## 3 Results
### Submerged vs. Emerged Primary Production and Its Predictors
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Term** & **df** & **Pseudo-F** & **p (perm)** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Post-Hoc Pairwise Tests**} \\ \hline  & & & & & **Site** & **Time** & **Tide** \\ \hline GPF\({}_{i}\) & Site & 2 & 14.75 & **0.001** & & \\ \hline Time & 1 & 11.72 & **0.002** & & & \\ \hline Tide & 1 & 36.67 & **0.001** & & & \\ \hline Site \(\times\) Time & 2 & 10.81 & **0.001** & & & \\ \hline Site \(\times\) Tide & 2 & 17.51 & **0.001** & & & \\ \hline Time \(\times\) Tide & 1 & 33.09 & **0.001** & & & \\ \hline Site \(\times\) Time \(\times\) Tide & 2 & 69.39 & **0.001** & & & **R sub em**, T2 = T3 & **R T2**, **T3**, sub = em \\  & & & & **Sub T2**, O \(>\) (R = T), T3, T \(<\) (R = O) & **O sub**, T2 \(>\) T3, & **O T2**, sub \(>\) em, \\  & & & & **Em T2**, R \(>\) (O = T), T3, T \(<\) (R = O) & **Em T2**, T \(<\) T3 & **T3**, sub = em \\  & & & & **Em T2**, R \(>\) (O = T), T3, T \(<\) (R = O) & **T sub**, T2 \(>\) T3, & **T2**, sub = em, \\  & & & & & **Em T2**, T \(>\) T3 & **T3**, sub \(>\) em \\ \hline GPF\({}_{\text{Sed}}\) + old & Site & 2 & 6.38 & **0.004** & & \\ \hline Time & 1 & 0.97 & 0.341 & & & \\ \hline Tide & 1 & 162.88 & **0.001** & & & \\ \hline Site \(\times\) Time & 2 & 56.30 & **0.001** & & & \\ \hline Site \(\times\) Tide & 2 & 35.37 & **0.001** & & & \\ \hline Time \(\times\) Tide & 1 & 0.29 & 0.568 & & & \\ \hline Site \(\times\) Time \(\times\) Tide & 2 & 74.27 & **0.001** & & **R sub**, T2 \(<\) T3, & **R T2**, sub = em, \\  & & & & **em T2**, T \(>\) T3, & **T3**, sub \(>\) em \\  & & & & **Sub T2**, O \(>\) (R = T), T3, O \(=\) (R \(<\) T) & **Sub T2**, O \(>\) (R = T), T3, O \(=\) (R \(<\) T) & **Sub T2**, O \(>\) T3, & **T3**, sub \(>\) em \\  & & & & **Em T2**, R \(>\) O \(>\) T, T3, T \(<\) (R = O) & **em**, T2 \(<\) T3, & **T3**, sub \(>\) em \\  & & & & **Em T2**, T \(>\) T3 & **T2**, T3**, sub \(>\) em \\  & & & & **Em T2**, T \(>\) T3 & **T2**, T3**, sub \(>\) em \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: _Cont._The influence of water column turbidity on overall productivity at each site through time is highlighted in Figure 6. Net autotrophy (more carbon produced than respired) dominated all sites during tidal emergence. However, during submerged tidal periods, sites with high water column turbidity consistently had a p/r ratio <1 suggesting net heterotrophy (more carbon respired than produced). In contrast, sites with low water column turbidity predominately remained net autotrophic during submergence at all three sampling dates. The variability in primary production among sites and tidal stages was partitioned using DistLM analysis (Table 6). The analysis revealed environmental variables contributed 10-25% of overall variability for submerged and emerged primary production estimates. When considering the shared effects of community variables for submerged estimates, and porewater variables for emerged estimates, the total amount of explained variability increased to 19-39%. PARSite was significantly correlated with submerged primary production estimates, explaining 8-40% of the total variance when considered individually, supporting earlier evidence of the influence of water column turbidity on benthic primary production. Temperature explained the second largest proportion of variability and was included in the full model during both submerged GPP and emerged NPP estimates (11% and 4%, respectively). Other significant individual predictors for both submerged and emerged estimates included sediment properties (either mud content, organic content or grain size), phaeopigments and porewater NH4+ concentration while the addition of total abundance of _A. stutchburyi_ and porosity were significant for emerged estimates. Porewater NH4+ concentration explained a maximum of 4% variability, further highlighting the marginal influence of sediment enrichment on primary production estimates.