Mitigation and Monitoring for the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA and Hamford Water SPA Annual Review 2012 INSERT YOUR PICTURE(S) IN THIS CELL
March 2013
9Y0158
WestOne 114 Wellington Street Leeds LS1 1BA United Kingdom +44 113 3884866 Telephone Fax [email protected] E-mail www.royalhaskoning.co.uk Internet
Document title Mitigation and Monitoring for the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA and Hamford Water SPA Annual Review 2012
Status Final Date March 2013
Project number 9Y0158 Client Harwich Haven Authority Reference 9Y0158/R/303957/Leeds
Drafted by Matt Simpson and Rosie Kelly
Checked and Approved by Matt Simpson Date/initials check / approve …MS……………… …5/2/13………………. .
CONTENTS
Page
1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Objectives of Compensation, Mitigation and Monitoring 3 1.3 Detailed objectives for mitigation and compensation 4 1.3.1 Approach channel deepening 4 1.3.2 Trinity III Terminal (Phase 2) Extension 4 1.3.3 Monitoring 5
2 ACTIVITIES TO DATE 6 2.1 Introduction 6 2.2 Maintenance of Harwich Harbour: Dredging and Disposal 6 2.3 Approach Channel Deepening: Habitat Replacement 7 2.4 Approach Channel Deepening: Sediment Replacement 7 2.4.1 Stour Estuary 8 2.4.2 Orwell Estuary 9 2.4.3 Lower Harbour 11 2.4.4 Conclusion 11 2.5 Approach Channel Deepening: Beneficial Use Schemes 11 2.6 Trinity III Terminal (Phase 2) Extension: Disposal at Sea 11 2.7 Trinity III Terminal (Phase 2) Extension: Habitat Enhancement 12 2.8 Trinity III Terminal (Phase 2) Extension: Sediment Replacement 12 2.9 Other activities and events 12
3 BATHYMETRIC AND TOPOGRAPHIC DATA 14 3.1 Further analysis of saltmarsh extent 14 3.2 Intertidal and subtidal area and volume 15
4 BENTHIC MONITORING 16 4.1 Stour and Orwell Estuaries 16 4.1.1 Annual benthic monitoring 16 4.1.2 Conclusions of monitoring undertaken to date 19 4.2 Felixstowe South Reconfiguration monitoring 22 4.3 Inner Gabbard East disposal site 23
5 TRIMLEY MARSHES MANAGED REALIGNMENT MONITORING 25 5.1 Conclusions based on monitoring undertaken to date 25 5.2 Agreement reached at the 2011 Regulators meeting 25
6 TRINITY III TERMINAL HABITAT ENHANCEMENT MONITORING 26 6.1 Background 26 6.2 Methodology 26 6.3 Trimley enhancement scheme 26 6.3.1 Introduction 26 6.3.2 Particle size analysis 29 6.3.3 Benthic invertebrate univariate results 29 6.3.4 Benthic invertebrate multivariate results 30 6.3.5 Topography 31
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - i - March 2013
6.3.6 Vegetation 31 6.3.7 Waterfowl 32 6.4 Shotley enhancement scheme 33 6.4.1 Introduction 33 6.4.2 Particle size analysis 33 6.4.3 Benthic invertebrate univariate results 33 6.4.4 Benthic invertebrate multivariate results 34 6.4.5 Shotley topographical results 34 6.4.6 Vegetation 37 6.4.7 Waterfowl 37 6.5 Conclusion 38
7 SUSPENDED SEDIMENT MONITORING 39 7.1 Monitoring results 39
8 BIRD DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE 40 8.1 Background 40 8.2 High water count trends 43 8.2.1 WeBS Alerts 43 8.3 Low water trends 44 8.3.1 Suffolk Wildlife Trust count results 44 8.3.2 Species accounts 45 8.3.3 WeBS low water counts (2010/11) 74 8.4 Bird movements 74 8.5 Summary of findings of waterbird monitoring 74 8.5.1 High water counts 74 8.5.2 Low water counts 75
9 STOUR AND ORWELL CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT 76 9.1 Condition assessment 76
10 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 79 10.1 Bathymetric and topographic data 79 10.2 Benthic monitoring 79 10.2.1 Stour and Orwell Estuaries 79 10.2.2 Felixstowe South Reconfiguration 79 10.3 Trimley Marshes managed realignment monitoring 80 10.4 Trinity III Terminal habitat enhancement schemes 80 10.5 Bird distribution and abundance 80 10.5.1 WeBS Alerts 80 10.5.2 Low water counts 81 10.6 Stour and Orwell condition assessment 81 10.7 Recommendations for future monitoring 81 10.7.1 Future monitoring and analysis strategy 81 10.7.2 Future mitigation strategy 82 10.7.3 Future Regulators meetings 82
11 REFERENCES 83
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - ii - March 2013
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
In October 1998, works to deepen the approach channel to the Haven Ports commenced. The works were completed in April 2000. The Harwich Haven Authority's (HHA) Mitigation and Monitoring Package (MMP) for the scheme (PDE and HR Wallingford, 1998) was included by the Department for Transport (DfT) (formerly the DTLR) as part of their consent for the works under the Coast Protection Act, 1949. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) (formerly MAFF) also issued consents to the HHA for the various sediment placement schemes associated with the package under the Food and Environment Protection Act (FEPA) 1985, which include annual monitoring conditions.
In 2002, consent was granted for the Trinity III Terminal (Phase 2) Extension, which was completed in September 2004. A Compensation, Mitigation and Monitoring Agreement (CMMA) for the extension was produced. FEPA consents were issued for the habitat enhancement schemes and the disposal of capital silts at sea, which included monitoring conditions. Under the CMMA, the HHA undertook to implement the actions set out therein as an agent to the Port of Felixstowe in respect of compensation arising from the quay extension.
The first phase of the Felixstowe South Reconfiguration (FSR) project, completed in 2010, involved reclamation, new quay construction and widening of the channel adjacent to the reclamation. Although this project did not require a formal CMMA, there was a need to agree detailed monitoring with CEFAS for the disposal sites and the area around the works. This was agreed in July 2008 and was set out in the following documents:
Specification for Monitoring Biological Communities at Inner Gabbard and Inner Gabbard East Disposal Sites, May 2008, Specification for Monitoring Biological Communities local to the Felixstowe South Reconfiguration, May 2008.
Compliance with the actions set out in the compensation packages, the mitigation measures proposed as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment process and the conditions of the FEPA consents for all of the above schemes must be ensured; this responsibility lies with the HHA. An Annual Report is produced presenting the information collated on the various habitat and sediment replacement schemes and monitoring activities during the preceding year. In addition to these Annual Reports, the HHA is required to undertake a more detailed and comprehensive review of conditions within the estuary every five years.
In 2005, the first stage of the five-yearly review was compiled using the results of bathymetric surveys completed for the Stour estuary. At the time of its production, bathymetric surveys of the Orwell were not complete. The second stage of the review in 2006 incorporated the results of bathymetric surveys for the Orwell, undertaken that year. Findings from related studies completed since the production of the first review were also presented. The Annual Report for 2011/2012 (Royal Haskoning and HR Wallingford, 2012) also represented the second five-yearly review.
The area of study can be seen in Figure 1.1.
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 1 - March 2013
Figure 1.1 Study area
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 2 - March 2013
This report is produced primarily to provide feedback to Natural England, the Environment Agency, the DfT and Defra on the results of the HHAs ongoing monitoring programme. The report also details progress against the objectives of mitigation and a summary of the future strategy for monitoring. The report is one of the management initiatives to ensure compliance with the objectives outlined in the Approach Channel Deepening MMP and the Trinity III (Phase 2) Extension CMMA. It also includes reporting of the findings for the monitoring work carried out as a requirement of the licensing for the Felixstowe South Reconfiguration project.
1.2 Objectives of Compensation, Mitigation and Monitoring
The primary objectives of the compensation, mitigation and monitoring for both schemes are:
1. To avoid any impacts as a result of the works on the favourable conservation status of both habitats, as defined under Article 1(e) of the Habitats Directive, and species, as defined under the Article 1(i); and, 2. To remove any adverse effects arising from the works in order to maintain site integrity in so far as this will be affected by the schemes.
Where ‘favourable conservation status’ is defined as:
Intertidal habitats (i.e. saltmarsh, soft muddy and granular habitats) that, in combination, maintain the geomorphological form and functioning of the estuaries, so that they are capable of sustaining the populations of internationally and nationally important overwintering birds for which the site qualifies.
In 1997 and 2001, when the MMP and CMMA were produced, the qualification of the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA was as follows:
Populations of internationally / nationally important overwintering birds, based on:
Notable numbers of golden plover (under Article 4.1);and Important populations of dunlin; shelduck; dark-bellied geese; redshank; grey plover; black-tailed godwit; turnstone; ringed plover; wigeon; knot; curlew; pintail; mute swans; goldeneye and scaup (under Article 4.2).
Since qualification in 2003, the boundaries of the constituent SSSIs were extended and in May 2005, the SPA boundary was extended to include an additional 360 hectares. The SPA boundary extensions coincide with areas incorporated within enlarged boundaries of the Orwell Estuary SSSI and Stour Estuary SSSI, as well as the whole of Cattawade Marshes SSSI. Following the renotification of SSSIs in 2003 and the SPA in 2005, the site now qualifies under Article 4.1 of the Wild Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) by supporting 1% or more of the Great Britain population of avocet Recurvirostra avosetta. Over the period 1996 to 2000 the SPA supported 21 breeding pairs. It also qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Directive as it is used regularly by 1% or more of the biogeographical populations of a number of migratory species.
The site further qualifies under Article 4.2 as it is used regularly by over 20,000 waterbirds in any season. In the non-breeding season, the site regularly supports
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 3 - March 2013
around 63,000 individual waterbirds (based on the 5 year peak mean recorded between 1993/94 and 1997/98).
1.3 Detailed objectives for mitigation and compensation
1.3.1 Approach channel deepening
Detailed objectives for mitigation and compensation of the effects associated with the 1998/2000 Approach Channel Deepening have also been defined in order to ensure the achievement of the primary objectives (set out above). They can be summarised as follows:
Stour and Orwell Estuaries To create 16.5 hectares of intertidal habitat (compensation) and to prevent the loss of up to 5 hectares per annum of intertidal habitat due to increased rates of erosion, through sediment replacement (mitigation).
Hamford Water To monitor the system, as appropriate, in order to determine the potential for an effect associated with the dredge to arise, and to define existing sand transport pathways offshore and in/out of Hamford Water.
1.3.2 Trinity III Terminal (Phase 2) Extension
Detailed objectives of the mitigation and compensation for the Trinity III (Phase 2) Extension are as follows:
1. To provide an enhanced level of protection to the seawalls along the Shotley and Trimley frontages by raising the intertidal area; 2. By creating additional protection for the seawalls, to enhance the ecological value of some 23ha of the intertidal habitat (of which approximately 20ha will be intertidal mud and 3ha saltmarsh), replacing the feeding habitat lost due to the immediate effect of the quay extension and dredge over the short to medium term; 3. To raise the level of the intertidal mud, thereby increasing its exposure and providing a feeding habitat for waterfowl for a longer period in the tidal cycle (i.e. increasing the number of bird feeding hours), mitigating the effect of a reduced tidal range; and,
4. To offset the predicted increase in the rate of erosion of the intertidal in the Stour and Orwell Estuaries by increasing the existing sediment replacement programme by 5%.
Objectives 1 to 3 find expression through the establishment of the Habitat Enhancement Schemes on the Shotley and Trimley foreshores (see Section 2.7).
The habitat enhancement schemes (see Section 2.7), proposed in conjunction with the Trinity III Terminal (Phase 2) Extension, also have the following objectives:
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 4 - March 2013
1. To increase the stability of the lower Orwell flood defences and provide the opportunity for the development of a long term strategy for the sustainable management of the estuary; and,
2. To compensate for any adverse effect on the integrity associated with the works, while not constraining future options for the sustainable management of flood defences and habitats in the estuarine system
1.3.3 Monitoring
Detailed objectives for monitoring have also been defined in order to determine whether or not any impacts on the favourable conservation status of the European site(s) arise as a result of the dredging, quay extension and their associated mitigation schemes. They can be summarised as:
1. To increase understanding of the processes operating in the Stour and Orwell estuaries and Hamford Water and to define those aspects that relate to the deepening; 2. To measure the change in habitat distribution and to understand the relationship between morphology, habitat and the populations and distribution of designated bird species; 3. To validate and refine the mitigation actions; and, 4. To fully monitor the effect and thereby success of mitigation.
This report sets out progress against these objectives.
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 5 - March 2013
2 ACTIVITIES TO DATE
2.1 Introduction
This section provides summary information on accretion, dredging volumes, shipping activity and the sediment replacement activities within the estuary system. Information presented here covers the period 2007-2012 which is relevant to the present licence.
2.2 Maintenance of Harwich Harbour: Dredging and Disposal
Based on HHA dredger records, a total of about 1,032,000 dry tonnes of maintenance dredged material from Harwich Harbour was deposited at the Inner Gabbard between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2012. A further 28,000 dry tonnes was distributed within the estuarine system as part of the sediment replacement programme. The total amount of dredging, based on dredger records, was thus 1.06M dry tonnes.
Based on bathymetric records for the maintained area of the Harbour it is estimated that for the period 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012 the average rate of observed siltation in the Harbour was equivalent to about 6,700m3/day. This equates to an annual siltation rate of about 2.5Mm3. Over the year, the backlog of material in the Harbour increased by about 33,000m3. Thus, based on the bathymetric surveys, about 2.47Mm3 of material was removed through maintenance dredging. At an in-situ dry density of 530kg/m3 this is estimated to be equivalent to about 1.3M dry tonnes of material. It should be noted that the observed siltation rate (of 6,700m3/day) is based on comparison of pre- and post-dredge surveys and, due to the effect of the dredging on the characteristics of the surface of the seabed, there two surveys are measuring a surface with different physical properties (in terms of consolidation) which means the siltation rate quoted above must be viewed as an approximation.
From the dredger records described above it is apparent that, during the 2012 calendar year, the total mass dredged from the Harbour and berths was less than the total mass removed when assessed by survey. However, these two methods of assessing mass of material removed have differing degrees of accuracy for the reason described above.
Deep drafted vessel movements in Harwich Harbour have increased over the last year. This is summarised in Table 2.1 which shows the vessel movements and measured accumulation rate data calculated on an annual basis between 2007 and 2012. The average annual observation of rates of accumulation in the Harbour during this period has been about 6,200m3/day.
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 6 - March 2013
Table 2.1 Number of deep drafted shipping movements at Felixstowe on an annual basis
Period Number of vessel Number of vessel Observed average movements movements (15m daily accumulation (>13.5m) * or greater) rates of silt (m3) Jan 1 2007 to Dec 31 2007 112 0 5,000 Jan 1 2008 to Dec 31 2008 153 0 4,900 Jan 1 2009 to Dec 31 2009 179 0 4,100 Jan 1 2010 to Dec 31 2010 112 0 8,500 Jan 1 2011 to Dec 31 2011 161 25 8,100 Jan 1 2012 to Dec 31 2012 283 27 6,700 Average for period - - ~6,200 * Draft of 'greater than 13.5m' does not include 13.5m
In 2012, the observed average daily accumulation rate of silt (6,700m3/day) was lower than that observed during 2011 (8,100m3/day). It has already been established that, based on previous data, there appeared to be a relationship between the number of vessel movements within the Harbour and the daily accumulation rate. This theory is further strengthened by the most recent vessel movement data which shows that during 2012, whilst there were considerably more deep-drafted vessel movements than in the previous year (283 compared with 161 for vessels greater than 13.5m draft, including 27 vessels of greater than 15m draft), the observed average daily accumulation rate had again reduced.
During 2011, despite there having been considerably more deep-drafted vessel movements than in the previous year (161 compared with 112 for vessels greater than 13.5m draft, including 25 vessels of greater than 15m draft), the observed average daily accumulation rate was similar. This was believed to be an indication that the dredging and reclamation works carried out for the construction of the Felixstowe South Reconfiguration had caused a temporary increase in rate of siltation within the Harbour area.
2.3 Approach Channel Deepening: Habitat Replacement
Objective: To create 4 hectares (ha) of intertidal habitat to replace the habitat lost due to the immediate effect of the change on tidal range and to create 12.5ha of intertidal habitat to mitigate losses that could occur before sediment replacement measures can be expected to be fully effective.
The managed realignment site at Trimley Marsh was completed in February 2001, with the sea wall breached in November 2000. Since the sea wall was breached, ecological surveys have been carried out to monitor the rate at which the site has been colonised by fauna and flora, as well as use by birds and the particle size of sediments. An update on the monitoring programme for Trimley Marsh is presented in Section 5.
2.4 Approach Channel Deepening: Sediment Replacement
Objective: To prevent, through the immediate reintroduction of sediment into the system for as long as the channel is maintained, the annual loss of 1.7ha of intertidal (mean springs) (plus 1.1ha from the 1994 dredge) and 3.3ha of intertidal (mean neaps) (plus 2.2ha from the 1994 dredge) due to increased rates of erosion.
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 7 - March 2013
Following the 2007 Annual Review Meeting the sediment replacement technique was modified. HHA agreed to place 50,000 dry tonnes of material back into the estuaries on an annual basis - this is generally achieved through three dredging campaigns per year. This was to be undertaken by pumped discharge whilst the dredger was underway (35,000 dry tonnes into the Stour and 15,000 dry tonnes into the Orwell) at a minimum of 4 knots discharging over a track. In addition, subtidal placement at North Shelf was to be reduced to 50,000 dry tonnes per year. This revised sediment replacement strategy commenced in the autumn of 2008.
During the 2012 calendar year there was a requirement to carry out only two sediment replacement campaigns as four had been carried out in 2011 (the last being during December). No material has been placed subtidally at the North Shelf since early April 2009 when the capital dredging works associated with the Felixstowe South Reconfiguration (i.e. widening the north side of the channel in the vicinity of North Shelf) commenced. The modified concept of placing material along tracks in the Stour and Orwell estuaries is illustrated in Figure 2.2.
2.4.1 Stour Estuary
The water column placements shown in Table 2.2 were made in the middle and lower Stour up to the end of December 2012.
Table 2.2 Water column recharge in the Stour Estuary
Timing Sediment replacement (dry tonnes)
Late November 2008 9,000 Late January 2009 8,300 Early April 2009 11,200 Late December 2009 11,400 Mid February 2010 14,700 Early April 2010 10,900 Early November 2010 11,800 Mid January 2011 11,500 Mid April 20101 9,700 Late October 2011 8,800 Mid December 2011 11,700 Late February 2012 8,600 Late November 2012 11,000 Total 138,600
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 8 - March 2013
2.4.2 Orwell Estuary
The water column placements shown in Table 2.3 were made in the Orwell estuary.
Table 2.3 Water column recharge in the Orwell Estuary
Timing Sediment replacement (dry tonnes)
Late November 2008 5,000 Late January 2009 4,200 Early April 2009 4,700 Late December 2009 4,600 Mid February 2010 5,800 Early April 2010 4,400 Early November 2010 5,200 Mid January 2011 3,000 Mid April 2011 5,200 Late October 2011 2,700 Mid December 2011 4,600 Late February 2012 3,800 Late November 2012 4,900 Total 58,100
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 9 - March 2013
Figure 2.2 Illustration of placement strategy (commenced early April 2009)
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 10 - March 2013
2.4.3 Lower Harbour
Subtidal placements ceased at the North Shelf in early April 2009.
2.4.4 Conclusion
HHA is compliant with the original requirements of the Approach Channel Deepening consent in terms of the in estuary placement and is compliant with the agreement with the regulators that there would be no further placement of material subtidally at the North Shelf. Total amounts of material placed within the estuaries on an annual basis as part of the sediment replacement programme are given in Table 2.4.
Table 2.4 Total amounts of material placed each year as part of the sediment replacement programme on an annual basis
Annual placement within Annual placement to North Shelf Period Stour/Orwell (dry tonnes) (dry tonnes)
Jan 1 2007 to Dec 31 2007 132,200 99,900 Jan 1 2008 to Dec 31 2008 89,400 58,600 Jan 1 2009 to Dec 31 2009 44,400 30,800 Jan 1 2010 to Dec 31 2010 52,800 0* Jan 1 2011 to Dec 31 2011 57,200 0* Jan 1 2012 to Dec 31 2012 28,300 0* * Subtidal placements ceased at the North Shelf in early April 2009
2.5 Approach Channel Deepening: Beneficial Use Schemes
Objective: To meet the FEPA requirement to seek beneficial uses, as far as possible, for the material arising from the channel deepening.
Details of the beneficial use schemes that have been implemented by the HHA were provided in the 2001 Annual Report (PDE and HR Wallingford, 2001) and recorded in the 2003 Compliance Report (Royal Haskoning and HR Wallingford, 2003).
2.6 Trinity III Terminal (Phase 2) Extension: Disposal at Sea
Objective: To allow the construction of the Trinity III (Phase 2) Extension.
Dredging and disposal for this scheme was completed on 28th March 2003. Approximately 500,000m3 was deposited at the Inner Gabbard, with 28,000m3 used to feed an Environment Agency beneficial use scheme at Horsey Island. Bathymetric and benthic invertebrate surveys of the Inner Gabbard have since been carried out, the findings of which were reported in the 2004 annual report.
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 11 - March 2013
2.7 Trinity III Terminal (Phase 2) Extension: Habitat Enhancement
Objective: To provide an improved level of protection to the seawalls along the Shotley and Trimley frontages through the placement of dredged materials (clay/gravel bunds and silts) and enhance the ecological value of the associated intertidal habitat.
The habitat enhancement schemes for the Trinity III (Phase 2) Extension were completed in October 2003. The schemes utilised about 107,000 dry tonnes of maintenance dredged silts which would otherwise have been placed offshore at the Inner Gabbard disposal site. The schemes comprised the placement of clay and gravel bunds on the Trimley and Shotley foreshores which were backfilled with silt and sandy gravel.
The habitat enhancement schemes are being monitored by Royal Haskoning on behalf of the HHA as part of the Trinity III (Phase 2) Extension CMMA and LiDAR data is now also available. Further details on the construction of the bunds are available in the 2004 Annual Report. A description of the monitoring that has taken place is presented in Section 6.
In addition to the HHA monitoring, a DEFRA research project being undertaken by HR Wallingford and CEFAS looked at the correlation between benthic recovery and physical processes on parts of the site on the Shotley side of the Orwell through intensive benthic and physical process monitoring for 3 years following construction. Monitoring of the site under this scheme ceased in September 2005. The technical reports arising from this project were produced in December 2006.
2.8 Trinity III Terminal (Phase 2) Extension: Sediment Replacement
Objective: To offset the predicted increase in the rate of erosion of the intertidal in the Stour and Orwell Estuaries.
The CMMA for Trinity III (Phase 2) specified that the sediment replacement volumes should be increased by 5% to mitigate the effect of the extension on intertidal erosion. However, in light of modelling on the effects of the Trinity III (Phase 2) Extension, which has showed that the extension is predicted to reduce erosion in the estuary the volume of sediment replacement has not been increased (Royal Haskoning and HR Wallingford, 2010).
2.9 Other activities and events
Objective: To determine if any monitored changes could be due to other activities and events in the estuary system.
In 2010 the Port of Ipswich modified its maintenance dredging strategy resulting in greater volumes of material being deposited subtidally in the deeper sections of the main navigational channel in the Orwell Estuary. In 2012 about 26,500 wet tonnes of material was deposited in the Orwell Estuary during May 2012. This figure is considerably lower than the wet tonnage deposited in the Orwell during 2011 (about 260,500 wet tonnes).
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 12 - March 2013
Table 2.5 summarises the quantity of material deposited in the Orwell Estuary in 2012 (figures are wet tonnes).
Table 2.5 Dredge disposal returns for quantity of material deposited in the River Orwell (wet tonnes)
Dredge area: Ipswich Ipswich Licence number: L/2011/00044/1 (34278/10/2) L/2011/00044/2 (extension) Deposit code: TH034 TH034 Deposit name: River Orwell River Orwell Valid from: 24/05/2011 24/05/2012 Expires: 23/05/2012 24/08/2012 January 2012 - - February 2012 - - March 2012 - - April 2012 - - May 2012 11,784 14,679 June 2012 - - July 2012 - - August 2012 - - September 2012 - - October 2012 - - November 2012 - - December 2012 - - Total deposited (2012) (wet 11,784 14,679 tonnes) Licensed quantity 200,000 40,000
During the period 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012 134,000 dry tonnes of material dredged offshore from the edges of the Harwich approach channel was deposited at the Inner Gabbard dispersive site.
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 13 - March 2013
3 BATHYMETRIC AND TOPOGRAPHIC DATA
Purpose: To determine the changes in the intertidal and subtidal habitats in relation to the erosion or accretion of sediment.
Bathymetric data should assist in answering the following monitoring objectives (as set out in the Approach Channel Deepening Mitigation and Monitoring Package):
To define those aspects of system change that relate to the deepening and port development; To understand the relationship between morphology, habitat and the populations and distribution of designated bird species; To fully monitor the success of mitigation; To ensure that the mitigation measures (and beneficial use schemes) do not cause adverse environmental impact; and To define the extent of each habitat type and to measure change in habitat distribution.
No bathymetric and topographic surveys have been undertaken throughout the estuary system in 2012 and, therefore, there are no results to report for this aspect of the monitoring programme. The most recent monitoring results are reported in the 2012 Annual Report (Royal Haskoning and HR Wallingford, 2012).
3.1 Further analysis of saltmarsh extent
The results of the analysis of saltmarsh extent (as reported in Royal Haskoning and HR Wallingford, 2012) were presented and discussed at the annual meeting held in March 2012. With regards to changes in saltmarsh extent between 2005 and 2010, there was some discussion over the results presented in Royal Haskoning and HR Wallingford (2012). It was felt by some attendees at the annual meeting that the reported increases in saltmarsh extent throughout the estuary system did not reflect observations of saltmarsh change. It was decided, therefore, that further analysis of saltmarsh extent would be carried out.
The further analysis is reported separately in an accompanying report (Royal HaskoningDHV, 2012a) to this annual report. For this analysis, the estuary system was divided into a greater number of zones (monitoring units) than for the previous analysis reported in Royal Haskoning and HR Wallingford (2012). This enabled a better understanding of changes in marsh extent in different areas of the estuary system.
For each zone, the saltmarsh extent is presented for 2005 and 2010. For a number of zones, the percentage change in saltmarsh extent is +/-10%; these changes are likely to be within the margin of error of the analysis technique and are, therefore, considered insignificant. There are, however, areas where real changes have occurred, notably within the habitat enhancement scheme on the right bank of the lower Orwell estuary, Bathside Bay and in an area in the Upper Orwell, although the area of saltmarsh within this zone is relatively small. In the Lower Orwell, adjacent to Levington Marina, there has been an increase of 29% in marsh area between 2005 and 2010.
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 14 - March 2013
3.2 Intertidal and subtidal area and volume
The 2012 Annual Report (Royal Haskoning and HR Wallingford, 2012) summarised the results of the analysis of changes in intertidal and subtidal area and volume in the Stour and Orwell estuarine system. The full results were published in an interim report (Royal Haskoning and HR Wallingford, 2011).
Whilst the results of the analysis were not questioned, there was discussion over how the plots of the erosion and accretion patterns for the intertidal areas (based on LiDAR data) were presented. The issue was that it was not possible to determine whether the intertidal area had experienced erosion or accretion within the +/- 0.15m range.
Royal HaskoningDHV (2012b) presents the results of the analysis of intertidal erosion and accretion using a narrower band range (+/- 0.10m as opposed to +/- 0.15m in the interim report) to better resolve the pattern of change in those areas where there has been relatively low magnitude of erosion or accretion.
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 15 - March 2013
4 BENTHIC MONITORING
4.1 Stour and Orwell Estuaries
4.1.1 Annual benthic monitoring
As part of the Compensation, Mitigation and Monitoring Agreement for the Trinity III Terminal (Phase 2) Extension, a wide-scale benthic survey programme of the Stour and Orwell estuaries was introduced, to be repeated on a five year cycle. The first survey was undertaken in June to August 1997 and the second survey was undertaken in July 2003. Grab samples were taken for benthic and particle size analysis (PSA) in each survey.
It was agreed with the Stour and Orwell Regulator Group that an annual monitoring programme would be more beneficial than five yearly surveys as changes in results were difficult to interpret with the five year interval. The aim was that the annual sampling should result in an effective long-term monitoring programme with enough data points to detect trends between the benthos of like biotopes. The emphasis of the annual surveys is on monitoring rather than mapping (Thompson Unicomarine, 2013). The aim was also that the annual benthic data (including invertebrate biomass) would allow relationships between prey availability and bird numbers to be compared more easily.
The first of the annual monitoring surveys was undertaken five years later in 2008 and subsequent surveys have been undertaken annually in July (2009 to 2012). The first year report (2008) showed sampling positions and initial analyses and a baseline for future reporting. The second (2009) and third (2010) year reports included basic data presentation and the fourth year report (2011) included statistical comparisons with data from the previous three annual benthic surveys, as well as the large scale surveys from 1997 and 2003.
This section presents the data collected during the fifth year of annual monitoring, undertaken in 2012, and provides summary information on each biotope recorded during the course of the annual monitoring surveys between 2008 and 2012. Full details of the survey and results are provided in Appendix A.
The survey locations to which this data correlates are based on the analysis of data from the 2003 survey, and most of these survey stations were also sampled in 1997. Two new stations were added in 2008 to increase sampling in specific areas following requests made by the Regulator Group. Groups of samples have been selected to represent typical biotopes. Within each of these groups, four samples were taken and each of the four sampling points within any particular group belonged to a single biotope and can, therefore, be treated as replicates.
Methods As outlined above, groups of four samples were selected to represent typical biotopes within the estuary system (these are termed ‘target biotopes’, meaning that the groups of samples were identified as they represented a particular biotope and the monitoring is focussed (targeted) on these areas. The term ‘target’ does not mean that management measures are intended to maintain these samples as the identified biotope over time). There are four sample groups on the Orwell and seven on the Stour (refer to Figure 4.1).
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 16 - March 2013
Two 0.04m2 Shipek grab samples were taken at each station; one for PSA and one for benthic biological analysis. Sampling points from the 2012 survey were plotted onto maps and numbers of taxa per sample, individuals, total biomass, cluster groups and extrapolated biotopes were plotted.
Results The results from the 2012 survey indicate that the PSA at the majority of stations was dominated by high proportions of silt and clay but some stations had equal or greater proportions of pebble or a mixture of sand fractions. There seemed to be little correlation between sediment composition and the biological clustering pattern, with a single cluster group showing a range of sediment types.
The majority of the macrofaunal communities represented mud-dominated communities. The highest numbers of taxa were recorded in the subtidal samples targeted as biotope SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn (Sabella pavonina with sponges and anemones on infralittoral mixed sediment). The lowest numbers of taxa were also recorded from subtidal habitats targeted as biotope SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi (Aphelochaeta marioni and Tubificoides spp. in variable salinity infralittoral mud).
Abundance was greatest intertidally and the lowest was in the subtidal groups in the two most seaward sites in the River Orwell, OrC and OrD (see Figure 4.1). Diversity ranged from 0.927 at Station 171 (in StC) to 2.928 at Station 189 (in StF).
Total biomass was highest in the intertidal Orwell group (OrA) and lowest subtidally in group OrD. Mean biomass was highest in the subtidal group (StF) and lowest in the sample group OrD. The taxa with the highest mean biomass for the survey as a whole were American slipper limpets Crepidula fornicata, common cockles Cerastoderma edule and fanworms Sabella pavonina.
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 17 - March 2013
Figure 4.1 Location of benthic monitoring sample sites on the Stour and Orwell Estuaries
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 18 - March 2013
The SIMPROF test identified fourteen groups of samples that could be statistically separated at the 5% significance level, including five that only contained single samples. These groups were assigned to seven biotopes, two of which have not been recorded in the annual surveys but have been recorded in previous surveys of the Stour and Orwell Estuaries (Worsfold, 2005). While some sample groups have four samples within the same cluster groups and/or biotopes as previous years, there are others for which the classification can be seen to have changed. Changes are most apparent in the subtidal groups StF, OrC and OrD but can also be seen in the intertidal Orwell groups OrA and OrB.
A list of all of the biotopes recorded at the annual monitoring stations from 2003 to 2012 and a description of each biotope type is provided in Appendix B.
There were no rare or protected species found in the sampling in 2012.
4.1.2 Conclusions of monitoring undertaken to date
From analysis of the monitoring results from each year between 2008 and 2012, it can be seen that the number of taxa in each target biotope group has not varied significantly between the surveys. The largest number of taxa is seen in SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn in all surveys between 2008 and 2012.
A comparison of the biotopes found at each sample site is provided for the Orwell and Stour Estuaries in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 respectively. The 2012 data shows that the intertidal sample groups on the mid and upper Stour have similar communities to those seen in previous surveys. The groups containing subtidal samples (StD and StF) and the intertidal group StG lower down the estuary show more evidence of change over time, and differences were observed between the 2011 and 2012 surveys.
Biotope changes in the 2012 results were more evident in the Orwell groups, with all four target biotopes showing differences to previous years in at least one station, but as with the Stour groups, the subtidal groups OrC and OrD showed more evidence of change than the intertidal groups OrA and OrB. All eight of the subtidal stations comprising groups OrC and OrD had a different biotope assignment in 2012 to that of the 2011 survey.
A total of 19 stations had the same biotope assignments in the 2012 survey as in the 2003 survey, which was used to set the target biotopes; all were in the intertidal groups and some have shown variations in the intervening years.
Statistical testing for similarities between biotope groups and years was carried out in 2011. The results indicated that there were significant differences within each biotope group between the years, but also within each biotope group each year. The only two biotope groups which were not significantly different to each other between each survey year were LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac and LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr in 2010.
There have been noticeable changes in the biotopes in the estuaries in 2012, particularly in the subtidal stations. The new biotopes recorded may suggest erosion of softer sediments to reveal coarser substrata beneath. Although it is difficult to suggest causes of any change, a contributory factor could be the reduction in volume of material deposited as part of the sediment replacement programme. Other changes are likely to represent natural fluctuations in the estuarine ecosystem and any patterns will become more evident with each successive survey year.
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 19 - March 2013
Table 4.1 Biotopes for the Orwell Estuary from 2008 to 2012
Sample Survey Year Target Biotope1 Site 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
OrA LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LR.FLR.Eph.BLitX LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac (50:50)
OrB LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LR.FLR.Eph.BLitX (50:50) (75:25) (75:25)
OrC SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSp.An SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSp.An SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSp.An SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSp.An SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMx.SMxVS.CreMed SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSp.An SS.SMu.SMuVS.PolCvol (75:25) (50:50) SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi (75:25) (50:25:25)
OrD SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.PolCvol SS.SMu.SMuVS.PolCvol SS.SMu.SMuVS.PolCvol LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSp.An LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac (25:75) LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr (50:50) (75:25) (75:25) (25:25:50)
Key: LS – Littoral sediments; LMU – Littoral mud; MEst – Polychaete/bivalve dominated mid estuarine mud shores; HedMac – Hediste deversicolor and Macoma balthica in littoral sandy mud; Nhom.MacStr – Nephtys hombergii, Macoma balthica and Streblospio shrubsolii in littoral sandy mud; SMx – Sublittoral mixed sediment; IMx – Infralittoral mixed sediment; SpavSPAn – Sabella pavonina with sponges and anemones on infralittoral mixed sediment; NhomTubi – Nephtys hombergii and Tubificoides spp. in variable salinity infralittoral soft mud; PolCvol – Polydora ciliate; Corophium volutator in variable salinity infralittoral firm mud or clay; LR - Littoral rock (and other hard substrata); LR.FLR.Eph.BLitX - Barnacles and Littorina spp. on unstable eulittoral mixed substrata; and SS.SMx.SMxVS.CreMed - Crepidula fornicata and Mediomastus fragilis in variable salinity infralittoral mixed sediment. Note: Ratio assumes that each sample location represents 25% of the biotope
1 These are termed ‘target biotopes’, meaning that the groups of samples were identified as they represented a particular biotope and the monitoring is focussed (targeted) on these areas. The term ‘target’ does not mean that management measures are intended to maintain these samples as the identified biotope over time
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 20 - March 2013
Table 4.2 Biotopes for the Stour Estuary from 2008 to 2012
Sample Target Biotope (see Survey Year Site footnote 1 to Table 4.1) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
StA LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.UEst.Hed
StB LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac
StC LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr (75:25) (75:25) (75:25)
StD SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMx.SMxVS.CreMed LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac (50:50) (50:50) SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSp.An (50:50) (50:50) (50:25:25)
StE LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac (75:25)
StF SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSp.An SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSp.An SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSp.An SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSp.An SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMx.SMxVS.CreMed SS.SCS.SCSVS SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi (75:25) (50:50) (75:25) SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi (50:25:25) (50:25:25)
StG LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi (50:50) (50:50) (75:25) Key: LS – Littoral sediments; LMu – Littoral mud; UEst – Polychaete/oligochaete dominated upper estuarine mud shores; Hed – Hediste diversicolor in littoral mud; MEst – Polychaete/bivalve dominated mid estuarine mud shores; HedMac – Hediste deversicolor and Macoma balthica in littoral sandy mud; Nhom.MacStr – Nephtys hombergii, Macoma balthica and Streblospio shrubsolii in littoral sandy mud; SMx – Sublittoral mixed sediment; IMx – Infralittoral mixed sediment; SpavSPAn – Sabella pavonina with sponges and anemones on infralittoral mixed sediment; NhomTubi – Nephtys hombergii and Tubificoides spp. in variable salinity infralittoral soft mud; PolCvol – Polydora ciliate and Corophium volutator in variable salinity infralittoral firm mud or clay; SCSVS – Sublittoral coarse sediment in variable salinity (estuaries); and SS.SMx.SMxVS.CreMed - Crepidula fornicata and Mediomastus fragilis in variable salinity infralittoral mixed sediment
Note: Ratio assumes that each sample location represents 25% of the biotope
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 21 - March 2013
4.2 Felixstowe South Reconfiguration monitoring
The Felixstowe South Reconfiguration (FSR) involved subtidal reclamation and capital dredging of the seabed. An ecological assessment survey was completed in 2003 that included 0.1m2 Day grab samples at 46 stations and 2-metre beam trawl samples at 10 stations. A monitoring schedule was later established for the FSR project and monitoring stations were chosen from six of the baseline grab stations (each with three replicate macrofaunal samples and one PSA sample) and five of the trawl stations (Figure 4.2). Shipek grabs (0.04m2) were chosen in place of Day grabs to allow comparison with the Stour and Orwell monitoring surveys.
The first monitoring survey was completed in July 2008 before work began on FSR. By July 2009, the reclamation and quay piling for Phase 1 of FSR had been partially completed and dredging had begun on the Shelf. The July 2009 survey reflected partial Phase 1 FSR reclamation and some Shelf dredging. By the time of the July 2010 survey, all construction relevant to benthos monitoring was complete, including all dredging (Shelf, berth and both northern and southern return walls).
The 2012 survey (Appendix C) describes the characteristics of the benthic environment in the vicinity of the dredged channel and compares the data with that from previous surveys. The 2012 survey is the last of the surveys required under a monitoring agreement with Cefas (2 years of surveys were required). There may be a requirement for further monitoring in relation to future phases of work on the FSR development.
Figure 4.2 Locations of grab and trawl monitoring stations for the Felixstowe South Reconfiguration
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 22 - March 2013
The data show that the biota in all survey years since 2008 has been comparable in composition and abundance, as has the sediment texture. For all years, the grab samples divide into two main groups on the basis of the cluster analysis, which can be assigned to two standard biotopes on the basis of their macrobiota.
One biotope, SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi, included Stations 32 and 41 (and in 2008, 2011, and 2012, Station 33), and is found off Stone Pier, on the Shelf, to the west of the dredged channel in relatively deep water. The biota is associated with high infaunal abundance, greater depth and high silt/clay dominance in the sediment.
The other main biotope, SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi, included station 43 from the east side of the dredged channel and other stations (12 and 13 in all years; 33 in 2009 and 2010) on the Shelf. The biotope is associated with mixed sediment in shallower water appears to represent an infaunal component common to several biotopes in the area and to be the community most reliably recorded by Shipek grabs. Overlap with epifaunal biotopes is suggested by the presence of fanworms Sabella pavonina at Station 43 and ross worm Sabellaria spinulosa on the Shelf; these species characterise their own biotopes.
The apparent shift of Station 33 from SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi to SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi between 2008 and 2009 and back to SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi between 2010 and 2011 has been the only significant change between the surveys to date. The biological changes have been associated with corresponding changes in sediment type. They do not represent impoverishment and are unlikely to have been the result of development activity because this station is not the closest to the dredging or development area for the FSR.
The data from the trawl surveys showed that, in all the years, sessile organisms, such as algae, hydroids and bryozoans were found in all trawls and the most common large invertebrates were shore crabs Carcinus maenas and brown shrimp Crangon crangon, which are mainly epibenthic, and sea gooseberries Pleurobranchus pileus, which are pelagic. There was a tendency for echinoderms (Echinocardium and Ophiura spp.) to be most abundant in the samples furthest from the estuary (M and N; see Figure 4.2).
Dover sole Solea solea were the most common fish species throughout the years, with the exception of 2009, when gobies (Pomatoschistus), with a large catch in Trawl A, outnumbered other fish. There were few other biological differences between years.
4.3 Inner Gabbard East disposal site
The Inner Gabbard East disposal site was proposed as a disposal ground for dredged material from the Felixstowe South Reconfiguration project. A biological survey was undertaken in summer 2002 prior to disposal, and disposal ended in June 2010, when another survey was completed. Subsequent surveys were undertaken in July 2011 and July 2012. Three replicate biological samples were collected from nine stations, using a 0.1m² Hamon grab, along with samples for particle size analysis from each station.
Although a survey was undertaken in July 2012, the data were not available for reporting in this annual report.
The biota found during the July 2011 survey was typical for an area of mixed sediment at depths of 20-40m. SIMPROF cluster analysis identified 8 separate cluster groups Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 23 - March 2013
and there was also a group of samples without biota. The groups were assigned to four biotopes. Several stations had replicates that clustered separately in SIMPROF analysis and communities were difficult to assign to standard biotopes. They were characterised by mixed substrata, dominated by infaunal polychaetes, with some Crustacea and varying epifaunal components.
The stations within the disposal ground and those from just to the north of the disposal area had a relatively reduced fauna, with lower numbers of taxa and individuals than the surrounding stations and including two samples with no biota recorded. This reduced biota is likely to result from the disposal of dredged material.
The monitoring of the Inner Gabbard East disposal site is carried out in relation to disposal of dredged material from the FSR project. Given that FSR is to be constructed in phases, there is likely to be a requirement for further monitoring in connection with future phases of dredging for the FSR project.
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 24 - March 2013
5 TRIMLEY MARSHES MANAGED REALIGNMENT MONITORING
5.1 Conclusions based on monitoring undertaken to date
The monitoring of the Trimley Marshes managed realignment site has been undertaken for a period of 10 years. The monitoring has shown that the site has an established intertidal benthic community which supports a wide range of waterfowl and contributes to maintaining the integrity of the internationally designated sites.
Saltmarsh at the site has thrived and, in line with the design criteria for the site, a diverse community has developed but is unlikely to exceed the 30% threshold for vegetative growth.
The period of monitoring as specified within the Mitigation and Monitoring Package is now complete and the 10 years of monitoring has provided a clear indication of the development and successional changes within the site, a clear sign of the success of this managed realignment site.
5.2 Agreement reached at the 2011 Regulators meeting
At the 2011 Regulators meeting it was agreed that the monitoring has demonstrated that the objectives of the site have been met and, therefore, no survey will be undertaken in 2011. It was, however, agreed that future surveys will be undertaken at five year intervals to verify whether the site is continuing to meet its objectives. The site will therefore be monitored for benthic invertebrates in 2015 (when the next LiDAR survey is also due).
The annual reporting will continue to report on the site in terms of the birds and the habitats (i.e. as part of the overall assessment of the habitats of the estuary system from LiDAR and aerial photograph data) and the site will be discussed at each annual meeting.
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 25 - March 2013
6 TRINITY III TERMINAL HABITAT ENHANCEMENT MONITORING
6.1 Background
As part of the planning consent for the extension of Trinity III Terminal, HHA were granted a Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (FEPA) licence in 2002 to beneficially dispose of dredged material through the construction of intertidal bunds on the foreshore at two sites along the River Orwell at Shotley and Trimley.
Monitoring of the sites commenced in November 2003 following the completion of the Shotley bunds in September 2003 and the Trimley bund in October 2003. Since then 17 surveys have been conducted. It was stipulated in the CMMA that the sites should be monitored for 10 years following construction. The 2012 survey represents the tenth year of survey and is, therefore, the last annual survey.
The surveys comprise the collection of cores for biological and particle size analysis, and monitoring the development of the bunds and any vegetation with photographs and notes. A topographic survey is also undertaken by Wallingford Environmental Surveys Limited, and low water bird counts are taken by the Suffolk Wildlife Trust (SWT) as part of the Stour and Orwell estuary-wide counts.
The full results of the surveys, with analysis and discussion, are available in the 2012 annual habitat enhancement monitoring report (Royal HaskoningDHV, 2013).
6.2 Methodology
Figure 6.1 illustrates the location of the sample stations for the Trimley and Shotley habitat enhancement sites. The locations of the topographic transects are shown in Figure 6.2.
In recent surveys a hovercraft has been used to navigate the site, from which benthic invertebrate and sediment samples were taken. The hovercraft facilitated access to the survey stations and the samples were taken over the side of the hovercraft, or standing in the mud by the hovercraft, where safe to do so
6.3 Trimley enhancement scheme
6.3.1 Introduction
The Trimley site comprises one relatively homogenous mudflat, enclosed by a single bund. When the Trimley bund was first created, the mudflat behind the bund was very soft and fluid. By 2007, many small creeks had formed, making the mudflat more natural in appearance.
To date, there has been no evidence of saltmarsh colonisation. The main reason for this is that the mudflat is at too low a height in the tidal frame for saltmarsh species to colonise.
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 26 - March 2013
Trimley
Shotley
Figure 6.1 Location of sample stations for Trimley and Shotley enhancement schemes
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 27 - March 2013
Figure 6.2 Location of topographic transects for Trimley and Shotley
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 28 - March 2013
6.3.2 Particle size analysis
The overall classification of particle size at the Trimley recharge sites can be described as silt, despite some coarser sediments recorded at site 1. The most recent survey indicated that the sediment sizes were similar across all recharge sites, excluding site 1, where the silty material has eroded exposing gravelly sediments. Particle size at the reference sites is also classified as silt and all samples at the reference sites were similar to each other and the majority of the recharge sites.
6.3.3 Benthic invertebrate univariate results
Species richness Directly after construction (November 2003), the number of species at the recharge sites was much lower than those at the reference sites. However, in the more recent surveys, numbers have been generally the same between sites, occasionally higher at the recharge sites. In the latest survey, approximately 20 species were recorded at each site, with two new taxa being recorded at a recharge site in the last survey.
Abundance The most recent survey shows that site 1 has significantly higher abundance than the other recharge sites and the reference sites; however, the abundance levels at site 1 have decreased. The abundance at site 3 has decreased, whereas the number of individuals at recharge sites 2, 4 and 5 has all increased. Overall, abundance is relatively similar at the recharge and reference sites, with the exception of recharge site 1.
Diversity The Shannon-Wiener diversity index emphasises the species richness or equitability components of diversity to varying degrees. Three of the five recharge sites show an increase in diversity from that seen in the previous survey (survey 16, September 2011). Site 3 shows a slight decrease in diversity in survey 17, which is concurrent with the decreases in species richness and abundance at this site.
Overall, the diversity at the recharge and reference sites has been similar across the sites, but in the last few surveys diversity has been either the same or greater at the recharge sites.
Biomass Biomass (measured as weight of benthic invertebrates per core) can provide an important indicator of a habitat’s ability to support predators such as birds. The biomass data is available only for survey 5 (June 2005) onwards as biomass analysis was not provided as part of the infauna analysis prior to this survey.
The biomass at the Trimley recharge sites has fluctuated, but increased, in every survey from survey 12 (April 2008) to survey 16 (September 2011), however in the latest survey it has dropped to a similar level as that seen in survey 15 (September 2010). The reference sites, although more stable, have also seen a drop in biomass but currently are greater than that of the recharge site.
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 29 - March 2013
The biomass contributions between the recharge and reference sites are similar with polychaetes and molluscs dominating, although the reference sites are typically more dominated by polychaetes whereas the recharge sites were often dominated by molluscs also.
6.3.4 Benthic invertebrate multivariate results
Multivariate analysis of the sample data was carried out using the PRIMER (Plymouth Routines in Multivariate Ecological Research) computer software package.
MDS ordination plots indicate a clear temporal shift in the benthic community at the recharge sites as it has developed and the community has stabilised (Figure 6.3). The community composition at the reference site, however, varies from survey to survey and there is no clear change over time.
The SIMPER analysis indicates an initial increase in similarity between samples at the recharge site, despite a drop in late 2006 and again between survey 13 (September 2008) and survey 15 (September 2010). The last two surveys have shown increasing similarity again. The recharge site and reference sites have similar species dominating the samples suggesting the recharge site is evolving and becoming similar to the surrounding habitat.
a) Trimley recharge sites (1-5)
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 30 - March 2013
b) Trimley reference sites (11-13)
Figure 6.3 Multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) ordinance for the benthic macrofaunal communities of Trimley recharge (1-5) and reference (11-13) sites between survey 1 (November 2003) and survey 17 (September 2012). Calculated using Bray-Curtis similarity index with log transformation.
6.3.5 Topography
The topography survey has investigated the shape of the bund and how it has changed through time. The 2012 survey indicated that the crest of the bund is continuing to migrate inshore and increase in height. The migration is very gradual and the loss of habitat is negligible.
The latest survey shows that all the Trimley sections are bare mud, excluding the northern section TM14, where weed growth is established on the stable gravel bed.
The retained mudflat has continued to be colonised with marine invertebrates (worm casts and snail tracks visible) and wading birds are using the area hence the area has developed naturally and is serving its intended purpose.
6.3.6 Vegetation
No evidence of saltmarsh colonisation was observed during the most recent surveys. Creeks within the mud have continued to develop over time but no vegetation has grown in these areas. The mudflat is highly unlikely to ever be colonised with vegetation as it is approximately 1.5m below the optimum level for saltmarsh plants to establish (WES, 2011).
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 31 - March 2013
Gutweed Enteromorpha intestinalis which spread across the mudflats in pockets in survey 16 (September 2011) was no longer present on the site in survey 17 (September 2012).
6.3.7 Waterfowl
Data collected by the Suffolk Wildlife Trust (SWT, 2012) has been used to analyse trends in mean and peak numbers of waterbirds at the Trimley recharge site over the period 2000/01 to 2011/12. In 2011/12, the peak number of birds at Trimley was the highest since the start of the monitoring, pre-construction of the bunds. The latest survey showed that 2011/12 was the first year in which peak and mean numbers were higher than pre-construction counts (Figure 6.4).
There were increases in a number of the key species, including dunlin, redshank, lapwing and shelduck, which were all recorded to have the highest peak numbers either since construction or for the entire monitoring period. However, in 2011/12, avocet were not observed.
Some species are consistently recorded in low numbers at Trimley compared to pre- construction numbers, including dark-bellied Brent goose, ringed plover and grey plover. These declines are likely to be due to widespread declines across the region and not specific to Trimley.
Mean Peak
600
500
400
300
200 Number of Individuals of Number
100
0 2000/012001/022002/032003/042004/052005/062006/072007/082008/092009/102010/112011/12
*Note; dotted line represent the construction of the bund in 2003
Figure 6.4 Mean and peak waterbird abundance at Trimley Recharge Site (sector 10) counted at low water, 2000/01 to 2011/12 (SWT, 2012)
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 32 - March 2013
6.4 Shotley enhancement scheme
6.4.1 Introduction
At Shotley, three reference sites (8, 10 and 14) have been included in the surveys to enable a comparison with the five recharge sites (6, 7, 9, 15 and 16).
The recharge sites are becoming more similar to the reference sites in terms of species richness, abundance and diversity, and communities have begun to stabilise after an initial increase. At the southern recharge and reference sites, drainage was noted to be variable, with large areas of ponded water.
6.4.2 Particle size analysis
In the latest survey the sediment size at north Shotley decreased from the previously recorded coarsening in survey 16 (September 2011). The mid Shotley recharge sites once again recorded finer sediment after coarsening to gravel in survey 15 (September 2010), and the overall classification at the recharge sites was silt. In the latest survey, survey 17 (September, 2012), the mid Shotley reference sites sediment size were almost identical to that at the recharge sites.
The sediment at the south Shotley recharge sites is coarser than at mid and north Shotley and coarse gravelly sediments were recorded in the most recent survey. The south Shotley reference site is typically classified as sand, but has shown an overall coarsening of material during the years of survey, and most recently was classified as gravel. This could be due to erosion of material and exposure of the original sandy gravel bed, as described in the topography section.
6.4.3 Benthic invertebrate univariate results
Species richness Colonisation and community development of benthic invertebrates has increased at the recharge and reference sites since construction. In general, at the north and mid Shotley recharge and reference sites, the species richness is at similar levels at the end of the survey period (approximately 20 species) with the exception of the mid Shotley recharge site 7, where the species richness is much lower in the latest survey, survey 17 (September 2012). Overall species richness at the south Shotley reference remains greater than that at the south Shotley recharge sites although at site 15 species richness is closer to that at the reference site than at site 16.
Abundance The mean abundance (number of individuals) at the north and mid Shotley sites has typically been higher at the recharge sites than the reference sites. In the latest survey (survey 17, September 2012) relatively high abundance was recorded at site 9 (approximately 98 individuals) but at the mid Shotley recharge sites the abundance is much lower (less than 50 individuals).
At the end of the survey period, recharge site 9 had higher abundance than the other recharge sites and the reference sites but recharge sites 6 and 7 displayed similar abundance to the reference sites 8 and 10. Site 9 is located furthest north at the Shotley site.
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 33 - March 2013
The south Shotley recharge sites have in previous surveys shown abundance in excess of 200 individuals. The latest survey indicates a modest increase in abundance at both sites from the previous survey with an average abundance of 85.
The south Shotley reference site (site 14) has remained fairly consistent in abundance for the last three surveys and in survey 17 recorded a mean abundance of 37 individuals.
Overall the abundance at the south Shotley recharge sites is the highest across all the Shotley sites, with the exception of site 9 (north Shotley recharge).
Diversity The north Shotley recharge (site 9) has supported a relatively consistent diversity of species throughout the surveys. The mid Shotley recharge sites indicate fluctuating diversity but an overall increase from the start of the monitoring. The mid Shotley reference sites (8 and 10) have experienced a relatively consistent diversity across the survey period. The diversity at the south Shotley recharge sites has increased since the construction of the bund and at the reference sites overall diversity has increased.
Overall, in the latest survey the diversity at the north and mid Shotley recharge and reference sites is similar, the south Shotley recharge sites are much lower, but the highest diversity is recorded at the south Shotley reference site.
Biomass The biomass at south Shotley reference site (which also has the greatest species richness) has the greatest biomass of all Shotley sites. All of the other Shotley sites have similar biomass although south Shotley recharge sites are slightly higher. Polychaetes tend to dominate the biomass at the more northern sites (i.e. north and mid Shotley) whereas molluscs typically dominate the more southern sites where the sediment size is larger.
6.4.4 Benthic invertebrate multivariate results
The benthic invertebrate communities at mid and south Shotley recharge sites have displayed a temporal shift over the surveys. North Shotley recharge community structure is more comparable to the reference sites, which are typically more varied in community composition between sites and across the surveys.
6.4.5 Shotley topographical results
North Shotley sites are represented in Area 4 (sites S10 and S16) (Figure 6.2). Most of the deposited material eroded away shortly after placement and the area has changed very little over the past few years. At the toe of the seawall the material is relatively firm but becomes much softer further seaward.
At mid Shotley (Area 1) saltmarsh growth has flourished behind the bund since the ‘topping-up’. Like the offshore bund at Trimley, the gravel crest of the retaining bund is slowly migrating inshore at some sections covering the mudflats. Plants have colonised the bank crest (above the high water mark) and have stabilised the gravel material and reducing the crests progress. In September 2012 drainage was occurring at section Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 34 - March 2013
S27 via a narrow breach in the shingle bund which joins the water channel draining Area 2 (Plate 6.1).
The exit channel at section S19 (approximately 100m north of S21) appears to have stabilised and although still exits adjacent to the seawall doesn’t seem to be undercutting the main seawall. The area south of the exit has been colonised with common glasswort Salicornia europea which in turn has stabilised the gravel bank (see Plate 6.2 and 6.3) (WES, 2012).
Plate 6.1 View south towards Area 2 showing offshore bund at S27
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 35 - March 2013
Plate 6.2 View south from S19
Draining channel from Area 1 - view south
Plate 6.3 View north of Area 1 from S19
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 36 - March 2013
In Area 2 (A2_1 and A2_2) the grassed gravel and sand crest has remained at the same place but ‘overtopping’ sand has migrated some 5m westwards at section A2_2 smothering the mature saltmarsh plants.
Area 3 incorporates sites around the marina, T1, T2 and T3. This area is very exposed and soon after completion it succumbed to the effects of wave action resulting in the muddy material being washed out from behind the bunds and the bunds migrating inshore. There remains an area of sticky mud retained in the lower lagoon behind the now relatively stable offshore bund (well colonised with a variety of seaweeds) but no obvious signs of habitation by invertebrates such as worms and snails. Fish are trapped in the ponded waters during low water periods and wading birds are seen searching for food (WES, 2012).
6.4.6 Vegetation
The saltmarsh development is most prominent on the mid-Shotley recharge sites (6 and 7 on Figure 6.1). Saltmarsh vegetation has flourished in the area behind the old bund and has colonised all but the most northerly area where the water drains back into the Orwell. There are, however, signs of new growth in this area.
Plants have colonised the bank crest above the high water mark and around the exit channel near site 6; common glasswort Salicornia europea has become well established which is stabilising the gravel bank. Plant colonisation in the southern bunds (recharge sites 15 and 16) has been limited to Enteromorpha sp. with some seaweed species such as knotted wrack Ascophyllum nodosum.
One of the objectives for the enhancement scheme was to create 3ha of saltmarsh habitat across the sites. The majority of the saltmarsh growth is around the mid to south Shotley sites and it is likely that at least 3ha of saltmarsh has developed. The saltmarsh which has developed is becoming more established and will likely continue to develop in the future.
6.4.7 Waterfowl
In 2011/12 the total peak numbers of birds at Shotley was the highest since 2004/05 (Figure 6.5). The number of species had decreased to numbers similar to those directly post-construction.
Mean and peak dunlin numbers have increased at the site along with mean lapwing numbers and peak ringed plover. Dark-bellied Brent goose, that have been typically low in numbers, were recorded to be in decline at Shotley, despite numbers increasing at Trimley. Redshank, wigeon, grey plover and shelduck numbers have declined in 2011/12, however, grey plover and shelduck numbers have remained stable in Orwell.
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 37 - March 2013
*Note; dotted line represent the construction of the bund in 2003
Figure 6.5 Mean and peak waterfowl abundance at Shotley Recharge Site (sector 30) counted at low water, 2000/01 to 2011/12 (Suffolk Wildlife Trust, 2012)
6.5 Conclusion
The Trimley and Shotley habitat enhancement schemes were established in 2003 and have been monitored every year since. The recharge sites on both sides of the estuary are fully functioning habitats which support a variety of benthic infauna and contribute to SPA designated habitat for overwintering birds at low tide. The 2012 survey represents the tenth year of survey and is, therefore, the last annual survey.
The particle size at Trimley has generally remained as silty over the monitoring period, whereas the sediment on the Shotley side has become coarser over time, particularly at the south Shotley sites. Although there has been some variation in the trends over the years, the benthic communities have increased in species richness, abundance and diversity at all recharge sites over the ten year monitoring period. Communities have become more stable at the majority of the recharge sites, in comparison to the reference sites which have shown no temporal change as would be expected from already established sites.
Saltmarsh vegetation has not become established at the Trimley recharge site but in the areas of the Shotley recharge site, saltmarsh has become increasingly abundant over the years and continues to develop each year.
Bird numbers at Trimley and Shotley fluctuate between the years as is also seen across the entire Orwell and Stour Estuaries. Although some of the recharge material may have eroded on the Shotley side, the habitat enhancement sites are achieving the objectives set out in the CMMP of providing intertidal feeding habitat, and increasing the exposure of the area for longer in the tidal cycle (particularly at Trimley).
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 38 - March 2013
7 SUSPENDED SEDIMENT MONITORING
Purpose: To meet the objective of providing sediment budgets that will enable refinement of mitigating/compensating measures, if required. To ensure that turbidity levels stay within acceptable limits following ongoing dredging and sediment reintroduction activities.
7.1 Monitoring results
No further suspended sediment monitoring has been undertaken over the last year. Results from previous years have been presented in past annual reports.
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 39 - March 2013
8 BIRD DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE
Purpose: To measure the position of the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA relative to regional and national trends for the designated species.
8.1 Background
The Stour and Orwell Estuaries are comprised of a range of habitats including extensive mudflats, low cliffs, saltmarsh and small areas of vegetated shingle, making them a wetland of major international importance. The estuaries provide overwintering habitat for a number of wildfowl and wader species. The estuaries are designated as an SPA and Ramsar site due to the presence of these wintering waterfowl populations. When first designated in 1992, the SPA was known to regularly support over 20,000 waterfowl and populations of a number of species which were considered to be of national or international importance2.
High water counts are gathered as part of the Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS)3. The scheme has a long-running data set, with the most recent information available for surveys undertaken in 2010/11. Low water counts are also undertaken as part of the WeBS scheme, but only at larger estuaries and on an infrequent basis, approximately one winter every six years; therefore, to ensure there is a full data set which is comparable to the high water counts, the low water counts undertaken by the SWT are reported in this document. However, low water WeBS counts were undertaken for both the Stour and Orwell estuaries in 2010/11 and this data is also summarised (Holt et al., 2012).
The WeBS Alerts are reviewed every three years. The last evaluation period for the Stour and Orwell Estuaries was 2007/08; therefore the data presented for the WeBS Alerts in this section has been reported previously. Discussion with the BTO has confirmed that the new WeBS Alerts data will be published in March 2013 (Chas Holt, BTO, pers. comm.).
Low water count surveys of the overwintering bird populations on the Stour and Orwell estuaries are undertaken by the Suffolk Wildlife Trust (SWT) as part of the monitoring programme to assess the effects of deepening the approach channel to the Haven ports.
The results of both the high water (WeBS) and low water (SWT) counts provide a good basis for describing waterbird populations of the Stour and Orwell estuaries. This section discusses all of the currently available bird data for the estuaries available from recent reports and includes the high water counts up to and including the winter of 2010/11 (data provided by Chas Holt, BTO; emailed 16/1/13), low water counts to 2011/2012 (SWT, 2012) and low water WeBS counts for 2010/11 (Holt et al., 2012).
Figure 8.1 shows a location plan of the Stour and Orwell estuaries with place names referred to in this section.
2 To be classified as being of national or international importance, over 1% of the Great Britain and East Atlantic populations respectively, must be present, 3 WeBS is a scheme run by the British Trust for Ornithology, The Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 40 - March 2013
Figure 8.1 The features and place names of the Stour and Orwell estuaries at low tide
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 41 - March 2013
8.2 High water count trends
High water data from WeBS is available up to the winter of 2010/11. The numbers of waterfowl over the winter periods for the most recent 5 years (2006/07 to 2010/11) are presented for the Stour and Orwell Estuaries in Figure 8.2 below.
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 Stour Estuary 35,069 40,304 49,936 56,319 37,506 Orwell Estuary 23,996 20,511 23,934 21,009 20,245
Figure 8.2 Total number of waterbirds on the Stour and Orwell estuaries (data provided by Chas Holt, BTO)
The number of birds recorded on the Stour has been increasing since 2006/07 with almost 20,000 more birds recorded in 2009/10 than in 2005/06. However, the number of birds shows a sharp decline from the winter of 2009/10 to 2010/11. It should, however, be noted that there is some uncertainty regarding how the 2009/10 data has been calculated by the BTO. This was discussed at the 2012 annual meeting and it was felt that the waterbird population had been significantly overestimated for 2009/10.
The trend in the Orwell estuary seems to be relatively stable with little fluctuation between years. The number of birds recorded in 2010/11 was lower than that recorded in the previous four winters (although very similar to the winter of 2007/08).
8.2.1 WeBS Alerts
The WeBS Alerts system was developed to provide a standardised method of identifying the direction and magnitude of changes in bird population numbers. Species that have undergone significant changes in numbers can then be flagged by issuing an Alert (BTO, 2011a). The Alerts are then reviewed every three years. The last evaluation period for the Stour and Orwell Estuaries was 2007/08. Discussion with the BTO has confirmed that the new WeBS Alerts data will be published in March 2013 (Chas Holt, BTO, pers. comm.).
In summary, alerts data has been analysed for the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA to provide a comparison of all WeBS bird count data against regional and national trends
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 43 - March 2013
for short-term (5 year), medium-term (10 year) and long-term (25 year or maximum available if less) timescales.
The only alerts triggered for the short-term period were for 3 species - goldeneye, grey plover and black-tailed godwit. In addition, two species (cormorant and dunlin) were considered to have natural fluctuations which would have, under normal circumstances, led to an alert. Alerts were recorded for 10 species in total over the medium term (10 years). In the longer term (25 years) only 2 alerts have been triggered (cormorant and dunlin), and many species have shown medium or high increases over this period (see Table 8.1).
Table 8.1 Wetland Bird Survey Alerts (to winter 2007/08 inclusive) (BTO)
Alert status for SPA suite GB Alert status for Stour and Orwell SPA
Medium Medium Since Short Long term Short Long term Species term term design. term (5yr) (25yr) term (5yr) (25yr) (10yr) (10yr) 1994 Dark bellied o o + o o ++ o Brent Goose Shelduck o o o o - o - Wigeon o o + o o + - Pintail o o o o (-) (+) (-) Goldeneye o - o - - + - Great Crested o o + o - + - Grebe Cormorant o o + (-) - -- - Oystercatcher o o o o o ++ o Ringed Plover o - o (+) o o - Grey Plover o - + - - ++ - Lapwing o o ++ o - ++ -- Knot o o o o + ++ + Dunlin o - - (-) -- - -- Black Tailed o + ++ - -- ++ - Godwit Curlew o o + o o + o Redshank o o o o - o - Turnstone o o o o o + o Symbols: - medium alert, -- high alert, + medium increase, ++ high increase, o no substantial change, ( ) indicate species prone to natural fluctuations in numbers
8.3 Low water trends
8.3.1 Suffolk Wildlife Trust count results
The objective of the Suffolk Wildlife Trust counts is to assess the low water wintering population of waterbirds and their distribution within the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA.
The results from the report produced in July 2012 have been used to inform this section which reports on the number of species recorded in the SPA, trends in the mean and
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 44 - March 2013
peak numbers of each species over the winter period and provides distribution maps for these species.
8.3.2 Species accounts
Introduction
Trends in bird populations within the Stour and Orwell estuaries have been analysed using low water data from 1999/2000 to 2011/2012. The following sections summarise the trends for various species over this period. Distribution maps are provided for each species based on the 1999/2000 and 2011/2012 data to compare distribution patterns between these winter periods.
Overview of species trends
Table 8.2 summarises the increases and decreases in the mean and peak numbers of waterbird species on the Orwell, Stour and for the whole SPA for the period 1999/2000 to 2011/2012. Detailed species accounts are provided in the following sub-sections, and are taken directly from SWT (2012).
Table 8.2 Increases (+) or decreases (-) in the mean and peak numbers of species on the Orwell, Stour and SPA 1999/2000 to 2011/2012 (+ / − P = 0.05-0.01, ++/ −− P = 0.01-0.001, +++/ −−− P < 0.001)4 (SWT, 2012)
Mean numbers Peak numbers Orwell Stour SPA Orwell Stour SPA Brent goose + Shelduck ++ + Wigeon − − Pintail − − − −− Oystercatcher Ringed plover − − −− −− Grey plover − − − Lapwing Knot Dunlin ++ + Black-tailed godwit + −− − + − − Curlew – − − − Redshank −− −−− − − −−− Turnstone +
Six species now show significant declines in the SPA since 1999/2000. These declines are evident in both the mean and peak numbers of all six species. The other eight species show no significant trend (i.e. there is relative stability in numbers).
4 The number of + and – indicates the strength (consistency) of the trend rather than the magnitude of the increase or decrease in mean and peak numbers Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 45 - March 2013
Brent Goose
The population was stable in the SPA until 2006/2007 at around 2000 birds, usually split about equally between the two estuaries. The recent increases on the Stour noted in 2011 continued in winter 2011/12 and for the first time a trend was recorded for this species (see Table 8.2; Stour mean numbers rs = 0.65, P = 0.015). No trend is apparent for the Orwell population (Figure 8.3), although the two smallest mean populations have occurred in the last four winters. The peak populations on the estuaries were similar.
The national population has been stable over the last decade (Holt et al., 2011).
3000 5000
4000 2000 3000
2000 1000 1000
0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Figure 8.3 The mean (± SE) (left) and peak (right) numbers of birds on the Orwell (●), Stour (○) and SPA (■) in winters 1999/2000 (1) to 2011/2012 (12)
As in recent winters, few birds used Bathside Bay in the Stour in 2011/2012, where they have been frequent in previous winters (Figure 8.4b). Otherwise, the distribution of geese has been fairly consistent on the Orwell (concentrated in the lower reaches of the Orwell, especially Shotley Marshes, Levington and Thorpe Bay). On the Stour, however, birds were highly concentrated, primarily in Holbrook Bay, whereas in most previous winters they tended to occur throughout the estuary (Figure 8.4b).
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 46 - March 2013
a
b
Figure 8.4 The distribution of brent goose in (a) 1999/2000 and (b) 2011/2012 on the Stour and Orwell Estuaries
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 47 - March 2013
Shelduck
Small declines in the SPA during the first years of monitoring have been reversed in recent winters and the population in 2011/2012 was similar to the start of monitoring (Figure 8.5). This increase first resulted in a positive trend in 2009/2010 for the Orwell and this was stronger in 2011/2012 (Orwell means rs = 0.75, P = 0.003; Orwell peaks rs = 0.57, P = 0.04). Mean numbers on the Orwell were consistent at 400-560 birds for the first 10 winters, but for the last three winters have averaged 630-820 birds.
The steady population on the Stour and the increase on the Orwell contrast with the national population that has been in steady decline since the mid-1990s (Holt et al., 2011).
4000 5000
4000 3000 3000 2000 2000 1000 1000
0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Figure 8.5 The mean (± SE) (left) and peak (right) numbers of birds on the Orwell (●), Stour (○) and SPA (■) in winters 1999/2000 (1) to 2011/2012 (12).
Birds show no particular areas of concentration on the Orwell, but on the Stour are usually concentrated in the upper reaches of the estuary, and the larger bays of Copperas, Bradfield, Holbrook, Jacques and Bathside. Their distribution appears to have remained largely unchanged throughout monitoring (Figure 8.6).
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 48 - March 2013
.
a
b
Figure 8.6 The distribution of shelduck in (a) 1999/2000 and (b) 2011/2012 on the Stour and Orwell Estuaries
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 49 - March 2013
Wigeon
Numbers of wigeon the Stour, and on the SPA as a whole, appear to have stabilised after the increasing trend of the first 10 winters (Figure 8.7). However, numbers on the Orwell continued to fall in 2011/2012 (Orwell means rs = -0.68, P = 0.011; Orwell peaks rs = -0.59, P = 0.03).
These trends are broadly similar to those of the national population that increased steadily for 30 years but has dropped slightly since 2005/2006 (Holt et al., 2011).
6000 8000
6000 4000 4000 2000 2000
0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Figure 8.7 The mean (± SE) (left) and peak (right) numbers of birds on the Orwell (●), Stour (○) and SPA (■) in winters 1999/2000 (1) to 2011/2012 (12).
Distribution on both estuaries has changed little (Figure 8.8). Most birds frequent Trimley Marshes on the Orwell and the mid-estuary (the mudflats and saltmarsh around Colton Creek, Hare’s Creek and Jill’s Hole on the southern shore), with smaller numbers of birds along the Nacton foreshore. On the Stour, large numbers occur in Jacques Bay, Seafield Bay and on Mistley and Stutton foreshores, and concentrations occur consistently at the mouth of the estuary on the northern shore in Erwarton Bay.
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 50 - March 2013
a
b
Figure 8.8 The distribution of wigeon in (a) 1999/2000 and (b) 2011/2012 on the Stour and Orwell Estuaries
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 51 - March 2013
Pintail
The declines in mean and peak numbers recorded on the Stour over the past four winters continued in 2011/2012 and for the second consecutive winter extended to overall declines in the SPA (Table 8.2 and Figure 8.9; Stour means rs = -0.6, P = 0.03; Stour peaks rs = -0.59, P = 0.03; SPA means rs = -0.67, P = 0.01; SPA peaks rs = -0.69, P = 0.009). In the first four winters of monitoring, mean numbers of 300-500 birds occurred on the Stour (peak 686), but in recent winters numbers have generally been 200-300 birds. Numbers on the Orwell, apart from a large population in 2006/2007, have been relatively stable.
The overall trends in the SPA are less severe than those recorded nationally. The national population underwent a dramatic drop in the period 2006/2007 to 2009/2010 after several years of increase (Holt et al., 2011).
800 1000
600 750
400 500
200 250
0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Figure 8.9 The mean (± SE) (left) and peak (right) numbers of birds on the Orwell (●), Stour (○) and SPA (■) in winters 1999/2000 (1) to 2011/2012 (12).
The changes in distribution of birds in the SPA noted in 2009/10 were also apparent this winter. On the Stour, birds were once again relatively scarce in Copperas Bay where large numbers occurred regularly during the first 10 winters of monitoring, and mainly confined to the uppermost reaches (Figure 8.10). Distribution appears to have changed little on the Orwell, with most birds occurring on Trimley Marshes with smaller numbers on Pond and Black Oozes, Mulberry Middle and Nacton foreshore.
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 52 - March 2013
a
b
Figure 8.10 The distribution of pintail in (a) 1999/2000 and (b) 2011/2012 on the Stour and Orwell Estuaries
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 53 - March 2013
Oystercatcher
Mean winter numbers have been stable in the SPA since 1999/2000 (Figure 8.11) at between 2,160 and 2,806 birds, split more or less evenly between the two estuaries, and this was unchanged in 2011/2012 (mean 2,334, peak 2,576 birds). There has also been consistently little difference between mean and peak numbers. Numbers appear to have increased slightly on the Orwell (approximately 1,200 birds in the first three winters to approximately 1,500 birds in the last three) at the expense of the Stour (Figure 8.11) but as yet no trends have been recorded in any winter (Table 8.2).
Nationally, the oystercatcher has undergone a shallow decline in numbers since 1999/2000, but the population is similar to that at the start of monitoring 35 years ago (Holt et al., 2011).
4000 4000
3000 3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Figure 8.11 The mean (± SE) (left) and peak (right) numbers of birds on the Orwell (●), Stour (○) and SPA (■) in winters 1999/2000 (1) to 2011/2012 (12).
The distribution on the Orwell is strongly mid and upper estuary and this has changed little during monitoring (although there are perhaps more birds on the Strand and around Levington than at the start of monitoring; Figure 8.12). Birds are scattered and distributed widely in the Stour. In 2011/2012 there were very few birds towards the mouth of the estuary (Erwarton and Bathside Bays) (Figure 8.12).
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 54 - March 2013
a
b
Figure 8.12 The distribution of oystercatcher in (a) 2000/2001 and (b) 2011/2012 on the Stour and Orwell Estuaries
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 55 - March 2013
Ringed Plover
The recent decrease in the Orwell continued and strengthened in 2011/2012 (Orwell means rs = -0.68, P = 0.01; Orwell peaks rs = -0.72, P = 0.005) and also extended to the SPA population (SPA means rs = -0.66, P = 0.01; SPA peaks rs = -0.72, P = 0.005). The mean population on the Orwell in 2011/2012 was 72 birds (192 in 1999/2000), and the mean SPA population of 160 birds was the lowest recorded for the third consecutive winter (Figure 8.13). Although the Stour population has shown no significant trends since the start of monitoring, the mean population in 2011/2012 was only 87 birds and the populations in each of the last three winters have also been the smallest recorded.
The national population of ringed plover has been in steady decline for the last 20 years (Holt et al., 2011).
450 800
600 300 400 150 200
0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Figure 8.13 The mean (± SE) (left) and peak (right) numbers of birds on the Orwell (●), Stour (○) and SPA (■) in winters 1999/2000 (1) to 2011/2012 (12).
Birds used to be scattered throughout both estuaries, but in 2011/2012 almost all birds of the Orwell occurred on the Pin Mill shore, as they have also in recent winters. Once again, birds were largely absent from the uppermost mudflats of the Orwell around Pond and Black Oozes. On the Stour, there were notable concentrations in Bathside Bay, Holbrook Bay and the upper reaches (Figure 8.14).
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 56 - March 2013
a
b
Figure 8.14 The distribution of ringed plover in (a) 1999/2000 and (b) 2011/2012 on the Stour and Orwell Estuaries
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 57 - March 2013
Grey Plover
The recent drop in the population of the SPA and the Stour recorded over the last three winters continued in 2011/2012 (Figure 8.15), and the first significant declines were evident (Stour means rs = -0.63, P = 0.02; SPA means rs = -0.6, P = 0.03; SPA peaks rs = -0.58, P = 0.04). Previous to this, the population of the SPA was stable with winter means of 1,700-2,000 birds and winter peaks of 1,900-2,400 birds. In 2011/2012, the winter mean was the lowest recorded at 1,037 birds. Numbers on the Orwell are small and a relatively small component of the SPA population, and have been stable throughout monitoring at about 220 birds.
Trends in the population in the SPA appear to be at odds with the national population. This was in decline from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s (Holt et al., 2011) (whilst the SPA was stable) but has increased in the most recent winters (whilst the SPA declined).
3000 3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Figure 8.15 The mean (± SE) (left) and peak (right) numbers of birds on the Orwell (●), Stour (○) and SPA (■) in winters 1999/2000 (1) to 2011/2012 (12).
As in recent winters, the large drop in numbers on the Stour appears to have been concentrated in Holbrook, Copperas and Jacques Bays, where large numbers occurred in 1999/2000 and subsequent winters (Figure 8.16). A peak of only 104 birds was recorded in Holbrook Bay compared with 146 in the previous winter and counts approaching 1,000 birds earlier in the monitoring programme. Birds used to be widespread on the Orwell estuary, but their distribution has become strongly mid-estuary in recent winters, being concentrated primarily on Nacton foreshore and Mulberry Middle, and this pattern was repeated in 2011/2012 (Figure 8.16).
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 58 - March 2013
a
b
Figure 8.16 The distribution of grey plover in (a) 1999/2000 and (b) 2011/2012 on the Stour and Orwell Estuaries
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 59 - March 2013
Lapwing
After large peaks in the population of the SPA in the mid-2000s, particularly on the Stour, both mean and peak numbers remained low in 2011/2012 (Figure 8.17). The trends for lapwing in the SPA mirror those of the national population that rose sharply in 2004/2005 and 2005/2006, but declined thereafter (Holt et al., 2011).
10000 12000
7500 8000 5000 4000 2500
0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Figure 8.17 The mean (± SE) (left) and peak (right) numbers of birds on the Orwell (●), Stour (○) and SPA (■) in winters 1999/2000 (1) to 2011/2012 (12).
Despite the large variation in numbers, the distribution of birds in the SPA has remained much the same with concentrations of birds in specific areas of each estuary – in Jacques Bay, Seafield Bay, around Erwarton bay and at the head of the estuary on the Stour, and on the Strand, Trimley Marshes and Levington on the Orwell (Figure 8.18).
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 60 - March 2013
a
b
Figure 8.18 The distribution of lapwing in (a) 2000/2001 and (b) 2011/2012 on the Stour and Orwell Estuaries
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 61 - March 2013
Knot
After increases in the SPA to 2006/2007 (from a mean population of 4,591 birds in 1999/2000 to 11,655 in 2006/2007), numbers appear to have stabilised at 6,000-7,000 birds in the last five winters (Figure 8.19). No trends are apparent after winter 2011/2012. Most of the variation has been caused by the population on the Stour and although numbers on the Orwell have increased slightly, they are a small component of the SPA population.
The trends in the SPA are in keeping with the national population that has increased then stabilised in the 2000s, but remained generally steady over the last 25 years (Holt et al., 2011).
15000 20000
15000 10000 10000 5000 5000
0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Figure 8.19 The mean (± SE) (left) and peak (right) numbers of birds on the Orwell (●), Stour (○) and SPA (■) in winters 1999/2000 (1) to 2011/2012 (12).
As in most winters, birds were concentrated on the wider mudflats of both estuaries in 2011/2012 (namely Holbrook, Jacques, Bathside, Erwarton and especially Seafield Bays on the Stour, and Nacton and Mulberry Middle on the Orwell) (Figure 8.20).
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 62 - March 2013
a
b
Figure 8.20 The distribution of knot in (a) 1999/2000 and (b) 2011/2012 on the Stour and Orwell Estuaries
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 63 - March 2013
Dunlin
For the first time, a significant trend has been recorded for the SPA (SPA means rs = 0.59, P = 0.03) owing mainly to the increasing population on the Stour (Stour means rs = 0.71, P = 0.007), although mean numbers on the Orwell were also larger than in recent years Figure 8.21). In contrast to previous winters, no declining trend in numbers was apparent on the Orwell.
The increasing population on the Stour is at odds with the national population of dunlin that has been in steady decline since the mid-1990s and in strong decline since 1999/2000 (Holt et al., 2011) when monitoring began in the SPA.
20000 24000
15000 18000
10000 12000
5000 6000
0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Figure 8.21 The mean (± SE) (left) and peak (right) numbers of birds on the Orwell (●), Stour (○) and SPA (■) in winters 1999/2000 (1) to 2011/2012 (12).
Birds are well distributed on both estuaries at low tide, although relatively few birds occur on the southern shores of the Orwell (Figure 8.22).
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 64 - March 2013
a
b
Figure 8.22 The distribution of dunlin in (a) 1999/2000 and (b) 2011/2012 on the Stour and Orwell Estuaries
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 65 - March 2013
Black-tailed godwit
The recent pattern of decline on the Stour (Stour means rs = -0.7, P = 0.008) and increase on the Orwell (rs = 0.63, P = 0.02) strengthened in 2011/2012, but there was also an overall decline in mean numbers in the SPA for the first time (SPA means rs = - 0.57, P = 0.04). Mean numbers on the Orwell (443) were greater than the Stour (417) for the first time since monitoring began (Figure 8.23). Mean numbers on the Stour were 1,000-1,600 birds in five of the first six winters of monitoring.
The declining status of the black-tailed godwit on the Stour, and SPA as a whole, contrasts with the national population that has been increasing sharply over the last 30 years (Holt et al., 2011).
2500 3000
2000 2000 1500
1000 1000 500
0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Figure 8.23 The mean (± SE) (left) and peak (right) numbers of birds on the Orwell (●), Stour (○) and SPA (■) in winters 1999/2000 (1) to 2011/2012 (12).
The population was concentrated at the head of the Orwell once again, with small numbers scattered elsewhere (Figure 8.24). On the Stour, the species also occurs mainly towards the top of the estuary, and as in recent winters most birds occurred on the Mistley foreshore in 2011/2012. Despite the changes in populations, distributions appear to have remained similar during monitoring.
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 66 - March 2013
a
b
Figure 8.24 The distribution of black-tailed godwit in (a) 1999/2000 and (b) 2011/2012 on the Stour and Orwell Estuaries
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 67 - March 2013
Curlew
A decreasing trend was apparent for the second consecutive winter on the Orwell (Orwell means rs = -0.67, P = 0.01; Orwell peaks rs = -0.62, P = 0.02). Mean numbers were below 50 for only the second winter since monitoring began (Figure 8.25). Numbers on the Stour remained stable, but the low numbers on the Orwell have resulted in a significant trend of decline on the SPA overall (SPA means rs = -0.61, P = 0.03; SPA peaks rs = -0.57, P = 0.04). Over the same period, the national population of curlew has also declined (Holt et al., 2011).
2500 3000
2000 2000 1500
1000 1000 500
0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Figure 8.25 The mean (± SE) (left) and peak (right) numbers of birds on the Orwell (●), Stour (○) and SPA (■) in winters 1999/2000 (1) to 2011/2012 (12).
Birds were well distributed throughout the Stour, as they have been in all winters, but they appear to have become concentrated in the mid-reaches of the Orwell, particularly on Mulberry Middle and the Nacton foreshore (Figure 8.26).
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 68 - March 2013
a
b
Figure 8.26 The distribution of curlew in (a) 1999/2000 and (b) 2011/2012 on the Stour and Orwell Estuaries
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 69 - March 2013
Redshank
The declines in redshank in the SPA that were noted in previous winters continued and the overall trends were very strong taking into account the winter of 2011/2012 (SPA means rs = -0.86, P = 0.0001; SPA peaks rs = -0.81, P = 0.0007) (Figure 8.27). Much of this decline appears to have occurred on the Stour (Stour means rs = -0.79, P = 0.001, SPA peaks rs = -0.57, P = 0.04) but for the second consecutive winter the peak population on the Orwell also showed evidence of decline (Orwell peaks rs = -0.67, P = 0.01).
Nationally, the redshank has also been in decline over the last decade and is approaching the previous low point that was recorded in the 1980s (Holt et al., 2011).
5000 5000
4000 4000
3000 3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Figure 8.27 The mean (± SE) (left) and peak (right) numbers of birds on the Orwell (●), Stour (○) and SPA (■) in winters 1999/2000 (1) to 2011/2012 (12).
Birds are well spread on both estuaries, and there are no strong indications of localised declines, although perhaps fewer birds have occurred on the southern mudflats of the Stour estuary in recent winters (Figure 8.28) and there appeared to be fewer birds in the lower reaches of the Orwell in 2011/2012.
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 70 - March 2013
a
b
Figure 8.28 The distribution of redshank in (a) 1999/2000 and (b) 2011/2012 on the Stour and Orwell Estuaries
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 71 - March 2013
Turnstone
Mean numbers in the Stour, and the SPA, dropped slightly in 2011/2012 although over the 13 winters in the monitoring programme there is still a slight positive trend on the Stour (Stour means rs = 0.62, P = 0.02). Mean numbers were low on the Orwell for the third consecutive winter, but overall the population of the SPA has been relatively stable during the monitoring programme (Figure 8.29).
The trends in the SPA contrast with the national population that has been in decline since the early 1980s and was at a historical low in 2009/2010 (Holt et al., 2011).
900 900
600 600
300 300
0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Figure 8.29 The mean (± SE) (left) and peak (right) numbers of birds on the Orwell (●), Stour (○) and SPA (■) in winters 1999/2000 (1) to 2011/2012 (12).
Birds were once again absent from Pond Ooze and the upper reaches of the Orwell where they used to occur in good numbers, and they were mainly confined to Mulberry Middle as in recent winters. On the Stour, distribution appears to have remained more or less consistent despite the slight increase in population, with the primary concentrations occurring in Erwarton and Holbrook Bays (Figure 8.29).
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 72 - March 2013
a
b
Figure 8.30 The distribution of turnstone in (a) 2000/2001 and (b) 2011/2012 on the Stour and Orwell Estuaries
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 73 - March 2013
8.3.3 WeBS low water counts (2010/11)
Low water counts were undertaken across 21 estuaries in 2010/11 (November to February), including the Stour and Orwell estuaries.
Table 8.2 WeBS low water count data (2010/11) for the Stour and Orwell estuaries
Species Stour Orwell Peak Mean Peak Mean Brent Goose 1,851 1,474 1,547 790 Shelduck 1,776 1,560 1,130 825 Wigeon 3,524 2,355 1,809 1,346 Teal 1,224 893 1,344 747 Mallard 269 214 373 267 Pintail 290 245 202 175 Oystercatcher 1,190 1,058 1,743 1,506 Ringed Plover 135 102 152 72 Golden Plover 493 172 792 213 Grey Plover 978 862 451 259 Lapwing 1,875 1,043 1,200 813 Knot 10,735 6,047 2,771 1,120 Dunlin 16,180 13,312 4,292 2,512 Black-tailed 1,644 857 546 378 Godwit Bar-tailed 144 121 45 15 Godwit Curlew 977 884 584 542 Redshank 1,755 1,435 1,594 1,415 Turnstone 538 462 126 90
8.4 Bird movements
Bird movements were recorded on the 8 and 25 November, 7 December 2010 and 24 January 2011 at two locations: Ha’penny Pier and Stone Point. The results of these surveys were presented in the 2009/2010 annual report (Royal Haskoning, 2010).
Although not conclusive initial results suggest that very few birds leave the estuaries (Vonk, pers. comm.).
8.5 Summary of findings of waterbird monitoring
8.5.1 High water counts
The only alerts triggered for the short-term period were for 3 species - goldeneye, grey plover and black-tailed godwit. In addition, two species (cormorant and dunlin) were considered to have natural fluctuations which would have, under normal circumstances, led to an alert. Alerts were recorded for 10 species in total over the medium term (10 years). In the longer term (25 years) only 2 alerts have been triggered (cormorant and dunlin), and many species have shown medium or high increases over this period.
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 74 - March 2013
8.5.2 Low water counts
Trends in the populations of some species in the SPA continued in 2011/2012. In particular, the declines in the numbers of redshank strengthened and five other species now show significant declining trends (pintail, ringed plover, grey plover, black-tailed godwit and curlew). These declines have resulted primarily from reductions in the populations wintering on the Stour, although two of these species are also declining on the Orwell.
Two species show increasing trends on the Orwell (shelduck and black-tailed godwit) and three on the Stour (brent goose, dunlin and turnstone), but only one in the SPA as a whole (dunlin).
Most patterns in the populations of waders and wildfowl in the SPA and its component estuaries reflect those in the relevant national population. Exceptions to this are three species that have remained stable or increased in the SPA whilst the national population has declined (shelduck, dunlin and turnstone), one that was stable but is now declining in the SPA whilst the national population has done the opposite (grey plover), and one that is declining in the SPA whilst the national population increases (black-tailed godwit).
Some changes in the distribution of species within the SPA are evident since the start of monitoring in 1999/2000, but these assessments are subjective and more detailed analyses of the data are required to determine changing distributions. Some species (e.g. ringed plover and turnstone) were once again more or less absent in the upper Orwell where they used to be frequent, whilst other species appear to have become more confined to these areas (e.g. black-tailed godwit).
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 75 - March 2013
9 STOUR AND ORWELL CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT
This section is included to discuss the current condition assessment of the Stour and Orwell Estuaries in the context of the anthropogenic impacts that may lead to ‘unfavourable-no change’ or ‘unfavourable declining’ assessments.
9.1 Condition assessment
The current assessment of the SSSI condition is available from Natural England and on the Nature on the Map website; for the Stour at:
http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/Special/sssi/reportAction.cfm?report=sdrt13&cate gory=S&reference=1004172
and for the Orwell at:
http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/Special/sssi/reportAction.cfm?report=sdrt13&cate gory=S&reference=1002511
The Stour and Orwell SPA covers the same area as the combined Stour and Orwell SSSIs.
The latest condition assessment (undertaken between 2009 and 2010, reported in 2012 on Natural England’s website) has concluded that the majority of sections within the Stour and Orwell Estuaries are considered to be in ‘favourable’ condition.
Within the Stour Estuary (see Figure 9.1), 9 out of 10 units are in ‘favourable’ condition. The unit which is in ‘unfavourable declining’ condition (Unit 1) is adjacent to Manningtree in the upper estuary. The condition assessment states that there is some upper foreshore erosion and evidence of active erosion of saltmarsh types associated with the notified feature, Limonium humile (lax-flowered sea lavender) and notes that coastal squeeze may be a key contributory factor to the unfavourable declining condition. All other units are in favourable condition within the Stour.
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 76 - March 2013
Figure 9.1 Upper reaches of the Stour Estuary
Within the Orwell estuary (see Figure 9.2 and Figure 9.3), there are 21 units of which 3 are ‘unfavourable declining’, 4 are ‘unfavourable no change’ and the remaining 14 are considered to be in ‘favourable’ condition. The units in ‘unfavourable declining’ condition are:
Unit 1 in the upper estuary due to coastal squeeze;
Unit 8 (east of Chelmondiston) is cited as experiencing coastal squeeze which has caused loss of saltmarsh; and,
Unit 13 (Trimley) where coastal squeeze is cited as the cause of the condition status leading to loss of saltmarsh vegetation.
The units classified as ‘unfavourable no change’ are 12, 15 and 16 which occur around the mouth of the Orwell and unit 11 on the east side of the estuary south of Levington. Each of these units is considered to be ‘unfavourable no change’ due to the presence of sea walls causing coastal squeeze thereby constraining the natural development of saltmarsh.
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 77 - March 2013
.
Figure 9.2 Lower reaches of the Orwell Estuary
Figure 9.3 Upper reaches of the Orwell Estuary
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 78 - March 2013
10 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
10.1 Bathymetric and topographic data
No bathymetric or topographic surveys have been undertaken in 2012.
Following discussion at the 2012 annual meeting, further analysis of changes in saltmarsh extent between 2005 and 2010 has been undertaken. This analysis concluded that for a number of zones, the percentage change in saltmarsh extent is +/- 10%; these changes are likely to be within the margin of error of the analysis technique and are, therefore, considered insignificant. There are, however, areas where real changes in saltmarsh extent have occurred (e.g. in the habitat enhancement scheme in the lower Orwell, in Bathside Bay and in an area of the Upper Orwell. The analysis is reported in Royal HaskoningDHV (2012a).
The 2012 Annual Report (Royal Haskoning and HR Wallingford, 2012) summarised the results of the analysis of changes in intertidal and subtidal area and volume in the Stour and Orwell estuarine system. The results of the analysis were not questioned, but the results of intertidal erosion and accretion have been presented using a narrower band range (+/- 0.10m as opposed to +/- 0.15m) to better resolve the pattern of change in those areas where there has been relatively low magnitude of erosion or accretion.
10.2 Benthic monitoring
10.2.1 Stour and Orwell Estuaries
The 2012 data shows that the intertidal sample groups on the mid and upper Stour have similar communities to those seen in previous surveys. The groups containing subtidal samples and the intertidal group lower down the estuary show more evidence of change over time.
Biotope changes were more evident in the Orwell groups, with all four target biotopes showing differences to previous years in at least one station, but as with the Stour groups, the subtidal groups showed more evidence of change than the intertidal groups. All eight of the subtidal stations comprising groups OrC and OrD had a different biotope assignment in 2012 to that of the 2011 survey.
There have been noticeable changes in the biotopes in the estuaries in 2012, particularly in the subtidal stations. The new biotopes recorded may suggest erosion of softer sediments to reveal coarser substrata beneath. Other changes are likely to represent natural fluctuations in the estuarine ecosystem and any patterns will become more evident with each successive survey year.
10.2.2 Felixstowe South Reconfiguration
The data show that the biota in all survey years since 2008 has been comparable in composition and abundance, as has the sediment texture. For all years, the grab samples divide into two main groups on the basis of the cluster analysis, which can be assigned to two standard biotopes on the basis of their macrobiota (SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi and SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi).
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 79 - March 2013
Trawls were also undertaken to sample epibenthos and fish. The most common large invertebrates were shore crabs Carcinus maenas and brown shrimp Crangon crangon.
The 2012 survey is the last of the surveys required under a monitoring agreement with Cefas (2 years of surveys were required). There may be a requirement for further monitoring in relation to future phases of work on the FSR development.
10.3 Trimley Marshes managed realignment monitoring
The period of monitoring as specified within the Mitigation and Monitoring Package is now complete and the 10 years of monitoring has provided a clear indication of the development and successional changes within the site, a clear sign of the success of this habitat realignment site.
At the 2011 Regulators meeting it was agreed that the monitoring has demonstrated that the objectives of the site have been met and, therefore, no survey will be undertaken in 2011. It was, however, agreed that future surveys will be undertaken at five year intervals to verify whether the site is continuing to meet its objectives. The next benthic invertebrate survey will, therefore, be undertaken in 2015.
10.4 Trinity III Terminal habitat enhancement schemes
The Trimley and Shotley recharge sites have developed over the years since construction into valuable intertidal feeding habitat for a variety of waterbirds. They support a diverse community of benthic invertebrates which provide suitable prey species for the foraging birds. The vegetation, particularly around the Shotley sites, has developed over time into a well-established saltmarsh. The monitoring which has been undertaken at the sites since 2003 indicates that the objectives of the habitat enhancement sites have been achieved.
It was stipulated that the sites should be monitored for 10 years following construction. The 2012 survey represents the tenth year of survey and is, therefore, the last annual survey.
10.5 Bird distribution and abundance
10.5.1 WeBS Alerts
The WeBS Alerts are reviewed every three years. The last evaluation period for the Stour and Orwell Estuaries was 2007/08. Discussion with the BTO has confirmed that the new WeBS Alerts data will be published in March 2013 (Chas Holt, BTO, pers. comm.). The alerts reported are, therefore, the same as published in the 2012 annual report.
The only alerts triggered for the short-term period were for 3 species - goldeneye, grey plover and black-tailed godwit. In addition, two species (cormorant and dunlin) were considered to have natural fluctuations which would have, under normal circumstances, led to an alert. Alerts were recorded for 10 species in total over the medium term (10 years). In the longer term (25 years) only 2 alerts have been triggered (cormorant and dunlin), and many species have shown medium or high increases over this period.
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 80 - March 2013
10.5.2 Low water counts
Trends in the populations of some species in the SPA continued in 2011/2012. In particular, the declines in the numbers of redshank strengthened and five other species now show significant declining trends (pintail, ringed plover, grey plover, black-tailed godwit and curlew). These declines have resulted primarily from reductions in the populations wintering on the Stour, although two of these species are also declining on the Orwell.
Two species show increasing trends on the Orwell (shelduck and black-tailed godwit) and three on the Stour (brent goose, dunlin and turnstone), but only one in the SPA as a whole (dunlin).
Most patterns in the populations of waders and wildfowl in the SPA and its component estuaries reflect those in the relevant national population. Exceptions to this are three species that have remained stable or increased in the SPA whilst the national population has declined (shelduck, dunlin and turnstone), one that was stable but is now declining in the SPA whilst the national population has done the opposite (grey plover), and one that is declining in the SPA whilst the national population increases (black-tailed godwit).
Some changes in the distribution of species within the SPA are evident since the start of monitoring in 1999/2000, but these assessments are subjective and more detailed analyses of the data are required to determine changing distributions. Some species (e.g. ringed plover and turnstone) were once again more or less absent in the upper Orwell where they used to be frequent, whilst other species appear to have become more confined to these areas (e.g. black-tailed godwit).
10.6 Stour and Orwell condition assessment
The latest condition assessment (undertaken between 2009 and 2010, reported in 2012) has concluded that the majority of SSSI units within the Stour and Orwell Estuaries are considered to be in ‘favourable’ condition.
One unit in the Stour and 3 units in the Orwell are classified as ‘unfavourable declining’. In each case, coastal squeeze is cited as the reason for this classification.
10.7 Recommendations for future monitoring
10.7.1 Future monitoring and analysis strategy
Monitoring of intertidal and subtidal area and volume should continue at the current frequency (5 yearly survey), with the analysis carried out using a combination of bathymetry and LiDAR data. A bathymetric survey of Hamford Water is to be carried out in 2013. Benthic community monitoring for the Stour and Orwell Estuaries should continue at the current frequency. The Trimley Marshes managed realignment site will be monitored at 5 yearly intervals, with the next benthic invertebrate survey planned for 2015. Monitoring of the Trimley and Shotley habitat enhancement sites will be discontinued following completion of 10 years of monitoring and demonstration that the schemes have met their objectives.
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 81 - March 2013
Waterbird population monitoring will continue at the current annual frequency.
10.7.2 Future mitigation strategy
Although no changes to the current sediment replacement programme are being proposed, the current programme will be continued at its present level. In light of the findings reported on the subtidal accretion in the Stour and Orwell estuaries (reported in the previous (2011) annual report) and the results of the most recent benthic invertebrate studies, we will continue to review the sediment replacement programme in light of developing understanding of sediment movement in the Harbour.
10.7.3 Future Regulators meetings
It is recommended that the meetings continue to be held in March of each year.
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 82 - March 2013
11 REFERENCES
Holt, C, Austin, G, Calbrade, N, Mellan, H, Hearn, R, Stroud, D, Wotton, S and Musgrove, A (2012). Waterbirds in the UK 2010/11: The Wetland Bird Survey. British Trust for Ornithology, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds & Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Thetford.
Royal Haskoning and HR Wallingford (2010). Mitigation and Monitoring for the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA. Annual Review 2009. March 2010.
Musgrove, A., Collier, M., Banks, A., Calbrade, N., Hearn, R. & Austin, G. (2007). Waterbirds in the UK 2005/06. The Wetland Bird Survey. British Trust for Ornithology, The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds & Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
Royal Haskoning (2012a). Stour and Orwell Estuaries Annual Monitoring: Analysis of saltmarsh extent.
Royal Haskoning (2012b). Stour and Orwell Estuaries Annual Monitoring: Presentation of intertidal erosion and accretion.
Royal Haskoning and HR Wallingford (2003). Harwich Haven Approach Channel Deepening: Compliance Report November 1998-August 2003.
Royal Haskoning and HR Wallingford (2011). Mitigation and Monitoring for the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA and Hamford Water SPA: Interim Report.
Royal Haskoning and HR Wallingford (2012). Mitigation and Monitoring for the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA and Hamford Water SPA Annual Review 2011/2012
Royal HaskoningDHV (2013). Trinity III Habitat Enhancement. Annual Report 2012. January 2013.
Suffolk Wildlife Trust (SWT) (2012). Ornithological Monitoring of the Stour and Orwell Estuaries Special Protection Area. Winter 1999/2000 to 2011/2012. July 2012.
Wallingford Environmental Surveys (WES) (2012). Shotley and Trimley River Orwell Foreshore Monitoring. Report Topo02_12. August 2012.
Worsfold, T.M. (2005). Stour, Orwell and Harwich approaches benthos: review of data commissioned by Harwich Haven Authority, biotope distribution update and partial review of current knowledge for the area. Unicomarine Report HHABiot05 to Harwich Haven Authority. November 2005.
Annual Review 2012 Final Report - 83 - March 2013
Appendix A
Stour and Orwell Estuaries benthic monitoring report
Annual Review 2012 Final Report March 2013
Project Report No.: HHASTO12 (HHA76) January 2013
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July/August 2012 survey (HHA76)
for
Harwich Haven Authority
London & South East Midlands & North Scotland & Borders Wales & South West Marine Laboratory Enquiries Compass House Calls Wharf . 20-23 Woodside Place Williams House Units 6/7/9 e: [email protected] Surrey Research Park 2 The Calls Glasgow 11-15 Columbus Walk Business Centre East w: www.thomsonecology.com Guildford Leeds G3 7QF Cardiff Letchworth GU2 7AG . UK LS2 7JU . UK UK CF10 4BY . UK SG6 2TS . UK t: +44 (0) 1483 466 000 t: +44 (0) 113 247 3780 t: +44 (0) 141 582 1485 t: +44 (0) 2920 020 674 t: +44 (0) 1462 675559
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July/August 2012 survey (HHA76). Harwich Haven Authority. Project No.: HHASTO12
Project Number Report No. Revision No. Date of Issue
HHASTO12 001 001 January 2013 (HHA76)
Name Signature Position
Authors: Søren Pears Principal Biologist, Data Analysis Manager Tim Worsfold Principal Biologist, Consultancy and Research Manager
Client Harwich Haven Authority Client Contact John Brien Fieldwork Søren Pears and James Thorpe
Laboratory Work Jason Argent , Daisy Chamberlain, Immacolata Faccia, Christopher Fletcher, Rosemary Foster, Jonathan Haines, Luke Hine , Sarah Hussey, Victoria Mallott, Maria Potouroglou, Rebecca Phillips, Katherine Owen, Søren Pears, Adam Procter, Rebecca Quine and Karen Radford
Laboratory Quality Control (Taxonomy) Georgina Brackenreed-Johnston, Marta Kazubek and Tim Worsfold
Pears, S. & Worsfold, T.M., 2013. Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic report: July 2012. Thomson Unicomarine Report HHASTO12 (HHA76) to Harwich Haven Authority, January 2013.
Disclaimer:
Copyright Thomson Unicomarine Limited. All rights reserved. No part of this report may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from Thomson Unicomarine Limited. If you have received this report in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control and notify Thomson Unicomarine Limited. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Thomson Unicomarine Limited, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of the report. No liability is accepted by Thomson Unicomarine Limited for any use of this report, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Opinions and information provided in the report are on the basis of Thomson Unicomarine Limited using due skill, care and diligence in the preparation of the same and no explicit warranty is provided as to their accuracy. It should be noted and it is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Thomson Unicomarine Limited has been made.
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July/August 2012 survey (HHA76). Harwich Haven Authority. Project No.: HHASTO12
Contents
Contents...... i Appendices ...... i List of Figures...... ii 1. Summary ...... iii 2. Introduction...... 1 2.1 Background ...... 1 2.2 The Brief and Objectives...... 2 3. Methodology ...... 2 3.1 Design of survey programme ...... 2 3.2 Field work...... 3 3.3 Laboratory work...... 6 3.4 Data Analysis ...... 7 4. Results...... 9 4.1 Particle size analysis (PSA) ...... 9 4.2 Macrobiota...... 9 5. Discussion ...... 22 5.1 Important taxa ...... 22 5.2 Biotope Changes...... 22 5.3 Possible reasons for observed biotope changes ...... 22 5.4 Conclusion ...... 23 6. References ...... 23
Appendices
Appendix 1. Details of target positions (NGR), sample groups and biotopes, as well as recorded sampling dates, co-ordinates and depths (corrected for CD) for each annual monitoring station in 2012. Appendix 2. 2012 Particle size analysis: Raw data - percentage retained at 0.5 phi intervals. Appendix 3. Summary of 2012 particle size analysis, showing the percentage of sediment in each size class and derived summary statistics. Appendix 4. Photographs of each PSA and biological sample taken between 31 July and 02 August 2012.
i
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July/August 2012 survey (HHA76). Harwich Haven Authority. Project No.: HHASTO12
Appendix 5. Numbers of individuals of each taxon from each 0.04m² Shipek grab sample from the 2012 survey, with univariate statistics, SIMPROF cluster group assignments and subsampling details. Appendix 6. Biomass data (wet weight in grams) for each benthic sample from the 2012 survey. Appendix 7. Mean blotted wet weight biomass (g/m²) for each sample group ranked in decreasing weight order by taxon. Appendix 8. The 20 most abundant countable taxa in each cluster group, with the percentage of samples in which each non-countable taxon was recorded, including biotope assignments and EUNIS codes. Appendix 9. Biotopes recorded in each of the Stour and Orwell estuary annual monitoring surveys, with 2003 target biotopes. Appendix 10. Biotopes recorded in each of the Stour and Orwell estuary annual monitoring surveys, with 2003 target biotopes.
List of Figures
Figure 1. Locations of annual monitoring stations in the Stour and Orwell estuaries, with sample groups and target biotopes. Figure 2. Map showing the total number of taxa recorded at each station. Figure 3. Map showing the number of individuals per m² calculated for each station. Figure 4. Map showing total biomass per m² calculated for each station. Figure 5. SIMPROF cluster dendrogram of macrofaunal data from each grab sample, with an overlay of sediment size categories and symbols showing significantly different clusters at the 5% significance level. Figure 6. Cluster group assignments for each annual monitoring station, with extrapolated biotopes.
ii
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July/August 2012 survey (HHA76). Harwich Haven Authority. Project No.: HHASTO12
1. Summary
1.1.1 Following large-scale macrofaunal surveys of the Stour and Orwell estuaries, an annual monitoring schedule was established using a reduced sampling grid of forty-four stations, each with a 0.04m² Shipek grab sample for biology and another for particle size analysis. Sampling stations were selected so that each group of four represented a typical biotope, as recorded for the 2003 survey. All but two of the stations had been previously sampled in 1997 and 2003. Annual benthic monitoring surveys were completed in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. The basic report for the fifth (2012) such survey is presented here.
1.1.2 SIMPROF cluster analysis identified fourteen cluster groups that were statistically different to one-another and these groups were assigned to seven biotopes, two of which had not been recorded in previous annual monitoring surveys. There have been noticeable changes to biotopes since the 2003 baseline survey, particularly subtidally. Groups of samples showing least evidence of temporal variation were the intertidal stations on the Stour, particularly those towards the upper reaches of the estuary. A summary of biotope characteristics for all of the biotopes so far recorded in the annual monitoring surveys is included with this report, along with notes on changes to previous surveys.
1.1.3 Some of the changes observed suggest the possibility of erosion of finer sediments from target biotope areas, resulting in a shift to coarser sediment communities. Other longer-term changes are consistent with natural fluctuations in the estuarine ecosystem.
iii
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July/August 2012 survey (HHA76). Harwich Haven Authority. Project No.: HHASTO12
2. Introduction
2.1 Background
2.1.1 As part of the Compensation, Mitigation and Monitoring Agreement, originally introduced under the 1998-2000 Capital Dredge consent and subsequently amended by the Trinity III Extension consent, a wide scale benthic survey programme of the Stour and Orwell estuaries was introduced, to be repeated on a 5 year cycle.
2.1.2 The first survey was undertaken in 1997, when 154 stations were sampled with a 0.04m² Shipek grab. At each station, two benthic biological samples were taken and one sample for particle size analysis (PSA). The biological samples were analysed by Unicomarine Ltd and the PSA by HR Wallingford. A report was produced for the survey (Dyer, 2000).
2.1.3 The second survey was undertaken in 2003; 267 stations were sampled in the Stour, Orwell and Harwich approaches. At each station, one benthic biological sample was taken and one sample for particle size analysis, again using the Shipek grab. Several reports were produced from the survey (Dyer et al., 2004; Dyer & Worsfold, 2004; Worsfold & Dyer, 2004; Worsfold, 2005; Bryant & McNulty, 2007).
2.1.4 The five year interval between surveys made changes difficult to interpret and, consequently, an annual monitoring programme was agreed, using fewer samples. Sampling each year should result in an effective long-term monitoring programme with enough data points to detect trends. The emphasis of the annual surveys is on monitoring rather than on mapping. Survey sites represent replicates within a selection of biotopes in each estuary or different parts of an estuary, to allow comparison between the benthos of like biotopes. This comparison should help highlight any areas that are showing unexpected trends in benthic populations. Biomass data are also incorporated into annual reports to allow comparison with bird data.
2.1.5 Annual benthic data (plus benthic invertebrate biomass) will allow relationships between prey availability and bird numbers (low water bird count data are submitted to HHA on an annual basis) to be compared more easily and with a more robust data set to support any findings.
2.1.6 It was agreed at the annual Steering Group in 2007 that Unicomarine should present the data in a report each year. The first year’s report (Worsfold & Dyer, 2008) showed sampling positions and initial analyses and a baseline for future reporting. The second and third years’ reports (Worsfold & Dyer, 2009; Worsfold et al., 2011) included basic data presentation (without analysis for multiple years). The fourth year’s report (Pears & Worsfold, 2012) included statistical comparisons with data from the previous three annual benthic surveys, as well as the large scale surveys from 1997 and 2003.
2.1.7 Each of the annual benthic data reports has been used to inform Royal Haskoning’s annual Mitigation and Monitoring reports for the Stour and Orwell estuaries (Royal Haskoning, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 & 2012). The original proposal was to compare results with data from the Blackwater Estuary (see below) but that project was discontinued after the final surveys in 2009 (Dyer & Worsfold, 2009).
2.1.8 This report presents data for the fifth year of annual benthic monitoring, in the basic format (without analysis for multiple years) but with summary information on each biotope recorded
1
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July/August 2012 survey (HHA76). Harwich Haven Authority. Project No.: HHASTO12
during the course of the annual monitoring surveys so far presented as an appendix, following discussion at the Steering Group meeting on 13th March, 2010.
2.1.9 A summary of the surveys undertaken to date is shown below: Original June/August 1997 5-yearly repeat July 2003 (with biotope mapping) Year 1 July 2008 (with introduction to annual programme) Year 2 July 2009 (basic) Year 3 July 2010 (basic, but with biotope descriptions) Year 4 July 2011 (survey report and comparisons with past data) Year 5 July/August 2012 (basic, with biotope descriptions)
2.2 The Brief and Objectives
2.2.1 The purpose of the current report is to present the results from the latest benthic monitoring survey of the Stour and Orwell estuaries. Macrobenthic and particle size data will be presented and qualitative comparisons of biotope assignments will be made with previous surveys, with a discussion of possible causes for any changes.
3. Methodology
3.1 Design of survey programme
3.1.1 Groups of samples were selected to represent typical biotopes. Within each of these groups, four samples were taken, at positions that were sampled in both 1997 and 2003 (with 2 exceptions), to allow comparison between as many years as possible. The sampling dates will be comparable to the previous surveys (i.e. June - August).
3.1.2 A list of sampling stations is provided in Appendix 1 and mapped in Figure 1; the list includes biotope assignments based on analysis of data from the 2003 survey (Worsfold, 2005). Most stations were also sampled in 1997 (Dyer, 2000) but two new stations were added for annual monitoring from 2008, due to requests made at the December 2007 Regulators Group meeting for increased sampling in particular areas. Each of the four sampling points within any particular group belonged to a single biotope (following Connor et al., 2004), for the 2003 data, although there may have been more than one (2003) cluster group included in a biotope. Each group has four stations, of similar community type, that can be treated as replicates. There are four sample groups for the Orwell (OrA-D) and seven for the Stour (StA-G).
3.1.3 Sample groups are also summarised in Appendix 1 and Figure 1. Based on the 2003 data, the dark green boundary (2003 Cluster Group D), on the upper Stour, represents an upper estuarine intertidal biotope (LS.LMu.UEst.Hed; EUNIS: A2.322) that includes many ragworms and seems well defined. The pale blue boundaries (2003 Cluster Group E2) are represented in the upper reaches of both estuaries, and at Erwarton Bay, as the most widespread intertidal biotope (LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac; EUNIS: A2.312), with many bivalves, as well as ragworms. The dark blue boundaries (2003 Cluster Group E1) are also matched on both estuaries and represent a
2
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July/August 2012 survey (HHA76). Harwich Haven Authority. Project No.: HHASTO12
similar intertidal biotope (LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr; EUNIS: A2.311), with higher abundance of small worms. The yellow boundaries (2003 Cluster Groups B1 and B2) are variations of the most widespread subtidal biotope (SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi; EUNIS: A5.322), dominated by small worms, in each estuary. The purple boundaries (2003 Cluster Groups G1 and G2) are subtidal fanworm (Sabella pavonina) beds (SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn; EUNIS: A5.432), though G1 had less dense S. pavonina.
Key Approximate intertidal area Annual monitoring stations
260 Groups of monitoring stations 258 (target biotopes) OrA 263 LS.LMu.UEst.Hed Orwell 261 apel St LS.LMu.MEst.HedMacMary LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr 269 SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi 267 SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn OrB 272 275
285 306 Chelmondiston
OrC 289 Holbrook 303
Brantham OrD
295 Stour StG Shotley 296 StB StC 300301 StF 206 207 209 157 163 172 191 204 150 169 189 195 152153 158 155 249 179 192 154 181 174 548 171 180 194 StA 193 549 StD StE Mistley Lawford Harwich
Figure 1. Locations of annual monitoring stations in the Stour and Orwell estuaries, with sample groups and target biotopes.
3.2 Field work
3.2.1 Søren Pears and James Thorpe of Thomson Unicomarine and crew supplied by HHA conducted the grab sampling from the HHA vessel ‘Egret’, using a 0.04m² Shipek grab, between 31st July and 2nd August 2012. Two 0.04m² Shipek grab samples were taken at each station: one for particle size analysis (PSA) and one for benthic biological analysis. A photograph was taken of each biological sample in the grab, before processing. The biological samples were sieved at 0.5mm and fixed in formaldehyde solution on the day of sampling. Details of the samples collected are included in Appendix 1.
3
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July/August 2012 survey (HHA76). Harwich Haven Authority. Project No.: HHASTO12
3.3 Laboratory work
Particle size analysis (PSA)
3.3.1 All PSA was conducted at Thomson Unicomarine’s Letchworth laboratory by Thomson Unicomarine staff (Morena Aloisi, Jason Argent, Lydia Finbow, Janie Mitchell, Daniel Neilson, Rachael Smith, Alison Tamkin and James Thorpe), following procedures laid out in the National Marine Biological Analytical Quality Control (NMBAQC) Scheme’s best practice guidelines (Mason, 2011) and Thomson Unicomarine’s PSA standard operating procedures (Finbow & Argent, 2012). Before analysis, samples were pre-screened to remove any conspicuous fauna. A representative sub-sample was passed through a 1.0mm sieve to determine whether there was a significant amount of sediment greater than 1.0mm. Sediment less than 1.0mm was left to settle out for analysis by laser diffraction using a Malvern Mastersizer 2000 particle size analyser with a Hydro 2000G sample dispersion unit. For samples with an insignificant amount of sediment greater than 1.0mm, no further analysis was required.
3.3.2 The Hydro 2000G sample dispersion unit uses deionised water as the dispersant to break up, circulate and deliver the sample to the optical bench. The system is typically run with a pump speed of 1750 rpm and a stirrer speed at 500 rpm, although this may be altered for coarse sediments. The Mastersizer 2000 software program uses Mie theory, which is particularly accurate when measuring particles <50µm. Before samples are added to the dispersion unit, a background measurement is taken. The unit is ready for use when the measurement reading display is stable, showing no periodic jumps, and the readings show a gradual decrease in light energy from Detector 1 onwards. Ideally, the first several detectors should be less than 100 on the light energy scale, with Detector 20 reading below 20 on the light energy scale. Once an acceptable background reading has been achieved, the sample for analysis is thoroughly mixed and added to the well of the dispersion unit until 15% obscuration is achieved, making sure that the pump speed is at 1750 rpm and the stirrer speed is at 500 rpm. For coarser sediment, the pump and stirrer speeds would be increased to 1900-2000 rpm and 600 rpm, respectively, as coarse sediment tends to sink more easily; increasing the pump and stirrer speeds keeps the sediment sufficiently suspended for more accurate analysis. The laser took 3 readings of each portion of sample added; when this was complete, the dispersion unit was drained and cleaned until the background measurement was acceptable again. This process was repeated twice more to produce 9 readings for each sample.
3.3.3 Readings were treated as acceptable where there was not more than 2% variation in obscuration and the weighted-residual of each measurement was less than 1 (this may be slightly higher for coarse sediments). Any unacceptable readings were reanalysed.
3.3.4 In samples where there was a significant proportion of sediment greater than 1.0mm, the procedure continued by wet sieving the remainder of the sample through a 1.0mm sieve. The <1.0mm and >1.0mm sections were both oven dried for 12 hours at 100˚C. After drying, the >1.0mm fraction was processed in the sieve shaker for 20 minutes and split to half phi intervals. Each half phi fraction was then weighed. The <1.0mm fraction was also weighed after drying to produce a combined <1.0mm weight.
6
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July/August 2012 survey (HHA76). Harwich Haven Authority. Project No.: HHASTO12
Macrobiota analysis
3.3.5 Analysis of the macrobenthic samples was carried out according to the agreed specifications, using Thomson Unicomarine’s standard operating procedures (Worsfold et al., 2010a), upon which current national recommendations (Worsfold et al., 2010b) are based. All biological analysis was conducted at Thomson Unicomarine’s Letchworth laboratory by Thomson Unicomarine staff (Jason Argent , Daisy Chamberlain, Immacolata Faccia, Christopher Fletcher, Rosemary Foster, Jonathan Haines, Luke Hine, Sarah Hussey, Victoria Mallott, Maria Potouroglou, Rebecca Phillips, Katherine Owen, Søren Pears, Adam Procter, Rebecca Quine and Karen Radford), with quality control for all identifications (Georgina Brackenreed-Johnston, Marta Kazubek and Tim Worsfold).
3.3.6 After several days in preservative, the biological samples were sieved at 0.5mm and all biota extracted using low power stereo microscopes. In-house quality control procedures were carried out, to reduce the risk of biota being missed. After these procedures were completed, the sediment residues (sediment from which biota had been extracted) were discarded. The extracted biota were preserved in 70% industrial denatured alcohol (IDA). Countable fauna removed from the samples were identified to the most accurate taxonomic level practicable, usually species, and individuals counted. Non-countable taxa, such as colonial fauna, plants and algae, were recorded as present (‘P’). High power compound microscopes were used to confirm the identity of some species. For quality control purposes and to allow future taxonomic comparisons to be made, a reference collection of each taxon found was made for the project as a whole and will be kept at Thomson Unicomarine, along with the remaining extracted fauna, which are stored as one pot per sample.
3.4 Data Analysis
Particle size data
3.4.1 The sieve and laser data were merged to produce a continuous particle size distribution which was entered into the GRADISTAT program (Blott & Pye, 2001) to obtain derived statistics.
3.4.2 PSA data were converted into simplified proportions of eight size categories (Wentworth, 1922), which were represented as differently sized circles for different proportions for display on the cluster dendrogram.
Biological data
3.4.3 All statistical analyses were carried out using the PRIMER (Plymouth Routines In Multivariate Ecological Research) suite of applications version 6.1.13 (Clarke & Warwick, 2001; Clarke & Gorley, 2006).
Univariate statistics
3.4.4 Total numbers of taxa (S) and individuals (N), Margalef’s index (d, species richness), Pielou’s
index (J′, evenness) and Shannon-Wiener (H'(loge), diversity) were calculated for each sample using the DIVERSE component of PRIMER. Non-countable taxa were excluded from the
7
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July/August 2012 survey (HHA76). Harwich Haven Authority. Project No.: HHASTO12
calculations of total numbers of individuals and diversity indices, but included when calculating the total numbers of taxa.
Multivariate analysis
3.4.5 To obtain a measure of the degree of similarity between the biological communities found, cluster analysis was carried out on the macrobiota data, using PRIMER. The analysis used Bray-Curtis similarity on square root transformed data and the group averaging cluster algorithm (Clarke & Gorley, 2006). Taxa recorded only as present were given a unitary value.
3.4.6 The clustering technique compares the abundance of each taxon in each sample, with its abundance in each of the other samples. The result is a matrix of similarity indices comparing each sample with all other samples. The similarity matrix resulting from the analysis is presented diagrammatically as a dendrogram. Samples that are similar link together towards the bottom of the figure and those that are less similar link towards the top of the diagram. The scale is an index from 0% to 100% and should be viewed as a relative indicator of similarity; it does not indicate the proportion of species in common.
3.4.7 The similarity profile (SIMPROF) test was carried out as part of the clustering routine. This permutational test identifies clusters of samples that cannot be statistically separated at the 5% significance level and marks them on the dendrogram using red lines. Black branches on the cluster denote samples that are statistically different from one-another at the 5% significance level.
3.4.8 In order to assess the importance of differences in the sediment on the benthos, an overlay of the proportion of sediment in each major sediment size category for each sample was added to the resulting cluster dendrogram using categories from Wentworth (1922).
Characteristic biota
3.4.9 The data were examined further to determine the characteristic fauna of the communities recognised by the groupings of samples described above. A list of samples in each cluster group was made and the mean number of individuals of each recorded taxon (with countable individuals) in the samples assigned to each of the cluster groups was calculated and converted to average numbers per square metre. The resulting lists represent, in decreasing order, the numerically dominant taxa in each group. Only the top 20 taxa are given in each list. Average numbers of taxa per sample and mean numbers of individuals per square metre are also included. The top 20 non-countable taxa (e.g. colonial forms) were also presented as the percentage of stations at which they were found.
Biotope Assignment
3.4.10 The dominant biota of the cluster groups was used to assign them to biotopes, following the most recent classification (Connor et al., 2004), and to corresponding EUNIS codes. Qualitative differences to biotope assignments from the previous annual surveys were examined and changes discussed.
8
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July/August 2012 survey (HHA76). Harwich Haven Authority. Project No.: HHASTO12
Data Mapping
3.4.11 Sampling points from the 2012 survey were plotted onto maps using MapInfo Professional version 9.0. Numbers of taxa per sample, individuals and total biomass (both calculated as values per m²), SIMPROF cluster groups and extrapolated biotopes were plotted.
4. Results
4.1 Particle size analysis (PSA)
4.1.1 Photographs of each PSA sample are shown in Appendix 4 (odd plate numbers); most showing muddy or mixed sediment. The raw PSA data are given in Appendix 2. The data are summarised by standard (Blott & Pye, 2001) size fractions in Appendix 3 and also presented diagrammatically on the dendrogram (Figure 5), summarised by the Wentworth (1922) scale.
4.1.2 Proportions of silt/clay were high at the majority of stations, although some had equal or greater proportions of pebble, or a mixture of sand fractions. There seemed to be little correlation between sediment composition and cluster group, with samples within a single cluster group demonstrating a range of sediment types (see Figure 5).
4.2 Macrobiota
4.2.1 Photographs of each biological sample are shown in Appendix 4 (even plate numbers). Most show mud-dominated communities. Green algae (Enteromorpha) can be seen at Station 194, 206 and 275 (Appendix 4, Plates 40, 46 and 68 respectively), fanworm tubes (Sabella pavonina) can be seen at Station 195 (Appendix 4, Plate 42) and cockles (Cerastoderma edule) can be seen at Station 258 (Appendix 4, Plate 54).
Univariate statistics
4.2.2 The full macrobiota abundance data matrix for the 2012 monitoring survey is presented in Appendix 5, along with details of any subsampling carried out. The table also includes the total
numbers of taxa and individuals, Pieliou’s Evenness (J’), Shannon-Wiener diversity (H'loge), Margalef’s species richness index (d) and SIMPROF cluster group assignments. Univariate statistics are plotted on maps in Figure 2 (total number of taxa per sample), Figure 3 (numbers of individuals calculated per m²) and Figure 4 (total wet weight biomass per m²). The full wet weight biomass data matrix is presented in Appendix 6.
4.2.3 Numbers of taxa (Figure 2) were highest in the subtidal samples targeted as biotope SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn (Sample Group StF), with 52 taxa recorded at Station 189. The lowest numbers of taxa were also from subtidal habitats, in group OrD, targeted as biotope SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi; Station 296 had only 4 taxa.
9
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July/August 2012 survey (HHA76). Harwich Haven Authority. Project No.: HHASTO12
Key No. Taxa Approximate intertidal area Annual monitoring stations 52 26 Groups of monitoring stations 5.2 (target biotopes) OrA LS.LMu.UEst.Hed Orwell apel St LS.LMu.MEst.HedMacMary LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn OrB
Chelmondiston OrC Holbrook
Brantham OrD Stour StG Shotley StB StC StF
StA StD StE Mistley Lawford Harwich
Figure 2. Map showing the total number of taxa recorded at each Station.
4.2.4 Numbers of individuals (Figure 3) were highest intertidally, with 96,300 per m² at Station 206 (in StG), and lowest in the subtidal sample groups OrC and OrD (75 per m² at Station 296, in OrD). Shannon Wiener Diversity ranged from 0.927, at Station 171 (in StC), to 2.928 at Station 189 (in StF).
Key No. Individuals Approximate intertidal area per m²
Annual monitoring stations 97,000
48,500 Groups of monitoring stations 9,700 (target biotopes) OrA LS.LMu.UEst.Hed Orwell apel St LS.LMu.MEst.HedMacMary LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn OrB
Chelmondiston OrC Holbrook
Brantham OrD Stour StG Shotley StB StC StF
StA StD StE Mistley Lawford Harwich
10
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July/August 2012 survey (HHA76). Harwich Haven Authority. Project No.: HHASTO12
Figure 3. Map showing the number of individuals per m² calculated for each station.
4.2.5 Total biomass (Figure 4) was highest in the intertidal Orwell group OrA (5,538.44g per m² at Station 258) and lowest subtidally in group OrD (0.01g per m² at Station 296). Mean biomass for the four samples in each target group is presented in Appendix 7, ranked by mean weight for each taxon. Mean biomass per m² across the sample groups was highest in subtidal Group StF and lowest in Sample Group OrD. The taxa with the highest mean biomass for the survey as a whole were American slipper limpets (Crepidula fornicata), common cockles (Cerastoderma edule) and fanworms (Sabella pavonina). The biomass of cockles and slipper limpets would be skewed by shells; fanworms and slipper limpets are mainly subtidal.
Key Total Biomass Approximate intertidal area per m²
Annual monitoring stations 5,600
2,800 Groups of monitoring stations 560 (target biotopes) OrA LS.LMu.UEst.Hed Orwell apel St LS.LMu.MEst.HedMacMary LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn OrB
Chelmondiston OrC Holbrook
Brantham OrD Stour StG Shotley StB StC StF
StA StD StE Mistley Lawford Harwich
Figure 4. Map showing total biomass per m² calculated for each station.
Cluster analysis
4.2.6 The results of the cluster analysis on the full biological data matrix are presented as a dendrogram in Figure 5. A summary of the sediment found at each station is also shown on the dendrogram as an overlay. The diameters of circles represent the proportion of each sediment component. The dominant taxa for each cluster group are given in Appendix 8, with separate lists for average numbers of countable taxa in each group and percentages of samples in which each non-countable taxon was found in each group.
11
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July/August 2012 survey (HHA76). Harwich Haven Authority. Project No.: HHASTO12
0 SIMPROF Group a h b i c j 20 d k e l f m g n 40
Pebble 60
Bray Curtis Similarity Granule
V. Coarse Sand
Coarse Sand 80 Medium Sand
Fine Sand
V. Fine Sand 100 206 155 163 157 158 301 180 172 249 169 174 204 296 306 295 300 192 207 179 181 195 189 191 289 285 303 150 154 152 153 269 258 260 263 171 548 275 261 267 272 193 549 194 209 Station
Figure 5. SIMPROF cluster dendrogram of macrofaunal data from each grab sample, with an overlay of sediment size categories and symbols showing significantly different clusters at the 5% significance level.
12
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July/August 2012 survey (HHA76). Harwich Haven Authority. Project No.: HHASTO12
4.2.7 The SIMPROF test identified fourteen groups of samples that could be statistically separated at the 5% significance level, including five that only contained single samples. These groups were assigned to seven biotopes, two of which have not been recorded in the annual surveys, but have been recorded from previous surveys of the Stour and Orwell estuaries (Worsfold, 2005). The spatial distribution of cluster groups is presented in Figure 6, along with the 2012 biotope assignments. While some sample groups have four samples within the same cluster groups and/or biotopes as previous years, there are others for which the classification can be seen to have changed. A table of biotope assignments for each station in each year is presented in Appendix 9.
4.2.8 The intertidal Stour groups StA, StB StC and StE remained unchanged from 2011. Changes were more apparent in the subtidal groups StF, OrC and OrD, but changes were also evident in the intertidal Orwell groups OrA and OrB, where three Stations (258, 260 and 269) showed a shift to the eulittoral mixed sediment biotope LR.FLR.Eph.BLitX . 2012 saw a further decrease in the mixed sediment fanworm biotope SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn, with only one station (195, in group StF) assigned in the current survey, compared to two in 2011, seven in 2010 and eight during the target biotope assignment in 2003. Appendix 10 provides a list of all biotopes recorded at the annual monitoring stations from 2003 to 2012, with notes on each biotope’s characteristics, distribution, sensitivity and changes between years.
SIMPROF Key Clus ter Annual monitoring stations a (1) b (1) c (2) Groups of monitoring stations d (1) (target biotopes) OrA e (1) f (4) LS.LMu.UEst.Hed Orwell g (4) apel St LS.LMu.MEst.HedMacMary h (3) LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr i (6) j (1) SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi k (4) SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn l (5) OrB m (7) 2012 Biotopes n (4) LR.FLR.Eph.BLitX LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.UEst.Hed SS.SMu.SMuVS.PolCvol Chelmondiston SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi OrC Holbrook SS.SMx.SMxVS.CreMed SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn
Brantham OrD Stour StG Shotley StB StC StF
StA StD StE Mistley Lawford Harwich
Figure 6. Cluster group assignments for each annual monitoring station, with extrapolated biotopes.
21
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July/August 2012 survey (HHA76). Harwich Haven Authority. Project No.: HHASTO12
5. Discussion
5.1 Important taxa
5.1.1 No rare (Bratton, 1991, Sanderson, 1996) or protected (Betts, 2001) species were found. Four non-native species, as listed by Eno et al. (1997), were found in the survey area: the ostracod Eusarsiella zostericola (found at 20 stations); the Australasian barnacle, Elminius modestus (found at 5 stations); the American slipper limpet, Crepidula fornicata (found at 5 stations); and the sand-gaper, Mya arenaria, (found at 9 stations). Also, the Manila clam, Tapes phillipinarum (found at 4 stations) and the amphipod Grandidierella japonica (found at 1 station), were introduced to the UK since the non-native species directory was published (Ashelby, 2006). It is likely that several other recorded species should be considered cryptogenic (possibly non- native) and a few are listed as such for the Netherlands (Wolff, 2005) and Germany (Gollasch & Nehring, 2006). Those found in samples from the annual monitoring surveys that we would regard as cryptogenic, following recent literature and our own understanding of habitats and distribution include: Monocorophium acherusicum, Tharyx ‘species A’, Aphelochaeta marioni, Streblospio spp (which include S. benedicti), Polydora cornuta and Alitta virens.
5.2 Biotope Changes
5.2.1 The 2012 data show that the intertidal sample groups on the mid and upper Stour have similar communities to those seen in previous surveys, with the upper Stour groups StA and StB the only groups that have been consistently assigned to the same biotopes in 2003 and all five annual surveys; the mid-estuary groups StC and StE showed variability between 2003 and 2010, but have remained stable between 2010 and 2012, although StC has shifted from its 2003 target biotope. The groups containing subtidal samples (StD and StF) and the intertidal group StG lower down the estuary show more evidence of change over time, and differences were observed between the 2011 and 2012 surveys. Biotope changes in the 2012 results were more evident in the Orwell groups, with all four target biotopes showing differences to previous years in at least one station, but as with the Stour groups the subtidal groups OrC and OrD showed more evidence of change than the intertidal groups OrA and OrB. All eight of the subtidal stations comprising groups OrC and OrD had a different biotope assignment in 2012 to that of the 2011 survey.
5.2.2 A total of 19 stations had the same biotope assignments in the 2012 survey as in the 2003 survey, which was used to set the target biotopes; all were in the intertidal groups and some have shown variations in the intervening years. Seven of the twelve target biotope groups contain mixtures of biotopes in the 2012 results. The 2012 survey also saw the assignment of two biotopes not previously recorded in the annual surveys, although both biotopes had been found in the Stour and Orwell estuaries during the wider biotope studies (Worsfold, 2005). Between 2010 and 2011, there was seen to be a decline in the fanworm biotope SS.SMX.IMx.SpavSpAn and this trend has continued in 2012, with Sabella pavonina only recorded at one station.
5.3 Possible reasons for observed biotope changes
5.3.1 The change of groups StD, StF, OrC from the mud biotope SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi to the mixed sediment SS.SMx.SMxVSCreMed and the change in groups OrA and OrB from
22
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July/August 2012 survey (HHA76). Harwich Haven Authority. Project No.: HHASTO12
Ls.LMu.MEst.HedMac to LR.FLR.Eph.BLitX are both indicative of greater predominance of mixed substrata compared to fine sediments in recent years, which may be the result of erosion of softer sediments revealing coarser substrata beneath. Longer term biotope changes are likely to reflect natural environmental fluctuations, as would be expected in an estuarine ecosystem over a ten year period. Estuarine ecology is dependent on the interaction between organisms and many environmental factors, including but not limited to current, waves, suspended particulate matter, bed sediments, temperature and chemistry (Ducrotoy, 2010) and these environmental parameters do not change in a regular pattern along simple gradients (McLusky & Elliott, 2004). As such, benthic communities would be expected to show evidence of natural change over the ten years since the target biotopes were assigned.
5.4 Conclusion
5.4.1 There have been noticeable changes in the biotopes in the estuaries in 2012, particularly in the subtidal stations. The new biotopes recorded may suggest erosion of softer sediments to reveal coarser substrata beneath. Other changes are likely to represent natural fluctuations in the estuarine ecosystem and any patterns will become more evident with each successive survey year; in the next five-year summary report, all data to date will be compared and observed and trends will be examined in detail.
6. References
Ashelby, C., 2006. Records of the introduced amphipod Grandidierella japonica Stephenson 1938 (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Gammaridea: Aoridae) from the Orwell Estuary, Suffolk. Suffolk Natural History, 42, 48-54. Betts, C.J., 2001. Checklist of protected British species. Second Edition. Christopher Betts Environmental Biology, Worcester. 54 pp. Blott, S.J. & Pye, K., 2001. GRADISTAT: a grain size distribution and statistics package for the analysis of unconsolidated sediments. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 26, 1237–1248. Bratton, J.H., 1991. British Red Data Books: 3. Invertebrates other than insects. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Bryant, C. & McNulty, S., 2007. Environmental trends on the Stour and Orwell Estuaries. Royal Haskoning report 9R6009/303462/BBoro to Harwich Haven Authority. Clarke, K.R., & Gorley, R.N., 2006. Primer v6: User Manual/Tutorial. PRIMER-E, Plymouth. Clarke, K.R., & Warwick, R.M., 2001. Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation, 2nd edition. PRIMER-E, Plymouth. Connor, D.W., Allen, J.H., Golding, N., Howell, K.L., Lieberknecht, L.M., Northen, K.O. & Reker, J.B., 2004. The marine habitat classification for Britain and Ireland Version 04.05. JNCC, Peterborough, ISBN 1 861 07561 8 (internet version). Ducrotoy, J.-P., 2010. The use of biooptes in assessing the environmental quality of tidal estuaries in Europe. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 86, 317-321. Dyer, M.F., 2000. Stour and Orwell estuary benthic survey 1997. Report to Harwich Haven Authority. Unicomarine report StrOrw97, January 2000. Dyer, M.F., Ashelby, C.W., & Worsfold, T.M., 2004. A Comparison of the sediment characteristics of the Stour and Orwell estuaries between 1997 and 2003. Unicomarine Report HHASED04 to Harwich Haven Authority, January 2004.
23
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July/August 2012 survey (HHA76). Harwich Haven Authority. Project No.: HHASTO12
Dyer, M.F. & Worsfold, T.M., 2004. Comparison of the intertidal benthos of the Stour and Orwell estuaries between 1997 and 2003. Unicomarine Report HHAStrOrw03int to Harwich Haven Authority, February 2004. Dyer, M.F. & Worsfold, T.M., 2009. Intertidal invertebrate survey of the upper Blackwater estuary from Beeleigh Weir to Decoy Point: April and September 2009. Unicomarine Report Essuf09 to Essex and Suffolk Water, November, 2009. Eno, N.C., Clark, R.A. & Sanderson, W.G., 1997. Non-native marine species in British waters: a review and directory. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 152 pp. Finbow, L. & Argent, J. 2012. Thomson Unicomarine standard operating procedure for the processing of particle size samples Version 2.0: Thomson Unicomarine, February 2012. Gray, J.S. & Elliott, M., 2009. Ecology of Marine Sediments: From Science to Management, 2nd Edition. Oxford University Press. Gollasch, S. & Nehring, S., 2006. National checklist for aquatic alien species in Germany. Aquatic Invasions, 1(4), 245-269. Mason, C. 2011. NMBAQC’s Best Practice Guidance, Particle Size Analysis (PSA) for Supporting Biological Analysis. National Marine Biological AQC Coordinating Committee, 2011. McLusky, D. and Elliott, M., 2004. The Estuarine Ecosystem – Ecology, Threats and Management. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 214pp.
Pears, S. & Worsfold, T.M., 2012. Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2011 survey, with a review of the data since 1997. Unicomarine Report HHASTO11 (HHA73) to Harwich Haven Authority, March 2012.
Royal Haskoning, 2007. Environmental Trends on the Stour and Orwell Estuaries. January 2007. Royal Haskoning, 2008. Mitigation and Monitoring for the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA and Hamford Water SPA. Annual review 2008. November 2008.
Royal Haskoning, 2010. Mitigation and Monitoring for the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA and Hamford Water SPA. Annual review 2009. March 2010. Royal Haskoning, 2011. Mitigation and Monitoring for the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA and Hamford Water SPA. Annual review 2010/11. March 2011. Royal Haskoning, 2012. Mitigation and Monitoring for the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA and Hamford Water SPA. Annual review 2011/12. March 2011. Sanderson, W.G., 1996. Rare marine benthic flora and fauna in Great Britain: the development of criteria for assessment. JNCC Report, No. 240. Wentworth, C.K., 1922. A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments. Journal of Geology, 30, 377- 392. Worsfold, T. M. 2005. Stour, Orwell and Harwich approaches benthos: review of data commissioned by Harwich Haven Authority, biotope distribution update and partial review of current knowledge for the area. Unicomarine Report HHABiot05 to Harwich Haven Authority, Novemeber 2005. Worsfold, T.M. & Dyer, M.F., 2004. Comparison of the subtidal benthos of the Stour and Orwell estuaries between 1997 and 2003. Unicomarine Report HHAStrOrw03sub to Harwich Haven Authority, March 2004. Worsfold, T.M. & Dyer, M.F., 2008. Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2008 survey. Unicomarine Report HHASTO08 (HHA64) to Harwich Haven Authority, December 2008. Worsfold, T.M. & Dyer, M.F., 2009. Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2009 survey. Unicomarine Report HHASTO09 (HHA69) to Harwich Haven Authority, November 2009. Worsfold, T.M., Hall, D.J. & Ashelby, C.W., 2010a. Unicomarine Procedural Guidelines and Quality Control Systems Version 5.0: Unicomarine, March 2010.
24
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July/August 2012 survey (HHA76). Harwich Haven Authority. Project No.: HHASTO12
Worsfold, T.M., Hall, D.J. & O'Reilly, M. (Ed.), 2010b. Guidelines for processing marine macrobenthic invertebrate samples: a Processing Requirements Protocol: Version 1.0, June 2010. Unicomarine Report NMBAQCMbPRP to the NMBAQC Committee, 33pp. Worsfold, T.M., Finbow, L. & Pears, S., 2011. Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2010 survey. Unicomarine Report HHASTO10 (HHA70) to Harwich Haven Authority, January 2011.
25
Appendix 1. Details of target positions (NGR), sample groups and biotopes, as well as recorded sampling dates, co-ordinates and depths (corrected for CD) for each annual monitoring station in 2012.
Recorded position Recorded position Target Position Sampling Sampling Depth Depth Target biotope (macrofauna) (PSA) group date to CD to CD Site Area Easting Northing Easting Northing Easting Northing 150 Stour 610601 232604 GpStA 02/08/2012 610602 232606 -1.61 610602 232607 -1.60 152 Stour 610207 232407 GpStA 02/08/2012 610204 232407 -1.68 610203 232403 -1.75 LS.LMu.UEst.Hed 153 Stour 610371 232336 GpStA 02/08/2012 610372 232336 -2.74 610376 232335 -2.74 154 Stour 610929 232158 GpStA 02/08/2012 610926 232158 -1.17 610924 232158 -1.17 155 Stour 611291 232330 GpStB 02/08/2012 611289 232329 -2.33 611290 232331 -2.31 157 Stour 612007 233173 GpStB 02/08/2012 612008 233176 -2.30 612008 233176 -2.14 LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac 158 Stour 611999 232451 GpStB 02/08/2012 612001 232453 -2.16 612001 232452 -2.16 163 Stour 612672 233035 GpStB 02/08/2012 612680 233038 -2.39 612676 233038 -2.33 169 Stour 613786 232652 GpStC 02/08/2012 613786 232654 -0.74 613785 232653 -0.67 171 Stour 613800 231999 GpStC 02/08/2012 613796 231998 -0.86 613797 231999 -0.80 LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr 172 Stour 614496 233011 GpStC 02/08/2012 614499 233010 -1.00 614498 233011 -0.99 174 Stour 614489 232182 GpStC 02/08/2012 614488 232182 -0.40 614488 232181 -0.45 179 Stour 615911 232536 GpStD 01/08/2012 615911 232537 3.53 615910 232536 3.80 180 Stour 615914 231998 GpStDSS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi 02/08/2012 615918 231995 -0.89 615914 231996 -1.08 181 Stour 616612 232400 GpStD 01/08/2012 616612 232398 1.13 616613 232399 1.16 189 Stour 618876 232797 GpStF 01/08/2012 618872 232794 3.57 618876 232797 3.59 191 Stour 618851 233245 GpStFSS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn 01/08/2012 618852 233245 0.16 618853 233246 0.10 192 Stour 618809 232613 GpStF 01/08/2012 618812 232615 0.01 618808 232615 0.03 193 Stour 618734 231952 GpStE 01/08/2012 618738 231952 -1.86 618736 231952 -1.85 LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac 194 Stour 619366 232097 GpStE 01/08/2012 619370 232098 -1.21 619369 232097 -1.20 195 Stour 619345 232900 GpStF SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn 01/08/2012 619343 232899 9.98 619346 232900 9.85 204 Stour 621949 233380 GpStG 01/08/2012 621946 233377 -1.25 621943 233379 -1.24 206 Stour 623180 234019 GpStG 01/08/2012 623184 234018 -1.87 623186 234018 -1.81 LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac 207 Stour 623180 233763 GpStG 01/08/2012 623177 233764 -1.49 623176 233763 -1.46 209 Stour 623980 233779 GpStG 01/08/2012 623985 233779 -1.22 623983 233782 -1.21 249 Stour 615447 232447 GpStD SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi 01/08/2012 615446 232445 0.22 615442 232447 0.22 258 Orwell 617473 240416 GpOrA 31/07/2012 617470 240414 -1.35 617470 240417 -1.87 260 Orwell 617594 240782 GpOrA 31/07/2012 617599 240782 -1.43 617587 240779 -1.88 LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr 261 Orwell 618198 239793 GpOrA 31/07/2012 618198 239788 -1.60 618199 239794 -1.57 263 Orwell 618510 240113 GpOrA 31/07/2012 618512 240114 -1.60 618511 240112 -1.59 267 Orwell 620000 238951 GpOrB 31/07/2012 619997 238948 -1.93 619999 238947 -1.92 269 Orwell 620189 239498 GpOrB 31/07/2012 620187 239501 -1.45 620193 239503 -1.43 LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac 272 Orwell 620880 238891 GpOrB 31/07/2012 620884 238897 -1.20 620886 238889 -0.91 275 Orwell 621849 238662 GpOrB 31/07/2012 621847 238665 -1.49 621851 238663 -1.38 285 Orwell 624530 237398 GpOrC 31/07/2012 624537 237402 4.05 624530 237400 3.77 SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn 289 Orwell 625091 236753 GpOrC 31/07/2012 625087 236751 5.48 625087 236752 5.50 295 Orwell 625307 234889 GpOrD 31/07/2012 625306 234885 7.66 625307 234887 7.66 296 Orwell 625500 234798 GpOrD 31/07/2012 625495 234800 12.17 625499 234798 12.22 SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi 300 Orwell 625302 234407 GpOrD 31/07/2012 625297 234402 -1.59 625303 234406 -1.59 301 Orwell 625449 234445 GpOrD 31/07/2012 625454 234449 2.81 625457 234449 2.95 303 Orwell 625089 236246 GpOrC 31/07/2012 625088 236244 6.89 625083 236245 6.93 SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn 306 Orwell 624854 237370 GpOrC 31/07/2012 624858 237368 7.06 624852 237370 6.50 548 Stour 618,386 232,290 GpStE 01/08/2012 618390 232289 -1.54 618388 232290 -1.53 LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac 549 Stour 619,120 231,964 GpStE 01/08/2012 619121 231963 -1.33 619119 231964 -1.29
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2012 survey. Appendix 1. 1 of 1 Appendix 2. 2012 Particle size analysis: Raw data - percentage retained at 0.5 phi intervals.
Station µm phi f 150 152 153 154 155 157 158 163 169 171 172 174 179 180 181 189 191 192 193 194 195 204 206 63000 -6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 45000 -5.5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 31500 -5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22400 -4.5 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.742 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.088 0.000 0.000 1.570 0.000 2.867 0.000 0.000 6.440 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 16000 -4 10.852 2.216 0.000 9.535 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.948 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.569 0.000 0.000 5.037 7.231 0.000 0.000 2.480 0.000 0.000 0.000 11200 -3.5 0.000 10.451 0.000 5.690 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.408 2.871 0.000 3.263 0.000 4.319 0.000 0.000 0.850 7.822 3.956 0.000 1.129 0.000 0.000 0.000 8000 -3 0.454 9.724 0.000 7.903 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.391 3.604 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.811 0.839 0.000 1.866 15.718 11.494 0.000 1.230 0.000 0.000 0.000 5600 -2.5 1.194 6.558 0.000 3.590 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.116 1.132 0.000 1.111 0.000 0.944 0.255 0.000 1.247 10.252 7.982 0.000 0.750 0.000 0.000 0.000 4000 -2 0.373 4.408 0.000 3.137 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.273 1.159 0.000 1.122 0.000 1.970 0.462 0.000 1.106 11.087 5.603 0.000 1.573 0.000 0.000 0.000 2800 -1.5 0.281 2.678 0.000 2.259 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.124 1.005 0.000 0.836 0.000 4.018 0.632 0.000 0.859 11.199 3.816 0.000 0.988 0.000 0.000 0.000 2000 -1 0.311 2.076 0.000 1.834 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.281 0.833 0.000 0.704 0.000 1.953 0.578 0.000 0.528 9.302 3.286 0.000 1.073 0.000 0.000 0.000 1400 -0.5 0.301 1.910 0.000 1.350 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.737 0.715 0.000 0.612 0.000 1.440 0.523 0.000 0.578 7.587 3.360 0.000 1.121 0.000 0.000 0.000 1000 0 0.255 1.764 0.000 1.265 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.146 0.634 0.000 0.489 0.000 1.112 0.584 0.000 0.611 4.271 2.667 0.000 0.791 0.000 0.000 0.000 707.0 0.5 0.236 1.728 0.693 1.546 0.077 0.904 2.616 5.261 0.608 0.006 0.291 0.045 1.126 1.365 0.307 3.157 2.124 2.723 0.000 0.086 2.896 0.427 0.497 500.0 1 0.965 3.926 4.023 3.120 1.914 2.597 10.946 9.042 1.732 0.635 1.046 0.698 2.704 2.985 4.844 4.627 2.439 8.996 0.859 1.356 3.835 1.266 1.492 353.6 1.5 1.493 5.326 7.807 3.702 4.815 3.565 18.011 11.671 2.531 1.404 1.747 1.205 3.171 3.947 11.428 4.410 2.067 13.582 6.857 2.184 3.597 2.555 2.374 250.0 2 1.535 5.112 10.250 3.135 6.710 3.925 19.371 12.167 2.807 1.563 2.086 1.188 2.542 4.201 15.636 2.999 1.279 12.406 13.447 2.085 2.642 4.526 3.000 176.8 2.5 1.513 3.811 9.981 2.225 6.855 4.433 14.375 10.219 2.900 1.722 2.417 1.343 1.844 4.293 13.983 1.755 0.612 6.830 16.491 2.104 2.106 6.816 3.589 125.0 3 1.738 2.607 7.362 1.728 5.538 5.214 7.162 6.573 3.048 2.296 2.794 2.080 1.672 4.641 8.112 1.394 0.346 1.912 13.483 2.853 2.452 8.303 4.209 83.39 3.5 2.313 2.199 4.414 1.830 4.087 5.896 2.298 3.062 3.344 3.234 3.192 3.255 1.901 5.197 3.094 1.742 0.377 0.152 7.467 4.167 3.341 8.402 4.728 62.50 4 3.300 2.460 2.944 2.318 3.689 6.351 0.957 1.287 3.902 4.371 3.894 4.598 2.278 5.738 1.572 2.388 0.478 0.265 3.267 5.511 4.313 7.732 5.197 44.19 4.5 4.753 2.958 3.212 2.975 4.550 6.904 1.521 1.349 4.840 5.757 5.235 6.175 2.841 6.243 2.423 3.181 0.543 0.848 2.446 6.548 5.296 7.201 5.996 31.25 5 6.507 3.407 4.318 3.682 6.067 7.723 2.253 2.214 6.016 7.362 7.038 8.030 3.758 6.740 3.585 4.183 0.584 1.076 3.392 7.189 6.392 7.014 7.232 22.10 5.5 8.213 3.740 5.387 4.365 7.530 8.583 2.619 2.979 7.146 8.988 8.680 9.930 5.056 7.203 4.251 5.446 0.635 1.053 4.314 7.537 7.583 6.971 8.539 15.63 6 9.501 3.952 6.119 4.911 8.537 9.094 2.821 3.387 8.012 10.389 9.665 11.397 6.491 7.565 4.647 6.805 0.697 1.088 4.712 7.732 8.651 6.962 9.468 11.05 6.5 10.096 4.002 6.564 5.190 8.947 8.988 3.020 3.505 8.442 11.287 9.881 11.949 7.648 7.734 5.023 7.879 0.745 1.235 4.820 7.859 9.342 6.937 9.785 7.813 7 9.799 3.800 6.712 5.081 8.679 8.159 3.119 3.364 8.222 11.311 9.348 11.332 8.100 7.540 5.247 8.240 0.739 1.367 4.769 7.824 9.446 6.712 9.401 5.524 7.5 8.611 3.311 6.411 4.541 7.723 6.727 2.958 2.960 7.272 10.255 8.133 9.695 7.626 6.846 5.055 7.679 0.661 1.361 4.454 7.405 8.848 6.078 8.331 3.906 8 6.782 2.599 5.557 3.647 6.203 4.993 2.497 2.346 5.762 8.292 6.421 7.475 6.344 5.665 4.354 6.328 0.526 1.191 3.784 6.436 7.571 4.997 6.726 2.762 8.5 4.651 1.778 4.187 2.539 4.332 3.258 1.817 1.628 3.984 5.827 4.455 5.091 4.565 4.132 3.251 4.501 0.362 0.894 2.801 4.908 5.733 3.599 4.807 1.953 9 2.676 1.018 2.631 1.468 2.515 1.815 1.102 0.962 2.333 3.458 2.621 2.970 2.772 2.572 2.046 2.685 0.211 0.561 1.737 3.156 3.716 2.203 2.948 1.381 9.5 1.119 0.421 1.197 0.607 1.047 0.757 0.482 0.415 1.014 1.528 1.137 1.289 1.264 1.214 0.958 1.196 0.092 0.257 0.783 1.518 1.810 1.027 1.367 0.977 10 0.175 0.060 0.228 0.088 0.185 0.113 0.055 0.045 0.186 0.314 0.212 0.254 0.295 0.306 0.186 0.283 0.015 0.035 0.119 0.406 0.431 0.271 0.315 0.691 10.5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.488 11 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.345 11.5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.244 12 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.173 12.5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.122 13 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.086 13.5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2012 survey Appendix 2. 1 of 2 Appendix 2. 2012 Particle size analysis: Raw data - percentage retained at 0.5 phi intervals.
Station µm phi f 207 209 249 258 260 261 263 267 269 272 275 285 289 295 296 300 301 303 306 548 549 63000 -6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 45000 -5.5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 31500 -5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.916 0.000 0.000 0.000 22400 -4.5 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.321 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.763 0.000 3.704 0.000 0.000 8.830 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.832 0.000 0.000 0.000 16000 -4 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.927 2.570 0.000 1.071 0.340 0.000 1.569 0.000 7.201 14.630 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.735 0.000 0.000 0.000 11200 -3.5 0.000 0.000 0.611 1.190 5.716 0.000 5.316 2.139 0.000 2.432 0.000 7.106 17.663 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.248 0.000 0.000 0.000 8000 -3 0.000 0.169 0.693 9.108 4.502 0.429 2.210 1.972 0.000 2.072 0.000 1.347 18.701 0.000 0.000 0.803 0.000 0.179 0.000 0.000 0.000 5600 -2.5 0.000 0.867 0.301 4.881 3.749 0.031 3.038 0.943 0.000 1.975 0.000 3.116 15.805 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.175 0.000 0.000 0.000 4000 -2 0.000 0.281 0.186 4.708 3.329 0.094 1.393 0.981 0.000 0.875 0.000 1.897 10.851 0.000 0.000 0.354 0.000 2.580 0.000 0.000 0.000 2800 -1.5 0.000 0.234 0.162 5.039 1.938 0.058 0.985 0.702 0.000 1.049 0.000 1.944 5.163 0.000 0.000 0.490 0.000 4.029 0.000 0.000 0.000 2000 -1 0.000 0.230 0.000 5.155 2.250 0.140 0.817 0.611 0.000 1.083 0.000 1.959 3.974 0.000 0.000 0.579 0.000 5.159 0.000 0.000 0.000 1400 -0.5 0.000 0.183 0.147 5.509 2.514 0.109 0.868 0.749 0.000 0.905 0.000 1.829 1.765 0.000 0.000 0.534 0.000 6.367 0.000 0.000 0.000 1000 0 0.000 0.112 0.159 5.447 2.330 0.129 0.717 0.973 0.000 0.681 0.000 1.714 1.134 0.000 0.000 0.490 0.000 5.261 0.000 0.000 0.000 707.0 0.5 0.147 0.068 4.872 5.168 3.571 0.110 0.073 0.485 0.172 0.458 0.028 4.142 0.322 0.075 0.254 0.996 0.039 0.000 0.000 0.318 0.425 500.0 1 1.373 0.939 13.101 7.747 4.855 0.182 0.394 2.854 0.574 0.851 0.917 9.999 0.348 0.375 0.265 1.689 0.247 0.528 0.561 1.352 1.623 353.6 1.5 2.139 1.580 17.657 8.557 5.182 0.810 3.464 6.285 0.958 1.216 1.594 13.952 0.274 0.780 0.591 2.054 0.597 4.218 1.595 2.510 2.353 250.0 2 2.228 1.699 14.839 7.077 4.588 1.923 8.461 8.646 1.075 1.474 1.535 12.532 0.154 0.823 0.854 1.840 0.870 8.272 2.388 3.720 2.563 176.8 2.5 2.282 1.761 7.804 4.323 3.655 3.085 12.042 8.553 1.291 1.694 1.648 6.991 0.057 1.093 1.330 1.880 1.484 10.145 3.005 5.077 2.862 125.0 3 2.745 2.195 2.545 1.961 2.953 3.854 10.982 6.431 1.749 1.903 2.463 2.054 0.015 1.904 2.050 3.182 2.469 8.294 3.210 6.403 3.605 83.39 3.5 3.796 3.285 1.210 0.881 2.693 4.107 6.429 4.215 2.416 2.172 3.875 0.257 0.013 3.329 2.838 6.023 3.641 4.593 3.189 7.310 4.702 62.50 4 5.377 5.021 1.990 0.838 2.808 4.501 2.590 3.282 3.427 2.723 5.446 0.587 0.019 5.202 3.837 9.299 4.995 2.010 3.723 7.584 5.877 44.19 4.5 7.097 7.008 2.853 1.179 3.201 5.672 1.645 3.608 4.984 3.749 6.887 1.376 0.023 7.017 5.265 11.226 6.514 1.505 5.065 7.513 7.004 31.25 5 8.345 8.549 3.268 1.505 3.779 7.498 2.628 4.483 6.970 5.192 8.111 1.746 0.024 8.245 6.971 10.861 7.909 2.087 6.732 7.508 8.000 22.10 5.5 8.919 9.221 3.567 1.763 4.427 9.345 3.871 5.362 9.034 6.832 9.173 1.864 0.027 8.885 8.670 8.937 9.012 2.654 8.243 7.728 8.776 15.63 6 9.105 9.205 3.943 1.991 4.987 10.603 4.702 6.024 10.775 8.378 10.046 2.063 0.031 9.322 10.168 6.948 9.892 2.898 9.423 8.021 9.275 11.05 6.5 9.210 8.980 4.253 2.153 5.295 10.984 5.190 6.370 11.865 9.502 10.529 2.389 0.036 9.794 11.292 5.831 10.576 2.965 10.199 8.115 9.456 7.813 7 9.170 8.772 4.268 2.152 5.214 10.432 5.383 6.288 11.991 9.847 10.332 2.673 0.037 10.113 11.703 5.528 10.784 2.934 10.408 7.733 9.165 5.524 7.5 8.677 8.417 3.888 1.934 4.699 9.070 5.146 5.713 10.998 9.199 9.322 2.732 0.035 9.876 11.063 5.463 10.139 2.740 9.885 6.764 8.249 3.906 8 7.519 7.600 3.184 1.540 3.831 7.166 4.400 4.701 9.050 7.659 7.610 2.486 0.029 8.808 9.355 5.113 8.550 2.328 8.598 5.332 6.735 2.762 8.5 5.714 6.114 2.298 1.059 2.750 5.012 3.235 3.393 6.505 5.542 5.437 1.955 0.021 6.888 6.864 4.236 6.246 1.723 6.629 3.676 4.811 1.953 9 3.681 4.222 1.426 0.609 1.687 3.007 1.969 2.072 3.964 3.388 3.274 1.291 0.013 4.566 4.240 3.015 3.830 1.068 4.383 2.150 2.900 1.381 9.5 1.818 2.275 0.667 0.254 0.776 1.358 0.859 0.925 1.806 1.545 1.453 0.636 0.006 2.277 1.948 1.705 1.761 0.481 2.191 0.952 1.306 0.977 10 0.606 0.889 0.108 0.023 0.151 0.290 0.122 0.138 0.397 0.334 0.319 0.164 0.000 0.628 0.441 0.741 0.445 0.073 0.571 0.233 0.310 0.691 10.5 0.052 0.123 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.184 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.488 11 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.345 11.5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.244 12 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.173 12.5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.122 13 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.086 13.5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2012 survey Appendix 2. 2 of 2 Summary of 2012 particle size analysis, showing the percentage of sediment in each size class and derived summary statistics.
Sample Sediment* mm phi f 150 152 153 154 155 157 158 163 169 171 172 174 V. coarse gravel >32<64 <-5>-6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coarse gravel >16<32 <-4>-5 10.85 2.22 0.00 14.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.09 3.95 0.00 1.57 0.00 Medium gravel >8<16 <-3>-4 0.45 20.17 0.00 13.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 6.47 0.00 3.26 0.00 Fine gravel >4<8 <-2>-3 1.57 10.97 0.00 6.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.39 2.29 0.00 2.23 0.00 V. fine gravel >2<4 <-1>-2 0.59 4.75 0.00 4.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 1.84 0.00 1.54 0.00 V. coarse sand >1<2 <0>-1 0.56 3.67 0.00 2.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 1.35 0.00 1.10 0.00 Coarse sand >0.5<1 <1>0 1.20 5.65 4.72 4.67 1.99 3.50 13.56 14.30 2.34 0.64 1.34 0.74 Medium sand >0.25<0.5 <2>1 3.03 10.44 18.06 6.84 11.52 7.49 37.38 23.84 5.34 2.97 3.83 2.39 Fine sand >0.125<0.25 <3>2 3.25 6.42 17.34 3.95 12.39 9.65 21.54 16.79 5.95 4.02 5.21 3.42 V. fine sand >0.0625<0.125 <4>3 5.61 4.66 7.36 4.15 7.78 12.25 3.26 4.35 7.25 7.61 7.09 7.85 V. coarse silt >0.03125<0.0625 <5>4 11.26 6.36 7.53 6.66 10.62 14.63 3.77 3.56 10.86 13.12 12.27 14.21 Coarse silt >0.015625<0.03125 <6>5 17.71 7.69 11.51 9.28 16.07 17.68 5.44 6.37 15.16 19.38 18.34 21.33 Medium silt >0.007813<0.015625<7>6 19.90 7.80 13.28 10.27 17.63 17.15 6.14 6.87 16.66 22.60 19.23 23.28 Fine silt >0.003906<0.007813<8>7 15.39 5.91 11.97 8.19 13.92 11.72 5.45 5.30 13.03 18.54 14.55 17.17 V. fine silt >0.001953<0.003906<9>8 7.33 2.80 6.82 4.01 6.85 5.07 2.92 2.59 6.32 9.29 7.08 8.06 Clay <0.001953 >9 1.29 0.48 1.43 0.70 1.23 0.87 0.54 0.46 1.20 1.84 1.35 1.54
Statistics** Mean (phi) 4.80 1.35 4.46 1.47 4.98 4.94 2.96 2.59 4.19 5.96 5.09 5.90 Sorting 3.47 4.11 2.53 4.52 2.37 2.19 2.26 3.30 3.65 1.84 3.01 1.74 Skewness -0.50 0.07 0.06 0.00 -0.19 -0.13 0.62 0.16 -0.44 -0.16 -0.40 -0.12 Kurtosis 1.61 0.61 0.67 0.57 0.74 0.91 1.23 1.50 1.11 1.02 1.48 1.03 % Silt/Clay 72.88 31.04 52.52 39.09 66.31 67.11 24.26 25.15 63.23 84.77 72.83 85.59
Textural Group* Gravelly Mud Muddy Gravel Sandy Mud Muddy Gravel Sandy Mud Sandy Mud Muddy Sand
Sediment* mm phi f 179 180 181 189 191 192 193 194 195 204 206 207 V. coarse gravel >32<64 <-5>-6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coarse gravel >16<32 <-4>-5 6.44 0.00 0.00 11.48 7.23 0.00 0.00 2.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Medium gravel >8<16 <-3>-4 8.13 0.84 0.00 2.72 23.54 15.45 0.00 2.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fine gravel >4<8 <-2>-3 2.91 0.72 0.00 2.35 21.34 13.59 0.00 2.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 V. fine gravel >2<4 <-1>-2 5.97 1.21 0.00 1.39 20.50 7.10 0.00 2.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 V. coarse sand >1<2 <0>-1 2.55 1.11 0.00 1.19 11.86 6.03 0.00 1.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coarse sand >0.5<1 <1>0 3.83 4.35 5.15 7.78 4.56 11.72 0.86Gravelly 1.44 6.73 1.69 1.99 1.52 Muddy Sand Medium sand >0.25<0.5 <2>1 5.71 8.15 27.06 7.41 3.35 25.99 20.30 4.27 6.24 7.08 5.37 4.37 Fine sand >0.125<0.25 <3>2 3.52 8.93 22.09 3.15 0.96 8.74 29.97 4.96Gravelly 4.56 Mud Sandy Mud 15.12 Gravelly Mud Sandy 7.80 Mud 5.03 V. fine sand >0.0625<0.125 <4>3 4.18 10.93 4.67 4.13 0.85 0.42 10.73 9.68 7.65 16.13 9.92 9.17 V. coarse silt >0.03125<0.0625 <5>4 6.60 12.98 6.01 7.36 1.13 1.92 5.84 13.74 11.69 14.21 13.23 15.44 Coarse silt >0.015625<0.03125 <6>5 11.55 14.77 8.90 12.25 1.33 2.14 9.03 15.27 16.23 13.93 18.01 18.02 Medium silt >0.007813<0.015625<7>6 15.75 15.28 10.27 16.12 1.48 2.60 9.59 15.68 18.79 13.65 19.19 18.38 Fine silt >0.003906<0.007813<8>7 13.97 12.51 9.41 14.00 1.19 2.55 8.24 13.84 16.42 11.07 15.05 16.19 V. fine silt >0.001953<0.003906<9>8 7.34 6.70 5.30 7.19 0.57 1.46 4.54 8.06 9.45 5.80 7.76 9.40 Clay <0.001953 >9 1.56 1.52 1.14 1.48 0.11 0.29 0.90 1.93 2.24 1.30 1.68 2.48
Statistics** Mean (phi) 3.37 4.79 3.73 3.43 -1.87 0.04 3.84 4.88 5.41 4.80 5.43 5.74 Sorting 4.37 2.56 2.47 4.39 2.20 2.86 2.26 3.16 2.45 2.18 2.14 2.05 Skewness -0.48 -0.16 0.53 -0.50 0.37 -0.13 0.52 -0.33 -0.27 0.07 -0.17 -0.11 Kurtosis 0.71 0.87 0.68 0.88 1.55 1.01 0.75 1.34 1.01 0.81 0.94 0.99 % Silt/Clay 56.76 63.76 41.03 58.41 5.81 10.97 38.13 68.52 74.82 59.97 74.91 79.91
Textural Group* Gravelly Mud Slightly Gravelly Sandy Mud Muddy Sand Gravelly Mud * GRADISTAT classification system (Blott, S. J. & Pye, K., 2001). ** Folk & Ward
Muddy Sandy Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2012 survey.Gravel Appendix 3. Page 1 of 2 Muddy Sandy Gravel Muddy Sand Gravelly Mud Sandy Mud Sandy Mud Sandy Mud Sandy Mud Summary of 2012 particle size analysis, showing the percentage of sediment in each size class and derived summary statistics.
Sediment* mm phi f 209 249 258 260 261 263 267 269 272 275 285 289 V. coarse gravel >32<64 <-5>-6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coarse gravel >16<32 <-4>-5 0.00 0.00 6.25 2.57 0.00 1.07 1.10 0.00 5.27 0.00 7.20 23.46 Medium gravel >8<16 <-3>-4 0.17 1.30 10.30 10.22 0.43 7.53 4.11 0.00 4.50 0.00 8.45 36.36 Fine gravel >4<8 <-2>-3 1.15 0.49 9.59 7.08 0.12 4.43 1.92 0.00 2.85 0.00 5.01 26.66 V. fine gravel >2<4 <-1>-2 0.46 0.16 10.19 4.19 0.20 1.80 1.31 0.00 2.13 0.00 3.90 9.14 V. coarse sand >1<2 <0>-1 0.30 0.31 10.96 4.84 0.24 1.59 1.72 0.00 1.59 0.00 3.54 2.90 Coarse sand >0.5<1 <1>0 1.01 17.97 12.92 8.43 0.29 0.47 3.34 0.75 1.31 0.95 14.14 0.67 Medium sand >0.25<0.5 <2>1 3.28 32.50 15.63 9.77 2.73 11.93 14.93 2.03 2.69 3.13 26.48 0.43 Fine sand >0.125<0.25 <3>2 3.96 10.35 6.28 6.61 6.94 23.02 14.98 3.04 3.60 4.11 9.04 0.07 V. fine sand >0.0625<0.125 <4>3 8.31 3.20 1.72 5.50 8.61 9.02 7.50 5.84 4.89 9.32 0.84 0.03 V. coarse silt >0.03125<0.0625 <5>4 15.56 6.12 2.68 6.98 13.17 4.27 8.09 11.95 8.94 15.00 3.12 0.05 Coarse silt >0.015625<0.03125 <6>5 18.43 7.51 3.75 9.41 19.95 8.57 11.39 19.81 15.21 19.22 3.93 0.06 Medium silt >0.007813<0.015625<7>6 17.75 8.52 4.30 10.51 21.42 10.57 12.66 23.86 19.35 20.86 5.06 0.07 Fine silt >0.003906<0.007813<8>7 16.01 7.07 3.47 8.53 16.23 9.54 10.41 20.04 16.86 16.93 5.22 0.06 V. fine silt >0.001953<0.003906<9>8 10.34 3.72 1.67 4.44 8.02 5.20 5.47 10.47 8.93 8.71 3.25 0.03 Clay <0.001953 >9 3.29 0.78 0.28 0.93 1.65 0.98 1.06 2.20 1.88 1.77 0.80 0.01
Statistics** Mean (phi) 5.83 3.08 0.43 2.21 5.70 3.20 4.05 6.18 4.41 5.81 1.31 -3.20 Sorting 2.11 2.57 3.48 4.13 1.93 3.60 3.18 1.74 3.89 1.88 3.95 1.08 Skewness -0.10 0.60 0.14 -0.05 -0.16 0.01 -0.07 -0.14 -0.55 -0.12 0.05 0.14 Kurtosis 1.05 0.74 1.14 0.72 1.01 1.11 1.01 1.06 1.34 0.98 1.47 1.02 % Silt/Clay 81.38 33.72 16.16 40.80 80.44 39.15 49.08 88.34 71.17 82.49 21.37 0.28 Slightly Textural Group* Gravelly Sandy Mud Slightly Gravelly Muddy Sand Muddy Sandy Gravel Gravelly Mud Sediment* mm phi f 295 296 300 301Slightly 303 306 548 549 V. coarse gravel >32<64 <-5>-6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Gravelly 6.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coarse gravel >16<32 <-4>-5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Sandy 3.87 Mud 0.00 0.00 0.00 Medium gravel >8<16 <-3>-4 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 2.43Gravelly 0.00 0.00 0.00 Muddy Sand Fine gravel >4<8 <-2>-3 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 4.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 V. fine gravel >2<4 <-1>-2 0.00 0.00 1.07 0.00 9.19 0.00Gravelly 0.00 Mud Sandy Mud 0.00 Gravelly Mud Sandy Mud V. coarse sand >1<2 <0>-1 0.00 0.00 1.02 0.00 11.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coarse sand >0.5<1 <1>0 0.45 0.52 2.68 0.29 0.53 0.56 1.67 2.05 Medium sand >0.25<0.5 <2>1 1.60 1.44 3.89 1.47 12.49 3.98 6.23 4.92 Fine sand >0.125<0.25 <3>2 3.00 3.38 5.06 3.95 18.44 6.21 11.48 6.47 V. fine sand >0.0625<0.125 <4>3 8.53 6.68 15.32 8.64 6.60 6.91 14.89 10.58 V. coarse silt >0.03125<0.0625 <5>4 15.26 12.24 22.09 14.42 3.59 11.80 15.02 15.00 Coarse silt >0.015625<0.03125 <6>5 18.21 18.84 15.88 18.90 5.55 17.67 15.75 18.05 Gravelly Medium silt >0.007813<0.015625<7>6 19.91 23.00 11.36 21.36 5.90 20.61 15.85 18.62 Muddy Sand Fine silt >0.003906<0.007813<8>7 18.68 20.41 10.57 18.68 5.07 18.48 12.09 14.98 Gravel V. fine silt >0.001953<0.003906<9>8 11.45 11.11 7.25 10.08 2.79 11.01 5.83 7.71 Clay <0.001953 >9 2.91 2.39 2.63 2.21 0.55 2.76 1.19 1.62
Statistics** Mean (phi) 6.08 6.18 5.14 6.01 1.77 5.94 5.00 5.48 Sorting 1.81 1.75 2.27 1.79 3.94 2.02 2.13 2.08 Skewness -0.08 -0.14 0.06 -0.11 -0.08 -0.18 -0.03 -0.14 Kurtosis 0.90 1.00 1.14 0.94 1.08 1.01 0.86 0.97 % Silt/Clay 86.42 87.98 69.79 85.66 23.46 82.33 65.73 75.99
Textural Group* Sandy Mud Sandy Mud
Slightly * GRADISTAT classification system (Blott, S. J. & Pye, K., 2001). ** Folk & Ward Gravelly Sandy Mud Sandy Mud Gravelly Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2012 survey.Muddy Sand Appendix 3. Page 2 of 2 Sandy Mud Sandy Mud Sandy Mud Appendix 5. Numbers of individuals of each taxon from each 0.04m² Shipek grab sample from the 2012 survey, with univariate statistics, SIMPROF cluster group assignments and subsampling details.
SDC Taxon Name 150 152 153 154 155 157 158 163 169 171 172 174 179 180 181 189 191 192 193 194 195 204 206 207 209 249 258 260 261 263 267 269 272 ZM0001 RHODOPHYTA -P------ZM0431 Gracilaria ------PPP------ZM0554 Pterothamnion plumula ------P------ZS0232 Bryopsis plumosa ------P------ZS0149 Enteromorpha ------P------P-----PP--PP-P-- ZS0174 Ulva ------P------ZS0189 Chaetomorpha PP-P------PP------P-- ZS0195 Cladophora ---P---P------P------P------Lemnaceae ------P--PP------P---- ANIMALIA (eggs) -----P---P------P------Lagotia viridis ------P------C0001 PORIFERA ------P------C0053 Leucosolenia ------P------C0475 Cliona ------P------D0390 Halecium ------P------D0424 Hydrallmania falcata ------P------D0433 Sertularia ------D0491 Campanulariidae ------P D0597 Alcyonium digitatum ------P----P------D0662 ACTINIARIA ---1-9-3------181--410--21------14 Dalyelliidae ------2 G0001 NEMERTEA ------1------P51---1-P------HD0001 NEMATODA ---4-13- 5742-11--754-2265-1906 4 5 - 2 1 10 10 24 15 15 K0001 ENTOPROCTA ----P------K0045 Pedicellina ------P-P------K0050 Barentsia ------P------P0049 Gattyana cirrhosa ------1--3----1------P0064 Harmothoe imbricata ------1------P0065 Harmothoe impar (agg) ------P0082 Lepidonotus squamatus ------P0094 Pholoe inornata (sensu Petersen) ------P------P0118 Eteone longa (Type A) ------2------16---5123452 P0118 Eteone longa (agg) --1------116-1-----2-- P0145 Anaitides mucosa ---132217--1-1- - -51116-- - 31-2132- -134 P0167 Eumida sanguinea ------11-2195P------2 P0265 Glycera tridactyla ------2--1------3------P0288 Sphaerodoropsis minuta ------1------P0321 Syllidia armata ------3--22------Syllis "species A" ------2------P0380 Eusyllis blomstrandi ------1----1------P0406 Syllides ------1------P0421 Exogone hebes ------622------1------P0422 Exogone naidina ------1-32313--2------P0422 Exogone naidina (epitoke) ------3--11--51------P0426 Sphaerosyllis erinaceus ------P0430 Sphaerosyllis taylori ------3-23161------P0430 Sphaerosyllis taylori (epitoke) ------4-1-8---1------P0431 Sphaerosyllis tetralix ------12------P0431 Sphaerosyllis tetralix (epitoke) ------P0434 Autolytus ------1------P0434 Autolytus (epitoke) ------P0458 Nereididae (juv) ------1------P0472 Alitta virens ------12------1-----9-
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2012 survey. Appendix 5. 1 of 8 Appendix 5. Numbers of individuals of each taxon from each 0.04m² Shipek grab sample from the 2012 survey, with univariate statistics, SIMPROF cluster group assignments and subsampling details.
SDC Taxon Name 150 152 153 154 155 157 158 163 169 171 172 174 179 180 181 189 191 192 193 194 195 204 206 207 209 249 258 260 261 263 267 269 272 P0475 Eunereis longissima ------1------2------P0462 Hediste diversicolor 69 22 82 79 12 8 4 - 3 1 3 ------11 3 - P 94 21 2 - 3 - 1 1 39 6 2 P0494 Nephtys (juv) --- -1431813-6712--5457- -213-- 5 - - 25 P0499 Nephtys hombergii --- -1211106612663-1-86284136- -423616 P0613 Ophryotrocha ------1------P0638 Protodorvillea kefersteini ----P------4------P0672 Scoloplos armiger ------15------1------P0677 Aricidea minuta ------32------P0722 Aonides oxycephala ------1------P0750 Dipolydora coeca (agg) ------2----- P0760 Dipolydora quadrilobata ------315------P0753 Polydora cornuta -----9--3---1---1------361---2431975 P0776 Pygospio elegans - - - - - 2 7 34 ------1 - - - 5 1 - 11 103 17 - 2 - 1 8 11 8 - - P0797 Streblospio 2 43 9 34 22 44 5 581 18 633 3 31 1 1 20 1 2 1 5 23 1 92 141 2 4 2 16 31 557 249 400 5 96 P0824 Aphelochaeta marioni --3-1------1198-404-6127-1553216339-20-1--1-- P0831 Chaetozone zetlandica ------P-1-21620--1--9------2 P0838 Cirriformia (juv) ------3---4---2- P0839 Cirriformia tentaculata ------3------4--610---62- P0847 Tharyx "species A" - - 1 - 2 32 297 64 5 31 P 1 38 - - 6 2 - 22 41 - 1 18 7 21 - 173 72 123 2 296 115 39 P0871 Cossura pygodactyla ------1--12-1----127------16 P0906 Capitella ------5-4---2-34---8251--19- P0919 Mediomastus fragilis ------1106---1-- --1----1-- P0920 Notomastus ------P------P0929 Arenicola (juv) ------1------P1093 Galathowenia oculata ------2------14-P42--4-5------P1117 Sabellaria spinulosa 1------P1118 Ampharetidae (juv) ------P1124 Melinna palmata ------1---2186---4-5-341----1-1 P1134 Ampharete baltica ------2------9------P1138 Ampharete grubei ------P1-241-11--4-1---1-1-- P1139 Ampharete lindstroemi ------1------1- --1------P1143 Amphicteis midas ------P1195 Lanice conchilega ------1------P1235 Polycirrus ------P1294 Manayunkia aestuarina -321-24117------117---- -4-6-- P1320 Sabella pavonina ------12------P1340 Spirobranchus lamarcki ------1------P1477 Clitellio arenarius ------1------P1477 Clitellio arenarius (?) ------1------P1479 Heterochaeta costata 98--19------2 P1489 Tubificoides amplivasatus ------25116213-12135930516-269----11224 P1490 Tubificoides benedii 15 - P 2 240 419 186 228 2 13 P - - - 2 - 3 - 99 19 5 - 1210 91 23 - 5 8 6 25 93 6 1 P1498 Tubificoides pseudogaster (agg) - 1 - - 5 - 2 - 19 26 - 11 1 2 2 - - 1 1 35 7 11 - - 7 - 491 77 24 - 26 73 - Tubificoides galiciensis ------1------6376--23------2942 P1501 Enchytraeidae ---5------Q0002 PYCNOGONIDA (juv) ------1------Q0015 Achelia echinata (agg) ------361------Q0044 Anoplodactylus petiolatus ------1------Q0051 Pycnogonum littorale ------1------R0015 THORACICA ------1------R0068 Elminius modestus ---82------4------1---40------696- R0077 Balanus crenatus ------3----4------1------R0142 COPEPODA ------1-1------R0142 COPEPODA (Type A) ------1------R1820 Sabelliphilus elongatus ------33------
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2012 survey. Appendix 5. 2 of 8 Appendix 5. Numbers of individuals of each taxon from each 0.04m² Shipek grab sample from the 2012 survey, with univariate statistics, SIMPROF cluster group assignments and subsampling details.
SDC Taxon Name 150 152 153 154 155 157 158 163 169 171 172 174 179 180 181 189 191 192 193 194 195 204 206 207 209 249 258 260 261 263 267 269 272 R2413 MYODOCOPIDA ------2------R2432 Eusarsiella zostericola -3--1111167239176--1--8-116------1 R2458 PODOCOPIDA -----12------S0102 Apherusa bispinosa ------1------S0158 Amphilochus manudens ------1------S0159 Amphilochus neapolitanus ------11------S0164 Gitana sarsi ------1------S0257 Harpinia pectinata ------3------S0420 Tritaeta gibbosa ------35---116------S0464 Gammaridae (juv) ------3------1--2 S0478 Gammarus locusta ------6------S0503 Cheirocratus (female) ------S0525 Melita palmata ------18------151- S0550 Microprotopus maculatus ------2---587------S0561 Ericthonius (female) ------S0565 Ericthonius rubricornis ------S0568 Jassa ------1------S0574 Microjassa cumbrensis ------2------S0577 Aoridae (female) -----4------55--123-- -1---11--54 S0579 Aora gracilis ------1----1------S0596 Microdeutopus gryllotalpa ------9--- -2------1119 Grandidierella japonica ------2------S0616 Corophium volutator ------1- ---1------1---1274115- S0606 Monocorophium acherusicum ------1------S0651 Pariambus typicus ------2--826-1--- --1------S0805 Cyathura carinata -46-5------1------S0872 Sphaeroma serratum ------3------S0885 Jaera albifrons (agg) ------1------S0901 Munna ------1------S0942 Idotea pelagica ------2------S1197 Bodotria scorpioides ------S1208 Eudorella truncatula ------1------S1224 Cumella pygmaea ------2------S1276 DECAPODA (Type A) ------1------S1276 DECAPODA (megalopa) ------1----- S1594 Carcinus maenas ------1---1-- S1594 Carcinus maenas (juv) ------4------S1615 Pilumnus hirtellus (juv) ------DIPTERA ------1------Chironomidae (larva) -2------1-----1-2-2 W0079 Lepidochitona cinerea ------4---3------10- W0163 Gibbula cineraria ------W0385 Hydrobia ulvae 30 33 31 184 - 43 81 50 6 13 - 1 1 89 - - - - 309 283 - 2 63 - 107 2 21 15 5 23 137 93 4 W0439 Crepidula fornicata ------18--5------W0439 Crepidula fornicata (eggs) ------P--P------W0439 Crepidula fornicata (juv) ------19--71------26- W1077 Retusa obtusa -----11------W1127 Alderia modesta ------3------W1136 Limapontia depressa ------1 W1563 Nuculidae (juv) ------1------W1570 Nucula nucleus ------4------1-- W1695 Mytilus edulis ------W1695 Mytilus edulis (juv) ------1------2------W1961 Cerastoderma edule ------1------91---3934--7- W1961 Cerastoderma edule (juv) ------2121------213-- 4 961124- 83112 W1996 Ensis (juv) ------1----1-2-2-1----- W2029 Macoma balthica --- -55119663--1- ---223-828-3-1 -172345- W2068 Scrobicularia plana --1----2------2---- W2064 Abra tenuis - - 21 - 51 223 119 59 2 9 - - - 1 - - - - 77 - - - 60 - - - - - 2 - 4 4 - Tapes philippinarum ------51------1------
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2012 survey. Appendix 5. 3 of 8 Appendix 5. Numbers of individuals of each taxon from each 0.04m² Shipek grab sample from the 2012 survey, with univariate statistics, SIMPROF cluster group assignments and subsampling details.
SDC Taxon Name 150 152 153 154 155 157 158 163 169 171 172 174 179 180 181 189 191 192 193 194 195 204 206 207 209 249 258 260 261 263 267 269 272 Tapes philippinarum (juv) ------2--1------W2149 Mya arenaria ------1------13P--- W2149 Mya arenaria (juv) ------1------1333-144318- Y0076 Alcyonidium diaphanum ------P------Y0080 Alcyonidium mytili ------P------Y0091 Nolella ------P------Y0096 Anguinella palmata ------P-P-PPP---P------Y0131 Vesicularia spinosa ------Y0137 Bowerbankia ------P-P------Y0165 Eucratea loricata ------P----- Y0172 Conopeum reticulum ------P-PPP------Y0177 Electra monostachys ------P------Y0182 Aspidelectra melolontha ------Y0246 Bugula plumosa ------P------Y0256 Bicellariella ciliata ------P--P------ZA0003 Phoronis -P------P1128-4------24---P------P ZB0148 Amphiuridae (juv) ------5------ZB0161 Amphipholis squamata ------27------ZC0012 ENTEROPNEUSTA -----1------1153------ZD0002 ASCIDIACEA (juv) ------1-1--P--1------ZD0041 Didemnidae ------P------ZG0001 OSTEICHTHYES (eggs) ------1------ZG0476 Pomatoschistus ------1------No. Taxa (S) 7 10 9 14 12 20 20 24 17 19 13 12 35 15 30 52 47 19 18 33 30 21 18 29 24 18 17 21 25 16 28 28 27 No. Individuals (N) per sample 215 153 151 417 344 858 737 1109 111 781 28 91 362 123 498 305 398 82 587 687 213 242 3852 619 249 70 800 430 821 486 1112 1424 355 No. Individuals (N) per m² 5375 3825 3775 10425 8600 21450 18425 27725 2775 19525 700 2275 9050 3075 12450 7625 9950 2050 14675 17175 5325 6050 96300 15475 6225 1750 20000 10750 20525 12150 27800 35600 8875 Margalef's species richness (d) 1.116 1.784 1.594 2.153 1.882 2.812 2.878 3.279 3.397 2.702 3.528 2.433 5.752 2.909 4.656 8.856 7.665 4.052 2.667 4.899 5.395 3.644 2.059 4.355 4.166 3.975 2.394 3.296 3.575 2.425 3.849 3.718 4.426 Pielou's evenness (J) 0.656 0.708 0.607 0.601 0.443 0.546 0.542 0.517 0.841 0.315 0.887 0.686 0.543 0.439 0.316 0.741 0.683 0.748 0.549 0.670 0.748 0.732 0.509 0.527 0.663 0.750 0.451 0.705 0.406 0.510 0.567 0.621 0.731 Shannon Wiener (H'(loge)) 1.276 1.629 1.334 1.587 1.102 1.636 1.624 1.643 2.383 0.927 2.274 1.704 1.930 1.188 1.074 2.928 2.628 2.202 1.587 2.342 2.543 2.229 1.472 1.774 2.106 2.167 1.278 2.147 1.308 1.415 1.889 2.068 2.410 SIMPROF Group ggggl l l lmimmcmcefakkdml bkmhhi i ih j Subsampled A B A Subsampling codes A: 0.5mm fraction subsampled to 1/4 for all taxa B: 0.5mm fraction subsampled to 1/16 for all taxa
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2012 survey. Appendix 5. 4 of 8 Appendix 5. Numbers of individuals of each taxon from each 0.04m² Shipek grab sample from the 2012 survey, with univariate statistics, SIMPROF cluster group assignments and subsampling details.
SDC Taxon Name 275 285 289 295 296 300 301 303 306 548 549 ZM0001 RHODOPHYTA ------ZM0431 Gracilaria ------ZM0554 Pterothamnion plumula ------ZS0232 Bryopsis plumosa ------ZS0149 Enteromorpha P------ZS0174 Ulva ------ZS0189 Chaetomorpha ------ZS0195 Cladophora ------Lemnaceae P------ANIMALIA (eggs) -P------Lagotia viridis ------C0001 PORIFERA ------C0053 Leucosolenia ------C0475 Cliona ------D0390 Halecium ------D0424 Hydrallmania falcata ------D0433 Sertularia -PP------D0491 Campanulariidae ------D0597 Alcyonium digitatum ------D0662 ACTINIARIA -819----5--- Dalyelliidae ------G0001 NEMERTEA -72------HD0001 NEMATODA 51124----3-21 K0001 ENTOPROCTA -P------K0045 Pedicellina ------K0050 Barentsia ------P--- P0049 Gattyana cirrhosa ------P0064 Harmothoe imbricata ------P0065 Harmothoe impar (agg) -1------P0082 Lepidonotus squamatus -1-----1--- P0094 Pholoe inornata (sensu Petersen) ------P0118 Eteone longa (Type A) 12------P0118 Eteone longa (agg) ------P0145 Anaitides mucosa ------1 P0167 Eumida sanguinea -3------P0265 Glycera tridactyla --1------P0288 Sphaerodoropsis minuta -1------P0321 Syllidia armata -335----10--- Syllis "species A" ------P0380 Eusyllis blomstrandi ------P0406 Syllides ------P0421 Exogone hebes ------P0422 Exogone naidina -6023----14--- P0422 Exogone naidina (epitoke) -81----3--- P0426 Sphaerosyllis erinaceus --2------P0430 Sphaerosyllis taylori -184----8--- P0430 Sphaerosyllis taylori (epitoke) -3-----1--- P0431 Sphaerosyllis tetralix -4-----2--- P0431 Sphaerosyllis tetralix (epitoke) ------1--- P0434 Autolytus --7----1--- P0434 Autolytus (epitoke) --1------P0458 Nereididae (juv) ------P0472 Alitta virens ------
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2012 survey. Appendix 5. 5 of 8 Appendix 5. Numbers of individuals of each taxon from each 0.04m² Shipek grab sample from the 2012 survey, with univariate statistics, SIMPROF cluster group assignments and subsampling details.
SDC Taxon Name 275 285 289 295 296 300 301 303 306 548 549 P0475 Eunereis longissima ---2------P0462 Hediste diversicolor 3--1-1----1 P0494 Nephtys (juv) 103--1-71-5 - P0499 Nephtys hombergii 2-----2-31214 P0613 Ophryotrocha ------P0638 Protodorvillea kefersteini --1------P0672 Scoloplos armiger ------P0677 Aricidea minuta -6-----6--- P0722 Aonides oxycephala ------P0750 Dipolydora coeca (agg) ------2--- P0760 Dipolydora quadrilobata ------P0753 Polydora cornuta 3--17P9P---P P0776 Pygospio elegans 128----2----1 P0797 Streblospio 1350 2 - 2 - - 25 1 4 212 33 P0824 Aphelochaeta marioni -291-1--41-4 P0831 Chaetozone zetlandica -11321---21--- P0838 Cirriformia (juv) -24------P0839 Cirriformia tentaculata ------1 P0847 Tharyx "species A" 30 5 - 1 - - - 1 - 54 15 P0871 Cossura pygodactyla -1----6--21 P0906 Capitella -2------P0919 Mediomastus fragilis 81117----17--- P0920 Notomastus ------1--- P0929 Arenicola (juv) ------P1093 Galathowenia oculata ------P1117 Sabellaria spinulosa ------P1118 Ampharetidae (juv) -1------P1124 Melinna palmata -2----11--- P1134 Ampharete baltica ------P1138 Ampharete grubei -2------1- P1139 Ampharete lindstroemi ------P1143 Amphicteis midas -12------P1195 Lanice conchilega --2------P1235 Polycirrus ------1--- P1294 Manayunkia aestuarina 34------P1320 Sabella pavonina ------P1340 Spirobranchus lamarcki ------P1477 Clitellio arenarius ------P1477 Clitellio arenarius (?) ------P1479 Heterochaeta costata -1------P1489 Tubificoides amplivasatus 81516----4--6 P1490 Tubificoides benedii 3P6--3---613 P1498 Tubificoides pseudogaster (agg) 901-----12385 Tubificoides galiciensis 4-1------P1501 Enchytraeidae ------Q0002 PYCNOGONIDA (juv) ------Q0015 Achelia echinata (agg) -1------Q0044 Anoplodactylus petiolatus --1------Q0051 Pycnogonum littorale ------R0015 THORACICA --P------R0068 Elminius modestus ------R0077 Balanus crenatus ------R0142 COPEPODA ------R0142 COPEPODA (Type A) ------R1820 Sabelliphilus elongatus ------
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2012 survey. Appendix 5. 6 of 8 Appendix 5. Numbers of individuals of each taxon from each 0.04m² Shipek grab sample from the 2012 survey, with univariate statistics, SIMPROF cluster group assignments and subsampling details.
SDC Taxon Name 275 285 289 295 296 300 301 303 306 548 549 R2413 MYODOCOPIDA ------R2432 Eusarsiella zostericola ------6- R2458 PODOCOPIDA ------S0102 Apherusa bispinosa ------S0158 Amphilochus manudens ------S0159 Amphilochus neapolitanus -1-----1--- S0164 Gitana sarsi ------S0257 Harpinia pectinata ------S0420 Tritaeta gibbosa ------S0464 Gammaridae (juv) 8------S0478 Gammarus locusta ------S0503 Cheirocratus (female) --2------S0525 Melita palmata ------S0550 Microprotopus maculatus --1------S0561 Ericthonius (female) --1------S0565 Ericthonius rubricornis --2------S0568 Jassa ------S0574 Microjassa cumbrensis ------S0577 Aoridae (female) -12---1--P- S0579 Aora gracilis ------S0596 Microdeutopus gryllotalpa ------1 Grandidierella japonica ------S0616 Corophium volutator 1---13--6-- S0606 Monocorophium acherusicum ------S0651 Pariambus typicus ------S0805 Cyathura carinata ------S0872 Sphaeroma serratum ------S0885 Jaera albifrons (agg) ------S0901 Munna ------S0942 Idotea pelagica ------S1197 Bodotria scorpioides --1------S1208 Eudorella truncatula ------S1224 Cumella pygmaea ------S1276 DECAPODA (Type A) ------S1276 DECAPODA (megalopa) ------S1594 Carcinus maenas ------S1594 Carcinus maenas (juv) -P------S1615 Pilumnus hirtellus (juv) ------1--- DIPTERA ------Chironomidae (larva) ------W0079 Lepidochitona cinerea ------W0163 Gibbula cineraria ------1--- W0385 Hydrobia ulvae 3------120177 W0439 Crepidula fornicata -8------W0439 Crepidula fornicata (eggs) ------W0439 Crepidula fornicata (juv) -5------W1077 Retusa obtusa ------W1127 Alderia modesta ------W1136 Limapontia depressa ------W1563 Nuculidae (juv) ------W1570 Nucula nucleus --3------W1695 Mytilus edulis --1------W1695 Mytilus edulis (juv) ------W1961 Cerastoderma edule ------1 W1961 Cerastoderma edule (juv) 22------W1996 Ensis (juv) 9-----1--1- W2029 Macoma balthica 20------1311 W2068 Scrobicularia plana ------1 W2064 Abra tenuis --1------44 Tapes philippinarum ------
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2012 survey. Appendix 5. 7 of 8 Appendix 5. Numbers of individuals of each taxon from each 0.04m² Shipek grab sample from the 2012 survey, with univariate statistics, SIMPROF cluster group assignments and subsampling details.
SDC Taxon Name 275 285 289 295 296 300 301 303 306 548 549 Tapes philippinarum (juv) ------W2149 Mya arenaria ------W2149 Mya arenaria (juv) 4------Y0076 Alcyonidium diaphanum ------Y0080 Alcyonidium mytili -P------Y0091 Nolella ------Y0096 Anguinella palmata -PP------Y0131 Vesicularia spinosa -P--P------Y0137 Bowerbankia ---P------Y0165 Eucratea loricata ------Y0172 Conopeum reticulum -PP----P--- Y0177 Electra monostachys --P------Y0182 Aspidelectra melolontha ------P--- Y0246 Bugula plumosa ------Y0256 Bicellariella ciliata -P------ZA0003 Phoronis ------P1--P ZB0148 Amphiuridae (juv) ------ZB0161 Amphipholis squamata -3------ZC0012 ENTEROPNEUSTA -31------1 ZD0002 ASCIDIACEA (juv) --1---14--- ZD0041 Didemnidae ------ZG0001 OSTEICHTHYES (eggs) ------ZG0476 Pomatoschistus ------Max Min Mean No. Taxa (S) 23423474572951320524 20.84 No. Individuals (N) per sample 1803 276 168 24 3 18 44 118 16 476 292 3852 3 498.82 No. Individuals (N) per m² 45075 6900 4200 600 75 450 1100 2950 400 11900 7300 96300 75 12470.45 Margalef's species richness (d) 2.934 7.258 6.411 1.864 2.164 1.384 1.586 5.838 1.443 1.946 3.347 8.856 1.116 3.511 Pielou's evenness (J) 0.366 0.762 0.796 0.607 1.000 0.838 0.648 0.819 0.908 0.622 0.525 1.000 0.315 0.633 Shannon Wiener (H'(loge)) 1.149 2.849 2.807 1.181 1.386 1.349 1.262 2.759 1.461 1.596 1.571 2.928 0.927 1.799 SIMPROF Group i f f nnnmf n i k Subsampled A Subsampling codes A: 0.5mm fraction subsampled to 1/4 for all taxa B: 0.5mm fraction subsampled to 1/16 for all ta
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2012 survey. Appendix 5. 8 of 8 Appendix 6. Biomass data (wet weight in grams) for each benthic sample from the 2012 survey.
SDC Taxon Name 150 152 153 154 155 157 158 163 169 171 172 174 179 180 181 189 191 192 193 194 195 204 206 207 ZM0001 RHODOPHYTA ------ZM0431 Gracilaria ------ZM0554 Pterothamnion plumula ------ZS0232 Bryopsis plumosa ------ZS0149 Enteromorpha ------ZS0174 Ulva ------ZS0189 Chaetomorpha ------ZS0195 Cladophora ------Lemnaceae ------ANIMALIA (eggs) ------Lagotia viridis ------C0001 PORIFERA ------C0053 Leucosolenia ------C0475 Cliona ------D0390 Halecium ------D0424 Hydrallmania falcata ------D0433 Sertularia ------D0491 Campanulariidae ------D0597 Alcyonium digitatum ------D0662 ACTINIARIA - - - 0.0001 - 0.0045 - 0.0036 ------1.6519 0.2422 - - 0.1142 2.1461 - - 0.0142 Dalyelliidae ------G0001 NEMERTEA ------0.0002 ------0.0008 0.1128 0.0010 - - - 0.0001 - 0.0016 - HD0001 NEMATODA - - - 0.0001 - 0.0005 - 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 - 0.0001 - - 0.0004 0.0001 - 0.0001 0.0006 0.0001 - 0.0119 0.0001 K0001 ENTOPROCTA ------K0045 Pedicellina ------K0050 Barentsia ------P0049 Gattyana cirrhosa ------0.0011 - - 0.1265 ----0.0261 - - - P0064 Harmothoe imbricata ------0.0002 ------P0065 Harmothoe impar (agg) ------P0082 Lepidonotus squamatus ------P0094 Pholoe inornata (sensu Petersen) ------0.0011 ------P0118 Eteone longa (Type A) ------0.0019 ------0.0016 - P0118 Eteone longa (agg) - - 0.0001 ------0.0015 0.0016 - P0145 Anaitides mucosa - - - 0.0031 0.0045 0.0085 0.0045 0.0299 - - 0.0024 - 0.0006 - - - 0.0051 0.0001 0.0001 0.0258 - - - 0.0018 P0167 Eumida sanguinea ------0.0026 - 0.0004 0.0074 0.0011 0.0001 ------P0265 Glycera tridactyla ------0.0044 - - 0.0001 ------0.0650 ------P0288 Sphaerodoropsis minuta ------0.0001 - - P0321 Syllidia armata ------0.0008 - - 0.0014 0.0023 ------Syllis "species A" ------0.0128 - - - P0380 Eusyllis blomstrandi ------0.0004 ----0.0003 - - - P0406 Syllides ------0.0001 - - - P0421 Exogone hebes ------0.0013 0.0048 ------0.0002 P0422 Exogone naidina ------0.0001 - 0.0001 0.0006 0.0002 - - 0.0001 - - - - P0422 Exogone naidina (epitoke) ------0.0006 - - 0.0001 0.0001 - - 0.0004 0.0001 - - - P0426 Sphaerosyllis erinaceus ------P0430 Sphaerosyllis taylori ------0.0001 - 0.0001 0.0002 0.0022 0.0001 ------P0430 Sphaerosyllis taylori (epitoke) ------0.0001 - 0.0001 - 0.0015 - - - 0.0001 - - - P0431 Sphaerosyllis tetralix ------0.0002 0.0001 ------P0431 Sphaerosyllis tetralix (epitoke) ------P0434 Autolytus ------0.0001 ------P0434 Autolytus (epitoke) ------P0458 Nereididae (juv) ------0.0007 ------P0472 Alitta virens ------0.6940 2.7292 ------P0475 Eunereis longissima ------0.0007 ------0.4282 ------P0462 Hediste diversicolor 4.8946 0.6529 2.7243 2.2522 0.7070 0.0092 0.0001 - 0.0006 0.0004 0.0063 ------0.0199 0.0029 - 0.0007 0.0575 0.1486 P0494 Nephtys (juv) - - - - 0.0011 0.0100 0.0075 0.0010 0.0069 0.0028 0.0052 - 0.0030 0.0084 0.0004 0.0004 - - 0.0062 0.0040 0.0050 0.0080 - - P0499 Nephtys hombergii - - - - 0.0430 0.6001 0.3140 0.1126 0.6535 0.6654 0.3635 0.5086 0.5198 0.2925 0.0497 - 0.0106 - 0.7203 0.2986 0.1855 0.3292 0.3910 0.0713 P0613 Ophryotrocha ------0.0002 ------P0638 Protodorvillea kefersteini - - - - 0.0014 ------0.0130 ------P0672 Scoloplos armiger ------0.0177 ------0.0001 ------P0677 Aricidea minuta ------0.0070 ------P0722 Aonides oxycephala ------0.0084 ------P0750 Dipolydora coeca (agg) ------P0760 Dipolydora quadrilobata ------0.0036 0.0067 ------P0753 Polydora cornuta - - - - - 0.0038 - - 0.0006 - - - 0.0001 - - - 0.0001 ------0.0102 P0776 Pygospio elegans - - - - - 0.0012 0.0001 0.0061 ------0.0001 - - - 0.0005 0.0009 - 0.0035 0.0035 0.0022 P0797 Streblospio 0.0002 0.0184 0.0001 0.0134 0.0034 0.0133 0.0001 0.0248 0.0014 0.1262 0.0002 0.0036 0.0001 0.0001 0.0015 0.0003 0.0004 0.0001 0.0016 0.0022 0.0008 0.0222 0.0037 0.0002 P0824 Aphelochaeta marioni - - 0.0023 - 0.0007 ------0.0001 0.2081 - 0.4680 - 0.0616 0.0445 - 0.0007 0.0307 0.0247 0.0016 0.6943
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2012 survey. Appendix 6. 1 of 6 Appendix 6. Biomass data (wet weight in grams) for each benthic sample from the 2012 survey.
SDC Taxon Name 150 152 153 154 155 157 158 163 169 171 172 174 179 180 181 189 191 192 193 194 195 204 206 207 P0831 Chaetozone zetlandica ------0.0001 - 0.0010 - 0.0009 0.0205 0.0643 0.0956 - - 0.0026 - - 0.0032 P0838 Cirriformia (juv) ------0.0012 P0839 Cirriformia tentaculata ------0.0382 ------0.0054 P0847 Tharyx "species A" - - 0.0020 - 0.0003 0.0152 0.2199 0.0383 0.0018 0.0120 0.0009 0.0001 0.0191 - - 0.0078 0.0002 - 0.0044 0.0123 - 0.0001 0.0018 0.0023 P0871 Cossura pygodactyla ------0.0001 - - 0.0001 0.0001 - 0.0001 - - - - 0.0012 0.0019 - - - P0906 Capitella ------0.0009 - 0.0008 - - - 0.0002 - 0.0017 - P0919 Mediomastus fragilis ------0.0018 0.1002 - - - 0.0001 - - - P0920 Notomastus ------0.0001 ------P0929 Arenicola (juv) ------0.0001 ------P1093 Galathowenia oculata ------0.0005 ------0.0049 - 0.0001 0.0009 0.0004 - - 0.0006 - 0.0010 P1117 Sabellaria spinulosa 0.0004 ------P1118 Ampharetidae (juv) ------P1124 Melinna palmata ------0.0217 - - - 0.0144 0.0298 0.1862 0.4402 - - - 0.0182 - 0.0570 - 0.0404 P1134 Ampharete baltica ------0.0025 ------0.0902 P1138 Ampharete grubei ------0.0008 0.0230 - 0.0057 0.0585 0.0082 - 0.0023 0.0233 - - 0.0410 - P1139 Ampharete lindstroemi ------0.0004 ------0.0080 - - P1143 Amphicteis midas ------P1195 Lanice conchilega ------0.0287 ------P1235 Polycirrus ------P1294 Manayunkia aestuarina - 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 - 0.0020 0.0001 0.0003 ------0.0017 - P1320 Sabella pavonina ------18.8330 - - - P1340 Spirobranchus lamarcki ------0.0105 ------P1477 Clitellio arenarius ------0.0001 ------P1477 Clitellio arenarius (?) ------0.0011 ------P1479 Heterochaeta costata 0.0799 - - 0.0072 ------P1489 Tubificoides amplivasatus ------0.0035 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0007 - 0.0001 0.0001 0.0020 0.0109 0.0074 0.0001 0.0016 - P1490 Tubificoides benedii 0.0120 - 0.0013 0.0005 0.1553 0.3024 0.0996 0.1149 0.0010 0.0071 0.0007 - - - 0.0011 - 0.0015 - 0.0412 0.0103 0.0022 - 0.3869 0.0418 P1498 Tubificoides pseudogaster (agg) - 0.0001 - - 0.0034 - 0.0001 - 0.0020 0.0038 - 0.0005 0.0005 0.0001 0.0001 - - 0.0001 0.0001 0.0038 0.0025 0.0011 - - Tubificoides galiciensis ------0.0003 ------0.0101 0.0036 0.0008 - - P1501 Enchytraeidae - - - 0.0001 ------Q0002 PYCNOGONIDA (juv) ------0.0001 Q0015 Achelia echinata (agg) ------0.0800 0.0001 ------Q0044 Anoplodactylus petiolatus ------0.0002 ------Q0051 Pycnogonum littorale ------0.0600 ------R0015 THORACICA ------R0068 Elminius modestus ------R0077 Balanus crenatus ------R0142 COPEPODA ------0.0001 - 0.0001 - - - - - R0142 COPEPODA (Type A) ------0.0001 - - - - R1820 Sabelliphilus elongatus ------0.0001 - - - R2413 MYODOCOPIDA ------0.0012 ------R2432 Eusarsiella zostericola - 0.0001 - - 0.0001 0.0001 0.0004 0.0002 0.0030 0.0020 0.0016 0.0001 0.0179 0.0001 0.0024 0.0031 - - 0.0001 - - 0.0029 - 0.0001 R2458 PODOCOPIDA - - - - - 0.0004 ------S0102 Apherusa bispinosa ------0.0018 ------S0158 Amphilochus manudens ------0.0002 ------S0159 Amphilochus neapolitanus ------0.0004 0.0001 ------S0164 Gitana sarsi ------0.0001 ------S0257 Harpinia pectinata ------0.0019 ------S0420 Tritaeta gibbosa ------0.0167 - - - 0.0002 0.0131 - - - S0464 Gammaridae (juv) ------0.0008 - - - - S0478 Gammarus locusta ------0.0671 - - - - S0503 Cheirocratus (female) ------S0525 Melita palmata ------0.0502 - - - - S0550 Microprotopus maculatus ------0.0002 - - - 0.0101 0.0005 ------S0561 Ericthonius (female) ------S0565 Ericthonius rubricornis ------S0568 Jassa ------S0574 Microjassa cumbrensis ------0.0001 ------
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2012 survey. Appendix 6. 2 of 6 Appendix 6. Biomass data (wet weight in grams) for each benthic sample from the 2012 survey.
SDC Taxon Name 150 152 153 154 155 157 158 163 169 171 172 174 179 180 181 189 191 192 193 194 195 204 206 207 S0577 Aoridae (female) - - - - - 0.0008 ------0.0020 0.0036 - - 0.0099 0.0004 - - - S0579 Aora gracilis ------0.0006 ----0.0005 - - - S0596 Microdeutopus gryllotalpa ------0.0066 - - - - Grandidierella japonica ------0.0011 S0616 Corophium volutator ------0.0002 - - - - 0.0001 ------0.0002 S0606 Monocorophium acherusicum ------S0651 Pariambus typicus ------0.0001 - - 0.0017 0.0004 0.0001 - 0.0001 - - - - S0805 Cyathura carinata - 0.0930 - 0.0037 ------0.0060 ------S0872 Sphaeroma serratum ------S0885 Jaera albifrons (agg) ------0.0002 S0901 Munna ------0.0004 ------S0942 Idotea pelagica ------0.0002 - - - - S1197 Bodotria scorpioides ------S1208 Eudorella truncatula ------0.0001 ------S1224 Cumella pygmaea ------0.0008 ------S1276 DECAPODA (Type A) ------0.0001 - - S1276 DECAPODA (megalopa) ------S1594 Carcinus maenas ------S1594 Carcinus maenas (juv) ------0.0255 - - - - S1615 Pilumnus hirtellus (juv) ------DIPTERA ------0.0007 - - - - Chironomidae (larva) - 0.0002 ------0.0009 - W0079 Lepidochitona cinerea ------0.0032 - - - 0.0735 W0163 Gibbula cineraria ------W0385 Hydrobia ulvae 0.1778 0.2097 0.1311 0.7656 - 0.2174 0.4079 0.2388 0.0168 0.0604 - 0.0001 0.0056 0.0979 - - - - 0.7760 0.2915 - 0.0008 0.0083 - W0439 Crepidula fornicata ------80.9801 - - 18.7920 ------W0439 Crepidula fornicata (eggs) ------W0439 Crepidula fornicata (juv) ------7.6901 - - 2.1032 0.0002 ------W1077 Retusa obtusa - - - - - 0.0024 0.0032 ------W1127 Alderia modesta ------0.0022 ------W1136 Limapontia depressa ------W1563 Nuculidae (juv) ------W1570 Nucula nucleus ------0.0032 - - W1695 Mytilus edulis ------W1695 Mytilus edulis (juv) ------0.0005 ------0.0066 W1961 Cerastoderma edule ------4.9629 ------0.0021 0.0440 - W1961 Cerastoderma edule (juv) ------0.0049 0.0038 0.0056 0.0233 ------0.0028 0.0605 - - 0.0267 0.0285 W1996 Ensis (juv) ------0.0132 - - - - 0.0001 - 0.0004 W2029 Macoma balthica - - - - 0.1928 0.2233 0.2514 1.3638 0.1254 0.0436 0.0026 - - 0.0115 - - - - 0.0995 0.0027 - 0.0277 0.0971 - W2068 Scrobicularia plana - - 2.0059 - - - - 0.2903 ------W2064 Abra tenuis - - 0.1865 - 0.3443 1.6021 1.1054 0.4161 0.0155 0.1512 - - - 0.0023 - - - - 0.1728 - - - 0.1736 - Tapes philippinarum ------5.8089 0.5276 ------Tapes philippinarum (juv) ------0.2355 - - 0.0043 ------W2149 Mya arenaria ------1.1160 ------W2149 Mya arenaria (juv) ------0.0061 ------Y0076 Alcyonidium diaphanum ------Y0080 Alcyonidium mytili ------Y0091 Nolella ------Y0096 Anguinella palmata ------Y0131 Vesicularia spinosa ------Y0137 Bowerbankia ------Y0165 Eucratea loricata ------Y0172 Conopeum reticulum ------Y0177 Electra monostachys ------Y0182 Aspidelectra melolontha ------Y0246 Bugula plumosa ------Y0256 Bicellariella ciliata ------ZA0003 Phoronis - 0.0001 ------0.0001 0.0768 0.0015 0.3184 - 0.1007 ------0.2729 - - ZB0148 Amphiuridae (juv) ------0.0014 ------ZB0161 Amphipholis squamata ------0.0014 0.0020 ------ZC0012 ENTEROPNEUSTA - - - - - 0.0736 ------0.0137 0.1112 0.0156 0.0462 ------ZD0002 ASCIDIACEA (juv) ------ZD0041 Didemnidae ------ZG0001 OSTEICHTHYES (eggs) ------ZG0476 Pomatoschistus ------0.2176 ------Total biomass per sample 5.1649 0.9746 5.0537 3.0461 1.4573 3.0908 14.5475 3.1961 0.8563 1.1639 0.3971 0.8558 90.1836 3.2768 0.7384 23.6516 0.6943 0.8345 1.8504 1.0598 21.2754 0.7674 1.2593 1.2393 Total biomass per m² 129.1225 24.3650 126.3425 76.1525 36.4325 77.2700 363.6875 79.9025 21.4075 29.0975 9.9275 21.3950 2254.5900 81.9200 18.4600 591.2900 17.3575 20.8625 46.2600 26.4950 531.8850 19.1850 31.4825 30.9825
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2012 survey. Appendix 6. 3 of 6 Appendix 6. Biomass data (wet weight in grams) for each benthic sample from the 2012 survey.
SDC Taxon Name 209 249 258 260 261 263 267 269 272 275 285 289 295 296 300 301 303 306 548 549 ZM0001 RHODOPHYTA ------ZM0431 Gracilaria ------ZM0554 Pterothamnion plumula ------ZS0232 Bryopsis plumosa ------ZS0149 Enteromorpha ------ZS0174 Ulva ------ZS0189 Chaetomorpha ------ZS0195 Cladophora ------Lemnaceae ------ANIMALIA (eggs) ------Lagotia viridis ------C0001 PORIFERA ------C0053 Leucosolenia ------C0475 Cliona ------D0390 Halecium ------D0424 Hydrallmania falcata ------D0433 Sertularia ------D0491 Campanulariidae ------D0597 Alcyonium digitatum ------D0662 ACTINIARIA 0.3536 ------0.4801 - 0.8967 0.2763 ----0.6673 - - - Dalyelliidae ------0.0006 ------G0001 NEMERTEA ------0.0001 0.0016 ------HD0001 NEMATODA 0.0001 - 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0007 0.0001 0.0003 0.0010 0.0001 0.0001 ----0.0001 - 0.0001 0.0001 K0001 ENTOPROCTA ------K0045 Pedicellina ------K0050 Barentsia ------P0049 Gattyana cirrhosa ------P0064 Harmothoe imbricata ------P0065 Harmothoe impar (agg) ------0.0189 ------P0082 Lepidonotus squamatus ------0.0024 - ----0.0013 - - - P0094 Pholoe inornata (sensu Petersen) ------P0118 Eteone longa (Type A) - - 0.0033 0.0003 0.0001 0.0013 0.0011 0.0010 0.0012 0.0018 ------P0118 Eteone longa (agg) 0.0001 - - - - - 0.0005 ------P0145 Anaitides mucosa 0.0016 - 0.0054 0.0939 0.0059 - - 0.0197 0.0095 ------0.0001 P0167 Eumida sanguinea ------0.0030 - 0.0003 ------P0265 Glycera tridactyla ------0.0013 ------P0288 Sphaerodoropsis minuta ------0.0002 ------P0321 Syllidia armata ------0.0058 0.0047 ----0.0028 - - - Syllis "species A" ------P0380 Eusyllis blomstrandi ------P0406 Syllides ------P0421 Exogone hebes ------P0422 Exogone naidina ------0.0002 0.0003 ----0.0002 - - - P0422 Exogone naidina (epitoke) ------0.0001 0.0001 ----0.0001 - - - P0426 Sphaerosyllis erinaceus ------0.0001 ------P0430 Sphaerosyllis taylori ------0.0006 0.0001 ----0.0005 - - - P0430 Sphaerosyllis taylori (epitoke) ------0.0002 - ----0.0001 - - - P0431 Sphaerosyllis tetralix ------0.0004 - ----0.0001 - - - P0431 Sphaerosyllis tetralix (epitoke) ------0.0001 - - - P0434 Autolytus ------0.0014 ----0.0001 - - - P0434 Autolytus (epitoke) ------0.0001 ------P0458 Nereididae (juv) ------P0472 Alitta virens - 0.0427 - - - - - 0.5067 ------P0475 Eunereis longissima ------0.0021 ------P0462 Hediste diversicolor 0.0198 - 0.0997 - 0.0003 0.0011 0.0222 0.0943 0.0087 0.0029 - - 0.0003 - 0.0013 - - - - 0.0050 P0494 Nephtys (juv) 0.0015 0.0065 - - 0.0108 - - 0.0001 0.0083 0.0121 0.0005 - - 0.0001 - 0.0015 0.0001 - 0.0013 - P0499 Nephtys hombergii 0.2487 0.0976 - - 0.3496 0.3075 0.1752 0.1651 0.6511 0.1486 - - - - - 0.0268 - 0.0561 0.5120 0.4464 P0613 Ophryotrocha ------P0638 Protodorvillea kefersteini ------0.0001 ------P0672 Scoloplos armiger ------P0677 Aricidea minuta ------0.0005 - ----0.0009 - - - P0722 Aonides oxycephala ------P0750 Dipolydora coeca (agg) - - - 0.0009 ------0.0013 - - - P0760 Dipolydora quadrilobata ------P0753 Polydora cornuta 0.0001 - - - 0.0100 0.0011 0.0050 0.0016 0.0033 0.0010 - - 0.0065 0.0001 0.0080 0.0005 - - - 0.0001 P0776 Pygospio elegans - 0.0003 - 0.0001 0.0017 0.0028 0.0010 - - 0.0137 - - - - 0.0011 - - - - 0.0001 P0797 Streblospio 0.0002 0.0001 0.0034 0.0036 0.1099 0.0436 0.0653 0.0007 0.0254 0.1943 0.0007 - 0.0007 - - 0.0041 0.0001 0.0001 0.0291 0.0051 P0824 Aphelochaeta marioni - 0.0072 - 0.0015 - - 0.0011 - - - 0.0061 0.0001 - 0.0001 - - 0.0001 0.0001 - 0.0002
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2012 survey. Appendix 6. 4 of 6 Appendix 6. Biomass data (wet weight in grams) for each benthic sample from the 2012 survey.
SDC Taxon Name 209 249 258 260 261 263 267 269 272 275 285 289 295 296 300 301 303 306 548 549 P0831 Chaetozone zetlandica ------0.0016 - 0.0249 0.1382 0.0005 - - - 0.0153 - - - P0838 Cirriformia (juv) - - - 0.0268 - - - 0.0024 - - 0.0003 0.0010 ------P0839 Cirriformia tentaculata - - 0.3050 0.4919 - - - 2.1963 ------0.0035 P0847 Tharyx "species A" 0.0058 - 0.1665 0.0563 0.0443 0.0012 0.1585 0.0381 0.0144 0.0035 0.0018 - 0.0003 - - - 0.0001 - 0.0181 0.0029 P0871 Cossura pygodactyla ------0.0001 0.0010 - 0.0001 - - - - 0.0003 - - 0.0001 0.0001 P0906 Capitella - - 0.0087 0.0256 0.0002 - - 0.0019 - - 0.0002 ------P0919 Mediomastus fragilis - 0.0003 - - - - 0.0001 - - 0.0008 0.0041 0.0101 ----0.0082 - - - P0920 Notomastus ------0.0058 - - - P0929 Arenicola (juv) ------P1093 Galathowenia oculata ------P1117 Sabellaria spinulosa ------P1118 Ampharetidae (juv) ------0.0001 ------P1124 Melinna palmata 0.0987 0.0564 - - - - 0.0233 - 0.0038 - 0.0058 - - - - 0.0033 0.0070 - - - P1134 Ampharete baltica ------P1138 Ampharete grubei 0.0149 - - - 0.0160 - 0.0098 - - - 0.0422 ------0.0168 - P1139 Ampharete lindstroemi - 0.0038 ------P1143 Amphicteis midas ------0.0731 0.0001 ------P1195 Lanice conchilega ------0.0018 ------P1235 Polycirrus ------0.0022 - - - P1294 Manayunkia aestuarina - - - - 0.0002 - 0.0001 - - 0.0009 ------P1320 Sabella pavonina ------P1340 Spirobranchus lamarcki ------P1477 Clitellio arenarius ------P1477 Clitellio arenarius (?) ------P1479 Heterochaeta costata ------0.0039 - 0.0003 ------P1489 Tubificoides amplivasatus 0.0020 0.0005 - - - - 0.0001 0.0009 0.0035 0.0003 0.0009 0.0015 ----0.0002 - - 0.0002 P1490 Tubificoides benedii 0.0070 - 0.0059 0.0048 0.0050 0.0083 0.0283 0.0034 0.0002 0.0014 0.0001 0.0021 - - 0.0033 - - - 0.0016 0.0031 P1498 Tubificoides pseudogaster (agg) 0.0001 - 0.1745 0.0235 0.0043 - 0.0027 0.0091 - 0.0040 0.0001 - ----0.0001 0.0001 0.0054 0.0001 Tubificoides galiciensis 0.0043 ------0.0026 0.0091 0.0015 - 0.0001 ------P1501 Enchytraeidae ------Q0002 PYCNOGONIDA (juv) ------Q0015 Achelia echinata (agg) ------0.0007 ------Q0044 Anoplodactylus petiolatus ------0.0001 ------Q0051 Pycnogonum littorale ------R0015 THORACICA ------R0068 Elminius modestus ------R0077 Balanus crenatus ------R0142 COPEPODA ------R0142 COPEPODA (Type A) ------R1820 Sabelliphilus elongatus ------R2413 MYODOCOPIDA ------R2432 Eusarsiella zostericola 0.0005 0.0012 ------0.0017 ------0.0001 - R2458 PODOCOPIDA ------S0102 Apherusa bispinosa ------S0158 Amphilochus manudens ------S0159 Amphilochus neapolitanus ------0.0002 - ----0.0001 - - - S0164 Gitana sarsi ------S0257 Harpinia pectinata ------S0420 Tritaeta gibbosa ------S0464 Gammaridae (juv) - - - - - 0.0002 - - 0.0008 0.0008 ------S0478 Gammarus locusta ------S0503 Cheirocratus (female) ------0.0005 ------S0525 Melita palmata ------0.0001 0.1373 ------S0550 Microprotopus maculatus ------0.0001 ------S0561 Ericthonius (female) ------0.0001 ------S0565 Ericthonius rubricornis ------0.0001 ------S0568 Jassa - 0.0001 ------S0574 Microjassa cumbrensis ------
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2012 survey. Appendix 6. 5 of 6 Appendix 6. Biomass data (wet weight in grams) for each benthic sample from the 2012 survey.
SDC Taxon Name 209 249 258 260 261 263 267 269 272 275 285 289 295 296 300 301 303 306 548 549 S0577 Aoridae (female) 0.0001 - - - 0.0029 0.0003 - - 0.0322 - 0.0003 0.0003 - - - 0.0002 - - 0.0002 - S0579 Aora gracilis ------S0596 Microdeutopus gryllotalpa 0.0016 ------0.0671 0.0091 ------0.0001 Grandidierella japonica ------S0616 Corophium volutator - - - 0.1811 0.0038 0.0003 0.0001 0.0013 - 0.0016 - - - 0.0001 0.0014 - - 0.0072 - - S0606 Monocorophium acherusicum - - 0.0015 ------S0651 Pariambus typicus - 0.0001 ------S0805 Cyathura carinata ------S0872 Sphaeroma serratum 0.0122 ------S0885 Jaera albifrons (agg) ------S0901 Munna ------S0942 Idotea pelagica ------S1197 Bodotria scorpioides ------0.0003 ------S1208 Eudorella truncatula ------S1224 Cumella pygmaea ------S1276 DECAPODA (Type A) ------S1276 DECAPODA (megalopa) - - - 0.0001 ------S1594 Carcinus maenas - - 1.1343 - - - 0.0225 ------S1594 Carcinus maenas (juv) ------0.0056 ------S1615 Pilumnus hirtellus (juv) ------0.0007 - - - DIPTERA ------Chironomidae (larva) - - - - 0.0002 - 0.0003 - 0.0033 ------W0079 Lepidochitona cinerea ------0.0373 ------W0163 Gibbula cineraria ------0.0160 - - - W0385 Hydrobia ulvae 0.0586 0.0061 0.2569 0.0504 0.0240 0.0339 0.0462 0.4718 0.0079 0.0092 ------0.0738 0.3390 W0439 Crepidula fornicata ------45.8710 ------W0439 Crepidula fornicata (eggs) ------W0439 Crepidula fornicata (juv) ------0.2311 - - 0.2545 ------W1077 Retusa obtusa ------W1127 Alderia modesta ------W1136 Limapontia depressa ------0.0015 ------W1563 Nuculidae (juv) - 0.0003 ------W1570 Nucula nucleus ------0.0005 - - - - 0.0043 ------W1695 Mytilus edulis ------0.0014 ------W1695 Mytilus edulis (juv) ------W1961 Cerastoderma edule - - 218.8000 13.6603 10.4040 - - 15.9717 ------10.5330 W1961 Cerastoderma edule (juv) 0.0021 0.0005 0.0748 0.0602 - 0.0614 0.0025 0.1561 0.0027 0.0053 ------W1996 Ensis (juv) - 0.0002 - 0.0109 - - - - - 0.0034 - - - - - 0.0001 - - 0.0001 - W2029 Macoma balthica 0.0054 - 0.1333 - 0.2512 0.0056 0.0241 0.3360 - 0.0715 ------0.0208 0.1218 W2068 Scrobicularia plana - - - - 0.1891 ------0.3646 W2064 Abra tenuis - - - - 0.0416 - 0.0365 0.0234 - - - 0.0001 ------0.0069 0.0265 Tapes philippinarum - - 0.3063 ------Tapes philippinarum (juv) ------W2149 Mya arenaria - - - - 0.0586 0.1425 ------W2149 Mya arenaria (juv) - - 0.0581 0.6428 - 0.8036 0.0004 0.1485 - 0.0443 ------Y0076 Alcyonidium diaphanum ------Y0080 Alcyonidium mytili ------Y0091 Nolella ------Y0096 Anguinella palmata ------Y0131 Vesicularia spinosa ------Y0137 Bowerbankia ------Y0165 Eucratea loricata ------Y0172 Conopeum reticulum ------Y0177 Electra monostachys ------Y0182 Aspidelectra melolontha ------Y0246 Bugula plumosa ------Y0256 Bicellariella ciliata ------ZA0003 Phoronis - 0.0004 ------0.0014 ------0.0072 0.0010 - - 0.0001 ZB0148 Amphiuridae (juv) ------ZB0161 Amphipholis squamata ------0.0014 ------ZC0012 ENTEROPNEUSTA ------0.0001 0.0064 ------0.0001 ZD0002 ASCIDIACEA (juv) ------0.0001 ------ZD0041 Didemnidae ------ZG0001 OSTEICHTHYES (eggs) ------ZG0476 Pomatoschistus ------Total biomass per sample 0.8390 0.2243 221.5377 15.3351 11.5338 1.4148 0.6282 20.6257 1.2896 0.5239 47.2216 0.4550 0.0104 0.0004 0.0151 0.0440 0.7319 0.0636 0.6864 11.8522 Total biomass per m² 20.9750 5.6075 5538.4425 383.3775 288.3450 35.3700 15.7050 515.6425 32.2400 13.0975 1180.5400 11.3750 0.2600 0.0100 0.3775 1.1000 18.2975 1.5900 17.1600 296.3050
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2012 survey. Appendix 6. 6 of 6 Mean blotted wet weight biomass (g/m²) for each sample group ranked in decreasing weight order by taxon.
SDC Taxon Name OrA OrB OrC OrD StA StB StC StD StE StF StG Average/m² W1961 Cerastoderma edule 1517.901875 99.823125 - - - 31.018125 - - 65.83125 - 0.288125 155.8966 W0439 Crepidula fornicata - - 286.69375 - - - - 506.125625 - 117.45 - 82.7518 P1320 Sabella pavonina ------117.70625 - 10.7006 P0462 Hediste diversicolor 0.631875 0.800625 - 0.01 65.775 4.476875 0.045625 - 0.17375 - 1.41625 6.6664 W0439 Crepidula fornicata (juv) - 1.444375 1.590625 - - - - 48.063125 - 13.14625 - 5.8404 P0499 Nephtys hombergii 4.106875 7.125 0.350625 0.1675 - 6.685625 13.69375 5.9975 12.358125 1.225625 6.50125 5.2920 D0662 ACTINIARIA - 3.000625 11.501875 - 0.000625 0.050625 - - 0.71375 25.25125 2.29875 3.8925 Tapes philippinarum 1.914375 - - - - 39.603125 - - - - - 3.7743 W0385 Hydrobia ulvae 2.2825 3.344375 - - 8.02625 5.400625 0.483125 0.685 9.251875 - 0.423125 2.7179 W2064 Abra tenuis 0.26 0.374375 0.000625 - 1.165625 21.674375 1.041875 0.014375 1.28875 - 1.085 2.4459 P0472 Alitta virens - 3.166875 - - - - - 21.661875 - - - 2.2572 W2029 Macoma balthica 2.438125 2.6975 - - - 12.695625 1.0725 0.071875 1.53 - 0.81375 1.9381 P0839 Cirriformia tentaculata 4.980625 13.726875 ------0.021875 0.23875 0.03375 1.7274 W2068 Scrobicularia plana 1.181875 - - - 12.536875 1.814375 - - 2.27875 - - 1.6193 W2149 Mya arenaria (juv) 9.403125 1.2075 - - - - 0.038125 - - - - 0.9681 P0824 Aphelochaeta marioni 0.009375 0.006875 0.04 0.000625 0.014375 0.004375 0.000625 4.270625 0.005625 0.855 4.50375 0.8828 W2149 Mya arenaria 1.256875 - - - - 6.975 - - - - - 0.7484 P1490 Tubificoides benedii 0.15 0.208125 0.01375 0.020625 0.08625 4.20125 0.055 0.006875 0.35125 0.023125 2.723125 0.7127 S1594 Carcinus maenas 7.089375 0.140625 ------0.6573 P1124 Melinna palmata - 0.169375 0.08 0.020625 - - 0.135625 1.7925 0.11375 2.75125 1.225625 0.5717 P0847 Tharyx "species A" 1.676875 1.340625 0.011875 0.001875 0.0125 1.710625 0.0925 0.119375 0.235625 0.05 0.0625 0.4831 ZA0003 Phoronis - 0.00875 0.00625 0.045 0.000625 - 2.48 0.631875 0.000625 - 1.705625 0.4435 P0797 Streblospio 1.003125 1.785625 0.005625 0.03 0.200625 0.26 0.82125 0.01125 0.2375 0.01 0.164375 0.4118 W1961 Cerastoderma edule (juv) 1.2275 1.04125 - - - - 0.235 0.003125 0.395625 - 0.358125 0.2964 P0475 Eunereis longissima - - - 0.013125 - - 0.004375 - - 2.67625 - 0.2449 P0831 Chaetozone zetlandica - 0.01 1.115 0.003125 - - 0.000625 0.011875 - 1.14375 0.02 0.2095 ZC0012 ENTEROPNEUSTA - - 0.040625 - - 0.46 - 0.085625 0.000625 1.08125 - 0.1516 P1138 Ampharete grubei 0.1 0.06125 0.26375 - - - 0.005 0.179375 0.265 0.416875 0.349375 0.1491 P1498 Tubificoides pseudogaster (agg) 1.264375 0.09875 0.001875 - 0.000625 0.021875 0.039375 0.004375 0.05875 0.01625 0.0075 0.1376 Tapes philippinarum (juv) - - - - - 1.471875 0.026875 - - - - 0.1363 P0145 Anaitides mucosa 0.6575 0.1825 - - 0.019375 0.29625 0.015 0.00375 0.1625 0.0325 0.02125 0.1264 ZG0476 Pomatoschistus ------1.36 - 0.1236 S0616 Corophium volutator 1.1575 0.01875 0.045 0.009375 - - 0.00125 0.000625 - - 0.00125 0.1122 S0525 Melita palmata - 0.85875 ------0.31375 - - 0.1066 P0049 Gattyana cirrhosa ------0.006875 - 0.95375 - 0.0873 P0919 Mediomastus fragilis - 0.005625 0.14 - - - - 0.001875 - 0.638125 - 0.0714 G0001 NEMERTEA - - 0.010625 - - 0.00125 - 0.005 - 0.711875 0.01 0.0672 W0079 Lepidochitona cinerea - 0.233125 ------0.02 - 0.459375 0.0648 P0494 Nephtys (juv) 0.0675 0.128125 0.00375 0.01 - 0.1225 0.093125 0.114375 0.071875 0.03375 0.059375 0.0640 S0805 Cyathura carinata - - - - 0.604375 - - - - 0.0375 - 0.0584 P1134 Ampharete baltica - - - - - 0.015625 - - - - 0.56375 0.0527 P1479 Heterochaeta costata - 0.024375 0.001875 - 0.544375 ------0.0519 S0596 Microdeutopus gryllotalpa - 0.47625 ------0.041875 - 0.01 0.0480 Q0015 Achelia echinata (agg) - - 0.004375 ------0.500625 - 0.0459 P1143 Amphicteis midas - - 0.4575 ------0.0416 P0265 Glycera tridactyla - - 0.008125 - - 0.0275 0.000625 - - 0.40625 - 0.0402 S0478 Gammarus locusta ------0.419375 - - 0.0381 Q0051 Pycnogonum littorale ------0.375 - 0.0341 S0577 Aoridae (female) 0.02 0.20125 0.00375 0.00125 - 0.005 - - 0.063125 0.0375 0.000625 0.0302 P0753 Polydora cornuta 0.069375 0.068125 - 0.094375 - 0.02375 0.00375 0.000625 0.000625 0.000625 0.064375 0.0296 P0906 Capitella 0.215625 0.011875 0.00125 - - - - 0.005625 - 0.00625 0.010625 0.0228 P0776 Pygospio elegans 0.02875 0.091875 - 0.006875 - 0.04625 - 0.0025 0.009375 - 0.0575 0.0221 R2432 Eusarsiella zostericola - 0.010625 - - 0.000625 0.005 0.041875 0.135 0.00125 0.019375 0.021875 0.0214 P1489 Tubificoides amplivasatus - 0.03 0.01625 - - - 0.024375 0.00875 0.081875 0.0475 0.023125 0.0211 Tubificoides galiciensis - 0.0825 0.000625 - - - 0.001875 - 0.063125 0.0225 0.031875 0.0184 P0838 Cirriformia (juv) 0.1675 0.015 0.008125 ------0.0075 0.0180 S1594 Carcinus maenas (juv) - - 0.035 - - - - - 0.159375 - - 0.0177 P1195 Lanice conchilega - - 0.01125 ------0.179375 - 0.0173
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2012 survey. Appendix 7. 1 of 3 Mean blotted wet weight biomass (g/m²) for each sample group ranked in decreasing weight order by taxon.
SDC Taxon Name OrA OrB OrC OrD StA StB StC StD StE StF StG Average/m² S0420 Tritaeta gibbosa ------0.00125 0.18625 - 0.0170 W1996 Ensis (juv) 0.068125 0.02125 - 0.000625 - - - 0.00125 0.000625 0.0825 0.003125 0.0161 P0065 Harmothoe impar (agg) - - 0.118125 ------0.0107 P0321 Syllidia armata - - 0.083125 - - - - 0.005 - 0.023125 - 0.0101 P0672 Scoloplos armiger - - - - - 0.110625 - - - 0.000625 - 0.0101
HD0001 NEMATODA 0.0025 0.013125 0.001875 - 0.000625 0.00375 0.001875 0.000625 0.005625 0.00375 0.075625 0.0099 W0163 Gibbula cineraria - - 0.1 ------0.0091 P0167 Eumida sanguinea - 0.01875 0.001875 - - - - 0.01875 - 0.05375 - 0.0085 P0638 Protodorvillea kefersteini - - 0.000625 - - 0.00875 - - - 0.08125 - 0.0082 P0118 Eteone longa (Type A) 0.03125 0.031875 - - - 0.011875 - - - - 0.01 0.0077 Syllis "species A" ------0.08 - 0.0073 S0872 Sphaeroma serratum ------0.07625 0.0069 P1139 Ampharete lindstroemi ------0.02625 - - 0.05 0.0069 S0550 Microprotopus maculatus - - 0.000625 - - - - 0.00125 - 0.06625 - 0.0062 P1340 Spirobranchus lamarcki ------0.065625 - 0.0060 P0760 Dipolydora quadrilobata - - - - - 0.064375 - - - - - 0.0059 P1093 Galathowenia oculata - - - - - 0.003125 - 0.030625 0.0025 0.00625 0.01 0.0048 P0677 Aricidea minuta - - 0.00875 ------0.04375 - 0.0048 P0722 Aonides oxycephala ------0.0525 - 0.0048 W1570 Nucula nucleus - 0.003125 0.026875 ------0.02 0.0045 W1695 Mytilus edulis (juv) ------0.003125 0.04125 0.0040 P0421 Exogone hebes ------0.038125 0.00125 0.0036 P0920 Notomastus - - 0.03625 ------0.000625 - 0.0034 P1294 Manayunkia aestuarina 0.00125 0.00625 - - 0.001875 0.015 - - - - 0.010625 0.0032 W1077 Retusa obtusa - - - - - 0.035 - - - - - 0.0032 P0871 Cossura pygodactyla - 0.006875 0.000625 0.001875 - - 0.00125 0.00125 0.00875 0.011875 - 0.0030 Chironomidae (larva) 0.00125 0.0225 - - 0.00125 - - - - - 0.005625 0.0028 ZB0161 Amphipholis squamata - - 0.00875 ------0.02125 - 0.0027 P0430 Sphaerosyllis taylori - - 0.0075 - - - - 0.00125 - 0.015625 - 0.0022 P0118 Eteone longa (agg) - 0.003125 - - 0.000625 - - - - - 0.02 0.0022 P0082 Lepidonotus squamatus - - 0.023125 ------0.0021 S0464 Gammaridae (juv) 0.00125 0.01 ------0.005 - - 0.0015 S0651 Pariambus typicus ------0.00125 0.000625 0.01375 - 0.0014 P0750 Dipolydora coeca (agg) 0.005625 - 0.008125 ------0.0013 P1235 Polycirrus - - 0.01375 ------0.0013 W1127 Alderia modesta ------0.01375 - - - 0.0013 P0430 Sphaerosyllis taylori (epitoke) - - 0.001875 - - - - 0.00125 - 0.01 - 0.0012 S0257 Harpinia pectinata ------0.011875 - 0.0011 P0422 Exogone naidina - - 0.004375 - - - - 0.00125 0.000625 0.005 - 0.0010 S0102 Apherusa bispinosa ------0.01125 - 0.0010 P0422 Exogone naidina (epitoke) - - 0.001875 - - - - 0.00375 0.0025 0.001875 - 0.0009 P0434 Autolytus - - 0.009375 ------0.000625 - 0.0009 S0606 Monocorophium acherusicum 0.009375 ------0.0009 W1136 Limapontia depressa - 0.009375 ------0.0009 W1695 Mytilus edulis - - 0.00875 ------0.0008 ZB0148 Amphiuridae (juv) ------0.00875 - 0.0008 R2413 MYODOCOPIDA ------0.0075 - 0.0007 Grandidierella japonica ------0.006875 0.0006 P0094 Pholoe inornata (sensu Petersen) ------0.006875 - 0.0006 P1477 Clitellio arenarius (?) ------0.006875 - - - 0.0006 S0579 Aora gracilis ------0.006875 - 0.0006 P0431 Sphaerosyllis tetralix - - 0.003125 ------0.001875 - 0.0005 S0159 Amphilochus neapolitanus - - 0.001875 ------0.003125 - 0.0005 S1224 Cumella pygmaea ------0.005 - 0.0005 P0380 Eusyllis blomstrandi ------0.004375 - 0.0004 P0458 Nereididae (juv) ------0.004375 - - - 0.0004 S1615 Pilumnus hirtellus (juv) - - 0.004375 ------0.0004
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2012 survey. Appendix 7. 2 of 3 Mean blotted wet weight biomass (g/m²) for each sample group ranked in decreasing weight order by taxon.
SDC Taxon Name OrA OrB OrC OrD StA StB StC StD StE StF StG Average/m² DIPTERA ------0.004375 - - 0.0004 Dalyelliidae - 0.00375 ------0.0003 S0503 Cheirocratus (female) - - 0.003125 ------0.0003 P1117 Sabellaria spinulosa - - - - 0.0025 ------0.0002 R2458 PODOCOPIDA - - - - - 0.0025 - - - - - 0.0002 S0901 Munna ------0.0025 - 0.0002 P0288 Sphaerodoropsis minuta - - 0.00125 ------0.000625 0.0002 Q0044 Anoplodactylus petiolatus - - 0.000625 - - - - 0.00125 - - - 0.0002 S1197 Bodotria scorpioides - - 0.001875 ------0.0002 W1563 Nuculidae (juv) ------0.001875 - - - 0.0002 S0885 Jaera albifrons (agg) ------0.00125 0.0001 P0064 Harmothoe imbricata ------0.00125 - 0.0001 P0613 Ophryotrocha ------0.00125 - 0.0001 R0142 COPEPODA ------0.000625 0.000625 - 0.0001 S0158 Amphilochus manudens ------0.00125 - 0.0001 S0942 Idotea pelagica ------0.00125 - - 0.0001 Q0002 PYCNOGONIDA (juv) ------0.000625 0.0001 S1276 DECAPODA (Type A) ------0.000625 0.0001 P0406 Syllides ------0.000625 - 0.0001 P0426 Sphaerosyllis erinaceus - - 0.000625 ------0.0001 P0431 Sphaerosyllis tetralix (epitoke) - - 0.000625 ------0.0001 P0434 Autolytus (epitoke) - - 0.000625 ------0.0001 P0929 Arenicola (juv) - - - - - 0.000625 - - - - - 0.0001 P1118 Ampharetidae (juv) - - 0.000625 ------0.0001 P1477 Clitellio arenarius ------0.000625 - - - - 0.0001 P1501 Enchytraeidae - - - - 0.000625 ------0.0001 R0142 COPEPODA (Type A) ------0.000625 - - 0.0001 R1820 Sabelliphilus elongatus ------0.000625 - 0.0001 S0164 Gitana sarsi ------0.000625 - 0.0001 S0561 Ericthonius (female) - - 0.000625 ------0.0001 S0565 Ericthonius rubricornis - - 0.000625 ------0.0001 S0568 Jassa ------0.000625 - - - 0.0001 S0574 Microjassa cumbrensis ------0.000625 - - - 0.0001 S1208 Eudorella truncatula ------0.000625 - 0.0001 S1276 DECAPODA (megalopa) 0.000625 ------0.0001 ZD0002 ASCIDIACEA (juv) - - 0.000625 ------0.0001 Total 1561.3838 144.1713 302.9506 0.4369 88.9956 139.3231 20.4569 590.1444 96.5550 290.3488 25.6563 296.4020
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2012 survey. Appendix 7. 3 of 3 Appendix 8. The 20 most abundant countable taxa in each cluster group, with the percentage of samples in which each non-countable taxon was recorded, including biotope assignments and EUNIS codes.
Group A (1 Sample) B (1 Sample) C (2 Samples) D (1 Sample) E (1 Sample)
Samples 192 207 179, 181 195 189
Av/m² Av/m² Av/m² Av/m² Av/m² 1 Aphelochaeta marioni 675 Aphelochaeta marioni 8475 Aphelochaeta marioni 7525 Aphelochaeta marioni 1375 NEMATODA 1875 2 Chaetozone zetlandica 500 Tubificoides benedii 2275 Tharyx "species A" 475 Sabelliphilus elongatus 825 Achelia echinata (agg) 900 3 Microprotopus maculatus 175 Elminius modestus 1000 Crepidula fornicata 463 Tubificoides amplivasatus 750 Tritaeta gibbosa 875 4 Pariambus typicus 150 Polydora cornuta 900 Streblospio 263 Tritaeta gibbosa 400 Exogone naidina 600 5 Galathowenia oculata 100 Hediste diversicolor 525 Tubificoides amplivasatus 238 Sabella pavonina 300 Eumida sanguinea 475 6 Balanus crenatus 100 Pygospio elegans 425 Nephtys hombergii 200 ACTINIARIA 250 ACTINIARIA 450 7 ENTEROPNEUSTA 75 Chaetozone zetlandica 225 Eusarsiella zostericola 200 Nephtys hombergii 175 Crepidula fornicata 300 8 Eunereis longissima 50 Ampharete baltica 225 Galathowenia oculata 175 Cossura pygodactyla 175 Pariambus typicus 200 9 Tubificoides amplivasatus 50 Cerastoderma edule 225 Eumida sanguinea 163 Tubificoides pseudogaster (agg) 175 Exogone hebes 150 10 Anaitides mucosa 25 Tharyx "species A" 175 NEMATODA 138 Tubificoides galiciensis 175 Tharyx "species A" 150 11 Sphaerosyllis taylori 25 Galathowenia oculata 125 Sphaerosyllis taylori 125 NEMATODA 125 Melinna palmata 150 12 Scoloplos armiger 25 NEMATODA 100 Melinna palmata 125 Tubificoides benedii 125 Eusarsiella zostericola 150 13 Streblospio 25 Cirriformia tentaculata 100 Exogone naidina 88 Aoridae (female) 75 NEMERTEA 125 14 Tubificoides pseudogaster (agg) 25 Anaitides mucosa 75 Capitella 63 Syllis "species A" 50 Aoridae (female) 125 15 Eudorella truncatula 25 Cirriformia (juv) 75 Elminius modestus 50 Capitella 50 Amphiuridae (juv) 125 16 Pomatoschistus 25 Melinna palmata 75 Syllidia armata 38 NEMERTEA 25 Ampharete grubei 100 17 Lepidochitona cinerea 75 Chaetozone zetlandica 38 Gattyana cirrhosa 25 Gattyana cirrhosa 75 18 ACTINIARIA 50 Cossura pygodactyla 38 Eusyllis blomstrandi 25 Sphaerosyllis taylori 75 19 Streblospio 50 Ampharete grubei 38 Syllides 25 Harpinia pectinata 75 20 Grandidierella japonica 50 Tubificoides pseudogaster (agg) 38 Exogone naidina 25 Syllidia armata 50 non-countable taxa % non-countable taxa % non-countable taxa % non-countable taxa % non-countable taxa % 1 Pterothamnion plumula 100 Enteromorpha 100 Anguinella palmata 100 ANIMALIA (eggs) 100 Gracilaria 100 2 Enteromorpha 100 Bowerbankia 100 Alcyonium digitatum 100 Chaetomorpha 100 3 Ulva 100 Conopeum reticulum 100 Anguinella palmata 100 PORIFERA 100 4 Gracilaria 50 Cliona 100 5 Cladophora 50 Hydrallmania falcata 100 6 Lagotia viridis 50 Alcyonium digitatum 100 7 Leucosolenia 50 Alcyonidium diaphanum 100 8 Pedicellina 50 Alcyonidium mytili 100 9 Barentsia 50 Anguinella palmata 100 10 Nolella 50 Conopeum reticulum 100 11 Bugula plumosa 50 Electra monostachys 100 12 Bicellariella ciliata 50 Bicellariella ciliata 100 13 Didemnidae 50 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Av taxa 19 29 33 30 52 Av per m² 205 15475 10750 5325 7625 Biotope assignment EUNIS Biotope assignment EUNIS Biotope assignment EUNIS Biotope assignment EUNIS Biotope assignment EUNIS SS.Smu.SMuVS.AphTubi A5.322 SS.Smu.SMuVS.AphTubi A5.322 SS.SMx.SMxVS.CreMed A5.452 SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn A5.432 SS.SMx.SMxVS.CreMed A5.452 Biotopes A2.312 LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac Hediste diversicolor and Macoma balthica in littoral sandy mud A2.322 LS.LMu.UEst.Hed Hediste diversicolor in littoral mud A2.431 LR.FLR.Eph.BLitX Barnacles and Littorina spp. on unstable eulittoral mixed substrata A5.321 SS.SMu.SMuVS.PolCvol Polydora ciliata and Corophium volutator in variable salinity infralittoral firm mud or clay A5.322 SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi Aphelochaeta marioni and Tubificoides spp. in variable salinity infralittoral mud A5.432 SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn Sabella pavonina with sponges and anemones on infralittoral mixed sediment A5.452 SS.SMx.SMxVS.CreMed Crepidula fornicata and Mediomastus fragilis in variable salinity infralittoral mixed sediment
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2012 survey. Appendix 8. 1 of 3 Appendix 8. The 20 most abundant countable taxa in each cluster group, with the percentage of samples in which each non-countable taxon was recorded, including biotope assignments and EUNIS codes.
F (4 Samples) G (4 Samples) H (3 Samples) I (6 Samples) J (1 Sample)
191, 285, 289, 303 150, 152, 153, 154 258, 260, 269 171, 261, 263, 263, 275, 548 272
Av/m² Av/m² Av/m² Av/m² Av/m² Mediomastus fragilis 944 Hydrobia ulvae 1738 Elminius modestus 5800 Streblospio 14171 Streblospio 2400 Exogone naidina 769 Hediste diversicolor 1575 Tubificoides pseudogaster (agg) 5342 Tharyx "species A" 2233 Aoridae (female) 1350 Aphelochaeta marioni 594 Heterochaeta costata 731 Tharyx "species A" 3000 Hydrobia ulvae 1254 Tubificoides galiciensis 1050 Chaetozone zetlandica 438 Streblospio 550 Corophium volutator 1100 Tubificoides pseudogaster (agg) 850 Tharyx "species A" 975 Microprotopus maculatus 369 Elminius modestus 513 Hydrobia ulvae 1075 Mya arenaria 683 Tubificoides amplivasatus 600 Sphaerosyllis taylori 363 Cyathura carinata 319 Microdeutopus gryllotalpa 925 Pygospio elegans 646 Nephtys hombergii 525 Syllidia armata 313 Abra tenuis 131 Cirriformia tentaculata 650 Tubificoides benedii 608 NEMATODA 375 Aricidea minuta 275 Tubificoides benedii 106 Cerastoderma edule 633 NEMATODA 421 ACTINIARIA 350 Tubificoides amplivasatus 225 Manayunkia aestuarina 38 Mya arenaria 533 Macoma balthica 383 Microdeutopus gryllotalpa 225 ACTINIARIA 206 Enchytraeidae 31 Streblospio 433 Nephtys hombergii 208 Cossura pygodactyla 150 NEMATODA 144 NEMATODA 25 Capitella 433 Polydora cornuta 204 Polydora cornuta 125 Exogone hebes 138 Aphelochaeta marioni 19 Melita palmata 425 Hediste diversicolor 188 Anaitides mucosa 100 Crepidula fornicata 88 Eusarsiella zostericola 19 Tubificoides galiciensis 242 Manayunkia aestuarina 183 Hydrobia ulvae 100 NEMERTEA 63 Chironomidae (larva) 13 Anaitides mucosa 233 Cerastoderma edule 158 Dalyelliidae 50 Autolytus 63 ACTINIARIA 6 Crepidula fornicata 217 Tubificoides amplivasatus 142 Eteone longa (agg) 50 Amphipholis squamata 63 Eteone longa (agg) 6 Tubificoides benedii 158 Eteone longa (agg) 96 Eumida sanguinea 50 Sphaerosyllis tetralix 56 Anaitides mucosa 6 NEMATODA 150 Abra tenuis 79 Hediste diversicolor 50 Tubificoides benedii 56 Tharyx "species A" 6 Tubificoides amplivasatus 100 Eusarsiella zostericola 54 Chaetozone zetlandica 50 ENTEROPNEUSTA 56 Sabellaria spinulosa 6 Eteone longa (agg) 92 Ensis (juv) 42 Heterochaeta costata 50 Eumida sanguinea 50 Tubificoides pseudogaster (agg) 6 Lepidochitona cinerea 83 Mediomastus fragilis 38 Gammaridae (juv) 50 non-countable taxa % non-countable taxa % non-countable taxa % non-countable taxa % non-countable taxa % Conopeum reticulum 100 Chaetomorpha 75 Enteromorpha 33 Enteromorpha 50 Campanulariidae 100 Anguinella palmata 75 RHODOPHYTA 25 Eucratea loricata 33 Lemnaceae 33 Sertularia 50 Cladophora 25 Chaetomorpha 17 Gracilaria 25 ANIMALIA (eggs) 17 Chaetomorpha 25 ANIMALIA (eggs) 25 Halecium 25 ENTOPROCTA 25 Pedicellina 25 Barentsia 25 Alcyonidium mytili 25 Vesicularia spinosa 25 Electra monostachys 25 Aspidelectra melolontha 25 Bicellariella ciliata 25
41 10 22 21 27 6000 5850 22117 22829 8875 Biotope assignment Biotope assignment EUNIS Biotope assignment EUNIS Biotope assignment EUNIS Biotope assignment EUNIS SS.SMx.SMxVS.CreMed A5.452 LS.LMu.UEst.Hed A2.322 LR.FLR.Eph.BLitX A2.431 LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac A2.312 LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac A2.312
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2012 survey. Appendix 8. 2 of 3 Appendix 8. The 20 most abundant countable taxa in each cluster group, with the percentage of samples in which each non-countable taxon was recorded, including biotope assignments and EUNIS codes.
K (4 Samples) L (5 Samples) M (7 Samples) N (4 Samples)
193, 194, 209, 549 155, 157, 158, 163, 206 169, 172, 174, 180, 204, 249, 301 295, 296, 300, 306
Av/m² Av/m² Av/m² Av/m² Hydrobia ulvae 5475 Tubificoides benedii 11415 Streblospio 614 Corophium volutator 83 Tubificoides benedii 963 NEMATODA 9620 Hydrobia ulvae 357 Polydora cornuta 75 Tubificoides amplivasatus 650 Streblospio 3965 Nephtys hombergii 339 Nephtys hombergii 33 Tharyx "species A" 619 Abra tenuis 2560 Phoronis 204 Streblospio 33 Tubificoides galiciensis 538 Tharyx "species A" 2065 Aphelochaeta marioni 189 Tubificoides benedii 25 Abra tenuis 506 Hydrobia ulvae 1185 Tubificoides pseudogaster (agg) 154 Pygospio elegans 17 Streblospio 406 Manayunkia aestuarina 795 Eusarsiella zostericola 129 Aphelochaeta marioni 17 Tubificoides pseudogaster (agg) 300 Pygospio elegans 730 Tubificoides amplivasatus 64 Tubificoides pseudogaster (agg) 17 Nephtys hombergii 263 Hediste diversicolor 590 Macoma balthica 64 Hediste diversicolor 8 Macoma balthica 244 Macoma balthica 290 Cerastoderma edule 54 NEMATODA 213 Eteone longa (agg) 170 Pygospio elegans 46 Cerastoderma edule 138 Capitella 170 NEMATODA 32 Anaitides mucosa 119 Anaitides mucosa 120 Melinna palmata 32 Melita palmata 113 Nephtys hombergii 90 Cossura pygodactyla 29 Hediste diversicolor 106 Dipolydora quadrilobata 90 Tharyx "species A" 25 Cossura pygodactyla 81 Aphelochaeta marioni 85 Hediste diversicolor 21 Aoridae (female) 81 Tubificoides amplivasatus 80 Tubificoides galiciensis 21 Microdeutopus gryllotalpa 75 Scoloplos armiger 75 Galathowenia oculata 14 Melinna palmata 50 ACTINIARIA 60 Nucula nucleus 14 Exogone naidina 44 PODOCOPIDA 60 Ensis (juv) 14 non-countable taxa % non-countable taxa % non-countable taxa % non-countable taxa % Enteromorpha 25 Enteromorpha 20 Lemnaceae 29 Vesicularia spinosa 33 Cladophora 5 Bryopsis plumosa 4 Lemnaceae 5 Cladophora 4 ANIMALIA (eggs) 5 Anguinella palmata 4 ENTOPROCTA 5
24 19 15 5 11344 34500 2532 308 Biotope assignment EUNIS Biotope assignment EUNIS Biotope assignment EUNIS Biotope assignment EUNIS LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac A2.312 LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac A2.312 LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac A2.312 SS.SMu.SMuVS.PolCvol A5.321
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2012 survey. Appendix 8. 3 of 3 Appendix 10. Biotopes recorded in each of the Stour and Orwell estuary annual monitoring surveys, with 2003 target biotopes.
Sampling Area Site 2003 (Target biotope) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 group Stour GpStA 150 LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.UEst.Hed Stour GpStA 152 LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.UEst.Hed Stour GpStA 153 LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.UEst.Hed Stour GpStA 154 LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.UEst.Hed Stour GpStB 155 LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac Stour GpStB 157 LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac Stour GpStB 158 LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac Stour GpStB 163 LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac Stour GpStC 169 LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac Stour GpStC 171 LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac Stour GpStC 172 LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac Stour GpStC 174 LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac Stour GpStD 179 SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMx.SMxVS.CreMed Stour GpStD 180 SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac Stour GpStD 181 SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMx.SMxVS.CreMed Stour GpStD 249 SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac Stour GpStE 193 LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac Stour GpStE 194 LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac Stour GpStE 548 LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac Stour GpStE 549 LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac Stour GpStF 189 SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMx.SMxVS.CreMed Stour GpStF 191 SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn SS.SCS.SCSVS SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMx.SMxVS.CreMed Stour GpStF 192 SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi Stour GpStF 195 SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn Stour GpStG 204 LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac Stour GpStG 206 LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac Stour GpStG 207 LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi Stour GpStG 209 LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac Orwell GpOrA 258 LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LR.FLR.Eph.BLitX Orwell GpOrA 260 LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LR.FLR.Eph.BLitX Orwell GpOrA 261 LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac Orwell GpOrA 263 LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac Orwell GpOrB 267 LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac Orwell GpOrB 269 LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LR.FLR.Eph.BLitX Orwell GpOrB 272 LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac Orwell GpOrB 275 LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac Orwell GpOrC 285 SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMx.SMxVS.CreMed Orwell GpOrC 289 SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn SS.SMx.SMxVS.CreMed Orwell GpOrC 303 SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi SS.SMx.SMxVS.CreMed Orwell GpOrC 306 SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.PolCvol Orwell GpOrD 295 SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.PolCvol SS.SMu.SMuVS.PolCvol SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.PolCvol Orwell GpOrD 296 SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.PolCvol SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.PolCvol Orwell GpOrD 300 SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.PolCvol LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.PolCvol Orwell GpOrD 301 SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac EUNIS Biotope recorded Description A2.311 LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr Nephtys hombergii , Macoma balthica and Streblospio shrubsolii in littoral sandy mud A2.312 LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac Hediste diversicolor and Macoma balthica in littoral sandy mud A2.322 LS.LMu.UEst.Hed Hediste diversicolor in littoral mud A2.431 LR.FLR.Eph.BLitX Barnacles and Littorina spp. on unstable eulittoral mixed substrata A5.321 SS.SMu.SMuVS.PolCvol Polydora ciliata and Corophium volutator in variable salinity infralittoral firm mud or clay A5.322 SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi Aphelochaeta marioni and Tubificoides spp. in variable salinity infralittoral mud A5.323 SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi Nephtys hombergii and s spp. in variable salinity infralittoral soft mud A5.432 SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn Sabella pavonina with sponTubificoideges and anemones on infralittoral mixed sediment A5.452 SS.SMx.SMxVS.CreMed Crepidula fornicata and Mediomastus fragilis in variable salinity infralittoral mixed sediment
Stour and Orwell estuaries annual benthic monitoring report: July 2012 survey. Appendix 10. Page 1
Appendix B
Description of biotopes
Annual Review 2012 Final Report March 2013
Biotopes recorded in the Stour and Orwell estuary annual monitoring surveys
Following the 2010 Regulators Meeting (16th March), it was decided a summary of biotopes and dominant species would help interpretation of the results of the Stour and Orwell annual monitoring of the benthos.
A biotope is defined as the combination of an abiotic habitat and its associated community of species (Connor et al., 2004). There is a classification hierarchy: broad habitats (EUNIS Level 2, e.g. littoral sediments, infralittoral rock), main habitats (EUNIS Level 3, e.g. littoral mud, sublittoral coarse sediment), biotope complexes (EUNIS Level 4, e.g. sublittoral coarse sediments in variable salinity) and biotopes (EUNIS Level 5, e.g. Nephtys hombergii, Macoma balthica and Streblospio shrubsolii in littoral sandy mud). EUNIS Level 1 defines the marine environment and Level 6 (sub-biotopes) are not considered here. Each level is represented by a group of letters in a biotope code, with letters separated by punctuation marks. For example, the biotope named above is coded as LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr; note that there are four groups of letters separated by punctuation to represent EUNIS Levels 2-5.
A review of biotopes recorded from the Stour, Orwell and approaches to Harwich, including the Gabbard was included in the biotope distribution and data review report (Worsfold, 2005). Eighty five biotopes are recorded for the area. However, many of these are known only from outside the estuaries, from restricted areas or from habitats, such as boulders, that would not be expected to be sampled by Shipek grabs. The following biotope list is therefore restricted to those recorded from the annual monitoring surveys in 2008 (Worsfold & Dyer, 2008), 2009 (Worsfold & Dyer, 2009), 2010 (Worsfold et al., 2011) and 2011 (this report).
LS.LMu.UEst.Hed LS (Littoral sediments) LMu (Littoral mud) UEst (Polychaete / oligochaete dominated upper estuarine mud shores) Hed (Hediste diversicolor in littoral mud)
Biotope description Typical habitat: mud or sandy mud in variable or reduced salinity, typically in sheltered inlets and the upper reaches of estuaries on the mid to lower shore. Biology: infauna usually dominated by harbour ragworms (Hediste diversicolor); other typical species include several species of oligochaete worms, often including Heterochaeta costata, which has a restricted salinity range; there are usually small polychaete worms, such as Streblospio shrubsolii and Manayunkia aestuarina and the laver spire snail Hydrobia ulvae may be common. There is no typical epibiota except for mats of drifting algae such as Enteromorpha. There are three sub-biotopes: LS.LMu.UEst.Hed.Str (Hediste diversicolor and Streblospio shrubsolii in littoral sandy mud) has a higher proportion of small polychaetes, LS.LMu.UEst.Hed.Cvol (Hediste diversicolor and Corophium volutator in littoral mud) has more mud amphipods (Corophium volutator) and LS.LMu.UEst.Hed.Ol (Hediste diversicolor and oligochaetes in littoral mud) has a higher proportion of oligochaetes. An average of 7,754 animals per m² was recorded for this biotope in 2003.
Stour & Orwell annual benthic monitoring, 2011 Appendix 11 Page 1
Typical species; top 5 species The five most common species recorded in this biotope for the 2003 survey (upon which the target biotopes were defined) are listed below: Hediste diversicolor (harbour ragworm) is a large active worm (predator and particle feeder) common in mudflats with variable salinity. It is a prey species for fish and birds and sometimes used for bait. Streblospio shrubsolii is a small burrowing worm (deposit feeder) common in mudflats with variable salinity and is also common in shallow water. Hydrobia ulvae (laver spire snail) is a small snail (deposit feeder) common on mudflats and saltmarsh and able to drift over wide areas at high tide; it forms aggregations and populations may fluctuate. It is a prey species for some fish and birds Polydora cornuta is a small burrowing worm (deposit feeder) that prefers stiff mud or clay in variable salinity on the lower shore or in shallow water. Heterochaeta costata is a small oligochaete worm (deposit feeder) that is restricted to variable or reduced salinity at the heads of estuaries or in lagoons or areas of freshwater runoff.
Distribution in the estuaries This is the target biotope for Group StA. It has been consistently recorded from the intertidal of the upper Stour. In addition, a few upper mid-shore sites were ascribed to it by the 1997 grab survey along with the saltmarsh erosion area, with Enteromorpha spp. on consolidated mud and channels between, of eastern Copperas Bay mapped in 2002.
Regional and national distribution Many areas of soft mud, especially channels between saltmarshes and at the extreme heads of estuaries, are referable to this biotope and it is probably widely distributed in all estuaries with areas of appropriate salinity and sediment.
Key species for bird feeding and bait digging Hediste diversicolor is an important bird feeding and bait species. Most of the other typical species are too small to be of interest to bait diggers or most birds but some birds may specialise in the smaller worms or Hydrobia.
Sensitivity The biotope is likely to be sensitive to changes in substratum type and hydrology (especially salinity) and to chemical contamination but is less sensitive to smothering or disturbance (provided that the sediment type remains the same).
LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac MEst (Polychaete / bivalve dominated mid estuarine mud shores) HedMac (Hediste diversicolor and Macoma balthica in littoral sandy mud)
Biotope description Typical habitat: sandy mud or mud in full, variable or reduced salinity, typically in sheltered bays and estuaries across the whole shore. Biology: infauna with many harbour ragworms (Hediste diversicolor), as well as bivalves (such as Abra tenuis, baltic tellins, Macoma balthica, and cockles, Cerastoderma edule), small worms (Streblospio shrubsolii, Tharyx Type A, and
Stour & Orwell annual benthic monitoring, 2011 Appendix 11 Page 2
oligochaetes, such as Tubificoides benedii), laver spire snails (Hydrobia ulvae) and burrowing amphipods (Corophium volutator). There is no typical epibiota except for mats of drifting algae such as Enteromorpha. An average of 21,261 animals per m² was recorded for this biotope in 2003.
Lugworms (Arenicola marina), which might represent a different biotope, are often missed by remote sampling methods, due to their large size and low density. Lugworm casts are found in many sandy mud areas, particularly on the Stour, near areas of LS.LSa.MuSa.MacAre. Pygospio elegans is a minor component of many samples in this biotope as well as in LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr. Sand gapers (Mya arenaria) are common in parts of upper reaches of both estuaries, especially the north side of the Orwell.
Typical species; top 5 species The five most common species recorded in this biotope for the 2003 survey (upon which the target biotopes were defined) are listed below: Tubificoides benedii is a small oligochaete (deposit feeder) worm that is common in estuarine mudflats. Streblospio shrubsolii (see above) Hydrobia ulvae (see above) Tharyx (Type A) is a small burrowing worm (deposit feeder) that may common in mudflats, particularly in the mid reaches of estuaries. Abra tenuis is a small bivalve (deposit feeder) found in mudflats and saltmarsh in variable salinity, particularly in the upper and mid shore.
Distribution in the estuaries This is the target biotope for Groups StB, StE, StG and OrB. It included most of the intertidal samples taken for the 1997 survey (Dyer, 2000). It was the most extensive biotope on the Stour and was also widespread on the Orwell. Cluster analysis of the 2003 data divided the original biotope into two groups that were assigned to different biotopes, although the communities did not fit perfectly. Samples from mid estuary and mid shore areas were assigned to LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac. Samples from the Trimley Setback Site also belong to the present biotope; the breach had been made and the habitat stabilised by 2002.
Regional and national distribution This is probably the most widespread estuarine mudflat biotopes nationally and is also common in sheltered muddy bays.
Key species for bird feeding and bait digging Hediste diversicolor is an important bird feeding and bait species. Many of the bivalves present in the biotope would also be important bird food and cockles may be fished commercially. Most of the other typical species are too small to be of interest to bait diggers or most birds but some birds may specialise in the smaller worms or Hydrobia.
Stour & Orwell annual benthic monitoring, 2011 Appendix 11 Page 3
Sensitivity The biotope is likely to be sensitive to changes in substratum type and hydrology (especially salinity) and to chemical contamination but is less sensitive to smothering or disturbance (provided that the sediment type remains the same). There is evidence that some of the area of intertidal mud had been lost since publication of the most recent Ordnance Survey map, especially in Copperas, Holbrook and Erwarton Bays. In these areas, erosion steps are present on the seaward edges of both the saltmarsh and mudflats.
LS.LMu.MEst.NhomMacStr NhomMacStr (Nephtys hombergii, Macoma balthica and Streblospio shrubsolii in littoral sandy mud)
Biotope description Typical habitat: sandy mud in variable salinity, typically in the upper reaches of estuaries on the mid to lower shore. Biology: infauna dominated by the small worm Streblospio shrubsolii; harbour ragworms (Hediste diversicolor), bivalves (such as baltic tellins, Macoma balthica) and laver spire snails (Hydrobia ulvae) may also be common. There is no typical epibiota except for mats of drifting algae such as Enteromorpha. Some rare species (the burrowing anemone Nematostella vectensis and the polychaete Alkmaria romijni) have been recorded from this biotope in the western Stour (Hill et al., 1996). The biotope has much in common with LS.LMu.MEst.HedMac and is only loosely distinguishable from it. An average of 29,246 animals per m² was recorded for this biotope in 2003.
Typical species; top 5 species The five most common species recorded in this biotope for the 2003 survey (upon which the target biotopes were defined) are listed below: Streblospio shrubsolii (see above) Tharyx (Type A) (see above) Mya arenaria (gaper) is a large deposit and filter feeding bivalve (though juveniles were more common than adults in samples) that was originally introduced from eastern North America. It can be common on the lower shore and in shallow water in muddy sand in sheltered estuaries and bays, including areas of reduced and variable salinity; it burrows deeply. It could potentially be harvested for human consumption or bait and may be important for bird feeding. Hydrobia ulvae (see above) Cerastoderma edule (edible cockle) is a medium sized filter feeding bivalve (though juveniles were more common than adults in samples) found both in estuaries and sheltered bays in full or variable salinity, mostly near the surface of muddy sand or sandy mud on the mid or lower shore. It could be harvested for human consumption or bait and is an important bird feed species.
Distribution in the estuaries This is the target biotope for Groups StC and OrA. Most of the upper Orwell and parts of the lower shore of the upper Stour were referred to this biotope by cluster analysis of samples from 2003. Some sites are typical of the described type but there were more bivalves than described as typical. Some rare species (the burrowing
Stour & Orwell annual benthic monitoring, 2011 Appendix 11 Page 4
anemone Nematostella vectensis and the polychaete Alkmaria romijni) have been recorded from this biotope in the western Stour (Hill et al., 1996).
Regional and national distribution Many areas of soft substrata in the mid and upper reaches of estuaries are referable to this biotope and it is probably widely distributed in all estuaries with areas of appropriate salinity and sediment.
Key species for bird feeding and bait digging Mya arenaria and Cerastoderma edule are important bird feeding and, potentially, bait and human food species. Some of the other bivalve present in the biotope would also be important bird food. Most of the other typical species are too small to be of interest to bait diggers or most birds but some birds may specialise in the smaller worms or Hydrobia.
Sensitivity The biotope is likely to be sensitive to changes in substratum type and hydrology (especially salinity) and to chemical contamination but is less sensitive to smothering or disturbance (provided that the sediment type remains the same).
SS.SCS.SCSVS SS (Sublittoral sediment) SCS (Sublittoral coarse sediment) SCSVS (Sublittoral coarse sediments in variable salinity (estuaries)
Biotope description This biotope complex is not divided into biotopes so is treated as a whole. Typical habitat: mixed substrata in variable or reduced salinity, in shallow water in estuaries Biology: varied infauna and epifauna as biotopes not defined within complex. Typical species in annual monitoring surveys listed below. An average of 2,750 animals per m² was recorded for this biotope in 2008.
Typical species; top 5 species The five most common species recorded (other than Nematoda) in this biotope for the 2008 annual monitoring survey (in which this biotope was first recorded at a monitoring station) are listed below: Sphaerosyllis taylori is a very small mobile worm (possible predator) found in shallow water in mixed substrata. Aphelochaeta marioni is a small burrowing worm (deposit feeder) that may be common in muddy sediment with some mixed substrata on the lower shore and in shallow water in variable salinity. Syllidia armata is a very small mobile worm (predator) found in shallow water in mixed substrata. Mediomastus fragilis is a small burrowing worm (deposit feeder) found in shallow mixed substrata. Tubificoides benedii (see above)
Stour & Orwell annual benthic monitoring, 2011 Appendix 11 Page 5
Distribution in the estuaries The complex was recorded at one station in Group StF in 2008. In 2003, it was recorded from off Parkeston, in the outer Stour Estuary.
Regional and national distribution As the biotopes are not defined it is not possible to comment on national distribution.
Key species for bird feeding and bait digging Most of the species recorded are too small to be of interest to birds. Subtidal habitats are generally inaccessible to bait diggers and many birds.
Sensitivity The complex probably includes a series of transitional communities that are produced by distrurbance and likely to change with changes in substratum type and hydrology, as well as with changes such as smothering or disturbance.
SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SMu (Sublittoral cohesive mud and sandy mud communities) SMuVS (Sublittoral mud in variable salinity (estuaries) AphTubi (Aphelochaeta marioni and Tubificoides spp. in variable salinity infralittoral mud)
Biotope description Typical habitat: mud or sandy mud, sometimes with mixed substrata, in full or variable salinity, typically in the mid to lower reaches of estuaries and sheltered inlets in shallow water. Biology: infauna characterised by the small worm Aphelochaeta marioni and oligochaete worms such as Tubificoides amplivasatus. Other worms may be frequent. An average of 6,969 animals per m² was recorded for this biotope in the richest cluster in 2003.
Typical species; top 5 species The five most common taxa recorded in this biotope for the 2003 survey (upon which the target biotopes were defined) are listed below: Aphelochaeta marioni (see above) Streblospio shrubsolii (see above) Phoronis are small worms (filter and deposit feeders) that live buried in mud in sandy tubes. They may be very common in shallow water in estuaries and sheltered bays. Melinna palmata is a medium sized burrowing worm (deposit feeder) found in mud on the lower shore and in shallow water, where it may be very common. Nephtys hombergii (a type of catworm) is a large active worm (predator) that can be found in many different sediment types in a wide range of depths but is particularly common in shallow water mud in estuaries.
Distribution in the estuaries This is the target biotope for Groups StD and OrD. It is one of the principal subtidal biotopes of the estuaries, as identified by cluster analysis of 2003 data. Most of the fauna from the sediment grab samples recorded in previous surveys (Dyer, 2000) was referred to the equivalent of this biotope. Much of Holbrook Bay, mapped as intertidal in most maps and charts, fits SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi on the basis of its fauna (Dyer, 2000). July 2002 dredge samples containing mud or muddy mixed sediment were assumed to belong to it. Most samples were typical of the described
Stour & Orwell annual benthic monitoring, 2011 Appendix 11 Page 6
biotope. Certain areas proved to contain more gravel and overlap with IMX biotopes, however (Dyer & Worsfold, 2001). There was also considerable overlap with other mud biotopes.
Regional and national distribution This is probably one of the most widespread soft substratum biotopes in estuarine shallow water throughout the country. It is also likely to be widespread in sheltered inlets and bays.
Key species for bird feeding and bait digging Catworms (Nephtys hombergii) would be suitable for bird feed and bait if accessible. Most of the other species recorded are too small to be of interest to birds. Subtidal habitats are generally inaccessible to bait diggers and many birds.
Sensitivity The biotope is likely to be sensitive to changes in substratum type and hydrology and to chemical contamination but less sensitive to smothering or disturbance (provided that the sediment type remains the same).
SS.SMu.SMuVS.PolCvol PolCvol (Polydora ciliata and Corophium volutator in variable salinity infralittoral firm mud or clay)
Biotope description Typical habitat: clay or peat, with mud, in variable salinity, often in the lower reaches of estuaries and sheltered inlets in shallow water. Biology: infauna characterised by the small worm Polydora ciliata, or P. cornuta, and the burrowing amphipod Corophium volutator, which may vary in abundance. Other worms may be frequent. An average of 192 animals per m² was recorded for this biotope in 2008.
Typical species; top 5 species The five most common species recorded in this biotope for the 2008 annual monitoring survey (in which this biotope was first recorded at the monitoring stations) are listed below: Polydora cornuta (see above) Eusarsiella zostericola is a very small ostracod crustacean (clam shrimp) that was originally introduced from eastern North America and lives on and above lower shore and shallow water mud in estuaries. Nucula nitidosa is a small bivalve (deposit feeder) that may be abundant in shallow water stiff mud or clay. Nephtys hombergii (see above) Chaetozone zetlandica is a small burrowing worm (deposit feeder) that lives in shallow water in the lower reaches of estuaries and sheltered locations in mixed and muddy substrata.
Stour & Orwell annual benthic monitoring, 2011 Appendix 11 Page 7
Distribution in the estuaries This biotope was recorded Group OrD in 2008 and 2009. Similar communities have also been found at other stations in the estuaries (Station 290) and offshore. The fauna was variable, as evidenced by the cluster group scatter.
Regional and national distribution As the biotope is restricted to particular substratum types, it is probably scattered in its distribution around the country and may be widespread but unlikely to cover wide areas.
Key species for bird feeding and bait digging Catworms (Nephtys hombergii) would be suitable for bird feed and bait if accessible. Most of the other species recorded are too small to be of interest to birds. Subtidal habitats are generally inaccessible to bait diggers and many birds.
Sensitivity The biotope is likely to be sensitive to changes in substratum type and hydrology and to chemical contamination. It would also be sensitive to smothering and disturbance, as these would necessarily affect the substratum type.
SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi NhomTubi (Nephtys hombergii and Tubificoides spp. in variable salinity infralittoral soft mud)
Biotope description Typical habitat: mud or sandy mud, in variable salinity, typically in the mid to lower reaches of estuaries and sheltered inlets in shallow water. Biology: infauna characterised by catworms, Nephtys hombergii and oligochaete worms such as Tubificoides amplivasatus. Other worms may be frequent. An average of 425 animals per m² was recorded for this biotope in 2009.
Typical species; top 5 species The five most common species recorded in this biotope for the 2009 annual monitoring survey (in which this biotope was first recorded at the monitoring stations) are listed below: Nephtys (juv) most likely represents the young of N. hombergii (see above) Streblospio shrubsolii (see above) Aphelochaeta marioni (see above) Cossura pygodactyla is a very small burrowing worm (deposit feeder) found in various substrata, often in disturbed conditions. Ampharete grubei is a medium sized burrowing worm (deposit feeder) found in muddy substrata on the lower shore and in shallow water.
Distribution in the estuaries This biotope was recorded Group OrD in 2009. It was not easily recognised on the basis of 1997 cluster groups but inspection of individual sample data showed a dominance of Nephtys hombergii to be associated with reduced cirratulid (Aphelochaeta marioni) numbers. Analysis of 2003 data revealed the biotope in the estuaries (mainly in Harwich Harbour but also in the mid Stour) and offshore, mainly in Pennyhole Bay. Some 2003 estuary samples may represent an undescribed biotope related to SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi. The echiuran Maxmuelleria lankesteri was
Stour & Orwell annual benthic monitoring, 2011 Appendix 11 Page 8
found in Harwich Harbour in July 2002 (Worsfold, 2002 – recorded as Echiurus echiurus) and may be an important food for fish (N. Britton, pers. comm.). Echiurans are known to emerge from the mud under anoxic conditions (Dyer et al., 1983). Such conditions could result from sediment dumping. The bivalve Saxicavella jeffreysii was often dominant.
Regional and national distribution The biotope is likely to be widespread in shallow water mud throughout the country.
Key species for bird feeding and bait digging Catworms (Nephtys hombergii) would be suitable for bird feed and bait if accessible. Most of the other species recorded are too small to be of interest to birds. Subtidal habitats are generally inaccessible to bait diggers and many birds.
Sensitivity The biotope is likely to be sensitive to changes in substratum type and hydrology and to chemical contamination. It is probably much less sensitive to smothering and disturbance and may represent a relatively disturbed sediment community.
SS.SMx.IMx.SpavSpAn SMx (Sublittoral mixed sediment) IMx (Infralittoral mixed sediment) SpavSpAn (Sabella pavonina with sponges and anemones on infralittoral mixed sediment)
Biotope description Typical habitat: muddy gravelly sand with pebbles, in full or slightly reduced or variable salinity, often in the lower reaches of estuaries and sheltered inlets in shallow water. Biology: characterised by fanworms, Sabella pavonina, which may form beds; epifauna, such as ascidians, sponges and anemones may be attached to the fanworm tubes. The infauna includes many small worms and crustaceans. An average of 17,089 animals per m² was recorded in the richest cluster for this biotope in 2003.
Typical species; top 5 species The five most common taxa (other than Nematoda) recorded in this biotope for the 2003 survey (upon which the target biotopes were defined) are listed below: Sabella pavonina (fanworm, spaghetti weed) is a large worm that builds muddy tubes attached to small stones or shells that are often buried in mud. The worms have crowns of tentacles that are extended for filter feeding. They may form extensive beds in shallow mixed substrata (sometimes on the lower shore) in estuaries and coastal areas, often with strong currents. Sabelliphilus elongatus is a very small crustacean that parasitises fanworms. Syllidia armata (see above) Aoridae are small Crustacea (deposit feeders) that build tubes in mud or attached to stones, shells, debris, or other tubes in shallow water. Aphelochaeta marioni (see above).
Stour & Orwell annual benthic monitoring, 2011 Appendix 11 Page 9
Distribution in the estuaries This is the target biotope for Groups StF and OrC. Fanworms (Sabella pavonina) have been found in dense patches on mud or mixed substrata on both estuaries, but particularly on the Orwell (Worsfold, 2002; Jessop et al., 2003). There is also a 6ha. patch of dense Sabella pavonina on the north-western edge of the Shelf and another (3ha.) to the south, which have been mapped by towed video (Worsfold & Dyer, 2004). Much of the undredged mud to the west of Landguard Point is similarly colonised by fanworms (about 9ha.). The beds have dense Sabella and are good examples of the described biotope. Sample analysis suggests that there may be another bed off The Naze.
Regional and national distribution There seems to be little information on the distribution of this biotope nationally but it would be reasonable to expect scattered patches in many UK estuaries.
Key species for bird feeding and bait digging Subtidal habitats are generally inaccessible to bait diggers and many birds. We have found no evidence that fanworms are targeted by birds, although some of the associated species, which may include large Crustacea, could be of interest. Fanworm beds may also be important as shelter for fish nurseries.
Sensitivity The biotope is likely to be sensitive to changes in substratum type and hydrology and to chemical contamination but less sensitive to smothering, as the tubes are raised above the mud surface. Disturbance could remove fanworms and change the biotope. There is some evidence that S. pavonina has increased in abundance in the estuaries.
Stour & Orwell annual benthic monitoring, 2011 Appendix 11 Page 10
Appendix C
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration benthic monitoring report
Annual Review 2012 Final Report March 2013
Project Report No.: HHAFEL12 (HHA77) January 2013
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined report on benthos monitoring surveys, 2008-2012
for
Harwich Haven Authority
London & South East Midlands & North Scotland & Borders Wales & South West Marine Laboratory Enquiries Compass House Calls Wharf . 20-23 Woodside Place Williams House 6 Business centre east e: [email protected] Surrey Research Park 2 The Calls Glasgow 11-15 Columbus Walk Letchworth w: www.thomsonecology.com Guildford Leeds G3 7QF Cardiff SG6 2TS. UK GU2 7AG . UK LS2 7JU . UK UK CF10 4BY . UK t: +44 (0) 1462 675559 t: +44 (0) 1483 466 000 t: +44 (0) 113 247 3780 t: +44 (0) 141 582 1485 t: +44 (0) 2920 020 674
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
Project Number Report No. Revision No. Date of Issue
HHAFEL12 001 001 January 2013
Name Signature Position Authors: Sajan Sebastian Biologist, Meiofuna and EIA Specialist
Søren Pears Principal Biologist, Data Analysis manager Tim Worsfold Principal Biologist, Consultancy and
Research Manager
Client Harwich Haven Authority (HHA)
Client Contact John Brien Fieldwork Søren Pears, James Thorpe. Laboratory Work Jason Argent, Lydia Finbow, Tony Freeston, Luke Hine, Victoria Mallot, Melanie O’Rourke, Nicola Pennisi, Rachael Philips. Laboratory Quality Control (Taxonomy) Georgina Brackenreed-Johnston, Marta Kazubek, Jessica Taylor and Tim Worsfold
Sebastian, S., Pears, S. & Worsfold, T.M., 2013. Felixstowe South Reconfiguration combined report on benthos monitoring surveys, 2008-2012. Thomson Unicomarine Report HHAFEL12 (HHA77) to Harwich Haven Authority, January 2013.
Disclaimer:
Copyright Thomson Unicomarine Limited. All rights reserved. No part of this report may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from Thomson Unicomarine Limited. If you have received this report in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control and notify Thomson Ecology Limited. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Thomson Unicomarine Limited, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of the report. No liability is accepted by Thomson Ecology Limited for any use of this report, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Opinions and information provided in the report are on the basis of Thomson Ecology Limited using due skill, care and diligence in the preparation of the same and no explicit warranty is provided as to their accuracy. It should be noted and it is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Thomson Ecology Limited has been made.
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
List of Tables, Figures, Plates and Appendices...... i Summary...... iv 2. Introduction...... 1 2.1 Background ...... 1 2.2 The Brief and Objectives...... 1 3. Methodology ...... 2 3.2 Field work (2012 survey)...... 2 3.3 Laboratory work...... 3 3.4 Macrobiota analysis ...... 4 3.5 Data Analysis ...... 5 3.6 Comparisons with previous data...... 7 4. Results...... 9 4.2 Particle size analysis (PSA) ...... 9 4.3 Macrobiota – 2012 data ...... 9 4.4 Macrobiota – comparison between years ...... 15 ANOSIM – Biota abundance data ...... 20 BIOENV/BEST...... 20 Taxonomic distinctness ...... 21 4.5 Trawls...... 23 5. Discussion ...... 23 6. References ...... 25
List of Tables, Figures, Plates and Appendices
Tables Table 1. Details of dates, times, locations, co-ordinates, depth (corrected for CD) for each grab sampling station.
Table 2. Details of dates, times, locations and co-ordinates for each trawl sampling station.
Table 3. Summary of particle size analysis, showing the percentage of sediment in each size class and derived summary statistics, for 2012.
Table 4. Combined biological matrix for 2008, 2009 2010, 2011 and 2012 with diversity indices; individuals and SIMPROF cluster group assignments.
Table 5a. The twenty most abundant countable taxa in each SIMPROF cluster from 2012 data, with % of samples in which non-countable taxa were recorded.
i
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
Table 5b. The twenty most abundant countable taxa in each SIMPROF cluster from combined 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 data, with % of samples in which non-countable taxa were recorded.
Table 6. Combined biological data recorded from the 2-metre trawl samples for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.
Table 7. Summary of biotope assignments for each station in each year.
Figures Figure 1. Locations of grab and trawl monitoring stations for the Felixstowe South Reconfiguration. Figure 2. Map showing total numbers of taxa for the three combined grab samples at each station. Figure 3. Map showing mean total biomass (g/m2) for each station. Figure. 4. Map showing mean numbers of individuals per m2 at each station. Figure 5. Map showing values of Shannon-Wiener diversity for each station
Figure 6. Map showing the number of Sabellaria spinulosa per m2 at each station. Figure 7. Dendrogram and MDS of the benthos data from each station (survey 2012). Figure 8. Map showing biotope assignments for each station and the biotopes map extrapolated from them. Figure 9. Dendrogram of the cluster analysis of the benthos data from each station (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012), with overlays of sediment categories.
Figure 10. Biological MDS plots (a) with overlays of sampling years (b) percentage pebble, (c) percentage Silt and clay (d) depth. Figure11. Average taxonomic distinctness (Delta+) with symbols denoting sampling years. Figure 12 Variation in Average taxonomic distinctness (Lambda+) with symbols denoting sampling years. Plates Plates 1-4. Station 12: Shipek Grab PSA and sample replicates a-c; 31 July 2012. Plates 5-8. Station 13: Shipek Grab PSA and sample replicates a-c; 31 July 2012. Plates 9-12. Station 32: Shipek Grab PSA and sample replicates a-c; 31 July 2012. Plates 13-16. Station 33: Shipek Grab PSA and sample replicates a-c; 31 July 2012. Plates 17-20. Station 41: Shipek Grab PSA and sample replicates a-c; 31 July 2012. Plates 21-24. Station 43: Shipek Grab PSA and sample replicates a-c; 31 July 2012. Plate 25. Catch from trawl C: 30 July 2012. Plate 26. Catch from trawl E; 30 July 2012. Plate 27. Catch from trawl M; 30 July 2012.
ii
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
Plate 28. Catch from trawl N; 30 July 2012. Appendices Appendix 1. Particle Size Analysis: raw data- percentage retained at 0.5phi intervals Appendix 2. Biota found in each 0.04m2 Shipek grab (2012 survey), with biomass by major taxonomic group. Appendix 3. Size data from the trawl samples (2012 survey).
iii
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
Summary
1.1.1 Following an ecological assessment survey in 2003, a monitoring schedule was established for the Felixstowe South Reconfiguration (FSR), comprising six Shipek grab stations (each with three replicate macrobiota samples and one PSA sample) and five 2-metre beam trawl samples. The first monitoring survey was completed in July 2008, with the second in 2009, the third in 2010, the fourth in 2011 and the fifth in 2012. Work had begun on the FSR by July 2009 and the June/July 2012 survey represents the fourth after some potential impact.
1.1.2 In all five years, the grab samples formed two main community types. One included Stations 32 and 41 (and in 2008, 2011 and 2012, Station 33), to the west of the channel in relatively deep water. The biota included typical infaunal species for the biotope SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi. The sediment was dominated by silt/clay in this community.
1.1.3 The other community included station 43 from the east side of the dredged channel and other stations (12 and 13 in all years; 33 in 2009 and 2010) on the Shelf. The infauna were typical of the biotope SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi, which is here taken as the classification for the community, as it appears to represent an infaunal component common to several biotopes in the area and to be the community most reliably recorded by Shipek grabs. Overlap with epifaunal biotopes is suggested by the presence of fanworms (Sabella pavonina) at Station 43 and ross (Sabellaria spinulosa) on the Shelf; these species characterise their own biotopes. The sediment in these samples was mixed.
1.1.4 The apparent shift of Station 33 from SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi to SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi between 2008 and 2009 and back to SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi between 2010 and 2011 has been the only significant change between the surveys to date. The biological differences have been associated with corresponding differences in sediment type. They do not represent impoverishment and are unlikely to have been the result of development activity.
iv
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
2. Introduction
2.1 Background
2.1.1 Felixstowe is Britain's largest container port. In 2002, it handled 48% of the containers moving through the UK's major ports. There are two main container terminals at Felixstowe offering direct ship to shore container handling using cranes - the Trinity Container Terminal at the northern end of the Port, and the Landguard Terminal at the southern end. The Trinity Container Terminal provides seven deep water berths, varying in depth from 11.6 metres to 15 metres. The Landguard Terminal currently provides for smaller vessels, with available berth depths ranging from 7.4 metres to 11.9 metres. In the UK, there is a shortage of deep water berths able to accommodate the largest container vessels. The Felixstowe South Reconfiguration sought to provide an increase in quay length at the Landguard Terminal from the present 554 metres to 1,350 metres. This has provided four deep water berths. By the time of the 2010 survey, all dredging and construction likely to impact upon the benthos had been completed.
2.1.2 The Felixstowe South Reconfiguration (FSR) involved foreshore encroachment and capital dredging of the seabed. An ecological assessment survey was completed in 2003 that included 0.1 m2 Day grab samples at 46 stations (triplicate samples collected at ten but only one analysed per station) and 2-metre beam trawl samples at 10 stations (Posford Haskoning, 2003).
2.1.3 A monitoring schedule was agreed (Posford Haskoning, 2006; Haskoning Environment, 2008) and later amended after discussion with HHA and CEFAS. Monitoring stations were chosen from six of the baseline grab stations (with three replicates at each) and five of the trawl stations. Shipek grabs (0.04 m2) were chosen in place of Day grabs, to allow comparison with the Stour and Orwell annual monitoring surveys.
2.1.4 The first monitoring survey was undertaken in July 2008 (Worsfold & Dyer, 2008), before work began on reconfiguration. By July 2009, the reclamation and quay piling for the Phase 1 development had been partially completed and dredging had begun on the Shelf (John Brien, pers. comm.). The July 2009 survey (Worsfold & Dyer, 2009), reflected partial Phase 1 FSR reclamation and some Shelf dredging. By the time of the July 2010 survey (Finbow et al., 2011), all construction relevant to benthos monitoring was complete, including all dredging (Shelf, berth and both northern and southern return walls).
2.2 The Brief and Objectives
2.2.1 The purpose of the current report is to describe the characteristics of the benthic environment in the vicinity of the dredged channel in 2012 and to compare with data from previous surveys. The overall objective is to identify changes between years and determine whether they may have resulted from the impact of dredging to widen the channel, and the potential for increased erosion and sediment deposition on the adjacent Shelf, in connection with the FSR project.
2.2.2 Characterisation and monitoring includes analysis of benthic macrobiota, granulometry (particle size) and beam trawls.
1
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
3. Methodology
3.1.1 Methods were based on the specifications (Posford Haskoning, 2006; Haskoning Environment, 2008), with agreed modifications following discussion with Haskoning Environment, CEFAS and HHA. The same methods were used in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.
3.2 Field work (2012 survey)
3.2.1 Søren Pears and James Thorpe (Thomson Unicomarine) completed the grab survey on 31st July 2012 using the HHA vessel ‘Egret’. Positions were fixed using a differential GPS taken from the ships navigation equipment (1 m horizontal accuracy; 0.2 m vertical accuracy) and depths recorded. Depths were converted on board to chart datum (chart datum 2.02 m below Ordnance Datum at Harwich; about LAT). Four 0.04 m2 Shipek grabs were taken at each station: one for Particle Size Analysis (PSA) and three for benthos analysis. The biological samples were sieved at 0.5 mm and fixed in formaldehyde solution on the day of sampling.
3.2.2 The 2-metre beam trawl survey was completed on 30th July 2012 by Soren Pears and James Thorpe (Thomson Unicomarine), using the vessel ‘Michelle’ (HH3) owned and skippered by Les Brand. Positions were fixed using a differential GPS taken from the ship’s navigation equipment (1 m horizontal accuracy). The trawl had a beam height of about 0.5 m and a mesh of 40 x 40 mm, with an 8 x 8 mm cod end mesh. Five trawls were taken at specified start and end co- ordinates and each covered a distance of approximately 350 metres. The survey was carried out at high water neap tide such that the entire Sample was taken on a rising tide with the current. The catch from each trawl, except Trawl A, was photographed and then sorted on deck. Trawl A was not photographed due to technical problems with camera. Fish and shrimp were separated from the catch. Large fish were measured, identified, counted and, in most cases, returned to the estuary. Fish required for confirmation of identification or reference specimens were taken to Thomson Unicomarine’s Letchworth laboratory. In addition, small fish and shrimp were taken to the laboratory for identification and measurement. All material required for laboratory analysis was preserved in formaldehyde solution on the day of capture. Very large catches of shrimp and gobies were sub-sampled on-board by splitting the catch into a half or quarter, as necessary, in a large flat tray. Shrimp were measured to the nearest half centimetre (total length: tip of rostrum to tip of telson) and fish to the nearest centimetre (total length: front of head to tail).
2
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
Figure 1. Locations of grab and trawl monitoring stations for the Felixstowe South Reconfiguration.
3.3 Laboratory work
Particle size analysis (PSA)
3.3.1 All PSA was conducted at Thomson Unicomarine’s Letchworth laboratory by Thomson Unicomarine staff (Jason Argent and Lydia Finbow), following procedures laid out in the National Marine Biological Analytical Quality Control (NMBAQC) Scheme’s best practice guidelines (Mason, 2011) and Thomson Unicomarine’s PSA standard operating procedures (Finbow & Argent, 2012). Samples were pre-screened to remove any conspicuous fauna. A representative sub-sample was passed through a 1.0 mm sieve to determine whether there was a significant amount of sediment greater than 1.0 mm. Sediment less than 1.0 mm was left to settle out for analysis by laser diffraction using a Malvern Mastersizer 2000 particle size analyser with a Hydro 2000G sample dispersion unit. For samples with an insignificant amount of sediment greater than 1.0 mm, no further analysis was required.
3.3.2 The Hydro 2000G sample dispersion unit uses deionised water as the dispersant to break up, circulate and deliver the sample to the optical bench. The system is typically run with a pump speed of 1750 rpm and a stirrer speed at 500 rpm, although this may be altered for coarse sediments. The Mastersizer 2000 software program uses Mie theory, which is particularly accurate when measuring particles <50 µm. Before samples are added to the dispersion unit, a background measurement is taken. The unit is ready for use when the measurement reading
3
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
display is stable, showing no periodic jumps, and the readings show a gradual decrease in light energy from Detector 1 onwards. Ideally, the first several detectors should be less than 100 on the light energy scale, with Detector 20 reading below 20 on the light energy scale. Once an acceptable background reading has been achieved, the sample for analysis is thoroughly mixed and added to the well of the dispersion unit until 15% obscuration is achieved, making sure that the pump speed is at 1750 rpm and the stirrer speed is at 500 rpm. For coarser sediment, the pump and stirrer speeds would be increased to 1900-2000 rpm and 600 rpm, respectively, as coarse sediment tends to sink more easily; increasing the pump and stirrer speeds keeps the sediment sufficiently suspended for more accurate analysis. The laser took 3 readings of each portion of sample added; when this was complete, the dispersion unit was drained and cleaned until the background measurement was acceptable again. This process was repeated twice more to produce 9 readings for each sample.
3.3.3 Readings were treated as acceptable where there was not more than 2 % variation in obscuration and the weighted-residual of each measurement was less than 1 (this may be slightly higher for coarse sediments). Any unacceptable readings were reanalysed.
3.3.4 In samples where there was a significant proportion of sediment greater than 1.0 mm, the procedure continued by wet sieving the remainder of the sample through a 1.0 mm sieve. The <1.0 mm and >1.0 mm sections were both oven dried for 12 hours at 100 ˚C. After drying, the >1.0 mm fraction was processed in the sieve shaker for 20 minutes and split to half phi intervals. Each half phi fraction was then weighed. The <1.0 mm fraction was also weighed after drying to produce a combined <1.0 mm weight.
3.4 Macrobiota analysis
Grab samples
3.4.1 Analysis of the biological Shipek grab samples was carried out according to the agreed specifications, using Thomson Unicomarine’s standard operating procedures (Worsfold et al., 2010a), upon which current national recommendations (Worsfold et al., 2010b) are based. All biological analysis was conducted at Thomson Unicomarine’s Letchworth laboratory by Thomson Unicomarine staff (Jason Argent, Lydia Finbow, Tony Freeston, Luke Hine, Victoria Mallot, Melanie O’Rourke, Nicola Pennisi, Rachael Philips.), with quality control for all identifications (Georgina Brackenreed-Johnston, Marta Kazubek, Jessica Taylor and Tim Worsfold).
3.4.2 After several days in preservative, the biological samples were sieved at 1.0 mm and biota extracted using low power stereo microscopes. In-house quality control procedures were carried out, to reduce the risk of animals being missed. After these procedures were completed, the sediment residues (sediment from which biota had been extracted) were discarded. The extracted fauna were preserved in 70 % industrial denatured alcohol (IDA). Countable animals removed from the samples were identified to the most accurate taxonomic level practicable, usually species, and individuals counted. Non-countable taxa, such as colonial species and plants were recorded as present, (‘P’). High power compound microscopes were used to confirm the identity of some species. For quality control purposes and to allow future taxonomic comparisons to be made, a reference collection of each taxon found was made for the project as a whole and will be kept at Thomson Unicomarine, along with the remaining extracted fauna, which are stored as one pot per sample. Biomass measurements were carried out as blotted wet
4
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
weight by major taxonomic groups for countable animals: polychaetes, oligochaetes, crustaceans, molluscs, echinoderms, nematodes, nemerteans and ‘others’.
Trawl samples
3.4.3 Fish and epibenthic samples (5 trawls) were analysed on site, with some material brought to the laboratory for identification. Abundance scales (SACFOR) were given for epibenthos and counts were recorded for the fish and shrimp. Size measurements of fish and shrimp were also made (total lengths to the nearest 5 mm for shrimp, to the nearest cm for fish).
3.5 Data Analysis
3.5.1 All statistical analyses were carried out using the PRIMER (Plymouth Routines In Multivariate Ecological Research) suite of applications version 6.1.13 (Clarke & Warwick, 2001a; Clarke & Gorley, 2006). Data from the 2012 survey was analysed separately with univariate and multivariate analysis such as diversity indices, SIMPROF clustering and MDS. These and additional analysis were also carried out for data combined and averaged for stations from all five previous surveys (2008-12), for comparison between years.
Particle size data
3.5.2 The sieve and laser data were merged to produce a continuous particle size distribution which was entered into the GRADISTAT program (Blott & Pye, 2001) to obtain derived statistics.
3.5.3 PSA data were also converted into simplified proportions of eight size categories (Wentworth, 1922), which were represented as differently sized circles for different proportions for display on the cluster dendrogram.
Biological data (2012 survey)
Univariate statistics
3.5.4 The total numbers of taxa (S) and individuals (N), Margalef’s index (d, species richness), Pielou’s index (J′, evenness) and Shannon-Wiener (H'(loge), diversity) were calculated for each sample using the DIVERSE component of PRIMER. Non-countable taxa such as plants, bryozoans and hydroids were excluded from the calculations of total numbers of individuals and diversity indices, but included when calculating the total numbers of taxa.
Multivariate analysis
3.5.5 To obtain a measure of the degree of similarity between the biological communities found, cluster analysis was carried out on the macrobiota data using the PRIMER program. The analysis used the Bray-Curtis similarity on square root transformed data and the group averaging cluster algorithm (Clarke & Gorley, 2006). Taxa recorded only as present were given a unitary value.
5
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
3.5.6 The clustering technique compares the abundance of each taxon in each sample, with its abundance in each of the other samples. The result is a matrix of similarity indices comparing each sample with all other samples. The similarity matrix resulting from the analysis is presented diagrammatically as a dendrogram. Samples that are similar link together towards the bottom of the figure and those that are less similar link towards the top of the diagram. The scale is an index from 0 % to 100 % and should be viewed as a relative indicator of similarity; it does not indicate the proportion of species in common.
SIMPROF clustering
3.5.7 The similarity profile (SIMPROF) test was carried out as part of the clustering routine. This permutational test identifies clusters of samples that cannot be statistically separated at the 5 % significance level and marks them on the dendrogram using red lines. Black lines on the cluster denote samples that are statistically different from one-another at the 5 % significance level.
3.5.8 In order to assess the importance of differences in the sediment on the benthos, an overlay of the proportion of sediment in each major sediment size category for each sample was added to the resulting cluster dendrogram using categories from Wentworth (1922).
Multi-Dimensional Scaling (MDS)
3.5.9 Non-metric multidimensional scaling (MDS) was used to further examine the grouping of stations described above. The PRIMER program was used and relevant statistical considerations employed (Clarke & Warwick, 2001). The technique uses, as a starting point, the same Bray- Curtis similarity matrix used for the cluster analysis. An iterative process places sample points onto a 2-dimensional plane in a configuration where the inter-sample similarities are most closely represented. It is important to note that, although the MDS plot is bounded by a box, the box does not represent either axes or scale. Two samples with a high similarity index will appear close together while those less similar will appear further apart. The ‘correct’ configuration of sample points will be multidimensional and the plot represents the best 2- dimensional solution to the problem. The technique should be viewed as complementary to cluster analysis, offering a different perspective of the same information.
3.5.10 The main advantage of the MDS approach is that physio-chemical parameters may be overlaid onto the plot with the aim of examining the degree to which the grouping of samples (determined solely from the analysis of the biological data) are associated with particular environmental characteristics. The diameter of each circle is proportional to the size of the value plotted. It should be remembered when examining the plots that the distribution of stations in the MDS plot is solely related to the analysis of the biological data, whereas the overlays of circles are derived from environmental data.
Characteristic biota
3.5.11 The data were examined further to determine the characteristic fauna of the communities recognised by the groupings of samples described above. Cluster groups of similar fauna were identified and the most abundant taxa in each group listed. A list of samples in each cluster group was made and the mean number of individuals of each recorded taxon (with countable individuals) in the samples assigned to each of the cluster groups was calculated and converted
6
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
to average numbers per square metre. The resulting lists represent, in decreasing order, the numerically dominant taxa in each group. Only the top 20 taxa are given in each list. Average numbers of taxa per sample and mean numbers of individuals per square metre are also included. The top 20 non-countable taxa (e.g. colonial forms) were also presented as the percentage of stations at which they were found.
Biotope mapping
3.5.12 The dominant biota of the groups was then used to assign them to biotopes, following the most recent classification (Connor et al., 2004), and to corresponding EUNIS codes. The results were also presented as a biotope map extrapolated from the data points.
3.6 Comparisons with previous data
3.6.1 Further analyses were carried out on the combined data from all five annual surveys (2008- 2012). Statistical analyses were carried out using the PRIMER suite of applications, and included cluster analysis and MDS on the combined dataset, using the same methods described for the 2012 data.
Analysis of Similarity (ANOSIM)
3.6.2 ANOSIM was run as a global test using the null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups of samples, which is defined before examination of the data (a priori). Where the test group comprises more than one pair of samples, the results are presented as a global R value for the whole data set and also as paired R values showing difference/similarity between each specific pair of groups tested. The value of R is based upon a number of random permutations of the group labels between samples. Due to the high number of possible permutations, the test was limited to 999 random permutations, as recommended in Clarke & Warwick (2001a) and Clarke & Gorley (2006). Values of R close to zero indicate no difference in similarities between sample groups than within sample groups; values closer to 1 indicate greater difference between than within sample groups (Clarke and Warwick, 2001a).
3.6.3 The significance level (p) indicates the number of times the observed value of R was achieved during the 999 random permutations i.e. a significance level of p=0.05 indicates that the observed R value would occur with a 5% probability if the null hypothesis is true. The null hypothesis can therefore be rejected at a significance level of p<0.05 or 5% (Clarke & Gorley, 2006). A 1-way ANOSIM test was carried out on a Bray-Curtis similarity matrix based on the combined macrobiotic data to test for differences between years. Prior to analysis, the data were square-root transformed to remove right-skewness and prevent dominance of a low number of abundant taxa. Epibiota and other non-countable taxa were excluded from this analysis as they were only recorded on a presence/absence basis and, as such, were not comparable to countable taxa.
7
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
BIOENV/BEST
3.6.4 BIOENV, from the PRIMER package, was carried out to test for any relationship between physical and biological data for the samples. This test calculates the measure of agreement between the Bray-Curtis biological similarity matrix and a range of the possible Euclidean distance similarity matrices for specified physical variables or combinations of variables. The results are presented as Spearman rank correlations (ρ).
3.6.5 The BEST test is a permutation-based test for the null hypothesis that there is no relationship between two independently-derived resemblance matrices (in this case the physical and biological data). This test randomly permutes one set of sample labels relative to the other, and then runs through the full BIO-ENV procedure to generate the best matching values for ρ. This process is repeated 999 times and the results compared with the observed value of ρ: if the observed value is higher than the 950 of the permuted values the null hypothesis can be rejected at a significance level of 5% (Clarke & Gorley, 2006).
3.6.6 Non-countable taxa were excluded from this analysis as they were only recorded on presence/absence basis and as such were not comparable to countable taxa. The available factors for the current analysis were sediment particle size fractions, derived sediment statistics and water depth. Prior to analysis the % grain size data were transformed using a log(V+1) transformation to remove the right-skewness and prevent the dominance of a small number of extreme % grain size values. The physical data was also normalised to account for the scale differences between the size classifications, derived statistics (mean Phi value, sorting, skewness and kurtosis) and water depth (Clarke and Warwick, 2001a).
Taxonomic distinctness
3.6.7 Taxonomic distinctness indices were calculated using the DIVERSE component of Primer Version 6. The taxonomic hierarchy used was based on the Unicorn taxon list for the combined annual surveys 2008-2012 using Taxonomic Routines for Excel (TREx), which incorporates recent literature and agrees well with the World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) list.
3.6.8 Warwick & Clarke (1995) observed that, in grossly perturbed environments, benthic communities are kept in an early successional stage with relatively few, closely related species. Less perturbed environments in a late successional stage tend to show a range of more distinct species belonging to many phyla.
3.6.9 The taxonomic distinctness index proposed by Warwick & Clarke (1995) and Clarke & Warwick (1998) use taxonomic path lengths to quantify the taxonomic diversity and distinctness of a faunal assemblage. This measure has been proposed to be more sensitive to environmental degradation and less responsive to natural environmental gradients (e.g. substrate grain size) than species richness. Values of taxonomic distinctness are based on equal step lengths between seven taxonomic levels (species, genus, family, order, class, phylum and kingdom) i.e. the weighting between taxonomic levels for different species in the same genus is 14.29; for species in different genera but the same family, the weighting is 28.57; for species in different families but the same order, the weighting is 42.86, etc., and the weighting is 100 for species only connected at the highest taxonomic level (Clarke & Warwick, 1998).
3.6.10 Average Taxonomic Distinctness (∆+), is used when abundance data is unavailable or is ignored (i.e. presence/absence data) and measures the average taxonomic distance apart of all the
8
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
pairs of species in a sample and provides and intuitive definition of biodiversity, as average taxonomic breadth of a sample. This measure was allowed so that non-countable taxa (such as colonial taxa and algae) could be considered in the analysis.
3.6.11 Clarke & Warwick (2001b) also define Variation in Taxonomic Distinctness (Λ+) as the total variance of the taxonomic distances between each pair of species in a sample about the sample’s Average Taxonomic Distinctness (∆+).
3.6.12 A ‘master species list’ for the survey area was created using data from all annual surveys from 2008-12. This master list was then used, as recommended in Clarke and Warwick (2001a), to produce funnel plots of 95% of the expected values of Average Taxonomic Distinctness (∆+) and Variation in Taxonomic Distinctness (Λ+). Each funnel plot is the result of 999 random permutations for between 2 and 100 species from the master list using the TAXDTEST routine. The actual values for the samples were then plotted on the funnel plots, and any that fall outside the funnel of expected values are considered to be significantly different to the expected values.
4. Results
4.1.1 Sampling positions are plotted in Figure 1 and presented in Table 1 (grabs) and Table 2 (trawls). Depths (corrected to chart datum) are also given for grabs and tidal information provided for trawls. Photographs of all PSA and sample grabs are presented as Plates 1 to 24; trawl sample photographs are shown in Plates 25 to 28.
4.2 Particle size analysis (PSA)
4.2.1 The raw PSA data are given in Appendix 1 and summarised by standard (Blott & Pye, 2001) size fractions with univariate statistics in table 3. They are also shown diagrammatically on the dendrogram for the analysis of combined data for all years (Figure 9), summarised by the Wentworth (1922) scale. Sediment bubble overlays are also shown on the biological MDS plots (Figure 10).
4.2.2 Sediment was sandy mud in two stations (31 & 41) and gravelly sand in Stations 12 and 13. The pattern of sediment was gravelly mud in Station 33 and muddy sandy gravel in Station 43. The majority of stations belonged to the textural group gravelly mud, gravelly sand or muddy sand. Sand contributed the most in Stations 12 and 13 whereas gravel contributed more in Station 43. The contribution of mud was highest in Stations 32 and 41. Station 33 was mixed with contributions of gravel, sand and mud in equal proportions. Stations 32 and 41 showed no change in textural patterns for the last three surveys whereas all other stations showed insignificant changes in texture.
4.3 Macrobiota – 2012 data
4.3.1 Full macrobiota data including basic statistics for the 2012 survey are shown in Appendix 2. The mean number of taxa (Figure 2) varied between 24 and 75 (overall mean: 46) per sample. Mean numbers of individuals per m² (Figure 4) varied between 2325 and 13775 (overall mean: 5,389) and mean values of Shannon-Wiener diversity (Figure 5) ranged from 1.39 to 2.80 (overall
9
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
mean: 2.14). The mean total wet weight biomass ranged from 13.9g to 292.79g per m² (overall mean: 99.63g) (Figure 3), most of which was accounted for by polychaete or Phoronis worms.
4.3.2 Averaged numbers of individuals of ross (Sabellaria spinulosa) are plotted per m2 for each station in 2012 (Figure 6).
Figure 2. Map showing total numbers of taxa for the three combined grab samples at each station from survey 2012.
10
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
Figure 3. Map showing total biomass for the three combined grab samples at each station from survey 2012.
Figure 4. Map showing mean number of individuals per m² at each station from survey 2012.
11
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
Figure 5. Map showing mean values of Shannon-Wiener diversity for each station from survey 2012.
Figure 6. Map showing the number of Sabellaria spinulosa per m2 at each station in 2012.
12
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
Cluster analysis - 2012
4.3.3 The results of the cluster analysis on the biological data matrix from the 2012 survey are presented as a dendrogram and MDS in Figure 7 (a & b). The results showed that stations are clustered, except station 33 which appeared in the dendrogram as an outlier. There were 7 cluster groups in the dendrogram with replicate samples of station 33 represented in three separate cluster groups c, d, and f. Station 12 and 13 were in a single cluster whilst all other stations were in separate cluster groups. The MDS also showed similar pattern to the dendrogram, with a reliable stress value of 0.008. The 20 top dominant taxa for each cluster group are given in Table 5a.
4.3.4 The cluster analysis and MDS analysis showed that the biota is grouped into two distinct communities as in previous surveys. These communities are categorised as Group A - the cirratulid/ascidian community and Group B the Phoronid/Tubiculoides community. The details of these communities are described below, with comparison of previous years. Their spatial distribution and biotope assignments for 2012 are shown in Figure 8.
(a)
13
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
2D Stress: 0.08 simcluster 12.13B a 12.13A b 12.12C c 12.12A d 12.41C 12.41B 12.13C e 12.41A 12.12B f 12.33C g 12.32A
12.32B 12.33B 12.43B 12.32C
12.33A 12.43C 12.43A
(b)
Figure 7 (a) showing dendrogram and (b) MDS plots of the biota for the 2012 survey with SIMPROF cluster groups.
Figure 8. Map showing biotope assignments for each station and the biotopes map extrapolated from them.
14
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
4.4 Macrobiota – comparison between years
4.4.1 The combined, standardised matrix for the survey years 2008-2012 is presented in Table 4. The table includes the total numbers of taxa and individuals, Pieliou’s Evenness (J’), Shannon-
Wiener diversity (H'loge) and Margalef’s species richness (d) for each sample and SIMPROF cluster groups.
Cluster analysis – combined data
4.4.2 The results of the cluster analysis on the full biological data matrix from five surveys (2008-2012) are presented as a dendrogram in Figure 9. A summary of the sediment found at each station is also shown on the dendrogram as an overlay. The diameters of circles represent the proportion of each sediment component. The dominant taxa for each cluster group are given in table 5b, with separate lists for average numbers of countable taxa in each group and percentages of samples in which each non-countable taxon was found in each group.
20 SIMPROFCLUSTER a b c d 40 e f g h i 60 j k Similarity
Pebble Granule 80 Very Coarse Sand Coarse Sand Medium Sand Fine Sand Very Fine Sand Silt/Clay 100 9.41 8.33 8.41 8.32 9.32 8.13 9.13 8.12 9.12 8.43 9.43 9.33 10.41 11.41 12.41 10.32 11.32 12.32 11.33 12.33 12.13 11.13 10.13 12.12 10.12 11.12 11.43 10.43 12.43 10.33 Samples
Figure 9. Dendrogram of the cluster analysis of the benthos data from each station (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012), with overlays of sediment categories.
4.4.3 The SIMPROF test on the full dataset identified 11 cluster groups that are statistically different to one another at the 5 % significance level compared to 9 cluster groups in 2011 survey. Black lines on the cluster dendrogram indicate groups that are significantly different to one another, while red lines indicate samples that are statistically inseparable at the 5 % significance level. In the 2008 and 2009 analyses, samples were clustered using a 30% slice which produced two cluster groups. The 2010 and 2011 analyses used the more objective SIMPROF test to identify
15
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
clusters as described in Section 3.4.6. Although the SIMPROF test identified 9 cluster groups, there is also a clear separation of samples at around 30% similarity, which makes up two main communities, as in previous years. The main characteristics of the biota of each of these communities are described below. A brief description of the nature of the sediment is also given for each.
Group A (SIMPROF cluster groups a, b, c and d) – Cirratulid / ascidian community
4.4.4 Group A comprised three stations (12, 13, and 43) in 2008 and 2011 (it also included Station 33 in 2009 and 2010). One (Station 43) was on the east side of the approach channel, to the west of Landguard Point. The others were on the northern part of the Shelf. The depth range of the group was between about 1.8 m and 5.1 m in 2008; 1.9 to 5.9 in 2009; 1.8 m to 5.5 m in 2010; 1.74 m to 5.54 m in 2011. Station 43, which was the most distinct of the group in terms of cluster analysis, was the deepest of the three (Figure 10d), followed by Station 33, which belonged to Group B in 2008 and 2011.
4.4.5 The biota was more diverse than that of Group B but often with fewer individuals. The cirratulid polychaetes Chaetozone zetlandica, Aphelocheta marioni and Tharyx ‘type A’ were all common, along with several other polychaete species. There were many more epibiota species than for Group B, including sea squirts (Ascidiacea juv., Molgula), sea anemones (Actiniaria) and several encrusting and erect bryozoa and hydroids. The most common large species was the fanworm Sabella pavonina but this was found only at Station 43. Ross (Sabellaria spinulosa) was found at Station 12 and 13 in 2008 and 2012 (12 in 2011, 12 and 13 in 2009, 12 and 43 in 2010).
4.4.6 Station 43 had a mixed substratum in 2012, having been Gravel -dominated with small proportions of most other fractions, particularly Silt/Clay, in other years. The sediment at Stations 12 and 13 was mixed, with significant proportions of Fine, Medium and Coarse sand, as well as Silt/Clay and, sometimes, Pebble. In 2009 and 2010, Station 33 had a sediment composition similar to that of Station 43, although with a slightly higher Silt/Clay component. In 2008, the sediment at Station 33 had been similar to that of Stations 41 and 32 (and belonged to the same cluster group) and this pattern was repeated in 2011 and with a slight change to gravelly mud in 2012.
Group B (SIMPROF cluster groups e - i) – Phoronis /Tubificoides community
4.4.7 Group B comprised three stations (32, 33 and 41) in 2008, 2011, and 2012 but had included only two stations (32 and 41) in 2009 and 2010. These stations were located on the southern part of the Shelf to the west of the dredged channel. The depth range (corrected to chart datum) was between about 3.6 m and 6.7 m in 2008; 4.8 m to 6.7 m in 2009; 4.7 m to 6.7 m in 2010; 3.6 m to 6.58 m in 2011and 3.34 m to 6.49m in 2012. These were generally the deeper stations (Figure10d), of which Station 33 (which shifted cluster groups between the 2008 and 2009 surveys, as well as between the 2010 and 2011 surveys) was the shallowest.
4.4.8 The biota was moderately rich and dominated by phoronid tubeworms (1691 on average per m²). The non-native ostracod Eusarsiella zostericola, cirratulid worms (Aphelochaeta marioni) and the oligochaete Tubificoides amplivasatus were also abundant. Most of the other commonly found species were infaunal polychaete worms or bivalved molluscs.
16
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
4.4.9 The sediment was dominated by Silt/Clay, usually with secondary dominance of Very Fine Sand. The importance of Silt/Clay in defining this biotope can be clearly seen in Figure 10b.
Multi-Dimensional Scaling (MDS)
4.4.10 MDS plots for the biota of each station for the various survey years are shown in Figure 9a, with overlays for proportions of pebble (Figure 10b), Silt/Clay (Figure 10c) and depth (Figure 10d). The plot has a relatively low stress value of 0.12, which indicates that, the plot gives a good overall representation of the high dimensional structure (Clarke and Warwick, 2001). There is a clear separation down the centre of the plot, with Stations 32 and 41 in all three years and Station 33 in 2008, 2011 and 2012 on the right hand side and Stations 12, 13 and 43 in all three years and Station 33 for 2009 and 2010 on the left. The plots show close grouping of stations between years, with the exception of Station 33, which shifted from the right to the left between 2008 and 2009 and between 2010 and 2011.
4.4.11 The sediment overlays show that proportion of sand (Fine Sand and Medium Sand) seems to play a role in the separation of stations from right (Group A) to left (Group B), being absent or present in lesser proportions in the Group B stations and present at most stations on the right. Proportion of Silt/Clay shows a consistent pattern, being generally higher on the left hand side of the plot, but with considerable variation between stations on the right. Depth does not show changes between stations in different years, but the stations on the right are generally deeper than those on the left.
4.4.12 On the dendrogram overlay, it can be seen that gravel (Pebble or Granule) was a defining factor for Group A and Silt/Clay for Group B. The influence of depth was less apparent and the major differences were between stations, rather than between years.
17
and depth.
) percentage Silt and clay (d) (d) and clay Silt ) percentage ng years (b), percentage pebble (c pebble percentage (b), ng years 19
crobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 2008-2012 surveys, monitoring grab) (Shipek crobiota
. MDS Plots of the biological data (a) with overlays of sampli overlays with data (a) of the biological MDS Plots . Figure 10 Figure
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and ma trawl combined South Reconfiguration: Felixstowe to.Submitted HHA. no: HHAFEL12 Project
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
ANOSIM – Biota abundance data
4.4.13 The results of the 1-way ANOSIM for the survey years are given below. The table below shows the ANOSIM test results with values of R statistic and P- values for the survey years. Global Test Sample statistic (Global R): 0.015 Significance level of sample statistic: 36% Number of permutations: 999 (Random sample from a large number) Number of permuted statistics greater than or equal to Global R: 359
4.4.14 The Global R value for the test between year groups (0.015) shows that there are negligible differences between years and the difference is not significant (significance value >5%). The null hypothesis of ‘no difference between years’ therefore cannot be rejected.
ANOSIM test results with values of R statistic and P- values for the survey years
BIOENV/BEST
4.4.15 The results of the BIOENV test are shown in Years R Statistic p value the table below. The physical variables used were: 1. Pebble; 2. Granule; 3. V. coarse 2008 & 09 0.004 32.9 sand; 4. Coarse sand; 5. Medium sand; 6. Fine sand; 7. V. fine sand 8; Silt &Clay; 9. 2008 & 10 0.017 31.4 Mean (phi); 10. Sorting; 11. Skewness; 12. Kurtosis; 13. Depth. 2008 & 11 0.031 30.5
2008 & 12 -0.011 40.9
2009 & 10 -0.044 59.5
2009 & 11 0.156 13.2
2009 & 12 0.063 24.2
2010 & 11 0 37.9
2010 & 12 -0.024 45.2
2011 & 12 0.019 32
20
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
Best Combination of Variables Spearman Coefficient (ρ)
4, 5, 7, 9, 10 0.685
4, 5, 8, 9, 10 0.682
4, 5, 9, 10 0.681
1, 4, 5, 7, 9 0.679
1, 4, 5, 9 0.677
4, 5, 9 0.674
BIOENV results for individual sediment grain sizes and best combinations of available variables.
Global Test Sample statistic (Rho): 0.685 Significance level of sample statistic: 1% Number of permutations: 99 (Random sample) Number of permuted statistics greater than or equal to Rho: 0
4.4.16 Higher correlations were observed for combinations of factors, with the best correlation (ρ=0.685) for the combination of coarse sand, medium sand, very fine sand, mean (phi) and sorting coefficient. The global BEST test result shows that this correlation is significant and the null hypothesis of ‘no correlation between physical and biological data’ can be rejected at a 1% significance level. However, the actual value of p (ρ) is still not particularly high (values close to 1 would indicate a high degree of correlation) and as such the sediment characteristics cannot explain the full pattern seen in the biological data. Further studies are necessary to see what other environmental factors could be playing a role in shaping the observed pattern of faunal abundance.
Taxonomic distinctness
4.4.17 The taxonomic distinctness results are summarised in Figures 11 and 12. Figure 11 shows the distribution of Average Taxonomic Distinctness delta+ (∆+) values and Figure 12 shows Variation in Taxonomic Distinctness Lamda+ (Λ+) plotted against the 95% probability contours for their expected distribution based on random draws from the master species list with the central line showing the expected mean values. Neither measure is dependent upon the number of species in a sample, but the probability limits become increasingly wide as sample size decreases, as the power of the test is reduced and therefore so is the likelihood of being able to detect a change in ∆+ (Clarke & Warwick, 2001).
21
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
100 YEARS 8 11.32 9 9.41 10.3211.33 8.32 10.33 11.4112.419.328.4112.33 9.33 10 12.32 10.43 11.43 9.12 9.43 8.1212.43 9.1310.12 11 8.33 8.43 11.12 90 12.13 12 10.418.1311.1310.13 12.12
80 Delta+
70
60 050100 Number of species Figure 11. Average taxonomic distinctness (∆+) with symbols denoting sampling years.
800 YEARS 8 9 10 11 600 12
400 10 12 8 12 Lambda+ 8 8 1110 11 9 12 9 10 11 10 8 9 12 8 9 11 12 1210 9 9 8 10 11 11 200
0 0 50 100 Number of species Figure 12. Variation in taxonomic distinctness (Λ+) with symbols denoting sampling years.
22
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
4.4.18 The plot in Figure 11 shows that, whilst the majority of samples fall within the expected 95% contour lines, there are still a few samples (Station 13 in 2008, 2010 and 2011; Station 12 in 2011 and 2012) with average taxonomic distinctness values that fall below the contours. Samples falling below the expected range are from all years. The implication for samples falling below the expected range is that they have below expected diversity in terms of taxonomic breadth. Figure 12 show that all of the samples fitted within the expected range for variation in taxonomic distinctness.
Important taxa
4.4.19 Specimens of a burrowing sea anemone that were possibly the protected (Betts, 2001), nationally rare Sanderson (1996) and British Red Data book (Bratton, 1991) starlet anemone (Nematostella vectensis) were found in 2011. However, the identity of the species is uncertain from samples and the species has since been found to be non-native (Reitzel et al., 2008). The ross worm (Sabellaria spinulosa) was found in all years. The species is common in waters around the British Isles with a wide distribution (JNCC, 2008) but is of conservation value where it forms reef structures, which constitute a UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitat. The numbers of S. spinulosa were too small for reefs to be likely in the immediate sampling areas.
4.4.20 Several non-native species, as listed by Eno et al. (1997), were found in the study area, including the sea spider Ammothea hilgendorfi, the barnacle Elminius modestus, the ostracod crustacean Eusarsiella zostericola, the American slipper limpet Crepidula fornicata, the Manila clam Tapes philippinarum and the club ascidian Styela clava. It is likely that some of the other recorded species should be considered cryptogenic (possibly non-native) and a few are listed as such for the Netherlands (Wolff, 2005) and Germany (Gollasch & Nehring, 2006).
4.5 Trawls
4.5.1 Abundance data for the trawls are shown in Table 6. In all the years, sessile organisms, such as algae, hydroids and bryozoans were found in all trawls and the most common large invertebrates were shore crabs (Carcinus maenas) and brown shrimp (Crangon crangon), which are mainly epibenthic, as well as sea gooseberries (Pleurobranchus pileus), which are pelagic. There was a tendency for echinoderms (Echinocardium and Ophiura spp.) to be most abundant in the samples furthest from the estuary (M and N). Dover sole (Solea solea) were the most common fish species throughout the years, with the exception of 2009, when gobies (Pomatoschistus), with a large catch in Trawl A, outnumbered other fish. There were few other biological differences between years. Size data for fish and shrimp are presented in Appendix 3.
5. Discussion
5.1.1 The data show that the biota, in all survey years since 2008, has been comparable in composition and abundance, as has the sediment texture. For all years, the grab samples divide into two main groups on the basis of cluster analysis; although SIMPROF analysis produces more cluster groups, these can be grouped into the two main types. The groups can be assigned to two standard biotopes (Connor et al., 2004) on the basis of their macrobiota. One biotope, SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi, is associated with high infaunal abundance, greater depth and high silt/clay dominance in the sediment and is found off Stone Pier, on the Shelf, to the west of the dredged channel. This area had been mapped (Worsfold, 2005) as a mosaic of
23
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
different biotopes, including SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi as well as others based on mixed substrata. The other main biotope, SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi, was associated with mixed sediment in shallower water on the Shelf and also to the west of Landguard Point, where Station 43 had a slightly different character. This assignment was based on macrobiota, which would give a different interpretation to observation of the larger biota (an inherent artefact of the biotope classification). The area around Station 43 had been noted by towed video as a bed of Sabella pavonina and around Stations 12 and 13 as a bed of Sabellaria spinulosa (Worsfold & Dyer, 2004), both of which have their own biotopes and were recorded in the samples though, due to their larger size, less abundantly than the smaller species characteristic of SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi. It is likely that the different sampling methods resulted in different emphasis in biological records. The recorded biotope can be regarded as an infaunal component that can be found within certain conspicuous biota-based biotopes. The infaunal classification can be considered the most useful for monitoring by use of Shipek grabs.
5.1.2 The only noticeable difference between the surveys has been at Station 33, which clustered with the deep, muddy, community in 2008, 2011 and 2012 but with the shallow mixed sediment samples in 2009 and 2010. The PSA data for Station 33 was similar to that of Stations 32 and 41 (Group A) in 2008, 2011 and 2012 but, in 2009 and 2010, resembled that of Station 43 (Group B), although it had the highest Silt/Clay component of the group. As its depth had not changed significantly (3.68-3.74m in 2008; 3.74m-3.79m in 2009; 3.6 to 3.72 in 2011), the differences in sediment composition are likely to be the reason for the differences in biota. As the difference appeared to indicate a reduction in the Silt/Clay component for 2009 and affected only one sample, which is not the closest to the dredging or development areas, it is unlikely to be a result of those activities. It is also an apparent alternation between pre-existing communities, rather than an impoverishment. This could be due to natural cyclical changes or to slight changes in sampling position, within a natural mosaic of the two communities; this seems likely, given the differences between replicates at Station 33 in 2012. The apparent change between 2010 and 2011 represented a return to 2008 conditions. Biotope assignments for each station in each year are summarised in Table 7.
5.1.3 The trawl data were typical of the area (Ashelby et al., 2008) and did not appear significantly different between years.
24
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
6. References
Ashelby, C.W., Brackenreed-Johnston, G., Worsfold, T. and Dyer, M. 2008. Stour and Orwell Estuaries Fish and Shrimp Monitoring. An overview of routine beam trawl surveys conducted between June 1999 and February 2008, with discussion of data collected between April 2006 and February 2008. Unicomarine Reports HHA62 to Harwich Haven Authority, June 2008. Betts, C.J., 2001. Checklist of protected British species. Second Edition. Christopher Betts Environmental Biology, Worcester. 54 pp. Blott, S.J. & Pye, K., 2001. GRADISTAT: a grain size distribution and statistics package for the analysis of unconsolidated sediments. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 26, 1237-1248. Bratton, J.H., 1991. British Red Data Books: 3. Invertebrates other than insects. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Clarke, K.R., & Gorley, R.N., 2006. Primer v6:User Manual/Tutorial. PRIMER-E, Plymouth. Clarke, K.R., & Warwick, R.M., 2001. Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation, 2nd edition. PRIMER-E, Plymouth. Clarke, K.R. & Warwick, R.M., 2001b. A further biodiversity index applicable to species lists: variation in taxonomic distinctness. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 216, 265-278. Connor, D.W., Allen, J.H., Golding, N., Howell, K.L., Lieberknecht, L.M., Northen, K.O. & Reker, J.B., 2004. The marine habitat classification for Britain and Ireland Version 04.05. JNCC, Peterborough, ISBN 1 861 07561 8 (internet version). Eno, N.C., Clark, R.A. & Sanderson, W.G., 1997. Non-native marine species in British waters: a review and directory. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 152 pp. Finbow, L.A., Pears, S. & Worsfold, T.M., 2011. Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: trawl and macrofaunal (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, July 2010. Unicomarine Report HHAFEL10 (HHA71) to Harwich Haven Authority, February 2011. Gollasch, S. & Nehring, S., 2006. National checklist for aquatic alien species in Germany. Aquatic Invasions, 1(4), 245-269. Folk, R.L. & Ward, W.C., 1957. Brazos River Bar: a study of the significance of grain size parameters. Journal of Sedimentology and Petrology, 27, 3-26. Haskoning Environment, 2008. Specification for Monitoring Biological Communities Local to the Felixstowe South Reconfiguration. Haskoning Report 9R089201/R/303247/Lond, May 2008. Mason, C., 2011. NMBAQC’s Best Practice Guidance, Particle Size Analysis (PSA) for Supporting Biological Analysis. National Marine Biological AQC Coordinating Committee, 2011. Posford Haskoning, 2003. Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: Environmental Statement. Volume 1. Report 9M5665/R/MAS/Exet to Hutchison Ports (UK) Ltd, November 2003. Posford Haskoning, 2006. Mitigation and monitoring package for Felixstowe South Reconfiguration. Sanderson, W.G., 1996. Rare marine benthic flora and fauna in Great Britain: the development of criteria for assessment. JNCC Report, No. 240.
25
Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: combined trawl and macrobiota (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, 2008-2012 .Submitted to HHA. Project no: HHAFEL12
Wentworth, C.K., 1922. A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments. Journal of Geology, 30, 377-392. White, S. & Finbow, L., 2011. Thomson Unicomarine standard operating procedure for the processing of particle size samples Version 1.0: Thomson Unicomarine, June 2011. Wolff, W.J., 2005. Non-indigenous marine and estuarine species in The Netherlands. Zoologische Mededelingen Leiden, 79(1), 1-116. Worsfold, T.M., 2005. Stour, Orwell and Harwich approaches benthos: review of data commissioned by Harwich Haven Authority, biotope distribution update and partial review of current knowledge for the area. Unicomarine Report HHABiot05 to Harwich Haven Authority, November 2005. Worsfold, T.M., & Dyer, M.F., 2004. The distribution of beds of ross (Sabellaria spinulosa) and other biotopes in Harwich Harbour. Unicomarine Report HHASab04 to Harwich Haven Authority, September 2004. Worsfold, T.M. & Dyer, M.F., 2008. Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: trawl and macrofaunal (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, July 2008. Unicomarine Report HHA63 to Harwich Haven Authority, October 2008. Worsfold, T.M. & Dyer, M.F., 2009. Felixstowe South Reconfiguration: trawl and macrofaunal (Shipek grab) monitoring surveys, July 2009. Unicomarine Report HHA68 (HHAFEL09) to Harwich Haven Authority, October 2009. Worsfold, T.M., Hall, D.J. & Ashelby, C.W., 2010a. Unicomarine Procedural Guidelines and Quality Control Systems Version 5.0. Unicomarine, March 2010. Worsfold, T.M., Hall, D.J. & O'Reilly, M. (Ed.), 2010b. Guidelines for processing marine macrobenthic invertebrate samples: a Processing Requirements Protocol: Version 1.0, June 2010. Unicomarine Report NMBAQCMbPRP to the NMBAQC Committee, 33pp.
26
Table 1. Details of dates, times, locations, co-ordinates, depth (corrected for CD) for each grab sampling station.
Target position WGS84 Time Recorded position (WGS84) Depth Depth Tidal height Sample Date Station EN (GMT) Sediment description ENCD (m) (m) (m) 12 1.29745303 51.9464585 PSA 31/07/2012 12:10 Gravelly sand 626714 232687 1.8 4.45 2.65 a 31/07/2012 12:11 Gravelly sand, Alcyonium diaphanum 626718 232696 1.87 4.5 2.63 b 31/07/2012 12:16 Gravelly sand, Alcyonium diaphanum 626721 232698 1.63 4.2 2.57 c 31/07/2012 12:19 Muddy, gravelly sand 626711 232693 1.67 4.2 2.53 13 1.29913313 51.9444274 PSA 31/07/2012 12:30 Muddy sand, some shell 626843 232472 2.22 4.61 2.39 a 31/07/2012 12:31 Muddy sand 626840 232468 2.19 4.57 2.38 b 31/07/2012 12:33 Muddy sand, some Sabellaria spinulosa tubes 626838 232469 2.28 4.63 2.35 c 31/07/2012 12:35 Muddy sand, some Sabellaria spinulosa tubes 626840 232469 2.28 4.6 2.32 32 1.306623 51.9394014 PSA 31/07/2012 12:41 Mud, leaf litter, full grab 627160 231800 3.34 5.6 2.26 a 31/07/2012 12:43 Mud, leaf litter, full grab 627165 231805 3.36 5.6 2.24 b 31/07/2012 12:45 Mud, leaf litter, full grab 627158 231803 3.38 5.6 2.22 c 31/07/2012 12:47 Mud, leaf litter, full grab 627160 231801 3.4 5.6 2.2 33 1.30331286 51.9383289 PSA 31/07/2012 12:52 Mud and sand 627380 231928 4.25 6.4 2.15 a 31/07/2012 12:54 Mud and sand 627379 231931 4.27 6.4 2.13 b 31/07/2012 12:58 Mud and sand, small sample 627380 231925 4.27 6.36 2.09 c 31/07/2012 13:00 Mud and sand, full grab 627378 231931 4.28 6.35 2.07 41 1.30735601 51.9312431 PSA 31/07/2012 13:07 Mud/clay 627475 231024 6.49 8.5 2.01 a 31/07/2012 13:09 Mud/clay 627469 231026 6.34 8.33 1.99 b 31/07/2012 13:11 Mud/clay 627473 231026 6.4 8.37 1.97 c 31/07/2012 13:13 Mud/clay 627473 231027 6.4 8.35 1.95 43 1.31606868 51.9333188 PSA 31/07/2012 13:23 Gravel and sand 628056 231287 4.9 6.76 1.86 a 31/07/2012 13:26 Large stones and sand, goby 628053 231287 5.09 6.92 1.83 b 31/07/2012 13:28 Small sample, gravel, some Sabella pavonina tubes 628058 231284 4.98 6.79 1.81 c 31/07/2012 13:31 Gravel, sand 628057 231286 4.93 6.71 1.78
Page 1 of 1 Table 2. Details of dates, times, locations and co-ordinates for each trawl sampling station.
Target Positions Decimal Degrees WGS84 Degrees, Minutes, Seconds Start End Start End Direction of Distance Date of Time of current (in Tide Shape of ENENENEN of trawl trawl trawl relation to State trawl (km) Trawl (BST) trawl) A 1.29104634 51.95266788 1.29346421 51.9484612 1 17 28 51 57 10 1 17 36 51 56 54 30/07/2011 10:24 With Falling Straight Line ca. 0.35 C 1.30315621 51.95541663 1.30557309 51.9512097 1 18 11 51 57 20 1 18 20 51 57 04 30/07/2011 10:55 With Falling Straight Line ca. 0.35 E 1.30908438 51.94938142 1.31150038 51.9451744 1 18 33 51 56 58 1 18 41 51 56 43 30/07/2011 11:30 With Falling Straight Line ca. 0.35 M 1.31203893 51.93089635 1.31445366 51.9266892 1 18 43 51 55 51 1 18 52 51 55 36 30/07/2011 12:00 With Falling Straight Line ca. 0.35 N 1.30326957 51.92860646 1.30568500 51.9243995 1 18 12 51 55 43 1 18 20 51 55 28 30/07/2011 12:30 With Falling Straight Line ca. 0.35
Tide Information Harwich 51.9500° N, 1.2833° E Mon 30th July 2012 (All times in BST) Low High Low High (17 June) 03:16 09:46 15:43 22:20 Table 3. Summary of particle size analysis, showing the percentage of sediment in each size class and derived summary statistics, for 2012.
Sample Sediment* mm phi φ 12 13 32 33 41 43 V. coarse gravel >32<64 <-5>-6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coarse gravel >16<32 <-4>-5 4.04 0.00 0.00 4.94 0.00 19.39 Medium gravel >8<16 <-3>-4 4.87 0.98 0.00 8.53 0.00 19.59 Fine gravel >4<8 <-2>-3 6.32 3.16 0.00 7.74 0.00 15.60 V. fine gravel >2<4 <-1>-2 9.09 7.45 0.00 6.32 0.00 4.61 V. coarse sand >1<2 <0>-1 12.02 3.61 0.00 2.67 0.00 2.52 Coarse sand >0.5<1 <1>0 24.23 4.28 1.89 3.35 1.34 7.55 Medium sand >0.25<0.5 <2>1 22.53 44.84 7.71 10.73 5.53 7.38 Fine sand >0.125<0.25 <3>2 10.05 23.84 7.85 10.54 7.96 2.82 V. fine sand >0.0625<0.125 <4>3 1.37 0.12 13.09 8.31 13.29 1.84 V. coarse silt >0.03125<0.0625 <5>4 1.20 1.94 15.11 6.03 17.07 2.75 Coarse silt >0.015625<0.03125 <6>5 0.95 1.90 13.93 6.58 15.17 3.67 Medium silt >0.007813<0.015625 <7>6 1.15 2.40 15.46 7.99 14.78 4.47 Fine silt >0.003906<0.007813 <8>7 1.19 2.69 13.21 7.59 12.59 3.96 V. fine silt >0.001953<0.003906 <9>8 0.70 1.70 7.05 5.03 7.11 2.31 Clay <0.001953 >9 0.28 1.08 4.70 3.64 5.16 1.54
Statistics** Mean (phi) 0.25 1.63 5.26 2.31 5.37 -0.52 Sorting 2.24 1.87 2.34 4.33 2.25 4.13 Skewness -0.17 0.02 -0.03 -0.04 0.03 0.64 Kurtosis 1.33 3.31 0.93 0.71 0.95 0.93 % Silt/Clay 5.47 11.70 69.47 36.86 71.88 18.70
Gravelly Muddy Muddy Sandy Textural Group* Gravelly Sand Sandy Mud Gravelly Mud Sandy Mud Sand Gravel
* GRADISTAT classification system (Blott, S. J. & Pye, K., 2001). ** Folk & Ward Table 4. Combined biological matrix for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 with diversity indices and SIMPROF cluster groups assignments.
TaxonName 8.12 8.13 8.32 8.33 8.41 8.43 9.12 9.13 9.32 9.33 9.41 9.43 10.12 10.13 10.32 10.33 10.41 10.43 11.12 11.13 11.32 11.33 11.41 11.43 12.12 12.13 12.32 12.33 12.41 12.43 RHODOPHYTA ------P------P------Gracilaria ------P------Plocamium cartilagineum ------PPPP----PP------Ceramium P ------PP----PP------Plumaria plumosa ------P------Polysiphonia ------P----P------Dictyota dichotoma ------P------Sphacelaria - - P ------P------CHLOROPHYTA - - p ------P---P------P------Enteromorpha - - P - - - P ---P--PPP- P- - PP- P---P-- Ulva - - P - ---P----P--P------P------Cladophora ------PP------Lemnaceae ------pp----PP-P--P-P- ANIMALIA (eggs) - - P - P ------P-P--P------PROTOZOA ------PP-----PP-- PORIFERA ------P-----P----- Tubulariidae -----P------P-----P------FILIFERA - - P ------Eudendrium ------P------P Bougainvilliidae P ------Lovenella clausa - P - - ---P-P------P------Calycella syringa ------P------Halecium P - - - - - P P ----P------P-P---- Sertularella ------P----P------Sertularia P - P - P - PPP---P--P-P---P-P------Campanulariidae P - - - - - P - - P - P ------P----P------Clytia hemisphaerica -----P------Clytia paulensis ------P------Cerianthus lloydii ------0.3------ACTINIARIA 7.7 0.3 - - - 1 10 5.7 - - - 9.3 6.3 2 - 0.3 - 17 8.7 0.3 - - - 27 2 0.3 - - - 7.7 Edwardsiidae - 0.3 ------Nematostella vectensis ------0.3----0.7------Fecampia erythrocephala (eggs) ------0.3------NEMERTEA P - - - - 0.3 P P ----PP-P- 1.3PPP- - 1PPP-0.31.7 NEMATODA 6.7 - 2 0.7 - 10 14 15 0.7 22 - 62 5.3 3 - 12 - 28 19 2.7 1 11 0.3 114 1 0.7 0.3 0.3 - 28 Loxosomella varians ------P--- Pedicellina P ------P--- Barentsia P ------P-P--P----PP----PP----- Golfingia elongata ------0.31------0.3------Maxmuelleria lankesteri (?) ------0.3-----0.3------Aphrodita aculeata - - - 0.3 ------0.3------Antinoella finmarchica ------0.3------Gattyana cirrhosa ------0.7-10.3--0.3--0.3------Harmothoe clavigera ------0.3------Harmothoe impar (agg) 0.3 - - - - 1 0.3 - P - - - 1.3 - - 0.3 - - 0.3 ---- 0.30.3----0.3 Lepidonotus squamatus 0.7 - - - - 0.3 1 1.3 ---- 1-----0.7----1.31.3----0.7 Malmgrenia arenicolae ------0.7------Pholoe inornata (sensu Petersen) 2.3 - - - - 1 1 1 - 0.3 - - 1 0.3 ---- 1.3-----0.30.7---- Sthenelais (juv) 0.3 ------0.3------0.3------Eteone longa (agg) ----- 0.7-----0.3-0.3------0.3-----0.3--- Mysta picta ------0.3------0.3----- Anaitides groenlandica ------0.3 Anaitides maculata ------0.3----- Anaitides mucosa ----- 0.3-----0.30.7---0.3------0.3------Eulalia expusilla ------0.3------0.3----- Eumida bahusiensis ------0.3---P------Eumida sanguinea ----- 0.3---0.3--0.3-----0.3----0.30.3----1 Pirakia punctifera ------0.3----- Glycera (juv) ----- 0.3------Glycera alba ------0.3------Glycera tridactyla ------0.30.3----0.3-----0.70.3----0.30.7---- Goniada maculata - - - 0.3 0.3 - - 0.3 ------0.3--0.30.30.3------Sphaerodoropsis minuta ------0.7---0.3--0.3------Podarkeopsis capensis - - 0.7 0.3 ------Syllidia armata ------0.3------0.3----0.31.7----0.7 Syllidae (juv) ------0.3------Syllis gracilis ------0.3--0.7------Eusyllis blomstrandi 1 - - - - 2.7 - 0.7 - 0.3 - 1 1.3 - - 1 - - 0.7 ---- 0.30.3----- Streptosyllis websteri ------0.3------Syllides ------0.30.3----0.30.3------0.3---- Brania clavata ------0.3 Exogone hebes 2.7 1.3 - - - - 2.3 2.3 - 0.3 - - 3 3.7 - 1.7 - 0.3 3.3 4.3 - 1 - - - 0.7 - 1.3 - 0.7 Exogone naidina 0.7 - - - - 0.3 3.3 2 - 1 - - 3.3 - - 1.3 - 1.7 6.7 ---- 231---4 Sphaerosyllis bulbosa ------0.3------Sphaerosyllis erinaceus ----- 0.3-0.3----0.3-----1----0.3------Sphaerosyllis taylori 1.7 0.3 - - - - 1.3 1.3 ---- 3.3--1-0.32.3-----2.30.3---1 Sphaerosyllis tetralix ------0.31----40.7---19----1-0.3---0.3 Myrianida 0.7 - - - - 0.3 2.3 - - 0.7 ------1.30.70.3---5.7-0.3---1 Proceraea ------0.3------Nereididae (juv) ------0.3-----0.30.3------Eunereis longissima 3.3 0.7 - 0.3 - P 0.7 ------0.3---P1-- 0.3-P--- 0.3-P Nereis zonata ----- 0.3------Perinereis cultrifera ------0.3------Platynereis dumerilii ------0.7-----0.3------Nephtys (juv) - - 1 0.3 0.3 - - 0.3 - 0.3 - - - 0.3 ------0.3-3.70.30.30.7 Nephtys caeca ------0.3------0.3------Nephtys hombergii - 0.3 6.3 4.7 5.7 1 - 0.7 4.7 4 3 0.3 - 0.7 4 1.3 2.7 0.7 - 0.3 2.7 3.3 3.3 - - 0.3 3.7 3 8.3 - Nephtys kersivalensis - 0.3 - - - - - 0.3 ----- 0.3-0.72------Marphysa sanguinea ------0.3------Nematonereis unicornis ------0.3 Lumbrineris gracilis 1.3 P - - - - 1.3 P - 0.3 - 0.3 1 P ---- 0.7P--- 0.30.7P---- Ophryotrocha 0.3 ------0.3-----0.3------Parougia caeca ------0.3------Protodorvillea kefersteini P 0.3 - 0.3 - - P 0.3 ----P-----P0.3---1-----0.3 Scoloplos armiger ------0.7-0.3-0.3-----0.7 Aricidea minuta 1.3 0.3 1 - - - 3.3 1 0.7 0.3 - - 4.7 3.3 1.7 1.7 - 0.7 12 7.7 0.3 1.3 0.3 1.3 2.7 2.3 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.7 Aonides oxycephala 0.3 - - - - - 0.3 ------0.3------Dipolydora coeca (agg) 3.3 - - - - - 5.3 P - 0.7 - - 1 ----- 7.7-----1.7P--- 0.3 Dipolydora caulleryi ------10.3-----2.7------0.3 Table 4. Combined biological matrix for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 with diversity indices and SIMPROF cluster groups assignments.
TaxonName 8.12 8.13 8.32 8.33 8.41 8.43 9.12 9.13 9.32 9.33 9.41 9.43 10.12 10.13 10.32 10.33 10.41 10.43 11.12 11.13 11.32 11.33 11.41 11.43 12.12 12.13 12.32 12.33 12.41 12.43 RHODOPHYTA ------P------P------Pseudopolydora pulchra ------0.3-----0.3 Pygospio elegans 0.3 ------0.3-150.31.710.3-1.3------0.3 Scolelepis bonnieri ------0.3---- Spio armata (agg) ------0.3------Spiophanes bombyx P 0.7 - - 0.3 - P -----P-----P--- 0.3--1---- Streblospio 0.7 0.3 3 5 9.3 1.7 0.7 2.3 0.7 2.3 4.7 0.3 - 4 3.3 1.7 17 1.7 1 3.3 11 10 17 1.3 0.3 5.7 8.7 1.3 34 2.3 Aphelochaeta marioni 11 27 22 33 P 40 8.3 20 25 7 P 73 9 17 12 40 P 36 23 23 46 19 P 40 12 8 16 10 P 8.3 Protocirrineris ------0.3--0.3-- Caulleriella alata 4.7 1.7 - - - 1.3 0.3 0.3 - - - 0.3 0.7 0.7 - - 0.3 - 0.3 ------Chaetozone zetlandica 72 61 2.3 P 0.3 46 50 65 - P 1.7 65 48 68 0.3 P 1 30 39 44 - P 0.3 35 35 36 - P 0.3 9.7 Cirratulus (juv) ------0.3------Cirriformia (juv) ------0.7----13----1.70.7----0.3 Cirriformia tentaculata ----- 5-----3.7-----0.3------Dodecaceria ------0.3------Tharyx "species A" 2.7 4.3 6.3 P - 9.3 0.3 2 - P - 0.3 - 0.3 4 P 2.3 5.7 4 8.3 7 P 0.7 13 - - 1 P 0.3 2.7 Cossura pygodactyla - - 3.3 5.3 - 1.3 - - - 0.7 ---- 5.30.33-1.3-284.30.31.3--6012.70.3 Pherusa flabellata ------0.3------Pherusa plumosa 0.3 ------Capitella 0.7 - - - - 1.3 ----- 0.7---0.7-----0.7-10.3--0.3-0.7 Mediomastus fragilis 5.7 1.3 0.3 - - 4.3 5.3 2.3 0.3 3.3 - 25 14 6.3 0.7 20 - 20 15 5.7 0.3 12 - 20 14 2.7 0.3 10 0.3 62 Notomastus 7.3 6 1 P - - 4.3 5 1 P - P 1.7 11 - P - P 0.7 5.3 - P - P 0.7 0.7 - P - P Arenicolidae ------0.75.7---1-----0.3-----0.70.3----1.7 Notoproctus ------0.3------Asclerocheilus intermedius ------P 3------P------Scalibregma celticum 3.3 2 - - - - 1.7 1 - - - 0.3 3 2 ---- 0.30.7---0.30.30.3---- Scalibregma inflatum ------1-----0.30.7-0.3-0.30.72.3-----0.3---- Galathowenia oculata 5.7 6 2.7 P - - 4 20 1.7 P - - 1.7 12 - P - - 1 33 - P - - 2.3 9 - P - - Lagis koreni - - - 0.3 ------0.3------Sabellaria spinulosa 4.3 - - - - - 4 2.7 ---- 2.7----0.33.3-----20.7---- Ampharetidae (juv) - - 0.3 - - - 2.3 1 - 0.3 - - - 1.3 - - 0.3 ------Melinna palmata 1.7 1.3 0.7 1.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.3 0.3 3 0.3 0.7 0.3 1 - 1.3 0.7 0.3 0.3 ---- 0.7-0.3---- Ampharete baltica ------0.7------1.70.30.3-0.3- Ampharete grubei 2.7 P - 0.7 2 0.7 4 P - 5 - 0.3 6.3 P - 0.7 1.3 0.7 4.7 - 0.3 - 0.3 0.7 0.7 P ---- Ampharete lindstroemi 2.7 2.3 - 0.3 - 0.3 1 3 - - 0.7 0.3 ----- 0.3--0.3------Amphicteis midas 2 0.7 - - - - 1.3 ---- 0.30.3--0.7------0.3----- Terebellidae (juv) ------0.3----0.3------Lanice conchilega 0.7 - - - - 1 1.7 0.3 - - - 0.7 3.7 ---- 320.7---30.3----- Neoamphitrite edwardsi (?) - 0.3 ------Neoamphitrite figulus ----- 0.30.3----30.30.7---0.7------1.3-1.7 Nicolea zostericola ------0.3 Polycirrus P - - - - - P P ---PPP----P-----PP- 0.3-- Sabellidae ------0.30.3---0.34.31-3-2814----11------Sabella pavonina ----- 11-----8.7-----0.3-----4.70.3----34 Spirobranchus lamarcki ------0.3------0.7------Tubificoides amplivasatus 1.3 0.3 29 17 16 12 0.3 - - 3.7 2.3 - 3.7 3.3 66 1 50 1 15 13 127 19 34 11 3 2.3 78 2.7 27 1.3 Tubificoides benedii - 0.3 - - - 2 - - P - - 10 - - P - - 5.7 - 0.7 P - - 10 - 0.3 - - - 4.3 Tubificoides pseudogaster (agg) 0.7 0.3 1.7 0.3 - 1 0.3 ---- 3.3-0.31.31.30.70.3-----120.30.31.7--14 Tubificoides galiciensis ------1----1-0.34.3------Enchytraeidae ------0.3------Grania 0.7 ------0.7-----0.7------PYCNOGONIDA (juv) ------2-- 0.7--1----0.7-----1 Nymphon brevirostre ------0.31------0.3 Nymphon hirtum ------0.7------Achelia echinata (agg) 1.3 - - - - 0.7 5 5.3 - 4 - - 3.3 - - 2.7 - 1 6.7 - 0.3 - - 2 0.3 1 - 0.3 0.3 6.7 Achelia longipes (agg) ------1.71------2.3------0.3 Ammothea hilgendorfi ------20.3-0.3--12--2------0.3 Callipallene ------0.3--3.7------Anoplodactylus petiolatus 1 ------1 ---- 0.30.3---0.31------0.7 Anoplodactylus pygmaeus ------1.70.3-0.3----0.30.3-0.3------1.3 Phoxichilidium femoratum ------0.3------Pycnogonum littorale ------0.7------0.3------THORACICA (juv) ------0.3------0.7----- Balanidae ------0.3------Elminius modestus ------0.3------136------Balanus crenatus P - - - - 0.3 ------1P---- 2.7P---- 49 COPEPODA ----- 0.7-0.3------0.3------0.3----- COPEPODA (Type A) ------0.3---0.7------0.3------Alteutha ------0.3------Sabelliphilus elongatus ------1.7------MYODOCOPIDA 0.3 - - - - - 0.3 ---- 0.30.3-----0.3----0.3------Eusarsiella zostericola 0.7 1 14 16 30 0.7 - 0.7 5.7 3 4.3 0.7 1.3 1 2.3 4.3 9.7 1 0.3 0.3 1.3 1.7 0.3 - - - 1.3 3.3 0.3 0.3 Mesopodopsis slabberi ------0.7P0.3-0.3------Apherusa bispinosa ------0.3------Perioculodes longimanus ------0.3------Amphilochus manudens ------0.3------Amphilochus neapolitanus ------0.3-0.7-3.30.3------0.3-0.3---0.7 Gitana sarsi ------0.3 Stenothoe marina 0.3 - - - - - 0.7 0.3 - - - 5 ------0.7-----0.3 Stenothoe monoculoides ------0.3------Harpinia antennaria ------0.3------Tryphosella sarsi ------0.3 Argissa hamatipes - - 0.3 - 1.7 - - - 0.3 - 1 ----- 0.3---0.3-0.3---0.7-0.3- Iphimedia minuta ------0.3------Atylus guttatus ------0.3------Ampelisca brevicornis - P 1.3 0.7 4.3 ----- 1-----2--P0.3-0.7-----1.3- Ampelisca diadema ------0.3---0.3------Abludomelita obtusata ------0.3------Cheirocratus (female) ------0.7--0.3-- Cheirocratus intermedius ------0.3----- Cheirocratus sundevallii ------0.3------Microprotopus maculatus ---- 0.3--0.3--0.3------Photis reinhardi ------0.7 Ericthonius (female) - 0.3 - - - 0.3 0.3 ------Ericthonius punctatus ----- 0.30.3------Jassa ------0.70.70.70.3-----0.30.70.70.30.30.30.30.30.3------Aoridae (female) ----- 0.71----0.31.7-----1.7----0.3-0.3---0.7 Aora gracilis ----- 0.7------0.3-----0.3------Monocorophium acherusicum ------2.33.36.32-60.70.30.31.74.32-----0.3-0.3-0.3-- Crassicorophium bonnellii ----- 0.3------Unciola crenatipalma 2.3 0.7 - - - - 12 3 ---- 34-----240.3----165---- Table 4. Combined biological matrix for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 with diversity indices and SIMPROF cluster groups assignments.
TaxonName 8.12 8.13 8.32 8.33 8.41 8.43 9.12 9.13 9.32 9.33 9.41 9.43 10.12 10.13 10.32 10.33 10.41 10.43 11.12 11.13 11.32 11.33 11.41 11.43 12.12 12.13 12.32 12.33 12.41 12.43 RHODOPHYTA ------P------P------Dyopedos monacanthus ------0.7------Pariambus typicus - 1.3 0.3 1 0.7 0.3 0.7 1.3 - 0.7 - - 2.3 0.7 - 0.7 3.7 6.3 1.3 ----- 0.70.3--21 Zenobiana prismatica 0.7 - - - - - 1.7 0.3 ---- 0.3-----0.7-----0.3----- CUMACEA ------P------Bodotria scorpioides 0.3 0.3 - - - - 0.3 ------0.3------0.3---- Eudorella truncatula - 1.3 2 - 1 - - 1.7 3 2.3 0.7 - 0.7 0.3 - 1 ---- 0.3-----10.3-- Cumella pygmaea ------0.3--0.7-----0.3----0.3------Nannastacus unguiculatus ------0.3------Pseudocuma longicornis - - - 0.3 - - - 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.7 4.3 ---- 0.70.3------0.3- Diastylis bradyi ------0.3---0.3--0.30.3- Diastylis laevis ------P-- Diastylis rugosa - - 0.3 - 0.3 ------0.3------DECAPODA (eggs) ------P------DECAPODA (zoea) - - 0.3 ------Crangon crangon ------0.3------Pisidia longicornis ------0.3----- Liocarcinus (juv) ------1.3 Carcinus maenas (juv) ------P-----P------P-P Rissoa interrupta - - 0.3 ------0.7------Hydrobia ulvae ------0.3------Tornus subcarinatus ----- 0.3------Crepidula fornicata ----- 10.7------0.3----0.30.3----- Buccinum undatum (juv) ------0.3------Hinia (juv) ------0.3------Retusa obtusa 2.3 1 2 0.3 0.3 - 1.3 2.7 0.3 0.7 0.3 - 1.3 0.7 ---- 2.313-0.30.3--2-0.7-- NUDIBRANCHIA (eggs) P ------Onchidoris ------0.3----- Onchidoris muricata 0.3 ------0.7-----0.3----1------Cuthona 1 - - - - - 0.3 0.3 ------Nuculidae (juv) 2.7 - 2.7 0.7 6.7 - 0.7 3.3 1.7 - 2.7 1 - 0.7 1.7 0.3 1.3 0.3 1 2 4.7 0.7 0.7 - - 0.7 2.3 6 1.7 - Nucula nitidosa - - 8.7 5.7 19 2 - - 1.3 - 3.7 0.3 ------0.711.3-0.3-1.756.79.3- Nucula nucleus 0.3 0.3 - - - 1.3 0.3 0.7 - 2.7 - 1 1 - - 0.3 - 0.3 ---- 0.7--2-0.3-1.3 Mytilus edulis (juv) 1.7 - - - 1.7 0.3 ----- 0.35.30.30.70.7-4.3111.362.3-8-0.76.30.30.72.3 Kurtiella bidentata ------0.7------0.7--0.3--1.7------Parvicardium exiguum ------0.3------Cerastoderma edule (juv) ------0.3------0.3- Spisula subtruncata (juv) - - 0.3 ------Ensis (juv) 0.3 - - - - - 0.7 P ---- 0.30.3--1.71---0.31.7-2P-- 1.70.3 Macoma balthica ---- 1.3---0.3-0.3-0.3-0.7-0.7---0.7------Abra alba - - - 0.3 0.7 ------0.3-0.7------0.3--0.3---0.3 Abra nitida - - 2 1 0.7 ---- 0.33.3---0.70.31.7--0.31.70.70.7--0.3--0.3- Tapes philippinarum ------1------Tapes philippinarum (juv) ------1------0.30.3---0.7 Timoclea ovata ------0.7----- Petricola pholadiformis (juv) ------0.3------Saxicavella jeffreysi ------0.7-----1------1-- Alcyonidium albidum ------P------Alcyonidium cellarioides (?) ------P-----P------Alcyonidium diaphanum P - - - - P P - - P - P P - - P - P P ----PP----P Alcyonidium mytili P - P - - P P - - P ------P-----PP----P Alcyonidium parasiticum ------P-P------P------Nolella ------P------P-P Anguinella palmata PPPP- PPP- P- PPPPP- PPPPP- PPP- P- P Vesicularia spinosa P - P P PPPPPP- - PPPP- PPP----PP---- Amathia lendigera ------PP------Bowerbankia - - P - - P - P ---P--PP-PPP---P-----P Conopeum reticulum PPPPPPPPPP- PPPPP- PPP- PPPPP- P- P Electra monostachys P - - - - - P ------P-PP-PPPPPPP- - P Electra pilosa P P - - - P P - - P - P ------P----P------Aspidelectra melolontha P - P - - - P - P ------P----P------Flustra foliacea ------P---P- Amphiblestrum auritum ------P Bicellariella ciliata ------P----P-----P-PP------Beania mirabilis ------P------Scrupocellaria reptans ------P------Scrupocellaria scruposa P - - - - - P P -----P------Escharella immersa ------P Schizomavella linearis ------P Phoronis P P P 163 213 PPPP 15204PPPP 256PPPP2176P-- P 38148P Phoronis ovalis ------P------Amphiuridae (juv) 0.3 - - - - - 1.7 1 - 1 - - 2.3 - - 1 - - 2.7 ------Amphipholis squamata ------0.7-----0.3-----1-----1.3----- Ophiuridae (juv) ------0.7----- Ophiura albida - 0.3 ------Thyone fusus ------0.7------ENTEROPNEUSTA 1 0.3 - - - P 1.3 2.3 ---P 0.3-----4.71.3-0.3-P-----P ASCIDIACEA (juv) 0.7 - - - - 83 - 5 - 37 - 28 4.3 - 0.3 4.3 - 354 ----- 232.31.3-2-259 Styela clava ------0.7 Dendrodoa grossularia ------0.3------Molgula ----- 181--2.7-1.3-----1------23 OSTEICHTHYES (eggs) ------0.3------Gobiidae ------0.3--0.3------Gobius niger ------0.3 Pomatoschistus ------P------
No. Taxa (S) 72 40 43 30 29 60 92 83 28 58 21 67 88 47 29 59 36 68 93 45 37 33 27 75 65 49 24 34 27 75 No. Individuals (N) 183 128 118 259 318 271 186 210 58 136 236 333 223 152 106 119 186 565 281 180 243 113 140 505 123 93 192 93 241 551 Margalef's species richness (d) 11 7.2 6.1 4.7 4.2 8.9 15 13 5.7 9.2 3.3 9.5 14 7.8 4.1 9 6.5 8.2 14 7.1 4.7 4.9 4.5 9 11 9.5 3.4 6.2 4.4 10 Pielou's evenness (J) 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.5 Shannon Wiener (H'(loge)) 2.8 2 2.6 1.5 1.4 2.4 3.3 3 2.1 2.7 0.7 2.5 3.2 2.3 1.5 2.6 2.3 1.7 3.4 2.5 1.6 2.4 1.4 2.5 2.8 2.6 1.7 2.2 1.4 2.2 SIMPROF Cluster group i e b a a k i h b j a k g e c j a k g e c d a k f edack Table 5a. The twenty most abundant countable taxa in each SIMPROF cluster from 2012 data, with % of samples in which non-countable taxa were recorded.
Group A (3 Samples) B (6 Samples) C (1 Sample) D (1 Sample) Group E (3 Samples) F (1 Sample) G ( 3 Samples) 12.43a,12.43b,12.43c 12a,b,c ; 13a,b,c 12.33a 12.33b 12.32a,12.32b,12.32c 12.33c 12.41a,12.41b,12.41c Samples Av/m² Av/m² Av/m² Av/m² Samples Av/m² Av/m² Av/m² 1 ASCIDIACEA (juv) 6483 Chaetozone zetlandica 883.3 Mediomastus fragilis 500 Aphelochaeta marion 150 1 Tubificoides amplivasatus 1958 Phoronis 2700 Phoronis 3692 2 Mediomastus fragilis 1550 Balanus crenatus 720.8 ASCIDIACEA (juv) 150 Tubificoides amplivasatus 125 2 Cossura pygodactyla 1492 Aphelochaeta marion 525 Streblospio 850 3 Balanus crenatus 1217 Unciola crenatipalma 266.7 Nephtys hombergi 125 Eusarsiella zostericola 100 3 Phoronis 442 Nucula nitidosa 400 Tubificoides amplivasatus 683 4 Sabella pavonina 858 Aphelochaeta marion 254.2 Nuculidae (juv) 125 Nuculidae (juv) 100 4 Aphelochaeta marion 408 Nuculidae (juv) 225 Nucula nitidosa 233 5 NEMATODA 692 Mediomastus fragilis 208.3 Aphelochaeta marion 100 Mediomastus fragilis 75 5 Streblospio 217 Mediomastus fragilis 175 Nephtys hombergi 208 6 Molgula 575 Galathowenia oculata 141.7 Exogone hebes 75 Phoronis 75 6 Mytilus edulis 158 Eusarsiella zostericola 125 Cossura pygodactyla 67 7 Tubificoides pseudogaster 358 Streblospio 75 Saxicavella jeffreys 75 Streblospio 50 7 Nucula nitidosa 125 Neoamphitrite figulus 100 Pariambus typicus 50 8 Chaetozone zetlandica 242 Tubificoides amplivasatus 66.67 Chaetozone zetlandica 50 Nucula nitidosa 50 8 Nephtys (juv) 92 Nephtys hombergi 75 Nuculidae (juv) 42 9 Aphelochaeta marion 208 Aricidea minuta 62.5 Tharyx "species A" 50 Nephtys hombergi 25 9 Nephtys hombergi 92 Tubificoides amplivasatus 75 Ensis (juv) 42 10 ACTINIARIA 192 Exogone naidina 50 Nucula nitidosa 50 Tharyx "species A" 25 10 Nuculidae (juv) 58 Streblospio 50 Ampelisca brevicornis 33 11 Achelia echinata (agg) 167 ASCIDIACEA (juv) 45.83 Phoronis 50 Cossura pygodactyla 25 11 Tubificoides pseudogaster (agg 42 Cossura pygodactyla 50 Aphelochaeta marion 17 12 Tubificoides benedi 108 Ensis (juv) 37.5 Eunereis longissima 25 Monocorophium acherusicum 25 12 Eusarsiella zostericola 33 NEMATODA 25 Mytilus edulis 17 13 Exogone naidina 100 Sabellaria spinulosa 33.33 Nephtys (juv) 25 Mytilus edulis 25 13 Tharyx "species A" 25 Exogone hebes 25 NEMERTEA 8 14 Tharyx "species A" 67 ACTINIARIA 29.17 Capitella 25 14 Eudorella truncatula 25 Aricidea minuta 25 Nephtys (juv) 8 15 Streblospio 58 NEMERTEA 29.17 Notomastus 25 15 Aricidea minuta 17 Protocirrineris 25 Aricidea minuta 8 16 Mytilus edulis 58 Sphaerosyllis taylor 29.17 Polycirrus 25 16 Argissa hamatipes 17 Achelia echinata (agg) 25 Chaetozone zetlandica 8 17 NEMERTEA 42 Dipolydora coeca (agg) 29.17 Eusarsiella zostericola 25 17 NEMATODA 8 Diastylis brady 25 Tharyx "species A" 8 18 Eunereis longissima 42 Ampharete baltica 25 Cheirocratus (female) 25 18 Eteone longa (agg) 8 Retusa obtusa 25 Mediomastus fragilis 8 19 Arenicolidae (juv) 42 Retusa obtusa 25 Eudorella truncatula 25 19 Mediomastus fragilis 8 Ampharete baltica 8 20 Neoamphitrite figulus 42 Nucula nucleus 25 Retusa obtusa 25 20 Ampharete baltica 8 Achelia echinata (agg) 8 non-countable taxa % non-countable taxa % non-countable taxa % non-countable taxa % non-countable taxa % non-countable taxa % non-countable taxa % 1 Alcyonidium mytil 100 Conopeum reticulum 100 Enteromorpha 100 Anguinella palmata 100 ENTOPROCTA 66.67 PROTOZOA 100 Lemnaceae 33.33 2 Anguinella palmata 100 Electra monostachys 66.66 Lemnaceae 100 Lemnaceae 33 Nolella 100 Flustra foliacea 33.33 3 Bowerbankia 100 Anguinella palmata 66.67 Loxosomella varians 100 PROTOZOA 33.33 4 Conopeum reticulum 100 Vesicularia spinosa 66.67 Loxosomella varians 33.33 5 Alcyonidium diaphanum 66.66 Alcyonidium diaphanum 50 Electra monostachys 33.33 6 Electra monostachys 66.66 Flustra foliacea 33.33 7 Nolella 33.33 PORIFERA 16.67 8 Amphiblestrum auritum 33.33 Halecium 16.67 9 Escharella immersa 33.33 Barentsia 16.67 10 Schizomavella linearis 33.33 Alcyonidium mytil 16.67 11 Eudentrium 33.33 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Av taxa 45.33 32 26 14 Av taxa 17 Av taxa 20 Av taxa 15 Av per m2 13625 3463 1600 850 Av per m2 5233 Av per m2 4675 Av per m2 6050 Biotope assignment EUNIS Biotope assignment EUNIS Biotope assignment EUNIS Biotope assignment EUNIS Biotope assignment EUNIS Biotope assignment EUNIS Biotope assignment EUNIS SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi A5.322 SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi A5.322 SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTuA5.323 SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi A5.323 SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi A5.323 SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubA5.323 SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubA5.323 Table 5b. The twenty most abundant countable taxa in each SIMPROF cluster from combined 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 data, with % of samples in which non-countable taxa were recorded.
Group A (6 Samples) B (2 Samples) C (3 Samples) D (2 Samples) E (4 Samples) F (1 Sample) G (2 Samples) H (1 Sample) I (2 Samples) J (2 Samples) K (5 Samples) Samples 8.33, 8.41,9.41,10.41, 11.41,12.33 Av/m² 8.32,9.32 Av/m² 10.32,11.32,12.41 Av/m² 11.32,12.32 Av/m² 8.13,10.13,11.13,12.13 Av/m² 12.12 Av/m² 10.12,11.12 Av/m² 9.13 Av/m² 8.12,9.12 Av/m² 9.33,10.33 Av/m² 8.43,9.43,10.43,11.43,12.43 Av/m² 1 Phoronis 3560 Aphelochaeta marion 588 Tubificoides amplivasatus 2267 Phoronis 738 Chaetozone zetlandica 1304 Chaetozone zetlandica 875 Chaetozone zetlandica 1088 Chaetozone zetlandica 1617 Chaetozone zetlandica 1525 Aphelochaeta marion 592 ASCIDIACEA (juv) 3738 2 Tubificoides amplivasatus 593 Tubificoides amplivasatus 358 Cossura pygodactyla 775 Aphelochaeta marion 363 Aphelochaeta marion 471 Unciola crenatipalma 408 Unciola crenatipalma 729 Galathowenia oculata 500 NEMATODA 263 ASCIDIACEA (juv) 517 NEMATODA 1208 3 Streblospio 263 Eusarsiella zostericola 250 Aphelochaeta marion 614 Mediomastus fragilis 271 Galathowenia oculata 375 Mediomastus fragilis 350 Aphelochaeta marion 396 Aphelochaeta marion 492 Aphelochaeta marion 238 NEMATODA 429 Aphelochaeta marion 988 4 Eusarsiella zostericola 300 Nephtys hombergii 138 Streblospio 192 Tubificoides amplivasatus 271 Notomastus 144 Aphelochaeta marion 308 Mediomastus fragilis 363 NEMATODA 375 ACTINIARIA 221 Mediomastus fragilis 296 Chaetozone zetlandica 928 5 Nucula nitidosa 142 Nucula nitidosa 125 Mytilus edulis (juv) 108 NEMATODA 146 Tubificoides amplivasatus 121 Exogone naidina 75 NEMATODA 304 ACTINIARIA 142 Unciola crenatipalma 183 Phoronis 208 Elminius modestus 678 6 Pygospio elegans 82 Monocorophium acherusicum 79 Tharyx "species A" 100 Streblospio 142 Retusa obtusa 102 Tubificoides amplivasatus 75 Tubificoides amplivasatus 238 Arenicolidae 142 Notomastus 146 Eusarsiella zostericola 92 Mediomastus fragilis 655 7 Nephtys hombergii 97 Tharyx "species A" 79 Nephtys hombergii 86 Nucula nitidosa 100 Mediomastus fragilis 100 Aricidea minuta 67 Sabellidae 233 Achelia echinata (agg) 133 Mediomastus fragilis 138 Achelia echinata (agg) 83 ACTINIARIA 308 8 Nuculidae (juv) 60 Eudorella truncatula 63 Nuculidae (juv) 72 Nuculidae (juv) 83 Aricidea minuta 85 Galathowenia oculata 58 Aricidea minuta 213 Notomastus 125 Galathowenia oculata 121 Ampharete grubei 71 Sabella pavonina 293 9 Ampelisca brevicornis 43 Galathowenia oculata 54 Nucula nitidosa 50 Nephtys hombergii 79 Streblospio 83 ASCIDIACEA (juv) 58 Mytilus edulis (juv) 208 ASCIDIACEA (juv) 125 Dipolydora coeca (agg 108 Nephtys hombergii 67 Balanus crenatus 263 10 Abra nitida 37 Nuculidae (juv) 54 Eusarsiella zostericola 42 Cossura pygodactyla 67 Tharyx "species A" 81 Sphaerosyllis taylor 58 ACTINIARIA 188 Monocorophium acherusicum 83 Sabellaria spinulosa 104 Tubificoides amplivasatus 58 Molgula 218 11 Pariambus typicus 27 Streblospio 46 Nephtys (juv) 31 Eusarsiella zostericola 63 Exogone hebes 63 ACTINIARIA 50 Sphaerosyllis tetralix 163 Nuculidae (juv) 83 Ampharete grubei 83 Melinna palmata 54 Sabellidae 198 12 Tubificoides galiciensis 22 Cossura pygodactyla 42 Tubificoides pseudogaster (agg 25 Mytilus edulis (juv) 33 NEMATODA 40 Sabellaria spinulosa 50 Ammothea hilgendorfi 150 Asclerocheilus intermedius 75 Achelia echinata (agg) 79 Streblospio 50 Tubificoides benedi 163 13 Monocorophium acherusicum 22 NEMATODA 33 Aricidea minuta 22 Exogone hebes 29 Unciola crenatipalma 38 Ensis (juv) 50 Ampharete grubei 138 Ampharete lindstroemi 75 Caulleriella alata 63 Callipallene 46 Tubificoides pseudogaster (agg 157 14 Ampharete grubei 22 Retusa obtusa 29 Abra nitida 19 ASCIDIACEA (juv) 25 Scalibregma celticum 31 Syllidia armata 42 Exogone naidina 125 Unciola crenatipalma 75 Exogone hebes 63 Monocorophium acherusicum 46 Tharyx "species A" 153 15 Ensis (juv) 17 Chaetozone zetlandica 29 Macoma balthica 11 Kurtiella bidentata 21 Nuculidae (juv) 21 Dipolydora coeca (agg 42 Achelia echinata (agg) 125 Sabellaria spinulosa 67 Scalibregma celticum 63 Eudorella truncatula 42 Tubificoides amplivasatus 123 16 Chaetozone zetlandica 17 Abra nitida 25 NEMATODA 11 Aricidea minuta 21 Scalibregma inflatum 21 Ampharete baltica 42 Dipolydora coeca (agg 108 Retusa obtusa 67 Aricidea minuta 58 Nucula nucleus 38 Mytilus edulis (juv) 77 17 Argissa hamatipes 17 Notomastus 25 Mediomastus fragilis 11 Neoamphitrite figulus 17 ACTINIARIA 19 Lepidonotus squamatus 33 Exogone hebes 79 Exogone hebes 58 Exogone naidina 50 Sabellidae 38 Achelia echinata (agg) 52 18 Cossura pygodactyla 43 Tubificoides pseudogaster (agg 21 Eudorella truncatula 11 Capitella 13 Melinna palmata 17 Amphipholis squamata 33 Sabellaria spinulosa 75 Streblospio 58 Eunereis longissima 50 Molgula 33 Cirriformia tentaculata 45 19 Tharyx "species A" 15 Aricidea minuta 21 Argissa hamatipes 8 Retusa obtusa 13 Caulleriella alata 15 NEMATODA 25 Lanice conchilega 71 Mediomastus fragilis 58 Ampharete lindstroemi 46 Ammothea hilgendorfi 29 Monocorophium acherusicum 42 20 Macoma balthica 12 Ampelisca brevicornis 17 Eteone longa (agg) 6 Saxicavella jeffreys 13 Nucula nitidosa 15 Lumbrineris gracilis 17 Sphaerosyllis taylor 71 ENTEROPNEUSTA 58 Retusa obtusa 46 Exogone naidina 29 Myrianida 42 non-countable taxa % non-countable taxa % non-countable taxa % non-countable taxa % non-countable taxa % non-countable taxa % non-countable taxa % non-countable taxa % non-countable taxa % non-countable taxa % non-countable taxa % 1 Conopeum reticulum 60 Aspidelectra melolontha 25 Lemnaceae 100 Enteromorpha 100 Anguinella palmata 100 PORIFERA 100 Ceramium 100 Ulva 100 Halecium 100 Alcyonidium diaphanum 100 Alcyonidium diaphanum 100 2 Vesicularia spinosa 40 Conopeum reticulum 50 Plocamium cartilagineum 67 Anguinella palmata 100 Conopeum reticulum 100 Barentsia 100 Barentsia 100 Lovenella clausa 100 Sertularia 100 Anguinella palmata 100 Anguinella palmata 100 3 Dictyota dichotoma 20 Sertularia 75 Enteromorpha 67 Conopeum reticulum 100 Vesicularia spinosa 75 Alcyonidium diaphanum 100 Alcyonidium diaphanum 100 Calycella syringa 100 Campanulariidae 100 Vesicularia spinosa 100 Bowerbankia 100 4 CHLOROPHYTA 20 Vesicularia spinosa 100 PROTOZOA 67 Plocamium cartilagineum 50 Plocamium cartilagineum 25 Alcyonidium mytili 100 Anguinella palmata 100 Halecium 100 Alcyonidium diaphanum 100 Conopeum reticulum 100 Conopeum reticulum 100 5 Enteromorpha 20 Alcyonidium mytili 125 Anguinella palmata 67 Lemnaceae 50 Polysiphonia 25 Anguinella palmata 100 Vesicularia spinosa 100 Sertularella 100 Alcyonidium mytili 100 Plocamium cartilagineum 50 Alcyonidium mytili 80 6 Sertularia 20 Anguinella palmata 150 Electra monostachys 67 PROTOZOA 50 Enteromorpha 25 Vesicularia spinosa 100 Conopeum reticulum 100 Sertularia 100 Anguinella palmata 100 Sphacelaria 50 Tubulariidae 60 7 Electra monostachys 20 ANIMALIA (eggs) 175 RHODOPHYTA 33 Sertularia 50 Cladophora 25 Conopeum reticulum 100 Bicellariella ciliata 100 Barentsia 100 Vesicularia spinosa 100 CHLOROPHYTA 50 Electra monostachys 60 8 Aspidelectra melolontha 20 Bowerbankia 200 Gracilaria 33 Nolella 50 ANIMALIA (eggs) 25 Electra monostachys 100 Plocamium cartilagineum 50 Anguinella palmata 100 Conopeum reticulum 100 Enteromorpha 50 Electra pilosa 60 9 Anguinella palmata 20 CHLOROPHYTA 225 Polysiphonia 33 Amathia lendigera 50 PROTOZOA 25 Flustra foliacea 100 Plumaria plumosa 50 Vesicularia spinosa 100 Electra monostachys 100 Ulva 50 Ceramium 40 10 Enteromorpha 250 Cladophora 33 Electra monostachys 50 Lovenella clausa 25 Ulva 50 Bowerbankia 100 Electra pilosa 100 Lemnaceae 50 Enteromorpha 40 11 FILIFERA 275 Loxosomella varians 33 Bicellariella ciliata 50 Halecium 25 PORIFERA 50 Conopeum reticulum 100 Aspidelectra melolontha 100 Lovenella clausa 50 Sertularia 40 12 Sphacelaria 300 Pedicellina 33 Bowerbankia 25 Halecium 50 Bicellariella ciliata 100 Scrupocellaria scruposa 100 Sertularia 50 Campanulariidae 40 13 Ulva 325 Vesicularia spinosa 33 Electra monostachys 25 Sertularella 50 Scrupocellaria scruposa 100 Ceramium 50 Campanulariidae 50 Barentsia 40 14 Amathia lendigera 33 Electra pilosa 25 Sertularia 50 Enteromorpha 50 Barentsia 50 Alcyonidium cellarioides (?) 40 15 Bowerbankia 33 Scrupocellaria scruposa 25 Campanulariidae 50 Eudendrium 50 DECAPODA (eggs) 50 Alcyonidium parasiticum 40 16 Conopeum reticulum 33 Clytia paulensis 50 Bougainvilliidae 50 Alcyonidium mytili 50 Vesicularia spinosa 40 17 Bicellariella ciliata 33 Bowerbankia 50 Pedicellina 50 Alcyonidium parasiticum 50 RHODOPHYTA 20 18 Electra monostachys 50 Barentsia 50 Nolella 50 CHLOROPHYTA 20 19 Electra pilosa 50 Bowerbankia 50 Ulva 20 20 Electra monostachys 50 Lemnaceae 20 Av taxa 29 Av taxa 36 Av taxa 30 Av taxa 34 Av taxa 45 Av taxa 65 Av taxa 91 Av taxa 83 Av taxa 82 Av taxa 59 Av taxa 69 Av per m² 5695 Av per m² 2200 Av per m² 4506 Av per m² 2579 Av per m² 3454 Av per m² 3083 Av per m² 6304 Av per m² 5258 Av per m² 4613 Av per m² 3188 Av per m² 11125 Biotope assignment EUNIS Biotope assignment EUNIS Biotope assignment EUNIS Biotope assignment EUNIS Biotope assignment EUNIS Biotope assignment EUNIS Biotope assignment EUNIS Biotope assignment EUNIS Biotope assignment EUNIS Biotope assignment EUNIS Biotope assignment EUNIS SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi A5.323 SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi A5.323 SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi A5.323 SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi A5.323 SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi A5.322 SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi A5.322 SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi A5.322 SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi A5.322 SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi A5.322 SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi A5.323 SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi A5.322 Table 6. Combined biological data recorded from the 2-metre trawl samples for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
SDC TaxonName ACEMN A CEMNACEM N ACEMNACEM N ZM0001 RHODOPHYTA R R ------O-O-R------ZM0053 Porphyra ------O------ZM0170 Palmaria palmata ------R---R-R------ZM0304 Catenella caespitosa (?) ------P------ZM0322 Cystoclonium purpureum ------R ZM0332 Dumontia contorta ------P------ZM0345 Chondrus crispus ------R------ZM0431 Gracilaria ------RRRR------ZM0433 Gracilaria gracilis ------RP---R------ZM0455 Lomentaria articulata (?) ------P------ZM0507 Ceramium -----R ---RPO--- R-R------ZM0591 Cryptopleura -----R ------ZM0612 Membranoptera alata ------R ZM0629 Chondria ---RO------R-- ZM0629 Chondria (?) ------P------ZM0655 Polysiphonia ------R-O------ZR0002 PHAEOPHYCEAE ------R------ZR0313 Dictyota dichotoma -----R --RR------ZR0354 Saccharina latissima ------C-- R-A------ZR0382 Fucus serratus ------R------C- ZR0384 Fucus vesiculosus ---R-CR------R-S--O---- ZR0393 Sargassum muticum ------R- ZS0001 CHLOROPHYTA ------P-P------ZS0232 Bryopsis plumosa ------R--- ZS0149 Enteromorpha - RRRRR - - R- - FPRR -----RRRRR ZS0174 Ulva R - R - R R C - - R O S C C O R R R R - - R O R O ZS0195 Cladophora R - - R R - - - R ------RRA------ANIMALIA (eggs) ------P------Lagotia viridis ------P------C0053 Leucosolenia ----R------C0133 Scypha ciliata ------RR------C0651 Halichondria panicea ------R------D0048 Aurelia aurita - 2 1 1 - - 2 1 ------D0390 Halecium ---R-R------R------D0424 Hydrallmania falcata ------P---R--R------D0427 Sertularella ------R D0433 Sertularia ---R-- R-R-P------R--R-R-- D0456 Kirchenpaueria similis ------R------D0491 Campanulariidae ---RR------D0503 Clytia hemisphaerica ---R------D0662 ACTINIARIA ------R---R E0006 Pleurobrachia pileus 90 150 120 90 110 30 40 125 43 55 - 7 248 260 - 3 10 30 40 80 C - C F C HD0001 NEMATODA ------2------R---R K0050 Barentsia ------OR------P0019 Aphrodita aculeata ------1------P0065 Harmothoe impar ----- 1------P0422 Exogone naidina ------R---- P0484 Platynereis dumerilii ------2------P0831 Chaetozone zetlandica ------R P1257 Sabellidae (juv) ------4------P1320 Sabella pavonina ------111------Q0015 Achelia echinata (agg) ------2------R Ammothea hilgendorfi ------8------Q0030 Endeis spinosa - - - 1 ------Q0032 Callipallene ------12------R0068 Elminius modestus ------4----OFF----OOF R0077 Balanus crenatus C - - C C - F - F - O - O - R FFFFFRFFFF R0142 COPEPODA (Type A) ----- 1------R2310 Lernaeocera minuta ----- 1------R2432 Eusarsiella zostericola ------1------S0034 Siriella armata ------1------S0074 Mesopodopsis slabberi ------R- S0411 Atylus guttatus ------R S0939 Idotea linearis ------1------1------S1236 Pseudocuma longicornis ------1------S1319 Palaemon serratus - - 1 - - 12 3114-- 12-- 6-- - 2R2-- - S1377 Pandalus montagui ------1------722---O1--- S1385 Crangon crangon 208 2 71 4 19 1512 99 18 14 95 520 342 500 39 1392 516 38 10 26 32 A 116 117 263 7 S1457 Pagurus bernhardus ------1---1------Table 6. Combined biological data recorded from the 2-metre trawl samples for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
SDC TaxonName ACEMN A CEMNACEM N ACEMNACEM N S1532 Macropodia rostrata ----- 12---4---- 1---1----- S1566 Cancer pagurus ------1------S1580 Liocarcinus depurator ------2-2------S1581 Liocarcinus holsatus ------R- S1594 Carcinus maenas AAACCC C- C- CROCC CCCCA- CCFC W0439 Crepidula fornicata C ------1-----A W0439 Crepidula fornicata (eggs) ------R W0439 Crepidula fornicata (juv) ------C W0745 Hinia reticulata ------1------W1695 Mytilus edulis (juv) ------8------R---R W2059 Abra alba ------F-- W2061 Abra nitida ------8-- 41---O-- W2329 Sepiola atlantica ---- 1------1------W2341 Alloteuthis subulata ------2------Y0013 Crisia ---R------Y0076 Alcyonidium diaphanum S RRRRS A- RRSCAOF SARRRFO- OR Y0080 Alcyonidium mytili -----R ----P---- R------Y0096 Anguinella palmata R - R - O R R R R - P - P R - C R R R - R - - R R Y0131 Vesicularia spinosa - - R - O R ----P------R-RRR Y0137 Bowerbankia ------R------Y0172 Conopeum reticulum -----R ----P---- -R---R---- Y0177 Electra monostachys -----R ----P------Y0178 Electra pilosa - - R R R R - - R R P R - - - R R ----R--R Y0182 Aspidelectra melolontha -----R ----P------Y0187 Flustra foliacea ---O-R-RR------R----R-- Y0246 Bugula plumosa ------R------Y0279 Scrupocellaria scruposa ------R------ZB0075 Crossaster papposus ------1------ZB0100 Asterias rubens ------C- 1------R--- ZB0168 Ophiura albida - - - 2 ------4-360--24C----- ZB0170 Ophiura ophiura - - 1 C C - - - - 1 - 1 100 1 760 - - C S S ----C ZB0223 Echinocardium cordatum ----C- --- 2----312---CC----- ZD0002 ASCIDIACEA (juv) ------22833------C ZD0071 Ciona intestinalis ------1------ZD0084 Ascidiella aspersa ---- 1--- 1------CC------ZD0104 Styela clava ------2------ZD0120 Dendrodoa grossularia ------C------ZD0128 Botrylloides leachi -----R ------RR------ZD0146 Molgula ------R ZD0151 Molgula manhattensis ------101---1------ZG0011 Anguilla anguilla - - 1 - - - - - 1 ------ZG0034 Clupea harengus ------1------1 ZG0038 Sprattus sprattus ---- 1------431------ZG0054 Osmerus eperlanus - 1 ------2------ZG0123 Merlangius merlangus ------14-- 1---- ZG0143 Trisopterus luscus - - 2 - 6 1 2 ----- 4-12------ZG0291 Agonus cataphractus 3 ---- 5----4---- 3-- 2-21--- ZG0296 Liparis liparis 2 ---- 2------ZG0437 Zoarces viviparus ----- 1----8------ZG0467 Gobius niger ----- 52------ZG0476 Pomatoschistus - - 1 - - 53 8 - - 17 ---- 81-----53- 2 ZG0576 Platichthys flesus - 1 ------1------ZG0578 Pleuronectes platessa ---- 2---- 1----17----12--1-- ZG0591 Solea solea 65582 8-- - 461-30691-651632136- Table 7. Summary of biotope assignments for each station in each year.
Station 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 12 SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi 13 SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi 32 SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi 33 SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi 41 SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi 43 SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi EUNIS Recorded biotopes A5.322 SS.SMu.SMuVS.AphTubi Aphelochaeta marioni and Tubificoides spp. in variable salinity infralittoral mud A5.323 SS.SMu.SMuVS.NhomTubi Nephtys hombergii and Tubificoides spp. in variable salinity infralittoral soft mud Appendix 1. Particle Size Analysis: raw data- percentage retained at 0.5phi intervals, 2012 survey
Station µm phi f 12 13 32 33 41 43 63000 -6 000000 45000 -5.5 000000 31500 -5 000000 22400 -4.5 000006.187246 16000 -4 4.040947 0 0 4.936109 0 13.20137 11200 -3.5 2.914907 0 0 5.781953 0 9.063412 8000 -3 1.955214 0.981474 0 2.752016 0 10.52924 5600 -2.5 1.904031 1.09666 0 3.295774 0 10.29299 4000 -2 4.412028 2.066136 0 4.446727 0 5.308467 2800 -1.5 4.611644 4.324246 0 3.516298 0 2.854688 2000 -1 4.481126 3.129199 0 2.803371 0 1.759347 1400 -0.5 5.466411 2.241313 0 1.661481 0 1.317273 1000 0 6.556622 1.367825 0 1.011993 0 1.206307 707 0.5 11.30388 0.089691 0.193111 0.5521 0.393706 3.443778 500 1 12.93079 4.195067 1.699109 2.799215 0.946895 4.103791 353.6 1.5 12.31409 17.3727 3.580222 4.922596 2.270221 4.164881 250 2 10.21842 27.47076 4.125782 5.810595 3.260617 3.210441 176.8 2.5 6.849092 19.02258 3.748676 5.556529 3.673596 1.84441 125 3 3.19802 4.819616 4.099236 4.986099 4.290945 0.973746 83.39 3.5 0.949431 0.121348 5.724016 4.475911 5.753141 0.817763 62.5 4 0.419439 0 7.36224 3.830746 7.535302 1.024509 44.19 4.5 0.581944 0.673818 7.803685 3.160109 8.585199 1.26974 31.25 5 0.620387 1.263222 7.301795 2.874492 8.481112 1.477583 22.097 5.5 0.498276 1.034093 6.880128 3.077391 7.808397 1.704314 15.625 6 0.447535 0.864979 7.053684 3.500067 7.359438 1.962016 11.049 6.5 0.524966 1.059907 7.597796 3.888534 7.370553 2.189527 7.813 7 0.623182 1.342644 7.86013 4.099481 7.404986 2.281965 5.524 7.5 0.637217 1.423291 7.290018 4.007578 6.885129 2.150804 3.906 8 0.5531 1.265954 5.926903 3.578931 5.71021 1.811414 2.762 8.5 0.417241 0.987269 4.252343 2.894973 4.222551 1.365527 1.953 9 0.286389 0.70962 2.79845 2.137493 2.88367 0.94249 1.381 9.5 0.181353 0.469186 1.72667 1.413284 1.849291 0.59373 0.977 10 0.089612 0.310341 1.169113 0.936088 1.285688 0.388635 0.691 10.5 0.012702 0.227433 0.979668 0.720796 1.086709 0.306822 0.488 11 0 0.069624 0.676557 0.470294 0.763623 0.206279 0.345 11.5 0 0 0.150667 0.100977 0.179022 0.045501 0.244 12 000000 0.173 12.5 000000 0.122 13 000000 0.086 13.5 000000 Appendix 2. Biota found in each 0.04m2 Shipek grab (2012 survey); with biomass by major taxonomic group.
SDC TaxonName 12A 12B 12C 13A 13B 13C 32A 32B 32C 33A 33B 33C 41A 41B 41C 43A 43B 43C ZM0322 Cystoclonium purpureum ------ZM0612 Membranoptera alata ------ZM0629 Chondria ------ZR0382 Fucus serratus ------ZR0384 Fucus vesiculosus ------ZR0393 Sargassum muticum ------ZS0232 Bryopsis plumosa ------ZS0149 Enteromorpha ------P------ZS0174 Ulva ------Lemnaceae ------P-----P---- A0001 PROTOZOA ------P---P------C0001 PORIFERA -P------D0218 Eudendrium ------P-- D0390 Halecium - - - - - P ------D0427 Sertularella ------D0433 Sertularia ------D0662 ACTINIARIA 141--1------8114 E0006 Pleurobrachia pileus ------G0001 NEMERTEA P42P-1--P----1-2-3 HD0001 NEMATODA - 3 ---2-1---1---322229 K0001 ENTOPROCTA ------P-P------K0040 Loxosomella varians ------P------K0050 Barentsia - P ------O0018 Maxmuelleria lankesteri ------P------P0065 Harmothoe impar (agg) - 1 ------1-- P0082 Lepidonotus squamatus - 4 ------2-- P0094 Pholoe inornata (sensu - 1 - - 1 1 ------P0118 Eteone longa (agg) ------1------P0127 Mysta picta - 1 ------P0141 Anaitides groenlandica ------1- P0144 Anaitides maculata - 1 ------P0153 Eulalia expusilla 1 ------P0167 Eumida sanguinea - 1 ------3-- P0185 Pirakia punctifera - 1 ------P0265 Glycera tridactyla 1 - - 1 1 ------P0321 Syllidia armata 1 3 1 ------11- P0380 Eusyllis blomstrandi - 1 ------P0406 Syllides - - - - 1 ------P0412 Brania clavata ------1-- P0421 Exogone hebes - - - 1 - 1 - - - 3 - 1 -----2 P0422 Exogone naidina 1 5 1 - - 3 ------4-6 P0422 Exogone naidina (epitoke) - 2 ------1-1 P0430 Sphaerosyllis taylori - 6 - - - 1 ------2-- P0430 Sphaerosyllis taylori (epitoke) - 1 ------1-- P0431 Sphaerosyllis tetralix - - - - - 1 ------1- P0449 Myrianida - - - - - 1 ------2 P0449 Myrianida (epitoke) ------1 P0475 Eunereis longissima ------1-----2-3 P0494 Nephtys (juv) - 1 ----5241- - -1-1-1 P0499 Nephtys hombergii - - - - 1 - 5245131195- - - P0568 Nematonereis unicornis ------1-- P0579 Lumbrineris gracilis 1 1 - 2 - P ------P0638 Protodorvillea kefersteini ------1 P0672 Scoloplos armiger ------2- P0677 Aricidea minuta 5 3 - 2 - 5 1 1 - - - 1 1 ----2 P0750 Dipolydora coeca (agg) - 5 - - 2 ------1 P0751 Dipolydora caulleryi ------1-- P0774 Pseudopolydora pulchra ------1-- P0776 Pygospio elegans ------1- P0779 Scolelepis bonnieri - - - 1 ------P0794 Spiophanes bombyx - - - 1 2 ------P0797 Streblospio - 1 - 15 1 1 15 11 - - 2 2 47 26 29 - 2 5 P0824 Aphelochaeta marioni 13 12 12 5 14 5 18 9 22 4 6 21 1 - 1 6 6 13 Protocirrineris - 1 ------1------P0831 Chaetozone zetlandica 38 27 40 28 35 44 - - - 2 - - 1 - - 6 15 8 P0838 Cirriformia (juv) - 1 1 ------1- P0847 Tharyx "species A" ------2121-1- -314 P0871 Cossura pygodactyla ------803564-1262-1- - P0906 Capitella - 1 ------1-----1-1 P0919 Mediomastus fragilis 12 26 4 - 2 6 1 - - 20 3 7 - 1 - 37 45 104 P0920 Notomastus 1 - 1 1 - 1 - - - 1 ------1- P0928 Arenicolidae (juv) - 1 ------32 P1026 Scalibregma celticum - - 1 1 ------P1027 Scalibregma inflatum - - - - - 1 ------P1093 Galathowenia oculata 3 3 1 5 9 13 - - - P ------P1117 Sabellaria spinulosa - 6 - - 1 1 ------P1124 Melinna palmata - - - - - 1 ------P1134 Ampharete baltica - 4 1 - - 1 1 ------1--- P1138 Ampharete grubei - 1 1 - P ------Appendix 2. Biota found in each 0.04m2 Shipek grab (2012 survey); with biomass by major taxonomic group.
SDC TaxonName 12A 12B 12C 13A 13B 13C 32A 32B 32C 33A 33B 33C 41A 41B 41C 43A 43B 43C P1143 Amphicteis midas - - 1 ------P1195 Lanice conchilega 1 ------P1206 Neoamphitrite figulus ------4---113 P1211 Nicolea zostericola ------1- P1235 Polycirrus - P - - P 2 - - - 1 ------P1320 Sabella pavonina - 1 ------43654 P1489 Tubificoides amplivasatus 4 3 22146170104-5338222231- P1490 Tubificoides benedii - - - - 1 ------526 P1498 Tubificoides pseudogaster (agg) - - 1 1 - - 4 1 ------3418 Q0002 PYCNOGONIDA (juv) ------3-- Q0005 Nymphon brevirostre ------1 Q0015 Achelia echinata (agg) - 1 - - - 3 -----11--6-14 Q0018 Achelia longipes (agg) ------1-- Ammothea hilgendorfi ------1-- Q0044 Anoplodactylus petiolatus ------1-1 Q0045 Anoplodactylus pygmaeus ------4-- R0015 THORACICA (juv) - 2 ------R0068 Elminius modestus ------R0077 Balanus crenatus 116 48 9 ------745517 R0142 COPEPODA - 1 ------R2432 Eusarsiella zostericola ------22-145-1--1- S0074 Mesopodopsis slabberi ------S0159 Amphilochus neapolitanus - - - - - 1 ------11 S0164 Gitana sarsi ------1 S0213 Stenothoe marina ------1-- S0344 Tryphosella sarsi ------1-- S0360 Argissa hamatipes ------1-1-----1--- S0411 Atylus guttatus ------S0427 Ampelisca brevicornis ------211--- S0503 Cheirocratus (female) - 2 ------1------S0505 Cheirocratus intermedius - 1 ------S0554 Photis reinhardi ------2-- S0577 Aoridae (female) - - - - - 1 ------2 S0606 Monocorophium acherusicum - - - - - 1 ----1------S0621 Unciola crenatipalma 13 36 - 3 5 7 ------S0651 Pariambus typicus 1 - 1 1 ------42---3 S0947 Zenobiana prismatica - 1 ------S1197 Bodotria scorpioides - - - - 1 ------S1208 Eudorella truncatula ------1-21------S1236 Pseudocuma longicornis ------1----- S1248 Diastylis bradyi - - 1 ------1-1---- S1251 Diastylis laevis ------P------S1319 Palaemon serratus ------S1377 Pandalus montagui ------S1385 Crangon crangon ------S1482 Pisidia longicornis - 1 ------S1577 Liocarcinus (juv) ------1-3 S1581 Liocarcinus holsatus ------S1594 Carcinus maenas ------S1594 Carcinus maenas (juv) ------P------1 W0439 Crepidula fornicata - 1 ------W0439 Crepidula fornicata (eggs) ------W0439 Crepidula fornicata (juv) ------W1077 Retusa obtusa - - - - - 6 - - - 1 - 1 ------W1320 Onchidoris - 1 ------W1563 Nuculidae (juv) - - - - - 2 6 1 - 5495----- W1569 Nucula nitidosa - - - 2 - 352822167147- - - W1570 Nucula nucleus - - - - - 6 - - - 1 ------22 W1695 Mytilus edulis ------2---- W1695 Mytilus edulis (juv) - - - 1 - 1658-1----115 W1961 Cerastoderma edule (juv) ------1--- W1996 Ensis (juv) 2 1 3 P 2 1 ------14-1-- W2059 Abra alba - - - 1 ------1- W2061 Abra nitida - - - - 1 ------1--- Tapes philippinarum (juv) 1 - - - - 1 ------1-1 W2104 Timoclea ovata - - 2 ------W2172 Saxicavella jeffreysi ------3------Y0076 Alcyonidium diaphanum P P P ------PP Y0080 Alcyonidium mytili - P ------PPP Y0091 Nolella ------P-P---P-- Y0096 Anguinella palmata P P - - P P ----P----PPP Y0131 Vesicularia spinosa P P P - - P ------Y0137 Bowerbankia ------PPP Y0172 Conopeum reticulum P P PPPP - - - P -----PPP Y0177 Electra monostachys P P - - P P - P ------P-P Y0178 Electra pilosa ------Y0187 Flustra foliacea - P P ------P----- Y0222 Amphiblestrum auritum ------P-- Y0364 Escharella immersa ------P-- Appendix 2. Biota found in each 0.04m2 Shipek grab (2012 survey); with biomass by major taxonomic group.
SDC TaxonName 12A 12B 12C 13A 13B 13C 32A 32B 32C 33A 33B 33C 41A 41B 41C 43A 43B 43C Y0474 Schizomavella linearis ------P-- ZA0003 Phoronis ------416623108107171165P-2 ZB0100 Asterias rubens ------ZB0161 Amphipholis squamata - 3 1 ------ZB0165 Ophiuridae (juv) - 2 ------ZB0170 Ophiura ophiura ------ZC0012 ENTEROPNEUSTA ------2-- ZD0002 ASCIDIACEA (juv) 3 2 2 2 - 2 - - - 6 -----41769292 ZD0104 Styela clava ------2-- ZD0146 Molgula ------161142 ZG0034 Clupea harengus ------ZG0123 Merlangius merlangus ------ZG0291 Agonus cataphractus ------ZG0467 Gobius niger ------1-- ZG0476 Pomatoschistus ------ZG0578 Pleuronectes platessa ------ZG0591 Solea solea ------
Agonus cataphractus (pogge) Solea solea (Dover sole) Size (cm) Trawl A Trawl C Size (cm) Trawl A Trawl C Trawl E Trawl M 10 2 10 1 9 11 1 11 2 Total 2 1 12 9 13 1 6 14 4 Pleronectus platessa 15 4 Size (cm) Trawl E 16 61 17 Total 1 18 1 19 Clupea harengus 20 1 1 Size (cm) Trawl N 21 6 1 22 1 23 25 1 1 Total 1 Total 3 2 1 36
Pomatoschistus (sand goby) Size (cm) Trawl C Trawl E Trawl N Merlanguis merlangus (whiting) 1.5 1 Size (cm) Trawl A 4.5 3 1 26.5 1 5 1 1 5.5 1 7.5 1 Total 1 Total 5 2 2 Crangon crangon (brown shrimp) Pandalus montagui (pink shrimp) Palaemon serratus (common prawn) Size (cm) Trawl A Trawl C Trawl E Trawl M Trawl N Size (cm) Trawl A Size (cm) Trawl A Trawl C 0.5 57 21 24 104 2 1.5 1 1.5 1 1 218 80 10 153 5 2 1 3.5 1 1 1.5 22 15 83 6 2.5 1 4 1 2
Total 3 Total 1 3 Total 297 116 117 26 7 Appendix 4. Photographs of each Grab and Trawl sample taken on 30th & 31st July 2012.
Photo 1. St 12: Shipek Grab PSA; 31 July 2012 Photo 2. St 12: Shipek Grab Sample A; 31 July 2012
Photo 3. St 12: Shipek Grab Sample B; 31 July 2012 Photo 4. St 12: Shipek Grab Sample C; 31 July 2012
Photo 5. St 13: Shipek Grab PSA; 31 July 2012 Photo 6. St 13: Shipek Grab Sample A; 31 July 2012
Photo 7. St 13: Shipek Grab Sample B; 31 July 2012 Photo 8. St 13: Shipek Grab Sample C; 31 July 2012
Page 1 of 4 Appendix 4. Photographs of each Grab and Trawl sample taken on 30th & 31st July 2012.
Photo 9. St 32: Shipek Grab PSA; 31 July 2012 Photo 10. St 32: Shipek Grab Sample A; 31 July 2012
Photo 11. St 32: Shipek Grab Sample B; 31 July 2012 Photo 12. St 32: Shipek Grab Sample C; 31 July 2012
Photo 13. St 33: Shipek Grab PSA; 31 July 2012 Photo 14. St 33: Shipek Grab Sample A; 31 July 2012
Photo 15. St 33: Shipek Grab Sample B; 31 July 2012 Photo 16. St 33: Shipek Grab Sample C; 31 July 2012
Page 2 of 4 Appendix 4. Photographs of each Grab and Trawl sample taken on 30th & 31st July 2012.
Photo 17. St 41: Shipek Grab PSA; 31 July 2012 Photo 18. St 41: Shipek Grab Sample A; 31 July 2012
Photo 19. St 41: Shipek Grab Sample B; 31 July 2012 Photo 20. St 41: Shipek Grab Sample C; 31 July 2012
Photo 21. St 43: Shipek Grab PSA; 31 July 2012 Photo 22. St 43: Shipek Grab Sample A; 31 July 2012
Photo 23. St 43: Shipek Grab Sample B; 31 July 2012 Photo 24. St 43: Shipek Grab Sample C; 31 July 2012
Page 3 of 4 Appendix 4. Photographs of each Grab and Trawl sample taken on 30th & 31st July 2012.
Photo 25. Epibenthic trawl Station C; 30 July 2012 Photo 26. Epibenthic trawl Station E; 30 July 2012
Photo 27. Epibenthic trawl Station M; 30 July 2012 Photo 28. Epibenthic trawl Station N; 30 July 2012
Page 4 of 4