• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Summary of results
 Theses and dissertations
 Introduction
 Special program for ecological...
 Biomass transformations
 Physico-chemical relationships:...
 Phytoplankton productivity and...
 Detritus: Micro- and macro-par...
 Microbial contribution to the energy...
 Litter-associated organisms
 Benthic infauna
 Grassbed (Vallisneria Americana)...
 Associations of epibenthic fishes...
 Trophic resource partitioning among...
 Planning and management: Application...
 Appendix






Group Title: Technical paper - Florida Sea Grant Program
Title: Energy relationships and the productivity of Apalachicola Bay
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00072268/00001
 Material Information
Title: Energy relationships and the productivity of Apalachicola Bay
Series Title: Technical paper - Florida Sea Grant College
Physical Description: iv, 437, 27 p. : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Livingston, Robert J
Iverson, Richard L. ( joint author )
White, David C. ( joint author )
Florida Sea Grant Program
Publisher: Department of Biological Science, Department of Oceanography, Florida State University
Place of Publication: Tallahassee Fla
Publication Date: 1976
 Subjects
Subject: Estuarine ecology -- Florida -- Apalachicola Bay   ( lcsh )
Estuaries -- Florida -- Apalachicola Bay   ( lcsh )
Estuarine biology -- Florida -- Apalachicola Bay   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility: Robert J. Livingston, Richard L. Iverson, David C. White.
General Note: "Under the auspices of the Florida Sea Grant College Program, with support from the NOAA Office of Sea Grant, U. S. Dept. of Commerce, grant number 04-6-158-44055."
Funding: This collection includes items related to Florida’s environments, ecosystems, and species. It includes the subcollections of Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit project documents, the Florida Sea Grant technical series, the Florida Geological Survey series, the Howard T. Odum Center for Wetland technical reports, and other entities devoted to the study and preservation of Florida's natural resources.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00072268
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000409736
oclc - 03812730
notis - ACF6421

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page 1
        Title Page 2
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents 1
        Table of Contents 2
    Summary of results
        Page i
        Page ii
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Theses and dissertations
        Page v
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Literature cited
            Page 4
    Special program for ecological science (SPECS): Summary of capabilities
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
    Biomass transformations
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
    Physico-chemical relationships: Sedimentology and habitat structure
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
    Phytoplankton productivity and nutrient analysis
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
    Detritus: Micro- and macro-particulates
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
        Page 178
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
        Page 184
        Page 185
        Page 186
        Page 187
        Page 188
        Page 189
        Page 190
        Page 191
        Page 192
        Page 193
        Page 194
        Page 195
        Page 196
        Page 197
        Page 198
        Page 199
        Page 200
        Page 201
        Page 202
        Page 202a
    Microbial contribution to the energy budget of Apalachicola Bay
        Page 203
        Page 204
        Page 205
        Page 206
        Page 207
        Page 208
        Page 209
        Page 210
        Page 211
        Page 212
        Page 213
        Page 214
        Page 215
        Page 216
        Page 217
        Page 218
        Page 219
        Page 220
        Page 221
        Page 222
        Page 223
        Page 224
        Page 224a
        Page 224b
        Page 225
        Page 226
        Page 227
        Page 228
    Litter-associated organisms
        Page 229
        Page 230
        Page 231
        Page 232
        Page 233
        Page 234
        Page 235
        Page 236
        Page 237
        Page 238
        Page 239
        Page 240
        Page 241
        Page 242
        Page 243
        Page 244
        Page 244a
        Page 245
        Page 246
        Page 247
        Page 248
        Page 249
        Page 250
        Page 251
        Page 252
        Page 253
        Page 254
        Page 255
    Benthic infauna
        Page 256
        Page 257
        Page 258
        Page 259
        Page 260
        Page 261
        Page 262
        Page 263
        Page 264
    Grassbed (Vallisneria Americana) assemblages in East Bay
        Page 265
        Page 266
        Page 266a
        Page 267
        Page 267a
        Page 268
        Page 269
    Associations of epibenthic fishes and invertebrates
        Page 270
        Page 271
        Page 272
        Page 273
        Page 274
        Page 275
        Page 276
        Page 277
        Page 278
        Page 279
        Page 280
        Page 281
        Page 282
        Page 283
        Page 284
        Page 285
        Page 286
        Page 287
        Page 288
        Page 289
        Page 290
        Page 291
        Page 292
        Page 293
        Page 294
        Page 295
        Page 296
        Page 297
        Page 298
        Page 299
        Page 299a
        Page 300
        Page 301
        Page 302
        Page 303
        Page 304
        Page 305
        Page 306
        Page 307
        Page 308
        Page 309
        Page 310
        Page 311
        Page 312
        Page 313
        Page 314
        Page 315
        Page 316
        Page 317
        Page 318
        Page 319
        Page 320
        Page 321
        Page 322
        Page 323
        Page 324
        Page 325
        Page 326
        Page 327
        Page 328
        Page 329
        Page 330
        Page 331
        Page 332
        Page 333
        Page 334
        Page 335
        Page 336
        Page 337
        Page 338
        Page 339
        Page 340
        Page 341
        Page 342
        Page 343
        Page 344
        Page 345
        Page 346
        Page 347
        Page 348
        Page 349
        Page 350
        Page 351
        Page 352
        Page 353
        Page 354
        Page 355
        Page 356
        Page 357
        Page 358
        Page 359
        Page 360
        Page 361
        Page 362
        Page 363
        Page 364
        Page 364a
        Page 365
        Page 365a
        Page 366
        Page 366a
        Page 367
        Page 368
        Page 369
        Page 370
        Page 371
        Page 372
        Page 373
        Page 374
        Page 375
        Page 376
        Page 377
        Page 378
        Page 379
        Page 380
        Page 381
        Page 382
        Page 383
        Page 384
        Page 385
        Page 386
        Page 387
        Page 388
        Page 389
        Page 390
        Page 391
        Page 392
        Page 393
        Page 394
        Page 395
        Page 396
        Page 397
        Page 398
        Page 399
        Page 400
        Page 401
        Page 402
        Page 403
        Page 404
        Page 405
        Page 406
        Page 407
        Page 408
        Page 409
        Page 410
        Page 411
    Trophic resource partitioning among juvenile fishes
        Page 412
        Page 413
        Page 414
        Page 415
        Page 416
        Page 417
        Page 418
        Page 419
        Page 420
        Page 421
        Page 422
        Page 423
        Page 424
        Page 425
        Page 426
        Page 427
        Page 428
        Page 429
        Page 430
        Page 431
        Page 432
        Page 433
    Planning and management: Application of scientific data
        Page 434
        Page 435
        Page 436
        Page 437
    Appendix
        Page 438
        Page 439
        Page 440
        Page 441
        Page 442
        Page 443
        Page 444
        Page 445
        Page 446
        Page 447
        Page 448
        Page 449
        Page 450
        Page 451
        Page 452
        Page 453
        Page 454
        Page 455
        Page 456
        Page 457
        Page 458
        Page 459
        Page 460
        Page 461
        Page 462
        Page 463
        Page 464
Full Text
io/
F^3 -


ENERGY RELATIONSHIPS AND THE
PRODUCTIVITY OF APALACHICOLA BAY



Robert J. Livingston1
Richard L. Iverson2
David C. White 1


Florida Sea Grant
Technical Paper


912




















ENERGY RELATIONSHIPS AND THE
PRODUCTIVITY OF APALACHICOLA BAY




Robert J. Livingston1
Richard L. Iverson2
David C. White 1









1 Department of Biological Science
Department of Oceanography
Florida State University
Tallahassee, Florida


Final Report of Project R/EM-4



The information contained in this paper was developed under the
auspices of the Florida Sea Grant College Program, with support from the
NOAA Office of Sea Grant, U. S. Department of Commerce, grant number 04-
6-158-44055. This document is a Technical Paper of the State University
System of Florida Sea Grant College Program, 2001 McCarty Hall, University
of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611. Technical Papers are duplicated in
limited quantities for specialized audiences requiring rapid access to
information, which may be unedited.


June, 1976







CONTENTS


i. Summary of Results

v. Theses and Dissertations


I. Introduction


. . . . i.

. . . . V.

. . . . 1


Robert J. Livingston


II. Special Program for Ecological Science (SPECS):


Summary of Capabilities .5


Robert J. Livingston
Glenn C. Woodsum


III. Biomass


Transformations


. . . . . . 12


Robert J. Livingston
F. Graham Lewis, III
Gerard G. Kobylinski
Peter F. Sheridan
Bradford G. McLane
Bruce Purcell
Glenn C. Woodsum


IV. Physico-chemical Relationships: Sedimentology and Habitat Structure 19


Robert J. Livingston
Peter F. Sheridan
Gerard G. Kobylinski
F. Graham Lewis, III
Bradford G. McLane


V. Phytoplankton Productivity and Nutrient Analysis


. . . 67


Richard L. Iverson
Vernon B. Myers


VI. Detritus:


Micro- and Macro-particulates


. . . . 156


Robert J. Livingston
Peter F. Sheridan
F. Graham Lewis, III
Gerard G. Kobylinski


VII. Microbial Contribution to the Energy Budget of Apalachicola Bay .... .203


David C. White
R. J. Bobbie
J. S. Herron
J. D. King
Susan J. Morrison










VIII. Litter-Associated Organisms . .. .. . . .. 229

Robert J. Livingston
Peter F. Sheridan
Robert L. Howell
Kathryn G. Winter


IX. Benthic Infauna . . . . . . . 256

Bradford G. McLane
Peter F. Sheridan
Robert J. Livingston


X. Grassbed (Vallisneria Americana) Assemblages . . .. 265

Bruce Purcell
Robert J. Livingston


XI. Associations of Epibenthic Fishes and Invertebrates . ... .270

Robert J. Livingston
Peter F. Sheridan
Gerard G. Kobylinski
F. Graham Lewis, III


XII. Trophic Resource Partitioning Among Juvenile Fishes . .. 412


Peter F. Sheridan
Robert J. Livingston


XIII. Compartmental Model of the Apalachicola Bay System ..... .. In

Richard L. Iverson
Robert J. Livingston
David C. White


XIV. Application of Data to Planning and Management . . .434

Robert J. Livingston









i. Summary of Results
This report represents an integration of the results of 5 years of
study concerning short- and long-term changes in habitat structure, energy
relationships, and biotic functions of the Apalachicola Estuary.
Sediment analysis in the bay showed that seasonal variations, proximity to
the river, spatial relationships with benthic macrophytes, and upland drain-
age patterns all influenced the qualitative characteristics of the surface sediments.
There was a reduction in grain size and an increase in organic content from
the outer portions of Apalachicola Bay to the upper reaches of East Bay. While
seasonal variation of water temperature appeared relativelysstable from year
to year, there was a long-term trend toward reduced salinity which could not
be entirely explained in terms of river flow and local rainfall patterns.
Seasonal salinity levels were determined by fluctuations of the Apalachicola
River, proximity to land runoff, and local rainfall. Winter-spring flooding
of the river was associated with reductions in salinity and light transmission,
and increases in color, turbidity, and nutrients. Long-term changes in various
water quality parameters were noted, and were particularly evident in East
Bay. Spatial variability and long-term trends in major physico-chemical variables
were thus determined by river flow, local rainfall (land runoff), basin configura-
tion, and various meteorological phenomena.
Apalachicola River discharge was the primary factor controlling nutrient
concentration in the Apalachicola Estuary. Nitrates peaked during winter
periods of high river flow; phosphates increased during these periods although
maxima resulted from episodic wind-mixing of the sediments. Phytoplankton
productivity was maximal during spring months. During summer periods, phosphate
was the primary nutrient limiting phytoplankton productivity in East Bay and
Apalachicola Bay,with nitrates becomtig limiting in Apalachicola Bay with less
freqency than phosphate. Overall, temperature was a major limiting factor for
phytoplankton productivity. Phytoplankton productivity in this estuary was
higher than that in other areas along the coast, and was considered to be a
major source of organic carbon for various organisms in this area.
A survey of macrodetritus in the Bay showed that there are spatial and
temporal patterns of occurrence. During winter-spring periods of increased
river flow and upland flooding, leaf matter and wood debris predominate at stations
influenced by the river. Such matter comes from flood-plain thee associations
including various species of oak, maple, water Tupelo, river birch, sweetgum,
and cottenwood. Fall peaks of macrodetr-itus are dominated by benthic macro-
phytes such as Gracilaria foliifera, Halodule wrightii, and Ulva lactuca. The
annual bimodal distribution of macroparticulates was evident oiny during years when
river flow exceeded certain flow rates, with bay-wide (conservative)
estimates approximating 150 tons (dry weight) per month during such periods.
Microdetritus (45 p-2mm) found at the mouth of the Apalachicola River had a
similar relationship with river flow; the organic fractions (ash-free dry
weight) approximated 900 tons/month duringperiods of peak river fTow. Although
functions such as residence time flushing rates, utilization patterns, etc
remain unknown, the general relationship of detritus movement and availability
in the bay appears to be closely associated with the seasonally pulsed patterns
of river flow and flooding. Micro- and macroparticulate matter reached peak
levels only at times when riverflooding exceeded 60,000 cubic feet per second.
There was thus an association of the presence of particulate matter in the bay
with a pulsed river system and periodic flooding of upland flood,plain areas.









Preliminary estimates of the total contribution of allochthonous particulate
matter to the energy budget of the bay indicate that such detritus is compar-
able to the phytpolankton productivity as a source of energy.
Methods to assess the mass, activity, and population structure of the
estuarine detrital microflora have and are being developed. These methods
could provide data with which to initiate correlations between the activities
of these heretofore unstudied microbes and the rest of the estuarine food web.
The methods were designed to preserve the community associations and inter-
actions with as little selectFve pressure as possible. Measures of mass such
as the muramic acid level, the total phospholipid formed from H332P04, and ATP level,
correlate with the expected respiratory activity. Measures of growth
by pulse chase experiments show correlations between rates of phospholipid
synthesis, muramic acid turnover, glycolipid turnover,and saturation of the
cardiolipid precusor pool. Initial comparisons show when microbial mass and
activity increase, so do the species diversity and numbers of the detrital
benthic fauna. Comparison of types of detritus, or between pine needles and
teflon mimics of pine needles, show coordination of microbial activities
and the benthic food webs By analysis of the components of the newlyformed
lipids, it has been possible to document successional sequences on detrial
surfaces that coordinate with scanning electron micrographs. With these and
subsequently.developed methods,we hope to determine the role of microfloral
communities in the trophodynamics of the estuarine food web with speciallemphasis
on controlling external functions such as pollution.
Litter-associated organisms were surveyed in a series of field experiments.
This fauna was dominated by isopods, amphipods,and decapods. Preliminary experi-
ments indicated that macrodetritus such as leaf matter may serve as a substrate
for shelter and/or microbialiaccumulation. Numbers of individuals and species
and species richness generally increased with increases in salinity at all
stations. The allochthonous leaf matter was associated with a distinctive biota
which subsequently serves as a source of food for various dominant juvenile
fishes in the area.
The benthic infauna in the Apalachicola Bay System was surveyed for seasonal
distribution and spatial relationships of biomass, species composition, and
community struetivee. This was dominated by euryhaline and eurythermal crustaceans
(Tanaidaceans, amphipods) and polychaete worms which tend to reach peak abundance
during late winter and spring months. Many such species, as selective and non-
si&ective deposit feeders, feed on fine detrital matter and, in turn, are fed upon
by predacious polychaetes, crustaceans, and benthic fishes. There were consider-
able differeneesein biomass distribution in the bay with a range from 0.065 to
56.378 g (Ash-free dry weight)/ m2. The highest such values were found off St.
George Island and portions of East Bay in areas associated with grassbeds. Grass-
bed (Vallisneria americana) productivity was estimated from 322 to 353 g/m2/yr
with standing crops between 500-600 g/mm peaking during summer and fall months.
Die-offs of such grasses occurred during fall periods of reduced water temperature,
and were associated with fall peaks of secondary productivity in the bay. Certain
East Bay grassbeds were dominated by the gastropod, Neritina reclivata. Other
organisms such as crustaceans and fishes were also represented. Peak animal
biomass occurred during spring (March-May) and late fall (November-December) periods,
and such changes seemed to be timed in a general way with spring peaks of epi-
benthic organisms and fall increases in macrophyte-derived detritus.
Long-term (5 year) trends of epibenthic fishes and invertebrates were noted.
After the first year, there were regular seasonal patterns of fish abundance,
species representation, and community structure. There was a regular succession





iii.


of dominant fishes each year (late winter-spring: Micropogon undulatus, Leiostomus
xanthurus; summer-fall: Cynoscion arenarius; late fall: Anchoa mitchilli). Three
of 4 dominant fish associations were strongly affected by time pulses of river
flow. Generally, fish numbers and biomass peaked in spring and fall. During
the five-year study period, total numbers of fishes reached a low point during
the third year of sampling (3/74-2/75). Invertebrate numbers and biomass usually
peaked during spring and fall months. In this case, reduced numbers occurred
during the third and fourth years of sampling (3/74-2/76).
Resource (food) partitioning of the dominant juvenile fishes of the
Apalachicola Estuary was studied. Anchoa mitchilli fed primarily on copepods
(Acartia sp.) during spring and summer. During fall and winter periods,
anchovies switched from copepods to epibenthic and benthic organsims such as
mysids and insect larvae. Polychaetes formed the basis of the diet of Micropogon
undulatus which peaked during winter periods. This species fed primarily on
infauna, detritus, shrimp, and juvenile fishes. Leiostomus xanthurus fed on a
variety of items including harpacticoid copepods, polychaetes, insect larvae, and
bivalves. Cynoscion arenarius fed primarily on fishes (including Anchoa mitchilli)
and mysids. A size class analysis indicated trends in intraspecific trophic
relationships within a temporal and spatial context. There was efficient parti-
tioning of food resources in the Apalachicola Estuary with each of the dominant
species participating in a different trophic spectrum. The various biotic com-
ponents were linked to a seasonal succession of energy inputs whith were related
to river flow, detritus influxes, phytoplankton blooms, and benthic macrophyte
die-offs. The seasonal river flow pattern,as a major determinant of the physic6-
chemical environment of the bay, contributed to the seasonal succession of
trophic phenomena. These data tend to clarify various aspects of the distinct
temporal succession of biota in the Apalachicola Estuary as a function of energy
input and physico-chemical limiting functions.
The scientific data generated from this project have been used for various
planning and management decisions. This has involved associated projects with
Franklin County officials, state and federal agencies, and private concerns
such as pulp mill interests and local developers. Personnel of this project have
continued to work with the Florida agencies toward identification of environmentally
sensitive portions of the system. This has resulted in the $8 million purchase
of wetlands along the Lower-Apalachicola Valley. More than 28,000 acres have
been purchased to date, and Sea Grant information has also been used in purchases
of thousands of acres of St. George Island and Little St. George Island.
Sea Grant personnel were also involved in the generatitonof a published
compendium of data on the entire Apalachicola Valley to serve as a basis for
further management decisions in this area. In addition, contributions were made
to local planning functions including D.R.I. ev&auations, water hyacinth control
programs, public educational programs, etc. Variouseducational applications of
the data base through newspaper articles and public meetings allowed a translation
of key scientific concepts for publicconsumption. In addition, direct inter-
actions have been made with various federal agencies (Environmental Protection
Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Army Corps of Engineers).
This has resulted in the current evaluation by the Office of Coastal Zone Management
for designation of the Apalachicola Estuary as an Estuarine Sanctuary. Eventually,
through local, state, and federal interactions, a comprehensive plan for the
Apalachicola Valley may be developed which can serve as a model for future wet-
lands planning in other drainage systems. A six county planning group has been
established which, with advice from various state agencies, will attempt to
develop a set of guidelines for local planning (Zoning ordinances, etc.).




IV.






Overall, this Sea Grant project could serve as a catalyst for a basin-wide
planning program which would permit orderly development of the Apalachicola
Valley while protecting the important natural resources of this area.









V. THESES AND DISSERTATIONS


1. Bechtold, R.E. 1976. A kinetic analysis of leaf litter-associated
microbial activity in Apalachicola Bay. Master's Thesis, Florida
State University. (White)

2. Bobbie, R.J. 1976. Esterase activities and oxygen uptake of the
endogenous microflora associated with three types of litter in
a North Florida estuary. Master's Thesis, Florida State Univer-
sity. (White)

3. Duncan, James. 1977. Short-term impact of upland clear-cutting
activities on assemblages of epibenthic fishes and invertebrates
in East Bay. Master's Thesis, Florida State University.
(Livingston)

4. aughlin, Roger A. 1976. Avoidance of blue crabs (Callinectes
sapidus) to storm water runoff. Master's Thesis, Florida
State University. (Livingston)

5. McLane, Bradford G. 1977. Effects of clear-cutting on the benthic
infauna of the Apalachicola Estuary. Master's Thesis, Florida
State University. (Livingston)

6. Myers, Vernon B. 1977. Aspects of nutrient limitation of phyto-
plankton productivity in the Apalachicola Bay System. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Florida State University. (Iverson)

7. Purcell, Bruce. 1977. Effects of stornwater runoff on grassbed
assemblages in East Bay. Master's Thesis, Florida State Univer-
sity. (Livingston)

8. Sheridan, Peter F. 1977. Trophic relationships in the dominant
juvenile fishes in the Apalachicola Bay System. Ph.D. Disserta-
tion, Florida State University. (Livingston)









INTRODUCTION


There is an established base of published information on the Apalachicola

Bay System which will provide the background for this report. Most of the

published data in the Apalachicola Drainage System (taken prior to this project)

has been reviewed by Livingston et al. (1974). Methods of sampling, together

with basic fluctuations of epibenthic fishes and invertebrates in the Apalachi-

cola estuary have been outlined by Livingston (1976). The temporal progression of

dominant epibenthic populations has been described by Livingston et al. (1976).

The biological associations of this system have been analyzed with respect to

biomonitoring procedures (Livingston, 1976) and specific responses of individual

populations to key physico-chemical functions (Livingston et al, 1976). A com-

plete list of species taken by various sampling procedures (including benthic

infauna, detritus associated organisms, epibenthic fishes and invertebrates, etc.)

has been published (Livingston et al., 1977). This includes analyses of major

physico-chemical relationships, fluxes of detritus, and a comparison of the

natural history of dominant populations of organisms in the Apalachicola estuary

with that in other coastal systems of the Gulf of Mexico (Livingston et al., 1977).

Livingston et al. (in press) have described long-term changes in pesticide

levels and fish associationsin the Apalachicola estuary. Myers and Iverson

(1977) have described aspects of nutrient limitation of phytoplankton produc-

tivity in the Apalachicola estuary. Oesterling (1976, 1977) has indicated general

patterns of blue crab migration and the spawning potential for this species

in the Apalachicola Bay region. Supporting data concerning other biological

associations in the entire Apalachicola Valley are also available (Livingston

and Joyce, 1977). Overall, there is a rapidly growing base of published infor-

mation concerning the physico-chemical and biological relationships in the









Apalachicola Drainage System.

The published data have been supplemented by various unpublished studies

and reports concerning a broad range of subjects relevent to the Apalachicola

region. This includes the following documents:

"Survey: Chattahoochee-Flint-Apalachicola River System" (Florida
State Board of Health, 1962)

"A management program for the oyster resource in Apalachicola
Bay, Florida" (C.E. Rockwood et al., 1973)

"Strategy for change: an interim plan for the northwest Florida
region" (RMBR Planning/Design group, 1973: for the Northwest
Florida Development Council)

"Draft Environmental Statement. Lake Seminole and Jim Woodruff
Lock and Dam, Alabama, Florida and Georgia. Operation and Main-
tenance." (U.S. Army Engineer District, Mobile, Alabama, 1975)

"Apalachicola River Basin Water Quality Management Plan" (Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation, 1975)

"Field and laboratory studies concerning the effects of various
pollutants on estuarine and coastal organisms with application to
the management of the Apalachicola Bay System. (R. J. Livingston
and N. P. Thompson: Final report for Florida Sea Grant, 1975)

"Progress Report for Florida Sea Grant: Energy Relationships and
the Productivity of Apalachicola Bay." (R. J. Livingston, R. L.
Iverson, and D. C. White: Florida State University, 1976)

TThe Apalachicola River and Bay System, A Florida Resource" (Florida
Department of Administration; Division of State Planning, 1976)

"Final Environmental Statement. Apalachicola-Chattahoochee, and Flint
Rivers, Alabama, Florida, and Georgia (Operation and Maintenance)"
(U.S. Army Engineer District, Mobile, Alabama, 1976)

"Proposal to Study the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River System
and Apalachicola Bay" (Northwest Florida Water Management District,
1976)

"A study on the effects of maintenance dredging on selected ecological
parameters in the Gulf intracoastal waterway, Apalachicola Bay, Florida"
(U.S. Army Engineer District, Mobile, Alabama)

According to the National Estuary Study (Vol. 3, Fish and Wildlife Service,

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1970), the total area of the Apalachicola Bay

System is 535,600,000 m2 (131,840 acres) of which 7% is occupied by submerged










vegetation (38,106,000 m2 or 9,380 acres) and about 14% is emergent (marsh)

vegetation (85,000,000 m2 or 21,300 acres). Oyster beds account for about

24,374,840 m2 or 4.6% of the total bay (Rockwood et al., 1973). Mean depth

approximates 2.7 m while the total volume is about 1,446,120,000 m3. This

project was designed to study various aspects of the energy system in the

Apalachicola Estuary. The following objectives were part of the program.

1. Determination of the river derived input of organic plant
nutrients, and particulate and dissolved organic carbon into the
bay system.

2. Analysis of phytoplankton assemblages and phytoplankton
productivity of the Apalachicola Bay System.

3. Determination of the role of phytoplankton productivity
in the overall energy budget of the bay, including nutrient
limitation studies of key driving functions.

4. Analyses of the significance, source, and role of alloch-
thonous and autochtonous forms of detritus in the Bay including a
preliminary evaluation of the role of microorganisms in
detrital breakdown and energy transfer.

5. Continuation of the application of scientific data for the
development of a management program for the Apalachicola Drainage
System.

As an outgrowth of the original program, a long-term impact analysis is

being carried out to determine the potential influence of clearcutting

practices in the Tate's Hell Swamp on the Apalachicola Bay System. Prelimi-

nary observations will be made concerning these data preparatory to the com-

pletion of the first stage of this project in December, 1977. In some instances,

data analysis will be carried out within the context of the full 5-year data

base which dates back to March, 1972.


This report represents a preliminary analysis of the data base. This will

be followed by a more sophisticated review of the data base for publication in a

series of scientific papers.










LITERATURE CITED


Livingston, R. J. 1976. Diurnal and seasonal fluctuations of
organisms in a north Florida estuary: sampling strategy,
structure, and species diversity. Est. Coast. Mar. Sci.


estuarine
community
4: 373-400.


. 1976. Time as a factor in environmental sampling programs: diurnal
and seasonal fluctuations of estuarine and coastal populations and
communities. Invited paper. Symposium on the Biological Monitoring of
Water Ecosystems (ed. J. Cairns, Jr.) ASTM STP 607: 212-234.


Livingston,
1974.
Biota,


R. J., R. L. Iverson, R. H. Estabrook,
Major features of the Apalachicola Bay
and Resource Management. Florida Sci.


V. E. Keys, J. Taylor, Jr.
System: Physiography,
37(4): 245-271.


Livingston, R. J., G. Kobylinski, F. G. Lewis, III, and P. Sheridan. 1976.
Analysis of long-term fluctuations of estuarine fish and invertebrate
populations in Apalachicola Bay. Fish. Bull. 72(2): 311-321.

Livingston, R. J. et al. (in press). The Biota of the Apalachicola Bay
System: Functional Relationships. In, Proceedings of the Conference
on the Apalachicola Drainage System. Florida Marine Research Publica-
tions, in press (eds. R. J. Livingston and E. A. Joyce, Jr.)


Livingston, R. J. (in
Drainage System.
and E. A. Joyce,


press). Proceedings of the Conference on the Apalachicola
Fla. Mar. Res. Publ., in press (eds. R. J. Livingston
Jr.)


Myers, V. B. and R. L. Iverson. (in press). Aspects of Nutrient Limitation
of Phytoplankton Productivity in the Apalachicola Bay System. In,
Proceedings of the Conference on the Apalachicola Drainage System. Fla.
Mar. Res. Publ., in press (eds. R. J. Livingston and E. A. Joyce, Jr.)

Oesterling, M. J. 1976. Reproduction, Growth, and Migration of Blue Crabs
along Florida's Gulf Coast. Florida Sea Grant Publ. 19 pp.

Oesterling, M. J. and G. L. Evink. (in press). Relationship Between Florida's
Blue Crab Population and Apalachicola Bay. In, Proceedings of the Confer-
ence on the Apalachicola Drainage System. Fla. Mar. Res. Publ., in press
(eds. R. J. Livingston and E. A. Joyce, Jr.).









II. Special Program for Ecological Science (SPECS): Summary of Capabilities






I. Data Storage

A. Physical-chemical data (by area, station, date, time of day, and
depth)
Dissolved oxygen, color, turbidity, Secchi disk depth,
temperature, salinity, pH, river flow, rainfall, bottom type
B. Fish and invertebrate data (by area, station, date, and time of
day)
Sgenus and species, number of individuals, mean size (with
standard deviation), biomass (ash free dry wet.), sex
(invertebrates only)
C. Plant data (by area, station, date, and time of day)
Senus and species, total wet and dry weight, stems and roots
wet and dry weight), tops (wet and dry weight)

II. Data Processing

A. Retrieval
for any area, station or group of stations, date or range of
dates
B. Sorting
Sby area, date, station, time of day, or any combination of these
Biological data sorted by species
C. Calculation of biological indices (Based on numbers of individuals
or biomass per species for any area, station or group of stations,
date or range of dates, or time of day)
Species Richness (Number of species, Margalef Index)
Species diversity (Simpson Index, Brillouin Index, Shannon Index,
McIntosh/indices, Hurlbert's E (Sn))
Species equitability (Brillouin J, Shannon J')
D. Graphics (for any area, station or group of stations, range of dates,
or time of day) : plotted as a function of time.
Small physical chemical variables
fish and invertebrates
1) number of individuals (single species or collective total)
2) average size
3) dry weight biomass (single species or collective total)
4) number of species
plants
1) dry weight biomass(single species or collective total)
2) number of species
any of the biological indices (see "C" above)
E. Statistics (for virtually any set(s) of numbers that can be generated
by any other routine in the system)
linear regression, Student's t-tests, nonparametric correlations,
discriminant analysis, factor analysis, scattergrams, analysis
of variance (one, two, and three-way), multivariate ANOVA,
canonical correlation, etc.
This portion of the report has been carried out with support from the
U.S Environmental Protection Agency (number R-803339).










F. Cluster analysis
Cluster by species, station, or time
total flexibility in how species, stations, and dates are grouped
prior to analysis
Selection of similarity index from amongOrloci's standard
distance, product moment correlation, Fager, Jaccard, Sorenson's,
Webb, Kendall, Cyekanowski, Canberrametric C-lambda, rho, and
tau
Selection of clustering strategy from among unweighted pair group
(grp avg), weighted pair centroidd) grouping, nearest neighbor
grouping, furthest neighbor grouping, median grouping, and
flexible grouping (with beta)

G. Dendrogram
Sfor any output from cluster analysis
Three scales available

H. Faunal summary (for any area, station or group of stations, range
of dates, and times of day)
number of individuals or dry weight biomass by species, month,
and year

I. C-lambda (for any area, station or group of stations, date or
range of dates, and times of day)

J. Mapping
Sphysical-chemical data, fish or invertebrate species population
totals mapped for all stations in study areas (by month)

K. Data base update
modification of any field in a data base record or records
Sdeletion of data records










Special Program for Ecological Science (SPECS): System Overview


I. Introduction

Long-term field studies in which diverse habitats are regularly
sampled for a variety of organisms and physical-chemical factors are
associated with the-accumulation of large amounts of data. Organization
and presentation of such data in a useful form has been aided
significantly by modern high-speed computers.

At Florida State,we have designed and developed a computer soft-
ware system specifically for use with long-term biological data. Primary
design criteria have been storage of a large data base, retrieval of virtually
any subset of the data, and rapid access to a diverse group of biological,
statistical, and graphical data reduction and analysis capabilities.

The SPECS system has been written mostly in the FORTRAN programming
language. A few subroutines are written in the Control Data Corporation
(CDC) COMPASS assembly language. SPECS operates on a CDC 6500 or
CYBER 73 computer under the KRONOS operating system.

II. Organization of the System

A. Data Storage.

Field data on physical-chemical parameters and fish, invertebrate,
and plant populations are assembled and punched on standard 80-column
cards. As the formats for each type of data are slightly different, a
set of four card-deck programs have been developed to add raw data to
a data base tape.

Two data base tapes are maintained, each with four files (one each
for the four types of data). When a card-deck program is executed the
old data base tape is read, the appropriate file is updated with raw
data information, and all information is copied to the new data base
tape (see figurel. For a subsequent addition of data, the data base
tapes reverse roles. During addition of fish and invertebrate data, mean
standard lengths, standard deviation of lengths, and dry weight biomass
are calculated and added to the data base. For a repetitive samples
data base figures represent sums of the overall samples.

Card-deck programs also copy raw data information to a raw data
tape. This tape is thus a backup for all card information and is not
in data base format.

B. Data Processing.

User Programs

All user programs, procedure files (predefined sets of oft-used
operating system commands), program libraries, and active data files
reside on computer center disk packs (for rapid access). Most of the
SPECS system is stored as a single file on one of these disks.










B. Data Processing. (continued)

This file contains one large program which has been structured
in an overlay format. There is one main overlay and nine secondary
overlays. Secondary overlays perform the majority of system
functions, such as loading data, sorting, calculating biological
indices, preparing for graphics and statistics, etc. The main
overlay simply fields a SPECS system command and calls for the
loading of a secondary overlay. Thus only two overlays are require
in computer core storage at any one time the main overlay and one
of the secondary overlays.

Library Programs

The F.S.U. Computer Center program library contains many routines
accessed by the SPECS system. Among these are the Statistical Package
for Social Science (SPSS), the FSU plotting package, a mapping package
(SYMAP), and a SORT/MERGE routine. The function of some SPECS
secondary overlays is therefore to prepare data base information for
input to these higher level routines.

III. Operation of the System

With the exception of programs in the data storage card decks, all
programs in the system are designed to be operated from a remote teletype
or CRT terminal. System operation is interactive in that there is two-
way communication between the user and the program. The user guides the
program through each step of analysis by entering commands or other
information in response to questions displayed by the program.

A. Terminal session.

A terminal session with the SPECS system begins with a user call
of the INIT (initiate) procedure file. This procedure first asks the
user for the location of the data to be used in this run(possibly a data
base tape or an active data file). It then gets the SPECS program and
initiates its execution.

The main overlay of SPECS writes a "COMMAND?" message to the
terminal screen. In response the user enters a SPECS system command.
The LOAD (retrieve) and SORT commands are used to create an active
data file from a data base tape. If the user began this run with an
active data file (created in a previous run), the LOAD and SORT
commands are not needed. Once an active data file is available for
use the user selects from among a group of commands that initiate
execution of secondary overlays which perform analyses of active data.
A summary of these commands and the operations performed is presented
in Table 1.

Following execution of a secondary overlay, the main overlay
is calledand the "COMMAND?" message is again printed at the terminal.
At this point the user may wish to load more data (create an additional
active data file), request another type of analysis on the same data
file, or terminate SPECS system operation. When system operation is











ended file disposition is under user control. Printer output files
created during SPECS operation may be listed on a line printer.
Active data files or other intermediate files may be saved if they
will be used again in the near future. This is especially valuable
if an important file has taken a long time to generate (that time
need not be invested again, for the file may be kept indefinitely).

This allows a person with limited computer background to use
an interactive computer system with immediate access to a broad-
based data file containing diverse forms of information. Using the
various options, this facilitates a rapid, relatively inexpensive
yet comprehensive analysis with great flexibility regarding access to
data and forms of analysis. All operations are carried out at the
terminal, and new options can be added easily in addition to routine
periodic updates of the data base. This gives the biologist the use
of a sophisticated computerized software system as a research tool.

IV. SUMMARY

The SPECS system consists of a collection of programs written
expressly for the storage, retrieval, and analysis of long-term
ecological data. It provides a wide range of analytic approaches
and data reduction capabilities. Some programs perform direct
calculations or data manipulations while others serve as interface
programs which prepare data for higher level (and widely available)
program packages.

The system is operated from a remote computer terminal or
teletype, from which the user supervises program execution in a
step-by-step manner. Operation is interactive in that the program
prompts the user for informational input required before each step is
executed. Output consists of terminal display, printed listing,
and electrostatic plots. Theorizing(the fun part) is left to the
user.




Table 1 Summary of SPECS commands and functions of corresponding secondary overlays


Command Overlay function

LOAD Forms active data file by retrieving data by data base file, area,
station (or group of stations, and date (or range of dates)

SORT Sorts active data file by area, date, station, and time of day (and
species, if biological data)

CALC Computes ten separate diversity,evenness, and richness indices for
every combination of area, station, date, and time of day present in
active data file. Output written to file suitable for printing.

GRAPH Prepares for time-based plots of virtually any subset of data base
information. Requested data is extracted from active data file.
A procedure file is called which executes a graphics interface program
(prepares data for FSU Plotting package), then executes the plotting
package. Output may be displayed on terminal screen or plotted on a
Gould electrostatic plotter.

SPSS Extracts requested data from active data file, prepares on SPSS control
card file, and executes SPSS (via a procedure file). Output placed on a D
file suitable for printing.

CLUST Performs cluster analysis on data in active date file. User selects from
10 similarity indices and 6 clustering strategies. Clusters are based
on species, stations, and time. Any one or all may be collapsed to any
desired degree, allowing great flexibility in grouping of data prior to
analysis. Output is on two files, one for printing and one for input to
dendrogram program.

DENDO Calls procedure file which executes dendrogram drawing program.

SUMRY Prepares time-based summaries of fish or invertebrate data in active data file.
For each species,monthly and yearly catch (and per cent of total catch) are
presented for number of individuals or dry weight biomass. Output on file
suitable for printing.

CLAMB Computes the C-lambda faunal affinity index for combinations of stations
and dates found in the active data file. Output on file suitable for printing.

UPDAT Provides for user editing of a data base file. User enters commands
to modify or delete data base records when error conditions require
correction.

























Program


v

New
Data Base
Tape


Figure 1 SPECS Data Storage Procedure










III. Biomass transformations


Because of the volume and diversity of field collections in this and

other Bay systems (i.e., Apalachee Bay, the Econfina and Fenholloway

drainage systems) presently under study by our group, the method of analysis

for biomass determinations was standardized for each species. This allowed

the computerized conversion of number/length data into dry weight

or ash-free dry weight figures after a determination of a regression

formula based on empirical information. Whenever possible, various

individuals for a given species (representing a normal range of size variation)

were counted, measured, and weighed for such analysis. Species which did not

have any real variation in size were simply counted and weighed for a com-

putation of mean weight per individual. Those species which were too rare

for such analysis were assigned figures from the more common species. Species

pairing was achieved subjectively based on configurational and/or taxonomic

similarity.

In this way, a regression equation or a conversion factor (based on

weight per individual) was computed for each species taken in the survey. A

biomass file was then constructed by species based on length/frequency data.

This file was used for all operations having to do with biomass figures.

Methods and Materials

All specimens used in the weight conversion study were taken fresh

(on ice) to the laboratory for analysis. Standard lengths, together with wet

and dry weights, were measured for all fish specimens. Various invertebrate

species were measured for total length, (tip of the telson to tip of the

rostrum, shrimp; carapace width, crabs)wet, dry and ash-free dry weight.

For those invertebrates normally counted in our data base (worms, mollusks,










amphipods, isopods, etc.), only mean ash-free dry weights were determined

per species.

Dry weights were obtained by oven-drying samples for 48 hours at

1050C. Ash-free dry weights were obtained by ignition of the specimens in

a muffle furnace for 1 hour at 5500C. Preliminary samples indicated less

than 1% error was introduced by reducing the ignition time from the rec-

ommended 3 hours (Cummins and Waycheck, 1971) to 1 hour.

Linear regression equations utilizing a log-log (natural logs) trans-

formation were calculated for each species where data were available (Table 1).

These were calculated according to the following general equation;

In (weight*) = In (length**) a-b
where a&b = regression coefficients
weight = dry weight (fishes)
= ash free dry weight (invertebrates)
** length = standard length (fishes)
= total or carapace width (invertebrates)

For those invertebrate species where no length or width measurements were

taken a representative grouping according to size was dried and/or ashed; a

single mean weight per individual was given for that species. For those

species collected so rarely that no length-weight relationship could be

established, regression equations or average weights of similar species

(similar body shape, size, etc.) were substituted. These equations are also

included in Table 1 along with the type species.

Literature cited:

Cummins, K.W. and J.C. Waycheck. (1971). Caloric equivalents for investigations

in ecological energetic. Mitt. Internat. Verein. Limnol. No. 18, 158 pp.










Table 1. Biomass regression and conversion figures for organisms taken in

Apalachicola Bay and Apalachee Bay from 1972 to 1976



A. Fishes, regression analysis by species (In dry wt. = a- In standard length -b)


# of individuals


ALU
ANC
ANC
ANG
ARI
AST
BAG
BAI
BRE
CAL
CEN
CHA
CHA
CHI
CHL
CYN
CYN
DAS
DIP
DOR
DOR
ETR
EUC
EUC
GOB
GOB
HAE
HAR
HIP
ICT
ICT
LAC
LAC
LAG
LEI
LEP
MEN
MEN
MIC


regression equation


SCH
LYO
MIT
ROS
FEL
GRA
MAR
CHR
PAT
ARC
MEL
FAB
SAB
SCH
CHR
ARE
NEB
SAB
HOL
CEP
PET
CRO
ARG
GUL
BOS
ROB
PLU
PEN
SPE
CAT
PUN
MAX
QUA
RHO
XAN
OSS
AME
BER
CRI


11
4
209
6
30
6
8
284
10
13
115
4
8
51
12
29
47
12
63
4
6
17
35
17
14
13
31

5
8
4
4
15
573
77
8
18
2
14


3.40541
4.05558
2.92631
3.21520
3.24073
2.31036
3.49714
2.90410
5.33190
3.08486
2.95025
3.36763
2.27591
2.69654
2.46994
2.85506
3.05722
3.17554
3.43800
3.69685
3.46547
2.99338
3.40790
2.64359
2.81134
2.99185
2.82564
3.46547
2.82587
3.02830
3.91137
4.25871
2.34179
3.24457
3.15892
3.28379
2.93110
1.33401
3.42472


Species


(DOR PET)


14.97588
17.13343
12.60137
15.84540
13.56112
9.11249
14.94788
11.76128
20.55185
12.23879
11.85323
12.66714
10.00217
9.69103
10.40515
12.09550
12.79894
12.61179
13.50773
15.64947
14.19044
12.30726
13.88700
10.80122
11.66922
12.17209
11.39730
14.19044
11.96161
12.31003
16.83136
17.00627
8.20714
12.94101
12.81603
15.53650
12.15889
5.79181
17.69587








regression equation


MIC
MIC
MON
MON
MUG
NIC
OGC
OPS
ORT
PAR
PAR
PAR
PEP
POG
POR
PRI
PRI
SPH
SPH
STR
SYM
SYN
SYN
SYN
TRI
URO
CYP
FUN
FUN
LEP
LUC
MIC
NOT
POE


GUL
UND
CIL
HIS
CEP
UST
RAD
BET
CHR
ALB
FAS
LET
BUR
CRO
POR
SCI
TRI
GUA
NEP
MAR
PLA
FLO
FOE
SCO
MAC
FLO
VAR
GRA
SIM
MAC
PAR
SAL
PET
LAT


22
174
115
86
7
10
2
27
99
26
14
33
5
2
3
4
20
7
24
4
14
58
21
10
30
33
6
6
3
10
5
4
7
3


=3.15783
=3.30722
=2.68766
=2.76823
=3.04576
=3.28415
=3.91484
=2.51062
=3.08003
=3.13787
=3.68192
=3.06070
=2.63529
=2.46761
=3.27791
=3.26012
=3.07717
=2.76380
=2.82279
=3.42754
=3.19256
=3.39967
=3.33944
=4.20130
=3.35751
=3.35273
=3.49504
=3.11153
=3.53472
=3.19176
=3.51483
=3.87904
=2.66732
=2.19844


(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)

(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(x)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)


13.17557
13.59050
11.00337
11.04164
12.49192
13.28714
16.05968
10.34034
12.54686
13.23092
15.60141
12.73843
10.45042
9.21713
14.04788
13.36732
12.21250
12.47892
10.95111
16.83563
13.76772
17.79450
14.67424
21.00771
13.05926
14.52737
13.50708
12.77763
14.48805
12.50672
13.99182
15.92254
11.73939
9.12226


B. Fishes (rare), assigned regression equations
Species comparable species


ADI
GAM
NOT
FUN
LEP

SYN
DIP
GYN
HYP
MEN
HAE
LUT
ANC
PAR


LOU
FOR
NIG
HEN
SAX
AUR
GRI
HEP
MAR


SYN
CEN
ANG
CHA
MEN
HAE
ORT
ANC
PAR


PAR
PAR
PET
GRA
MAC

FLO
MEL
ROS
SAB
AME
PLU
CHR
MIT
FAS


regression equation


=3.51483
=3.51483
=2.66732
=3.11153
=3.19176

=3.39967
=2.95025
=3.21520
=2.27591
=2.93110
=2.82564
=3.08003
=2.92631
=3.68192


13.99182
13.99182
11.73939
12.77763
12.50672

17.79450
11.85323
15.84540
10.00217
12.15889
11.39730
12.54686
12.60137
15.60141


Species


# of individuals








regression equation


SEL
POL
SCI
ANC
HYP
CAR
HAE
HIP
HIP
SPH
SPH
SER
MEN
EUC
OPH
SCO
MYC
MUL
CLU
OPH
BAT
GOB
LAB
ECH
RAJ
STE
HEM
TRA
GOB
SAR
HAL
SER
ELO
SCA
ARC
APO
AST
MIC
PEP
STE
GOB
MUG
MYR
ALO
OLI
RHI
MON
ANC
SYN
POM
CAR
SPH


VOM
OCT
OCE
QUA
GEM
HIP
SPE
ERE
ZOS
BAR
BOR
SUB
SPE
SPE
BEA
BRA
MIC
AUR
SPE
GOM
SOP
STR
SIC
NAU
TEX
CAP
BRA
CAR
BOL
ANC
BIV
PUM
SAU
SPE
PRO
TOW
STE
THA
PAR
LAN
HAS
SPE
PUN
ALA
SAU
BON
CHR
SPE
SPE
SAL
BAR
TIB


CHL
BAI
MIC
PAR
CHA
CHL
HAE
HIP
HIS
SPH
SPH
CEN
MEN
EUC
URO
CEN
CEN
MIC
BRE
ANG
GOB
GOB
MEN
ARI
DAS
DIP
STR
CHL
MIC
ANC
NIC
CEN
SPH
NIC
LAG
BAI
BAI
MIC
PEP
BAI
(MIC
MUG
ANG
DOR
CHL
DAS
BAI
ANC
SYN
LAG
CHL
BAG


CHR
CHR
UND
ALB
SAB
CHR
PLU
SPE
SPE
GUA
GUA
MEL
AME
ARG
FLO
MEL
MEL
UND
PAT
ROS
BOS
BOS
BER
FEL
SAB
HOL
MAR
CHR
GUL
MIT
UST
MEL
GUA
UST
RHO
CHR
CHR
GUL
BUR
CHR
GUL
CEP
ROS
CEP
CHR
SAB
CHR
MIT
FLO
RHO
CHR
MAR


2.46994
2.90410
3.30722
3.13787
2.27591
2.46994
2.82564
2.82587
2.82587
2.76380
2.76380
2.95025
2.93110
3.40790
3.35273
2.95025
2.95025
3.30722
5.33190
3.21520
2.81134
2.81134
1.33401
3.24073
3.17554
3.4380
3.42754
2.46994
3.15783
2.92631
3.28415
2.95025
2.76380
3.28415
3.24457
2.90410
2.90410
3.15783
2.63529
2.90410
2.83401
3.04576
3.21510
3.69685
2.46994
3.17554
2.90410
2.92631
3.39967
3.24457
2.46994
3.49714


(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)-
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X) -
(X)
(X) -
(X)
(X) -
(X)
(X) -
(X)-
(X) -
(X) -
(X) -
(X)
(X)
(X) -
(X) -


10.40515
11.76128
13.59050
13.23090
10.00217
10.40515
11.39730
11.96161
11.96161
12.47892
12.47892
11.85323
12.15889
13.8870
14.52737
11.85323
11.85323
13.59050
20.55185
15.84540
11.66922
11.66922
5.79181
13.56112
12.61179
13.50773
16.83563
10.40515
13.17557
12.60137
13.28714
11.85323
12.47892
13.28714
12.94101
11.76128
11.76128
13.17557
10.45042
11.76128
11.90954
12.49192
15.84540
15.64947
10.40515
12.61179
11.76128
12.60137
17.79450
12.94101
10.40515
14.94788


+ GOB HAS)


Species


comparable species









comparable species


3.04576 (X)
3.07717 (X)
3.06070 (X)
3.17554 (X)
2.85506 (X)
3.36763 (X)


C. Invertebrates, regression analysis by species.


# of individuals


regression equation


2.75501
2.67979
2.51633
2.64410
2.51735
3.29106
3.18888
2.75088
1.70501
3.77633
2.05252
3.23535


11.52437
10.51993
8.99184
9.04336
11.73789
14.03450
14.31392
12.56506
9.43702
18.02926
7.31573
14.16662


D. Invertebrates, calculated conversion coefficients per individual based
on narrow range of length frequency data.


mean ash free dry wt.


0.0036 (gu)
.0032
.0022
.0431
.0067
.1468
.6788
3.2713
.6914
.2050
.0360


E. Invertebrates, assigned regression equations or weight/individual.


comparable species


PEN
CAL
CAL
PEN


regression equation or mean
ash free


3.18888
2.67979
2.67979
2.75088


14.31392
10.51993
10.51993
12.56506


MUG
PRI
PAR
GYM
CYN
LOB


CUG
RUB
SPE
MIC
SPE
SUR


MUG CEP
PRI TRI
FAR LET
DAS SAB
CYN ARE
CHA FAB


12.49192
12.21250
12.73843
12.61179
12.09550
12.66714


Species


ALP
CAL
LIB
NEO
PAL
PAL
PEN
PEN
PER
TOZ
MET
PAL


HET '
SAP
DUB
TEX
FLO
INT
DUO
SET
AME
CAR
CAL
PUG


Species


PER
THO
HIP
PET
PAG
PAG
LOL
LYT
ECH
ECH
OPH


LON
DOB
ZOS
ARM
BON
LON
BRE
VAR
SPE
PAR
BRE


Species


AZT
GIB
SIM
CON


regression equation


Species








small RAN CUN
AEQ IRR
CRE PLA

small RAN CUN


large chaetes


* Those figures in parentheses represent


comparable species


weights of juveniles of a given species



regression equation or mean
ash free dry wt.


2.51735 (X)
2.75501 (X)
2.75501 (X)
2.64410 (X)
2.51633 (X)
2.64410 (X)
.1468
3.18888 (X)
3.29106 (X)
3.18888 (X)
3.18888 (X)
3.18888 (X)
3.18888 (X)
2.51633 (X)
.0306
.0306
2.51633 (X)
.0282
.0282
2.51633 (X)
3.1888 (X)
.0111
.0111
2.0742
.0360
.0360
.6914
.6914
.6914
.0360
1.3576


11.73789
11.52437
11.52437
9.04336
8.99184
9.04336

14.31392
14.03450
14.31392
14.31392
14.31392
14.31392
8.99184


8.99184


- 8.99184
- 14.31392


LAE
STR
CRE
PSE
TRA
BUR
APL
BRA
DIO
PLA
PAR
CLE


.5066
2.1975
(.0002)
(.0031)
.5066
2.0000
2.0000
.0100
.0100
.0100
(.0030)
(.0030)


Species


LEA
SYN
SYN
UCA
LIB
SES
PAG
PRO
AMB
SIC
SIC
SIC
SIC
POD
EPI
PEL
PIT
MEG
POR
MAC
SQU
URO
CAL
LUI
HEM
OPH
LUI
LUI
LUI
OPH
OCT


TEN
TON
LON
SPE
EMA
CIN
ANN
SPE
SYM
DOR
BRE
TYP
LAE
RLL
DIL
MUT
ANI
SOR
SIG
CAM
EMP
PER
JAM
CLA
ELO
ANG
SAG
SPE
ALT
ELE
VUL


PAL
ALP
ALP
NEO
LIB
NEO
PAG
PEN
PAL
PEN
PEN
PEN
PEN
LIB
LIB
LIB
LIB
PET
PET
LIB
PEN
CAL
CAL
3 (ECH
OPH
OPH
ECH
ECH
ECH
OPH
2 (LOL


FLO
HET
HET
TEX
DUB
TEX
LON
DUO
INT
DUO
DUO
DUO
DUO
DUB
DUB
DUB
DUB
ARM
ARM
DUB
DUO
JAM
JAM
SPE)
BRE
BRE
SPE
SPE
SPE
BRE
BRE)










IV. Physico-chemical Relationships: Sedimentology

and Habitat Structure


Livingston et al. (1975) showed that the aquatic environment in the

Apalachicola Estuary is affected to a considerable degree by seasonally-

directed fluctuations of the Apalachicola River. Variables such as local

rainfall, tides, wind-induced currents, temperature, salinity, dissolved

oxygen, turbidity, color, and pH, are important determinants of the

population and community structure of this bay system; together, these

parameters define the array of habitats in the area.

The sediments determine to a considerable degree the forms of benthic

organisms which occur in a given area. This is particularly true of the

benthic infauna, where feeding types are often correlated with sediment

forms. This includes direct sedimentary control of trophic distribution

(Sanders, 1958), coincidental correlation between water movement factors

and trophic distribution (Sanders, 1958; McNulty et al., 1962), and trophic

group amensalism mediated by the sediments (Rhoads and Young, 1970).

Support for these observations is available (Bloom et al., 1972). Thus,

sediment analysis was conducted concurrently with the analysis of the

infauna of the Apalachicola Estuary.

Materials and Methods:

Sediment Analysis

Sediment samples were taken with a corer (d., 7.62 cm) monthly from

March, 1975 through February, 1976. This was carried out at fixed stations

around the bay (Fig. 1). These analyses were conducted on the top 5-10 cm

of each core.










Two methods were used (the second method represents a standard

geological analysis which eliminates biological functions). At monthly

intervals, a sample of 50-150 g was wet-sieved through a series of

U.S. Standard sieves. Each fraction was dried at 1000C for 24 hours and

weighed. Sieve-class weights were then used to construct cumulative

percent particle size curves (Inman, 1952) on arithmetic probability

paper. A second analysis involved a supplementary subset of the above

samples (Ingram, 1971). A 30-50 g sample was dried at 1000C for 24 hours

and then treated with 10% HC1 for 12 hours to remove carbonates. After

redrying the sample, organic matter was removed by treatment with 30% H202

for 12 hours. The sample was then dried, and dry-sieved through a

series of sieves on a mechanical shaker for 30 minutes. Sieve class

weights were analyzed by the method of moments (Folk, 1966) using a

computer program developed by J. P. May (Dept. of Geology, Florida State

University). Sediment organic matter was analyzed monthly by drying a

subsample at 1000C for 24 hours and ashing at 5000C for 4 hours (Cummings

and Waycheck, 1971).

Physico-chemical Functions:

Surface and bottom water samples were taken monthly at fixed stations

in the Apalachicola Estuary (Fig. 1) with a 1 a Kemmerer bottle. Dissolved

oxygen and temperature were measured with a Y.S.I. dissolved oxygen meter

and a stick thermometer. Salinity was taken with a temperature-compensated

refractometer calibrated periodically with standard sea water. River flow

data taken at Blountstown, Florida were provided by the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (Mobile, Alabama) while local rainfall data were provided by the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Environmental Data Service,











Apalachicola, Florida) and the East Bay Forestry tower. Turbidity was

determined using a Hach Model 2100-A turbidimeter and was expressed as

Jackson Turbidity Units (J.T.U.). Water color was measured using an

A.P.H.A. platinum-cobalt standard test. Light penetration was estimated

with a standard Secchi disk. Data concerning chlorophyll A, orthophosphate

(inorganic, soluble, reactive), nitrite, nitrate, and silicate were

provided through a Florida Sea Grant Program directed by Dr. Richard L.

Iverson (Department of Oceanography, Florida State University); these

parameters were measured according to standard procedures (Livingston

et al., 1974).

A. Sediments:

Results of sediment analyses are presented in Table 1.

Station 1

This is a mid-bay station approximately 2 m in depth. The bottom is

somewhat loose, barren of vegetation, with occasional large wood and shell

fragments. There are scattered coarse, sandy deposits in an otherwise fine

sand area. The monthly average grain size is 2.60 4 units and contains

6.52% organic matter. There was considerable variation between samples

both for grain size and organic content, with no obvious trends. The

concurrent decrease in grain size and increase in organic content noted in

February, 1976, coincided with maintenance dredging activities nearby.

Station IX

This station is situated in a shallow (1 m) protected grass bed, com-

posed mainly of Halodule wrightii. The bottom is very firm sand with

scattered oyster bars in the area. The average monthly grain size is

2.02 d units and the organic content averages 2.06%. There was a little










between-sample variation in grain size but the sediment organic content

increased from July to January, coinciding with the die-off and deposition

of Halodule blades.

Station 3

This station is located in a shallow (1 m) channel leading from the

Apalachicola River into East Bay. Winter and spring deposits of wood and

leaf debris, washed in by peak river discharges, are found in this area.

The bottom is firm, fine sand with beds of Ruppia maritima and Vallisneria

americana in the vicinity. The average grain size is 2.83 units and

organic content averages 3.52%. There was some variability between samples

for grain size and organic content, probably resulting from the river-

deposited debris.

Station 6

This station is located in the middle of a shallow (1 m), protected
embayment close to the Apalachicola River with seasonally dense beds of

Ruppia nearby. The bottom is a loose, fine sand-silt. Woody debris was

almost always noted in the samples. The monthly average grain size is

3.64) units and organic content averages 5.60%. Samples were variable

with respect to grain size and organic content, with no trends observed.

Station 4

This station is moderately deep (2 m) and influenced to some extent by

river discharge. The bottom is barren, loose silty-sand, and contains

large wood fragments. The monthly average grain size is 3.93+ units and

organic content averages 7.98%. Grain sizes were somewhat variable in

the spring (perhaps due to river effects) and appeared stable for the rest

of the year. Organic content was highest in summer and fall, coinciding to











some extent with the die-off of upper bay grass beds.

Station 4A

This station is in a shallow (4 m) Vallisneria bed in upper East

Bay. The bottom is fairly loose, silty-sand. The monthly average

grain size is 3.98 units and organic content averages 8.61%. A fall

peak in organic content probably results from the die-off of Vallisneria

blades.

Station 5A

This station is located off a sandy beach in upper East Bay. The

bottom is firm, fairly coarse sand, and the nearby shore is fringed with

Vallisneria. The average grain size is 1.82 4 units and organic content

averages 2.58%. Between-sample variation in grain size is low, but

organic content increases from summer through winter, to some extent due

to the Vallisneria die-off.

Station 5B

This station is located in an upper East Bay tributary. The bottom is

loose silt with Vallisneria fringing the shoreline. The average grain size

is 4.22' units and organic content averages 11.23%. Grain sizes exhibited

low variability as did organic content, which was relatively high all year.

In summary, grain size decreases and organic content increases moving

from the outer Apalchicola Bay into the upper reaches of East Bay. The

observed late summer-fall die-off of benthic macrophytes coincides generally

with an increase in sediment organic content. The relationships between

the above observations and the reactions of the infaunal and epibenthic

organisms to both general sedimentary characteristics and the fall

increase in organic content will be examined in other sections of this report.










B. Physico-chemical parameters:

Water temperatures at a representative station are shown in Figs. 2

and 3. Although temperature peaks tended to remain stable from year to

year, there was a general decrease in temperature with time which was

particularly pronounced during the fifth year of the study. The winter of

1976-77 was extremely cold, and this should be taken into consideration in

any long-term evaluation of the biota of the bay. There was a general

reduction in salinity (Figs. 4-7) with time. Seasonal variation, based

to a considerable degree on river flow (Fig. 30), was a major determinant

of the salinity regimes in the system. There were also decreases in salinity

during summer and fall months which appeared to reflect surface runoff

from local rainfall patterns. Such changes were more pronounced in East

Bay than Apalachicola Bay. The general salinity pattern was thus relatively

stable from year to year. Low salinities occurred during winter and

spring months (associated with river flow) followed by increasing salinity

during the summer. There was then a rapid decline in the late summer or

fall, (coincident with increased local precipitation) and this was followed

by a fall or winter salinity peak just prior to the ensuing decrease in

salinity with renewed increases in river flow. The general annual patterns

of salinity (Figs. 4-7), with relatively low levels during the past 3

years, may not be entirely consistent with the mean annual river flow and

rainfall data (Table 2). This is especially true during the last year of

sampling. This will be the subject of further study involving mass flow

models.

Color values for representative stations in the Apalachicola Estuary

are shown in Figs. 8-11. The influence of the major river flooding during











the winter of 1973 (Fig. 30) is apparent throughout the bay. A secondary

peak appears during the spring of 1975. On the whole, there was a general

decrease in color at Station 1; this was especially significant at

greater depths. The reverse was true in East Bay, especially at the surface.

Spikes of high water color were particular pronounced during the latter

part of 1974. Peaks generally occurred during spring and late summer, thus

reflecting rainfall patterns (Fig. 30) during this period. East Bay was

thus more highly colored than Apalachicola Bay, and showed a trend which

appeared to be linked to patterns of local rainfall and runoff in the

Tate's Hell Swamp area. This was not the case with respect to turbidity

which tended to decrease during the study period in the bay as a whole.

Turbidity seemed to be closely correlated with river flow. Turbidity peaks

usually occurred during winter and spring months. One notable exception

to this occurred during the summer of 1974 in benthic areas of East Bay.

These trends in color and turbidity were generally reflected in the Secchi

disk data (Figs. 16, 17) where significant decreases occurred in East Bay

with time relative to the Apalachicola Bay area.

Dissolved oxygen data are shown in Figs. 18-21. There was considerable

seasonal variation at both stations with peak levels generally occurring

during winter and spring months indicating the usual relationship with

water temperature and salinity. In East Bay, there was a significant in-

crease in dissolved oxygen during the 5 year period of study which was not

as apparent in Apalachicola Bay. Relatively low levels of dissolved oxygen

were apparent in East Bay during the late summer of 1974. Levels

of pH in the Apalachicola Estuary are shown in Figs. 22-25. There was a

significant decrease in pH in Apalachicola Bay during the fall and early










winter of 1976. This remains unexplained at this time. The East Bay

data will be more thoroughly reviewed in another report in-

volving potential impact of clearcutting on the Bay.

Orthophosphate and nitrate levels in the Apalachicola Estuary are

shown in Figs. 26-29. These data will be analyzed in detail by Iverson

and Myers (Section V of this report).

Analysis and Discussion:

A statistical treatment was carried out with the first four years of

physico-chemical data. The seasonal changes in various physico-chemical

variables in the Apalachicola Bay System have already been described

(Livingston, 1974, 1976; Livingston et al., 1974a: Livingston et al., 1976)

and will not be reviewed in detail here. Overall, this is a shallow barrier

island estuary dominated physically by the widely fluctuating Apalachicola

River (Fig. 30). During the 4-year period of study, the river flow usually

peaked during the period from January to April. At these times, the range

of extreme diurnal flows usually was maximal. The range and mean flow

usually reached low levels during late summer and fall periods. This

pattern was almost completely out of phase with local rainfall which

ordinarily peaked during the summer and early fall. There was considerable

annual variation of river flow with relatively low levels during the

first and third years of sampling. During the winter and spring of 1973,

there was especially pronounced river flow and flooding throughout the

Apalachicola Valley.

Water temperature followed seasonal patterns with no substantial

variation from year to year. At any given time, there was usually little

vertical or horizontal variation in water temperature throughout the bay










system (Livingston et al., 1977). River flow generally dominated the

seasonal.characteristics of parameters such as salinity, color, turbidity,

and nutrient levels with increased flow associated with increases in the latter 3

functions. Generally, this is a highly turbid bay with considerable

oyster bar development and little benthic macrophyte productivity ex-

cept in shallow (fringing) areas. Tides in the Apalachicola Estuary are

semi-diurnal (mixed, unsymmetrical) with a small small range (up to 1 m).

Winds in the area follow no clear directional trend although during fall

and winter there is a northerly flow which becomes southerly during the

rest of the year. In June, 1972, Hurricane Agnes came ashore near the

Apalachicola region with winds gusting to 55 knots and tides around 2 m

above the norm.

Statistical analysis of the physico-chemical data taken over the 4-year

study period included simple linear regression and correlation for distrib-

ution with time. Significant changes in the regressions (original and loge

units) were found for salinity, rainfall, and turbidity. The re-

sults of a 2-way (month x year) analysis of variance of these data are shown

in Table 3. Since in a 2-way analysis with one observation per cell, the

mean square is of necessity used as an error term, the occurrence of

annually high significance levels probably indicates that considerable in-

teraction exists. There was significant (p <.05) annual variation of river

flow although no trend was apparent during the study period. There were

reductions in salinity and turbidity in the Apalachicola system

with time. The results of a factor analysis (Table 4) indicate that high

riverflow is usually associated with increased color and turbidity and re-

duced Secchi readings, and low levels of salinity, temperature, and









chlorophyll A. This is consistent with the known seasonal pattern of

these factors, and indicates the important influence of the Apalachicola

River on the physical environment of the Apalachicola Estuary. While the

river dominates the seasonal fluctuations of parameters such as salinity,

long-term changes in the overall salinity of the bay appear to be related

also to other functions such as local rainfall and runoff. This would

indicate that causation reflects multiple interactions thus allowing

apparently contradictory results in the short- versus long-term trends

(e.g., turbidity and salinity relationships).












Literature Cited

Bloom, S.A., J.L. Simon, and V.D. Hunter. 1972. Animal-sediment

relations and community analysis of a Florida estuary. Mar. Biol. 13,

43-56.

Cummins, K.W. and J.C.Waycheck. 1971. Caloric equivalents for investigations

in ecological energetic. Mitt. Internat. Verein. Limnol. No. 18. 158 p.

Folk, R.L. 1966. A review of grain-size parameters. Sedimentology 6, 73-93.

Folk, R.L. and W.C. Ward. 1957. Biagos River bar: a study in the signif-

icance of grain size parameters. J. Sedim. Petrol. 27, 3-26.

Ingram, R.L. 1971. Sieve analysis in R.E. Caever (ed.), Procedures in

Sedimentary Petrology. Wiley Interscience, New York. pp. 49-67.

Inman, D.L. 1952. Measures for describing the size distribution of

sediments. J. Sedim. Petrol. 22: 125-145.

Livingston R.J.: Field and laboratory studies concerning the effects of

various pollutants on estuarine and coastal organisms with application

to the management of the Apalachicola Bay System (North Florida, U.S.A.

Final Report, State University Systems of Florida. Sea Grant SUSFSG-04-

3-158-43) (unpublished, 1974).

- Impact of kraft pulp-mill effluents on estuarine and coastal fishes in

Apalachee Bay, Florida, U.S.A. Mar. Biol. 32, 19-48 (1975).

- Diurnal and seasonal fluctuations of estuarine organisms in a North

Florida estuary. Est. Coastal Mar. Sci. 4, 323-400 (1976a)

- Dynamics of organochlorine pesticides in estuarine systems: Effects on

estuarine biota. Proc. Third International Est. Conf. (1976b)

- R.L. Iverson, R.H. Estabrook, V.E. Keys and J. Taylor, Jr.: Major









features of the Apalachicola Bay system: physiology, biota, and re-

source management. Florida Sci. 37(4), 245-271 (1974a).

G.J. Kobylinski, F.G. Lewis, III and P.F. Sheridan: Long-term fluctu-

ations of epibenthic fish and invertebrate populations in Apalachicola

Bay, Florida. Fish Bull. 74, 311-321 (1976).

P.F. Sheridan, B.G. McLane, F.G. Lewis, III and G.G. Kobylinski: The

biota of the Apalachicola Bay System: functional relationships. In:

Proceedings of the Conference on the Apalachicola Drainage System. Eds.

R.J. Livingston and E.A. Joyce, Jr. (in press, 1977).

McNulty, J.K., R.C. Work, and H.B. Moore. 1962. Some relationships between

the infauna of the level bottom and the sediment in South Florida.

Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf. Caribb. 12: 322-332.

Rhoads, D.C. and D.K. Young. 1970. The influence of deposit-feeding

organisms on sediment stability and community trophic structure. J. Mar.

Res. 28: 150-177.

Sanders, H.L. 1958. Benthic studies in Buzzard's Bay. I. Animal-sediment

relationships. Limnol. Oceanogr. 3: 245-258.











Monthly sediment analyses of various stations in Apalachicola

Bay. Median grain size determined by Method 1 (Inman, 1952;

Folk and Ward, 1975) and Method 2 (Folk, 1966; Ingram, 1971).

Organic content determined according to Cummins and Waycheck (1971).


STATION

1


DATE

3/75

4/75

5/75

6/75

7/75

8/75

9/75

10/75

11/75

12/75

1/76

2/76


3/75

4/75

5/75

6/75

7/75

8/75

9/75

10/75

11/75


MEDIAN GRAIN

METHOD 1

1.90

2.20

2.55

2.50

3.10

3.35

2.40

2.20

2.20

2.25

2.35

4.20


2.00

1.85

1.95

2.00

2.00

1.95

2.05

2.15

2.10


Table 1.


SIZE ( )

METHOD 2










2.08






2.00


4.20











2.36


% ORGANIC

4.66

4.05

5.14

6.26

6.70

7.18

5.84

4.29

8.79

6.13

6.41

12.88


1.78

1.76

1.68

1.64

2.00

2.42

2.16

2.26

2.47









Table 1 (continued)


STATION







3























6


DATE

12/75

1/76

2/76


3/75

4/75

5/75

6/75

7/75

8.75

9.75

10/75

11/75

12/75

1/76

2/76


3/75

4/75

5/75

6/75

7/75

8/75

9/75

10/75

11/75

12/75


METHOD 1

2.10

2.05

2.05


2.45

3.10

2.70

2.70

2.55

3.45

3.10

2.65

2.85

3.10

2.65

2.70


3.00

3.65

3.30

3.95

4.10

3.80

3.55

3.95

3.75

3.50


METHOD 2

2.37



2.04











2.87






2.98



2.43











2.97






3.05


% ORGANIC

2.56

2.36

1.68


4.17

3.93

3.67

2.82

2.92

2.38

6.47

4.25

2.96

4.30

2.11

2.30


5.73

6.61

4.18

6.33

7.98

6.48

4.80

6.63

3.62

5.11











Table 1 (continued)


STATION


DATE

1/75

2/76


3/75

4/75

5/75

6/75

7/75

8/75

9/75

10/75

11/75

12/75

1/76

2/76


3/75

4/75

5/75

6/75

7/75

8/75

9/75

10/75

11/75

12/75


METHOD 1

3.55

3.60


METHOD 2



2.81





























1.89



2.18


3.45

3.85

3.45

4.15

4.05

3.95

4.00

4.05

4.00

4.00

4.20

4.00


4.15

4.00

3.90

4.00

3.85

3.45

4.10

4.05

4.05

4.05


% ORGANIC

3.87

5.80


6.21

5.86

5.41

9.48

9.10

8.23

9.00

9.75

11.23

8.36

7.06

6.02


6.10

6.25

6.52

7.75

8.30

9.39

11.09

9.10

12.05

10.55










Table 1 (continued)


STATION DATE METHOD 1 METHOD 2 % ORGANIC

1/76 4.05 7.97

2/76 4.10 8.30


5A 3/75 1.70 1.11

4/75 1.75 1.03

5/75 1.60 1.40

6/75 1.85 0.97

7/75 1.75 2.38

8/75 1.95 1.79 2.83

9/75 1.80 1.41

10/75 1.85 1.70

11/75 1.90 4.64

12/75 2.10 1.93 8.45

1/76 1.80 2.78

2/76 1.80 1.72 2.33


5B 5/75 4.20 11.45

6/75 4.45 10.61

7/75 4.25 12.32

8/75 4.20 12.51

9/75 4.15 11.95

10/75 4.20 12.20

11/75 4.20 12.21

12/75 4.20 9.39

1/76 4.20 9.19

2/76 4.20 10.52













Table 2: Annual monthly means:
Apalachicola River Flow (Blountstown, Florida: U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Mobile District) and Local Rainfall
(Combined data from NOAA-climatological Station
in Apalachicola and the East Bay Fire Tower).


Apalachicola
River Flow (Cubic)
Feet Per Second)


Time 'Period

3/72 2/73

3/73 2/74

3/74 2/75

3/75 2/76

3/76 2/77


25,185

32,955

21,550

30,708

26,174


Local
Rainfall
(inches)

4.98


5.20

6.23

5.80

4.66




TABLE :


Results of 2-way analysis of variance (bymonth, by year) for physicochemical and biological parameters of the
Apalachicola Bay System taken over a 48 month period (March, 1972-February, 1976). Included are various
indices used in the overall statistical analysis.


Paramet
Physicoi


Number
of cases


chemical


River Flow (C.F.S.) 48
Secchi (m) 48
Color (P+-Co units) 48
Turbidity (J.T.U.) 48
Temperature (oC) 48
Salinity (0100) 48
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 48
Nitrate (ug/L) 42
Phosphate (ug/L) 42
DDT (Rangia: PPB) 29
PCB (Rania: PPB) 29
Chlorophyll A (mg/m3) 44
Rainfall 48
Wind 48
Tides 48
DDP** 48
ml mll*** 48


Mean


27,586
0.82
42.4
20.2
20.2
16.1
8.2


145
85
5.3
5.0


Standard
Deviation


15,366
0.37
74.5
33.4
6.3
8.3
2.3


173
85
2.1
4.0


Deviations from the mean by year Significance (P)
1972-73 193-74 1974-75 1975-76 Month Year


-2401
0.08
22.8
16.2
1.6
2.7
-0.4


160
79
1.9
01.3


5369
-0.19
-11.7
9.9
-2.6
0.8
0.1


-125
-61
0.7
-1.1
<- f


-6088
0.10
-16.7
-13.7
0.9
1.3
-0.1


-83
-41
-0.9
0.5


3122
0.01
5.1
-12.7
-0.2
-5.5
0.2




-1.1
2.0


0.001
0.172
0.203
0.999
0.016
0.003
0.058


0.303
0.402
0.331
0.398


0.025
0.194
0.999
0.180
0.240
0.114
0.999


0.001
0.001
0.002
0.999


Invertebrates

Number of individuals (N)* 45 647 763 -73 -170 25 224 0.999 0.999
-N-N1 (dominant species)* 45 209 125 -14 -39 -108 162 0.999 0.021
Margalef richness 45 1.78 0.56 0.02 -0.13 -0.01 0.16 0.999 0.999
Relative dominance (%) 45 56.4 16.6 -2.4 1.9 7.2 -4.9 0.358 0.999
Shannon diversity 45 1.34 0.36 -0.05 -0.14 0.04 0.16 0.999 0.257
Number of species (5) 45 11.7 3.8 .2 .0 0.8 1.6 0.999 0.255
Fishes
re;imhu r nf indHi~irrAl1c IN) A- 1i 70 1910 9n9 A l7 17n 4 917 n QQQ


N-N1 (dominant species)*
Margalef richness
Relative dominance (%)
Shannon diversity
Number of species (5)
Anchoa group*
Micropogon group*
Cynoscion group*
Gobiosoma group*
Chlororscombrus group*


663
3.52
54.9
1.48
26.4
2.57
2.14
1.58
1.12
0.59


221
0.71
16.6
0.33
5-9
0.70
0.80
0.94
0.57
0.86


-160
-0.22
10.6
-0.23
-1.5
0.20
-0.15
0.11
-0.28
0.19


17
-0.09
-1.0
-0.03
-0.9
-0.22
0.37
-0.21
-0.24
-0.07


20
-0.06
-5.4
0.11
-0.3
-0.02
-0.23
0.11
-0.11
0.07


162
0.37
-4.2
0.08
2.8
0.04
0.01
-0.01
0.42
-0.18


0.108
0.114
0.099
0.051
0.237
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.064
0.001


0.009
0.146
0.041
0.030
0.236
0.050
0.050
0.095
0.011
0.204


- --


er


I--,
-c,


---


-









Table 4: Factor analysis of a set of physicochemical variables taken
from March, 1972 to February, 1976. Color, turbidity, Secchi
readings, salinity, temperature, and chlorophyll A
were noted at Station 1 in the Apalachicola Estuary Tidal Data
included the stages of the tide on the day of collection while
the wind variable was represented by 2 vector components.


Variable


Factor 1
(49.0% of the


River flow

Local rainfall

Tide (incoming or
outcoming

Tide (high or low)

Wind direction (E-W)

Wind direction (N-S)

Secchi

Color

Turbidity

Temperature

Salinity

Chlorophyll A


variance)


-0.82

-0.04


0.26

0.09

-0.02

0.10

0.57

-0.80

-0.73

0.38

0.68

0.47


Factor 2
(22.3% of the
variance

-0.08

-0.30


0.61

0.39

0.09

-0.20

-0.07

0.33

0.54

0.15

0.21

0.51


Factor 3
(17.9% of
the variance

-0.07

S -0.09


-0.68

0.61

0.36

0.22

-0.17

0.01

0.08

-0.02

0.23

0.09


Factor 4
(10.8% of
the variance

-0.08

0.20


.0.06

-0.37

0.37

0.31

0.24

0.07

0.23

-0.18

-0.02

*' 0.31












Fig. 1: The Apalachicola Bay System showing assigned (permanent) stations
for all research operations.







\a




% M C.


%














0 0o
S.Vg. 0






CV) ,W) ""












, c . ".4














Fig. 2:' Surface'-water temperature (oC) at Station 1 (Apalachicola Bay) from March, 1972
to March, 1977.



A:=LACr SC-'TEF. ': 1. 77/03/11. PAGE 3
FI-x \3NAMe4 (CCr'AION ATF = 77/! 1/11.)
SCiiTE .'r-' OF (JLN) TTi (ACROSS) DAYS
11.2::3 '93:.'5?': ,.73.1:?' 652.5753C 332.2251S11.0475i 090925C012370.375Q0015i49.82501729.275C
S----*--------+-----------*--- ----+-------- -----*------+---------------
7z I 32.3C
I I I I
I I I
I\ I* I I
*4.57 I I \ 29.57
II I
I I
I I l I
2

SI I \ 6
"+ I I \


I I I
-.1 I i -- I1
S-- ------/-------------- -----


1-" I j




--- --- -- --- --- ----------J-. --. .--------- -------- -- -- -- -- -- -
-I I I














+ (7.73
.: I I







S + I + 5.06
I I I

I I I I I
i I I











3/72 5!72 9/72 12/72 3/73 6/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 6/74 974 12174 3/75 6/75 9/75 1275 3/76 6/76 976 12/76 377 15.
S TIMN MONTHS: March 1972 to February 1977







C TIX ()- -.Z.. R S5UAFE- .37532 SIGNIFICANCE v .31854
ST3 -kz< CF cFT 6.'.,9;s INT-R{LEPT (A) 2,.41Z48 STO E OR.OP. OF A 1.67141
S-FCAN A .'iIf SLOPE (b) -.335 STO ERROR OF B .30157
s i ;I II U C
I I I
I I I
I I





A ~ s EGRA S I TIMI IN MONTHS: March. 1972 to February. 1977







tL37i' vaLS 5 EXCLUDE VALUES- C MISSING VALUES 47
--em onT.Tcm reT r e 4 fC.Y rnA."M.T Or rf..DSITC














Fig. 3: -Bottom water temperature oC at Station 1 (Apalachicola Bay) from March, 1972 to
March, 1977.



AFALAC4 CATiTERGRAM)S 1 77/03/11. PAGE 5
FILE Nt-NME (CPEA'ICO CATE = 77/13/11.)
Si3TCERG-- "F (C6*N) -'1i (ACROSS) QAYS
l14.l225C 293.675CL 477.12~5r 552.57500 832.025C001l.475COii9t.92500137. 375001549.825001729.275CO
.-**----- ---- -- -- *---4----- -*--- +------+----- ***- 4-*4*
31.S X I 31.50

I I I I
SI I I
SI I I
2A.35 I I 2.5






I I / I I







/ \ I \ I l I t I
I I

I I I I
I















: INI I 2 t F
4T.35 + I I 23.55
--------- --------- ------*-----------------------*---------*------*------** *** --------
I I I I I
I I I
C-' \2 I I + 23.90
I I I
I I I
i I I
I I I













.)- P UAED C11 SIGNIFICANCE R .
I I I


II I I
I I I
I I
: () 2 222 F A -295
I I I
I I I


SII I
i I I I

I I I



I I + T.GL
t----r-*-, r--* --4 *----+----+----+----*-+-, r+,--** 4---+--***+***-+ ,--* -- .
/72 5/72 9/72 12/72 3/73 6/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 C/74 9/74 12/74 3/75 6/75 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/76 12/76 3/77

PLIC 5 177 GZA Si 'I!" IN ?'ONTHS: March, 1972 to February. 1977


:-iR L. tI (R)- -.;7I P SQUAFED .(6110 SIGNIFICANCE P .*3170
I T -6.ZTI1? I'TERCEPT (A) 2L.23222 STO ERPOR OF A 1.66139
.. 1 SL; (?) -.11297 STO E'ROR OF 8 .Cb56

J --. f ^L V.L b fISSI VA tUS t7


........ .- rr:7-E :r I COEFFICIENT CANNOT GE CO"PUTEC.















Fig. 4: Surface salinity /oo at Station 1 (Apalachicola Bay) from March, 1972 to
March, 1977.




sALAC" SC fT-CrE'S i 77/03/11. PAGE 13
uIL *v0- (C'iEION AE = 77/3/11.
SC-TTERGRI. OF (]COSN) S:T1 (ACROSS) DAYS
li_..???Z ? 293i.67i. 47'.1:57. 652.575C0 832.C2530i011.4750C1190.925001370.375001549.825001729.2750C


.- -. ---..---.----+----+--- ---...... ..--. ..... ... -- ...
4 I I
I I
-i I I I


1H I I I
HI I I

SI I I I
I I I

+
i.---- -^--L...........--.4. ............ ....----4--...-... .......................-......-...
I I I I
SI I

I I I
I / f III I I
I I I I
III I
S 1 1 II
4 I I
I n J I I


I II I I
I Il I I
I II

I I I I




+ I I 4.

3/72 6/72 9/72 12/72 3/73 6/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 6/74 9/74 12/74 3/75 6/75 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/76 12/76 3/77

TIME IN MONTHS: March. 1972 to February. 1977


AFALCH SCATTERGRAPS 1

S' TISTICS..
COCRTLATI3N (R)-
-T3 E uF-EST -
SISNIFICACE A -
SIGNIFICANt: 9 -
FLOT'E1 VSL'rS -


33.70


30.33


26.96


23.59


20.22


16.85


13.48


10.11


6.74


3.37


77/03/11. PAGE 14


-.39378
7.25S;.Z


.Cn*C'I


R SQUARE
INTERCEPT (A) -
SLOPE (B)


.15506


-.3590


SIGNIFICANCE R -
STO ERROR OF A -
STO ERROR OF 8 -


.00085
1.86468
.00179


EXCLUDED VALUES- 0 MISSING VALUES -


33.7'


*3.33


15.35


1C.11


3.3?


4',


*E














Fig. 5: Bottom salinity /oo at Station 1 (Apalachicola Bay) from March, 1972 to
March, 1977.



APi-LACf 3CA-TTERR.YS 1 77/03/11. PAGE 21
FILE vrNA (C:-ATION CA'E = 77/f7/1l.)
SCAT'E.G.- CF toGCN) SA21 (ACROSS) DAYS
1L0-.?5', 2"3.75r? '~73.125P3 652. 75O 832.0OZSO 11.475OC1130.9Z5001370.375001549.825C01729.27500
.*---------------- ------------ +---------+---------*-----------* -- ---**+.

SI i
SI I
I I I
3.3 I I
II I I


T
I I I I
..i t A
If I I I



---* -------------..------ -------- ---- -- -------4- ------------ ----- -----
iI
I I
I I








I I 4
II
I I
I I



I I I













*----4------- ------+----*------ ------------ -------- ----------+-------,---- ---------+.
2 /7 /72 1272 3/73 6/73 9/73 2/73 3/74 6/74 9/74 12/74 3/75 6/75 975 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/76 12/76 3/7


ST^ : STS 1..1

S2:"T :T:?I (-)-
ST -P C' EST -

SIT ICL:'.CE ? -


TIME IN MONTHS: March, 1972 to February, 1977


. -.?Z 1

. Cu'1


o SQUARE -
INTERCEPT () -
LOCCE () *


EXtLU3DE VALUES-


.04929
19.116'6
-. '"47


SIGNIFICANCE R -
STO ERcOR OF A -
ST3 E';PO CF -


MISSIN, VALUES -


. "......IS I';T, :r I COE'FICIENT ZA'-'1OT SE ZC0PUTE2.


33.70


33.33


23.59


23.22


13.48


1CI.11


3.37


*C91122
2.09143
.;1201













Fig. 6: Surface salinity 0/oo at Station 5 (East Bay) from March, 1972 to March, 1977.




-, L''" :' -.T' L 77/.3/1L. FP GE 31
S* AT = 77/'3/11,)
T. ; c i.-- (ACoOSS) DAYS
I -- ;03.75- ,73.12 .- 52.575, 8 32. Z15Sl311.i 750' 11i 925 137. S375 1549. 82531729.275
----------- -------------- 4----------H2+----












,*----*----*-- ------------ --*--- -----+-------* -- -*----* -------*- ---*-----------------**--*---*-- T







8.6..
S- I I


S- I I
.. ; I 4* i


S- I I V S
i I I I
S i I I
I f N! II











-- ,..-..,4 .-..-.-.-,,.................4 --.---.-.-----. ------
3/7 I6 | 3 I 13.'3/
SS I


S7 I I i I



"+ .i 67 .














C-, *'T I3; (C>- -.I9"- R SQUARED .03574 SIGNIFICANCE R ..'5651

ST o. .ST 5. 376 3 IMITIRCCPT (A) 6-.6213 STO ERROR OF A .133972
S. ::.;4. .' : tSLOP? (PF) -.'J)196 STO EOOR OF P .G1
L',;i.ij C 'N ? .- 55
.7'- t.l% 7 F)CLUUJU VALULS- 1H MISSIS VALUES -

.. .,r., IS; P 'I"T) I!F A COEFFICIENT CANNOT CO'VPUTEO.













Fig. 7; Bottom salinity /o at Station 5 (East Bay) from March, 1972 to March, 1977.



APALACH SCATTE'GRAMS 1 77/03/11. PAGE 39
FILt NOJNME (CFrATION CITE = 77/f~/11.)
,CA.TEPGRA" OF (OOUN) SAC5 ACROSSS) DAYS
110.225' j 293.675rO 473.1:(0 652.57500 832.025O01011.475'i1190.9250137 .375001549.82Z5001729.27500
*---.----*---+----t------------- ----------+--------- ------------------- *---- ----*----- .

I I I


I
SI I .I
SI I I

|I I I
25. I I I i 252




II I I


I i I I
-- ---- ---I ---




-- -- -- ---- t --i - - -




1 I /i
P1C 1 .+0
I I

1!'I I

.6 I .





.- .... ----.---...--. +-- .---.-.----- .---+ --- ......
3/ 72 5/72 9/72 12/72 3/73 6/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 6/74 9/74 12/74 3/75 6/75 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/76 12/76 3/77
APAL:C4 SCAT -GR.,S I TIE IN MONTHS: March, 1972 to February. 1977

STAT:STI:S..
CO .LT-':; (R- -.,.9' SIUiARD .;4''6 SIGNIFICANCE R .C5238
-"J E- Cr EST 7.7? I7cF-ET (A) 9.48783 3TO ERROR OF A 1..479
SI3IrLCNCa 4 .*-: SLOPE (9) -.r:279 STO EPROR OF B .CC172
S1;';:F rC" -57

SFLT-F VLUE; 65 ,%;L'!=C VAL'ES- M ISSI;-3 VALUES 39
"..... !z P:'-.T': IF Z COEFFICIENT CAN''OT 0E :CoPUTEO.















Fig. 8: 'Surface water color (Pt-Co units) at Station 1 (Apalachicola Bay) from March, 1972
to March, 1977.


.. rr,.L itu ir o ,CurrAviti-t IM UI Dc uPMfVIcU*

'C-ZCL- SC)TTEIR.-! 77/03/11. PAGE 9
FILE :O-'" (C-r.TIJ, -ATr 77/ATE/:.)
3CAT'l -E CF (Co-N) C, (ACROSS) DAYS
11i..C'"- 2*3T75.: 7'.-12E'jb 652.575: 832. 250"3111.75001.0 .925,O013737S750015.825031729.2750
652 ---------- 2!!--------------.-
I 450.00
SI I I
I II
I iI I
.i I



S315.00



-------------------- -* --------------------------------------- ---------------------.-------.------....
i I I




I I I

2 7 C .- 7*. O0
I














90.00
425..C 41 I 225.0

'I I I 35.0c




.TIME N I I 2 t F 00
I I I I









R SQUARED I CANCE R
S I (A) 5.2763ST ERROR OF A 7.334.0
SI I I













S T S I I IIC
PL IT3 vALu7S TM EXCLUDED VAI ES
S-o )t I

















Ct-ZLT:ON (B)- -.S.545 R SOUaEO .372 SIGNIFICANCE R I12C04
ST? I. LF EST 66.!.17 INTERCEPT (A) 5.2763 STO ERROR OF I 17.3S3'. w
S:;N:F::..SC- .1 ,'' I7" St-PS 5 ) 90- .

















4-iT'l> VSLUF^ Cr, FYrl-rnFn HEr<:* n r ,.,*,i c


-~---~-I ~-1-~


*~ ~ >~A19 *MkYLJ















Fig. 9: Bottom water color (Pt-Co units) at Station 1 (Apalachicola Bay) from March, 1972
to March, 1977.


AoALAG4 SCATTERGRAPS 1 77/03/11. PAGE 17
FILE N(JAME (CREATION LATE = 77/r3/11.)
SCATTERGRC3 OF (OOWN) .CO (ACROSS) DAYS
i:,'.22533 293.675CG 473,125L 652.57530 832.025C01011.475201190.925001370.375001549.8250B1729.27500
.+... ...--+--+--+ ----.----+---*---- ----*** *******.-.----..-..- ---.- .-***** -- ------
3'. : + I 368.60
I I I I
I I I I

I I I I

s.2r + I I I + 2z8.00
i l I i
I I I
I I I
I I I
? I.3 I I 252.00
I I I I
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I I I I
I I I I
1t.' C + I I I + 216.00
I I
I I I I
SI I I
I I I
14-.3: I I 190.10
I I I I
I I
I k
I I I




4 .3 4 I I + 146.00
I I I I
E I I I
I----.--- - - ----- ----- - --*-** ** *- --* *** *** *-**** I
I I I I I
( I -I 4 1 8.-00


I I I



1. FOi
7 1 I I 1 I + 7 2.O
-! I I I
: I I
7c I + 36.00
I I I


S----.*----*-^---+----+-*--------- -----+--+ ---------+----+- **-***--*-*****+---.
3/72 6/72 9/72 12/72 3/73 6/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 6/74 9/74 12/74 3/75 6/75 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/76 12/76 3/77
s-eLAC., S'-T-E.S RG. S TIME IN MONTHS: March, 1972 to February, 1977

ST AIST :IC S..
CStELS-'IiN (0)- -.2;-7t A SQUARED .05797 SIGNIFICANCE R .C3693
S-; -:- ;- ?? 5. 33S'; INTER9CPT (A) 6r.Cl596 STO EFPOR CF A 14.78659


:.':TF.:NC-, 1 .-"' 30 LO-E (F) -.02513 STD EROR OF B .,1379
?: r F 3 ..C" C
.LTTI 'IuL3 55 EC."-:'t.- VALUES- S 'ISSING 'VALUES 49

.--...- S':'TE IF A CCCOFFIC:ENT CAN'4OT sE CO"PurE3.















Fig. 10: Surface water color (Pt-Co units) at Station 5 (East Bay) from March, 1972
to March, 1977.


APL.C. SC'CTTErGTAlS 1 77/03/11. PAGE 27
FILz N:;NA' (CEA.TION' LATE = 77/"1 /11.)
SLATTErS:-" OF (3CN) COT5 (ACROSS) OAYS


iL..25') 93. 75-: 7 u .i25^; 652.755 8352. 2501011.475001190.9250 137.3750C1549.825 1729.2753
*----------------+---------------------+---------+----+---- ------------+----------------+--.------
'6'.I I 26.OC .
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I
+ 5 .20
I I I 1I
I I I




SI I .4










2
---- --------------------------------------*------- ---- ------------ -i
I I I




\ i I I .6
I I I I


SII I






APALI I to Feb ,
II I















IS PRINTED I A COEICIENT CANNOT BE COMPUTED
I I
I I I I
1 \ 5* i1 I I + i *
I I I I
1.5. 2 f I *
II I -

i3 2I 6 /.2 2
SI IN MOI M c I
T I
i \I I I
S I I
:G:IC +;I I 53.61
I I
II I I

SI P I A F I B
I f I I
I I I I




ST ES CFE 2ILI!I'~ET()-5.77 T RO FA-1.39
s:NIC~.~ A LP P ..278IDERRO 0!'
I I r r I/ a













Fig. 11! Bottom water color (Pt-Co units) at Station 5 (East Bay) from March, 1972
to March 1977.


APALACH SCATTEF.GAW.S 1 77/0T311. PAGE 35
FILE NONAME (CREATION DATE = 77/r3/11.)
SCATTESGRI: CF (C3w;) COF" (ACROSS) OAYS
l11.2.25'1 293.67530 473.1Z5C 6B52.575S0 832.3251f1011.O 7501 9O.925.7550137.1375'549.82500729.2750D
.*---**-- --+ ---* -------- --------------+----*-----. ---+-------- **--**7---+************
22 I 220.CO
I* I

19.0 191.01
I I
I I I I
I I I I
1 I I I
SI I I
7. I Y I 176.03





II I
I I I
I I I I I


2.j2+ I+ 132.00
SI I I
I I

I I
I I
II



.: *, I \I+ 81.00
.I i OI
1;. ie I I


\I I I





II:
I I I
I I



I
J I i I
4* 1 I 22.IC



.- *.-*--"--- --* -*- --"---- ---* +-- --- ------ -- -- -- -- -------*<. ----** -* -------------- ----*
3/7 6/72 9/72 12/72 3/73 6/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 6/74 9/74 12/74 3/75 6/75 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/76 12/76 3/77
Z- ~C~ 3:T 'S TIME IN MONTHS: March, 1972 to February, 1977


'CIc:LA'I:'3 (R)- .7 R SQUARED .CJC4'.4 SIGNIFICANCE R .44C57
ST. -- CF ST 5' .* INTERCEPT (A) 72.2'389 STO ERPOR OF A 15.84756
:;N;F: A L 0' rLO ( E .0C2P1 STO ER
I'T; 53 E:ELU'.E" V4LUES- C 1ISSIN3 VALUES 52


....... IS pFDI;- IF A COZFFICIENT CANNOT EE COPUJTiO.














Fig. 12,: Surface turbidity (J.T.U.) at Station 1 (Apalachicola Bay) from March, 1972
to March, 1977.



,...,,* 1 riliveCu lr *a overrjACttt ^aIt'IUtI oC urfU itcy

APLLL.CH SCiTTFRGRPS 1 77/03/11. PAGE 11
FILE N!' (C ETI3o LT7 = 77/13/11.)
SC;'; ' CF (JC-=) TUTi ACROSSS) DAYS
-.Z:_? 2*3.575^: 473.Z?'L 552.575C S32."Z25:i011 .475I1JG.925O1370.375301549.O25031729.2750C
----+--------------L--------------+--------------+---------+---------+----+----------------*-----.
? :*; I I 2S.C8
.*---- ------ ------------ ------- --------

SI I I


II 1
1 I I I
+I I I
I *I
I

I I I


I I I I








--T"--- -- V-A S --V--------------ALUES---MIS1 -G ALUES--5 I
I I I
I I j3.50

; I I i






r |. \ I I 2.50B
I I I

SI I I I
I I I "
I I

I I I
















.*-. -- ..*)--- .-.-- .- --.- --- -- *-**--UAR----- ,-0-****--G- N ---*-9--- ---- **----*- **- >
3/72 6 9 *2/7 I 1 9 2/7.06

I I I
II
SI I I


I II
SI I


















ST3; i- CF E;T ?i,. 06TE;CEPT {) 3C.832 STO ERROR OF A 7.57959
I I I

27I.5 I 2I.50





.-----+-------.----.-***--.---+---+
3/72 6/72 9/72 12/72 3/73 6/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 6/74 9/74 12/74 3/75 6/75 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/76 12/76 3/77

cAL.ACrr -S'SCA EiA*" I TIME IN MONTHS: March, 1972 to February, 1977


=ELA'ION <>)- -.X6q 9 OUAREO *0Q036 SIGNIFICANCE R .2q96C
S3T EJ CF EZT ?4.03L.65 IrTERCEPT (4) 3C.4'4832 STD ERROR OF A 7.57959
Si.'IFICANC- A .*";9 SLOPE (E) -.i1723 STD ERROR OF 0 ,00717
s:TFTS :c;- :" 4 ..VA8:
PLOTTEJ VAiLULS 60 EXCLUC'C VALUES- r MISSING VALUES 45













Fig. 13: Bottom turbidity (J.T.U.) at Station 1 (Apalachicola Bay) from March, 1972
to March, 1977.



APtLACH SCATTTRGRAMS 1 77/03/11. PAGE 19
FILE NONAM (CPE-TION JAIE = 77/ 3/11.)
SLATTEuG; CF (ZCWN) TU31 (ACROSS) OAYS
11L.22c 3 293.275?u 477.1250 652.57500 832.025CC1011.475S01190.925001370.375001549.825001729.275O
ut -,---,------,------- *-------- -
... .20.00

+ i
2 I I *

I I I
I I 26.00


192.i I I+ 192.00
I I I I
I II I

6. I I 16.00
I-------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ----------- -------------------i
I I I
r--------------------- """""" ~'-----

+P I TI + 7-4 0
i I I I I S .
I I I I



SI I I 9
I* i





-t
-- ------ --- --- -. -------- ----------. ---.--- --------------------------------- ----------------



SI I C





I-------------- --- ------------------- -----------------------------------------
3.72 5/72 9/72 12/72 3/73 6/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 6/74 9/74 12/74 3/75 6/75 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/76 12/76 3/77
LC .C-T.: .- .T T:11 :N MC'ITHS: Mdrch, 1972 to February, 1977

5TZST13S.,
CCiCELTHCN (C)- -.33Z57 o SCUAED .1i367 SIGNIFICANT 'CE R ,"C654
STJ C; EST F.ST IfTECEPT (A) 42.5647!. 5T EROPR OF A 1.,23514
'- .:.. LCE () -.;32429 STO E'ROP Or B ."C91.



FT V.). V.LL'S 53 ESCLU-'E3 VALUES- t -IS3IN; VALUES 5S

........ FPz':FEC Fr A COrFFICIENT CANNU E6F :OUPUTEO.













Fig. 14: Surface turbidity (J.T.U.) at Station 5 (East Bay) from March, 1972
to March, 1977.

c"LAC" -CATTCrA'-S 1 77/03/11. PAGE 29
FILE (C-'.AITI:N 4;7T = 77/;7?/i.)
SC ,irTE G; OF (JO ) TUT; (ACROSS) DAYS
i1.. 2-cv 293.t75'0 &. 125'C 652.57530 82. 3 25; 0111.'I750C119g0.925?Z 370.37501549.S25C31729.275CC
S------.---+--------------------------.---------...- .---.......
92.r + I


'I i
I I 4.
I I I
I I I I
I I 4
I I I
I I I

.1i I
-- -.............-..... --- -- ..... -.. .. .. . . .-- ----------------------- ---------,
I I I I



I I
i I






+I il I I







3/7- ----- ------------------ ------------ ------
3 6 I
.i. ,!-





3/72 6/72 9/72 12/72 3/73 5/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 6/74 9/74 12/74 3/75 6/75 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/76 12/76 3/77


APALACH SCATTERGRAS S 1

STATISTICS..
CO-RELATION (Z)-
ST? ERR OF EST -
SIgNIFICaNCE A -
SFL:TFICTE VAL -
FLPTTE3 VALLEYS -


TIME IN MONTHS: March, 1972 to February, 1977


-.t5571

4-i** "Ci
.52959


R SCUAREO
INTERCEoT (A) -
SLOPE (e)

EXCLUUEC VALUES-


.0344.9
25.11766
-.03698

0


SIGNIFICANCE R -
STO ERROR OF A -
SO0 ERROR OF B -

MISSING VALUES -


........ IS POINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT GE COMPUTED.


55.2C


73.6C


55.2S


18.40


. 0


.06929
5.20082
.00465

40













Fig. 15: Bottom turbidity (J.T.U.) at Station 5 (East Bay) from March, 1972 to March, 1977.




APiALC SCATTEcGRA-S 1 77/03/11. PAGE 37
:LE '. ."i (CtE&TION "ATE z 77/C3/li.)
SCAT .I'E;,' 3' (OwCN,; -US' (ACROSS) OAYS
ll'..2C3 293.675 n73.1255... 652.57500 832.25301 ''..750CC0. 92500137C. 350Ci549.82S5001729.275
.+----*---------------------------------- ---------+---- --- -
16.3" + I I 160.00
SI I I
i I I I
I I I I
I I I I I
I! I I I
SI I 1
1 II I
I I I
g4. 4 I I +* 1.0C

I I I
I I I
S.I I I







":.,r + 32 ct
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I


I I I


S- I i I I
4I I
I I


I E P 1 C8
1** r i S 64
...... ..- --- ..... ......... ....................................... ...........



i 32.C


-"U 16.02



*- !2/I 0*
2'" -'72 9,/72 12/72 3/73 6/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 6/74 9/74 12/74 3/75 6/75 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/75 12/76 3/77
4'-L.": -^*" =-','S S TI" 1; .0THS: March, 1972 to February, 1977


C.-!O -M ': (*- -.--;^l R S"AfRED .E2513 SIGNIFICANCE R .12163
--- -';- ^- re ,i-.]5/i I -ForieT (-) 35.2-7:5 -Ti ERS.gR OF A 9.67 059
513 =IcL-,:'-: .. J S-CoE (5) -,Cl. 5 STS EF.RO0 CF B .30852


. r A . e r- 7- r'! TC i ?-F rcTrT-'m- r4,rfTT Pc rn p P!Tc,.














Fig. 16: Secchi disk readings (m) at Station 1 (Apalachicola Bay) from March, 1972
to March, 1977.



AP.LACn SCATTE -.A 77/33/11. PAGE 23
FIL N!'. (CE'r ION "ATF = 77/"'3/1.)
SCA~;T^G Or (JC) SEr: (ACROSS) DAYS
l:'.2- Z3.2:3675: 477.1 650c 652.575C3 832.25001B11.750G 1130.925001370.37501549.825SO1729.275;
.* "---- ----;- --------*----- -,--------- --- ----------------------------- --.......

S I +
I I
i I I
.64 I 41.64

T I
II
SI I &

I I I I\








2 .52 I
'I I I



















.------- --------------------- ---.--- -+- -----..----,_...-... ..- -.------------------........-
3/72 5/72 9/72 12/72 3/73 6/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 6/74 9/74 12/74 3/75 6/75 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/76 12/76 3/77
ATALACq SCATTERGRAMS I TIoE IN MONTHS: March, 1972 to February, 1977

STATISTICS..
COiRELATION ()- .1 2 R SO'JUAL ~0C SIGNIFICANCE R .2

S T.. OF S .6 5 INtERCEPT (A) .7898S STD ERROR OF A ,C9136
I:3,:I;=-FI C i .5BC1 SLOPE (E) *GOGC7 STO ERROR OF 0 .00^~9
313N:FICN .CE 3 .8 V U
L**TJ VALUES 62 EXCLUDED VALUES- ISSING VALUES I3
er. -.!6L IdCET()-.98 T ROCVA-C13
-i 1 .ISOEC) -*QG7 SOERRO
I-'IJ AUS-ECUA)VLE-9ISIGVAJS- 4














Fig. 17: Secchi disk readings (m) at Station 5 (East Bay) from March, 1972 to March, 1977.


AWALACH SCATTE GRAMS 1
FILE v0NA'F (CPEATION LATE = 77/07/11*)


SCAITTE


1



i


77/03#11. PAGE 41


GRAn CF (OO3N) SiL8 (ACROSS) OAYS
114.225' 293.67F! 473.125"0 652.575"C 832.025C010011.47O500U119.92500137.37015.825CO0729.Z75o0
-*--------,----* ----*----+----*------------------------------ ----- ----------- --- -- --





.1 I I
I I I I


I I I
II















^ .-- .--- --- -.11...-......---------..-------. -...-----
*3 2

+



I I I i


























---------- ---- ---------- -* *- **-- ---------- -+------------------------------
2/72 3/73 5/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 6/74 9/74 12/74 3/75 675 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/76 12/76 3/77
I I

I I I i

I t I i I
I .. I I













3/72 5/72 97 12i72 373 573 973 12/73 374 674 974 12/74 3/75 675 975 12/7 376 6/76 76 12/76 3/7








.4- ----*------~--- *4---- -~------
3'72 6/,2 9/72 12/72 3/73 5/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 6/74 9/74 12/74 3/75 5/75 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/76 12/76 3/77


-~ -


TIM IN MONTHS: March, 1972 to February. 1977


3:.:r;:4NZ 2 -


k SUARt3
I..TE.RCEPT (A)
SLOPE (5)


EXCL~CE' VALUES-


.7774i.


SIlNIFICANCE R -
STO ERROR OF A -
ST5 EPFRO OF e -


MISSING VAL'US -


1.60



1.46



1.32







1.04


" .2Q


.:7212


1 .1 1















Fig. 18:' Surface' dissolved oxygen (PPM) at Station 1 (Apalachicola Bay) from March, 1972
to March, 1977.




"-ALIC1 5C'TT3RACr. 1 77/03/11. PAGE 7

S.'-TTE=-;;IL _e (LCH'!) 37-L (ACROSS) DAYS
:1.'6: *. ; 2 .'.c -^ .. -'.. ;..,Fi 52.575"3 932.00 ,''11Ci .6750' 0 19g.924;2 i373.375031549.825C01729.27500
**----- C-*--*.-----*- ----*-***-- ---- ------- *-- ----------- --*----* ** .* --* .
2*-- I T 12.03
T I I
I I
i I
I I
1 .' I I + 11.39
II I I|
SI I I



I I I I


I I
-b- I 9.56
I I
I I I
SI I I
67 9/72 1.97 /47
IIj I I




















SCATTErGA. TIME IN MONTHS: March, 1972 to February, 1977
I I I 8
I V I
q '. I I I I i 8.934
II







-*----------------- ----------- ------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------*-----------.-------------------I.
C SI-I T E I
I I
7.12 + I + 7.1Z
I I


I I




-*---***--- *----+----+----+*--- +-- I---+**--+**--*----e***-+---** **-**-+


* ALACH SCATTrRA"E i TIM IN MONTHS: March, 1972 to February 1977

ST;IST'I"S..
C;;lELA'I3; (;)- .2549 P SQUA:RO .05085 SIGNIFICANCE R .56823
-TJ <* OF S T 1.79". INT~ERCErT (A) 8.S531i STO ERROk OF A .52971
tI';:FIC"Ct E A ..CC- SLOPE (B) .'0069 STD ERROR OF B .COC45
S:L-I;F:C3 VA 3 X C V -
^NC-rC. vCLv S 45 EXCLUPEC VALUES- 0 MISSION; VALUES 6C













Fig. 19: Bottom dissolved oxygen (PPM) at Station 1 (Apalachicola Bay) from March, 1972
to March, 1977.

J r c. u ir A 1,UCrr il.tNi LANNUt bt LUMPUltU.

AFAL.AcH SCATTFRGRAtS 1 77/03/11. PAGE 15
F:IL *N3'.;- (COET:ON DOTE = 77/!3/11.)
SCITTEIG~AM OF (CO-N) D081 (ACROSS) DAYS
:11.22E5 293.675'0 473.125rT 652.5753 832. 25C01C11.4753ull9C.925001370.375001549. 825C1729.275C0
*------------***-*.----.-*--- ---*--- ---+------------*------- ---- -- -- -....- **---.
12. I I 12.60
I I I
I I I
I I I I
S+
SI I I
II I I
I I I



I I 0
S10.0


I / \ I I I Ii
II II





---------------------------------------- L------------------------- ---------- ------- -------I
SI I /
I----- ---------- --- ----- ---- ------
I / 9. \i



; /i \ .1
1 I I





I I
I *.60
II I
SI I
I

I I












------------------------- -- + +--- ------------- ----------+--------
3/72 5/72 9/72 12/72 3/73 6/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 6/74 9/74 12/74 3/75 6/75 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/76 12/76 3/77
-=:.C ?--- .. S T;IE IN MOTHS: March, 1972 to February, 1977





:1 EL'" I (: (Z)- .'b2 2 R SQUARED .CI39. SIGNIFICANC9 R .'4184
: -: -T .?;-. I0TEtCPT (A) 7.71122 STD ERROR OF A .71404
::-.: -' 1 S' (-i ) .- 25 STC ERROR OF I .^J 61


*T- .;. : 5 C I-J VLUES- c `:SSIri VALUIS 6:


" S ......... : IF A COLFFICIINT CAN...O" PF COMPU:EO.













Fig. 20: Surface dissolved oxygen (PPM) at Station 5 (East Bay) from March, 1972
to March, 1977.


******" P':,;NT- If A LCOFF:CIENT CANNOT BE COMPUTER.

1 .iC;- jCTTE; ; A 1 77/13/11. PAGE 25


'L,"i ,O>;aE (C EGTION :ATE : 77/'1 /11.)
C-T'E;- '-" j (iON) 3CT5 ACROSSS) DAYS
lt.22-, 2 .;'*.e5" t73.:*12 l 52..57511 832. 255;"1011. 475C011i9O.92560l373.375031549.8250a1729.275QC
.**---*---+----+-------+-------*--------- -------------------**-------------****-------*
.'.5- 4 I 4 12.50

I I \
I I


I

I I I
*.5z + I 11.02
SI I

I I I I


-I I I \
I I
~. + + I I + 10,028
I I I*

I I I I
SI I + 5.
I I I I
I.5 I I II *
I I I






-------------------- -------------- ---------- ---- ------ --- ---- -----
.I I
I I I




1 i.
I I I








3/72 /72 9/72 12/72 3/73 6/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 6/74 9/74 12/74 3/75 6/75 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/76 12/76 3/77
\} I \ \







LG S TIME IN MONTHS: March 1972 to February, 1977


STaTISTI-S..
OF T (- SQUARED 16256 SIGNIFICANCE R GG
T R ET .INRCPT (A) 7-55 STO ERROR OF A .479







S iT3N FI 4 .^a6<1 SLOPE (0) .431131 STO ERROR OF e O0 340
S 5 EXCLUDE VALUES- MSSIG VALUES 9
SP-I----E--- --- ----- IF A COEFFICIENT ANNOT BE COMPUTE.
A-'ALICH ;CA TEc~i(S 1 TIME IN MONTHS: March. 1972 to February, 1977













Fig. 21: Bottomdissolved oxygen (PPM) at Station 5 (East Bay) from March, 1972 to March, 1977.


=LCH 5iArT-F '^'S 1 77/P3/11.
7: 's.\ -.~ (: -l;TION "3'E 77/ 4/,11.)
S: !-. -'E .;'" (Z N) --i5 (ACROSS) OAYS
2113.b?''.: ; :3.575': E*2. r 52 6 5r\2. -73 C 832 .1 25 i01 -' 75. 11 *?.9 31t 3 7, a.37-1>L9.
.* ---- -----+- ----+---- ---- --*-----*------- ------*--+ ---
S.- I I
I I
I I
I I A
I I
I I

I i
A t II


/
/
/

/


PAC-E 33


12 .L


1;.'4


I \ i [i :

\II
11 i ,(

i I I
I .
. I I i


.---*"-- -- --.--^* .----. .----.--.-- ---**-**~*- 4----+4 --..--- ----------+*--. -- ---- .
2/72 5172 9/72 12/72 3/73 6/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 6/74 9/74 12/74 3/75 6/75 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/76 12/76 3/77


r. SCU'J:EO
IxTE.CEFT (A) -
9,r]i (r) <


A-- -1


STj Ec-O0 O A -


:.' v^J.


-'~ ; 37F:_' -c:'~-': _


C, -


A
+


7.5C



6.52


5.54


3.5A



z.eC













Fig. 22: Surface pH at Station 1 (Apalachicola Bay) from November, 1974 to March, 1977.


-> .* .Lt*Jrr L t_'M I' Zi kC Ur' t ,'.U.

.. .17'" ".-' : 77/s.i/li. r.',E 31

.' : (CSPOSS) OATS
.. --'.7:. -. : ^.7 -.: 5- 3. 7SI 62. J1 5 1?!^.475"; -I393 5 6. ^7r.. ;
..---.-----..------.----.----.. -- .- .


II



-- -- -------^----,- A ^ ------- -- ----.4 4- --- ------ --- ** *- + *----- -A---- --"------ -- I -- -

I I
/' i
*




.i----------.--------.----------- i --------.-----------. -
LI I I I
I J I
Si I

I





I I
I I
S. i I




i I


I I
4 ii 1* i
-...-- .-- -4 -,- ----..-..-- ---- -- 4- ----- ...---- --- ----"- ---_. .....- t-- .. t.
3/72 6/72 9/72 12/72 3/73 6/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 6/74 9/74 12/74 3/75 6/75 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/76 12/76 3/77

".L4C'- C.:,TTEPS .HS 2


- r '"" -U


* c717


INTERCEPT (A) -
SLOPE (2)


EXCLUDEC VALUES-


.02983
6.82876
.0U042


SIGNIFICANCE R -
STO EPPOR OF A -
STO ERROR OF 8 -


MISSING VALUE -


.*.**.. IS .. I'TJ) IF A VOEFFICISNT CANt;GT SE ^OUFUTE0.


a.53


6.64


.21533
.7515&



86













Fig. 23: Bottom'pH at Station 1 (Apalachicola Bay) from November, 1974 to March, 1977.






2'."'.r 3; T'TT ..RL'S 2 77/03/ii. PAGE 33
S k.1' .*'*".-TIJ O" t -' 77/:, /11.,
.: ) :" (AC'OSs) DAYS
^.5.' :.3. '.' u 557. 71? 7 726. T 5rs 894.17-01iO62. 32501230.4750139.625 1566.77500173
*-------------------------*-------+----- ----------*-----------------------

I I










I+ 7. 7~ 1
i /





iVr
I I







----------------- ------ ----- --- --------- *--- ------ ---*------ - -- -- -
----------------- -------------- ------------------------------------------(---------i----------__7
II I 1


7'*"i I .79


II
I I I5

I I.

I I



I ,
-.*--.;-- .**.-...........---- - -+*---*-- ..--**- .--+.---
S-- O ,7 -
-', 11' .: } '.,rI 5 ; R rF ;














Fig. 24: Surface pH at Station 5 (East Bay) from November, 1974 to March, 1977






S: 77/3/11. AGE

'Ci'i C'J /-! (4CkOSSI DAYS
.;. .. .. T'-.-I .: ="'.7 : '6.-'5,;P g94..750'313 j2.j325C12,.475 l). 8.6 ..25 .156 b.775 .173.925z
^*-------t- --------.--------*------------,----+..-- -- -





-+---------+------ ------------------- ----*--- 7---------------------- ----+--- ---*--------- ---------- 4-
I I I

I
I I Ii


S5I I





II 7.92
I II



- - -- - - -- - - 1
1 I II
I I
I + 7.166


I I A I Z

7I I I
I A \

I I I
II
I----------------------*-----------***-- --- **** ---- -- --***- --- *
1 46



*1 I + 6 .62
I I
III


I I
S .3S ) r I TI 6.6










*T.2,39', Ih r ry p rF : ( 4) 7 ,t g s. ST O E kPO R OF A J 77 5

G;.,,Z ..; R' SLOPE (C) -.1ci15 STO ERROR OF 8 ,0 ,9
CLUDE VALUES- SS G VALUES 0







1 I"TD I A IO-FFICIENT CANNOT EE CO PUT\D.
II I


.------------------ -,--------------*.--
/723/73 6/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 6/74 9/74 12/74 3/75 6/75 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/76 12/76 3/77




I (A) *-..1'"" -0:335 SI.YIFIC 1MCF. f- .3,?7?

; '- a-..CCiI =Sl-CP (c) -.^C'$5 STO ERROR OF A .Jcc9




*""*-** ; II r'T'r L IF rt ;0!;tFFICI~kIr C4NN'( I E I NCPUTFO-
A~.,~~,~~~.,i~r -nu;xii tiim ;Riil~












Fig. 25r Bottom pH at Station 5 (East Bay) from November, 1974 to March, 1977-





APALACH SCATTEGRA,'S 2 77/93/11. PAGE 9
F'TE NJNAME CREATIONN DATE s 77/03/11.1
SeATTEPRGRMA OF (COWN) QH-5 (ACROSS) DAYS
221.5750i 389.725' 557.75(0 726.025,0 $94.175Gil012.3250C1233.475CD1398.625C31566.7750 1734. 925.0
.------------- --* ---- -----*-------- --------------------
ii I
I I 1 I







L----------------..-----.1-----.----------------- ---------- ------- -.------.-----

7,76 + I i + 7.76
I I I I






I n
7., I I \ 34



II I I
I I I I7.5




I----------------------------------------------------------- -----.------------ ---- ---- --
I I I I
7.13 I I + 7. S
I I I I
i I i I

I I
I I
.3 + I A + 6.92


,7 I 6.71
I I i



5 + I 1 6.50
----*^----*----+-------------+----------- ---+ -*--*--******---+---+-*--**------
3/72 6/72 9/72 12/72 3/73 6/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 6/74 9/74 12/74 3/75 6/75 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/76 12/76 3/77 000
AP.LAC iC~TT"GRANS 2

.T.T.ST: o...
--' "-' L 5:. ;?.i iSLEC -. .CC 275 SIGNIFICANCE R .3S546
; :- : .I ..47 i T (A) 7.lfri) eTO r sMR or a .i A T-
S'^ : : ';:ui'TE (3) .CLIZ .r. ...;o r';

L-t.' ? v. u-S ; .CLULCE VALUES- S ?ISSI'; VALUES P1

.""..." '* 2:',.1~') IF CoErFC: r CAvN'YT E C'PUTr-

_~_ ~~ ____~_~ ._ ~__-______ __,-...- _ui.^-----..- n ^;l~.W<1-I-i. a: el*~Pfi-l -**"(*-*.'-* **r-





Fig. 26: Surface orthophosphate levels (pg/a) at Station 2A (Apalachicola Bay) from June, 1972
to September, 1976.
S---- ---- ---- ------------ -- ----- ---
SI I
I I I
1 1 I I
T I
I I I
I I r
T I I I
T i I
r l T
SI I T
4 ? + I I *
I I I T
ST I T
I I II
I I I
'1.3 + I I + 4
I I I
--------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------
I T I I
I I i
I I +

I I
I I 1I I
TI IT
1 T
+ I1 + 1


SI I
I- ----- - --T l [ --- -- -
S *.( I 1 4





SI I
I I I I



I I I I
I T T I





I I I T
I I I

S"I I I
1I I I

I T I / T
I I IT


S.10


+ v i
.+ -- ----- ---- -- -- ----. --- --1- /.- + .-- -- ---- -- --+---+-. ---+-- ----- -----
3/72 6/72 9/72 12/72 3/73 6/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 6/74 9/74 12/74 3/75 6/75 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/76


77/0'/23.


SCATTI..,' IvFPSCN PiYSGFEM


PA;E 10


STATISTICS..
Lr-, r rLA 'r CI (Q)
STU Lt,- -F LST -
.I ':; FICANLE A -
'ClGhlFTiNCE B -
fLCO'fED ALUC -


.28143
1o.?4320
.20392-
.03731


R SQUAPEDO
INTEPCEFT (A) -
,LOFE (B)


XGCLUI'ED VALUES-


.07923
3.97436
.00829


SIGNIFICANCE R -
Sin ERROR OF A -
STO ERROR OF 0 -


PrSSInr, VALUES -


S*'*"*** IS PRINTFO If A Cnr.FFICIrNT CANNOT IE COMPUTED.


~ -r-p----- -sICIrr-- I-- U I~WUl~Ur~I~I~CC-- 14--
- -'L.-- ... & ..-i


f'). "







47.82



41.93



6. 14



Id .30



24.46



19.6?





12.78



6.94



1.10


.03731
4.74990
.0045?


5







Fig. 27: Surface orthophosphate levels (pg/l) at Station 5 (East Bay) from November, 1972 to
September, 1976.
--------------------**-------- --------------.----------- .-. .-.
/ 7 '.
.I I I

I I
SI jI
7 4 . I 4 .97
I I T I
I I I I
I I I I


1 T I I
I I I



I I 1
.2 I I *
I I I I
I I I I
I I
















.7 --------------------- ----------- ----------- -------- ----- -- ---- -----
II Ir
I T i
l I T
I I















S?55 OF S 162472 INTCPT A) 8.392 n OP OF A 8.3I73
T S
I I I -L' 5
I I I I


i I I -
I-----------------------------------------------------------------------I
+ T 9







-I - -- - i
I ...... I I. ....

CI T I
C 0 IT,
I I I
T T
I t I
S4------------
3/72 6/72 9/72 12/72 3/73 6/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 6/74 9/74 12/7/5 3/76 6/76 91/7






,.1101 P U~J-P lU- .02894 .I1,6;IFICJ'1C[ 2 ,163 2
C t, OF [ST iE,62.72 4?ITE0CEPT (A) 8.33982 ': EHPOP OF A 8,tJ73
'IFiCd.F A .IF 230 SL[FE (B) .1073': CCTR(n rD'P F U .0??F





*.';- .-" - -U .f'O)'2







Fig. 23: Surface nitrate values (pg/t) at Station 2A (Apalachicola Bay) from May, 1972 to
September, 1976.
.4----,----+----t--_------- ---------------------------- ------- ---------------------------------
I.O' I ?5 00
I I
I I I
t I
I I
I T I
I I I
I T I T
+UN* O I I 41 0
] I
I I I I
T I
17".20 + 1 179.20
I I I

I I I







-. -......- ..... ......... .. - "T
ST T
+3.60 1 153.60
II
1 T I
I II
I I I
T I I
SI
IT I
I I





I T I
II .


.t---*---+--J--l- -------- ------ -- -*-------*.------' ^ -




3/72 6/72 9/72 12/72 3/73 6/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 6/74 9/74 12/74 3/75 6/75 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/76 1
S EON PhYHEM 7/03/3 PAGE 8
II I T
i I I I









STATIT7TTCS..
F T








CP0.rATI-0. (RL- -.0 x07 L SCUfRFD 00103 S2N5FI CE .60
S R S 27656 INT T ) 8 661 ST OF ?8
1 1 I











T ',lFIC.k:.i..,r- t ,. t 1 lO
i I I I
0+ I I 0
**--+- ----+ ----+~---**--~-----i----- +*--+---- 1 *****---**---+)--~- --~----+----- ~L-,-r-****-----r,-* r
3/72 6/72 9/72 12/72 3/73 6/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 6/74 9/74 12/74 3/75 6/75 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/76 o'ou
StATrIu IdE9"fN I'btGHEM 77/03/23. PAGE 8

STATI'TICS.,
COPrFLATIO0I (R)- -.01207 R SQUARFO .00103 SIUNIFICANCE P .41910
STl r~R uF EST 82.67656 INTLRcrPT (a) 87.76E41 ST') FRIROR OF A 28.31 S87
'lINIFILA\'F A .00174 SLOFL (R) -.00556 STD ERROR OF B .0270'4

PL(TTL" OUiV 41 EXCLUnEO JALUr'- 0 NISSTN( VALUES 3


. P






Fig. 29: Surface nitrate values (pg/l) at Station 5 (East Bay) from October, 1972 to September, 197G.
.f--. ------------------- ----t ----- ----t'--- t----t------- ------t.--------------------.-----------
t II I
I aI |
1* I I
i I I
?q7.40 I A72. 0
I I I
I I I
I I Ij
222 .4 a 1 2?2.40
1 I I
I r



173.20 1 1 1 .4 173.20



I I I
I I T


I I I I
SI

173.20 T I 173.
I 4 T +
T IP


# T T
I T
I I I
I I I I

T' I T
T
TT I




T I
I +



SI T s..
. .... + .. o .... ..---....---...---....---------------------------------------....---...---....---...---....---







! ; LAc I.'T (C)- -. 15014 R SCUARL .02254 ~ISNIF16AMCL P .
TC Or, L-S, 7d.o6238 INTEkCFPT (A) 136.90121 STO EFPROP OF A 39.1,1377
[CtiFIrA'Cr A .000,8 SLOFF (o) -.0?97F. Roop lF B .0341tt
J~ :F ICAi-r .r9..b

LrI'LLJ vLUES 33 7ACLUPLID VALUES- U MISSIt; VALUMi 11

,. 14 F RTi Or) IF A flFtF 'ICIFFIT CANNOT PL COtIUIED.
., ....... .1 ................. .. .































V. Phytoplankton Productivity and Nutrient Analysis
















PHYTOPLANKTON ECOLOGY OF APALACHICOLA BAY, FLORIDA








Richard L. Iverson

Vernon B. Myers









Department of Oceanography

Florida State University











INTRODUCTION

Apalachicola Bay is a shallow, bar-built estuary approximately 12

miles long and 7 miles wide with a mean depth of 2.7 meters (M.L.W.). The

bay is protected to the south by a line of barrier islands adjacent to

the Gulf of Mexico (Fig. 1) and receives an average daily freshwater

input of 22,000 cfs from the Apalachicola River (U.S. Geological Survey,

1971). Apalachicola Bay supports the major Florida oyster fishery

(Colberg, et al., 1968.; Menzel and Cake, 1969). Dawson (1955) investigated

the hydrography of the bay while Gorsline (1963) described hydrographic

and submarine geological features of the bay. Less than 7 percent of

the bay bottom supports macrophyte growth (National Estuarine Study, 1970)

suggesting that phytoplankton are the primary autotrophs in Apalachicola Bay.

The investigation reported here was designed to determine patterns of

phytoplankton standing crop and productivity as well as factors controlling

phytoplankton productivity in Apalachicola Bay.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Stations were set at various locations in Apalachicola Bay (Fig. 2)

and sampling was started July, 1972. Water temperature and salinity

were measured with a Beckman RS5-3 in situ CSTD. Solar radiation data

was obtained from a pyrheliometer located at the FSU Marine Laboratory.

Apalachicola River discharge, measured at a gauging station near

Chattahoochee, Florida, was obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey.

Samples for chemical and biological analysis were taken at the surface

and bottom of the water column. Turbidity was measured with a Hach

Model 2100A turbidimeter. Total carbon dioxide for use in computing

phytoplankton productivity data was measured with an Oceanography










International carbon analyzer using the method of Menzel and Vaccaro (1964).

Nutrient samples were filtered through pre-washed Whatman GF/A glass fiber

filters and poured into nalgene bottles. After addition of 1 ml of a 2

percent (w/v) solution of mercuric chloride, the samples were placed on

ice where they were kept until analyzed. Molybdate-reactive phosphorus

was measured using the Murphy and Riley method (Strickland and Parsons,

1972). Nitrate was analyzed with a modification of the Morris and Riley

method (Strickland and Parsons, 1972) Nitrite was measured with the

Bendschneider-Robinson method (Strickland and Parsons, 1972). Reactive

silicate was measured according to the Mullin-Riley method with modifications

as given in Strickland and Parsons (1972).

Five hundred milliliters of water were passed through a Whatman

GF/A glass fiber filter for chlorophyll analysis with the spectrophotometric

method given in Strickland and Parsons (1972). Phytoplankton productivity

was measured with the carbon-14 method (Steeman-Nielsen, 1952). Samples

were incubated in situ for about three hours after which the contents of

the 180 ml incubation bottles were filtered through Whatman GF/C scintillation

grade glass fiber filters. Radiocarbon activity on the filters was measured

by liquid scintillation spectrometry using Aquasol as the scintillation

cocktail. One hundred milliliter aliquotes of bay water were filtered

through Millipore 0.45 micron filters for analysis of phytoplankton

species composition by the method of McNabb (1960). Nutrient enrichment

experiments were conducted with water from East Bay and from Apalachicola

Bay using modifications of the methods of Ryther and Guillard (1959) and

Menzel and Ryther (1961). (See appendices I and II for details of the

methods).











RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The circulation of surface waters of Apalachicola Bay is controlled

by wind (Fig. 2). Bottom circulation was uncoupled from wind except

following periods when wind speeds were high enough to mix the water

column.

River discharge is the primary factor which controls nutrient

concentrations in Apalachicola Bay (Table 1). Surface nitrate concentrations

in both East Bay and Apalachicola Bay were highest during winter periods

of maximum river discharge (Fig. 3, 4). An increase in surface phosphate

concentration was also observed during winter periods of maximum river

discharge (Fig. 5,6). Maxima in phosphate concentrations, observed during

1976 were the result of wind-mixing of sediments into the water column

during periods of strong winds over the bay (Myers, manuscript in preparation).

Phosphate maxima of this magnitude are not observed in the data record

prior to 1976 since boats available for use were not capable of operation

during periods of high winds. There do not appear to have been significant

changes in yearly cycles of surface nitrate or phosphate concentrations at

these two stations over the sampling period.

Surface phytoplankton productivity patterns exhibit maxima ,in the

spring and minima in the fall and winter (Fig. 7,8). Results of nutrient

enrichment experiments suggest that nutrients are not limiting for

phytoplankton productivity during the winter but are limiting during the

summer (Estabrook, 1973). An extensive investigation of summer nutrient

limitation revealed that phosphate was the primary nutrient limiting

phytoplankton productivity both in East Bay and in Apalachicola Bay with

nitrate limiting productivity with frequency less than phosphate in










Apalachicola Bay (Appendices I and II). Water temperature is a major factor

which limits phytoplankton productivity in this estuarine system (Fig. 9).

Chlorophyll a can be used to estimate phytoplankton biomass (Lorenzen,

1968). A comparison of surface chlorophyll a values reveals a general

-decrease in maximum values for Apalachicola Bay (Fig..10)compared to East

Bay (Fig. 11). Further data analysis will be required to determine the

cause of this apparent decrease.

REFERENCES

Colberg, M.R., T.S. Dietrich, and D.M. Windham. 1968. The social and

economic values of Apalachicola Bay, Florida. Final Report to

Fed. Water Pollution Contorl Admin. Contract No. 14-12-117. 58 p.

Dawson, C.E. 1955. A contribution to the hydrography of Apalachicola

Bay, Florida. Inst. Mar. Sci. 4:13-35.

Estabrook, R.H. 1973. Phytoplankton ecology and hydrography of Apalachicola

Bay, Florida. M.S. Thesis, Florida State University. 166 p.

Gorsline, D.S. 1963. Oceanography of Apalachicola Bay, Florida. In

T. Clements (ed.). Essays in Marine Geology in Honor of K.O. Emery.

p. 69-96.

Lorenzen, C. 1968, Carbon/chlorophyll relationships in an upwelling area.

Limnol. Oceanogr. 13:202-204.

McNabb, C.D. 1960. Enumeration of freshwater phytoplankton concentrated

on the membrane filter. Limnol. Oceanogr. 5:57-61.

Menzel, D.W. and J.H. Ryther. 1961. Nutrients limiting the production of

phytoplankton in the Sargasso Sea with special reference to iron.

Deep Sea Res. 7:276-281.

Menzel, D.W. and R.F. Vaccaro. 1964. The measurement of dissolved organic











and particulate carbon in seawater. Limnol. Oceanogr. 9:138-142.

Menzel, R.W. and E.W. Cake, Jr. 1969. Identification and analysis of

the biological value of Apalachicola Bay, Florida. Final report

to the Fed. Water Poll. Contr. Admin. Contract No. 14-12-191. 164 p.

Ryther, J.H. and R.R.L. Guillard. 1959. Enrichment experiments as a means

of studying nutrients limiting to phytoplankton production. Deep Sea

Res. 6:65-69.

Steeman-Nielsen, E. 1952. The use of radioactive carbon (C-14) for

measuring organic production in the sea. J. du Conseil. 18:117-140.

Strickland, J.D.H. and T.R. Parsons. 1972. A practical handbook of

seawater analysis. Bull. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada No. 167 (2nd ed.).











TABLE I

CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF LINEAR REGRESSIONS OF NITRATE,
ORTHOPHOSPiATE, SILICATE, AND AMMONIA ON SALINITY




Date NO3 P04 SiO3 N"3


Oct 14, 1972



Dec 2, 1972



Jan 6, 1973



Feb 17, 1973



Mar 19, 1973



Apr 22, 1973



May 19, 1973



Jun 11, 1973



Jul 12, 1973



Aug 22, 1973



Sep 10, 1973


T -.70

B +.12

T -.88

B -.75

T -.55

B -.84

T +.002

B +.58

T -.95

B -.97

T -.76

B -.62

T -.88

B -.96

T -.60

B -.94

T -.82

B -.80

T -.90

B -.91

T -.99

B -.98


-.73

-.14

-.20

-.55

-.89

-.82

-.95

-.11

-.78

-.,60

-.77

-.62

-.54

-.65

-.01

-.61

-.10

+.42

+.04

-.84

-.29


-.98

-.85

-.99

-.87

-.33

-.002

-.98

-.998

-.93

-.80

-.998

-.99

-.995

-.93

-.97

-.93

-.95

-.94

-.995


-.02

-.15

-.85

-.45

--.67

-.93

-.48

-.81

-.55

+.06

-.82

+.03

-.50

-.91

-.83


-.99 -.98



































































Figure 1. Map of Apalachicola Bay


_____ ___
















































Figure 2. Surface salinity isopleths. East Bay and Apalachicola Bay sample locations are indicated
as terisks.








....~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ -'- -.. ... ... -" - 4- ... -. .- 4 -
-----------+--------
II
!: i
TT T
2-2 .1 + 27? 4
I r
I T

-97. + 1 97? "n
I I

7:- 20 I 4 73.2
I [A I I
.- ---------- ....--.-.----...--. -..

7+ r
T T
IV160 1 1 1 410f

i T I




S : I ]
I "r T L ....
T T




2,Ib I+
T i
, I T I I









I I I+ .0


.... .. .... + -. -- "-. ." . + *--+-------------


3/72 6/72 9/72 12/72 3/73 6/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 6/74 9/74 12/"4 3/75 6/75 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/76 (00
Figure 3. Surface nitrate -nitrogen in East Bay.
Figure 3. Surface nitrate-nitrogen- in East Bay. 1 ,








f .-'--- --------- ---- ------ +----+ --- ----+---- ---- ---- ----- ---+------ -+---- ----+ --------+----+t .
!; ;. I ;, 1
:T :' M

?3i .4 r
T I

T I
SI I
IT I I
Zsa.SG ,,* ?"''.o


t79.20 +7q.20


-- -------- -_----+---- ------ ----- --- ----------------+----- ------ -- ---- --- --- --- ------
i I
S' Ti


1 0 15 .6
T T


C ( 4I i

$ I1 / HI
I I
I


,, i r
*I I I
_.- ___----- _-. -_ --.- ----_---^- ---.-,- -- ---!-_ -_ -_ --.-i- -_ _. ^---. --r -_ ii-p _- .._
6G : i i i\ r




/ I I I

j I 1 I
I 1
I I I I
I5^ i V'/i j \ j /-'^



; --------.---.---.-^-.--- ---".*+----- ------- .----+A-.--'-++- /---. 4.,---- ----..-f.-.4...-.4 -+---4.w--*-
.'/?2 C/72 9/72 12/72 3/73 6/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 5/74 9/74 12/74 3/75 6/75 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/7.

Figure 4. Surface nitrate-nitrogen in East Bay.









7e 70


7".97


7. 3a


T
T

T i
r
r 1
I
i T


I i
T r
T I
---------------------------------'^-'-'-"------------------------

T


I

I
39.55 I

3 2
31. 72 -.

r
*'--'-.-.- _._ ?-'----


I
I
I


T
+
I
I
I

I


16 I
I -l I

T




.7-*I
I T I

SI

*-_- -_~--,J.--_ A----L----~-^--- +--* ~--__A-----Jr------*------ L~-r-------.- --_-L--.-l~ L-----^JII--- *-- --*--__*__-
3/72 6/72 9/72 12/72 3/73 6/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 6/74 9/74 12/74 .3/75 6/75 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/76


Figure 5. Surface po'sphate-P in East Bay.


,Z.r. 4








47. *



3jg.55



31.72



27."? 8 -


8.23


7 .17









,-.------.------- ---+----------------+--------+----*----- ---+-----+-------*-------+------+---+.
59.57 I + 59.50
I I I

S-I I
I I I
I I I
53.66 I I

I I I
=I I



6.1 I + 3I.14
I II
4:7 I I+ 41.
i T




'I I .+ . 14
------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------

I I










T /7 I ]
1 I
I I


T T i




.I I + I






Vt6 / +It .5 lIco
19 6 Z -- -. .- -- -.- ---- .- - - -- -
TI I o








Figure 6. Surface hosphate-P n Apaahoa Bay.
12 7I + 12.78






I i
3.10 + I I +i
.- -. --a i -- ---*--- + -- -- ----+----+----+----+-------es--- ----+-- --------+----t----+----+----+---- .
3/72 6/72 9/72 12/72 3/73 6/73 9/73 12/73 -3/74 6/74 9/74 12/74 -/75 6/75 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/76

Figure 6. Surface Phosphate-P in Apalachicola Bay.








..----....+-.-.. -+--+-- --*-------- ------ -+----+- .+----.----* ----+----- -.---. ----+----.
P?."f I I. 4 72.00
I I I T
IT i I
I I I T
I I I I
i.90 a T + 64.90
I T I I
I I I I
S7. 0 I I 57.80
I I I I
I I I T
T T I
I\ I
. 7u .I I. 50070
TT
7I I I
T -/--- ----- -- -- -i \- *i -- -
SI I I
tI T 1 43.60








T-------........................\L-.-..----..-.. ............J.... ................... ......_O
0 22.30
r,. + + I I + 36 .50



T IL T
I I I I








11i 1 1 Ai
I TI I

I I I
294i 0 I + 22.30
I I a









1.00 + I
i I I i
37I I 9 6 / 3 6 9
S6.2e I I + 16520
II I



+~io I 8.10
r I I I
I T I
1. 00 1 1.0

3/72 6/72 9/72 12/72 3/73 6/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 6/74 9/74 12/74 3/75 6175 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/76


Figure 7. Surface primary productivity in East Bay.









...---- -----+--- +----- ----.------------+---- -----.----- -- ----------------- ---.
q9.00 + I I + 99.00
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
i I I T
89.20 + I I 89.20
I I T I
I I I T
I I I I
I I I I
/9.40 + I 7940
I I I I
I T I I
I I I I
I I I I
69.60 + I I + 69.60
I I I I
]------- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------------- -- T
I I I I
$I I I I
59.80 + I I + 59.80
I T I I
I I I I



I T T I
S50.0 + I 0.00
I I I i*
T T
I I I II
40.20 + I I 40.20
1 I I I IN



I I I
I I I
SI I I
T I T I
I I I
20.t0 ++ 20.60





I T I
I I \I / I I
1n. I 8 \ I \. / \ B f t 10.80



1.00 + I I + .00
---*,, --- --- .*-- +,-* --*- --- ---+- ---+ -- ----------+.-------+---*------ -+--- --- -- ----- --- ----+ .
3/72 6/72 9/72 12/72 3/73 6/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 6/74 9/74 12/74 3/75 6/75 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/76 QO

Figure 8. Surface primary productivity in Apalachicola Bay.





83.


/ /
0/

0 /

/








/ -.


0 5 10
WATER


15 20
TEMP (0C.)


Figure 9. Productivity as a function of temperature.


-- --Oc-Feb
- --Feb-Sep


70-


60O


/.


501


I,,


L





U)

E


40-


30-


o


l-.'I
*~, *
rssO
O


201-


10-


25


30


-- -


T ... .. m


I









l~'ic i t-i~ ~~ c)--- ~--- ^- ~--~--- ---+,--+-,-1-,--.
1'.10 I.
T I
I I
1
II
11.95 + I I
I I T

TT
I I
I I
T T
T I

I
a.50 I

T I
SI
I5 I
S7,3I


iI
SI
6. h'20 +I

--- --- --- ----.-- --
i i
I
L) I
SI


3.90 +
T
I
i
2.75 +
T
I
T
7
t.63- +


13.10


11.95


10.80


9.65


.850


7.35


6.20

00


T I

S26

I I
- 7 2-L--- /*1--2* / 3-/ 6-3 /3 / **4 /- -2--/ --3-/-- + --+-- ---+ -7--5-- -2-- /- ----+--7--6-
3/72 6/72 9/72 12/72 3/73 6/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 6/74 9/74 12/74 3/75 6/75 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/76


.75


.60


Figure 10. Surface chlrophyll a for Apalachicola Bay.









.#----+---- ----+-------------------- ----+--------* ----- ---- --- -- -
tr.E 4 I T
I I I I
T T I I
I I I I
y T T
SI I
T r r
I I
V I I i
4 Ir t I I
I I

T I I
I I 1
TT T T
T.L1 1 1 4
r-".........----- .-- -. --- .--r-- -f--- -.-----
.4a I I I
I I I I



5.55 + I I
T r r



I I I I

I I I \
4.62 I I I
I I I I
I I I i
I I I
I I
I I I
I TI I


1.7 + I I
I I I
I I I
I T I


I T I
I TI I


TI IT
r I I r
T IT
.80 + I

I... r
r.


------- +- ....... +-......- -- .-- .-- -+- --..- ---- .
3/72 6/72 9/72 12/72 3/73 6/73 9/73 12/73 3/74 6/74 9/74 12/74 3/75 6/75 9/75 12/75 3/76 6/76 9/76

Figure 11. Surface chloropty -r-Tf E-t-Bsay...


'I


10.20



9.77



s i4



7.41


6.48



5.55



4.62


3.69


1 *81


.90





86.




APPENDIX 1




,.


-87.


ASPECTS OF NUTRIENT LIMITATION OF PHYTOPLANKTON

PRODUCTIVITY IN THE APALACHICOLA BAY SYSTEM



by

Vernon B. Myers

Richard L. Iverson

Dept. of Oceanography
Florida State University
Tallahassee, Florida











INTRODUCTION

The quantification of the extent of nutrient limitation in a marine

ecosystem is critical for the prediction of the response of the system to

various nutrient related stresses. To make sound environmental policy,

the critical nutrients and the relationships between these nutrients and

plant productivity must be known.

In estuarine systems, patterns of nutrient limited phytoplankton

production are complex and variable. It has been suggested that while

nutrients can limit phytoplankton growth in stratified estuaries, shallow,

well-mixed estuaries usually have nutrients, and especially phosporus, present

in excess of phytoplankton demands (Pomeroy, et al, 1972). However, spatial

and temporal variability in nitrogen and phosphorus limitation have been

identified in both types of estuaries (Putnam, 1967; Flemer, 1970; Carpenter,

1971; Ryther & Dunstan, 1971; Thayer, 1971; Kraswick & Caperon, 1973).

Nitrogen occurs in estuarine systems in various dissolved, and particulate

forms. Nitrite, nitrate, molecular nitrogen, ammonium, urea, dissolved

organic nitrogen, particulate organic nitrogen, and amino acids are nitrogen

forms that can be used directly or indirectly by plankton in marine ecosystems

(Dugdale & Goering, 1967; Riley & Chester, 1971; Carpenter, 1971; Thayer,

1971). The distribution of the different nitrogen forms in marine environments

is controlled by complex interactions between biological, physical, and

chemical processes.

Phosphorus occurs in estuarine systems, in a variety of collodial,

dissolved, and particulate forms (Taft, et al, 1975). The distribution of the
A
forms of phosporus in marine systems is controlled by physical, chemical, and

biological processes. The residence time of phosphate in coastal systems is









fairly short, between 5 and 100 hours (Pomeroy, 1960). Phosphorus concen-

trations in estuarine systems may be controlled by reversible sorption

reactions between sediments and the overlying water (Rochford, 1951; Carritt

& Goodgal, 1954; Jitts, 1959). Biological activity within the sediments can

also move significant amounts of phosphorus between the sediments and the

water column (Pomeroy et al, 1965; Hale, 1975), and has been shown to

control the seasonal cycle of phosphorus concentrations in several shallow

turbid estuaries (Pomeroy, et al, 1972). Phosphorus fluxes within estuaries

can also be dominated by reactions occurring within the water column.

Phosphorus uptake within the water column is usually due to phytoplankton

and/or bacteria (Correll, et al, 1975; Taft, et al; 1975). Regeneration of

phosphorus within the water column can take place by autolysis, zooplankton

consumption and remineralization, or bacterial degradation (Pomeroy, et al,

1963; Martin, 1968; Hargrave & Geen, 1968; Peters & Rigler, 1973;

Barsdate, et al, 1974).

Previous phytoplankton productivity studies in Apalachicola Bay

indicated that nitrogen and phosphorus were potential limiting nutrients,

while silicate and trace metal additions never stimulated phytoplankton

productivity (Estabrook, 1973). This paper presents preliminary results of:

nutrient enrichment experiments and phosphate uptake experiments designed to

quantify the extent of nutrient limited phytoplankton production and to

determine the importance of phosphorus in the Apalachicola Bay System.












MATERIALS & METHODS
Sampling trips to Apalachicola Bay and East Bay (Fig. 1, Livingston

et al.) were taken seasonally during 1975 and 1976 to determine the extent

of nutrient limitation in the Bay System. A detailed description of the

physiography and biota of the Apalachicola Bay System can be found

in Livingston et al (1974).

Water temperature and salinity were determined with a Beckman RS 5-3

Portable salinometer. Secchi disc measurements -were taken to estimate light

attenuation with depth. Turbidities were analyzed with a Hach model 2100

A Turbidometer. Suspended solids were determined gravimetically. Inorganic

suspended solids were also determined gravimetically after ashing the samples

at 5500C for 4 hrs.

500 ml water samples were collected at stations 1A in East Bay and

7 in Apalachicola Bay, for nutrient analysis (Fig. 1, Livingston et al).

Samples were immediately filtered through Whatman GF/A glass fiber filters

upon collection. One ml of 2% HgCl2 solution was added to eliminate microbial

processes and the samples were then placed on ice. All nutrients were

analyzed within 48 hrs. Soluble reactive phosphate was analyzed by the

method of Murphy and Riley as out lined in Strickland.& Parsons (1972).

Total dissolved phosphate was analyzed by the persulfate oxidation method

listed in Standard Methods (1971). Nitrite was determined by the method

of Bendschneider & Robinson given in Strickland & Parsons (1972). Nitrate

determinations were based on the method of Morris & Riley with modifications

given in Strickland & Parsons (1972).

Chlorophyll-a was determined by the method of Loftus & Carpenter









(1971) or the spectrophotometric method given in Strickland & Parsons (1972).

The total inorganic carbon ( C02) content of the water was either

determined with a Total Carbon Analyzer (Oceanography International, Inc.)

using an infrared detector or from a salinity vs CO2 standard curve

determined from 2 years of data collected in the Bay System. Dissolved

organic carbon was determined by the method of Menzel & Vaccaro (1964) using

the Total Carbon Analyzer. Phytoplankton taxonomy was determined by the

method of Holmes (1962). Cell carbon was estimated from cell volumes

according to the method of Strathmann (1967).

Two-factorial nutrient enrichment experiments with nitrogen and phosphorus

were conducted with phytoplankton in water samples from stations in East

Bay and Apalachicola Bay. General methods of nutrient enrichment experiments

can be found in Scheleske, et al (1974) and Gerhart & Likens (1975). Water

was collected in 20 1 polyethylene carboys and aliquots were placed in 500 ml

glass incubation bottles. Samples from each station were treated with either

0, 5, or 50 ug-atm/1 nitrate-nitrogen or 0.0,0.2,0.5, or 5.0 ug-atm/1 phosphate-

phosphorus. Nutrients were added as 1 ml volumes. Duplicates were prepared

for each concentration. A 4 hour acclimation period was begun about 10 hours

and was followed by an incubation with either 2 or 4 uCi 14C labeled

bicarbonate for approximately 4 hours. Incubation and acclimation were

performed in situ Two 100 ml aliquots from each bottle were filtered

through Whatman GF/C glass fiber filters. The filters were placed in 5 ml

of AquasolR and the activity was determined by liquid scintillation counting

(LSC). Primary productivity was calculated by the method of Strickland

and Parsons (1972).

Phosphorus uptake was measured in the Apalachicola Bay System to

determine phosphate dynamics and uptake rates of natural plankton communities.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs