Exploited Species Impacts on Trophic Linkages Along Reef–Seagrass Interfaces in the Florida Keys

Metadata:

Identification_Information:
Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator:
Dauphin Island Sea Lab: Valentine Lab
Publication_Date:
Unpublished material
Title:
Exploited Species Impacts on Trophic Linkages Along Reef–Seagrass Interfaces in the Florida Keys
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form:
spreadsheet
Description:
Abstract:
The removal of fish biomass by extensive commercial and recreational fishing has been hypothesized to drastically alter the strength of trophic linkages among adjacent habitats. We evaluated the effects of removing predatory fishes on trophic transfers between coral reefs and adjacent seagrass meadows by comparing fish community structure, grazing intensity, and invertebrate predation potential in predator-rich no-take sites and nearby predator-poor fished sites in the Florida Keys (USA). Exploited fishes were more abundant at the no-take sites than at the fished sites. Most of the exploited fishes were either omnivores or invertivores. More piscivores were recorded at no-take sites, but most (;95%) were moderately fished and unexploited species (barracuda and bar jacks, respectively). Impacts of these consumers on lower trophic levels were modest. Herbivorous and smaller prey fish (,10 cm total length) densities and seagrass grazing diminished with distance from reefs and were not negatively impacted by the elevated densities of exploited fishes at no-take sites. Predation by reef fishes on most tethered invertebrates was high, but exploited species impacts varied with prey type. The results of the study show that, even though abundances of reef associated fishes have been reduced at fished sites, there is little evidence that this has produced cascading trophic effects or interrupted cross-habitat energy exchanges between coral reefs and seagrasses.
Purpose:
The purpose was to evaluate the effects of removing predatory fishes on trophic transfers between coral reefs and adjacent seagrass meadows by comparing fish community structure, grazing intensity, and invertebrate predation potential in predator-rich no-take sites and nearby predator-poor fished sites in the Florida Keys (USA).
Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Range_of_Dates/Times:
Beginning_Date:
200005
Ending_Date:
200908
Currentness_Reference:
ground condition
Status:
Progress:
Complete
Maintenance_and_Update_Frequency:
As needed
Spatial_Domain:
Description_of_Geographic_Extent:
Florida Keys, USA
Bounding_Coordinates:
West_Bounding_Coordinate:
80.34277
East_Bounding_Coordinate:
80.29694
North_Bounding_Coordinate:
25.12444
South_Bounding_Coordinate:
25.10666
Keywords:
Theme:
Theme_Keyword_Thesaurus:
None
Theme_Keyword:
coral reefs
Theme_Keyword:
exploited species
Theme_Keyword:
food web interactions
Theme_Keyword:
seagrass herbivory
Theme_Keyword:
trophic cascade
Theme_Keyword:
trophic transfer
Theme_Keyword:
seagrass
Theme_Keyword:
reef-seagrass interfaces
Theme_Keyword:
habitat
Theme_Keyword:
predatory fish
Theme_Keyword:
prey fish
Theme_Keyword:
community structure
Theme_Keyword:
grazing intensity
Theme_Keyword:
invertebrate predation potential
Theme_Keyword:
abundance
Theme_Keyword:
tethering
Theme_Keyword:
no-take site
Theme_Keyword:
fished site
Theme_Keyword:
herbivore
Theme_Keyword:
carnivore
Theme_Keyword:
omnivore
Theme_Keyword:
piscivore
Theme_Keyword:
invertivore
Theme:
Theme_Keyword_Thesaurus:
ISO Topic
Theme_Keyword:
biota
Theme_Keyword:
002
Theme_Keyword:
environment
Theme_Keyword:
007
Theme_Keyword:
oceans
Theme_Keyword:
014
Place:
Place_Keyword_Thesaurus:
None
Place_Keyword:
Florida
Place_Keyword:
Florida Keys
Place_Keyword:
USA
Place_Keyword:
Newfound Harbor
Place_Keyword:
Looe Key
Place_Keyword:
Washerwoman Reef Tract
Place_Keyword:
Grecian Rocks
Place_Keyword:
Little Grecian Rocks
Place_Keyword:
Key Largo Dry Rocks
Place_Keyword:
White Banks
Taxonomy:
Keywords/Taxon:
Taxonomic_Keyword_Thesaurus:
None
Taxonomic_Keywords:
marine vertebrates
Taxonomic_Keywords:
marine invertebrates
Taxonomic_Keywords:
corals
Taxonomic_Keywords:
seagrasses
General_Taxonomic_Coverage:
Organisms were identified to the lowest possible taxonomic unit.
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name:
Species
Taxon_Rank_Value:
Ocyurus chrysurus, Lutjanus analis, Anisotremus surinamensis, Haemulon flavolineatum, Haemulon plumieri, Haemulon sciurus, Haemulon aurolineatum, Haemulon parra, Lutjanus synagris, Calamus calamus, Chaetodon capistratus, Epinephelus adscensionis, Halichoeres bivittatus, Lachnolaimus maximus, Mycteroperca bonaci, Sparisoma chrysopterum, Sparisoma radians, Sparisoma rubripinne, Sparisoma viride, Sphyraena barracuda, Stegastes partitus, Scarus coelestinus, Scarus guacamaia, Scarus taeniopterus, Scarus coeruleus, Scaridae, Scarus iseri, Sparisoma aurofrenatum, Caranx ruber, Caranx bartholomaei, Calamus calamus, Gerres cinereus, Rachycentron canadum, Megalops atlanticus, Stegastes variabilis, Stegastes leucostictus, Kyphosus sectatrix, Halichoeres radiatus, Halichoeres garnoti, Thalassoma bifasciatum, Halichoeres maculipinna, Halichoeres poeyi, Labridae, Xyrichtys splendens, Pomacanthus paru, Pomacanthus arcuatus, Acanthurus coeruleus, Acanthurus chirurgus, Acanthurus bahianus, Acanthuridae, Lactophrys trigonus, Balistes vetula, Balistidae, Pseudupeneus maculatus, Mulloidichthys martinicus, Lactophrys triqueter, Equetus punctatus, Aulostomus maculatus, Fistularia tabacaria, Haemulidae, Emblemaria pandionis, Trachinotus falcatus, Chaetodon ocellatus, Hypoplectrus unicolor, Scomberomorus maculatus, Tylosurus crocodilus, Exocoetidae, Ginglymostoma cirratum
Applicable_Common_Name:
yellowtail snapper
Applicable_Common_Name:
mutton snapper
Applicable_Common_Name:
black margate
Applicable_Common_Name:
French grunt
Applicable_Common_Name:
white grunt
Applicable_Common_Name:
bluestriped grunt
Applicable_Common_Name:
tomtate
Applicable_Common_Name:
sailors choice
Applicable_Common_Name:
lane snapper
Applicable_Common_Name:
saucereye porgy
Applicable_Common_Name:
foureye butterflyfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
rock hind
Applicable_Common_Name:
slippery dick
Applicable_Common_Name:
hogfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
black grouper
Applicable_Common_Name:
redtail parrotfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
bucktooth parrotfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
yellowtail parrotfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
stoplight parrotfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
great barracuda
Applicable_Common_Name:
bicolor damselfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
midnight parrotfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
rainbow parrotfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
princess parrotfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
blue parrotfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
unidentified parrotfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
striped parrotfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
redband parrotfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
bar jack
Applicable_Common_Name:
yellow jack
Applicable_Common_Name:
jolthead porgy
Applicable_Common_Name:
yellowfin mojarra
Applicable_Common_Name:
cobia
Applicable_Common_Name:
tarpon
Applicable_Common_Name:
cocoa damselfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
beaugregory damselfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
Bermuda chub
Applicable_Common_Name:
puddingwife
Applicable_Common_Name:
yellowhead wrasse
Applicable_Common_Name:
bluehead wrasse
Applicable_Common_Name:
clown wrasse
Applicable_Common_Name:
blackear wrasse
Applicable_Common_Name:
unidentified wrasse
Applicable_Common_Name:
green razorfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
French angelfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
gray angelfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
blue tang
Applicable_Common_Name:
doctorfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
ocean surgeonfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
immature surgeonfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
trunkfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
queen triggerfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
unidentified filefish
Applicable_Common_Name:
spotted goatfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
yellow goatfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
smooth trunkfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
spotted drum
Applicable_Common_Name:
trumpetfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
bluespotted cornetfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
immature grunt
Applicable_Common_Name:
sailfin blenny
Applicable_Common_Name:
permit
Applicable_Common_Name:
spotfin butterflyfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
butter hamlet
Applicable_Common_Name:
Spanish mackerel
Applicable_Common_Name:
houndfish
Applicable_Common_Name:
halfbeak
Applicable_Common_Name:
nurse shark
Access_Constraints:
Permission to access these data must be given by Dr. John Valentine.
Use_Constraints:
Acknowledgment of the DISL: Valentine Lab, the Nature Conservancy’s Ecosystem Research Program and NOAA’s Marine Fisheries Initiative (MARFIN) Program would be appreciated in products developed from these data, and such acknowledgment as is standard for citation and legal practices for data source is expected by users of these data. Users should be aware that comparison with other data sets for the same area from other time periods may be inaccurate due to inconsistencies resulting from changes in mapping conventions, data collection, and computer processes over time. The distributor shall not be liable for improper or incorrect use of these data, based on the description of appropriate/inappropriate uses described in the metadata document. These data are not legal documents and are not to be used as such.
Point_of_Contact:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Person_Primary:
Contact_Person:
Dr. John Valentine
Contact_Organization:
DISL: Valentine Lab
Contact_Position:
Principal Investigator
Contact_Address:
Address_Type:
mailing and physical
Address:
101 Bienville Blvd.
City:
Dauphin Island
State_or_Province:
Al
Postal_Code:
36528
Country:
USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone:
251-861-2141 ext. 2261 or 2294
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address:
jvalentine@disl.org
Hours_of_Service:
8-5:00 CST
Contact_Instructions:
Please email Dr. John Valentine for further information.
Data_Set_Credit:
DISL: Valentine Lab
Native_Data_Set_Environment:
Microsoft Excel
Back To Index
Data_Quality_Information:
Logical_Consistency_Report:
not applicable
Completeness_Report:
Excel tables include data collected at Florida Keys reef and seagrass beds. Collections were taken from May-September annually beginning in 2002 and ending in 2009. No major lapses in data exist.
Lineage:
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
Experimental design: To quantify the impacts of fishing-induced reductions in high order consumer density on the magnitude of trophic transfer among habitats and top down control of community structure within these habitats, we used a simple experimental design that included multiple response variables at multiple distances from replicated fished (predator poor) and no-take (predator rich) coral reefs in the lower Florida Keys. We predicted that there would be elevated densities of exploited fishes at the no-take sites, and that their presence would lead to significant decreases in the abundances and foraging patterns of reef-associated fishes and smaller consumers (herbivores and invertivores) in adjacent seagrass meadows. Conversely, we predicted that lower exploited fish densities in unprotected areas would allow untargeted consumers to forage freely into seagrasses adjacent to fished reefs. In each case, we predicted that attendant shifts in smaller fish composition and abundance would be reflected in differing rates of grazing intensity and invertebrate survival in seagrasses adjacent to reefs. Description of study sites: Halpern (Halpern and Warner 2002, Halpern 2003) presented evidence that the establishment of no-take sites rapidly (in one to three years) leads to substantial increases in the density of most exploited fishes (but see recent, alternative findings of Russ and Alcala 2004, McClanahan and Graham 2005, McClanahan et al. 2007). Just two years after the establishment of the no-take zone around Looe Key in the lower Florida Keys there was a near doubling of snapper density and a fourfold increase in grunt density (Clark et al. 1989). No-take sites have also been associated with greater abundances of exploited fishes outside the protected areas (the spillover effect; Holland et al. 1996, Russ and Alcala 1998, McClanahan and Mangi 2000, Roberts et al. 2001; but see Shipp 2003). Thus, the establishment of no-take sites provided us with the opportunity to test extent to which exploited fishes determine the magnitude of energy exchange in reef food webs. To minimize the impacts of variation in habitat structure on consumer composition among sites, a significant confounding factor in many prior studies of marine protected areas (MPAs; see Russ et al. 2005), and to assess the extent to which fishing may have altered reef consumer reliance on the production of adjacent habitats, we conducted this study in the lagoonal environments of two fished and two no-take reefs. Newfound Harbor (2483605600 N,8182303900 W), and Looe Key (2483205000 N, 8182303900W) were selected to represent no-take sites. The two fished sites were located along the Washerwoman Reef Tract (2483205300 N, 8183502500 W and 2483301900 N, 818330500 W). In 2008 and 2009 the sites representing no-take reefs were Grecian Rocks (25063700 W and 80182000 W) and Key Largo Dry Rocks (25072800 N and 80175800 W) and the sites representing fished reefs were White Banks (25062400 N and 80203400 W) and Little Grecian Rocks (25071000 N and 80180600 W). Each contained isolated patch reefs consisting primarily of the corals corals Montasterea spp., Diploria spp., Siderastrea sidereal, and Colphyllia natans, along with seagrass habitats on the landward sides of these reefs (e.g., Jaap 1984, Ginsberg et al. 2001). Regrettably, interspersion of treatments among sites was not possible as the designation of the no-take sites by the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary office was based on conservation priorities rather than a randomized selection process. This study was begun five years after the cessation of fishing at Newfound Harbor and 21 years after the cessation of fishing at Looe Key. As such, there should have been adequate time for exploited fishes to have recovered at both sites prior to commencement of this study. To test our predictions, single navigation lines were anchored at haphazardly chosen locations at the bases of each reef and extended for 30 m into the adjacent seagrass bed. In all cases, except Looe Key, the grassbeds occurred directly adjacent to the reef. At Looe Key, the back reef environment was dominated by multiple small patch reefs. As such, the grass bed began some 3 m away from the reef crest. Each transect line was established, with the aid of observers on a boat, to lay perpendicular to the reef. Treatment effects were documented during replicated surveys conducted at sites in May, July, and August of 2002, and in May and August of 2003. Fish density and composition: Point counts, belt transect surveys, and baited remote underwater video surveys were used to evaluate the effect of marine protected areas (MPAs) on fish density and composition. SCUBA equipped observers recorded fish composition and density, both near (10 m) and away (30 m) from each reef using the stationary point count method of Bohnsack and Bannerot (1986) with one modification, that being that two intersecting 10 m long lines were used to mark the center of an imaginary cylinder extending upward from the intersection to the water’s surface. A diver knelt at the intersection of the lines and identified (to the species level in most cases) and enumerated fishes entering the circle for 15 min. Counts were limited to daylight hours when visibility exceeded 20 m, and the same divers conducted the surveys at each distance during each visit. Because fish composition and density varies greatly on a daily basis (Sale 1980, Sale and Douglas 1981), point counts were replicated over three days during each survey. Belt transect surveys, conducted on the same days as the point counts, provided complementary estimates of fish density and composition. To do this, 20 m long x 1 m wide transect lines were established parallel to each reef edge, both near (1 m) and away (30 m into the seagrass bed) from each reef. A SCUBA equipped observer swam the transect lines with a 1 m long T-Bar. All fish within the 20-m2 area, determined by the T-bar, were counted and identified. These counts were repeated over the same three days the point counts were conducted during each survey. Given that some fishes may avoid or be attracted to divers, fish composition and abundance were also recorded using baited remote underwater video (BRUV; Willis and Babcock 2000) in 2003. Replicate digital video cameras (Sony TRV16), secured in underwater housings, and were placed at the same locations used for the point count surveys. Bait (primarily caridean shrimp) held in perforated plastic canisters was placed in front of each camera at a height of 50 cm above the sediment. A 0.25-m2 quadrat was placed around the bait, and for 30 minutes cameras recorded the abundance and composition of fishes entering the quadrat. These surveys were repeated three times during each survey on the same days that belt transects and point count surveys were conducted. Direct measures of grazing intensity and predation potential in seagrasses adjacent to the reefs: Grazing intensity.—Seagrass grazing was quantified as described in Kirsch et al. (2002). To do this, tethered seagrass shoots were placed along the navigation lines at distances of 1, 5, 10, 20, and 30 m from each reef. Turtlegrass shoots (Thalassia testudinum) were collected from Little Palm Island (248370700 N, 08182402500 W; see Goecker et al. [2005] for detailed description of this site) and returned to the lab. Undamaged leaves were severed from the shoots, then digitally scanned (using a Hewlett Packard flat bed scanner), reassembled, and attached to a 0.25 m long sisal line with a clothespin. Each line (or tether) consisted of three evenly spaced shoots. Three tethers were placed at the same distances from the two fished and no-take reefs. Tethers were anchored using wire stakes inserted into the sediment. Clothespins were buried in the sediment, thus simulating the orientation of natural shoots within seagrass beds (Hay 1984). Tethers were retrieved and replaced after 24 hours. Leaves on retrieved tethers were rescanned to estimate grazing intensity. Differences in area between the initial scanning and the final scanning provided estimates of grazing intensity. This process was replicated on the same schedule as the fish surveys. Predation potential —Established tethering techniques were used to assess fishing impacts on invertebrate survivorship along the reef–seagrass interface (Heck and Wilson 1987, Beck 1997, Acosta and Butler 1999). Three replicate sets of tethered brittle stars (Ophioderma, Ophiocoma, and Ophiothrix spp.), gastropods (Turbo sp.), and spider crabs (predominantly Mithrax spp., and some Pitho sp.) were placed at the same times and distances from reefs as the seagrass tethers. Each of these taxa is present in seagrass habitats adjacent to the reefs and in the diets of predatory fishes, crabs, and lobsters in the Caribbean, (Randall 1965, Heck and Weinstein 1989, Cox et al. 1997, Eggleston et al. 1997, 1998) and none uses rapid movements to escape from predators. Brittlestars were tethered by inserting a small needle threaded with 6 lb. test monofilament line at the center of oral disk cover (located dorsally), then pulling it through the mouth (located ventrally). Following extraction, a knot was tied near the center of the dorsal disc cover to secure the line to the brittlestar. Gastropod shells and crab carapaces were tethered by drawing monofilament loops tightly around the organisms after which a drop of cyanoacrylate cement was applied to secure the loop to the animals. In 2003, a second smaller gastropod (Tegula sp.) was added to the array of prey used. The absence of tethering artifacts has been shown for brittlestars (Aronson and Heck 1995), crabs (Pile et al. 1996), and gastropods (McClanahan 1992), among others. Two tethered conspecific prey were attached to a wire stake, and three wire stakes were placed at the same distances from the reefs as the seagrass tethers. Missing tethers were replaced at 24-h intervals, and prey consumption was recorded over the same three days that the fish surveys were conducted. In the few cases when tethered prey were found dead with no evidence of predation, these data were omitted from the analysis. In addition, some tethered invertebrates were monitored using underwater video to observe potential predators. We evaluated the possibility that differences in aboveground biomass among sites impacted tethered invertebrate survivorship by collecting all shoots contained within three haphazardly located 0.01-m2 quadrats placed 5 m and 30 m from each reef during each survey. In the laboratory, aboveground biomass was determined after leaves were dried at 608C to a constant mass. Statistical analyses of treatment effects: Replicate definition.—Treatment effects included fishing pressure (via comparisons of measurements made at fished and no-take reefs), and distance from the reef. Because replicate assessments were conducted in each year for two years, survey date was also considered a treatment, except for the baited video transects, which were conducted in a single year. Comparison of treatment effects on fish density and the composition of trophic guilds.—Trophic assignments, as well as fish designations as exploited or not, are based on published reports from the region (Randall 1967, Heck and Weinstein 1989, McAfee and Morgan 1996, Ault et al. 1998, Bohnsack et al. 1999). Evaluations of treatment effects (fishing pressure, distance from reef, and survey date) and their interactions were carried out on piscivore, invertivore, herbivore, and prey fish (species ,10 cm total length; Eggleston et al. 1998) density, as well as on exploited taxa, and the extent to which they varied among surveys, using three-way ANOVA. Data were either log- or square-root transformed to satisfy the assumption of homogeneity of variance for ANOVA (Sokal and Rohlf 1981). A twoway ANOVA was used to analyze transformed data collected during baited video surveys, with fishing pressure and distance from the reef as main effects. When significant interactions were detected, comparisons of main effect interactions are simply discussed. In these cases, pairwise comparisons of significant main effects were not conducted. When nonsignificant interactions occurred, they were removed and a customized model was analyzed. When significant impacts of survey date or distance from the reef were detected, post hoc comparisons were conducted using Sheffe´ ’s test (Day and Quinn 1989). All parametric statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS Version 11.0 statistical software package (SPSS 2002). Comparisons of treatment effects on the composition of the piscivore, invertivore, and herbivore guilds were made using the nonparametric analysis of similarity (ANOSIM; fourth-root-transformed) technique (Warwick and Clarke 1991). ANOSIM comparisons of species composition within trophic groups were made using the multivariate nonparametric software package Primer-E (PRIMER-E, Plymouth, UK). Results in all comparisons were considered significant when P , 0.05. Comparisons of treatment impacts on grazing intensity and invertebrate survivorship.—Main effects (fishing pressure, distance from the reef, and survey date) on losses of tethered seagrass leaves and invertebrates were analyzed, following arcsine square-root transformation, using three-way ANOVA. Daily losses of leaf area (per shoot) and invertebrates (per stake) were averaged. The averages were used in subsequent analyses. When significant impacts of survey date or distance from the reef were detected, post hoc comparisons were conducted. Comparisons of seagrass biomass were made using the means calculated from the three quadrats placed near and far from the reef, and were analyzed using a three-way ANOVA with levels of fishing pressure (fished vs. no-take sites), distance from the reef (near vs. far), and survey date as factors. If the data did not satisfy the homogeneity of variance assumption, treatment comparisons were made on log-transformed data. In each case, the transformed data satisfied this assumption.
Process_Date:
200908
Process_Contact:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Person_Primary:
Contact_Person:
Dr. John Valentine
Contact_Organization:
DISL: Valentine Lab
Contact_Position:
Principal Investigator
Contact_Address:
Address_Type:
mailing and physical
Address:
101 Bienville Blvd.
City:
Dauphin Island
State_or_Province:
Al
Postal_Code:
36528
Country:
USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone:
251-861-2141 ext. 2261 or 2294
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address:
jvalentine@disl.org
Hours_of_Service:
8-5:00 CST
Contact_Instructions:
Please email Dr. John Valentine for further information.
Back To Index
Entity_and_Attribute_Information:
Overview_Description:
Entity_and_Attribute_Overview:
Excel tables include data collected at Florida Keys reef and seagrass beds. Collections were taken from May-September annually beginning in 2002 and ending in 2009.
Entity_and_Attribute_Detail_Citation:
Tables include the following fields: date, year, site, treatment, distance, day, time, fish species, number sighted.
Back To Index
Distribution_Information:
Distributor:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Person_Primary:
Contact_Person:
Dr. John Valentine
Contact_Organization:
DISL: Valentine Lab
Contact_Position:
Principal Investigator
Contact_Address:
Address_Type:
mailing and physical
Address:
101 Bienville Blvd.
City:
Dauphin Island
State_or_Province:
Al
Postal_Code:
36528
Country:
USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone:
251-861-2141 ext. 2261 or 2294
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address:
jvalentine@disl.org
Hours_of_Service:
8-5:00 CST
Contact_Instructions:
Please email Dr. John Valentine for further information.
Resource_Description:
Exploited Species Imapcts on Trophic Linkages Along Reef–Seagrass Interfaces in the Florida Keys
Distribution_Liability:
The Dauphin Island Sea Lab's Valentine Lab makes no warranty regarding these data, expressed or implied, nor does the fact of distribution constitute such a warranty. The Valentine Lab cannot assume liability for any damages caused by any errors or omissions in these data, nor as a result of the failure of these data to function on a particular system.
Technical_Prerequisites:
Users must have a program capable of opening Microsoft Excel spreadsheets.
Back To Index
Metadata_Reference_Information:
Metadata_Date:
20100203
Metadata_Contact:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Organization_Primary:
Contact_Organization:
Dauphin Island Sea Lab
Contact_Person:
Data Management Specialist
Contact_Position:
Data Management Specialist
Contact_Address:
Address_Type:
mailing and physical
Address:
101 Bienville Blvd.
City:
Dauphin Island
State_or_Province:
Al
Postal_Code:
36528
Country:
USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone:
251-861-2141
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address:
metadata@disl.org
Hours_of_Service:
8-5:00 CST
Contact_Instructions:
Please email the metadata specialist for further information.
Metadata_Standard_Name:
FGDC Biological Data Profile of the Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata
Metadata_Standard_Version:
FGDC-STD-001-1998
Metadata_Time_Convention:
local time
Metadata_Access_Constraints:
none
Metadata_Use_Constraints:
none
Metadata_Security_Information:
Metadata_Security_Classification_System:
none
Metadata_Security_Classification:
Unclassified
Metadata_Security_Handling_Description:
none
Back To Index