FEB Growth Experiments

Contact by email preferred.

Retired

Contact by email preferred.

Retired

Retired

Gulf Of Mexico

Table 1. Mean growth rates (TL, biomass) and sediment contaminant levels (PAH, Alkanes) measured in each mesocosm during May 2011 brown shrimp experiment. Missing growth data are for mesocosms where no experimental shrimp were recovered.

This Table is for paper: Rozas, L. P., T. J. Minello, and M. S. Miles. 2014. Effect of Deepwater Horizon oil on growth rates of juvenile penaeid shrimps. Estuaries and Coasts 37:1403-1414. 

Table 2. Mean growth rates (TL, biomass) and sediment contaminant levels (PAH, Alkanes) measured in each mesocosm during August 2011 white shrimp experiment. Missing growth data are for mesocosms where no experimental shrimp were recovered.

Table 2 is from paper: Rozas, L. P., T. J. Minello, and M. S. Miles. 2014. Effect of Deepwater Horizon oil on growth rates of juvenile penaeid shrimps. Estuaries and Coasts 37:1403-1414. 

Table 3. Comparison of mean (+/-SE) recovery rates for experimental shrimp among five oiling levels (Heavy, Moderate, Light, Very Light, None) and two Food levels (No Food Added, Food Added). Data were derived from field experiments conducted in May 2011 for brown shrimp and August 2011 for white shrimp. Each mean was derived from 5 samples. ZR = number of mesocosms with zero recovered shrimp.

Table 3 is from paper: Rozas, L. P., T. J. Minello, and M. S. Miles. 2014. Effect of Deepwater Horizon oil on growth rates of juvenile penaeid shrimps. Estuaries and Coasts 7: 1403-1414. 

Table 4. Comparison of mean (+/-SE) daily shrimp growth rates as % body wet weight d-1 among five oiling levels (Heavy, Moderate, Light, Very Light, None) and two Food (No Food Added, Food Added) treatment levels. Data were derived from field experiments conducted in May 2011 for brown shrimp and August 2011 for white shrimp. Each growth rate mean was derived from 5 samples (except brown shrimp, where Heavy Food = 4 samples, Light Food = 4, None, Food added = 4, None, No Food added = 4; white shrimp: Light Food = 4, Light, No Food added = 3, None, Food added = 4), and each sample was determined by calculating mean growth rate of experimental shrimp recovered from a field enclosure.

Table 4 is from paper: Rozas, L. P., T. J. Minello, and M. S. Miles. 2014. Effect of Deepwater Horizon oil on growth rates of juvenile penaeid shrimps. Estuaries and Coasts 37:1403-1414. 

Table 5. Comparison of mean (SE) infaunal prey (annelids, crustaceans, total) biomass as mg dry weight 78.5 cm-2 among five Oiling (Heavy, Moderate, Light, Very Light, None) and between two Food treatment levels (No Food, Food Added). Each mean was estimated from 20 or 100 pooled sediment core samples collected prior to initiating May and August 2011 shrimp growth experiments at each Oiling and Food treatment level, respectively. ANOVA results (p values) are given for main effects of Oiling level and Food Treatments, and Oiling level X Food Interaction.

Table 5 is for paper: Rozas, L. P., T. J. Minello, and M. S. Miles. 2014. Effect of Deepwater Horizon oil on growth rates of juvenile penaeid shrimps. Estuaries and Coasts 37:1403-1414. 

Supplemental material to journal article contains figure 1 with two bar graphs.

Bottom graph is mean growth rate of white shrimp in mg per day-1 vs oiling treatment (a qualitative comparison of oil concentration in sediments). Comparison of growth rates where extra food is or is not added to the mesocosm.

Bottom graph is mean growth rate of brown shrimp in mg per day-1 vs oiling treatment (a qualitative comparison of oil concentration in sediments). Comparison of growth rates where extra food is or is not added to the mesocosm.

These graphs are for paper: Rozas, L. P., T. J. Minello, and M. S. Miles. 2014. Effect of Deepwater Horizon oil on growth rates of juvenile penaeid shrimps. Estuaries and Coasts 37:1403-1414.

Vol. 394: 179–193, 2009

Methids sections describes lineage

After sample collection, field data were entered into an Excel spreadsheet or database file (DBF) using database manager software. A text file was created to describe these data and associated variables. Entered data were checked against the field sheets by two biologists to minimize entry errors. Samples were processed in the laboratory, sorted, specimens identified and measured, and information was entered into an Excel spreadsheet or DBF file. Files were printed out and compared against original data sheets by two biologists for data entry errors. Corrections were made at this time, the electronic file was saved, and a back-up copy made. Hard copies of the QCd files were printed and stored in the project folder along with the original field and laboratory data sheets. The electronic file was also sorted and examined by the Lab Supervisor or other project personnel in a variety of ways to look for outliers, missing data, and other potential errors. Verified data files were then saved electronically on the Galveston Laboratory server and backed-up as needed.