USVI Public Records

Document text

) I !l ! I n \ ! I . i • • I i i I • i : ISLAND RESOURCES FOUNDATION Can'bbean Headquarters RED HOOK BOX 33. ST. THOMAS U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 00802 (809) 775-6225 Washington, D. C. Offo~ 1718 P STREET. N.W .. SUITE T4 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20036 (202) 265-9712 BIOMONITORING STUDY OF MUNICIPAL SEWAGE IMPACTS ON SELECTED CORALS Red Point Sewage Outfall St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands [In support of 301(h) Waiver Application of the Virgin Islands Port Authority to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] PREPARED BY Mary Lou Coulston, Ph.D. Island Resources Foundation Red Hook Box 33, St. Thomas Charlotte Amalie, VI 00802 PREPARED FOR Maguire Group, Inc. 1 Court Street New Britain, CT 06051 November 1987 OFFICE COpy , ' I I ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Dr. Elizabeth Gladfelter of West Indies Laboratory served as a special consultant on coral work. and we are ex- tremely grateful for her valuable assistance. A11pho- tographs were taken by Diving Supervisor/Photographer. Michael P. Herko of Ocean Systems Research. Inc. Special thanks go to Dana Fagan. owner/operator of PRIME TIME. the vessel used for the research. and for his assistance with the photography work. We thank Mr. Fagan and his brother. Les. for the extra effort during the underwater operations. We thank Marcia Taylor of Planning and Natural Resources. Government of the Virgin Islands for her valuable advise and supervision to insure standardization of techniques between our sampling and Virgin Islands government standards. We thank Neil B. Coulston of Ocean Systems Research. Inc •• for field assistance with platform design. vessel operation. water sampling and analysis. preparation of zooxanthel1ae samples and assistance in report preparation. We thank the staff of Island Resources Foundation. Inc. for their support in many aspects of the operation. The staff of Ocean SUr- veys, Inc •• were responsible for the construction and place- ment of platforms. We also thank Scott Eberhard. who volun- teered his diving services during the set-up phase of the project. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• i TABLE OF CONTENTS •• · . . . List of Figures. · ... List of Tables. Appendices. . . . . . · ... . . . . . . · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · .... · . . . . · . . . . . . . .ii .iii ... iii • •••• v INTRODUCTION ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1 METHODS ••.•••••• Experimental Coral Growth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Site Selection •• . . . . . . . . . . . Coral Zooxanthellae Count •• Sediment Analysis ••• Coral Recruitment ••• Algal Growth ••••••• Single-species Algal Test ••• Total Suspended Solids ••••• · . . . . . RESULTS ••.••••••• Coral Growth. Platform 1. . . . .... Platform 2 •• · . Platform 3 •• · .. . . Platform 4. · . . . Platform 5 •• · . . . . . . . · . . . . . . . . • •• 2 · . . . . . . . . . · . · . • • 2 . .... • .3 .6 · . • • 7 · . . . . . . · . . 8 · . . . . . . .8 • • 9 · .. · ..... . ••• 9 • ••••• 9 • •••••• 9 12 . . . . . • ••• 12 · . . . . . . . . . .14 · .... . . • •••• 14 Platform 6 •• · .. . ... · ....• . 15 • •••• 15 Coral Zpoxanthellae Coun t •• . . . . . . · . Sediment Analysis. Algal Growth •••••• Coral Recruitment. . . Single-species Algal Test. Total Suspended Solids ••••••• DISCUSSION •••••• Coral Growth •• · . . . . . . . ~££!~~!~~ ~££ul~Ei~·· ~£E£E£E~ £~Evi££E£i~·· Coral Zooxanthellae Count. Sediment Analysis •• · . Coral Recruitment •• . . . . . Algal Growth •••••• Single-species Algal Test. Total Suspended Solids ••••• . .. · . · . · . . . · .. . . . . . . · . · ... . . · .. . . . . .•.... • 21 · .... . 21 ..29 . ....•.• • 29 .29 .31 • • • • • • .31 • • • • • • .31 · •.•. • 31 • •••• 36 ..••..••••• • 37 . . ~ . • ••••• 37 • •••••.•• • 38 • •••• 38 • •••• 38 • •••• 3,~ CONCLUSIONS ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 39 ii i I I ~I I LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The approximate location of experimental platforms 1 through 6 •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 4 Figure 2. Location of collection site and Platform 1 (control site) in perseverance Bay and Platform 2 in Brewers Bay •••••••••••••••••••••• 5 Figure 3. The average growth of Mon!~!£~~ ~~~~!~£i~ at each p1atform •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 10 Figure 4. Growth of Acr£E££~ £~£Yi££~i~ during time periods Tl. T2 and T3 for all platforms and within time periods at each platform (shown are range. mean. and 95% confidence 1imit) •••• 17 Figure 5. Number of zooxanthellae per centimeter square per head on each platform (mean. maximum. minimum. and 95% confidence limit) ••• 22 Figure 5a. Range. mean and 95% confidence limit of the mean of sedimentation rates at the six Figure 6. Figure 7. Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. platforms •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 22a Total suspended solids (mg/l) for surface and 30 ft depth at platforms 1. 2. and 3 ••••• 32 Total suspended solids (mg/l) for surface and 30 ft depth for platforms 4. 5 and 6 ••••• 33 LIST OF TABLES Average growth. in millimeters. of ~££!~~!£~~ ~~g~!~£i~ at each platform •••••••••••••••••••• 11 T-test for significant (P<0.05) differences between platforms for average growth in Montastrea annularis •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 13 ---------- --------- ~£££E££~ £~£Yi£££~i~ growth rates (in centimeters) for each time period on each platform standardized for 30-day periods •••••• 18 Growth of AC££E£ra £~£Yi£££~i~ during three t.ime periods •• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 19 iii l APPENDIX I-A Length and width in centimeters of Montastrea annularis heads ••••••••••••••••• 41 APPENDIX I-B ••• Summary of the condition of Montastrea annularis heads found on Platform 2 APPENDIX II APPENDIX III during the August 1. 1987 visit ••••••••••• 42 Zooxanthellae count/correction for dilution/correction for hemacytometer volume/average per head: Platform 1 •••.•.•...••.••.••••.•••...• 43 Platform 2 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 44 Platform 3 ••••.••••••••••••••••••...•• 45 Platform 4 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 46 Platform 5 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 47 Platform 6 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 48 Acropora cervicornis growth: actual measurements/growth at various sampling periods/growth corrected for 30 day periods: Platforms 1 and 2 ••••••••••••••••••••• 49 Platforms 3 and 4 ••••••••••••••••••••• 50 Platforms 5 and 6 ••••••••••••••••••••• 51 APPENDIX IV Corresponding graphs for APPENDIX 111 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 52-57 REFERENCE s ................................................ 58 PHOTOGRAPHS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •• 59-70 - v - - , Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table B. Table 9. Table 10. Table 11. Table 12. Table 13. Significant differences between platforms in the growth rate of Acropora £~vi££rnis in time period 113 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 20 Occurrences of negative growth values for Acropora cervicornis during time periods {f1, {f2 and {f3 at each platform •••••••••••••••• 23 Average number of zooxanthellae (X 106 ) per centimeter square per head on each platform •..••••••••••••••••.•..••..••••••••••. 24 Significant differences between platforms in the number of zooxanthellae •••••••••••••••• 25 Sedimentation rates (mg/cm2 /day) at platform 1-6 ..........••.•••.•••.•.••••••..••• 26 Significant differences in sedimentation rates (mg/cm~day) between platforms •••••••••• 27 Percent of total organic carbon found in bottom sediments near each platform ••••••••••• 2B Algal biomass in mg/25 cm taken from experimental settling plates and protect~d rubble fragments •••.•..••.••..••••.••••.•••••••••• CD; •• 30 Total suspended solids (mg/l), Red Point sewer outfall study, St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., taken during five sampling periods as indicated •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 34 v INTRODUCTION This report by the Island Resources Foundation for Maguire Group. Inc •• concludes the three-month biological monitoring program carried out as part of a 301(h) waiver application (required by u.s. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]). The study area is immediately west of the airport at Red Point. which is located in the southwestern portion of St. Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The bio- monitoring program itself was developed at the request of U.S. EPA Region II 301(h) Review Team. in a cooperative effort involving the Review Team; the u.s. EPA Office of Research and Development in Narragansett. Rhode Island; the Maguire Group. Inc •• consultants to the Virgin Islands Department of Public Works; and biological consultants in the Virgin Islands including Shoreline Associates and Island Resources Foundation. In order to evaluate the stress caused by the efflu- ent from the Red Point sewer outfall on the surrounding bio- logical community. several experiments using whole. live or- ganisms were set-up. Six experimental platforms were set up; four platforms were placed in the outfall area. one in Brewers Bay. and one in Perseverance Bay (the control site. presumably uncontaminated by outfall effluent). The organ- isms selected for the biomonitoring experiment represent a variety of sensitive indicators of water quality in the area. Mon!~~!rea ~£B~!~ri~ was selected for this study be- cause of its tolerance to high sedimentation and because its growth rate has been shown to be related to water quality variables. The effect of water quality on the growth rate of M. annularis was studied in depth by Tomascik and Sander (1985):--Th;Y-Concluded. after evaluating fourteen environ- mental variables. that growth rate exhibits a high correla- tion with a number of water quality variables. Suspended particulate matter was the best univariate estimator of ~. annularis skeletal extension rates. Therefore. one of the ;n;I~~n;;ntal variables selected to be measured in this study was total suspended solids. ACE£££E~ £~Evi££Egi~ is very sensitive to sedimenta- tion. Both survival and growth rate are expected to vary dramatically with changes in water quality. ACE£E££~ £~EYi= cornis was chosen for the study as it is an early indicator of-d;teriorating water quality. especially increases in sed- imentation and subsequent light level reduction. 1 , ' ! I I , I I i ! I Corals are very sensitive to evensma1t~ the amount of sediment which fall on'them~': Co ~.~ s\ st ex- pend large amounts of energy to rid themsei".e~;o~:;this:sedi­ ment to survive. To quantify sedimentation' rates:. found at the six platforms. sediment traps wereinsta1.1ed~}Ji;·:;~:c;~:.~,·., '. . '.' ...,.;'.: . ,;;i:{§~l:~~~1riYi;i;;g(::~~i,~~~~~J:;!W:~;;: . In addition to measuring. sedimentat:iolf::ra't~a'r' the> total amount of organic carbon was also measured~.ati;each., .. platform. An elevated level of organic carbonw~:uid:f?indi­ cate an accumulation of organic material;,: in bota '. ~edif ments. The long-term viability of} a. pendent on successful coral recruit~ent~~ amount 0 f ~ ut r ien ts~;and' p a rtf~:1il,;~t.~:t;Di~t~' .... ' rounding waters could effectcora1're~r'uit ..... : .. ' . nutrient loads could promotethe~growth'an~~<x::epr'" algae. which compete directly W'ith'~coral';;.:(~~vae:.f ace'. Decreasing light levels. increasiIig;:sedimen):e.~ti . toxic"': i ty could stress corals. decreasing.;~~lie;;"~nerg·:i;.... . able for reproduction. Because of these:;coi{c;eirIlsi~};~;·l!:,l?A'~.:r:eq .,.st·'edr're1-: ative coral recruitment data be' co11ected~:.i:~:It.;t'wa·skrea1ized , . '."'>' ,"::"',,: :">";~'_.'.'.':' ;;'",-" ":;Y;;"~~'~';,.:·,.~~,~c·J':;;:;,;~)-,.:;·t~~'{::%>1:>"·>~~' ""';' ,.;,':: " ', .... :,.'",:.-{ :{. from the beginning however. tha1i~ due;·;;:fo~·ithe':fshorf~tdl.fration;i·. ,'" 'J~ ~<"'-0 t~ ,_ ,% ~, of the study. it was unlike1i that. we would~oti~airi~ariy~cora1 settlement. . .. , .... :.....:y:':'i:~;:,l;;;; :':I~;:"~ '. :-:\,? ..~ ,- -,'.; . <.~~ .. ·.~:·-'.~:~~~;~~f~;~,·:~:,\~,~~ \(.";,~:;fl~ .. , ,v ~' :: .. ~~j::::~ . ~~;::.: ' Algal growth and speci·esc:~mp~sitioii,chang~'g"f'n~re- .• ' . sponse to nutrient enrichment. To:exam:i.ne:·p'osslbl~Xdiffer~ ences in algal growth and species c'omposi tion due.t'o;the ef- fluent. the biomass of algal turfs taken fromc:.oraJ1X.rub~le and settling plates were ana1yzed~; .. ·A1ga1:,turfsii(arEirthe.most produc ti ve c omponen ts of shallow coral reef' cOnlnluili ties;' ~ .' '''r'';<~·<!j~~',' ' ',:,:;,'::~0}~:;~~ .. :!:rf:~;~:+~c» ",~\) I .. ~ ." ' At the request of· EPA: Region;~ II~/a·~};i:i.n.S:;srtt1;,,~,I)~~,city t est was performed us ing the. redia1ga.e,Champ,ia·~parvtira~6~':D:r. Thursby of U. s. EPA Environmental<Resea.rcb.;;;.~ng:~>D~YE:lJ:i?p¥e.nt; ~:b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ o!~ c ~ ~; r~: :~s:: t ;~~:~~:~.:~~~~t~}!~~~~~~t-:!~*v~~~i~~l~,~~·' lutan ts to marine algal reprodlic1:ion.;.~ St eele'!(·a.nd .• ~;Thursby •. ' 1983). Using this test. the. toxicity'of. eff1tlerdisfEi'eva1u- at ed by C. parvula IS reproductive'sensi ti vitf:')[iij';",;;:'/ :.' .:'< :~~~,,\ .... ,,", . " ... \ .. ;,:' .t::"f:.,;~:/~.~:·:~;;.<K:~;i~;~.,:~:··; -~~;{ ,',',' ~;;X···;,>~:. ; .... ", ····~,:;;,.y.~{i;~ .. ;i;tL~~.~y{i;> .. · - ';,.,>:;, ;',~:.~~-' (;'~':''':' ... ',. Experimental Site Selection Six platform locations were selected~ '. The app:roxi- mate location of the platforms was determined by anf agree~ ment between the Maguire Group and EPA Region II officials (file memo dated March 24. 1987 by. Bruce Bender: [CE Maguire]). Perseverance Bay was selected as the control 2 l -I l l site (Platform 1) and also the collection site for all coral and algae samples to be used at all the experimental sites. A second site was established in Brewers Bay (Platform 2) presumably also uncontaminated by outfall effluent. but sub- ject to runoff from the airport construction. There were four sites in the vicinity of the outfall: 3 platforms in a transect along the 30 ft contour of Red Point reef (Platforms 3. 4 and 5) and one near the outfall in the plume 150 ft west of the diffuser (Platform 6). Platform 6. con- sidered as the worst-case control. was anchored in 65 ft depth of water with the platform parallel to the bottom at approximately 40 ft depth from the surface. Platform 3 was in the plume'. but north. near the on-going airport construc- tion. Platforms 4 and 5 wer* on the 30 ft contour but south of the diffuser. Platform 5 represents the closest reef area at Red Point. south of the diffuser. Six Lexan platforms 4 ft X 4 ft were anchored to the bottom. one at the control site and five at experimental sites. The approximate location of these platforms is shown in Figure 1. These biologically inert platforms were an- chored parallel to the bottom. Five of the platforms were anchored using bags of cement while the sixth was suspended using screw anchors and a buoy. Coral and algae samples were mounted directly on each platform. Coral Grow~h Seventy-two specimens of Montastrea annularis (head form) were collected from Perseverance Bay on June 23-24. 1987. Each sample was greater than 150 cm~ and they were all collected at approximately 30 ft depth ot water' (measurements taken on heads are found in Appendix I-A). The collection site is shown in Figure 2 (taken from Nichols and Towle. 1977). The heads were all left at a nearby work- site in 20 ft of water until stained. Figure 2 also shows the location of Platforms 1 and 2. Sixty heads were stained on June 26. 1987. for dis- tribution to Platforms 2 through 6 the following day. The heads were placed in gallon plastic Ziplock bags where 25 mg of Alizarin Red-S dye was released into the plastic bag from where it had been secured in a corner of the bag using a twist tie. Corals remained in the dye from 4 to 6 hours. The Alizarin dye was expected to be deposited in the coral during the calcification process and remain a permanent marker in the skeleton to later be used to measure growth (Gladfelter and Monahan. 1977). The remaining 12 coral heads were stained on June 27. 1987. These heads had al- ready been mounted on Platform 1 the previous day. 3 +='- I I. PERSEVERANCE BAY [J , ~ 1 I ST. THOMAS. BRE'NERS SA'( ! ~ BLACK PT. SOUtHWESt ., [J a ROADS 2.0 Oa-oeeR.8 7 • '~14 6 c.O~L.~TON. c c. "D 'te OCEAN SYSTEMS RESEARC H Inc. \ . l28,.GALLOWS .... BAY,.CHRISTIANSTED, .' . SI ... CROIX •. U.S~V.L 0 0820.8o..'~7"J'&~ ~'l."i-.I.-. Figure 1. The approximate location of experimental platforms 1 through 6. o ~ . I • ~. ,." . . . I VI i8° 18° I 21' i ~ 8.! 20' 30 N 1 65°100' .: .. ~"... I e···'·· .. >:::·,· .. . . .. ~6;:.:.:·36··e· .~~~~LECTI.O . ,. ., '. 8 . 4 ' ". ".,.. 5 E R V £..Jll ., p E ~ .. L..::..J" C 16 CON'fROL SiTE 13 PLATFORM 6 16 64° 159' " " ',- HAWK. HJt,:.~:: . .---., ~r. . . :~.:/ "'~ .. ,.---..:-..:-::: ~ ...... , , '-=-~ .. 18° 21' 30" 18° 21' '~~~''..'.. ............ ~'" ·1 " '~, j' 13 2, " ~ 21 Ie 18 .3'· BR£l#'c 24 21 24 24 -z.1 BATHYMETRY a TOPOGRAPHY OF PERSEVERANCE BAY· 24 o Ira MI~ r ' SCALE I: 10.0.00 .16 21 24 q 590 Meters DEPTfls a ELEVATIONS· IN METERS 26 65-100' 'N " 5 " BAy ... ~\ ' ...... -9 S' " "c.f '". \~\ "6" \\ PLA TFORM .';~ '\.::, IZEJ 21 TRUE 24 64-159' ,.8 15 J-'17 ,:,:;·o;,;;t? Figure 2. Location of collection site and Platform 1 (control site) in Perserverance Bay and Platform 2 in Brewers Bay. These sites are all at 30 ft depth. 18° 20' The stained heads were moved and mounted on Plat- forms 2 through 6 on June 27th. They had been transported from the control site in Perseverance Bay in buckets of sea- water. taken directly to the platform sites. placed on the bottom and mounted. All coral heads were mounted using Pettit two-part underwater adhesive compound. On June 29. the platforms were photographed. On September 26 and 27. 1987. the Montastrea annularis heads were photographed and collected:--Ea~h-platf~~;-iS-shown in the photographs provided (see page 59 through 70) of this report. After collecting. samples were immediately taken from each head and preserved for later counting the number of zooxanthellae. The heads were then placed in 50/50 solu- tion of clorox and fresh water for one-half hour. The heads were dried. packed and shipped back to the laboratory in St. Croix for sectioning and measurin~ growth. The heads were cut. with a diamond blade. along an axis through the apex where maximum growth was expected to occur. In the larger specimens. a second cut was made par- allel to the first cut so that the slabs could fit under the microscope. A dissecting microscope. fitted with an ocular grid measuring to .1 mm. was used to measure growth from the inner most part of the dye mark to the outer skeletal exten- sion. The measurement was taken at the point of maximum growth. Maximum growth occurred. in most cases. at the recorded apex. Seventy-two fragments of Acr£E£E~ £~Evi££E~!~ (branching form) were collected in Perseverance Bay at depths between 20 and 30 ft on June 23 to 24. On June 25. they were measured and mounted on Platforms 1 through 3 and the remainder were mounted June 27 on Platforms 4 through 6. The fragments were measured again on August 1 and 2 (36 day interval). August 29 (27 day interval). and September 26 (27 day interval). At the end of the 90-day study period the specimens of ~. ~!££EE!~ were left on the platforms and could. in theory. be remeasured at some future date. Coral Zooxanthellae Count The number of zooxanthellae from a one centimeter square of surface (taken to a depth to include all live coral tissue) of each ~. ~!!!a,t'¥ head was counted. Two (2) one centimeter square (1 cfu;?) samples were taken from each head; one on either side ~i the apex. Samples were re- moved using a sharp. wood chisel (1 cm wide) aJl-~ellt to a depth so that no pigment remained within the cim~./'The sam- ples were placed in a solution of 10% formalirl'Elnd filtered seawater. 6 In the laboratory. 10% HCl in filtered seawater was added to the homogenized sample until all calcium carbonate was dissolved. Homogenization was done twice. first using a mortar and pestle and then using a Thomas teflon pestle tis- sue grinder operated by a drill press. The volume of the sample was measured. A small aliquot was taken and placed on an American Optical Bright Line improved Neubauer (.Olmm depth) hemocytometer. where four counts of two different aliquots were made by two technicians. The counts were made on 25 groups of 16 squares where the volume observed was a cubic mm as determined by the manufacturer. The conversion was made (10.000 mm 3 = 1 cm3 X sample volume) to determine the total number of zooxanthellae within a centimeter square of surface of the coral. Sediaent Analysis Two (2) rebar stakes with two (2) sediment traps on each were installed near each platform. The traps consisted of plastic jars 9.5 cm in height with a diameter of 8.2 cm. The traps were secured with two electrical ties. In addi- tion. sediment traps. 20.3 cm high by 7.0 cm in diameter. were attached directly to the platform with cable ties by Ocean Surveys. Inc. (OSI). The first set of sediment traps were installed dur- ing the initial set-up (June 26-27) and collected 15 days later on July 11. On August 1 and 2. clean traps were in- stalled and collected September 27. Small organisms were removed and the sediments were filtered through pre-weighed Whatman 12 filters. The sam- ples were rinsed with distilled water to remove salts and dried in a drying oven at 60 C and re-weighed. Rates were expressed in mg sediment/cm2/day based on the area of the trap aperture and the time interval. Between 3 and 5 plugs of sediment were collected at each platform and analyzed for total organic carbon using the loss on ignition method according to Dean (1974). Sam- ples at suspended Platform 6 were taken on the bottom ° immediately below the platform. Samples were dried at 60 C and allowed to cool to room temperature. Twenty grams of sediment was transferred to a pre-weighed crucible and ashed at 550°C for one hour. cooled. re-weighed. and percentage lost calculated. 7 Coral Recruitaent Six settling plates (slabs of Acropora £!!~ta skeleton) were placed at the control platform (Platform 1) on June 27. 1987. On August 1. the plates were detached and examined for juvenile corals. No juvenile corals had set- tled on any of the plates. The plates were covered by sev- eral millimeters of sediment and a few species of turf algae (Microcoleus. CladoE~£~~. f~~iu~. ~~!~~£~iE~£~i~. ~E~~= mothamnion). These plates remained in this uncontaminated area for 36 days. after which five were distributed to the other platforms. Although the lack of juveniles on the plates will not allow for the assessment of juvenile survival as planned. the plates were nonetheless removed and distributed to the other platforms according to plan. These plates. along with six n c 1ean n plates will be used in evaluating al- gal growth. Slabs of Acro£~ ~!mat~ skeleton placed at the control platform for 90 days and all the other platforms for 60 days were collected on September 27 and 28 and examined for juvenile corals. No juvenile corals were observed on any of the settling plates throughout the study. Algal Growth Six pieces of dead coral skeleton covered with algal turf were obtained from the collection site. All pieces were taken from approximately 30 ft of depth. The turfs were composed largely of AmE~i~ and Wurd~~nia with smaller amounts of other algal turf species. One piece was transplanted to each platform and inserted into a small cage fixed to the Lexan platforms. The algae were allowed to grow protected from herbivory for ninety days. then collected and analyzed for biomass and species composition. Algal biomass was also determined from weighing the algae on the settling plates. One (1) 25 cm square of turf algae was removed from the rubble and each of the two settling plates by scraping. A solution of 10% HCl was added to the samples to dissolve the calcium carbonate material. All visible invertebrate tissue was removed. The samples were then filtered through pre-weighed What man #2 filters. rinsed to remove the salts. dried at 60°C and re-wei$hed. Algal biomass measurements are expressed in mg/25c~ • 8 :-1 ! --1 Single-species Algal Test Dr. Thursby from EPA supplied juvenile male and fe- male fQ~~£!~ £~E~£la plants for the toxicity test. These resulted from the August 21. and 24. 1987. settlement of tetraspores formed from cultured tetrasporophytes. Three- inch pipettes upon which the tetraspores settled. were shipped to St. Croix in individual bottles containing nutri- ent media. Many pipettes had visible algal material while some appeared to have little or none. Pairs of pipettes. attached together by plastic tubing. were secured to 12-inch mesh cages. Two pairs were attached via cable ties to the inside of the cages which were protected from grazers. and one pair was attached to the outside. One cage was fastened to each of the six platforms on August 1. 1987. The cages were inspected on August 28. and collected on September 26- 27. Total Suspended Solids Water samples of 500 m1 were taken at 30 ft. in the vicinity of the platform. and at the surface of the water above each platform each time the site was visited (June 29. July 11. August 1. August 2. and September 26. 1987) for use in determining total suspended solids (measured in mg/1). Methods for determining suspended solids were taken from Strickland and Parsons (1968). A Mi11ipore filtration system was used with pre-weighed 47 mm diameter discs with a pore size of 0.45 microns. Samples were dried in a con- stant-temperature drying oven at 60~C. placed in a desicca- tor until weighed on a Sartorius balance. weighing accu- rately to the nearest tenth of a milligram. RESULTS Coral Growth: Statistical Analyses The average growth. expressed in millimeters. of ~££!~~!~~~ ~£££!~~i~ at each platform is presented in Table 1. Figure 3 illustrates the differences between the growth at each platform showing the sample range. mean and the 95% confidence limit of the mean. The Fmax test showed homogeneity of variance between the six samples (Fmax=2.30. P<.05). A one-way ANOVA was used to compare the amount of variation in coral growth among platforms to the variation within each platform. The ANOVA showed significant differences in mean coral growth 9 2·' 2,." 2..~ ,t-1 1-0 \ -g I-b "'-)( 1'1'''''' , -It. , -1 ,- 0 1"1,4101 'i .c, ... Me", .~. 2. 1 i GROWTH OF MONTASTREA ANNULARIS "'~J( I"\'IC ""~J' r'\A)C lIt'"'W M,III tw\'''' ""," "",,01 2 3 4 5 PLATFORMS Figure 3. The average growth of Montastrea annularis at each platform. fl\A)( "','" 6 ...... o f-' f-' i _I -~ Table 1. Average growth, in millimeters, of Montastrea annularis at each platform PLATFORN 1 PLATFORM 2 PLATFORM 3 PLATFORM 4 PLATFORM 5 N OF CASES 10 10 9 10 11 MINIMUM 0.40 0.70 0.80 1.30 0.80 MAXIMUM 1.50 2.00 2.30 2.10 2.50 MEAN 0.97 1.49 1.33 1.66 1. 75 STANDARD DEV. 0.45 0.40 0.44 0.30 0.43 VARIANCE 0.21 0.16 0.19 0.09 0.19 STD. ERROR 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.10 0.13 Fmax = 2.30 F~.05[10,9] = 9.91 ANOVA: Comparison of mean growth rates among stations. PLATFORM 6 8 0.80 1.90 1.43 0.35 0.12 0.12 Ho: There are no differences in the mean growth rates of coral among the stations. Source Bet'veen Within Therefore, reject Ho, P<O.OOl. SS 3.847 8.336 df 5 52 There are differences in mean growth rates between platforms. NS F value Sign. 0.769 4.8 p < 0.001 J ~I I I I I rates among platforms (F=4.8. P=O.OOl). Independent t-tests were used to evaluate specific site differences. These dif- ferences are shown in Table 2. Platform 1 corals showed significantly less growth than the corals at Platforms 2. 4, 5 and 6. Maximum growth occurred in the coral at Platform 5. This growth at Plat- form 5 was significantly greater than coral growth on both Platforms 1 and 3. Platf~~~_!. Comparing the results with field notes and photographs, we were able to relate data to field condi- tions. We found that the two coral heads that fell over had rates of growth considerably lower than those that remained upright. The mean growth rate for Platform 1 was .97 cm ~ .45. Since growth is maximum at the apex. when the apex is no longer positioned toward the water surface (as the coral is now on its side), then it is expected that growth will slow down. Coral Head 89 was found on its side during the 60-day visit, its maximum growth was 0.6 cm. Coral Head 810 was found on its side at the 90-day visit and its maximum growth was 0.4 cm. Coral 86 was also found on its side, however. its maximum growth was 1.3 cm. When finding corals on their side it is not possible to know just how long they have been in that position. Even with three heads falling over, their mean growth was 0.8 cm. which would have very little effect changing mean growth of ~. ~~~~!~Eis on Plat- form 1. Coral Head 84 was not at its placed position during the 90-day visit and we suspected that one coral head near the platform or one in a different place on the platform might be 84. When both coral heads were sectioned no dye was found, therefore we were not sure if either one of the coral heads were Coral Head 84. In the zooxanthellae study, we used both of these heads for sampling. Platfo~~_~. During the August 1 visit to Platform 2, all corals exhibited severe stress. The summary of the condition of ~£~!~~!E~~ ~~~~!~Eis on the 36-day visit to the platform is presented in Appendix I-B. In the 36-day re- port. these corals were evaluated for percent dead coral. However, on the 60-day visit, the signs of stress had disap- peared. What appeared to have been dead coral was really "bleached" coral which had recovered 30 days later. For Platform 2 heads, growth of heads was significantly higher than on Platform I, but there was no difference between Platform 2 and Platforms 3, 4. 5 and 6. So, even with the period of observed stress, it did not seem to affect growth rates of the coral heads. 12 ;-1 I I Table 2. T-test for significant (P<O.05) differences between i platforms for average growth in Montastrea annularis. PLATFORM 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 * 3 ns ns 4 -* ns ns 5 * ns * ns 6 * ns ns ns ns ~ ! - 13 - ~, I I The "bleaching" did not seem to have a significant effect on the final outcome of the number of zooxanthellae found in the tissues. The number of zooxanthellae was sig- nificantly higher on Platform 2 than on Platform 1 and 6. but was the same as Platforms 3. 4 and 5. Even Coral Head #10. that was reportgd 90% dead (actually bleached). had an average 0; 1.42 X 10· zoox~thellae/cm~ (Platform 2 mean is 1.48 X 10 zooxanthellae/cm). Platform 3. Coral Head #6 had no dye present. In examining the photograph it can be clearly seen that the coral head was mounted on its side with the apex at a 90 de- gree angle to the surface of the water. There was probably no growth due to change in orientation of the apex. In fu- ture studies of this type. it is clearly necessary that the original apex be noted when collecting the sample and the coral mounted so that the apex is pointing toward the sur- face of the water when mounted on the platform if maximum growth is to occur. Coral Head #11 also did not have any growth even though dye was found on the ridges at the its surface. This can be easily explained when examining the photograph show- ing Coral Head #11. The apex. at the time of mounting on the platform. was dead. Apparently that coral also was mounted on the platform wrong. without consideration as to the location of the apex when the coral was collected. The coral contained the dye. but did not grow because of its change in orientation when placed on the platform. Coral Head #1 fell over sometime ~rior to the final collection. The maximum growth was 1.1 cm and the average for the platform was 1.33 cm + 0.2. The effect was not sig- nificant (within 95% confidence limit of the mean). Ihe mean number of zoofanthe11ae for Platform 3 was 1.6 x 10 zooxanthellae per cm • which was the highest num- beG found for all the p1atfgrms. Coral Head #1 had 2.41 X 10· • Head #6 had 1.85 X 10 and Head #11 had 1.40 X 106 zooxanthellae per cm~. The orientation of the apex does not seem to have any relationship to the number of zooxanthellae in the coral tissues. at least in these three cases. Platform 4. Only one coral. Head #3. had no visible dye. When examining the photograph. the head is obviously mounted on its side with its apex at an angle more than 90% from the surface of the water. The mean ~umber of zooxan- the1lae for the p1atfor~ was is 1.32 X 1~ ±.33. Head #3 had an average of 0.83 X 10- ~ which was considerably below the mean. Platform 4 had a number of corals that were pale (#2, #3, 14 and #9). with some that had whitish splotches throughout (11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 19 and #11). Even with 14 i I I I I I I , i I ; , I I I \ : I tho~e color characteristics indicating losses in zooxanthe1- 1ae. Platform 4 had a significantly greater number of zoox- anthellae than Platform 1 and significantly fewer than Plat- form 3. There was no significant difference between Plat- form 4 and Platforms 2. 5 and 6. Platform 5. During the 60-day visit. Head #2 was reported to have 20% of the its polyps dead. This may have only been a "bleaching." as the white area. still there. looked normal except it was white. Usually a dead area will become scoured and worn down and algae will grow over the dead surface. Other corals also were beginning to show signs of bleaching. Heads #4 and #8 had white spots equal to 10% of the area and Heads #6 and #12 were splotchy with light areas~ Platform 6. All the coral heads appeared healthy. Head U3 was splotchy in color on 10% of its area. During the 36 day visit. Heads D3. D4. US. and U12 had 10% bleached areas. These had recovered by the 60-day visit. Four of the heads showed no dye when they were sec- tioned. There is no explanation for not finding dye as all 72 experimental heads were treated equally during the dying process and there was no reason for these heads not to grow~ The heads showing no dye were mounted properly. Growth on Platform 6 was significantly greater than on Platform 1. but not different from any of the other plat- forms. The coral heads had not yet become completely en- gulfed by algae. If the experiment had continued for a longer time the algae would definitely have had an impact on the coral heads. The general appearance of Montastrea annu1aris at the end of the study, as indicated in the photographs and field notes, was good. The corals were much darker in color and healthier in appearance than when the corals were origi- nally transferred to the platforms. There was considerable stress in the cutting. dying and in transporting of corals heads used in the experiment. The photographs provide a clear picture of the differences at the beginning of the study and the condition of the corals at the end of the study. It seems that the corals were stressed due to the move, recovered after time. and may just be beginning to show new signs of stress due to the placement in the new environment. It is possible. as in the case of Platform 2, stresses are cyclic and coral go through periodic stress and recovery. with the long-term effect of adapting to changing environments without impact to over-all growth and survival. The study corals were not. unfortunately, in place long - 15 - ! I I. I eno~gh to show the long-term effects of being moved and im- planted in a changed environment. The short-term effects are obviously not negative in terms of survival. growth and numbers of zooxanthe11ae. The growth of Acropora cervicornis was measured at three time periods (T1 = 36 days. T2 = 27 days. and T3 = 27 days. for a total of 90 days). These results were corrected to reflect equal 30-day time periods and all negative growth measurements were eliminated from the statistical analysis. Original measurements. actual growth in centimeters. inc1ud':'" ing incidences of negative growth are presented in Appendix III with corresponding graphs presented in Appendix IV. The positive growth data corrected for 30-day periods is pre- sented in %ab1e ~i . . . There are significant differences in Acropora cervi- cornis growth between time periods as determined by ANOVA where F[2.172] = 4.553 (P = 0.01). The Bartlett test for homogeneity was significant at P = .002. The statistics on the three time periods are presented in Table 4 and are shown in Figure 4. Growth was slow during period one. increased dramatically during time period two and decreased during time period three. Within time periods 1 and 2 there were no signifi- cant differences between platforms. Within time period 3 there was significant differences in growth between plat- forms as determined by Krtiska1-Wa11is test (p = 0.002)~ Figure 4 presents the statistics of range. mean. and 95% confidence limit of the mean for each platform within each time period. Within tima period 3 there were differences in growth between platforms. Significant differenc~s are sho~n in Table 5. The greatest growth occured on Platforms 4. 3 and 2, which was significantly different from the growth occurring on Platforms 5 and 6. The control platform coral growth was less than 4. 3 and 2 and greater then 5 and 6. but not significantly different from any of tha platforms. On P1atf~rm 6. growth during time period-3 had de~­ c1ined dramatically from the previous time period. At the time of final measurement on Platform 6. the A. cervicornis branches were covered with algae. The photog~aphs provided. illustrate the extent of coverage with algae. All branches of coral. with the exception of Branch #4. were completely white. Branch #4 still had the growing tips protruding from the algae cover and the entire piece was brown and healthy in appearance. (Note: November 6. 1987. Dana Fagan while diving during another different project. was in the area of Platform 6 and he confirmed that all the white branches of - 16 - ---] -~ Table 3. Acropora cervicornis growth rates (:in centinEters) for each tinE period on each platfonn standardized for :l) day periods. PLATFORM 1 PLATFORM 2 PLATFORN 3 PLATFORM 4 PLATFORN 5 PLATFORM 6 T1 12 13 T1 1'2 13 T1 12 13 T1 12 13 T1 T2 13 T1 12 13 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.7 1.6 0.8 1.2 0.7 0.9 0.7 1.3 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.0 0.8 0.3 1.8 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 1.0 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.2 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.8 1.1 1.4 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.4 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 1.0 1.9 1.5 0.1 2.2 1.1 0.1 1.6 1.5 1.6 0.7 0.3 1.3 1.0 0.6 1.4 0.9 0.0 0.8 0.9 2.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.0 0.8 1.2 2.2 1.8 0.2 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.6 1.4 0.8 1.7 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.7 0.5 1.1 0.7 3.1 1.2 0.7 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.8 2.3 0.6 t-' 0.3 0.5 1.0 1.9 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.6 1.9 0.8 0.3 00 0.8 0.3 2.1 0.8 0.3 0.9 1.0 1.3 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.1 2.2 1.3 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.1 1.3 0.1 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.7 1.1 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.6 1.1 0.8 1.8 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.7 NOFCASES 4 5 8 13 13 13 10 13 11 11 10 12 979 5 10 12 MEAN 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.6 1.3 0.9 0.9 0.7 1 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.5 1.1 0.4 SID DEY ±O.5 ±1.1 ±O.5 ±O.4 ±O.5 ±O.4 ±O.5 ±O.7 ±O.2 ±O.4 ±O.4 ±O.6 ±O.6 ±O.6 ±O.4 ±O.2 ±O.7 :!:O.3 Table 4. Growth of Acropora cervicornis during three time periods. T1 T2 T3 N of Cases 52 58 65 Minimum 0.080 0.000 0.000 Maximum 1.750 3.110 2.220 Mean 0.661 0.954 0.737 Variance 0.188 0.449 0.217 Std. Dev. 0.434 0.670 0.466 Std. Error 0.060 0.088 0.058 Bartlett Test for Homogeneity of Group Variances: Chi-square = 12.862 Df = 2 Probability = .002 Analysis of Variance: Source Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Probe Between 2.579 2 1.298 4.553 .012 Within 49.052 172 0.285 ~I I - 19 - ----~ Table 5. Significant differences between platforms in the growth rate of Acropora cervicornis in time period #3. PLATFORM 1 PLATFORI'1 2 PLATFORM 3 PLATFORM 4 PLATFORM 5 PLATFORM 6 PLATFORM 1 ns ns ns ns ns PLATFORN 2 ns ns * * PLATFORM 3 ns * * PLATFORM 4 * * PLATFORM 5 * PLATFORM 6 N Highest to lowest growth: 0 4 > 3 > 2 > 1 > 5 > 6 -[ ~. cervicornis had died. Even though the algae had been removed on September 26. the corals were so severely stressed that they were unable to recover. Mr. Fagan also observed that Branch U4 was alive at the time of his dive.) There were 35 cases of negative measurements of growth. Within each time period the percentage of negative measurements were as follows: T1 = 60%. T2 = 29% and T3 = 11%. Within platforms. percent of negative growth measure- ments occurred as follows: P1 = 28%. P5 = 28%. P6 = 22%. P3 = 14%. P4 = .08% and P2 = .03%. Table 6 presents these oc- currences. Coral Zooxanthellae Count Table 7 presents a summary of mean values per head on each platform for the number of zooxanthe11ae found per centimeter square taken from each coral head. Data on orig- inal counts corrected for dilution and rounded off to the nearest one hundredth of a million zooxanthe1lae appears in Appendix II. The mean number of zooxanthellae per head were compared between platforms. A graph (Figure 5) presents the statistics (minimum. maximum. mean and 95% confidence limit of the mean) for each platform. A test of homogeneity of variances was found to be significant (Fmax = 2.37. P <.05) and an ANOVA was used to reject the null hypothesis that there are no differences between platforms (F=6.06. P <.05). Independent t-tests were used to determine where significant differences had occurred. Significant differences (at P <.05) between platforms are shown in Table 8. Sediment Analysis Table 9 provides sedimentation rates at the six platforms during two time periods. Sedimentation rates for both time periods were combined to test for significant dif- ferences of sedimentation rates between platforms. The Kruska1-Wa11is test (at P < 0.05) indicated that Platforms 3 and 4 received significantly greater amounts of sediment than Platform 6 and 1: Platform 5 was significantly greater than Platform 6 (Table 10). Figure Sa presents the range. mean and 95% confidence limit of the mean for sedimentation rates at each platform. Table 11 provides percentage of total organic carbon present in bottom samples taken near the six platforms. mean and standard deviation. Results from the AN OVA indicates significant differences between platforms. The total or- ganic carbon at Platform 6 was significantly greater than Platform 2 and 4. - 21 - tJ..o ~ 0 ~ ~"I UJ <C -oJ -oJ r-: UJ I J: t· U I- Z <C >< 0 d N J.4-. I.L,; i ] 0 I , 0::' UJ m c-- ~ I i ;:) I • 2. I Z , 2. 3 PLATFORMS Figure 5. Number of zooxanthellae per centimenter square per head on each platform (mean, maximum, minimum, and 95% confidence limi~. - 22 - I I, Ii I ~~ I ~-I I '--I :>.. I I I cO , I "d " , -....... N El cJ -....... eo I I El '2,0 18 t" 14 J'l. ,0 S - 1. ... 5 Figure Sa. Range, mean and 95% confidence limit of the mean of sedimentation rates at the six platforms. - 22a - ~l I i[ I i , I i) ~l Ii j I I Table 6. Occurrances of negative growth values for Acropora cervicornis during time periods #1, #2 and #3 at each platform. Platform 1 2 3 4 5 6 Totals Percent Time Period #1 6 1 3 1 3 7 21 60% Time Period #2 2 o o 2 4 2 10 29% Time Period #3 1 o 2 o 2 o 4 11% - 23 - Total Percent 9 28% 1 03% 5 14% 3 08% 9 28% 8 22% 35 I -I I ! Table 7. Average number of zooxanthellae (X 1cP) per centimenter square per head on each platform. PLATFORM 1 PLATFORM 2 PLATFORM 3 PLATFORM 4 PLATFORM 5 PLATFORM 6 0.76 1.65 2.41 1.12 0.91 0.76 0.43 0.73 1.44 0.97 1.46 0.86 0.57 2.16 1.48 0.83 1. 70 0.83 0.46 2.04 1.30 1.08 1.60 1.16 0.89 1.38 1.54 1.84 0.81 1.04 1.14 1.65 1.85 0.80 1.12 1.81 1.88 1.05 1.60 1.59 0.87 0.88 N 0.96 1.35 1.61 1.47 0.83 0.94 +:'- 0.60 1.51 1.86 1.93 0.83 0.73 0.77 1.42 1.51 1. 73 1.56 1.41 0.93 2.07 1.40 1.11 1.17 1.37 1.18 0.78 1.34 1.36 1.24 Mean 0.88 1.48 1.61 1.32 1.18 1.07 Std. Dev. 0.40 0.47 0.31 0.33 0.34 0.34 Analysis of Variance: Source Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Probability Be\veen Groups 4.322 5 0.864 6.061 P < 0.05 Within Groups 9.269 65 0.143 Reject the null hypothesis that there are no differences between platforms. __ J - j J Table 8. Significant differences between platforms in the number of zooxanthellae. PLATFORH 1 PLATFORH 2 PLATFORH 3 PLATFORH 4 PLATFORH 5 PLATFORH 6 PLATFORH 1 * * * ns ns PLATFORH 2 ns ns ns .* PLATFORH 3 i~ ?~ * PLATFORH 4 ns ns PLATFORH 5 ns PLATFORH 6 N \Jl 3 > 2 > 4 > 5 > 6 > 1 -- I I I Table 9. Sedimentation rates (mg/cm2/day) at platforms 1-6. Platform Sedimentation Sedimenta~on Average Std. Dev. Number Rate (mg/cJ /day) Rate (mg/c /day) 6/26 to 7/11 ~ 8/1 to 9/29 1- : 1 0.82 4.22 1 1.05 0.97 1 3.32 2.03 1 1.28 0.85 1.82 ± 1.20 2 1.24 4.31 2 1.15 6.03 2 2.03 0.92 2 0.21 1.00 2.11 ±2.00 3 2.29 10.50 3 1.90 21.21 3 6.19 5.01 3 3.84 0.74 6.34 ±6.70 4 1.88 13.97 4 1. 75 14.65 4 2.50 4.10 4 3.06 3.25 5.65 ±5.40 5 1.34 7.62 5 2.62 15.64 5 2.70 2.09 5 2.59 1. 79 4.55 ±4.90 6 0.90 0.95 6 0.99 6 0.80 6 0.68 0.86 ±0.13 3 > 4 > 5 > 2 > 1 > 6 Type II Sediment traps set out by Ocean Surveys, Inc. 1 1.83 2.26 2.05 2 1. 73 4.72 3.23 3 2.86 4.07 3.47 4 2.37 6.03 4.20 5 3.94 3.77 3.86 6 2.24 1.56 1.90 4 > 5 > 3 > 2 > 1 > 6 - 26 - N -...J ~~ -- .. ~ _~i __ ~Ii Table 10. Significant differences in sedimentation rates (mg/cm2/day) between platforms. PLATFORM 1 PLATFORM 2 PLATFORM 3 PLATFORM 4 PLATFORM 5 PLATFORM 6 PLATFORM 1 ns ns ~(- ns ns PLATFORM 2 ns ns ns ns PLATFORM 3 ns ns * PLATFORM 4 ns * PLATFORM 5 * PLATFORM 6 3 > 4 > 5 > 2 > 1 > 6 _I ___ 1 J Table 11. Percent of total organic carbon found in bottom sediments near each platform. PLATFORM 1 PLATFORM 2 PLATFORM 3 3.44 3.75 2.54 3.88 3.38 4.40 5.85 3.17 4.07 2.97 4.00 MEAN 4.39 3.45 3.67 STD. DEV. 1.28 0.42 0.1 BARTLETT TEST FOR HOMOGENEITY OF GROUP VARIANCES = 13.001 ~ APPROXIMATE F = 2.271 DF = 5 PROBABILITY = 0.049 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE SUM OF SQUARES BETWEEN GROUPS 7.605 WITHIN GROUPS 7.126 INDEPENDENT TTEST AT P < 0.05 DF 5 14 MEAN SQUARE 1.521 0.509 PLATFORM 4 PLATFORM 5 2.92 3.06 2.92 3.23 3.15 4.40 2.99 3.56 0.08 0.42 F PROBABILITY 2.988 0.048 TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON AT PLATFORM 6 IS SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER THAN PLATFORMS 2 AND 4. PLATFORM 6 5.12 4.83 4.84 4.93 0.17 ,--- I I Algal Growth Cursory observations of caged turfs on August 1 and 2. showed a significantly greater amount of algal growth on the turfs and cages of Platform 6. Large fleshy reds were abundant over the entire platform. Cages were overgrown with algae to the point where light available to the turf algae inside the cages may have been significantly limited. Observations made on September 27 and September 28 showed that Platform 6 had significantly more macroa1gae than the other platforms (see photographs page 50 - 70). Many species of macroscopic reds and greens dominate the platform. Long trains of the filamentous green (f1a~££~£E~) bedecked the platform. The amount of turf algae found on settling plates was not noticeably different between platforms. see Table 12 (sample size too small for statistical analysis) The greatest amount of algal growth on coral rubble in cages is probably a factor of light entering the cage. Where cage algal growth was dense. turf algal growth diminished. Coral Recruitment No juvenile corals were found on any of the settling plates at any of the platforms throughout the study. Single-species Algal Test Four weeks after the installation of Cha~£i~ to the platforms (August 28). living f~~~£i~ plants were observed only on Platforms 3 and suspended Platform 6. On Platform 3. the three small plants observed. all occurring on the in- side of the cage protection. appeared heavily epiphytized. The f~~~£ia plants on Platform 6 were larger and more abun- dant. Several f~~~£ia plants were observed on the cage it- self. indicating that reproduction and subsequent settlement had already occurred. During the final collection on September 26 to September 28. all experimental Q~~~£i~ apparatus was re- trieved from the platforms. Close examination of all pipets and cages revealed that Q~~~E~~ plants were present only on the cage (not on the pipets) from Platform 6. Fewer plants were noted than on the previous inspection. The plants were highly epiphytized with pennate diatoms and small red and blue-green algae (Q~lit~~~gi£g. ~£lZ~i£~£gi~. ~i£E£££l~us). Some plants were highly branched and at least one plant was reproductive. i.e. had cystocarps. 29 Table 12. Algal Biomass in mg/25cm taken from experimental settling plates and protected rubble fragments. Platform Source mg/25cm2 Average 1 Plate 62.2 Plate 98.3 Turf 122 80.2 2 Plate 46 Plate 8 Turf 32.9 39.8 3 Plate 296.3 Plate 38.1 Turf 82.4 60.2 4 Plate 381.5 Plate 52 Turf 43.8 47.9 5 Plate 89.1 Plate 42.6 Turf 58.8 50.7 6 Plate 84.5 Plate 47 ~" Turf 68 57.5 , , ~, i I 1 , I I - 30 - Total Suspended Solids The amount of total suspended solids (mg/1) found during the five sampling periods is presented in Table 13. and illustrated in Figures 6 and 7. An AN OVA was used to determine that there were no significant differences in suspended solids between platforms. surface of the water, and 30 ft depth samples. The only significant difference was between sampling periods. During the July 11 sampling. on all but Platform 1. there was significantly lower suspended solids than found in any other period. On that day the wind was predominantly from the south (normally easterly). This could account for offshore water displacing normal inshore water at the more southerly platforms. Offshore tropical waters are expected to have low total suspended solids when compared to inshore waters. In general. all platforms experience no difference in suspended solids unless wind direction shifts from its normal direction. which occurs very infrequently. DISCUSSION Coral Growth ~on!~~!E~~_~~~~!~E!~. The coral ~~~!~~!£~~ ~~~~= !~£is was used in this study as a biological indicator of the effect of sewer effluent on the survival. growth and number of zooxanthe11ae present in the coral tissue. All coral heads survived and appeared healthy at the end of the 90 day study period. The corals appeared to go through periods of "bleaching" and recovery throughout the study. and Platforms 4 and 5 corals showed light splotchy areas at the time of final collection however. there was no obvious mortality of any of the corals. The corals from all of the experimental platforms grew at a much greater rate than at the control platform. In every case. the corals subjected to direct contact with the sewer effluent grew faster than the control. This is not unexpected as sewage provides large amounts of nutrients that are not normally abundant in tropical coastal waters. Growth rates obtained for ~. ~~~la£i~ at the Red Point sewer outfall are considerably lower than that found by Tomascik and Sanders (1985) for the same species on the west coast of Barbados and higher than those found by Dustan 31 W N 3(. '314 '3~ 'l<l 'l9 ,.'" '1.10. '11 ~ .-I '-5 1).0 Ul .", -.-I 'ci Ul rio .", Ql ] Ill- <=>. Ul :: Ul 12 ~ rq g (, ~ 2. I ~ .. ~ \:" .. II- ~ CJ VI '" [J '\. 'I. Co I e·, "l.q 3 ro·').q 7-11 'l.'l..(O I ... ,., "7'" PLATFORMS Figure 6. Total suspended solids (mg/l) for surface and 30 ft depth at platforms 1,2 and 3. .... '-.. I ~~ w w 3" '34- :,>t 1>0 26' 110 ,I.!- t'1- ,..... ...... '00 '2. 0 ~ CIl 111 "0 OM ...... 0 110 CIl "0 QJ "0 Itt. .: QJ '" ~ 11- CIl ~ 10 p 8 b 4 1. -j --_J I _I -~ .• -~ ~J « z (0·1<1 7.11 e-l 4 S·2'{ q.%(.. ~~" I 7./1 8'1 5 g'i,'{ PLATFORMS 1\.'l.1. '·1'1 I ,.." ,,J g·2" 6 q.~1. Figure 7. Total suspended solids (mg/l) for surface and 30 ft depth for platforms 4, 5 and 6. \II " . tr .. ",C>- go ",e? [] ] -~ _: J ___ I __ I :J -- I I Table 13. Total Suspended Solids (mg/l), Red Point Sewer Outfall Study, St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., taken during five sampling periods as indicated. 6-29-87 7-11-87 8-1-87 8-29-87 9-26-87 Location Depth TSS mg/l TSS mg/l TSS mg/l TSS mg/l TSS mg/l Mean/SD Platform 1 surface 15.0 17.2 22.8 36.8 23.0 23.0 ± 8.4 Platform 1 30 ft. 11.2 22.8 27.2 21.6 13.0 19.2 ± 6.8 Platform 2 surface 12.4 2.8 20.0 22.0 13.8 14.2 ± 7.5 Platform 2 30 ft 11.4 2.2 26.0 20.8 16.0 15.3 ± 9.1 Platform 3 surface 11.6 1.6 27.6 22.0 14.4 15.4 ± 9.9 Platform 3 30 ft 12.4 2.8 25.2 26.0 14.2 16.1 ± 9.7 Platform 4 surface 13.6 6.0 24.0 20.8 22.6 17.4 ± 7.5 w .j::-- Platform 4 30 ft no data 2.0 30.8 22.0 13.8 17.2 ±12.3 Platform 5 surface 13.8 1.4 27.2 28.0 15.0 17.1 ± 1.0 Platform 5 30 ft 11.6 2.0 23.6 26.0 13.8 15.4 ± 9.7 Platform 6 surface 15.2 2.4 28.0 26.8 17.8 18.0 ±10.3 Platform 6 40 ft no data 1.8 29.6 17.6 13.4 15.6 ± 1.5 Surface mean/SD 13.6 ±1.4 5.2±6.1 24.9 ±3.2 26.1± 6.0 17.8± 4.1 17.5 ± 8.9 30 ft depth mean/SD 11.7±.5 5.6± 8.4 27.1 ±2.7 22.3± 3.2 14.0 ± 1.0 16.5 ± 9.0 , I I I , I I I (1975) in Jamaica. We found a mean range of 3.88 - 7.00 mm/yr (at 30 ft) for St. Thomas. 6.10 - 12.4 mm/yr (at 15 to 25 ft) was found on the reefs of Barbados. and a mean of 1.86 mm/yr (at 30 ft) was found in Jamaica. In Barbados. their samples were measured along a gradient of increasing eutrophication and in Jamaica increased nutrients were not necessarily present. However. in both comparative cases the corals did not go through the stress of transplantation. Even though the growth of coral at the Red Point sewer outfall area grew faster than the control. we must consider the validity of our control platform. At this time we have no quantitative data available to evaluate our con- trol. The range of skeletal extension rates seems reason- able when compared to the work of others. For future stud- ies. several controls located away from the study site are recommended. Recent studies (reported in Marszalek. 1987) have shown that corals are relatively resistant to sewage toxic- ity. whereas similar concentration are fatal to fish and shrimp. In addition. these studies reported that corals do not take up a variety of toxic substances such as lead. cad- mium. chromium. copper or zinc and were particularly resis- tant to chlorinated effluents. Therefore. we are probably not looking at the toxic effects of sewage. but the effects of nutrient loading on the system. What we saw. in the worst case situation (Platform 6) was eutrophic conditions favoring algal growth. We predict mortality for Mon!~~!£~~ ~~~~!~£is in the very near future on Platform 6 as algal growth will cause decreasing light levels. a mass exodus of zooxanthellae. and eventual death of the coral. Only Platform 6 seemed to be affected by extensive algal growth. Platform 6 represents a situation which was down current from the sewer outflow. It shows that the ma- jor concentration of nutrients was going away from shore and away from the natural reef. Platforms 3. 4 and 5 did not exhibit the same proliferation of algal growth. indicating a much lesser concentration of nutrients. In the report by Marszalek (1987) it is suggested that nutrient loading and its stimulation of algal growth is a primary cause of the destruction of coral reefs in sewage polluted environments. Coral mortality can result from overgrowth by algae. and can occur in the absence of toxic substances in the effluents. Our study suggests that as long as the nutrients continue to be dispersed offshore and do not appreciably effect the inshore reef area. causing ex- tensive algal growth. the Mo~!~!£~~ ~QQul~£i~ will probably survive and grow at the rate we have measured. 35 Because of the short duration of this study we can not conclusively say that inshore corals will not begin to show gradual degradation due to algal growth. Emphasis should be placed on a long-term monitoring program. espe- cially when conditions of: 1) amount of effluent. 2) chemi- cal composition of effluent 3) and treatment of effluent change. The sewage at the Red Point sewer outfall we were monitoring was raw sewage. During the study the sewage was not treated. With changes in the chemical composition of the sewage. by treatment. the outcome of our study could be different. ACE~~~~ £~E~!£~E~!~. Growth of ~£E£E£E~ £~EY!££E= ~!~ during the first 30 days (T1: time period 1) was slow. probably the result of stress from being moved to the plat- forms. The second 30 days (T2: time period 2). the growth rate increased as the coral adapted to the new environment and recovered from the stress of being moved. The growth rate during the last 30 days (T3: time period 3) of the study began to reflect the impact from the change and the differences in the experimental environments. The study was not long enough to evaluate the 10ng- term effects except in the case of Platform 6. However. the trend was towards a decrease in growth during the third time period. most noticeable at Platforms 5 and 6. High nutrient levels at Platform 6 were responsible for the prolific growth in the algae. Within 90 days. the algal cover was sufficient to smother the corals. reducing light levels which decreased zooxanthe11ae photosynthesis. causing the corals to die. What will happen to the corals on the other plat- forms is uncertain. Platform 5 was showing a trend of de- creasing growth rates throughout the study. Platform 3 was also decreasing in the amount of growth during time period 3. However. Platforms 1. 2 and 4 are similar in their trends of slightly increasing or having steady growth rates. The decrease in growth on Platform 5 and 3 cannot be attributed to algae smothering. If left for a longer period of time. the experiment would be much more valuable and stronger conclusions could be made for the outcome and thus a much better interpretation of the effects of the effluent could be made. Negative growth measurements occurring in Acr£E£E~ cervicornis can be explained in some cases. Since most of th;-n;i;tive growth numbers were obtained in time period #1. 36 we can speculate that the stress of initial breaking. han- dling. measuring and attaching of experimental corals could account for undue stress. Fish biting or hitting the coral would account for breakage and a recorded negative growth. During the initial set-up a large dolphin swam very near to the platform. Such a large animal hitting the platform could account for the damage that was observed at the end of time period #3 (see photograph). Platform 1 also was damaged during time period #2. The final photographs of Platform 1 illustrate how the plat- form had been hit and the coral knocked over. The damage could have occurred from anchoring in the area or by divers disturbing the platform. During sampling at the end of time period #2, it was noted that pieces of ~. £~~yi£~~~is were not on their original pegs. indicating human interference. Coral Zooxanthellae Count The zooxanthe11ae count in corals at all experimen- tal platforms was greater or equal to the control platform when sampled at 90 days. There is no reason to conclude that the system has stabilized and this is the equilibrium number based on the conditions present at each platform. We can pretty well conclude that the coral heads on Platform 6 will eventually lose additional zooxanthe11ae and die (as did the ~£~~E~~~ ce~yi£~~~is) due to shading and suffocation from the algae. In future studies it would seem much more appropri- ate to sample heads of ~. ~~~~!~~i~ that are already growing at the experimental site. There is an abundance of ~. ~~~~= 1aris heads in the vicinity of each platform (excluding Platform 6). We can be sure that the heads obtained in the area have not been subjected to artificial stress from being dyed. cut. moved. improper orientation when mounted on the platform. etc •• and that any stress the corals are subjected to is from the natural environment surrounding the already adapted corals. Apart from concluding that transplantation corals. after 90 days. do not exhibit stress due to the loss of zooxanthellae to any greater extent than the control. other conclusions cannot be made. Sediment Analysis The possibility that the sewage effluent signifi- cantly increased sedimentation rates at Platform 6 is not supported by our data. Nor did the adjacent coral area 37 (Platform 5) have significantly higher sedimentation rates than more distant platforms in Perseverance or Brewers Bays (Platforms 1 and 2). The low total organic carbon values indicate that organic material is not accumulating near Platform 6 in ap- preciable amounts. Even though total organic carbon is sig- nificantly greater at Platform 6 than at Platforms 2 and 4. it is not significantly different from the control. The plugs taken under Platform 6 were in a ~~!£E~i1~ (seagrass) bed. which would naturally have higher total organic carbon than sediment in coral reef areas. Coral Recruitment The lack of coral settlement over such a short pe- riod of time as the study allowed was not unexpected. Pre- vious Caribbean coral recruitment work showed that longer time intervals were required to obtain significant numbers of juveniles settling (Rogers. et ~! •• 1984). Algal Growth Algal growth increases directly with the amount of available nutrients. The large increase in macroscopic al- gae on Platform 6 was therefore expected. The lack of a significant increase in algal biomass found on settling plates probably resulted from shading by larger macroscopic algae which enveloped underlying turfs. Single-species Algal Test A unialgal culture was introduced at each study site in an attempt to test the toxicity of the effluent. Because local waters have different chemical characteristics than the normal environment of the algae. the low survival rate and therefore lack of any quantitative data was not sur- prising. However. two conclusions can be drawn from this experiment. 1. The cultured Cha~Ei~ used in EPA bioassays do not compete well with coral reef algae when placed in this environment. 2. The conditions present at Platform 6 were better able to support the growth and reproduction of f~~~Eia. 38 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total Suspended Solids The total amount of suspended solids do not differ between platforms. therefore differences in any of the mea- sured parameters cannot be directly attributed to this water quality indicator. CONCLUSIONS All coral heads of ~onta~!£~~ ~ggu1~£i~ sur- vived and appeared healthy at the end of the 90-day study. The long-term projection. based on the 90-day data. indicates that the inshore corals will survive and continue to grow. while the corals down current. not part of the natural reef. will probably die. Skeletal extension in ~ont~~!£~~ ~gg~l~ri~ ap- pears to be in the normal range when compared to other studies. This growth was significantly greater at ex- perimental platforms near the sewer outfall than at the control platform. probably the result of increased nu- trients. Platform 6. placed down-current from the dif- fuser. indicates that the major concentration of nutri- ents are being carried away from the natural reef. Growth of Acr£E££~ £~£Yi£££gis was decreasing during the final sampling period. Three of the five experimental platforms had appreciable decreases in the coral growth rate. with the Platform 6 corals dying. Long-term projection. based on the 90-day data. indi- cates that corals of !. £~£Yi£££gi~ are probably stressed. however. decreased growth rate on all platforms was not significantly different from those of the control platform. Again. the projection is not conclusive. as the study time period was too short. Numbers of zooxanthe11ae found in the tissues of ~~ta~tr~~ ~gg~l~ri~ are. in all cases. greater at the experimental platforms near the sewer outfall than at the control site. No loss of zooxanthe11ae can be attributed to stress 90 days after transplantation. The time period allowed for the study was too short to study coral recruitment. Cultured Ch~~Ei~. suggested by EPA to study toxicity of sewage effluent. was unable to compete with local coral reef algae. 39 *** *** *** *** , I , Sedimentation rates are not significantly higher at experimental sites than at the control site. Accumulation of total organic carbon. even though significantly higher at Platform 6 than at sev- eral other platforms. it is not significantly higher than at the control platform. In addition. the amount of total organic carbon in all samples is low. Total suspended solids are uniformly dis- tributed at all study sites. A long-term marine monitoring program must be part of any waste water disposal system to recognize early signs of degradation in order to implement a timely correction plan. 40 APPENDIX I-A Appendix lA. Length and width in centimeters of Montastrea annularis heads. Sample Platform 1 Platform 2 Platform 3 Number Length Width Length Width Length Width --- I 14.5 7.6 14.1 14.1 11.4 14.4 2 10.6 13.7 11. 7 11. 7 13.6 12.5 3 13.4 11.2 13.1 11. 7 11.9 13.4 4 10.6 17.0 16.5 11.5 14.8 11.9 5 11.8 11.5 11.8 14.1 11.2 14.3 6 11.1 11.4 14.8 8.7 13.7 14.7 7 12.5 17.7 18.1 10.1 11.8 17.5 8 7.8 13.7 13.1 10.9 14.2 19.4 9 14.0 17.2 14.1 10.8 12.7 16.6 10 11.7 13.2 15.4 11.2 13.4 12.4 11 13.2 12.1 15.0 14.9 15.9 16.2 12 12.6 11.6 13.2 11. 2 14.7 17.3 Platform 4 Platform 5 Platform 6 Length Width Length Width Length Width 1 11.2 11.8 9.8 12.0 20.1 16.1 2 13.8 11.4 10.4 12.6 12.6 20.8 3 12.7 15.9 14.0 14.1 11.6 12.1 4 12.7 14.2 12.9 11.1 12.9 10.0 5 12.2 11.1 10.9 13.0 15.1 13.1 6 9.9 12.2 15.6 10.6 9.6 12.3 7 16.9 16.2 11.6 12.7 16.1 19.3 8 11.9 10.6 15.0 11.9 15.1 15.0 9 12.3 12.6 9.8 15.5 11.5 13.5 10 10.5 10.2 11.5 17.5 10.5 12.4 11 15.7 16.2 12.7 12.2 10.5 14.2 12 15.6 13.9 9.5 17.8 12.4 11.2 - 41 - APPENDIX I-B Appendix lB. Summary of the condition of Montastrea annularis heads found on Platform #2 during the August 1, 1987 visit (appeared as Table 3 in the 15 and 36 day monitoring report). Sample Condition % Dead Polyps 1 Partially dead 20 2 Partially dead 10 3 Alive, but pale in color 4 Partially dead 20 5 Partially dead 40 6 Alive, but pale in color 7 Partially dead 20 8 Partially dead in spots 10 9 Alive,but pale in color 10 Almost all dead 90 11 Partially dead 30 12 Partially dead and spotty 10 - 42 - Zooxanthellae count/correction for dilution/correction for henocytareter vol1JIE/ average per head. FLAOORM 1 Original Count Correction for Dilution Ntnnber of Zooxanthellae eX 1ch Sample Head inml 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Average 1 2.6 18 21 16 19 46.8 54.6 41.6 49.4 0.47 0.55 0.42 0.49 1 3.4 35 37 24 26 119.0 125.8 81.6 83.4 1.19 1.26 0.82 0.83 0.76 2 1.9 28 27 24 27 53.2 51.3 45.6 51.3 0.53 0.51 0.46 0.51 2 1.9 21 22 19 15 39.9 41.8 36.1 28.5 0.40 0.42 0.36 0.29 0.43 3 2.2 16 9 11 10 35.2 19.8 24.2 22.0 0.35 0.20 0.24 0.22 3 4.4 23 25 20 12 101.2 110.0 83.0 52.8 1.01 1.10 0.83 0.53 0.57 4 3 12 9 14 10 36.0 27.0 42.0 3).0 0.36 0.27 0.42 0.3) 4 2.5 17 26 27 22 42.5 65.0 67.5 55.0 0.43 0.65 0.68 0.55 0.46 5 2.8 37 31 3) 21 103.6 25.2 84.0 58.8 1.04- 0.25 0.84 0.59 5 3.7 35 43 25 15 129.5 159.1 92.5 55.5 1.3) 1.59 0.93 0 • .56 0.89 .j::-- 6 2.6 36 48 35 36 93.6 124.8 91.0 93.6 0.94 1.25 0.91 0.94 w 6 3.8 27 40 36 31 102.6 152.0 136.8 117.8 1.03 1.52 1.37 1.18 1.14 7 3.2 55 47 58 43 176.0 150.4 185.6 206.2 1.76 1.5) 1.86 2.06 7 2.4 70 68 92 96 168.0 163.2 220.8 2.?D.4 1.68 1.63 2.21 2.30 1.83 8 2.1 78 67 73 74 163.8 140.7 153.3 155.4 1.64 1.41 1.53 1.55 ~ 8 3 15 8 17 11 45.0 24.0 51.0 33.0 0.45 0.24 0.51 0.33 0.96 '"d t%j 9 2.7 36 21 19 15 97.2 .56.7 51.3 40.5 0.97 0.57 0.51 0.41 z t::;I 9 2.4 34 28 24 12 81.6 67.2 57.6 28.8 0.82 0.67 0.58 0.29 0.60 H :x: 10 2.6 5) 37 39 36 130.0 96.2 101.4 93.6 1.3) 0.96 1.01 0.94 H 10 2.4 17 32 21 12 40.8 76.8 5).4 28.8 0.41 0.77 0.5) 0.29 0.77 H 11 4.6 28 21 21 15 128.8 96.6 96.6 69.0 1.29 0.97 0.97 0.69 11 3.7 18 14 32 31 66.6 51.8 118.4 114.7 0.67 0.52 1.18 1.15 0.93 '"d III 12 2.9 40 39 40 38 116.0 113.1 116.0 110.2 1.16 1.13 1.16 1.10 ()Q (l) 12 3 27 41 49 47 81.0 123.0 147.0 141.0 0.81 1.23 1.47 1.41 1.18 t--' a I-t) 0'\ '1:l III ()Q (l) en -1 ___ I i --I Zooxanthellae count/correction for dilution/correction for h6ll8CytOIIeter volurre/average per head. PlAOORM 2 Original Count Correction for Dilution Number of Zooxanthellae eX 106) Sample Head inml 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Average 1 3.1 42 61 55 54 130.2 189.1 170.5 167.4 1.3J 1.89 1.71 1.67 1 3.4 45 69 41 39 153.0 234.6 139.4 132.6 1.53 2.35 1.39 1.33 1.65 2 3 25 32 24 22 75.0 96.0 72.0 ffi.O 0.75 0.96 0.72 O.ffi 2 2.6 24 23 24 18 62.4 59.8 62.4 91.6 0.62 0.6J 0.62 0.92 0.73 3 4.4 52 77 41 77 228.8 133.4 174.4 251.4 2.29 1.33 1.74 2.51 3 6.2 52 3J 29 40 322.4 186.0 179.8 248.0 3.22 1.86 1.00 2.48 2.16 4 4.4 :x3 39 40 54 255.2 171.6 176.0 237.6 2.55 1.72 1.76 2.38 4 6.3 26 29 39 32 163.8 182.7 245.7 201.6 1.64 1.83 2.46 2.02 2.04 5 3.4 27 39 34 52 91.8 182.7 245.7 176.8 0.92 1.83 2.46 1.77 .p.. 5 3.3 27 24 35 37 89.1 79.2 115.5 122.1 0.89 0.79 1.16 1.22 1.38 .p.. 6 3.9 26 28 49 47 101.4 100.2 191.1 183.3 1.01 1.00 1.91 1.83 6 3.9 56 48 5J 34 218.4 187.2 195.0 132.6 2.18 1.87 1.95 1.33 1.65 7 4.7 13 27 37 22 61.1 126.9 173.9 103.4 0.61 1.27 1.74 1.03 7 4.4 18 27 24 17 79.2 118.8 105.6 74.8 0.79 1.19 1.CX:i 0.75 1.05 8 1.9 79 65 45 79 150.1 123.5 85.5 15J.l 1.5J 1.24 0.86 1.5J ~ 8 3.6 35 70 26 27 126.0 252.0 93.6 97.2 1.26 2.52 0.94 0.97 1.35 I-d tl:j 9 5.2 21 25 29 24 100.2 13J.0 15J.8 124.8 1.00 1.3J 1.51 1.25 z t:I 9 4.7 33 39 32 44 155.1 183.3 15J.4 2CX:i.8 1.55 1.83 1.5J 2.07 1.51 H :x: 10 3 5J 55 87 51 15J.0 165.0 261.0 246.0 1.5J 1.65 2.61 2.46 H 10 3.4 22 27 31 13 74.8 91.8 105.4 44.2 0.75 0.92 1.05 0.44 1.42 H 11 3.3 ffi 87 57 :x3 217.8 287.1 188.1 191.4 2.18 2.87 1.&3 1.91 11 3.4 89 49 43 46 3J2.6 166.6 146.2 156.4 3.03 1.67 1.46 1.56 2.07 I-d Pl 12 4.4 36 22 14 18 158.4 96.8 61.6 79.2 1.58 0.97 0.62 0.79 OQ (1l 12 4.2 26 19 18 18 3J.2 49.2 75.6 75.6 0.3J 0.49 0.76 0.76 0.78 N 0 t-h 0'\ 'i:l Pl OQ (1l Ul . __J J ---1 Zooxanthellae cooot/correction for dilution/correction for hamcytaneter voltlre/average per head. PLATFDRM 3 Original Coont Correction for Dilution Number of Zooxanthellae eX 106) Sample Head :inml 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Average 1 3.1 57 51 72 58 176.7 158.1 223.2 179.8 1.77 1.58 2.23 1.00 1 3.2 88 92 81 112 281.6 294.4 259.2 358.4 2.82 2.94 2.59 3.58 2.41 2 9.6 21 15 14 20 201.6 144.0 134.4 192.0 2.02 1.44 1.34 1.92 2 3.5 42 32 17 46 147.0 112.0 59.5 161.0 1.47 1.12 0.60 1.61 1.44 3 4 37 65 27 26 148.0 260.0 100.0 104.0 1.48 2.60 1.00 1.04 3 2.9 52 41 51 51 1j).8 118.9 147.9 147.9 1.51 1.19 1.48 1.48 1.48 4 3.8 3) 33 29 34 114.0 125.4 110.2 129.2 1.14 1.25 1.10 1.29 4 2.8 39 59 55 46 109.2 165.2 154.0 128.8 1.09 1.65 1.54 1.29 1.30 5 4.4 45 55 51 45 198.0 242.0 224.4 198.0 1.98 2.42 2.24 1.98 .j::-. 5 4.4 23 19 26 16 101.2 83.6 114.4 70.4 1.01 0.84 1.14 0.70 1.54 V1 6 3.4 64 64 56 60 217.6 217.6 190.4 204.0 2.18 2.18 1. <Xl 2.04 6 3.4 65 44 35 48 221.0 149.6 119.0 163.2 2.21 1.j) 1.19 1.63 1.85 7 3 82 73 34 51 246.0 219.0 102.0 153.0 2.46 2.19 1.02 1.53 7 2.5 64 62 54 45 160.0 155.0 135.0 112.5 1.60 1.55 1.35 1.13 1.60 ~ 8 3.6 65 51 43 47 234.0 183.6 154.8 169.2 2.34 1.84 1.55 1.69 I-cj 8 3 32 65 43 41 96.0 195.0 129.0 123.0 0.96 1.95 1.29 1.23 1.61 t:%j z 9 3.8 22 40 25 38 83.6 152.0 95.0 144.4 0.84 1.52 0.95 1.44 t::J H 9 3 96 76 ff) 76 288.0 228.0 267.0 228.0 2.88 2.28 2.67 2.28 1.86 ~ 10 4.3 47 39 37 3) 202.1 167.7 159.1 129.0 2.02 1.68 1.59 1.29 H H 10 5.2 37 26 25 18 192.4 135.2 13).0 93.6 1.92 1.35 1.3) 0.94 1.51 I 11 6 23 27 31 19 138.0 162.0 186.0 114.0 1.38 1.62 1.86 1.14 I-cj 11 3.9 33 38 3) 32 128.7 148.2 117.0 124.8 1.29 1.48 1.17 1.25 1.40 Pl CJQ 12 2.4 55 68 67 54 132.0 163.2 160.8 129.6 1.32 1.63 1.61 1.3) (l) 12 3.7 38 32 28 33 140.6 118.4 103.6 122.1 1.41 1.18 1.04 1.22 1.34 w 0 Hl 0\ 'd Pl CJQ (l) til . Zooxanthellae count/correction for dilution/correction for hem3cytareter volume/average per head. PLATIiDRM 4 6 Original Count Correction for Dilution Nunber of Zooxanthellae eX 10 ) Sample Head :inml 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Average 1 4.2 27 33 34 27 113.4 138.6 142.8 113.4 1.13 1.39 1.43 1.13 1 3.7 24 22 29 46 88.8 81.4 107.3 170.2 0.89 0.81 1.07 1.70 1.12 2 1.9 29 29 37 39 55.1 55.1 70.3 74.1 0.55 0.55 0.70 0.74 2 3.2 44 42 33 44 140.8 134.4 105.6 140.8 1.41 1.34 La) 1.41 0.97 3 2.6 40 26 36 42 104.0 67.6 93.6 109.2 1.04 0.63 0.94 1.09 3 2.4 37 27 28 29 88.8 64.8 67.2 69.6 0.89 0.65 0.67 0.70 0.83 4 2.4 43 38 63 55 103.2 91.2 151.2 132.0 1.03 0.91 1.51 1.32 4 2 ~ 60 37 46 100.0 120.0 74.0 92.0 1.00 1.20 0.74 0.92 1.08 5 3.1 56 69 59 51 173.6 213.9 182.9 158.1 1.74 2.14 1.83 1.58 .j::- 5 2.7 86 53 63 69 232.2 143.1 183.6 186.3 2.32 1.43 1.84 1.86 1.84 0\ 6 2.7 41 40 23 22 110.7 108.0 62.1 59.4 1.11 1.00 0.62 0.59 6 2.2 34 38 29 37 74.8 83.6 63.8 81.4 0.75 0.84 0.64 0.81 0.80 7 2.5 63 92 61 56 170.0 230.0 152.5 140.0 1.70 2.2D 1.53 1.40 7 2.2 58 49 72 83 127.6 107.8 158.4 182.6 1.28 1.00 1.58 1.83 1.59 8 3.3 45 41 57 35 148.5 135.3 188.1 115.5 1.49 1.35 1.88 1.16 ~ 8 2.8 47 63 45 56 131.6 176.4 126.0 156.8 1.32 1.76 1.26 1.57 1.47 I-d t:r:I 9 2.9 67 67 88 70 194.3 194.3 255.2 203.0 1.94 1.94 2.55 2.03 z t:::I 9 3.2 73 47 32 67 233.6 15J.4 102.4 214.4 2.34 1.5J 1.02 2.14 1.93 H >:: 10 3.2 62 87 5J 87 198.4 278.4 160.0 278.4 1.98 2.78 1.60 2.78 H 10 35 36 47 55 94.5 97.2 126.9 148.5 0.95 0.97 1.27 1.49 1.73 H 2.7 11 2.9 34 5J 40 23 98.6 145.0 116.0 ffJ.7 0.99 1.45 1.16 0.67 38 34 29 159.0 114.0 102.0 87.0 1.59 1.14 1.02 0.87 1.11 I-d 11 3 53 Pl 12 1.7 63 ffi 87 ffJ 115.6 136.0 147.9 112.2 1.16 1.26 1.48 1.12 OQ t'D 12 2.2 74 55 67 ffJ 162.8 121.0 147.4 145.2 1.63 1.21 1.47 1.45 1.36 .j::- 0 H1 0\ "d Pl OQ t'D til . Zooxanthellae cotnlt/correction for dilution/correction for h.amc.ytareter volUlE/average per head. PLATFORM 5 Original Count Correction for Dilution Ntnnber of Zooxanthellae eX 106) Sample Head inrnl 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Average 1 2.8 .Il 51 24 32 84.0 142.8 67.2 00.6 0.84 1.43 0.67 O.<J) 1 3.8 32 23 13 23 121.6 87.4 49.4 87.4 1.22 0.87 0.49 0.87 0.91 2 2.6 46 67 45 31 119.6 174.2 117.0 00.6 1.20 1.74 1.17 0.81 2 2.6 <J) 73 48 48 234.0 100.8 124.8 124.8 2.34 1.<J) 1.25 1.25 1.46 3 2.2 64 69 45 42 140.8 151.8 g).0 92.4 1.41 1.52 O.g) 0.92 3 2.6 82 63 105 88 213.2 163.8 273.0 228.8 2.13 1.64 2.73 2.29 1.70 4 4.9 26 53 24 28 127.4 259.7 117.6 137.2 1.27 2.W 1.18 1.37 4 3 46 76 47 43 138.0 228.0 141.0 129.0 1.38 2.28 1.41 1.29 1.60 5 2.3 28 28 24 19 64.4 64.4 55.2 43.7 0.64 0.64 0.55 0.44 .p.. 5 2.9 41 39 38 27 118.9 113.1 110.2 78.3 1.19 1.13 1.10 0.78 0.81 '-l 6 3.4 38 31 43 3) 129.2 105.4 146.2 102.0 1.29 1.05 1.46 1.02 6 3.4 35 36 27 23 119.0 122.4 91.8 78.2 1.19 1.22 0.92 0.78 1.12 7 2.5 41 31 23 22 102.5 77.5 57.5 55.0 1.03 0.78 0.5'3 0.55 7 2.5 15 33 51 61 37.5 82.5 127.5 152.5 0.38 0.83 1.28 1.53 0.87 8 2.6 22 41 55 59 57.2 106.6 143.0 153.4 0.57 1.07 1.43 1.53 2d 8 2.8 16 18 19 21 44.8 ~.4 53.2 5'3.8 0.45 O.~ 0.53 0.59 0.83 I-d t%j 9 2.9 22 27 28 24 63.8 78.3 81.2 69.6 0.64 0.78 0.81 0.70 z t::I 9 3 44 32 33 15 132.0 96.0 g).0 45.0 1.32 0.96 O.g) 0.45 0.83 H :xl 10 2.6 49 63 31 36 127.4 163.8 00.6 93.6 1.27 1.64 0.81 0.94 H 10 3.1 63 61 69 59 195.3 100.1 213.9 182.9 1.95 1.89 2.14 1.83 1.56 H 11 3.1 17 23 36 3) 52.7 71.3 111.6 93.0 0.53 0.71 1.12 0.93 11 3.3 35 31 49 69 115.5 102.3 161.7 227.7 1.16 1.02 1.62 2.28 1.17 I-d III 12 3.7 20 26 31 3) 74.0 96.2 114.7 111.0 0.74 0.96 1.15 1.11 OQ CD 12 3.6 47 44 41 34 169.2 15'3.4 147.6 122.4 1.69 1.5'3 1.48 1.22 1.24 Ln a Hl '" 'd III OQ CD C/l . -1 Zooxanthellae cOlIDt/correction for dilution/correction for hanacyt.orreter volure/average per head. PlA'IFORM 6 Original Count Correction for Dilution Nunber of Zooxanthe1lae eX 106) Sample Head :inml 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Average 1 1.6 f:fJ 61 35 46 105.6 97.6 56.0 73.6 Lex:> 0.98 0.56 0.74 1 1.2 41 67 59 ffl 49.2 00.4 70.8 72.0 0.49 0.00 0.71 0.72 0.76 2 1.8 35 36 32 34 63.0 64.8 57.6 61.2 0.63 0.65 0.58 0.61 2 1.9 f:fJ 70 53 44 125.4 133.0 100.7 83.6 1.25 1.33 1.01 0.84 0.86 3 2.9 32 25 38 41 92.8 72.5 110.2 118.9 0.93 0.73 1.10 1.19 3 2.4 23 26 38 26 55.2 62.4 91.2 62.4 0.55 0.62 0.91 0.62 0.83 4 3.9 46 32 31 28 179.4 124.8 120.9 100.2 1.79 1.25 1.21 1.00 4 2.2 47 52 38 41 103.4 114.4 83.6 90.2 1.03 1.14 0.84 0.90 1.16 5 2.7 24 2D 33 36 64.8 81.0 89.1 97.2 0.65 0.81 0.89 0.97 5 3.1 33 45 44 38 102.3 139.5 136.4 117.8 1.02 1.40 1.36 1.18 1.04 +:- 6 3.4 53 41 38 5) 197.2 139.4 129.2 170.0 1.97 1.39 1.29 1.70 00 6 3 55 62 77 78 165.0 186.0 231.0 234.0 1.65 1.86 2.31 2.34 1.81 7 3 16 32 2D 17 L8.0 96.0 90.0 51.0 0.L8 0.96 0.90 0.51 7 4.1 18 34 24 27 73.8 139.4 98.4 110.7 0.74 1.39 0.98 1.11 0.88 8 3.5 38 27 27 42 133.0 94.5 94.5 147.0 1.33 0.95 0.95 1.47 > '"d 8 2.9 21 21 32 23 ffl.9 ffl.9 92.8 f:fJ.7 0.61 0.61 0.93 0.67 0.94 '"d M 9 3.3 15 11 16 14 49.5 36.3 52.8 46.2 0.5) 0.36 0.53 0.46 z t::;j 9 2.6 52 '5) 27 36 135.2 101.4 70.2 93.6 1.35 1.01 0.70 0.94 0.73 H :><: 10 4 33 57 2D 24 132.0 228.0 00.0 96.0 1.32 2.28 0.00 0.96 H 10 4.5 29 34 27 42 12D.5 153.0 121.5 189.0 1.31 1.53 1.22 1.89 1.41 H 12 2.4 41 5) 70 47 98.4 12D.0 168.0 112.8 0.98 1.2D 1.68 1.13 12 2.8 57 ffl 37 59 159.6 168.0 103.6 165.2 l.ffl 1.68 1.04 1.65 1.37 '"d III ()Q ('\) (j\ 0 t-h (j\ 'd III ()Q ('\) f/l . . i Appendix ill. Acropora cervicornis growth: actual rreasurerrents/growth at various sampling periods/growth corrected for .?D day periods. Actual Measurarents Arrotmt of Growth (an) Corrected for each .?D day period PJatfonn Branch &-27-87 8-2-87 8-29-f37 9-2&-87 36 days 27 days 27 days <.X) day .?Dday :n:Jay :n:Jay 1 1 22.5 23.2 23 23.4 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.4 1 2 10 10.2 10.4 10.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 1 3 7.2 6.4 6.7 7.4 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.8 1 4 4.1 3.8 4.2 5 -0.3 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.9 1 5 4.6 4.1 4.2 5.6 -0.5 0.1 1.4 1 0.1 1.6 1 6 5 4.4 6.8 5.1 -0.6 2.4 -1.7 0.1 2.7 1 7 8 6.7 dead -1.3 1 8 9.1 8.4 8.3 8.9 -0.7 -0.1 0.6 -0.2 0.7 1 9 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.4 0 0 0.3 0.3 0.3 1 10 9.7 10.6 0.9 0.8 +>- 1 11 6.5 5.5 broken -1 ~ 1 12 19.6 21.2 21.1 21.2 1.6 -0.1 0.1 1.6 1.3 0.1 > '"d 2 1 17 17.2 17.8 19.2 0.2 0.6 1.4 2.2 0.2 0.7 1.6 '"d tr:l 2 2 4 4.2 5.1 5.8 0.2 0.9 0.7 1.8 0.2 1.0 0.8 z CI 2 3 17.1 16.9 17.4 17.5 -0.2 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.1 H :x: 2 4 20 20.5 21.5 22.5 0.5 1 1 2.5 0.4 1.1 1.1 H 2 5 11.1 12.9 14.3 14.9 1.8 1.4 0.6 3.8 1.5 1.6 0.7 H H 2 6 17.3 18 18.5 19.2 0.7 0.5 0.7 1.9 0.6 0.6 0.8 2 7 13.7 14.1 14.2 14.8 0.4 0.1 0.6 1.1 0.3 0.1 0.7 '"d 2 8 21.5 22.1 23.1 23.7 0.6 1 0.6 2.2 0.5 1.1 0.7 III Otl 2 9 19.7 20.3 21.2 22.9 0.6 0.9 1.7 3.2 0.5 1.0 1.9 (t) 2 10 11.2 11.6 13.5 14.2 0.4 1.9 0.7 3 0.3 2.1 0.8 I-' 2 11 15 15.1 dead 0.1 0.1 0 t-h 2 12 18.5 19.2 20.1 21 0.7 0.9 0.9 2.5 0.6 1.0 1.0 w 2 13 15.7 16.4 17.4 18.1 0.7 1 0.7 2.4 0.6 1.1 0.8 '0 2 14 15.4 15.9 16.2 17.1 0.5 0.3 0.9 1.7 0.4 0.3 1.0 III Otl (t) til " . ---") ! Appendix ill. Acropora cervicornis growth: actual measurerrents/growth at various sampling periods/growth corrected for 3J day periods. Actual Measurerrents Al1Dl.m.t of Growth (em) Corrected for each 3J day period Platform Branch 6-27-87 &-2-87 &-29-87 9-26-87 36 days 27 days 27 days ~ day 3Jday 3Jday 3Jday 3 1 18.4 19.3 20.4 17.5 0.9 1.1 -2.9 -D.9 0.8 1.2 3 2 12.1 12.5 14.1 14.9 0.4 1.6 0.8 2.8 0.3 1.8 0.9 3 3 13.6 13.8 14.7 15.2 0.2 0.9 0.5 1.6 0.2 1.0 0.6 3 4 14.1 15.2 15.9 16.5 1.1 0.7 0.6 2.4 0.9 0.8 0.7 3 5 19.8 20.2 21.4 22.3 0.4 1.2 0.9 2.5 0.3 1.3 1.0 3 6 16.5 15.6 16.6 17.5 -D.9 1 0.9 1 1.1 1.0 3 7 14.8 15.5 16.8 17.5 0.7 1.3 0.7 2.7 0.6 1.4 0.8 3 8 14.8 12.5 15.3 16.4 -2.3 2.8 1.1 1.6 3.1 1.2 3 9 18.9 19.5 19.8 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.3 U1 3 10 20.2 20.6 21.4 22.3 0.4 0.8 0.9 2.1 0.3 0.9 1.0 0 3 11 21.2 19.9 21.9 23.1 -1.3 2 1.2 1.9 2.2 1.3 3 12 16.2 15.5 16.5 1 0.3 1.1 3 13 16.1 dead 3 16.7 18.8 19.4 20.1 2.1 0.6 0.7 3.4 1.8 0.7 0.8 ~ ""d 3 18 missing 0.0 0.0 0.0 ""d t:r:I 3 18 18.3 18.9 18.8 0.3 0.6 -D.1 0.8 0.3 0.7 z t;:j H >::: H 4 1 16.4 17.2 18 18.6 0.8 0.8 0.6 2.2 0.7 0.9 0.7 H H 4 2 16.2 17.1 17.5 17.8 0.9 0.4 0.3 1.6 0.8 0.4 0.3 4 3 13.6 14 14.5 15.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.6 0.3 0.6 0.8 ""d 4 4 18.7 19.9 18.3 20 1.2 -1.6 1.7 1.3 1.0 1.9 III ()Q 4 5 8.9 9.6 10.9 11.7 0.7 1.3 0.8 2.8 0.6 1.4 0.9 CD 4 6 8.1 9 10.1 12.1 0.9 1.1 2 4 0.8 1.2 2.2 N 4 7 19.1 21.1 20.3 21.2 2 -D.8 0.9 2.1 1.7 1.0 0 Hl 4 8 8.6 9.4 9.8 10.7 0.8 0.4 0.9 2.1 0.7 0.4 1.0 w 4 9 17.1 17.9 18.4 18.9 0.8 0.5 0.5 1.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 "0 4 10 17.3 18.9 18.9 19.8 1.6 0 0.9 2.5 1.3 0.0 1.0 III ()Q 4 11 15.6 16.8 17.3 17.6 1.2 0.5 0.3 2 1.0 0.6 0.3 CD CIl 4 12 11.6 11 11.6 12.6 -D.6 0.6 1 1 0.7 1.1 . i ... 1 I Appendix ill. Acropora cervicornis growth: actual measurellarts/growth at various sampling periods/growth corrected for 3J day periods. Actual Measurarents AIlOtmt of Growth (an) Corrected for each 3J day period PJ.atfonn Branch &-27-87 &-2-87 &-29-87 9-26-87 36 days 27 days 27 days ~ day 3Jday 3Jday 3Jday 5 1 20.5 22.1 22.7 22.9 1.6 0.6 0.2 2.4 1.3 0.7 0.2 5 2 6.6 7 7.1 7.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 5 3 6.6 7 7.7 8.7 0.4 0.7 1 2.1 0.3 0.8 1.1 5 4 20.3 22.1 21.3 21.4 1.8 -0.8 0.1 1.1 1.5 0.1 5 5 13.6 13.4 13.4 13.2 -0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 0.0 5 6 10 12.1 11.7 11.9 2.1 -0.4 0.2 1.9 1.8 0.2 5 7 17.9 17.2 dead -0.7 0 5 8 15.1 16.1 15.8 16.5 1 -0.3 0.7 1.4 0.8 0.8 5 9 20.4 19.7 21.4 21.2 -0.7 1.7 -0.2 0.8 1.9 VI 5 10 17.1 17.4 18 18.7 0.3 0.6 0.7 1.6 0.3 0.7 0.8 I-' 5 11 16.7 17.6 18.3 18.7 0.9 0.7 0.4 2 0.8 0.8 0.4 5 12 7.4 8.1 8 8.3 0.7 -0.1 0.3 0.9 0.6 0.3 6 1 14.8 15.3 15.7 15.7 0.5 0.4 0 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.0 > '"d 6 2 22.2 22.5 23.4 23.5 0.3 0.9 0.1 1.3 0.3 1.0 0.1 '"d trJ 6 3 18.4 17.9 19.2 19.5 -0.5 1.3 0.3 1.1 1.4 0.3 z CI 6 4 21.3 18.8 20.8 21.8 -2 • .5 2 1 0.5 2.2 1.1 H ~ 6 5 20.2 20 20.7 21.5 -0.2 0.7 0.8 1.3 0.8 0.9 H 6 6 19.7 19.5 20.3 20.4 -0.2 0.8 0.1 0.7 0.9 0.1 H H 6 7 18.2 19 19.5 19.7 0.8 0.5 0.2 1.5 0.7 0.6 0.2 6 8 18.8 17.2 19.3 19.8 -1.6 2.1 0.5 1 2.3 0.6 '"d 6 9 16.7 17.6 16.9 17.2 0.9 -0.7 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.3 Pol ()Q 6 10 17.8 17.7 18.6 19.1 -0.1 0.9 0.5 1.3 1.0 0.6 (1) 6 11 16.5 16.9 17.3 17.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.9 0.3 0.4 0.1 w 6 12 16.1 15.4 14.7 15.2 -0.7 -0.7 0.5 -0.9 0.6 0 t-h W '1j Pol ()Q (1) rn . APPENDIX IV Page 1 of 6 pages. e G ~ 0 " t't /" .!) ..., \= ..:. - 52 - APPENDIX IV - Page 2 of 6 pages. ~ .. -z: { ~ '" 0 ~ \J. l- Il tt & @ 0: 0 tr - 53 - APPENDIX IV - Page 3 of 6 pages. ~ ~ 0 of ~ eo .:t 0 - .9 ~ I rI ·lM :::> - 54 - APPENDIX IV - Page 4 of 6 pages. l" .:t 0 -z ~ ct ~ ~ ..I ~ ® (l- ~ 0 tr _____ ----::--_____ -______________ ---""1--__ ---' ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ - 55 - APPENDIX IV - Page 5 of 6 pages. G o co . \ - 56 - APPENDIX IV - Page 6 of 6 pages. ~ 0 --z , I:C ~ ~ ¢ ([ ~ ~ @ e <:l <1" 1)0 - - 57 - APPENDIX V - Photographs I ! il II I: I I, '-I I , I ! ! I II I i I I , I I ' , I r PLATFORM #1. Taken June 29, 1987 (DAY 1) PLATFORM #1. Taken September 26, 1987 (DAY 90) PLATFORH 1. Taken September 26, 1987 (DAY 90) PLATFORM #2. Taken June 29, 1987 (DAY 1) PLATFORM #2. Taken September 26, 1987 (DAY 90) PLATFORM 2. Taken September 26, 1987 (DAY 90) PLATFORN #3. Taken June 29, 1987 (DAY 1) PLATFOPJ-I #3. Taken September 26, 1987 (DAY 90) PLATFORM 3. Taken September 26, 1987 (DAY 90) PLATFORM #4. Taken June 29, 1987 (DAY 1) PLATFORN #4. Taken September 26, 1987 (DAY 90) PLATFORM 4. Taken September 26, 1987 (DAY 90) PLATFORM 5. Taken September 26, 1987 (DAY 90) PLATFORM #5. Taken June 29, 1987 (DAY 1) PLATFORM #5. Taken September 26, 1987 (DAY 90) PLATFORM #6. Taken June 29, 1987 (DAY 1) r PLATFORM #6. Taken September 26, 1987 (DAY 90) PLATFORM #6. Taken September 26, 1987 (DAY 90) 1I n PLATFORM #6. Taken September 26, 1987 (DAY 90) REFERENCES Dean. W. E. 1974. Determination of carbonate and organic matter in calcareous sediments and sedimentary rocks by loss on ignition: comparison with other methods. J. Sed. Petrol. 44: 242-248. Dustan. P. 1975. Growth and form in the reef-building coral Montastrea annu1aris. Mar. BioI. 33: 101-107. Dustin. P. 1979. Distribution of zooxanthellae and photosynthetic chloroplast pigments of the reef- building coral Montastrea ~~1~~i2 Ellis and Solander in relation to depth on a West Indian coral reef. Bull. .Mar. Sci. 29: 79-95. Gl adfelter. E. H. and R. K. Monahan. 1977. Primary production and calciumcarbonate deposition rates in Acr£E£~~ E~lma!~ from different positions in the reef. Proc. Third Intl. Coral Reef Symp. Miami. FL. 389-394. Marszalek. D. S. 1987. Sewage and eutrophication. IN: B. Sa1vat [ed.]. Human impacts on coral reef: Facts and recommendations. Antenne Museum E.P.H.E •• French Polynesia. Nichols. M. and E. Towle. 1977. Circulation. water quality and environmental resources of Perseverance Bay. St. Thomas. Island Resources Foundation. St. Thomas. U.S.V.I. 102p. Rog ers. C. S. 1982. The marine environments Bay. Perseverance Bay. Flat Cay and Saba Thomas. U.S.V.I •• with emphasis on coral s ea g rass beds November 1978 - Ju l y 1981. V.I. . DCCA. 181p. of Brewers Island. St. reefs and Gov't. of the Roge r s. C •• Fitz. C.H •• Gilnack. M •• Beets. J. and J. Hardin. 1984. Scleractinian coral recruitment patterns at Salt River submarine canyon. St. Croix. USVI. Coral Reefs 3:69-76. Stee l e. R.L. and G.B. Thursby 1983. A toxicity test usin g life states of Champia parvula (Rhodophyta). IN: Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment. Sixth Symposium. pp. 73-89. Bishop. W.C •• Cardwell. R.D •• He i dol ph. B • B • ( Ed s). AS T M S T P 8 0 2 • Am e r • Soc. 0 f Testing and Materials. Philadelphia. St r i c k land. J. D. H. and T. R. Parsons. 1968. A Practical Handbook of Seawater Analysis. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. Bull 167. Toma s cik. T. and F. Sander. 1985. Effects of eutrophication of reef-building corals I. Growth rate of the reef-building coral Mon!~~~~~ ~g~~1~~i2' Mar. Bio l . 8 7: 143-155. - 58 -