WATER R SOURCES LU111lin5! 201 

Jq7~V57 

no.
 

79
 

Nitrogen, Phosphorus and 

Carbon Flux in Chesapeake Bay Marshes 

Donald M. Axelrad 

Kenneth A. Moore 

Michael E. Bender 
Bulletin 79
 

Jan uary 1976
 

Nitrogen, Phosphorus and
 

Carbon Flux in Chesapeake Bay Marshes
 

Donald 1Vl. Axelrad
 

Kenneth A. Moore
 

and
 

Michael E. Bender
 

Virgin ia Institute of Marine Science
 

Gloucester Point, Virginia
 

The work upon which this report is based was supported by
 

funds provided by the United States Department of the Interior,
 

Office of Water Research and Technology, as authorized by
 

the Water Resources Act of 1964
 

OWRT Project B-027-VA
 

VPI-VWRRC-BULL 79
 

A publication of
 

Virgin ia Water Resources Research Center
 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
 

Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ABSTRACT 

II\ITRODUCTION 

LITERATURE REVIEW 

METHODS 

RESULTS 

DISCUSSION 

SUMMARY 

LITERATURE CITED 

FIGURES 

TABLES 

APPENDIX-A 

APPEI\IDIX-B 

3
 

5
 

13
 

21
 

35
 

47
 

49
 

59
 

113
 

135
 

159
 

iii 
LIST OF FIGURES 

1.	 The marin~ I)iogeochemical nitrogen cycle 60
 

2.	 The marine biogeochemical phosphorus cycle 61
 

3.	 Ware and Carter Creek in relation to the York River 62
 

63
 4.	 Carter Creek marsh 

64
 5.	 Ware Creek marsh 

6.	 Annual variation in mean water temperature over a
 

tidal cycle for Ware Creek and Carter Creek marshes 65
 

7.	 Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack water
 

and low slack water sal inity 66
 

8.	 Annual variation in Carter Creek marsh high slack water
 

and low slack water salinity 67
 

9.	 Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack water
 

and low slack water dissolved inorganic phosphorus
 

concentration 68
 

10.	 Annual variation in Carter Creek marsh high slack
 

water and low slack water dissolved inorganic phosphorus
 

concentration 69
 

11.	 Variation in dissolved inorganic phosphorus concentration
 

over Carter Creek marsh summer and winter tidal cycles 70
 

12.	 Variation in dissolved inorganic phosphorus concentration
 

over Carter Creek marsh summer and winter tidal cycles 71
 

13.	 Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack water
 

and low slack water dissolved organic phosphorus concentration 72
 

14.	 Annual variation in Carter Creek marsh high slack water
 

and low slack water dissolved organic phosphorus concentration 73
 

15.	 Variation in dissolved organic phosphorus concentration
 

over Ware Creek marsh summer and winter tidal cycles 74
 

16.	 Variation in dissolved organic phosphorus concentration
 

over Carter Creek marsh summer and winter tidal cycles 75
 

17.	 Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack water
 

and low slack water particulate phosphorus concentration 76
 

18.	 Annual variation in Carter Creek marsh high slack water
 

and low slack water particulate phosphorus concentration 77
 

19.	 Variation in particulate phosphorus concentration over
 

Ware Creek marsh summr and winter tidal cycles 78
 

20.	 Variation in particulate phosphorus concentration over
 

Carter Creek marsh summer and winter tidal cycles 79
 

21.	 Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack water
 

and low slack water nitrate concentration 80
 

22.	 Annual variation in Carter Creek marsh high sclack water
 

and low slack water nitrate concentration 81
 

23.	 Variation in nitrate concentration over Ware Creek
 

marsh summer and winter tidal cycles 82
 

24.	 Variation in nitrate concentration over Carter Creek
 

marsh summer and winter tidal cycles 83
 

25.	 Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack water
 

and low slack water nitrate concentration 84
 

ai.	 Annual variation in Carter Creek marsh high slack
 

water and low slack water nitrite concentration 85
 

27.	 Variation in nitrite concentration over Ware Creek
 

marsh summer and winter tidal cycles 86
 

28.	 Variation in nitrite concentration over Carter Creek
 

marsh summer and winter tidal cycles 87
 

v
 iv 
29.	 Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack water
 

and low slack water ammonia concentration
 88
 

30.	 Annual variation in Carter Creek marsh high slack 

water and low slack water ammonia concentration 89
 

31.	 Variation in ammonia concentration over Ware Creek
 

marsh summer and winter tidal cycles 90
 

32.	 Variation in ammonia concentration over Carter Creek
 

marsh summer and winter tidal cycles 91
 

33.	 Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack water
 

and low slack water dissolved organic nitrogen concentration 92
 

34.	 Annual variation in Carter Creek marsh high slack 

water and low slack water dissolved organic nitrogen concentration 

concentration . 93· 

35.	 Variation in dissolved organic nitrogen concentration 

over Ware Creek marsh summer and winter tidal cycles 94
 

36.	 Variation in dissolved organic nitrogen concentration 

over Carter Creek marsh summer and winter tidal cycles 95
 

37.	 Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack water 

and low slack water particulate nitrogen concentration 96
 

38.	 Annual variation in Carter Creek marsh high slack 

water and low slack water particulate nitrogen concentration 97
 

39.	 Variation in particulate nitrogen concentration over 

Ware Creek marsh summer and winter tidal cycles . 98
 

40.	 Variation in particulate nitrogen concentration over 

Carter Creek marsh summer and winter tidal cycles 99
 

41.	 Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack water 

and low slack water chlorophyll "a" concentration . 100
 

42.	 Annual variation in Carter Creek marsh high slack 

water and low slack water chlorophyll "all concentration . 101
 

43.	 Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack water 

and low slack water phytoplankton productivity 

44.	 Annual variation in Carter Creek marsh high slack 

water and low slack water phytoplankton productivity 

45.	 Seasonal changes in mean particulate organic carbon 

(paC) concentrations in Ware Creek and Carter Creek marshes 

46.	 Seasonal changes in mean dissolved organic carbon 

(DOC) concentration in Ware Creek and Carter Creek marshes 

47.	 Seasonal changes in mean adenosine-tri-phosphate (ATP) 

concentrations in Ware Creek and Carter Creek marshes 

48.	 Seasonal changes in mean chlorophyll lI a" concentrations 

in Ware Creek and Carter creek marshes 

49.	 Seasonal changes in mean ATP-Carbon values (recorded as 

percent paC) for Ware Creek and Carter Creek Marshes. 

Vertical lines represent 1 SE. . 

50.	 Seasonal changes in mean detrital organic carbon concentrations 

in Ware Creek and Carter Creek marshes 

51.	 Seasonal changes in mean carbon: chlorophyll "a" ratios 

for Ware and Carter Creek marshes 

52.	 Seasonal changes in mean dissolved inorganic carbon 

(DIC) concentrations in Ware Creek and Carter Creek 

marshes . 

53.	 Seasonal changes in mean dissolved oxygen concentrations 

in Ware Creek and Carter Creek marshes 

· 102
 

· 103
 

· 104
 

· 105
 

· 106
 

· 107
 

. 108
 

· 109
 

· 110
 

· 111
 

112
 

vi vii 
LIST OF TABLES 

1.	 Correlation matrix of nutrient concentrations, salinity, 

water temperature, tide height, and water flow in Ware Creek 

over the year. ..... . 

2.	 Correlation matrix of nutrient concentrations, salinity, 

water temperature, tide height, and water flow in Carter Creek 

over the year. 

3.	 Ware Creek - tidal phosphorus transport. 

4.	 Carter Creek - tidal phosphorus transport. 

5.	 Ware Creek - tidal nitrogen transport. 

6.	 Carter Creek - tidal nitrogen transport. 

7.	 Ware Creek - annual phosphorus budget. 

8.	 Carter Creek - annual phosphorus budget. 

9.	 Ware Creek - annual nitrogen budget. 

10.	 Carter Creek - annual nitrogen budget. 

11.	 Ware Creek - flood and ebb tide correlation coefficients. 

12.	 Carter Creek - flood and ebb tide correlation coefficient~.

13.	 Ware Creek - tidal carbon transport. 

14.	 Carter Creek - tidal carbon transport.. 

15.	 Ware Creek Marsh - annual net carbon transport. 

16.	 Carter Creek Marsh - annual net carbon transport. 

17.	 Percent net angiospern production exported from Ware 

and Carter Creek marshes. . .	 . 

. 114 

115 

. 116 

· 117 

· 118 

· 120 

· 122 

· 123 

· 124 

· 125 

· 126 

· 127 

· 128 

· 130 

· 132 

· 133 

. 134 

ABSTRACT
 

Annual nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon budgets for two Virginia salt 

marshes were determined by monthly measurements of water discharge and 

constituent concentrations over tidal cycles. 

Considering all three forms of phosphorus measured (total, dissolved organic 

and orthophosphate) there was a net loss from the estuary to the marches. 

The data reveal a loss of particulate phosphorus of estuarine origin to marsh 

sediments and mineralization of this phosphorus in the marshes with subsequent export of dissolved inorgan ic and organic phosphorus back to the 

estuary. 

Nitrogen flux data show a loss of nitrate and nitrite to the marshes. Particulate nitrogen is imported to the marshes where it is mineralized and returned 

to the estuary as ammonia and dissolved organic nitrogen. The magnitude of 

nitrogen export suggests significant fixation of atmospheric nitrogen by 

marsh flora with subsequent export as dissolved species. 

Carbon flux data show significant contributions of both particulate and dissolved organ ic carbon to the estuary from the mar~hes. Estimates of export, 

based on marsh grass productivity, suggest a loss of 36 and 49 percent of a 

year's primary production on the marshes as detritus for Ware and Carter 

Creeks respectively. 

viii 
INTRODUCTION
 

Many roles have been attributed to marshes in estuarine systems. They serve 

in many instances as buffers to erosional processes and thereby protect fastland areas. They provide valuable habitat for many species of wildlife which 

feed, nest and reside in them. Their greatest importance to the estuary, however, lies in their potential to provide organic matter in the form of detritus 

and their effect upon nutrient budgets. The influence of marshes on estuarine 

productivity has been largely ascribed to the high primary productivity of 

marsh plants, much of which is exported to the estuaries where it is the basis 

for the detritus food chain. However, as mentioned above, another means by 

which the marsh ecosystem can affect estuarine productivity and water 

qual ity is by its interaction with the plant nutrients, phosphorus and nitrogen, contained in the estuarine waters which flush through the marshes. Phosphorus and nitrogen are the nutrients most often restricting autotrophic productivity in aquatic systems and both have been demonstrated to be capable 

of limiting primary productivity in estuaries. Therefore qualitative and 

quantitative changes in the forms and levels of these nutrients in estuarine 

waters brought about by processes in the marshes can have a far reaching 

influence on estuarine productivity. 

Although the general processes involved in nutrient transformations within 

marshes are known, the result of the interacting processes remains to be 

elucidated. 

The processes of greatest importance in cycling of nitrogen are: nitrogen 

assimilation by bacteria, benthic algae, phytoplankton, and Spartina, as well 

as bacterial nitrification, denitrification and detrital degradation. 

Processes having the greatest influence on phosphorus cycling in salt marshes 

are: assimilation of phosphorus by bacteria, benthic algae, phytoplankton, 

and Spartina; degradation of detritus by bacteria and fungi; Spartina 

"pumping" of subsurface phosphorus into the water; and physical phosphate-sediment interactions. 

The objectives of our investigation were to determine the flux of nitrogen, 

phosphorus and carbon in Virginia marshes, and to assess the results obtained 

in Iight of estuarine water qual ity. In support of these flux studies, a 

determination of the primary production in the Ware and Carter creek 

marshes was made under a joint program sponsored by VIMS and I\lSF. 

3 
LITERATURE REVIEW 

Nitrogen Cycling in Salt Marshes 

Nitrogen Cycles 

In a North Carolina Juncus roemerianus dominated salt marsh, Byron (1968) 

found that forty-one percent of the nitrogen entering the system over several 

fall tidal cycles was not returned to the estuary. Flux calculations utilizing 

water discharge and nitrogen concentration data indicated that particulate 

nitrogen of estuarine origin was lost to the marsh. Low levels of nitrite and 

nitrate in marsh creek ebb tide waters suggested that this organic nitrogen was 

not mineralized in the marsh and subsequently returned to the estuary. 

Nitrate concentrations of waters overlying two Delaware Spartina alterniflora 

dominated salt marshes were generally lower than concentrations within 

marsh creeks (Daiber, Gallagher and Sullivan, 1970). Measurements in creeks 

draining these marshes revealed the presence of maximal nitrate levels in 

winter and minimal nitrate levels in summer (Daiber, Aurand, and Shlopak, 

1969; Aurand and Daiber, 1973). 

The occurrence of winter nitrate concentration peaks at high slack water and 

summer nitrate concentration peaks at low slack water led Aurand (1968) to 

speculate that the Delaware marsh systems imported nitrate in winter but 

exported small amounts of nitrate in summer. 

Salt Marsh Sediment-N itrogen Interactions 

Sampling over a year in two Louisiana Spartina marshes indicated that 

sediment interstitial water ammonia concentrations were many times greater 

than levels in the corresponding water columns. Highest interstitial water 

ammonia concentrations were found August through November and were 

attributed to increased detrital decomposition rates. Parallel concentration 

trends in the water column suggested diffusion of ammonia from sediments 

to water (Ho and Lane, 1973). 

Maye (1972) found the highest interstitial water ammonia concentrations in 

sediments beneath the thickest Spartina growth and also proposed 

mineralization of Spartina detritus as the mechanism supplying ammonia to 

marsh sediments. Sediment cores taken in a Georgia marsh also revealed 

increased ammonia concentration with depth. 

5 
Nitrogen Cycling by Salt Marsh Biota 

Evidence of algal nitrogen fixation was found in two Florida salt marshes. 

Epiphytic blue-green algae on dead Spartina and Juncus stems exhibited 

greater nitrogen fixation rates than did algae of surface sediments; the water 

column seldom displayed any activity (Green and Edmisten, 1972). More 

than sixty percent of the bacteria in Delaware salt marsh sediments were able 

to utilize molecular nitrogen as their sole nitrogen source. Large numbers of 

ammonifying, nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria were also isolated from 

these marsh sediments (Daiber and Gooch, 1968). 

It was theorized that bacteria using characteristically nitrogen poor Spartina 

detritus as an energy source must assimilate their nitrogen requirements from 

marsh waters (Thayer, 1969). Ustach (1969) supported this theory by 

demonstrating increased heterotrophic utilization of Spartina detritus upon 

addition of nitrate to a detritus estuarine water system. 

These nitrogen-marsh interactions described above are shown diagramatically 

in Figure 1. 

Phosphorus Cycling in Salt Marshes 

Phosphorus Cycles 

The seasonal phosphorus cycle of several Delaware Spartina marsh creeks 

were characterized by elevated summer dissolved inorganic and organic 

phosphorus levels. Monthly measurements made over a year revealed higher 

dissolved phosphorus concentrations in marsh creeks at low slack than at high 

slack water, suggesting export of dissolved phosphorus from the marshes to 

the estuary (Reimold, 1969; Reimold and Daiber, 1970). Particulate 

phosphorus was the predominant phosphorus species of the Delaware marsh 

creeks and peak levels of this phosphorus form were also attained in summer 

and at low slack water (Daiber, et at. 1969; Daiber, et at. 1970). Waters 

overlying the marsh.es in areas of tall Spartina growth had higher dissolved 

inorganic phosphorus concentrations than did creek waters, but displayed 

seasonal concentration fluctuations similar to those of the marsh creeks 

(Reimold, 1969; Daiber, et at. 1971). 

Blum (1969) theorized that high marsh Spartina patens was adapted to rapid 

absorption of nutrients when flooded by spring high tides. It was further 

suggested that the mesh of dead leaves and stalks beneath live growth could 

act as a filter system and remove particulate nutrients brought to the high 

marsh by these tides. Measurements over a June tidal cycle revealed that the 

waters overlying the marsh during flood tide had significantly lower dissolved 

inorganic phosphorus concentrations and sign ificantly higher phosphorus 

concentrations compared to ebb tide. 

Flux measurement over several fall tidal cycles utilizing phosphorus concentration, and water discharge data, indicated that two North Carol ina Juncus 

dominated marshes exerted little effect on the estuary with respect to 

particulate and dissolved inorganic phosphorus. Dissolved organic phosphorus 

was the predominant phosphorus species of these marshes and calculations 

showed a small net export of this nutrient to the estuary (Byron, 1968). 

Salt Marsh Sediment-Phosphorus Interactions 

In two Lou isiana Spartina marshes, yearly averages of sediment interstitial 

water dissolved inorganic phosphorus concentrations were many times greater 

than concentrations in corresponding water columns. Higher interstitial water 

phosphorus concentrations August through November were attributed to 

increased detrital decomposition rate. Parallel seasonal concentration trends 

in the water column suggested diffusion of phosphorus from sediments to 

water (Ho and Lane, 1973). Highest dissolved inorganic phosphorus concentrations in Georgia marsh sediment interstitial waters were found under 

thicker Spartina growth, again indicating detrital mineralization as the source 

of phosphorus to marsh sediments. Sediment cores taken in this marsh also 

revealed increased interstitial water phosphorus concentrations with increasing depth (Maye, 1972). 

Gooch (1968) postulated a seasonal cycle of precipitation and solu bil ization 

of inorganic phosphorus from salt marsh sediments. In this cycle bacteria 

hydrogen su Ifide production initiated inorganic phosphorus release from 

sediments. Thus it was believed that minimal hydrogen sulfide production in 

winter and maximal production in late spring caused dissolved inorganic 

phosphorus uptake in winter and release in spring. 

Pomeroy, Smith, and Grant (1965) suggested that movement of dissolved 

inorganic phosphorus between undisturbed salt marsh - estuarine sediments 

and overlying water involved a two step ion exchange between clay and 

water, plus an exchange between interstitial microorganisms and water. In 

undisturbed sediments, abiotic exchange predominated, but in resuspended 

sediments biologically mediated exchange was of the same magnitude as 

physical exchange. Sediment - water exchange processes buffered estuarine 

water to a dissolved inorganic phosphorus level of about one microgram atom 

per liter. 

6 

7 
Phosphorus Cycling by Salt Marsh Biota 

Turnover rate of dissolved inorganic phosphorus was found to be significantly 

greater in salt marsh waters than in other aquatic environments (Pomeroy, 

1960). High dissolved inorganic phosphorus levels in Georgia salt marsh 

waters were attributed to this rapid turnover rate. A cycle of uptake of 

sedimentary phosphorus by Spartina, with subsequent bacterial utilization of 

Spartina detritus, followed by assimilation of detritus and associated bacteria 

by detritivores and excretion by detritivores, introduces dissolved phosphorus 

to marsh waters (pomeroy, Johannes, Odum, and Roffman, 1969). Another 

explanation for the high concentrations of dissolved inorganic phosphorus in 

marsh waters has been suggested by Reimold (1972) who indicated that 

Spartina a/temiflora pumps sedimentary phosphorus from rhizomes to leaves, 

where phosphorus is released to marsh waters upon Spartina inundation by 

high tides. Seasonal variation in dissolved inorganic phosphorus concentration 

of marsh waters was ascribed to changes in rate of uptake and release of 

phosphorus from Spartina, as a consequence of seasonal changes in rate of 

Spartina productivity. 

In a Typha dominated tidal marsh, periphyton communities were primarily 

responsible for removal of phosphorus from marsh waters. Typha competed 

with periphyton for the phosphorus of shallow marsh sediments but the 

importance of the angiosperm in phosphorus cycling was mainly that it 

provided increased surface area for periphyton growth (Correll, in press). 

A phosphorus budget of a salt marsh mussel population indicated that the 

population removed particulate phosphorus from marsh waters with a 

turnover time of 2.6 days (Kuenzler, 1961). Investigation of phosphorus 

cycling by marsh arthropod communities revealed that the communities 

mineral ized large amounts of organic phosphorus through their detrital and 

periphyton grazing activities (Marples, 1966; Pomeroy et a/., 1969). 

The high carbon to phosphorus ratio of Spartina a/temit/ora detritus led 

Thayer (1969) to speculate that bacteria must assimilate phosphorus from 

marsh waters to completely utilize detrital carbon. Addition of dissolved 

inorganic phosphorus to estuarine water containing Spartina detritus increased detrital decomposition rate and thus supported this contention 

(Ustach, 1969). 

The phosphorus marsh interactions described above are shown diagrammatically in Figure 2. 

Detritus: Composition, Formation and Flux 

Decomposition of Marsh Grasses 

The decomposition of marsh flora has been documented by numerous 

authors (Burkholder and Bornside, 1957; De la Cruz 1965; Waits, 1967; 

Heald, 1969; Ustach, 1969; Kirby, 1971). Most of these studies have utilized 

some variation of a litterbag method, in which known amounts of marsh grass 

are placed in nylon mesh bags at various locations in a marsh. Decomposition 

is measured as the rate of loss from the bags. Kirby indicates that the loss of 

material from the litterbags is a function of several factors: (1) the size of the 

litterbag mesh (2) the area in which the bags are placed (3) the amount of 

flushing received (4) the temperature. The last three of these factors along 

with two others, the species of plant decomposing and the salinity, appear 

important in controlling decomposition rates in tidal marsh areas. 

De la Cruz found the most rapid decomposition of Spartina occurred in bags 

that were continuously submerged in a creek. While there was a fifty percent 

loss of material from these bags in three months, those placed in the high 

marsh during the same spring period required seven months to reach fifty 

percent decomposition. Kirby found more rapid initial decomposition in 

material placed out in the marsh in June than in January. He also found 

considerably more rapid loss of material from bags placed in a tidal channel as 

compared to material placed in a high marsh area. Utach noted a relatively 

constant loss of one percent per day in his study area. 

Kirby hypothesizes that grazing by amphipods and other invertebrates is 

initially responsible for reduction of the grasses to small particles. He cites as 

evidence, however, simply the abundance of amphipods in and around the 

bags. There is Iittle documented evidence for mechanisms of biological 

degradation of marsh grasses. Heald (1969) and De la Cruz (1965) indicate as 

being important: simple fragmentation by tidal action with subsequent 

hydrolysis and oxidation of the particles, and microbial and fungal 

colonization. Burkholder and Bornside (1957) found aerobic, heterotrophic 

marine bacteria, analogous to those of freshwater lakes (Rodina, 1963; Pearl, 

1973) to participate in the decomposition of Spartina with much of the loss 

in dry weight of the plant tissue taking place through diffusion of the 

metabolic products of the microorganisms. 

In freshwater streams where a situation somewhat similar exists, that being 

the input of large amounts of allochthonous leaf-born organic material, there 

has been more extensive investigation of the degradation process (Nelson and 

8 9 
Scott, 1962; Egglishaw, 1964; Minshall, 1967; Kaushik and Hynes, 1971; 

Cummins, et. a/., 1973). Cummins, et. a/., in studying the microbial, animal 

successional pattern of various leaf species recognize the importance of large 

particle detritivore "shredders". However, they indicate that the shredders, 

through mechanical and/or chemical stimuli, select leaves that are maximally 

colonized by fungi and bacteria. Kaushik and Hynes (1971) also evidenced 

differential decomposition rates for fallen leaves of different species of trees 

and noted that fungi appeared to be more effective than bacteria in the 

breakdown of the leaves. 

The Importance of Detritus as a Food Source 

The fragmented, semi-decomposed material found in such abundance in the 

waters of marshes and estuaries includes besides material from marsh grasses, 

invertebrates, algae, plankton and allochthonous estuarine and wind blown 

materials (Teal, 1962), and is termed "organic detritus". It has been defined 

by Darnell as: " . .. all types of biogenic material in various stages of 

microbial decomposition which represent potential energy sources for 

consu mer species." 

De la Cruz (1965) suggested detritus particles to be highly active spheres of 

microbial organisms and that the adsorption of nutrients onto the particles 

may increase their food value. His studies showed increased protein content 

in successive stages of decomposition from Spartina marsh grass to detritus. 

This was possibly due to bacterial growth; however, the suggestion is still 

speculative. Hall, et a/., in a later work (1970) indicates a tenfold decrease in 

percent protein with Spartina in ebbing tides from that found in the living 

plant leaves. Burkholder and Bornside (1957) suggested microbial degradation 

would result in a more favorable essential amino acid distribution. However, 

this was not confirmed by Hall, who indicated that suspended solids contain 

smaller percentages of essential amino acids, and fewer of them than living 

marsh grasses. 

Whatever the nutritional value of estuarine detritus, numerous authors have 

cited its utilization by organisms. Darnell (1958, 1961, 1967) has evidenced 

consumption in a Louisiana estuary; W. Odum (1970) in a mangrovedominated estuary; E. P. Odum and Smalley (1959), Kuenzler (1961) and 

Teal (1962) in S. a/temiflora marshes. Johannes and Satomi (1966) have 

reported the nutritive value of fecal pellets found also in detritus, and 

Jannasch (1954) indicated that a particle of detritus may be ingested several 

times by organisms before exhaustion of its microfauna. 

Detritus, by Darnell's definition, also includes dissolved and colloidal 

material. Because of their nature and quantity it is these fractions that may 

be of most importance to the estuary. Dissolved and collodial organic 

materials in seawater are discussed by Kahailov and Finenko (1970) and the 

major works in this area reviewed by Riley (1963). It has been suggested that 

particles can be produced by the adsorption of dissolved matter on bubbles 

(Sutcl iffe, et. a/., 1963; lVIenzel, 1966) and that both dissolved and 

bubble-formed particulate material can be a source of nutrition for organisms 

(Stephens, 1967; Stephens and Schinske, 1961; Fox, 1950). 

Transport of Detritus 

There are numerous studies which cite the importance of marshlands as 

sou rces of organic material for coastal areas. Teal (1962), for example, has 

estimated that 45 percent of the net production of a Georgia salt marsh is 

exported as organic detritus. There are few studies, however, that have 

actually attempted to measure this transport. De la Cruz (1965) is perhaps 

the most referenced work. His study indicated that the export of detritus 

from a Georgia salt marsh to be 3.4 tons ha- 1 yr- 1, though one might easily 

criticize his rather limited sampling program. lVIid-flood and mid-ebb tide 

detritus concentrations in a tidal creek obtained several times during a year 

were simply compared, and water discharges were only estimated. Nadeau 

(1972) measured water discharge and particulate carbon concentrations in a 

tidal creek draining a New Jersey salt marsh but found no significant 

particulate export. He did conclude that there was generally a loss of floating 

debris from the creek. 

10 

11 
METHODS
 

Description of Study Areas 

Two marshes in the York River watershed (Figure 3) were selected to serve as 

the study sites in the investigation. The areas were chosen because: 1) they 

were undisturbed; 2) they represented different salinity regimes and hence 

were dominated by different species of marsh plants; 3) background data on 

marsh grass production was being collected and 4) both were surrounded on 

three sides by higher ground which effectively minimized any unmeasured 

transport of water to or from the study areas. 

Carter Creek 

Carter Creek marsh (Figure 4) covered an area of 10 hectares, had a yearly 

mean high tide salinity of 12% and was dominated by saltmarsh cordgrass 

(Spartina a/ternif/ora), salt grass (Distich/is spicata), and salt meadow hay 

(Spartina patens). The remaining vegetation consisted of threesquare (Scirpus 

sp.), narrow leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia), wood sage (Teucrium 

canadense), saltmarsh aster (Aster tenuifolius), sea lavender (Limonium 

caro/inianum), arrowhead (Spagittaria sp.) and rushes (Juncus spp.). 

Ware Creek 

Ware Creek marsh (Figure 5) was 14 hectares in size, had a mean high tide 

salinity of 7% and was dominated by giant cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides). 

Among the associated vegetation were rushes (Juncus spp.), smartweed 

(Po/ygonum sp.), saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina a/terniflora), threesquares 

(Scirpus spp.), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), wood sage (Teucrium canadense), 

rice cutgrass (Leerisa oryzoides), narrow leaved cattail (Typha angustifo/ia), 

pickerel weed (Pontederia cordata), marsh hibiscus (Hibiscus moscheutos), 

marsh mallow (Koste/etskya virginica), and salt meadow hay (Spartina 

patens). 

Field Measurements 

A sampling platform was constructed in the major creek draining each marsh, 

located such that all tidal waters entering and leaving the marsh passed by the 

sampling station. Cross sectional profiles at the sampling sites were measured 

before and during the sampling year by determining creek depth below fixed 

marks at half meter intervals across the creek. 1\10 significant change in creek 

cross section profiles was detected over the study period. 

13 
Preliminary Measurements 

To determine consituent concentration variation within the creeks, water 

samples were taken over a tidal cycle at various points on the creek cross 

section at the surface and one foot above the bottom. It was found that at 

any given time the water column was homogeneous with respect to nutrient 

and detritus concentrations. 

In addition, to determine if the seston (detritus) could adequately be 

represented by sampling with a water bottle, experiments were conducted in 

each creek to determine the size distribution of seston particles. Triplicate 

one hundred liter water samples were taken at ebb tide from each creek and 

strained through 264J1 and 64J1 plankton nets. Water passing the 64J1 net was 

filtered through 0.45J1 Millipore* filters. In Carter Creek the percentages of 

seston within these size ranges were: 0.7% (>264J1); 1.5% (64 to 264J1) and 

97.8% (0.45 to 64J1). In Ware Creek the percentages were: 0.2% (>264J1), 

0.7% (64 to 264J1), and 99.1% (0.45 to 64J1). From these results it was 

presumed that sampling with a bottle would effectively capture the major 

portion of the suspended material in the water. 

Another series of the tests was undertaken to determine if sample storage in 

crushed ice would affect the determination of ATP and organic carbon. 

Samples were taken and analyzed for these two parameters at 1,3, 6, 12, 24 

and 48 hours after sampl ing with su bsequent storage in crushed ice. Statistical 

analysis of the data revealed no significant difference (ex == .05) in the 

concentrations of either parameter as a function time. 

Field Measurements and Sampling Procedures 

Ware and Carter creek marshes were sampled for tidal constituents transport 

over day time tidal cycles several times during 1971 and approximately 

monthly from January 1972 to January 1973. In so far as possible, sampling 

periods were chosen to correspond to mean tides as predicted by National 

Ocean Survey tide tables. 

During a survey period, water samples for nutrient and chlorophyll 'a' 

analysis were taken hourly from the marsh creek from low slack to high slack 

to second low slack water. Samples were taken in clean, one liter 

polyethylene bottles. The samples were stored at OoC after preservation with 

40 mg of Hg C1 Samples for ATP and carbon determinations were also 2.
 

taken hourly but were not preserved.
 

• Registered Trade Mark. 

Air and water temperatures were measured hourly to the nearest 0.5°C with a 

mercury thermometer. Samples for dissolved oxygen were taken hourly while 

salinity samples were collected every twenty minutes over a tidal cycle. 

Current velocity was determined coincidental with the nutrient sampling and 

at twenty minute intervals over the tidal cycle using a ducted-impeller type 

current speed indicator (Byrne and Boon, 1973). The current speed sensor 

was centered in the marsh creek with respect to creek width and depth, while 

current speed determinations were made. Simultaneous with current speed 

measurement, a reading of tide height was taken to the nearest millimeter 

from a meter stick fixed at a known elevation above creek bottom. 

Water for phytoplankton productivity determination was taken every two 

hours over a tidal cycle beginning at first low slack water. Three 125 ml glass 

bottles (two Iight bottles and one dark bottle) were filled to 100 ml from a 

well mixed liter sample. One milliliter of a stock solution containing one 

microcurie per milliliter activity of carbon-14 (14C) as NaH 14C03, buffered 

to pH 9.5 with 10 mg/I iter Na2C03' was pipetted into each of the bottles. 

The light bottles were placed into the light compartment of an incubator 

illuminated by Westinghouse twenty watt "cool white", "warm white", and 

"plant gro" fluorescent lamps. The dark bottle was placed into the dark 

compartment of the incubator. Both incubator compartments were maintained at ambient temperature by water pumped from the marsh creek. After 

three hou rs the productivity samples were fixed with 1 ml 10% buffered 

formalin and stored in the dark at OoC (Strickland and Parsons, 1968). 

Laboratory Measu rements 

The morning following sampling, 500 ml of each of the nutrient samples were 

filtered first through a Gelman type A glass fiber filter and then a Millipore 

type HA 0.45 micron membrane filter. The 500 ml filtered and unfiltered 

fractions were then stored in a refrigerator at 4°C until analyzed. Glass fiber 

filters through which a measured 200 ml sample had been filtered were 

wetted with Mg C0 slurry, then placed in a dessicator and refrigerated at 4°C 3 

for later chlorophyll analysis. Light and dark bottle primary productivity 

samples were each filtered through a Millipore type HA 0.45 micron 

membrane filter, the filters rinsed with 50 ml distilled water and stored in 

scintillation vials at room temperature. 

Dissolved inorganic phosphorus concentration was determined on duplicate 

filtered samples using a Technicon Autoanalyzer II system employing ~he

single reagent method (EPA, 1971; Technicon, 1972). Total dissolved 

phosphorus concentration of filtered samples and total phosphorus concen14 15 
tration of unfiltered samples were determined, following persulfate digestion, 

by single reagent analysis of duplicate 50 ml sample aliquots (EPA, 1971). A 

Klett-Summerson photoelectric colorimeter cal ibrated with the standards of 

the autoanalyzer phosphorus method was used in the analysis. Particulate 

phosphorus concentrations were obtained by subtracting total dissolved 

phosphorus from total phosphorus measurements. Dissolved organic phosphorus was obtained by taking the difference between total dissolved phosphorus 

and dissolved inorganic phosphorus. 

Nitrate and nitrite concentrations were determined on duplicate filtered 

samples using the Technicon Autoanalyzer II system. Nitrite was determined 

directly by colorimetry while nitrate was determined by cadmium-copper 

reduction of nitrate followed by colorimetric measurement of nitrite 

produced. Nitrate and nitrite standards were included in sample runs (EPA, 

1971; Technicon, 1972). Fifty mill il iter unfiltered water samples for total 

Kjeldahl nitrogen analysis, and filtered samples for dissolved Kjeldahl 

nitrogen analysis were digested with a sulfuric acid-mercuric sulfate mixture. 

Fifty milliliter filtered water samples for ammonia determination and the 

digested Kjeldahl samples were then analyzed by the distillation-titration 

technique (EPA, 1971). Ammonia standards were analyzed along with 

samples and several samples from each run were measured in duplicate. 

Standard titrant used was 0.001 n HC1. Particulate nitrogen concentrations 

were obtained by subtracting dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen from total Kjeldahl 

nitrogen. Dissolved organic nitrogen was obtained by taking the difference 

between dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen and ammonia. 

Salinity was determined using a Beckman Model RS-7B portable induction 

sal inometer. Dissolved oxygen concentration was measured using a modified 

Winkler titration (Strickland and Parsons, 1968). 

Chlorophyll 'a' concentration uncorrected for phaeophytin was analyzed by 

the fluorimetric method (Strickland and Parsons, 1968). Glass fiber filters 

with their chlorophyll load were mixed with 90% acetone in a tissue grinder 

and pulverized. The produce was centrifuged, the extract brought to volume, 

and read on a Turner Model III fluorimeter calibrated for chlorophyll 'a' 

determination against a Cary 15 scanning spectrophotometer. 

Phytoplankton production was measured by liquid scintillation counting of 

phytoplankton carbon-14 uptake. Ten milliliters of scintillation cocktail 

consisting of 100g napthalene and 5 grams PPO (2, 5 diphenyloxazole) per 

liter of dioxane was added to each Millipore filter and its phytoplankton load 

in a 20 ml scintillation vial. Activity of the cells was measured on a Beckman 

LS-150 Liquid Scintillation System. Counting efficiency was determined by 

spiking samples with known activity carbon-14 hexadecane. Producitivity was 

calculated using light and dark bottle phytoplankton carbon-14 uptake, 

counting efficiency, and the dissolved inorganic carbon concentration of the 

samples as obtained by Moore (1973), by use of the formula: 

Phytoplankton Productivity (mg carbon/liter-hour) 

[ L + LZ -0] fe) 1.05 J2

RTE 

where 

L 1 counts per minute of Iight bottle # 1 

L2 counts per minute of light bottle # 2 

D counts per minute of dark bottle 

R distintegrations per minute carbon-14 added to light and dark 

bottles
 

T time (hours)
 

E counting efficiency
 

C dissolved inorganic carbon (mg/1)
 

1.05 isotope correction factor 

Carbon analysis was performed on whole water samples. to determine 

particulate organic carbon, dissolved organic carbon, and inorganic carbon 

using a dual-channel Dow-Beckman Carbonaceous Analyzer (Model No. 915). 

The procedure followed is outl ined in "Methods for Chemical Analysis of 

Water and Wastes", EPA, 1971. 

ATP determinations were performed following the method outl ined by 

Holm-Hansen and Booth (1966) using both a Beckman Liquid Scintillation 

Counter and a JRB Inc., ATP Photometer. Estimation of living carbon 

associated with ATP measurements was done by multiplying the ATP 

concentration by a factor of 250 (Hamilton and Holm-Hansen, 1967). 

Tidal Nutrient Transport Calculation 

For purposes of water discharge determination the creek cross sectional 

profiles at the sampl ing stations were drawn to a fraction of scale and the 

~ross sectional area of water planimetrically determined at 10 cm tide height 

Intervals from lowest to highest observed tide height. The data obtained were 

used to construct a regression line of water cross sectional area as a function 

of tide height. All tide height observations were converted to water cross 

16 

17 
sectional values in this manner. Water cross sectional area data were 

multiplied by corresponding current velocity data to produce instantaneous 

water discharge values. Water discharge data were matched with nutrient 

concentration and salinity data. Additional nutrient concentration data were 

generated by interpolating nutrient concentration against time so that all 

water discharge values had corresponding nutrient concentration values. With 

this data the tidal fluxes of water, sal inity, and nutrients were calculated for 

each sampled tidal cycle using an IBM 1130 computer and a spline fit 

program (Boon, 1974) which: 

1.	 multiplied nutrient concentration and salinity by instantaneous 

nutrient and salinity discharge; 

2.	 plotted graphs of instantaneous nutrient and salinity discharge 

versus time and integrated the area under the flood tide and ebb 

tide halves of the curve; 

3.	 subtracted flood tide nutrient and salinity transport from ebb 

tide transport and gave net flux for the complete tidal cycle. 

Because salinity and water transport data indicated absence of significant 

non-tidal water input to the marshes, inequalities between flood tide and ebb 

tide water transport were attributed to a shift in the location of mean current 

velocity within the marsh creek channel as a consequence of the shift in 

direction of water flow, thus causing constant sampling bias. Therefore flood 

and ebb water transport were multiplied by constants which equated them to 

the mean of the measured flood and ebb tidal prisms over the tidal cycle. 

Tidal nutrient transport data were also corrected in th is manner. 

Annual Nutrient Transport Calculation 

For calculation of annual nutrient flux between the marshes and the estuary, 

the sampl ing year was divided into eleven, approximately month long periods, 

each containing a sampled tidal cycle near its mid-point. Salt marsh nutrient 

transport over each "month" was computed using two equations based on 

contrasting assumptions. The assumption of the first calculation was that 

every tidal cycle within a given month imported or exported a quantity of 

nutrients equal to the net quantity transported over the tidal cycle sampled 

within that month. Thus net transport over each month was calcu lated by use 

of the equation: 

Tm = I\ITtc 

where 

T m net nutrient transport over the month 

N	 number of tidal cycles in the month 

Ttc	 net nutrient transport over the tidal cycle sampled during the 

month 

The assumption of the second calculation was that net nutrient transport over 

a tidal cycle was directly proportional to marsh tidal prism. Thus, net 

transport over each month was calculated by use of the equation: 

T m = N Ttc P /Ptc 

where 

P mean salt marsh tidal prism for the month
 

Ptc tidal prism of the tidal cycle sampled during the month
 

Data for computation of mean monthly salt marsh tidal prism was supplied 

by a continuously recording York River tide gal.1ge. Regression equations 

relating marsh tidal prism to York River high water tide height were 

calculated from tidal prism and corresponding tide gauge data. Then, mean 

monthly York River high water tide heights calculated from tide gauge data 

were substituted into the regression equations and mean monthly salt marsh 

tidal prisms were computed. 

Since it was not clear which assumption had greater validity, net monthly 

tidal nutrient transport was estimated by taking the mean of the transports 

calculated from the two equations. Annual net tidal nutrient transport 

between the salt marshes and the estuary was then determined by summing 

the monthly transports for each marsh over the year. 

Statistical Analysis 

Relationships between nutrient concentrations and physical parameters were
 

determined by correlation analysis (Snedecor and Cochran, 1967) using a
 

program devised for the IBM 360-50 computer (Dixon, 1968).
 

MUltiple regression analysis (Snedecor and Cochran, 1967) with phytoplankton productivity to chlorophyll a ratio (assimilation number) as the 

d~pendent variable, and water temperature, dissolved inorganic phosphorus, 

nitrate, and ammonia concentrations as independent variables was also 

performed using the IBM 360-50 computer (Dixon, 1968). Assuming that 

marsh flood and ebb tide waters had similar phytoplankton assemblages, but 

that flood tide waters contained nutrients unaffected by the marshes while 

ebb tide waters contained nutrients that had interacted with the salt marsh 

ecosystem, separate regression equations for each half tidal cycle could then 

reveal the effect of marsh induced nutrient transformations on estuarine 

phytoplankton productivity. 18 

19 
RESULTS 

Seasonal & Tidal Variations in Temperature & Salinity 

Temperatu re 

The seasonal range in temperature was from 4 to 29° C in Ware Creek and 

from 2 to 28°C in Carter Creek. Minimum temperatures were recorded in 

November on Ware Creek and in January on Carter Creek. Maximum recorded temperatures were observed in late June on Carter Creek and in September 

on Ware Creek (Figure 6). 

Salinity ranges at low and high slack water for Ware Creek and Carter creeks 

are shown in Figures 7 and 8, respectively. Ware Creek had a yearly mean 

high tide salinity of 7% while the mean for Carter Creek was 12%. Average 

low tide salinities were 1.0% and 5.6% for Ware and Carter creeks, respectively. 

Seasonal and Tidal Nutrient Concentration Trends 

In order to compare as concisely as possible the seasonal and tidal nutrient 

concentration trends observed over the course of this study, we have prepared 

two illustrations of the concentration variations in each parameter. The first 

depicts the mean high and low slack concentrations observed through the 

year while the second shows the hourly variations in concentration during a 

tidal cycle in winter and summer months. 

Dissolved Inorganic Phosphorus. 

The seasonal range in dissolved inorganic phosphorus (DIP) concentration of 

marsh waters was 0.25 - 2.95 ug at/1 in Ware Creek and 0.22 - 5.06 ug at/1 in 

Carter Creek (Appendix A). High slack water concentrations varied much less 

with season than did low slack values. Mean high slack concentrations for 

both creeks were less than 1 ug at/1, ranging from 0.22 to 0.89 (Figures 9 and 

10). Low tide concentrations were seasonally variable in both study areas 

ranging from 0.85 to 2.43 ug at/1 in Ware and from 0.09 to 5.06 ug at/1 in 

Carter. Concentrations of DIP increased from winter lows to summer highs in 

both creeks with maximum values being attained in July. 

Over tidal cycles throughout the year (Figures 11 and 12), DI P conCefi21 
trations usually peaked at low slack water and decreased with increasing tide 

height to concentration minima at high slack water, as indicated by the 

significant negative correlations between DIP concentration and tide height 

listed in TaBles 1 and 2. Exceptions to this DIP concentration pattern were 

the Ware Creek tidal cycles of late September and October which displayed 

greater DIP concentrations at high slack than at low slack water (Appendix A, 

Tables A9 and A10). 

Dissolved Organic Phosphorus 

Annually, concentrations of dissolved organic phosphorus ranged from 

0.19 -1.40 ug at/1 in Ware Creek and from 0.17 -1.19 ug at/1 in Carter 

Creek (Appendix A). As was the case with dissolved inorganic phosphorus, 

high slack water concentrations varied less with season than did low slack 

values, ranging from 0.19 - 0.68 in Ware and from 0.17 - 0.90 in Carter 

(Figures 13 and 14). Low tide concentrations were seasonally more variable 

in both study areas ranging from 0.43 - 1.31 ug at/1 in Ware and from 

0.43 - 1.04 ug at/1 in Carter. Maximal DOP concentrations were detected in 

summer while minimal levels were found in winter and spring. Significant 

positive correlations were shown between DOP concentrations and water 

temperature (Tables 1 and 2). 

Over tidal cycles throughout the year, peak DOP levels usually occurred at 

low slack water and concentrations generally decreased towards high slack 

water (Figures 15 and 16). 

Concentration differences for this phosphorus form were less between the 

study areas than they were for dissolved inorganic phosphorus. Mean 

concentrations at high and low slack for DIP were between 0.57 - 1.51 ug 

at/1 and 0.48 - 2.1 7 ug at/1 for Ware and Carter creeks, respectively. The 

mean concentrations for the dissolved organic form were between 0.41 - 0.62 

ug at/1 for Ware and 0.46 - 0.64 ug at/1 for Carter. 

Particulate Phosphorus 

Particulate phosphorus (PP) concentrations within the marsh creeks were 

maximal in summer and minimal in fall and winter (Figures 17 and 18, Tables 

1 and 2). Annual concentration ranges were 0.61 - 8.79 ug at/1 and. 

0.18 - 19.52 ug at/1 in Ware Creek and Carter Creek respectively (Appendix' 

A). Peak PP levels over tidal cycles usually occurred just before low slack 

water in Carter Creek but were often found at times of maximal water flow in 

Ware Creek as shown by Figures 19 and 20, by the significant positive cor~

22 

relations between Ware Creek PP concentrations and water flow in Table 1 

and by the significant negative correlations between Carter Creek PP concentrations and tide height in Table 2. The highest sustained PP concentrations 

were r:neasured in Carter Creek during a rain storm over the latter part of the 

July tidal cycle (Appendix A, Table A 18). 

Average concentrations of particulate phosphorus measured at high slack 

were similar in both study areas; however, low slack concentrations were 

considerably higher in Carter Creek - 4.39 ug at/1 vs. 2.92 ug at/1 in Ware. 

This. was similar to the trend observed with dissolved inorganic phosphorus. 

Particulate phosphorus was the predominant phosphorus form observed in 

both study areas. 

Nitrate (N03) concentrations ranged seasonally from 0.26 - 24.39 ug at/1 in 

War.e Creek and from 0.07 - 26.86 ug at/1 in Carter Creek. Highest concentrations were measured in winter while lowest levels were found in summ 

(Figures 21 and 22, Tables 2 and 3). This trend is opposite from that o~~ served for dissolved inorganic phosphate where peak levels were observed 

during the summer months. 

Concentration variations with tidal stage were also less regular than for dissolved in~rganic phosphate. Low slack water I\J03concentrations were greater than high slack water concentrations from May through August in Ware 

Creek and from ~une through October in Carter Creek. At other times high 

slack water N03 concentrations were greater than low slack water values. 

Concen~rati~n trends observed over the selected seasonal tidal cycles are 

shown In Figures 23 and 24. Although relationships between time and concentration are not as clear as they were with the various phosphate species, 

these cycles and others indicate a trend toward increasing levels at low slack 

water. 

~itrite (N021 concentrations ranged seasonally from 0.07 - 0.77 ug at/1 in 

arter. Creek and from 0.07 - 1.83 ug at/1 in Ware Creek. However, with the 

exclusion of the September sampling from Ware, concentrations ranged only 

from 0.09 - 0.71 ug at/1 (Appendix A). As shown in Figures 25 and 26 these 

seasonal changes were relatively small and low slack water NO -levels were 

ge.neral~y g~eater than or equal to the high slack water concent:ations. Variations In nitrite levels within tidal cycles are shown in Figures 27 and 28, 

23 
where a trend toward increasing concentrations as the tide ebbs is indicated. 

Ammonia 

Annual ammonia (N H;) concentration ranges were 1.0 - 22.2 ug at/1 and 

1.0 - 26.0 ug at/1 in Ware and Carter creeks respectively (Appendix A). The 

highest concentrations were generally measured in the early and late fall 

(Figures 29 and 30), although seasonal trends are less clear than for previously discussed nutrient species. Throughout the year ammonia levels were 

usually higher at low slack water than at high. 

Over tidal cycles throughout the year peak ammonia levels usually occurred 

at low slack water and decreased towards high slack water (Figures 31 and 

32). Average concentrations of ammonia measured at high and low slack 

water were similar in both study areas. 

Dissolved Organic Nitrogen 

Levels of dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) were generally highest in summer 

(Figures 33 and 34). Annual concentration ranges were 3.0 - 65.2 ug at/1 in 

Ware Creek and 7.6 - 82.2 ug at/1 in Carter Creek (Appendix A). High and 

low slack water concentrations generally parallel each other quite closely with 

slightly higher concentrations being observed at low slack. 

The tidal cycle data for Ware Creek shown in Figure 35 do not indicate any 

consistent relationships between time and DON level. The data for Carter 

Creek shown in Figure 36 indicate that DON concentrations increase as the 

tide ebbs - a pattern shown for dissolved organic phosphorus in both areas.. 

Particulate Nitrogen 

Particulate nitrogen (PN) concentrations of the marsh creeks followed a 

seasonal cycle similar to that of particulate phosphorus (Tables 1 and 2). 

Highest PN concentrations were measured in summer while lowest concen~

trations were found in winter (Figures 37 and 38). Seasonally, PN concen 

trations ranged from 5.0 - 74.6 ug at/1 in Ware Creek and from 3.4 - 174.6 u 

at/1 in Carter Creek (Appendix A). Peak PN levels over tidal cycles usuall 

occurred just before low slack water in Carter Creek but were often found a 

times of maximal water flow in Ware Creek (Figures 39 and 40), a patter 

similar to that·observed for particulate phosphorus. Highest sustained P 

concentrations were measured during a rain storm over the July sampling a 

Carter Creek (Appendix A, Table A 18). ' 

Seasonal and Tidal Plankton Concentration Trends 

Biomass 

Chlorophyll 'a' was measured to follow changes in phytoplankton biomass 

during the study. The seasonal range in chlorophyll 'a' concentrations in the 

marsh creeks studied was 2,2 - 23.6 ug/1 in Ware Creek and 2.6 - 135.9 ug/1 

in Carter Creek. Biomass increased from winter lows to peak concentrations 

in the late summer in both study areas (Fig~res 41 and 42). Generally high 

slack water concentrations were higher, suggesting transport of river phytoplankton populations into the marshes. However, as will be shown later, 

this is not the case since both marshes exported chlorophyll 'a'. The highest 

value observed apparently resulted from the suspension of periphyton 

organisms from the Carter Creek marsh during a thunderstorm in July. 

Productive Potential 

As described in the Methods Section, phytoplankton productivity was determined by incubation of the samples under constant light in an incubator. 

Hence, the values reported here are not intended to reflect the actual field 

conditions, but they should allow for a good comparison of the productive 

potentials of water taken during all sampling periods. 

Carbon fixation by the phytoplankton varied on a seasonal basis from 

0.2 - 13.5 mg C/m3 - hr. in Ware Creek and from <0.05 - 29.6 mg C/m3 - hr 

in Carter Creek. Productive potentials increased gradually from winter lows to 

late summer maxima in both systems (Figures 43 and 44). Carbon fixation 

potential followed the chlorophyll 'a' concentrations quite closely and was 

usually higher at high slack water than at low in both systems. 

Seasonal Nutrient Flux Trends 

Dissolved Inorganic Phosphorus 

Export of DIP from the Ware Creek study area to the York River was 

recorded during 7 of the 12 sampling periods (Table 3). Ebb tide losses 

exceeded inputs from March through June but on three consecutive fall 

samplings the calculations indicated a net input of DIP to the marsh. Exports 

ranged from 36 - 245 grams per cycle and imports from 8 - 310 grams per 

cycle. 

Utilizing these data the yearly budget shown in Table 7 was constructed. The 

24 25 
assumptions used to construct the yearly budgets were detailed in the 

Methods Section; however, we should reiterate here that they are extrapolations based upon monthly observations. Hence, fluxes resulting from 

extreme events which might have considerable impact on the yearly budgets 

are of course not calculable: 

On an annual basis, 6,851 grams of dissolved inorganic phosphorus were 

transported to the York River from the study area. 

Export of DIP from the Carter Creek study area to the York River occurred 

during all but one of the cycles studied. Exports ranged from 31 - 133 grams 

per cycle, while during the one cycle showing input, 8 grams were 

transported. 

On an annual basis, 60, 491 grams of dissolved inorganic phosphorus were 

exported to the York River from the Carter Creek study area (Table 8). 

Dissolved Organic Phosphorus 

Export of DOP from the Ware Creek area was observed during 8 of the 12 

cycles studied (Table 3). Losses to the river occurred from January through 

June and during August, October and November. Exports ranged from 

4 - 204 grams per cycle and imports from 4 - 98 grams per cycle. 

The annual budget (Table 7) showed a net export of 30,512 grams of this 

phosphorus form. 

!n the Carter Creek study area a similar pattern was observed with export 

occurring during 8 of the 11 sampling periods. The magnitude of the losses, 

shown in Table 4, were generally lower than those observed in Ware Creek, 

with exports ranging from 3 - 142 grams per cycle while imports ranged from 

6 - 27 grams per cycle. 

Annually 16,630 "grams of dissolved organic phosphorus were transported 

from the Carter Creek marsh study area to the river. 

Particulate Phosphorus 

Import of particulate phosphorus to the Ware Creek area was observed during 

6 sampiing periods - in the winter and fall - with export occurring during 

26 

spring and summer. Quantities of phosphorus imported ranged from 

41 - 3,944 grams per cycle while exports varied between 67 - 1203 grams 

(Table 3). 

On an annual basis 147,281 grams of particulate phosphorus were imported 

to the study area. 

In Carter Creek the import of particulate phosphorus occurred continually 

from March through August with the exception of the July sampling which 

was carried out during a severe thunderstorm. Quantities of PP imported 

ranged from 52 - 575 grams per cycle while export varied between 40 - 1526 

grams per cycle. 

Over the year 83,823 grams of particulate phosphorus were imported to the 

study area from the river. 

Total Phosphorus 

Considering all three phosphorus species, on an annual basis phosphorus was 

imported to Ware Creek and Carter Creek marshes (Tables 7 and 8). The 

yearly net input of particulate phosphorus to the marshes was greater than 

the net output of dissolved inorganic and dissolved organic phosphorus from 

the marshes. 

Import of nitrate (1\1031 from the York River to the Ware Creek study area 

occurred during every cycle studied, with inputs ranging between 50 - 872 

grams per cycle. Highest inputs occurred during the fall and winter (Table 5). 

On an annual basis 321,420 grams of N0iwere imported to the study area 

(Table 9). 

In Carter Creek import of N03 was observed during 7 of the 11 study 

periods. On one occasion input balanced output and export occurred during 

the June, September and January sampling periods. Nitrate transport was 

considerably lower in Carter than in Ware with imports varying from 20 - 153 

grams per cycle and exports from 35 - 161 grams per cycle (Table 6). 

Annually 31,191 grams of nitrate were imported from the York River to the 

study area. 

27 
Nitrite transport values were much lower than nitrate (Tables 5 and 6); 

however, overall inputs were recorded in both marshes. 

In Ware Creek imports were observed on 8 of the 12 sampl ing dates. Exports 

occurred only during January, June and August. Net transport by flood tides 

varied between 6 - 184 grams while net ebbs ranged from 1 - 42 grams. 

Annually 18,191 grams of nitrite were transported from the river to Ware 

Creek marsh (Table 9). 

In Carter Creek imports were observed on 7 of 11 sampl ing dates (Table 6). 

As was observed with nitrate, nitrite transport values were considerably lower 

in Carter than in Ware, with imports varying from 1 - 30 grams per cycle and 

exports from 1 - 11 grams per cycle. 

On an annual basis 2,397 grams of nitrite were imported to Carter Creek from 

the river. 

Ammonia 

In Ware Creek ammonia (NH~) was exported from January through August 

with imports occurring during the September - December sampling periods 

(Table 5). Exports varied -From 248 - 2786 grams per cycle with larger outputs 

in the spring and summer. Inputs ranged from 300 - 869 grams per cycle. 

Annually 407,554 grams of (NH;) were exported to the York River from the 

Ware Creek study area. 

In Carter Creek 5 sampl ings revealed export and 5 import with one cycle 

showing no net movement. While a large net input of NH; was indicated for 

the Carter Creek storm tidal cycle of July, this input was discounted due to 

the anomalous transport of NH; relative to that of other nutrient species over 

this tidal cycle. Consequently, I\lH~ transport over the "month" associated 

with the July sampling was calculated from the mean of the NH~ transports 

of the preceding month and the following month. 

In contrast to Ware Creek, on an annual basis Carter displayed an export of 

28,665 grams of NH~ to the York River. 

Dissolved Organic Nitrogen 

Export of DON occurred during 7 of the 12 sampling periods in Ware Creek. 

Maximum export periods were during late summer and fall with values 

ranging from 65 - 3122 grams per cycle. Relatively large imports were 

observed during the April and June cycles (Table 5). 

In Carter Creek export of DON was observed during all but the August and 

November sampl ing periods. Export varied between 216,- 5,776 grams per 

cycle while values of 541 and 172 grams were observed for the August and 

November cycles, respectively. 

Annually, there was significant net output of DON from both marshes with 

greater export from Carter (925,270 grams) than -From Ware (324,835 grams). 

Particulate Nitrogen 

In Ware Creek particulate nitrogen was exported in the winter and spring and 

imported during the summer. Concentrations on net ebbs ranged from 

450 - 2618 grams while net flood transports varied between 900 - 2778 

grams. 

The annual budget revealed an export of 3,765 grams of particulate nitrogen. 

In contrast Carter Creek exported PN on only three occasions, during the 

July storm and during October and January. Exports ranged from 303 - 4,921 

grams per cycle and imports from 405 - 2398 grams per cycle. 

On an annual basis, there was a large net input of particulate nitrogen into the 

study area from the river (Table 10), 

Total Nitrogen 

Considering all nitrogen species, the marshes displayed significant annual 

export of nitrogen (Tables 9 and 10). The annual import of nitrate and nitrite 

to Ware Creek was exceeded by the annual export of ammonia, dissolved 

organic nitrogen, and particulate nitrogen from the marsh. For Carter Creek, 

the annual export of dissolved organic nitrogen exceeded the annual import 

of the other nitrogen species. 

28 29 
Diurnal Versus Nocturnal Tidal Nutrient Transport 

The consecutively sampled day-night Ware Creek tidal cycles of June 1972 

generally displayed similar net nutrient transport trends (Tables 3 and 5). 

Dissolved inorganic phosphorus was exported over both tidal cycles with 

greater export over the daytime tidal cycle. However, while dissolved organic 

phosphorus was exported from the marsh over the diurnal tidal cycle, a small 

quantity was imported to the marsh over the nocturnal tidal cycle. Particulate 

phosphorus was exported from the marsh over both tidal cycles with 

significantly greater nighttime export. Nitrate was imported to the marsh 

while nitrite was exported from the marsh over the two tidal cycles. There 

was greater nitrate import to the marsh over the diurnal tidal cycle and 

greater nitrite export from the marsh over the nocturnal tidal cycle. 

Approximately equal amounts of ammonia were exported over the two tidal 

cycles, however, more dissolved organic nitrogen was imported to the marsh 

over the daytime compared to the nighttime tidal cycle. A greater amount of 

particulate nitrogen was exported from the marsh over the diurnal than over 

the nocturnal tidal cycle. 

Phytoplankton Productivity Correlations 

Over the year, in Ware Creek and Carter Creek marsh waters, the ratio of 

phytoplankton productivity to chlorophyll 'a' concentration (assimilation 

number) was best correlated with water temperature for both flood and ebb 

tides. Partial correlations, with temperature held constant, calculated between 

phytoplankton assimilation number and dissolved inorganic phosphorus, 

nitrate, and ammonia, revealed no significant correlations over either flood or 

ebb tides (Tables 11 and 12). 

Seasonal and Tidal Carbon Concentration Trends 

Particulate Organic Carbon 

POC concentrations in the marsh waters ranged from less than 1 mg/1 to over 

20 mg/1 (Fig. 45). Seasonal differences in POC were not extraordinary, but 

generally suspended concentrations were highest in the summer and fall and 

lowest in the winter and spring periods. P'OC levels were higher throughout 

the year in Carter Creek than Ware Creek. 

For comparison with previous studies, yearly mean mid-flood and mid-ebb 

levels of POC were calculated. In Carter Creek the mean mid-flood level of 

POC was 4.3 mg/1 while the mid-ebb level was 4.6 mg/1. For Ware Creek! 

these values were 3.6 mg/1 and 3.9 mg/1 for flood and ebb, respectively. 

POC concentrations within each tidal cycle (Appendix B) varied as a function 

of tidal stage. Highest values occurred near low slack or during mid-tide. Only 

occasionally were levels near the high slack period the highest. 

During the July sampling in Carter Creek the marsh was subjected to a 

number of severe thunderstorms which began at approximately 1600 hours. 

The front of storms approached from the southwest and the area was 

subjected to severe rain squalls for approximately four hours. Maximum wind 

velocities recorded at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science continuously 

monitoring wind gauge situated less than five miles away were over 55 miles 

per hour. Considerable erosion of particulate material from the exposed 

marsh surface was observed during this period and greatly elevated water 

velocities and POC levels were recorded. 

Dissolved Organic Carbon 

DOC transport results were variable (Tables 13 and 14), indicating both gain 

and loss to the marshes. Ware Creek marsh demonstrated net loss of DOC 

over a number of tidal cycles, while significant inf~ux of DOC occurred only 

during the June and September tidal cycles. Net tidal influx of DOC at 

samplings throughout the year in Carter Creek were small when compared to 

either the total ebb or flood tidal transports. Only during the April tidal cycle 

occurred what might be considered a significant net influx of DOC. 

DOC concentrations on an annual basis ranged from approximately 2 mg/1 to 

17 mg/1 (Fig. 46). Highest concentrations occurred during the summer and 

fall. 

Levels of DOC did not change dramatically within the sampled tidal cycles 

(Appendix B). Highest levels were generally found near low slack and lowest 

at high slack water for both marshes throughout the year. 

ATP-Carbon WASr'H~GTON WATER

RESEARCH CENTER LIBRARY 

ATP-carbon transport was characterized by loss from both marshes to the 

estuary during all sampled tidal cycles except the April and May Ware Creek 

sampling and the August Carter Creek tidal cycle. Comparison with the Chi a 

data suggests that these influxes may have been caused by elevated estuarine 

phytoplankton populations in the river. 

30 

31 
Seasonal variation in ATP values (Fig. 47) closely parallels that obtained for 

ChI. a (Fig. 48), and it appears that there are slightly different "seasons" 

associated with the living material in both marshes. Maximum ATP levels 

occurred in Ware Creek marsh waters during July, but by September the 

standing crop of living material had dropped considerably to approximately 

the winter levels. Carter Creek marsh, on the other hand, continued with high 

levels until the October sampling. 

ATP-carbon, measured as percent POC, varied throughout the year (Fig. 49). 

The living material in individual samples ranged from less than 5% of POC in 

the water during the winter, to greater than 20% during the summer. 

Variations from this high summer, low winter trend were a function of 

unusually high or low POC concentrations rather than fluctuating ATPcarbon levels. 

Seasonal variations in detrital carbon levels (Fig. 50), determined by 

subtracting ATP-carbon values from POC, closely approximated that found 

for POC, and indicated the dominance of detrital carbon within the marsh 

system. 

Chi a levels were recorded highest during the summer months (Fig. 48). There 

appeared to be two peaks, indicating seasonal blooms of phytoplankton, 

during the spring and again during the summer months. Trends evident for 

ChI. a are complicated, however, by the fact that the values are uncorrected 

for phaephytins. Carbon: ChI. a rations were extremely high as might be 

expected for these turbid waters and ranged from less than 100: 1 during the 

summer to over 500: 1 during the fall and winter (Fig. 51). 

Dissolved Inorganic Carbon and Dissolved Oxygen 

DIC transport data (Tables 13 and 14) indicated rather insignificant net flux 

during the winter period of November through March or April. Direction of 

flux during the summer months was variable. 

Net efflux of oxygen to the river was generally recorded in both marshes 

throughout the year. This was most probably a function of sampling time 

within the day rather than any greater net production over respiration in the. 

marshes. Water samples during the flooding tidal period were generally 

obtained during the morning. Reduced O2 levels would therefore be expected 

from nighttime respiration. Daytime photosynthesis in the water column and 

on the marsh surface resulted in higher levels of O2 which were then measured· 

during the ebb tidal periods. During the 24 hour sampling in June at Ware 

Creek this variation was most evident. The first tidal cycle which began with 

low slack during the morning indicated a net efflux of O2 from the marsh. 

The second tidal cycle which began during the night indicated a net influx of 

O2 to the marsh. 

Levels of DO and DIC within the tidal cycles reveal that values for DO were 

generally lowest at low slack and highest at high slack; conversely, DIC levels 

were highest at low slack and lowest around high slack. 

Seasonal changes in mean DIC concentrations in Ware Creek and Carter Creek 

marshes are presented in Fig. 52. Higher DIC concentrations resulting from 

the higher sal inities in Carter Creek are evident in comparison to the Ware 

Creek concentrations. Seasonally, DIC concentrations are highest in both 

marshes during the summer months. 

DO levels in both marshe~ throughout the year are presented in Fig. 53. 

Typically, levels are reduced during the summer months, and in comparison 

levels in Ware Creek appear lower than Carter Creek. 

Net Carbon Transport 

Tidal transport of each of the measu red parameters for each of the observed 

tidal cycles are presented in Tables 13 and 14. lVIinimum water transport in 

both marshes occurred during period of minimum water temperatures during 

the winter. This was probably due to the stearic oscillations in sea level which 

result from the seasonal variations in specific volume of the ocean (Pattullo, 

Munk, Revelle and Strong, 1965). 

The annual net transport calculations indicated that over the one year study 

period there was a net loss of 4945.7 kg of particulate organic carbon (POC) 

and 11156.2 kg of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) from Ware Creek marsh 

(Table 15). From Carter Creek there was a net loss of 11654.6 kg of POC and 

a net loss of 2535.1 kg of DOC (Table 16). Assumin2that the annual net 

angiosperm productions of the marshes were 562 glm for Ware Creek and 

572 g/m 2 for Carter Creek as determined by Mendelssohn (1973) during 

1971-72, then 12.4% of this production was exported from Ware Creek in the 

particulate form and 28.0% as DOC. In Carter Creek, 40.7% was exported as 

POC while only 8.9% was lost from the marsh as DOC (Table 17). 

Living carbon as estimated from the ratio of ATP to cellular carbon was equal 

to 0.5% of the net angiosperm production of Ware Creek (Table 17) and 1.8% 

of the Carter Creek production. These non-detrital fractions are equal to 8.4% 

32 

33 
and 8.7% of the annual export of POC from Ware and Carter creeks 

respectively. 

DISCUSSIOI\l 

Phosphorus Flux Through the Salt Marsh Ecosystem 

The observed negative correlations between dissolved phosphorus concentrations, tide height, and water flow, along with the significant annual exports 

of dissolved inorganic and dissolved organic phosphorus from Ware Creek and 

Carter Creek marshes, suggest a release of dissolved phosphorus from marsh 

soils to the water column. This exchange may be mediated by phosphorus 

cycling within the salt marsh community (Pomeroy et al., 1969; Pomeroy, 

1960; Kuenzler, 1961; Marples, 1966; Reimold, 1972), or by sediment-water 

equilibrum processes (Pomeroy et al., 1965; Upchurch, 1972). However, 

Pomeroy, Shenton, Jones, and Reimold, (1972) have indicated that metabolic 

processes predominate over sorption phenomena in the cycl ing of phosphorus 

within salt marsh-estuarine environments. With this information, and considering that: 1) the annual net output of dissolved phosphorus species from 

Ware Creek and Carter Creek marshes was exceeded by the annual net input 

of particulate phosphorus to the marshes, 2) sediments are accreting in salt 

marshes (Redfield, 1972, Meade, 1972) and salt marsh sediments are rich in 

phosphorus (Maye, 1972; Mendelssohn, 1973), 3) calculated atmospheric 

inputs of phosphorus to Ware Creek and Carter Creek marshes were small 

(Chapin and Uttormark, 1973), and 4) terrestrial influence on Ware Creek 

and Carter Creek marshes was negligible; a salt marsh phosphorus flux scheme 

can be hypothesized. The resultant annual phosphorus cycle is characterized 

by influx of estuarine particulate phosphorus to marsh sediments followed by 

biotic mineralization of a fraction of the particulate phosphorus compartment of the marsh and subsequent efflux of dissolved phosphorus from 

the marsh to the estuary. 

The observed phosphorus concentration and transport trends of Ware Creek 

and Carter Creek marshes can be explained within the context of this 

hypothesis by considering environmental parameters and the findings of other 

researchers. Elevated dissolved phosphorus concentrations in Georgia salt 

marsh waters have been ascribed to both heterotrophic degradation of 

Spartina detritus (Pomeroy et al., 1969) and to pumping of dissolved 

inorganic phosphorus from subsurface sediments by S. alterniflora, followed 

by release to marsh waters via guttation (Reimold, 1972; Pomeroy et al., 

1972). Pomeroy et al. (1972) further stated that because heterotrophic 

respiration in these salt marsh-estuarine environments is approximately equal 

in summer and winter, increased summer dissolved inorganic phosphorus 

concentrations of marsh waters are a result of increased rates of Spartina 

guttation. However, dissolved phosphorus concentrations of Ware Creek and 

34 

35 
Carter Creek marsh waters related better to degree of sediment-water contact, 

as inferred from dissolved phosphorus concentration, water flow and tide 

height correlations, than to Spartina alterniflora standing crop. Therefore, 

ingestion of detritus and associated microorganisms by marsh meiobenthos 

followed by excretion of dissolved inorganic and dissolved organic 

phosphorus by meiobenthos with diffusion of this phosphorus from marsh 

soils to the water column would appear to be the mechanism of primary 

importance in the movement of dissolved phosphorus all year in these 

marshes. The generally greater exports of dissolved phosphorus from the 

marshes in summer could be a result of increased temperature causing biotic 

mineralization rates to further increase over rates of dissolved phosphorus 

assimilation by photautotrophs and Spartina detritus-degrading microorganisms. 

The greater annual efflux of dissolved inorganic phosphorus from 

Carter Creek as compared to Ware Creek marsh was a result of the influx of 

dissolved inorganic phosphorus to Ware Creek during fall. These differences 

imply that marshes may vary with respect to nutrient flux. However, the 

September and October phosphorus inputs to Ware Creek were also 

associated with elevated dissolved inorganic phosphorus concentrations in 

Ware Creek at high slack water (reflecting estuarine concentrations) that 

exceeded low slack water concentrations. The fact that for essentially all 

other sampled Ware Creek and Carter Creek tidal cycles, dissolved inorganic 

phosphorus concentrations at low slack water were greater than high slack 

water concentrations and dissolved inorganic phosphorus was exported from 

the marshes, indicates that salt marsh sediments and biota may act to buffer 

estuarine waters with respect to dissolved inorganic phosphorus as suggested 

by Pomeroy et al., (1965). Significant net input of dissolved inorganic 

phosphorus into Ware Creek was also observed over the post-Hurricane Agnes 

tidal cycle of July, 1972. While this seemingly abnormal phosphorus influx to 

Ware Creek may have been a result of the hurricane, the rain storm over the 

corresponding Carter Creek July sampling negated any opportunity of 

observing a residual effect of Agnes on Carter Creek. However, the Carter 

Creek July rainstorm did serve to reaffirm the hypothesis contending that 

metabolic processes predominate over sediment-water equilibrium processes 

in the release of dissolved inorganic phosphorus to marsh waters. This was 

evidenced by the apparently normal dissolved inorganic phosphorus concentrations and exports over the July tidal cycle in spite of the large quantities of 

marsh sediments that were suspended in the marsh water column. 

Tidal variation in particulate phosphorus concentrations of Ware Creek and 

Carter Creek marsh waters was primarily a function of marsh physiography 

and tidal distribution of current velocities. Seasonal differences in salt marsh 

particulate phosphorus concentrations and flux can be explained on the basis 

of seasonal changes in marsh angiosperm detrital export and temporal 

variation in estuarine detrital and phytoplankton concentrations. 

Mendelssohn (1973) found significantly greater angiosperm litter standing 

crop in Ware Creek as compared to Carter Creek in the spring, but equally 

low angiosperm litter standing crops in the marshes in late summer. The fact 

that the annual angiosperm productivities of the two marshes were equivalent 

(Mendelssohn, 1973) swggests that Ware Creek marsh exported much of its 

angiosperm biomass in spring and summer while Carter Creek marsh exported 

more detritus in fall and winter. In general agreement with these observations 

were the Ware Creek export of particulate phosphorus in spring and summer 

(with the exception of the post-hurricane July tidal cycle), and the Carter 

Creek export of particulate phosphorus in fall. The large influx of particulate 

phosphorus to Ware Creek in fall may have indicated that this marsh served as 

a sink for detritus generated by other marshes or by a possible autumn 

estuarine phytoplankton die off. The fact that Carter Creek had significantly 

lower mean annual dead angiosperm standing crop than Ware Creek, while the 

two marshes had equivalent annual angiosperm productivities (Mendelssohn, 

1973), may indicate that Carter Creek exported much of its angiosperm 

production shortly after its death. Seasonal particulate phosphorus transport 

trends of Carter Creek support this conclusion in that particulate phosphorus 

was exported only in fall even though estuarine detrital concentrations were 

high at that time, and estuarine particulate phosphorus inputs to the marsh 

exceeded marsh particulate phosphorus outputs over the remainder of the 

year. In light of the apparent dissimilar seasonal patterns of angiosperm 

detritus export from these two marshes of differing salinity regime and floral 

composition, it is to be expected that seasonal variation in influx-efflux of 

particulate material from a given salt marsh will be influenced by the seasonal 

patterns of angiosperm detritus export from other salt marshes within the 

same estuarine system. 

Considering all three phosphorus species, the annual budgets indicated 

significantly greater import of phosphorus to Ware Creek than to Carter 

Creek marsh. This discrepancy is largely due to the great efflux of particulate 

phosphorus from Carter Creek over the July storm tidal cycle. The storm 

undoubtedly had a disproportionate influence on the calculated annual 

phosphorus budget due to the fact that rain storms of equally great 

magnitude did not constitute as large a fraction of the year's tidal cycles as 

they did of the sampled tidal cycles. Were the particulate phosphorus 

transport over this July tidal cycle commensurate to either the June or 

August Carter Creek particulate phosphorus imports, the net annual inputs of 

36 37 
ohosphorus to Ware Creek and Carter Creek would have been more 

~omparable. However, it is not meant to discount the obvious perturbation in 

particulate phosphorus flux through salt marshes induced by storms. Though 

it is probable that the substantial detrital efflux from salt marshes over storm 

tidal cycles is followed by d.etrital influx to the marshes over succeeding tidal 

cycles, as elevated estuarine seston concentrations again attain equilibrium 

levels, the quantitative aspects of storm induced detrital export from salt 

marshes over the long term remains to be elucidated. 

Nitrogen Flux through the Salt Marsh Ecosystem 

The magnitude of annual input or output of nitrogen to or from the salt 

marsh ecosystem is controlled by the seasonally varying rates in the 

concomitant processes of nitrogen assimilation, nitrogen mineralization 

(ammonification, autolysis, and excretion), nitrification, dissimilatory 

nitrogen r~duction, and nitrogen fixation in the marsh and estuarine systems. 

Ware Creek and Carter Creek nitrogen flux data indicate that the annual salt 

marsh nitrogen cycle is characterized by 1) import of estuarine particulate 

nitrogen to the marsh from the estuary, 2) fixation of molecular nitrogen by 

marsh flora, 3) spring-summer ammonia export and year round dissolved 

organic nitrogen export from the marsh to the estuary, 4) fall, or fall and 

winter import of ammonia to the marsh from the estuary, and 5) year round 

nitrate and nitrite import to the marsh from the estuary. 

The year round influx of both nitrate and nitrite to Ware Creek and Carter 

Creek could have been a result of photoautotrophic and bacterial nitrate and 

nitrite assimilation or bacterial dissimilatory nitrogen reduction in the 

marshes. Assimilation of these nitrogen species by marsh angiosperms, 

phytoplankton, edaphic and epiphytic algae undoubtedly accounts for some 

of the nitrate and nitrite import to the marshes. The increased fall, winter, 

and spring nitrate and nitrite import to the marsh could possibly be due to 

the increased nitrogen assimilation by marsh edaphic algae occurring at this 

time. This is a result of decreased marsh angiosperm standing crop allowing 

greater light penetration to the marsh soil and yielding increased edaphic algal 

production (Gallagher, 1971). Assimilation of nitrate and nitrite by 

microorganisms utilizing nitrogen poor Spartina detritus as an energy source 

could also explain the nitrate and nitrite imports to the marsh (Thayer, 1969; 

Ustach, 1969), Decreased nitrate and nitrite import to the marsh in summer 

might thus be a result of the lower organic carbon concentrations of marsh 

soils in summer causing a reduction in bacterial activity (Day, Smith, Wagner, 

and Stowe, 1973). However, considering the large denitrifying bacterial 

populations of salt marsh sediments (Daiber and Gooch, 1968), the rapid rate 

of denitrification as compared to assimilation (Painter, 1970), the high 

concentrations of ammonia in salt marsh waters and the preferential 

assimilation of ammonia-nitrogen by bacteria and photoautotrophs (Painter, 

1970; Riley and Chester, 1971), it is hypothesized that nitrate losses to the 

marshes were predominatly due to denitrification. Further evidence of the 

significance of denitrification in salt marshes was provided by data indicating 

high rates of bacterial dissimilatory sulfate reduction in marsh soils (Gooch, 

1968), a process which does not occur to a large extent until denitrification 

has depleted nitrate and nitrite (Horne, 1969). 

Assuming that denitrification is of significance in marshes, the quantitative 

aspect of nitrate loss to Ware Creek and Carter Creek would be primarily a 

function of the importance of denitrification as opposed to nitrification in 

the marshes. The relative significance of these processes is dependent on the 

biochemical reaction rates as well as the abundance of the microorganisms 

responsible for denitrification and nitrification. Biochemical reaction rates 

and population densities of these bacteria are influenced by many factors, 

some of which are temperature, and availability of ammonia, nitrate, nitrite 

and organic carbon. Though nitrification and denitrification rates of several 

bacterial species have been found to increase with increasing temperatures to 

rate maxima at about 30°C (Dawson and Murphy, 1972; Painter, 1970), 

increased temperatures also correlate with increased estuarine phytoplankton 

productivity and decreased estuarine and consequently salt marsh nitrate 

concentrations (Figures 7, 16, 17,26,27,28, and 29). Thus, the relative 

seasonal importance of the processes of denitrification and nitrification is not 

clear. 

The fact that the processes of nitrification an.d denitrification require 

different environments within the marshes explains the seeming paradox of 

nitrate import to the marshes though low slack water nitrate concentrations 

were greater than high slack water concentrations (May to September in Ware 

Creek, and June to November in Carter Creek). The greater annual import of 

nitrate to Ware Creek than to Carter Creek together with the annual export of 

ammonia from Ware Creek and the annual import of ammonia to Carter 

Creek indicate that nitrification may have been of greater importance in 

Carter Creek than in Ware Creek marsh. 

Ammonia concentrations in the waters of Ware Creek and Carter Creek 

marshes were significantly higher than York River estuarine ammonia 

concentrations as measured by Patten and Lacey (1961). Marsh ammonia 

concentrations correlated positively with dissolved inorganic phosphorus and 

concentrations of both nutrients correlated negatively with tide height such 

38 39 
that the monthly marsh fluxes of the two nutrients were most often in the 

same direction. A cycle explaining these phenomena is the grazing of 

meiobenthos on detritus and associated microorganisms with concurrent 

release of ammonia and dissolved inorganic phosphorus via excretion. The 

generally greater later spring and summer exports of ammonia from the 

marshes could thus be a result of the temperature dependence of metabolism. 

Variation in the flux direction between ammonia and dissolved inorganic 

phosphorus may have been due to seasonal differences in the relative 

adsorption of ammonia and dissolved inorganic phosphorus on sediments, in 

detrital nitrogen to phosphorus ratios, in relative assimilation of ammonia 

versus phosphorus by photautotrophs, and in nitrification rates. Though 

nitrification has been theorized as the cause of ammonia loss to the marshes 

in fall-winter, uptake of nutrients by marsh photoautotrophs or Thayer's 

(1974) hypothesis that Spartina detritus degrading microorganisms assimilate 

dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus from marsh waters, also provide possible 

explanations for the fall ammonia and dissolved inorganic phosphorus 

imports to Ware Creek and the fall-winter ammonia imports to Carter Creek. 

While these theories are plausible, the detection of increased nitrifying 

bacterial population densities from summer to fall (Daiber and Gooch, 1968) 

also evinces nitrification as a possible mechanism for the ammonia losses to 

the marshes in fall-winter. However, the influx of nitrate as well as ammonia 

to the marshes at this time indicates that a nitrogen cycling reaction in 

addition to nitrification was transpiring in the marshes. In light of the 

findings of Patrick and Tusneem (1972), that a significant amount of 

ammonia was lost from flooded soils through nitrification followed by 

denitrification, it is proposed that in Ware Creek and Carter Creek marshes, 

estuarine ammonia was oxidized to nitrate and nitrite in aerobic sediments, 

then with anaerobiosis of the sediments as a result of rising tide, or diffusion 

of nitrate and nitrite to anoxic sediments, nitrate and nitrite were denitrified 

to molecular nitrogen. 

The significant correlation between dissolved organic nitrogen and dissolved 

organic phosphorus concentrations in Ware Creek and Carter Creek marsh 

waters along with the annual export of both nutrient species from the 

marshes suggest that like mechanisms were responsible for their production 

and export. Since evidence has been presented that marsh dissolved organic 

phosphorus export were a result of excretion by marsh heterotrophs, it is also 

possible that the excretion of dissolved organic nitrogen (urea, uric acid, 

amines, amino acids) by marine heterotrophs (Webb and Johannes, 1967; 

Campbell, 1973; Stanier, Doudoroff and Adelberg, 1963) was responsible for 

the dissolved organic nitrogen exports from the marshes. Thus, the generally 

greater late spring and summer dissolved organic nitrogen efflux from the 

marshes could have been a result of the increased biotic activity at that time. 

The extremely high correlations between particulate nitrogen and particulate 

phosphorus concentrations in Ware Creek and Carter Creek waters and the 

generally parallel monthly transport trends of these nitrogen and phosphorus 

forms, indicate that flux of detrital nitrogen was controlled primarily by the 

processes influencing detrital phosphorus inputs and outputs to and from the 

marshes. However, while there was annual net input of particulate 

phosphorus to both marshes and particulate nitrogen input to Carter Creek, 

Ware Creek was essentially at steady state with respect to particulate 

nitrogen. Possible reasons for these differences are the seasonally varying ratio 

of nitrogen to phosphorus in marsh and estuarine detrital materials and the 

differences in relative adsorption of nitrogen and phosphorus on sediments. 

The annual imports of particulate phosphorus and import or small export of 

particulate nitrogen to the marshes together with the observed significant 

annual exports of particulate carbon from the marshes suggest that on an 

annual average basis the particulates imported to the marshes from the 

estuary. 

Considering the annual transports of all nitrogen species, there was a net 

export of approximately 400 kg of nitrogen from both Ware Creek and Carter 

Creek marshes to the estuary. Nitrogen inputs to the marshes from rainfall 

would amount to less than 10 kg/ha-yr (Chapin and Uttormark, 1973), or 

140 kg to Ware Creek and 100 kg to Carter Creek marsh. Therefore, a 

significant quantity of the nitrogen output from the marshes must have 

entered the system by a process other than tidal transport or rainfall. The 

detection of nitrogen fixation by bacteria and algae in salt marsh 

environments (Daiber and Gooch, 1968; Green and Edmisten, 1972) suggest 

this process may have been responsible for nitrogen contributions to the 

marshes. Taking the net marsh nitrogen effluxes less the nitrogen inputs from 

rainfall as minimal estimates (since nitrogen outputs via denitrification or 

detrital nitrogen incorporation into marsh sediments are ignored) of the rates 

of nitrogen fixation, Ware Creek marsh fixed 209 J.L9 N/m2-hour and Carter 

Creek marsh fixed 340 J.Lg N/m2-hour. These figures compare well with the 

mean rate of fixation measured by Brooks, Brezonik, Putnam, and Keirn 

(1971) of 3.07 ng N/g sediment-hour in the top 2-5 cm stratum of Florida 

estua~ne sediment.s (sedi~ents actively fixing nitrogen), which, assuming 2.6 

g/cm for estuarine sedIment (Meade, 1972) is equivalent to 239 J.L9 

N/m 2-hour. 

40 41 
Effects of the Salt Marsh Ecosystem on Estuarine Productivity 

The influence of salt marshes on estuarine productivity has been largely 

ascribed to the high productivity of marsh angiosperms, much of which is 

exported to the estuaries where it is the basis for the detritus food web 

(Odum and de la Cruz, 1967; Darnell, 1964; Teal, 1962; Day et al., 1973). 

However, salt marsh nutrient transformations and the resultant marsh 

nutrient budgets, as determined in this study, indicate that the marshes by 

exporting dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus function to sustain the high rate 

of primary production in the estuaries. In doing so, the salt marshes increase 

productivity of the higher trophic levels of the estuary and also serve to 

maintain estuarine community homeostasis (Caperon, Cattell, and Krasnick, 

1971 ). 

Though there were no detectable relationships between phytoplankton 

productivity indices and dissolved inorganic phosphorus and nitrogen 

concentrations in estuarine waters flooding into or ebbing from Ware Creek 

and Carter Creek marshes, the phosphorus and more notably the nitrogen 

limitation of phytoplankton productivity (i.e. the stimulation of 

phytoplankton productivity upon nutrient addition) in the York River 

estuary and other coastal waters is well documented (Fournier, 1966; Thayer, 

1969; Copeland and Hobbie, 1972; Ryther and Dunstan, 1971). Therefore, it 

is significant that the time of peak potential estuarine phytoplankton 

productivity (May to October), Ware Creek and Carter Creek marshes 

displayed greatest export of dissolved inorganic and dissolved organic 

phosphorus, ammonia and dissolved organic nitrogen, nutrient species, 

determined to be assimilable by marine phytoplankton (O'Kelley, 1973;: 

Johannes, 1964; Keeney, 1972; McCarthy, 1972; Hellebust, 1970). Nitrate, 

another nitrogen species utilized by phytoplankton, was imported to the 

marshes year round. However, there are few documented instances in which 

nitrate was assimilated by phytoplankton in the presence of ammoni 

(Harrison, 1973; Eppley, Coatsworth, and Solorzano, 1969) and it i 

generally accepted that ammonia is the nitrogen species preferentiall 

assimilated by marine phytoplankton (Riley and Chester, 1971' 

Furthermore, during the growing season, ammonia exports from the marshe 

to the estuary generally exceeded nitrate imports to the marshes. Therefor 

based on the observed nutrient exports, it is probable that salt marsh: 

promote phytoplankton productivity in estuarine systems. 

There are several ways, in addition to salt marsh nutrient contributions 

the estuary, that the marshes can influence estuarine primary productivi 

For example, the nutrient depleted state of Spartina detritus exported fro 

marshes led Thayer (1969; 1974) to speculate that bacteria utilizing this 

detritus as an energy source must assimilate nitrogen and phosphorus from 

estuarine waters and thereby compete with phytoplankton for nutrients. 

However, it can be argued that these bacteria by converting cellulose into 

organics utilizable by other trophic levels and thus function as primary 

producers. 

Luxury uptake, the uptake of nutrients by phytoplankton in excess of the 

quantities required for optimal growth, has been demonstrated for both 

phosphorus and nitrogen (Foree, Jewell, and McCarthy, 1971). 

Phytoplankton in nutrient rich environments can thus store nutrients for 

utilization at times of low nutrient availability. It has not yet been 

demonstrated, however, whether estuarine phytoplankton tidally transported 

to the marshes can take advantage of the elevation in nutrient concentrations 

brought about by salt marsh nitrogen and phosphorus additions to estuarine 

waters within the marshes. 

There has been much speculation concerning the capability of salt marshes to 

remove excess nitrogen and phosphorus from estuaries receiving municipal 

sewage discharges (Wass and Wright, 1969; Broome, Woodhouse, and Senaca, 

1973; Flemer, 1972; Gosselink, Odum and Pope, in press; Valiela, Teal, and 

Sass, 1973; Nixon and Oviatt, 1973; Grant and Patrick, 1970; Bender and 

Correll, 1974). This study has revealed that natural marshes export dissolved 

nitrogen and phosphorus to the estuaries. It is possible that increased 

estuarine biomass caused by nutrient enrichment of estuaries would result in 

greater estuarine detrital nitrogen and phosphorus imports to the marshes 

with consequent increased export of dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus from 

the marshes. However, this study has also provided evidence that marshes 

serve to buffer estuarine waters with respect to inorganic nitrogen and 

phosphorus. The apparent increase in scale of some marsh nutrient cye! ing 

reactions and reversal in direction of nutrient flux through the marshes in 

response to natural variation in estuarine nitrogen and phosphorus 

concentrations suggest that marshes might, during certain periods of the year, 

function to reduce excessive estuarine nutrient loads. 

Carbon Flux Through the Saltmarsh Ecosystem 

The annual net transport of carbon as determined for both marshes in this 

study indicates that there is a net movement of total organic carbon from 

both areas to the York River throughout much of the year. This data 

supports the work of Odum (1971), Teal and Teal (1969) and others who 

have hypothesized that marshes are a source of organic material for estuaries. 

43 
The calculations presented in Table 17, which indicate the percent net 

angiosperm production exported from the study areas may be biased, 

however, by several factors. These include the fact that marsh grass may 

account for only 65 to 70 percent of the net primary production of the 

system (Stowe, Kirby, Brkich and Gosse/ink, 1971; Udell, Zarudsky and 

Doheny, 1969) and that there may be an import of particulate carbon in the 

form of sediments from the estuary which has not been accounted for in this 

budget (Meade, 1972). 

Although annual net losses of both dissolved and particulate organic carbon 

from both marshes were observed, there was comparatively greater organic 

carbon lost from the Ware Creek study area in the dissolved fraction and 

greater lost from Carter Creek study area in the particulate fraction. These 

results too may be biased to a degree since much of the loss of particulate 

material from Carter Creek occurred during the July storm cycle, an event 

which did not occur during any Ware Creek sampling. 

The sampling during the July cycle, however, presented a good opportunity 

to observe and record the flux of organic material during an extreme 

thunderstorm. Approximately 6.5 times as much pac was recorded lost from 

the marsh during this tidal cycle as during the next highest recorded loss for 

the rest of the year. Hence, erosion of particulate material from the marsh 

surface during rainstorms may playa major role in the loss of organic material 

from the marsh to the estuary. 

Large seasonal variation in loss of pac was not evident from Ware Creek, 

suggesting that most of the plant material remains to decompose on the 

marsh surface. There was significant loss of pac from Carter Creek, however, 

from July through November, indicating possibly more rapid scouring from 

this area. 

Mendelssohn (1973) reported that there was a higher dead standing crop 

throughout the year in Ware Creek marsh as compared to Carter Creek marsh. 

Considering that the net angio-sperm productivities of the two areas were also 

reported by Mendelssohn (1973) as being approximately the same, it is 

further suggested that significantly greater on-marsh decomposition is 

occurring in the Ware Creek study area with a resultant greater loss of DOC to 

the estuary. Our data suggest that a loss of organic material from marshes 

along the York River occurs throughout the enti re size range from dissolved 

to particulate, with those areas having higher dead standing crops losing more 

of their organic production in the dissolved form, while others which may be 

more readily scoured lose much of their material in the particulate form. 

Data from other investigators indicate that maximum loss of marsh grass 

production may occur through different size fractions. Nadeau (1972~ found 

little export of particulate carbon from his Nacote Creek salt m~rsh In Ne~

Jersey. He did not measure the dissolved organic carbon fraction but dId 

collect floating debris which he concluded was lost in large quantities. These 

results are unlike the results reported here and in the work of De la Cruz 

(1965), where floating material was found to be contributing much less to the 

total net export of organic material. These differences may have been due to 

the fact that Nadeau observed significant ice formation within his marsh 

system and significant foraging activities by muskrats and migratory birds. All 

of these could assist in rapid scouring of large material from the marsh. Ice 

formation had been observed by Redfield (1972) and Teal and Teal (1969) to 

be important in the scouring of dead standing material from the more 

northern Atlantic coastal marshes. In the two Virginia marshes reported on in 

this study, ice was observed only during the January, 1973 sampling date in 

Carter Creek. The ice sheet covering the marsh was thin and short-lived, and 

appeared ineffectual in scouring any dead standing plant material. Perhaps 

during unusually cold winters ice may playa more significant role in the 

removal of material from these marshes. 

The measured export of ATP-carbon during twenty of the twenty-three 

sampled tidal cycles indicates that marshes are contributing significant 

amounts of living material to the York River estuary, year-round. Possibly 

this loss of ATP-carbon is largely in the form of benthic algae which are being 

lifted from the marsh surface and exported. Assuming that there is a 

significant year-round production of algae on the marsh surface (Pomeroy, 

1959; Schelske and Odum, 1961) there appears a ready su pply of material for 

export. General microscopic observations of the constituents of the 

particulate matter from these two study marshes revealed that a significant 

fraction of the algae present consists of benthic pennate diatoms that had 

apparently been resuspended by the tidal currents. 

There was generally good agreement between the ATP-carbon flux and Chi a 

flux for both study marshes. The direction and magnitude of the movement 

of these two parameters was compl icated, however, by the fact that the Chi a 

values are uncorrected for phaeophytins. Therefore, subtraction of Chi 

a-carbon from ATP-carbon to determine non-algal "I iving" carbon was not 

possible, During several tidal cycle samplings when the directions of net 

ATP-carbon and Chi a flux did not agree there was significant net movement 

of pac in the same direction as the Chi a. 

I

"' mater/'al for both marshes in the Increases in the standing crop 0 f IVlng 

44 45 
summer were evident. It appears that the ATP bioassay effectively measured 

the living material present in the marsh water. Assuming, for the sake of 

compa.rison, that the ATP was associated only with photosynthesizing algae, 

the p~lmary productivity values determined for a number of the same hourly 

s~mpllng points indicated that only during the January 1972, Ware Creek 

tidal cycle might the ATP-carbon values be considered too low to account for 

the primary production in the water column. 

Increases in the standing crop of living material for both marshes in the 

summer compare, interestingly, with the seasonal variation of ATP levels for 

both marshes (Fig. 47). Maximum concentrations of ATP in the waters 

flushing the Ware Creek study area occurred during the July sampling, while 

ATP levels in the Carter Creek waters reached a maximum during August. Fall 

die-off of living material as measured by the ATP levels again occurred earlier 

in Ware Creek and appears to parallel the somewhat different growing seasons 

and periods of peak marsh production recorded by Mendelssohn (1973) for 

these same marshes. He found that the Ware Creek allgiosperm plant 

community matured by the middle of July but that the Carter Creek plant 

community did not mature until the middle of September. This variation in 

angiosperm production between the two marsh areas was explained by the 

fac~ that the Ware Creek plant community contains many freshwater species 

which reach peak standing crops in May and June. Comparison of the 

ATP-carbon values with those of water temperature suggests that the 

dissimilar seasonal trends between the two marshes found in this study were 

not temperature related. 

SUMMARY 

Annual nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon budgets for two Virginia salt 

marshes were determined by monthly measurements of water discharge and 

constituent concentrations over tidal cycles. 

Phosphorus Cycle 

In both Spartina cynosuroides dominated Ware Creek marsh and Spartina 

a/terniflora dominated Carter Creek marsh, the phosphorus cycle was 

characterized by elevated summer phosphorus concentrations. Dissolved 

inorganic phosphorus was exported from Carter Creek to the estuary 

throughout the year and from Ware Creek except during fall. Over a year 

there was net dissolved inorganic phosphorus export from both marshes to 

the York River estuary. Dissolved organic phosphorus was exported from 

both marshes at all times during the year, but on an annual basis particulate 

phosphorus was lost from the estuary to the marshes. Considering all three 

phosphorus forms, there was net phosphorus loss from the estuary to the 

marshes. This phosphorus budget suggests a cycle of both loss of estuarine 

particulate phosphorus to marsh sediments and mineralization of estuarine 

particulate phosphorus in the marshes with subsequent 'export of dissolved 

inorganic and organic phosphorus to the estuary. 

Nitrogen Cycle 

The salt marsh nitrogen cycle was characterized by elevated winter nitrite and 

nitrate levels and elevated summer ammonia, dissolved organic nitrogen, and 

particulate nitrogen concentrations. Nitrate and nitrite were lost to both 

marshes from the estuary throughout the year. Ammonia was exported from 

Ware Creek except during fall and imported to Carter Creek except during 

spring. On an annual basis there was a strong export of ammonia to Carter 

Creek. Dissolved organic nitrogen was exported from both marshes at all 

times during the year while particulate nitrogen was exported only during fall 

and winter. Annually there was a strong net export of dissolved organic 

nitrogen from both marshes and a net import of particulate nitrogen into 

Carter Creek from the estuary, while in Ware Creek there was a small net 

export of particulate nitrogen. 

Nitrogen flux data thus indicate a cycle of loss of nitrate and nitrite to both 

marshes via denitrification and conversion to molecular nitrogen. Particulate 

nitrogen imported to the marshes from the estuary is mineral ized ·and 

returned to the estuary as ammonia and dissolved organic nitrogen. Ammonia 

46 

47 
entering the marshes from the estuary is nitrified to produce nitrate and then 

perhaps denitrified. Considering all nitrogen species, there is a strong net 

export of nitrogen from the marsh to the estuary. This suggests significant 

fixation of atmospheric nitrogen by marsh flora and subsequent export of 

some of this nitrogen. 

Detritus 

Concentrations of seston in the water generally followed seasonal trends. 

Particulate organic carbon, dissolved inorganic carbon and dissolved organic 

carbon levels were highest in the summer and early fall and lowest in the late 

winter and early spring. ATP levels and chlorophyll 'a' concentrations 

indicated that much of the standing crop of Iiving material in the water was 

autotroph ic. 

Flux calculations indicated a net export of carbon from the marshes. In Ware 

Creek the majority of the carbon was exported in the dissolved organic form, 

while the major portion exported from Carter Creek was in the particulate 

form. 

Impact on Water. Quality 

The salt marsh ecosystem thus influences estuarine primary productivity by 

mineralizing particulate organic nitrogen and phosphorus of estuarine origin, 

exporting these nutrients in a dissolved form that can be assimilated by 

estuarine autotrophs. 

Organic carbon is exported to the estuary in both dissolved and PClrticulate 

form. The extent to which this material is utilized by specific autotrophs, 

heterotrophs and other consumers is not known. However, it would seem 

reasonable to assume that this contribution adds significantly to the 

productive potential of the estuary by supplying a source of energy. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Aurand, D. 1968. The seasonal and spatial distribution of nitrate and nitrite 

in the surface waters of two Delaware salt marshes. M.S. Thesis, 

University of Delaware. 141 pp. 

Aurand, D., and F. C. Daiber. 1973. Nitrate and nitrite in the surface waters 

of two Delaware salt marshes. Chesapeake Sci. 14: 105-111. 

Bender, M. E., and D. L. Correll. 1974. The use of wetlands as nutrient 

removal systems. Chesapeake Res. Consortium, Inco Baltimore, Md. 

Pub. No. 29. 

Boon, J. D. 1974. Sediment transport processes in a salt marsh drainage 

system. Ph.D. thesis. College of William and Mary. 226 pp. 

Blum, J. L. 1969. Nutrient changes in water flooding the high salt marsh. 

Hydrobiologia 34: 95-99. 

Brooks, R. H., P. L. Brezonik, H. D. Putnam, and M. A. Keirn. 1971. 

Nitrogen fixation in an estuarine environment: the Waccasassa on the 

Florida gulf coast. Limnol. Oceanogr. 16: 701-710. 

Woodhouse and E. D. Senaca. 1973. An investigation Broome, S . W., W. W., . . 

of propagation and mineral nutrition of Spartina alterniflora. University 

of North Carolina Sea Grant Publ. UNC-SG-73-14. 121 pp. 

Burkholder, P. R. and G. H. Bornside. 1957. Decomposition of marsh grass 

by aerobic marine bacteria. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, 84: 366-383. 

Byrne, R. J. and J. D. Boon. 1973. An inexpensive fast response current 

speed indicator. Chesapeake Sci. 14: 217-219. 

Nutrient exchange between high marsh areas and an Byron, M..M 1968.
 

estuary. Master's thesis. North Carol ina State University. 22 pp.
 

1973 Nitrogen excretion. Pages 279-317 in C. L. Prosser, ed. CampbeII , J.,W . . . 

Comparative animal physiology. W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 

Cattell and G. Krasnick. 1971. Phytoplankton kinetics in a S A 

subtropical estuary: eutrophication. Llmnol. Oceanogr. 16. 579-60 " 

Cape ron, J. .,., .' . 7 

49 

48 
Chapin, J. D., and P. D. Uttormark. 1973. Atmospheric contributions of 

nitrogen and phosphorus. University of Wisconsin Water Resour. Tech. 

Rep. WIS-WRC-73-2. 35 pp. 

Copeland, B. J. and J. E. Hobbie. 1972. Phosphorus and eutrophication in the 

Pamlico River estuary, North Carolina, 1966-1969, a summary. North 

Carolina Water Resour. Res. Inst. Rep. No. 65. 86 pp. 

Correll, D. L., M. A. Faust, and D. J. Severn. In press. Phosphorus flux and 

cycling in estuaries. IntI. Estuarine Res. Conf. Myrtle Beach, S. C., 

1973. 

Cummins, K. W., R. C. Peterson, F. O. Howard, J. C. Wuycheck and V. I. 

Holt. 1973. The utilization of leaf litter by stream detritivores. Ecology 

54: 336-345. 

Daiber, F. C., D. Aurand, and G. Shlopak. 1969. Tide marsh ecology and 

wildlife. University of Delaware annual Pittman- Robertson report to 

the Delaware Board of game and fish commissioners. 82 pp. 

Daiber, F. C., J. L. Gallagher, and M. J. Sullivan. 1970. Tide marsh ecology 

and wildlife. University of Delaware annual Pittman-Robertson report 

to the Delaware board of game and fish commissioners. 92 pp. 

Daiber, F. C., and E. L.Gooch. 1968. Production and release of nutrients 

from the sediments of the tidal marshes of Delaware. University of 

Delaware annual Pittman-Robertson report to the Delaware board of 

game and fish commissioners. 93 pp. 

Darnell, R. M. 1964. Organic detritus in relation to secondary productivity in 

aquatic communities. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 15: 462-470. 

Darnell, R. M. 1958. Food habits of fishes and larger invertebrates of Lake 

Pontchartrain, Louisiana, an estuarine community. Pubis. Inst. Mar. 

Sci., Univ. Texas 5: 353-416. 

Darnell, R. M. 1961. Trophic spectrum of an estuarine community based on 

studies of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana. Eco!., 43: 553-568. 

Darnell, R. M. 1967a. Organic detritus in relation to the estuarine ecosystem. 

In Estuaries, G. Lauff (ed.). Am. Assoc. Advmt. Sci. Pub\. (83): 

376-382. 

Dawson, R. N., and K. L. Murphy. 1972. The temperature dependency of 

biological den itrification. Water Res. 6: 71-83. 

Day, J. W., W. G. Smith, P. R. Wagner, and W. C. Stowe. 1973. Community 

structure and carbon budget of a salt marsh and shallow bay estuarine 

system in Louisiana. Publ. 1\10. LSU-SG-72-04. Center for Wetlands 

Resources. Louisiana State University. 80 pp. 

De la	 Cruz, A. A. 1965. A study of particulate organic detritus in a Georgia 

salt marsh estuarine system. Ph.D. thesis University of Georgia, Athens. 

110 p. 

Dixon, W. J. ed. 1968. DMD biomedical computer programs. University of 

California Press, Berkley and Los Angeles, Cal if. 600 pp. 

Egglishaw, H. J. 1964. The distributional relationship between the bottom 

fauna and plant detritus in streams. J. Animal Ecology 33: 463-476. 

Eppley, R. W., J. L. Coatsworth, and L. Sol.orzano. 1969. Studies of nitrate 

reductase in marine phytoplankton. Limno\. Oceanogr. 14: 194-205. 

Flemer, D. A. 1972. Current Status of knowledge concerning the cause and 

biological effects of eutrophication in Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Sci. 

13-supplement: 144-149. 

Fournier, R. O. 1966. Some implications of nutrient enrichment on different 

temporal stages of a phytoplankton community. Chesapeake Sci. 7: 

11-19. 

Fox,	 D. L. 1950. Comparative metabol ism of organic detritus by inshore 

animals. Ecology 31: 100-108. 

Gallagher, J. L. 1971. Algal productivity and some aspects of the ecological 

physiology of the edaphic communities of Canary Creek tidal marsh. 

Ph. D. Thesis. University of Delaware. 120 pp. 

Gooch, E. L. 1968. Hydrogen sulfide production and its effect on inorganic 

phosphate release from Canary Creek marsh. M. S. Thesis. University of 

Delaware. 61 pp. 

Gosselink, J. G., E. P. Odum, and R. M. Pope. In press. The value of the t{dal 

marsh. Water Resour. Res. 

50 51 
Grant, R. R., and R. Patrick. 1970. Tinicum marsh as a water purifier. Pages 

105-123 in Two studies of Tinicum Marsh. The Conservation 

Foundation, Washington, D.C. 

Green, P., and J. Edmisten. 1972. Nitrogen fixation in salt marshes near 

Pensacola, Florida. Assoc. of Southeastern Biologists Bull. 19: 71. 

Hall,	 K. J., W. C. Weiner and G. F. Lee, 1970. Amino Acids in an estuarine 

environment. Limnol. and Oceanogr., 15: 162-164. 

Hamilton, R. D. and O. Holm-Hansen. 1967. ATP content of marine bacteria. 

Limnol. and Oceanogr. 12: 319-324. 

Harrison, W. G. 1973. Nitrate reductase activity duri ng a dinoflagellate 

bloom. Limnol. Oceanogr. 18: 457-465. 

Heald, E. J. 1969. The production of organic detritus in a South Florida 

estuary. Ph.D. thesis. University of Miami, Miami. 111 p. 

Hellebust, J. A. 1970. The uptake and util ization of organic substances by 

marine phytoplankters. Pages 225-256 in D. W. Hood, ed. Symposium 

on organic matter in natural waters. University of Alaska Institute of 

Marine Science Occ. Publ. No.1. 

Ho, C. L., and J. Lane. 1973. Interstitial water composition in Barataria Bay 

(Louisiana) sediment. Estuarine and Coastal Mar. Sci. 1: 125-135. 

Holm-Hansen and C. R. Booth, 1966. The measurement of ATP in the ocean 

and its ecological significance. Limnol. and Oceanogr. 11: 510-519. 

Horne, R. A. 1969. Marine chemistry: the structure of water and the 

chemistry of the hydrosphere. Wiley-Interscience, New York, N. Y. 568 

pp. 

Jannasch, H. W., 1954. Okolog. Unters. d. Planktischen Bacterienflora im 

Golf v. I\leapel. Naturewissenshaften, 41. 

Johannes, R. E., 1964. Uptake and release of dissolved phosphorus by 

representatives of a coastal marine environment. Limnol. Oceanogr. 9: 

224-234. 

Johannes, R. E. and M. Satomi. 1966. Composition and nutritive value of 

fecal pellets of a marine crustacean. Limnol. Oceanogr. 11: 191-197. 

Kahailov, K. M. and Z. Z. Finenko. 1970. Organic macromolecular 

compounds dissolved in sea-water and their inclusion into food chains. 

In Marine Food Chains. J. H. Steele (ed.): 6-18. 

Kaushik, 1\1. K. and H. B. N. Hynes. 1968. The fate of dead leaves that fall 

into streams. Arch. Hydrobiol. 68: 465-515. 

Kenney, D. R. 1972. The fate of nitrogen in aquatic systems. University of 

Wisconsin Eutrophication Info. Prog. Lit. Rev. No.3. 59 pp. 

Kirby, C. J. 1971. The annual net primary production and decomposition of 

the salt marsh grass, Spartina altemiflora, Loisel in the Barataria Bay 

estuary of Louisiana. Ph.D. Dissertation. Louisiana State University. 

Kuenzler, E. J. 1961. Phosphorus budget of a mussel population. Limnol. 

Oceanogr. 6: 400-415. 

Marples, T. G. 1966. A radionucl ide study of arthropod food chains in a 

Spartina salt marsh ecosystem. Ecology 47: 270-277. 

Maye, P. R. 1972. Some important inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus species 

in Georgia salt marsh. Georgia Institute of Technology Off. of Water 

Resour. Res. Proj. No. B-033-Ga. 60 pp. 

McCarthy, J. J. 1972. The uptake of urea by natural populations of marine 

phytoplankton. Limnol. Oceanogr. 17: 738-748. 

Meade, R. H. 1972. Sources and sinks of suspended matter on continental 

shelves. Pages 249-262 in Swift, Duane and Pilkey, eds. Shelf sediment 

transport. Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross Inc. Stroudsburg, Pa. 

Mendelssohn, I. A. 1973. Angiosperm production of three Virginia marshes in 

various salinity and soil nutrient regimes. M. S. Thesis. College of 

William and Mary. 102 pp. 

Menzel, D. W. 1966. Bubbling of sea water and the production of organic 

particles: a re-evaluation. Deep-Sea Research 13: 963-966. 

52 53 
Minshall, G. W. 1967. Role of allochthonous detritus in the trophic structure 

of a woodland spring brook community. Ecology 48: 139-149. 

Nadeau, R. J. 1972. Primary production and export of plant materials in the 

saltmarsh ecosystem. Ph. D. dissertation. Rutgers University. 166 p. 

Nelson, D. J. and D. C. Scott. 1962. Role of detritus in the productivity of a 

rockoutcrop community in a Piedmont stream. Limnol. Oceanogr. 7: 

396-413. 

Nixon, S. W., and C. A. Oviatt. 1973. Analysis of local variation in the 

standing crop of Spartina a/temit/ora. Bot. Mar. 16: 103-109. 

Odum, E. P., and A. A. de la Cruz. 1967. Particulate organic detritus in a 

Georgia salt marsh-estuarine ecosystem. Pages 383-388 in G. H. Lauff 

ed. Estuaries. Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Pub!. No. 83. Washington, D. C. 

Odum, E. P. and A. E. Smalley. 1959. Comparison of population energy flow 

of a herbivorous and a deposit-feeding invertebrate in a salt marsh 

ecosystem. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 45: 617-622. 

Odum, W. E. 1970. Pathways of energy flow in a South Florida estuary. 

Ph.D. thesis, University of Miami, Miami. 163 p. 

Odum, E.P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. W. B. Saunders, Third Edition: 

352-362. 

O'Kelley, J. C. 1973. Phosphorus nutrition of algae. Pages 443-450 in E. J. 

Griffith, A. Beeton, J. M. Spencer, and D. T. Mitchell, eds. 

Environmental phosphorus handbook. Wiley-Interscience, New York, 

N.Y. 

Paeri, H. J. Detritus in Lake Tahoe, 1973. Structural modification by 

attached microflora. Science 180: 496-498. 

Painter, H. A. 1970. A review of literature on inorganic nitrogen metabolism 

in microorganisms. Water Res. 4: 393-450. 

Patrick, W. H.,.. and M. E. Tusneem. 1972. Nitrogen loss from flooded soil. 

Ecology 53: 735-737. 

Patten, B. C., and J. R. Lacey. 1961. Distribution of ammonia in the lower 

York River, Virginia, Spring, 1961. Virginia Institute of Marine Science 

Spec. Sci. Rep. No. 25. 

Pattullo, J., Munk, W., Revelle, R. and E. Strong. 1955. The seasonal 

oscillation in sea level. J. Mar. Res. 14: 88-155. 

Pomeroy, L. R. 1959. Algal productivity in salt marshes of Georgia. Limnol. 

and Oceanogr. 4: 386-397. 

Pomeroy, L. R. 1960. Residence time of dissolved phosphorus in natural 

waters. Science 131: 1731-1732. 

Pomeroy, L. R., R. E. Johannes, E. P. Odum, and B. Roffman. 1969. The 

phosphorus and zinc cycles and productivity of a salt marsh. Pages 

412-419 in D. J. Nelson and F. C. Evans eds. Symposium on 

radioecology. U. S. Atomic Energy Comm., Ecol. Soc. of Amer., and 

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 

Pomeroy, L. R., L. R. Shenton, R. D. H. Jones, and R. J. Reimold. 1972. 

Nutrient flux in estuaries. Pages 274-291 in G. Likens ed. Nutrients and 

eutrophication. Amer. Soc. Limnol. Oceanog., Spec. Symp. No.1. 

Allen Press Inc., Lawrence, Kan. 

Pomeroy, L. R., E. E. Smith, and C. M. Grant. 1965. The exchange of 

phosphate between estuarine water and sediments. Limnol. Oceanogr. 

10: 167-172. 

Redfield, A. C. 1972. Development of a New England salt marsh. Ecol. 

Monogr. 42: 201-237. 

Reimold, R. J. 1969. Evidence for dissolved phosphorus hypereutrophication 

in various types of manipulated salt marshes of Delaware. Ph.D. Thesis. 

University of Delaware. 169 pp. 

Reimold, R. J. 1972. The movement of phosphorus through the salt marsh 

cord grass, Spartinaa/terf/ora Loisel. Limnol Oceanogr. 17: 606-611. 

Reimoid, R. J., and F. C. Daiber. 1970. Dissolved phosphorus concentrations 

in a natural salt marsh of Delaware. Hydrobiologia 36: 361-367. 

54 55 
Rhyther, J. H., and W. M. Dunstan. 1971. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and 

eutrophication in the coastal marine environment. Science 171: 

1003-1013. 

Riley, J. P., and R. Chester. 1971. Introduction to Marine Chemistry. 

Academic Press, New York, N. Y. 465 pp. 

Riley, G. A. 1963. Organic aggregates in seawater and the dynamics of their 

formation and utilization. Limno. and Oceanogr. 8: 372-381. 

Rodina, A. G. 1963. Microbiology of detritus of lakes. Limno. and Oceanogr. 

8: 388-393. 

Schelske, C. L. and E. P. Odum. 1961. Mechanism maintaining high 

productivity in Georgia estuaries. Proc. of the Gulf and Carib. Fish. 

Inst. Nov. 1961: 75-80. 

Snedecor, G. W., and W. G. Cochran. 1967. Statistical methods. Iowa State 

University Press, Ames, Iowa. 593 pp. 

Stephens, G. C. and R. A. Schinske. 1961. Uptake of amino acids by marine 

invertebrates. Limno. and Oceanogr. 6: 175-181. 

Stephens, G. C. 1967. Dissolved organic material as a nutritional source for 

marine and estuarine invertebrates. In Estuarines, G. Lauff (ed.). Am. 

Assoc. Advmt. Sci. Publ. (83): 367-373. 

Stowe, W. C., Kirby, C., Brkich, S. and J. G. Gosselink. 1971. Primary 

production in a small saline lake in Barataria Bay, Louisiana. Louisiana 

Coastal Studies Bull. 1\10.6: 27-37. 

Strickland, J. D. H. and T. R. Parsons. 1968. A practical handbook of 

seawater analysis. Bull. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 167.311 pp. 

Sutcliffe, W.H., Jr., E. R. Baylor, and D. W. Menzel. 1963. Sea surface 

chemistry and langmuis circulation. Deep-Sea Res., 10: 233-243. 

Teal, J. M. 1962. Energy flow in the salt marsh ecosystem of Georgia. Ecol. 

43: 614-624. 

Teal,	 J. M. and M. Teal. 1969. Life and Dealth of the Salt Marsh. Little 

Brown Co. 278 p. 

56. 

Technicon Autoanalyzer II Methodology. 1971. Ind. Meth. No. 155-71W 

AAII. Technicon Instruments Corp., Tarrytown, N.Y. 

Thayer, G. W. 1969. Phytoplankton production and factors influencing 

production in the shallow estuaries near Beaufort, North Carolina. 

Ph.D. Thesis, North Carolina State University. 170 pp. 

Thayer, G. W. 1974. Identity and regulation of nutrients limiting primary 

productivity in the shallow estuaries near Beaufort, North Carolina. 

Oecologia 14: 75-92. 

Udell, H. F., Zarudsky, J. and T. E. Doheny. 1969. Productivity and nutrient 

values of plants growing in the salt marshes of the town of Hampstead, 

Long Island. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, 96:42-51. 

U.	 S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Methods for chemical analysis 

of water and wastes. Washington, D. C. 312 pp. 

Upchurch, J. 8., 1972. Sedimentary phosphorus in the Paml ico Estuary of 

North Carolina. University of North Carol ina Sea Grant Publ. 

UNC-SG-72-03. 39 pp. 

Ustach, J. F. 1969. The decomposition of Spartina alterniflora. M. S. Thesis. 

North Carolina State University. 26 pp. 

Valiela, I., J. M. Teal, and W. Sass. 1973. Nutrient retention in salt marsh 

plots experimentally fertilized with sewage sludge. Estuarine and 

Coastal Mar. Sci. 1: 261-269. 

Waits, E. D. 1967. Net primary productivity of an irregularly-flooded North 

Carolina salt marsh. Ph. D. Thesis. North Carol ina State University at 

Raleigh. 113 p. 

Wass,	 M. L., and T. D. Wright. 1969. Coastal wetlands of Virginia, a summary 

of Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Spec. Rep. in App. Mar. Sci. 

and Ocean Eng. No.10.18 pp. 

Webb,	 K. L., and R. E. Johannes. 1967. Studies of the release of dissolved 

free amino acids by marine zooplankton. Limnol. Oceanogr. 12: 

376-382. 

57 
----------------------------------------

FIGURES
 

59
 
NITROGEN I 2 

ill 

8 

J 

2 

I. 

2. 

3. 

Adsorption 

Assimilation 

Bacter ia I Denitrification 

4. 

5. 

Bacterial 

Bacterial 

Nitrification 

Nitrogen 

Reduction 

6. 

7. 

8. 

Deat h 

Desorption 

Excretion 

9. 

10. 

II. 

Grazing 

Nitrogen Fixation 

Precipitation 

~.,

C'> 

-" 

Figure 2 

The marine biogeochemical phosphorus cycle. 

Modified from Riley and Chester, (1971). 

SEDIMENTARY INORGANIC 

PHOSPHORUS BACTERIA L TI SSUE 

PHOSPHORUS I 

4.9\ 1,. 8 21 )I 5 

1

DISSOLVED ORGANIC
 

PHOSPHORUS
 

01 SSOLV ED INORGANIC
 

PHOSPHORUS
 :;( ~, 6 

I. Adsorpt ion 

2. Assimilation 5 

3. Death 

4. Desorption 

5. Excret ion 

6. Grazing 

7. Guttation 

8. Precipitation 

9. Solubi hzation 

,
 

PARTICULATE ORGANIC
 

PHOSPHORUS
 

6\ 3

15 

• 

ANIMAL TISSUE 

PHOSPHORUS 

6 
Figure 4
 

Carter Creek Marsh
 

Figure 3 

Ware Creek and Carter Creek in relation to the York River. 

..000 ••• 0 CARTER CREEK 

MARSH PERI METER 

YORK R I V E R 

CEDAR BUSH 

I Km. 

62 

63 
Figure 5 

Ware Creek Marsh 

Figure 6 

YORK RIVER Annual variation in mean water temperature over 

a tidal cycle for Ware Creek and Carter Creek marshes. 

30 

... 

25 

u 

.e.... 20 

15 

I

•".. I 

I 

I 

10 I 

I 

I 

/ I 

d I 0----0 Ware Creek Marsh 

5 I .,. . . ..• Cart er Creek Mars h 

I January, 1973 Sample 

I 

WARE CREEK J MARSH PER IMETER 

J F M AM J J AS 0 NO J F

1972 ----------11- 1973 

,.. 

64 

65 

I Km 
Figure 7 

Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack 

water and low slack water salinity. 

15 .............
 High Slack Water
 

0 0 Low Slack Water
 -- --- January 1973 Sampling ,.
 

• :
 

10
 .it : -0 

!... 

>- • : 

....

- , z '. 

,

r. ...J 

«

, : e.. Cf) , : 1i
 

5 I '.


, : 

,

, : 

,

, : 

, : 

, 

'.

:
 

,
 

~/
 

0 

A S 0 N D J F t, 

1973 ~i'

20 

15 

-0 

!... 

>­

Figure 8 

Annual variation in Carter Creek marsh high slack 

water and low slack water salinity. 

•...... ,......• High Slack Water 

o 0 Low Slack Water 

-----­ January 1973 Sample 

~.

• 

, : 

: 

.": '.. : 

: : 

: 

: : : 

: 

: •., 

:

.,. .... 10­ - : Z e. 

.. 

l'~, ...J / « 

en / 

.. 

•

,. / 

/ 

5 

0-_ 

0 

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D J F

67 

66 
Figure 9 

Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack 

water and low slack water dissolved inorganic 

phosphorus concentration. 

-

-

Q) 3 •..............• High Slack Water
 

o 0 Low Slack Water .......
 

a.. - - - - - - - January 1973 Sample 

t:JI 

3­

(f) 

::::::> 

a:: 2 0 

:I: 

a.. 

(f) 

0 

j: 

a.. q 

u \

- \ Z \ <t 

C) \

a:: \ /' 0 

z \ 

\ ..~.......•. .'
 •..... ...•.
 0 

L&.I 

> '.. ...•: -J 

0 

(f) 

(f) 0 0 M J J A S o N o J F 

/972 1973 

68 

Figure 10 

Annual variation in Carter Creek marsh high slack 

water and low slack water dissolved inorganic 

phosphorus concentration. 

•.. .. . .. . ....• High S I a c k Wate r
 

o 0 Low Slack Water 

------ January 1973 Sample 

4 

-

Q)

.......
 

a.. 

...; 

<t 

0' 53 

(f) 

::::::> 

a:: 

0 

:I: 

a.. 

(f) 

0 

:I: 

a.. ()---­ 2 

u 

Z 

<t 

C) 

a:: 

0 

z 

c , w , •• 

> , ...J , 0 , ...........................
 (J) ... (J) . ···it···········.·· .' "" 

c 

0 

M J J A S o N 0 J F 

1972 1973 

69 
Figure 11 

Variation in dissolved inorganic phosphorus 

concentration over Ware Creek marsh summer and 

wi nter tidal cycles. 

-... 

CP 3 o c July -

.......
 ------ January Q.. ® High Slack Water 

<i © Low S I a c k Wa t er 

C\ 

5. 

(f) 

a:: 

0 2

:t: 

Q.. 

(f) 

0 

:t: 

Q.. CC( 

\ U \ -

Z \ 

\ 

C) 

« 

\ 

a:: \

0 \ .....--...... ­ z .....­ 0 

w 

> 

...J 

0 

(f) 

(f) 0 

0 o	 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 

HOURS 

70 

Figure 12 

Variation in dissolved inorganic phosphorus 

concentration over Carter Creek marsh summer 

5 and winter tidal cycles.

o 0 June 

------e January ® High Slack Water 

© Low S lac k Water 

L 

4 

-... 

-

.! 

...... 

Q.. 

<i 

5 

3 (f) 

a:: 

0 

:t: 

Q.. 

(f) 

0 

:t: 

Q.. 

U 2 ,...© .-......... z / \ «	 I 

C) \ J IX: \ I 0 \	 I z \ J 

0 

w	 ,,11" / / 

> 

...J -..- _.- _ -®--r' 

0 

(f) 

(f) 

0 

o	 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 

HOURS 

71 
•• 

Figure 13 

Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack 

water and low slack water dissolved organic 

phosphorus concentration. 

1.5 •...............•
 High SIa e k Wa t er 

o 0 Low Siae k Water 

Q) Janua ry 1973 Sample 

CL. " 

..: 

<t 

01 

3 1.0 

en 

::J 

0::: 

0 

:I: 

CL. 

en 

0 

:I: 

CL. 

U ...... 0.5 z ...•..

<t 

(!) ~\	 '. 

.....' 

a: \

\ .. ' ..' 0 It····...•... : 

0 

w 

> 

....J 

0 

en 

en 

0 

J J A S o N o J F 

0 

1972	 1973 

72 

.:
 

Figure 14 

Annual variation in Carter Creek marsh slack 

water and low slack water dissolved organic 

phosphorus concentration. 

............... High Slack Water
 

o	 0 Low Slack Water 

-- - --- January 1973 Sample 

1.0 

::J 

0::: 

CJ) 

o 

:I: 

0.. 

CJ) 

o 

:I: 

CL. 

­

o~z, 

«0.. 0.5 

(!) 0.... 

0:::' ..... ..... o~ .....

01 

o~

\JJ­

> 

..J 

o 

CJ)
 

C/)
 

o 

o N o J F J F M A M J J A S 

1972 1973

73 

...
 
8 9 /0 II 12 13

© Low Slack Water 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

'--.................../ 

0.8 

0.7 

0.6 

0.5 

0.4 

c lJJ -.... 

/

> ----.... 

, ..J ....-..... .... ........@"
 0 

(f) 0.2 

(f) 

c 

0.1 

0 

o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13

HOURS 

75 74 -"­

CP - 0.9 

....... 

(l. 

..: 

« 

en 

:::> 

a:: 

0 

J: 

(l. 

en 

0 

J: 

(l. 

0 

z 

« 

C> 

a:: 

0 

o 

LLI 

> 

-I 

o 

en 

en 

Figure 15 

Variation in dissolved organic phosphorus 

concentration over Ware Creek marsh summer 

and winter tidal cycles. o 0 July 

~--- -. January 

® High Slack Water 

1.3 

1.2 

1.1 

-

... 

Q)

1.0 

...... 

Q. 

0.9 

0' 

3- 0.8 

en 

:> 

0::: 0.7 0 

:t: 

ll. 

en 

0 0.6 

:t: 

ll. 

0 0.5 

z 

« 

C) 

0:::
 0.4

0
 

0 0.3 

Figure 16 

Variation in dissolved organic phosphorus
 

concentration over Carter Creek marsh summer
 

and winter tidal cycles.
 

o 0 June 

e-- ----e January

® High Slack Water 

© Low Slack Water 

....<0 

,--..... 

" 

\ I 

\ 

, / 

/-- -, 
•• •• 

•••• 

Figure 17 Figure 18

Annual variation in Carter Creek marsh high slack 

water and low slack water particulate phosphorus 

Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack 

water and low slack water particulate phosphorus 

concentration. concentration.

10 •...........• High Slack Water
 

o	 0 Low Slack Wai er 

-- - - - January 1973 Sample 

•..............• High Slack Water
 9

- o 0 Low Siae k Wate'r
 

Q;
 - - - - - - - Janua r y 1973 Sam pie 

- 6 -

Qi ...... 8 

Q.. - ..: 

« 5 

7 

en 

:::> 4 

a: 

0 6

Q.. \ 

en \ 0 3 \

Q.. 5 ,~	 t··. .. \ \	 .•. lU 2 I

Jo­ I

\ 

\ .............. '..
 IJJ 4 « \ / .' \ l­ ...J /

e::{ I ::> ..J I 0 •/: ::> I

Jo- u I / :

a: I I 

« I­ I / Q.. 0 0: I I « I .. 

~.

I ...•....•... N o n.. 2 . . J F d I .~.

1973 I 

I •....... ..
 

I 

•

:: I 

J '. 

O-L.-----------------------­

J F M A M J J A SON o J' 

1972 197 

77 

",..---L	 ---.1 
Figure 19 

Variation in particulate phosphorus concentration 

over Ware Creek marsh summer and winter tidal 

cycles. 

5~I C0 

I 

/ I I 

I .... I / QJ i / 

/ 

.......
 

a.. 41 

«­

01 I 3 i 

I (f) 

::> I 

0::: 

0 I 

I 3 a.. 1 Ul 

0 

I 

a.. I
 

w (l)--"-\ / 

.....
 \ , /
 

« 

...J I 

! '"-...."/ 

::> 2-1 

u ! 

i a:: i 

« 

a.. 1 

I :B) High Slack Water 

o 0 July 

-----. January 

I ~_---r--_~-,--~--,_:~ Low Siae k Water 

012 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 

HOU RS 

-~

6 

5 .... 

QJ 

.......
 

a.. 

« 4 

01 

3­

(f) 

:::> 

cr.: 

0 

J: 3

a.. 

(f) 

0 

I 

a.. 

w 

2 oCt 

...J 

:::J 

U 

c::: 

oCt 

a.. 

Figure 20 

Variation in particulate phosphorus concentration 

over Carter Creek marsh summer and winter tidal 

cycles. 

o El June 

e- - - - -e Jan ua ry 

® High Slack Water 

© Low Slack Water 

\ 

I \ \ 

\ /

I \ \c­ \ I \.Sl 

\ 

\ .

I 

\ // 

/~ ....... ........- -.- -.-- -(8)- ........ - 
 

I 

o ~-~I----'--:--.,....,----r-I-----,--.....,.I----,-I-~-~--r__l

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 

HOURS 

79 

78 
"",,... 

Figure 21 

Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack 

water and low slack water nitrate concentration. 

•............•	 Hig h S I ac k Water 

Low Slack Wa ter 

20 

° ° ------ January 1973 Sample 

•I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

15 01 

'II,
 -... I I Q) I, 

" "'I 

Z 

, 

II 

II 

3-

0' 

L01	 ,I

II

II 

W II

r­

<3: 

a:: 

r­

- I 

Z 

5 

a ---T------r-- -T - 1---­ r -r------r---.I------.----.----.------rJ F M A M J J A S N o 

1972 

80
 

•
 

; 

•.....•.....•....

I. 

".I'·. 

I • I

,

, : 

.......... ~. : 

: 

: 

I 

J F 

1973 

Figure 22 

Annual variation in Carter Creek marsh high slack 

water and low slack water nitrate concentration. 

o 25­ •..................• High Slack Water


I

•

o 0 Low Slack Water 

January 1973 Sample II
 

\I
 

II
 

\\

, 

I
 

\
 20 \----.......
 

\
 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\

, ... 

Q) I
 

I
 

15
 \ " z \

0' \ .3 

w 

r-

« IO0:: 

rz 

5 

...•......•....•. j 

O--J...._~------r­ ---T -, ."j-T .~- --"-1-~I ...., 

J F M J J A SON 0 J' F 

1972 1973 

81 
Figure 23
 

Variation in nitrate concentration over Ware
 

Creek marsh summer and winter tidal cycles.
 

CIJ ...." 

, ........
 ........ \
 

\ 

"­ ..... / \ ........ _~ / \
 

I \ __, 

"w' \ 

\ 

\ 

..- ----­ e January

\ 

\ 

® High Slack Water \ 

V Low Slack Water \ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

~--©

0------0 J u Iy 

~--I---r-----l 1 -­ --T -----T---T-'--T-----r- I I 

o I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 

HOURS 

30 

Q) 

....... 

Z 

25 

w 

..... 

e:! 

a:: 

..... 

z 

Figure 24 

Variation in nitrate concentration over Carter 

Creek marsh summer and winter tidal cycles. 

e-----_e January 

® High Slack Water 

© Low Slack Water 

/.... 

/ .... _~ / / 

'

, 

(if/ \ I " 

\ /, \ I , 

\~~..--.=@ \ }D 

\

, ,

II 

\ /
 

\ /
 

\ /


" 

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

HOURS 

o 2

3 

2 

­Lev 

..... 

z 

01 

3­

W 

le::{ 

Il:
 

IZ 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

3 

2 

o 

82 

83 
Figure 25 

Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack 

water and low slack water nitrate concentration. 

20 •....................• High Slack Water 

o 0 Low SIa c k Wa t er 

- - - - - - - - January 1973 Sample 

, 

" 

, . 

, , 

1.5' 

-

eu : 

....... 

2 : 

01 

1.0 

UJ 

: a:: 

z 

0.5 

J F M A M J J 

1972 

A S 0 N 0 

84 

Figure 26 

Annual variation in Carter Creek marsh high slack 

water and low slack water concentration. 

1.0 •................• High Slack Water
 

o ---{) Low Slack Water 

­ - - - - - - - January 1973 Sample 

-

Q)

.......
 

z 

01 

3- 0.5 

w 

0:: 

I­ .•

.- ' Z 

A M J J A S 0 N 

I I 

0 J F 

1972 1973 

85 
-- --

0.7 

0.6 

­ 0.5 

...... 

Z

c( -
0.4 

5. 

l.IJ 

0.3 

a::: 

z 

0.2 

0.1 

Figure 27
 

Variation in nitrite concentration over Ware
 

Creek marsh summer and winter tidal cycles.
 

o 0 July 

....---.... January 

® High Slack Water 

(Q Low Slack Water 

.,-..-........ ..... -.... " -.... -o@' \ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

~-

o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 

HOURS 

0.8 

0.7 

0.6 

;::: 0.5 

z 

..: 

oct 

- 0.4 

UJ 

I0.3 

z 

0.2 

0.1 

Figure 28 

Variation in nitrite concentration over Carter
 

Creek marsh summer and winter tidal cycles.
 

June 

-. January 

High Slack Water 

Low Slack Water 

"-

......-----..... ­

o 0 

® 

C9 

o--"""--....--.---r-I-"-'---'-1--.--....,,---,..,---r-,--,j----rl---rj--'1'--"--'1 

o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 " 12 13 

HOURS 

87 

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

86 
25 

-

-

'­

CD 20 

...... 

z 

C' 15 

.=.. 

ct
 

z
 

0 10 ::IE
 

::IE
 

ct 

5 

Figure 29 

Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack 

water and low slack water ammonia concentration. 

•..................• High Slack Water
 

o	 0 Low SIa c k Wa t er 

-------- January 1973 Sample 


 ,\ 

,\ 

,\ 

\ \ 

\

\ 

'

\ 

.., ....
 

J F M A 

25 

20 

......
 

z
 

:i 

CIt 15 

-

ct

Z 

0 

::IE 10 

::IE 

ct 

5 

Figure 30 

Annual variation in Carter Creek marsh high slack 

water and low slack water ammonia concentration. 

............... High Slack Water
 

o 0 Low Slack Water 

------- January 1973 Sample 

q 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\

\	 

".". \

,

,

\ 

\

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\	

• \~'" :

... ... ........
 .Ii 

..........
 

A SON o J F 

1972 1973 

: 

.Ii 

•...... 

...•. ••• 

...~.

..•. 

\

,

,

,

,

J M A M J J 

89 
Figure 31
 

Variation in ammonia concentration over Ware
 

Creek marsh summer and winter tidal cycles.
 

25 0 0 July

e__-- -. January 

® High Slack Water 

(f) Low Slack Water 

20 

-

-

CP

.........
 

z 

...,: 

<t 15 

Cl 

	 ..© <f( / -' 

\ I \ r 

\ I I <t

- \ I 

\ 

\ I Z 10	 I \	 I \ I 0	 /~ I 	 \ I :E \ A ..... / \ I :E 

\	

\ \ I

I 

V/ \---' .....'W" I 

<t \ I V 

\ I 

5 "
 

o 

o 2 3 4 

Figure 32 

Variation in ammonia concentration over Carter 

Creek marsh summer and winter tidal cycles. 

20 o 0 June CR 

\ ..- - -. January 

\ ® High Slack Water 

\ (Q Low Slack 

\. ,1\ /5 

, \ I ,"\ .... 

\, \. /fI'" \ ......... 

z 

...,: 'V " ~/ \ <t ',// \ Cl 10 '®' \ 5 \ 

\ 

<t 

Z 

0 5 :E 

:E 

<t 

0 

o	 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 /0 I' 12 13 

HOURS 

90 

91 
M J J A SON 0 J 

60 

-... 

.! 50 .......
 

z 

..: 

<l 

0' 

3­ 40 

z 

W 

C) 

0 

a: 

l30 Z 

(.) -

z 

<l 

C) 

a: 20 

0 

0 

w 

> 

....J 

0 10 

en 

en 

0 

0 

Figure 33 

Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack 

water and low slack water dissolved organic 

nitrogen concentration. 

•................• High Slack Water
 

0	 0 Low Slack Water
 

------ January 1973 Sample
 

,
 

· . · . ,	 · . : I: : J : 

J	

: , 

J 

,.

II 

I,
 

II
 ,

" 

II 

1 

•., 

: 

A S 0 

N 0	 J 

F J F M A M	 J J 

1972 1973 

80 

70 

-... 

Q)

-
60 .......
 

z 

<i 

0' 

50 

z 

lJJ
 

C>
 

0
 

a: 

Iz 40 

(,) -

Z 

<l 

C> 

a: 30 0 

0 

1IJ 

> 

....J 

0 20 

en 

en0 

10 

Figure 34 

Annual variation in Carter Creek marsh high slack 

water and low slack water dissolved organic 

nitrogen concentration. 

•..........•
 High Slack Water o 0 Low Slack Water 

January 1973 

Sample 

.. 

: 

, 

,

" 

~.

: 

: 

0..

,

,

,

:
 

\

, '.
 

, -. , .~"

-_.... ...--

\ 

iii	 

." 

F 

1972 1973 

92 93 
40 

-... 

CI) 

...... 

z 

.: 

<l 

30 

z 

lLJ 

C) 

0 

a::

.­

-

z 

(.) 

z 20 <l 

C) 

a:: 

0 

0 

lLJ 

> 

..J
 

0
 

(1) 

(1) 

0 

10 

Figure 35 

Variation in dissolved organic nitrogen 

concentration over Ware Creek marsh summer and 

wi nter tidal cycles. 

a a July 

...----. January 

® High Slac k Wat er 

© Low Slack Water 

023 

90 

80 

-

-

a;

70 ...... 

z 

Z 

lLJ 

C) 

o 

a:: 50

.­

z 

(.) 

40 Z 

<l 

C) 

a:: 

o 

30 

o 

lLJ 

> 

..J 

o 

(1) 20 

(1) 

o 

10 

Figure 36 

Variation in dissolved organic nitrogen 

concentration over Carter Creek marsh summer 

and winter tidal cycles. 

o 0 June 

....-- - .. January 

® High Slack Water 

© Low Slack Water 

o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 

HOURS 

95 

94 
•• 

Figure 37 

Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack 

water and low slack water particulate nitrogen 

concentration. 

60	 •.............• High Slack Water
 

0 0 Low Slack Water Q) 

------ January 1973 Sample 

........
 

z 

< -

Cl 

::( 

- 40 

Z 

laJ 

0 I a: 

- I l- J
 z
 

, 

,..	 

w
 •

I20 .'.........•. 

.~
 

< \ 

...J \
 ::::>
 \ 

(.) \ • 

I- \ 

~.

. 

a: 

c:t 

Q..	 

I I \ I I I 1 

0 I I I 0 N 0 J 

J F M A M J J A S	 F 

1973 1972 

80 

-

-

... 

Q) 

........ 60
 

z 

.,; 

c:t 

Cl 

z 

w 

0 40 

a: 

z 

w 

< 

...J 

::::> 

(.) 20 

a: 

c:t 

Q.. 

Figure 38 

Annual variation in Carter Creek marsh high slack 

water and low slack water particulate nitrogen 

concentrati on. 

•..........• High Slack Water
 

o 0 Low Slack Water 

-	 - - -- January 1973 

Sample 

I 

I. .. I I: 

I I :
 

I I
 

I I
 

I I
 

I I
 

I I
 

I I
 

I I
 dI ..:
 ..... I 

J 

SON 0 J F 

1973 

96 

97 
Figure 39 

Variation in particulate nitrogen concentration 

over Ware Creek marsh summer and winter tidal 

cycles. 

50 o 0 July 

...----. January

® High Slack Water 

© L ow Slack Wat er 

-... 

C)

- 40 , 

z 

01 

5 

z 

LaJ
 

C)
 30 0 

a:
 

f-
 I 

I 

z I 

LU /" , IJ .... 

e:( / " _..4

/ ...... ...J 

I :J 

u 20 I

,.... ".-- .... -®--, f­ /............ /
 a: / ...... « 

0.. cD 

o 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 2 

HOURS 

98 

Figure 40 

Variation in particulate nitrogen concentration 

over Carter Creek marsh summer and winter tidal 

50 cycles.

o o June 

...---.... January 

® High Slack Water 

<9 Low Slack Water 

40 

... 

C)

-, 

z 

Z 

LaJ
 

C)
 

0 

D: 

fZ 

20 LaJ 

fe:( 

...J 

::) 

U 

.... I'"~ ,a: / '­

e:( 

n.. / " 10 I "<9 

\

\ /

/ 

........... .... ... -~
 ..--.... -.---®' 

9 10 II /2 13 

99 
Figure 41 

Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack 

water and low slack water chlorophyll "a" 

concentration. 

•......... , ..•
 

25 

o 0 

­ ___ --­

-

Q,)

...... 20 tJl 

5 

= c 

-J 15
 

-J
 

>­

X 

Q.. 

o 

a:: 10 

o 

-J 

::c 

u 

5 

1972 

High Slack Wat er 

Law Slack Water 

January 1973 Sample 

..•• . '. 

.. 

Figure 42 

Annual variation in Carter Creek marsh high slack 

water and low slack water chlorophyll "a" 

concentration. 

35 

o 

30 

25 

-

.~

...... : . 

~',

e' 

o. 0. 

.".......... Hi gh Slack Water 

0 Low Slack Water 

----- January 1973 

Sample 

••0 •t tJl 20 " .3 

=c 

= 

-J 

-J 15
 

>­

::t: 

Q.. 

0 

a:: 

0
 

..J
 

::t: 10
 

0 

5 

M A M J J A S o N 0 J F 

1972 1973 

101 

J F M AM J J 

100 
15 

Figure 43 

Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack 

water and low slack water phytoplankton 

productivity. 

.············High Slack Wate r 

-..: 

.c 

I 

ro 

E 

...... 

(,) 

Ot 

E

-


0 OLaw Slack Water 

----- January 1973 Sample

• 

• 

>­ 10 

>

-

: 

: 

(,) : :J 

0 

0 

0:: 

Q. 

Z 

0 

5 

Z 

« 

...J 

Q. 

0 

>­

:t: 

a.. 

0
 

J
 F M A M J J 

1972 

15 

..: 

.c 

If"ll 

E 

...... 

(,) 

Annual variation in Carter Creek marsh high slack 

water and low slack water phytoplankton productivity. 

............ High Slack Water 

0 o Law Slack Water ------ January 1973 

Sample 

0­

E 

10 

>­

-

> 

.... 

(,) 

:J 

0 

0 

a:: 

CL. 

z 5 0 

.... 

z 

oct 

...J 

Q. 

0 

.... 

>­

:c 

Q. 

0 

J F M A M J

"

• '. 

~.

'. 

e. 

J A S 0 N 0 J F 

1972 

102 

103 

1973 
--

I 

" ... , ... 

APR MAY JUN JLY AUG SEP OCT NOV JAN JAN MAR 

1972 i 1973 

Figure 46
 

Seasonal changes in mean dissolved organic
 

carbon (DOC) concentrations in Ware Creek and
 

Carter Creek Marshes. Vertical Iines represent range.
 

Carter Creek .. -... - ........ -.. - .. - .. 

_______ Ware Creek 

I 

..J 

(f' 

~.

'-.) 

0 

a 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 -" JAN MAR APR MAY JUN JLY AUG SEP OCT NOV JAN 0 

01 

-------1972 J 1973 
30 

-~ 25 

Cl 

E 

20 o 

(l.

r­

<t 

15 

10 

5 

o I 

JAN MAR 

-----1972 

'" I' ",,'" , "" ,

,

,

, 

\ 

\ 

\ 

APR MAY JUN JLY AUG SEP OCT NOV JAN 

I 1973 

J

Figure 48 

202 

Seasonal changes in mean chlorophyll a 

(ChI. a) concentrations in Ware Creek 

and Carter Creek Marshes. Vertical lines 

40, 

______________ Carter Creek 

Ware Creek 

35 

30 

-. 

Cl 

E 

t? 

0 

25 

20 

.2 

.r::. 

u 

15 

10 

5 

0 

represent range. 

I \ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

1\
 

1\
 

I \
 

I \
 

I \
 

I \
 

I \
 

I \
 

I \
 

I \
 

I \ 

I \
 

I \
 

I \
 

I 

I

,

I \ 

\ I \ I \ 

JAN MAR o APR MAY JUN JLY AUG SEP OCT NOV JAN ...... 

----------1972 I 1973 
(,) 

4i 

, 

z 

o 

al 

u 

I 

20 

le::{ 

10 

I 

oj I 

JAN MAR APR MAY JUN JLY AUG SEP OCT NOV JAN 

____-----1972 I 1972 

, 

" 

"'I, 

J \ 

I \ 

I \ , \ 

, \ 

I \ 

\ 

\ 

I 

I 

\ 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I -

Figure 50
 

Seasonal changes in mean detrital
 

organic carbon concentrations in Ware Creek
 

and Carter Creek Marshes. Vertical lines
 

______________ Carter Creek 

Ware Creek ------­ - 8 

represent range. 

12.41 1L61 r

6

ro r5 r4 r2 

...... 

Cl 

.§ 

z 

o 

m 

0::: 

<{ 

U 

7 

6 

5 

u 4 

z 

<{ 

C) 

0::: 

o 

:3 

-J 

<{ 

2 

0::: 

-> 

o 

(0 

W 

o 

o ' JAN MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV JAN 

---------1972 I 

'I 

1973 

II \ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

I, 

I, 

I , 

I , 

I \ 

I ,

I \ 

/I\ I \ 

I \ 

I \ 

\ 

1 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 
c 500 

-.c 

U 

.. 

U 

300 

200 

100 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

o uv_ AuG SEP OCT NOV JAN MAR 

Figure 52 

Seasonal changes in mean dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) concentrations 

in Ware Creek and Carter Creek Marshes. Vertical lines represent range. 

_____________ Carter Creek 35 

Ware Creek 

30 

25 

, - -.---­ I ", I 20 " ,,'!' / \ , I / I 01 " / \ , I 

I E 

u 15 

C 

/0
 

5
 

0
 

I--r\ ,1'/ 

I 

/ 

""I 

--> 

JAN MAR APR MAY JUN JlY AUG SEP OCT NOV JAN --> 

--> 

1972 I 1973 
0 

E

-(,) 

Ci 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

_---r---_ 

I 

1, I , I 

!-{\ I'/ 

I 

" " 

""I 

/ 

I 

JAN MAR APR MAY JUN JLY AUG SE P OCT NOV JAN 

---------1972 I 1973 

-I 

» 

OJ 

rm 

en 

-' 

-' 

w 
PP 

NO; 

NOi 

NH4 

DON 

PN 

Sal. 

l.000 

0.210 0.230 

1.000 0.212 0.093 -0.200 -0.152 -0.082 -0.594 

1.000 -0.162 0.320 0.238 0.403 0.073 

1.000 -0.215 0.030 -0.276 -0.079 

1.000 0.375 0.145 0.565 

1.000 0.105 0.266 

1.000 0.221 

1.000 

-0.046 

0.173 

-0.296 

0.000 

0.005 

0.680 

0.120 

-0.201 

0.057 

-0.128 

0.077 

0.336 

0.364 

0.259 

Temp. 

1.000 0.555 

Tide Ht. 

1.000 

Flow 

Correlations are significant (a = 0.01) for -0.210 >r >0.210 

Table 2 

CORRELATION MATRIX OF NUTRIENT CONCENTRATIONS, SALINITY, WATER TEMPERATURE, 

TIDE HEIGHT, AND WATER FLOW IN CARTER CREEK OVER THE YEAR 

DIP 

DOP 

PP 

N03 

NOZ 

NH4 

DON 

PN 

Sal. 

Temp. 

Tide Ht. 

1.000 

DOP 

0.272 

1.000 

PP 

0.422 

-0.027 

1.000 

--.li2i.­

0.209 

-0.459 

0.044 

1.000 

0.422 

-0.040 

0.450 

0.136 

1.000 

0.482 

-0.188 

0.376 

0.471 

0.391 

1.000 

DON 

0.327 

0.462 

0.338 

-0.316 

0.271 

0.135 

1.000 

PN 

0.437 

0.038 

0.935 

0.015 

0.427 

0.358 

0.274 

1.000 

Sal. 

-0.597 

0.026 

-0.381 

-0.529 

-0.420 

-0.521 

-0.059 

-0.380 

1.000 

-0.038 

0.344 

0.262 

-0.769 

0.164 

-0.168 

0.067 

0.258 

0.398 

1.000 

Tide Ht. 

-0.667 

-0.075 

-0.538 

-0.318 

-0.357 

-0.380 

-0.137 

-0.459 

0.705 

0.210 

-0.391 

-0.086 

-0.201 

-0.270 

-0.244 

-0.141 

-0.034 

-0.151 

0.448 

0.257 

Flow 1.000 0.616 

..... 

U1 

Correlations are significant (a = 0.01) for -0.210>r>0.210 

1.000 
Table 3 

WARE CREEK 

TIDAL PHOSPHORUS TRANSPORT

Sampling Tidal Prism
 

Date m3
 

1/23/72 19,600 

3/4/72 19,900 

4/17/72 39,000 

5/17/72 39,400 

6/14/72 24,500
 

Day
 

6/15/72 34,300
 

Night
 

7/28/72 45,200 

8/26/72 43,700 

9/24/72 54,100 

10/24/72 42,600 

11/24/72 39,100 

1/7/73 17,400 

+ = input 

- = output 

11.6 

Tidal 

Transport 

Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

Flood 

ebb 

Net 

Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

DIP 

grams P 

+	 346 

338 

-+--8 

+	 378 

518 

---y;w 

+1,410
 

-1,495


--8-5 

+ 762 

-1,007 

+1,222 

-1,347 

---us 

+1,657 

-1,392 

+265 

+	 795 

841 

--4-6 

+1,102 

792 

+3IO 

+	 748 

590 

+	 766 

756 

+	 461 

518 

--5-7 

DOP 

grams P 

+	 198 

202 

--4 

+	 257 

267 

--1-0 

+	 497 

587 

--9-0 

+	 723
 

775
 

--5-2 

+	 585 

789 

--w4 

+	 749 

715 

+	 746 

648 

+	 704 

769 

--6-5 

+	 436 

412 

+	 831 

926 

--9-5 

+	 393 

416 

--2-3 

+	 234 

230 

PP 

grams P 

+ 1,139 

- 1,098 

+	 1,059 

867 

+1§2 

+ 3,378 

- 4,209 

-rn 

+ 2,337
 

- 2,598
 

-----gr 

+	 3,550
 

3,617
 ---6-7 

+ 4,476 

- 5,679 

+ 5,606 

- 5,391

-:;-ns 

+ 4,495 

- 4,954 

------m­

+10,717 

- 6,773 

+ 3,944 

+ 3,377 

- 2,659 

+ 2,756 

- 2,679 

+ 1,271 

- 1,583 

----n2 

Sampling
 

Date
 

3/7/72 

3/23/72 

4/19/72 

5/19/72 

6/17/72 

7/31/72
 

Storm
 

8/29/72 

9/27/72 

10/27/72 

11/27/72 

1/11/73 

+	 input 

output 

Table 4
 

CARTER CREEK
 

TIDAL PHOSPHORUS TRANSPORT 

Tidal Prism 

m3 

Tidal 

Transport 

DIP 

grams P 

4,100 Flood + 64 

Ebb 95 

Net --3-1 

13,300 Flood + 125 

Ebb 135 

Net --1-0 

10,200 Flood + 128 

Ebb 

Net 

120 ---8 

43,700 Flood + 707 

Ebb 832 

Net -us 

13,300 Flood + 250 

Ebb 373 

Net ------u3 

43,700 Flood + 723 

Ebb 856 

Net ----m 

24,100 Flood + 455 

Ebb 553 

Net --9-8 

26,700 Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

27,200 Flood + 405 

Ebb 491 

Net --8-6 

4,300 Flood + 111 

Ebb 154 

Net --4-3 

8,800 Flood + 253 

Ebb 299 

Net -~4-6

DOP 

grams P 

+	 47 

41 

-+--6 

+	 206 

228 

--2-2 

+	 139 

157 

--1-8 

+	 669 

811 

+	 289 

262 

+27 

+	 449
 

575
 

--u6 

+	 456
 

467
 

--1-1 

+	 325
 

319
 

+6 

+	 565
 

587
 

--2-2 

+	 47
 

50
 

---3 

+	 70 

86 

--1-6 

PP 

grams P 

+	 768 

443 

+32S 

+	 436 

384 

+s2 

+	 1,411 

933 

+ 2,498 

- 2,272

-;-m 

+	 1,054 

911 

-.;-m 

+ 5,427 

- 6,953 

+ 2,228 

- 1,653 

+--srs 

+ 2,201 

- 2,559 

--m 

+	 558 

292 

+	 175 

195 

--4-0 

117 
3/4/72 19,900 Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

+ 728 

5,t39 

+139 

+ 86 

80 

+1,186 

-1,527 

+ 1,185 

- 2,395 

- 1,210 

+ 4,096 

- 3,196 

+900 

4/17/72 39,000 Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

+ 706 

571 

+1"35 

+ 94 

79 

+2,362 

-5,148 

-2,786 

+13,048 

- 9,451 

+ 3,597 

+ 9,233 

-11,851 

5/17/72 39,400 Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

+1,011 

- 525 

+486 

+ 177 

149 

+ 961 

-1,795 

---s34 

+13,429 

-16,325 

- 2,896 

+ 7,820 

-10,050 

6/14/72 

Day 

24,500 Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

+ 425 

266 

+159 

+ 142 

143 

---1 

+1,768 

-2,028 

----u;o 

+18,775 

-18,082 

+ 8,601 

-10,373 

- 1,772 

6/15/72 

Night 

34,300 Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

+ 394 

329 

"+65 

+ 221 

263 

--4-2 

+3,231 

-3,479 

--m­

+24,426 

-24,408 

+18 

+12,029 

-12,479 

Sampling Tidal Prism Tidal Date m3 N03 N02 Transport grams N NH4" DON PN grams N ,grams N grams N 7/28/72 45,200 Flood + 862 + 240 +8,486 Ebb +19,299 556 +22,459 144 -9,510 Net -19,689 +306 -19,681 +96 + 2,778 8/26/72 43,700 Flood + 314 + 116 +1,865 Ebb 264 138 +18,511 +17,887 -3,974 Net -20,617 --2-2 -16,199 -2,109 - 2,106 + 1,688 9/24/72 54,100 Flood +2,340 + 747 +1,659 Ebb -1,468 +24,542 +36,719 563 -1,359 Net -27,664 +872 -32,580 +300 - 3,122 10/24/72 

+184 +4:l39 42,600 Flood +2,765 + 180 Ebb -1,916 +3,886 +11 ,959 +10,804 175 -3,101 Net -+--5 -11,873 - 9,090 +785 +-a6 + 1,714 11/24/72 39,100 Flood +2,559 + 105 +5,917 Ebb + 7,357 -1,705 + 9,323 - 98 -5,048 Net - 7,422 +854 -+--7 -10,945 +869 --6-5 - 1,622 1/7/73 17,400 Flood +4,931 + 113 +1,827 Ebb -4,148 + 4,532 + 4,265 - 105 -2,245 Net - 4,285 +783 -+--8 - 5,275 -m +247 + = input 

output 

..... 

..... 

<0 
Net 

+----sl 

2 

0 

----n6 

+ 1,307 

3/23/72 13,300 Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

+ 520 

367 

+153 

+ 49 

45 

-+---4 

+ 389 

547 

+ 2,618 

- 2,918 

+ 2,216 

- 1,524 

4/19/72 10,200 Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

+ 487 

339 

+148 

+ 46 

44 

-+---2 

+ 441 

490 

---4-9 

+ 4,009 

- 4,431 

---m­

+ 4,249 

- 3,844 

+405 

5/19/72 43,700 Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

+ 263 

201 

+ 167 

182 

--1-5 

+ 1,542 

- 1,691 

---r:49 

+11,148 

-14,044 

- 2,896 

+14,037 

-11 ,639 

+ 2,398 

6/17/72 13,300 Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

+ 166 

250 

--8-4 

+ 43 

57 

--1-4 

+ 764 

- 1,025 

------gr 

+ 9,669 

-10,480 

---sIT 

+ 4,488 

- 3,838 

7/31/72 

Storm 

43,700 Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

+1,673 

-1,653 

+ 250 

239 

+11 ,953 

- 7,734 

+ 4,219 

+18,351 

-22,541 

- 4,190 

+25,191 

-30,112 

- 4,921 

Sampling 

Date 

Tidal Prism 

m 

3 

Tidal 

Transport 

N03 

grams N 

N0i 

grams N 

NHS 

grams N 

DON 

grams N 

PN 

grams N 

8/29/72 24,100 Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

+ 150 

- 150 

---0 

+ 100 

88 

+-rr 

+ 1,149 

- 845 

+12,247 

-11,706 

+ 9,373 

_ 7,336 + 2,037 

9/27/72 26,700 Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

+ 266 

- 427 

-=---I6T 

+ 72 

- 42 

+ 861 

- 988 

--ur 

+ 6,246 

-12,022 

- 5,776 

+ 9,405 

_ 8,173 

+ 1,232 

10/27/72 27,200 Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

+ 292 

- 124 

+ 88 

- 68 

+20 

+ 1,241 

- 1,167 

+ 5,077 

- 7,288 

+ 1,748 

_ 2,861 

_ 1,113 

11/27/72 4,300 Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

+ 914 

- 867 

+ 16 

- 15 

-+--1 

+ 996 

- 791 

+ 1,217 

- 1,045 

+ 2,629 

_ 1,453 

+ 1,176 

1/11/73 8,800 Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

+3,001 

-3,036 

+ 39 

- 40 

----1 

+ 1,650 

- 1,507 

+ 1,213 

- 1,520 

+ 620 

- 923 

+ == input 

- == output 

f'V 

-" 
Table 7 Table 8

CARTER CREEK 

ANNUAL PHOSPHORUS BUDGET 

WARE CREEK 

ANNUAL PHOSPHORUS BUDGET 

DIP DOP PP DIP DOP PP 

grams P grams P grams P grams P grams P grams P 

+ 2,009 2/9/72 - 3/15/72 4,667 + 877 +48,424 1/15/72 2/12/72 + 381 183 

+ 19,149 3/16 - 4/6 543 1,220 + 2,832 2/13 3/26 -14,037 992 

6,047 - 55,789 4/7 - 5/4 + 614 1,451 +37,811 

2,940 - 14,768 

3/27 5/2 2,420 

5/31 4,813 5/5 - 6/3 5,513 6,324 +10,036 5/3
 

7/5 -21,196 -17,681 5,822
 6/4 - 7/9 -11 ,429 + 2,482 +13,305 6/1
 

7/6 8/11 +17,554 + 6,501 + 14,252
 7/10 - 8/14 6,834 6,423 -78,078 

- 2,623 - 3,765 - 26,472 8/15 - 9/13 5,735 651 +33,536 

+15,252 + 1,189 +194,036 

8/12 9/10 

9/14 - 10/12 6,398 + 321 -19,532 9/11 10/8 

+ 9,052 - 5,431 + 41,104 10/13 - 11/12 4,745 1,212 - 8,754 10/9 11/9 

12/16 + 634 - 1,493 + 5,112 11/13 - 12/20 7,756 499 +47,531 11/10 

+ 330 - 25,530 12/21/72 - 2/8/73 12/17/72 1/14/73 

- 30,512 +147,281 2/9/72 - 2/8/73 -60,491 -16,630 +83,823 1/15/72 1/14/73 - 6,851 

1/15/72 1/14/73 DIP + DOP + PP 109.918 grams P 2/9/72 - 2/8/73 DIP + DOP + PP +6,702 grams P + input + input - = output - '" output 

123 

122 
3/27 - 5/2 

5/3 - 5/31 

6/1 - 7/5 

7/6 - 8/11 

8/12 - 9/10 

9/11 - 10/8 

10/9 - 11/9 

11/10 - 12/16 

12/17/72 - 1/14/73 

+ 9,086 

+ 27 ,432 

+ 13,801 

+ 20,236 

+ 2,852 

+ 43,016 

+ 48,555 

+ 56,284 

+ 63,995 

+ 1,557 

- 97 

+ 6,362 

- 1,273 

+ 9,044 

+ 313 

+ 453 

+ 664 

- 47,054 

- 22,538 

- 67,707 

-121 ,402 

+ 14,775 

+ 44,940 

+ 57,337 

- 34,222 

-163,521 

+ 59,980 

- 25,857 

-121,185 

-153,588 

+ 4,897 

- 4,238 

+ 20,154 

-125,895 

-153,402 

+183,803 

+ 97,151 

+203,650 

+ 98,288 

-107,001 

- 82,445 

1/15/72 - 1/14/73 +321,420 +18,191 -407,554 -324,835 - 3,765 

1/15/72 - 1/14/73 

+ = input 

- = output 

N03 + N02 + NH4 + DON + PN = -396,543 grams N 

Table 10 

CARTER CREEK 

ANNUAL NITROGEN BUDGET 

N03 

grams N 

N02 

grams N 

NH 4 

grams N 

DON 

grams N 

PN 

.E:rams N 

2/9/72 - 3/15/72 +12,061 - 230 + 83 - 32,156 -194,793 

3/16 - 4/6 + 8,385 + 230 - 8,669 - 16,434 + 37,853 

4/7 - 5/4 +11,771 + 189 - 3,839 - 33,396 + 32,061 

5/5 - 6/3 + 2,757 - 690 - 6,594 -128,464 +106,354 

6/4 - 7/9 - 7,807 -1,343 -24,296 - 75,532 + 60,478 

7/10 - 8/14 + 1,010 + 559 - 2,840 -214,336 -251,738 

8/15 - 9/13 - 32 + 727 +17,744 + 31,565 +118,859 

9/14 - 10/12 - 8,791 +1,674 - 6,933 -315,577 + 67,229 

- 10/13 - 11/12 + 9,233 +1,125 + 4,061 -121,678 - 61,255 

11/13 - 12/20 + 8,406 + 225 +36,627 + 30,697 +210,127 

12/21/72 - 2/8/73 - 5,802 - 69 +23,321 - 50,159 - 49,337 

2/9/72 - 2/8/73 +31,191 +2,397 +28,665 -925,270 +465,424 

2/9/72 -

+ = input 

2/8/73 N03 + N02 + NH 4 + DON + PN = -397,593 grams N 

- = output N 

01 
Table 11
 

WARE CREEK FLOOD AND EBB TIDE SIMPLE AND PARTIAL
 

CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
 

Flood Tide Simple Correlation Coefficients 

Temp. DIP NH4 

Prod. /Chl. 0.571** 0.220 -0.348* -0.182 

Flood Tide Partial Correlation Coefficients, 

Temperature Held Constant 

DIP N03 

Prod. /Chl. 0.130 0.005 -0.048 

Ebb Tide Simple Correlation Coefficients 

Temp. DIP N03 

Prod. /Chl. 0.525** 0.271 -0.234 -0.118 

Ebb Tide Partial Correlation Coefficients, 

Temperatur,~ Held Constant 

DIP N03 NH~

Prod. /Chl. 0.]73 0.087 -0.073 

**Significant at the 1% level
 

*Significant at the 5% level
 

Table 12
 

CARTER CREEK FLOOD AND EBB TIDE SIMPLE AND PARTIAL
 

CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
 

Flood Tide Simple Correlation Coefficients
 

Temp. DIP NH4
 

Prod./Chl. 0.581** -0.165
 -0.538** -0.020 

Flood Tide Partial Correlation Coefficients,
 

Temperature Held Constant
 

DIP N03 NH~

Prod. /Chl. 0.108 -0.091 0.146 

Ebb Tide Simple Correlation Coefficients 

Temp. DIP NH; 

Prod. /Chl. 0.651** -0.156 -0.590** -0.319 

Ebb Tide	 Partial Correlation Coefficients 

Temperature Held Constant, ' 

DIP N03 

Prod. /Chl. -0.143 -0.159 -0.191 

**Significant at the 1% level
 

*Significant at the 5% level
 

126 127 
4 Mar 72 20185.4 Flood + 20.1 + 154.3 + 20.2 + 67.3 + 163.2 + 147.2 

Ebb 

Net 

28.6 

--g:s - 158.5 

--4-.-2 

36.1 

----rs:g 

66.6 

------0:7" - 188.6 - 155.4 

--8-.-2 

17 Apr 72 37714.1 Flood + 112.1 + 217.0 + 134.6 + 409.3 + 187.0 + 355.9 

Ebb + 100.2 - 300.3 - 100.9 - 416.9 - 224.4 - 352.9 

Net +ll:9 +3""3:7 

17 May 72 38005.6 Flood + 63.4 + 224.9 + 90.1 + 487.3 + 196.4 + 315.2 

Ebb - 106.7 - 216.4 68.1 - 483.9 - 209.5 - 308.3 

Net -s:s +22:0 +3"":4 --rTI 

14 Jun 72 24106.4 Flood + 133.1 + 173.9 + 59.7 + 125.8 + 135.8 + 332.2 

Ebb - 112.9 - 199.1 91.9 - 230.4 - 161. 3 - 357.4 

Net +zo:2" ----rou 

15 Jun 72 33094.5 Flood + 135.1 + 282.9 + 389.7 + 207.8 + 478.1 

Ebb - 137.1 - 262.6 - 394.6 - 127.4 - 435.1 

Net --2-.-0 +2"0:3 ------;r:g +so:4 +4"3":0 

Water Tidal 

Sampling Date Transport 

(cu.m) 

Transport POC DOC ATP-C 

(lO-lkgC) 

ChI. a DO DIC 

28 Ju1 72 45430.4 Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

+ 160.3 

- 143.5 + 521. 4 

- 527.6 

--6-.-2 

+ 226.2 

- 242.5 + 730.4 

- 843.8 

- 113.4 

+ 185.6 

- 216.8 

----n:2 

+ 602.3 

- 651. 4 

26 Aug 72 42710.0 Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

+ 121.7 

- 149.5 + 351. 4 

- 386.6 + 137.6 

- 149.4 

-----rr:s 

+ 779.1 

- 897.0 

+ 179.0 

- 238.5 

-s9:5 

+ 633.8 

- 566.9 

+66:9 

24 Sep 72 51487.6 Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

+ 171. 1 

- 205.8 

+ 390.3 

- 351. 4 

+ 78.9 

82.9 

+ 259.8 

- 318.1 

--ss:3 

+ 285.2 

- 318.3 

+ 756.3 

- 788.0 

-----n-:? 

24 Oct 72 41793.2 Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

+ 149.9 

94.3 

+ss:6 

+ 304.5 

- 337.5 + 44.4 

47.7 + 365.0 

- 369.5 

----;r:s 

+ 287.1 

- 295.9 

------s:s 

+ 621.0 

- 582.4 

24 Nov 72 37758.0 Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

+ 95.5 

- 135.5

---w-:o 

+ 298.5 

- 331. 9 

+ 3.9 

22.1 + 164.2 

- 184.4 

--w-:2 

+ 377.9 

- 414.7 

+ 443.4 

- 433.5 

7 Jan 73 16603.7 Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

+ 20.2 

46.4 + 64.9 

64.3 

+D:6 

+ 9.6 

12.1 

--rs 

+ 98.8 

97.3 

--1-.-5 

+ 182.2 

- 205.1 

+ 145.1 

- 144.8 

I N
 

CD
 
23 Mar 72 10840.7 Flood + 13.5 + 54.3 + 85.8 + 91.9 + 162.7 

Ebb 17.5 51.8 56.6 92.8 - 153.9 

Net +2":"5 +2"9:2 ----0:9 +B":8 

19 Apr 72 10589.6 Flood + 23.7 + 58.6 + 18.9 + 118.6 + 73.5 + 72.1 

Ebb 21. 5 39.7 41. 5 - 162.5 73.1 61.4 

Net +1:B ---u-:6 +lO:7 

19 May 72 39893.2 Flood 

Ebb 

Net 

+ 166.6 

- 146.6 

+18:"2 

+ 122.2 

- 112.7 

+9":5 

+ 140.1 

- 141. 7 

--1-.-6 

+ 577.2 

- 694.9 

+ 28.4 

26.7 

+ 504.0 

- 492.9 

+IT:T 

17 Jun 72 12028.8 Flood + 29.3 + 86.8 + 40.8 + 169.8 + 75.3 + 231. 4 

Ebb 

Net 

27 .4 

+l":9 

93.7 60.4 - 182.0 

---u:2 

67.8 -+-D - 237.9 

--6-.-7 

31 Ju1 72 46718.4 Flood + 158.9 + 405.7 + 236.9 + 652.6 + 241. 3 + 807.1 

Ebb - 404.6 - 429.5 - 303.8 -1009.1 - 261.9 - 644.9 

Net - 245.7 - 356.4 ---zo:6 + 162.2 

Water Tidal 

Sampling Date Transport Transport POC DOC ATP-C ChI. a DO DIC 

(eu.m) (10-lkgC) 

29 Aug 72 25250.4 Flood + 46.0 + 211.5 + 229.4 + 610.4 + 148.0 + 470.5 

Ebb 

Net - 48.7 - 206.4 - 209.7 +19:7 - 515.8 +9"4:6 - 187.8 _ 448.6 +2f:9 

27 Sep 72 26678.2 Flood + 86.0 + 166.4 + 156.5 + 525.3 + 170.5 + 549.6 

Ebb 

Net - 120.8 - 164.8 +-----r6 - 184.2 - 531.7 - 191.0 _ 559.6:--ro:o 

27 Oet 72 27537.3 Flood + 37.1 + 196.8 + 45.3 + 240.2 + 205.3 + 549.9 

Ebb 

Net - 72.8 - 218.4 - 69.8:-zn - 364.5 - 238.8 _ 507.8 +42:T 

27 Nov 72 3364.4 Flood + 14.2 + 30.3 + 2.4 + 299.6 + 32.4 + 77.0 

Ebb 

Net 

- 9.5 

+ir.7 _. 36.0 - 3.6 -=---T:2 - 199.1 +lOO:S - 31.5 +0":9 _ 73.6 

11 Jan 73 10466.2 Flood + 7.7 + 56.0 + 3.8 + 29.6 + 89.9 + 172.3 

Ebb 

Net - 10.6 :----z:g - 59.9 -=--3:9 - 4.0 - 28.6 +--r:o - 95.2 :---s:3 _ 167.4 

w 

..... 
Table 15 

WARE CREEK MARSH ANNUAL NET 

Time Period POC (kgC) 

15 Jan 72 to 12 Feb 72 

13 Feb 72 to 26 Mar 72 

27 Mar 72 to 2 May 72 

3 May 72 to 31 May 72 

Jun 72 to 5 Ju1 72 

6 Ju1 72 to 11 Aug 72 

12 Aug 72 to 10 Sep 72 

11 Sep 72 to 8 Oct 72 

9 Oct 72 to 9 Nov 72 

10 Nov 72 to 16 Dec 72 

17 Dec 72 to 15 Jan 73 

Annual Net Transport 

+	 into marsh 

out of marsh 

+ 575.6 

- 853.6 

+ 799.4 

-2407.5 

+ 779.3 

+1082.1 

-1556.9 

-1680.0 

+3140.1 

-2652.1 

-2172.1 

-4945.7 

CARBON TRANSPORT 

DOC (kgC) 

- 453.9 

- 421.8 

-5595.4 

+ 472.6 

- 205.8 

- 399.3 

-1971.2 

+1883.3 

-1862.2 

-2652.1 

+ 49.6 

-11156.2 

ATP-C (kgC) 

- 16.3 

-159.9 

+226.7 

+122.2 

-270.8 

-104.7 

- 66.6 

- 19.2 

- 18.6 

- 87.4 

-415.4 

Table 16 

CARTER CREEK MARSH ANNUAL NET 

Time Period POC (kgC) 

9 Feb 72 to 15 Mar 72 + 3243.6 

16 Mar 72 to 6 Apr 72 341. 0 

7 Apr 72 to 4 May 72 + 168.2 

5 May 72 to 3 Jun 72 + 922.0 

4 Jun 72 to 9 Jul 72 + 189.4 

10 Ju1 72 to 14 Aug 72 -12297.3 

15 Aug 72 to 13 Sep 72 156.2 

14 Sep 72 to 12 Oct 72 1933.2 

13 Oct 72 to 12 Nov 72 1967.0 

13 Nov 72 to 20 Dec 72 + 934.6 

21 Dec 72 to 8 Feb 73 417.6 

Annual Net Transport -11654.6 

+ into marsh 

- out of marsh 

(1) - Time interval 9 Feb 72 to 25 Mar 72 

(2) - Time interval 26 Mar 72 to 4 May 72 

CARBON TRANSPORT 

DOC (kgC) 

148.2 

+ 156.1
 

+1444.9
 

+ 438.0
 

- 688.0
 

-1191.2
 

+ 295.0 

+ 88.9
 

-1190.2
 

-1178.8
 

- 561. 6
 

-2535.1
 

ATP-C (kEf) 

30.4(1) 

243.0(2) 

7.4 

- 195.7 

- 334.7 

+ 114.3 

- 154.3 

- 135.1 

25.3 

-H 

-1014.8 

-'---------------------------------------------­

132 133 
Table 17 

PERCENT NET ANGIOSPERM
 

PRODUCTION EXPORTED FROM
 

WARE AND CARTER CREEK MARSHES
 

Ware Creek
 

Net Angiosperm Production (dry weight) 1
 

79604.5 kg
 

Percent exported as:
 

POC 12.4
 

DOC 28.0
 

ATP-C 0.5 

APPENDIX -A 

Carter Creek
 

Net Angiosperm Production (dry weight) 2
 

57177.6 kg
 

Percent exported as:
 

POC 40.7
 

DOC 8.9
 

ATP-C 1.8 

1,2	 Based on productivity figures of Mendelssohn (1973)
 

Ware = 562 g/m2, Carter = 572 g/m2
 

135 134 
Table A2 Table Al 

WARE CREEK 3/4/72 WARE CREEK 1/23/72 

Time Flow (l/sec) 

DIP 

Nutrient Concentrations ~at/1)

DOP N03 N02_ NH DON PN 

Time Flow (l/sec) 

DIP 

Nutrient Concentrations 

DOP PP N03 N02 

(ug at/I) 

Q2!i 

12.25 0 0.78 0.40 1. 70 4.99 0.28 8.0 30.0 47.0 09.00 

09.33 

0 + 177 

1.00 0.60 4.22 1.59 0.28 8.0 4.0 26.0 

12.67 + 155 09.67 + 410 

12.92 

13.25 

+ 

+ 

319 

879 0.65 0.39 1. 88 7.68 0.32 4.0 27.0 21.0 10.00 

10.33 

+ 544 + 583 

0.57 0.45 1. 12 3.44 0.32 6.0 3.0 14.0 

13.58 +1,143 10.67 + 627 

14.05 

14.25 

+1,278 

+1,332 0.63 0.41 1. 91 7.27 0.30 4.0 29.0 28.0 11. 00 

11. 33 

+ 921 + 977 

0.54 0.45 1. 31 2.70 0.28 3.6 3.4 13.0 

14. 70 

14.92 

15.25 

15.58 

15.92 

16.75 

16.58 

16.92 

17.25 

17.58 

17.92 

18.25 

18.58 

19.00 

19.25 

19.58 

19.92 

20.25 

20.58 

20.92 

21. 25 

21.58 

+1,976 

+2,037 

+1,136 

+1,213 

+1,216 

+1,252 

+1,215 

+ 999 

+ 716 

0 

807 

-1,090 

-1,095 

-1,257 

-1,239 

-1,236 

-1,283 

-1,237 

-1,147 

-1,023 

- 983 

869 

0.55 

0.49 

0.51 

0.51 

0.48 

0.51 

0.55 

0.62 

0.29 

0.24 

0.27 

0.29 

0.30 

0.30 

0.33 

0.39 

1. 96 

1. 95 

1.44 

1.12 

1.42 

1. 85 

1. 92 

2.27 

7.02 

7.13 

7.37 

7.41 

6.97 

5.95 

5.73 

4.67 

0.28 

0.27 

0.29 

0.24 

0.29 

0.32 

0.34 

0.33 

3.0 30.0 

3.0 31.0 

3.0 39.0 

2.0 41.0 

6.0 34.0 

4.0 33.0 

4.0 32.0 

3.0 41.0 

30.0 

25.0 

8.0 

5.0 

26.0 

29.0 

31.0 

32.0 

11. 67 

12.00 

12.33 

12.67 

13.00 

13.33 

13.67 

14.00 

14.33 

14.67 

15.00 

15.33 

15.67 

16.00 

16.33 

16.67 

17.00 

17.33 

17.67 

18.00 

18.33 

18.67 

+1,051 

+1,245 

+1,385 

+1,525 

+1,490 

+1,443 

+1,216 

+ 880 

0 

- 902 

-1,222 

-1,453 

-1,586 

-1,738 

-1,689 

-1,607 

-1,660 

-1,488 

-1,257 

-1,099 

- 925 

673 

0.59 

0.65 

0.69 

0.50 

0.61 

0.68 

0.77 

0.83 

1.09 

0.45 

0.41 

0.31 

0.32 

0.35 

0.40 

0.45 

0.44 

0.47 

1.63 

2.02 

1. 89 

1.69 

1. 70 

1. 73 

1. 48 

1. 42 

0.76 

2.44 

2.35 

2.65 

3.19 

2.90 

2.31 

2.31 

1. 86 

1. 76 

0.31 

0.32 

0.31 

0.29 

0.29 

0.29 

0.28 

0.29 

0.30 

4.0 

4.6 

3.4 

3.8 

4.0 

4.4 

5.2 

6.2 

6.4 

5.0 

4.4 

4.6 

8.2 

8.0 

7.6 

9.8 

9.8 

7.6 

13.0 

15.0 

18.0 

17.0 

15.0 

11.0 

11.0 

10.0 

11.0 

21. 92 701 19.00 526 

22.25 

22.58 

625 

530 0.69 0.39 1.96 3.23 0.34 4.0 36.0 20.0 19.33 

19.67 

377 

242 

1. 37 0.47 1.12 1. 40 0.28 7.2 5.8 16.0 

22.92 398 20.00 52 

23.25 

23.58 

23.75 

291 

153 

0 0.82 0.40 1.94 2.92 0.34 5.0 37.0 17.0 

20.33 0 1. 40 0.72 0.98 1.65 0.33 7.8 3.8 18.0 

137 136 
Table A3 

Table A4 

WARE CREEK 4/17/72 WARE CREEK 5/17/72 

Time Flow (l/sec) Nutrient Concentrations (u~ at/I) 

DIP DOP Time Flow (l/sec) Nutrient Concentrations (u~ at/I) PP N03 N02 !i!:!L DON PN DIP DOP PP N03 NOZ DON PN 

09.62 0 0.70 1.18 2.10 0.96 0.17 6.0 22.0 20.0 

09.95 +1,010 11. 25 0 2.02 0.65 3.33 0.87 0.29 3.0 33.0 25.0 11.58 + 492 10.28 + 644 11. 92 + 715 10.62 + 838 0.42 0.62 2.00 0.64 0.22 3.0 24.0 16.0 

10.95 +1,335 12.25 + 872 1.64 0.63 1.90 2.96 0.48 2.0 28.0 15.0 12.58 +1,091 11. 28 +1,609 12.92 +1,346 11.62 +1,800 0.37 0.43 2.64 0.61 0.15 7.0 25.0 16.0 

11. 95 +1,990 13.25 +1,757 1.68 0.72 1. 80 2.54 0.43 2.2 30.8 14.0 13.58 +2,021 12.28 +2,210 13.92 +2,213 12.62 +2,360 0.29 0.31 3.00 0.89 0.15 4.0 20.0 20.0 14.25 +2,540 12.95 +2,477 1.47 0.68 2.32 2.19 0.39 2.0 29.0 14.0 14.58 +2,727 13.28 +2,463 14.92 +2,777 13.62 +2,502 0.25 0.37 2.68 1. 22 0.18 6.0 24.0 14.0 

13.95 +2,532 15.25 +2,823 1.09 0.56 2.13 1.45 0.29 1.4 18.6 16.0 15.58 +2,829 14.28 +2,246 15.92 +2,703 14.62 +1,944 0.31 0.43 3.56 2.73 0.17 1.0 29.0 18.0 

14.95 +1,367 16.25 +2,268 0.35 0.42 1. 23 0.98 0.13 1.4 19.6 12.0 

16.58 +1,701 15.28 + 493 16.92 + 348 15.50 0 0.37 0.35 1.90 3.70 0.17 5.0 15.0 15.0 

15.83 -1,771 17.00 0 0.26 0.49 1.05 0.33 0.13 1.6 22.4 9.0 17.33 -1,712 16.17 - 2, 229 17.67 -2,374 16.50 -2,415 0.26 0.40 2.64 1.80 0.15 2.0 15.0 18.0 

16.83 -2,574 18.00 -2,641 0.53 0.57 1.83 0.58 0.19 2.0 28.0 16.0 18.33 -2,938 17.17 -2,735 18.67 -2,855 17.50 -2,707 0.26 0.46 3.90 0.83 0.14 12.0 17.0 23.0 

17.83 -2,842 19.00 -2,770 1.08 0.72 2.07 1.05 0.28 2.4 32.6 15.0

19.33 -2,576 18.17 -2,768 19.67 -2,656 18.50 -2,721 0.31 0.51 3.88 0.55 0.14 11.0 20.0 24.0 

18.83 -2,550 20.00 -2,409 1. 53 0.61 2.25 1.61 0.30 2.4 33.6 18.0 20.33 -2,256 19.17 -2,397 20.67 -2,098 19.50 -2,157 0.43 0.52 4.01 0.49 0.15 14.0 17.0 23.0 

19.83 -1,773 21.00 -1,742 1. 78 0.67 2.88 0.84 0.34 1.8 26.2 29.0 21. 33 -1,542 20.17 -1,439 

20.50 21.67 -1,502 -1,076 0.65 0.65 3.36 0.56 0.13 9.0 18.0 22.0 

20.83 683 22.00 - 940 2.24 0.66 2.23 0.72 0.33 12.0 28.0 17.0

22.33 773 21.17 215 22.67 377 21. 33 0 1. 01 0.81 2.28 0.89 0.17 11.0 20.0 20.0 22.92 0 2.43 0.69 1. 75 0.82 0.38 17.0 26.0 37.0 

38 139 
Table AS 

WARE CREEK 6/14/72 

Time Flow (l/sec) Nutrient Conce~trations (u~ at/I) 

DIP DOP ~ ~ NOZ DON PN 

10.33 o 2.04 0.82 6.99 2.90 0.55 4.8 45.0 47.0
 

10.67 + 263
 

11.00 + 620
 

11. 33 + 800 1.36 0.85 4.67 1.72 0.46 8.6 55.4 23.0 

11.67 + 973
 

12.00 +1,156
 

12.33 +1,227 1.10 0.79 5.31 1.02 0.38 6.2 51.2 24.0
 

12.67 +1,479
 

13.00 +1,626
 

13.33 +1,779 1.06 0.77 5.42 1.31 0.43 5.4 58.0 29.0
 

13.67 +1,972
 

14.00 +2,013
 

14.33 +2,029 0.82 0.76 3.92 1.18 0.40 3.0 55.0 22.0
 

14.67 +1,673
 

15.00 +1,417
 

15.33 o 0.60 0.55 2.67 0.90 0.39 3.4 49.4 20.6
 

15.67 -1,369
 

16.00 -1,784
 

16.33 -1,989 0.73 0.70 3.46 1.00 0.32 6.0 43.6 26.0
 

16.67 -2,033
 

17.00 -1,945
 

17.33 -1,981 1.16 1.10 5.06 0.72 0.42 6.6 56.6 30.0
 

17.67 -1,718
 

18.00 -1,524
 

18.33 -1,662 1.60 1.30 5.80 0.47 0.45 6.8 56.0 36.0
 

18.67 -1,290
 

19.00 -1,066
 

19.33 811 2.15 1.26 6.10 0.49 0.47 4.0 58.0 32.0
 

19.67 654
 

20.00 554
 

20.33 505 2.39 1.40 6.04 1.32 0.55 6.2 54.0 36.0
 

20.67 354
 

21.00 206
 

21. 33 110 2.95 1.27 6.52 1.12 0.60 6.2 61.6 35.0 

21.67 o 1.88 1.31 4.08 0.82 0.55 8.2 49.0 23.0
 

140 

Table A6 

WARE CREEK 6/14-15/72 

Time Flow (l/sec) Nutrient Concentrations (ug at/I)

DIP DOP PP N03 NOZ NHJ ~~ 21.67 o
 1.88 1.31 4.08 0.82 0.55 8.2
 

22.00 + 409 49.0 23.0
 

22.33 + 640
 

22.67 + 756
 1.43 0.99 3.85 1.17 0.52 6.2
 49.8 24.0
 23.00 + 923
 

23.33 +1,098
 

23.67 +1,196 1.60 0.80 4.88 0.73 0.34 7.0
 52.2 24.0
 24.00 +1,414
 

00.33 +1,714
 

00.67 +1,760
 1.45 0.76 4.79 0.70 0.33 5.6
 52.2 32.0
 01.00 +2,159
 

01. 33 +2,433 

01. 67 +2,346 1.07 0.75 4.38 0.94 0.57 8.2
 52.8 26.0
 02.00 +2,316
 

02.33 +2,350
 

02.67 +2,307
 0.88 0.60 4.08 0.86 0.50 7.2
 58.8 23.0
 03.00 +2,129
 

03.33 +1,870
 

03.67 + 742
 0.49 0.30 2.29 0.41 0.45 3.4
 43.4 13.6
 03.92 o
 0.48 0.41 2.03 0.34 0.48 5.2
 39.8 12.0
 04.25 -1,502
 

04.58 -1,831
 

04.92 -2,277 0.69 0.49 3.23 0.54 0.61 5.6
 45.6 17.4
 05.25 - 2,186
 

05.58 -2,514
 

05.92 -2,424 0.99 0.60 5.29 0.88 0.61 9.6
 40.0 19.4
 06.25 -2,440
 

06.58 -2,118
 

06.92
 -2,116 1.28 0.73 6.34 0.52 0.61 8.2 57.8 36.0 07.25 -1,799
 

07.58 -1,502
 

07.92 -1,353 1.95 0.86 6.42 0.85 0.26 6.6
 65.2 33.0
 08.25 -1,209
 

08.58 - 962
 

08.92 789
 2.52 0.98 7.29 0.81 0.66 5.4
 60.2 35.0
 09.25 612
 

09.58 498
 

09.92 249
 

10.17 o
 2.88 1.03 7.70 0.95 0.71 5.2
 57.8 46.8
 

141 
Table A7 Table A8 

WARE CREEK 7/28/72 WARE CREEK 8/26/72 

Time Flow (l/sec) 

DIP 

Nutrient Concentrations 

DOP PP N03 NOZ 

(ug at/I) 

NH4 DON PN 

Time Flow (l/sec) 

DIP 

Nutrient Concentrations (ug at/I) DOP PP N03 N02 !:i!!L DON PN 

08.75 

09.08 

09.42 

09.75 

10.08 

10.42 

10.75 

11. 08 

11. 42 

11. 75 

12.08 

12.42 

12.75 

13.08 

13.42 

13.75 

14.08 

14.42 

14.75 

14.83 

15.17 

15.50 

15.83 

16.17 

16.50 

16.83 

17.17 

17.50 

17.83 

18.17 

18.50 

18.83 

19.17 

19.50 

19.83 

20.17 

20.50 

21.00 

0 

+ 543 

+ 830 + 971 

+1,180 

+1,490 

+1,862 

+2,112 

+2,450 

+2,710 

+2,938 

+2,717 

+3,162 

+3,142 

+2,838 

+2,741 

+2,151 

+1,658 

+ 351 

0 

-1,992 

-2,376 

-2,959 

-3,058 

-3,055 

-3,419 

-3,255 

-3,039 

-2,834 

- 2,612 

-2,345 

-2,147 

-1,791 

-1,573 

-1,317 

- 928 

496 

0 

2.35 

1. 85 

1.77 

1. 41 

0.87 

0.74 

0.57 

0.66 

0.71 

1.00 

1. 36 

1. 84 

2.01 

0.82 

0.70 

0.75 

0.64 

0.46 

0.34 

0.39 

0.34 

0.40 

0.49 

0.58 

0.62 

0.72 

3.62 

2.77 

3.11 

4.40 

4.82 

4.33 

1. 81 

3.21 

3.75 

4.35 

4.90 

3.99 

3.35 

1.90 

2.88 

1. 61 

1.09 

1. 26 

1.02 

0.74 

0.78 

0.68 

1.03 

0.89 

1. 25 

1. 21 

0.37 

0.42 

0.37 

0.59 

0.36 

0.23 

0.17 

0.18 

0.19 

0.25 

0.28 

0.30 

0.34 

18.0 

18.0 

9.0 

16.4 

12.4 

13.0 

11. 2 

12.4 

17.0 

15.4 

14.2 

18.0 

22.2 

35.4 27 .0 

29.0 22.2 

34.0 28.0 

29.4 36.6 

34.6 39.6 

26.2 43.6 

26.0 23.8 

34.8 26.0 

28.0 32.0 

33.6 31. 2 

34.2-35.2 

24.0 38.0 

27.0 23.8 

08.00 

08.33 

08.67 

09.00 

09.33 

09.67 

10.00 

10.33 

10.67 

11.00 

11. 33 

11.67 

12.00 

12.33 

12.67 

13.00 

13.33 

13.67 

14.00 

14.33 

14.50 

14.83 

15.17 

15.50 

15.83 

16.17 

16.50 

16.83 

17.17 

17.50 

17.83 

18.17 

18.50 

18.83 

19.17 

19.50 

19.83 

20.17 

20.66 

0 + 393 + 557 + 557 + 782 + 990 

+1,315 

+1,620 

+1,966 

+2,138 

+2,456 

+2,774 

+2,837 

+2,956 

+2,457 

+2,534 

+2,619 

+2,287 

+1,372 

+ 352 

0 

-2,304 

-2,613 

-3,167 

-3,284 

-3,269 

-3,332 

-3,393 

-3,187 

-3,147 

-2,690 

-2,347 

-1,978 

-1,625 

-1,233 

-1,014 

676 

339 

0 

1.09 0.54 3.42 1.00 0.19 9.6 34.4 8.0 

0.64 0.54 2.27 0.57 0.18 2.0 30.0 12.0 

0.62 0.52 2.74 0.55 0.19 1.8 35.2 10.6 

0.51 0.57 3.18 0.67 0.20 1.6 32.4 34.6 

0.51 0.54 3.64 0.46 0.19 2.2 32.8 30.6 

0.64 0.47 3.92 0.44 0.17 2.2 26.8 42.4 

0.70 0.48 2.84 0.44 0.21 10.8 23.2 22.0 

0.80 0.50 2.11 0.43 0.23 4.1 30.2 21. 6 

0.62 0.55 2.79 0.38 0.21 6.6 29.4 20.0 

0.56 0.58 3.75 0.43 0.23 3.2 34.8 37.0 

0.56 0.54 4.01 0.47 0.22 10.4 37.2 21.0 

0.59 0.60 4.86 0.39 0.23 6.0 34.2 29.8 

0.82 0.65 3.93 0.48 0.25 7.2 34.4 26.6 

1. 25 0.62 2.86 1. 01 0.30 8.6 33.8 15.6 

142 143 
Table A9 Table A10 

WARE CREEK 9/24/72 WARE CREEK 10/24/72 

Time 

08.00 

08.33 

08.67 

09.00 

09.33 

09.67 

10.00 

10.33 

10.67 

11. 00 

11. 33 

11. 67 

12.00 

12.33 

12.67 

13.00 

13.33 

13.67 

14.00 

14.33 

14.67 

15.00 

15.33 

15.67 

16.00 

16.33 

16.67 

17.00 

17.33 

17.67 

18.00 

18.33 

18.67 

19.00 

19.33 

19.67 

20.00 

20.33 

20.67 

20.92 

Flow (l/sec) 

0 

+ 884 

+ 984 

+1,144 

+1,581 

+1,871 

+2,268 

+2,429 

+2,965 

+3,185 

+3,378 

+3,287 

+3,300 

+3,117 

+2,829 

+2,677 

+2,365 

+1,914 

+1,181 

0 

-2,285 

-2,557 

-2,749 

-3,317 

-3,303 

-3,134 

-2,904 

-3,122 

-3,067 

-3,112 

-2,960 

- 2,791 

-2,961 

- 2,601 

-2,328 

-2,003 

-1,627 

-1,160 

403 

0 

DIP 

0.81 

0.73 

0.58 

0.43 

0.71 

0.80 

0.85 

0.84 

0.66 

0.49 

0.36 

0.36 

0.38 

0.44 

0.64 

Nutrient Concentrations (ug at/I) 

DOP PP NO; N02 !i!!l DON 

0.27 3.42 0.40 0.07 2.6 27 .4 

0.34 3.59 0.96 0.18 1.4 29.6 

0.39 7.76 0.74 0.11 1.8 28.2 

0.24 8.79 1.50 0.36 1.8 30.8 

0.21 6.67 4.76 1.64 2.6 32.4 

0.21 5.39 5.19 1. 80 2.8 35.2 

0.20 3.25 5.46 1. 83 2.6 41.4 

0.31 2.45 5.75 1. 82 1.8 44.2 

0.28 2.68 4.01 1. 44 1.6 38.4 

0.19 4.15 2.82 1.05 1.2 38.8 

0.25 4.14 1. 24 0.52 1.4 36.6 

0.23 5.45 0.46 0.29 2.8 34.6 

0.25 4.39 0.30 0.19 1.8 32.2 

0.28 3.83 0.41 0.22 2.4 33.6 

0.35 2.23 0.26 0.20 2.6 27.8 

PN 

7.2 

11.0 

56.0 

62.4 

60.0 

48.0 

18.0 

19.0 

26.0 

25.0 

59.0 

74.6 

42.0 

30.0 

6.6 

Time 

08.00 

08.33 

08.67 

09.00 

09.33 

09.67 

10.00 

10.33 

10.67 

11. 00 

11. 33 

11. 67 

12.00 

12.33 

12.67 

13.00 

13.33 

13.67 

14.00 

14.33 

14.63 

15.00 

15.33 

15.67 

16.00 

16.33 

16.67 

17.00 

17.33 

17.67 

18.00 

18.33 

18.67 

19.00 

19.33 

19.67 

20.00 

20.33 

20.67 

21. 25 

Flow (l/s ec) 

0 + 323 + 445 + 594 

+ 730 

+1,063 

+1,449 

+1,616 

+1,791 

+2,228 

+2,483 

+2,651 

+2,933 

+2,712 

+2,574 

+2,486 

+2,452 

+2,338 

+1,811 

+ 841 

0 

-1,992 

-2,663 

-3,065 

-3,030 

-2,609 

-2,507 

-2,594 

-2,611 

-2,212 

-2,371 

-2,126 

-1,897 

-1,714 

-1,431 

-1,472 

-1,284 

907 

507 

0 

Nutrient Concentrations 

DIP DOP PP N03 NOZ NH4 DON PN 

0.69 0.60 2.21 1. 28 0.23 10.0 12.0 10.0 

0.45 0.77 1. 20 1. 02 0.20 7.6 17.4 6.0 

0.42 0.57 2.84 1. 01 0.21 8.2 13.8 16.0 

0.42 0.53 3.12 2.05 0.27 5.0 22.4 19.6 

0.43 0.76 3.24 3.25 0.28 5.4 20.6 31.0 

0.78 0.65 2.18 8.50 0.38 7.2 21. 8 12.0 

0.82 0.48 1. 70 8.94 0.38 7.6 19.8 14.6 

0.85 0.68 0.61 9.03 0.41 5.4 20.0 7.6 

0.61 0.84 0.80 6.45 0.35 6.0 22.4 7.6 

0.41 0.81 1. 71 3.71 0.35 8.2 15.8 14.6 

0.30 0.57 2.74 1. 43 0.25 4.0 21. 6 17.4 

0.32 0.63 2.89 0.42 0.31 1.0 22.2 20.0 

0.37 0.52 3.28 0.39 0.14 5.0 17.4 25.4 

0.44 0.75 2.29 0.38 0.09 6.6 18.2 16.8 0.61 0.69 1. 50 0.53 0.10 5.4 21.0 8.0 

145 144 
Tab Ie All Table A12 

WARE CREEK 11/24/72 \VARE CREEK 1/7/73 

Time Flow (l/sec) Nutrient Concentrations (ug at/I) Time Flow (l/secJ Nutrient Concentrations (ug at/l) DIP DOP PP N03 NO? DON DIP DOP PP NOZ NH;t DON PN 

12.4 07.67 2.42 1. 36 0.16 15.0 15.0 0 08.67 0 1.08 0.37 

08.00 + III

1. 50 0.43 2.42 23.55 0.43 13.0 19.0 14.0 09.00 + 346 08.33 + + 210 09.33 375 

09.67 + 453 0.86 0.40 1. 89 9.20 0.29 13.6 10.4 13.4 08.67 + 339 0.76 0.41 2.35 24.39 0.49 09.00 + 364 7.0 22.0 18.0 10.00 + 573 09.33 + 485 10.33 + 903 09.67 + 10.67 +1,207 0.83 0.39 2.06 6.52 0.25 14.6 9.4 22.4 405 0.85 0.39 2.15 21.83 0.51 10.00 + 527 8.6 18.6 17.0 11. 00 +1,628 10.33 + 494 11. 33 +1,799 

3.76 0.21 13.0 11. 2 23.2 10.67 + 514 11. 67 +2,088 0.75 0.43 2.80 

11.00 + 693

0.87 0.41 2.05 22.81 0.47 7.0 20.0 16.0 12.00 +2,212 11. 33 +1,063 12.33 +2,329 

12.67 +2,443 0.61 0.29 3.04 2.76 0.19 10.8 13.6 20.2 

12.00 

11.67 

+1,321

+1,127 0.88 0.46 2.42 19.51 0.46 9.0 18.0 18.0 13.00 +2,698 12.33 +1,368 13.33 +2,576 

13.67 +2,440 0.48 0.25 1. 79 5.01 0.14 7.0 17.4 10.6 

13.00 

12.67 +1,174 0.86 0.45 2.50 18.55 0.45 +1,082 5.0 18.0 18.0 14.00 +2,294 13.33 + 758 14.33 +1,921 

0.16 9.0 14.8 9.2 13.67 + 232 14.67 +1,264 0.45 0.26 1.11 5.24 

13.83 15.00 + 134 a 0.84 0.43 2.51 18.06 0.44 0.21 0.88 5.10 0.17 7.0 13.2 11. 2 14.17 -1,067 12.0 17.0 18.0 15.13 a 0.45 14.50 -1,352 15.50 -1,692 14.83 -1,525 15.83 -2,053 0.87 0.40 2.32 16.37 0.47 6.4 

16.17 -2,251 0.45 0.28 1. 21 4.26 0.13 9.8 11.4 11. 2 15.17 -1,719 18.6 18.0 

15.50 -1,559 16.50 - 2,476 15.83 -1,624 16.83 -2,683 0.86 0.41 3.00 20 .04 0.46 12.4 0.48 0.35 1. 87 3.01 0.15 6.4 16.2 17.2 16.17 -1,423 15.6 24.0 17.17 - 2,70 1 16. SO -1,285 17.50 -2,842 16.83 -1,128 0.95 17.83 -2,691 0.45 2.89 17.28 0.45 2.49 0.19 8.2 15.0 24.4 17.17 - 901 7.6 14.4 21. 2 18.17 -2,475 0.64 0.34 2.58 17.50 700 18.50 -2,522 

18.83 -2,327 18.17 

17.83 589 1. 24 0.44 3. 79 17.55 0.31 7.6 23.4 22.0 0.36 2.99 2.88 0.22 12.0 10.4 26.4 526 19.17 -1,962 0.79 18.50 399 19.50 -1,779 18.83 

19.83 -1,568 19.17 

298 1. 38 0.51 4.07 6.16 0.30 11.4 23.6 30.0 0.85 0.47 3.07 2.42 0.24 13.0 12.0 24.0 222 20.17 -1,189 19. SO 171 20. SO - 948 19.83 111 20.83 - 673 20.17 21.17 326 1.21 0.41 3.29 1. 64 0.23 10.2 18.4 31. 0 a 1. 50 0.50 4.90 6.44 0.30 13.0 15.0 34.0 21.50 119 

2.65 1. 33 0.26 12.6 7.8 17.2 21. 75 0 1. 50 0.42 

146 147 
Table A13 Table A14 

CARTER CREEK 3/7/72 CARTER CREEK 3/23/72 

Time Flow (1/s ec) 

DIP 

Nutrient Concentratio~s (ug at/l) 

NO; l'!QL DOP PP l'i!il DON PN 

Time Flow (1/sec) 

DIP 

Nutrient Concentrations 

DOP PP N0'3 NO? 

(u¥ 

NH4 

at/I) 

D~ PN 

10.50 

11. 25 

11.50 

12.50 

+ 

+ 

+ 

0 

40 

57 

205 

2.03 

0.59 

0.49 

0.43 

0.41 

0.41 

3.78 

5.58 

9.48 

9.33 

18.63 

8. 78 

0.40 

0.46 

0.39 

7.0 

5.6 

5.0 

9.0 

12.4 

11.0 

30.0 

47.0 

87.0 

10.83 

11. 17 

11. 50 

11. 83 

12.17 

0 

+ 84 + 228 + 316 

+ 262 

0.78 

0.38 

0.70 

0.48 

2.50 

1.66 

1. 84 

3.82 

0.26 

0.28 

5.0 

3.6 

21.0 

15.4 

16.0 

8.0 

12.75 

13.50 

14.50 

14.67 

+ 

+ 

+ 

260 

548 

567 

0 

0.48 

0.50 

0.33 

0.35 

7.05 

0.35 

8.64 

8.14 

0.40 

0.39 

4.0 

4.0 

10.0 

10.0 

78.0 

30.0 

12.50 

12.83 

13.17 

13.50 

+ 75 + 37 

+ 458 

+ 398 

0.41 0.51 1.00 4.22 0.26 3.0 14.0 7.0 

14.83 

15.25 

15.50 

15.67 

16.00 

181 

358 

447 

509 

225 

0.48 0.29 1. 83 7.36 0.42 3.6 12.4 28.0 

13.83 

14.17 

14.50 

14.72 

14.88 

+ 402 

+1,233 

+ 829 + 82 + 172 

0.33 

0.27 

0.49 

0.50 

1. 38 

1.05 

3.69 

3.06 

0.29 

0.26 

2.0 

2.0 

13.0 

15.0 

13.0 

10.0 

16.17 284 15.17 + 721 

16.33 

16.67 

17.17 

374 

167 

216 

0.61 0.39 4. 14 7.36 0.43 4.4 16.6 42.0 15.50 

15.83 

16.17 

+ 263 

+1,745 

+ 610 

0.33 0.52 0.93 2.12 0.26 1.6 12.4 14.0 

17.33 

17.67 

18.00 

18.67 

19.25 

19.67 

20.17 

20.67 

21.67 

22.67 

138 

80 

30 

19 

19 

11 

14 

13 

9 

0 

1. 62 

2.09 

1. 87 

1.72 

1. 78 

2.10 

0.25 

0.41 

0.31 

0.17 

0.24 

0.27 

6.29 

5.24 

7.00 

9.17 

7.38 

5.37 

7.63 

7.99 

7.85 

6.85 

6.13 

5.88 

0.43 

0.49 

0.50 

0.52 

0.54 

0.51 

5.6 

5.6 

5.4 

4.8 

5.8 

7.4 

16.4 

18.4 

18.6 

16.2 

15.2 

'.14.6 

59.0 

48.0 

64.0 

88.0 

71.0 

40.0 

16.50 

16.83 

17.25 

17.30 

17.75 

17.83 

17.92 

18.25 

18.58 

18.92 

19.25 

+ 954 + 136 

+ 112 

+1,517 

+ 358 

0 

480 

-1,533 

454 

807 

-1,257 

0.26 

0.25 

0.24 

0.22 

0.29 

0.50 

0.49 

0.48 

0.62 

0.59 

0.80 

0.91 

0.80 

1. 36 

0.84 

2.42 

2.31 

2.42 

1. 90 

1. 84 

0.28 

0.25 

0.22 

0.28 

0.28 

1.6 

2.2 

2.2 

2.6 

3.0 

12.4 

15.8 

15.0 

15.4 

15.0 

12.0 

12.0 

10.0 

8.0 

7.0 

19.58 709 

19.92 

20.25 

985 

843 

0.26 0.50 0.82 1. 89 0.26 3.0 16.0 7.0 

20.58 695 

20.92 

21. 25 

457 

150 

0.53 0.55 0.82 2.14 0.11 3.4 16.6 8.0 

21. 58 60 

21. 92 

22.25 

121 

188 

0.93 0.47 0.94 1. 93 0.07 3.6 15.4 8.0 

22.58 67 

22.92 0 0.90 1. 06 0.86 1. 73 0.25 6.0 13.0 21.0 

149 148 
Table A15 Tab Ie A16 

CARTER CREEK 4/19/72 CARTER CREEK 5/19/72 

Time 

09.00 

09.33 

09.67 

10.00 

10.33 

10.67 

11.00 

11.33 

11. 67 

12.00 

12.33 

12.67 

13.00 

13.33 

13.67 

14.00 

14.33 

14.67 

15.00 

15.33 

15.67 

16.00 

16.33 

16.67 

17.00 

17.33 

17.67 

18.00 

18.33 

18.67 

19.00 

19.33 

19.67 

20.00 

20.33 

20.67 

Flow (l/sec) 

0 

+ 

+ 50 

+ 176

+ 243 + 341 

+ 436 

+ 504 

+ 636 

+ 797 

+ 900 

+1,045 

+ 761 

+ 751 

+ 499 + 488

0 

350 

947 

855 

877 

-1,011 

-1,005 

- 946 

793 

- 920 

482 

384 

254 

203 

114 

81 

46 

34 

29 

0 

DIP 

1.15 

0.50 

0.43 

0.43 

0.37 

0.35 

0.36 

0.30 

0.32 

0.31 

0.66 

1. 25 

1. 30 

1. 24 

Nutrient Concentrations 

DOP PP N03 NO?

0.53 2.48 2.12 0.24

0.42 7.96 1.98 0.26

0.47 5.88 3.28 0.30

0.41 4.91 4.67 0.36

0.45 3.27 2.87 0.31 

0.43 2.88 2.70 0.31

0.48 2.36 2.46 0.33 

0.46 2.12 2.32 0.31

0'.,48 2.22 2.54 0.31

0.53 2.44 2.32 0.27

0.58 5.40 1.94 0.29

0.45 13.12 2.45 0.41

0.46 14.23 2.40 0.42

0.50 9.06 2.38 0.42 

(ug at/I) 

NH4 DON 

10.0 22.0 

11.0 26.0 

4.0 33.0 

4.0 28.0 

1.0 28.0 

1.0 23.0 

1.0 33.0

2.0 31.0 

2.0 30.0 

6.0 30.0 

6.0 34.0 

6.0 33.0 

10.0 39.0 

10.0 38.0 

PN 

19.0 

56.0 

41.0 

30.0 

23.0 

19.0 

17.0 

12.0 

25.0 

28.0 

45.0 

118.0 

111. 0 

72.0 

Time 

10.00 

10.33 

10.67 

11.00 

11. 33 

11.67 

12.00 

12.33 

12.67 

13.00 

13.33 

13.67 

14.00 

14.33 

14.67 

15.00 

15.33 

15.67 

16.00 

16.33 

16.67 

17.00 

17.33 

17.67 

18.00 

18.33 

18.67 

19.00 

19.33 

19.67 

20.00 

20.33 

20.67 

21.00 

21.33 

21.67 

Flow (l/s ec) 

0 

+ 251 

+ 407 + 354 + 632 + 370 + 730 

+1,016 

+1,466 

+1,265 

+1,405 

+2,370 

+2,882 

+4,160 

+4,926 

+3,365 

+4,361 

+5,055 

+2,662 

+1,908 

+1,015 

0 

-2,109 

-3,342 

-2,778 

-3,586 

-4,026 

-4,235 

-2,775 

-2,207 

-1,864 

893 

929 

958 

439 

434 

Nutrient Concentrations (ug at/I) DIP DOP PP NO:3 NO? NHj: 

0.98 0.70 2.27 0.20 0.50 4.8 34.2 11,0 

0.88 0.82 1.95 0.40 0.30 3.2 22.8 31,0 

0.71 0.72 2.01 0.45 0.25 2.8 21. 2 34.0 

0.67 0.64 2.03 0.41 0.24 2.6 18.4 32.0 

0.73 0.57 2.31 0.37 0.25 3.6 26.4 30.0 

0.43 0.39 1. 76 0.29 0.27 2.0 14.0 22.0 

0.30 0.39 1. 42 0.71 0.30 2.0 15.0 11,0 

0.26 0.41 1. 27 0.34 0.39 2.0 14.0 12.0 

0.63 0.57 2.02 0.29 0.29 2.0 21.0 21.0 

0.65 0.62 1. 56 0.41 0.25 3.0 26.2 16.0 

0.58 0.66 1.63 0.31 0.30 3.6 25.6 21.0 

0.72 0.67 1. 69 0.25 0.32 3.4 23.8 27.0 

22.00 

22.33 

552 

328 

0.75 0.62 1. 31 0.17 0.39 3.2 22.0 23.0 

22.67 322 

23.00 0 1. 21 0.78 1.19 0.16 0.52 2.8 21. 2 16.0 

15,0 151 
Table A18 

Table A17 CARTER CREEK 7/31/72 

CARTER CREEK 6/17/72 

Time Flow (l/sec) 

DIP 

Nutrient Concentrations 

DOP PP N03 NO.2 

(ug at/l) 

DON PN 

Time 

08.67 

Flow (l/sec) 

0 

DIP 

5.06 

Nutrient Concentrations 

DOP ~N03 NO.2 

1. 04 11. 57 1. 90 0.38 

(u~ at/I) 

NH4 DON 

16.2 31. 8 

PN 

174.6 

10.00 

10.33 

10.67 

11. 00 

11. 33 

11. 67 

12.00 

12.33 

12.67 

13.00 

13.33 

13.67 

14.00 

14.33 

14.67 

15.00 

15.33 

15.67 

16.00 

16.33 

16.67 

17.00 

17.33 

17.67 

18.00 

18.33 

18.67 

19.00 

19.33 

19.67 

20.00 

20.73 

20.67 

21.00 

21. 33 

21. 67 

0 

+ 111 

+ 104

+ 176

+ 362 

+ 446

+ 422 

+ 624 

+1,012 

+ 908 

+1,014 

+1,057 

+1,145 

+1,410 

+1,265 

+1,342 

+1,153 

0 

867 

749 

772 

-1,222 

-1,238 

- 467 

- 460 

443 

740 

707 

- 419 

461 

351 

236 

151 

98 

46 

0 

4.20 0.87 6.05 2.17 0.57 10.8 82.2 31.4 

1.11 1.14 4.29 0.99 0.22 6.4 60.2 41.2 

1.06 1.19 4.22 1. 68 0.21 4.8 66.4 38.0 

0.60 0.65 2.95 0.72 0.21 2.2 47.2 30.4 

0.54 0.68 2.14 0.72 0.23 5.0 48.0 22.2 

0.38 0.48 1.60 0.73 0.24 3.8 52.4 13.2 

0.38 0.60 1. 23 0.93 0.32 5.2 48.8 8.6 

0.49 0.57 1. 37 1. 27 0.27 3.4 56.4 15.2 

0.66 0.57 1.91 0.99 0.29 3.0 54.6 16.4 

0.89 0.70 2.79 1.43 0.19 6.6 57.0 30.8 

1. 61 0.72 3.65 1. 70 0.42 8.6 56.8 28.6 

3.02 0.84 3.74 2.50 0.61 14.8 69.6 30.6 

3.56 0.92 4.01 2.80 0.77 15.0 71.4 32.0 

09.00 

09.33 

09.67 

10.00 

10.33 

10.67 

11.00 

11. 33 

11. 67 

12.00 

12.33 

12.67 

13.00 

13.33 

13.67 

14.00 

14.33 

14.67 

15.00 

15.33 

15.67 

16.00 

16.33 

16.67 

17.00 

17.33 

17.58 

17.90 

17.94 

18.00 

18.33 

18.67 

19.00 

19.33 

19.67 

20.00 

20.33 

+ 533 

+ 694 

+ 684 + 980 

+ 955 

+1,105 

+1,088 

+1,779 

+2,477 

+2,324 

+2,083 

+4,507 

+3,543 

+2,766 

+1,029 

0 

508 

-2,283 

-2,622 

-3,469 

-2,692 

-3,308 

-2,269 

-1,976 

-2,140 

- 2,730 

0 

+7,087 

0 

-6,814 

-2,604 

-1,086 

830 

508 

264 

169 

42 

1.09 

0.68 

0.42 

0.38 

0,,30 

0.53 

0.35 

0.46 

0.45 

0.67 

1.63 

2.01 

0.47 

0.36 

0.30 

0.28 

0.23 

0.41 

0.36 

0.37 

0.30 

0.41 

0.60 

0.73 

5.27 2.81 

3.64 2.84 

2.14 2.78 

1. 96 2.36 

1. 57 2.21 

2.05 2.08 

1.82 2.05 

1. 43 1. 56 

6.61 2.16 

7.89 3.41 

11.23 5.58 

13.71 6.14 

0.32 

0.42 

0.44 

0.45 

0.47 

0.46 

0.45 

0.34 

0.42 

0.33 

0.44 

0.56 

19.8 33.8 

23.4 33.2 

18.2 32.8 

23.0 26.8 

23.0 24.2 

16.8 31.6 

16.8 32.4 

11. 4 37.0 

8.2 45.0 

14.8 30.0 

12.4 51. 8 

16.8 51. 6 

38.6 

28.2 

24.0 

26.0 

24.0 

31.8 

25.2 

21. 8 

53.0 

75.2 

92.6 

130.0 

20.67 157 

21. 00 128 

21. 28 0 2.79 0.82 6.82 6.11 0.58 14.4 53.4 108.0 

153 

152 
Tab Ie A19 

Table A20 

CARTER CREEK 8/29/72 

CARTER CREEK 9/27/72 

Time 

08.33 

08.67 

09.00 

09.33 

09.67 

10.00 

10.33 

10.67 

11.00 

11. 33 

11. 67 

12.00 

12.33 

12.67 

13.00 

13.33 

13.67 

14.00 

14.33 

14.67 

15.00 

15.33 

15.67 

16.00 

16.33 

16.67 

17.08 

17.33 

17.67 

18.00 

18.33 

18.67 

19.00 

19.33 

19.67 

20.00 

Flow Cl/sec) 

0 

+ 110 + 199 

+ 230 

+ 418 + 619 

+ 847

+1,024 

+1,024 

+1,380 

+1,549 

+1,792 

+2,488 

+4,265 

+3,427 

+1,612 

0 

292 

-1,409 

-3,530 

-3,223 

-2,004 

-1,859 

-1,643 

574 

883 

563 

707 

731 

475 

457 

331 

206 

83 

32 

0 

DIP 

3.33 

1. 25 

0.90 

0.69 

0.52 

0.42 

0.48 

0.43 

0.67 

0.85 

1. 23 

2.22 

2.69 

2.60 

Nutrient Concentrations 

DOP PP N03 NO? 

0.69 6.44 1.34 0.34 

0.64 4.98 0.91 0.29 

0.66 4.44 0.55 0.38 

0.69 3.53 0.53 0.30 

0.59 2.58 0.41 0.30 

0.55 2.10 0.29 0.25 

0.64 2.05 0.28 0.29 

0.63 1. 85 0.52 0.15 

0.63 2.15 0.34 0.33 

0.60 2.31 0.35 0.30 

0.58 3.05 0.52 0.35 

0.68 3.23 0.65 0.36 

0.69 4.67 0.79 0.44 

0.65 5.48 0.63 0.42

(ug at/I) 

DON 

18.6 39.4 

10.0 44.0 

3.8 45.2 

3.8 44.2 

2.6 33.4 

2.8 29.2 

1.8 37.8 

2.4 30.8 

2.2 35.8 

1.6 38.4 

3.8 38.4 

4.2 37.8 

B.6 37.8 

12.8 35.6 

PN 

46.0 

38.4 

38.0 

33.0 

22.6 

25.0 

17.4 

21.8 

19.8 

23.0 

22.8 

30.0 

29.2 

45.4 

Time 

07.83 

08.25 

08.50 

08.83 

09.17 

09.50 

09.83 

10.17 

10.50 

10.83 

11.17 

11.50 

11. 83 

12.17 

12.50 

12.83 

13.17 

13.67 

14.00 

14.33 

14.67 

15.00 

15.33 

15.67 

16.00 

16.33 

16.67 

17.00 

17.33 

17.67 

18.00 

18.33 

18.67 

19.00 

19.33 

19.67 

20.00 

20.33 

20.50 

Flow (l/sec) 

0 + 64 + 107 + 229 

+ 336 + 417 + 852 

+1,181 

+1,223 

+1,256 

+1,035 

+2,086 

+2,291 

+2,491 

+2,821 

+2,934 

+1,982 

0 

-1,873 

-2,509 

-2,840 

-2,961 

-2,122 

-1,717 

-1,336 

-1,306 

-1,074 

- 959 

821 

- 684 

458 

613 

398 

213 

184 

137 

77 

38 

0 

Nutrient Concentrations (u~ at/I) DIP DOP --~~

PP NO­ NO­ ~~

1. 68 0.36 4.05 1. 37 0.47 22.6 15.4 44.0 

0.84 0.33 4.64 0.78 0.31 6.8 21. 2 36.4 

0.65 0.40 4.90 0.98 0.33 3.4 19.6 39.0 

0.83 0.52 3.34 0.81 0.30 2.4 20.6 26.0 

0.55 0.38 2.16 0.70 0.13 2.0 17.0 23.8 

0.48 0.38 1. 93 0.59 0.14 1.8 10.2 23.0 

0.50 0.33 1. 81 0.55 0.16 1.6 29.4 9.0 

0.60 0.40 2.09 1. 22 0.06 2.8 29.2 14.0 

0.70 0.40 2.57 0.15 0.07 1.0 33.0 18.0 

0.85 0.41 2.90 0.33 0.11 1.2 33.8 24.0 

1. 01 0.31 2.10 0.43 0.14 2.6 35.4 12.0 

1. 32 0.37 11.24 5.82 0.38 9.0 38.0 84.0 

1.07 0.42 19.52 11.35 0.39 19.0 46.0 150.0 

1.49 0.46 8.56 11. 88 0.87 21. 4 38.6 57.6 

154 

155 
Table A21 Table A22 

CARTER CREEK 10/27/72 CARTER CREEK 11/27/72 

Time Flow (l/sec) 

DIP 

Nutrient Concentrations 

DOP PP N03 NO? 

(u~

!i!i4. 

at/l) 

DON PN 

Time Flow (l/sec) 

DIP 

Nutrient Concentrations 

DOP pp NOZ 

(ug at/I) 

NHa DON PN 

08.00 

08.42 

0 

+ 35 

1. 80 0.68 1. 55 2.20 0.28 8.0 23.6 10.4 10.33 

10.67 

0 + 57 

2.40 0.52 5.81 11.04 0.21 22.5 43.8 43.4 

08.67 + 50 11.00 + 88 

09.00 

09.33 

+ 

+ 

229 

324 

1.05 0.71 0.62 1. 76 0.23 7.0 18.6 5.0 11.33 

11.67 

+ 214 + 274 

1.07 0.53 7.90 16.11 0.31 26.0 33.0 66.0 

09.67 + 354 12.00 + 179 

10.00 

10.33 

+ 

+ 

639 

515 

0.69 0.55 0.43 1.34 0.27 5.4 13.4 5.2 12.33 

12.67 

+ 154 + 436 

0.94 0.40 6.32 16.39 0.30 17.2 17.0 62.6 

10.67 + 738 13.00 + 557 

11.00 

11. 33 

+1,130 

+1,350 

0.54 0.60 0.32 1. 41 0.27 4.4 11.2 5.5 13.33 

13.67 

+ 

+ 345 

158 

0.74 0.28 3.05 14.97 0.25 16.6 16.6 40.0 

11.67 +1,406 14.00 + 565 

12.00 

12.33 

+1,826 

+2,329 

0.60 0.71 0.18 1.00 0.26 2.6 16.0 3.4 14.33 

14.67 

+ 161 + 601 

0.72 0.31 2.02 13.66 0.24 10.8 20.0 22.2 

12.67 

13.00 

+3,492 

+3,669 0.43 0.71 0.33 0.49 0.20 3.4 12.6 5.0 

15.00 

15.33 

0 

82 

0.64 0.29 1. 82 13.86 0.22 11.4 16.0 26.6 

13.33 +3,224 15.67 120 

13.67 

14.00 

+2,097 

+1,128 0.40 0.64 0.19 0.14 0.22 1.4 13.4 5.2 

16.00 

16.33 

316 

569 

0.69 0.24 1. 44 13.91 0.21 8.2 15.8 28.8 

14.33 0 0.55 0.90 0.45 0.07 0.27 3.0 12.2 4.8 16.67 315 

14.67 

15.00 

911 

-2,545 

17.00 

17.33 

290 

456 

0.77 0.33 1. 46 15.88 0.24 14.8 15.6 15.6 

15.33 -2,355 0.49 0.77 0.40 0.24 0.17 1.2 17.0 5.8 17.67 181 

15.67 

16.00 

- 2,596 

-],549 

18.00 

18.33 

195 

259 

1.63 0.50 1.65 13.54 0.26 14.6 19.4 18.0 

16.33 -2,114 0.51 0.66 0.54 0.28 0.16 5.0 19.8 8.2 18.67 313 

16.67 

17.00 

-1,662 

-1,011 

19.00 

19.33 

128 

54 

2.09 0.53 5.75 12.92 0.30 16.0 19.8 40.0 

17.33 -1,079 0.63 0.57 0.67 0.44 0.19 3.0 22.6 11.4 19.67 21 

17.67 

18.00 

873 

833 

20.00 

20.33 

10 

8 

2.20 0.51 4.96 13.01 0.27 16.0 21.6 39.4 

18.33 619 0.78 0.63 0.37 0.61 0.17 3.8 21.6 8.3 20.67 5 

18.67 

19.00 

692 

236 

21.00 

21. 33 

5 

1 

2.57 0.50 3.71 12.17 0.26 16.0 21.0 37.0 

19.33 283 1.16 0.61 0.39 0.67 0.19 3.0 25.2 4.8 21. 67 1 

19.67 

20.00 

187 

115 

22.00 

22.33 

0 

0 

2.80 0.48 6.75 11.36 0.27 21. 2 18.0 51. 8 

20.33 0 1.42 0.86 0.52 0.72 0.23 3.4 19.6 8.0 22.67 0 3.23 0.42 4.61 11. 28 0.29 22.6 17.2 39.2 

156 157 
Time Flow (l/sec) 

09.00 0 

09.33 + 96
 

09.67 + 230
 

10.00 + 472
 

10.33 + 288
 

10.67 + 460
 

11.00 + 805
 

11. 33 + 714
 

11.67 + 446
 

12.00 + 914
 

12.33 + 948
 

12.67 + 92
 

13.00 + 869
 

13.33 . + 753
 

13.67 + 186
 

14.00 + 199
 

14.33 0 

14.67 646
 

15.00 472
 

15.33 818
 

15.67 - 627 

16.00 737
 

16.33 816
 

16.67 706
 

17.00 - 662 

17.33 561
 

17.67 407
 

18.00 222
 

18.33 145
 

18.67 97
 

19.00 43
 

19.33 24
 

19.67 12
 

20.00 9
 

20.33 0 

Table A23
 

CARTER CREEK 1/11/73
 

Nutrient Concentrations 

DIP DOP PP NO?

1.97 0.41 2.22 24.89 0.34 

1.16 0.29 0.76 25.91 0.35 

0.91 0.27 0.56 25. 75 0.31 

0.90 0.25 0.59 23.28 0.32 

0.86 0.25 0.61 23.68 0.31 

0.89 0.22 0.58 23.78 0.33 

0.90 0.25 0.63 25.15 0.31 

1. 01 0.35 0.57 26.86 0.32 

1. 28 0.34 0.86 23.39 0.34 

1.93 0.45 1. 27 20.39 0.32 

1. 92 0.45 2.09 22.07 0.34 

2.04 0.48 1. 58 23.55 0.35 

(ug at/l) 

NH4 DON 

19.6 17.4 

14.8 14.2 

11.8 12.2 

16.0 8.0 

12.4 7.6 

9.8 8.2 

11.6 12.4 

13.2 11.8 

15.0 11.0 

7.2 20.8 

6.8 30.2 

8.0 30.0 

PN 

10.0 

6.0 

5.0 

5.0 

4.4 

4.8 

6.0 

6.0 

10.0 

15.0 

12.0 

10.0 

APPENDIX - B
 

158
 159

1215 0 3.0 7.0 1.6 1l.5 5.3 1.4 8.9 +8.0 

1315 + 879 3.7 5.8 0.4 11. 2 6.7 1.1 8.8 +8.0 

1415 +1333 3.5 6.0 0.2 12.0 5.9 1.6 9.0 +8.0 

1515 +1136 2.2 5.8 0.7 12.2 5.3 3.1 9.1 +8.0 

1615 +1253 2.5 5.8 0.4 12.2 4.8 5.3 9.1 +7.5 

1715 + 716 2.5 5.3 0.3 12.2 5.1 7.3 9.3 +7.0 

1735 0 2.4 5.1 0.3 12.4 3.9 7.4 10.0 +7.0 

1835 -1095 1.2 5.8 0.9 12.2 4.1 6.0 9.7 +7.5 

1935 -1236 1.1 6.4 0.6 12.6 4.0 3.9 9.2 +8.0 

2035 -1147 3.5 7.0 1.1 11.5 4.6 2.4 9.0 +8.0 

2135 - 869 3.3 6.2 1.4 11. 3 4.7 1.8 8.5 +7.5 

2235 - 530 3.5 5.5 1.7 11. 5 5.1 1.4 8.6 +7.5 

2345 0 2.7 6.3 2.5 11. 2 3.0 1.0 8.5 +8.0 

L .. 

Table 82 

WARE CREEK 3/4/72 

Instantaneous 

Water 

Time Transport 

l/sec 

POC 

mg/1 

DOC 

mg/1 

ATP 

1O-4mg/l 

DIC 

mg/1 

ChI. a ug/1­

Sal. 

EE!.:.­

DO 

mg/1 

H20 Temp. 

Deg. C 

0900 

1000 

1100 

1200 

1300 

1400 

1420 

1520 

1620 

1720 

1820 

1920 

2020 

0 

+ 544 

+ 921 

+1245 

+1490 

+ 880 

0 

+1453 

+1689 

+1488 

+ 925 

+ 377 

0 

2.8 

0.4 

0.7 

0.4 

1.5 

1.8 

1.2 

1.2 

0.8 

1.2 

2.9 

2.0 

2.3 

8.8 

8.6 

8.0 

7.6 

7.4 

7.0 

7.3 

7.5 

8.0 

7.5 

8.3 

9.2 

8.3 

1.1 

0.9 

5.5 

4.4 

4.5 

3.0 

6.0 

6.6 

8.7 

6.0 

7.3 

8.7 

11. 3 

7.4 

7.0 

6.3 

7.4 

7.2 

8.7 

7.9 

8.2 

7.7 

7.4 

7.4 

7.1 

7.4 

2.7 

3.4 

2.9 

3.7 

2.9 

4.1 

3.9 

3.2 

3.7 

3.2 

3.2 

2.2 

2.2 

0.4 

0.2 

0.3 

0.4 

0.6 

0.9 

1.0 

0.7 

0.5 

0.4 

0.4 

0.4 

0.4 

8.2 

8.3 

8.3 

8.4 

8.3 

6.7 

4.2 

8.8 

9.4 

9.8 

9.8 

9.6 

7.4 

+ 6.0 

+ 9.0 

+10.0 

+10.5 

+11. 0 

+12.0 

+12.0 

+12.0 

+12.0 

+1l.5 

+11. 0 

+10.5 

+10.5 

m 

.......
 

;;:------.:.--~:~==::::o-,-,-----_=_ -~~-'=-~ -----= 
1037 

1137 

1237 

1337 

1437 

1530 

1630 

1730 

1830 

1930 

2030 

2120 

+ 912 

+1800 

+2361 

+2502 

+1944 

0 

-2415 

- 2707 

- 2721 

-2157 

-1076 

0 

4.9 

1.7 

5.3 

1.1 

2.7 

0.5 

1.6 

2.7 

2.9 

4.0 

1.5 

1.5 

3.3 

7.6 

3.3 

7.6 

6.0 

7.6 

7.1 

7.6 

8.1 

8.6 

9.7 

11.5 

15.9 9.9 

9.8 9.9 

15.9 9.5 

14.8 8.9 

14.8 9.4 

18.6 9.4 

12.8 9.4 

5.2 9.4 

10.6 9.4 

10.4 9.4 

20.6 8.9 

20.2 9.4 

8.5 

9.0 

10.7 

9.3 

16.0 

14.3 

9.5 

11.9 

11.9 

10.9 

10.0 

6.3 

1.4 

2.0 

3.0 

5.0 

8.0 

8.3 

6.5 

4.1 

2.9 

2.7 

2.0 

1.7 

5.5 

5.4 

3.3 

5.5 

5.6 

5.4 

5.5 

5.6 

5.9 

6.6 

6.8 

6.7 

+20.5 

+21. 0 

+21.0 

+21.0 

+19.0 

+20.0 

+21. 0 

+21.0 

+22.0 

+21. 5 

+21.0 

+20.0 

.4 

Time 

1115 

1215 

1315 

1415 

1515 

1615 

1700 

1800 

1900 

2000 

2100 

2200 

2255 

Instantaneous 

Water 

Transport 

l/sec 

0 

+ 872 

+1757 

+2540 

+2823 

+2268 

0 

-2641 

-2770 

- 2409 

-1742 

- 940 

0 

POC 

mg/1 

10.9 

2.8 

2.2 

1.5 

1.2 

1.5 

1.1 

3.2 

1.5 

3.6 

2.4 

4.4 

1.1 

DOC 

mg/1 

3.3 

4.9 

7.1 

6.7 

6.5 

3.8 

4.2 

3.8 

6.0 

6.5 

6.5 

7.3 

8.6 

Table B4 

WARE CREEK 5/17/72 

ATP DIC 

1O- 4mg/1 mg/1 

10.8 9.9 

5.2 8.3 

5.8 8.3 

8.9 8.3 

9.9 8.3 

14.6 8.3 

19.5 7.9 

6.1 7.2 

3.8 8.3 

6.8 8.3 

8.7 8.3 

16.6 9.4 

27.0 9.4 

ChI. a ug/l10.9 

10.0 

10.0 

10.7 

13.4 

18.0 

18.0 

17.2 

12.4 

11. 4 

9.7 

8.5 

7.5 

Sal. 

EE!­

0.4 

0.2 

0.3 

0.6 

1.9 

5.9 

6.3 

4.3 

1.8 

0.8 

0.6 

0.5 

0.5 

DO 

mg/1 

4.6 

5.1 

5.0 

5.2 

4.4 

6.3 

6.5 

6.2 

5.5 

5.3 

4.9 

5.0 

4.6 

H20 Temp. 

+21.0 

+22.5 

+22.0 

+22.5 

+22.5 

+23.0 

+24.0 

+23.5 

+23.5 

+23.5 

+23.0 

+23.0 

+22.0 

(j') 

W 
H2O + 800 10.4 6.8 14.5 13.0 7.8 0.4 5.1 +23.0 

1220 +1227 6.6 6.8 10.6 14.6 5.9 0.7 5.4 +23.0 

1320 +1779 6.1 8.3 8.5 15.2 5.9 1.0 5.7 +23.5 

1420 +2029 2.5 6.7 8.1 12.5 8.1 2.1 5.8 +24.0 

1520 0 2.3 6.1 13.1 12.5 10.4 5.4 6.6 +24.2 

1620 -1989 3.8 7.9 21. 8 14.1 10.0 2.1 7.9 +25.5 

1720 -1981 4.5 8.3 14.2 15.2 9.3 1.2 6.7 +26.7 

1820 -1662 5.5 7.8 7.0 15.7 10.7 1.0 6.4 +26.3 

1920 - 811 6.0 8.9 4.6 14.6 8.1 0.6 5.9 +26.5 

2020 - 505 4.9 10.1 11. 0 14.6 7.6 0.5 4.7 +26.5 

2120 - 110 4.9 10.6 11. 3 14.6 8.9 0.6 3.2 +26.0 

2140 0 5.6 10.5 9.0 15.6 9.6 0.2 6.3 +25.0 

-,.­

Table B6 

WARE CREEK 6/14/72 

Instantaneous
 

Water
 

Time Transport POC DOC
 ATP DIC l/sec ChI. a Sal. mg/1 mg/1 10- 4mg/1 mg/1 ug/1- DO H20 Temp. 

2240 EE!- mg/1 Deg. C + 756 3.5 7.6 5.0 2340 +1186 2.7 8.9 

1l.0 10.5 0.3 6.4 +24.0 0040 +1760 4.4 12.5 10.2 0.4 5.7 7.8 +25.0 0140 +2346 - 15.2 11. 7 0.8 7.1 4.4 9.0 +23.0 - 16.2 0240 +2307 12.2 4.0 4.3 9.5 5.8 +24.0 0340 - 15.2 12.6 + 742 4.8 6.8 6.3 6.2 - +24.2 0355 11. 3 11. 9 a 7.5 6.5 1.7 7.0 +24.0 - 0455 -2277 2.2 10.5 10.2 7.3 6.7 8.3 - +23.0 0555 11.5 12.0 -2424 l.8 5.9 5.1 7.0 +23.9 0655 - 10.5 10.4 -2116 2.7 4.3 7.1 7.8 +23.5 0755 - 15.2 10.9 -1353 1.1 6.1 8.5 - 3.2 +23.3 0855 16.2 13.4 - 789 5.5 0.7 3.1 9.5 +23.0 - 1010 a 15.7 16.3 0.5 4.3 10.1 1.3 +23.0 15.7 21.1 0.5 4.1 +23.0 

m 

<.n 
12.0 

1l.5 22.3 +27 .0 2.8 0.5 3.4 +971 10.6 0945 14.7 13.3 +27.5 1045 +1862 1.6 22.5 

15.7 15.8 1.3 3.4 

13.3 22.5 +28.0 1145 +.2710 2.9 11.5 17.5 4.2 4.0 

11.0 17.6 +28.5 4.3 7.9 5.4 +3162 21.1 1245 12.5 9.5 +28.5 1345 +2741 4.7 17.5 

12.0 17.7 8.4 6.0 

8.4 21.3 +27.8 0 1.3 6.8 5.8 1450 13.0 20.2 

2.4 10.0 20.5 5.0 +27.5 

1550 -2959 14.1 19.2 4.6 

11. 7 23.2 +27.5 2.7 4.3 1650 -3419 15.7 17.0 2.9 

11.6 19.2 +27 .5 -2834 5.0 1.3 4.1 1750 15.1 18.2 12.9 23.3 +26.5 

1850 -2147 2.9 14.1 16.8 0.8 3.8 

13.3 +26.5 1950 -1317 2.5 19.8 

11.0 12.1 0.6 3.0 24.4 12.0 2.6 0 2050 

Table 88 

WARE CREEK 8/26/72 

Instantaneous 

Water 

Time Transport POC DOC ATP DIC ChI. a Sal. DO H20 Temp. 

l/sec mg/l mg/1 10-4mg/l mg/l ug!l- EE!- mg!l Deg. C 

0800 0 3.1 10.0 11.4 11.5 9.6 1.5 2.5 +24.5 

0900 + 557 1.1 7.9 11. 4 16.2 8.8 1.0 3.2 +26.0 

1000 +1315 0.8 9.6 13.3 16.2 11.4 1.5 3.3 +27.0 

1100 +2138 3.3 8.4 13.7 16.8 14.2 2.9 3.8 +27 .5 

1200 +2837 5.0 8.4 12.8 15.1 19.6 5.6 4.2 +28.5 

1300 +2534 1.6 8.0 11. 3 13.0 23.6 9.6 5.0 +28.5 

1400 +1372 2.8 6.7 15.1 12.5 23.0 9.8 4.6 +29.0 

1430 0 1.1 8.0 22.8 9.0 20.2 9.9 5.8 +29.0 

1530 -3167 2.0 8.5 16.6 13.0 23.0 8.8 6.1 +29.5 

1630 -3332 5.0 8.9 14.6 14.1 22.4 7.0 6.1 +30.0 

1730 - 3147 2.2 8.7 12.3 10.5 22.2 4.4 5.4 +30.0 

1830 -1978 6.0 10.1 12.9 15.1 17.4 2.9 5.0 +30.0 

1930 -1014 2.8 10.6 10.4 16.2 14.0 2.0 4.3 +28.0 

2040 0 0.2 9.7 10.4 18.3 11.0 1.5 9.7 +28.5 

O"l 

-.....J 
1000 +1449 2.7 7.9 4.3 13.6 8.0 1.8 5.5 +15.0
 

1100 +2228 4.4 7.9 7.8 14.6 8.0 3.4 6.3 +15.0
 

1200 t 2933 5.5 7.4 3.4 15.1 9.2 6.9 7.6 +15.5
 

1300 +2486 2.9 6.8 5.8 15.7 9.6 11.6 7.2 +16.0
 

1400 +1811 2.1 6.4 5.6 15.1 9.4 5.3 7.4 +16.0
 

1438 0 1.0 6.9 7.3 14.6 10.6 11.9 7.0 +16.0
 

1540 -3065 1.1 7.9 6.1 13.6 9.4 10.7 7.8 +16.5
 

1640 -2507 2.1 7.4 4.8 14.1 9.2 8.8 7.4 +16.5
 

1740 -2212 2.3 8.4 3.2 13.6 9.2 6.0 7.1 +17.0
 

1840 -1897 3.9 8.4 4.0 14.1 8.2 4.1 6.2 +16.5
 

1940 -1472 2.9 8.9 3.2 14.1 7.8 2.8 6.2 +16.5
 

2040 - 507 2.4 8.4 3.7 15.7 6.4 2.2 6.1 +16.5
 

2115 0 1.5 7.4 2.5 13.6 4.6 1.6 5.9 +16.5
 

j 

Table B10 

WARE CREEK 9/24/72 

Instantaneous
 

Water
 

Time Transport POC ATP
 DOC 

l/see mg/l mg/1 1O- 4mg/l 

DIC ChI. a Sal. DO H20 Temp. mg/l ug/1­ E.E..!.-.- mg/l 0800 0 0.2 9.9 4.1 0900 13.6 +1144 5.0 1.5 1.8 7.6 4.0 +18.5 4.7 1000 +2268 12.0 5.0 1.6 1.7 10.5 6.1 4.2 +19.0 1100 +3185 4.4 2.4 5.4 7.9 4.7 

12.5 4.1 +20.0 1200 +3300 3.1 6.3 

14.6 5.8 4.9 4.9 +20.5 1300 6.7 15.7 +2677 3.8 5.0 12.1 5.9 6.3 +21.0 1400 6.1 15.7 4.6 +1181 1.2 12.7 6.1 6.8 +21. 5 8.4 1420 15.7 5.8 0 13.1 6.6 1.6 5.7 +22.0 1520 8.3 15.7 -2749 6.0 13.1 6.3 1.8 5.8 +21. 5 1620 4.9 16.2 -3134 6.8 12.2 3.5 6.3 6.0 6.4 +22.0 1720 15.7 -3067 4.3 5.4 10.6 6.8 6.9 +22.0 1820 3.9 15.1 -2791 5.0 7.7 5.0 7.9 6.6 +22.0 1920 7.2 14.6 4.4 -2328 5.4 4.9 7.4 6.1 +22.0 2020 10.4 14.6 10.2 -1160 6.6 4.0 5.8 6.8 +21. 2 2055 7.0 15.7 5.8 0 0.7 3.2 5.7 7.9 +21. 2 4.4 14.6 4.8 2.4 5.6 +21. 2 

...... 

m 

c.o 
1940 +1207 0.7 8.4 0.3 12.0 3.8 0.6 10.3 +03.0 

1140 +2088 2.0 8.5 0.6 12.5 4.2 1.0 10.4 +04.5 

1240 +2443 4.4 8.6 0.8 12.0 4.8 2.1 8.9 +04.5 

1340 +2440 2.3 7.1 1.4 11.0 4.8 5.5 9.8 +05.5 

1440 +1264 2.3 7.1 1.7 11.0 3.6 5.8 11.6 +05.5 

1508 0 0.6 8.2 2.9 10.5 3.6 5.8 10.3 +05.5 

1610 - 2251 3.2 8.3 2.2 11.0 4.4 5.8 10.8 +05.5 

1710 - 2701 2.7 9.3 2.8 10.5 4.4 3.4 10.8 +04.5 

1810 -2475 4.1 8.9 3.2 12.0 5.4 1.9 11.9 +04.5 

1910 -1962 4.8 8.4 1.7 12.0 5.4 1.2 10.9 +04.0 

2010 -1189 3.7 9.0 0.8 12.5 5.2 0.8 10.2 +03.5 

2110 - 326 2.7 10.0 0.9 12.5 5.0 0.8 9.6 +03.5 

2145 0 1.7 9.4 1.1 13.6 3.8 0.8 9.6 +03.0 

Table B12 

WARE CREEK 1/7/73 

Instantaneous 

Water 

Time Transport POC DOC ATP DIC ChI. Sal. DO H20 Temp. 

l/sec mg/1 mg/1 1O- 4mg/1 mg/1 ug/1 EE!.- mg/1 ~. C 

0740 0 5.5 5.5 5.3 9.4 7.8 0.4 10.0 +00.0 

0840 + 339 1.1 3.2 2.7 8.9 7.8 0.2 10.0 +00.0 

0940 + 405 1.7 3.2 4.1 8.9 6.0 0.2 10.5 +07.0 

1040 + 514 2.3 3.2 1.9 8.9 6.4 0.2 12.3 +08.0 

1140 +1127 1.1 4.3 2.6 8.3 6.4 0.3 10.7 +07.0 

1240 +1174 0.6 4.3 1.5 8.9 5.0 0.4 10.9 +07.0 

1350 0 1.7 3.8 1.4 9.4 6.0 0.7 10.3 +07.0 

1450 -1525 3.3 3.7 1.6 8.9 5.0 0.4 13.0 +07.0 

1550 -1624 2.7 3.8 2.0 8.3 6.0 0.3 12.5 +07.0 

1650 -1128 2.3 3.7 4.4 8.9 5.2 0.3 11.7 +06.0 

1750 - 589 2.8 4.3 4.7 8.9 7.8 0.3 11.7 +05.0 

1850 - 298 2.8 4.8 4.2 8.9 8.2 0.4 12.1 +05.0 

2010 0 3.3 4.8 5.0 8.9 8.2 0.4 10.9 +04.0 

-... 

-...J 
1230 +169 12.5 5.0 3.0 12.5 15.1 10.5 10.3 +14.0 

1330 +491 10.2 5.6 1.4 13.6 13.0 9.0 10.2 +14.0 

1440 0 2.7 7.2 4.1 14.1 7.3 9.1 9.2 +14.5 

1540 -401 2.8 5.6 4.6 13.6 4.6 9.2 9.4 +15.0 

1640 - 283 3.7 5.1 3.7 13.6 8.5 9.5 9.2 +15.0 

1740 - 95 4.8 7.2 2.5 15.8 8.3 4.1 10.1 +14.5 

1840 - 16 4.3 7.7 2.2 15.8 7.0 3.2 10.0 +14.0 

1940 - 12 1.5 7.3 2.7 17.3 7.2 2.4 10.1 +14.0 

2040 - 14 6.8 6.9 2.9 18.9 9.2 2.4 6.6 +14.0 

2140 - 9 5.4 6.2 5.0 18.4 9.8 2.3 9.8 +14.0 

2240 0 5.5 7.3 2.9 17.9 7.8 1.9 10.2 +13.0 

Table B14 

CARTER CREEK 3/23/72 

Instantaneous
 

Water
 

Time Transport pac
 DOC ATP DIC ChI. a Sal. DO H20 Temp. l/see mg/1 mg/1 10-4mg/1 mg/l ug/1- mg/1 .E.E..!..- ~.C

1050 0 2.2 7.9 - 16.2 6.1 5.1 6.4 +13.0 1150 + 199 1.0 5.8 ­ 16.2 4.4 8.2 4.4 +13.0 1250 + 299 2.1 5.1 - 15.8 6.3 4.1 8.3 +13.0 1350 + 576 2.3 5.0 - 15.2 3.9 6.0 8.3 +13.0 1443 + 669 1.5 5.5 - 14.7 10.5 6.9 8.4 +13.0 1550 + 862 0.6 4.0 - 15.2 9.0 7.7 8.7 +13.0 1650 + 455 0.6 6.2 - 13.6 9.3 8.4 8.6 +13.0 1718 0 0.6 5.1 - 14.7 10.5 8.6 8.7 +13.0 1755 - 623 1.7 4.0 - 14.1 6.3 8.7 8.8 +13.0 1855 -1048 1.6 4.5 ­ 14.1 5.6 8.7 8.4 +13.0 1955 - 901 1.6 5.0 - 13.6 5.8 8.8 8.8 +13.0 2055 - 382 1.6 5.7 - 15.2 2.2 6.5 7.6 +13.0 2155 - 1.6 118 6.2 - 16.8 2.4 6.0 7.7 +12.0 2255 0 2.9 7.9 - 16.2 2.9 4.3 7.5 +11.0 

"-J 

W 
10.8 6.0 +21.0 5.5 3.5 10.2 HOO + 436 4.5 4.3 +22.0 8.9 11. 4 12.4 6.9 1200 + 797 2.4 5.4 5.8 +22.0 0.4 5.7 8.9 4.5 10.5 13.5 7.0 1300 + 761 7.8 +22.0 9.3 1l.5 12.9 13.8 1400 + 488 2.0 6.5 +23.0 

0 1.3 4.2 12.2 4.6 12.9 13.4 8.2 1420 13.5 8.1 +23.0 3.4 2.1 16.2 4.6 16.8 1520 - 855 7.8 +24.0 17.2 4.6 12.4 12.8 1620 -1005 LO 3.5 

16.6 4.6 16.8 11. 2 4.7 +25.0 

1720 - 920 1.3 4.2 

17.7 7.5 7.7 +25.0 0.7 6.4 11.9 6.8 1820 - 254 5.0 +23.0 81 7.2 4.5 12.0 15.3 4.5 1920 - 8.8 +21.0 7.9 13.4 4.6 4.9 2020 - 29 11. 7 5.3 4.6 

4.5 4.8 +20.0 4.3 10.9 2040 0 7.7 4.9 6.1 

Table B16 

CARTER CREEK 5/19/72 

Instantaneous 

Water 

Time Transport pac DOC ATP DIC ChI. a Sal. DO H20 Temp. l/sec mg/l mg/l 1O-4mg / 1 mg/l ug/1- mg/l Deg. C m.­

1000 0 3.1 5.5 13.2 1l.5 2.8 7.5 3.4 +21.0 

1100 + 354 4.6 4.1 15.6 16.8 3.1 7.1 5.0 +21.0 

1200 + 730 2.5 3.4 14.2 14.6 4.1 8.8 6.0 +22.5 

1300 +1265 4.4 4.5 15.0 12.5 15.0 8.4 6.4 +22.5 

1400 +2882 4.3 2.4 17.6 13.0 23.5 12.4 7.4 +22.0 

1500 +3365 3.4 3.0 14.6 12.0 13.4 13.2 7.5 +21. 5 

1600 +2662 5.3 3.0 9.1 12.0 10.5 13.5 7.4 +21. 0 

1700 0 2.2 2.3 11.3 12.0 10.9 13.0 7.3 +21. 5 

1800 -2778 2.7 2.3 10.7 12.0 17.2 12.8 6.8 +21.5 

1900 -4235 3.8 3.4 16.1 12.0 22.4 12.4 6.9 +22.0 

2000 -1864 4.1 2.4 13.8 13.0 12.9 11. 7 6.5 +22.0 

2100 - 958 5.0 3.0 15.5 13.0 10.7 10.9 6.1 +21.5 

2200 - 552 3.5 2.4 18.7 13.6 10.2 10.0 6.2 +21. 0 

2300 0 2.7 2.4 18.3 14.1 8.5 9.1 4.7 +21.0 

(T1 
1020 + 847 2.7 9.8 33.8 22.0 27.6 10.9 4.9 +25.0 

1120 +1380 3.2 8.4 37.3 19.6 28.2 12.1 5.4 +26.0 

1220 +2488 1.1 7.7 36.0 17.5 23.8 14.1 5.9 +26.5 

1320 +1612 1.2 8.6 37.7 17.2 18.0 14.3 6.9 +27.5 

1340 0 1.7 7.4 31.6 17.2 26.8 14.6 6.7 +27.5 

1440 -3530 2.0 7.4 31. 7 17.2 19.6 14.2 7.5 +28.5 

1540 -1859 1.6 8.0 37.6 15.0 24.0 13.8 7.7 +28.0 

1640 - 883 2.0 8.6 31. 5 19.4 21. 4 21.6 7.5 +28.0 

1740 - 731 2.9 9.8 35.5 22.0 18.4 16.4 7.0 +27.5 

1840 - 331 1.3 11. 9 23.0 25.3 15.0 9.3 6.7 +27.5 

1940 - 32 1.7 13.7 10.5 27.3 14.2 10.1 4.7 +26.3 

2000 0 2.4 7.0 15.5 20.0 13.2 7.9 4.4 +26.0 

Table B18 

CARTER CREEK 9/27/72 

Instantaneous
 

Water
 

Time Transport POC DOC
 ATP DIC ChI. a Sal. DO l/sec mg/1 mg/1 1O-4mg/ 1 H20 Temp. mg/1 ug/1­ EE!.- mg/1 Deg. C 

0750 0 2.2 6.9 0850 25.3 31. 5 18.0 10.9 + 229 3.9 3.0 +21.0 

0950 5.4 18.9 23.1 17.2 + 852 3.9 6.5 13.5 5.8 +22.0 15.9 22.0 1050 15.2 14.3 4.8 +1256 4.9 +23.5 

1150 7.0 23.3 21.0 25.2 +2291 2.5 15.0 6.1 +24.0 

1250 6.5 21. 8 21. 0 19.0 +2934 2.8 5.7 15.5 7.0 +25.0 26.9 19.5 1340 19.4 16.2 6.5 0 3.7 +25.0 

1440 5.3 27.3 19.5 18.6 -2840 3.5 6.0 16.6 7.5 +25.0 

1540 38.1 20.0 18.0 -1717 4.5 16.1 7.6 +25.5 5.3 21.1 21.0 1640 22.4 15.6 7.6 -1074 4.3 +25.5 

1740 6.0 21. 7 21. 5 21. 0 - 684 1.8 7.5 15.0 7.7 +25.5 21.0 22.5 1840 - 398 17.0 14.2 5.5 14.6 +25.0 8.3 1940 9.9 24.7 20.8 10.6 4.7 - 137 15.5 +24.0 10.4 5.1 2030 22.0 36.0 0 6.8 4.4 +23.5 5.7 11. 8 12.8 20.0 26.4 6.3 4.1 +23.0 

-....J 

-....J 
1100 + 176 5.4 8.4 17.0 23.5 23.5 6.7 9.1 +27.0 

1200 + 422 6.1 8.2 13.8 23.1. 24.8 7.3 7.8 +27.0 

1300 + 908 3.4 7.5 15.5 21. 0 14.6 8.6 6.8 +27.0 

1400 +1145 1.2 7.4 16.8 17.8 12.2 10.3 5.4 +27.2 

1500 +1342 1.2 6.3 13.0 17.3 10.5 11.0 5.7 +27.8 

1540 0 1.7 6.3 14.5 17.3 11.5 10.8 6.8 +29.0 

1640 - 772 0.5 7.0 16.4 17.8 11.5 9.7 6.5 +28.0 

1740 - 467 2.2 7.4 23.5 18.9 15.8 9.7 6.0 +27.5 

1840 - 740 3.4 8.0 23.6 20.0 18.7 8.4 5.9 +27.5 

1940 - 461 3.8 8.7 16.7 22.0 17.2 7.2 4.2 +27.5 

2040 - 151 2.6 10.6 12.5 26.8 12.9 5.2 3.1 +27.5 

2140 0 2.6 10.0 12.3 29.4 7.6 4.7 1.9 +27.0 

Table 820 

CARTER CREEK 7/31/72 

Instantaneous
 

Water
 

Time Transport POC DOC ATP DIC l/sec ChI. a Sal. mg/1 mg/1 1O-4mg/1 - DO H20 Temp. mg/! ug/l
 0840
 EE.!- mg/1 Deg. C 0 9.6 14.2 102.0 0940 + 684 25.8 202.4 3.8 5.3 5.2 1040 9.8 24.4 +23.0 22.0 +1105 30.8 1.0 6.5 4.0 10.5 19.0 +24.0 1140 +2477 9.4 6.2 22.8 

9.3 17.0 8.0 4.0 +24.0 1240 19.0 +4507 13.3 9.6 1340 0.6 9.6 17.8 17.3 5.6 +25.0 +1029 2.4 11. 2 10.9 5.3 7.7 +25.0 1400 15.1 17.8 0 0.6 12.0 11.2 5.0 9.5 21. 8 +26.0 1500 16.8 -2622 17.0 11. 2 

1600 0.5 9.0 22.9 16.8 5.2 +26.0 -3308 0.3 9.0 16.2 10.7 6.0 28.8 +27.0 1700 17.3 -2140 7.9 11. 2 9.9 6.4 10.0 21. 7 +27.0 1800 12.0 -6814 15.2 23.6 10.4 5.8 8.5 +27.0 28.3 1900 - 830 11.5 26.8 6.2 14.2 5.2 2000 169 12.8 12.5 13.5 29.6 +26.0 - 23.9 2.0 4.1 17.0 16.9 +24.0 2117 11.0 0 43.8 0.9 2.6 7.0 14.4 +23.0 25.4 14.1 69.4 0.9 2.5 +22.0 

'J 

co 
1000 + 639 1.2 7.6 8.0 22.0 5.8 13.4 5.7 +11.0 

1100 +1130 1.7 7.0 8.3 21. 5 6.6 13.9 6.8 +12.5 

1200 +1826 1.0 7.0 4.4 20.0 6.4 14.2 7.3 +14.0 

1300 +3669 1.1 7.5 7.2 18.9 11.4 15.3 8.0 +14.0 

1400 +1128 2.6 5.4 5.8 18.4 8.0 15.7 8.1 +14.5 

1420 0 2.2 7.4 7.0 17.3 20.8 15.7 9.5 +14.5 

1520 -2355 2.4 7.7 10.5 17.5 16.0 15.6 9.7 +14.5 

1620 -2114 3.5 7.4 10.3 18.4 13.8 15.4 8.3 +14.5 

1720 -1079 2.0 9.6 11.5 18.4 12.0 14.7 8.0 +14.0 

1820 - 619 2.5 8.1 10.0 20.4 8.6 13.9 7.8 +13.5 

1920 - 293 1.0 9.3 3.8 22.5 5.0 12.4 7.5 +13.5 

2020 0 1.2 10.5 6.6 24.6 4.6 10.8 7.6 +13.5 

Table B22 

CARTER CREEK 11/27/72 

Instantaneous
 

Water
 

Time Transport POC DOC
 ATP DIC l/see mg/1 ChI. a Sal. DO mg/1 1O- 4mg/1 H20 Temp. mg/1 ug/1­ mg/1 1020 0 4.5 12.6 1120 2.1 25.8 +214 6.8 2.4 7.5 6.3 10.2 +08.5 1220 1.8 26.8 +154 9.6 4.2 9.2 8.1 8.8 1.7 +09.0 1320 +345 24.7 10.8 5.6 2.3 8.5 9.8 +09.5 1420 3.1 20.5 8.6 +161 1.5 8.7 9.6 8.5 +09.5 1500 0 5.2 20.5 6.6 8.9 3.3 7.5 3.2 10.3 +09.0 1600 20.5 -316 6.8 9.0 1.7 10.8 5.3 10.0 +09.5 1700 19.4 7.0 -290 1.5 10.0 8.8 10.3 +09.2 4.6 1800 21. 5 -195 5.2 6.9 3.4 10.8 9.3 +09.5 1900 3.5 24.7 4.0 4.5 -128 8.8 7.3 11.8 +09.5 2000 2.3 24.7 7.4 - 10 3.7 8.2 7.0 13.1 +09.0 2100 - 5 1.6 23.7 7.2 2.3 7.0 7.2 11.9 +08.0 2200 1.6 25.1 8.2 - 1 12.2 11. 3 2.1 7.7 +07.0 2240 1.8 26.2 0 8.8 2.2 7.1 12.2 7.1 +06.5 1.2 27.3 6.0 2.3 6.5 +06.0 

00 
1000 +472 1.1 5.2 1.8 18.4 2.6 3.9 5.2 +01.0 

1100 +805 1.0 4.7 1.3 16.2 3.0 6.5 9.1 +02.0 

1200 +914 0.5 6.3 1.3 15.7 2.6 6.3 9.2 +02.0 

1300 +869 0.5 5.2 1.4 16.3 3.0 7.2 9.3 +02.5 

1420 0 1.1 4.7 2.1 16.3 3.6 7.0 8.9 +03.0 

1520 -818 1.0 5.2 1.3 16.3 2.6 6.9 9.4 +03.0 

1620 -816 0.5 5.7 1.4 15.8 2.6 6.4 9.1 +02.0 

1720 -561 1.6 6.2 1.6 15.8 3.0 4.8 8.9 +02.0 

1820 -145 1.7 7.2 2.1 15.8 3.0 3.2 8.4 +00.5 

1920 - 24 1.1 6.8 2.1 16.2 4.0 1.8 6.5 +00.2 

2020 0 1.7 6.8 1.8 16.2 4.0 1.8 8.1 +00.0 

_J
 
VIRGINIA WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH CENTER 

BLACKSBURG, VI RGINIA 24061 

I!! i