USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Analysis of mangrove structure and latitudinal relationships on the gulf coast of peninsular florida

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Analysis of mangrove structure and latitudinal relationships on the gulf coast of peninsular florida
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Novitzky, Peter
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Mangroves
Latitude
Temperature
Precipitation
Crystal Bay
Cockroach Bay
Rookery Bay
Dissertations, Academic -- Geography & Env Sci & Policy -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: The coastline of Florida has been formed by geomorphic processes which have created suitable habitats for certain vegetation and organisms. One type of vegetation is the mangrove; this plant has a latitudinal range of 24° to 32° N latitude which is associated with local climatic changes (Mitsch 2000). There are three species of mangrove found in Florida: red (Rhizophora), black (Avicennia), and white (Languncularia) (USGS 2006). Mangroves have adapted overtime to live in different ecosystems which cause mangroves, along the Florida coast, of the same species not be the same. Climatic variation causes individual mangrove trees have structural differences such as: tree height, diameter, and density; these variations are related to geographic location (Pool 1997, Schaeffer-Novelli 1990). Tree height is the measurement from the base of the tree trunk of the ground to the top of the tree. The diameter, also known as diameter at breast height (DBH), is the circumference of the tree trunk 1.21 meters from the ground. Density is the frequency of individual tress within predetermined distance. Florida's southwest coast has one of the world's biggest mangrove swamps called Ten Thousand Islands (Mitsch 2000). In northern Florida the mangrove swamps begin to mix with salt marsh vegetation, here mangroves are more like shrubs than trees (Mitsch 2000). The changes in individual mangrove structure could be a result of available freshwater and temperature. This project was a quantitative analysis using published and original data for graph production to understand the structural variation of mangroves on Florida's gulf coast at different latitudes. Study sites were located in bays along the Gulf of Mexico. The gulf coast of Florida was the study area of this project because it is the northern latitudinal limit for mangroves and as the latitude changes mangrove plant structure changes (Mitsch 2000). The tree height, diameter, basal area, biomass, and densities were compared to the precipitation and temperature values to understand the effect climate has on mangroves.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2010.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Peter Novitzky.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains X pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0003496
usfldc handle - e14.3496
System ID:
SFS0027811:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 007 cr-bnu---uuuuu
008 s2010 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0003496
035
(OCoLC)
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
XX9999 (Online)
1 100
Novitzky, Peter.
0 245
Analysis of mangrove structure and latitudinal relationships on the gulf coast of peninsular florida
h [electronic resource] /
by Peter Novitzky.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
b University of South Florida,
2010.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains X pages.
502
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2010.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
3 520
ABSTRACT: The coastline of Florida has been formed by geomorphic processes which have created suitable habitats for certain vegetation and organisms. One type of vegetation is the mangrove; this plant has a latitudinal range of 24 to 32 N latitude which is associated with local climatic changes (Mitsch 2000). There are three species of mangrove found in Florida: red (Rhizophora), black (Avicennia), and white (Languncularia) (USGS 2006). Mangroves have adapted overtime to live in different ecosystems which cause mangroves, along the Florida coast, of the same species not be the same. Climatic variation causes individual mangrove trees have structural differences such as: tree height, diameter, and density; these variations are related to geographic location (Pool 1997, Schaeffer-Novelli 1990). Tree height is the measurement from the base of the tree trunk of the ground to the top of the tree. The diameter, also known as diameter at breast height (DBH), is the circumference of the tree trunk 1.21 meters from the ground. Density is the frequency of individual tress within predetermined distance. Florida's southwest coast has one of the world's biggest mangrove swamps called Ten Thousand Islands (Mitsch 2000). In northern Florida the mangrove swamps begin to mix with salt marsh vegetation, here mangroves are more like shrubs than trees (Mitsch 2000). The changes in individual mangrove structure could be a result of available freshwater and temperature. This project was a quantitative analysis using published and original data for graph production to understand the structural variation of mangroves on Florida's gulf coast at different latitudes. Study sites were located in bays along the Gulf of Mexico. The gulf coast of Florida was the study area of this project because it is the northern latitudinal limit for mangroves and as the latitude changes mangrove plant structure changes (Mitsch 2000). The tree height, diameter, basal area, biomass, and densities were compared to the precipitation and temperature values to understand the effect climate has on mangroves.
590
Advisor: Philip Reeder, Ph.D.
653
Mangroves
Latitude
Temperature
Precipitation
Crystal Bay
Cockroach Bay
Rookery Bay
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Geography & Env Sci & Policy
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.3496



PAGE 1

Analysis of Mangrove Structure and Latitudinal Relationships on the Gulf Coast of Peninsular Florida by Peter Novitzky A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts Department of Geography College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Philip Reeder, Ph.D. Steven Reader, Ph.D. Mark Rains, Ph.D. Date of Approval April 13 2010 Keywords: mangroves, latitude, temperature, precipitation, Crystal Bay, Cockroach Bay, Rookery Bay Copyright 20 10 Peter Novitzky

PAGE 2

i Table of Contents List of Tables iii List of Figures iv List of Graphs iv Abstract vi Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Research Design 3 Problem Statement 3 Research Questions 4 Chapter 2 Literature Review 6 General Aspects of Florida 6 Environmental Variability 7 Geographical Variability and Long Term Growth Patterns 10 Methodology Considerations 12 Chapter 3 Methods 15 Study Site Selection 15 Field Variable Data Collection 16 Climate Variable Data Collection 18 Statistical Testing 18 Chapter 4 Study Area 22 General Characteristics 22 Site 1: Crystal Bay, Citrus County, Florida 24 Site 2: Cockroach Bay, Hillsborough County, Florida 26 Site 3: Rookery Bay, Collier County, Florida 28 Summary 29 Chapter 5 Results and Discussion 31 Summary of Mangrove and Climate Data 31 Data Analysis 34 Statistical Analysis of Means T test 35 Confidence Intervals 35 Rate of Change 38 Graphical Analysis 41 Latitudinal Relationships 41

PAGE 3

ii Temperature Relationships 45 Subfreezing Temperature Relationships 47 Precipitation Relationships 50 Histogram Analysis 53 Chapter 6 Summary and Conclusions 60 Works Cited 70 Appendix 1 73

PAGE 4

iii List of Tables Table 1: Field Variables 1 7 Table 2: Sample Data Table 1 8 Table 3: Published Variables 1 8 Table 4: Study Area Summary 30 Table 5: Crystal Bay Data 32 32 Table 6: Cockroach Bay Data 32 32 Table 7: Rookery Bay Data 32 3 2 Table 8: One Sample T test 36 3 5 Table 9 : Rate of Change: Climate V ariable 39 3 8 Table 1 0 : Rate of Change: Mangrove Structure Variable 39 3 8

PAGE 5

iv List of Figures Figure 1: Study Sites 1 6 Figure 2: Temperature and Precipitation Data for Ci trus County, Florida 2 4 Figure 3: Temperature and Precipitation Data for Hillsborough County, Florida 2 7 Figure 4: Temperature and Precipitation Data for Collier County, Florida 2 8 List of Graphs Graph 1: Mangrove Tree Height vs. Latitude 40 Graph 2: Diameter at Br east Height vs. Latitude 40 Graph 3: Basal A rea vs. Latitude 41 41 Graph 4: Biomass vs. Latitude 42 41 Graph 5: Density 42 41 Graph 6: Tree Height and Diameter at Breast Height vs. Temperature 45 Graph 7: Biomass and Basal Area vs. Temperature 45 4 5 G raph 8: Density vs. Temperature 46 4 5 Graph 9: Tree Height a n d Diameter at Breast Height vs. Freezing Days 48 Graph 10: Biomass and Basal Area vs. Freezing Days 48 4 7 Graph 11: Density vs. Freezing Days 49 4 8 Graph 12: Tree Height a n d Diameter at Breast Height vs. Prec ipitation 51 Graph 13: Biomass and Basal Area vs. Precipitation 51 50 Graph 14: Density v s. Precipitation 51 50

PAGE 6

v Graph 15: Crystal Bay: T ree Height 54 Graph 16: Crystal Bay: DBH 54 Graph 17: Crystal Bay: Basal Area 54 Graph 18: Crystal Bay: Biomass 55 Graph 19: Crystal Bay: Density 55 Graph 20: Cockroach Bay: Tree Height 56 Graph 21: Cockroach Bay: DBH 56 Graph 22: Cockroach Bay: Basal Area 56 Graph 23: Cockroach Bay: Biomass 57 Graph 24: Cockroach Bay: Density 57 Graph 25: Rookery Bay: Tree Height 58 Graph 26: Rookery Bay: DBH 58 Graph 27: Rookery Bay: Basal Area 58 Graph 28: Rookery Bay: Biomass 59 Graph 29: Rookery Bay: Density: 59

PAGE 7

vi Analysis of Mangrove Structure and Latitudinal Relationships on the Gulf Coast of Peninsular Florida Peter Novitzky ABSTRACT The coastline of Florida has been formed by geomorphic processes which have created suitable habitats for certain vegetation and organisms. One type of vegetation is the mangrove; this plant has a latitudinal range of 24 to 32 N latitude which is associa ted with local climatic changes (Mitsch 2000). There are three species of mangrove found in Florida: red (Rhizophora), black (Avicennia), and white (Languncularia) (USGS 2006). Mangroves have adapted overtime to live in different ecosystems which cause man groves, along the Florida coast, of the same species not be the same. Climatic variation causes individual mangrove trees have structural differences such as: tree height, diameter, and density; these variations are related to geographic location (Pool 199 7, Schaeffer Novelli 1990). Tree height is the measurement from the base of the tree trunk of the ground to the top of the tree. The diameter, also known as diameter at breast height (DBH), is the circumference of the tree trunk 1.21 m e ters from the ground. Density is the frequency of individual tress within predetermined distance. biggest mangrove swamps called Ten

PAGE 8

vii Thousand Islands (Mitsch 2000). In northern Florida the mangrove swamps begin to mix with salt marsh vegetation, here mangroves are more like shrubs than trees (Mitsch 2000). The changes in individual mangrove structure could be a result of available freshwater and temperature. This project was a quantitative analysis using published and original da ta for coast at different latitudes. Study sites were located in bays along the Gulf of Mexico. The gulf coast of Florida was the study area of this project because it i s the northern latitudinal limit for mangroves and as the latitude changes mangrove plant structure changes (Mitsch 2000). The tree height, diameter, basal area, biomass, and densities were compared to the precipitation and temperature values to understand the effect climate has on mangroves.

PAGE 9

1 Chapter 1 Introduction This thesis provides a quantitative analysis using published and or iginal data to coast at different latitudes. The three s tudy sites are located in bays along the Gulf of Mexico. The gulf coast of Florida was selected as the study area for this thesis because it is the northern latitudinal limit for mangroves and as the latitude chan ges mangrove plant structure changes (Mitsch 2000). Hence, it provided and outstanding natural laboratory to quantify and asses these changes. The specific purpose of this thesis was to understand the effects of latitude, temperature and precipitation on t ree height, diameter, density biomass, and basal area of mangrove s on the west central coast of Florida. The coastline of Florida has been formed by geomorphic processes which ha ve created suitable habitats for certain vegetation and organisms. One typ e of vegetation is the mangrove; this plant has a latitudinal range in the northern hemisphere from 24 to 32, with changes in latitude perpetuating local climatic changes (Mitsch 2000). The re are three species of mangrove found in Florida : red (Rhizophora ) black (Avicennia) and white ( La n guncularia ) (USGS 2006) Mangroves have adapted overtime to live in different ecosystems which cause mangroves along the Flo rida coast, of the same species to have different morphometric characteristics Climatic variat ion causes i ndividual m angrove trees to have structural differences such as: tree height, diameter, basal area, density and biomass ; with these variations related to climatic phenomena linked with the changes in geographic location (Pool 1997,

PAGE 10

2 Schaeffer No velli 1990) Tree height the measurement fr om the base of the tree trunk at ground level to the top of the tree, is a useful indicator of the quality of the growth conditions (Kangas 2002). The diameter, also known as diameter at breast height (DBH), is the width of the tree trunk 1.21 meters from the ground surface Density is the frequency of individual tree s within predetermined distance, for this study density = 1 meter. Basal area is the area occupied by a tree stem; it is a good measurement of stand development (Kasawani 2007). Basal area is calculated by using the area of a circle formula: Basal area = 3.1416 x r, where r = diameter at breast height (Kangas 2002). Biomass is the overal l weight of an individual tree. In this study, biomass = a log 10 (DBH) + b ; where a = 1. 731 and b = .112 (Smith 2005). Diameter at breast height, basal area and biomass are derived from one measurement, the circumference of a mangrove trunk. This one meas urement expressed in three ways offers methods to explore further relationships. Allometric relations, used to determine biomass, have been developed to study mangrove ecosystems change over time (Smith 2005, Komiyama 2005, Kasiwani 2007). Allometric equ ations can be used to quantify biomass for mangroves using variables such as tree height and diameter at breast height (Komiyama 2005). These equations need to be tested for ecosystems to find the equations that best describe mangrove biomass in particular location. For example, in F lorida, the Rhizophora Mangle (r ed mangrove) with a DBH of 20 cm will have 140 kg of above ground bioma ss and a red mangrove from northern Australia would have 300 350 kg above ground biomass (Smith 2005). coast possesses one of the world s biggest mangrove swamps called Ten Thousand Island s (Mitsch 2000). In northern Florida the mangrove swamps

PAGE 11

3 begin to mix with salt marsh vegetation, where mangroves are more like shrubs than trees (Mitsch 2000). The chan ges in individual mangrove structure could be a result of available freshwater and temperature In cold and dry environments mangroves are susceptible to xylem hydraulic resistance like any other plant; with the resistance less in warm humid environments ( Mendez Alonzo 2008). For example, red mangroves can only tolerate 24 hours of freezing temperatures (Mitsch 2000). The increased likelihood of a freeze will increase the chance of a mangrove being exposed to 24 hours or more of freezing temperatures. Resea rch conducted in the Gulf of Mexico shows that tree height and density are inversely correlated with temperature and precipitation (Mendez Alonzo 2008). On the Mexican coast of the Gulf of Mexico tree height and diameter at breast height decreased with in creasing latitude (Mendez Alonzo 2008). Tree height and the diameter at breast height (DBH) of mangroves on the Mexican coast increase as precipitation and temperature increase (Mendez Alonzo 2008). Research Design Problem Statement: Environmental conditions are not uniform throughout peninsular Florida, and this impact s the structural characteristics of mangroves. The objectives of this study were to: 1) D etermine the difference of mangrove structural characteristics (tree height, DBH, density basal area, and biomass ) at three locations 2) Define climatic variations in relation to latitude along the gulf coast of Florida and understand how they may affect mangroves. 3) Establish three study sites with little disturbance at different latitudes

PAGE 12

4 4) Collect structural measurements of mangrove s in different sites to know the physical differences of individual mangrove trees. 5 ) To understand the controlling mechanisms affecting mangrove g rowth. The research questions for this thesis are as follows: Research Q uestions: 1) How does the tree height, the diameter at breast height (DBH) basal area biomass and the density of mangroves change as latitude increases or 2) What is the latitudinal distribution of the tree species of mangroves and what type of mangrove (white, black or red) has the most structural change caused by variations in climatic con ditions (temperature and precipitation) on a latitu oast? 3) How do temperature and rainfall impact mangrove structure (height, diameter, density biomass and basal area) 4) What variable temperature or precipitation, affects structural charact eristics of mangroves the most in the study area ? The research design for this project include s : 1) The r eview of published material to locate existing research designs and data sources. 2) The establishment of study sites which have mangroves and are accessible. 3) Locating climatic data so that spa tial variation in climatic variables can be quantified. 4) Quantifying latitude for the study sites

PAGE 13

5 5) C ollection of data from literature sources an d in the field 6) Data analy sis using the statistic al technique comparison of means t test ( with SP SS and Microsoft Excel software), determining rate of change, and utilizing GIS software ( ArcMa p ) to identify study sites and individual trees for data collection. 7) Drawing conclusions based on the stated objectives and research questions. The significance of this study is that it add s new knowledge about the mangroves as related to the differences of mangrove structural characteristics and how they are affected by environmental conditions This study added to existing data on mangrove structure and controlling influences on the Florida gulf coast and provided the basis for future study. Future studies can incorporate the study sites used in this thesis with addit ional spatial, temporal climate and structural data to develop even more comprehensive research about mangrove

PAGE 14

6 Chapter 2 Literature Review General Aspects of Florida: features in The Geomorphology of the Florida Peninsula (White 1970) William White categorizes Florida into three main geomorphic divisions: 1) The Distal of Southern Zone, 2) The Midpe ninsular Zone, and 3) The Proximal or Northern Zone. This book is primarily a qualitative study based off of quantitative research. The advantage of this book is the way William White categorizes the physiographic delineations in an understandable method. The book aids this research because it offers a good explanation development of coastal landforms affects the distributions of mangrove ecosystems. Flori da Weather using data from weather stations across the state. The objective of his book is for the reader to gain an overall understanding of climate patterns through each season. The first chapter gives a general unders tand ing of weather patterns and how they occur in Florida. The next four chapters discuss each season in order beginning with winter. This book provides tables which graphically show rainfall and temperature data for various weather station across peninsul ar Florida. This book is important to the research because the descriptions of climatic data can be compared to quantitative weather data derived from on a latitudinal g radient.

PAGE 15

7 Mangrove ecosystems and species specifics are described in the book, Wetlands (Mitsch 2000). The book states that the latitudinal extent of mangroves is usually 25 N and 25 S. Depending on local climates mangroves can range from 24 N to 32 N i n the Northern Hemisphere. The red and white mangrove can only withstand freezing temperatures for 24 hours. The black mangrove can withstand freezing temperatures for several days. The black mangroves ability to tolerate cold allows the plant to live up t o the 30 N latitude; whereas the red and white mangrove can only reach the 29 N latitude. This book is important to this research because Florida is located at the northern extent of mangroves, where the frequency of freezes decreases with decreasing lat itude, and contains the same species of mangrove and their reactions to freezes as mentioned in the book. Environmental Variability Ken Krauss identified relationships among diameter growth rates, rainfall, and hydrogeomorphic zone for mangroves on the Pa cific Islands. These relationships are explained in Effects of Season, Rainfall, and Hydrogeomorphic Setting on Mangrove Tree Growth in Micronesia (2006). Four sites were selected, three were in river basins and one was on a beach strand. Diameter of the m angrove were noted in 1997 1998 and then rechecked 2002 2003. The article states hydrogeomorphic setting does impact mangrove growth. Mangroves grew faster in riverine and interior zones compared to the fringe zone. As rainfall increased mangrove growth ra tes increased. One type of mangrove, the B. gymnorrhiza, showed no change in growth rate in relation to rainfall fluctuations. The study showed mangrove structure varies in different ecological settings and that permanently wet environments may buffer the impacts of temperature variation.

PAGE 16

8 Stuart examines the effects of freeze induced xylem embolism, by measuring vessel diameters, and discussed how this could determine the latitudinal limits of mangrove growth in t he article, The Role of F reezing in S etting the L atitudinal L imits of M angrove F orests (2006) The research was conducted in Florida and Australia because mangroves endure freezes in both locations. The data indicates mangroves at these two sites suffer xylem failure which impedes water trans port Also, the different species of mangroves do not have the same reaction to the same temperature. The article is important to this research because the relationship between temperature and latitudinal based temperature variations to mangrove structure will be examined. Mangroves are limited to latitudes approximately less than 30 degrees. Rodrigo Mendez Alonzo examined the hypothesis that both height and leaf mass area are a function of climate in the central region of the Gulf of Mexico in his article, Latitudinal Variation in Leaf and Tree Traits of the Mangrove Avicennia germinans (Avicenniaceae) in the Central Region of the Gulf of Mexico (2008). Nine study sites on the Mexican coast along the coastal plains of the Gulf of Mexico were selected. Tree height and diameter decreased with increasing latitude. Also, Tree height and DBH increase when precipitation and temperature increase. The authors suggest less precipitation and temperature creates a hydraulic limitation to tree height. The results of th e article, ( Ball 2001) explain the effects of light a nd salinity on the early stages of mangrove growth in a laboratory. The re search shows that as the amount of light decrea ses mangrove survival decreases and if there is too much light the mangrove will not live as well Also, with too

PAGE 17

9 little salinit y mangroves do not survive well, with, 25% stated as the optimum level of salinit y for mangrove s in Australia ; and as the salinity increases past 25% ma ngrove survivability decreases. Schaeffer Novelli wrote t he article, Variability of Mangrove Ecosystems Along the Brazilian Coast (1990) in which mangrove ecosystems variations along the Brazilian coast are explained Th is research indicates that it is common to find mangrove forests with different structural characteristics in different geographic regions because of the mangroves environmental adaptations. I n harsher environment s mangrove structure is altered to accommodate life. The article is based on eight study sites where the researchers noted the physical characteristics, type of mangroves, climatic data, tidal data, latitude and the landform type that the mangrove forest colonized. The authors concluded that the landform on which the mangrove ecosystem colonized determines the overall structure of the entire mangrove forest. The effect of different environmental conditions on mangrove growth was examined in, Variation in Mangrove Forest Structure and Sediment Characteristics in Bocas del Toro, Panama written by Catherine Lovelock (2005). Two study sites located on the Caribbean coast of Panama were used for this study. Tree height and diameter at breast height for each Man grove at each site were measured in permanent plots and transects. Within these plots and transects sediments were collected and their physical and chemical characteristics were analyzed Rhizophora mangle dominated the study sites. The mangroves at the seaward edge were 3 5 meters while the interior mangroves were less than 1 meter and then increasing slightly at the landward edge. The values of diameter of breast height, leaf area index, basal area, and biomass were all correlated

PAGE 18

10 with tree height. The increase in height of mangrove on the landward edge was correlated with decrease levels of soil salinity. Geographical Variability and Long Term Growth Patterns Mangrove structure varies d epending on location. The article, A Multivariate Study of Mangrove Morphology (Rhizophora Mangle) Using both Above and Below water Plant Architecture written by R. Allen Brooks and Susan Bell (2005), examines the possibility to identify overwash and fring structural characteristics. Eight sites were selected; they were either fringing or overwash mangroves. The MANOVA statistical test did not indicate statistical significance between fringing and overwash mangrove archit ecture. Tsutomu Enoki studied the growth pattern of mangrove along a river. Distribution and Stem Growth Patterns of Mangrove Species Along the Nakara River in Iriomote Island, Southwestern Japan (2008) discusses the stand structure and tree growth from river mouth to inland in southwestern Japan. Thirty nine transects were made along the river. Each transect was div id ed into three parts: 1) lower shore, 2) mid shore, and 3) upper shore. Mangrove location on transects, tree heights and diameter at breast heights were recorded. Soil salinity was also recorded on the transects. Basal area increased upstream. Each mangrove species has its own suitable growth conditions this is why riverine mangroves were smaller inland while mangroves suitable for upland ecos ystems were smaller along the riverside. The article, Half a Century of Dynamic Coastal Change Affecting Mangrove Shorelines of French Guiana. A Case Study Based on Remote Sensing Data Analyses and Field Surveys written by F. Fromard (2004) is an analyses of the Guianese coast line

PAGE 19

11 over the past fifty years. The author used field surveys and satellite remote sensing data to understand the evolution of mangrove ecosystems. Tree height and diameter data was collected to define tree biomass. The satellite ima gery was used to identify changes in shorelines. As a result of the study, six stages of mangroves development were devised. They are: 1) pioneer, 2) young, 3) adult, 4) mature, 5) mixed, and 6) cemetery stand. The image analyses revealed three phases occu rring within the mangrove ecosystem. The first is an accretion stage occurring 1951 1966. The second was mangrove erosion from 1976 1991. The third phase was an accretion from 1991 1999. Planted mangroves ecosystems can become established within twenty years. The study, Long Term Development of Planted Mangrove Wetlands in Florida written by Deborah Shafer (2007), documents long term stand development trends and compares natural and plante d mangrove sites. Mangrove composition and structure data was collected at three 2 m x 2 m plots in each site. Basal area was gathered using DBH data and canopy height was also recorded. During the beginning of planting three sites were dominated by one sp ecies; red, black, or white. The estimated growth rate for mangroves in Florida was 13 23 cm per year. Hurricanes and mangrove reproduction are closely related. This relation was studied in the article Red Mangrove (Rhizophora Mangle) Reproduction and Se edling Colonization after Hurricane Charley: Comparisons of Charlotte Harbor and Tampa Bay written by C. Proffitt (2006) Proffitt discusses how the red mangrove recovers after high intensity events, in this example hurricane Charley. Tree heights and diam eter at breast height were measured and then statistical test were performed to measure correlations. Trees in Tampa Bay are smaller than trees in Charlotte Harbor. The results

PAGE 20

12 show that late summer storms disperse mangrove propagules while spring or early summer storms damage mangroves resulting in fewer propagule growth. Methodology Considerations and Allometric Equations The se methods are examined in Community Structure and Standing Crop Biomass of a Mangrove Forest in Futian Nature Reserve, Shenzhen, China written by N. F. Y. Tam (1995) Mean annual temperature is 22 C and annual precipitation is 1926.7 mm. Individual mangrove trees were harvested and measured. The tree height and diamete r at breast height were recorded. The weight of the fresh cut tree was weighed then let dry and weighed again. Relative density, frequency, dominance, basal area, average diameter and importance values were calculated for each species in the study site. Th e mangrove ecosystem in Futian Reserve is a simple community structure with low species diversity. The mangrove stand had biomass of 12.142 kg/ m , 72% came from the above ground biomass. This stand has similar biomass to mangroves on Puerto Rico and Japan. The article, Biological Diversity Assessment of Tok Bali Mangrove Forest, Kelantan, Malaysia written by I. Kasawani (2007) is a review of mangroves in the forest specifically aimed towards the initiation of a management and rehabilitation program. Data gathered included species, DBH, and height. Mean diameter, basal area and DBH size class were all calculated for each species of mangrove. The above ground biomass was figured by DBH and heig ht data (biomass=116.6[(DBH)H] 0.8877 ). S. Alba species was the most abundant, had the most basal area, had the highest species diversity, and had the most above ground biomass.

PAGE 21

13 Regeneration Status of Mangrove Forests in Mida Creek, Kenya: A Comp romised or Secured Future? (2002), investigated mangrove regeneration and timber potential for management purposes. The site is located in Mida Creek, Kenya. Tree height and diameter at breast height were recorded and then used to figure tree basal area, s pecies density and frequency. Ecological importance was calculated by adding the relative density, relative frequency and relative dominance. The authors observed stand density is lower for larger trees. Also, every stand has been disturbed and unmanaged by humans. The ecological importance of mangrove is threatened by human disturbance in Kenya. Aims to estimate the indices of structure for the mangrove forest in Belize were undertaken in Mangrove Forest Structure on the Sittee River, Belize written b y Patrick Kangas (2002) Data for the mangrove forest was collected during 1998 and again in 2002 using standard methods developed by Cintron and Novelli. Mangroves were measured along transect in five 10 m x 10 m plots. DBH was measured and then used for basal area calculation (basal area = 3.1416 x r; r = DBH). Height of the tallest tree was recorded. The research indicates there were three species of mangroves in Belize: 1) Red, 2) Black, and 3) White. The mangrove species were then given importance val ues (I.V.); this index is a function of density and basal area for each species. Higher values mean more significance. In the Sittee River, Belize the red mangrove had the highest I.V. value while black had the lowest I.V. An estimation of tree weight is important for researchers to study the development of an ecosystem. In Common Allometric Equations for Estimating the Tree Weight of Mangroves by Akira Komiyama (2005), Komiyama establishes common relationships for

PAGE 22

14 the weight of mangroves based on the pipe model theory and difference in wood density among species. Five study sites were selected in Thailand and Indonesia. Trunk diameter and tree height were measured. Each tree was cut down. The tree parts were weighed wet and then dry. Four allometric equati ons were established to predict above and below ground biomass. Allometric relations for above ground biomass and diameter at breast height were developed in Development of Allometric Relations for Three Mangrove Species in South Florida for use in the Greater Everglades Ecosystem Restoration written by Thomas Smith (2005) The equations were then compared with others developed for other mangroves around the wo rld. Thirty two specimens were collected. Their DBH and tree height was measured. Wet weight and dry weight were measured for the trees. The author then used the allometric equation to derive biomass for plots on the Harney River. The article states, both tree height and DBH are excellent predictors of above ground biomass. Man individual mangrove tree with a given DBH will have a greater biomass closer to the equator than a tree with the same DBH located farther from the equator. In this study a red mangro ve in Florida with a 20 cm DBH will have an above ground biomass of about 140 kg.

PAGE 23

15 Chapter 3 Methods Study Site Selection An examination of mangroves along the Florida gulf coast between Crystal Bay and Rookery Bay was undertaken using original data and published literature Site 1 is located at the northern limit of mangroves in a bay with no human disturbance The next site to the south Site 2, was selected based on the change in latitude accessibility and no human disturbance Site 3 was also selected based on a change in latitude, accessibility, and no human disturbance. Only the bays located on the west coast of peninsular Florida were examined as part of this study and e ach bay must have had at least fifty individual fringing mangroves for stati stical significance. Human disturbance is considered to be activities such as; building sea walls, buildings, piers and housing developments. Bays that only possess ed one species of mangrove were included in thi s study. An examination of possible study site locations was completed using Landsat satellite imagery and field reconnaissance to check for accessibilit y and the presence of mangroves. Then the published data was researched to verify existence of climatic data for each site. Three sites were selected From North to South they are: Site 1: Crystal Bay, Site 2: C ockroach Bay and Site 3: Rookery Bay (Figure 1)

PAGE 24

16 Figure 1 : Study Sites (FDGL 2008) Field Variables Data Collection The structure and type of mangrove at each site was e xamined if possible Each study site conta in ed 100 selected points for the measure ment of individual mangrove tree s Using the geographic information system software ArcGIS 9.3 Student Edition t hese points were selected by measuring the total length of each shoreline and then dividing the length by 100. The resulting number is th e distance between two points. Tree height in centimeters diameter at breast height (DBH) in centimeters density (# of

PAGE 25

17 individual tre es in 1 m ) and mangrove species were recorded. The table below shows the methodology that was used in the field to collect data for each variable. Table 1 : Field Variables Variable Methodology Tree Height (cm) Using a metal measuring tape each tree was measure d from the tip of the tree to the base of the tree where it me t the surface. Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) (cm) A cloth measuring tape was used to measure the ci rcumference of each tree at 1.21 m high. If the tree was less than 1.21 m then the thickest part of the trunk was measured. Then: D = C/3.1416 C = circumference Density: # of individual trees with in 1 m With a string, a 1 m square perimeter was made around each tree measured. Then eve ry mangrove that live d within the 1 m perimeter was counted. Mangrove Species The species (Red, Black, or White) of each mangrove was visually identified and noted. Individual Tree Selection Total Length of Bay divided by 100 Basal Area ( m 2 /ha ) BA = 3.1416 x r r = 0.5 DBH (Kangas 2002) Above Ground Biomass (kg/m 2 ) log 10 y = a log 10 (DBH) + b a = 1.731; b = 0.112 Below is a sample data table that was filled out for each site in the field

PAGE 26

18 Table 2 : Sample Data Table Site # xxxx Location x xxx Tree # Type Tree Height(cm) DBH(cm) Density (1m) Basal Area (m 2 ) Biomass (kg) 1 Red xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2 Black xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Climate Variable s Data Collection Climatic conditions such as: average temperature days of temperature below 0C and average amount of precipitation of each mangrove habitat was collected and graphically compared with the average physical characteristics of the mangroves. Below is a chart showing the methodology used to gather previously published data. Table 3 : Published Variables Variable Methodology Annual Average Temperature Climate data was gathered from, Southeast Regional Climate Center www.radar.meas.ncsu.edu Days Below 0C per Year Climate data was gathered from, Southeast Regional Climate Center www.radar.meas.ncsu.edu Annual Average Precipitation Climate data was gathered from, Southeast Regional Climate Center www.radar.meas.ncsu.edu Statistical Testing The a verage tree height, DBH, density basal area, and biomass were calculated for each study site Species type for each tree was noted. The average temperature, precipitation and number of days below freezing for each bay were compared to the

PAGE 27

19 averages of t he structural characteristics. Statistically c omparing the means for each bay show ed the impact of temperature an d rainfall on mangrove structure which provided a better understand ing of the structural change caused by environmental conditions. Comparison of Means t test : To statistically examine the difference in means of the three study sites large with in the statistical software SPSS 17.0 and : 1) confidence intervals fo r independent samples were determined and 2) a test of a hypothesis about the difference of two population means was performed. A null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis were developed to test the di fferences in population means. The null hypothesis (H 0 ) is the hypothesis that is assumed to be true (Mendenhall 2003) in this case the means, , are equal The alternative hypothesis (H a ) is the opposite of the null hypothesis (Mendenhall 2003) and in this case states that the means, , are not equal The equations for equating confidence intervals and the t statistic are shown below. 1) C.I. = 2 2 + 2 1 2 1 + 2 2 2 2) T statistic = 0 1 2 + 2 2 The confidence intervals for a variable are the upper and lower limits with a given level of significance. If the same variable in multiple sites has overlapping confidence intervals then the variable has little or no variation among sites. Also, a large confidence interval range implies large variability in data and a small confidence interval range implies li ttle variability of data The confidence coefficient used to test the rejection region of the t est statistic is 2 = 1.96 for 95% confidence. This means a t value will be used to decide if the confidence intervals among variable s are related. A rejection region

PAGE 28

20 for the t value will be used to indicate rejection of the null hypothesis and thus the accept ance of the alternative hypothesis. When conducting a t test the data should be 5). The data about the sample population should also be independent (Mendenhall 2003). In this study the null and alternative hypothesis are: Null Hypothesis (H 0 ): = 0 Alternative Hypothesis (H a 0 Rejection region: > 2 Therefore, if > 2 then the null hypothesis ( 0 ) that the three study sites had the same means , for each variable would have to be rejected. A rejection wou ld indicate a difference in means for the variables examined. If = 2 then the alternative hypothesis ( ) that the three sites had different mean s for each variable would have to be rejected Calculations were carried out with SPSS Statistical Graduate Pack 17.0. Rate of Change : To understand which variable temperature, precipitation, or number of days below freezing affects the structural characteristics of mangr oves the rate of change for all variables was calculated from one bay to another Each study site has means for each climate variable. The rate of change was calculated for climate variables and structural variables by using the following equation : % = 100 % = the observed mean, = the initial mean. This data w as correlated with each structural variable collected at the study sites. The rate of structural change caused by a climate variable w as added up for the three study

PAGE 29

21 s ites. The climate variable with the highest rate of change is the variable with the highest impact on mangrove structure in the study area.

PAGE 30

22 Chapter 4 Study Area The stud y area for this project included the gulf coast of Florida. The counties located within the study area are: Citrus, Hillsborough and Collier (see Figure 1) The latitudinal range for the study area is 28 N to 2 6 N. There is enough latitudin al change for variation in the environmental conditions and mangrove characteristics at each site. General Characteristics Average annual maximum daily temperature from north to south along the Florida peninsula varies from 25.5C 30C The average minimum daily temperature ranges from 12.7 C 18.8 C from north to south (Winsberg 1990) Average annual precipitation varies from 139.7 cm 152.4 cm form north to Cumulus clouds as a result of convection and convergence usually cause precipitation in the summer. In the winter, cirrus and stratus clouds form as a result of frontal activity bring precipitation (Winsberg 1990) G eologically, Florida is located on carbonate bedrock. The carbonate bedrock goes through processes of solution and dissolution which creat es caves, sinkholes, and springs all throughout the Florida landscape. This type of landscape is know n as Karst. The Gulf coast of Florida can be divided into three sections: 1) Southwest Florida Mangrove Coast, 2) West Central Barrier System and the 3) Ma rshy Coast of the Big Bend Area (Randazzo 1997).

PAGE 31

23 The Southwest Florida Mangrove Coast has a 1:3,000 gradient sloping inner shelf until 10 m of depth (Randazzo 1997). In southern Florida there are many mangrove islands and very few beaches. Beaches in this area are made of many shell fragments. The geology of the Southwest Florida Mangrove Coast is comprised of Pliocene and Pleis tocene carbonates from the Tamiami and Miami formations (Ran dazzo 1997). Above the carbonate rock is a thin layer of quartz and some clay (Randazzo 1997). The West Central Barriers system is one of the most dynamic systems in the world. Many barrier islands and inlets form according to local processes. This region is also underlain by carbonate bedrock. However there is more sand on top of the carbonate rock due to relatively high energy during high magnitude events. There are two coastal headlands in this region. The Miocene exposure found on this coast, in the no rth, is part of the Tampa formation. The second located in the south was made of Miocene strata and is part of the Hawthorn group (Randazzo 1997). The Marshy Coast of the Big Bend Area is a complex system. There are many historic shorelines, oyster beds, v ariations within limestone formations, and current processes morphing the coast into a he avily vegetated region. There is few siliciclastic material found in this coastal region. This is because during the Pleistocene the sea level was higher and the silic i c lastic deposits were more inland. Currently, there is a very thin sand layer above the carbonate rock. Throughout the coastal system there is exposed carbonate bedrock (Randazzo 1997) Over time, water has found pathways through fissures, fractures and bedding planes of the carbonate bed

PAGE 32

24 rock. The bedrock undergoes dissolution, creating more sinkholes and springs, enabling water to flow more freely through the bedrock and into the aquife rs. Site 1: Crystal Bay, Citrus County, Florida The northernmost study site is Crystal Bay located in Citrus County, FL, latitude The climate of Citrus County is like most other Florida counties. The average rainfall i n Citrus County is 142.97cm with a range of 92.71cm 221.67cm During the summer the heat causes afternoon thunderstorms, these occur 100 days per year. During the winter there is less precipitation, this depends on the activity of cold fronts coming from the north. Summer temperatures are around 32.2 C while winter temperatures rarely drop below 1C The average relative humidity during the day is 50% 65% and at night is 85% 90%. Coastal weather pattern s are mainly influenced by the land and sea interactions. The winte rs have northern winds and the summers have southern winds (USDA 1988). Figure 2 : Temperature and Precipitation Data for Citrus County, FL Citrus County can be divided into three regions: Gulf Coastal Lowlands, Brooksville Ridge and Ts a la, Apopka Plain. The entire west coast of the county is the

PAGE 33

25 Gulf Coastal Lowlands. The area is poorly drained, has low relief, and has many swamps and marshes. Terraces also exist from the effects of rising and falling sea levels during the Pleistocene (10,000 1.6mya) ( USDA 1988). The Gulf Coastal Lowlands can be divided into two sections: coastal swamp and the marine terraces. The coastal swamp is a low energy freshwater environment with little sediment and no beaches. There is sediment accumulation on the Eocene limes tone. This accumulation aids the growth of vegetation in this area (White 1970) There are two marine terraces formed by the rising and falling of sea levels. They are the Pamlico Terrace at 7.62 m above sea level and the Wicomico Terrace at 30.48 m above sea level There are also ancient sand du nes on the terraces (USDA 1988) The presence of relict sand dunes and terraces indicates there was a large enough source of sediment to form terraces and dunes This source of sediment has come from an old b each when sea levels were lower, meaning the modern coast is geologically young (White 1970). The Brooksville Ridge is located in the middle of the county and goes north to south. Elevation ranges 21.34 m 60.96 m above sea level (White 1970) Karst proc esses have created an undulating topography on the ridge. The dissolution rate of the underlying limestone bedrock i s slower in the ridge than else where because it has a layer of sand and then a clay cap over the bedrock (USDA 1988). The Tsala Apopka Plai n is the entire eastern section of the county. The eastern boundary is the Withlacoochee River. This area has many interconnected lakes, which has left alluvial deposits over the limestone bedrock. Elevations are from 18.29 m to 24.38 m above sea level (US DA 1988).

PAGE 34

26 The major rivers of the area are mainly spring fed, these include: Homosassa, Halls, Chassahowitzka and Crystal River. The only river which is not spring fed is the Withlacoochee. The Withlacoochee is also one of the only north flowing rivers (U SDA 1988). Site 2: Cockroach Bay Site, Hillsborough County Florida Hillsborough County is located on the west central coastline of Florida. The west side of Hillsborough County is bordered by Old Tampa Bay, Tampa Bay and Hillsborough Bay. These bays are fed by rivers such as; Hillsborough, Alafia and Little Manatee rivers. Cockroach Bay is located in southwest Hillsborough County (USDA 1989). Hillsborough County is subtropical, average temperature is 72.2F; the Gulf of Mexico is a big factor in the coun temperatures average 90F, humidity is high and the county experiences daily afternoon showers. The winters have little rain and are mild, coldest monthly average is 60.8F in January. Temperatures are influence d by cold fronts which have traveled south through North America. Only one or two freezes are expected each year. The average annual precipitation of Hillsborough County is 50 inches. 60% of the rain occurs through the months of June and September (USDA 19 89).

PAGE 35

27 Figure 3: Par r ish Temperature and Precipitation Hillsborough County is located on the Atlantic Coastal Plain. The western and southern sides of the cou nty are located on the Coastal L owlands. The eastern side of the county is on the Central Highlands. There are four escarpments representing historic shorelines. These four shorelines are the; Pamlico at 7.62 m above sea level, Talbot at 12.8 m above sea level, Penholoway at 21.34 m abov e sea level and Wicomico at 30.48 m above sea level. Tampa Bay is in southwest Hillsborough County. To the north of Tampa Bay are Old Tampa Bay and Hillsborough Bay which are separated by a peninsula known as Interbay Peninsula; these two bays are also in southwest Hillsborough County (USDA 1989). Surface drainage from the Hillsborough, Alafia, Little Manatee Rivers, etc. flows into the Hillsborough, Old Tampa and Tampa Bays. Many smaller bays and streams exist inland of the larger bays. There are also lak es and sinkholes directly connected with drainage is related to Karst landscape (USDA 1989). Cockroach Bay specifically is located on level poorly drained soils which have san dy subsoil (USDA).

PAGE 36

28 Site 3: Rookery Bay, Collier County Florida Collier County is the location of the southern study site Rookery Bay latitude Only one county, Monroe, extends farther south along the gulf coast than Collier County. The annual average temperature for Collier County is 23.66 C The winter average temperat ure is 19 C while the minimum average is 12.83 C and the maximum average for winter is 29.11 C The summer average temperature is 27.61 C while the minimum average for summer is 22.77 C and the maximum average for summer is 32.39 C From 1962 to 2006 there have been 0.6 days with minimum temperature s less than 0C (SERCC 07 ). Most of the annual precipitation in Collier County occurs during the fall and summer months, th is correlates with hurricane season. The highest amount of precipitation 31.75 cm for one day, this event took place in June 1936. The average annual precipitation is 136.12 cm The average winter precipitation is 11.89 cm. The average summer precipitation is 25.71 cm (SERRC 07). Figure 4: Temperature and Precipitation Data for Collier County, FL

PAGE 37

29 Collier County can be divided into three sections: 1) The Flatwoods, 2) The Big Cypress Swamp, and 3) The Southwest Coast and Ten Thousand Islands. The Flatwoods comprise the northern and western parts of the county. This region is made of marshes, cypress stands, swamps, lagoons, rivers, and creeks. The Big Cypress Swamp is in the central p art of the county and extends in the Everglades. Elevation for the Big Cypress Swamp is less than fifteen feet above mean sea level. In the swamp there are cypress stands, swamps, and pine forest islands. The Southwest Coast and Ten Thousand Islands the l ocation of the study site region extends from Gordon pass south along the Gulf of Mexico. Here, there are rivers, lakes, islands, bays, salt marshes, and mangrove swamps (USDA 1954) Most of the soils for the region originate from ancient inland sand dun es formed during higher sea levels. The bays in the region are classified as Mangrove Swamp. The soils here have varied color, texture, composition, and thickness. The surface usually has a layer of brown peat which as depth increases is replaced by light gray or fine sands or marl. Under the soil is the limestone carbonate bedrock, which i n some areas is exposed (USDA 1954). The hydrology in Collier County is comprised of a shallow aq uifer consisting of sand, limestone, and marl (McCoy 1975). In western Collier County there are limestone beds with little permeability (McCoy 1975) causing more surface drainage in the form of canals due to urbanization, than subsurface drainage. Study Area Summary The locations of sites 1 3 range 2.5 in latitude. Cr ystal Bay is located at Rookery bay is

PAGE 38

30 3 ranges 2.33C. Crystal bay has an average temperature of 21.39 C Cockroach Bay has an average temperature of 22.5 C Rookery Bay has an average temperature of 23.72 C The number of days below 0C for site 1 3 ranges 11.7 days. Total number of days below freezing temperatures in Crystal Bay is 12.3 days. Total number of days be low freezing temperatures in Cockroach Bay is 3.6 days. Total number of days below freezing temperatures in Rookery Bay is 0.6 days. Average annual precipitation for sites 1 3 ranges 5.08 cm. The average annual precipitation for Crystal Bay is 132.77 cm The average annual precipitation for Cockroach Bay is 137.85 cm. The average annual precip itation for Rookery Bay is 135.4 6 cm A positive linear relationship exists for t he average temperature and the numbers of days below freezing on the gulf coast of F lorida. No linear relationship exists for a verage precipitation Average precipitation increases from Site 1: Crystal Bay to Site 2: Cockroach Bay and decreases from Site 2 to Site 3: Rookery Bay. The study area summary is displayed in Table 4 below. Tabl e 4 : Study Area Summary (Southeast Regional Climate Center) Site Latitude Avg. Temperature C # of Days less than 0C Avg. Precipitation (cm) 1) Crystal Bay 21.39 12.3 132.77 2) Cockroach Bay 22.5 3.6 137.85 3) Rookery Bay 23.72 0.6 135.46

PAGE 39

31 Chapter 5 Results and Discussion The objective of this study is to show the physical differences of mangroves and Mexico. This research will aid the understanding of the factor or factors (temperature, precipitation, and days below freezing ) influencing mangrove development along a latitudinal gradient. The design of the project will help distinguish how the red, white, and black mangroves are impacted different ly by the factors listed above. Summary of Mangrove and Climate Data Fringing m angroves located with in bay s along the Gulf Coast of Florida were used for this study. Mangrove zonation trends i n west central Florida cause the seaward edge of bays to be dominated by Rhizophor a Mangle (r ed mangrove) Rhizophora Mangle comprised the majority of species examined in this study Therefore, conclusions can be made about which species is most prevalent within the study sites, but issue s regarding structural change in the sites based on the presence of different species can not be illu minated because the sites a re dominated by one species The structural characteristics of mangroves were collected at the three study sites: Crystal Bay, Cockroach Bay, a nd Rookery Bay. 278 individual tr ees were measured. Due to low frequency of occurrence, possibly a result of lower densities in colder temperatures ( Mendez Alonzo 2008 ), o nly seventy eight trees were measured in Crystal Bay (the most northern site) One hundred trees were measured in Cockroach Bay and another one hundred were measured in Rookery Bay. Climate data was also gathered

PAGE 40

32 from the Southeast Regional Climate Center. There were no climate recording stations in the bay s studied. The closest climate station to each bay was used to summarize the climate for each bay. A summary of the mangrove and climate data for each site is shown below. Crystal Bay: 2 8 55 00 Table 5 : Mangrove averages and average climate data Mangrove Tree Height (cm) DBH (cm) # of individual trees within 1m Basal Area ( m 2 /ha ) Biomass (kg /m 2 ) 132.44 51.57 3.18 1.24 0 .86 1.05 7.94 9.52 5.66 5.17 Temperature Annual Mean ( C ) Days <= 0C 21.39 12.3 Precipitation Annual Mean (cm) 132.77 Cockroach Bay : Table 6 : Mangrove averages and average climate data Mangrove Tree Height (cm) DBH (cm) # of individual trees within 1m Basal Area ( m 2 /ha) Biomass (kg /m 2 ) 492.3 107.85 8.65 2.65 2.02 1.35 58.74 42.41 32.36 19.15 Temperature Annual Mean ( C ) Days <= 0C 22.5 3.6 Precipitation Annual Mean (cm) 137.85 Ro okery Bay : 260 1 39 Table 7 : Mangrove averages and average climate data Mangrove Tree Height (cm) DBH (cm) # of individual trees within 1m Basal Area ( m 2 /ha) Biomass (kg /m 2 ) 603.91 130.85 12.74 4.01 1.42 0.92 127.48 85.60 63.1 35.66 Temperature Annual Mean ( C ) Days <= 0C 23.72 0 .6 Precipitation Annual Mean (cm) 135.46

PAGE 41

33 The mangrove structural characteristic values differ from bay to bay; however, gulf coast. Tree height values range 471.47 cm from site 1 to site 3 Tree heights in site 1 are the shortest with an average of 132.44 cm. Tree height in site 2 averages 492.3 cm. Tree heights in site 3 are the tallest with an average of 603.91 cm. As indicated in tables 5 7 t ree height increases as latitude decreases. The average diameter at breast height ranges 9.56 cm from site 1 3. Average DBH for site 1 is 3.18 cm. Average DBH for site 2 is 8.65 cm. Average DBH for site 3 is 12.74 cm. Tables 5 7 show t he average diameter at breast height similar to tree height, increasing as latitude decreases. Basal area values for mangroves in sites 1 3 increase from north to south. Basal area average in Crystal B ay is 7.94 m 2 /ha Basal area average in Cockroach B ay is 58.74 m 2 /ha Basal area average in Rookery B ay is 127.48 m 2 /ha The average basal area, shown in tables 5 7 increases as latitude decreases Average biomass ranges 57.44 kg /m 2 and increases from north to south. Average biomass in Crystal Bay is 5.66 kg /m 2 Average biomass in Cockroach Bay is 32.36 kg /m 2 Average biomass in Rookery Bay is 63.1 kg /m 2 The average biomass for this study ; biomass increases as latitude decreases, shown in tables 5 7 The average density of mangrove the # of individual mangroves within 1m is the only mangrove characteristic measure d in this study to not have a linear relationship with location The avera ge density for Cockroach Bay is 2.02. The average density for Rookery Bay is 1.42. The

PAGE 42

34 average density of mangroves increases from Crystal Bay to Cockroach Bay, but decreases from Cockroach Bay to Rookery Bay (unlike the o ther mangrove characteristics). Th is is explained in detail later along with the discussion and analysis of graphed data average annual mean temperature of 21.39C and annually averages 12.3 days of freezing w ith 132.77 cm of average annual precipitation. Site 2 has an average annual mean temperature of 22.5C and annually averages 3.6 days of freezing with 137.85 cm of average annual precipitation. Site three has an average annual temperature of 23.72C and an nually averages 0.6 days of freezing with 135.46 cm of average annual precipitation. Data Analysis A nalysis for this study was carried out through stati sti cal techniques and visual analysis of graphs This included a comparison of means using a 95% confi dence interval Latitudinal rate of change among variables was computed by comparing percent change of variable means among sites. Bar graph analysis identified latitudinal changes to mangrove structure. Scatter plot analysis showed relationships betw een climatic conditions and mangrove structure. Histogram analysis allowed for an examination of mangrove structure trends within each individual bay. The results of the analysis are shown below.

PAGE 43

35 Statistical Analysis of Means : The upper and lower lim it mangrove structural variables were calculated with a one sample test using 95% confidence. All of the variables used a test value of 0 to understand how each study site varied from the others. Confidence Intervals: The equation for determining confidence intervals is shown below. C.I. = 2 2 + 2 1 2 1 + 2 2 2 The larger the difference of the upper limit from the lower limit means more variation for a particular variable. If the upper limit value for site 1 is higher than the lower limit value of site 2 then the variables do not have much variation from one site to another. Also, if the upper limit value for site 2 is higher than the lower limit value of site 3 then the variables do not have much variation from one site to another. If ther e are no overlaps of upper and lower limits then the sites would be considered significantly different meaning no relationships exist among means Overlaps in upper and lower limits means study sites would be considered correlated. A t test will determine if there is a relationship among the study sites. A t value less than 1.96 signifies correlation between means. A t value greater than 1.96 indicates no relationship of means. The t test equation is shown below. T statistic: = 0 1 2 + 2 2 Results of the one sample comparison of means test are shown in the table below

PAGE 44

36 Table 8 : One Sample Test (Sig .000, Test Value = 0) Variable/Site # T 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Tree Height / 1 2 29.53 120.88 144.03 Tree Height / 2 3 6.74 470.99 513.60 Tree Height / 3 1 33.25 577.82 630.01 Diameter / 1 2 18.47 2.91 3.47 Diameter / 2 3 8.45 8.12 9.18 Diameter / 3 1 22.54 11.94 13.54 Density / 1 2 6.53 0.62 1.10 Density / 2 3 3.76 1.75 2.29 Density / 3 1 3.74 1.24 1.60 Basal Area / 1 2 12.8 7.02 11.34 Basal Area / 2 3 7.9 55.72 72.67 Basal Area / 3 1 15.24 122.96 157.11 Bio Mass / 1 2 14.19 5.09 7.44 Bio Mass / 2 3 8.1 30.38 38.03 Bio Mass / 3 1 16.95 60.07 74.3 Table 8 shows the upper and lower limits with a 95% confidence interval and mean difference. Crystal Bay, Site 1, had an average tree height of 132 11.56 cm, an average diameter at breast height of 3.19 0.28 cm, an average density of 0.86 0.2 4 individual trees in one meter an average basal area of 9.18 2.16 m 2 /ha and an average biomass of 6.26 1.17 kg /m 2 Cockroach Bay, Site 2, had an average tree height of 492.3 21.31 cm, an average diameter at breast height of 8.65 0.53 cm, an average density of 2.02 0.2 7 individua l trees in one meter an average basal area of 64.2 8.48 m 2 /ha and an average biomass of 34.21 3.83 kg /m 2 Rookery Bay, Site 3, had a n average tree height of 603.91 26.09 cm, an average diameter at breast height of 12.74 0.8 cm, an

PAGE 45

37 average density of 1.42 0.18 individual trees in one meter an average basal area of 140.03 17.07 m 2 /ha and an average biomass of 67.19 7.11 kg /m 2 An examination of the confidence intervals, from table 8, shows tree height, DBH, basal area, and biomass to have no overlapping intervals; meaning the variables means from site to site are significantly different. The confidence intervals for density also do not overlap ; the range in Rookery Bay is 1.24 1.60 and the range in Cockroach Bay is 1.75 2.29. The population means for density between the two sites is significantly different, mangrove density increases from Crystal Bay to Cockroach Bay and decr eases from Cockroach Bay to Rookery Bay. The variation of mangrove characteristics was found for each bay using the t test Crystal Bay, the northern most site, had the lowest values for tree height, DBH, basal area, and biomass. The structural character istics of mangroves in Crystal Bay had the least variation within the bay compared to the other sites. The middle site, Cockroach area, and biomass. Also the change within t the highest values for tree height, DBH, basal area, and biomass and the highest range of variables. For f ringing mangroves located in as tree height, DBH, basal area, and biomass increase the range within these structural variables will increase. The range within the structural variables will increase with decreasing latitude and number of days below f reezing and increase with increasing temperature ; this is shown in table 8

PAGE 46

38 Table 8 shows the results of the t test. Crystal Bay had the following values: tree height = 29.53 DBH = 18.47 density = 6.53 basal area = 12.8 and biomass = 14.19 Cockroac h Bay had the following values: tree height = 6.73 DBH = 8.45 density = 3.76 basal area = 7.9 and biomass = 8.1 Rookery Bay had the following values: tree height = 33.25 DBH = 22.54 density = 3.74 basal area = 15.24 and biomass = 16.95 The t value was used to decide if the means, , for each variable was significantly different from each study site. Site 1 was compared with site 2, site 2 was compared with site 3 and site 3 was compared with site 1. Hypothes ese were made to test the diff erence of means, they are shown below: Hypothesis : Null Hypothesis (H 0 ) study sites have the same average : = 0 Alternative Hypothesis (H a ) study sites do not have the same average : 0 Rejection region: > 2 2 = 1.96 = 95% confidence As stated in the methods, if > 2 then 0 would be reject ed In table 10 all of the t values are greater than 1.96 indicating H 0 is rejected; none of the variables have equal population means. The one sample comparison of mean s test proves H a; tree height, diameter at breast height density, basal area, and biomass do not have the same population means This indicates all the population means are unrelated and can be examined independently. Rate of Change : The rate of change for average temperature, average precipitation, and the number of days below freezing are show n in table 9 below. The rate of change will help answer

PAGE 47

39 The rate o f change for climate variables is displayed below. Table 9 : Rate of Change: Climate Variables Variable Site % Rank (Variable) Avg. Temp. 1 2 5.19 2 Avg. Temp. 2 3 5.42 1 Avg. Precip. 1 2 3.82 1 Avg. Precip. 2 3 1.73 2 # Days < 0C 1 2 241.66 2 # Days < 0C 2 3 500.00 1 The rate of change for tree height, diameter at breast height, and density are displayed below in table 10 Table 10 : Rate of Change: Mangrove Structure Variable Variable Site % Rank (Variable) Tree Height 1 2 271.72 1 Tree Height 2 3 22.67 2 Diameter 1 2 172.01 1 Diameter 2 3 47.28 2 Density 1 2 134.88 1 Density 2 3 42.25 2 Basal Area 1 2 611.11 1 Basal Area 2 3 118.75 2 Biomass 1 2 466.66 1 Biomass 2 3 97.05 2 In table 9 a verage temperature and the number of days below freezing show a higher rate of change than average precipitation. According to the table a verage precipitation shows the least change, only 3.82% increase form site 1 to 2 and 1.73% decrease from site 2 to 3. Average temperature increase s 5.19% fro m site 1 to 2 and 5.42% from site 2 to 3. The number of days below freezing has the highest rate of change from site to site. The number of days below freezing decreases 241.66% from site 1 to 2

PAGE 48

40 and decreases 500.00% from site 2 to 3 Percentage rates are greater than 100% because if one site had one day a freezing compared to another site with 5 days of freezing the equation used will give a result of 500% change between the sites. According to table 10 t ree height increased 271.72% from site 1 to 2 and 22.67% from site 2 to 3. Diameter at breast height increased 172.01% from site 1 to 2 and 47.28% from site 2 to 3. Density increased 134.88% from site 1 to 2. Density decreased 42.25% from site 2 to 3. Basal area increased 611.11% from site 1 to 2 and 118. 75% from site 2 to 3. Biomass increased 466.66% from site 1 to 2 and 97.05% from site 2 to 3. The five mangrove variables, tree height, DBH, density basal area, and biomass had the largest increased rate of change from site 1 to 2. Basal area had the hi ghest rate of change and density had the lowest rate of change. Basal area and biomass are dependent on DBH; the trends found for mangroves on the gulf coast of Florida are similar to the trends in other studies conducted in Mexico and the Caribbean (Mende z Alonzo 2008; Pool, Snedaker, Lugo 1977). The diameter at breast height, basal area and biomass are one measurement expressed in three different ways. Density was also the only variable to decrease; density decreased 42.25% from site 2 to 3. Density is the only variable that does not continuously increase along latitudinal gradient. A study conducted in Kenya found mangrove density to be lower for larger trees (Kairo 2002). The decrease in mangrove density for Rookery Bay could be a result of trees being too large for dense growth or large biomasses may not let enough sunlight reach the ground (Ball 2002) or a combination of both. While the decrease in mangrove density for Crystal Bay could be a result of too many days of freezing te mperatures.

PAGE 49

41 Graphical Analysis Changes in Mangrove Structure with Latitude : Graph 1 : Mangrove Tree Height Graph 2 : Diameter at Breast Height Graph 3 : Basal Area 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Crystal Bay Cockroach Bay Rookery Bay Height (cm) Mangrove Tree Height (cm) Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 0 5 10 15 Crystal Bay Cockroach Bay Rookery Bay DBH (cm) Diameter at Breast Height (cm) Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 0 50 100 150 Crystal Bay Cockroach Bay Rookery Bay Basal Area m 2 Basal Area m 2 Site 1 Site 2 Site 3

PAGE 50

42 Graph 4: Biomass Graph 5: Density Tree height vs. latitude is displayed in graph 1 According to graph 1; s ite 1: Crystal Bay had the shortest mangroves averaging 132 cm. At site 2: Cockroach Bay the mangroves average measure is 492 cm tall Site 3: Rookery Bay mangroves average 603 cm tall, the tallest mangroves of the three sites. Mangroves heights in the three study sites increase with decreasing latitude similar to mangroves on the Mexican gulf coast (Mendez Alonzo 2008) and in Mida Creek, Kenya (Kairo 2 002) In Mexico, mangrove height is positively related to rainfall and temperature (Mendez Alonzo 2008). Studies suggest a hydraulic limitation as a result of reduced precipitation and temperature. The role of freezing on mangrove ecosystems was studied b found red mangroves to have larger vessel diameters than other mangrove species. Larger 0 50 100 Crystal Bay Cockroach Bay Rookery Bay Biomass (kg) Biomass (kg) Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Crystal Bay Cockroach Bay Rookery Bay Density 1m Density 1m Site 1 Site 2 Site 3

PAGE 51

43 vessels require more water to maintain hydraulic conductivity and larger vessels were more susceptible to freeze induced embolism (Stuar t 2006). Mangrove tree height most likely increases with decreasing latitude because of warmer temperatures and increased precipitation values. Graph 2 shows t he average diameter at breast height for mangroves in Crystal B ay is 3.18 cm. In Cockroach Bay the DBH for mangroves is 8.65 cm. Rookery Bay had the thickest diameter averaging 12.74 cm. Latitudinal trends for DBH are the same as tree height. latitudin al relationships as mangroves in Mexico (Mendez Alonzo 2008) and the Caribbean (Pool, Snedaker, Lugo 1977). Mangrove diameter at breast height increases most likely occurs with decreasing latitude because average temperature increases. The average basal area for the three stu dy sites is displayed on a latitudinal gradient in graph 3 Site 1 has a basal area of 7.94 m 2 /ha site 2 basal area is 58.74 m 2 /ha and site 3 has a basal area of 127.48 m 2 /ha Basal area increases with decreasing latitude. Basal area is a function of diameter at breast height. The equation for basal area is shown below. Basal Area = 3.1416 x r r = 0.5DBH (Kangas 2002) T herefore basal area will have the same latitudinal trends as DBH. The above ground biomass is shown in g raph 4 Site 1 has an average biomass of 5.66 kg /m 2 site 2 has an average biomass of 32.36 kg /m 2 and site 3 has an average biomass of 63.1 kg /m 2 Above ground biomass increases with decreasing latitude. The above ground biomass can account for 72% of total mass for a mangrove tree (Tam

PAGE 52

44 1995). Biomass is a function of the diameter at breast height; it will show the same trends as DBH. The equation for biomass is shown below. Biomass = log 10 y = a log 10 (D BH) + b The equation above indicates an increase in DBH will increase biomass and a decrease in DBH will decrease biomass. According to Smith (2005) in his study of south Florida, French Guiana, Australia, and Malaysia mangroves, a red mangrove in Florida with a DBH of 20 cm should have about 140 kg /m 2 of above ground dry biomass whereas in the other countries a mangrove with DBH of 20c m should have about 300 350 kg /m 2 of above ground dry biomass. Since basal area and biomass are dependent on DBH the l atitudinal relationships are similar to the trends found in studies conducted in Mexico (Mendez Alonzo 2008) and the Caribbean (Pool, Snedaker, Lugo 1977 ). The graphs 1 4 show the trends for mangrove tree height averages, diameter at breast height averages, biomass, and basal areas increasing north to south along the latitudinal gradient of the gulf coast of Florida; also similar to mangroves studied by Men dez Alonzo on the Mexican coast of the Gulf of Mexico (2008) and by James Kairo in Mida Creek, Kenya (2002). Graph 5 shows the relationship between mangrove density and latitude. Crystal B ay had an average density of 0 .86 trees per 1m. In Cockroach Bay th e density rises to 2.02 trees per 1m. However, in Rookery Bay the density lowers to 1.42 trees per 1m. Mangrove density increases from Crystal Bay to Cockroach Bay and then decreases in Rookery Bay. The trend for density is unique to any other mangrove str ucture variable examined in this study According to the other variables the trend sh ould assume Rookery Bay to have the highest density of mangroves, but it does not. Mangrove density within

PAGE 53

45 1 m does not show the same trend as tree height and diameter at breast height. This is similar to mangroves in Mexico (Mendez Alonzo 2008) and mangroves in Kenya, where mangrove density is lower for larger trees (Kairo 2002). The lower density in Rookery Bay could be a result of the mangroves being too big to al low sun light for other trees to grow within 1 meter (Ball 2002) The lower density in Crystal Bay could be the result of average temperatures being too low, or the increased likelihood of experiencing a freeze. This means that conditions in Cockroach Bay are more suitable for denser populations of mangroves than Rookery Bay and Crystal Bay. Climatic Variation: Temperature Relationships Graph 6 : Temperature vs. Tree Height and DBH Graph 7 : Temperature vs. Biomass and Basal Area 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 21 21.5 22 22.5 23 23.5 24 Site 1 2 3 Diamter at Breast height (cm) Tree Height (cm) Temperature Celsius Tree Height and DBH vs. Temperature Tree Height Diameter at Breast Height 0 20 40 60 80 0 50 100 150 21 21.5 22 22.5 23 23.5 24 Site 1 2 3 Biomass (kg) Basal Area m 2 Temperature Celsius Biomass and Basal Area vs. Temperature Basal Area Biomass

PAGE 54

46 Graph 8: Density vs. Temperature Temperature relationships with tree height and diameter at breast height are displayed in graph 6. Site 1 had an average temperature of 21.39C ; the t ree height average was 132.33 cm with a range of 11.56 cm and DBH average was 3.18 cm with a range of 0.28 cm. Site 2 had an average temperature of 22.5C; the tree height average was 492.3 cm with a range of 21.31 cm and DBH average was 8.65 cm with a range of 0.53 cm. Site 3 had an average temperature of 23.72C; the tree height av erage was 603.91 cm with a range of 26.09 cm and DBH average was 12.74 cm with a range of 0.8 cm. According to graph 6, tree height and diameter at breast height have a positive emperature has a direct relationship with tree height and diameter at breast height. As temperature increases so does tree height and DBH. gulf coast change at a higher rate than DBH (table 10). This may indic ate temperature impacts tree height more than DBH. The relationship between basal area and biomass vs. temperature for the 3 study sites is shown in Graph 7 In Crystal Bay the aver age temperature was 21.39C and the biomass was 5.66 1.17 kg / m 2 with an average basal area of 7.94 2.16 m 2 /ha Cockroach Bay had an average temperature of 22.5C and the biomass was 32.36 3.83 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 21 21.5 22 22.5 23 23.5 24 Density Temperature Celsius Density in 1m vs. Temperature Crystal Bay Cockroach Bay Rookery Bay

PAGE 55

47 kg / m 2 with an average basal area of 58.74 8.48 m 2 /ha The largest biomass was recorded in Rookery Bay where, the averag e temperature was 23.72C and the biomass was 63.1 7.11 kg / m 2 with an aver age basal area of 127.48 17.0 m 2 /ha gulf coast biomass and basal area have a positive linear relationship with increasing temperature s The larger biomass and basal area in Rookery Bay could indicate the reason for the lower density (Kairo 2002) in Rookery Bay than in Cockroach Bay. Graph 8 shows how average temperature relates to density of the three study sites. Site 1 had an average temperature of 21.39C with an average density of 0.86 0.24 mangroves per meter. Site 2 had an average temperature of 22.5C with an average density of 2.02 0.27 mangroves per meter. Site 3 had an average temperature of 23.72 C with an average density of 1.42 0.18 mangroves per meter. Site 1 has low density and basal area compared to Cockroach Bay and Rookery Bay; this could be a result of being close to the latitudinal limit for mangroves in Florida. As the temperature increases from site 1 to site 2 the basal area and density increase d. The higher average temperature in site 2 compared to site 1 could alleviate environmental stresses on mangroves providing a more suitable habitat for dense stands and more basal area. Basal area had a positive linear relationship with temperature. Mang rove basal area increased from site 2 to 3, and the average density decreased with the increased temperature from site 2 to 3. Mangrove density could decrease with an increase in biomass because of the lack of sunlight to promote seedling growth (Ball 2002 ). Climatic Variation: Sub Freezing Relationships Mangroves do not tolerate long periods of freezing temperatures. The red mangrove can only withstand 24 hours of freezing temperatures whereas the black

PAGE 56

48 mangrove can withstand a few days (Mitsch 2008). Da ta from other studies show freeze induced xylem embolism (Stuart 2006) as a result of long periods of cold exposure could be the main controlling mechanism for mangrove growth. The number of days below freezing temperatures will dictate the likelihood of a freeze. The likelihood of a freeze may be more significant to mangrove structure than the total number days below freezing. Graph 9 : Days below freezing vs. tree height and DBH Graph 10 : Days below freezing vs. Biomass and Basal Area 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 5 10 15 Site 3 2 1 Diameter at Breast Height (cm) Tree Height (cm) # of Days < 0 Celsius Tree Height and DBH vs. # of Days < 0 Celsius Tree Height Diameter at Breast Height 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 5 10 15 Site 3 2 1 Biomass (kg) Basal Area m 2 # of Days < 0 Celsius Biomass and Basal Area vs. # of Days < 0 Celsius Basal Area Biomass

PAGE 57

49 Graph 11: # of Days < 0 Celsius vs. Density Graph 9 shows the relationship of days below freezing to tree heigh t and diameter at breast height; this is important because red mangroves can only withstand 24 hours of freezing temperatures (Mitsch 2008). S ite 1 has 12 days of freezing with mangroves to only reaching 132.44 11.56 cm in height Site 2 has 3.6 days of freezing with mangroves averaging 492.3 21.31cm in height. Site 3 contains 0.6 days of freezing with mangroves reach ing an average height of 603 26.09 cm. The DBH also increased with decreasing days of freezing; Site 1 DBH is 3.18 cm, site 2 DBH is 8.65 cm, and site 3 is 12.74 cm. Both tree height and DBH have a linear relationship with the number of days below freezing. There is a direct re lationship between days of freezing and tree height. Also there is direct relationship between days of freezing and DBH. As the number of freezing days increases tree height and DBH decrease, this could be a result of freeze induced xylem embolism (Stuart 2006). Mangroves in site 3 can grow tall because the red mangroves need a total of 24 hours before they start dying from freezing temperatures (Mitsch 2000). basal area vs. the total number of days exposed to freezing tempe ratures is displayed in graph 10 There were 12.3 days of freezing in Crystal Bay with an average biomass of 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Density # of Days < 0 Celsius Density in 1m vs. # of Days < 0 Celsius Crystal Bay Cockroach Bay Rookery Bay

PAGE 58

50 5.66 1.17 kg / m 2 meter with an average basal area of 7.94 2.16 m 2 /ha Cockroach Bay had an averag e of 3.6 days of temperature below 0C with an average of 32.36 kg / m 2 with an average basal area of 58.74 8.48 m 2 /ha Rookery Bay had a total of 0.6 days below freezing with an average biomass of 63.1 7.11 kg / m 2 with an average basal area of 127.48 1 7.07 m 2 /ha There is a linear relationship between biomass and the number of days below freezing. These are the same trends as DBH because basal area and biomass are a function of DBH. Graph 11 shows how the number of days below freezing impacts the dens ity of mangroves on the gulf coast of Florida. Site 1 has 12.3 days of freezing temperatures with an average density of 0.8 0.24 mangroves in a meter Site 2 has 3.6 days with temperatures less than 0C with an average density of 2 0.27 mangroves in a meter. Site 3 has 0.6 days of freezing temperatures with an average density of 1.4 .18 mangroves in a meter. In sites 2 and 3 the pattern is similar to graph 8; density and basal area decrease slightly as the number of freezing days increases This patt ern is a result of red mangrove mortality from freeze induced xylem embolism (Stuart 2006) after 24 hours of exposure to freezing temperatures (Mitsch 2000). Climatic Variations: Precipitation Relationships The variation of average precipitation per year for the study region is only 5 cm. Crystal Bay, site 1, has an average precipitation of 132.77 cm. Cockroach Bay, site 2, has a yearly average precipitation of 137.85 cm. Rookery Bay has an average precipitation of 135.45 cm per year. On the next thre e graphs Crystal Bay data is on the left, Rookery Bay data is in the middle, and Cockroach Bay is on the right. The following graphs show the

PAGE 59

51 relationship of mangrove structure with average annual precipitation rates for each study site Graph 12 : Avera ge precipitation vs. tree height and DBH Graph 13 : Average precipitation vs. Biomass and Basal Area Graph 14 : Average precipitation vs. Density Graph 12 shows the relationship of tree height and diameter at breast height to precipitation. Site 1 averaged 132.77 cm of precipitation with an average tree height of 4 1 6 11 16 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 Site 1 3 2 Diameter at Breast Height (cm) Tree Height (cm) Average Precipitation (cm) Tree Height and DBH vs. Precipitation Tree Height Diameter at Breast Height 0 20 40 60 80 0 50 100 150 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 Site 1 3 2 Biomass (kg) Basal Area m 2 Precipitation (cm) Biomass and Basal Area m 2 vs. Precipitation Basal Area Biomass 0 1 2 3 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 Density Precipitation (cm) Density in 1m vs. Precipitation Crystal Bay Cockroach Bay Rookery Bay

PAGE 60

52 132.44 11.56 cm and an average DBH of 3.18 0.53 cm. Site 2 averaged 137.85 cm of precipitation with an average tree height of 492.3 21.31 cm and an average DBH of 8.65 0.53 cm. Site 3 averaged 135.46 cm of precipitation with an average tree height of 603.91 26.09 cm and an average DBH of 12.74 0.8 cm. Unlike temperature there is coast. Site 1 has the lowest rate of precipitation, 132.77 cm. Site 2 has the highest rate or precipitation, 137.85 cm. Site 3 is in the middle with 135.46 cm. The tree height and DBH still increase from north to south similar to graphs 5 and 7. Mangrove growth chara cteristics have the same trend even as precipitation rates changes. This indicates salinity is not impeding the growth of mangroves (Ball 2001). The relationship between biomass and basal area vs. average annual precipita tion can be observed in graph 13 There was an average annual precipitation of 132.77 cm in Crystal Bay with an average biomass of 5.66 1.17 kg / m 2 and an average basal area of 7.94 2.16 m 2 /ha Cockroach Bay had an average annual precipitation of 137.85 cm with an average biomass of 32. 36 kg / m 2 and an average basal area of 58.74 8.48 m 2 /ha Rookery Bay had an average annual precipitation of 135.46 cm with an average biomass of 63.1 7.11 kg / m 2 and an average basal area of 127.48 17.07 m 2 /ha Overall the average biomass and basal area increases with increasing average annual precipitation, but the fact that Cockroach Bay had more precipitation and less bio mass than Rookery Bay indicates that other hydrological relationships are impacting mang rove growth. As height. The mangroves in Mexico are taller and have greater DBH when precipitation and temperature increase (Mendez Alonzo 2008). As do mangroves in the Paci fic except for

PAGE 61

53 one species, B. gymnorrhiza (Krauss 2006). On the west central coast of Florida mangrove tree height and DBH increase with decreasing latitude regardless of changes in precipitation, similar to the Pacific mangrove species B. gymnorrhiza (K rauss 2006). The most southern site, #3 (Rookery Bay), has taller and thicker mangroves than the middle site, #2 (Cockroach Bay), even though site #2 receives 2 cm more precipitation per year. Graph 14 shows the relationship of average annual precipitatio n with density. Site 1 averages 132.77 cm of precipitation with an average density of 0.8 0.24 mangroves in a meter. Site 2 has an average annual precipitation rate of 137.85 cm with an average density of 2 0.27 mangroves in a meter Site 3 has 135.46 cm of average annual precipitation with an average density of 1.4 .18 mangroves in a meter. Site 1 has the lowest values for precipitation and density. Sites 2 and 3 show that as precipitation decreases the density decreases. The difference in precipitat ion is slightly over 2 cm, but there a change in density. Perhaps other environmental factors are influencing mangrove densities. Research on the Brazilian coast concluded that the landform on which the mangrove ecosystem colonized determined the overall s tructure of the entire mangrove forest (Schaffer Novelli 1990). Florida mangrove structure could also depend on the type of landform colonized. However, a study of fringing and over wash mangroves of Florida found no difference in mangrove structure (Brook and Bell 2005). Histogram Analysis Histograms were produced to display mangrove structure data for each bay. The graphs show whether the data is normally distributed or skewed. The histograms are displayed below.

PAGE 62

54 Graph 15: Crystal Bay: Tree Height Graph 16: Crystal Bay: DBH Graph 1 7 : Crystal Bay: Basal Area 0 10 20 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frequency Diameter at Breast Height (cm) Crystal Bay: DBH Frequency 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Frequency Basal Area m 2 /ha Crystal Bay: Basal Area Frequency 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 Frequency Tree Height (cm) Crystal Bay: Tree Height Frequency

PAGE 63

55 Graph 1 8 : Crystal Bay: Biomass Graph 19: Crystal Bay: Density Graphs 15 19 show the distribution of data for Crystal Bay. More than 25% of the mangroves in Crystal Bay are 100 cm tall and have 2 3 cm DBH. 55 mangroves in Crystal Bay have a basal area of 55 m 2 /ha and more than 60 mangroves have a biomass ranging 5 10 kg/m 2 Crystal bay has the lowest density values of the three sites. Half of the mangroves do not have any other individual mangroves growing within 1m, however more than twenty mangroves have a density of 3 individual trees within one meter. 0 10 20 30 40 50 Frequency Biomass (kg/m 2 ) Crystal Bay: Biomass Frequency 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Frequency # of Individual Trees within 1m Crystal Bay: Density Frequency

PAGE 64

56 Crystal Bay has the lowest mangrove characteristic values for all variables measured in this study. Graph 20: Cockroach Bay: Tree Height Graph 21: Cockroach Bay: DBH Graph 22: Cockroach Bay: Basal Area 0 5 10 15 20 25 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 Frequency Tree Height (cm) Cockroach Bay: Tree Height Frequency 0 10 20 30 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Frequency Diameter at Breast Height Cockroach Bay: DBH Frequency 0 10 20 30 40 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Frequency Basal Area m 2 /ha Cockroach Bay: Basal Area Frequency

PAGE 65

57 Graph 23: Cockroach Bay: Biomass Graph 24: Cockroach Bay: Density Graphs 20 24 show the distribution of data for Cockroach Bay. More than 50% of the mangroves in Cockroach Bay range 350 450 cm tall and have 6 12 cm DBH. 60 mangroves in Cockroach Bay have a basal area of 40 60 m 2 /ha and almost 70 mangroves have a biomass ranging 20 40 kg/m 2 Cockroach Bay mangrove characteristic values for tree height, D BH, basal area and biomass are in between Crystal Bay and Rookery Bay. Nearly 60% of mangroves measured have a density of 1 2 individual trees within 1m. 10 mangroves have a density of 3.5 individual trees within 1m. Cockroach Bay has the densest mangrov es of the three study sites. 0 10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 Frequency Biomass (kg/m 2 ) Cockroach Bay: Biomass Frequency 0 10 20 30 40 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Frequency # of Individual Trees within 1m Cockroach Bay: Density Frequency

PAGE 66

58 Graph 25: Rookery Bay: Tree Height Graph 26: Rookery Bay: DBH Graph 27: Rookery Bay: Basal Area 0 5 10 15 20 25 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 Frequency Bin Rookery Bay: Tree Height Frequency 0 10 20 30 40 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Frequency Diameter at Breast Height (cm) Rookery Bay: DBH Frequency 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Frequency Basal Area m 2 /ha Rookery Bay: Basal Area Frequency

PAGE 67

59 Graph 28: Rookery Bay: Biomass Graph 29: Rookery Bay: Density Graphs 25 29 show the distribution of data for Rookery Bay. Most of the mangroves in Rookery Bay range 450 700 cm in tree height and have 10 14 cm DBH. Almost 60 mangroves in Rookery Bay have a basal area of 100 150 m 2 /ha and 60 mangroves have a biomass ranging 45 75 kg/m 2 40 mangroves have a density of 2.5 individual mangroves within 1m. 30 mangroves have a density of 1.5 individual trees within 1m. Rookery Bay mangrove characteristic values for tree height, DBH, basal area and biomass are greater than Crystal Bay and Rookery Bay. Density valu es are less than Cockroach Bay and more than Crystal Bay. 0 5 10 15 20 25 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 Frequency Biomass (kg/m 2 ) Rookery Bay: Biomass Frequency 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Frequency # of Individual Trees within 1m Rookery Bay: Density Frequency

PAGE 68

60 Chapter 6 Summary and Conclusion s An analysis of mangrove structure in relation to latitudinal distribution and related climatic variables was completed in this study. Tree height, diameter at breast height, biomass, and basal area increase as temperature and precipitation increase generally from north to south, as latitude decreases. Basal area and biomass are a function of the diameter at breast height of a mangrove; therefore they will follow the same trends as DBH. The results of this study and others (Kasawani 2007, Smith 2005) show that as the diameter of mangroves increase so do es the basal area and biomass; t his is also related to tree height. Th e data suggests that average temperature and the total days below freezing per year impact mangrove growth rates more than precipitation. An increase in the number of days with freezing temperatures increases the likelihood of a freeze. Rookery Bay, Site 3 has 0.6 days below freezing with mangrove averaging 603.91cm in height and 12.74 cm diameter. Cockroach bay, Site 2, has 3.6 days below freezing with mangrove averaging 193.82 cm tall and 8.65 cm in diameter. Crystal Bay, Site 1, has 12.3 days below free zing and the mangrove here are only 52.14 cm tall and 3.18 cm in diameter. Temperature and precipitation are more constant along the Florida peninsula than the number of days of freezing; the number of days below freezing and the likelihood of a freeze imp acts mangrove growth more than average annual temperature and average annual precipitation.

PAGE 69

61 The change associated with each variable was found for each of the three study locations Crystal Bay, the northern most site, had the lowest values for tree height DBH, basal area, and biomass. The structural characteristics of mangrove s in Crystal Bay had the least variation within the bay compared to the other sites The middle site, Cockroach for tree height DBH, basal area, an d biomass. Also the variation in the v ariables for Cockroach Bay was between sites Rookery Bay, the southern most site, had the highest values for tree height, DBH, basal area, and biomass and the most variation within the collected data This proves that, for fringing mangroves increase the variation w ithin these structural data will increase as well Also, variation within the structural variables will increase with decreasing latitude a nd number of days below freezing and increase with increasing temperature. Other variab le s not addressed in this study could also be impacting mangrove The soils in the study area are different in each bay. This will cause varying levels of salinity and other element in the soil. Crystal Bay has exposed calciu m carbonate bedrock contain ing very little sediment and no beaches (White 1970) to allow mangrove colonization. Crystal Bay is located on a poorly drained coastal swamp (White 1970) which could lead to a buildup of salinity levels. Cockroach Bay is also lo cated on poorly drained soils which has probably increased salinity levels overtime, but, unlike site 1, Cockroach Bay has sandy subsoil (USDA 1989). Rookery Bay has soils of varied composition; the surface is comprised of brown peat and with increasing d epth the soils become sand then marl, and some areas have exposed calcium

PAGE 70

62 carbonate bedrock. Soil composition and thickness could be a controlling mechanism for mangrove growth as well, but as previously noted, no quantitative data were collected with rega rd to area soils Salinity could al so be another factor affecting mangrove growth char acteristics. Salinity has been known as a controlling mechanism for mangrove growth and could be the reason why only red mangroves were examined in this study. An examin ation of Caribbean mangroves concluded tree height increases with decreasing levels of soil salinity (Lovelock 2005). Red mangroves are the least salt tolerant mangrove included in this study. A study conducted in a laboratory found the ideal salinity for mangrove growth is 25% (Bal l 2001). Salinity measured at more than 25% impede s mangrove growth, and the greater deviation from 25% the greater stress on the mangrove population (Ball 2001). However, Crystal River the main freshwater source for Crystal Bay is mainly spring fed (USDA 1988) which would help reduce salinity levels in the bay. Conclusions The objective of this study was to examine the structural variation of mangroves, and the intrinsic relationships that exist between these variations and ph ysical Gulf Coast. In order to better understand these relationships, and to expand the existing base of knowledge on latitudinal and environmental controls on mangrov e structural/physical characteristics, four research questions were posed within the research design for this thesis. Each of these questions will be addressed separately, and highlights of the data will be presented and discussed and the conclusions will be stated.

PAGE 71

63 The first research question asked; how do the structural characteristics tree height, the diameter at breast height, basal area, biomass and the density of mangroves change as latitude increase ulf c oast. As seen in tables 5, 6, and 7 and graphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 tree height, diameter at breast height, basal area, and biomass g ulf c oast. Average tree height increases 359.56 cm from site 1 to site 2 and increases 111.61 cm f rom site 2 to site 3. The average diameter at breast height increases 5.47 cm from site 1 to site 2 and increases 4.09 cm from site 2 to site 3. Average basal area increases 50.08 m 2 /ha from site 1 to site 2 and increases 68.74 m 2 /ha from site 2 to site 3. Average biomass increases 26.7 kg / m 2 from site 1 to site 2 and increases 30.73 kg / m 2 from site 2 to site 3. According to table 10 the highest rate of change for tree height, diameter at breast height, basal area, and biomass occurs between sites 1 and 2. Table 10 shows the rate of change for the mangrove structure variables; tree height increases 271.72% from site 1 to 2 and 22.67% from site 2 to 3. Diameter at breast height increases 172.01% from site 1 to 2 and 47.28% from site 2 to 3. Basal area increas ed 611.11% from site 1 to 2 and 118.75% from site 2 to 3. Biomass increases 466.66% from site 1 to 2 and 97.05% from site 2 to 3. The density of mangrove increases from site 1 to site 2, but decreases from site 2 to site 3; this is shown in graph 5. De nsity increases 134.88% from site 1 to 2. Density decreases 42.25% from site 2 to 3 ( table 10 ) In Rookery Bay, the size of the mangroves causes them to have a lower density (within 1m of the trees measured as part of this study), compared to the Cockroach Bay site. In Crystal Bay the increased chance of freezing temperatures increases mangrove mortality rates causing a decrease in density.

PAGE 72

64 The analysis of the data collected, in Crystal Bay, Cockroach Bay, and Rookery Bay concludes that all of the variables examined, except density, increase along a decreasing latitudinal gradient. The trends found for mangroves on the gulf coast of Florida are similar to the trends in other studies conducted in Mexico and the Caribbean (Mendez Alonzo 2008; Pool, Snedake r, Lugo 1977). Density was the only variable to decrease, as previously noted, it decreased by 42.25% from site 2 to 3. A study conducted in Kenya found mangrove density to be lower for larger trees (Kairo 2002), and t he decrease in mangrove d en sity for Rookery Bay could result from the fact that the trees are larger, and hence cover more area and dense growth or large biomass accumulation is not possible because not enough sunlight reach the ground (Ball 2002) In Mexico, mangrove height is po sitively related to rainfall and temperature (Mendez Alonzo 2008). Red mangrove have large vessels and require more water to maintain hydraulic conductivity, and these larger vessels are more susceptible to freeze induced embolism (Stuart 2006). The secon d research question asked; what is the latitudinal distribution of the tree species of mangroves and what type of mangrove (white, black or red) has the most structural change caused by variations in climatic conditions (temperature and precipitation) on a g ulf c oast? Because of access considerations, only f ringin g mangroves located within the study area s were selected for this study. The methods used to select the trees that wou ld be included in this research caused the red mangrove to be the major species examined, because they are the dominant species in the fringing environment, and this research focused on that fringing environment. This is similar to mangroves in Belize, which overall possesses red, black,

PAGE 73

65 and whit e mangroves, but red are the predominant species in the fringing environments (Kangas 2002). Red mangroves, the least salt tolerant mangrove in Florida, are more likely found on the fringe due to the lower salinity levels on the fringe compared to the poss ible higher salinity levels found higher on the shore. In my g ulf c oast study area, the latitudinal distribution of the mangrove species could not be assessed because all of the trees included in the study were of the same species (red mangrove). Addition ally, the latitudinal effect on structural change in the different species could not be assessed because all of the trees included as part of this study were of the same species. The structural characteristics of the red mangroves at the three study sites did vary, and that is addressed above as part of the discussion related to research question 1. The affect that variations in climatic conditions has on the structural characteristics of the different species, based on latitudinal distribution could not be assessed, again because the mangroves were all of the same species. The overall e ffect of climatic conditions (temperature and precipitation) on structural characteristics of the mangroves is addressed below, as part of the answer related to research q uestion 3. Research question 3 asks; how do temperature and rainfall impact mangrove g ulf c oast? The average temperature and precipitation are more constant along the west coast of the Florida peninsula than the number of days of freezing. The number of days below freezing impacts mangrove growth more than average annual temperature and precipitation. All of the variables, with the exception of density, increase with the increas ing temperatures. The lower density in Rookery Bay could be a result of the mangroves being too big to allow sunlight for other trees to grow within 1 meter (Ball

PAGE 74

66 2002). Tables 5, 6 and 7 show an increase in temperatures and the number of days below freezi ng from site 1 to 2 and an increase from site 2 to 3. The same tables show an increase in precipitation from site 1 to site 2 and a decrease in precipitation from site 2 to site 3. Graphs 12 and 13 show the relationship between tree height, diameter at bre ast height, biomass and basal area with precipitation; even as precipitation rates decrease from site 2 to 3 these variables increase. Graphs 6 and 7 show the relationship of tree height, diameter at breast height, basal area and biomass with temperature; the variables increase with increasing temperature. Graphs 9 and 10 show these same variables but in relation with the number of days below freezing; as the number of days below freezing increases the mangrove characteristic values decreases. Graphs 6, 7, 9 and 10 show; as temperatures increase the mangrove characteristic values increase and graphs 12 and 13 g ulf c oast do not necessarily follow precipitation trends. Data from other studies show freeze indu ced xylem embolism (Stuart 2006) as a result of long periods of cold exposure could be the main controlling mechanism for mangrove growth, because red mangroves can only withstand 24 hours of freezing temperatures (Mitsch 2008). The number of days below fr eezing is related to the likelihood of a freeze occurring. As the likelihood of a freeze increases mangrove characteristic values decrease. g ulf c oast is most likely a result of red mangrove mortality from freeze induced xylem embolism (Stuart 2006) after 24 hours of exposure to freezing temperatures (Mitsch 2000). The fringing mangroves in Florida bays are taller, thicker in diameter, denser, have greater basal area, and have larger biomass moving from north (Crystal Bay) to south (Rookery Bay ) This is due to the increase in temperature, decrease in number of

PAGE 75

67 days below freezing and more average precipitation moving from north to south. The highest average temperatures and least number of days below freezing cause the mangro ve in Rookery Bay to have larger basal area and biomass than in the other two sites. Once the mangroves get over a certain height and reach an average diameter at breast height of 12 cm their density lowers, similar to mangroves in Kenya where density lowe rs as trees grow larger (Kairo 2002). This is why mangroves are less dense in Rookery Bay than in Cockroach Bay. But the most evident trend is a consistent increase in the variables from north to south. Research question 4, the final research question ask s; what variable, temperature or precipitation, affects structural characteristics of mangroves the most in the study area? The data suggests that average temperature and the total days below freezing per year impact mangrove growth rates more than precipi tation. Temperature rates are nearly constant whereas there are twelve times more days below freezing in Cryst al Bay compared to Rookery Bay ( table 9 ) The chance of a freeze is more likely as the number of days below freezing increases. More specifically, the total number of days below freezing and the increased chance of a freeze seem to be the main climatic factor s days below freezing is more than the rate of change o f temperature and precipitation ( table 9 ) therefore the changes in variable averages from site 1 to site 2 and site 2 to site 3 can be attributed more to the number of days below freezing when compared to the average temperature and average precipitation for each of the study sites. This study has contributed to the understanding of the structural variation of mangroves, and the relationships that exist between these variations and physical

PAGE 76

68 environmental conditions, in Crystal Bay, Cockroach Bay and Rooke g ulf c oast. Four research questions were posed within the research design for this thesis: 1) How does the tree height, the diameter at breast height (DBH), basal area, biomass, and the density of mangroves change as latitude increase gulf coast 2) What is the latitudinal distribution of the tree species of mangroves and what type of mangrove (white, black or red) has the most structural change caused by variations in climatic conditions (temperature and p recipitation) on a latitudinal gradient g ulf c oast 3) How do temperature and rainfall impact mangrove structure variable, temperature or precipitation, affe cts structural characteristics of mangroves the most in the study area, to better understand these relationships, and to expand the existing base of knowledge on latitudinal and environmental controls on mangrove structural/physical characteristics. Acco rding to this study the physical characteristics of Red mangroves on c oast exhibit the same trends as mangroves in Mexico, Kenya, and the Caribbean. (Mendez Alonzo 2008, Kairo 2002, Pool, Snedaker, Lugo 1977). Also, on the west central coast of Florida mangrove tree height and DBH increase with decreasing latitude regardless of changes in precipitation, similar to the Pacific mangrove species B. gymnorrhiza (Krauss 2006). Future studies should incorporate the same study sites examined in th is study, but changes should be made in the methodology to better understand the controlling mechanisms for mangroves on mangrove growth. Ten 10 x 10 meter plots with transects should be utilized for mangrove stand analysis (Tam 1995). Stand analysis will allow

PAGE 77

69 researchers to develop indexes such as the Shannon Wiener Diversity Index for the mangroves on the west coast of Florida. Also the growth rates for each study site should be examined and compared to the predicted growth rate of 13 cm 23 cm (Shafer 2007). Long term, 20 year, studies should incorporate methods for the identification of newly established mangrove colonization to verify if new mangrove colonies can become established within 20 years; as occurred in the studies conducted by Shafer (2007) Allometric equations have not been developed for mangroves at their latitudinal limit (Smith 2005); therefore, allometric relationships could be studied to develop allometric equations for mangroves at their latitudinal limits. Also, the impact of global warming range for mangrove is 24 to 32 latitudinal limits will increase. Perhaps an examination of historical clima te and relict mangrove forests will aid in the understanding of future and past mangrove ranges and their structural characteristics.

PAGE 78

70 Works Cited Interactive Effects of Salinity and Irradiance on Growth: Implications for Mangrove Forest Structure along Salinity Gradients 139, 2002. Brooks, R. A Multivariate Study or Mangrove Morphology (Rhizophora Mangle) Using both Above and Below water Plant Architecture Estuarine and Coastal shelf Science. 65(3): 440 448, 2005. Cooke, Charles. Geology of Florida State of Florida Department of Conservation. Florida Geological Survey. Tallahassee, Florida. 1945. Enoki, Tsuto mu. Distribution and Stem Growth Patterns of Mangrove Species Along the Nakara River in Iriomote Island, Southwestern Japan Japanese Forest Society, 2008. Fromard, F. Half a Century of Dynamic Coastal Change Affecting Mangrove Shorelines of French Guiana Marine Geology, 208: 265 280, 2004. Hogarth, Peter. The Biology of Mangroves Oxford University Press. 1999. Kairo, James. Regeneration Status of Mangrove Forests in Mida Creek, Kenya: A Compromised or Secured Future? AMBIO 31(7): 562 568, 2002. Kangas, Patrick. Mangrove Forest Structure on the Sittee River, Belize Natural Resources Management Program, University of Maryland. 2002 Kasawani, I. Biological Diversity Assessment of Tok Bali Mangrove Forest, Kelantan, Malaysia University of Putra Malaysia. 2007. Kraus, Ken. Effects of Season, Rainfall, and Hydrogeomorphic Setting on Mangrove Tree Growth in Micronesia Biotropica 39(2): 161 170, 2006. Komiyama, Akira. Common Allometric Equations for Estimating the Tree Weight of Mangroves Journal of Tropical Ecology 21: 471 477, 2005 Lovelock, Catherine. Variation in Mangrove Forest Structure and Sediment Characteristics in Bocas del Toro, Panama Caribbean Journal of Science, 41(3): 456 464, 2005.

PAGE 79

71 McCoy, Jack. Summary of Hydrologic Conditions in Collier County, Florida United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 1975 Soil Physicochemical Patterns and Mangrove Species Distribution Reciprocal Effects? 487. 1993. Mendenhall, William. A Second Course in Statistics, Regression Analysis: Sixth Edition Pearson Education, New Jersey. 2003. Medez Alonzo, Rodrigo. Latitudinal Variation in Leaf and Tree Traits of the Mangrove Avicennia germinans (Avicennia ceae) in the Central Region of the Gulf of Mexico Biotropica 40(4): 449 456, 2008. Mitsch, William. Wetlands: Third Edition John Wiley and Sons, New York. 2000. Pool, Douglas. Structure of Mangrove Forests in Florida, Puerto Rico, Mexico, and Costa Rica Biotropica, Vol. 9, No. 3. pp.195 212. 1977. Proffitt, C. Red Mangrove (Rhizophora Mangle) Reproduction and Seedling Colonization after Hurricane Charley: Comparisons of Charlotte Harbor and Tampa Bay Estuaries and Coasts 29(6a): 972 978, 2006. Randazzo, Anthony. The Geology of Florida University Press of Florida. Gainesville Florida. 1997. Rupert, Frank. The Open file report 34. Florida Geological Survey. Tallahassee, Florida. 1990. Shafer, Deborah. Long Term Development of Planted Mangrove Wetlands in Florida Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program. 2007. Schaeffer Variability of Mangrove Ecosystems along the Brazilian Coast Development of Allometric Relations for Three Mangrove Species in South Florida for use in the Greater Everglades Ecosystem Restoration Wetlands Ecology and Management, 14, pp409 419. 2006. Southeast Regional Climate Center (SERRC). University of North Carolina. 2007. http://radar.meas.ncsu.edu/. The Role of Freezing in Setting the Latitudinal Limits of Mangrove Forests 583, 2007. Tam, N.F.Y.. Community Structure and Standing Crop Biomass of a Mangrove Forest in Futian Nature Reserve, Shenzhen, China Hydrobiologia 295: 1932 201, 1995.

PAGE 80

72 United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey of Citrus County, Florida Soil Conservation Science. 1988. United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey of Collier County, Florida Soil Conservation Science. 1954. United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey of Hernando County, Florida Soil Conservation Science. 1977. United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey of Manatee County, Florida Soil Conservation Science. 1958. Nutrient Controls on Biocomplexity of Mangrove Ecosystems #2004 3124, March 2006. White, William. The Geomorphology of the Florida Peninsula Bureau of Geology, Division of Interior Resources, Flo rida Dept. of Natural Resources. Tallahassee, Florida. 1970. Winsberg, Morton. Florida Weather University Press of Florida. Gainesville, FL. 1990. Figures Figure 1: Temperature and Precipitation Data for Citrus County, FL. Southeast Regional Climate C enter (SERRC). University of North Carolina. 2007. http://radar.meas.ncsu.edu/ Figure 2: Temperature and Precipitation Data for Hernando County, FL. Southeast Regional Climate Center (SERRC). University of North Carolina. 2007. http://radar.meas.ncsu.e du/ Figure 3: Temperature and Precipitation Data for Manatee County, FL. Southeast Regional Climate Center (SERRC). University of North Carolina. 2007. http://radar.meas.ncsu.edu/ Figure 4: Temperature and Precipitation Data for Collier County FL. Southeast Regional Climate Center (SERRC). University of North Carolina. 2007. http://radar.meas.ncsu.edu/

PAGE 81

73 Appendix

PAGE 82

74 Appendix 1: Mangrove and Climate Data, Florida Gulf Coast 2008/2009 Crystal Bay TH DBH Density BasalArea Biomass DayBelow0 DayAbv32 AvgTemp AvgPrecip 172.72 5.41 0 23 14.37 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 213.36 3.82 0 11.46 7.86 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 106.68 3.34 0 8.77 6.24 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 127 2.55 2 5.09 3.9 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 50.8 3.98 2 12.43 8.44 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 154.94 3.5 2 9.63 6.76 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 190.5 3.82 2 11.46 7.86 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 190.5 3.82 0 11.46 7.86 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 195.58 3.66 2 10.52 7.3 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 241.3 3.34 1 8.77 6.24 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 220.98 4.77 3 17.9 11.57 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 106.68 3.18 2 7.96 5.73 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 93.98 2.39 2 4.48 3.48 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 93.98 3.5 3 9.63 6.76 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 86.36 3.18 2 7.96 5.73 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 91.44 2.86 3 6.45 4.78 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 121.92 3.5 2 9.63 6.76 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 68.58 1.91 0 2.86 2.37 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77

PAGE 83

75 TH DBH Density BasalArea Biomass DayBelow0 DayAbv32 AvgTemp AvgPrecip 124.46 2.86 2 6.45 4.78 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 106.68 2.71 0 5.75 4.33 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 157.48 3.18 1 7.96 5.73 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 111.76 2.71 0 5.75 4.33 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 76.2 2.55 2 5.09 3.9 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 167.64 3.82 0 11.46 7.86 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 132.08 2.71 0 5.75 4.33 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 162.56 3.66 0 10.52 7.3 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 86.36 1.75 1 2.41 2.04 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 93.98 2.39 0 4.48 3.48 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 124.46 2.39 0 4.48 3.48 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 83.82 2.39 0 4.48 3.48 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 68.58 1.91 0 2.86 2.37 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 104.14 4.93 0 19.12 12.24 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 114.3 2.23 0 3.9 3.09 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 264.16 9.23 0 66.92 36.21 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 127 3.82 2 11.46 7.86 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 160.02 3.66 0 10.52 7.3 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 127 2.23 0 3.9 3.09 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 172.72 2.55 0 5.09 3.9 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 93.98 2.07 0 3.36 2.72 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 96.52 2.23 0 3.9 3.09 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 193.04 8.28 2 53.79 29.97 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 124.46 3.34 2 8.77 6.24 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 157.48 3.66 1 10.52 7.3 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 170.18 2.86 0 6.45 4.78 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 154.94 3.5 2 9.63 6.76 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 119.38 2.23 1 3.9 3.09 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 157.48 4.46 0 15.6 10.27 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77

PAGE 84

76 TH DBH Density BasalArea Biomass DayBelow0 DayAbv32 AvgTemp AvgPrecip 93.98 2.39 0 4.48 3.48 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 93.98 2.86 0 6.45 4.78 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 152.4 3.02 0 7.18 5.25 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 101.6 3.18 3 7.96 5.73 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 83.82 1.91 0 2.86 2.37 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 264.16 5.41 0 23 14.37 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 175.26 3.34 0 8.77 6.24 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 177.8 3.66 0 10.52 7.3 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 96.52 2.23 0 3.9 3.09 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 111.76 2.55 2 5.09 3.9 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 68.58 1.91 0 2.86 2.37 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 170.18 2.86 0 6.45 4.78 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 147.32 2.71 2 5.75 4.33 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 114.3 2.86 3 6.45 4.78 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 91.44 2.39 0 4.48 3.48 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 60.96 1.59 2 1.99 1.73 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 193.04 3.18 1 7.96 5.73 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 127 3.66 2 10.52 7.3 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 96.52 2.55 1 5.09 3.9 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 254 4.77 0 17.9 11.57 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 248.92 3.66 0 10.52 7.3 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 60.96 2.07 0 3.36 2.72 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 91.44 2.23 0 3.9 3.09 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 96.52 2.39 2 4.48 3.48 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 101.6 2.71 0 5.75 4.33 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 55.88 1.91 3 2.86 2.37 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 83.82 2.39 2 4.48 3.48 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77 104.14 2.55 0 5.09 3.9 12.3 105.5 21.4 132.77

PAGE 85

77 Cockroach Bay: TH DBH Density BasalArea Biomass DayBelow0 DayAbv32 AvgTemp AvgPrecip 591.82 6.05 1 28.73 17.42 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 660.4 8.91 2 62.39 34.08 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 817.88 14.64 1 168.39 80.48 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 660.4 9.55 2 71.62 38.4 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 665.48 9.87 0 76.47 40.64 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 609.6 7.96 1 49.74 28.01 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 660.4 10.19 2 81.49 42.94 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 784.86 14.64 0 168.39 80.48 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 746.76 14.01 2 154.06 74.52 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 660.4 11.14 2 97.48 50.14 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 558.8 7.64 3 45.84 26.1 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 563.88 7.96 1 49.74 28.01 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 518.16 6.37 2 31.83 19.03 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 492.76 5.73 2 25.78 15.86 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 604.52 9.87 0 76.47 40.64 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 584.2 9.23 0 66.92 36.21 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 520.7 7 5 38.52 22.45 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 571.5 8.91 2 62.39 34.08 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 477.52 5.73 2 25.78 15.86 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 548.64 8.28 3 53.79 29.97 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 515.62 7.32 3 42.1 24.24 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 515.62 7.32 2 42.1 24.24 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 535.94 8.28 1 53.79 29.97 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 480.06 6.37 4 31.83 19.03 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85

PAGE 86

78 TH DBH Density BasalArea Biomass DayBelow0 DayAbv32 AvgTemp AvgPrecip 487.68 6.68 2 35.09 20.71 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 584.2 10.19 1 81.49 42.94 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 609.6 11.14 1 97.48 50.14 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 586.74 10.5 2 86.66 45.29 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 510.54 7.96 1 49.74 28.01 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 419.1 4.77 4 17.9 11.57 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 469.9 6.68 4 35.09 20.71 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 523.24 8.59 2 58.01 32 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 414.02 5.09 1 20.37 12.93 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 520.7 8.91 1 62.39 34.08 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 436.88 6.05 1 28.73 17.42 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 650.24 13.69 2 147.14 71.61 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 502.92 8.59 1 58.01 32 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 571.5 11.14 2 97.48 50.14 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 436.88 6.37 3 31.83 19.03 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 584.2 11.78 2 108.94 55.21 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 378.46 4.46 3 15.6 10.27 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 421.64 6.05 3 28.73 17.42 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 439.42 6.68 3 35.09 20.71 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 500.38 8.91 3 62.39 34.08 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 441.96 7 3 38.52 22.45 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 619.76 13.37 2 140.37 68.75 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 436.88 7 1 38.52 22.45 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 604.52 13.05 2 133.77 65.94 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 416.56 6.37 1 31.83 19.03 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 510.54 9.87 0 76.47 40.64 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 609.6 13.53 4 143.74 70.17 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 459.74 8.28 2 53.79 29.97 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 449.58 7.96 1 49.74 28.01 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85

PAGE 87

79 TH DBH Density BasalArea Biomass DayBelow0 DayAbv32 AvgTemp AvgPrecip 386.08 5.73 2 25.78 15.86 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 457.2 8.28 2 53.79 29.97 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 393.7 6.05 0 28.73 17.42 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 398.78 6.37 3 31.83 19.03 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 474.98 9.23 0 66.92 36.21 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 447.04 8.28 3 53.79 29.97 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 436.88 7.96 1 49.74 28.01 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 355.6 5.09 4 20.37 12.93 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 408.94 7 1 38.52 22.45 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 533.4 11.46 4 103.13 52.65 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 398.78 6.68 2 35.09 20.71 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 408.94 7.32 1 42.1 24.24 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 604.52 14.32 6 161.14 77.47 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 381 6.37 1 31.83 19.03 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 495.3 10.5 4 86.66 45.29 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 584.2 13.69 1 147.14 71.61 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 373.38 6.21 5 30.26 18.22 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 386.08 6.68 1 35.09 20.71 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 375.92 6.37 0 31.83 19.03 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 406.4 7.64 1 45.84 26.1 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 424.18 8.28 0 53.79 29.97 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 439.42 8.91 0 62.39 34.08 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 383.54 7 2 38.52 22.45 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 558.8 13.37 2 140.37 68.75 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 424.18 8.59 2 58.01 32 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 462.28 10.19 4 81.49 42.94 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 345.44 6.05 2 28.73 17.42 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 477.52 10.82 1 91.99 47.69 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 386.08 7.64 0 45.84 26.1 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85

PAGE 88

80 TH DBH Density BasalArea Biomass DayBelow0 DayAbv32 AvgTemp AvgPrecip 421.64 8.91 2 62.39 34.08 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 388.62 7.96 2 49.74 28.01 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 325.12 5.73 3 25.78 15.86 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 355.6 7 1 38.52 22.45 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 373.38 7.64 4 45.84 26.1 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 495.3 12.1 5 114.91 57.81 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 414.02 9.55 1 71.62 38.4 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 365.76 7.96 2 49.74 28.01 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 345.44 7.32 1 42.1 24.24 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 355.6 7.96 2 49.74 28.01 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 266.7 4.93 2 19.12 12.24 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 403.86 10.19 1 81.49 42.94 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 396.24 10.19 4 81.49 42.94 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 612.14 18.46 5 267.7 120.21 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85 424.18 9.23 1 66.92 36.21 3.6 111.5 22.5 137.85

PAGE 89

81 Rooker y Bay TH DBH Density BasalArea Biomass DayBelow0 DayAbv32 AvgTemp AvgPrecip 736.6 18.78 1 277.01 123.82 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 520.7 13.37 2 140.37 68.75 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 533.4 16.87 2 223.53 102.84 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 713.74 22.6 1 401.15 170.59 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 548.64 12.1 1 114.91 57.81 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 594.36 14.96 1 175.79 83.53 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 508 12.1 2 114.91 57.81 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 614.68 8.28 2 53.79 29.97 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 612.14 12.41 2 121.04 60.47 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 878.84 19.42 1 296.11 131.17 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 637.54 15.6 2 191.07 89.78 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 571.5 14.32 2 161.14 77.47 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 467.36 3.82 2 11.46 7.86 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 774.7 11.46 1 103.13 52.65 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 457.2 11.78 1 108.94 55.21 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 391.16 8.28 2 53.79 29.97 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 485.14 9.87 2 76.47 40.64 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 645.16 18.14 0 258.55 116.64 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 502.92 8.91 0 62.39 34.08 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 868.68 14.64 0 168.39 80.48 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 457.2 7 1 38.52 22.45 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 508 11.14 1 97.48 50.14 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 772.16 15.28 1 183.35 86.63 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 396.24 8.91 1 62.39 34.08 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 711.2 15.28 2 183.35 86.63 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 505.46 9.23 2 66.92 36.21 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 510.54 11.14 2 97.48 50.14 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62

PAGE 90

82 TH DBH Density BasalArea Biomass DayBelow0 DayAbv32 AvgTemp AvgPrecip 838.2 19.1 1 286.48 127.47 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 467.36 7.64 2 45.84 26.1 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 833.12 13.37 1 140.37 68.75 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 447.04 8.59 2 58.01 32 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 457.2 10.5 2 86.66 45.29 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 553.72 12.73 3 127.32 63.18 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 624.84 14.32 2 161.14 77.47 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 782.32 18.46 0 267.7 120.21 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 769.62 18.78 0 277.01 123.82 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 492.76 8.59 2 58.01 32 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 609.6 15.92 2 198.94 92.97 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 467.36 12.73 2 127.32 63.18 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 645.16 16.23 2 206.98 96.21 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 637.54 15.92 1 198.94 92.97 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 482.6 8.28 1 53.79 29.97 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 563.88 12.73 2 127.32 63.18 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 632.46 14.96 0 175.79 83.53 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 513.08 12.1 2 114.91 57.81 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 586.74 14.96 2 175.79 83.53 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 472.44 4.46 1 15.6 10.27 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 457.2 11.78 2 108.94 55.21 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 774.7 12.1 0 114.91 57.81 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 396.24 9.23 1 66.92 36.21 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 462.28 11.14 2 97.48 50.14 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 642.62 17.83 1 249.55 113.12 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 497.84 8.59 1 58.01 32 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 863.6 15.92 1 198.94 92.97 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 508 8.59 2 58.01 32 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 731.52 18.14 1 258.55 116.64 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62

PAGE 91

83 TH DBH Density BasalArea Biomass DayBelow0 DayAbv32 AvgTemp AvgPrecip 543.56 12.73 2 127.32 63.18 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 609.6 12.41 2 121.04 60.47 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 612.14 10.82 3 91.99 47.69 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 467.36 4.14 2 13.45 9.03 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 769.62 11.78 0 108.94 55.21 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 647.7 16.55 1 215.18 99.5 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 510.54 11.78 2 108.94 55.21 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 482.6 9.23 1 66.92 36.21 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 685.8 13.05 0 133.77 65.94 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 558.8 12.73 0 127.32 63.18 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 482.6 3.18 1 7.96 5.73 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 772.16 12.1 2 114.91 57.81 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 533.4 12.1 4 114.91 57.81 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 538.48 12.73 2 127.32 63.18 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 396.24 8.59 2 58.01 32 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 434.34 8.91 4 62.39 34.08 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 566.42 9.55 2 71.62 38.4 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 695.96 8.91 2 62.39 34.08 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 792.48 18.46 1 267.7 120.21 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 782.32 22.92 0 412.53 174.77 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 701.04 9.55 0 71.62 38.4 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 863.6 12.1 1 114.91 57.81 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 731.52 18.14 1 258.55 116.64 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 518.16 13.69 1 147.14 71.61 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 695.96 22.92 2 412.53 174.77 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 510.54 10.82 3 91.99 47.69 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 604.52 13.05 2 133.77 65.94 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 789.94 14.64 3 168.39 80.48 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 482.6 10.82 1 91.99 47.69 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62

PAGE 92

84 TH DBH Density BasalArea Biomass DayBelow0 DayAbv32 AvgTemp AvgPrecip 457.2 10.82 0 91.99 47.69 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 558.8 11.46 2 103.13 52.65 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 769.62 10.82 2 91.99 47.69 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 662.94 17.83 2 249.55 113.12 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 688.34 12.73 3 127.32 63.18 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 571.5 12.41 1 121.04 60.47 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 942.34 19.74 0 305.9 134.92 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 665.48 9.23 0 66.92 36.21 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 492.76 10.5 0 86.66 45.29 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 731.52 14.32 0 161.14 77.47 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 741.68 17.19 3 232.05 106.22 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 586.74 8.91 1 62.39 34.08 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62 614.68 10.82 0 91.99 47.69 0.6 111.8 23.7 261.62