grant # 12330036-0 synthesis of information on the ......grant # 12330036-0 synthesis of information...

Grant # 12330036-0

Synthesis of Information on the Distribution of BenthicInvertebrates in the Hudson/Raritan System.

Final Report

Dr. Angela CristiniRamapo College of New JerseyMahwah, N.J. 07430

INIPODUCT1UN

Since colonial times the Hudson - Raritan estuary system hasbeen a center of marine based activities such as commerce,recreation, and fisheries. It is an area of high biologicalproductivity and a nursery for many species of fish andinvertebrates. This system has also served as a depository foreffluents from the sewers and industries from one of the largestcities in the world. Many chemicals, both organic and inorganicbind to particles and, in so doing, accumulate in the sediments onthe bottom of estuaries and become repositories and potentialsources of contamination to the benthic fauna.

The macrobenthos are often selected in order to study theeffects of chemical contamination because they are often sedentary,.attached to the substrate, or imbedded in the sediments. Inaddition, benthic invertebrates are very important to the trophicstructure of the estuary (they transfer energy from the produr.ersto the higher level consumers) as well as being commerciallyimportant themselves (crabs, clams,oysters). They are also largeenough to be collected, enumerated, and identified easily. Changesin the quality of the water and sediments of estuaries have thepotential to affect the biota at different levels s of biologicalorganization. Figure 1 taken from Sastry and Miller (1981)illustrates a possible time sequence of the effects of pollutionon biological systems. The earliest responses to toxic chemicalsare on the organism's biochemical and physiological systems, thenon growth and reproduction, followed by community and ecosystemresponses in the years to decades following the degradation. TheHudson-Raritan system has been subjected to many decades ofdegraded water quality, therefore, changes at all levels includingthe structure and function of the ecosystem can be expected.

Carriker et.al . (1982) have reported that the distribution andabundance of the benthos of the New York Bight area are, of course,controlled by natural as well as human factors. Salinity andsediment composition are the most important natural factors. Inthe lower estuary (Lower Bay, Upper Bay, Raritan Bay, Arthur Kill,Kill Van Kull, Newark Bay, lower Hudson, and East River) thesalinity of the bottom waters remains high and relatively constant;here the benthic community assemblages are very dependent on thecomposition of the sediments. Movement up toward the fresh watersof the Hudson, Hackensack, Passiac or Raritan rivers results in achange in the benthic community from those associated with aparticular sediment type to those species that are tolerant togreatly reduced salinities.

MINUTE';TC,

D4-•

TOWE FKS

MON I HSTO

YEARS 4_

1:110CHEMiCi‘:_ 1ND I'liYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES TO WATER QUALIFY

[POLLUTANT INPUT]

WATER QUALITY CHANGE]

2.

TIME SCALE rESCAPE

ORGANISMPERCEPTION THRESHOLD]

IMMEDIAT E

'SENSORS} NEURAL,

JENDOCRINE SYSTEMS

-_4CELL MEMBPjkiiFf711

BIOCHEMICAL RESPONSES

:NZYME. ACTIVITY, NEW ISOZYMES, NEW RIBOSOMES, ALTERED RATE)F NUCLEIC ACID AND PROTEIN SYNTHESIS, LIPID SYNTHESIS, ACT--IVATP'N OR SOPRESSION OF METABOLIC PATHWAYS ASSOCIATED WITH

ENER i:.;Y PRODOCflON AND BIOSYNTHESIS, ALTERATIONS IN MEMBRANEFROPLOIES, ALTERED TONIC COMPOSITION OF BODY FLUIDS AND

IISSUES, ALTERED METABOLIC POOL

-F

PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES

' OXYGEN CONSUMPTION, OSMOTIC AND IONIC BALANCE, OVERT ;IITIVITY

1 FEEDING AND DIGESTION, EXCRETION, ASSIMILATION1-

11

(t2NSEQULNCEA

-1 LNITIAL-I

[ALTERED PHYSIOLOGICAL PERFORMANEDOR ENERGY STATE I

161P.ON I d=, --1. LGROWTH' FREPRODUCTIVE SUCLES'd

--\-=---41131014ASSi [17-ZEC:RUITMENTI

_t_,P6PULATION IMPACT'

L

YEAkS i1SFRUCTURE AND DYNAMICS OFTHE71

10 i L__ COMMUNITY ______JDECAOE I -1

{STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION OF ]

THE ECOSYSTEM

FIGURE 1. A hypothetical time related sequence ofssihle biological effects of reduced water quality forrious levels of biological organization.

IranSastry and Miller 1981. hj

3.

The deposition of fine grained sediments is a naturaloccurrence in an estuary. However, the fine grained sediments ofthe Hudson-Raritan system contain carbon enriched particles, heavy •metals, and organic chemicals that are the result of humanactivities (Segar and Berberian, 1976; Greig and McGrath, 1977;Anderson, 1982; Michael, 1982; O'Connor, et.al., 1982). Carrikeret.al. (1982) state that the most probable effect of increaseorganic loading on the benthos is the alterations in communitystructure due to low dissolved oxygen values in the bottom waters.In addition, the levels of toxicants in these sediments affectbiochemical and physiological processes in benthic invertebratesas well as the structure of the community.

One of the goals of the Hudson Harbor Estuary Program is todevelop a management plan for this ecosystem. Part of this planshould include an environmental monitoring program. A section ofthe monitoring program should be developed that would provide datathat would reflect positive and negative changes in the benthos.However, before such a program can be deVeloped for the Hudson-Raritan system, the extant data on benthic community structure andon the effects of toxic chemicals to the benthic invertebrates mustbe summarized. This report will focus on these two summaries andmake recommendations concerning a possible monitoring strategy.

This report is one in a group of "characterization studies"supported by the EPA for the first year of the Hudson HarborEstuaries Program. These studies included work on water qualitymodeling; pollutant loadings; distribution of dissolved oxygen,nutrients and organic carbon; toxicants in sediments and biota;hydrologic modifications; fish distribution and toxicant effectson birds. After all the first year studies are finalized I thinkit will be an important task to superimpose the data on the benthiccommunities on the water quality and sediment data sets. Thesere7.ults will provide important information for the drvelopmeni ofthe monitoring program and the management of the system.

5-

MLIHODS

Fi g ure 2 is a map of the primary core area, the numbers on themap refer to the 15 data sets that have been collected andcomputerized by my research group. Table I is a list of thestudies examined in the course of the present study. The data setswere obtained as the result of letters of inquiry and phone callsto municipal, state and federal government agencies, the' NewYork/New Jersey Port Authority, the Hackensack MeadowlandsPE:a/o/Dement Commission, and various private consulting companiesclown Lo v./e done work in this ecosystem. In all but three casesthe data was available only as hard copy in tabular format; thisformat was no amenable to any of the "scanners" availabl , - atRamapr College or Rutgers University. Therefore, hundreds ofpeople-hours were expended to enter the data by hand, in taenlar

form, using IBM word prefect 5.1 on to 3" by 5" computer disls.The complete data sets are included on the disks that accompanythis report. Appendix A contains summaries of the available datasets. We were unable to locate data on the distribution of benthicinvertebrates from the tower portions of the Passiac and Ra,itanrivers.

In order to attempt some comparison of the available da i l onthe distribution of benthic invertebrates for the entire system wewishEd to use some type of measu r e of the benthic community. andhenefully, use that measure in combination with otter measurer,-rats:as an indicator of the environmental conditions in the system npder

1 hero are several methods used to characteri: . e and Lownarehunthic communities which will be described below. 011 are based:_,n a numerical analyses, therefore, a constant amount of botomshould he samplrd with an appropriate number of replicates takenat each station. There are studies that have been done to evaluatethe statistical designs to accurately characterize the amount. ofarganisms within a given area (Eliott, 1971; Andrew and Mapstone19 137). A standard size mesh sieve should also be used to Prect-1the samples. Mare (1942) defines macrobenthos as those metazoansr etained by a sieve with lx1 mm mesh openings. Standard Methods

4.

6

• ie . ■ ‘,,

,7 ')( _

), • ;: , 11) . i;)

(‘.Gt;'

I( ' NAt) I !CAL MILES

■.■

KIIJ)A11 11.12S

7Fig. 2. Locations of the data sets included in this report.

]nPLE 1AVAILABLE BENTHIC DATA

MESH OSAMPLESAREA DATE SIZE STATION

RARITAN BAY '73-'74 1mm

'E36-'e7 1 mm

6.

SOURCE/SFUNSOR

NMES/Sandy Hook

US Army 1.:!:-rrpT,

of Engineers

JWIAILA BAY

imm 5 Dr. Fran:BrooklynColle g e oflAY

ARTHUR '88-'89

0.5mm 3 or 6 Ny-N3 F(.r t

Authorit

I.C.P. '85 0.5iqm 2

NYC Fubl)LDevelopmPntCorp.

'89 0.5mm 2 Exxon Carr p.

'87-'68 1mm 1 US Army LorpsEnciners

lmm HMDC

" 82-' 83 lmm N3D7-7R

'02-'83 0.5m 1 NY/NJ PoriAuthority

'76 lmm i Hy/NJ PortAuthority

"87-80 1mm 3 Eleyer,Blinnv.and Be1I

B6-'07 0.5mm rlo,11 , ,,fl ICorp.

•[12c;ESCr"Lk"

NEWARK BAY

HCKENSAD(RIVER

liLJDSONRIVER

jEW:iFYCHANNEL.

LIBERTYPAM'.

HARBORSIDE

HUD'.=;flN RIVFRFFNTER

NORTH RIVER '82 419 1

NYL-DEP

microns

EAST RIVER 419 1

NYC-DER

n microns

7.

states that the standard opening for marine benthic fauna is 1.0mm U.S. Standard No. 18 Sieve. However, a recent study by Bachelet(1990) shows that the sieving efficiency of this screen variedbetween 20 and 70% when compared with 0.5 mm mesh screens formacrobenthos in intertidal samples, and 25-65% of specimens passedthrough the 0.5 mm mesh screens. In addition, his data indicatethat species richness, the diversity index and evenness wereaffected by the mesh size. The results of this study clearlysuggest that the comparison of data from studies using differentmesh sizes could be misleading.

In addition, there are many factors besides pollution thatcould affect the diversity of benthic communities (temperature,salinity, food availability, sediment type, predation and disease),therefore, seasonal sampling over a period of a few years is usualfor complete characterization studies. Ferraro and Cole (1790)report that in order to accurately characterize the impact of•pollution on the benthic communities of the Southern CaliforniaEight the number of taxa at the family level was sufficient usingconstant sampling conditions and 4 years of seasonal collections.Work in the Gulf of Mexico (Giammona and Darnel, 1990; Phillipset.al., 1990) also suggest that the design of henthic surveysshould include more seasonal sampling. Bachelet (1990) observedconsiderable variation with season in the sieving efficiency clueto settlement pulses of the larvae of the henthic invertebrates.Once the henthic community of a given ares is properly .

• characterized, sampling once per year may provide enoughinformation to monitor the state of the benthic community, however,long term trends could be best predicted by knowing something aboutseasonal variations. The results of these studies also suggest theproblems associated with making spatial comparisons of benthiccommunity structure using data that was collected in differentseasons in different years.

Examination of the data set summaries in Appendix A indicatethat the data generated by many of the benthic surveys have widelyvariant study designs. The gear used for benthic sampling wasdifferent for most studies as was the amount of sediment that wascollected (0.01 - 0.1 square meter). The number of replicatesamples varied greatly from study to study (1-5) as did the sizeof the mesh in the sieve (419 microns - 1.0mm). Some studies-.present only a pooled list of the benthic invertebrates collectedusing a variety of different gear (grab samplers, seine nets,henthic trawls and traps) within the same study. In addition, mostof the studies were not carried out in the same year and did nothave a seasonal component. In light of the background informationand the methods used in the collection of the 15 existing datasets; I reexamined the methods used to characterize benthiccommunities in order to choose the best measure for the system asa whole. A summary of these methods is presented below.

9

Diversity Indices

The most commonly used measure of environmental impact hasbeen the diversity index in one or more of its forms. Theseindices relate the numbers the number rf species (richness) andimportance values (dominance). Classical studies have shown thatciiersity will most often decrease with severe pollution stress.However, there are other factors that can decrease diversity,paeticularly in the estuarine environment. Diversity indices also

prav)de ane.wers to many questions that arise concerninO the'a of substances on benthic community structure. In

_1 d these indices are best applied to data collected un!no'_,awe methods and sample size. Ali of these reasons soonest

that comparing diversity indices will not be the best approach tomeaningful synthesis of the divergent benthc data in the entireHudson Harbor estuary.

Simitarity in Species Composition

Another method of comparison that has been used is simila! ityin ,-,I,r, ciec composition. Many of the indices chat have keendeveloped to examine this parameter are very dependent on sameleai:e; there are some indices that have been deve)oped the take, ;ample size dependence into account. However. the difference inthe size of the mesh of the sieves in the different studies pre enta •et-tows prphlem. In addition, the data that is reported in manyf Lie studie i r the Hudson-Raratan sva•tem are a compilatio e of

aIl of the benthe invertebrates collected using all of the rtar-:for many of the studies a combination of benthic grabs, setnenaula, trawls and traps. The data sets do not separate out thefauna by gear so it is impossible to be sure which invertebrateswere collected in the grabs, the seine hauls, the trawls, or thetraps, yet only the benthic grab samples are replicated andquantified,

8.

o

Change in Abundance or Biomass

Community ecologists have also suggested that changes inabundance or biomass can be used with multiple regression andANOVA's to correlate changes in community structure withenvironmental variation. However, use of these measures requiresthat the natural variability in the system as well as seasonalitybe considered in the initial sampling design. These measures arevery good for isolated studies such as the ones done in Jamaica Bayand Raritan Bay because the investigators who designed thesestudies sampled in different seasons as well as along knownsediment and pollutant gradients. Because of the time span of theavailable data sets, the different gears, the different samplesizes, and the lack of seasonal sampling, this approach will notyield a meaningful measure of community structure as it relates togradients in environmental conditions or toxicants of concern forconsideration of the whole system.

The best data sets are thbse that were collected for RaritanPay in 1973 by McGrath and in 1987 by Cerrato. Dr. Cerratooccupied most of the same stations in the 1973 study, used the samegear and sampled seasonally. He designed this study in order toget some idea of seasonal effects, changes over time and tocalculate similarity indices. Dr. Ceratto has received a grantfrom the Hudson River Foundation to do at least the following inRaritan Bay:1. Assign feeding guilds to fauna in order to interpret communitystructure

Use "surfer" software to contour plot abundance, speciesrichness and environmental data.3. Use multi-variate statistical techniques to examine communitystructure.

The report of their work will be available at around the sametime that the report for the present study will be available.have no intention of duplicating their work, rather, I wanted toattempt to concentrate on the whole Hudson Harbor Estuary System.Because of the problems with the methods described above, another,perhaps more generalized, method to measure the benthic communitywould be more appropriate.

9.

ft

Appendi 3 contains the literature sear ch on the of fee ts ofpr etants on physiological and biochemical processes in different

t ebra tea spec ie. Many of these studiee have eecamined thet , ty o sedi ments to di f f errant s pecies of amphi pods ( DeWit ,et' , 19L3' ;' ; Dee is 1 le and Roberts , ; wart z , e 1., 173!.7) ;

_ 7 , et .al . !'-7R9; Reiehert , et .al 0a-:den, et.al. I'8).E3e ; ' et .al. (1.9'70) use the amphie od mor tali t y test on

ieaxyniue abronius as part of their sediment bioassa y system treLC' i r wit' he al ter-at ion of benthi c community struc tor e in PuHetSo • ' eed r rustaceans are an im portant. pro , . !- in t he benthiccc i ty, -.;orrie ben thi r eC I og sts have suggested that thedi • t ion t ccustelceans, particulat e, y the amph i pods , could leadti -rearing 1 corr4...ar isuns of the e f cc of env ronmen al

includinn pol 1 ut ion. ("mphipod<., are t nown to bei toxicants, par ticul ar 1 y heavy metals , and their

jhutio, .s also related to sed men / chat .0 Let- l et c e-.sedim eet'i s are indicative of deposi iona I areas where heavy

f1-15 -; , Pf-;L and other pollutants would be tiost likelyar ,r I ate

lii order to establish a starting preint to Lenin to ex..e , inet/ hangee: in ben thic communities rebated to cjradiErrts in the-e, • . , etem, the present eport will focus en the Ji n tribut ion of the

pods. The zeimple repor Ling of the occur r ence o mph i r.nds( Hhers pee square meter ) will provide r ' general indi cat ion of the

c corm t di. -1 rerent areas or the Hndon/Pari ton ! rm.eps when hi e, , •-leasurement is used ie :ion rict.inn wi t the

)! at ore 1 r I, v r-on(; pntal condi e- ()mi.; i led the. ac ter t •' t s Cud i es" a clearer intJircitinrr of t he t i p

ee- (P1', ta I qua 1 it'/ and the be) t ommun ty 11

tc , f1 4 gel ora ut amphi pods i fiat a r f Plind 1 11 I he1 son /Rat- tan system. Examination of the data indicated that

ce' cater than 90/. 0 the amphi pods col 1 ec ted in any. of the surveyswore f coal hose f our genera. ( I. ) r=ime sea a tub, dwel .ing0.mphi pod found in muddy/sarld'i but Lome ; this genus of ten aCoin i clan t member of heal thy .inshore and estuar inn ben thicce,irmunit les (2) Lin 1. col a -also a Tube d-el I mg genus f ound )1-1 sancl iepbut toms than Ompel isca (3) Corrlphium - another- tube dwE.--.> 1 1 ing .genuswith wider Ltottom preference (from sand to mud ) ( 4 ) Mel ita - • this

rn .5 is tolerant to low salinities. The data sets were .stsaand the ierfeemati (stetion 4, genus, date. number 1 t , ) s-r-r., retrievedinto a separate file and included on the di 7:-,1 containing the data

LZ

11.

for the entire survey available at with this report. In order toattempt to reduce seasonal effects; the spatial distribution of thenumber of amphipods from the available data sets will be comparedfor samples taken during the Summer months. The next section willcontain a description of each segment of the core study area withemphasis on the distribution of the 4 genera of amphipods, followedby the composite distribution for the Summer studies.

Dnin SETS

Raritan Bay

Three major benthic studies were done in Raritan Bay1977. The study performed by Stainken et.al.(1984) in 1979 - 1780used a sieve mesh size that was 10 times larger than any of theother studies in the entire study area. It is doubtful that thebenthic distributions that -were observed in this study will hecomparable to any of the other data sets. Therefore, these datawere not included in the present report.

The second major study in Raritan Bay was conducted in 1973-74 by McGrath (1974), the data from this survey was reassessed bySteimle and Caracciolo-Ward (1989). Table II is a list of thegenera, numbers of amphipods collected, and the station numh,-r.These data clearly show that 1973-74 study found very few amphipodspresent. Except for the occurrence of 8 Melita at station 56 onone cruse in 1973, amphipods of these four genera were absent fromthe stations sampled in most of the Bay. The only stations whereAmpelisca and Unciola occurred were in the sediments of Sandy HookBay. Steimle and Caracciolo-Ward (1998) state that amphipods asa whole did not comprise the majority of the biomass of the Bay.They suggest that the limited distribution of amphipods in theirstudy compared to the distributions found in other studies couldbe attributed to (1) seasonal differences in the collections (2)higher concentrations of heavy metals and organic contaminants inthe sediments in portions of Raritan Bay (3) a response to naturalenvironmental factors . such as salinity shifts because of TropicalStorm Agnes.

STATION Si2ECIES

UNCIOLA IRRORATAMELITA NITIDA

NUMBER

18

■-_-_• _•-•-•_113

12.

Table II Amphipod distribution for 1973-1974 Paritan Bay StudyMcGrath (1974).

Cruise 1, 1973

STATION SPECIES NUMBER

73 AMPELISCA ABDITA 185 UNCIOLA SP 186 MELITA NITIDA 188 MELITA NITIDA 188 UNCIOLA SERRATA 1

Cruise 2, 1973


13 AMPELISCA ABDITA 185 UNCIOLA SP 186 MELITA NITIDA 188 MELITA NITIDA 188 UNCIOLA SERRATA 1

Cruise 3, 1973

Cruise 4, 4973


88 UNCIOLA IRRORATA 1

13.

The third major study in Raritan Bay was conducted in 1986-87by Cerrato. Table 3 is a list of the genera, numbers of amphipodscollected, and the station number. These data clearly show aremarkable increase in the area of distribution and the numbers ofamphipods from the 1973-74 survey. In 1986-87 Ampelisca abdita wasthe most abundant species and Corophium and Unicola were among the20 most abundant genera. Clearly these substantial differences inthe distribution of the four genera of amphipods suggest that achange has taken place in the benthic environment; these data couldsuggest a positive trend in the conditions in sections of RaritanDay. These are the only studies done in the entire system thathave sampled the same stations after .a period of time using thesame study design. Hopefully, the comparison study supported bythe Hudson River Foundation will clarify these observed changes inthe community structure of the benthos over time.

Jamaica Bay

A survey of the benthic communities in Jamaica Bay was .doneby Fran: and Harris in 1981-1982. The details of the survey arepresented in Appendix A. This study used different gear than theRaritan studies although the total sediment volume that was sampledwas the same. They sampled seasonally in the Bay along knownpollutant gradients and determined sediment grain si:e and heavy

• metal concentration in the sediments at these stations. Inaddition, the heavy metal concentrations were also measured in thetissues of selected benthic organisms at some of these stations.

Fran: and Harris found high numbers of Amoelisca, Unicola, andCorophium at many station in the bay. The authors believe thatamphipods con-Aitute a major group of primary eon!- ..umer in the Inodweb and support juvenile fish, adult flat fish and shore birdpopulations that inhabit Jamaica Bay. They are also concerned thatstation 9 which is heavily contaminated with heavy metals and PAH'sdoes not support an amphipod community (Appendix A). In addition,stations 25 and 26 seem to be vulnerable; because of theaccumulation of heavy metals and organic contaminants thesestations do not contain the type of amphipod communities that wouldbe expected in this sediment type. These data serve as an example'of how the measurement of the distribution of amphipods incombination with other measures of environmental conditions can beused as an indicator of the effects of pollution on the benthiccommunity.

15--

14.Table III Amphipod distribution for 1986-1987 Raritan Bay Study

Cruise 1, 1985 (Cerrato)

rage No. 1


1 Ampelisca abdita 5891 Corophium tuberculatum 41 Unciola dissimilis 11 Unciola serrata 81 Unciola sp. 1100 Ampelisca abdita 1103 Ampelisca abdita 483103 Corophium tuberculatum 6103 Melita nitida 110:3 Unciola dissimilis 110:3 Unciola serrata 18104 Ampelisca abdita 62104 Corophium tuberculatum 16104 Melita nitida 1104 Unciola dissimilis 2104 Unciola serrata 610'2,Ampelisca abdita 512 Unciola serrata 413 Ampelisca abdita 513 Ampelisca vadorum 313 Corophium tuberculatum 213 Melita nitida 11:3 Unciola irrorata 413 Unciola serrata 314 Ampelisca abdita 57014 Corophium tuberculatum 714 Unciola serrata 115 Ampelisca abdita 53715 Corophium tuberculatum 615 Unciola dissimilis 416 Ampelisca abdita 64816 Corophium tuberculatum 616 Melita nitida 116 Unciola dissimilis 217 Ampelisca abdita 31017 Unciola dissimilis 318 Ampelisca abdita 193718 Corophium tuberculatum 1618 Unciola dissimilis 418 Unciola serrata 2519 Ampelisca abdita 119 Unciola dissimilis 12 Ampelisca abdita 29512 Ampelisca vadorum 12 Corophium tuberculatum 462 Unciola dissimilis 62 Unciola serrata 721 Corophium tuberculatum 121 Unciola dissimilis 221 Unciola serrata 124 Ampelisca abdita 478

16

Cruise 1, 1985

Paye No. 2


24 Corophium tuberculatum 1125 Ampelisca abdita 45225 Corophium tuberculatum 1626 Ampelisca abdita 223026 Corophium tuberculatum 3126 Unciola dissimilis 326 Unciola serrata 427 Ampelisca abdita 96827 Corophium tuberculatum 328 Ampelisca abdita 135628 Corophium tuberculatum 4428 Melita nitida 128 Unciola serrata 329 Corophium tuberculatum 130 Ampelisca abdita 76730 Corophium tuberculatum 331 Corophium tuberculatum 132 Ampelisca abdita 136 Ampelisca abdita 88336 Corophium tuberculatum 437 Ampelisca abdita 237 Corophium tuberculatum 138 Ampelisca abdita 3838 Melitid sp. 138 Unciola irrorata 14 Ampelisca abdita 16724 Corophium tuberculatum 254 Unciola dissimilis 114 Unciola serrata 340 Ampelisca abdita 140 Corophium tuberculatum 440 Unciola serrata 541 Ampelisca abdita 841 Corophium tuberculatum 341 Melita nitida 141 Unciola serrata 1442 Ampelisca abdita 3242 Corophium tuberculatum 942 Unciola serrata 943 Ampelisca abdita 148743 Corophium tuberculatum 246 Ampelisca abdita 146 Unciola serrata 147 Ampelisca abdita 148 Ampelisca abdita 88348 Corophium tuberculatum 748 Unciola dissimilis 148 Unciola serrata 149 Ampelisca abdita 5149 Corophium tuberculatum 25 Ampelisca abdita 1

(7

Table III cont.

Cruise 1, 1985

Pa,,4c, No. 3


5 Unciola dissimilis 250 Ampelisca abdita 39650 Corophium tuberculatum 451 Unciola dissimilis 151 Unciola serrata 152 Unciola serrata 153 Ampelisca abdita: 454 Corophium tuberculatum 15 Unciola serrata 15 Ampelisca abdita 2255 Corophium tuberculatum 25 Melita nitida 155 Unciola dissimilis 156 Ampelisca abdita 44456 Corophium tuberculatum 358 Ampelisca abdita 360 Ampelisca abdita 168 Ampelisca abdita 468 Corophium tuberculatum 568 Unciola dissimilis 168 Unciola serrata 5869 Ampelisca abdita 769 Corophium tuberculatum 469 Unciola irrorata 169 Unciola serrata 27 Ampelisca abdita 170 Ampelisca abdita 170 Corophium tuberculatum 270 Unciola serrata 1071 Ampelisca abdita 171 Ampelisca vadorum 171 Unciola irrorata 171 Unciola serrata 173 Ampelisca abdita 96673 Corophium tuberculatum 1973 Unciola dissimilis 173 Unciola serrata 38 Unciola serrata 180 Ampelisca abdita 781 Ampelisca abdita 183 Ampelisca abdita 183 Corophium tuberculatum 783 Melita nitida 483 Unciola serrata 684 Corophium tuberculatum 185 Ampelisca abdita 1386 Ampelisca abdita 159386 Corophium tuberculatum 2886 Melita nitida 186 Unciola dissimilis 286 Unciola serrata 1

18

Table III cont. 17.

Cruise 1, 1985

Page No. 4


87 Ampelisca abdita 15787 Melita nitida 188 Ampelisca abdita 189 Unciola serrata 195 Unciola serrata 198 Melita nitida 298 Unciola serrata 399 Ampelisca abdita 399 Unciola serrata 1Al Ampelisca abdita 29Al Corophium tuberculatum 1Al Melita nitida 1Al Unciola dissimilis 1Al Unciola serrata 1A10 Ampelisca abdita 788A10 Corophium tuberculatum 8A10 Unciola dissimilis 1A10 Unciola serrata 1A2 Ampelisca abdita 1A2 Unciola serrata 1A3 Ampelisca abdita 1A3 Corophium tuberculatum 2A3 Unciola serrata 3A4 Ampelisca abdita 435A4 Corophium tuberculatum 2A5 Ampelisca abdita 1166A5 Corophium tuberculatum 6A6 Ampelisca abdita 1069A6 Corophium tuberculatum 2A7 Ampelisca abdita 77A8 Ampelisca abdita 335A8 Corophium tuberculatum 1A9 Ampelisca abdita 438A9 Corophium tuberculatum 15A9 Melita nitida 5A9 Unciola dissimilis 1A9 Unciola serrata 9B10 Ampelisca abdita 9B10 Unciola serrata 1B3 Ampel,isca abdita 1B4 Ampelisca abdita 3075B4 Corophium tuberculatum 32B4 Unciola serrata 1B5 Ampelisca abdita 2231B5 Corophium tuberculatum 34B5 Unciola dissimilis 1B5 Unciola serrata 2B6 Ampelisca abdita 1203B6 Corophium tuberculatum 43B6 Unciola dissimilis 1B6 Unciola serrata 1

10,Table III cont.

Cruise 1, 1985

Page No. 5


137 Ampelisca abdita 970B7 Corophium tuberculatum 26B7 Unciola dissimilis 1B7 Unciola serrata 1B8 Ampelisca abdita 3263B8 Corophium tuberculatum 22138 Unciola serrata 3B9 Ampelisca abdita 1843B9 Corophium tuberculatum 7Cl Ampelisca abdita 2C; Corophium tuberculatum 1C. Unciola serrata 1C1C Ampelisca abdita 1C1( Corophium tuberculatum 2Cl nUnciola irrorata 5Clc Unciola serrata 4C2 Ampelisca abdita 1C2 Corophium tuberculatum 1C2 Unciola serrata 1C3 Ampelisca abdita 123C3 Corophium tuberculatum 1C3 Unciola serrata 10C5 Ampelisca abdita 7C5 Unciola serrata 1C6 Corophium tuberculatum 1C6 Unciola serrata 307 Ampelisca abdita 1C7 Unciola serrata 5C8 Ampelisca abdita 1CS Unciola serrata 8C9 Ampelisca abdita 109 Unci_o1-a serrata 18

O

Table III cont. 19.

Cruise 2, 1985

Page No. 1


1 Ampelisca abdita 1121 Corophium tuberculatum 3103 Ampelisca abdita 68103 Corophium tuberculatum 6103 Unciola serrata 16104 Ampelisca abdita 39104 Corophium tuberculatum 5104 Unciola serrata 8105 Ampelisca abdita 4105 Unciola serrata 211 Unciola dissimilis 112 Corophium tuberculatum 112 Unciola irrorata 213 Ampelisca abdita 313 Unciola serrata 314 Ampelisca abdita 20214 Corophium tuberculatum 8214 Unciola dissimilis 214 Unciola serrata 115 Ampelisca abdita 9615 Corophium tuberculatum 215 Unciola dissimilis 516 Ampelisca abdita 98816 Corophium tuberculatum 4716 Unciola dissimilis 216 Unciola serrata 417 Ampelisca abdita 13417 Corophium tuberculatum 2717 Unciola dissimilis 117 Unciola serrata 118 Ampelisca abdita 10518 Corophium tuberculatum 7018 Unciola dissimilis 118 Unciola serrata 12 Ampelisca abdita 10122 Corophium tuberculatum 832 Unciola dissimilis 12 Unciola serrata 124 Ampelisca abdita 15624 Corophium tuberculatum 6424 Unciola dissimilis 225 Ampelisca abdita 9825 Corophium tuberculatum 225 Unciola serrata 326 Ampelisca abdita 129526 Corophium tuberculatum 48226 Unciola dissimilis 226 Unciola serrata 1127 Ampelisca abdita 5727 Corophium tuberculatum 427 Unciola dissimilis 1

Table III cont.

Cruise 2, 1985

Page No. 2


25 Ampelisca abdita 112328 Corophium tuberculatum 35128 Unciola serrata 129 Ampelisca abdita 13 Ampelisca abdita 5033 Corophium tuberculatum 1423 Unciola serrata 930 Ampelisca abdita 12830 Corophium tubercutatum 1131 Ampelisca abdita 231

Corophium tuberculatum 103 Unciola lissimilis 1

Unciola .:;errata 5.32 Ampelisca abdita 432 Corophium tuberculatum 33: Melita aitida 532 Unciola serrata 434 Ampelisca abdita 1634 Corophium tuberculatum 134 Unciola serrata 236 Ampelisca abdita 536 Corophium tuberculatum 113 -,, Ampelisca abdita 732 Cororhium tuberculatum 833 Unciola irrorata 163P Unciola serrata 54 Ampelis a abdita 1204

Corophium tuberculatum 1354 Unciola aissimili 140 Ampelisca abdita 340 Corophiam tuberculatum 740 Unciola dissimilis 140 Unciola serrata 3,“ Ampelisca abdita 641 Corophium tuberculatum 1042 Ampetis,:a abdita 176942 Corophium tuberculatum 75042 Unciola 3issimilis 142 Unciola i.-rorata 142 Unciola serrata 54" Ampelisca abdita 30534 3 Corophiam tuberculatum 33164] Melita uitida 343 Unciola c-nssimilts 4246 Ampelis • a abdita 76146 Corophim tuberculatum 7446 Unciola lissimil i s 546 Unciola serrata 547 Ampelisa:a abdita 1447 Corophium tuberculatum 2847 Unciola lissimilis 1

Table Iii cont. 21.

Cruise 2, 1985

Page No. 3


47 Unciola serrata 148 Ampelisca abdita 63548 Corophium tuberculatum 2448 Unciola sp. 149 Ampelisca abdita 151849 Corophium tuberculatum 34149 Unciola serrata 15 Ampelisca vadorum 150 Ampelisca abdita 45750 Corophium tuberculatum 14850 Unciola serrata 551 Ampelisca abdita 451 Corophium tuberculatum 9351 Unciola serrata 652 Ampelisca abdita 56152 Corophium tuberculatum 37552 Melita nitida 152 Unciola serrata 1053 Ampelisca abdita 43653 Corophium tuberculatum 12253 Unciola dissimilis 153 Unciola serrata 654 Ampelisca abdita 51654 Corophium tuberculatum 17354 Melita nitida 354 Unciola dissimilis 254 Unciola serrata 2055 Ampelisca abdita 26655 Corophium tuberculatum 156 Ampelisca abdita 39956 Corophium tuberculatum 5856 Melita nitida 257 Ampelisca abdita 21457 Corophium tuberculatum 857 Melita nitida 157 Unciola serrata 358 Ampelisca abdita 4658 Melita nitida 1058 Unciola serrata 159 Ampelisca abdita 259 Corophium tuberculatum 16 Ampelisca abdita 160 Ampelisca abdita 662 Ampelisca abdita 168 Ampelisca abdita 468 Corophium tuberculatum 169 Ampelisca abdita 169 Unciola irrorata 17 Ampelisca abdita 17 Unciola irrorata 57 Unciola serrata 1

Table III cont.

Cruise 2, 1985

Page No. 4


70 Unciola dissimilis 170 Unciola irrorata 170 Unciola serrata 371 Unciola irrorata 173 Ampelisca abdita 23173 Corophium tuberculatum 473 Unciola dissimilis 473 Unciola irrorata 13 Ampelisca abdita 280 Ampelisca abdita 26480 Corophium tuberculatuo 9930 Meita nttida 230 Unciola irrorata 380 Unciola serrata 481 Ampelisca abdita 1281 Corophium tuberculatum 7281 Unciola dissimilis 181 Unciola serrata 282 Ampelisca abdita 183 Ampelisca abdita 583 Corophium tuberculatum 783 Unciola irrorata 183 Unciola serrata 384 Ampelisca abdita 684 Corophium tuberculatum 284 Unciola serrata 1P !' . Ampelisca abdita 55285 Corophiuo tuberculatum 1385 Unciola dissimilis 185 Unciola irrorata 185 Unciola serrata 186 Ampelisca abdita 51286 Corophium tuberculatum 886 Melita nitida 186 Unciola :;errata 387 Ampelisca abdita 68387 Corophium tuberculatum 1587 Melita nitida 187 Unciola dissimilis 187 Unciola serrata 188 Ampelisca abdita 11988 Corophium tuberculatum ,36988 Melita nitida 288 Unciola dissimilis 188 Unciola serrata 3889 Ampelisca abdita 289 Corophium tuberculatum 109 Unciola irrorata 19 Unciola serrata 290 Ampelisca abdita 190 Corophium tuberculatum 1

table 111 cont.Cruise 2, 1985

Page No. 5


91 Ampelisca abdita 192 Ampelisca abdita 192 Unciola dissimilis 292 Unciola serrata 296 Ampelisca abdita 198 Ampelisca abdita 199 Ampelisca abdita 2Al Ampelisca abdita 64Al Corophium tuberculatum 10Al Melita nitida 9Al Unciola serrata 12A10 Ampelisca abdita 241A10 Corophium tuberculatum 75A2 Ampelisca abdita 324A2 Corophium tuberculatum 7A2 Melita nitida 5A2 Unciola dissimilis 1A2 Unciola serrata 4A3 Ampelisca abdita 3A3 Corophium tuberculatum 6A3 Unciola serrata 3A4 Ampelisca abdita 270A4 Corophium tuberculatum 114A4 Unciola serrata 1A5 Ampelisca abdita 554AS Corophium tuberculatum 238A5 Melita nitida 2AS Unciola serrata 1A6 Ampelisca abdita 224A6 Corophium tuberculatum 45A6 Melita nitida 1A7 Ampelisca abdita 200A7 Corophium tuberculatum 11A8 Ampelisca abdita 332A8 Corophium tuberculatum 135A8 Melita nitida 1AS Unciola serrata 2A9 Ampelisca abdita 185A9 Corophium tuberculatum 36A9 Melita nitida 1A9 Unciola serrata 2B2 Unciola dissimilis 1B3 Ampelisca abdita 1B4 Ampelisca abdita 328B4 Corophium tuberculatum 20B4 Unciola irrorata 1B4 Unciola serrata 1B5 Ampelisca abdita 1103B5 Corophium tuberculatum 607B5 Unciola serrata 13B6 Ampelisca abdita 174

Table III cont. L4.

Cruise 2, 1985

Page No. 6


BG Corophium tuberculatum 16B6 Unciola dissimilis 1B7 Ampelisca abdita 292B7 Corophium tuberculatum 27B8 Ampelisca abdita 449B8 Corophium tuberculatum 307B8 Unciola irrorata 1BE Unciola serrata 3B9 Ampelisca abdita 1058B9 Corophium tuberculatum 238B9 Uncinia dissimilis 1BY Unciola .errata 2::10 Unciola serrata 3C2 Ampelisca abdita 1C3 Unciola irrorata 1C4 Corophium tuberculatum 1C4 Unciola thissimilis 1C5 Ampelisca abdita 1C6 Unciola serrata 1C7 Ampelisca abdita 1C7 Unciola irrorata 1C7 Unciola serrata 5C8 Ampelisca abdita 1C8 Unciola dissimilis 1CO Ampelisca abdita 3C9 Unciola dissimilis 1C9 Unciola serrata 4

Cruise 3, 1985

Pziqe No. 1


1 Ampelisca abdita 5891 Corophium tuberculatum 41 Unciola dissimilis 11 Unciola serrata 81 Unciola sp. 1100 Ampelisca abdita 1103 Ampelisca abdita 483103 Corophium tuberculatum 6103 Melita nitida 1103 Unciola dissimilis 1103 Unciola serrata 18104 Ampelisca abdita 62104 Corophium tuberculatum 16104 Melita nitida 1104 Unciola dissimilis 2104 Unciola serrata 6105 Ampelisca abdita 512 Unciola serrata 413 Ampelisca abdita 513 Ampelisca vadorum 313 Corophium tuberculatum 213 Melita nitida 113 Unciola irrorata 413 Unciola serrata 314 Ampelisca abdita 57014 Corophium tuberculatum 714 Unciola serrata 115 Ampelisca abdita 53715 Corophium tuberculatum 615 Unciola dissimilis 416 Ampelisca abdita 64816 Corophium tuberculatum 616 Melita nitida 116 Unciola dissimilis 217 Ampelisca abdita 31017 Unciola dissimilis 318 Ampelisca abdita 193718 Corophium tuberculatum 1618 Unciola dissimilis 418 Unciola serrata 2519 Ampelisca abdita 119 Unciola dissimilis 12 Ampelisca abdita 29512 Ampelisca vadorum 12 Corophium tuberculatum 462 Unciola dissimilis 62 Unciola serrata 721 Corophium tuberculatum 121 Unciola dissimilis 221 Unciola serrata 124 Ampelisca abdita 478

labie 111 cont.

'guise 3, 1985

age No. 2


24 Corophium tuberculatum 1125 Ampelisca abdita 45225 Corophium tuberculatum 1626 Ampelisca abdita 223026 Corophium tuberculatum 3126 Unciola dissimilis 326 Unciola serrata 427 Ampelisca abdita 96827 Corophium tuberculatum 328 Ampelisca abdita 135628 Corophium tuberculatum 4428 Melita nitida 128 Unciola serrata 329 Corophium tuberculatum 130 Ampelisca abdita 76730 Corophium tuberculatum 331 Corophium tuberculatum 132 Ampelisca abdita 136 Ampelisca abdita 88336 Corophium tuberculatum 437 Ampelisca abdita 237 Corophium tuberculatum 138 Ampelisca abdita 3838 Melitid sp. 138 Unciola irrorata 11 Ampelisca abdita 16724 Corophium tuberculatum 254 Unciola dissimilis 111 Unciola serrata 310 Ampelisca abdita 140 Corophium tuberculatum 440 Unciola serrata 541 Ampelisca abdita 841 Corophium tuberculatum 341 Melita nitida 141 Unciola serrata 1442 Ampelisca abdita 3242 Corophium tuberculatum 942 Unciola serrata 943 Ampelisca abdita 148743 Corophium tuberculatum 246 Ampelisca abdita 146 Unciola serrata 147 Ampelisca abdita 148 Ampelisca abdita 88348 Corophium tuberculatum 748 Unciola dissimilis 148 Unciola serrata 149 Ampelisca abdita 5149 Corophium tuberculatum 25 Ampelisca abdita 1

Table III cons. 27.Cruise 3, 1985

Page No. 3


5 Unciola dissimilis 250 Ampelisca abdita 39650 Corophium tuberculatum 451 Unciola dissimilis 151 Unciola serrata 152 Unciola serrata 153 Ampelisca abdita 454 Corophium tuberculatum 154 Unciola serrata 155 Ampelisca abdita 2255 Corophium tuberculatum 255 Melita nitida 155 Unciola dissimilis 156 Ampelisca abdita 44456 Corophium tuberculatum 358 Ampelisca abdita 160 Ampelisca abdita 168 Ampelisca abdita 468 Corophium tuberculatum 568 Unciola dissimilis 168 Unciola serrata 5869 Ampelisca abdita 769 Corophium tuberculatum 469 Unciola irrorata 169 Unciola serrata 27 Ampelisca abdita 170 Ampelisca abdita 170 Corophium tuberculatum 270 Unciola serrata 1971 Ampelisca abdita 171 Ampelisca vadorum 171 Unciola irrorata 171 Unciola serrata 173 Ampelisca abdita 96673 Corophium tuberculatum 1973 Unciola dissimilis 173 Unciola serrata 38 Unciola serrata 180 Ampelisca abdita 781 Ampelisca abdita 183 Ampelisca abdita 183 Corophium tuberculatum 783 Melita nitida 483 Unciola serrata 684 Corophium tuberculatum 185 Ampelisca abdita 1386 Ampelisca abdita 159386 Corophium tuberculatum 2886 Melita nitida 186 Unciola dissimilis 286 Unciola serrata 1

Table III cont. GO.

Cruise 3, 1985

Page No. 4


87 Ampelisca abdita 15787 Melita nitida 188 Ampelisca abdita 189 Unciola serrata 195 Unciola serrata 198 Melita nitida 298 Unciola serrata 399 Ampelisca abdita 399 Unciola serrata 1Al Ampelisca abdita 29Al Corophium tuberculatum 1Al Melita nitida 1Al inciota dissimilis 1Al Unciola serrata 1A16 Ampelisca abdita 788A10 Corophium tuberculatum 8A10 Unciola dissimilis 1A10 Unciola serrata 1A2 Ampelisca abdita 1A.2 Unciola serrata 1A3 Ampelisca abdita 1A3 Corophium tuberculatumA lUnciola serrata 3A4 Ampelisca abdita 435A4 Corophium tuberculatum 2AS Ampelisca abdita 1166A5 Corophium tuberculatum 6A6 Ampetisca abdita 1069A6 Corophium tuberculatum 2A7 Ampelisca abdita 77A8 Ampelisca abdita 335A8 Corophium tuberculatum 1A9 Ampelisca abdita 438A9 Corophium tuberculatum 15A9 Melita nitida 5A9 Unciola dissimilis 1A9 Unciola serrata 9B10 Ampelisca abdita 9B10 Unciola serrata 1B3 Ampelisca abdita 1B4 Ampelisca abdita 3075B4 Corophium tuberculatum . 32

. B4 Unciola serrata 1. B5 Ampelisca abdita 2231B5 Corophium tuberculatum 34B5 Unciola dissimilis 1B5 Unciola serrata 2B6 Ampelisca abdita 1203B6 Corophium tuberculatum 43B6 Unciola dissimilis 1B6 Unciola serrata 1

30

tauie 111 LVlI U.Cruise 3, 1985

Page No. 5

STATION SPECIES

NUMBER

B7 Ampelisca abdita 970B7 Corophium tuberculatum 26B7 Unciola dissimilis 1B7 Unciola serrata 1B8 Ampelisca abdita 3263B8 Corophium tuberculatum 22B8 Unciola serrata 3B9 Ampelisca abdita 1843B9 Corophium tuberculatum 7Cl Ampelisca abdita 2Cl Corophium tuberculatum 1Cl Unciola serrata 1C10 Ampelisca abdita 1C10 Corophium tuberculatum 2C10 Unciola irrorata 5C10 Unciola serrata 4C2 Ampelisca abdita 1C2 Corophium tuberculatum 1C2 Unciola serrata 1C3 Ampelisca abdita .123C3 Corophium tuberculatum 1C3 Unciola serrata 10C5 Ampelisca abdita 7C5 Unciola serrata 1C6 Corophium tuberculatum 1C6 Unciola serrata 3C7 Ampelisca abdita 1C7 Unciola serrata 5C8 Ampelisca abdita 1C8 Unciola serrata 8C9 Ampelisca abdita 1C9 Unciola serrata 18

Cruise 4, 1985

Pagc No.


3 Ampelisca abdita 210 Ampelisca abdita 2103 Ampelisca abdita 8103 Corophium tuberculatum 39103 Unciola serrata 8104 Ampelisca abdita 13104 Unciola serrata 10105 Ampelisca abdita 5413 Unciola serrata 114 Ampelisca abdita 15714 Unciola serrata 4it Ampelisca abdita 53

Unciola dissimths 16 Ampelisca abdita 18C,

17 Ampelisca abdita 6017 Corophium tuberculatur 11 7Unciola dissimilis 118 Ampelisca abdita 1018 Unciola serrata 2l'' Ampelisca abdita 1

Ampelisca abdita 48,2 Corophium tuberculatum 132 Melita nitida 102 Unciola serrata 92 Ampelisca abdita 587

Corophium tuberculatum 324 Unciola dissimilis 124 Unciola serrata 125 Ampelisca abdita 9225 Unciola dissimilis 12C Ampelisca abdita 55526 Corophi urn tuberculatum 72 ,Unciola dissimilis 126 Unciola serrata 427 Ampelisca abdita 14727 Corophium tuberculatum 2527 Melita nitida 127 Unciola dissimilis 2'27 Unciola serrata 428 Ampelisca abdita 66228 Corophium tubercuiatum 82P Melita nitida 129 Ampelisa abdita 103 Unciola serrata 130 Ampelisca abdita 166830 Corophium tuberculatum 1830 Melita nitida 130 Unciola dissimilis 130 Unciola serrata 231 Ampelisca abdita 160331 Corophium tuberculatum 11

Table III cont. 31.

Cruise 4, 1985

-Page No. 2


31 Melita nitida 131 Unciola dissimilis 131 Unciola serrata 232 Ampelisca abdita 236 Ampelisca abdita 336 Corophium tuberculatum 136 Unciola serrata 137 . -Ampelisca abdita-- 138 Ampelisca abdita 144 Ampelisca abdita 45154 Corophium tuberculatum 1294 Unciola dissimilis 144 Unciola serrata 740 Corophium tuberculatum 640 Unciola serrata 241 Ampelisca abdita 1041 Corophium tuberculatum 1441 Melita nitida 541 Unciola irrorata 341 Unciola serrata 2042 Ampelisca abdita 142 Unciola dissimilis 143 Ampelisca abdita 457943 Corophium tuberculatum 3243 Melita nitida 146 Ampelisca abdita 67446 Corophium tuberculatum 346 Unciola serrata 247 Ampelisca abdita 548 Ampelisca abdita 289148 Corophium tuberculatum 1748 Unciola serrata 149 Ampelisca abdita 161049 Corophium tuberculatum 2849 Unciola dissimilis 149 Unciola serrata 55 Corophium tuberculatum 15 Unciola serrata 150 Ampelisca abdita 34750 Unciola serrata 251 Ampelisca abdita 251 Unciola dissimilis 151 Unciola serrata 152 Unciola serrata 153 Ampelisca abdita 13853 Corophium tuberculatum 153 Unciola serrata 354 Ampelisca abdita 104954 Corophium tuberculatum 10254 Unciola serrata 855 Ampelisca abdita 63

33

Table III cont.

Cruise 4, 1985

Page No, 3


56 Ampelisca abdita 12757 Ampelisca abdita 257 Corophium tuberculatum 157 Unciola dissimilis 157 Unciola serrata 158 Ampelisca abdita 4059 Ampelisca. abdita 29059 Corophium tuberculatum 159 Unciola serrata 16 Ampelisca abdita 16 Corophium tuberculatum 16 Melita nitida 1

Ampelisca .abdita 12560 Unciola serrata 162 Ampelisca abdita 16 Ampelisca abdita 2,.68 Unciola dissimilis 168 Unciola serrata ,

69 Ampelisca abdita 1469 Corophium tuberculatum 169 Unciola serrata 27 Ampelisca abdita 237 Unciola irrorata 270 Ampelisca abdita 270 Unciola serrata 2473 Ampelisca abdita 116673 Corophium tuberculatum 173 Uncio1a dissimilts 173 Unciola serrata 380 Ampelisca abdita 59980 Corophium Luberculatum 880 Unctola serrata 481 Ampelisca abdita 381 Corophium tuberculatum 4381 Melita nitida 181 Unciota serrata 182 Ampelisca abdita 182 Corophium tuberculatum 182 Unciola serrata 183 Ampelisca abdita 124583 Corophium tuberculatum 9083 Unciola dissimilis 183 Unciola serrata 4484 Ampelisca abdita 386 Ampeltsca abdita 7686 Unciola serrata 387 AmpeLisca abdita 15787 Unciola serrata 188 Ampelisca abdita 242288 Corophium tuberculatum 1088 Melita nitida 1

52

Table III cont. 33.

Cruise 4, 1985

Page No. 4


88 Unciola dissimilis88 Unciola serrata89 Ampelisca abdita89 Unciola dissimilis9 Unciola serrata9 Unciola sp.92 Unciola irrorata93 Ampelisca abdita-•95 Ampelisca abdita98 Corophium tuberculatum'Al Ampelisca abditaAl Unciola serrataA10 Ampelisca abditaA2 Unciola serrataA3 Ampelisca abditaA3 Unciola serrataA4 Ampelisca abditaA4 Unciola serrataA5 Ampelisca abditaA5 Corophium tuberculatumAS Unciola serrataA6 Ampelisca abditaA6 Corophium tuberculatumA7 Ampelisca abditaA7 Corophium tuberculatumA7 Unciola serrataA8 Ampelisca abditaA9 Ampelisca abditaA9 Corophium tuberculatumA9 Unciola irrorataA9 Unciola serrataB10 Ampelisca abditaB10 Unciola serrataB3 Ampelisca abditaB4 Ampelisca abditaB4 Corophium tuberculatumB5 Ampelisca abditaB5 Unciola serrataB6 Ampelisca abditaB7 Ampelisca abditaB7 Corophium tuberculatumB7 Unciola dissimilisB7 Unciola serrataB8 Ampelisca abditaB8 Corophium tuberculatumB8 Unciola serrataB9 Ampelisca abditaB9 Unciola serrataC10 Corophium tuberculatumC10 Unciola serrataC2 Unciola serrata

4311121111112807776310145181733341158811179752121411112483592326951122603211514631

35-

Table III cont. 34.

Cruise 4, 1985

Page No. 5


C4 Unciola irrorata 1C5 Ampelisca abdita 3C5 Unciola irrorata 1C6 Ampelisca abdita 3C6 Unciola serrata 3C7 Ampelisca abdita 1C7 Unciola serrata 4CS Unciola serrata 6

36

Arthur Kill

There have been three recent studies in the Arthur Kill andits tributaries (Table I), the details are presented in AppendixA. The study conducted for the NY/NJ Port Authority by LouisBerger and Assoc. (LBA) is the only work to actually sample theKill itself. The studies for the development of Staten IslandCorporate Park and Morses Creek concentrate on two tributaries ofthe Kill. The Staten Island Corporate Park survey is a detailed,study of a small area which includes sediment chemistry and waterquality analysis. The Morses Creek study seems to be a qualitativesurvey of the benthic organisms that were collected over a twc). day.

sampling effort in 1989. Both of these studies use different gearand a sieve with a smaller mesh size that the Raritan and JamaicaBay surveys (0.5mm vs 1.0mm).

The data from the three studies indicate that the samplingstations at the northern end of the Arthur Kill do not containamphipods. Stations at the Goethals Brid g e, Saw Mill Creek andMorris Creek have sediments that are devoid of amphipods. Thesampling station at Outer Bridge Crossing, at the southern end ofthe Kill, contains very low numbers (<i00 / . square meter) of Melitaand Unicola. These data suggest that the water and/or sedimentquality (high heavy metal and organic pollutant concentrations) isto degraded to support the-populations of amphipods that would beexpected in this type of environment.

Because of the oil spill in January 1990 there was a greateffort to collect biological information from the Arthur Kill.These data will not be available before the completion of thepresent grant, however, an effort should be made in FY'91 toinclude these data into the data set for the Hudson Harbor EstuaryProgram.

Newark Bay

The main data set for Newark Bay in the past ten years, wasgenerated by Normandeau Assoc. for the Army Corps of Engineers.The details are presented in Appendix A. Once again a differentsampling gear was used from all of .the other surveys in the system,however, the somewhat standard 1mm mesh sieve was used.

The data reveled very low numbers of amphipods (6 - 20/squaremeter) throughout this seasonal study at a few of the samplingstations. The data indicates that of the four genera examined only1 Corphium and 2 Ampelisca were reported present at 2 of the 77stations sampled in this study. Ther:e were seasonal differencesin the distribution; the northern most station contained 1 1.110ipla_

37

36.

ce,lected in the February sampling, during the sampling in theother seasons this station was devoid of amphipods. The southernmost area of the Bay appears to contain a small year roundpopulation of Melita and Unicola. The data from this study alsosuneest that the benthic environment in much of Newark Bay is todeeaded to support the populations of amphipods that would beexnected in this type of habitat.

-ekensack River

surviey of the benthos of the Hackensack River was condur.tedthe Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission in 1987•188.

The detail of the survey are presented in Appendix A, Like theClamaiea Pa; study, the survey on the Hackensack as a competeaccounting uf the fauna of a sub-system in the study area, the clearis different but the sieve mesh size is the same (1m) as JamaicaDay and Raritan Day. Unfnrtunately, the benthic data are presentedby tation as a single list that includes all of the benthoscelleeted b' a variety of gear (Ponar, dredge. seine, and traes_).1 - he method Df presentation makes it very difficult to comparethese benthic spec.- es composition lists with the lists generatedbe other studies.

There vJere no Ampelisca or Unicola reported at the 23 stationssapled in this study. The numbers were very low (7 71/sclnaremeter) fo r both Corpphium and Melita_ durin g the entire ,._acid,pa-: ind; and . )c) ampktpods were collected dtlring the - ;!tino,c, i samWin,I F eddition, there seemed to be some change-: in ditrihntion khatare :-elated tea salinity gradients in the system, has a muchwide , distrihution in the Hackensack and is found lu , ther upstreamin (ilet) lower salinities than Corpphium. As in the Arthur Kill andNewark Pay, the degraded conditions in the benthic environment ofthe lower Haceensock River do not allow for the cur ', ival of theeommunities of amphipods that would he expected. The salinitygradient in the river also seem to t--, ert some controls on thedistribution of populations of amphipods.

Hudson River

There are two studiet that contain information on the benthosfor. the entire section of the Hudson that is in the area underconsideration for this study. The earlier study was done byRistich, Crandall and Fortier in 1973, however, the original datawere not available to me and are not included in this report. Themost recent study was performed by the NJDEP in 1987 - 1983. Itincludes water quality information and sediment grain size takenat 76 stations from Bayone to Piermont. The gear was differentfrom the surveys in the Raritan and Jamaica Bays but the mesh sizeof the sieve was the same (1mm). The sampling of the benthiccommunity was done in November which is unusual for such a survay.The details of this study are presented in Appendix A. There arefive studies of small areas of the Hudson performed for propo ,_3ed •projects on sections of the river (Table I). The details of th,•!7,r2studies are presented in Appendix A. The studies used differentgear and either a 419 micron, 1mm, or a 0.5mm mesh sieve. Theresults of these studies are interesting because they indicate sub-systems that exist along the river.

The data indicate that stations in Upper Bay had low numbersof Am_pplisca and Corophium (4 - 8/square meter) and higher numr,rsof Melita and Unicola (300 - 500/square meter). The data from thesampling stations further upriver indicate that Ampplisca andCorophium drop out of the collections; at the George WashingtonBridge there are small numbers of Melita and Unicola in the samples(1 -65/square muter); the stations above the George WashingtonBridge have very small numbers of Melita only (4 -6/square meter).The combination of conditions in the benthic environment; heavymetals, organic contaminants, dissolved oxygen, and the salinitygradients control the distribution of amphipods in this section ofthe system.

East River

There are two data sets available for the East River done byHazen and Sawyer for the New York City Department of EnvironmentalProtection 301H reports. One covers the lower East River in thearea of the Newtown Creek.and Red Hook STPs, the other covers the.upper East River in the area of the Wards Island and Hunts PointSTFs. The details are presented in Appendix A. Both of thesestudies used a 419 micron sieve which make comparisons to otherbenthic surveys difficult.

37.

38.

Vhere ar e no Ampelisca reported in any of the samples lake!.in these studies. The lower East River has a steady population ofCorophium, Unicola-. and Melita throughout the seasons sampled.Unicola is the dominant genus, the numbers a r e usually between 100- 300/square meter, but at certain times the numbers are reportedas high as I4,000/square meter. The data from the stations in theupper Fast River show loer numbers of amphipods (4 -500/squaremeter), and there are no amphipods reported from the station at the.Throgs Neck Bridge.

eeflmer Compoefte

Fignre is a composite of all data on the distributfen ofthe four genera of amphipods from all the surveys that r_empledduring the Summer months (June - September). The data airpresented as numbers of amohipods/square meter ef bottom H_ thestations sampled in all of the studies. Because of the largedifferences in the numbers of amphipods collected in the twesurveys of Raritan Bay, the numbers from the latest survey wereused for this figure. Unfortunately, the survry of the HudsoeRiver conducted by the NJDEP and the study of Noreen Creek conducedfur Exxon Corp. collected benthic invertebrates only on the Fall(November) sampling trip. Therefore, these c_JLa canincluded in the Summer composite,

•The composite figure shows that the numbers of amphipod e fru-

the four genera under consideration vary greatly in differentsections of the Hudson Harbor Estuary. The pattern seems tecorrespond with the historical pattern of water quality frr thissystem, i.e. the numbers decrease radically ae known areasreduced enviconmental conditions are approached. !he numbers o;amphipods drop to below 100/square meter at the Western end ofRaritan bay, the sediments of most of the Arthur Pill, Newark Bay,and the Hackensack River are devoid of Amphipods. Upper P a y andthe Hudson River have sediments that are not capable of suppertindhigh numbers of amphipode ((100/square meter) or contain PIamphipods during the Summer, rhe East River doe5 contain arras ofsediments that support higher numbers of amphipode from the lesstolerant genera but the numbers decrease in areas of the riverbottom near known sources of pollution. Jamaica bay, sections o;Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay do contain sediments that supportmuch higher numbers of amphipods (1,0U0 - 20,0(`0/square meter).These numbers are much more characteristic of coastal envirOnmentethat are not severely impacted by pollutants. The data preeentedin this figure suggests that the distribution of'amphipods u .,:;>, hea 5imple measure of the benthic commnnity structure: aed, whre usedJr combination with appropriate water quality parameters, eould,become a valuable indicator of the environmental quality clf thebenthic system.

/16

1/ ClThelimux

Manhattan

/1

N c(v a I I,

Rroolclyn(2

Upperfin!'

•

Stahl' Island

• 0Wirium •tiny • ••

A 7'1, A N

0- NO AMPHIPO S< 100/ m 2

0, m2100- 1,0131M21,000 - 1 00/

•

10,000 - 7,000,,m2

> 20,0007M2'fl0

II) •■ hILOMFa:US9 5M l\WHWALMILES

21Figure 3 Summer Composite of Amphipod Distribution

40.

CONCLUSIONS/HECUMMENDATIONS

1 am pleased to :lave been able to accumulate the data sets onthe d.ietributien of ienthic invertebrates in the Hudson Raritansytem and put thee all on one data base._ ni the future.inveetigatore from overnment, academia, and private consulting

eo, wIll Le able to ecess and search these data prier teimH,,it6 q4 beethic ,earveye in this eeosystem. I would lir, tn

- ef.,- 0 1 ,Peert the r ollowind iLh regard to the data sets:

1. eete sets be kept in libraries at. EPA, NYDrC. WDEr, 11Yr.eEP, Hudeun Rive Foundation, and at. the NO(4) laborater. at

• He Heet-.

The eleence (Di these data sets be -ablicized to petcutialusers i.e. academic institutions, coneulting -firms, StateGovernme n t Ageneies, environmental groups.

5eme small amouet o monJ.e e, should be set asid e for the ya-arlyupdate ef the data bases. Unless this is deer data willcentinue to be !us t in file cabinets.

addition. I would to recommend that there be a cali rev th7 taurf E,euf:atien of the gear and mesh siTaz of the sieves thet ar-r

ed fee luter e hen thin surveys. Standardil-tation of the e .,, eeet ofLt tem e.amplee and Lhe use of two sievee (1.0mm and 0.`7e,'

Ine fur murh gre- , ter comparison bete' data set

report is one in • tiroup of Lharacter is ator 3to.iies"teU b, t he 71)() f or the first year of the Hodson, Hr

ut e T. P cram, These shid i j. hc 1 aded work c, wat er 1 i t

made 1 rq ; pc) 1 1 i . tati L load ings distr.] hot i on of cli 5501 ved 0- den; t. r t s and or gan le carbon; Loxiran ts in sediments and L I t. a

r Oil ngi 0 modifieatons: fish distrihution and toxicant. effecteon b i rds. ! deal 1 y the data on the structure of t he ben t hi c

tios should he eorr elated to the levels of toxicants i ! thE-5ed i men ts and to other water (-lea lit y parameters However , a1 1 oft he "c harac ter i a Lion studies" were going on a t t he =,airle time:although the chemical characterizati.ons do not depend o the6 , etogical ieiormation, tighl Linkage between patterns of theletribution of organisms with the chemical eompositioe

the

eediments and water do depend or theee data.

_41.

Dr. K. Squibb (New York University Medical School) wasresponsible for the characterization of the levels of toxicants inambient sediments and organisms. Dr. Squibb made every effort tokeep me informed of her progress, we communicated on a regularbasis and shared data sets when possible. However, at the time ofthe preparation of this final report I do not have access to hermaps and written conclusions or those of the sections on waterquality. Some summaries-•of chemical data do exist (Segar and

• 1Berberian, 1976; Greig and. McGrath, 1977; Anderson, 1982; Michael,1902; O'Connor, et.al.,1902) and some of the data sets I examinedcontain information on water quality. However, without theselatest and most complete , data sets from the "characterizationstudies" I am hesitant to make any conclusions or construct mapsthat link the distribution of any benthic species to specificlevels of pollutants. After all the first year studies arefinalized I think it will be a relatively easy and important taskto superimpose the data on the distribution of any group of benthteinvertebrates, particularly the amphipods, on the water quality andsediment data sets. These results will provide importantinformation for the development of the monitoring program and themanagement of the system.

Ihe data on the distribution of the four genera of amphipodsin the entire system; the information on the sensitivity ofamphipods to chemical pollutants; and the data on the distributionof pollutants from the available literature suggest that thedistribution of amphipods may be adversely effected by chemicalspresent in the sediments. These data also indicate that thedistribution of this sensitive group of organisms can he used asan indicator of the conditions in the benthic environment in orderto help set up the monitoring program in the Hudson/RaritanEstuary. Ideally, such a program would include measurements of ihemajor "toxicants of concern" in the sediments of the estuary and

in the tissues of important benthic species; indications of thetoxicity of the sediments themselves; and the relationship betweensediment toxicity and benthic community structure.

Although there are different approaches used to develop amonitoring strategy my background in physiology and aquatictoxicology leads me to highlight a-strategy that I believe wouldbe useful in the Hudson-Raritan system. The sediment quality triadhas been proposed by Long and Chapman (1985) and measured in PugetSound and San Francisco Bay (Long and Chapman, 1985; Chapman,

1987; Becker, et. al., 1990). There is some coni.rover=,y aboutthe use of the triad in regulatory decision making (Spies,

lia

42.

1',; 39), however, I think that the work of Long, Chapman and others(Chapman, et,al, 1991) indicate that this approach is ecologicallymanineful and when used with other predictive indices wouldurovide an excellent: monitoring program for this system. The datajr the distribution of amphipods would become a factor to helpdii-ct the placement of the stations to be monitored. Theavailable data on the effects of toxic chemicals, reveled throughth , attached literature search, indicate the amphipods are some ofthd most sensitive species. The results of studies using the"ir c'cruld augment the available data on the distribution of

nr ; a ipods :n the system, provide a s r onger basis for using this.:p as -1:1 indicator as well as, providing the needed link between

a , .7, diment toxicity and the popula- ;on structure of benthicnrqanisms.

In Lict, a benthic survey has been planned by HUAA and El LO intne Hudson/Raritan system (SAIC program) that will accumulate dataon the legs of the sediment quality triad. The proposal, submittedNovember 16, 1990, states that the following tasks will hepei formed:

Lellecc sediment . from 39 sites in the Hudson/PariLan sv,r.em.

iTonduct chemical analysis on the sediments.

Conduct to':icit tesis.A. Niceotox bioassays on extracts from the sediments.

Dioassays on bivalve embryos using sediment elutriataa.C. 10 day bioassays on Ampelisca usinn sediments.

(rchisaa henthii. samples for communit, analysis a futaietime.

43.

This proposed benthic survey presents a unique opportunity forthe Harbor/Estuary program to get a head start on its monitoringprogram. The Hudson Harbor/Estuary program should consider thefollowing recommendations in order to extract the most usThleinformation from the proposed SAIC study:

1. Ask that a lmm sieve be used in addition to the 0.5mm sincein the proposal; this would allow for easier comparison toexisting data sets.

2 Move 2 - 3 SAIC stations in Raritan Bay so that they replicatestations that had distributions of amphipods in the 1907survey.

Add sampling stations in Jamaica Bay. The location of thesestations should correspond to stations sampled by Fran: andHarris in 1982.

Add sampling stations in the Hackensack and Passiac rivers.Existing data suggest that these two rivers have heavyloads of toxic chemicals, therefore, information on sedimenttoxicity would be very important.

Fund the study to analyze the benthic community structure ofthe samples collected in the SAIC study, with particularattention to the distribution of the amphipods. (The SAICproposal does not give any indication that the communityanalysis will be done at any time in the near future.)

If the above recommendations are followed the synthesis of Sheexisting data and the SAIC data will allow the managers of theHarbor/Estuary Program to select a number of critical stations tocontinue to monitor. Thus, the monitoring program will be basedon the best available information and could continue to track thecondition of the benthos in this system.

References

Anderson, J.W. 1982. In: Ecological Stress and the New YorkBight: Science and Management. G.F. Mayer (ed.). ERF, Columbia,S.C. pp 165-180.

Andrew, N.L. and S.D. Mapstone, 1987, Oceanogr. Mar. Biol, 6nn.Rev, 25:39-90.

Sachelet,G. 1990. Marine Environmental Research 30:21-25.

'decker, Bilyard, G.R. and T.C. Ginn. 1990. • EnvironmentalToicology and Chemistry 9:669-685.

f ir v ikPr n.P., Anderson, J.W., Davis, D.P., Fran:, G.F., Fcati P.3.B '` Sawye r , T.L. and J.H. lietien. 1982. In: Ecological Strr->ssand th p New York Elight: Science and Managem nnt. B.f. Mayer (e°.).El--, Columbia, S.C. pp 3-22.

Chapman, P.M., Dexter, R.N. and E.R. Long. 1907. Marine EcologyPr-og, 5er. 37:75-96,

Chapman, P.M., Long, E.R., Swartz, R.C., DeWitt. 1.H. and P.Pastorok, 1991. Environmental loxocology and Chen/1 =-,try 10:1-1.

De Lisle, P.F.,oberts, M.H.jr. 1988. Aquatic Toxicology 12::57-370.

Ds Witt, T.H., Swartz, R.C. and J.O. Lamberr_.(11.Environmental lo .:<icology and Chemistry 8:1035-1048.

Elliott, J.M. 1971. Scientific Publication'T, FreshwoterBiological Assoc. 25:144 pp.

Ferraro, S.P., Cole, F.A. 1990. SETA: 11th Annual Meeting,Arlington, VA. Ad,V265.

Giammona, C., Darnel, R. 1990. American Zoologist. 30:1 pp 37-47;.

eig, P.A., McGrath, R.A. 1977. Marino Pollut, Hull. 8:188-172.

Long , L.R., Chapman, P.M. 1985. Marine Fullut. Bull. 16:405-415.

Hare, M.F. 1942. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K '25:517 'O.

44.

116

45.

Michael, A.D. 1982. In: Ecological Stress and the New York Bight: Science and Management. G.F. Mayer (ed.). ERF, Columbia, S.C. pp621-630.

McGrath, R.A. 1974. Prod. 3rd. Symp. Hudson R. Ecol. 27pp.

Dakden, J.M., Oliver, J.S. and A.R. Flegal. 1984. Marine Biology84:125-130.

O'Connor, J.M., Klotz, J.B. and T.J. Kniep. 1982. In: EcologicalStress and the New York Bight: Science and Management. G.F. Mayer(ed.). ERF, Columbia, S.C. pp 631-654.

Phillips, N., Gettleson, D. and K. Spring. 1990. AmericanZoologist. 30:1 pp 65-75.

Reichert, W.L., LeEberhart, B.T. and V. Varanasi. 1985. AquaticToxicology 6:45-56.

Ristich, S.S., Crandall, M., and J. Fortier. 1977. Estuarine andCoastal Marine Science 5:255-266.

Sastry, A.N. and Miller, D.C. 1981. In: Biological Monitoring_ofMarine Pollutants. F.J. Vernberg, A. Calabrese, F.P. Thurberq andW.B. Vernberg (eds.). Academic Press, N.Y. pp 265-294.

Segar, D.A. and Berberian, G.A. 1976. Am. Soc. Limnol. Oceanogr.Spec. Symp. 2:220-239.

Spies, R.B. 1989. Mar. Environ. Res. 27:73-75.

Stainken, D.M., McCormic, J.M., and H.G. Multer. 1984. Bull. NJAcad. Sci. 29: 121-132.

Standard Methods. 1981. APHA,Washington,DC. pp 995-998.

Steimle, F.W., and Caracciolo-Ward, J. 1989. Estuaries 12:#3 145-156.

Swartz, R.C. 1989. In:Fate and Effects of Sediment BoundChemicals in Aquatic Systems. K.L. Dickson, A.W. Maki and W.A.Brungs (eds.). Pergamon Press, Elmsford, N.Y. pp 183-198.

Swartz, R.C., Sehults, D.W., Ditsworth, G.R., DeBen, W.A. and F.A.Cole. 1985. In: Validation and Predictability of. LaboratoryMethods for Assessing the Fate and Effects of Contaminants inAquatic Ecosystems. STP. 865. T.P.. Boyle (ed.). Am. Soc forT•stinq and Materials. Phil. PA. pp 152-175.

grant # 12330036-0 synthesis of information on the ......grant # 12330036-0 synthesis of information...

Documents