THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
BENTHIC FAUNA AND SEDIMENTS OF THE NAGS HEAD AND
WILMINGTON AREAS INNER CONTINENTAL SHELF,
NORTH CAROLINA
by
George H. Wood
APPROVED BY;
SUPERVISOR OF THESIS \/yuccytÁ^ ^ .
Vincent J. Beilis,~Ph.D./
THESIS COMMITTEE %uLu Ti- ^
Andrew N. Ash, Ph.D.
CHAIRMAN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY . yO /-n
Charles E. Bland, Ph.D.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Vincent Beilis for his
guidance, assistance and encouragement. He posses a special quality of
never being too busy or tired to help, teach or just be a friend.
Thanks are also due to the members of the thesis committee, Andrew Ash,
Stanley Riggs and Edward Ryan, for their many valuable suggestions. The
field research team consisting of Scott Hardaway, Debbie Cobb and Danny
Pearson, deserve special recognition and thanks for without them this
project truly would not have been possible. I would like to express
thanks to Dr. William Queen, Director of the Institute for Coastal and
Marine Resources, East Carolina University for securing funding for this
project from the Coastal Plains Regional Commission and the North
Carolina Department of Administration. Finally, I can only inadequately
express my appreciation for the support, advice, and patience of my
parents, Henry and Arleta Wood, and of a very special lady, Heidi Sydow.
B75550
ABSTRACT
George H. Wood. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BENTHIC FAUNA AND SEDIMENTS OF
THE NAGS HEAD AND WILMINGTON AREAS INNER CONTINENTAL SHELF, NORTH CARO-
LINA (Under the direction of Vincent Beilis) Department of Biology,
January 1983.
Biological and geological samples were taken from 39 stations
between July 22 and August 25, 1978 to formulate an understanding of the
ecological causality for the distribution of marine fauna of the inner
continental shelf off Dare and New Hanover counties, North Carolina.
Sander's (1958) approach to community ecology which emphasizes the rela-
tionship between sediment character and the distribution of benthic
faunal feeding strategies was employed in this study because the two
distinct marine climates within the study area were known to exhibit
differing taxonomic composition. The three feeding modes recognized
were: (1) suspension feeders; organisms that collect organics suspended
in the surrounding water, (2) deposit feeders; organisms which consume
organics deposited on or in the substate and, (3) raptorial feeders;
organisms which seize and devour living prey. A distinction was made
between two types of deposit feeders which are specific deposit feeders;
organisms selective of the organic component in the substrate and non-
specific deposit feeders; organisms which ingest their substrate, di-
gesting the organics and excreting the inorganic fraction.
Analysis indicated that there is a relationship between the dis-
tribution of sediments and marine benthic fauna according to topography.
Topographic lows are protected environments which accumulate deposits of
fine sediment and gravel. Dominance by deposit feeders in topographic
lows indicate the availability of detrital deposits. As suggested by
Woodin (1974), physical instability in this environment may cause stress
for suspension feeders by clogging their feeding structures, burying
newly settled larvae and limiting individual organism's ability to
maintain a firm connection with the substrate. Topographic plains are
exposed to occassional bottom currents which results in moderately
sorted fine to very fine sands and an increase in frequency of suspen-
sion feeders. The high frequency of deposit feeders in the Nags Head
study area may indicate the heterogeneity of environments and may sug-
gest that mobility of deposit feeders enables them to migrate to topo-
graphic plains in order to utilize an additional food source. Topo-
graphic highs are exposed to direct impact of bottom currents which
results in moderately well sorted medium to fine sands. This environ-
ment supplies suspension feeding assemblages with an adequate and con-
stant influx of suspended food. The occurrence of deposit feeders in
this environment suggests the ability of deposit feeders to utilize a
variety of environments and their use of specialized appendages to
select organic detritus from the inorganic fraction.
Because of the physical processes of the inner continental shelf of
North Carolina, organics and clays are not deposited in great quanti-
ties, thus the importance of these sediments is diminished in regulating
the distribution of deposit feeders.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
BENTHIC FAUNA AND SEDIMENTS
OF THE NAGS HEAD AND WILMINGTON AREAS
INNER CONTINENTAL SHELF, NORTH CAROLINA
A Thesis
Presented to
the Faculty of the Department of Biology
East Carolina University
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science in Biology
by
George H. Wood
March 1983
J. Y. JOYNER LIBIIART
tAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES iv
LIST OF TABLES vi
LITERATURE REVIEW I
Feeding Modes 3
Sediment Characteristics 4
STUDY AREAS 10
METHODS 13
Field Phase 13
Laboratory Phase 18
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 22
CONCLUSIONS 39
LITERATURE CITED 41
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Relationship of grain diameter to settling velocity,
threshold velocity, and roughness velocity 6
Figure 2. General location map with sampling areas indicated 11
Figure 3. Location of sampling transects in the Nags Head study
area 14
Figure 4. Location of sampling transects in Wilmington study
area 15
Figure 5. Bathymetic profiles illustrating bottom topography
and station location of the Nags Head study area 16
Figure 6. Bathymetric profiles illustrating bottom topograhy
and station location of the Wilmington study area 17
Figure 7. Airlift section dredge "Slurpee" 19
Figure 8. Correlation of frequency of feeding strategy versus
mean grain size for the Nags Head study area 23
Figure 9. Correlation of frequency of specific and non-specific
deposit feeders versus mean grain size for the Nags
Head study area 25
Figure 10. Correlation of frequency of feeding strategy versus
mean grain size for Wilmington study area 27
Figure 11. Correlation of frequency of feeding strategy versus
sorting for the Nags Head study area 28
Figure 12. Correlation of frequency of feeding strategy versus
sorting for Wilmington study area 29
Figure 13. Grain size versus sorting. Topographic environments
are depicted by the standard error bars for the sedi-
mentary parameters 31
Figure 14. Correlation of frequency of feeding strategy versus
topography for the Nags Head study area 32
Figure 15. Correlation of frequency of feeding strategies versus
topography for Wilmington study area 35
Figure 16. Correlation of percent organics versus percent clay 36
IV
Figure 17. Correlation of frequency of feeding strategy versus
percent organics for the Nags Head study area 38
V
LIST OF TABLES
APPENDIX A. Statistical sediment parameters and descriptive
names for classification of mean grain size and
sorting 45
APPENDIX B. Listing of organisms and their primary feeding
strategy 46
APPENDIX C. Listing of the occurrence of organisms at each
station 50
APPENDIX D. Sample station information 69
VI
LITERATURE REVIEW
The projected use of North Carolina's continental shelf for sewage
outfalls and oil exploration has precipitated a need to understand
better the ecology of this area. Most development on continental
shelves has been in the Gulf of Mexico, where operating conditions are
generally mild and well understood. Development on North Carolina's
continental shelf will encounter more difficult operating conditions and
potentially biological impacts. Problems requiring particular attention
will be the availability of sufficient information to aid engineers in
the design of systems which minimize their impacts and provide scien-
tists with a baseline to determine the extent of the impacts attribu-
table to these activities. The purpose of this study is to report base-
line information concerning the ecology and distribution of marine
fauna.
Ecology began in the late 1800s and early 1900s as a primarily
descriptive science and North Carolina's variety of marine habitats were
excellent subjects for these studies. Such early classical taxonomists
as Thomas Say and William Stimpson frequently visited the rich shell
collecting grounds of Shackleford Banks. These scientists sought pat-
terns in the appearance and structure of organisms from different envir-
onments. North Carolina's estuaries offered a diverse area for early
descriptive works such as Pearse's (1929) work on estuarine animals at
Beaufort and Hartman's (1945) thorough work on the marine annelids of
Bogue Sound. These early ecologists described the structure and tax-
onomic composition of communities of organisms but offered no explana-
2
tion for distributional patterns. A general floristic and faunistic
description of benthic fauna which inhabit the hard substrate of the
marl reefs of Onslow Bay was prepared by Pearse and Williams in 1951.
From these works and his own collections, Bookhout prepared a checklist
of marine invertebrates of North Carolina (1953).
In the late 1950's, ecology underwent a transition from a purely
descriptive to a community ecological approach. William's (1958) report
attests to this important transition in North Carolina. He determined
that the distribution of commercial shrimp was largely dependent upon
the substrate. In part, this report was made possible by the achieve-
ments of earlier descriptive works which provided the necessary infor-
mation to examine the relationships between organisms and the physical
environment.
Concurrently at Woods Hole, Massachusettes, Sanders (1958) formu-
lated an approach to community ecology which emphasized the relationship
between sediment character and the distribution of benthic faunal feed-
ing strategies. This theory offered an ecological explanation that
could be applied to assemblages from different geographic locations
and/or greatly differing taxonomic composition.
The value of this theory for understanding the distribution of
benthic fauna in North Carolina is emphasized by the work of Cerame
Vivas and Gray (1966). They concluded that Cape Hatteras is the focus
of two distinct marine climates resulting in differing taxonomic compo-
sition. Sanders' approach allows comparison of distinct biogeographic
zones and was used in this study. In order to utilize Sanders' approach,
it is necessary to attempt a trophic classification based on modes of
feeding.
3
Feeding Modes
Trophically, the benthic fauna are ordinarily subdivided into four
categories: suspension feeders, deposit feeders, raptorial feeders and
scavengers (Sanders et al. 1962). Like many trophic distinctions, that
made between scavengers and deposit feeders is confounded by the diver-
sity of feeding options actually employed in nature. In this study,
scavengers and deposit feeders were grouped together and a distinction
made as to the method for ingesting the organic material.
Suspension feeders take their food by capturing particles suspended
in the water column. This typically requires the use of some sort of
filter. Most suspension feeders are usually considered herbivores which
consume phytoplankton. While it is true that phytoplankton contribute
greatly to a suspension feeder's diet, many suspension feeders probably
also capture and assimilate both resuspended benthic algae, detritus and
microfauna.
Deposit feeders ingest sedimentary deposits and assimilate the
bacteria, fungi, microalgae and detritus. Two types of deposit feeders
have been distinguished by Sanders et al. (1962). Some are selective of
the organic component of the substrate (specific deposit feeders) while
others ingest their substratum, digesting the organics and deficating
the inorganic fraction (non-specific deposit feeders).
Raptors are relatively mobile species which selectively capture
individual living animals. Their method of capture usually involves
specialized appendages for grasping relatively large prey.
4
Sediment Characteristics
Sediments were studied in detail because of their reported signi-
ficance to the distribution of benthic fauna (McNulty, et al. 1962;
Williams, 1958). Correlations between sediment type and faunal distri-
bution are especially conspicuous when sediment characteristics are
extreme, such as the difference between soft and hard rock substrate
(Thorson, 1957). Less easily recognized are associations resulting from
slightly differing conditions between sediment texture and composition
(Young and Rhoads, 1971).
The following discussion of sediment parameters is intended to
elucidate the characteristics which best explain the distribution of
benthic faunal assemblages based on feeding strategies. As Remane
(1940) said, "a description of and division into benthic animal com-
munities should start with the substratum."
Sanders (1968) related grain size to the ecology of infauna in
Buzzards Bay and demonstrated that sand bottoms had a more diverse fauna
than mud bottoms. Boesch (1972) found a similar relationship in the
Virginia area and hypothesized that greater faunal diversity on sand
bottoms resulted from the greater variety of microhabitats.
A possible alternative explanation for this relationship was found
in studies of Tómales Bay, California (Johnson, 1971). Johnson noted
that mud species (deposit feeders) could readily invade clean sands
while clean sand species (suspension feeders) were less able to invade
muds. This observation can be explained in terms of feeding and respir-
ation. Deposit feeders usually possess adaptations for discarding the
larger grain sizes. For this reason, deposit feeders generally dominate
5
in grain sizes that can easily be ingested, however, alterations of
their primary feeding strategies may be adopted which permit them to
invade other substrates. Most suspension feeders cannot tolerate large
amounts of unconsolidated silt and clays because the high turbidity of
these environments foul their feeding mechanisms and may reduce the
efficiency of respiration. In general, most benthic fauna are restric-
ted to a given size range of sediments by their differing capabilities
for respiration, burrowing, or obtaining food (Wieser, 1960).
Sorting is the measure of the range of grain sizes around the mean.
The best measure of sediment sorting is the inclusive graphic standard
deviation because it includes 90% of the sediment distribution (Folk,
1968).
The ecological importance of sediments is a function of both
sorting and mean grain size. Sorting, when considered alone, probably
has little ecological importance since well sorted sediments are char-
acterized by a small spread of grain sizes around the mean sediment
size. Therefore, well sorted sediments can support any assemblage whose
requirements are met by that single grain size (Nichols, 1970).
Inman (1949) showed that two sedimentary parameters, grain size and
sorting, are related in a predictable manner. Figure 1 demonstrates
that as the diameter of bottom sediments approach 0.18mm, they become
better sorted. This is due, in part, because sediments which are both
finer and coarser than 0.18mm are more difficult to resuspend. Sanders
(1958) utilized this concept to explain the distribution of suspension
feeders. He suggested that suspension feeder distribution might be
.01 .04 0.1 0.4 1 4 10
Figure 1. Relationship of grain diameter to settling velocity,
threshold velocity, and roughness velocity. Modified
from Inman (1949).
7
controlled by the hydrodynamic processes (i.e., currents and wave ac-
tion) which determine the sediment texture rather than directly by the
sediment characteristics.
Suspension feeders rarely occur in poorly sorted muds because the
feeble currents associated with this environment allow particulate
matter to settle out. This results in a small amount of organic matter
in suspension to provide food. Suspension feeders are dominant in well
sorted medium sands (median diameter of 0.18mm) because these sediments
are characterized by an environment with constant currents that provide
an adequate food supply. Similarly, large assemblages of suspension
feeders are not encountered in poorly sorted gravels. As the particle
size becomes larger than 0.18mm, the sediments tend to roll when sub-
jected to currents. The result is a substrate unsuitable for suspension
feeder attachment.
The distribution of deposit feeders can also be related to sediment
size and sorting. In general, deposit feeders dominate in sediments
than can be easily ingested. Sanders (1956, 1958), however, found that
the major factor controlling deposit feeder distribution in Buzzards Bay
and Long Island Sound was not sediment texture but rather sediment
composition.
Organic matter is an important constituent in marine ecosystems in
that it is a form of stored energy which links benthic and pelagic
systems. In a simplified marine ecosystem, phytoplankton produce or-
ganic matter from inorganic nutrients. This assimilated organic matter
eventually sinks to the bottom as a rain of deficated material and dead
organisms. Benthic heterotrophs utilize this detrital rain as food.
8
The excreted waste material of the heterotrophs becomes resuspended and
acts as a nutrient supply to the pelagic system.
Heterotrophs of the benthic system which utilize detritus include
both suspension feeders and deposit feeders, although Sanders (1958)
found a positive correlation only between the concentration of organic
matter and the distribution of deposit feeders. This relationship is
not necessarily linear because increases in percent organic content do
not always result in large numbers of organisms which utilize this food
source. Oxidation of excess organic matter may deplete oxygen concen-
tration in areas of poor water circulation, producing a potentially
lethal reducing environment (Brett, 1963). Furthermore, recent evidence
suggests that most benthic fauna possess rather catholic diets and their
principal food source may consist primarily of bacteria and algae rather
than organic detritus (Gray, 1974).
Clay is ecologically important because of its relationship to the
deposition of organic matter. The clay sorption phenomenon, causing
organic matter and clay to be deposited jointly, lead Sanders (1956,
1958) to conclude that clay content in the sediment was probably the
most important single factor correlated with the distribution of deposit
feeders in Long Island Sound and Buzzards Bay.
Clay acts as a binding agent which makes sediments more dense and
compact (Pettijohn, 1957). This cohesive effect not only makes it
possible for certain fauna to maintain permanent burrows but also makes
the sediments more difficult for other animals to pass through. The
cohesive properties of clay also prevent resuspension of sediments once
they have been deposited, except by atypically high currents (Hjulstrom,
9
1935). Clay cohesion results in restricted motion of fluids through the
sediments, thus reducing the redistribution of nutrients.
STUDY AREAS
The ocean shoreline of North Carolina consists of an emergent ridge
of barrier islands separated from the mainland by shallow sounds. The
most prominent features characterizing the ocean shoreline are the three
major capes and cuspate shorelines between these capes. From north to
south the embayments are Hatteras, Raleigh and Onslow Bays. Two study
areas of the inner continental shelf of Hatteras and Onslow Bays respec-
tively were the subject of this investigation (Figure 2).
The Hatteras Embayment extends from the Virginia-North Carolina
State line to Cape Hatteras. The Nags Head study area (NSA) study area
was located within the Hatteras Embayment north of Oregon Inlet, where
the shoreline is slightly concave. The shelf of this embayment is
narrow and steep with a predictable pattern of sediment distribution
(muds in topographic lows and medium sands on topographic highs). The
systematic pattern of sediment distribution according to topography
indicates modern deposition of sediments entering from the mainland
(Swift et al., 1973). The east-northeast orientation of the embayment
makes it subject to the direct impact of winter storms. The result of
this orientation coupled with a cold northern current has produced a
distinctive benthic community warranting a zoogeographical division of
the Transatlantic Province with Cape Hatteras as the zone of transition
(Johnson, 1934).
Onslow Bay is formed by a concave shoreline between Cape Lookout
and Cape Fear. The Wilmington study area (WSA) was located within the
Onslow Bay. This bay is characterized by a wide and shallow shelf. The
NORTH CAROLINA
miles
Figure 2. General location map with sampling areas indicated by red
enclosures.
12
bottom consists of Holocene and Pleistocene unconsolidated sediments and
extensive outcrops belts of Eocene, Oligocène, Miocene and Pliocene rock
(Pearson, 1980). A low rate of terrigenous sediment input, coupled with
extensive rock outcropping, produces a complex and variable pattern of
surface sediments (Meisburger, 1979). The south-southeast orientation
of Onslow Bay provides protection from the full force of winter storms.
In addition, the dominace of the warm Gulf Stream results in a benthic
community having tropical affinities.
METHODS
Field Phase
The field phase of the investigation was conducted from the 34 foot
R/V Nitro, provided by the Department of Geology, East Carolina Univer-
sity. The vessel was manned by a crew of four who carried out the field
observations and collections between July 22 and August 25, 1978.
The initial phase of the work entailed establishing three sampling
transects within each of the study areas. Transects were established
with reference to easily recognizable shore features and extended per-
pendicular to the shoreline for three nautical miles. Transects in the
NSA were aligned off Avalon Pier, Nags Head Pier, and Jennettes Pier
(Figure 3). Transects in WSA were aligned off the municipal water tank
at Wrightsville Beach, Carolina Pier, and Kure Beach Pier (Figure 4).
Seismic profiles were run parallel and perpendicular to the shore
within each of the study areas. An E.G. and G. Subbottom Seismic Pro-
filer was supplied and manned by Dr. A1 Hine of U.N.C. Institute of
Marine Sciences, Morehead City, North Carolina.
Sampling stations were selected on the basis of topographic pro-
files obtained from seismic tapes and Ray Jefferson (model 621) fatho-
meter tapes run before and during the sampling. Stations were estab-
lished where a major change in topography was encountered or approxi-
mately every 0.5 nautical miles, whichever came first (Figures 5 and 6).
Each station was located with a Simrad (model 123) LORAN-C and depth
soundings were taken in meters using a lead line.
Figure 3. Location of sampling transects in the Wilmington Study Area
Figure 4. Location of sampling transects in Nags Head Study Area
Figure 5. Bathymetric profiles illustrating bottom topography and
station location of the Nags Head study area (from Pearson,
1980).
o 1 nautical miles
Carolina Beach Pier
0 1 nautical miles ±<m=me»teeierrss
Kure Beach Pier
0 1 nautical miles
Figure 6. Bathymetric profiles illustrating bottom topography and
station location of the Wilmington Study Area (from
Pearson, 1980).
18
At each station, quantitative surface grab samples were obtained
2
using a 0.25 m shipek bottom sampler. Biological samples were stored on
ice until transfer to the laboratory. The sediment samples were also
obtained from the shipek and maintained at ambient temperature until
delivery to the laboratory for later analysis.
A quantitative bottom sample of 995 cc was taken to a depth of 30
cm using a portable airlift section dredge, slurpee (Figure 7). The
Slurpee samples were also stored in ice until delivery to the labor-
atory.
Quantitative bottom samples were supplemented by direct diver
observation, and hand picked sampling collected specimens that could not
be obtained by the previously described techniques. Divers also col-
lected a 9 cm long hand-core of surface sediment for geochemical analy-
sis. All samples gathered by divers were stored on ice until arrival at
the laboratory.
Laboratory Phase
Organisms were separated from associated sediments in all quantita-
tive samples (shipek and slurpee) by the following procedure: a one
liter subsample was taken from each sample and the organisms were
floated out in a sucrose solution (1.1 kg/0.8 1 salt water) in accord-
anee with the procedure given by Anderson (1959). The solution and
suspended organisms were sieved through a 0.5 nun brass screen. This
floatation procedure was repeated five times with each subsample. All
organisms retrieved in this manner were preserved in 80% ethanol, 18%
salt water, and 2% glycerine for later identification.
J
10 cm
6.5 cm PVC pi pe
B SCU3A ” bullet weiahts
quick connect
/ compressed air
mesh net bac
Figure 7. Airlift section dredge "Slurpee". Modified
from Cox (1976) .
20
When possible, organisms were identified to species. Taxonomic
literature employed for this purpose were: Emerson and Jacobson (1976),
Gardiner (1975), Gosner (1971), Hartman (1945), Porter (1974), Porter
and Tyler (1976). Nematodes were not identified beyond subphylum be-
cause of the lack of experience in the micro-techniques required.
All sample data are presented in tabular form as organism's pre-
sence or absence (Appendix A). Watling et. al. (1978) reported that
qualitative data is sufficient to document large scale distributional
patterns of benthic fauna; however, quantitative data was used to sup-
plement the qualitative information in discerning some local differ-
enees. All quantitative samples were expressed in organisms per cubic
meter with this number actually representing a volume with a depth of 30
cm (Appendix A).
The major feeding strategy for each type of organism was determined
from the literature and by examination of buccal parts or gut analysis
(Appendix B). Literature helpful in determination of invertebrate
feeding strategies include Barnes (1968), Ghiold (1979), Gosner (1971),
Hedgepeth (1957), Hyman (1940), Jorgensen (1966), Jumars (1977), Newell
(1970), Nicol (1967), and Norton (1947). Three major feeding strategies
were recognized: 1) suspension feeders; organisms that collect organic
detritus suspended in the surrounding water, 2) deposit feeders; orga-
nisms which consume organic detritus deposited on or in the substrate,
and 3) raptorial feeders; organisms which seize and devour living prey.
The frequency of feeding strategies was determined at each sampling
station.
21
Sediment samples were desalted, wet-sieved and dry-sieved using
standard techniques (Folk, 1968) . The graphic mean was used instread of
the mean because it is the best measure for determining overall size of
sediments (Folk, 1968). It is much superior to the median used by
Sanders (1956, 1958) because it is based on three points and offers a
better estimate of skewed sediment distributions. Samples were pipetted
to analyze the fine fraction. Standard descriptive names were assigned
using the Wentworth classification for mean grain size except that the
designation for silt was (M) to avoid confusion with the other symbols,
and Folk's terminology for sorting (Table 1).
Percent organic content of surface sediments was determined by Dr.
John Bray, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, East Carolina
University. The percent of oxidizable organics was determined by weight
loss upon ignition at 550° C. This procedure yields acceptable esti-
mates of available food but includes lignins and other undigestable
organic compounds.
The relative frequency of feeding strategies was plotted against
physical parameters of the sediments to determine relationships. Linear
relationships were analyzed by standard linear regression techniques
(significance for Pté 0.05) while non-linear relationships were analyzed
by inspection. Standard error bars are included in the graphic depic¬
tions of the data.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Sediment Texture
The NSA is characterized by a wide range in grain size, from very
coarse sands to silts which occur as a thin and sporadic veneer of
Holocene terrigenous and carbonate sediments that lie directly upon a
relic strata. Sediments from the exposed relict units are eroded and
introduced into the modern environment during periods of storn energy
and from biological activity (Pearson, 1980).
The relationship between the broad range of sediment grain sizes
and the distribution of benthic fauna based on feeding strategy is
presented in Figure 8. Suspension feeders are decreasingly frequent
with decreasing grain size. Due to the tendency of very coarse sedi-
ments to roll when subjected to currents (Figure 1), the high frequency
of suspension feeders (33%) (all percentages will represent the median
percent) in these sediments was unexpected. However, because the very
coarse sediments occurred in a topographic low (HA-1), they were pro-
tected from bottom currents. This protection may provide a stable
substrate with adequate surface area for adherence by suspension feeders
(Balanus sp. and Crepidula spp.). The presence of burrowing organisms
accounts for the unexpectedly high frequency of suspension feeders (27%)
in medium sands. Burrowing suspension feeders (Ensis directus, Spisula
spp., and Pandora sp.) draw water down from the surface through siphons
to serve the functions of respiration, waste removal, and food gather¬
ing. Fine to very fine sands support only burrowing suspension feeders.
Absence of suspension feeders in silty environments may testify to the
FSFERTREoQALDUTAIETNGIfVGCYYE
Figure 8. Correlation of frequency of feeding strategy
versus mean grain size for the Nags Head Study
Area (see Appendix A).
24
inability of these organisms to tolerate small particle sizes that may
tend to clog their feeding and respiratory mechanisms.
The distribution curve for deposit feeders reveals two major peaks,
the first in very fine sands and the second in coarse sands (Figure 8).
The ability of deposit feeders to ingest their substratum, digesting the
organics and egesting the inorganic fraction, probably accounts for the
first peak (approx. 60%) in very fine sands and silts. The unexpected
peak of deposit feeders in coarse sand may be due to the ability of some
deposit feeders (Clymenella torquata and Mellita quinquesperforata) to
utilize specialized appendages to select organics from poorly sorted
sediments. Figure 9 indicates the importance of specific deposit feed-
ers in coarse as well as fine sediments.
Deposit feeders were more commonly encountered in sandy substrates
than suspension feeders were in muddy environments. The limitations of
suspension feeders to particular sediment sizes may indicate a high
mortality of larvae in environments where they are either buried by
sedimentation or utilized as a food source by the existing assemblage as
suggested by Woodin, 1974. Because deposit feeders are more abundant in
sandy substrates adjacent to silty environments than in remote sands, it
was assumed that deposit feeders migrate to adjacent areas to utilize
new and possibly different food sources.
In contrast to the NSA, the WSA sediments exhibited a small range
in grain size, namely, coarse to fine sands with some isolated rock
fragments, shell and gravel. The size range was limited, yet complex
sediment pattern resulted from erosion of exposed relic rocks coupled
with minimal terrigenous influx (Mixon and Pilkey, 1976).
specific deposit
40 non-specific deposit
30
20
10
0
:s c s MS VFS
MEAN GRAIN SIZE
figure 9. Correlation of frequency of specific and non-specific deposit feeders versus mean
grain size for the Nags Head Study Area (see Appendix A).
26
The overall higher frequency of suspension feeders (10% greater
than in the NSA) may indicate an influence of warm Gulf Stream inflow on
the occurence of tropical species (Leptogorgia virgulata, Hymeniacidon
heliophila, Diadumene leacolena, and Renilla reniformis) (Figure 10).
These species dominated in coarse sands which provide them an adequate
substrate for attachment. Unexpectedly, medium sands supported few
attaching or burrowing suspension feeders (20%). An increase in bur-
rowing suspension feeders (Barnea truncata, Anodontia alba, and Ensis
directus) accounted for the slightly greater frequency (25%) of this
feeding type in fine sands.
The entire deposit feeding population in coarse sands (12%) was due
to specific deposit feeders (Clymenella torquata and Mellita quinqués
perforata) . Smaller grain size supported non-specific deposit feeders
(Moira átropos and Aricidia spp.) in addition to the specific deposit
feeders in medium sands and accounted for the dominance (32%) by deposit
feeders in this substrate class. Low frequencies of deposit feeders in
fine sands (9%) may indicate the remoteness of this substrate class from
areas harboring large deposit feeding populations.
Degree of sorting did not contribute to the understanding of the
distribution of benthic faunal feeding strategies in response to sorting
values in either study area (figures 11 & 12). Sorting, when considered
alone, probably has little ecological importance since well sorted
sediments are characterized by a small spread of grain sizes around the
mean sediment size. Since no clear relationship between sorting and the
distribution of benthic feeding strategies was evident from the data of
either study area, I decided to examine the combined effects of sorting
and grain size.
Figure 10. Correlation of frequency of feeding strategy versus mean grain
size for Wilmington Study Area (see Appendix A).
60n
suspension
Figure 11. Correlation of frequency of feeding strategy versus sorting for
the Nags Head Study Area (see Appendix A)
suspension
40
30-
20-
10
0
w's M\Á/S —IM S PS
SORTING
Figure 12. Correlation of frequency of feeding strategy versus
sorting for Wilmington Study Area (see Appendix A).
30
Swift et. al. (1973) reported that sediment distribution on the
inner shelf on North Carolina was regular enough to permit description
of sediment type - mean grain size and sorting - according to topo-
graphy. Examination of bottom profiles and consideration of mean grain
size and sorting indicated that three general topographic environments
could be distinguished (Figure 13). These were identified as:
1) "Topographic highs" are sharp, distinctive ridges that are shallower
than adjacent areas and are therefore exposed to the direct impact of
bottom currents. This results in sediments that are moderately well
sorted, medium to fine sands (see Appendix D).
2) "Topographic plains" are expansive rises exhibiting a gentle and
gradual seaward slope. This environment is occasionally subjected to
similar hydrodynamic processes that act on topographic highs and this
results in an overlap of sedimentary parameters. Sediments tend to be
moderately sorted fine to very fine sands (see Appendix D).
3) "Topographic lows" are troughs that are generally protected on their
seaward flank by a topographic ridge. This environment is characterized
by poorly sorted bimodel deposits of silts and gravels (see Appendix D).
Suspension feeders increased in frequency directly with degree of
exposure to bottom currents (as inferred from topography) in the Hat-
teras Embayment (Figure 14). Topographic lows, due to their greater
depth are partially protected from the action of bottom currents and
consequently serve as traps for very fine sand and mud as well as
gravels. Increased sedimentation may prevent the development of a large
suspension feeding assemblage (11%) by burying newly arrived larvae
(Woodin, 1974). Suspension feeders that did exist in topographic lows
MS
SORTING
MWS
WS 1 “1
VCS CS m's F S VFS M
MEAN GRAIN SIZE
Figure 13. Grain size versus sorting. Topographic environments
are depicted by the standard error bars for the sedi-
mentary parameters.
TOPOGRAPHY
Figure 14. Correlation of frequency of feeding strategy versus
topography in the Nags Head Study Area.
33
tended to be attaching forms (Balanus sp. and Crepidula spp.) since
topographic lows can also act as traps for gravel and shells, and these
materials provide the needed substrate. It is assumed that many suspen-
sion feeders become entrapped in the topographic low when they were
swept in along with their substrate from adjacent sedimentary environ-
ments during storms.
Since most topographic plains are exposed to occassional bottom
currents, an increase in suspension feeders (17%) might be expected due
to the resuspension of organic detritus. The entire assemblage was
composed of suspension feeders that bury themselves in fine sand (Ensis
directus, Spisula spp., and Pandora sp.).
Topographic highs are usually a product of and receive a greater
amount of wave energy. This exposure to current provides an influx of
suspended organic matter needed to support a large assemblage (22%) of
both burrowing and attaching forms of suspension feeders.
Reduced exposure to bottom currents in topographic lows allows
deposition of mud and organics which provides sufficient food to support
a large deposit feeding assemblage (40%). Composition of the deposit
feeding assemblage is primarily specific deposit feeders such as
Clymenella torquata and Cirratulus grandis which could retrieve the
organic fraction from the poorly sorted sediments. The dominance of
deposit feeders in topographic plains (57%) was due to the presence of
both specific and non-specific deposit feeders which may have migrated
from adjacent topographic lows. The occurrence of specific deposit
feeders accounts for the unexpected high frequency of deposit feeders in
topographic highs (31%) and lends support to the concept that deposit
feeders are able to invade a variety of environments.
34
The general trend described above for the distribution of benthic
fauna in the NSA applies generally to WSA, but with two exceptions: 1)
the relative frequency of suspension feeders is greater, and 2) the low
frequency of deposit feeders in topographic plains (4%).
Though the WSA extended only three miles offshore and thus miles
from the Gulf Stream, the influence of the warm eddys mixing with local
waters is evident in the occurrance of tropical species such as
Leptogorgia virgulaba, Diadumene leacolena, and Titanduem frauenfidii
(Figure 15). Despite the mobility of deposit feeders and their ability
to invade new environments, low frequencies of these organisms were
encountered in topographic plains. The isolation of topographic plains
from environments of existing populations of deposit feeders may account
for this low frequency.
Sediment Composition
The high correlation between organic and clay content indicates the
importance of modern sediments of terrigenous origin in the NSA (Figure
16). Land runoff and subsequent river discharge provide clay and or-
ganics to the estuarine environment. These organic laden sediments are
transported out of the inlets and introduced into the marine sedimentary
environment (Mixon & Pilkey, 1976). The strong currents and wave action
of the inner shelf do not provide a favorable environment for their
deposition which is reflected in the low percent of clay (14.6% maximum)
and low percent organics (3.6% maximum) as compared to values obtained
by Sanders (1958). A good correlation between percent organics and the
distribution of deposit feeders indicates that their distribution may be
RFERFELSEQAoTEUTREDIAVNITNCEfYGY
—I 1 1
LOW PLAIN HIGH
TOPOGRAPHY
Figure 15. Correlation of frequency of feeding strategies versus
topography for Wilmington Study Area.
Figure 16. Correlation of percent organics versus percent clay.
37
controlled in part by the organic content (Figure 17), but not to the
degree that Sanders (1956, 1958) noted in the protected environments of
Long Island Sound and Buzzards Bay.
The low content of organics and clays (Figure 16) may reflect the
minimal input of modern terrigenous sediments of the WSA. No córrela-
tion between percent organics and the distribution of benthic faunal
feeding strategies is discernable.
No relationship was found between the distribution of raptorial
feeders and sediments in either study area. Their feeding activity
requires high mobility in order to seek living prey and their distribu-
tion is probably controlled by the availability of food.
Figure 17. Correlation of frequency of feeding strategy versus percent
organics for the Nags Head Study Area.
CONCLUSIONS
The major factor governing the distribution of benthic faunal
feeding assemblages and sediments in the study areas is topography.
A. Topographic lows are protected environments which accumulate
deposits of fine sediment and gravel. Dominance by deposit
feeders in topographic lows indicates the availability of
detrital deposits. Physical instability in this environment
may cause stress for suspension feeders by:
1. clogging their feeding structures
2. burying newly settled larvae, and
3. limiting individual organisms ability to maintain a firm
connection with the substrate.
B. Topographic plains are exposed to occasional bottom currents
which results in moderately sorted fine to very fine sands and
an increase in frequency of suspension feeders. The high
frequency of deposit feeders in the NSA may indicate the
heterogeneity of environments and may suggest that mobility of
deposit feeders enables them to migrate to topographic plains
in order to utilize an additional food source.
C. Topographic highs are exposed to the direct impact of bottom
currents which results in moderately well sorted medium to
fine sands. This environment supplies suspension feeding
assemblages with an influx of suspended food. The occurrence
of deposit feeders in this environment suggests:
40
1. the use of specialized appendages to select organic
detritus from the inorganic fraction, and
2. the ability of depoit feeders to utilize a variety of
environments.
II. Because of the physical processes of the inner continental shelf of
North Carolina, this environment is unsuitable for deposition of
organics and clay, and thus diminishes the importance of these
factors in regulating the distribution of deposit feeders.
LITERATURE CITED
Anderson, R.O. 1959. A modified floatation technique for sorting bottom
fauna samples. Limnological Oceanography 4: 223-225.
Barnard, J.L.; Hartman, 0. 1959. The sea bottom off Santa Barbara, Cali-
fornia: biomass and community structure. Pacific Naturalist 1.
Barnes, R.D. 1968. Invertegrate zoology. 2nd. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:
W.B. Saunders Company. 743 p.
Boesch, D.F. 1972. Species diversity of marine macrobenthos in the
Virginia area. Chesapeake Science 13(3): 206-211.
Bookhout, C.G. 1953. Check list of marine invertebrates at Beaufort,
North Carolina. 2nd ed. Duke University Marine Laboratory (mimeo-
graphed), Pivers Island, Beaufort, N.C. 36p.
Brett, C.I. 1963. Relationships between marine invertebrate distribution
and sediment distribution in Bogue Sound, N.C. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Uni-
versity of North Carolina. 202p. Dissertation.
Cerame-Vivas, M.J.; Gray, I.E. 1966. The distribution pattern of benthic
invertebrates of the continental shelf off North Carolina. Ecology 47:
260-270.
Cox, J.L. 1976. Sampling variation in sandy beach littoral and nearshore
meiofauna and macrofauna. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engi-
neering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. TP 76-14.
Day, J.H.; Field, J.G.; Montgomery, M.P. 1971. The use of numerical
methods to determine the distribution of benthic fauna across the con-
tinental shelf of North Carolina. Journal of Animal Ecology 40: 93-125.
Emerson, W.K.; Jacobson, M.K. 1976. The American Museum of Natural
History guide to shells. New York, N.Y.: Alfred A. Knopf.
Folk, R.L. 1968. Petrology of sedimentary rocks, Austin, Texas:
Hemphill.
Gardiner, S.L. 1975. Errant polychaete annilids from North Carolina.
Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 91(3).
Ghiold, J. 1979. Spine morphology and its significance in feeding and
burrowing in the sand dollar, Mellita quinquiesperforata. Bulletin of
Marine Science 29(4): 481-490.
Gosner, K.L. 1971. Guide to the identification of marine and estuarine
invertebrates. New York, N.Y.: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
42
Gray, J.S. 1974. Animal-sediment relationships. Oceanography and Marine
Biological Annotated Review 12; 223-261.
Hartman, 0. 1945. The marine annelids of North Carolina. Durham, N.C.:
Duke University Press.
Hedgepeth, J.W. 1957. Treatise on marine ecology and paleoecology.
National Research Council, New York (Geological Society of America
Memoirs #67); 2 vol.
Hjulstrom, F. 1935. Studies of the morphological activities of rivers as
illustrated by the River Fyris. Geological Institute Bulletin 25:
221-527.
Hyman, L.H. 1940. The invertebrates. New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill Book
Co., Inc.; 6 vol.
Inman, D.I. 1949. Sorting of sediments in the light of fluid mechanics.
Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 19(2): 51-70.
Johnson, C.W. 1934. List of marine mollusca of the Atlantic coast from
Labrador to Texas. Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History
40: 1-204.
Johnson R.G. 1971. Animal-sediment relations in shallow water benthic
communities. Marine Geology 11: 93-104.
Jones, N.S. 1950. Marine bottom communities. Biological Review 25:
283-313.
Jorgensen, C.B. 1966. Biology of suspension feeders. London, England;
Pergamon Press.
Jumars, P.A.; Fauchold, K. 1977. Between-community contrasts in success-
ful polychaete feeding stretegies. In Ecology of Marine Benthos, Coull,
B.C., editor. Columbia, South Carolina, University of South Carolina
Press. 1-20.
McNulty, J.K.; Work, R.C.; Moore, H.B. 1962. Some relationships between
the infauna of the level bottom and the sediments in south Florida.
Bulletin of Marine Science 12: 322-332.
Meisburger, E.P. 1979. Reconnaissance geology of the inner continental
shelf. Cape Fear Region, North Carolina, U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,
Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
Menzies, R.J.; Pilkey, O.H.; Blackwelder, B.W.; Dexter, D.; Huling, P. ;
McCloskey, L. 1966. A submerged reef off North Carolina. International
Review of Hydrobiology 51(3): 393-431.
43
Mixon, R. B. and Pilkey, 0. H. 1976. Reconnaissance geology of the sub-
merged and emerged Coastal Plains province, Cape Lookout area. North
Carolina: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper No. 859, 45 p.
Newell, R.C. 1970. Biology of intertidal animals. London, England: Logos
Press.
Nichols, F.H. 1970. Benthic polychaete assemblages and their relation-
ship to the sediment in Port Madison, Washington. Marine Biology 6:
48-57.
Nicol, A.C. 1967. The biology of marine animals. 2nd ed. London,
England: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, Ltd.
Norton, O.A. 1947. Some ecological observations on Dosinia discus Reeve
at Beaufort, N.C. Ecology 28(2); 199-204.
Parson, T.R.; Takahashi, M.; Hargrave, B. 1977. Biological oceanographic
processes. 2nd ed. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Pearse, A.S. 1929. Ecology of estuarine crabs of Beaufort, N.C. Journal
of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 44: 230-237.
Pearse, A.S.; Williams, L.G. 1951. The biota of the reefs off the
Carolinas. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society June:
133-161.
Pearson, D.R. 1980. Surface and shallow subsurface sediment regime of
the nearshore inner continental shelf. Nags Head and Wilmington areas,
N.C. Greenville, N.C.; East Carolina University. 118p. Thesis.
Pettijohn, F.J. 1957. Sedimentary rocks. 2nd ed. New York, N.Y.: Harper
Brothers.
Porter, H.J. 1974. The N.C. marine and estuarine mollusca. Morehead
City, N.C.: U.N.C. Institute of Marine Sciences.
Porter, H.J.; Tyler, J. 1976. Sea shells common to N.C. Morehead City,
N.C.: N.C. Department of Natural and Economic Resources.
Remane, A. 1940. Einfuhrung in die zoologische oikologie der Nord-und
Ostee: Tierweit Nord-und Ostee 1: 1-238. (In German; English summary).
Sanders, H.L.1956. Oceanograhy of Long Island Sound; the biology of
marine bottom communities. Bulletin of Bingham Oceanography 15:
345-414.
. 1958. Benthic studies in Buzzards Bay; animal-sediment relation-
ships. Limnology and Oceanography 3(3): 245-258.
. 1968. Marine benthic diversity; a comparative study. American
Naturalist 102: 243-282.
44
Swift, D.J.P.; Duane, D.B.; McKinney, F.F. 1973. Ridge and swale topo-
graphy of the middle Atlantic Bight, North America; secular response to
the holocene hydraulic regime. Marine Geology 15(4); 227-247.
Thorson, G. 1957. Bottom communities, ^ Hedgepeth, J.W.; et.al. Treat-
ise on marine ecology and paleoecology: Geological Society of American
Memoirs 67(1): 461-543.
Watling, L.; Kinner, P.C.; Maurer, D. 1978. The use of species abundance
estimates in marine benthic studies. Journal of Experimental Marine
Biology and Ecology 35: 109-118.
Wieser, W. 1960. Benthic studies in Buzzards Bay; the meiofauna. Limno-
logy and Oceanography 5: 121-137.
Williams, A.B. 1958. Substrates as a factor in shrimp distribution.
Limnology and Oceanography 3: 283-290.
Woodin, S.A. 1974. Polychaete abundance patterns in a marine soft-
sediment environment; the importance of biological interactions.
Ecological Monographs 44; 171-187.
Young, D.K.; Rhoads, D.C. 1971. Animal-sediment relations in Cape Cod
Bay, Massachusetts; a transect study. Marine Biology 11: 242-254.
SORTING (Folk)
0.35 - 0.50 0 well sorted (WS)
0.50 - 0.71 0 moderate! well sorted (MWS)
0.71 - 1.0 0 moderate sorted (MS)
1.0 - 2.0 0 poorly sorted (PS)
MEAN GRAIN SIZE (Wentworth)
-1.0 - 0.0 0 very course sand (VCS)
0.0 - 1.0 0 coarse sand (CS)
1.0 - 2.0 0 medium sand (MS)
2.0 - 3.0 0 fine sand (FS)
3.0 - 4.0 0 very fine sand (VFS)
4.0 - 5.0 0 silt (M)
Appendix A. Statistical sediment parameters and descriptive names for
classification of mean grain size and sorting.
Appendix B. Listing of organisms and their primary feeding strategy.
S - Suspension feeder
SDF - Specific deposit feeder
NSDF - Non-specific deposit feeder
R - Raptorial feeder
U - Unknown
47
MAJOR
FEEDING
ORGANISM STRATEGY* REFERENCE
Porifera
Hymeniacidon heliophila S Barnes
Coelenterata
Anthozoa
Astrangia sp. S Barnes
Diaduxnene leucolena S Barnes
Leptogorgia virgulata S Barnes
Renilla reniformis S Barnes
Titandeum frauenfeldii S Barnes
Hydrozoa
Pennaria sp. s Barnes
Neraatoda u
Annelida
Polychaeta
Aricidea sp. NSDF Gosner
Aricidea jeffreysii NSDF Gosner
Aricidea quadrilobata NSDF Gosner
Ceratonereis sp. R inspection
Ceratonereis tridentata R inspection
Cirratulus grandis SDF Nicol
Clymenella torquata SDF Nicol
Diopatra cuprea R Jumars
Drilonereis longa R Nicol
Drilonereis magna R Nicol
Eteone sp. R inspection
Eteone lactea R Hedgepeth
Glycera sp. R Nicol
Geniada sp. R Gosner
Goniadella gracilis R inspection
Lepidonotus sp. U
Lumbrineris sp. NSDF Jumars
Lycastopsis pontica SDF Jumars
Marphysa belli R inspection
Marphysa sanguinea R inspection
Nereis sp. R Newell
Ninoe nigripes NSDF Hedgepeth
Paranaites sp. R inspection
Pherusa areosa NSDF Newell
Polycirrus sp. U
Pseudeurythoe ambigua R Gosner
Spiophanes bombyx NSDF Newell
48
Bryozoa
Microporella ciliata S inspection
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Busycon carica R Norton
Cerithiopsis greeni R Newell
Colus stimpsoni R Hyman
Crepidula sp. S inspection
Crepidula convexa S Hyman
Crepidula fornicata S Newell
Crepidula plana S Nicol
Nassarius trivittata NSDF Newell
Nassarius vibex SDF Nicol
Polinices duplicata R Hedgepeth
Terebra dislocaba R Hedgepeth
Bivalvia
Anodontia alba S inspection
Atrina seminuda S inspection
Barnea truncaba S Jorgensen
Ensis directus S Jorgensen
Nucula próxima SDF Hedgepeth
Pandora sp. S inspection
Spisula sp. S inspection
Spisula solidissima S Jorgensen
Tellina sp. SDF Hedgepeth
Tellina nitens SDF Hedgepeth
Tellina versicolor SDF Hedgepeth
Arthropoda (Crustacea)
Amphipoda
Atylus swammerdami SDF Newell
Colliopius laeviusculus SDF Barnes
Decapoda
Axius serratus SDF Barnes
Cancer borealis R Nicol
Cancer irroratus R Nicol
Carcinus maenus R Nicol
Emérita talpoida S Hedgepeth
Hepatus epheliticus R Nicol
Hymenopenaeus tropicalis R Nicol
Libinia dubia R Nicol
Ovalipes ocellatus R inspection
Pagurus longirostris SDF Newell
Pagurus pollicaris R Newell
Panopeus herbstii R inspection
Parapeneus longirostris R inspection
Penaeus sp. R inspection
Penaeus setiferus R Gosner
Periclimenaeus schmitti R Gosner
49
Portunus gibbesi R inspectior
Upogebia affinis SDF Barnes
Euphausiacea
Euphausia americana S J^Jrgensen
Isopoda U
Rhizocephala
Balanus sp. S Newell
Stomatopoda
Nannosquilla grayi R Barnes
Platysquilla enodis R Barnes
Echinodermata
Echinoidea
Arbacia punctulata R Hyman
Mellita quinquesperforata SDF OhioId
Moira átropos NSDF Newell
Stelleroidea
Amphioplus abdita NSDF Barnes
Asterias forbesii R Hedgepeth
Astropecten articulatus SDF Nicol
Ludia clathrata R Hyman
Ophiopholis aculeata S Jjárgensen
Chordata
Branchiostoma U
Worm tubes
#1 (Diopatra) R Jumars
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7 (Clymenella) SDF Nicol
#8
Appendix C. Occurrence of organisms by station.
Diver hand picked sampling (DP) values are represented by 'A
for the absence of the organism or 'P' for the occurrence of
the organism.
1. Slurpee sampling (SL) values multiplied one hundred times
represents organisms per cubic meter.
2. Shipek sampling (SH) values multiplied one thousand times re
presents organisms per cubic meter.
All density values expressed as organisms per cubic meter ac
tually represents a sampling volume having a depth of 30 cm.
TRANSECT: AVALON
Station
HA-1 HA-2 HA-3 HA-4 HA-5 HA-6
SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH
Coe 1 entera ta
Hydrozoa
Pennaria AAA A A A
An thozoa
Sea anemone AAA A A A
Nemato da 1.25
Annelida
Polych aeta
Ari ci dea sp. A A 2.43 A A A 2 A
Aricidea Jeffreysii A A A A A A
Ceratonereis sp. A A A A A A
Ci rrat ulus grandis A A A A A A
Clymenella torquata A A A A A A
DiOptra cuprea A A 2.43 A A A A
Dril one ries longa A A A A A A
Eteone sp. A A A A A A
Eteone lactea A 2 A A A A A
Glycera sp. A A A A A A
Lepidonotus sp. A A A A A A
Lumbrineris sp. A A A A A A
Lycastopsis pontica A A A A A A
Morphy sa belli A A A A A A
Nereis sp. A A A A A A
Ninoe ni gripes A A A A A A
Paranaites sp. A A 2.43 A A A A
Pherusa arenosa A A A A A A
Polycirrus sp. A A A A A A
Spiophanes bombyx A A 2.43 A A A A
TRANSECT: AVALON (Con't)
Station
HA-1 HA-2 HA-3 HA-4 HA-5 HA-i
SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH
Moll us ca
Gastropoda
Crepidula sp. P A A A P A
Crepidula conexa P A A A A A
Crepi dula fornicata A A A A A A
Crepi dul a pi ana P A A A P A
Nassarius trivittatus A A A P 4.86 P A
Nassarius uibex A P A A A A
Polinices duplicata A A A A A A
Bi val vi a
Afrina semi nuda A A A A A A
Ensis directus A P 1 2.43 A A A A
Pandora sp. A A A A A A
Spisula sp. A A A A A A
Spisula solidissima A A A A A A
Tel lina sp. A A A A A A
Tel lina nitens A A A A A A
Tel lina versicolor A A Z43 A A A A
Arth ropoda
Crus tacea
Amphipoda
Atylus swammerdami A A Z43 A A 9.7¿ A 1 A
Colliopius laeviuscuius A A A AA
Decapoda
Axius serratus A A 2.43 A A A
Cancer borealis A A A A A
Cancer irroratus A A A A A
Carein us maenus A P P P A
Libinia dubia P A A A A
Ovalipes ocellatus A P A A A
TRANSECT; AVALON CCgn't).
Station
HA-1 HA-2 HA-3 HA-4 HA-5 HA-6
SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH
Paguros longicarpus P P 2.43 A P P A
Paguros poli caris P P A A A A
Parapeneus longi ros tri s A A 486 A A A A
Penaeidae* A A A A A A
Portunus gibbesii A A A A A A
Upogebia affinis A A 4.æ A A A A
Mysidacea
Rhizocephala
Balanus sp. P P A A P A
Stoma topoda
Nannosquilla grayi A A A A A A
Platysquilla enodis A A A A 9.72 A A
Echinodennata
Schinoi dea
Arbacia punctulata A AAA A A
Mellita quinquesperforata A P A A A A
Stellcroidea
Asterias fortes i i A AAA A P
Ophiopholis aculeata A A A
Chordata
B ranchi ostoma sp. A AAA A A
Worm tubes
#1 P P P P P
#2
#3 P
#4 P
#5
#6
#7 P P P P P P
m P P p
TRANSECT: NAGS HEAD
Station
HN-1 HN-2 HN-3 HN-4 HN-5 HN-6
SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH
Coelenterata
Hydrozoa
Pennaria A A A A P P
Anthozoa
Sea anemone A A 1.43 A A A A
Nematoda 73 23
Anne!i da
Polychaeta
Ari ci dea sp. A A T2T4 A 102) A A A
Aricidea Jeffreys i i A A 2143 A A A A
Ceratonereis sp. A A 1.43 A A A A
Cirratulus grandis A A A A A 1 A
Clymenel1 a torquata A A 2.æ 9.71 A 4 A A A
Di Optra copre a A A A A A 243 A
Driloneries Tonga A A A A A 2 21.85 A
Eteone sp. A A A 2 A A A
Eteone 1 acte a A A A A A A
GTycera sp. A A A A A A
Lepidonotus Asp. A A A A A
Lumbrineris Asp. A A A 2 A A
Lycastopsis pontica A A A A A A
Murphys a belli A A A 2D38 A A A
Nereis sp. A A A A A A
Ninoe nigripes A A A A A A
Paranaites sp. A A A A A A
Pherusa arenosa A A 4£6 A A A A
Polycirrus <\ Asp. A A A A 1
Spiophanes bombyx A A 728 A A A A
Ln
TRANSECT: NAGS HEAD (Con't)
Station
HN-1 HN-2 HN-3 HN-4 HN-5 HN-Í
SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH
Moll usca
Gastropoda
Crepi dul a sp. A A A A A A
Crepidula conexa A A A A A A
Crepi dul a fornicata A A A A A A
Crepidula plana A A A A A A
Nassarius trivittatus A A A A A A
Nassarius uibex A A 2.43 A A A A
Polinices duplicata A A A A A P
Bi val vi a
Afrina semi nuda A A A A P A
Ensis directus A A 1.43 2.43 A A A 243 A
Pandora sp. A A A A A A
Spisula sp. A A A A A
Spisul a soli dissima A 2 A A A A
Tel lina sp. A A A A 1 A A
Tel lina ni tens A A 7.14 A A A A
Tel lina versicolor A A A A A A
Arthropoda
Crustacea
Amphipoda
Atylus swammerdami A A 1.43 4.86 A A A A
Colliopius laeviusculus AA A A A
Decapoda
Axius serratus A A A A A A
Cancer borealis A A A A A A
Cancer irroratus A A A A A A
Carcinus maenus A A A A A A
Libinia dubia A A A A A A
Ovalipes ocellatus A A A A A A
TRANSECT: NAGS HEAD (Con't)
Station
HN-1 HN-2 HN-3 HN-4 HN-5 HN-6
SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH
Paguros longicarpus A A A P A A
Paguros poli caris A A A A A' A
Parapene us longi ros tri s A A A 1D20 A A 2.43 A
Penaeidae* A A A A A 4.86 A
Portunus gibbesii A A A A A A
Upogebia affinis A A A A A A
Mysidacea
Rhizocephala
Balanus sp. A A A A A P
Stomatopoda
Nannosqui 11 a grayi A A A A 7.28 A A
Platysqui 1 la enodis A A A A A A
Echi node rmata
Schinoidea
Arbacia punctulata Al A A A A A
Mellita quinquesperforata P A A A A A
Stelleroidea
Asterias forbesii A P A A A P
Ophiopholis aculeata A A Z43 A A A A
Chordata
Bran chi os toma sp. A A Z43 A 1D2) A 1 A A
Worm tubes
n PP PP P P
#2 P P
n P
#4 P P P P P P
#5
#6
#7 P P P
#8 P P a^
TRANSECT: JEANETTES
Station
HJ-1 HJ-2 HJ-3 HJ-4 HJ-5 HJ-6 HJ-7
SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DD SH SL DP
Coe Ten terata
Hydrozoa
Penn aria A A A A A A p
Anthozoa
Sea anemone A A A A A A A
Nema toda 19 5.71
Anne 1 i da
Polychaeta
Ari ci dea sp. A A A A A A IDZ) A
Aricidea Jeffreys i i A A A A A A A
Ceratonereis sp. A A A A A A A
Cirratulus grandis A A A A A A A
Clymenella torquata A 11.17 A A A A A A
Di Optra cuprea A P A A A A A
Dril one ries longa 9.71 A A A A 1.43 A A A
Eteone sp. A A A A A A 1020 A
Eteone lactea A A A A A A A
Glycera sp. A A A A 1.43 A , A A
Lepidonotus sp. A A A A 1.43 A A A
Lumbrineris sp. A A A A A A A
Lycastopsis pontica A A A A A A 1020 A
Morphysa bel li A A A A A A A
Nereis sp. A A A A 1.43 A A A
Ninoe nigripes A A P A A A A
Paranaites sp. A A A A A A A
Pherusa arenosa A A A A A A A
Polycirrus sp. A A A A A A A
Spiophanes bombyx A A A A A A A
TRANSECT: JEANETTES (Con't)
Station
HJ-1 HJ-2 HJ-3 HJ-4 HJ-5 HJ-6 HJ-7
SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH
Mol lusca
Gastropoda
Crepi dul a sp. A A A AAA A
Crepidula conexa A A A A
Crepi dul a fornicata A A A A P A A
Crepidula plana A A A A P A A
Nassarius trivittatus A A A AA A
Nassarius uibex A A A A A. A A
Polinices duplicata A A A AA A
Bi val vi a
Afrina semi nuda A A A A A A A
Ensis directus A A p A A A 1D.2D A
Pandora sp. A A A A A A A
Spisul a sp. A 5.58 A A A A A A
Spisula soli dissi Pma A A A A A A
Tellina sp. A A A A A A A
Tellina ni tens A A A A A A A
Tell ina versucolor A A A A A A A
Arthropoda
Crustacea
Amphipoda 20
Atylus swammerdami AAA A A A A
Colliopius laevius cuius A- A A A
Decapoda
Axius serratus A A A A A A A
Cancer borealis A A A A P A
Cancer irroratus A A A 2 A A P
Libinia dubia A A A A A A A
Ovalipes ocellatus A A A A A 1. 'V
Pagurus longicarpus A P A A P
Pagurus policaris A A A A P A A
Carcinus maenus A A A A A A A
TRANSECT: JEANEHES (Con't)
Station
HJ-1 HJ-2 HJ-3 HJ-4 HJ-5 HJ-6 HJ-7
SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH
Parapeneus longi ros tris A A A A 1.43 A A A
Penaeidae* A A A A A A A
Portunus gibbesii A A A A A A P
Upogebia affinis A A A A A A A
Mysidace a
Rhizocephala
Balanus sp. A P A A P A P
Stomatopoda
Nannosqui lia grayi A A A A A A A
Platysquilla enodis A A A A A A A
Echinodermata
Schi noi dea
Arbacia punctulata A A A A A A A
Mel lita quinquesperforata A A A A A A A
Stelleroidea
Asterias forbesii A A A p A A A
Ophiopholis aculeata A A A A A A A
Chordata
Bran chi os toma sp. A A P A A A A
Worm tubes
#1 P P P
#2
n P
#4 P P P
#5
#6
#7 P P p
#8 P
Ln
v£>
TRANSECT: WRIGHTSVILLE
Station
OW-1 OW-2 OW-3 OW-4 OW-5 OW-6
SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH
Pori fera
Hymeniacidon heliophila A A A A A A
Coelenterata
Antnozoa
Astrangia sp. A A P A A A
Diadumene leacolena A A A A A A
Leptogorgia virgulata A A A A A A
Renilla reniformis P A A A A A
Sea anemone A A A A A A
Titan de urn frauenfidii A A A A A A
Nema toda
Anne 1 i da
Polychaeta
Ario i de a sp. A 1 A A A A A
Aricidea quadrilobata A A A A A A
Ceratonereis tridentata A A A A A A
Clymenelia torquata A A A A A A
Di Optra cuprea A A A A A A
Drilonereis Tonga A A A A A 3 A
Drilonereis magna A A A A A A
Glycera sp. A 5 A A A A A
Goniada sp. A A A A A A 1.43
Goniadella gracilis A A 5 A A A A
Marphysa sanguines A A A A A A
Ninoe nigripes A A A A A A
Pseudeurythoe ambigua A A A A A A 1.43
Bryozoa
Microporella ciliata A A A A A P
ON
o
TRANSECT: WRIGHTSVILLE (Con't)
Station
OW-1 OW-2 OW-3 OW-4 OW-5 OW-6
SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH
Mo 11 us ca
Gastropoda
Busyeon carica A A A A A A
Cerithiopsis greeni A A A A A A
Co lus stimpsoni A A A A A P
Crepidula convexa A A A A A A
Crepidula fornicata A A A A A A
Crepidula plana A A A A A A
Terebra dislocaba A A P A A P
Bi val vi a
Anodontia alba A A A A A P
Atrina seminuda A A A A A A
Barnea truncaba A A P A A A
Ensis directus A A A A A A
Spisula solidissima A A A A A A
Nacula próxima A A A A A A
Arthropoda
Crustacea 8
Amphipoda
De capo da
Cancer borealis A A A A A P
Emérita talpoida A A A A A A
Hepatus epheliticus A A P A A A
Hymenopenaeus topical is A A A A A A
Libinia tubia A A A A A A
Pagurus longicarpus A A A A A A
Pagurus policaris A A A A A A
Panopeus herbstii A A P A A A
Parapeneus longirostris A A A 874 A A A
Penaeus sp. A A A A A A
Penaeus setiferus A 3.64 A A A A A
TRANSECT: WRIGHTSVILLE (Con't)
Station
OW-1 OW-2 OW-3 OW-4 OW-5 OW-6
SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH
Peri cl inienaeus schmitti A A A A A A
Portunus gibbesii A A A A A A
Euphausiacea
Euphausia americana A A a74
Isopoda
Rnizocephala
Balanus sp. A
Echinodermata
Echinoidea
Arbacia punctulata APA A A C
i'iellita quinquesperforata P A A A A Q.
Moira átropos AAA A A C
Stel leroidea
Amphioplus abdita A A A A A A
Asterias forbesii A A A A A A
As tropecten articulatus A A A A A A
Luidia cl a thrata A A A A A A
Opniophulis aculeata A A A A A A
Churdata
Bran chi os toma sp. A A AAA A
Worm tubes
#1
#2 P P P P
#3 P
#4
#5 P
#6 P
#7
#8
NJ
TRANSECT: CAROLINA
Station
OC-1 OC-2 OC-3 OC-4 OC-5 OC-6 0C-:
SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH
Pori fera
Hymeniacidon heliophila AAA
Coe lente rata
Anthozoa
Astrangia sp. A A A A A A A
Diadumene leacolena A A A A A A A
Leptogorgia virgulata A A A A A P P
Renilla reniformis A A P A A A A
Sea anemone A A A A A P A
Titandeum frauenfidii A A A A A A A
Nematoda ^.73 4
Annelida
Polychaeta
Ari cidea sp. A A A A A A A
Arid de a quadrilobata A A A A A 2185 A A
Ceratonereis tridentata A 1 A A A A A A
Clymenella torquata A 7.28 A A A A A A
DiOptra cupre a A A A A A P A
Drilonereis Tonga A A A A A 14.57 A A
Dril one reis magna A A A 1 A A A A
Glycera sp. P A A A A A 1 A
Goniada sp. A A A A A A A
Goniadel la grácil is A A A A A A A
Marphysa sanguinea A A A A P A A
Ninoe nigripes A A A A A A A
Pseudeurythoe ambigua A A A A A A A
Bryozoa
Microporella ciliata A AAA A A A
TRANSECT: CAROLINA (Con't)
Station
OC-1 OC-2 OC-3 OC-4 OC-5 OC-6 OC-7
SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH
Mollusca
Gas tropoda
Busycur cari ca A P A A A A A
Ceri thi opsis greeni A A A A P A A
Co lus stimpsoni A A A A A A A
Crepidula convexa A A A A A A A
Crépi dula Torn i cata A A A A A P P
Crepidula plana A A P A A P A
Terebra dislocaba A A A A A P A
Bi val vi a
Ano don ti a alba A A A A A A A
Atrina seminuda A A A A A A A
Barnea truncaba A A A A A A A
Ensis di rectus A P A A A A A
Spisula solidissima A A A A A A A
Nucula próxima A A A A A A 7.æ A
Arthropoda
Crus tace a 3 m4D
Amphipoda
Decapoda
Cancer borealis A A A A A A A
Emérita talpoida P A A A A A A
Hepatus epheliticus A A A A A A A
Hymenopenaeus tropical is A A A A A A A
Libinia dubia A A A A A A A
Pagurus longicarpus A A P A A A A
Pargurus policaris P P A A A P A
Panopeus herbs ti i A A A A A A A
Parapeneus longirostris A A A A A A A
Penaeus sp. A A A A A A A
Penaeus se ti fe rus A A A A A A A
TRANSECT: CAROLINA (Con't)
Station
OC-1 OC-2 OC-3 OC-4 OC-5 OC-6 OC-7
SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH
Periclimenaeus schmitti A A A A A A A
Portun us gibbesii A A A A A A A
Euphausiacea
Euphausia americana A A
Isopoda P
Rhizocephal a
Balanus sp.
Echinodermata
Echinoidea
Arbacia punctulata A A A A A P A
Mel lita quinquesperforata P A P A A A A
Moira átropos A A P A A A A
Stelleroidea
Amphioplus abdita A A A A A A P
Asterias forbesii A A A A A P P
Astropecten articulatus A A A A A A A
Luidia clathrata A A A A A P P
Ophiopholis aculeata A A A A A 7.28 A A
Churdata
Bran chi os toma sp.
Worm tubes
#1
#2 P
n P
#4 P
#5
#6 P
#7 P
#8
O'
Ln
TRANSECT: KURE
Station
OK-1 OK-2 OK-3 OK-4 OK-5 OK-6
SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH
Pori fera
Hymeniacidon heliophila A A P AAA
Coelenterata
Anthozoa
Astrangia sp. A A P AAA
Diadumene leacolena PA
Leptogorgia virgulata AA AAA
Ren ilia reniformis A 3 A A
Sea anemone AA AAA
Titandeum frauenfidii A A P
Nematoda
Anne! i da
Polychaeta
Arid dea sp. A A A A A A
Aricidea quadrilobata A A A A A A
Ceratonereis tridentata A A A A A A
Clymenella torquata A A A A A A
Dioptra cuprea A A A A A A
Drilonereis longa A A A A A 728 A
Drilonereis magna A A A A A A
Glycera sp. A A A 2 A 1 A 1 2914 A
Goniada sp. A A A A A A
Goniadella gracilis A A A A A A
Marphysa sanguinea A A A A A A
Ninoe nigripes A A A A 3 A A
Pseudeurythoe ambigua A A A A A A
Bryozoa
Microporella ciliata A AAA A A
ON
TRANSECT: KURE (Con't)
Station
OK-1 OK-2 OK-3 OK-4 OK-5 OK-
SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH
Moll usca
Gastropoda
Busyeon carica A A A A A A
Ce rithiops is greeni A A A A A A
Colus stimpsoni A A A A A A
Crepidula convexa PA A A A
Crépi dula Torn i cata A A A A
Crepidula plana A A A A A A
Terebra dislocaba A A A A A A
Bi val via
Anodontia alba A A A A A A
Atrina seminuda PA A A A
Barnea truncaba A A A A A A
Ensis di rectus A A A P A P
Spisula solidissima A A P A A A
Nacula próxima A A A A A A
Arth ropo da
Crustacea 2
Aniphi poda
Decapoda
Cancer borealis A A A A A A
Emérita talpoida A A A A A A
Hepatus ephcliticus A A A A A A
Hymenopenaeus tropicalis A A P A A A
Libinia dubia A P A A A A
Pagurus longicarpus A A A A A A
Paguros poli caris A A A A A A
Panopeus herbstii A A A A A A
Parapeneus longiros tris A A A A A A
Penaeus sp. A 14.57 A A A A 7.28 A
Penaeus se ti fe rus A A A A A A
TRAN.seCT: KURE (Con't)
Station
OK-1 OK-2 OK-3 OK-4 OK-5 OK-6
SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH SL DP SH
Péri climenaeus schmitti A A A A A A
Portunus gibbesii A A A A P A
Euphausiacea
Euphausia americana A
Isopoda
Rhizocephala
Balanus sp. A
Ecliinodermata
Echinoidea
Arbacia punctulata A P A A A A
Mellita quinquesperforata P A P A A A
Moira átropos A A A A A A
Stelleroidea
Amphioplus abdita A A A A A c
Asterias forbesii A P A A A D-
Astropecten articulatus A A A A A D-
Luidia c lath rata A A A A A c
Ophiopholus aculeata A A P A A ?<
Ch urda ta
B ran ch i os toma sp. A A A3 A 1 A A
Worm tubes
n P P P P P P
#2 P P P
#3 P
#4 P
#5
#6
#7
#8
CS
00
Appendix D. Sample station information.
Topographic low (L)
Topographic plain (P)
Topographic high (H)
70
ê
c CO
/—N U
'Q. (V
) CO 73
) 0^
> <U OJ (D
1 N TD 4-1
•H (V
1 W •JC <V a
1 <4-1 O
1 a la w *H
Number ) •H Æ ÇJ 4J CO1 CO D. •H •H C) U oc CT3 C (0 QJÛO c U t>^ CO O a&c CO CM a COS?tation C 4J O r-H U O) DCO U O- O O 73 CO1 <V O O1 s W H &-S1 71299.7 L?CnOnrHR-înAatNps 56075.3 (mDeMtpetrhs) 00 o iD>iosftfashnocre -0.42 1.02 L 0.7 0.6 17 33
HA-2 71299.6 X 56074.4 8.4 0.54 2.29 0.71 H 0.9 0.4 45 33
HA-3 71298.0 X 56066.5 15.6 1.25 2.81 0.75 P 2.9 2.2 57 7
HA-4 71297.2 X 56061.6 18.3 1.68 4.45 1.75 L 15.3 3.6 50 0
HA-5 71296.7 X 56059.7 17.4 1.85 2.88 0.59 H 1.0 0.6 45 18
HA-6 71294.8 X 56045.9 22.5 3.08 5.02 1.83 L 7.2 2.7 50 0
HN-1 71332.9 X 54100.3 5.4 0.20 2.59 0.45 H 5.0 0.4 50 25
HN-2 71331.9 X 54091.6 16.5 1.04 3.44 0.67 P 4.1 1.4 58 14
HN-3 71331.9 X 54087.2 18.9 1.45 3.79 0.59 P 3.9 2.0 70 20
HN-4 71331.1 X 54082.5 19.2 1.90 1.21 0.75 P 2.5 0.7 34 33
HN-5 71330.5 X 54077.9 22.2 2.30 0.55 1.16 L 7.4 1.7 33 33
HN-6 71328.9 X 54069.8 19.8 3.02 1.67 0.48 H 0.5 0.4 0 36
HJ-1 missed reading 4.8 0.22 2.57 0.42 H 0.8 0.4 50 0
HJ-2 71359.9 X 54113.1 18.0 0.82 1.02 0.93 L 1.3 0.5 50 25
HJ-3 71359.4 X 54111.7 18.0 0.98 0.84 1.20 L 1.1 2.0 75 0
HJ-4 71358.4 X 54103.4 21.9 1.81 2.60 2.07 L 7.5 0.8 0 0
HJ-5 71356.0 X 54093.0 16.8 2.60 1.20 0. 77 H 1.0 0.5 20 Uo
HJ-6 71355.7 X 54089.5 17.4 2.95 1.22 0.77 L 0.6 0.4 50 0
HJ-7 71356.0 X 54087.8 16.5 3.14 1.00 1.02 H 0.7 0.4 27 36
OW-1 55944.1 X 72050.6 6.6 0.25 2.78 0.47 H 1.2 0.6 50 25
OW-2 55941.4 X 72052.5 11.1 0.82 2.72 0.68 P 1.5 1.4 0 0
CW-3 55941.1 X 72053.3 12.9 0.98 2.50 1.52 P 4.3 1.7 0 29
OW-4 55940.5 X 72056.1 13.2 1.47 2.59 0.65 H 1.3 1.1 0 50
OW-5 55937.5 X 72062.2 15.3 2. 79 2.99 0.43 P 2.3 1.6 0 0
OW-6 55937.0 X 72063.1 16.2 3.05 2.97 0.46 P 2.9 1.0 11 33
OC-1 16379.4 X 56066.1 7.8 0.20 1.30 0.88 L NA NA 43 14
OC-2 16376.1 X 56062.3 9.9 0.72 0.23 1.08 L NA NA 33 17
OC-3 16373.9 X 56058.9 7.8 0.96 1.96 0.86 H NA NA 50 38
OC-4 16370.5 X 56056.8 13.2 1.49 2.03 0.68 H NA NA NA NA
OC-5 16370.4 X 56055.8 12.6 1.61 1.88 1.15 L 1.6 1.8 0 0
Oc-6 16363.2 X 56049.0 12.9 2.50 1.34 1.21 H 1.6 1.0 25 25
OC-7 16359.5 X 56041.1 14.1 3.29 2.63 0.67 H 1.9 1.0 28 43
CK-1 72118.8 X 16344.2 8.1 0.37 1.54 0.89 L 1.4 0.8 33 33
CK-2 72119.9 X 16341.8 9.9 0.82 2.05 1.31 H 2.0 1.3 0 43
CK-3 56067.5 X 16340.0 11.4 1.50 0.91 1.06 P NA NA 8 58
CK-4 56064.5 X 16337.8 12.3 1.83 0.24 1.17 P 1.3 2.0 0 50
CK-5 56062.8 X 16336.9 10.2 2.26 2.20 0.60 H 1.5 0.9 0 25
CK-6 56057.0 X 16333.5 13.2 3.05 2.15 1.26 H 1.9 1.1 12 25