text stringlengths 0 6.44k |
|---|
Cladium jamaicense Yes 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 |
Conocarpus erecta Yes 0 00000 0 |
Distichlis spicata Yes 3 33000 9 |
Eleocharis cellulosa Yes 5 5 3 3 5 3 24 |
Halophila decipiens Yes 0 00000 0 |
Halophila englemanii No |
Halophila johnsonii No |
Halodule wrightii Yes 5 5 5 0 3 0 18 |
Juncus roemerianus Yes 5 5 3 3 5 3 24 |
Laguncularia racemosa Yes 0 00330 6 |
Rhizophora mangle Yes 0 00330 6 |
Ruppia maritima Yes 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 |
Spartina spartinae Yes 5 5 3 3 5 3 24 |
Syringodium filiforme Yes 3 3 0 3 3 3 15 |
Thalassia testudinum Yes 3 3 0 3 3 0 12 |
ANIMALS |
Foraminiferans Yes 4 4 5 3 3 1 20 |
Invertebrates |
Callinectes sapidus Yes 3 3 3 0 3 1 13 |
Crassostrea virginica No |
Farfantepenaeus duorarum Yes 3 30000 6 |
Limulus polyphemus Yes 3 30000 6 |
Menippe mercenaria Yes 3 30000 6 |
Vertebrates |
Mammals |
Trichechus manatus Yes 3 0 3 3 3 0 12 |
Turciops truncatus Yes 000300 3 |
Scoring System: 0 (Poor), Medium (3), Excellent (5) |
Table D-6 |
Bio-indicator Ranking Matrix |
Southern Sub-Region |
SPECIES Present in adequate |
numbers or distribution? |
Sensitivity to Applicable |
Parameters |
Reliability of Response |
Rapidity of Response |
Ease & Economy of |
Monitoring |
Meaningful Feedback to |
Management |
Importance of Endpoint |
Total |
Score |
Reptiles |
Crocodylus acutus Yes 5 5 4 4 5 5 28 |
Birds |
Ajaia ajaja Yes 5 5 4 4 5 5 28 |
Egretta caerulea Yes 2 4 3 0 3 3 15 |
Egretta rufescens Yes 2 4 3 0 3 3 15 |
Egretta thula Yes 2 4 3 0 3 3 15 |
Egretta tricolor Yes 2 4 3 0 3 3 15 |
Eudocimus alba Yes 2 4 3 0 3 3 15 |
Mycteria americana Yes 2 4 3 3 3 3 18 |
Pelicanus occidentalis Yes 000330 6 |
Fish |
Bairdiella chrysoura Yes 330000 6 |
Centropomus undecimalis No |
Cynoscion nebulosus Yes 330000 6 |
Cypinodon variegatus Yes 5 5 3 3 5 4 25 |
Eucinostomus gula Yes 000033 6 |
Floridichthys carpio Yes 5 3 3 3 5 4 23 |
Fundulus confluentus Yes 5 3 3 3 5 4 23 |
F. grandis Yes 5 3 3 3 5 4 23 |
Haemulon sciurus Yes 000033 6 |
H. plumieri Yes 000033 6 |
H. parra Yes 000033 6 |
Lagodon rhomboides Yes 300033 9 |
Lucania parva Yes 5 5 3 3 5 4 25 |
Lutjanus griseus Yes 3 0 0 3 3 3 12 |
Myteroperca microlepis Yes 3 0 0 3 3 3 12 |
Megalops atlanticus No |
Mugil spp Yes 000000 0 |
Opsanus beta Yes 000000 0 |
Sphyraena barracuda Yes 000000 0 |
Scoring System: 0 (Poor), Medium (3), Excellent (5) |
APPENDIX E |
TABLES OF |
ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES |
OF DIFFERENT MFL APPROACHES |
BY SUB-REGIONS |
Table E-1 |
Advantages and Disadvantages of Different MFL Approaches for Biscayne Bay |
Oleta River / Snake Creek Sub-region |
POTENTIAL APPROACHES APPROACH SCORE |
(Cumulative Total) |
Oyster resources are easily quantifiable Yes - Data already being compiled |
High public visitation at State Park |
Little public interest in H. johnsonii |
Relatively easy to ID Significant Harm Critical habitat already designated Yes - Data already being compiled |
A lot of scientific work already done |
Oysters not currently abundant |
Difficulty in monitoring minimal changes |
Yes - Data already being compiled |
Little suitable habitat for Johnson's seagrass |
Mangrove community tolerant of varying S% |
Would prevent continued degradation Yes - Data already being compiled |
Would maintain existing degraded condition |
Likely significant public opposition Likley significant public opposition |
Public acceptance Lack of scientific base to work from Expensive and long term |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.