### 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. BenderBulletin 79 January 1976 

## Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Carbon Flux in Chesapeake Bay Marshes

Donald 1Vl. Axelrad Kenneth A. Moore and Michael E. Bender Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gloucester Point, Virginia

The work upon which this report is based was supported by funds provided by the United States Departmentofthe Interior,

Office ofWater Research and Technology, as authorized by the Water Resources Act of 1964

OWRTProject B-027-VA

VPI-VWRRC-BULL 79 A publication of Virginia 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 phosphoruscycle 

### 61 3. Ware andCarterCreek in relationtothe York River 

### 62 63 4. CarterCreek marsh 

### 64 5. Ware Creek marsh 

### 6. Annual variation in mean watertemperature over a tidal cycleforWare Creek and CarterCreek marshes 

### 65 7. Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack water and lowslack water salinity 

### 66 8. Annual variation in CarterCreek marsh high slack water and lowslack watersalinity 

### 67 9. Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack water and low slackwaterdissolved inorganicphosphorus concentration 

### 68 10. Annual variation in CarterCreek marsh high slack waterand lowslack waterdissolved inorganic phosphorus concentration 

### 69 11. Variation in dissolved inorganic phosphorus concentration over Carter Creek marsh summerand wintertidal cycles 

### 70 12. Variation in dissolved inorganicphosphorusconcentration over CarterCreek marsh summerand wintertidal cycles 71 

### 13. Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack water andlow slack water dissolved organicphosphorusconcentration 

### 72 14. Annual variation in Carter Creek marsh high slack water and lowslack waterdissolved organicphosphorusconcentration 

### 73 15. Variation in dissolved organicphosphorusconcentration overWare Creek marsh summerandwintertidal cycles 

### 74 16. Variation in dissolved organic

### phosphorusconcentration over CarterCreek marsh summerandwintertidal cycles 

### 75 17. Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack water and low slack water particulatephosphorusconcentration 

### 76 18. Annual variation in Carter Creek marsh high slackwater and lowslack water particulatephosphorusconcentration 

### 77 19. Variation in particulatephosphorusconcentration over Ware Creek marsh summrand wintertidal cycles 

### 78 20. Variation in particulatephosphorusconcentration over CarterCreek marsh summerandwintertidal cycles 

### 79 21. Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack water and lowslack water nitrateconcentration 

### 80 22. Annual variation in Carter Creek marsh high sclack water and lowslack water nitrateconcentration 

### 81 23. Variation in nitrateconcentrationoverWare Creek marsh summerand wintertidal cycles 

### 82 24. Variation in nitrateconcentration over Carter Creek marsh summerand wintertidal cycles 

### 83 25. Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack water and low slack water nitrateconcentration 84 

### ai. Annual variation in CarterCreek marsh high slack waterand lowslack water nitrite concentration 

### 85 27. Variation in nitriteconcentrationoverWare Creek marsh summerandwintertidal cycles 

### 86 28. Variation in nitriteconcentration over CarterCreek marsh summerandwintertidal cycles 

### 87

v iv

### 29. Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack water and low slack waterammoniaconcentration 88 30. Annual variation in CarterCreek marsh high slack waterand low slack waterammoniaconcentration 89 31. Variation in ammoniaconcentrationoverWare Creek marsh summerand wintertidal cycles 90 32. Variation in ammoniaconcentration over CarterCreek marsh summerandwintertidal cycles 91 33. Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack water and low slack waterdissolved organic nitrogen concentration 92 34. Annual variation in CarterCreek marsh high slack water and low slack waterdissolved organic nitrogen concentration concentration
. 93· 35. Variation in dissolved organic nitrogen concentration overWare Creek marsh summerand wintertidal cycles 94 36. Variation in dissolved organicnitrogen concentration over CarterCreek marsh summerand wintertidal cycles 95 37. Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack water and low slack waterparticulate nitrogen concentration 96 38. Annual variation in CarterCreek marsh high slack water and low slack water particulate nitrogen concentration 97 39. Variation in particulate nitrogen concentration over Ware Creek marsh summerandwintertidal cycles
. 98 40. Variation in particulate nitrogen concentrationover CarterCreek marsh summerand wintertidal cycles 99 41. Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack water andlow slack waterchlorophyll "a"concentration

. 100 

### 42. Annual variation in CarterCreek marsh high slack waterand low slack water chlorophyll "all

### concentration

. 101 

### 43. Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack water and lowslack water phytoplankton productivity 44. Annual variation in CarterCreek marsh high slack waterand low slack water phytoplankton productivity 45. Seasonal changesin mean particulateorganiccarbon (paC)concentrations in Ware Creek and CarterCreek marshes 46. Seasonal changes in mean dissolved organiccarbon (DOC) concentration in Ware Creek and Carter Creek marshes 47. Seasonal changes in mean adenosine-tri-phosphate (ATP) concentrations in Ware Creek and CarterCreek marshes 48. Seasonal changes in mean chlorophyll lI

### a" concentrations in Ware Creek and Cartercreek 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 organiccarbon concentrations in Ware Creek and CarterCreek marshes 51. 

### Seasonal changes in mean carbon: chlorophyll "a" ratios for Ware and Carter Creek marshes 52. Seasonal changes in mean dissolved inorganiccarbon (DIC) concentrationsin Ware Creek and Carter Creek marshes
. 53. Seasonal changes in mean dissolved oxygen concentrations in Ware Creek and CarterCreek marshes · 102

· 103

· 104

· 105

· 106

· 107

. 108

· 109

· 110

· 111

112

vi 

### vii

### LIST OF TABLES

1. Correlation matrix of nutrientconcentrations, salinity, water temperature, tide height, and water flow in Ware Creek over the year. ..... . 2. Correlation matrix of nutrientconcentrations, salinity, water temperature, tide height, and waterflow in Carter Creek overthe year. 

### 3. Ware Creek

- tidal phosphorustransport. 

### 4. CarterCreek

- tidal phosphorustransport. 5. Ware Creek

- tidal nitrogentransport. 

### 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. CarterCreek

- annual nitrogen budget. 

### 11. Ware Creek

- flood and ebbtidecorrelation coefficients. 

### 12. Carter Creek

- flood andebbtidecorrelation**coefficient~.** 

### 13. Ware Creek

- tidal carbon transport. 

### 14. Carter Creek

- tidal carbontransport.. 

### 15. Ware Creek Marsh

- annual netcarbontransport. 

### 16. CarterCreek Marsh

- annual netcarbon transport. 

### 17. Percent netangiospern production exportedfrom 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 constituentconcentrations overtidal 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 inorganic 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 mineralizedand 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 subsequentexportas dissolved species. Carbon flux data show significant contributions of both particulate and dissolved organic carbon to the estuary from the

### mar~hes. Estimates ofexport, 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 Creeksrespectively.

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 tothe estuary, however, lies in their potential to provide organic matter in the form ofdetritus and their effect upon nutrient budgets. The influence of marsheson estuarine productivity has been largely ascribed to the high primary productivity of marsh plants, much of which is exported tothe estuarieswhere 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 quality is by its interaction with the plant nutrients, phosphorus and nitrogen, contained in theestuarine waterswhich flush through the marshes. Phosphorus and nitrogen are the nutrients most often restricting autotrophic productivity in aquatic systems and both have been demonstrated to becapable 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 phosphoruscycling 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 toassess the resultsobtained in Iight of estuarine water quality. In support of these flux studies, a determination of the primary production in the Ware and Carter creek marsheswas made under ajointprogram sponsored by VIMS and I\lSF.



### 3

### LITERATURE REVIEW Nitrogen Cyclingin Salt Marshes Nitrogen Cycles In a North Carolina Juncus roemerianus dominated salt marsh, Byron (1968) found that forty-one percent of the nitrogen enteringthe system overseveral 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 creekebbtide waters suggestedthatthis organic nitrogen was not mineralized in the marsh and subsequently returned tothe estuary. Nitrate concentrations of watersoverlying two DelawareSpartinaalterniflora 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 peaksat high slack waterand 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-Nitrogen Interactions Sampling over a year in two Louisiana Spartina marshes indicated that sediment interstitial water ammonia concentrations were many timesgreater 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.



### 5Nitrogen 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 sedimentswere 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 (Daiberand Gooch, 1968). It was theorized that bacteria using characteristically nitrogen poor 

### Spartina detritus as an energy source must assimilate their nitrogen requirementsfrom marsh waters (Thayer, 1969). Ustach (1969) supported this theory by demonstrating increased heterotrophic utilization of 

### Spartina detritus upon addition ofnitrate to a detritusestuarine watersystem. These nitrogen-marsh interactions described above are shown diagramatically in Figure 1. 

### Phosphorus Cyclingin SaltMarshes PhosphorusCycles 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 phosphorusconcentrationsin marsh creeksat lowslack 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,

### etat. 1971). Blum (1969) theorized that high marsh 

### Spartinapatenswas 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 thatthe waters overlying the marsh during flood tide had significantly lowerdissolved inorganic phosphorus concentrations and significantly higher phosphorus concentrationscompared toebbtide. Flux measurement over several fall tidal cycles utilizing phosphorus concentration, and water discharge data, indicated that two North Carolina

### 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 ofthis nutrienttothe estuary (Byron, 1968). Salt Marsh Sediment-Phosphorus Interactions In two Louisiana 

### Spartina marshes, yearly averages of sediment interstitial water dissolved inorganicphosphorus concentrations were many times greater than concentrations in corresponding watercolumns. 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 solubilization of inorganic phosphorus from salt marsh sediments. In this cycle bacteria hydrogen suIfide 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 winterand 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 ofaboutone microgram atom perliter. 

### 6 

### 7

### Phosphorus Cycling by Salt Marsh Biota Turnover rate ofdissolved inorganicphosphoruswasfound 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 ofdetritusand associated bacteria by detritivores and excretion by detritivores, introducesdissolved phosphorus to marsh waters (pomeroy, Johannes, Odum, and Roffman, 1969). Another explanation for the high concentrations of dissolved inorganicphosphorus in marsh waters has been suggested by Reimold (1972) who indicated that 

### Spartina a/temiflora pumps sedimentary phosphorusfrom rhizomesto leaves, where phosphorus is released to marsh waters upon 

### Spartina inundation by high tides. Seasonal variation in dissolved inorganicphosphorusconcentration 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 mineralized large amounts of organic phosphorus through their detrital and periphyton grazing activities (Marples, 1966; Pomeroy

### eta/., 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 ofMarsh 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 ofthese studieshave utilized some variation ofa litterbagmethod, in which known amountsofmarsh grass are placed in nylon mesh bags atvarious locationsin a marsh. Decomposition is measured as the rate of loss from the bags. Kirby indicatesthatthe loss of material from the litterbags is a function of several factors: (1) the size ofthe 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 importantin controllingdecomposition 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 afifty 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 lossof material from bags placed in atidal channel as compared to material placed in a high marsh area. Utach noted a relatively constantloss of onepercent perday in his study area. Kirby hypothesizes that grazing by amphipods and other invertebrates is initially responsible for reduction of the grassesto 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 offreshwater lakes (Rodina, 1963;Pearl, 1973) to participate in the decomposition of

### Spartina with much ofthe loss in dry weight of the plant tissue taking place through diffusion of the metabolicproductsofthe microorganisms. In freshwater streams where a situation somewhat similar exists, that being the input of large amounts ofallochthonousleaf-born organic material,there has been more extensive investigation ofthe 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 leavesthatare maximally colonized by fungi and bacteria. Kaushik and Hynes (1971) also evidenced differential decomposition rates for fallen leaves of different species oftrees and noted that fungi appeared to be more effective than bacteria in the breakdown ofthe leaves. The Importance of Detritusas 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 consumerspecies." 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, eta/., 

### in a later work (1970) indicatesa tenfold decrease in percent protein with Spartina 

### in ebbing tides from that found in the living plant leaves. Burkholderand 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 solidscontain 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 itsmicrofauna. 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 suggestedthat particles can be produced by the adsorption of dissolved matter on bubbles (Sutcliffe, 

### et. a/., 1963; lVIenzel, 1966) and that both dissolved and bubble-formed particulate material can be a source of nutrition for organisms (Stephens, 1967;Stephensand Schinske, 1961; Fox, 1950). Transport of Detritus There are numerous studies which cite the importance of marshlands as sources 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 mighteasily 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 concludethatthere was generally a loss offloating debrisfrom the creek.

10 11

### METHODS Description ofStudyAreas Two marshes in the York Riverwatershed (Figure 3) were selectedto 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 ofwaterto orfrom the study areas. CarterCreek 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 remainingvegetation consisted ofthreesquare (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 wasdominated by giantcordgrass (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). 

### FieldMeasurements A sampling platform was constructed in the majorcreekdraining each marsh, located such thatall tidal watersentering and leavingthe marsh passed by the sampling station. Cross sectional profiles at the sampling siteswere measured before and during the sampling year by determiningcreek depth belowfixed marks at half meter intervals across the creek. 1\10 

### significantchange in creek crosssection profiles wasdetected overthe study period. 13

### PreliminaryMeasurements 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 detritusconcentrations. In addition, to determine if the seston (detritus) could adequately be represented by sampling with a water bottle, experimentswere 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. Waterpassingthe 

### 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 ofthe 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 48hours after sampling with subsequentstorage in crushed ice. Statistical analysis of the data revealed no significant difference (ex == 

### .05) in the concentrationsofeitherparameteras a function time. FieldMeasurementsandSamplingProcedures Ware and Carter creek marshes were sampled for tidal constituentstransport over day time tidal cycles several times during 1971 and approximately monthly from January 1972 to January 1973. In sofar as possible, sampling periods were chosen to correspond to mean tides as predicted by National Ocean Survey tidetables. During a survey period, water samples for nutrient and chlorophyll 'a' analysis were taken hourly from the marsh creekfrom 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 butwere notpreserved. • Registered Trade Mark. 

### Air and watertemperatureswere measured hourly to the nearest 0.5°C with a mercury thermometer. Samplesfor dissolved oxygen were taken hourly while salinity sampleswerecollectedevery twenty minutes overa tidal cycle. Current velocity was determined coincidental with the nutrientsampling 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 tocreek 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 stickfixed at a known elevation abovecreek bottom. Water for phytoplankton productivity determination was taken every two hours over a tidal cycle beginning atfirst lowslack water. Three 125ml 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/Iiter 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 waterpumpedfrom the marsh creek. After three hours the productivity samples were fixed with 1 ml 10% buffered formalin and stored in the dark at OoC (Strickland and Parsons, 1968). LaboratoryMeasurements The morning following sampling, 500ml ofeach ofthe 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 dessicatorand refrigerated at4°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 15tration 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 calibrated 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 milliliter 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 salinometer. Dissolved oxygen concentration was measured using a modified Winklertitration (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 atissue grinder and pulverized. The produce was centrifuged, the extract broughtto volume, and read on a Turner Model 

### III fluorimeter calibrated for chlorophyll 'a' determination against a Cary 15scanning 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 Milliporefilter and its phytoplankton load in a 20 ml scintillation vial. Activity ofthe 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 ofthe samplesas obtained by Moore (1973), by use ofthe formula: Phytoplankton Productivity (mg carbon/liter-hour) 

### [ L 

### + L

### Z-0] 

### fe) 1.05 J2 RTE where L1 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 inorganiccarbon (mg/1) 1.05 isotopecorrection 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 outlined in "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes", EPA, 1971. ATP determinations were performed following the method outlined 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 afactor of 250 (Hamilton and Holm-Hansen, 1967). 

### Tidal NutrientTransport Calculation For purposes of water discharge determination the creek cross sectional profiles at the sampling stations were drawn to a fraction of scale and the

### ~ross sectional area of water planimetrically determined at 10cmtide 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 afunction of tide height. All tide height observations were converted to water cross 16 17sectional 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, salinity, and nutrientswere 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 nutrientand salinity discharge; 2. plotted graphs of instantaneous nutrient and salinity discharge versus time and integrated the area under the flood tide and ebb tide halvesofthe curve; 

### 3. subtracted flood tide nutrient and salinity transport from ebb tidetransportand 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 attributedto 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 causingconstant sampling bias. Therefore flood and ebb water transport were multiplied byconstantswhich equated them to the mean of the measured flood and ebb tidal prisms over the tidal cycle. Tidal nutrienttransport data were also corrected in this manner. Annual NutrientTransport Calculation For calculation of annual nutrient flux between the marshesandtheestuary, the sampling year was divided intoeleven, 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 nettransport overeach month was calculated by use ofthe equation: 

### Tm

## =I\ITtc where T m net nutrienttransport overthe month N number oftidal cycles in the month Ttc net nutrient transport over the tidal cycle sampled during the month Theassumption ofthe second calculation was that net nutrienttransport over a tidal cycle was directly proportional to marsh tidal prism. Thus, net transport overeach month was calculated by use ofthe equation:
T m 

## =N Ttc P/Ptc where 

### P mean salt marsh tidal prism forthe month 

### P

tc tidal prism ofthetidal cycle sampled duringthe 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 transportsfor each marsh overthe year. Statistical Analysis Relationships between nutrient concentrations and physical parameterswere determined by correlation analysis (Snedecor and Cochran, 1967) using a program devised for the IBM 360-50computer (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 couldthen reveal the effect of marsh induced nutrient transformations on estuarine phytoplankton productivity. 18 19

### RESULTS Seasonal 

### & Tidal Variationsin Temperature

### & Salinity Temperature 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 CarterCreek. Maximum recorded temperatures were observed in lateJune on CarterCreek and in September onWare Creek (Figure6).

Salinity ranges at low and high slack water for Ware Creek and Cartercreeks 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%forWare and Cartercreeks, respectively. Seasonal andTidal NutrientConcentrationTrends In order to compare as concisely as possible the seasonal and tidal nutrient concentration trendsobserved over thecourse ofthis study, we have prepared two illustrations of the concentration variations in each parameter. Thefirst 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

- 2.95ug at/1 in Ware Creek and 0.22

- 5.06ug at/1 in Carter Creek (Appendix A). High slackwaterconcentrationsvaried much less with season than did low slack values. Mean high slack concentrations for bothcreeks were less than 1ugat/1,rangingfrom 0.22to 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 DIPincreasedfrom winter lowstosummerhighs in both creekswith maximum values beingattained in July. Over tidal cycles throughout the year (Figures 11 and 12), DIP conCefi21

### trations usually peaked at low slack water and decreased with increasingtide 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 DIPconcentrationsathigh slack than atlowslackwater (AppendixA, TablesA9andA10). Dissolved OrganicPhosphorus 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 15and 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 organicform were between 0.41

-0.62 ug at/1 for Ware and0.46

-0.64ug at/1 for Carter. Particulate Phosphorus Particulate phosphorus (PP) concentrations within the marsh creeks were maximal in summerand minimal in fall and winter (Figures 17and 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 waterin CarterCreek butwereoften foundattimes ofmaximal waterflow 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 CarterCreek PPconcentrations and tide height in Table 2. The highest sustained PP concentrations were r:neasured in Carter Creek during a rain storm overthe latterpartofthe Julytidal cycle (AppendixA, TableA18). 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 (N0

# 3)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 duringthesummermonths. Concentration variations with tidal stage were also less regular than for dissolved**in~rganic** 

### phosphate. Low slack water I\J0

# 3concentrationswere 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 atlowslack 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, concentrationsranged only from 0.09

- 0.71 ug at/1 (Appendix A). As shown in Figures 25and 26these 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 (NH;) 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 clearthan for previously discussed nutrient species. Throughout the year ammonia levels were usuallyhigher at lowslackwaterthan 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 waterwere similarin both study areas. Dissolved Organic Nitrogen Levels of dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) were generally highestin 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 slackwaterconcentrations generally parallel each otherquiteclosely with slightly higherconcentrationsbeing observed atlowslack. The tidal cycle data for Ware Creek shown in Figure 

### 35 do not indicateany 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 andfrom 

### 3.4 - 174.6u 

### at/1 in Carter Creek (Appendix A). Peak PN levels over tidal cycles usuall occurred just before low slack water in CarterCreek butwereoftenfound 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 samplinga CarterCreek (Appendix A, Table A

### 18). ' Seasonal andTidal Plankton ConcentrationTrends 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 organismsfrom theCarterCreek marsh during a thunderstorm in July. Productive Potential As described in the Methods Section, phytoplankton productivity wasdetermined 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 ofwatertaken 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 CarterCreek. Productive potentials increased graduallyfrom winter lowsto late summer maxima in both systems (Figures 

### 43 and 

### 44). Carbon fixation potential followed the chlorophyll 'a' concentrations quite closely and was usually higher athigh slackwater than at lowin both systems. Seasonal Nutrient FluxTrends 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 inputof DIP tothe marsh. Exports ranged from 

### 36 -245 grams per cycle and imports from 8 -

### 310 grams per cycle. Utilizing these data the yearly budgetshown 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 ofcourse notcalculable: On an annual basis, 

### 6,851 grams of dissolved inorganic phosphorus were transported tothe York River from thestudy 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 exportedtothe York Riverfrom 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 percycle and importsfrom 

### 4 - 98 grams per cycle. The annual budget (Table 

### 7) showed a net export of 

### 30,512 grams of this phosphorusform. !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 - 142grams percycle 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 areato the river. Particulate Phosphorus Import of particulate phosphorustotheWare Creek area wasobserved 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 tothe 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 percycle. Over the year 

### 83,823 grams of particulate phosphorus were imported tothe 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 organicphosphorusfrom themarshes.

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 duringthe 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 N0

# 3 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 importsvaryingfrom 

### 20 - 153 grams per cycle and exportsfrom 

### 35 - 161 gramsper cycle (Table 6). Annually 

### 31,191 grams of nitrate were imported from the York Rivertothe 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 ofthe 

### 12 sampling dates. Exports occurred only during January, June and August. Nettransportbyflood tides varied between 

### 6 - 184grams while netebbs 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 sampling dates (Table 6). As was observedwith nitrate, nitritetransportvalues wereconsiderably lower in Carter than in Ware, with imports varyingfrom 1 -

### 30 grams per cycle and exportsfrom 

### 1 - 11 grams percycle. On an annual basis 

### 2,397 grams of nitrite were imported to CarterCreek 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 percycle with larger outputs in the springand summer. Inputs rangedfrom 

### 300 -869 gramspercycle. Annually 

### 407,554 grams of (NH;) wereexportedtothe York River from the Ware Creek study area. In Carter Creek 5 samplings 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 transportof NH;relativeto thatofother nutrientspecies 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 ofthepreceding month andthefollowing month. In contrast to Ware Creek, on an annual basis Carter displayed an export of 

### 28,665 grams of

### NH~ totheYork River. Dissolved Organic Nitrogen Export of DON occurred during 7 of the 

### 12 samplingperiods 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 duringtheApril and Junecycles (Table5). In Carter Creek export of DON was observed during all but the August and November sampling periods. Export varied between 

### 216,- 5,776 grams per cycle while values of 

### 541 and 

### 172 grams were observed for the August and Novembercycles, respectively. Annually, there was significant net output of DON from both marshes with greater exportfrom Carter 

### (925,270grams) than -From Ware 

### (324,835grams). 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 exportof 

### 3,765 gramsofparticulate nitrogen. In contrast Carter Creek exported PN on only three occasions, during the July storm and during Octoberand January. Exports ranged from 

### 303 -4,921 grams percycle and importsfrom 

### 405 -2398 grams percycle. On an annual basis, there was a large net inputof particulate nitrogen into the studyareafrom 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 ofthe other nitrogen species.



### 28 29

### Diurnal Versus Nocturnal Tidal NutrientTransport 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 overthe diurnal tidal cycle,a small quantity was importedtothe marsh overthe 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 overthe twotidal cycles, however, more dissolved organic nitrogen was imported to the marsh over the daytime compared to the nighttimetidal cycle. A greateramountof particulate nitrogen was exported from the marsh over the diurnal than over the nocturnal tidal cycle. 

### PhytoplanktonProductivityCorrelations 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 temperatureheldconstant,calculated between phytoplankton assimilation number and dissolved inorganic phosphorus, nitrate, and ammonia,revealed no significantcorrelationsovereitherflood or ebbtides (Tables 11 and 12). 

### Seasonal andTidal CarbonConcentrationTrends Particulate OrganicCarbon POC concentrations in the marsh waters ranged from less than 1mg/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 CarterCreekthanWare 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! thesevalues were 3.6 mg/1 and 3.9mg/1 for flood and ebb, respectively. POC concentrations within eachtidal cycle (Appendix B) varied as a function of tidal stage. Highestvalues occurred near low slack or during mid-tide. Only occasionally were levels nearthehigh 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 squallsfor 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 55miles 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 OrganicCarbon 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 comparedto either thetotal ebborflood tidal transports. Only duringthe April tidal cycle occurred what might beconsidered a significantnetinflux 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 athigh slack waterfor both marshes throughoutthe year.**WASr'H~GTON** 

### WATER ATP-Carbon 

### 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 Creektidal 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 obtainedfor 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. CarterCreek marsh, on the otherhand,continued with high levels until the Octobersampling. ATP-carbon, measured as percent POC, varied throughoutthe 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 highestduringthe 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 duringthe summerto over 500: 1duringthefall 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 summermonths 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 netproduction over respiration in the. marshes. Water samples during the flooding tidal period were generally obtained during the morning. Reduced 

### O 2 levels would therefore beexpected from nighttime respiration. Daytime photosynthesis in thewatercolumn and on the marsh surface resulted in higher levels of

### O 2 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 cyclewhich began with low slack during the morning indicated a net efflux of O 

### 2 from the marsh. The second tidal cycle which began during the nightindicated a net influx of O



### 2 to the marsh. Levels of DO and DIC within the tidal cycles reveal that values for DO were generally lowest at low slack and highestathigh slack;conversely, DIC levels were highestat lowslack and lowestaround high slack. Seasonal changes in mean DICconcentrations in Ware Creek and CarterCreek marshes are presented in Fig. 52. Higher DIC concentrations resulting from the higher salinities in Carter Creek are evident in comparison to the Ware Creek concentrations. Seasonally, DIC concentrations are highest in both marshes during thesummer 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. NetCarbon Transport Tidal transport of each of the measured 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 watertemperaturesduring the winter. This was probably due tothe stearicoscillations 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 oneyearstudy period there was a net loss of 4945.7 kg ofparticulate organiccarbon (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). Assumin

# 2that the annual net angiosperm productions of the marshes were 562 

### glm for Ware Creek and 

### 572 

### g/m2 for Carter Creek as determined by Mendelssohn (1973) during 1971-72, then 12.4%ofthis production was exportedfrom 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 lostfrom the marsh as DOC (Table 17). Living carbon as estimated from the ratio ofATPtocellularcarbon wasequal to 0.5% ofthe netangiosperm production ofWare Creek (Table 17) and 1.8% oftheCarterCreek production.These non-detrital fractions are equal to8.4% 32 33

### and 8.7% of the annual export of POC from Ware and Carter creeks respectively. 

### DISCUSSIOI\l Phosphorus FluxThrough the SaltMarsh Ecosystem The observed negative correlations between dissolved phosphorus concentrations, tide height, and waterflow, along with the significantannual exports of dissolved inorganicand 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 

### etal., 1969; Pomeroy, 1960; Kuenzler, 1961; Marples, 1966; Reimold, 1972),orby sediment-water equilibrum processes (Pomeroy 

### et al., 1965; Upchurch, 1972). However, Pomeroy,Shenton,Jones, and Reimold, (1972) have indicated that metabolic processes predominateover sorption phenomena in thecycling ofphosphorus within salt marsh-estuarine environments. With this information, and considering that: 1) the annual net output of dissolved phosphorus speciesfrom Ware Creek and Carter Creek marshes was exceeded by the annual netinput 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 CarterCreek marshes was negligible; a saltmarsh phosphorusflux scheme can be hypothesized. The resultant annual phosphorus cycle is characterized by influx ofestuarineparticulate phosphorusto marsh sedimentsfollowed by biotic mineralization of a fraction of the particulate phosphorus compartment of the marsh and subsequent efflux of dissolved phosphorus from the marsh to theestuary. The observed phosphorus concentration and transport trends of Ware Creek and Carter Creek marshes can be explained within the context of this hypothesis by consideringenvironmental parameters and the findings ofother 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 

### etal., 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 betterto degree ofsediment-watercontact, 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 temperaturecausing 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 exportedfrom the marshes, indicates that salt marsh sediments and biota may actto 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 overthe post-HurricaneAgnes tidal cycle ofJuly, 1972. While this seemingly abnormal phosphorus influxto Ware Creek may have been a result of the hurricane, the rain storm overthe 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 overtheJuly tidal cycle in spiteofthe large quantitiesof marsh sedimentsthatwere suspended in the marsh watercolumn. 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 beexplained onthe 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. Thefact that the annual angiosperm productivities ofthetwo marshes wereequivalent (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 agreementwith 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 ofparticulate phosphorus toWare Creek in fall may have indicated thatthis marsh served as a sink for detritus generated by other marshes or by a possible autumn estuarine phytoplankton die off. The fact thatCarter Creek had significantly lower mean annual dead angiosperm standingcropthan Ware Creek, whilethe 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 phosphorustransport trends of Carter Creek supportthis conclusion in thatparticulate phosphorus was exported only in fall even though estuarine detrital concentrationswere 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 saltmarsh will be influenced bythe seasonal patterns of angiosperm detritus export from other salt marshes within the sameestuarine 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 dueto thegreatefflux 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, itis not meanttodiscountthe obvious perturbation in particulate phosphorus flux through salt marshes induced by storms.Though it is probable that the substantial detrital effluxfrom salt marshes over storm tidal cycles is followed by d.etrital influxtothe marshes over succeedingtidal cycles, as elevated estuarine seston concentrations again attain equilibrium levels, the quantitative aspects of storm induced detrital export from salt marshes overthe longterm remains to be elucidated. 

### Nitrogen Fluxthrough theSaltMarsh 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 thatthe annual salt marsh nitrogen cycle is characterized by 1) import of estuarine particulate nitrogen to the marsh from the estuary, 2) fixation ofmolecular 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 importtothe marsh from theestuary. The year round influx of both nitrate and nitrite to Ware Creek and Carter Creek could have been a result of photoautotrophicand 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 tothe marsh soil and yielding increased edaphicalgal 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 importsto 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 marsheswas 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 increasingtemperaturesto 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 ofthe processes ofdenitrification 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 waterconcentrations (May to September in Ware Creek, and June to November in CarterCreek).Thegreater annual importof nitratetoWare Creekthan to Carter Creektogether with the annual exportof ammonia from Ware Creek and the annual import of ammonia to Carter Creek indicate that nitrification may have been of greater importance in CarterCreekthan in Ware Creekmarsh. 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 bea resultofthetemperature dependence ofmetabolism. 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 tothe marshes in fall-winter, uptake of nutrients by marsh photoautotrophs or Thayer's (1974) hypothesis that

### Spartina detritus degrading microorganismsassimilate 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 importsto CarterCreek. While these theories are plausible, the detection of increased nitrifying bacterial population densities from summertofall (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 resultofrising tide, ordiffusion 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 exportwere a resultofexcretion 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 responsiblefor the dissolved organic nitrogen exports from the marshes. Thus, thegenerally greater late spring and summer dissolved organic nitrogen efflux from the marshes could have been a result ofthe increased bioticactivity atthattime. 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 ofthese nitrogen and phosphorus forms, indicate that flux of detrital nitrogen was controlled primarily by the processes influencing detrital phosphorus inputs and outputsto 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 reasonsfor these differences arethe seasonallyvarying 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 exportof 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 exportofapproximately 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 lessthe nitrogen inputsfrom rainfall as minimal estimates (since nitrogen outputs via denitrification or detrital nitrogen incorporation into marsh sediments are ignored) ofthe 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/m2-hour.

41 40

### 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 

### etal., 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 phosphorusfunction to sustain thehigh rate of primary production in the estuaries. In doing so, the saltmarshes 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 othercoastal 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 exportsfrom 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 estuarinesystems. 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 tidallytransported to the marshes can take advantage ofthe elevation in nutrientconcentrations brought about by salt marsh nitrogen and phosphorus additions toestuarine waters within the marshes. There has been much speculationconcerningthe capabilityof salt marshesto 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 marshesexportdissolved nitrogen and phosphorus to the estuaries. It is possible that increased estuarine biomass caused by nutrient enrichment of estuarieswould resultin greater estuarine detrital nitrogen and phosphorus imports to the marshes with consequent increased export ofdissolved nitrogen and phosphorusfrom 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, duringcertain periods ofthe year, function to reduce excessive estuarine nutrient loads. Carbon FluxThrough theSaltmarsh 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 oforganicmaterial forestuaries. 

### 43The 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 notoccurduring 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 6.5times as much

## pac was recorded lostfrom 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 tothe 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 CarterCreek, 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 thatthe net angio-sperm productivities ofthe 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 theWare 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 entire size range from dissolved to particulate, with those areashaving higher dead standingcrops losing more of their organic production in the dissolved form, while otherswhich may be more readily scoured lose much oftheir material in the particulateform. 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 becontributing much less to the total net export of organic material. These differences may have been dueto the fact that Nadeau observed significant ice formation within his marsh system and significantforaging 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 thetwo 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 theform 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 supply 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 thetidal 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 parameterswas complicated, however, by the fact thatthe Chi

### a values are uncorrected for phaeophytins. Therefore, subtraction of Chi a-carbon from ATP-carbon to determine non-algal "Iiving" carbon was not possible, During several tidal cycle samplings when the directions of net ATP-carbon and Chi 

### a flux did not agreethere was significant net movement of

## pac in the samedirection as the Chi

### a. I"' mater/'al for both marshes in the Increases in the standing crop 0f IVlng 

### 44 45summer were evident. It appears thatthe 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 ofthe same hourly**s~mpllng** points indicated that only during the January 1972, Ware Creek tidal cycle might the ATP-carbon values be considered too lowto accountfor the primary production in the watercolumn. 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 nottemperature related. 

### SUMMARY Annual nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon budgets for two Virginia salt marshes were determined by monthly measurements of water discharge and constituentconcentrations overtidal 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 phosphorusto the estuary. Nitrogen 

### Cycle The salt marsh nitrogen cyclewas 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 theyearwhile 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 mineralized ·and returned to the estuary as ammonia and dissolved organic nitrogen. Ammonia 

### 46 47entering 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 ofthis 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 lowestin 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 autotrophic. Flux calculations indicated a netexport ofcarbon from the marshes. In Ware Creek the majority of the carbon wasexported in the dissolved organicform, while the major portion exported from Carter Creek was in the particulate form. 

### ImpactonWater.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 ofthe estuary by supplyinga source ofenergy. 

### LITERATURECITED 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 ofDelaware. 141 pp. Aurand, D., and F. C. Daiber. 1973. Nitrate and nitrite in the surface waters oftwo Delaware salt marshes. ChesapeakeSci. 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 ofWilliam and Mary. 226pp. 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 ., . . ofpropagation and mineral nutrition of

### Spartinaalterniflora. University of North CarolinaSea 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. ChesapeakeSci. 14: 217-219. Nutrient exchange between high marsh areas and an Byron, M
.. 

### M 1968

. estuary. Master'sthesis. North Carolina State University. 22 pp. 1973 Nitrogen excretion. Pages 279-317

### in C. 

### L. Prosser, ed. Campbe

### II, 

### 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 " Caperon, 

### 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 CarolinaWater 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 leaflitter 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 ofgame andfish 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 ofgame andfish 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 andfish commissioners. 93pp. Darnell, 

### R. M. 1964. Organicdetritus in relation to secondary productivity in aquaticcommunities. 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. Organicdetritus in relation totheestuarine 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 denitrification. 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 ofGeorgia, Athens. 110p. Dixon, W. 

### J. ed. 1968. DMD biomedical computer programs. University of California Press, Berkley and Los Angeles, Calif. 600pp. Egglishaw, H. 

### J. 1964. The distributional relationship between the bottom fauna and plantdetritus 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 nutrientenrichment on different temporal stages of a phytoplankton community. Chesapeake Sci. 7: 11-19. Fox, 

### D. L. 1950. Comparative metabolism 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 ofthet{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. ofSoutheastern 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. ATPcontent of marine bacteria. Limnol. and Oceanogr. 12: 319-324. Harrison, W. G. 1973. Nitrate reductase activity during 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 utilization 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 MarineScience 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 measurementofATP 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 ofthe hydrosphere. Wiley-Interscience, New York, N. Y. 568 pp. Jannasch, H. W., 1954. Okolog. Unters. d. Planktischen Bacterienflora im Golfv. 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 pelletsofa marinecrustacean. 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. LouisianaState University. Kuenzler, E. J. 1961. Phosphorus budget of a mussel population. Limnol. Oceanogr. 6: 400-415. Marples, 

### T. G. 1966. A radionuclide study of arthropod food chains in a Spartina 

### salt marsh ecosystem. Ecology 47: 270-277. Maye, P. R. 1972. Some importantinorganic 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. Shelfsediment transport. Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross Inc. Stroudsburg, Pa. Mendelssohn, 

### I. A. 1973. Angiosperm production ofthree 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 ofallochthonous detritus in thetrophicstructure ofa woodland springbrook community. Ecology 48: 139-149. Nadeau, R. J. 1972. Primary production and exportof plantmaterials in the saltmarshecosystem. Ph.D. dissertation. Rutgers University. 166p. Nelson, D. J. and D. C. Scott. 1962. Role of detritus in the productivity ofa 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 standingcropofSpartina 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 ofpopulation energyflow 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 inorganicnitrogen 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 MarineScience 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 marshesof 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 ofMichigan, 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. Likensed. Nutrientsand eutrophication. Amer. Soc. Limnol. Oceanog., Spec. Symp. No.1. Allen Press I

### nc., 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. Evidencefor dissolved phosphorushypereutrophication in 

### various types of manipulated saltmarshes 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, NewYork, 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 ofdetritus 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 ofamino 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. 278p. 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. 170pp. 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 ofthe town of Hampstead, Long Island. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, 96:42-51. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Methods for chemical analysis ofwater andwastes.Washington, D. C. 312 pp. Upchurch, J. 

### 8., 1972. Sedimentary phosphorus in the Pamlico Estuary of North Carolina. University of North Carolina Sea Grant Publ. UNC-SG-72-03. 39pp. Ustach, J. F. 1969. The decomposition of Spartina alterniflora. 

### M. S. Thesis. North Carolina State University. 26pp. 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 Carolina State University at Raleigh. 113p. Wass,M. 

### L., and

### T. D. Wright. 1969. Coastal wetlands ofVirginia, 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



### 59Figure 1 The marine biogeochemical nitrogen cycle. Modifiedfrom Riley and Chester, 

### (1971). C'> 

### o

2 \0 

# ) MOLECULAR

NITROGEN

# r ANIMAL TISSUE NITROGEN 

# t

9 

# 9j 

# 1 PLANT TISSUE NITROGEN BACTERIAL TISSUE NITROGEN 6 

### PARTICULATE ORGANIC NITROGEN I 

### 2 

# ill

8

# J
2 I. 2. 3. Adsorption Assimilation Bacteria I Denitrification 4. 5. Bacterial Bacterial Nitrification Nitrogen Reduction 6. 7. 8. Death Desorption Excretion 9. 10. II. Grazing Nitrogen Fixation Precipitation**~.,**

C'> -" Figure 2 The marine biogeochemical phosphoruscycle.

Modifiedfrom Riley and Chester, 

### (1971). 

### SEDIMENTARY INORGANIC PHOSPHORUS BACTERIAL TISSUE PHOSPHORUS 

# I 4.9\ 

# 1,. 8 

# 21 

# )I 1 5 

### DISSOLVED ORGANIC PHOSPHORUS 01SSOLVED INORGANIC PHOSPHORUS 

# :;(**~,** 6
I. Adsorption 2. Assimilation 5 3. Death 4. Desorption 5. Excretion 6. Grazing 7. Guttation 8. Precipitation 9. Solubihzation 

## ,

PARTICULATE ORGANIC PHOSPHORUS



# 6\ 

# 1 3 5

• 

### ANIMAL TISSUE PHOSPHORUS 6

### Figure 4 

### CarterCreek Marsh Figure 3 Ware Creek and CarterCreek in relation totheYork River.

..000 ••• 0 CARTER CREEK MARSH PERIMETER



### YORK 

### R I V E R CEDARBUSH

I Km.



### 62 

### 63

### Figure 5 Ware Creek Marsh Figure 6 YORK RIVER 

### Annual variation in mean water temperature over atidal cycleforWare Creek and CarterCreek 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 

### .,.. ...• Carter Creek Marsh 

### I January, 1973 Sample 

### I WARE CREEK 

# J MARSH PER IMETER 

### F M AM J J AS 0 NO J F 

### J 1972

# ----------11- 1973

,..



### 64 65 I Km

### Figure 7 Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack water andlow slackwatersalinity.



### 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 CarterCreek marsh high slack water and lowslack watersalinity.



### •......,......• High Slack Water o 0 

### Low Slack Water

-----­ January 1973 Sample**~.** 

# • 

# , :
: 

# ." : '

# .. : : : : : : :
: : 

# •.

, : 

# .,.

.... 10­



## - : Z 

## e.



# ..**l'~,** ...J / 

## « en / 

# .. 

# •,./

/



### 5

0-_



### 0 

### N D J 

### F J 

### F M 

### A 

## M J J 

### A S 0


### 67 66

### Figure 9 Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack

waterand lowslackwaterdissolved inorganic phosphorusconcentration.



# - - 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 CarterCreek marsh high slack

waterand lowslack waterdissolved inorganic phosphorusconcentration.

•.. .. . .. . ....• High S I a c k Water 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



### 69Figure 11 Variation in dissolved inorganic phosphorus concentration overWare Creek marsh summerand wintertidal cycles.



# ... 

# - CP 

### 3 o c 

### July 

# -

------ January

....... Q.. 

# ® High Slack Water 

# © Low S I a c k Water 

# <i C\ 

## 5. (f) 

### a:: 

### 2 0 :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 and wintertidal cycles. 

### 5

o 0 

### June

---- --e 

### January 

# ® High Slack Water 

# © Low Slack 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

waterand lowslackwater dissolved organic phosphorusconcentration.



### 1.5 

## •...............• High SIa e k Wat er 

### o 0 

### Low Siaek Water Q) 

### January 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 lowslack waterdissolved organic phosphorusconcentration.



### ............... 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 1973 1972



### 73 

# ...9 /0 II 

## 12 13 

### 8 

# © Low Slack Water

\\\\

# '--

.................../ 0.8


## 0.7

0.6
0.5

0.4

lJJ 

# -.... / 

## c 

## > 

# ----.... 

# , ....-..... .... ..J



### ........@" 0 (f) 

## 0.2 (f) 

## c 0.1 0 4 5 6 7 

## 8 9 10 II 12 13 

# o 2 3 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 overWare Creek marsh summer andwintertidal 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) 

## 0.4 0::: 0 0 

## 0.3 Figure 16 Variation in dissolved organic phosphorus concentration overCarterCreek marsh summer and wintertidal cycles.

o 0 

### June e- - -- --e 

### January 

# ® High Slack Water 

# © Low Slack Water



# ....<0 

# ,--

# ..... 

# " \ I \

# , / /--

# -,

# •• 

# •• •••• Figure 18 Figure 

### 17 Annual variation in CarterCreek marsh high slack water and lowslack water particulatephosphorus Annual variation in Ware Creek marsh high slack waterand lowslackwater particulate phosphorus concentration. concentration. 

### 10 •...........• High 

### Slack Water o 0 

### Low Slack Waier

-- - - - January 1973 Sample 

### 9 •..............• High 

### Slack Water



# - o 0 

### Low Siaek Wate'r Q;


### - - - - - - - Janua r y 1973 Sampie 

# - 6 

# - Qi



### ...... 

### 8 Q.. 

# - ..: 

## « 5 7


### en :::> 

### 4 

## a: 0 

### 6 Q.. 

### \ 

### en \ 0 

### 3 \ Q.. 

### 5

# ,~ 

# t··.

.. \ 

### \ 

# .•. I lU 

### 2 I Jo­ \ \ 

## .............. '

# .. IJJ 

### 4 / 

## « \ .' l­ \ ...J 

### / e::{ I 

### ::> ..J I 0 

# • /: I 

### ::> I 

### / 

# : u Jo- I 

## a: I I­ 

## « I 

### / Q.. 0: I 

### 0 I I 

## «


# ..**~.** 

# ...•....•... I 

### n.. 

# . . 2 

### N 

# o 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 phosphorusconcentration

overWare Creek marsh summer and wintertidal 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

# 1 a.. 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 Siaek 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 

### 3 J: 

### a.. (f) 0 I 

### a.. 

### w 2 oCt ...J :::J U 

### c::: oCt 

### a.. Figure 20 Variation in particulate phosphorusconcentration overCarterCreek marsh summer and wintertidal cycles.

o El June e- - - - -e January 

## ® 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 waterand lowslack water nitrateconcentration.



## •............•High S Iack Water Low Slack Water 

### 20 

# ° °

------ January 1973 Sample 

# • I I I I I I 15 01 'I 

# I,



# - ... I I Q) I, 

# " " 'I Z 

# , II II 

# 3- 0' 

# L01 ,I II II II W 

## 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 CarterCreek marsh high slack waterand low slackwater nitrateconcentration.


### o •..................• High Slack Water 25­ I 

# • o 0 Low Slack Water January 1973 Sample II \I II \\ 

# , I \ 

### 20 \----....... 

### \ \ 

### \ \ \

# ,
... Q) 

### I 

### I 15 \ 

# " \ 

## z

0' 

# \ .3

w 

## r- IO

## « 0::

## 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 nitrateconcentration overWare Creek marsh summerand wintertidal cycles.



## CIJ
...." 

# , ........

........ 

# \\ 

# "­

..... / \



## ........**_~** / \ I \

__, 

# "w' \ \ \ 

# ..-----­ January 

# e \ \ High Slack 

## ® Water 

### \ 

## V Low Slack Water 

### \ \ 

### \ \ 

### \ \

### ~--©

0------0 

### Ju

### I

### y**~--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 nitrateconcentration overCarter Creek marsh summer and wintertidal cycles.

e-----_e January 

## ® High Slack Water 

## © Low Slack Water



### /
.... /

# ....**_~** // 

# '

# , (if 

# / \ 

# I " \ 

### /, \ I ,

# \~~..--.=@ \ }D \

# , 

# , II

\ / 

### \ / 

### \ /



# "

9 10 

### 3 4 5 6 7 8 

## HOURS 2 

# o 3



### 2 

# ­Lev



### ..... 

### z

01 

# 3­
Wle::{ Il:IZ 

### 25



### 20

15

10



### 5

3



### 2



# o

82 83

### Figure 25 Annual variationinWare Creek marsh high slack waterand lowslack waternitrateconcentration. 20 •....................• High Slack Water o 0 

### Low SIa c k Wat 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 CarterCreek marsh high slack water and lowslack waterconcentration.



### 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 nitriteconcentration overWare Creek marsh summerandwintertidal 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 UJI

### 0.3 

## z 0.2

0.1 Figure 28 Variation in nitrite concentration over Carter Creek marsh summerandwintertidal 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 waterand low slackwater ammonia concentration.

•..................• High Slack Water o 0 

### Low SIa c k Wat 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 waterand lowslackwater 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 ammoniaconcentration overWare

Creek marsh summerandwintertidal cycles.

0 0 

### July 

## 25 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 

### ammoniaconcentrationover Carter

Creek marsh summerand wintertidal 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:l

### 30 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 slackwater 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:I

## z 40 (,)



# - Z <l C> 

### a: 30 0 0 1IJ 

## > ....J 0 

### 20 

### en en



# 0 

### 10 Figure 34 Annual variation in Carter Creek marsh high slack water and lowslackwater dissolved organic nitrogen concentration. 

# •..........• High Slack Water 

### o 0 

### Low Slack Water January 1973 Sample



# ..

:


# , , "**~.**


### : : 

## 0..

# ,,

# , : \

# , '.



# , -.



# ,**.~"** 

# -_.... ...-- \ 

### iii 

# ."

F 1972 1973 93 92

### 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 Variationin dissolved organic nitrogen concentrationoverWare Creek marsh summerand wintertidal cycles.

a a 

### July
...----. January 

## ® High Slack Water 

## © 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 CarterCreek marsh summer and wintertidal 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 slackwater 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 

# , ,.. 

# • wI

### 20 

# .'.........•.**.~** 

## < \ ...J \ 

### ::::> \ (.) \ 

# • I- \**~.** 

## . a: c:t Q.. I 

### I \ 

### I I 

### I 1 I I 

### I 0 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 particulatenitrogen concentration.



### •..........• 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 particulatenitrogen concentration overWare Creek marsh summer and winter tidal cycles.



### 50 o 0 

### July

...----. January 

# ® High Slack Water 

# © Low Slack Water



# - ... C) 

# - 40 

# , z
01 

## 5 z LaJ C) 

### 30 0 

### a: f- I I 

## z I LU /

### " , I 

### J



# .... / " _..4 e:( / 

## ...... ...J I :J 

### 20 I 

### u 

# ,.... ".--....-®--, f­ 

# /............ / 

### a: /

...... 

## « 0.. 

# cD

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 

# o 2 HOURS



### 98 Figure40 Variation in particulatenitrogen concentration overCarter Creek marsh summer and wintertidal cycles. 

### 50 o 

### o 

### June

... --- .... January 

# ® High Slack Water 

## <9 Low Slack Water


### 40



# ... C) 

# - , z

Z LaJ C) 0 D:fZ 

### 20 LaJfe:( ...J ::) U

# I'"~ .... / 

## '­ ,a: e:( 

### n.. 

### / 

# " 10 

# I "<9 \

# \ //



## ........... 

# ....

# ...**-~** 

# ..--....-.---®'

9 10 II /2 13
99

### Figure 41 Annual variation inWare Creek marsh high slack water and low slack waterchlorophyll "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 Water Law Slack Water January 1973 Sample



## .. 

# ••

. '.



# .. Figure42 Annual variation in Carter Creek marsh high slack water and low slackwaterchlorophyll "a" concentration.



### 35


## o 30

25



# -**.~**

...... :

# .**~',** 

## e' o. 0. 

### .".......... High 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 Figure43 Annual variation inWare Creek marsh high slack water andlowslack 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 CarterCreek marsh high slack water and low slack waterphytoplankton 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 

### A J 

### M M " 

# • '.**~.** '.

## e.
J 

## A S 

### 0 N 0 J 

### F 1972

102 

### 103 1973

# -- Figure45


### o Seasonal changes in mean particulate organiccarbon (POC) concentrationsin Ware Creek and CarterCreek Marshes. Vertical lines representrange.

_____ . CarterCreek

_______Ware Creek



# I "

...

## ,... APR MAY JUN JLY AUG SEP OCT NOV JAN JAN MAR 1972 

# i 1973

Figure46 Seasonal changes in mean dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentrations in Ware Creek and CarterCreek Marshes. Vertical Iines representrange. 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

### o Q) 

### Figure 47 Seasonal changes in mean adenosine-tri-phosphate (ATP) concentrations in Ware Creek and

______________ Carter Creek

_______ Ware Creek 

### 40
35 

### 30**-~** 25 Cl E 20 

### o
(l. 

### r­ <t 15
10 

### 5 

## o 102



### CarterCreek marshes.

I JAN MAR 

### -----1972 

# '" I' ",,'" 

# , "" 

## ,

# ,,, \\\

APR MAY JUN JLY AUG SEP OCT NOV JAN 

### I 1973 

# J Figure48 

### 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

### o OJ 

### 50 F'igure 49 Seasonal changesin mean ATP-Carbon values (recorded as percent POC) for Ware Creek and Carter Creek Marshes.

Carter Creek

........

### - ..

## -

______- Ware Creek 40 

### 0­ o C 30 G> (,) 

### 4i Vertical lines represent 1 SE. 

# :r , 

# ' \

\ 

# , \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ 

# , \ I \ 

# , , I \ 

## , \



### 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 \ \ \ II \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

# I -

Figure 50 Seasonal changes in mean detrital organiccarbon concentrations in Ware Creek and Carter Creek Marshes. Vertical lines

______________ Carter Creek Ware Creek



## ------­ 

# - 8 represent range. 

# 12.41 1L61

# r 6

# r o

# r 5 

# r 4 

# r 2



### z 

## o m 0::: <{ U ...... Cl 

### .§ 6 

### 7



### 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 1973 

# 'I II\

\\\\\\\ I, I, I , I , I \ I , 

# /I\
I \ I \ I \ I \ \ 

# 1 \ \ \ \\

### o 

### 900 800

_____ . __ Carter Creek

__----- Ware Creek 

### 700 600

c 

### 500



# - .c U



### .. U 

### 300 200

100 Figure 51 Seasonal changes in mean carbon: chlorophyll

### aratios.

I \ 

# " f \ I \

### \\\\\\\



# o uv_ AuG SEP OCT NOV JAN 

### MAR

Figure 52
Seasonal changes in meandissolved inorganiccarbon (DIC) concentrations in Ware Creek andCarterCreekMarshes. Vertical lines representrange.

_____________ 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

### Figure 53

______ . CarterCreek .flY 

## 35 30 25

0 

### E 

# - (,) 

## Ci 

## 20 15
10 5
0 _______ Ware Creek Seasonal changes in mean dissolved oxygenconcentrationsin Ware Creek

and CarterCreek Marshes. Vertical Iines representrange.



# _---r---_ I 

# "1,
I 

# , I 

# !-{\

I

# I'/ " 

# "

# ""I

/ I



## JAN MAR APR MAY 

## JUN JLY AUG SEP OCT NOV JAN ---------1972 

# I 1973

-I 

# » OJ

### rm 

## en

-' -' w

### .....
..... -l::o Table 1 CORRELATION MATRIX OF NUTRIENT CONCENTRATIONS, SALINITY, WATER TEMPERATURE, TIDE HEIGHT, AND WATER FLOW IN WARE CREEK OVER THE YEAR

DIP DOP PP NO; 

### NOi NH

# 4 DON PN Sal. DIP 1.000 DOP PP N03 NOZ NH

# 4 DON PN Sal. Temp. 0.598 0.275 -0.051 0.183 0.352 0.326 0.149 -0.419 0.228 1.000 0.259 -0.238 -0.068 0.127 0.408 0.006 -0.304 0.422 l.000 -0.210 0.230 0.050 0.538 0.740 -0.019 0.439 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 Tide Ht. -0.510 -0.411 -0.163 -0.046

0.173 -0.296

0.000 0.005 0.680 0.120 Flow -0.334 -0.166

0.285 -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 N0

## 3 NO

## Z NH

# 4 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 1.000Table 3 WARE CREEK PHOSPHORUS TRANSPORT TIDAL Sampling Tidal Prism

Date m 3 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 

### m

3 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(X) Table 5 WARE CREEK TIDAL NITROGEN TRANSPORT Sampling

Date Tidal Prism m

3 Tidal Transport N0

## 3 grams N N02 grams N NH

# 4 grams N DON grams N PN grams N 1/23/72 19,600 Flood Ebb Net +1,992 -1,537 

### +455 + 80 87 ---7 + 940 -1,148 

### --wB + 8,390

- 9,661 + 6,679

- 7,328 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 m 3 N0

# 3 N0

# 2 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



### .....
..... <0f'V 

### o Table 6 CARTER CREEK TIDAL NITROGEN TRANSPORT Sampling

Date Tidal Prism m

3 Tidal Transport N0

## 3 grams N N02 grams N**NH~** grams N DON grams N PN grams N
3/7/72 4,100 Flood Ebb Net + 516

- 435 

### +----sl + 23 25 ---2 + 244 244 ---0 + 594 810 

### ----n6 + 3,494

- 2,187 + 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 N0

## 3 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 8 Table 7 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 2/9/72

- 3/15/72 4,667 + 2,009 + 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 5/5

- 6/3 5,513 6,324 +10,036 5/31 4,813 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 + 41,104 10/13

- 11/12 4,745 1,212

- 8,754 + 9,052 - 5,431 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 2/9/72

- 2/8/73 DIP + DOP + PP +6,702 grams P 1/15/72 1/14/73 DIP + DOP + PP 109.918 grams P + input + input 

## - =output

- '" output

123 122N +:> Table 9 WARE CREEK ANNUAL NITROGEN BUDGET N0

## 3 grams N N02 grams N NH4 grams N DON grams N PN grams N 1/15/72 - 2/12/72 2/13
- 3/26 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 + 22,348 + 13,825
+ 9,086 + 27,432
+ 13,801
+ 20,236 + 2,852
+ 43,016
+ 48,555
+ 56,284
+ 63,995 

### - 371 + 560
+ 979 + 1,557



### - 97
+ 6,362

- 1,273
+ 9,044 + 313 + 453
+ 664 - 10,181

- 34,115 -187,387

- 47,054

- 22,538

- 67,707 -121,402
+ 14,775
+ 44,940 + 57,337

- 34,222 - 62,416 -120,942 +241,881 -163,521 + 59,980

- 25,857 -121,185 -153,588 + 4,897



### - 4,238
+ 20,154 - 31,875 + 90,003 -176,042 -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 NH4 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 + NH4 + DON + PN 

## = -397,593 grams N 

## - =output N 01Table 11 WARE CREEK FLOOD AND EBB TIDE SIMPLE AND PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS Flood Tide Simple Correlation Coefficients Temp. DIP NH

## 4 Prod./Chl. 0.571** 0.220 -0.348* -0.182
Flood Tide Partial Correlation Coefficients, Temperature Held Constant DIP N0

# 3 Prod./Chl. 0.130 0.005 -0.048 Ebb Tide Simple Correlation Coefficients Temp. DIP N0

# 3 Prod./Chl. 0.525** 0.271 -0.234 -0.118 Ebb Tide Partial Correlation Coefficients,**Temperatur,~** Held Constant DIP N0

# 3**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 NH

# 4 Prod./Chl. 0.581** -0.165 -0.538** -0.020 Flood Tide Partial Correlation Coefficients, Temperature Held Constant DIP N0

# 3**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 TidePartial Correlation Coefficients Temperature Held Constant, ' DIP N0

## 3 Prod./Chl. -0.143 -0.159 -0.191 **Significant at the 1% level *Significant at the 5% level

127 126N OJ Table 13 WARE CREEK TIDAL TRANSPORT
Water Tidal Sampling Date Transport Transport POC DOC ATP-C ChI. a DO DIC (cu.m) (10_lkgC) 23 Jan 72 18732.0 Flood + 54.4 + 108.5 + 1.9 + 102.3 + 174.0 + 224.1 Ebb Net 44.0 

### +lO:4 - 116.7 --8-.-2 4.8 --2-.-9 - 83.1 

### +1"9:2 - 163.0 

### +IT:"O - 223.1
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 CDw 

### o Table 14 CARTER CREEK TIDAL TRANSPORT
Water Tidal Sampling Date Transport Transport POC DOC ATP-C ChI. a DO DIC (eu.m) (kgC) (lo_lkgC) 7 Mar 72 3083.4 Flood + 30.9 + 16.8 + 1.4 + 39.6 + 31.4 + 41.2 Ebb Net 11.2 

### +J:"9":7 17.7 3.0 --1-.-6 20.6 

### +19:0 - 29.0 

### +2":"4 43.4 --2-.-2 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 72CARBON 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 133Table 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
1,2Based on productivity figures of Mendelssohn (1973) Ware 

## =562 g/m2, Carter 

## =572 g/m2

135 134Table 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 N 0

### 3 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

0807 -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 

### 136Table A3 Table A4 WARE CREEK 4/17/72 WARE CREEK 5/17/72 Time Flow (l/sec) Nutrient Concentrations**(u~** at/I) Time Flow (l/sec) Nutrient Concentrations**(u~** at/I) DIP DOP 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 11.25 0 2.02 0.65 3.33 0.87 0.29 3.0 33.0 09.95 +1,010 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 12.25 + 872 1.64 0.63 1.90 2.96 0.48 2.0 28.0 15.0 10.95 +1,335 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 13.25 +1,757 1.68 0.72 1.80 2.54 0.43 11.95 +1,990 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 15.25 +2,823 1.09 0.56 2.13 1.45 0.29 13.95 +2,532 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 16.25 +2,268 0.35 0.42 1.23 0.98 0.13 1.4 19.6 14.95 +1,367 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 17.00 0 0.26 0.49 1.05 0.33 0.13 1.6 22.4 15.83 -1,771 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 19.00 -2,770 1.08 0.72 2.07 1.05 0.28 2.4 32.6 15.0 17.83 -2,842 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 20.00 -2,409 1.53 0.61 2.25 18.83 -2,550 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 21.00 -1,742 1.78 0.67 2.88 0.84 0.34 1.8 26.2 19.83 -1,773 29.0 21.33 -1,542 20.17 -1,439 21.67 -1,502 20.50 -1,076 0.65 0.65 3.36 0.56 0.13 9.0 18.0 22.0 22.00 

## - 940 2.24 0.66 2.23 20.83 683 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 139Table 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



### 141Table 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 N0

## 3 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 143Table 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/sec)
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 N0

## 3 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 144TabIe All Table A12 WARE CREEK 11/24/72 \VARE CREEK 1/7/73 Flow (l/sec) Nutrient Concentrations (ug at/I) Time Flow (l/secJ Time 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 1.50 0.43 2.42 23.55 0.43 13.0 08.00 19.0 14.0 + III 09.00 + 346 08.33 + + 210 09.33 375 + 0.86 0.40 1.89 9.20 0.29 13.6 10.4 13.4 08.67 + 339 0.76 09.67 453 0.41 2.35 24.39 0.49 09.00 + 7.0 22.0 18.0 364 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 0.87 0.41 2.05 22.81 0.47 7.0 11.00 + 20.0 16.0 693 12.00 +2,212 11.33 +1,063 12.33 +2,329 0.29 3.04 2.76 0.19 10.8 13.6 20.2 11.67 +1,127 0.88 12.67 +2,443 0.61 0.46 2.42 19.51 0.46 9.0 12.00 18.0 18.0 +1,321 13.00 +2,698 12.33 +1,368 13.33 +2,576 0.48 0.25 1.79 5.01 0.14 7.0 17.4 10.6 12.67 +1,174 0.86 13.67 +2,440 0.45 2.50 18.55 0.45 13.00 +1,082 5.0 18.0 18.0 14.00 +2,294 13.33 + 758 14.33 +1,921 13.67 + 0.16 9.0 14.8 9.2 232 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
-2,701 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 17.83 589 1.24 0.44 18.83 -2,327 3.79 17.55 0.31 7.6 18.17 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 -1,568 298 1.38 0.51 4.07 6.16 0.30 11.4 19.17 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 20.17 326 1.21 0.41 3.29 1.64 0.23 10.2 18.4 31.0 

## a 1.50 0.50 21.17 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 147Table A13 Table A14 CARTER CREEK 3/7/72 CARTER CREEK 3/23/72
Time Flow (1/sec) DIP Nutrient**Concentratio~s** (ug at/l) NO; 

### l'!QL l'i!il DON DOP PP 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

0480 -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 148Table A15 TabIe 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 + 0350 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 PP N03 NO? DOP 2.48 2.12 0.24 0.53
0.26 0.42 7.96 1.98
3.28 0.30 0.47 5.88
4.67 0.36 0.41 4.91
0.45 3.27 2.87 0.31
2.70 0.31 0.43 2.88 0.48 2.36 2.46 0.33
0.31 0.46 2.12 2.32
2.22 2.54 0.31 0'.,48 2.32 0.27 0.53 2.44
1.94 0.29 0.58 5.40
0.41 0.45 13.12 2.45
2.40 0.42 0.46 14.23 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 33.0 1.0
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/sec)
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 151Table 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

0867

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

0508 -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 152TabIe 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

0292 -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 5.48 0.63 0.42 0.65 (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 155Table 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 157Time 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

159 158

### m 

### o

Table 81 WARE CREEK 1/23/72
Instantaneous Water Time Transport l/sec 

## pac mg/1 DOC mg/1 ATP 10-4mg/1 DIC mg/1 ChI. aug/lSal. 

### E.E.!...­ DO mg/1 H20 Temp. Deg. C 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-,-,-----_=_ -~~-'=-~**  -----=(j') I\.)

Time 0937 1037 1137 1237 1337 1437 1530 1630 1730 1830 1930 2030 2120 Instantaneous Water Transport

l/sec 0 + 912 +1800 +2361 +2502 +1944 0 -2415

-2707

-2721 -2157 -1076 0 POC mg/1 2.2 4.9 1.7 5.3 1.1 2.7 0.5 1.6 2.7 2.9 4.0 1.5 1.5 DOC mg/1 7.6 3.3 7.6 3.3 7.6 6.0 7.6 7.1 7.6 8.1 8.6 9.7 11.5 Table B3 WARE CREEK 4/17/72

ATP DIC 1O-4mg/1 mg/1

18.6 9.9 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 ChI. a ug/T 9.3 8.5 9.0 10.7 9.3 16.0 14.3 9.5 11.9 11.9 10.9 10.0 6.3 Sal. 

### EE!.­ 2.0 1.4 2.0 3.0 5.0 8.0 8.3 6.5 4.1 2.9 2.7 2.0 1.7 DO mg/1

5.3 5.5 5.4 3.3 5.5 5.6 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.9 6.6 6.8 6.7 H 20 Temp.**~.C**

+19.0 +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. aug/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 H 20 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') W0')

Table 85 WARE CREEK 6/14/72
Instantaneous Water Time Transport POC DOC ATP DIC ChI. a Sal. DO H20 Temp. l/sec mg/1 mg/1 1O-4mg

### /l mg/1 ug/1- mg/1 Deg. C 

### I?E!­ 1020 0 7.1 8.9 16.2 14.6 9.6 0.5 4.4 +21.4 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 H 20 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-> O"l O"l

Table B7 WARE CREEK 7/28/72

Instantaneous DO H20 Temp. Water DIC ChI. a Sal. ATP Time Transport POC DOC 1O-4mg!1 mg!l 

### ug!C 

### EE!- mg/1**~.C** mg/l l/sec mg/1 +26.0


## -- 2.8 13.0 8.0 0.6 13.9 21.3 +26.2 0 0.4 0.3 2.9 0845 12.0 6.1 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...... 

### m DO

Table B9 WARE CREEK 10/24/72
Instantaneous Water Time Transport POC DOC ATP DIC ChI. a Sal. DO H20 Temp. l/see mg/1 mg/1 1O-4mg/1 mg/1 ug/1- mg/1**~.C** 0800 0 2.0 8.7 3.1 15.7 6.8 1.6 4.4 +15.0 0900 + 594 0.7 7.4 2.5 13.6 5.8 1.1 5.9 +15.0 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 H 20 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'i 

### o

Table B11 WARE CREEK 11/24/72
Instantaneous Water Time Transport POC DOC ATP DIC ChI. a Sal. DO H 20 Temp. l/sec mg/1 mg/1 1O-4mg/1 mg/1 ug/1- mg/1 Deg. C 

### EE!.­ 0840 0 2.4 8.7 0.9 14.1 4.2 l.0 10.2 +01.0 0940 + 453 1.7 6.7 0.4 12.0 3.4 0.5 10.7 +02.5 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 H 20 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"-J N

Table B13 CARTER CREEK 3/7/72
Instantaneous Water Time Transport 

### pac DOC ATP DIC ChI. a Sal. DO H 20 Temp. l/see mg/1 mg/l 10-4mg/1 mg/1 ug/1- mg/1 

### E.E.!.-**~.C** 1030 0 3.5 7.5 1.6 18.3 4.7 1.6 10.3 +12.0 1130 + 54 6.0 5.0 1.9 13.0 11.0 9.9 10.2 +13.0 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

### -- "'-I.

Table Sl5 CARTER CREEK 4/19/72
Instantaneous Water ATP DIC ChI. a Sal. DO H 2 0 Temp. Time Transport POC DOC Deg. C mg/l mg/1 1O-4mg/1 mg/l ug/e 

### EE!- mg/l l/sec +20.0 7.3 4.1 4.8 4.8 0900 0 1.3 4.2 4.4 11.9 10.9 7.0 +21.0 4.5 4.6 1000 + 176 4.6 5.9 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-....J 0)

Table B17 CARTER CREEK 8/29/72
Instantaneous Water Time Transport POC DOC ATP Ole ChI. a Sal. DO H20 Temp.



### - l/sec mg/1 mg/1 10-4mg/1 mg/1 ug/1 mg/1 Deg. C 

### .E.E..!­ 0820 0 0.5 12.2 20.4 34.8 22.8 8.0 3.8 +24.0 0920 + 110 2.5 9.9 33.5 24.6 31.6 10.0 5.3 +24.5 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 H 20 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'J 0:>

Table B19 CARTER CREEK 6/!7/72
Instantaneous Water Time Transport POC DOC ATP DIC Ch1. a Sal. DO H 20 Temp. l/sec mg/! mg/! 1O-4mg/1 mg/! ug/1- mg/1 Deg. C 

### EE!.­ 1000 0 5.3 9.7 16.2 33.6 12.2 4.0 6.0 +26.0 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 H 20 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 

### co00 o

Table B21 CARTER CREEK 10/27/72
Instantaneous Water Time Transport POC DOC ATP DIC ChI. a Sal. DO H20 Temp. l/see mg/1 mg/1 1O-4mg/1 mg/1 ug/1- 

### EE!- mg/1**~.C** 0800 0 1.6 9.0 3.5 30.0 5.2 9.1 5.9 +08.0 0900 + 229 1.6 9.0 3.4 29.4 5.4 10.2 5.4 +08.5 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

0000 N

Table B23 CARTER CREEK 1/11/73
Instantaneous Water Time Transport l/sec POC mg/1 DOC mg/1 ATP 10-4mg/1 DIC mg/1 ChI. a



### - ug/1 Sal. 

### .EE!.­ DO mg/1 H 20 Temp. 0900 0 2.8 6.3 2.3 18.4 4.6 2.9 9.3 +01.0 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