Wooden panels were located near the surface and at 4.6 m at five stations in central Chesapeake Bay near the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant from 1970 to 1980 to sample the epifaunal community. Fifty-six taxa were identified, but five species consistently accounted for 80–90% of the biomass. These five dominants included a colonial hydroid, two ectoprocts, a barnacle, and a tube-building amphipod. Organisms set from April to December, but both species numbers and biomass peaked in summer, and both showed significant correlation with temperature. Surface biomass peaked in June at 118 g·m−2, 2 months earlier than at the bottom (119 g·m−2). Monthly biomass averaged 49.6 g·m−2 at the surface and 50.9 g·m−2 at the bottom. Highest biomass values were recorded for bottom panels in the discharge of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. Ratios of ash-free biomass to total dry weight were lower for bottom panels than for surface panels because of greater coverage of bottom panels by barnacles.


Surface Panel Cove Point Plant Discharge Patuxent River Estuary Colonial Hydroid 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Abbe GR and Yates WL Jr (1979) Submerged substrate studies on the Patuxent River, 1977. Rept No. 79-26: for the Potomac Electric Power Company. PA: Acad Nat Sci Phila: 26 PP.Google Scholar
  2. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (ANSP) (1969) Submerged substrate studies, Patuxent River, Maryland. Progress Report I, 1968, for the Potomac Electric Power Company. PA: Acad Nat Sci Phila: 19 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Calder DR and Brehmer ML (1967) Seasonal occurrence of epifauna in Hampton Roads, Virginia. Int J Oceanol Limnol 1:149–164.Google Scholar
  4. Cory RL (1967) Epifauna of the Patuxent River estuary, Maryland, for 1963 and 1964. Chesapeake Sci 8(2):71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Daugherty FM Jr (1961) Marine biological fouling in the approaches to Chesapeake Bay. Washington, DC: Tech Rept 96: US Navy Hydro Office: 40 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Hillman RE (1975) Environmental monitoring through the use of exposure panels. In: Salia SB (ed) Fisheries and energy production: a symposium. Lexington, MA: D C Heath: pp. 55–76.Google Scholar
  7. Marcus E (1972) Note on some opisthobranch gastropods from the Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Sci 13(4):300–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Otsuka CM and Dauer DM (1982) Fouling community dynamics in Lynnhaven Bay, Virginia. Estuaries 5:10–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Schubel JR, Carter HH and Cronin WB (1977) Effects of Agnes on the distribution of salinity along the main axis of the Bay and in contiguous shelf waters. In: Ruzecki EP (ed) The effect of tropical storm Agnes on the Chesapeake Bay estuarine system. CRC Publ No. 54. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins: pp. 33–65.Google Scholar
  10. Sutherland JP and Karlson RH (1977) Development and stability of the fouling community at Beaufort, North Carolina. Ecol Monogr 47:425–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Thorson G (1964) Light as an ecological factor in the dispersal and settlement of larvae of marine bottom invertebrates. Ophelia 1:167–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Visscher JP and Luce RH (1928) Reactions of the cyprid larvae of barnacles to light with special reference to spectral colors. Biol Bull (Woods Hole) 54:336–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wass ML (1965) Check list of the marine invertebrates of Virginia. Spec Sci Report No. 24. GloucesterPoint: Virginia Inst Mar Sci: 58 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • George R. Abbe

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations