MTR 912.pdf - Mote Marine Laboratory

MOTE MARINE LABORATORY TECHNICAL REpORT No. 912 

This document printed on recycled paper with non-destmctive ink ..

DRAFT FINAL REpORT FOR 

AN INVESTIGATION OF RELATIONSHIPS 

BETWEEN 

FRESHWATER INFLOWS AND 

BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES IN THE 

ALAFIA RIVER ESTUARY 

Submitted to: 

Contract Administration, Building No. 2 

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 

2379 Broad Street 

Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 

Submitted By: 

Center for Coastal Ecology 

MOTE MARINE LABORATORY 

1600 Ken Thompson Parkway 

Sarasota, Florida 34236 

(941) 388-4441 

MARINE LABORATORY 

June 2003 

Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report No. 912 

This document printed on recycled paper with non-destructive ink ..

T ABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page No. 

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. i 

List of Tables . .................. .. .. ......... .. . .... . .. . .. ............ . .. .... iii 

List of Figures ........... .. ........... . ..................... . ....... . . .. . .... iv 

List of Appendices Tables ...................................................... xi 

List of Appendices Figures .................................................... xii 

Project Participants and Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. xvii 

PREFACE ............. . ...................................................... 1 

I. INTRODUCTION ............................. ... ................. . . ...... 5 

1.1 Study Rationale .... ..... ..... . . ..... ............... .. . .. ........ . . 5 

1.2 Study Period Climate Conditions ...................................... 6 

1.2.1 Rainfall .................................................... 6 

1.2.2 River Flows . ........ ... ..... .......... ... . . .. . ............. 7 

II. MORPHOMETRY, HABITATS, SEDIMENT AND MACROINFAUNA ........... . .. . . .. 14 

IT. 1 Sampling Locations ............................................... 14 

IT.2 Bathymetry and Morphometrics .. . ........ ..... .. .... . .... . .......... 15 

IT.3 Benthic Habitat Map ....... . ............... . . ... ... .. ........ ... .. 16 

IT.4 Benthic Macroinfauna ... ..... ........... .. ... .. . .. . ... . ... . ....... 16 

IT.4.1 Faunal Identification and Enumeration .................... .. . ... 16 

IT.4.2 Biomass Analysis ......... . ... .......... .. . ........ . ....... . 17 

IT.4.3 Incorporation of Other Benthic Data ... ... . ........... ..... ... .. 17 

IT.5 Sediment Analyses .............................................. . . 18 

IT. 7 Data Analysis .... ... ... ............. ... ..... . ... .... .. . .... . .. ... 19 

IT.8 Results ............ ......... . . .. ............ . .......... .. ... .... 19 

IT.8.1 Salinity Conditions .............................. . ...... . .... 19 

IT.8.2 Bathymetry and Morphometrics ...... ....... ................... 20 

IT.8.3 Sediment Composition .......... . ....... . ... . .. . . . ........... 20 

IT.8.4 Benthic Macroinfauna ................... ........ ... .. . ...... 22 

IT.8.4.1 Methodological Considerations .. . .. . . ............ . 22 

IT.8.4.2 Benthic Community Parameters ........ . ..... . ... . 22 

IT.8.4.3 Seasonal and Spatial Distribution of Taxa .......... .. 23 

IT.8.4 4 Benthos as a Trophic Resource .. . ................ . 24 

IT.8.4.5 Biomass ..................... .... . ........ . .. . 25 

IT.8.4.6 Community Similarity - Cluster Analysis .......... .. 26 

IT.8.4.7 Faunal Relationships to Salinity .. . ........... ... .. 26 

IT.9 Summary and Discussion . ... .. .... . . . .. .. . . .... ... . ...... . ......... 30 

Alafia Ri ver - Final Report -1- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

(Table of Contents, continued) 

Page No. 

III. MOLLUSCAN BIO·INDICATORS OF THE TIDAL ALAFIA RIVER .............. .. .. 97 

m.1 Introduction .... ..... ........... . . ... .. . ... ...................... 97 

m.1.1 Metrics of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Response to Salinity 

Change in the Alafia River ............. ... .... ........ . .. .. . .. 99 

m.1.2 Hydrology ...... . ....... .... ......... ... . ...... ..... ..... 100 

m.2 Methods . . ..... .. ........ .... . ..... ....... . ....... ... .......... 100 

m.3 Results . ... ...... .. .... ..... . .. .. ............. ..... . ... . ... .. .. 102 

m.3.1 Effort and Representativeness .. . . .... . ..... ............... ... 102 

m.3.2 Species Richness .......................................... 102 

m.3.3 Species Accounts .. ........ . ....... .. ......... .. ..... ... ... 103 

m.3.4 Community Pattern ...... .. .. ... ......... . ..... . ...... . .. .. . 105 

m.3.5 Oysters and Mussels ........................................ 107 

m.4 Discussion ..................................................... 108 

ill. 5 Synthesis ...................................................... 112 

IV. LITERATURE CITED ............ ' ....................................... 142 

ApPENDICES 

Appendix A • 

Appendix B • 

Appendix C • 

AppendixD • 

Appendix E • 

Appendix F • 

Bathymetry Data 

Sediment Parameters 

Benthic Habitat Maps 

Macroinfaunal Data 

Mollusk Data 

Mollusk Data 

Data appendices included as pdf files on the accompanying compact disc. 

Appendix CD·A Macroinfauna 

Alafia River - Final Report -ii- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

,...... 

• t 

, " 

Alafia River Watershed. 

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." 

- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

II. 

LIST OF TABLES 

MORPHOMETRY, HABITATS, SEDIMENT AND MACROINFAUNA 

Page No. 

Table 11.1. 

Comparison of locations of stations sampled for this study with the strata 

utilized by the HBMP program ...... . ........... .. .......... .... .... 15 

Table 11.2. Area and volume for 1 kilometer segments of the lower Alafia River. ........ 21 

Table 11.3. 

Table 11.4. 

Table 11.5. 

Table 11.6. 

Summary of benthic community parameters by sampling event. Collec~ions 

made for this project are in bold print. Data are arranged by HBMP stratum 

and rank order by preceding 60 day rainfall totals. . ...................... 36 

Number and percentage of taxa recovered for each sampling date and HBMP 

river stratum, with data ranked by preceding 60 day rainfall totals. . ......... 43 

Abundance and percentage abundance for each sampling date and HBMP 

river stratum, with data ranked by preceding 60 day rainfall totals. . ......... 44 

Distribution of species in shallow versus deep strata as sampled by sweep 

nets for the wet and dry sampling periods. . .................... . ... ... . 45 

III. 

MOLLUSCAN BIO-INDICATORS OF THE TIDAL ALAFIA RIvER, FLORIDA 

Table 111.1. Expected response of benthic macroinvertebrates to salinity increase .. ... .. . 99 

Table 111.2. 

Summary list of Alafia River mollusk species collected on 0.5 km 

transects ............................. . ...... .... ...... ... ...... 102 

Table 111.3. Relation of live to dead shell distribution patterns in the tidal Alafia River ... 107 

Table 111.4. Comparison of mollusk species richness by river and gear ................ 108 

Alafia Ri ver - Final Report -lll- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

LIST OF FIGURES 

PREFACE 

Page No. 

Figure 1. Hillsborough Bay Chart 1879 ........................................ 4 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Figure 1.1. 

Figure 1.2. 

Figure 1.3. 

Figure 1.4. 

Rainfall conditions for the Alafia River Basin 1998 - 200 1 as compared to the 

long-term average. . ............. . .................................. 9 

Monthl y rainfall for the study period (dark bars) as compared to the long term 

average rainfall for the Alafia basin. . ................................. 10 

Monthly rainfall deviation from the long tern average within the Alafia River 

drainage basin. ....................... ... ......................... 11 

Rainfall and total estimated River flow for the period January 1995 through 

September 200 1. ................................................. 12 

Figure 1.5. Relative percentage of contributing flows to the Alafia River. .............. 13 

II. 

MORPHOMETRY, HABITATS, SEDIMENT AND MACROINFAUNA 

Figure 11.1. Map of the Alafia River illustrating the approximate locations of the 1 

kilometer sampling intervals ......................................... 14 

Figure 11.2. Distribution of benthic sampling based on preceding 60 day rainfall totals. . . . 18 

Figure 11.3. 

Figure 11.4. 

Figure 11.5. 

Figure 11.6. 

Bottom salinity for two sampling periods, May 1999 (wet) and October 

2001(dry) ...................... . .................... ....... ..... 46 

Daily average modeled salinity, (minimum, maximum, median) by river 

kilometer based on data covering the period May 1999 - September 2001 ..... 47 

Benthic relevant salinity regime based on modeled salinity for thirty day 

average preceding each of 18 benthic sampling dates. . .... ..... . ......... 48 

Relative contribution of surface area and volume of the Alafia River by 

kilometer .. ... . .. . ... . .... ... .. . ................ .. ... . .......... 49 

Alalia River - Final Report -lV- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

(List of Figures, continued) 

Page No. 

Figure 11.7. 

Figure 11.8. 

Figure 11.9. 

Schematic illustration of the Alafia River bathymetry based on NGVD, figure 

provided by SWFWMD. . .......................................... 50 

lllustration of the greatest depths recorded for cross-section transects during 

the bathymetry survey of the Alafia River. ............................. 51 

Distribution of sediment median and mean grain size by river kilometer and 

cross channel position. Left and right bank: designations are based on a 

boater's perspective looking downstream. Size of circle is proportional to 

grain size ....................................................... 52 

Figure 11.10. Distribution of sediment percentage silt and percentage clay by river 

kilometer and cross channel position. Left and right bank: designations are 

based on a boater's perspective looking downstream ..................... . 53 

Figure 11.11. Distribution of sediment percentage sand and volatile solids (organics) by 

river kilometer and cross channel position. Left and right bank designations 

are based on a boater's perspective looking downstream ................... 54 

Figure 11.12. Distribution of sediment percentage solids and moisture by river kilometer 

and cross channel position. Left and right bank: designations are based on a 

boater's perspective looking downstream ............................... 55 

Figure 11.13. Distribution of number of taxa (counts) recovered from each sample ......... 56 

Figure 11.14. Distribution of number of individuals collected from each benthic faunal 

sample ......................................................... 57 

Figure 11.15. Distribution of diversity values (R') for each benthic sample ............... 58 

Figure 11.16. Number of taxa recovered from core samples by river kilometer for May 

1999 (dry season) and September 2001 (wet season) .................... . . 59 

Figure 11.17. N umber of indi viduals per m 2 recovered from core samples by river kilometer 

for May 1999 (dry season) and September 2001 (wet season) ............... 60 

Figure 11.18. Number of taxa recovered from sweep samples by river kilometer for May 

1999 (dry season) and September 2001 (wet season) ....... . .............. 61 

Alafia River - Final Report -v- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003


Page No. 

Figure 11.19. Number of individuals recovered from sweep samples by river kilometer for 

May 1999 (dry season) and September 2001 (wet season) .......... . ....... 62 

Figure 11.20. Number of insect taxa recovered from core samples by river kilometer for 

May 1999 (dry season) and September 2001 (wet season) ............. . .... 63 

Figure 11.21. Number of insects per m 2 based on counts from core samples by river 

kilometer for May 1999 (dry season) and September 2001 (wet season) ...... . 64 

Figure 11.22. Total abundance of benthic organisms for each kilometer of river. . ....... . . 65 

Figure 11.23. Total abundance of polychaetes for each kilometer of river ............... . . 66 

Figure II.24. Total abundance of molluscs for each kilometer of river. . .... . ............ 67 

Figure 11.25. Total abundance of amphipods for each kilometer of river. . .. . ............ 68 

Figure II.26. Total abundance of cumaceans for each kilometer of river. ... . ............ 69 

Figure 11.27. Total abundance of mysids for each kilometer of river. .................. . 70 

Figure 11.28. Total abundance of decapods for each kilometer of river ... . ............... 71 

Figure 11.29. Total abundance of isopods for each kilometer of river. ...... . ..... . . . . . . . 72 

Figure 11.30. Total abundance of nemerteans for each kilometer of river. ................ 73 

Figure 11.31. Total abundance of dipterans for each kilometer of river. .. ... . . . ........ .. 74 

Figure 11.32. Total abundance of ologochaets for each kildmeter of river. ... . .... . .. . .. .. 75 

Figure 11.33. Ash-free biomass weights for the May 1999 dry season sampling .. .... . . ... . 76 

Figure 11.34. Dry weight benthic biomass for the May 1999 collection. . ............. .. . 77 

Figure 11.35. Ash-free benthic biomass for the September 2001 collection. . ... . .. . . . . . .. 78 

Figure 11.36. Dry weight benthic biomass for the September 2001 collection. . ........... 79 

Alafia River· Final Report - Vl- Mote Marine Laboratory· June 2003


Page No. 

Figure II.37. Cluster diagram based on Bray-Curtis, group averaged sorting and 

presence/absence faunal data. . ............................ . ......... 80 

Figure II.38. Representation of taxa ranked by abundance and plotted against the weighted 

center of salinity for the occurrence of that species. . ..................... 81 

Figure II.39. The number of taxa collected within discrete salinity increments. . .......... 82 

Figure II.40. Distribution of the number of taxa collected for each sampling period versus 

salinity, based on HBMP zones. . .................................... 83 

Figure II.41. Distribution of benthic abundance for each sampling period versus salinity, 

based on HBMP zones. . ........................................... 84 

Figure II.42. Plots of the Shannon-Wiener Index (H') versus salinity based on HBMP 

zones ..................................................... ' ..... 85 

Figure II.43. Plots of Pie lou's Equitability Index versus salinity based on HBMP zones .. .. . 86 

Figure II.44. Plots of Gini's Index versus salinity based on HBMP zones ................ 87 

Figure II.4S. Plots of the Margalef Index versus salinity based on HBMP zones. . ......... 88 

Figure II.46. Dry season cumulative species list and distribution (presence/absence) by 

river kilometer, starting by listing fIrst species occurrence downstream then 

proceeding upstream adding additional species. Core = x, sweep = o. . ....... 89 

Figure II.47. Wet season cumulative species list and distribution (presence/absence) by 

river kilometer, starting by listing fIrst species occurrence downstream then 

proceeding upstream adding additional species. Core = x, sweep = o. . ....... 91 

Figure II.48. Dry season cumulative species list and distribution (presence/absence) by 

river kilometer, starting by listing fIrst species occurrence upstream then 

proceeding downstream adding additional species. Core = x, sweep = o ....... 92 

Figure II.49. Wet season cumulative species list and distribution (presence/absence) by 

river kilometer, starting by listing fIrst species occurrence upstream then 

proceeding downstream adding additional species. Core = x, sweep = o .. ..... 94 

Alafia Ri ver - Final Report -Vll- Mote Marine Laboratory - Jllne 2003


Page No. 

Figure II.SO. Cumulative species curves for analysis of data proceeding downstream to 

upstream and upstream to downstream for both dry (top) and wet season 

(bottom) .. ... .... .. .............................................. 95 

Figure II.S1. Cluster analysis results for salinity with species presence/absence data within 

each salinity interval used as the matrix. . .... : ......................... 96 

III. 

MOLLUSCAN BIO-INDICATORS OF THE TIDAL ALAFIA RIVER, FLORIDA 

Figure III.1. The tidal Alafia River. US 41 is near river kilometer (RK) 1.6; 1-75 crosses 

the river near RK 5.4; US 301 crosses near RK 7.9, Buckhorn Spring is near 

RK 12.2, and Bell Shoals is near 17.9 .................. . ............. 115 

Figure III.2. Density, size, percent juveniles, and weather index values for live and dead 

collections of Mytilopsis leucophaeta as a function of distance from 

Hillsborough Bay, in intertidal and subtidal strata ....... . .. . ............ 116 


collections of Geukensia demissa as a function of distance from Hillsborough 

Bay, in intertidal and subtidal strata .. . .. . ............................ 117 


collections of Polymesoda caroliniana as a function of distance from 

Hillsborough Bay, in intertidal and subtidal strata ........ ... . .. .. .... . .. 118 

Figure III.S. Density, size, percent juveniles, and weather index values for live and dead 

collections of Crassostrea virginica as a function of distance from 

Hillsborough Bay, in intertidal and subtidal strata . . ......... . .... . .. . ... 119 


collections of Mysella planulata as a function of distance from Hillsborough 

Bay, in intertidal and subtidal strata .................. . .. .. ... . .... .. . 120 


collections of Tagelus plebe ius as a function of distance from Hillsborough 

Bay, in intertidal and subtidal strata .. .. .......... . . . . . ......... . ..... 121 

AJafi a River - Final Report - Vlll- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003


Page No. 

Figure 111.8. Density, size, percent juveniles, and weather index values for live and dead 

collections of Neritina usnea as a function of distance from Hillsborough 

Bay, in intertidal and subtidal strata .................................. 122 


collections of Corbiculafluminea as a function of distance from Hillsborough 



collections of Tellina sp. as a function of distance from Hillsborough Bay, in 

intertidal and subtidal strata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 


collections of Littorina irrorata as a function of distance from Hillsborough 


Figure 111.12. Species richness for live and dead mollusk collections relative to river 

kilometer ...................................................... 126 

Figure 111.13. Faunal densities for live and dead mollusk collections relative to river 

kilometer ...................................................... 127 

Figure 111.14. Species richness for intertidal and subtidal mollusk collections relative to 

river kilometer .................................................. 128 

Figure 111.15. Faunal densities for intertidal and subtidal mollusk collections relative to 

river kilometer .................................................. 129 

Figure 111.16. Mollusk species-accumulation curves for live and dead collections 

progressing upstream (upper) and downstream (lower) ................... 130 

Figure 111.17. Mollusk species-accumulation curves for intertidal and subtidal collections 

progressing upstream (upper) and downstream (lower) ... . .. . ............ 131 

Figure 111.18. Dispersion of individual mollusk species sorted by first occurrence moving 

upstream from Hillsborough Bay ..... . ................ . ........... . . 132 

Figure 111.19. Dispersion of individual mollusk species sorted by first occurrence moving 

downstream from Bell Shoals ............ .. . .. ..... . ... . ........... 133 

Alafia Ri ver - Final Report -ix- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003


Page No. 

Figure 111.20. Mean height (mm ± s.d.) of largest living Geukensia and Crassostrea relative 

to distance from Hillsborough Bay. Data collected September 11, 2001 ..... 134 

Figure 111.21. Mean salinity (parts per thousand) and salinity variance (as standard 

deviation) of surface waters relative to distance from Hillsborough Bay ..... 135 

Figure 111.22. Mean concentration (mg/l) and variability of dissolved oxygen in bottom 

waters for each HBMP sampling stratum ............................. 136 

Figure 111.23. Schematic of bottom types and areas of transition in bottom types within the 

upper reach of the tidal Alafia River ................................. 137 

Figure 111.24. Location and sizes of oyster reefs in the lower reach of the tidal Alafia River, 

June and July, 2001 .............................................. 138 

Figure 111.25. Surface area (hectares) of low-intertidal river bottom (-0.12 m NGVD) as a 

function of distance from Hillsborough Bay ........................... 139 

Figure 111.26. Cumulative surface area (hectares) of low-intertidal river bottom (-0.12 m 

NGVD) as a function of distance from Bell Shoals ...................... 140 

Alafia Ri ver - Final Report -x- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

LIST OF ApPENDICES TABLES 

Page No. 

Appendix Table B-l. 

Appendix Table B-2. 


Appendix Table D-l. 

Appendix Table D-2. 



Appendix Table D-S. 

Appendix Table E-l. 

Sediment grain size statistics for May 2001 samples 

from the Alafia River. Terminology: 

HB=Hillsborough Bay, R=river, # = river kilometer ( + 

upstream from mouth), L, M, R = left, middle, and 

right side of river when facing downstream. . .............. B-1 

Sediment grain size statistics for December 2000) 

samples from the Little Manatee River. Terminology: 

Bay=Tampa Bay, R=river, #=river kilometer (+ 

upstream from mouth), L, M, R = left, middle, and 

right side of river when facing downstream. . .............. B-4 

Sediment characteristics of coarse material (>0.5 mm) 

from Alafia River benthic samples from May 1999 .......... B-5 

Phylogenetic species list for all data used 

within this report ................................... D-l 

Center of abundance for all species collected during 

the dry season (May 1999) and wet season (September 

2001), using salinity at capture data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. D-ll 

Center of abundance estimates for all data used in this 

report based on modeled 30 day average salinity, 

reported by HBMP strata. ........................... D-17 

Benthic invertebrate biomass for the Alafia River, 

May 1999 samples ................................. D-26 

Benthic invertebrate biomass for the Alafia 

River, May 1999 samples ............................ D-29 

Mollusk data from ponar grabs ......................... E-l 

Alafia River - Final Report 

-Xl- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

LIST OF ApPENDICES FIGURES 

Page No. 

Appendix Figure A-I. Alafia cross-section profiles. A-I 

Appendix Figure A-2. Alafia cross-section profiles continued. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A-2 

Appendix Figure A-3. Alafia cross-section profiles continued. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3 


Appendix Figure A-S. Alafia cross-section profiles continued. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A-5 


Appendix Figure A-7. Alafia cross-section profiles continued .......... ......... A-7 

Appendix Figure A-S. Alafia cross-section profiles continued. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A-8 


Appendix Figure A-IO. 

Bathymetry contours for the lower Alafia River. Data 

expressed as depth related to NGVD29. . .. . ... .... . .. .. A-II 

Appendix Figure A-ll. Bathymetry contours (continued). · .................... A-12 

Appendix Figure A-12. Bathymetry contours (continued). ·......... . . . . . ...... A-13 

Appendix Figure A-13. Bathymetry contours (continued). ·.................... A-14 

Appendix Figure A-14. Bathymetry contours (continued). · ............... . . . .. A-15 

Appendix Figure A-IS. Bathymetry contours (continued). · .. . ... . . ....... . . . .. A-16 

Appendix Figure A-16. Bathymetry contours (continued). · ......... . ...... . ... A-17 

Appendix Figure A-17. Bathymetry contours (continued). · ... .... . .. .... ... ... A-18 

Appendix Figure A-IS. Bathymetry contours (continued). · ....... . ..... . . . . ... A-19 

Alafia Ri ver - Final Report - Xll- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

(List of Appendix Figures, continued) 

Appendix Figure B-l. 

Appendix Figure B-1 

(continued). 

Appendix Figure B-2. 



Appendix Figure B-S. 


Appendix Figure C-l. 

Appendix Figure C-2. 



Appendix Figure D-l. 

Grain size distribution for sediment of the Alafia 

River, May 2001, (KM = upstream distance in 

kilometers; HB = kilometers from mouth in 

Hillsborough Bay). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. B-7 through B-12 

(HB = Kilometers from mouth in Hillsborough Bay) ....... B-13 

Sediment grain size statistics for cross sections of the 

Alafia River, May 2001. ................. B-14 through B-22 

Sediment statistics plotted by river kilometer .............. B-23 

Grain size distribution for sediment of the Little 

manatee River, December 2000, (KM = upstream 

distance in Kilometers) ............................... B-25 

Grain size statistics for samples from the Little 

Manatee River, December 2000, (Km = Kilometers 

upstream from mouth). The three bars for each 

kilometer indicate left bank, river center, and right 

bank respectively; as observed facing downstream. . ....... B-27 

Comparison of sediment mean grain size for the 

Alafia and Little Manatee Rivers ....................... B-29 

Habitat maps for the little Alafia River. ................... C-l 

Habitat maps for the little Alafia River (continued) .......... C-2 

Habitat maps for the little Alafia River (continued) .......... C-3 

Habitat maps for the little Alafia River (continued) . ......... C-4 

Distribution of the polychaete Laeonereis culveri for 

dry (May 1999) and wet (September 2001) season 

conditions. Overall rank abundance #2. ................ D-32 

A1afia River - Final Report 

-Xlll- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003


Page No. 

Appendix Figure D-2. 








Appendix Figure D-IO. 

Distribution of the polychaete Mytilopsis 

leucophaeata for dry (May 1999) and wet (September 

2001) season conditions. Overall rank abundance 

#3 .............................................. D-33 

Distribution of the polychaete Chironomus spp. for 

dry (May 1999) and wet (September 200 1) season 

conditions. Overall rank abundance #6 ................. D-34 

Distribution of the polychaete Streblospio benedicti 

for dry (May 1999) and wet (September 2001) season 

conditions. Overall rank abundance #8 ................. D-35 

Distribution of the polychaete Polypedilum halterale 

gpo for dry (May 1999) and wet (September 2001) 

season conditions. Overall rank abundance #9 ........... D-36 

Distribution of the polychaete Apocorophium 

louisianum for dry (May 1999) and wet (September 

2001) season conditions. Overall rank abundance 

#10............................................... D-37 

Distribution of the polychaete Tubificidae sp. for dry 

(May 1999) and wet (September 2001) season 

conditions. Overall rank abundance #12 ................ D-38 

Distribution of the polychaete Paraprionospio 

pinnata for dry (May 1999) and wet (September 

2(01) season conditions. Overall rank abundance 

#13 .............................................. D-39 

Distribution of the polychaete Cladotanytarsus spp. 

for dry (May 1999) and wet (September 200 1) season 

conditions. Overall rank abundance #20. ............... D-40 

Distribution ofthe polychaete Eteone heteropoda for 

dry (May 1999) and wet (September 2(01) season 


Alafia Ri ver - Final Report 

-XIV- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003


Page No. 

Appendix Figure D-ll. 




Appendix Figure D-IS. 






Distribution of the polychaete Mulinia lateralis for 

dry (May 1999) and wet (September 2001) season 

conditions. Overall rank abundance #36. ...... . ........ D-42 

Distribution of the polychaete Phyllodoce arenae for 

dry (May 1999) and wet (September 200 1) season 


Abundance distribution of the amphipod Ampelisca 

cf Abdita by HBMP strata and salinity. Rank 

abundance #1.......................... .. . . ....... D-44 

Abundance distribution of the amphipod Laeonereis 

culveri by HBMP strata and salinity. Rank abundance 

#2 ....................................... . ....... D-45 

Abundance distribution of the amphipod Mytilopsis 

leucophaeata by HBMP strata and salinity. Rank 

abundance #3. ... ... ....................... . ...... D-46 

Abundance distribution of the amphipod 

Grandidierella bonnieroides by HBMP strata and 

salinity. Rank abundance #4. . ...... . ............ . ... D-47 

Abundance distribution of the amphipod Chironomus 

spp. by HBMP strata and salinity. Rank abundance 

#6 ........ . ............... .. ....... . .. . ........ . . D-48 

Abundance distribution of the amphipod Streblospio 

benedicti by HBMP strata and salinity. Rank 

abundance #8........................ . ............ D-49 

Abundance distribution of the amphipod Tubificidae 

wlo cap. setae by HBMP strata and salinity. Rank 

abundance #12. . .. . ..... . ... . ......... . . . .. . ..... . D-50 

Abundance distribution of the amphipod Hobsonia 

florida by HBMP strata and salinity. Rank abundance 

#28 .................................. . . .. ... . .. .. D-51 

A1afia Ri ver - Final Report 

-xv- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003


Page No. 










Abundance distribution of the amphipod Eteone 

heteropoda by HBMP strata and salinity. Rank 

abundance #33. . .................................. D-52 

Abundance distribution of the amphipod Mulinia 

lateralis by HBMP strata and salinity. Rank 

abundance #36. . .................................. D-53 

Abundance distribution of the amphipod Cyathura 

polita by HBMP strata and salinity. Rank abundance 

#56 .............................................. D-54 

Abundance distribution of the amphipod Edotea 

triloba by HBMP strata and salinity. Rank 

abundance #57. ....................... .... ........ D-55 

Abundance distribution of the amp hi pod Polypedilum 

halterale by HBMP strata and salinity. Rank 

abundance #69. . ........... ... ................ . ... D-56 


Stenoninereis martini by HBMP strata and salinity. 

Rank abundance #73. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. D-57 


Heteromastusfiliformis by HBMP strata and salinity. 

Rank abundance #78 ..................... ... ... ..... D-58 

Abundance distribution of the amphipod Procladius 


#80 ................... .. ........... ... ........... D-59 

Abundance distribution ofthe amphipod Hydrobiidae 


#96 .............................................. D-60 

Alafia River - Final RepoI1 

-XVl- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

PROJECT PARTICIPANTS 

Mote Marine Laboratory 

James K. Culter 

Ernest D. Estevez 

Jay M .. Sprinkel 

Jay R. Leverone 

Andrea Baird 

Jennifer Osterhoudt 

Debi Ingrao 

Jon Perry 

Tracy Toutant 

Project Manager, Principal Investigator 

Co-Principal Investigator 

Data Manager 

Invertebrate Taxonomy 




Sediment Analysis, GIS Products 

GIS Products 

Water and Air Research. Inc .. Gainesville. Florida 

IV. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This study could not have been done without the able assistance of MML scientists and interns, K. 

Churchill, D. Ingrao, and J. Lucas. The project was sponsored by the Southwest Florida Water 

Management District. We thank M.S. Flannery for technical and other assistance. 

A1afia River - Final Report -xvu- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

PREFACE 

There is a concept in biological ecology know as the eroding baseline, which refers to gradual 

degradation of habitat, such that through time the baseline conditions are actually representative of 

a previously impacted system. It is often erroneously believed that a baseline condition is the natural 

or normal non-impacted condition, when this may not be the case. The baseline becomes eroded 

through a continuum of anthropogenic impacts which mayor may not be coupled with natural 

fluctuations, such as climate change. 

A fundamental principle of benthic ecology is that changes in the biota are reflections of changes in 

the physio-chemical environment (Matthews et ai., 1991). It is a grievous error to imply that a 

biological system under scrutiny, in this case a tidal river, is existing in a normal or "non-impacted" 

state prior to the initiation of a new alteration or "impact." We have no data concerning the presettlement 

biological condition ofthe Alafia River. This report contains the results of investigations 

of the benthos of the Alafia River spanning the period of 1998-2001, with additional data sets 

collected by other researchers expanded the data set for a period from 1995-2001. These data 

comprise the first methodical evaluation of the benthos of the Alafia River, but are not considered 

to be a true biological baseline as the Alafia River watershed has been subjected to much disruption 

since the settlement of Florida. 

The Alafia River is not a pristine river. It is on the Environmental Protection Agency's List of 

Impaired Waters due to excessive levels of nutrients, coliforms (bacterial contamination) and low 

dissolved oxygen. Within the drainage basin the following tributaries were listed as impaired waters; 

North Prong, South Prong, Bell Creek, English Creek, Owens Branch, Poley Creek, thirty Mile 

Creek and Turkey Creek. 

The Alafia River could serve as a poster river for the diverse and harmful array of anthropogenic 

impacts. Natural areas within the watershed are in the minority. Land use includes urban, mining, 

agriculture, and industry. The USGS in their ongoing study of Historical and Prehistorical Record 

of Tampa Bay Environments, considers the mouth of the Alafia to be a highly impacted area. Thus 

far the USGS has found that increased algal, zooplankton and sewer input into Hillsborough Bay 

coincides with anaerobic water conditions in the youngest sediments. Anaerobic water conditions 

result in anaerobic sediments and the total loss of benthic fauna during these events. The conversion 

of the City of Tampa wastewater to advanced treatment has contributed to nutrient reductions in 

Hillsborough Bay and apparent increases in oxygenation. However, it may be difficult to hold the 

line on nutrient inputs into Tampa Bay, since further reductions will depend on reductions of 

atmospheric deposition and non-point source inputs. 

Hillsborough Bay and the adjacent shorelines, including the mouth of the Alafia River, have 

experienced extensive alteration due to massive dredge and fill projects in the last century. This 

activity significantly altered ed the original shoreline configuration and bottom contours. Figure 1, 

illustrates Hillsborough Bay shoreline circa 1879, with only a few small areas exhibiting depths 

greater than 20 ft. The historic shallow channels at the mouth of the Alafia River bears little 

Aiafia River Benthos - Final Report -1- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

esemblance to the present day dredged channel and ship turning basin. At present the controlling 

depths in the main shipping channels are 45 ft and a planned port expansion and harbor maintenance 

will further increase that depth. Channelization alters the hydrological conditions of tidal rivers, by 

increasing the rate of flow of freshwater during the wet season and increasing the upriver penetration 

of saltwater during the dry season. 

Hillsborough Bay has been the receiving waters for phosphate industry activity for many years. After 

the creation of the Clean Water Act of 1972 there was a subsequent reduction of contaminants 

released directly into the watershed. However, levels of phosphorus in Tampa Bay remain high as 

compared to other estuaries in Florida. There is also a long history of periodic industrial accidents 

which have released quantities of phosphate related pollutants to the Alafia River and Hillsborough 

Bay. In 1988 an operational failure of a plant in Gibsonton resulted in a release of 40,000 gallons 

of concentrated phosphoric acid at the mouth of the Alafia. In 1989 a failure of a holding facility 

released 13,000 gallons of concentrated phosphoric acid were released into upper Hillsborough Bay. 

A large portion of the lower Alafia is under tidal influence and to some extent the water quality 

conditions within Hillsborough Bay may be felt in the lower river particularly during the dry season. 

In 1997 a breach in the wall of a phospho gypsum stack located in Mulberry, Florida, resulted in the 

release of 50 million gallons of acidic process water into the headwaters of the Alafia. In addition 

to being acidic the water was highly enriched in phosphorus and nitrogen,and the resultant water 

quality effect was observed in Hillsborough Bay for several months after the spil.l. There was also 

a large documented environmental effect with significant mortality offish, shellfish and crabs (Boler, 

2000). 

Disruptions of natural benthic systems is not limited to direct water quality impacts. Land use has 

been shown to play an important role in the maintenance of benthic meiofanua (fauna smaller than 

0.5 nun). The Polk County portion of the watershed has been highly altered by phosphate strip 

mining. A 1997 study (Cowell) of streams in the headwaters of the Alafia River showed that the 

meiofanual component of reclaimed streams were quite similar to each other, but markedly 

dissimilar from the other stream types (agriculture influenced and residential use). Other parameters 

such as diversity, species richness and Florida Metric indices also showed marked differences 

between streams with different land uses; reclaimed streams had low values. Corkum (1990; 1991) 

showed that land use adjacent to a river exerted a stronger influence on macroinvertebrate 

assemblages than factors associated with longitudinal gradients. 

Cowell (1997) cited specific aspects of the Alafia River headwater streams believed to adversely 

affect taxonomic compositions and densities, these were; 1) shallow streams with few pools or 

backwaters; 2) absence of tree roots and underhang refugia; and 3) the lack of a tree canopy and 

associated snag-producing branches and leaves. Cowell believed that increases in all of these factors 

would produce structure that would enhance food-webs and also would create new refugia from 

predators. The study also found that one stream, Hall's Branch, had large blooms of an irondepositing 

bacterium, during the fall and winter. Large blooms of this bacterium, caused by high 

concentrations of iron and magnesium, can be toxic to some invertebrates or reduce growth rates 

when fed upon (Wellnitz et al., 1991). 

A1afia River Benthos - Final Report -2- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

Exotic invasive species are also found in the Alafia River, such as the vermiculated sailfin catfish 

(Pterygoplichthys disjunctivus) which is also known from streams, canals and other water bodies, 

in Florida. Also found in Lithia Springs is the introduced gastropod Melanoides tuberculata 

(Prosobranchia, Thiaridae). This gastropod has socioeconomic significance as being an intermediate 

host for the human liver fluke and Haplorchis pumilio (Looss, 1896) a common digenean parasite 

of many species of fish of economic importance and has been found to infect cultured Sorotherodon 

spp. (tilapias). 

The lower Alafia River represents a relatively small yet important portion of the Tampa Bay estuary. 

One of the first generally accepted definitions of an estuary was provided by Pritchard (1967) as; 

a semi-enclosed coastal body of water, which has a free connection with the open 

sea, and within which sea water is measurably diluted with freshwater derived from 

land drainage. 

However, a definition by Fairbridge (1980) is considered by many estuarine researchers to be more 

appropriate; 

An estuary is an inlet of the sea reaching into a river valley as far as the upper limit 

of tidal rise, usually being divisible into three sectors; (a) a marine or lower estuary, 

infree connection with the open sea; (b) a middle estuary subject to strong salt and 

freshwater mixing; and (c) an upper or fluvial estuary, characterized by freshwater 

but subject to strong tidal action. The limits between these sectors are variable and 

subject to constant changes in the river discharges. 

A symposium in 1991 showed a consensus of opinion that the tidal freshwater regions of estuaries 

experiences a great deal of stress due to the variance of the chemical and physical processes which 

characterize this region (Me ire and Vinck, 1993). 

Assessing the health of these regions is complicated by natural seasonal and spatial dissolved oxygen 

sags and areas of turbidity maxima. The effects of human induced disturbance add to the complexity 

of interpreting biological conditions. The information contained in this document contributes to the 

knowledge of structure and function of the lower Alafia River. 

Alafia Ri ver Benthos - Final Report -3- Mote Marine Laboratory· June 2003

M ' 

U 

III 

-1:'\ 1.3 W 

'"~ "="" 

.• 

~,.. 

... : 

• 

In 

UI 

- 

~ 

., 

~ 

13 

.... ';l: 

II 

n 

lAo 

III 

. 0 

D 

':\0' 

.... 

,0 

.'" 

" ~ . '" 

u . .. ' 1& 

1\. 

'11 

./ ,,. 

'" 

/ 

1$ 

III 

" II u 

U.' 

l~ 

" 

13 

1\ 

In 

n 

Figure 1. Hillsborough Bay Chart 1879. 

A1afia Ri ver Benthos - Final Report -4- 

Mote Marine Laboratory· June 2003

I. INTRODUCTION 

1.1 STUDY RATIONALE 

In July of 2000 the Southwest Florida Water Management District m(SWFWMDF) selected Mote 

Marine Laboratory (Mote) to conduct studies of benthic macroinvertebrates within the tidal reach 

of the Alafia River, Hillsborough Couniy, as part of the District's data collection program and 

evaluation of living resources relative to the establishment of minimum flows and levels (MFL). In 

this study, Mote Marine Laboratory (Mote) was assisted by Water and Air Research, Inc.(W AR) of 

Gainesville, Florida. 

The study of benthic invertebrates is one of several ongoing and planned studies in the Alafia River, 

including studies in upstream, non-tidal river reaches. In the tidal reach, generally below Bell 

Shoals, study elements include measurement of flows and tide stages, sampling and measurement 

of salinity and water quality, other benthic sampling projects, studies of ichthyoplankton and juvenile 

and adult fishes, and a variety of other projects associated with a Hydrobiological Monitoring 

Program required by the District of Tampa Bay Water. 

A complete picture of benthic community structure and dynamics has both spatial and temporal 

dimensions. This project emphasized spatial aspects. In order to understand the distribution and 

abundance of invertebrates it was first necessary to describe their physical habitat. Accordingly, the 

bathymetry of the river was determined so as to learn depth distributions of the river bottom. Also, 

the spatial extent of dominant benthic habitat types dispersed along the length of the tidal river was 

assessed, and mapped. This information will be useful for salinity-overlap analyses, and will also 

provide relevant data for subsequent sampling efforts. 

During drought conditions of Spring 1999, Mote collected a series of benthic faunal samples along 

the tidal river. These samples were processed in order to learn the structure of invertebrate 

communities along the dry-season (dry-year) salinity gradient. For the final report emphasis will be 

placed upon identifying patterns of species replacement as a function of river position, accounting 

as appropriate for the influences of bottom type, salinity, and other measured or modeled variables. 

Results of the Spring 1999 sampling will be evaluated in terms of other benthic samples taken by 

Hillsborough County, provided by the District to Mote. Results of the Spring 1999 sampling were 

also compared to the invertebrate bycatch collected by University of South Florida's ichthyoplankton 

project, for samples taken during or close to May 1999. 

One new sampling event was scheduled to be conducted during the wet season of 2000. However, 

prolonged regional drought conditions did not provide a suitable wet season for sampling. Following 

favorable wet season flow conditions in August 2001 the wet season sampling was conducted in 

September 2001. 


Issues addressed by this study included; 

~ Do benthic species or communities exhibit dispersion patterns that can be interpreted 

meaningfully with respect to salinity? 

How do sediment type, density stratification, oxygen limitations, or other variables affect 

benthic patterns related to salinity? 

Are benthic species or communities limited in their capacity to respond to changing salinity 

(because of changed flows) because of geomorphic, hydrodynamic, or habitat constraints? 

Relative to their trophic importance, do infaunal species or biomass data correspond with 

meaning to patterns in the distribution or abundance of pelagic or swarming invertebrates, 

or of juvenile and adult fishes? 

How might the availability of benthic food resources be affected by altered flow or salinity 

regimes? 

1.2 STUDY PERIOD CLIMATE CONDITIONS 

1.2.1 Rainfall 

Figure 1.1. illustrates monthly rainfall within the Alafia River Basin for the years 1998 - 2001 as 

compared to the long term average(1915-2001). The year 1998 began as a strong EI Nino episode 

with winter rainfall (January - March) within the Alafia River Basin much greater than long-term 

average. El Nino episodes reflect periods of exceptionally warm sea surface temperatures across 

the eastern tropical Pacific. La Nina episodes represent periods of below-average sea-surface 

temperatures across the eastern tropical Pacific. These episodes typically last approximately 9-12 

months. The wet 1998 winter was followed by a dryer than average spring and summer. September 

1998 exhibited an exceptionally high rainfall (13.91 inches)due to the effects of Tropical Storm 

Gabrielle and the Alafia rose above flood stage of 13.0 ft at Lithia Springs. Primarily due to the 

effect of Gabrielle 1998 had a yearly total rainfall (59.6 inches) greater than the long term average 

for the basin (52.57inches). Figure 1.2 illustrates the monthly rainfall for the entire study period 

considered as compared to the long term monthly averages. 

The year 1999 began a La Nina episode and while January exhibited above average rainfall, February 

through April exhibited lower than average rainfall. The summer was variable with May June and 

August exhibiting greater than average rainfalls and July a lower than average rainfall. September, 

October and December were slightly lower than average and November above average in rainfall. 

With the onset of 2000 rainfall was substantially lower than average for January through May. A 

strong rainy season began in June with above average rainfall and near average conditions were 

carried through he summer. However, October, November and December 2000 exhibited weak 

rainfall patterns in the Alafia Basin. The low levels of precipitation continued through May of 200 1. 

With the onset of June rainfall returned to near average or above average conditions for the summer, 

but again settled into below average rainfall for the fall and winter months. 

Alafia River Benthos - Final Report -6- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

In general the period of 1998 though 2001 was dryer than average. For this 48 month period there 

were 16 months exhibiting rainfall accumulations greater than the long-term average and 32 months 

exhibiting rainfall less than the long term average, Figure 1.3. 

1.2.2 River Flows 

Alafia River Basin 

The Tampa Bay watershed encompasses 2,300 square miles, and includes all lakes, rivers, 

estuaries, wetlands, streams, and the surrounding landscape in all or part of six counties. The 

Alafia River watershed contributes a 418-square-mile drainage basin to the Tampa Bay 

watershed. The basin covers approximately one third of Hillsborough County and extends 

into western edge of Polk County, a large portion which has been or is actively being mined 

for phosphate ore. Approximately 62% of the watershed is located within Hillsborough 

County with the remaining 38% contained in Polk County. 

The Alafia basin is the largest in area of the 17 major watersheds in Hillsborough County. 

The headwaters originate in a swamp and prairie area south of Mulberry in Polk County and 

then flow 24 miles before entering the southeastern comer of the Hillsborough Bay. 

Numerous small springs along the river contribute to flow, the largest are Lithia springs and 

Buckhorn Springs. Surface water runoff contributes most of the river flow, although the 

springs are important contributors to base flows during dry periods. Lithia Springs exhibits 

a seasonal variation in flow in a time lagged response to rainfall. Buckhorn Springs 

contribute less volume than Lithia Springs but do not show the seasonal response to rainfall. 

The major problems occurring within the watershed are associated with flooding, water 

quality, natural systems, and water supply. The watershed has a history of water quality 

problems, with the majority of the pollution occurring as a result of the phosphate mining 

industry that dominates land usage throughout much of the watershed. Flooding problems 

have occurred in the past, especially during the El Nino year of 199711998. Open areas and 

wildlife habitat are rapidly being lost to urban sprawl, mining, and expanding agricultural 

concerns. Rapid population growth has led to water supply shortages. 

The A Lafia Rive r Wate rshed Management PLan addresses three primary topic areas: (1) flood 

abatement/protection, (2) water quality enhancement, and (3) natural systems protection, 

enhancement, restoration, and creation. The shoreline of the lower river is highly urbanized 

making topics 1 and 3 appear to be competing management strategies, and may severely 

restrict the possibilities to restoring the natural cycles and function of flood plain areas. 

Dredge and fill activity has highly altered the mouth of the Alafia River. Most of the 

original modifications were completed by 1930 (Fehring, 1985). A deep-water channel was 

dredged to the river from the main ship channel in Tampa Bay to provide shipping access to 

a phosphate processing plant that is located immediately west of U.S. Highway 41. This 

channel bypassed the river's natural mouth, passing immediately to its north. The former 


iver mouth was then partially filled with the excavated material, effectively changing the 

location; Due to sedimentation from a dredge-spoil area the historic river mouth, has been 

reduced to a small tidal creek with little or no connection to the river (Stoker et ai., 1996). 

The average daily river flow and total monthly rainfall covering the period from 1995-2001 

are shown in Figure 1.4. The graph represents the total flow from the gauged flow at Lithia, 

estimated ungauged flow and the contributions of Lithia and Buckhorn Spring. In general 

the bulk of the flow in the Alafia River, 50-70% can be accounted for by the gauged flow at 

Lithia. However, the relationship between rainfall, and the relative contributions of the four 

above elements is not a simple one. Figure 1.5 illustrates the relative contributions of the 

four flow components for the period of January 1999 through October 2001. At times the 

ungauged flows exceeded the gauged flows and Lithia and Buckhorn springs also show 

considerable variation in relative contribution to river flow. 

EI Nino and La Nina & The Southern Oscillation Index 

The Southern Oscillation Index (SOl) is one measure of the large-scale fluctuations in air pressure occurring between the 

western and eastern tropical Pacific (Le., the state of the Southern Oscillation) during El Nino and La Nina episodes. 

Traditionally, this index has been calculated based on the differences in air pressure anomaly between Tahiti and Darwin, 

Australia. In general, smoothed time series of the SOl correspond very well with changes in ocean temperatures across the 

eastern tropical Pacific. The negative phase of the SOl represents below-normal air pressure at Tahiti and above-normal air 

pressure at Darwin. Prolonged periods of negative SOl values coincide with abnormally warm ocean waters across the eastern 

tropical Pacific typical of El Nino episodes. Prolonged periods of positive SOl values coincide with abnormally cold ocean 

waters across the eastern tropical Pacific typical of La Nina episodes. 

The time series of the SOl and sea surface temperatures in the eastern equatorial Pacific indicates that the ENSO cycle has an 

average period of about four years, although in the historical record the period has varied between two. and seven years. The 

1980's and 1990's featured a very active ENSO cycle, with 5 El Nino episodes (1982183, 1986/87, 1991-1993, 1994/95, and 

1997/98) and 3 La Nina episodes (1984/85, 1988/89, 1995/96) occurring during the period. This period also featured two of 

the strongest El Nino episodes of the century (1982183 and 1997/98), as well as two consecutive periods ofEI Nino conditions 

during 1991 - 1995 without an intervening cold episode. 


-.. 

r/) 

14 ....- --- - - 

12 

10 

~ 

..J::: 

u 

...... 

~ 8 

'-" 

..... 

~ 6 

...... 

~ 

Cd 

4 

~ 

2 

0 

.- 

~ ~ 

"§ 

§. ~ § 

:::J 

.§ ~ ~ 

..., 

~ 

t::: 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

Month 

...... 

!(j 

Pf 

~ 

- ---- ~_=_ -J-- . Long-term Average 

lIJ 1998 

01999 

~2000 

.2.001 

t' t' t' t' 

..0 ..0 ..0 ..0 

9 .8 

.... 9 9 

::;; CJ 

~ 

..., 

f} 

:< ~ 

Figure 1.1. 

Rainfall conditions for the Alafia River Basin 1998 - 2001 as compared to the long-term average. 

Alafia River Benthos - Final Report -9- Mote Marine Laboratory, June 2003

" '-1......---; 

-- 

_J~~I 

-~~~~~lim 

c: 1-4 ........ 

ro 0.. ~ 

....,

~ 

'" :'I 

;.:l 

:;:;. 

~ 

OJ 

'" =. 

~ 

IJ{l 

~ 

~ 

" 

~ 

Monthly Rainfall (inches) 

~ ~ ~ 

'" So 

0 

~ 0 I\) .::.. 0) ex> 0 I\) .::.. 

CI> 

, 

:n 

113111995 

a 

'''' '~ 

'" ~ _. 

;.:l ~ 4/30/1995 

"0 " 

~ 

0 

::1 

;> 

:::: 

7/3111995 

It : : 

... :t> s:: 

• i 

• I 

~ 10/31/1995 

• ! 

~ 

Q. 

113111996 

... 0 

~ 4/30/1996 ~ 0 

- 

::::I 

-. 

I 

..- .., 

tv 

I 

o· 

Q. 

'- 

~ 

... ... ~. '< 

S 10/3111996 

~ -< - 

0 

('D 

113111997 "'Tl 

Q. 

~ 

- 

('D 

r.n 7/3111996 0 =r 

5' 

~ 4/30/1997 :E JJ 

 

('D 

.., C'" 

7/3111997 '< ::::I 

:::!l 

"7 D> 

0 10/3111997 

- 

~ 

0' 113111998 I .-'- -- -- -- ~~ :-~. : ____ _- f Ai 

.., 

... 

::r' 

4/30/1998 

('D 

'g 7/3111998 

10/3111998 1:" 

113111999 

~ 

e 4/30/1999 

~ 

..- 

7/3111999 

\0 

\0 10/3111999 

VI 

... 113112000 

.., 

::r' 

0 

e 4/30/2000 

::r' 7/3112000 

en 

('D 

10/31/2000 

OCI 

'"t::l 

... 

('D 

S 

113112001 

0- 

('D 

.., 

4/30/2001 :f"i:::::::::::::: -• 

tv 

8 ! 

7/3112001 

:-- 1 10/3112001 

3: 

I I 

~ 

- - ~ 4 _ ; ~ : : : .. " ~ .#'_. 

" 3: ~ ~ 

0 0'1 I\) I\) 

:1. '" 0 0 0'1 0 0'1 

'" 

0 " 0 0 0 0 

~ 

a- 

0 

@ 

0 

~ 

..... 

;:, 

'" 

'" 

'" c 

c 

]00 , ----------..... - ..... ----- ~-- . -----.-... --- ---.-.----- ---.-.-.. ------.---.. - -·----- ·-1 - Ga u g ed a t Lit h ia 

90 

80 

~ 

0 

t:i:: 70 

"0 

~ 

c:: 

:E 60 

S 

0 

50 

u 

4-< 

0 

~ 

00 

C':I 

.... 

c:: 

~ 

u 

.... 

~ 

0... 

40 

30 

20 

10 

- - -. - -. Ungauged flows 

- -.t. - - Lith ia Springs 

.-. 

. Buckhorn Spring I 

- 

0 

0- 0- 

0- 0- 

0- 0- 

-- -- 

...... ...... 

...... ...... 

...... M 

0- 0- 0- 0- 0 0 0 ...... 

0- 0- 0- 0- 

8 8 8 8 0- 0- 0- 0- 0 0 0 8 0 

...... ...... ...... ..... N N N N N N N 

...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ...... ...... 

:::::: 

..... .- 

;:::; 

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

trl t- o- ..... ..... M trl t- o- ..... ...... 

Date 

lFfigllllJr~ 1.5. Relative percentage of contributing flows to the Alafia River. 

Alafia River Benthos - Final Report -13- Mote Marine Laboratory. June 2003

II. 

MORPHOlVIETRY, HABITATS, SEDIMENT AND MACROINFAUNA 

Tasks conducted during the study are described below. Mote conducted all field sampling and 

measurement, and analysis of marine and estuarine faunal collections for the 1999 and 2001 

collections. Water and Air Research, Inc. (WAR) assisted in the analysis of freshwater fauna. 

WAR also assisted Mote in the interpretation of data for the final report. The University of Florida 

was also been involved through the research of a graduate student for two semesters. The student 

started field work the summer of 2000 and investigated the distribution and composition of organic 

matter in sediments and how such matter may be affected by freshwater inflows. The student 

collaborated with Mote and the District in addressing these issues. 

11.1 SAMPLING LOCATIONS 

The first stem in implementing the sampling program was the establishment of a river coordinate 

system. The mouth of the river was established as river kilometer zero (RK-O). For this project 

sampling stations were established at 1 kilometer intervals, upriver to RK 15, and down river into 

Hillsborough Bay for two sampling stations referenced as RK-3 and RK-5. 

For the HBMP program the Alafia River, from the mouth to a location above Bell Shoals Road, was 

divided into 6 estuarine strata and 2 freshwater strata. The estuarine strata extend from the mouth 

to approximately RKI4.0; and was divided into 6 strata of equal length (2.33 km). The two 

freshwater strata included one with a downstream boundary at RKm 14.0 and upstream boundary 

at Bell Shoals Road at RK 18.5. The second freshwater stratum extended from Bell Shoals Road 

upstream to RK 21.0. Table 11.1 illustrates the river kilometer locations for the upstream and 

downstream extent of each stratum for the HBMP and the locations of the stations samples by the 

Mote surveys at one kilometer intervals. Figure 11.1 provides a map of the Alafia River illustrating 

the 1 kilometer sampling locations. Maps providing greater detail are presented in Appendices A 

and C. 

27.88 

Hillsborough 

Bay 

27.86 

-5 

27.84 +------,-----.,.--'------,----....,..------,---....,..---~---~-- 

-82.44 -82.42 -82.40 -82.38 -82.36 -82.34 -82.32 -82.30 -82.28 

Figure 11.1. 

Map of the Alafia River illustrating the approximate locations of the 1 kilometer 

sampling intervals. 

Alafia Ri ver Benthos - Final Report -14- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

Table 11.1. 

Comparison of locations of stations sampled for this study with the strata utilized by 

the HBMP program. 

Mote HBMP Stratum HBMP Stratum HBMP Stratum 

Stations (RK) Downstream Limit (RK) U;ustream Limit (RK) Distance of Stratum (RK) 

-5 NA NA 

-3 NA NA 

0 AR 1 0 2.33 2.33 

1 

2 

AR2 2.33 4.67 2.34 

3 

4 

AR3 4.67 7.00 2.33 

5 

6 

7 AR4 7.00 9.33 2.33 

8 

9 

AR5 9.33 11.67 2.34 

10 

11 

AR6 11.67 14.00 2.33 

12 

13 

14 AR 7 14.00 18.50 4.50 

15 

NA AR8 18.50 21.00 2.50 

11.2 BATHYMETRY AND MORPHOMETRIeS 

River bottom sediment composition is dependent on bottom current speed. Current speed is 

dependent on depth, cross sectional area and flow volume. These physical processes, flow and 

sediment structure, are important in determining the community structure of the benthos. Describing 

the bathymetry and sediment structure are key elements in understanding the benthos of the Alafia 

River. 

River bathymetry was determined by measuring cross sectional depths at an approximate density of 

2-3 cross sections per kilometer over the length of the study area. A white-line recording fathometer 

was used to obtain a permanent record of each cross section. Cross sectional transect density was 

increased if there was evidence of localized rapid changes in bathymetry, such as springs, dredged 

A1afia Ri ver Benthos - Final Report -15- MOle Marine Laboratory - June 2003

areas or scour holes. Beginning and end points of each transect were recorded with differential 

global positioning (DGPS). Field timing watches were synchronized to DGPS time to allow for 

accurate comparisons to U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) tide recorders located at US 41, 1110 mile 

above SR 301 and near Bell Shoals Road. Data from these surveys were used to calculate river area 

and volume versus river distance (kilometers above mouth). River surface area and volume for 

different depth zones were also calculated as a function of river kilometer. 

11.3 BENTHIC HABITAT MAP 

A benthic habitat map was constructed for the length of the study area. The objective of this task 

was to establish the number and relative extent of identifiable habitat types. A large number of 

qualitative samples were collected and visually assessed in the field to characterize each reach of the 

river according to a system developed during reconnaissance trips. Field notes were reduced to GIS 

coverages depicting the spatial position and extent of each community. Shoreline vegetation 

information was compiled from existing sources or updates of coverage provided by the District. 

The following is a partial list of the types of habitats which were investigated for this task. 

Vegetation Features 

Structural features and Substratum 

- mangrove fringe - dredged bottom & channels 

- salt marsh - marsh creeks 

- freshwater marsh - sediments, sand, muddy sand, muddy, silt/clay 

- submerged vegetation (SA V) - shoals 

- rocky (bedrock, boulder, cobble) 

- fill or debris/junk 

- oyster bars 

11.4 BENTIDC MACROINFAUNA 

11.4.1 Faunal Identification and Enumeration 

Benthic samples were collected in May of 1999, during a period of very low inflow, and in 

September of 2001 after a near normal wet season. A total of 119 core/grab faunal samples were 

processed for each collection beginning with Hillsborough Bay samples and proceeding upstream. 

Two sampling locations were within Hillsborough Bay and fifteen locations were located upstream 

of the river mouth Seven (7) samples were processed from each transect location, two from the 

shallows on each bank and three from the central deeper portion. All sweep net samples taken at the 

15 river locations were analyzed (30 samples) for each sampling period. Processing entailed roughsorting, 

identification to lowest practical taxonomic level, counting, data entry, and analysis. 

Alafia River Benthos · Final Report -16- Mote Marine Laboratory· June 2003

11.4.2 Biomass Analysis 

Select benthic samples were analyzed for dry-weight and ash-free biomass in order to determine 

patterns, if any, in up-river and between-community values of carbon storage. 

Samples were aggregated into major phyletic groups (Family, Order, Class, Phylum, as needed) and 

composited dry weights per sample from each of the one-kilometer samples were measured. These 

data were used to look for patterns, in the up-river biomass structure of the soft-bottom infauna. 

Biomass values were compared to salinity, dissolved oxygen, and the detrital content of sediments. 

11.4.3 Incorporation of Other Benthic Data 

For the benthic data geographical analyses were made of species-replacement patterns, species limits, 

community types and salinity relationships along the length of the tidal river. Patterns or trends in 

benthic metrics were compared to physical and chemical conditions for the river. 

Weighted centers of abundance for particular species were computed following the methods 

employed by Peebles for ichthyoplankton (Peebles 19). Data collected by Peebles was used to 

compare distributions of those benthic species which also swarm in the water column at night and 

are captured in the fisheries plankton tows. Analysis of benthic metrics compared to District 

measurements of water quality made prior to the sampling days were also conducted. Each species 

was also coded for all salinities and other water quality parameters from the time of collection. 

Data from other sampling programs, the Tampa Bay Water Hydrobiological Monitoring Program 

(HBMP) and the data provided by the Environmental Protection Commission for Hillsborough 

County (EPCHC) were also analyzed for this report. The sampling dates for which benthic data were 

incorporated consisted of the following: 

September 28,29, 1995 December 29, 2000 

October 1, 1996 January 8, 2001 

October 2,6 1997 February 22, 2001 

October 1, 7 1998 March 5, 2001 

May 14, 1999 April 13,25 2001 

June 27, 28 2000 May 11, 16 2001 

June 28, 2000 June 21, 28 2001 

July 26, 28 2000 July 25, 26 2001 

August 14, 15 2000 August 17, 22 2001 

September 8, II. 12, 15, 20 2000 September 26, 27, 2001 

In total these sampling events represented the entire range of wet season to dry season. However, 

sampling effort was not equal for all of the above events. The May 1999 and September 2001 

collections were the most intensive in terms of spatial distribution and number of samples collected. 

Figure 11.2 illustrates the distribution of benthic sampling events plotted against 60 day preceding 

rainfall totals. 


25 

• 

0.0 

.5 • 

Q.. 20 

E 

~ • • • 

C/) • 

0 

-... 

• 

0 15 • 

'i: 

0.. 

• • 

.-. 

• 

c 

V 

~ 

10 

• 

c 

~ • 

~ • • 

0 5 

0 

\0 

• 

0 

• • • • • • 

0 5 10 15 20 

Samplings 

Figure 11.2. 

Distribution of benthic sampling based on preceding 60 day rainfall totals. 

11.5 SEDIMENT ANALYSES 

Sediment samples collected in 2001 were analyzed for grain size distribution and organic content. 

The residual material left in the faunal samples after processing was analyzed for coarse organic 

particulate matter for both 1999 and 2001. Whole sediment samples for grain size/organic analysis 

were collected at each benthic macroinfauna sampling location and also at locations representative 

of distinct sediment facies as discerned during the reconnaissance trips. The number of samples 

collected and analyzed in conjunction with the faunal samples was 119 (17 transects x 7 samples). 

Faunal samples collected in 1999 and 2001 were sieved through a 0.5 mm mesh screen to remove 

fine sediment. All material retained on the sieve, which included coarse sand and shell and organic 

matter, was then preserved. Coarse particulate organic matter contained in these samples was 

measured by drying to a constant weight and then burning off the organic matter in order to 

differentiate the organic and mineral components of the sample. The same number of samples 

processed for fauna (119 for 1999 and 119 for 2001 ) were processed for coarse particulate organic 

matter. 


Sediment samples were collected during the same time period within the Little Manatee River for 

the purpose of comparison to the Alafia River samples. Samples were processed in the manner 

described above for grain size/organic content and coarse particulate organic matter. Ten river 

locations (stations) sampled and two open bay locations at the mouth of the river. Seven samples 

were analyzed from each location for a total of 84 grain size/organic samples and 84 coarse 

particulate organic matter for the Little Manatee River. The exact locations 0 f the sampling 

transects were based on discussions with the District and the locations used for the University of 

Florida studies. 

11.7 DATA ANALYSIS 

Key components of the data analysis task were to: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

describe the distribution of major macroinvertebrate habitats and communities in the 

lower Alafia River. 

describe the physical aspects of the river relevant to the benthos; substratum grain 

size and organic content, shoreline features, depth, volume. 

determine benthic components (taxa, communities, habitats or strata) that will have 

greatest utility for detection of changes in the distribution and abundance of 

important (or indicator) benthic organisms and lor communities in the lower Alafia 

River as they may be affected by changes in freshwater inflows. Benthic fauna 

discovered to be important fish food organisms will be evaluated. 

evaluate relationships between the distribution and abundance of benthic fauna and 

physiochemical variables related to freshwater inflows (e.g. salinity). 

identify the macro-mollusc communities of the tidal Alafia River; assess down river 

gradients in mollusc dispersion; distinguish live versus dead shell dispersion patterns, 

and describe seasonal differences in dispersion of live animals. 

use information collected by the project to assist the District in establishment of 

minimum flow levels for the Alafia River. 

11.8 RESULTS 

11.8.1 Salinity Conditions 

Rainfall and river flow conditions for the period under consideration were presented in a previous 

section. Bottom salinity conditions for the May 1999 and September 200 1 surveys conducted for 

this study are illustrated in Figure 11.3. There was a considerable difference in bottom salinity 

conditions for these two events. The Alafia river responds quickly to rainfall events and bottom 

salinity conditions can change rapidly dramatically throughout most of the length of the river. There 

was also an interesting zone of elevated salinity between RK-3 and RK-6 during the wet season 


sampling. Figure 11.4 illustrates the modeled minimum, maximum and median salinity for the study 

area for the period may 1999 through September 2001. This graph exhibits the large changes of 

salinity that occur in the lower Alafia River. For example, at RK-5.5 (the 1-75 bridge) the river could 

be fresh (zero salinity) or exhibit salinity as great as 27 PSU. During dry periods the river exhibits 

significant salt intrusion as far upstream as RK-17. It is likely that the rocky shallow shoals at Bell 

Shoals Road serve as a salinity barrier during the dry season. Thus, approximately 66% of the length 

of the lower river, representing 30% of the river area, is subject to dramatic salinity shifts on an 

annual basis (see Table 11.2). Figure II.S illustrates the average salinity for the 30 day period 

preceding each of 18 benthic sampling events for each of the HEMP strata. This measure of salinity 

is believed to be more relevant to the benthic community than individual measurements made at time 

of collection. The above two graphics illustrate the difficulty in describing a biologically relevant 

salinity regime for any portion of the Alafia River. The duration of minima and maxima salinity may 

play an important structuring role in the diversity and abundance of benthic infauna. 

11.8.2 Bathymetry and Morphometries 

Like most rivers of south Florida the lower Alafia has a very shallow drainage slope. From the upper 

portion of study area (-20 kilometers from the mouth) to the undredged area near the mouth at US 

Hwy 41 the bottom of the river drops approximately 2.7 ft. However, the slope of the river bottom 

is not constant nor is it uniform in cross section bottom profile. The sediment texture also changes 

and exhibits considerable variation, often over short distances. At the uppermost limits of the study 

area the river is narrow and the bottom consists of scoured limestone, limestone boulders and small 

patches of unconsolidated sediment. In the middle portions of the river, the dominant bottom type 

is coarse quartz sand, although other substrates such as pockets of detritus, areas of rock, fine sandy 

silt/clays and areas of phosphatic gravels are also present. 

Table 11.2 illustrates the river area and river volume from the mouth of the river (RK-1) to the 

uppermost portion of the study area (RK-17. 7) near Belle Shoals. The cumulative area of this tidally 

influenced portion of the river was 240.5 hectares and the cumulative volume 720.4 hectare-meters. 

Although volume changes somewhat based on tide stage and river flow the approximate quantity of 

water present in this portion of the river is slightly greater than 1.9 billion gallons. Approximately 

60% of both the area and volume are located in the first 5 kilometers of the river. Figure 11.6 

illustrates the relative contributions to area and volume for each segment of the river. The river 

narrows considerably at the 1-75 bridge and from this point upstream consists largely of a single 

channel with few oxbow features. 

Figure 11.7 presents a schematic diagram of the Alafia with color coded depths relative to NGVD. 

This cartoon illustrates the irregular contour of the river bottom with notable deep holes at various 

locations. Figure 11.8 illustrates the deepest parts of the river as recorded while collecting the river 

cross-section bathymetry data. River bottom elevation profiles are illustrated for 85 cross sections 

of the river in Appendix A. 

11.8.3 Sediment Composition 

The sediment composition of the Alafia River bed is spatially complex. The sediment grain size 

Alafia River Benthos - Final Report -20- MOle Marine Laboratory - June 2003

structure showed considerable variation for both cross river samples at a single location as well as 

for the up/down river gradient. The bottom in the uppermost reaches of the study area consisted of 

limestone bedrock, small boulders and small pockets of sand. Further down stream the bottom was 

variable depending on depth and location of the sample. It was difficult to summarize the grain size 

analysis in a compact format due to the variation. In general the following holds true for the river; 

• mean and median grain size decrease from upstream to downstream locations. 

• percent organic content was greatest for a few upriver samples but overall organic 

content was slightly greater at down river locations. 

• silt levels were greatest in the center of the river at upstream locations and was more 

widely dispersed across the river at downstream locations. 

• clay levels were notably higher downstream of RK 10. 

For some sediment samples taken downstream of RK-4 there were notable deposits of clay which 

appeared as embedded soft grey layers or streaks, a likely remnant of a phosphatic clay spill. 

Graphic illustration of sediment grain size, organic content and moisture distribution throughout the 

study area are shown in Figures 11.9 through 11.12. 

Table 11.2. 

Area and volume for 1 kilometer segments of the lower Alafia River. 

River Area Cumulative Segment Cumulative Volume Cumulative Segment volume Segment Cumulative 

Kilometer hectares Area (ha) Area % Area % (ha-m) Volume (ha-m) millions of gallons Volume % Volume % 

1 18.8 18.8 7.8 7.8 118.7 118.7 313 16.5 16.5 

2 37.0 55.8 15.4 23.2 107.0 225.7 282 14.9 31.3 

3 41.3 97.1 17.2 40.4 103.0 328.6 272 14.3 45.6 

4 31.3 128.4 13.0 53.4 77.2 405.9 204 10.7 56.3 

5 25.4 153.8 10.6 64.0 59.8 465.7 158 8.3 64.6 

6 18.7 172.6 7.8 71.8 47.2 512.8 124 6.5 71.2 

7 14.4 187.0 6.0 77.7 37.8 550.6 100 5.2 76.4 

8 9.4 196.4 3.9 81.7 27.7 578.3 73 3.8 80.3 

9 10.7 207.0 4.4 86.1 29.9 608.2 79 4.2 84.4 

10 7.8 214.8 3.2 89.3 23.7 631.9 63 3.3 87.7 

11 5.8 220.7 2.4 91.8 18.6 650.5 49 2.6 90.3 

12 4.8 225 .5 2.0 93.8 15.6 666.2 41 2.2 92.5 

13 3.8 229.3 1.6 95.3 13.5 679.7 36 1.9 94.3 

14 3.2 232.5 1.3 96.7 13.9 693.6 37 1.9 96.3 

15 2.6 235.1 l.l 97.8 10.5 704.1 28 1.5 97.7 

16 2.2 237.3 0.9 98.7 7.6 711.7 20 1.1 98.8 

17 2.0 239.3 0.8 99.5 6.3 718.0 16 0.9 99.7 

17.7 1.2 240.5 0.5 100.0 2.4 720.4 6 0.3 100.0 


11.8.4 Benthic Macroinfauna 

11.8.4.1 Methodological Considerations 

This project conducted two sampling events, May 1999 and September of 200 1. In addition 

data from two other sampling programs were compiled for inclusion in some of the analyses. 

The sampling methodology and sample size varied between projects. For this project a 

relatively small core sampling device was utilized with a surface area of 0.0042 m 2 , or in 

certain cases when the core would not retain coarse sediment a petite Ponar grab was used 

(sample surface area of 0.0232 m 2 ). The HBMP and EPCHC programs utilize a Youngmodified 

VanVeen grab with a sample surface area of 0.04 m 2 • For the Mote sampling 

program seven (7) samples were analyzed from each sampling site dispersed along a transect 

across the river. In general the HBMP sampling program collected two samples per river 

stratum each month a total surface area of (0.08 m 2 per stratum). The EPCHC program 

usually collected one sample (although sometimes many more) for one index period month 

(September or October). The EPCHC program did not cover the upper portion of the river 

known as AR -7 by the HBMP. 

The table below presents summary information for the data of the three combined studies. 

For all of the samples included in this a summary of the number of taxa and animals 

(abundance) collected in each sample is summarized as follows: 

Mean Mean Median Sample 

Gear Type # taxa St.Dev. Abundance St.Dev. Abundance Area (m 2 ) 

Core sample 7.04 5.9 54.5 114.6 25 .0 0.0042 

Petite Ponar grab 6.97 5.5 74.8 82.8 25.0 0.0232 

Sweep Sample qualitative 6.70 3.4 30.9 27.1 22.0 -1.5 

Young mod. VanVeen 7.68 7.9 117.1 251.7 28.0 0.04 

All comparisons on a per sample basis 

A methodological evaluation was not one of the objectives of this project, but the results of 

this comparison were very unexpected. The number of taxa collected by sampling gear were 

very similar. On average the Young-modified VanVeen, which has a sample surface area 

nearly ten times as large as the core) collected 9% more taxa than the core but the difference 

was not significant. In fact there were no statistically significant differences between the 

number of taxa or individuals collected by any of the methodologies (Kruskal-Wallis one 

way ANOVA on ranks). Data were not sorted by season or location for the comparison. 

Due to the differences in sampling areas subsequent statistics utilizing all data were 

computed on presence/absence rather than total numbers. 

11.8.4.2 Benthic Community Parameters 

Table 11.3 presents the benthic community summary parameters for all of the sampling 

periods considered in this report. There is a clear wet season/dry season effect. In all cases 


for the Mote collections (May 1999 and September 2001), which compare samples from the 

same location, the wet season exhibited fewer benthic invertebrate species and a much lower 

abundance than the dry season. 

The distribution of benthic species within each of the HBMP river strata is shown in Table 

11.4, as both counts and percentage of total for the sampling event. Table 11.5 provides 

information for faunal abundance (expressed as numbers of organisms per square meter of 

bottom) in the same format. The values for the Shannon-Wiener Index of species diversity 

(H') and Pielou's Index of equitability (1') are also presented in Table 11.3. 

The information contained in the above tables R-3 through R-5 are graphically illustrated by 

Figures 11.13 through 11.15. These figures illustrate the frequency distributions for the 

parameter listed on the x axis. For each of these histograms the sum of the counts within 

each sampling stratum adds up to the total number of sampling periods evaluated within this 

report. The 'estuary effect' on the number of taxa was clear for HBMP zones AR-1 through 

AR-3, Figure 11:13. This effect is that as a river zone increases in salinity the number of 

benthic taxa per unit area also increases. The same estuary effect was observed for 

abundance, Figure 11.14. 

The estuary effect was not pronounced for the Shannon-Wiener Index of diversity (H'), 

Figure 11.15. This index takes into consideration the number of individuals as well as the 

number of taxa so it is possible for freshwater and marine habitats to have similar H' values 

even when number of taxa and abundance levels are quite different. For this graphic is was 

interesting to note that zone AR-2 seemed to exhibit a bimodal H' distribution and zone AR- 

3 exhibited an H' distribution similar to the classic normal distribution. 

Two methodologies were utilized for the benthic surveys conducted by this project, core 

samples and sweep samples. Sweep samples were stratified based on depth, shallow and 

deep. The distribution of species and abundance by the depth strata is presented as Table 

11.6. 

11.8.4.3 Seasonal and Spatial Distribution of Taxa 

Figure 11.16 illustrates the dry/wet season effect on number of species recovered from each 

sampling station, based on the comparable station core data from May 1999 (dry) and 

September 2001 (wet). This graphic illustrates quite clearly the reduction in number of taxa 

collected within the entire study area during the wet season. Many of the estuarine fauna that 

occupy the lower river during the dry season are eliminated from the river during the wet 

season. 

Figure 11.17 exhibits the same dry/wet season effect on the total benthic abundance 

throughout the study area. Abundance dropped dramatically during the wet season, with the 

exception of the Hillsborough Bay and RK-2 samples. 


The same dry/wet season effect was observed for samples collected by sweep net, Figures 

11.18 and Figure 11.19. 

Graphics were also prepared illustrating the distribution of representative indicator groups. 

Figure 11.20 illustrates the distribution of insect taxa for the dry and wet seasons. For the 

dry season insects were absent downstream ofRK-6. However, during the wet season insect 

species were found as far downstream as RK -1, although they were not particularly abundant 

at most locations during the wet season, Figure 11.21. 

Representative species illustrating seasonal changes in distributions are presented in 

Appendix Figures D-1 through D-12. In general only species abundant enough to be found 

at multiple stations are useful as seasonal indicators. Rare species, or those that occur within 

limited areas, may actually respond better to changes in salinity, but because they are rare 

it is difficult to define trends unless there is prior experimental evid~nce illustrating a 

response to salinity. 

11.8.4.4 Benthos as a Trophic Resource 

One aspect of the benthic analysis was the determination of the abundance and distribution 

oftrophically important invertebrate groups. The examination of data expressed as numbers 

per square meter of bottom area is a traditional method of comparing benthic communities. 

However, it is also useful to consider the overall abundance of certain groups within the river 

system which requires factoring the relative habitat area available within each kilometer of 

river length. An organism could be very abundant at a particular sampling location, but if 

the river zone consists of a very small total area (narrow) the relative trophic value as a food 

web resource may be relatively small. 

An estimate of total abundance of the benthos for dry and wet season is presented in Figure 

11.22. This graphic illustrates that overall the largest decline in benthic abundance occurs 

downstream of RK-8. Downstream of RK-8 the abundance of benthic organisms has 

severely declined by the late wet season. 

Figure 11.23 illustrates the total abundance of polychaetes. Polychaetes are the dominant 

infaunal sediment processing organism, responsible for most of the bio-processing of the 

sediments. They can be an important component of bottom feeding fishes, but may be a 

secondary resource for fishes targeting larger prey such as infaunal molluscs. With the 

exception of RK-1 polychaetes declined dramatically throughout the lower river by the late 

wet season. 

Figure 11.24 illustrates the total abundance of mollusks by river kilometer. Mollusks are 

often + targeted as a prey item by bottom feeding fishes and shorebirds. The mollusks 

showed declined in overall abundance on greater than an order of magnitude throughout the 

lower river. Above RK-8 mollusks are relatively low in abundance for both the dry and wet 

season. 

Alalia River Benthos - Final Report -24- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

Crustaceans, in particular microcrustaceans are recognized as an important food component 

of many fishes. Many crustaceans feed or reproduce on the bottom sediment but periodically 

swarm into the water column where they become more available to larval and juvenile fishes. 

Figure 11.25 illustrates the total abundance of the amphipods for the dry and wet season. 

During the dry season the amphipods were approximately 100 times more abundant than the 

late wet season. Cumaceans also exhibit a benthic/pelagic life style, feeding on the surface 

sediment and periodically swarming into the water column. A recognized prey species, 

cumaceans were abundant in the lower river during the dry season but were driven out-of the 

lower river by late wet season, Figure 11.26. Mysids are also a recognized fish prey item. 

Mysid abundance did not change as dramatically as other crustaceans and actually exhibited 

an increase in numbers during the wet season at most of the lower river stations, Figure 

11.27. The number of decapods present in the river responded in a manner similar to the 

cumaceans, Figure 11.28. Decapods were common at many of the lower river stations and 

particularly abundant at RK-2. However, by late wet season the decapods had abandoned 

the lower river. Isopods also reacted strongly to the change from dry to wet season. 

Common through out the lower river during the dry season, isopods were sparse (as 

compared to other fauna) by late wet season, Figure 11.29. Nemerteans (ribbon worms) are 

one of the lesser phyla typical in low numbers in marine and estuarine habitats. The presence 

of the wormlike nemerteans far upstream (RK-13, RK -12) during the dry season is indicative 

of the extent of salt intrusion, Figure 11.30. Nemerteans are predators on other 

macroinfauna. They are also generally contain toxic compounds, presumably for use in prey 

capture and as a defensive mechanism. There are also species that are important 

ectoparasites on crabs and in some cases can cause the collapse of fisheries. 

Insect fauna represent the antithesis of the previously discussed groups. The insect infauna 

are dominated by the dipteran larvae and are predominantly freshwater fauna. Figure 11.31 

illustrated the down river movement of dipteran species from Dry to wet season. The 

location within the river exhibiting the greatest abundance of dipterans moved down stream 

four kilometers, from RK-12 to RK-8, from the dry to wet season. 

The oligochaetes, small infaunal worms, were not particularly abundant during either wet or 

dry season, although they increased in abundance at RK-7 and RK-5 during the rainy season, 

Figure 11.32. 

11.8.4.5 Biomass 

Benthic macroinfaunal biomass determinations (dry weight and ash-free dry weight) were 

conducted on stations HB-5, HB-3 and RK-1 through RK-6. It was not possible to determine 

biomass values for stations upriver of RK-6 since a large portion of the fauna consisted of 

insect larvae. Insect larvae require a destructive mounting technique for identification 

making biomass determinations impractical. 

Data for the benthic biomass illustrated profound differences between wet and dry season 

collections. For many stations the dry season exhibited biomass values over ten times greater 


than the wet season. It is clear that the large change in salinity from dry to wet season 

profoundly impacts the lower river zone from RK-1 through RK-6. Estuarine fauna migrate 

upriver during dry periods increasing the productivity of the benthos. During the wet season 

these fauna are killed or washed downstream by the large influx of freshwater. 

Dry season benthic biomass is illustrated by Figures II.33 and II.34. For the dry season the 

annelids exhibited greatest biomass at RK-6. Crustaceans were more uniformly distributed 

through the lower river but had the greatest biomass within Hillsborough Bay. Interestingly 

mollusks had the greatest biomass at RK-3, RKS and RK-6 for the dry season but were nearly 

absent from this area during the wet season. 

Wet season Biomass values, expressed as dry weight and ash-free dry weight for each station 

from Hillsborough Bay through RK-6 are illustrated by Figures 11.35 and II.36. 

For the wet season samples from the mouth of the river and into Hillsborough Bay exhibited 

the greatest proportion of the river benthic biomass. Annelids primarily limited to the Bay 

as RK-l and 2, comprised the bulk of the biomass followed by the molluscs. Molluscs, 

however, were conspicuously absent in biomass for RK-l through RK-3. RK-3 exhibited 

no measurable biomass for the wet season sampling. This station was nearly devoid of fauna 

for the wet season sampling represented primarily by a few small annelids with no 

measurable biomass. . 

11.8.4.6 Community Similarity - Cluster Analysis 

A faunal similarity analysis was conducted on the May 1999 and October 200 1 data sets. 

The Bray-Curtis Index with group average sorting for presence/absence data was used to 

generate values used to construct a cluster diagram, Figure II.37. For both wet and dry 

season data the river illustrates strong upstream-downstream community gradients. Both 

seasons illustrated a distinct differentiation of three faunal zones; Bay Stations, lower river 

estuary (RKI-6) and upper river oloigohaline habitat (RK7-1S). During the dry season the 

station linkages occurred at higher levels os similarity than for the wet season. For the lower 

river during the dry season, two subdivisions occurred RK-1,2,3 and RK-4,S,6. In a similar 

fashion the upper oligohaline portion of the river clustered into tow fairly distinct zones, RK- 

7,8,9,10 and RK-ll,12,13,14,1S. These zones were obscured during the wet season 

particularly for the oligohaline portions of the river. In addition the RK cluster series 

illustrated a deviation of sequence for the wet season with RK -7 linking with RK -14, RK -IS 

linking with RK-8,9,10 and then RK-12. All of the oligohaline station linkages occurred at 

moderate to very low levels of faunal similarity. 

II.8.4.7 Faunal Relationships to Salinity 

The determination of the optimal salinity for a benthic invertebrate species or a community 

of species, within an estuary can be difficult. The observed salinity at the time of capture is 

not necessarily related to an optimal condition for the species. The distribution and 

abundance of the fauna are determined by the period preceding the capture. Therefore to 

Alafi a River Benthos - Final Report -26- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

examine the relationships of the invertebrate species diversity and abundance and the 

calculated community parameters to salinity the previous 30 day mean salinity was used as 

the salinity representative of the community. The authors recognize that this is not also 

without drawbacks, however, it provides a more realistic base for comparison of infaunal 

distributions than does an instantaneous salinity measure at time of capture. It is even quite 

possible that salinity conditions at the time of capture may be sub-optimal. 

Data for all ofthe collection periods in this report were used to construct Figure 11.38. Taxa 

were ranked by abundance and plotted against the weighted center of salinity for the 

occurrence of that species. This plot illustrates the classic paradigm illustrating greater 

species diversity in the most saline portions of the estuary (PSU> 17), a zone of somewhat 

reduced species diversity, the artenminimum (PSU -6-17) followed by increasing diversity 

of a freshwater fauna. In this graphic the zone representing salinity between -12-17 PSU 

consists of HBMP strata AR-4. The number of taxa collected for discrete salinity 

increments in Figure 11.39. The drop in numbers of taxa for salinity >30 PSU probably 

relates more sample size and sediment type rather than an actual reduction in species in this 

zone. 

In spite of he known relationship between invertebrate diversity and salinity it is often 

difficult to observe direct correlations between field collected salinity and species richness. 

For this study the best relationship between the invertebrate fauna and salinity was observed 

for faunal abundance (log) and 60 day preceding rainfall totals. Data from all 23 sampling 

dates were used for this analysis. These data illustrated a positive significant linear 

correlation for HBMP strata AR-2 ® = 0.82), AR-3 ® = 0.78) and AR-4 ® = 0.47). 

Data for all of the periods cited earlier were used for comparisons of the community 

parameters; number of taxa, abundance, diversity (Shannon-Weiner index), equitability 

(Pielou's Index), Gini's index and Margalefs Index to salinity. Since the HBMP samples 

were obtained from different RK locations for each sampling period plots of parameter 

versus salinity were based on the HBMP salinity based river zones which encompass 

multiple kilometer segments. All comparisons in this section will use the 30 day preceding 

mean salinity. Figure 11.40 provides the distribution of the number of taxa collected for each 

sampling period versus salinity. Zones AR-2 and AR-7 illustrated the least variation in 

salinity for the period preceding sampling events. In contrast zones AR-3, AR-4 and AR-5 

illustrated high levels of salinity variance with somewhat lower variance observed in zone 

AR-6. 

Figure 11.41 illustrates the distribution of abundance by salinity. These graphs illustrate the 

higher levels of organism abundance generally present in the lower estuary, AR-2 and AR-3, 

which also illustrated slightly less variance in numbers, a more stable fauna. None of the 

zones illustrated a distinct trend of abundance increase or decrease related to salinity, 

indicating that salinity per se does not necessarily control benthic faunal abundance. 


Plots of the Shannon-Weiner Index of diversity (H') versus salinity are shown in Figure 

11.42. As for faunal abundance there did not appear to be a trend in the relationship between 

H' and salinity. The range of diversity values was quite broad in all river zones. Extremely 

low diversity values were more common in AR-S and AR-6. For zone AR-6 these low 

values were associated with salinity values above 2.S PSu. This indicates that within an area 

consisting primarily of freshwater fauna slight increases in salinity exhibit large effects on 

species diversity (reduction). 

Plots of Pielou's Index of equitability are shown in Figure 11.43. Zones AR-3 and AR-4 

exhibited the most consistently high equitability values. There was no increasing or 

decreasing trend in values attributable to salinity, with the possible exception of AR-6. 

Similar to the trend observed for H' the low equitability values for some of the sampling 

events may be related to small changes in salinity. 

The results for plots for Gini' s and Margalef s Index were similar to the findings for the 

previous parameters, Figures 11.44 and Figure 11.45. There was no apparent relationship 

between these indices and salinity with the exception of zone AR-6. 

Species and Salinity 

By definition estuarine organisms can tolerate a wide range of salinity and are referred 

to as being euryhaline. However, the response to an increase or decrease in salinity is not 

uniform for all benthic organisms. Complicating the species/salinity relationship are 

compounding factors that may also stress benthic organisms such as temperature, 

dissolved oxygen and sediment structure. To provide an estimate of the optimal salinity 

for the benthic fauna data collected for the dry (May 1999) and wet season (September 

200 1) were analyzed to provide a abundance weighted center of salinity based on the 

salinity measured at time of capture as well as the minimum and maximum salinity of 

occurrence. These data are presented as Appendix Table D-2. 

For the other sampling periods (HBMP and EPCHC) it was not always clear if the 

salinity data were collected at the same time and location as the faunal samples. 

Therefore those data were not incorporated into the table. However, modeled salinities 

(SWFWMD) were used to recalculate weighted salinity for each species for all data sets. 

The results are presented in Appendix Table D-3. Comparisons of species between the 

two tables indicates that the model predictions had a tendency to provide a weighted 

salinity value higher than the observed (time of collection) weighted values. 

The abundance distribution of select species within HBMP strata by salinity are 

illustrated in Appendix Figures D-13 through D-29. The first of these figures (D-13) 

illustrating Ampelisca cf. abdita, an amphipod, is an example of a taxon that is most 

abundant at the highest salinity values yet was also found in low abundance at very low 

salinity. The isopods, Cyathura palita and Edatea trilaba, were generally most common 

within the transitional areas AR-3, AR-4 and AR-S, with an apparent preference for 


salinity between 10-20 PSU, Appendix Figure D-23 and D-24. In contrast the 

amphipod Grandidierella bonnieroides, was found in all HBMP zones and the full range 

of salinity observed in the river, Appendix Figure D-16. However, the salinity for the 

calculated center of abundance for Grandidierella was 19.8 PSu. Polychaetes, which 

are soft bodied, generally have a more difficult time osmoregulating at low salinity. 

However, some species, such as Laeonereis culveri, which occurred in all HBMP zones 

are well adapted to a wide range of salinity, Appendix Figure D-14. The salinity for the 

center of abundance of Laeonereis was 12.1 PSu. Other fauna illustrated an apparent 

lack of tolerance for salinity below certain values. The polychaete Heteromastus 

filiformis, had a salinity for center of abundance of 19.8 PSU and was not found at 

salinity below 15 PSU, Appendix Figure D-27. 

The best visualization of the distribution ofthe invertebrate taxa along the river gradient 

is a combination table graphic providing a list of the species on the left and symbols to 

the right illustrating presence/absence of a species At a particular river kilometer, 

Figures 11.46, II2.47, 11.48 and 11.49. The first two figures illustrate the occurrence of 

fauna as an observer moves upstream, RK-(-5) to RK-15. This provides the entire 

distribution of a species beginning at the location of first occurrence proceeding 

upstream. The second two figures illustrate a comparison of the dry and wet season by 

plotting the species occurrence starting at RK-15 and proceeding downstream. Each 

presentation provides a unique view of the same species distribution data. The 

occurrences marked by red type illustrate the taxa unique to the sampling site (not found 

at any other stations). A large number of new taxa, or a proportionately large number, 

indicates that there was some habitat parameter which may have changed, such as 

salinity, that would contribute to a large change in community structure. 

These data are further summarized in Figure 11.50. The two graphs of this figure 

illustrate the addition of new species as samples are analyzed downstream to upstream 

and again for upstream to downstream. With each sampling site the 'new' taxa are added 

to the curve. The point at which the curves cross moves downstream by approximately 

1.2 kilometers from the dry to the wet season sampling. The lower number of species 

present in the wet season is immediately obvious. In addition the strong spike of 

estuarine species, as represented by RK( -3) to RK-2 for the dry season, is not present in 

the wet season. Sharp changes in the slope of the lines in these graphics illustrates 

habitat change significant enough to cause a change in community structure over a short 

distance. 

Cluster analysis was also used as a method to examine species/salinity relationships. 

Faunal abundance data were reduced to presence absence occurrences within 25 discrete 

1 PSU salinity increments from 0-24 PSU. The cluster analysis was then used to connect 

salinity groups based on faunal similarities of the presence absence data. The result of 

this analysis is shown as Figure II.Sl. This salinity based community structure 

indicates that there is a fine structure of community organization within two large 

A1afia Ri ver Benthos - Final Report -29- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

clusters. The large clusters consist of salinity from 0 to 15 PSU and salinity 16 to 24 

PSU. The primary clusters occur between single digit increments in salinity, such as 1 

with 2 PSU, 7 with 8 PSU, and so on. The secondary clusters indicate that perhaps there 

are salinity based faunal controlling factors within certain salinity ranges, such as the lack 

of similarity between) PSU and the primary cluster of 1 and 2 PSU. Other significant 

cluster breaks appear to be between 5 and 7 PSU, 21 and 22 PSU and 23 and 24 PSU. 

11.9 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION 

The recognition that salinity change and sedimentation were important aspects of the estuary date 

to the earliest days of marine ecology (Forbes, 1844), although intensive studies of estuaries were 

not common until the middle of the 20 th Century. 

Tidal rivers on the Florida peninsula contain most of the coastal oligohaline or low salinity waters, 

meaning that all of the wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, reefs, unconsolidated sediments, 

creeks, and other habitat features in the tidal river experience varying periods of freshwater, brackish 

water, and waters of higher salinity (Browder, 1991). Taken as a whole, this mosaic of habitats 

influenced by oligohaline waters comprises an important environment for the larval and juvenile 

developmental stages of many invertebrates and fishes of commercial, economic, or ecological 

importance (Edwards, 1991; Estevez et aI., 1991c; Peebles et at., 1991). 

The lower Alafia River exhibits relatively few mangroves upstream of RK-3. The ecological role 

of mangroves in south Florida estuaries is well established. However, this was not always the case. 

Lugo and Snedaker (1974) provided a historic perspective to writings on mangrove forests citing an 

author in 1969 considering a mangrove forest in south Florida to be " ... a form of wasteland". 

Nevertheless, research beginning in the late 1960's, notably Heald (1971) and Odum (1971) linked 

south Florida sport and commercial fisheries to the detrital inputs of the estuarine mangroves. A 

study conducted in 1984-1985 in the mangroves of the western portion of Florida Bay identified 87 

species of fishes representing 39 families, which utilize the mangrove habitat. Fishes are secondary 

or tertiary consumers relying on plant or animals, in this case primarily invertebrates, as a food 

source. The relative abundance of fishes in the mangrove habitat indicates that the area has an 

abundance of these food materials. Prop roots and pneumatophores provide a complex habitat 

supporting a diverse biota. The detrital inputs of rivers are essential for providing the organic matter 

that provides a food source for epifaunal detritivores. 

The ecological importance of the low salinity reaches of estuaries has been amply documented, and 

their freshwater needs currently are used as guidelines for river flow regulation (Longley, 1994). 

Most recently, Jassby et al. (1995) have demonstrated that the 2 part per thousand (ppt) salinity 

position in the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta Estuary has simple and 

significant relationships with phytoplankton, plankton-based detritus, molluscs, mysids and shrimps, 

larval fish survival, and the abundance of several fish trophic guilds. 

Alafia Ri ver Benthos - Final Report -30- Mote Marine Laboratory - Jllne 2003

This document illustrates the seasonal abundances of benthic invertebrates which include fish prey 

species. Taken together with the work conducted on the larval and juvenile fishes of the river, by 

other researchers, the relationships of river flow invertebrates and fisheries production are beginning 

to be understood. For the macroinvertebrates of the Alafia River both taxonomic composition and 

abundance responded to changes in salinity. The benthic fauna responded in a characteristic 

although imprecise fashion to the changes in observed salinity. The poor correlation of both number 

of species and abundance to salinity are due to nature of euryhaline organisms. Salinity can be 

tolerated over a wide range of fluctuation and other parameters within this range such as sediment 

type, food sources, water flow, oxygen conditions and water quality may then become the limiting 

factors in abundance and distribution. For the data contained in this report 60 day antecedent rainfall 

correlated with faunal abundance better than direct measurements of salinity. The complexity ofthe 

interactions of the tidal estuary were illustrated for a model of the Apalachicola river-bay system 

(Li vingston, 1991). Interactions between various controlling functions make precise prediction of 

individual elements such as faunal abundance difficult. 

The data generated from this study provide important information for assessment of productivity of 

the tidal Alafia River. The combination of benthic faunal assessment and river morphometrics 

enabled the estimation of standing crop based on river kilometer, shoreline length or river bottom 

area. 

There were 222 benthic macroinvertebrate taxa collected for May 1999 and 132 for September 2001 . 

May was representative of prolonged dry season conditions and September representative of post -wet 

season conditions. The number of taxa for the Alafia River are similar to the Peace River which 

ranged from 137 to 183 taxa for five sampling events. These numbers also compare favorably with 

other single season collections from Florida west coast rivers including the Caloosahatchee River 

(Culter, 1996), the Myakka River (Estevez, 1985; 1986), Manatee River (Culter and Mahadevan, 

1982), Weeki Wachee, Crystal River, Withlacoochee River and the Waccassa River (Estevez, et ai., 

1986). 

The benthic standing crop was greatest for the dry season collection. During this period the estuarine 

invertebrates migrate upriver as salinity conditions become favorable. This expansion undoubtedly 

plays an important role in providing prey items for juvenile stages of fishes that forage in the upper 

estuary. Within the Peace River system the number of animals per kilometer of shoreline length 

increases through April after exhibiting the lowest abundance in November. 

Studies by Peebles have shown that epifauna and to a much lesser extent infauna are important food 

resources for juvenile estuarine fishes. For example the diet of the sand seatrout (Cynoscion 

arenarius) consists of nearly 50% epifauna, which includes species such as mysids, cumaceans and 

amphipods. The proportion of epifauna in the diet decreases as the fish grows but remains an 

important component through the 40-50 mm size class. Other fishes utilizing a high proportion of 

epifauna as prey items include the spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus) the silver perch 

(Bairdiella chrysoura). The importance of epifaunal invertebrates has also been illustrated by other 

investigators for snook (Centropomus undecimalis), spotted drum and spotted seatrout (McMichael 


and Peters, 1989; McMichael, et aI., 1989; and Peters and McMichael, 1987), and the Gulf flounder 

(Paralichthys albigutta). 

Amphipods were some of the most abundant fauna within the study area. This study as well as 

others on Florida tidal rivers have documented the wide salinity tolerance of various arnphipod 

species (Culter and Estevez, 2002; Culter, 1996; Culter and Mahadevan, 1982). Experiments on the 

amphipod Ampelisca abdita illustrated that it was tolerant of sediment interstitial water salinity as 

low as 2.5 PSU (Redmond, et aI., 1996). 

Ampbipods often have short breeding cycles. A Corophium species from Portugal was shown to 

reach reproductive maturity within one month. The life-history pattern and reproductive features of 

that species was closely related to temperature and salinity; other environmental conditions such as 

oxygen content of the water and food availability (Cunha et aI., 2000). Corophium sp. was found 

to be ubiquitous in many tidal areas ofthe Hawkesbury River (Australia) catchment where salinities 

ranged from 0.1 to 24 ppt, sediment total organic carbon (TOC) ranged from 0.4% to 3.5%, and the 

fines content « 63 J.Lm particle size) of the sediment ranged from 4.3% to 47.6% (Hyne and Everett, 

1998). 

Utility of Macroinvertebrates as Salinity Indicators 

Freshwater is toxic to marine invertebrates. Life originated in the sea and the diversity and 

abundance of marine organisms has never reached a comparable counterpart in freshwater 

systems. The physiologic stresses imposed on organisms to exist in the transitional zone 

between the ocean and freshwater are significant, yet the estuary is one of the most 

productive of aquatic environments. This is because the freshwater of riverine systems 

carries the nutrients and organic matter which are generally in short supply in the open ocean, 

and the species which have evolved to tolerate the physiological stresses of freshwater have 

the first opportunity to exploit these resources. 

Relatively few freshwater species are tolerant of increasing salinity. The utilization of upper 

estuary has been accomplished primarily by the marine invertebrates. Many of the most 

successful exploiters of the low salinity areas, such as the blue crab and the shrimps require 

full marine or higher salinities to spawn eggs in order complete their life cycle. Juveniles 

then make their way back into the estuary to forage and grow. 

The imprecise nature of the estuarine invertebrate response to salinity makes invertebrates 

poor indicators of salinity. However, the maintenance of a broad transition area from fresh 

to marine (the estuary) is essential for maximizing benthic production, provided that other 

limiting factors, such as dissolved oxygen, contaminants, nutrients, remain at proper levels. 

Drought - flood cycles are essential for transport of organic material into the estuarine zone. 

Elimination of flood cycles would likely have long term negative consequences for the 

estuary. 

Alafia Ri ver Benthos · Final Report -32- Mote Marine Laboratory · June 2003

Indicator Species 

The crustaceans, in particular, merit consideration for any long-term monitoring because of 

their abundance, known utility as a fish prey item, sensitivity to pollutants and their 

demonstrated propensity to exhibit mobility and abundance levels related to salinity zones. 

The loss of one or more of these taxa, without replacement of a trophic equivalent, would be 

indicative of a functional change in the ecology of the tidal Alafia River. 

Sediments 

Both Jones (1950) and Scanland (1966) considered "bottom type" as the single-most 

influential factor for all benthic communities (for any given salinity regime). Both turbidity 

and sediment deposition rates affect the substratum, and both exert their independent 

influences on filter-feeders and other bottom-dwelling organisms (Collard and D'Asaro, 

1973). Sediment structure is the result of a complex mix of factors related to river flow and 

transport of terrestriall y derived components. Livingston (1981) described the driving factors 

for the productivity of Apalachicola Bay in terms of the interrelationships of the inputs of 

dissolved and particulate organic and inorganic substances coupled with cyclic disturbance 

(tides, winds, currents) of the benthos. The mechanism serves to enhance microbial 

production which in tum is grazed by benthic invertebrates and in tum secondary predators 

such as fishes. The weight" of the effect of sediment structure in determining benthic 

community composition is as great as the weight of salinity zonation. 

The Alafia River exhibited a complex substratum. Although dominated by a particle base 

of very fine to coarse quartz sand (0.1 mm to 1.0 mm diameter), there was notable variation 

along the length of the river due to bottom topography. A number of relatively deep holes 

may be the result of flood scouring and results in a heterogeneous bottom type. The Alafia 

River is nearly devoid of quiescent oxbows and small low flow stream junctions. In the 

Peace River system oxbows and backwaters were shown to serve as fine grained particle 

traps. These areas are likely reservoirs of organic material at least partially released into the 

river during flood periods (Culter and Estevez, 2002). Clay layers attributable to phosphate 

slime pond spills were also identified in several areas of the river. A similar occurrence of 

clay deposits was observes in areas of the Peace River. 

Implications for Hydrobiological Monitoring 

The use of intensive long term salinity measuring techniques has been a relatively recent 

phenomenon and the potential for the interpretation of estuarine species distributions is yet 

to be fully realized. It is certainly clear that we now have the capability to measure salinity 

to a level of precision which may not have significant biological meaning. Organisms within 

an estuary are adapted to salinity with significant variation driven by tidal cycles. 

The benthic fauna illustrated significant movement upstream with for the dry period in 

response to salinity increases. The dry period migrations probably play an important role in 

processing the particulate organic matter present in the river bottom. If the faunal densities 

are converted to represent abundance based on the area of river bottom present within each 


segment, we find that the biomass of the upstream areas expands dramatically during the 

spring dry season. Such a biomass expansion is synoptic with the spring spawning period 

of many fishes. Considering that much of the fauna consists of motile crustacean fauna, 

which are a principal food source for juvenile fishes, the implications for transfer of biomass 

and the health of fisheries is enormous. The amphipod and cumacean crustaceans in 

particular are voracious consumers of detritus and exhibited an explosive increase in 

numbers, and movement upstream after the onset of the dry season. This same relationship 

was observed in the tidal Peace River. The crustaceans, in particular, merit consideration for 

any long-term monitoring because of their abundance, known utility as a fish prey item, 

sensitivity to pollutants and their demonstrated propensity to exhibit abundance levels which 

may be related to salinity zones. 

The Alafia River benthos did not exhibit the four faunal zones that were apparent in the 

Peace River. The Peace River studies illustrated a faunal response coinciding with long term 

salinity averages of distinct salinity based river zones of ~0.5 PSU, >0.5 ~8.0 PSU, >8.0 

~ 16.0 PSU and > 16.0 PSU. The Peace River faunal relationships to zone were complex but 

apparent in the fauna similarity analysis. For both wet and dry season data the river illustrates 

strong upstream-downstream community gradients. Both seasons illustrated a distinct 

differentiation of three faunal zones; Bay Stations, lower river estuary (RKI-6) and upper 

river oloigohaline habitat (RK7 -15). Excluding the Bay stations there were two main faunal 

zones consisting of salinity from 0 to 15 PSU and salinity 16 to 24 PSU. The Alafia data 

also· illustrated secondary clusters, indicating that perhaps there are salinity based faunal 

controlling factors within certain ranges, such as between 1 and 2 PSU, 5 and 7 PSU, 21 and 

22 PSU and 23 and 24 PSU. 

The development of a monitoring plan addressing a single variable, in this case freshwater 

withdraw, will be greatly complicated by future land use changes within the watershed. Any 

monitoring plan must distinguish between the "sampling units" and the "experimental unit" 

which are not necessarily the same thing (Steele and Torrie, 1980). For this study the 

experimental units were the stratified habitats of the Peace River benthos to be defined by 

Phase I. The sampling units were the individual samples (cores, grabs etc.) taken from each 

habitat. 

The treatment to be applied to the experimental units is flow reduction. Unfortunately flow 

reduction can affect multiple parameters individually important to the composition and 

abundance of benthic communities. The two most important parameters determining the 

composition of estuarine fauna are salinity and sediment composition, assuming an adequate 

non-polluted level of water quality. In addition the long term health of the estuary is 

dependent on organic transport by the river to the estuary. 

The concept of an average flow year is somewhat misleading. The average daily flow for the 

period of record does not precisely match any particular year during the period of record. 

AJafia River Benthos - Final Report -34- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

During drought periods benthic fauna respond to changing salinity regime by upstream 

migration of the estuarine fauna and a simultaneous retreat of the freshwater fauna. As seen 

for the Peace River this process is relatively slow. A benefit of this upstream migration is 

the increase is abundance of fish prey species through the estuarine area of the river. 

Conversely periods of flood initially impact the benthos by reducing invertebrate abundance 

throughout most of the river. However, the flood period provides nutrients and detritus and 

resets the stage for recolonization of the tidal river by the opportunistic estuarine benthic 

species. Both dry season and flood should be considered normal operating aspects of a 

healthy tidal river. The timing of wet season salinity reductions is probably a critical factor 

in the maintenance of benthic abundance important to fisheries production. An early flood 

or significant reduction in salinity will reduce the availability of fisheries prey species. 

Management for maximum fisheries production should include the prevention of too much 

water too soon flowing to the estuary as a result of upland development and land use policy. 

Future land use and development within the drainage basin will likely affect the quality and 

volume of organic inputs into the Alafia River, thus affecting the sediment structure and 

therefore the benthos. Flood control, primarily for property protection, is a management 

priority within the Alafia basin. Landscape alterations for the purpose of flood control may 

conflict with the maintenance of a natural productive biota. Landscape alteration, impacting 

the timing and volume of freshwater inflow, was found to be the most common stress on 

estuarine systems by Sklar and Browder (1998) in a review of Studies in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Poorly planned upstream landscape alterations were found to impact wetland and open-water 

salinity patterns, nutrients, sediment fertility, bottom topography, dissolved oxygen, and 

concentrations of xenobiotics. Natural landscapes tend to buffer the effect of heavy rainfall 

providing gradual changes in salinity regimes. Rapid salinity changes within the river will 

decrease the abundance, and duration of invertebrate prey items available to fishes. 

Monitoring benthic macroinfauna for the purpose of detecting impacts of flow management 

is possible. Monitoring should focus on defining spatial extent and abundance of estuarine 

fauna with particular emphasis on crustacean taxa. 


Table 11.3. 

Summary of benthic community parameters by sampling event. Collections made for this project are in bold print. Data 

are arranged by HBMP stratum and rank order by preceding 60 day rainfall totals. 

60 day Estimated Pielou's 

preceeding HBMP No. No. Total area Abundance Shannon-Wiener Diversity H' Equitability Margalet"s Simpson's Gini's 

Project YearMo Rainfall Stratum Samples Taxa Sampled NoJm2 log2 In log10 .I' Index Index Index 

Mote 200109 


HUMP Stratum AR-1 

HBMP 200 108 

EPCHC 199810 


HBMP 200109 

EPC HC 199710 

HBMP 200107 

HBMP 200008 

EPCHC 199509 

HBMP 200009 

EPCHC 200009 

HBMP 200007 

HBMP 200010 

EPCHC 199610 

HBMP 200104 

HBMP 200006 

HBMP 200105 

HBMP 200106 


HBMP 200101 

HBMP 2000 11 

HBMP 200012 

HBMP 200102 

HBMP 200103 

18.8 

3.1 

22.7 

21.3 

18.8 

18.8 

18.6 

18.4 

16.9 

15.7 

14.3 

14.3 

14.0 

13.0 

10.1 

7.7 

6.7 

6.2 

4.2 

3.1 

1.9 

1.7 

1.7 

1.4 

1.1 

AR-O 7 

AR-O 7 

AR-I 2 

AR-l I 

AR-1 14 

AR-I 2 

AR-l I 

AR-I 2 

AR-I 2 

AR-I I 

AR-I 2 

AR-I 13 

AR-I 2 

AR-l 2 

AR-I I 

AR-I 2 

AR-I 2 

AR-I 2 

AR-I 2 

AR-l 14 

AR-I 2 

AR-I 2 

AR-I 2 

AR-I 2 

AR-I 2 

48 

46 

2 

3 

31 

17 

11 

32 

31 

28 

23 

100 

13 

28 

9 

35 

40 

29 

39 

84 

31 

32 

21 

27 

19 

0.029 

0.029 

0.080 

0.040 

0.058 

0.080 

0.040 

0.080 

0.080 

0.040 

0.080 

0.520 

0.080 

0.080 

0.040 

0.080 

0.080 

0.080 

0.080 

0.058 

0.080 

0.080 

0.080 

0.080 

0.080 

M ean 

St.Dev. 

M edian 

5,183 

7,914 

25 

100 

9,900 

1,838 

6,725 

4,775 

3,988 

8,400 

8,088 

5,956 

488 

7,050 

375 

1,763 

5,000 

1,500 

8,913 

19,627 

3,000 

13,138 

863 

5,000 

1,625 

5,136 

4,791 

4,775 

1~ 1~ 

114 118 

1.00 0.69 

1.50 1.04 

2.25 1.56 

2.16 1.50 

1.07 0.74 

3.01 2.09 

3.16 2.19 

3.37 2.34 

1.88 1.30 

4.40 3.05 

3.39 2.35 

2.73 1.89 

2.97 2.06 

4.48 3.11 

2.51 1.74 

4.11 2.85 

2.33 1.61 

4.72 3.27 

3.91 2.71 

2.16 1.50 

3.64 2.52 

2.46 1.70 

2.10 1.46 

2.84 1.97 

1.05 0.73 

2.73 1.89 

1.04 

0.95 

0.30 

0.45 

0.68 

0.65 

0.32 

0.91 

0.95 

1.01 

0.57 

1.33 

1.02 

0.82 

0.90 

1.35 

0.76 

1.24 

0.70 

1.42 

1.18 

0.65 

1.10 

0.74 

0.63 

0.85 

0.32 

0.82 

0.62 

0.57 

1.00 

0.95 

0.45 

0.53 

0.31 

0.60 

0.64 

0.70 

0.42 

0.66 

0.92 

0.57 

0.94 

0.87 

0.47 

0.85 

0.44 

0.74 

0.79 

0.43 

0.83 

0.52 

0.50 

0.66 

0.20 

0.64 

5.50 

5.01 

0.31 

0.43 

3.26 

2.13 

1.13 

3.66 

3.62 

2.99 

2.44 

11.39 

1.94 

3.05 

1.35 

4.55 

4.58 

3.83 

4.18 

8.40 

3.75 

3.27 

2.96 

3.05' 

2.43 

3.42 

2.40 

3.05 

0.13 0.87 

0.23 0.77 

0.48 0.52 

0.37 0.63 

0.37 0.63 

0.35 0.65 

0.69 0.31 

0.28 0.72 

0.21 0.79 

0. 15 0.85 

0.36 0.64 

0.07 0.93 

0.11 0.89 

0.30 0.70 

0.14 0.86 

0.06 0.94 

0.42 0.58 

0.09 0.91 

0.37 0.63 

0.07 0.93 

0.10 0.90 

0.42 0.58 

0. 11 0.89 

0.36 0.64 

0.47 0.53 

0.28 0.72 

0.17 0. 17 

0.30 0.70 

Alafia Ri ver Benthos - Final Report 

-36- 

Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

Table 11.3., continued. 

60 day · Estimated Pielou's 

preceeding HBMP No. No. Total area Abundance Shannon-Wiener Diversity H' Equitability Margalers Simpson's Gini's 

Project YearMo Rainfall Stratum Samples Taxa Sampled NoJm2 log2 In log10 J' Index Index Index 

HBMP Stratum AR-2 

HBMP 200108 22.7 AB,-2 2 6 0.080 388 2.14 1.48 0.64 0.83 0.84 0.29 0.71 

EPCHC 199810 21.3 AR-2 2 12 0.080 513 2.77 1.92 0.83 0.77 1.76 0.23 0.77 

Mote 200109 18.8 AR-2 14 17 0.058 2,045 3.13 2.17 0.94 0.77 2.10 0.17 0.83 

HBMP 200109 18.8 AR-2 2 3 0.080 125 1.30 0.90 0.39 0.82 0.41 0.46 0.54 

EPCHC 199710 18.6 AR-2 5 7 0.200 710 1.31 0.91 0.39 0.47 0.91 0.50 0.50 

HBMP 200107 18.4 AR-2 2 31 0.080 3,525 3.29 2.28 0.99 0.66 3.67 0.22 0.78 

HEMP 200008 16.9 AR-2 2 5 0.080 213 1.66 · 1.15 0.50 0.72 0.75 0.41 0.59 

EPCHC 199509 15.7 AR-2 I 2 0.040 150 0.92 0.64 0.28 0.92 0.20 0.55 0.45 

HBMP 200009 14.3 AR-2 2 II 0.080 550 2.80 1.94 0.84 0.81 1.58 0.20 0.80 

EPCHC 200009 14.3 AR-2 12 52 0.480 3,450 3.16 2.19 0.95 0.55 6.26 0.23 0.77 

HBMP 200007 14.0 AR-2 2 23 0.080 1,638 4.04 2.80 1.22 0.89 2.97 0.07 0.93 

HBMP 200010 13.0 AR-2 2 19 0.080 2,563 3.10 2.15 0.93 0.73 2.29 0.18 0.82 

EPCHC 199610 10.1 AR-2 I 6 0.040 3,825 0.46 0.32 0.14 0.18 0.61 0.88 0.12 

HBMP 200104 7.7 AR-2 2 25 0.080 1,400 3.74 2.59 1.13 0.81 3.31 0.11 0.89 

HBMP 200006 6.7 AR-2 2 24 0.080 2,050 3.22 2.23 0.97 0.70 3.02 0.17 0.83 

HBMP 200105 6.2 AR-2 2 37 0.080 2,388 3.90 2.70 1.17 0.75 4.63 0.12 0.88 

HBMP 200106 4.2 AR-2 3 29 0.120 13,658 1.99 1.38 0.60 0.41 2.94 0.37 0.63 


HBMP 200101 1.9 AR-2 2 27 0.080 27,688 1.20 0.83 0.36 0.25 2.54 0.67 0.33 

HBMP 200011 1.7 AR-2 2 12 0.080 11 ,688 1.02 0.71 0.31 0.29 1.17 0.68 0.32 

HBMP 200012 1.7 AR-2 2 8 0.080 15,675 0.19 0.13 0.06 0.06 0.72 0.96 0.04 

HBMP 200102 1.4 AR-2 2 33 0.080 28,913 1.53 1.06 0.46 0.30 3.12 0.47 0.53 

HBMP 200103 1.1 AR-2 2 6 0.080 9,600 0.26 0.18 0.08 0.10 0.55 0.93 0.07 

Mean 6,976 2.20 1.52 0.66 0.58 2.26 0.39 0.61 

St.Dev. 9,480 1.22 0.85 0.37 0.27 1.68 0.27 0.27 

Median 2,388 2.14 1.48 0.64 0.70 2.10 0.29 0.71 




preceeding HUMP No. No. Total area Abundance Shannon-Wiener Diversity H' Equitability Margalers Simpson's Gini's 

Project YearMo Rainfall Stratum Samples Taxa Sampled NoJm2 log2 In log10 .I' Index Index Index 

I-mMP Stratum AR-3 

HBMP 200108 22.7 AR-3 2 9 0.080 650 1.89 1.31 0.57 0.60 1.24 0.43 0.57 

EPCHC 199810 21.3 AR-3 1 6 0.040 175 2.52 1.75 0.76 0.98 0.97 0.18 0.82 


HBMP 200109 18.8 AR-3 2 5 0.080 200 2.11 1.46 0.63 0.91 0.75 0.25 0.75 

HBMP 200107 18.4 AR-3 2 11 0.080 675 2.86 1.98 0.86 0.83 1.53 0.20 0.80 

HBMP 200008 16.9 AR-3 2 7 0.080 1,375 1.22 0.85 0.37 0.44 0.83 0.59 0.41 

EPCHC 199509 15.7 AR-3 1 3 0.040 1,075 0.84 0.59 0.25 0.53 0.29 0.68 0.32 

HBMP 200009 14.3 AR-3 2 7 0.080 200 2.35 1.63 0.71 0.84 1.13 0.25 0.75 

EPCHC 200009 14.3 AR-3 6 33 0.240 2,483 3.03 2.10 0.91 0.60 4.09 0.23 0.77 

HBMP 200007 14.0 AR-3 2 5 0.080 550 1.97 1.36 0.59 0.85 0.63 0.28 0.72 

HBMP 200010 13.0 AR-3 2 6 0.080 238 2.42 1.68 0.73 0.94 0.91 0.20 0.80 

HBMP 200104 7.7 AR-3 2 6 0.080 1,425 1.29 0.90 0.39 0.50 0.69 0.50 0.50 

HBMP 200006 6.7 AR-3 2 12 0.080 3,013 1.27 0.88 0.38 0.35 1.37 0.61 0. 39 

HBMP 200105 6.2 AR-3 2 19 0.080 6,675 1.75 1.21 0.53 0.41 2.04 0.50 0.50 

HBMP 200106 4.2 AR-3 I 19 0.040 15,900 1.95 1.35 0.59 0.46 1.86 0.40 0.60 


HBMP 200101 1.9 AR-3 2 13 0.080 2,888 2.82 1.95 0.85 0.76 1.51 0.18 0.82 

HBMP 200011 1.7 AR-3 2 23 0.080 10,063 2.52 1.75 0.76 0.56 2.39 0.27 0.73 

HBMP 20001 2 1.7 AR-3 2 17 0.080 6,925 2.09 1.45 0.63 0.5 1 1.81 0.39 0.61 

HBMP 200102 1.4 AR-3 2 28 0.080 30,275 1.90 1.32 0.57 0.40 2.62 0.36 0.64 

HBMP 200103 1.1 AR-3 9 0.040 2,475 2.46 1.70 0.74 0.78 1.02 0.22 0.78 

Mean 5,080 2.19 1.52 0.66 0.65 1.64 0.33 0.67 

St.Dev. 7,711 0.70 0.48 0.21 0.19 0.99 0. 16 0.16 

Median 1,425 2.10 1.46 0.63 0.60 1.30 0.26 0.71 

Alalia Ri ver Benthos - Final Report -38- Mote Marine Laboratory - JUlie 2003



preceeding HBMP No. No. Total area Abundance Shannon-Wiener DiversitI H' Equitability Margalers Simpson's Gini's 

Project YearMo Rainfall Stratum Sam~les Taxa .Sam~led NoJm2 10&2 In 10&10 .I' Index Index Index 


HBMP 200108 22.7 AR-4 4 9 0.160 431 2.20 1.53 0.66 0.69 1.32 0.28 0.72 


HBMP 200109 18.8 AR-4 2 0.080 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 na 0.00 1.00 0.00 

HBMP 200107 18.4 AR-4 4 5 0.160 144 2.10 1.46 0.63 0.91 0.81 0.25 0.75 

HBMP 200008 16.9 AR-4 3 12 0.120 2,692 1.27 0.88 0.38 0.35 1.39 0.64 0.36 

EPCHC 199509 15.7 AR-4 5 0.040 1,400 0.84 0.58 0.25 0.36 0.55 0.74 0.26 

HBMP 200009 14.3 AR-4 2 4 0.080 150 1.42 0.98 0.43 0.71 0.60 0.48 0.52 

EPCHC 200009 14.3 AR-4 6 24 0.240 2,029 3.27 2.26 0.98 0.71 3.02 0.16 0.84 

HEMP 200007 14.0 AR-4 6 9 0.240 175 2.26 1.57 0.68 0.71 1.55 0.27 0.73 

HBMP 200010 13.0 AR-4 2 2 0.080 38 0.92 0.64 0.28 0.92 0.28 0.54 0.46 

EPCHC 199610 10.1 AR-4 I 5 0.040 2,950 0.60 0.41 0.18 0.26 0.50 0.81 0.19 

HBMP 200104 7.7 AR-4 2 6 0.080 263 1.93 1.34 0.58 0.75 0.90 0.34 0.66 

HEMP 200006 6.7 AR-4 6 18 0.240 1,921 2.96 2.05 0.89 0.71 2.25 0.19 0.81 

HBMP 200105 6.2 AR-4 2 16 0.080 2,763 1.86 1.29 0.56 0.46 1.89 0.45 0.55 

HBMP 200106 4.2 AR-4 4 16 0.160 969 2.38 1.65 0.72 0.59 2.18 0.28 0.72 


HBMP 200101 1.9 AR-4 2 21 0.080 9,313 2.17 1.51 0.65 0.49 2.19 0.34 0.66 

HBMP 200011 1.7 AR-4 2 9 0.080 300 2.06 1.43 0.62 0.65 1.40 0.41 0.59 

HBMP 200012 1.7 AR-4 2 7 0.080 2,488 1.23 0.85 0.37 0.44 0.77 0.54 0.46 

HBMP 200 102 1.4 AR-4 2 11 0.080 3,550 1.81 1.25 0.54 0.52 1.22 0.36 0.64 

HBMP 200103 1.1 AR-4 2 12 0.080 1,288 2.53 1.75 0.76 0.71 1.54 0.25 0.75 

Mean 2,414 1.91 1.32 0.57 0.61 1.59 0.42 0.58 

St.Dev. 3,531 0.88 0.61 0.26 0.18 1.22 0.23 0.23 

Median 1,400 2.06 1.43 0.62 0.59 1.39 0.34 0.66 




preceeding HBMP No. No. Total area Abundance Shannon-Wiener Diversit! H' Equitability Margalers Simpson's Gini's 



HBMP 200108 22.7 AR-5 6 18 0.240 379 2.94 2.04 0.88 0.70 2.86 0.21 0.79 

Mote 200109 18.8 AR-5 14 33 0.058 566 3.79 2.63 1.14 0.75 5.05 0.13 0.87 

HBMP 200107 18.4 AR-5 4 11 0.160 2,369 1.88 1.30 0.56 0.54 1.29 0.34 0.66 

HBMP 200008 16.9 AR-5 5 9 0.200 2,555 1.83 1.27 0.55 0.58 1.02 0.40 0.60 

EPCHC 199509 15.7 AR-5 I 6 0.040 225 2.42 1.68 0.73 0.94 0.92 0.21 0.79 

HBMP 200009 14.3 AR-5 2 7 0.080 150 2.45 1.70 0.74 0.87 1.20 0.23 0.77 

EPCHC 200009 14.3 AR-5 I 1 0.040 25 0.00 0.00 0.00 na 0.00 1.00 0.00 

HBMP 200007 14.0 AR-5 2 5 0.080 375 0.83 0.58 0.25 0.36 0.67 0.75 0.25 

HBMP 200010 13.0 AR-5 2 13 0.080 1,000 2.71 1.88 0.81 0.73 1.74 0.24 0.76 

EPCHC 199610 10.1 AR-5 1 18 0.040 7,125 2.36 1.64 0.71 0.57 1.92 0.29 0.71 

HBMP 200104 7.7 AR-5 2 4 0.080 750 0.45 0.31 0.14 0.23 0.45 0.87 0.13 

HBMP 200006 6.7 AR-5 4 7 0.160 1,206 1.02 0.71 0.31 0.36 0.85 0.65 0.35 

HBMP 200105 6.2 AR-5 2 6 0.080 1,788 0.39 0.27 0.1 2 0.15 0.67 0.90 0.10 

HBMP 200106 4.2 AR-5 5 16 0.200 2,015 2.74 1.90 0.83 0.69 1.97 0.24 0.76 


HBMP 200101 1.9 AR-5 2 8 0.080 1,500 2. 15 1.49 0.65 0.72 0.96 0.31 0.69 

HBMP 200011 1.7 AR-5 2 8 0.080 1,71 3 1.88 1.30 0.57 0.63 0.94 0.32 0.68 

HEMP 200012 1.7 AR-5 2 9 0.080 313 2.76 1.91 0.83 0.87 1.39 0.18 0.82 

HBMP 200102 1.4 AR-5 2 3 0.080 63 1.37 0.95 0.41 0.86 0.48 0.43 0.57 

Mean 1,523 1.98 1.37 0.60 0.62 1.55 0.41 0.59 

St.Dev. 1,800 1.07 0.74 0.32 0.22 1.40 0.28 0.28 

Median 1,000 2.15 1.49 0.65 0.67 1.02 0.31 0.69 

Alafia River Benthos - Final Report -40- Mote Marine Laboratory - iUlle 2003



preceeding HBMP No. No. Total area Abundance Shannon· Wiener DiversitI H' Equitability Margalel's Simpson's Gini's 



HBMP 200108 22.7 AR-6 3 11 0.1 20 308 2.60 1.80 0.78 0.75 1.74 0.27 0.73 

Mote 200109 18.8 AR-6 21 26 0.087 349 3.95 2.74 1.19 0.84 4.27 0.09 0.91 

HBMP 200107 18.4 AR-6 4 22 0.160 2,013 2.44 1.69 0.74 0.55 2.76 0.30 0.70 

HBMP 200008 16.9 AR-6 4 11 0.160 956 2.10 1.46 0.63 0.61 1.46 0.34 0.66 

HBMP 200009 14.3 AR-6 2 3 0.080 38 1.58 1.10 0.48 1.00 0.55 0.32 0.68 

HBMP 200007 14.0 AR-6 3 9 0.120 1,258 1.77 1.23 0.53 0.56 1.12 0.45 0.55 

HBMP 200010 13.0 AR-6 2 10 0.080 338 2.80 1.94 0.84 0.84 1.55 0.19 0.8 1 

EPCHC 199610 10.1 AR-6 I 23 0.040 2,450 3.49 2.42 1.05 0.77 2.82 0.17 0.83 

HBMP 200104 7.7 AR-6 2 4 0.080 88 1.84 1.28 0.55 0.92 0.67 0.30 0.70 

HBMP 200006 6.7 AR-6 2 2 0.080 88 0.59 0.41 0.18 0.59 0.22 0.75 0.25 

HBMP 200105 6.2 AR-6 2 16 0.080 23,888 0.42 0.29 0.13 0.10 1.49 0.91 0.09 

HBMP 200106 4.2 AR-6 4 5 0.1 60 2,331 0.58 0.40 0.17 0.25 0.52 0.79 0.21 


HBMP 200101 1.9 AR-6 2 9 0.080 625 2.67 1.85 0.80 0.84 1.24 0.19 0.81 

HBMP 200011 1.7 AR-6 2 6 0.080 1,088 1.47 1.02 0.44 0.57 0.72 0.47 0.53 

HBMP 200012 1.7 AR-6 2 0.080 63 0.00 0.00 0.00 na 0.00 1.00 0.00 

HBMP 200102 1.4 AR-6 2 11 0.080 \,338 2.48 1.72 0.75 0.72 1.39 0.25 0.75 

Mean 2,780 2.0\ 1.39 0.60 0.65 1.78 0.41 0.59 

St.Dev. 5,926 1.14 0.79 0.34 0.24 1.86 0.28 0.28 

Median 956 2.10 1.46 0.63 0.61 1.39 0.30 0.70 

Alafia River Benthos - Final Report -41- Mote Mmine Laboratory - June 2003



preceeding HBMP No. No. Total area Abundance Shannon-Wiener Diversity H' Equi tabili ty Margaler s Simpson's Gini's 

Project YearMo Rainfall Stratum Sam~l es Taxa Sam(!led NoJm2 lo~2 In lo~ lO J' Index Index Index 

HUMP Stratum AR-7 

HBMP 200108 22.7 AR-7 3 5 0.120 175 1.63 l.13 0.49 0.70 0.77 0.43 0.57 


HBMP 200 107 18.4 AR-7 3 4 0.120 183 1.36 0.95 0.41 0.68 0.58 0.50 0.50 

HBMP 200008 16.9 AR-7 3 14 0.120 375 2.90 2.01 0.87 0.76 2. 19 0.22 0.78 

H B M P 200009 14.3 AR-7 2 6 0.080 150 2.36 1.63 0.71 0.9 1 1.00 0.22 0.78 

HBMP 200007 14.0 AR-7 3 5 0. 120 267 1.83 1.27 0.55 0.79 0.72 0.34 0.66 

HBMP 200010 13.0 AR-7 3 23 0. 120 2,575 2.22 1.54 0.67 0.49 2.80 0.40 0. 60 

HBMP 200 104 7.7 AR-7 3 14 0. 120 383 3. 12 2. 16 0.94 0.82 2.19 0. 16 0.84 

HBMP 200006 6.7 AR-7 2 3 0.080 75 1.46 1.01 0.44 0.92 0.46 0.38 0.62 

HBMP 200 105 6.2 AR-7 3 12 0. 120 583 2.48 1.72 0.75 0.69 1.73 0.26 0.74 

HBMP 200106 4.2 AR-7 3 19 0.120 4,075 2.40 1.66 0.72 0.56 2.17 0.26 0.74 


HBMP 200101 1.9 AR-7 3 18 0. 120 1,767 2.84 1.97 0.86 0.68 2.27 0.20 0.80 

HBMP 2000 11 1.7 AR-7 3 2 0.120 17 1.00 0.69 0.30 1.00 0.36 0.47 0.53 

HBMP 2000 12 1.7 AR-7 3 6 0. 120 142 1.85 1.28 0.56 0.72 1.01 0.39 0.61 

HBMP 200102 1.4 AR-7 3 16 0. 120 592 3.53 2.45 1.06 0.88 2.35 0. 11 0.89 

HBMP 200103 1.1 AR-7 3 0. 120 .!.l 0.00 0.00 0.00 na 0.00 1.00 0.00 

Mean 1,543 2.22 1.54 0.67 0.76 1.56 0.33 0.67 

St.Dev. 3,28 1 0.96 0.67 0.29 0.1 4 1.07 0.21 0.21 

Median 375 2.36 1.63 0.71 0.72 1.73 0.26 0.74 

Alafia River Benthos - Final Report -42- Mot.e Marine Laboratory - JU lie 2003

Table 11.4. Number and percentage of taxa recovered for each sampling date and HEMP river 

stratum, with data ranked by preceding 60 day rainfall totals. 

Previous 

60 days Number of Taxa contributed by each Stratum 

Sampler Year· Mo Rain (in.) AR·O AR·l AR·2 AR·3 AR·4 AR·5 AR·6 AR·7 Total 

HCEPC 199810 21.3 -- 3 12 6 -- -- -- -- 16 

HBMP 200109 18.8 -- 17 3 5 1 -- -- -- 22 

Mote 200109 18.8 48 31 17 18 38 33 26 14 133 

HCEPC 199710 18.6 -- 11 7 -- -- -- -- -- 15 

HBMP 200107 18.4 -- 32 31 11 5 11 22 4 68 

HBMP 200008 16.9 -- 31 5 7 12 9 11 14 62 

HCEPC 199509 15.7 -- 28 2 3 5 6 -- -- 38 

HBMP 200009 14.3 -- 23 11 7 4 7 3 6 49 

HCEPC 200009 14.3 -- 100 52 33 24 1 -- -- 125 

HBMP 200007 14.0 -- 13 23 5 9 5 9 5 42 

HEMP 200010 13.0 -- 28 19 6 2 13 10 23 75 

HCEPC 199610 10.1 -- 9 6 -- 5 18 23 -- 49 

HBMP 200104 7.7 -- 35 25 6 6 4 4 14 63 

HBMP 200006 6.7 -- 40 24 12 18 7 2 3 67 

HBMP 200105 6.2 -- 29 37 19 16 6 16 12 76 

HBMP 200106 4.2 -- 39 29 19 16 16 5 19 76 

Mote 199905 3.1 46 84 58 40 43 44 72 40 221 

HBMP 200101 1.9 -- 31 27 13 21 8 9 18 76 

HEMP 200011 1.7 -- 32 12 23 9 8 6 2 59 

HBMP 200012 1.7 -- 21 8 17 7 9 I 6 43 

HBMP 200102 1.4 -- 27 33 28 11 3 II 16 80 

HBMP 200103 1.1 -- 19 6 9 12 -- -- I 31 

P ercentage 0 r event to tal~ oun d WIt ·hi neac hS tratum, rows WI ·11 not to tal to 100 

HBMP 200108 22.7 -- 5.9 17.6 26.5 26.5 52.9 32.4 14.7 

HCEPC 199810 21.3 -- 18.8 75.0 37.5 -- -- -- -- 

HBMP 200109 18.8 -- 77.3 13.6 22.7 4.5 -- -- -- 

Mote 200109 18.8 36.1 23.3 12.8 13.5 28.6 24.8 19.5 10.5 

HCEPC 199710 18.6 -- 73 .3 46.7 -- -- -- -- -- 

HBMP 200107 18.4 -- 47.1 45.6 16.2 7.4 16.2 32.4 5.9 

HBMP 200008 16.9 -- 50.0 8.1 11.3 19.4 14.5 17.7 22.6 

HCEPC 199509 15.7 -- 73.7 5.3 7.9 13.2 15.8 -- -- 

HEMP 200009 14.3 -- 46.9 22.4 14.3 8.2 14.3 6.1 12.2 

HCEPC 200009 14.3 -- 80.0 41.6 26.4 19.2 0.8 -- -- 

HBMP 200007 14.0 -- 31.0 54.8 11.9 21.4 11.9 21.4 11.9 

HBMP 200010 13.0 -- 37.3 25.3 8.0 2.7 17.3 13.3 30.7 

HCEPC 199610 10.1 -- 18.4 12.2 -- 10.2 36.7 46.9 -- 

HEMP 200104 7.7 -- 55.6 39.7 9.5 9.5 6.3 6.3 22.2 

HEMP 200006 6.7 -- 59.7 35.8 17.9 26.9 10.4 3.0 4.5 

HBMP 200105 6.2 -- 38.2 48.7 25.0 21.1 7.9 21.1 15.8 

HBMP 200106 4.2 -- 51.3 38.2 25.0 21.1 21.1 6.6 25.0 

Mote 199905 3.1 20.8 38.0 26.2 18.1 19.5 19.9 32.6 18.1 

HBMP 200101 1.9 -- 40.8 35.5 17.1 27.6 10.5 11.8 23.7 

HEMP 200011 1.7 -- 54.2 20.3 39.0 15.3 13.6 10.2 3.4 

HBMP 200012 1.7 -- 48.8 18.6 39.5 16.3 20.9 2.3 14.0 

HBMP 200102 1.4 -- 33.8 41.3 35.0 13.8 3.8 13.8 20.0 80 

HEMP 200103 l.l -- 61.3 19.4 29.0 38.7 -- -- 3.2 31 


Table II.S. Abundance and percentage abundance for each sampling date and HBMP river 

stratum, with data ranked by preceding 60 day rainfall totals. 

Previous 

60 days Calculated Number of Individuals per m2 for each stratum 

Sampler Year·Mo Rain (in.) AR·O AR·l AR·2 AR·3 AR·4 AR·5 AR·6 AR·7 Mean 

HCEPC 199810 21.3 .. 100 513 175 -- -- -- -- 263 

HBMP 200109 18.8 5,183 9,900 2,045 1,925 2,959 566 349 1,306 3,029 

Mote 200109 18.8 .. 1,838 125 200 13 .. . . .. 544 

HCEPC 199710 18.6 -- 6,725 710 -- -- -- -- -- 3,718 

HBMP 200107 18.4 -- 4,775 3,525 675 144 2,369 2,013 183 1,955 

HBMP 200008 16.9 -- 3,988 213 1,375 2,692 2,555 956 375 1,736 

HCEPC 199509 15.7 -- 8,400 150 1,075 1,400 225 -- -- 2,250 

HBMP 200009 14.3 -- 8,088 550 200 150 150 38 150 1,332 

HCEPC 200009 14.3 -- 5,956 3,450 2,483 2,029 25 -- -- 2,789 

HBMP 200007 14.0 -- 488 1,638 550 175 375 1,258 267 679 

HBMP 200010 13.0 -- 7,050 2,563 238 38 1,000 338 2,575 1,971 

HCEPC 199610 10.1 -- 375 3,825 -- 2,950 7,125 2,450 -- 3,345 

HBMP 200104 7.7 -- 1,763 1,400 1,425 263 750 88 383 867 

HBMP 200006 6.7 -- 5,000 2,050 3,013 1,921 1,206 88 75 1,907 

HBMP 200105 6.2 -- 1,500 2,388 6,675 2,763 1,788 23,888 583 5,655 

HBMP 200106 4.2 -- 8,913 13,658 15,900 969 2,015 2,331 4,075 6,837 

Mote ' 199905 3.1 7,914 19,627 27,705 20,195 14,869 4,826 10,050 13,543 14,841 

HBMP 200101 1.9 -- 3,000 27,688 2,888 9,313 1,500 625 1,767 6,683 

HBMP 200011 1.7 -- 13,138 11 ,688 10,063 300 1,713 1,088 17 5,429 

HBMP 200012 1.7 -- 863 15,675 6,925 2,488 313 63 142 3,781 

HBMP 200102 1.4 -- 5,000 28,913 30,275 3,550 63 1,338 592 9,961 

HBMP 200103 1.1 -- 1,625 9,600 2,475 1,288 -- -- 17 3,00 I 

Mean 6548 5136 6976 5208 2414 1523 2780 1543 3605 

Percentage of event total contributed by each stratUDL 

HBMP 200108 22.7 -- 1.1 16.4 27.6 18.3 16.1 13.1 7.4 100 

HCEPC 199810 21.3 -- 12.7 65.1 22.2 -- -- -- -- 100 

HBMP 200109 18.8 21.4 40.9 8.4 7.9 12.2 2.3 1.4 5.4 100 

Mote 200109 18.8 .. 84.5 5.7 9.2 0.6 .. .. .. 100 

HCEPC 199710 18.6 -- 90.5 9.5 -- -- -- -- -- 100 

HBMP 200107 18.4 -- 34.9 25.8 4.9 1.1 17.3 14.7 1.3 100 

HBMP 200008 16.9 -- 32.8 1.7 11.3 22.1 21.0 7.9 3.1 100 

HCEPC 199509 15.7 -- 74.7 1.3 9.6 12.4 2.0 -- -- 100 

HBMP 200009 14.3 -- 86.7 5.9 2.1 1.6 1.6 0.4 1.6 100 

HCEPC 200009 14.3 -- 42.7 24.7 17.8 14.6 0.2 -- -- 100 

HBMP 200007 14.0 -- 10.3 34.5 I\.6 3.7 7.9 26.5 5.6 100 

HBMP 200010 13.0 -- 51.1 18.6 1.7 0.3 7.2 2.4 18.7 100 

HCEPC 199610 10.1 -- 2.2 22.9 -- 17.6 42.6 14.6 -- 100 

HBMP 200104 7.7 -- 29.0 23.1 23.5 4.3 12.4 1.4 6.3 100 

HBMP 200006 6.7 -- 37.4 15.4 22.6 14.4 9.0 0.7 0.6 100 

HBMP 200105 6.2 -- 3.8 6.0 16.9 7.0 4.5 60.3 1.5 100 

HBMP 200106 4.2 -- 18.6 28.5 33.2 2.0 4.2 4.9 8.5 100 

Mote 199905 3.1 6.7 16.5 23.3 17.0 12.5 4.1 8.5 11.4 100 

HBMP 200101 1.9 -- 6.4 59.2 6.2 19.9 3.2 1.3 3.8 100 

HBMP 200011 1.7 -- 34.6 30.8 26.5 0.8 4.5 2.9 0.0 100 

HBMP 200012 1.7 -- 3.3 59.2 26.2 9.4 1.2 0.2 0.5 100 

HBMP 200102 1.4 -- 7.2 41.5 43.4 5.1 0.1 1.9 0.8 100 

HBMP 200103 1.1 -- 10.8 64.0 16.5 8.6 -- -- 0.1 100 

Mean 14.0 31.9 25.7 17.0 9.0 8.5 9.6 4.5 100 


Table II.6. 

Distribution of species in shallow versus deep strata as sampled by sweep nets for the 

wet and dry sampling periods. 

Year Mo. River No. Individuals Number of Taxa 

Dry Season Kilometer Shallow Deep Shallow Deep 

199905 1 42 75 7 10 S=D 2 

199905 2 66 67 18 10 S>D 7 

199905 3 58 66 11 9 SS=8 S>D= 7 

Wet Season 

200109 1 136 16 10 9 S=D 2 

200109 2 10 15 4 6 S>D 6 

200109 3 43 15 3 5 SS=7 S>D=8 


30,------------------------------------------------, 

25 

20 

o 

:5 

';J 15 

C/l 

E 

g 10 

o 

c:Q 

5 

\ /" 

\ / "\ 

\ / \ I' 

\ / \ I \ 

\ / y \ 

\ I \ 

\ / \ 

V \ 

~ 

~ 

\ 

\ 

L _________ "'--___ 

o 

o 2 4 6 

8 10 12 14 16 

River Kilometer 

18 

Figure II.3. 

Bottom salinity for two sampling periods, May 1999 (wet) and October 

200 1 (dry). 


35 .---------------------------------------------------~ 

30 

25 

.c 20 

..... 

..... 

~ 

-~ 

CIJ 15 

10 

5 

O+-----.-----.---~~--~r_--_,----~----~----_r~~~ 

o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 


Figure 11.4. 

Daily average modeled salinity, (minimum, maximum, median) by river kilometer 

based on data covering the period May 1999 - September 2001. 

Alafia River Benthos - Final Report -47- Mote Marine Laboratory - JUlie 2003

35 

30 

25 

o 20 

..... 

I: 

..... 

~ ~ 

e . 

~ 

e 

e 

T 

CI:l 15 e e 

-r- 

10 

5 

o 

+ 

_e_ 

+ 

I I 

I I t 

~ 

~ 

HBMP Strata 

Figure 11.5. 

Benthic relevant salinity regime based on modeled salinity for thirty day average 

preceding each of 18 benthic sampling dates. 


Surface Area • 

Volume • 

o ~----.-----.-----.-----.-----.-----'---~r----.-----.~ 

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 


Figure 11.6. 

Relative contribution of surface area and volume of the Alafia River by kilometer. 


B~m 

61ovatlon 

Figure 11.7. 

Schematic illustration of the Alafia River bathymetry based on NGVD, figure 

provided by SWFWMD. 


Greatest Depths on Transects 

o .-----------------------~----------------------------_. 

-2 

---- 

E -4 

'-" 

0 

> 

0 

Z 

E -6 

0 

..::: 

= 0 

...... 

ro 

> 

0 -8 

~ 

-10 

-12 

o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 

River Kilom eter 

Figure 11.8. 

lllustration of the greatest depths recorded for cross-section transects during the 

bathymetry survey of the Alafia River. 

Alafia River Benthos - Fi nal Report -51- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

..:.: 

c: 

Median Grain Size (urn) 

'" 

a

.¥ 

c: 

Percent Silt 

'" 0 0 0 0 e> 

c:o 

.;:: 

OIl 

C2 

"0 

~ 

.¥ 

c: 

c:o '" 

a:: 

j 

....: 

c 

CQ '" 

• 

.;:: .. 

Ol) 

Ci 

~

Percent Organics 

" 

o 

o Gl 0 100% 

o 

" 

o 75% 

" (j 

Gl 13 0 50% 

Q 0

..:.: 

c: 

Percent Solids 

'" 0 G 

Number of Taxa 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

8 

E 6 

::l 

0 

U 

4 

2 

0 

8 

E 6 

::l 

0 

U 

4 

2 

0 

AR-I 

AR-2 

8 

~ 

c 6 

::l 

0 

U 

4 

2 

0 

8 

= 6 ::l 

0 

U 

4 

2 

0 

AR-3 

AR-4 

8 

E 6 

::l 

0 

U 

4 

2 

0 

AR-5 

8 

E 6 

::l 

0 

U 

4 

2 

0 

AR-6 

8 

E 6 

::l 

0 

U 

4 

2 

0 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Number of Taxa (rounde d to interval of 5) 

AR-7 

Figure II.B. Distribution of number of taxa (counts) recovered fro m each sample. 

Alafia River Benthos - Fi nal Report -56- MOle Marine Laboratory - June 2003

0 

Number of Individuals per m 2 (logIO) 

1 2 3 4 5 

10 

8 

::l 

== 0 6 

u 4 

2 

0 

AR-l 

8 

::l 

== 0 

U 

::l 

== 0 

u 

::l 

== 0 

u 

6 

4 

2 

0 

I j 

I j 

..... I 

r.L I 

AR-2 

AR-3 

AR-4 

..L j 

0 

AR-5 

1 

I 

::l 

== 

u 

::l 

== 

u 

8 

6 

0 4 AR-6 

2 

0 

8 

~ 

:: 6 

::l 

0 

U 

4 

2 

0 

0 1 2 3 4 

Number of Indivduals per m 2 (logIO) 

AR-7 

Figure II.14. Distribution of number of individuals collected from each benthic faunal 

sample. 


Shannon Weiner 

0 2 3 4 5 

.... 

c 

:::I 

8 

6 

0 4 

U 

2 

0 

8 

c: 6 

:::I 

0 4 

U 

2 

0 

AR-l 

AR-2 

8 

c: 6 

:::I 

0 4 

U 

2 

0 

8 

c: 6 

:::I 

0 4 

U 

2 

0 

AR-3 

AR-4 

8 

c: 6 

:::I 

0 4 AR-5 

u 

2 

0 

8 

c: 6 

:::I 

0 4 AR-6 

u 

2 

0 

8 

c: 6 

:::I 

0 4 

U 

2 

0 

0 2 3 4 5 

Shannon Weiner (rounded to interval of 0 .5) 

AR-7 

Figure II.IS. Distribution of diversity values (H') for each benthic sample. 


27.ffi 

27.85 

• 

Tctal 

ifil • 40 

J) 

• 

• 10 

-82.44 -82.42 -82.4l -82.:E -82.3l -82.34 .f232 -8?3l -8?a! 

27.ffi 

~ 

27.85 

• 40 I 

• J) I 

I 

• 

• 10 

I 

27.~ 

-82.44 -82.42 -82.4l .f2:E -82.3l .f234 -82.31 -8?3l -8?a! 

Figure 11.16. Number of taxa recovered from core samples by river kilometer for May 1999 (dry 

season) and September 2001 (wet season). 


Tctal 

2 

{l:T m - Ily Seascn 

27.00 

I • ron I 

I lam I 

27.00 • .iXX) 

• p 

27.~ +------,------,--'---r----r-------r---,....--...,.---,--.....J 

-&34 -&32 

• Hill 

27.00 

TctalIrrl . 

2 

{l:Tm-Wt~ 

e ron 

• lam I 

27.00 

• .iXX) 1 

27.~ 

• ~ 

-&44 -&42 -&~ -&35 -&35 -&34 -&32 -&3) -&:13 

· Hill I 

I 

Figure 11.17. Number of individuals per m 2 recovered from core samples by river kilometer for 

May 1999 (dry season) and September 2001 (wet season). 

A1afia Ri ver Benthos · Final Report -60- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

27.ffi 

27.ffi 

• 

e Tcta1 N1s) - fly Seascn 

• 22 

10 

5 

~ 

• 3 

27.84 

-&44 -&42 -&40 -&:ll -&:Ji -&31 -&32 -&3:1 -&al 

e 

27.ffi 22 

10 

27.ffi 

• 5 

~ 

• 3 

27.84 , 

-&44 -&42 -&40 -&:ll -&:Ji -&31 -&32 -&3:1 -&2!l 

--- - - -' 

Figure 11.18. Number of taxa recovered from sweep samples by river kilometer for May 1999 (dry 

season) and September 2001 (wet season). 


I 

I 

1-- 

e 117 I 

• ~ 

• 25 

• 10 

I 

I 

i 

I 

I 

27a! Tctal 

e 

. 

117 

~ 

'25 

• 10 

Figure 11.19. Number of individuals recovered from sweep samples by river kilometer for May 

1999 (dry season) and September 2001 (wet season). 


27.!fI 

e 

27.$ 

• 

Nl Taxa-Dy~ 

• 

27.84 

-&44 -&42 -(4) -&:!l -&33 -&~ -&3! -&:IJ -&lB 

]) 

a) 

10 

1 

27.!fI 

e 

27.ffj 

• 

Nlcf Taxa-\\et~ 

• 

]) 

:J) 

10 

1 

27.84 ~----! 

-&44 -&42 -(4) -&:!l -&33 ~ -&3! -&:IJ -&lB 

Figure II.20. Number of insect taxa recovered from core samples by river kilometer for May 1999 

(dry season) and September 2001 (wet season). 


Figure 11.21. Number of insects per m 2 based on counts from core samples by river kilometer for 

May 1999 (dry season) and September 2001 (wet season). 


27.!B 

Tctal 

Mlli(]l) 

tID) 

e(ill) 

27f£ • nn 

- UID 

27.84 

-&44 -&42 -&4:> -&:11 -&3> -&~ ~ -&:D -&:!I 

Mlli(]l) 

27.!B Tctal p;I" Ri\ef km- Wt &anl tID) 

27f£ 

• 

effID 

nD 

~ - laD 

27.84 

-&44 -&42 -&4:> -&:11 -&3> ~ ~ -&:D -&:!I 

Figure 11.22. Total abundance of benthic organisms for each kilometer of river. 


27.!B 

Mllimi 

Tctalltl I»" Ri~ km- Dy ~ I~ ezm 

tUID 

27.E6 

• ~ 

~ 

27.84 

-82.44 -82.42 -82.40 -82.33 .f2:£ -82.3' -82.31 -82.3> -82.aI 

t 

100 

Mllimi 

27.!B Tctal I»" Ri~ km- \\tt ~ 

ezm 

t UID 

27.E6 

• ~ 

t 100 

27.84 

-82.44 -82.42 -82.40 -82.33 .f2:£ ~ -82.31 -82.3> -82.28 

Figure 11.23. Total abundance of polychaetes for each kilometer of river. 


27.ffi 

Mllim; 

Tcta1 rer Ri\tY km- Qy &am e2W 1 

i 

• Ian I 

:ill I 

271f3 

• 

i 

.:u 

i 

I 

27.m i 

-&44 -&42 -&41 -&33 -&$ ~ -&32 ~ ~ 

27.ffi 

Tcta1 

rer Ri\tY km- Vkt &>am 

; 

e 

Mllim; 

2W 

• Ian 

271f3 

• .w 

• :u 

~ 

27.m 

-&44 -&42 -&41 -&33 -&$ -&~ -&32 ~ ~ 

i 

I 

Figure 11.24. Total abundance of molluscs for each kilometer of river. 


27./B 

27.ffi 

Mllirn; 

Tctal IHRiwrkm-ny~ eiUD 

~ 

27.84 

-&44 -&42 -&«> -&33 -&3l -&~ -&31 -&3) -&a3 

27./B 

27.ffi 

27.84 

-&44 -&42 -&«> -&33 -&3l -&~ -&31 -&3) -&a3 

lll) 

• urn 

• 1m 

Mllirn; 

e iUD 

• lll) 

• HID 

• 1m 

Figure 11.25. Total abundance of amphipods for each kilometer of river. 


27.11! 

Total 

IXT River km - IXy Season 

I 

I 

i 

Mllions 

'2700 i 

I • HID 

I 

27.1Il 

I • 500 

~ 

27.84 

-&44 -&42 -&40 -&38 -&38 -&34 -&32 -&~ -&::s 

• 100 

Mllirns 

27.11! 

Total IXT River km - Wet Season '2700 

• HID 

27.1Il 

• 500 

• 100 

27.84 

-&44 -&42 -&40 -s:a38 -&38 -&34 -&32 -&~ -&;:s 

Figure 11.26. Total abundance of cumaceans for each kilometer of river. 


27.ffi 

Tctali 

Ri",," 

Mllim; 

km- fly Seam 

e(ill 

en> 

27.00 

• 100 

~ 

27.84 

-8244 -8242 -82«) -82$ -8233 -8234 -8231 -8231 -82al 

• 10 

Mllim; 

27.ffi Tctal Ri\tY km- Wt &am 

e fill 

en> 

27.00 

• 100 

• 10 

27.84 

-8244 -8242 -82«) -8233 -8233 -8234 -8231 -8231 -82al 

Figure 11.27. Total abundance of mysids for each kilometer of river. 


27.!B 

27.00 

• 

Mlim; 

e4D 

Tctal lD" Ri\tT km-lly ~ 

en> 

1m 

~ 

27.m 

-&44 -&42 -&.() -8233 -&35 -&~ -&32 -&3) -8?a3 

, 1 

Mlim; 

e4D 

27.!B 

Tctal lD" Ri\tT km- Wi ~ 

In> 

27.00 

• 1m 

~ 

27.m 

-&44 -&42 -&.() -8233 -&35 -&~ -&32 -&3) -8?a3 

, 1 

Figure 11.28. Total abundance of decapods for each kilometer of river. 


'llf£ 

Tctal 

Mlim; 

e2'fl 

• 1m 

'llH3 

• j) 

• • 1 

'll.84 

-&44 -&.Q -&

Mllicn; 

Tcta1 ~ Ri\{'f km-lly ~ i 

I 

I 

I 

.~ 

27.83 

I 

elm 

~ 

• 10 

I 

1 

-&44 -&42 -&4) .S1.:£ -&$ -&34 -&~ -&3) -&al 

Mlli(l1) 

Tcta1 ~ Ri\{'fkm- Wi ~ elm I 

27.83 I 

I 

.~ 

27.83 

• 10 

1 

~ 

27.84 

-&44 -&42 -&4) -&:II -&$ -&34 ~ -&3) -&al 

I 

! 

Figure 11.30. Total abundance of nemerteans for each kilometer of river. 


2!.lB 

2!IJj 

Mllim; 

I 

I 

Tdal I I 

e4il I 

I ean I 

I 

1m I 

j • 

I 

• 1 

I 

I I 

2!.84 I I 

~44 ~42 ~4l -8!al -&al -l234 ~3! -&3) -&a! 

2!.lB 

2!IJj 

• 

2!.84 

Tdal 

~44 ~42 ~4l -8!al -&al -l234 ~ -&3) -&a! 

Mllim; 

I 

I 

r 

e48) 

, eli) 

, 

I 1m 

• 1 

Figure 11.31. Total abundance of dipterans for each kilometer of river. 


l\1llicrE 

: 

Zl.ffi 

p.=T ~\ef km-lly ~ 

elD I 

I 

I 

ell) I 

Zl.ffi 

• 100 

• 10 

Zl.~ 

-81.44 -81.~ -81.4) -8?33 ~ ~ -81.3! -&:D ~ 

l\1llicrE 

Tctal pY~\efkm-Wt~ em I 

~ 

-81.44 -81.~ -81.4) -8?33 ~ -81.~ -8?3! -&:D ~ 

ean 

I 

i 

I 

! 

i 

! 

1m j 

• 10 

Figure 11.32. Total abundance of ologochaets for each kilometer of river. 


4.------------------------------------------------, 

3 Annelida 

2 

HB5 HB3 2 3 4 5 6 

3,------------------------------------------------, 

2 

Crustacea 

,.-.. 0 

C'l 

E 

6 

OJ) 

-- '-' 

rJj 

rJj 

c

--- 

10 

"'E 8 Annelida 

-00 

'-' 

6 

'" 

E 

'" 

4 

0 

~ 

--- 

'"- E 

00 2 

'-' 

'" 

E 

0 

~ 

2 

0 

3 

0 

HB5 HB3 2 3 4 5 6 

Crustacea 

HB5 HB3 2 3 4 5 6 

--- 20· 

"'6 

eo 15 

'-' 

'" 

'" 

'" 10 

E 

0 

5 

~ 

0 

--- 

30 

"'~ 

'-' 

20 

'" 

~ 

0 10 

~ 

0 

--- 30 

"'E 

-00 

'-' 

20 

'" 

E 10 

0 

~ 

0 

Mollusca 

HB5 HB3 2 3 4 5 6 

Miscellaneous 

HB5 HB3 2 3 4 5 6 

All Groups 

HB5 HB3 2 3 4 5 6 

StationlRiver Kilometer 

Figure 11.34. Dry weight benthic biomass for the May 1999 collection. 


1.0 

0.8 Annelida 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

1.0 

HB5 HB3 2 3 4 5 6 

0.8 Crustacea 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

r----l r----l ~ 

0.0 

,-... 

N HB5 HB3 2 3 4 5 6 

E 1.0 

bll 

'-" 

CI:l 

0.8 

CI:l 

~ 

0.6 

E 

0 

0.4 

~ 

Q.) 

0.2 

Q.) 

3.0 - 

2.S Annelida 

2.0 

1.S 

1.0 

O.S 

0.0 n 

1.0 

HBS HB3 2 3 4 S 6 

0.8 Crustacea 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

.--. r-1 r-1 

N 0.0 

E 

HBS HB3 2 3 4 S 6 

OJ) 

-- 

'--' 1.0 

'" ell 0.8 

E Mollusca 

0 0.6 

~ ,--- 

0.4 

:c 

OJ) 0.2 

.Q3 

~ 0.0 

r-1 r-I 

;:>., HBS HB3 2 3 4 

..... 

S 6 

a 

1.0 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

Miscellaneous 

HBS HB3 2 3 4 S 6 

3.0 

2.S 

2.0 

1.S 

1.0 

.-- 

O.S 

0.0 n Ll 

All Groups 

HBS HB3 2 3 4 S 6 

StationlRiver Kilometer (Wet Season) 

Figure II.36. Dry weight benthic biomass for the September 200 1 collection. 


:Figure 11.37. Cluster diagram based on Bray-Curtis, group averaged sorting and presence/absence faunal data. 

May 1999, Dry Season 

Station RK 

5 --------------------------------- - ---------1------------------------------------------1 

3 -- - ----------------------------------------1 1-----------1 

1 -- --- - ----------------------------------------------1--- - ----I I 

2 - --------- - - -------- ---------I--------------------- --I I ------------------------ - 1 

3 -- ----------------- -------- - I I 

4 ---- - - - -------------- -- ------------------I-------------------I 

5 --------------------------------- - I------I 

6 ------------- ------- ------ - -- -- - -- I 

7 ---------- - -------------- ---------------------1-----------I 

8 --------------------------------------I-------l I---------------l 

9 -------- - -----------------------------1 I I 

10 ----------------------------------------------------------I 1-----------------------1 

11 ---------------------------------------------------1 I 

12 -------------------------------------------I--l I----l I 

13 -------------------------------------------I I----l 1-----------------1 

14 ----------------------------------------------1 I 

15 ------------------------------------------------------ - -I 

September 2001, Wet Season 

Station RK 

5 -----------------------------------1---------------------------------------------------------------1 

3 ---------------------------------- -1 

1 -------------------- -- ------------------ - -- -- ---------- ----------I 

2 -------- -------- - -------- -- --- - -- ---- ---------- - --- - ------I 1 -------------------------1 

3 - - ---- ------- -- ------------ ------- - --- ---------------1 1-- - -- -I I 

4 ------------- - -------- -- ---------- I ----------I I ----I I 

5 ---------------------------------- I I ------ -I 

6 -------- -- ----- ----- ------- ------------ ------I 

7 --------------------- - ------------------------------------------------I-----l I 

14 ----------------------------------------------------------------------1 I I 

8 ---------------------------------------------1-1 1----1 I 

9 ---------------------------------------------1 1------------------------1 I I I 

10 ----------------------------------------------I II I l---------I 

15 --------------- - --------------------------------------------------------II--l I 

12 -------------------------------------------------------------------------1 I 

11 -------------------------------------------------------------1-------------------1 

13 -------------------------------------------------------------1 

I 

1------- 

I 

I 

l-------I 

I 

I 

I 

High Simi larity ---------------------------------------------------------------Very Low Similarityl 

Alalia River Benthos - Final Report -80- Mote Marine Laboratory - JUlie 2003

0 

• • .- • 

Common 

• • 

• 

•• • 

• • 

20 

II 

• 

•• • 

:. 

• • • • 

• • 

• • 40 

• • •• 

t • • ., • 

-. • 

Q) 1 

u 

t:: 

•• 

ell 

"0 

60 

• • 

t:: 

I 

:l 

.0 

~ • 

-< 

• ..,. 

4- 

.. 

0 

~. • • 

• 

• 

.. 

: 

• • 

;: • : 

100 • • • • • 

...:.:: 80 

§ 

~ 

:- 

Rare 140 

:1 • 

• • 

120 I • 

• • • • ••.. 

I 

• 

r • • • • • • •• • • 

0 5 10 15 20 25 

Salinity 

Figure 11.38. Representation of taxa ranked by abundance and plotted against the weighted center 

of salinity for the occurrence of that species. 


C\j 

70 

60 

>< 50 

C\j 

~ 

4-i 40 

0 

;.... 

(1) 

30 

~ 

::s 

Z 

20 

10 

0 

qf\:j 

~~ 

"'1 

Figure 11.39. 

The number of taxa collected within discrete salinity increments. 


"" >< 

~ 40 

"- 

~ 30 

CI,) 

.r:J 

60.-----------------------------. 60 .-----------------------------, 

AR-2 

50 

• AR-3 

E 20 

~ 

• 

Z 

"" >< 

10 •• 

50 

40 

• 

• 

•• 

• 30 

• • 

• 

20 • 

• ••• 

.. _. • • 

••• 

10 

.- . 

o~--~----~--~----~--~--~ o ~--~----~--~------,----.,-----,--' 

o 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

60 .-----------------------------. ~ .-----------------------------, 

50 

~ 40 

"- 

~ 30 

CI,) 

.r:J 

E 20 

~ 

Z 

10 

AR-4 

~~t AR-6 

60 

~ 50 

~ ~l 

.r:J 30 

E • 

Z 20 

• 

10 ., 

. - .. 

o '.... • 

o 5 10 

AR-5 

50 

• • 

• 

40 

30 • 

20 

• • • • 

• .- • 

• 

10 • • 

• • •• 

• ·1· • 

15 20 

Mean Salinity (30 days) 

25 

. '. 

O ~--~----~··~~----~--~--~ 

o 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 

J: 

AR-7 

/ 40 

30 

o ~--~--~~--~--~----~--~ 

I 

. 

20 t • 

I • 

10 

~ 

15 20 25 30 

o""'--=--~----~--~--~----.,------,-' 

30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 


Figure 11.40. Distribution of the number of taxa collected for each sampling period versus salinity, 

based on HBMP zones. 

A1afia River Benthos - Final Report -83- Mote Marine Laboratory - Ju ne 2003

'" E 

\e+5 

AR-2 • • AR-3 • 

\e+5 

' .. • • 

\e+4 le+4 

••• 

... 

... 

Q) 

0.. \e+3 

le+3 

•• 

. !I. · • 

E • •• 

• 

• 

••• 

~ 

'c \e+2 • 

~ 

\e+2 

Ol) 

.... 

0 

\e+\ 

\e+O 

\e+\ 

le+O 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

\e+5 

AR-4 

le+4 • 

'" 

• le+4 

E 

... • ••• • 

• 

Q) 

• •• • , 

le+3 •• 

." . 

0.. le+3 

E • . 

• • • 

~ 

'c 

# 

\e+2 le+2 • 

~ 

Ol) 

... 

• 

• 

0 

• 

le+5 

le+l • le+\ 

AR-5 

'" E 

... 

Q) 

0.. 

, 

E 

~ 

le+O 

le+5 

le+O 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

• AR-6 

\e+5 

le+4 

le+4 

'1- • 

le+3 

.. • 

le+3 

•• 

'c le+2 

•• • 

~ le+2 

Ol) 

... • 

• 

0 

le+l 

\e+l • • 

le+O 

r 

AR-7 

\e+O 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

,Mean Salinity (30 days) 


Figure H.4l. Distribution of benthic abundance for each sampling period versus salinity, based on 

HEMP zones. 


5 5 

AR-2 

AR-3 

4 

'- •• 4 

~ 

c 

• • 

0a3 

3 • It • 

~ 3 

• • • 

C 

0 

• 

•••• 

2 • 2 • ,'. 

c 

~ 

•• , 

• 

..c 

C/.l • 

• • • 

I 

tI' 

0 

0 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

5 5 

AR-4 

4 

'- 4 

c 

0a3 

• • 

~ 

I 

c 

•• 

c 2 2 

AR-5 

~ 

• • 

3 • • 3 

• • •• 

0 

•• • • • 

c • •• 

~ 

• • • 

• • • 

• • 

0 0 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

5 5 

AR-6 

AR-7 

..c ,. C/.l 

• 

'- 

4 • 4 

~ 

c 

0a3 , 

. 

3 

~ 

I 

c 

0 

c 

2 

~ 

..c 

C/.l 

:. 

:r" 

• 

'\ 

• : 

• 

• • • 

0 0 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 



Figure 11.42. Plots of the Shannon-Wiener Index CR') versus salinity based on HBMP zoneso 


1.0 1.0 

AR-2 • AR-3 •• 

0.8 • •• 0.8 • •• 

Il) 

"0 

• 

c: 0.6 

• 0.6 

- • • • 

CIl 

• ,• 

-::I 

0 0.4 • • 

0.4 

~ 

i:i: 

t 

• 

0.2 0.2 

•• 

0.0 0.0 

0 5 to 15 20 25 30 0 5 to 15 20 25 30 

x 

. ., • • • 

.. 

1.0 1.0 

AR-4 • • ••• AR-5 

0.8 0.8 

x • ... •• 

Il) 

• • •• • 

"0 

• • 

...... 

c: 0.6 

• • • 

0.6 

• • 

CIl ., • 

-::I 

0 0.4 • 0.4 

~ 

• • • 

i:i: 

0.2 0.2 • • 

0.0 0.0 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 to 15 20 25 30 

1.0 1.0 

• AR-6 • AR-7 

0.8 ••• 

0.8 

• 

x 

Il) 

"0 

c: 0.6 • , 

0.6 

~ 

- . 

CIl 

-::I 

0 0.4 

~ 

0.4 t 

i:i: 

0.2 • 

0.2 t 

• 

0.0 

0.0 f 

0 5 to 15 20 25 30 0 5 to 15 20 25 30 



Figure 11.43. Plots of Pielou's Equitability Index versus salinity based on HBMP zones. 


,. 

1.0 1.0 

AR-2 

•• • AR-3 • 

0.8 • • 0.8 I. •• 

x 

• • I •• 

~ 

"0 0.6 • 

c • 0.6 

• •• 

- • • 

• 

Y' 

• • 

c 0.4 0.4 • • 

6 • 

0.2 0.2 

•• 

0.0 0.0 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

1.0 1.0 

AR-4 

• • • • AR-5 

0.8 • 0.8 

••• • • 

". • • 

>< 

~ 

• •• • • • 

"0 0.6 

c 

• 

0.6 

•• 

- -'" • 'c • 

0.4 0.4 

6 • • 

0.2 0.2 • 

• • 

0.0 0.0 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

1.0 

1.0 I 

• AR-6 AR-7 

0.8 •• 

• 08 ~ 

x t/· 

•• 

~ 

"0 0.6 

c 

- • 

-'" 

• 

:: 1 : 

'c 0.4 

6 

• 

0.2 • 

• 

0.2 

0.0 0.0 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 



Figure II.44. Plots of Gini's Index versus salinity based on HEMP zones. 

Alafia River Benthos - Final Report -87- Mote Marine Laboratory - Jun e 2003

8 8 

7 AR-2 7 AR-3 

>< 6 • 

.... c • 

5 5 

'" 

• 

~ 4 • 

(!) 

• 4 ~ 

• 

::.n 3 ••• 3 

::E '" 2 • • • • 

2 • ••• • 

•... ••., 

• 

• 

(!) 6 

"1:j 

• .-: • 

0 0 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

8 8 

7 AR-4 7 AR-5 

- 

>< 

(!) 6 6 

"1:j 

c 5 5 • • 

'" • • 

13 4 4 

~ 

::E '" 2 

I • 

• 

2 

• 

::.n 3 • 3 

• 

•• • • 

• • 

• •• 

0 0 

• 

• • ;, . 

• 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

8 8 

7 AR-6 

7 AR-7 

- 

~ '" 4 • 

>< 

(!) 6 6 

"1:j 

c 5 5 

(!) 4 

~ 

::.n 3 ~ 3 t 

::E '" 

:f. 

2 

t4 • 

•• • • 

0 • 0 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 



Figure 11.45. Plots of the Margalef Index versus salinity based on HBMP zones. 


lFDgl\DJr'~ H.416. Dry season cumulative species list and distribution (presence/absence) by river kilometer, starting by listing first species 

occurrence downstream then proceeding upstream adding additional species. Core = x, sweep = O. 

River kilOlreter 

Taxa -5 -3 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 

Alpheus 

X 

Ambidexter symmetricus 

X 

Amphioplus thrombodes 

X 

Amphipholis squamata 

X 

Bhawania heteroseta 

X 

Corbula contracta 

X 

Hemipholis elongata 

X 

Munna 

X 

Nephtys 

X 

Schistomeringos rudolphi 

X 

Stylochus 

X 

Malmgreniella taylori X X 

Gyptis crypta X X 

Monticellina dorsobranchialis X X 

Paramphinome sp. B X X 

Prionospio perkinsi X X 

Sthenelais sp. A X X 

Sigambra tentaculata X X X 

Micropholis atra X X X 

Mediomastus X 0 

Spiochaetopterus costa rum X X X 

Glollidia pyramidata X X X X 

Pinnixa chaetopterana X X X X X X 

Enteropneusta X X X X X 

Carauiella hobsonae X X X X X 

Cyclaspis varians X X X X X X 

Tellina X X XO XO XO X 

Phyllodoce arenae X X XO X X 

Nemertea sp. F X X X X X 

Paguridae X X X 

Oligochaeta X X X X X X 

Listriella barnardi X X X X 

Nemertea sp. A X X X 

Ampelisca X X X X X X X X X X X 

Bivalvia X X X X XO X X X X X X 

Nemertea X 0 0 X XO X X X X 

AcanthohauslOrius 

X 

Branchiomma 

X 

Magelona pettiboneae 

X 

Monoculodes edwardsi 

X 

Pectinaria gouldii 

X 

Scolelepis texana 

X 

Scoloplos rubra 

X 

Podarkeopsis levifuscina X X 

Platyhelminthes X X X X 

Paraprionospio pinnata X X X X X X X 

Ampelisca abdita 0 

Aricidea phi/binae 

X 

BranchioslOma floridae 

X 

Calippidae 0 

Ensis minor 

X 

Leitoscoloplos robustus 0 

Leucon acutirostris 

X 

Nassarius vibex 

X 

Nephtys simoni 

X 

Paguridea 0 

Polinices duplicatus X ;.

............. ....... ... . ..,c. ..... A 


X 

Paguridea 0 

Polinices duplicatlls 

X 

Sphaeroma terebrans 0 

Spio pelliboneae 

X 

Tra yisia IlObsonae 

X 

Capitella eapitata X X 

Aegathoa oeulata 0 X 

Aeteocina eanalieulata X X X 

Glycinde solita ria X X 0 

Crepidula X X X 

Leitoscoloplos foliosus X X 0 

Decapoda (unid. shrimp) 0 0 

Neanthes sueeinea 0 XO 0 0 

Oxyurostylis smithi XO XO X X 

Palaemonetes pugio 0 0 

Heteromastus filiformis X X X X X 

Mulinia lateralis XO XO XO X X 

Streblospio benedicti X .x X X X 

Tagelus plebeius X X X X X X 

Gammarus mucronalus XO XO XO XO 0 

Ampelisca cf vadorum 0 0 0 0 0 

Amygdalum papyrium XO XO XO XO X X 

Corophium X X X X X X 

Eteone heteropoda X XO XO XO X XO X X X 

Grandidierella bonnieroides X XO XO XO XO XO 0 0 XO 

Laeonereis culveri 0 XO X X XO XO XO X X XO XO XO X 

Crassostrea yirginica 

X 

Leitoseoloplos f ragilis 0 

Loimia medusa 

X 

Genetyllis castanea 0 

Natica pusilla 

X 

Nudibranchia 0 

Ophiophragmus filograneus 

X 

Phoronis architecta 

X 

Sphenia antillensis 

X 

Vitrinellidae 

X 

Tellina versicolor X X 

Macoma tenia X X 

Haminoea succinea X X 

Odostomia X X 

Tanaidacea X X X 

Melinna maculata X X X 

Caprella XO 0 

Diopatra cup rea X X 

Tagelus 0 0 

Ricraxis p unctostriallls X X X 

Americamysis bahia 0 0 0 

Xanthidae X X 0 

Amakusanthura magnifica XO X X X XO 

Mysella planulata X X X X 

Almyracllma proximoculae X X X X X X 

Edotea montosa XO X XO XO XO 0 

Hobsollia florida 0 0 0 0 X X X 

Mysidopsis almyra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Polydora ligni X X X X X X X X 

Polypedilum halterale gpo X X X X XO XO XO 

Lucinidae 

X 

Upogebia affinis 

X 

Caprellidae X X 

Gastropoda X X X X X 

Actiniaria X X 

Amphicteis gunneri X X X 

Polydora socialis X X X 

Apocorophium louisianum 0 0 XO XO XO XO X 0 X X 

Alalia River Benthos - Final Re port -89- 

M ote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

Fiiglllll"e H.46. (conti nued). 

Aeolidoidea 

X 

Insecta 

X 

SipuncuIidae 

X 

Taphromysis bowmani () 

Stenoninereis martini X X 

Apocorophium lacustre 0 0 0 

Mytilopsis leucophaeata X X X X XO XO XO X X X X 

Neritina usnea 0 

Cassidinidea ova lis 0 

Pinn;xa 

X 

Veneridae 

X 

Tagelus cf plebeius 

X 

Nereidae sp. B X X 

Cumacea X X X X 

Hydrobiidae 0 X 

Edotea triloba X XO XO X X 

Ostracoda X X 

Amphipoda X X 0 

cf Cincinnariajloridana X X X XO X X X X 

Chironomus X X XO XO XO XO XO X 

Polypedilum scalaenum gpo X X X X XO X XO X 

Tubificidae (immature) sp. A X X X XO X XO XO X X 

Palaemonetes paludosus 0 

Myzobdella lugubris 0 X 

Tanytarsus cf sp. C X X 

Chironomi ni X X X X X X X X 

Ceratopogonidae X X X X X 

Cladoranytarsus X X X xo X XO 

Tanytarsus 0 X xo X X X 

Ta nytarsus sp. T 0 

Mysidopsis X X X 

Rheotanytarsus distinctissimus gpo 0 X 

Nerf/ina recIivata 0 0 

Mysidacea X X 

Dicrotendipes 0 0 XO XO X XO 

Tanytarsus sp. G X X xo XO xo XO XO 

Cryptochironomus fulvous gpo 

X 

Cyarhura polita 

X 

Nereidae 

XO 

Polypedilum 

X 

Taphromysis louisianae 0 

Chironomini (pupae) X X 

Dubiraphia X X X X 

Spionidae XO X X X 

Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri X X X XO XO X 

Clllicoides 

X 

Pseudochironomus 0 

Tanytarsus sp. C 0 

Capiteltidae X X 

Dicrotendipes tritomus X 0 0 XO 

Cryptochironomus blarina X X X X 

Prociadius (Holotanypus) XO X X X 

Polypedilum iIIinoense gpo XO XO XO 0 XO 

Prociadills X X 0 X X 

HydrophiIidae 

X 

[solda pllichella 

X 

cf Elimia 

X 

cf Paralallterborniella nigrohauterale 

X 

cf Siavina appendiclliata 

X 

Bivalvia sp. A X X 

Prionospio X X 

Na is pardalis X X 

Dasyhe/ea X X

cf Elimia 

x 

cf Paralalllerborniella nigrohaulerale 

X 

cf Siavina appendiculara 

X 

Bivalvia sp. A 

X X 

Prionospio 

~ X X 

Nais pardalis 

X 

X 

Dasyhelea X X 

Orthocladiinae X X X 

Tanytarsus sp. K 0 X 

Cryptochironomus X X 

Gammarus nr. tigrinus 0 X 0 

Dero X X XO X 

Dicrotendipes neomodestus XO 0 x 0 

Ablabesmyia mallochi 

X 

Coenagrionidae 

X 

Decapoda (zoea) 

X 

Melita 

X 

Pyrgophorus platyrachis 

X 

Aulodrilus limnobius 

X XO 

Aulodrilus pigueti 

X X 

Corbicula fluminea 

0 X 

Paranais littoralis 

X X 

Dicrotendipes modestus 

0 XO 0 

Ablabesmyia 

X 

Aulodrilus 

X 

Coelotanypus 

X 

Nereidae sp. C 

X 

Oxyethira 

X 

Tubificidae (immature) sp. B 

X 

Cryptotendipes X X 

Dero digitata X X 

Oecetis X XO 

Parakeifferiella X X 

Ablabesmyia rhamphe gp. 0 

Baetidae 0 

cf Mesosmittia 

X 

cf Tribelos 

X 

Cladopelma 0 

Enchytraeidae 

X 

Oecetis inconspicua complex sp. A 

X 

Srempellina 

X 

Stenelmis 

XO 

Tanytarsus sp. A 

X 

Tanytarsus sp. S 

X 

Trombidifonres 

X 

Alafia River Benthos - Final Report -90- Mote Marine Laboratory - Jllne 2003

I~ ~--.. --..--~--~--..---~--- - l ~ -- --- 

Figure 11.47. Wet season cumulative species list and distribution (presence/absence) by river kilometer, starting by listing first species 

occurrence downstream then proceeding upstream adding additional species. Core = x, sweep = O. 

River kilorreter 

Taxa ·5 ·3 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 15 

Americamysis cf bigelowi 

X 

Cephalocarida 

X 


X 

Enteropneusta 

X 

Listriella barnardi 

X 

Nemerrea sp. A 

X 

Nucula crenulata 

X 

Parahesione luteola 

X 


X 

Tectonatica pusil/a 

X 

Diplodonta semiaspera X X 

GIOItidia pyramidata X X 

Glycinde solita ria X X 

Gyptis crypta X X 

Mediomastus ambiseta X X 

Monticellina dorsobranchialis X X 

Mulinia lateralis X X 

Ophiuroidea X X 

Nemer/ea sp. F X X 

Phyllodoce arenae X X 


Sigambra tentaculata X X 

Tellina X X 

Ampelisca verrilli X X X 

Carazziella hobsonae X X X 

Cye/aspis varians X X 0 

Paraprionospio pinnara X X X 

Pinnixa X X X 

Prionospio perkinsi X X X 

Abra aequalis X X X 

Capitella capirala X XO X 

Otigochaeta X X X X X 

Streblospio benedicti X X XO XO XO 0 0 

Bivalvia X X 0 0 X X 

Nerrenea X 0 0 X 0 0 X 

Aglaophamus verrilli 

X 

Ancistrosyllis jonesi 

X 

Clymenella torquata 

X 

Diopatra cuprea 

X 

Gastropoda 

X 

Leitoscoloplos 

X 

Malmgreniella maccraryae 

X 

Notomastus hemipodus 

X 

Paramphinome sp. B 

X 

Parvilucina multilineata 

X 

Prionospio pygmaea 

X 

Platyhelminthes X X 

Almyracuma nr. proximoculae () 

Ampelisca 

X 

Aricidea philbinae 

X 

Bowmaniella 0 

cf Callianassa biformis 

X 

Eteone heteropoda 

X 

Edotea montosa 0 0 0 

Americamysis 0 0 0 0 0 

Mysidopsis 0 0 0 0 0 

Grandidierella bonnieroides 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Laeonereis culveri XO XO 0 0 0 0 X X 0 XO X 

Chironomus . X XO 0 XO 

Amphicteis gunneri 

X 

0 0 0 0 0 X 0 

Aoridae 

X 

Hobsonia florida 0 

Neanthes succinea 0 

Mylilopsis leucophaeata

Neanthes ~" ccinea 0 

Mytj/opsis /eucophaea!a X A XO 0 XO ~ x 

Polypedilum halterale gpo 0 0 X XO XO XO x x x 0 0 

Hargeria rapax 0 

Diptera 0 0 0 

Cryptotendipes 0 0 

Parvanachis obesa 

X 

Taphromysis bowmani 0 0 

Polydora sociaUs XO X 

Procladius 0 0 X 

Cyathura 

X 

Dicrotendipes cf. neomodestus 0 

Heteromastlls filiformis 

X 

Hydrozoa 

X 

Cambaridae 0 

Goeldichironomus 

X 

Neritina reclivata 0 

Cyathura polita X X X 

Nereidae XO 0 0 

Tubificidae (immature) sp. A X X 0 X X XO 0 

Ablabesmyia rhamphe gpo 0 

XO 

Cercobrachys etowah 0 

Pentaneura inconspicua 0 

Tanytarsus cf. sp. C 0 

Chironomini X 0 

Chironomini (pupae) 0 XO 0 

Cladotanytarsus cf. davies XO XO 0 

Mysidopsis almyra 0 0 0 

Polypedilum X X X 

cf. Cincinnatia f10ridana X X 0 

Polypedilum scalaenum gpo X X X X 

Cryptochironomus X XO 0 X 

Fissimentum X X X 

Tricorythodes albilineatus 0 0 0 

Dicrotendipes tritomus 0 0 0 

Coelotanypus scapularis XO 0 X 

Gammarus 

X 

Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 

X 

Sphaeriidae 0 0 

Tanytarsus 0 0 

Trichoptera 0 0 

Brachycercus maculatus 0 0 0 

Corbicula f1uminea XO X XO X XO 

Ceratopogonidae 

X 

Hydroptitidae 

X 

Oecetis nocturna 0 

ParalauterbornieIla nigrohalterale 0 

Tanytarsus sp. K 0 

Dubiraphia vittata 0 X 0 0 

Pyrgophorus platyrachis 0 0 0 0 

Chaoborus punctipennis 0 

Coelotanypus tricolor 0 

Coelotanypus 0 X 

Caenis hilaris 0 0 

Macromia 0 0 

Dubiraphia X X 

Caenis 

X 

Cercobrachys 

X 

Hydrobiidae 0 

Procladius (Holotanypus) 

X 

Rheotanytarsus exiguus gpo 

X 

Baetidae 0 0 

AlIlodrillls pigueti 0 

Ablabesmyia 0 

Ablabesmyia maIlochi 0 

Paracladopelma 0 

Oecetis 

X 

PagastieIla 0 

Rheumatobates 0 

Alafia Ri ver Benthos - Final Report -91- Mote Marine Laboratorv - June 2on. ~

lFigure lIlI.41S. Dry season cumulative species list and distribution (presence/absence) by river kilometer, starting by listing first species 

occurrence upstream then proceeding downstream adding additional species. Core = x, sweep = O. 


Taxa -5 -3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 D 14 15 

Alpheus 

X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 

Munna 

X 

Nephtys 

X 

Sehistomeringos rudolphi 

X 

Stylochus 

X 

Aeanthohaustorius 

X 

Branehiomtlla 

X 

Gyptis erypta X X 


X 

Malmgreniella taylori X X 

Monoeulodes edwardsi 

X 

Montieellina dorsobranehialis X X 

Paramphinome sp. B X X 

Peetinaria gouldii 

X 

Prionospio perkinsi X X 

Scolelepis texan a 

X 

Seoloplos rubra 

X 

Sthenelais sp. A X X 

Ampelisea abdita 0 

Arieidea philbinae 

X 

Branehiostoma floridae 

X 

Calippidae 0 

Ensis minor 

X 

Leitoscoloplos robustus 0 

Leucon aeutirostris 

X 

MicropllOlis atra X X X 


X 


X 

Paguridea 0 

Polin ices duplieatus 

X 

Sigambra tentaculata X X X 

Sphaeromo terebrans 0 

Spio pettiboneae 

X 

Travisia hobsonae 

X 

AegatllOa oeulata 0 X 

Capitella capitata X X 

Crassostrea virginica 

X 

Genetyllis castanea 0 

Glottidia pyramidata X X X X 

Leitoscoloplos fragilis 0 

Loimia medusa 

X 

Mediomostus X 0 


X 

Nudibranchia 0 


X 

Paguridae X X X 

Phnmnis archi!eeta 

X 

Podarkeopsis levifuscina 

v


X 

Paguridac X X X 

Phornnis architecla 'I. 

X 



X 

Spiochaetopterus costa rum X X X 

Vitrinellidae 

X 

Acteocina canaliculata X X X 

Brachidontes exustus 0 

Caprel/a XO 0 

Carazziella hobsonae X X X X X 

Crepidula X X X 

Decapoda (unid. shrimp) 0 0 

Enteropneusta X X X X X 

Glycinde solitaria X X 0 

Haminoea succinea X X 

Leitoscoloplos foliosus X X 0 

Lucinidac 

X 

Macoma tenta X X 

Odostomia X X 

Tellina versicolor X X 


X 

Caprellidae X X 

Cyc/aspis varians X X X X X X 

Diopatra cup rea X X 

Melinna maculata X X X 

Neanthes succinea 0 XO 0 0 

Nemertea sp. F X X X X X 

Phyllodoce arenae X X XO X X 

Pinnixa chaetopterana X X X X X X 

Platyhelminthes X X X X 

Tagelus 0 0 

Tanaidacea X X X 

Aeolidoidea 

X 

Americamysis bahia 0 0 0 

Ampelisca cf vadorum 0 0 0 0 0 

Heteromastus filiformis X X X X X 

Insecta 

X 

Listriella barnardi X X X X 

Nemertea sp. A X X X 

Rictaxis punctostriatus X X X 

Sipunculidae 

X 

Taphromysis bowmani 0 

Tellina X X XO XO XO X 

Actiniaria X X 

Amakusanthura magnifica XO X X X XO 

Amphicteis gunneri X X X 

Amygdalum papyrium XO XO XO XO X X 

Corophium X X X X X X 

Gammarus mucronatus XO XO XO XO 0 

Mulinia lateralis XO XO XO X X 

Mysella planulata X X X X 

Neritina usnea 0 

Oligochaeta X X X X X X 

Stenoninereis martini X X 

Streblospio benedict; X X X X X 

Tagelus plebe ius X X X X X X 

Apocorophium lacustre 0 0 0 

Cassidinidea ovalis 0 

Edotea montosa XO X XO XO XO 0 

Palaemonetes pugio 0 0 

Alafia Ri vcr Benthos - Final Report -92- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

lFngllDlI"e lIlI.4B. (collUtDllmed). 

Pinnixa 

X 

Tagelus cf plebeills 

X 

Veneridae 

X 

Nereidae sp. B X X 

Palaemonetes paludosus 0 

Eteone heteropoda X XO XO XO x XO x x x 

Hobsonia jlorida 0 0 0 0 X X X 

Tanytarsus cf sp. C x X 

Tanytarsus sp. T 0 

Almyracuma proximoculae X X X X X X 

Ampelisca X X X X X X X X X X X 

Cryptochironomus fulvous gpo 

X 

Cumacea X X X X 

Cyathura polita 

X 

Grandidierella bonnieroides X XO XO XO XO XO 0 0 XO 

Hydrobiidae 0 X 

Myzobdella lugubris 0 X 

Nereidae 

XO 

Oxyurostylis smithi XO XO x X 

Polypedilum 

X 

Rheotanytarsus distinctissimus gpo 0 X 

Taphromysis louisianae 0 

Chironomini (pupae) X X 

Culicoides 

X 

Pseudochironomus 0 

Tanytarsus sp. C 0 

cf Elimia 

X 

cf Paralauterbomiella nigrohauterale 

X 

cf Slavina appendiculata 

X 

Hydrophilidae 

X 

Isolda pulchella 

X 

Neritina reclivata 0 0 

Paraprionospio pinnata X X X X X X X 

Polydora socia lis X X X 


X 

Apocorophium louisianum 0 0 XO XO XO XO X 0 X X 

Bivalvia sp. A X X 


X 


X 

Laeonereis culveri 0 XO X X XO XO XO X X XO XO XO X 

Melita 

X 

Mysidacea X X 

Mysidopsis X X X 

Nemertea X 0 0 X XO X X X X 

Prionospio X X 


X 

Ablabesmyia 

X 

Amphipoda X X 0 

Aulodrilus 

X 

Aulodrilus limnobills X XO 

Alilodrilus pigueti X X 

Capitellidae X X 

cf Cincinnatiajloridana X X X XO X X X X 

Chironomlls X X XO XO XO XO XO X 

Coe[otanypus 

X 

Corbicllia j7uminea 0 X 

Dasyhelea

cf Cincinnatiafloridana X X X XO x x x X 

Chironomus X X XO XO XO XO XO X 

Coelotanypus 

X 

""" 

Corbicuia j1uminea 0 X 

Dasyhelea X X 

Dicrotendipes tritomus X 0 0 XO 

Edotea triloba X XO XO x x 

Gastropoda X X X X X 

Nais pardalis X X 


X 

Orthocladiinae X X X 

Ostracoda X X 

Oxyethira 

X 

Paranais littoralis X X 

Polydora ligni X X X X X X X X 

Spionidae XO X X X 


X 

Xanthidae X X 0 


Baetidae 0 

Bivalvia X X X X XO X X X X X X 

Ceratopogonidae X X X X X 


X 

cf Tribelos 

X 

Chironomini X X X X X X X X 

Cladopelma 0 

Cladotanytarsus X X X XO X XO 

Cryptochironomus X X 

Cryptochironomus blarina X X X X 

Cryptotendipes X X 

Dero X X XO X 

Dero digitata X X 

Dicrotendipes 0 0 XO XO X XO 

Dicrotendipes modestus 0 XO 0 

Dicrotendipes neomodestus XO 0 X 0 

Dubiraphia X X X X 

Enchytraeidae 

X 

Gammarus nr. tigrinus 0 X 0 

Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri X X X XO XO X 

Mysidopsis almyra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Mytilopsis leucophaeata X X X X XO XO XO X X X X 

Oecetis X XO 


X 

Parakeifferiella X X 

Polypedilum halterale gpo X X X X XO XO XO 

Polypedilum illinoense gpo XO XO XO 0 XO 

Polypedilum scalaenum gpo X X X X XO X XO X 

Procladius 

X X 0 X X 


XO X X X 

Stempellina 

X 

Stenelmis 

XO 

Tanytarsus 0 X XO X X X 


X 

Tanytarsus sp. G 

X X XO XO XO XO XO 

Tanytarsus sp. K 0 X 


X 

Trombidifonnes 

X 

Tubificidae (immature) sp. A X X X XO X XO XO X X 


.... ... ~--~ 

~--~ 

... 

~--~ ..... 

--~----. 

---------------.--------------~-=---=-=~-===~-===~~==~-===~~~~~ 

Figure 11.49. Wet season cumulative species list and distribution (presence/absence) by river kilometer. starting by listing first species 

occurrence upstream then proceeding downstream adding additional species. Core = x, sweep = O. 

Taxa 


Cephalocarida 


Enteropneusta 

listriella barnardi 

Nemertea sp. A 




Tectonatica pusilla 




Diopatra cup rea 

Diplodonta semiaspera 

Gastropoda 

Glottidia pyramidata 

Glycinde solita ria 

Gyptis crypta 


Malmgreniella maccraryae 

Mediomastus ambiseta 

Monticellina dorsobranchialis 

Mulinia lateralis 

Nemertea sp. F 


Ophiuroidea 



Phyllodoce arenae 



Sigambra tentaculata 

Tellina 

Almyracuma nr. proximoculae 

Ampelisca 

Ampelisca verrilli 


Bowmaniella 

Carazziella hobsonae 

cf Callianassa biformis 

Cyc/aspis varians 


Paraprionospio pinnata 

Pinnixa 

Platyhelminthes 

Prionospio perkinsi 


Aoridae 

Capitella capitata 

Hobsonia florida 

Neanthes succinea 

Hargeria rapax 

Edotea montosa 


Americamysis 

Cyathura 

Dicrotendipes cf neomodestus 

Diptera 

Heteromastus /iliformis 

Hydrozoa 

Oligochaeta 

T"n .. r,.. ... "C'; ... h,.. ... _ ...... ; 

River Kilom:ter 

-5 -3 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

0 

X 

X X X 

X 

0 

X X X 

X 

X X 0 

X 

X X X 

X X X 

X X 

X X X 

X 

XO 

x x x 

0 

0 

2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 15 

x 

X 

X 

0 

0 

0 

0 0 

X 

0 0 0 0 

X 

0 

0 0 0 

X 

X 

X 

X

Taphromysis bowman; 0 0 

Abra aequali .~ 

.\ 

X X- X 

Mysidopsis 0 0 0 0 0 

Streblospio benedicti X X XO XO XO 0 0 

Cambaridae 0 


X 

Neritina reclivata 0 


Cercobrachys etowah 0 

Nemertea X 0 0 X 0 0 X 

Pentaneura inconspicua 0 

Tanytarslls cf sp. C 0 

Cryptotendipes 0 0 

Gammarus 

X 

Grandidierella bonnieroides 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 


X 

Polydora socia lis XO X 

Ceratopogonidae 

X 

Chironomini X 0 

Chironomini (pupae) 0 XO 0 

Cladotanytarsus cf davies XO XO 0 

Cyathura polita X X X 

Hydroptilidae 

X 

Mysidopsis almyra 0 0 0 

Mytilopsis lellcophaeata X X XO 0 XO X X 

Oecetis nocturna 0 

Paralauterborniella nigrohalterale 0 

Polypedilum X X X 

Sphaeriidae 0 0 

Tanytarsus 0 0 

Tanytarsus sp. K 0 

cf Cincinnatia jloridana X X 0 

Chaoborus punctipennis 0 

Coelotanypus tricolor 0 

Procladius 0 0 X 

Bivalvia X X 0 0 X X 

Caenis 

X 

Cercobrachys 

X 

Fissimentum X X X 

Hydrobiidae 0 

Laeonereis culveri XO XO 0 0 0 0 X X 0 XO X 

Polypedilum scalaenum gpo X X X X 


X 


X 

Aulodrilus pigueti 0 

Coelotanypus 0 X 

CoelotanYPlls scapularis XO 0 X 

Ablabesmyia 0 

Ablabesmyia mallochi 0 

Caeni" hilaris 0 0 

Chironomus X XO 0 XO 0 0 0 0 0 X 0 

Macromia 

0 0 

Nereidae XO 0 0 

Paracladopelma 0 

Pyrgophorus platyrachis 0 0 0 0 

Baetidae 0 0 

Brachycercus maculatus 0 0 0 

Corbicula jluminea XO X XO X XO 

CryplOchironomus X XO 0 X 

Dicrotendipes tritomus 0 0 0 

Dubiraphia X X 

Dubiraphia villata 0 X 0 0 

Oecetis 

X 

Pagastiella 0 

Polypedilum halterale gpo 0 0 X XO XO XO X X X 0 0 

Rheumatobates 0 

Trichoptera 0 0 

Tricorythodes albilineatus 0 0 0 

Tubificidae (immature) sp. A X X 0 X X XO 0 XO 

Alafia River Benthos - Final Report -94- Mote Marine Laboratorv - June 2003

250 

~ 200 

>< 

~ 

.... 

0 

~ 

II) 

150 

.CJ 

E 

i 

II) 

;> 100 

.= 

~ 

:; 

E 

:::l 

U 50 

Dry Season 

0 

-5 -3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 

250 

Wet Season 

~ 200 

>< 

~ 

E-< 

.... 

0 

~ 

II) 

150 

.CJ 

E 

:::l 

Z 

II) 

.:: 100 

-~ 

:; 

E 

:::l 

U 50 

-5 -3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 


Figure 11.50. Cumulative species curves for analysis of data proceeding downstream 

to upstream and upstream to downstream for both dry (top) and wet 

season (bottom). 


Weighted pair-group average 

Euc IceCil distances 

sal 0 

Sal 1 

Sal 2 

Sal 3 

Sal 4 

Sal 5 

Sal 6 

Sal 7 

Sal 8 

Sal 9 

Sal 10 

Sal 11 

Sal 12 

Sal 13 

Sal 14 

Sal 15 

Sal 16 

Sal 17 

Sal 18 

Sal 19 

Sal 20 

Sal 21 

Sal 22 

Sal 23 

Sal 24 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

o 

20 

40 60 

80 100 120 

(Olink/O max)* 1 00 

Figure 11.51. Cluster analysis results for salinity with species presence/absence data within each 

salinity interval used as the matrix. 


III. MOLLUSCAN BIO-INDICATORS OF THE TIDAL ALAFIA RIVER 

111.1 INTRODUCTION 

The objectives of the benthic macroinvertebrate and mollusk projects are to describe the benthic 

habitats and communities of the Alafia River in order to: 

~ describe the present distribution of major macroinvertebrate habitats and 

communities in the lower Alafia River, 

determine benthic components (taxa, communities, habitats or strata) important to 

the ecological structure and functioning of the tidal Alafia River 

evaluate relationships between the distribution and abundance of important benthic 

components and physicochemical variables related to freshwater inflows (e.g. 

sediments, oxygen, salinity, etc). 

Macroinvertebrates, including mollusks, are dominant elements of estuarine and tidal river 

ecosystems. Their number, diversity, dispersion, and condition have been studied for decades, 

forming a large and robust body of information on the adaptations of numerous phyla to the physical 

and chemical conditions unique to estuaries. Numerous studies have demonstrated that spatial and 

temporal trends in macro invertebrate attributes vary in consistent form with variations of river flow, 

current speed, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and foodstuffs such as particulate organic carbon, 

phytoplankton, macrophytes, and prey. 

In recent years, a variety of studies have been published which indicate the extent to which 

macroinvertebrate attributes can be related specifically to independent variables of interest in the 

present study-- freshwater inflow, salinity, and dissolved oxygen. Depending on the estuary, faunal 

groups, attributes, and collateral factors such as depth, sediment type, or tide range, relationships 

have been defined which satisfy criteria for statistical significance. 

To illustrate the range of methodological possibilities from which the present investigation has been 

crafted, some recent studies are cited, below. 

The Environmental Protection Agency's "Biological Criteria: Technical Guidance for Streams and 

Small Rivers," (Barbour et ai., 1994) states that advantages of using macroinvertebrates include 

advanced development of sampling gear, their major role in the nutritional ecology of fisheries, 

abundant numbers for assessment, their relative immobility, and the availability of prior data. 

Barbour et al. (1994) cite 21 major suites of metrics for macroinvertebrate studies in river 

ecosystems. Discounting those based entirely or mostly upon insects, about 10 metric suites are 

pertinent to the tidal Peace River (see below). Examples include total number of taxa, percent 

individual dominant taxa, percent individual trophic-level representatives, total abundance, and 

various indices of community organization. Several of these metrics, plus indices of habitat 

Alafia Ri ver Mollusk - Final Report -97- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

availability, have been used successfully to evaluate the environmental effects of flow regime 

alterations. 

J assby et al. (1995) evaluated the relationship of estuarine food webs to freshwater inflow, using the 

down-estuary position of the 2 ppt isohaline as an estimator for flow. The food web of striped bass 

(Marone saxatilis) in San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary was determined to 

include phytoplankton, invertebrates, smelt, and flounder. Each component of the food web was 

statistically modeled against the 2 ppt isohaline position. Different lags and averaging methods were 

used. Meaningful relationships were established between the flow estimator, and abundance indices 

for crustaceans and mollusks. 

Christensen et al. (1997) developed an index to assess the sensitivity of Gulf of Mexico species to 

changes in estuarine salinity regimes. The index is keyed to habitats and their utilization by each life 

stage of 44 estuarine species, of which 13 are macroinvertebrates, including 8 species of crustaceans 

and mollusks occurring in Charlotte Harbor. Species salinity range/tolerance data were compiled 

from reports of invertebrate distribution and abundance, in original literature. 

Kalke and Montagna (1991) used benthic cores to sample infauna in the Lavaca River/Bay system 

Texas. Specimens were enumerated and wet weight biomass was measured for dominant species. 

Mollusks were weighed with shells. Polychaete and mollusk data varied meaningfully with flows, 

salinity and chlorophyll. Vertical increments of core samples also showed differences in infaunal 

number and biomass responses to these variables. Montague et at. (1989) used small and large cores 

and sampled epifauna with an inverted plankton net in northeastern Florida Bay, to assess benthic 

communities along salinity gradients. Fauna were sorted by taxonomic class and counted. Total 

faunal counts were related with meaning to mean salinity and standard deviation of means, across 

a salinity gradient. 

Peterson (1996) followed shifts in dispersion of crustaceans in a Mississippi estuary, using a 

stratified sampling design to estimate invertebrate densities. Samples were taken in vegetated and 

non-vegetated areas. Crustacean species were identified and number of individuals counted. Species 

occurrence (presence/absence), location, and number were affected by inflows and salinity. Large 

variations were observed. 

Livingston et al. (1997) sampled invertebrates by trawls and cores at fixed stations in Apalachicola 

Bay, Florida. Samples were sorted, identified, counted, and measured. Subsamples were dried and 

weighed to produce size:weight regressions. In addition, invertebrates were sorted from gut contents 

of fishes caught by trawl, and were treated as above. All data for all specimens were grouped 

according to trophic level, and biomass of each trophic level was calculated on a meter-squared 

basis. Droughts were found to amplify herbivore biomass throughout the Bay. 

In a large study of Texas estuaries, Longley (1994) used commercial landings of oysters, and of four 

crustacean species, to determine that antecedent 1-2 year average inflows, and temperature, 

significantly regulated estuary-specific yields. 

A1afia River Mollusk - Final Report -98- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

Barbour et al. (1996) developed a framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthic 

macroinvertebrates. Though intended for freshwater systems, results are instructive for the tidal 

Peace River. An ensemble of 31 candidate metrics was screened for utility. Twelve were chosen 

for detailed study in different ecoregions of the state. Not counting exclusively insect-dependent 

metrics, number of taxa, percent dominant taxon, and possibly, number of crustacea plus mollusk 

taxa may be useful in the development of a condition index for the tidal Peace River. 

111.1.1 Metrics of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Response to Salinity Change in the Alafia River 

Empirical attributes (metrics) of river and estuarine biota may be drawn from ecological studies for 

use in constructing hypotheses regarding the response of communities to perturbation (Barbour et 

al., 1996; Deegan et aI., 1997). Results of previous studies (Texas Instruments, 1978; Estevez 1985, 

1986a, 1986b) in the Peace and Myakka Rivers, and Charlotte Harbor, may be combined with 

published accounts to identify metrics for Alafia River benthic macroinvertebrates, and to identify 

the type of change expected for each metric, given a salinity change, Table 111.1. Metrics are 

evaluated with respect to salinity increases potentially resulting from a reduction of river discharge. 

Table 111.1. 

Expected response of benthic macroinvertebrates to salinity increase. 

Tidal Alafia River 

Macroinvertebrate Metric Upriver Reach Downriver Reach 

Number of species decrease increase 

Shannon-Weiner Index decrease increase 

Numerical dominance of a taxon increase decrease 

Number of individuals decrease increase 

Percent Crustacea decrease increase 

Percent Annelida mcrease decrease 

Number of wood borers mcrease increase 

Percent herbivores variable increase 

Percent filter feeders variable mcrease 

Percent deposit feeders mcrease decrease 

Biomass of fauna less mollusks decrease increase 

Biomass of mollusks decrease increase 

River position of living bivalve taxa mcrease increase 

River position of dead bivalve taxa decrease decrease 

Bivalve condition index decrease variable 

The listed metrics address ecological properties of richness, composition, and trophic status, similar 

to other efforts to establish biotic criteria. In addition, two additional properties are addressed- 

dispersion, and condition. 


Dispersion refers to the spatial range and central position of a taxon along the river gradient, in this 

case evaluated for live and dead bivalves. Bivalve shells persist in the river for a decade or more, 

leaving a record against which modem distributions, and trends, may be assessed (see next section). 

Relative to living bivalves, dead shells will be positioned down-river (decreased river-kilometer 

value). 

111.1.2 Hydrology 

Conditions of rainfall and river flows for the period encompassing this study were described in 

Section II. Figures 11.1 through 11.5 illustrate the rainfall and river conditions. 

Prior to sampling the Alafia River's mean monthly flow at Lithia (USGS 02301500) had been less 

than the mean of monthly stream flows for 20 consecutive months. In the previous 30 months mean 

monthly flow exceeded the long term flows only twice. 

111.2 METHODS 

Mollusk populations and communities do not respond instantaneously to conditions of river flow, 

salinity, or other physicochemical variables. Spatial patterns in mollusk distribution develop as a 

result of differential reproductive periods, larval development rates, recruitment variables, life · 

history characteristics, and mortaJity patterns and rates. As a result, a spatial pattern observed at a 

given time is the result of antecedent conditions, generally on the order of weeks to months. 

One set of samples was collected during the period June 18,2001 to July 12,2001. Measurements 

of maximum shell height were made for two bivalve species on September 11, 2001. Oyster reef 

locations were noted during reconnaissance trips prior to and during sampling trips, and in 

September. 

A river kilometer system developed for the District's minimum flow studies was employed (Figure 

111.1). Samples were collected at half-kilometer intervals from the mouth of the river to Bell Shoals. 

Observations were also made at oyster reefs, channel markers and bridges, and known restoration 

sites. 

Transects normal to the river's center-line and intersecting it at half-kilometer intervals were 

reconnoitered to decide the distribution of sampling effort across each transect. Because the primary 

objective of the study was to identify down-river patterns in species dispersion, samples were 

collected across each transect at representative sites, and data were pooled for the entire transect. 

In single-channel reaches of the river, subtidal samples were collected close by opposite banks and 

at evenly spaced intervals across the channel. In reaches with islands and multiple channels, subtidal 

effort was distributed so as to sample in each channel or basin. 


Collection of intertidal samples was biased by two criteria. First, accreting banks were preferred 

over eroding ones, meaning in practice that the insides of bends were preferred over outsides, and 

that samples were collected more from point-bars, mangrove islands, and shoals than from steeply 

inclined banks. Second, a preference was used for the bank judged to be least altered by human 

activity. Sea walls and filled areas were avoided where possible. It was not possible to find suitable 

intertidal areas at either end of a few transects in the lower reaches of the river. 

Subtidal samples « ML W) were collected by a petite ponar grab rather than pipe cores because 

larger bivalve such as Rangia were often missed or lost by the cores. Ponar grabs offered a larger 

sampling surface area (0.0232 square meters) than pipe cores (0.00456 square meters). 

A sample was comprised of two ponar grabs (surface area = 0.0464 square meters) at a given 

location. Five such subtidal samples were taken along each half-kilometer transect, giving a pertransect 

sampling surface area of 0.2320 square meters. Contents of each sample were concentrated 

over a 3.0 millimeter sieve, processed in the field (light samples), or bagged and returned to the 

Laboratory (heavy samples). 

Intertidal samples (> ML W) were usually collected by spade although ponar grabs were sometimes 

used during high tides. Intertidal effort was the same as subtidal effort except that hand collections 

of particular species were sometimes added to intertidal samples so as to record the presence of rare 

or cryptic species. The gastropods Neritina and Littorina, for example, often were found in low 

numbers, near the tops of black needlerush shoots. Oysters and mussels likewise grow cryptically 

behind mangrove roots or within crevices of fallen wood. 

Usually, subtidal areas were visually reconnoitered by snorkeling and intertidal areas were walked 

in search of rare occurrences. 

Specimens were sorted as live or dead and identified in the field or Laboratory. For each species in 

each sample, median size was determined by arranging specimens from smallest to largest and 

measuring the median specimen to the nearest millimeter. Gastropods were measured from the apex 

to opposite end; bivalves were measured from front end to hind end. For data analysis, a mean value 

of median sizes was computed for each species. Condition was scored for each whole live animal 

or single dead valve as percent covered by mechanical erosion, shell dissolution, or other loss or 

damage. 

During the September survey of dominant bivalves, samples were taken of oysters and mussels 

(Crassostrea virginica and Geukensia demissa, respectively). Samples were taken from 

representative sites and areas where the species occurred in large numbers, rather than on halfkilometer 

intervals. Most oysters ana ·all mussels were collected intertidally. At each site, 20-30 

relatively large individuals were returned to the boat; the largest 15 were measured for height to the 

nearest millimeter. 

A1afia River MoUusk - Final Report -101- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

III.3 

RESUL TS 

III.3.1 Effort and Representativeness 

A total of 37 sites was visited. Contamination was rare except for the introduced and naturalized 

bivalve Corbicula. Only a few fossil shells were found at sites near steep and recently filled river 

banks and these were not counted. 

III.3.2 Species Richness 

Twenty taxa were encountered and 18 were identified to species (Table III.2). Ten species 

constitute 95% of specimen counts, with the remaining 10 species present only in low numbers or 

as 1 species. 

Table III.2. 

Summary list of Alafia River mollusk species collected on 0.5 km transects. 

Species 

Cumulative Percent 

Mytilopsis leucophaeata 

Geukensia demissa granossissima 

Polymesoda caroliniana 


Mysella planulata 

Tagelus plebeius 

Neritina usnea 


Tellina spp. 

Unidentified bivalve 

Littorina irrorata 


Macoma tenta 

Amygdalum papyrium 

Haminoea succinea 

Crepidula Jomicata 

Abra aequalis 


Polinices duplicatus 

Unidentified planospiral gastropod 

36.7 

52.0 

66.9 

78.1 

82.6 

86.5 

89.1 

91.3 

93.4 

95.3 

97.0 

98.3 

99.0 

N = 20 taxa 

Alafia Ri ver Mollusk - Final Report -102- 

Mote Marine Laboratory - Jun e 2003

111.3.3 Species Accounts 

Accounts are given below of the numerically dominant species. Data are provided for all species 

in Appendix Table E-l. Accounts emphasize down-river presence and absence in terms of live and 

dead specimens found both intertidally and subtidally, but other information is summarized on mean 

sizes, evidence of recruitment (as percent juveniles), condition (as weathering indices), and transport 

(as dead-valve isotropy). As used here, mean size represents the arithmetic average of a set of 

median sizes measured for each species. Accounts are listed in descending order of the species' 

numerical abundance. Scales used to graph density and size data vary between species. 


Mytilopsis is a small mussel with opportunistic life-history characteristics. It was found in 

the half-kilometer survey only from RK 8.0 - 11.0 and near RK 15.0, and live specimens 

were found only at RK 9.0 and 9.5 (Figure 111.2). Only subtidal material was found alive. 

Despite its narrow range Mytilopsis was numerically dominant in the river because very large 

numbers of the mussel can occur in small clumps; Mytilopsis is not a large bivalve and in 

2001 there were large numbers of recently settled, small « 10 mm) animals in the upper 

reach of the tidal river. In fact, Mytilopsis was the only mollusk found upstream of RK 12 

(near Buckhorn Spring) save for two occurrences of Corbicula. Mussel colonies were more 

common between Buckhorn Spring and Bell Shoals than indicated by the half-kilometer data. 

Clumps of mussels were encountered throughout this reach but only in the surface 10-15 cm 

of the water column, and only on tree branches, snags, ropes, buoys, or other substrata able 

to float near the water surface as the tide changed. It should be noted that the Buckhorn 

Spring to Bell Shoals reach was characterized by chalky, whitish-yellow bottom waters 

(deeper than about 1.5 m) of unknown origin or composition. No living mussels were found 

in the chalky zone of the river, despite an extensive effort to sample and observe the bottom 

under these difficult conditions. 


This mussel is almost exclusively intertidal and occurred in the lower 7 kilometers of the 

river, especially in association with mangrove roots. It also grew as clumps along the 

margins of salt marshes and reached very high densities. Among half-kilometer stations, 

mussel density and mean size increased with distance from the river mouth (Figure 111.3) 


The marsh clam Polymesoda belongs to the same bivalve family as Corbicula, but differs 

from it by being larger, more intertidal, and a native species. Polymesoda in the Alafia River 

tends to be intertidal and is conspicuous along margins of intertidal wetlands, especially 

brackish marshes. It was much more abundant, and widely distributed, than indicated by 

transect data, and so was studied in more detail in the September sampling (see below). The 

species occurred in all available habitat between river kilometers 2.0 - 10.0. Density (both 

live and dead) was greatest in the middle part of the species' range (RK 4.5-8.0) but density 

and size were unrelated: live and dead size increased as a function of ri ver kilometer (Figure 

111.4). Because of its intertidal location, Polymesoda shells weather rapidly. 

A1afia Ri ver Mollusk - Final Report -103- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003


Crassostrea is the eastern oyster of commercial importance. In the Alafia River it grows as 

small to large intertidal reefs, among roots of the red mangrove, Rhizophora mangle, on 

seawalls, and on intertidal shell hash in the lower 7.5 Ian of the stream. The location of all 

oyster reefs was mapped (see ahead to Figure III.24). All reefs occurred between RK 1.0- 

4.0 and reefs on the south bank were larger than elsewhere. A reef created at the Bullfrog 

Creek Cutoff has been overgrown by mangroves, and another created at the US 41 boat ramp 

could not be found. Oysters were much more abundant, and widely distributed, than 

indicated by transect data, and so were studied in more detail in the September sampling (see 

below). Oyster density and percent juveniles decreased with distance from Hillsborough 

Bay (Figure III.5). Few juveniles were collected. 


Mysella was not common in the river but it was very abundant, as a recent set of juveniles, 

at one station, resulting in a high numerical rank overall (Figure III.6). 


Tagelus, a member of the family of short razor clams, is common but not abundant 

throughout the lower 7 Ian of the tidal river. It was found alive and dead in subtidal areas 

between RK 5.0 - 7.0 but the intertidal upstream limit of the species was sharply demarcated 

at RK 5.0. Tagelus had the same river distribution as Crassostrea but, unlike oysters, 

Tagelus density increased with river kilometer (Figure III.7). This species has particular 

habitat requirements and its dispersion may be highly gregarious or clumped (Holland and 

Dean, 1977). Tagelus is a fragile species and even live material can be weathered 

substantially. 


Neritina usnea is a shallow-water gastropod with strong intertidal affinities, and is often 

found grazing on benthic algae mats, submerged aquatic vegetation, and emergent marsh 

species such as black needlerush, funcus roemerianus. The species is conspicuous in the 

tidal Alafia River upstream of RK 5.0 to near RK 11.5. A sharp transition occurred at RK 

5.0 relative to the dominant intertidal gastropod, where Neritina gave way to the periwinkle 

Littorina. Nerite density was highest in the middle of its range (Figure III.8). Live material 

tended to be larger than dead material. 


Corbiculafluminea is an introduced, naturalized freshwater bivalve with a tolerance for low 

salinities. Corbicula was one of two non-native species of mollusk collected in the tidal 

Alafia River. Corbicula was more abundant subtidally than intertidally and in both strata 

extended from Bell Shoals down to RK 8.5 (Figure III.9). Corbicula was most abundant 

as dead material close to Bell Shoals; live material was sparse. Dead shells were highly 

weathered, suggestive of drift from upstream reaches. At least for the river below Bell 

Shoals, Corbicula was not a problem species. 

Alafia River Mollusk - Final Report -104- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

Tellina sp. 

Tellins were not common but did occur at a few stations, in high number, as small dead 

material (Figure 111.10). What makes this species or species group interesting is that it is 

one of a few mollusk species that have ranges falling entirely within the tidal river. (A 

similar pattern was found in the Peace River.) These bivalves set in large numbers but 

juvenile mortality apparently is large. Tellins represent a significant component of the 

benthic infaunal community, and of data summarized elsewhere in this report, but in this 

sampling effort tellin abundance may be under-estimated because of the relatively large sieve 

size that was used. 


Littorina is the marsh periwinkle found on mangroves and emergent marshes near or above 

the water line. It occurred on salt marshes below RK 5.0 and on mangrove-dominated 

stations above and below US 41. Littorina was more abundant intertidally, where both living 

and dead specimens were found. Though data are few, upstream Littorina appear larger than 

downstream ones (Figure 111.11). As noted previously, the ranges of Littorina and Neritina 

do not overlap although their respective end-members converge at RK 5.0. The basis for this 

switch is unknown but suggests strong habitat specificity or competitive exclusion. 

Perna viridis 

Perna, the green mussel, was not encountered during the half-transect surveys but was found 

on a channel marker downstream of US 41 (-RK 1.0: 27deg 51min 23.5sec N latitude, 82deg 

23 min 20.9sec W longitude). Most likely introduced to Hillsborough Bay in 19xx, Perna 

had already established itself throughout McKay, Hillsborough, Middle Tampa, and Upper 

Tampa bays by 2001. This large mussel was abundant well below the surface. Intertidal 

piling and piling in the 30 cm below MLL W did not support Perna. 

111.3.4 Community Pattern 

The mollusk community of the tidal Alafia River, sampled as it was in this study, can be studied as 

a whole for patterns in number and kind as functions of strata and ri ver position. Concerning overall 

mollusk numbers, for example, it can be seen from Figures 111.12 through 111.15 that more species 

were collected down-river than upriver, for both live and dead material. In terms of density, live and 

dead material exhibited variable spatial patterns with live material tending to be more abundant than 

dead in the lower river. It is noteworthy that both richness and density were minimal above RK 12.0. 

Also noteworthy was the presence of greater species richness in the intertidal stratum, than 

subtidally . . Intertidal richness was highest near RK 4.0-5.0 (Figure 111.14). With one exception (at 

RK 10.5), intertidal densities were always larger than subtidal densities. 

Additive effects of estuarine species can be seen in Figures 111.16 and 111.17, depicting cumulative 

number of species progressing upstream or down. In an upstream sort the y-intercept begins low 

because of a paucity estuarine species, both live and dead. A strong step-function occurs at RK 2.0 

in the upstream sort of live species whereas the upstream increase of dead species richness is gently 

curvilinear. Both live and dead species richness curves decrease monotonically in downstream sorts 


(Figure III.16). From Figure III.17 it can be seen that the upstream step-function is caused by an 

increase in intertidal species richness, and that there is no further gain in cumulative species richness 

upstream of RK 8.5. 

Details of cumulative species curves can be found in species-overlap diagrams depicting live and 

dead occurrences sorted by first occurrence, progressing upstream (Figure III.lS). Several rarer 

species near the river mouth originate in Hillsborough Bay and do not penetrate into the river beyond 

RK 4.0. A few species have ranges falling entirely within the tidal river and Corbicula's range 

presumably extends upriver far beyond the reach of tidal influence. The sharp replacement of 

Littorina by Neritina is evident in Figure III.lS. No step-functions occur when progressing 

downstream (Figure III.19). 

Species-overlap curves allow two questions to be answered. First, how should the river fauna be 

sampled in order to maximize the probability of accurately defining a species' range? Second, how 

does the living component of a species lay relative to its "footprint" of dead remains accumulated 

over the period of years to decades? 

In the first case, it is evident in all diagrams that the live-only fraction or single-stratum fraction does 

not represent all of a species' spatial domain. No species occurred continuously throughout its range 

along the river, as living material, although the intertidal gastropods came close. Some species had 

nearly-continuously distributions, notably Tagelus and Corbicula, but even these contained gaps 

when surveyed at half-kilometer intervals. Given the relatively intense effort made to sample the 

River, such gaps could be interpreted as the result of natural variation in habitat variability and 

recruitment success. To the extent a gap represented a result of consequence to the interpretation 

of data, the gap could be assessed more thoroughly by means of a follow-up visit. No follow-up 

visits were made to verify gaps in this study. 

The second question regards the spatial relationship of a species' living members to its dead ones. 

Six species were only found as dead material (Table III.3). Three species have coincident material 

and 6 (Corbicula, Geukensia, Mysella, Macoma, Tagelus, and Crassostrea) had live ranges that were 

shifted upriver relative to dead material, or were out-of-range relative to dead material. Whether 

these species' live ranges had shifted during or as a result of the prevailing drought conditions cannot 

be discerned from the data. 


Table III.3. 

Relation of live to dead shell distribution patterns in the tidal Alafia River. 

Relative to dead shells, 

live animals are 

Not found 

In the same range 

Toward upriver end 

Out-of-range, upriver 

Toward downriver end 

Out-of-range, downriver 

Out-of-range, both ways 

Species 

Polin ices 

Crepidula 

Haminoea 

Abra 

Nassarius 

Tellina 

Amygdalum 

Polymesoda 

Mulinia 

Corbicula 

Geukensia 

Mysella 

Macoma 

Tagelus 

Crassostrea 

Mytilopsis 

Neritina 

Littorina 

III.3.5 Oysters and Mussels 

Although Mytilopsis occurred as dense clumps in upriver reaches, the two species forming the largest 

biocoenosces were the intertidal mussel Geukensia demissa, and the eastern oyster, Crassostrea 

americana, which occurred between high subtidal to mid-intertidal elevations. A September 2001 

effort was made to describe the spatial arrangement of these species' largest individuals. Although 

no distinct pattern was discerned for mussels, the dispersion of largest oysters was of interest- most 

large oysters occurred in the mid-range of the species, around RK 2.0-3.0, and the size of largest 

oysters on upriver and downriver reefs were significantly smaller (Figure 111.20). 


III.4 

DISCUSSION 

The presence of 20 macro-mollusk species in the tidal Alafia River, as collected by half-kilometer 

sampling effort, compares unfavorably with the list of mollusks collected by the benthic infaunal 

community analysis (Table III.4). About half of the extra species collected by the infaunal effort 

were numerically rare or occurred in only one sampling event (the benthic infaunal effort was 

repetitive whereas the mollusk survey was conducted only once). Some species were collected by 

the live and dead survey that were not collected by the infaunal effort, and vice versa. The most 

notable absence from the infaunallist was Littorina irrorata, which may be explained by the species' 

intertidal habit. Live Littorina are sometimes found on intertidal substrata but are more commonly 

found on mangrove roots or shoots of various salt marsh species. Furthermore, some species found 

in the infaunal effort but not in the mollusk survey were very small: the infaunal effort retained many 

more small specimens because it employed a 0.5 mm mesh sieve, compared to the 3.0 mm mesh 

sieve employed in the mollusk survey. 

Table III.4. 

Comparison of mollusk species richness by river and gear. 

Effort 

Species Number 

Alafia 

Peace 

Mollusk Survey 20 34 

Invertebrate Survey 45 55 

Mollusk species richness was lower than that observed in the tidal Peace River, where similar gear 

and effort were made as part of the hydrobiological monitoring program (Mote Marine Laboratory, 

2001). The mollusk survey collected 70% more species in the Peace than in the Alafia, whereas the 

infaunal program collected 33% more species. Compared to mollusk diversity of the Peace River, 

the mollusk diversity of the Alafia was impaired. 

Closer comparison of Alafia and Peace river mollusks reveals other similarities and differences. In 

discussing these points it is important to recognize that both the Peace and Alafia rivers enter the 

tops of their respective bays (i.e., farthest from Gulf waters); that both have a history of chemical 

contamination from upstream phosphate miningl, and that the tidal Alafia River is approximately 

half as long as the tidal Peace River. 

In terms of species diversity, the two streams are similar relative to dominant taxa except that the 

Alafia River appears to lack Rangia cuneata. No live or dead Rangia were collected by the mollusk 

1/ Although the Alafia River has experienced acid spills in addition to clay slime spills historically common 

in both rivers. 

AJafia River Mollusk - Final Repon -108- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

survey, and no Rangia were collected by Mote's benthic infaunal collection efforts, in the Alafia 

River. Furthermore, Rangia has not been reported by either the Hillsborough County or HBMP 

sampling efforts in the Alafia River. Rangia is a common bivalve in the Peace River and dominates 

subtidal strata where Corbicula does not. Rangia occurs entirely within the tidal River and is 

regarded an element of that river's brackish water fauna. It may attain densities of 465 live animals 

per square meter. In the Peace River it is more or less coincident with the intertidal marsh clam 

Polymesoda (Mote Marine Laboratory, 2001). If Rangia was coincident with Polymesoda in the 

Alafia River it would occur from RK 2.0-10.0. No ecological homologue of Rangia occurs in the 

Alafia River, leaving open the question of what effects, if any, the lack of a numerically dominant, 

large, subtidal bivalve has on water quality and river ecology. 

Rangia occurs in rivers north and south of Tampa Bay but whether Rangia occurs, or once occurred, 

in tributaries of Tampa Bay is presently unknown. Godcharles and J app (1973) remarked that "the 

most abundant bivalve found in a dredge survey of the Florida west coast was the marsh clam, 

Rangia cuneata", and that, further, "it was confined to brackish areas of the Peace and Myakka 

Rivers." Godcharles and J aap surveyed the lower reach ofthe tidal Manatee River but did not sample 

in other tributaries of Tampa Bay. 

In contrast to the Peace River, Corbicula is not a problem species in the Alafia River. It may occur 

upstream of Bell Shoals but in the tidal river it was found at low densities, most often dead. The 

relatively density of dead shells further suggests that Corbicula has not been historically important 

in the tidal river, although weathering scores for dead Corbicula were very high (Figure 111.10), 

even compared to weathering of dead Corbicula in the Peace River. The green mussel, Perna 

viridis, has established a foothold in the tidal Alafia River. Whether it attains the numerical densities 

of a problematic invasive species remains to be seen but, given the high densities of other mussels 

in the Alafia River, its potential is considerable. 

Currents were not measured during the mollusk survey but it was evident that current speeds become 

very strong through the narrow, rock-lined reach of the tidal river below Bell Shoals. 

Salinity was not measured during the survey but historical data and contemporary data from other 

sources are informative. Figure 111.21 depicts mean surface salinity and the standard deviation of 

salinity along the river, calculated from EPCIHBMP data for a 60 month period. Mean salinity was 

nearly zero near Bell Shoals and, with one exception near RK 2.0, increased as a smooth curvilinear 

function with proximity to Hillsborough Bay. Salinity variability, expressed as standard deviation, 

also rose with proximity to the Bay but peaked near RK 2.0. At least for the period of record for 

salinity data, the river freshens so far downstream as RK 4.0 only rarely. Whether salinity variability 

of the Bay was lower than the river cannot be discerned with these data. Using data from Bulger et 

al. (1990), the tidal Alafia River may be segmented with respect to salinity as follows: 

A1afia River Mollusk - Final Report -109- More Marine Laboratory - June 2003

NOS Salinity Band 

Fresh to 4 ppt 

2 ppt to 15 ppt 

11 pptto 19 ppt 

15 ppt to 28 ppt 

23 ppt to Marine 

Alafia River Kilometers 

9.0 -17.1 

3.4 -11.2 

2.0 to 2.5 - 5.1 

Hillsborough Bay -3.3 

Not present 

Percent Total Length 

45 

43 

3 - 17 

18 

Based on river distance and mean salinities the tidal Alafia may be seen as being dominated by tidalfresh, 

oligohaline, and brackish water conditions. As shown below, a different result obtains when 

salinities are interpreted with respect to river area. There were no distinct correlations between 

salinity metrics and metrics of the subtidal mollusk community except insofar as species richness 

and salinity were positively related. 

Dissolved oxygen was not measured during the mollusk survey. Figure 111.22 depicts bottom 

concentrations of dissolved oxygen expressed as mean and percentile values for each HBMP stratum. 

Strata 4 through 6 (RK 7.0 - 14.0) had mean DO values less than or equal to the criterion for 

hypoxia, 2.0 mgll. Stratum 6 (RK 11.7 - 14.0) had extreme low concentrations. Stratum 6 is 

centered approximately at Buckhorn Spring and so encompasses the upstream most reach of tidal 

river with sediment-dominated bottom (see below). Numbers of species and numbers of individuals 

are lower upstream of RK 7.0, and especially upstream of RK 11.7, implicating oxygen stress as a 

probable limiting factor. 

Sediments display several characteristics of nutrient and organic enrichment. From the literature, 

Hill (2001) found that percent carbon and percent organic matter in sediments were much higher 

than in the Little Manatee River, and were especially high2 between RK 3 -10, inclusive, in the 

Alafia River. These findings were corroborated by sediment data collected as part of the benthic 

macroinvertebrate study in the Alafia River (Section II of this report): although bank-to-bank 

variation in sediment composition occurred, the impaired nature of sediments from near RK 4.0 to 

RK 13.0 can be seen in grain sizes, percent clays and silts, percent solids, and percent moisture 

(Section II, Figures 11.9 - 11.12). 

Not all river bottom below Bell Shoals is dominated by sediment. In fact, the tidal river bottom 

upstream of Buckhorn Spring is a mixture of sediment and rock, and the river bottom upstream of 

RK 16.6 is almost entirely rock in nature (Figure 111.23). The combination of indurated bottom, and 

bottoms with poor sediments, places a strong limitation on subtidal mollusks relative to suitable 

physical habitat availability in the tidal Alafia River. 

Taken as a whole, physical and chemical data portray a tidal river environment for mollusks that has 

a strong salinity gradient (> 1 pptlkm); areas of tidal river with no sedimentary habitat; other areas 

of river bottom covered by accumulations of fine, organically enriched, and anoxic sediments; and 

2/ Greater than 4% carbon and 7% organic matter. 


an overlying water column with mean dissolved oxygen concentrations less than or equal to the 

ecological standard for hypoxia across 30-40% of the river's tidal length. The tendency for intertidal 

areas to support more species and individuals than subtidal areas bespeaks of the poor quality of 

subtidal habitat in the Alafia River, at least for mollusks. 

Based on species richness and density comparisons, the quality of mollusk habitat within intertidal 

areas is less impaired. Current speeds are lower across tidal flats than in river channels. Oxygen 

concentrations tend to be higher across intertidal bottoms because the water is shallow and winddriven 

wave energy promotes mixing. The same energy resorts sediments and promotes the export 

of fine or organic particles from sediments. Other factors be"ing equal, salinity, food supply are 

probably the most important chemical and ecological factors regulating intertidal mollusk species 

richness and densities. Predation, parasitism, and disease may have strong effects on particular 

species. 

Oyster data are informative relative to the combined effects of physical, chemical, and biotic limits 

to intertidal mollusks in the Alafia River. As shown in Figure 111.24, oyster reefs were found in the 

lower river downstream ofRK 4.0. Most reefs were associated with vegetated wetland systems, and 

the largest reefs were on the south shore of the river. The statistical form of maximum oyster size 

in relation to RK is a normal curve (see Figure 111.20), where the greatest values of mean oyster 

height among large, living oysters occurred between RK 2.0 and 3.0. Geographically, the largest 

oysters occurred where the largest reefs occurred. The mean salinity of this river reach was 

approximately 19 to 20 ppt with a standard deviation about 8 to 9 ppt (Figure 111.21). 

The present study lacks data on oyster predators, parasites, or diseases, but insofar as maximum 

oyster size peaked within the tidal reach of the river (as opposed to Hillsborough Bay) it may 

reasonably be inferred that the limiting effects of such depradations, if any is significant, are 

regulated by lower salinities, and that conditions for optimal oyster growth do occur in the Alafia 

River. As explained above, if salinity and food supply are more important for oysters than sediment 

quality or water quality, then a mean salinity of approximately 19 to 20 ppt with a standard deviation 

about 8 to 9 ppt represents an optimal regime for oyster growth in the river. 

Nothing can be said about the characteristics of an optimal food supply for oysters with data at hand. 

It turns out that the most reefs, largest reefs, and largest individual oysters are growing where the 

most physical habitat space for oysters is available. As Figure III.2S illustrates, low intertidal 3 

bottom surface area increases with proximity to Hillsborough Bay and is greatest near RK 2-3. It 

is interesting to question whether oysters are utilizing available reef space fully or whether there is 

habitat for more or larger reefs. In any event, the exponential decline in potential oyster habitat as 

RK increases can be exploited to evaluate how much optimal oyster habitat might be lost if flows 

declined enough to move the river-position of optimal salinities farther upstream. From 

3/ -0.12 m NGVD; essentially the same curves describe the area of the higher intertidal area (+0.18 m 

NGVD). 

Alafia River Mollusk - Final Report -111 - Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

Figure 111.26 it may be seen that approximately 180 ha of oyster reefs occur upstream of RK 2.0. 

An upstream shift in the location of optimal oyster salinities, of only 1 km, would truncate potential 

oyster habitat by about 35 acres, a loss of nearly 20%. A 2 km upstream shift of optimal salinities 

would truncate potential oyster habitat by more than a third. 

Such analysis must be taken as preliminary, albeit informative, because numerous factors have yet 

to be reckoned. The definition of optimal oyster salinity was based on the maximum heights of 

large, living oysters. As shown by Mote Marine Laboratory (2001), live mollusks in the Peace River 

may occupy only a part of a given species' long-term river-range as depicted by the spatial dispersion 

of dead shells. It is possible that maximum sizes of dead oyster material would reveal a different RK 

maximum and hence, a different optimal salinity regime. 

By the same token, precisely what antecedent period of salinity exposure is relevant in regulating the 

size of very large oysters is unknown. Certainly the salinity regime at times of spawning and 

settlement are important initial conditions, but without knowing the precise ages of very large oysters 

it is difficult to identify the most relevant historical salinity conditions to use for improved analyses. 

Finally, the effects of natural or catastrophic episodic events on the maximum sizes of oysters in the 

Alafia River would need to be considered. In addition to episodic biotic impacts such as predation 

or disease, the river's recent history of acid pollution needs to be included in the interpretation of 

mollusk data. The most recent acid spill occurred in December 1997 (EPC et a!., 2000), just 43 

months before the mollusk survey. "Mussels" on the 1-75 bridge experienced 100% mortality and 

oysters at a reef created in 1996 at US 41 experienced 33% mortality. No published data are 

available on the ability of oysters to tolerate acidic waters, but it follows from observations following 

the acid spill that pH's in the range of 3.0 to 4.0 were sufficient to cause 33% to 100% mortality 

among bivalves. 

Oysters grow to market size (~ 76 mm) in two to four years (Little and Quick, 1976; Ortega and 

Sutherland, 1992; Livingston et a!., 1999), signifying that most of the oysters living in the Alafia 

River in 2001, including the largest oysters, could have recruited since the acid spill in 1997. If so, 

then the salinity characteristics of the previous three years would have had the most effect on oysters 

found alive in 2001. 

111.5 SYNTHESIS 

From the standpoint of mollusk survey results, the present distribution of major macroinvertebrate 

habitats and communities in the lower Alafia River may be described by river reach. Bell Shoals is 

a sill and rock -controlled nick -point of the tidal channel. It may serve as ephemeral habitat for lotic 

fauna with lithophilic tendencies (e.g. Insecta) but is not a significant habitat for infaunal 

macroinvertebrates. The same may said of the river channel from Bell Shoals to near Buckhorn 

Spring, where the predominance of rock bottom is high, banks are steep, and sedimentary formations 

occur as local and thin lenses of materials washed from tributaries and ditches. In Summer 2001 


near-bottom waters were also plagued by a bloom or turbid layer of unknown origin, further reducing 

invertebrate habitat value. 

From Buckhorn Spring to the vicinity of the interstate bridge the mollusk fauna is depauperate both 

in terms of species richness and density. As much or more fauna occur intertidally through this area 

as do sub tidally. Much of the bottom is unsuited for mollusks and water quality is poor. The river 

from the interstate to the ship channel is a widening, shallowing reach where salt water is always 

present. This reach of river has the most tidal flats and wetlands, and is dominated by gasstropods 

(supratidal), marsh clams or mussels, and gastropods (high intertidal), oysters (mid-tidal to high 

subtidal), and a few other species. The bottom of the ship channel supports fewer species than the 

natural river bottom adjacent to it. 

The mollusk survey sheds light on benthic components important to the ecological structure and 

functioning of the tidal Alafia River. Surprisingly, the most important taxa, communities, habitats 

or strata of the tidal Alafia River in its present condition are basically the same, namely intertidal 

aggregations offilter-feeding bivalves. From upriver to down these are 1) Mytilopsis clumps, the 

only mollusk living above Buckhorn Spring, and then only in surface-waters; 2) the marsh clam 

Polymesoda, dominant in Juncus marsh pockets and marshes in the middle river; 3) the mussel 

Geukensia, a mangrove analogue of Polymesoda in marshes, reaching very high densities in the 

lower river; and 4) oyster reefs below RK 4.0 and most abundant in RK 2-3, these reefs are mostly 

intertidal. 

Relationships between the distribution and abundance of important mollusks and physicochemical 

variables related to freshwater inflows (e.g. sediments, oxygen, salinity, etc) can only be suggested 

from a once-only survey, especially one occurring within one-to-two mollusc generations after a 

serious acid spill. At least two habitat limitations of natural origin were discovered. The first, a 

transition from sedimentary to lithic bottoms, has profound consequences for invertebrates. The 

second, a transition among supratidal gastropods (Neritina to Littorina) was seen also in the Peace 

River where it was explained by a vegetative transition from marshes to mangroves. Another two 

habitat limitations are man-made. The most significant relative to the establishment of minimum 

flows is the very poor bottom and water quality conditions dominating the middle reach of the tidal 

river. Anoxic, pudding-like sediments are functioning as recruitment sinks for larvae attempting to 

settle in brackish water areas, and any forms surviving to juvenile stages are further limited by 

hypoxic to anoxic conditions in the water column. Another man-made limitation of mollusk habitat 

is the ship channel at the mouth of the river. 

Results of the mollusk survey will need to be checked against by the results of other inveretbrate 

studies in the Alafia River, but for the time being, conclusions that may be offered relative to the 

establishment of minimum regulatory flows are these: 

1. The river below 1-75 (RK 5-6) is the reach with highest species richness and density, 

and persistent occurrences of mollusks. 

Alafia River Mollusk - Final Report -113- Mote Marine Laboratory - JUlie 2003

2. Conditions of low flow that translate salinity conditions of this lower reach to parts 

of the river located farther upstream would cause a significant loss of biota because 

physical habitat space and water quality are much poorer there. 

3. Three species of filter-feeding bivalves are abundant enough in the lower reach to 

probably matter in terms of filtration rates, energy flux, transfers of foodstuffs, and 

provision of habitat for other species: Polymesoda, Geukensia, and Crassostrea. 

4. These 3 species and especially oysters will be useful for analytical assessments of 

alternative river flow and salinity scenarios. Most oysters presently occur where the 

most shallow oyster habitat occurs, and this fact lends itself to spatial modeling. 

Also, oyster size is meaningfully related to river kilometer and analysis of water 

quality data from other studies may reveal what physicochemical conditions during 

the past 4 years have been associated with maximum oyster size. 

5. It would be interesting to examine the spatial distribution of the largest dead oyster 

shells in the river, and also the evidence for parasitism, predation, and/or disease of 

oysters as a function of river position, sensu Kent (1992). 


Figure III.I. The tidal Alafia River. US 41 is near river kilometer (RK) 1.6; 1-75 crosses the river 

near RK 5.4; US 301 crosses near RK 7.9; Buckhorn Spring is near RK 12.2; and Bell 

Shoals is near 17.9. 


• Live 


0 Dead 

Subtidal and Intertida l Subtidal Only Intertidal O nly 

0 I 

2500 

- 

J 

j 

I I l 

2000 

--1 

-1 J 

E 

- 

I 

I 

w 

I 

a. 1500 

'- 

~ 

Q) 

0 

0 I 

N 

l I J 

] 

1 

E i 

z 

I ] 

.c 

:J 

~ 1 

I 

0 QI4 c:g I l 

o I 

1000 

I 

j 

0 

500 

0 

I 

< 

I 

0 

I ~ 

I , I I I 

20 

] 

- 

~ 

~ l j 

E 

l 

0 0 

§. 15 J 

J 

Q) 

00 e 00 e 0 

N 0 

U5 10 

0 - 

0 

"0 

~ 

"0 

c: 0 0 

0 0 

CIl 

Q) 00 I 

0 0 I 

1 

~ 

~ 5 I 

l 

I 

0 

I 

j 

I 

• 0 CD 

e 0 

100 J 4 

en 

J I 

~ ---l -.J 

·c 

75 J 

I 

Q) 0 

~ 

1 ~ 

I 

1 -1 CD 

l 

I 

-, 

0 

I 

I 

I 

I I 

J 

~ 

] I , 

I 

I 

I 

I 

~ ~ 

I 0 , 

> I 

:J I 

""") -J ---l 

C 50 I 

Q) 

~ 

Q) 0 0 ., 0 

n. I 

00 

25l 

! 

I 

o 

I 

I " I e el 

I e I 

10 

I 

: ~ 

I 

x 0 

~ , 

l 

Q) I 

l 0 

-0 

c: 00 -, I 

0 

w o 0 

! o 0 

l 

I I 

J 

CD 

0 

0 0 

I 0 

-1 

I l 

..c: 

ro • e 

-I 

4 ~ ~ ~ 

Q) 

2 ~ 

3: I ! 

0 

-; -, 0 

~ 

• i e 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

0 

0 

CD 

1 l 

0 I 

0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 


1 

~ 

I 


collections of Mytilopsis leucophaeta as a function of distance from Hillsborough 

Bay, in intertidal and subtidal strata. 


E 1 000 ~ 

• Live 

Guekensia demissa granossissima o Dead 

Subtidal and Intertidal Subtidal Only Intertidal Only 

• 

1200 J ~~ -ji 1 

J 

l~ 

I 

... 

(I) 

a. 800 1 ~ I l 

600 1 · j 1 l ~ -1 

~~~ -'i"" t_e~; o_ ,----,---'J +l -Q-?_,------.----'~ 1 ~ · 

:: -'--- .. - j j ~ -~ ~ l'--- 

i 20' s 0 0 1 

x 

(I) 

1:1 

C 

1 0 

l 

~ 0 

0 ~ 

.. -~ - J 

a +-1 -r----,-----~----'I I i +- 1 - ,-------.-------.-----' 

100 10 1 

1, I, I 0 

75 1 1 III 

50 l -1 J -1 ~ 

25 t 

1 ~ 11l 

0-,..,. ~ i ~.,. 

10 I 

8 1 

,0 

6 ~ i 0 

4 J 

I 

o 

o 

2 ---1. • •• 

i 

-j 

I 

~ I 

l 

~, 

=1 

i 

] 

I 

i 

I 

t 

o 5 

10 15 5 10 15 o 5 


10 15 


collections of Geukensia demissa as a function of distance from Hillsborough Bay, 

in intertidal and subtidal strata. 


E 

.... 

N 

• Live 


0 Dead 


] 

250 l 

- J J • o· 

] 

I 

I 

I • 

200 ~ 

~ 

I 

~ 

I • 0 00 

Q) I 

· 0·. 

I 

I 

I 

] 

I ~ 

Co I 

150 -J - 

(j) 

i 

.0 I 

~ 

I 

I 

E 100 

"I 0 - 

:::J • 0 00 I 0 

z 

1 

j 

50 

• 

- 

o 0 

o ~ e· 

.0 .~ .8. l 

= 

I 

• • 

ID I ID 

0 I I I I I , I 

I I 

I i I I 

60 

I 

I 

• • 

• • 

E o • I o· 

I 

.s 40 • ---l I • 0 

• 0 

] 1 - 

Q) 

• ~d> 00 I N 

• -sid> 00 

en i, • I 

0 0 

i, • 0 0 

c 

0 

20 J 

~ 

I 

0 

ctl 

Q) 

~ 

I 

l 

I 

I 

0 ~ I 

I i 

I 

I 

100 

-l --.j =j 

1 

i 

I 

en 

I 

I 

.!!1 

75 I 

I 

I 

"1: 

Q) 

> 

:::J 

l 

I 

I I I I I I I ! I I 

j 

I 

1 

l ~ 

I 

I 

I 

! 

l 

I 

1 I 

~ ~ 

""") 

"E 50 ~ 

0 0 

Q) I I i 

i 

~ 

I 

I 

I i I 

Q) 

25 --j 

-1 

a.. "I 

-i 

- 

0 

I 0 

i 

0 

I 

0 i 

• 1-__ ':-. 

I 

I I I I I : I I I I I 

10 

i 

I I 

I I I 

8 

0 

I ....! 0 

X ~ 

~ "1 

, 

Q) 

I l 

0 o 0 0 I 

I 

"0 

J 0 000 

I 

1 

0 0 

0 

.s 0 

0 

0 

.... 6 1 0 l 

Q) 0 I 

q, 

..c 

l 

I 

] 

4 ~ • 

I 

0 

iii • --I -j --l 0 • 

l 

•.. . 

Q) 

I 

• • • • I 

I i 

~ I 

! 

I • • J 

2 I 

...J 

• • 

~ 

1 ! 

•• 

I i 

I 

i 

i 

I 

0 , 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I I I I 

0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 


I 

-1 

J 

I 

~ 

I 

1 

I 

Figure IIl.4. Density, size, percent juveniles, and weather index values for live and dead 

collections of Polyrnesoda caroliniana as a function of distance from Hillsborough 

Bay, in intertidal and subtidal strata. 



• Live 

o Dead 

350 J 

300 

E 

~ 

250 

! 200 

150 

Subtidal and Intertidal 

] ~ 

Subtidal Only 

- •• 1 ~ . ~ 

~ 100 - l ~ ~ 

500 -; 00 ~'. ~.. J I · j 

~I----~I ~-'I----'I --~ ~I----TI ---'I----'I --~ 

75 - • : 1 : 

J 

- 

I 

Intertidal Only 

• 

I 

I 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

E 

.s 50 

Q) 

N 

i:i5 

c: 

m 25 

~ 

o 

l · .. 

J . · 

00 •• 

10 0 0 

a i 

~I --~I ---'I ---~I ~ 

1 

I 

1 

• 

- 

- 

• 

100 l 

J 

75 I 0 

50 --e 

25 r 

00 

I ~ 

o I ~- I 

5 10 15 

=1 

1 

l J 

~ 

I 

~ 

~ 

I 

~ 

I 

i 

--i I 

o 

o 

• 

• 

5 10 15 


I 

1 

~ 

I 

-1 

I 

I 

1 

o 

o 

o 

o 

•• 

• • 

5 10 15 

11 

~ 

I 

1 

Figure III.S. Density, size, percent juveniles, and weather index values for live and dead 

collections of Crassostrea virginica as a function of distance from Hillsborough Bay, 

in intertidal and subtidal strata. 


Figure III.6. Density, size, percent juveniles, and . weather index values for live and dead 

collections of Mysella planulata as a function of distance from Hillsborough Bay, in 

intertidal and subtidal strata. 


• Live 

Tagelus plebeius 0 Dead 

Subtidal and Intertidal Subtidal Only Intertidal 0 nly 

, 

! 

j J ] 

0 

175 --1 ---l 

i 

~ 

J 

1 

I 

] 

'" 150 ~ 

E 

I 

I 

.... i 

125 --1 J 

Q) 

a. 

j I l ] j 

100 

Co ~ 

° J l ! ! 1 

• J 

.0 75 --, 

E 

l 

I 

::::l 

I 

50 

- ---l 

Z 

I "- 

I 

~ 

° j 

I 

o 

25 

- 

--j 0 ° • J . 

1

100 I 

'" 75 ~ 

E 

Qj 

a. 

I 

• Live 


0 Dead 


• 

I 

I 

l 

I 

J 

~ ~ 

l 

Qj 50 - • - 

.0 

I 

• 

• • 

- 

• • • • 

E 

:l 

Z • - 

l l 

• • .0 .0 

o i 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 

25 l 

.0•

'" 

• Live 


0 Dead 

S ubtidal and Intertidal Subtidal Only Intertidal Only 

50 

I i 

i 

I I 

N 

E 

Qj 

c. 

.... 

150 

100 

I 

I 

l 

Q) 

.0 0 

E 0 

:J 

50 

I 

• Live 

Tellina spp. 

0 Dead 


I ! 

I 

--; 

J ---i 0 

I 

0 

! I 

I 

i 

I 

I I 

I 

~ l I l I 

I 

! 

---.: 

z -; -; ---; 

0 

25 - 

I 

0 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 J 

00 

E 20 - ~ 

- 

.s 

j I 

Q) 

15 - 

I 

--i - 

N 

l 

i:i5 

I , 

c 10 - 

- 

m 

, 

Q) o~ 

000 

0 

:!!: 

I i J ] 

5 - 

I 

I 

l 

1 l I 

I 

0 I 

I 

100 l 

om 

1 -1 000 OJ 

I 

III I I 

~ 

·2 75 

~ J 

> 

:J 

I i 

...., 

I 

1 

~ 

l 

1 

0 

, 

Q) i 

I 

i 

i 

I 

50 

c 1 

1 -1 

I 

l 1 

Q) 

i 

I 

I 

~ 

I J ~ J 

I 

I 

Q) 

25 --i 

a.. ! I 

1 

--i ! 

I 

I 

I 

0 

I 

I 

I I 

10 

I 

I 

j 

8 I ~ 

J 

J 

I 

I 

- 

l 

I 

4 

I , i 

I ...., .J 

I 

I 

i 

X 

Q) i 

"C 

I 

I 

.£ 

0 0 ...J 

6 l ~ 

-j 0 --' 

0 

Qj 

I 

i 

I 

I 0 i 

i 

.s= 

1ii 

Q) 

3;: 

I 

4 1 ~ 

...j -j 

I 

J 

I 

0 I I I 

0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 

0 

0 

I I 

2 

...J I I 

...., 

, 

1 

I 


I 

J 


collections of Tellina sp. as a function of distance from Hillsborough Bay, In 



- 

Live 


0 Dead 


75 -1 

J 

C\I 

E 

I 

Q; 50 

a. 

I 

Q) , 

I 

.0 

I I 

, 

• =1 

I 

• 

... I 

• 

E 

~ 

J 0 

25 • • J 

:J 

I 

Z I ,. •• 0 

,. • 

i 

I 

i 

•, 

• •• 

I 

I 

• • 

0 

I 

I 

I 

20 

l 

, I 

• 

l l 

~ 

l 

---j 

• 

E 

I 

• • • I 

.s 15 • • • 

l ~ •• --j 

l 

....; 

, 

•• --l 

Q) 

I 

l 

N 

U5 10 

l 1" 

j 

c 

03 , I 

I I 

Q) 

~ 

J 

5 

! l , 

I 

l 

0 I 

I 

I .J I I 

--J 

-' 

100 l ~ ~ ~ 

I 

I 

l 

I , 

I I 

l 

, 

III I 

~ 

75 

0 

'c 

Q) 

> 

:J 

I 

I 

I 

t·· 

"") I , 

50 

C 

Q) 

~ 

0 

, I 

J 

J i 

I 

J , 

I 

-_-e__ I 

I , 

, , 

-- 

, , 

l 

l 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

::J 

, 

I 

- I· •• -1 

I 

I 

t 

! 

Q) 

25 --; J 

0- 

i I 

-I 

~ 

0 

10 , 

I 

, I 

8 J I 

i 

~ 

J 

I 

-l -.J -, 

x I , 

0 0 

, 

Q) 

"C 

t 

I 

I 

E 6 .., J 

I 

Q; 

~ 

l 

J J l 

.J:: 

I I 

4 

-.J 

1il J 

- • 

Q) I I 

3: 

,- , 

~. 

2 

J 

0 

- 

I 

- -- -- l 

-1 -. - 

I •• I 

- 

0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 


I 

; 

! 

Figure III.H. Density, size, percent juveniles, and weather index values for live and dead 

collections of Littorina irrorata as a function of distance from Hillsborough Bay, in 



'" >< 

E- '" 

"- 

0 6 

... 

II) 

.D 

E 4 

::l 

Z 

10 J 

Live + Dead 

8 

2 

0 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 

'" >< 

E- '" 

0 

... 

l 

10 I ] 

I 

8 

"- 

6 

II) 

.D 

E 4 

::l 

Z 

l 

J 

i 

I 

Live 

2 J 

I 

J 

I 

0 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 

10 ---, 

8 

'" >< 

E- 

.... '" 

6 

I 

I 

I 

~ 

I 

J 

Dead 

... 

I 

II) 

0 

1 

.D 

E 4 -l 

::l 

Z 

2 

I 

l 

I 

I 

0 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 


Figure III.12. Species richness for live and dead mollusk collections relative to river kilometer. 


C"l 

E 600 J 

.... 

Live+Dead I 

1400 

C"l 

E 1200 I S ubtidal+ In tertidal ~ 

..... 

Q) 

I I 

0- 

1000 ---l 

til 

22 

20 

ell 

18 

Cl,) 

'u 

Cl,) 

0.. 

(/.l 

...... 

0 

..... 

Cl,) 

.D 

E 

16 

14 

12 

= 10 

Z 

Cl,) 

> 8 .... 

c:

1400 

1200 

N 

E -; 

.... 

] 

(l) 

c.. 

-;;; '" 

:::l 

S ubtidal+ In tertidal 

1000 

I 

i 

800 

---, 

0;;: I 

" 

:0 

..= 600 

"- 

.... 

400 

I 

0 I 

(l) 

.D 

E 

z 

:::l 

200 

a a 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 

l 

~ 

~ 

I 

1400 

] I 

N 

E 1200 

.... In tertidal 

(l) 

c.. 

100 0 

-;;; '" 

:::l 

800 

I 

0;;: " """1 

:0 

..= 600 

"- 0 

.... 

400 

(l) 

.D 

E 

z 

:::l 

200 

a a 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 

j 

] 

~ 

1400 

N 

1200 

I 

E 

.... 

l 

Subtidal 

I 

(l) 

I 

c.. I 

1000 I 

-;;; '" 

:::l 

i 

" 0;;: 800 

1 

:0 

l 

..= 600 

"- 

l 

"I 

0 

.... 

-.J 

(l) 400 I 

.D 

§ 

Z 

-1 

200 

I 

..J 

a ā 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 


Figure III.IS. Faunal densities for intertidal and subtidal mollusk collections relative to river 

kilometer. 


25 

(!) 

'" 

u 

(!) 

0.. 

C/l 

...... 

0 

..... 

(!) 

..c 

20 

15 

E 10 :::l 

Z 

(!) 

> 

(; 

5 

'3 

E 

:::l 

U 

0 

) ~- ' 

.",- , 

, / ,/ 

--.../'/- 

J 

/-" 

r --- --- ---- -- - S~~ 

/ _ . _ . _ . - ~ ' - ' - ' Intertidal 

( ---7 - ' --./ 

Subtidal-Intertidal 

o 

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 

River Ki lometer (Progressing Upstream) 

25 

'" 

(!) 

'13 

(!) 

0.. 

C/l 

'0 

20 

15 

..... 

(!) 

..c 

E 10 

Z 

(!) 

> 

(; 

5 

:::l 

E 

:::l 

U 

0 

r---;r-.../..- - - - - - / 

, --.../ / 

,J / 

~ , ---./ 

~-_/.../ 

/ - - Subtidal 

, Intertidal 

.",- / 

r-....,..--


Mytilopsis leucophaeta 



Tellina spp. 



Abra aequalis 

Macoma tenta 




Crepidula fornicata 


Polynices duplicatus 



Crassos(rea virginica 

~--I--- , ----- r------,- -- ,- ----, -- , 

· ..... ..... . . . . . .. .... ..... .. . . ...... . ... ·0· .. ·0· .. ·0 · 0 ..... ·.· 0 ·0 ·0 {] . D· ..... {] . .. {] ·111 

· ..... ......... . .. .. ....... ... . ... ..... {] ·0· III · 111 ' 0 ·0· 0 . . ...... ..... . ... . D· {] ..... .. ... . . 

... . .... .......... . ........ • ..• . • . • · 111 · • . • . . .. • . • . • . • .• . . . . ... . ...... . ....... . . . . . . . ... 

················ · ··· · ·0 ····· · ··········· ·.······· ····· ................ ..... ... ... .. ..... . 

.. .... .. ... . .... .. . '0 ··' ·0 · 0· ····· · · ·· ··· ··· · ··· . ... . .. .. .. .. . ..... . . ...... . ...... . ... .. . . 

····· · ···· ··· ····0·· · ··· · · · · · · · ··· · ··· ·· ··· · · ·· · · · · ··· ...... . ... . . ... . .. . . . ... . .. ... . . . . . 

········ · ··· 0 · ···· ··· ···· ··· · · ··· · ··· ·········· ······· ........... . .. .. ........ . . . . ...... . 

·· ········· · 0· ·· · ·· ·· ··· ·· ·· ·· · · · ·· · ··· · · · · ·· · ···· · ··· . .... .. . ....... . ...... . .. . . . .... .. . 

··· · · ·· ·· ··· 0 ·.·.·· ········ · · · ... .. ...... . ....... . .... . . .... . . . . . ........ . . .. . ... . .. . ... . 

· ··· ··· · ···· 0 ······ ·· .. ···· ··· ·· · ····· · ··· · · ·· ··· ····0· .. . . . ...... . . . . ... . . . . ... . ... . . . . 

... . .... ..• ...... .. ..... ........ .. ... . . . . . ... . . . .. .. ... ... .. . . . ..... ........ . .. .. . ....... . 

· ....... . .• . • ..... .• · 111· ·111 . o· {] . o· .. .. . ...... .... . .... .. . . . . ..... . ... . ... ... .. .. .. . .. . .. . 

··· · ·0 ·· ··· . . . . . .. . . . . .. ...... . . .. .. . .... ....... ...... . . .... . . ... ... . . . .. . . . . .. .. ....... . . 

. . 0 · 111 · 0 · ·· 0 ·0······0 .• . • . ... . .... •. ... . . . . . ....... . . . . . ... . . . ... ................ .. . . . . 

..•.. ...•.. 

D·· · . ..... . ......... ........ . . ..... . . ... .. .. . .. .. .... .... . .. . . . ... . . . ........ .. . . . . . ... .. . 

.• ....• . • ..• . • . . . . ... . .... .. . ... . . . . . ..... . . . . . . .. . ...... .. .. .. . . ... ........ 

o · • ...... . . • .... . . .. . ..• ..... .•. . ... . .. ... ..... .. .. .. ............ .. . . . . . . ... .. .. . ... . ... 

• . • . . .. ..•.• ..... ·0 . • ..• . • . ... • ..• . • . . . . ..... . . .... . . . . . . . ..... .... ... ... . . . . ........... 

L__ . ___ 1-____ .-.1 ~ --.-1 ____ . __ I 

o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 


• Live 

o Dead 

Figure 111.18. Dispersion of individual mollusk species sorted by first occurrence moving upstream from Hillsborough Bay. 

Alalia Ri ver Mollusk - Final Report -132- Mote Marine Laboratory - JUlie 2003

1 - - - 1-- -- --r --- - -r - -------1 -- - I ------, - -------1- - -- ---1----- - 1 

Polynices dupJicatus 0······ ········· ····· · · · ···· ········ · ······ · ······· · · ·· ····· , ········· ·· · ·· , ····· · · · ·, ··· · 

Crepidula fornicata .... ·0· ....... ... .. . . . ... .... .... . . . . . ......... . .. .. ... ..... .. . ....... .. ...... . , . ... ... . . . 

Amygdalum papyrium .... .. , .. .• .. , ..... . .... . , .. . . .. .. , .. . , . .. ... .. . ......... ... . ... .... , ..... . ... .... ....... . 

Haminoea succinea ... .. ....... 0 ...... ... . ... .. .. .. . ...... ... .. ......... ... . .... . ....... . ....... .... . . ... . . . 

Abra aequaJis ............ 0 .... ..... .......... .... ... . ..... . ... ... . .... .. . ...... . . .. . .. .. ... . . .... . . . . . 

Nassarius vibex . .. . .. ... ... .. ... 0 ... .. .. .. . .. . .... . . . ...... . . ...... . ........ , . ..... . ..... ... ... , ..... . . . 

Macoma tenta ... . ..... .. . 0 .•.•. .... . ... ... . . .. . . , . .. ........ .. .... . .. .. . . ... . . . ........ . .. ........... . 

Tel/ina spp. ' ..... , . .......... . ·0· . . -0 . o· .. . ............... ....... . ..... . ....... . . . .. .. .. , ...... . , .. . . 

Littorina irrorata • . • ......• . •. .• ....• . • ..• . • .. , .. .. .. . . .. ... ... ... . ..... . .. . ........ . . .. . . .... . .......... . 

Geukensia demissa granossissima 0 · . · ·· ···· · • .. . . .. ... . ' • .. , ...•......... .. . . ... . . .. . .......... ........... ... . . ..... . .... 

Tagelus plebeius .. 0 .•. 0 ... D ·0 · ..... G .• . • .. .... , . .•. .. . . , ... . . . .. .. . .. . ..... . . . ... . , .. .. . ...... . .... , .. 

Crassostrea virginica • . • .. . .. .• . • .... . ·0 . III- .• . • .... • . .• . • • ...... ... . .... .... . . ..... . ... ..• ................... 

Mysel/a planulata ....... .. . .. . . . , ..... . G ... .. ...... . . ... ..• . . ...... ... ........... . . . .... . .... , ..... .. ... . . 

Polymesoda caroJiniana .. . .... ...• . • ... .. .•.•..•. G {] . o· • .• . • .• ...... • ' ................ .. .... . . ..... ... .. . . . . 

MuJinia lateraJis ..... . ... ... D ... , ... .•... ... . ... . .. ..... ... . ......... 0 ... ........... ... .... . ........... . 

Neritina usnea .. .. .. ..... .. .... , ....... .. • . .• . • . • .• . • . • ... .• . • .• . • .• ......... . .... . . . .. ........ .... . 

Mytilopsis leucophaeta . . .. .. .... . . ... .. , ... ....... .... .. . .... {] ·0· •.•. D ,O, D . . . ..... ...... , ... 0- {] ... .. .... .. . 


. . ... . .. ......................... . , ... , .. ·0' .. ' 0· , . ' 0 ' D ......• . G ·0 · 0- -0 ' 0 ' ... .. {] ... {] . • 

L _____ '-__ _ _L ____ L _______ I ____ _ ---.l. _ ______ . . 1 __ _ _ . __ 1 ____ . _ L _ 

o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 


o 

• Live 

Dead 

Figure 111.19. Dispersion of individual mollusk species sorted by first occurrence moving downstream from Bell Shoals. 

Alatia River Mollusk - Final Report -133- Matt: Marine Laboralory - JUlie 2003

80 

Live Geukensia demissa 

75 

70 

,..... 

E 

65 

'---' 

... 60 

~ 

OJ) 

'Q3 

::r: 55 

50 

! 

f ! 

f f 

45 

40 

0 2 3 4 5 6 7 


140 

Live Crassostrea virginica 

120 

100 

,..... 

E 

'---' 

:c 80 

OJ) 

'Q3 

;:t; 

60 

40 

! ! 

t 

20 

0 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Ri ver K ilometer 

Figure III.20. Mean height (mm ± s.d.) of largest living Geukensia and Crassostrea relative to 

distance from Hillsborough Bay. Data collected September 11 , 2001. 

Alafia Ri ver Mollusk - Final Report -1 34- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

25 ,--------------------------------------------------------, 

20 

15 

o +------.-----,-----.------.-----~----_r----_.----_.--~~ 

o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 

-- Mean 

- - Standard Deviation 


Figure 111.21. Mean salinity (parts per thousand) and salinity variance (as standard deviation) of 

surface waters relative to distance from Hillsborough Bay. 


Figure 111.22. Mean concentration (mgll) and variability of dissolved oxygen in bottom waters for 

each HBMP sampling stratum. 

A1afia River Mollusk - Final Report -1 36- MOle Marine Laboratory - June 2003

Substrate 

% Rock - dominated 

Z Rock - sediment mixture 

# Sediment - dominated 

N Snag 

V. River Kilometers 

W'ltlands 

Mangove Swamps 

Stream/lake Swamps 

Wetland Forested Mixed 

Freshwater Marshes 

Saltwater Marshes 

Wet Prairies 

TIdal Flats 

/ 

0.1 0 0.1 0.2 Kilometers 

~ 

Figure 111.24. Schematic of bottom types and areas of transition in bottom types within the upper 

reach of the tidal Alafia River. 


AJafia River Oyster Reefs June - July 2001 

i 

i 

: ... River Kilometers 

I .:. Continuous oyster reefs 

~ Isolated oyster reefs 

I 

0i'lli _5~_ ...... _. rja0 __.o.;0'~~_ 

" .---.;.1_ ...... 1 j 5 Kilometers 

Figure 111.24. Location and sizes of oyster reefs in the lower reach of the tidal Alafia River, June 

and July, 2001 

A1afia Ri ver Mollusk - Final Report -138- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

6 

Q 

:> 

tI 

Z 

s= 

0 

.~ 

~ 

~ 

;> 

~ 

....... 

~ 

S 

C'l 

...... 

0 

I 

~ 

cod 

,-.., 

cod 

...c: 

'-' 

cod 

Q) 

~ 

< 

~ 

Q) 

;> 

.~ 

~ 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

o 

o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 l3 14 15 16 17 


Figure 111.25. Surface area (hectares) oflow-intertidal river bottom (-0.1 2 m NGVD) as a function 

of distance from Hillsborough Bay. 

Alafia Ri ver Mollusk - Final Repon -1 39- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

250~-------------------------------------------------; 

0 

> 

d 

Z 

~ 

0 

.~ 

...... 

~ 

;> 

Q) 

~ 

~ 

S 

C'l 

,.....; 

0 

I 

...... 

~ 

,-..., 

~ 

...c:: 

'-" 

~ 

Q) 

$-0 

~ 

$-0 

Q) 

;> 

...... 

~ 

200 

150 

100 

50 

o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 

Ri ver Kilometer 

Figure III.26. Cumulative surface area (hectares) of low-intertidal river bottom (-0.12 m NGVD) 

as a function of distance from Bell Shoals. 


IV. LITERA TURE CITED 

Boler, R. Surface Water Quality 1999-2000, Hillsborough County Florida. Environmental Protection 

Commission of Hillsborough County. Tampa. 

Bulger, A.J., B.P. Hayden, M.G. McCormick-Ray, M.E. Monaco and D.M. Nelson. 1990. A 

proposed estuarine classification: analysis of species salinity ranges. ELMR Rept. No.5, 

NOSINOAA, Rockville, MD. 28 p. 

Cardinale, T., T. Ash and S. Cooper. 1999. Alafia River oyster bar restoration demonstration 

project final monitoring report. Tampa Bay Estuary Program Technical Report No. 01-99. 

Collard, SB and CN D'Asaro. 1973. Benthic invertebrates ofthe eastern Gulf of Mexico. A summary 

of knowledge of the eastern Gulf of Mexico. State University System of Florida, Institute 

of Oceanography. 

Cowell, B.C. 1997. Meiofauna and macrofauna in six headwater streams of the Alafia River, 

Florida. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Publication No. 03-101-130. 128 p. 

Corkum, L. D. 1990. Intrabiome distributional patterns of lotic macroinvertebrate assemblages. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47: 2147-2157. 

Corkum, L. D. 1991. Spatial patterns of macroinverebrate distributions along rivers in eastern 

deciduous forest and grassland biomes. Journal of the North American Benthological 

Society 10: 358-371. 

Cowell, B. C. and D. S. Vodopich. 1981. Distribution and abundance of benthic macroinvertebrates 

in a subtropical Florida lake. Hydrobiologia 78: 97-105. 

Culter, J. K. and E.D. Estevez. 2002. Peace River Benthic macroin vertebrate and mollusk indicators. 

Mote Technical Report No. 744, submitted to the Peace River Manasota Regional Water 

Supply Authority. 

Culter, J.K. 1996. Analysis of Benthic Invertebrate samples from the Caloosahatchee River, Florida. 

Mote Technical Report No. 466. Submitted to South Florida Water Management District. 55 

pp. 

Culter, J.K. and S. Mahadevan, S. 1982. Benthic studies of the lower Manatee River. Mote Marine 

Laboratory Technical Report to Manatee County Materials and Service Department. 46 pp, 

Appendix. 

A1afia River - Final Report -141- MOle Marine Laboratory - June 2003

Cunha, M.R, J.C. Sorbe, M.H. Moreira. 2000. The amphipod Corophium multisetosum 

(Corophiidae) in Ria de Aveiro (NW Portugal). I. Life history and aspects of reproductive 

biology. Marine Biology, Abstract Volume 137; Issue 4, pp 637-650. 

Elmore, J. L. 1983. Factors influencing Diaptomus distributions: An experimental study in 

subtropical Florida. Limnology and Oceanography 28: 522-532. 

Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County, Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Polk County 

Natural Resources, and US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Final damage assessment and 

restoration plan and environmental assessment for the December 7, 1997 Alafia River Spill. 

88 p. 

Estevez, E.D. and M.J. Marshall. 1993. Sebastian River Salinity Regime. Final report to St. Johns 

River Water Management District. MML Technical Report No. 308. 171 p. 

Estevez, E.D. and M.J. Marshall. 1994. Ecological hnpact of Freshwater Flow Variations in the 

Manatee River, part IT of Tampa Bay National Estuary Program Technical Publication 

#09-94. var. pag. 

Estevez, E.D. and M.J. Marshall. (in press). A landscape model assessing estuarine impacts of 

freshwater inflow alterations, in S.P. Treat (ed.), Proceedings, Tampa Bay Scientific 

Information Symposium 3. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, St. Petersburg, FL. 

Forbes, E. 1844. Report on the mollusca and radiata of the Agean Sea, and on their distribution, 

considered as bearing on geology. Report 13 th meeting, British Assoc. Adv. Science, 1843, 

pp. 130-193. 

Giovannelli, RP.. 1981. Relation between freshwater flow and salinity distribution in the Alafia 

River, Bullfrog Creek, and Hillsborough Bay, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 80-102, 62 p. 

Godcharles, M.P. and W.c. J aap. 1973. Exploratory clam survey of Florida nearshore and estuarine 

waters with commercial hydraulic dredging gear. Professional Paper, Florida Department of 

Natural Resources Marine Research Laboratory Vol. 21, 77 pp. 

Hall, E.R 200l. Natural organic matter in the sediments of two rivers in southwestern Florida. 

Thesis, Master of Science, University of Florida, Gainesville. 88 p. 

Heald, E. 1971. The production of organic detritus in a south Florida estuary. Univ. Miami Sea 

Grant Tech. Bull. 6. 110 p. 

Jones, N. 1950. Marine bottom communities. Biological Reviews 25. 

A1afia River· Final Repol1 -142- Mote Marine Laboratory· June 2003

Kalke, RD. and P.A. Montagna. 1991. The effects of freshwater inflow on macro-benthos in the 

Lavaca River delta and upper Lavaca Bay, Texas. Contrib. Marine Sciences 52: 49-71. 

Kaufman, Matthew I.. 1967. Hydrologic Effects of Ground-Water Pump age in the Peace and Alafia 

River basins, Rorida, 1934-1965. United States Geological Survey. Type of Work: Report. 

Kent,B.W. 1992. Making dead oysters talk: techniques for analyzing oysters from archaeological 

sites. Maryland Historical and Cultural Publications. White Plains 76 p. 

Little, E.J. and J.A. Quick, Jr. 1976. Ecology, resource rehabilitation, and fungal parasitology of 

commercial oysters, Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin), in Pensacola Estuary, Rorida. Rorida 

Marine Research Publication No. 21, FDNR 89 p. 

Livingston, RJ. 1981. Ecology of the Apalachicola Bay System (Northeast gulf of Mexico) An 

Estuarine Profile. Prepared for National Coastal Ecosystem Team, Slidell, Louisiana. 

Livingston, R.J. 1991. Chapter 16: Inshore marine habitats. In: Ecosystems of Florida. RL. Myers 

and J.J. Ewel, editors. University of Central Rorida Press, Orlando. 765 p. 

Livingston, RJ., RL. Howell, IV, X. Niu, EG. Lewis, ill and G.c. Woodsum. 1999. Recovery of 

oyster reefs (Crassostrea virginica) in a gulf estuary following disturbance by two 

hurricanes. Bulletin of Marine Science 64(3): 465-483. 

Loeb, S.L. and Spacie, A. editors. 1994. Biological Monitoring of Aquatic Systems. Lewis 

Publishers, Boca Raton, 381 p. 

Ludlow, M. E., and S. J. Walsh. 1991. Occurrence of a South American armored catfish in the 

Hillsborough River, Rorida. Florida Scientist 54(1): 48-50. 

Matthews, G. B., R A. Matthews and B. Hachrnoller. 1991. Mathematical analysis of temporal and 

spatial trends in the benthic macro invertebrate communities of a small stream. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48: 2184-2190. 

McMichael, RH. Jr. and K.M. Peters. 1989. Early life history of spotted seatrout Cynoscion 

nebulosus (Pisces: Sciaenidae), in Tampa Bay, Florida. Estuaries 12: 98-110. 

McMichael, R.H. Jr., K.M. Peters and G.R Parsons. 1989. Early life history of the snook, 

Centropomus undecimalis, in Tampa Bay, Florida. Northeast Gulf Science 10: 113-125. 

Meire, P. and M. Vincx, (eds). 1993. Marine and Estuarine Gradients. Netherlands Journal of 

Aquatic Ecology. 

Alafi a River - Final Report -143- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

Mote Marine Laboratory. 2001. Peace River Benthic Macroinvertebrate and Mollusk Indicators. 

Final Report to Peace RiverlManasota Regional Water Supply Authority. Mote Marine 

Laboratory Technical Report No. 744. Sarasota. 

Odum, W.E. 1971. Pathways of energy flow in a south Florida estuary. University of Miami Sea 

Grant Technical Bulletin 7. 162 p. 

Ortega, S. and J.P. Sutherland. 1992. Recruitment and growth of the eastern oyster, Crassostrea 

virginica, in North Carolina. Estuaries 15(2): 158-170. 

Page, L. M. 1994. Identification of sailfin catfishes introduced to Florida. Florida Scientist 57(4): 

171-172. 

Peebles, E.B. 1999. An assessment of the effects of freshwater inflows on fish and invertebrate 

habitat use in the manatee River, Braden River, Peace River, and Shell Creek estuaries; First 

contact period: April 1997 - June 1998; Volume 2: High-resolution event monitoring: 

Studies of inflow effects on spawning and growth of the bay anchovy. Report submitted to 

the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Brooksville, Florida. 80 p. Inflowabundance 

relationships for fishes and invertebrates in tidal inflow-abundance relationships 

for fishes and invertebrates in tidal rivers. 

Peters, K.M. and R.H. McMichael, Jr. 1987. Early life history of the red drum Sciaenops ocellatus 

(Pisces: Sciaenidae) in Tampa Bay, Florida. Estuaries 10: 92-107. 

Pritchard, D.W. 1967. What is an Estuary: a physical viewpoint. American Association for the 

Advancement of Science 83: 3-5. 

Redmond, M.S., P. A. Crocker, K. M. McKenna, E. A. Petrocelli, K. J. Scott, C. R. Demas. 1996. 

Sediment Toxicity Testing with the Amphipod Ampelisca abdita in Calcasieu Estuary, 

Louisiana. Arch. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 30: 53-61. 

Scanland, TB. 1966. A description ofthe community associated with two arcs, Arca zebra and Arca 

imbricata (Pelycopoda: Arciade) in the offshore northeastern Gulf of Mexico: MS Thesis, 

Florida State University, Tallahassee. 

Steele, R.G. and J.H. Torrie. Principals and Procedures of Statistics: A 'Biometrical Approach. 

McGraw-Hill Book Company, NY. 633 p. 

Stoker, Y.E., Levesque, V.A., and Woodham, W.M., in press, The effect of discharge and water 

quality of the Alafia River, Hillsborough River, and the Tampa Bypass Canal on nutrient 

loading to Hillsborough Bay, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 95-4107,68 p. 

Alafia River - Final Report -144- Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

ApPENDICES 

ApPENDIX A 

Bathymetry Data 

ApPENDIXB 

Sediment Parameters 

ApPENDIXC 

Benthic Habitat Maps 

ApPENDIXD 

Macroinfaunal Data 

ApPENDIXE 

Mollusk Data 

ApPENDIXF 

Oyster Salinity Requirements

ApPENDIX A 

BATHYMETRY DATA

:: F ::::: ::::: ::::: :: I KM-170 

::k: ::::: :::: ::::: :: I KM-16.8 

::~ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : I KM-16.6 

:: L '::: ::: I ~ KM-164 

.~ :l~ ' """"""'" I KM 1622 

~ -4 ~, 

i 

, "', " "I 

:l i¥=' ,,," " ""'" I KM 1602 

§ -4 l " " " " ""'" I 

1 :l y : : : : : : : : : : : : : : I KM 15.34 

~ 6;: ::,:::::::::::: I KM 15.21 

HiL .::::' ::::,:: : I KM 15.04 

:; E; ::,::,:::::::: I KM 14.89 

o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 

Distance in Meters from Left Bank (Facing Downstream) 

Appendix Figure A-I. 

Alafia cross-section profiles. 

Appendix A - Bathymetry Data A-I Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

f : :::: :::: ~1 ~;( : 0 : : 0 : 1 KM \4.71 

HS:: :::: :::: :::: :: 1 KM 14.62 

~1 E: 0 

=: 

1 

0 : : : : : 0 : : : : 

~ ~1 ~ : : : : : : : : : : : : : 1 

j ~1~: : : : : : : : 1 KM 

:; 2 ::: 1 

~ 0 : : 0 : : : : : : : : 

I ~1 

p o :: 0 

KM 14.37 

KM 14.23 

1402 

KM 13.83 

: : : : 0 : : : : : : 1 KM \3.67 

:;~ : : : : : : : : : : : : :1 KM\3.50 

~1 ~ : ~ : : : : : : : : : : : : 1 

:~ ts:2 : : : : : 

KM \329 

0 : : : : 1 KMI3.11 

o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 


Appendix Figure A-2. 

Alafia cross-section profiles continued. 

Appendix A - Bathymetry Data A-2 Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

:~~ . ' 

•••••••••••• 1 KM12.95 

:~ E;; • •• • • •• • 1 KM 12.90 

.~ ~ ' , •• ' , •• ' ••• 1 KM 12.79 

~ :~c ./2 •••••••••••• 1 

j .~~ .: •••.•••• 1 

~ :~ ~ ••••• 

KM12.61 

KM12.39 

' ••• ' • 1 KM 

I :!E;;••••••• :••••• 1 

:!E :::::= •• '•••• 1 

12.20 

KM12.00 

KMIL83 

:11::,•••••••• :•••••• : 1 KM-l1.50 

:::• :, ,•••••• 1 

:~ E :~ : KMI1.29 

o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 


Appendix Figure A -3. 



n:: : : : : : ~ : 1 KM 10.96 

~!~ •• :~ ::::::: 1 KM1O.77 

•: :::: :: ~CS2 : :1 KM1O.59 

~ :![ • 

:~ : 2 : : : : : I KM10.46 

i :! r= : ==: : • ~ . : : : 1 KM 10.36 

i :'2 •:: :':: 1 

~! CS KMlO.23 

I :!~::::: I 

H 

:!E .:::==== 1 

: ==: •• : 

•• : : : •: 

~ 

KM1003 

I 

KM9.89 

KM9.71 

:!C== •::•:=::: : 1 KM9.60 

o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 





:;E:: :::: :1 

KM 9.45 

~~ :I 

:!f::~ I 

~ :;1::::::::=:' I 

z 

j:!~:::::: ! 

KM 9.30 

KM 9.19 

KM 8.97 

KM 8.80 

~ :!C ~ : :-" • 

o 

I :!r : : : : : : : =:: I 

:!t= ' 

.:: I 

I 

:! L: ' ::::::,:~ 

:;C::~ ~ :: • 

o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 


KM 8.59 

KM 8.84 

KM 8.27 

KM 9.71 

KM 9.60 

Appendix Figure A-S. 



:::: ~1~ : I KM7.75 

B ::-: : ===== :::: I KM 7.62 

H : - '== : , == : : : I KM 7.75 

~ B:~: : := :-, : • ~ : : : I KM7.33 

j H : : : ~ ' : ' : : : : : : I KM 716 

E :::' :' ,::: = I ~ :1 KM 696 

I E: :::::::::: 

1 

:l --> 151m KM 681 

F :::::::: ~l n> 

l63m I 

KM 6.66 

H : , : : : : : : : :: : : I KM -6.50 

L ::::::::::' I ~1 KM 6.39 

o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 





~;~ 

• 

~ 

• 

~!~ 

:;~ : 

/ 

• • 

• • • 

~ 

, , 

: 

: : , I 

I 

KM 6.19 

KM 6.02 

KM 5.58 

~; f :~ 

• 

0 KM 5.71 

> 

Co:) 

: : I 

z 

.... 

0 

:!~ 

a) 

...... :> KM 5.66 

~ , 

: : i 

:!t -- 

-a) 

~ 

~ 

• 

...-.- 

S KM 5.57 

'-.-' 

c:: : , : I 

...... 0 

:;~ 

: -~ 

~ 

• 

:> 

-a) 

KM 5.41 

~ 

: I 

:;r--- 

- 

, 

• 

KM 5.21 

: I 

H~-- 

• • 

:---- 

: 

• • • 

• 

~ 

~ 

.~ • 

• • • 

:~ I 

KM 5.1 1 

:;f 

: 

: 

/ 

KM 4.74 

: I 

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 





:~ t = : : : : : : : : I KM 458 

:!~: •• ::: I KM206 

:! E: : : : : : : : : I KM 4.40 

:!E:: : : : : : : : I 

KM410 

::::::: ~ :~ r=:: I KM384 

i c: :::::::::: :! I 

KM -340 

~ :l~ ' •: : I KM3.18 

! :!~ : : : : : : I KM2.83 

:!~ : ::: : : I KM243 

:!~: : ~ I KML75 

o 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 


Appendix Figure A-S. 



lrs;z:: : : , , , I KM1.55 

lL:;Z , : : : : : I KM1.21 

0 

-2 

-4 

0 

> 

d 

Z 

..... 

0 

(l) 

...... 

(l) 

~ 

"......, 

S 

'-" 

I:: 

0 

....... :>- 

ro 

....... 

ro 

:>- 

...... 

(l) 

~ 

-6 

-8 

-10 

0 

-2 

-4 

KMO.94 

-6 KMO.50 

-8 

-10 

0 

-2 

-4 

-6 

-8 

KMO.29 

-10 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 





o 

0.5 Kilometers 

~~"'!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~~~~~1 

N 

A ~========~====~ 

II River Kilometer 

Depth (meters) 

/' / -1 

/V -2 

/V -3 

/\/-4 

/\/ -5 

/V -6 

/\/ -7 

/ -8 

\, -9 

/V -10 

/V -11 

Appendix Figure A-tO. 

Bathymetry contours for the lower Alafia River. Data expressed as 

depth related to NGVD29. 

Appendix A - Bathymetry Data A-tO Mote Ma rine Laboratory - June 2003

0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Kilometers 

~_ 

I 

KM7 

'--___ ---j 'i River Kilometer f----- 


-1 

/\/ -2 

/V -3 

/V -4 

/V -5 

/\/ -6 

1\ -7 

-8 

-9 

I\, -10 

/V -1 1 

----j 

N 

A 

100 0 100 Meters 

,-_ i 

Appendix Figure A-H. 

Bathymetry contours (continued)_ 

Appendix A - Bathymetry Data 

A-ll 


KM13 

II 


50 0 50 100 Meters 

~~§--~~~-~ 


'\ -1 

/\/-2 

/\/ -3 

/\/ -4 

/\/ -5 

/\/-6 

/\ -7 

-8 

-9 

/\/ -10 

/\1 -11 


Bathymetry contours (continued). 

Appendix A - Bathymetry Data A-12 


KMI2 

'i River Kilometer 


/\/ -1 

/\/ -2 

/\/ -3 

/\/ -4 

/\/ -5 

/\/ -6 

/\/ -7 

-8 

-9 

/\/ -10 

/\/ -11 


~~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiii 




A-13 Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

10 0 10 20 Meters 

~ 

~ River Kilometer 


/\1 -1 

/\/ -2 

/\/-3 

/\/ -4 

/\/ -5 

/\/ -6 

/\/ -7 

-8 

IV -9 

/\/ -10 

/\/ -11 

50 o 50 100 

- - - - 




A-14 


0.1 0 0.1 Kilometers 

~I ~~ __ ~~~~~i 

KM14 



-1 

/\/ -2 

/\/-3 

/\/ -4 

"\; -5 

/\/ -6 

I'v -7 

-8 

-9 

/ V -10 

/\/ -11 

Appendix Figure A-1S. 


Appendix A - Bathymetry Data A-IS Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

v. River Kilometer 


/\/ -1 

/\/ -2 

/\/ -3 

/\/-4 

/\/ -5 

/\/ -6 

/V -? 

-8 

-9 

/\/ -10 

/V -11 

KM1 6 


~~~~~ 



Appendix A - Bathymetry Data A-16 




/' v -1 

/\/ -2 

/\/ -3 

/\/ -4 

/\/ -5 

/\/ -6 

/\/ -7 

-8 

-9 

/\/ -10 

/\/ -11 


~~~~~ 



Appendix A - Bathymetry Data A-I7 Mote Ma rine Laboratory - June 2003

v: River Kilometer 


/V -1 

/V -2 

/V -3 

/V -4 

/V -5 

/V -6 

1\/-7 

-8 

-9 

/\/-10 

/\/ -11 

KMIS 


~1~~iiiiiiiiiii~~~~1 

Appendix Figure A-IS. 



A-I8 


ApPENDIXB 

SEDIMENT PARAMETERS 

Appendix B - Sediment Parameters B-ll Mote Marine Laboratory - April 2003


Sediment grain size statistics for May 2001 samples from the Alafia 

River. Terminology: HB=Hillsborough Bay, R=river, # = river kilometer 

(+ upstream from mouth), L, M, R = left, middle, and right side of river 

when facing downstream. 

Station 

Median Grain Mean Grain Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent 

(kilometer) Location Size (urn) Size (urn) Silt Sand Solids Moisture Clay Skewness Kurtosis 

HB (-5) 

HB (-5) 

HB (-5) 

HB (-5) 

HB (-5) 

HB (-5) 

HB (-5) 

HB (-3) 

HB (-3) 

HB (-3) 

HB (-3) 

HB (-3) 

HB (-3) 

HB (-3) 

Rl 

RI 

Rl 

Rl 

Rl 

Rl 

Rl 

R2 

R2 

R2 

R2 

R2 

R2 

R2 

R3 

R3 

R3 

R3 

R3 

R3 

R3 

R4 

R4 

R4 

R4 

R4 

R4 

Ll 

L2 

Ml 

M2 

M3 

Rl 

R2 

Ll 

L2 

Ml 

M2 

M3 

Rl 

R2 

Ll 

L2 

Ml 

M2 

M3 

RI 

R2 

Ll 

L2 

Ml 

M2 

M3 

Rl 

R2 

Ll 

L2 

Ml 

M2 

M3 

Rl 

R2 

Ll 

L2 

Ml 

M2 

M3 

Rl 

175.2 

119.8 

81.45 

21.51 

60.03 

40.01 

61.25 

181.6 

140.4 

162.8 

45.08 

168.3 

157.1 

158.9 

188.3 

218.6 

64.76 

17.18 

39.07 

21.64 

30.48 

170.5 

200.4 

320.1 

182.8 

197.1 

36.11 

225.4 

164.1 

99.48 

138.6 

212.1 

95.97 

140.7 

82.37 

65.38 

131 .8 

104.5 

36.62 

155.6 

106.2 

148.6 

92.7 

50.5 

22.9 

39.4 

31.0 

42.5 

150.8 

109.0 

125.5 

43.1 

128.0 

112.4 

113.4 

144.2 

168.1 

49.5 

21.4 

51.6 

33.4 

48.5 

117.5 

150.2 

243.9 

130.5 

137.4 

33 .6 

167.3 

114.1 

71.3 

110.2 

140.3 

74.5 

86.5 

53.7 

58.6 

94.1 

76.5 

39.0 

108.0 

79.0 

11.1 

22.8 

36.4 

65.5 

44.3 

52.1 

44.5 

5.2 

13.0 

11.7 

48.8 

9.7 

13.4 

13.4 

9.6 

7.7 

41.8 

66.5 

50.1 

58.8 

50.5 

12.0 

7.2 

5.7 

10.5 

13.2 

50.7 

9.2 

16.7 

34.8 

28.2 

15.3 

36. 1 

25.4 

38.0 

43.7 

31.0 

35.0 

51.0 

29.1 

33.5 

86.1 

72.2 

58.0 

25.6 

49.0 

40.0 

49.5 

92.9 

83.3 

84.8 

44.3 

87.5 

83.2 

82.5 

87.4 

89.6 

50.5 

23.1 

43.4 

32.2 

41.4 

83.4 

89.3 

92.3 

86.3 

83.9 

40.9 

88.3 

79.6 

58.6 

67.4 

80.8 

57.6 

69.9 

56.7 

50.8 

64.3 

60.3 

41.3 

66.7 

62.5 

71.2 

61.1 

47.3 

25.1 

42.1 

39.3 

37.2 

77.5 

70.0 

74.7 

35.1 

68.6 

76.1 

70.0 

70.9 

73.1 

34.8 

21.1 

21.0 

21.5 

20.6 

67.0 

71.7 

74.1 

72.7 

67.8 

38.4 

72.6 

68.4 

29.3 

34.3 

66.1 

32.4 

52.1 

39.7 

23.4 

28.5 

24.4 

24.5 

22.4 

34.3 

28.8 

38.9 

52.7 

74.9 

57.9 

60.7 

62.8 

22.5 

30.0 

25.3 

64.9 

31.4 

23.9 

30.0 

29.1 

26.9 

65.2 

78.9 

79.0 

78.5 

79.4 

33.0 

28.3 

25.9 

27.3 

32.2 

61.6 

27.4 

31.6 

70.7 

65 .7 

33.9 

67.6 

47.9 

60.3 

76.6 

71.5 

75.6 

75.5 

77.6 

65.7 

2.9 

5.0 

5.6 

8.9 

6.7 

8.0 

6.0 

1.9 

3.8 

3.6 

6.9 

2.7 

3.4 

4.1 

2.9 

2.6 

7.7 

10.5 

6.5 

9.0 

8.0 

4.6 

3.4 

2.0 

3.3 

2.9 

8.4 

2.5 

3.8 

6.7 

4.3 

3.8 

6.3 

4.7 

5.3 

5.5 

4.7 

4.6 

7.7 

4.2 

4.0 

-1.3 

-0.6 

-0.9 

-0.1 

-0.7 

-0.5 

-0.6 

-3.1 

-1.5 

-1.5 

-0.1 

-2.3 

-1.7 

-1.6 

-1.9 

-2.2 

-0.3 

0.4 

0.1 

0.5 

0.2 

-1.7 

-2.5 

-2.5 

-2.1 

-1.7 

-0.2 

-2.1 

-1.3 

-0.4 

-0.5 

-1.3 

-0.2 

-0.8 

-0.6 

-0.1 

-0.5 

-0.5 

0.0 

-0.6 

-0.5 

2.6 

0.3 

0.1 

-0.4 

-0.3 

-0.5 

-0.4 

10.9 

2.7 

2.8 

-0.7 

5.5 

2.7 

2.4 

4.0 

5.5 

-0.9 

-0.1 

-1.l 

-0.6 

-1.2 

2.8 

6.2 

7.0 

3.9 

2.6 

-0.7 

4.4 

1.4 

-0.8 

-0.6 

1.2 

-0.8 

0.1 

-0.2 

-0.7 

-0.7 

-0.5 

-0.8 

-0.6 

-0.3 

Appendix B - Sediment Parameters 

B-1 


Appendix Table B-1 (continued). 

Station 


(kilometer} Location Size (!!:!!!l Size (!!:!!!} Silt Sand Solids Moisture Clal: Skewness Kurtosis 

R4 R2 121.6 80.9 22.5 71.5 56.4 43.6 6.0 -1.0 0.6 

R5 Ll 93.1 51.9 38.2 56.1 53.6 46.4 5.7 -0.7 -0.6 

R5 L2 151.3 126.0 11.2 85.8 70.0 30.0 3.0 -1.4 3.0 

R5 Ml 150.2 83.6 25.0 69.8 70.0 30.0 5.2 -1.1 0.1 

R5 M2 112.5 58.6 27.4 66.6 58.6 41.4 6.1 -1.1 0.2 

R5 M3 98.0 67.6 36.4 57.6 40.3 59.7 6.1 -0.4 -0.7 

R5 Rl 388.6 261.8 11.0 86.9 68.2 31.8 2.1 -1.7 2.5 

R5 R2 264.0 188.9 10.7 86.8 72.6 27.4 2.4 -1.8 3.1 

R6 Ll 167.3 131.3 12.3 84.1 67.0 33.0 3.5 -1.3 2.4 

R6 L2 156.7 132.1 10.4 87.0 70.6 29.4 2.6 -1.5 3.9 

R6 Ml 116.2 78.7 27.9 67.2 53.4 46.6 4.9 -0.4 0.0 

R6 M2 135.3 118.3 17.7 78.9 57.9 42.1 3.4 -0.6 0.6 

R6 M3 27.2 28.8 62.9 30.4 17.6 82.4 6.7 -0.1 -0.2 

R6 Rl 362.5 279.5 17.3 80.0 51.8 48.2 2.7 -0.8 -0.2 

R6 R2 195.1 200.1 7.9 89.8 67.6 32.4 2.3 -1.0 2.5 

R7 Ll 200.7 190.6 6.4 92.4 64.1 35.9 1.2 -1.4 6.1 

R7 L2 207.5 176.5 11.3 86.8 57.4 42.6 1.9 -1.4 3.3 

R7 Ml 124.9 95.3 22.5 74.8 53.8 46.2 2.7 -0.8 1.1 

R7 M2 47.0 41.3 49.8 44.9 40.9 59.1 5.4 -0.4 -0.3 

R7 M3 90.1 82.4 40.5 55.9 45.5 54.5 3.7 -0.3 -0.7 

R7 Rl 152.0 136.6 12.0 85.9 63.2 36.8 2.1 -1.1 2.6 

R7 R2 229.5 160.1 13.9 82.6 60.4 39.6 3.6 -1.5 1.9 

R8 Ll 580.2 574.9 1.0 98.6 84.3 15.7 0.4 -3.0 19.4 

R8 L2 411.8 351.0 2.3 97.3 79.4 20.6 0.5 -2.6 11.1 

R8 Ml 32.5 37.1 49.8 40.8 43.4 56.6 9.4 -0.1 -0.9 

R8 M2 16.2 14.5 87.1 3.3 16.0 84.0 9.6 -0.7 0.5 

R8 M3 47.3 53.2 49.4 45.5 39.3 60.7 5.1 0.2 -0.3 

R8 R1 142.7 131.6 10.4 87.9 61.2 38.8 1.7 -1.1 3.6 

R8 R2 166.1 177.5 11.5 86.7 61.5 38.5 1.8 -0.5 1.4 

R9 Ll 277.6 297.6 10.3 88.5 65.5 34.5 1.2 -0.7 0.9 

R9 L2 218.5 225.8 10.0 88.4 54.9 45.1 1.7 -1.0 1.6 

R9 Ml 74.1 61.3 42.5 53.0 39.4 60.6 4.5 -0.3 -0.5 

R9 M2 38.6 41.3 56.6 38.8 26.7 73.3 4.6 -0.1 -0.2 

R9 M3 27.5 25.7 70.3 23.9 22.9 77.1 5.8 -0.6 0.3 

R9 Rl 142.5 129.6 23.8 74.3 28.4 71.6 1.9 -0.5 0.2 

R9 R2 125.3 123.5 30.7 67.4 30.6 69.4 1.9 -0.1 -0.2 

RIO Ll 313.7 310.9 3.3 96.1 62.5 37.5 0.6 -1.2 4.8 

RIO L2 220.0 201 .1 8.6 90.5 60.2 39.8 0.9 -1.3 3.8 

RIO Ml 460.0 331.9 8.4 90.6 71.7 28.3 1.1 -1.8 3.8 

RIO M2 36.2 37.7 57.7 37.4 34.8 65.2 4.9 -0.1 0.1 

RIO M3 68.5 61.7 44.8 51.6 41.2 58.8 3.6 -0.3 -0.5 

RIO R1 177.9 182.7 8.8 90.3 59.8 40.2 0.8 -0.7 2.8 

R11 Ll 215.8 177.0 9.6 89.0 72.8 27.2 1.4 -1.7 4.3 

R11 L2 257.3 221.4 8.6 90.4 67.5 32.5 1.0 -1.4 3.6 

R11 Ml 79.9 77.5 41.4 53.5 42.2 57.8 5.0 -0.3 -1.0 

R11 M2 123.9 88.5 38.5 57.9 52.4 47.6 3.6 -0.5 -0.8 

R11 M3 40.8 48.9 56.1 40.1 40.4 59.6 3.7 -0.1 -0.5 

R4 R2 121.6 80.9 22.5 71.5 56.4 43.6 6.0 -1.0 0.6 

R11 Rl 190.2 165.1 14.2 84.1 47.3 52.7 1.7 -0.9 1.7 

RIO R2 182.1 174.4 8.9 90.2 64.4 35.6 0.8 -1.0 3.8 

Appendix B - Sediment Parameters B-2 Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003


Station 

(kilometer) Location 


Size (um) Size (11m) Silt Sand Solids Moisture Clay 

Skewness Kurtosis 

Rll 

R12 

R12 

R12 

R12 

RI2 

RI2 

R12 

RI3 

RI3 

RI 3 

R1 3 

RI 3 

RI 3 

R1 3 

R14 

RI4 

R14 

RI4 

R14 

RI4 

R14 

R15 

RI5 

R15 

RI5 

R15 

R15 

R15 

R2 

Ll 

L2 

MI 

M2 

M3 

RI 

R2 

Ll 

L2 

Ml 

M2 

M3 

Rl 

R2 

Ll 

L2 

MI 

M2 

M3 

Rl 

R2 

Ll 

L2 

Ml 

M2 

M3 

Rl 

R2 

151 .2 

151.0 

319.5 

110.4 

40.9 

78.1 

219.1 

199.6 

194.3 

181.2 

246.1 

116.8 

80.3 

57.7 

845.2 

167.6 

167.2 

444.5 

484.2 

443.3 

53.0 

68.8 

524.7 

236.8 

249.5 

93.1 

23.0 

382.9 

75.4 

127.2 

118.1 

312.4 

83.2 

41.2 

62.0 

186.4 

172.6 

197.1 

166.7 

149.9 

91.9 

72.8 

62.0 

532.7 

152.0 

161.3 

306.6 

451.7 

277.5 

51.7 

61.7 

513.6 

209.4 

220.4 

99.4 

20.5 

277.8 

102.7 

27.1 

28.4 

6.3 

27.8 

55.2 

41.5 

7.0 

6.7 

8.8 

5.4 

20.5 

35.5 

42.6 

47.7 

9.8 

10.3 

10.0 

9.1 

1.7 

13.1 

50.1 

44.9 

1.0 

3.6 

4.4 

39.4 

70.0 

9.2 

43.6 

70.9 

69.1 

92.4 

69.1 

40.2 

55.2 

92.2 

92.3 

90.0 

93.5 

78.1 

61.4 

54.6 

48.5 

88.9 

87.6 

88.6 

89.7 

98.1 

85.8 

45.9 

52.4 

98.8 

95.9 

94.7 

57.9 

20.7 

90.0 

53.6 

46.1 

48.2 

65.0 

59.9 

26.8 

41.4 

68.0 

70.4 

68.7 

70.7 

56.3 

40.7 

27.3 

28.6 

53 .9 

67.3 

67.2 

78.8 

79.7 

67.5 

22.7 

26.0 

79.7 

74.0 

91.7 

15.6 

23.5 

70.2 

14.4 

53.9 

51.8 

35.0 

40.1 

73 .2 

58.6 

32.0 

29.6 

31.3 

29.3 

43.7 

59.3 

72.7 

71.4 

46.1 

32.7 

32.8 

21.2 

20.3 

32.5 

77.3 

74.0 

20.3 

26.0 

8.3 

84.4 

76.5 

29.8 

85.6 

2.1 

2.5 

1.3 

3. 1 

4.7 

3.2 

0.9 

1.0 

1.2 

1.1 

1.3 

3.0 

2.8 

3.9 

1.3 

2.1 

1.4 

1.2 

0.2 

1.1 

4.0 

2.7 

0.2 

0.6 

0.9 

2.7 

9.3 

0.8 

2.7 

-0.4 

-0.5 

-1.2 

-0.8 

-0.3 

-0.3 

-2.3 

-2.4 

-0.8 

-2.1 

-1.4 

-0.4 

-0.4 

0.0 

-1.3 

-1.3 

-1.0 

-2.3 

-3 .3 

-1.6 

-0.1 

-0.3 

-3.8 

-3.2 

-2.4 

-0.1 

-0.7 

-2.3 

0.1 

0.0 

-0.1 

3.0 

0.8 

-0.2 

0.2 

7.0 

8.0 

2.6 

9.1 

1.4 

-0.3 

-0.4 

-0.5 

1.5 

3.4 

3.1 

4.9 

18.8 

2.3 

0.0 

0.1 

28.1 

14.5 

9.8 

-0.7 

0.0 

5.2 

-1.0 



Sediment grain size statistics for December 2000) samples from the Little 

Manatee River. Terminology: Bay=Tampa Bay, R=river, #=river 

kilometer (+ upstream from mouth), L, M, R = left, middle, and right 

side of river when facing downstream. 

Station Location Median Grain Mean Grain Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent 

(kilometer) (LIMIR) Size (um) Size (um) Silt Sand Solids Moisture Clay Skewness Kurtosis 

Bay L 127.3 90.9 2 1.3 75.6 61.8 38.2 3.1 -l.11 1.33 

Bay M 174.7 134.9 9.1 89.0 73.4 26.6 1.9 -2.50 6.55 

RO L 169.3 127.4 12.4 84.4 67.7 32.3 3.2 -1 .57 2.75 

RO M 241.3 244.7 3.6 95.4 75.8 24.2 1.0 -1.58 6.78 

RO R 160.0 132.2 LO.O 87 .6 68.1 31.9 2.4 -1.82 4.16 

R1 L 141.7 115.1 9.7 86.8 70.5 29.5 3.5 -1.72 3.96 

Rl M 187.6 164.6 5.3 92.7 75.3 24.7 2.0 -2.50 8.48 

R1 R l73.4 120.9 19.0 77.8 37.5 62.5 3.2 -1.13 0.79 

R3 M 189.9 177.4 3.4 95 .0 76.8 23.2 1.6 -2.82 12.00 

R3 M 183.0 160.6 5.3 92.8 76.4 23 .6 1.9 -2.52 8.69 

R3 R 177.9 167.9 2.3 96.5 76.5 23.5 1.2 -3.54 19.70 

R5 L 319.9 271.4 4.5 94.2 77.6 22.4 1.2 -2.57 8.52 

R5 M 348.1 308.2 3.1 95.9 78.0 22.0 1.0 -2.86 11.70 

R5 M 163.9 133.4 6.7 9l.1 75.0 25 .0 2.1 -2.73 8.15 

R7 L 166.3 104.5 l7.9 78.5 71.0 29.0 3.6 -1.45 1.52 

R7 M 272.7 244.3 2.9 95 .9 75.1 24.9 1.3 -2.92 12.50 

R7 R 191.8 158.3 11.0 87.4 70.2 29.8 1.6 -1.54 3.72 

R9 M 299.6 218.8 11.1 86.5 69.5 30.5 2.5 -1.51 2.41 

R9 R 294.8 207.1 8.9 88 .8 73.1 26.9 2.3 -2.15 4.5 1 

R11 M 126.2 77.5 33.0 63.7 52.6 47.4 3.3 -0.75 0.29 

Rl1 R 152.2 156.5 13.4 84.4 58.9 4l.1 2.2 -0.69 l.14 

Rll R2 168.8 107.1 21.8 73.7 63.9 36.1 4.5 -1.02 0.35 

R13 M 300.5 264.3 4.1 94.9 76.1 23 .9 1.0 -2.71 10.40 

R13 R 193.5 184.3 9.1 89.2 67.6 32.4 1.7 -1.16 3.03 

R13 R 81.6 61.7 40.8 54.6 46.7 53.3 4.5 -0.46 -0.42 

R15 L 429.8 400.2 1.9 97.9 80.0 20.0 0.2 -4.26 26.00 

R15 R 361.5 337.0 2.0 97.6 78.7 21.3 0.4 -3.41 19.00 

R15 M 302.1 283.6 2.1 97.5 77.3 22.7 0.4 -3.14 l7.80 

Rl7 M 450.6 463.3 0.7 99.3 84.0 16.0 0.0 -1.14 11.60 

Rl7 R 141.6 125.5 31.2 65 .7 15.7 84.3 3.1 -0.41 -0.53 

Rl8 L 238.9 165.0 25 .0 72.6 42.9 57.1 2.3 -0.68 -0.07 

R18 R 349.2 346.7 0.0 100.0 78.9 2l.1 0.0 -0.04 0.86 



Sediment characteristics of coarse material (>0.5 mm) from Alafia River 

benthic samples from May 1999. 

Database of sediment characteristics from benthic fauna samples. 

Parameter 

Km 

1 

2 

4 

5 

6 

9 

10 

Mean 

S.D. 

% Moisture 

% Moisture 

% Moisture 

% Moisture 

% Moisture 

% Moisture 

% Moisture 

% Moisture 

% Moisture 

% Moisture 

% Moisture 

% Moisture 

% Moisture 

% Moisture 

% Moisture 

% Moisture 

% Moisture 

-5 

-3 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

31.8 

93.5 

83.9 

54.2 

89.9 

53.3 

57.6 

25.2 

91.7 

27.8 

21.7 

29.9 

84.0 

88.9 

90.4 

66.3 

57.2 

84.5 

86.4 

80.7 

70.8 

64.7 

83.4 

92.5 

31.5 

38.8 

90.0 

84.9 

92.1 

77.1 

55 .1 

76.9 

76.9 

60.8 

70.4 

68.3 

46.3 

83 .5 

91.3 

37.0 

45.4 

93.0 

26.0 

89.6 

58.4 

98.7 

66.1 

47.5 

77.3 

82.0 

76.3 

45.7 

56.9 

69.7 

57.9 

91.9 

90.0 

91.0 

25.5 

89.1 

93.1 

99.2 

98.9 

69.9 

51.1 

86.2 

78.6 

83.9 

88.1 

90.2 

79.6 

83.5 

51.4 

33.4 

89.0 

29.4 

94.4 

91.8 

90.7 

63.0 

50.5 

37.2 

72.8 

43.5 

92.1 

74.2 

38.4 

50.3 

86.7 

30.1 

89.4 

94.7 

26.3 

24.5 

93 .0 

71.9 

44.7 

34.0 

38.1 

67.5 

87.6 

83.0 

91.8 

88.9 

38.2 

9l.2 

89.0 

42.2 

89.6 

90.5 

94.0 

77.3 17.1 

76.5 23.4 

50.5 17.6 

54.2 19.0 

78.4 6.9 

72.7 17.0 

8l.0 10.4 

70.6 16.8 

66.4 18.4 

56.1 21.9 

83 .9 12.1 

59.0 30.7 

50.4 27.6 

75.7 26.4 

57.2 33.2 

68.9 33.9 

92.0 l.6 

% Organic 

% Organic 

% Organic 

% Organic 

% Organic 

% Organic 

% Organic 

% Organic 

% Organic 

% Organic 

% Organic 

% Organic 

% Organic 

% Organic 

% Organic 

% Organic 

% Organic 

-5 

-3 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

146.1 

46.5 

24.3 

5.7 

19.8 

4.9 

10.7 

0.6 

72.7 

2.0 

0.5 

4.4 

19.8 

59.5 

48.2 

2.3 

3.0 

10.7 

15.5 

16.9 

8.5 

12.4 

21.9 

67.0 

2.6 

8.4 

72.5 

24.7 

65 .9 

3.7 

3.8 

11.7 

9.5 

5.1 

5.7 

10.9 

3.2 

27.7 

66.3 

1.8 

5.1 

65 .1 

0.7 

45.2 

3.4 

7.1 

4.4 

2.8 

18.1 

12.2 

22.2 

4.0 

5.6 

12.9 

13.7 

66.0 

63.2 

63.1 

1.4 

64.9 

78.9 

52.7 

55.4 

10.2 

4.2 

54.4 

39.7 

20.6 

35.0 

71.5 

27.1 

72.0 

3.2 

3.6 

67.4 

1.7 

80.0 

57 .3 

16.1 

l.5 

3.9 

l.7 

8.7 

4.1 

36.7 

16.8 

3.6 

5.7 

62.8 

2.4 

48.1 

64.6 

1.1 

0.6 

60.2 

3.8 

0.8 

1.7 

2.4 

7.7 

22.7 

12.4 

30.8 

52.6 

4.8 

76.4 

63.2 

9.6 

66.9 

79.3 

68.5 

15.7 21.5 

13.7 23.4 

33.3 63.2 

9.2 16.5 

19.4 16.5 

15.6 12.3 

19.1 9.7 

15 .1 12.9 

23.9 26.8 

10.9 10.1 

56.0 24.9 

29.4 33.5 

19.3 25.4 

49.1 30.5 

19.0 24.9 

47 .5 37.2 

60.6 11.7 

% Solids 

% Solids 

% Solids 

% Solids 

% Solids 

-5 

-3 

2 

3 

68.2 

6.5 

16.1 

33.7 

42.8 

15.5 

22.9 

44.9 

23 .1 

4l.6 

1.3 

33.9 

52.5 

22.7 

0.8 

1.1 

30.1 

48.9 

13.8 

9.3 

37.0 

49.5 

62.8 

27.2 

28.1 

55.3 

66.0 

61.9 

32.5 

22.7 17.1 

23.5 23.4 

49.5 17.6 

45 .8 19.0 

2l.6 6.9 


B-5 

Male Marine Laboratory - June 2003


Database of sediment characteristics from benthic fauna samples. 

Parameter Km 1 2 4 5 6 9 10 Mean S.D. 

% Solids 4 45.8 13.6 23.1 18.0 21.4 56.5 12.4 27 .3 17.0 

% Solids 5 10.1 19.3 39.2 23 .7 16.1 7.9 17.0 19.0 10.4 

% Solids 6 46.7 29.2 29.6 54.3 11.9 25 .8 8.2 29.4 16.8 

% Solids 7 42.4 35.3 31.7 43.1 9.8 61.6 11.1 33.6 18.4 

% Solids 8 74.8 16.6 53.7 30.3 20.4 49.7 61.8 43.9 21.9 

% Solids 9 8.3 7.5 16.5 42.1 16.5 13.3 8.8 16.1 12.1 

% Solids 10 72.2 68.5 8.7 8.1 48.6 69.9 11.0 41.0 30.7 

% Solids 11 78.3 61.2 63.0 10.0 66.6 10.6 57.8 49.6 27.6 

% Solids 12 70.1 10.0 54.6 9.0 11.0 5.3 10.4 24.3 26.4 

% Solids 13 16.0 15.1 7.0 74.5 70.6 73.7 42.8 33.2 

% Solids 14 11.1 74.0 10.9 5.6 75.5 9.5 31.1 33.9 

% Solids 15 9.6 7.9 10.4 6.9 8.2 7.0 6.0 8.0 1.6 

SumInorg -5 87.6 82.6 13.0 46.5 80.8 62.1 31.9 

SumInorg -3 81.3 68.6 11 .8 91.6 95.4 69.7 34.0 

SumInorg 1 -5.6 78.4 59.5 80.4 90.6 60.7 38.7 

SumInorg 2 16.1 84.4 80.8 85 .3 79.2 90.6 87.1 74.8 26.2 

SumInorg 3 34.2 58.2 55.7 43.0 12.3 63.6 66.6 47.7 19.4 

SumInorg 4 73.4 47.6 61.4 54.5 20.2 79.6 36.2 53.3 20.7 

SumInorg 5 40.3 45.0 75.6 36.9 39.1 22.3 54.1 44.8 16.6 

SumInorg 6 76.4 64.2 73.4 80.0 23.6 45.2 27.2 55.7 23.6 

SumInorg 7 58.2 54.1 57.7 73.8 6.2 81.7 13.1 49.2 28.8 

SumInorg 8 96.5 37.3 83.5 53.0 31.0 73.4 76.8 64.5 24.5 

SumInorg 9 5.9 7.6 30.3 5 1.2 6.1 9.0 4.9 16.4 17.7 

SumInorg 10 89.1 86.2 7.8 7.9 83.5 87.1 8.9 52.9 41.9 

SumInorg 11 97.1 64.5 90.1 8.9 81.7 15.2 61.1 59.8 35.1 

SumInorg 12 78.4 6.0 75.6 8.9 7.5 8.4 7.6 27.5 33.9 

SumInorg 13 40.3 33.7 8.2 92.2 90.6 93 .7 59.8 37.1 

SumInorg 14 10.2 95 .9 8.3 4.0 96.5 4.2 36.5 46.3 

SumInorg 15 15.2 7.9 16.8 4.3 11.1 9.9 7.1 10.3 4.5 


L-__ ~L~e~f~t~B~a~n~k~ ____ ~1 LI 

______ ~M~a~i~n_R_l_·v~e_r~C~h~a~n_n~e_I ______ ~ Right Bank 

2000.0 

141 0 .0 

II) 1000.0 

710.0 

500.0 

350.0 

::c = 250.0 

177.0 

125.0 

e- 88.0 

62.5 

2; 44.0 

31.0 

L-____ L~e~ft~B~a~n~k ______ _"1 LI 

______ ~M~a~in~R~i~v~e~r~C~h~a~n~n~e~I~ ____ ~ Ri ght Bank 

2000 .0 

1410 .0 

1000.0 

710 .0 

500 .0 

350 .0 

~ 250.0 

177 .0 

125.0 

88 .0 

E 62 .5 

44.0 

~ 3 1.0 

0) 22 .1 

N , 5 .6 

1 1 .0 

Ci3 7 .• 

5 .5 

0) 

3 .• 

U 2 .• 

2.0 

't 1.4 

ell 1.0 

0- 0 .7 

0.5 

0 .0 

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 

10 

20 30 0 10 20 30 o 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 

2000.0 

1410.0 

1000 .0 

7 10.0 

500 .0 

350.0 

~ 250 .0 

177 .0 

125.0 

8S .0 

E 62 .5 

44 .0 

~ 31 .0 

0) 22 .1 

N 15.6 

11 .0 

Ci3 7 .• 

5 .5 

0) 

3 .• 

U 

't 

2 .• 

2 .0 

1 .. 

ell 1 .0 

0- 0 .7 

0 .5 

0 .0 

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 

10 

20 30 0 10 20 30 o 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 

2000 .0 

1410.0 

'

L-____ L~e~f~t _B~a~n~k~ ____ _"1 LI 

______ ~M~a~i~n~R~iv~e~r ~C~h~a~n~n~e~I ______ ~1 LI 

____ ~R~i g~h~t~B~a~n~k~ __ ~ 

2000 .0 

1410.0 

1000 .0 

710 .0 

500 .0 

350.0 

~ 250 .0 

177 .0 

125 .0 

88 .0 

E 62 .5 

44 .0 

~ 31 .0 

0) 22 .1 

N 15.6 

11 .0 

C;; 

7 ." 

5 .5 

0) 

3 .9 

U 2 ." 

°E 

2 .0 

1.4 

OJ 1.0 

0... 0 .7 

0.5 

0 .0 

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 

10 

20 30 0 10 20 30 o 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 

2000.0 

1410.0 

1000.0 

7 10 ,0 

500.0 

350 .0 

~ 250 .0 

177 .0 

125.0 

88 .0 

E 62 .5 

44 .0 

~ 31 .0 

0) 22 .1 

N 1 5 .6 

11.0 

C;; 7 ." 

5.5 

0) 

3.9 

U ." 

.t: 

2 .0 

1.4 

OJ 1.0 

0... 0 .7 

0.5 

0.0 

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 

10 

20 30 0 10 20 30 o 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 

20 00 .0 

141 0 .0 

1000.0 

71 0 .0 

500 .0 

3 50 .0 

~ 250.0 

, 77 .0 

125.0 

88 .0 

E 62 .5 

44 .0 

~ 31.0 

0) 22 .1 

N 15.6 

11 .0 

C;; 

7 ." 

5 .5 

0) 

3 .9 

U 2 ." 

.t: 

2.0 

1.4 

OJ 1 .0 

0... 0 .7 

0. 5 

0 .0 

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 

10 20 30 0 10 20 30 o 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 

Individ ual Vo lu me Percent 

Appendix Figure B-1 (continued). 


B-9 Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

Left Bank I I M ain River Channel Right Bank 

2000.0 

1410.0 

op 1000.0 

710.0 

500.0 

350.0 

~ 250.0 

177.0 

125.0 

88.0 

E 62.S 

44 .0 

C 31.0 

Q) 22.1 

N 15.8 

11 .0 

en 7 .• 

5 .5 

Q) 

3 .• 

U 

'€ 

2 .• 

2 .0 

1 .• 

t

2000 .0 

.... 1410 .0 

.... 1000 .0 

710.0 

500 .0 

350 .0 

~ 

~ 

E 

2: 

250 .0 

177.0 

125.0 

88.0 

62 .5 

44 .0 

31 .0 

22 .1 

Main River Chann el 

Right Bank 

2000 .0 

.". 1410,0 

.... 1000.0 

710.0 

500.0 

350.0 

2 50 .0 

~ 177.0 

125 .0 

88.0 

E 62.5 

44 .0 

~ 

3 1.0 

22 .1 

Q) 15 .6 

N 11 .0 

iZi 

7 .• 

5 .5 

Q) 3 .• 

2 .• 

U 2 .0 

"E '. 

1.0 

0 .7 

0... '" 0 .5 

0 .0 

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 

10 

20 30 0 10 20 30 o 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 

2000.0 

I/) 1410.0 

.... 1000.0 

710 .0 

500 .0 

350 .0 

250 .0 

~ 177.0 

125.0 

88.0 

E 62.5 

44 .0 

~ 

31 .0 

22. 1 

Q) 15.6 

N 11.0 

iZi 

7 .• 

5 .5 

Q) 3 .• 

U 

2 .• 

2 .0 

"E 

1.. 

1.0 

0 .7 

0... '" 0 .5 

0 .0 

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 

10 

20 30 0 10 20 30 o 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 

Individual Volume Percent 



B-12 Mote Ma rine Laboratory - June 2003

LI ________ 

L-____ L __ ef_t_B_a_n_k ______-" 

M_a~i_n_R __ iv~e_r_C~h_a~n_n~e_l ______ ~1 LI 

_____ R~ig~h~t_B~a~n_k ____ ~ 

2000.0 

1410.0 

l£) 1000.0 

710 .0 

500 .0 

350.0 

250 .0 

== 177.0 

"" 125.0 

E 88 .0 

62 .5 

..=, 44.0 

3 1.0 

400 

500 , I 

n~ L_-__ -_--=-=-_ .. -L----'-"------'-'"---_ -"-'------J H B-5 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

n~oo 

o 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

o 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R 1 R2 

.L..-___- _ ---"- - _ _- _ ---"- - _ --"'- ___-=----.!I K M -I 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R 1 R2 

L_-_--= __-__-__-----'___-"-'------JI K M -, 

L 

400 

500 • I 

n~ L_-__ -___- _ ---'-"-_ -___-__-..---J H B-3 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

400 

500 1 I 

10g L_-__ -_____-__-__.. 

-'--_..---J. 

~gg - _ KM-2 

m 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

I _ I K M -, 

- - - . 1 0 g L....::: -__-___- _ ---'-'--_ -___-__ 

,=L.:.1_-=L:..:2=--_Mc.:...:1_ccM.:..:2=----=M.:.:....o3_c.R'--1'--------=R-=- 2--, L 1 L2 M 1 M 2 M 3 R 1 R 2 

--= 

• 

______ 

• • 

-=-____ 

•• I , 10g L_-__ -___-__-_-----'-'"--____ 

..---J. 

~gg I I 

-__ ----' K M -5 ~g g - _ K M -6 

L 1 L2 M 1 M 2 M 3 R 1 R 2 L 1 L2 M 1 M 2 M 3 R 1 R 2 

I K M - 8 

~ g g Ir-'~-=--=-'--.-=:.:-=----"=-'-'-'--=:,I !~ ogo gog I· 

~ g~ .L.._-__ 

- _ 

-___-_ 

--"-'-_ -___-__----' 

K M -7 _ _ _ _ _ . 

,=L -'- 1 _-=L:..:2=----'M~1_-"M.:..:2=---__'M.:.:...= 3_-'-R~1'-------__'R-'-2~ 

,=L -'- 1 _-=L:..:2=--__'M~1 _-"M.:..:2=--_'_M.:.:...= 3 _.:..:R__'1 _ _'_R-'-2~ 

~3g0g0 i _ _ . KM-9 500 ~gg I - - I 

ng _ _ ~gg - - - KM-IO 

o "--_____-=-_~-'--_____'-______---.J 

0 "--______--"-'--_-=---____---.J. 

L 1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R 1 R2 

40 0 400 

50 ~gg I _ _ I KM-l1 ~gg 500 I - _ _ ! KM-12 

10g "--_- ____ -___ 

-_--=-=-____----' 

10g L __- ____-__-"-'--_-=---____---.J. 


---.J. 

Ii! I - - - _ _ _ - I K M -13 Ii! 

I _ _ - - - _ _ I K M -14 

L 1 L2 M 1 M 2 M 3 R 1 R 2 L 1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

~gg ~g~ I- _ _ _ _ _ - _ I 

KM-15 

L 1 L2 M 1 M 2 M 3 R 1 R 2 


Sediment grain size statistics for cross sections of the Alafia River, May 

2001. 


__________ 

500 

400 

300 200 _ 

1 og L ____ ~-_____ _ _ __.:-=__ 

L1 

500 

400 

300 200 _ 

100 

o 

L 1 

L2 

M1 

- - 

L2 M1 

"'-'_____=-=____..! 

M2 M3 R1 R2 

- - - - 

M2 M3 R1 R2 

500 400 

• 

300 

200. •• • 

10g L ___-_______-_____- _ 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

~gg i - I 

~gg - - - 

KM-5 

100 o L-________________________ _ - - ~ . 

L1 

500 

400 

300 

200 100 - 

o 

500 

400 300 _ 

200 

100 

o 

L1 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

- 

o 

L2 

M1 

- - 

M2 M3 R1 R2 

- 

- 

KM-7 

. I 

- 

L1 L2 M 1 M 2 M 3 R 1 R 2 

- 

L2 M1 - - - - - 

M2 M3 R1 R2 

- - 

- - - - 

L 1 L2 M 1 M 2 M 3 R 1 R 2 

400 

500 300 I _ _ (81 5 ) I 

~gg 

L_-__ -_____-___-_---='--_T_. 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

- - 

- 

400 

300 

200 

100 o - 

L-________ ~-L-____ ~ 

500 I - 

- 

L 1 L2 M 1 M 2 M 3 R 1 R 2 

OB-5 

KM -I 

KM-3 

KM-9 

KM -II 

KM-13 

KM-15 

~gg I I 

--.J 0 B-3 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R 1 R2 

~ g~ L _ _ -__-___- _---'-'-__- __-___ 

500 400 

I 

-_ --'-"-__-.J K M -2 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

~ g~ L.._-__ -___-__-___ 

ill L..-=-,___-___ -_ --,-"-__-__ 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

o 

500 

400 

300 

200 

L1 

-L1 

L2 

M1 

- - 

L2 M1 

- 

-__ -___,I K M -. 

M2 M3 R1 R2 

- 

- 

- 

M2 M3 R1 R2 

- 

- - 

10g L.. ____ ~-'__~L-_~-____ ___' 

500 400 I 

~gg - 

L 1 L2 M 1 M 2 M 3 R 1 R 2 

- 

- 

- - 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R 1 R2 

- - - 

10g L ________ ~-"-_-=-____ ___' 

500 400 I 

300 

o .L _____________ ~ 

- 

~ 

- - - 

~gg - - - 

500 400 I 

300 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

- - 

~gg - - 

o L ____________ ~ __ 

~ 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R 1 R2 

KM-6 

KM-8 

KM-IO 

KM-12 

KM-t4 



B-15 


1i4go 1 _ - - - - - 1 HB·5 

20 o L-__________________________ - 

-" 

ill. . · · · · ·1 KM.I 

100 L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

ill. · · · · · ·1 KM·' 

100 L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

'II L. 

__- ____- ____-____-____-_____- ____---'1 H B.' 

ill. · . · · · ·1 KM·' 

ill· · · · · · · 1 KM·' 

100 L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

100 L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

100 

ill· 

L1 L2 

· 

M1 

· 

M2 

· 

M3 

· 

R1 

· 

R2 

.1 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

KM.' 

~g 

1ig I 

_ _ - 

- - 

_ _ 

1 KM·7 

o L-__________________________ __ 

ill. · · · · · ·1 KM.' 

100 L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

100 L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

~g 1 _ - _ - - -I KM·II 

~g j - . 

100 

ill. 

L1 L2 

· 

M1 

· 

M2 

· 

M3 

· 

R1 

· 

R2 

· IKM." 

i I .LI__-____ 

100 ,.:L:...:1 ___ L_ 2 ____ M_1 ___ M'--=- 2 __-'-M--'3'-----_R-'--'- 

1 ____ R-=2_ 

-____ -____ -____-_____-____ 

L 1 L2 M 1 M 2 M 3 R 1 R 2 

164~Og I - - - 1 

-~I K 

M ., 

_ _ KM·8 

20 _ - 

o L-__________________________ --' 

ill. · · · · · · 1 

ill· · · · · · .1 

100 ,-=L:...:1 ___ L"'2=------"-Mcc1'------'-Mc-2=--_M= 3'------'-R __ 1 __,__ R= 2-, 

10 0 " L=-1=----=- L=- 2 __.:..:M 

__ 1'------'M= 2 __.:.:M:.:3=-----'R-'--'- 

1 __.:..: 

Rc::2:.--, 

100 L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

KM·JO 

KM.1l 

ill. · . . · · · 1 KM·I' 

100 L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

~g • - - _ - I KM·15 

~g - - - . 

L 1 L2 M 1 M 2 M 3 R 1 R 2 


Appendix B - Sediment Parameters B-16 Mote Marine Laboratory· June 2003

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

o 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

o 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

LI_-__ -__ -__ -__ -__ -__-----'I HB-S ' !I I · · · · · · · 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

LI_-__ -__ -__ -__ -__ 

o 

il. L _-__-__-__-___-__-__ ill· ---,1 K M -s 

-__ -----,I K M -I ' !I I · · · · · · ·1 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 100 L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

-'----1·_-_-_-_ -_------' · 1 

KM-' 

ill.·· · · · · i 

· · · . · · 1 

100 L 1 L 2 M 1 M 2 M 3 R 1 R 2 100 ,:L:..:1,-------=- L =_ 2 _.:.:M'--1'----...:M.:.:...=2_:..:M:...:3=--...:R.:...:... 1 _.:..:Rc::2=---, 

UB-3 

KM-2 

KM-4 

KM-6 

100 L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 100 L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

ill· · · · · · · ill· 1 K M -1 

· · . · · 

KM-8 

· 1 

ill· · · · · · ·1 KM -. 

il •.L_ - __-__-__ 

100 L 1 L 2 M 1 M 2- M 3 R 1 R 2 100 ,--"L:..:1 __ L_ 2 __ M_1 __ M_ 2 __ M-,3 __ R_ 1 __ R_2---, 

-___ - __- __ 

100 L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 1 100 L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

:~ggo I· · " I - - - - I 

_ - - - - - K M -11 ~~ .L_- 

-----'1 

_______-___- ______ 

1 

ill 

00 L 1 L 2 M 1 M 2 M 3 R 1 R 2 1 1 

iI 

00 

LI_-__ 

T.:L:..:1 __ L=_2=-----"M:..:1'-----...:.M= 

-__ -__ -__ 

2_:..:M:...:3=--...:.R.:...:... 

-___-__ 1 _:...:R.:2'-. 

-_. 

KM-14 

L_-__ -__ -__-___-__-__----' K M - J3 

il .. .... 

L2 M1 M2 M3 R 1 R2 

100 . L1 L2 M~ M2 M3 R1 R2 i L1 

KM-1S 

KM-10 

KM -12 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 


Appendix B - Sediment Parameters B-1? Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

! · · · · · · · HB-' !i- · · · · · · 1 

HB-3 

; · .. · · KM-l l · . · · · · 1 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M 3 A 1 A 2 L 1 L2 M 1 M 2 M 3 A 1 A 2 

KM-2 

:H.......• 


KM-4 

.l · · · · · ·1 K M -3 

L 1 L2 M 1 M 2 M 3 A 1 A 2 L 1 L2 M 1 M 2 M 3 A 1 A 2 

:H" · · · · · ·1 -' K M 

!I- · · · · · · 1 

l · · · · · ·1 

KM-' !i- · · · · · · 1 

L 1 L2 M 1 M 2 M 3 A 1 A 2 L 1 L2 M 1 M 2 M 3 A 1 A 2 

n· · · · · · "j. M-' :H- ..... · 1 


KM-6 

KM-8 

KM-I0 

~L~1 __ ~L~2~~M~1 __ ~M~2~~M~3~~R~1~~R~2 , r~L~1 __ ~L~2~_M~1 __ ~M~2~~M~3 __ ~R~1~~R~2 , 

; LI_-__ -__ -__ -__ -__ -__---,I K M -II :; IL_-__ -__ -__ -__ -__ -__----,I 

~L ~1 __ ~L~2 __ ~M~1~~M~2~~M~3 __ ~R ~1 __ ~R~2-, r~L ~1 __ ~L~2 __ ~M~1~~M~2~~M~3 __ R~1 __ ~R~2-, 

_:3 021 I_ - - - - - - - I KM -13 :; -~ . - - __ - - - I 

- - 

-4 -'----------------------------~ -4 L ___________________________ ~ 

L 1 L2 M 1 M 2 M 3 A 1 A 2 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

o 

-1 

- 

-2 

KM -15 

-3 

-4 - - - 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

- 

KM-12 

KM-14 



:1 [._-_ -----=-_-_------i ' I HB-S 

30 L 1 L2 M 1 M 2 M 3 R 1 R 2 

:: IL---_ - ~-=----=- 

- _-~-~. I 

KM-I 

30 L 1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

-~- _ -'------JI 

:: IL _------=- 

--=----=- - 

30 L1 L 2 M1 M2 M3 R 1 R2 

KM-S 

:: L..::-_-_-~- _-~-_. I 

30 L 1 L2 M 1 M 2 M 3 R 1 R 2 

:: ;L_-__-__- _~-_~-~_-__-~I 

30 L 1 L2 M 1 M 2 M 3 R 1 R 2 

KM-3 

KM-7 

:: L-~_- ---=- - -----'-=-- -~- _ -----'I KM-9 

30 L1 L2 M1 M2 M 3 R1 R2 

:: I· · . · · · · I 

:: I. 

R2 L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

- . IKM-13 :1I... · ... 1 

30 L 1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 

30 L 1 L2 

20 

10 

- 

o 

- 

- 

M1 

- 

KM-II 

:1 . r -_--_--_--_-----------'1 H B-3 

30 L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

:: I. · · . . . .1 KM-2 

:: 

30 

I. 

L 1 L2 

. 

M 

. 

1 M 

. 

2 M 

. 

3 R 

. 

1 R 2 

. 1 KM-4 

:1. . . . . . .1 KM-' 

'-------------------' 

30 L 1 L2 M 1 M 2 M 3 R 1 R 2 

30 L 1 L2 M 1 M 2 M 3 R 1 R 2 

:: IL_-__ -__-,,--_-__-__-__-_I K M -. 

30 

20 

10 

o 

- - - 

M2 M3 R1 R 2 L 1 

- - - - 

L 1 L2 M 1 M 2 M 3 R 1 R 2 

KM-IS 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R 1 R2 

,--__-__-__-__-__-__-_1 K M-IO 

30 L 1 L 2 M 1 M 2 M 3 R 1 R 2 

~~ ,--___ -__ -________ -__ -~I K M -" 

L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

KM-J4 


Appendix B - Sediment Parameters B-19 


: I LI-.--.--.--·--·--·--·--,I H B-S 

'II..···· 12 L 1 L2 M 1 M 2 M 3 R 1 R 2 

' 1 KM-I 

'II.····· 12 L 1 L2 M 1 M 2 M 3 R 1 R 2 

·1 KM-3 

12 L 1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R 1 R2 

'II ' 

• • • 

• .1 KM-S 

• 

l. 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

:1 • • . 1 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

o 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

o 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

-'-----.__. __. __·__. __.__.----'1 H B-3 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

• 

.1 KM-2 

L-____________________ 

• 

----' 

o 

'II· 

12 L 1 L2 

• • • • 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

• 

• • • • • 

-'--------------------------~ 

M1 M2 M3 R 1 

• 

• 

• • • 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

12 

10 

8 

6 

KM-7 4 

• • • 

2 

o 

12 

'! l. . · · · . . 


1 K M -. : I I'-=.--'------=:':: . '------'-"-- .-'------"-'-.=-----=.-=------'-'.--'-------'-'-' 

'! I. . · · · . J M -II 

· 1 KM-' 

R2 

. 1 KM-' 

~.L_~.L_ __• ____• ____ • ___•____.----'I KM-' 

12 L 1 L 2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

'I I. . . · · · .1 KM-13 :11. 

. =----'I K M -10 

: I I"'.'-'-----''-' . '----=-.-'----''-'·-=------''-.-=-------'-.'-'-----'--'' . =-'I K M -12 

12 L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

'I I. . . . · . . 1 KM-IS 

12 ,=cL-'-1_ --'L"'2'------'M-"--'1_ -"M'-'2'------'M= 3_-"Rcc 1 _--'R-"2=_, L 1 L2 M 1 M 2 

. . . . · .1 KM-14 

M3 R 1 R2 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R 1 R2 



1:4g0 • _ - _ - _ I HB-5 

20 _ - 

a ~--------------------------~ 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

1 :4 go i " I 

--=__---'-~ ___-________-_________-____' K M - I 

2 ~ L_ 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

1 i 4 

g 0 

I _ _ _ _ _ i KM-3 

20 _ _ 

a ~--------------------------~ 

100 

ill. 

L1 L2 

. 

M1 

. 

M2 

· 

M3 

· 

R1 

. 

R2 

. 1·M-5 

'II '!j 

7 

LI--'!-'-----'-=-___ -____-_____-____-'--__----'I K M - 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

a 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

a 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

a 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

a 

L1 - 

- 

L 1 

- 

L1 

- 

- 

L2 

-L2 

- 

L2 

- 

- 

- 

- - - 

M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

- 

- - - - 

M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

- 

- - - - 

M1 M2 M3 R 1 R2 

- 

- - - - 

L 1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R 1 R2 

-'-___--_______-____-_____-__-'-=-__-=-- --.J 

L1 L2 M1 M2 · M3 R1 R2 L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

100 I 100 ~=-------------~--~------~~ 

~g I - - - - -9 g. 

-KM 

-- 

2 g - - . a -'-______ -=-__ -=-'----__________ -"-=--__ -=-_ 

100 L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 1 100 L1 

~g I - - - KM 

-11 ~g I 

2 g _ _ _ - 2 g .c 

1 a a ,.::L:..:1,--_L::.2::""--2M:..1=-..:.M::.::; 2 __::.M:...:3,-..:.R.:...:. 

1 __:..: 

R.=2:... 

- - 

L2 M1 M2 M3 R 1 R2 

___- __----'-'"-___- ____________.,-'-__,., 

- '---- 

1 a a ,:L:..:1,----=- L =- 2 __.:.:M:..1'----'M::.::; 

2 __::.M:..:3=---'R.:...:. 

1 __:..:Rc::2=--, 

80 80 

~~ _ - - KM-13 ~g 

20 _ • - _ 20 _ _ _ _ - - 

a a -'-.=---.=---.=---- -------------' 

- 

100 ,--:L,-,1 ___ L::.2=---"M:..1,--..:.M= 2 __::.M:...:3,-..:.R.:...:. 

1 _ :..: R-=2" L 1 

80 

60 

40 

_ KM -15 

20 

a . . - - 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

HB-3 

KM-2 

KM-4 

KM-6 

KM-8 

KM-IO 

KM-12 

KM-14 



'II . L _ 

-_i - __-__-__-__-__-__ H B-S 

100 L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

11" " " " " " "I KM-I 

100 L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

1I LI_-__ -__ -__ -__-___-__------'1 K M -3 

100 L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

11 1" " " " " " "I KM-S 

III" 

1 0 0 r-.,.L.-'- 1_~L~2=___M~1_~M~2=__~M=3'__-'-R'_1'____~R_'_=__, 

""""" 2 

"IKM-' 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

'II LI_-__ -__ -__ -___ -__ -__ -_I K M. 

, II .LI_-__-___-__-__-___-__-_I 

ill" " """ 

100 ,-=:L--,1 _--,L~2~~M~~_ _"M_,_2~_M_,__,3,__~R,-1,____R~2 _, 

"I KM-2 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

'II LI_-__ -__ -___ -__ -___ -__ -_I 

ill" """"" 10 0 ,-=:L--'1 _--'L=.:2=---~M__'1'___"M_'_2~--'M_'__'3'__~R'-1'_____R~2_, 

"I KM-6 

'II j" .' : ' ~' 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

L1 

L2 

- 

- 

M1 

:' : ' :' I 

- 

- - 

M2 M3 R 1 R2 

- 

o -'------------ ---- 

100 L 1 L; M 1 M 2 M 3 R_1 R 2 10 0 .-'L=-1'-------'i L_~2-ccM-'--'-- 1 -----'M= 2_ccM'-'3'------'R-.;;_;.-1--cR;.:2=- 

DB-3 

KM-4 

KM-8 

KM-IO 

11 1" """ "I K M -11 11 1" """ "I K M - I2 

1 ~~O ggoO . T -=L:,:~,__-=,L _~2_::.M'_~'-----'M"-_=-2-:..: 

Mc.:=------'R-'-_-'- 1 _'-OR _-=: 2'---1 100 1 L ~ L! M: M: M: R 1 R 2 1 

L __________ _____ K M -13 11 " "K M -I' 

'III" "· """"I KM-IS 

L 1 L2 M 1 M 2 M 3 R 1 R 2 L 1 

L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 

L1 L2 M1 M2 M3 R1 R2 



100 

80 

'" 

I 

:E 

- 

I • • 

a 60 • • 

'" - 

"'" -I ~ 40 

• 

c.. '" 

- 

•- 

- 

20 • 

• 

; 

- • 

I . • 

• - • - I • • • I 

0 

- 

HB5HB3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 

1 00 

I . 

• • I • • • 

I 

- I 

·- • 

• • -• 

• 

" 

- 

40 

'" ~ 

• · 

I 

'" 

• 

c.. I 

-• • 

80 

~ . 

5l - 

·0 60 

I 

:2 

· 

20 

- 

0 

HB5HB3 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 

100 

80 

• 

rl 

• 

. ~ : 

60 e!' 0 

- 

· 

I - 

40 

"'" - 

~ 

c.. '" 

20 

! 

0 

I - • 

; - ; • 

• I 

• • 

I 

• • • • · 

HB5HB3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 

S tation/R iver Kilometer 


Sediment statistics plotted by river kilometer. 


El 

., ... 

0. 

t; '" 

:l 

"0 

0;; 

'i5 

.: 

'- 

0 

., 

30000 

25000 

20000 

15000 

... 10000 

.0 

E 

:l 

Z 5000 

• 

0 

- 

Petite Ponar Samples (9-15km) 

• 

• 

• 

• • -• • 

• -- 

.... 

• • 

0 20 40 60 80 100 


30000 

3 " Core Samples (9-15km) 

C'l 25000 

E 

... 

'" 

0. 

20000 

'" 

• 

t; 

:l 

"0 

0;; • -• 

'i5 15000 

.: • 

'- • • 

0 

... 10000 

1l 

:l 

• 

E • •• 

Z 5000 

• 

0 

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 




Left Bank Mid Right Bank Left Bank Mid Ri ght Bank 

2000.0 2000 .0 

, 410 .0 

Q 1410.0 

.., 1000 .0 1000.0 

710 .0 

710 .0 

('I 500 .0 500 .0 

~ 350.0 350.0 

250.0 ~ 250.0 

177 .0 177.0 

125.0 

125.0 

E 88 .0 88 .0 

62.5 E 62 .5 

~ 44 .0 

44 .0 

Left Bank Mid Right Bank Left Bank Mid Right Bank 

0'1 .... 

~ 

E 

2: 2: 

Q) 

N 

i:I3 

i:I3 

Q) 

Q) 

'0 '0 

"€ 

NA "€ 

&! 

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 

~ 

::.d 

E 

Q) 

N 

Q.. 

'" 

~ III 

.... .... 

~ ~ 

,.-. 

E 

2: 2: 

Q) Q) 

N 

N 

i:I3 

i:I3 

Q) Q) 

'0 '0 

"~ "~ 

Q.. 

E 

Q.. 

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 

r-- 

~ ~ 

E 

2: 2: 

Q) Q) 

N 

N 

i:I3 

i:I3 

Q) Q) 

'0 '0 

"€ NA "€ 

Q.. 

'" 

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 

QC) 

E 

Q.. 

'" 





500 

E 400 

2; 

.., 

N 

'

.... 

50 

40 

CI) 

30 

c: 

Q) 

~ 20 

Q) 

0... 

10 

0 

5 

4 

o I I II I .11 

Bay KmO Kml Km3 Km5 Km7 Km9 Kmll Km13Km15Km17 Kml8 

100 

80 

:9 '" 

"0 60 

CI) 

c: 

Q) 

u 

.... 

Q) 

0... 

40 

20 

0 

II 

Bay KmO Km 1 Km3 Km5 Km7 Km9 KmllKm13iKml5kml7 Km 18 

Appendix Figure B-S (continued). 


20 

Vl 

t: 

o 

'i

ApPENDIX C 

BENTHIC HABITAT MAPS

N 

A 

, Oysters 

I 

River Kilometers 

Wetlands 

MangrOlle Swamps 

Stream/Lake Swamps 



Saltwater Marshes ,; 

Wet Prairies 

Tidal Flats 

Appendix Figure C-l. 

Habitat maps for the little Alafia River. 

Appendix C - Benthic Habitat Maps 

C- l 


Substrate 




N Snag 

"( River K~ometers 

Wetlands 

Mangrove Swamps 

StreamiLake Swamps 




Wet Prairies 

Tidal Flats 

o 

0.5 

0.5 Kilometers 

~~~~~ 


Habitat maps for the little Alafia River (continued). 

Appendix C - Benthic Habitat Maps C-2 Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

Substrate 




N Snag 

'& 

River Kilometers 

Wetlands 






Wet Prairies 

Tidal Flats 


~ 




Substrate 



1/ Sediment - dominated 

N Snag 

'I River Kilometers 

Wetlands 






Wet Prairies 

tidal Flats 


pos; 




ApPENDIXD 

MACROINFAUNAL DATA

Appendix Table D-l. 

Taxa/Group 

Phylogenetic species list for all data used within this report. 

Taxa/Group 

PHYLUM CNIDARIA 

CLASS HYDROZOA 

Hydrozoa 

CLASS ANTHOZOA 

ORDER ACTINIARIA 

Actiniaria 

Actiniaria sp. B 

Athenaria 

Athenaria sp. A 

PHYLUM PLATYHELMINTHES 

Platyhelminthes 

CLASS TURBELLARIA 

Turbellaria 

ORDER POL YCLADIDA 

FAMILY STYLOCHIDAE 

Stylochus 

Sty loch us cf ellipticus 

FAMILY LEPTOPLANIDAE 

Euplana gracilis 

PHYLUM NEMERTEA 

Nemertea 

Nemertea sp. U 

Nemertea sp. T 

Nemertea sp. Q 

Nemertea sp. N 

Nemertea sp. K 

Nemertea sp. J 

Nemertea sp. I 

Nemertea sp. F 

Nemertea sp. B 

Nemertea sp. A 

CLASS ANOPLA 

ORDERPALEONEMERTEA 

FAMILY TUBULANIDAE 

Tubulanus pellucidus 

PHYLUM ANNELIDA 

CLASSPOLYCHAETA 

FAMILY POL YNOIDAE 

Polynoidae 

Harmothoe sp. C 

M almg renie lla macc raryae 

Malmgreniella taylori 

Malmgreniella sp. A 

F AMIL Y SIGALIONIDAE 

Sthenelais sp. A 

FAMILY CHRYSOPETALIDAE 


FAMILY AMPHINOMIDAE 

Pseudeurythoe ambigua 


FAMILY PHYLLODOCIDAE 

Phyllodocidae 

Anaitides longipes 


Genetyllis castanea 

Phyllodoce arenae 

FAMILY HESIONIDAE 

Gyptis crypta 



FAMILY PILARGIDAE 


Sigambra tentaculata 

Sigambra bassi 

FAMILY SYLLIDAE 

Exogone dispar 

FAMILY NEREIDAE 

Nereidae 


Nereidae sp. B 

Appendix D - Macroinfaunal Data 

D-1 

Mote Marine Laboratory· April 2003

Appendix Table D-l (continued). 

Taxa/Group 

Taxa/Group 

Neanthes succinea 

Neanthes micromma 

Laeonereis culveri 

Stenoninereis martini 

FAMILY NEPHTYIDAE 

Nephtys 

Nephtys picta 


Nephtys cryptomma 


FAMILY GLYCERIDAE 

Glycera 

Glycera americana 

FAMILY GONIADIDAE 

Glycinde solita ria 

FAMILY ONUPHIDAE 

Onuphis 

Diopatra cup rea 

FAMILY LUMBRINERIDAE 

Lumbrineris verrilli 

Lumbrineris sp. D 

FAMILY DORVILLEIDAE 

Dorvillea pectinata 

Dorvillea rudolphi 


Schistomeringos cf rudolphi 

FAMILY ORBINllDAE 

Leitoscoloplos robustus 

Scoloplos rubra 

Scoloplos texana 


Leitoscoloplos fragilis 

Leitoscoloplos foliosus 

FAMILY PARAONIDAE 


Aricidea taylori 

Cirrophorus 

FAMILY SPIONIDAE 

Spionidae 

Dipolydora socialis 

Polydora socialis 

Polydora ligni 

Polydora comuta 

Prionospio 

Prionospio heterobranchia 

Apoprionospio pygmaea 


Prionospio perkinsi 

Scolecolepis viridis 

Spio pettiboneae 

Paraprionospio pinnata 

Streblospio 

Streblospio benedicti 

Scolelepis texan a 

Carazziella hobsonae 

FAMILY MAGELONIDAE 


FAMILY CHAETOPTERIDAE 

Spiochaetopterus costarum 

Spiochaetopterus costa rum oculatus 

FAMILY CIRRATULIDAE 

Caulleriella 

Monticellina dorsobranchialis 

FAMILY FLABELLIGERIDAE 

Piromis roberti 

FAMILY OPHELllDAE 

Armandia maculata 

Travisia hobsonae 

FAMILY CAPITELLIDAE 

Capitellidae 


D-2 

Mote Marine Laboratory - April 2003


Taxa/Group 

Taxa/Group 

Capitella capitata 

Heteromastus filiformis 

Notomastus 

Notomastus latericeus 


Notomastus americanus 

M ediomastus 

Mediomastus ambiseta 

Mediomastus californiensis 

Capitella jonesi 

F AMll., Y MALDANIDAE 

Asychis elongata 


Sabaco american us 

FAMll., Y PECTINARllDAE 

Pectinaria gouldii 

FAMll., Y AMPHARETIDAE 

Ampharetidae 



Melinna cristata 

Melinna maculata 

[solda pulchella 

F AMll., Y TEREBELLIDAE 

Loimia medusa 

FAMll., Y SABELLIDAE 

Chone cf americana 

Megalomma pigmentum 

Branchiomma 

FAMll., Y SPIRORBIDAE 

Spirorbidae 

CLASS OLIGOCHAET A 

Oligochaeta 

FAMll., Y LUMBRICULIDAE 

Eclipidrilus palustris 

FAMILY ENCHYTRAEIDAE 

Enchytraeidae 

FAMll.,Y TUBIFICIDAE 

Tubificidae 

Tubificidae wlo cap. setae 


Tubificidae (immature) sp. A 


Aulodrilus 

Aulodrilus pigueti 

Aulodrilus limnobius 

Aulodrilus pluriseta 

Tubificoides brownae 

Tubificoides wasselli 

Thalassodrilides gurwitschi 

F AMll., Y NAIDIDAE 

cf Slavina appendiculata 

Paranais littoralis 

Pristina proboscidea 

Dero 

Dero digitata 

Nais communis 

Nais pardalis 

CLASS HIRUDINEA 

FAMll., Y PISCICOLIDAE 

Myzobdella lugubris 

Myzobdella uraguayensis 

FAMll., Y GLOSSIPHONIIDAE 

Glossiphoniidae sp. A 

FAMll., Y ERPOBDELLIDAE 

Erpobdella punctata 

Mooreobdella melanostoma 

PHYLUM MOLLUSCA 

CLASS GASTROPODA 

Gastropoda 


D-3 



Taxa/Group 

Taxa/Group 

ORDER ARCHAEOGASTROPODA 

FAMILY NERITIDAE 

Neritina reclivata 


ORDER MESOGASTROPODA 

FAMILY HYDROBllDAE 

Hydrobiidae 

cf Cincinnatia floridana 

Littoridinops 

Littoridinops monroensis 

Littoridinops palustris 

Onobops 


FAMILY RISSOIDAE 

Sayella fusca 

Petitilla crosseana 

Sayella laevigata 

Assiminea succinea 

F AMIL Y VITRINELLIDAE 

Vitrinellidae 

Vitrinella floridana 

Teinostoma biscaynense 

FAMILY THIARIDAE 

Melanoides tuberculata 

FAMILY PLEUROCERIDAE 

cf Elimia 

FAMILY CREPIDULIDAE 

Crepidula 

Crepidula maculosa 

FAMILY NATICIDAE 


T ectonatica pusilla 

Polin ices duplicatus 

Tectonatica pusilla 

Neverita duplicata 

ORDER NEOGASTROPODA 

FAMILY MURICIDAE 

Eupleura sulcidentata 

FAMILY PYRENIDAE 

Astyris lunata 


FAMILY NASSARllDAE 


Nassarius albus 

ORDER PYRAMIDELLOIDA 

FAMILY PYRAMIDELLIDAE 

Odostomia 

Odostomia laevigata 

Turbonilla cf punicea 

Fargoa cf gibbosa 

ORDER CEPHALASPIDEA 

FAMILY ACTEONIDAE 

Rictaxis punctostriatus 

FAMILY CYLICHNIDAE 

Acteocina canaliculata 

FAMILY HAMINOEIDAE 


Atys riiseana 

ORDERBASOMMATOPHORA 

FAMILY ANCYLIDAE 

Hebetancylus excentricus 

ORDER NUDIBRANCHIA 

Nudibranchia 

FAMILY AEOLIDllDAE 

Aeolidoidea 

CLASS BIY AL VIA 

Bivalvia 

Bivalvia sp. A 


D-4 



Taxa/Group 

Taxa/ Group 

ORDER NUCULOIDEA 

F AMll.., Y NUCULIDAE 

Nucula proxima 


. ORDER ARCOIDA 

FAMll.., Y ARCIDAE 

Anadara transversa 

ORDER MYTll..,OIDA 

F AMll.., Y MYTll..,IDAE 

Mytilidae 

Brachidontes exustus 


ORDER OSTREIDA 

FAMll.., Y OSTREIDAE 


ORDER VENEROIDA 

FAMll.., Y LUCINIDAE 

Lucinidae 


F AMll.., Y UNGULINIDAE 

Diplodonta semiaspera 

FAMll..,Y CYRENOIDIDAE 

Cyrenoida floridana 

Erycina floridana 

FAMll..,Y MONTACUTIDAE 


FAMll.., Y MACTRIDAE 


Mactra fragilis 

FAMll.., Y SOLENIDAE 

Ensis minor 

F AMll.., Y TELLINIDAE 

Tellinidae 

Macoma tenta 

Macoma constricta 

Tellina 

Tellina versicolor 

Tellina cf versicolor 

Tellina cf alternata 

Tellina tampaensis 

Tellina mera 

FAMll..,Y PSAMMOBIIDAE 

Tagelus 

Tagelus plebe ius 

Tagelus cf plebe ius 

Tagelus divisus 

F AMll.., Y SEMELIDAE 

Semele proficua 

Abra aequalis 

FAMll.., Y DREISSENIDAE 


FAMll.., Y CORBICULIDAE 



FAMll..,Y SPHAERIIDAE 

Sphaeriidae 

Sphaerium 

F AMll.., Y VENERIDAE 

Veneridae 

Dosinia discus 

Dosinia elegans 

ORDER MYINA 

F AMll.., Y MYIDAE 


F AMll.., Y CORBULIDAE 


Corbula swiftiana 

FAMll.., Y LYONSIIDAE 

Lyonsia floridana 


D-5 



Taxa/Group 

Taxa/Group 

FAMll.. Y THRACllDAE 

Bushia elegans 

PHYLUM CHELICERA TA 

CLASS MEROSTOMATA 

ORDER XIPHOSURIDA 

FAMll.. Y LIMULIDAE 

Limulus polyphemus 

CLASS ARACHNIDA 

ORDER ACARINA 

Trornbidiformes 

PHYLUM CRUSTACEA 

CLASSCEPHALOCARIDA 

. Cephalocarida 

CLASS OSTRACODA 

Ostracoda 

CLASS CIRRIPEDIA 

ORDER THORACICA 

FAMll.. Y BALANIDAE 

Balanus improvisus 

CLASS MALACOSTRACA 

ORDER MYSIDACEA 

Mysidacea 

FAMll.. Y MYSIDAE 

Mysidopsis 


Mysidopsis bahia 

Americamysis almyra 

Bowmaniella 

Taphromysis louisianae 

Taphromysis bowmani 

FAMll.. Y MYSIDAE 

Americamysis 

Americamysis bahia 

ORDER CUMACEA 

Curnacea 

FAMll..Y LEUCONIDAE 

Leucon acutirostris 

FAMll..Y DIASTYLIDAE 

Oxyurostylis 

Oxyurostylis smithi 

Oxyurostylis cf smithi 

FAMll..Y NANNASTACIDAE 

Almyracuma proximoculae 

FAMll.. Y BODOTRllDAE 

Cyclaspis varians 

Cyclaspis cf varians 

ORDER TANAIDACEA 

Tanaidacea 

FAMll..Y PSEUDOZEUXIDAE 

Leptochelia 

Hargeria rapax 

ORDER ISOPODA 

FAMll.. Y ANTHURIDAE 

Cyathura 


Xenanthura brevitelson 

Amakusanthura magnifica 

FAMll..Y SPHAEROMATIDAE 

Sphaeroma terebrans 

Cassidinidea ovalis 

Harrieta faxoni 

FAMll.. Y CYMOTHOIDAE 

Aegathoa oculata 

F AMll.. Y IDOTHEIDAE 

Erichsonella attenuata 

Edotea montosa 

Edotea triloba 

F AMll.. Y ASELLIDAE 

Asellus 


D-6 



Taxa/ Group 

Taxa/Group 

FAMILY MUNNIDAE 

Munna 

Uromunna reynoldsi 

ORDER AMPHIPODA 

Amphipoda 

FAMILY AMPELISCIDAE 

Ampelisca 

Ampelisca abdita 

Ampe/isca cf. abdita 

Ampelisca cf. vadorum 

Ampelisca vadorum 

Ampelisca verrilli 

Ampelisca holmesi 

Ampelisca cf. holmesi 

FAMILY AMPITHOIDAE 

Cymadusa compta 

FAMILY AORIDAE 

Aoridae 

Acuminodeutopus nag lei 

Rudilemboides naglei 

FAMILYBATEIDAE 

Batea catharinensis 

FAMILY COROPHIIDAE 

Corophiidae 

Cerapus cf. tubularis 

Apocorophium 

Apocorophium lacustre 

Apocorophium louisianum 

Erichthonius brasiliensis 

Grandidierella bonnieroides 

F AMIL Y MELITIDAE 

Gammarus 

Gammarus cf. tigrinus 

Gammarus mucronatus 

Melita 

cf. Melita dentata 

Melita nitida complex 

Melita elongata 

F AMIL Y HAUSTORIIDAE 

Acanthohaustorius 

FAMILY LILJEBORGIIDAE 

Listriella bamardi 

FAMILY OEDICEROTIDAE 

Monoculodes edwardsi 

Monoculodes nyei 

FAMILY CAPRELLIDAE 

Caprellidae 

Caprella 

Paracaprella pusilla 

ORDER DECAPODA 

Decapoda (unid. shrimp) 


FAMILY PENAEIDAE 

Penaeidae 

Penaeus duorarum 

FAMILY PALAEMONIDAE 

Palaemonidae 

Palaemonetes paludosus 

Palaemonetes pugio 

FAMILY ALPHEIDAE 

Alpheidae 

Alpheus 

FAMILY PROCESSIDAE 


FAMILY CAMBARIDAE 

Cambaridae 

FAMILY CALLIANASSIDAE 

Callichirinae 

cf. Callianassa biformis 

Appendix D - Macroinfaunal Data D-7 



Taxa/ Group 

Taxa/Group 

FAMll..Y PAGURIDAE 

Paguridae 

FAMll.. Y PORCELLANIDAE 

Eueeramus praelongus 

FAMll.. Y UPOGEBllDAE 

Upogebia 


(SECTION PAGURIDEA) 

Paguridea 

FAMll.. Y CALAPPIDAE 

Calippidae 

FAMll.. Y LEUCOSllDAE 

Persephona mediterranea 

FAMll.. Y XANTHIDAE 

Xanthidae 

Rhithropanopeus harrisii 

F AMll.. Y PINNOTHERIDAE 

Pinnixa 

Pinnixa ehaetopterana 

Pinnixa sayana 

PHYLUM UNIRAMIA 

Insecta 

CLASS PTERYGOTA 

ORDER EPHEMEROPTERA 

FAMll..Y HEPTAGENllDAE 

Heptageniidae 

FAMll.. Y BAETIDAE 

Baetidae 

Cereobraehys etowah 

FAMll.. Y TRICORYTHIDAE 

Trieorythodes 

Trieorythodes albilineatus 

FAMll.. Y CAENIDAE 

B raehyee reus 

Braehyeereus maeulatus 

Caenis 

Caenis hilaris 

Cereobraehys etowah 

Cereobraehys 

ORDERODONATA 

Odonata 

FAMll.. Y GOMPHIDAE 

Gomphidae 

F AMll.. Y LIBELLULIDAE 

Maeromia 

FAMll.. Y COENAGRIONIDAE 


HETEROPTERA-:HEMIPTERA 

FAMll.. Y GERRIDAE 

Rheumatobates 

ORDER COLEOPTERA 

F AMll.. Y GYRINIDAE 

Dineutus 

FAMll.. Y HYDROPHll..IDAE 

H ydrophilidae 

FAMll.. Y ELMlOAE 

Stenelmis 

Dubiraphia 

Dubiraphia vittata 

ORDER TRICHOPTERA 

Trichoptera 

FAMll..Y PHll..OPOTAMIDAE 

Cymellus Jratemus 

FAMll.. Y HYDROPSYCHIDAE 

Cheumatopsyehe 

F AMll.. Y HYDROPTll..IDAE 

H ydroptilidae 

Oxyethira 

FAMll.. Y LEPTOCERIDAE 

Oeeetis 


D-8 



Taxa/ Group 

Taxa/Group 

Oecetis inconspicua 

Oecetis noctuma 


FAMILY GLOSSIPHONIDAE 

Polycentropus 

Cymellus Jratemus 

ORDER DIPTERA 

Diptera 

FAMILY CHAOBORIDAE 

Chaoborus 

Chaoborus punctipennis 

FAMILY CERATOPOGONIDAE 

Ceratopogonidae. 

Dasyhelea 

Culicoides 

Mallochohlea sp. ? 

Probezzia 

Palpomyia/Bezzia 

Paracladopelma cf doris 

cf Paralauterbomiella nigrohauterale 

F AMIL Y CHIRONOMIDAE 

Chironornidae 

Coelotanypus 

Coelotanypus scapularis 

Coelotanypus tricolor 

Ablabesmyia 


Ablabesmyia rhamphe gpo 

Pentaneura inconspicua 

Djalmabatista 

Djalmabatista pulchra 

Procladius 


Tanypus clavatus 

Orthocladiinae 

Lopescladius 


Parakeifferiella 

Chironornini 

Chironomus 

Cladopelma 

Cryptochironomus 

Cryptochironomus blarina 

Cryptochironomus Julvous gpo 

Cryptotendipes 

Dicrotendipes 

Dicrotendipes modestus 

Dicrotendipes neomodestus 

Dicrotendipes cf neomodestus 

Dicrotendipes tritomus 


Pagastiella 

Paracladopelma 

P aralaute rbomie lla 

Paralauterbomiella nigrohalterale 

Polypedilum 

Polypedilum halterale gpo 

Polypedilum illinoense gpo 

Polypedilum scalaenum gpo 

Polypedilum tritum 

Stenochironomus 

Tribelos 

Tribelos Juscicome 

Tribelos jucundum 

cf Tribelos 

Fissimentum 

Fissimentum sp. A 

Chironomini (pupae) 

Pseudochironomus 

Cladotanytarsus 


D-9 



Taxa/Group 

Taxa/Group 

Cladotanytarsus daviesi 

Cladotanytarsus cf davies 

Rheotanytarsus 

Rheotanytarsus distinctissimus gpo 


Stempellina 

Tanytarsus 

Tanytarsus sp. T 


Tanytarsus sp. 0 

Tanytarsus sp. K 

Tanytarsus sp. G 

Tanytarsus sp. C 

Tanytarsus cf sp. C 


PHYLUM SIPUNCULA 

Sipunculidae 

PHYLUM PHORONIDA 

FAMILY PHORONIDAE 

Phoronis 

Phoronis architecta 

PHYLUM BRACHIOPODA 

ORDER LINGULID A 

FAMILY LINGULIDAE 

Glottidia pyramidata 

PHYLUM ECHINODERMATA 

CLASSSTELLEROIDEA 

(SUBCLASS OPHIUROIDEA) 

Ophiuroidea 

ORDER OPHIURIDA 

F AMIL Y OPHIACTIDAE 


FAMILY AMPHIURIDAE 

Amphiuridae 


Amphipholis gracillima 



Amphioplus squamata 

Amphioplus sepultus 

Amphipholis atra 

Micropholis atra 

CLASS HOLOTHUROIDEA 

Holothuroidea sp. F 

Holothuroidea sp. C 

PHYLUM HEMICHORDATA 

CLASSENTEROPNEUSTA 

Enteropneusta 

PHYLUM CHORDATA 

SUBPHYLUM UROCHORDATA 

CLASS ASCIDIACEA 

Ascidiacea sp. C 

ORDER STOLIDOBRANCHIA 

FAMILY MOLGULIDAE 

cf Molguia occidentalis 

SUBPHYLUM CEPHALOCHORDATA 

FAMILY BRANCHIOSTOMIDAE 

Branchiostoma floridae 


D-lO Mote Marine Laboratory - April 2003


Center of abundance for all species collected during the dry season 

(May 1999) and wet season (September 2001), using salinity at 

capture data. 

Both dates, cores and ponars only, num per m 2 used for abundance 

Abundance Centered Minimum Maximum 

Rank w ties Salinity Salinity Salinity 

Ampelisca 1.00 20.26 5.8 24.28 

Laeonereis culveri 2.00 12.10 0.1 24.28 

Mytilopsis leucophaeata 3.00 5.45 0.1 20.4 

Grandidierella bonnieroides 4.00 19.78 5.8 24 

Cyclaspis varians 5.00 22.60 20 24 

Chironomus 6.00 4.45 0.1 24.28 

cf. Cincinnatia floridana 7.00 1l.01 0.1 12.1 

Streblospio benedicti 8.00 22.53 5.88 24.28 

Polypedilum halterale gpo 9.00 0.24 0.1 8.4 

Apocorophium louisianum 10.00 1l.61 0.1 16 

Enteropneusta 11.00 23.98 22 24 

Tubificidae (immature) sp. A 12.00 l.84 0.1 12.1 

Paraprionospio pinnata 13.00 14.71 2.1 24.28 

Tanytarsus sp. G 14.00 l.80 0.1 8.4 

Prionospio perkinsi 15.00 23.74 21.97 24.28 

Corophium 16.00 17.13 16 24 

Bivalvia 17.00 17.83 0.1 24 

Oligochaeta 18.00 16.93 1l.61 24.28 

Amphicteis gunneri 19.00 17.68 5.88 20 

Cladotanytarsus 20.00 0.29 0.1 10.8 

Amygdalum papyrium 2l.00 21.44 16 24 

Almyracuma proximoculae 22.00 17.66 5.8 23 

Monticellina dorsobranchialis 23.00 23.10 2l.97 24 

Gastropoda 24.00 16.96 0.1 22 

Carazziella hobsonae 25.00 23.61 21.97 24.28 

Pinnixa chaetopterana 26.00 23.18 20 24 

Mysella planulata 27.00 22.12 16 23 

Hobsonia florida 28.00 1l.84 8.4 12.1 

Capitella capitata 29.00 23.57 5.88 24.28 

Edotea montosa 30.00 19.51 16 23 

Polydora ligni 31.00 12.13 0.1 23 

Polypedilum scalaenum gpo 32.00 2.41 0.1 12.1 

Eteone heteropoda 33.00 19.24 8.4 24.28 

Lirnnodrilus hoffmeisteri 34.00 3.60 0.1 5.8 

Tagelus plebeius 35.00 20.61 16 24 

Mulinia lateralis 36.00 2l.74 16 24 

Amakusanthura magnifica 38.00 17.48 16 23 

Appendix D - Macroinfaunal Data D-ll Mote Marine Laboratory · April 2003

Appendix Table D-2 (continued). 




Glottidia 

pyramidata 

39.00 

23.70 

21.97 

24 

Sigambra tentaculata 40.00 23.82 21.97 24 

Caprellidae 41.00 21.83 20 22 

Melinna maculata 42.00 21.73 20 23 

Dicrotendipes 43.00 1.22 0.1 2.1 

Oxyurostylis smithi 44.00 23.41 5.8 24 

Cumacea 45.00 11.15 5.8 12.1 

Cryptotendipes 46.00 0.10 0.1 0.1 

Mediomastus ambiseta 47.00 22.87 21.97 23.59 

Macoma tenta 48.00 22.94 22 23 

Gammarus mucronatus 48.01 20.26 18.2 24 

Listriella bamardi 49.00 23.63 18.2 24 

Paramphinome sp. B 50.00 23.90 21.97 24 

Nemertea sp. F 51.00 22.98 20 24 

Chironomini 52.00 1.91 0.1 10.8 

Caprella 53.00 23.00 23 23 

Corbicula fluminea 54.00 0.17 0.1 0.2 

Nemertea 55.00 8.35 0.1 24 

Cyathura polita 56.00 0.69 0.19 5.8 

Edotea triloba 57.00 9.11 0.1 12.1 

Ostracoda 58.00 11.41 0.1 12.1 

Nemertea sp. A 59.00 23.05 18.2 24 

Cryptochironomus blarina 60.00 0.21 0.1 5 

Platyhelminthes 61.00 22.82 20 24.28 

Crepidula 62.00 22.64 22 24 

Phyllodoce arenae 63.00 22.84 20 24 

Tanytarsus 64.00 0.40 0.1 5 

Cryptochironomus 65.00 0.37 0.1 2.1 

Polypedilum 66.00 0.37 0.19 5.8 

Polydora socialis 67.00 6.68 0.2 20.4 

Ceratopogonidae 68.00 0.68 0.1 10.8 

Polypedilum illinoense gpo 69.00 0.44 0.1 5 

Gyptis crypta 70.00 23 .66 21.97 24 

Dubiraphia 71.00 0.40 0.1 5.8 

Leitoscoloplos foliosus 72.00 23.22 23 24 

Appendix D - Macroinfaunal Data D-12 Mote Marine Laboratory - April 2003





Haminoea succinea 72.01 22.56 22 23 

Stenoninereis martini 73.00 17.93 16 18.2 

Pinnixa 74.00 23.08 12.1 24.28 

Tellina versicolor 75.00 22.71 22 23 

Tanaidacea 75.01 22.14 20 23 

Aulodrilus limnobius 76.00 0.10 0.1 0.1 

Procladius (Holotanypus) 77.00 0.44 0.1 5 

Neanthes succinea 78.00 23.00 23 23 

Rictaxis punctostriatus 78.01 21.70 18.2 23 

Heteromastus filiformis 78.02 19.80 11.61 24 

Paguridae 79.00 23.81 23 24 

Oecetis 79.01 0.16 0.1 0.18 

Procladius 80.00 0.93 0.1 5 

cf. Callianassa biformis 81.00 24.28 24.28 24.28 

Acteocina canaliculata 81.01 23.00 22 24 

Micropholis atra 82.00 24.00 24 24 

Nereidae sp. B 83.00 10.94 10.8 12.1 

Leucon acutirostris 84.00 24.00 24 24 

Tanytarsus sp. K 84.01 0.10 0.1 0.1 

Fissimentum 85.00 0.20 0.19 0.2 

Parakeifferiella 86.00 0.10 0.1 . 0.1 

Glycinde solitaria 87.00 23.28 21.97 24 

Spiochaetopterus costarum 88.00 23.69 23 24 

Diopatra cuprea 89.00 21.08 20 23 

Podarkeopsis levifuscina 90.00 23.33 21.97 24 

Bivalvia sp. A 91.00 1.52 0.1 2.1 

Sthenelais sp. A 92.00 24.00 24 24 

Vitrinellidae 93.00 23.00 23 23 

Odostomia 93.01 22.67 22 23 

Xanthidae 93.02 22.00 20 23 

Ampelisca verrilli 94.00 22.85 21.97 24.28 

Corbula contracta 95.00 23.97 23.59 24 

Hydrobiidae 96.00 5.80 5.8 5.8 

Decapoda (zoea) 96.01 0.10 0.1 0.1 

Cladotanytarsus cf. davies 97.00 0.20 0.2 0.2 

Nereidae 98.00 4.65 0.19 5.8 

Spionidae 99.00 2.18 0.1 5.8 






Dasyhelea 100.00 0.43 0.1 2.1 

Coelotanypus scapularis 101.00 0.20 0.18 0.2 

Aulodrilus pigueti 102.00 0.10 0.1 0.1 

Dero 103.00 0.46 0.1 2.1 

Aricidea philbinae 104.00 24.14 24 24.28 

Actiniaria 104.01 18.00 16 20 

Aoridae 104.02 5.88 5.88 5.88 

Tanytarsus sp. A 104.03 0.10 0.1 0.1 

Tanytarsus cf. sp. C 105.00 10.07 8.4 10.8 

Goeldichironomus 106.00 0.19 0.19 0.19 

Nais pardalis 107.00 1.70 0.1 2.1 

Chironomini (pupae) 108.00 1.86 0.2 5.8 

Paranais littoralis 109.00 0.10 0.1 0.1 

Amphipoda 110.00 7.55 5.8 12.1 

Malmgreniella taylori 111.00 24.00 24 24 

Dicrotendipes neomodestus 112.00 1.10 0.1 2.1 

Cercobrachys 112.01 0.19 0.19 0.19 

Abra aequalis 113.00 18.78 17.02 23.59 

Orthocladiinae 114.00 1.15 0.1 2.1 

Magelona pettiboneae 115.00 24.00 24 24 

Dero digitata 116.00 0.10 0.1 0.1 

Schistomeringos rudolphi 117.00 23.94 23.59 24 

Myzobdella lugubris 118.00 5.80 5.8 5.8 

Hemipholis elongata 119.00 24.00 24 24 

Nereidae sp. C 119.01 0.10 0.1 0.1 

Aulodrilus 119.02 0.10 0.1 0.1 

Ancistrosyllis jonesi 120.00 21.97 21.97 21.97 

Nassarius vibex 121.00 24.00 24 24 

Nephtys simoni 121.01 24.00 24 24 

Branchiostoma floridae 121.02 24.00 24 24 

Polinices duplicatus 121.03 24.00 24 24 

Spio pettiboneae 121.04 24.00 24 24 

Travisia hobsonae 121.05 24.00 24 24 

Ensis minor 121.06 24.00 24 24 

Loimia medusa 121.07 23.00 23 23 

Phoronis architecta 121.08 23.00 23 23 

Sphenia antillensis 121.09 23.00 23 23 

Natica pusilla 121.10 23.00 23 23 

Aegathoa oculata 121.11 23.00 23 23 






Crassostrea virginica 121.12 23.00 23 23 

Ophiophragmus filograneus 121.13 23.00 23 23 

Lucinidae 121.14 22.00 22 22 

U pogebia affinis 121.15 22.00 22 22 

Parvanachis obesa 121.16 20.40 20.4 20.4 

Insecta 121.17 18.20 18.2 18.2 

Sipunculidae 121.18 18.20 18.2 18.2 

Aeolidoidea 121.19 18.20 18.2 18.2 

Hydrozoa 121.20 11.61 11.61 11.61 

Cyathura 121.21 11.61 11.61 11.61 

Enchytraeidae 121.22 0.10 0.1 0.1 

Oecetis inconspicua complex sp. A 121.23 0.10 0.1 0.1 

Stempellina 121.24 0.10 0.1 0.1 

Stenelrnis 121.25 0.10 0.1 0.1 

Tanytarsus sp. S 12l.26 0.10 0.1 0.1 

Trombidiformes 12l.27 0.10 0.1 0.1 

cf. Tribelos 121.28 0.10 0.1 0.1 

cf. Mesosrnittia 12l.29 0.10 0.1 0.1 

Acanthohaustorius 122.00 24.00 24 24 

Mysidopsis 123.00 4.77 0.1 8.4 

Aglaophamus verrilli 124.00 21.97 2l.97 21.97 

Amphipholis squamata 125.00 24.00 24 24 

Amphioplus thrombodes 125.01 24.00 24 24 

Dubiraphia vittata 125.02 0.19 0.19 0.19 

Ophiuroidea 126.00 22.42 21.97 23.59 

Diplodonta serniaspera 126.01 22.42 2l.97 23.59 

Prionospio 127.00 1.20 0.1 2.1 

Coelotanypus 127.01 0.14 0.1 0.18 

Dicrotendipes tritomus 128.00 2.12 0.1 5 

Capitellidae 128.01 2.12 0.1 5 

Cryptochironomus ful vous gpo 129.00 5.80 5.8 5.8 

Mysidacea 129.01 4.25 0.1 8.4 

Melita 129.02 0.10 0.1 0.1 

Pyrgophorus platyrachis 129.03 0.10 0.1 0.1 

Clymenella torquata 130.00 21.97 2l.97 21.97 

Branchiomrna 131.00 24.00 24 24 

Monoculodes edwardsi 131.01 24.00 24 24 

Pectinaria gouldii 131.02 24.00 24 24 

Scolelepis texana 131.03 24.00 24 24 






Scoloplos rubra 131.04 24.00 24 24 

Tagelus cf. plebeius 131.05 12.10 12.1 12.1 

Veneridae 131.06 12.10 12.1 12.1 

Americamysis cf. bigelowi 132.00 23.59 23.59 23.59 

Nucula crenulata 132.01 23.59 23.59 23.59 

Parahesione luteola 132.02 23.59 23.59 23.59 

Munna 133.00 24.00 24 24 

Bhawania heteroseta 133.01 24.00 24 24 

Alpheus 133.02 24.00 24 24 

Ambidexter symmetricus 133.03 24.00 24 24 

Nephtys 133.04 24.00 24 24 

Mediomastus 133.05 24.00 24 24 

Stylochus 133.06 24.00 24 24 

H ydrophilidae 133.07 2.10 2.1 2.1 

Isolda pulchella 133.08 2.10 2.1 2.1 

cf. Elirnia 133.09 2.10 2.1 2.1 

cf. Paralauterbomiella 133.10 2.10 2.1 2.1 

nigrohauterale 

cf. Slavina appendiculata 133.11 2.10 2.1 2.1 

Caenis 133.12 0.19 0.19 0.19 

Rheotanytarsus exiguus gpo 133.13 0.19 0.19 0.19 

Dicrotendipes modestus 133.14 0.10 0.1 0.1 

Gammarus nr; tigrinus 133.15 0.10 0.1 0.1 

Tubificidae (immature) sp. B 133.16 0.10 0.1 0.1 

Ablabesmyia 133.17 0.10 0.1 0.1 

Oxyethira 133.18 0.10 0.1 0.1 

Rheotanytarsus distinctissimus gpo 134.00 5.80 5.8 5.8 

Gammarus 134.01 0.20 0.2 0.2 

H ydroptilidae 134.02 0.19 0.19 0.19 

Ablabesmyia mallochi 134.03 0.10 0.1 0.1 

Coenagrionidae 134.04 0.10 0.1 0.1 

Malmgreniella maccraryae 135.00 21.97 21.97 21.97 

Parvilucina multilineata 135.01 21.97 21.97 21.97 

Prionospio pygmaea 135.02 21.97 21.97 21.97 

Leitoscoloplos 135.03 21.97 21.97 21.97 

Notomastus hernipodus 135.04 21.97 21.97 21.97 

Culicoides 135.05 5.00 5 5 

Tectonatica pusilla 136.00 23.59 23.59 23.59 

Cephalocarida 136.01 23.59 23.59 23.59 


Appendix Table D-3. Center of abundance estimates for all data used in this report based on modeled 30 

day average salinity, reported by HBMP strata. 

XianChens salinity model for 30 day averages for weighted salinities for each species and counts of occurrences 

by strata. 

Weighted Total Collections by HBMP Strata 

Taxa NODC Code Salinity Collection



by strata. 


Taxa NODCCode Salinity CoIIect:ion-, AR-2 AR-3 AR-4 AR-5 AR-6 AR-7 

Thalassodrilides gurwitschi 5009022302 22.89 11 3 5 3 0 0 0 

Macoma tenta 5515310120 28.28 10 9 1 0 0 0 0 

Paramphinome sp. B 5001100498 25.28 10 7 3 0 0 0 0 

Pinnixa 61890604 29.01 10 7 2 1 0 0 0 

Prionospio perkinsi 5001430517 28.09 10 6 2 0 1 0 1 

Almyracuma proximoculae 6154080201 12.61 9 1 1 2 4 1 0 

Apocorophium 61691502 18.65 9 2 3 3 1 0 0 

Coelotanypus 64893902 0.85 9 0 0 0 2 4 3 

Neanthes succinea 5001240309 23.31 9 5 2 0 1 1 0 

Phyllodoce arenae 5001131410 26.19 9 8 1 0 0 0 0 

Polypedilum halterale gpo 6489603618gp 2.28 9 0 1 2 2 2 2 

Polypedilum scalaenum 6489603633 5.51 9 1 0 0 2 4 2 

Tubificoides brownae 5009020901 26.16 9 7 2 0 0 0 0 

Chaoborus punctipennis 6489050209 1.82 8 0 0 0 3 2 3 

Garnmarus mucronatus 6169210709 24.81 8 5 1 0 0 1 

Americamysis almyra 6153012103 12.85 8 1 1 2 2 1 1 

Tubificidae (immature) sp. A 5009020099 2.88 8 0 0 2 2 2 2 

Carazziella hobsonae 5001432706 26.56 7 4 3 0 0 0 0 

Fissimentum 64896049 2.64 7 0 0 1 0 2 4 

Glottidia pyramidata 8010010101 25.17 7 5 1 0 0 0 1 

Glycera americana 5001270104 27.47 7 6 1 0 0 0 0 

Polydora socialis 5001430402 15.49 7 2 2 1 1 1 0 

Polypedilum scalaenum gpo 6489603633gp 3.70 7 0 0 2 2 2 1 

Chironomini 648960 1.39 6 0 0 2 2 1 1 

Cryptotendi pes 64896009 0.81 6 1 0 1 1 1 2 

Monticellina dorsobranchialis 5001500310 26.69 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 

Oxyurostylis cf. smithi 6154050801cf 23.18 6 3 2 0 0 0 

Xanthidae 618902 12.97 6 2 0 1 1 1 1 

Ablabesmyia mallochi 6489420110 0.20 5 0 0 0 0 2 3 

Ablabesmyia rhamphe 6489420117 0.80 5 0 0 0 0 2 3 

Baetidae 621602 0.06 5 0 0 0 0 1 4 

Balanus improvisus 6134020114 15.60 5 0 2 0 2 1 0 

Capitella jonesi 5001600701 23.27 5 3 I I 0 0 0 

Ceratopogonidae 648920 0.67 5 0 0 2 1 1 I 

cf. Cincinnatia floridana 5103130403 7.47 5 0 0 2 2 1 0 

Dicrotendipes tritomus 6489601313 0.95 5 0 0 1 2 1 1 

Mysidopsis 61530121 20.95 5 1 1 1 1 1 0 

Myzobdella uraguayensis 5014010703 6.10 5 0 0 1 1 2 1 




by strata. 

Weighted Total Collections bl: HBMP Strata 

Taxa NODC Code Salinitl: CoIle.ctiom AR-2 AR-3 AR-4 AR-5 AR-6 AR-7 

Podarkeopsis levifuscina 5001211902 27.28 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 

Polycentropus 64181801 0_59 5 0 0 0 0 2 3 

Pyrgophorus platyrachis 5103133401 1.41 5 0 0 0 1 2 2 

Scoloplos rubra 5001400307 2735 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 

Spionidae 500143 10.21 5 1 1 0 1 2 0 

Stylochus cL ellipticus 3906030101cf 27_11 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 

Tagelus plebeius 5515330201 18_09 5 2 2 1 0 0 0 

Ampelisca 61690201 21.01 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 

Ampelisca cL holmesi 6169020123cf 1939 4 1 1 1 0 0 1 

Amphioplus squamata 8129030908 2734 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 

Caenis 62180202 0.53 4 0 0 0 1 1 2 

Corbula contracta 5517020201 28 _74 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 

Edotea montosa 6162020701 18-48 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 

Leitoscoloplos robustus 5001400304 19.23 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 

Nemertea sp_ F 4300000094 22_15 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 

Nereidae 500124 4_12 4 0 0 2 1 1 0 

Odostomia laevigata 5108010140 17_50 4 0 3 1 0 0 0 

Oecetis 64181204 0.01 4 0 0 0 0 2 2 

Oligochaeta 5003 15.68 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 

Polymesoda caroliniana 5515450101 19.20 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 

Polypedilum 64896036 10.97 4 0 I 1 2 0 0 

Procladius (Holotanypus) 6489450299 0.15 4 0 0 0 1 2 1 

Rhithropanopeus harrisii 6189020901 9.23 4 0 1 0 2 1 0 

Tanytarsus sp. G 6489621394 0.04 4 0 0 1 1 1 1 

Amphipoda 6168 2.31 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 

Athenaria sp. A 3759000099 18.15 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 

Brachycercus maculatus 6218020105 1.01 3 0 0 1 0 1 1 

Chironomini (pupae) 64896099 8.03 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 

Coelotanypus scapularis 6489390204 7.10 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 

Coelotanypus tricolor 6489390205 1.46 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 

Cryptochironomus blarina 6489600802 0.02 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 

Dubiraphia vittata 6316040205 0.73 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 

Euplana gracilis 3906050601 26.91 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 

Gammarus cL tigrinus 6169210707cf 0.21 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 

Gastropoda 51 14.95 3 1 1 0 0 1 0 

Glycera 50012701 24.84 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 

Haminoea succinea 5110120104 25.06 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 

Leitoscoloplos 50014016 21.04 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 




by strata. 


Taxa NODCCode Salinity CoIIectiom AR-2 AR-3 AR-4 AR-5 AR-6 AR-7 

Listriella barnardi 6169330301 22.95 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 

Macoma constricta 5515310121 27.84 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 

Mactra fragilis 5515250601 25.64 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 

Mediomastus 50016004 21.64 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 

Melanoides tuberculata 5103380101 0.73 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 

Melita nitida complex 6169211006cx 21.25 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 

Neanthes micromma 5001240415 25.32 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 

Neritina reclivata 5102170103 7.02 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 

Oxyurostylis smithi 6154050801 19.83 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 

Pagastiella 64896030 0.09 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 

Pinnixa sayana 6189060409 27.73 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 

Polypedilum illinoense gpo 6489603619gp 0.11 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 

Rheotanytarsus 64896209 6.76 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 

Rictaxis punctostriatus 5110010403 20.33 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 

Sigambra tentaculata 5001220201 22.26 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 

Stenelmis 63160401 0.48 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 

Streblospio 50014318 24.87 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 

Tanytarsus sp. K 6489621389 0.13 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 

Taphromysis bowmani 6153012702 18.45 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 

Tribelos fuscicome 6489604302 0.32 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 

Tubificidae 500902 23.26 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 

Ablabesmyia 64894201 0.27 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 

Ablabesmyia rhamphe gpo 6489420117 1.14 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 

Actiniaria 3758 19.14 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 

Amakusanthura magnifica 6160012001 16.38 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 

Americamysis 61530315 23.44 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 

Americamysis bahia 6153031502 23.20 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 

Ampelisca abdita 6169020108 23.53 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 

Ampelisca cf. vadorum 6169020109 22.98 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 

Amphicteis gunneri 5001670303 15.21 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 

Apocorophium lacustre 6169150205 13.70 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 

Aricidea philbinae 5001410221 23.92 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 

Assiminea succinea 5103210103 17.37 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 

Atys riiseana 5110120203 28.08 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 

Aulodrilus pigueti 5009020801 0.08 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 

Caenis hilaris 6218020208 2.62 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 

Capitellidae 500160 0.80 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 

Cassidinidea ovalis 6161020802 2.13 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 




by strata. 


Taxa NODC Code Salinity Collections AR-2 AR-3 AR-4 AR-S AR-6 AR-7 

Chironornidae 648933 2.08 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Cladotanytarsus cf. davies 6489620107cf 9.68 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 

Corophiidae 616915 26.35 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 

Cumacea 6154 7.70 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 

Cymellus fratemus 6418030301 0.46 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 

Dero 50090306 0.00 2 0 0 0 0 1 

Dero digitata 5009030604 0.00 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Dicrotendipes modestus 6489601310 0.00 2 0 0 0 0 1 

Dicrotendipes neomodestus 6489601311 0.00 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Diopatra cuprea 5001290201 23.99 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 

Diptera 6481 21.60 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 

Djalmabatista 64894501 3.32 2 0 0 0 1 0 I 

Enteropneusta 8201 29.74 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 

Gammarus nr. tigrinus 6169210707nr 0.00 2 0 0 0 0 1 I 

Gomphidae 622504 5.20 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 

Holothuroidea sp. C 8170000097 16.98 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 

Littoridinops 51031305 12.86 2 0 0 1 0 0 

Macrornia 62260126 2.62 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 

MageJona pettiboneae 5001440106 29.67 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 

Mysidacea 6151 4.22 2 0 0 0 1 0 

Myzobdella lugubris 5014010701 3.53 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 

Nassarius vibex 5105080102 26.63 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 

Nemertea sp. A 4300000099 17.92 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 

Nemertea sp. U 4300000079 20.65 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 

Neritina usnea 5102170106 9. 11 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 

Ostracoda 6110 7.37 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 

Parakeifferiella 64895646 0.00 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Polydora comuta 5001430448 21.59 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 

Polypedilum tritum 6489603639 2.53 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 

Prionospio 50014305 16.81 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 

Rheotanytarsus distinctissimus gpo 6489620902gp 4.59 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 

Sphaeriidae 551546 8.94 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 

Tanypus clavatus 6489460101 14.81 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 

Tanytarsus cf. sp. C 6489621397cf 8.31 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 

Tellina 55153102 19.78 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 

Trichoptera 6418 1.14 2 0 0 1 0 0 

Tricorythodes 62170301 0.76 2 0 0 0 1 0 

Tricorythodes albilineatus 6217030102 2.06 2 0 0 0 0 

Appendix D - Macroinfaunal Data D-21 Mote Marine LaboratOlY - April 2003



by strata. 

Weighted Total Collections bI HBMP Strata 

Taxa NODCCode SalinitI Collections AR-2 AR-3 AR-4 AR-S AR-6 AR-7 

Tubulanus pellucidus 4302010104 27.44 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 

Abra aequalis 5515350201 16.62 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Acteocina canaliculata 5110040103 23.63 1 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 

Aeolidoidea 51420399 14.64 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Ambidexter symmetricus 6179170301 23.18 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Ampelisca holmesi 6169020123 26.94 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Ampelisca vadorum 6169020109 30.58 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Ampharetidae 500167 25.12 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Amphioplus thrombodes 8129030904 30.58 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Amphiuridae 812903 30.58 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Aricidea taylori 5001410222 20.22 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Ascidiacea sp. C 8401000097 26.94 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Asellus 61630205 0.30 1 0 b 0 0 0 1 

Astyris lunata 5105030207 30.58 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Asychis elongata 5001630103 26.49 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Athenaria 3759 20.22 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Aulodrilus 50090208 0.00 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Aulodrilus limnobius 5009020802 0.00 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Aulodrilus pluriseta 5009020804 0.24 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Bivalvia sp. A 5500000099 0.00 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Bowmaniella 61530126 28.38 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Brachidontes exustus 5507010902 23.63 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Brachycercus 62180201 0.21 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Cambaridae 618105 10.54 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Caprella 61710107 23.63 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Caprellidae 617101 23.63 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Cerapus cf. tubularis 6169150102cf 27.84 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Cercobrachys 62180204 0.54 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Cercobrachys etowah 6218020301 10.54 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 

cf. Elirnia 51034006cf 0.00 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 

cf. Melita dentata 6169211003cf 0.22 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

cf. Mesosrnittia 64895637cf 0.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

cf. Paralauterbomiella 6489303302 0.00 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 

nigrohauterale 

cf. Slavina appendiculata 5009030101cf 0.00 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 

cf. Tribelos 6489604304cf 0.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Chaoborus 64890502 14.49 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Cheumatopsyche 64180402 2.93 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Appendix D - Macroinfaunal Data D-22 Mote Ma rine Laboratory - April 2003



by strata. 

Weighted Total Collections bl: HBMP Strata 

Taxa NODC Code Salinitl: Collections AR-2 AR-3 AR-4 AR-5 AR-6 AR-7 

Chone cf. americana 5001700lO7cf 27.84 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Cladopelma 64896007 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Coenagrionidae 622904 0.00 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Corbula swiftiana 5517020205 26.94 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Crepidula 51036402 23.63 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Cryptochironomus fulvous gpo 6489600805 1.46 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Culicoides 64892501 1.46 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Cyathura 61600lO2 16.62 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Cyclaspis varians 6154090202 23.63 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Cymadusa compta 6169040201 28.04 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Dasyhelea 64892301 0.00 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Decapoda (unid. shrimp) 6175 23.63 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Decapoda (zoea) 6175 0.00 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Dicrotendipes cf. neomodestus 6489601311cf 16.62 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Dineutus 63050803 0.22 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Dorvillea pectinata 5001360114 26.94 1 0 0 0 0 0 

EcJipidrilus palustris 5005010702 0.30 0 0 0 0 0 

Enchytraeidae 500901 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 I 

Erichsonella attenuata 6162020601 19.1O 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Erpobdel\a punctata 5016010202 14.49 0 0 0 0 0 

Gammarus 61692lO7 10.54 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Genetyllis castanea 5001130701 30.58 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Glossiphoniidae sp. A 5014020099 2.79 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Goeldichironomus 64896018 lO.54 0 0 I 0 0 0 

Gyptis crypta 5001210lO8 26.94 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Hargeria rap ax 6157150212 24.09 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Harrnothoe sp. C 500lO20897 30.58 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Hebetancylus excentricus 51141lO501 0.22 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Heptageniidae 621601 0.22 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Holothuroidea sp. F 8170000094 20.26 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Hydrophilidae 630903 0.00 0 0 0 0 1 0 

H ydroptil idae 641805 4.34 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Hydrozoa 3701 16.62 0 0 0 0 0 

Insecta 62 14.64 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Isolda pulchella 5001672lOl 0.00 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Leitoscolopios foliosus 5001401604 23.63 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Littoridinops monroensis 5103130502 20.26 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Littoridinops palustris 5103130503 14.49 0 0 0 0 0 

Appendi x D - Macroinfaunal Data D-23 Mote Marine LaboratOlY - April 2003



by strata. 


Taxa NODC Code Salinity CoIlectiom AR-2 AR-3 AR-4 AR-5 AR-6 AR-7 

Lucinidae 551501 23.63 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Lumbrineris sp. D 5001310196 27.07 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Lumbrineris verrilli 5001310124 27.07 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Mediomastus californiensis 5001600402 21.63 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Melita 61692110 0.00 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Melita elongata 6169211014 26.94 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Mooreobdella melanostoma 5016010304 20.26 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Mysidopsis bahia 6153012102 29.68 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Nais communis 5009030803 14.93 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Nais pardalis 5009030805 0.00 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Nemertea sp. K 4300000089 26.94 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Nephtys cryptomma 5001250134 26.94 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Ne·reidae sp. B 5001240098 7.86 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Nereidae sp. C 5001240097 0.00 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Notomastus latericeus 5001600306 26.49 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Nudibranchia 5127 26.94 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Odonata 6223 0.24 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Odostomia 51080101 23.63 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Oecetis inconspicua complex sp. A 6418120499mx 0.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Oecetis nocturna 6418120406 4.34 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Onobops 51031331 20.26 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Orthocladiinae 648956 0.00 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Oxyethira 64180505 0.00 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Oxyurostylis 61540508 26.94 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Palaemonetes paludosus 6179110302 7.86 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Palaemonetes pugio 6179110303 7.86 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Paracladopelma 64896032 0.54 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Parahesione luteola 5001210701 29.68 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Paralauterborniella 64896033 0.90 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Paralauterborniella nigrohalterale 6489603302 4.34 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Paranais littoralis 5009030301 0.00 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Parvanachis obesa 5105030303 24.09 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Pentaneura inconspicua 6489421301 10.54 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Phoronis 77000102 26.94 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Phoronis architecta 7700010203 26.49 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Pinnixa chaetopterana 6189060405 23.63 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Platyhelminthes 39 23.63 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Pristina proboscidea 5009030501 0.24 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Appendix D - Macroinfaunal Data D-24 Mole Marine Laboratory - April 2003



by strata. 

Weighted Total Collections bI HBMP Strata 

Taxa NODC Code SalinitI CoIIa1ions AR-2 AR-3 AR-4 AR-5 AR-6 AR-7 

Pseudeurythoe ambigua 5001100302 30.58 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Pseudochironomus 64896101 1.46 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Rheotanytarsus exiguus gpo 6489620903gp 0.54 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Rheumatobates 62740101 0.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Sayella laevigata 5103200611 14.93 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Schistomeringos cf. rudolphi 5001360504cf 30.58 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Scolecolepis viridis 5001430602 20.32 1 0 I 0 0 0 0 

Semele proficua 5515350103 9.35 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Sigambra bassi 5001220204 30.58 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Sipunculidae 720001 14.64 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Sphaerium 55154603 0.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Spiochaetopterus costarum 5001490302 26.94 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Spiochaetopterus costarum oculatus 500149030201 27.07 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Stempellina 64896210 0.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Sthenelais sp. A 5001060399 27.07 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Tagelus 55153302 23.63 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Tagelus cf. plebeius 5515330201cf 7.86 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Tanaidacea 6155 23.63 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Tanytarsus sp. A 6489621399 0.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Tanytarsus sp. C 6489621397 1.46 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Tanytarsus sp. S 6489621381 0.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Tanytarsus sp. T 6489621380 7.86 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Taphromysis louisianae 6153012701 1.46 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Tectonatica pusilla 5103760204 29.68 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Teinostoma biscaynense 5103230502 26.94 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Tellina cf. versicolor 5515310209cf 28.38 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Tellina versicolor 5515310209 23.63 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Tribelos 64896043 9.35 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Tribelos jucundum 6489604304 0.22 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Trombidiformes 5929 0.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Tubificidae (immature) sp. B 5009020098b 0.00 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Upogebia affinis 6183170102 23.63 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Veneridae 551547 7.86 1 0 0 I 0 0 0 

Vitrinella floridana 5103230205 20.26 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Xenanthura brevitelson 6160010701 30.58 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 



Benthic invertebrate biomass for the Alafia River, Mai: 1999 samEles. 

Sample No. No. No Ash-free wt. 

Km Rep Location Device Area Taxa Inds Inds/m2 %Org grams/m2 

-5 1 L1 Core 0.00456 11 36 7,895 

-5 2 L2 Core 0.00456 16 77 16,886 2.33 105.7 

-5 4 M1 Core 0.00456 9 22 4,825 

-5 5 M2 Ponar 0.02320 19 139 5,991 3.37 139.1 

-5 6 M3 Ponar 0.02320 10 153 6,595 52.74 3.3 

-5 9 R1 Ponar 0.02320 17 272 11,724 16.09 19.3 

-5 10 R2 Core 0.00456 8 34 7,456 3.76 143.9 

-3 1 L1 Core 0.00456 10 54 11,842 

-3 2 L2 Core 0.00456 12 56 12,281 

-3 4 M1 Core 0.00456 12 81 17,763 3.74 62.7 

-3 5 M2 Ponar 0.02320 10 134 5,776 7.08 0.6 

-3 6 M3 Ponar 0.02320 10 126 5,431 55.36 2.7 

-3 9 R1 Core 0.00456 12 22 4,825 1.51 22.4 

-3 10 R2 Core 0.00456 4 8 1,754 0.81 60.5 

1 1 L1 Core 0.00456 7 9 1,974 146.10 

1 2 L2 Core 0.00456 14 30 6,579 

1 4 M1 Core 0.00456 8 19 4,167 

5 M2 Core 0.00456 12 37 8,114 4.41 329.6 

1 6 M3 Core 0.00456 11 25 5,482 10.22 1,250.2 

1 9 R1 Core 0.00456 7 9 1,974 3.94 759.2 

1 10 R2 Core 0.00456 15 154 33,772 1.69 210.5 

2 1 L1 Core 0.00456 25 130 28,509 46.53 1,170.2 

2 2 L2 Core 0.00456 12 66 14,474 3.01 123.5 

2 4 Ml Core 0.00456 17 34 7,456 3.79 832.2 

2 5 M2 Core 0.00456 9 22 4,825 2.81 648.0 

2 6 M3 Core 0.00456 15 43 9,430 4.16 163.8 

2 9 R1 Core 0.00456 16 158 34,649 1.69 274.1 

2 10 R2 Core 0.00456 23 156 34,211 2.38 403.5 

3 1 Ll Core 0.00456 18 120 26,316 24.30 602.9 

3 2 L2 Core 0.00456 5 35 7,675 10.71 341.4 

3 4 M1 Core 0.00456 7 34 7,456 11.69 548.5 

3 5 M2 Core 0.00456 13 99 21,711 18.08 2,206.6 

3 6 M3 Core 0.00456 16 191 41,886 54.38 1,474.8 

3 9 Rl Core 0.00456 10 39 8,553 8.71 709.0 

3 10 R2 Core 0.00456 11 44 9,649 7.69 550.2 

4 1 L1 Core 0.00456 19 118 25,877 5.74 1,493.6 

4 2 L2 Core 0.00456 8 31 6,798 15.47 438.8 

4 4 Ml Core 0.00456 16 202 44,298 9.46 507.5 

4 5 M2 Core 0.00456 10 109 23,904 12.18 565.8 

4 6 M3 Core 0.00456 12 237 51 ,974 39.66 3,418.9 

4 9 Rl Core 0.00456 9 47 10,307 4.07 410.7 

Appendix D - Macroinfaunal Data D-26 Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003




4 10 R2 Core 0.00456 11 44 9,649 22.67 556.4 

5 1 L1 Core 0.00456 7 32 7,018 19.82 588.4 

5 2 L2 Core 0.00456 11 49 10,746 16.88 966.7 

5 4 Ml Core 0.00456 6 35 7,675 5.05 342.5 

5 5 M2 Core 0.00456 10 146 32,018 22.22 2,210.5 

5 6 M3 Core 0.00456 15 120 26,316 20.62 1,000.7 

5 9 Rl Core 0.00456 11 36 7,895 36.72 821.1 

5 10 R2 Core 0.00456 14 109 23,904 12.38 356.6 

6 1 L1 Core 0.00456 11 123 26,974 4.86 1,007.5 

6 2 L2 Core 0.00456 18 113 24,781 8.46 584.2 

6 4 Ml Core 0.00456 5 16 3,509 5.69 111.6 

6 5 M2 Core 0.00456 8 51 11,184 4.02 1,640.4 

6 6 M3 Core 0.00456 12 69 15,132 34.97 1,266.9 

6 9 RI Core 0.00456 12 41 8,991 16.80 771.3 

6 10 R2 Core 0.00456 8 28 6,140 30.82 336.8 

7 1 L1 Ponar 0.02320 8 400 17,241 10.74 177.3 

7 2 L2 Core 0.00456 9 270 59,211 12.44 1,130.7 

7 4 Ml Ponar 0.02320 7 351 15,129 10.90 151.9 

7 5 M2 Core 0.00456 11 348 76,316 5.59 740.6 

7 6 M3 Core 0.00456 7 15 3,289 71.50 2,791.2 

7 9 Rl Core 0.00456 5 13 2,851 3.64 700.4 

7 10 R2 Core 0.00456 12 411 90,132 52.65 3,577.2 

8 1 L1 Ponar 0.02320 10 100 4,3 10 0.56 6.2 

8 2 L2 Core 0.00456 4 12 2,632 21.92 711.4 

8 4 Ml Core 0.00456 6 78 17,105 3.15 511.6 

8 5 M2 Core 0.00456 14 268 58,772 12.90 1,386.2 

8 6 M3 Core 0.00456 4 7 1,535 27.05 468.6 

8 9 Rl Core 0.00456 11 545 119,518 5.75 804.8 

8 10 R2 Ponar 0.02320 6 14 603 4.76 100.3 

9 1 L1 Ponar 0.02320 3 11 474 72.74 115.7 

9 2 L2 Ponar 0.02320 13 116 5,000 67.05 81.5 

9 4 Ml Ponar 0.02320 6 7 302 27 .75 95 .6 

9 5 M2 Core 0.00456 16 354 77,632 13.71 1,016.4 

9 6 M3 0 71.99 

9 9 Rl Ponar 0.02320 3 6 259 62.79 428.4 

9 10 R2 Core 0.00456 9 61 13,377 76.42 907.5 

10 1 L1 Ponar 0.02320 10 39 1,681 2.00 120.7 

10 2 L2 Ponar 0.02320 5 34 1,466 2.65 63.8 

10 4 Ml Core 0.00456 15 190 41,667 66.30 993.2 

10 5 M2 Core 0.00456 15 183 40,132 66.00 1,476.1 

10 6 M3 Ponar 0.02320 4 5 216 3.16 13.3 





10 9 R1 Ponar 0.02320 8 28 1,207 2.45 140.5 

10 10 R2 Core 0.00456 15 76 16,667 63.18 980.7 

11 1 L1 Ponar 0.02320 6 66 2,845 0.51 43.5 

11 2 L2 Ponar 0.02320 5 89 3,836 8.40 494.4 

11 4 Ml Ponar 0.02320 4 13 560 1.77 14.0 

11 5 M2 Core 0.00456 12 48 10,526 63.17 742.1 

11 6 M3 Ponar 0.02320 4 50 2,155 3.56 175.4 

11 9 RI Core 0.00456 8 49 10,746 48.11 596.9 

11 10 R2 Ponar 0.02320 4 79 3,405 9.62 419.8 

12 1 Ll Ponar 0.02320 8 215 9,267 4.40 54.7 

12 2 L2 Ponar 0.02320 12 279 12,026 72.46 147.3 

12 4 M1 Ponar 0.02320 11 680 29,310 5.14 121.1 

12 5 M2 Core 0.00456 17 140 30,702 63.15 766.9 

12 6 M3 Core 0.00456 16 208 45,614 67.39 846.5 

12 9 Rl Core 0.00456 5 14 3,070 64.64 163.6 

12 10 R2 Core 0.00456 14 165 36,184 66.86 982.7 

13 1 L1 Core 0.00456 17 38 8,333 19.77 118.4 

13 2 L2 Core 0.00456 12 33 7,237 24.70 81.6 

13 4 Ml Core 0.00456 6 16 3,509 65.11 244.7 

13 5 M2 Ponar 0.02320 20 76 3,276 1.37 62.1 

13 6 M3 Ponar 0.02320 5 28 1,207 1.67 74.1 

13 9 R1 Ponar 0.02320 4 12 517 1.12 134.9 

13 10 R2 Ponar 0.02320 7 159 6,853 

14 1 Ll Core 0.00456 14 57 12,500 59.51 1,421.9 

14 2 L2 Ponar 0.02320 4 5 216 

14 4 M1 Ponar 0.02320 11 96 4,138 0.74 41.8 

14 5 M2 Core 0.00456 7 35 7,675 64.91 834.0 

14 6 M3 Core 0.00456 21 116 25,439 80.02 537.5 

14 9 Rl Ponar 0.02320 21 100 4,310 0.59 33.2 

14 10 R2 Core 0.00456 9 94 20,614 79.29 1,526.3 

15 1 Ll Core 0.00456 10 30 6,579 48.17 324.1 

15 2 L2 Core 0.00456 11 57 12,500 65.94 468.6 

15 4 Ml Core 0.00456 7 22 4,825 45.18 288.8 

15 5 M2 Core 0.00456 6 16 3,509 78.94 550.7 

15 6 M3 Core 0.00456 16 81 17,763 57.33 406.4 

15 9 Rl Core 0.00456 7 26 5,702 60.16 336.2 

15 10 R2 Core 0.00456 18 112 24,561 68.48 312.1 

Appendix D - Macroinfaunal Data D-28 Mote Marine Laboratory· June 2003

Appendix Table D-S. 

Benthic invertebrate biomass for the Alafia River, Ma~ 1999 samEles. 


Km Rep Location Device Area Taxa Inds Inds/m2 %Org gramslm2 

-5 1 LI Core 0.00456 11 36 7,895 

-5 2 L2 Core 0.00456 16 77 16,886 2.33 105.7 

-5 4 Ml Core 0.00456 9 22 4,825 

-5 5 M2 Ponar 0.02320 19 139 5,991 3.37 139.1 

-5 6 M3 Ponar 0.02320 10 153 6,595 52.74 3.3 

-5 9 Rl Ponar 0.02320 17 272 11 ,724 16.09 19.3 

-5 10 R2 Core 0.00456 8 34 7,456 3.76 143.9 

-3 LI Core 0.00456 10 54 11 ,842 

-3 2 L2 Core 0.00456 12 56 12,281 

-3 4 Ml Core 0.00456 12 81 17,763 3.74 62.7 

-3 5 M2 Ponar 0.02320 10 134 5,776 7.08 0.6 

-3 6 M3 Ponar 0.02320 10 126 5,431 55 .36 2.7 

-3 9 Rl Core 0.00456 12 22 4,825 1.51 22.4 

-3 10 R2 Core 0.00456 4 8 1,754 0.81 60.5 

1 1 LI Core 0.00456 7 9 1,974 146.10 

1 2 L2 Core 0.00456 14 30 6,579 

4 Ml Core 0.00456 8 19 4,167 

5 M2 Core 0.00456 12 37 8,114 4.41 329.6 

6 M3 Core 0.00456 11 25 5,482 10.22 1,250.2 

9 Rl Core 0.00456 7 9 1,974 3.94 759.2 

1 10 R2 Core 0.00456 15 154 33,772 1.69 210.5 

2 1 LI Core 0.00456 25 130 28,509 46.53 1,170.2 

2 2 L2 Core 0.00456 12 66 14,474 3.01 123.5 

2 4 Ml Core 0.00456 17 34 7,456 3.79 832.2 

2 5 M2 Core 0.00456 9 22 4,825 2.81 648.0 

2 6 M3 Core 0.00456 15 43 9,430 4.16 163.8 

2 9 Rl Core 0.00456 16 158 34,649 1.69 274.1 

2 10 R2 Core 0.00456 23 156 34,211 2.38 403.5 

3 1 Ll Core 0.00456 18 120 26,316 24.30 602.9 

3 2 L2 Core 0.00456 5 35 7,675 10.7 1 341.4 

3 4 Ml Core 0.00456 7 34 7,456 11.69 548.5 

3 5 M2 Core 0.00456 13 99 21 ,711 18.08 2,206.6 

3 6 M3 Core 0.00456 16 191 41 ,886 54.38 1,474.8 

3 9 R l Core 0.00456 10 39 8,553 8.71 709.0 

3 10 R2 Core 0.00456 11 44 9,649 7.69 550.2 

4 1 Ll Core 0.00456 19 118 25,877 5.74 1,493.6 

4 2 L2 Core 0.00456 8 31 6,798 15.47 438.8 

4 4 Ml Core 0.00456 16 202 44,298 9.46 507.5 

4 5 M2 Core 0.00456 10 109 23,904 12.18 565.8 

4 6 M3 Core 0.00456 12 237 51 ,974 39.66 3,418.9 

4 9 R l Core 0.00456 9 47 10,307 4.07 410.7 

4 10 R2 Core 0.00456 11 44 9,649 22.67 556.4 

5 1 Ll Core 0.00456 7 32 7,018 19.82 588.4 

5 2 L2 Core 0.00456 11 49 10,746 16.88 966.7 

5 4 Ml Core 0.00456 6 35 7,675 5.05 342.5 

5 5 M2 Core 0.00456 10 146 32,018 22.22 2,210.5 


Appendix Table D-S (continued). 



5 6 M3 Core 0.00456 15 120 26,316 20.62 1,000.7 

5 9 Rl Core 0.00456 11 36 7,895 36.72 82l.l 

5 10 R2 Core 0.00456 14 109 23 ,904 12.38 356.6 

6 1 Ll Core 0.00456 11 123 26,974 4.86 1,007.5 

6 2 L2 Core 0.00456 18 113 24,781 8.46 584.2 

6 4 Ml Core 0.00456 5 16 3,509 5.69 111.6 

6 5 M2 Core 0.00456 8 51 11 ,184 4.02 1,640.4 

6 6 M3 Core 0.00456 12 69 15,132 34.97 1,266.9 

6 9 Rl Core 0.00456 12 41 8,991 16.80 771.3 

6 10 R2 Core 0.00456 8 28 6,140 30.82 336.8 

7 1 Ll Ponar 0.02320 8 400 17,241 10.74 177.3 

7 2 L2 Core 0.00456 9 270 59,211 12.44 1,130.7 

7 4 Ml Ponar 0.02320 7 351 15,129 10.90 151.9 

7 5 M2 Core 0.00456 11 348 76,316 5.59 740.6 

7 6 M3 Core 0.00456 7 15 3,289 71.50 2,791.2 

7 9 RI Core 0.00456 5 13 2,851 3.64 700.4 

7 10 R2 Core 0.00456 12 411 90,132 52.65 3,577.2 

8 1 Ll Ponar 0.02320 10 100 4,310 0.56 6.2 

8 2 L2 Core 0.00456 4 12 2,632 21.92 711.4 

8 4 Ml Core 0.00456 6 78 17,105 3.15 511.6 

8 5 M2 Core 0.00456 14 268 58,772 12.90 1,386.2 

8 6 M3 Core 0.00456 4 7 1,535 27 .05 468.6 

8 9 RI Core 0.00456 11 545 119,518 5.75 804.8 

8 10 R2 Ponar 0.02320 6 14 603 4.76 100.3 

9 1 Ll Ponar 0.02320 3 11 474 72.74 115.7 

9 2 L2 Ponar 0.02320 13 116 5,000 67.05 81.5 

9 4 Ml Ponar 0.02320 6 7 302 27.75 95 .6 

9 5 M2 Core 0.00456 16 354 77,632 13.71 1,016.4 

9 6 M3 0 71.99 

9 9 Rl Ponar 0.02320 3 6 259 62.79 428.4 

9 10 R2 Core 0.00456 9 61 13,377 76.42 907.5 

10 1 Ll Ponar 0.02320 10 39 1,681 2.00 120.7 

10 2 L2 Ponar 0.02320 5 34 1,466 2.65 63.8 

10 4 Ml Core 0.00456 15 190 41,667 66.30 993.2 

10 5 M2 Core 0.00456 15 183 40,132 66.00 1,476.1 

10 6 M3 Ponar 0.02320 4 5 216 3.16 13.3 

10 9 Rl Ponar 0.02320 8 28 1,207 2.45 140.5 

10 10 R2 Core 0.00456 15 76 16,667 63.18 980.7 

11 1 Ll Ponar 0.02320 6 66 2,845 0.51 43.5 

11 2 L2 Ponar 0.02320 5 89 3,836 8.40 494.4 

11 4 Ml Ponar 0.02320 4 13 560 1.77 14.0 

11 5 M2 Core 0.00456 12 48 10,526 63.17 742.1 

11 6 M3 Ponar 0.02320 4 50 2, 155 3.56 175.4 

11 9 Rl Core 0.00456 8 49 10,746 48.11 596.9 

11 10 R2 Ponar 0.02320 4 79 3,405 9.62 419.8 

12 1 Ll Ponar 0.02320 8 215 9,267 4.40 54.7 


Appendix Table D-S (continued). 



12 2 L2 Ponar 0.02320 12 279 12,026 72.46 147.3 

12 4 Ml Ponar 0.02320 11 680 29,310 5.14 121.1 

12 5 M2 Core 0.00456 17 140 30,702 63.15 766.9 

12 6 M3 Core 0.00456 16 208 45,614 67.39 846.5 

12 9 Rl Core 0.00456 5 14 3,070 64.64 163.6 

12 10 R2 Core 0.00456 14 165 36,184 66.86 982.7 

l3 1 Ll Core 0.00456 17 38 8,333 19.77 118.4 

13 2 L2 Core 0.00456 12 33 7,237 24.70 81.6 

13 4 Ml Core 0.00456 6 16 3,509 65 . 11 244.7 

13 5 M2 Ponar 0.02320 20 76 3,276 1.37 62.1 

13 6 M3 Ponar 0.02320 5 28 1,207 1.67 74.1 

13 9 Rl Ponar 0.02320 4 12 517 1.12 134.9 

l3 10 R2 Ponar 0.02320 7 159 6,853 

14 1 Ll Core 0.00456 14 57 12,500 59.51 1,421.9 

14 2 L2 Ponar 0.02320 4 5 216 

14 4 Ml Ponar 0.02320 11 96 4,138 0.74 41.8 

14 5 M2 Core 0.00456 7 35 7,675 64.91 834.0 

14 6 M3 Core 0.00456 21 116 25,439 80.02 537.5 

14 9 Rl Ponar 0.02320 21 100 4,310 0.59 33.2 

14 10 R2 Core 0.00456 9 94 20,614 79.29 1,526.3 

15 1 Ll Core 0.00456 10 30 6,579 48.17 324.1 

15 2 L2 Core 0.00456 11 57 12,500 65.94 468.6 

15 4 Ml Core 0.00456 7 22 4,825 45.18 288.8 

15 5 M2 Core 0.00456 6 16 3,509 78.94 550.7 

15 6 M3 Core 0.00456 16 81 17,763 57.33 406.4 

15 9 R1 Core 0.00456 7 26 5,702 60.16 336.2 

15 10 R2 Core 0.00456 18 112 24,561 68.48 312.1 


27.88 

27.86 

Laeonereis e 

ri per m 2 - Dry Season 

~ 

27.84~1----------~---------r--~-----'----------~---------r--------~----------r---------~--~ 

-82.44 -82.42 -82.40 -82.38 -82.36 -82.34 -82.32 -82.30 -82.28 

.8000 

• 4000 

• 1000 

• 10 

27.88 Laeonereis elllveri per m 2 - Wet Season 

27.86 

.8000 

• 4000 

• 1000 

• 10 

2 7.84 ~1----------~---------r--~-----'----------~---------r--------~----------r---------~--~ 

-82.44 -82.42 -82.40 -82.38 -82.36 -82.34 -82.32 -82.30 -82.28 

Appendix Figure D-l. 

Distribution of the polychaete Laeonereis culveri for dry (May 1999) and wet (September 200 1) season 

conditions. Overall rank abundance #2. 


27.88 -j 

"ooj 

Mytilopsois 

~ 

2 

ata per m - Dry Season e 8000 

27.84 I 

-82.44 -82.42 -82.40 -82.38 -82.36 -82.34 -82.32 -82.30 -82.28 

• 4000 

• 1000 

• 100 

27.88 

2 

cophaeata per m - Wet Season 

e 8000 

• 4000 

27.86 

• 1000 

• 100 

27 . 84 ~1----------.----------,--L-----~----------.----------,---------,----------,----------.--~ 

-82.44 -82.42 -82.40 -82.38 -82.36 -82.34 -82.32 -82.30 -82.28 

Appendix Figure D-2. Distribution of the polychaete Mytilopsis leucophaeata for dry (May 1999) and wet (September 2001) 

season conditions. Overall rank abundance #3. 

Appendix D - Macroinfaunal Data D-33 Mote Marille Laboratory· JUlie 2003

27.88 

27.86 

Chi 

2 

spp. per m - Dry Season 

.4000 

• 2000 

• 500 

• 10 

27 . 8441---------,r---------.--L------r---------r_--------~--------~--------~--------,_--~ 

-82.44 -82.42 -82.40 -82.38 -82.36 -82.34 -82.32 -82.30 -82.28 

27.88 

27.86 

Chironomulspp. per m 2 - Wet Season 

.4000 

• 2000 

• 500 

• 10 

27 . 84 +1 ---------,---------,r-~------.---------.---------r_--------r_--------~--------~--~ 

-82.44 -82.42 -82.40 -82.38 -82.36 -82.34 -82.32 -82.30 -82.28 


Distribution of the polychaete Chironomus spp. for dry (May 1999) and wet (September 2001) season 



2788 

. 

-l S tre bl ospw . b· Fne rd" lctl per rn 2 - D ry S eason 

27.86 

.10000 

• 5000 

• 1000 

• 100 

27.84 ~1----------.----------,--L------,----------.----------,---------,----------.----------,--~ 

-82.44 -82.42 -82.40 -82.38 -82.36 -82.34 -82.32 -82.30 -82.28 

27.88 Streblospio edicti per rn 2 - Wet Season 

27.86 

• 

27 . 84 41---------,--------~r_~------r_--------r_--------._--------,_--------._--------,_--~ 

~~« -82.42 -82.40 -82.38 -82.36 -82.34 -82.32 -82.30 -82.28 

• 10000 

• 5000 

• 1000 

• 100 

Appendix Figure D-4. Distribution of the polychaete Streblospio benedicti for dry (May 1999) and wet (September 2001) 

season conditions_ Overall rank abundance #8. 


27.88 2 

lterale gpo per m - Dry Season 

27.86 

.4000 

• 2000 

• 500 

• 10 

27.84+1---------.---------.r-~------r_--------r_--------._--------._--------,_--------~--~ 

-82.44 -82.42 -82.40 -82.38 -82.36 -82.34 -82.32 -82.30 -82.28 

27.88 Polyp 

27.86 

2 

terale gpo per m - Wet Season 

.4000 

• 2000 

• 500 

• 10 

27 . 8441---------.r---------r_~------._--------._--------,_--------,_--------~--------,_--~ 

-82.44 -82.42 

-82.40 -82.38 -82.36 -82.34 -82.32 -82.30 -82.28 

Appendix Figure D-S. 

Distribution of the polychaete Polypedilum halterale gp_ for dry (May 1999) and wet (September 2001) 

season conditions_ Overall rank abundance #9. 


D-36 Mote Marine Laboratory - Jllne 2003

27.88 

27.86 

Apocorophi louisianum per m 2 - Dry Season .6000 

• 2000 

27 . 84 +1 --------~--------~,_~------,_--------~--------~--------,_--------~--------,_--~ 

-82.44 -82.42 -82.40 -82.38 -82.36 -82.34 -82.32 -82.30 -82.28 

• 500 

• 100 

27.88 

27.86 

Apocorophiu?t louisianum per m 2 - Wet Season 

l 

~ 

27 . 84 ~1----------.---------~~L------'----------.---------~--------~----------r---------~--~ 

-82.44 -82.42 -82.40 -82.38 -82.36 -82.34 -82.32 -82.30 -82.28 

.6000 

• 2000 

• 500 

• 100 

Appendix Figure D-6. Distribution of the polychaete Apocorophium louisianum for dry (May 1999) and wet (September 2001) 


Appendi x D - Macroinfaunal Data D-37 Mole Marine Laboratory - Jun e 2003

Tubificidae sl5. A per m 2 - Dry Season .2000 

• 1000 

27.86 

• 500 

27.88 

~ • 100 

27 . 84 ~1 ----------,----------,--L------'----------'---------~--------~----------r---------~--~ 

~2A4 -82.42 -82.40 -82.38 -82.36 -82.34 -82.32 -82.30 -82.28 

2 

27.88 Tubificidae . A per m - Wet Season .2000 

• 1000 

27.86 • 500 

• 100 

~ 

27 . 84 ~1----------,----------,--L------'----------'---------~--------~----------r---------~--~ 

~~« -82A2 -82AO -82.38 -82.36 -82.34 -82.32 -82.30 -82.28 


Distribution of the polychaete Tubificidae sp. for .dry (May 1999) and wet (September 2001) season 



27.88 

27.86 

Parap 

pinnata per m 2 - Dry Season 

~ 

27.84 +1---------,--------~,_~------r_--------,_--------,_--------~--------~--------._--~ 

·82.44 -82.42 -82.40 -82.38 -82.36 -82.34 -82.32 -82.30 -82.28 

.1500 

_ 1000 

• 500 

• 50 

27.88 ParaprionosiJio pinnata per m 2 - Wet Season 

27.86 

.~ 

27.84~1----------'_---------r~~----~----------'_---------r---------.----------.---------.---~ 

-82.44 -82.42 -82.40 -82.38 -82.36 -82.34 -82.32 -82.30 -82.28 

.1500 

_ 1000 

• 500 

• 50 

Appendix Figure D-S. Distribution of the polychaete Paraprionospio pinnata for dry (May 1999) and wet (September 2001) 

season conditions. Overall rank abundance #13 . 


27.88 2 

spp. per m - Dry Season 

27.86 

~ 

27 . 8441---------,----------.-~------,_--------,_--------._--------~--------~--------,_--~ 

-82.44 

-82.42 -82.40 -82.38 -82.36 -82.34 

-82.32 -82.30 -82.28 

.2000 

• 1000 

• 500 

· 10 

27.88 

27.86 

2 

CladotanytaiJus spp. per m - Wet Season 

• 2000 

• 1000 

• 500 

• 10 

27.8441---------,----------.-~------,_--------,_--------._--------~--------~--------,_--~ 

-82.44 -82.42 -82.40 -82.38 -82.36 -82.34 -82.32 -82.30 -82.28 

Appendix Figure D-9. Distribution of the polychaete Cladotanytarsus spp. for dry (May 1999) and wet (September 2001) 



27.88 

27.86 

Eteone hete 

2 

per m - Dry Season 

~ 

27 . 84 41 --------~r_--------r_-L------,_--------~--------~--------._--------,_--------~--~ 

-82.44 -82.42 -82.40 -82.38 -82.36 -82.34 -82.32 . -82.30 -82.28 

.500 

.300 

• 100 

• 10 

27.88 

27.86 i 

2 

Eteone heter1poda per m - Wet Season 

.500 

• 300 

• 100 

• 10 

2 7 . 84 41--------~r_--------r_-L------,_--------~--------~--------._--------,_--------~--~ 

-82.44 -82.42 -82.40 -82.38 -82. 36 -82.34 -82.32 -82. 30 -82.28 

Appendix Figure D-IO. 

Distribution of the polychaete Eteone heteropoda for dry (May 1999) and wet (September 2001 ) season 


Appendix D - Macroinfa unal Data 0-41 Mote Ma rine Laboratory - June 2003

2788 

. -l M U I' lnla 'I atera XI' lS per m 2 - D ry S eason _500 

27.86 

• 200 

• 100 

~ • 10 

27 . 84~1----------~---------r--~-----'----------~--------~--------~----------r---------~--~ 

-82.44 -82.42 -82.40 -82.38 -82.36 -82.34 -82.32 -82.30 -82.28 

27.88 lis per m 2 - Wet Season _ 500 

27.86 

• ~ 

27.84~1----------~---------r--~-----'----------~--------~--------~----------r---------'---~ 

-82.44 -82.42 -82.40 -82.38 -82.36 -82.34 -82.32 -82.30 -82.28 

• 200 

• 100 

• 10 


Distribution of the polychaete Mulinia lateralis for dry (May 1999) and wet (September 2001) season 


Appendix D - Macroinfaunal Data D-42 Male Marine LaboralOlY - June 2003

27.88 -t 

,,001 

Phyllodoce 

~ 

2 

per m - Dry Season .225 

• 100 

• 50 

27.84 I 

·82.44 -82.42 -82.40 -82.38 -82.36 -82.34 -82.32 -82.30 -82.28 

• 10 

27.88 

27.86 

2 

Phyllodoce a/enae per m - Wet Season 

l 

.225 

• 100 

• 50 

• 10 

27.84 ~1 --------~----------r-~------.---------.---------~--------,---------,---------.---~ 

-82.44 -82.42 -82.40 -82.38 -82.36 -82.34 -82.32 -82.30 -82.28 


Distribution of the polychaete Phyllodoce arenae for dry (May 1999) and wet (September 2001) season 


Appendix D - Macroinfaunal Data 0-43 Mote Marin e Laboratory - June 2003

Ampe/isca cf abdita 

10000 AR-2 ". 10000 

AR-3 • 

• 

• 

'" E lOOO • 

lOOO 

• 

.. 

.... 

•• 

Q) 

0.. 

• • 

.... 

Q) 

100 •• 

~ 

I 100 

E 

::l 

Z 

10 • 10 

• 

• 

I 

I 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

10000 

AR-4 

10000 

AR-5 

'" E 

.... 

1000 lOOO 

Q) 

0.. 

.... 

Q) 

100 • 100 

~ . 

E ., . 

::l 

Z 

10 • • lO • 

• 

I 

I 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

10000 

AR-6 

10000 

AR-7 

'" E 

.... 

lOOO 1000 

Q) 

0.. 

.... 

Q) 

~ 

E 

::l 

Z 

100 

lO • 

100 

10 

• 

I 

I 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 




Abundance distribution of the amphipod Ampelisca cf Abdita by 

HBMP strata and salinity. Rank abundance #1. 


Laeonereis culveri 

'" E 

.... 

0) 

0.. 

.... 

0) 

.D 

E 

::l 

Z 

1000 

100 

10 

AR-2 

• 100 

• • 

, • 

• • 10 

1000 AR-3 

• 

• 

• •• • • 

0 5 10 15 20 

25 30 0 5 

10 

15 20 

25 

30 

• 

1000 AR-4 

'" E 

.... 

• 

8- 100 

.... 

• ,. . 

0) 

.D 

•• 

• • 

E 

::l 

Z 

10 • 

1000 

• 

100 ... 

10 

• 

• 

• • • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

AR-5 

1000 

'" E 

.... 

0) 

0.. 100 -. 

.... 

0) 

.D 

E • • 

::l 10 

Z • 

0 5 10 15 20 

• 

• • 

25 30 0 5 

AR-6 1000 • 

100 

10 

10 

15 20 

25 

AR-7 

30 

o 5 10 15 20 


25 30 o 5 

10 

15 20 25 


30 


Abundance distribution of the amphipod Laeonereis culveri by 



D-45 Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

'" E 


10000 AR-2 10000 AR-3 

• 

• 

c.. 

..... 

• 

E 100 100 

:::l 

• Z • •• • • • 

.. 

..... 1000 1000 

• 

(I) 

(I) 

.I:> 

- 

10 I 

10 •• 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

10000 AR-4 10000 AR-5 

E 

• • 

..... 1000 • 1000 • • 

(I) 

c.. 

..... 

• 

• 

(I) 

.I:> 

E 100 • 100 

• • 

:::l 

Z 

• 

• • 

'" 

'" E 

10 • • • • 10 

• 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

• 

10000 AR-6 10000 AR-7 

..... 1000 It . 1000 

(I) 

c.. ,• 

.... 

(I) 

.I:> 

• 

~ 

10 10 ~ 

E 100 100 

:::l 

Z 

• • 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 




Abundance distribution of the amphipod Mytilopsis leucophaeata 

by HBMP strata and salinity. Rank abundance #3. 

Appendix D - Macroinfaunal Data D-46 MOle Marine Laboratory - June 2003

Grandidierella bonnieroides 

10000 

• 

10000 

AR-2 • AR-3 • •• 

'" 

E 1000 •• 1000 

.... 

el) 

• 

0. 

.... 

• • •• 

• •• 

el) 

.0 

100 100 

• •• • 

E 

::l 

• 

Z 

• 

10 • 10 • 

• 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

10000 10000 

AR-4 

AR-5 

'" E 1000 1000 

.... • 

• 

. 

el) 

0. 

• • 

.... 

el) 

100 

• 

.0 ' 100 

• • 

E 

• • 

• • 

::l 

Z 

10 • • • 10 

• 

• 

• 

• 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

10000 10000 

AR-6 

'" 

E 1000 1000 • 

.... 

el) 

~ 

0. 

.... 

••• 

- 

• 

E 

::l 

Z 

el) 

100 100 

.0 

10 ~ 10 ~ 

AR-7 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 




Abundance distribution of the amphipod Grandidierella 

bonnieroides by HBMP strata and salinity. Rank abundance #4. 

Appendix 0 - Macroinfaunal Data D-47 Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

Chironomus spp. 

N 

1000 AR-2 1000 AR-3 

• 

E 

.... 100 

Q) 

c. 

.... 

• 

100 

• 

Q) 

~ 

E 10 10 

=' 

Z 

•• 

• 

• 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

N 

1000 AR-4 • 1000 

•• AR-5 

• • • • • 

100 

•• 

• • 

• 

• 

E 

.... 100 

Q) 

c. 

.... 

Q) 

• 

• 

~ 

E 10 • 

10 •• 

=' 

Z 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

1000 1000 

• AR-6 

N 

E • • 

, .... 100 • 100 . 

Q) 

c. 

.... 

Q) 

• 

~ 

E 10 10 ~ 

=' 

Z 

• 

AR-7 

o 5 10 15 20 25 30 o 5 10 15 20 25 30 




Abundance distribution of the amphipod Chironomus spp. by 




Streblospio benedicti 

AR-2 

• 

AR-3 

• 

• 

1000 

• 

1000 

• 

E 

.... • • • 

~ 

, •• •• 

0.. 

.... 100 • 100 

~ 

• • • 

.J::J 

E 

• 

• 

:::l 

• 

'" 

Z 10 10 

. 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

• 

AR-4 

••• AR-5 

1000 1000 

E • • 

.... 

• 

~ 

0.. 

• • 

.... 100 • 

100 

.J::J 

E 

• 

:::l 

Z 10 • 

10 

• • • 

'" 

~ 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

'" E 

.... 

~ 

0.. 

.... 

~ 

, 

.J::J 

AR-6 

1000 1000 

E 

:::l 

Z 10 

100 100 

10 

It 

AR-7 

o 5 10 15 20 25 30 o 5 10 15 20 25 30 




Abundance distribution of the amphipod Streblospio benedicti by 




Tubificidae 

.. 

w/o cap. setae 

1000 1000 

AR-2 

• 

AR-3 

• # 

E 

... 100 

• 100 

• 

• 

Cl) 

0.. 

... • •• •• 

• 

Cl) 

~ 

E 

10 

10 • • 

N 

=' 

Z 

1 1 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

1000 1000 

AR-4 

AR-5 

... 100 100 

N 

E 

Cl) 

... 

0.. 

•• 

Cl) 

~ 

E 

• 

10 • • 

• 

=' 10 

Z 

N 

... 

Cl) 

1 1 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

1000 1000 

AR-6 

• 

. 

E 100 • 

100 : 

0.. 

... • 

~ 

: 

E 

=' 10 • 10 

z • 

• 

Cl) 

• 

AR-7 

1 1 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 




Abundance distribution of the amphipod Tubificidae wlo cap. setae 

by HBMP strata and salinity. Rank abundance #12. 



1000 1000 

AR-2 

AR-3 

N 

E 

• 

100 100 

• 

.... 

Q) 

0.. • • 

.... 

• 

Q) 

.D 

•• 

E 

• • 

:l 10 10 

z 

• • 

• 

N 

1 1 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

1000 1000 

• • 

AR-4 • AR-5 

E 

.... 100 100 • 

Q) 

0.. 

.... 

Q) • 

• 

• 

.D 

E 

:l 

Z 

10 

• • 

• 

10 • 

1 1 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

1000 1000 

AR-6 

N 

E 

... 100 100 

Q) 

0.. 

.... 

Q) 

.D 

E 

:l 

Z 

10 10 

AR-7 

1 1 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 




Abundance distribution of the amphipod Hobsonia florida by 




1000 1000 

AR-2 AR-3 

• 

• 

• 

• • • 

• 

• 

'" E 

.... 100 100 

Q) 

0.. 

.... 

Q) 

.J::J 

E 

Z 

10 

... • • 

::l 10 

I 

I 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

1000 1000 

AR-4 

'" E 100 100 

.... 

• 

Q) 

• 

• 

0.. 

.... 

Q) 

• • • 

.J::J 

E • 

::l 10 10 

• • 

Z 

• 

AR-S 

I 

I 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

1000 1000 

AR-6 

'" E 

.... 100 100 

Q) 

0.. 

.... 

Q) 

.J::J • 

E 

::l 10 10 

Z 

AR-7 

I 

I 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 




Abundance distribution of the ampbipod Eteone heteropoda by 


Appendix D - Macroinfaunal Data D-S2 Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003


10000 10000 

AR-2 

AR-3 

'" 1000 1000 

E 

.... • • 

• • 


1000 1000 

AR-2 

AR-3 

... 

Edotea triloba 

1000 1000 

AR-2 

'" E 

.... 100 

!l) 

0.. 

.... 

• 

• 

100 

!l) 

.D 

E 

Z 

AR-3 

• 

10 • •• • • 

:::l 10 

• 

1 1 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

1000 1000 

AR-4 

'" • 

E 

.... 100 100 • 

!l) 

0.. 

.... 

!l) 

• 

.D 

E 

• 

:::l 10 • 

10 

Z 

• 

• 

AR-5 

1 1 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

1000 1000 

AR-6 

'" E 

.... 100 100 

!l) 

0.. 

.... 

!l) • 

.D 

E 

:::l 10 10 

Z 

AR-7 

1 1 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 




Abundance distribution of the arnphipod Edotea triloba byHBMP 

strata and salinity. Rank abundance #57. 


Polypedilum halterale 

1000 1000 

AR-2 

AR-3 

'" E 

... 100 100 

Q) 

c.. 

... 

Q) 

.0 

E 

Z 

10 

:::I 10 

I 

1000 

I 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

AR-4 

1000 

'" E 

... 100 

Q) 

c.. 

100 

... 

Q) 

.0 

E 

:::I 

Z 

'" E 

10 

I 

1000 

... 

Q) 100 

., • 

c.. 

... 

Q) 

.0 

10 

• 

• 

AR-5 

I 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

AR-6 

1000 ~ 

E 

~. 

:::I 

10 • 10 ~ 

Z 

100 r 

. 

AR-7 

I 

I 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 




Abundance distribution of the amphipod Polypedilum halterale by 



Stenoninereis martini 

1000 AR-2 1000 AR-3 

'" 

• 

E 

.... ... 

~ 

100 ••• 100 • • 

0.. 

.... 

• 

~ 

.D 

• 

E 

• 

:::l 

• 

Z 10 10 

'" E 

.... 

1 1 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

• 

1000 AR-4 1000 

• AR-S 

• • 

•• 

~ 

0.. 100 100 

.... • ~ 

• • • 

• 

• 

.D 

E •• • •• 

:::l 

Z 10 

10 

• 

• 

'" E 

.... 

1 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 lO 15 20 25 30 

1000 AR-6 1000 AR-7 

100 100 

~ 

0.. 

• 

.... 

~ 

.D 

E 

:::l 

Z 

10 10 ~ 

1 1 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 




Abundance distribution of the amphipod Stenoninereis martini by 


Appendix D - Macroinfaunal Data D-S7 Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

Heteromastus liliformis 

1000 1000 

AR-2 

AR-3 

'" 

, 

E 

... 100 • 

• 100 

Procladius spp. 

1000 1000 

AR-2 

N 

E 100 100 

.... 

a) 

0. 

.... 

a) 

AR-3 

.0 

E 

• • 

::l 10 10 

Z 

1 1 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

1000 1000 

AR-4 

N 

E 100 100 

.... 

a) 

0. 

• 

.... 

a) 

.0 

E 

::l 10 

10 

Z 

• 

• • 

AR-5 

1 1 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

1000 1000 

AR-6 

N 

E 

.... 100 100 

a) 

• 

0. 

.... • 

a) 

.0 • 

E 

::l 

Z 

10 ~.- 10 

• 

AR-7 

1 1 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 




Abundance distribution of the amphipod Procladius spp. by 



Hydrobiidae spp. 

1000 1000 

AR-2 

AR-3 

N 

E 

.... 100 100 

11) 

.... • • 

11) 

.D 

• 

E 

:::l 10 10 

• • 

Z 

0.. 

• 

• 

N , 

N 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

1000 1000 

AR-4 

• • 

AR-5 

• 

E 

.... 100 100 

11) 

0.. 

.... 

11) 

• 

• • 

.D 

E 

• 

:::l 10 

Z 

10 • 

• • 

1 1 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

1000 1000 

AR-6 

• 

E 

.... 100 100 

11) 

0.. 

.... 

11) 

E 

:::l 

Z 

.D 

• 

10 10 

• 

AR-7 

1 1 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 




Abundance distribution of the amphipod Hydrobiidae spp. by 



ApPENDIX E 

MOLLUSK DATA

Appendix Table E-l. 

Mollusk data from ponar grabs. 


Ten ponars or equivalent areas each were collected at subtidal and intertidal locations per half-kilometer. 

Only ponars with molluscs present are listed. 

Live! SubtidaU Counts Percent Median 

Km Taxa Dead Intertidal Rep. Count perm2 Juveniles Size (mm) Weathering 

0.0 Geukensia demissa granossissima D I 6 127 0 20 4 

0.0 Polinices duplicatus D I 4 1 21 0 22 4 

0.0 Crassostrea virginica L I 5 4 85 50 15 3 

0.0 Littorina irrorata L I 5 1 21 0 16 2 

0.5 Crassostrea virginica D I 5 6 127 17 22 6 

0.5 Geukensia demissa granossissima D I 1 10 212 30 15 7 

0.5 Tagelus plebe ius D I 5 2 42 50 11 5 


0.5 Geukinsia demissa granossissima L I 1 7 148 0 17 2 



1.0 Crepidula Jornicata D S 4 2 42 100 9 4 

1.0 Tagelus plebeius L I 3 3 63 100 9 2 

1.0 Unidentifed bivalve L S 4 16 338 100 8 



2.0 Littorina irrorata D I 1 2 42 50 12 9 

2.0 Littorina irrorata D I 5 1 21 100 10 6 

2.0 Polymesoda caroliniana D I 1 3 63 0 27 4 

2.0 Amygdalum papyrium D S 5 2 42 0 14 3 




2.0 Polymesoda caroliniana L I 1 3 63 0 25 3 

2.0 Amygdalum papyrium L S 5 7 148 0 18 2 






2.5 Abra aequalis D S 3 1 21 100 10 6 

2.5 Haminoea succinea D S 2 3 63 100 8 4 

2.5 Macoma tenta D S 3 7 148 0 13 6 

2.5 Mulinia lateralis D S 5 2.1 44 10 3 0 

2.5 Unidentifed bivalve D S 1 1 21 100 10 3 



2.5 Geukensia demissa granossissima L I 2 28 592 0 40 2 

Appendix E - Mollusk Data E-l Mo te Marine Laboratory - June 2003

Appendix Table E-l (continued). 




Live! Subtidal! Counts Percent Median 

Km Taxa Dead Intertidal Re~. Count ~erm2 Juveniles Size {mm} Weathering 




2.5 Unidentifed bivalve L S 1 8 169 38 10 2 


3.0 Macoma tenta D S 2 21 0 16 5 



3.0 Macoma tenta L S 2 1 21 0 15 2 

3.5 Nassarius vibex D S 1 1 21 100 9 2 

3.5 Macoma tenta L S 4 85 0 13 1 


4.0 Tellina spp. D S 3 16 338 100 8 3 





4.5 Mulinia lateralis D I 1 1 21 100 8 6 

4.5 Mysella planulata D I 1 3 63 100 8 5 






4.5 Mulinia lateralis L I 1 13 275 100 10 1 



5.0 Polymesoda caroliniana D I 2 9 190 11 32 -99 


5.0 Tellina spp. D I 1 18 381 100 8 6 

5.0 Crassostrea virginica D S 16 338 0 66 6 

5.0 Geukensia demissa granossissima D S 4 1 21 0 12 4 

5.0 Tagelus plebeius D S 1 1 21 0 12 6 

5.0 Tellina spp. D S 5 2 42 100 9 5 




5.0 Polymesoda caroliniana L I 2 6 127 0 30 -99 



5.0 Crassostrea virginica L S 1 17 360 0 78 4 

5.5 Polymesoda caroliniana D I 5 106 0 28 6 

Appendix E - Mollusk Data B-2 Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003





Live! SubtidaV Counts Percent Median 

Km Taxa Dead Intertidal ReI!_ Count I!er m2 Juveniles Size {nun} Weathering 


5.5 Tellina spp. D S 3 2 42 100 8 6 



5.5 Neritina usnea L I 5 1 21 0 17 2 






6.0 Unidentifed bivalve L S 5 1 21 0 13 2 



. 6.5 Geukensia demissa granossissima D I 1 30 635 0 40 7 





6.5 Crassostrea virginica L S 5 8 169 0 44 2 





7.5 Neritina usnea D I 4 1 21 100 10 9 


7.5 Unidentifed bivalve D I 1 7 148 100 9 9 






7.5 Tagelus plebe ius L S 5 3 63 100 9 1 

8.0 Mytilopsis leucophaeata D I 3 2 42 0 16 8 










8.5 Mysella planulata D I 4 60 1269 100 8 8 

Appendix E - Mollusk Data E-3 Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003





Live! SubtidaV Counts Percent Median 

Km Taxa Dead Intertidal Re~. Count ~erm2 Juveniles Size (mm} Weathering 




8.5 Corbicula fluminea D S 2 1 21 0 12 7 


8.5 Mytilopsis leucophaeata D S 1 8 169 0 13 8 





8.5 Mysella planulata L S 1 16 338 100 7 

8.5 Mysella planulata L S 2 1 21 100 6 


9.0 Mytilopsis leucophaeata L S 3 2 42 100 9 1 







9.5 Mytilopsis leucophaeata L S 2 25 529 0 10 4 









10.5 Corbicula fluminea D I 4 1 21 0 14 6 






11.0 Mulinia lateralis D S 4 6 127 100 4 5 






12.0 No catch 

12.5 Corbicula fluminea L S 2 1 21 0 18 6 






Live! Subtidall Counts Percent Median 

Km Taxa Dead Intertidal ReI!_ Count I!er m2 Juveniles Size (nun} Weathering 



l3.0 Corbicula fluminea D S 1 4 85 0 14 7 


l3.5 Co rbicula fluminea D S 5 2 42 0 12 5 



14.5 Corbicula fluminea D S 3 21 0 14 6 







15.0 Unid. p1anospira1 gast. L I 4 1 21 0 8 9 


16.0 No catch 





17.0 No catch 


18.0 Corbicula fluminea L S 2 21 0 12 2 


ApPENDIX F 

SALINITY REQUIREMENTS OF AMERICAN 

OYSTERS, CRASSOSTREA VIRGINICA

Published Salinity Requirements of American Oysters, 

Crassostrea virginica Gmelin, in Relation to Alafia River 

Minimum Flows and Levels 

Oysters once occurred in sufficient quantities to form a mineral resource of at least 33 million tons 

of harvestable shell in the geologic strata underlying Tampa Bay (Simon et ai., 1976) and such 

formations may be or may have been present in or near the mouth of the Alafia River. Historically, 

oysters were probably present in abundance within certain sections of the river, but cartographic 

analyses of the type conducted by Stevely et al. (2003) for Little Sarasota Bay have yet to be made 

in the Alafia. 

Insights from the General Literature 

Oyster literature is abundant (see Joyce 1972) but must be used with care when attempting to transfer 

salinity or other environmental limits determined from diverse estuarine settings to a particular 

venue, especially when the new venue falls beyond the geographic range of studied systems. The 

following insights are taken from the literature at large, adapted in part from Estevez and Marshall 

(1993). 

Oysters are immobile, after a larval stage, and are therefore subject to the permanent effects of 

salinity changes due to alterations of riverine inflow, ocean influence, or circulation. Low riverine 

flows of short duration result in high salinities in Apalachicola Bay and result in increased predation 

on newly settled spat; population sizes of adult, harvestable oysters are reduced two and three years 

later (Wilber, 1992). Wilber found little evidence that high flows of short duration (::; 30 days) 

adversely affected oyster harvests for the same or subsequent years. Her analyses were based on 

river flow data (kept by the Northwest Florida Water Management District) and oyster harvest data 

from 1960 to 1981. 

Oysters can avoid predation by tolerating salinity fluctuations that their natural predators cannot 

tolerate (Gunter, 1955). Low salinities kill oyster drills and starfish (Sellers and Stanley, 1984). 

Maintenance of salinities within ranges above the lower tolerance limits of oyster predators usually 

results in major declines in oyster abundance (Allen and Turner, 1989). Ortega and Sutherland 

(1992) found adequate spat settlement in both low salinity « 15.0 ppt) and high salinity (> 20.0 ppt) 

reaches ofParnlico and Core Sounds, North Carolina: algal turfs and poor sediment inhibited growth 

in low salinity areas and competition by fouling organisms retarded success in high salinity areas. 

Salinity requirements of Crassostrea virginica are reviewed in Sellers and Stanley (1984). Adult 

oysters tolerate a salinity range of 5.0 to 30.0 parts per thousand (ppt). They do best within a salinity 

range of 10.0 to 28.0 ppt (Loosanoff 1965a). Salinities below 7.5 ppt inhibit spawning. Maximum 

larval growth and survival occur above salinities of 12.5 ppt and maximum spat growth occurs 

between 15.0 and 20.0 ppt. 

Appendix F- Oyster Salinity Requirements F-l Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

Oysters can tolerate salinities as low as 6.0 ppt for 14 days and 3.0 ppt for up to 30 days (Loosanoff 

1965b). Galtsoff (1964) stated that oysters living at salinities less than 10 ppt will be killed by fresh 

waters that persist for "several weeks." When flood conditions persist for 30 days or more oyster 

mortalities typically reach 100% (Allen and Turner, 1989). Sellers and Stanley (1984) reported 

major oyster mortalities in several areas that were affected by major floods when salinities remained 

below 2.0 ppt for extended periods. 

On Louisiana's state seed grounds Chatry et al. (1983) found that salinity in the setting year is the 

prime determining factor for the production of seed oysters. Both high and low salinities resulted 

in poor seed production. Low salinities resulted in poor gonadal development (see Galtsoff (1964) 

and insufficient setting while the negative effects of high salinities were believed due to the effects 

of predation on oyster spat. The maintenance of optimum setting salinities was most critical from 

May through September. To optimize Louisiana spat production, Chatry et al. recommended May 

salinities between 6.0 to 8.0 ppt; salinities should average 13.0 ppt in June and July and not increase 

to greater than 15.0 ppt until late August, and September salinities should not average more than 20.0 

ppt. 

In the Loxahatchee River, Mote Marine Laboratory (1990) determined that the mean size of the 

largest oysters among 15 oyster clumps per station was greatest where surface salinity was 

approximately 15.0 ppt and the standard deviation about the mean was at its greatest in the River, 

about 7.0 ppt. On the Florida west coast, Dawson (1955) found that oyster production near Crystal 

River was high along a marsh-dominated coast with salinity averaging between 10.0 and 20.0 ppt. 

Salinity ranged from 0.0 to 28.0 ppt across all stations. 

Habitat Suitability Models 

Habitat suitability index models specify the fitness of environmental attributes using unit-less 

metrics ranging from 0.0 (unfit; lethal) to 1.0 (ideal; optimal). HSI models for oyster were first 

proposed by Galtsoff (1964) but no salinity evaluations were made. Cake (1983) developed an HSI 

model for oysters with two salinity metrics, mean summer salinity (for larvae), and historic mean 

water salinity (for adults, seed, and spat). An HSI value of 0.0 was assigned to mean summer water 

salinities less than 5.0 ppt and greater than 40 ppt. Optimal values were assigned mean summer 

salinity in the 10-30 ppt range. "Historic" mean water salinity was not defined operationally, but 

index values resemble mean summer salinity values with ideal conditions constrained to 10-20 ppt. 

Cake (1983) also created an HSI for time intervals between killing floods. Annual or more frequent 

floods had index values of zero; a recurrence interval of 3 years or more was considered optimal. 

Cake's models were subsequently validated by Soniat and Brody (1988). 

Rodgers (2001) developed an HSI model for oysters of Mobile Bay. The model had sub-models for 

food-availability, disease, current scouring, and predation. No salinity model was developed for 

oysters per se, but a salinity range of 10-20 ppt was considered best for disease (Perkinsus marinus, 

or Dermo) resistance, and salinities lower than 15 ppt were considered best for predator avoidance. 

Appendix F- Oyster Salinity Requirements F-2 Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

Recent Florida Studies 

One interesting development reported by Stevely et aI. (2003) is east-coast work by the University 

of Central Florida on the effects of boat wakes on oyster reef development (Walters et aI., 2003). 

There seems to be a retreat of oysters from areas of heightened wave energy (by wakes) to mainland 

or island edges of lagoons and bays. This phenomenon may be occurring in Little Sarasota Bay 

(Stevely et aI., 2003) and deserves to be evaluated in the Alafia River. 

Ongoing work by Florida Gulf Coast University, on oysters near the mouth of the Caloosahatchee 

River, provides some nearby insight to the role of salinity and salinity-mediated processes on reefs. 

Chamberlain (2003) evaluated a report by Volety et aI. (2003) and wrote: 

"Survival of oyster adults and juveniles were evaluated by Volety et aI. (2003) in the lab and field, 

as well as oyster health, the prevalence and intensity of disease, and oyster recruitment 

success. The results were compared to environmental factors, including salinity and 

freshwater flow from S-79. Oysters grow best at a salinity of 14 to 28 parts per thousand 

(ppt). Infection by the oyster pathogen, Perkinsus marinus, increases during higher salinity 

and temperature. Field studies during this research determined that the prevalence of 

infection was high, but disease intensity was low, because temperature and salinity act 

antagonistically (i.e., high summer temperature occurs during the wet season and lower 

salinity). Therefore, freshwater releases to diminish Perkinsus marinus is generally not 

advised during warm summer months because of the potential threat to oyster populations 

from further lowering salinity." 

"The greatest growth and recruitment occurs during the wet season, but slower growth, poor spat 

production, and excessive valve closure occurs at salinities below 14 ppt. During their study, 

salinity conditions were best suited for oyster growth just upstream of Shell Point. However, 

this upstream area is also the most vulnerable to high mortality when large releases cause 

salinity to fall below threshold tolerance, sometimes for prolonged periods. The Volety et aI. 

(2003) report suggests, "that while adult oysters are tolerant, salinities of 5 ppt or lower will 

result in > 95% mortality of juvenile oysters." High juvenile mortality can occur when 

exposed to this salinity for just a week. Experimental results indicate that adults are able to 

tolerate salinities as low as 5 ppt up to 8 weeks, but can not tolerate salinities lower than 3 

ppt, which can occur upstream of Shell Point when S-79 discharges exceed 4,000 cfs. 

Therefore, high discharges can limit population survival and abundance in this region where 

they were historically present. As a restoration note, Volety et aI. (2003) indicated that 

because of high spat recruitment at intermediate salinities, along with good growth rates and 

low disease, it is very feasible to develop oyster reefs upstream of Shell Point by strategically 

placing oyster clutch in suitable areas, if provided the ability to control current [high] 

freshwater inflows." 


"Oysters in southwest Florida spawn continuously, with peak recruitment (spat settlement) occurring 

during May to November. Recruitment near Shell Point and possibly upstream begins to peak 

in March, a full 3 months earlier than in San Carlos Bay, thus making these newly settled 

juveniles vulnerable to large releases from S-79, which has often occurred during this period 

to regulate Lake Okeechobee water level for flood protection. Large freshwater flows at this 

time and during the summer also exposes oyster larvae to lethal low salinities, or flush the 

larvae to more downstream locations where there may not be suitable substrate for 

settlement. " 

"In their conclusions, Volety et al. (2003) recommended freshwater inflows for the protection and 

enhancement of oyster recruitment and survival around Shell Point and San Carlos Bay, 

which are consistent with the flows outlined above for SAV. "Flows between 500 and 2000 

cfs would result in salinities of 16-28 ppt at all stations, conditions that are favorable to 

sustain and enhance oyster populations in the Caloosahatchee Estuary." 

Chamberlain (2003) proposed performance measures for the Caloosahatchee River including one 

for oysters, "Maintain salinity at Piney Point > 5 ppt, so that conditions are supportive for the 

recruitment, survival, and growth of juvenile oysters upstream of Shell Point during March 

October." 

Application 

The literature reviewed above can be summarized with respect to salinity values associated with 

favorable and unfavorable conditions for oysters by developmental stage, diseases, and predators: 

SALINITY, PPT 

Low "A verage Range" High 

Adults 5.0 10.0-20.0 30.0 

10.0-28.0 

14.0-28.0 

16.0-28.0 

Spawning 7.5 

Larvae 10.0 >12.5 30.0 

Spat 5.0 15.0-20.0 20.0 

6.0-8.0 

Disease Avoidance 10.0-20.0 

Predator A voidance 20.0 


The literature tends to agree with respect to the effects of low salinity and favorable salinity ranges 

for adult oysters over a broad geographic range. Given the nature of historic management problems 

facing oysters, of freshets and low salinity stress, less information is available on the high-salinity 

limits that tend to be associated with minimum flow and level assessments. 

Provisional guidance for managing Alafia River flows and salinities for oysters includes these 

criteria: 

Assessment 

1. Salinities in areas where oyster bars are desired can be allowed to fluctuate broadly 

between 10.0 to 28.0 ppt, but these areas should possess strong longitudinal salinity 

gradients and mixing. 

2. Lower salinities can be briefly tolerated by adult oysters. Salinities less than 6.0 ppt 

should not be caused to persist longer than two weeks, nor should salinities lower 

than 2.0 ppt be caused for longer than a week. 

3. To protect recruitment, salinity during local spawning seasons should be above 10.0 

ppt. Optimal larval and spat growth and survival can be obtained in salinities 

between 12.5 and 20.0 ppt. 

4. Within the river area with maximum actual or desired reef development, maximum 

salinity values greater than 28.0 to 30.0 ppt should not be caused. 

The present-day salinity regime of the tidal Alafia River is suitable for oyster growth and reef 

development. Despite a catastrophic acid spill the river supports a number of live reefs centered on 

river-kilometers 2.0 to 4.0. As shown previously, large individual oysters occur throughout this 

range and the largest occur near the middle of the reef range. No additional data are presently 

available on the condition of individual oysters or oyster reefs, sensu Volety et al. (2003), but in 

general aspect the river appears capable of sustaining its existing oyster resource. Expansion of the 

resource may occur as time diminishes the acid spill's effects, if any indeed occurred. 

Alafia River oysters would not be safe to eat but they could serve to demonstrate the maintenance 

of MFL salinity criteria, once established. Oysters also accumulate a wide array of pollutants and 

are useful as indicator species. More importantly, oyster reefs are an important habitat for a wide 

variety of associated organisms. Small crabs, fish, shrimp, sponges, other mollusks, and numerous 

polychaete species are all typical inhabitants of healthy oyster reef communities (Bahr and Lanier, 

1981). An increase of oyster habitat in the tidal reaches of the Alafia River would increase the 

River's overall levels of biodiversity and productivity. 


Provisional oyster guidance should be useful as the MFL process enters its synthetic phase, of 

integrating physical, chemical and biological data for multi-objective optimization. The behavior 

of salinity under various flow scenarios should remain the primary focus for oyster protection and 

enhancement. As morphological data, salinity regressions, and water quality data summaries become 

available it will be useful to include these in the next generation of oyster assessments, especially 

with regard to present or future limitations caused by the availability of suitable substratum, or water 

quality. 

Water quality factors may already contribute to the regulation of Alafia River oyster populations. 

High levels of nutrients, primary production, harmful algal blooms, and sediment oxygen demand 

are known to lower dissolved oxygen (D.O.) levels in the river. Low D.O., in turn, has the potential 

to impact larval, juvenile, and adult oysters. Low D.O. and salinity stress may act synergistically to 

kill all but the most hardy adults, and may explain the paucity of subtidal reefs in the tidal river. 


REFERENCES

REFERENCES 

Bahr, L.M. and W.P. Lanier (1981). The ecology of intertidal oyster reefs of the South Atlantic 

coast: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, 

Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-81115. 105 pp. 

Cake, E.W. Jr. 1983. Habitat suitability index models: Gulf of Mexico American oyster. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service OBS-82110.57. 37 p. 

Chamberlain, R. 2003. Freshwater Inflow Performance Measures: S-79, Shell Point, and San Carlos 

Bay. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach. 

Chatry, M., R.J. Dugas, and K.A. Easley. 1983. Optimum salinity regime for oyster production on 

Louisiana's state seed grounds. Contrib. Mar. Sci. 26: 81-94. 

Dawson, C.E. 1955. A study of the oyster biology and hydrography at Crystal River, Florida. 

Contrib. Inst. Mar. Sci. Univ. Texas 4(1): 279-302. 

Estevez, E.D. and M.J. Marshall. 1993. Sebastian River Salinity Regime, Parts III and IV: 

Recommended Targets. Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report Number 308. 

Galtsoff, P.S. 1964. The American Oyster, Crassostrea virginica Gme1in. Fishery Bulletin 64. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 480 pp 

Gunter, G. 1955. Mortality of oysters and abundance of certain associates as related to salinity. 

Eco!. 36:601-605. 

Joyce, E.A. Jr. 1972. A partial bibliography of oysters, with annotations. Florida DNR Marine 

Research Laboratory Special Scientific Report No. 34. 846 p. 

Loosanoff, V.L. 1965(a). The American or eastern oyster. U.S. Fish. Wildlife Servo Circ. 205. 

36 pp. 

Loosanoff, V.L. 1965(b). Gonad development and discharge of spawn in oysters of Long Island 

Sound. Bio!. Bull. 129:546-561. 

Luckenbach, M.W., R. Mann, and J.A. Wesson (eds.) 1999. Oyster reef habitat restoration: a 

synopsis and synthesis of approaches. Proceedings from the 1995 Symposium in 

Williamsburg Virginia. VIMS Press. 366 p. 

References 1 Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

Mote Marine Laboratory, 1990. Environmental Studies of the Tidal Loxahatchee River. Mote 

Marine Laboratory Technical Report No. 181, submitted to Jupiter Inlet Navigation District 

and LAW Environmental, Inc. 

Sellers, M.A and J .G. Stanley. 1984. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements 

of coastal fishes and invertebrates (North Atlantic) -- American oyster. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv. 

FWS/OBS-82111.23. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL--82-4. 15pp. 

Simon, J.L., L.J. Doyle and W.G. Conner. 1976. Environmental impact of oyster shell dredging in 

Tampa Bay, Florida. University of South Florida report to Florida Department of 

Environmental Regulation. 104 p. 

Soniat, T.M. and M.S. Brody. 1998. Field validation of a habitat suitability index model for the 

American oyster. Estuaries 11(2): 87-95. 

Stevely, J., D. Fann and G.A Antonini. 2003. (Abstract) A historical perspective for determining 

changes in the distribution of oyster habitats in southwest Florida using archived maps and 

charts of federal agencies. Submerged Aquatic Habitat Restoration in Estuaries" Issues, 

Options and Priorities, a workshop sponsored by the Tampa Bay Estuary Program. Held at 

Mote Marine Laboratory March 11-13,2003. 

Volety, AK., S. G. Tolley, and J. T. Winstead. 2003. Effects of seasonal and water quality parameters 

on oysters (Crassostrea virginica) and associated fish populations in the Caloosahatchee 

River: Final contract report (C-12412) to the South Florida Water Management District. 

Florida Gulf Coast University, Ft. Myers, Florida. 

Walters, L., P. Sacks, L. Wall, J. Grevert, D. Leeune, S. Fischer, and A Simpson. 2003. (Abstract) 

Declining intertidal oyster reefs in Florida: direct and indirect impacts of boat wakes. Florida 

Academy of Sciences 2003 Annual Meeting Program Issue, March 21-22, University of 

Central Florida. 

Wilber, D. 1992. Associations between freshwater inflows and oyster productivity in Apalachicola 

Bay, Florida. Est .. Coast. Shelf Sci. 35:179-190. 

References 2 Mote Marine Laboratory - June 2003

MTR 912.pdf - Mote Marine Laboratory

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

Delete template?

Save as template?