This dataset consists of one data file (spreadsheet) from a 1 year large tank herbicide degradation experiment in seawater, containing 4 different light and sediment treatments. Each tab contains concentration data at each time point for a single herbicide under each of the four light and sediment conditions. \n \nThe aim of this study was to conduct a year-long degradation experiment using concentrations of commonly detected herbicides in a series of replicate open tanks. We included different light conditions and natural sediments in treatments to improve the ecological relevance and applicability for inclusion by regulators and resource managers in future risk assessments. \n \n \nMethods: \n \nThis study describes a series of outdoor open tank experiments to measure the degradation of herbicides under conditions more natural than those applied in standard flask tests. These tests were conducted in large open tanks with water circulation over the course of a year under both fully dark and light conditions (partially shaded, natural diurnal cycle) and in the presence and absence of natural sediments. Intertidal sediments, containing no detectable concentrations of herbicides (see Results) were collected from the intertidal zone of low tide from Cockle Bay, Magnetic Island, Queensland (19°10' S, 146° 49' E). Each of the sediment treatments contained 3.8 kg sediment following the removal of large sediments > 2 mm by sieving. To allow for periodic sediment sampling without disruption of sediment communities, the sediments were distributed into a single large and 11 small dishes in each tank which could be removed without disturbing the majority of the sediment. The large dish (25 cm x 22 cm 5 cm) were filled with 3.0 kg of sediment (wet weight) and the small ceramic dishes (6.5 cm diameter) 70 g sediment. Physical and chemical information on the seawater and sediments used the open tank experiment may be found in Mercurio et al. (2016). \n \nThe open fibreglass tanks (120 l) were situated in an outdoor glasshouse in two stacked rows of 10 (20 in the top rows and 20 in the bottom rows). The top 20 tanks were partially shaded (70%) and exposed to a natural diurnal cycle (maximum of ~700 µE photons m-2s-1) over the course of the experiment (Li-250A light meter, Li-Cor, Lincoln, USA). The bottom row was fully shaded (no light penetration) at all times. Evaporation was minimised with loose-fitting clear acrylic lids on the top row and fully opaque foam on the bottom row and water continuously circulated in each tank using Turbelle Nanostream pumps. After every sampling period evaporation losses were replenished with equal volumes of MilliQ freshwater. Logged temperatures averaged 28°C (range 21-37°C) in the light and 26°C (21-32°C) in the dark. \n \nHerbicides included: \nAtrazine, Diuron, Hexazinone, Tebuthiuron, Metolachlor, 2,4-D, \nWater samples were taken periodically and analysed by high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS) as per Mercurio et al. Herbicide persistence in seawater simulation experiments. PLoS ONE 10(8): e0136391. \nUncertainty in the analytical method for repeated injections into the LC-MS results in a concentration uncertainty of approximately ± 0.2 µg/L. Only concentrations greater than the limit of reporting (LOR) were used to calculate half-lives (t1/2). The limit or reporting was designated as 5 x the detection limit = 1 µg/L to maximise accuracy of the estimations. \nReductions in the concentration of herbicides were plotted to predict the persistence of each herbicide (its 'half-life'). Half-lives for zero order kinetics were obtained by plotting the concentration vs time: t1/2 = 0.5 C0/k0, where C0 is the initial concentration and k0 is the slope. \nThe emergence of the three herbicide breakdown products were also quantified: Desisopropyl Atrazine, Desethyl Atrazine from Atrazine and 3,4-dichloroaniline from Diuron. \n \n \nFormat: \n \n- Herbicide_persistence_open_tank_10052016.xlsx (1.6 MB): Excel spreadsheet containing 8 sheets, one sheet for each herbicide and one for temperature logger measurements. \n \n \nData Dictionary: \n \nCommon: \n \n- Time (days): Time in days from the start of the experiment \n- Sample replicate: Up to four replicate tanks were used containing herbicides and these were incubated under different light and sediment conditions \n \nAtrazine: \n \n- Dark no sediment Atrazine: Concentration of Atrazine remaining in open tanks under dark conditions without sediment \n- Dark no sediment desethyl atrazine (DEA): Concentration of desethyl atrazine (DEA) remaining in open tanks under dark conditions without sediment \n- Dark no sediment desisopropyl (DIA): Concentration of desisopropyl (DIA) remaining in open tanks under dark conditions without sediment \n- Dark with sediment Atrazine: Concentration of Atrazine remaining in open tanks under dark conditions with sediment \n- Dark with sediment desethyl atrazine (DEA): Concentration of desethyl atrazine (DEA) remaining in open tanks under dark conditions with sediment \n- Dark with sediment desisopropyl (DIA): Concentration of desisopropyl (DIA) remaining in open tanks under dark conditions with sediment \n- Light no sediment Atrazine: Concentration of Atrazine remaining in open tanks under light conditions without sediment \n- Light no sediment desethyl atrazine (DEA): Concentration of desethyl atrazine (DEA) remaining in open tanks under light conditions without sediment \n- Light no sediment desisopropyl (DIA): Concentration of desisopropyl (DIA) remaining in open tanks under light conditions without sediment \n- Light with sediment Atrazine: Concentration of Atrazine remaining in open tanks under light conditions with sediment \n- Sample lost: missing data because the sample was lost \n- Light with sediment desethyl atrazine (DEA): Concentration of desethyl atrazine (DEA) remaining in open tanks under light conditions with sediment \n- Sample lost: missing data because the sample was lost \n- Light with sediment desisopropyl (DIA): Concentration of desisopropyl (DIA) remaining in open tanks under light conditions with sediment \n- Sample lost: missing data because the sample was lost \n \nDiuron: \n \n- Dark no sediment Diuron: Concentration of Diuron remaining in open tanks under dark conditions without sediment \n- Dark no sediment 3,4-dichloroaniline: Concentration of 3,4-dichloroaniline remaining in open tanks under dark conditions without sediment \n- Dark with sediment Diuron: Concentration of Diuron remaining in open tanks under dark conditions with sediment \n- Dark with sediment 3,4-dichloroaniline: Concentration of 3,4-dichloroaniline remaining in open tanks under dark conditions with sediment \n- Light no sediment Diuron: Concentration of Diuron remaining in open tanks under light conditions without sediment \n- Light no sediment 3,4-dichloroaniline: Concentration of 3,4-dichloroaniline remaining in open tanks under light conditions without sediment \n- Light with sediment Diuron: Concentration of Diuron remaining in open tanks under light conditions with sediment \n- Sample lost: missing data because the sample was lost \n- Light with sediment 3,4-dichloroaniline: Concentration of 3,4-dichloroaniline remaining in open tanks under light conditions with sediment \n- Sample lost: missing data because the sample was lost \n \nHexazinone: \n \n- Dark no sediment Hexazinone: Concentration of Hexazinone remaining in open tanks under dark conditions without sediment \n- Dark with sediment Hexazinone: Concentration of Hexazinone remaining in open tanks under dark conditions with sediment \n- Light no sediment Hexazinone: Concentration of Hexazinone remaining in open tanks under light conditions without sediment \n- Light with sediment Hexazinone: Concentration of Hexazinone remaining in open tanks under light conditions with sediment \n- Sample lost: missing data because the sample was lost \n \nTebuthiuron: \n \n- Dark no sediment Tebuthiuron: Concentration of Tebuthiuron remaining in open tanks under dark conditions without sediment \n- Dark with sediment Tebuthiuron: Concentration of Tebuthiuron remaining in open tanks under dark conditions with sediment \n- Light no sediment Tebuthiuron: Concentration of Tebuthiuron remaining in open tanks under light conditions without sediment \n- Light with sediment Tebuthiuron: Concentration of Tebuthiuron remaining in open tanks under light conditions with sediment \n- Sample lost: missing data because the sample was lost \n \nMetolachlor: \n \n- Dark no sediment Metolachlor: Concentration of Metolachlor remaining in open tanks under dark conditions without sediment \n- Dark with sediment Metolachlor: Concentration of Metolachlor remaining in open tanks under dark conditions with sediment \n- Light no sediment Metolachlor: Concentration of Metolachlor remaining in open tanks under light conditions without sediment \n- Light with sediment Metolachlor: Concentration of Metolachlor remaining in open tanks under light conditions with sediment \n \n24D: \n \n- Dark no sediment 24D: Concentration of 2,4-D remaining in open tanks under dark conditions without sediment \n- Dark with sediment 24D: Concentration of 2,4-D remaining in open tanks under dark conditions with sediment \n- Light no sediment 24D: Concentration of 2,4-D remaining in open tanks under light conditions without sediment \n- Light with sediment 24D: Concentration of 2,4-D remaining in open tanks under light conditions with sediment \n \nTemperatures: \n \n- Date Time, GMT+10:00: data and time when temperature was logged \n- Logger: Temperature logger number \n- Temp, °C: temperature logged \n- Minimum: minimum temperature for each logger \n- Maximum: maximum temperature for each logger \n- Mean: mean temperature for each logger \n \n \nReferences: \n \nMercurio P, Mueller JF, Eaglesham G, O'Brien J, Flores F, Negri AP. 2016. Degradation of herbicides in the tropical marine environment: Influence of light and sediment. PLoS ONE in press. \n \n \nData Location: \n \nThe original data is saved in the eAtlas enduring data repository: data\NERP-TE\4.2_Herbicide-effects\\n

The AIMS Long-term Monitoring Program (LTMP) is designed to detect changes in reef communities at a subregional scale. In this context, a subregion encompasses inshore, mid-shelf and outer shelf reefs across the continental shelf within one band of latitude (a sector). \n \nReef surveys involve three approaches: \n \n1. broadscale manta tow surveys of crown-of-thorns starfish populations and reef-wide coral cover \n2. Intensive photographic surveys of stationary seafloor (benthic) organisms on fixed transects \n3. intensive visual counts of reef fish, juvenile corals, crown-of-thorns starfish, coral-eating snails and coral disease and bleaching.\n

A baseline survey of green (no-take) zoned sites and blue (open to fishing) sites in adjacent areas of the northern Great Barrier Reef Marine Park was carried out in December 2006. Three paired sites were surveyed in the Cairns region on deepwater shoals in the vicinity of Green Island and Michaelmas Reef (one green, one blue site off each), and Hastings (Green) and Oyster (blue) Reefs. Assessment of the fish communities was enumerated using baited underwater video sets (BRUVS) and habitat was characterised by towed video. Observations (690) identified 124 species from 33 families, of which 24 species were identified as targeted by fishers. \n \nPrimary substrate (MudSand; Sand; SandCoarse; SandForams; SandHoles; Rubble; Rock; Bedrock; Reef); epibenthic classes (MacroAlgae; Seagrass; Burrowers; FilterFeeders; HardCoral; Isolates; None); and functional units (algae/invertebrates; corallivore; generalist carnivore; generalist; macrocarnivore; herbivore; invertebrate carnivore; macroinvertebrate; carnivore; piscivore; sponges/invertebrates; zooplanktivore) were recorded. \n \nHabitat mapping features assessed from towed video: \nIndividual organisms: Anemone; Ascidian; Bryozoan; Crinoid; Gastropod; Holothurian; Hydroid; Icelet; Solitary Hard Coral; Solitary Soft Coral; Starfish; Urchin \nSubstrate: No Sediment; Soft Mud; Silt - Sandy mud; Sand; Coarse Sand; Sand Rubble Forams; Rubble, 5-50mm; Stones, 50-250mm; Rocks, > 250mm; Reef \nBenthic class: Seagrass (Sparse, Medium, Dense); Algae (Sparse, Medium, Dense); Whip Garden (Sparse, Medium, Dense); Gorgonian Garden (Sparse, Medium, Dense); Porifera (Sponge) Garden (Sparse, Medium, Dense); Hard Coral Garden (Flowerpots - Sparse, Medium, Dense); Live Reef Corals; Caulerpa; Halimeda; Bivalve Shell Beds; Tube Polychaete Beds; Burrowing Animals (Bioturbated Mud); Flora; null.\n To describe the fish fauna in relation to habitat and spatial and temporal variables on selected deep shoals of the GBRMP. \n \nTo present baseline fish community data from BRUVS surveys of three pairs of 'blue' (open to fishing) and 'green' (closed to fishing) zoned shoals in the GBRMP.\n This is one component in a series of surveys conducted as part of this MTSRF project, see also separate metadata records on: \nSouthern mid-shelf Shoals (East and West Warregos; Karamea and Barcoo Banks) \nReef base shoals (Capricorn-Bunker, Pompey and Swains Groups) \nShoals off Cardwell \nMagnetic Shoals (Townsville) \nNote that the 'Northern Shoals' of Cardwell, Cairns, and Magnetic Shoals have individual records as each region was analysed separately. \n \nFish from the following taxonomic classes were recorded (note that not all species/families were recorded at all locations): \nAnguilliformes: Muraenidae (moray eels) \nAulopiformes: Synodontidae (lizardfishes) \nBeryciformes: Holocentridae (squirrelfishes) \nCarcharhiniformes: Carcharhinidae (whaler sharks); Sphyrnidae (hammerhead sharks) \nGasterosteiformes: Aulostomidae (trumpetfishes); Fistulariidae (flutemouths) \nMyliobatiformes: Dasyatidae (stingrays); \nRajiformes: Rhinidae (shark rays); Stegostomatidae (leopard sharks) \nOrectolobiformes: Ginglymostomatidae (nurse sharks); Hemiscylliidae (catsharks); Myliobatidae (manta and eagle rays) \nPerciformes: Acanthuridae (surgeon-fishes); Apogonidae (cardinal fishes); Blenniidae (blennies); Caesionidae (fusiliers); Carangidae (trevallies); Chaetodontidae (butterflyfishes); Cheilodactylidae (morwongs); Echeneidae (suckerfishes); Ephippidae (batfishes); Haemulidae (sweetlips); Kyphosidae (drummers); Labridae (wrasses and tuskfish); Lethrinidae (sweetlip emperors); \nLutjanidae (snappers and sea perches); Malacanthidae (tilefishes); Mullidae (goatfishes); Nemipteridae (threadfin bream); Pinguipedidae (grubfishes); Pomacanthidae (angelfishes); Pomacentridae (damselfishes); Rachycentridae (cobias); Scaridae (parrotfishes); Scombridae (mackerels and tunas); Serranidae (groupers and coral cods); Siganidae (rabbitfishes); Sparidae (sea breams); Sphyraenidae (barracudas); Zanclidae (Moorish idols) \nScorpaeniformes: Scorpaenidae (scorpionfish and lionfish) \nSquamata: Hydrophiidae (sea snakes) \nTetraodontiformes: Balistidae (triggerfishes); Monacanthidae (filefishes and leatherjackets); Tetraodontidae (pufferfish). \n \nWhile not part of the designated objectives, fish size can be delineated from the stereo BRUVs tapes.\n

This simulation model allows various scenarios to be run which test how different percentages of nutrient reductions (and the parallel improvement in inshore reef quality) might operate in conjunction with raised water temperatures (as a result of climate change). \n \nThe model has been used for the following simulations: \nThe beneficial impact of end-of-catchment dissolved inorganic nutrients reductions (10%, 30%, 50% and 70%) in raising the bleaching resistance (i.e. the UTBT, °C) of inshore reefs between Townsville and Cooktown. \nThe impact of 10%, 30%, 50% and 70% reductions in end-of-catchment dissolved inorganic nutrients for the Burdekin, Herbert, Tully, Johnstone, Russell, Barron, Daintree, Endeavour, Jeannie and Normanby river systems. \nTwo scenarios for the Tully River Basin - an 18% reduction in fertiliser N application, and a 35% reduction.\n To develop a tool that enables greater characterization of risks posed to the linked GBR social-ecological system due to the effects of climate change.\n The model interfaces source code written in C++ with ArcGIS webmaps. \n \nDetails pertaining to the rationale, development and application of the individual submodels and integrating framework can be found within the refereed journal articles:\n

A study of recruitment of marine invertebrates around Masig Island and Marsden Island, in central Torres Strait commenced in November 2006 and ended in November 2008.Terracotta settlement plates (11 cm x 11 cm) with well pitted surfaces were deployed at three locations on the northern side of each island, with locations two hundred metres apart. Each location was further divided into three sites, each twenty metres apart. At each site, five plates were deployed, roughly one metre apart, at both six metres and twelve metres depth. The settlement plates were attached to a stainless steel base plate anchored to the reef and rested approximately one centimetre above the reef allowing for settlement and recruitment of organisms on both sides of each plate.The plates were deployed in November, at the start of summer, and in May, at the start of winter. At the end of each season, the top and underside of each plate, which was identified using a small numbered-tag on both sides on one corner, was photographed in situ, removed and a new plate deployed. During the first year plates were also photographed in situ after four months in each season to provide information about the recruitment of benthic organisms within a season.Abundance and percent cover of organisms was assessed from images of tiles displayed by Microsoft Windows XP Picture and Fax ViewerTM on a PC screen.\n This research was undertaken to assess the recruitment of sessile marine invertebrates in central Torres Strait across seasons and years. Recruitment of the wild commercial bath sponge species, Coscinoderma matthewsi, was of specific interest.\n

A three-dimensional whole-of-GBR baroclinic hydrodynamic model was applied at a spatial resolution of between 1 and 4 km. The model simulations are compiled to examine the intensity, duration and frequency of different lower salinity events. Return periods are then calculated from the annual frequency of such events. \n \nThe model includes the factors affecting currents, mixing, temperature and salinity within the GBR lagoon and exchanges with the adjacent Coral Sea: river discharge, time-series wind, tidal. \n \nAccurate boundary forcing for offshore ocean boundaries was provided by a global, data-assimilating, eddy-resolving model.\n To allow future development of other essential aspects of a large-scale water quality model for the GBR, particularly sediment dynamics and biogeochemical components.\n To test this model and strengthen the likelihood of future predictions, a hindcast was made of circulation within the GBR lagoon during the 2009 wet season, including prediction of the trajectories and spatial distribution of major freshwater inflows during this period.\n

This dataset shows the concentrations of multiple herbicides remaining over time in a simulation flask persistence experiment conducted in 2013. \n \nThe aim of this study was to quantify the persistence multiple herbicides in a standard flask experiment. Time it takes for degradation of half of this herbicide is termed the "half-life". The half-life can be used to help develop environmental risk assessments. \n \n \nMethods: \n \nHerbicide degradation experiments were carried out in flasks according to the OECD methods for "simulation tests". The tests used natural coastal seawater and were carried out in the incubator shakers under 3 conditions: (1) 25°C in the dark, (2) 31°C in the dark and (3) 25°C in the light. The light levels were ~40 µE on a 12:12 light:dark cycle and the flasks shaken at 100 rpm for up to 365 days. \nHerbicides included: \nAtrazine, Diuron, Hexazinone, Tebuthiuron, Metolachlor, 2,4-D, \nWater samples were taken periodically and analysed by high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS). \nUncertainty in the analytical method for repeated injections into the LC-MS results in a concentration uncertainty of approximately ± 0.2 µg/L \nReductions in the concentration of herbicides were plotted to predict the persistence of each herbicide (its "half-life"). \nThe emergence of the three herbicide breakdown products were also quantified: Desisopropyl Atrazine and Desethyl Atrazine from Atrazine and 3,4-dichloroaniline from Diuron. \n \n \nFormat: \n \nExcel spreadsheet: Herbicide_persistence_standard_flask_16042015.xlsx \n \n \nData Dictionary: \n \n- Time (days): Time in days from the start of the experiment \n- Sample replicate: Up to three replicate flasks were used containing herbicides and these were incubated under identical light and temperature conditions \n- D25 Atrazine: Concentration of Atrazine remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 25°C \n- D25 Desisopropyl AtrazineAtrazine: Concentration of Desisopropyl AtrazineAtrazine remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 25°C \n- D25 Desethyl Atrazine: Concentration of Desethyl Atrazine remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 25°C \n- D31 Atrazine: Concentration of Atrazine remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 31°C \n- D31 Desisopropyl AtrazineAtrazine: Concentration of Desisopropyl AtrazineAtrazine remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 31°C \n- D31 Desethyl Atrazine: Concentration of Desethyl Atrazine remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 31°C \n- L25 Atrazine: Concentration of Atrazine remaining in flasks under light conditions at 25°C \n- Sample lost: missing data because the sample was lost \n- L25 Desisopropyl AtrazineAtrazine: Concentration of Desisopropyl AtrazineAtrazine remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 25°C \n- L25 Desethyl Atrazine: Concentration of Desethyl Atrazine remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 25°C \n- D25 Diuron: Concentration of Diuron remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 25°C \n- D25 Di Cl Analine: Concentration of 3,4-dichloroaniline remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 25°C \n- D31 Diuron: Concentration of Diuron remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 31°C \n- D31 Di Cl Analine: Concentration of 3,4-dichloroaniline remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 31°C \n- L25 Diuron: Concentration of Diuron remaining in flasks under light conditions at 25°C \n- L25 Di Cl Analine: Concentration of 3,4-dichloroaniline remaining in flasks under light conditions at 25°C \n- D25 Hexazinone: Concentration of Hexazinone remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 25°C \n- D31 Hexazinone: Concentration of Hexazinone remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 31°C \n- L25 Hexazinone: Concentration of Hexazinone remaining in flasks under light conditions at 25°C \n- D25 Tebuthiuron: Concentration of Tebuthiuron remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 25°C \n- D31 Tebuthiuron: Concentration of Tebuthiuron remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 31°C \n- L25 Tebuthiuron: Concentration of Tebuthiuron remaining in flasks under light conditions at 25°C \n- D25 Metolachlor: Concentration of Metolachlor remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 25°C \n- D31 Metolachlor: Concentration of Metolachlor remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 31°C \n- L25 Metolachlor: Concentration of Metolachlor remaining in flasks under light conditions at 25°C \n- D25 2,4-D: Concentration of 2,4-D remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 25°C \n- D31 2,4-D: Concentration of 2,4-D remaining in flasks under dark conditions at 31°C \n- L25 2,4-D: Concentration of 2,4-D remaining in flasks under light conditions at 25°C\n

In March 2007, November 2007 and May 2008, between 6 and 11 sites were surveyed on the coral reefs at Keats Island and Yorke Islands (Masig Island and Kodall Island), in central Torres Strait, to determine the abundance and size frequency patterns of Coscinoderma matthewsi. Sites were located at least 1 km apart and at each site, surveys were conducted at both shallow (4-6 m) and deep (10-12 m) depths, with the former generally on the reef flat. Three 20 x 1 m transects were examined at each depth, with transects separated by at least 20 m to retain independence. For each transect, divers recorded every Coscinoderma matthewsi found within 1 m of one side of the transect line. For each transect, environmental factors such as the degree of reef slope and the percentage of dead coral rubble, sand and consolidated limestone rock, free of living organisms were estimated. For each sponge, the substrate type that it was attached to and growing on was recorded. The habitat in which each sponge was growing was also classified as either exposed (living in an exposed microhabitat, such as on top of rock fully exposed to the ambient water flow) or sheltered (in a sheltered microhabitat, such as under an overhang or protected between surrounding rocks). Sponges were also examined for signs of disease.To examine size frequency distributions patterns, the greatest length, width and height of every Coscinoderma matthewsi was measured with a ruler. For graphical interpretation, sponges were grouped into 2 cm size classes. Some individuals of Coscinoderma matthewsi in Torres Strait have a palmate morphology, where large lobes project upwards from the main sponge base. For each measured sponge, the number of lobes were counted and recorded.\n This research was undertaken to gather further information on the abundance, size frequency patterns and preferred habitat of Coscinoderma matthewsi on the reefs around Keats Island, Masig Island and Kodall Island, where previous surveys indicated that Coscinoderma matthewsi was most abundant. The results of these surveys were compared with previous surveys undertaken under the CRC-TS Project in July 2004, December 2005 and November 2006, to determine whether the abundance of Coscinoderma matthewsi varies around Masig Island over time.\n Keats, Kodall and Masig are sand cays, low-lying (<10 m in height) and small in size (<5 km²). Coral reef surrounds all islands, with broken reef connecting Kodall and Masig. The coral reef slope generally starts at a depth of 6 m (MLW) and stops on sand at 15 m, descending at an angle ranging from 20 to 60°. South-easterly trade winds (15-20 knots) are common from April to December, while monsoonal weather patterns with more northerly winds dominate during summer.\n

As a sub-project of the now discontinued water quality component of the AIMS Long-term Monitoring Project, sediments were examined along cross-shelf transects commencing at the mouths of the Johnstone and Barron Rivers, which drain heavily cultivated areas. Results were compared with sediments from a transect commencing near the Pascoe River, which drains an uncultivated area of Cape York. Observations were made between November 1992 and April 1996. Sampling was conducted in alternate dry and wet seasons 1992-1993 but only in wet (summer) season 1994 and 1995. Inshore stations were located within 1 km of the shore and seaward stations approximately 20km offshore. \n \nStations were located along and across the Great Barrier Reef shelf from 3 river mouths (Barron, Johnstone and Pascoe) out to individual reefs: Pascoe River mouth, off Portland Roads, Dolphin Reef, Bourke Reef; Barron River mouth, Port Douglas, Low Isles, Green Island, Thetford Reef, Fitzroy Island; Flying Fish Point (at the mouth of the North Johnstone River), Russell Heads, North Barnard Island, Flora Reef, Feather Reef, Ellison Reef. \n \nNutrient flux samples were examined for dissolved inorganic nutrients (ammonium, nitrite, nitrate, phosphate) using standard automated techniques. Solid-phase nutrients were measured in bulk sediment samples for total organic carbon, total carbon, total nitrogen and total phosphorus. Total carbonate was estimated by the difference between total carbon and total organic carbon concentrations multiplied by 8.33.\n This research was undertaken to determine the extent of temporal and spatial variability of nutrient regeneration rates and nutrient concentrations in surface sediments of the far northern GBR shelf by: \n1. assess the role of river run-off in delivering nutrient and sediment loads in the GBR by monitoring changes in the quantities of nutrients (and related variables) in the interstitial porewaters and bulk sediments. \n2. measure the rates of nutrient flux across the sediment-water interface in order to determine the flux nutrients between the sediments and the overlying water column.\n Parameters measured: Carbon/Nitrogen Total Bulk Sediment, Particulate Organic Carbon (POC), Sedimentary Organic Carbon, Total Dissolved Carbon, Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen, Total Dissolved Nitrogen, Total Dissolved Phosphorus, Salinity. \n \nThe water quality component of the AIMS Long-term Monitoring Project has a separate metadata record.\n

Data on the general appearance and condition of coral reefs which have been manta towed in the Long Term Monitoring Project (LTMP). The data from 4 reef zones - front (seaward) and back (leeward), and north and south (flanks 1 and 2) - are used to create a web page on each zone for each reef (http://apps.aims.gov.au/reef-monitoring/). \n \n The general condition of the reef is recorded, along with its structural complexity (1 and 2), the percentage of live and bleached coral, the dominant benthic lifeform, and dominant hard coral cover and genus. The general abundance of reef fish and giant clams (Tridacna gigas) is also recorded.\n To provide a broad overview of the reef environment.\n Coral Reef - Zone, Lifeform - Benthic, Relative Frequency, Genus. May include some information on coral disease.\n