Datasets:
patrickbdevaney
/
mia9

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
 Community
1
text
stringlengths
0
6.44k
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
DO_S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
DO_S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
9 DO_S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
CS MBS NCI
NCO NNB SCI
SCM SCO SNB
CS MBS NCI NCO NNB SCI SCM SCO SNB
Surface 0.00% 1.65% 0.37% 0.74% 0.37% 1.72% 0.99% 0.09% 0.74%
Bottom 1.11% 3.14% 2.58% 1.48% 2.95% 2.46% 1.23% 1.57% 1.97%
49
Finally, we compared similarities (differences) in nutrient concentration among
segments using Kruskal-Wallis test for three parameters of interest for numeric nutrient
criteria development, TN, TP and CHLa. Results are shown in Table 3.2. Differences in
Total Nitrogen distribution are not statistically significant for CS-NCI; NCO-SNB-NNB;
NCI-SNB-NNB; and SNB-NNB. For TP, there are not statistically significant differences
for MBS-NCO; SCI-CS-NCI; SCM-SCI; and CS-NCO-NCI. For CHLa, there are not
statistically significant differences for MBS-NCO; and CS-NCI. In summary, for those
segment pairs (triplets) with no significant differences the same criteria may apply.
Table 3.2: Results of Kruskal-Wallis test comparing TN, TP and CHLa distribution
among segments of Biscayne Bay. Probabilities highlighted in bold (p>0.05) are those
pairs whose differences are not statistically significant.
MBS SCI SCO SCM C S NCO NCI SNB NNB
MBS 1 * * * * * * * *
SCI 0.000 1 * * * * * * *
SCO 0 0 1 * * * * * *
SCM 0 0 0 1 * * * * *
C S 0 0 0 0.012 1 * * * *
NCO 0 0 0.000 0 0.002 1 * * *
NCI 0 0 0 0.001 0.458 0.018 1 * *
SNB 0 0 0 0 0.020 0.285 0.127 1 *
NNB 0 0 0 0 0.050 0.246 0.221 0.846 1
MBS SCI SCO SCM C S NCO NCI SNB NNB
MBS 1 * * * * * * * *
SCI 0.000 1 * * * * * * *
SCO 0 0.000 1 * * * * * *
SCM 0 0.009 0.340 1 * * * * *
C S 0.001 0.795 0.001 0.036 1 * * * *
NCO 0.269 0.053 0 0.000 0.044 1 * * *
NCI 0.000 0.295 0.021 0.193 0.470 0.006 1 * *
SNB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 *
NNB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
MBS SCI SCO SCM C S NCO NCI SNB NNB
MBS 1 * * * * * * * *
SCI 0 1 * * * * * * *
SCO 0 0 1 * * * * * *
SCM 0 0.016 0 1 * * * * *
C S 0 0.016 0 0 1 * * * *
NCO 0.661 0 0 0 0 1 * * *
NCI 0 0.075 0 0.000 0.568 0 1 * *
SNB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 *
NNB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 1
p-value for Total Nitrogen
p-values for Total Phosphorous
p-values for Chlorophyll-a
50
TREND ANALYSIS
Biscayne Bay has been a dynamic environment over the last 500 years,
experiencing marked salinity and benthic habitat variability. Some changes may be
connected to anthropogenic intervention while others seem to respond to regional or
global changes. Salinity has increased, seagrass has declined; open-marine species
have replaced estuarine assemblages and the reduction of managed freshwater
deliveries into BB has been coupled with increases in foraminifera abundance (Archaias
and Articulina) since 1947 and declines in Thalassia after 1950 (Wingard et al 2004).
Since the middle 1980’s significant regional ecosystem shifts have been documented in
South Florida coastal waters (Boesch et al. 1993; Fourqurean and Robblee 1999; Hunt
and Nuttle 2007; Briceño and Boyer 2010). Some of the significant changes were:
seagrass die-off beginning in 1987; large plankton blooms in the western and central
portions of the Florida Bay (Robblee et al. 1991); increased phytoplankton abundance
(Phlips and Badylak 1996); increased turbidity; significant declines in fisheries and
shrimp harvest (Tabb and Roessler 1989; Tilmant 1989); sponge mass mortality in hard
bottom areas of southern Florida Bay (Butler et al. 1995); extended coral bleaching in