Datasets:
patrickbdevaney
/
mia9

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
 Community
1
text
stringlengths
0
6.44k
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
3 clusters 5 clusters
25.1
25.2
25.3
25.4
25.5
25.6
25.7
25.8
25.9
26.0
-80.5 -80.4 -80.3 -80.2 -80.1
Cl1
Cl2
Cl3
Cl4
Cl5
Cl6
Cl7
7 clusters
25.1
25.2
25.3
25.4
25.5
25.6
25.7
25.8
25.9
26.0
-80.5 -80.4 -80.3 -80.2 -80.1
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
8 clusters
126
129
103
102
101
34
- Manatee-Barnes Sound (MBS): includes stations 1, 2, 3 and 4. For detailed
calculation in the box-model, Manatee and Barnes sound samples were
separated as individual clusters.
- Card Sound (CS): includes stations 121 and 135
- South Central Inshore (SCI): includes stations 101, 102 and 103
- South Central Mid-Bay (SCM): Includes stations 110, 112 and 123
- South Central Outer-Bay (SCO): includes stations 104, 108, 109, 111, 112, 113,
116 and 124
- North Central Inshore (NCI): includes stations 127 and 128
- North Central Outer-Bay (NCO): includes stations 126 and 129
- Southern North Bay (SNB): includes stations 130, 131 and 132
- Northern North Bay (NNB): includes stations 133 and 134
Figure 3.4: Final biogeochemical segmentation of Biscayne Bay waters. NCI=North-Central
Inshore; NCO=North Central Outer bay; SCI=South Central Inshore; SCM=South Central Mid
bay; SCO=South Central Outer bay; CS= Card Sound MBS=Manatee-Barnes Sound.
35
The subdivision of Biscayne Bay into biogeochemical water classes seems to follow
geomorphological characteristics and patterns defined by physical properties of the
water masses, such as: water depth (Fig 3.5.a; Harlem et al 2009); flood current
velocity (Fig 3.5b; Wang et al 2003); bay bottom type (Fig 3.5c; FWRI 1992); benthic
communities (Fig 3.5d; Roessler et al. 1973; Thorhaug 1976); salinity (Fig 3.5e; Gaiser
et al. 2006); and sedimentary regimes (Fig 3.5f; Wanless, 1984)
Figure 3.5: Correspondence of previous spatial classifications of Biscayne Bay with the
segmentation obtained in this study (colored dots). (a) Bathymetry (Harlem et al 2009);
(b) Flood Current velocity (Wang et al 2003); (c) Bay bottom type (FWRI 1992); (d)
Benthic communities (Roessler et al. 1973; Thorhaug 1976); (e) Salinity (Gaiser et al.
2006); (f) Sedimentary regimes (Wanless, 1984)
36
CLUSTERS CHARACTERISTICS
The following statistics were calculated from the SPOR dataset, spanning from
June 1996 to Sept 2007
Freshwater Flow
Net freshwater contributions to each segment in Central and South Biscayne Bay
were calculated for the box-model as the sum of Canal flow + Precipitation +
Groundwater flow + Overland flow – Evaporation for the period Sep 1993-June 2007.
Seasonal freshwater flows (Fig 3.6) display a marked seasonality with very low to
negative contributions from November to May, a sudden and highly variable flow in
June, and peak values in September. Median flows into SCI, although very low in
January-May, are always positive. There are four month with negative net flows in NCI,
five in MBS and CS, and seven in the more offshore segments (NCO, SCM and SCO).
In general, canal discharge to Biscayne Bay south of Rickenbacker Causeway is the
largest contributor to the freshwater budget with 66 million cubic meters per month
(Mm3
/m) or 44% of the total flow, while rain, groundwater and overland flow supply 61
(40%), 15 (10%) and 8 (6%) Mm3 per month, respectively. Average monthly loss due to
evapotranspiration is 79 MMm3, or 53% of the total input (Fig 2.7). Hence, nutrient
loads are basically a function of canal flows and precipitation but residence time and
evapotranspiration would modulate the final effects of these loads. Individual nutrient
loads brought about by these different contributions and the exchange with oceanic