Benthic Communities at Horns Rev Before, During and After Con

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Horns Rev. Benthic communities Page 44 Table 3.6. Biomass of character species and dominants in comparable surveys from spring 1999-2005. Sampling area Biomass, wet weight g/m² Extended Wind Farm area Reference area Rreference area 1999 2001 2005 1999 2005 2005 Species Group Mean Relative % Mean Relative % Mean Relative % Mean Relative % Mean Relative % Mean Relative % Ensis americanus Bivalve . . . . . . . . 314.45 90.4 525.25 97.6 Spisula solida Bivalve 2.231 17.7 42.109 64.7 . . 1.30 1.2 . . 0.01 0.0 Ophelia borealis Bristle worm 0.035 0.3 6.505 10.0 . . 15.01 14.4 0.41 0.1 4.98 0.9 Travisia forbesii Bristle worm 0.028 0.2 . . 9.367 43.8 0.79 0.8 7.11 2.0 0.55 0.1 Orbinia sertulata Bristle worm 1.463 11.6 2.788 4.3 4.707 22.0 4.79 4.6 . . . . Thracia phaseolina Bivalve . . 7.687 11.8 4.108 19.2 . . . . 0.63 0.1 Goodallia triangularis Bivalve 0.698 5.5 0.400 0.6 1.321 6.2 0.20 0.2 2.00 0.6 0.47 0.1 Goniadella bobretzkii Bristle worm 0.052 0.4 0.075 0.1 0.077 0.4 0.07 0.1 0.04 0.0 0.04 0.0 Pisione remota Bristle worm 0.017 0.1 0.025 0.0 0.054 0.3 0.01 0.0 0.07 0.0 0.15 0.0 Total 4.508 35.8 59.565 91.5 19.581 91.6 22.165 21.2 324.009 93.1 531.935 98.8 For the most dominant and character species, no statistically significant differences were found for Pisione remota, Goodallia triangularis and Ophelia borealis in abundance and biomass between the spring surveys from 1999 to 2005. However, statistical differences were found between two or more surveys for the remaining dominant and characteristic species (Tables 3.7-3.8). The differences found in most cases included the extended reference area. In general, very high variances were found in the distribution pattern of the dominant and character species. Table 3.7. Level of significance (**P 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 1999 Reference > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 2001 Wind farm > 0.05 > 0.05 0.012* 2005 Wind farm > 0.05 > 0.05 2005 Reference > 0.05 2005 Extended reference ANOVA analysis 1999 1999 2001 2005 2005 2005 Orbinia sertulata Wind farm Reference Wind farm Wind farm Reference Extended reference 1999 Wind farm > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 1999 Reference > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 0.007** 2001 Wind farm > 0.05 > 0.05 0.008** 2005 Wind farm > 0.05 > 0.05 2005 Reference > 0.05 2005 Extended reference ANOVA analysis 1999 1999 2001 2005 2005 2005 Spisula solida Wind farm Reference Wind farm Wind farm Reference Extended reference 1999 Wind farm > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 1999 Reference > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 2001 Wind farm > 0.05 > 0.05 0.011* 2005 Wind farm > 0.05 > 0.05 2005 Reference > 0.05 2005 Extended reference ANOVA analysis 1999 1999 2001 2005 2005 2005 Travisia forbesii Wind farm Reference Wind farm Wind farm Reference Extended reference 1999 Wind farm > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 1999 Reference > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 2001 Wind farm 0.003** > 0.05 > 0.05 2005 Wind farm > 0.05 0.028* 2005 Reference > 0.05 2005 Extended reference ANOVA analysis 1999 1999 2001 2005 2005 2005 Thracia phaseolina Wind farm Reference Wind farm Wind farm Reference Extended reference 1999 Wind farm > 0.05 0.022* > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 1999 Reference 0.016* > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 2001 Wind farm > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 2005 Wind farm > 0.05 > 0.05 2005 Reference > 0.05 2005 Extended reference ANOVA analysis 1999 1999 2001 2005 2005 2005 Ensis americanus Wind farm Reference Wind farm Wind farm Reference Extended reference 1999 Wind farm > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 0.002** 1999 Reference > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 0.002** 2001 Wind farm > 0.05 > 0.05 < 001** 2005 Wind farm > 0.05 0.033* 2005 Reference > 0.05 2005 Extended reference Doc. No. 2572-03-005 rev. 4
Horns Rev. Benthic communities Page 45 Table 3.8. Level of significance (**P 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 1999 Reference > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 2001 Wind farm > 0.05 > 0.05 0.028* 2005 Wind farm > 0.05 > 0.05 2005 Reference > 0.05 2005 Extended reference 2000 1500 1000 500 0 ANOVA analysis 1999 1999 2001 2005 2005 2005 Orbinia sertulata Wind farm Reference Wind farm Wind farm Reference Extended reference 1999 Wind farm > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 1999 Reference > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 0.008** 2001 Wind farm > 0.05 > 0.05 0.014* 2005 Wind farm > 0.05 > 0.05 2005 Reference > 0.05 2005 Extended reference ANOVA analysis 1999 1999 2001 2005 2005 2005 Spisula solida Wind farm Reference Wind farm Wind farm Reference Extended reference 1999 Wind farm > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 1999 Reference > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 2001 Wind farm > 0.05 > 0.05 0.01* 2005 Wind farm > 0.05 > 0.05 2005 Reference > 0.05 2005 Extended reference ANOVA analysis 1999 1999 2001 2005 2005 2005 Travisia forbesii Wind farm Reference Wind farm Wind farm Reference Extended reference 1999 Wind farm > 0.05 > 0.05 0.02* > 0.05 > 0.05 1999 Reference > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 2001 Wind farm 0.001** 0.049* > 0.05 2005 Wind farm > 0.05 0.009** 2005 Reference > 0.05 2005 Extended reference ANOVA analysis 1999 1999 2001 2005 2005 2005 Thracia phaseolina Wind farm Reference Wind farm Wind farm Reference Extended reference 1999 Wind farm > 0.05 0.007** > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 1999 Reference 0.005** > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 2001 Wind farm > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 2005 Wind farm > 0.05 > 0.05 2005 Reference > 0.05 2005 Extended reference ANOVA analysis 1999 1999 2001 2005 2005 2005 Ensis americanus Wind farm Reference Wind farm Wind farm Reference Extended reference 1999 Wind farm > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 0.002** 1999 Reference > 0.05 > 0.05 > 0.05 0.001** 2001 Wind farm > 0.05 > 0.05 < 001** 2005 Wind farm > 0.05 0.027* 2005 Reference > 0.05 2005 Extended reference No/m² Total abundance 2001 2003 2004 400 300 200 100 0 WW g/m² Total biomass 2001 2003 2004 Wind farm area Reference area Figure 3.6. Total abundance and total biomass in the wind farm and reference areas from 2001 to 2004. Autumn samples. A rather heterogeneous spatial distribution pattern was displayed for more of the most dominant and character species in 2005 (Figure 3.8). One of the main differences in the spatial distribution was found for the American razor shell (Ensis americanus), which was most abundant in the northwestern part of the extended reference area. The consequence of this was a conspicuously larger biomass in this particular area and in the extended reference area in general compared to the wind farm area and in lesser extent the reference area, where this mussel also was found. The small mussel (Goodallia triangularis) was most common in the wind farm area, whereas Thracia phaseolina seemed to be more ho- Doc. No. 2572-03-005 rev. 4
Page 2 and 3: Published: Benthic Communities at H
Page 4 and 5: Horns Rev. Benthic communities Page
Page 94 and 95:
Horns Rev. Benthic communities Page
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Doc. No. 2572-03-005 rev. 4 Appendi
Page 106 and 107:
Doc. No. 2572-03-005 rev. 4 2005 Me
Page 108 and 109:
Doc. No. 2572-03-005 rev. 4 2003-Au
Page 110 and 111:
Doc. No. 2572-03-005 rev. 4 2004-Au
Page 112 and 113:
Doc. No. 2572-03-005 rev. 4 2005-Au
Page 114 and 115:
Doc. No. 2572-03-005 rev. 4 2004 Sp
Page 116 and 117:
Doc. No. 2572-03-005 rev. 4 8.4.4.
Page 118 and 119:
Doc. No. 2572-03-005 rev. 4 2004-Sp
Page 120 and 121:
Doc. No. 2572-03-005 rev. 4 2005-Sp
Page 122 and 123:
Doc. No. 2572-03-005 rev. 4 8.4.5.
Page 124 and 125:
Doc. No. 2572-03-005 rev. 4 2005 Sp
Page 126 and 127:
Doc. No. 2572-03-005 rev. 4 2003-Au
Page 128 and 129:
Doc. No. 2572-03-005 rev. 4 2004-Au
Page 130 and 131:
Doc. No. 2572-03-005 rev. 4 2005-Au
Page 132 and 133:
Doc. No. 2572-03-005 rev. 4 2004 Sp
Page 134:
Doc. No. 2572-03-005 rev. 4 Horns R
show all

Benthic Communities at Horns Rev Before, During and After Con

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?