was

Figure 2,3 & 5: (from left) Hylarana erythraea sp., Polypedates leucomystax sp., and Duttaphrynus melanostictus.

Figure 6,7 & 8: (from left) Fejervarya cancrivora, Fejervarya cancrivora and a juvenile frog.

recorded at part 1 of Wetland 2 & 3 respectively. Second category which is less clear water was recorded at part 2 of Wetland 2. On the other hand, cloudy water was recorded part 3 of Wetland 2 and part 2 of Wetland 3, while oily water detected at part 3 of Wetland 3 and whole Wetland 4.

4.1 Water Quality of Wetlands

Water quality affects the existence of amphibian at the wetland. For the research, the water quality being measured based on its physical features, and they are further classified into 4; clear, less clear, cloudy and oily. From observation made at the site on all 4 wetlands involved, clear water was recorded at part 1 of Wetland 2 & 3 respectively. Second category which is less clear water was recorded at part 2 of Wetland 2. On the other hand, cloudy water was recorded part 3 of Wetland 2 and part 2 of Wetland 3, while oily water detected at part 3 of Wetland 3 and whole Wetland 4.

4.3 Water Flow of the Wetlands

Four categories have been given to the rate of water flow to the Perdana Botanical Garden wetlands; fast, medium, slow and still. Fast flowing water found at part 1 Wetland 3, medium flow at whole Wetland 4, and slow flowing water at part 3 of Wetland 2 & 3 respectively. Most of the wetland areas retain water, which classified as still water and not moving, recorded at part 1 of Wetland 2, and part 2 of Wetland 2 & 3.

Table 2: Assessing the water characteristic of the wetlands


74

4.3 Type of Edges

Few types of edges that can be an influent factors to the number of amphibian being recorded and further classified; marginal plant, brick, gabion rock, grass and bare rock edges. As a botanical garden, grass covers most of the area of the site, where near wetland, it can be found at whole parts of Wetland 2 & 3. The other type of edge that covered most is brick which was also spotted at the whole part of Wetland 2. Gabion rock and marginal plants were found respectively at part 1 & 2 of Wetland 3, and part 2 & 3 of Wetland 3. Lastly, bare soil was the type of edge recorded at whole part of Wetland 4.

4.4 Flora Aspect

Figure 9 & 10: (left) The edges of wetland 4 by woodstick and it is bare soil. (right) A natural edges with marginal plants become favourite among amphibian in wetland 3.

Table 3: The flora aspect that was found at the wetland.

A) Upper Density The floral line or clump was recorded to become an ideal habitat for amphibians to breed and live. Thus, flora area has become among a major concern and act as a manipulating variable in this research. The classification of flora was further categorized into 4 based on their dominancy and type; upper density flora, lower density flora, non-aquatic plant and aquatic plant.

The upper density flora was then divided into 3 groups; high, low and medium. From observation, the low upper density flora was recorded at part 2 & 3 of Wetland 2 and part 3 of Wetland 3 as well as whole part of Wetland 4. Whereas, high upper density flora was being recorded at part 2-4 of Wetland 3, in contrast to the medium upper density flora that was recorded only at whole part of Wetland 1.

B) Lower DensityFor the second class of flora (the lower density flora), none of wetland areas has been recorded as low on lower density flora, followed by the part 3 of Wetland 2 and part 1 of Wetland 3. Part 1 and 2 of Wetland 2 and part 2 & 3 of Wetland 3 were recorded as high on lower density flora.

C) Non Aquatic Plant SpeciesFew plants species managed to be recorded by the researcher along the 3 days survey found at the wetlands. The species include Philodendron selloum sp., Costus lucanusianus sp., Heliconia sp., Donax grandis sp., Pandanus utilus sp., Calathea sp., and Crinum asiatica sp. All of them are non-aquatic plants and act as site context to the wetlands. All plants species were recorded only at one part on each wetlands except for Heliconia sp., Philodendron selloum sp., and Calathea sp., at two parts. Whole parts of Wetland 1 placed four species; Heliconia sp., Philodendron selloum sp., Costus lucanusianus sp. and Calathea sp. Meanwhile, Pandanus utilus sp., were recorded at part 1 of Wetland 2. Heliconia sp. was once again recorded at part 2 of Wetland 2 as well as Crinum asiatica sp., and Philodendron selloum sp. were also recorded at part 1 of Wetland 3 and Donax grandis sp. at part 2 of the same wetland. Lastly Calathea sp. was again recorded at whole part of Wetland 4.


75

D) Aquatic Plant Species

The most dominant aquatic plant species recorded was Nymphaea sp., where it was observed to grow at part 1 & 2 of Wetland 2, and part 2 & 3 of Wetland 3. The dominant followed by second aquatic plant species; Eichhornia crassipes sp. found at part 1 & 2 of Wetland 2. Nelumbo sp. was recorded at part 1 of Wetland 2, while Hydrillia sp. at part 2 & 3 of Wetland 3. On the other hand, Cabomba sp. was recorded at part 1 of Wetland 2 as well as Utricularia sp., but this last species was also recorded at part 2 of Wetland 3.

5. DISCUSSION

The richness of species and overwhelming differences number of population of amphibian in wetland 3 may be the result of healthy aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem in the Perdana Botanical Garden. Furthermore, it embodies a lush greenery and more natural setting of the edges compared to other wetland. Meanwhile, wetland 4 is seen to be not suitable as amphibian habitat because its water flow, oily water surface and with lowest density of the vegetation. Unlike wetland 3, wetland 2 encompasses a several number of amphibians which is due to the existing of their tradition enemy, a snakehead fish.

Figure 11, 12 & 13: (from left) Eichhornia crassipes sp., Utricularia sp., and Cabomba sp.

Figure 14, 15 & 16: (from left) Nelumbo sp., Nymphaea sp., Hydrillia sp.

From the result, it is suggested that a conservation of aquatic ecosystem through the management and design a wetland should be encouraged due to its ability as amphibian habitat. Besides the main water bodies which cater all the input water resources, designing a wetland before the lake may become a platform for assessing the amphibian species which could be an ecological indicator for the healthy urban environment.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank, Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) and International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) for the Research Grant FRGS13-012-0253 and RAGS14-043-0106.

7. REFERENCES

Pauleit, S., (2003). Urban street tree planting: identifying the key requirements, source: Proceedings of the ICE - Municipal Engineer, Vol.156, Issue 1, 01 March 2003 , pages 43 –50.

Brown, C., and Grant, M., (2005). Biodiversity & human health: What role for nature in healthy urban planning? Built Environment, 31 (4). pp. 326-338. ISSN 0263-7960.

Tratalos, J., Fuller, R. A., Warren, Philip. H., Davies R. G., Gatson, K. J., (2007). Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (2007) 308 –317, Available: [Online] 5 July 2007.

Mc Kinney, M. L., (2008). Effect of urbanization on species richness: a review on plants and animals. Urban ecosyst. (2008). 11:161-176, DOI 10, 1007/s11252-007-0045-4.

Magle, S. B., Hunt V. M., Vernon M., Crooks K. R., (2012). Urban wildlife research: Past, present and future, Biological Conservation 155 (2012) 22-32.

Lisa, T. S., Gary, W. L., Skye, W., (2011). Anuran species in urban landscapes: relationships with biophysical, built environment and socio-economic factors. Landscape and Urban Planning 101 (2011) 43–51.

Dearborn, D.C., Kark, S., (2010). Motivations for conserving urban biodiversity. Conservation Biology 24, 432-440.

Hayes, T. B., Haston, K., Tsui, M., Hoang, A., Haeffele, C. and Vonk, A. (2002). Feminization of male frogs in the wild. Nature, 419, 895-900.

Unrine, J. M., Hopkins, W. A., Romanek, C. S., and Jackson, B. P. (2007). Bioaccumulation of trace elements in omnivorous amphibian larvae: Implications for amphibian health and contaminant transport. Environmental Pollution, 149, 182-192.

Dale, V. H., Beyeler, S. C., (2001). Challenges in the development and use


76

of ecological indicators. Ecological Indicators 1 (2001) 3–10. Accepted 7 March 2001.

Gerald, J. N., Michael, E. M., (2004). Application of ecological indicators. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2004. 35:89-111. First published [Online] as a Review in Advance on June 10, 2004.

Olsen, A. R., ed. (1992). The indicator development strategy for the environmental monitoring and assessment program, EPA A600391023, Corvallis, OR: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory.

invertebrates and algae of solar evaporation ponds in the Mojave dessert and relation to shorebird foraging and selenium risk. WETLANDS, Vol. 26, No.2, June 2006, pp.475-485, 2006, The Society of Wetland Scientists.

Philips, D. J. H, Rainbow, P. S., (1993), Bio- monitoring of trace aquatic contaminants. Environmental Management Series, Vol. 37 1993. ISBN: 978-94-010-4941-2

Noss, R. F., (1999). Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: a suggested framework and indicators. For Ecol. Manage. 115: 135-46.

Mainguet, C., Baye, A., (2006). 3. C.: Defining a framework of indicators to measure the social outcomes of learning. Defining a framework of indicators in an international perspective, measuring the effects of education on health and civic engagement: proceedings of the Copenhagen Symposium – OECD 2006.

Mail, A.Q., Bellantuono, V., Cassano, G., and Lippe, C., (2009). Why Amphibians Are More Sensitive than Mammals to Xenobiotics. DOI: 10.1371.

Henry, P. F. P. (2000). Aspects of amphibian anatomy and physiology. In: Sparling, D. W., Linder, G. and Bishop, C. A., (eds). 2000. Ecotoxicology of amphibians and reptiles. Pensacola, FL: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). pp. 71-111.

Pechmann, J. H. K., and Wilbur, H. M., (1994). Putting declining amphibian populations in perspectives: Natural fluctuations and human inspects. Herpetologica 1994, 50 pp. 65-84.

Edina, S., Miklós, P., Mihály B., and Béla, T. (2011), frogs and toads as biological indicators in environmental assessment, In: Frogs: Biology, Ecology and Uses ISBN 978-1-61324-667-2, Editor: James L. Murray, pp. © 2011 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Halliday, T., (2000). Do frogs make good canaries? Biologist, 47, pp. 143-146.

Alford, R. A. and Richards, S. J. (1999). Global amphibian declines: a problem in applied ecology. Annual Review of Ecological Systems, 30, 133-165.

Sparling, D. W., Linder, G. and Bishop, C. A. (eds) (2000). Ecotoxicology of amphibians and reptiles. Pensacola, FL: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). pp. 904

Whyzz, (2014). Viewed at 22 February. Available [Online]: http://www.whyzz.com/what-is-an-amphibian.

Before it’s too late - Croaking frog (Motion Picture), (2004). Australia.Sewell, D., Griffiths, R.A., (2009). Can a single amphibian species be a good

biodiversity indicator? Diversity 2009, 1, 102-117.http://www.saburchill, animals which breathe through their skin. Available:

[Online] com/chapters/chap0022.html.Environment. nsw, page last updated: 27 December 2013, viewed at 22

February 2014. Available [Online] http://www.environment.nsw. gov.au/animals/Frogs.htm.

Hamer, A.J., McDonnell, M.J., (2008). Amphibian ecology and conservation in the urbanising world: a review. Biol. Conserv. 141, 2432–2449.

Pillsbury, F. C., Miller, J.R., (2008). Habitat and landscape characteristics underlying anuran community structure along an urban–rural gradient. Ecol. Appl. 18, 1107–1118.

Parris, K. M., (2006). Urban amphibian assemblages as meta-communities. J. Anim. Ecol. 75, 757–764.

Root, R. B. (1967). The niche exploitation pattern of the blue-gray gnatcatcher. Col. Monogr 37:317-50.

Verner, J. (1984). The guild concept applied to management of bird populations. Environ. Manage. 8:1-14.

Adams, L.W., (2005). Urban wildlife ecology and conservation: a brief history of the discipline. Urban Ecosystems 8, 139-156.

Sadasivam, K., Baharuddin, B., Sivam, A., and Daniels, C., (2014). Urban Green Space and Urban Biodiversity: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Development 7, 1-16.

Baharuddin, B., Othman, R., and Rusli, F.N., (2014). Kuala Lumpur urban biodiversity: birds community in urban public parks, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Policy 3(6), 146-159.

the diversity of amphibian species in urban lake as

Documents