http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset/641667
eng; USA
utf8
dataset
Highest level of data collection, from a common set of sensors or instrumentation, usually within the same research project
Biological and Chemical Oceanography Data Management Office (BCO-DMO)
Unavailable
508-289-2009
WHOI MS#36
Woods Hole
MA
02543
USA
info@bco-dmo.org
http://www.bco-dmo.org
Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm
For questions regarding this resource, please contact BCO-DMO via the email address provided.
pointOfContact
2016-04-01
ISO 19115-2 Geographic Information - Metadata - Part 2: Extensions for Imagery and Gridded Data
ISO 19115-2:2009(E)
Response of Diopatra final size to Gracilaria abundance and the predator-exclusion cages in Fort Johnson, Charleston South Carolina from 2012 (Gracilaria effects project)
2016-04-07
publication
2016-04-07
revision
BCO-DMO Linked Data URI
2016-04-07
creation
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset/641667
James E. Byers
University of Georgia
principalInvestigator
Erik Sotka
College of Charleston
principalInvestigator
Biological and Chemical Oceanography Data Management Office (BCO-DMO)
Unavailable
508-289-2009
WHOI MS#36
Woods Hole
MA
02543
USA
info@bco-dmo.org
http://www.bco-dmo.org
Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm
For questions regarding this resource, please contact BCO-DMO via the email address provided.
publisher
Cite this dataset as: Sotka, E., Byers, J. E. (2016) Response of Diopatra final size to Gracilaria abundance and the predator-exclusion cages in Fort Johnson, Charleston South Carolina from 2012 (Gracilaria effects project). Biological and Chemical Oceanography Data Management Office (BCO-DMO). Version Date 2016-04-07 [if applicable, indicate subset used]. http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset/641667 [access date]
Data for Kollars etal (2016) MEPS Figure 5A: Response of Diopatra final size to Gracilaria abundance and the predator-exclusion cages at Fort Johnson, Charleston SC in 2012 Dataset Description: Methods and Sampling: <p><strong>Field experiments</strong><br />
To quantify the effect of Gracilaria on Diopatra growth and survivorship in the field, we manipulated Gracilaria density and predator access to Diopatra in a fully factorial and blocked field experiment over 4 wk in June 2012. We prepared worms in plastic tubes as above and out-planted them along a transect parallel to the shore at ~+0.15 m MLLW in one of 4 treatments: ambient control, Gracilaria addition, Gracilaria addition and predator exclusion cage, and cage only. Two worms were added per plot and 10 plots were generated per treatment. We report the final body masses of surviving worms (if both survived we used the average of the 2 worms). Treatments of a given replicate block were within 1 m of each other and blocks were separated by at least 1 m. We added Gracilaria to a plot by weaving 50.00 g (± 0.05 g, acceptable range of variation) blotted wet mass of the seaweed through 30 cm of 0.76 cm 3- strand rope and placing the rope in the plot center. A pre-experimental survey indicated that the maximum seaweed biomass on a Diopatra individual in the field was ~25.0 g wet mass (data not shown). Cages were 0.5 m wide by 0.3 m tall, constructed with PVC-coated chicken wire (2.5 cm mesh size) and embedded ~10 cm into the sediment. Plots without cages were marked with 3 PVC posts extending &lt;10 cm out of the sediment and separated by ~30 cm. After 4 wk, we removed the worms and severed the regenerated tissue from the rest of the body (see photo graph in Supplement 1B at http://www.int-res.com/articles/suppl/m545p135_supp/) using a razor blade. We dried and measured the original body mass and regenerated tissue mass at 60°C until no change in mass occurred (see Supplement 1B for details). We collected all Gracilaria biomass within the plot, defaunated it, measured its wet mass and dry mass, and counted the number of whole, epifaunal amphipods.</p>
<p>To assess spatial and temporal variation in the effect of Gracilaria on Diopatra, we manipulated Gracilaria density in replicated field experiments in June 2013 at 2 sites near Charleston, SC (Fort Johnson, Stono River) and 2 sites near Savannah, GA (Priest’s Landing and Bull’s River). The 2013 experiments did not include a cage treatment be cause we did not detect a predator-exclusion effect in 2012 (see ‘Results’). Relative to the 2012 experiment, the 2013 experiments used only one worm per plot, had 30 replicates per treatment, and we reduced the initial level of Gracilaria biomass in the addition treatment from 50 g down to 25 g wet mass. We randomly distributed plots 1 m apart along a transect parallel to the shore at approx. +0.09 m MLLW. In addition, we attached the seaweed-embedded ropes to PVC posts using zip-ties and pushed the posts into the mudflat to in crease seaweed stability (see Supplement 1A). Plots where we did not add Gracilaria still contained a PVC post and empty rope. After 4 wk, we processed the worms, seaweed, and epifauna as in the 2012 experiment. Because of logistical constraints, we counted epifauna for only 2 of the 4 sites (Fort Johnson and Priest’s Landing) used in 2013.</p>
<p><strong>Related Reference:</strong><br />
Kollars, N.M., J.E. Byers and E.E. Sotka (2016) Invasive decor: an association between a native decorator worm and a non-native seaweed can be mutualistic. Marine Ecology Progress Series (DOI: 10.3354/meps11602)</p>
<p><strong>Related Datasets:</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.bco-dmo.org/dataset/641577">MEPS_2016: Fig.2A - survey</a><br />
<a href="http://www.bco-dmo.org/dataset/641615">MEPS_2016: Fig.2B - Gracilaria growth rate</a><br />
<a href="http://www.bco-dmo.org/dataset/641628">MEPS_2016: Fig.3 - growth rate and depth</a><br />
<a href="http://www.bco-dmo.org/dataset/641641">MEPS_2016: Fig.4A - worm growth</a><br />
<a href="http://www.bco-dmo.org/dataset/641654">MEPS_2016: Fig.4B - stable isotopes</a><br />
<a href="http://www.bco-dmo.org/dataset/641680">MEPS_2016: Fig.5B - field expt 2013</a></p>
Funding provided by NSF Division of Ocean Sciences (NSF OCE) Award Number: OCE-1057707 Award URL: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/show-award?AWD_ID=1057707
Funding provided by NSF Division of Ocean Sciences (NSF OCE) Award Number: OCE-1057713 Award URL: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/show-award?AWD_ID=1057713
completed
James E. Byers
University of Georgia
706-583-0012
Odum School of Ecology 140 E. Green St.
Athens
GA
30602
USA
jebyers@uga.edu
pointOfContact
Erik Sotka
College of Charleston
843-953-9191
Grice Marine Laboratory 205 Fort Johnson Road
Charleston
SC
29412
USA
SotkaE@cofc.edu
pointOfContact
asNeeded
Unknown
site
lat
lon
block
treatment
cage
om_dry
rt_dry
final_size
grac
pods
theme
None, User defined
site
latitude
longitude
sample identification
treatment
dry_wgt_globec
count
featureType
BCO-DMO Standard Parameters
scale or balance
instrument
BCO-DMO Standard Instruments
Sotka_2013
service
Deployment Activity
Georgia and South Carolina coasts
place
Locations
otherRestrictions
otherRestrictions
Access Constraints: none. Use Constraints: Please follow guidelines at: http://www.bco-dmo.org/terms-use Distribution liability: Under no circumstances shall BCO-DMO be liable for any direct, incidental, special, consequential, indirect, or punitive damages that result from the use of, or the inability to use, the materials in this data submission. If you are dissatisfied with any materials in this data submission your sole and exclusive remedy is to discontinue use.
Cascading effects of an invasive seaweed on estuarine food webs of the southeastern US
https://osprey.bco-dmo.org/project/564687
Cascading effects of an invasive seaweed on estuarine food webs of the southeastern US
<p><em>Description from NSF award abstract:</em><br />
During the last decade, the Asian seaweed, <em>Gracilaria vermiculophylla</em>, has proliferated along high-salinity mudflats in several Georgia and South Carolina estuaries. The invasion is noteworthy because the mudflats in these estuaries were historically devoid of macrophyte-based primary production and structure. <em>Gracilaria</em> has few native analogues in these mudflat environments, and thus represents an opportunity to examine the ecosystem consequences of an invasion within an historically-unexploited niche. In theory, <em>Gracilaria</em> affects populations of species that are directly dependent on the invader for structure and food, as well as altering community- and ecosystem-level processes such as detrital production and food web structure. Through a combination of manipulative field experiments, laboratory assays and stable isotope analysis, the investigators will test three mechanisms by which <em>Gracilaria</em> influences native community structure. The novel structure and primary production generated by <em>Gracilaria vermiculophylla</em> may be 1) increasing rates of secondary production, 2) increasing levels of mudflat microbial production through leeching of dissolved nutrients, and 3) increasing detrital input to microbial and macrobial food webs.</p>
<p>This project will provide a mechanistic understanding of the multiple cascading impacts of an invasive species within the estuarine community. Species invasions that alter ecosystem functions are usually the most profound. These alterations are often generated by a small number of invaders that create physical structure, including important biogenic habitat, de novo. By altering physical structure, these non-native ecosystem engineers alter local abiotic conditions, interactions between species, and species composition. Highly influential invaders may also change food web structure and trophic flow of energy and materials. Such substantive food web changes can occur when an influential invader provides nutrients or resources that are different in quality, quantity or both. An invasive species that both provisions new physical structure and fundamentally alters food web structure could exert an overwhelming influence on native communities when these mechanisms act in synergy.</p>
Gracilaria effects
largerWorkCitation
project
eng; USA
biota
oceans
Georgia and South Carolina coasts
-79.90142
-79.90142
32.751305
32.751305
2016-04-07
Georgia and South Carolina coasts
0
BCO-DMO catalogue of parameters from Response of Diopatra final size to Gracilaria abundance and the predator-exclusion cages in Fort Johnson, Charleston South Carolina from 2012 (Gracilaria effects project)
Biological and Chemical Oceanography Data Management Office (BCO-DMO)
Unavailable
508-289-2009
WHOI MS#36
Woods Hole
MA
02543
USA
info@bco-dmo.org
http://www.bco-dmo.org
Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm
For questions regarding this resource, please contact BCO-DMO via the email address provided.
pointOfContact
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/642032.rdf
Name: site
Units: unitless
Description: <p>position in Charleston Harbor SC: FJ= Fort Johnson</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/642033.rdf
Name: lat
Units: decimal degrees
Description: <p>latitude; north is positive</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/642034.rdf
Name: lon
Units: decimal degrees
Description: <p>longitude; east is positive</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/642035.rdf
Name: block
Units: unitless
Description: <p>unique block identification</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/642036.rdf
Name: treatment
Units: unitless
Description: <p>treatment assignment: worm = no Gracilaria added; wormgrac = Gracilaria added</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/642037.rdf
Name: cage
Units: unitless
Description: <p>cage assignment</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/642038.rdf
Name: om_dry
Units: grams
Description: <p>dry mass of the original tissue</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/642039.rdf
Name: rt_dry
Units: grams
Description: <p>dry mass of the regenerated tissue</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/642040.rdf
Name: final_size
Units: grams
Description: <p>om_dry + rt_dry</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/642041.rdf
Name: grac
Units: grams
Description: <p>final dry mass of Gracilaria in the plot</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/642042.rdf
Name: pods
Units: unitless
Description: <p>number of epifaunal amphipods present on the Gracilaria</p>
GB/NERC/BODC > British Oceanographic Data Centre, Natural Environment Research Council, United Kingdom
Biological and Chemical Oceanography Data Management Office (BCO-DMO)
Unavailable
508-289-2009
WHOI MS#36
Woods Hole
MA
02543
USA
info@bco-dmo.org
http://www.bco-dmo.org
Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm
For questions regarding this resource, please contact BCO-DMO via the email address provided.
pointOfContact
2630
https://datadocs.bco-dmo.org/file/qAAoEPBCkKR2EZ/Kollars_fig5A.csv
Kollars_fig5A.csv
Primary data file for dataset ID 641667
download
https://osprey.bco-dmo.org/dataset/641667/data/download
download
onLine
dataset
<p><strong>Field experiments</strong><br />
To quantify the effect of Gracilaria on Diopatra growth and survivorship in the field, we manipulated Gracilaria density and predator access to Diopatra in a fully factorial and blocked field experiment over 4 wk in June 2012. We prepared worms in plastic tubes as above and out-planted them along a transect parallel to the shore at ~+0.15 m MLLW in one of 4 treatments: ambient control, Gracilaria addition, Gracilaria addition and predator exclusion cage, and cage only. Two worms were added per plot and 10 plots were generated per treatment. We report the final body masses of surviving worms (if both survived we used the average of the 2 worms). Treatments of a given replicate block were within 1 m of each other and blocks were separated by at least 1 m. We added Gracilaria to a plot by weaving 50.00 g (± 0.05 g, acceptable range of variation) blotted wet mass of the seaweed through 30 cm of 0.76 cm 3- strand rope and placing the rope in the plot center. A pre-experimental survey indicated that the maximum seaweed biomass on a Diopatra individual in the field was ~25.0 g wet mass (data not shown). Cages were 0.5 m wide by 0.3 m tall, constructed with PVC-coated chicken wire (2.5 cm mesh size) and embedded ~10 cm into the sediment. Plots without cages were marked with 3 PVC posts extending &lt;10 cm out of the sediment and separated by ~30 cm. After 4 wk, we removed the worms and severed the regenerated tissue from the rest of the body (see photo graph in Supplement 1B at http://www.int-res.com/articles/suppl/m545p135_supp/) using a razor blade. We dried and measured the original body mass and regenerated tissue mass at 60°C until no change in mass occurred (see Supplement 1B for details). We collected all Gracilaria biomass within the plot, defaunated it, measured its wet mass and dry mass, and counted the number of whole, epifaunal amphipods.</p>
<p>To assess spatial and temporal variation in the effect of Gracilaria on Diopatra, we manipulated Gracilaria density in replicated field experiments in June 2013 at 2 sites near Charleston, SC (Fort Johnson, Stono River) and 2 sites near Savannah, GA (Priest’s Landing and Bull’s River). The 2013 experiments did not include a cage treatment be cause we did not detect a predator-exclusion effect in 2012 (see ‘Results’). Relative to the 2012 experiment, the 2013 experiments used only one worm per plot, had 30 replicates per treatment, and we reduced the initial level of Gracilaria biomass in the addition treatment from 50 g down to 25 g wet mass. We randomly distributed plots 1 m apart along a transect parallel to the shore at approx. +0.09 m MLLW. In addition, we attached the seaweed-embedded ropes to PVC posts using zip-ties and pushed the posts into the mudflat to in crease seaweed stability (see Supplement 1A). Plots where we did not add Gracilaria still contained a PVC post and empty rope. After 4 wk, we processed the worms, seaweed, and epifauna as in the 2012 experiment. Because of logistical constraints, we counted epifauna for only 2 of the 4 sites (Fort Johnson and Priest’s Landing) used in 2013.</p>
<p><strong>Related Reference:</strong><br />
Kollars, N.M., J.E. Byers and E.E. Sotka (2016) Invasive decor: an association between a native decorator worm and a non-native seaweed can be mutualistic. Marine Ecology Progress Series (DOI: 10.3354/meps11602)</p>
<p><strong>Related Datasets:</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.bco-dmo.org/dataset/641577">MEPS_2016: Fig.2A - survey</a><br />
<a href="http://www.bco-dmo.org/dataset/641615">MEPS_2016: Fig.2B - Gracilaria growth rate</a><br />
<a href="http://www.bco-dmo.org/dataset/641628">MEPS_2016: Fig.3 - growth rate and depth</a><br />
<a href="http://www.bco-dmo.org/dataset/641641">MEPS_2016: Fig.4A - worm growth</a><br />
<a href="http://www.bco-dmo.org/dataset/641654">MEPS_2016: Fig.4B - stable isotopes</a><br />
<a href="http://www.bco-dmo.org/dataset/641680">MEPS_2016: Fig.5B - field expt 2013</a></p>
Specified by the Principal Investigator(s)
<p>We analyzed survivorship of Diopatra as a function of treatment (Gracilaria addition and presence or absence of cage [2012 only]) using a Chi<sup>2</sup>&nbsp;test. Because we did not measure Gracilaria final density for treatments in which worms died, we cannot pursue a logistic regression. For growth analyses, we excluded worms with evidence of sublethal predation on Diopatra (c.f. Berke et al. 2009; seen only in 2013 and in GA; 5 of 239 worms removed) and worms that were damaged during collection and processing (2 damaged worms out of 80 in June 2012; 15 damaged worms out of 239 in June 2013). Although the Gracilaria manipulation was initially designed as a categorical variable, we treated Gracilaria final biomass as an independent, continuous variable in our growth analysis because plots gained or lost Gracilaria biomass from Diopatra decoration activity, Gracilaria growth, and Gracilaria detachment. Moreover, epifauna abundance - an important proxy for Diopatra growth in the laboratory growth assay - scales positively with Gracilaria abundance (Supplement 1C at&nbsp;<a href="http://www.int-res.com/articles/suppl/m545p135_supp/" target="_blank">http://www.int-res.com/articles/suppl/m545p135_supp/</a>, Byers et al. 2012). The response of Diopatra final size (as well as other growth metrics, Supplement 1B) was analyzed using ANCOVA with Gracilaria density as a covariate and cage presence as a categorical variable for the 2012 experiment, and Gracilaria density as a covariate and site as a categorical variable for the 2013 experiment. To assess the potential for Gracilaria as an indirect food source in the field (i.e. an attractor of prey species for Diopatra), we examined the relationship between counts of epifaunal amphipods and Gracilaria biomass using a generalized linear model with a quasi-Poisson distribution (Zuur et al. 2009). Finally, we used ANCOVA to examine the relationship between Diopatra size and the count of epifaunal amphipods.</p>
<p><strong>BCO-DMO Processing:</strong><br />
- added conventional header with dataset name, PI name, version date, reference information<br />
- renamed parameters to BCO-DMO standard<br />
-&nbsp;added site, lat and lon columns for mapping purposes</p>
Specified by the Principal Investigator(s)
asNeeded
7.x-1.1
Biological and Chemical Oceanography Data Management Office (BCO-DMO)
Unavailable
508-289-2009
WHOI MS#36
Woods Hole
MA
02543
USA
info@bco-dmo.org
http://www.bco-dmo.org
Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm
For questions regarding this resource, please contact BCO-DMO via the email address provided.
pointOfContact
PI Supplied Instrument Name: Instrument Name: scale or balance Instrument Short Name: Instrument Description: Devices that determine the mass or weight of a sample. Community Standard Description: http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/L05/current/LAB13/
Deployment: Sotka_2013
Sotka_2013
Coll_Charleston
shoreside
Sotka_2013
Erik Sotka
College of Charleston
Coll_Charleston
shoreside