Download
1 / 6
60 likes | 241 Views
Figure. An area of normal coral coverage (left) with several species of coral including live P. compressa compared to a “dead zone†(right) characterized by low coral coverage, high coverage of standing but dead skeleton and P. compressa rubble.
E N D
Figure. An area of normal coral coverage (left) with several species of coral including live P. compressa compared to a “dead zone” (right) characterized by low coral coverage, high coverage of standing but dead skeleton and P. compressarubble.
Figure . Eighteen transects (yellow) were selected stratified by condition based on mapping component. Transects were relocated every 1.5 months for observation of colonies.
Figure . A Poriteslobatacolony in August 2011 (left) lost ~25% of its surface area by November 2011 (center). Tissue loss was associated with turf algal competition (right).
Figure . Maps of condition (left), percent coral coverage (center), and ratio of live to dead P. compressa (right).
Figure . An area of normal coral coverage (left) and an example of a “dead zone” (right) characterized by lower coral coverage, fewer larger colonies, and higher coverage of P. compressarubble and skeleton.
Figure . Maps produced through Getis-Ord cluster analysis. Low GiZ score (blue) represent areas of significantly clustered low values of coral coverage (left) and P. compressarubble coverage (right) and high GiZ scores (red) represent areas of significantly clustered high values of coral coverage (left) and P. compressarubble coverage (right).
