Poster abstracts and manuscripts from the Third International ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

22 first two time points for each region. Power was calculated for the different sampling frequencies and number of survey units and tabulated. Ribic, Christine, Heidi Lovett and Ginnie Gottshall A Pilot Project for Detecting Trends in Marine Debris Along the East Coast of the United States Department of-the Interior, National Biological Survey, Madison, Wisconsin, USA The USEPA Office of Water has decided to implement pilotstudies to detect changes in trends of litter in the aquatic environment due to the implementation of legislation. The ideal question to answer is, "Has the legislation reduced the amount of floating litter in U.S. waters?" This question is probably not answerable directly due to the problems of sampling in the aquatic, environment. Therefore, the question was reformulated as, "What is the trend in aquatic floating litter as reflected by the trend in the amount of litter that is on the nation's lands adjacent to waters of interest?,, The approach used, here is to use indicator survey units, defined as land areas adjacent to surface waters of interest that have large amounts of litter on them, and sample these units over. time.' For water quality trend surveys, one general approach is to establish a few survey units and intensively sample the units uniformly over time. The actual number of survey units is usually dictated by economic considerations. In this program, the suggested survey periodicity was once a month for five years. Sites in New Jersey and Maryland were considered. The Center for Marine Conservation (CMC) picked one survey unit in New Jersey and one in Maryland and conducted surveys approximately every 28 days (range 27-30 days for New Jersey). The New Jersey survey site successfully completed a year and a half of surveys. The Maryland site, during the first survey year, was impacted by severe winter storms that washed the beach away. The site was also used by nesting seabirds. This resulted in noncomparability of data (due to the major changes in beach structure) and missing data (due to the nesting birds). The analysis presented here is an example of the types of analyses that can be done with the data. The data were rewritten into CMC general categories. We considered total debris and total debris by source (ocean, land, unknown). Ocean-source waste was divided into galley, operations and commercial wastes categories. Land-source waste was divided into sewage and medical wastes. Each survey was assigned to a season (spring, summer, autumn or winter) using the usual
23 demarcations for the seasons (March 21, June 21, September 21 and December 21). An average of 405 pieces of debris (s.d.=178) were found on the survey units; an average of 18 pieces (s.d.=ll) were oceansource, 9 pieces (s.d. =8) were land-based and 378 pieces were unknown-source (s.d.=171). The unknown-source debris predominated in all surveys. In addition, there is a strong linear relationship between the amount of unknown-source debris and total debris, not seen with the other debris sources. Pearson correlations were 0.998 for unknown-source versus total debris, 0.284 for land-source versus total debris and 0.507 for ocean-source versus total debris. Seasonally, there was little difference in total debris, with means ranging from a low of 386 pieces of debris in the summer to a high of 421 pieces in the autumn. The high amount of variability in the counts within a season resulted in an overlap of the distributions between the seasons. Ocean-source debris was found consistently on every survey. The means ranged from a low of 12 pieces in the summer (s.d.=6) to 24 pieces in the spring (s.d.=14). The seasonal variability was high with winter having more extreme observations than the other seasons. Total ocean waste was divided into three source categories: galley, operations and commercial wastes. Commercial wastes followed the total ocean source pattern more closely than galley and operational wastes. Land-source debris was found consistently on every survey at relatively low levels. The means ranged from a low of 4 pieces in the summer (s.d.=3) to 14 pieces in the autumn (s.d.=lO). The seasonal variability was high with the most variability found in the spring and autumn. Total land waste was divided into two source categories: sewage and medical wastes. Sewage waste followed the total land-source pattern more closely than medical waste. Medical waste was found sporadically throughout the surveys with no discernable pattern. Sabourenkov, Eugene The Distribution and Types of Beached Marine Debris in the Antarctic Convention for the Conservation of the Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), Hobart, Tasmania, Australia Over the last several years CCAMLR has adopted and implemented a set of steps to monitor and evaluate the impact of anthropogenic debris and waste on marine living resources in the Convention Area including periodical survey of beaches and seal and penguin colonies near coastal stations for marine debris. Marine debris
Page 1 and 2: NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC
Page 3 and 4: NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC
Page 5 and 6: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Special thanks to
Page 7 and 8: INTRODUCTION During the early 1970s
Page 9 and 10: Sunday. May 8 Monday. May 9 3 PROGR
Page 11 and 12: 5 0930-1000 - J.E. Winston, M.R. Gr
Page 13 and 14: Thursday, May 12 1330 - 1330-1345 -
Page 15 and 16: 1100-1145 - Session IV: Working Gro
Page 17 and 18: 13 SESSION I POSTERS Amounts, Types
Page 19 and 20: this might imply the early success
Page 21 and 22: 17 set is made, information on the
Page 23 and 24: 19 of the Mackinac Straits in north
Page 25: 21 "What sample size and sampling f
Page 29 and 30: 25 Tsubata, Hideki and Masahiro Mor
Page 31 and 32: 27 little understood. Most stranded
Page 33 and 34: Baba, Norihisa 29 SESSION II POSTER
Page 35 and 36: Cliff, Geremy, Sheldon Dudley and P
Page 37 and 38: Matsumura, Satsuki, Norihisa Baba,
Page 39 and 40: 35 pellet. The only drawback with s
Page 41 and 42: 37/38 contained little except plast
Page 43 and 44: Topping, Paul 40 National Marine Pl
Page 45 and 46: Adcock, Walter 43 SESSION IV POSTER
Page 47 and 48: 45 Bortman, Marci L. and R. Lawrenc
Page 49 and 50: 47 international pilot in 1988, the
Page 51 and 52: 49 were predominantly present as sm
Page 53 and 54: 51 translate this awareness into ef
Page 55 and 56: 53 sources include commercial fishi
Page 57 and 58: 55 The four year survey was designe
Page 59 and 60: Snyder, John Techniques for Prevent
Page 61 and 62: These facts underscore the need for
Page 63 and 64: Zilligen, Jil and Barbara Miller Sa
Page 65 and 66: Bruner, Ronald 64 Eliminating Plast
Page 67 and 68: 66 gained during this USEPA funded
Page 69 and 70: 69 SESSION VI POSTERS Sources of Ma
Page 71 and 72: 71 limits during the Soviet Union e
Page 73 and 74: O'Hara, Kathy Marine Debris Outreac
Page 75 and 76: POSTER MANUSCRIPTS THIRD INTERNATIO
Page 77 and 78:
78 Materials and Methods We conduct
Page 79 and 80:
80 accumulation place of marine deb
Page 81 and 82:
Table 1. Outline of sighting survey
Page 83 and 84:
Baba, Norihisa 85 SESSION II POSTER
Page 85 and 86:
87 Characteristics of entangled fur
Page 87 and 88:
89 Scheffer,V.B. 1950: Growth layer
Page 89 and 90:
91 Table 2. Biological Data of Fur
Page 91 and 92:
93 Teas, Wendy G. and Wayne N. Witz
Page 93 and 94:
Plotkin, P. and A. F. Amos. 1988. E
Page 95 and 96:
Mr. William Bailey, Program Manager
Page 97 and 98:
Mr. Diego Diaz-Martin, Biologist FU
Page 99 and 100:
Ms. Dana Kubinski Researcher, Litte
Page 101 and 102:
Mr. Rodney Paterson, SNR Advisor En
Page 103 and 104:
Ms. Anne Smrcina, Education- Coordi
Page 105:
108 Mr. Steve Wise 110 Crest Ann Ar
show all

Poster abstracts and manuscripts from the Third International ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?