~

!" 1

V* a x

1979-9

f83° 820 810 80° 79° 78°

~34°CAPE FEAR

w~ A •Bt

,r

- °_. .FR.. ~_ ~ ~

33° E .F~

~ n ~ 40B

•.~ i~ -~ c • D 00

~. . .. .. .. . .. . ... . . . .. .. . .. . .. . . . .. .. . .. .. . .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. . . . .. . ... . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .E

.„ . . . .. .. . .. . .. . . . .. .. . .. .. . .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. . . . .. . ... .. . . .. . . . . . . -

- ~;- • ` t ~.

.--r- A- 0 ~

•Z !~: ~ M -~:•: . . .

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

., . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . ... .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . . D w32

°•Ea~~

IF .~ B f

C F3

•~41 Vp D

E

4 'iA B •C

•

310~ D E F` ' S SOUTH ATLANTIC OCSm

--- - ,::.. BENCHMARK PROGRAM1977 REPORT

6 ~- • 6~ I f ~ iq° Q B c o E f VOLUME 2

TECHNICAL PROGRAMAND MANAGEMENT

; fN. CN. M+"d.3."iefol IIY

- M1 14F'

-va..an- ~+rn•la r . ?a . ~ .

i71. •.71E tiYtl: f 7 y", i

E y ~~ ~•.•~-•:ua•.~m~ ag m : s c ~„

xg

r

;,-St

U .fOEIN/1TMENTOfINTENION..~¢-^,a y fuOI~wWWN YEwT

MELIORANDUM TO : Everet G . Starr

FROM: Input Branch

SUBJECT : SERVICES REQUESTED BY SOURCE CLIENT

1 . Request from Source Client for initial stock order

DATE :

Accession Number

a . Copies requested (printed) T (microfiched)

b . Amount to be charged(Unit cost plus service charge)

c . Deposit Account No .

d . Request attached wl~ Oral(Name, if different from contact)

e . Contact(Name of Agency and Individual)

(Telephone Number)

2 . Document :

a . Page Count

b . Paper / / Booktext : (1) Color (2) Weight

/ / Other :

c . Covers : (1) Color (2) Weight

d . Color of Ink: (1) Paper (2) Covers

e . Binding : (1) Left side (2 Staples) (2) Saddle

(3) Top (4) Perfect Bind (5) Other

f . Finished Size :

g . Position of Text : (1) Head to Head (2) Head to Foot

(3) Head to Side (4) One Side Only

(5) Other

3 . Expedite : Print before microfiching : a. YES b. NO

4 . Send documents to :(Source Client Address)

(Temp Form 6-78)

12-1n1

PORT DOCUMENTATION 1. REPORT NO . 2 . 3 . Recipient's Accession No .

PAGE BLM/YM/ES-79/1 5 .itle and Subtitle 5. Report Date

outh Atlantic Benchmark Program, Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) July 1979Environmental Studies . Volume 2 . Technical Program andMangg _m n .- -- - - ----- - - --- --

6.

--luthor(s) 8 . Performing Organization Rept. No .

U1881320-F_ _'erforming Organization Name and Addressexas Instruments, Incorporated

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No .

119 as, Texas11 . Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.

(c)AA551-CT7-2(G)

Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report & Period Covered.S . Department of the Interiorureau of Land Management Final Report 1977ranch of Contract Operations (851)Bth & C Streets, NW

2M41a•

ashington, D .C . 0 _iSupplementary Notes - i

Abstract (Limit: 200 words)xas Instruments Incorporated (TI) conducted the South Atlantic Benchmark ProgramABP) in 1977 to provide environmental data on the Georgia Bight continental margin tosist the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in its implementation of the statutory require-nts of two acts : the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act of 1953 and the Nationalvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 . The former charges the Secretary of the Interiorth administering the economic development of areas of the continental shelf of theited States lying beyond the geographic limits of state authority ; the later directsderal agencies to structure broad interdisciplinary studies to predict the environmentalnsequences of resource development . The Department of the Interior, through its agency,e Bureau of Land Management, established the Outer Continental Shelf Environmentaludies Program (OCSESP) to obtain predevelopment data on the lands of the continentalelf so resource development will be systematically regulated and the naturalvironment protected . The overall goals for offshore resource management are :

. Receipt of fair market value for minerals leased

. Orderly development of resources

. Protection of the environment

Document Analysis a. Descriptors Oceanograp yhnt os Larvaeomass Marine Geophysicsuatic Microbiology Ocean Bottomrine Biology Ocean Environmentsshes Sedimentologyb. Identifiers/Open-Ended Termster Continental Shelf (OCS)uth Atlantic

: . COSATI Field/Group

4vailabitity Statement 19 . Security Class (This Report) 21. No . of Pages

lease Unlimited UNCLASSIFIED vii + 141 pp .20 . Security Cilass (This Page) 22. Price

UNCLASS IF IED, NSI-Z39.18) See Instructions on Reverse OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)

(Formerly NTIS-35)Department of Commerce

. . ~~ , . .. . . l~C : , ~ ~,i , ~ < `. z - ,t , x . i . . tq r: , ~ • y. ~- e r : (~

- . . . . . ~ . . . , ,'~ .*t .. . ~ .2 .~L al~! . . r\r ~k. .[-S i

i S :

~

SOUTH ATLANTIC BENCHMARK PROGRAMOuter Continental Shelf (OCS)

Environmental Studies

VOLUME 2TECHNICAL PROGRAMAND MANAGEMENT

Final ReportContract AA550-CT7-2

July 1979

Prepared by

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATEDDallas, TexasU1-881320-F

Prepared forBUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Washington, D.C.

Equipment Group

~

This report has been reviewed by the Bureau of Land Management andapproved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarilyreflect the views and policies of the Bureau, nor does mention of trade names orcommercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use .

Equipment Group4 i

CONTENTS

Page

Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Symbols vi

Section 1 INTRODUCTION 1

Section 2 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION 3

Texas Instruments Staff 3Scientific Advisory Committee 3Subcontractors, Principal Investigators, and Support Personnel 3CruiseParticipants 5

Section 3 TECHNICAL PROGRAM 8

Sampling Rationale and Design 8Rationale, 8; Design, 8; Cruise Organization, 9

Shipboard Sampling and Procedures 13Research Vessel, 13; Navigation, 15 ; SamplingMethodology and Shipboard Equipment and Processing, 15

Cruise Synopses 31Winter Cruise, 31 ; Spring Cruise, 32; Summer Cruise, 32Fall Cruise, 35

Laboratory Processing and Analyses 46Chemistry, 46 ; Biology, 67; Geology, 73

Data Management 75Format Development, 75; Data Transfer andDocumentation, 75 ; Statistical Analyses, 77

Section 4 CITED REFERENCES 99

Appendix A Faunal Identification Literature 103

Appendix B Faunal Checklist 117

ILLUSTRATIONS

1 SABP Personnel Assignments and Support Services 42 SABP Study Area 103 M/V G. W. Pierce II 144 M/V G. W. Pierce II Deck Plan After Modification 155 Processing Sequence for Surface-Film Sample Enumeration and

Identification of Hydrocarbon-Using and Heterotrophic Microorganisms 176 Serial Dilution and Culture Procedures for Surface-Film Microbiology Samples 187 Bongo Net 188 Zooplankton Sample Flowchart 209 Processing Sequence for Water-Column Sample Enumeration and

Identification of Hydrocarbon-Using and Heterotrophic Microorganisms 2110 Culture Procedures for Subsurface Samples 2211 Particulate and Total Trace Metal Sample Flowchart 2312 Bottom Sampling Apparatus 25

ILLUSTRATIONS ( Continued)

Page

1314

151617181920212223242526

2728

293031323334353637383940414243

Bottom Sediment Sampling and Subsampling at Benthic Stations 26Processing Sequence for Sediment Sample Enumeration and Identification

of Hydrocarbon-Using and Heterotrophic Microorganisms 27Culture Procedures for Sediment Samples 28Epifaunal Sample Flowchart 30Winter Water-Column Leg Cruise Track 37Winter Benthic Leg Cruise Track 38Spring Water-Column Leg Cruise Track 39Spring Benthic Leg Cruise Tract 40Summer Water-Column Leg Cruise Track 41Summer Benthic Leg Cruise Track 42Time-Series Leg Cruise Track 43Fall Water-Column Leg Cruise Track 44Fall Benthic Leg Cruise Track 45Water Sample Flow for Measurements of Micronutrients, Dissolved

Oxygen, and Chlorophyll a 47Zooplankton Sample Processing for High Molecular Weight Hydrocarbons 48Sediment Sample Processing Sequence for High Molecular Weight

Hydrocarbons 51Surface-Film Hydrocarbon Sample Flow 52Water-Column Hydrocarbon Sample Flow 53

Apparatus Used for Continuous Extraction of Seawater 53Zooplankton Sample Processing for Trace Metals 55Macroepifauna and Demersal Fish Sample Processing for Trace Metals 57Particulate and Total Trace Metal Sample Flow 58Results of Analyses of Iron Process Blanks for Tissue Analysis 65Zooplankton Sample Flow for Biomass Analysis 71Sediment Sample Flow for Texture Analysis 73Sediment Sample Flow for Analysis of Total Organic Carbon 74Overview of Information Flow 76Primary Field Data Sheet 78Data Transmittal Sheet 79Data/Displays Progress Sheet 80Data Audit Report 81

TABLES

1 Principal Investigators 52 Cruise Participants 63 Station Locations 114 Sampling Scheme 125 Cruises of M/V G. W. Pierce II 126 Sample Summary for Water-Column Legs 337 Sample Summary for Benthic Legs 348 Sample Summary for Time-Series Legs 369 Chemical and Geological Sample Processing Laboratories 46

iv

TABLES (Continued)

10111213

1415

161718192021

22

232425262728

Biological Sample Processing Laboratories 46BLM Hydrocarbon Reference Mixture 49Detection Limits 54Results of Intercalibration of Trace Metal Analysis of NBS Standard

Reference Materials 60Results of Intercalibration of Sediment Samples 61Results of Analyses of Intercalibration of Replicate Samples Collected

on Shakedown Cruise (Winter, 1977) 62Results of Analyses of Blanks for Tissue Digestion 63Results of Analyses of Blanks for Partially Digested Sediment 63Results of Analyses of Blanks for Totally Digested Sediment 63Results of Analyses of Blanks for Weak Acid Soluble Particulates 63Results of Analyses of Blanks for Refractory Particulates 63Results of Analysis of of NBS Bovine Liver During Quality Control

Program 66Results of Analysis of NBS Orchard Leaves During Qualiy Control

Program 66Results of Analysis of Blind Standards by NAA 66Blank Concentrations for Tissue Digestion 67Blank Concentrations for Total Sediment Digestion 67Primary Taxonomists 69

SABP Statistical Analyses 82Statistical Tests, References, and Computer Programs 92

~ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND SYMBOLS

A Angstrom unitAPDC Ammonium pyrrolidindithiocarbamateANOV Analysis of variance^ ApproximatelyAAS Atomic absorption spectroscopyBa BariumBOD Biochemical oxygen demandBMDP Biomedical Computer Program, Series PBLM Bureau of Land ManagementCd CadmiumC CelsiusCm CentimeterCr ChromiumCTD Conductivity/temperature/depthCu Copper0 DegreeDDDC Diethylammoniumdiethyldithiocarbamate

DOC Dissolved organic carbonDO Dissolved oxygen- Divided byeV Electron voltESW Enriched seawaterE Extinction coefficientft FootGC Gas chromatographyGC-MS Gas chromatography-mass spectroscopyGSI Geophysical Service Inc.Ge(Li) Germanium lithiumg Gram> Greater thanHMWHC High molecular weight hydrocarbonHPLC High-pressure liquid chromatographyhr HourHAP Hydrated antimony pentoxideHC 1 Hydrochloric acidHF Hydrofluoric acidin . Inch

A Equipment Group

~ABBREVIATIONS, . ACRONYMS, AND SYMBOLS (Continued)

ID Inside diameterFe Ironkg Kilogram

km Kilometer< Less than

LM Light microscopy

1 Literm/e Mass-to-charge ratiox Mean value

MW Megawatt

m Meter

MIBK Methylisobutylketonepg Microgramµl Microliterµm MicrometerµM Micromolemg Milligramml Millilitermm Millimeter

min MinuteM MolarMPN Most probable numberM/V Motor vesselng Nanogramnl Nanoliternm NanometerNBS National Bureau of Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

nmi Nautical mileNSI Navigation Services Incorporated

NAA Neutron activation analysis

HNO3 Nitric acidN Nitrogen, North, normaln/cm2 /sec Number of neutrons per centimeter squared per second

n Number of observations

OCS Outer continental shelf

OCSESP Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Studies ProgramPOC Particulate organic carbon° /00 Parts per thousand

vii Equipment Group

~ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND SYMBOLS ( Continued)

/ Per% PercentP PhosphorusPNA Polynuclear aromaticPVC Polyvinyl chloridepsi Pounds per square inchPDR Precision depth recorderPCA Principal components analysisPI Principal investigatorPMS Program management systemPHA Pulse-height analyzerQC Quality controlRPD Redox potential discontinuitySAI Science Applications IncorporatedSAC Scientific Advisory Committeesec SecondSNR Signal-to-noise ratioSi SiliconSABP South Atlantic Benchmark ProgramSLCO South Louisiana crude oilSOP Standard opeating procedureSRM Standard reference materialSAS Statistical Analysis SystemSPM Suspended particulate materialTHF TetrahydrofuranTAMU Texas A&M UniversityTI Texas Instruments IncorporatedK ThousandKeV Thousand electron voltX Time (multiplication)TOC Total organic carbonTM Trace metalUV UltravioletUSGS United States Geological SurveyV Vanadium, voltv/v Volume to volumewk Weekw/v Weight to volumeZn Zinc

v;;i Equipment Group

~SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

Texas Instruments Incorporated (TI) conducted the South Atlantic Benchmark Program(SABP) in 1977 to provide environmental data on the Georgia Bight continental margin to assistthe Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in its implementation of the statutory requirements oftwo acts : the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act of 1953 and the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The former charges the Secretary of the Interior with administeringthe economic development of areas of the continental shelf of the United States lying beyondthe geographic limits of state authority ; the later directs federal agencies to structure broadinterdisciplinary studies to predict the environmental consequences of resource development . TheDepartment of the Interior, through its agency, the Bureau of Land Management, established theOuter Continental Shelf Environmental Studies Program (OCSESP) to obtain predevelopmentdata on the lands of the continental shelf so resource development will be systematicallyregulated and the natural environment protected . The overall goals for offshore resource manage-ment are :

• Receipt of fair market value for minerals leased

• Orderly development of resources

• Protection of the environment.

Environmental information that answers questions about the predevelopment state of themarine environment is needed to assess the future impact of oil and gas activities on the outercontinental shelf. This requires a synoptic predevelopment description of the study area .

The 1977 program had the following objectives :

• Determine the range of concentration of high molecular weight hydrocarbons(HMWHC) and selected trace metals (TM) in the water, sediments, zooplanktoncommunity, and selected macroepifaunal animals

• Determine natural variation in structure, abundance, distribution, and similarity ofcomponents of the benthic community

• Describe zooplankton communities over the continental shelf, as well as their structure,abundance, and variation

• Enumerate heterotrophic microorganisms ; identify dominant species in surface film,near-surface water, and sediments ; evaluate the oil-degrading potential of theseorganisms; and examine the relationship of numbers of hydrocarbon-using aerobicheterotrophic bacteria with oil concentration in the natural environment

• Measure and describe concentrations of* chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen, salinity,temperature, nutrients, and particulate and total organic carbon in the water column .

Specialized biological studies addressed the direct effects of hydrocarbon and/or trace metalcontamination by assessing bacterial community structure and oil-degradation capacity anddetermining current abundance of purusite tissue lesions and neoplasms in fishes andinvertebrates. Data from these studies provided indices of the ability of the ecosystem to recoverfrom environmental perturbations and established biological references against which future levelsand types of histological anomalies may be compared .

I Equipment Group

~TI cooperated in two other. interrelated phases of the study. Science Applications

Incorporated (SAI) conducted physical oceanographic studies in the South Atlantic OCS area forBLM. TI cooperated in this study by providing SAI with conductivity/temperature/depth (CTD)profiles obtained during the environmental program and used by the SABP principalinvestigators. Concurrently, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) studied several aspectsof the geology of the continental shelf (Volume 5 of this report) ; among these were studies ofnear-bottom turbidity and suspended particulate material from samples and data collected at seaby TI during the environmental program .

Results, discussions and conclusions for the various SABP tasks are presented in Volume 3 .Volume 4 contains an Atlas of the normal histology and histopathology of benthic invertebratesand demersal fish. Field and laboratory data, the results of statistical analyses, and miscellaneoussupporting information are contained in Volume 6.

This volume of the SABP Final Report describes the managerial and technical procedures aswell as the equipment and methodology used by TI in conducting the 1977 studies .

2 Equipment Group

~SECTION 2

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION

Texas Instruments was prime contractor for the South Atlantic Benchmark Program anddirected all phases of the study from the initial organization to preparation of the final report.TI recruited scientists, advisors, subcontractors, and support personnel to assist its own technicaland managerial staff, mobilized personnel and equipment for collecting offshore data andsamples, coordinated and conducted various onshore laboratory analyses, and processed theresulting data.

A. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS STAFF

The staff of the 1977 SABP was based on TI's established Program Management System(PMS), which places the responsibility for program execution on the program manager supportedby a staff of key personnel (Figure 1). Program managers were Dick Adams, followed by Dr .Mallory S. May III. Members of the TI technical staff from the Ecological Services Branch(Marine Resources Group) who also participated in various management roles were Dr. ThomasMitchell, deputy program manager and field program chief scientist ; Dr. Bolton S. Williams,biology task leader ; Dr. Michael J . Wade, chemistry task leader ; and Dr. Irv Savidge, followed byA.W. Blizzard, data managers . Dr. Mitchell was responsible for field operations and was in chargeof other TI field staff, including C. Jolly, logistics coordinator ; A. Jung, field chemist ; and K.Shaw, field biologist . In charge of TI laboratory operations and responsible to the appropriatetask leaders were P . Miller, biology laboratory, and Dr. G.K. Rice, chemistry laboratory .

B. SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE

To ensure the highest technical excellence, TI organized a Scientific Advisory Committee(SAC) comprising scientists recognized for their contribution in each major discipline (Figure 2) .They advised and assisted the TI technical staff in the early formulation and performance of thestudy. Dr. R.A. Geyer of Texas A&M University served in an interdisciplinary capacity .

C. SUBCONTRACTORS, PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS ANDSUPPORT PERSONNEL

Subcontractors from academic institutions and industry were chosen to perform certainbiological and chemical tasks. Each interfaced with the program manager of the SABP via a TIstaff task leader (Figure 1) . They included Dr. Carl H. Oppenheimer, University of Texas, PortAransas (microbiology) ; Dr. M.R. Tripp, University of Delaware (histology) ; Dr. Jon C. Staiger,University of Miami (fish populations) ; Dr. Barun K. Sen Gupta, University of Georgia (benthicforaminifera populations) ; Dr. John S. Warner, Battelle Columbus Laboratories (hydrocarbons) ;and Dr. David T. Moore, Texas A&M University (trace metals) . All the subcontractors exceptDrs. Warner and Moore also served as principal investigators for their respective diciplines . Theother PIs (most from the immediate geographic area of the Georgia Embayment) are listed inTable 1 . The PIs were responsible for proposal preparation, review of standard procedures andquality control, cruise participation, data interpretation, and report preparation . They providedexpert guidance in all technical and scientific aspects of the program .

3 Equipment Group

~PROGRAM MANAGER

M .S . MAY III

4k

ITI-QC

(D~~

G)

DEPUTY PROGRAM MANAGER

T . M . MITCHELL

FUNCTIONAL SERVICES SAMPLE PROCESSING

~~ IO ~L AL)ICRCHASING~U OG

MCCOUNTING-CONTRACTS 6 . W tll1AM5-TECNNtCAL PUBLICATIONS

1

SAMPLE PROCESSINGTAS K LEADER(CHEMICAL)

M . WADE

SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE-H .L. WINDOM . CHEMISTRY-L .P . ATKINSON . PHYSICALOCEANOGRAPHY

-R .T BARBER . BIOLOGICALOCEANOGRAPHY-V .J . HENRY. GEOLOGY-t .A. GEYER, INTERDISCIPLINARY

DATA COORDtNAT1ON DATA MANAGER FIELD PROGRAMCHIEF SCIENTIST

M.S. MAY III IA .W . BLIZZARD T . MITCHELL

TI BIOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY OF AArTeaLABORATORY . TEXAS

TI CHEMISTRY COLUMB STATISTICIANLABORATORY LABORATORY P

. MILLER C. OPPENHEIME 1-,, RICE D. STRICKERTJ .S . WARNER

UNIVERSITY OF UNIVERSITY OF TRATEM

']CEN~~ ALS "GEORGtA DELAWARE (

B.K . SEN GUPTA M .R, TRIPP

UNIVERSITY OF PRINCIPAL PRINCIPALMIAMI INVESTIGATORS INVESTIGATORS

J .C fTA1GER I IBIOLAGICAL CHEMICAL

M .R . TRIPP . HISTOPATHOLOGY R .L. LEE . HYDROCARBONSC.H . OPPENHEIMER . MICROBIOLOGY H .L . WINDOM . TRACE METALSK .R, .TENORE . INFAUNA P .R . BETZER, TRACE METAL.SR .Y . GEORGE . EPIFAUNA V .J . HENRY . GEOLOGYB . C , COULL, ME IOFAUNA L, P, ATK INSON , NUTR IENTS Q5 .5, HERMAN, ZOOPLANKTON PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHYB .K . SEN GUPTA . FORAMINIFERA LR .T . BARBER, ORGANIC CARBONJ .C . STAIGER . DEMERSAL FISH

PROGRAMMING

J. NABORS

lOGI5TIC5 I OCEAN APNY I I' OCE~ ~C.JOILY It OPERATIONf OPERATIONS

SHIP SUPPORTNAVIGATION I

~

~ Figure 1. SABP Personnel Aaeignlnents and Support Services

0

Investigator

L.P. Atkinson•

R.T . Barber*

P.R. Betzer

B.C . Coull

R.Y. George

V.J. Henry*

S .S . Herman

R.L. Lee

C.H. Oppenheimer

B.K. Sen Gupta

J.C. Staiger

K.R. Tenore

M.R. Tripp

H.L. Windom*

Table 1 . Principal Investigators

Affiliation

Skidaway Institute of Oceanography

Duke University, Marine Laboratory

University of South Florida

University of South Carolina

University of North Carolina, Wilmington

Skidaway Institute of Oceanography

Lehigh University

Skidaway Institute of Oceanography

University of Texas

University of Georgia

University of Miami

Skidaway Institute of Oceanography

University of Delaware

Skidaway Institute of Oceanography

•Members of Scientific Advisory Committee .

Discipline

Nutrients, physical oceanography

Organic carbon

Trace metals

Meiofauna

Invertebrate epifauna

Geology

Zooplankton

Hydrocarbon

Microbiology

Foraminifera

Epibenthic fishes

Macroinfauna

Histology of epifauna

Trace metals

To effect dialogue between information users and producers, A .W. Blizzard served as aninterface between TI Data Center personnel D . Strickert (statistician) and J . Nabors (computerprogrammer) and the principal investigators.

D. CRUISE PARTICIPANTS

Most cruise participants, including the chief scientists, were members of TI's EcologicalServices Branch . High-precision navigational support was provided by personnel of TI'sexploration subsidiary, Geophysical Service Inc . (GSI), during the first seasonal (winter) cruise ;on the three remaining cruises, navigation support was provided by Navigation ServicesIncorporated (NSI) of Ventura, California .

At least one PI participated in each cruise, and on each benthic leg a representative of theUnited States Geological Survey (USGS) was present to process water samples and data for theUSGS studies. Table 2 lists all personnel involved in all cruises .

5 Equipment Group

~Table 2. Cruise Participants

Participant Affiliation Winter Spring Summer FallWa B W B W B TS W B

L.P. Atkinson Skidaway Institute of PIb PIOceanography

R.T. Barber Duke University P1 PI

B.B . Blay Texas Instruments • • •

S.M. Bunker Texas Instruments •

T.J. Chambers Texas Instruments • • •

L.E. Day University of Texas • •

S.R DuBois Texas Instruments •

A. Feinstein Texas Instruments • •

D. Ferguson Texas Instruments • •

J.R. Gaw Texas Instruments • •

R.Y. George Univ. of North Carolina PI

W.A. Gloff Texas Instruments •

IL Grunewald Navigation Services, Inc.

K.D. Haddad Texas Instruments • •

T.R. Hanna Texas Instruments

G.L. Hayward Texas Instruments

K.F. Heath Texas Instruments

A.D. Jung Texas Instruments • • • • • • C • •

R.E. Lang Texas Instruments • • • • • •

R.F. Lee Skidaway Institute of PIOceanography

M.J. Locke Texas Instruments •

G.K. Marston Texas Instruments • • • • • • •

M.S. May Texas Instruments C

T.M. Mitchell Texas Instruments C C C C C C

M. Moore Texas Instruments •

S.J. Moore Texas Instruments

L.A. Nichols Texas Instruments 0 • •

J. Novak Navigation Services, Inc . • •

C.H. Oppenheimer University of Texas PI PI

M. Otter Texas Instruments • • • • • • • •

M. Peacock U.S. Geological Survey • •Univ. of South Florida

aW = water-column leg ; B = benthic leg ; TS = time-series leg.bPI = principal investigator ; C = chief scientist .

6 Equipment Group

~Participant

L. Powers

L. Rezek

M.J. Ricci

G.K. Rice

LE. Rouse

K. Shaw

B.A. Smith

P. SmithR. Smith

J.C. Staiger

R. Stewart

S.F. Tacopina

ICR. Tenore

F.M. Wall

B.S. Williams

H.L. Windom

Tible 2. Cruise Participsnts (Continued)

Affitiation Winter Spring Summer FallW B W B W B TS W B

University of Texas •

Texas Instruments • •Texas Instruments • •

Texas Instruments ~

Texas Instruments •

Texas Instruments • • C • •

Texas Instruments •lbxas Instruments • •Navigation Services, Inc . • •

University of Miami PI

U:S. Geological Survey •Univ. of South Florida

Texas Instruments •

Skidaway Institute of PIOceanography

U.S . Geological Survey aUniv. of South Florida

Texas Instruments • • C

Skidaway Institute of PIOceanography

7 Equipment Group

~SECTION 3

TECHNICAL PROGRAM

The major goals of the BLM OCS program, as implemented according to the OCS LandsAct of 1953 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, are discussed in Section 1 ofthis volume. The following subsections describe the rationale, design, and activities of the SouthAtlantic Benchmark Program conducted by Texas Instruments during 1977 to accomplish BLM'sgeneral goals and specific objectives .

A. SAMPLING RATIONALE AND DESIGN

1 . Rationale

In recent years, the oil industry has expressed interest in the development of offshore oiland gas resources on the continental shelf off the southeastern United States, an area known asthe Georgia Bight of the Southeast Georgia Embayment. The study area of the SABP, which lieswithin this region, encompasses the Atlantic continental margin from 29°N to 34°N latitude andincludes nearshore, middle shelf, outer shelf, and upper continental slope habitats ; its size isapproximately 16,000 km2 (4,800 nmi2 ) . Two major hydrographic features influence thebiological, chemical, and geological character of the Georgia Embayment : the Piedmont Basin,which drains through extensive coastal saltmarshes, and the Gulf Stream, which 'flows northwardacross the outer shelf and slope . The central shelf represents a transition region between thesetwo distinct hydrographic boundaries . The continental shelf in this region slopes gradually (<1m/km) from the shoreline to the shelf edge . The shelf slope begins at a depth of approximately80 m (60-130 km offshore) . Beyond this point, the depth of the ocean floor increases morerapidly (^•1 m/250 m) before reaching a relatively level area known as the Blake Plateau .

The SABP was designed to provide original synoptic and interdisciplinary information aboutthe region before oil and gas development commences . Primary .design considerations included :

• Current knowledge of the character of the study area, e .g., habitat zonation andpresence of any unique or unusually productive habitats (such as reefs)

• Historically successful study designs and techniques

• Locations of areas where oil exploration interest was high

• Need for permanent reference stations

• Need for statistically valid interdisciplinary data for predictive purposes .

It was evident from a general survey of the then-available literature (Roberts, 1974) thatsuch a study of the marine habitat of the Georgia Embayment had not been previouslyconducted .

2. Design

The SABP sampling design is the result of recommendations made by a group of scientistsfrom universities, the government, and the private sector, who conferred in Atlanta, Georgia, inOctober 1975 (Bureau of Land Management, 1976). Following this group's guidance, BLMstructured a broad interdisciplinary study plan to provide the desired descriptive and predictive

8 Equipment Group

~data. Sampling occurred on four seasonal cruises, each composed of a water-column leg and abenthic leg. (A brief synopsis of cruises appears in Subsection C .)

The sampling design adopted for the SABP consisted of a multitransect configuration oftenused in investigations of the marine environment to delineate trends in nutrient concentration, .community composition, hydrography, sediment type, and other natural variables. Typically,transects are aligned along the axis of an environmental gradient in such a manner that thevarious stations define the transition from one extreme to the opposite (i .e., from shore towardthe outer edge of the continental shelf) . Sampling stations were established so that major spatialand temporal trends could be delineated and areas of similarity grouped . The success of thetransect type of study design is well documented: for example, by Pinet and Frey (1977) in astudy of organic carbon in the surficial sediment of the Georgia inner shelf ; by Holm-Hansen etal. (1968) studying zooplankton, DNA, and chlorophyll a on the North Carolina OCS ; by Huangand Meinschein (1976) in an investigation of sterols in Gulf of Mexico surficial sediments ; byFroelich et al. (1977) in the South Pacific along the East Pacific Rise ; and by Oppenheimer et al .(1977) in the North Sea during study of microorganisms and hydrocarbons in seawater andsurficial sediments. Transect sampling designs have been used in biological studies of thecontinental margin in North Carolina (Cerame'-Vivas and Gray, 1966), in zonation studies on thecontinental margin of Georgia and South Carolina (Rowe and Menzies, 1969), in a study of thefaunal composition of the New England continental shelf (Haedrich et al., 1975), on the Pacificcontinental shelf (Fager, 1968), on the western Caribbean upper slope (Bullis and Struhsaker,1970), and in numerous other investigations.

The SABP employed a stratified sampling design (Figure 2) . Fifty fixed stations (Table 3)were established on seven transects crossing the shelf perpendicular to the shoreline and spacedrather evenly from north to south . Each crossed the three distinct shelf regimes-inner, middle,and outer. Transects 2, 5, and 6 crossed regions of major interest to the oil industry . Transects 3and 4 were in areas of low industrial interest where less environmental change was anticipatedfrom oil- and gas-related activity . Control transects 1 and 7 fell outside the region of anticipateddevelopment. The station closest to shore lay shoreward of an abrupt change from turbid,relatively fresh inshore water to clearer offshore water . The outer stations fell on the outer shelfand upper slope influenced by the Gulf Stream, and the remainder traversed the expanse of theshelf in depths of approximately 10 to 100 m .

The 50 stations were sampled according to the scheme given in Table 4 . Stations fell intoone or more of six groups, each corresponding to a specific battery of sampling procedures.

3. Cruise Organization

Each seasonal cruise (Table 5) was composed of two legs-a water-column leg and a benthicleg. The objective of the water-column legs was to collect water, zooplankton, and microbialsamples that would provide an interdisciplinary overview of the content and character of shelfwater and surface film. Parameters measured included hydrocarbons, trace metals, organiccarbon, dissolved oxygen, dissolved micronutrients, salinity, and temperature . Also determinedwere indices of the abundance of living biota, including chlorophyll a, zooplankton (used also inhydrocarbon and trace metal studies), and microbes . Microbial populations were also cultured toestimate their population structure and importance as hydrocarbon degraders . The objective ofthe benthic legs was to obtain information on sediment texture, chemical constituents, and biotic

9 Equipment Group

0

820 81 ° 80° 79° 78° 77°34°

33°

32°

31°

30°

29°

A .•

SOUTH CAROLINA 20~oww

CHARLESTON

A ~ 40•C •D 200

•

•

~ N2

SAVANNAH °D.

•GEORGIA C

. F 3•D

~.

, ~i4A •

D E •

F

! s c D E F G N 6

JACKSONVILLE

FLORIDA ~

DAYTONA lEACN•

, F ` 7

ATLANTIC OCEAN

34°

a

01 111330

~

t - 7 TRANSECTS

• SAMPLiNGSTATIONS

DEPTH CONTOURSIN METERS

32°

31°

300

29°82° 810 800 790 78° 77°

SCALE 1 • 3,000.000

Figure 2 . SABP Study Area, Showing Transects and Sampling Stations

10 1 Equipment Group

0

Table 3 . Station Locations

Station No. Latitude (N) Longitude (W) Depth (m)

1A 33° 50' 78° 24' 111B 33° 47' 780 21' 131C 33° 35' 78° 05' 181D 33° 20' 77° 46' 251E 33° 12' 77° 36' 44iF 33° 01' 77° 21' 285

2A 320 57' 79° 17' 122B 32° 54' 79° 12' 162C 32° 50' 79° 04' 222D 320 45' 780 56' 272E 32° 40' 78° 47' 372F 32° 36' 780 39' 422G 32° 30' 78° 29' 2182H 32°20' 78°11' 373

3A 32° 26' 80° 14' 93B 320 23' 80° 09' 133C 32° 13' 79° 52' 223D 32° 05' 79° 38' 333E 32° 01' 79° 31' 463F 31° 46' 79° 05' 540

4A 31° 55' 80° 51' 84B 31° 53' 80° 46' 124C 31° 45' 80° 28' 164D 31° 40' 80° 16' 264E 31° 34' 80° 03' 384F 31° 27' 79° 46' 644G 31° 19' 790 28' 495

5A 31° 13' 81° 13' 115B 31° 12' 81° 08' 115C 31° 08' 80° 50' 145D 31° 05' 80° 35' 255E 31° 03' 80° 26' 345F 31° 01' 80° 17' 405G 30° 59' 80° 08' 465H 30° 57' 79° 58' 18351 30° 54' 79° 44' 410

6A 30° 23' 81° 20' 176B 30° 23' 81° 15' 156C 30° 23' 80° 51' 266D 30° 23' 80° 36' 356E 30° 23' 80° 26' 396F 30° 23' 80° 18' 486G 30°. 23' 80° 10' 1346H 30° 23' 790 57' 360

7A 29° 27' 81° 03' 207B 29° 28' 80° 57' 207C 29° 31' 80° 40' 187D 29° 34' 80° 22' 447E 29° 36' 80° 11' 1857F 29° 38' 79° 58' 520

11 Equipment Group

~Table 4. Samp6ng Scheme

Group

I

II

III

N

V

VI

Sample Types

Quarterly collections for study ofzooplankton, surface-filmhydrocarbons, and microbiology

Hydrography (CTD), particulatetrace metals, particulate and dissolvedhydrocarbons, near-surfacemicrobiology, microbiologicaloxygen demand, particulate anddissolved organic carbon

Sediment samples for granularityand chemistry : hydrocarbons, tracemetals, total organic carbon

Sediment samples for benthicbiological community descriptionand granularity : macroinfauna,foraminifera, total organic carbon

Epifaunal trawling or dredging

Time-series cruiseHydrography

Zooplankton

Transect Station

1 D2a E4 E5a E6 D7 D1 Db, .

2a E, F3 Db

a b b b5 A, B , E , G6 D7 Db

1 B,C,D,E,F2a B, C, D, E, F, G, H5a B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I7 B, C, D, E, F

In winter and summer, all 50stations ; in spring and fall,as for group III

1 Cc, D2a B D, E, Fc, Hc3 Bb, Dc, E4 C, D, Ec, F5a AcICI D~ G~ Ic

6 B, Cc, E7 C,E,F°

5a E,F,G,H,I6 D,E,F,G,H

5a E, I6 D, H

aTransects crossing regions of greatest future impact (2 and 5)bTotal trace metals measured at selected stationscSampled only on summer and winter cruises

Cruise Season

1 Winter2 Spring3 Summer

Time-Seriesb Summer4 Fall

Water-Column Leg

Table 5 . Cruises ofM/V G. W. Pierce II

1977 Schedule

Departure Arrival(Port Everglades) (Southport)

31 Jan 8 Feb3May 8May9 Aug 14 Aug8 Sep 29 Sep10 Nov 14 Nov

Rationale

Central continental shelf stationson the northernmost andsouthernmost transects and ontransects nearest potential oilactivity

Hydrographic reference stations(group I and six additional stationsfor extended central and outershelf coverage)

Shelf and upper-slope stations oncontrol transects (1 and 7) andtransects of major oil industryinterest

Emphasis placed in regions of oilindustry interest

Central and outer shelf stations onall transects with additional coveragein areas of oil-industry interest

Outer continental shelf stationswithin range of Gulf Streammeanders to monitor short-termGulf Stream intrusions

Zooplankton sampled on centralshelf to detect short-termcommunity variations

Benthic LegDeparture Arrival

(Port Everglades) ( Southport)

9 Feb 5 Mar8 May 22 May15 Aug 4 Sepa

15 Novc 29 Nov

aArrived Brunswick, Georgia, to prepare for time-series cruise and effect repairs .bSeven legs included in time-series cruise .cDemonstration cruise, 21 November.

12 Equipment Group

~components of the seafloor. Accessory salinity, temperature, and micronutrient data wereroutinely collected throughout the water column at all benthic stations . Epifauna was collectedfor the study of community character, trace metal and hydrocarbon content, and histologicalanomalies. Additional studies of microbial hydrocarbon degradation capacity and communitystructure were conducted for benthic bacteria . Details of sample subdivision, processing, and .distribution appear in Subsection B .

Supplementing the above were seven 3-day time-series legs that were short-term, repetitive,hydrographic and zooplankton cruises intended to monitor the intrusion of Gulf Stream waterover the continental shelf off southern Georgia and northern Florida (transects 5 and 6) . On 21November 1977, during the fall benthic cruise, a 1-day demonstration cruise was conductednortheast of the Savannah sea buoy for BLM and state representatives to view the sampling andonboard processing procedures used for the SABP .

The cruises were structured to collect all required data and samples according to theprescribed sampling scheme (Table 4) ; however, the cruise tracks were flexible in order tominimize delays resulting from heavy seas or temporary equipment malfunction . This accountedfor some variability in cruise tracks . To further conserve sea time, changes in equipment andmethods and sequences of deployment were authorized from time to time . Subsection Csummarizes all sampling on the water-column, benthic, and time-series legs .

B. SHIPBOARD SAMPLING AND PROCEDURES

The SABP's interdisciplinary character required a wide variety of field sampling andprocessing/preservation techniques, a research vessel of adequate size to accommodate therequired field equipment and scientific party, definition and implementation of practicalprocedures, and documentation of the field effort. The following subsections describe theresearch vessel, navigation system, sampling methodology, shipboard equipment, and sample anddata processing routines .

1 . Research Vessel

SABP objectives (Section 1) required an offshore vessel offering sufficient space forsampling equipment, processing laboratories, and crew berthing. The vessel chosen was the M/VG. W. Pierce II (Figure 3), which is owned and operated by Tracor Marine, Inc ., of PortEverglades, Florida. This 180-gross-ton steel-hulled offshore vessel has a 48 .2-m (158-ft) overalllength, a 9 .1-m (30-ft) beam, and a 2 .7-m (9-ft) loaded draft. For the study, it was equipped(Figure 4) with a 5 .2-m (17-ft) X 6 .1-m (20-ft) semipermanent air-conditioned steel laboratoryfor biological processing ; a portable 22.3-m2 (240-ft2 ) chemical clean laboratory with doubleairlock doors to minimize the possibility of stack-gas contamination ; a portable 18.6-m2(200-ft2 ) electronic laboratory/storage area ; deck handling equipment; and instrumentation fornavigation and communications, including a Raytheon echo sounder, Loran A and C navigationsets, a Raydist precision navigation system, and a precision depth recorder (PDR) .

The deck handling equipment (Figure 4) consisted of a winch (A) for zooplankton andwater-column trace metal sampling ; a winch (B) for heavy operations including box coring,trawling, dredging, and collecting 90-1 water samples for hydrocarbon analyses ; a winch (C) forthe CTD/rosette and transmissometer system used to collect water samples for salinity, dissolvedoxygen, micronutrient analyses and to take transmissometer data ; a crane ; and two A-frames.

13Equipment Group

~

~

Figure 3. M/V G. k! Pterce II

To minimize exposure of equipment and samples to emissions from the ship's stacks(Hoffman et al ., 1976), each piece of sampling equipment was washed with a suitable solvent orwater after each use and, except for the large equipment such as the box corer and otter trawls,stored in enclosed areas . Equipment remained covered as long as possible and was washed againbefore deployment. After a sample for hydrocarbons, trace metals, or total organic carbon wasretrieved, it was immediately subsampled and taken to the clean laboratory to minimize exposureto the afterdeck atmosphere .

To decrease exhaust-gas contamination, the height of the ship's stacks was increased 6 ft(1 .83 m) before the first cruise. When possible during sampling and especially during on-deckhandling of the bongo nets and otter trawls, the ship was maneuvered to minimize flow of stackgases across the afterdeck. The ship was also maneuvered so no sampling device would belowered or raised through visible surface film. Exhaust-gas samples were obtained on each cruiseand were analyzed in the hydrocarbon laboratory (Battelle) to identify any contamination thatmight have existed .

The vessel normally accommodated a scientific crew of 15-a chief scientist, a principalinvestigator, two oceanographers, nine technicians, and two navigators . Workdays were 24 hr ona two-watch basis. The deck layout provided sufficient space for handling and positioning heavyequipment such as trawls, dredges, and box corers on deck during other operations such assample processing and CTD casts .

14 Equipment Group

~F----«----+-"'--u.«

~ I ZJD) I ~.L

ELECTRONICS ~POVER PACK ~ ~ - ~ ~CRANE ?c,'E STORAGEJ~ p VINCN

~ O[ NEN

-TJ IM~ Pq6ME

A-FRAME - BIOL061CALI CLEAN LA6LAB~ - V I NCX 6~ p1TMOM /rRM 1TATq1

MAIN DECK

Figute 4. M/V G. W. Pierce II Deck Plan After Modification

2. Navigation

A long-range (150 to 250 nmi) Raydist DRS-H navigation system was used on the firstthree cruises ; an Argo (Cubic Western Data Corporation) system was used on the fourth cruisebecause it can track more than two base stations simultaneously and is, therefore, less susceptibleto interference by electrical storms while providing accuracy comparable to Raydist .

A Motorola Miniranger system was used both to calibrate lightweight radio location systemsand to provide positioning for the inshore stations, which presented poor geometry for Raydistand/or Argo. The range-range mode of operation was used on the Raydist because it providesnavigation at greater distances and still maintains a high degree of accuracy (several meters) .

3. Sampling Methodology and Shipboard Equipment and Processing

This subsection describes the methods and materials required to collect and process samplesfrom the air/sea interface, the water column, and the benthic environment . It is important tonote that a single sample was often subsampled or split to provide material for more than onetype of chemical or biological determination .

a. Surface-Film Sampling

Samples of the ocean surface film were collected for the measurement of hydrocarbonconcentrations and determination of the activity and structure of microbial communities .

(1) High Molecular Weight Hydrocarbons (HMWHC)

Surface-film HMWHC samples were collected with a Teflon disk having a surface area of0.25 m2 . Samples were taken from beyond the contamination zone surrounding the researchvessel by means of an electrically powered inflatable boat . The disk was placed on the sea

15 Equipment Group

~surface and lifted carefully . Seawater was allowed to drain from the disk, and adsorbed organicmaterial was washed from the disk with high-purity chloroform (Burdick and Jackson distilled-in-glass) into a precleaned glass bottle equipped with a Teflon-lined screw cap. The bottles werelabeled, refrigerated, and subsequently transferred to Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus,Ohio, for hydrocarbon analysis.

Precautions were taken to avoid contamination of the samples . The Teflon disk was stowedin an aluminum case in the clean laboratory when not in use and was rinsed with chloroformimmediately before and after sampling .

(2) Microorganisms

The surface film was sampled and cultured to enumerate, isolate, and identify predominantmarine microorganisms. Surface contamination from the ship was avoided by using an inflatablerubber boat as in the hydrocarbon sampling .

Microbial samples were collected by floating millipore filters on the surface film andextracting microbial populations into sterile seawater (Crow et al., 1975). The processingsequence for surface-film microbiological samples appears in Figure 5 .

Aboard ship, the samples were serially diluted and duplicate oil broth and 2216 marine agar(DIFCO) cultures inoculated for each dilution level (Figure 6) . Cultures were incubated atapproximately 10°C in a constant-temperature culture chamber for enumeration and additionalanalysis (pure culture, taxonomy, HC degradation) at the Port Aransas, Texas, facility, asdescribed in Subsection C .

b. Water-Column Sampling

To study the hydrographic, chemical, and biotic conditions of the water column, biologicalcommunities (both zooplankton and microbial) were quantified and temperature, salinity, andseveral chemical constituents of ocean water were measured. Included were those relating tometabolic activity (e .g., nutrients, chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen, total organic carbon, andsuspended particulate matter) and those that have been suggested to cause adverse biologicaleffects when present in sufficient concentration (hydrocarbons, trace metals). Collection methodsand equipment are described in the following paragraphs .

(1) Zooplankton Sampling

Nets of two different mesh sizes, 202 and 505 µm, were employed to collect zooplanktonfor the determination of community structure, taxonomy, and biomass and for the measurementof concentrations of high molecular weight hydrocarbons and trace metals in or adsorbed on thezooplankton. One oblique tow was made with each mesh size at each sampling station .

Paired nets were mounted on 60-cm-diameter aluminum frames (Figure 7) . Each frame wasequipped with a double-trip opening/closing device and towed with noncontaminating Kevlarcable. Cylinder-cone nets minimized clogging . The filtering : area ratios (porosity X mesh area =mouth area) for the 505-pm and 202-pm nets were 5 :1 and 8 :1, respectively. To avoidhydrocarbon contamination as the net passed through the surface, the net was lowered into thewater closed, messenger-tripped to begin sampling, and then closed by a messenger-activatedchoker line before being lifted through to the sea surface . A flowmeter was mounted outside the

16 Equipment Group

~

MPN TUBES FORHYDROCARBON-USINGMICROORGANISMS

ENUMERATION OFHYDROCARBON-USINGMICROORGANISMS

I PLATES OF IOIL-ENRICHED

MEDIA

ISOLATION OFCOLONIES

I TESTING OF PURE ICULTURES FOR

GROWTH ONHYDROCARBONS

IDENTIFICATION ANDMAINTENANCE OF PURE

CULTURES OFHYDROCARBON-USINGMICROORGANISMS

SEA SURFACE

SAMPLEASEPTICALLYCOLLECTED

' STERILE SALTS ISOLUTION

DILUTIONS

I PLATES OF 2216 IMEDIUM FOR

HETEROTROPHICM ICROORGAN I SMS

I ENUMERATION OF I11 HETEROTROPHIC

MICROORGANISMS

RATIO OFHYDROCARBON-USINGTO HETEROTROPHICMICROORGANISMS

Figure 5 . Processing Sequence for Surface-Film Sample Enumeration and Identificationof Hydrocarban-Using and Heterotrophic Microorganiams

net frame to avoid metallic contamination of samples . The General Oceanics flowmeters werecalibrated before each cruise at the Johns Hopkins University flume facility . The nets were notallowed to touch the deck or hull of the ship during deployment or retrieval . To further reducehydrocarbon contamination, the ship was maneuvered to avoid visible surface films from the shipor other sources and to keep exhaust gas from contacting the nets after their removal from thewater. The nets were rinsed with seawater pumped by a Teflon pump from a depth of 2 to 4 m .The slotted cod end, which had meshes of 202 or 505 pm (to match the nets), was immersedrepeatedly in filtered seawater to remove possible contaminants clinging to the surface of thezooplankters .

The average towing speed was 100 cm/sec (^2 knots) ; to avoid loss of filtration efficiency,towing speed was never allowed to fall below 1 .2 knots (UNESCO, 1968). The greatest depth of

17 Equipment Group

~

SURFACE- 1 117IF I LMSAMPLE TT

Iml Iml

100ml

2216 MEDIUM

9ml 9ml

Iml 1 ml Iml t ml Iml

OIL BROTH 19 m1 1 ' 9 ml

Figure 6. Serial Dilution and Culture Procedures for Surfs :ce-Film Microbiology Samptes

SYSTEM OPEN

SYSTEM CLOSED

Figure 7. Bongo Net

I8 Equipment Group

~each tow was calculated from wire angle and length of cable deployed . Actual depth of thewater column was determined with the ship's echo sounder. After sampling, the zooplanktonapparatus was rinsed thoroughly, dried, and stowed in a covered aluminum container untilneeded for subsequent sampling. Chemistry samples were split quantitatively with a Teflon spinsplitter (Zo, 1978) to provide subsamples for the analysis of hydrocarbons and trace metals, aswell as interlaboratory quality-control comparisons .

(a) Zooplankton for Analysis of High Molecular Weight Hydrocarbonsand Trace Metals

Each zooplankton sample for hydrocarbon and trace metal analyses was inspected under amicroscope for the presence of ship debris or tar balls, either of which would have rendered thesamples inappropriate for chemical analysis . If such contamination was observed, the sample wasdiscarded and a new sample taken . Zooplankton for the analysis of high molecular weighthydrocarbons was placed in chloroform-washed, labeled, glass jars equipped with Teflon-linedcaps; frozen ; and subsequently transferred to the Battelle Columbus Laboratories for analysis .Personnel wearing nontalc plastic gloves used nonmetallic utensils to handle zooplankton for theanalysis of trace metals . They placed the samples in acid-washed, labeled, polyethylene jars ; frozethem ; and transmitted them to the TI Environmental Chemistry Laboratory in Dallas, Texas, foranalysis.

The zooplankton nets were washed with methanol twice during each cruise as an additionalquality-control measure for hydrocarbons, and the methanol washes were collected and analyzedto assess hydrocarbon contamination (Harvey and Teal, 1973) .

(b) Zooplankton for Community Analysis

A total of 102 double-net zooplankton tows were made during the four seasonal cruises .One sample from each tow was divided in two equal halves with a Motoda (modified Folsom)plankton splitter for zooplankton identification, enumeration, and biomass determination . (Eachbiological sample replicated that taken simultaneously for hydrocarbon and trace metal analyses .)Half of the sample for biological analysis was frozen for shoreside determination of biomass ; theother half was preserved in 4% borax-buffered formaldehyde (10% buffered formalin) fortaxonomic identification and community analysis. Figure 8 shows the collection, processing, anddistribution of zooplankton samples .

(2) Microbial Community

Near-surface microbiological samples were collected during each season at the 12 stationswhere near-surface particulate hydrocarbon samples were collected (Subsection A .2). During thefirst cruise, seven samples were collected in a Niskin sterile bag sampler (General Oceanics) foreach subsurface water sample, but this number was later reduced to five to facilitate completionof processing (Figure 9) before arriving at a subsequent sampling station .

Subsamples were aseptically filtered through 0 .4-µm Nuclepore membranes in duplicate 1-,10-, and 100-ml aliquots and transferred to plates of 2216 medium (Figure 10) most probablenumber (MPN) tubes for assessing hydrocarbon-using microorganisms .

19 Equipment Group

~

ZOOPLANKTON SAMPLES

505EMISTRYI I CHEMISTRY I I BIOLO Y I I BIOLO Y

SPLITTING I I SPLITTING

INSPECTION

TRANALYSEIBAL I I HIH ANALLYS 5~

MOLECULAR

I I DETERM NATION I I 1 ENTIFIC TION

Figure 8. Zooplankton Sample Flowchart

(3) Particulate and Dissolved High Molecular Weight Hydrocarbons

Seawater for particulate and dissolved HMWHC analysis was collected in large-volume(90-1) water bottles constructed entirely of stainless steel (Benthos, Inc., modified Bodmansampler). The ends of the bottles were sealed with tapered Teflon plugs fitted with siliconerubber 0-rings. The bottles were disconnected from the filtration assembly, partially evacuated,passed through the air/sea interface in closed position to avoid contamination, opened underwater by hydrostatic pressure differential, then raised for near-surface sampling and closedmechanically by messenger. After the bottles were opened under water, they were flushed forseveral minutes before being closed, thus minimizing cross contamination between samples .Near-bottom water bottles were closed using a bottom trigger mechanism 3 m above the seafloor .

20 Equipment Group

~

MPN TUBES FORNYDRCICARBON-~US I NGMICROORGANISMS

ENUMERATION OFHYDROCARBON--US 1 NGMICROORGANISMS

I PLATES OF IOIL-ENRICHED

MEDIA

ISOLATION OFCOLON I ES

TESTING OF PURECULTURES FOR

IDENTIFICATION ANDMAINTENANCE OF PURE

CULTURES OFHYDROCARBON-US1 NGMICROORGANISMS

SUBSURFACEWATER COLUMN

I SAMPLE ICOLLECTED

WATERFILTERED

MICROORGANISMS

RATIO OFHYDROCARBONiiUSINGTO HETEROTROPHICMICROORGAIlISMS

Figure 9 . Processing Sequence for Water-Column Sample Enumeration andIdentification of Hydrocarbon-Using and Heterotrophic Microorganisme

MEDIUM FOR=TEROTROPHIC

ENUMERATION OFHETEROTROPHICMICROORGANISMS

Upon retrieval, the full sampler was placed in a rack on deck and the lower outlet valveconnected to a stainless-steel filtration system . The sample was pressurized with ultrapure(carrier-grade) nitrogen, which forced the 90-1 seawater sample through a large glass fiber filter .The samplers were kept closed at all times while on deck . All glassware was precleaned withchloroform in the clean laboratory before use .

(4) Particulate and Dissolved Organic Carbon

Particulate and dissolved organic carbon samples were collected from near bottom and nearsurface using two Go-Flow (9-1) sampling bottles rigged in standard hydrocast configuration on aKevlar hydrographic cable. The bottles were passed through the air/sea interface closed, wereopened under water by messenger, and were closed after several minutes by a second messenger :

21 Equipment Group

~tooml toml tml

* * *

* INDICATES22 1 6 ME DI UM F1 LTRATION

tooml loml tml

OIL BROTH 1 ml 9o ml 9 m1

Figure 10 . Culture Procedures for Subsurface Samples

Triplicate 500-m1 samples were filtered onto 0 .8-pm pore size double silver filters ; thesewere separated, placed in precombusted, labeled, glass bottles ; then frozen and transferred to TIfor analysis of particulate carbon. Triplicate unfiltered whole-water samples collected inprecleaned 5-ml combustion vials were sealed, labeled, stored aboard, then transferred to TI forautoclaving and analysis of total organic carbon . To minimize sample contamination, allmanipulations were accomplished in the clean laboratory . All filters and glassware were cleaned,covered with aluminum foil, and combusted before use .

(5) Particulate and Total Trace Metals

Seawater samples for determination of near-surface and near-bottom particulate and totaltrace metals were collected in 9-1 Go-Flow bottles rigged in hydrocast configuration on noncon-taminating Kevlar cable (Betzer and Pilson, 1975) . The bottles (previously acid-washed and rinsedwith deionized water) were passed closed through the air/sea interface and opened and reclosedat depth.

In the clean lab, the bottles were pressurized with carrier-grade nitrogen, forcing the samplethrough a preweighed 0.4-µm Nuclepore filter (Betzer, 1971) . When the filter clogged or after 91 had been filtered, total filtrate volume was recorded . The polyethylene filter holder wasremoved from the assembly, sealed in a polyethylene bag, labeled, frozen, and transferred to TIfor trace-metal analysis .

Seawater samples for total trace metal analysis were similarly collected in separate Go-Flowbottles. In the clean lab, 2 1 of seawater were transferred into precleaned 2-1 Teflon bottles,acidified with Baker Ultrex-grade HC 1, sealed, labeled, and transferred to TI for analysis .

Sample flow is represented diagrammatically in Figure 11 .

22 Equipment Group

~%'WATER SAMPLES

(GO-FLOW BOTTLES)

REP 1 REP 2

2-LITERSA M PLE

ACIDI FICATION

ANALYSIS OF TOTALTRACE METALS

Figure 11 . Particulate and Total Trace Metal Sample Flowchart

(6) Dissolved Oxygen

FILTER WITHSAMPLE FROZEN

ANALYSIS OFFROZEN SAMPLE

Seawater samples for Winkler determination of dissolved oxygen were collected in 5-1 Niskinbottles mounted on a General Oceanics rosette sampler . Subsamples were transferred intostandard BOD bottles, fixed immediately with MnC12 and alkaline iodide solutions, and titratedwithin 4 hr according to standard Winkler procedures (Strickland and Parsons, 1972) .

(7) Hydrographic Profiles

One conductivity/temperature/depth (CTD) cast from surface to near bottom and back tosurface was made with a manufacturer-calibrated Plessey 9400 CTD sensor system . Salinitycalibration samples were obtained from near bottom, mid-depth, and near surface using Niskinbottles rigged on a General Oceanics rosette sampler . Salinity was determined with a Plessey6230N conductance laboratory salinometer standardized with Copenhagen water . Temperaturecalibration data were obtained from near surface and near bottom with protected reversingthermometers that had been calibrated by the manufacturer before the first seasonal cruise .

Following each cruise, the CTD magnetic-tape records were sent to Skidaway Institute ofOceanography for data reduction . The resulting data were made available to SABP principalinvestigators as well as being transmitted to Science Applications, Inc ., BLM's contractor forSouth Atlantic OCS physical oceanography .

FILTRATION UNDERPRESSURE

23 Equipment Group

~(8) Dissolved Micronutrients

Seawater for analysis of micronutrients was collected in Niskin bottles rigged on a GeneralOceanics rosette sampler . The water samples were transferred to 125-m 1 precleaned polyethylenebottles (following two rinses with sample water), labeled, frozen, and transferred to TI foranalysis .

(9) Chlorophyll a

Chlorophyll a samples were taken from the Go-Flow bottle used for collecting POC samples[Subsection B . 3 . b(4) ] . An appropriate amount of seawater (1-4 1) was filtered through0.4-µm pore size glass-fiber filters covered with a magnesium carbonate layer . The filters wereimmersed in 90% acetone in the dark for 20 hr and extracts of chlorophyll a centrifuged . Thesupernatant was placed in 5-cm cells and absorbance read on a Beckman DU spectrophotometerat 750, 663, 645, and 630 nm . Turbidity corrections were made (absorbance at 750 nm) andcholorophyll a concentration calculated from the following equation (Strickland and Parsons,1972) :

Chla (mg/m3) =extract volume (m 1) X(11 .64 E663 - 2 .16 E645 + 0.10 E630)

volume filtered (liters)

(10) Transmissometer/Nephelometer Profiles

Descending and ascending transmissometer/nephelometer profiles were made at each stationon the benthic leg of each seasonal cruise . The instrument was fitted on the General Oceanicsrosette sampler frame and deployed during routine hydrocasts . One suspended sediment sampleper station was collected from near bottom to calibrate the instrument . After each cruise, theprofiles were forwarded to the USGS by the agency's onboard representative .

(11) Suspended Particulate Material

Samples of suspended particulate material were collected in large-capacity PVC water bottlesin a standard hydrocast configuration . The bottles were deployed to within 1 m of the bottomand the surface and within nepheloid layers when these had been detected during the previousnephelometer cast. The bottles of water were connected to a plastic filter system and pressurizedwith ultrapure carrier-grade nitrogen, which forced the samples through precombusted, pre-weighed, 0 .5-pm pore size glass-fiber filters in in-line Swinnex filter holders . Filtration proceededuntil all the sample had been filtered or the filter had clogged ; in either case, the volume ofwater filtered was recorded. The filters were washed with 100 ml of deionized water to removedissolved salts, placed in numbered polyethylene bags, frozen, and shipped to the USGS at theend of the cruise .

c. Seafloor Sampling

Seafloor samples were collected with a stainless-steel box corer (Figure 12) . The 20- X 30-X 45-cm rectangular coring box is closed by a knife edge actuated by tension on the coringcable. The corer, which is weighted to penetrate the substrate and is essentially noncontami-nating, recovers virtually undisturbed quantitative samples of sufficient volume for the analysesrequired in this program . A Smith-McIntyre grab was used as an alternate sampler in areas inwhich samples could not be collected with the box corer .

24 Equipment Group

~The box corer was deployed from a movable A-frame over the port side of the M/V G. W.

Pierce II and lowered to the bottom ; the location was marked on Raydist (or Argo) navigationtapes upon bottom contact . Upon recovery, each core sample was immediately examined by thechief scientist or watch leader to determine acceptability according to the following criteria :corer was properly triggered and completely closed, corer contained at least 15-cm depth ofsediment, and at least one-half of the core was undisturbed and was accordingly subsampled ordiscarded. This procedure was repeated until the required number of replicates (Figure 13) hadbeen collected : six for infauna, six for high molecular weight hydrocarbons and trace metals, andone for other determinations (total organic carbon, foraminifera, and meiofauna) . Two of thehydrocarbon/trace metal box cores were subsampled for sediment microbiology .

The following paragraphs detail the benthic sampling routine .

(1) Grain-Size Distribution

Sediment grain-size subsamples were taken from each box core using a technique thatavoided contamination of other subsamples taken from the same core . Stainless-steel core tubeswere used to remove texture subcores from box cores for biological analysis of communities(macroinfauna, meiofauna, and foraminifera) . Those taken for chemical analyses were removedwith Teflon utensils . Each textural subsample consisted of no less than 20 g of wet sedimentttaken from a depth range of 0-6 cm . Samples were placed in clean plastic jars, sealed, labled,and returned to TI's laboratory for grain size analysis .

BOTTOM RIMECHANISI

STACKEDPENETRATION

W E I GHTS

CLOSUREASS E M BLY

FRAMERE BOX

GGER

(A) BOX CORER

Figuie 12 . Bottom Sampling Apparatus

25 Equipment Group

(B) SMITH-MCINTYRE GRAB

0

MACROI NFAUNA

TD ~T ~T ~TBOX CORE © © © © © ©

I 1 1 1 1 17 L 3 4

0

5 b

MEIOFAUNA

(900

008©©

7

GEOCHEMISTRY

©©©©

T

©

T

©

T

©

T

©

© 4 O © © GC '! 1V 11 1L 1J

SUBSAMPLE (SUBCORE OR SCOOP)

B BACTERIOLOGY

C GEOCHEMISTRY (TRACE METALS AND

HIGH MOLECULAR WEIGHT HYDROCARBQ/dS)

F FORAMINIFERA

FA FORAMINIFERA . ARCHIVE

G GRAIN-SIZE DISTRIBUTION

1 INFAUNA

M MEIOFAUNA

T TOTAL ORGAN I C CAR BON

Figure 13 . Bottom Sediment Sampling and Subsampling at Benthic Stations

(2) Meiofauna

At each station sampled, three meiofauna subcores 2.5 cm in diameter and 15 cm long wereremoved from the meiofauna/others box core with a stainless-steel coring tube . To ensureconsistent subsampling, the coring tubes were inserted into the sediments through a Teflonsubcoring template, which ensured that subcores were taken no less than 5 cm from the sides ofthe core box and no less than 3 cm from each other . Each subcore was cut transversely into foursections (0 to 5, 5 to 7, 7 to 10, and >10 , cm). Each section was preserved in a separate plasticjar with 10% buffered formalin and rose bengal stain, then sealed, mixed, labeled, and stored fortransmission to TI's biological laboratory in Dallas, Texas .

(3) Foraminifera

At each benthic station, three foraminiferal subcores 2.5 cm in diameter and 15 cm longwere removed from the box-core sample collected for meiofaunal and other analyses . Subcoringwas identical to that used for meiofauna . The 0- to 3-cm fractions of two of the 15-cm subcoreswere preserved separately for identification of living foraminifera . The remainder of the twosubcores and the entire third subcore were combined and preserved as archive samples .

The fixative solution for foraminifera consisted of 50 ml of 100% formalin (40% aqueoussolution of formaldehyde) and 2 g of calcium chloride in 1 1 of filtered seawater . The resultingsolution was buffered to a pH of 8 .3 using a premixed buffer. After addition of the preservative,the sample containers were closed and gently agitated to ensure complete mixing .

(4) Macroinfauna

Six box-core samples were taken at each station for identification and quantification ofmacroinfauna. Each sample was washed on a 0 .5-mm mesh sieve, transferred to appropriatecontainers, and preserved with buffered 10% formalin and rose bengal stain . The sample

26 , Equipment Group

~I COLLECTION OF I

ASEPTICSUBSAMPLES

I STERILE SALTS ~SOLUTION

DILUTIONS

MPN TUBES FORHYDROCARBON-USINGMICROORGANISMS

ENUMERATION OFHYDROCARBON-USINGMICROORGANISMS

PLATES OFOIL-ENRICHED

MEDIA

ISOLATION OFCOLONIES

I TESTING OF PURE lCULTURES FORGROWTH ON

HYDROCARBONS

IDENTIFICATION ANDMAINTENANCE OF PURE

CULTURES OFHYDROCARBON-USINGMICROORGANISMS

RATIO OFHYDROCARBON-USINGTO HETEROTROPHICMICROORGANISMS

PLATES OF 2216MEDIUM FOR

H ETEROTRO PH ICM ICROORGANISMS

I ENUMERATION OF IHETEROTROPHICMICROORGANISMS

Figure 14 . Processing Sequence for Sediment Sample Enumeration and Identification ofHydrocarbon-Using and Heterotrophic Microorganisms

containers were closed, agitated, labeled, and stored for transmittal to TI's biological laboratoryin Dallas, Texas. The six replicates collected at each station were processed and preservedseparately .

(5) Microbial Community

Sediment samples were collected at each benthic station for enumeration and identificationof heterotrophic and hydrocarbonoclastic bacteria (Figure 14) . From two of the six geochemistrybox cores, 10 g of sediment were aseptically removed over a depth range of 0-6 cm with asterile spatula, suspended in 90 ml of sterile artificial seawater, and the mixture vigorouslyblended and plated on DIFCO 2216 marine agar and in enriched seawater with oil (ESW + oil) .

27 Equipment Group

~BOX /lpCORE

SAMPLE

Iml

9ml'

Iml

2216 MEDIUM ~

lml

9 mlOIL BROTH

90m1

Iml Iml Iml Iml Iml Iml

9ml 9ml 9ml 9ml 9ml 9mI

l ml l ml l ml l m/ l ml l ml

Iml j tml j tml + Iml + Iml __J Iml

9m1 1 I9mI I 1 9mI 1 1 9 ml 1 1 9m1 l 1 9mi

Figure 15 . Culture Procedures for Sediment Samples

Each aliquot was serially diluted (Figure 15) and cultured in DIFCO 2216 medium andESW + oil. Two replicate tubes per dilution per sample were prepared. The number of dilutionsper sample was determined before the cruise by Dr . Carl H. Oppenheimer, microbiology principalinvestigator, and varied seasonally to adapt the technique to the seasonal temperature regime .

Culture plates/tubes were incubated and/or secured for transmittal to the microbiologylaboratory at The University of Texas Marine Science Laboratory at Port Aransas for isolation,identification, and assessment of degradation rates of South Louisiana crude oil (SLCO) andother hydrocarbons by mixed and pure cultures .

(6) High Molecular Weight Hydrocarbons

Samples for HMWHC analysis consisted of 1 kg of wet sediment composed of eitherindividual samples or six pooled subsamples (Figure 13), each of which was taken with a Teflonscoop from a box-core sediment sample over the depth range of 0-3 cm . The pooled sampleswere used for both hydrocarbon and trace metal analysis.

The pooled subsamples were mixed manually with a Teflon stirring rod in a large thick-walled Teflon beaker for 15 min . All utensils were rinsed with methanol and stored in glass whennot in use . Samples were placed in precleaned glass jars, sealed with Teflon-lined caps, labeled,and frozen for storage and transmittal to Battelle Columbus Laboratories . Additionalquality-control HMWHC samples consisted of 1 kg of sediment (an aliquot of the pooledsample) .

28- . Equipment Group

0

(7) Trace Metals

All utensils used in subsampling box-core samples for trace metal analysis were Teflon andhad been washed in dilute hydrochloric acid. A minimum of 20 g of sediment was necessary forindividual analysis; in all other respects, the subsampling was identical to that used for HMWHCanalysis . An additional 100-g aliquot was retained for quality control .

(8) Total Organic Carbon

Total organic carbon (TOC) subcores (Figure 13), each consisting of 10 g of wet sediment,were removed over a depth range of 0-6 cm with stainless-steel coring tubes from box corescollected for the study of the macroinfauna community . The samples were placed in acid-washedglass jars, labeled, sealed, frozen, and shipped to TI's laboratory for analysis.

d. Epifaunal Invertebrates and Demersal Fishes

Demersal fish and epifaunal invertebrates were collected with a 45-ft semiballoon ottertrawl fished with Hong Kong V doors. Generally, two 30-min tows at 2 knots were performed ateach sampling station, but when catch was extremely large in the first replicate, a 15-min secondtow was performed to reduce-impact on the biota . A cable length :depth ratio of 3 :1 was used atall but the deep continental slope stations where a 4 :1 ratio was employed to. ensure properdeployment .

Animals collected by trawling and dredging were used for chemical and histological analysesand taxonomic identification . Trawl or dredge catches were immediately rough-sorted, identified,counted, and weighed . Specimens for chemical analysis were removed to the clean lab for furtherprocessing. Other specimens were reserved for histology studies [Subsection B .3 .d(2)] .

Voucher specimens to be used for chemical and histological analyses, organisms representingthe key and dominant species, and rare or previously unidentified organisms were preserved forshoreside taxonomic identification . At the completion of each cruise, fishes and invertebrateswere transferred to laboratories at the University of Miami and Texas Instruments, respectively,for final identification or verification .

Figure 16 shows the collection, processing, and distribution of epifaunal samples .

(1) High Molecular Weight Hydrocarbons and Trace Metals

Trawl collections were sorted with stainless-steel utensils into noncontaminative polyethlenecontainers . Animals selected for trace . metal analysis were placed in acid-washed plastic jars ; thosefor hydrocarbon analysis were put in chloroform-rinsed glass jars . Any dissections necessary wereperformed in the clean laboratory . The minimal wet tissue weight (exclusive of shells) for eithertype of analysis, was 100 g. At least six specimens were desired for analysis . Samples were frozenfor later transmittal to Texas Instruments and Battelle Columbus Laboratories for finalprocessing and analysis. Quality-control samples for each type of determination were proratedover the four sampling seasons; 12 were collected at stations spread as evenly as possible over thestudy area .

29 Equipment Group

~TRAWL ORDREDGE

COLLECTI ON

SORTING

COMMON SPECIES FORCHEMISTRY, HISTOLOGY

RO UG HSORTI NG

SORTING, COUNTING .WEIGHING, DISSECTION

INVERTEBRATES I I FISHES TRACEHMWHC METAL

SAMPLES FROZEN SAMPLESIN GLASS FROZEN IN

PLASTIC

FIXATION,PRESERVATION OF

HISTOLOGY SAMPLES

IDENTIFICATION DENTIFICATIO(TI) ~UNIV OF MIAMI

Figure 16. Epifaunal Sample Flowchart

(2) Histology

IGHTLMICROSCOPY

LIGHT ANDELECTRON

M~,CROSCOPY(UNI V OF

DELAWARE)

SPECIMEN/SLIDEPREPARATION

_

(TI)ANALYSISOF TRACEMETALS

ANALYSISOF HMWHC

(TI, TAMU)

(BATTELLE)

Following epifaunal sorting, organisms present in sufficient numbers for analysis wereremoved for histological processing . The species chosen represented a variety of major taxa,feeding types, levels of activity, and habitat preference . A list of "target" species originallyproposed for histopathology was reevaluated when sampling efforts during the first cruise failedto produce sufficient numbers of the target species to support the desired analyses . Followingdiscussions between TI staff members, principal investigators, and the BLM staff at the firstquarterly meeting, the "target" species list was modified to include the molluscs Loligo pealei,Pecten dislocatus, Aequipecten gibbus, and Laevicardium pictum ; the crustaceans Sicyoniabrevirostris and other penaeids, Ovalipes guadalpensis, and Portunus spinicarpus ; holothurians ofthe genera Thyone and Mesothuria ; and the fishes Urophycis regius, Decapterus punctatus,

30 Equipment Group

~Synodus foetens, S. poeyi, and Bothus ocellatus. Other locally or seasonally abundant specieswere collected opportunistically, especially when the target species were absent or rare .

Tissue samples or whole animals were fixed onboard for 18 to 24 hr (crustaceans in Helly'sfixative ; all others in Bouin's) . Following fixation, samples were rinsed in fresh water andpreserved in formaldehyde for shipment to laboratories at Texas Instruments and the Universityof Delaware for preparation for light and electron microscopy, respectively .

(3) Taxonomy

After selected specimens were removed for histological and chemical studies, representativesof the various taxa were retained as voucher specimens for later verification in the laboratories ;they were preserved in buffered 10% formalin and shipped to laboratories at Texas Instruments(invertebrates) or the University of Miami (fishes) .

e. Benthic Photography

During box coring, bottom photographs were obtained with an underwater camera andillumination system . For the first three cruises, a Kahlsico Model 225 camera was mounted onthe box corer frame and positioned to photograph the site sampled ; a trigger weight activatedthe shutter when the bottom of the box corer was 3 m above the seafloor . TI was unable toobtain satisfactory photographs with this system so it was replaced for the fall cruise with aBenthos Model 371 deep-sea utility camera, a Model 381 flash unit, and a contact trigger system .The Benthos camera system provided satisfactory photographs . These photographs were madeavailable to the SABP principal investigators for benthic biology to assist in communitydescription .

C. CRUISE SYNOPSES

As described in Subsection 3 .A.3, each seasonal cruise (Table 5) consisted of two samplinglegs-a water-column leg (Table 6) and a benthic leg (Table 7)-supplemented by seven time-serieslegs during summer 1977 (Table 8) . Cruise tracks are shown in Figures 17 through 25 . Based onthe summary quarterly cruise reports (TI, 1977a, 1977b, 1977c, 1978), the following paragraphsbriefly summarize the activities on these cruises . (A more detailed summary is presented asAppendix 2A in Volume 6 .)

1 . Winter Cruise

The original cruise plan for the winter water-column leg (1-7 February 1977) called forsequential deployment of gear, but concurrent water sampling portside and aft proved successful .The sequence at the portside A-frame began with the near-surface Bodman bottle cast, followedby the CTD and rosette sampler on the same wire, and finished with the near-bottom Bodmanbottle cast. At the stern station, Niskin sterile-bag sampling was used for microbiology, followedby the near-surface Go-Flow bottle for trace metals, particulate organic carbon, and dissolvedorganic carbon, and finally by the near-bottom Go-Flow bottle for near-bottom water sampling .Following this routine, the ship was maneuvered to set its portside to the wind and seas . A20-ft-long boom was extended starboard to collect surface microbial film for BOD experiments .Following this, the 202-µm-mesh Bongo (plankton) nets were towed directly across the station at100 cm/sec (2 knots) for 30 min, producing a sampling track of 1 nmi, approximately half of

31 Equipment Group

~which fell on either side of the station . This procedure was repeated with the 505-µm nets toobtain the second plankton sample . A small boat was used to sample hydrocarbons and bacteriafrom surface films.

The winter benthic leg was cruised from 9 February-5 March 1977 . On reaching a benthicstation, the ship was allowed to drift during the CTD/rosette/transmissometer cast and the castfor suspended sediments, then was positioned on station using Raydist navigation and wasanchored for box coring. Following box coring, the ship was moved to a position approximately1 nmi from the station, deploying the trawl as it steamed toward the station at 2 knots . Theobjective was to trawl across the station with approximately half the tow on either side of thestation. A contingency plan allowed the chief scientist the prerogative of changing the cruisetrack to avoid bad weather .

2. Spring Cruise

Simultaneous sampling with different winches at different A-frame stations continued toyield good samples in short periods of time on the 3-8 May 1977 water-column leg . Techniquesdiffered little from those of the winter cruise, although a J-Z sampler for collecting near-surfacewater samples for microbiological studies replaced the Niskin-type bag sampler . The samplingsequence occasionally varied from the usual routine adopted for the winter cruise, but samplequality and avoidance of contamination remained the primary factors guiding samplingprocedures .

Upon reaching a benthic station during the spring cruise (8-22 May 1977), the ship wasallowed to drift during the CTD/rosette/transmissometer cast and the cast to obtain suspendedparticulates . For infaunal sampling, the ship was repositioned on station with Raydist navigationand anchored for repetitive box coring. Trawling was accomplished as on the winter cruise .

3. Summer Cruise

The summer schedule consisted of routine water-column and benthic legs and seven shorttime-series legs to monitor the intrusion of Gulf Stream water onto the continental shelf . Thislatter effort was hydrographic in scope ; activities included the capture of zooplanktoncommunities, CTD profiling and hydrocasts for measuring temperature, salinity, dissolvedoxygen, nutrients, and chlorophyll a .

Whenever possible, the same water-sampling sequences and techniques used on previouscruises were followed on the water-column leg of the summer cruise (9-14 August 1977) .Throughout the benthic leg of the summer cruise, weather-related delays necessitated thealteration of transects so inshore sampling could be conducted when conditions deterioratedoffshore and offshore waters could be sampled when the conditions ameliorated .

Time-series legs encompassed 10 stations on transects 5 and 6 (Figure 23) over the outerhalf of the continental shelf and on the upper continental slope (stations 5E-2I and 6D2-2H) .The elapsed time from start to finish of each leg varied from 26 to 35 hr . Only two zooplanktonsamples had to be deleted (from time-series leg 2) because of the onset of high seas .

32 Equipment Group

Table 6. Sample Summary for Water-Column Legs

N.mber ofBm~oydrovaNie Sa.piw Zaopl.kto. Tows Minobialow S.mpls

Go-Flow Hydtooabora Ibdtoeatta 202ym Net 505ym NetBodnr Battiee Bottle. Sad.os-FBm Ni.loi. Bottlas CI'D Caa 202-µm Net SOS-Mm Net CoaHaoi .uts Co.tatei.entt SefaosFYm DOD Near.Qufaa

Cnite Ctdae Cnie Cru ie Ctoie Cmie 6.ie Ctd. Ca.Ye Ceuis Ctui~e CmbeStatio. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1b 2 3 4 1 2 3 4c 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

ID 2a 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 N N 1 Ib I 1 1 I N 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 N N N 40 15 15 15 N 5 5 S 52E 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N )b 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2d 2 2 N 40 40 N 15 15 13 15 5 5 5 52F 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1b I 1 1 I N 1 15 1 5 . 15 15 5 5 5 53D 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1b 1 1 1 I N 1 15 1 5 15 15 5 5 5 54D 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 Ib 1 I I 1 N I 1S IS 15 15 5e 5 S S4E 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 11 1 N lb 1 I 1 1 N 1 2 2 2 7 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 40 40 40 N IS 15 15 15 3 5 3 55A 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 S Ib 1 1 1 I I 1 40(S) 15 15 15 15 S 5 5 5SB 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 S Ib I 1 1 I 1 1 40(S) 15 15 15 15 5 5 5 5SE 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 N N N N 1b 1 I 1 I N 1 2 24 2 2Q 2 2 2 2d N N N N 15 15 15 15 3 5 5 5SG 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 S Ib 1 I 1 I N 1 40(S) IS 15 15 15 Se S S S6D 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 N 1 I Ib 1 1 1 1 N N 2 2d 2 2 2 2d 2 2 N 40 40 15 1S 15 15 5 5 5 57D 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 N 1 I N lb 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2d 2 2 2 2d 2 2 1 1 1 1 N 40 40 N 15 15 15 15 5 S 5 5

Wl.a

m4~c

~(b~~~0

S Sampb collected but not rfieduled .N Sample scheduled but not collected.

'Number of timea that equipment was used. If a collection dsvice was lowered and raised mcatlthouBh ampBn6 multiple deptlu, "1° ie used ; bottla, however, involved two distinct amplinattempts to achieve surface and bottom samplinS so "2" ir ursd&

bS.Wdtr and temperature nb.nuementa made but not scheduled.rCanducdvity .enwt inapentlve . '

dAdditlonal qudity<ontrol aubamplea. .

eDYcarded . '

(A~-

~

vTable 7 . Sample Summary for Benthic Legs

Number of Samplingsa

Box Corer Hydrography

Benthic HydrocastsMeiofauna Macroinfauna Geochemistry Photography Trawl CTD Casts Nisldn Bottles

Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise

Station 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

1A 1 1 6 6 A A N N 1b 1

1B 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 A N A A N 1 N lb 1 1 1

1C 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6c 6 A N N A 2 2 N 1 N 1b 1 1 1

1D 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 A N A A 2 2 2 2 N 1 1 lb 1 1 1

1E 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6c 6 A N A A N 1 1 1 b 1 1 1

1F 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 A N A A N 1 1 1 b 1 1 1

2A 1 1 6 6 A N 1 1 1b 1

2B 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6c 6 6 A N N A 2 2 2 2 N 1 1 1 b 1 1 1

2C 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6c 6 A N N A N 1 1 1b 1 1 1

2D 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6c 6 A N N A 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 b 1 1 1

2E 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6c 6 A N N A 2 2 2 2 N 1 1 1 b 1 1 1

2F 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 A A N A 2 2 N 1 1 lb 1 1 1

2G 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 A N N A 2 N 1 1 1 b 1 1 1

2H N 1 1 N 4 6 5 N N 3c 2 N A N N N 2 2 N 1 1 N lb 1 1 1

3A 1 1 6 6 A N 1 1 lb 1

3B 1 1 6 6 A N 2 2 1 1 1b 1

3C 1 1 6 6 A N 1 1 1 1

3D 1 1 6 6 A N 2 2 1 1 1 1

3E 1 1 6 6 A N 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3F 1 1 6 6 A N 1 1 1 1

4A 1 1 6 6 N N 1 1 1 1

4B 1 1 6 6 N N 1 1 1 1

4C 1 1 6 6 N N 2 2 2 2c 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4D 1 1 6 6 N N 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 ,1 1b 1 1 1

4E 1 1 6 6 N N 2 2 1 1 1 1

4F 1 1 6 6 N N 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4G 1 1 6 6 N N 1 1 1 1

5A 1 1 6 6 6(S) N N 2 2 1 1 1 1

5B 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6c 6 6c N A N A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

5C 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6c 6 6c N A N A 2 2 2 2c 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1

5D 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6c 6 6c N A N A 2 2 2 2c 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

5E 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6c 6 6c N A N A 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

5F 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6c N A N A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

SG 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6c N A N A 2 2 2 2c 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

5H 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 N A N A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

51 1 1 1 1 4 6 6 6 N 6 6 6 N A N A 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

34 Equipment Group

VTable 7. Sample Summary for Benthic Legs (Continued)

Number of Samplingsa

Box Corer HydrographyBenthic Hydrocasts

Meiofauna Macroinfauna Geochemistry Photography Trawl CTD Casts Niskin Bottles

Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise

Station 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

6A 1 1 6 6 N N 1 1 1 1

6B 1 1 6 6 N N 2 2' 2 2c 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

6C 1 1 6 6 N N 2 2 1 N 1 1

6D 1 1 6 6 N N 1 1 1 1

6E 1 1 6 6 N N 2 2' 2 2' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

6F 1 1 6 6 N N 1 1 1 1

6G 1 1 6 6 N N 1 1 1 1

6H 1 1 6 6 N N 1 1 1 1

7A 1 1d 6 6d 6(S) N N 1 1 1 1

7B 1 1 1d 1 6 6 6d 6 6 6 6d 6 N A N A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

7C 1 1 1d 1 6 6 6d 6 6 6 6d 6 N A N A 2 2c 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

7D 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 N A N A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

7E 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 N N N A 2 2c2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

7F 1 1 1 1 6 6 2 6 6 6 1 6 N N N A 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

S = Sample collected but not scheduled

N = Sample scheduled but not collected

A = Photographs takenaNumber of times equipment used (in the case of hydrographic data)or number of samples taken.

bSalinity and temperature not scheduled but collected

cAdditional quality-control subsamplesdSmith-Mclntyre grab rather than box corer used .

4. Fall Cruise

During the fall water-column cruise (10-14 November 1977), generally high sea statesprevented surface-film sampling at all stations except 1 D . During the fall benthic leg (15-29November), the Raydist system that had been used on all previous benthic cruises was replacedwith the Argo system with the permission of BLM . Argo is comparable to Raydist navigation inaccuracy but has an extended range and is less susceptible to electrical interference . The Argosystem maintained shore contact under weather conditions that probably would have brokenRaydist contact. j.

Also during the fall, a 1-day cruise was made on 21 November 1977 northeast of theSavannah sea buoy to illustrate sampling and onboard processing procedures.

35 Equipment Group

W

rfl.QC

3Cb~~c~0

Hydrographic SamplesHydrocast s

Niskin Bottles CTD Casts

Leg LegStation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

5F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

5G 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

5H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

6D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

6E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

6F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

6G 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

6H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Table & Sample Summary for Time-Series Legs

Number of SamplingsaZooplankton Tows

202-µm Net 505-µm Net202-µm Net 505-µm Net Contamination Contamination

Leg Leg Leg Leg1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2b 2 2 2 2 2 2 2b 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2c 2c 2c 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2b 2 2b 2 2 2 2 2b 2 2b

2 2 2 2 2 2 2d 2 2 2 2c 2c 2c 2c 1 1

aNumber of times equipment used. If a device is used once to collectmore than one sample, a"1" is given .

bAdditional quality-control subsamples taken .

cNo subsamples taken for hydrocarbon analysis.

dNo subsamples taken for trace metal analysis.

~

z13

O

820 81° 800 790 780 770340

33°

32°

310

300

290

or CAPE FEAN

C

SOUTH CAROLINA CAPEROMAIN

CHARLESTON

•A •

B

G •1

•

8

~

SAVANNAH

•• E

BGEORGIA o ~ F 3

~ 4

y D E

F G N ! 5

• • • M 6C E F G

JACKSONVILLE

FLORIDA ~

DAYTONA BEACH •

• 7

A ),\

E F

F I III

•G

N2

ATLANTIC OCEAN

4--CRUISE TRACKS

1 - 7 TRANSECTS

• SAMPLINGSTATIONS

DEPTH CONTOURSIN METERS

34°

330

32°

31°

30°

29082° 810 800 79° 78° 770

SCALE 1+ 3 .000.000

Figure 17 . Winter Water-Column Leg Cruise Track

` 37 Equipment Group

0

~

82°34° rz

330

32°

810 80° 790 780

SAVANNAH

GEORGIA 4

~1=CAPE FEAR

SOUTH CAROLINA CAPEROMAIN

CHARLESTON

~

A ~

3

/ ~ 4

F ~G 5

4

2- 00

/

G

~ 2

77°n 34°

Z I III

31°

30°

290

" ATLANTIC OCEAN

M UvA 8 C D E F G

6

JACKSONVILLE

f-CRUISE TRACKS

FLORIDA 1 - 7 TRANSECTS7

F • SAMPLING~ STATIONS

1A•

8

DAYTONA BEACN• DEPTH CONTOURSIN METERS

33°

32°

31°

300

29°820 810 800 79° ' 78° 77°

SCALE 1 • 3,000,000

Figure 18 . Winter Benthic Leg Cruise Track

38 Equipment Group

0

820 81 ° 80° 79° 780 770340

330

32°

31°

300

290

CAPE

. l

SOUTH CAROLINA 20CAPEROMAIN

CHARLESTON

•A ~ 40

B

C .D 200

~ E'A F• •e G~ NZ

SAVANNAH D•

~ E

BGEORGIA ~ F 3

F ~ III

~ 4A B

D E

F ~ H •5

ATLANTIC OCEAN

6 VvNB C E F 6

AJACKSONVILLE

~CRUISE TRACKS

FLORIDA 1- 7 TRANSECTS

• 7 • SAMPLINGE F STATIONS

•A C

DAYTONA BEACH• DEPTH CONTOURSIN METERS

34°

33°

320

310

300

29°82° 810 800 79° 780 770

SCALE 1 • 3 .000.000

Figure 19. Spring Wster-Column Leg Cruise Track

39 Equipment Group

0

820 81 ° 800 79° 78° 770340

33°

32°

31°

300

29°

SOUTH CAROLINA CAPEROMAIN ~

CHARLESTON

•A

~A • ~

•B

~

SAVANNAH •D

•A •

BGEORGIA ~

/ % 4

F G H ~5

F G M 6

JACKSONVILLE

FLORIDA7

FE

0A CC•

DAYTONA BEACH •

F3

CAPE

7• CA

Y~

20

,40

f 200

GF

G

2H

ATLANTIC OCEAN

4'--CRUISE TRACKS

1 - 7 TRANSECTS

• SAMPLINGSTATIONS

DEPTH CONTOURSIN METERS

34°

53°

32°

31°

300

29°820 810 800 79° 78° 770

SCALE I 1 3 .000.000

Figure 20 . Spring Benthic Leg Cruise Track

40 Equipment Group

0

82° 81 ° 800 79° 78° 77034°

33°

320

31°

300

290

CAPE FEAR

•A •B

SOUTH CAROLINA 20cAVEROMAIN •

E

CHARLESTON • ~F

A . 40B

C .D 200

~ E

~ FA ~ •B G

~ •2N

SAVANNAH D

.~ E

BGEORGIA ` ` g

%4A B

CD E

F G N ! S

• . • • 6A B C E F G N

JACKSONVILLE

FLORIDA

• FE

. ~A L

DAYTONA 9EACN •

ATLANTIC OCEAN

~

~~ CRUISE TRACKS

1 - 7 TRANSECTS

• SAMPLINGSTATIONS

DEPTH CONTOURSIN METERS

340

33°

320

31°

30°

29°820 810 800 79° 780 770

SCALE 1 • 3.000.000

Figure 21. Summer Water-Column Leg Cruise Track

41 Equipment Group

O

InT820

34° r=

330

32°

810 80° 79° 780

SOUTH CAROLINA CAPEROMAW

CHARLESTON ~

SAVANNAN

A8

GEORGIA

31°

JACKSONVILLE

FLORIDA7

Eu

LB

OAYTONA BEACN•

~ 4

5

ATLANTIC OCEAN

6

30°

290

i3°

52°

310

30°

290820 810 800 790 78° 77°

SCALE 1= 3,000 .000

Figure 22. Summer Benthic Leg Cruise Track

CAPE FEAR

A

C `~

-20

/

40

D 200

F

G

2

3

770n 34°

F I 111

Lfi

4--CRUISE TRACKS

1 - 7 TRANSECTS

• SAMPLINGSTATIONS

DEPTH CONTOURSIN METERS

42 Equipment Group

0

~f-82°

340

33°

320

810 800 790 780

CAPE FEAR

A •B

C

SOUTH CAROLINA 20 dCAPEROMAIN E ~

CHARLESTON

~ ~ 40B

•C •D 200

~ E

4 FB 6

E 02

SAVANNAH •D.E

BGEORGIA ~ IF 3

.D

•E

770n 34°

IF

31°

4--CRUISE TRACKS

1 - 7 TRANSECTS

• SAMPLINGSTATIONS

DEPTH CONTOURSIN METERS

ATLANTIC OCEAN

300

290

4B

CA •

•

/ F I~ H 5

da1 A~B •c D E F G M ~

JACKSONVILLE

FLORIDA• 7

• FE

A ~;

DAYTONA BEACH •

$3°

32°

31°

30°

29°820 810 800 79° 780 77°

SCALE I • 3,000,000

Figure 23 . Ttme-&rieB Leg Cruise Track

43 Equipment Group

0

~~T820 81 ° 80° 790 78°

34°

33°

32°

310

300

290

CAPE

A •B

C

SOUTH CAROLINA 20CAPEROMAIN

CHARLESTON

•A • 40

8

C •D 200

Q E• F

A • •B G

~ •2H

SAVANNAH D•E

•A •

8GEORGIA 0 F 3

~ 4

D E

F ~ H • 5

• • • M 6C E F G

JACKSONVILLE

FLORIDA• 7

• FE

A C

DAYTONA BEACH•

ATLANTIC OCEAN

77°n 34°

F I III

4---CRUISE TRACKS

1 - 7 TRANSECTS

• SAMPLINGSTATIONS

DEPTH CONTOURSIN METERS

S3°

32°

31°

30°

290820 810 80° 790 780 770

SCALE I = 3 .000.000

Figure 24 . Fall Water-Column Leg Cruise Track

44 Equipment Group

0

82° 81° 80° 79° 78° 77034° 340

'_ CAPE FEAR III

33°

32°

31°

300

29°

SOUTH CAROLINA CAPEROMAIN

CHARLESTON

~•A .

SAVANNAH •D

A •

GEORGIAB

i

20

~

40~~

J/LLL UUU

F

G•2H

F

• 1 4A B

'CD F

F G H 5

ATLANTIC OCEAN

F G M 6 Vv• •C DA

JACKSONVILLE

4---CRUISE TRACKS

FLORIDA 1 - 7 TRANSECTS

7 • SAMPLINGE F STATIONS

uA• B

DAYTONA BEACH• DEPTH CONTOURSIN METERS

33°

32°

31°

300

29082° 810 800 79° 78° 77°

SCALE I • 3 .000.000

Figuie 25. Fsll Benthic Leg Cruiae Tcack

45 Equipment Group

~D. LABORATORY PROCESSING AND ANALYSES

The types of laboratory analyses conducted and the laboratories where the processing wasdone are indicated in Tables 9 and 10 . The following paragraphs describe the processing andanalyses of water-column and seafloor samples for chemical and biological determinations .Results are discussed in Volume 3 .

1 . Chemistry

Laboratory analyses of field samples provided information on concentrations of :

• Dissolved micronutrients in seawater

• Chlorophyll a and dissolved oxygen in seawater• Particulate and dissolved organic carbon in seawater

• High molecular weight hydrocarbons in seawater, sediment, and biota

• Trace metals in seawater, sediment, and biota .

The following paragraphs detail the laboratory procedures that were used . Also given are theresults of the quality control program, as well as the minimum detection limits .

a. Micronutrients

Seawater samples were frozen immediately after collection and shipped frozen to TI'sEnvironmental Chemistry Laboratory after each seasonal cruise for determination of dissolvednitrate, phosphate, and silicate (Figure 26). In the laboratory, the samples were thawed andshaken. Aliquots of unfiltered seawater were analyzed for nitrate, reactive phosphate, and silicateaccording to Strickland and Parsons (1972) using a Technicon 2 Autoanalyzer . Blank analyses,turbidity corrections, and corrections for the refractive index of seawater were made . Finalconcentrations, the averages of duplicate analyses, were reported as microgram-atoms per liter ofseawater. Minimum detection limits were NO3 = 0 .05 µg-at N/l, PO4- = 0 .03 pg-at P/1 andH4 SiO4 = 0 .10 µg-at Si/l .

b. Chlorophyll a and Dissolved Oxygen

Aboard ship, seawater samples were analyzed for chlorophyll a and dissolved oxygenaccording to Strickland and Parsons (1972), as previously discussed in the field section .

Concentrations of chlorophyll a were reported in micrograms of chlorophyll a per liter of

seawater. Dissolved oxygen concentrations were reported as the mean of triplicate analyses inmilligrams of 02 per liter of seawater . As a quality-control measure, oxygen values werecompared with saturation values, as given by Kester (1975) .

c. Particulate and Dissolved Organic Carbon

Concentrations of particulate and dissolved organic carbon (POC and DOC) in seawater were

determined using techniques developed for the GEOSECS program (Gordon et al ., 1975) .

46 Equipment Group

%Table 9. Chemical and Geological Sample Processing Laboratories

Type of Analysis

Dissolved micronutrientsPOC/TOC/DOCSediment textureSediment TOCTrace metals in suspended particulate matterSediment trace metalsWhole water trace metalsTrace metals in macroepifauna and demersal fishesShipboard trace-metal contaminantsSurface-film hydrocarbonsDissolved and particulate hydrocarbonsSediment hydrocarbonsHydrocarbons in macroepifauna and demersal fishesShipboard hydrocarbon contaminants

Processing Laboratory

Texas InstrumentsTexas InstrumentsTexas InstrumentsTexas InstrumentsTexas Instruments/Texas A&M UniversityTexas Instruments/Texas A&M UniversityTexas InstrumentsTexas Instruments/Texas A&M UniversityTexas Instruments/Texas A&M UniversityBattelle Columbus LaboratoriesBattelle Columbus LaboratoriesBattelle Columbus LaboratoriesBattelle Columbus LaboratoriesBattelle Columbus Laboratories

Table 10. Biological Sample Processing Laboratories

Type of Analysis Processing Laboratory

Zooplankton taxonomy

Macroinfauna taxonomy

Meiofauna taxonomy

Foraminifera taxonomy

Macroepifauna invertebrate taxonomy

Demersal fish taxonomyMicrobiology

Histology of macroepifauna and demersal fishes

Texas InstrumentsTexas InstrumentsTexas InstrumentsUniversity of GeorgiaTexas InstrumentsUniversity of MiamiUniversity of TexasTexas Instruments/University of Delaware

In processing the seawater samples, frozen vials containing the silver filters for determiningPOC were dried in a desiccator over silica gel. Using Teflon forceps, the filters were removedfrom the vials, placed in a Coleman Model 33 carbon-hydrogen analyzer oven, and combusted at800°C. The resultant gases were scrubbed to remove water vapor . The carbon dioxide that wasgenerated was quantified using a Beckman Model 215B infrared analyzer . The primary standardwas potassium acid phthalate . Paired filtration techniques were used to correct for the absorptionof dissolved organic matter . The amount of carbon determined for the second filter of each pairwas assumed to result from absorbed matter ; this amount of carbon was subtracted from thecarbon from the first filter . The mean of three samples collected was reported as the POCconcentration in micrograms of particulate carbon per liter of seawater .

Sample vials for the determination of DOC were autoclaved within 48 hr after receipt atTI's laboratories . After being autoclaved, they were opened using an Oceanography Internationalampule crusher . The solution was purged with nitrogen and the gas mixture scrubbed to removewater and halide vapors . Carbon dioxide wasd quantified using a Beckman Model 215B infraredanalyzer; this provided a measure of total organic carbon (TOC) . Triplicate water samples wereanalyzed, a mean value calculated, and dissolved organic carbon calculated as DOC = TOC -POC in milligrams of carbon per liter. The minimum detection limits for organic carbon inseawater were 5 to 10 µg/1 .

46 Equipment Group

f--j 0

'

HYDROCASTBULK SEAWATER

WINKLER FROZENTITRATION FILTRATIONSAMPLE

EXTRACTION THAWING02 (mg/ I ) OF AND

FILTER SHAKING

SPECTROPHOTOMETRIC I I AUTOANALYZERANALYSIS ANALY515

CHLOROPHYLL a Si02( µg/ I )

N03

P043-

(µgAT/ I )

Figure 26 . Water Sample Flow for Measurements of Micronutrients, Dissolved Oxygen, and Chlorophyll a

d. High Molecular Weight Hydrocarbons

After each seasonal cruise, samples collected for analysis of hydrocarbons were shippedrefrigerated to Battelle Columbus Laboratories to Dr. J.S . W'arner, TI's subcontractor . All sampleswere inventoried on receipt and either stored frozen or refrigerated until analysis . (For adetailed, step-by-step discussion of the preparation and analysis of samples, refer to Appendix3.31 in Volume 6 .)

47

Equipment Group

~(1) Zooplankton

Zooplankton samples for the analysis of ZOOPLANKTON SAMPLESOBTAINED AT SEA

HMWHC (Figure 27) were completelythawed and centrifuged in 200-ml taredcentrifuge tubes. The supernatant was drawn HYDROCARBONoff with a glass syringe and saved for later SAMPLE

( BATTE LLE )use. After the sample was inspected for tarballs and/or foreign matter larger than 1mm, it was homogenized in a Tekmar DRYINGtissumizer. A 1-g aliquot of plankton wasdried at 60°C to determine dry weight andwater content. The homogenate andsupernatant were recombined and the EXTRACTION

solution mixed with methanol (spiked with10 µg each of three internal standards :pentadecylcyclohexane, cyclohexylcyclo-hexane, and heptadecylbenzene) and 3 N COLUMN CHANDATOGRAPHY

aqueous KOH. The mixture was transferred HIGH-PRESSURE LIQUIDCHROMATOGRAPHY

to a 200-m1 centrifuge tube equipped with aTeflon-lined screw cap and was digested at60°C for 16 hr (Warner, 1976) . The solutionwas cooled and transferred to a separatory G FRACT ONS i°GAR DP2Y'funnel, an equal volume of 20% NaCI wasadded, and the solution was extracted threetimes with equal-volume portions ofn-hexane . The hexane extracts were GC-MS ON

combined and washed twice with distilledSELECTED FRACTIONS

water and the combined water washes wereextracted once with fresh n-hexane. Allhexane extracts were combined and reduced QUANTIFICATION

in volume to 10 ml using a rotating IDENTIPICATION

evaporator at 25 to 35°C.

The sample was further reduced to 2 to Figure 27. Zooplankton Sample Processing for4 ml using a vortex evaporator at 25°C and High Molecular Weight Hydrocarbons

was brought up to a volume of 4 .0 ml withmethylene chloride. The residue weight of a100-µl aliquot was determined and the methylene chloride/n-hexane solvent mixture replacedwith n-heptane by two solvent exchange steps . The heptane solution was developed on achromatographic column of 10 g of fully activated silica, gel (Davison Grade 923, 100-200mesh) to separate paraffin (saturated) and aromatic (unsaturated) hydrocarbons .

Two fractions were isolated from the column : fraction 1, using 25 ml of petroleum ether ;followed by fraction 2, using 25 ml of 50% benzene in petroleum ether. Fraction 1 was spikedwith an internal standard of 100 µg of nonadecylcyclohexane and then concentrated to 200 µ 1with a vortex evaporator for subsequent analysis by gas chromatography (GC). Fraction 2 wasprocessed by high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) to eliminate interferences in the GCanalysis by biogenic olefins. The volume of fraction 2 was reduced to 1 ml with a vortex

48 Equipment Group

~evaporator, and the n-heptane was replaced by tetrahydrofirran (THF) in one solvent exchangestep and reconcentrated to 200 to 300 µ 1 . The concentrate was filtered through a prerinsedMillipore syringe filter, the syringe and filter rinsed with 200 µl of THF, and the rinse added tothe filtrate . This combined solution was injected onto the first of three 30-cm-long 100Aµ-Styragel columns connected in series in an HPLC system composed of a Valco injector valve, aVarian syringe pump, and a DuPont 836 UV fluorescence detector at a flow rate of 1 ml /min ofTHF . Two fractions were collected : a>C12 fraction and a<C12 fraction . The >C12 fractionwas stored at -70°C. An internal standard of 10 µg of nonadecylcyclohexane was added to the<C12 fraction, the fraction concentrated to I ml using a vortex evaporator, 2 ml of n-heptaneadded, and the fraction reconcentrated to 200 pl for GC analysis .

GC analyses were performed using 30-m X 0 .2-mm ID glass capillary columns coated withSE-30. The standard BLM hydrocarbon reference (Table 11) was used to determine columnefficiency (routinely 50,000 to 60,000 effective theoretical plates) . The gas chromatographs wereVarian Model 1740 and Hewlett-Packard Model 5730 equipped with single flame ionizationdetectors having a sensitivity of at least 5 X 10-" g/sec for n-decane at a signal-to-noise ratio(S/N) of 5 :1 . A 2-µl aliquot of the extract was injected. using a Hewlett-Packard automatic

sampler with a 10 :1 split. The carrier gasTable 11 . Composition of BLM was pressure-regulated at 25 psi, which gaveHydrocarbon Reference Mixture a linear flow of 30 to 40 cm/sec and avolume

Concentration in Hexane flow of 2 ml /min at the initial columnHydrocarbon (rs/µp temperature of 80°C . The column

n-C 1.0 temperature was programmed from 80° ton-c 1615 0.1 260°C at 4°C/min and held at 260°C for 25n-C 0 5 min.

17

Pristane 10n-C a, 0 .1 Two Spectro-Physics Model 4000Phytane 0.1 chromatography data systems were used forn-c„ 0 .1 data logging and processing. For each'*C2o 0 .1 fraction analyzed, a printout of peak areas,n-C l8 : ; (octadecene) 0 .1 peak areas relative to the internal standard,n-Cw .1 (eicosene) 0 .1 absolute retention times, retention indices,n-C„ 0.5

and calculated concentrations in the originaln-c,2,

0 .1sample was obtained .n

.C26 01

n-C, 0 .1n-c 30 0 .1 Individual organic compounds weren-c3, 1 .5 identified in representative fractions withChotestane(5a) 0 .5 combined gas chromatography-massAndrostane (5a) 0 .5 spectrometry (GC-MS) using identical SE-30Naphthalene 0 .1 glass capillary columns . The number of1-Methylnaphthalene (98%) 1 .0 GC-MS analyses was equivalent to 101, 3-Dimethylnaphthalene 1 .0 percent of all eluates resulting from samplePhenanthrene 0 .1 fractionation . GC-MS analyses employed a3, 6-Dimethylphenanthrene 0 .1 Finnigan Model 9500 gas chromatographPyrene 0.1

interfaced with a Finnigan Model 3200 low-9, 10-Dihydrophenanthrene 0 .1resolution (unit resolution at m/e = 800)Acenaphthene 0.1

Fluorene 0 .1 quadrupole mass spectrometer operated inBiphenyl 0.1 the electron impact mode at 70 eV . ANonadecylbenzene 0.1 System Industries Model 150 data system

49 Equipment Group

~was used for data acquisition and analysis. A Grob injector was used in the splitless mode toinject 2 µl • of sample concentrate . The gas chromatograph was temperature-programmed from80° to 260°C at 4°C/min and held at 260°C for 20 min .

Mass spectra of all clearly resolved peaks were printed out for interpretation and .comparison . The presence or absence of aromatic hydrocarbons of major interest was confirmedby selected ion scans .

All hydrocarbon analytical procedures were checked carefully to ensure compliance withBLM performance requirements . Process blanks and native samples were spiked with the BLMreference mixture (Table 11) and run through the entire analytical procedure to demonstrate theavoidance of contamination and the achievement of satisfactory extraction and recoveryefficiency reproducibility, detection limits, GC, and GC-MS performance .

(2) Macroepifauna and Demersal Fish Samples

Macroepifauna and demersal fish tissue samples were thawed and homogenized in 1 ml ofwater per gram of estimated weight using a Tekmar tissumizer. The dry weight of a 500-µ 1aliquot was obtained by drying it at 60°C to a constant weight . The remaining sample wastransferred to a 200-m1 centrifuge tube equipped with a Teflon-lined screw cap and wassaponified in a 60°C oven for 16 hr using 3N aqueous KOH to which three internal standardshad been added (10 µg each of pentadecylcyclohexane, cyclohexylcyclohexane, andheptadecylbenzene). After digestion, the cooled sample was transferred to a separatory funnelequipped with a Teflon stopcock and an equal volume of 20% NaCl added . The solution wasextracted three times with n-hexane and the hexane extracts combined and washed twice withdistilled water . The water washes were combined and extracted once with n-hexane and thishexane extract added to the previous hexane extracts . The combined hexane extract was reducedto 30 to 40 ml using a rotating evaporator at 25 to 35°C . This concentrated extract was placedon a precleaned silica-gel liquid chromatographic column and chromatographed with 40 ml ofmethylene chloride. The column was allowed to run dry and all eluate collected . This fractionwas concentrated to 10 ml on a rotating evaporator at 25° to 35°C, transferred to a 15-m1centrifuge tube, concentrated to 2 to 4 ml on a vortex evaporator at 25°C, and made up to 4 .0ml with methylene chloride . A residue weight of a 100-pl aliquot was obtained . Following twosolvent exchange steps with n-heptane, the heptane solution was concentrated to 1 ml on avortex evaporator at 25°CC and the sample further processed using silica-gel chromatography . Theresulting fractions were analyzed as previously detailed for zooplankton and results reported asmicrograms of hydrocarbon per gram dry weight of tissue .

(3) Sediment

After sediment samples were thawed and stirred thoroughly with a metal spatula, a 500-galiquot of wet sediment was weighed into a tared flask and freeze-dried in an all-glass apparatus(Figure 28). The dried sediment was Soxhlet-extracted for 96 hr with 3 :2 benzene :methanolspiked with three internal standards (10 µg each of pentadecylcyclohexane, cyclohexylcyclo-hexane, and heptadecylbenzene), then elemental sulfur removed with activated copper powder .The extract was concentrated to 30 to 40 ml on a rotating evaporator at 35°C and saponified inaqueous KOH in a 50-ml centrifuge tube at 60°C . The digested sample was cooled andtransferred to a separatory funnel equipped with a Teflon stopcock. An equal volume of 20%NaCI was added and the sample extracted three times with 75-ml portions of n-hexane . The

50 Equipment Group

~GEOCHEMISTRYBOX CORES

(SIX)

POOLING OFSUBSAMPLES FROM

BOX CORES

INDIV 1 DUALSUBSAMPLING

AND PRESERVATIONOF SUBSAMPLES

SUBSAMPLING

FROZENHYDROCARBON

SAMPLE

I FREEZE-DRYING

I EXTRACTION

DIGESTION

EXTRACTION

COLUMNCHROMATOGRAPHY

GAS CHROMATOGRAPHYFRACTIONS I AND 2

GC-MS ONSELECTED FRACTIONS

Figure 28. Sediment Sample Processing Sequence for High Molecular Weight Hydrocarbons

hexane extracts were combined and washed twice with 200-m1 portions of distilled water. Thecombined water washes were extracted once with 75 ml of n-hexane and the hexane extractadded to the combined extract which was concentrated to 30 to 40 ml on a rotating evaporatorat 25° to 35°C. The concentrate was dried with 1 g of anhydrous magnesium sulfate, decantedinto a 100-m1 flask, and concentrated to 10 ml using a rotating evaporator at 25° to 35°C . Thesample was transferred to a 15-m1 graduated centrifuge tube, concentrated to 2 to 4 ml using avortex evaporator, and made up to 4 .0 ml with n-heptane . The residue weight of a 100-µ1aliquot was obtained. The solvent mixture was exchanged with n-heptane and the extractconcentrated to I ml for further processing by silica-gel liquid chromatography and analyzed aspreviously detailed. Results were reported as micrograms oi' hydrocarbon per gram dry weight ofsediment .

51 Equipment Group

0

i

(4) Water Column

(a) Sea Surface Microlayer

Figure 29 gives the sample flow foranalysis of sea-surface microlayer samples forhigh molecular weight hydrocarbons .

Before analysis, the total volume ofsurface-film chloroform samples wasrecorded, the organic layer separated fromany aqueous layer present, and three internalstandards (10 pg each of pentadecylcylo-hexane, cyclohexylcyclohexane, andheptadecylbenzene) added. The extract wasconcentrated to 30 to 40 ml in a rotatingevaporator at 25°C, dried with 1 g of anhy-drous magnesium sulfate, decanted, andconcentrated to 10 ml on a rotatingevaporator at 25°C. The solution was trans-ferred to a graduated centrifuge tube,concentrated to 2 to 4 ml using a vortexevaporator at 25°C, and diluted to 4 .0 mlwith methylene chloride. The residue weightof a 100-µ1 aliquot was determined and thesolvent mixture replaced with n-heptaneusing two solvent exchange steps. Theextract was concentrated to 1 ml for furtherprocessing and analysis by the procedurespreviously detailed for the zooplanktonanalysis except that the HPLC cleanup offraction 2 was not done . Results werecalculated as micrograms of hydrocarbon persquare meter of sea surface .

(b) Particulate and Dissolved HighMolecular Weight Hydrocarbons

COLLECTION OFMICROLAYER

SAMPLE BY WASHINGDISK WITH CHLOROFORM

CONCENTRATION ANDDRYING OF

CHLOROFORM EXTRACT

F COLU MNCHROMATOGRAPHY

GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY,FRACTIONS 1 AND 2

GC-MS OFSELECTED FRACTIONS

QUANTIFICATIONAND

IDENTIFICATION

Figure 29. Surface-Fllm Hydrocarbon Sample Flow

Particulate and dissolved high molecular weight hydrocarbon sample flow for processing andanalysis is as shown in Figure 30. The frozen filter holders were thawed, and the glass fiberfilters were removed from the filter holders and Soxhlet extracted for 4 hr with 400 ml ofmethylene chloride that had been spiked with three internal standards (10 µg each 'ofpentadecylcyclohexane, cyclohexylcyclohexane, and heptadecylbenzene) . The organic layer wasremoved, concentrated to 30 to 40 ml in a rotating evaporator at 25°C, dried with 1 g ofanhydrous magnesium sulfate, decanted, and further concentrated to 10 ml .. The concentratedextract was transferred to a graduated centrifuge tube, concentrated to 2 to 4 ml . with a vortexevaporator at 25°C, brought up to 4 .0'ml ;, and a residue weight of a 100-µ1 aliquot obtained .The methylene chloride was exchanged for n-heptane in two solvent exchange steps and theextract concentrated to 1 ml for further processing and analysis as previously detailed for

52 Equipment Group

~

CHLOROFORMEXTRACT

DRYING

I COLUMN ICHROMATOGRAPHY

GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY,FRACTIONS I AND 2

GC-MS ONSELECTEDFRACTIONS

GLASS-FIBERFILTERS

EXTRACTION

COLUMNCHROMATOGRAPHY

GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY,FRACTIONS I AND 2

GC-MS ONSELECTEDFRACTIONS

~

61CM

PYREXWOOL

QUANT~DCATION

IDENTIFICATION

QUANT~DCATION

IDENTIFICATION

Figure 30 . Water-Column Hydrocarbon Sample Flow

TEFLONSTOPCOCK

PYREXWOOL

RASCHIGRINGS

SEAWATERINLET

CAP

Figure 31 . Apparatus Used for ContinuousExtraction of Seawater

surface-film HMWHC samples. Results of the analyses were reported as micrograms of hydro-carbon per liter of seawater .

Filtered samples of seawater collected for the analysis of dissolved HMWHC were extractedusing a continuous extraction column filled with Raschig rings and solvent partitioned withchloroform (Figure 31). The chloroform extraction was done in the field and samples shippedrefrigerated to Battelle Columbus Laboratories for analysis . Before analysis, the total volume ofextract was recorded, the chloroform layer was separated from any water, and the extract wasspiked with three internal standards (10 pg each of pentadecylcyclohexane, cyclohexylcyclohex-ane, and heptadecylbenzene) . The sample was then processed as previously detailed for particulateHMWHC.

BALL JOINTAND CLAMPS

53 Equipment Group

% Quality-assurance steps taken in theanalyses of samples for HMWHC includedanalysis of batch process blanks, perfor-mance of recovery studies, use of internalstandards to determine recovery for eachsample, and analysis of the following fieldblank samples :

• Bodman bottle chloroform wash

Table 12. Detection Limits

Type of Sample Detection 13mit

Surface film 0.1 µg/m=Water 0.002 µg/1Seawater particulates 0.002 µg/1Sediment 0.001 µg/gMacrcepifauna/demersal fish 0.02 µg/gZooplankton 0.1 µg/g

• Toluene exposed to stack gas• Zooplankton net methanol rinse• Various shipboard potential

contaminants :Winch greaseBilge waterPaint chipsLubricating oilWD-40CRC oilHydraulic oilVacuum pump oil .

Detection limits for the various types of samples analyzed for hydrocarbons are given inTable 12 .

e. Trace Metals

TI's Environmental Chemistry Laboratory performed the atomic absorption trace metalanalysis and prepared samples for neutron activation analysis, which was done by Dr . David T .Moore at the Texas A&M University Center for Trace Characterization . All samples were shippedto TI frozen in dry ice and were inventoried upon receipt and stored frozen at -15°C untilanalyzed .

(1) Zooplankton

For trace metal analysis, zooplankton samples were thawed, weighed, freeze-dried, andreweighed to determine dry weight (Figure 32). Trace metal analysis was done by atomicabsorption spectrophotometry (AAS) and an alternate analytical method, neutron activationanalysis (NAA). All sample processing was performed on a laminar-flow clean-bench .

Moisture loss after freeze-drying was calculated for a 1-g subsample secondarily dried at60°C for 24 hr. The remainder of the sample was ground in an acid-rinsed agate mortar ; I g ofthis ground sample was placed in a quartz boat and ashed in an oxygen-plasma asher . The entireresidue was transferred to a Teflon bomb into which 3 to 4 ml of Baker Ultrex 70% nitric acidhad been added. The sealed bomb was placed in a 90° to 100°C water bath for 2 hr to digestthe sample . After being digested, the sample was rinsed into a Teflon centrifuge tube withdistilled water that had been redistilled in a quartz sub-boiling still. After being centrifuged, the

54 Equipment Group

~OOPLANKTON SAMPLOBTAINED AT SEA

I TRACE METAL ISAMPLE

(TI)-

SAMPLEDRYING

PLASMAASHING

SAMPLEDIGESTION

REMOVALATOMIC OF

ABSORPTION Na AND C ISPECTROPHOTOMETRY' (FOR VANADIUM

SAMPLES ONLY)

NEUTRONACTIVATIONANALY51 S

QUANTIFICATION I I QUANTIFICATION

Figure 32 . Zooplankton Sample Processing of Trace Metals

supernatant was transferred to a Teflon container, brought to a volume of 50 ml with distilledwater, and weighed. Flameless AAS was used to analyze this solution for cadmium, chromium,copper, iron, lead, nickel, and zinc . Samples having trace metal concentrations exceeding limits ofreliability were reanalyzed by flame AAS .

The atomic absorption spectrophotometer was a Perkin-Elmer Model 306 equipped witheither a flame head or a Model 2100 heated graphite atomizer and an AS-1 automatic sampler .Instrument operating conditions were optimized for each metal and each sample matrix . Back-ground correction was made using a deuterium arc line . Interference was evaluated by standardaddition techniques. Commercial atomic absorption standards, diluted with 10% Baker Ultrexnitric acid, were used as machine standards . Standard reference materials (SRM) of NationalBureau of Standards (NBS) bovine liver and orchard leaves were analyzed to establish accuracy,and reagent blanks were analyzed with each set of samples . Results for each trace metal werereported as micrograms per gram dry weight of zooplankton .

55 Equipment Group

0

~f f

Barium and vanadium concentrations in zooplankton were determined by NAA . Thesolution prepared for AAS analysis was subsampled for NAA . Because of interferences fromZ4Na and 38C1, chloride was removed from the vanadium samples by HCl vaporization usingH2 SO4 and sodium was removed by column chromatography using hydrated antimony pentoxide(HAP) prior to activation analysis (Giaradi and Sabbioni, 1968). Five-mi samples were concen-trated almost to dryness, heat-sealed in acid-cleaned polyethylene vials, and shipped to TexasA&M University's Center for Trace Characterization for analysis by NAA .

For vanadium analysis, the samples and appropriate flux monitors and matrix/blank sampleswere irradiated in a 1-MW "swimming pool" research reactor (thermal neutron flux = 4 X 1012n/cm2 /sec) for 5 min . After a delay of 3 to 5 min, the 52-V activity was measured by countingthe 1434-KeV gamma rays with a large-volume Ge(Li) detector coupled to a Canberra Model8700 multichannel (4096) pulse-height analyzer (PHA) for 5 min . The entire spectrum wasstored on magnetic tape for subsequent data reduction .

Barium analysis by NAA was accomplished by measuring 12-day ' 31 Ba activity . Samples,matrix, and blank samples were irradiated for 14 hr in a rotary specimen rack in the reactorcore, then allowed to "cool" for at least 14 days . The activity was measured by counting the496 KeV ' 31 Ba gamma ray with the detector/PHA combination for 2 hr . The entire spectrumwas stored on magnetic tape .

The data were reduced using computer programs that correct for delay times, flux varia-tions, dead times, and matrix effects . As in the case of atomic absorption, reference sampleswere NBS bovine liver and NBS orchard leaves . Results were calculated using sample weights andwere reported as micrograms of each trace metal per gram dry weight .

Several additional elements were measured by NAA . Aluminum, calcium, and copper weredetermined during vanadium analysis ; cadmium, chromium, iron, and zinc were determinedduring barium analysis.

(2) Macroepifauna and Demersal Fish

Macroepifauna and demersal fish tissues were analyzed for the specified trace metals (Figure33) as previously detailed for zooplankton .

(3) Sediment

Sediment samples were analyzed by two procedures specified and designed by BLM toevaluate the "biological availability" of selected trace metals as well as their total concentrationsin sediment .

Sediment samples were prepared for the analysis of weak acid-soluble metals by beingthawed in an acid-cleaned Teflon beaker and homogenized with an acid-cleaned glass rod .Approximately 20 g of mixed wet sediment was placed in a tared Teflon beaker and largeparticles removed with Teflon tweezers. The sample was dried at 60°C to a constant weight . A 2-to 10-g subsample of the dried sediment was acid-leached with 5N HNO3 for 2 hr at roomtemperature; the mixture centrifuged ; and the supernatant collected for analysis of cadmium,chromium, copper, iron, lead, nickel, and zinc by AAS and for barium and vanadium by NAAas previously described. Results for each trace metal were reported as micrograms per gram dryweight of sediment .

56Equipment Group

~POOLING OF

SUBSAMPLES FROMBOX CORES

SUBSAMPLING

ATOMICABSORPTIONANALYSIS

GEOCHE MISTRYBOX CORES

(S IX)

INDIVIDUALSUBSAMPLING

AND PRESERVATIONOF SUBSAMPLES

' FROZEN I!!!/ TRACE METAL

SAMPLE

WEAK-ACID I REFRACTORYDIGESTION r' MATERIAL

DIGESTION

ATOMICABSORPTION

SPECTROPHOTOMETRY

NEUTRONACTIVATION

Figure 33 . Macroepifauna aM Demersal Fish Sample Processing for Trace Metals

Total trace metal concentrations in 25% of the samples were measured . A 10- to 18-gsubsample of the dried sediment (prepared as detailed previously) was ground with an acid-washed, agate-lined mortar and pestle to a powder that would pass through a 0 .149-mm pore size(100-mesh) nonmetallic sieve . A 1- to 10-g subsample of the finely ground powder was placed ina Teflon beaker and 5 to 10 ml of concentrated HCl added . The beaker was covered with aTeflon watchglass and heated on a 90° to 100°C hot plate for 1 hr. After the beaker was cooled,3 to 5 ml of concentrated HNO3 was added . The beaker was covered again and heated for 30min in the water bath . After a second cooling, sufficient 48% HF was added to disrupt thesilicon matrix . The beaker was recovered and reheated for 1 hr . After the final cooling, thesolution was centrifuged to separate the supernatant from remaining particulates ; the supernatantthen was quantitatively transferred to a Teflon flask and brought up to 50 g with distilled water .The solution was analyzed for the desired trace metals by both AAS and NAA as previouslydetailed . Results for each trace metal were reported as micrograms per gram dry weight ofsediment .

(4) Particulate and Total Trace Metals

Samples to be analyzed for particulate trace metals were processed and analyzed accordingto the flow shown in Figure 34 .

57 Equipment Group

~BULK SEAWATER

FILTRATION

NUCLEPOREFILTER

WEAK-ACIDSAMPLE

DIGESTION

ACIDIFIEDSEAWATER

ADJUSTMENTOF pH

SOLVENTEXTRACTION

ATOMIC REFRACTORYABSORPTION MATER IAL

SPECTROPHOTOMETRY DIGESTION

ATOMICABSORPTION

S PECTRO PHOTOMETRY

ATOMICABSORPTION

SPECTROPHOTOMETRY

NEUTRONACT I VAT IONANALYSIS

Figure 34. Particulate and Total Trace Metal Sample Flow

The frozen filter holders were placed on a clean bench and thawed . The preweighed 0.4-µmNuclepore filters were removed from the holder with Teflon-coated forceps and placed indi-vidually in acid-rinsed Teflon bombs, which were placed in a desiccator over silica gel for 48 hrso the filters would dry. After being dried to a constant weight, the filters were weighed to ±1 .0µg and the mass of suspended particulate matter calculated. In all cases in this study, the massesof suspended particulate material determined were sufficient to render variations of t 1 .0 µgmeaningless .

To determine weak acid-soluble trace metals, the dried filters were leached for 2 hr with25% v/v acetic acid in covered bombs . The supernatant was drained through the filter into anacid-cleaned Teflon bottle, the filter rinsed twice with distilled water, and the rinses added to thesupernatant; 500 µl of HCl were added and the solution brought up to a 25-g solution weightwith distilled water . This solution was analyzed for cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead,nickel, and zinc by the previously detailed atomic absorption techniques . Results were reportedas micrograms of each trace metal per liter of seawater .

To determine refractory trace metals in particulate material, samples were prepared fromthe residue by adding 750 µl of concentrated HCl to the bomb and sealing and heating thebomb in a water bath at 90° to 100°C for 30 min . After being allowed to cool, the bomb was

58 Equipment Group

~opened and 250 µl of concentrated HNO3 added. The bomb was resealed and heated in thewater bath for 30 min . After a second cooling, the bomb was reopened and 50 µ1 ofconcentrated HF added and the bomb again sealed, this time being heated for 60 min . After afinal cooling, the solution was quantitatively transferred to a Teflon jar and brought up to 50 gwith distilled water (Eggiman and Betzer, 1976) . This solution was analyzed for cadmium,chromium, copper, iron, lead, nickel, and zinc by the previously detailed atomic absorptiontechniques. After an aliquot of this sample was transferred to a labeled polyethylene vial and thesolution evaporated with a heated aluminum block until nearly dry, the vials were heat-sealedand transferred to Texas A&M University for analysis of barium and vanadium by the NAAtechniques previously detailed for zooplankton trace metals . Results were reported as microgramsof each trace metal per liter of seawater.

Total trace metals in seawater were determined according to Kinrade and Van Loon (1974)from separate unfiltered 2-1 samples . After they had been received and inventoried, the sampleswere refrigerated until analysis.

For analysis, a 200-ml aliquot was transferred to a 250-ml Teflon separatory funnel and 4ml of nitrate buffer added to adjust the solution to a pH of approximately 5. After the additionof 5 ml of chelating solution [ 1% w/v - each of ammonium pyrrolidinedithiocarbamate (APDC)and diethylammoniumdiethyldithiocarbamate (DDDC) in water] and 3 5 ml of methylisobutyl-ketone (MIBK), the water sample was extracted and the layers allowed to separate for 5 to 10min. The organic layer was collected in a quartz beaker for AAS analysis of cadmium, copper,iron, lead, nickel, and zinc as previously detailed .

To measure chromium, a second 200-m1 aliquot of the seawater was adjusted withammonium hydroxide to a pH of 2 ; 5 ml of 1% W/V DDDC in water and 35 ml of MIBK wereadded, and the water sample was extracted for 5 to 10 min . The organic layer was collected in aquartz beaker for AAS analysis as detailed previously .

(5) Trace Metal Intercalibration and Quality Control

(a) Intercalibration

Before field samples were analyzed, the two trace metal laboratories were intercalibrated .NBS bovine liver (SRM 1577) and orchard leaves (SRM 1571) were processed according to thesample-preparation procedures for zooplankton and demersal fish and were analyzed using AASand NAA. Results (Table 13) show general agreement between NBS certified values and theAAS analytical data. For cadmium, chromium, and copper, however, NAA analytical results didnot produce data comparable to the NBS values, an effect that was believed to be the result oftwo factors : first, the detection limit for each of these three elements was approached or reachedfor NAA and an effort was initiated to reduce ,these detection limits ; second, the sample-processing blanks were found to be higher than desired, which imparted a higher variability tothe data. As a result, increased emphasis was placed on reducing sample-processing contamina-tion. This is more fully discussed in the quality-control portion of this section .

As a contractual requirement, TI's Environmental Chemistry Laboratory intercalibrated AASanalysis of sediment collected from the study area with the USGS Trace Metal AnalyticalLaboratory at Woods Hole, Massachusetts . Six sediment samples collected during the firstseasonal cruise were analyzed for weak acid-soluble trace metals (chromium, copper, and zinc) by

59 Equipment Group

0

~~C

30~~.0

Table 13 . Results of Intercalibration of Trace Metal (µg/g) Analysis of NBS Standard Reference Materials

Cadmium Chromium Copper Iron Zinc

Sample AAS NAA AAS NAA AAS NAA AAS NAA AAS NAA

Bovine liver 1 0.29 <88 <0.1 0.16 96 <101 371 39 120 832 0.16 <81 <0.1 2.68 108 165 410 265 120 194

Orchard leaves 1 0.04 <79 0.9 3.6 ' 5.2 <66 248 123 24 22 0.16 1 .3 5.8 <62 340 29

x ta x ta x ta x ta x ta

Bovine liver NBS 0.27 t0.04 - 193 t10 270 ±20 130 t10AAS 0.22`t0.09 <0.1 102 ±8 391 ±28 120 t0NAA <85 1.42 t1 .78 133 t45 152 ±160 138 ±78

Orchard leaves NBS 0.11 t0.01 1 2 .6 t0.3 12 t1 300 t20 25 t3AAS 0.04 1.1 ±0 .2 5.5 i0 .42 294 :65 26.5 t3.5NAA <79 3.6 <64 123 2

AmountAnalyzed (8)

0.30360.3802

0.41940.4028

(A~-

~

0

Table 14. Results of Intercalibration of Sediment Samplesa

Chromium (µg/g) Copper (µ8/g) Zinc (µg/g)

Texas Texas TexasSample USGS Instruments USGS Instruments USGS Instruments

1B 6.0 t0.46 10.1 0.42 ±0 .1 2 .98 ±0.1 5.1 5.6 t0.15(n=3) (n=2) (n=2)

2F 7.5 ±0.95 8.1 0.5 ±0.18 1.87 ±0.06 1.45 ±0.07 1.4 ±0.02(n = 3) (n = 2) (n = 2)

5D 2.8 ±0.14 4.4 <0.35 0.34 1.6 1.3(n = 2) (n = 1) (n = 1)

5G 7.8 7.9 0.37 0.50 2.0 3.4 ±0.06(n=2) (n=1) (n=1)

7A 5.55 ±0.21 4.8 1.8 2.1 7.4 4.2 ±0.06(n = 2) (n = 1) (n = 1)

7E 7.8 ±0.66 <0.06 3.3 ±0.29 <0.8 8.2 ±0.85 0.12(n= 3) (n=2) (n= 2)

TotalDigestionof 7E 14.6 5.3 16.1

aData given as z ta .

both laboratories (Table 14). Comparable results were obtained for all stations except 7E . Therewas no apparent reason for the discrepancy in data for 7E . A second partial acid digestionanalysis to verify the data yielded results consistent with the initial run, while total digestionanalysis performed by TI generally agreed with the USGS results . The replicated results (Table14) suggest that the USGS values were possible for that station and that variations in techniquesmay have caused the discrepancy .

Replication of trace metal analyses was determined for AAS and NAA after intercalibrationby analyzing replicate samples of zooplankton, fish tissue, and sediment collected during theshakedown cruise held before the first seasonal cruise . Samples were dried and digested, andseveral analytical samples were subsampled from each field sample . These replicate samples wereanalyzed for cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, and zinc by AAS and NAA . Results (Table 15)confirmed the general observations of the intercalibration . General agreement was obtained foriron and zinc ; for cadmium, chromium, and copper, AAS results were generally lower than thosewith NAA. This effect was attributed to the previously discussed blank and detection-limitproblems; reinforcing the need for a reduction in the procedural blank contamination and NAAdetection limits .

(b) Quality Control

With each set of samples, procedural blanks that included contamination, reagent contribu-tion, and shipboard contamination were also analyzed . Results (Tables 16 through 20) are givenas the mean and standard deviation of the concentration of each trace metal (in micrograms perliter) for four process blanks for each seasonal cruise . The blank data show contamination during

61 Equipment Group

Table 15. Results of Analyses of Intercalibration of Replicate Samples Collected on Shakedown Cruise (Winter 1977)a

Cadmium Chromium Copper Iron Zinc(µS/8) (µS/8) (µ8/8) G+S/S) (µ8/8)

Sample n AAS NAA AAS NAA AAS NAA AAS NAA AAS NAA ~

Zooplankton 5 6.5 ±0 .91 <100 . 0.56 ±0.67 11 .3 ±2 .8 16.5 ±3.4 <140b 541 ±157 458 t135c 202 ±29 173 ±147

Fish tissue 5 0.66 ±1 .3 <79 <0.1 15.2 ±2.5 0.4 ±0.7 <120 27 ±36 8.413 21 ±3.8 28 ±21

Partial sediment digestion 10 0.67 ±1 .8 <17 15.9 ±4.6 7.0 ±2 .0 3 .4 ±1.1 <68 455 ±420 655 ±273 8 ±3 .1 4.9 ±2.5

Total sediment digestion 3 0.1 t0 <20 15.5 ±7.6 11 ±10 3.4 ±1.2 <29 703 ±690 926 ±736 10.4 ±1.5 9.7 t2.3

rnN

m-0c

3~~~0

aData are reported as the mean value tI standard deviation .

bn=1 .

cn=4

~

~

0

Table 16. Results of Analyses of Blanks for Tissue Diges tiona (µg/1)

Metal 1 2

Cruise

3x o X a x a

Cadmium <0 .1 - 0.21 0.14 0.18 0.06Chromium 18 11 0.68 0.09 0.1 0.05

Copper 8.0 1 .4 2.3 1 .9 0 .9 0 .7

Iron 395 89 20 6 7.2 5.9Lead 0.8 0.6 <1 .7 - <0.16 -

Nickel 6.1 5 .4 4.8 2 .7 1 .2 0 .4

Zinc 30 7 <1 - <1 -

an=4

4x a

<0.11 -0.49 0<0.3 -<1 -.0.29 0<0.48 -<1 -

Table 17 . Results of Analyses of Blanks for Partially Dige sted Sedimenta (µg/I)

Cruise1 2 3 4

Metal X a X a X a X

Cadmium <0.05 - 0.21 0.05 <0.06 - <0.3

Chromium <0.01 - <0.64 - <1.4 - <0 .1

Copper 5.0 1 .1 <1 .5 - <0.05 - <0.08

Iron <10 - <1 - <1 - <1

Lead <0.36 - 1.45 0.21 1 .2 0 <0.1

Nickel 7 .8 2 .4 6.1 1 .6 0.27 0.29 <1

Zinc 27 28 10 .4 2 .1 43 1 .5 <1

an=4

Table 18. Results of Analyses of Blanks for Totally Digested Sedimenta (µg/1)

Cruise

1 2 3 4

Metal x a x a x a x

Cadmium 0.13 0.12 1 .3 0.46 4 .7 4 .5 <0.3

Chromium 8.7 3 .4 2 .5 0.95 1 .8 0.75 <1Copper 9.2 7 .2 23 12 <1.4 - <0.4

Iron 142 18 288 18 9.2 3 .0 •<1Lead <1 - 1.2 0.21 1 .2 0 1 .4Nickel 24 21 15 4 7.5 2.0 <1Zinc 12 5.9 53 8.5 63 14 <1

an=4

a

0.21

63 Equipment Group

0

Table 19. Results of Analyses of Blanks for Weak AcidSoluble Particulatesa (µg/I)

Cruiae

1 2 3 4

Metal z a x a x a x a

Cadmium 0.12 0.13 0.08 0.06 0.025 0 0.022 0.026

Chromium 2.6 0.81 <0.64 - <0.06 - <0.06 -Copper 6.8 1.9 0.37 0.14 <0.2 - <0.3 -

Iron 28 13.6 7 .8 5.9 6.3 5.1 6.2 0.84Lead 1.95 1 .05 1 .4 1 .2 <0.3 - <0.12 -

Nickel <3.0 - <0.66 - 0.54 0 <0.1 -

Zinc 13 .1 10 .4 3 .7 0.81 <0.1 - <0.1 -

an=4

Table 20. Results of Analyses of Blanks for Refractory Particulatesa (µg/1)

Cruise1 2 3 4

Metal z a z a x a x a

Cadmium 0.48 0.55 <0.012 - 0.022 0.003 <0.003 -

Chromium 12.6 7.7 <0.64 - <0.06 - 2.0 0.5

Copper 12.2 1 .3 1 .1 0.2 0 .7 0 <0.4 -

Iron 33 14 2.7 1 .8 25 7 11.3 1.1Lead 1 .8 1.4 <0.8 - 0.43 0.05 <0.12 -

Nickel 4.9 3 .8 <0.66 - <1.4 - <0.1 -Zinc 6.3 1 .5 5.7 2.2 11 .6 7 .6 16.8 0

an=4

the first seasonal cruise and a general reduction during the following three seasons . Figure 35presents the blank iron-in-tissue data for the intercalibration and four seasonal cruises. It isapparent that there was a severe contamination problem in the first seasonal cruise's analyticalpreparation and that the first cruise data will be influenced by this phenomenon .

A second part of the quality-control plan involved the analysis of NBS SRMs (bovine liverand orchard leaves) with each set of seasonal cruise samples . Each "blind" standard was analyzedas a field sample ; i .e., the laboratory analyst was unaware of the identity of any sample . Thesedata were received by the TI Laboratory supervisor as part of the lab's internal quality-controlprocedure. This was also an external quality-control procedure for the NAA laboratory tointercalibrate the AAS and NAA laboratories while serving a quality-control function . In theresults of the analysis of two NBS standards (Tables 21 and 22), the AAS analyses showagreement with NBS standards for zinc on all cruises, agreement with NBS bovine liver forcopper and iron on cruises 2 and 4, and agreement with NBS orchard leaves for copper on cruise1 . In general, lead for NBS orchard leaves agreed, but bovine liver lead resulted in higher-than-certified values . The results of all analyses for cadmium, chromium, iron, and nickel showedagreement within one order of magnitude or less. The high variability in iron data agrees with

64 Equipment Group

~450

400

350

b 300H

Ix

~z 250Z

WWD< 200>Y2

gmI so

1 00

50

0

CRU ISE

t h e high variability found for replicateanalyses of intercalibration samples (Table15). For cadmium, chromium, and nickel,recoveries were lower than NBS-certifiedvalues for orchard leaves .

NAA data from the analysis of NBSstandards during the quality-control programshow that detection limits were reached forcadmium throughout the program (Table23). Analysis of NBS bovine liver andorchard leaves generally produced values thatwere higher than certified values and had ahigh coefficient of variation . The high varia-tion typically was the result of blank valuesfor NAA approaching or equaling tracemetal concentrations for NBS standards(Table 23 ).

Blank values for cadmium and copperin tissue samples (Table 24) were found tobe high on cruise 1 and significantly loweron subsequent cruises . Blank values for chro-mium, iron, and zinc generally were constantfor the four cruises . They were thought torepresent detection limits resulting from1 a b o ratory-grade low-sodium polyethyleneirradiation vials . Blank values for copper oncruises 2 through 4 were too high to repre-sent blank irradiation vial levels and indicatecontamination from the sample preparationscheme .

Figure 35. Results of Analyses of Iron ProcessBlanks for Tissue Analysis Sediment blanks (Table 25) for cruise 1

were not statistically different from thetissue blanks for cadmium, chromium, copper, iron and zinc . Blank values for cadmium andcopper were highest on cruise 1 and were lower on cruises 2 through 4 . Total sediment blankvalues for chromium, iron, and zinc generally remained constant during the four cruises .

As can be seen in Tables 24 and 25, the blank values for the selected trace metalsreflected similarities in trends for the two differing sample-preparation schemes . The conclusion,therefore, is that these general trends must be present also in the field-sample data .

From the foregoing discussion, it is concluded that cruise 1 data (both AAS and NAA) areimprecise, subject to high variance because of the previously discussed blank problems, and thatthis effect is ameliorated for cruises 2 through 4 . It is believed that the AAS data of cruises 2through 4 are reliable for iron and zinc . For copper, these data are marginally reliable, and forcadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel, these data are only reliable within an order of magnitudebecause of the high variability in recovery of these trace metals from the NBS Standard

65 Equipment Group

Table 21. Results of AAS Analysis of NBS Bovine Liver During Quality-Control Programa

Cadmium Chromium Copper Iron Lead Nickel Zinc

NBS-certified value 0.27 ±0.04 - 193 ±10 270 ±20 0.34 ±0.08 - 130 ±10

Cruise 1 - - 260 ±6 164 ±78 1.2 ±0.4 - 116 t 14

Cruise 2 0.10 t0.01 0.27 ±0.2 187 ±47 247 ±17 1.4 ±0.2 - 118 ±1

Cruise 4b 0.95 ±0.35 0.39 t0.13` 190 ±36 279 ±9 0.63 ±0.14 2.7 ±2.3 153 ±14

aData presented as -i t1a in µg/g.

bNo separate standards for cruise 3 since cruises 3 and 4 samples were prepared together for analysis .

~

Table 22 . Results of AAS Analysis of NBS Orchard Leaves During Quality-Control programa

Cadmium Chromium Copper hon Lead Nickel Zinc

NBS-certified value 0 .11 :0.01' 2.6 ±0.3 12 ±1 300 ±20 45 33 1 .3 ±0.2 25 ±3

Cruisel - - 13.7t2 241t117 49t3.6 - -

Cruise 2 0.05 ±0.02 0.9 ±0 .1 30 ±2 .6 228 ±18 38 s7.8 0.4 ±0.05 22.8 ±1

aData presented as z tlo in µg/g .

Table 23 . Results of Analysis of Blind Standards by NAAa

mac

Cb73~c),0

Bovine Liver (µg/g) Orchard Leaves (µg/g)

Cruise Cadmium Chromium Copper Iron Zinc Cadmium Chromium Copper Iron Zinc

NBS-certified value 0.27 ±0.04 - 193 ±10 270 ±20 130 ±10 0.11 ±0.01 2.6 ±0.3 12 ±1 300 t20 2.5 ±3

Cruise 1(n = 4) DLb 0.64 233 ±136 375 276 ±238 DL 4 ±0.5 52 ±3.6 750 t100 419 ±254

Cruise 4 (n = 2) DL DL 141 ±17 DL 58 ±16 - - - - -

aData presented as x t1a fn µg/g•

bDL-betow detection limit .

~

~

~Table 24. Blank Concentrations (µg) for Tissue Digestion

1 2 3 4Metal X a n x a n x a . x a n

Cadmium 9.23 1 .06 12 0.47 0.25 3 2.83 1.02 3 79 14 5Chromium 0.44 0.11 11 0.29 0.16 3 1 .06 0.38 3 0.62 0.05 5

Copper 51.6 10.3 11 9 .9 0.17 3 7.83 0.06 3 9.7 2.2 4

Iron 20.5 4.2 12 13 .8 5 .9 3 34 .3 11 .9 3 45.3 4.6 5Zinc 4.49 1 .87 12 0.83 0.24 3 2.37 0.73 3 2.94 0.15 5

Table 25 . Blank Concentrations (µg) for Total Sediment Digestion

1 2 3 4Metal a a n x a n x a n n a n

Cadmium 8.83 0.71 4 1.78 1 .05 4 0.38 0.03 3 49.8 - 1

Chromium 0.99 0.99 4 0.19 0.04 4 0.22 0.10 3 1.2 - 1

Copper 52.3 6.75 4 12.4 7.20 4 13 .5 0.71 2 11 - 1iron 21 .6 5 .80 4 16.8 8.5 4 21 .8 7 .7 3 87 - 1Zinc 6.18 2.31 4 2.11 2.75 4 1 .43 0.35 3 4.7 - 1

Reference Materials (Tables 21 and 22) . NAA data for all cruises are suspect because of highvariability of replicate analyses or detection limit problems in analysis of NBS StandardReference Materials (Table 23) and are not to be relied on in great confidence . For barium andvanadium, all blank values approached or equaled detection limits. Field samples also were nearor at the detection limits of NAA analysis for the majority of the samples analyzed . As a result,few samples are reported as having had statistically significant concentrations of barium orvanadium .

2. Biology

Samples collected from the surface, water column, and seafloor were transferred toshoreside laboratories (Table 10) for four types of analyses :

Identification and enumeration of benthic and planktonic fauna and hydrocarbon-oxidizing microbes

Measurement of biomass for benthic fauna

Histological examination of benthic fauna

Measurements of metabolic activities of hydrocarbon-oxidizing microbes .

All samples except those for microbial analyses were fixed and preserved at sea ; microbial sampleprocessing was initiated at sea and completed at the shoreside laboratory . All sample shipmentswere inventoried before processing .

67 Equipment Group

%a. Faunal Identification and EnumerationKeys, monographs, and descriptive papers from the scientific literature (Appendix A) were

used to identify fauna to the species level . Some organisms could be identified only to generic orhigher taxonomic level because they were larval or juvenile stages having no diagnosticmorphological characters, aberrant specimens unidentifiable with existing literature, speciesundescribed in existing literature, specimens whose diagnostic structures had been lost duringcollection, or very small fauna or fauna of poorly known taxonomic groups (e.g., certainmeiofauna for which identification keys or descriptions in the literature are unavailable) .

Taxonomic identifications for which there was any question of accuracy were verified orcorrected by taxonomists using established reference collections or by those individuals havingseveral years experience with a particular taxon (Table 26) . TI ensured conformity by holdingseminars with the taxonomists to establish agreement .

Taxonomic data were compiled in the form of a species list coded for computer use. Thislist included organisms identified to species, as well as higher, taxonomic levels . To code thesedata, it was necessary that each taxon on the list include a category for lowest practicalidentification level (LPIL), e .g., Pandalidae LPIL and "Polydora" LPIL. This (1) allowed for addingor compiling within a taxon and (2) provided a code for indeterminant species. Consequently,the LPIL designation does not necessarily indicate that organisms in a taxonomic category wereunidentified but provides a software procedure for compiling information categorically whensome of the categories include indeterminant information . A comprehensive checklist of theanimals that were collected is included as Appendix B to this volume .

The procedures for processing the groups of samples were different .

(1) Zooplankton

At the TI laboratory, the zooplankton sample was poured into a 63-µm mesh sieve, thenwashed and resuspended in a small amount of seawater . The resuspended sample was split with aspinsplitter to obtain an aliquot, which was diluted with seawater to a volume of 1 liter . Fromthis dilution, 7-ml subsamples were removed with a widebore 10-m1 pipette and countedin a Bogorov counting chamber until approximately 450 organisms had been identified . Thenumber of organisms and the volumes of the subsamples were recorded for each major taxo-nomic group. Zooplankton density was calculated from the dilution factors, number of organismsin the subsample, and the flowmeter determinations of volume of water sampled .

Specimens of uncertain identify were sent to taxonomists expert in identifying a particulartaxonomic group. Voucher specimens were permanently mounted on slides or preserved - inindividual vials. After the processed subsamples were recombined and drained, the organismswere returned to the original container holding 10% buffered formalin solution and werearchived .

(2) Meiofauna

To identify and enumerate meiofauna, sediment subcores were transported from sea to theTI biological laboratory . The subcores were suspended in seawater and the fauna decanted

68 Equipment Group

?Table 26 . Primary Taxonomists

Specialist Affiliation Taxon

J.L. Barnard

E.L Bousfield

F.A. ChaceA. Child

B.C. Coull

E.B . Cutler

H.W. Harry

R.W. Heard

R. HigginsM. JonesB. Kensley

L Kornicker

W.L Kruczynski

LD . McKinney

J. OgleD. Pawson

L Pequegnat

J. Perez-Farfante

M. Pettibone

H. Porter

B.K. Sen Gupta

K. Serafy

J . Staiger

J . Tietjen

B.A. Vittor

A.B . Williams

U.S. National Museum

Canadian Natl. Museumof Natural History

U.S. National Museum

U.S. National Museum

Univ. of South Carolina

Utica College, Syracuse Univ .

Texas A&M University

Dauphin Island Sea Lab

U.S. National Museum

U.S. National Museum

U.S. National Museum

U.S. National MuseumFlorida A&M University

Texas A&M University

Gulf Coast Research Lab

U.S. National MuseumTexas A&M University

U.S. National Museum

U.S. National Museum

Univ. of North CarolinaMarine Science Institute

University of Georgia

Virginia Inst. of Marine Science

University of Miami (Florida)

City College of New York

B.A. Vittor and Associates

U.S. National Museum

Arthropoda, Amphipoda

Arthropoda, Amphipoda

Arthropoda, Decapoda, Caridea

Arthropoda, Pycnogonida

Arthropoda, (Harpacticoida)Sipunculida

Mollusca

Arthropoda (general)

KinorhynchaAnneflda, Polychaeta

Arthropoda, Thalassinidea

Arthropoda, OstracodaArthropoda, Isopoda

Arthropoda, Amphipoda

Arthropoda, TanaidaceaEchinodermata, Holothuroidea

Arthropoda, Decapoda, Natantia

Arthropoda, Decapoda, Penaeidae

Annelida, Polychaeta

Mollusca

Protista, ForaminiferaEchinodermata

Chordata, Pisces

Meiofauna (Nematoda)

Annelida, Polychaeta

Arthropoda, Decapoda, Brachyura

through a 500-pm screen into a 63-µm sieve . Animals retained on the 63-µm screen but passingthrough the 500-pm screen were defined operationally as meiofauna . Any meiofauna entangledon the 500-µm screen were removed for identification . The animal recovery rate using thistechnique is at least 95% (Tietjen, 1969 ; Coull, 1970) .

Animals retained on the 63-µm screen were identified to the family level if' there wasadequate description of the taxa in the scientific literature . Many of the lesser known acoelomateor pseudocoelomate phyla generally were not identified below the phylum level .

Nematodes were fixed in 10% formalin, transferred in a water bath through a series ofethanol dehydration steps to glycerin in a water bath, permanently mounted in glycerin onslides, and sealed (Seinhorst, 1959) . Harpacticoid copepods were mounted in Hoyer's medium onglass slides. All other specimens were either mounted in glycerin or Hoyer's medium . Allmeiofauna specimens prepared on slides were archived and all except harpacticoid copepods were

69 Equipment Group

~photomicrographed for reference . Throughout the program, Dr . B.C. Coull, principal investigatorfor the meiofauna task, made quality-controlled inspections of laboratory identifications .

(3) Macroinfauna

Box-core samples taken at sea for identification and enumeration of macroinfauna wereshipped to the biological laboratory of TI, where they were inventoried against a list prepared attime of collection. The samples were washed on a 500-pm mesh sieve for removal of finesediments and excess preservative . The contents of the sieve were then emptied into a holding jarand a subsample placed in a sorting tray or petri dish and scanned with a stereoscope at 3 X tolOX magnification. All organisms were removed with fine dissecting forceps or pipettes andtransferred to vials of 70% ethanol . This process was continued until all organisms had beenremoved from the sample .

All organisms sorted from the sample were identified to the lowest practical taxonomic levelunder either a dissecting or compound microscope . Representative animals were archived in vialsof 70% ethanol after counts had been made .

(4) Foraminifera

Sediment subcores taken at sea for identification and enumeration of foraminifera wereshipped to the laboratory of Dr . B.K. Sen Gupta at the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia,for identification of live and dead specimens and determination of the live-to-dead ratio . Thesamples were washed in tap and distilled water and filtered to remove excess liquid . The samplewas placed in 50 ml of a mixture of 10 g of Sudan Black B in a liter of 70% ethanol and heatedin a water bath at 40° C for 30 min. The stained samples were sieved and washed through a63-pm mesh sieve, and the material passing through was collected on filter paper and washedwith 70% ethanol ; the remainder was deposited on a second filter paper and washed with 70%ethanol. Dry weight of the >63 µm and <63-µm fractions yielded sand and silt fractions,respectively . The sediment fractions were stored in labeled vials . The foraminifera contained inthe sand fraction were floated in a mixture of bromoform and acetone (10 :4) and the animals inthe "float" subsequently identified and dry-mounted on micropaleontological slides foridentification and archiving. The "sink" also was examined for the presence of foraminifera, andany specimens present were identified .

(5) Invertebrate Epifauna and Demersal Fishes

At sea, organisms in trawl collections were identified to the lowest practical identificationlevel and were counted and weighed . Invertebrate and demersal fish specimens that appeared tobe rare or unusual or could not be positively identified in the field were shipped to TI'slaboratory (invertebrates) and to Dr . J .C. Staiger's laboratory (demersal fishes) at the Universityof Miami (Florida).

Fishes were washed with fresh water to remove excess formalin . After they were identified,they were archived in 40% isopropanol .

Invertebrates also were washed with fresh water . After identification, they were archivedin 70% ethanol.

70 Equipment Group

~~b. Biomass

ZOOPLANKTONSAMPLES OBTAINED Zooplankton, macroinfauna, invertebrate

ATSEA epifauna, and demersal fish biomasses weredetermined by three methods : blotted wet

SAMPLEFOR weight, oven dry weight, and ash-free dry

BIOMASS weight.DETERMINATION

(1) ZooplanktonDRYINGWEIGHI4G

ASHINGREWEIGH ING

ASH-FREE BIOMASS

Figure 36 . Zooplankton Sample Flow forBiomass Analysis

Z ooplankton samples forwhole-community biomass analysis weremaintained in a frozen state during ship-ment, check-in, and storage at TI's labora-tory . For processing (Figure 36), eachsample was thawed in a water bath andsieved on 63-pm mesh. The retained materialwas transferred to preweighed crucibles anddricd at 62°C to a constant weight . Ash-freedry weight was then calculated as the dif-ference between the dry weight and the ashresidue weight subsequent to ashing thesample in a muffle furnace at 500°C for 6hr. Sample volume, dry weight, and ash-freedry weight were recorded .

(2) Macroinfauna

Biomass measurements for macroinfauna included wet, dry, and ash-free dry weights . Fourmajor taxonomic groups (Mollusca, Arthropoda, Echinodermata, and Polychaeta) and a group ofmiscellaneous taxa were individually air-dried and weighed to obtain net weight. Molluscaninfauna were decalcified with a chelating agent (Fisher Scientific Calex) to remove the shellsbefore wet weighing . The wet material was transferred to preweighed crucibles and dried at 62°Cto a constant weight . Ash-free dry weight was then calculated as the difference between the dryweight and the ash residue weight subsequent to ashing the sample in a muffle furnace at 500° Cfor 6 hr. Sample volume, dry weight, and ash-free dry weight were recorded .

To avoid losing new, uncommon, or expatriate species by the destructive biomass methods,only the number of samples necessary to provide acceptable accuracy were ashed for dry andash-free dry-weight estimates. This involved 20 sample replicates from the winter cruise .. Thesewere oven-dried for 12 hr at 62°C, weighed, and ashed at 500°C for 6 hr in a muffle furnace .Ash-free dry weight was the difference between the dry weight and the ash weight . Regressionequations for each taxon were generated and biomass calculated on the basis of the observedregression. ,

71Equipment Group

~(3) Invertebrate Epifauna and Demersal Fishes

Wet biomass was determined for each epifaunal species collected, except those rare forms orspecimens sent to land-based labs specifically for archiving . Dry-weight biomass was determinedfor specimens from the fall cruise . For determinations, the preweighed animals that were receivedfrozen from the field were thawed and dried at 65°C to a constant weight and reweighed .

c. Histology

Tissue samples preserved at sea were prepared for light microscopic examination andphotomicrography in TI's histological laboratory and for electron microscopy at the laboratoryof Dr. M.R. Tripp at the University of Delaware . At TI, light microscopy tissues were furtherdissected or trimmed, dehydrated, infiltrated, and embedded in paraffin blocks. The blocks weresectioned on a rotary microtome to a 6- to 8-pm thickness, mounted, deparaffinized, rehydrated,stained with hematoxylin and eosin, cleared, and covered . This technique is basically the same asthat used in medical laboratories .

Prepared slides and additional unstained slides were shipped to Dr. Tripp for examinationand interpretation . Tissue blocks were archived at temperatures of <29°C .

Animal organs with abnormal appearance were selected at sea for examination by electronmicroscopy ; they were fixed at sea in 3% glutaraldehyde in a solution of 0 .2M cacodylate bufferwith 3mM CaC12 and 0.2M sucrose and were stored in fresh fixative at 5°C . After arriving at theUniversity of Delaware, the specimens were rinsed in 0 .2M cacodylate buffer ; postfixed for 1 hrin 1 .0% osmium tetroxide (in 0 .2M cacodylate buffer containing 3mM CaC12 ) ; and rinsed inbuffer, 0.5% uranyl acetate and ethanol, propylene oxide, and finally Epon . They were thenembedded in Epon at 60°C for 48 hr, cured for at least I wk, and sectioned at 60-nm thicknessonto copper grids. They were stained with lead citrate for 10 min and 1% uranyl acetate for 30min. Dr. Tripp recorded both normal and abnormal histology and compared abnormal andnormal conditions to correlate changes with season, age, and other known variables . Specialattention was given to the study of pathological conditions (see Volume 4), and recordedpathology was compared with published studies to aid interpretation .

d. Microbiology

The laboratory processing of samples collected from the surface, water column, and seafloorwas begun at sea . There, the experimental BOD samples were completed, the MPN tubesinnoculated for hydrocarbon-utilizing microorganisms and plates innoculated for heterotrophicmicroorganisms, and the MPN tubes and plates counted .

The innoculated tubes and petri dishes were returned to the laboratory of Dr . CarlOppenheimer at the University of Texas Marine Institute at Port Aransas, Texas . There, purecolonies were isolated for identification and experimentation. Identification was performed bythe Aberdeen Laboratory in Scotland . The experimental design and procedures are after theworks of Miget et al. (1969), Kator et al. (1971), Kator (1973), and Miget (1973), as well asOppenheimer et al. (unpublished) in the North Sea . Detailed laboratory methodologies followedby Dr. Oppenheimer are included in Volume 3, Chapter 11 .

72 Equipment Group

0

~%J_v3. Geology

Sediment samples collected during the program were analyzed for total organic carbon(TOC) and grain size distribution .

During the benthic leg of each seasonal cruise, a representative of the U . S. GeologicalSurvey collected suspended particulate material . Also during the benthic cruise legs, trans-missometer profiles were recorded during each hydrocast and were retained by the USGSrepresentative at the end of each seasonal cruise .

a. Sediment Texture

Sediment samples were prepared for grain size analysis by being homogenized, air-dried,and treated with 30% hydrogen peroxide (Figure 37). Soluble salts were removed by deionizedwater washes. The samples were dried at 40°C, weighed, then deflocculated by being soaked inCalgon solution .

To determine grain size distribution, the entire sample was wet-sieved through No . 9 Tylermesh sieves (-1 .00, 2.0 mm) and No. 250 Tyler mesh (40, 0.062 mm) to separate gravel, sand,and silt/clay fractions . The gravel fraction was dried and weighed . The sand fraction wasweighed, dried, and split with a Soiltest microsplitter into a 0 .5-g subsample . Hydraulic grain sizeequivalents were determined with a settling tube at 0.50 intervals (Felix, 1969). Pipette analysis(Folk, 1968) was used to determine the coarse silt (4.0 to 5.00), medium-to-fine silt (5 .0 to

GEOCHE M ISTRaf.BOX CORES

POOLING OF (SIX) INDIVIDUALSUBSAMPLES FROM SUBSAMPLINGBOX CORES AND PRESERVATION

OF SUBSAMPLES

SUBSAMPLING

GRAIN-S IZESAMPLE

DIGESTION

DRYING

I OXIDIZING

L WITH H202

WET SIEVING

RAU LI C3 HYDGRAIN-S IZEANALYS 1 S

GRAIN-S IZEDISTRIBUTION(PERCENTAGE)

Figure 37. Sediment Sample Flow for Texture Analysis

73 Equipment Group

~8.00), and clay (>8 .00) in the silt/clay fractions when the pan fraction exceeded 10°Io of thetotal sample. Results for all size intervals were calculated as weight percent .

b. Total Organic Carbon in Sediment

The frozen sediment samples were thawed at TI's laboratory for analysis of TOC (Figure38). Three subsamples were removed with Teflon utensils, washed with 2N HC1 to removeCaCO3, washed with several small volumes distilled water to remove residual HC 1, and dried in adesiccator over silica gel for 48 hr. The samples were placed in tared, precleaned, aluminumboats ; weighed; and combusted at 800°C in the furnace of a Coleman,Model 33 carbon-hydrogenanalyzer. The effluent gases were scrubbed of HC1 and water vapors, and the carbon dioxide gas

GEOCHE M ISTRYBOX CORES

(SIX)

POOLING OFSUBSAMPLES

FROMBOX CORES

INDIVIDUALSUBSAMPLING

AND PRESERVATIONOF SUBSAMPLES

I SUBSAMPLING 1

FROZEN TOC SAMPLE

THAW 1 NG

WASHING WITH ACID

WASHING WITH WATER

DRYING

I COMBUSTION

CO2 QUANTIFICATION

TOC (mg/kg)

Figure 38.. Sediment Sample Flow for Analysis of Total Organic Carbon

74 Equipment Group

~was quantified in a Beckman Model 21 SB infrared analyzer. Potassium acid phthalate was theprimary standard. Data were reported as milligrams of carbon per kilogram of dry weight ofsediments for the mean of triplicate analyses .

c. Suspended Particulate Material

Samples of suspended particulate material and turbidity profiles were retained by the USGSrepresentative after each seasonal cruise . In addition, data on the concentration of total sus-pended particulate material (SPM) were obtained from the samples collected for particulatetrace metal analyses on the water-column leg of each seasonal cruise. While not a specificcontract requirement, Texas Instruments felt that the inclusion of these data would enhance theinterpretation of the particulate trace• metal distribution in the study area ; hence, these data weremade available to the trace metal principal investigators to supplement their data interpretations .

E. DATA MANAGEMENT

The TI data-management system was responsible for processing the SABP data base . Thedata-processing effort began before sample collections with initial development ofprogram-specific formats . After the first sampling cruise, data-processing consisted of the con-trolled transfer of data from raw data sheets to the computer statistical files . This transfer wasvalidated using a standard documentation procedure . Once the data base was completed, thevarious relationships in the data were examined by statistical analysis .

1 . ' Format Development

Formats were tailored to processing task requirements and were defined and reviewed bythe data manager, TI task leaders, and appropriate principal investigators and subcontractorsbefore collection began . Data fields were defined for recording data generated by specificanalyses as well as for responding to computer processing requirements. For example, thezooplankton enumeration data formats required data fields not only for the number of animalscaught and aliquots analyzed, but also for the flowmeter readings and meter calibration .Preexisting standardized data sheets were used and new data sheets developed to provide accuraterecording for unique data requirements .

Before field collections were begun, TI developed a field data recording procedure to reducerecording errors. The field Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) manual detailed the minimumamount of data to be entered for each format used, established specific codes to reduce theamount of time necessary for field documentation, and introduced field personnel to newlydeveloped formats.

2. Data Transfer and Documentation

Data processing was accomplished by progressively transferring data from shipboard andlaboratory raw data sheets to computerized statistical files. The data manager documented andvalidated each step to ensure completeness of transfer. The actual movement of data fromsample acquisition to interpretation involved a number of processing steps . Figure 39 is ageneralized diagrammatic overview of data transfer with each processing step referenced by acircled number .

75 Equipment Group

VO%

C

3~~1~

.9

~-------- ----- -~CHIEF

~ ~ SCIENTIST

~ SAMPLE PRIMARYDATA

©

~

O~ COLLECTION EETSH ~

0L----- ----- -J

~-------- ----- -~

~SECONDARY ,

LABORATORY DATA~ PROCESSING ETS E I

L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J~------------ ---~DATA SYNTHESIS AND ANALYSIS~ TASK LEADERS (

~ DC ~

~ PROGRAMMING PIS I

~

~

Q

COMPUTER~ PROCESSINGO

~ 1® POM

' STATISTICALANALYSIS

21 I~

19

( IDATA FILES ®

L------------ ---JSTATISTICAL PROCESSING

16Figure 39. Oveiview of Intormation Flow

®PROGRAMDATA

MANAGERO (PDM)

TASKLEADERS

~---------( DATA 1©

' AUDIT KEY

E~

~

DATA SHEETS Q9

DATASHEETS

--- -- --- ~APPROVALS AND ~ LEVEL ICORRECTIONS AND

~ LEVEL 11'PROCESSING

~

~

TASK ~LEADER ~

~

. ~

~

~

~

------J

~ DATA CENTER (DC)AUDIT AND VALIDATION

~ PROCESSING

~

~

~I REPORTS PDM

1

VALIDATEDDATA REPORTS

(LEVEL 11)

14 ---

TASK LEADERS/PIS

( '

VALIDATEDDATA FILE

0

~The field sampling operation (1)* initiated the data-processing task through sample

acquisition and field documentation. Each collected sample (5) was assigned an individualidentification number so that it and its resultant data could be tracked throughout the program .The primary data sheet (2) was completed for each sample number and linked additional fielddata (Figure 40) with each sample. At the completion of each cruise, the samples and primarydata sheets were inventoried by the chief scientist (3) who, using the sample/data progress sheet(Figure 41), transferred the samples to the laboratories (6) and the primary data sheets to datamanager (4).

Laboratory processing made use of secondary data sheets (7) to record the results of eachanalysis. Secondary data sheets varied in format according to the nature of each analysis ;however, the designated sample identification number accompanied each data entry .

After the sample analyses were completed for each cruise, secondary data sheets weretransmitted to the program task leaders (8) who, following review and approval of the quality ofthe data, transferred the data sheets to the program data manager (4) .

The transference of the primary (2) and secondary (7) data sheets into the computer database was coordinated by the data manager . Data records were inventoried, visually scanned forcompleteness and accurate use of preestablished codes, and transferred to the data center usingthe data/displays progress sheet (Figure 42) . After being keypunched (11), the data were enteredinto the data base and exposed to a computer audit program to check for errors in selected datafields. For example, if a data set was collected on the first cruise (Cruise Number 01), the auditprogram would scan the cruise number data field and identify any number other than 01 as anerror. Thus, for each data set, an audit report (13) outlined violations of the audit criteria(Figure 43). Data errors were corrected by consulting the original data sheets and reentering thecorrect data. After audit corrections were applied, a data report (14) was produced so each dataset could be visually scanned for computational errors . These data reports were tabularsummaries of species, chemical compounds, field data, and other measurable variables . Eachreport was reviewed by task leaders and appropriate principal investigators, with additional dataaudits applied when necessary. The resultant data base represented a validated data file (15) .

Thus, a visual train of evidence was generated from sample acquisition to datainterpretation.

3. Statistical Analyses

Statistical analyses were used to examine various potential relationships in the data anddetermine their statistical significance as an aid in data interpretation . The principal investigators,in concert with the TI statistical staff, selected the statistical tests (Table 27) . They weredesigned to produce specific information for the appropriate principal investigator. Thisinformation was supplemented by data analyses from other related tasks to aid the PI indeveloping an interpretation of the data .

Comparisons for spatial and temporal variations were made within the study designframework. Software employed programs of proven reliability. The Statistical Analyses System(SAS) developed by the SAS Institute, Raleigh, North Carolina, was used for data manipulation,regression analyses, print plots, data listings, and calculation of correlations .

*Numbers in parentheses in the discussion correspond with the circled numbers appearing in Figure 39 .

77 Equipment Group

(A~-

V00

~C

CD~

I

-9

CT I PC ' TC I GC f CODE

1 s r 1.l' 912 419 617 019

KFYPIINfH INCT-

)MMENTS

ACCESSORY FLOWMETERCT KEYPUNCH : NO . ORREPEAT END CAL3-19 FROMT-01 START

~ ~ ABOVEa

DIFF r -

11~f ECOLOGICAL SERVICES

~MPLE LOC DATE -0URATION SAMPLE WATER TOWWTIME a DEPTH DEPTH

X Y Z MO OAY YR (2400) c UNITS o° (M) (M) M/S o ENDu

START

n io a :0 n so sl !1 ss s7 s. .0 11 sDIFF

s/

MARINE AQUATIC ECOLOGY--SAMPLE PRIMARY DATA SHEET

VOL/AREA SECCHI

' OR UNITS c DEPTHCAL °, (M)

~. . PAGE OFso p 'CODER

DATE

WIND CURRENT TEMPERATURE °C o ~ ur ~+ TURBIDITY COND D .O . PH

F DIR .°~ SPD DIR AIR WATER o~ (uMHOS) (PPM)L u mf ~Q

.

LATITUDE LONGITUDE SAMPLE WATER >~ CURRENT o WIND v~

TIME DEPTH DEPTH o WATER tPCT KEYPUNCH : DEG MIN

NSEC = DEG MIN SEC W (~) o o T TEMP °L u SPO DIR oP~~ ~~ ~~ SPO DIR ~,°~

REPEAT °u °u = s s s= j o ~°- ~

k3-19 FROM

Q 3 cT-olABOVE

1 .t !0 N!0 Nat 411 45 °f .0 at al N 00 N 00 NN N .1 N N 70 ~1 f! 1s 1. ta f0 tt 10 f0

CUR RENT

CT SAMPLEDEPTH

o SPDu

DIRYATER

TEMP °CTURBIDITY

(V~OS) ou

(PPM) ~ SALINITY

0 5 KEYPUNCH :

0 5REPEAT3-19 FRO

0 5CT-O1~OVE

05

0'5 ./ e N s. N r r r p N r ./ a N M M .0 N N

n-n .oi

Figure 40. Primary Field Data Sheet

~I~

WS

~ WN

8¢Wit 9LIL gW Q

WE

n J~H

WV>~aU~W

~

TI-filE1

SAMPLE NO

.t)

DATE COLLECTED.THE FIELD IN

ITIAT•ES THISSECTION OF

TASK t ANALYSIS

CODE

THISFORM

.

~PIELD PROCESSING

/0/11

(, Dnc20 d.mpi. Cononn.rs/

_ Pn

.O.u Snwu

W6

P

~

~.Tlpl! (

'.GIUi1N11/

aPr

i.0.

ShMl1

/

iD/I

(2>

>_

/Sarnpk CcnYin.n/

irLD

..a Sn..u

TNE ISPATCNER IN THEAL LAB

W (,

D/ICOMPLETES

THIS SECTION

OF THE FORM

.i

a {,

sS.mpleCOnWMn/

iPri. D.u Snntt

//

/s<

(3) TRANSFERDATA SHEETS

IFREQUIRED

TO

EtW

PROGRAM

CLERK WITN

FORM (TI 231

130).

IT

OP

//

//

/

~~~ry

`Check (

D/1)(4)

tiOC Check

THIS SECTION

IS COMPLETE

BY THE

START/STOP/D/II

/DAI~LAB

RATO

/

~ U

S,P.Iri .ortt F

Check(D/11

WO s'1

D/I I Check

~

€~ISTART/STOPID/1

)/

//

/

z~

o

y

pOp

ql.ck

a

h

/I

~i

DART/STOP/

//

/

g5E~~k oin

<WOC Chack

~~

ID/IIlu ~

Alxountsbility6

~'

SuP.rvkorTNE DALLAS

BORATORY CO

PLETES THIS

,T(D/1)

SECTION

.

Y~

•AccauntabilitY

STEPS (5) A

(6) CAN OCCU

AT THE SAM

TIME - OR

uUi ~I

~SuP.rviwr.

(6) CAN OCCU

FIRSTDEPEN

INGON TNt

JECT

.

W~

Aceoontubilityy f

ByfuW pa

S1p.rviwrID/11

Ws~

ACCoun»bilityB

°f

ZY

SUP.rvisor; ~

ID/IITotaltsr TKA Cotl.

2"d TKA Cob3 rd

TxA CaM

Itb TxA CodE

NSh

t/

(S)S COMPLETF( TNIS S

CTION AND

~< O

=~r

lliJ W

o.s.

.By

: (D/II/ 1

TITIATES

F'S17tMTI 2S1

0.

/s

.../

WAULbGrity

:BY ID/I)

(7)DALLAS

S COMPL.ETE

THIS SECTION

~-

Ai.po..l:

BY(D/1)

(FINAL SEP OF THIS

M)

.•

( REMARKi

:NOTE IFREVERSE

'SIDE IS USEDOR IF

.

ATTACHMENTS)

~~z~Wa€

yFFa~061

79 Equipment Group

~t-WWIN

>~

9W

J ~0

0O

VCC

Wd

a>¢Q

W J

24

W y

C7pQhQp

bJW>¢~Cr7~.

J0UW

DATA SHEET

NAME AND NO

.I

INCLUSIVE(1) THE DALLAS LABORATORY COMPLETES'

SAMPLINGDATES

THIS SECTION.

(THE LAB INITIATES THIS FORMSAMPLING

AND THEN SENDS IT TO THE

LOCATION

PROGRAM CLERK

.)

oCTOTAL NO

.THE FIELD CAN INITIATE THIS FORM WHEN

WOF SAMPLES

DATA SHEETS ONLY ARE FORWARDED

C7

TOTAL NO. OF

DATA SHEETS

RECEIVED BY(2) THE PROGRAM CLERK

PROGRAMDATA

COMPLETES THIS SECTIONCLERK (D/I)

TRANSFER

DATA SHEETSB

TO DATA

pu+CENTER

NDATA CLERK

Ti,;

~(D/I)

>0dTRANSFER

DATA SHEETS DISPLAY(S)

~DATA SHEETS

B(3) THE DATA CENTER COMPLETES

QwV

ANDDISPLAYI(S)THIS SECTION

Yt7

TOPROGRAM

DATA SHEETS DISPLAY(S)

QZ

DATA CLERK

O

I.~

(D/I)W

TRANSFER

(4) THIS SECTION IS COMPLETED BY

6DATA SHEETS

YTHE PROGRAM CLERK

.TO

Q~TASK

a~LEADER

p4

(D/I)

~TRANSFER

DATA SHEETS DISPLAY(S) CALCULATIONS

2DATA SHEETS,

BDISPLAY(S) &CALCULATIONTO PROGRAM S

DATA SHEETS DISPLAY(S) CALCULATIONS

DATA CLERKT

zID/II

-

TRANSFERENCE OF MATERIALS BETWEEN PROGRAMDATACLERK AND

TASKLEADER IS ACCOUNTED FOR IN PROGRAM DATA CLERKS LOG BOOK

REMARKS

:(NOTE IFATTACHMENTS)

OZw2QzUW~0~a

Uj~

WJ.~

~ C67,~~S

0UVJ s~

z0 8

ccae3

HQ E~

O~0Uw¢YI

¢O

W LLJ ~

UZ

FO

Qa

C c7

Q y

I w

(7U

00

cr craa

mQ

J J

W W

II

~ N

I• HW W

II

b/ N

80Equipment Group

uodag 3!PnY *dsQ '£t and3

--~Z-ti) 3'JNrn...30IS1nC/. N/a ---)/NV19133100bZ31111....)INV18 1d31 8A AVG Ow •...a.

0565Ob65

-- 0E650Z650165

06890885OLBS -09850585

- ob85oE85OLBS0t85-008506LS08LS -OLLS09LS

- oSLS0bL50£LS

OILS00L5069S -08950L9S

- -)INV18 id3l-S1INn - -HNVIB 1.431 03ZAlVNtl 1NnOWV

099S- - -- - - NNVl9 1d3i N/a --

(Z-t) 30NVe 30IS1n0 N/aHNVl9 1331OobZ 3WI1NN 1l8 1331 bA A1t0 OW

05950b95

-....................... OE9S...

0Z9S0195

.._--------- 30tlSS3W 2l02iM3 --- -----b3S

8l 3'JVd BELb9 t

0

0 -- - -- - -£te8o6otto9oto ---19ZS£ocL0tolZOZl00'ZZ891l00't66bt00Sl5 t 8 £SEOLLOtOtEOZl00'ZS691Z00'1L65t009tlSZSO£LS8060t6L90£SCOLLOtOt

~- --ES ---100'ZL6SZ-Z00'l9£SZ - --°tSZSO£tS8050/6L90£SEOLLOtOIt9t00'ZS9LZZ00'1009Z009ZlSZSOElSB06016L90ESEOLLOlOIZ9LZ0'ZS08Zl00't00LZ00LZlSZSO£15806016L90£S£OLLOIOI

-- -- £9- -l00'tL6LZ008Z- t5ZS0ElSB06o16L9?£S£OLLOIC.b9900'1L08Z15ZS0E1S8060t6L90ESEOLL0t0tl05Z00'1668Z006Z15ZS0£tS806C16L90£S£OLLOtOI

--- -- Z00'1000£OOOE----tSZS0ElS806o16L90ESEOLLOtOIb0l00'Z£68tl00'tZLBtlSZSOElSB06016L90ESEOLLOIOtl0£00'ZZ081t00't60Ltl0LlLSZSOElS806016L90£S£OLLOtOI

-- Z0l00'ZZSBI--- Z00't86L10081--- lSZS0Et5805016L90ESCOLLOtOt£0Z00'Z998tZ00'1018tt08/lSZS0ElS806016L90£5EOLLOl0lt0tb00'L6ZLtt00'tOS9it5ZS0EtS9060t6L90£SEOLLOtOt

- Z0tt00'Zb6Ll-Z00'1869t00L1-tSZS0ElS8060t6L90£5EOLLOIOtl00'Z98bt1SZ50E1S806016L90ES£OLLOtOI

l0Z100'ZEESItSZSO£1S806016L90£SEOLLOIOI-tt- t00'ZbZ6l---Z00't66910061-- 15ZS0ElSB06O16L90ES£OLLOtOI

Zll00'ZS66tl00'18661000ZlSZS0ElS806016L90ESEGLLOIOt£tZ00'ZZtOZt00'1660Z00tZlSZS0ElS806016L90ESEOLLOIOI

- ----°-- bt -° l00'ZZ9oZ--Z00'100ZZ00ZZ--lSZS0ElS806016L90ES. COLLOtOttZl00'ZS60Ll00'IObZZtSZS0ElS806016L90£SEGLLOIOILZt00'ZS9tZZ00'l£OBZ00£ZlSZS0ElS8060t6L90E5COLLOtOt

-£Zl00'Z6LlZ-b00'lbLE7---- tSZSCElS8060l6L90ESEOLLOtOIbZ900'ZlL£ZZ00'LZ0.ZJ0bZtSZSO£1S306016L90ES£OLLOtOIt5L00'Z08bZZ00't005Z0oSZ15Z~=~._~L=?:'.1C E3LG~LGsJk

-- -- ZSZ00'LOtSZ--Z00't£tSZ-lSZS0EtS806016L90£S£OLLOIOIl00'ZE8bttSZS0EtS8060t6L90E5EOLLOIOtl00'llOl£OOIEtSZS0ElS806016L908SEOLLOIOI

.ya'0 90' 90' bZ' 90' OE' b'9

- _-- - - -...... _..-......._~tSZS0EtS806016L90LSEOLLOIOt

yyr..

- -------------.....y_ _. -_...lSZS0EtS806o1t090t0£oLL0l0l

blZ00' 1808Z--- lbnOETF806ff16r90ES--£OZLOTd'I-,- -` -ZZ-900'Z503L/bZS0Elb806016L90BSCOLLOtOt

t0Z00'tElOZtbZS0Elb8060t6L90ESCOLLOIOIZ0

- • --- --- ------ -.. --------- - - - ----Z00'100ZZ0oLZ

_lbZSO£1b806016L90ES

_.£OLLOtOI

06BL9SbEZl068L9SbEZt06BL9Sb£Z1068G95b£Z106._.. _

8L95b£Zt068L9SbEZl068L95b£Z1068L95bEZlB' L 9S bEZ1•0

---------------- ---------------- 3'Jrwtoavo -------------------------------31na0w

L0lOZ0S0S060S0StZ0L0l0btS0loll3)= 110035BL/EO/b,0 1 t! 0 d 3 tl1 I a n tlN V I bV6 B IIOntl-9I1'9vlda

-...................._. _.. ~

~Oa~~CN

.Q,aW

r_400

0

Table 27. SABP Statistical Analyses

Task Analysis

Micronutrients/hydrography Printing of plots with corresponding regressions by season and depth for :

Particulate organic carbon versus chlorophyll a

Particulate organic carbon versus dissolved organic carbon

Chlorophyll a versus nitrateZooplankton (202-µm) biomass versus chlorophyll a

Zooplankton (505-)Am) biomass versus chlorophyll a

Printing of plots with corresponding regressions by season and depth for :

Temperature versus salinity

Nitrate versus phosphateSalinity versus silicate

Temperature versus nitrate

Hydrocarbons Correlation of particulate and dissolved hydrocarbons (near-surface andnear-bottom) with :

Hydrocarbons of zooplankton

Chlorophyll aParticulate organic carbon

Correlation of hydrocarbons of zooplankton with relative abundance ofselected taxa

Correlation of hydrocarbons of sediment with :

Median grain size

Silt/clay fraction

Total organic carbon

Bottom depth

Particulate hydrocarbons (near bottom)

Skewness

Mean quartile grain size

Computation of standard deviation of sediment hydrocarbons andcorrelation with sediment characteristics for replicate variability

Correlation of faunal hydrocarbons with :

Near-bottom particulate hydrocarbons

Sediment hydrocarbons

Trace metals Correlation of particulate trace metals (refractory and soluble) withzooplankton trace metals

Correlation of zooplankton trace metals with relative abundance of keytaxa groups

Correlation of zooplankton trace metals with zooplankton trace metals

Correlation of particulate trace metals with :Particulate organic carbon

Chlorophyll a

Salinity

Silicate

- 82 Equipment Group

~Table 27 . SABP Statistical Analyses (Continued)

Tasks Analyses

Trace metals (Cont) Computation of mean and standard deviation of particulate trace metals(refractory and soluble) for :

Shelf zones (near-shore, midshelf, deep-shelf)

Transects (1 through 7)

Correlation of particulate trace metals with particulate trace metals for :

Near surface and near bottom

Season

Computation of mean and standard deviation of trace metal concentrations inmost abundant epifauna

Correlation of trace metal values of most abundant fauna with :

Sediment trace metalsNear-bottom particulate trace metals

Correlation of trace metals of most abundant epifauna species with tracemetals in those species

Correlation of sediment trace metals with :

Median grain size

Total organic carbon

Silt/clay fraction

Bottom depth

Correlation of sediment trace metals with sediment trace metals

Correlation of sediment trace metals with near-bottom particulatetrace metals

Printing of lots and corresponding regressions for zooplankton trace metalswith particulate trace metals

Zooplankton Regression of ash-free biomass from each net (202-µm and 505-µm) with :

Particulate organic carbon

Dissolved organic carbon

Chlorophyll a

ANOV to compare 202-µm and 505-µm nets with biomass catch

Correlation of ash-free biomass with :

Chlorophyll a

PhosphateNitrate

Total organic carbon

Dissolved oxygen

Silicate

Salinity

TemperatureBottom depth

Particulate organic carbonDissolved organic carbon

83 Equipment Group

~Table 27 . SABP Statistical Analyses (Continued)

Task

Zooplankton (Cont)

Macroepifauna and demersalfishes

Macroinfauna

Analyses

ANOV on densities of key zooplankton groups compared spatially

Cluster analysis by season and year (combining replicate trawls andclustering by species) :Canberra metric (fish only)

Morisita (fish and epifauna separately)

Jaccard (fish and epifauna separately)

Regression of epifauna and fish (total number/30-min trawl and totalweight/30-min trawl) with :

Median grain size

Total organic carbon

Percent silt/clay

Sorting coefficient

Bottom depth

Latitude (transect)

Cluster analysis by station and season using Jaccard for the 50 to 100 mostabundant taxa

Regression (multiple and stepwise) of total number of infauna organisms andtotal number of major taxa groups with :

Median grain size

Total organic carbon

Percent silt/clay

Sorting coefficientBottom temperature

Latitude (transect)

Skewness

Mean quartile grain size

Regression (multiple and stepwise) of total ash-free biomass (total and bymajor taxa groups) with :

Median grain size

Total organic carbonPercent silt/clay

Sorting coefficientBottom depth

Bottom temperatureLatitude (transect)

Green's index for each station

Meiofauna Pearson and Kendall correlation between taxa density for :

Median grain size

Sorting coefficient

Total organic carbonBottom depth

Latitude (transect)

84 Equipment Group

~Table 27 . SABP Statistical Analyses (Continued)

Task Analyses

Meiofauna (Cont) Pearson and Kendall multiple regressions between taxa density for :

Median grain size

Sorting coefficientTotal organic carbon

Bottom depth

Latitude (transect)

Cluster analysis (Morisita) by :

SeasonYear

Intrastation variability :Coefficient of variation

Green's index

Station means

Foraminifera Cluster analysis (principal components and Jaccard)

Multiple regression of selected dominant suborders (3), families (17), andspecies (47) with :

Median grain size

Total organic carbon

Percent silt/clay

Sorting coefficient

Bottom temperature

Latitude

ANOV for interstation variability on :

Suborders (3)

Species (12)

Microbiology ANOV for interstation and intercruise variability on :Plate counts

Most probable numbers

Count/number ratio

Duncan's multiple-range test for plate counts and most probable numbers

Geology Grain-size cluster analysis

85 Equipment Group

~The Biomedical . Computer Program, Series P (BMDP), developed by the University of

California at Los Angeles, was used for cluster analyses . Routines previously developed by TIwere used to supplement these programs in the calculation of mean data from replicates and toproduce similarity matrices before statistical analysis was conducted .

After the statistical analyses were completed, the entire data base was stored on magnetictape. Results of the statistical analyses were output and are presented in Volume 6 of this reporton microfiche .

a. Rationale for Statistical Techniques

(1) Chemistry

(a) Physical Parameters, Micronutrients, Chlorophyll a, and Zooplankton

The interactions of shelf water with periodic intrusions of the Gulf Stream and seasonalfresh water outfall were studied by following the changes in the distribution of temperature,salinity, micronutrients, chlorophyll a, and zooplankton in the study area during 1977 . Themixing of waters of different physical, chemical, and biological compositions was evaluated usingsimple linear regression analysis and two-dimensional graphics . Standard techniques of plottingtemperature-salinity, temperature-dissolved oxygen, and temperature-nutrients were used asquality-control checks of the data and as aids in understanding water-mass mixing (Sverdrup etal., 1942 ; Broeker, 1974 ; Atkinson, unpublished manuscript) . Simple linear regression analysisand two-dimensional graphic techniques successfully used in the upwelling region of west Africaby Huntsman and Barber (1977) were also used in determining potential relationships betweenchlorophyll a and POC/DOC in the water column. Chlorophyll a, micronutrients and POC werealso statistically examined to determine possible relationships with the distribution ofzooplankton in Gulf Stream and shelf waters.

(b) High Molecular Weight Hydrocarbons

The distributions of hydrocarbons within samples and throughout the study area werestatistically examined to determine possible sources of hydrocarbons in the sea-surface micro-layer, water column, sediment, and biota . The keys to the various sources- anthropogenic,sampling artifact, or natural biogenic occurrence-lie in the distribution of saturated, unsaturated,and aromatic hydrocarbons found in the sample matrices . The variation and covariation amongmatrices aid in understanding the routes from the various sources through the marineenvironment . ~

Particulate and dissolved hydrocarbons may be formed from phytoplankton or zooplankton(Zsolnay, 1973) or may be associated with dissolved or . particulate organic carbon (Calder,1977). These associations were statistically examined to quantify their probable association .

Hydrocarbons in zooplankton may be a function of the dominant zooplankton taxa at astation at one time of the year. Correlating zooplankton hydrocarbons with the relative abun-dance of selected taxa may reveal the taxonomic source for some part of the hydrocarbonsassociated with zooplankton. The distribution of sediment hydrocarbons has been found to bepredominantly governed by the location of the station on the outer continental shelf (Farringtonand Meyers, 1975). To develop an understanding of the natural distribution of saturated and

86 Equipment Group

0

aromatic sedimentary hydrocarbons in the study area during 1977, the occurrence ofhydrocarbons in sediment as governed by sediment grain-size parameters, total organic carbon,and bottom depth were examined . The replication of analysis of sediment for saturated andaromatic hydrocarbons was determined by analyzing samples taken from six individual box corescollected at each of 25 stations.

The degree of association between hydrocarbons in macroepifauna/demersal fishes andnear-bottom particulate and sedimentary hydrocarbons was examined to assess the likelihood oftransport of sedimentary hydrocarbons by resuspension of bottom sediments followed byingestion by a bottom-feeding or near-bottom-feeding organism . If petroleum contamination isabsent, normal hydrocarbon distributions for marine organisms will be dominated by odd-numbered n-paraffins (Lambertsen and Holman, 1963) ; if petroleum hydrocarbons have beenincorporated by an organism, the petroleum hydrocarbon distribution will be superimposed overthis odd-chain preference, resulting in a reduced odd/even ratio and an unresolved complexenvelope in the paraffm fraction (Blumer and Sass, 1972). Thus, it is possible to elucidate thedegree of petroleum contamination by examining the distribution of hydrocarbons in marineorganisms. '

Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficients were calculated as a measure of linearassociation between pairs of hydrocarbon parameters in order to examine the potential forstatistically significant relationships . The hydrocarbon parameters were :

Total hydrocarbons

Hexane fraction

Total pristaneTotal phytanePristane: phytane ratio

Cls :C16 ratioC29 :C30 ratio

Statistically significant linear associations were examined to determine if significanceresulted from artificial circumstances or represented chemically plausible phenomena . Totalamounts of all hydrocarbons, total fraction 1 hydrocarbons (alkanes), and total amounts ofpristane and phytane were examined to obtain data on the qualitative and . quantitativecontributions of hydrocarbons from petroleum contamination and natural hydrocarbon sources .Pristane:phytane, C,S :C16, and C29 :C30 ratios were examined to aid in determing the source ofhydrocarbon distributions in the samples . Pearson's product-moment partial correlationcoefficients and calculation of standard deviations about the mean were used as measures ofreplicate variability of hydrocarbon analysis of sediment and macroepifauna/demersal fishes .

(c) Trace Metals

The variations of trace metals in the water column, sediment, and biota were statisticallyanalyzed to explore the distribution and redistribution of trace metals within the study areaduring 1977 . The covariation of trace metals among themselves will pinpoint the commonality ofsources for some trace metals . Examination of the behavior of trace metals under changinghydrographic conditions may give a clearer understanding of transport phenomena into, within,

87 •. Equipment Group

?and out of the study area (Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, 1973) . Therefore, particulatetrace metals were correlated with zooplankton trace metals, POC, chlorophyll a, salinity, andsilicate to identify areas in which covariance may be indicative of common sources or similartransport paths. Zooplankton trace metals were correlated with the relative abundance of keyzooplankton taxa to identify dominant taxa that may be responsible for the variation intrace metal distribution or may demonstrate a particular affinity for one or more trace metals .Sediment trace metals were correlated with sediment grain-size distribution parameters todetermine affinities for accumulations of trace metals in sediments and to provide someestimation for trace metal remobilization after sedimentation .

The mean value and variance of trace metals in the 10 most abundant faunal species in thestudy area were determined to provide a measure of the natural variability of trace metals infauna. The sources of trace metals in fauna were examined by determining the degree ofassociation between fauna trace metals and particulate (near-bottom) and sedimentary tracemetals. The distribution of sedimentary trace metals throughout the study area was examinedwith respect to latitude and proximity to shore to elucidate areas of transport of trace metals tothe ocean and areas of active trace metal accumulation in the sediment. The variance ofparticulate trace metals in the water column was examined to determine which trace metalscould be associated with others, thereby indicating common sources as well as common transportmechanisms. For similar reasons, this covariance of selected trace metals was also done forsediment, zooplankton, and fauna trace metals .

For all the trace metal tasks, the method of Pearson's product-moment correlationcoefficient was used to evaluate potential relationships among trace metals in the same samplematrix as well as among trace metals from different samples . Trace metals in particulate materialwere also correlated with salinity, POC, chlorophyll a, and silicate to measure possiblerelationships in particulate trace metal geochemistry during the year's study . Standard deviationsabout the means were calculated to determine replicate variability of trace-metal analyses ofsediment and macroepifauna/demersal fishes. To examine potential relationships betweenzooplankton and suspended particulate trace metals, two-dimensional plotting techniques wereused .

(2) Biology

(a) Macroepifauna/Demersal Fishes

Statistical analyses examined possible influences exerted by sediment characteristics oncatch per unit effort and bottom community structure. Multiple linear regression analysisexplored possible relationships between total number and total weight per 30-min trawl formacroepifauna and demersal fishes separately versus the combined effect of median grain size,TOC, percent silt/clay, sorting coefficient, bottom depth ; and the average latitude of eachtransect. ~

Areas having similar community structures were identified for each season and for the total1977 program effort. The data from two separate trawls performed at each station werecombined to give catch per station for macroepifauna and demersal fishes separately . A clusteringtechnique was applied to the data to assess the degree of similarity among stations . Three

, 88 Equipment Group

~matrices for fish-Canberra metric, Morisita index of similarity, and Jaccard index ofsimilarity-were analyzed by applying a complete linkage technique. The Morisita and Jaccardindices were tested for invertebrates. To examine the possible effects of seasonal influence onsimilarity among stations, clustering was performed with each cruise and with all four seasonalcruises combined .

(b) Macroinfauna

Macroinfaunal communities were studied to explore possible relationships among individualspecies in the study area ; to distinguish between assemblages at inshore, midshelf, outer shelf,and slope stations ; and to elucidate natural seasonal ranges of organisms and biomass for 1977 .Examinations were made for possible effects of bottom characteristics on total numbers ofinfauna, total numbers of major taxa, and ash-free biomass of total infauna and total infauna bymajor taxa. Also examined were the community similarities among stations and the dispersion ofinfauna at each station .

Multiple linear regression techniques were applied to determine the possible impact ofselected bottom characteristics (median grain size, TOC, percent silt/clay, sorting coefficient,bottom temperature) and average latitude of each transect as independent variables on numbersand biomass of all infauna and for selected major taxa as dependent variables . For total numbersof infauna and total numbers of infauna by major taxa, additional sediment characteristics ofskewness and mean quartile grain size were used as independent variables . For regressions of totalash-free infaunal biomass and biomass by major taxa, bottom depth was added as an independentvariable to assess possible depth effects on biomass . The technique of maximum R2 improvementwas applied to a subset of the independent variables to determine the most useful ones indescribing the dependent-variable variations. I

The Jaccard index of similarity was calculated between pairs of stations for each periodused for clustering ; all species that made up at least 0.2% of the catch were used . The index foreach station was clustered using a complete linkage algorithm for each separate cruise and for allfour cruises combined. '

To measure the randomness of infaunal distribution in an area, Green's index was applied toeach replicate trawl at each station for each cruise . This index is an adjustment to the coefficientof variation measuring the relative variation in the number of taxa at one station to the averagenumber of taxa for the study . `

(c) Meiofauna

Samples collected from a wide range of physiographic provinces subject to varying currentranges and sediment resuspension rates were statistically analyzed to determine spatial andtemporal variations, correlation with various sediment parameters, species diversity, and thedegree of similarity of meiofaunal assemblages in the study area. Both Pearson's product-momentand Kendall's Tau correlation coefficients were calculated using selected taxa densities andsediment parameters (median grain size, sorting coefficient, TOC), water depth, and averagelatitude of each transect . Pearson's correlation coefficient provided a measure of linear relation,while Kendall's Tau more generally measured the association .

89Equipment Group

~Intrastation variability of six replicate meiofaunal samples taken during the year at each of

25 stations was assessed for each station using Green's index of dispersion . The assessment bymeasuring the relative variation in the number of individuals per taxa against the average numberper taxa at each station ranged from 0 association (random distribution) to 1 .0 (maximumsimilarity).

Cluster analysis using each station's data by season and all four seasons combined wasexplored as a possible technique to aid in describing biological habitats . The clustering algorithmof complete linkage was applied to the Morisita index of similarity calculated among all pairs ofstations using major meiofauna taxa . '

(d) Foraminifera

To aid in understanding and describing the, natural distribution and variability offoraminifera, significant differences of the mean relative abundances among stations and amongseasons were examined . Shannon-Weaver (H' ) and Shannon-Wiener (H) diversity indices werecalculated to facilitate comparison of SABP data with those from other geographical areas .Cluster analysis was used to describe common foraminiferal distributions among stations in thestudy area for each season and for the total program . The influence of physical and chemicalsediment characteristics on abundance variations of selected dominant taxa was also investigated .

Multiple linear regression analysis investigated the potential effect of sedimentarycharacteristics on foraminiferal distribution on a seasonal . basis . The variation of selected majortaxa was determined as a function of independent variables (median grain size, TOC, percentsilt/clay, sorting coefficient, water depth, bottom temperature, and average latitude for eachtransect). In addition, maximum Rz improvement analysis was applied to identify the mostimportant set of independent variables should preliminary multiple regression analysis indicatethat bottom characteristics have a significant effect on the distribution of taxa .

Interstation variability was estimated by season and by station using two-way analysis ofvariance (ANOV).

Common foraminifera habitats were identified by cluster analysis on a seasonal basis as wellas for the entire year . The primary clustering technique was to apply the maximum-distancealgorithm to the standard Euclidean distance between station pairs . Each station was representedin a k-dimensional Euclidean space as principal factor scores . The value for k was selected suchthat the first k principal components would explain at least 70% of the variation in the selectedtaxa relative abundance . The principal-factor scores were calculated from a factor analysis of thestandardized taxa relative abundance using the principal-factor method . A second clustering wasbased on Jaccard's index of similarity, again using only taxa that had contributed >0 .2% to thetotal number of foraminifera .

(e) Microbiology

Petroleum hydrocarbons in the marine environment have been shown to be positivelycorrelated with hydrocarbon-oxidizing bacterial activity (Oppenheimer et al., 1977). While it isknown that petroleum can limit bacterial growth and, hence, numbers of bacteria in marinesamples (Walker and Colwell, 1975), the ratio of hydrocarbon-oxidizing :heterotrophic bacteria

t0 Equipment Group

~provides a better estimate of petroleum's degrading capacity on the microbial population (Walkerand Codwell, 1976) . This ratio was used for sea-surface microlayer and near-surface microbialsamples in a two-way ANOV between stations during all four seasons in the 1977 program toidentify stations and seasons indicative of high hydrocarbon-oxidizing activity . These results, inturn, were compared with those of the hydrocarbon analyses to associate increased hydrocarbonlevels with elevated hydrocarbon-oxidizing activity .

(3) Geology

The distribution of sediment grain size from -30 through +4¢, including percent silt/clay asthe pan percent, was examined to aid in interpreting the chemical and biological data anddeveloping an understanding of grain-size distribution in the study area during 1977 . Seasonaleffects were identified by calculating the mean of replicate samples for each station each season,thereby allowing comparison of distribution at selected stations over four seasons . The sedimentdistribution data for all four seasons were used in cluster analysis to identify areas showing similarsediment-size distributions for the entire year of study. '

In addition, hydrocarbon and trace-metal data were correlated with several grain-sizeparameters to aid in understanding the distribution of these materials in the sediment and inevaluating the transport of suspended sediment with associated hydrocarbons/trace metals off theshelf area . I

b. Mathematical Expressions Used in the Statistical Analysis

Established and well documented techniques were used for statistical analysis of the data inthe 1977 program (Table 28) . Because standard methods were modified, several techniques existto perform the same manipulation, and the backgrounds for the techniques may not have beenreadily available, the exact mathematical expression is presented for sample mean, standarddeviation and standard error, the modified Morisita and Canberra metric indices of similarity, andthe Jaccard index of similarity to avoid ambiguity .

(1) Sample Mean, Standard Deviation, and Standard Error

The sample mean (x) for a data set was calculated as the simple arithmetic average of thesample data,

n~ Xi

X= / , ri

where xl, x2 , X3, . . ., xn represents a set of n data points .

The sample variance (s2 ) was calculated, in order to remove any bias in the estimate, as thealmost simple arithmetic average of the squared deviations of the data from the sample mean :

n~

S2

(xi - X)2

=(n-1)

i=1

91' ` Equipment Group

~?Table 28. Statistical Tests, References, and Computer Programs

Technique Reference Computer Processing

Simple linear regression Draper and Smith (1966) SASMultiple linear regression Draper and Smith (1966) SASMaximum R-square improvement Draper and Smith (1966) SASYstepwise regression)Canberra-metric Lance and Williams (1967) TI programMorisita index Morisita (1959) TI programJaccard index Jaccard (1901) TI programMaximum-distance clustering Sneath and Sokal (1973) BMDPPearson's product-moment Draper and Smith (1966) SASKendall's sample tau Gibbons (1971) SASSample mean, standard deviation, Draper and Smith (1966) SASand standard error

Paired t test Snedecor and Cochran (1967) SASDuncan's multiple range test Winer (1971) TI programGreen's index Elliott (1971) TI programTwo-way analysis of variance Searle (1971) SASFactor analysis Harman (1967) SAS

for a data set of n> 1 members. The sample standard deviation (s) is the positive square root ofthe sample variance . `

The sample standard error (sX ) is the sample standard deviation of the sample mean andwas calculated as

n %

' (Xi - X )2

_ s i/=~~1

sx (n)% n(n - 1)

for a data set of n> 1 members .

In order to use data calculated with the above expressions to make inferences about theenvironment from which the samples were selected, it must be assumed that the n data pointsconstitute a random sample from some well behaved but unspecified distribution . Consideringthe techniques employed in collecting the field samples, TI considered the data set generated •bysuch activities constituted a random sample at each station. Thus, the sample mean of a data setprovides an unbiased estimate of the true population mean (µ) and the sample variance of arandom sample provides an unbiased estimate of the true population variance (oZ ) .

(2) Morisita Index of Similarity

Morisita (1959) presented indices for measuring the interspecific association and similaritybetween communities which may be applied to studies of population and community ecology . 'The Morisita index of similarity was calculated for the macroinfauna/demersal fishes and

92 Equipment Group

~meiofauna tasks using seasonal station data . Station indices were analyzed by cluster techniquesto group stations of similar community structure by season and over the entire year . Asoriginally detailed, the Morisita index of similarity (CX) between the ith and jth stations is

s

2~ niknik

i= 1

(CX)ii (Xi + Xi )NiNi

where

s

Ai =4~~ nik(nik - 1)I[Ni(Ni - 1)]Lk=..1~~

s

Ai =~nik(nik - 1)/INi(Ni - 1)]k=1

s = the number of species found at all stations

Ni = the total number of individuals found at the ith station

Ni = the total number of individuals found at the jth station

nik = the number of individuals of the kth species found at theith station

nik = the number of individuals of the kth species found at thejth station .

Thus,

s S

G

~ nik = Ni andE

nik = Nik°1~ k=1

Morisita states that this index will be about 1 when the two stations have a similar communitystructure and will be 0 when no species are common to the two stations. ~

The Ai and Xi are estimates of Simpson's index (Ah ), the concentration of a many-speciescommunity (Simpson, 1949) :

s•

Ah - ~ Phkk=1

Equipment Group93

~where

h = either the ith or jth stationPhk = the true proportion of the kth species at the

hth stationS* = the true total number of species at the hth station .

If the assumption is made that sampling is done randomly on the individuals at the hth station,then Ah can be interpreted as the probability that two individuals of the same species will beselected in two random draws of one individual at the hth station. Since both Phk and S* areunknown, an estimate was made for Ah using

Xh =

s

~ nhk (nhk - 1)k=1

Nh(Nh - 1)

This estimator can be viewed as random sampling of individuals at the hth station, where S is thelower bound on S* (S < S*). Thus, Phk 2 is estimated by

_ nhk nhk - 1Phk _ -

Nh Nh - 1

The estimator Xh is not invariant with respect to the length of time the tow is made ; therefore,(C)' );i is also not invariant with respect to the tow time. '

The Morisita index of similarity was modified so that it would be invariant with respect toduration of tow. It is a common practice to normalize a trawl catch by some factor (dh ) to yieldcatch per hour. However, the index of similarity should not be altered by this unless strongevidence exists that catch per hour increases linearly over some practical range of tow times . Ifthis is observed, then a new term n'hk* is defined, where

n'hk' = dh nhk

If the catch per hour is invariant over time, the estimate of Ah is identical regardless of whethern'hk' or nhk is used. With nhk, the estimate for Ah is

Nh -

s

~ nhk (nhk - 1)k=1

Nh(Nh - 1)

94 Equipment Group

~With nhk adjusted by dh,

~~ -h -

s

/ , nhk (dh nhk - 1 ~

k~=1+

Nh (dh Nh - 1)

and Xh does not equal Xh 'unless dh = 1 . Therefore, Xh as an estimator of Ah is not invariantwith respect to the tow time, and (CX);i is also not invariant .

It was desired to provide an estimator Xh that was invariant with respect to the duration ofa tow to remove any bias introduced by nonuniform sampling times . Accordingly, the estimateXh of Ah was replaced by Xh, with-

s [nJ2hk X

h - L..J Nk=1 h

wherenhk- = maximum likelihood estimator of P hk whenNh the data are a random sample of size Nh

from a multinomial distribution with S*possible outcomes .

With nhk adjusted by dh,

~S dh nhk

2dh Nhk=1

which is equal to Ah . Using this estimator, a maximum-likelihood modified Morisita index (Cfi);iis determined .

Computing (Q)ii with n;k adjusted by di, and nik adjusted by di, resulted in ( q.)ii using nikand nik not adjusted :

95Equipment Group

~%'S

2E (dinik) ( djrljk )k=1

(~)'1 [ 6'i + ~~ ) (diNi) (diN;-)l

s

2 ~ n~k.ni k

(CV

;i = (A,k+ ~) N3Nj

(C~);i ° (q);i

Thus, the maximum-likelihood Morisita index is

S2E niknik

k=1(C~)i

j_ai + Ai) N;Ni

where

^ s nhk 2

)Ih -~ Nk=1 h

Nh = the total number of individuals found at the hth station

nhk = the total number of individuals of the kth speciesfound at the hth station

s = the number of species found at all stations

s

Nh -~ nhk

k=1

for h equal to i and j and (Cfi);j has an inclusive range between zero (0) and one (1) . Thisequation was used to calculate the Morisita index of similarity for the 1977 program .

96 Equipment Group

~(3) Canberra Metric Measure of Similarity

The Canberra metric measure was used in the statistical analysis of demersal fish data . Thismeasure was originally defined (Lance and Williams, 1967) as

sIxik - Xik I

mij _k=1 (xik + x1k)

where xik is the number of the kth species found at the hth station for h = i and j, and s is thenumber of species found at all stations. The measure of similarity was defined as 1- m ;j .

For this program, the Canberra metric measure was modified to reduce the weighting factorfor small catches of fish in a nonlinear manner while retaining the sensitivity to proportionalrather than absolute differences. This was done by substituting the term in (xhk + 1) for xhk inthe measure equation as originally defined . The Canberra metric similarity measure was thengiven as

(CM);j = 1 - d;i

~- -s ~

dii= ~ . (M~).k~k-=-1~

on (xik + 1) - ln(xjk + 1) 1(M'~ )k [ ln (xik + 1) + ln(xjk + 1)]

where s is the number of species found at all stations, and xhk is the adjusted (to a 30-min tow)number of species k found at the hth station (h = i, j) . The range of Canberra metric is 1-

s < (CM)ii < 1, while, for a single species, the measure is bounded by 0< Mii < 1 . Theconstraints placed on this measure are :

If i = j, then (CM)ij = 1

If Xik = Xik ~ 0, then (Mij )k = 0

If Xik = Xik = 0, then (M,j )k = 0

If (xik # 0 and Xik = 0) or (xik = 0 and Xik * 0), then ( M;i)k = 1 .

(4) Jaccard Index of Similarity

The Jaccard index of similarity was applied unmodified to the foraminiferal andmacroinfaunal tasks of this program (Jaccard, 1901). The similarity between two stations i and j

was given by

Sij = c/(a + b - c)

97 Equipment Group

0

~-rwhere

c = the number of species common at the ith and jth stations

a = the number of species at the ith station

b = the number of species at the jth station .

The Jaccard index deals only with numbers of species encountered and ignores the number ofindividuals of each species .

Results, discussions, and conclusions for the various SABP tasks are presented in Volume 3 .Volume 4 contains an atlas of the normal histology and histopathology of benthic invertibratesand demersal fish. Field and laboratory data, the results of statistical analyses and miscellaneoussupporting information are contained in Volume .6 .

98 Equipment Group

~SECTION 4

CITED REFERENCES

Atkinson, L.P. Unpublished manuscript . The results of four oceanographic cruises in the GeorgiaBight . Technical Report Series. No. 78-1 . Georgia Marine Science Center, University Systemof Georgia, Skidaway Island, Georgia .

Betzer, P.R. 1971 . The concentration and distribution of particulate iron in waters of thenorthwestern Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea . Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ . of Rhode Island,160 p .

Betzer, P.R., and M.E.Q. Pilson . 1975. The effect of corroded hydrographic wire on particulateiron concentrations in seawater. Deep-Sea Research . 22 :117-120.

Blumer, M., and J . Sass. 1972 . The West Falmouth oil spill . Data available in November, 1971 II .Chemistry . Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Technical Report . WHOI-72-19 .

Broeker, W.S. 1974. Chemical Oceanography . Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc . New York. 214 p .

Bullis, H . R., Jr., and P.J. Struhsaker. 1970. Fish fauna of the western Caribbean upper slope .Q.J. Fla. Acad. Sci. 33 :43-76 .

Bureau of Land Management . 1976. Conference/Workshop Proc . Bureau of Land Management'senvironmental studies program for the south Atlantic outer continental shelf area . Atlanta,Ga. Oct. 14-17, 1975 .

Calder, J.A. 1977. Seasonal variations of hydrocarbons in the water column of the MAFLA leasearea. In : Fate and effects of petroleum hydrocarbons in marine organisms and ecosystems(D.A. Wolfe, ed.). Pergamon Press, New York. 432-441 .

Cerame Vivas, M .J., and I.E. Gray. 1966. The distributional pattern of benthic invertebrates ofthe continental shelf off North Carolina . Ecology . 47 :260-270 .

Coull, B.C. 1970. Shallow water meiobenthos of the Bermuda platform . Oecologia (Berl.) .4 :325-357 .

Crow, S.A., D.G. Ahearn, W .L. Cook, and A.W. Bourguin. 1975. Densities of bacteria and fungiin coastal surface films as determined by membrane-adsorption procedure . Limn. Oceanog.20 :644-646 .

Draper, N., and H. Smith. 1966 . Applied Regression Analysis . John Wiley and Sons, Inc . NewYork. 407 p .

Eggiman, D.W., and P.R. Betzer. 1976. Decomposition and analysis of refractory oceanicsuspended materials . Anal. Chem . 48:886-890 .

Elliott, J.M. 1971 . Statistical analysis of samples of benthic invertebrates . Fresh-Water Biol. Assn.UK., Sci. Publ. No. 25.

Fager, E. W. 1968. A sand-bottom epifaunal community of invertebrates in shallow water. Limn.Oceanog. 13 :448-464 .

Farrington, J.W., and P.A. Meyers. 1975 . Hydrocarbons in the marine environment . In :Environmental Chemistry, Vol. 1 (G. Eglinton, ed .). The Chemical Society, London .109-136 .

99 Equipment Group

~Felix, D.W. 1969 . An inexpensive recording settling tube for analysis of sands . J. Sed. Pet.

39 :777-780 .

Folk, R.L. 1968. Petrology of sedimentary rocks . Hemphill Pub . Col., Austin, Tex. 182 p .

Froelich, P.N., M.L. Bender, and G.R. Heath. 1977. Phosphorus accumulation rates inmetalliferous sediments on the east Pacific rise . Earth and Planetary Scf. Letters.34 :351-359.

Giaradi, F., and E. Sabbioni. 1968. Selective removal of radio-sodium from neutron-activatedmaterials by retention on hydrated antimony pentoxide . Radio-Anal. Chem. 1 :169-178 .

Gibbons, J.D. 1971 . Nonparametric statistical inference . McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York .306 p .

Gordon, L .I., L. Barstow, M. Lilley, E.A. Seifert, and P.K. Park. 1975. Method report for totalorganic carbon measurements . GEOSECS Rpt. 75-12. Ore. St. Univ. School of Oceanog.,Corvallis .

Haedrich, R .L., G.T. Rowe, and P.T. Polloni. 1975. Zonation and faunal composition ofepibenthic populations on the continental slope south of New England . J. of Mar. Res.33 :191-212 .

Harman, H.H. 1967 . Modern factor analysis. Second edition . The University of Chicago Press,Chicago, 474 p .

Harvey, G.R., and J.M. Teal. 1973. PCB and hydrocarbon contamination of plankton by nets.Bull. Env. Contam. Tox . 9 :287-290.

Hoffman, E.J., G.L. Hoffman, and R.A. Duce. 1976. Contamination of atmospheric particulatematter collected at remote shipboard and island locations . Natl. Bur. of Std. Spec. Pub .442 :377-388 .

Holm-Hansen, 0., W.H. Sutcliffe, Jr., and J.H. Sharp. 1968. Measurement of deoxyribonucleicacid in the ocean and its ecological significance . Limn. Oceanog. 13 :507-514 .

Huang, W., and W.G. Meinschein. 1976. Sterols as source indicators of organic materials insediments . Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta. 40 :323-330 .

Huntsman, S.A., and R.T. Barber. 1977. Primary production off northwest Africa-relationshipto wind and nutrient conditions . Deep-Sea Res. 24 :25-33 .

Jaccard, P . 1901 . Etude comparative de la distribution florale dans une portion des Alpes et duJura . Bull. Soc. Vandoise des Sci. Nat. 37 :547-579 .

Kator, H.J. 1973 . Utilization of crude oil hydrocarbons by mixed cultures of marine bacteria .Microbial degradation of oil pollutants (D.G. Ahearn and S .P. Meyers, eds .). Center forWetland Resources, LSU Pub. LSU-SG73-01 .

Kator, H.J., C.H. Oppenheimer, and R .J. Miget. 1971 . Microbial degradation of Louisiana crudeoil in closed flasks and under simulated field conditions . Proc. Joint Conff on Preventionand Control of Oil Spills . API and FWPC Admin .

Kester, D.R. 1975 . Dissolved gases other than COZ . In : Chem. Oceano& (J.P. Riley and G .Skirrow, eds.). Acad . Press, London. p. 497-556.

Kinrade, J.D., and J .C. Van Loon . 1974 . Solvent extraction for use with flame atomic absorptionspectroscopy . Anal. Chem . 46 :1894-1898 .

100 Equipmeni Group

~Lambertsen, G., and R .J. Holman. 1963 : Partial characterization of the hydrocarbons of herring

oil . Acta. Chem. Scand. 17 :281-282 .

Lance, G.N., and W.T. Williams. 1967. Mixed-data classificatory programs I . Agglomerativesystems . Aust. Comp. J. 1(1) :15-20 .

Miget, R.J. 1973 . Bacterial seeding to enhance biodegradation of oil slicks . Proc. Joint Conff onPrevention and Control of Oil Spills . API and FWPC Admin.

Miget, R.J., C.H. Oppenheimer, H .J. Kator, and P .A. LaRock. 1969. Microbial degradation ofnormal paraffin hydrocarbon in crude oil . Proc. Joint Conff on Prevention and Control ofOil Spills. API and FWPC Admin .

Morisita, M . 1959. Measuring of interspecific association and similarity between communities .Mem. Fac. Sci. Kyushu Univ., Ser. E (Biol.). 3(1) :65-80 .

Oppenheimer, C.H., W. Gunkel, and G. Gassmann. 1975 . (Unpub). North Sea studies .

Oppenheimer, C.H., W. Gunkel, and G. Gassmann . 1977 . Proc. 1977 Oil Spill Conf (Prevention,Behavior, Control, Cleanup) . New Orleans, La., Mar. 8-10, p. 593-609 .

Pinet, P.R., and R.W. Frey. 1977. Organic carbon in surface sands seaward of Altamaha andDoboy Sounds, Georgia . GSA Bull. 88 :1731-1739 .

Roberts, M.H., Jr. 1974. A socioeconomic environmental baseline summary for the southAtlantic region between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and Cape Canaveral, Florida . Vol .III : Chemical and Biological Oceanography . BLM, USDI.

Rowe, G.T., and R.J. Menzies. 1969. Zonation of large benthic invertebrates in the deep sea offthe Carolinas . Deep-Sea Res. 16 :531-537 .

Searle, S.R. 1971 . Linear models. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York . 532 p .

Seinhorst, J .W. 1959. A rapid method for the transfer of nematodes from fixative to anhydrousglycerin . Nematologica. 4 :67-69 .

Simpson, E.H. 1949. Measurement of diversity . Nature. 163 :688 .

Skidaway Institute of Oceanography. 1973. The transfer of heavy metals through the innercontinental shelf to the open ocean . Ann. Prog. Rpt. April 1, 1972-March 31, 1973. 112 p .

Sneath, P., and R. Sokal. 1973 . Numerical taxonomy . W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco .573 p .

Snedecor, G.W., and W.G. Cochran. 1967 . Statistical methods . Sixth edition . Iowa StateUniversity Press. 593 p .

Strickland, J .D.H., and T.R. Parsons . 1972. A practical handbook of seawater analysis . Fish. Res.Bd. of Can. Bull. 167, 2nd ed.

Sverdrup, H .U., M.W. Johnson, and R.H. Fleming. 1942. The oceans, their physics, chemistry,and general biology . Prentice-Hall, Inc . Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 1087 p .

Texas Instruments Incorporated . 1977 . South Atlantic Benchmark Program Summary CruiseReport, Winter. 31 March . 25 p. + Appendixes .

Texas Instruments Incorporated . 1977. South Atlantic Benchmark Program Summary CruiseReport, Spring. 30 June. 26 p. + Appendixes .

Texas Instruments Incorporated . 1977. South Atlantic Benchmark Program Summary CruiseReport, Summer . 5 December. 31 p. + Appendixes .

101 Equipment Group

0

Texas Instruments Incorporated. 1978. South Atlantic Benchmark Program Summary CruiseReport, Fall. 10 January. 50 p. + Appendixes .

Tietjen, J.H. 1969. The ecology of shallow water meiofauna in two New England estuaries .Oecologio (Berl. ). 2 :251-291 .

UNESCO. 1968. Zooplankton sampling . UNESCO Mono. on oceanog. methodology . No. 2, Paris .

Walker, J.D., and R.R. Colwell. 1975. Some effects of petroleum on estuarine and marinemicroorganisms . Can. J. Microbiol. 21(3) :305-313 .

Walker, J.D., and R.R. Colwell. 1976. Enumeration of petroleum-degrading microorganisms .Appl. Env. Microbiol. 31(2) :198-207 .

Warner, J.S. 1976. Determination of aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons in marine organisms .Anal. Chem. 48 :578-583 .

Winer, B.J. 1971 . Statistical Principles in Experimental Design . Second edition . McGraw-Hill BookCo., New York. 907 p .

Zo, Z. 1978. Zooplankton spin splitter . Deep-Sea Res. 25 :571-576 .

Zsolnay, A. 1973. Hydrocarbon and chlorophyll : a correlation in the upwelling region off westAfrica . Deep-Sea Res. 20 :923-926 .

'102 Equipment Group

~

APPENDIX A

FAUNAL IDENTIFICATIONLITERATURE

103 Equipment Group

~APPENDIX A

FAUNAL IDENTIFICATION LETERATUREGeneral Literature

Gosner, K.L. 1971 . Guide to the identification of marine and estuarine inverterbrates . Wiley-Interscience, NewYork, 693 p.

Miner, R.W.` 1950 . Field book of seashore life. G.P . Putnam's Sons, Inc., New York, 888 p .Pearse, A .S . and L.G. Williams . 1951 . The biota of the reefs off the Carolinas . J. Elisha Mitchell Scf. Soc.

67 :133-161 .Pequegnat, W.E. and F.A. Chace, Jr. (eds) . 1970. Contributions on the biology of the Gulf of Mexico, Vol 1,

Texas A&M Univ. Oceano. Studies. Gulf Pub. Co. Houston. 270 p .

ForaminiferaBarker, R.W. 1960. Taxonomic notes on the species figured by H .B. Brady . Soc. Econ. Paleo. Min. Spec. Pub.

9. Tulsa.Bock, W.D., G.W. Lynts, S. Smith, R. Wright, W.W.' Hays, and J .I . Jones . 1971. A symposium of recent south

Florida Foraminifera. Miami GeoL Soc. Mem 1.Cushman, J.A. 1918-31 . The Foraminifera of the Atlantic Ocean . U.S. Nat~ Mus. Bull. 104 . Pt . 1-8.Ellis, B.F . and A.R.'Messina (eds). 1940. Catalog of Foraminifera . Am. Mus. Nat. Hist.Phleger, F . and F .L . `Parker. 1951 . Gulf of Mexico Foraminifera : ecology of northwestern Gulf of Mexico.

Pt. 2 : Foraminifera species . GSA Mem. 46.

NematodaChitwood, B.G.' 1951 . North American marine nematodes . Tex. J. Sci. 4 :617-672 .DeConinck, L.A.P. 1965 . Classe des Nematodes . In : Traite de Zoologie (P.P . Grasse, ed.). Nemathelminthes

(Nematodes) 4(2):3-217 .Gerlach, S.A: 1975 (unpub) . Identification key to the families of free-living marine nematodes . Marinbiologisk

Laboratorium, Helsing0r, Danmark, 35 p .Wieser, W. 1953 . Free-living marine nematodes . I ; Enoploidea. Chile Rpt . 10 . Lunds Univ. Arsskr. NF Avd

2(49):1-155 .Wieser, W. 1954 . Free-living marine nematodes . II : Chromadoroidea. Chile Rpt. 17. Lunds Univ. Arsskr. NF

Avd 2(50):1-148 .Wieser, W. 1956 . Free-living marine nematodes . III : Axonolaimoidea and Monohysteroidea . Chile Rpt. 26.

Lunds Univ. Arsskr. NFAvd. 2(52):1-115 .Wieser, W. 1959 . Free-living marine nematodes .and other small invertebrates of Puget Sound beaches . Univ.

Wash. Pub. Biol. 19:1-179 .Wieser, W. and B. Hopper. 1967 . Marine nematodes of the east coast of North America. I : Florida. Bull. Mus.

Comp. Zool. 135 :239-344 .

PolychaetaBailey, J .H. `1970. Spirorbinae (Polychaeta) from the West Indies. Studies of the fauna of Curacao and other

Caribbean Islands . 32(118):58-81 .Banse, K. 1970 . The small species of Euchone Malmgren (Sabellidae, Polychaeta) . Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash .

83(35):387-408 .Banse, K . 1972 . On some species of Phyllodocidae, Syllidae, Nephtyidae, Goniadidae, Apistobranchidae, and

Spionidae (Polychaeta) from the northeast Pacific Ocean . Pac. Sci. 26(2) :191-222 .Banse, K. 1972 . Redescription of some species of Chone Kroyer and Euchone Malmgren, and three new

species (Sabellidae, Polychaeta) . Fish . Bull. 70(2) :459-494 .Banse, K. 1973 . The ventra( parapodial cirrus of the benthic Phyllodocidae (Polychaeta), with special reference

to Clavadoce Hartman and Bergstroemia Banse . J. Nat. Hist. 7 :683-689 .Banse, K. and K.D. `Hobson. 1968. Benthic polychaetes from Puget Sound, Washington, with remarks on four

other species . Proc. U.'S NatL Mus. 125(3667):1-53 .Barnes, R .D . 1964 . Tube-building and feeding in the chaetopterid polychaete, Spiochaetoperus oculatus. Bia

BulL 128(3) :397-412 .Berkeley, C. 1967 . A checklist of Polychaeta recorded from British Columbia since 1923, with references to

name changes, descriptions, and synonymies . I :Errantia . Can. Zool. 45 :1049-1059 .Berkeley, E. and C. Berkeley . 1938 . Notes on Polychaeta from the coast of western Canada . II :Syllidae.

Ann.-Mag. Nat. Hist. Ser. 11 (Vol. i):33-49 .

104 Equipment Group

~Polychaeta (Continued)

Berkeley, E . and C . Berkeley . 1943 . Biological and oceanographical conditions in Hudson Bay . 11 : Polychaetafrom Hudson Bay . J. Fish . Res. Bd. Can. 6(2):129-132 .

Blake, J.A. 1966 . On Boccardia hamata (Webster), new combination (Polychaeta, Spionidae). Bull. S.Calif Acad Scf 65(3):176-184 .

Blake, J.A. 1969 . Systematics and ecology of shell-boring polychaetes from New England . Am . Zool.9:813-820.

Blake, J.A. 1971 . Revision of the genus Polydora from the east coast of North America (Polychaeta,Spionidae) . Smithsonian Contrib. Zool. 75 :1-32 .

Blake, J .H. and K.H. Woodwick . 1971 . A review of the genus Boccardia Carazzi (Polychaeta, Spionidae)with descriptions of two new species. Bull. S. Calif Acad Sci. 70(1):31-42.

Clark, R.B. and M.L. Jones . 1955. Two new Nephtys (Annelida, Polychaeta) from San Francisco Bay .J. Wash . Acad. Sci. 45(5):143-146 .

Dales, R.P. 1951 . Pelagic polychaetes of the Pacific Ocean . Bull. Scripps Inst. Oceanog. 7(2):99-168 .

Dauer, D .M. 1974 . Polychaete fauna associated with Gulf of Mexico sponges. Fla. Scf. 36(2-4):192-196.

Day, J .H . 1962 . Polychaeta from several localities in the western Indian Ocean . Proc. Zool. Soc. London.139(4) :627-656 .

Day, J.H. 1964 . A review of the family Ampharetidae (Polychaeta) . Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 48:97-120.

Day, J.H. 1967. A monograph on the Polychaeta of Southern Africa, Pt. 1 and 2. Brit. Mus. Nat. Hist.London. 878 p .

Day, J.H. 1973 . New Polychaeta from Beaufort with a key to all species recorded from North Carolina .NOAA Tech. Rpt. NMFS Circ-375. 140 p .

Ebbs, K.N. Jr . 1966 . The coral-inhabiting polychaetes of the northern Florida reef tract . Pt. 1 . Aphro-ditidae, Polynoidae, Amphinomidae, Eunicidae, and Lysaretidae. Bull. Mar. Sci. 16(3):485-555 .

Fauchald, K . 1963. Nephtyidae (Polychaeta) from Norwegian waters. Sarsia . 13 :1-32 .

Fauchald, K . 1974 . Sphaerodoridae (Polychaeta : Errantia) from worldwide areas. J. Nat. Hist. 8:257-289 .

Fauchald, K . 1977. The polychaete worms : definitions and keys to the orders, families and genera .Nat. Hist. Mus. of LA Cnty . Sci. Ser. 28 :1-190 .

Fauvel, P. 1923. Pcilychetes errantes. Faune de France. 5 :1-488.

Fauvel, P. 1927 . Polychetes sedentaires addenda aux errantes, Archiannelides, Myzostomaires . Faunede France. 16:1-494 .

Foster, N.M. 1969. New species of spionids (Polychaeta) from the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Seawith a partial revision of the genus Prionospio. Proc. Bio. Soc. Wash . 82:381-400 .

Foster, N.M. 1971 . Redescription of the spionid Malacoceros (Malacoceros) indicus (Fauvel 1928).J. Fish . Res. Bd. Can . 28:1455-1457 .

Foster, N.M. 1971 . Spionidae (Polychaeta) of the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea . Studies of thefauna of Curacao and other Caribbean Islands . 6 :1-183 .

Friedrich, Von . H. 1956 . Mitteilungen uber neue und wenig bekannte Polychaeten aus Mittel undSudamerika. Senck. Biol. 37 :57-68.

Gardiner, S .L.. 1976. Errant polychaete annelids from North Carolina . J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc .91(3):78-220 .

Gidholm, L 1967 . A revision of Autolytinae (Syllidae, Polychaeta) with special reference to Scandinavianspecies, and with notes on external and internal morphology, reproduction and ecology . Arkiv. forZool. 19(7):147-213 .

Gitay, A. 1969 . A contribution to the revision of Spiochaetopterus (Chaetopteridae, Polychaeta) . Sarsia.37 :9-20 .

Harper, D.E. Jr ., 1971 (unpub) . Key to the polychaetes of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Texas A&MUniv. Mimeo.

Hartman, 0. 1939 . The polychaetous annelids collected on the presidential cruise of 1938 . SmithsonianMisc. Coll. 98(13):1-22.

Hartman, 0 . 1939 . Polychaetous annelids. Pt I : Aphroditidae to Pisionidae . Allan Hancock Pac. Exped.7 :1-156 .

105 Equipment Group

0

si-VPolychaeta (Continued)

Hartman, 0 1939 . New species of polychaetous annelids from southern California . Allan Hancock Pac.Exped. 7 :157-172 .

Hartman, 0. 1940. Polychaetous annelids . Pt II : Chrysopetalidae to Goniadidae . Allan Hancock Pac. Exped7 :173-288 .

Hartman, 0. 1941 . Polychaetous annelids. Pt III : Some contributions to the biology and life history ofSpionidae from California with keys to species and genera and descriptions of two new forms. AllanHancock Pac. Exped. 7 :289-324 .

Hartman, 0. 1941 . Polychaetous annelids. Pt IV : Pectinariidae, with a review of all species from thewestern hemisphere . Allan Hancock Pac. Exped. 7 :289-324 .

Hartman, 0. 1944. New England Annelida . Pt 2 . Bull. Am. Mus. Nat.. Hist. 82(7) :331-343 .

Hartman, 0. 1945 . The marine annelids of North Carolina . Bull. Duke Univ. Mar. Sta. 2:1-54 .

Hartman, 0. 1948 . The polychaetous annelids of Alaska . Pac. Sci. 2(1):3-58 .

Hartman, 0. 1949 . A new marine annelid from Florida . Proc. U.S. NatL Mus. 99(3250) :503-508.

Hartman, 0 . 1950 . Goniadidae, Glyceridae, and Nephtyidae . Allan Hancock Pac. Exped. 15(1) :1-142 .

Hartman, 0 . 1954 . The littoral marine annelids of the Gulf of Mexico . Pub. Inst. Mar. Sci. Univ. Texas.2(1) :7-124 .

Hartman, 0 . 1956 . Polychaetous annelids erected by Treadwell, 1891 to 1948, together with a briefchronology . Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 109(2) :243-310 .

Hartman, 0 . 1957 . Orbiniidae, Apistobranchidae, Paraonidae, and Longosomidae . Allan Hancock Pac.Exped 15(3):211-343 .

Hartman, 0 . 1959 . Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the world. Pt 1 and 2 . USC Allan HancockFound. 23 :268 .

Hartman, 0 . 1961 . Polychaetous annelids from California . Allan Hancock Pac. Exped. 25:1-226 .Hartman, 0 . 1963 . Submarine canyons of southern California. Pt III : Systematics, Polychaetes. Allan

Hancock Pac. Exped. 27(3):1-93 .Hartman, 0. 1965 . Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the world. Supplement 1960-1965 and

index. Occ. Pap. Allan Hancock Found. 23:1-197 .Hartman, 0 . 1968 . Atlas of the errantiate polychaetous annelids from California. USC Allan Hancock

Found 828 p.Hartman, 0 . and K. Fauchald. 1971 . Deep-water benthic polychaetous annelids off New England to

Bermuda and other North Atlantic areas . Pt II. Allan Hancock Mono. in Mar. Biol. 6:1-327 .

Hartman, 0. 1969 . Atlas of the sedentariate polychaetous annelids from California . USC Allan HancockFound. 812 p.

Hobson, K.D. 1970 . Novaquesta trifurcata, a new genus and species of the family Questidae (Annelida,Polychaeta) from Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 83(17):191-194.

Hobson, K.D. 1971. Some polychaetes of the superfamily Eunicea from the north Pacific and northAtlantic Oceans. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 83(47):527-544 .

Horn, E.C. and C .G. Bookhout. 1950 . The early development of Haploscoloplos bustoris (Eisig). J. ElishaMitchell Sci. Soc . 66(1):1-9 . .

Imajima, M. 1966 . The Syllidae (polychaetous annelids) from Japan. I : Exogoninae . Pub. Seto Mar. Biol.Lab.1.4:85-111. `

Imajima, M. 1966 . The Syllidae (polychaetous annelids) from Japan . 11 : Autoly tinae . Pub. Seto Mar. BioLLab. 14:27-83 .

Imajima, M. 1966 . The Syllidae (polychaetous annelids) from Japan. III : Eusyllinae . Pub. Seto Mar. Biol.Lab. 14:85-111 .

Imajima, M. 1966 . The Syllidae (polychaetous annelids) from Japan . IV: Syllidae 1 . Pub. Seto Mar. Biol.Lab. 14:219-252 .

106 Equipment Group

~Polychaeta (Continued)

Imajima, M. 1966 . The Syllidae (polychaetous annelids) from Japan . V: Syllidae 2. Pub. Seto. Mar. Biol.Lab. 14:253-294 .

Imajima, M . 1967 . The Syllidae (polychaetous annelids) from Japan . VI : Distribution and Literature . Pub.Seto Mar. Biol. Lab. 14:351-368 .

Jones, M.L. 1961. Two new polychaetes of the families Pilargidae and Capitellidae from the Gulf ofMexico. Am. Mus. Novit. 204(9) :1-18.

Jones, M.L . 1962 . On some polychaetous annelids from Jamaica, the West Indies . Bull. Am. Mus. Nat.Hist. 124 (5 ) :169 -212.

Jones, M.L. 1963 . Four new species of Magelona (Annelida, Polychaeta) and a redescription of Magelonalongicornis Johnson . Arn. Mus. Novit 2164 :1-31 .

Jones, M.L. 1971 . Magelona berkeley, n. sp. from Puget Sound (Annelida Polychaeta), with a furtherredescription of Magelona longicornis Johnson and a consideration of recently described species ofMagelona . J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can . 78:1445-1454 .

Jumars, P .A . 1974 . A generic revision of the Dorvilleidae (Polychaeta) with six new species from thedeep North Pacific . J. Limn. Soc. London Zool. 54:101-135 .

Kinner, P. and D. Maurer, 1978 . Polychaetous annelids of the Delaware Bay region . Fish . Bull. 76(1) :209-224 .

Kirkegaard, J .B . 1959 . The Polychaeta of West Africa. Pt I : sedentary species . Atlantide Rpt. 5 :10-117 .

Laubier, L. 1963 . Decouverte du genre Cossura (Polychete, Cossuridae) en Mediterranee : Cossura soyerisp. n. Vie et Milieu. 14:833-842 .

Long, C.D. 1973 . Pectinariidae (Polychaeta) from Caribbean and associated waters . BuIL Mar. ScL23(4):857-874 .

Lucas, J.A.W., and L.B . Holthuis. 1975 . On the identity and nomenclature of Pectinaria belgica (Pallas, 1966)(Polychaeta, Amphictenidae). Zool. Mededelingen. 49(9):85-90.

Martin, M., and K . Green. 1977 . Key to some Maldanidae Polychaeta genera based upon anterior fragnents .Proc. Tax. Stand. Prog. 5(1):10-17 .

Maurer, D., L . Watling, P. Kinner, W. Leatham, and C. Wethe . 1978. Benthic invertebrate assemblages ofDelaware Bay . Mar. BioL 45 :65-78.

Pettibone, M.H. 1949 . Polychaetous annelids of the Polynoidae from the northeastern Pacific, with a descrip-tion of a new species. Am. Mus. Novit. 1414:1-5 .

Pettibone, M.H. 1954 . Marine polychaeta worms from Point Barrow, Alaska, with additional records fromthe North Atlantic and North Pacific . Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus. (3324):203-356.

Pettibone, M.H. 1955 . New species of polychaete worms of the family Polynoidae from the east coast ofNorth America . J. Wash. Acad. Sci 45(4):118-126 .

Pettibone, M.H. 1956 . Some polychaete worms of the families Hesionidae, Syllidae, and Nereidae from theeast coast of North America, West Indies, and Gulf of Mexico . J. Wash. Acad. ScL 46(9):281-294 .

Pettibone, M.H. 1957 . North American genera of the family Orbiniidae (Annelida : Polychaeta) withdescriptions of new species . J. Wash . Acad. Scf 47(5):159-167.

Pettibone, M.H. 1957 . A new polychaetous annelid of the family Paraonidae from the North Atlantic . J.Wash. Acad. Sci. 47(10):354-356 .

Pettibone, M.H. 1957 . .Endoparasitic polyclaetous annelids of the family Arabellidae with descriptions ofnew species . Biol. Bull. 113(1):170-187 .

Pettibone, M.H. 1961 . New species of polychaete worms from the Atlantic Ocean, with a revision of theDorvilleidae . Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash . 74:167-186 .

Pettibone, M.H. 1962 . New species of polychaete worms (Spionidae : Spiophanes) from the east and westcoast of North America. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash . 75:77-88 .

Pettibone, M.H . 1963. Marine polychaete worms of the New England region . Pt I, Aphroditidae throughTrochochaetidae . Bull. U.S. NatL Mus. 227:1-356.

Pettibone, M.H. 1963 . Revision of some genera of polychaete worms of the family Spionidae, includingthe description of a new species of Scolelepis. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 76:89-104.

107 Equipment Group

~Polychaeta (Continued)

Pettibone, M.H. 1965 . Two new species of Aricidea (Polychaeta, Paraonidae) from Virginia and Florida, andredescription of Aricidea fragilis Webster . Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 78 :128-139 .

Pettibone, M.H. 1966 . Revision of the Pilargidae (Arlnelida : Polychaeta), including descriptions of new species,and redescription of the pelagic Podarmus ploa Chamberlin (Polynoidae) . Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus.118(3525):155-208 .

Pettibone, M.H. 1966 . Heteraphrodita altoni, a new genus and species of polychaete worm (Polychaeta,Aphroditidae) from deep water off Oregon, and a revision of the aphroditid genera . Proc . Biol. Soc. Wash.79 :95-108 .

Pettibone, M.H. 1967 . Type-specimens of polychaetes described by Edith and Cyril Berkeley (1923-64) .Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus. 119(3553):1-23 .

Pettibone, M.H. 1967 . Some bathyal polynoids from central and northeastern Pacific (Polychaeta : Polynoidae).Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus. 121(3575):1-15 .

Pettibone, M.H. 1969. Review of some species referred to Scalisetosus Mclntosh (Polychaeta, Polynoidae) .Proc. Btol. Soc. Wash. 82 :43-82 .

Pettibone, M.H. 1969. Remarks on the North Pacific Harmothoe tenebricosa. Moore (Polychaeta, Polynoidae)and its association with asteroids (Echinodermata, Asteroidea) . Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 82:31-42.

Pettibone, M.H. 1969 . Revision of the Aphroditoid polychaetes of the family Eulepethidae Chamberlin(= Eulepidinae Darboux ; = Pareulepidae Hartman) . Smithsonian Contrib. Zool. 44 .

Pettibone, M.H. 1969 . The genera Polyeunoa Mclntosh, Hololepidella Willey, and three new genera (Polychaeta,Polynoidae) . Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 82:43-82 .

Pettibone, M.H. 1969 . The genera Sthenelanella Moore and Euleanira Horst (Polychaeta, Sigalionidae). Proc.Biol. Soc. Wash. 82 :429-438 .

Pettibone, M.H. 1970 . Revision of the genus Euthalenessa Darboux (Polychaeta : Sigalionidae) . SmithsonianContrib. ZooL 52:1-30 .

Pettibone, M.H. 1970 . Revision of some species referred to Leanira Kinberg (Polychaeta : Sigalionidae) .Smithsonian Contrib, Zool. 53:1-25 .

Pettibone, M.H. 1970 . Two new genera of Sigalionidae (Polychaeta) . Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 83(34):365-386 .

Pettibone, M.H. 1970 . Polychaeta errantia of the Siboga Expedition . Pt IV . Siboga-Expedite Mono. 24, ld(= Livr. 147) :1-71 .

Pettibone, M.H. 1971 . Revision of some species referred to Leptonereis, Nicon, and Laeonereis (Polychaeta :Nereidae). Smithsonian Contrib. Zool. 104:1-53 .

Pettibone, M.H. 1971 . Partial revision of the genus Sthenelais Kinberg (Polychaeta : Sigalionidae) withdiagnoses of two new genera. Smithsonian Contrib. Zool. 109:1-40.

Pettibone, M.H. 1975 . Review of the genus Hermenia, with a description of a new species (Polychaeta :PoIynoidae: Lepidonotinae) . Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash . 88(22) :233-248 .

Reish, D.J. 1958 . Description of a new species of Cossura (Annelida : Polychaeta) from the Mississippi Delta .J. Wash . Acad. Sci. 48:53-55 .

Reish, D.J. 1959 . New species of Spionidae (Annelida, Polychaeta) from Southern California . Bull. S. CalifAcad. Sci. 58(1):11-16.

Renaud, J.C. 1956 . A report on some polychaetous annelids from the Miami-Bimini area. Am. Mus. Novit.1812:1-40.

Rioja, E . 1941 . Estudios Anelidologicos . III . Datos para el- conocimiento de la fauna de poliquetos de lascostas del Pacifico de Mexico . Ann. Inst. BioL Mex. 12:669-746.

Santos, S.L. 1977 . A new species of Travisia (Polychaeta, Opheliidae) from Tampa Bay, Florida . Proc. Biol.Soc. Wash. 88(49) :559-564 .

Santos, S.L., and J .L . Simon. 1974 . Distribution and abundance of polychaetous annelids in a south Floridaestuary . Bull. Mar. Sci. 24(3):669-689 .

Southward, E .C . 1963 . Some new and little-known serpulid polychaetes from the continental slope . J. Mar.Biol Assn. 43:573-587 .

108 Equipment Group

~Polychaeta (Continued)

Taylor, J.L. 1966 . A pacific polychaete in southeastern United States . Q. J. Acad Sci, 29(1):21-26 .

TenHove, H .A. 1970. Serpulinae (Polychaeta) from the Caribbean : I, the genus Spirobranchus. Studies of thefauna of Curacao and other Caribbean Islands. 32(17):1-57 .

TenHove. H.A. 1973. Serpulinae (Polychaeta) from the Caribbean : II, the genus Sclerostyla. Studies of thefauna of Curacao and other Caribbean Islands. 39. 16 p .

TenHove, H .A. 1975 . Serpulinae (Polychaeta) from the Caribbean : III, the genus Pseudovermilia. Studies ofthe fauna of Curacao and other Caribbean Islands, 47(156):46-101 .

Treadwell, A.L. 1936. Polychaetous annelids from the vicinity of Nonsuch Island, Bermuda . Zoological.21(2):49-68.

Warner, L.M. 1976. A review of the genus Capitella (Polychaeta, Capitellidae) . /. Zool. Soc. London .180:195-209.

Webster, H.E., and J.E. Benedict. 1884. The Annelida chaetopoda from Provincetown and Wellfleet, Mass .Rpt. U.S. Comm. Fish. 1881(9):699-747. '

Wells, G.P. 1962. The warm-water lugworms of the world (Arenicolidae, Polychaeta) . Proc. ZooL Soc.London. 38:331-353.

Wesenberg-Lund, E. 1948. Maldanidae (Polychaeta) from West Greenland waters . Meddelelser OM Gronlandudgivre AF. Kommissionen for Videnskelige Undersogelser. 134(9) :1-58.

Wesenberg-Lund, E. 1958 . Lesser Antillean polychaetes, chiefly from brackish water . Studies of the faunaof Curacao and other Caribbean Islands. 8(30):1-41. `

Arthropoda

Crustacea-Copepoda

Bowman, T.E. 1971 . The distribution of calanoid copepods off the southeastern United States betweenCape Hatteras and Southern Florida. Smithsonian Contrib. Zool. 96:1-58 .

Coull, B.C. 1970. Harpacticoid copepods from Barbados and Jamaica, W .1 ., with descriptions of two newspecies. Carib. J. Sci. 10(3-4):129-135 .

Coull, B.C. 1971 . Meiobenthic Harpacticoida (Crustacea, Copepoda) from the North Carolina continentalshelf. Cah. Biol. Mar. 12:195-237 .

Dakin, W.J. and A.N. Colefax. 1940 . The plankton of the Australian coastal waters off New South Wales.Pt 1. Univ. Sydney Dept. Zool. Aus. Med. Pub. Co. Ltd . NSW. 215 p .

Gonzales, J.G. and T.E. Bowman. 1965 . Planktonic copepods from Bahia Fosforescente, Puerto Rico, andadjacent waters . Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus. 117 :241-304 .

Lang, K. 1948. Monographie der Harpacticiden . I, II. Lund. Hakar Ohlsson. 1682 p .

Lang, K. 1965 . Copepoda Harpacticoidea from the Californian Pacific coast . Kungl. Svensk .Vetenskaps.Handlingir. 10(2) :1-560 .

Owre, H.B. 1962 . Plankton of the Florida current. Pt VIII : a list of the Copepoda . Bull. Mar. Sci.12(3):489-495 .

Owre, H.B. and M. Foyo . 1965 . Fauna Caribaea. I : Copepods of the Florida current . Inst. Mar. Sci., Univ .Miami Press . 137 p .

Rose, M. 1933. Copepodes pelagques . Off. Central de Faunistique, Librairie de la Faculte des Sci . KrausReprint, Nendeln/Leichtenstein (1970) . Faune de France. 26:1-374 .

Steedman, H.F . (ed) . 1976 . Zooplankton fixation and preservation : Mono . on oceanog. methodology . 4 .UNESCO Press, Paris. 350 p .

Tranter, D .J . (ed). 1968 . Zooplankton sampling . Mono. on oceanog. methodology . 2 . UNESCO Press,Paris . 174 p .

Wells, J.B .J . 1976 . Keys to aid in the identification of marine harpacticoid copepods . Aberdeen (UK) Univ.Press Ltd. 215 p.

Wilson, C .B. 1932 . The copepods of the Woods Hole region, Massachusetts . Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus. 158:1-635 .

109 Equipment Group

~Arthropoda (Continued)

Crustacea-Cirrepedia

Harry, H .W. 1967 (unpub). Key to the barnacles (Cirripedia) of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico.

Pilsbry, H .A. 1916 . Sessile barnacles (Cirripedia) contained in collections of the U .S. National Museum ;

including a monograph of the American Species. U.S. NatL Mus. Bull. 93 :1-356 .

Zullo, V .A . (unpub) . A preliminary report on the systematics and distribution of barnacles (Cirrepedia) ofthe Cape Cod region . . '

Crustacea-Mysidacea

Brattegard, T. 1969 . Marine biological investigations in the Bahamas : 10, Mysidacea from shallow water inthe Bahamas and southern Florida. Sarsia. 39 :17-106 .

Brattegard, T. 1970 . Marine biological investigations in the Bahamas : 11, Mysidacea from shallow water inthe Bahamas and southern Florida . Sarsia. 41 :1-36 .

Tattersall, W.M. 1951 . A review of the Mysidacea of the United States National Museum . Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus.201 :1-292.

Crustacea-Tanaidacea

Gardiner, L .F. 1971 . The systematics, postmarsupial development and ecology of deep sea family Neotan-aidae. Smithsonian Contrib. Zool. 170:1-265 .

Lang, K. 1955 . Tanaidacea from tropical West Africa . Atlantide Rpt. 3 :57-81 .

Ogle, J. (unpub) . Key to the familes and genera of the Tanaidacea . 8 p .

Sieg, J . 1977 . Eine neue gattung (Heterotanoides gen . n. ) aus der familie per Paratanaidae Lang Tanaidacea .

Crustaceana, 33(2):203-209. `Crustacea-Isopoda

Bowman, T.E. 1977 . Isopod crustaceans (except Anthuridae) collected on the presidential cruise of 1938 .Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 89(57):653-666 .

Kruczynski, W.L. and G .J . Myers . 1976 . Occurrence of Apanthura magnifica Menzies and Frankenberg, 1966(Isopoda : Anthuridae) from the west coast of Florida, with a key to the species of Apanthura Stebbing,1900. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash . 89(28) :353-360 .

Menzies, R.J . and D. Frankenberg. 1966 . Handbook on the common marine isopod Crustacea of Georgia .Univ. Ga . Press, Athens . 93 p .

Menzies, R .J . and P.W. Glynn. 1968 . The common marine isopod Crustacea of Puerto Rico . Studies on thefauna of Glaacao and other Caribbean Islands. 133 p .

Miller, M.A. 1968 . Isopoda and Tanaidacea from buoys of the continental U .S ., Hawaii, and the Bahamas .Proc. US. NatL Mus. 1.25(3652) :1-53 .

Richardson, H. 1905. A monograph on the isopods of North America . Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus. 54 :1-727 .

Schultze, G.A. 1966 . Submarine canyons of Southern California . Pt IV-systematics : Isopoda . AllanHancock Pac. Exped. 27(4):1-56 .

Watling, L. and D . Maurer. 1975 . Chiridotea stenops Menzies and Frankenberg, a juvenile of C. arenicolaWigley (Crustacea : Isopoda). A'a• Biol. Soc. Wash. 88(13):121-126 .

Wigley, R.L. 1960. A new species of Chirodotea (Crustacea :Isopoda) from New England waters.Biol. Bull. 119(l) :153-160.

Crustacea-Amphipoda

Barnard, J.L . 1953. On two new amphipod records from Los Angeles Harbor . Bull. S. Calif Acad. Sci.52(3) :83-87 .

Barnard, J.L . 1954. Amphipoda of the family .-Ampeliscidae collected by the Velero III in the CaribbeanSea . Allan Hancock Atl. Exped Rpt. 7 :1-13 .

Barnard, J.L. 1958 . Index to the families, genera, and species of the gammaridean Amphipoda (Crustacea) .Allan Hancock Found. Occ. Paper 19_:1-148 .

Barnard, J .L. 1962. South Atlantic abyssal amphipods collected byR/V Vema, p . 1-78> In : Abyssal Crustacea.Vema Res. Serv. (Barnard, Menzies, and Bacescu). Columbia Univ. Press, N .Y. 223 p .

Barnard, J .L. 1969 . The families and genera of marine gammaridean Amphipoda . US. Natl. Mus. Bull. 271:1-535 .

Barnard, J .L. 1970 . Sublittoral gammaridea (Amphipoda) of the Hawaiian Islands . Smithsonian Contrib. Zool.34:1-286 .

110 Equipment Group

0

Arthropoda (Continued)

Crustacea-Amphipoda (Continued)

Barnard, J .L. 1971 . Gammaridean Amphipoda from a deep-sea transect off Oregon. Smithsonian Contrib. Zool.61 :1-86 .

Barnard, J .L. 1971 . Keys to the Hawaiian marine Gammaridea, 0-30 meters . Smithsonian Contrib. Zool.58:1-135 .

Barnard, J.L. 1972 . A review of the family Synopiidae (Tironidae), mainly distributed in the deep sea(Crustacea : Amphipoda) . Smithsonian Contrib. Zool. 124 :1-94 .

Barnard, J.L . 1972. Gammaridean Amphipoda of Australia, Pt 1 : Smithsonian Contrib. Zool. 103:1-333 .

Barnard, J .L. 1973. Deep-sea Amphipoda of the genus Lepechinella (Crustacea). Smithsonian Contrib. Zool.133 :1-31 .

Barnard, J .L. 1973 . Revision of Corophiidae and related familes (Amphipoda) . Smithsonian Contrib. Zool.151 :1-27 .

Barnard, J .L. 1974. Gammaridean Amphipoda of Australia, Pt II : Smithsonian Contrib. Zool. 139 :1-148.

Bousfield, E.L . 1973. Shallow-water gammaridean Amphipoda of New England . Comstock Pub . Assn .Cornell Univ . Press, Ithaca. xii+312 p.

Bousfield, E,L . 1977. A new look at the systematics of gammaridean amphipods of the world . CrustaceanaSupp. 4:282-316 .

Bowman, T.E. and L.W. Peterson. 1965 . Bibliography and list of new genera and species of amphipodcrustaceans described by Clarence R . Shoemaker. Crustaceana. 9(3):309-316.

Bowman, T.E. 1973 . Pelagic amphipods of the genus Hyperia and closely related genera (Hyperiidea :Hyperidae) . Smithsonian Contrib. Zool. 136:1-76.

Bowman, T.E. and H .E. Gruner. 1973 . The families and genera of Hyperiidea (Crustacea : Amphipoda).Smithsonian Contrib. ZooL 146:1-64 .

Bynum, K .H. and R.S . Fox. 1977 . New and noteworthy amphipod crustaceans from North Carolina, USA .Ches Sci. 18(1):1-33 .

Croker, R.A . 1971. A remarkable new amphipod genus (Crustacea, Gammaridae) from Eniwetok AtollLagoon . Pac. Sci. 25:383-386 .

Feeley, J. (unpub). Key to the amphipods of Virginia marine waters.Fox, R.S . 1973 . Ceradocus shoemakeri and Eriopisa schoenerae, new amphipods (Crustacea : Gammaridae)

from the Bahama Islands. J. Elisha Mitchell ScL Soc . 89(1,2):147-159 .

Fox, R.S . and K.H. Bynum. 1975 . The amphipod crustaceans of North Carolina estuarine water . Ches. Sci.16(4):223-237 .

Glynn, P.W. 1964. Common marine animals of the shallow waters of Puerto Rico . Preprint to Historianatural de Puerto Rico. 39 p.

Heard, R . W. and D.G. Perlmutter. 1977 . Description of Colomastix janiceae n . sp., a commensal amphipod(Gammaridea : Colomastigidae) from the Florida Keys, USA. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash._90(1):30-42 .

Heard, R .W. and W .B. Sikora, 1 .971, A new species of Corophium Latreille, 1806 (Crustacea : Amphipoda)from Georgia brackish waters, with some ecological notes . Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 84:467-476 .

Kunkel, B.W. 1918 . The .Arthrostraca of Connecticut. St. Geo. Nat. Hist. Sur. Bull. 26:1-261 .

Laubitz, D.R. 1972 . The Caprellidae (Crustacea : Amphipoda) of Atlantic and Arctic Canada . NatL Mus Can.Pub. Biol. Oceanog. 4 :1-82 .

Laubitz, D.R. 1977 . A revision of the genera Dulichia and Paradulichia Baeck (Amphipoda, Podoceridae) .Can J. Zool. 55(6):942-982 .

Lowry, J.K. 1972. Taxonomy and distribution of Microprotopus along the east coast of the United States(Amphipoda, Isaeidae) . Crustaceana Supp. 3:277-286. `

McCain, J.C. 1968. The Caprellidae (Crustacea : Amphipoda) of the western North Atlantic . U.S. Natl. Mus.Bull. 278 :1-147 .

~ . 111 Equipment Group

~Arfhropoda(Continued)

Crustacea-Amphipoda (Continued)McKinney, L. 1977 . The origin and distribution of shallow-water gammaridian Ampliipoda in the Gulf of

Mexico and Caribbean Sea, with notes on their ecology . Ph .D Dis.,,Texas A&M Univ .

Mills, E .L . 1964 . Ampelisca abdita, a new amphipod crustacean from eastern North America . Can J. Zool.42 :559-575 .

Mills, E.L . 1964. Noteworthy Amphipoda (Crustacea) in the collection of the Yale Peabody Museum . Postilla.79 :1-41 .

Mills, E .L. 1967 . A reexamination of some species of Ampelisca (Crustacea : Amphipoda) from the east coastof North America . Can . J. Zool. 45 :635-652 .

Mills, E .L . 1971 . Deep-sea Amphipoda from the western North Atlantic Ocean : the family Ampeliscidae.J. Limn. Oceanog. 16(2):357-386 .

Myers, A.A. 1969 . A revision of the amphipod genus Microdeutopus Costa (Gammaridea : Aoridae) . Bull. Brit.Mus. Nat. Hist. (Zool.). 17(4) :6-148 .

Rabindranath, P . 1972 . A new species of Podocerus Leach (Amphipoda) with a redescription of Podocerusbrasiliensis (Dana. 1853). Crustaceana Supp. 3 :249-307 .

Shoemaker, C.R. 1926. Amphipods of the family Bateidae in the collection of the United States NationalMuseum. Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus. 68(25) :1-26 .

Shoemaker, C.R. 1930. Amphipods of the Cheticamp Expedition of 1917 . Contrib. Can. Biol. Fish . NS5(10):221-359 .

Shoemaker, C.R. 1933 . Amphipoda from Florida and the West Indies. Am. Mus. Novit. 598 :1-24 .

Shoemaker, C.R. 1945 . The amphipod genus Unciola on the east coast of North America . Am. 16fidl. Nat.34(2):446-465 .

Shoemaker, C.R. 1945 . The amphipod genus Photis on the east coast of North America. Charleston Mus.Leaf 22:1-17 .

Stock, J .H . 1976 . A new member of the crustacean suborder Ingolfiellidea from Bonaire, with a review ofthe entire suborder . Studies of the fauna of Curacao and other Caribbean Islands. 164 :56-75 .

Wigley, R .L. 1966. Two new marine amphipods from Massachusetts, USA . Crustaceana . 10(3):259-270.

Zimmerman, R.J. and J.L. Barnard. 1977. A new genus of primitive marine hadzid (Amphipoda) fromBimini and Puerto Rico . Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash . 89(50):565-580 .

Crustacea-Cumacea

Calman, W .T. 1912. The Crustacea of the order Cumacea in the collection of U .S. Natl . Mus. Proc. U.S. NatLMus. 41 :603-676 .

Wigley, R .L. 1964 . Order Cumacea : Key to Cumacea of the Cape Cod region . In : Keys to the marine invertebratesof the Woods Hole region (R .I . Smith, ed). Systematics-Ecol . Prog . Contrib . 11, MBL-Woods Hole .

Crustacea-StomatopodaCamp, D.K. 1973 . Stomatopod Crustacea, Pt 2, Vo13 . Mem. of Hourglass Cruises. Mar. Res. Lab. Fla . Dept. Nat.

Resources. 100 p .Chace, F.A. 1958 . A new stomatopod crustacean of the genus Lysiosquilla from Cape Cod, Mass. Biol. Bull.

114(2) :141-145 .

Manning, R.B . 1959 . A checklist of the stomatopod crustaceans of the Florida-Gulf of Mexico area . J Fla. Acad.Sci. 22(1):14-24 .

Manning, R.B . 1969 . Stomatopod Crustacea of the western Atlantic . Studies in Tropical Oceanog. 8. Inst . Mar .Sci., Univ. of Miami ., Univ. of Miami Press, Coral Gables . 380 p.

Crustacea-DecapodaBenedict, J .E. 1902 . Descriptions of a new genus and 46 new species of crustaceans of the family Galatheidae,

with a list of the known marine species . Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus. 26 : 243-334 .Biffar, T. 1971 . The genus Callianassa (Crustacea, Decapoda, Thalassinidea) in south Florida, with keys to the

western Atlantic species . Bull. Mar. Sci. 21(3):637-715.

112- Equipment Group

~%Arthropoda (Continued)

Crustacea-Decapoda (Continued)Boothe, B.B ., Jr. 1976 . New and additional records of Pinnixa (Brachyura: Pinnotheridae) from South

Carolina, USA.1. Elisha Mitchell Sci Soc. 92(4):162-163 .

Boothe, B.B., Jr. 1976. Record of Coronis excavatrix Brooks (Crustacea: Stomatopoda) from South Carolina,USA . J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 92(4):1-163 .

Chace, F.A ., Jr. 1942. Reports on the scientific results of the Atlantis expeditions to the West Indies, underthe joint auspices of the University of Havana and Harvard University. The Anomuran Crustacea. I :Galatheidea.Torreia. 11:1-106 .

Chace F.A ., Jr. 1970. A new shrimp of the genus Lysmata (Decapoda, Hippolytidae) from the western Atlantic.Crustaceana. 19(1) :59-66 .

Chace, F .A ., Jr. 1972 . The shrimps of the Smithsonian-Bredin Caribbean expeditions with a summary of theWest Indian shallow-water species (Crustacea : Decapoda: Natantia) . Smithsonian Contrib. Zool. 98:1-179 .

de Man, J.G . 1925. The Decapoda of the Siboga expedition. Pt VI : the Axiidae collected by the Sibogaexpedition . Siboga Expeditie. 39e : 1-127 .

de Man, J .G. 1927 . A contribution to the knowledge of 21 species of the genus Upogebia Leach. Capita ZooL2(5) :1-58 .

de Man, J .G. 1928 . The Decapoda of the Siboga expedition . Pt VII : the Thalassinidae and Callianassidaecollected by the Siboga expedition, with some remarks on the Laomediidae . Siboga Expeditie. 39a6 :1-187 .

de Man, J .G. 1928 . A contribution to the knowledge of 22 species and three varieties of the genus CallianassaLeach. Capita ZooL II(6) :1-57 .

Farfante,l .P . 1977 . American solenocerid shrimps of the genera Hymenopenarus, Haliporoides, PkoticusHadropenaeus new genus, and Mesopenaeus new genus. Fish. Bull. 75(2):261-346 .

Felder, D .L . 1973 . An annotated key to crabs and lobsters (Decapoda, Reptantia) from coastal waters of thenorthwestern Gulf of Mexico . LSUPub. LSU-SG-73-02 :1-103 .

Holthuis, L.B . 1948. Note on the species ofPaleomonetes (Crustacea, Decapoda) found in the United Statesof America . Proc. Konink Li/ke Nederlandse Akad Van Wetenschappen (C). 52(1):87-95.

Holthuis, L.B . 1951 . A general revision of the Palaemonidae (Crustacea,Decapoda,Natantia) of the Americas.I : the subfamilies Euryrhynchinae and Pontoniinae . Occ. Pap. Allan Hancock Found. 11 :1-201(plates 1-63) .

McLaughlin, P.A. and A .J . Provenzano, Jr. 1974 . Hermit crabs of the genus Paguristes (Crustacea : Decapoda :Diogenidae) from the western Atlantic . Pt 1 : the Paguristes tortugae complex, with notes on variation .Bull. Mar. Sci. 24(1):165-234 .

McLaughlin, P.A . and A .J . Provenzano, Jr. 1974 . Biological results of the University of Miami deep-sea expedi-tions . 107 : Hermit crabs of the genus Paguristes (Crustacea : Decapoda: Diogenidae) from the westernAtlantic. Pt II : Descriptions of six new species. Bull. Mar. Sci. 24(4):885-938 .

McLaughlin, P.A. 1975 . Biological results of the University of Miami deep-sea expeditions . 114 : On theidentity of Pagurus brevidactylus (Stimpson) (Decapoda : Paguridae), with the description of a newspecies of Pagurus from the western Atlantic . Bull. Mar. Sci. 25(3):359-376.

Provenzano, A.J . 1959 . The shallow-water hermit crabs of Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 9(4):349-420.

Provenzano, A.J . 1960 . Notes on Pagurites cadenati, a hermit crab new to Florida . Q. J. Fla Acad. ScL 23(4).

Rathbun, M.J . 1901. The Brachyura and Macrura of Porto Rico . Bull. US. Fish. Comm. 2 :19-127 .

Rathbun, M .J . 1918. The grapsoid crabs of America. Bull. US. Natl. Mus. 97:1-116 .

Rathbun, M .J . 1925 . The spider crabs of America . Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus. 129 :1-613.

Rathbun, M .J . 1930. The cancroid crabs of America . Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus. 152:1-609 .

Rathbun, M .J . 1937 . The oxystomatous and allied crabs of America. Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus. 166:1-278 .

Schmitt, W .L. 1933. Four new species of decapod crustaceans from Porto Rico . Am. Mus. Novit. 262:1-9 .

Schmitt, W.L . 1935 . Mud shrimps of the Atlantic coast of North America . Smithsonian Misc. Coll. 93(2) :1-21 .

Wass, M.L. 1955 . The decapod crustaceans of Alligator Harbor and adjacent inshore areas of northwesternFlorida . Q. J. Fla. Acad Sci. 18(4) :129-176 .

Williams, A.B. 1965 . Marine decapod crustaceans of the Carolinas . Fish . Bull. 65(1):1-298 .

113 Equipment Group

~Arthropoda (Continued)

Crustacea-Decapoda (Continued)

Williams, A .B. 1974 . Marine tlora and fauna of the northeastern United States (Crustacea : Decapoda) . NOAATech. Rpt. NMFS Cir. 389 :1-50.

Williams, A .B. 1974. Two new axiids (Crustacea: Decapoda:Thalassinidea : Calocaris) from North Carolinaand the straits of Florida . Proc. Biol. Soc . Wash. 87(39):451-464.

Williams, A .B . 1976 . Distinction between a Gulf of Mexico and a Carolinian Atlantic species of theswimming crab Ovalipes (Decapoda: Portunadae) . Proc. Biol. Soc . Wash. 89(14):205-214 .

Williams, A.B ., L.R. McCloskey, and I .E . Gray . 1968. New records of brachyuran decapod crustaceans fromthe continental shelf off North Carolina, USA . Crustaceana. 15:41-66 .

Crustacea-Pycnogonida

Hedgpeth, J .W. 1948 . The Pycnogonida of the western North Atlantic and the Caribbean . Proc. U.S. Natl.Mus. 97:157-342 .

King, P .E . 1973 . Pycnogonids. St. Martins Press. New York . 137 p.

McCloskey, L. 1967 . New and little known benthic pycnogonids from North Carolina, J. Nat. His. 1 :119-134.

Mollusca

Abbott, R.T. 1974 . American seashells. Van Nostrand-Reinhold Col, New York . 663 p .

Cohen, A.C. 1976 . Systematics and distribution of Loligo (Cephalopoda, Myopsida) in the western NorthAtlantic, with descriptions of two new species . Malacologica 15(2) :229-367 .

Keen, A.M. 1963. Marine molluscan genera of western North America. Stanford Univ. Press. 126 p.

Morris, P.A . 1947 . A field guide to the shells of our Altantic Coast . Houghton Mifflin, Boston . 190 p .

Porter, H.J . 1974 . The North Carolina marine and estuarine Mollusca-an atlas of occurrence . UNC Inst. Mar.Sci: 351 p .

Strength, N .E ., and J .E . Blankenship . 1977. Notes on sea hares of south Texas (Gastropoda,Opisthobranchia) .Veliger. 20(2):98-100 .

Voss, G. 1950 . A review of the cephalopods of the Gulf of Mexico. BulL Mar. Sci. 6(2):85-178 .

Echinodennata

Clark, A.M. 1970. Notes on the family Amphiuridae (Ophiuroidae) . Bull. Brit. Mus. Nat. Hist 19(1) :1-81 .

Clark, H.L . 1942. The echinoderm fauna of Bermuda . Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 89(8):366-393 .

Deichmann, E . 1930. The holothurians of the western part of the Atlantic Ocean . Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool.71(3):41-226 .

Deichmann, E . 1954 . Keys to Gulf of Mexico holothurians . Fish Bull. 89:381-410.

Downey, M .E. 1973 . Starfishes from the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico . Smithsonian Contrib. Zool.126 :1-158 .

Durham, J.W. 1955 . Classification of clypeasteroid echinoids . Univ. Calif Pub. GeoL Sci. 31(4):73-198 .

Fell, H .B . 1960 . Synoptic keys to the genera of Ophiuroidea . Victoria Univ. (Wellington) Zool, Pub. . 26:1-44 .

Gray, I.E ., M .E. Downey, and M .J. Cerame-Vivas . 1968 . Seastars ofNorth Carolina . Fish. Bull. 67(1) :127-163 .

Kier, P .M. 1975 . The echinoids of Carrie Bow Cay, Belize . Smithsonian Contrib. Zool. 206 p.

Madsen, F .J . 1970 . West African ophiuroids . Atlantide Rpt. 11:151-243 .

Pawson, D.L. 1967. Protankyra grayi new species and Labidoplax buskii (Mclntosh) from off North Carolina(Holothuroidea, Synaptidae) . . Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash . 80:151-156 .

Pawson, D .L. 1968. A new Psolid sea cucumber from the Virgin Islands . Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 81 :347-350.

Pawson, D .L . 1971 . Siniotrochus phoxus: new genus, new species; a myriotrochid holothurian new to theU.S . east coast. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 84(28) :231-234 .

Pawson, D .L . 1976. Two new sea cucumbers (Echinodermata, Holothuroidea) from the eastern U .S . Proc. Biol.Soc. Wash. 89(34):405-410 .

Pawson, D .L . 1976. Shallow-water sea cucumbers (Echinodermata, Holothuroidea). from Carrie Bow Cay,Belize . Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 89(31):369-382.

114 Equipment Group

0

%Echinodermata (Continued)

Pawson, D .L . 1977 . Marine flora and fauna of the northeastern United States (Echinodermata, Holothuroidea) .NOAA Tech. Rpt. NMFS Circ. 405 :1-15 .

Phelan, T.F . 1972. Comments on the echinoid genus Encope and a new subgenus. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash .85(8) :109-130 .

Serafy, D .K . 1970. A new species of clvpeaster from the Gulf and Caribbean and a key to the species in thetropical northwestern Atlantic . Bull. Mar. Sci. 20(3) :662-677 .

Serafy, D .K. 1971. A redescription of C7ypeaster pallidus H.L. Clark 1914, and a description of juveniles ofC. rosaceus (Linnaeus, 1758) . Bull. Mar. Sci. 21(3):779-786 .

Serafy, D .K. 1973 . Variation in the polytypic sea urchin Lytechinus variegatus (Lamarck, 1816) in thewestern Atlantic. Bull Mar. Sci. 23(3) :523-534 .

Serafy, D .K. 1974. A new heart urchin, Areolampas atlantica ; new genus, new species from the NorthAtlantic and notes on closely related Homolampas. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 87(6):41-48 .

Thomas, L.P. 1962. The shallow water amphiurid brittle starts (Echinodermata : Ophiuroidea) of Florida .BulG Mar. Sci. 2(4):623-694 .

Thomas, L .P . 1965 . A monograph of the amphiurid brittle starts of the western Atlantic . PhD . Dis. Univ .Miami. 489 p .

Thomas, L .P. 1967 . The systematic brittle starts of the genus Ophionereis. BioL Results Univ. Miami Deep-SeaExped. 23(3):585-599 .

Ziesenhenne, F .C . 1955 . A review of the genus Ophioderma. Muller and Troschel 1842 . Essays in Nat. Sci. inhonor of Capt . Allan Hancock . p. 185-201 .

Chordata-Fishes

Bailey, R .M ., J .E. Fitch, E .S . Herald, E .A. Lachner, C .C. Lindsey, C .R. Robins, and W.B . Scot . 1970. A list ofcommon and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada . Am. Fish . Soc. Spec . Pub. 6.,3rd ed . 150 p .

Beebe, W ., and J . Tee-Van. 1933 . Field book of the shore fishes of Bermuda and the West Indies . G.P. Putnam'sSons. Reprint. Dover Pub., 1970 . 337 p.

Bigelow, H.B., and W.C . Schroeder. 1953 . Fishes of the Gulf of Maine . Fish. Bull. 74 :1-577 .Bohlke, J .E ., and C .C .G . Chaplin. 1968 . Fishes of the Bahamas and adjacent tropical waters. Livingston Pub .

Co. 771 p.

Breder, C.M. Jr. 1948. Fieldbook of marine fishes of the Atlantic coast from Labrador to Texas. 2nd ed.G.P. Putnam's Sons. 332 p.

Briggs, J .C . (unpub) . Florida fish families with suggested references for identification of species . A compen-dium of references for the identification of Florida species . Dept. Zool ., Univ . S . Fla.

Colton, J.B., and R .P . Marak . 1969 . Guide for identifying the common planktonic fish eggs and larvae ofcontinental-shelf waters, Cape Sable to Block Island . Bur. Comm. Fish . Lab ., Woods Hole . Lab. Ref69(9) :1-43 .

Dahlberg, M .D. 1975 . Guide to coastal fishes of Georgia and nearby states . Univ. Ga . Press, Athens. 186 p .DeSylva, D .P., F .A. Kalber, and C.N. Shuster. 1962 . Fishes in the shore zone and other areas of the

Delaware River Estuary . Univ. Del. Mar. Lab. Info. Serv. Pub . 5 : 1- 164.Guthery, E.J . 1967 . Field guide to the flatfishes of the family Bothidae in the western North Atlantic .

U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Circ. 263:1-47 .

Hoese, H.D., and R .H. Moore. 1977 . Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, and adjacent waters.Tex. A&M Univ . Press.

Jordan, D.S ., and W .B. Evermann. 1896-1900. The fishes of North and Middle America . Bull. U.S. Natl.Mus. 47(1-4) :1-3313. Reprint .

Lippson, A .J ., and R.L. Moran. 1974 . Manual for identification of early developmental stages of fishes inthe Potomac Estuary, Md. Dept . Nat . Res. 282 p.

Mansueti, A .J ., and J .D. Hardy, Jr . 1967 . Development of fishes of the Chesapeake Bay region. An atlas ofegg, larval, and juvenile stages. Pt. 1 . Univ. Md. 202 p.

Nelson, J .S . 1976 . Fishes of the world. John Wiley & Sons. 416 p .

115 Equipment Group

~Arotdata-Fishes (Continued)

Parker, J .C ., D.R. Moore, and B .J . Galloway. 1975. Key to the estuarine and marine fishes of Texaa 2nd. ed.Tex. A&M Univ. Ag . Ext . Serv.

Perimutter, A. 1961 . Guide to marine JPahea. NYU Press, 431 p.

Randall, J.E. 1968. Caribbean reef frshes. T.F.H. Pub. 318 p.

Scotton, L.N., R .E. Smith, N.S. Smith, K .S . Price, and D .P. DeSylva. 1973. Pictorial guide to the fish larvae ofDelaware Bay. Univ. DeL Coll. Mar. Studies, Newark. 205 p.

Sears Foundation for Marine Research . 1948-1973 (Numerous chapters, authors, and editors) . Fishes of thewestern North Atlantic. Pt 1-6.

Walls, J.G. 1975 . Fishes of the northern Gulf of Mexico . T.F.H. Pub. 432 p.

Miscellaneous TaxaBayer, F.M. 1961 . 7Tre shallow-wnter Octocorallia of the West Indian region . Martinus Nghoff, The Hague .

331 p.Cooper, G.A. 1973 . Memoirs of the Hourglass Cruises. Vol. 3, Pt. 3. Brachiopoda (recent) . Fla Dept. Nat. Res.

Mar. Lab . 17 p .

Cutler, E.B. 1967 . 7lee Sipuncula from the western North Atlantic: their systematics; ecology, anddistribution. Ph.D. Diss. Univ. R. Is . 294 p .

Cutler, E.B. 1969 . New species of Sipuncula from the western North Atlantic . Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash.82:209-217 .

Cutler, E.B., and N .A. Duffy. 1972 . A new species of Phascolion (Sipuncula) from the western NorthAtlantic. Proc. BioL Soc. Wash. 85(6):71-76 .

Cutler, E.B., and E. Jurczak. 1975. The Sipunculan genus Lithacrosiphon Shipley, a taxonomic review .ZooL J. Linn. Soc. 56(3):235-248 .

Cutler, E.B. 1977 . Marine flora and fauna of the northeastern United States . Sipuncula . NOAA Tech .Rpt. NMFS Qirc. 403:1-7 .

Deichmann, E. 1936. The Alcyonaria of the western part of the Atlantic Ocean . Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool53:1-317.

DeLaubenfels, M .W. 1947 . Ecology of the sponges of a brackish water environment at Beaufort, NorthCarolina . EcoL Mono.17(3):31-46.

Field, LR. 1949. Sea anemones and corals of Beaufort, North Carolina . Duke Univ. Mar. Sta. Bull. 5:1-39.

Fraser, C.M. 1944. Hydroids of the Atlantic coast of North America . Univ. Toronto Press . 451 p .

Maturo, F. 1957 . Bryozoa of Beaufort, North Carolina, and vicinity . J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 73(1):11-62 .

Maturo, F. 1966, Bryozoa of the southeast coast of the United States : Buigulidae and Beaniidae (Cheilos-tomata, Anasca). BuIL Mar. ScL 16(3):556-583 .

Stancyk, S.E., RJ. Maturo, and R .W. Heard . 1976 . Phoronids from the east coast of the United States . BuILMar. Sct 26(4) :576-584 .

Van Name, W.G. 1945 . The North and South American ascidians . BuIL Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 84:1-476 .

Well, H.W., M.J. Wells, and I.E. Gray . 1960. Marine sponges of North Carolina . J. EHsha Mitchell Sci. Soc.76:200-245 .

116 Equipment Group

~

APPENDIX BFAUNAL CHECKLIST

117 Equipment Group

~APPENDIX B

FAUNAL CHECKLIST

Protozoa

RhizopodeaForaminifera

AstrorhizidaeHrperamm hm elongataHyperammina subnodosaBathysiphon rufus

Saccammin:idacSaccammina atlanticaTechnitella atlantica

ArnmodiscidaeAmmodiscus anguillaeGlomospira sp .Ammolagena clavata

HormosinidaeReophax curtusReophax scorpiurusReophax cf. piluliferReophax cf. spiculiferaReophax dentaliniformisReophax nodulosusReophax guttifer

LituolidaeAmmobaculities sp .Cribrostomoides crassimargoCribrostomoides jeffreysiiCyclammina cancellataPlacopsilina bradyiPlacopsilina confusa

TextulariidaeBigenerina irregularisBigenerina cf. cylinoricaPlanctostoma luculentaSiphotextularia cf. concavaSiphoteztularia sp .Spiroplectammina floridanaTex tularia agglu tinansTextularia candeianaTextularia conicaTextularia foliacea var. occidentalisTextularia parvulaTextularia saulcyanaTextularia truncataTextularia ( 3 spp .)Vulvulfna pennatula

TrochamminidaeIrochammina advenaTrochammina lobataTrochammina nitidaTrochammina squamataTrochammina cf. globigeriniformaTrochammina (2 spp .)

AtaxophragmiidaeClavulina humilis var. mexicanaDorothia exilisGaudryina aeguaGaudryina atlanticaKarreriella bradyiMartinottiella communisEggerella advena

Ataxophragmiidae (continued)Eggerella bradyiTriloculina trigonula

TextulariellidaeTextulariella barretti

FischerinidaeCyclogyra involvensCyclogyra planorbisCyclogyra selseyensisCyclogyra sp .Gordiospira sp .

NubeculariidaeCalcituba decorataComuloculina inconstansNodobaculariella atlanticaSpiroloculina atlanticaWiesnerella auriculata

MiliolidaeArticulina lineataArticulina mucronataArticulina sagraMiliolinella circularisMiliolinella fichtelianaMiliolinella oblongaMiliolinella subrotundaPateoris hauerinoidesPyrgo denticulataPyrgo depressaPyrgo murrhinaPyrgo oblongaPyrgo subsphaericaPyrgo vespertilioPyrgo sp .Quinqueloculina bicostataQuinqueloculina boscianaQuinqueloculina candeianaQuinquelocultna comptaQuinqueloculina funafutiensisQuinqueloculina jugosaQuinqueloculina lamarckianaQuinqueloculina poeyanaQuinqueloculina seminulumQuinqueloculfna subpoeyanaQuinqueloculina cf. polygonaQuinqueloculina (2 spp .)Sigmoilina antfllanimSigmoilina sigrnoideaSigmoilina tenuisSiphonaptera horridaSiphonaptera sabulosaTriloculina insignisTriloculina linneianaTriloculina tricarinataTriloculina trigonulaTriloculina sp .Nummoloculina irregularisMassilina crenataCruciloculina cf. triangularisPyrgoella sphaeraSigmoilopsis schlumbergeriTubinella sp .

118 Equipment Group

~Soritidae Polymorphinidae

Archaias angulatus Globulina caribaeaPeneroplis bradyi Guttulina australfsPeneroplis dfscoideus Guttulina lacteaPeneroplis proteus Guttulina cf. yabeiCyclorbiculina compressa Guttulfna sp .

Nodosariidae Polymorphina pulehellaA mphicoryna hirsuta Polymorphfna cf. cylindrofdesAmphicoryna scalaris Pseudopolymorphina atlanticaDentalina calomorpha Pseudopolymorphina novangliaeDentalina communis Webbinella concavaDentalina ftliformis GlandulinidaeDentalfna flintii Fissurina formosaDentalina guttifera Fissurina lagunataDentalina guttifera var. semirugosa Fissurina marginataDentalina inornata var. bradyensis Fissurina orbignyanaDentalfna subemaciata Fissurfna semimarginataDentalina subsoluta Fissurina serrataFrondicularia cf. foliacea Fissurina submarginataFrondicularfa (3 spp .) Fissurina sulcataLagena apiopleura Fissurina cf. annectensLagena distoma Fissurina sp .Lagena laevis Fissurina cf. radiato-marginataLagena semilineata Fissurina trfgono-marginataLagena setigera Fissurina trigono-ornataLagena substriata Fissurina radiata var . striatulaLagena sulcata Glandulina cf. LaevigataLagena cf. striata Oolina apiculataLenticulina antillea Oolina globosaLen ticulina calcar Oolina hexagonaLenticulina glabrata Oolina lineataLenticulina iota Oolina meloLenticulina occidentalis Oolina cf. striatopunctataLenticulina orbfcularis Oolina (2 spp.)Lentieulina peregrina Laryngosigma williamsoniLenticulina rotulata SpirillinidaeLenticulina sp. Patellina corrugataLingulina sp. Spirillina decorataMarginulina bacheii Spirillina viviparaMarginulina bacheii var . ensiformis CeratobuliminidaeMarginulinopsis antilleus Hoeglundina elegansMarginulinopsis subaculeata Mississippina concentricaMarginulinopsis subaculeata var . glabrata RobertinidaeNodosaria catesbyt Robertinoides charlottensisNodosaria cf. Lamnulifera TurrilinidaePseudonodosaria comatula Buliminella elegantissimaSaracenaria italica Buliminella spinigeraSaracenaria latifrons BolivinitidaeSaracenaria sp . Bolivina albatrossiVaginulinopsis advenum Bolivina hastataVaginulinopsis legumen Bolivina lanceolataVaginulinopsis marginulinoides Bolfvina limbata var . costatulaVaginulinopsis planatus Bolivina lowmaniVaginulfnopsis cf. spinigera Bolivina minimaVaginulfnopsis cf. tasmanica Bolivina cf. plicataPlanularia (2 spp .) Bolivina pseudopunctataAstacolus crepidulus Bolivina striatula

Plectofrondicularia Bolivina striatula var . spinataPlectofrondicularia sp . Bolivina translucens

119 Equipment Group

~Bolivinitidae (continued) Laticarininidae

Bolivina truncata Laticarinina pauperataBolivina bradyi SiphoninidaeBolivina (3 spp .) Siphonina pulchraBrizalina spathulata AsterigerinidaeBrizalina subaenariensis var . mexicana Asterigerina carinataRectobolivina advena Asterellina pulchellaRectobolivina dimorpha Amphisteginidae

Islandiellidae Amphistegina lessoniiCassidulinoides bradyi CibicididaeCassidulinoides sp . Cibicides deprimusIslandiella subglobosa Cibicides floridanus

Eouvigerinidae Cibicides pseudoungerianusStilostomella antillea Cibicides refulgensStilostomella cf. consogrina Cibicides robertsonfanus

Buliminidae Cibicides rugosusBulimina aculeata Cibicides wuellerstorfzBulimina alazanensis Planulina ariminensisBulimina marginata Planulina exornaBulimina spicata Rupertina stabilisBulimina striata var. mexicana Hyalinea balthicaBulimina sp. PlanorbulinidaeGlobobulimina auriculata Planorbulina mediterranensisPavonina atlantica AcervulinidaeReussella atlantica Acervulina inhaerens

Uvigerinidae HomotrematidaeSagrina pulchella Carpenteria proteiformis

Siphogenerina royoi Homotrema rubrumTrifarina angulosa RotallidaeTrifarina bella Ammonia beccariiTrifarina bradyi Buccella hannaiUvigerfna auberiana ElphidiidaeUvigerina cf. canariensis Elphidium advenurnUvigerina hollieki Elphidium discoidaleUvigerina peregrina Elphidium excavalum forma clavaUvigerina peregrina var . bradyana Elphidium poeyanumRectuvigerina sp. Elphidium sagrum

Discorbidae Elphidium sp .Cancris oblonga CaucasinidaeDiscorbis sp . Fursenkoina complanataNeoconorbina terquemi Fursenkoina compressaRosalina bertheloti Fursenkoina mexicanaRosalina floridana Fursenkoina pontoniRosalina floridensis Fursenkoina punctataRosalina sp . Fursenkoina spinicostataRotorbinella lomaensis Fursenkoina tessellataRotorhinella mlra CassidulinidaeRotorbinella rosea Cassidulina crassaTretomphalus atlanticus Cassidulina laevigataEpistominella exigua Cassidulina laevigata var. carinata

Eponididae Cassidulina norcrossiEponides antillann Ehrenbergina trigonaEponides punctulatus NonionidaeEponides tumidulus Chilostomella oolinaEponides umbonatus Nonion grateloupiPlanopulvinulina sp . Nonionella atlanticaPoroeponides lateralis Nonionella turgida

Glabratellidae Nonionella sp .Glabratella lauriei Pullenia bulliodes

120 Equipment Group

O

~-vAnomalinidae Lafoeidae

Anomalina semipunctata Acrytolaria sp .Anomalina sp. PlumularidaeHanzawaia concentrica Aglaophenia acaciaMelonis zaandami Aglaophenia dubiaMelonis sp . Aglaophenia (3 spp.)

Carterinidae Cladocarpus carinatusCarterfna spiculotesta Cladocarpus septatus

Alabaminidae Monostaechus quadridensGyroidina sp . Plumularia (3 spp .)

Osangulariidae Thecocarpus benedictiOsangularia umbonifera Indeterminant piumularids (2 spp .)

Actinopodea-Radiolaria SertularidaeIndeterminant radiolarians Sertularella cf. gayi

Sertularella speciosaPorifera Sertularia dalmasi

Sertularis cf. inflataDemospongiae Sertularia (3 spp.)

Keratosa Indeterminant hydromedusae spp.Spongidae Siphonophora

Ircinia campana Indeterminant siphonophore spp.Ircinia strobilina

AnthozoaHaplosclerida Telestacea

Haliclonidae TelestidaeHaliclona (2 spp.) Telesto fruticulosa

Poecilosclerida Telesto nelleaeTelesto sp .

MicrocionidaeMicrociona sp. Gorgonacea

Halichondrida AnthothelidaeAnthopodium rubens

Halichondridae Titanideum frauenfeldiiHalichondria (2 spp.) GorgoniidaeAxinellida Leptogorgia setacea

Axinellidae Leptogorgia virgulataAxinella sp. Lophogorgia hebesHymeniaeidon sp . Lophogorgia sp .

PlexauridaeHadromerida Muricea pendula

Suberitidae PennatulaceaSuberites sp.

Clionidae RenillidaeCliona (2 spp.) Renilla reniformis

VirgularidaeCnidaria Virgularia presbytes

Hydrozoa ActinariaHydroida Edwardsiidae

Campanularidae Edwardsia (2 spp.)Campanularia marginata Halcampidae

Campanulinidae Siphonactinia parasiticaClytia fragilfs Indeterminant halcampids (2 spp.)Clytia longicyatha SagartidaeLovenella grandis Calliactus polypusThyroscyphus ramosus Diadumene leucolena

Halecidae Indeterminant sagartid sp .Halecium fruticosum Paractidae

Hebellidae Paranthus rapiforrnisScandia mutabilis

121 Equipment Group

~Scleractinia Monhysterida

Astraeidae LinhomoeidaeAstrangia astreiformis MonhysteridaeOculina sp . Scaptrellidae

SiphonolaimidaeCeriantharia Sphaerolaimidae

Cerianthidae DesmodoridaCerianthus sp .

CeramonematidaeCtenophora Desmodoridae

DraconematidaeTentaculata Epsilonematidae

Pleurobrachiidae RichtersiidaeMertensia sp. Monoposthiidae

Nuda Xennellidae

Beroidae ChromadoridaBeroe sp . Choniolaimidae

ChromadoridaePlatyhelminthes Comesomatidae

Turbellaria CyatholaimidaeMeyliidae

Leptoplanidae SelanchinematidaeLeptoplana spp.

Planoleridae DesmoscolecidaMaricola spp . Desmoscolecidae

NemertinaEnoplida

AnoplostomatidaeAnopla Anticomidae

Tubulanidae EnchelidiidaeTubulanus sp. Enoplidae

Lineidae lronidaeCerebratulus lacteus LauratonematidaeCerebratulus sp . LeptosomatidaeMicrura sp. Oncholaimidae

Enopla OxystominidaePhanodermatidae

Amphiporidae RhabdodemanidaeAmphiporus bioculatus Tripyloididae

Rotifera GnathostomulidaIndeterminant rotifer spp . Indeterminant gnathostomulid spp .

Gastrotricha AnnelidaIndeterminant gastrotrich spp. Polychaeta

OrbiniidaKinorhyncha OrbiniidaeIndeterminant kinorhynch spp . Haploscoloplos foliosus

Haploscoloplos fragilisNematoda* Haploscoloplos sp :

Araeolaimida Naineris bicornisAxonolaimidae Orbinia riserl

Camacolaimidae Orbinia sp .Haliplectidae Orbiniella sp.

Leptolaimidae Phylo michaelseni

Rhabdolaimidae Phylo sp :Scoloplos acmeceps

*Nematodes were identified to the family leveL

122 Equipment Group

~Orbiniidae (continued)

Scoloplos acutusScoloplos cf. capensisScoloplos rubraScoloplos (4 spp.)Indeterminant orbiniid sp .

ParaonidaeAricidea catherinaeAricidea cerrutiiAricidea fauvel!Aricidea fragilisAricidea minimaAricidea neosuecicaAricidea pseudoarticulataA ricidea suecicaAricidea tayloriAricidea wassiAricidea (4 spp .)Cirophonts branchiatusCirrophorus lyriformisCirrophonis sp.Paraonides lyraParaonis fulgensParaonis gracilisParaonis pygoenigmaticaIndeterminant paraonid (2 spp.)

QuestidaeIndeterminant questi¢ spp.

Cossurida

CossuridaeCossura deltaCossura sp .

Spionida

SpionidaeAonides mayaguezensisAonides paucibranchiataApoprionospio dayiDispio uncinataLaonice cirrataMalacoceros indicusMalacoceros vanderhorstiMalacoceros sp.Microspio pigmentataMinuspio cirriferaMinuspfo cirrobranchiataMinuspio (2 spp .)Paraprionospio pinnataPolydora aggregataPolydora caecaPolydora caulleryiPolydora cf. ciliataPolydora coloniaPolydora conchanimPolydora quadrilobataPolydora socialisPolydora tetrabranchiaPolydora websteriPolydora (6 spp .)

Spionidae (continued)Polydorella sp.Prionospio cristataPrionospio fallaxPrionospio steenstrupiRhynchospio inflatusRhynchospio sp.Scolelepis squamataScolelepis texanaScolelepis unidentataScolelepis (2 spp .)Spio pettiboneaeSpio setosaSpio sp .Spiophanes berkeleyorumSpiophanes bombyxSpiophanes wigleyiSpiophanes sp.Indeterminant spionids (3 spp.)

Family Near SpionidaeAberranta enigmatica

MagelonidaeMagelona cf. cinctaMagelona cf. comutaMagelona longicornisMagelona mirabilisMagelona pacifu;aMagelona paptllicornisMagelona phyllisaeMagelona pettiboneaeMagelona polyden tataMagelona riojaiMagelona roseaMagelona spp .

PoecilochaetidaePoecilochaetus johnsoniPoecilochaetus serpensPoecilochaetus (5 spp.)

ChaetopteridaeChaetopterus variopedatusMesochaetopterus sp.Spiochaetopterus costarumSpiochaetopterus sp .

CirratulidaeCaulleriella alataCaulleriella killar[ensisCaulleriella zetlandicaCaulleriella (3 spp .)Chaetozone gayheadiaChaetozone setosaCirriformia sp.Tharyx annulosusTharyx marioniTharyx setigeraIndeterminant cirratulids (3 spp .)

AcrocirridaeFlabelligella sp .Indeterminant acrocirrid sp.

123 Equipment Group

~CapiteIIida Phyllodocida

Capitellidae PhyllodocidaeBarantolla sp . Eteone heteropodaCapitella capitata Eteone lacteaCapitella sp. Eulalia bilfneataDasybranchus sp. Eulalia macrocerosDecamastus (3 spp .) Eulalia sanguineaHeteromastus filiformis Eulalia (2 spp .)Leiocapitella glabra Hesionura elongataLeiocapitella sp . Hesionura sp .Leiochrides sp . Mystides raricaMastobranchus sp . Paranaitis polynoidesMediomastus californiensis Paranaitis speciosaMediomastus sp . Phyllodoce arenaeNeoheteromastus sp. Phyllodoce castaneaNeomediomastus sp . Phyllodoce groenlandicaNotomastus americanus Phyllodoce longipesNotomastus hemipodus Phyllodoce madeirensisNotomastus laterfceus Phyllodoce mucosaNotomastus lobatus Phyllodoce (3 spp.)Notomastus tenuis Protomystides bidentataNotomastus (4 spp .) Steggoa sp.Pseudoleiocapitella sp . AlciopidaeScyphoproctus sp . Indeterminant alciopid spp .Indeterminant capitellid spp . Aphroditidae

Maldanidae Aphrodita sp .Asychis carolinae Aphrogenia sp.Axiothella mucosa Laetmonice filicornisAxiothella (3 spp.) Pontogenia sp .Branchioasychis americana Indeterminant aphroditid sp .Clymaldane sibogae PolynoidaeClymenella sp . Harmothoe extenuataClymenura sp . Harmothoe imbricataEuclymene sp . Harmothoe lunulataLumbriclymene sp. Hannothoe (2 spp .)Maldane sarsi Lepidametria commensalisMicroclymene sp. Lepidasthenia variaMicromaldane sp. . Lepidonotus sublevisNicomache sp . Malmgrenia (2 spp .)Notoproctus sp. Subadyte sp.Petaloproctus socialis PolyodontidaePmxiAella sp. Eupanthalis kinbergiIndeterminant maldanids (8 spp .) Polyodontes lupina

PholoididaeOpheliida Pholoides dorsipapillata

Opheliidae EulephethidaeArmandia agilis Eulepethus sp.Annandia maculata Grubeulepis (2 spp.)Anmandia cf. polyophthabna SigalionidaeOphelia denticulata Leanira cf. albaOphelia sp . Pholoe minutaOphelina cylindricaudata Psammolyce ctenidophoraTravisia hobsonae Sigalion arenicolaTravisia parva Sigalion sp.Travisia sp . Sthenelais boaIndeterminant opheliid sp .

ScalibregmidaeParasclerocheilus sp .

124 Equipment Group

0

~fSigalionidae (continued) Syllidae (continued)

Sthenelais limicola Syllides cf. japonicaSthenelais sp. Syllides longocirrataThalenessa sp. Syllis gracilis

Chrysopetalidae Trypanosyllis (2 spp.)Paleonotus heteroseta Typosyllis cf. aciculataPaleonotus sp . Typosyllis alternataIndeterminant chrysopetalid sp . Typosyl/is amica

Pisionidae Typosyllis armillarisPisione remota Typosyllis hyalina

Hesionidae Typosyllis proliferaGyptis brevipalpa Typosyllis regulata carolinaeHeteropodarke cf, heteromorpha Typosyllis (3 spp .)Heteropodarke sp . Indeterminant syllids (4 spp.)Kefersteinia cirrata NereidaeMicropthalmus (2 spp.) Ceratocephale (2 spp .)Ophiodromus obscurus Ceratonereis irritabilisIndeterminant hesionid sp. Ceratonereis mirabtlis

Pilargidae Nereis acuminateAncistrosyllis carolinensis Nereis falsaAncistrosyllis commensalis Nereis grayiAncistrosyllis groenlandica Nereis lamellosaAncistrosyllis hartmanae Nereis riiseiAncistrosyllis jonesi Nereis succineaAncistrosyllis papillosa Nereis (3 spp.)Ancistrosyllis sp . Nicon (2 spp .)Litocorsa sp. Platynereis dumerilliSigambra bassi Rullierinereis (3 spp.)Sigambra tentaculata Indeterminant nereids (3 sppJSynelmis albini GlyceridaeSynelmis sp. Glycera americana

Syllidae Glycera capitataAutolytus dentalius Glycera dibranchiataBrania clavata Glycera oxycephalaEhlersia cornuta Glycera papillosaEhlersia fernigina Glycera robustaEhlersia sp . Glycera sphyrabranchaEurysyllis tuberculata Glycera tesselataEusyllis sp . Glycera (3 spp .)Exogone dispar Hemipodus roseusExogone lourei GoniadidaeExogone cf. molesta Glycinde nordmanniExogone verugera Goniada brunneaExogone (2 spp .) Goniada emeritaHaplosyllis spongicola Goniada littoreaOdontosyllis fulgurans Goniada maculataParapionosyllis longicirrata Goniada norveglcaParapionosyllis sp. Goniada teresPionosyllis cf. uraga Goniada (3 spp .)Pionosyllis (2 spp.) Goniadella (2 spp .)Plakosyllis sp. Goniadides carolinaeSphaerosyllis bulbosa Ophioglycera sp.Sphaerosyllis erinaceus Progoniada regularisSphaerosyllis hystrix Progoniada (2 spp .)Sphaerosyllis pirifera LacydoniidaeSphaerosyllis cf. semiverrucosa Lacydonia cf. mirandaSphaerosyllis sp . Paralacydonia paradoxaStreptosyllis arenae NephtyidaeStreptosyllis (3 spp.) Aglaophamus circinata

Aglaophamus verrilli

125 Equipment Group

~Nephtyidae (continued)

Inermonephtys inermisNephtys buceraNephtys incisaNephtys pictaNephtys squamosaNephtys (3 spp .)

SphaerodoridaeSphaerephesia sp.Sphaerodortdium minutumSphaerodoropsis spp.

TomopteridaeTomopteris sp.

TyphloscolecidaeTravisiopsis sp .

Amphinomida

AmphinomidaeChloeia virtdisChloeia sp.Euythoe complanata19ermodice carunculataNotopygos sp.Paramphinome pulchellaPseudeurythoe ambigua:Indeterminant amphinomids (3 spp .)

EuphrosinidaeEuphrosine sp .

Eunicida

OnuphidaeDiopatra cupreaDiopatra tridentataDiopatra sp.Epidiopatra sp .Nothria (3 spp .)Onuphis eremitaOnuphis microcephalaOnuphis nebulosaOnuphis pallidulaOnuphis (3 spp .)Rhamphobrachium cf. agassiziRhamphobrachium (3 spp .)Indeterminant onuphids (4 spp .)

EunicidaeEunice antennataEunice pennataEunice vittataEunice websteriEunice (3 spp .)Lysidice ninettaMarphysa mortenseniMarphysa sanguineaMarphysa (3 spp .)Nematonereis unicornisIndeterminanteunicids (2 app.)

LumbrineridaeLumbrinerides acutaLumbrinerides (2 spp.)Lumbrineriopsis paradoxa

126

Lumbrineridae (continued)Lumbrineris albidentataLumbrineris coccineaLumbrineris cruzensisLumbrineris erectaLumbrineris fragilisLumbrineris impatiensLumbrineris inflataLumbrineris latreilliLumbrineris tenuisLumbrineris (3 spp.)Ninoe nigripes

ArabellidaeArabella iricolorArabella mutansArabella sp .Drilonereis cf. longaDrilonereis magnaNotocirnes spiniferus

LysaretidaeHalla (2 spp .)

DorvilleidaeDorvillea sociabilisMelodorvillea mfnutaMeiodorvillea sp.Protodorvillea kefersteiniSchistomeringos caecaSchistomeringos rudolphiIndeterminant dorvilleids (3 spp .)

Oweniida

OweniidaeMyriochele oculataMyriochele cf. pygidialisMyriochele (2 spp.)Myrioglobula sp .Myriowenia (2 spp .)Owenia fusiformis

FlabelligeridaFlabelligeridae

Piromis (2 spp .)Therochaeta sp .Indeterminant flabelligerids (3 spp .)

Fauveliopsida

FauveliopsidaeFauveliopsis sp.

Terebellida

SabellariidaeLygdamis sp.Sabellaria vulgaris beaufortensisSabellaria vulgaris vulgaris

AmphictenidaeCistena gouldii

AmpharetidaeAmpharete acutifronsAmpharete americanaAmpharete (2 spp .)

Equipment Group

0

Ampharetidae (continued) Serpulidae (continued)Amphicteis gunneri Hydroides protulicolaAsabellides cf. littoralis Hydroides uncinataIsolda pulchella Metavermilia multicristataMelinna maculata Metavermilia sp .Melinna sp . Neovermilia sp .Sosane sp . Pomatoceros americanusIndeterminant atnpharetids (2 spp .) Pomatoceros sp.

Terebellidae Pseudovennilia occidentalisAmaeana accraensis Serpula vermicularis granulosaAmaeana trilobata Serpula sp .Artacamella sp . Vermiliopsis annulataEupolymnia nesidensis ArchiannelidaEuthelepus sp. Indeterminant archiannelid app .Loimia medusa

OligochaetaLysilla sp .Indeterrninant oligochaete app .Paralanice sp .

Pista cristataPista cf. fasciata TardigradaPista quadrilobata Indeterminant tardigrade spp .

Pista sp.Polycirrus eximus ArthropodaPolycirrus (2 spp.) PycnogonidaTelothelepus sp . PantopodaTerebella pterochaeta pmmotheidaeThelepus cincinnatus Achelia sawayai

Trichobranchidae Ascorhynchus ovicoxaTerebellides stroemi Eurycyde n. ap .Trichobranchus glacialus Nymphonidae

Bogueidae Nymphon floridanumBoguea sp . Nymphon cf. macrumBoguella (2 spp.) PallenidaoIndeterminant bogueids (3 app.) Callipallene n. sp .

Sabellida Pallenopsis forflcifer

Sabellidae Phoxichilidiidae

Chone americana Anoplodactylus petiolatus

Chone spp . Pycnogonidae

Euchone cf. incolor Pycnogonum cf. crassirostre

Euchone sp . Crustacxa-CephalocaridaFabricia sp. Indeterminant cephalocarid sp .Hypsicomus sp . Crustacea-BranchiopodaJasmineira bilobata CladoceraJasmineira caudataJasmineira elegans PolyphemidaeMegalomma bioculatum Podon sp .Megalomma sp. Crustacea-OstracodaPotamilla renifonmu Indetermitiant ostracod spp .Potamilla spathifenrsPotamilla sp. Cruatacea-Mystacocarida

Sabella bipunctata Interminant mystacocarid ap .

Sabella melanostigma Crustacea-CopepodaSabella micropthalma CalanoidaSabella sp. CalanidaeIndeterminant sabellids (2 spp .) Calanus tenuicornis

Serpulidae Calanus sp .Filograna implexa Nannocalanus minorHydroides crucigera Nannocalanus sp .Hydroides dianthus Neocalanus gracilisHydroides cf. microtis Neocalanus robustiorNeocalanus sp .Undinula vulgaris

127 Equipment Group

~Eucalanidae Heterohabdidae

Eucalanus attenuatus Hemihabdus grimaldiEucalanus crassus Heterohabdus papilligerEucalanus elongatus Heterohabdus spinifronsEucalanus monachus AugaptilidaeEucalanus mucronatus Augaptilus longicaudatusMecynocera clausi Euaugaptilus sp .Mecynocera sp. Haloptilus longicomisRhincalanus corunutus Haloptilus spinicepsRhincalanus nasutus Candaciidae

Paracalanidae Candacia bipinnataCalocalanus contractus Candacia curtaCalocalanus pavo ~ Candacia pachydactylaCalocalanus plumulosus ! Candacia paenelongimanaCalocalanus styliremis i Paracandacia bispinosaCalocalanus sp. ~ PontellidaeParacalanus spp . Calanopia americana

Pseudocalanidae Labidocera acutifronsClausocalanus dreuicornis Labidocera aestivaClausocalanus furcatus ~ Labidocera neriiCtenocalanus sp . Pontellopsis plumataSpinocalanus abyssalis 'I Pontellopsis villosaIndeterminant psaudocalanid sp. ~ Acartiidae

Aetideidae Acartia danaeAetidius sp . MormonillidaeAetidopsis multiserata ~ Mormonila minorEuaetideus giesbrechti i Indeterminant calanoid spp.Euchirella messinensis CyclopoidaEuchirella sp .Gaetanus kruppi OithonidaeGaetanus minor Oithona spp.

Euchaetidae Ratania sp.Euchaeta marina ClausiidaeEuchaeta sp. Saphirella sp .

Phaennidae OncaeidaePhaenna spinifera Conaea gracilis

Scolecithricidae Lubbokia squillimanaScaphocalanus echinatus Oncaea spp .Scolecithricella abyssalis Pachos punctatumScolecithricella vittata SapphirinidaeScolecithrix danae Copilia mirabilis

Temoridae Copilia quadrataTemora stylifera Copilia vitreaTemora turbinata Sapphirina angusta

Metridiidae Sapphirina intestinataPleuromamma abdominalis Sapphirina metallinaPleuromamma gracilis Sapphirina nigromaculataPleuromamma xiphias Sapphirina opalinaPleuromamma sp . Sapphirina ovatolanceolata

Centropagidae CorycaeidaeCentropages furcatus Corycaeus anglicusCentropages violaceus Corycaeus lautus

Lucicutidae Corycaeus sp.Lucicutia clausi Farranula sp .

Lucicutia jlavicornis Indeterminant cyclopoid spp .

Lucicutia longicornisLucicutia magna

128 Equipment Group

f

Harpacticoida VerrucidaeVerruca sp .

Longipedidae LepadidaeLongipedia helgolandica Lepas (2 spp.)Longipedia sp . Scalpellum sp .Indeterminant langipedid spp. Indeterminant cirri d s

~ pp.

CanuellidaeIndeterminant canuellid spp . Nebaliacea

Aegisthidae Indeterminant loptostracan sp .Aegisthus mucronatus StomatopodaIndeterminant aegisthid spp .

Ectinosomidae Gonodactylidae

Microsetella rosea Eurysquilla plumata

Indeterminant ectinosomid spp . Eurysquilla sp .

Tachidiidae Gonodactylus bredini

Euterpina acutifrons Lysiosquillidae

Indeterminant tachidiid spp . Acanthosquilla biminensis

Harpacticidae Acanthosquilla sp .

Indeterminant harpacticid spp . Nannosquilla sp.

Tisbidae SquillidaeIndeterminant tisbid spp . Meiosquilla quadridens

Miracidae Squilla edentata edentata

Macrosetella gracilis Squilla empusa

Miracia minor Squilla negelcta

Oculosetella gracilis CumaceaIndeterminant miracid spp . BodotriidaePeltidiidae Cyclaspis variansPeltidium sp.

'Cyclaspts(4 spp.)

nd spp.Indeterminant peltid Indeterminant bodotriid sp .Pseudapeitidiidae DiastylidaeClytemnestra rostrata Diastylis (2 spp.)

Clytemnestra scutellata Leptostylis sp.Indeterminant pseudopeltidiid spp . Oxyurostylis salinoiThalestridae Oxyurostylis smithiIndeterminant thalestrid spp . Oxyurostylis sp.Diosaccidae Indeterminant diastylid sp .

Indeterminant diosaccid spp . LampropidaeAmeiridae Indeterminant lampropid sP .

Indetenninant ameirid spp . LeuconiidaeParamesochridae Eudorella sp.Indeterminant paramesochrid spp . NannastacidaeTetragonicipitidae Campylapsis (2 spp.)Indeterminant tetragonicipitid spp . Cumella (3 spp.)

Canthocamptidae Indeterminant nannastacid sp.Indeterminant canthocamptid spp .

Cylindropsilidae TanaidaceaIndeterminant cylmdropsilid spp. Apseudidae

Cletodidae Apseudes (5 spp.)Indeterminant cletodid spp. Kalliapseudidae

Laophontidae Kalliapseudes sp .Indeterminant laophontid spp . Leiopidae

Ancorabolidae Leiopus sp.Indeterminant ancorabolid spp. Leptochelidae

Indetenninant harpacticoid spp . Leptochelia dubiaCrustacea-Cirripedia Leptochelia sp .

Thoracica Leptognathidae

BalanidaeLeptognathia (2 spp.)

Balanus amphitrite Pseudotanaidae

Balanus reticulatus Cryptocope sp.

Balanus venusus niveus TanaidaeIndeterminant tanaids (2 spp .)

Balanus (3 spp .) Indeterminant tanaidaceans (4 spp .)

129 Equipment Group

~Isopoda Ampeliscidae (continued)

Byblis (3 spp .)Anthuridae Haploops n. sp .

Apanthura magniftca AmphilochidaeApanthura sp. Amphilochus sp .Cyathura burbancki Gitana sp .Leptanthura sp . Amphilochidae n. gen.Mesanthura sp . AoridaeHoroloanthura irpex Lembos smithiPanathura formosa Lembos websteriPtilanthura tricarina Lembos sp .Indeterminant anthurids (3 spp.) Microdeutopus anomalus

Asellidae Microdeutopus myersiIndeterminant asellid sp . Microdeutopus (2 spp .)

Janiridae Rudilemboides nagleyiJanira sp . Rudilemboides sp .Janiropsis sp. Unciola dfssimflfsIndeterminant janirid sp . Unciola irrotata

Munnidae Unciola serrataMunna sp, Unciola spicata

Stenetriidae Unciola (3 spp.)Stenetrium sp. Argissidae

Bopyridae Argfssa hamatipesPseudione sp . BateidaeIndeterminant bopyrid sp . Batea catharensis

Aegidae Carinobatea sp .Rocinela signata Colomastigidae

Cirolanidae Colomastix n . sp.Cirolana cf. borealis CorophiidaeCirolana polita Cerapus tubularisCirolana sp. Corophium acutumConilera cylindracea Corophium simileEurydice convexa Corophium tuberculatumEurydice littoralis Ericthonius brasiliensisEurydice piperata Ericthonius rubricornisCymothidae Ericthonius n. sp .Aegothoa oculata Rildardanus laminosaLivoneca ovalis Rildardanus n . sp .

Serolidae Siphonectes sp .Serolis mgrayi CressidaeGnathiidae Cressa n . sp.Gnathia sp. GammaridaeArcturidae Eriopisa sp.Astacilla lauffi Gammarus jenneriIdotheidae Jerbarnia n. sp .Chiridotea arenicola Megaluropus sp .Chiridotea sp . HadziidaeEdotea montosa

' Protohadzia sp.liformisEricsoniella cf. fi HaustoriidaeAmphipoda Acanthohaustorius intermedius

Ampeliscidae Acanthohaustorius millsi

Ampelisca abdita Acanthohaustorius shoemakeriAmpelisca agassizi Bathyproeia parkeri

Ampelisca bicarinata Pontoporeia affinisAmpelisca cristata microdentata Protohaustorius sp.Ampelisca vadorum Ischyroceridae

Ampelisca verilli Ischyrocerus cf. anguipes

Ampelisca (6 spp.) Microjassa sp .Byblis serrata

130 Equipment Group

~Liljeborgidae Synopiidae

Idunella sp. Gararyrrhoe sp.Liljeborgia n. sp . Pseudotiron sp .Listriella bamardi Synopia ultramarinaListriella sp . Syrrhoe sp.

Lysianassidae Tiron tropakisHippomedon serratus IngolfiellidaeHippomedon (3 spp.) Ingolfiella sp.Lysianopsis alba CaprellidaeOrchomenella minuta Aeginella sp.Tryphosella sp . Hemiproto wigleyi

Melitidae Luconacia incertaCeradocus sp . Phtisca antilliensisElasmopus levis Phtisca marinaElasmopus pocillimanus HyperidaeElasmopus n. sp. Hyperia spp .Maera caroliniana Hyperiodes spp .Maera williamsi PhronimidaeMaera (3 spp .) Phronima spp .Melita appendiculata Primno spp .Melita (2 spp .) MysidaceaIndeterminant melitid sp .

Oedicerotidae LophogasteridaePerioculodes sp. Lophogaster americanusSynchelidium americanum MysidaeWestwoodilla sp. Amathimysis gibba

Paramphithoidae Anchialina typicaEpimera sp. Bowmanlella dissimilis

Pardaliscidae Bowmaniella johnsoniPardisynopia sp . Bowmaniella parageia

Photidae Bowmanlella portoricensisChevalia sp . Bowmaniella sewelliGammaropsis (2 spp.) Gastrosaccus sp .Microprotopus raneyi Mysidopsis furca

Photis dentata Mysidopsis mortenseniPhotis longicaudata Mysidopsis sp .Photis pugnator Neomysis americanaPhotis reinhardi Indeterminant mysid sp .

Photis (5 spp .) EuphausiaceaPodoceropsis inaequisrylisPodoceropsis sp . Euphausiidae

Photidae n. gen. Nematoscelis sp .

Phoxocephalidae DecapodaHarpinia propinqua PenaeidaeHarpinia sp. Metapenaeopsis goodeiLeptophoxus sp . Parapenaeus longirostrisParaphoxus (2 spp.) Penaeopsis serrataPhoxocephalus sp. Penaeus aztecusPlatyischnopus sp . Penaeus duorarumTrichophoxus epistomus Penaeus setiferusTrichophoxus floridana Sicyonia 6revirostris

Pleustidae Sicyonia dorsalisStenopleustes gracilis . Sicyonia typica

Podoceridae 7Mchypeneus constrictussp .Laetmatophilis Solenoceridae

Podocerus sp. Hymenopenaeus debilisStenothoidae Mesopenaeus tropicalis

Parametopella cypris Pleoticus robuslusParametopella (2 spp .) Solenocera atlantidisStenothoe georgiana Solenocera necopina

131 Equipment Group

~Sergestidae Callianassidae (continued)

Lucifer faxoni Callianassa fragilisIndeterminant sergestid sp . Callianassa marginata

Pasiphaeidae Callianassa minimaLeptochela benmudensis Callianassa n. sp.Leptochela carinata GalatheidaeLeptochela papulata Galathea rostrataLeptochela serratobita Munida iris

Palaemonidae Munida irrasaPericlimenes americanus Munida longipesPericlimenes longicaudatus Munida pusillaPericlimenes cf. iridescens Munida sp.

Alpheidae PorcellanidaeAlpheopsis sp. Euceramus praelongusAlpheus normanni Megalobrachium soriatumAlpheus cf. floridanus Pachycheles rugimanusAutomate evermanni Polyonyx gibbesiiAutomate cf. rectifrons Porcellana sayanaSynalpheus townsendi Poicellana sigsbeiana

Ogyridae PaguridaeOgyrides limicola Catapagurus sharreriOgyrides yaquiensis Dardanus venosus

Hippolytidae Paguristes cf. mooreiLatreutes parvulus Paguristes triangulatusLysmata wurdemanni Pagurus defensusLysmata sp . Pagurus impressusThor floridanus Pagurus politus

Thor sp. Pagurus spp.Indeterminant hippolytid sp. Petrochirus diogenes

Processidae Pylopagurus corallinusProcessa bermudensis Pylopagurus holthuisiProcessa hemphilli AlbuneidaeProcessa tenuipes Albunea gibbesii

Pandalidae Albunea paretiiPlesionika acanthonotus Lepidopa websteriPlesionika martia RaninidaePlesionika cf. tenuipes Lyreides bairdii

Oplophoridae Ranilia muricataSystosellis deblis Symethis variolosa

Glyphocrangonidae DromiidaeGlyphocrangon spinicauda Dromidia antillensis

Eryonidae Hypoconcha arcuataStereomastis sculpta Hypoconcha sabulosa

Nephropsidae Hypoconcha spinosissimaNephropsis aculeata DorippidaeNephropsis rosea Clythrocerus granulatus

Scyllaridae Clythrocerus perpusillusScyllarus americanus Ethusa mascarone americanaScyllarus chacei Ethusa microphthalma

Axiidae LeucosiidaeAxiopsis n. sp . Ebalia stimpsoniiAxiopsis sp. Ebalia sp .Axius armatus Diacantha intermediaAxius (2 spp .) Persephona punctata aquilonaris

Calocaris jenneri CalappidaeUpogebiidae Calappa angusta

Upogebia affinis Calappa flammeaCallianassidae Calappa sulcata

Callianassa atlantica Qvcloes bairdiiCallianassa biformis Hepatus epheliticus

132 Equipment Group

~?Calappidae (continued) M$jidae (continued)

Hepatus pudibundus Hemus cristulipesOsachila semilevis Inachoides forcepsOsachila tuberosa Libinia dubia

Portunidae Libinia emarginataArenaeus cribrarius Macrocoeloma camptocerumBathynectes superba Macrocoeloma tn:`spinosumBenthochascon schmitti Metoporhaphis calcarataCallinectes ornatus Microphys sp.Cailinectes sapidus Mithrax pleuracan thusOvalipes ocellatus Podochela gracilipesOvalipes stephensoni Podochela rfiseiPortunus gibbesii Podochela sidneylPortunus ordwayi Rochinia crassaPortunus sayi Rochinia umbonataPortunus spinicarpus Stenocionops furcata coelataPortunus spinimanus Stenocionops spinimana

Cancridae Stenorynchus seticornisCancer borealis ParthenopidaeCancer irroratus Cryptopodia concava

Geryonidae Heterocrypta granulataGeryon quinquedens Parthenope fraterculus

Xanthidae Parthenope granulataCarpoporus papulosus Solenolambrus typicusGlyptoxanthus erosusHexapanopeus sp. EntoproctaLeptodius agassizii LoxosomatidaeLobopilumnus agassizii Loxosomella sp .Micropanope nuttingiMicropanope sculptipes PriapulidaMicropanope ap . Indeterminant priapuljd spp.Panopeus occidentalisPilumnus floridanus SipunculidaPilumnus sayi

Goneplacidae AspidosiphonidaeBathyplax typhla Aspidosiphon albusEuryplax nitida Aspidosiphon spinalisGlyptoplax smithi Aspidosiphon sp .Goneplax sp. Paraspidosiphon parvulusSpeocarcinus carolinensis Golfingiidae

Pinnotheridae Phascolion gouldiParapinnixa bouveri Phascolion strombiParapinnixa hendersoni Phascolion (2 spp .)Pinnaxodes floridanus Golfingia catharfnaePinnixa lunzi Golfingia elongataPinnixa retinens Golfingia margaritaceaPinnixa sayana Golfingia minutaPinnixa cf. cylindrica Golfingia muricaudataPinnixa sp . Golfingia murinae

Palicidae Golfingia pellucidaPalicus alternata Golfmgia tricocephalaPalicus faxoni Golfingia sp.

Grapsidae Onchnesoma steenstrupiEuchirograpsus americanus Sipunculidae

Majidae Phascolopsis gouldiAepinus septemspinosus Sipunculus norvegicusAnasimus latus Sipunculus nudusBatrachonotus fragosus Sipunculus polymyotusCoelocerus spinosusCollodes trispinosus

133 Equipment Group

~Mollusca Naticidae

GastropodaEupleura caudata

ArchaeogastropodaNatica canrenaNatica pusilla

Fissurellidae Polinices duplicatusDiodora listeti Polinices lacteusDiodora tanneri Sigatica semisulcataEmarginula phrixodes Sinum maculatumPuncturella acuminata Sinum perspectivumPuncturella granulata Tonnidae

Cocculinidae Tonna galeaCocculina spinigena Ficidae

Trochidae Ficus communisCalliostoma bairdfi NeogastropodaSolariella asperrirnaSolarfella irfs MuricidaeSolariella lamellosa Murex cabritti

Cyclostrematidae Murex jlorifer dilectusArene bairdii ColumbellidaeArene tricarinata Astyris cf. stemma

Turbinidae Mitrella lunataTurbo castanea Parvanachus obesa

Mesogastropoda Suturoglypta ionthaBuccinidae

Rissoinidae Colus sp .Zebina browniana Mohnia carolinensis

Vitrinellidae MelongenidaeEpiscynla multicarinata Busycon pyrumSolariorbis infracarinata Fasciolariidae

Tomidae Pleuroploca giganteaMacromphalina palmalitoris Fasciolaria lilium hunteria

Caecidae Fasciolarfa tulipaCaecum cooperi OlividaeCaecum imbricatum Jaspidella sp.Caecum johnsoni Oliva sayanaCaecum pulchellum Olivella bullula

Triphoridae Olivella muticaSelia adamsi Olivella sp.

Epitoniidae VolutidaeEpitonium novangliae Scaphella dubiaOpalia burryi Marginellidae

MellaneIIidae Granulina ovuliformisMelanella sp . Marginella aureocinctaNiso sp. Marginella bellaStrombiformis bilineatus Marginella hartleyanum

Atlantidae TerebridaeAtlanta peronii Terebra concavaIndeterminant heteropod spp . Terebra dislocata

Carinariidae Terebra sp .Indeterminant carinariid spp . Turridae

Crepidulidae Daphnella sp.Calyptraea centralis Nannodiella oxiaCrepidula fornicata Pleurotomella sp .Crepidula maculosa Propebela cf. canceiataCrepidula planaCrucibulum striatum PYramidelloida

Xenophoridae PyramidellidaeTugurium caribaeum Odostomia laevigataXenophora conchyliophora Turbonilla nivea

Turbonilla pilsbryi

134 Equipment Group

?Tectibranchiata Chaetodermatidae

Chaetoderma nitidulumActeonidae

Acteon punctostriatus BivalviaActeocinidae Nucutoida

Acteocina candei NuculidaeAplustridae Nucula delphinodonta

Hydatina vesicaria Nucula proximaCylichnidae Nucula sp.

Cylichna sp. NuculanidaeCylichnella bidentata Nuculana acuta

Philinidae Nuculana cf. aspectaPhiline sagra Nuculana carpenteri

Haminoeidae Nuculana tenuisAtys cf. caribaea Indeterminant nuculanid sp .Haminoea solitaria

Retusidae SolemyoidaVolvulella persimilis Solemyacidae

Thecosomata Solemya velumIndeterminant pteropod spp. Arcoida

Saccoglossa Arcidae

StiligeridaeAnadara Jloridana

Stiliger vanellus Anadaro notabilisArca zebra

Aplysiacea Arcopsis adamsiAplysiidae Barbatia candida

Aplysia willcoxi Noetia ponderosaPleurobranchidae Limopsidae

Pleurobranchaea hedgpethi Limopsis cristataLimopsis sulcataNudibranchia Glycymerididae

Dorididae Glycymeris americanaDoris vernucosa Glycymeris pectinata

Dendrodorididae MytiloidaDendrodoris wartaFavorinidae Mytilidae

Dondice occidentalis Amygdalum papyriumBomellidae Amygdalum politum

Bornella calcarata Crenella decussataCrenella cf. divaricata

Scaphopoda Dacrydium vitreumDentaliidae Modiolus m. squamosa

Dentalium calamus Musculus lateralisDentalium eboreum PinnidaeDentalium texasianum Atrina serrataDentalium cf. bartletti PteroidaSiphonodentaliidaeCadulus carolinensis PteridaeCadulus quadridentatus Pteria colymbus

Polyplacophora PectinidaeAequipecten muscosus

Neoloricata Argopecten gibbusLepidopleuridae Cyclopecten nanus

Lepidopleunus sp . Pecten raveneliChaetopleuridae Plioatula gibboso

Chaetopleura apiculata Anomiidae

Aplacophora Anomia simplexNeomenioidea Limidae

Lima pellucidaNeomeniidae Limatula subauriculata

Neomenia carinataNeomenia (2 spp.)

135 Equipment Group

~Veneroida Semelidae (continued)

Lucinidae Semele nuculoides

Anondontia alba Semele purpurascens

Cavilinga blanda Veneriidao

Codakia sp . Chione grus

Divaricella dentata Chfone intapurpurea

Linga sombrerensis Chione latilirata

Lucina nassula Dosinia discus

Lucina radians Gouldia cerina

Lucinoma filosa Macrocallista maculata

Parvilucina multilineata Pitar fulminatus

Indeterminant lucinid spp . Cooperellidae

Thyasiridae Cooperella atlantica

Thyasira flexuosa MyoidaThyasira trisinuata Corbulidae

Ungulinidae Corbula barbantiaDiplodonta punctata Corbula contracta

sonorDiplodonta Corbula dietzianaChamidae Corbula swiftiana

rcinella cornutaA Corbula sp .Chama congregata Varicorbula operculata

Lasaeidae Gastrochaenidaesp .A ligena Gastrochaena hians

Leptonidae HiatellidaeMysella planulata Hiatella arcticaMysella (2 spp.)

Carditidae PholadomoidaPleuromeris tridentata LyonsiidaePteromeris perplana Lyonsia hyalina

Astartidae PandoridaeAstarte nana Pandora arenosaAstarte smithii Pandora trilineata

Crassatellidae ThraciidaeCrassinella lunulata Thracia sp.Crassinella sp.

Cardiidae Septibranchoidea

Laevicardium laevigatum VerticordiidaeLaevicardium pictum Verticordia fischerianaPapyridea soleniformis Verticordia ornata

Mactridae CuspidariidaeMactra fragtYis Cardiomya costellata

Mesodesmaidae Cardfomya perrostrataErvilia concentrica GYespidaria cf. rostrata

Solenidae CephalopodaEnsis directus SpirulidaeEnsis minorTeUinidae Sepiolidae

Strigilla mirabilis Rossia teneraTellina aequistriata TeuthoideaTellina agilisTellina alternata LoliginidaeTellina iris Loligo pealeiTellina lineata Loligo pleiTellina listeri Loliguncula brevisTellina sybaritica OmmastrephidaeTellina (2 spp.) Illex illecebrosus

Semelidae Octopodidae

Abra aequalfs Bathypolypus cf. lentusAbra lioica Octopus vulgaris

Semele bellastriata

136 Equipment Group

0

InTBrachiopoda Ophidiasteridac

Narcissia trigonariaEcardines

LingulidaeGlottidia pyramidata

CraniidaeCrania anomala

PhoronidaIndeterminant phoronid spp.

Spinulosida

EchinasteridaeEchinaster modestusEchinaster serpentarius

PterasteridaePteraster militaroides

AsteriidaeAsterias forbesii

Ectoprocta

GymnolaemataCtenostomata

VesicularidaeAmathia convolutaAmathia vidovici

WalkeriidaeAeverrillia sp .

Cyclostomata

CrisiidaeCrisia (2 spp .)

Cheilostomata

ScrupariidaeIndeterminant scrupariid sp .

MembraniporidaeMembranipora (6 spp.)

BugulidaeBugula neritinaBugula sp .

StomachetoselHdaeStomachetosella sp.

SchizoporellidaeSchizoporella sp .

Chaetognatha

Sagitta spp.

Echinodermata

AsteroideaPlatyasterida

Luid'tidaeLuidia alternataLuidia clathrata

Paxillosida

AstropectinidaeAstropecten americanusAstropecten articulatusAstropecten duplicatusDipsacaster antillensisTethyaster grandis

Valvatida

GoniasteridaeGoniaster tessellatusPlinthaster dentatus

OphiuroideaOphiurida

AmphiuridaeAmphiodia planispinaAmphiodia pulchellaAmphiodia trychnaA mphioplus abditusA mphioplus cuneatusA mphioplus macilen tusAmphiura fibulataAmphiura cf. goniodesAmphiura grandisquamaAmphiura palmeriAmphiura quadrisquamataAmphiura semiermisAmphiura stimpsoniAmphiura (2 spp .)Axiognathus squamataMcropholis atraMicropholis gracillimaOphionema cf. intricataOphiophragmus cf. brachyactisOphiophragmus wurdemanniOphiostigma isacanthum

OphiacanthidaeOphiacantha bidentataOphiomyces fructectosusOphiothamnus vicariusIndeterminant ophiocanthid sp.

Ophiurida

OphiactidaeHemipholis elongataOphiactis algicola

OphiothrichidaeMacrophiothrix suensoniOphiothrix angulataOphiothrix lineataOphiothrix sp .

OphiodermatidaeOphioderma brevispinum

OphiolepididaeOphiolepis elegans

Ophiura ( 2 spp .)Indeterminant ophiolepidid sp .

GorgonocephalidaeAsteroporpa annulataAstrophyton muricatum

137 Equipment Group

~Cidaroida Sclerodactylidae

Euthyonidiella tritaCidaridae Sclerodactyla briareus

Eucidaris tribuloides PhyllophoridaeTemnopleuridae Havelockia scabra

Pentamera calcigeraEchinidae Phyllophorus occidentalisLytechinus variegatus Thyone fususTemnopleuridae Thyone pervicaxGenocidaris maculata Thyone pseudofususArbacioida Psolidae

Arbaciidae Psolus operculatusArbacia punctulata Psolus tuberculosus

Psolidium n. sp .Stirodonta Ypsilothuridae

Salenidae Echinocucumis hispidaCoelopleurus floridanus SynaptidaeSalenocidaris varispina Epitomapta roseola

Centrechinidae Labidoplax buskiiCentrostephanus rubricingulus Leptosynapta tenuisDiadema antillarum Molpadiida

Clypeasteroida MolpadiidaeClypeastridae Molpadia barbouri

Clypeaster prostratus CrinoideaClypeaster subdepressus Comatulida

Mellitidae Indeterminant comatulid sp .Encope aberransEncope michelini ArticulataLeodia sexiesperforata AtelecrinidaeMellita quinquiesperforata Atelecrinus sp .

SpatangoidaPogonophora

Loveniidae Indeterminant pogonophoran spp .Echinocardium laevigaster

Echinoneidae HemichordataEchinoneus cyclostomus Indeterminant hemichordate spp .

BrissidaeBrissopsis mediterranea Chordata-UrochordataPlagiobrissus grandis

Hemiasteridae AscidiaceaMoira atropos Synoicidae

Aeropsidae Amaroucium cf. bermudaeAceste bellidifera Amaroucium cf. stellatum

Echinothuridae Amaroucium sp .Araeosoma cf. belli Polycitoridae

Schizasteridae Distaplia berinudensisParaster doederleini Eudistoma capsulatum

Holothuroidea Eudistoma hepaticumAspidochirota Styelidae

Claveltna oblongaHolothuridae Clavelina sp.

Holothuria princeps MolgulidaeStichopodidae Bostrichobranchus pilularis

Isostichopus badionotus Molgula (2 spp .)Dendrochirotida Indeterminant ascidiacean spp .

Cucumarridae ThaliaceaStereoderma unisemita Pyrosomidae

Pyrosoma sp .

138Equipment Group

~Doliolidae Clupeiformes

Indeterminant doliolidao spp . ClupeidaeSalpidae Alosa aestivalis

Indeterminant salpidae spp . Etrumeus teresLarvacea Opisthonema oglinum

Sardinella anchoviaOikopleuridae Engraulidae

Oikopleura spp . Anchoa cubanaFritillariidae Anchoa hepsetus

Fritillaria spp . Anchoa mitchilli

Chordata-Cephalochordata Anchoa nasotaAnchoviella perfasciata

Branchiostomidae Engraulis eurystoleBranchiostoma spp . Argentinidae

Glossanodon pygmaeusChordata-Vertebrata Gonostomatidae

Pisces Diplophos sp .Squaliformes Stemoptychidae

Sternoptyx diaphanaScyliorhinidae

Galeus arae MyctophiformesCarcharhinidae Synodontidae

Mustelus canis Saurida brasiliensisSqualidae Saurida carfbbaea

Etmopterus ballisi Saurida sp .

Rajafonnes Synodus foetensSynodus intermedius

Rhinobatidae Synodus pceyiRhinobatos lentiginosus Trachinocephalus myops

Torpedinidae ChlorophthacmidaeTorpedo nobeliana C7ilorophthalamus agassiziRajidae Myctophidae

Raja eglanteria Diaphus dojlefniBreviraja plutoniaBreviraja spinosa SiluriformesDaclylobatus armalus Adidae

Dasyatidae Arius felisDasyatis americana Bagre marinusDasyatis sayiGymnura micrura Batrachoidiformes

Myliobatidae BatrachoididaeMyliobatis freminvillei poi{chthys myriaster

Anguilliformes Porichthys porosissimus

Muraenidae LophiiformesGymnothorax nigromarginatus Lophiidae

Congridae Lophius americanusAriosoma impressa AntennariidaeArfosoma balearicum Antennarius ocellatusParaconger caudicimbatus Antennarius saaber

Ophichthidae Histrio histrioOphichthus ocellatus OgcocephalidaeOphichthus ophis Halieutichthys aculeatusPisodonophis cruetifer Ogcocephalus nasutus

Dysomnidae Ogcocephalus parvusDysomma aphododera OBrocephalus radiatusDysommina rugosa Ogcocephalus vesperilio

Nettastomidae Dibrandeus atlanticusVenefica procera

139 Equipment Group

~Chaunacidae Pomatomidae

Chaunax pictus Pomatomus saltatrix

Gadiformes EcheneidaeEcheneis naucrates

Bregmacerotidae CarangidaeBregmaceros sp . Caranx crysos

Gadidae Chloroscombrus chrysurusEhchelyopus cimbrius Decapeterus hypodusMerluccius albidus Decapterus punctatusMerluccius bilinearis Selene vomerMerluccius sp . Seriola dumeriliPhycis chesteri 7Yachurus lathamiUrophycis earlli Vomer setapinnisUrophycis Jtoridanus LutjanidaeUrophycis regius Lutfanus synagrisUrophycis tenuis Ocyunis chrysurusLaemonema barbatulum Rhomboplites aurorubens

Ophidiidae GerreidaeLepophidium cervinum Eucinostomus argenteusLepophidium jeannae PomadasyidaeOphidion beani Haenwlon aurolineatumOphidon gmyi Haemulon sciurusOphidfon holbrooki Orthopristis chrysopteraOtophidium omostigmum SparidaeRissola margfnata Calamus leucosteus

Carapidae Lagodon rhomboidesCarapus bermudensis Pagrus sedecim

Macrouridae Stenotomus chrysopsNezumia bairdii SciaenidaeNezumia sclerorhynchus Cynoscion nothusNezumia aequalis Cynoscion regalisCoelorhynchus coelorhynchus Equetus lanceolatus

Beryciformes Equetus umbrosusLarfmus fasciatus

Holocentridae Leioetomus xanthurusHolocentrus rufus Menticirrhus americanus

Caristiidae Menticirrhus littonlisCaristius sp. Micropogon undulatusIndeterminant caristiidae sp . SteUifer lanceolatus

Anoplogasteridae MullidaeFistularia tabacaria Mullus auralus

Gasterosteiformes Upeneus parvus

CentriscidaeEphippidae

Macrorhamphosus scolopaxaetodipterus faberCh

SyngnathidaeChaetodontidae

Corythoichthys albirostrisChaetodon ocellatusHolocanthus bermudensisHippocampus erectus PomacentridaeSyngnathus springeri (,Srromis enchrysurus

Perciformes LabridaeSerranidae Halichoeres bivittatus

Centroprfstis ocyurus Hemipteronotus novaculaCentropristis philadelphica SphyraenidaeCentroprfstis striata Sphryaena guachanchoDiplectnem formosum OpistognathidaeSerraniculus pumilio Dactyloscopus tridigitatus

Priacanthidae Uranascopidae

Priacanthus arenatus Kathetostoma albiguttaPristigenys alta Blennidae

Apogonidae Hypleurochilus geminatusApogon pseudomaculatus

140 Equipment Group

~Callionymidae Bothidae (continued)

Callionymus agasize Gltharichthys macropsCallionymus pauciradiatus Qclopsetta fimbriata

Gempylidae Etropus crossotusBenthodesmus simonyi Etropus microstomus

Trichiuridae Etropus n.`mosus7Yfchiurus lepturus Gastropsetta frontalis

Scombridae Monolene sessiliaaudaScomber japonicus Ptrralichthys dentatusScomberomorus cavdia ptrmlichthys lethostigmaScomberomorus maculatus Paralichthys oblongus

Stromateidae Scophthalmus aquosusAriomma spp. Syaeium gunteriCubiceps athenae Syacium micrurumPeprilus alepidotus Syacium papillosumPeprilus triacanthus Syaaum sp.Indeterminant stromateids (3 spp .) Soleidae

Scorpaenidae Gymnachirus melasHelfcrolenus dactylopterus CynoglossidaeScorpaena brasiliensis Symphurus diomedianusScorpaena calcarata Symphurus minorScorpaena dispar Symphunis plagiusaScorpaena plumieri Symphurus urospilusTrachyscorpia cristulata Symphunes nebulosusSetarches guentheri TetzaodantifonnesIndeterminant scorpaenid spp .

Triglidae BaGstidaeBeQator brachychir Alutenis sdeoepj7Bellator militaris Aluterus scriptusPeristedion miniatum Aluterus sp.Peristedion thompsoni Balistes capriscusPeristedion truncatum Monocanthus dliatusPrionotus carolinus Monocanthus hispidusPrfonotus ophryas Monocanthus sp .Prionotus roseus OstraciidaePrionotus salmonicoloi Lactophrys quadricomisPrionotus scitulus Lactophrys triqueterPrionotus stearnsi TetraodontidaePrionotus tribulus Sphoeroides dorsatis

Sphoeroides maculatusPleuronectiformes Sphoeroides nephetus

Bothidae Sphoetoides parvusAncylopsetta dilecta Sphoeroides spengleriAncylopsetta quadrocellata DiodontidaeBothus ocellatus Chilomycterus schoepfiBothus robinsiCYtharichthys arctifrons

141 Equipment Group