[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
FINAL REPORT CH 47 & CM 73 "IMPOUNDMENT MANAGEMENT" D. B. Carlson Indian River Mosquito Control District R.G. Gilmore Harbor Branch Foundation, Inc. J. Rey, Ph.D. Florida Medical Entomological Laboratory TC 330 .G37 F6 1984 FINAL REPORT CM 47 & CM 73 "IMPOUNDMENT MANAGEMENT" D.B. Carlson Indian River Mosquito Control District R.G. Gilmore Harbor Branch Foundation, Inc. J. Rey Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory (This study was partially funded by the Florida Department of Environmentak Regulation and by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, administered by the Office of Coastal Zone Management/National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.) FINAL REPORT CM 47 & CM 73 "IMPOUNDMENT MANAGEMENT" D. B. Carlson Indian River Mosquito Control District R. G. Gilmore Harbor,Branch Foundation, Inc. J. Rey, Ph.D. Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory Enclosed arie the final reports of the three principal investigators on contract CM 47 and its extension, CM 73, jointly title "Impoundment Management." Each P.I. has filed a separate summary of his work. The goals of the project were: 1) Investigate the effects of re-opening an impounded marsh to the estuary. 2) Propose water management techniques which would depend on passive water control measures sufficient to control mosquito production, while minimally disruptive to the marsh resident and marsh transient fauna, and marsh flora. The study area was a 50 acre, privately owned diked high salt marsh located on the barrier island at the south end of Indian River County. Carlson's report contains a complete study site description. A single existing 18 inch. culvert in the impoundment dike was opened to the estuary. Sampling techniques and equipment were devised to provide baseline data on zooplankton, marsh vegetation, basic water quality parameters, fish, macrocrustaceans, and mosquito larvae. During the first year of the project, no water control structures were placed on the culvert, and no chemicals applied to the marsh to control mosquito breeding. At the end of one year's study, a flapgate riser was placed on the culvert; and at 1.5 years, a second culvert installed to serve as a reference for changes made in the configuration of the first culvert (see Gilmore's report). Chemicals were used during this second year to control mosquitoes. An integral part of this project was the establishment of substantial data bases on the Harbor Branch Foundation's computer for fishes, and the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, for vegetation and zooplankton, for data gathered during the field study period. The project began on February 22, 1982 and field work ended January 1, 1984. All data has not yet been analysed, but we can summarize the major accomplishment of the study thus far: 1) Developing and validating new zooplankton and fish sampling techniques for the shallow-water marsh habitat. 2) Providing the first study of zooplankton in the inside ditches of high-marsh impoundments, an important man-made artifact present in mos't mosquito control impoundments, and in ponds and depressions. 3) Continuing and extending the fish trophic work begun in this marsh in its pre- and immediate post-impoundment condition by Harrington and Harrington. 4) Providing the first systematic study of fish movement into and out of the impounded salt marsh through several different water control structures, monitored over a period of several years. Special attention was given to the interplay of high-marsh, inside ditch, and estuary. 5) Establishing important vegetation growth base-line data in the experimental cell, and an adjacent completely enclosed cell. This portion of the study will be continued for several more years by Dr. Rey. 6) Reconfirming the mosquito potential of this high-marsh, area, as i4ell as the efficiency of high-water levels in eliminating mosquito breeding in this habitat. 7) First examination of the effect of culvert(s) on water movement into and out of an impounded high marsh. Major conclusions of this work include: 1) Passive water management techniques are not, in themselves, sufficient to provide reliable mosquito control in the impounded high-marsh. 2) Even when water levels allow access to mosquito breeding sites, larvivorous fish are inadequate to control flood-water, salt marsh Aedes spp- mosquitoes in this habitat. Such floodings from rainfall and tides, with resulting mosquito broods, were repeatedly observed during the study. 3) Water levels sufficient to control mosquitoes stressed the marsh vegetation, but the extent of this stress was not determinable over the two years of this study. 4) Marsh resident and transient fish were shown to locate and use the single culvert to travel in and out of the marsh. Fourteen species of marsh residents, and 36 transients were identified. 5) Qualitatively, zooplankton in the impounded high marsh resemble those in the Indian River Lagoon. 6) Tentatively, isolation and size have been shown as important variables in zooplankton dynamics as well as water quality in the high marsh habitat. Further analysis of zooplankton samples is expected to confirm this. 7) Preliminary analysis indicates that normal mosquito control schedules for closing, pumping, and re-opening impounded marshes can, with minor modification, be tailored to fit the major periods of fish ingress and egress from the marsh. A rich variety of transient and resident fish should be able to use the marsh under these conditions. Substantial work remains before all data gathered during CM -47 and CM 73 are analyzed. Zooplankton, in particular, have proved difficult and time consuming. Dr. Rey will provide IRMCD periodic updates on further progress in analysis of this material. A minimum of five publications will result from this work (two each from Dr. Rey and Mr. Gilmore, and one from Mr. Carlson). A summary of work to date was recently presented at'- a special symposium arranged by Mr. Carlson held at the American Mosquito Control Association's annual meeting, in Toronto. A similar presentation will be made this April at the Florida Anti-Mosquito Association's Spring meeting, in Key West. Perhaps more important, since the onset of CM 47 all three P.I.'s have been named to the State of Florida's Technical Advisory Subcommitee on Mosquito Control Impoundments. Mr. Gilmore served as the first chairman of this group, and Mr. Carlson is its second chairman. As a result, the information qaine'd through CM 47 and CM 73 is being distributed and used to help develop managment plans far in advance of formal publication. Glennon Dodd Project co-ordinator Indian River Mosquito Control District "MOSQUITO PRODUCTION IN A SALT MARSH MOSQUITO CONTROL IMPOUNDMENT UNDER DIFFERING WATER MANAGEMENT REGIMES" Douglas B. Carlson and Robert R. Vigliano Indian River Mosquito Control District P.O. Box 670. Vero Beach, Florida 32961-0670 ABSTRACT Mosquito production was monitored for 2 years in a southeast Florida salt-marsh mosquito control impoundment continuously connected to the estuary by culverts. Some marsh locations were shown to produce large numbers of Aedes spp. from rainfall and tidal flooding in this impoundment which was not artifically flooded by pumping of estuarine water. Water ret-ention with flapgate risers attached to culverts reduced but did not eliminate salt-marsh mosquito oviposition. Aedes spp. larvae were found where Batis maritima and/or Salicornia virginica was present, however, mosquito presence was not always associated with the occurrence of these plants or of specific marsh elevations. Although larvivorous fish were present, they usually were not able to adequately control mosquitoes. 40 2 "MOSQUITO PRODUCTION IN A SALT MARSH MOSQUITO CONTROL IMPOUNDMENT UNDER DIFFERING WATER MANAGEMENT REGIMES." INTRODUCTION Numerous studies have documented Aed es spp. mosquitoes produced from various coastal salt marsh habitats (Chapman and Ferrigno 1956, Haeger 1960, Harrington and Harrington 1961, Clements and Rogers 1964, Zimmerman and Turner 1982, Balling and Resh 1983, Carlson 1983). Preadult Aedes numbers have been shown to fluctuate in response to physical manipulations of the marsh as well as with environmental factors (Clements and Roqers 1964). Gravid female salt marsh Aedes oviposit on the moist high marsh soil. Impoundments on the east-central coast of Florida are high salt marshes which were diked in the 1950's and 1960's and are flooded to control the salt-marsh mosquitoes Ae. sollicitans (Walker) and Ae. taeniorhynchus (Wiedemann). Flooding these areas with water eliminates ovipositional sites, thus effectively and economically reducing their populations (Provost 1977, Shisler et al. 1979). While being an excellent method of salt-marsh mosquito control, impoundments have possible environmental liabilities including interruption of the exchange of organisms and detritus between the marsh and estuary, and stressing or killing vegetation by excessive or prolonged flooding (Gilmore et al. 1981). When originally constructed, impoundments were managed solely for mosquito and sandfly control. 'However, current impoundment management goals are becoming-multipurpose; for natural resource enhancement as well as mosquito control. Impoundment management concerns can address.the high marsh habitat as a fisheries resource, for wildfowl use and also water quality enhancement. This study reports Aedes mo squito production from an unmanaged (not artifically flooded) impoundment in Indian River County, Florida under two different water management regimes. It also gives information on physical marsh characteristics and. attempts to correlate mosquito production to these marsh factors. It was conducted as one component of a cooperative research project which also examined the effects on fish, macroinvertebrates, zooplankton and vegetation of first opening the marsh to the adjacent estuary via an 18 inch (45.7 cm) culvert for 16 months, then retaining water with flapgate risers to 1.0 ft. NGVD for 6 months. The marsh was reopened for the .remaining 2 months of the study. This study quantifying the effects of different water management schemes is background information necessary for the development of impoundment management plans based on scientifically proven principles. MATERIALS AND METHODS Study Site Description. Historical (1956-1980) The 50 acre impoundment studied (Impoundment #12 Bidlingmayer and McCoy 1978 [A]) has been the object for several intensive research projects over the past 27 years. Located on the barrier island at the Indian River-St. Lucie county border, this marsh, prior to.impounding, was first the site for an icthyological study in 1956. At that time, the marsh was described as "an expansive 'parkland' of saltwort (Batis maritima L.) and glasswort (Salicornia perennis Mill.) interspersed with black mangr.ove EAvicennia germinans (L)]. The aggregate areas of &-itis-Salicornia and of black mangrove are roughly coequal". The periphery of the marsh consisted primarily of alternating black mangrove, red mancjrove (Rhizophora mang le L.), white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa Gaertn.,), sea oxe-eye (Borrichia frutescens (L.)) and buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus L.). At that time, 16 fish species were observed utilizing the marsh, feeding on a wide variety of organisms. During the study, a synchronous hig h tide and rainfall caused "a massive well-synchronized mosquito hatch" on September 9 (Harrington and Harrington 1961). Haeger (1960) reported the emergence of this same brood between September 17-20. He stated concerning the adult mosquito exodus that "the migrants started to depart in waves". This marsh was impounded in March 1966. Thirty months later it was again studied, this time to determine the effects of impounding on marsh fishes. At the time of this second study (September and October, 1968), almost all vegetation had died from artificial flooding of the marsh with"water pumped from the Indian River lagoon. During this study, there was no seasonal connection of.the marsh with the estuary. The marsh was then described as "an open expanse of water broken only by the emergent trunks of dead mangro@res". The authors also found a decrease from 16 to 5 fish species present. These fish were feeding primarily on vegetation (Harrington and Harrington 1982). In 1978, the.Indian River Mosquito Control District (IRMCD) ceased pumping estuarine wate r into the impoundment at the property owners' request. In 1979 this area served as the site for further marsh research comparing fish populations and habitat in open versus closed salt marsh impoundments (Gilmore et al. 1981). By then the impoundment had essentially dewatered,.receiving input solely from rainfall. Marsh water levels fluctuated through evaporation and percolation. In this 1979-1980 study, when the marsh was still not connected-to the Indian River lagoon, Gilmore et al. showed 12 fish species present under stressed environmental conditions. Present study (1982-1984) The impounded marsh contains a 1-3 m wide perimeter ditch which abuts 2.5 of the 4 impoundment sides. Many portions of this ditch are filled with mud and organic debris. Part of 6 the northern and the entire eastern side are an undiked upland hammock. A shallow cove, part of the Indian River lagoon, lies southwest of the impoundment and"contains extensive Halodule spp. seagrass beds. Several large depressions occur over the marsh surface, some of which retain water even during extremely dry periods. Ruppia maritima L. (widgeongrass) is and has been a common plant in these pe'rmanent and semi-permanent ponds (Gilmore et al. 1981). The marsh surface is primarily vegetated with Ratis maritima, Salicornia virginica L. and S. bigelovii Torr. Black, red and white mangroves were widely dispersed with the greatest regrowth along the perimeter ditch. Figure 3 generally depicts the occurrence and location of major marsh vegetation prior to this study in 1980 while Figures 4 and 5 show this for January 1984. There were well defined drainage patterns from the marsh interior to the perimeter ditch. Marsh elevations (excluding all depressions) were determined from U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey benchmark Y-306, and ranged from -0.35 to 1.80 feet NGVD. Most elevations were between 0.40 and 0.70 ft NGVD (Fig. 2). The study commenced in February 1982 when an 18 inch (45.7 cm) culvert (Culvert A) was opened to the adjacent cove, allowing unobstructed flow of water between the Indian River lagoon and the impoundment. This water management regime was continued until July 1983 when a flapgate riser was attached to the culvert. The flapgate riser top was set at 1.0 ft. NGVD to trap water from rainfall and incoming tides to this elevation while still allowing water movement into the culvert. When impoundment water levels exceeded 1.0 ft., spillage into the estuary occurred. In September 1983,'an additional 18 inch culvert with flapgate riser was installed at the northwest corner of the.impoundment (Culvert B) to allow increased tidal flow into the marsh., The riser height was set so that no water could exit over it. On Januar@ 19, 1984, the flapgate riser was removed on the original culvert (Culvert A) reestablishing free water flow to the lagoon. Culvert-B was sealed. As part of the experimental design to not apply larvicides into the study area during the first year, preadult mosquitoes produced between February 1982 and May 1983 were not treated with insecticides but were allowed to emerge as adults. During most of the second year of the study (i.e. from June 1983 to March 1984) broods were treated either from the ground with diesel oil or, when broad scale applications were necessary,.from the air with Altosid (methoprene) adsorbed to sand (Rathburn et al. 1979). Mosquito.Sampling. Because of ovipositional habits, the aggregation of later instar larvae, and the contracting and expanding water surface area of the preadult habitat, salt-marsh mosquitoes are non-randomly distributed. Totally random sampling for salt-marsh mosquitoes can greatly misrepresent cohort occurrence and size. Therefore this study used stratified sampling 8 (Southwood 1978) similar to Zimmerman and Turner 1982. The stratified sampling design used established twelve quadrats, which covered the entire marsh surface. Each quadrat was sampled twice weekly for immature mosquitoes. The quadrats-.were designated North A,B,C, West A,B,C, South A,B,C, and East A,B (Fig. 1). On each sampling visit, mosquitoes were sought out in all quadrats'. Through experience those vegetated areas shown to produce mosquitoes were most thoroughly examined -yet no areas were neglected. Broods were randomly sampled by taking 5-350 ml dips per quadrat, then the mean number per dip in a quadrat over the cohort duration was determined. Marsh inaccessability-caused by loose substrates or dense vegretation usually makes traversing the entire marsh surface impossible. We were fortunate that this particular impoundment can be freely walked therefore thoroughly sampled. We feel when such marsh accessibility is possible that this sampling methodology is a better-representation of salt-marsh mosquito presence as compared to alternate techniques such as sampling stations (e.g., Clements and Rogers 1964, Carlson 1983). However, most impoundments, especially when*flooded, severely limits sampling to stations, usually from the dike. Marsh Flooding Rain data was collected during each site visit by a tube rain gauge located at the northeast marsh corner (Fig. 24). Maximum and minimum marsh and estuary water elevations were 9 measured biweekly with a grease pole (Fig. 12, 13). A series of maps showing the extent of marsh flooding at sequential elevations was compiled dueing the second year of the study. They were prepared by ground-truthing water coverage at established elevations (Figs. 6-11). On all visits, a range of mosquito landing rates were taken. A landing rate is the number of mosquitoes landing on a person in a one minute period., Because of the extensive flight rango of salt-marsh mosquitoes (which has been shown to be as great as 20 miles by Provost (1952)) this landing rate figure does not mean that all mosquitoes biting here emerged from this area but it does help to give a better picture of overall mosquito activity (in particular adult mosquito activity) in the marsh ('Fig.,23). 10 RESULTS. Impoundments on the east coast of Florida are intended to control Aedes taeniorhynchus and Ae. sollicitans which are produced in high marshes by rainfall or high tides. Over the 2 year study, the vast majority of mosquito broods were produced by rainfall. However, 4 large tidal surges inundated the entire marsh to the upland hammock producing mosquitoes on each occasion. These tidal inundations occurred in September 1982 and in June, August, and September 1983. On each occasion significant mosquito broods were produced in several marsh locations (Figs. 14, 19, 22). In this study, overall aliquots showed Ae. taeniorhynchus to be most common. This coincides with Harrington and Harrington (1961), who showed by fish gut analysis that Ae. taeniorhynchus comprised the vast majority of mosquitoes consumed. However, in our study on occasion Ae. sollicitans was the largest aliquot component. Although these two salt-marsh mosquitoes comprised the overwhelming majority of mosquitoes encountered, several other species were infrequently collected in small numbers. They were Anopheles atropos Dyar and Knab, An. bradlevi King, An. walkeri Theobald, Culex nigripalpus Theobald and Cx. salinarius Coquillett. The freshwater mosquitoes Anopheles walkeri and the two Culex spp. were encountered at a time when large amounts of rainfall lowered salinities. Marc 8, 1982 -- January 1, 1983. During this 10 month period, unobstructed water flowed between the impounded marsh and the Indian River lagoon through the existing 18 inch (45.7 cm) culvert (Culvert A). Mosquito broods trigge red by both rainfall and tidal flooding occurred in North A, B and C, East B and C, and West A and B. Broods varied greatly in size as is shown on Figs. 14-22. Mosquito landing rates during this period are shown to fluctuate greatly but with periods of intensive adult activity. In March, April, June, July, and August landing rates exceeded 30 per minute and reached as high as.75 per minute (Fig. 23). A landing rate of merely 5 perminute is considered-to be genuinely annoying. In the North and East areas from March through August 1982'flooding was primarily rainfall induced, an expected occurrence in southeast Florida high marshes at that time of the year. These locations were distant from the perimeter ditch, thus commonly inundated by rainfall but irregularly by tidal fluctuations unless estuarine water elevations exceed 0.75 ft NGVD (Figs. 9-11). Mosquitoes were produced here from rainfall induced flooding as can be seen from Figures 17-22 . However, West A and B are in close proximity to the perimeter ditch and more frequently flooded by tides as well as rainfall. Flooding to an elevation of 0.60 ft NGVD is sufficient to inundate large portions of the West quadrats (Fig. 8). This was reflected with as many as 1,444 preadult mosquitoes collected there in one dip on May 6 by the first thorough tidal flooding of this area after our study commenced. The landing rates of 75 per minute experienced in the marsh in early June were probably produced by this brood from the study site and nearby unmanaged impoundments (Fig. 23). Much tidal flooding in the West quadrats occurred during the spring due to lower elevations and close proximity to the perimeter ditch. Mosquitoes were never found in the 3 South quadrats and rarely in East A and West C. South A and B directly abut the perimeter ditch, thus were inundated frequently throughout this study period. The vast majority of South C and East A extended into the adjacent upland hammock and was dry throughout the study since elevations were as high as 1.80 ft NGVD (Fig. 2). On September 10, the annual peak high tides began after much of the marsh had been dry for the previous two months. From this tidal. surge the entire impoundment (except South C and East A) remained flooded until early December. The initial tidal surge produced large broods in numerous marsh locations (Figs. 14,18,19,21,22). This resulted in landing rates ranging from 5-20 for the entire month of September and continuing into October (Fig. 23). For the three months following September the impoundment functioned as a managed flooded impoundment, effectively eliminating salt-marsh Aedes ovipositional sites. On December 6, the high tides began to recede, temporarily drying the marsh. By early January 1983 the impoundment reflooded to about 80 percent water cover. During the 3 month period of tidal flooding, water levels fluctuated. Water level tracings on the high marsh and 13 al'so in the Indian River lagoon show that a standing water head developed within the.marsh. Daily water level fluctuations outside the impoundment were greater than those within it (R. G. Gilmore, personal communication). Water level fluctuations within the impoundment probably hatched some Aedes eggs on the North and East banks. However, this was not reflected in our sampling. January 1 -- July 12, 1983. From January through March 1983, the study site received heavy rainfall (22 inches) which reflooded the marsh to fall 1982 levels but which did not produce mosquitoes. Apparently the marsh surface.had not become ovipositionally attractive during the dry down period or eggs had not completed development before inundation. Spring is normally a dry season in central Florida. A comparison of rainfall and mosquitoes in April-May 1982 (rainfall=9.2 in.) with April-May 1983 (rainfall=4.7 in.) shows much greater rainfall and consequently greater mosquito production in more marsh locations in 1982. During this 1983 period a combination of tides and rainfall resulted in 3 large but localized broods which were chemically treated. July 13, 1983 -- March 8, 1984. On July 13, the installation of a flapgate riser in Culvert A altered water management on the marsh by trapping' rainfall and high tides. Set at an elevation of 1.0 ft. NGVD, 14 this structure kept locations shown to produce mosquitoes flooded without excessive water penetrating into upland areas. In July 1983 as in 1982, little rainfall (1982=1.9 in., 1983=1.0 in.) or tidal flooding resulted in no mosquitoes. Rainfall in August of 1982 (4.3 in.) and 1983 (5.1 in.) was similar but in 1983 wi,th the flapgate riser in place more of t.he marsh remained flooded trapping rainfall. In addition a tidal surge produced a mosquito brood in East C during this month. No mosquitoes occurred in the West sections during this period in 1983 as opposed to 1982, when several large broods wer e produced there from the drying and reflooding of the West sections (Fig. 14,15,16). September, October and November of 1982 and 1983 were similar both in water coverage (nearly 100%) and that mosquitoes were produced only on the tidal surge. In early September 1982, high fall tides penetrated the marsh through Culvert A followed by the marsh remaining flooded until early December 1983. In 19B3 the installation of an additional 18 in. culvert (Culvert B) with flapgate riser on Sept. 28 enhanced tidal access into the marsh. During both years tides kept the marsh flooded during October and November. However, while in 1982 water levels began to recede in early December, in 1983 high water retained by the flapgate risers kept the marsh flooded through January 18, 1984 when the flapgates were removed to allow free water exchange. No real differences in mosquito production were apparent between these years as constant inundation at elevations from 1.0 to 1.7 ft NGVD effectively eliminated ovipositional sites. The marsh quickly dewatered to approx. 50 percent flooding after opening the culverts. On Jan. 31 Culvert B was closed from the estuary. From Jan. 19 to March 8, 1984, water elevations on the marsh were between <0.3 and 0.5 ft NGVD. Marsh water elevations lower than 0.4 ft NGVD usually dried the marsh flats. However, even with marsh water elevations less than 0.4 ft. rainfall can cause isolated pockets of water from the perimeter ditch which are not reflected by the water level recorders. DISCUSSION Although it is well documented that high salt marshes in Florida produce salt-marsh mosquitoes (Nielsen and Nielsen 1953, Haeger 1960, Harrington and Harrington 1961, Clements and Rogers 1964), mosquito control districts in Florida are regularly in the position of defending their control operations in those areas to environmental. permitting agencies. The question presently asked by these organizations is: Does the particular marsh you are proposing to manage cause a mosquito problem and what documentation is available to prove it? This study corroborates previously mentioned studies showing that high salt marshes in Florida often produce extremely high densities of both Ae. taeniorhynchus and Ae. sollicitans from rainfall or tidal flooding. From a mosquit'o control standpoint this information further validates the 16 decision to impound these high salt marshes. Local mosquito control agencies in association w-ith the Florida Department of Health made impounding decisions on a marsh by marsh basis. When the marsh was shown to produce mosquitoes, the entire high marsh was diked and subsequently flooded. The data presented also shows that merely trapping rain and tidal intrusion on the marsh surface with flapgate risers can be a beneficial tool in diminishing but not eliminating Aedes ovipositional sites. This study reaffirms Clements and Rogers (1964), that in a non-artifically flooded impoundment high tides and rainfall are not adequate to flood an impoundment during the entire mosquito producing period. During some time of the year artificial flooding is necessary. Our work shows no simple correlation between marsh elevations and the location of preadult mosquitoes. Preadult mosquitoes were generally found where Batis maritima and Salicornia virginica were in dense accumulations. However, not all Batis and Salicornia locations at similar elevations produced mosquitoes. These plants are presently very common on the marsh surface. Continued monitoring is necessary to determine if changes in the vegetation profile will correlate with changes in preadult mosquito location. The second year of this study showed fewer mosquito sites but this was not a surprise. The retention of trapped water over a larger portion of the marsh eliminated ovipositional sites. Of the larvivorous resident marsh fish, Cyprinodon variegatus Lacepede (sheepshead minnow), Fundulus confluentus 17 Goode and Bean (marsh killifish) and Gambusia affinis Baird and Girard (mosquitofish) were those most commonly trapped during this study. Fundulus grandis Baird and Girard (gulf killifish) ,and Dormitator maculatus (Poey) (fat sleeper) were also collected but infrequently (G. Gilmore, personal communication). These fish frequently were unable to control large synchronous mosquito broods allowing intolerable numbers of biting adults to emerge. Todd and Giglioli (1983) in Grand Cayman, W.I. also showed that larvivorous marsh fish were not capable of adequately controlling large hatches of salt-marsh mosquitoes. They attributed this phenomenon to the immediate hatching of Jarge numbers of.mosquito eggs, dilution of predatory fish and 1 delayed increase of fish numbers. All of these factors apparent in Grand Cayman marshes were probably occurring in South Florida as well. In addition, dense Batis and Salicornia beds where larvae were usually found were an impediment to fish movement here as well. The authors have also observed this inability of fish to control mosquito larvae in inland watewater retention areas We feel that larvivorous marsh fish may play a beneficial role in reducing mosquitoes during periods of high tidal flooding when mosquitoes hatch along upland marsh locations from slight water level fluctuations. Migrating fish can feed on these widely dispersed larvae. However, our observations indicate that large synchronous mosquito brood's produced by tidal flooding were not noticeably reduced by fish predation and during complete tidal flooding fish do have easy access to larval areas. As can be seen from Figs. 10 and 11 flooding elevations of 0.90 ft. or greater flood all mosquito producing areas. Figure 12, which shows the extent of flooding during the study, clearly shows that these elevations were reached on many occasions yet flooding.induced mosquito broods were documented on at least 4 occasions. In a marsh, rainfall induced mosquito hatching will oftentimes result in pockets of immature mosquitoes isolated from fish. Of course then, fish are unable to play a predatory -role. In such cases, ditching may allow fish migration to larval locations. This study mimicked flooding levels as suggested by Provost 1974 on a mangrove island in Brevard County, Florida. That is, flooding levels were established to eliminate mosquito oviposition sites while not inundating black mangrove pneumatophores or other high marsh vegetation. Our flooding elevation of 1.0 ft. NGVD adequately met these criteria in our study site. Seasonal artificial flooding by pumping of estuarine water.when augmented by passive water retention can produce excellent mosquito control results while still allowing effective connection of the marsh to the estuary through the proper placement of culverts with flapgate risers and careful management of water levels. Necessary flooding elevations will vary between impoundments, depending on the elevations of known mosquito producing sites. 19 REFERENCES CITED Balling, S. S. and V. H. Resh. 1983. Mosquito control and salt-marsh management: Factors influencing the presence of Aedes larvae. Mosq. News 43:212-218. Carlson, D. B. 1983. The use of salt-marsh mosquito control impoundments as wastewater retention areas. Mosq. News 43:1-6. Chapman, H. C. and F. Ferrigno. 1956. A three year study of mosquito breeding in natural and impounded salt-marsh areas in New Jersey. Proc. N. J. Mosq. Exterm.- Assoc. -43:48-64. Clements, B. W. and A. J. Rogers. 1964. Studies of impounding for the control of salt-marsh mosquitoes in Florida, 1958-1963. Mosq. News 24:265-276. Gilmore, R. G., D. W. Cooke and C. J. Donohoe. 1981. A comparison of the fish populations and habitat in open and closed salt marsh impoundments in east-central Florida. Northeast Gulf Science 5:25-37. 20 Haeger, J.S. 1960. Behavior preceding migration in the salt-marsh mosquito A-edes taeniorhynchus (Wiedemann). Mosquito News 20:136-147. Harrington, R. W., Jr. and E. S. Harrington. 1961. Food selection among fishes invading a high subtropical s,alt marsh: From onset of flooding through the progress of a mosquito brood. Ecology 42:646-666. Harrington, R. W., Jr. and E. S. Harrington. 1982. Effects on fishes and their forage organisms of impounding a Florida salt marsh to prevent breeding by salt marsh mosquitoes. Bull. Mar. Sci. 32:523-531. Nielsen, E. T. and A. T. Nielsen. 1953. Field observations on the habits of Aedes taeniorhVnchus. Ecology 34:141-156. Provost, M. W. 1952. The dispersal of Aedes taeniorhVnchus I. Preliminary studies. Mosquito News 12:174-190. Provost, M. W. 1974. Salt marsh management in Florida. Proc. Tall Timbers Conf. on Ecol. Anim. Control by Habitat Mgmt (1973). p. 5-17. 21 Provost, M. W. 1977. Source reduction in salt-marsh mosquito control: Past and future. Mosq. News 37:689-698. Rathburn, C.D., Jr., E.J. Beidler, G. Dodd, and A. Lafferty. 1979.. Aerial applications of a sand formulation of methoprene for the control of salt-marsh mosquito larvae. Mosq. News 39:76-80. Shisler, J.K., F. Lesser and T. Candeletti. 1979. An approach to the evaluation of temporary versus permanent measures in salt marsh mosquito control operations. Mosq. News 39:776-780. Southwood, T.R.E. 1978. Ecological methods. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 524 pp. Todd, R. G. and M. E. C. Giglioli. 1983. The failure of Gambusi,@ puncticulata and other minnows to control Aedes taeniorhynchus in a mangrove swamp on Grand Cayman, W. I. Mosq. News 43:419-425. Zimmerman, R. H. and E. C. Turner, Jr. 1982. Mosquito distribution and abundance in an inland salt marsh, Saltville, Virginia.- Mosq. News 42:212-218. 22 TEXT FOOTNOTE REFERENCE: L. Bidlingmayer and E. D. -McCoy. 1978. An inventory of the salt-marsh mosquito control impoundments in Florida. Unpublished report to Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Dept. of Interior. 103 p. Carlson, D. B., R. R. Vigliano and G. Wolfe. In preparation. Comparisons of mosquito populations and water quality in two types of south Florida wastewater. 23 241.2 14&1 P 4 24.1.43.3 IMTV A c 1 mom 1 10 9A c 15 - -------- ------- WIEST T------- - MO 62.6 A 7---------------- 4 lAsr 74.6 16 wSiT WIEST SOUTH I i 8 A 1 B i SOUTH kIt 9 19.4 02 QO-0@2 SOUTH 3.0 31@ 6 C [AS A 4 Legend Areas of mosquito occurrenCe Figure 1. ty'losquito sampling quadri:--As a-rid overall rilosquito production during StUdy. 0.60 0.80 1 "0 20 1 I10.00 0 .65 ."065 0.75 0.55 0,40 0.60 O.w 0.70 \\0.45 0.90 O.m 0.60 1" 0.25 MAO V.Iwt A 9 ure 2". Re preserit at i ve marsh e I evat i ::iris Irtipcil-tridmerit 4*12. At Indian River County Hi,er I dqjon 24 pum.0 Station( ?* UPlant; jaw,,, r -7 ike, it -0 It% C_ Hatis and Salicornia Spp. tal ul ert Figure Approximate occur-r-ence and 100atiOn of marSh vegetatii:ri at Irilpoundment 01,L2 in 1980. Culvert 8 f @j India. AMP LAgoon a' 200 400 6 0 0 d'ke r 61 a a feet 1% UP18nd h4NKk N. I NN ----------- -4 periff9ter ditch' `@-` 's *`4 q Z ----------- ---7 -7- ---- fbitis maritima Culvert A A-1 Silh(.urnia virginica topmomt Sdlicornla higelovii (Cmtrol Call) L J Figure 4. Approximate c..,currence and location of marsh vegetation at Impcindment #12 in January 1984. 25 A A A A A A ---------------- A 1,A 0 0 A PLO A_ 0 A 0 0 ll,!,i mall9r, ovf-' A w-te milligrove Figure 5. Approximate c,ccurrence :,id location of marsh Vegetation at Impoundment 12 in January J.984. 'b Fiqure 6. Extent of rilarsh flooding at sequev @ial elevatic,ris (0.45 ft. NOVD). 26 `,low 7. E x t c., n tf ro EA rs h f I o c-I d i n g a t5equential elevat (0.55 ft. NGVD). Firoure 6. Extent of rilar-sh flociding at sequential elewatiorj@:L (0-60 ft. NGVD). 27 dPP" quo- Figure 9. Extent of raar-@-:h floc.,ding, at, 5equential alevati.Dris (0.755 ft. NGVD). CID Figure 10. Exterit of rnarsl--i f1c-oding at sEqi-tF--,-rvtial elevatioris (0.9cll -ft. NGVID). 28 Ex t e n t -F ri-i -f J. 0 d i @El t; S EN- IA e@ 1-1 t J. a 1 G! P V A t Y., 5 I . 0 f t . N Cl v 11'.) 29 2-5- 2- c:1 1.5- 0.5- 0 V V'*'@@ V -0.5 .M A M J J A 9 0 N D J F M A M J J A S 0 N D J F M MARCH 1962-MARCH 1964- Fi gure 12. Water leve I f I UCtLt at ions at I ropciuridment #12 during st udy. INDIAN ]RIVER 11,A(:;OON 13 - 2.5- 2- 1.5- 0.5- 0- -0.5- M A M J J A S 0 N C> ,J. F* M A M J J A S. 0 N D J F M MARCH 19S2-MARCH 1984 Fiqure.13. Water, level fli_IctLkaticiris at Impoundment #12 di-tri-rig st udy. 30 AEDES SIPP. ID-4 IMPOUNDMENrr 12 WEST A 150- 130- 120- 110- 100- go- 70- Go- 50- 40- ,30 - 20 10 0 JL ...... M A M J J A S 0 N D ...... i F M A M J J A S 0 F-- M MARCH 1982-APRIL 1984- F i L u r c-:, 14. MoSCII-titO pv"oductic-ri it Impoundrile-rit #12 duri-ricl -study. 1-2 WEST B 5- 4-- 0 M A M J J A S 0 N 0 J F M A M J J A S 0 N D J F M MARCH 1982-MARCH 1984- Fig-tre 15. mcosqUitl-D at Impol-tridroe-rit #12 di-tring -.ti.t(-.jv. 31 AEDES SPP IN IMPOUr*-TDMENT 12 WEST 0 0' 19 - 0' 16- 0- 1-7 - 0- 16- 0' 1@5 - 0" 14-- 0- 113 - 0-12- rL 0.11 - 0.1 - 0.09 0.08 0.07 0106- 0.04-- 0.03- 0.01 0 M A M J J A S 0 N D J F M A M J J A S 0 N D J F M MARCH 1982-MARCH 1984. Fiqlxr,e 16. @llcscluitt--- prctciuction at Impol-kridme'rit fll- during study. .A-12j it!j r!l r:9 ke it"m -t r1l it " Vo t-;p �*-t fA rl"t :L )14:! f,4C>R-rF-i A 150- I zso 120- .110- 100- 90- so- 70- 60- 50- 4-0 - ,30 - 20- 10 Od I . ...... ..... I. .......... ...... .. .................... ............ N .... 1-11-11N ......... -.6-001 mill M A M J J S C> N D J F M A M J J A S N i F m MARCH 1982-AFIRIL 1984 Fiaurc@- 17. !Ylt---.:3quit,--., EAt 11-ilp-Dullidroe-rit u c.: V. 32 A-EDES SPP. IN IMP0UrsZDMEl'-,Trr 12 NORTH B 14-0- 1130 - 100- CL 90 - 25 @-80 - 70 - 60 - 50- 40 - ,30 - 20 - 10 - 0 I-------- . ........... M A M J J A S 0 N D J r M A M J J A S 0 N D J F M MARCH 11982-APRIL 1984 at Irnor-o-indri-ient di-tri-ilig .AEDIES SIPIP. IN IMPOUNDMErSVIC -12 150 NORTH C 14-0 120 - 110 - 100 - 9 0 - so - 70 - 60- 50- 40 - 30 - 20 - 10 - 0 M A M J J A S 0 N D J F M A M J J A S 0 N D J F M MARCH 1982--APRIL 1984 F-- j. j tuciv. 33 A, IM Iff; LS ZS.V IP I rq 11 M F' ID XJ r*-T M IE: IST -r I Z EAST A 2.8- 2.6- 2.4-- 2.2 0.8- 0.6- 0.4-- 0.2- 0 M A M J J A S 0 N D J 'F' M A M i J A S 0 N D J F M MARCH 1982-MARCH 1984 Figi-tre *C--'O. 11C,SqUitO prr-ductic,ri at Impol-undroerit #12 dUl--ifl@j StUdY, AEDES SPP. IN IMPOUNDMED-IT JL 2 i5o - EAST B 140- 1,30- 120 - 110- 100- CL 90 - 80 - 70- 60- 50- 40 - 30- 20 10 0 ......... ....... ........... -------- ................... M A M J J A 3'*"-oN M A M J J A S 0 N 0 J F M MARCH 1982-ARRIL- 1981P, Floure 'c-l. Mc-squitc, prf.-jcji-tctj,Drj at Impoundment #12 34 A-EDES SPP. IN IMPOUNDMENrl' 12 150 144-0 - 130 - 120- 110- 100- 90- 80- 60 50- 40- ,30 - 2- 0 10 0 ............... ...... ......................... ................... ......... ............... ... ^SON CT"'i j j N D J MARCH 1982--APRIL 1984- 1 i-QUre E_'2. AEDES ]LAP-7DINa aArrES 80- IRMCD IMPOUNDMENT 12 70- 60 50- 4-0 - 30- 10 0 M A M J J A S 0 N 0 1 F M A M J J A S 0 N D 0 F M MARCH 1982-MARCH 1984- 0 U @@l l'i @..:j SIG 1-i Cl -Y. 35 RAINIFAILIL IRMCD IMPOUNDMENT 12 5- 4-- M A M J J A S 0 N D J F M A M J J A S 0 N 0 1 F M MARCH 1982-MARCH l9a4- i 24. Rainfall At Irtipl-Wridment #I*C*--' during study. .4 i..t r E FISH AND MACROCRUSTACEAN POPULATION DYNAMICS IN A TIDALLY INFLUENCED IMPOUNDED SUB-TROPICAL MARSH R. Grant Gilmore Principal Investigator Harbor Branch Foundation, Inc. RR 1 Box 196 Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 FISH AND MACROCRUSTACEAN POPULATION DYNAMICS IN A TIDALLY INFLUENCED IMPOUNDED SUB-TROPICAL MARSH INTRODUCTION Prior to the work of Harrington and Harrington (1961) subtropical high marsh fish populations had received little systematic study. The Harringtons were principally inter- ested in trophic studies although repetitive sampling of fishes allowed species composition and temporal distribution in the high marsh to be determined during a single month (Sept. - Oct.). Their study site was subsequently impounded (Impoundment No. 12, Bidlingmeyer and McCoy 1978) to control salt marsh mosquito populations, Aedes taeniorhychus and A. solicitans (Harrington and Harrington, 1961). This method of mosquito control was very effective but eliminated much of the natural abiotic and biotic processes of the high marsh. Unfortunately, the study of natural fish movements and population dynamics was not conducted during this preimpoundment period. During 1977 a neighboring impounded high marsh was opened to tidal influence. The ichthyofauna of this latter marsh site was subsequently compared with that of Impound- ment No. 12 with some treatment of annual changes in species relative abundance during 197; and 1980 (Gilmore et al., 1982). This study demonstrated that minor tidal access allowed immigration of marsh transients from the adjacent estuary, and that these transients contributed a numerically 2 significant portion of the marsh fauna on a seasonal basis. All commercial and sport fishery species which utilize marsh habitat were found to be members of this transient group while all were absent from the impounded marsh without tidal access (Gilmore et al., 1982; Harrington and Harrington, 1982). Although the Gilmore et al. (1982) study presented limited temporal quantitative information.it and previous studies were essentially qualitative. Detailed quantitative study of fish movements between high marsh, low marsh and outer estuarine waters on diel, biweekly and seasonal bases within a tidally influenced impounded subtropical marsh had not been conducted. We therefore chose to conduct the first detailed quantitative study of the ichthyofauna of Impoundment No. 12 which had been previously studied by Harrington and Harrington (1961, 1982) and Gilmore et al. (1982). The 18.3 hectare (50.0 acre) marsh was reopened to tidal influence through a single 45.7 cm (18 inch) diameter culvert in February 1982. As detailed trophic analyses had also been conducted by Harrington and Harrington (1961, 1982), we continued the trophic dynamic studies of the ichthyofauna associated with this specific marsh site. This allows a comparative analysis of changes in energy sources before, during and after marsh impoundment had totally excluded high marsh-estuarine interchange of water and organisms (Harrington and Harrington 1961 and 1982). 3 Fish and macrocrustacean population dynamics and dynamics of physical parameters determined in this study are anticipated to present data allowing increased precision in management of impoundments for mosquito control and yet allow the optimum exchange and maintenance of estuarine organisms,, many of which have a great economic impact on the fisheries of Florida. Impoundment closure periods will impact organism migration between the estuary and the impoundment (Gilmore et al. 1982). Timing closure and reopening periods carefully will minimize this impact. Use of devices which allow organism transport during closure periods will minimize migratory impact. Other management strategies such as installing additional culverts or overpumping may moderate potentially lethal physical parameters enhanced by management structures or closure periods. Determining the periods of major concern and the most effective means of moderating water quality parameters to reduce organism stress and mortality would be a major management asset. COLLECTION SITE DESCRIPTIONS Detailed descriptions of Impoundment 12 are presently in the published literature (Harrington and Harrington, 1961, 1982; Gilmore et al., 1982). Figure 1 illustrates the relative location of the collecting sites. Each site has a literal designation and a numerical designation to allow computer analysis of the data obtained from these locations. 4 Both are designated in the illustration and within Table 1. The upper marsh includes stations SP-1 (50), SP-2 (51), P-1 (52) and P-3 (53). Transitional stations located at the mouth of rivulets draining the upper marsh into the perimeter ditch are designated as DD-1 (40), DD-2 (41) and DD-3 (42). Perimeter ditch stations are regarded as lower marsh stations, Northwest Pond (30), Tarpon Hole (70), pull net transects (60 & 71), and the culvert stations, South Culvert (61) and North Culvert (72). The artificial perimeter ditch is considered to be lower marsh during this study and all references to the lower marsh are limited to stations located within the perimeter ditch. All stations within the Haeger Cove, seagrass bed (62), and sand bottom (63) are considered open estuarine or Indian River lagoon stations as is the Outside Pond station (31) situated in a tidal Rhizophora - Avicennia forest on the northwest corner of the western projection of the impoundment. METHODS A variety of gear types are necessary in order to obtain the appropriate qualitative and quantitative data on highly mobile and easily conditioned organisms. In addition, a range of microhabitats must be sampled throughout a 24 hr period(to account for the well documented diel movements of fishes and macrocrustaceans, over a variety of tidal cycles at periodic intervals throughout the year (e.g., two moon phases per month). Finally, several 5 years of information should be obtained to differentiate seasonal variations in physical parameters which may affect fish and crustacean distribution patterns. To account for these considerations collections were made on all tidal cycles throughout the entire diurnal period at two week intervals at a variety of sites using multiple gear types from March 1982 to February 1983 (Fig. 1, Table 1). This covered the majority of microhabitats available to fishes within the study area. Complete diel (24 hr) collections were made at monthly intervals in the lower marsh and at culvert sites from August 1983 to January 1984. The examination of several annual cycles was out of the scope of this study. GEAR TYPES: Eight gear types were used for fish and crustac ean collections (Table 2). Many of these were specifically designed to capture fishes in the microhabitats studied. Heart trap: An aluminum frame, adjustable aperture (to 35 mm), 3.2 mm ace weave mesh 0.62 x 0.78 m, 0.63 m deep heart trap was used to capture fishes moving through shallow depressions extending onto the-upper marsh from the edge of the perimeter ditch (Fig. 2). The theoretical concept for this design requires that fishes contacting the trap from any direction will follow the heart shaped contour to the aperture. This same trap was used during the earlier Harrington surveys of this same marsh and the trap was assembled from rough drawings made by Harrington's 6 colleagues at the Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory. The heart trap was used to obtain a qualitative sample of fishes moving between the perimeter ditch and the upper marsh. It was also used in paired synchronous sets made outside of the impoundment dike in two shallow tidal basins surrounded by mangrove forest (station 31). Sets were made overnight over an entire 24 hr cycle. Culvert trap: A 1.52 4 long trap was also designed specifically to collect organisms passing through the culvert. It is basically a 44 cm diameter aluminum cylinder wedged into the culvert with compressible tubing between the trap and the culvert. Two 3.2 mm mesh cones are inserted in either end and a central 3.2 mmApartition separates capture chambers on either side. This allows fishes swimming against currents, rheotaxic forms, and those moving with the current to be kept in separate chambers. The cylinder is cut along its longitudinal axis and hinged so that the trap could be easily opened to remove its contents. The culvert trap was set for one hour collections every two hours throughout a 24 hr period at monthly intervals at both culvert sites from September 1983 to January 1984. Culvert net: In addition to the culvert traps a 1.7 x 1.0 x 1.3 m, 3.2 mm mesh bait box net was modified to fish the water exiting the culvert (Fig. 2). A 0.7 x 0.2 m cylindrical collar with a 0.5 m long, funnel was used to connect the net to the culvert with a metal clamp serving as 0 a holding device. Wood stakes were used to support the net 7 corners during the set. This system was used to capture organisms exiting the impoundment or entering by switching the net from one end of the culvert to the other when the tide changed. This was done at biweekly intervals from March 1982 to February 1983. The following mobile fish capture techniques were used to determine fish density and biomass and to capture organisms that might not necessarily enter static traps: Throw net: A 1.0 m 2 throw net (Kushlan 1981) was used to take density and biomass samples in the SP-1 and SP-2 upper marsh ponds. Three replicates were taken in SP-1 at flood to high tide while three replicates were taken both at flood-high and ebb-low in SP-2. Although the throw nets sampled a smaller area than the seines used, fish density and biomass estimates were much larger in the 1.0 m 2 samples (Table 3). Seine nets: A tarred, 3.08 m, 3.2 mm ace mesh bag seine was pulled over measured set transects on all tidal cycles in both SP-1 and SP-2. The 3.08 m bag seine was also used to sample the P-1 and P-3 ponds at the ebb-low tide stage. The same net was used to sample 90 m 2 transects over a seagrass bed and open sand bottom adjacent to the impound- ment. A 15.2 m, 3.2 mm ace mesh bag seine was used to sample m transects in seagrass beds from August 1983 to January 1984. Pull net: A tarred 2 m x 5.65 m, 3.2 mm ace weave pull net was specifically designed to sample the perimeter ditch 8 microhabitat (Fig. 2). The net was designed to operate similar to a trawl. Lateral netting panels (1.3 x 2 m) replaced trawl doors and a double float line was installed to insure the cod end did not collapse and to aid in capture of aerial escapees (e.g. mullet, Mugil cephalus). A "many-ends" bottom line consisting of a lead line core within a multiple fiber cord bundle was used to insure that the bottom line did not bury into the soft mud when pulled. The net was fished along a set transect and pulled with handlines to a barrier net suspended across a foot bridge spanning the perimeter ditch. The pull net was fished biweekly on each tidal cycle during the diurnal sampling schedule of 1982-83. Pull net samples were taken adjacent to culvert sites, 60 and 72, once during the day and once at night on the same tidal cycle during the September 1983 January 1984 sample period. Cast net: A 2.8 m radius, 2.5 mm mesh cast net was used to sample the NW Pond site, a deep (to 2 m) circular pond well suited for this sampling strategy. Three throws were made during the morning flood-high tide and again during the afternoon ebb-low tide periods. SPECIMEN TREATMENT AND DATA ANALYSIS All specimens were fixed in 10% formalin, washed and preserved in 70% ethanol. Prior to preservation they were sorted to species and weighed and measured (standard length). Species with over 50 individuals were subsampled with a randomly picked sample of 50 used for length-weight 9 distribution of the species. Total species sample weight of large collections was taken and mean weights of subsamples were used to calculate the total number of specimens, which in some cases reached in the tens of thousands in a single collection. All of these data were entered directly into a computer with a terminal located in the specimen processing center to eliminate key punch errors by second parties. Files of physical data and biological data were formatted similarly to allow for correlative analysis. Computer data entry-forms were standardized and associated with programs to check species spelling and other erroneous data. This allowed several assistants to enter data even though they may not have extensive computer backgrounds. All data was stored in a PRIME 750 (4 MB) computer system with INFO, BMD and MINITAB information processing and statistical analyses capabilities. In addition a battery of programs was written at the systems operating level and within INFO to produce reports, plots, etc. and to interact with statistical packages from a series of master menus. PHYSICAL PARAMETER TECHNIQUES Physical parameters monitored were water levels, dissolved oxygen, salinity, temperature and pH. Water levels were recorded with three electric and spring drive continuously recording meters permanently set in the upper marsh pond, P-1, in the perimeter ditch at the South Culvert, 61 and outsideAthe time of organism capture on calibrated stakes set in P-1, NW Pond, perimeter ditch at 10 the South Culvert and outside the impoundment at the South Culvert. Dissolved oxygen was recorded at the time of organism capture on a temperature-salinity compensated meter and on recording meters set up to continuously record D.O. levels throughout a 24 hr period within the perimeter ditch at the South Culvert and the North Culvert. Salinities were recorded on a temperature compensated A.0. refractometer. Temperatures were recorded with hand held thermometers or with the temperature sensor of the portable D.O. meter. Hydrogen ion concentrations (pH) were measured with a portable field unit until probe failure and maintenance proved too costly. PH measurements were discontinued after 31 August 1982. FEEDING ANALYSES Feeding analyses were made as compatible with the previous work of Harrington and Harrington (1961, 1982) as possible. Their volumetric analysis with the use of grids was utilized with a seive sorting technique added (derived from Carr and Adams 197.1). Observations of various species in the field greatly aided in determining the source of some of the more abundant food sources (e.g., detrital algal conglomerates). Five species were chosen for analysis based on their trophic standing and numerical abundance. The species examined were Cyprinodon variegatus, Poecilia latipinna, Gambusia affinis, Elops saurus and Mugil cephalus. Fishes examined were divided into size groups for ontogenetic comparisons and into spatial groups, e.g., upper and lower marsh and outside impoundment groups. Each month is to be examined for temporal transitions in diet. However, time only allowed several hundred specimens to be 0j exmined for the months of March and June, 1982. A The multiple linear regression analysis included was produced from a INFO - MINITAB interactive program. RESULTS The Fish and Crustacean Community A total of 242,729 specimens (134.87 kg) representing 50 species were captured during the survey, 14 of which could be considered marsh residents with the capability of reproducing within the confines of the marsh (230,105 individuals or 94.8% of the total catch; Tables 4,5,6,7). The 14 resident species belong to seven families three of which were found to dominate numerically, Cyprinodontidae, Poeciliidae and Palaemonidae. The atherinids, Dormitator maculatus and Achirus lineatus occur often enough in marsh samples to be considered residents although their reproductive strategies are not fully understood. Of the 33 transient species captured, 15 are considered ephemeral migrators, while 9 are considered seagrass residents with no constant utilization of the marsh habitat. Seagrass residents are Syngnathus scovelli, Lagodon rhom- boides, Eucinostomus gula, E. argenteus, Gobiosoma robustum, Hippolyte pleurocanthus, Orchestia grillus, Eurytium limosum and Taphromysis bowmani. Migrating planktivores that 12 occurred in the marsh sporadically are Brevoortia smithi, Sardinella achovia and Anchoa mitchilli. Infrequently captured eurytopic migrators are Anguilla rostrata, Myrophis punctatus, Strongylura marina, Lutjanus griseus,, Gerres cinereus, Diapterus auratus, D01paAplterus plumieri, Archosargus probatocephalus, Poqonias cromis, Leiostomus xanthurus, Mugil curema and Sphyreana barracuda. Marsh transients that actually depend on the marsh as a habitat for a portion of their life cycle were Elops saurus, Megalops atlanticus, Centropomus undecimalis, Mugil cephalus, Penaeus duorarum, Penaeus aztecus and Callinectes sapidus. At this time we are not able to place Microgobius gulosis into a specific category, however, this species has a general occurrence in both seagrass beds and around mangrove prop roots, oyster beds, etc. in both fresh and saline water (Gilmore 1977; Gilmore et al. 1981). Twenty of the transient species captured are of commercial or sport fishery value and all of these spawn in open estuarine, neritic or pelagic habitats (Tables 4,5). FISH AND MACROCRUSTACEAN POPULATION DYNAMICS Figure 3 depicts spatial and temporal dynamics of total organism densities determined during the March 1982 - February 1983 sampling period. Spatial distribution: These data indicate that the lower marsh (= perimeter ditch) contains the majority of organisms even though a larger sample area was collected in the upper marsh. Fish dispersal over the more extensive upper marsh 13 and therefore lower densities accounts for much of this bias. Fish densities within seagrass beds were somewhat lower than the perimeter ditch but could undoubtedly be a partial artifact of the use of a single technique to monitor this site, i.e., a 3.1 m bag seine. The seine does not produce as high density estimates as the throw net as was demonstrated in the throw net-seine comparison for the upper marsh (Table 3). Seagrass bed fish density estimates did, however, surpass upper marsh densities even though better quantitative techniques were utilized at the latter site. Sand bottom habitats contained far fewer organisms through- out the year than any of the other microhabitats sampled. Very similar results can be seen in biomass distribution patterns (Fig. 4). If we separate marsh transient species from residents we find differences in spatial utilization of the marsh (Figs. 5, 6, 7). The resident and transient fauna is typically more speciose in the lower marsh. The resident fauna is more speciose than the transient fauna on the upper marsh. More species of residents and transients occur outside the impoundment than on the upper marsh. Temporal and spatial distribution: Resident richness (i.e., no. of species) remains nearly constant throughout the year in the upper marsh while transient species richness reaches a seasonal low from April to August peaking during the fall, in November. The transient fauna is more speciose than the resident fauna in the lower marsh from July to late November 14 with a reversal of this trend from March to early July (Fig. 5). Outside'of the confines of the impoundment )marsh residents were present in sufficient richness and numbers to make it difficult to determine temporal patterns in richness except that fewer resident species were found outside of the impoundment during the fall and during thermal depressions, 25 January 1983 (Figs. 5, 6). The number of individuals for both residents and transients (Fig. 6) captured showed definite seasonal trends at all locations. Resident populations peaked in the upper marsh during March, May, July, late November-December and February. Transient species were most abundant on the upper marsh from November through May. A similar pattern was seen for both transients and residents in the lower marsh although a periodic peak in resident populations was seen from March through June. Outside the impoundment transient species again showed a basic fall-winter-spring series of peaks in abundance while resident$ populations showed periodic peaks throughout the year with greatest abundance during the winter and early spring. Table 9 reveals the spatial-temporal distribution of the more abundant transient species based on a total number of individuals collected throughout the year. Typically the largest catch of these organisms took place in the culvert trap (60) as migration into or out of the marsh required passage at this location.' The perimeter ditch adjacent to the culvert also showed larger concentrations of transients. 15 Movement up onto the upper marsh was most prevalent in Elops saurus and Mugil cephalus. Centropomus undecimalis, Leiostomus xanthurus, Pogonias cromis, Callinectes sapidus, Penaeus spp. and Megalops atlanticus also occurred in the upper marsh collections but in much lower numbers and tended to prefer the lower marsh, perimeter ditch microhabitat. Anchoa mitchilli and Leiostomus xanthurus were much more abundant outside of the impoundment, the former in seagrass beds (62), the latter over sand bottom (63). Penaeid shrimp were also more abundant in the adjacent seagrass bed. Mean individual weight for transients is greater than that of resident species therefore reducing the bias in collection weight seen in the lower marsh, as both species groups contribute similar amounts to the lower marsh fish and crustacean collection weight (Fig. 7). Transient species show two major peaks in collection weight, first during the spring, May through early July, and then the late summer to winter ,,August to January. From late July to January transient collection weight remains rather stable, around 1 kg, in the lower marsh while the resident species drop significantly from late September through November. On the upper marsh transient weight is significantly greater than resident weight in July despite a much larger resident population in the collections. This is principally due to the abundance of larger Elops saurus on the upper marsh at this time. 16 PHYSICAL PARAMETERS Physical parameters are particular Ily vital to biologi- cal activity in a transitional semi-aquatic habitat such as the subtropical high marsh under study. Relative to other aquatic ecosystems physical parameters in this habitat undergo extreme variation. This is due to the ephemeral water cover which is usually no more than a few centimeters over the greater expanse of the marsh. Variations in atmospheric parameters such as temperature, precipitation, ambient sunlight, wind and evaporation rates are all capable of producing greater change in the high marsh physical environment than in any other local aquatic habitat. The highest aquatic temperatures and salinities recorded from any estuarine habitat on the east coast of Florida were recorded from Impoundment 12 (43*C, Harrington and Harrington, 1961; 200+ ppt, Gilmore et al., 1982). During the 1982-1984 study period, several thousand physical parameter measurements were made, sufficient to compare to long term norm records for the region, particularly with regard to temperature, salinity and precipitation patterns. During 1982 water temperatures peaked in April and September (Fig. 8, Table 10; 369 measurements between March 1982 and February 1983). Mean water temperatures only went below 20 IC in March, late January and early February. Water salinities generally reach*their annual minimum during the late summer and fall (Wilcox and Gilmore, 197Cp; Gilmore, 1977; Gilmore et al., 17 1981). However, during 1982-83 unusual rainfall patterns produced annual mean salinity minima in June and February although the absolute minimum salinity value of the year was measured during August. Figure 9 compares the 76 year mean precipitation pattern for the Fort Pierce, NOAA, EDS, recording station with the 1982-83 precipitation pattern recorded at the impoundment study site. The extreme lack of correlation of precipitation records with the norm was a regional phenomena and was not isolated to the study site. Dissolved oxygen levels also fluctuated widely, particularly within the deeper perimeter ditch (Figs. 10, 11, 12). Mean oxygen minima occurred in April and late June to July. Although D.O. values ranged widely during the remainder of the year after July, the overall mean generally stayed above 5.0 ppm. Daily minima typically went below 3.0 ppm on 24 hr recordings made within the perimeter ditch at the entrance to the South Culvert (Figs. 13-15). PH values were below 7.0 throughout March and early April but went above 8.0 in May and remained above 7.0 for those records that were taken on into September after which the meter failed. Water level meters recorded fluctuations at three locations, the upper marsh (pond, P-1), the lower marsh (perimeter ditch at the South Culvert site, 60-61) and outside the South Culvert in Haeger Cove, a finger of open estuary, the Indian River lagoon. These recordings provided detailed observations of coupling and uncoupling between 18 tidal am plitude in the open estuary and within the impound- ment, which in turn correlated well with the numerical catch of fishes and macrocrustaceans. Figures 9 and 17 show the recordings obtained from these meters, moon phase and rainfall records from the impoundment. As the sea level is at its maximum from September to late November the water level in the impoundment was virtually stored with little opportunity to leave on an ebb tide through a single 45.7 cm diameter culvert, thus uncoupling the tidal amplitudes between the marsh and the estuary until 30 November. The water level variation again uncoupled during the second week of December, coupled the last week in December, and uncoupled during all of January until early February. Neap tide coupling occurred in March and as the sea level reaches its minimum in late March and April the records reveal a coupling or synchronization in tidal amplitudes between the impoundment and the estuary. The periods of uncoupling are characterized by complete submergence of the upper marsh through both high and low lunar tidal cycles. Precipitation may have been a factor in keeping impoundment water levels high from 20-23 January and during late February and March as sea levels had come down during this period. The upper marsh typically dries out during the low sea level and low rainfall periods of the late winter and spring (Figs. 8, 9, 10). During this period upper marsh ponds still containing water typically become hypersaline (Fig. 10; Gilmore et al., 1982). However, the 1982 dry season was 19 wet with 14.7 in (37.3 cm) of rain measured at the impoundment site from March to May (Fig. 9). Rainfall depressed upper marsh salinities down to values between 30 and 35 ppt between March and May. Upper marsh dissolved oxygen values also dropped during March and early April as the water warms up within shallow ponds as photosynthetic activity increases. However, this D.O. reduction is not as great in the upper marsh as it is in the lower marsh perimeter ditch. The lower marsh and estuarine salinity and temperature pattern was more moderate, as deeper more permanent water was always connected to the open estuary (Fig. 11). However, dissolved oxygen levels varied considerably in the perimeter ditch approaching lethal levels for resident and transient organisms during March and June-July (Figs. 11, 13-15). ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS AND POPULATION DYNAMICS Water level fluctuation is the most obvious environmental parameter effecting the temporal distribution of fishes and crustaceans within the marsh. Due to the regional nature of the tidal amplitudes and sea level fluctuations, the subtropical high marsh in this portion of Florida is only seasonally inundated. The majority of the original high marsh was covered completely by water only during the highest tides on the highest sea level peak of the year, from September to November (Fig. 16). Along the 20 Florida east coast the most notable tidal amplitudes are caused by lunar phase (generally twice monthly) and lunar distance from the earth (perigean tides every 4 1/2 years). The largest lunar phase tides occur on every new and full moon throughout the year and are known as Xpring tides. The new moon Spring tides are larger than full moon Spring tides from winter to spring. The opposite is true during the late summer and fall. Although there are seasonal fluctuations in Spring tide amplitudes, these tides have their greatest effect within the Indian River lagoon when they occur on the annual sea level rise during the late summer and fall. Therefore regional sea level rise has a greater overall effect on tidal amplitudes than does any other water level factor. Even though it is impoundedthe majority of the marsh is still high marsh with the same inundation pattern. However, considerable low marsh has been created with the creation of the perimeter ditch during impoundment construction. This low marsh acts as a refugium during marsh exposure when sea level declines. Larger species (i.e., tarpon) that would normally migrate to deep estuarine habitats remain in the perimeter ditch after upper marsh exposure. The seasonal population changes in resident fishes and crustaceans (Fig. 16, Table 11) reveal 'ere=m-re several important patterns. Early in the year, from January to June, when sea level is at its lowest, there is an obvious lunar periodicity with peak numerical abundance in the low 21 marsh. hyvery new moon phase from January 9 to May 20 there is a peak in resident fish populations at this location, particularly 2. variegatus, P. latipinna and F. Sonfluentus. During every full moon from January 25 to June 3rd there is a lower resident population in the low marsh with an overall decline in populations through this five to six month period (winter - spring). It is also noteworthy that outside of the marsh during March and April resident populations reached a peak and low on the opposite lunar phase, high on full moon and low on new. Migration of individuals from the marsh through the culvert to the adjacent seagrass beds is a possibility and culvert data is analyzed for this movement below. Another pattern which is directly associated with water level is the total decline in all organisms in our samples during sea level rise in June and the late summer and fall. Percent occurrence remains stable, increases or declines only slightly for C. variegatus, Gambusia affinis, Palaemonetes spp., Mugil cephalus, and Elops saurus during this period (Figs. 18-20; Table 11). This reveals that these organisms are dispersed between the stations even though a population reduction is seen at the specific collecting sites. Field observations show many of these species to be present across the entire inundated surface of the high marsh. Therefore extensive population decline at our upper marsh pond and perimeter ditch sites is due to the dispersal of previously clumped individuals over a much 22 wider area within the impoundment. This dispersal phenomenon is confirmed when the sea level declines in November and large concentrations of both residents and transients are found in deeper upper marsh ponds and low marsh. This occurs when tidal amplitudes of the estuary couple or synchronize with the impoundment tidal amplitudes (Fig. 17). The lowest numerical catch of the year occurred on 27 October (407 individuals) during the highest water levels of the year; the highest numerical catch one month occu rreck later on 29 November (59,581 individuals; Table )A when sea levels fell. The low marsh then acts as a low sea level - dry season refugium. The tidal amplitude coupling phenomena and the increase in overall catch can be seen in Figure 17. By February and March the majority of the marsh, the entire upper marsh except for the deeper ponds, is dry and a lunar coupling pattern takes place. The overall increase in catch with the decline in water levels causes the generally negative correlation of all major species with mean water level. Although the catch of organisms that readily invade the high marsh declined with increased tide levels, those transient species that preferred low marsh (perimeter ditch microhabitats) increased in numbers with increasing water levels. This positive correlation was only statistically significant with Menidia spp. and Fundulus confluentus, but was positive when the majority of high marsh species showed negative correlations with other parameters (Table 12). The 23 two species that showed this recruitment pattern were the snook, Centropomus undecimalis and the tarpon, Megalops atlanticus. When recruitment of these latter two species was compared with long term water level and precipitation patterns, positive correlations were found with mean high water and weak negative correlations with precipitation (Fig. 21, Table 13). An observation that cannot be completely explained by water level change is the drop in catch on January 25th, 1983 shown by populations of all species within the marsh. This population decline correlates well with the minimum recorded water temperatures, 13.50C with an average of 16.6*C in addition to water level coupling (Figs. 8, 12; Table 9). When mean dissolved oxygen levels for all stations combined reached their seasonal lows of 3.2 ppm, ranging to less than 1.0 ppm, during late June and early July, there was a decline in numerical catch of C. variegatus, P. latipinna, G. affinis and F. confluentus. All except for possibly F. confluentus showed an increase in occurrence in samples indicating a dispersal across the upper marsh where dissolved oxygen remained more stable (Figs. 18-20). The low marsh perimeter ditch typically produces the lowest dissolved oxygen levels during this period and in combination with a June sea level rise (Fig. 11; Appendix 1), causes a dispersal of organisms across the upper marsh, and decline in catch at the stations monitored. Mean 24 salinities also decline during June due to tidal dilution of hypersaline upper marsh waters and increased rainfall. Correlation coefficients determined for various physical parameters recorded at the time of capture demon- strated that dissolved oxygen has more significant correlations than the other parameters and precipitation the least (Table 12). Our pH records were limited to the first six months of the 1982-83 survey as the meter did not survive the intensive field work. As pH and salinity are highly correlated those species most greatly correlated with pH were also correlated with salinity (Table 12). TIDE ANALYSIS From March 1982 to February 1983 organisms were collected either on a daylight high to ebbing tide or from a low to flooding tide, the majority on either the ebb or flood. This allowed a tidal comparison of fish and crustaceans captured on the upper and lower marsh. The culvert net set during this period also allowed examination of fishes moving through the culvert on a 3 hr ebbing tide set and a 3 hr flooding tide set. Of particular interest for management purposes is the movement of fishes and crustaceans through the culvert (South culvert, 61; Tables 14-15). Cyprinodon variegatus showed net movement into the impoundment through the culvert on flood tides from January to late April and May (Figs. 18,22,23,24). There was a net movement out in June and 25 July. Another net inward - flood tide movement occurred during August and September then a major movement out in November and December when the sea level receded (as it also did in late June and July). Overall totals of C. variegatus moving into and out of the impoundment during the various tidal cycles did not significantly favor one tide or the other although more fish were found to leave the impoundment. The early December mass of C. variegatus captured on the ebbing tide may have been just a minor portion of a major exodus from the marsh which was inadequately sampled on a biweekly schedule. It is likely, as seen in G. affinis and P. latipinna, that there is a large net movement of C. variegatus into the adjacent estuary when sea levels recede in the late fall and early winter (Table 14) . Poecilia latipinna, F. confluentus and G. affinis show a seasonal tidal movement pattern similar to C. variegatus. There is a major net movement of all species out of the marsh in June, November and December. Immigrations are most apparent from January to May and from July to September. Major transient species were recruited around adult spawning seasons with major flood tide immigration of E. saurus and M. cephalus (leptocephalus and querimana larvae, respectively) during the fall and winter (Table 15). A similar trend was seen for Callinectes sapidus. Juvenile snook, Centropomts undecimalis, were most abundant during is the fall, which is the peak spawning period for adult 26 populations. However, more specimens of C. undecimalis were collected on ebbing tide in late Wovember and December than on the flood tide. This indicates a net movement out of the marsh with the majority of the aquatic fauna when the sea level recedes. Apparently numbers collected earlier in September and October were not representative of the flood tide immigration that may have taken place during that period. It is also possible that the culvert net is collecting fish as they move back and forth through the culvert during immigration.and due to the ebb tide collection always preceding the flood collection fish removed by earlier collection were not captured later showing a bias toward the ebb collections. There was a major numerical difference in the tidal catch of all transient species with a strong bias toward flood tide captives. As large numbers of larvae and juveniles are collected on seasonal flooding tides and smaller numbers of larger juveniles are captured on ebbing tides mortality suffered during impoundment residency is probably responsible for the differential tidal collection. Tables 16-18 reveal that there was no consistent difference between culvert sites 61 and 72 even though they were fitted with different water level control devices. These results are preliminary and further study is necessary to determine if flap-gate and flap-gate riser systems are in fact different in their ability to attract and transport aquatic organisms. 27 TROPHIC ANALYSIS Qualitative distribution of stomach contents of the species examined for feeding studies are given in Tables 19-20. Although a variety of items were consumed several items dominated the diet of each species and an overall importance of certain food items to the marsh ecosystem was determined based on the relative abundance of the species consuming the item (Fig.31). The most abundant fish on the high marsh i@i C_ variegatus making up 38% of the total numerical catch. Feeding in this species was observed on several occasions in the field. Upper marsh specimens were observed to take mouthfulls of cyanobacterial (blue-green algae) -fungal mats found throughout the marsh. These mats were found to consist of a wide variety of protozoans, algae (chryso- phytes, chlorophytes), cyanobacteria and fungal myocelia with a varying amount of detrital material from decaying wood and other plant materials. Analysis of gut contents from C. variegatus captured during March and June revealed that the majority of the material consumed consisted of this algal-fungal-detrital mat material (Figs. 25-26). We have called this material a detrital-algal conglomerate, or "D.A.C." Fresh vascular plant material was also found and consisted primarily of the marsh succulent, Salicornia spp. Size class data demonstrates that consumption of DAC is prevalent throughout ontogeny. Diet diversity increased with fish length and from the upper marsh to outside the 28 impoundment. There is a spatial variation in DAC consumption as lower marsh and outside marsh fish contained less DAC than upper marsh specimens. More vascular plant material and sand was consumed in the lower marsh and foraminiferans in the outer marsh. In June no C. variegatus were taken outside of the impoundment and DAC consumption within the marsh declined. Poecilia latipinna consumed proportionately more DAC than C. variegatus with slightly more being consumed on the upper marsh.than on the lower marsh (Fig. 27). Vascular plant material played a smaller dietary role when compared to C. variegatus. Major ontogenetic changes in diet in P. latipinna were not evident, although when the 8-13 mm SL size class was represented in June more copepods were consumed. Gambusia affinis was a strict carnivore with distinct seasonal and spatial dietary variation (Fig. 28). During March the principal food item consumed were insects (including corixids), although at both upper and lower marsh locations copepods were the principal prey for specimens under 20 mm SL. Other arthropods such as spiders were also consumed. More corixids were consumed in the lower marsh while a more varied insect diet was seen in the upper marsh sample. Smaller size classes preyed principally uponcapepoA5 in March in both the upper and lower marsh. During June crustaceans dominated the diet with copepods and corixids 29 more abundant in upper marsh fish and amphipods dominating the diet of lower marsh fish. Mugil cephalus examined from both March and June contained mostly DAC and sand in all size classes (Fig. 29). Vascular plant material also made up a portion of the diet. Ostracods were evident in June samples but were not present in March. All specimens were from the lower marsh. Elops saurus entered the marsh habitat as Stage II leptocephalus larva (40-20 mm SL). March and June specimens were found to prey upon copepods (Fig. 30). Larger size classes in the upper marsh preyed upon copepods during March but began to diversify their diet with fish and insects. During June upper marsh fish contained mostly insects, no fish. However, no specimens over 75 mm SL were captured. Lower marsh fish preyed principally upon fish in March switching to a more diversediet in June of fish, amphipods, polychaetes and insects. Ladyfish were taken outside of the impoundment only in March and these contained mostly copepods although Stage II leptocephali contained DAC. Using these numerically dominant species as indicators of the fish trophic analysis for the marsh we can get some indication of where the majority of energy is derived for this portion of the animal community. Detrital-algal- conglomerates form the majority of material consumed (Fig. 31 This is true for both March and June, however, DAC forms a far larger portion of the diet in March when water levels are low, populations reduced and hypersaline 30 conditi ons exist. During June when water levels are higher and estuarine exchange is greater a more diverse diet is seen with more animal material being consumed. Consumption of fish increases slightly. However, amphipod, polychaete and ostracod consumption increases greatly. Corixid insect consumption declines considerably from March to June. Vascular plant consumption remains about the same. DISCUSSION Of the detrimental aspects of impoundment construction and management, destruction of marsh vegetation and dis- placement of transient fish and crustacean species (the majority of which support sport and commercial fisheries) are generally regarded as the most catastrophic. This study was conducted to determine management methodologies which would permit the latter organisms to utilize the impounded marsh much as they did prior to impoundment construction. As many of these organisms utilize the marsh as larval and juvenile refugia from predation and for the availability of abundant food resources during high growth rate periods, access during key seasonal recruitment periods is critical. The seasons of maximum transient species recruitment have now been determined for the most abundant organisms (Fig. 5; Table 11). Although some emigration occurs in June, most emigration of these organisms takes place during the late fall and winter months as sea levels fall (Fig. 16; Table 11). Present mosquito management protocol requests 31 for impoundment closure from May to September. Recruitment may take place during the closure period if organisms can find and enter a culvert fitted with water control apparatus which opens on a flooding tide. Egress would be virtually impossible until the fall opening. Our data now reveals that egress under more natural tidal conditions typically occurs during the late fall and winter months. it is at this time that the impoundment would be reopened to tidal circulation. Therefore, natural recruitment and emigration patterns of transient organisms which utilize the impounded marsh is basically compatible with a May - early September closure period, provided a means of impoundment entry is provided. Comparison of closed flapgate systems and flapgate riser systems was inconclusive. Further study is necessary to determine whether water flow out of the impoundment is necessary for fish and crustaceans to find the culvert. More culvert trap data must be collected. Trophic studies demonstrate that a detrital-fungal- algal substrate which covers much of the surface of the upper marsh is a primary source of nutrition for the numerically dominant resident species, C. variegatus and P. latipinna and the transient M. cephalus. A portion of this e @ material is derived from decaying wood of Avic,@nna nitida A which was killed during early flooding of the impoundment. A similar finding was made by Harrington and Harrington (1982) of fish diets examined after impoundment construction 32 in 1966. Vascular plants are increasing readily in this impoundment and make up a portion of the fish diet. This indicates that a succession of plant communities from algal-fungal-bacterial to vascular may be evident and will be revealed in the fish diets as the upper marsh becomes more heavily vegetated with vascular plants such as e i Salicornia spp., Batis maritima and AvlcX*nna nitida. A Mosquito larvae were not an abundant food item for any of the carnivorous fishes examined. The overall analysis of fish and macrocrustacean populations in Impoundment 12 reveals a community in succession with the restoration of tidal influence. Transient species previously excluded utilized the impoundment lower and upper marsh microhabitats. Food sources derived from the impoundment were consumed by transients as well as residents. Transient organisms were then found to transfer this energy derived from the impounded marsh to the estuary in the form of body protein etc., with their seasonal emigration to the open estuary. With these observations several suggestions for impoundment management can be made. 1. Fish distribution and abundance is greatly effected by water level. Major immigration into the impoundment occurs with sea level rise, May - June and August - October; and emigration from the impoundment with sea level fall, June - July and October - December. The impoundment should be open as long as possible, with major concern for 33 emigration periods in June - July and October - December. The most significant transient fish and crustacean inmigrations (including commercial and sport species) occurs during the fall, winter and early spring. 2. As water level is the major parameter effecting organism distribution in the impounded marsh, the influence of culverts on water level should be considered. The decoupling of tidal amplitudes between the marsh and open estuary due to a single 47.5 cm diameter culvert was observed as was the effect of coupling and decoupling on the distribution of organisms across the marsh. organisms were not as dispersed when tidal amplitudes were coupled but dispersed across the upper marsh when the tidal amplitudes decoupled and overall impoundment water levels were higher. The significance of this observation needs further study by may greatly effect population changes due to predation, immigration and emigration. 3. Dissolved oxygen was found to be capable of showing significant correllation with numbers of fishes and crustaceans captured. Dissolved oxygen revealed major declines in March - April and June - July. These declines were most significant in the perimeter ditch. Concern for oxygen mortalities should be greatest during these periods and within the perimeter ditch. No study of techniques to increase dissolved oxygen levels was made and we therefore 0 suggest that this be done. 34 4. Initial feeding study data indicate that although June was a significant mosquito breeding month, mosquito larvae did not play an important role in the diet of the most notorious marsh predator, Gambusia affinis. Although this species needs to be examined for the remainder of the year it is not a reliable predator on mosquito larvae, taking a wide variety of food organisms. Carnivorous marsh fishes examined continue to depend on algal-detrital materials for food which was found to be the case after impoundment construction. Vascular plants, eradicated during impoundment construction, have not yet become a major part of the fish diet, as they had been prior to impoundment construction. 35 LITERATURE CITED Bidlingmayer, W.L. and E.D. McCoy. 1978. An inventory of the saltmarsh mosquito control impoundments in Florida. Unpublished Rept. to Fish and Wildlife Serv., U.S. Dept. of Interior. 103 pp., 173 maps, Appendices I-III. Carr, W.E.S. and C.A. Adams. 1972. Food habits of juvenile marine fishes: Evidence of the cleaning habit in the leatherjacket, Oligoplites saurus, and the spottail pinfish, Diplodus holbrooki. Nat. Mar. Fish., Fish. Bull., 70(4): 111-120. Gilmore, R.G. 1977. Fishes of the Indian River lagoon and adjacent waters, Florida. Bull. Fla. St. Mus., Biol. Sci., 22(3): 101-147. Gilmore, R.G., C.J. Donohoe, D.W. Cooke and D.J. Herrema. 1981. Fishes of the Indian River lagoon and adjacent waters, Florida. Harbor Branch Foundation, Inc., Tech. Rpt. No. 41: 1-36, Table 1-28. Gilmore, R.G., D.W. Cooke and C.J. Donohoe. 1982. A comparison of the fish populations and habitat in open and closed salt marsh impoundments in east-central Florida. Northeast Gulf Sci., 5(2): 25-37. Gilmore, R.G., C.J. Donohoe and D.W. Cooke. 1983. Observations on the distribution and biology of east-central Florida populations of the common snook, Centropomus undecimalis (Bloch). Fla. Sci., 46(3/4): 313-336. Harrington, R.W. and E.S. Harrington. 1961. Food selection among fishes invading a high subtropical salt marsh: from onset of flooding through the progress of a mosquito brood. Ecol., 42(4): 646-666. . 1982. Effects on fishes and their forage organisms of impounding a Florida salt marsh to prevent breeding by salt marsh mosquitos. Bull. Mar. Sci., 32(2): 523-531. Kushlan, J.A. 1981. Sampling characteristics of enclosure fish traps. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 110(4): 557-562. Provost, M.W. 1974. Mean high water and use of tidelands in Florida. Fla. Sci., 36(l): 50-66. 1976. Tidal Datum planes circumscribing salt marshes. Bull. Mar. Sci., 26(4): 558-563. Wilcox, J.R. and R.G. Gilmore. 1976. Some hydrological data from the Indian River between Sebastian and St. Lucie Inlets, Florida January 1972 - February 1975. Harbor Branch Found., Tech. Rpt. No. 17 - pp. 1-104. Table 1. Sampling sites. Location and numerical Description Designation Upper Marsh SP-1; 50 240 m2 pond, elev. 3.3 cm above NGVD, occasionally completely dries.during dry season, March-April. Throw net & 3 m seine. SP-2; 51 1,312 m2 pond, elev. 6.1 cm above NGVD never found to be completely dry. Throw net & 3 m seine. P-1; 52 916 m2 pond, elev. 7.6 cm below NGVD, permanently wet. 3 m seine. P-3; 53 2,612 m2 pond, elev. 7.7 cm below NGVD, largest permanent pond on upper marsh. 3 m seine. Transition Zone DD-1; 40 rivulet entering perimeter ditch on north side of western upper marsh extension. Heart trap set at mouth of rivulet. DD-2; 41 rivulet entering perimeter ditch on south side of western upper marsh extension. Heart trap set at mouth of rivulet. DD-3; 42 edge of upper marsh at rivulet entering perimeter ditch at southernmost east-west ditch. Heart trap set at mouth of rivulet. Lower Marsh (Perimeter Ditch inside impoundment) Pull net site 1; 60 Net was pulled south along 200 m2 transect from South Culvert (61) to foot bridge. Edges of transect vegetated with mangroves and succulents. Pull net site 2; 71 Net was pulled north along 140 m2 transect from perimeter ditch to west bank of NW Pond at North Culvert (72). Edges of transect vegetated with mangrove of west, succulents-.on east. NW Pond; 30 100 m2 hectares circular pond to 2 m deep, made by erosive force of water pumped into the impoundment from the adjacent lagoon (Indian River). Cast net sample. Tarpon Hole; 70 Cove off north side of southern east-west ditch near junction with north-south western ditch. Cast net sample. Table 1. Sampling sites. (Continued) Location and numerical Description Designation Culvert sites South Culvert; 61 Original 6.8 m, 45.7 cm diameter culvert connecting southwestern north-south perimeter ditch with cove between impoundment and St. Lucie County Impoundment No. 24. Culvert was originally fitted with a riser board (on western end, outside of impoundment) to control impoundment water levels. Traps were set in the eastern end of the culvert, within the impoundment. North Culvert; 72 This 12 m, 45.7 cm diameter culvert was installed at the NW Pond in September 1983. It is fitted with a flapgate riser system on the eastern (inside impoundment) end. Traps were set in the western end of the culvert. Open Estuarine Sites Mangrove pond; 31 Two heart traps were set simultaneously in red mangrove lined ponds under direct tidal influence from the estuary. These small basins are located along the northeast shore of the impoundment dike. Seagrass 1; 63 In the central portion of the Cove adjacent to the South Culvert is a large bed of Halodule wrightii. This was sampled using 3 m and 15.4 m seines along measured transects. Sand bottom; 62 Sand shore along the mangrove fringe adjacent to the Seagrass 1 (63) transect was sampled with a 3 m seine. Seagrass 2; 73 This Halodule wrightii bed is located along the north shore of the impoundment and was sampled with a 15.4 m seine. Table-2. Gear types, sampling strategy for 17 stations where collections were made during the study period March 1982 - January 1984. Gear Station 30 31 40 41 42 50 51 52 53 60 61 62 63 70 71 72 73 10' SEINE 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 50' SEINE 4 4 PULL NET 1,4 4 CAST NET 1 5 CULVERT NET 1 CULVERT TRAP 4 4 1 M THROW TRAP 1 1 HEART TRAP 3 3 3 3 1 = diurnal flo 'od and/or ebb tide collections on biweekly interval, 1982-83. 2 = single diurnal collection on biweekly interval, 1982-83. 3 = diel collections, on biweekly interval, 1982-83. 4 = diel collections, on monthly interval, all tidal cycles, 1983-84. 5 = random periodic collections, 1982-83. Table 3. Comparison of 3.4 m seine and 1 m 2 throw net data for two upper marsh stations. SP-1 (50) SP-2 (51) SEINE THROW NET SEINE THROW NET No/m2 g/m 2 No/m2 g/m 2 No/m2 g/m 2 No/m 2 g/m 2 3-8 0.05 0.03 0 0 0.11 0.43 10.83 3.57 3-23 0 0 3.70 0.53 0.08 0.15 13.67 5.45 4-5 0 0 6.30 1.12 0.08 0.10 0 0 4-21 1.90 0.75 19.70 5.16 0.05 0.07 1.00 0.39 5-6 5.98 0.80 7.00 6.80 0.03 0.17 1.83 2.93 5-20 0 0 1.00 0.04 0.09 0.10 0 0 6-3 0.22 0.05 17.70 6.36 0.06 0.07 0.17 0.49 6-18 OA2 0.04 0.33 0.20 0.03 0.12 24.67 4.48 7-1 4.28 0.29 6.00 0.27 0.09 0.06 28.67 3.07 7-16 0.03 0.004 9.33 0.69 0.25 0.21 9.00 1.72 7-30 0.12 0.03 2.33 0.51 0.02 0.17 21.33 1.29 8-16 0.23 0.10 1.33 0.62 0.08 0.38 18.00 2.92 8-31 0.27 0.08 4.33 0.70 0.03 0.05 12.17 3.94 9-13 0.72 0.11 8.70 2.67 0.13 0.17 3.00 1.20 9-29 0.10 0.04 0 0 0.07 0.03 1.83 2.47 10-13 0.87 0.15 0 0 0.07 0.07 0 0 10-27 1.30 1.18 8.33 1.81 0.16 0.05 0 0 11-10 0.07 0.01 0 0 0.08 0.02 0 0 11-29 6.88 1.23 13.67 8.64 0.48 1.61 32.83 9.51 12-9 4.13 0.50 28.67 7.70 0.29 1.96 8.30 3.43 12-28 4.22 0.36 44.67 6.28 0.16 1.50 15.17 2.00 1-9 1.48 0.50 5.33 1.12 0.09 0.49 3.50 1.12 1-25 1.38 0.28 5.67 1.56 0.07 0.46 4.33 0.60 2-10 8.05 0.48 14.33 8.43 0.11 2.07 1.16 0.34 2-23 1.65 0.41 40.67 6.83 0.13 1.00 12.83 3.65 0 9 0 Table 4. Fish species captured in Impoundment No. 12 and vicinity from March 1982 to January 1984. MARSH RESIDENTS MARSH TRANSIENTS Teleosts Teleosts Lutjanidae Cyprinodontidae Clupeidae Lutjanus griseus* Cyprinodon variegatus Brevoortia smithi* G e r r-1 Ta -e Fundulus confluentus Brevoortia Diapterus auratus* Fundulus grandis Sardinella anchovia* Diapterus plumeiri Fundulus spp. Engraulidae Diaeterus spp.* Lucania parva Anchoa mitchilli Eucinostomus gula Rivulus marmoratus AnguilTi Eucinostomus argenteus Poeciliidae Anguilla rostrata* Gerres cinereus* Gambusia affinis Ophichthidae Sparidae Poecilia latipinna Myrophis Punctatus Archosargus probatrocephalus* AtNe-rinidae El;piaae Ua-g-6-66-n rhomboides* Menidia beryllina Elops saurus* Sciaenidae Menidia peninsulae Megalops atlanticus Leiostomus xanthurus* Menidia spp. Belonidae Pogonias cromis* ETe-o-t-r'i -da e Strongylura marina M-u g- 71@i ra 6-- Dormitator maculatus Cyprinodontidae Mugil cephalus Soleidae Fundulus similis Mugil curema* Achirus lineatus Syngnathidae Sphyreanidae Syngnathus scovelli Sphyreana barracuda* Centropomidae Gobiidae Centropomus undecimalis Microgobius gulosus Gobiosoma robustum species of commercial and/or sport fishery value. Table 5. Crustacean species captured in Impoundment No. 12 and vicinity captured from March 1982 to January 1984. MARSH RESIDENTS MARSH TRANSIENTS Palaemonidae Talitridae Palaemonetes spp. Orchestia grullus (P. I)Uqio, P. intermedius) Mysidae Ocypod-id-a-e Taphromysis bowmani Uca pugilator Hippolytidae Hippolyte pleurocanthus Penaeidae Penaeus duorarum* Penaeus aztecus* Penaeus spp.* Xanthidae Eurytium limosum Portunidae Callinectes,sapidus species of commercial and/or sport fishery value. ~0 Table 6. Total individuals collected, total species weight, % occurrence, all ranked by number of individuals for all stations and collections made between March 1982 and February 1983. 1 OF GRAND I OF GRAND SPECIFIC SPECIFIC TOTAL NUMBER TOTAL WEIGHT ABSOLUTE ~qRELA~qT~qivr GENUS-SPECIES NUMBER TOTAL WEIGHT TOTAL OCCURENCE OCCU~qkENCE ---------------------------~-~-~----------------------------~-~-------------------~-~----------------------- CYP~R~I~N~OD~qON VARIE~GATUS 90,123 37.73 ~q2 37,073.42 31.53 Z 339: 506 67.00 ~q2 ~G~~~~U~S~I~ AFFINIS 61,879 2~S.90 ~x 10,802.54 9.19 ~% 3~q20: 506 63.24 ~% ~P~OECILIA LATIPINNA 4~q5,6~q4~q8 ~q29.~q21 ~q2 28,6~q97.58 24.~40 ~qZ 295~: 506 5~q6.~q30 ~qx ~PAL~E~~O~E~qTES ~qS~F~I~F~, 27~v727 1~1.~61 ~qx 1,652.94 1.41 ~q2 251~: 506 ~49.~q60 ~x ELOPE S~AURUS ~4~,2~q8~5 ~q1.~q79 ~q% 4,13~q2.58 3.52 ~q2 1~q74~: 506 34.39 ~q2 ~HU~~IL CEP~HALUS 3,036 ~1.~q2~7 ~x 2~1~v~q646.59 1~q6.41 ~qZ 102~: 506 20.16 ~qX CENT~R~OPO~MUS UNDECI~MA~L~qIS 2,233 0.9~3 ~x ~qI~v~qI29.11 0.96 ~X 58~: 506 11.46 ~2 ruN~~~mus CONFLUENTUS 1,200 0.50 ~% 1,071.93 0.91 ~2 99~: 50~6 ~2~9.~q5~7 ~% ~HENI~VIA ~qS~qP~F 387 0.16 ~qX 15~q8.~q3~s ~q0.13 ~qZ 66~: 506 13.04 ~q2 ~A~~C~~D~ M~qITCHILLI ~q313 0.13 ~q2 101.~q70 ~0.09 ~q% IS: 506 3.56 ~qZ LEIOST~OMUS XANT~HURUS ~q309 0.13 ~2 110.48 ~q0.09 ~qx 1~q6: 506 3.56 Z ~E~G~L~OPS ~A~TLAN~TICUS 294 ~0.~1~1~2 ~% 4,409.70 ~q3.~q7~5 ~x 30: 506 ~qZ~-93 ~X LUCANIA PARVA 258 0.21 ~% 36.47 ~0.0~3 ~x ~q29~: 50~6 5.73 ~q2 ~FUN~~ULUS ~qG~qRAN~DIS 222 ~q0.09 ~q% 433.37 0.37 ~X ~q3~6~: 50~6 7.1~1 ~% ~HUGIL CUREMA 166 0.07 ~qX 415.12 0.35 ~% 33~: 506 6.52 ~q% ~P~O~G~ON~I~S ~qC~qR~qOM~qI~qS 151 0.06 ~qX 17.02 0.0~q1 ~qx 9~: 506 1.78 ~q% CALLINE~CTES ~qS~API~qDU~S 132 0.06 ~qZ 2,508.93 2.13 ~qX ~4~q2~: 50~6 8.30 ~qX ~PE~AEU~ ~qSP~P 91 ~q0.0~4 ~% ~q9~1.~q90 ~0.~q0~8 ~x 2~q@~: 506 4.94 ~q2 ~GERRES CINEREUS 78 0.03 ~2 39.49 ~q0.0~q3 ~q2 12~: 506 2.37 ~Z FUN~ULUS SPF~* 77 ~q0.0~3 ~qx 5.41 0.00 ~2 26~: 506 5.~24 ~qZ ~DIAPTE~US ~AUR~ATUS 54 ~-0.02 ~q2 91.90 ~0.~q0~8 ~x 21: 506 4.15 % SY~~GNATHU~qS SC~qOVELL~qI 44 0.~q6~,2 ~qx ~q6.74 ~0.01 ~% 13~: 506 2.57 ~qZ rV~O~ORTIA ~qSPP 40 0.02 ~qZ 3.94 0.00 ~q2 6~: 506 ~q1.19 ~q2 ~~1~AT~qO~R ~qhACULATUS ~q3~q2 0.0~1 ~x ~1~19.~q8~2 0.~10 ~% 24~: 506 4.74 ~X ~qq~qV~~N~STOMUS A~R~GENTE~US 12 ~0.0~2 ~2 1~7.~8~7 0.02 Z 9~: 506 1.78 ~X ~"IC~R~O~G~O~B~qIUS GUL~qDSUS 12 0.0~1 ~q% 2.68 0.00 ~qx ~q9: 506 1.58 ~q2 ~~~~~~~~~G~qU~S P~RD~BATOCEPHALUS ~8 0.00 ~2 ~456.52 0.39 % 5~: 506 0.99 ~x LU~JA~US ~qG~R~I~S~qE~qU~qS ~8 0.00 % 659~*85 0.5~6 ~% ~q5: 506 0.99 ~z ~SPHYRAENA BARRACUDA ~8 ~q0.00 ~x 4.54 0.00 ~qx 5~: 506 0.99 ~q2 ~G~~~O~~OM~A ~qR~O~qBUSTUM 7 0.00 ~% 1.97 0.00 ~x ~q5~' ~q506 0.99 ~% ~B~~~~O~~~~qI~A ~qS~M~qI~TH~I 7 ~0.00 ~x 0.~q5~7 0.00 ~2 2~: 506 0.~40 ~q2 ~L~~~O~DN ~qR~H~qO~M~qP~qO~I~qD~E~S 6 ~0.00 ~x 74.83 0.0~1~6~. ~2 3~: 506 0.~q59 ~qz ~H~IPP~LYTE PLUEk~OCAN~7~H~U~S ~6 0.00 ~% 0.0~2 0.00 ~% 1: 506 0.20 ~X ~YRDP~~IS PUNCTAT~US 5 0.00 ~x 4.35 0.00 ~% ~q3~: ~q50~6 0.59 ~q2 ~A~~~I~~~ LINEATUS 4 0.00 ~x 0.~9~6 0.00 ~2 2~: 506 0.40 ~qZ UC~ ~qPU~GILA~I~O~R ~q3 0.00 ~2 4.72 0.00 ~x 3~: 506 0~.~q59 ~x ANGUILLA ~qR~OSTRAT~A 3 ~0.00 ~% 1,570.45 1.34 ~X 2~: 506 0.40 ~2 ~I~~I~~TE~US ~qS~P~F~' 0.00 ~x 0.2~6 0.00 ~% 2~: 506 0.40 ~q2 FU~~DULUS SIMILIS 2 0.00 ~2 2.90 ~0.00 ~2 2~: 506 0.40 O~RCHES~IA ~qG~RILLU~S 0.00 ~2 0.11 0.00 ~x 1~: 506 ~0.~1~.~1~0 ~FUC~IN~DS70MUS GULA 1 0.00 ~2 3.54 ~0.00 1 1: 506 0.20 EU~YTIUM LIMDSU~M 1 ~0.00 ~x 10.54 0.0~1 ~x ~1~: 50~6 0.~20 ~2 PENA~US AZTECUS 1 0.00 ~2 0.19 0.00 ~2 1~! 506 0.20 ~2 PENAEUS ~qDU~qORA~RU~M 1 0.00 ~qx 0.40 0.00 ~x 1: 506 0.20 ~qX RIVULUS ~M~ARM~O~RATUS 1 0.00 ~2 0.34 0.00 ~% 1: 506 0.20 ~2 SA~~INEL~t~A ANCH~OV~qIA 1 ~0.00 ~x ~0.0~3 0.00 ~2 1: 506 0.~q20 ~q2 S~T~qR~qON~qCYLU~qR~qA MARINA 1 0.00 ~0q% ~q2.91 0.00 ~0qx 1: 506 0.~0q20 ~qx ~q7AP~H~ROMYS~qT~qS ~0qD~qOWMAN1 1 0.00 ~qx 0. 0~q0 0.00 ~qx 1: 506 0.20 ~q% GRAND NUMBER AND WEIGHT TOTALS: 238~q88~q-~q1 1~q37,568.51 ~0 Table 7. Total species weight , number to individuals and % occurrence, all ranked by total species weight for all stations and collections made between March 1982 and February 1983. ~@ I OF ~qO~qR~AN~D ~q2 OF GRAND SPECIFIC SPECIFIC TOTAL WEIGHT ~q1~q07AL ~qN~qU~M~qP~E~R ABSOLUTE ~qR~qLLA~qTIVE ~OE~MU~qS-~qSPECIES WEIGHT TOTAL NUMBER TOTAL OCCURENCE ~qOCCURENCE ---------------------------------------------------------~-~-------------------~-~----------------~---------- C~P~RI~~O~D~qON VARIE~qGAT~qUS 37~p~q073.42 31.53 ~q2 90,123 37.73 ~q2 339: 506 67.00 ~q1 PDECIL~qM LA~T~qIP~qI~qNN~A ~q2~q6~,~q6~q8~q7~-~q5~q8 ~q24.40 % 4~q5~P64~q8 ~q29.~1~1 ~q% ~"~"~' -~C ~2qW. 30 ~q% ~HU~G~IL CEPH~qALUS 2~q1~P~646.59 1~q6.41 ~q1 3~r~O36 1.27 ~qX 102~: ~q506 20.16 ~q2 ~G~~~P~U~S~I~ ~qAF~qFINI~qS 10~9~q902.54 9.~q19 ~q2 ~q6~2~P~qS~q79 ~q2~qS.90 ~q2 ~q3~q2~0~: 50~6 63.24 ~q2 ~hE~GALOPS ATLANTICUS 4,409~-70 3.75 ~q2 294 0.12 ~q2 ~q30~: ~q50~6 5.93 ~q2 ELO~P~S ~qS~A~qU~qR~qU~qS 4,132~-58 3.~q5~q2 ~q2 4~w2~q8~5 ~1.~q79 ~q2 174~: 506 34.39 ~q2 CALLINECTES ~qS~A~P~qI~qD~qU~S 2~P~q5~q0~q6.~93 2.13 ~q2 132 0.06 ~q2 42~: 506 ~q6.30 ~q1 PA~~E~~ON~qE~TES ~qSPP ~qI~P6~q52.94 ~q1.~41 ~% 27~P~727 11.~6~1 ~% 2~qt~i: 506 49.60 ~2 ANGUILLA ~qR~qOST~qRATA 1,570.45 1.34 ~X ~q3 0.00 ~x 2~: 506 0.40 ~qZ ~C~EN~~R~OP~qO~KUS UNDECI~MALI~qS 1,129~-1~2 0.96 ~q% 2~#233 0.93 ~2 58: 506 11.46 1 FUN~DULUS CONFLUENTUS ~qI~F071.9~3 0.91 ~q2 ~qI~P200 0.50 ~z ~q9~9~: 506 19.~q5~7 ~q% ~L~U~TJAN~S ~qG~qRI~qSEU~qS ~q6~59.~q8~5 0.56 % a 0.00 ~x 5~: ~q$06 0.99 ~q2 ~A~R~C~H~D~S~~R~qGU~qS PRO~B~A~T~OCE~PHALUS 456~-52 0.39 ~X ~q8 0.00 ~x 5~: ~q50~q6 0.99 ~q2 ~FUN~DULUS ~qGRANDIS 433~-37 0.37 ~q2 222 ~q0.09 ~qx ~q36~: 506 ~7.11 ~qx N~U~G~IL CUREMA 415~-12 0.35 ~qX 166 0.07 ~qZ 33~: 506 6.52 Z ~E~WI~D~I~ S~PF~* 1~q5~8.~q3~8 ~0.~2~q3 ~% ~q3~8~7 ~0.~1~6 ~2 66~: 506 13.04 ~q2 ~D~ORMI~T~TO~R ~qMACULATUS 119.82 0.10 ~q% 3~22 0.01 ~x 24~: 506 4.74 % LEI~D~S~OMUS X~AWTHU~RUS 110.48 ~q0.09 ~2 309 ~q0.~1~3 ~% IS: 506 3.56 % ~~~C~~O~ MITCHILLI ~q10~1~-~70 ~0.09 ~q2 ~q31~3 0.13 ~qX Is: ~q50~6 3.56 ~q2 ~V~I~A~~T~E~RU~qS AU~qR~ATUS 91.90 0.0~q8 ~x 54 0.0~1~1~,~2 21~: 506 4.15 ~qZ PENAEUS ~qS~qPP 9~1~*~q80 ~0.~q0~6 ~x 91 0.04 ~X 25~: 506 4.94 ~q2 ~L~~G~OD~ON ~qRH~qOM~P~qO~qI~qDES 74.~q63 0.06 ~X ~6 ~q0.00 ~qx ~q3~: 50~q6 0.59 ~q2 SCARES CINEREUS 39.49 0.03 ~qZ 78 0.03 ~q2 12~: 506 2.37 ~qX CANIA P~A~RV~A 36.47 0.03 ~X 258 0.1~1 % 29~: 506 5.73 ~qZ C~IN~DST~qOMUS ~qA~R~qGENTEUS ~q17~v~qS7 ~q0.~q02 ~x 12 0.0~1 ~q1 9~: ~q50~6 1.78 ~q2 ~1~q0~0~D~N~AS C~R~OM~IS 17.02 ~q0.0~1 ~q2 151 ~q0.0~q6 ~x 9~: 506 1~97~q8 ~qX ~E~U~R~Y~T~I~U~qM L~qI~qM~qOSUM 10~*54 0.01 ~2 1 0.00 ~x 1~: 506 0.20 ~% ~SYN~GN~~T~qHUS ~qSC~qOV~qELLI ~q8.~q7~4 0.~q0~1 ~q% 44 0.0~q2 ~q2 13~: 506 2.57 ~q2 FUN~DULUS ~qS~P~F 5.41 ~q0.00 ~q1 77 0.03 ~qX 26~: 506 5.14 ~qX ~U~C~ PUGILATO~R 4.72 ~q0.00 ~q% 3 0.00 ~q% 3~: 506 0.59 ~q1 ~SP~HYRAEN~A BARRACUDA 4.54 0.00 ~2 a 0.00 ~qx 5~: 506 0~099 ~qZ ~~~~~~~I~S PUNC~TATUS 4.35 0.00 % ~5 0.00 ~q2 3~: ~w~j~O~6 0.59 ~% ~P~EVO~~TIA SPP 3.94 0.00 ~x 40 0.02 ~X 6~: 506 1.~19 ~% EUC~IN~ST~OMUS ~qGUL~A 3.54 0.00 ~x 1 ~0.00 % 1: 506 0.20 ~X FU~DULUS SIMIL~IS 2.90 0.00 ~2 2 0.00 ~x 2~: 506 0.40 ~X ~~I~~R~O~G~O~qB~qI~U~S GUL~qO~SUS 2.6~6 0.00 ~X In 0.0~1 ~q% ~q1~3~1. 50~6 1.58 % G~O~P~I~OS~MA ~qRO~BUSTUM 1.97 0.00 ~x ~0.00 ~x 5~: 506 0.99 ~2 ~S~TR~ON~CYLU~R~A MARINA 1.91 0.00 ~% 1 0.00 ~x 1: 50~6 0.20 ~% ~~C~~I~R~~S LI~NE~ATUS 0.96 0.00 ~q2 4 0.00 ~x 2~: 506 0.40 ~X ~D~REV~~O~RTIA SMITHI O~.~8qV 0.00 ~qx ~q7 0~00~q0 % 2~: 506 0.40 X PEN~EUS ~qD~U~O~R~A~R~U~M 0.40 0.00 ~x 1 0.00 ~q2 ~q1~: ~q50~6 0.20 ~x RIVULUS MARMO~RATUS 0.~q34 0.00 ~% 1 0.00 ~% 1: ~q50~6 0.20 ~X ~VI~~T~ERUS ~S~p~r 0.26 0.00 ~2 2 0.00 ~x 2~: 506 0.40 ~Z PENA~EUS ~A~qZ~qTECUS 0.19 0.00 ~qx ~q1 0.00 ~q% 1 ~'. 50~6 0.20 ~qX ~ORCHESTIA ~qG~RILLUS 0.~11 0.00 ~% 2 ~0.00 1 ~q1~: 50~6 0.20 ~2 ~S~~~D~I~ELL~A ~A~N~C~H~O~V~qI~A 0.03 0.00 ~% 1 0.00 ~x 1: ~q50~6 0.20 ~q2 ~N~qIPP~qOLYTE PLUER~0qOCAN~qT~qHUS 0~q00~q2 0.00 ~qx ~q6 0.00 ~0qx ~q1~q: 50~q6 0.20 ~0q2 ~T~A~P~qH~R~qO~M~qY~0qS~qI~qS ~0qB~qOWMANI 0.00 ~q0.00 ~q% ~q1 0.00 ~q% 1; 50~q6 0.20 ~q2 ~qG~R~qA;~W~D WEIGHT AND NUMBER TOTALS: 117,568~q-51 23~qBB82 ~0 Table 8. Specific absolute occurrence, ~2q% occurrence, total number individuals. ranked by occurrence for all stations and collections made between March 1982 and February 1983. TOTAL INDIVIDUALS COLLECTED* AND THEIR SUMMED WEI~qP~HT~qS, WITHIN THE CHOSEN RANGES OF THIS PARTICULAR REPORT. DATA SORTED ~qD~Y DECREASING ~qOCCU~qRENCE WITHIN RANGES OF THIS REPORT. SPECIFIC SPECIFIC ~qX OF GRAND I OF ~-GRAND ABSOLUTE RE I~qA~qT I VE 'TOTAL "UNDER TOTAL WEIGHT ~0E~qNUS~-SPECIE~qS OCCU~qRENCE OCCURENCE NUMBER TOTAL WEIGHT TOTAL ----------------------------------------------------------------~-~------------~-~------------~-~-~-~-~---------- CYPRI~~ODON V~A~qR~qIEGA~qY~qUS 339: 506 ~q6~q7.00 ~qx ~q9~q0~v12~q3 3~q7.~q7~q3 ~q% 379073~-42 31~-53 ~q2 ~G~~~V~U~S~I~A ~qAFFINIS 320: 506 63.24 ~q% ~q6~1~9~q9~q79 2~q5.90 ~q2 10~P~qS~q02~.54 9.19 ~q2 ~P~OECIL~IA LAT~qIP~qI~qNN~qA 295~: 506 5~q6.30 ~qX 4~q5~t64~q8 19.1~1 ~q2 2~qS~P~q6~q97.5~q8 24.40 2 ~P~AL~AE~"~ONE~qTES ~qS~qP~qP 251~: 506 49~#60 % 27,~q727 11.~q61 ~q% 1,652.94 1.~4~2 ~x ELOPS ~qS~A~qU~R~qU~qS 174~1 501 34.39 ~q1 4~#28~q5 1~0~q79 ~q% 4~P~qI32~,~q5~q8 3~.52 ~qZ ~U~G~IL CEP~HALU~qS 102; 506 20.16 ~qz 3,03~6 1.27 ~qX 2~q1~P~q646.59 1~q9~-41 ~q2 FUNDULUS CONFLUENTUS 99~: 50~6 19.57 ~qX 1~0200 0.50 ~q2 ~q1~2q0~q7~q1~-93 0.91 ~q2 ~~EN~I~D~I~ ~qS~p~p 66~: 506 13.04 ~q2 ~q3~q6~7 ~q0.~q1~q6 ~qx ~q1~q5~q8.~q3~q8 ~q0.~q1~q3 ~x CEN~T~R~OP~qOMUS UN~DECIMALIS 58~: 506 11.46 ~q2' 2~v23~q3 0.93 ~X ~q1~9~q1~q29~.11 0.9~q6 ~2 ~CALLI~NEC~T~qIS ~qS~AP~qI~qDUS 42~: 506 ~q6.30 ~q% 1~q3~" 0.06 % 2~P~q5~q0~q8~-93 2~.1~q3 ~2 FUN~DULUS ~qGRANDIS ~q3~6~: 50~6 7.11 ~qz 22~.~) ~q0~.0~9 ~x 433~-37 0.~q3~7 ~q2 ~"U~~IL CUREM~A ~q3~q3~: 50~6 ~6.~q52 ~q% 166 ~q0.0~7 ~q2 ~415.12 0.35 ~q2 ~R~E~GAL~OP~qS A~qTLANTICUS 30~: 506 5.9~q3 ~q2 294 ~q0.12 ~qx 4~2q0~q09.70 ~q3.~q75 ~q% LUC~ANIA PARV~A 29~: 506 5.~q7~q3 ~q2 ~q2~q5~8 0.1~1 3~6~-47 ~q0.0~q3 ~q2 F~UN~DULUS ~qSPP 26~: 506 5.14 ~q2 77 ~q0.0~q3 5.41 0.00 ~q2 PEN~AEU~S ~qS~PP 25~: 506 4.94 ~q2 9~1 0.~q04 ~q2 91~.~q90 0.0~q8 % ~DORMI~TA~qT~qO~R ~MACULATUS 24~: 506 4.74 ~q2 32 0.0~q1 ~qx 119~*~q62 0.~q10 ~qx ~~g~q&~]~PTERUS ~AU~R~A~TU~S 21~: 506 4.15 ~qX 54 0.02 % 91.90 0~.0~q8 ~q2 ~C~H~O~ ~MITC~H~I~L~LI is: 50~6 3~.56 ~qZ 313 ~q0.~1~3 ~x 101~-70 ~0.09 ~2 ~I~qW~~~~~~h~US ~X~A~N~T~H~U~R~U~S IS: 506 ~q3.~q5~6 ~q% 309 ~q0.~q1~q3 ~x 110~-4~1~3 0~.0~9 ~% ~SYN~G~ATHUS SCOVELLI ~1~q3~: 50~6 2.57 ~X 44 0.0~2 ~2 ~8.74 0.0~1 ~2 GER~~E~S CINEREUS 12~% 506 2.37 ~qZ ~q7~q8 0~00~q3 ~2 39~-49 0~.0~q3 ~x ~~O~~O~~I~~S C~R~O~M~I~qS 9~: 506 ~1~0~q7~q8 ~qx 151 ~q0.~0~6 ~2 ~q17~-02 0.01 ~2 ~tUC~I~N~O~ST~qOMUS ARGENTEUS 9~: 50~6 1.7~q6 Z 12 ~0.01 ~% ~q1~7~.~1~3~7 0.02 ~2 ~M~I~C~R~O~G~O~qV~qI~U~S GUL~qOSUS 8: 506 1.~q58 ~2 12 ~q0.0~1 ~1 2~-68 0.00 ~x ~D~REV~O~ORTI~A ~qS~P~P ~6~* 50~6 ~q1.~q19 ~x 40 ~0.02 ~q% 3.94 0.00 ~% LUTJ~NUS ~qGRISEUS 5~: 506 0.99 ~x ~8 0.00 ~q% ~659~.~q8~5 0~.56 ~2 A~CH~OSA~R~qGU~S PR~O~BAT~O~CE~PH~ALU~S 5~: 506 0.~q99 ~x ~q6 0.00 ~x 456~-52 0.~q39 ~% ~SP~Y~R~EN~A BARRACUDA 5~: 506 0.99 ~x a 0.00 ~q2 4.54 ~0~.00 ~x ~G~O~B~~O~S~O~M~A ~qR~qO~qPUSTU~M 5~: ~q50~6 0.99 ~q% 7 0.00 ~q% 1.97 0.00 ~x L~A~G~OD~ON RH~qOM~qP~OIDES 3~: 506 0.59 ~q% ~6 0.00 ~q% 74~-~q83 0~.06 ~X ~M~Y~R~O~P~~I~qS PUNCT~ATUS 3~: 506 0.59 ~2 5 ~0.00 ~qz 4.~q35 0~-00 ~q2 UC~ PU~G~qILATOR 3~: 506 0.59 ~x 3 0.00 ~q2 4~*~q72 0.00 ~q2 ~P~REV~O~O~RTIA ~qSMITHI 2~: 506 0.~40 ~x 7 0.00 ~q2 0.57 0.00 ~% ~CH~I~RUS LINE~A~TUS 2~: 506 0.40 Z 4 0.00 ~q2 0.9~q6 0.00 1 ANGUILLA ~qROS~T~RAT~A 2~". 506 0.40 % 3 0.00 ~qz ~l~t57~0.45 1.34 ~% FUN~DULUS ~qSIMIL~IS 2~: 506 0.~40 ~qx 2 0.00 ~q2 2.90 ~0.00 ~x ~DI~~~ERUS ~qs~p~p 2 ~*~- 506 0.40 ~q2 2 0.00 ~q2 0.26 0.00 ~% HIPP~OLYTE PLUER~qOCANTHUS 1~: 506 0.20 ~Z 6 0.00 ~% 0.02 0.00 ~ORCHESTI~A ~qG~RILLUS ~1~1 ~q50~6 0.20 ~qZ 2 0.00 ~q2 0.~11 0.00 ~E~U~R~~T~I~U~M L~qI~qM~OSU~M 1 506 0.20 ~Z 1 0.00 ~q% 10.54 0.01 ~2 ~EUC~IN~DST~OMUS ~SUL~A 1 506 0~q*20 ~qX 1 0.00 ~q% 3.54 0.00 ~% ST~qR~qON~qGYLUR~qA MARINA 1: 506 ~0qO~qo2~qO I 1 0.00 ~0q2 ~q1~q-~0q9~q1 0.00 ~q2 PE~NAEU~qS ~0qD~qU~qD~qR~qA~qRUM 1: 50~q6 0.20 ~q2 1 0~q.00 ~0q2 0.40 ~q0.00 ~0q2 R~qIVULU~qS ~qMA~0qRMD~qRATUS 1: 506 0.20 ~qX ~q1 0.00 ~0qx 0.34 ~q0.00 ~q% ~-PENAEUS A~0qZTECUS 1. 506 0.20 ~qX ~q1 0.0~q0 ~0q2 ~q0.~q29 ~q0.00 ~qx SARDINEIL~qA ~0qANCHDVIA ~0q1~q: 50~q6 0.20 ~qX 1 0.00 ~q2 ~q0~q.0~0q3 0.00 ~q7 ~TAPH~qR~OMYSI~0qS ~0qb~q0~qW~qM~qAN~0qI 1: 506 0~q,20 ~0qX 1 ~q0~q.~q00 ~0q% 0.00 ~qV.~q00 ~q2 GRAND NUMBER I WEIGHT TOTALS. 238~q8 ~q2 ~q217~q,568.51 Table 9. Spatial distribution of top ten transient species. Outer Estuary_ Lower Marsh Transition Upper Marsh Species 62 63 31 61 60 30 70 40 41 42 53 52 51 50 E. saurus 47 18 2 2,247 927 27 385 241 217 172 M. cephalus 1,853 869 33 1 7 2 10 68 171 22 C. undecimalis 4 18 1,127 1,070 2 4 7 1 A. mitchilli 248 62 3 L. xanthurus 46 147 1 48 66 1 M. atlanticus 7 24 235 16 3 8 1 M. curema 1 7 2 69 86 1 P. cromis 4 134 12 1 C. sapidus 2 7 88 26 8 Penaeus sp. 48 1 1 19 21 2 1 ~0 Table 10. mean environmental parameters from all stations. PARAMETER DATE TI~6qD STA TIME TEMP SALIN DO PH ~4q620308 138~q8 19~,~4q8 34.3 9~*0 6.5 820323 1359 26~*9 40~*2 4~*3 6.0 820405 1275 28.5 32.2 4.2 6.5 820421 1274 31~*5 29~*1 6~*0 6~*~0q8 820506 1320 26.5 32~*3 5.9 8.4 ~6q820520 1257 27.9 44~*5 6~.0 7~,6 820603 1299 22~-5 19.7 6.5 0.0 8206~q18 11~2q81 25.8 20~*6 3~*0 3~*6 820701 1197 21.4 24.5 2.3 0~*0 820716 1147 31~*6 33~97 3~*9 7.3 820730 1130 32~.2 39.1 5~*7 8~*0 820816 1330 32~*4 34~*1 5~*6 5.1 820~2q8~2q31 1896 30.3 34~*7 6~*0 3.1 ~0q820912 1053 29~*0 30.0 2.2 0~*0 820913 1212 33~*5 38~,0 ~4q5.2 0~*0 820928 1600 28.5 25~*0 0.0 0~*0 820929 1327 28~*4 22.4 ~6q6~95 0~*0 ~4q821013 1255 28~.5 29~.0 ~4q5~#5 0.0 821026 1440 21~*0 28~*0 0~-0 0~*0 821027 1217 21~*5 29~#1 5~*7 0~*0 821109 1600 23.0 28.0 7~*4 0~*0 821110 10~6q82 22~*7 26~*2 6~-9 0~*0 82112~2q8 1521 24.0 24~*0 2~.9 0~,0 821129 1427 25~,~q8 25~94 5.9 0~*0 ~6q82120~2q8 1520 24~90 30~*0 1~.3 0.0 821209 1285 24.6 27~*9 6~-1 0~*0 ~6q821227 1730 22.0 30~*0 3.2 0.0 821228 1409 23.4 33.1 5~.0 0.0 830109 1437 21.0 ~6q30.0 3~.8 0.0 830110 1390 22~*3 31~*6 4~#9 0.0 830124 1200 17~,0 30~*0 5.4 0.0 830125 1228 16.6 23~#7 7~#7 0~#0 8 3 0~'2~2q0 9 1147 14.0 26~o~2qO 7.0 0~*0 8~6q30210 1351 19.5 25~q*4 6~q-4 0~q#0 8302~q122 1630 19~q*5 19~q90 7.2 0~q,0 830223 1241 22~q*4 19~q*7 6~q*7~q. 0~q*0 AAAA AAAA AAAAA AAAA A~28qAAA 1304 25.8 30.0 5.6 2~q*7 ~0 Table 11~. cont~d~. JULY 1~q9~q02 ~q1 GENUS-SPECIES DAY I DAY 2 DAY 3 ~1 DAY I -----------------------------------------------------------------------~-~----- I----------------- ~AN~qC~H~O~A "ITCHILL~I 0 0 0 ~1 0 ARCH~O~S~AR~OU~S PRO~B~AT~OCEP~H~ALU~qS 0 0 0 ~1 ~0 CALLINECT~E~S ~S~A~P~I~DU~S ~1 ~5 2 ~1 ~4 CENTR~G~P~O~"US U~NDEC~I~MALIS 0 ~1 ~3 ~1 a ~CYPR~I~M~O~D~qbN VARIE~qGATUS 14~8q04~8 8,75~1~3 5~P~S50 ~1 Val D~IAPTERUS AURATUS 2 4 5 ~q1 ~6 D~OR~M~ITATO~qR "ACULATUS 0 ~1 2 ~q1 ~q1 ELOP~S ~SAURU~S ~q1~9 ~69 ~q8~1~3 ~q1 26 ~'E~qUC~qI~qM~qO~qST~qO~MU~qS AR~qOE~qNTEUS ~q1 0 0 ~1 0 EURYT~qIU~qM L~qIM~qOSU~M 0 0 ~q1 ~1 0 FUNDULU~qS CONF~qLUE~qNTU~qS 324 19~6 ~q92 ~q1 29 FU~N~DULUS ORANDI~qS 0 a ~6 ~q1 0 FU~NDU~qLUS ~9~q1~"~qI~qL~qI~qS 0 0 0 ~q1 0 FU~NDULU~S ~a~p~p 4 4 ~q3 ~1 0 ~O~A~qM~B~U~S~I~A AFFINI~S 1~Y971 1~P~O32 19067 ~1 130 OERR~ES C~l~"~EREUS ~1 0 0 ~1 0 ~O~O~B~I~O~S~O~M~A ~R~qO~B~U~S~T~U" 1 0 0 ~1 0 ~HIPPOLYTE PLUEROCANTHUS 0 ~6 0 ~1 0 ~L~E~I~O~ST~qq~M~U~S XA~NT~HURU~B 0 0 0 ~1 0 LU~CA~NIA ~F~m~K~v~r~i ~6 ~3 ~10 ~1 ~3 ~ME~OALOPS ATLANTICU~S 0 ~1 is ~1 9 "E~M~ID~IA ~S~p~qP 1 ~q1 12 ~1 ~4 ~M~qI~C~qR~O~G~O~qD~I~qU~qS ~OUL~O~SU~B 0 2 ~1 ~1 0 ~MU~O~IL C~E~P~H~A~L~U~S 0 0 2 ~q1 ~q3 ~"U~O~IL C~U~REMA 2 0 ~1 ~1 0 ~HYR~OPHIS PU~NCTATU~S 0 0 0 ~q4 0 ORC~H~E~STIA ORILLU~S 0 0 0 ~1 2 ~'PALAEMO~qMETES SPP 22 52 37 ~1 59 PE~NAEUS ~a~p~p 2 ~1 4 ~q1 0 POEC~ILIA LATIPINNA ~S~P~qS07 l~v~,24~9 ~qI~P224 ~1 1~9064 R~IVULUS MARMORATU~S 0 0 0 ~1 0 ~SPHYRAE~N~A BARRACUDA 0 0 ~1 ~1 0 STR~qON~OYLURA MARINA 0 ~q1 0 ~q1 0 ~qSY~qMO~NATHU~S ~SCOVELL~I 1~q3 ~q1 ~q10 ~q1 ~q3 UCA PU~G~qILATO~qR 0 0 2 ~1 0 ~m~o~m~o~n~"~W~o~m~m moms ~OTOTAL ~qN~qU~"~BER~Q MONTHLY TOTALS 3~P~qI32 ~0 Table 11. co~nt'd ~SEPTE~M~qS~.~r 19~q92 ~1 OCTOBER ~v 19~q82 ~1 NOVEMBER, 19~92 GENUS-SPECIES DAY I DAY 2 1 DAY I DAY 2 1 ~qD~A~Y I DAY 2 --~-~----------------------~-~-~-------------~-~-~------------~- I----------------------- I----------------------- ~A~C~qH~qIR~qU~qS LI~NE~ATUS 0 ~q1 ~1 ~q3 0 ~q1 0 0 ~A~N~C~HO~A "~ITCHILL~I 0 0 ~1 12 0 ~1 ~q3~6 ~q3~6 ANGUILLA ROSTR~ATA 0 ~0 ~1 ~0 ~1 ~1 2 0 A~qRC~qH~qO~SAR~qOU~qt~t PR~OB~ATOCE~qPH~ALUS 2 0 ~1 ~q3 ~q1 ~1 0 0 ~B~RE~VO~ORTI~A ~qSP~P 0 0 ~q1 0 0 ~1 0 0 C~ALLI~NECTE~qS ~S~AP~I~D~qU~S 1 ~q1 ~1 ~q1 2 1 0 ~q6 CENT~ROPO~MU~S U~NDECI~M~A~qLIS 12 25 ~1 70 ~q1~q1 ~q1 52 ~qI~v4~q9~9 ~qC~Y~P~R~I~N~qO~qD~O~N ~V~ARIE~G~ATUS 1~6~1 15 ~q1 10 21 1 21 ~qi~r~q5~i~s ~qD~qI~APTERU~I~S AURATU~S 3 0 ~1 ~0 0 ~1 2 12 D~qIAPTERU~S ~qS~p~P 0 0 ~1 0 ~1 ~1 0 ~1 ~V~ORM~ITATO~qR MACUL~ATUS 1 0 ~q1 0 0 ~1 0 ~q1 FLOPS ~S~AURU~qS 35 it ~1 43 53 1 28 ~4~5~3 EUC~qI~N~qO~qST~O~NU~qG AR~OE~NTEUS 0 0 ~q1 ~0 0 ~1 ~q1 5 EUC~qI~N~O~ST~OMUS ~OUL~A 1 0 ~1 0 0 ~1 0 0 F~U~NDULUS CONF~qLUE~qNTU~S 1 0 ~q1 0 0 ~1 0 7 FU~N~DULU~qS ~G~R~A~N~qD~qIS 3 0 ~q1 0 0 ~q1 0 3 FU~N~qDULU~S SI~MILI~qB 0 0 ~1 0 0 ~q1 0 0 ~qO~A~M~B~U~S~I~A ~AFFI~qNI~S ~6~6 13 ~q1 ~q60 125 1 140 4~q0~v432 OER~RE~qS C~I~NEREU~S 0 ~1 ~1 ~q1 0 ~q1 4 ~q6~6 OO~B~qIO~SOM~A RO~BUSTUM 0 0 ~1 0 0 ~q1 0 3 ~qL~A~G~O~D~ON RHOM~B~OIDE~qS 0 0 ~1 ~1 0 ~q1 ~q1 0 LUC~qA~qN~I~A P~AR~V~A 1 0 ~1 0 0 ~1 0 14 LUTJA~q"U~9 ~GR~qI~qSEU~S 0 ~1 ~1 ~0 2 1 0 0 ~ME~G~ALO~qPS ~ATL~qA~NTICUS 7 ~6 ~1 12 5~6 ~1 3 27 ~M~qE~W~qI~D~I~A ~s~p~p ~. 0 0 ~q1 0 ~1 ~1 0 29 ~qM~Z~qC~qR~O~G~O~B~qI~qU~S ~qO~qU~L~qO~qS~qU~S 0 ~1 ~1 2 0 ~1 0 ~q0 MU~O~IL CEP~HALU~qS 15 1~6 ~1 0 ~q9 ~1 ~6 a ~"U~O~qIL CU~R~E~M~A 1 0 ~1 0 ~q5 1 ~q1 ~q15 P~AL~AE~"ONETE~qS Opp 170 ~8~9~9 ~1 59026 33 1 ~q9~49 3,503 PENAEUS ~S~P~P 2 ~1 ~1 ~q1 2 1 0 15 POECILIA L~ATIPI~qNNA 301 a ~1 3 ~8~4 ~1 ~q7 11,936 SP~HYR~AE~KA BARRACUDA 0 5 ~1 0 0 ~q1 0 2 T~APHRO~"Y~S~I~qS ~DO~W~M~A~NI 0 0 ~1 0 0 ~q1 0 ~1 'TOTAL ~HU~M~B~ER~2 MONTHLY TOTALS am=== memo= ~q;~q7~q;~q:~q; ~m~u~m~m~u~m~o~6qz~q; ===me ~q:~q7~q7~q;~q; ~w~o~m~m ~q;~q;~q7~q;~q;~q7 ~0 Table 11. co~nt~d JANUARY ~r 1983 1 FEBRUARY, 1~?83 ~1 "ARCH 1~9~q83 GENUS-SPECIES DAY ~q1 DAY 2 ~q1 DAY 1 DAY 2 1 DAY ~1 DAY 2 -------- ----------------------- ---------------------- ~'~7 ----------------------------------------------- I ~A~N~qCH~O~A ~qMITCHIL11 42 0 ~1 ~q1 ~1 0 0 BREVO~ORT~IA ~a~p~p 3 2 1 0 22 1 0 0 C~ALLI~"ECTES ~S~A~P~I~D~U~S ~6 5 ~1 2 3 ~1 0 0 CE~"TR~OP~OMUS UNDEC~I~MA~LI~qS 15 0 ~q1 2 26 1 0 0 ~C~Y~P~R~I~N~O~D~O~N VARIE~GATU~S 414 250 ~1~1 26,715 5~8q01~6 1 0 0 DOR~MITATOR MACULATUS 0 0 ~1 ~1 2 1 0 0 E~LOP~S ~SAURU~S 45 73 1 326 ~q115 ~1 0 0 FUN~DULUS CONF~LUENTUS 30 4 1 110 29 1 0 0 FUN~DULUS ~qGRANDIS 3 0 ~q1 0 ~10 1 0 0 FUNDULU~S ~SP~P ~0 ~1 ~1 10 1 1 0 0 ~O~A~M~B~U~S~I~A AFFI~N~IS 1,073 112 1 4,445 1~1~,~q930 1 0 0 LA~GODO~N R~H~qOM~B~O~qIDE~S 0 0 ~1 4 0 ~q1 0 0 LEIO~STOMUS XA~NTHURUS 0 0 ~1 7 243 1 0 0 LUCANIA PARVA ~1 2 1 2 ~1 ~1 ~0 0 ~L~U~TJA~HU~I~S OR~TSEU~S 2 0 ~1 0 0 ~1 0 0 ~"~EO~A~LOP~S ATLANTICUS 34 15 ~1 38 7 1 0 0 ~"E~"IDIA ~a~p~p 7 13 ~1 ~43 24 1 0 0 "U~G~IL CEPHALUS 95 ~6~8 ~q1 113 1,020 1 0 0 ~MU~O~IL CURE~K~A 0 ~q1 ~1 ~1 ~1 ~1 0 0 PALAE~M~O~NET~ES ~a~p~p 107 340 1 2,622 9~65 ~1 0 0 PE~"AEUS ~SPP 0 0 ~1 ~4 15 ~1 0 0 POEC~ILIA L~AT~IP~qIN~"~A 428 40 1 2,999 1,279 1 0 0 ~P~O~G~O~N~I~A~S ~q@ROMIS 0 0 ~1 ~q1 0 ~1 0 0 UC~A PUOILATOR 0 ~q1 ~q1 0 0 ~1 0 0 ~OTOTAL ~HUMBER~O MONTHLY TOTALS Table 12. Correlation coefficients from multiple linear regression analyses on number of individuals per collection and environmental parameters recorded at time of capture. SPECIES CORRELATION COEFFICIENT Water N Time. Teme. Sal. D.O. pH Level Rain n7--R-9 n=366 n=369 n=361 n=139 n=12 n=25 FISH Residents C. variegatus 232 0.090 -0.211* -0.105 -0.105 -0.073 -0.560 -0.210 1T. ipinna 193 0.158 -0.136 -0.145 -0.126 -0.117 -0.370 -0.260 6. inis 209 0.020 -0.029* -0.063 -0.047 -0.085 -0.230 -0.160 F. confluentus 56 0.086 -0.221 -0.098 -0.313* -0.028 -0.690** -0.230 F. grandis 31 -0.202** -0.148 0.133 -0.241* -0.192 -0.570 -0.150 L. parva 25 -0.029 0.051 0.269* 0.131 0.384* -0.320 -0.160 Menidia spp. 60 -0.185** -0.234 -0.047 -0.195** -0.186 -0.760* -0.110 Transients E. saurus 160 0.220* -0.035 -0.005 -0.017 0.046 -0.340 -0.010 R. -E-e-PYM s 90 0.108 -0.016 -0.108 0.102 -0.011 -0.460 -0.190 M. curema 27 -0.122 0.099 0.260* -0.212* 0.409* -0.070 -0.170 ecimalis 48 0.097* -0.065 0.024 0.037 -0.122 -0.180 -0.140 -anticus 27 -0.288* -0.559 -0.063 -0.008 -0.230 -0.130 -0.320 CRUSTACEANS Residents Palaemonetes 147 0.174 0.033 0.015 0.032 0.029 -0.300 -0.230 Transients Penaeus spp. 24 0.058 -0.030 0.139 0.089 0.397* -0.470 -0.270 sapTdus 38 0.167 -0.054 0.180** 0.084 0.242 -0.520 0.050 = significant at = 0.01 = significant at 0C = 0.05 Table 13. Long term precipitation means (1959-1970; Ft. Pierce, NOAA-EDS records) and monthly mean high water above sea level (1958-1970; Florida Medical Entomology, Vero Beach, Provost 1974) with total monthly numerical catch of the most abundant marsh transients. Mean High Transient Species Rain (in) Water (ft) Snook Tarpon st. mullet si. mullet Ladyfish 3.50 0.49 0 0 459 2 1450 3.33 0.38 0 0 542 53 335 4.15 0.60 0 0 161 65 214 6.11 0.65 4 0 26 10 155 5.53 0.45 4 19 2 3 176 6.53 0.53 18 15 5 1 54 8.69 1.23 37 13 31 1 46 7.87 1.35 81 68 9 5 96 3.38 1.19 1540 30 14 16 481 4.70 0.78 506 55 591 .7 739 2.01 0.60 15 49 163 1 118 2.77 0.52 28 45 1133 2 441 Correlation coefficients, r Rain -0.20 -0.0014 -0.24 -0.26 -0.43 High water 0.49 0.45 -0.41 -0.22 -0.22 Table 14. Ebb-flood tidal movements at the Culvert Site, 61, March 1982 February 1983. C. VARIEGATUS G. AFFINIS P. LATIPINNA F. CONFLUENTUS DATE 'EBB FLOOD "EBB-TL-WD -EB-B---F-LZYD EBB FLOOD 3-08 10 56 25 7 30 90 1 3-23 30 2,410 1 62 29 3,149 1 125 4-05 2 31 41 50 25 50 1 7 4-21 2 26 19 120 106 565 1 13 5-06 1 8 35 119 145 150 1 5-20 2 14 7 51 3 216 2 6-03 267 98 328 1 6-18 16 47 45 2 7-01 3 5 4 6 101 6 7-16 8 7 8 5 59 228 1 5 7-30 1 51 138 3 8-16 13 159 9 2 529 1,103 5 21 8-31 41 4 25 105 920 2 2 9-13 2 2 53 189 1 9-29 3 10-13 1 10-27 11-10 2 11-29 192 3 31,011 182 7,447 38 3 1 12-09 4,286 351 2,286 14 1,496 9 35 4 12-28 28 3 106 94 357 507 12 1-09 7 54 43 845 26 366 30 1-25 6 1 17 1 2-10 5 759 655 392 300 2,239 7 35 2-23 14 184 440 534 734 375 2 16 Totals 4,887 4,076 34,848 2,558 11,980 10,298 74 270 Table 15. Ebb-flood tidal movements at the Culvert Site, 61, March 1982 February 1983. E. SAURUS M. CEPHALUS C. UNDECIMALIS C. SAPIDUS DATE ER FLOOD _E89-FLOOD EBB FLOOD EBB FLOOD 3-08 74 172 1 70 29 3-23 9 552 4 31 16 4-05 4 50 9 16 4-21 2 3 450 1 3 5-06 11 1 73 5-20 5 1 6-03 1 4 6-18 1 10 3 7 7-01 7-16 7-30 1 1 1 1 8-16 2 1 1 7 8-31 2 7 2 9-13 4 2 5 9-29 10 4 5 18 1 10-13 29 67 1 10-27 8 3 8 11-10 13 3 1 6 42 11-29 2 356 3 518 8 3 12-09 15 639 5 9 294 34 5 12-28 2 33 3 414 55 25 2 1-09 6 2 1 1-25 6 19 7 2-10 8 171 9 1 1 2-23 13 50 48 658 10 9 2 Totals 156 2,091 557 1,296 894 233 8 80 Table 16. Culvert trap collections from September 1983 to January 1984, number of organisms collected. TIME STATION 61 TOTAL STATION 72 TOTAL DAY INSIDE OUTSIDE INSIDE OUTSTDr- AM LOW 4 9 13 4 3 7 AM FLOOD 3 21 24 61 35 96 AMPM HIGH 5 5 2 2 PM EBB 1 1 2 17 26 42 R4 148 NIGHT PM LOW 135 23 158 32 29 61 PM FLOOD 55 68 123 7 7 PMAM HIGH 11 61 72 3 3 AM EBB 32 6 38 55 31 86 79-1 157 TOTALS 233 158 179 126 Table 17. North Culvert (72) culvert trap collections 6 October 1983 to 6 January 1984. Oct. 6-7 Nov. 6-7 Dec. Jan. Totals Totals in out in out in out in out in out Day low 14 2 4 1 4 3 Day catch flood 15 2 7 52 35 61 35 148 high 13 2 2 ebb 16 1 8 16 18 17 26 total 17 2"T T-8 -57 -9s gy -6-6 Night low 24 32 29 32 29 Night catch flood 25 1 6 7 157 high 23 3 3 ebb 26 55 31 55 31 -6U -97 -6-U total Y3 Total in, out If 1-6 7-8 '6 -2 r5 T 7-9 12-6 Total/mo. 13 194 87 Net movement in 7 out 5 38 17 Table 18. South Culvert (61) culvert trap collections, 8 August 1983 to 6 January 1984. Aug. 8-9 Sept. 8-9 Oct. 6-7 Nov. 6-7 Dec. Jan. Totals Totals in out in out in out in out in out in out in out Day low 14 12 30 4 9 4 9 Day catch flood 15 3 1 1 3 21 3 21 44 high 13 8 7 3 54 3 2 5 ebb 16 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 total T S6 -M -M -6 T -j -9 -6 -6 -3 Night low 24 14 9 1 11 13 124 135 23 Night catch flood 25 11 3 1 48 57 7 11 55 68 391 high 23 3 57 1 1 7 3 11 61 ebb 26 14 19 13 6 32 6 total T5- 1 -1-5 -6 -27 -66 -4-9 -5-9 '@ -8 -3 -12-,T -6 '@ -2 T Total in, out 57 1 T9- T6- 72- -6 -4-9- -6-0 -@f 1- -3 172-4 'U 7'3_3 5-8 Total/mo. 97 75 128 109 74 124 Net movement in 37 64 11 out 15 8 124 Table 19. Percentage frequency occurrence and percentages of aggregate volume of all organisms from fish examined from the impounded upper and lower marsh. ITEM Vol. freq. ITEM Vol. freq. Detrital-Algal Conglomerate 29.28 89.83 Insect Fragments 0'.55 22.03 Fungi 0.68 52.54 Unidentified insect pupae 0.07 5.08 Cyanophyta (=Cyanobacteria) 0.55 11.86 Collembola 0.01 3.39 Chrysophyta Corixid adults 1.54 27.12 Bacillariophycea 0.01 5.08 Corixid eggs 0.25 10.17 Chlorophycea 0.71 13.56 Diptera 0.06 6.78 Tracheophyta 6.37 71.19 Aedes instars 0.07 8.47 Salicornia spp. 0.30 6.78 Chrysomelidae 0.22 6.78 Foraminifera 0.69 32.20 Formicidae 0.01 1.69 Nematoda 0.01 6.78 Arachnida 0.04 5.08 Annelida 1.01 1.69 Invertebrate eggs 0.14 22.03 Polychaeta 1.32 13.56 Fish material 28.14 37.29 Arthropod fragments 3.28 42.36 White amorphous material 0.0097 1.69 Crustacea fragments 0.21 1.69 Unidentified items 0.30 16.95 Nauplius larvae 0.02 1.69 Ostracoda 5.66 30.51 Copepoda 1.16 45.76 Isopoda 0.02 1.69 Amphipoda 16.42 18.64 Mysidacea 0.01 1.69 Palaemonidae 0.85 1.69 Table 20. Percentage frequency of occurrence and percentage of aggregate volume of all organisms from fish examined from the open estuary, Indian River lagoon. ITEM Vol. freq. @..Detrital-Algal conglomerates 29.41 83.33 Fungus 0.61 83.33 Chlorophycea 49.62 16.67 Tracheophyta 11.61 83.33 Foraminifera 7.28 83.33 Nematoda 0.03 16.67 Copepoda 0.03 16.67 Aedes instars 0.11 16.67 Invertebrate eggs 0.82 66.67 Fishes & fragments 0.47 50.00 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map of study area, Impoundment No. 12, with station locations designated. Figure 2. Gear types used: (A) Heart trap, front view; (B) Heart trap top angle view; (C) Culvert net; (D) Culvert traps, one aluminum shell (vertical and open), one PVC (horizontal and closed); (-E) 1 m throw net; (F) Pull net.Pull net. Figure 3. Spatial - temporal comparison of total fish densities from March 1982 to February 1983. Figure 4. Spatial - temporal comparison of total fish biomass from March 1982 to February 1983. Figure 5. Spatial - temporal comparison of total number of species for transients (black) and residents (white), from March 1982 to February 1983. Figure 6. Spatial - temporal comparison of number of individuals for transients (black) and residents (white), from March 1982 to February 1983. Figure 7. Spatial - temporal comparison of total sample weight for transients (black) and residents (white), from March 1982 to February 1983. Figure 8. Temporal variation in means and range of temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen and pH for all stations from March 1982 to February 1983. Figure 10. Means of physical parameters from upper marsh stations 50 - 53, from March 1982 to February 1983. Figure 11. Means of physical paramters from lower marsh stations 30, 60 -61, from March 1982 to February 1983. Figure 12. Means of physical parameters from Indian River lagoon stations, 31, 62, from March 1982 to February 1983. Figure 13. Dissolved oxygen trace for the 28 to 30 hour sampling day from March to May 1982. Asterix is the time of sunset and sunrise. Figure 14. Dissolved oxygen trace for the 28 to 30 hour sampling day from June to September 1982. Asterix is approximate time of sunrise and sunset. Figure 15. Dissolved oxygen trace for the 28 to 30 hour sampling day from September 1982 to February 1983. Last December and first January records are missing due to recorder failure. Asterix is approximate time of sunrise and sunset. Figure 16. Spatial - temporal variation in number of individuals of residents (white) and transients (black) with moon phase and mean high water in feet above sea level (Provost 1974). Figure 9. Water level records for: (A) Indian River lagoon in Haeger Cove at station 61; (B) Perimeter ditch inside South Culvert, station 61; (C) Upper marsh pond, P-1, with moon phase and rainfall measured on gauges at Impoundment No. 12. Figure 17. Water level records for: (A) Indian River lagoon in Haeger Cove at station 61; (B) Perimeter ditch inside South Culvert, station 61; (C) Upper marsh pond, P-1, with moon phase, rainfall and number of marsh resident captured. Figure 18. Spatial - temporal variat-ion in number of individuals and % occurrence for the most abundant marsh residents, March 1982 to February 1983. Figure 19. Spatial - temporal variation in number of individuals and % occurrence for the most abundant transient species, March 1982 to February 1983. Figure 20. Spatial - temporal variation in number of individuals and % occurrence for the most abundant macrocrustaceans, March 1982 to February 1983. Figure 21. Monthly mean of rainfall (dotted line; 76 yr mean, NOAA) and mean monthly high water (solid line; 12 yr means, Provost 1974) with number of individuals summed by month of snook Centroeomus undecimalis (solid line) and tarpon, Megalops atlanticus (@otted line), from Ra-75-1982 to February 1983. Figure 22. Tidal comparison of number of individuals of sheepshead minnow, Cyprinodon variegatus, captured in the culvert net at the South Culvert 01). blaCK columnT-:-- flood tide, white columns = ebb tide. Figure 23. Tidal comparison of number of individuals collected on the upper marsh (50 - 53). Black columns = flood tide, white columns = ebb tide. Figure 24. Tidal comrison of number of individuals collected in the lower marsh (30, 60-612, 70 . Black columns = flood tide, white columns = ebb tide. Figure 25. Spatial and ontogenetic comparison of food consumption in the sheepshead minnow, Cyprinodon variegatus for the month of March. Figure 26. Spatial and ontogenetic comparison of food consumption in the sheepshead minnow, Cyprinodon variegatus for the month of June. Figure 27. Spatial, temporal and ontogenetic comparison of food consumption in the sailfin molly, Poecilia latipinna. Figure 28. Spatial, temporal and ontogenetic comparison of food consumption in the mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis. Figure 29. Spatial, temporal and ontogenetic comparison of food consumption in the striped mullet, !@@ cephalus. Figure 30. Spatial, temporal and ontogenetic comparison of food consumption in the ladyfish, Elops saurus. Figure 31. Temporal comparison of all species food consumption, % total food volume consumed, for all stations combined except,the outer marsh. Vigure I- %&P of study aroa,, lopoundmentip. stat'O" 0";atAons deSA R&ted* \N0 CIL) -Aid ................ //A/C C% ove, Ivor CIA ik ik lk oftW 7 6V, I 4-f"" 7@ tar, I Figure 2. Gear types used: (A) Heart trap, front view; (B) Heart trap top angle view; (C) Culvert net; (D) Culvert traps, one aluminum shell (vertical and open), one PVC (horizontal and closed); (E) 1 m throw net; (F) Pull net.Pull net. UPPER MARSH 10. 5 AMD.. 0.- 250' LOWER MARSH 100- 10: E .j 0 2 z C; Z t 0) 30- SEAGRASS z W 20 0 10. A 1. SAND 0.11 M A M J J A 0 N D J F MONTHS Figure 3. Spatial - temporal comparison of total fish densities from March 1982 to February 1983. 4.0 UPPER MARSH 1.0. OIL 5 0 LOWER MARSH 10, --A E Ak co 0 CD t5- SEAGRASS 1.0- 0.5- 0- SAND 0.5- OLJ. A 0 M A M J J A 0 N D i F MONTHS Figure 4. Spatial - temporal compariSori of total fish biomass from MarCh 1982 to February 1983. UPPER MARSH 0'-LOWER MARSH 12- w w a. Co 0 z 0.- OUTSIDE 0- 8 A 9 2@ i iD i is i ii 3b i@ ii 1@ iq i3 2@ ib 2b 6 is 6 26 jb M A M J i A S 0 N D J F MONTHS Figure 5. Spatial - temporal comparison of total number of species for transients (black) and residents (white), from March 1982 to February 1983. UPPER MARSH 0 LOWER MARSH 100 10- x CO) -i z A 0-- 6 OUTSIDE z 5 1: 0 A 11 23 5 21 A, 2b i lb 1 16 3b 16 ji 1 h 2-9 i3 27 lb 2b 6 2 6 A ib:i3 M A M i A S 0 N D J F MONTH 20 Figure 6. Spatial temporal comparison of number of individuals for transients (black) and residents (white), from March 1982 to February 1983. .50 UPPER MARSH 0. LOWER MARSH 20- W .j 0.- OUTSIDE .15- .05- A 6 2@ 2b S 1@ 30 16 41 1% 2; b iS 2@ lb A 6 A 4 A 1b 2@ M A M J i A S 0 N D J F MONTHS Figure 7. Spatial temporal comparison of total sample weight for transients (black) and residents (white), from March 1982 to February 1983. 40- 30- 20 . ... ................................................................................. ... .................... .. ........... CL (00- 40- ............ ... .. ... .............. 20- to- 20- E a 11 . ...... ... .... ... ..... ............ CL 5- 0 4- d 3- 2 9- X 8- CL 6 A j A S N D j F MONTH Figure 8. Temporal variation in means and range of temperature, salinity, ............. ......................... ..... dissolved oxygen and pH for all stations from March 1982 to February 1983. ------ FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL 31 IS, ... DECEMBER JANUARY DATELINE MOON PHASE IS 'A QI 'A w am " 03 w a* w am 40 40 w ap as V w Gj aj 06 04 M62 Ak, w RAINFALL (InCh*811 Figure 9. Water level records for: (A) Indian River lagoon in Haeger Cove at station 61; (B) Perimeter ditch inside South Culvert, station 61; (C) Upper marsh Pond, p-1, with moon phase and rainfall measured In gauges at lmooundment No. 12. TEMPERATURE (*C) DISSOLVED OXYGEN (ppm) 3c m co C- W"a s w a m co .0 z =r vi C+ C- In. C) -n TEMPERATURE (60 DISSOLVED OXYGEN (ppm) 0 F@ =r. co lw -n uk. m V C- cr _-r 0 co tv m > 0 Or s z 4r+ 4 0 C) TEMPERATURE CC) DISSOLVED OXYGEN (ppm) tA Ic 3C 00 IV= =r 0h o-A too- %CIO oo :r 00 no co W w -% Is 0 CL a op 0, ;a ..A . z -C fb lb 40 o 0 C- Figure 13. Dissolved oxygen trace for the 28 to 30 hour sampling day from March to May 1982. Asterix is the time of sunset and sunrise. 10 2- 7-8 @MARC@H (L 6. 4@ 22-23 MARCH z 2- w 10 0 X 4 0 2- 4-5 APWRIL 0 w > 6- -j 4' 20-21 APRIL 0 2 a- 4. 2- 6 MAY w 6 4 2. 19-20 MAY iS i6 i7 iS 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 a 9 1'0 i2 i3 i4 i!; iG 1'7 i8 i9 20 21 22 23 IL EASTERN STANOARD TIME Figure 14. Dissolved oxygen trace for the 28 to 30 hour sampling day from June to September 1982i Asterix is approximate time of sunrise and sunset. 20 16- V. a, 4. 20- 16. f2 CL a. m 4-17-18 J 10- z 6- LU 4 2- X 0 0 4: w 17 *15-16 JULY > 0 -i 0 6- 0) 4. CO 2- 2 9 - 3 0 @JU L to 2, 15-16 AUG. 10 6- 4- 21 @@12-13 @SEP7 13 i4 i5 iS * iS iS :iO 21 22 23 i4 i 0 16 it 12 13 14 iS j6 j7 to 19 20 EASTERN STANDARD TIME JUNE 30-JULY 15- 1 @6JUL Figure 15. Dissolved oxygen trace for the 28 to 30 hour sampling day from September 1982 to February 1983. Last December and first January records are mi,ssing due to recorder failure. Asterix is approximate timeV sunrise and sunset. 10 4 2@ 26-27 10 4- 2- 12-13 OCT. a. m G- IL 20-27 OCT. 20- z I& w 12- a' CD 4. 0-10 NOV. X 0 t2- a- 28-29 NOV. 0 4. w > -i 0 co :: 8-6 DEC. 10, :, 4-28 JAN. SCALE HAN3E 4 0-20 PPM 2 20 9-10 FEB. 4 4 73OCT- 22-23 FEB 9 20 :1 1b 1b 18' iO 2@ 2@2 i3 A i j j io i3 A A 4 IF IF IT EASTERN STANDARD TIME Figure 16. Spatial - temporal variation in number of individuals of residents (white) and transients (black) with moon phase and mean high water in feet above sea level (Provost 1974). MOON PHASE Go 9 25 8 23 8 23 6 21 6 20 4 10 3 17 3 17 3 15 1 15 80 114 U 13 27 5 0 00 0 0900 0900 0 000 00 000000 0 j 1.5- W > 0 Ui j W 0 Ui to W Z AU x LOCAL MSL. -2 z 0 3- Z W z jj x U) z W 2- D cc 0 d - C5 z > z 0 z OL, I - -1 T 1 1-7 2 3 il 6, 2'0 1'8 s@ 3' 1'6 ;1 13 29 13 27 10 29 9 28 .0 ;5 -j'0 23 M A M J i A S 0 N D J F MONTHS 1111110 LJI.OON ALLIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . LOWER MARSH Krwn UPPER MARSH . . ..... -------- . ......... . .. ------ --- QFALFVFL pdwn 0 0 0 -V 30- Ap ...... ..... .-0 ---- IP @3p@ to 39 -';R1 SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY @.@CH' A L 1952 DATELINE a MOON PHASE 1083 0. 3. 41J 45 W Q6 WW at CA U 13 43 (L) W OA W W Q3 a, &I QS Q2 42 'A 70 Al a? 13 2.1 W all 0A ILI RAINFALL Onchos) : .00 :.Go** 910 6.077 2" 991 5%473 12.182 l8v470 1,1164 594 36,8S9 8.913 TOTAL NO. MARSH RESIDENTS Figure 17. Water level records for: (A) Indian River lagoon in Haeger Cove at station 61; (B) Perimeter ditch inside South Culvert, station 61; (C) Upper marsh pond, P-1, with moon phase, rainfall and number of marsh resident captured. 04@ 0-$Y440- Figure 18. Spatial - temporal variation in number of individuals and % occurrence for the most abundant marsh residents, March 1982 to February 1983. 30. C. warlegatus 20- 10. .5 -30 A 20 0- io. P. iatipinne 0 1- C> 5. 30 20 10 UJ x 0- 40- Q. affinle z V) w -J 20- M < C) 10- C1 1- z 30 20 6 - 10 z 'I I I I I I III 0- .0 A- E confluentue .3- .2- .1 - .05- 10 kw Aj 0 M' 'A' M J i A S '0 'N 'D J F MONTHS An Figure 19. Spatial - temporal variation in number of individuals and % occurrence for the most abundant transient species, March 1982 to February'* 1983. 2- ceehalu .5i 5 10 5 0 0 E.aaurus .5-i x 15 LU 10 5 w 0w Ix 2- C. undecimallp z .5- 0 C; .1 z 0 5 0 0 .06- M. atlenticur. .01. AL A 10 P9 a 5 jo M A M J i A S 0 N D IF MONTHS Figure 20. Spatial - temporal variation in number of individuals and % occurrence for the most abundant macrocrustaceans, March 1982 to February' .1983. 6- Palaemonetes 6PP. I- 4- 3- 2- x 25 D5- 20 D 10 .z w --.0 Q ttp dus z C5 U) Z b2- w ir D .01. 5 0----- 0 .05 aeus SPP. .01. AL 5 D Pen OA: - a 23 5 21 6 SO 3 U 1 16 3D 16 31 13 29 13 27 10 29 9 28 9 25 0 23 M A M J J A S 0 N D J F MONTHS M z x 0 z -1.35 -4 10- 1.20 LL G) z ................... 5- -.78 M .................. > M 0-- .38 M 2000- 1500- 1000. 750 Soo > 100- 0 z 75 0 so- 25- . .......... 0 N D Figure 21. Monthly mean of rainfall (dotted line; 76 yr mean, NOW and mean monthly high water (solid line; 12 yr means, Provost 1974) with number of individuals summed by month of snook, Centr2eomus undecimalis (solid line) and tarpon, Megalops atlanticus (d line), from-Marcb 1982 to February 1983. yariegat x -j < $a- M z 0 LU CD z 0- P. a j3 j it 6 20 3 16 1 116 30 U 31 U i9 i3 27 10 29 9 U 9 iS 10 23 M A M J i A S 0 N D J F Figure 22. Tidal comparison of number of individuals of sheepshead minnow, Wrinodon variegatus, captured in the culvert net at the South Culvert NI). BIaCK coru-mns = flood tide, whi te columns ebb tide. i.0- 0 0. V- '06 P. x CF) .04 Z 0- affinis 0 Cr. w CD z 01 A .005- E Confluentus 16 1'6 30 29 13 17 16 i9 4 A i iS 10 23 M A M J A S 0 N D j F Figure 23. Tidal comparison of number of individuals collected on the upper' marsh (50 - 53). Black columns = flood tide, wtite columns ebb tide. LI P NUMBER of INDIVIDUALS x 1000 4 6, w @p IP - IP 't 4 t. tr vi CL -c CL m Oz Q ts iva za Op 0.0 er 06 Figure 25. Spatial and ontogenetic comparison of food consumption in the sheepshead minnow, Cyprinodon variegatus for the month of March. M A R C H UPPER MARSH LOWER MARSH 10 10 10 10 100 so 7 70 60 60 so 40 40 z W 30 30 z 0 10 10 8-0 U-1019 20-@a 32.upmean 32-,p me SIZE CLASS (MM) SIZE CLASS (MM) 0 OUTSIDE MARSH 100 7 10 to to z LU DAC SAND W 70 a. VASCULAR FUNGUS 4 30 FORAMINIFERANS OTHER 20 10 &.UU-j920-agn-Sj3X-"prnean SIZE CLASS (MM) to 6 Eu sm BW 10 J U N E UPPER MARSH LOWER MARSH 100 10 9 9 9 100 10 to 10 to z 90 UWj 00 so 70 70 z 60 60 0 SD so 0 40 40 30 30 20 20 to 10 G-13 u-s ae-as 32-uD mean 14-19 2D. z SIZE CLASS (M M) SIZE CLASS (MM) W DAC SAND VASCULAR COPEPODS FILAMENTOUS OTHER LIJ Figure 26. Spatial and ontogenetic comparison of food consumption in the sheepshead minnow, Cyprinodon variegatus for the month of Jurfe. 10 13 @14-19 20-25 Figure 27. Spatial, temporal and ontogenetic comparison of food consumption in the sailfin molly, Poecilia latipinna. MARCH JUNE I 00@ 0 0 2 2 3 1 5 10 9 2 5 90. 90 co 80. UPPER 80 MARSH z 70 70 w 6() LU W 60 z 50 50- 0 0 40-0 0 40 z z 30- 30 0 20- 20 10. 10 z 32 me n 8- 14-iq 20 265 32-,, mean w 8 13 14 19 20 25 26 51 13 -25 1 U 0 SIZE CLASS (M M) cc 0 6 9 9 0 a 10 10 10 w 100.- foo - 90- 90. 80. LOWER 80- MARSH 70- 70- w 60- Uj 60- -j CL 50- 2 50- < < U) 40- C/) 40- 0 0 z z 30- 30- 20- 20- 10. 10- --- 14- 20j5 26- 32- mean 8-1,3 14- 20- 26-1 32-P mean 8-13 19 31 LIP 19 25 3 U SIZE CLASS (M M) DAC SAND VASCULAR FUNGUS OTHER Figure 28. Spatial, te mporal and ontogenetic comparison of food consumption in the mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis. MARCH JUNE 100. 0 2 1 S 100- 0 0 10 7 90. 90. 80. UPPER 70. MARSH 70' 60. w 60- co -j LLI w (L so. so- IL CL z 40- 40- (n C0 LU 0 0 0 30- 30- z 0 20- 20 101 10L 8-13 14-19 20-M 26-up mean 8-13 14-S 20-25 28- up mear. SIZE CLASS (MM) 100 8 10 10 100. 4 9 10 8 90 90. z so so, w 70 LOWER 70- cc MARSH LULI 60 60' w 0. so so, 40 40, 0 z 30 30, 20 20- 10 'OL 6- 13 14-19 20-2s 26-up mean 8- 13 14-19 2D-25 28-.p mean SIZE CLASS (MM) 0 11 1:1 'N B 0 ARTHROPODS AMPHIPODS CORIXIDAE COPEPODS INSECTS OTHER 9 Figure 29. Spatial, temporal and ontogenetic comparison of food consumption in the striped mullet, Mugil cephalus. MARCH JUNE 100 7 0 a 1 100. 00 0 0 3 z w 90 90. z so LOWER So. 0 - MARSH 70 70* 60 Uj Uj 60 Lv Uj LLJ LLJ -j -j -) -j -i -i D CL 0. r- 0. (L so so. 2 qC Cl) 40 40- c 0 0 0 z Z Z z z z Z 30 30 U.1 0 20 20- cc to 10, w CL 201,2.0 mean 261-3W mean SIZE CLASS (MIA) 30 M MIMI X.- % Uj Z EJ 0 D A C 6 AND VASCULAR OSTRACODS OTHER I ; (.A Figure 30. Spatial, temporal and ontogenetic comparison of food consumption in the ladyfish, Elops saurus. MARCH JUNE 1 0 27 2S 1 0 2 0 0 90 so so w 70 70 -j -j IL (L a 2 UPPER so < < MARSH co 40 30 0 0 COO) z z 20 20 z 10 10 w mean F8100 101 750 mean SIZE CLASS (M M) SIZE CLASS (MM) z 0 100' 0 25 1 100 10 10 10 90. 90 so. so 70- -J 70 60. 60 2 50- < LOWER so MARSH 40- 40 z 30- z 30 w 20. 20 10. 10 cc 40 20120 -as 36 is mean 36-55 $815 76-100 ioi-,Somean w SIZE CLASS (M M) SIZE CLASS (MM) CL 1001 9 20 0 FISHES AMPHIPODS 90. go- w 70- -1 POLYCHAETES COPEPODS 60 so- OUTSIDE MARSH 40- 0 D D 0 0 5 2' 25 0 0201 Z Z 10 J1 0 D 0 0 D D -20 20-35 @38-" 56-75 5 30- z DAC OTHER 20- 10 N 1:1 M 4o -20 ao -3. 6- mean 3 55 SIZE CLASS (MM) Figure 31. Temporal Comparison of all species food consumption, % total food volume consumed, for all stations com4ined except the outer marsh. MARCH JUNE OTH ARTNXOPODD CORIXIDAG COPEPODS COPEPOO:" FOR AMINIFIERANG.AMPHIPODS.OSTRACODO.POLYCMAETE 8 FORAmwFaRANS1 'NSaCT8 I FUNGUS POLYCHASTIEG-i F&AMENTOUS ARTHROPOS NN" DAC CORIXIDAE VASCULAR FISH FUNGUG INSECT& El W EM DAC AMPHIPODS FISH VASCULAR OTHER OSTRACODS 0 .I 9 APPENDIX I 0 I 0 ~0 3/ 9/84 PAGE I ~/ ~/~~ PAGE 2 3/ 9/84 P~AR~h~METER2 P~ARAMETER2 ~qP DATE TI~D STA TIME TEMP SALIM DO PH DATE TI~D STA TIME TEMP SALIM DO PH DATE TIP STA 820308 003 030 915 17.0 42.0 6.9 6.4 820421 004 030 14~40 32.0 3~8.0 10.5 6.~8 82060~3 003 030 82030~ 004 030 1700 22.0 41.0 15.0 6.~2 820421 003 031 ~85~5 26.0 26~*0 4.6 6.8 ~820~60~3 004 030 82030~ 003 050 1000 15.0 32.0 7.6 6.6 820421 003 031 1600 30.0 2460 9.0 7.5 820603 003 031 ~2030~ 004 050 1539 26.0 35.0 7~#3 6.4 820421 003 050 ~?37 30.0 28.0 6.2 6.8 ~820603 004 031 ~2030~ 003 0~51 1045 17.5 42.0 8.2 6.6 820421 004 050 1420 39~,0 32~,0 ~6.~9 ~6.4 ~8~20603 003 0~50 820300 004 051 1550 24.0 34.0 9~-8 6.5 820421 003 051 1025 30.0 32.0 8.3 6.8 820603 004 050 1 ~2030~ 004 0~52 1630 23.0 33.0 10.0 6.6 820421 004 051 1430 34~o~O 32.0 5.6 7.2 820603 003 051 1 ~2~308 004 053 1645 22.5 3360 10.4 6.7 820421 004 052 1435 34.0 30.0 5~o~B 7.0 B2~0603 004 051 1 820308 003 060 1140 17.0 30.0 6.5 663 820421 004 053 1450 33.0 28.0 4.4 7.0 820603 004 052 1 820308 004 060 1800 19.0 32.0 8.4 6.5 820421 003 060 1113 31.0 24.0 5.~8 6.8 820603 004 053 1 ~20308 003 061 1140 17.0 31.0 9.0 6.3 820421 004 060 1652 32.0 25.0 4.6 6.2 ~8206~0~3 003 060 1 820308 004 061 1~800 20~#0 3060 8.5 6.2 820421 003 061 1130 32.0 2~5~s~O 4.4 6.6 B2060~3 004 060 1 820308 003 062 1140 17.0 31.0 9.0 7.0 820421 004 061 1655 32.0 26.0 3.8 6.4 820603 003 061 1 ~A~AAA AAAA AAAAA AAAA AAAA 820421 003 062 1135 2960 2560 6.0 6.4 ~8206~03 004 061 1 820308 1388 19.8 34.3 9.0 6.5 AAAA AA~AA AAAAA A~AAA AAA~A 820603 003 062 1 ~620421 1274 31.5 29.1 6.0 6.~8 A ~20~23 003 030 915 25.0 40.0 2.9 6.7 ~820603 ~q1 820323 004 030 1813 25.5 44.0 4.4 6.9 ~820506 003 030 909 23.5 36.0 3.4 ~8.~8 820323 003 031 1600 27.0 28.0 5.9 ~82050~6 004 030 1718 29.0 37.0 10.2 ~8.8 820618 003 030 820323 004 031 940 25.0 2~8.0 4.5 7.6 820506 003 031 925 23.0 2~8.0 4.2 7.9 ~820618 004 030 1 820323 003 050 1012 29.0 69.0 7.2 6.0 82050~6 003 031 ~028~o~O 30.0 7.0 8.6 ~820618 003 031 1 820323 004 050 1~500 27.0 33.0 2.9 664 ~92~050~6 003 050 100~8 23.0 30.0 3.? ~8.2 ~920~61~8 004 031 820323 003 051 1040 29~#0 ~61~-0 3.9 6.4 ~820506 004 050 1610 32.0 31.0 5.4 ~8.2 82061~8 003 050 820323 004 051 15~qb~5 26.0 50.0 2.5 6.3 B20~506 003 051 1056 24.0 37.0 4.8 8.5 82061~6 004 0~50 1 ~2~323 004 052 1520 27.5 48.0 6.1 6.4 ~820~506 004 0~51 1641 ~30.0 37.0 6.3 8.4 ~82061~8 003 051 820323 004 053 1530 28.0 46.0 3.9 6.2 ~62050~6 004 052 1712 29.0 35.0 ~7~o~B 8.6 ~82~q6618 004 0~51 1 ~20323 003 060 1140 27.5 32.0 3.9 ~6.~8 820506 004 053 1737 29.0 35.0 6.2 ~8.~8 820618 004 052 1 820323 004 060 1726 25.0 2~8.0 3.5 6.0 820506 003 060 1230 25.0 2~8.0 6.1 7.9 ~820~61~8 004 053 1 820323 003 061 1210 2~8.0 30.0 3.9 6.7 ~820506 004 060 1910 26.0 30.0 3.8 8.2 82061~8 003 060 1 820323 004 061 1726 26.5 2~8.0 4.0 6.0 820~506 003 061 1225 25.0 29.0 9.0 ~8.1 B20618 004 060 1 820323 003 062 1215 27.0 30.0 4.5 6.3 B20506 004 061 1915 26.0 30.0 5.0 8.3 82061~8 003 061 AAAA AAAA AAAAA AAAA AAAA ~820506 003 062 1205 25.0 31.0 5o4 8.2 B20618 004 061 1 820323 13~5~? 2~6.~? 40.2 4.3 ~q(~@~,~W~q% AAAA AAAA AAAAA AAAA AAAA A 820405 003 030 844 26.0 '41.0 4.2 6.~8 B20506 1320 2~6.5 32.3 5.9 8.4 ~820~61~8 ~q1 820405 004 030 1442 31.0 41.0 4.0 6.6 820520 00~3 030 ~640 24.0 43.0 2.1 8.3 ~920701 003 030 ~20405 003 031 905 24.0 28.0 4.2 6.6 820520 004 030 1430 29.0 42.0 13.9 8.6 820701 004 030 1 820405 003 031 1521 26.5 30.0 5.7 6.6 820520 003 031 905 24.0 28.0 4.8 ~8.0 820701 003 031 820405 003 050 943 27.0 33.0 4.8 6.5 -820520 003 031 1~520 26.5 30.0 ~?.3 7.9 ~820701 003 050 820405 004 050 140B 33.5 ~3~8.0 3.8 6.6 820520 003 050 945 26.0 74.0 3.6 7.9 ~820701 004 050 1 820405 003 0~q51 1019 26.0 3~8.0 4.8 6.2 820520 004 0~50 1415 36.0 7~B.0 4.4 ~8.0 820701 003 051 820405 004 051 1416 30.0 34.0 3.4 6.4 ~620520 003 051 1010 27.0 61.0 5.8 ~8.0 820701 004 051 1 820405 004 052 1424 30.0 30.0 3~-9 6.8 820520 004 051 1419 33.0 60.0 ~8.4 8.3 820701 004 052 1 ~20405 004 053 14~34 32.0 30.0 4.5 6.4 820520 004 052 1425 32.0 52.0 10.3 8.4 ~820701 004 053 1 820405 003 060 1105 27.0 26.0 3.8 6.9 B20520 004 053 1435 28.0 50.0 6.6 8.2 820701 003 060 1 820405 004 060 1707 30.0 28.0 3.1 6.2 820520 003 060 1052 25.0 30.0 3.4 8.2 820701 004 060 1 ~20405 003 061 1107 27.0 2~8.0 4~.4 ~6.7 820520 004 060 1650 29.0 32.0 5.0 8.2 820701 003 061 1 ~20405 004 061 1715 30.0 2~8.0 ~3.1 6.2 820520 003 061 1057 25.0 28.0 3.6 7.8 820701 004 061 1 820405 003 062 1135 27.0 -30.0 ~5~-0 6.5 820520 004 061 1655 29.0 30.0 4.6 8.1 8~20701 003 062 1 AAAA AAAA AAA~qAA AAAA AAAA 820520 003 062 1100 25.0 30.0 4.8 A 820405 1275 2~8~-5 32.2 4.2 6.5 A~AAA AAAA AAAAA AAAA AAAA ~820701 ~q1 ~820~0q"~.~.~0 1257 27.9 44.5 6.0 820421 003 030 845 28~-0 42.0 4.6 6.6 82071~6 003 030 ~0 PAUL 4 3/ 9/84 PAGE 5 ~3~/ ~7184 PARAMETE~R2 PA~qk~AME~TER2 DATE TIP STA TIME TEMP SALIN DO PH DATE TID STA TIME TEMP SALIN DO PH DATE TIP STA 820716 004 030 1245 31.5 36.0 4.3 7.1 820~831 004 030 1613 32.0 3~8.0 8.6 821013 003 030 820716 003 031 830 29.0 24.0 1.4 7.1 820~831 003 031 9302 22.0 2.9 7.4 ~821013 004 030 820716 003 031 1434 34.0 22.0 4~*1 7.7 ~920~831 003 031 1404 30.0 23.0 4.~8 821013 003 031 820716 003 050 900 29.0 6~8.0 2.4 7.3 820~831 003 050 100~8 30.0 ~51.0 8.2 ~8.1 ~821013 003 031 820716 004 0~50 1225 37.0 57.0 0.~8 7.2 820~031 004 050 1534 35.0 50.0 9.4 ~821013 003 050 820716 003 051 942 30.0 40.0 3.3 7.2 ~820~831 003 051 1036 30.0 52~*0 5.4 ~B~-3 ~821013 004 050 820716 004 051 1232 34.5 3~8.0 4.2 7.3 820~831 004 051 1542 35.0 50.0 7.6 ~q821013 003 051 820716 ~Ou4 34.0 34.0 10.2 7.3 ~820~831 004 052 1600 34.5 40.0 8.6 821013 004 051 820716 004 053 1240 34.0 32.0 7.4 7.3 820~831 004 053 1617 34.0 37.0 10.5 e2~1~0~13 004 052 820716 003 060 1035 30.0 22.0 3.2 7.4 ~820~831 003 060 1132 ~31.0 24.0 3.4 7.2 821013 004 053 820716 004 060 1535 30.0 25.0 4.4 7.2 ~820~8~31 004 060 1735 32.5 25.0 6~-8 ~821013 003 060 820716 003 061 1038 31.0 22.0 ~3~o~V 7.6 820~631 003 061 1140 31.0 22.0 3.0 7.4 ~821013 004 060 820716 004 061 1540 ~31.0 24.0 3~*7 7.2 ~02~0~8~31 004 061 1730 33.0 25.0 6.7 ~821013 003 061 820716 003 062 1040 31~#0 25.0 ~5.1 7.6 ~820~8~31 003 062 1143 31.0 22.0 3.0 ~821013 004 061 ~AAAA AAAA AAAA~A AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAA AAAA A~AAA ~821013 003 062 820716 1147 31.6 33.7 ~3.9 7.3 ~820~831 1~696 ~q32~.~,~qZ_ 34.7 6.0 821013 820730 003 030 753 2~8.0 40.0 1.0 7.8 820912 003 031 1053 29.0 30.0 2.2 820730 004 030 1338 34.0 39.0 6~*9 ~8.0 821026 004 031 820730 003 031 ~80~5 27.0 26.0 1.9 7.2 ~920~9~13 003 030 ~625 2~8.0 ~40.0 0.6 820730 003 031 805 27.0 26.0 7.9 7.2 820913 004 030 1445 37.0 40.0 20.0 821027 003 030 820730 003 050 833 20.0 62.0 ~1.6 ~8.0 820913 003 031 835 28.0 30.0 1.2 821027 004 030 820730 004 050 1311 39.0 71.0 ~3.6 8.2 820913 003 050 900 28.0 53.0 0.9 821027 003 031 820730 003 051 90~5 26.5 44.0 1.2 ~8.4 ~820913 004 050 1402 41.0 60.0 9.2 821027 003 050 820730 004 051 1320 37.0 52.0 13.6 ~8.~5 ~820913 003 0~51 930 29.5 49.0 1.5 821027 004 050 820730 004 052 1328 37.5 47.0 13.6 8.6 820913 004 051 1411 37.0 50.0 6.2 821027 003 051 820730 004 053 1332 37.0 ~3~8.0 12.5 ~8.~8 ~820913 004 052 1440 37.0 36.0 6.~8 821027 004 051 820730 003 060 1000 30.0 27.0 ~3.5 7.~8 82091~3 004 053 1454 37.0 33.0 6.5 ~621027 004 052 820730 004 060 1610 36.0 30.0 7.0 ~9.0 ~820913 003 060 1012 31.0 2B.0 1.~8 821027 004 053 ~20730 003 061 1003 30.0 28.0 2.3 7.7 ~82~0913 004 060 1635 36.0 30.0 7.2 821027 003 060 820730 004 061 1605 37.0 2~8.0 6.2 ~8.0 820913 003 061 1020 31.0 2~8.0 1.6 a2~1~027 004 060 820730 003 062 1006 29.0 2~8.0 ~3.2 ~8.1 820913 004 061 1640 36.5 27.0 6.7 821027 003 061 AAAA AAAA AAAAA AAAA AAAA 820913 003 062 1024 32.0 28.0 2.2 821027 004 061 820730 1130 32.2 39.1 5.7 8.0 AAAA AAAA AAAAA AAAA AAAA 821027 003 062 ~920913 1212 33.5 3~8.0 5.2 0.0 820816 003 030 911 29.0 ~3~8.0 1.4 7.0 821027 ~20816 004 030 1606 35.0 34.0 11.9 ~620928 004 031 1600 28.5 25.0 820~1~6 003 031 930 2~8.0 14.0 2.2 7.0 ~821109 004 031 820816 003 050 1014 28.0 48.0 2.~2 7.2 820929 003 030 ~905 26.0 25.0 0.5 820816 004 0~50 1527 38.5 49.0 ~5.3 7.0 820929 004 030 1555 30.0 21.0 1~8.0 ~8~21110 003 030 820~16 003 051 102~9 2~8. ~O~@ 50.0 3.0 6.9 820929 003 031 920 26~*5 25.0 3.2 ~821110 004 030 ~20816 004 0~51 15~q3~8 40.0 .50.0 11.6 7.0 820929 003 050 951 27.0 22.0 3.4 ~821110 003 031 820816 004 052 1600 37.0 3~8.0 10.6 7.2 820929 004 050 1514 31.0 21.0 5.6 ~821110 003 050 820~16 004 053 1615 37.0 30.0 9.5 820929 003 051 1012 26.5 22.0 1.7 821110 004 050 820~16 003 060 1123 30.0 26.0 2~*4 7.5 820929 004 051 1525 30.0 21.0 6.2 821110 003 051 820~16 004 060 1737 3~1.0 25.0 7.6 820929 004 052 1547 30.0 21.0 8.6 821110 004 0~q51 820816 003 061 1128 29.5 25.0 1.6 7.4 820929 004 053 1600 29.0 21.0 14.7 ~8~2~1~11~0 004 052 820816 004 061 1740 31.0 25.0 6.4 820929 003 060 1124 27.0 25.0 2.2 ~6~q@1110 004 053 820816 003 062 1132 31.0 25.0 3.0 7.3 820929 004 060 1755 2~9~o5 21.0 9.0 ~821110 003 069 AAAA AAAA AAAAA AAAA AAAA 820929 003 061 1100 27.5 25.0 2.6 ~821110 004 060 ~20816 1330 32.4 34.1 5.6 ~-~I~,~I~r~qj 820929 004 061 1753 29.5 21.0 ~6.6 821110 003 061 AAAA AAAA AAAAA AAAA AAAA ~821110 004 061 ~20~31 003 030 913 2~8.0 40.0 1.2 7.6 820929 1327 28.4 22.4 6.5 0.0 ~821110 003 062 821110 0 0 0 3/ 9/84 PAGE 7 @5/ Y/U4 FAut:. u 3/ 9/84'-'- PAGE 9 PARAMETER2 PARAMETER2 PARAMETER2 DATE TID STA TIME TEMP SALIN DO PH DATE TID STA 'TIME TEMP SALrN no PH DATE TID STA TIME TEMP SALIN Do PH 821128 004 031 1521 24.0 24#0 2.9 821228 003 062 1345 22.0 30.0 7.1 830210 003 060 1157 19.0 25.0 7.0 AAAA AAAA AAAAA AAAA AAAA 830210 004 060 1734 20.5 24.0 -1.4 821129 003 030 1010 23.5 25.0 4.4 821228 1409 23.4 33.1 5.0 0.0 830210 003 061 1157 18.0 25.0 8.0 821129 004 030 1700 26.0 25.0 6.9 830210 004 061 1740 20.0 24.0 3.1 821129 003 031 1028 23.0 25.0 5.2 830109 004 031 1437 21.0 30.0 3.8 830210 003 062 1210 18.0 25.0 8.6 821129 003 050 1110 25.5 28.0 5.4 AAAA AAAA AAAAA AAAA AAAA 821129 004 050 1600 29.0 26.0 6.1 830110 003 030 935 21.5 34.0 2.4 830210 1351 19.5 25.4 6.4 0.0 821129 003 051 1140 25.0 26.0 4.8 830110 004 030 1728 22.0 32.0 7.9 821129 004 051 1617 27.0 26.0 6.3 830110 003 031 955 21.0 30.0 3.8 830222 004 031 1630 19.5 19.0 7.2 821129 004 052 1647 27.0 26.0 6.6 830110 003 050 1030 22.5 31.0 4.0 821129 004 053 1708 20.0 25.0 6.3 830110 004 050 1620 23.0 32.0 4.4 830223 003 030 830 20.5 22.0 2.0 821129 003 060 1300 26.0 24.0 5.2 830110 003 051 1100 23.0 35.0 3.6 830223 004 030 1453 24.0 22.0 9.1 B21129 004 060 1754 27.0 25.0 7.1 030110 004 051 1632 23.0 34.0 5.2 1330223 003 031 842 19.5 18.0 5.5 821129 003 061 1305 24.0 24.0 4.0 8301tO 004 052 1705 23.0 34.0 7.1 830223 003 050 916 21.0 20.0 2.5 821129 004 061 1750 26.0 25*0 7.6 830110 004 053 1715 23.0 33.0 5.6 830223 004 050 1430 25.0 22.0 5.3 821129 003 062 1312 24.5 24.0 7.4 830110 003 060 1150 22.0 28.0 4.7 830223 003 051 945 20.5 18.0 3.7 AAAA AAAA AAAAA AAAA AAAA 830110 004 060 1800 22.0 31.0 6.1 630223 004 051 1440 24.0 20.0 7.5 821129 1427 25.8 25.4 5.9 0-0 830110 003 061 1150 21.5 30.0 4.6 830223 004 052 1517 25.0 18.0 13.3 830110 004 061 1804 22.0 28.0 4.7 830223 004 053 1505 25.0 19.0 10.2 821208 004 031 1520 24.0 30.0 1.3 830110 003 062 1145 22.0 30.0 4.6 830223 003 060 1100 20.5 18.0 4.9 AAAA AAAA AAAAA AAAA AAAA 830223 004 060 1620 25.0 20.0 8.8 821209 003 030 810 23.0 28.0 2.0 830110 1390 22.3 31.6 4.9 0.0 830223 003 061 1117 20.5 20.0 5.6 821209 004 030 1621 26.5 28.0 14.4 830223 004 061 1624 22.5 19.0 9.3 821209 003 031 838,22.0 29.0 5.4 830124 004 031 1200 17.0 30.0 5.4 830223 003 062 1040 20.5 20.0 6.7 821209 003 050 915 22.0 26.0 5.8 AAAA AAAA AAAAA AAAA AAAA 821209 004 050 1445 28.0 26.0 10.7 830125 003 030 853 15.0 22.0 5.6 8302@ei 1241 22.4 19.7 6.V 0.0 821209 003 051 952 22.0 29.0 3.8 830125 004 030 1405 l8oO 23.0 6.9 AAAA AAAA AAAAA AAAA AAAA 821209 004 051 1500 28.0 30.0 2.6 830125 003 031 905 14.5 26.0 6.5 1304 25.0 30.0 5.6 2.7 821209 004 052 1553 26.0 77-. 0 6.0 030125 003 050 930 13.5 22.0 6.1 821209 004 053 1612 26.0 27.0 6.5 830125 004 050 1338 22.0 24.0 7.2 821209 003 060 1108 24.0 28.0 3.7 830125 003 051 953 14.0 20.0 6.5 821209 004 060 1700 25.0 28.0 6.8 830125 004 051 1345 17.0 21.0 8.8 821209 003 061 1113 23.5 29.0 4.4 830125 004 052 1355 1B.0 21.0 11.6 821209 004 061 1705 25.0 28.0 6.6 830125 004 053 1413 18.0 23.0 9.4 821209 003 062 1119 24.0 28.0 6.3 830125 003 060 1020 15.0 24.0 6.0 AAAA AAAA AAAAA AAAA AAAA 830125 004 060 1755 18.0 25*0 11.0 821209 1295 24.6 27.9 6.1 0-0 830125 003 061 1027 16.0 27.0 5.5 830125 004 061 1800 19.0 26.0 10.0 821227 004 031 1730 22.0 30.0 3.2 830125 003 062 1100 16.0 26.0 6.5 AAAA AAAA AAAAA AAAA AAAA 821228 003 030 1037 22.0 34.0 1.2 830125 1228 16.6' 23.7 7.7 0.0 821228 004 030 1610 24.0 33.0 6.2 821228 003 031 1050 21.0 30.0 3.1 830209 003 031 1147 14.0 26.0 7.0 821228 003 050 1130 23.0 36.0 5.2 821220 004 050 1539 25.5 36.0 5.7 830210 003 030 945 18.0 30.0 8.8 821228 003 051 1152 23.0 38.0 5.4 830210 004 030 1612 20.0 30.0 9.5 821228 004 051 1553 25.0 36.0 6.6 830210 003 031 957 16.0 26.0 7.0 821228 004 052 1603 24.0 35.0 5.9 830210 003 050 1030 19.0 26.0 6.2 821228 004 053 1618 24.5 34.0 9.3 830210 004 050 1540 22.0 25.0 5.9 821228 003 060 1314 24.0 32.0 4.0 830210 003 051 1058 19.0 26.0 5.9 821228 004 060 1711 23.0 29.0 2.6 830210 004 051 154B 21*5 24.0 6.4 821228 003 061 1340, 23.0 31.0 4.9 830210 Ov4 052 1605 21.0 22.0 6.7 021228 004 061 1714 23.0 30.0 3.5 830210 004 053 1622 21.0 23.0 5.3 REPORT It (MONTHLY TOTALS)p OHS NOSOI TOTAL WEIGHT OF INDIVIDUALS COLLECTEDr AND GRAND TOTALSP BY MONTHe ZERO COLUMNS INDICATE PERIODS WITHOUT COLLECTIONS* JANUARY v 1982 1 FEBRUARYP 1982 1 MARCH 1992 1 APRIL 19132 GENUS-SPECIES DAY 1 DAY 2 1 DAY I DAY 2 1 DAY I DAY 2 1 DAY 1 DAY 2 ------------------------------------------------------- I----------------------- I----------------------- I--------------------- ANCHOA MITCHILLI 0.00 0000 1 0.00 0.00 1 0000 6#21 1 0.71 5.10 BREVOORTIA SHITHI 0.00 0.00 1 0,00 0#00 1 0.00 0000 1 0*24 0.33 BREVOORTIA SPP 0.00 0.00 1 0000 0.00 1 oloo 1.02 1 0.00 0.00 CALLINECTES SAPIDUS 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 378ol6 291#33 1 181.82 54.99 CYPRINODON VARIEGATUS 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 374.99 29131.55 1 461.41 -229.89 DORMITATOR MACULATUS 0*00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.20 0.34 1 4o26 0.69 ELOPS SAURUS 0.00 0.00 1 0000 0.00 1 39.71 91*92 1 83.47 139.25 EUCINGSTOMUS ARGENTEUS 0.00 0.00 1 0*00 0000 1 0.00 0*13 1 0$00 0.54 FUNDULUS COMFLUENTUS 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 1071 353.93 1 33.62 20.76 FUNDULUS GRANDIS oloo 0.00 1 Oloo 0000 1 4*04 2.64 1 7.47 4*02 FUNDULUS SPP 0.00 0000 1 0000 0.00 1 0*33 0.00 1 0184 1.76 GAMBUSIA AFFINIS 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0000 1 15.79 56#52 1 97080 84.34 Gooloso"A ROBUSTUM 0.00 0000 1 0.00 0.00 1 0000 ofal 1 0.00 0.00 LEXOSTOMUS XANTHURUS 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0000 1 4*60 25,70 1 10*94 13.86 LUCANIA PARVA 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 2995 3*48 1 3o55 6.10 MEMID16 SPP 0000 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 1 7.69 0#97 1 3,13 4.28 MICROGODIUS OULOSUS 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.47 1 0@00 0.56 MUGIL CEPHALUS 0.00 0000 1 0.00 0000 1 114.22 310.48 1 2.22 2,062.25 MUOIL CUREMA 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 90048 0.00 1 2.27 43.40 MYROPHIS PUNCTATUS 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 2.11 1 1009 0.00 PALAEMOMETES spp 0000 0000 1 0000 0.00 1 141,62 298.31 1 77olO 74.0? PENAEUS AZTECUS 0000 0.00 1 oloo 0#00 1 0.00 0019 1 0000 0.00 PENAEUS DUORARUM 0.00 0*00 1 0000 0.00 1 0.00 0*40 1 0.00 0.00 PENAEUS SPP 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 2.74 5.46 1 24o88 0.00 POECILIA LATIPINNA 0000 0000 1 0000 0#00 1 215.68 3,265.17 1 550.83 IrI38.97 POOONIAS CROMIS 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0*00 1 2..63 13*53 1 0,72 0.00 SARDINELLA ANCHOVIA 0000 0.00 1 0000 0*00 1 0o03 0.00 1 0.00 0000 SY14ONATHUS SCOVELLI 0000 0.00 1 0.00 0000 1 0.00 1.35 1 0.76 0.63 iwumwmm mw=mmamwwn "Q::;:,4w.w002 1,549.15 3,894,73 *TOTAL WEIGHT* MONTHLY TOTALS 3/ 1/84 PAGE 2 REPORT It (MONTHLY TOTALS)p ONI ... no== "OSDI ===Mauna TOTAL WEIGHT OF INDIVIDUALS COLLECTEDP AND GRAND TOTALSP BY MONTH* ZERO COLUMNS INDICATE PERIODS WITHOUT COLLECTIONS. MAY 1982 JUNE 1982 GENUS-SPECIES DAY 1 DAY 2 DAY 3 1 DAY 1 DAY 2 DAY 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I--------------------------------------- ANCHOA MITCHILLI 0.00 14.26 0.00 1 0.00 0*00 0.00 ARCHOSAROUS PROBATOCEPHALUS, 0.00 0*00 1 0.00 0*00 CALLINECTES SAPIDUS 0000 19.37 0000 1 0.00 163.26 0.00 CEMTROPOMUS UNDECIMALIS 0.00 0.00 1 0000 1.09 CYPRIMODON VARIEGATUS 140.57 19818*37 0.00 1 520.72 84.27 0000 DIAPTERUS AURATUS 0.00 3.40 1 0600 0.07 DORMITATOR MACULATUS 1$33 0,77 0.00 1 30648 1.20 0000 ELOPS SAURUS 117.75 212.27 0000 1 453.26 752.56 0.00 EUCINOSTOMUS ARGENTEUS 0000 0.18 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 EURYTIUM LIMOSUM 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 FUNDULUS CONFLUENTUS 1*16 37.33 0.00 1 1.96 4.35 0.00 FUNDULUS GRANDIS 11.07 161.71 0.00 1 53*04 0.00 0.00 FUNDULUS SIMILIS 0.00 0.65 1 0.00 0.00 FUNDULUS SPP 0.12 0.99 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 GAMBUSIA AFFINIS 58.07 116.22 0.00 1 51.02 21.37 0.00 GERFiES CINEREUS 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 GODIOSOMA ROBUSTUM 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0$00 HIPPOLYTE PLUEROCANTHUS 0.00 0000 1 0.00 0.00 LEIOSTOMUIS XANTHURUS 0.00 4.61 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 LUCANIA PARVA 0.00 1.78 0000 1 0.00 0v71 0.00 MEGALOPS ATLANTICUS 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 MEMIDIA SPP 16,11 27.83 0.00 1 12.75 3.12 0.00 MICROODBIUS GULOSUS 0.00 0.12 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 MUOIL CEPHALUS 756*69 lr599#07 0.00 1 1,576.70 84.21 0.00 MUOIL CUREMA 0.00 73.06 0.00 1. 2.49 11.41 0.00 "YROPHIS PUNCTATUS 1.15 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 ORCHESTIA GRILLUS 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0000 PALAEMOMETES SPP 0.00 0000 0.00 1 0.00 5;37 0.00 PENAEUS SPP 0.00 0*00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0000 POECILIA LATIPINNA 374.93 863.92 0.00 1 733.53 113.92 0.00 RIVULUS MARMORATUS 0.00 0.00 1 0.34 0.00 SPHYRAENA BARRACUDA 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0:00 STRONOYLURA MARINA 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 SYMONATHUS SCOVELLI 0.00 1.02 0.00 1 0.00 0.23 0.00 UCA. PUGILATOR 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 OTOTAL WEIGHT* MONTHLY TOTALS PAUL REPORT 11 (MONTHLY TOThLS)t O"t Mosul TOTAL WEIGHT OF INDIVIDUALS COLLECTEDw AND GRAND TOTALS, BY MONTH- ZERO COLUMNS INDICATE PERIODS WITHOUT COLLECTIONS- JULY , 1982 AUGUST r 1982 GENUS-SPECIES DAY 1 DAY 2 DAY 3 DAY 1 DAY 2 DAY 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ANCHGA MITCHILLI 0.00 0000 0.00 0900 0.00 0.00 ARCHOSAROUS PROBATOCEPHALUS 0000 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 41.98 0000 CALLINECTES SAPIDUS 40992 378*41 123.08 1 212.28 153.48 CENTROPOMUS UNDECIMALIS 0.00 0081 0,30 1 0.33 5.13 0.00 CYPRINODON VARIEGATUS 2,390t44 1,809.83 2,189.20 1 688*95 347.98 0000 DIAPTERUS AURATUS 1.49 7.81 8056 1 24.68 9.36 DORMITATOR MACULATUS 0.00 0.18 8.06 1 4.92 4*06 0.00 ELOPS SAURUS 95,13 20.83 70.35 1 144.44 190*76 0.00" EUCINDSTOMUS ARGENTEUS 1.48 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 EURYTIUM LIMOSUM 0.00 0.00 10.54 0.00 10.bo 0.00 FUNDULUS CONFLUENTUS 63.80 173.85 63.06 1 36#27 0.00 FUNDULUS GRANDIS 0.00 19.73 5.59 1 0.00 3.36 FUNDULUS SIMILIS 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 FUNDULUS SPP 0.21 0*24 0.10 1 0.00 0.10 0.00 GAMPUSIA AFFINIS 314.92 143.92 167.90 1 19.39 44.13 0.00 GERRES CINEREUS 3.29 0.00 0000 1 0.00 0000 GORIOSOMA ROBUSTUM 0*43 0000 0*00 1 0000 0.00 HIPPOLYTE PLUEROCANTHUS 0.00 0902 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 LEIOSTOMUS XANTHURUS 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0100 0.00 LUCANIA PARVA 2.09 0089 2*90 1 0*14 1*92 0.00 MEGALOPS ATLANTICUS 0.00 0.31 133.96 1 385*61 30e.70 0.00 MEMIDIA SPP 1.68 0056 6*77 1 0.71 0000 0000 MICROGODIUS OULOSUS 0900 0*61 0*52 1 0400 0.00 MUOIL CEPHALUS 0.00 0.00 568.45 1 67301 390.74 0000 MUGIL CUREMA 0,29 0.00 0.16 1 0.00 0.09 0.00 MYROPHrs PUNCTATUS 0.00 0000 0.00 1 0000 0000 ORCHESTIA GRILLUS 0.00 0000 0.00 1 0.011 0.00 PALAEMONETES SPP 3.15 3.91 4.89 1 3.18 14.29 0.00 PENAEUS SPP 8.86 0065 6.90 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 POECILIA LATIPINNA lv466.40 820*66 573.46 1 IP763.46 1,693.03 0.00 RIVULUS MARMORATUS 0*00 0.00 0000 1 0000 otoo SPHYRAENA BARRACUDA 0.00 0*00 0.44 1 0.00 0.00 STAGNOYLURA MARINA 0.00 1091 0000 1 0.00 0000 SYNONATHUS SCOVELLI 1.92 0.20 2*22 1 Ot6i 0.00 Uch PUGILATOR 0.00 0400 4#48 1 0000 0.00 0.00 0000=0=0mam wwwwwwwwwwa mummmummumn wommumm"wen ma"Unaftwomm mummmammumm *TOTAL WEIGHT* MONTHLY TOTALS 49396.58 3,384.35 3p951089 3,958.79 3v219*90 0000 3/ 1/84 PAGE 4 REPORT 11 (MONTHLY TOTALS)v ONI MOS01 TOTAL WEIGHT OF INDIVIDUALS COLLECTED, AND GRAND TOTALS, BY MONTH. ZERO COLUMNS INDICATE PERIODS WITHOUT COLLECTIONS. SEPTEMB.r 1982 1 OCTOBER 1982 1 NOVEMBER, 1982 1 DECEMBER, 1782 GENUS-SPECIES DAY 1 DAY 2 1 DAY 1 DAY 2 1 DAY 1 DAY 2 1 DAY I DAY 2 ------------------------------------------------------- I----------------------- I----------------------- I--------------------- ACHIRUS LINEATUS 0000 0*12 1 0*84 0000 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 ANCHOA MITCHILLI 0600 0.00 1 7.67 0000 1 7.32 10.02 1 17.98 1.19 ANGUILLA ROSTRATA 0.00 0.00 1 0*00 818.49 1 751.96 0000 1 0.00 0.00 ARCHOSAROUS PROBATOCEPHALUS 87.20 0.00 1 183.52 120.58 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 23.24 BREVOORTIA spp 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0000 0.00 1 0.03 0.00 CALLINECTES SAPIDUS 19.01 2.81 1 103*25 96.71 1 0.00 31.22 1 193.86 7.58 CENTROPOMUS UNDECIMALIS 16-02 9.30 1 8.92 15.84 1 5.00 870.10 1 137.00 48.41 CYPRINODON VARIEGATUS 72.97 12.32 1 6.14 13.49 1 19.71 992.97 1 4,406*80 4,655.09 DIAPTERUS AURATUS 14.69 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0*34 12.69 1 5.99 2.02 DIAPTERUS SPP 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.05 1 0.00 0.21 1 0.00 0.00 DORMITATOR MACULATUS 3#30 0000 1 0.00 0.00 1 Otoo 0.52 1 0.00 17.63 ELOPS SAURUS 476*91 0.97 1 46o97 366.83 1 83s74 468.62 1 63.17 38.63 EUCINOSTO"US ARGENTEUS 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 14.79 0.75 1 0.00 0.00 EUCINOSTOMUS OULA 3-54 0.00 1 0.00 0400 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 FUNDULUS CONFLUENTUS 1.71 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 7*13 1 75*28 81.63 FUNDULUS GRANDIS 8$85 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 15.54 1 16.15 98.13 FUNDULUS SIMILIS 0000 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 2.25 GAMVUSZA AFFZNZS 15.56 2.93 ) 5.62 26.13 ) 31#49 7v329.10 1 635069 439.94 GERRES CINEREUS 0.00 0.05 1 0.02 0.00 1 0.28 35.10 1 0.28 0.47 GOBIOSONA ROBUSTU" 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0000 1 0.00 0.73 1 0.00 0.00 LAGODON RHOMBOIDES 0.00 0.00 1 47.44 0.00 1 27.28 0000 1 0.00 0.00 LUCANIA PARVA 0.06 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 8.70 1 0.07 0.17 LUTJANUS GRISEUS 0.00 185o53 1 0.00 287*63 1 0000 0.00 1 0.00 74.48 MEGALOPS - ATLANTICUS 10009 150#07 1 542.25 1,022.34 1 65*44 251.10 1 117.63 424o0S KENIDIA SPP otoo 0#00 1 0000 0.04 1 0000 7.82 1 16.93 27.11 MICROGODIUS OULOSUS 0#00 0,26 1 0.14 0.00 1 0.00 0000 1 0.00 0.00 MUOIL CEOHALUS 845#35 1,246.32 1 0000 1,239.32 1 573*84 371.55 1 5,229.15 1,178.58 MUOIL CUREMA 0.09 0000 1 0.00 0.49 1 34*72 42.50 1 76o54 34.02 PALAEMONETES spp 9.55 45.03 1 112.05 2*98 1 29.35 273.66 1 69.90 174091 PENAEUS SPP 1.10 0.14 1 0.13 6.40 1 0.00 16.93 1 10.39 3.21 POECILIA LATIPINNA 438-84 16o78 1 2.15 70.45 1 1-06 109556.29 1 443.20 1,190.36 SPHYRAENA BARRACUDA 0.00 1.07 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 3.03 1 0600 0.00 TAPHROMYSIS BOWMANI 0000 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 @TOTAL WEIGHT' MONTHLY TOTALS 0 PAGE -75 REPORT 11 (MONTHLY TOTALS)v ON: -=-mum= NOSGI =="am=== TOTAL WEIGHT OF INDIVIDUALS COLLECTEDw AND GRAND TOTALS, BY MONTH. ZERO COLUMNS INDICATE PERIODS WITHOUT COLLECTION$. JANUARY , 1983 1 FEBRUARY, 1983 1 MARCH 1983 ... I APRIL 1993 GENUS-SPECIES DAY I DAY 2 1 DAY I DAY 2 1 DAY 1 DAY 2 1 DAY 1 DAY 2 ------------------------------------------------------- I----------------------- I----------------------- I--------------------- ANCHOA MITCHILLI 30.39 0.00 1 0.63 0.20 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 BREVOORTIA SPP 0.12 0.15 1 0.00 2.62 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 CALLINECTES SAPIDUS 16.70 16.25 : 19.55 4.89 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 CENTROPOMUS UNDECIMALIS 4.21 0000 1 0.16 6.49 1 oloo 0000 1 0.00 0.00 CYPRINODON VARIEGATUS 310*36 125.56 1 9,726.56 3,554,29 1 0000 0.00 1 0000 0.00 DORMITATOR MACULATUS 0.00 0600 1 1.41 40.27 1 0.00 0.00 1 0000 0.00 ELOPS SAURUS 2-46 5.55 1 43o49 123.54 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 FUNDULUS CONFLUENTUS 18.47 4.88 1 50.40 29.83 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 FUNDULUS GRANDIS 15#04 0.00 1 0.00 7.99 1 0000 0000 1 0.00 0.00 FUNDULUS spp 0400 0.05 1 0058 0.07 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 GAMBUSIA AFFINIS 157*66 21.36 1, 663.57 282.20 1 0000 0000 1 0.00 0.00 LAGODON RHOMBorDES 0.00 0.00 1 0011 0600 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 LEXOSTOMUS XANTHURUS 0.00 0.00 1 0.81 49.96 : 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 LUCANIA PARVA 0.09 0.32 1 0.53 0.02 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 LUTJANUS ORISEUS 112*21 0.00 1 oloo 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 MEGALOPS ATLANTICUS 384o69 175.94 1 360.35 77.14 1 0.00 0.00 1 0000 0.00 MENIDIA SPP 1691 2.75 1 8.00 8.20 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 MUGIL CEPHALUS 1013*01 316.25 1 578.67 615-81 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0000 MUGIL CUREMA 0.00 0.32 1 0*13 12.64 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 PALAEMONETES SPP 8.99 27*04 1 172.69 80#79 1 0000 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 PENAEUS app 0.00 0.00 1 0059 3#42 1 0.00 0.00 1 0*00 0.00 POECILIA LATIPINNA 125#14 25.56 1 I,IV1.52 1,032.29 1 0.00 0600 1 0000 0.00 POGONIAS CROMIS 0.00 0.00 1 0.14 0.00 1 0*00 oloo 1 0.00 0.00 UCA PUGILATOR 0.00 0,24 1 0.00 0000 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 *TOTAL WEIUM16 MONTHLY TOTALS ZOOPLANKTON AND MARSH VEGETATION IN A RECENTLY RE-@OPENED MOSQUITO CONTROL IMPOUNDMENT Jorge R. Rey (Principal Investigator) Timothy Kain, Roy Crossman, Fred Vose and Francisco Perez University of Florida, IFAS Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory 200 9th Street S.E. Vero Beach, Florida 32962, U.S.A. May 1984 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................ iv LIST OF FIGURES ....................................... vi INTRODUCTION .......................................... 1 PROJECT RATIONALE ..................................... 5 STUDY AREA ............................................ 6 METHODS ............................................... 6 Floatina Nets .................................... 7 Pump Samples ..................................... 8 Hand Nets ........................................ 10 Processing the Plankton Samples .................. 10 Phvsical-chemical Variables ...................... 12 Vegetation Sampling .............................. 12 RESULTS ............................................... 13 Physical-chemical Data ........................... 13 Mangrove Data .................................... 15 Transect Data ..................................... 17 Plankton Data .................................... 19 DISCUSSION ............................................ 22 Phvsical-chemical variables ...................... 22 Marsh Veaetation ................................. 23 Zooplankton ...................................... 27 CONCLUSIONS ........................................... 32 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................... 33 LITERATURE CITED ...................................... 35 ii FIGURE LEGENDS ........................................ 43 FIGURES ............................................... 44 TABLES ................................................ 76 APPENDIX A........................................... 113 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of sampling routines. Table 2. List of samples taken. Table 3. Descriptive statistics: Physical data. Table 4. Correlation coefficients among physical variables. Table 5. Correlation coefficients between physical variables. Table 6. Correlations between precipitation and other physical variables. Table 7. Descriptive statistics for mangrove data. Table S. Data on mangrove deaths. Table 9. Descriptive statistics for mangroves surviving to Nov. 1983. Table 10. Results of t-tests and Mann-Whitnev tests for differences in crrowth of mancrroves at the experimental and control cells. Table 11. Results of t-tests and Mann-Whitney tests for differences in proportional arowth of manaroves at the experimental and control celis. Table 12. Chanaes in relative frequency of the more common plant species along the transects. Table 13. Descriptive statistics for frequency of occurrence of plant species along the transects. Table 14. Comparison of mean % cover by various species aloncr the transects. Table 15. T-tests for differences in chanae in % cover for the more common species along the transects. Table 16. Data on volumes filtered and net efficiencies for the plankton sampling gear. Table 17. List of taxa collected in the plankton samples. iv Table 18. Frequency of occurrence of the different taxa in the hand net collections. Table 19. Mean density/taxa at the various stations. Table 20. Pearson correlation coefficients between total densities of each taxon collected at the different sites. Table 21. Data on the 15 most common taxa captured with the 202u and 63u gear. v LIST OF FIGURES Fiaure 1. Map of the study area. FicTure 2. Floating plankton net. Ficrure 3. Plankton net during a tow. Ficrure 4. Cod-end of the plankton nets. Ficrure 5. Collecting vessel for plankton nets. Figure 6. Pump filtering cylinders. Figure 7. Side of filterina cylinders showing appertures. Fiaure 8. Intake hose and float assembly. Figure 9. Pump sampling apparatus in operation. Fiaure 10. Cvlinder filterincr screen. Figure 11. Hand net collections in the interior ponds. Ficrures Plots of the values of various physical 1@-26. variables at the different sites during the course of the studv. Ficrure 27. Comparison of the mean values of physical variables at the different stations. Fiaure 28. Changes in mean % cover by various plant species along the transects. Figure 29. Comparisons of mean number of taxa per sample for zooplankton collected at the different stations. Figure 30. Comparisons of mean density per sample for zooplankton collected at the different stations. Figure 31. Schematic vegetation map of the experimental cell prior to re-openincr of Culvert A. Figure 32. Schematic vegetation map of the experimental cell circa 1983. Figure 33. Comparisons of the distributions of average density per taxon per plankton sample for the 202u and 63"me5h gear. vi ZOOPLANKTOW AND MARSH VEGETATION IN A RECENTLY RE-OPENED MOSQUITO CONTROL IMPOUNDMENT INTRODUCTION From 1955 to 1963, 33,518 acres of salt marshes bordering the Indian River. the Banana River and Mosquito Lagoon in east-central Florida were impounded for mosquito control. These marshes were oviposition sites for the salt marsh mosquitoes Aedes taeniorhynchus and A. sollicitans. In Florida. salt marsh Mosquito impoundments are usually manaaed bv local mosquito control organizations, and impoundment management practices as well as chemical treatment of mosquito populations, vary from district to district. Although there is a great deal of information available on salt marshes and mangrove swamps, there are huge craps in our knowledge of the biolocry of the5e areas (Clewell 1979). and verv scant data on the biology and ecology of salt marsh impoundments. Marsh Vegetation. The prime mosquito-producincr portion of a salt marsh is that area of the marsh above the influence of dailv tidal innundation, the hierh marsh. (Provost 1974). Frequent tidal flooding of the low marsh does not provide the opportunity for salt marsh mosquitoes to oviposit since they will not lay their eags upon standing water or overly-moist soil. In south Florida, the low marsh is usually dominated by the red mangrove, Rhizophora mangle and a number of halophytic grasses such as smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), whereas in the high marsh black mangroves (Avicennia crerminans), white mangroves (Laguncularia racemosa) saltwort (Batis maritima) and crlasswort (Salicornia spp-) predominate. Further north, Spartina alterniflora predominates in the low marsh and S. patens, Distichlis spicata and Juncus roemerianus in the hiqh marsh. It is not at all clear what physical-chemical factors affect the zonation of species in salt marshes. Clearly, the frequency and extent of tidal innundation has to be important, but there is a plethora of direct and indirect effects associated with different tidal reaimes that need to be separated so that their interaction with plant physiology and ecology can be identified. Bordeau and Adams (1956) list micro-relief, soil texture, and soil salinity as the major factors influencincr zonation in North Carolina. Other factors that have been considered important in this respe ct are: submeraence-emerqence ratios (Johnson and York 1915), tide-elevation influences (Adams 1963), water quality (Odum. et al. (1982), nutrient levels (McCoy 1969), propagule availability (Rabinowitz 1978), and catastrophic events (Ball 1980). These factors obviously overlap and the list barelv scratches the surface of the possible interactions among physical-chemical factors, plant physiology, and plant ecology. The list has been presented mainly to illustrate the complexities and subtleties involved in study of salt marsh plant communities. It has now become evident that in most cases salt marsh 2 species zonation does not represent seral stacres of succession, but are the result of geomorphological and hydrological processes (Thom 1967, Chapman .1970), local conditions (Odum et al. 1982), chance events (Ball 1980), catastrophic events (Craighead and Gilbert 1962), and historical factors (van der Valk 1961). There have been a number of studies on the effects on high marsh vegetation of activities related to mosquito control. Most of these, however, have dealt with ditching, rather than impounding, and their results are contradictory. Some studies report a shift to drier conditions with a concomitant invasion of the hicrh marsh by upland species (Daicth et al. 1938, Daigh and Stearns 1939, Miller and Egler 1950). Other studies report a shift towards conditions more typical of the low marsh (Travis et al. 1954, Shisler and Jobbin5 1977). A third group of studies report no significant change due to these activities (Taylor 1937, Headlee 1939, Ferrigno 1961). Ball (1980) reports an increase in red mancrrove cover in areas ditched for mosquito control in Biscayne Bay, while several authors have reported various degrees of damage to mangroves due to improper diking and impounding (Breen and Hill 1969, Odum and Johannes 1975, Patterson-Zucca 1978, Lugo 1981). In Florida, the general consensus appears to be that impounding in mancyrove areas favors the spread of red mangroves at the expense of black mangroves, white mangroves and other high marsh species (McCoy 1969). The importance of the low marsh in the overall dynamics of the coastal zone has been recognized for a long time. The hicrh marsh, however. was once considered by many (particularly by those wishing to develop it) as real estate with little ecological value. Recent studies, have demonstrated that the high marsh provides many of the same services as the low marsh, as well as many others that are qualitatively and/or quantitatively different and just as important to the overall health of the estuarine ecosystem (Heald 1969, Lugo and Snedaker 1974). Marsh Zooplankton. Zooplankton communities form the base of a larcre number of marine and estuarine food chains. We have all been exposed to one form or another of the above statment. from crrade-school science texts to advanced volumes in marine ecology and invertebrate biology. The importance of plankton populations, however, is not restricted to their role in the feeding dynamics of other organisms. Many benthic and nektonic orcranisms spend part of their life as planktonts (meroplankton), and thus, zooplankton dynamics are often indicative of patterns and processes affecting the benthos and the nekton (Jeffries 1977); zooplankton communities can be extremely important in recrulating water quality, phytoplankton communities, and undesirable algal blooms (Jeffries 1977); finally, many planktonic orcranisms are excellent indicators of water quality, of pollution and of overall physical conditions in bodies of water such as lakes, lacroons, estuaries and impoundments (Thomas et al. 4 1976). In spite of the recognized importance of zooplankton dvnamics, there is very little information on the biology and ecology of plankton in salt marshes and mangrove swamps, let alone on its dynamics in mosquito control impoundments. Part of the problem has been the significant logistic problems involved in studying the plankton communities in these habitats (see Methods). This study represents a first attempt to characterize the zooplankton fauna of salt marsh impoundments under different management regimes. PROJECT RATIONALE This study attempts to evaluate the changes that occur in a salt marsh impoundment (Indian River County # 12) after re-establishinq a tidal connection between the impoundment and the adjoining Indian River lagoon. This impoundment is of particular interest because of the background data available from this site. Both Harrington and Harrington (1982) from the Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory and Gilmore and co-workers from the Harbor Branch Foundation have conducted research on the fish communities at this site, both pre-and post-impounding. Gilmore et al. (1981) showed a significant increase in the utilization of the marsh by transient fish species after reestablishment of a connection (throucrh culverts) between the marsh and the Indian River lagoon. Activities in the salt marsh will have direct effects on many organisms such as those that migrate 5 between these two habitat during some or all stages of their life histories. STUDY AREA A description of impoundment IRC # 12 is given in the first part of this report by Carlson and Vigliano. The impoundment adjoining IRC # 12 (Control Cell) is similar in nature to the experimental marsh except that it has remained closed to the Indian River durina the study. We established sampling stations for plankton and physical-chemical parameters at the followina locations: Mole Hole (N.W. Pond), a small, shallow pond formed at the N.W. terminus of the perimeter ditch; Culvert Station, at the perimeter ditch near culvert A; River Station; in the Indian River across from culvert A; Control Station. at the perimeter ditch in the control cell; SP-2 and P-3 Stations, In shallow semi-permanent ponds in the interior of the impoundment. The arowth of mangrove seedlings was monitored in the experimental and control cell, and transects for the study of vegetation were also established in both cells. All samr)lincr stations and vecretation transects are shown in Ficrure I . METHODS One of the main reasons for the lack of information about the plankton communities of coastal marshes (Odum. et al. 1982) is the difficulty in obtaining adequate samples 6 from these communities. The major problem encountered is the shallow water usually existing in these areas. This makes it impossible to use standard, unsupported circular nets without draacrincr the nets throucth the substrate, thus contaminatincr the samples and creating severe cloacrincr problems. Clogging has also been a problem when usinc r other sampling methods. For example, pumping is often ineffective because only a small volume of water can usually pass throuqh standard sieves before these become clogged and overflow. For this study, we developed several techniques that have proven to be satisfactory for sampling zooplankton from shallow areas with soft substrates. Brief descriptions of these are included below: Floating Nets. The configuration of the plankton nets minimizes their vertical profile while maintaining an adequate filtering surface. We found that a net with a rectangular mouth tapering to a conical cod-end was best for these purposes (Figure 2). Such a net (36" x 8" mouth, 66" long) was attached to a PVC frame supported by styrofoam floats in so that under tow, the upper edge of the mouth floats just below the water surface (Figure 3). A flowmeter (General Oceanics) was attached inside the mouth of each net . We installed a plastic ring at the cod-end of each net (Figure 4) and machined it to accept a collecting vessel with a screen of the appropriate mesh size (Figure 5). Material remaining in the net after a tow could thus be washed into 7 the collectina vessel and the latter could then be easily removed to transfer its contents to glass jars for preservation and 5toraae. Two nets, one of 63u mesh and one of 202u mesh were used at each site during each sampling. A sample consisted of a straight-line tow over a distance of 200 feet. We accomplished this as follows: One person hand-carried the net out of the water and awav from the sampling location to a pre-measured 200-foot marker while a second person carried the net-end of the tow rope. A third person held the other end of the rope at the 0-foot marker. At the 200-foot marker, the tow rope was attached to the towing bridle and the net was placed in the water. The net was then pulled-in through the complete transect without stopping. Upon arrival at the 0-foot. marker, the net was immediately taken out of the water, the sides of the nets were rinsed from the outside. and the catch removed from the collection bucket and rinsed with distilled water into a crlass storacre Jar (see below). FjLmp Samples. The pump sampling apparatus was designed to maximize filterincr area and to provide temporary storage for relatively large volumes of water to prevent overflowing while the sample was being collected and filtered. The filtering apparatus consists of two PVC cylinders, 4 feet high and 10 inches in diameter (Fiaure 6). The walls of the cylinders were perforated with numerous holes of various sizes, and these were covered with 63u-mesh plankton screening (Figure 7). This allowed excess water to escape through the holes while the plankton was retained inside the cylinders. A conical splashquard was fitted on the top edge of each cylinder to prevent sample spillage (Figure 9). Two baffles inside the splashquards broke up the water stream to prevent damage to the lower collecting screens. Samples were collected with a 2-inch pump driven by a 2-hp gasoline engine. The intake hose was attached to a pole with a float near the end (Figure 8). This arrangement allowed the operator to keep the nozzle in constant vertical and horizontal motion without disturbincr the substrate. The outflow hose was inserted at the top of the splashquards (Figure 9) and maintained in place for the duration of the sampling interval (samples were timed). We collected the sample at the bottom of the cylinders in removable screens of the appropriate mesh size (63u or 202u, Figure 10). The flow rate of the pump was measured immediately before and after each sample by recording the amount of time necessesary to fill a container of known volume. We used the mean of these two measurements (which varied very little durina the course of the study, see Results) to calculate the flow rate for the sample, the volume of water filtered, and the density of the organisms captured. After collection, and prior to removal of the collecting screens, the walls of the cylinders were rinsed with the water that filtered through the 63u-mesh screens on the sides of the cylinders. This filtered water was collected in buckets placed adjacent to the cylinders while the sample was being collected. Two 9 pump samples were taken at each site durinq each collection date; one with a 63u-mesh bottom collectina screen and the other with a 202u-mesh collecting screen. Each 202u sample was of 10 minutes duration. The 63u samples had to be limited to 2 minutes. Even with the larcre filtering surface the filtering apparatus became cloqqed with 63u samples of longer duration. All samples with the same type of gear (net or pump) were collected on the same day, but at least 24 hours were allowed to elapse between pump and net samples at the same site. Hand Nets. Qualitative samples from the temporary ponds in the studv area were collected using a 63u-mesh net attached to a wooden handle and pushed just under the water surface along a predetermined route (Ficrure 11). Processincr of the Plankton Samples. Immediately after collection, each sample was preserved in a glass jar with a 10% buffered formalin-rO5e benaal solution. In the laboratory, the sample was washed with distilled water throucrh a 63u-mesh sieve. Any large organisms present in the sample (adult fish, large insects, etc.) were removed, washed with 70% ethanol to remove any planktonts that may have adhered to them, and stored in 70% ethanol. The rest of the sample was placed in a glass graduated cylinder and diluted in steps to 0.100-2.00 1. The diluted sample was then aereated and mixed, taking care 10 not to create currents that could bias the subsampling procedure by sortincz the organisms according to size. Subsamplinq was carried out immediatelv after mixincy. A I ml or 2 ml subsample was obtained from the diluted sample with a Hensen-Stempel pipette. The size of the subsample, as well as the final dilution was dependent upon the richness of the sample ( Newell and Newell 1963, Carter and Dadswell 1983). The subsample was then placed in a Boaorov counting tray and spread evenly throughout the tray with 70* ethanol. All the organisms in the subsample were counted and identified to the lowest taxonomic group possible. After counting, the subsample was returned to the oriainal sample and the volume brought back to the original level with 70% ethanol. The proce55 of mixincr and subsampling was then repeated 4 more times for a total of 5 subsamples for each sample. The densitv of each taxon per cubic meter was then calculated for each subsample (see Appendix A) and the mean from the five subsamples was used as the density of each taxon for that particular sample. Mentification of organisms captured in plankton sampte5 is an extremely difficult task. A large fraction of the organisms, particularly the numerous immature forms. can usuallv onlv be identified to malor taxonomic aroups. Durincr initial sortina and compilation of our reference collection. we used liberal criteria in separating specimens to different taxa. For our oricrinal determination5 we used standard reference works (e.g. Davis 1949, Davis and 11 Williams 1950, Grice 1960, Gonzalez and Bowman 1965, Menzies And Frankenberg 1966. Wells 1976, Newell and Newell 1979, for 1983. and others). Specimens from all the taxa were then sent to specialists (Particularly to Dr. Marsh Youngbluth of the Harbor Branch Foundation) for confirmation and/or further identification. Taxa were then lumped or split as appropriate. There has been considerable debate over the advantages and disadvantages of different techniques for sampling zooplankton (UNESCO 1968). In the final analysis, no single method is 100% effective in obtaining quantitative estimates of Plankton diversity and abundance (Newell and Newell (1963). A combination of methods, such as were used in this study (nets of various mesh sizes and pumps) represent the best possible compromise. Rectangular nets have been used sucessfully before (Zaitsev 1959, Ellertsen 1977, Schram 1981), and represented the only workable configuration for the conditions existing in our study area. Physical-chemical Variables. The following variables were measured at the Mole Hole. Culvert, River and Control stations on a bi-weekly basis: Salinity, dissolved oxygen, PH, water and air temperatures, and water levels (maximum. minimum and existing). Water temperature, salinity and water levels were measured at ponds SP-2 and P-3 during each sampling Vegetation Sampling. Vegetation cover on the experimental and control 12 marshes was monitored along 1200-foot transects established at each location (Figure 1). Each transect was divided into 12 100-foot sections and five quadrat locations were chosen aloncr each section. The distance along a section and the distance and direction from the transect line of each quadrat were determined using a random number generator. At each location, an estimate of percent coverage by each plant 2 species on a Vimeter area was obtained with the help of a square-meter frame that was subdivided with heavy wire into 16 equal sections. A total of 60 such estimates were obtained along each transect every 3 months. He also measured the growth and establishment of mangroves in the experimental and control marshes. At each location, 100 mangrove seedlings were tagged and mapped, and the growth of each (length) was measured every three months. A majority of these seedlings were located along the perimeter of the experimental and control cells (Figure 1). A summary of the sampling routine is shown in Table 1 and the sample records are shown in Table 2. RESULTS Phvsical-chemical Data. Figures 12 - 26 show the values of the physical- chemical variables measured every two weeks at the study sites. The patterns of these variables in time are-typical of the seasonal patterns of the area. 13 Descriptive statistics for air and water temperatures, dissolved oxygen, salinity, pH, and water levels at the studv stations are given in Table 3. In general, the values are in agreement with those found in similar habitats elsewhere. Tables 4 and 5 show the correlations between the same variable at the different stations, and the correlations among the different variables at the same station. The most consistent within-station patterns (Table 5) are the negative correlations between water level and temperature, salinity, and pH. Temperature and salinity were significantly correlated only in the shallow, semi- isolated stations (Mole Hole, SP-2 and P-3), whereas temperature and D.O. were necratively correlated only at the more open and deeper stations (Culvert and Indian River). Kater temperature, salinity, and water level were sicrnificantly correlated throughout the study sites. The only exceptions were temperature and water level at SP-2 and P-3. where the correlations were only significant between these two sites. Dissolved oxygen was only correlated between the Culvert and River stations, whereas sicrnificant correlations in pH values were evident between Mole Hole and River, Culvert and River, and Culvert and Control (Table 4). Additional correlations between Carlson and Vigliano's rainfall data and these physical-chemical variables are presented in Table 6. The most obvious pattern discernible from this table is the significant necrative correlation between rainfall and salinity at all the stations. 14 Dissolved oxygen, salinity, pH and water levels were most variable at Mole Hole, followed, in descending order, by the Control, Culvert, and River stations (Hollander's Test for Ordered Alternatives (Hollander and Wolfe 1973); variance:mean Mole Hole > Control ) Culvert ) River, Y" 2.651, P. < 0.004 ). Sites SP-2 and P-3 were not included in the above analvsis because D.0 and pH were not measured at these stations. There were similarities as well as sianificant differences in the mean values of water temperature, D.0, salinity, pH, and water level range recorded at the different stations during the course of the study (Figure 27). Dissolved oxygen and pH were the most consistent variables, with no sicrnificant differences evident between any of the sites at which they were measured (not measured at SP-2 and P-3). As expected, water temperatures were significantly higher at the two shallow ponds (SP-2 and P-3) than at any other site. Likewise, salinities were significantly higher in the small, shallow, and isolated stations (SP-2, P-3, and Mole Hole) than at the Culvert and Indian River Stations. Also as expected, the Control station was the least saline. The pattern of mean water level rancre (difference between maximum and minimum levels durincr each two-week period) was one of increasincr amplitude with decreasing isolation (River ) Culvert ) SP-2 / P-3 / Mole Hole > Control). Mangrove Data. A total of 108 mangrove seedlings were marked initially 0 15 at the experimental site and 100 at the control. In the experimental cell. 22 red manorroves, 73 black mangroves and 13 white mangroves were marked. The corresponding numbers for the control are: 28 reds, 47 blacks and 25 whites. These proportions correspond approximately to the frequency of the species at each location. Descriptive statistics for crrowth of the seedlings at the two sites are shown in Table 7. There was considerable mortality of mangrove seedlings during the study (Table 8). Mortality of mangroves was significantly higher at the experimental (open) cell than at the control (closed). 59% of the red mangrove seedlings marked at the experimental cell were dead by November, 1983, but only 7.1% died at the control (Table 8). The corresponding figures for black mangroves and white mangroves are: blacks, experimental = 26%, control = 2.1%; whites, experimental = 23%, control = 0%. We tested the sianificance of these differences using a G-test with William's correction and one degree of freedom (Sokal and Rohlf 1981) and found them to be highly significant (Reds: G = 19.95, p. << 0.01; Blacks, G = 14.75, P. << 0.01; Whites, G = 5.75, P. < 0.02). Descriptive statistics for seedlings survivina to November, 1983 are shown in Table 9. Red manarroves surviving to November, 1983 showed significantly greater growth at the control than at the experimental site during all sampling intervals. Total ------------growth (3/82 - 11/83) was also significantly higher at the 16 control site (Table 10). The pattern for black mangnoves was similar except that there were no significant differences in crrowth between the two sites durincr the periods 8/82-11/82 and 11/82-3/83; Total growth, however was still significantly higher at the control. Total growth of white mangroves was also higher at the control site, but the pattern during the individual sampling periods was much less clear-cut than for the other two species (Table 10). Since the seedlings monitored for growth were of different sizes at the start of the study, we examined proportional growth (growth as a function of initial size) to control for possible inherent differences in growth rates of seedlincrs of different sizes. Red mangroves and white mangroves still exhibited significantly greater growth at the control cell, but there was no significant difference in proportional growth of black mangroves between the two cells (Table 11). Transect Data. The following species were found along the transects in the experimental and control cells: Rhizophora mangle, Laguncularia racemosa, Avicennia crerminans, Salicornia virginica. S.bicrelovii, Batis maritima, Ruppia maritima, Sueda linearis,, Philoxerus vermicularis, and Conocarpus erectus. The last three species were extremely infrequent and will not be considered in any of the analyses that follow. The most frequent species in the control cell quadrats was S. vircrinica followed by g.bicrelovii (except in winter), 17 and B. maritima. In the experimental cell S. biaelovii occurred in a areater proportion of the quadrats than S. virainica during 1982. except during the winter samples, but this pattern was reversed in 1983 (Table 12). R. maritima was frequent at times in both cells. No red mangroves were found in anv of the 60 quadrats at the experimental cell whereas this species occurred in 1 - 3% of the quadrats in the control. Descriptive statistics for frequency of occurrence by all species during the quadrat surveys are criven in Table 13. Except for an apparent decrease in the frequency of S. biaelovii at the experimental cell from 1982 to 1983 there appears to be no significant pattern in relative frequency changes bv the different species from 1982 to 1983 (Table 12). Data on percent coveracre by the different species are given in Table 14. During every survey from February, 1982 to November. 1983 A. germinans had higher coverage in the control cell than in the experimental. Differences in percent coveracre by the other species, however, were not as clear-cut. There were no sianificant differences in coveracre at the two sites by L. racemosa, S. vircrinica, or B. maritima. Coverage by g. bicrelovii was significantly higher at the experimental site during the April, 1982 and Ju lv, 1982 sampling and the OPP05ite situation Was true for R. maritima during the February, 1983 sampling. If we compare the changes in percent coverage between 18 years (differences in percent cover by each species at approximately the same months in 1982 and 1983), the patterns are even less distinct (Table 15). There are some sianificant differences between the experimental and control cells for some species during some months, but none of the patterns are consistent among the different dates. With one exception, changes in percent cover from 1982 to 1983 at each site were small (less than 10% increase or decrease). The exception was R.maritima at the control cell which in 1983 showed 34% and 28% increases over the 1982 values durinq the summer and winter comparisons (Figure 28). Plankton Data. Efficiencies for the 202u and 63u plankton nets varied considerably. The 202u nets filtered at close to 100% efficiency, but the corresponding value for the 63u, nets was only about 6%. (Table 16). Clogging of the fine mesh of the 63u nets was probably responsible for these low values. Volumes filtered per sample varied from approximately 10.5 3 3 m for the 202u nets to 0.64 m for the 63u pumps. Within- method variability in volume of water filtered per sample, however, was very low overall (standard errors from 0.007 to 0.280) (Table 16). Four taxa were collected only with the 63u gear and 8 with the 202u. There were 3 taxa collected exclusively with the nets, and 12 exclusively with the pumps. Sortina, identifying and tabulating the catch from the plankton samples have proven to be an extremely tedious and 19 time-consuming task. As a result, we have been able to completelv process only the samples through September 1982. Because of the short time span encompassed bv the processed samples (May '82 - September '82), more thorough analysis of the plankton data will be postponed until the complete data set is compiled. Nevertheless, certain patterns can be discerned from the data available at this time, and these will be examined below. One should keep in mind, however, that the overall picture may change considerably as new data become incorporated into the analyses. A total of 59 taxa were separated from our samples (Table 17). Copepods, ostracods, foraminiferans and crustacean larvae predominated in both 63u and 202u samples. Different taxa tended to dominate the samples collected with the different mesh-size (Tear but some of the more common species, such as the copepods Arartia tonsa, Oithona nana, and Tortanus setacaudatus, were abundant in both (Table 21). Very few taxa were collected exclusivelv at one station (1 at Mole Hole, 3 at the Culvert, 2 at the River, and 0 at the Control). None of these taxa were abundant at the sites were they were collected. A total of 11 taxa, however, were collected onlv at the River and Control stations, while only 1. an unidentified beetle. was collected exclusively at Mole Hole and Control. Individual collections from Mole Hole appear to be the least diverse. followed in ascending order bv the Control station, the Culvert station, and the Indian River station 20 The differences are statistically significant for collections with some of the sampling gear used, but not for all (Figure 29). Overall, the River station was the most diverse, yieldiner a total of 47 taxa, followed by the Culvert Station (44 taxa), the Control station (33), Mole Hole (29), P3 (21), and SP-2 (18). If we consider only pump samples, the order remains the same: River (45), Culvert (36), Control (33), and Mole Hole (29). The patterns of total density / sample, do not follow those of diversity, and vary depending upon the type of (Tear beincr used (Table 19). Although it is difficult to achieve statistical significance because of the large variances involved, it appears that the densities of organisms are hicrher at the Mole Hole and Control stations than at the River and Culvert stations (Figure 30). The only exceptions are the samples obtained with the 202u nets where total densities follow the pattern: River > Culvert > Control (no net samples were taken at Mole Hole). The average densities of each taxon collected with 202u gear at the different stations were not significantly correlated except between the Control station and Mole Hole, but those from 63u gear collections were significantly correlated (Table 20). Cross-correlations between 202u and 63u gear were significant only for the River 202u-River 63u, River 63u-Culvert 202u, and Culvert 63u-Control 202u comparisons. There was a negative correlation between the densities of taxa collected with the 202u and 63u gears between Mole Hole and the Control station (Table 20). 21 A total of 22 taxa were collected at P-3 and SP-2. Of these, ostracods, copepods (0. nana, A. tonsa, Harpacticoid sp. C, Cyclopoid spp. D & E, and misc nauplii), polychaete larvae, and corixids were collected with the greatest frequency (Table 21). These taxa, with the exception of the corixids, are also among the most frequent and abundant collected at the other stations (Table 18). DISCUSSION Phvsical-chemical Variables. The observed necrative correlations between water level and temperature, salinity, and pH are simply a result of rainfall and evaporation. Likewise, the positive correlation between water temperature and salinity at the shallow ponds simply reflect the effects of evaporation on salinity and water temperature, through its effect on water levels. A positive correlation between pH and salinity, such as was evident between these variable at the Culvert and River stations, has been previously reported from other systems (de Mora 1983), and has been attributed to a number of different processes such as the increase with salinity of the first and second apparent dissociation constant of carbonic acid (Mook and Koene 1975), increases in bacterial populations (Morris et &1. 1978), and tidal mixing processes (de Mora 1983). The study sites seemed to segregate into three groups based upon their relative isolation (primarily) and size 22 (secondarily): Open stations (Culvert and Indian River), an isolated station (Control), and small semi-isolated stations (P3, SP-2 and Mole Hole). The smallest sites (P3 and SP-2), had significantly higher water temperatures than any of the other sites. Salinity was also higher at the semi-isolated sites than at the more open Culvert and River stations, with the lowest values recorded at the Control station (Figure 27). Water temperature, salinity and water levels were correlated among all stations except P3-and SP-2 (Table 4). Rancre in water level also followed an isolation gradient (River ) Culvert ) SP2, P3, Mole Hole ) Control), whereas variability in certain physical-chemical variables followed approximately the opposite order (Mole Hole > Control > Culvert > River). Relative isolation and small size tend to foster greater variability in physical conditions, higher water temperatures, and greater extremes Of salinity. Marsh Vegetation. Initial come-back of vecretation after catastrophic defloration (e.q. by overflooding) often occurs quickly, whereas change in vegetation caused by more discrete alteration of physical conditions (e.g. temporary changes in hydroperiod, small salinity or elevation chancres, etc.) can be quite a slow process (van der Valk 1981). The vegetation at the experimental cell recovered considerably after the marsh was reopened to the Indian River. (Figures 31 and 32). Initial re-vegetation proceeded quickly, and a significant amount of regrowth had taken place by the time that our first vegetation samples 23 were taken in April, 1982. Although it is clear that the changes in physical conditions after re-connection were responsible for the increase in vegetative cover of the marsh, historical factors may have played an important role in determining the exact nature of the initial plant colonization. What we are witnessing now is a "second stage", were slow accommodation to changing physical conditions is taking place. The greatest differences in vegatation between the open and closed marshes can be found at the periphery of the two cells, around their perimeter ditches. Spread of mangroves from the periphery of tidal ditches and creeks has been reported previously (Ball 1980). Higher growth of mangroves, particularlv R. mangle is evident at the control station, starting from the perimeter ditch inward (Table 10). Density of mangroves appears to also be higher at the control station than at the experimental, with the difference being less pronounced as one moves away from the ditch. Nevertheless there is significant colonization and growth of mangroves in the interior of the control cell, but very little in the interior of the experimental (pers. observation). Red mangroves have become established at the periphery of the open cell, but they are suffering significantly higher mortality than at the closed cell, and their qrowth rates are significantly slower (Tables 8 and 10). Growth of black mangroves at the open cell, however, is keeping pace with growth at the closed cell; Even though 24 the overall growth of black mangroves was higher at the control, growth as a function of initial size was not significantly different between the two sites (Table 11). Lowered salinities (such as exist in the control cell) are known to favor the growth of mangroves (Ball 1980). Red mangroves are usually more sensitive to salinity increases than blacks, conversely, reds are usually able to tolerate high water levels better, and for longer periods than blacks (Provost 1974). Thus the combination of lower salinities and prolonged inundation at the control cell appear to foster the growth of the red mangrove, a plant typical of the low marsh. Differences in other physical-chemical variables such as PH, D.O., and nutrient levels could certainly interact with salinity and water levels to influence the zonation and growth of manc .rroves, but their effects in the present situation are unknown. There was verv little change in relative frequency and percent coverage by the species found along the interior of both cells (Tables 12-15). The 1983 increase in coveracre at the control cell by R. maritima clearly correlate with increases in standing water and decreases in salinity due to the high precipitation recorded during 1983. Differences in percent coverage, and in changes in percent coverage, and relative frequency of the species along the transect did not reveal any real pattern; significant differences were observed during some times of the year, but these were not consistent in time nor in space. It is difficult to predict what the frequency and 25 abundance of the different mangrove species will be in the two cells in the future. Nevertheless. based upon the patterns observed to date, and on observations on similar impoundments elsewhere. certain educated guesses can be made at this time. Red mangroves will continue to spread and cTrow at the control cell as loncr as the water level and salinit.v remain close to the current values. This could result. in the exclusion of black mangroves, which are relativelv intolerant of these conditions and which are prone to displacement by shadinq from reds (Ball 1980). A few blacks, and some white mangroves may persist in this cell as pockets or fringes in the higher elevations. such as the upland border. and the imroundment. dikes. The "marsh-floor vegetation" (Salicornia, Batis, etc.) may continue to spread in the interior of the control cell. or it mav remain at the present levels, but it is unlikely that it will be totally displaced by red mangroves since the interior of this marsh dries-up periodically thus creating unfavorable conditions for the spread of R. mangle (hicrh salinities and drv substrates). This situation mav chancre, however. if pumping is resumed. or if the marsh is connected throuah culverts to the Indian River and kept flooded during the summer. If conditions existing at the experimental cell durina the first part of this study were to persist (i.e. culverts open during the whole year) there would probably be an increase in the coveracte of the marsh bv black manaroves, Batis, and Salicornia. It is difficult to predict what 26 effects the new scheme of maintaining the marsh flooded during the summer breeding season (see Carson and Vialiano. this report) will have on these species. It is already apparent that some of the Salicornia stands at this site are showina sians of stress due to the seasonal floodin(T ipers.observation). Whether these species can recover and continue to spread during the times when the marsh is not artificiallv flooded, or whether this scheme will again favor the spread of red mangroves remains to be seen. We are continuing our monitoring of the vegetation at the two sites, and will be better able to define the correct alternative after further data are examined. Zooplankton. The plankton sampling methods developed and used during the present study circumvent many of the obstacles often encountered when attempting to sample the plankton of shallow marsh habitats (see Methods). The 202u (Tear was highly efficient in filterin(T the water at the study sites, and allowed us to obtain sufficiently large sample volumes tn make the resultincT data meaningful (Table 16). Unfortunatelv. the same can not be said for the 63u (Tear. Clogging of the meshes was still a problem. This resulted in verv low filtering efficiencies for the plankton nets. and limited us to processing much smaller volumes of water than with the 202u apparatus. Thus, the results obtained with the 63u gear are best considered to be qualitative rather than quantitative. The sample-to-sample variablity 40 27 in efficiencies and volumes filtered was highly reproducible within a given type of sampling gear (Table 16). The clogging problem and the mesh sizes influenced the types of organisms captured with the different gear. The relative abundance of some taxa were clearly different in the 63u and 202u collections (Table 21, see also Younqbluth 1982). In addition, four taxa were collected only with the 63u gear, and 8 exclusively with the 202u. The former were small forms (small copepods, fish eggs, etc) that could pass through the 202u meshes. The latter, were mostly larger, fast-swimming taxa (insects, fish larvae, isopods) that were able to avoid capture with the 63u nets, possibly because of considerable turbulence, acceleration fronts, pressure differentials, and cyclic displacement patterns that can precede a heavily clogged plankton net (Clutter and Anraku 1968). Similar processes may be responsible for the fact that 10 taxa (again Mostly large fast-swimming forms) were collected exclusively with the pump samplers, but only 1 exclusively with the nets (four taxa that only occurred in a single sample are not included in the above figures). Plankton communities are characterized by large and rapid population fluctuations on a seasonal basis. The system, however, is an involved one, with many positive and negative feedbacks such as: complex predator-prey interactions; nutrient re-cycling in which planktonic plants use the dissolved wastes of animals and thus miticrate severe nutrient limitation, at least in shallow waters; and complementing life cycles among large groups of species 28 (Jeffries 1977). These feedbacks give the system a degree of predictability in the long term, so that often the more interesting process in planktonic communities are the timincr and magnitude of the seasonal patterns in abundance of the various groups of organisms comprising the phytoplankton and the zooplankton. Obviously, we do not have enough data at this time to examine these patterns and processes in detail, but we can characterize the composition of the collections processed to date, and explore a few similarities and differences in plankton abundance and diversity between our study sites. As in most estuarine plankton communities.. copepods were the numerically-dominant group of organisms in the salt marsh plankton (Tables 18 and 21). The dominant species within the copepods were Acartia tonsa, Tortatanus 5etacaudatus and Oithona nana. These species, particularly A. tonsa, have been reported as the dominant summer species in macrozooplankton samples from a wide variety of regions (Davis 1949, Barlow 1955, Newell and Newell 1963, Hopkins 1977, Carter and Dad5well 1983). The overall density of organisms from the collections processed to date (Table 19) are in line with those reported by Younqbluth (1976) from the Indian River . Differences between the Indian River and the study marsh in the relative abundance of some taxa (particularly tintinnids) are evident (see Younqbluth 1976), but we can not determine at this time whether these are real 29 differences between the two communities or simply a result of slightly different timing in the plankton cycles at the two locations, between years, or both. I Some differences between the study sites are evident in spite of the few samples processed to date. As with the physical-chemical variables, the sites seem to segregate into groups depending upon their size and relative isolation. The diversity of taxa per sample was greater at the Indian River station, followed by the Culvert, Control and Mole Hole, whereas the total density per sample follows approximately the opposite pattern (Figures 29 and 30). These inequalities are partly a result of differences in relative abundance of the different taxa at the different stations. If one examines the average density per taxa across all samples processed to date, it becomes apparent that there is a much greater degree of dominance at Mole Hole and the Control stations than at the Culvert and River stations. Even though the mean densities are usually greater at the former stations (Figure 30), the medians of the distribution are much lower (Figure 33). Total diversity also follows the pattern: River Culvert Control > Mole Hole. The above patterns may be the result of zooplankton responses to differences in physical conditions existing at the different stations. The patterns certainly seem to emulate those exhibited by many of the physical variables measured concurrently. Significant changes in abundance and diversity of zooplankton faunas have often been attributed 30 to rapid responses to changing environmental conditions (e.g. Carter and Dadswell 1983). On the other hand, these patterns may simply be examples of the species-area, species-isolation relations, which are two of the most widespread patterns observed in biotic communities everywhere (Arrhenius 1921; Preston 1960, 1962; Connor and McCoy 1979; Gilpin 1980; Rey 1979, 1964). It is interestina to note that the total densities of the different taxa are not significantly correlated among sites when only the 202u collections are considered, but the opposite is true when densities in collections with 63u gear are compared (Table 20). Differences in relative abundance of the various taxa, and in the numbers and types of species collected with the two types of gear are probably responsible for the difference. It is apparent from the data analyzed to date, that increased isolation tends to decrease the diversity of the plankton fauna, but isolation may also correlate with higher overall densities. Interspecific competition and predator- prey relations among planktonts have been postulated as important mechanisms regulating the diversity and abundance of these organisms (Younqbluth 1976, Jeffries 1977). It may be that reduction of interspecific interactions at the less diverse sites may facilitate an increase in densities of the taxa inhabiting these sites, at least in the short term, but it will take carefully controlled experiments to determine the importance- of this factor as a den51ty-regulating 31 mechanism (Connell 1980). CONCLUSIONS There were some important differences as well as similarities in vegetation dynamics, physical chemical patterns, and plankton abundance and diversity both between marshes and between stations within marshes. In general, the experimental 'marsh showed signs of returning to pre- impoundment, high marsh conditions, but the duration and final extent of the process are yet to be determined. It is probable that the new management schedule for this marsh will modify the patterns and process that were taking place, but it is unlikely that they will be totally reversed. Continued study of this marsh will provide some of the answers to the above questions. Relative isolation and size appear to be important variables in the dynamics of the zooplankton, marsh vegetation and physical-chemical variables. Many of the patterns observed during this study were consistent with respect to the above variables, but an exact cause-effect relationship can not be established from the data at hand. For example, we do not know if the relationship between plankton abundance and diversity and site isolation and/or size is a result of physiological processes (i.e. responses to different environmental conditions), of population processes (i.e. differential immigration and extinction rates), or combinations of both. In spite of the uncertainties. the possible effects Of 32 these variables should be considered when formulatincr manaaement schemes for salt marsh impoundments, but it would be a gross oversimplification to always try to maximize area and minimize isolation regardless of the management objectives. To do so, will only lead to problems such as those associated with the recent controversy over the size and shapes of wildlife refuges (Diamond 1975, Simberloff and Abele 1976, Simberloff 1982). At our present level of knowledge, every management objective has to be examined individually, and schemes designed to achieve particular obiectives must be evaluated separately. Only after many such tests will we be able to develop reliable sets of criteria that will help us design ecologically-sound management plans for salt marsh impoundments. The results of this study will provide important information upon which to base and evaluate future management strategies for salt marsh impoundments. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to acknowledcre the cooperation of the Indian River Mosquito Control District in all aspects of this studV. We also wish to thank Dr. Marsh Youngbluth for identifying many of the plankton taxa, and Mr. Frank Evans, of the St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District, for refraining from using pesticides in the control marsh durina our study. Beverly McCall typed many of the tables, and Jim to 33 I Newman produced most of the figures included in this report. Additional funds for this study were provided by the Florida Medical EntomoloeTy Laboratory (University of Florida, IFAS). 34 LITERATURE CITED Adams, D. A. 1963. Factors influencing vascular plant zonation in North Carolina salt marshes. Ecology 44: 445-456. Arrhenius, 0. 1921. Species and area. J. Ecology 9: 95- 99. Ball, M. C. 1980. Patterns Of secondary succession in a mangrove forest of southern Florida. 0eccologia 44: 226-235. Barlow, J. P. 1955. Phvsical and biological processes determining the distribution of zooplankton in a tidal estuary. Biol. Bull 109: 211-225. Breen, C. M. and B. J. Hill. 1969. A mass mortality of mangroves in the Kosi estuary, Trans, R. Soc. S. Africa 38: 285-303. Bordeau, P. F.. and D. A. Adams. 1956. Factors in vegetational zonation of salt marshes near Southport. N.C. Bull Ecol. Soc. Amer. 37: 68. Carter, J. C. H., and M. J. Dadswell. 1983. Seasonal and spatial distributions of planktonic Crustacea in the lower St. John River, a multibasin estuary in New Brunswick, Canada. Estuaries 6: 142-153. Chapman. V. J. 1970. Mangrove phytosociology. Trop. Ecol. 11: 1-19. Clewell, A. F. 1979. What's known or should be known about upper salt marsh ecology. Proc. Fla. Anti Mosq. Assoc. 50: 33-37. 35 Clutter, R. I., and M. Anraku. 1974. Avoidance of samplers. Pp. 57-76 in: Zooplankton Sampling. Monocrr. oceanographic Methodology #2. Unesco Press. Paris. Connel, J. H. 1980. Diversity and the coevolution of competitors. or the ghost of competition past. Oikos 35: 131-1.38. Connor, E. F., and E. D. McCoy. 1979. The statistics and biology of the species-area relation. Am. Nat. 113: 791-833. Craighead. F. C., and V. C. Gilbert. 1962. The effects of Hurricane Donna on the vecretation of Southern Florida. Quart. J. Fl. Acad. Sci. 25i 1-28. Daicrh, F. C., D. McCreary, and L. A. Stearns. 1938. Factors affectina vecretative cover of Delaware marshes. Proc. N.J. Mosq. Exterm. Assoc. 48: 193-203. Daicrh, F. C., and L. A. Stearns. 1939. Effect of ditching for mosquito control on the pH of marsh soils. Proc. N.J. Mosq. Exterm. Assoc. 26: 39-43. Davis. C. C. 1949 Observations of plankton taken in marine waters of Florida in 1947 and 1948. Quart. J. Fla. Acad. Sci. 12: 67-103. Davis. C. C.. and R. H. Williams. 1950. Brackish water plankton of mangrove areas in southern Florida. Ecology 31: 519-531. de Mora, S. J. 1983. The distribution of alkalinity and pH in the Fraser Estuary. Env. Tech. Lett. 4:35-46. Diamond. J. D. 1975. The island dilemma: Lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design of natural 36 reserves. Biol. Conserv. 7: 129-146. Ferriano, F. 1961. Variations in mosquito-wildlife associations in coastal marshes. Proc. N.J. Mosa. Exterm. Assoc. 48: 193-203. Gilmore, R. G.. D. W. Cooke, and C. J. Donohoe. 1981. A comparison of the fish populations and habitat in open and closed salt marsh impoundments in east-central Florida. N.E. Gulf Sci. 5: 25-37. Gilpin, M. E. 1980. The role of stepping-stone islands. Theoret. Pop. Biol. 17: 247-253. Gonzales, J. G.. and T. E. Bowman. 1965. Planktonic copepods from Bahia Fosforescente, Puerto Rico, and adjacent waters. Proc. U. S. Natl. Museum 117: 241- 303. Grice, G. T). 1960. Calanoid and cyclopoid copepods collected from the Florida Gulf Coast and Florida Keys in 1954 and 1955. Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf and Caribbean 10: 217-226. Harrinaton, R. W., and E. S. Harrington. 1982. Effects on fishes and their forage organisms of impounding a Florida salt marsh to prevent breeding by salt marsh mosquitoes. Bull. Mar. Sci. 32: 646-666. Headlee, T. J. 1939. Relation of mosquito control to wildlife. Proc. N.J. Mosq. Exterm. Assoc. 26: 5-12. Heald, E. J. 1969. The production of orcranic detrirus in a south Florida estuary. Ph.D. Dissertation, U. of Miami. Coral Gables. 37 Hempel, G. and H. Weikert. 1972. The neuston of the subtropical and boreal North-eastern Atlantic Ocean. A review. Mar. Biol. 13: 70-88. Hollander M and D. A. Wolfe. 1973. Nonparametric Statistical Methods. Wilev. New York. Hopkins, T. T.. 1977. Zooplankton distribution in surface waters of Tampa Bay, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 27: 467- 478. Jeffries. H. P. 1977. Plankton resources. Pp. 677-686 in: Clark, J. R. (ed.). Coastal Ecosystem Management. Wilev, Inc. New York. Johnson. D. S. and H. H. York. 1915. The relation of plants to tide levels. Carnegie Inst. Washington Pub. No. 206. Washincrton, D.C. Luao, A. E. 1981. Mangrove issue debates in courtrooms. Pp. 48-60 in: R. C. Carey, P. S. Markovits, and J. B. Kirkwood (eds.). Proc. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Workshop on Coastal Ecosystems of the Southeastern U.S. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-80/59. Luao. A. E. and S. C. Snedaker. 1974. The ecology of mangroves. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5: 39-64. Mccov, E. D. 1969. Ecoloqical control of mosquitoes in Florida's east coast: An overview. Proc. Fl. Anti Mosq. Assoc. 50: 20-23. Menzies, R. J., and D. Frankenberg. 1966. Handbook of the Common Marine Isopod Crustacea of Georcria. U. of Ga. Press. Athens. 38 Miller, W. R., and F. E. Ealer. 1950. Vegetation of the Wequetequock-Pawcatuck tidal marshes, Connecticut. Ecol. Monorrr. 20% 143-172. Mook, W. G., and B. K. S. Koene. 1975, Chemistry of dissolved inorganic carbon in estuarine and coastal brackish waters. Est. Coast. Mar. Sci. 3: 325-336. Morris, A. W., R. F. C. Mantoura, A. J. Bale., and R. J. M. Howland. 1978. Very low salinity regions of estuaries: important sites for chemical and biological reactions. Nature 274: 678-680. Newell, G. E. and R. C. Newell. 1979. Marine Plankton: A Practical Guide. Hutchinson. London. Odum, W. E., and R. E. Johannes. 1975. The response of manaroves to man-induced environmental stress. Pp. 52- 62 in: E. J. F. Wood and R. E. Johannes, (eds.). Tropical Marine Pollution. Elsevier. Amsterdam. Odum. W. E., C. C. McIvor, and T. J. Smith 111. 1982. The ecology of the mangroves of South Florida: A community profile. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-81/24. Patterson-Zucca, C. 1978. The effects of road construction on a mangrove ecosystem. M.S. Thesis, U. of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras. 77 pp. Por, F. D. 1983. Mangrove swamp-inhabitinq Harpacticoidea of the family Darcythompsonidae Lana. J. Crust. Biol. 3:141-153. Preston, F. W. 1960. Time and space and the variation of 39 species. Ecoloav 41: 611- 627. Preston, F. W. 1962. The canonical distribution of commonness and rarity. Part I. Ecology 43: 185-215. Preston, F. W. 1962. The cannonical distribution of commonness and raritv. Part II. Ecology 43: 410-432. Provost. M. W. 1974. Salt marsh management in Florida. Proc. Tall Timbers Conf. Animal Control by Habitat Manag. 5-. 5-17., Rabinowitz, D. 1978. Earlv growth of mangrove seedlings in Panama, and an hypothesis concerning the relationship of dispersal and zonation. J. Biogeography 5: 113-133. Rev, J. R. 1981. Ecolo(Tical biocreocrraphy of arthropods on 5n@rtina islands in northwest Florida. Ecol. Monocrr. 51: 237-265. Rev, J. R. 1984. Experimental tests of island biogeographic theory. Ln : Strong, D. R., D. S. Simberloff, L. G. Abele, and A. Thistle (eds.). Ecology of Communities: Conceptual Issues and the Evidence. Princeton University Press. Princeton. In press. Schram, T. A., M. Svelle. and M. Opsahl. 1981. A new divided neuston sampler in two modifications: Descriptions, tests. and biolocrical results. Sarsia 66: 2"73-282. Shisler. J. K. and D. M. Jobbins. 1977. Salt marsh productivity as affected by the selective ditching technique. Open Marsh Water Management. Mosq. News 37: 631-636. 40 Simberloff. D. S. 1982. Refuge design and island biogeographic theory: Effects of fragmentation. Am. Nat. 120: 41-50. Simberloff, D. S. and L. G. Abele. 1976. Island biogeographic theory and conservation practice. Science 191: 285-266. Sokal, R. S.,and F. J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry. W. H. Freeman & Co. San Francisco. Tavlor, N. 1937. A preliminary report on the relation of mosquito control ditching to Long Island salt-marsh vegetation. Proc. N.J. Mosq. Exterm. Assoc. 24: 211-217. Thom, B. G. 1967. Mancrrove ecology and deltaic creomorphology, Tabasco, Mexico. J. Ecology 55: 301- 343. Thomas, W. A.. G. Goldstein, and W.' H. Wilcox, 1976. BiolocTical Indicators of Environmental Quality. Ann Arbor Science Pubs., Inc. Ann Arbor. Travis, B. V., G. H. Bradley, and W. C. McDuffie. 1954. The effects of ditchina on 5alt-marsh veaetation of Florida. Proc. N.J. Mosq. Exterm. Assoc. 41: 235-244. Unesco. 1974. Zooplankton Sampling. Monoar. Oceanoqr. Methodolocr UNESCO Press. Paris. .Y van der Valk, A. G. 1981. Succession in wetlands, a Gleasonian approach. Ecology 62: 688-696. Wells, J. B. J. 1976. Keys to Aid in the Identification of Marine Harpacticoid Copepods. Pub. Dept. Zoology Univ. Aberdeen. U. K. Aberdeen. 41 Younabluth, M. J. 1976. Plankton in the Indian River laaoon. Pp. 40-60 in% Indian River Coastal Zone Study, Annual Report 1975-1976, Volume One. Harbor Branch Consortium. Ft. Pierce. Younabluth, M. J. 1982. Sampling demersal zooplankton: A comparison of field collections using three different emergence traps. J. exp. mar. Biol Ecol. 61: 111-124. Zaitsev, Y. P. 1961. The surface pelacric biocenosis of the Black Sea (in Russian). Zool. Zh. 40: 818-825. 42 FIGURE LEGENDS Figure 1. Map of the study area showing the sampling locations. Stippled areas- within the- impoundments indicate the general location of the mangrove seedlings measured for growth. Figure 2. Floating plankton net. Figure 3. Plankton net in operation. Figure 4. Cod-end and collecting vessel of a plankton net. Figure 5. Plankton collecting vessel in place. Figure 6. Filtering cvlinders for the pump samples. Fiaure 7. Side of filtering cylinders showing perforations. Figure 8. Pump intake hose and float assembly. Figure 9. Pump sampling apparatus in operation. Figure 10. Bottom collecting screen for filtering cylinder. Figure 11. Hand net collection at pond P-3. Figures Plots of the values of physical-chemical 12-26. variables at the various stations during the course of the study. Figure 27. Comparison of mean values of various Physical variables at the different stations. T@e means for stations above a common line do not differ significantly (t-test, p ) 0.05). Figure 28. Changes in mean % cover by various plant species along the transects. The numbers on the x-axis represent the time intervals for the comparisons: 1 4/82 - 5/83, 2 7/82 - 6/83, 3 = 11/82 11/83. Figure 29. Comparison of mean number of taxa per sample for zooplankton collected at the different stations. The means for stations under a common line do not differ sianificantly (t- test, p ) 0.05). Figure 30. Comparison of mean density per sample for zooplankton collected at the different stations. The means for stations under a common line do not differ significantly (t-test, p > 0.05). 43 Ficrure 31. Schematic vegetation map of the experimental marsh prior to reopening Culvert A. Figure 32. Schematic vegetation map of the experimental cell circa 19@3. (Figs. 31 & 32 compiled by B. Vicrliano) . Ficrure 33. Comparisons of the distributions of averaae density per taxon per plankton sample for t@Le 202u- and the 63u - mesh gear. The distribution medians for stations above a common line do not differ sianificantly (Mann- Whitney Test, p > 0.05). 44 FIGURE 1. .... ...... Hobh [MOLE HOW UF bw .. Cove 1EXPERIMENTAL Q transect 2, row I V%m P-2 ......... .. ... PERIMETER CANAL Indian River Co. % St. Lucie Co. CULVERT dike TR RIVER- ICON TROL I transect 47) 4 7, 7 7 5 pal 1@`. 1P, :01 loww AW4 Al% 416 AW# A4% AV# d% AN ,4 AN Ao A.9 AN lot Alk, t 4V MwIf 407 Lr) WME Ad r r plakn, 0 0 0 40 MOLE HOLE, =CULVERT 35- 30- w D F- Cr 25- Ul w 0- w F- cr 20- 4 w F- 15- 10 15 30 45 60 75 90 MAY JULY DEC MAY JULY DEC 1982 WEEK 1983 =INDIAN RIVER =CONTROL CELL 35- 0 30- -4 If All w cr- Ln 25- t1i cr- W 20- cc 15- 10 0 15 30 45 io 75 90 MAY JULY DEC MAY JULY DEC 40 1982 WEEK 1983 42 =SP-2 =P-3 39- rn 0 36- w cr Ln 33- EA cr- 30- cr- w 24 ir 15 30 45 60 75 90 MAY JULY DEC MAY JULY DEC 1982 WEEK 1983 =MOLE HOLE =CULVERT 40- rn c" U35- w Ad cr D 30 - 4 cr- w a. W25- 20- 15 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 MAY JULY DEC MAY JULY DEC 1982 WEEK 1983 =INDIAN RIVER cl ---- =CONTROL CELL 40- 3 5 - 0 30- Ln cn 25- off, w 20- 15 io 45 @o 75 90 MAY JULY DEC MAY JULY DEC 1982 WEEK 1983 =MOLE HOLE =CULVERT 56- 48- 0 Ln cn 32- A W 24- It 16 2@ 15 30 45 60 75 90 MAY JULY DEC MAY JULY DEC 1982 WEEK 1983 INDIAN RIVER a---- CONTROL CELL ri 36- 30- #*"% 1 0 Ne Ln 24- cn 18- 4 12- 6 0 15 30 45 60 75 40 MAY JULY DEC MAY JULY DEC 1982 WEEK 1983 63- SP-2 P-3 54- @o .--%45- OR 36- z 4 cn 27- 1% 18- 9- 0 15 45 60 75 90 MAY JULY DEC MAY JULY DEC 1982 WEEK 1983 =MOLE HOLE CULVERT 12.5- d6 ci io- z w Ln >- 7.5- x 0 w > 5- 0 cn cf) 2.5- zi 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 MAY JULY DEC MAY JULY DEC 1982 WEEK 1983 12. INDIAN RIVER CONTROL CELL 10- 4 CL 6- Al x 0 fit w fit fit @jw 4- 0 it cn 2- if X ot 15 30 45 60 75 90 MAY JULY DEC MAY JULY DEC 1982 WEEK 1983 8.7- =MOLE HOLE CULVERT 8.4- 8.1 - oil A It cx 7.5- 6.9 0 1@ 30 @5 io 75 io MAY JULY DEC MAY JULY DEC 1982 WEEK 1983 INDIAN RIVER CONTROL CELL 8.90- LA 8.55- 8.20- 7.85- 7.50- 7.15 T 0 15 30 io i5 io MAY JULY DEC MAY JULY DEC le 1982 WEEK 0 1983 1-4 NOR7HWES7 POND 1-5 I L-Li 7'U E"-'Y' '-A'E: F- t< N) I ID E C" TU ENTE R rF Lu Lu D15 15 2 '1 39 1-1@ 55 F-, 3 7 .1 F; 7 1 1 D, "N E E I <, 0-4 N) Ln I N ID I.A-N R INTE R 0 0 N 75 I -C5 It 11 kIt L-Li Li-i Iv/ kki 1 2 3 25 -:P q '@n CONTROE CEEE r---jI LLJ LLA L.J-. -7 c3 7 1 13 IS -4-7 5 T U 0-1@ M/E E: P< rq PERMA-NEN'T POND 3 L= LLJ L LT- -.2, 3 11-D 4-77 STUO-T' Ficrure 27. Comparison of mean values of various physical variables at the different stations. The mean for stations above a common line do not differ significantly (t-test, p ) 0.05). 25.4 24.9 24.2 24.7 29.2 28.1 TEMP. MOLE CULVERT INDIAN CONTROL SP-2 P-3 C HOLE RIVER -------------------------------------- -------------- 3.54 3.38 3.18 4.06 D.O. MOLE CULVERT INDIAN CONTROL PPM HOLE RIVER -------------------------------------- 30.5 29.8 28.1 27.0 26.2 17.7 SAL. MOLE SP-2 P-3 CULVERT INDIAN CONTROL PPT HOLE RIVER -------------------- ------------------- 7.87 7.89 7.93 7.92 PH MOLE CULVERT INDIAN CONTROL HOLE RIVER -------------------------------------- 0.32 0.43 0.37 0.43 0.65 1.38 WATER CONTROL MOLE P-3 SP-2 CULVERT INDIAN LEVEL HOLE RIVER RANGE ------------------------ FT. --------------------- F )8 zEXP cz =CONTROL M 10 M r1i IID w X 5- w 0 u .*e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 on M z w M z W -5- (D z X 10- 11 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 R. mangle A. germinans L. racemoso C. orectus M=EXP =CONTROL 10- w X w > 5- 0 z < 0 KIA w mo z w z 5- 10- 11 2 3 1 2 31 2 3 1 2 31 2 3 1 2 31 2 3 1 2 3 @W2 8 L I S. virginica S. bigelovi B. moritima R. moritimo - - --------- - - Ficrure 29. Comparisons of mean no. of taxa per sample for zooplankton collected at the different stations. The means for stations under a common line do not differ significantly (t-test, p ) 0.05). (13.0) (13.0) (10.6) (8.4) 202u Pump: RIVER CULVERT CONTROL MOLE HOLE ------------------------------------- ------------- (16.0) (10.7) (5.6) 202u NET: CULVERT RIVER CONTROL --------------------- ----------- (18.9) (17.9) (12.4) (5.9) 63u Pump: RIVER CULVERT CONTROL MOLE HOLE ----------------------- ------------ ------------- (16.0) (16.0) (10.3) 63u NET: RIVER CULVERT CONTROL ------------------------------------- 71 Figure 30. Comparison of mean density per sample for zooplankton collected at the different stations. The means of stations under a common line do not differ significantly (t-test, p ) 0.05). (3153) (6282) (2746) (418) 202u Pump: CULVERT MOLE HOLE RIVER CONTROL ------------------------------------- ------------ qn2u NET: (44526) (11643) (198) RIVER CULVERT CONTROL ---------- ----------- ----------- 63u Pump: (18923247) (212105) (113579) (96684) MOLE HOLE CONTROL CULVERT RIVER +-@ ---------------------------------- 63u NET: (1191533) (1106239) (674486) CONTROL RIVER CULVERT --------------------------------------- 7? 73 N, IV C@, 7,717 N Uik D ch it A, ki NN Hdtis and Salicornia spp. 18' CU'lvc"tl z ,zz Approximate cziccl-tr@,ence and locattion -_If vegetati, 1-1 at I ro po und rile nt #112 i n 19BO. Culvert 5 A *0 AW Aiver i@q@o@ -v -:R-@ 7., 0 20 0 400 60 0 4" f eet J@ TV 4 T@7 .3" 4,_ "4 .. ..... uPland hamork V j, "SP -Vt. .:-N 'T. 14 7------ ulvertA -I (Cotrol Cell) 1)[11CIOVII Appi-oximate currence and location of roa@,sh vegetation at Imp( wodriient #12 ir, Januar-y 1-984. 74 Approximate occurence and location of marsh vegetation at Impoundment 12 in January 9184. Figure 33. Comparisons of the distributions of average density per taxon pet plankton sample for the 202u- and 63u- mesh gear. The distribution median for stations above a common line do not differ significantly (Mann-Whitney Test, p> 0.05). (99) (22) (1) (0) 202u: CULVERT RIVER CONTROL MOLE HOLE ------------------------- --------------------------- (83) (41) (15) (0) 63u: RIVER CULVERT CONTROL MOLE HOLE ----------------------------------------- ------------- 75 Table 1. Summary of sampling routines. METHOD SITES FREQUENCY Plankton Mole Hole Bi-weekly 202w net Culvert River Control 64q net Mole Hole Bi-weekly Culvert River Control 202q pump Mole Hole Bi-weekly Culvert River Control 64LA pump Mole Hole Bi-weekly Culvert River Control Dip nets Pond P-1 Bi-weekly Pond SP-2 Vegetation Veg. cover (transects) IRC # 12 Quarterly Control Mangrove establishment IRC # 12 Quarterly Control Physical Parameters Mole Hole Bi-weekly Culvert River Control SP-2 P-1 76 0 Table 2. Summary of plankton samples collected between 5/82 and 12/83. 0 0 77 A PUKP NETS DIP NET M. HOLE CULVERT RIVER CONTROL CONTROL RIVER CULVERT SP-2 P-3 63m 202 m 630 202 m 63 9A 202P 63 P 202 m 63 11 202 m 63 a 202 JJ 63 11 202 V 63 4 63 V 5 May 82 5 5 - - - I I- - - - - - - 11 - - 10 May 82 - - I I I - - 19 May 82 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I June 82 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 June 82 - - - - - - - 16 June 82 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 29 June 82 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 July 82 - - - - - - - 15 July 82 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 July 82 - - - - - - - 26 July 82 - - - - - - - + + 27 July 82 1 t I I I I I co 10 August 82 - - - - - - + + + + + + + 12 August 82 1 1 1 1 1 1 25 August 82 1 1 1 1 1 1 27 August 82 - - - - - - + + + + + + 14 Sept 82 - - - - - - 15 Sept 82 1 1 1 1 1 1 28 Sept 82 - - - - - - 29 Sept 82 1 1 1 1 1 1 ll Oct 82 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 Oct 82 - - - - - 27 Oct 82 - - - - - + 29 Oct 82 1 1 1 1 1 10 Nov 82 - - - - - 12 Nov 82 1 1 1 1 1 23 Nov 82 1 1 1 1 1 24 Nov 82 - - - - - 9 Dec 82 - - - - Cr 10 Dec 82 1 1 1 1 P- 21 Dec 82 1 1 1 1 1 CD 22 Dec 82 - - - - - Ni 6 Jan 83 1 1 1 1 1 7 Jan 83 - - - - - 19 Jan 83 1 1 1 1 1 ~0 DATE OLE ~C~U L RT P~U~14~P R~I R CONTROL CONTROL NETS RIVER 202~m 63~m 202 ~m 63 ~m 202 a 63~m 202 ~m 63 ~m 202 ~m 63 ~m 202 ~m 6 21 Jan 83 3 Feb 83 4 Feb 83 17 Feb 83 18 Feb 83 3 March 83 4 March 83 16 March 83 18 March 83 30 March 83 31 March 83 It April 83 13 April 83 27 April 83 28 April 83 10 May 83 11 May 83 23 May 83 + + + + 25 May 83 6 June 83 + + + + 13 June 83 22 June 83 24 June 83 7 July 83 20 July 83 + + I 22 July 83 I August 83 + + + + 3 August 83 19 August 83 22 August 83 + + 30 August 83 + + 31 August 83 ~1 ~q1 ~q1 ~q1 ~1 ~1 + + 14 Sept 83 ~- ~- ~- ~- ~- ~- ~- ~- + + 15 Sept 83 ~1 ~1 ~1 ~1 ~1 ~1 + + 30 Sept 83 ~1 ~1 ~q1 ~q1 ~q1 ~1 ~1 ~1 ~0 DATE PUMP NETS--- ~M. HOLE CULVERT RIV R ODNTROL CONTROL F~qi~2qF ~qC~qU 63~m 202 ~p 63 ~l~u 202 ~p 63m 202~m 63 ~j~i 202 ~j~i 63~P 202 ~u 63~1~, 202 ~p 63 ~qj~qi 5 Oct 83 ~- ~- ~- 13 Oct 83 ~1 ~q1 ~1 ~q1 14 Oct 83 ~- ~- ~- ~- 27 Oct 83 ~- ~- ~- 28 Oct 83 ~q1 ~q1 ~1 ~q1 ~q8 Nov 83 ~1 ~q1 ~1 ~q1 10 Nov 83 ~- ~- ~- ~- 22 Nov 8~'3 ~q1 ~1 ~1 ~1 ~1 ~qt I 23 Nov 83 ~- ~- ~- ~- ~- ~- ~- ~qt ~t 6 Dec 83 ~- ~- ~- ~- ~- ~- 8 Dec 83 ~1 ~qt I I I I I 19 Dec 83 ~- ~- ~- ~- ~- ~- ~- 20 Dec 83 ~1 ~q1 ~1 ~q1 ~q1 ~qt I TOTALS 47 47 43 43 43 43 41 41 28 29 33 33 34 TOTAL ~qP OF SAMPLE AT EACH SITE 94 86 86 82 57 66 TOTAL # OF SAMPLE FOR EACH SAMPLING APPARATUS 348 255 TOTAL ~qN OF SAMPLES COLLECTED FOR PROJECT 603 + WATER LEVEL TOO LOW To OBTAIN REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE Table 3. Descriptive statistics for physical data measured at the different stations. N= sample size, TMEAN = 5% trimmed mean, SEMEAN = standard error, Q3 = third quartile, Ql first quartile. Site abbreviations are as follows: MH = Mole Hole, CU = Culvert, IR = Indian River, C= Control, SP= Sp-2, P = P-3. Variable abbreviations following site names are as follows: AIR air temperature, WATER = water temperature, DO dissolved oxygen, SAL = salinity, LEVEL = water level at the time of the sample. 81 ~0 Table 3. ~q2~.t~qj~q@e~0qjh~qj~q,~qae~s;2 ~q0 12: PHYSICAL Descriptive Statistics M~qRAIR CUAIR I~qRAIR CAIR MH~4qKATER CU~qNATER IR~4qKATER ~qC~8qK~qA~qTER ~qN 40 39 39 39 41 42 42 41 N~qM~qI~qS~qS 2 3 3 3 ~q1 0 0 ~q1 MEAN 2B~.41 28.19 28.26 27.59 25.40 24.90 24.23 24.71 MEDIAN 28.~q80 28.50 28.80 27.50 26.00 24.50 24.15 24.80 TMEA~qN 28.53 28.24 28.26 27.77 25.52 25.00 24.45 24.84 ~qS~4qT~qD~qE~qV 5.61 5.32 5~.51 4.91 5.12 5.77 5.29 5.03 SEMEAN ~q0.~q89 ~q0.~q85 0.~q88 0.79 ~q0.~q80 ~q0.~q89 0.82 0.79 MAX 38.00 38.50 38.50 35.50 34.00 37.30 32.50 35.30 MIN 16.50 16.20 16~-30 15.50 15.30 13.00 12.30 13.30 Q3 32.22 32~-00 31.50 31.50 29.25 29.75 28.62 28.30 Q~qi 23.85 24.00 23.50 24.00 21.65 21.17 20.45 21.25 SP~qW~qATER ~qP3~4qWA~4qTER MHDO C~qUDO IR~2qDO CDO ~qM~qHS~qAL CU~qSA~qL ~qN 15 is 41 4~q2 42 41 42 42 N~qMISS 27 27 ~q1 0 0 ~q1 0 0 MEAN 29.10 28.92 3.54 3.38 3.18 4.06 30.57 27.01 MEDIAN 29.00 29.00 3.30 3.35 3.05 3.40 29.50 26.00 TMEAN 28.65 28~-60 3.31 3.31 3.10 3.91 30.24 26.61 STDEV 4.23 3.88 2.9~L3 1.41 ~q1.~q39 2.~qS5 8.93 6.13 SE~qMEAN 1.09 1.00 0.46 0.22 0.21 0.46 1.38 0.95 MAX 40.00 ~q3~q8.00 12.40 7.80 7.20 10.50 52.00 47.00 MIN 24.00 24.00 0.20 1.40 1.30 0.40 16.00 17.00 Q3 3~q2.00 31.10 4~.75 4.25 4.13 5.35 37.12 30.00 Q~qi 26.00 26.00 1.1~q5 2.10 1~.93 1.75 23.00 23.00 ~qIRSAL CSAL SPSAL P3S~qAL MHpH CUpH ~qIRpH ~qC~qP~qH ~qN 42 41 23 23 39 39 39 39 ~qU~qM~qI~qS~qS 0 ~q1 19 19 3 3 3 3 MEAN 26.23 17.69 29.8 28.09 7.879 7.894 7.931 7.922 MEDIAN 26.00 18.00 24.0 25.00 7.850 7.900 7.900 7.900 TMEAN 26.28 17.47 29.2 27.81 7.884 7.899 7.927 7.925 STD~EV 4.78 6.41 1~q1.~q8 9.01 0.362 0.318 0.278 0.362 SEMEAN 0.74 1.00 2.5 1.~q88 0.058 0.051 0.044 ~O~.~O~s~e MAX 35.00 35.00 5~q7.0 46.00 ~q8.~q5~q50 8.600 8.750 ~q8.~q8~q00 MIN 1~q5.00 7.00 16.0 16.00 7.130 7.200 7.300 7.180 Q3 30.00 21.00 39.0 36.00 8.200 8.150 ~q8~.~q100 8.200 Q~q1 23.00 12.00 21.0 21.00 7.630 7.700 7.720 7.680 MHLEVE~qL CULEVE~qL IRLEVE~qL CL~qEVE~qL SPLEVE~qL P3LEV~qE~qL N 38 38 38 39 33 32 NMISS ~q4 4 4 3 9 10 MEAN 0.365 1.480 3.223 0.534 1.641 1.631 MEDIAN 0.390 1.515 3.300 0.590 1.630 1.630 T~IKEAN 0.388 1.484 3.214 0.508 1~-~qf~q2~-6 1.717 STDEV 0.508 0.467 0.479 0.626 0.610 0.617 S~qEMEAN ~q0.0~q82 0.076 0~.078 0.100 0.106 0.109 MAX 1.300 2.350 4.350 2.500 2.390 2.390 MIN ~-1.200 0.480 2.370 -0.480 -0.330 -0.330 Q3 0.730 1.833 3.570 0.970 1.965 1.950 Q~4qi 0.110 1.165 2.810 0.020 1.~2q510 1.505 ~0q82 ~0 TABLE 4. Pearson correlation coefficients among physical variables measured at the different stations. * = P~6q<0~.05~, P~6q<0.01~, P~8q<~8q0.001~, NS = P>0.05~, NM = variable not. measured at that station. ~P~4 ~qw ~0~4 N P. > P. ~P~4 P. ~qP. C~4 P. ~C~Y~) P. ~q0 ~P~-~4 ~qU ~qW d4 MOLE HOLE (41) 0.935 0.924 0.804 0.342 NS 0.401 NS CULVERT (42) ~- 0.957 0.859 0.309 NS ~q0.358 NS I.RIVER (42) ~- 0.892 0.436 NS 0.509 NS ~w CONTROL (41) ~- 0.373 NS 0.447 NS ~qE SP-2 (15) ~- 0.970 P-3 (15) ~- MOLE HOLE (41) - 0.169 NS -0.033 NS -0.199 NS NM NM * CULVERT (42) ~- 0.690 0.011 NS NM NM I. RIVER (42) ~- ~-0.001 NS NM NM CONTROL (41) ~- NM NM MOLE HOLE (42) ~- 0.881 0.851 0.721 0.847 0.802 ~qr ~- ~H CULVERT (42) 0.899 0.768 0.753 0.722 ~z I. RIVER (42) ~- 0.725 0.694 0.685 ~~~~ CONTROL (42) ~- 0.714 0.686 SP-2 (23) ~- 0.981 ~P-3 (23) ~- MOLE HOLE (39) ~- 0.266 NS 0.328 0.277 NS NM NM CULVERT (39) ~- 0.675 0.375 NM NM I. RIVER (39) ~- 0.297 NS NM NM CONTROL (39) ~- NM NM MOLE HOLE (38) ~- 0.931 0.670 0.372 0.533 0.182 NS CULVERT (38) ~- 0.729 0.459 0.572 0.233 NS I. RIVER (38) ~q- 0.391 0.600 0.125 NS CONTROL (39) ~q- 0.052 NS -0.082 NS SP-2 (33) ~q- 0.492 ~qP-3 (32) ~q- 83 ~0 TABLE 5: Pearson correlation coefficients among physical variables measured at each station. P~q< 0.05, **P~6q< 0.01, ***P~q,~4q< 0.001, NS P>0.05~, NM variable not measured at that station. N TEMP P. DO P. SAL P. pH P. LEVEL P. TEMP (41) ~- 0.188 NS 0.447 0.065 NS -0.428 DO (41) ~- 0.158 NS 0.264 NS ~q-0.263 NS SAL (42) ~- 0.270 NS -0.460 ~w pH (39) ~- ~-~4q0.551 ~~~ ~0 LEVEL (38) T~qE~0qMP (42) ~- -0.367 0.277 NS 0.215 NS ~-0.475 DO (42) ~- -0.146 NS 0.164 NS -0.106 NS SAL (42) ~- 0.444 -0.415 pH (39) ~- -0.439 ~w LEVEL (38) ~- > TE~qMP (42) ~- -0.691 0.190 NS 0.209 NS -0.333 DO (42) ~- -0.040 NS -0.086 NS -0.176 N~qS SAL (42) ~- 0.353 -0.385 pH (39) ~- -0.297 NS LEVEL (38) ~- TE~qMP (41) ~-0.243 NS 0.266 NS 0.118 NS -0.560 DO (41) ~- 0.177 NS -0.012 NS -0.141 NS SAL (42) ~- 0.134 NS ~-0.758 pH (39) ~- -0.004 NS LEVEL (39) ~- ~~~~1 TE~qKP (15) NM 0.585 NM -0.498 I SAL (23) ~- ~0qM ~-0.545 ~~~ LEVEL (33) NM ~- ~M TE~qMP (15) NM 0.640 NM -0.396 NS ~C~-~q1 SAL (23) ~q- NM -0.408 NS LEVEL (32) NM ~q- 84 TABLE 6. Correlation (Pearson) between precipitation and other physical variables. P40.05, K-0.01, NS = P<0.05 Y P. Y P. Mole Role Control Water Temp. 0.031 NS Water Temp 0.056 NS D.O. 0.076 NS D.O. 0.122 NS Salinity -0.403 Salinity -0.460 pH -0.247 NS pH 0.002 NS Water Level 0.319 Water Level 0.178 NS Culvert SP-2 Water Temp. 0.075 NS Water Temp. -0.219 NS D.O. -0.089 NS D.O. - Salinity -0.419 Salinity -0.426 pH -0.268 NS pH - Water Level 0.268 NS Water Level 0.247 NS Indian River P-3 Water Temp. 0.054 NS Water Temp. -0.257 NS D.O. -0.020 NS D.O. - Salinity -0.455 Salinity -0.437 pH -0,239 NS pH - Water Level 0.236 NS Water Level 0.354 85 Table 7. Descriptive statistics for mancrrove growth at the experimental and control sites. Tfie first seven columns after eSPECIES (code for the different species) crive statistics for the size of the specimens at the experimental site (e) on the individual sampling dates (i.e. 3-82 Feb. 1982). The following 6 columns (labelled GR-l - GR-6) crive statistics for arowth during succesive periods (i.e. GR-l = growth between 3/82 and 8/82). GR-TOT = statistics for growth from 3/82 to 11/83. The pattern is then repeated for seedlings at the control site (c). Other abbreviations as in Table 3. 66 TABLE 7. $ type red.des;2 ******************IRC # 12 MANGROVE DATA: REDS************************** Descriptive Statistics e3-82 e8-82 e11-82 e3-83 e5-83 e8-83 ell-83 eGR-1 N 12 11 11 10 9 9 9 11 NMISS 0 1 1 2 3 3 3 1 MEAN 59.7 56.8 64.6 64.6 68.8 71.6 76.3 0.45 MEDIAN 55.1 53.9 57.4 57.0 58.2 60.0 68.0 0.30 TMEAN 58.6 S7.0 64.7 65.0 68.8 71.6 76.3 0.33 STDEV 18.7 16.0 19.5 21.2 20.1 20.7 21.7 2.76 SEMEAN 5.4 4.8 5.9 6.7 6.7 6.9 7.2 0.83 MAX 97.4 80.6 95.5 92.2 96.7 101.0 106.0 5.90 MIN 33.0 31.1 32.2 33.7 43.5 46.2 49.2 -4.00 Q3 74.2 74.1 81.5 88.7 89.1 93.6 99.1 2.20 Ql 46.8 42.4 49.1 48.5 S2.9 55.4 57.3 -1.5O eGR-2 eGR-3 eGR-4 eGR-S eGR-6 eGR-TOT ePCTGR c4-82 IN 11 10 9 9 9 9 9 26 NMISS 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 0 MEAN 7.83 1.41 0.74 2.77 4.70 18.3 0.325 65.1 MEDIAN 5.40 1.05 0.60 2.70 3.70 12.3 0.199 65.5 TMEAN 6.47 1.03 0.74 2.77 4.70 18.3 0.325 64.2 STDEV 7.92 4.43 1.94 1.86 4.31 14.0 0.282 21.3 SEMEAN 2.39 1.40 0.65 0.62 1.44 4.7 0.094 4.2 MAX 27.60 10.70 4.50 5.50 12.10 48.0 1.000 120.9 MIN 0.30 -4.80 -2.30 -0.50 -2.00 2.8 0.060 29.9 Q3 11.60 2.75 1.90 4.25 8.15 27.4 0.429 78.8 Ql 2.30 -0.82 -0.45 1.35 2.10 8.8 0.163 48.4 c8-82 ell-82 c3-83 c6-83 c8-83 C11-83 cGR-1 cGR-2 N 26 26 26 26 26 25 26 26 NMISS 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MEAN 82.1 96.4 103.2 115.7 129.3 145.2 17.0 14.3 MEDIAN 80.3 93.6 100.5 103.6 112.0 131.5 16.9 13.3 TMEAN 81.3 95.7 102.6 114.3 127.9 144.0 16.7 14.3 STDEV 24.7 30.0 31.8 39.8 44.3 47.2 11.6 11.0 SEMEAN 4.8 5.9 6.2 7.8 8.7 9.4 2.3 2.2 MAX 141.2 162.0 171.3 212.0 224.0 235.S 39.8 38.8 MIN 42.4 47.1 49.8 55.0 69.0 81.3 0.4 -8.4 Q3 96.1 110.3 124.9 136.7 160.0 185.9 27.1 22.9 Ql 64.7 78.0 79.6 87.3 93.6 104.7 8.3 4.7 cGR-3 cGR-4 cGR-5 cGR-6 cGR-TOT cPCTGR N 26 26 26 25 25 25 NMISS 0 0 0 1 1 1 MEAN 6.76 12.6 13.60 19.6 80.6 1.355 MEDIAN 5.85 7.2 12.30 19.6 67.4 1.304 TMEAN 6.65 9.1 13.26 19.5 79.7 1.311 STDEV 6.19 20.6 8.37 10.1 38.2 0.738 SEMEAN 1.21 4.0 1.64 2.0 7.6 0.148 MAX 18.50 109.0 32.90 41.7 161.5 3.473 MIN -2.50 -1.1 2.60 0.0 20.9 0.244 Q3 10.53 12.9 19.50 27.1 114.0 1.710 Ql 1.38 3.5 6.45 12.0 53.2 0.816 B7 TABLE 7 (Continued). IRC # 12 MANCROVE DATA: BLACKS Descriptive Statistics eSPECIES e3-82 e8-82 ell-82 e3-q83 e5-83 e8-83 ell-83 N >6 56 53 54 54 55 55 51 NMISS 0 0 3 2 2 1 1 5 MEAN 2.00000 56.8 68.0 75.5 79.7 83.8 88.1 95.0 MEDIAN 2.00000 50.9 60.4 68.4 72.7 76.8 81.8 86.9 TMEAN 2.00000 54.0 65.4 72.9 76.8 80.6 84.8 91.7 STDEV 0.00000 27.8 27.3 28.1 27.8 30.6 31.1 33.0 SEMEAN 0.00000 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.8 4.1 4.2 4.6 MAX 2.00000 184.3 182.6 187.7 196.6 207.0 207.6 208.0 min 2.00000 17.0 36.7 37.0 48.2 50.5 52.6 54.3 Q3 2.00000 67.6 81.5 90.6 93.5 100.0 101.9 113.8 Ql 2.00000 39.1 48.4 55.3 59.8 61.2 66.3 70.3 eGR-1 eGR-2 eGR-3 eGR-4 eGR-5 eGR-6 eGR-TOT cSPECIES N 53 52 54 54 55 51 51 46 NMISS 3 4 2 2 1 5 5 0 MEAN 10.19 8.04 4.14 3.83 4.30 6.35 37.2 2.00000 MEDIAN 8.10 7.10 2.55 2.35 3.50 4.60 34.4 2.00000 TMEAN 9.70 7.72 3.24 3.32 3.98 5.79 36.2 2.00000 STDEV 8.74 6.94 7.05 5.53 4.31 8.12 23.6 0.00000 SEMEAN 1.20 0.96 0.96 0.75 0.58 1.14 3.3 0.00000 MAX 34.00 26.70 37.30 22.60 18.70 37.20 106.0 2.00000 MIN -3.90 -2.10 -5.60 -5.30 -1.70 -7.00 -5.4 2.00000 Q3 14.15 13.37 4.38 5.35 7.10 12.00 51.9 2.00000 Ql 4.70 1.62 0.63 0.38 0.60 0.60 ia.9 2.00000 c4-82 c8-82 cll-82 c3-83 c6-63 c8-83 cll-83 cGR-1 N 46 46 45 45 46 46 42 46 NMISS 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 0 MEAN 80.8 106.8 115.6 123.4 132.0 140.2 149.7 26.0 MEDIAN 84.5 107.2 112.8 125.0 120.8 130.4 140.6 22.3 TMEAN 80.8 106.2 113.7 122.2 130.8 139.4 148.5 25.1 STDEV 21.1 34.2 39.8 41.6 45.3 4S.9 47.9 17.9 SEMEAN 3.1 5.0 5.9 6.2 6.7 6.8 7.4 2.6 MAX 122.4 181.5 222.1 222.0 235.6 236.1 258.7 74.1 MIN 39.8 44.1 42.5 46.1 46.7 61.1 61.7 -6.7 Q3 98.0 129.3 139.1 154.7 168.3 181.6 184.6 36.0 Ql 63.7 78.8 82.1 86.2 97.7 103.8 107.0 12.6 cGR-2 cGR-3 cGR-4 cGR-5 cGR-6 cGR-TOT ePCTGR cPCTGR N 45 44 45 46 42 42 51 42 NMISS 1 2 1 0 4 4 5 4 MEAN 9.6 6.12 9.09 8.19 12.0 69.0 0.837 0.870 MEDIAN S.7 4.00 8.30 5.90 9.9 76.2 0.683 0.867 TMEAN 9.0 5.24 9.16 7.25 11.6 68.2 0.778 0.866 STDEV 11.4 7.83 8.63 9.67 10.4 35.8 0.713 0.428 SEMEAN 1.7 1.18 1.29 1.43 1.6 5.5 0.100 0.066 MAX 40.6 44.10 25.30 52.30 36.7 149.3 3.988 1.832 mix -7.3 -1.60 -8.50 -6.80 -5.0 6.7 -0.080 0.122 Q3 15.0 9.68 16.30 13.75 15.7 93.2 1.335 1.223 Ql 2.2 1.20 3.25 1.55 5.1 39.0 0.332 0.552 TABLE 7 (Continued) $ type white.des IRC # 12 MANGROVE DATA: WHITES Descriptive Statistics eSPECIES e3-82 e8-82 ell-82 e3-83 e5-83 e8-83 ell-83 N 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 a NMISS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 MEAN 3.00000 77.4 65.3 90.6 95.5 98.4 99.8 103.9 MEDIAN 3.00000 73.6 83.7 83.5 97.0 104.4 104.2 100.7 TMEAN 3.00000 77.4 85.3 90.6 95.5 98.4 99.8 103.9 STDEV 0.00000 15.9 19.6 21.4 21.2 22.6 21.7 24.3 SEMEAN 0.00000 S.3 6.5 7.1 7.1 7.5 7.2 8.6 KAX 3.00000 109.3 126.3 130.4 127.3 130.4 130.7 139.8 MIN 3.00000 54.2 59.6 61.2 63.3 60.0 62.6 73.2 Q3 3.00000 86.9 95.7 105.5 114.2 117.1 117.9 127.1 Ql 3.00000 69.7 70.1 75.3 79.0 82.6 83.5 84.0 eGR-1 eGR-2 eGR-3 eGR-4 eGR-5 eGR-6 eGR-TOT cSPECIES N 9 9 9 9 9 a 8 25 NMISS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MEAN 7.92 S.21 5.0 2.87 1.47 7.91 30.5 3.00000 MEDIAN 5.40 4.10 0.3 3.10 0.30 7.85 22.2 3.00000 TMEAN 7.92 S.21 5.0 2.87 1.47 7.91 30.5 3.00000 STDEV 8.11 6.03 10.7 3.35 3.29 6.81 21.6 0.00000 SEMEAN 2.70 2.01 3.6 1.12 1.10 2.41 7.6 0.00000 MAX 22.60 17.10 28.5 7.40 7.40 19.00 6S.3 3.00000 MIN -2.50 -3.30 -3.1 -3.30 -2.50 -0.50 5.4 3.00000 Q3 14.70 8.55 10.2 5.50 4.20 13.85 52.7 3.00000 Ql 2.00 0.70 -1.7 0.70 -1.05 1.77 13.S 3.00000 c4-82 c8-82 cll-82 c3-83 c6-83 c8-83 cll-83 cGR-1 N 25 25 25 25 25 25 24 25 NMISS 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MEAN 75.4 104.1 116.8 123.4 138.9 142.8 154.5 28.7 MEDIAN 68.4 98.0 108.7 117.3 123.5 124.3 145.7 24.9 TMEAN 74.9 101.9 115.0 121.6 137.6 141.3 153.9 27.8 STDEV 26.0 38.6 42.4 44.5 49.5 51.3 47.4 21.3 SEKEAN 5.2 7.7 8.5 8.9 9.9 10.3 9.7 4.3 MAX 130.0 210.3 218.5 227.7 241.0 253.2 255.0 80.3 MIN 31.5 48.4 56.3 62.3 67.3 67.3 66.6 -3.8 Q3 95.0 129.4 152.2 158.8 178.9 184.3 19S.4 46.6 Ql 55.5 75.7 83.4 92.3 105.7 109.6 120.8 13.3 cGR-2 cGR-3 cGR-4 cGR-S cGR-6 cGR-TOT ePCTGR cPCTGR N 25 25 25 25 24 24 8 24 NMISS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MEAN 12.7 6.67 15.5 3.86 15.1 79.9 0.421 1.188 MEDIAN 8.5 5.00 10.4 3.90 13.5 82.0 0.323 1.096 TMEAN 11.8 6.45 11.9 3.75 14.6 79.6 0.421 1.175 STDEV 15.1 7.03 22.7 4.77 14.4 36.5 0.292 0.617 SEMEAN 3.0 1.41 4.5 0.95 2.9 7.4 0.103 0.126 MAX 53.1 25.70 113.1 13.70 42.7 155.9 0.877 2.594 MIN -6.9 -7.40 -0.5 -3.40 -2.6 9.3 0.068 0.080 Q3 15.9 11.50 17.6 6.35 28.0 96.8 0.723 1.585 Ql 2.6 1.75 3.2 0.50 1.5 62.0 0.185 0.829 89 TABLE 8: Data on mangrove deaths at the experimental (E) and control (C) sites. 3-82 8-82 11-82 3-83 5-83 8-83 11-83 R. mangle E (N = 22) Total No. Dead 0 1 1 4 6 7 13 No. Died in Interval 0 1 0 3 2 1 6 No. Remaining 22 21 21 18 16 15 9 Proportion Dead 0 0.045 0.045 0.182 0.272 0.318 0.590 Proportion Died in Inter-val 0 0*.045 0 0.143 0.111 0.063 0.400 C (N - 28) Total No. Dead 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 No. Died in Interval 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 No. Remaining 28 27 27 26 26 26 26 Proportion Dead 0 0.036 0.036 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 Proportion Died in Interval 0 0.036 0 0.037 0 0 0 --------------------------------------------- A. germinans E (N = 73) Total No. Dead 0 1 2 3 7 7 19 No. Died in Interval 0 1 1 1 4 0 12 No. Remaining 73 72 71 70 66 66 54 Proportion Dead 0 0.014 0.027 0.041 0.096 0.096 0.260 Proportion Died in Interval 0 0.013 0.014 0.014 0.057 0 0.182 C (N = 47) 0 Total No. Dead 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 No. Died in Interval 0 1 0 0 0 0 - 0 No. Remaining 47 46 46 46 46 46 46 Proportion Dead 0 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 Proportion Died in Interval 0 0.021 0 0 0 0 0 T. -i `3@ -eu @ o-s 7a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E (N = 13) Total No. Dead 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 No. Died in Interval 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 No. Remaining 13 13 13 13 11 11 10 Proportion Dead 0 0 0 0 0.154 0.154 0.231 Proportion Died in Interval 0 0 0 0 0.154 0 0.091 C (N = 25) Total No. Dead 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. Died in Interval 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. Remaining 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Proportion Dead 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' Proportion Died in Interval 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 Table 9. Descriptive statistics for mangrove growth for all specimens surviving to 11/82. Abbreviations as in Table 7. 0 0 91 TAB LE 9. IRC # 12 MANGROVE DATA (Alive by 11/83) PLANTn eSPECIES e3-82 e8-82 e11-82 e3-83 e5-83 e8-83 N 108 77 77 73 74 73 73 73 NMISS 0 0 0 4 3 4 4 4 MEAN 54.5 1.961 59.7 69.5 75.7 79.6 93.9 67.5 MEDIAN 54.5 2.000 54.0 62.3 70.2 73.6 77.9 84.3 TMEAN 54.5 1.957 57.6 66.3 73.6 77.5 81.2 84.8 STDEV 31.3 0.524 26.1 25.9 26.9 27.1 29.3 29.6 SEMEAN 3.0 0.060 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.5 MAX 109.0 3.000 164.3 182.6 167.7 196.6 207.0 207.6 MIN 1.0 1.000 17.0 31.1 32.2 33.7 43.5 46.2 Q3 61.7 2.000 72.1 92.2 90.6 93.9 100.0 102.5 Q1 27.2 2.000 42.2 50.5 55.6 59.0 60.1 65.3 e11-83 eGR-1 eGR-2 eGR-3 eGR-4 eGR-5 eGR-6 eGR-TOT N 68 73 72 73 72 73 fie fill NMISS 9 4 5 4 5 4 9 9 MEAN 93.6 6.44 7.66 3.96 3.32 3.76 6.32 33.4 MEDIAN 97.1 6.50 6.95 1.90 1.95 3.00 4.70 30.3 TMEAN 91.2 7.80 7.25 2.95 2.94 3.46 5.90 32.9 STDEV 31.4 6.69 6.96 7.26 5.06 4.07 7.55 23.1 SEMEAN 3.9 1.02 0.62 0.95 0.60 0.49 0.92 2.8 MAX 208.0 34.00 27.60 37.30 22.60 16.70 37.20 106.0 MIN 49.2 -4.00 -3.30 -5.60 -5.30 -2.50 -7.00 -5.4 Q3 112.2 13.65 11.47 4.00 4.99 5.95 11.25 47.6 Q1 70.3 2.15 1.63 0.20 0.33 0.55 1.13 17.1 eSPECIES C4-82 c8-82 C11-82 c3-83 c6-83 c8-83 ell-83 N 97 97 97 96 96 97 97 91 NMISS 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 6 MEAN 1.990 75.2 99.5 110.7 117.9 129.4 136.0 149.7 MEDIAN 2.000 72.6 95.9 103.9 113.3 120.1 124.3 140.4 TMEAN 1.999 74.9 97.9 106.6 116.1 127.6 136.5 148.3 STDEV 0.729 23.2 34.6 36.9 40.6 45.4 46.7 47.2 SEMEAM 0.074 2.4 3.5 4.0 4.1 4.6 4.7 4.9 MAX 3.000 130.0 210.3 222.1 227.7 241.0 253.2 258.7 MIN 1.000 29.9 42.4 42.5 46.1 46.7 61.1 61.7 Q3 3.000 92.6 119.6 131.9 146.6 165.6 177.9 185.7 Q1 1.000 57.4 76.1 81.2 66.8 96.2 103.5 113.0 cGR-1 cGR-2 cGR-3 cGR-4 cGR-5 cGR-6 cGR-TOT N 97 96 95 96 97 91 91 NMISS 0 1 2 1 0 6 6 MEAN 24.3 11.7 6.44 11.7 9.52 14.9 75.0 MEDIAN 20.8 8.4 4.90 8.6 6.20 12.3 74.8 TMEAN 23.1 10.9 5.90 9.6 7.77 14.5 74.1 STDEV 17.9 12.4 7.14 16.8 6.97 11.8 36.6 SEMEAN 1.8 1.3 0.73 1.7 0.91 1.2 3.8 MAX 80.3 53.1 44.10 113.1 52.30 42.7 161.5 MIN -6.7 -9.4 -7.40 -0.5 -6.80 -5.0 6.7 Q3 34.2 17.1 9.70 16.2 13.65 23.5 99.5 Q1 10.5 3.7 1.50 3.4 2.35 5.5 46.8 92 TABLE 10. Results of t-tests (t) and Mann-Whitney Tests (W) for differences in growth by Red, Black and White mangroves at the experimental (E) and control (C) sites during the intervals shown. * = P.4Z.05, ** = P.<0.01, *** = P.<0.001, NS P.>0.05. Individuals that died by 11/83 were excluded from all calculations. R. mangle INTERVAL S N MEAN SE MEDIAN DF t P. W P. E 11 0.45 0.82 0.30 3/82- 8/82 31 6.83 84.0 C 26 17.00 2.30 16.95 E 11 7.83 2.40 5.40 8/82-11/82 26 2.03 149.5 C 26 14.30 2.20 13.30 E 10 1.41 1.40 1.05 11/82- 3/83 23 2.88 118.0 C 26 6.76 1.20 5.85 E 9 0.74 0.65 0.60 3/83- 5/83 26 2.89 59.5 C 26 12.60 4.00 7.25 E 9 2.77 0.62 2.70 5/83- 8/83 31 6.17 62.0 C 26 13.60 1.60 12.30 E 9 4.70 1.40 3.70 8/83-11/83 31 6.02 66.5 C 25 19.60 2.00 19.60 E 9 18.30 4.70 12.30 3/82-11/83 32 6.97 52.0 C 25 80.60 7.60 67.40 93 TABLE 10. (Continued). A. germinans INTERVAL s N MEAN SE MEDIAN DF t P. w P. E 53 10.19 1.20 8.10 3/82- 8/82 63 5.45 1946.5 C 46 26.00 2.60 22.3 E 52 8.04 0.96 7.10 8/82-11/82 71 0.79 ns 2551.5 ns C 45 9.60 1.70 5.70 E 54 4.14 0.96 2.55 11/82- 3/83 88 1.31 ns 2412.0 ns C 44 6.12 1.20 4.00 E 54 3.83 0.75 2.35 3/83- 5/83 72 3.53 2219.5 C 45 9.09 1.30 8.30 E 55 4.30 0.58 3.50 5/83- 8/83 60 2.52 2485.0 c 46 8.19 1.40 5.90 E 51 6.35 1.10 4.60 8/83-11/83 77 2.86 2043.0 C 42 12.00 1.60 9.95 E 51 37.20 3.30 34.40 3/82-11/83 69 4.94 1833.5 c 42 69.00 5.50 76.15 94 TABLE 10. (Continued). L. racemosa INTERVAL s N MEAN SE MEDIAN DF t P. w P. E 9 7.92 2.70 5.40 3/82- 8/82 32 4.11 88.0 C 25 28.70 4.30 24.90 E 9 5.21 2.00 4.10 8/82-11/82 31 2.07 120.0 ns C 25 12.70 3.00 8.50 E 9 5.00 3.60 0.30 11/82- 3/83 11 0.45 ns 120.0 ns C 25 6.67 1.40 5.00 E 9 2.87 1.10 3.10 3/83- 5/83 c 25 15.50 4.50 10.40 27 2.69 93.5 E 9 1.47 1.10 0.30 5/83- 8/83 21 1.65 ns 123.0 ns c 25 3.86 0.95 3.90 E 8 7.91 2.40 7.85 8/83-11/83 26 1.89 ns 113.0 ns C 24 15.1 2.90 13.45 E 8 30.5 7.60 22.20 3/82-11/83 21 4.63 58.0 C 24 79.9 7.40 82.00 95 TABLE 11. Results of t-tests W and Mann-Whitney Tests (W) for differences in proportional growth of mangroves at the experimental (E) and control (C) sites. Proportional growth (final size-initial size)/initial size. P.<0.001, NS = P.>0.05. SPECIES S N MEAN S.E. MEDIAN DF t P. W P. E 9 0.33 0.09 0.20 R. mangle 32 5.88 60 C 25 1.36 0.15 1.30 E 51 0.84 0.10 0.68 A. germinans 84 0.27 ns 2277 ns C 42 0.87 0.07 0.87 E 8 0.42 0.10 0.32 L. racemosa 26 4.71 59 C 24 1.19 0.13 1.10 96 TABLE 12. Changes (^) in relative frequency of the more common plant species in the quadrats along the transects at the experimental (E) and control (C) sites. Sixty quadrats were measured at each site during each sampling date. R. mangle C. erectus B. maritima P. vermicularis A. germinans S. virginica R. maritima L. racemosa S. bigelovii S. linearis 4/82 C .0167 .0500 .0167 0 .6333 .4500 .1667 .0167 0 .0167 5/83 0 .1186 .1017 0 .4915 0 .2034 .4746 0 0 ^ -.0167 .0686 .085 0 -.1418 -.4500 .0367 .4579 0 -.0167 4/82 E 0 .0167 .0167 0 .3500 .6167 .0833 .0167 0 0 5/83 0 0 .0167 .0167 .3500 .1833 .2167 0 0 0 a 0 -.0167 0 .0167 0 -.4334 .1334 -.0167 0 0 7/82 C .0333 .1167 .0500 0 .6500 .2167 .1500 .1167 0 .0167 8/83 .0167 .1667 '.1500 0 .6167 .0667 .3000 0 0 0 ^ -.0166 .0500 .1000 -.0333 -.1500 .1500 -.1167 0 -.0167 7/82 E 0 0 .0167 .0167 .3167 .5000 .1667 .0333 0 0 8/83 0 .0167 .0167 0 .3333 .2333 .2500 0 .0167 0 ^ 0 .0167 0 -.0167 .0166 -.2667 .0833 -.0333 .0167 0 11/82 C .0339 .1186 .1017 0 .5932 0 .2034 0 0 0 11/83 .0678 .2712 .1379 0 .3793 .0517 .1897 .4137 .0345 0 ^ .0339 .1526 .0362 0 -.2139 .0517 -.0137 .4137 .0345 0 11/82 E 0 0 .0167 0 .3167 0 .2333 .1000 0 0 11/83 0 0167 .0167 .0167 .2333 .1333 .2500 0 0 0 ^ 0 .0167 0 .0167 -.0834 .1333 .0167 -.1000 0 0 97 Table 13. Descriptive statistics for frequency of occurrence of the different species during the quadrat surveys. Species names are as follows: RMANGLE = Rhizophora mangle, AGERMIN = Avicennia germinans, LRACEM Laguncularia racemosa, CERECT = Conocarpus erectus, SVIRG = Salicornia virginica, SBIGELV = Salicornia bigelovii, BMAR = Batis maritima, RMAR = Ruppia maritima, SLIN = Sueda linearis, PVERM = Philoxerus vermicularis. Letter preceeding species names indicate control (c) or experimental (e) cells. Other abbreviations as in Table 3. 98 TABLE 13. IRC # 12: TRANSECT DATA Descriptive Statistics (Frequency of Occurrence) cRMANGLE cAGERMIN cLRACEM cCERECT cSVIRG cSBIGELV cBMAR cRMAR N 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 KEAN 0.0281 0.1403 0.0930 0 0.561 0.208 0.2022 0.170 MEDIAN 0.0250 0.1186 0.1017 0 0.605 0.142 0.1966 0.067 TMEAN 0.0281 0.1403 0.0930 0 0.561 0.208 0.2022 0.170 STDEV 0.0232 0.0741 0.0512 0 0.105 0.228 0.0524 0.217 SEMEAN 0.0095 0.0303 0.0209 0 0.043 0.093 0.0214 0.089 MAX 0.0678 0.2712 0.1500 0 0.650 0.517 0.3000 0.475 MIN 0.0000 0.0500 0.0167 0 0.379 0.000 0.1500 0.000 Q3 0.0424 0.1928 0.1409 0 0.637 0.4677 0.2275 0.429 Ql 0.0125 0.1000 0.0417 0 0.463 0.000 0.1625 0.000 cSLIN cPVERMIC eRMANGLE eAGERMIN eLRACEM eCERECT eSVIRG eSBIGELV N 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 MEAN 0.058 0.00557 0 0.00835 1.67E-02 0.00835 0.3167 0.278 MEDIAN 0.000 0.00000 0 0.00835 1.67E-02 0.00835 0.3250 0.208 TMEAN 0.050 0.00557 0 0.00835 1.67E-02 0.00835 0.3167 0.278 STDEV 0.141 0.00862 0 0.00915 O.OOE+00 0.00915 0.0435 0.234 SEMEAN 0.057 0.00352 0 0.00373 O.OOE+00 0.00373 0.0177 0.095 MAX 0.345 0.01670 0 0.01670 1.67E-02 0.01670 0.3500 0.617 MIN 0.000 0.00000 0 0.00000 1.67E-02 0.00000 0.2333 0.000 Q3 0.086 0.01670 0 0.01670 1.67E-02 0.01670 0.3500 0.529 Ql 0.000 0.00000 0 0.00000 1.67E-02 0.00000 0.2959 0.100 eBMAR eRMAR eSLIN ePVERMIC N 6 6 6 6 MEAN 0.2000 0.0250 0.00278 0 MEDIAN 0.2250 0.0003 0.00000 0 TMEAN 0.2000 0.0250 0.00278 0 STDEV 0.0650 0.0391 0.00682 0 REMEAN 0.0265 0.0160 0.00278 0 MAX 0.2500 0.1000 0.01670 0 MIN 0.0833 0.0000 0.00000 0 Q3 0.2500 0.0500 0.00417 0 Ql 0.1459 0.0000 0.00000 0 99 TABLE 14. Comparison of mean percent coverage of various species between the experimental (E) and control (c) sites. A. germinans S N X S.E. D.F. t P. 4/82 C 60 0.55 0.30 E 60 0.07 0.07 64 1.55 0.13 8/82 C - - - E 11/82 C E 2/83 C 60 4.00 1.80 61 2.03 0.05 E 60 0.30 0.23 5/83 C 59 2.20 0.98 58 2.19 0.03 E 60 0.05 0.05 8/83 C 60 4.40 1.80 69 2.12 0.04 E 60 0.52 0.52 11/83 C 58 11.8 3.10 58 3.70 0.0005 E 60 0.23 0.23 L. racemosa S N X S.E. D.F. t P. 4/82 C 60 1.6 1.60 118 0.02 0.98 E 60 1.6 1.60 7/82 C 60 2.3 1.70 50 1.25 0.22 E 60 0.13 0.13 11/82 C 59 2.6 1.70 117 0.38 0.70 E 60 1.7 1.70 2/83 C 60 2.8 1.80 115 0.56 0.57 E 60 1.5 1.50 5/83 C 59 3.1 1.80 115 0.63 0.53 E 60 1.6 1.60 8/83 C 60 5.9 2.60 E 60 1.7 1.70 101 1.38 0.17 is C 58 7.6 3.00 79 1.91 0.06 E 60 1.3 1.30 TABLE 14. (Continued) S. virginica s N S.E. D.F. t P. 4/82 C 60 16.7 2.80 E 60 13.5 3.40 115 0.74 0.46 7/82 C 60 20.3 3.00 118 1.91 0.06 E 60 11.9 3.10 11/82 C 59 11.5 2.10 113 0.79 0.43 E 60 9.0 2.50 2/83 C 60 15.0 2.70 117 1.20 0.23 E 60 10.1 3.00 5/83 C 59 18.8 3.20 115 1.94 0.06 E 60 10.5 2.80 8/83 C 60 12.1 2.40 106 0.13 0.90 E 60 12.6 3.50 11/83 C 58 10.4 2.60 109 1.08 0.28 E 60 6.9 2.00 bigelovii s N i S.E. D.F. t P. 4/82 C 60 4.8 1.30 107 -2.47 0.02 E 60 10.4 1.80 7/82 C 60 2.70 0.86 79 -3.16 0.002 E 60 9.80 2.10 11/82 C - - - E 2/83 C 60 0 0 E 60 0.18 0.05 5/83 C E 8/83 C 60 0.22 0.17 61 -1.46- 0.15 E 60 2.20 1.30 11/83 C 58 0.97 0.63 91 -1.17 0.25 E 60 2.52 1.20 TABLE 14. (Continued) B. maritima s N x S.E. D.F. t P. 4/82 C 60 1.55 0.59 117 0.36 0.7,2 E 60 1.23 0.66 7/82 c 60 2.18 0.79 81 -1.34 0.19 E 60 4.80 1.80 11/82 C 59 3.58 1.20 103 -0.50 0.62 E 60 4.70 1.80 2/83 C 60 4.10 1.40 105 -0.63 0.53 E 60 5.60 2.00 5/83 C 59 8.4 2.80 90 1.29 0.20 E 60 4.3 1.50 8/83 C 60 5.1 1.60 116 -0.23 0.82 E 60 5.7 1.80 11/83 c 58 3.6 1.30 90 -1.59 0.12 E 60 8.0 2.50 R. maritima s N x S.E. D.F. t P. 4/82 c 60 0.017 0.02 59 -1.12 0.27 E 60 0.48 0.42 7/82 C 60 4.40 2.20 76 1.49 0.14 E 60 0.92 0.84 11/82 C 60 - 0 E 60 - - 2/83 C 60 9.60 2.80 65 2.68 0.0009 E 60 1.82 0.64 5/83 C 60 - - E 60 8/83 --60 E 60 11/83 C 60 E 60 TABLE 15. T-tests for differences of change in % coverage ofthe more common plant species along the transects in the experimental (E) and control (C) sites. A. germinans S N S.E. D.F. t P.- 4/82- 5/83 C 59 1.64 0.89 58 1.87 0.67 E 60 0.017 0.02 7/82- 8/83 C 60 3.00 1.50 73 1.62 0.11 E 60 0.52 0.52 11/82-11/83 C 57 9.0 2.60 57 3.39 0.002 E 60 0.23 0.23 L. racemosa S N S.E. D.F. t P. 4/82- 5/83 C E 7/82- 8/83 C 60 3.6 1.90 114 0.87 0.39 E 60 1.5 1.50 11/82/11/83 C 57 5.1 2.30 58 2.34 0.02 E 60 - 0.33 0.33 S. virginica S N y S.E. D.F. t P. 4/82- 5/83 C 59 2.0 2.80 103 1.50 0.14 E 60 - 3.0 1.90 7/82- 8/83 C 60 - 8.1 2.40 118 -2.64 0.009 E 60 0.7 2.40 11/82-11/83 C 57 - 0.60 1.60 112 0.59 0.55 E 60 - 2.10 2.00 103 TABLE 15. (Continued) 1. bigel6vii s N Y S.E. D.F. t P. 4/82- 5/83 C 59 - 4.9 1.30 107 2.36 0.02 E 60 -10.3 1.80 7/82- 8/83 C 60 - 2.48 0.80 72 2.01 0.05 E 60 - 7.60 2.40 11/82-11/83 C 57 0.98 0.64 91.4 -1.15 0.25 E 60 2.52 1.20 B. maritima s N T S.E. D.F. t P. 4/82- 5/83 C 59 6.9 2.50 88 1.35 0.18 E 60 3.1 1.30 7/82- 8/83 C 60 2.92 1.10 101 1.07 0.29 E 60 0.90 1.60 11/82-11/83 C 57 0.5 1.30 106 -1.69 0.09 E 60 3.3 1.80 R. maritima s N T S.E. D.F. t P. 4/82- 5/83 C 59 35.0 5.90 59 5.98 0.0001 E 60 0.48 0.42 7/82- 8/83 C 60 4.4 2.20 76 -1.49 0.14 E 60 0.92 0.84 11/81-11/83 c 57 27.5 5.30 57 5.33 0.0001 E 60 0.73 0.50 104 TABLE 16. Data on volumes filtered and on net efficiencies for the plankton sampling gear. SAMPLE MEAN VOLUME (M 3 S.E. MEAN EFFICIENCY S9E* Pump 202M Mole Hole 2.962 0.093 - - Culvert 2.990 0.063 - - River 2.972 0.081 - - Control 2.945 0.084 - - Overall 2.967 0.039 - - Pump 639. Mole Hole 0.592 0.017 - - Culvert 0.599 0.012 - - River 0.599 0.014 - - Control 0.589 0.017 - - Overall 0.595 0.007 - - Net 202M Culvert 11.14 0.610 98.2 5.40 River 10.61 0.074 93.6 0.66 Control 9.61 0.367 84.7 3.24 Overall 10.56 0.280 92.2 - Net 631, Culvert 0.536 0.091 4.7 0.80 River 0.610 0.060 5.4 0.53 Control 0.850 0.008 7.5 0.07 Overall 0.642 0.050 5.9 - 105 TABLE 17. List of taxa collected in the plankton samples. (T) = Tanaidacea, (I) = Isopoda, (A) = Amphipoda, (D) = Decapoda, (H) = Hemiptera. Taxa marked with an asterisk were not included in the analyses (see text). SARCODINA Rhizopodea Foraminifera CILIOPHORA Polyhymenophora Tintinnidae CNIDARIA Anthozoa Ceriantharia Hydrozoa Hydroid polyps ROTIFERA Rotifers* NEMATODA Nematodes MOLLUSCA Gastropoda Gastropod veligers Crepid la sp. Cerithidea scalariformes Bivalvia Bivalve veligers ANNELIDA Polychaeta Polychaete larvae Oligochaeta Oligochaete larvae ARTHROPODA Ostracoda Ostracods Copepoda Acartia tonsa Tortanus setacaudatus Harpacticoid sp. A Harpacticoid sp. B Harpacticoid sp. C Harpacticoid sp. D Oithona nana Cyclop@i7d sp.B Cyclopoid sp. C Cyclopoid sp. D Cyclopoid sp. E Cyclopoid sp. F Cyclopoid sp. G Caligoid sp. A Misc. nauplii Cirripedia Balanus sp. larvae Branchiura Argulus sp. CRUSTACEA Malacostraca Tanaidacea (T) Sphaeroma sp. (I) Probopyrus pandalicola (I) Corophium lacustre (A) Corophium ellisi (A) Gradidierella bonnieroides (A) Gammarus mucronatus (A) Caprellid A (A) Brachyuran zoea (D) Anomuran zoea (D) Natantia larva A (D) Nantantia larva B (D) Palaemonetes pugio (D)* Palaemonetes intermedius (D)* Hyppolite zostericola (D) Hyppolite pleuracantha (D) TABLE 17. (Continued) Insecta Collembola Odonata Corixidae (H) Halobates sp. (H) Coleoptera Diptera Hymenoptera Arachnida Aranea Acarina CHAETOGNATHA Saggita sp. CHORDATA Ascidacea Ascidian larvae Larvacea Oikopleura sp. Osteichthyes Microgobius sp.* Sygnathus scovelli* Cyprinodon variegatus* Gambusia affinis* Poecilia latipin@a* Elops saurus* leptocephalus larvae Misc. fish eggs MISC. Unknown A Misc. eggs 107 TABLE 18. Frequency of occurrence of the different taxa in the hand net collections at P-3 and SP-2. TAXON FREQUENCY Forminifera 0.167 Tintinnidae 0 Ceriantharia 0 Hydroid polyps 0 Nematodes 0.167 Gastropod veligers 0.333 Crepidula sp. 0 Cerithidea scalariformes 0 Bivalve veligers 0.333 Polychaete larvae 0.417 Oligochaete larvae 0 Ostracods 0.833 Acartia tonsa 0.417 Tortanus setacaudatus 0.333 Harpacticoid sp. A. 0.833 Harpacticoid sp. B 0.167 Harpacticoid sp. C 0.833 Harpacticoid sp. D 0 Oithona nana 1.000 Cyclopoid sp. B 0.250 Cyclopoid sp. C 0.333 Cyclopoid sp. D 0.417 Cyclopoid sp. E 1.000 Cyclopoid sp. F 0 Cyclopoid sp. G 0 Caligoid sp. A 0 Misc. nauplii 1.000 Balanus sp. larvae 0 Argulus sp. 0.083 Tanaidacea (T) 0 Sphaeroma, sp. (1) 0 Probopyrus pandalicola (1) 0 To-rophium lacustre (A)' 0 Corophium ellisi (A) 0 Gradidierella bonnieroides (A) 0 Gammarus mucronatus (A) 0 Caprellid A (A) 0 Brachyuran zoea (D) 0.250 Anomuran zoea (D) 0 Natantia larva A (D) 0 Nantantia larva B (D) 0 Hyppolite zostericola (D) 0 Hyppolite pleuracantha (D) 0 Collembola 0 Odonata 0 Corixidae (H) 0.667 Halobates sp. (H) 0 Coleoptera 0 108 TABLE 18. (Continued) TAXON FREQUENCY Diptera 0 Hymenoptera 0 Aranea 0 Acarina 0.083 Saggita sp. 0 Ascidian larvae 0 Oikopleura sp. 0 leptocephalus larvae 0 Misc. fish eggs 0 Unknown A 0.333 Misc. eggs 0.333 109 TABLE 19. Mean density/taxa at the various stations from the 2021jand 631samples. STATION PUMP PUMP NET NET TOTAL TOTAL 2029 63 P 2029 639 202 P 63 P Mole Hole 920 287300 - - 920 287300 Culvert 585 19251 1184 68592 1769 87842 River 1505 40867 4528 112499 6033 153366 Control 71 35964 17 94496 88 130460 110 TABLE 20. Pearson correlation coefficients between total densities of each taxon collected at the different sites. Upper matrix shows the results of "within-mesh"comparisons, lower matrix shows the results of "between-mesh" comparisons. p< 0.05, p-,,' 0.01, p <0.001. MOLE HOLE CULVERT RIVER CONTROL 202 63 202 63 202 63 202 63 MOLE HOLE 202 - 0.041 -0.009 0.708*** 63 0.249 - 0.986*** 0.891*** 0.928*** W VERT 202 -0.030 - 0.987*** 0.023 L 63 0.226 0.013 - 0.951*** 0.936 RIVER 202 -0.030 0.104 -0.034 63 0.158 0.352** 0.358** - 0.899*** CONTROL 202 -0.361** 0.339* - 0.264 - 63 0.034 -0.024 -0.220 0.155 TABLE 21. Data on the 15 most common taxa captured with 202u and 63u gear. 202 u TOTAL DENSITY TAXON RANK INDIV/M3 X Acartia tonsa 1 322,159.0 5,752.8 Tortanus setacaudatus 2 34,358.0 613.5 Brachyuran zoea 3 33,974.0 606.7 Oithona nana 4 33,570.0 599.5 Ostracoda 5 17,426.0 311 Foraminifera 6 4,183.0 74.7 Harpacticoid A 7 2,581.0 46.1 Anomuran zoea 8 1,823.0 32.6 Larval shrimp B 9 1,533.0 27.4 Copepod nauplii 10 1,332.0 23.8 Misc. eggs 11 891.0 15.9 Nematoda 12 595.0 10.6 Unknown A 13 541.0 9.7 Cyclopoid D 14 509.0 9.1 Larval shrimp A 15 497.0 8.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 63u TOTAL DENSITY TAXON RANK INDIV/M3 Copepod nauplii 1 23,411,616 418,065 Oithona nana 2 6,504,674 116,155 Cyclopoid E 3 4,578,429 81,758 Acartia tonsa 4 1,843,970 32,928 Gastropod larvae 5 728,503 13,009 Misc. eggs 6 376,362 6,721 Polychaete larvae 7 351,318 6,274 Cyclopoid C 8 172,592 3,082 Tortanus setacaudatus 9 122,624 2,190 Cyclopoid E 10 104,381 1,864 Unknown A 11 69,842 1,247 Bivalve larvae 12 67,731 1,209 Harpacticoid C 13 46,439 829 Brachyuran zoea 14 40,813 729 Harpacticoid A 15 36,202 646 112 APPENDIX Calculations Used to Determine Plankton Concentrations: Variables: 3 Do = Densitv (orcranisms/m Ns = Number of orcranisms. Vs = Volume of subsample. Vc = Volume of diluted sample. Vo = volume of water filtered. Fr = flow rate of pump. 2 Af = filterinq area of net (0.186m Cf = flowmeter counts. Rc = flowmeter rotor constant. Equations: (General Oceanics 1979) VO(PIAMP) = C (32/Fr) x time of sample I x 0.003785 Vo(net) C (Cf x Rc)/999999 I x Af Do (Ns/Vs) x Vc x (I/Vo) 113 UDAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY 3 6668 14111300 3