DOCSLIB.ORG

Year 2 Data Summary Report: Nekton of Sarasota Bay and a Comparison of Nekton Community Structure in Adjacent Southwest Florida Estuaries

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Year 2 Data Summary Report: Nekton of Sarasota Bay and a Comparison of Nekton Community Structure in Adjacent Southwest Florida Estuaries Year 2 Data Summary Report: Nekton of Sarasota Bay and a Comparison of Nekton Community Structure in Adjacent Southwest Florida Estuaries T.C. MacDonald; E. Weather; R.F. Jones; R.H. McMichael, Jr. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 100 Eighth Avenue Southeast St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-5095 Prepared for Sarasota Bay Estuary Program 111 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 200W Sarasota, Florida 34236 June 4, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ iii LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................................... v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................ vii SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................... ix INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 METHODS .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Study Area ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Sampling Design ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Gear Specifications and Deployment ....................................................................................................... 6 Sample Processing ................................................................................................................................... 7 Nekton Community Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 9 Bray-Curtis similarity calculation ........................................................................................................ 12 Non-metric multidimensional scaling (MDS) and Similarity Percentage Analysis (SIMPER) ............ 12 Mercury Content Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 13 RESULTS and DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................... 15 Physiochemical conditions...................................................................................................................... 15 Composition of overall nekton community .............................................................................................. 18 Shallow water habitats sampled with 21.3-m seines .......................................................................... 19 Nearshore habitats sampled with 183-m seines ................................................................................ 22 Deeper-water habitats sampled with 6.1-m trawls ............................................................................. 26 Species Profiles ...................................................................................................................................... 29 Pink shrimp, Farfantepenaeus duorarum ........................................................................................... 30 Blue crab, Callinectes sapidus ........................................................................................................... 33 Ladyfish, Elops saurus ....................................................................................................................... 37 Bay anchovy, Anchoa mitchilli ............................................................................................................ 39 Common snook, Centropomus undecimalis....................................................................................... 41 Gray snapper, Lutjanus griseus ......................................................................................................... 43 Pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides ............................................................................................................. 46 Sheepshead, Archosargus probatocephalus ..................................................................................... 51 Spotted Seatrout, Cynoscion nebulosus ............................................................................................ 54 Striped mullet, Mugil cephalus ........................................................................................................... 56 Nekton Community Structure ................................................................................................................. 59 i Intrabay Comparison .......................................................................................................................... 59 Interbay Comparison .......................................................................................................................... 68 Mercury Content Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 77 Ladyfish, Elops saurus ....................................................................................................................... 79 Common Snook, Centropomus undecimalis ...................................................................................... 81 Sheepshead, Archosargus probatocephalus ..................................................................................... 83 Gray Snapper, Lutjanus griseus ......................................................................................................... 85 Gag, Mycteroperca microlepis ............................................................................................................ 87 Spotted Seatrout, Cynoscion nebulosus ............................................................................................ 89 Red Drum, Sciaenops ocellatus ......................................................................................................... 91 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 93 Physiochemical conditions...................................................................................................................... 93 Composition of overall nekton community .............................................................................................. 93 Nekton Community Structure ................................................................................................................. 94 Mercury Content Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 95 LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................................................. 97 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................... 105 Appendix A. Animals designated as Selected Taxa because of their commercial or recreational importance. ......................................................................................................................................... 107 Appendix B. Summary of species collected, by sampling event, during Sarasota Bay nekton sampling, June 2010 to April 2011 ..................................................................................................... 109 Appendix C. Summary of species collected, by gear and stratum, during Sarasota Bay nekton sampling, June 2010 to April 2011 ..................................................................................................... 113 Appendix D. Summary of species collected, by embayment, during Sarasota Bay nekton sampling, June 2010 to April 2011 ..................................................................................................... 117 Appendix E. Catch summary for taxa collected during both years, June 2009 to April 2011, of nekton sampling in Sarasota Bay with 21.3-m seines ........................................................................ 121 Appendix F. Catch summary for taxa collected during both years, June 2009 to April 2011, of nekton sampling in Sarasota Bay with 183-m seines ......................................................................... 125 Appendix G. Catch summary for taxa collected during both years, June 2009 to April 2011, of stratified-random sampling in Sarasota Bay with 6.1-m trawls .......................................................... 129 Appendix H. Species overview plots for dominant taxa collected in 21.3-m seines in Sarasota Bay, June 2009 to April 2011 ............................................................................................................. 133 Appendix I. Species overview plots for dominant taxa collected in 183-m haul seines in Sarasota Bay, June 2009 to April 2011 ............................................................................................................. 155 Appendix J. Species overview plots for dominant taxa collected
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Corridor Management Plan 5-Year Update
    Corridor Management Plan 5-Year Update Submitted to: Florida Department of Transportation District One Scenic Highways Coordinator 1840 61st St. Sarasota, Florida 34243 941.359.7311 Submitted by: The Palma Sola Scenic Highway Corridor Management Entity Seth Kohn, Chairperson Molly McCartney, Vice Chairperson ‘c/o City of Bradenton 1411 9th Street West Bradenton, FL 34205 941.708.6300 Prepared by: Keep Manatee Beautiful, Inc. P.O. Box 14426 Bradenton, Florida 34280 941.795-8272 July 2009 Palma Sola Scenic Highway Corridor Management Plan 5-Year Update TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................... 1 Corridor Management Entity Member List.......................................................................... 2 Bylaws .................................................................................. 3 Agreements .......................................................................... 9 Corridor Conditions ....................................................................... 11 Corridor Vision .............................................................................. 16 Goals, Objectives and Strategies.................................................. 17 Protection Techniques .................................................................. 22 The Corridor Story.......................................................................... 22 Community Participation Program ................................................ 23 Local Support ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Species Profile: Pigfish, Orthopristis Chrysoptera
    Southern regional SRAC Publication No. 7209 aquaculture center October 2011 VI PR Species Profile: Pigfish, Orthopristis chrysoptera Cortney L. Ohs,1 Matthew A. DiMaggio,1 Scott W. Grabe1 The pigfish,Orthopristis chrysoptera (Fig. 1), is a member of the grunt family, Haemulidae. Haemulids comprise 17 genera and as many as 150 species. Haemulids are distributed throughout the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans and are mostly marine, although some brackish and freshwater species exist. Haemulids are called grunts because they can make a grunting or chatter- ing noise by rubbing their pharyngeal teeth together. Pigfish are distinguished from other Figure 1. Adult pigfish, Orthopristis chrysoptera. grunt species throughout their range by several key morphological differences. The dorsal fin of pigfish usually has 12 to 13 spines followed handling, are euryhaline, tolerate high densities, repro- by 15 to 16 soft rays, while the anal fin has three spines duce in tanks, grow rapidly, have established markets with 12 to 13 soft rays. Both the dorsal and anal fin spines with high demand, and are marketed as a baitfish. are covered by a deep, scaly sheath, unlike the soft rays. There are 53 to 58 pored, lateral-line scales in ten longitu- Geographic distribution and habitat dinal rows above the lateral line and 15 to 19 rows below. The chin has a median groove. The ovate-elliptical body Pigfish occur in the Gulf of Mexico from Florida to is considerably compressed, resulting in a body depth the Yucatan peninsula and along the Atlantic coast of the that is 30 to 38 percent of their standard length (SL).
    [Show full text]
  • Andrea RAZ-GUZMÁN1*, Leticia HUIDOBRO2, and Virginia PADILLA3
    ACTA ICHTHYOLOGICA ET PISCATORIA (2018) 48 (4): 341–362 DOI: 10.3750/AIEP/02451 AN UPDATED CHECKLIST AND CHARACTERISATION OF THE ICHTHYOFAUNA (ELASMOBRANCHII AND ACTINOPTERYGII) OF THE LAGUNA DE TAMIAHUA, VERACRUZ, MEXICO Andrea RAZ-GUZMÁN1*, Leticia HUIDOBRO2, and Virginia PADILLA3 1 Posgrado en Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de México 2 Instituto Nacional de Pesca y Acuacultura, SAGARPA, Ciudad de México 3 Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de México Raz-Guzmán A., Huidobro L., Padilla V. 2018. An updated checklist and characterisation of the ichthyofauna (Elasmobranchii and Actinopterygii) of the Laguna de Tamiahua, Veracruz, Mexico. Acta Ichthyol. Piscat. 48 (4): 341–362. Background. Laguna de Tamiahua is ecologically and economically important as a nursery area that favours the recruitment of species that sustain traditional fisheries. It has been studied previously, though not throughout its whole area, and considering the variety of habitats that sustain these fisheries, as well as an increase in population growth that impacts the system. The objectives of this study were to present an updated list of fish species, data on special status, new records, commercial importance, dominance, density, ecotic position, and the spatial and temporal distribution of species in the lagoon, together with a comparison of Tamiahua with 14 other Gulf of Mexico lagoons. Materials and methods. Fish were collected in August and December 1996 with a Renfro beam net and an otter trawl from different habitats throughout the lagoon. The species were identified, classified in relation to special status, new records, commercial importance, density, dominance, ecotic position, and spatial distribution patterns.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Stages of Fishes in the Western North Atlantic Ocean Volume
    ISBN 0-9689167-4-x Early Stages of Fishes in the Western North Atlantic Ocean (Davis Strait, Southern Greenland and Flemish Cap to Cape Hatteras) Volume One Acipenseriformes through Syngnathiformes Michael P. Fahay ii Early Stages of Fishes in the Western North Atlantic Ocean iii Dedication This monograph is dedicated to those highly skilled larval fish illustrators whose talents and efforts have greatly facilitated the study of fish ontogeny. The works of many of those fine illustrators grace these pages. iv Early Stages of Fishes in the Western North Atlantic Ocean v Preface The contents of this monograph are a revision and update of an earlier atlas describing the eggs and larvae of western Atlantic marine fishes occurring between the Scotian Shelf and Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (Fahay, 1983). The three-fold increase in the total num- ber of species covered in the current compilation is the result of both a larger study area and a recent increase in published ontogenetic studies of fishes by many authors and students of the morphology of early stages of marine fishes. It is a tribute to the efforts of those authors that the ontogeny of greater than 70% of species known from the western North Atlantic Ocean is now well described. Michael Fahay 241 Sabino Road West Bath, Maine 04530 U.S.A. vi Acknowledgements I greatly appreciate the help provided by a number of very knowledgeable friends and colleagues dur- ing the preparation of this monograph. Jon Hare undertook a painstakingly critical review of the entire monograph, corrected omissions, inconsistencies, and errors of fact, and made suggestions which markedly improved its organization and presentation.
    [Show full text]
  • Rob Patten: Creating a Legacy for Coastal Island Sanctuaries
    SUMMER 2011 2011 Audubon Assembly: Take Action for Florida’s Special Places October 14-15 Connect to Florida’s Special Places Guarding the Everglades Treasure 2011 Florida Audubon Society John Elting, Chairman, Leadership Florida Audubon Society Eric Draper Executive Director, Audubon of Florida President, Florida Audubon Our April board of directors meeting was a pivotal point for Florida Audubon Society (FAS). It was at that moment in time, surrounded by a chorus of birds at the Chinsegut Nature Center near Board of Directors FAS-owned Ahhochee Hill, that I think we all realized how far we had come this fiscal year. Our John W. Elting, Chairman Executive Director Eric Draper, our committed board and tireless staff had a lot to celebrate. Joe Ambrozy, Vice Chairman Sheri Ford Lewin, Board Secretary Even during tough economic times, we were ending the year in a positive financial position, Doug Santoni, Treasurer something other environmental groups are struggling with this year. We have achieved 100 per- Sandy Batchelor, Esq. cent board giving, both financially and in terms of gifts of time and talent. Our marketing efforts, Jim Brady particularly the expanded focus on social media, have resulted in a strong online community that Henry Dean, Esq. helped protect Florida’s state parks on three different occasions this year. Improved outreach and John Flanigan, Esq. regional events are building engagement in Audubon throughout Florida. The board’s science Charles Geanangel committee is taking our applied science work to new levels including accelerated involvement John Hood of citizen scientists. Lastly, we are beginning to work at the local, state and national level as One Reid Hughes Audubon.
    [Show full text]
  • Currently the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems
    CRITICALLY ERODED BEACHES IN FLORIDA Updated, June 2009 BUREAU OF BEACHES AND COASTAL SYSTEMS DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STATE OF FLORIDA Foreword This report provides an inventory of Florida's erosion problem areas fronting on the Atlantic Ocean, Straits of Florida, Gulf of Mexico, and the roughly seventy coastal barrier tidal inlets. The erosion problem areas are classified as either critical or noncritical and county maps and tables are provided to depict the areas designated critically and noncritically eroded. This report is periodically updated to include additions and deletions. A county index is provided on page 13, which includes the date of the last revision. All information is provided for planning purposes only and the user is cautioned to obtain the most recent erosion areas listing available. This report is also available on the following web site: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/uublications/tech-rut.htm APPROVED BY Michael R. Barnett, P.E., Bureau Chief Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems June, 2009 Introduction In 1986, pursuant to Sections 161.101 and 161.161, Florida Statutes, the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores (now the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems) was charged with the responsibility to identify those beaches of the state which are critically eroding and to develop and maintain a comprehensive long-term management plan for their restoration. In 1989, a first list of erosion areas was developed based upon an abbreviated definition of critical erosion. That list included 217.6 miles of critical erosion and another 114.8 miles of noncritical erosion statewide.
    [Show full text]
  • Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 COLA
    Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 COL Application Part 2 — FSAR SUBSECTION 2.4.1: HYDROLOGIC DESCRIPTION TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.4 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING ..................................................................2.4.1-1 2.4.1 HYDROLOGIC DESCRIPTION ............................................................2.4.1-1 2.4.1.1 Site and Facilities .....................................................................2.4.1-1 2.4.1.2 Hydrosphere .............................................................................2.4.1-3 2.4.1.3 References .............................................................................2.4.1-12 2.4.1-i Revision 6 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 COL Application Part 2 — FSAR SUBSECTION 2.4.1 LIST OF TABLES Number Title 2.4.1-201 East Miami-Dade County Drainage Subbasin Areas and Outfall Structures 2.4.1-202 Summary of Data Records for Gage Stations at S-197, S-20, S-21A, and S-21 Flow Control Structures 2.4.1-203 Monthly Mean Flows at the Canal C-111 Structure S-197 2.4.1-204 Monthly Mean Water Level at the Canal C-111 Structure S-197 (Headwater) 2.4.1-205 Monthly Mean Flows in the Canal L-31E at Structure S-20 2.4.1-206 Monthly Mean Water Levels in the Canal L-31E at Structure S-20 (Headwaters) 2.4.1-207 Monthly Mean Flows in the Princeton Canal at Structure S-21A 2.4.1-208 Monthly Mean Water Levels in the Princeton Canal at Structure S-21A (Headwaters) 2.4.1-209 Monthly Mean Flows in the Black Creek Canal at Structure S-21 2.4.1-210 Monthly Mean Water Levels in the Black Creek Canal at Structure S-21 2.4.1-211 NOAA
    [Show full text]
  • Teeth Penetration Force of the Tiger Shark Galeocerdo Cuvier and Sandbar Shark Carcharhinus Plumbeus
    Journal of Fish Biology (2017) 91, 460–472 doi:10.1111/jfb.13351, available online at wileyonlinelibrary.com Teeth penetration force of the tiger shark Galeocerdo cuvier and sandbar shark Carcharhinus plumbeus J. N. Bergman*†‡, M. J. Lajeunesse* and P. J. Motta* *University of South Florida, Department of Integrative Biology, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, Tampa, FL 33620, U.S.A. and †Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, 100 Eighth Avenue S.E., Saint Petersburg, FL 33701, U.S.A. (Received 16 February 2017, Accepted 15 May 2017) This study examined the minimum force required of functional teeth and replacement teeth in the tiger shark Galeocerdo cuvier and the sandbar shark Carcharhinus plumbeus to penetrate the scales and muscle of sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalus and pigfish Orthopristis chrysoptera. Penetra- tion force ranged from 7·7–41·9and3·2–26·3 N to penetrate A. probatocephalus and O. chrysoptera, respectively. Replacement teeth required significantly less force to penetrate O. chrysoptera for both shark species, most probably due to microscopic wear of the tooth surfaces supporting the theory shark teeth are replaced regularly to ensure sharp teeth that are efficient for prey capture. © 2017 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles Key words: biomechanics; bite force; Elasmobranchii; teleost; tooth morphology. INTRODUCTION Research on the functional morphology of feeding in sharks has typically focused on the kinematics and mechanics of cranial movement (Ferry-Graham, 1998; Wilga et al., 2001; Motta, 2004; Huber et al., 2005; Motta et al., 2008), often neglecting to integrate the function of teeth (but see Ramsay & Wilga, 2007; Dean et al., 2008; Whitenack et al., 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Diet Composition of Juvenile Pigfish, Orthopristis Chrysoptera (Perciformes: Haemulidae), from the Northern Gulf of Mexico Jeffrey C
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Aquila Digital Community Gulf of Mexico Science Volume 19 Article 6 Number 1 Number 1 2001 Diet Composition of Juvenile Pigfish, Orthopristis chrysoptera (Perciformes: Haemulidae), from the Northern Gulf of Mexico Jeffrey C. Howe Auburn University Marine Extension and Research Center DOI: 10.18785/goms.1901.06 Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/goms Recommended Citation Howe, J. C. 2001. Diet Composition of Juvenile Pigfish, Orthopristis chrysoptera (Perciformes: Haemulidae), from the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Science 19 (1). Retrieved from https://aquila.usm.edu/goms/vol19/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted for inclusion in Gulf of Mexico Science by an authorized editor of The Aquila Digital Community. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Howe: Diet Composition of Juvenile Pigfish, Orthopristis chrysoptera (P Gulf of Afexico ,)'de nee, 2001 (1), pp. 55~60 Diet Composition of Juvenile Pigfish, Orthopristis chrysoptera (Perciformes: Haemulidae), from the Northern Gulf of Mexico JEFFREY C. HowE Diets of 954 juvenile pigfish, Orthopristis clli)'SOfttera, collected from 14 1-m3 concrete block artificial reefs approximately 20 km south of Mobile Bay, AL, were examined. A total of 137 specimens (14.4 %) contained food items and were used to perform stomach content analysis. Index of Relative Importance was used to evaluate the contribution of major foods by combining frequency of occurrence, volume, and number.
    [Show full text]
  • Taverampe2018.Pdf
    Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 121 (2018) 212–223 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ympev Multilocus phylogeny, divergence times, and a major role for the benthic-to- T pelagic axis in the diversification of grunts (Haemulidae) ⁎ Jose Taveraa,b, , Arturo Acero P.c, Peter C. Wainwrightb a Departamento de Biología, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia b Department of Evolution and Ecology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, United States c Instituto de Estudios en Ciencias del Mar, CECIMAR, Universidad Nacional de Colombia sede Caribe, El Rodadero, Santa Marta, Colombia ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: We present a phylogenetic analysis with divergence time estimates, and an ecomorphological assessment of the Percomorpharia role of the benthic-to-pelagic axis of diversification in the history of haemulid fishes. Phylogenetic analyses were Fish performed on 97 grunt species based on sequence data collected from seven loci. Divergence time estimation Functional traits indicates that Haemulidae originated during the mid Eocene (54.7–42.3 Ma) but that the major lineages were Morphospace formed during the mid-Oligocene 30–25 Ma. We propose a new classification that reflects the phylogenetic Macroevolution history of grunts. Overall the pattern of morphological and functional diversification in grunts appears to be Zooplanktivore strongly linked with feeding ecology. Feeding traits and the first principal component of body shape strongly separate species that feed in benthic and pelagic habitats. The benthic-to-pelagic axis has been the major axis of ecomorphological diversification in this important group of tropical shoreline fishes, with about 13 transitions between feeding habitats that have had major consequences for head and body morphology.
    [Show full text]
  • 2006-SBEP-Stateofthebay.Pdf
    he Sarasota Bay Estuary Program would like to thank the Tmany citizens, technical advisors, elected officials and government agency staff who have participated in the process of protecting and revitalizing Sarasota Bay. The work of our small team of five can realize comprehensive achievements when our efforts are supported by partner funds, agency staff and an active and committed Board of Directors. We offer special thanks to the partners to the 2004 Interlocal Agreement, which established the Program as a special district in Florida: Sarasota County, Manatee County, City of Sarasota, City of Bradenton, Town of Longboat Key, Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Southwest Florida Water Management District. Sarasota Bay Estuary Program • State of the Bay 006 4 Preface Sarasota Bay: Our Greatest Natural Asset 6 Setting the Stage Sarasota Bay: Our Economic and Ecological Treasure 8 Executive Summary Sarasota Bay Shows Significant Improvements 10 Water Quality Nitrogen Wastewater Pollution Air Pollution Stormwater Pollution Bacteria Contamination Tributary Action Plans Red Tide 14 Hydrology Preserving Balance in the Ecosystem and Maintaining Natural Flow 16 Bay Habitat Wetlands Wetland Restoration Monitoring Wetland Restoration Projects Seagrasses Hard Bottom Habitat Oysters Artificial Reefs Monitoring Reefs 24 Public Involvement in Restoring the Bay Community Recreation, Stewardship and Citizen Action Outreach—How the Community is Involved Sarasota County Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Manatee County Rebate Program Southwest
    [Show full text]
  • Prepared for County of Sarasota Coastal
    FINAL REPORT LITTLE SARASOTA BAY CIRCULATION STUDY Prepared for County of Sarasota Coastal Zone Management Division Environmental Services Department 9250-110-RT Contract No. C82-66 Prepared by Stergios A. Dendrou Charles I. Moore Raymond Walton CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE 7630 Little River Turnpike Annandale, Virginia 22003 August 1983 Suggested reference Camp Dresser & McKee and Mote Marine Laboratory. 1983. Little Sarasota Bay circulation study. Sarasota County. Contract no C82-66. Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report no 57. 175 p. Available from: Mote Marine Laboratory Library. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. LIST OF FIGURES . iii LIST OF TABLES . ix I INTRODUCTION ........................................... I-1 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA .......................... I-1 SCOPE OF WORK .......................................... I-3 REPORT OUTLINE ......................................... I-4 II RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS . II-1 III LITTLE SARASOTA BAY MODEL .............................. III-1 DYNAMIC ESTUARY MODEL .................................. III-1 MODEL THEORY ........................................... III-1 Basic Hydrodynamic Equations ...................... III-4 Numerical Solution-Stability ...................... III-5 Boundary Conditions ............................... III-6 LITTLE SARASOTA BAY GRID NETWORK ....................... III-7 Geometric Input Data .............................. III-7 IV PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS ................................... IV-1 TIDES AND TIDAL PHASING ................................ IV-1 WIND
    [Show full text]