Nutrient Monitoring Program

Transcription

1 Nutrient Monitoring Program Results By Mark Wieggers

2 Outline of the Presentation Results of Reef Cover Results of Chlorophyll α Results of δ 15 N Results of Nutrients Conclusions

3 Order of the Data Kralendijk Salt Company

4 Order of the Data Willemstad

5 Results of Coral Cover Tukey Test: 10 Groups Cover (%)

6 Cover (%) Results of Coral Cover Group 10

7 Cover (%) Results of Coral Cover Group 9

8 Results of Algae Cover

9 Results of Algae Cover

10 Results of Algae Cover Tukey Test: 2 Groups Ratio macro algae / turf algae

11 Ratio macro algae / turf algae Results of Algae Cover Group 2

12 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Results of Chlorophyll α Chlorophyll a (ug/l) Others Tukey Test: 5 Groups =1,584 St.Lucia: 0,23

13 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Results of Chlorophyll α Chlorophyll a (ug/l) Others Group 5 =1,584

14 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Results of Chlorophyll α Chlorophyll a (ug/l) Others Group 4 =1,584

15 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Results of Chlorophyll α Chlorophyll a (ug/l) Others Group 3 =1,584

16 6,0 5,5 5,0 4,5 4,0 3,5 3,0 2,5 2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 Results of Isotope Ratio 15 N/ 14 N Ratio (promile) Others Tukey Test: 4 Groups 11,7 7,3

17 6,0 5,5 5,0 4,5 4,0 3,5 3,0 2,5 2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 Results of Isotope Ratio 15 N/ 14 N Group 4 Ratio (promile) Others

18 6,0 5,5 5,0 4,5 4,0 3,5 3,0 2,5 2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 Results of Isotope Ratio 15 N/ 14 N Group 3 Ratio (promile) Others

19 Results of PO 4 0,18 Tukey Test: 1 Group 0,16 0,14 0,12 0,10 0,08 0,06 0,04 0,02 0,00 um P/l Others St.Lucia: 0,09

20 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Results of TDP Tukey Test: 2 Groups um P/l Others =1,852 St.Lucia: 0,24

21 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 Results of TDP Group 2 um P/l Others =1,852

22 Results of NO 2 plus NO 3 um N/l Others Tukey Test: 4 Groups = 16,100 = 2,190 St.Lucia: 0,85

23 Results of NO 2 plus NO 3 um N/l Others Group 4 = 16,100 = 2,190

24 Results of NO 2 plus NO 3 um N/l Others Group 3 = 16,100 = 2,190

25 Results of NO 2 plus NO 3 um N/l Others Group 2 = 16,100 = 2,190

26 1,4 1,2 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0,0 Results of NH 4 Tukey Test: 2 Groups um N/l Others = 271,3 St.Lucia: 0,52

27 1,4 1,2 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0,0 Results of NH 4 Group 2 um N/l Others = 271,3

28 2,5 2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 Results of DIN Tukey Test: 2 Groups um N/l Others = 287,4 St.Lucia: 1,36

29 2,5 2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 Results of DIN Group 2 um N/l Others = 287,4

30 Conclusions Bonaire: High concentrations TDP and NH 4 Quick nitrification of NH 4 to NO x High outflow of NO 2 and /or NO 3 Southern 3 sites highest concentrations PO 4 and NH 4 of all in Bonaire

31 Conclusions Curacao vs. Bonaire Higher macroalgae cover in Curacao (5 times more at shallow) Higher chlorophyll a concentrations in Curacao Three highest isotope ratios found on Curacao Higher NH4 on Bonaire and higher NOx on Curacao Reefs on Curacao appear to be more eutrophic

32 Conclusions Chlorophyll α and Isotope Ratio 15 N/ 14 N: Group of 4, possible 6, polluted sites shallow deep Piscadera shallow surface Piscadera deep surface (outflow of landfill)

33 Conclusions Both Bonaire and Curacao are at or just above the nutrient thresholds for eutrophication of coral reefs Higher chlorophyll a and macroalgae cover on Curacao suggests higher land-based nutrient loads. Higher macro-/turf algae ratio may reflect higher grazing in Bonaire Continued long-term monitoring is of great importance for the future of our coral reefs.

34 Conclusions Bonaire s present situation is between the borders of healthy and polluted, careful policy and management are required. Curacao s present situation is a little worse. Several sites like and are obvious polluted and passed the borders indicating a polluted reef.

35 Any Questions? Thanks to: All the volunteers STINAPA SMMA Dr.Brian Lapointe NOAA-NFWF WW2BW-NMSF UNEP-CEP SPAW