DOCSLIB.ORG

Light-Environment Controls and Basal Resource Use of Planktonic and Benthic Primary Production Kara Radabaugh University of South Florida, [email protected]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Light-Environment Controls and Basal Resource Use of Planktonic and Benthic Primary Production Kara Radabaugh University of South Florida, Kradabau@Mail.Usf.Edu University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School January 2013 Light-Environment Controls and Basal Resource Use of Planktonic and Benthic Primary Production Kara Radabaugh University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the Other Oceanography and Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology Commons Scholar Commons Citation Radabaugh, Kara, "Light-Environment Controls and Basal Resource Use of Planktonic and Benthic Primary Production" (2013). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/4564 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Light-Environment Controls and Basal Resource Use of Planktonic and Benthic Primary Production by Kara R. Radabaugh A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy College of Marine Science University of South Florida Major Professor: Ernst Peebles, Ph.D. David Jones, Ph.D. Theodore Switzer, Ph.D. Chuanmin Hu, Ph.D. Steven Murawski, Ph.D. Date of Approval: December 17 th , 2012 Keywords: Stable isotopes, light attenuation, food web, photosynthetic fractionation, isoscape Copyright © 2013, Kara R. Radabaugh Acknowledgments Many number people at the University of South Florida provided assistance to this research through sample collection, analysis, and scientific advice. In particular I would like to thank David English, Jennifer Cannizzaro, Ralph Kitzmiller, Scott Burghart, Robert Byrne, Xuewu (Sherwood) Liu, Greg Ellis, Elon Malkin, Kristen Wolfgang, Amy Wallace, Sheri Huelster, and Michael Drexler. Ethan Goddard, David Hollander, and the USF Paleolab were invaluable for stable isotopic analyses. I am grateful to the late Benjamin Flower for his work as an exemplary teacher and mentor. I would also like to thank all of my committee members for their helpful comments and critiques; I particularly thank my major advisor Ernst Peebles for his guidance, advice, and encouragement. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission provided generous cooperation during SEAMAP surveys, in particular Bob McMichael, Jr., Amanda Tyler-Jedlund, Jenna Tortorelli, Ted Switzer, and Ed Matheson. The Caloosahatchee data were gathered in collaboration with Florida Gulf Coast University scientists Gregory Tolley, David Fugate, and Michael Parsons. Megan Andresen and Brooke Denkert along with many other FGCU students were essential to field work efforts. Finally, I gratefully thank Janice Rock, James Radabaugh, Taya Radabaugh, and Regi Rodriguez for their support and encouragement. Table of Contents List of Tables ....................................................................................................... iv List of Figures ....................................................................................................... v Abstract .............................................................................................................. viii Chapter 1. Introduction ......................................................................................... 1 1.1 Aquatic basal resources ....................................................................... 1 1.2 Stable isotope ecology ......................................................................... 3 1.2.1 Introduction to stable isotopes ................................................ 3 1.2.2 Stable isotopes in food web studies ....................................... 4 1.3 Light attenuation .................................................................................. 6 1.4 Outline of dissertation .......................................................................... 8 Chapter 2. Light-environment effects on carbon isotope fractionation by aquatic microalgae in an estuarine environment ........................................... 10 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 10 2.2 Methods ............................................................................................. 13 2.2.1 Experimental setup .............................................................. 13 2.2.2 Isotopic analyses .................................................................. 16 2.2.3 Water quality analyses ......................................................... 17 2.2.4 Calculation of PAR ............................................................... 20 2.2.5 Statistical analyses ............................................................... 21 2.3 Results ............................................................................................... 22 2.3.1 Environmental conditions ..................................................... 22 2.3.2 Microalgal growth ................................................................. 25 2.3.3 Carbon fractionation ............................................................. 28 2.4 Discussion ......................................................................................... 31 2.4.1 Dominant controls of photosynthetic fractionation ................ 31 2.4.2 Sources of variability in natural settings ............................... 32 2.4.3 Implications for trophic studies ............................................. 34 2.4.4 Summary and conclusions ................................................... 35 Chapter 3. Stable isotope trends on a trophic gradient; the importance of benthic algae to continental-shelf fish species .............................................. 36 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 36 15 13 3.1.1 Factors influencing marine δ N and δ C baselines ............ 37 3.1.2 Basal resources and trophic enrichment .............................. 39 i 3.2 Methods ............................................................................................. 41 3.2.1 Survey area .......................................................................... 41 3.2.2 Target species ...................................................................... 42 3.2.3 Sample collection ................................................................. 43 3.2.4 Stable isotope analysis ........................................................ 44 3.2.5 Calculation of trophic level ................................................... 45 3.2.6 Calculation of basal resource use ........................................ 46 3.2.7 Isoscapes ............................................................................. 47 3.3 Results ............................................................................................... 48 3.4 Discussion ......................................................................................... 58 3.4.1 δ13 C benthic algae depth gradient ........................................ 58 3.4.2 POM isotopic values ............................................................ 59 3.4.3 Basal resources ................................................................... 60 3.4.4 Fish trophic levels and ∆15 N ................................................. 62 3.4.5 δ15 N longitudinal/latitudinal gradients ................................... 63 3.4.6 Fish site fidelity and isotopic variability ................................. 65 3.4.7 Conclusions and global implications .................................... 66 Chapter 4. A dynamic model for baseline δ13 C and δ15 N values on the West Florida Shelf ......................................................................................... 68 4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 68 4.2 Methods ............................................................................................. 69 4.2.1 Sample collection ................................................................. 69 4.2.2 Calculation of trophic level and δ15 N baseline ...................... 71 4.2.3 Calculation of basal resource use and δ13 C baseline ........... 72 4.2.4 Remote sensing data ........................................................... 73 4.2.5 Dynamic model methods ...................................................... 75 4.3 Results ............................................................................................... 76 4.4 Discussion ......................................................................................... 88 4.4.1 Fish trophic levels and basal resource use .......................... 88 4.4.2 δ15 N predictors ..................................................................... 88 4.4.3 δ13 C predictors ..................................................................... 92 4.4.4 Sources of error and variability ............................................. 95 4.4.5 Conclusions .......................................................................... 98 Chapter 5. Detection and classification of phytoplankton deposits along an estuarine gradient ....................................................................................... 100 Note to Reader ...................................................................................... 100 5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 100 5.1.1 Study area .........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • St. Johns Estuary: Estuarine Benthic Macroinvertebrates Phase 2 Final Report
    SPECIAL PUBLICATION SJ2012-SP4 ST. JOHNS ESTUARY: ESTUARINE BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES PHASE 2 FINAL REPORT FINAL REPORT St. Johns Estuary: Estuarine Benthic Macroinvertebrates Phase 2 Final Report Paul A. Montagna, Principal Investigator Terry A. Palmer, Research Specialist Jennifer B. Pollack, Assistant Research Scientist Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi Harte Research Institute 6300 Ocean Drive, Unit 5869 Corpus Christi, Texas 78412 Final Report Submitted to: St. Johns River Water Management District P.O. Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178 August, 2011 Cite as: Montagna, P.A., T.A. Palmer, and J.B. Pollack. 2011. St. Johns Estuary: Estuarine Benthic Macroinvertebrates Phase 2. A final report submitted to the St. Johns River Water Management District, Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, Texas, 49 pp. Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... i List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ii Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Methods .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Peracarid Crustaceans of Central Laguna Madre Tamaulipas in the Southwestern Gulf of Mexico Everardo Barba El Colegio De La Frontera Sur, Mexico
    Gulf of Mexico Science Volume 23 Article 10 Number 2 Number 2 2005 Peracarid Crustaceans of Central Laguna Madre Tamaulipas in the Southwestern Gulf of Mexico Everardo Barba El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Mexico Alberto J. Sánchez Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco DOI: 10.18785/goms.2302.10 Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/goms Recommended Citation Barba, E. and A. J. Sánchez. 2005. Peracarid Crustaceans of Central Laguna Madre Tamaulipas in the Southwestern Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Science 23 (2). Retrieved from https://aquila.usm.edu/goms/vol23/iss2/10 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]. Barba and Sánchez: Peracarid Crustaceans of Central Laguna Madre Tamaulipas in the S GulfofMtxiro Srirnce, 2005(2), pp. 241-2<17 Peracarid Crustaceans of Central Laguna Madre Tamaulipas m the Southwestern Gulf of Mexico EVERARDO BARBA AND ALBERTO J. SANCHEZ A total of 6,734 of peracarid crustaceans belonging to 3 orders (Amphipoda, Mysidacea, and Isopoda), 17 families, 25 genera, and 30 species were recorded in the central region of Laguna Madre. The Amphipoda constituted 58% of total density (ind/m2 ), whereas the Mysidacea and lsopoda represented 29 and 13%, respectively. The amphipods Cymadusa compta and Elasmopus levis, and the isopod Harrieta faxoni were the numerically dominant species, The maximum density values were recorded in submersed aquatic vegetation and sites close to the chan­ nels dm·ing the "norther" season, when the water temperature decreased.
    [Show full text]
  • Living Resources Report Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi Results - Open Bay Habitat
    Center for Coastal Studies CCBNEP Living Resources Report Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi Results - Open Bay Habitat B. Living Resources - Habitats Detailed community profiles of estuarine habitats within the CCBNEP study area are not available. Therefore, in the following sections, the organisms, community structure, and ecosystem processes and functions of the major estuarine habitats (Open Bay, Oyster Reef, Hard Substrate, Seagrass Meadow, Coastal Marsh, Tidal Flat, Barrier Island, and Gulf Beach) within the CCBNEP study area are presented. The following major subjects will be addressed for each habitat: (1) Physical setting and processes; (2) Producers and Decomposers; (3) Consumers; (4) Community structure and zonation; and (5) Ecosystem processes. HABITAT 1: OPEN BAY Table Of Contents Page 1.1. Physical Setting & Processes ............................................................................ 45 1.1.1 Distribution within Project Area ......................................................... 45 1.1.2 Historical Development ....................................................................... 45 1.1.3 Physiography ...................................................................................... 45 1.1.4 Geology and Soils ................................................................................ 46 1.1.5 Hydrology and Chemistry ................................................................... 47 1.1.5.1 Tides .................................................................................... 47 1.1.5.2 Freshwater
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Fish and Invertebrate Data Related to the Establishment of Minimum Flows for the Tampa Bypass Canal
    AN ANALYSIS OF FISH AND INVERTEBRATE DATA RELATED TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MINIMUM FLOWS FOR THE TAMPA BYPASS CANAL Prepared for The Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Project Manager: Michael S. Flannery by Ernst Peebles, Ph.D. University of South Florida College of Marine Science 140 Seventh Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-5016 October 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY iii LIST OF FIGURES vii LIST OF TABLES xiii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Objectives 2 1.2 Summary of Biological Collection Efforts 2 1.2.1 Seine Deployments 2 1.2.2 Trawl Deployments 3 1.2.3 Plankton-net Deployments 5 1.2.4 Classification by Habitat and Diet 9 2.0 TECHNICAL ANALYSES 17 2.1 Habitat Associations Observed for Selected Fishes and Invertebrates 17 2.1.1 Methods 17 2.1.2 Results and Discussion 18 2.2 Spatial Distributions of Selected Fishes and Invertebrates 28 2.2.1 Methods 28 2.2.2 Results and Discussion 28 2.3 Community Structure: Change by Season 57 2.3.1 Methods 57 2.3.2 Results and Discussion 59 2.3.2.1 Seine Catch: Change by Season 59 2.3.2.2 Trawl Catch: Change by Season 60 2.3.2.3 Plankton-net Fish Catch: Change by Season 61 2.3.2.4 Plankton-net Invertebrate Catch: Change by Season 62 2.4 Community Structure: Change by Year 66 2.4.1 Methods 66 2.4.2 Results and Discussion 66 2.4.2.1 Yearly Inflow Variation 66 2.4.2.2 Seine Catch: Change by Year 69 2.4.2.3 Trawl Catch: Change by Year 74 2.4.2.4 Plankton-net Fish Catch: Change by Year 78 2.4.2.5 Plankton-net Invertebrate Catch: Change by Year
    [Show full text]
  • Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
    Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater Part 8000 TOXICITY 8010 INTRODUCTION*#(1) 8010 A. General Discussion 1. Uses of Toxicity Tests Toxicity tests are desirable in water quality evaluations because chemical and physical tests alone are not sufficient to assess potential effects on aquatic biota.1-3 For example, the effects of chemical interactions and the influence of complex matrices on toxicity cannot be determined from chemical tests alone. Different species of aquatic organisms are not equally susceptible to the same toxic substances nor are organisms equally susceptible throughout the life cycle. Even previous exposure to toxicants can alter susceptibility. In addition, organisms of the same species can respond differently to the same level of a toxicant from time to time, even when all other variables are held constant. Toxicity tests are useful for a variety of purposes that include determining: (a) suitability of environmental conditions for aquatic life, (b) favorable and unfavorable environmental factors, such as DO, pH, temperature, salinity, or turbidity, (c) effect of environmental factors on waste toxicity, (d) toxicity of wastes to a test species, (e) relative sensitivity of aquatic organisms to an effluent or toxicant, (f) amount and type of waste treatment needed to meet water pollution control requirements, (g) effectiveness of waste treatment methods, (h) permissible effluent discharge rates, and (i) compliance with water quality standards, effluent requirements, and discharge permits. In such regulatory assessments, use toxicity test data in conjunction with receiving-water and site-specific discharge data on volumes, dilution rates, and exposure times and concentrations. 2. Test Procedures There is a need to use correct terminology (see Section 8010B, Terminology), and environmentally relevant test procedures to meet regulatory, legal, and research objectives.3-8 The procedures given below allow measurement of biological responses to known and unknown concentrations of materials in both fresh and saline waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Review MYSID CRUSTACEANS AS POTENTIAL TEST ORGANISMS for the EVALUATION of ENVIRONMENTAL ENDOCRINE DISRUPTION: a REVIEW
    Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 1219±1234, 2004 Printed in the USA 0730-7268/04 $12.00 1 .00 Critical Review MYSID CRUSTACEANS AS POTENTIAL TEST ORGANISMS FOR THE EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENDOCRINE DISRUPTION: A REVIEW TIM A. VERSLYCKE,*² NANCY FOCKEDEY,³ CHARLES L. MCKENNEY,JR.,§ STEPHEN D. ROAST,\ MALCOLM B. JONES,\ JAN MEES,# and COLIN R. JANSSEN² ²Laboratory of Environmental Toxicology and Aquatic Ecology, Ghent University, J. Plateaustraat 22, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium ³Department of Biology, Marine Biology Section, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281-S8, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium §U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Gulf Ecology Division, 1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561-5299, USA \School of Biological Sciences, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Devon PL4 8AA, United Kingdom #Flanders Marine Institute, Vismijn Pakhuizen 45-52, B-8400 Ostend, Belgium (Received 20 June 2003; Accepted 29 September 2003) AbstractÐAnthropogenic chemicals that disrupt the hormonal systems (endocrine disruptors) of wildlife species recently have become a widely investigated and politically charged issue. Invertebrates account for roughly 95% of all animals, yet surprisingly little effort has been made to understand their value in signaling potential environmental endocrine disruption. This omission largely can be attributed to the high diversity of invertebrates and the shortage of fundamental knowledge of their endocrine systems. Insects and crustaceans are exceptions and, as such, appear to be excellent candidates for evaluating the environmental consequences of chemically induced endocrine disruption. Mysid shrimp (Crustacea: Mysidacea) may serve as a viable surrogate for many crustaceans and have been put forward as suitable test organisms for the evaluation of endocrine disruption by several researchers and regulatory bodies (e.g., the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1: Priority Conservation Species of South Carolina
    AP 1: Priority Species List SC CWCS APPENDIX 1: PRIORITY CONSERVATION SPECIES OF SOUTH CAROLINA Common Name Scientific Name Priority Legal Status G Rank S Rank Mammals Black Bear Ursus americanus Highest Of Concern, State G5 S3? Federal and State Florida Manatee Trichechus manatus Highest G2 S1S2 Endangerd Northern Yellow Bat Lasiurus intermedius Highest Of Concern, State G4G5 S? Appalachian Cottontail Sylvilagus obscurus High G4 S3 Federal and State Atlantic Right Whale Eubaleana glacialis High G1 SA Endangerd Bottlenose Dolphin Tursiops truncates High Of Concern, State G5 S4 Carolina Red-backed Vole Clethrionomys gapperi High Of Concern, State G5 S3 Dwarf Sperm Whale Kogia sima High Of Concern, State G4 S? Eastern Small-footed Myotis Myotis leibii High State Threatened G3 S1 Hairy-tailed Mole Parascalops breweri High Of Concern, State G5 S? Federal and State Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae High G3 S1 Endangerd Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus High Of Concern, State G5 S? Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus High Of Concern, State G5 S? Mink Mustela vison High G5 S? Pygmy Sperm Whale Kogia breviceps High Of Concern, State G4 SA Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii High State Endangered G3G4 S2? Southeastern Bat Myotis austroriparius High Of Concern, State G3G4 S1 Star-nosed Mole Condylura cristata High Of Concern, State G5 S3? Swamp Rabbit Sylvilagus aquaticus High Of Concern, State G5 S2S3 Eastern Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger Moderate Of Concern, State G5 S4 Eastern Spotted Skunk Spilogale putorius Moderate Of Concern, State
    [Show full text]
  • Effects on Benthic Macrofauna from Pumped Flows to Rincon Bayou
    Effects on Benthic Macrofauna from Pumped Flows to Rincon Bayou Final Report CBBEP Publication - 111 Project Number -1617 August 2016 Prepared by: Dr. Paul A. Montagna, Principal Investigator Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi 6300 Ocean Dr., Unit 5869 Corpus Christi, Texas 78412 Phone: 361-825-2040 Email: [email protected] Submitted to: Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries Program 615 N. Upper Broadway, Suite 1200 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of CBBEP or other organizations that may have provided funding for this project. Effects on Benthic Macrofauna from Pumped Flows to Rincon Bayou Principal Investigator: Dr. Paul A. Montagna Co-Authors: Crystal Chaloupka, Elizabeth DelRosario, Amanda Gordon, and Evan L. Turner Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi 6300 Ocean Drive, Unit 5869 Corpus Christi, Texas 78412 Phone: 361-825-2040 Email: [email protected] Final report submitted to: Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries Program, Inc. 615 N. Upper Broadway, Suite 1200 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 CBBEP Project Number 1617 August 2016 Cite as: Montagna, P.A., C. Chaloupka, E. DelRosario, A. Gordon, and E.L. Turner. 2016. Effects on Benthic Macrofauna from Pumped Flows to Rincon Bayou. Final Report to the Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries Program for Project # 1617, CBBEP Publication – 111. Harte Research Institute, Texas A&M University- Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, Texas, 60 pp. Left Blank for 2-sided printing Acknowledgements This project was funded in part by U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Inflow Effects on Fishes and Invertebrates in the Chassahowitzka River and Estuary
    FRESHWATER INFLOW EFFECTS ON FISHES AND INVERTEBRATES IN THE CHASSAHOWITZKA RIVER AND ESTUARY M.F.D. Greenwood1; E.B. Peebles2; S.E. Burghart2; T.C. MacDonald1; R.E. Matheson, Jr.1; R.H. McMichael, Jr.1 1Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 100 Eighth Avenue Southeast St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-5095 2University of South Florida College of Marine Science 140 Seventh Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-5016 Prepared for The Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 SWFWMD Agreement No. 05CON000117 September 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY...................................................................................................................... v LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................xi LIST OF TABLES..........................................................................................................xiii 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Objectives.................................................................................................. 2 2.0 METHODS............................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Study Area ................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Survey Design ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Disunity of “Mysidacea” (Crustacea)
    Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 44 (2007) 1083–1104 www.elsevier.com/locate/ympev The disunity of “Mysidacea” (Crustacea) Kenneth Meland a,¤, Endre Willassen b a University of Bergen, Department of Biology, P.O. Box 7800, N-5020 Bergen, Norway b University of Bergen, The Natural History Collections, P.O. Box 7800, N-5020 Bergen, Norway Received 6 October 2006; revised 26 January 2007; accepted 7 February 2007 Available online 15 February 2007 Abstract New studies on malacostracan relationships have drawn attention to issues concerning monophyly of the order Mysidacea, manifested in recent crustacean classiWcations that treat the taxon as two separate orders, Lophogastrida and Mysida. We present molecular phylog- enies of these orders based on complete sequences of nuclear small-subunit ribosomal DNA (18S rRNA), and morphological evidence is used to revise the classiWcation of the order Mysida to better reXect evolutionary history. A secondary structure model for 18S rRNA was constructed and used to assign putative stem and loop regions to two groups of partitions for phylogenetic analyses. Phylogenies were estimated by maximum-likelihood, Bayesian inference, and maximum-parsimony. The analyses gave strong support for three independently derived lineages, represented by three monophyletic groups, Lophogastrida, Stygiomysida, and Mysida. The family Petalophthalmidae is considered as sister group to the family Mysidae, and Boreomysinae and Rhopalophthalminae are the most early derived of the Mysidae. The tribes contained in the current classiWcation of the subfamily Mysinae are not well-supported by either molecular data or morphology. © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Crustacea; Mysida; Lophogastrida; Stygiomysida; Phylogeny; Taxonomy; 18S rRNA; Secondary structure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • By Robert A. Mattson, CEP, CSE St. Johns River Water Management District St. Johns River Water Management District Palatka, Flor
    Chapter 11. Benthic Macroinvertebrates Appendix 11.A CHAPTER 11. BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES, APPENDIX 11.A DESCRIPTION OF BENTHIC COMMUNITIES OF THE ST. JOHNS RIVER MAINSTEM by Robert A. Mattson, CEP, CSE St. Johns River Water Management District St. Johns River Water Management District Palatka, Florida 2011 St. Johns River Water Management District Chapter 11. Benthic Macroinvertebrates Appendix 11.A APPENDIX 11.A DESCRIPTION OF BENTHIC COMMUNITIES OF THE ST. JOHNS RIVER MAINSTEM (references cited are listed in the “Literature Cited” section in the body of the chapter) Segment 8 This segment is located in the Upper St. Johns River Basin (USJRB) and major features include the river mainstem and Lakes Washington, Winder, and Poinsett. A very limited amount of benthic sampling has been conducted in this reach. Benthic communities in the major lakes were sampled once in 2001 by Stetson University investigators (Work and Gibbs Undated Report) with petite ponar grab at two locations in each lake. Communities in Lakes Winder and Poinsett were dominated (both abundance and biomass) by oligochaetes and midge larvae. The most abundant individual species were the chironomid midges Chironomus spp. and the phantom midge Chaoborus punctipennis. Oligochaetes and chironomids were also abundant in Lake Washington but were lower in relative abundance. Unionids (freshwater “mussels”) comprised a large fraction of the biomass in Lake Washington due to their size and were also abundant in that lake, along with the exotic Asian clam, Corbicula fluminea. The highest overall benthic invertebrate density and species richness was measured in Lakes Poinsett and Winder; the highest biomass was in Lake Washington due to the presence of mussels.
    [Show full text]
  • The Determination of Freshwater Inflow Rules for Tidal River Estuaries Using a Percent-Of-Flow Approach (F.S
    The determination of freshwater inflow rules for tidal river estuaries using a percent-of-flow approach (F.S. 373.042) Minimum flows are “the limit at which further withdrawals would be significantly harmful to the water resources or ecology of the area” Translated How much water can be removed for water supply without damaging the ecology of a river or its receiving estuary Percentage of yearly rainfall and streamflow by month 24 24 Rainfall 21 21 Streamflow 18 18 15 15 12 12 9 9 Rainfall (%) Rainfall 6 6 Streamflow (%) 3 3 0 0 Jul Oct Jan Feb Apr Jun Dec Mar May Aug Nov Month Sept Freshwater and Estuarine Minimum Flow Studies Fresh Water Estuarine • Fish Passage • Fish and invertebrate • Floodplain Inundation distribution & abundance • Wetted Perimeter • Salinity zone modeling • Woody Snags • Benthic invertebrates • Fish / Invertebrate • Oyster zones habitat modeling • Manatee Use • Tidal Wetlands • Water Quality (DO) • Phytoplankton Significantly Harmful ? 3500 Man_nobrk.grf 3000 Response Continuum 2500 e c r u o s 2000 e R l a ? c i g 1500 o l o i B 1000 500 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Percent Reduction in Flow Flow prescription for freshwater river Peace River at Arcadia 2000 8% 1600 1200 13% 800 Flow (cfs) Flow 18% 10% 400 LFT = 67 cfs 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 The determination of freshwater inflow rules for tidal River estuaries using a percent-of-flow approach Subtitled Assessing Shifts in Fish Nursery Zones to Determine Allowable Reductions of Freshwater Inflow Value of Estuarine Dependent Fisheries In Florida Commercial fisheries Dockside value • Shrimp $37,224,699 • Blue Crabs $10,394,829 • Mullet $ 6,915,987 • Oysters $ 5,474,876 Sport Fisheries Economic value • Snook • Tarpon Saltwater sport fishing • Red Drum 5 to 6 billion $ per year • Spotted Seatrout Positive relationships between fish or shellfish abundance or harvest with freshwater inflow • Texas - blue crab, shrimps, red drum (Longley 1994) • Australia - mullet, barramundi (Meynecke et.
    [Show full text]