1 / 17

Tyler Gibson UNCW Center for Marine Science CHM 576 research presentation

Nutrient Profiles along the Lower Cape Fear River Estuary from Bald Head Island (M18) up to Horseshoe Bend(HB). Tyler Gibson UNCW Center for Marine Science CHM 576 research presentation. Stations sampled include M18, M23, M35, M42, M54, M61, and HB. Nutrients in the water column.

paulos
Télécharger la présentation

Tyler Gibson UNCW Center for Marine Science CHM 576 research presentation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Nutrient Profiles along the Lower Cape Fear River Estuary from Bald Head Island (M18) up to Horseshoe Bend(HB) Tyler Gibson UNCW Center for Marine Science CHM 576 research presentation

  2. Stations sampled include M18, M23, M35, M42, M54, M61, and HB

  3. Nutrients in the water column • Nutrients drive phytoplankton blooms, along with sunlight • In the upper CFRE and lower Cape Fear River, nutrients do not cause these blooms due to the ‘black’ river water. • The closer to the ocean, the more phytoplankton and other vegetation is able to photosynthesize and grow. This allows nutrient uptake. • This means that we should see decreasing nutrient levels from the upper CFRE (HB) to the more saline areas (M18) based on dilution by the seawater

  4. Nutrient Analysis • Nutrient analysis was conducted by Auto-analyzer at CMS in Dr. Whitehead’s lab • Nutrients analyzed include: Nitrate, Ammonium, and Phosphate • Data was then compared to other water quality parameters in order to look for correlations to see what, if any, exist.

  5. 2009 Nutrient Concentrations Cruise 1 Cruise 2

  6. Average concentrations 2009 Conc. in mG/L This graph shows the avg. values between Cruise 1 and 2 from 2009

  7. Nutrient Concentrations: Cruise 1 vs. Cruise 2 Conc. Pin mG/L

  8. Nutrient Concentrations: Cruise 1 vs. Cruise 2 Conc. N in mG/L

  9. Nutrient Concentrations: Cruise 1 vs. Cruise 2 Conc. N in mG/L

  10. Nutrient concentration vs. Salinity Conc. Nut. in mG/L Conc. Nut. in mG/L Conc. Nut. in mG/L

  11. 2009 Phosphate data vs. 2008 LCFRP data Conc. in mG/L Conc. in mG/L

  12. 2009 Nitrate data vs. 2008 LCFRP NOx- data Conc. in mG/L Conc. in mG/L

  13. 2009 Ammonium data vs. 2008 LCFRP data Conc. in mG/L Conc. in mG/L

  14. Phosphates over the past 5 yrs compared to our data Conc. in mG/L Conc. in mG/L

  15. Nitrate concentrations over the past 5 yrs Conc. in mG/L Conc. in mG/L

  16. Ammonium levels over the past 5 yrs. Conc. in mG/L Conc. in mG/L

  17. References • http://chm576.pbworks.com/ • http://www.uncwil.edu/CMSR/aquaticecology/laboratory/LCFRP/index.htm

More Related