Download (20MB) - Repository@Napier
Download (20MB) - Repository@Napier Download (20MB) - Repository@Napier
35 — *** 30 25 — 1.) = .-c‘l > 20 — .a' c:g 15 — . ,.., '71 a) v) 10 — 5 — o 30 — 25 a.) z Tri > 20 — *a' 35 — el) 15 — -0 a) cr) 10 — 5 — 0 *** (i) 4 Weeks • Non-weed plots 0 Weed plots *** % Water % Organics % Silt/clay Md phi ** % Water *** I MIMI I % Organics * * (ii) 20 Weeks • Non-weed plots El Weed plots * *** * Sorting coefficient ** I 1117 I -I % Silt/clay Md phi Sorting coefficient Figures 5.3(i-ii): % water, organic and silt/clay contents and granulometry results for the sediments of weed and non-weed plots (± S.E.Mean, n=6) for (i) 4 weeks and (ii) 20 weeks after V. subsimplex mat establishment. * Denotes a significant difference between the 2 plot types with p
e 180 - 160 140 — 120 - 100 7 .............. so - 400 — 350 — > 300 — E s 250 'a' 2 g 200 - Ct. t/7 Ca' 60 - 40 - 20 - 250 150 — 100 — 50 — (iii) 20 weeks Non-weed plots Weed plots 0 1 cm 2cm 4cm Sediment depth (ii) 8 weeks Non-weed plots 200 - Weed plots ** e s :a. 150 .. :6; 2 5 g 100 - 1:14' 50 - .. *** 1 cm 2cm 4cm Sediment depth Non-weed plots Weed plots lcm 2cm 4cm Sediment depth Figures 5.4(i-iii): Redox potential profiles of the weed and non-weed plots (± S.E.Mean, n=6); (i) 4 weeks; (ii) 8 weeks; and (iii) 20 weeks after V. subsimplex mat establishmen t. * Denotes a significant difference between the 2 plot types with p
- Page 84 and 85: 1 0000000 00 rg 0 00 d- - Xauanbau
- Page 86 and 87: Reproductive activity of Pygospio e
- Page 88 and 89: P. elegans larvae at Drum Sands hav
- Page 90 and 91: Pygospio elegans showed great seaso
- Page 92 and 93: Previous studies have produced simi
- Page 94 and 95: The sole reliance on a planktonic m
- Page 96 and 97: abundance are highly seasonal, were
- Page 98 and 99: CHAPTER 4 THE EFFECTS OF MACROALGAL
- Page 100 and 101: studies may have been completely di
- Page 102 and 103: METHODS Study site - The exact posi
- Page 104 and 105: 1 C N W 4----111" 1.5m 2 NW C Contr
- Page 106 and 107: sediment sampling, together with re
- Page 108 and 109: RESULTS Species abundances - The me
- Page 110 and 111: ; 15 35 — 30 — 25 — 10 — 5
- Page 112 and 113: statistical difference from net plo
- Page 114 and 115: Pygospio elegans size distribution
- Page 116 and 117: used, approximately equivalent to t
- Page 118 and 119: artefacts associated with the metho
- Page 120 and 121: present in high numbers around sewa
- Page 122 and 123: lack, hydrogen sulphide-smelling se
- Page 124 and 125: CHAPTER 5 THE EFFECTS OF MACROALGAL
- Page 126 and 127: METHODS Survey design - During late
- Page 128 and 129: The sediments could not be sampled
- Page 130 and 131: RESULTS Species abundances - Table
- Page 132 and 133: 90 — 80 — "-e-' 70 — 60 — 4
- Page 136 and 137: Pygospio elegans size distributions
- Page 138 and 139: which is difficult to compare with
- Page 140 and 141: eason why some invertebrates showed
- Page 142 and 143: This study did not set out to expli
- Page 144 and 145: This reliance upon the early establ
- Page 146 and 147: CHAPTER 6 INITIAL COLONISATION OF D
- Page 148 and 149: esulting community at any stage of
- Page 150 and 151: ambient sediment had been removed.
- Page 152 and 153: emoved since they were the only tax
- Page 154 and 155: All statistics were performed using
- Page 156 and 157: RESULTS Univariate analysis of spec
- Page 158 and 159: 3.5 3 5 2 11 5 1 0.5 0 40 35 Ca 30
- Page 160 and 161: of non-patch areas (Figure 6.3(vi))
- Page 162 and 163: the individuals colonising patch az
- Page 164 and 165: Multivariate analysis of community
- Page 166 and 167: Month Sample statistic (Global R) N
- Page 168 and 169: 2NP 3NP 4NP .•,, 6NP 5NP 6P 1NP i
- Page 170 and 171: Figure 6.8: Two-dimensional MDS ord
- Page 172 and 173: - - 5P ... 4P . 6P • .‘2NP 1NP
- Page 174 and 175: I 50. 1 60. 70. 80. 90. 100. BRAY-C
- Page 176 and 177: 'P2-AZ P3-AZ N2-AZ .- - - " .„ ..
- Page 178 and 179: o • o -o + 350 — 300 = 250 7 g
- Page 180 and 181: The importance of the ambient commu
- Page 182 and 183: In April, when P. elegans larval av
e<br />
180 -<br />
160<br />
140 —<br />
120 -<br />
100 7 ..............<br />
so -<br />
400 —<br />
350 —<br />
> 300 —<br />
E s<br />
250<br />
'a' 2<br />
g 200 -<br />
Ct. t/7<br />
Ca'<br />
60 -<br />
40 -<br />
20 -<br />
250<br />
150 —<br />
100 —<br />
50 —<br />
(iii) 20 weeks<br />
Non-weed<br />
plots<br />
Weed plots<br />
0<br />
1 cm 2cm 4cm<br />
Sediment depth<br />
(ii) 8 weeks Non-weed plots<br />
200 - Weed plots<br />
**<br />
e s<br />
:a. 150 ..<br />
:6; 2<br />
5<br />
g 100 -<br />
1:14'<br />
50 -<br />
..<br />
***<br />
1 cm 2cm 4cm<br />
Sediment depth<br />
Non-weed<br />
plots<br />
Weed plots<br />
lcm 2cm 4cm<br />
Sediment depth<br />
Figures 5.4(i-iii): Redox potential profiles of the weed and non-weed plots (±<br />
S.E.Mean, n=6); (i) 4 weeks; (ii) 8 weeks; and (iii) 20 weeks after V. subsimplex mat<br />
establishmen t. * Denotes a significant difference between the 2 plot types with<br />
p
Change language