Identification_Information: 
  Citation: 
    Citation_Information: 
      Originator: Dr. Charles Birkeland, U.S. Geological Survey
      Originator: Ms. Danielle Jayewardene, University of Hawaii, Dept. of Zoology
      Publication_Date: Unpublished material
      Title: The relationship between coral reef health, alien algae, and fish biomass at sites on Oahu and the Big Island, Hawaii, during 2004-2005 (NODC Accession 0002619)
  Description: 
    Abstract: Data in this set come from two studies: "Ability of protected reefs to resist alien algae" and
      "How many fish does it take to keep the alien algae out?"  Both are authored by Ms. Danielle Jayewardene and
      Dr. Charles Birkeland of University of Hawaii Manoa, in 2005 and 2006, respectively.  For the former, the goal
      was to objectively and quantitatively assess the ability of marine protected areas (MPAs), to maintain ecosystem
      health, and to thereby resist invasion of alien algae.  For the latter, specific objectives involved a) determining
      whether there are differences in cropping ability by larger herbivorous fishes compared to smaller herbivorous
      fishes, and b) whether there is a threshold level of algal biomass above which even an increased number of
      herbivorous fishes simply cannot crop down.  The field work took place at eight coral reef sites located on the
      island of Oahu and the island of Hawaii.
    Purpose: To objectively and quantitatively assess the ability of MPAs to restore ecosystem health, and thereby
      resist invasion of alien algae. The primary research objectives of this project were to experimentally determine
      and measure the differences between coral reefs inside and outside MPAs.  Also, to determine the level of grazing
      pressure needed to crop down a standing biomass of algae on the reef.
    Supplemental_Information: These sites were surveyed using SCUBA equipment and an Olympus digital camera. Data was analyzed
      in the laboratory. The project was launched by the Hawaii Coral Reef Intiative under the Department of Zoology, at
      the University of Hawaii at Manoa.
  Time_Period_of_Content: 
    Time_Period_Information: 
      Range_of_Dates/Times: 
        Beginning_Date: 200410
        Ending_Date: 200509
    Currentness_Reference: ground condition
  Status: 
    Progress: Complete
    Maintenance_and_Update_Frequency: Unknown
  Spatial_Domain: 
    Bounding_Coordinates: 
      West_Bounding_Coordinate: -157.712
      East_Bounding_Coordinate: -155.842
      North_Bounding_Coordinate: 21.275
      South_Bounding_Coordinate: 19.461
  Keywords: 
    Theme: 
      Theme_Keyword_Thesaurus: CoRIS Theme Thesaurus
      Theme_Keyword: EARTH SCIENCE > Oceans > Coastal Processes > Coral Reefs
      Theme_Keyword: EARTH SCIENCE > Oceans > Coastal Processes > Erosion > Bioerosion
      Theme_Keyword: EARTH SCIENCE > Biosphere > Zoology > Corals > Coral Growth > Calcification Rate
      Theme_Keyword: EARTH SCIENCE > Oceans > Coastal Processes > Coral Reefs > Coral Reef Ecology > Coral Cover
      Theme_Keyword: EARTH SCIENCE > Biosphere > Vegetation > Algae > Algal Cover
      Theme_Keyword: EARTH SCIENCE > Biosphere > Zoology > Corals > Coral Diseases > Rapid Wasting/Fish bites
      Theme_Keyword: EARTH SCIENCE > Oceans > Marine Biology > Marine Invertebrates > Biomass
    Theme: 
      Theme_Keyword_Thesaurus: None
      Theme_Keyword: Coastal studies
      Theme_Keyword: biology
      Theme_Keyword: percent coral cover
      Theme_Keyword: tissue regeneration rates
      Theme_Keyword: HCRI
    Theme: 
      Theme_Keyword_Thesaurus: CoRIS Discovery Thesaurus
      Theme_Keyword: Numeric Data Sets > Biology
    Theme: 
      Theme_Keyword_Thesaurus: ISO 19115 Topic Category
      Theme_Keyword: biota
      Theme_Keyword: 002
    Place: 
      Place_Keyword_Thesaurus: CoRIS Place Thesaurus
      Place_Keyword: OCEAN BASIN > Pacific Ocean > Central Pacific Ocean > Hawaiian Islands > Hawaii Island > Hawaii Island (19N155W0003)
      Place_Keyword: COUNTRY/TERRITORY > United States of America > Hawaii > Hawaii > Hawaii Island (19N155W0003)
      Place_Keyword: OCEAN BASIN > Pacific Ocean > Central Pacific Ocean > Hawaiian Islands > Oahu Island > Oahu (21N157W0003)
      Place_Keyword: COUNTRY/TERRITORY > United States of America > Hawaii > Honolulu > Oahu (21N157W0003)
      Place_Keyword: OCEAN BASIN > Pacific Ocean > Central Pacific Ocean > Hawaiian Islands > Hawaii > Puako (19N155W0001)
      Place_Keyword: COUNTRY/TERRITORY > United States of America > Hawaii > Hawaii > Puako (19N155W0001)
      Place_Keyword: OCEAN BASIN > Pacific Ocean > Central Pacific Ocean > Hawaiian Islands > Hawaii > Ke'ei (19N155W0005)
      Place_Keyword: COUNTRY/TERRITORY > United States of America > Hawaii > Kona > Ke'ei (19N155W0005)
      Place_Keyword: OCEAN BASIN > Pacific Ocean > Central Pacific Ocean > Hawaiian Islands > Oahu Island > Hanauma Bay (21N156W0003)
      Place_Keyword: COUNTRY/TERRITORY > United States of America > Hawaii > Honolulu > Hanauma Bay (21N156W0003)
    Place: 
      Place_Keyword_Thesaurus: None
      Place_Keyword: Pacific Ocean
      Place_Keyword: Portlock
      Place_Keyword: Wawaioli
      Place_Keyword: Holo'holo'kai
      Place_Keyword: Aneahoomalu Bay
      Place_Keyword: Wawaloli
      Place_Keyword: Old Kona Airport
      Place_Keyword: Kealakekua Bay
    Stratum: 
      Stratum_Keyword_Thesaurus: None
      Stratum_Keyword: shallow coastal waters
  Access_Constraints: None
  Use_Constraints: Dataset credit required
  Point_of_Contact: 
    Contact_Information: 
      Contact_Person_Primary: 
        Contact_Person: Dr. Charles Birkeland
        Contact_Organization: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Hawaii Cooperative Fishery
          Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa
      Contact_Position: Marine biologist
      Contact_Address: 
        Address_Type: physical
        Address: Edmonton 164, University of Hawaii at Manoa
        City: Honolulu
        State_or_Province: Hawaii
        Postal_Code: 96822
        Country: USA
      Contact_Voice_Telephone: (808)956-8350
      Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: charlesb@hawaii.edu
  Data_Set_Credit: Hawaii Coral Reef Initiative, Dept. of Zoology, University of Hawaii, US Geological Survey
  Native_Data_Set_Environment: MS Excel
Data_Quality_Information: 
  Logical_Consistency_Report: see lineage, process step
  Completeness_Report: none
  Lineage: 
    Process_Step: 
      Process_Description: I. From 2005 Report: For the purpose of categorizing our study sites based on ranging biomass
        levels of herbivorous fish we selected study sites where fish biomass data were already available. Along the
        Kona coast, we chose sites and used current data collected in 2003/04 by the West Hawaii Aquarium Project, WHAP
        (www.coralreefnetwork.com/kona/default.htm). On Oahu, we used data collected in 2000 by the Hawaii Coral Reef
        Assessment and Monitoring Program, CRAMP (cramp.wcc.hawaii.edu). In order to link the observations and experiments
        gained from our fieldwork with the herbivorous fish biomass data, it was necessary that our sites were compatible
        with the WHAP and CRAMP sites. At the Kona sites, WHAP has collected their fish data bimonthly since 1998 by
        running 2 x (2 x 25m) parallel permanent fish transects at a depth between 9-13m. At Hanauma Bay on Oahu, CRAMP
        has run 2 x 50m parallel transects at a depth of 10m between years 1998-2001. At Portlock, biomass data has been
        assessed from rapid fish transects. Based on these methods, our field work at all sites has been focused around
        the sites of the fish transects at depths near 10m.However, at Hanauma Bay we also set out experiments at a
        shallower depth of 5m and at different locations within the Bay to enable within site comparisons.
        
        In order to make quantitative assessments of our objectives, the following standardized methods were designed to
        determine and compare each of the ecological factors between study sites.
        
        1. Grazing pressure
        Grazing pressure was assessed by comparing percent cover of filamentous and macroalgae between sites. This is
        an indirect method of assessing grazing intensity. It is based on the assumption that increased grazing leads
        to a lower prevalence of macroalgae and also filamentous algae. Percent cover was determined by analyzing
        photoquadrats that were taken at each site.
        
        2. Prevalence of crustose coralline algae (CCA)
        We assessed the prevalence of CCA by quantifying the percent cover of CCA present at each of the sites. This
        was also done by taking photoquadrats in the field. CCA was not identified down to genus or species level, but
        was lumped as one overall CCA category. This was to avoid error due to incorrect identification.
        
        3. Prevalence of coral colonies
        We have assessed the prevalence of coral colonies by quantifying the percent cover of coral at each of the sites.
        This has also been done by means of photoquadrats. Corals have been identified down to species level.
        
        4. Success of juvenile coral survival
        We examined success of juvenile coral survival by transplanting juveniles into the field using tiles and monitoring
        their survival over time. Setting out terracotta tiles rather than direct transplantation onto the substrata
        standardized the measurements as well as avoided manipulation of coral within protected areas. Survival of three
        size classes of juvenile corals was determined, involving two different methods of preparation.
        
        The smallest size class tested was newly settled larvae of Pocillopora damicornis. The larvae were attracted to
        terracotta tiles in the lab at the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology (HIMB) before being set out in the field.
        This was done by holding coral heads of P. damicornis (10- 20 cm in size) in microcosm tanks (approx. 1m x 1m x
        0.5m), and leaning 6 x 6 inch terracotta tiles against the walls of the tanks providing substrata for settling
        planulae. P. damicornis, which is a brooding coral species with internal gamete fertilization, releases planulae
        once a month according to the lunar cycle. These traits are the justification for using this particular species,
        as spawning coral species show external fertilization and release gametes only once a year. As soon as the
        planulae were released and settled on the tiles, they were counted and mapped on underwater paper. We managed to
        attract up to 60 juveniles per tile. Eight of the tiles holding the highest number of spat were set out at each
        site. The juveniles were monitored at one-week intervals for up to 5 weeks. Survival was defined as the number
        of spat remaining alive per tile. Unfortunately, we did not find appropriate facilities such as HIMB in Kona to
        allow for the attraction of spat onto tiles, so tiles with spat were only set out at the Oahu sites.
        
        To determine whether factors affecting survival differed depending on the size of the juveniles, replicates of
        two larger size classes were also exposed to natural mortality factors in the field. The intermediate size
        class consisted of approx. 1 inch high Porites compressa nubbins and the large size class consisted of approx.
        21/2 inch high Porites compressa nubbins. P. damicornis nubbins were not used since they were too readily eaten
        by fish in the field, invalidating comparison between sites. The two size classes of P. Compressa nubbins were
        attached to tiles using Sea Goin Poxy Putty and transplanted into the field similar to the spat. Nubbins were
        monitored at one week intervals for 4 or more weeks. Survival was defined as the maintenance of nubbins in their
        initial size and healthy state. If a fish bit off half the nubbin, the nubbin was considered to have 50 percent survival.
        
        A total of 8 replicate tiles were set out per study site. The tiles were set out at two substations holding 4
        tiles each.
        
        5. The balance between reef accretion and bioerosion
        We determined bioerosion by experimentally measuring the level of bioerosion of calcium carbonate blocks set out
        on the reef, and accretion by determining the calcification budgets of the calcifying community characteristic
        to sites.
        
        Following the methodology of Hibino & Van Woesik (2000), replicate calcium carbonate blocks were attached to
        dead reef substrate and left out for 12 months at each of the sites. The uniform blocks were cut from dead coral
        tissue of Porites lobata. Dead P. lobata was collected from the north shore where large blocks are washed up on
        shore and dried out following the winter storms. Using a rock saw, any bioeroded material was cut away from the dead
        coral blocks, leaving a clean, non-impacted calcium carbonate core. This raw material was cut squarely into
        1 cm x 5 cm x 5 cm blocks. Once the blocks were cut, they were soaked in freshwater for 24 hours then dried in
        an oven at 60 degrees Celsius for another 24 hours, and weighed. This was to eliminate any microorganisms
        that may be residing in the calcium carbonate as well as standardize the dry-weighing of the blocks. Thereafter
        numbers were engraved into each of the blocks, the bases siliconized and attached to the reef using Z-spar
        epoxy putty. After 12 months the blocks will be removed from the reef, and the rate of structural bioerosion for
        the blocks determined from the total measure of lost (or gained) weight for replicates per site (blocks remain
        in the field and will not be retrieved until the summer of 2005. Thus the following methods have yet to be applied).
        Before re-measurement, the blocks are prepared by a bleaching, soaking and drying process according to the
        method by Hibino & Van Woesik (2000). Thin cross sections may also be cut through the blocks (using a diamond
        geological blade) to quantify the loss of area due to internal bioerosion. A total estimate of structural
        bioerosion for each site can be calculated from the bioerosion rates determined from the blocks and the percent
        cover of non-coral substrate prone to bioerosion. Percent cover of non-coral substrate is determined through the
        photoquadrat methodology.
        
        At each site, 8 replicate blocks were set out at 2 substations holding 4 blocks each. At the Kona sites, the
        blocks were set out around the WHAP fish transects at a depth pf approx. 10m. At Hanauma Bay, 2 sets of 8 blocks
        were set out at 10m depth. One by the CRAMP fish transects on the right hand side of the bay and one set of
        blocks on the left hand side of the Bay. At Portlock 8 blocks have were set out at 10 m depth by the underwater
        amphitheatre.
        
        Coral accretion is assessed by determining the percent cover of different calcifying species present at a site,
        finding the growth rate of each species in the literature and using this to calculate the accretion rate of the
        calcifying community at each site. Percent cover of calcifying species has been determined using the photoquadrat
        methodology. Budgets of accretion versus bioerosion will be calculated by subtracting structural bioerosion from
        the total growth rate for each site (Hubbard et al. 1990, Hubbard 1992, 1997).
        
        Photoquadrat methodology
        We chose to take photoquadrats instead of using visual estimates or point quadrats in order to identify and
        quantify the benthos at study sites (Foster et al. 1991, Meese & Tomich 1993, Dethier et al 1993). Taking
        photoquadrats was more time efficient in the field, since more replicate quadrats were gathered with less time
        spent underwater. Furthermore, since photoquadrats provide a permanent database of the benthos, it is always
        possible to go back and re-analyze data if necessary, or to make temporal comparisons with future data. The
        drawback of the method was the extra time required analyzing the images in the laboratory.
        
        We based our photoquadrat methodology largely on the methodology used by WHAP in Kona.
        
        In the field:
        Each photoquad was taken using an Olympus 5050 camera. The camera was mounted onto a 75 cm high rod, with
        resulting images covering an area of approx. 60x40cm of substrate.
        
        For study sites in Kona where benthic cover was correlated with WHAPs fish data, photoquads were taken along a
        theoretical grid set around their 2 (2x 30m) parallel fish transects marked by permanent pins at each site. To
        get an appropriate representation of the area, 10 x individual 20m length transect lines were placed within this
        grid. The transect lines were laid out randomly by generating 10 random numbers between 1 and 50, and starting
        the transect at the point of each of these numbers in the grid. Along each transect, one image/meter was taken,
        totaling 20 images/transect and 200 images/site.
        
        At Hanauma Bay, photoquadrats were taken at multiple sites within the bay enabling between sites as well as
        within site comparisons of percent cover. Sites included the 10 m depth CRAMP site and a 5 m depth site on the
        right hand side of the bay, and 10 m depth site on the left hand side of the bay.
        
        In the lab:
        The images taken were analyzed using an image analysis program called PhotoGrid designed by UH Botany graduate
        student Chris Bird. PhotoGrid generated random points on each of the images. The substrate that fell directly
        below each point was identified and classified into categories including coral species, macroalgae, turf, and
        CCA. When all images for a site were analyzed in this manner, an overall percent cover was determined for each
        category or species. This percent cover was then compared between sites.
        
        To determine how many images/transect and points/image actually needed to be analyzed in order to get an accurate
        representation of percent cover at a site (whilst being time efficient), we ran a test for one of our more
        heterogeneous study sites, the Wawaloli FMA. All 200 images taken at this site were analyzed, and percent cover
        of the main categories compared when analyzing 10 points/image vs. 20 and 30 points/image.  We also determined
        whether there was a point at which analyzing more images/transect was not worthwhile time-wise. The results
        indicated that the number of points/image really had little effect on the overall estimate of main categories
        such as coral, turf and CCA cover. Based on this, we decided to analyze 20 points/image. Although the graphs also
        indicated that it was adequate to analyze as few as 5 images/transect, we decided to analyze as many as 15
        images/transect to allow for the accurate percent cover estimation of coral on a species level (we also ran a
        species level analysis indicating this). These two choices made analysis more time efficient whilst maintaining
        our ability to estimate an accurate cover. In total, 150 images/site, i.e. 3000 points/site compared to 6000
        points/site, were analyzed and used to determine percent cover for all study sites.
        
        II. From 2006 Report
        Instead of manipulating the biomass levels of fish exposed to macro-algal communities to test grazing intensity
        in the field, algae were manipulated.This was done by cultivating high biomass algal communities in-situ on
        selected reefs and subsequently exposing these communities to the resident herbivorous fishes at these sites.
        This was conducted by setting out fish exclusion cages, preventing the herbivorous fishes from grazing the algae
        within, allowing the uninhibited growth and succession of algae in theprotected plots. Once the algal plots
        reached a high biomass level, the mesh on the cages was removed and the algae within the cages exposed to the
        grazing fishes. Grazing intensity was determined by monitoring the efficiency in which the fishes cropped down the algal plots.
        
        In order to compare cropping efficiencies by different herbivorous fish communities, experimental cages were
        set out on different reefs with ranging abundances of herbivorous fishes. Two sites were known to have a high
        biomass of herbivorous fishes including a significant proportion of large parrotfishes, (Ke'ei and Hanauma Bay),
        and three sites known to have a low biomass of herbivorous fishes with few large parrotfishes (Wawaloli,
        Portlock and Ko'olina).
        
        To test for threshold levels of algal biomass above which even a high intensity of grazing may not result in
        cropping down of the algae, the grazing fish communities at these sites were exposed to experimental plots with
        a lower biomass level of algae, compared to ones with a higher biomass level of algae. These different biomass
        levels were simulated in the plots by leaving half the experimental cages out for a shorter time than the others,
        thus exposing the algal plots to the grazing community at an earlier algal successional stage.
        
        To test the different cropping effects that large herbivorous fish compared to small herbivorous fish have on
        the simulated algal communities, we excluded only the large herbivorous fishes (most likely the larger parrotfishes)
        from cropping down a random selection of the opened plots. This was done by replacing the small mesh on the cages
        used to exclude all fishes with large mesh which would exclusively exclude the larger sized fishes.
        
        16 cages were set out per site. At each site, the cages were placed randomly within a grid set around permanent
        fish transects run by WHAP and CRAMP at 10m depth (Figure 2). 8 plots where high biomass levels were simulated
        were out for 8 months while 8 plots intended to simulate a lower biomass were out for 5 months. The second set
        of cages were set out 3 months after the first set to allow all experimental plots, whether high or low biomass,
        to be released to grazing simultaneously. This eliminated potential differences in cropping ability resulting
        from temporal differences in grazing.
        
        Exclusion cages were constructed from weather resistant clothes line and a fine polypropylene aqua mesh. Mesh
        used to exclude all herbivores was 1/2 inch across in size, while mesh used to exclude only the larger fishes
        was 4 inches across in size. The plot area protected by each cage was approximately 900 cm2. The mesh did not
        manipulate water motion or light levels (pers.com Linda Preskitt). The cages were attached directly to the
        natural benthic substrate (non-live) using cable ties. A skirt of mesh surrounding the bottom of each cage
        prevented fishes from entering through gaps under the rim of the cage.
        
        Monitoring of all algal plots when released to grazing was conducted daily for up to 9 days. The actual biomass
        grazed upon was to be determined by taking small random samples of algae from within each of the replicate plots
        when the cages were opened, then at the end of the monitoring period. Digital images from above and from an
        angle of each of the plots were also taken on a daily basis.
        
        In order to appropriately compare relative algal cropping rates between sites,the background level of algae at
        each site was determined by analyzing 150 benthic photoquadrats per site.
        
        Dethier M.N., Graham E.S, Cohen S. and Tear L.M. 1993 Visual versus random-point percent cover estimations:
        objective is not always better. Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol.96, p.93-100
        
        Foster M.S, Harold C. and Hardin D.D. 1991 Point vs. photo quadrat estimates of the cover of sessile marine
        organisms. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. Vol 146, P. 193-203
        
        Hibino K. and van  Woesik R. 2000 Spatial differences and seasonal changes of net carbonate accumulation on
        some coral reefs of the Ryukyu Islands, Japan, Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, vol. 252 p. 1-14
        
        Hubbard, D.K. 1992. Hurricane-induced sediment transport in open-shelf tropical systems:  an example from St. Croix,
        U.S. Virgin Islands. J. Sedimentary Petrology 62: 946-960
        
        Hubbard, D.K. 1997. Reefs as dynamic systems. Pages 43-67 In C. Birkeland (ed.), Life and death of coral reefs.
        Kluwer Academic Publishers, City, The Netherlands. 536 p.
        
        Hubbard, D.K., A.I. Miller, and D. Scaturo. 1990. Production and cycling of calcium carbonate in a shelf-edge
        reef system (St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands): applications to the nature of reef systems in the fossil record.
        J. Sedimentary Petrology 60: 335-360
        
        Meese R.J. and Tomich P.A. 1992 Dots on rocks: a comparison pf percent cover estimation methods. Journal of
        Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. Vol165 p 59-73
      Process_Date: Unknown
      Process_Contact: 
        Contact_Information: 
          Contact_Person_Primary: 
            Contact_Person: Dr. Charles Birkeland
            Contact_Organization: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Hawaii Cooperative Fishery
              Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa
          Contact_Position: Marine Biologist
          Contact_Address: 
            Address_Type: physical
            Address: Edmonton 164, University of Hawaii at Manoa
            City: Honolulu
            State_or_Province: Hawaii
            Postal_Code: 96822
            Country: USA
          Contact_Voice_Telephone: (808)956-8350
          Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: charlesb@hawaii.edu
Distribution_Information: 
  Distributor: 
    Contact_Information: 
      Contact_Organization_Primary: 
        Contact_Organization: NOAA/NESDIS/NODC/NCDDC (National Coastal Data Development Center)
      Contact_Address: 
        Address_Type: Mailing and Physical Address
        Address: National Coastal Data Development Center, Building 1100
        City: Stennis Space Center
        State_or_Province: MS
        Postal_Code: 39529
      Contact_Voice_Telephone: 866-732-2382
      Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 228-688-2968
      Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: ncddcgetdata@noaa.gov
      Hours_of_Service: 8am-5pm, Monday through Friday
  Distribution_Liability: NOAA makes no warranty regarding these data,expressed or implied, nor does the fact of
    distribution constitute such a warranty.  NOAA, NESDIS, NODC and NCDDC cannot assume liability for any damages
    caused by any errors or omissions in these data, nor as a result of the failure of these data to function on a
    particular system.
  Standard_Order_Process: 
    Digital_Form: 
      Digital_Transfer_Information: 
        Format_Name: MS Excel
        Transfer_Size: 13139
      Digital_Transfer_Option: 
        Online_Option: 
          Computer_Contact_Information: 
            Network_Address: 
              Network_Resource_Name: http://accession.nodc.noaa.gov/0002619
          Access_Instructions: Select "Details" then "Download" and "Current" to obtain a zipped copy of the most recent version.
            
            All of the following are in directory: /data
            
            Documentation files received as MS Word.  ASCII copy made as plain text (*.txt).
            Maps placed in GIF files (*.gif).
            
            Filename
            NOAAreport_2005.doc
            NOAAreport_2005.txt
            NOAAreport_2005_state_locations.gif
            NOAAreport_2005_Hanauma_Bay_sites.gif
            Birkeland_NOAA_report_2006.doc
            Birkeland_NOAA_report_2006.txt
            Birkeland_NOAA_report_2006_state_locations.gif
            Birkeland_NOAA_report_2006_Hanauma_Bay_sites_map.gif
            
            Original data recevied as Excel files.
            1. Data in directory, /BioerosionData
            
            Original file is *.xls, redundant ASCII CSV copies of each sheet in each spreadsheet file has file name
            extension ".csv".  Each CSV file is self descriptive.
            
            Filename
            Bioerosion_2005.xls
            Bioerosion_2005_ABay.csv
            Bioerosion_2005_all.csv
            Bioerosion_2005_data.csv
            Bioerosion_2005_HanaumaLeft.csv
            Bioerosion_2005_HanaumaRight.csv
            Bioerosion_2005_Holoholokai.csv
            Bioerosion_2005_KBay.csv
            Bioerosion_2005_Keei.csv
            Bioerosion_2005_leftoverNos.csv
            Bioerosion_2005_method.csv
            Bioerosion_2005_OldKonaA.csv
            Bioerosion_2005_Pauko.csv
            Bioerosion_2005_Portlock.csv
            Bioerosion_2005_Waw_FMA.csv
            Bioerosion_2005_Waw_Open.csv
            
            2. data in directory: /CoralPredation
            Original file is *.xls, redundant ASCII CSV copies of each sheet in each spreadsheet file has file name
            extension ".csv".  Each CSV file is self descriptive.
            
            Filename
            NumberOfBitesInField_2005.xls
            NumberOfBitesInField_2005_data.csv
            NumberOfBitesInField_2005_Hanauma.csv
            NumberOfBitesInField_2005_KBay.csv
            NumberOfBitesInField_2005_Keei.csv
            NumberOfBitesInField_2005_Puako.csv
            NumberOfBitesInField_2005_summary.csv
            NumberOfBitesInField_2005_WawFMA.csv
            NumberOfBitesInField_2005_WawOpen.csv
            
            PredationOnExpNubbins_Kona_2005.xls
            PredationOnExpNubbins_Kona_2005_All_Data.csv
            PredationOnExpNubbins_Kona_2005_Log_Keei.csv
            PredationOnExpNubbins_Kona_2005_Log_Waw.csv
            PredationOnExpNubbins_Kona_2005_Results_Keei.csv
            PredationOnExpN
    Fees: None
Metadata_Reference_Information: 
  Metadata_Date: 20081217
  Metadata_Contact: 
    Contact_Information: 
      Contact_Person_Primary: 
        Contact_Person: Mr. Patrick C. Caldwell
        Contact_Organization: NOAA/NESDIS/NODC/NCDDC
      Contact_Position: Hawaii/US Pacific Liaison
      Contact_Address: 
        Address_Type: mailing
        Address: 1000 Pope Road, MSB 316
        Address: Dept. of Oceanography
        Address: University of Hawaii at Manoa
        City: Honolulu
        State_or_Province: Hawaii
        Postal_Code: 96822
        Country: USA
      Contact_Voice_Telephone: (808)-956-4105
      Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: (808) 956-2352
      Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: caldwell@hawaii.edu
      Hours_of_Service: 8 AM to 5 PM weekdays
      Contact_Instructions: check services@nodc.noaa.gov if not available
  Metadata_Standard_Name: FGDC Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata
  Metadata_Standard_Version: FGDC-STD-001-1998
CoRIS: 
  CoRIS_ID: 20060815040400
  CoRIS_Children: None
  CoRIS_Beginning_Date: 20041001
  CoRIS_Ending_Date: 20050931
  CoRIS_Metadata_Link: http://www.coris.noaa.gov/metadata/records/txt/hcri_nodc_0002619_coral_reef_health_oahu_and_hawaii_2005.txt
  CoRIS_Tracking_ID: 1422