i.W. Hunt, R.Y. ito, A. 7irI:er, L:.A. Birch, D.L. Norton ... · PDF fileEnvironmental Factors...

HAWAU � T-19 � 008 C3

CCOPE.R+TlYE GRw T| ARJP, PPQ~L ' ~

Environmental Factors Affe ting I;he Growth Pate ufGrac~laria bursa astoris ogo! and GracIIaria

curonoa: fo i >a 1 imu r.--~ufo!

i.W. Hunt, R.Y. ito, A. 7irI:er, L:.A. Birch,D.L. Norton, S.F. Gernler, A.A. Feg'~ey,

S.K. Wirlop, " .d E. Ernce

WORI'BING Plier.P, I'lo. 49

university o~ Haggai IS.A G! A~"If CO' LEGS PROC;.".8

Honolulu, I-i=~vaii

COOPERATIVE GRACILARIA PROJECT

Environmental Factors Affecting the Growth Rate ofGracilar' b t s ogo! and Gracilaria

limu manauea!

by

J.W. Hunt, R.Y. Ito, A. Zirker, E.A. Birch,D. L. Norton, S. F. Ger nl er, A. A, Fegl ey,

S.K. Warlop, and 'E. Ernce

Marine Ski 1'1 ReportMarine Option Program

Windward Community College

WORKING PAPER NO. 49

Originally published inJune 1979

Reprinted by theUn i vers i ty o f Hawa i i

Sea Grant College Program inApril 1982

Thi" hark, a product of theproject ET/E'-2!, vas sponsor ed bySea Grant College Pvogram under04-7-258-442Z9 from NOAA Office ofCommer'ce.

"Marine Option Program"the University of HawaiiZnsiitutional Geant No.Sea Grant-, Department of

ABSTRACT

Cause-effect relationships between environmental factors and

ogoj and Gracilariathe growth rates of Gracilaria

p 11/ 2 d

three month period for the North Reef of Coconut Island, He'eiaFishpond and the Kahuku Seafood Plantation Purge Pond and EffluentDitch. Algal biomass was also monitored on North Reef, a marine

2., 2/2 / d. ~b

at the experimentaland from 2.0 to 7.8X/day for G.

sites. Highest growth rates were obtained in environments with moderateto high water motion, low turbidity and stable substrata. Temperature,salinity and nutrients did not appear to limit growth. It appears thatit is biologically possible but not economically feasible to operate a

seaweed farm growing Gracilaria in Hawaii.

PREFACE

This report has been made possible by the efforts of eleven

freshmen and sophomore students enrolled in the Marine Option Program

of Windward Community College. The students participated in the experi-

mental field studies, the analysis of the data collected and the drafting

of the finished report. Those students that completed all required

aspects of the project have finished the "marine skill" requirements of

the Marine Option Program at Windward Community College. Their contribution

to this report is an exemplary undertaking and indicative of the high

quality of work of which Marine Option Program students are capable. The

students who participated in the study are listed below.

Re ort Wri tin Parti ci antsField Work Partici ants

1. Alizon 2i rker studentcoordinator!

Z. Elizabeth Birch2. Russell Ito student coordinatorof biomass study!

June 1979Jeffrey W. Hunt

Faculty Advisor!

1. El izabeth Bi rch student coordinatorof growth study!

3. David Chri sty

4. Eddie Ernce

5. Ann Fegley

6. Siliala Gernler

7. Angie Mielke

8. Dennis Norton

9. Sharon Warlop

10. Alizon 2irker

3. Eddie Ernce

4. Anne Fegley

5. Siliala Gernler

6. Russell I to

7. Angie Mielke

8. Dennis Norton

9. Brion St, James

10. Sharon Warlop

ACKNOWLEOGEMENTS

The Cooperative Gracilaria Project was funded by Sea Grant NOAA

Sea Grant Contract Number 04-7- 158-44129!. the University of Hawaii

Mari ne Opti on Program and the Windward Communi ty Col 1 ege Marine Dpti on

Program. The students involved in the project would like to express

their thanks and appreciation to Dr. Maxwell S. Doty principal investigator!,

John Mcl'iahon UHI't MOP! and Jeff Hunt WCC MOP! for making the project

possible and providing us with an opportunity to learn a marine skill.

We would like to give special thanks to all those who gave us

access to our test sites, including HIMB f' or the use of the North

Reef at Coconut Island, Bishop Estate and Mr, Kaneali 'i for the use

of He'eia Fishpond, and Kahuku Seafood Plantation for the use of their

purge pond and effluent ditch. We would also like to thank Ted Walsh

of the Analytical Services Lab of HIMB. Or, Kent Bridges of the College

of Tropical Agriculture and Dr. Gertrudes Santos and Joan Kirtley of the

Department of Botany, UHM for their easy availability and assistance and

advice during the project. The cover photographs are by William Magruder,

courtesy of Limu Mana of Hawaii.

At WCC we would like to extend our thanks to Dave Palmer and

Jeanette Matsunaga of the Media Production Center for their technical

assistance for graphics for this report and to Diana Oeluca of the English

Department for proof reading part of the manuscript . Lea Ann Hill,

Doreen Marugame arid Karen Hunt spent many hours typing and retyping our

drafts, Finally, without the administrative support and encouragement

of Provost LeRoy King, Dean Gerald St, James and Administrative Director

Keiji Kukino, we would not have been able to start, let alone complete,

such an ambitious project such as this.

Ae hope our report will contribute to the development of

mariculture in Hawaii by providing information which may be valuable to

local aquafarmers and pond owners who may wi sh to cultivate seaweed on

a larger scale.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

40

Appendix A.Appendix B.

4 F

103

115Appendix C.Appendix D.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

Locations of Experimental Sites

Envi r onmental Factors Monitoring Stati on.

Methods of Attaching or Anchoring Test Tha'lli 12

Biomass Harvest Transects at North Reef,Coconut Is! and . 14

Temperature Measurements at North Reef,Coconut Island .

Salinity Measurements at North Reef,Coconut Island . 5i

Diffusion Index Factor of Water Motion at NorthReef, Coconut Island .

Nutrient Content of Water at North Reef,Coconut Island 55

Drift Measurements at North Reef, Coconut Island. 57

10 Growth of G.Pots at

and G.

conut Island

G.~i Ion L~nes at North Reef, Coconut Island

RESULTS

DISCUSSION.

REFERENCES,

APPENDICES,

Laboratory and Field Equipment and SuppliesEnvironmental Factors and Growth Rate

In f o rma t i on.

Biomass InformationWeekly Growth Measurements.

LIST OF FIGURES cant'd

Figure

Temperature Measurements at He'eia Fishpond

Sal ini ty Measurement at He ' ei a Fishpond13 67

Diffusion Index Factor of Rater Motion at He'eiaFi shpond . 69

15 Nutrient Content of Water at He'eia Fishpond. 71

G Td. ~i G.Attached to Rocks an Bottom af He'eiaFi shpond,

16

17 GG.~TMonofilament Nets at He'eia Fishpond . 77

Temperature Measurements at Kahuku Purge Pond .

Sal ini ty Measurements at Kahuku Purge Pond.

79

19

20 Di ffusion Index Factor of Water Motion at KahukuPurge Pond 83

Nutrient Content of Water at Kahuku Purge Pond.21 85

88

23 d G. 'f 1'

an Monofilament Nets at Kahuku Purge Pond. 91

Temperature Measurement at Kahuku Effluent Ditch.

Salinity Measurements at Kahuku Effluent Ditch.

24 93

26 Diffusion Index Factor of Water Motion at KahukuEffluent Di tch 97

Nutrient Content of Water at Kahuku Effluent Ditch.27 99

28

on Rocks on Bottom of Kahuku Effluent Ditch. 102

29 Total Wet and Dry Weights Obtained from All Algaefrom Biomass Harvests, 104

G D 1 G ~DObtained from Biomass Harvests 105

1 1 dDT id«d.~Obtained f'rom Biomass Harvests

31

Growth of G.

an Rocksand G.

Kahuku

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Summary of Environmental Factors and Growth Ratesat Experimental Sites. 24

One-May Analysis of Variance ANOVA! of' Environ-mental Factors at Experimental Sites

Means and Standard Deviations from ANQVA ofEnvironmental Factors at Experimental Sites. 26

One-May Analysis of Variance ANOVA! of GrowthRates at Experimental Sites. 27

Means and Standard Deviations from ANOVA of GrowthRates at Experimental Sites. 28

Comparison of Growth Rates and Attachment Methodsat Experimental Sites by T-TEST and F-TEST . 29

Summary of Biomass Harvests 31

Temperature Measurements at North Reef, CoconutIsland, 48

Salinity Measurement at North Reef, Coconut Island.10

Diffusion Index Factor of Water Motion at North Reef,Coconut Island . 52

12 Nutrient Content of Mater at North Reef, CoconutIsland .

Drift Measurements at North Reef, Coconut Island.13 56

14 Growth of Gracilaria b

North Reef, Coconut Is 1 andin Pots at

58

15 Growth of GracilariaNorth Reef, Coco

in Pots at

R North Reef, Coconut Island1661

G i1 i ~ifliNorth Reef, Coconut Island

1762

Comparison of Number of Positive Growth Measurementsand Attachment Methods at Experimental Sitesby T-TEST and F-TEST . . . . . . . . , , . . . , . . . 30

LIST OF TABLES cont'd

Table

Temperature Measurement at He'eia Fishpond.

Salinity Measurement at He'eia Fishpond .

64

6619

Diffusion Index Factor of Water Motion atHe'eia Fishpond.

2068

Nutrient Content of Water at He'eia Fishpond. 7021

2272

G G G ff f ~ii «dRocks on Bottom of He ' ei a Fi shpond . 73

on Monotilament

on Nonofilament2576

78Temperature Measurement at Kahuku Purge Pond.

Salinity Measurement at Kahuku Purge Pond .

26

8027

Diffusion Index Factor of Water Notion atKahuku Purge Pond. 82

Nutrient Content of Water at Kahuku Purge Pond.29

on Rocks at3086

3187

on Nonofilament

3390

Temperature Measurement at Kahuku Effluent Ditch.

Salinity Measurement at, Kahuku Eff1uent Ditch .

34 92

35 94

36 Diffusion Index Factor of Water Notion at KahukuEffluent Ditch . 96

37 Nutrient Content of Water at Kahuku Effluent Ditch. 98

Growth of Graci lariaRocks on Bottom

fNets at He'eia Fishpond.

Growth of GracilariaNets at He eia F

Growth of GracilariaBottom of Kahuku

f Bottom of Kahuku Purge Pond.Growth of

Nets

G f GNets at Kahuku Purge Pond.

Attached topond

LIST Of TABLES cont'd

Table

G 6

Bottom of Kahuku Eff1uent Ditch.38

100

39 G Bottom of Kahuku Effluent Ditch. 101

40 107

41 108

109

110

44 111

112

46 113

47 114

Number of' Ring Tosses June 10, 1978 .

Biomass Data June 10, 1978.

Number of Ring Tosses June 24, 1978 .

Biomass Data June 24, 1978.

Number of Ring Tosses July 22, 1978 .

Biomass Data July 22, 1978.

Number of Ring Tosses August 17, 1978

Biomass Data August 19, 1978.

INTRODUCTION

The "Cooperative Gracilaria Project" was conducted during the

summer af 1978 June, July and August! by Marine Option Program students

of Windward Community College. The objecti ve of the project was to

investigate the cause-effect relationships between environmental

factors and the growth rates of two economically important species of

limu manauea!. ogo! and G.Gracilaria, G.

Through an understanding of these relationships, the feasibility of

mariculture of ogo and limu manauea as a cowercial crop in Hawai~

could be better determined. Recommendations for the implementation

of farming systems could also be developed.

source and as a source of the carbohydrate phycocolloid known as

"agar" used by many industries. In Hawaii, both species of Graci laria

are the main ingredient in many Hawaiian and Japanese dishes Abbott

and Williamson, 1974; Fortner, 1979!. Nutritionally, species af

Gracilaria provide small amounts of protein and fat, Hoyle, 1975! and

probably are also a good source of inorganic salts and vitamins.

Madlener 1977! claims that ago identi fied as Graci laria verrucosa!

contai ns very high manganese, hi gh zinc, protein, starch, sugar, fat,

vitamin A, vitamin 8>, sodium, phosphorus, soluble nitrogen, sulfur,

iodine, potassi um, calcium , i ron, chloride, silicon and trace elements,

but gives no nutritional values for these contents. The use of other

limu as well as Graci laria in the diet of Hawaiians provided variety

to an otherwise monotonous diet of fish and poi; together, the three

components fish, poi and limu! furnished the necessary protein,

carbohydrates and minerals for adequate nutrition Abbott and Nil liamson,

1974!.

It is estimated that 41,867 kg 92,300 lbs! of limu were sold as

food for $58,922 in 1977 with ogo comprising most of the sales Fish

and Game statistics!. These totals reflect, only voluntary reports of

harvesters and are probably only a portion of the total actually

harvested, There is probably sufficient local demand to utilize an

additional 143,338 kg �16,00 lbs! of ogo per year Aquaculture

Planning Program, 1978!. If the projected amount of 143,338 kg is

added to the 41,867 kg reported sold in 1977, it appears that there

is a market for a least 185,205 kg �08,299 lbs! of ogo to be sold per

year. Currently, ogo retails for approximate'Iy $2.87 to $3.97/kg

�1.30 to 31.80/11! Aquaculture Planning Program, 1978 . At theseretail princes for ogo, the total retail value could range from $531,538

to $135,263 for 185,205 kg. There is no data for sales of limu manauea,

but it is probable that limu manauea sales are included in total reported

retail sales of ogo.

The most valuable use found for seaweeds, however, has been the

use of extracts of phycocolloi ds agar, carrageenans, and algi ns! in

industry . Phycocolloids are used mainly as stabilizing, suspending,

emulsifying or thickening agents and are used extensively in food ice

cream, salad dressings, beer, candy!, pharmaceuticals drug capsules,

surgical ointments, jellies!, textiles pri nt pastes, si zing compounds!,

paper products and paints Edwardsa 1977; Naylor, 1976!.

The world demand of phycocolloids far exceeds the available

supply Edwards, 1977; Naylor, 1976!, and in 1974 the worldwide producti on

of marine phycocolloids was 29,685 metric tons, worth approximately

$300 million, with agar comprising 6,808 metric tons worth $86.25 million

Aquaculture Planning Program, 1978!. Agarophytes have been valued as

high as $1,000 per ton Hoyle, 1975!.

Because of the steadily increasi ng demand for seaweeds, "wild

harvest" techniques can no longer provide the worldwide volume needed

by industry or use as food. Local fringing reefs are now being

overharvested and are often picked bare, primarily because of the

growing population of 0'ahu and its demand for edible seaweed but also

because of those ~nd~viduals harvesting ogo and limu manauea for a

part or fullt me livelihood.

In order to meet the worldwide and local demand, suitable locations

to grow seaweeds need to be determined and cultivation started. New

techniques for volume production must also be developed. Not surprisingly,

there has been a growing interest in Hawaii recently to develop seaweed

farming in ancinet Hawaiian fishponds as well as cultivation in new types

of mariculture systems. A seaweed farming industry would add greatly to

the diversification of Hawaii's economy.

The biologica'I potential of farming Gracilaria in Hawaii is good,

There are two basic seaweed cultivation techni ques both of which are

suitable for Hawaii. The first technique, the "closed system," is used

mainly in Taiwan where seaweed is raised inside f'ishponds, 0'ahu alone

had about 100 fishponds in 1900, about 700 in 1930, and about 6 or 7

remain today Kelly, 1975! . However, 67 ponds throughout the state have

recently been identified and assessed for usefulness for mullet and

milkfish culture gladden and Paulsen, 1977! and mariculture of limu could

be part of polycul ture operations in these ponds.

In the second method, the "open system," seaweed is cultivated in

an area not cut off from the open sea. Generally, seaweed thai li are

affixed to rocks, netting, or stakes and harvested after suitable growth

pe ri ods Edwa rds, 1977! .

There are a number of areas throughout Hawaii that correspond to

both the closed and open systems. Four sites which correspond to

open and closed systems and wh1ch were investigated in th1s study were

the North Reef of Coconut Island, He'eia Fishpond, and the Kahuku

Seafood Plantation Purge Pond and Effluent Uitch.

Ex erimental Sites

The North Reef at Coconut Island Figure 1! served as one

experimental growth site. In additi on to growth experiments, biomass

samplings of the wild crop of Grac11aria were conducted at this site.

Coconut Island is located off Windward 0'ahu in Kaneohe Bay and is the

site of the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology HIMB!. The North Reef

has been designated as a marine preserve and no harvesting of limu or

other organisms is permitted, The reef 1s five hectares 12.S acres!

in size, with an underlying carbonate base covered by generalIy white

sand and occasional carbonate rocks. The depth of the water over the

reef varies 1 m due to tides. The site is representative of an open

system and provided information on growth and biomass in a non-harvestable

area.

He'eia Fishpond was chosen as the second experimental site

Figure ],!. He'eia Fishpond is extremely important historically in

Hawaii. The pond measure 35.2 hectares 88 acres! and the pond wall

<J

D C!

OVCL C

«LI

$4-N 4

Vl ~ 0 4J

0 0 /!

Vl V

CP Q rt$

CE O ~ ~o-

V C7L-O CmuOJM O O Oa aoo!C ~4< <UJM vl C$ ra

OJ~0! UQ Lr Vl C/!

OM

nfl MCV «U0

O 8 4 nlVXXV R

ammu@

which once completely enclosed the pond is 1500 m {500 ft! long

{Kelly, 1975!. The average depth at the experimental site was 1-1.5 m

at, high tide. The bottom of the pond at the experimental site was

a mixture of large rocks and dark, muddy sediment about 0.5 m or more

thick. He'eia Fishpond was chosen as an example of a closed system.

Land use mauka of the pond has always affected the degree of sedimentat~on

in the pond. It has been used in a variety of ways from 1840 to 1940

including taro cultivation, cattle grazing, sugarcane, rice, and pineapple

cultivation {Kelly, 1975!. Recently, sediment runoff has increased

due to housing development in the area. The pond wall is in need of

repair and makahas to promote flushing acti on .

Kahuku Purge Pond, located at Kahuku Seafood Plantation Figure 1!,

was the third experimental site. The pond measures four hectares 10 acres!

and has an average depth of 1-2 m {3-6 ft! and serves as the purging area

for wastewater from the oyster raceways of the operation. The effluent

ditch site 4! empties into the purge pond. The purge pond was interpreted

as a closed system.

The fourth experimental site was the effluent ditch at Kahuku Seafood

Plantation in Kahuku Figure 1!. The ditch has a varying depth but gen-

erally runs between 0.5-1 m in depth. The ditch carries the effluent from

oyster raceways to the purge pond site 3!. The ditch was the shallowest

area that test thalli were grown in. The bottom of the ditch was clean,

white sand with intermittent rocks. The effluent ditch was interpreted

as an open system as it was flushed periodically.

The following hypotheses were formulated in order to investigate

the cause-effect relationships of environmental factors on the growth

G. ~b«i 411 1 lt I I�I "" -~ Psites.

P 4 I: Ihave t e highest percent per day growth ratesat the North Reef at Coconut Island.

Hypothesis 3: The variation in percent per day growth rates of

experimental si tes wi1 1 be due to di f ferentinteractions of environmental factors.

4: 11 11 lt «I.~l1 ~ii I» I I «Isummer months.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Changes in weight of the test thalli of Gracilaria

and Gracilaria were monitored weekly to determine percent

per day growth rates at the experimental growth sites. Causal environmen-

tal factors inf1uencing the growth of test thalli at the experimental

growth sites were also monitored on a weekly schedule. Physica1 envi ron-

mental factors measured were temperature and water motion. In addition,

the drift across North Reef, the only site for biomass collection, was

also measured. Chemica'l environmental factors measured were salinity

and nutrient content of the water. Monthly biomass collections were also

done on North Reef. The materials and methods for measuring each envi ron-

mental factor, determining the percent per day growth rates of test thalli,

and conducting the biomass collection are described below, Detailed

equipment lists for each area of the project are gi ven in Appendi x A.

A, Physical Environmental Factors

1. Temperature C!

2. Water Motion DIF values!

Water motion was measured at each of the experimental growth sites

A maximum-minimum thermometer was anchored to a hollow tile brick

Figure 2! or rock at each experimental growth site. Whenever the experi-

mental growth sites were visited at least weekly!, the max~mum and

minimum temperatures since the previous observation and the ambient temper-

ature or temperature at the time of recording of the maximum and minimum

temperatures! were recorded.

by using cold cards Doty, 197la!. Clod cards were taped to small,

solid concrete bricks and anchored or a 24 hour period next to a hollow

ti1e brick Figure 2!. Two cards were taped to the brick on a north-

south orientation and two cards were placed on an east-west orientation.

The change in dry weight of the clod cards in a 24 hour period was

di vided f~ rst by four to obtain the average change in wei ght. This

average was then divided by a factor of 0.27 to calibrate the diffusion

measurement. The resulting figure, a OIF value, was an indication

of water motion at the experimental sites.

3. Drift {m/minutes; degrees!

In order to determine the di rection and velocity of the prevailing

current at North Reef, Coconut Island, a cork was dropped into the surface

of the water. The distance traveled in one minute and the di rection the

cork drifted was observed and recorded. These observations were repeated

three times. A compass was used to determine the di rection in which the

drift occurred.

B. Chemical Environmental Factors

1. Salinity /oo!

Salinity was measured each time the experimental growth si tes

were visited at least weekly! with a portable refractometer. Samples

of seawater were taken from the area around the Gracilaria test thal1i.

2, Nutrient Content of the Rater p.gat/1!

Nutrient analysis of water samples collected at, the five

experimental growth sites was done by the Analytical Services Laboratory

of the Hawaii Institute of Marine Hiology HI% !, Analysis was accomp1ished

through the use of an auto-analyzer,

10

Water samples were co11ected during each weekly v~sit to theexperimental growth sites. Water samples were either collected in brownpolypropylene bottles and brought immediately to HIM8 for filtrationand freezing, or the samp'les were filtered through a syringe filterapparatus in the field and then frozen.

C. Growth Measurements %/day!

Test thalli of the two species of Gracilaria were weighed on a weekly

When cleaned, the thalli were weighed by placing them onweighing.

the weighing platform of an Ohaus triple-beam balance and the weight

recorded. During the weighing process, the thalli were inspected for

11

basis and the percent per day growth rate was later determined usinga Wang 700 Series Advanced Programming Calculator at the Departmentof Botanical Sciences, UHM. Only positive growth rates were used inthe calculations as negative growth rates the loss of algal biomass!could be due to grazing or breakage from water movement or handlingin weighing. Statistical analysis consisting of T-TESTs, F-TESTs andOne-Way Analys~s of Variance ANOVA! of environmental factors andgrowth rates was accomplished using a computer terminal at the ComputerBased Education Center of Windward Community Co1lege.

To determine the weights of the test thalli in the field, all thalliwere first carefully retrieved from the rocks, cement nursery pots, linesor netting they had been placed in or attached to the week before Figure 3!.

innertubes with' attached plywood bottoms were used to float the testthalli to the weighing station on shore and back to the experimental sitesafter weighing, Once on shore, the thalli were transferred to a bucket

of seawater, uniformly cleaned of epiphytes and debris and prepared for

C 0 ClCcC

CJ!'I

EJrl5 P O 0 0

wPMQ

CJ CP <U C

O O V UIO % 4

C+>WW

0 4!K Wcuua

CJ

Cl

12

O Q0. W

OP M

E

C W4l 0

In 8

r

I Rw c0 CJ

0 ~

m aV C0 O

damage or breakage. Thalli were replaced or reweighed according to the

severity of breakage or epiphytic growth. The new weights of replacement

thai li were recorded as thalli were replaced, It was found that in

windy conditions, the scales had to be placed in a plywood box and

covered with a plastic sheet to assure accurate weighing. Leveling of

the box was done through the use of a 15 cm pocket level.

D. Biomass Collection {grams/m !

A monthly biomass collection Doty, 1971b! was done at the North

Rect of Coconut Island Figure 4!. This was done to determine the amount

of har vestable wild crop of Gracilaria duri ng the duration of the inves-

tigation. The biomass of other algae occurring on the reef was also

determined.

Four sampling teams composed of two samplers each were used for

the biomass collection; team one was closest to the shoreline and team

four was closest to the reef edge. Each team used a 45 cm diameter

stainless steel ri ng, ten numbered bags with plastic tags, an innertube

float and a clipboard with a plastic writing slate. The four teams were

spaced 20 m apart on the reef and sampled 10 sites approximately 20 m

apart across the reef { Figure 4!. The fi rst sampling day, Rune 10, was

an exception to this procedure as only six to seven sampling sites per

transect line were done. Ring samp'les were obtained by randomly throwing

the ring behind the sampler's back until a harvestable quantity of biomass

was obtained. The number of times the ring was thrown to obtain algae

in the ring was recorded. All algae within the ring was then collected

and placed in a numbered plastic bag; each ring sample was placed in a

separate bag, When the biomass collection was done, all samples were

13

O

O4J

$O

C!v!

S-

placed in a cooler for transport to the lab to be sorted, identified

and weighed.

In the laboratory the col1ected biomass was given a quick freshwater

rinse and all attached debris and epiphytes were removed. The wet weight

was obti aned for each speci es within a harvest site by weighing the algal

biomass on an aluminum foil "boat" on a mettler balance. The foil was

used to hold the biomass as it was dryed. After drying, the dry

weight of the biomass for each species was determined. The algal

biomass was dryed in a seaweed dryer provided by the Department of

Botanical Sciences, UHM.

RESULTS

The results of the monitoring of environmental factors and growth

rates are summarized below for each site and in Table 1. Additional

information detailing environmental factors and growth measurements

may be found in Appendices 8 and D. 8iomass harvest results are also

summarized below and in Table 8. Additional biomass harvest information

may be found in Appendix C.

North Reef Coconut Island

Mater temperature at North Reef, ranged from a minimum of

23 C to a maxi mum of 29 C and was consistently between 25 C to 28 C

for all three months the initial reading of 34 C was due to incorrectly

reading the thermometer out of the water!. Salinity was consistently

between 34-35 joo. The Diffusion Index Factor DIF! was higher in0

June �2.8! than in July �4.5! or August �3.9! indicating somewhat

higher water motions during the early summer. DIFs at North Reef were

higher than at all other sites. The drift across the reef averaged

16.5 m per minute to an average 228 S'A for all three months. Nutrients0

ranged from 0.02 to 0.77~gat/1 for P04, from 0.27 to 1.40pgat/1 for

N03, and from 0.35 to 12.34pgat/1 for NH4. Average nutrient contentsat North Reef appear to be at the lower end of the range for P04, N03

and NH4.

Test thalli on the North Reef had the highest percent per day growth

.!!/// ! ! . / I! !/ ',~b

and 7,8'%%d/day lines! and 3.6%%d/day pots! for G. Except

«! !.!l/!y ! .~ii ! . g

were the highest obtained at the experimental sites.

Oue to the heavily-sedimented bottom and turbid water, measure-

ments of environmental factors were di fficult to obtain at this location.

A number of times the thermometer, clod cards or test thalli were lost

and as a result some data is lacking. However, from what was recorded,

temperature ranged from 22.5 C to 32.0 C and salinity ranged from 24 /oo0 0

to 35 /oo. OIFs averaged 1l.B at He'eia Fishpond, the lowest of all

the sites. Nutrients ranged from 0.07 to .038~gat/1 for P04, from

0.03 to 2.14pgat/1 for N03, and 1,07 to 17.60+gat/1 for NH4. Averagenutrient contents at ke'eia Fishpond appear to be at the lower end of

the range for P04 and N03 but higher than North Reef for NH4,Due to the turbid water and heavy, muddy sediment, problems were

also encountered in collecting and weighing the test thalli which were

originally attached to rocks on the bottom. In August, the test thalli

were switched from plantings on rocks to plantings on a monofiliment

net about 1 m above the bottom and at a depth of 50 cm at low tide. G.

2./i/ y / / / « ./I/

//1 t . G.~ill / .'/ «d

rocks on the bottom and 2.0;4/day on the monofilament net. These low

growth rates, lowest for all the sites, coincided with the observation

that most of the test thalli usually died in one to two week's time

whether planted on the bottom or on nets.

17

Kahuku Pur. e Pond

At this location temperature ranged from 22,6 C to 32,0 C. Salinity

had a narrow range from 24.5 /oo to 26 /oo, DIFs averaged 19.7 for the0 0

bottom site and 20,1 for the monofilament net site. As in ke'eia, some

thermometers, clod cards and test thalli were lost in the heavy sediment

a few times making the data incomplete. Nutrients ranged from 0.04 to 1. 14

begat/1 for PO<, from 0.10 to 8.32pgat/1 f' or N03, and from 5.39 to 24.65begat/I for NH4. These high nutrient levels were expected due to the factthat the purge pond recei ves the waste water from oyster raceways,

There were also problems at the purge pond site as other seaweeds

notably Ul vaI grew on the test tha'lli and attaching lines. In the last

half of August the test Challi were therefore moved and attached to a

monofilament net at a different site.

Growth rates while attached to the rocks on the heavily-sedimented

|. i/bottom were 4.2X/day for G.

and 5.8%/day for G. corgrowth rates were 3.0//day for G. b

Test Chal! i on the nets were again covered by much growth of other algae

Kahuku Effluent Ditch

Temperature ranged from 24.0 C to 29.0 C, Salinity ranged from0 0

24 /oo to 26.0 /oo. Some clod cards were lost but the data collected

indicate an average of DIFs of 24.4, Nutrients ranged from 0.33 to 1.87

begat/1 for PO<, from 5.70 to 16.30!begat/1 for NO3, and from 4.44 to 24.50begat/1 for Nk<. These nutrient values were the highest obtained at thefour experimental sites. The effluent ditch carries wastewater from

oyster raceways to the purging pond, At this site is was also observedthat the test tha'Ili were quite brittle, This might be due to the addition

18

For the three week period the test thalli were grown on monofilament nets, the

of silicates to the water in phytoplankton growing tanks in which

diatoms and other unicells are raised to feed the oysters.

averaged 6.64 day on rocks on the clean,

whitish sediaent of the ditch while G. averaged 6.5~/day.

Statistical Anal sis of Site Information

Environmental factors and growth rates at the four experimental

sites were compared through One-Way Analysis of Variance ANOYA!; the

results are surmarized in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5. Growth rates and

attachment methods were also compared through T-TESTs and F-TESTs Tables 6

and 7!.

ANOYA of maxi mum, minimum and ambient temperatures at the four

experimental sites revealed no significant differences in temperatures

Tables 2 and 3!.

ANOYA of salinity measurements at the experimental sites revealed

significant differences in salinity. Kahuku Effluent Ditch and Kahuku

Purge Pond had lower salinity levels than either He'eia Fishpo~d or

North Reef Tables 2 and 3!.

ANOYA of nutrients at the experimental si tes revealed no si gni-

ficant differences in P04 levels. The significant differences in

NO and NH4 levels were due to extremely high levels of NO and NH4 at3

both Kahuku Purge Pond and Kahuku Effluent Ditch Tables 2 and 3!.

ANOVA of water motion at the experimental sites showed that

the water motion at each site differed significantly from the other

Tables 2 and 3! .

ANOYA of growth rates at the experimental sites revealed signifi-

cant differences in growth rates Tables 4 and 5!. In the analysis of

growth rates, measurements from pots and ~ocks were grouped together and

measurements from lines and nets were grouped together. These attach-

ment treatments were felt to be similar enough Co permit this grouping

without affecting the accuracy of the analys~s. The highest growth rates

occurred at North Reef and Kahuku Effluent l3itch while He'eia Fishpond

and Kahuku Purge Pond had the lowes. growth rates Table 1!.

Significant differences in growth rates at the sites may have

been attributable to either environmental factors or the attachment

method. However, the significant differences in growth rates appear to

be due to environmental factors rather than the attachment method

Tables 6 and 7!. The only significant difference in growth rates

due to the attachment method occurred with G

lines and pots at North Reef Table6!. The only significant difference

in the variances of growth rates of the test thalli occurred with G.

~li l R f � . II t i f

growth measurements at each site a.iso showed that breakage which occurred

was largely randomized and not attributable to attachment methods Table 7!.

Biomass Harvests

The biomass study monitored the amount of seaweed on North

Reef. Biomass harvests covering an area of approx~mately 10,800 m2

Figure 4! were done on four days, June 10, June 24, July 22 and

August 19, 1978. Ring tosses directly sampled 5.36 m of this area each2

of the four harvests. The harvest provided information of the wet and

dry biomass of all algae including the wet and dry weights of G.

Tab l e 8! .and G,

The tota! wet standing crop of all frondose algae averaged 384 wet

g/m and varied from 326 to 509 wet g/m f' or the four harvests. The2 2

20

I -~i / 2

0.3 to 19 wet g/m for the four harvests. The standing crop of2

g / I 2« tl «g/2 2

the four harvests. These figures are somewhat higher than actual asnot all rings thrown encountered biomass. Hoyle �976! has reported

G.~i d2lg g/ d2

75 wet g/m for 14 months �972-1973! on the reef at Sand Island. North2

Reef had a smaller amount of Gracilaria due to a reduced amount of stablesubstrata. The average amount of GraciI aria biomass could conceivablyincrease if a year long or longer study were conducted.

The total wet biomass of all algae remained relatively constantfor the four biomass samples, Total wet biomass ranged from 2,200.4 gon July 22 to 3,237.8 on June 24. The total dry weight of all harvesteda1gae paralleled the changes in total wet weights, ranging from 236 gon July 22 to 387.8 g on June 24. The wet weight to dry weight ratio was9:1 for the total biomass collected for the four harvested.

I/ tg G. ~lt I g 2. g d tl

to 119.1 on July 22 and totaIed 151.7 g for all four biomass harvests.

Dry weights paralleled these changes in wet weights ranging form 0.4 gon June 10 to 14.9 g on July 22 and totaled 19 g for all four biomass

ranged from 117.8 g on August 19Met weights for G.

to 285.6 g on June 10 and totaled 687.6 g for all four biomass harvests.

Dry weight paralleled these changes in wet weights ranging from 13.9 gon August 19 to 33.2 g on June 10 and totaled 86.9 g for all four biomass

I ly II« ~: G.~f't

I . dy gl«:I/ G.~l

The total number of tosses thrown by each team each harvest

varied for the four days of sampling. The total of ring tosses needed

by each team to collect biomass was 38 f' or team 1; 56 for team 2; 57 for

team 3; and, 69 for team 4. The actual total of ring tosses which

contained biomass was 36 for team 1; and, 37 for teams 2, 3 and 4. Algal

biomass was greatest toward the shoreline and least at the reef edge.

This was due to the occurrence of more rocks stable substrata! along

h . y

dh d h"

stable coral rubble or consolidated 'limestone associated with shallow

sand deposits for occurrence.

lh d«ll«pp y h

p d p h «h G. ~fl h h

Reef pots!, He'eia Fishpond nets!, Kahuku Purge Pond rocks!

had higher perand Kahuku Eff'Iuent Ditch rocks!. G.

f �

He'eia Fishpond rocks! and Kahuku Purge Pond nets!.

pp yp I l l. G. ~h

hhhpl hlph

22

Coconut Island.

The data co'Ilected support Hypothesis 3, There appeared to

be difterent interactions of causal environmental factors at each of the

four experimental sites, Envi ronmental factors most affecting the growth

of Gracilaria appeared to be water motion, turbidity and bottom type.

The data collected do not support Hypothesis 4. There was

8i G. ~t«i i «pa

a decrease in biomass of G.

decreased markedly in August.

23

over the three month period.

0ll0

DI AI

I A0

IV I

C 0

a

0

IV

ClC

Al ACISICl

OIAI O O

ISIOIVO

DD A.

IVVI

O AC~ V

O IC

0

AI Al

O IA0I

CIVl

8

IS0

Tl0

C

rt

0

C'Jh

IC

Z

a

C

a AlA

fv

aa

AI.0 a

'0v gL' 0Ov0 tIA0 Cj 0

v 0C 0

0000 00V0 0

0 vI C

V0 ~L 0

V 00

U

AhA.0 C0Z I

AI IA

RK

AI D

V VCZ

0VLV

v

r g0 0V I

0CV

0S

0

C 0V D

m XIJJ

QJ

U V 0 0.4

Cf4J 4V 40 V

O- VC0 -aS-OL!

a QL

CC Itg

!

S-0

QI MQICL +7

aO+JI0 CZII

CL 4

0 0

0 5-

QP

E+JrOI$-gj X

E OP

CE

'IC'I

~ I-5- O

CLOK X

C

C-I

J3 II0

C35-0

4 ~ ~

QI<n O

0

0~ ~ ~ II

E OJ CL

~ I X 0 OJS-0. CCL rt5 0Cl M CL

~ A OJ g

CL IJ-Ch

C$

QI ~ ILI

QI7 3 K

QIIf

C OJ

0

4 S-

0 QIrtl W/~ I OL

C -I-tA

J5 gI-

ZD QlCLX

5 Qf

0

re

fLLa+X C LJ OJ

S-0 QI3 4+J 4

I

r

QI ~

CB'I

OJ

t3 0

R

NIOIDNOIOeCQCOP eN Nee

~~eIJI rnIoo~ epeeCh Mct NHCOo p! o o

Acre~ ANOIcI NOO>IOQcl Ol e&COO N>COFl

rwo H&ooooo ooze e4QP

CO CRoco~ewOem crwcOO

MNeN wP-%w ctcOCOOOOO+ OONN <4N<

IO IO IX! COI~AOQO

Pl P! CV

CO O r QI N O CJI e g ~ O ecoN'oN +0 44 ep 5lcII

O QO co IJl e vn e 4Q vN<NN PiNNN NNCVN

CO COCO& «OCO CON COCO COW NIO IJ1IAe co m cOO4lCOr aIJlCOr Or OCON

I

Su

QJF

QIR

6 QJ

C 0

0

QJ0

E E CX: R

e

VI

C 0 R QJC!

D WA-C, OM

II- OO.QJ aQJ M QJ CCX III �I QI+4 Dcu 44-

R CO~ OWZ: QIA

QJMMRR

< 0QI Cl.QJ C4 Vl

R0 mZ QI

QI

0 wC 0 ClO-QJ CPl QJ

4 vc5 4J

RRhC

IIJZ7 PC '~OOOQJQI QJ

4 cD 4J

hC

CIJ- 0QJ aQJ MOCJ 4

R0

QJQI

4 III Sl QI~ ~C 4W 4Oc OW

QJ ~Ql J

bC

VO C.r

0 CI0 O

QI 0.QJ M4 IJI CJI QI~ ~~ 4.

O0 '~X

QJMMR

R

EJ0C0 O

OOQJ 4QI M QJ CCJI QJM 4 O 4

R 4-0 0- V LLJ

QJ ~QJ X XR

M chC

V'0 u0 CI

0 4QI AQJX QI

IJI OI QJ

O 40~ D4JK QJA

QJ C 4RhC N

X

CJ CC OCI0 4

QJ 0QJ J QICL IJI PI QJM 4 4 III R0

QI AQI K JCT R

a4

+

5C5 4W 0

30

CB

4 0

Ce S.0- i< O

6

C 00 0

0 S-

O VlQt

'I 'P

�

cL C

WESQta

C XO 4J

! O

I

04-'I

I0

0 0 o C 0 0 U

IgA

QI

0O. "Vt C

Vl Qt0 VIA V

oC I

QIQI Itt ~ a L. QtVl ~ UM W E

CO M QI VI

Vl Qt 2 w CQt M M r Q!

QJIl Ol&

Ql Vl C. D Qt I D 0 CL

O t � M5aQJ ~~ ~ Qt

Ol ~ -ZW Via SCC<n~ CHO0 C! W % D % 0r CL' O MM Qt

a oEM 5-4 QP I IE~ " 4 <'U o

av ca ~ e cX ~ Qt 6 QtOW Qto II M 0

CCM M Ua W W vl Qtax~ -aw l-~C V VlW 0 QP't

3QI 0 0 Ql C

05 Vl ~ rg

Cn Vl It ~ e ~1m"V ! O C

c au 0C S-Ol EWC UK 0 C vl

Q I' 'r Qt S QtQJ

A VI Vl C C ~ O. QlQt'm O Qt Vl X 4-

C CWa V e4-I r 'r

QI c5 t5 0 O~ VI ~Mm3

" Qlo 4

C~ 8 QlCL0 % QlM 0

> CY Z Qt 4 cC eI II ~ Ol Ql

4O'a seaQI M t ~ % 0C ~ M

CJl 5- CL rO 4 Qt +JOK% $- C C

O Qltt

II '~ VI W QI VlCC',m Vive 4-! W m W 0 +J +II- W

QIG ~ C ~ Ow om cwv>wm c

~ e0

27

0rdt3C .~rtl T

CCI COK PIFl ~ ICl Ch O92

W'cf NI0ID CII &

ACICA CV ~OFl

+ROCZIIO IO WWFl Fl Fl IO

0' + ICl LAN N W ICl~ Pl MICI

57 O ~

0

0 T CI O<V~OF! Fl

CO

cC

V92 Vl VlVIVUM~ tJ~LLB

QlIll Vl Vl~ 4! IV

C

Vl Vl VIVl 0 0OOOOL S

VlCJ Vl Vl

4l IV

vl D

M ~ IC Ii!

L VlCl0 XLC

28

C O

'I CCI! tD

C0 0

4 0CLIllOJ M Gl

VI Ol

CLl0

Ill JCQDID

D 0'~0 OC0

4 0 QClIll M Ill CCY Vl OI Ill

LN Li

CL 44

0 ~ 0'Z

SCXY Nil7

C4824I 0.OJM CJCC, 'VI C7I

ICi

L ICI0

Z

IJ'0 W

'0C 0C5

4 OCLQJ M IllCC ah Ch CV

+J CL 4rg

0 w NLJ4P ~QJ M MICl

hC N

O

O O O

UJII�

N Al t0 Ltt

N O

P! tt0I WNOIA O

05 ~

w m

W QCCI ~N N IA ~

Qe m

OO ct' Pl

VlCJ Itl0

0d

4J vl0 0

Q. 0 4!0

tJ0L 0

le0 I-I0 III

0

0 0IC05 44I

KLU

29

0 0 IOI Ittttt4JI/l

0Itt0

04I

4

CtN NN

IV

EJII>

Ill

0

~IVl

II0 CJK

VlIJJI

rO

~ J IIV

JJ

V IOaeNOPP EA

P IO

VrprIO

P PlOOOO

OOrO IJl

OO OOPt

VIoO IS

VlO

VlV pr0 rS

o

VIIJ0 ISL g

IS VIC~ ao JJ

oo

VIL.

G rpI

IJIS4

IO oOI 4IS Vl

45 o

30

J I�W cn3 M0 I�

I pr

QJ MC

~ P CT5

~ I IVl0 W0- I�

I

0

OJVl

6 QPP

4-0 ~

C W0 C

Cl

rl50. CLIE 0-0M UJ

IS DISI C

orO DCLhC 4

o

rS rSl-IS V! IJ

rSo 4IJ VIrS

IO vlrSrSVI Or

OClJ EJ DIJ C'Q O rOrS IJl

0WC J+JG

tlr Vl IS

rO CJV92

o mIO VI gCTrS I VlC VlO IJJrO5~"IP- M

o pVl rOL I

Vl

rOVr IV/MAL

o p-LW OCh aJ VI JrOI 3p Jr

O I

IJ Irgv Lw

VI 4.Vl OL 4VlrS ra0

0c oVl IS OI Ol

IJJ $ IJI D rS Ql

er 4a

CD

fO+J0I�

Q JlCO

N

illC7l

N

Ch CaO

QNN

N

NN

QN Ch

QN N

N

DI SCUS' I ON

Growth Ex eriments

Although there was an interaction of environmental factors,

the following observations may be made of the cause-effect relationships

between the monitored environmental factors and the percent per day

growth rates of G,

sites.

at the experimentaland G.

Water temperature was not a "imiting factor at the four experimental

sites as it varieo little from site to site, The largest difference

in average temperature of the four sites was only 0.9 C Table 1!. These

small changes in temperature should not produce a difference in growth

of the two species of Gracilaria at the experimental sites, ANOVA of

the temperature at each experimental site also revealed no significant

differences in temperatures Tables 2 and 3!.

Salinity did not appear to be a limiting factor at the four exper-

imental sites. The salinity at the four sites ranged from a low of 24 !oo0

to a high of 35 /oo Table 1!, High growth rates occurred at experimentalsites with either high i.e., North Reef! or low i.e., Kahuku Effluent

Ditch! sa'linities even though there were significant differences in

salinities at the experimental sites Tables 2 and 4!. Species of

Gracilaria are known to tolerate salinity changes of 10-20 /oo with0

optima ranging from 24 to 39 joo and suffer no detrimental effects if0

the exposure interval is short Hoyle, 1975!.

Although nutrient concentrations varied greatly, the high, low,

and average values suggest that nutrients were not limiting to growth,

32

This is also supported by ANOVA of nutrient levels at the four experimental

sites which revealed no significant difference in PO< levels, The signi-

ficant differences for NO and NH levels occurred because of variances3

in the values of the higher levels and not the lower levels recorded

Tables 2 and 3!. Interestingly, the high growth rates recorded at

North Reef' occurred in water with the lowest average amount of nutrients

while high growth rates also occurred at Kahuku Effluent Ditch which had

the most nutrient-rich water Table 1!.

Water motion and water turbidity appeared to affect the growth

of Gracilaria the most at the experimental sites. The highest growth

rates occurred at experimental sites with intermediate to high water

motion and low turbidities. The lowest growth rates occurred at

experimental sites with the least amount of water motion and highest

turbidity Table 1!. ANOVA of water motion at the four experimental

sites revealed significant differences among all four sites ranging

from low water motion at He'eia Fishpond and Kahuku Purge Pond to

intermediate water motion at Kahuku Effluent Ditch and high water motion

at North Reef Tables 2 and 3!. Water motion is important to algae as

it increases diffusion of raw materials needed in photosynthesis and

other metabolic processes into the thallus, as wel l as increasing removal

of waste products out of the thallus. Enhancement of diffusion by water

motion appears to be the most important environmenta! factor influencing

growth of Gracilaria in this study. Increased water motion also lowered

turbidity and maintained clean bottoms at North Reef and Kahuku Effluent

Ditch.

33

From information obtained from a 12-16 month investigation on

leeward Hawaiian reefs, Hoyle 1976! has offered the following optimal

growth conditions for mariculture of Cracilaria "water

1-2 m deep; consolidated reef complex ar coral rubble substrata; low water

those of this study for North Reef Table 1!, the site of greatest growth.

Environmental conditions at Kahuku Effluent Ditch are also similar but

the nutrient levels are considerably higher. Environmental conditions

at He'eia Fishpond and Kahuku Purge Pond differ markedly in water motion,

bottom-type and some nutrients, and, as would be predicted by Hoyle's

observations, growth was law.

In another year long study of seasonal algal growth at Hauula Reef,

an environment similar to North Reef, Santelices 1977! found that the

increased during the winter and had nobiomass of G,

relationship with either temperature or salinity. Santelices also

1 «1 « .~if11 11 1 1

movement and negatively correlated to high intensity, although both

correlations were not significant P'P0.10!.

Other factors that might have affected growth rates of the two

species of Graci'laria were epiphytes, handling of the test thalli, grazing

by herbivores, breakage from normaI and storm waves, turbidity, and

sedimentati on on the thalli.

Epiphytes were a problem common to all experimental sites except

He'eia Fishpond. Growth of epiphytes, notably Centroceras clavalutum and

Ceramium sp., may have affected growth rates by adding to the increase

in weight of the test thalli. Alternatively, epiphytic growth may have

34

motion OF = 30-35!, 0.8-0.9 ug-at. N03-Nj'I; 0.5 ug-at. PQ4-P/1; 22-30 loo S;

24-28 Celsius." These environmental conditions are remarkably similar to

caused breakage of test thalli by increas~ng stress on branches which

were then broken by wave action or handling. Epiphytes would undoubtedly

present problems to commercial operations by increasing labor costs

due to maintenance of lines, nets and rocks or pots and cleaning of

harvested weed.

Hreakage of test thalli due to handling, grazing by herbivores,

normal or storm waves and epiphytes was common with many of the test

thalli recording a loss in weight eachweek Appendix D!. These losses

were not included in the statistical analysis as they would represent

"negative growth". It was impossible to determine if loss in weight was

due to grazing, waves or handling. On the other hand, increases in weight may

have been large enough to remain positive even after loss of' biomass due

to breakage. Deterioration of the health of test thalli due to poor

growing conditions resulting in breakage was observed only at He'eia

Fishpond and Kahuku Purge Pond.

Although both species of Gracilaria appeared to be somewhat delicate

wi th a number of test thai li breaking each week, in all but one comparison

of growth rates the attachment method did not appear to contribute to

lower growth rates Table 6!. The number of positive growth measurements

recorded also showed that breakage appeared to be random in occurrence

Table 7!. These analyzes as well as the observations of the field-work

participants! suggest that breakage of test thalli most probably occurred

due to handling in transportation, wei ghi ng and cleaning rather than due

to attachment methods. Santelices 1977! has also observed that G.

~ills 1 d

intense water movement. t:omrercial operations may solve some of these

problems by using tying materials wider than monofilament thereby spreading

attachment stresses over a larger area of the thallus and by setting up

containment barriers to catch broken pieces floating away. However,

use of larger-sized tying material would increase epiphytic populations

due to an increase in co! onizable surface area.

F-TESTs also indicated that in all but one comparison, the

variances in growth rates were also not affected by the attachment method

Table 6! . Commercial operators may thus expect fairly uni form ranges

in growth rates.

Sedimentation on the test thai'i was only a problem at He'eia

Fishpond and Kahuku Purge Pond, the experimental sites with the lowest

water motions and highest turbidi ties. Increased turbidity decreases

available sunlight thereby decreasing photosynthesis and growth. Suspended

materials in the turbid waters of He eia Fishpond and Kahuku Purge Pond

also settled on the test thalli sometimes completely coating them with

a clinging film. With low water motion this film remained on the test

thalli contributing to lower growth rates. Low water motion also contri-

buted to poor circulation with suspended materials accumulating on the

bottom, becoming thick anaerobic mud as observed at He'eia Fishpond and

Kahuku Purge Pond.

In summary, the two open systems investigated at North Reef and

Kahuku Effluent Ditch proved to be more environmentally suited to

growi ng Graci 1 aria than the two closed systems investigated at. He ' cia

Fishpond and Kahuku Purge Pond.

Based upon our experimental field growth data, growth rates of

4-8"/day or higher! in nature are not unrealistic. Hoyle �976! reports

that i f harvesters would leave 10$ of the biomass of a thallus attached

by its holdfast, a mean growth rate of 12'5/day would replenish a crop in

about 20 days. Even at these higher growth rates, however, there probably

is not enough growth to replenish the amounts collected by limu pickers on

unprotected reefs which have much larger standing crops of Graci laria than

North Reef. Limu pickers would also be harvesting more often than every

20 days. They would surely have completely harvested the availab1e Grace"laria

on North Reef in the three month period if it were unprotected.

Repeated and improper harvesting also removes seed stock preventing re-

growth, reproduction and recolonization. Interestingly, the collecting

pressure for the test thalli for the four experimental sites was observed

to substantially lower the biomass in the seed stock area of North Reef.

Collecting material for test thalli became increasingly difficult to

obtain as the study continued. On other reefs known to have once supported

large stands of Graci laria and which are currently being overharvested,

biomass is now much reduced. Currently, supplies of fresh ogo and manauea

in fishmarkets are lower than in previous years personal communications,

fishmarket owners!.

Economic Feasibilit

While this study was primarily concerned with the investigation

P i !y .~ I!.,~i1, !

information gained may assist in an assessment of the economic feasibil sty

of growing Gracilaria in Hawaii.

Hy comparison, mariculture of Eucheuma has proven to be marginally

profitable with growth rates of 1.5 to 5.5'X/day on farms in the Philippines

D . !9!!: ! ! ! li«! G. ~l

37

4-SK� il

entire year. Hoyle �976! has reported that G. grows

of North Reef. It thus appears that these two species of Graci laria are

biologically productive enough to support mariculture operati ons .

However, Eucheuma, which contains carrageenan, commands a higher

price from industry than Gracil aria, whi ch contains agar. In addition,

overhead costs especially labor'! in Hawaii are considerably higher than

those i n the Philippines. The state-of-the-art of r eef and pond mari culture

is presently labor intensive and the labor cost alone would probably

prove prohibitive to a successful large-scale farming operation designed

to supply industrial needs.

Another factor toconsider in Hawaii is that the prime natural

growing environments for Graci laria appear to be on reef flats and in

well-maintained fishponds. Competition for these areas is keen as they

are important to recreation, tourism and fishing and some areas are also

historically important. The cost and time involved in obtaining permits

for the use of specified areas of reef flats and fishponds tiiay also be

prohibitive to large-scale operations. Growing Gracilaria in tanks on

land would certainly require higher development costs than an reef flats

or in ponds. Perhaps Graci lari a mari culture may prove to be profitable

only for "backyard reef mariculturists" growing Graci lari a for human

consumption rather than industrial use and who can minimize overhead

and legal e.g., permit, zoning, shoreline management! costs.

38

7.5',!/day in laboratory conditions, 15.7'/day in 1800 1 tanks under field

conditions and may grow conceivab1y even faster '.n its natural habitat. Hoyle's

estimates are probably higher due to 'less breakage occurring in leeward reef

environments and tanks as contrasted to the rougher windward reef environment

In summary, it appears that it is biologically possible but not

economically feasible to operate a seaweed farm growing Gracilaria

in Hawaii. However, it may be feasible to grow Gracilaria as part of

polyculture operations or in backyard reef mariculture. In consideration

of both the present overharvesting of Gracilaria and the lack of enforced

conservation measures, these may well be the only reliable future sources

of ogo and limu manauea in Hawaii.

Recommendations

This investigation was conducted for only a three month period

during the summer months of June, July and August. To obtain more complete

informat'.on of causal environmental factors, growth rates and biomass,

a year long investigation should be undertaken. If seasonal changes in

nutrients, water motion, temperature or salinity produce changes in growth,

these changes cannot be determined from this study. However, projections

for corrmrcial operati ons may cautious ly use the information in this

report as representative of the maximum growth rates under field conditions.

Further investi gation of environments similar to North Reef and

Kahuku Effluent l3itch would yield results of growth in what appears to

be optimal growing envi ronments. Qn the other hand, sites similar to

We'eia Fishpond and Kahuku Purge Pond may prove to be adequate for

growth if different techniques are used. Research for a continuous

year should be continued at these and other sites using various techniques.

Finally, an economic and marketing analysis of mariculture of

Gracilaria, beyond the scope of this investigation, should be undertaken.

39

REFEREN "ES

Abbott, I. A. and E. H. Williamson. 1974. Limu: An ethnobotanica1 studyof some edible Hawaiian seaweeds. The Bu'lletin. Pacific TropicalBotanical Garden 4�!: 1-21.

Doty, M. S. 1971a. Measurement of water movement in reference to benthicalgal growth. Botanica Marina 14: 32-35.

197lb. Antecedent event inf'luence on benthic marine a1galstanding crops in Hawaii. Journal of Experimental Marine Biologyand Ecology 6: 161-166.

1973. Farming the red seaweed, Eucheuma, for carrageerans.Micronesica 9�!: 59-73.

Edwards, P. 1977. Seaweeds farms: An integral part of rural developmentin Aisa, with special reference to Thailand, in the InternationalConf nce R al D 1 t Techno

~n ech

Fortner, H. J. The limu eater: A cookbook of Hawaiian seaweeds, UNIHI-SEA GRANT-MR-79-01. Sea Grant Program, University of' Hawaii,Honol ul u. 108 pp.

Hawaii State!. 1978, Aquaculture development for Hawaii: Assessmentsand recommendations. Aquaculture Planning Program, Department ofPlanning and Economic tjevelopmenta Honolulu. 222 pp,

Hoyle, M. D. 1975. The literature pertinent to the red al gal genusGracilaria in Hawaii. Technical Report No. 3, Marine AgronomyProgram, University of Hawaii. 340 pp.

�. «» g i i ~llimu manauea Gracil aria coronogitoli a in Hawaii with special

~ « PhD. Di sse rtati on. Uni vers i ty o f Hawaii� . 418 pp.

Kelly, M. 1975. Loko I'a He'eia: He'eia f'ishpond. Department ofAnthropology, Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii. 61 pp.

Madden, W. D. and C. L. Paulsen. 1977. The potential for mullet andmilkfish culture in Hawaiian fishponds. Department of Planning andEconomic Development, Honolu/u. 54 pp.

Madlener, J. C, 1977. The seavegeatable book. Cl arkson H. Potter, Inc.,Pub1ishers. New York. 288 pp.

Sante< ices, B. 1977. Water movement and seasonal algal growth in Hawaii.Marine Biology 43: 225-235.

Naylor, J, 1976. Production, trade and utilization of seaweeds and seaweedproducts. FAG Fisheries Technical Paper No. 159. 73 pp.

APPENOICES

APPENDIX A

LABORATORY AND FIELD EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES

43

LPBORA'O~Y,A'li'3 FIEI 2 i'",UIPME'lT ~f4& SUP-LIES

Equipment Used to Monitor Fnvironmental Factors

A, Temperature: maximum-minimum thermometers with attaching lines

tie them to bri ks or rocks.

8. Rater motion: clod cards which were taped to solid bricks with

masking tape,

C. Drift measuren3ent. a large cork pai nted i nternationa 1 orange for

easy sighting, a compass, a stopwatch and a iQO m plastic <ape meas u re .

Nutrients analysis: numbered polypropv!ene bottles, svringes,

filters, forceps, holders and holder wrench . A11 equipment exce pt

bottles and filters were kept in a jar of 10% HC1 acid in order to

prevent contamination of water samples. Filters were precombusted to

prevent decontami~at~on of water samples. A cooler with ice wa: use.i

to preserve water samples until placed in a Freezer,

E. Salinity: a portable temperature compensated American optical

refractometer.

II, Equipment Used in Growth Measuremerts

A, Field Equipment

1. Qhaus triple-beam balance.

2. Plywood box with plastic cover and pocket level.

3. Monofilament to tie test thalli to rocks, lines or nettinn or ",o

tie plastic labeling tags tz test thalli.

4 . Huckets to place test thai'li in while ri eaning� .

Inner tubes with plywood bottoms to float test thalli fr<~

experimental growth sites to we',q",i:.g station and '~ack to

perimental growth sites.

6. Clipboards with plastic writing slates and pencils attached

by lines.

III. Equipment Used for the Hiomass Col1ection

A. Field Equipment

Large plastic bags with numbered plastic tags inserted in them,

corresponding to the numbers written on the bags.

2. Four 45 cm stainless steel rings.

3 . Cli pboards wi th plastic writing slates and attached pencils� .

4. Inner tube floats consisting of an inner tube to which a plywood

board bottom was lashed in order to float the plastic bags with

biomass.

5. A large mesh bag and styrofoam cooler to carry all plastic bags

with biomass after the collection.

B. Laboratory Equipment

1. A Nettler balance from which weights of the algal biomass to the

nearest, tenth of a gram could be determined.

2. Pre-cut a1uminum foil with the tared weight recorded on the

pieces for use in holding the algal species as they were weighed,

dryed and reweighed.

3. Felt pens with waterproof ink.

4. Drying boxes to hold the biomass in as it was dryed in a seaweed

dryer.

APPENDIX B

Pa<acSite

North Reef, Coconut Island

He'eia Fishpond

Kahuku Purge Pond


50

66

80

94

47

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AND GROWTH RATE INFORMATION

Tab', 9. »nperature Measuremer,ts at North Reef, Coconut island.

Temperature ', C!

JAmbient-'T 1'!e MaxizuniDate M0 iihmum

June

Ju1y

AugUst

indicates temperature at time of measurement.1/ ambient

2/ "TB" indicates broken thermometer.

3/ NR i fldi c ates not recorded

48

101'l

I7I8

23

2430

7 8151621222930

12IG

18

1926

no. Zm

08:2511:30I;:3009:00

09:00IQ:35

IQ '508:30

08:353NR+hRNR

08: 3508: 30IQ 30

08:3709:30

!NR

NRU8;4509:05

Start34 0

TB26. 529. 0

27.028.0

26.028.028 028. 026. 027. 0Z7 028. 027. G

28. 5

27 027. 528.0

29.028.0

fl 0

":e23.023.0

Z5. 0

24. 0

24 Q?5.026.026.025. 025. 0

25,025. 025. 0

25. 0

25. 0Zr, 5'6. 0

26. 024 0

3].Qp

TB � '26.526.0

26.026.0

26. 026,527. 0Z7.025. '-'

A

26. ~

Z6.026.0

27. 026. "..26.5

27. 027.026.0

CV a V O~ 92

QJCJ

C>

CI

C

I E

49

Table 10. Salinity Measurement at North Reef, Coconut Island.

'l imeOate

June

July

August

1/ 'NR" indicates temperature not recorded.

50

10

17232430

71521

2229

5121826

09:201l:3009:OQ

09:00I II: 35

08:30

NR~~08:3508:30

08:3809:3010:1509:05

35.035.035.034.535.0

35,035.035.035,0

34,0

34.034.035.0

35.0

C>

0e o

0IOVl

CO

Vl

«U cC

CFlP4

ICl

O

O 6!S-O

Date

60.4

48,1

44. 4

49.4

July

40.7

43.8

49.8

August

39.0

48.5

jl "DIF" indicates "diffusion index facto,."

52

Table 1 j.. Diffusion IndexCoconut Island.

10ll

2324

3001

0708

1516

2223

2930

0506

1213

18

19

2627

Factor of Mater Potion at North Reef.,

O O

0 O

CJ0

53

0>Ce oC V

Clll

Cl

>C

U C C O

C5

Table 12, Nutrient Content of Water at North Reef, Coconut Island.

NUTRIENT RESULTS-

June

71521

2229

0.38

0.340.310.500.02

0. 75

1. 40't.20

1.210.45

0.35

4.428,11

12,346.76

July

5121826

0.130.140.200,13

0,420.660.640.45

4.671.121.130,93

August

1/ in begat/1.

Date P04= N03

10 0,22 1.0515 0.30 0,3315 0.25 0.3015 0.28 0.2715 0.28 0.3023 0.31 1,1423 0.34 1,2030 0.77 0.5730 0.50 0.51

NH4+8,030.530.560.630.56

3,474.132.505.30

Table 13. Drift Measurements at North Reef, Coconut Island.

Distance-/Time DirectionDate

June

722

11: 0009:30

July 20.517.1

09:10August 14.9

1/ in meters/minute; average of three values.

2/ one measurement only.

56

10

2430

09:45

09:301'I: 05

16.02/16.514.2

210o SW210o SW200o SW

205o SW270o SW

270o SW

IIICJI

C4h4 O OA

4-<U<D

OC

0

4P

4-

Vl gl4J

eachW 4J Cp 4

M

m Clan

anaD

r

Cl

CQChar!

caaCla

a

an~ Faa 03

lnCl

I

aC4ICOCl

aD

ClaCI

a 'cP

a~ 4'I

a

O 4 4J5 ~

4C AIOVl C

58

4 CV~3O~LI

4OL

4P0 I

L 4p ~O.a

IOVX

H O4p~Ol X

L 4l

V ~g,e

IL C4PO Ia

O

~ I r Ir ~

Pl

CI

P!C4

ClOl

CI

0

0 Cl

CI

CI

ChCIOJ

CI

I0

CICV

00

ClIO

LA

P!

CIC7

CICII

CIIClC!

ChCl

CV

C4Cl

30 5

L 0 I NI

59

C

mj

4J ~

III M~ rMV

0O III4M

~I

L. C

8 0

0

Cl

III wt7 ~

sSIO 4J0 Ct4Vl 0

~ ~ ~

lJ mIII ~

Cl0 Wm 0

C Vl4 wt0

C3: aO V$0

60

P4CO

aCalC!

FaaCJICD

COC!

CalP!IA

CaCOall

CalCIClr

aA

41I4Cl

aClC!

LOCO

Cal

oCO

Cal

O

IClaACi

CalialCl

4l

1Cl,~

4W M

I0L4a

Ca4l I

4VA

C4l0 Ia-

0

Ol44 0 'Cl

4a 4aan In4 4Jl 4

Ol K

4l44 '0

61

Ol CV I

C

0~j e

I441 X

p aa-~ 00 anCLW

4P

~I

0 41 ~Id+JC

tJ Iam 0

~ . ~ . CC

anC

I I

I4 g

c0 0

~ ~

03

IOID

N m

CON

ImCh

ChCO

4JC

4J ~CII II'tQ ~EQ

Ia

62

ei o

ca! o

Cn N! a

r l O03

CIN! PJ

Nl pl

In/ O

o/ o

C CV~

Cl K% V O

om

gl ~CLw

0

SC7Ii% O

O 4J ~lO

IO V

C IOM 0

O

O

O

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' e ~ ~ ~ ~

O O

63

Table 18. Temperature measurement at He'eia Fishpond.

Temper ature C!

Minimum Ambi ent+l3a te Time Maximum

Ju1y

5 14:3012 13:20

August 19 11:3026 10:00

NR

NR26,024.5

26. 0NR

31.026.0

NR

29. 5

ambient indicates temperature at time of measurement.

2/ "NR" indicates not recorded.

3j "TL" indicates lost thermometer.

64

2

8 915162029

12:0012:0014:0014:0013:3513:35

NR

NR

Start30.029.530.0

TLTLTLTL

Start24. 022. 523. 0

TLTLTLTL

28. 022NR

28. 028.0

TLTL

27.0

CF1Vl

OQ.

U

C!L

h$tV 0R.2 4JI

CI 0u

E g mI I

'I QJ

O 4cu

4JE <V

V!

K ItjQJ

LII�

Table j9. Salinity Measurement at He'eia Fishpond.

TimeDate

July

1/ "NR" indicates salinity not recorded.

66

1

81520

29

512

August 1926

12:0002:0013:3511:5712:50

14:3213:2011:1510: 00

32.533.0

32. 033.0

24. 0

31. 035.0

32.0

OC O

OVl

67

DIF-"Date

0102 8.6

0809 CCL2/

Juiy12.6

20

21 14.4

2930

0506 CCL2/

August 1213 14.9

1920 CCL2/

26

27 12.8

1/ "DIF" indicates "diffusion index factor."

2/ "CCL" indicates that clod cards were lost.

68

Tab1e 20. Diffusion Index Factor of Water i'!otion at ke'eia Fishpond.

O O

5 O CJrd

X<D

O'P

4-

C3

C'O >C IaA 4J OD l7 H4 C EJ

LLCl

69

Table 21. Nutrient Content of Hater at He'eia Fishpond.

Nutrient Results- 1/

Date P04

July

5

August 1219

0.180.140.07

0.38 1.600.24 1.420.54 7.05

lj in begat/1.

70

1 0.388 0.34

15 0.3820 0.2929 0.09

N03 NH4+

0,48 2.221, 15 8.940.65 15.062.14 17.600.03 1.07

OJ

O6J

ZJ

0

I

C

71

Icv 4IO 4

a.0

Qn

0CL

'I

rl5

CU

0 0CL

'P

ttf

cQtt-0

cQ

CD

CD

V C GJOJ

rg

Col

C0 00-

3 30

0 W~

refn5

0rg

rg ttlCf! WQ Ch

e > CD] OIgCf

0 wj I�

4P MPV 4-

0

0 O V

O C

K rg

O I�5 rg

rDCh V-Ig 0

X

0

rlfS- K

rg

0

0

LI'I

O r

Iff~ w

~ w tt-0

O V

PJ'S

0 QJ

30

j0 C7l~

4!Dl

CJChQJ L2C ~

3 01 S-Q

<UCU

v! > r5Q

nsCl

Ch SIlP ~

r5 P

3 rO~5

OJ~4

O5-QJ ~

X

W .r

Q! s4

U

~ ~ O ~0

C4 CC

zVl

Q! reE <u

U U QJ3 o

pO4

C0 0

4-o

E O C!Q3

~ I ~ I ~

CO

74

O

a Q

QJ6

O

O

CDC!

C>

C0

4

CQ

O ~

Vi X

C

4

4J .rC r

~ r tgCJ N

4lO 4-

0

a N I r

~ ~r

Or

CJI r

4J M!

O

O ri>

I 4PS-Cl

~I

O'I

'I

Q

4

4Q

C4

0

~ I ~ ~ ~ I

COC3

CV

w .r~ e3 3

0L0

gjJl0 ~M

t5

C5 M

nf C~

0 ~j rOl ~

QJ K

0

0 thCLW

dJ

QJv!

~R

0 ~t5

CPM

COJ

C$ O5

!C

C0

C, P

cn 0

~ ~

C ~QJ ~

~ s tJ

C

O WO 0

~ ~ I I

D

a

W .r3 QP0-S- <U4 II! C R 5J a 0

77

OJCi

QJ ~ C530 5-

Ll M CL

OC0 4

C0

O

CP

fQ

0

O

0

Q]C4- r0 LI

Tabl e 26. Temperature Measurement at Kahuku Purge Pond.

Temperatur e C j

Minimum Ambi en' 1 /MaximumTimeDate

10:24 28.0 25.0

jl ambient indicates temperature at time of measurement.

j2 "NR" indicates not recorded. '

78

8 913l42027

33

August 1018

10: 5010: 5009: 50

NR08:3408:30

12:4316:1512:1515: 00

Start28. 032. 0

NR28.028.0

27. 5Nit

29. 029. 0

Start24. 023.0

NR23. 022. 5

24. 0NR

24. 024. 0

25.025.0

23.5

23.023.5

26.029.025.027.0

Table 27. Salinity measurement at Kahuku Purge Pond.

TimeGate

July

August

25.010:2424

80

813

2027

3

310

18

10:5009:5008:3408:35

13:0516:1512:15

14:30

25. 0

25.025.024.5

25.025.025.026.0

Q VlCJL

o I racr>

C!CV

e 00

tgI/l

81

OIF � ~Date

0809 8.2

13l4 23.9July

2021 28.1

2728

03

04

18. 6

CCL-"

August 10ll 20.1

1819 CCL2~

24ZS CCLZ'

lj "DIF" indicates "diffusion index factor."

Zj "CCL" indicate's that clod cards were lost.

82

Table 28. Diffusion Index Factor of Mater Motion at Kahuku Purge Pond,

O

O

CO

O

C4C>

CICtPJ

0~ acO

VI 12 4J

LL

Ch

CO

IllDl

O <LICh

CL

rG

S-

0 t5X QJO

O

Table 29. Nutrient Content of Water at Kahuku Purge Pond.

Nutrient Results�

Date P04 NO3 NH4+

July

1/ i nougat/1,

8 0.65 1.5513 0.79 4.7120 0,26 2.9827 0.55 5,66

3 1.14 8.32August 3 0.00 0.13

10' 0.22 0.1018 0.04 0.22

24.6509. 'l824. 4011. 80

05,3907,7709.1410. 70

CD

Ch

Pl

0

OJ g

~ yam O

E~~$0 I

xm

O

cjl 2

COfcn&4 O4J ~

XCDm

86

0

E'

hr

O 8

0 8CD}

I t I I

89.

00

C!

CbVC OS

P Pl CO

8oJ a

OJ

C

II5Ol X

vw0

a vQ. 44

0o I

5-<U

4! ~

YgClg

Vl 0

CV<J0

O 0hl Q

~ ~ I ~ ~ ~e ~ ~ I ~

OCL.

~ U

O 0

O~S- rOCg M

PJ

Item

August

10 18

i2.016.0 12.39.0

4.284.48 0.27 3.01

2. 614.07 0.26

0.85 0.97

89

gable 32. Growth of Gracilariaat Kahuku Purge Pond.

Number of positive growthmeasurements of thai ii n!

Average X growth per day x! of n thai 1 i

Standard deviation s!of n thalli

Coefficient of error c! of n thai li

on MonofHament Nets

Date

August

10

Number of positive growthmeasurements of tha11i n! 7.0 6.0 9.315.0

Average I growth per day x! of n thalli 5.7 5.842.539.3

Standard deviation s!of n thalli 5.7 9.9 1.26

Coefficient of error c! of n thalli 1.0 0.50

I' bl II. 9 " h 9 i1 "i ~if 1iat Kahuku Purge Pond.

Vl

C'

~ Q3

S4-Q CL

Q N

CQ M

CV

O'<M n5IQ Cl ~ C5

3e Os-

QJCi COO

91

O Ol CCI N Q ID N R R ~ CI

UE �

O

O

0

I

O CLO O O CJ

Table 34. Temperature Measurement at Kahuku Effluent Ditch.

'c!

Ambient+

Temperature

MinimumMaximumDate Time

Ju1y

3 12:43 27.5August 10 14 00 29 0

18 15:40 29.0

24. 025.023.0

26.027.027.0

24 11.34 29.0 25.0 28. 0

ambient indicates temperature at time of measurement.

Q2 "NR" indicates npt recprded.

8 913142027

NR-

NR09:50

NR09:4409:45

StartNR.

27. 5NR

27. 029.0

Start

NR24.0

NR24.026.0

NR � ~25.025-. 5

NR24. 526.0

Table 35. Salinity Measurement at Kahuku Effluent Ditch.

TimeDate

July

24.011:34

94

8

132027

3

August 1018

ll:0009:5009:4509:45

13:5714:0016;00

26.026.025.0

24.0

25.025.024.0

Q!

OPl C3

95

0 Q0ICI

CC3 'P

r

V!

S

CO I/l

QJ

'I

it/

DIF�Date

33.10809

13

14Ju1y

17.1

2728 25.0

0304 CCL2~

August 1011 26.9

18

19 CCL2~

2425 CCL2~

3 j "DIF" indicates "diffusion index factor."

2/ "CCL" indicates that clod cards were 1ost.

96

Table 36. Diffusion Index Factor of Hater Motion atKahuku Eff1uent Ditch.

0~ ~ X

QJ 02 'U H

4-cv

~ ~ 4C!

97

Table 37. Nutrient Content of Rater at Kahuku Effluent Ditch.

Nutrient Results 1/

Date

July

09.06

07. 5404. 4407.19

3

August 1018

1.650.330.95

1/ in begat/1.

98

813

2027

P04=-

].871.561.211.28

N03=

15.5909.3905.7016.30

NH4+

15.8111,2224,5C20.30

CI

0»IKv

C 0»»

T%IId

'0 C C0»»»Vl 0

g»I 0Ol KV

C0OI%% 0I~ j~II

0 C C C0 OOaa0,»»

C EP A»»0

W OWcJ 0

'D»O'00 O»I»I »I »ICl K@I

Wwlv v%l

»l5 Q 0F l o

L ~0»»0 0V Ol»I 00 C. N w58K

OJI0

04Ol I IIIII I

t»l m Clee IO IIO I0

IO I Cl

I0Q

hl Q

OIV! t ICe 0

0OVOI 0VISgO

»I g

QCI g

0

aorsVI4»kl 5»I 0 0»I C0 00 0iS0

C e»0

4e4» gRg CV

C0

CI~C7

0~ » 0»I~ I»I »»0VI4J8 4t7 kl

000OI0 IVi Ol

i

40Vl Vl 0

Vl Ih

RRw~g

4I C JX0~ I »I »I

Ih g

0I

af a

aCI

0R~

iR

C 0 lI'4 lip4 C C4J %Ml 0

4J

LCIC4PCCII@i 1

L 0D~C~

4

C 4 u c V COWV 0

4IC ay

Ill e I IIII

CIeI 0 0 le Ill01 M lil ~

CV g IOa

Ill Al a

4O V4III4O 4

44 4IIu aC

44 4 III~ t 4V 4J'A 44b

00 ~ IL 4I0

APPENDIX C

BIOMASS INFORMATION

103

CDCDCD

CD

C!

104

C3~ 8

4J

ClCD

EO ICd

C J

O

105

Table 40. Number of Ring Tosses June 10, 1978.

COGPERATIVE GRACILARIA PROJECT BIOMASS SAMPLING NC~ 1

DATE i l0-V I-7S

NUMBER QF RING TOSSES AT EACH SAMPLINC SITE

107

Tab1e 41. Hiomass l3ata June 10, 1978

S1TE: ~~1 gad

OATE; 1O-Vr-7aTGTAL 1!ET AND DRY AEIl~i TS i~Y SPECIE5 y]

108

Table 42. Number of Ring Tosses June 24, 1978

NUNBER QF RING TOSSES AT EACH SAMPLING SITE

CQOPERAT! VE GRACIUR IA PRO JECT

109

BICVXSS SAb;PLING NG~ 2

DATE i 24-V I-78

Table 43. Biomass Data June 24, 1978.

SITE:~~~1 and

DATE: 24- V I- 78TOTAL WET Al'ID DRY WEiGHTS UY SPECIES

110

Table 44. Number of Ring Tosses July 22, 1978.

NUMBER OF RING TOSSES AT EACH SANPLING SITZ

COOPERATIVE GRACILARIA PROJECT BIGKASS SAYiPLING iNQ > 3

DATE t 22-V t I-78

Table 45. Hiomass Oat;a July 22, 1978.

SIT E:~~ peg'

DnvE, 22-V !I-78TDTAL WET AND DRY WELGitTS PY SPEClES

112

Table 46. Number of Ring Tosses August 17, 1978.

COGPKRATTVE CRACILARIA PROJECT

NUMBER OP RISC TOSS

113

BIORLSS SAiliPLING "lUi 4

DATE r 3 9-VI I '-78

Table 47. Biomass Ha+a August 19, 1978.

TOTAL MET AAO ORY WEIGHTS BY SPECIES

314

APPENDIX D

WEEKLY GROWTH MEASUREMENTS

~Pa e

118

Si te

137

153

115

North Reef, Coconut Island

He'eia Fishpond

Kahuku Purge Pond


GRACILARIA GRG~'Th CATA Q, ~rsapastarl s Pots!

',growth;.',9 raw t' ,.growth'.grawtt NewNew

Oata I30-V I30-V I?3-V I-V

78.77I11, 70283,44.2930

02 -26.73 13.97

56. 7 60

43. 57. 3580.1 131.6

40.6 I LOST -5, 7149,960. 1

65.6 LOST 33.1 46.5 4. 97 36.2

-1. 93 35 920. 5

L ST

LOST 46. 536.1 53. 9 2.19

114. 1 199, 7 9.7 409. 6 10. 80 97,

20. 7 LOST 40.641.1 -5. 79?3.5

20.1 LOST

26.1 I 18.5 -5.57

27.5 14. >869.6

27. 3 36.7 4.31

14

8.696. 94

2.99 6.15

0.730.43C

gl 1978

116

COOPERATIVE GRACILARIA RROJECT

40.0 ' 33.6 -2,86

37. 3 LOST

12. 5 -8, 06

35.7 -2.3

29.4 LOST

17. 5 LOST

SITE~re R f Coconut Island

SITE I land

',.'g rowt ,'.growth,u g rowt;.groxti

!late JI 15-V I15-V [I7-V I I7-VI I

-2. 5664.078.77

79.536. 0513. 0 152. 6

32. 0 1.91-1. 95 27. 503 166.2 142. 0

51. 7L0576. 6995.6

147 ' 0 22.33 23.0-4. 829. 343.5

O50.549.9

-2.130 ' 436.2

35.9 59.0 6.4 39.5

54.6 76.1 4.2

4 4 9

9 85.7

7 9 7.5 4.49 57.0103.

289. 35,55

3 7 6. 1163.

35.7 1.741. I 44. -0. 02

71 6

49.36.7 77.0 9.7

34,3 7.461.0

13h

8.038.35

9.939.405

1.241.13

21 1978

117

COOP E RAT I VE G RAC I L RR I A P RO 8 E CT

GRACILAR!A GROWTH DATA G gpgzpzrp<>p/p Pope!

V!

cCI

0. 17

67.5 -2.02 17.0

54.5 0.96

43.5 4.58

59.0 5,14

54.0 -4.20

58. -2.57 39.0

48. -0.15

COOPERATIVE GRAC I LAR I A P ROJ E CT Island

GRACILARIA GAG'w'Tjl CATA G. tursapastoris Pots!

';gr owtl",.'grow tt"..c row t

Oa to 29-VI I29-V I I-V IT 21- V I I

.513 -.97360.2

-4.87 4.7616. 102

32.0 37.6 2.72 25.7 71.5 13.65

33 0 40. 6

11.46 31.0 14.39 48.790.9

-1.39 31.2

-15.82

25. 2

24.8 2.10

. 62843. 0

95,9 11. 10 46. 7

74 83

-1.3357.0 5Z.6 53 9

44,5 90 8

39.0 24. j, 7 71

69.6

28,330.9 1.45

4. 075.16X

5. 314.20

1. 300.8I

1978

CLLalCg

64. 9 65.1

17.0 12.6

23. 0 44. 1

54 40

43.5 40. 0

59.0 21.0

54.0 69.0

41.9 47.2

289. 5 279. 4

63. 8 108

4.17 40.9

2.00 41.3

SITE North Reef - Co on andCOOP ERAT I VE GRAC I L AR I A P ROJ E CT

GRACILARIA GROWTH OATA G. hrrsapastorf s Pots!

Jj 1978

119

R f Coconut IslandCOOP'ERAT IVE "RAC;L !RIA PROJECT SITE

GRAC!LARiA CRDWTI' DATA C ~rsapastprgs Pots!

:gr owth..gr owtf'.! grow C'�qrowttBP

Date 12-V I I 26-VII18-V I I 18-VIII 26-V I I I

95.3 -.986 125.5 4.27 109. 4

85.0 1, 8673.2 17.01

158.8 12.0

35.1 33,5 -.144

24.1 4.Z3 26.3

34.2 4 4 3 4

62.5 115.1 10.71 108.0 27 .9

107.1 103.5 1 .4 48 40 0

120.1 33. 3 19. 25

51.1 57.8 2.07

69,9 132.8 11.29 33.1

29.3 39.8 5.24 789 8 3

32.3 32.4 70 5

23.3 24.4 LOST

250. 1 65.8

33.2 23.2 -5.80 105.8 42.9 -10.67 61.8

28.2 7. 78

30.2 34.4 2.19 29.1 -2.07 107.2

12

5.035.34

2.453.98

.487. 713

gl 1978

120

A ! CI

224.1

P3 91.6

,772 10.7

-6.62 17.8

GRACILARIA GROAT~ .'ATA G. bursapastorgs jfnes!

121

COOPERATI VE GRACILARIA PROJECT

21 j978

SITE North ReefCoconut Island

SITE North ReefCOOPERATIVE GRAClLARIA PROJECT

Coconut Island

GRACIl ARIA GROWTH OATA 8 bgr~~p4sgor]~ l ines}

j] ' 1978

122

SITE, North Reef

GRAC l LARIA GROWTH "ATA g ggg ~ ~ //or[ $ ] peg !


1978

l23

Coconut !sland

BOITE North ReefCOOPERATIVE GRACILARIA PROJECT

Cocanut Island

GRACILARIA GROWTR -"ATA G. bursapastorfs lines !

gl f978

1Z4

SITE North ReefCOOPERATIVE GRACILARI A PROJECT

gl 1978

125

Coconut Island

GRAC! LARI A GROW, I-I .'ATA G. bvrsapastor$s 1 Ines!

5 ITECOOPERATIVE GRACILARIA I'ROJECT

GRACILARIA GROwTH DATA G coro~Dpi fo] $4 potp!

",.qrowtINEW l',grow t.«arowtNEW

Date� I

37.6 40.1 0.921 9433. 5

0 1.31

32. 3 -2.48

24.7 7.9615.6 LOST

21. 5

14. 7

33.4 LOST Z6.9 34.0 3.45

21.9 c.4019,0 LOST

ST

34 7

73. 9:.3660. 6 IZ5.3 7 83

18.9 LOST 24.7 0 T

49. 4

62.6

11.012.0

5. 942. 52

2. 97

0. 500.78

JI 1978

126

C!

?'.

02 183, 5

03 142.2

102.9 -9.19

143 0.94

24.0 '.85

16.1 1. 53

43. 7 -2. 02

75.2 3,10

193, 7 9,45

58. 7 -11. 94

34. 5 5. 32

26.1 7,14

6. 8 -23. 3

58. 5 -3. 5

GRAC!LARIA GROWTH OAYA G tp~�pp! fpf$g pptg!

COOPERAYI'!E GRACILARIA PROJECT

Jl 1978

S ITE

GRACILARIIA GRO<H 'ATA G. caroriop<to I fa I'pots!

COOPERATIVE GRACILARIA PRO<'ECT

JI 1978

128

SITE ~Is 1 a nd

SITE North Reef coconut IslandCOOPERATIVE GRAC!LARIA PROJECT

GRACILARIA GRO'4TH OATA G, coronopffol fa Pots!

»9rowt NEfl»9rowt NE'!l

IA-V II I

1.47 67.4

3.73 139.2

'..52 5&.7

-6. 78 108. 9

,672 42.8

.454 53.1

Oate I 12-VII!

46. 4

235. 5

27.7

50. 6

33. 2

29.6

30.4

105. 5

50.2

99.6

24. 7

19. 5

36. 7

160 5

72.9

57. 7

37.2

30.1

47. 4

jl 1978

IQ-VI I

45. 2

?93,4

92.0

53.1

32. 4

32.4

122. 2

103.5

21.0

20. 3

36. 8

67. 8

78.6

30. I

28.4

72 5

t 3

-.436

22. 15

-2. 71

,532

i.'. 48

-:.'. 32

.642

-2.67

-1. 20

5. 29

3 49

-. 964

12. 0

3. 99

1.53

53.5

39.8

129

»gl OW't

26- VI I I

7.9

50,8

164.8

96.3

57. 9

LOST

37,6

' LOST

119. 8

22. 7

124,0

59. 7

58.4

88 0

37. 2

36. 2

-27.91

2. 13

.572

1. 09

-4.79

-.320

2.28

4.25

1.20

4 68

3 31

2.68

3. IO

12;0

2.39

1. 27

.531

6-V I I!

4 1

37.?

104. 7

101. 2

;.gr owth

GRACILARIA GRGATH GATA G. coronopifo1fa �$nes!

COOPERATIVE GRACIl.ARIA PROJECT

gl 1978

130

SITE North ReefCoconut EsIand

5ETE North Reef

GRACIL~RLA GRG'~T:.I "./ET@ G. coronopffolfa lfnes!

CWPERATIVE ERACiLARIA PROJECT

131

Coconut Es1and

COOP E RAT I 'i E GRAC I EAR I A P RC J E CT SITE North ReefCoconut Is av

GRACILARIA GROl~'TH DATA G. coronaplfolfa I <nes}

9 l978

132

COOPERAT I VE GRAC I LAR I A PROD'E CT

GRACI LARIA GROw'TH 0ATA Q. coronop1fol ha � Ines!

",',gr awti ".grcwt."~rowtt

CL Datel/ 29-VII I 5-VII 5-VI I 12-VI I 2-VIII

32.2 9.37

-.48311,6

03 12.5e I l9,0 10.1 -8;14 10.114.9 lost5.9e 8.5

17,9e 28.8 4,7830. 5

18.2 25,3 33,04.82 22.0 5.96

13. 9e 3.04

25.0 29.7 17,4 -7.04

lost -1.209.9

6.9 6. 30 10. 524.5 13.9 8.7

8.0 5.0n =

6.23 6.73

4.14 3.145

0.67

gl 1978

133

IQ

04

23.1 23,6

02 17,1e 15.4

,306 17,2

48 12.0

6.16 'l8.3

'4.15 10,8

7.03 22.0

8.62 9.0

2.49 29,0

North Reef

Coconut Island

COOPERATIVE GRACiLAR! ' PRO'EC, SITE

GRACILARL A GRQWTiI QATA 6, comnophfolha � 1nes!

21 1978

134

SITE

GRACILARIA GRQWTt-I CATA G. bursapastorfs

,.growtt New,',growth.vgrowtt

Oate15-VII8-VII 15-VI I

-6. 7617.8 16,0

16.9I -0.817.002 14. 1

9.2 LOST 6.7 . 6576.403

11. 1 LOST 8.4 16.6 10. 22

-6. 8717.0 18.6 1.3 11.3

ZO. 2 LOST 9 3

10. 2 LOST 12.5 8.4

LOST10. 5 8.8 5.3

15,3 LOST 9.0 14.2 6.73

13.9 -0.114.0 20. 4C' ~

7.6 -10.917.0 5.913.1 LOST 6.3 LOST

11.5 LOST 9.3 -5.636.2

9.8 13. 5 4.7

22. 8 1.9

5.9 -11.15

20. 0 16. 0LOST

LOST2.0 1. 311.0

-6.4511,6L.618.516,6

17.4 15.2 - l.9 13. Z

7.810.0 LOST 9.3

:l. 9 4.46

1.42 3.74

0.75 0.84

f1 1978

135


"'Orowtt Net

8-VI I

-5, 52

-6. 99

COOP E RAT I Yf GRAC I I.ARI A PROJECT

GRACILARiA GRC'"TH GATA g ~p~pggt;gy jg

gl 1978

136

SITECOOPERATIVE GRAC ILARI A PROJECT

GRACILARIA GRCMTTT OATA G. bursapastori s

19-V I I I "�,g row t Hew 9m» tb'growt .,growth

Oate1 5 VIII IZ-V I I I12-V! II 19-VI! I 19-VI II

17 4

9.1

16. 7 2.3414.2

! '1911.69.9

14,6 -2,035. 2620.9 18. 1

5.0 17'7 11. 2

18. 7 22.3 2 87

".2812 o 10. 9 -3. 61

17.7 6,23-!>. 7116.9

26. 5 t 59

31.3 Z. 46

14.4 ,3143 Tl.h 12. 7 -1. 78

19.1 24.1 ='. 38 21.1 . 188

18.5 1.7416. 4

18,114,3 13.3,42

26.0 1. 21 25.9 -,55023,9

20.1 .50819. 4 13.6 -5.43

0812.4 TB.S

20. 9 21.6 . 47

3.39 6.23x

3. 88 0. 00S

'I. I5 0. 00

jl 1978

137

02 15,4

03 15. 1

20,7

26.4

18.5 2.65

13.0 -2.12

87

-4, 97

10. 0 -7. 06

9.9 -2.24

1' 1. 9 14. 28

21.7 - .704

23.3 -1.82

25.2 -3.0S

17.6 - .710

7. 8 -7. 34

13.7 -4.20

13,9 -6.10

CQOPf RAT IVf GRACILPRIA r'iQ~f Ci

GRAC ILARI A GROW'T:-I GRATA G. bursapastorf s

21 1978

GRACILARIA GROWTH CATA G. coronopIfolIa

COOPERATIVE Gvac,'I Anl PRCJECT

1978

139

SITE Heefa 41

CQGPERAT1VE ~RAClLARIA PROJECT SITE Heeia ¹I

GRACI LARIAT "oRQNTII L'A 3 r ~~yqop! f01 f y

1978

SITE Heeia f2

Fish net si te

GRACILARIA GRDWTjl DATA G. coronop ifoli a

jl ow, I',~" row t,,growtl

12-VI I I 19-V I I I 19-V>I

-2.46 13.3 12. 1 -1, 34

13.2 -1.24

-2.21 14.7 9.7

.422 13.1 lost 19.2

13.7 19,28.2

28 8 28.3

1.77 31.6

7.14. 13 6.0

~ 4. 89 12.0 10.6

2.36

14.2.585 12.8 S.D

.817 20.024. 4

7.212.0

13. 3 - 5.66~ 3. 25

2.06.0

3,9851.9

1.3 3.06

0.7750.69

ji 1978

141

COOPERRT I VE GREC iLnRN PROJECT

- .769 26,0

-6.46 13.5

2.21 18.9

2,05 9.5

-4.00 11.9

2.61 15,3

29.5 I.B2

13.3 - ,213

28.7 6.15

6.8 -4.66

8.4 ,-7.68

16.4 1-5.95

-7. 07

- .250

-16.67

- 4.77

- 2.17

-12,57

- 1.49

,B6

- 3.41

COOP E RAT I 't:. u RAC I LA rt I A P 9 O J E C T

GRACILARIA GRO'2TH CATA G g!~p!!ppffpI

1978

142

g rowtI NE'A'.,',growth HEM s', grow t.' ,.'growthIH ITIA

Oate 20-V I I 20-VI13-V I I8-VI I

-4.6423. I 14.5 -8.89

6,17 20.202

5.0.80703

-8. 50 5.5 -9.54

-3.40 13.5 3.52

-6. 75 25. 9

-1,94 -5.319.928.2 26.5 -1,23 32.0 2,73 5,4

-3. 46 -5.339.2 7.6-5.97 -2,2511. 6

10. 3 LOST

-9. 71 7.8

16.5 10.9 -7.96 18. 222.2 9, 7 15.26 10.0 . 436

-4. 69 LOST

-3.03 -1. 12

-3.46 12.6 l. 31

-3.079.0 7.7 -3. 975.8

3. 394. 86

2. 302. 70

O. 68Q. 56

gl 1978

143

COOP'ERATI VE GRACILARIA PROJEC.

GRACILARIA GRGWTH DATA G grgepggtprgg

25.8 34.8

5.7 8.4

l7 3 11.1

13.0 10.6

9.5 6.7

16. 0 14. 5

16.1 13.5

18.5 13,6

11.3 LOST

18.0 10.8

10. 3 8,1

7.7 6. 6

9,7 11,5

21 I 28 7

SITE Kahuku: Pur e Pond Itl

-7.48

-7.14

SITE Kabuki: Pu e Porl4 k'1COOPERATIVE GRACILARIA PROJECT

G. tursapastorksuiViCi LARIAT GROWTH DATA

D«~ 1 0-VI I 27-VI I

-8.5610.8

-11.37

36. 2

7.6

10. 4

15. 7

7.7

7 7

9.1

16. 8 -10.60

15. 9

gl 1973

02

03

13

20. 2

5.0

5.5

13.5

25.9

5.4

11.6

7.8

10.0

LOST

6,1

12.6

5.8

36,7

5

7.0

,<Ir Oi;t.j

4. 92

.258

90

-3. 71

4.58

4.42

5 5

-1. 34

.901

4. Bl

4. 37

0. 91

27-VI I

27.7

17,2

27.3

24,3

12,0

16. 7

18.7

6.1

14. 6

15.4

61. 1

18. 2

144

»OVQlvti

3-V I I I

LOST

11. 7

13. 5

LOST

19. 9

LOST

I4,9

LOST

20.4

LOST

8.9

5.9

LOST

LOST

6.0

70.7

20.5

.I 1'u'.v 'i. I

-17. 70

-8. 19

-6.75

2.90

-10.06

-. 475

-15.34

-13. 68

2.

1.72

3. 54

3,58

1. 01

COOPERATIYE GRACILARfA PROSPECT SITE

llew " rowtn'jew,".grow l '9 rowtt.,grow tI

Oate 1 18-V11I10-V I I 18-V I I0-

0,0116.516.2 23.3 5.33

lost5.702

12.103 6 1 12.0 -1.4311.22 3.5

15.7 26.4

15. 9 28.5

7.71 0,0216. 3

15.88.70 18. 5 0. 20

12.0 23.2

12.8 14.9

7.1 -0.1016. 7

-0. 5218. 9 12. 3 8.62 2

E IQ5-

25.0 45.6

13.5 1G.5

16.

7.3 11.4 O. 574. 60

19.3 34.3

40.0 lost

13.3 14.9

7.2 13.8

8.6 17.8

-0. 67 29.18.56 32.5

-0.9710. 6 4,7 3.9

0.16 8.5

0.97 9.1 16.44.4

1.10 9.6 -0.74 9.2

10.8 l7.6

10.4 15.3

14. 90. 73 20. 5 0.41

0.57 9.7 4.6 23. 7-0.89

11.5 14,9 15.3-1.025.4 O. 03

11.3 lost 11.8 0.54

16.2 27.7 O.GO 14.4 -O.OG f2.6

C!

Ch

7.8 9.1 0.22 -0,23

16

0. 274. 48

O. 264.07

0.970.85

1978

145

GRACILARIA GRC'2TH OATA G- bursapastor1 s

gr owtt"9rowtt ;.' grow t t New �,gr ow

Date I 24-VII18-VIII 18-VIII 24-V I I I

12.6 -4. 3916. 5

28. 5 37.9 4.8702

4. 3 3.49

16. 6

7.1 L OST

8.6 12.6 6.5712.3

16. 220.1

11.4

32.5 29. 1C' ~

4.4 16.4 24.5 6.92

9.6 9.2 9.8 1.06

20.5

4.6 23,7

15.3

18. 0

13. 5 12.6

12. 0

4.28X

2,61S

. 610

jI 1978

146

COOPERATIVE GRAC!LARI ' PROJECT

GRACIL»R-'A GRD'ATl! DATA G. bursapastori s

Ill

C

rd

SITE~~ e Pond 42

7.3 12.80

20.0 1.31

24.2 6.92

9.6 i -2.82

31.4 1.28

3.0 -4.28

9.9 2.57

20.0 -.411

38.4 8.38

21.2 5.59

9.8 -9.64

COOPERATI VE GRACIEARIA PROJECT

GRACILARLA GROWT';I CATA g. u>ronopifol fa

9 row tI.,', rowtI ".growth

Oate � 8-VII120-YII13-Y!I 13-VII ZO-VII

13.8 -15.136.3 . 43.502

03 -,88-4 06

.09

-8 77

36. 0

17.6

28.128.08.1 17.1 -6.80

8.1 5.0 -9.2 3.2 -6.1

14.7 LOST7.8 LOST

13.6 13. 7 15.1 1.40

10.3 -22,51 8.7 -2.318.117.8 .33 5.8 -15.

6 9.016.9 -5.90 16.3 -.5122.9

-1.44IO.

1.9

10. 58 0. 72

0.381.33

JI 1978

C!

H

41.6 2. 93

28.5 10.12

11. 7 -4.46

6.8 -Z. 7

SITE Kahvku Pur e Pond

5,4 -7. 04

8 -6 27

20,6 -9.55

12. 3 -11. 31

4 6 -6.01

3. 7 -13. 96

COOPERRTI VE GRACILARIA PROJECT

GRACILARI A GRO'w'T9 .GRATA G, gprr!happ I fp I Iz

1/ 1978

148

SITE

GRACILARIA GRG4iTx CA A G. ooronopffo1fa

�growti , gr uw tel,. 9row t, ';9r owtNew

Cate1 3-VI! I 10-VIII 10-V I! I 18-VII! 18-VII

30. 5 -1. 46-. 16534,334. 7

48. 71ost-'1 .0346.550.002

57.813.09.0 2.9003

-. 28217.526.621 .3

-3. 32'12.916.916.4

18.86.16 18.223.715.6

3. 3019.2'15.3

23. 0'1.7224.021.3

15,9049.515.2 I. 33

12. 9 15.6 -4. 94

lost28.3 28.2 30.8

11.7 3.189 4 22.2 27.49 27. 0

25.5 42. 4 7.53 20. 3 -8.80LLJ

16. 2 15.6 . 538 -1. 7913.5

-1.6812.714.3 8.8 -4.48

'18. 55 1ost6.2

28. 9 36.3 3.31 4.72

13.5 44.2 ", 8.46

35.0 35 8

5.7 9.3

5.7 9.9

C = 1.0

1/ 1978

149

COOPERATIVE GRACILARI' PROJECT

ID

~ C

5,39 46.0

3. 23 17. 9

-6.62 24.4

- ,531

COOPERATE'iE GtRACILARtA PROJECT

GRACtLARtA G HG'~TH GA A Q pppppppffpffp

gl l978

COOPERATiVE GRACILAR'A PROJEC SiTE Kahuku Ditch

GRACLLARIA GRGWTH DATA G. bursapas tor1s

COGPERAT I'lE GRACILARIA PROJECT Kahuku Dftch

GRACILARIA GROHH DA A G. bur:apastorls

COOPEPATI YE GRACII ARIA PROJEC

GIMCI I ARIA GRGl~'Ti .ATA G. bunapastoris

gl 1978

1S4

GRACILARIA GROWTH OATA G. coronopkfol la


gl 197S

155

SITE Kahuku Oftch

COOPE RAT I YE GRACI LARI A 8 RQvE CT

GRACILARIA GROWTH OATA G gprpppp1fp11g

JI 197G

CGOPERAT! VE GRACILARIA PROJECT SITE

".qrpwt! "growt growthDate 1 3-VIII 18-VII!10-V! I! 0-VIII

18. 77.0 LOST02

30. 6 2. 71

25.9 26.2 . 164

30.3 -4.62

32. 1 3.33

27 0 -1.23

24.7

42.2 29.8

4,6 -8.99

25,2 -2.32

11.6 12.5 . 93829. 7 31.5 2.82

7.3 11. 0 6.03 10. 1 -1. 06

34. 9 -2. 91

9.8 -2.38

7. 5 -11. 54

35. 7 5. 16

42.9 53. 5 5.49

13.1 -2.4011.6 15. 9

17.7 2.8625.1 8.6 -16.30

ZZ.S 30.6 4.29

15.7 1.86

23.5 36.1 5,51

15,1 -.485

33.8 2.7328.0 45,1 3.67

2 5 -3.22 21. 7 LOST 18.0

1. 7833.4 37.8 36.7 -. 36

44,6 41.3 -1.09

17.1 -2.2148.6 2. 06

20,0 12.6

9.0 9;0

- 3,02 2.06

1.98 3.27S

1.59.656

JI ' 1978

157

GRAC! LAR IA GROWTH DATA G oorppopf fp11a

GRACILARIA GROWTH DATA G. caranopffol fa

COOPERATIYE GRACILARIA PROJECT

I j 1978

158

SITE

i.W. Hunt, R.Y. ito, A. 7irI:er, L:.A. Birch, D.L. Norton ... · PDF fileEnvironmental Factors...

Documents

Transcript of i.W. Hunt, R.Y. ito, A. 7irI:er, L:.A. Birch, D.L. Norton ... · PDF fileEnvironmental Factors...